Jump to content

Nikon Introduces Df Retro DSLR


ShunCheung

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 870
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

<p>Everyone is happily saying 'I can get my hands on <strong>the</strong> D4 sensor for less $$' etc, but AFAIK..</p>

 

<blockquote>

<ul>

<li>16.2 CMOS sensor, <em><strong>similar</strong> </em>to the one on the D4, with Expeed 3 electronics</li>

</ul>

</blockquote>

<p>..isn't the same.</p>

<p>The DxO numbers for the D4 sensor aren't that great.</p>

<p>D4's 13.1 EV for DR....14.4 for the D610 or D800</p>

<p>ISO Score D4 2965, same as the D610, about 1/6 stop worse than the D3S @ 3250.</p>

<p>Colour Depth for D4 24.7bit, 25.3 bit for the D800 and 25.1 for the D610.</p>

<p>The D4 sensor doesn't come out top in <em><strong>ANY</strong></em> sensor related issue....but everyone wants one?</p>

<p>Now the <em><strong>similar to D4</strong></em> sensor in the Df may be a different kettle of fish, but that's an assumption.</p>

<p>As for the 'I want smaller file sizes' either use the D800 in Medium Size, Fine JPEG setting, or far more sensibly downsample the image once you've done all the RAW conversion etc for even better noise control. Get a better computer; for half the price of the Df, you could get a real monster.</p>

<p>Now don't get me wrong, I want a D4, but for the speed, ie high fps with all those very good (but not the best) sensor numbers in one sports 'holistic' package....in those terms nothing else gets close, apart from the D3S.</p>

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p><strong>Mike, do we trust DxO, or do we trust our lying eyes? </strong></p>

<p>1. Go to this page: <a href="/nikon-camera-forum/%20http:/www.dpreview.com/reviews/nikon-d600/21"> http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/nikon-d600/21</a></p>

<p>2. At the bottom left of the page, where it says the "Sony A99," <strong>dial in the Nikon D3s.</strong></p>

<p>3. At the bottom right of the page, where it says Canon 5D III,<strong> dial in the Nikon D4.</strong></p>

<p>4. Change the blanket settings above to ISO 12,800.</p>

<p>5. Compare all four Nikon sensors, those of the D600, D800, D3s, and D4 at 12,800 ISO and below.</p>

<p>It isn't much of a test, but it seems to be all we have for "eyewitness testimony," unless we have the cameras in question--I have the D800E and the D3s. I have shot the D600 for one afternoon. I have NOT shot the D4.</p>

<p>I ask again,<strong><br /></strong></p>

<p><strong>Do we trust DxO, or do we trust our lying eyes? </strong><br /> <br /> All that I know is that I <strong><em>like</em></strong> shooting my D3s more than my D800E, since the D3s is often "good enough"--and I don't have to save to card, download, and process huge files. (Keep in mind that the D3s was an improvement over the D3 and the D700--which have a very loyal following to this day.)</p>

<p>And<em><a href="/photo/17507592&size=lg"><strong> the D3s almost sees in the dark!</strong></a></em> (That was hand-held.)<br /> <br /> The D4 appears to be even better than the D3s, which in turn is better (to some small degree) than the D3 and the D700.</p>

<p>Unless one is going to crop a lot or print the size of a house, I don't see why--for most photography--the D4 would not be more than "good enough."<strong><br /></strong></p>

<p>My own interpretation of these data is affected by the fact that I like to shoot in low light--very often.</p>

<p>I will also say this, the simplicity of using the smaller files is not to be sneezed at. I have the D800E. I love it. I shoot it. But I love shooting the D3s more, and I believe that the D4 can outdo it. <em><strong>I just don't see any point</strong> </em>in shooting with the 36-mp sensor most of the time, or even the 24-mp sensor most of the time. A sensor designed for the D4 surely ought to be good enough--most of the time.</p>

<p>Where is Ellis Vener when we need him? He has shot all of these, I feel sure.</p>

<p>I admit that we do not know how the new sensor is going to perform, but after all this build-up, it had better be pretty good. (I think that I said something like that before.)</p>

<p><strong>Do we trust DxO, or do we trust our lying eyes?</strong><br /> <br /> --Lannie<strong><br /></strong></p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Mike, sensor choice is all about balance of features and compromises. For example, the D3s has a little bit better

SNR at high ISO than the D4 but the D4 has higher resolution and has better DR towards the low end of the ISO range.

