D3? D3s? or D4

First and foremost I don't have experience with a D3, but I do have lots with several D3s's. The D3s is a great camera, and on IQ alone, I can't justify the D4. The test High ISOs do look extremely impressive, saw a couple at ISO 6400 and it did look a lot better than the D3s. What would tempt me about the D4 are the little things. Faster AF, better in lowlight, Better matrix meter, lit up buttons, things like that mean a lot more to me than 4MPs or slightly less noise. If I were a full time sports shooter the extra 1 frame per second and the better AF would hands down make the D4 a necessity. I do shoot quite a few videos for a living, so the video mode alone on the D4 would justify its upgrade to me. Since that's not an issue for you though, I won't address it. I will say though, that I think the best second camera for you is the D800. It will diversify in every way possible, meaning one camera will have 9FPS, probably a little better low light, gigantic body, while your other camera will have the detail from 36MPs (15MPs cropped to DX for those long shots), smaller body form, better LCD and AF system. Gives you a nice rounded package for whatever you plan on shooting.

If you do not mind, can we also add the Nikon D3x to this discussion?

I own a D3 and ordered a D4 to mainly because I wanted better high iso performance in shooting wildlife as compared to my D3.

My reasoning was: The D3s appears to be one and a half to two stops faster than a D3 if I interepreted the user reports correctly. The specs on the D4 lead me to believe it is at least one stop faster than the D3s so that is a significant advantage over the D3.

The slightly smaller pixil size of the D4, 7.3 microns, compared to the 8.45 micron size in the D3s and D3, concerned me at first but I came to the conclusion that it should not be a disadvantage in the D4.

Other reasons that were important to me in selecting the D4 instead of a D3s include:

The D4 can autofocus when the maximum aperture is f8 which is an advantage over both the D3s and D3.

The D4 keeps the mirror locked up when in live view and in tripod mode which is an advantage over both the D3s and D3.

The D4 has a self-cleaning image sensor which is an advantage over the D3.

Higher shutter durability on the D4. It is rated at 400,000. The newly announced D800 is half of that.

The D4 has a 91,000 pixil RGB metering sensor as compared to 1,005 on the D3s which should result in better auto exposure, auto WB and face recognition (wonder if that translates also to better face recognition on wildlife?).

The new multi-cam 3500FX AF system on the D4 is 20% more light sensitive than the D3s so one should be able to get better focus acquisition in low light situations.

I love my D3 but wanted something that would be more effective in low light situations. Like you the video is a plus, I think. Have not shot video in over 25 years so that feature may go unused.

The new focus release mode on the D4 which uses focus priority only on the first frame and then lets you blast away to shoot a high speed sequence without AF jumping in every time might turn out to be a very useful feature.

The D4 can use a XQD card which is supposed to be capable of writing a third more frames in a burst compared to a standard compact flash card.

As I type this I now realize that the 1080P video feature influenced me to some small degree as it probably will stimulate me to start shooting some wildlife video, something I have never done.

In summary I wanted a camera body that had as fast, or faster, burst capablity, was faster and had a very high shutter durability so that eliminated both the D3x and D800. Those two seemed to me better suited for those photographers shooting stationary objects such as landscapes. The D3s was eliminated primarily because I think the D4 will be superior in low light situations.

If you are unhappy with specific aspects of your D3 and feel the D4 would fix those issues, then upgrading would likely be a good choice for you.

If you do not mind, can we also add the Nikon D3x to this discussion?

The D3X is thoroughly superseded by the D800/D800E, at less than half the cost.

The D3X is thoroughly superseded by the D800/D800E, at less than half the cost.

Shun, your powers of observation never cease to amaze me. While it is a bit premature, as you so well pointed out given that its replace is so much better and at such a lower cost, this can only mean one thing, that the D3x will drop heftily in price once the D800's start shipping. I would seriously doubt if by summer (assuming Nikon makes their ship date at the end of March for the D800's) that the D3x wasn't already cheaper than the D800 (I'm not talking about new prices, I'm keenly away of Nikon's new MSRP rule), which makes the discussion between the two very legitimate in my humble opinion.

Skyler, that was essentially what happened to my D2X (which was a $5000 camera back in 2005) when the D300 was introduced in late 2007 at $1800. In practically no time, the value for the D2X dropped to around $1500 in the used market and then gradually to below $1000 as it is today.

But even though the D3X is sold at $2000, why would anybody buy it instead of the D800/D800E?

• The D800's rated ISO range is 100 to 6400, the D3X is 100 to 1600. I.e. Nikon themselves suggests the D800 is two stops better.
• The D800 uses the same Mutli-CAM 3500 AF module but improved.
• The D800 has advanced video capability, the D3X has none.
• The D800 is much lighter and easier to carry around. The D3/D4's ruggedness is great for news, PJ, sports photographers. At least IMO, it is a disadvantage for everybody else.
• Of course there is also 36MP vs. 24MP.

If you have true needs for 24 to 36MP, I would buy newer technology. Old technology is for those who want to maximize their savings and make compromises on quality.

$1000 is $1000. While I wouldn't even consider a D3x over a D800, I'm also a working professional, and a big part of that profession is video. I don't skimp on gear unless I absolutely have too. While you may not be a pro, your pockets are pretty deep, most people may only have $2000 to spend on a camera. Even if they had $3000, I would think to the average Joe who only has average glass would get better pictures by spending $2000 on a D3x and $1000 toward a good lens

While I agree that buying a cheaper camera is because you're trying to save money, to say that they are compromising on quality is folly, because there is always a better camera out there (after all isn't that what the Leica people say about us Nikon users?) In the case of the D800, or D3x for that matter, they are simply a poor man's medium format camera. Medium format without a doubt offers better IQ, so should we start arguing that people being the D800 for portrait and landscape work are just trying to maximize their savings and make compromises on quality?

Thanks for the input. A couple of you have gave me exactly what I was looking for. Good solid reasons for updating to a newer camera body for a second body. I'm still very happy with my D3. So it wasn't about the simple decision. Get the new model for that reason. When you are talking about thousands of dollars on camera body's. It's nice to hear what other people are doing when faced with similar choices.

As for the D3X. Brother I'm afraid that Nikon themselves. Just killed that afterlife. Yep IDE buy one for 1500. & not a penny more. & more likely penny's less is what it will have to go to.

Getting back to my question. I do think I'm leaning more on the D4 than D3s. It was nice to hear a couple people with D3s opinions. & that's pretty much how I was thinking. The jump from a D3 to the D4. Will feel like a pretty good jump for the money.