Nikon Introduces Df Retro DSLR

<p>Phil, that's a very interesting idea. It would elevate ISO to the same status as shutter and aperture, which in this day and age, it is. Three parameters, adjust to your hearts content, or let the camera, selectively, do them for you.</p>

<p>Sweet.</p>

<p>Yes, looks terrific and I am sure beautifully built, but it's £1,000 overpriced</p>

Phil, that is the way the X100S works and it is a really good setup, I agree the Df would be a good candidate.

<p>Nikon needs to look to Apple to simplify their camera design. It is critical to edit the feature list, it is not only important to add features to a camera but it is also important to take features out. Apple did not hesitate to take out floppy disc drive and DVD drive in their computer and a physical keyboard in a phone in order to make the devices much smaller. People LOVE to carry their phone AND camera with them, if they could, but Nikon cameras and lenses are still bulky, heavy, and expensive. A big camera package may not be an issue to a pro, but for the rest, the best camera is the one that you carry with you all the time.</p>

<p>While Nikon should be given credits for maintaining the F mount as they entered the digital age, as the FF sensors become so capable of resolving details, is it really a top design priority to come up with a camera such that the very few would pay $3,000 just to use their old dusty MF lenses that are no match for the resolution of the sensor? Nikon has the D800 and D610 with state of the art auto-focus, why don't they come up with a mirror-less camera with on-sensor AF so that the camera itself can be shrunk to the size of SONY A7? A mirror-less camera will use all MF lenses with a cheap adapter. No video in a $3,000 digital camera with rear LCD? This is for "Pure" Photography? Remember D90 (which I still own) was the first dSLR to have video, what a revolutionary idea, and now Nikon is all for "pure" photography? At the end, this "smallest" FF camera at $3,000 is close to 800g, as compared to the $1,700 SONY A7 that is just 474g. The SONY is half the size and half the price and yet it still has HD video, tilting LCD, and 1/8000 sec shutter speed! SONY really did Nikon a favor by asking people to pay $900 for a f1.8 50 mm lens, $900!!! (Well and Nikon really did SONY a favor by making a camera that is so much more expensive and heavier yet has fewer features. I think they did this on purpose!)</p>

<p>Please, Nikon, make a mirror-less FF camera so it is no bigger/heavier than the FM2 (=SONY A7) and price it at $1,500 (=A7). Live view AF as you have in the 1 system is good enough for 90% of the photographers in the world. HD video, plus a fully articulating screen. Besides a 24-85 zoom, bundle it with a three prime set and a pancake. $200 50/1.8, $400 each of 28/2.8, 85/1.8 and 45/2.8 (pancake) and you will take the market by storm.</p>

<p>With 16MP and a good lens shooting with care, you can take an image that makes a stunningly sharp, 300dpi at 10.9 x 16.4” print image. With a very small stretch to 274dpi, you could make a fine 12x19” print, and if you’re not going to make prints you expect to be viewed at 12” distance you should be able to go to even larger sizes. Even a 24” wide print would still exceed 200dpi, and look good from two feet away. Maybe 16MP won’t satisfy pixel peepers or people who want to make really big prints, but then if you want a sharp 5 foot wide print you should be shooting a 4x5” or 8x10" film camera. The difference between 16 and 24MP is not as big as the MP numbers suggest. The actual linear resolution difference is only about 20-21%, which is not significant for most photographers. Most people criticizing the Df/D4 resolution are ignoring these numbers and not thinking rationally about the real resolution difference to 24MP cameras. You really do need to jump up to 36MP to get a significant resolution bump.</p>

<p>I have an idea about SPAM, not one that was implimented on the Df but could be in the future.<br />Imagine a dial for ISO, shutter speed (both as on the Df) and aperture. Ignore for the moment the fact that the aperture dial would be complicated by the fact that different lenses have different aperture settings. With me so far? Each of these three dials would have all the various settings plus an Auto setting. Would this not do away with the need for SPAM. Set all the dials to Auto and you effectively have P, set just the aperture dial to auto and you effectively have S, set all dials to something and you have M, etc.<br>

I do agree that's the best way to go about SPAM but Nikon has a problem that many of their lens doesn't have an aperture ring to put the A mark on. In fact they are always in A.</p>