So the D4 has a more general purpose sensor than the D3s. It has ISO 100 which to me is mandatory for studio. For me, a sensor has to be good for all my applications since I am not likely to own two cameras of

each type so that I have backups for everything. I do have several cameras but each of them has to be able to do

everything acceptably, otherwise there can be real problems in case one of the cameras fail.

 

If you compare D800 with D4, on dxomark, you'll see they are close but the D800 is a bit better at the low end of the ISO

range in dynamic range whereas the D4 is better towards the high end. Again it might be that the D4 sensor does not win

an individual measure, but it is a good balance. And if you compare the dxo results of the D4 with its main rival, the 1DX,

the D4 sensor does very nicely indeed.

 

As for shooting JPG, well the thing is that I want all the flexibility in tones nd color that I can get, especially

when shooting in artificial light indoors. I am not interested in shooting JPG and never will be. Very high resolution,

however, is something that I only need for one in ten thousand images or so, so it is a lot of pain to process through tens

or hundreds of thousands of 36 MP images when 24 MP or 16 MP would suffice for all but a handful of images.

Remember that today the primary presentation of images is the computer, tablet, or smartphone display, and even for

high quality magazine paper, 16-24 MP should be fine. Those who photograph to make highly detailed wall size prints

may disagree, of course, and for those applications D800/E or medium format digital may be the right choice. For the

event photography that I do I think 16 MP is fine. 12 MP is a little low though; it is ok but you can see the difference to

higher resolution cameras in hand-holdable prints. However, even though one can see the difference, doesn't mean it

matters a lot; the message of the image is still communicated through the lower resolution image, the higher res image is

just a little bit crispier. For landscape the D800 sensor is great; no argument from me there; and for overall the highest quality image, but it is a little problematic for events.

 

Since a lot of my people images are shot at very wide apertures, sometimes in daylight, but also in very dim conditions

indoors, the challenge with obtaining a crisp image is not so much related to the pixel count rather it requires extremely

precise focusing. With AF I typically shoot 2-4 frames to get one or two that is perfectly in focus with 36MP. At a slightly

lower resolution, such as the 24 MP of the D3X, visibly out of focus images in daylight are quite rare, yet the images are

extremely detailed. I therefore find that the lower resolution gives me practically the same thing as the higher resolution,

but at a lower cost in storage and post processing, and less stress and chimping while shooting. However, the D3X is

obviously not good at high ISO. The D610 is nice but what really would help me at wide apertures is higher quality

viewfinder optics, which the Df is reported to offer. I'd be happy if they had put in a 24 MP sensor and Multi-CAM 3500,

but they didn't. Perhaps that will be seen in the next generation.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<blockquote>

<p>The DxO numbers for the D4 sensor aren't that great.<br>

D4's 13.1 EV for DR....14.4 for the D610 or D800<br>

ISO Score D4 2965, same as the D610, about 1/6 stop worse than the D3S @ 3250.<br>

Colour Depth for D4 24.7bit, 25.3 bit for the D800 and 25.1 for the D610.</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>DxO may say one thing, but I've shot with a rented D4 a few times. The low-light performance of that sensor is just silly. It smokes my D700 and my D800. I've shot with a D3s as well, and the D4 is better than the D3s in low light (although not by a big margin). I hear you with the technical tests, but I think it's better to sample and compare the results in practice. Every time I rent a D4, I have a hard time sending it back, and have an equally hard time keeping my credit card in my pocket. The Df, with a D4 sensor (Nikon states "the same exceptional image quality as the D4"), works for me.</p>

