Nikon Pure Photography

<p>Just too many things that are "cheap" on this camera for a $2800 body:<br /> - 39 pt AF system<br /> - No built-in VF cover<br /> - No 10 pin connector<br /> - No video (I can do without video, but others need it)<br /> - 16MP (why not 24?)<br /> So I'd be getting for $2800<br /> - Excellent (hopefully - we don't know yet) viewfinder<br /> - External dials/switches<br /> - Smaller/lighter<br /> - Threaded shutter release<br>

- Non-AI lens mounting</p>

<p>Not sure it makes sense to me as a D800 owner to have this as a second or only body. In 5 years this will surely be a classic after the price has dropped a lot, but right now????</p>

<p>Well it's not a D400 sport machine a few wanted, there is a rear command dial, that round thing at the front left (as you are looking at the front camera) is that a 10 pin port or a funny front command dial? Having not seen ths specs seems like a flashless videoless mag alloy D610 body with a retro look coupled with a couple of retro dials on top. Due to that it won't be as slick in controlling the camera for those who want a hobby camera that performs with a retro look. You don't just press a button and scroll a dial. Now you have top dials to turn ... Looks a bit large too. At least those that I measured my FM to the Fuji's X. The back looks really modern, the front just looks like a cosmetic blanket. The grip looks like a Mamiya. Reduced pixel size, D610 internals with a $2,700 price tag?</p>

<p>F-stoppers has some drool-worthy pics <a href="http://fstoppers.com/nikon-df-camera-images-have-been-leaked">here</a>.</p>

<p>excited about this. only mildly disappointed about the AF system. i'd be afraid that NAS would instantly take over, were i to hold one in my fat little hands. does anyone know what the fps is?</p>

<p>amazon had it for pre-orders for a minute. priced at $2750. at that price, buy a D800.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>does anyone know what the fps is?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>5.5 fps. The camera seems to be a D610 on the inside - except for the 16MP D4 sensor - all clad in a retro-style body and priced at $2750 (body only).</p>

<p>At that price, if I wanna look that retro I'll use my F2 and tape a fake LCD screen on it. :)</p>

<p>Wow... so they took video off and made it retro-styled. Okay... it looks cool and easy to use if you're old-school.<br /><br />I don't use video a lot, but won't buy a camera without it anymore. And full frame 16MP for 2800 bucks?</p>

<p>If the specs and price are what they seem to be, it'll be more incentive to stick with my DX D90 even longer, and maybe at some point switch to the way cool Fuji rangefinder camera at some point even.</p>

<p>I'm not saying that this is a fail for Nikon. It isn't. This is awesome. But it's not quite the enthusiast camera that I was thinking it might be. It's not for me. It might be for some of you guys, though...</p>

<p>can someone explain to me why I would want this when I already have a D800???? a serious question...</p>

<p>Roy at a guess - maybe a retro feeling operating of the camera with a slower pace but still shooting digital, well IMO digital is gonna look ilke digital, with a retro operating way. Doesn't come cheap. And 16MP should be enof for most people, clearly not a wedding or sport camera to me.</p>

<p>From what I remember from those occasional threads asking for a digital FM I can't imagine that this is what those who asked had in mind - it's most likely not retro enough.</p>

<p>Those asking for a "D700 successor" with the D4 sensor probably aren't too thrilled by the retro and the 39-area AF.</p>

<p>So this is then just for those guys who want to reminisce about the "good old days" and now have a DSLR with old-style dials to do so?</p>

<p>Maybe instead of scene modes with comes with a selection of "film modes"? Select Tri-X, Kodachrome 25 or Velvia?</p>

<p> </p>

<p>hmm, 5.5 fps is fast enough for most PJ work. i'm salivating right now; the black body looks soo cool... but the reality is a d800 is probably a better deal at that price point for most, although the 16mp FX sensor has better high-iso performance than the 36mp chip. at $2000, this would have been a no-brainer, but pricing it at that level would have been far too sensible for nikon, seeing as it lacks video.</p>