Ilkka: thank you for your explanation. It occurs to me that I may have missed the point on the screen - a

Fresnel does alter how out of focus things look, but the focus point should be detectable regardless of

aperture. My knowledge of phase detect focus is limited; I'm unsure what exactly the problem with focal

length is, though I've certainly seen it. I guess the telecentricity of the lens varies, or something? Anyway,

I've always doubted my ability to hit perfect focus using the screen - and I do own several manual-focus

lenses - but maybe I should trust it more. And to clarify: I'm not saying we should only use sensor-based

focus and live view (I usually use phase-detect AF), just that it's the most reliable solution. Other options

have different benefits.

 

 

It's true that Canon doesn't offer a 24MP camera. However, they also don't offer anything as low as 16MP.

I do believe that the 5D3 is a better general-purpose camera than the D800 (mostly because of speed) and

D610 (mostly because of the AF system); Nikon could respond by putting a D800 AF module in a D610

(which would still be slightly inferior on handling, but could be made cheaper) - but they'd also poach D800

sales, and I assume Nikon are keen not to compete with themselves and someone is making this trade-off

decision. However, the 5D3's low light performance is very much in line with the D610 and D800, with

appreciably worse dynamic range (excluding dual-ISO trick) at low ISO. The 1Dx is significantly better, and

roughly identical to, if not better than, the D4 - with more resolution, better AF and a faster frame rate

(which is why I expect a D5 at some point). What the 5D does have is very good - or at least strong -

software noise reduction, which is why high ISO JPEGs look good. You can do the same in post to the

output of the other cameras, if you don't mind some editing. I've accepted that, selectively, the D4 sensor

has merits over the 24MP Nikon uses elsewhere. But I have doubts that those benefits are so useful in this

camera's apparent target market - 24MP is the new "general purpose", especially in the "why didn't you buy

a compact" conversation/sales pitch.

 

 

 

John W: if any of that was at my comments, I want to clarify: I do own a lens that cost more than this

camera, but I also own manual focus lenses, including a Nikkor from the 1970s and a Leica from 1949. I

have several manual focus cameras and cameras with direct control knobs. The reason I have them is

that they do something very well, better than my other cameras. That's true of everything I own, be it a £40

compact, a V1, a GF2, a Pentax 645, a Bessa R, an F5, a D800e and others. What I want to know is why this

camera is better at something than cheaper alternatives - Nikon must think there's a reason so they can

sell it. I get why Nikon picked the specs not to hurt sales of their other cameras, but I'm trying to

understand what it does for customers. So far, I have "a bit better at very high ISO than a D610 and lighter

than a used D3s", which seems a bit niche.

 

 

If I don't understand, that's not necessarily a criticism - I may be missing something that could improve my

photography. If it's solely for people who prefer the F4 interface because they're not willing to get used to

the style of newer cameras, I'm glad they have an option, but I'll stop thinking I'm missing out. A friend's

father recently expressed a wish for an alphabetical keyboard, even though they have been shown to be

inefficient. I think he's do better just to put in the time to learn to type, but that's not my call to make.

(Incidentally, I usually use a Kinesis ergo set to Dvorak layout.) People are allowed to be different - but

sometimes there are things to learn from the people who differ from you.

<p>Apple only targets the middle sector of the market and their products often annoy technical people a lot since they (in particular, iOS products) offer extremely limited control of how things are done, to the user. Apple basically decides what can and can't be done with their tablets and phones and users have to obtain Apple's approval to do just about anything. Others love the streamlined use and simplicity of their products. Nikon FX by contrast is aimed at high end users and professionals and control, flexibilityand good ergonomics are key features, and simplicity has to be sacrificed to obtain the necessary flexibility. I don't think it is possible to go on the road of taking out features; it is precisely the versatility to fit almost every conceivable application that is one of the strongest features of Nikon's F mount system and this means that options must be provided to adopt the camera intended to professional use to fit any situation. In the case of the Df, no video features are provided so this is a simplification they have made, but otherwise it appears to be fully featured. I really like the control layout that they have done on this camera so far, but of course it has to be used to fully get how it works.</p>