<p>The 39-point focus system (because all of the focus points are densely packed in the center of the frame) is the only thing that is a bit of a downer. That's one of the things (along with the body type) that kept me away from the D6xx/D7xxx cameras. But I don't necessarily need 51-point focusing either. If there was a system with the spread of the 51-point but with count of say a D90 (I think that had 12 points), that would be perfect for me. I don't plan on using this camera to track Usain Bolt in the 100...my D700 with the grip or a rented D4 is what that's for.</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>Playing catch-up...<br />

<br />

DxO does report that the D4 and D3s are appreciably (about a stop) better at very high ISO. The image quality there is not good, but it's still better htan the D800/D610 and certainly than the D700/D3. The "high ISO" figure is for an image quality setting that's still pretty reasonable - so for an "ok" image quality, all the current FX cameras are roughly equivalent. Looking at the dynamic range graphs shows where the gap opens up - the D4 sensor will make the difference between a passable image and a useless one under very extreme circumstances, which is what you probably need as a journalist. It doesn't, so much, turn a very noisy image into a good one - it turns snow into grainy film. How useful this actually is for a Df owner, especially one used to shooting usable film speeds, is another matter.<br />

<br />

Good point that you can set (some of) the camera settings without turning the camera on. Although most modern DSLRs have a very long battery life when "on" anyway, so I'm not sure that this argument is a slam dunk.<br />

<br />

I absolutely do not believe that having a load of manual controls on the top of the camera that need two or three fingers to activate (depending on how stiff they are when unlocked) is quicker than the conventional layout: with the conventional layout, you don't need to move your finger from the shutter release, and you certainly don't need to mess with the left side of the camera anything like as often. If it makes people feel more comfortable, I'm happy that Nikon have catered to them, but I will logically argue why this design went out of favour and I'm sticking to it. Most of my complaints about Nikon's ergonomics are based on the times when you <i>do</i> need to move your hand off the shutter. You can mostly ignore the controls on the top of the Df and use it like a camera that has the benefit of the last thirty years of user interface design, but I'm really concerned about how well that front dial wonks.<br />

<br />

I wondered when Thom would chime in. :-) I mostly agree with him, at least on this. And on the PC-sync socket cover issue!<br />

<br />

I'm confused how Bjørn is managing to manual focus an f/1.2 lens on this camera, unless he's just using the digital rangefinder. I trust his expertise, and I've been meaning to subscribe, but if it's got a fresnel screen then it's highly unlikely that you can judge the DoF with any accuracy at f/1.2. If it's genuinely ground glass, it'll be better - but also hopelessly dim with a slow zoom. I really don't buy the argument of manual focus being "better" without some digital assistance - it's really just not accurate with modern sensor resolutions, and a split prism restricts you to the centre of the finder. I love my manual focus Pentax 645, but there's no way I'd claim it's better than live view with focus peaking. Of course, if Nikon really want this, maybe it's why they stuck to 16MP.<br />

<br />

I criticized the V1 for being overpriced with a tiny sensor, but was interested in the high speed abilities. The price dropped, and I got one just for high speed shooting. I don't think I'm going to be massively surprised about the Df, but I could always be wrong.<br />

<br />

Anyway, I'm not a hater. I'm not really in the market for a new Nikon at the moment, no matter what it is (I'm still a happy D800e shooter), so I have no reason for disappointment. I'm happy for the people who feel that this camera offers what they want - though I really hope they're right. I do feel sorry for the people who have genuinely been demanding a more conventional camera that Nikon don't offer, and presumably could have done in place of the Df. I think Nikon probably could have made a camera with more appeal than the Df that's more practical to shoot, and that Nikon are losing sales because they're trying to find a market segment that may or may not exist rather than satisfying the ones that do. I'm a little frustrated that I'm trying to understand Nikon's reasoning, and I'm not sure that I get it (or I worry that the decision just wasn't very good). But if it was supposed to be a marketing exercise and get Nikon's name discussed, it worked.<br />

<br />

The rangefinder forum? Seriously?</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>Stuart, what currency are those figures? Euros?</p>