<p>overall, i think this is a win for nikon, even if few of us will actually buy one. and nikon needs wins badly after the d600 debacle.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>Now wait a minute - 5.5 fps - they didn't put the "old" D600 shutter in this thing, now did they? The new one in the D610 can do 6fps - so why should the Df not do the same?</p>

<p>My question is would you pay this price for these specs if it was in a typical modern Nikon DSLR body? Seems like quite a premium just to have a retro look. I can see retro anytime I want for free just by looking in the mirror.</p>

<p>If the VF view is exceptional, it'll sell. Nothing else grabs me....unless there are specs that haven't leaked.</p>

Eric: The high ISO difference between a D800 and a D4 is actually pretty small. The D4 supports

stratospheric ISOs because you still get something usable at the pixel level; on a D800 you don't - until you

down sample to 16MP. (I'm not saying the D610 and D800 perfectly match the D4, but it's not like the gap

between the D3x and D3s.) I'm standing by my claim that the only place for a 16MP sensor is in a high

frame rate body, and that Nikon are going to struggle to sell the "full frame advantage" when the D3200 out

resolves it.

 

 

So, Nikon could have produced a "D400" for sports and wildlife in good light, which I'm going to define as a

D800 body with a D7100 sensor and 6fps, 8fps with a grip, and a decent buffer, priced around the D610.

They could have produced a "D750", which I'm going to define as a D4 sensor in a D800 body, with 6 fps

boostable to 8 with a grip, for around the price of a D800. They could have made a "D7100h" - a D7100 with

a bigger grip. They could have made a "D650" with a D800 AF module in a D610. They could have made a

minimal FX body ("D500") with no AF motor, either the D610 sensor or the D4's, and further price cutting.

They could have released a 24MP D5 with 12fps and AF updates. They could have released a D850 with

D7100 pixel density across the frame. They could have competed with a 100D by shrinking the "D3300".

They could have released an F7, with the D800's meter and AF and the D700's shutter abilities. They could

even have made a DSLR with minimal changes from a pure film camera - manual shutter dial, possibly a

second control near the lens mount so you have the same hand position for G and pre-G lenses, minimal

other controls (like a Leica - inconvenient digital interface which you ignore when shooting).

 

 

Nikon did none of these, all of which have, to some extent, been called for. The Df feels like a camera

designed by a competition winner with no training in ergonomics, but presumably Nikon feel they might

sell enough to risk the development cost, and that all the other types of camera that people have called for

are not going to sell. I've no idea how they know this, but I'm in no position to argue.

 

 

I'll await reviews. Maybe the interface is unexpectedly brilliant in use, I just don't see how.

 

 

As for the D600, it was a bit embarrassing, but was it that bad? I thought they sold okay, considering a lot

of buyers should have got a D7100...

Incidentally, good catch on there not being an eyepiece shutter (apparently). The Amazon images do

suggest the rumoured flippy aperture follow tab, but that may be optimism.

<p>Excellent summary Andrew....:-)</p>

<p>So many targets, so many misses.</p>

<p>Here's hoping for something special.!!</p>

<p>If true, this is sad. The main reason I upgraded from the D7000 to the D7100 was the improved AF performance. If it is true that the new camera has the same AF as the D7000 and the D600, it doesn't make sense for me.</p>

<p>> <em>I am not sure where my "anger" meter is right now (Df instead of D400, arrgghhh).</em><br /> Well, yeah me too, but I got over it prospectively: I finally gave up on the D400 and put my money down for an OM-D E-M1 with the 12-40/2.8 lens over the weekend after playing extensively with the E-M1 at the local camera store's trade show. On the topic of Nikon, this show had several reps from each of the major companies, including a new (to me) Nikon rep. The "new" guy almost had me sold on a D7100 (I want the DX crop for wildlife purposes), in part because he actually acknowledged its ergonomic (again, to me) shortcomings relative to the D300 while <em>politely</em> pointing out the advantages.</p>

