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
High true resolution
True resolution
36.2 MP
Built-in flash
Built-in flash
External flash not needed
Movie continuous focus
Movie continuous focus
Makes it easy to get in-focus movies
 

Reasons to buy the Nikon D4s

Continuous shooting
Rapid fire
11 fps
Battery life
Great battery life
3020 shots
Light sensitivity (boost)
High ISO (boost)
409,600 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 D810

Nikon D810

Pro DSLR

$2,299 - $2,797 body only

$2,892 - $3,297 with 24-120mm lens

Screen resolution Higher resolution screen
Battery life Longer battery life
Nikon D750

Nikon D750

Pro DSLR

$1,532 - $1,897 body only

$2,150 - $2,397 with 24-120mm lens

Screen flips out Has a flip-out screen
Screen resolution Higher resolution screen
True resolution Significantly lower true resolution
Canon EOS 5D Mark III

Canon EOS 5D Mark III

Pro DSLR

$2,037 - $2,499 body only

$2,639 - $3,099 with 24-105mm lens

Cross type focus points Many more cross-type focus points
Light sensitivity (boost) Better boost ISO
Overall image quality Significantly worse image quality

Nikon D4s Competitors

Nikon D5

Nikon D5

Pro DSLR

$5,699 - $6,497 body only

Movie format Higher resolution movies
Screen resolution Much higher resolution screen
Size Slightly larger
Nikon D750

Nikon D750

Pro DSLR

$1,532 - $1,897 body only

$2,150 - $2,397 with 24-120mm lens

Screen flips out Has a flip-out screen
Overall image quality Better image quality
Light sensitivity (boost) Worse boost ISO
Nikon D4

Nikon D4

Pro DSLR

$3,333 body only

Lowest price Significantly cheaper
Light sensitivity (boost) Worse boost ISO

discussion

Nikon D800
D800
Nikon

Report a correction
Nikon D4s
D4s
Nikon

Report a correction

Showing 0 comments