<p><em>A big camera package may not be an issue to a pro, but for the rest, the best camera is the one that you carry with you all the time.</em></p>

<p>I disagree. Anyone who aims to making the best possible images that they can, is likely to sacrifice personal comfort to obtaining the result that they seek. Professional photographers today are a tiny fraction of the communicty of serious photographers. Initially I thought that compactness and light weight are good things but over time I've realized that the camera size really doesn't matter much, as long as you're comfortable with it and don't display obvious discomfort (which is reflected in the subject's expression as well leading to different pictures than where the photographer is relaxed, giving example to the subject).</p>

<p>Camera phones that are good to carry in a pocket don't have one of the basic features of photography i.e. the ability to change focal length. This is an extreme limitation; it basically means that only a particular type of image can be made. The user interface is terrible for photography as are ergonomics and there is very limited control over the image's technical parameters. Timing of the shot is poorly controllable. If your purpose fits the camera phone's design well, great, but I think most photographers find it limitating to the extreme. That is Apple's philosophy also, though not to the same extent with the other features in their phones. A serious photographer will in most cases want absolute control over the image's technical parameters, timing, angle of view (focal length), focus, depth of field etc. The camera phone IMO is well suited to posting poor quality images on facebook, quality so poor that it is like a parody of how bad things can get when the masses get excited about doing something really badly. It is so bad that if you post now a good image instead of a weird expression on a fuzzy, dark, vignetted self-portrait you're seen asocial and as "not getting it". And some people actually think this is the future of photography. Thankfully they are not correct; there will always be a minority of people who like to do things well, whatever their pursuit is.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>My first impression upon reading this was that it was written by a Canon-using troll.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Completely unfair comment, Lannie - <em>anyone </em>taking an objective look at the 5D Mk III compared to the D800 would agree that the Canon is more of an all-rounder than the Nikon, which is all Nick is saying:</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>5D3 is quietly eating Nikon lunch, <em><strong>as all around workhorse</strong></em>.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>He's 100% right. Doesn't make him a troll.</p>

Meant to say... Wayne, you'd really spend $3000 on a camera just so you don't have a small red button on

it? If you're that easily distracted, can I recommend masking tape?

 

 

Ilkka: since you've been kind enough to pick on Apple's philosophy (and I agree - they ensure that what

works at all, works well) I'm morally obliged since I'm employed by Samsung to mention the S4 zoom... But

I don't own one and it's no substitute for my D800!

 

 

Keith: yes. Although I know nothing about how well they're selling. I got a D800 and have no interest in the

5D3 because I knew my requirements, but I'm assuming that the requirements of most others differ - not

least because I don't expect everyone to complement their choice with a D700 + grip. Equally, I've no idea

how the 6D is selling, since I see very little reason to pick one over a D610 beyond brand loyalty. At some

point, Nikon may compete more directly with the 5D3 with a "D710" - a D610 sensor and shutter in a D800

body and AF system. But I doubt it'll be soon, and they'd have to under-cut the price if the multi-cam 3500

isn't going to look a bit old.

<p>I just have to comment on smartphone touch screen keyboards.<br>

They suck!</p>

<blockquote>

<p><a href="/photodb/user?user_id=5994753">BeBu Lamar</a> said:</p>

</blockquote>

 

<blockquote>

<p>I do agree that's the best way to go about SPAM but Nikon has a problem that many of their lens doesn't have an aperture ring to put the A mark on. In fact they are always in A.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>It would be a dial controlled by the body. Here is my very simple mockup replacing the SPAM dial.</p>

<div></div>

<p>Phil, I think they would be better off with no dial at the SPAM ones place. They should have made the controls even simpler, with no redundancies. It’s not a really bad layout, but it could be improved.</p>

Dan: I used phones with physical keyboards until I found I was faster with Swype. YMMV. Though while

we're on the topic, I notice the video testimonials on Amazon (Joe McNally et al.) need flash, and are

therefore hard to view on a recent Android device - which suggests that Nikon wasn't too serious about the S800c.