<p>In contrast the regular rep would routinely mock and belittle anyone wanting a D300(s) replacement and had the habit of responding to inquiries about short DX primes with a fascinating blend of obfuscation and condescension ("We already HAVE a 16/2.8! Oh, you mean a non-fisheye? Well, will you buy a million of them? Because no one else wants anything like that.") And so forth. The man has a positive talent for making people not want to buy or continue with Nikon. Twit. Or maybe he's actually sticking to policy from higher up (in which case my response is "Twit<strong>s</strong>") while the new guy is some sort of maverick.<br /> <br />If this Df drops to around 2kUSD I'll consider it. It seems like it would be nice to have for my motley collection of non-AF lenses, and no I wouldn't want D800-level pixel density for those.</p>

<p>> <em>I am not sure where my "anger" meter is right now (Df instead of D400, arrgghhh). I wanted a D400 also to put on my 200-400 and 300-800. While most of my equipment is Nikon, I have been shooting with a Sony 70-400 on A57 for about a year. I just purchased a 24 MP, 12 FPS, cropped frame A77 for sports and feeling pretty good about my decision right now. </em></p>

<p>The good news:</p>

<p>(1) Prices will drop.</p>

<p>(2) D4 image quality at low light is better than D3s, and I <em>love</em> the D3s.</p>

<p>(3) Low light, high ISO images will be <strong><em>SPECTACULAR!</em></strong><br /> <br /> (4) Number 3 above means having to resort to a flash MUCH LESS FREQUENTLY. <strong><em><br /></em></strong></p>

<p>(5) Number 3 above means having to use a tripod MUCH LESS FREQUENTLY.</p>

<p>(6) Unless you are into action photography, the FPS and AF speeds really are not going to matter at all.</p>

<p>I really do see it being touted as a<em><strong> consumer grade D4</strong></em>, but with a retro look and feel.<em><strong> Analogies with the D700 are going to be made.</strong></em> I think that it will sell. I hope that the demand is not too high, however, so that the price falls quickly into the realm of what is reasonable.</p>

<p>The leaked Amazon price, that is, is simply<em><strong> FAR TOO HIGH </strong></em>for me to consider at this time. As Michael said, it might make sense at around $2,000.</p>

<p>There is a lot of competition now for full-frame cameras. I do think that that will drive prices down, and I do think that those who buy this camera are going to love shooting it: more shots per card, lower download and processing time, less need for tripod, less need for flash, etc.--if one has no problem with a 16 mp sensor, and <em>I definitely do not. </em> I have the D800E and the D3s right now, and it is SIMPLY MORE FUN to shoot the D3s. This will be even better.<em><strong><br /></strong></em></p>

<p>I wouldn't sell my D800E for it, but it sure would complement the D800E very nicely. I <em><strong>WOULD</strong></em> sell my D3s for it, since I do not really need the fast AF or high FPS.<em><strong><br /></strong></em></p>

<p>This thing is going to blow the megapixel fixation right out of the water. It will be a dream to shoot and process, and <strong><em>THAT IS WHAT PURE PHOTOGRAPHY IS ALL ABOUT! </em></strong><br /> <br /> For strolling around at dusk, this is going to be a dream to shoot, untethered from tripod and flash.<strong><em><br /></em></strong></p>

<p>--Lannie</p>

<blockquote>

<p>My question is would you pay this price for these specs if it was in a typical modern Nikon DSLR body? Seems like quite a premium just to have a retro look.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>the key is the D4 sensor in a more compact body. as a D3s owner, i love love love that camera but it's a drag to lug that big hunk of metal around, esp. when combined with the 24-70 and/or 70-200. so, i see the DF as a viable alternative for low-light shooting, travel and PJ work which can be accomplished with primes. i've been close to pulling the trigger on Oly and Fuji mirrorless bodies for a while now, but two things have stopped me: the smaller sensors, not in terms of image quality and dynamic range so much as high-ISO limitations, and the reinvestment in lenses which would cost thousands to get the same functionality i currently have with my nikon gear.</p>