<p>So, 2999 Euros @ E0.75 to the $, that's $4000. Gosh...that's a long way from the $2999 in the US.</p>

<p>Mind you, on today's <strong>£</strong>:$ rate the Nikon Df kit is $4433 dollars. Not a cheap hobby or tool this..:-(</p>

<p>Interestingly, if you take the $2999 dollars and convert down, you get £1860, which is exactly the stabilized price of a new D800. Co-incidence, I'm sure!</p>

<p>So, if people think $2999 is way <em>off piste</em> in pricing, think again..:-)</p>

<p>______</p>

<p>Good to here Bjorn's views on the new Viewfinder. I may need to take a look myself!</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>Wow, it was successful publicity stunt from Nikon, and there is no such thing as bad publicity.<br /> Otherwise, it will make some collectors happy, that's about it.<br /> I think, what the photographers want from Nikon is very simple, D700 with D4 sensor and D300s with D7100 sensor, no need to reinvent the wheel.<br /> It is not gonna kill D4 sales, those who buying D4, will buy it anyway, because it is necessary tool of trade for them.</p>
Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>Nick: A D700 (or 800) with a D4 sensor wouldn't kill the D4 <i>if</i> it could only shoot at 4-6 fps (depending on how you measure the D800's shutter). If it could do the D700 battery grip trick and hit 8fps cheaply, I suspect that might tempt a few prospective D4 buyers, though clearly not all of them. I honestly don't know how the D4 is currently selling, and I'm curious whether there'll be a D5 (with a few more fps and pixels to keep the 1Dx honest) before the next Winter Olympics.<br />

<br />

Similarly, a 24MP D7100 sensor that had a decent buffer and could shoot at 8fps in a D300s style (with grip) might well poach a few D4 sales, at least in good light. Explaining to your manager why you needed to pay so much for 2/3 of the resolution may be tricky. I have to assume this is why the D7100's buffer issues haven't been worked over, and why there's been no "D400". Maybe a higher-spec D5 would help make a gap to fill.<br />

<br />

Strictly, Nikon haven't always avoided overlap. Technically, they still sell the D3x. I have to assume that "sell" mostly means "have sitting on shelves", though. I've no idea whether Nikon make any money out of the D4, or whether it's just having a halo effect.<br />

<br />

But yes, while everyone has slightly different ideas on the details, there has been clear demand for a "true" successor to the D700 and D300s, and the D800/D610/D7100 aren't quite that. I assume that Nikon did some research and decided that the demand didn't make these worth it, despite vocal calls for them. I assume that the Df is an attempt to try an market segment for which Nikon don't know that the camera won't sell - it's a risk compared with a known failure. Of course, I'm hoping that this market research was accurate!</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>Perhaps those with a Nikon camera that includes video are not ‘photographers’ for Nikon. Silly and ridiculous. Those who cannot afford to buy this camera and do own a DX format, are not photographers for Nikon. Just consumers ... “let’s make our 2k + camera owners, pure photographers by owning this camera” ... Wow ...<br>

I would prefer the D4 one million times over this camera and never look back if I could afford it, otherwise, my new D7100, has nothing to envy to this one for much less money and beside, I don’t use video at all and I never will ... I forgot, another 50mm lens ? We already have a bunch. Nice addition Nikon !! ( what a bad joke .... ) /</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Andrew, he is not using the focus confirmation dot but the matte surface of the screen. The optical quality of the whole viewfinder

assembly affects the clarity of the view and ability to focus manually. Regarding the market for this camera, there are a lot of us who

prefer to focus manually on the matte area; it requires no distance dependent focus fine tuning like autofocus does and should make

using the camera a lot more relaxing since one doesn't have to fire a number of shots to get one that has the focus in the right place, as

one has to do with autofocus when working at wide apertures. Using the D700 with Katz Eye screen was already a big improvement; with

this camera that apparently has better quality viewfinder optics, I'm looking forward to an experience where I will forget the annoying need

to play with the focus point selector and miss shots doing it, and the fact that the AF system discriminates against having the main subject

in the peripheral parts of the frame. AF with Multi-CAM 3500 is better for tracking a moving subject of course, but for many subjects such

as portraits, manual focus using the matte surface of a camera like the F3HP is far more enjoyable.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<blockquote>

