marc_ravignat

<p>I use tiny O rings to protect the body from the metal rings. You hardly notice them and they fit perfectly aroung the strap lugs on the camera, and they look much nicer than those leather or plastic protectors.</p>

<p>I also enjoy using MF lenses. Started photography in my 20's in the mid 70's and have always enjoyed using older type lenses. I now use a variety of Nikkor lenses ai and non ai on my Nikon DF. My recent acquisition is the 50mm f2 Zeiss Makro Planar. Such an incredibly well built lens with the smoothest mf focusing mechanism that I have ever used. Some of my older Super takumars that I use on my micro four thirds camera have that quality feel also. I just love using finally machined lenses. Part of the joy of taking pictures. </p>

<p>I don't think that there are enough Nikon rangefinder lenses around for this to happen. F mount lenses are out there in the millions.</p>

<p>I tend to agree with Shun's comments about the DF. I have had mine for more than a year and can't complain about the camera, the user interfaces, and the sensor. I agree that Nikon picked the D4 sensor because they knew that many buyers would be using older lenses and that this sensor behaves extremely well with older F lenses. I also don't think that Nikon will make another DF, and if they do, it will basically be the same camera with only a few changes. The D4 sensor will be used again for the reasons that I and Shun mentioned. I think that Nikon will make more accessories for the DF, like the handle that they just recently introduced. The next version, if any, might offer for example, interchangeable screens.<br> As for making a smaller DF with an APS-C sensor, what would be the point if you can't use older lenses the way they were intended to be used, without the crop factor? Nikon would also have to introduce a whole new line of retro aperture dialed lenses for APS-C format. Turning the DF into a mirrorless camera like the Fuji XT-1 is highly improbable mainly because this would require a whole new set of lenses designed for a camera with a different register between lenses and the sensor.<br> The DF is a niche product designed for guys like me that enjoy using dials like in the old days. It's not a hipster camera as mentioned by many when it first came out. These people simply misunderstand the appeal that this camera has for older photographers like me. Will they make an upgrade? I don't think they have to. Most DF owners like the camera and don't need any substantial changes. </p>

<p>If you look at your negatives you can tell where the light leak comes from. If the leaks are colored, then they come from the back and probably around the film door. If the the light leaks are completely white like a cloud, then the light leaks are coming from the front or top of the camera and fogging the film from the front. </p>

<p>It's a fully mechanical camera, simple the way I like slr's. I purchased one just a few months ago and paid 60usd. The camera has considerable paint wear and you can see the gold brass near the strap lugs. It gives it 'character' and also indicates to me that the camera has been used instead of sitting around. You need to check whether all the shutter speeds work properly and also test the light meter. Older mechanical cameras need to be 'exercised' a bit by repeative windings and shutter firings. These camera don't break down very easily and most of them still work today. Mine works perfectly. </p>

<p>Why not just purchase a few Nikon FM's? They are cheap, simple, small and light, fully mechanical, and don't even need a battery to work. There are many for sale that still work perfectly including the simple light meter. IMHO simpler would be better if you are looking for reliability.</p>

<p>Kevin, old lenses work really well with the DF and it's 16 megapixel sensor. I am using quite a few including the 75-150 mm E lens used in this thread. The results are really excellent. I am not sure how they would perform on a sensor with more pixels.</p>

<p>I don't think that the exposure compensation dial is a design flaw. I have had my DF for a year and have had no issues with this. My only issue with the DF is the back rubber thumb support (handle). It eventually stretches to the point where you have to glue corners back on. I have read elsewhere that this is a common problem with most Nikon cameras. I think that Nikon needs to address this in the future and use a better quality rubber and glue. My other cameras like the Sony A850 has never had this problem. Why should we have to consistently replace rubber parts on such an expensive camera?</p>

<p>If Nikon would make a simple camera like the Nikon FM (same size) and if that would require that they remove the back screen, autofocus etc, like this Leica, then I would be interested. I would use it along side with my DF with my manual Nikkor lenses. </p>

<p>It has been said many times, you just cannot compare the DF to any other dslr presently being sold. It's qualities for some, will be faults for other's. This should be so easy to accept, but many still fail to understand this. </p>

<p>Don, I am not surprised that you find AF more consistent than with manual focusing. I haven't really tested this so can't really tell whether it would be the same for me. When the first AF camera was introduced in 1985 by Minolta (AF 7000), many were also claiming that the AF system in that camera was more consistently accurate than with manual focusing cameras of the time. I have a few of these Minolta AF 7000's, and the focusing system is slow, 'quite' accurate, but nothing by today's standards. So I guess that it all really depends on the user, the lens, the subject, lighting, practice, etc. </p>

<p>Roy, I agree that manual focusing works fine with the DF. I also use the focusing indicator in darker situations. Most who complain about manual focusing and the DF focusing screen, are not actually using the camera at all, and would likely have problems with manual focusing with any slr due to lack of practice. I am using quite a number of non-ai and ai lenses with the DF and have really gotten use to the focusing screen. </p>

<p><br />The focusing screen in the DF works fine. As I said before, it works just as well as in my film slr's. Hit and miss is about the same. I can't compare it with other Nikon cameras but it's much easier to manually focus lenses with the DF then with my Sony Alpha 850. Many are saying that the focusing screen is identical to the focusing screens in other Nikons such as the D800. How many are saying this but have only really looked through the viewfinder for a minute or two? Have they really tried focusing manual lenses with the DF? I would think not too many have done this.</p>

<p>I have been using manual focusing on the DF almost exclusively for the last six months, so have quite a bit of experience with the focusing screen. I am still a user of many older slr's with manual focusing and all I can say is that focusing the DF manually is just as accurate as with my older slr's. There seems to be a point where the viewfinder just snaps into focus. A bit of practice makes perfect. Many photographers today over estimate the split focusing screen. Maybe because that's all they can remember using. Many haven't manually focused in years and have lost much of the ability to do so accurately. I never liked the split focusing screens and always removed them when I could (ex. on my OM1 and OM2). A split focusing screen would probably also affect the central auto focus on the DF. As for interchangeable screens, it would have been nice for Nikon to provide this. However, I don't think I would have even bothered changing the screen had Nikon provided this. In many ways I share Bjorn Rorslett's view on this. <br> http://www.fotozones.com/live/index.php/page/articles/_/reviews/living-and-working-with-the-new-nikon-df-camera-r85</p>