 

Steven: I concur. One disadvantage of the "auto position on the dials" approach is that it makes fast mode

switching difficult, though a stronger detent or a dial which doesn't rotate fully helps. Not that I change

modes often, so I prefer the mode button approach on high-end Nikon's. But I'd also prefer a camera that

doesn't get caught on things and whose dials are easy to use with one finger in the cold and wet. I hope

the Df's dials are good for this. Leica's asymmetric dial trick is a good way to make up for ignoring the

advances in materials science and sticking to metal wheels. I'm particularly worried about that front dial,

but I guess it's "only" for use with G lenses. I'm not as worried by the interlocks, since I'm used to the finger

contortions of an F5, but they're an acquired taste.

 

Oh well. I gather there are many preorders - if they're not cancelled when people try them, I guess Nikon

knows best.

<blockquote>

<p>Nikon FX by contrast is aimed at high end users and professionals and control, flexibilityand good ergonomics are key features, and simplicity has to be sacrificed to obtain the necessary flexibility.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>My point is that it does not have to be. There are many many new Moms and New Dads who would love to take pictures of their kids with the IQ of a FF camera. It is easy to make a complicated piece of equipment complicated but a lot harder to do the reverse. I would give Nikon the benefit of the doubt that they could make a SONY A7 like camera. However as the way their current camera system is set up, such a camera may cut into the sale of D7100; thus they came up with Df that squeezes between D800 and D610. </p>

<p>Phil! The aperture dial on the body is a continuous dial which has no end so how do you put the A mark on it? Also there are lenses with the aperture ring and I don't think it's good to limit aperture control on the body only. <br>

I think I will buy the Df but I think Nikon could do better in the look department. Both the Nikon FM and F3 are better looking.</p>

BeBu: When you turn the dial, the LCD (and viewfinder) show what you've selected. An auto position is like

any other. Putting a detent on it is trickier (unless you just stop it wrapping). Given the vertical orientation,

I'm inclined to suggest pulling it out to make it easier to turn, like setting a watch, and push in for auto.

You'd need settings to distinguish between minimum aperture and auto mode even with most non-G

lenses. Incidentally, while I approve of the floppy aperture tab and wish I could replace the ring on my

D800 like the F5/F6, what would really have impressed me in an AI-S detector pin.

 

I don't care at all about the looks, though I'm not a fan of the programmable button bump - which I guess is

to deepen the effective grip. But I hope you enjoy it! If it was priced like the D600 (best done by taking off

all the fiddly dials) I may have been more tempted to join you, but I'll look forward to hearing what you

make of it.

<p>I don't see myself using the lens aperture ring at all. I'll just assign aperture control the the Command wheel, use the shutter speed dial, and relegate the Sub-Command wheel to decorative duty :-)</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Nothing wrong with it as niche product, but better for Nikon also recognize, that 5D3 is quietly eating Nikon lunch, as all around workhorse. --Nick Doronin</p>

<p>My first impression upon reading this was that it was written by a Canon-using troll. ---LK</p>

<p>Completely unfair comment, Lannie--Keith Reeder</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Keith, a first impression is simply a first impression. There is nothing fair or unfair about a first impression. It simply IS, or WAS.</p>

<p>The point of beginning my response that way was to point out that <em><strong>my first impression was WRONG: Nick had a point. </strong></em> I will certainly stand by my other comments vis-a-vis the Canon 5D III.</p>

<p>Here is the beginning of my response to Nick:</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>My first impression upon reading this was that it was written by a Canon-using troll. Upon reflection, however, if I had nothing invested in Nikon by way of lenses, and I was just starting out, there is no way that I would pay $2749 for this Nikon D<em>f</em> while <strong>the Canon 5D III is being offered for $2999 on Amazon</strong> <strong>AT THIS MOMENT.</strong></p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>If anyone wants to read the rest of my response, it is at this point in this discussion:</p>

<p><a href="/photodb/user?user_id=423641">Landrum Kelly</a><a href="/member-status-icons"><img title="Subscriber" src="/v3graphics/member-status-icons/sub10plus.gif" alt="" /><img title="Frequent poster" src="/v3graphics/member-status-icons/3rolls.gif" alt="" /></a>, Nov 06, 2013; 11:28 p.m.</p>

<p>--Lannie</p>

<p>The battery door lock mechanism looks good to me. I never liked the flimsy little tab-like switch on my D200, although I have never had an actual problem with it. The lock on the Df looks much more robust.</p>

<p>the lock on the battery compartment makes it looks like the F and F2 back latch</p>

Lannie: well, I read what you said. :-) I still disagree about supposed low light advantage of the 5D3 (from

reviews - I've handled but not tested one), but I agree that the 5D3 is a camera that I can see many good

reasons to buy. I really don't think the Df is supposed to compete with it - whether Nikon should produce a

direct competitor is another matter.