<p>I think, what the photographers want from Nikon is very simple, D700 with D4 sensor and D300s with D7100 sensor, no need to reinvent the wheel.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Well said. A lot of us have been wanting a somewhat better D700 for a long time without the cost of a D3s--and the resolution of the D3s can be marginal as well at times, especially if one has to crop. This camera seems to have the sensor for a lot of applications, but some of us might have been happier with a more conventional set of controls and features.</p>

<p>I keep reminding myself, however, that there is my own "landscape mode." When I am seriously in that mode, there is nothing quite like the D800E, even though I have gotten passable landscape shots at times with the D3s. I had sure better frame the shot right at the time of shooting, though. There is not much room for cropping with a 12-mp sensor. That is where the D4 sensor begins to sound really appealing.</p>

<p>Sometimes we want one sensor that can do it all, but of course that does not exist. If I have to stay with the D3s/D800E combo, I will be more than happy. It is more than I ever thought that I would have when I first started shooting digital in 2002. If I can get a few more megapixels when I typically would shoot the D3s, then I will be all the happier--thus I am excited about the D4 sensor (or something very close to it).</p>

<p>I don't take many shots with crop sensor cameras anymore, but I respect those who do. I still have my D7000, but it is not getting a lot of use these days. The D3s has just been too much fun--and I don't do this for a living.</p>

<p>--Lannie</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<blockquote>

<p>It gets rather tiresome to keep reading that people are really against this camera because it doesn't have the newest AF module or the newest big time sensor or video or.... guess what kids, Nikon already MAKES that camera. Go buy it !</p>

</blockquote>

<p>+1</p>

<p>I can't even read many posts here anymore. Nikon makes lots of cameras that I don't want, so what. I don't want a D40, so what. I never post about it.</p>

<p>But specifically one comment keeps cropping up and it is hard to understand. 16mp is too small and too old for people, really. I think this is a major misunderstanding of photography. If you can't shoot a good photo with 16mp's, especially with that sensor, it is time to take some lessons.</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>As an unrepentant "camera fondler" I dig this camera! I might even, perish the thought, take pictures with it with my extensive Nikkor MF lens collection (that I never sold). A bit too expensive now but I L-O-V-E the FE retro styling. I still have and use (fondle) my old black FE2. Yes, unlike <em>real</em> photographers with loftier concerns, I appreciate camera design and appearance for its own sake. I don't need/want video/wi-fi. I really like traditional knobs. Glad to see Nikon get off their duff and come out with something interesting and unique. Maybe Canon will respond with something new and interesting, too. </p>
Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>> If you can't shoot a good photo with 16mp's, especially with that sensor, it is time to take some lessons.<br /> Yes, absolutely. Or as you new-fangled kids, say: +1.</p>

<p>Not sure if I agree with the following comment by Claire over at Kirk Tuck's place (http://visualsciencelab.blogspot.com/2013/11/im-not-least-bit-conflicted-about.html) but it made my day.<br /> "<em>[The Df] actually makes me angry ... Nikon seems to take it's older customers for morons, and to count on a hard-on reaction ... to overshadow [its] huge functional shortcomings .... To me it's a whore with a bad boobjob and an extravagant fee.</em>"</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>For those who think we're being too hard on this camera, photo.net is a place for photo and camera gear <em>discussion</em>... so we're <em>discussing</em>... so get over it...</p>

<p>And I think we get to discuss whether we think Nikon has made wise or unwise choices here.</p>

<p>Interesting, and telling, that this is without a doubt the most polarizing product release in Nikon's digital history, as far as I can tell. Seems some love it, many hate it. Some think it's the perfect mix of features, some think it's so off base it's almost funny.</p>

<p><em>But here's another thought. It doesn't matter if they made the right call on this or not, just like it doesn't matter if any car company sells lots of their high-end sports cars. People who like it but can't afford it will still want Nikon, because they think that Nikon "gets" photographers. It's a "prestige piece".</em></p>

