D4 Users...

EphTwoEight

Has the 16mpx ever left you needing more?

Mostly shooting for on line sports, but, if someone did want to make a poster or large print is there enough to make it work?

Plus I'm having a hard time finding one.

Or should I wait for the Ds?

Anyone upgrading?

perroneford

Don't have a D4, and your first question is why.

Yes, 16MP leaves me wanting far more often than I'd like. Which is why I have a D600 and a D800. The answer to your second question about creating a large poster is another reason why I shoot mostly with the D600 or D800 unless I HAVE to shoot the D3s.

The D4 is discontinued, which is why you'll have difficulty finding one right now.

The D4s was announced tonight but it's $6500. If that price works for you, and the MP work for you, then have at it. I'm not buying until they get rid of the XQD cards. I like the speed of it, but not the VERY thin manufacturing of it. I just don't trust oddball Sony formats. I've seen them abandon far too many of them.

I'll see what the D5 holds.

EphTwoEight wrote: »

Has the 16mpx ever left you needing more?

Mostly shooting for on line sports, but, if someone did want to make a poster or large print is there enough to make it work?

Plus I'm having a hard time finding one.

Or should I wait for the Ds?

Anyone upgrading?

EphTwoEight

I was hoping they'd drop that Sony card too.

I've been using the D800 for sports, and I'm wearing it out. Its all smooth and shiny and the paint is coming off the buttons.

I'm hoping for better faster sports shots.

perroneford

The D3s is going to be a relative bargain shortly. It's 90% of a D4s, and 95% of the D4. Not quite as fast, less MP. If you've got the glass to fill the sceen, you'll love it. But man do I miss that 24MP of the D600 when I'm shooting it. The AWB of the newer cameras is better too.

Hard choices right now...

EphTwoEight wrote: »

I was hoping they'd drop that Sony card too.

I've been using the D800 for sports, and I'm wearing it out. Its all smooth and shiny and the paint is coming off the buttons.

I'm hoping for better faster sports shots.

NikonsandVstroms

I have a D700 and 12 VS 16 MP isn't much of a jump so my experience should be pretty relevant. With the D700 I was able to make prints 16x24 from low ISO with no issue. And in high ISO the higher quality of D4 images will help narrow the gap. For studio work it wasn't enough for me, but that's a different world.

Ferguson

EphTwoEight wrote: »

Has the 16mpx ever left you needing more?

Mostly shooting for on line sports, but, if someone did want to make a poster or large print is there enough to make it work?

Plus I'm having a hard time finding one.

Or should I wait for the Ds?

Anyone upgrading?

I have a D4 and a D800.

It is rare that the 16mpx is inadequate for me, but take that with a grain of salt as when I may feel I want more resolution I grab the D800.

The only time I think you may need more resolution is very tight crops. Which of course one would prefer to avoid anyway for other reasons (e.g. noise).

If you've got most of the frame, you can make a billboard. In fact, probably the worst case for resolution is not huge, but something like a flyer or poster, because you hold that up close to the face, and I've seen 11x17 flyers made from quarter frame, high ISO shots on the D4 that were amazingly detailed, no problem with resolution or noise at all, even looking close.

But it's a sports camera. It's about frame rate and rugggedness and fast-everything. If you need huge enlargements and tight crops, get the D800. While I use the D800 as a second body shooting sports, its strengths are not in sports.

But if you shoot sports, it will be rare you feel you missed something at 16mpx. Very rare.

I'd certainly get the D4s if buying now, unless you found a really good deal; it's not a lot better, but why not (for 10% more list). I plan to wait for the D5 for a second body, but that's because I already have a D4 and the D800 is adequate as a second body, and I want more of an upgrade for my next investment.

EphTwoEight

AH, cool. Thats what I was looking for! Thanks F

Matthew Saville

All I know is that I toured the American Southwest with the 16 MP Df back in December, and WOW those images are so sharp, it's like having a 24 megapixel camera. So in short, if you can nail your shots and if you have sharp lenses, then NO, 16 MP isn't leaving me wanting, even for landscapes or portraits.

I've actually gotten annoyed every time I've shot with the D800 for portraits, it just seems to be overkill for my style of shallow DOF portraits. I'm happy with 16 for "lifestyle" portraits, action sports, and even the occasional landscape image.

=Matt=

NikonsandVstroms

Matthew Saville wrote: »

All I know is that I toured the American Southwest with the 16 MP Df back in December, and WOW those images are so sharp, it's like having a 24 megapixel camera. So in short, if you can nail your shots and if you have sharp lenses, then NO, 16 MP isn't leaving me wanting, even for landscapes or portraits.

I've actually gotten annoyed every time I've shot with the D800 for portraits, it just seems to be overkill for my style of shallow DOF portraits. I'm happy with 16 for "lifestyle" portraits, action sports, and even the occasional landscape image.

=Matt=

A little off topic but have you shot with the D3/D700? If so how do their images compare to the Df's?

EphTwoEight

Thanks Matt!