 

In the last generation, Canon made, in the 5D2, a reasonable all-rounder, which was a bit slow and had old

autofocus with an above average sensor, especially for landscapes. The D700 was slightly behind the

resolution curve with a low light advantage, but faster and with much better AF. This time, Canon fixed the

speed/AF and Nikon fixed the resolution deficit. Next time, I'm sure Canon will consider a resolution bump

(the 1Dx already has an edge over the D4). I'm sure Nikon are speeding up their processing and looking at

a MultiCam 3500 successor. The good thing about wanting a better camera is that you just have to wait -

the only question is how long. (With apologies to D300s owners.)

<p>Guys, I did not meant stir the pot, I do not have brand loyalty, I had Panasonic, Fuji, Nikon, I am using Canon now.<br>

The point of my post was, that Nikon being capable of making terrific cameras like F6, D700, D3, which were really moving technology ahead, seems start shooting in all directions, with highly specialized niche products, leaving mainstream line neglected. It is gonna hurt everybody, even Canon crowd, because of the lack of competition.</p>

<p>Andrew and Nick, I think that it is a very good question as to what is competing with what these days with regard to Nikon and Canon. I would personally put the Nikon D600/610 in pretty close competition with the Canon 6D, but beyond that there appear to be no real head-to-head contests between Nikon and Canon.</p>

<p>I don't think that Nikon has anything that goes head to head with the 5D III, and right now Canon has nothing that goes head to head with the D800/E. (The 5D III and the D800 are surely not direct competitors.)</p>

<p>I do believe that Canon has positioned itself somewhat better in terms of gaining market shares with the 5D III. The 5D III might not be the best low light camera, but it sure is pretty clean. Surely its clean images are in part the result of not trying to put too many pixels on a full-frame sensor. It has other strengths as well. For the record, I did not leave Canon because its products were inferior, but because I lost my job in the fall of 2011 and had to sell all of my Canon gear to survive during the spring of 2012. About that time the D800E came out, and I just had to have it. (I finally ordered it in October, 2012 after I started working again.) Since then I have also learned why people loved and still love the D3, D700, and D3s. I am pretty well hooked on Nikon now, not to take a single thing away from Canon. I do enjoy watching the marketing strategies of both companies, as well as Sony's. I guess that those are the big three where full-frame cameras are concerned.</p>

<p>I think that I would enjoy the D<em>f</em>, but right now it is not something I could consider at any price, much less at $2749, and that is why I say that the price has to drop. Perhaps that is wishful thinking.</p>

<p>I am rather astonished, however, to see the 5D III coming in below $3,000, even if only by one dollar. I loved the 5D II, and so I know that I would love the 5D III.</p>

<p>I also, Nick, am not trying to stir the Nikon v. Canon pot--just making a few observations. Since the D600 (or 610) really is quite inferior to the 5D III, the impact of Canon's price drop on the 5D III will be interesting to watch. As I said, Canon appears to be well-positioned to dominate the FF market--if anyone is. That is not meant to be provocative, since I am now shooting Nikon. That is simply the way I see it. Things can change fast, though, especially with Sony really now firmly in the FF game.</p>

<p>--Lannie</p>

<p>Somber news: Nikon Corp cut its full-year unit sales forecast for high-end cameras for the second quarter in a row to 6.20 million from a previous forecast of 6.55 million, which had predicted the first fall in sales of the format since Nikon's first digital SLR in 1999.<br>

http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/11/07/nikon-earnings-idUSL3N0IR39F20131107</p>

<p>Maybe a more customer-oriented model policy could have avoided this?</p>