<p>That said, if this camera came out about the time of the D300/D90/D3 with a 12MP sensor, more of us would love it, but it's years later now... and there are too many people who are going to complain about the (too) high price and lack of features that we now take for granted. (How many DSLRs currently can't do video from any manufacturer... by my count, just this one... How much would it have cost to leave that feature in? I suspect zero dollars... crazy... no vertical grip? How many Nikon DSLRs over 2000 have ever not had that option? Just this one... etc...)</p>

<p>If this was a DX camera (and therefore smaller) with the same kind of layout and had video and was half the price, I might be sold... As it is... I continue to wonder if I shouldn't move to micro 4/3 or Fuji even more with this release... Or not... because now that I've been using DSLRs with the more modern ergonomics (in my case a D90), I'm kinda used to them... so retro cameras... I dunno... I can't even tell, right now, if that even appeals to me anymore, and I assure you it used to.</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>To each his own. Really puzzled. Let's compare the D610 and Df.<br /> 1- Weight is almost <strong>IDENTICA</strong>L to the D610 (no advantage)<br /> 2- No on-board <strong>flash</strong> to use in an emergency or as a trigger (disadvantage)<br /> 3- Only <strong>one memory slot</strong> - no backup or jpg assignment (disadvantage)<br /> 4-<strong> $800</strong> more (MSRP USA) (disadvantage)<br /> 5- <strong>No video</strong> (disadvantage for news, family, etc)<br /> 6- <strong>Less pixels</strong> - 16mp verses 24 mp (more on this later)<br /> 7- <strong>FPS</strong> is lightly <strong>LESS</strong> in spite of only 16 mp<br /> So what are we paying $800 for? A retro look? (I owned at least a half dozen F models) More surface dials to twist? Faster use? (not really, as you better be pre-set before you start) Ability to use older Nikon lenses? Geezz. With modern pro glass soooo much better - why? Because you have them? New pro glass from Tamron and Sigma is now becoming somewhat affordable - and surpassing Nikon.<br>

<br /> Now here is the kicker. Take a 24mp file and down-size (resample) it to 16mp and watch about 1 stop of noise go away. Hmmm. In the proper hands this could negate the 1 stop ISO advantage of the Df?<br>

<br /> What would have been a bigger hit would have been to eliminate the 7 objections I posted! I think Nikon missed and that this camera will mostly sell to a very <strong>select</strong> audience . . . and I won't be one of them in spite of the wonderful retro look.</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>For those of you who are saying 16 mp is not enough I have to ask. How much printing do you do? How much of that is bigger then A3?</p>

<p>I shoot a D4 on a daily bases and sell prints from it all the time. A print from my D4 that is 40 inches on the long side looks just fine when you have your nose stuck right up to it.</p>

<p>I do not want or need more pixels I want better color fidelity and a true 16 bit color. Even more dynamic range would be nice too.</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<blockquote>

<p>I think Nikon missed and that this camera will mostly sell to a very <strong>select</strong> audience . . . and I won't be one of them in spite of the wonderful retro look.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I hope people realize that the whole point for collector's items is that they are uncommon. If every Jane and Joe next door has one, collectors won't be interested. I don't think Nikon is so dumb to think that the Df would sell in huge numbers. Otherwise, production for something so labor intensive would definitely have been in their Thailand factory. Instead, the Df is intended for a small, targeted market of affluent older folks and some young hipsters who find the retro style cool, as well as to collectors who will show off to their friends that they can directly mount a 1960's pre-AI lens onto it. As a camera for capturing images, it is very obvious that the Df does not compare favorably against the D4, D800, D600/D610 and D7100; that is what I have been pointing out from the beginning: <a href="/reviews/nikon-df-preview/">http://www.photo.net/reviews/nikon-df-preview/</a></p>

<blockquote>

<p>I'm taking the plunge (preordered a black Df)</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I am glad that someone is buying one. :-)</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now



×
×
  • Create New...