<p>not having to spend 3-4x the cost of the camera on lenses and being able to use lenses i already own, is a HUGE plus for me, and mitigates the camera body cost somewhat, since any investment into another system would just give me the same functionality i have now--actually slightly lesser performance, except for video-- at a cost of $4-$5 grand, all in and fully kitted-out. i've done the math, as it were, and i don't think i'd be satisfied with kit lenses--less so with the fuji than the oly, so i'd be looking at all those expensive primes in either case. the Sony A7 likewise doesnt appeal to me because the lens selection for it right now is bare-bones, and even if it was fleshed-out, would also require considerable investment over and above the cost of a camera body.</p>

<p>i may get a discounted x100 with the new firmware in the meantime until the FD prices come down to earth a bit. also not raring at the bit to be an early adopter, just in case the FD has the same shutter issues as the d600 o_O.</p>

<p>@Andrew, the reason i wouldnt get a d800 instead is that a) i simply dont need all of those megapixels 90% of the time, and b) my ideal camera is something lighter and smaller than the D3s with the same functionality, or close to it. i dont want to have to do extra work in post- to downsample, and i shoot way too much to make that practical. i would like to sometimes have more leeway to crop, but i'm a little leery of bloated files. plus, the d800 is a brick and runs counter to the smaller, lighter, more compact trend.</p>

<p>You make good points about what Nikon could have done, but unfortunately, complaining about something rarely produces results. i think we will see the price drop fairly soon, i.e., within a year, as nikon may have overestimated the market for a $2800 camera with less features than lower-priced cameras.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>the key is the D4 sensor in a more compact body.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Amen to that.</p>

<p>Plus, whatever it winds up costing after prices have settled down, it won't cost $6,000 like the D4 does. Of course it will not do all that the D4 (or D3s) will do, but the question is whether one needs the high FPS and the great AF of the D3s and D4. If one does need those things, this is not one's camera. It one does not need all that, one might find this to be what one really needs--and likes to shoot. We shall see.</p>

<p>I have emphasized what is fun to shoot because it is great to be able to get great shots without lugging so much around: camera, lenses, tripod, flash. Sometimes it is nice to just get out the door with a great camera and one good lens, with a fully charged battery and one big card. I love wandering around with just one lens at a time, sometimes a zoom, sometimes a prime.</p>

<p><em><strong>It has always been astonishing to me what becomes possible when one can turn up the ISO even on a bright day. The shutter speed becomes so high that one literally does not need a tripod in daytime shooting, and as it gets darker one often (not always, of course) does not need the flash. </strong></em>That is what I call "fun." Nikon calls it "pure." The D3s is great for that, but it is heavy, and for me it is overkill, but I love it anyway. I am sure that I would love the D4 even more--if I could afford it.</p>

<p>That is, I base my expectation on having used the D3s, which has 12 mp. I am sure that the situation is better all around with the D4, which has 16 mp. (I have not shot it.)</p>

<p>A poor man's D4, a better D700--well, maybe after the prices have sagged substantially, assuming the $2795 was a "reliable leak." For me that is far too high. I will have to wait, since I know that I will never be able to afford the D4--and it is frankly more than I need.</p>

<p>I'm looking forward to seeing what people say about the Df after they have shot it awhile.</p>

<p>[<em>Can you believe this thread?!</em>]</p>

<p>--Lannie</p>

<p>It needs to REALLY perform well. I have no problem with the knobs on the top. Once you know where they are, it would be faster for me than needing to dive into camera menus to make changes. Does the back LCD have Live View ? Can the viewfinder actually focus a fast lens ? </p>

<p>If Nikon listened to what some people said they missed on the classic cameras, and tried to give it to them with this, they might have something. But, of course, the price will have to drop for it to really sell. </p>

<p>They said the smallest Full Frame or was it lightest ? Does that mean THEIR smallest or lightest or the INDUSTRY smallest or lightest ? </p>

<p> </p>

<p>I was only three years ahead, seems like nikon listened: I predicted the d600 in 2010 and also the coming retro DF...Remember the crap I had to put up on that thread then, Shun (and numerous others) ? </p>

<p>http://www.photo.net/nikon-camera-forum/00WxrD</p>