Nikon D800 vs Nikon D4s

Tie
Nikon D800

100

Nikon D4s

98

Tie

Reasons to buy the Nikon D800

Great image quality
Overall image quality
96.0
Great color depth
Color depth
25.6 bits
Wide dynamic range
Dynamic range
14.4 EV
High true resolution
True resolution
36.2 MP
 

Reasons to buy the Nikon D4s

Continuous shooting
Rapid fire
11 fps
Battery life
Great battery life
3020 shots
Low light performance
Low noise at high ISO
2,965 ISO
Movie continuous focus
Movie continuous focus
Makes it easy to get in-focus movies

galleries

Explore our gallery of 14 sample photos taken by the Nikon D4s.
Explore our gallery of 50 sample photos taken by the Nikon D800.

competitors

Nikon D800 Competitors

Nikon D750

Nikon D750

Pro DSLR

$1,419 - $1,497 body only

$1,899 - $1,997 with 24-120mm lens

Screen flips out Has a flip-out screen
Screen resolution Higher resolution screen
True resolution Much lower true resolution
Nikon D810

Nikon D810

Pro DSLR

$2,099 - $2,797 body only

$2,715 - $3,297 with 24-120mm lens

Screen resolution Higher resolution screen
Battery life Longer battery life
Nikon D610

Nikon D610

Pro DSLR

$1,100 - $1,497 body only

$1,900 - $2,447 with 28-300mm lens

Continuous shooting Shoots faster
Size Smaller
True resolution Much lower true resolution

Nikon D4s Competitors

Nikon D5

Nikon D5

Pro DSLR

$5,999 - $6,497 body only

$7,391 with 18-300mm lens

Movie format Higher resolution movies
Screen resolution Much higher resolution screen
Lowest price More expensive
Nikon D810

Nikon D810

Pro DSLR

$2,099 - $2,797 body only

$2,715 - $3,297 with 24-120mm lens

True resolution Much higher true resolution
Screen resolution Higher resolution screen
Battery life Significantly shorter battery life
Nikon D750

Nikon D750

Pro DSLR

$1,419 - $1,497 body only

$1,899 - $1,997 with 24-120mm lens

Screen flips out Has a flip-out screen
True resolution Significantly higher true resolution
Battery life Significantly shorter battery life

discussion

Nikon D800
D800
Nikon

Report a correction
Nikon D4s
D4s
Nikon

Report a correction

Showing 0 comments