Nikon Introduces Df Retro DSLR

<p>Mark, is this you?</p>

<p><a href="http://www.markloader.com/">http://www.markloader.com/</a></p>

<p>This is really good solid, professional work! It reminds me why I will always be an amateur.</p>

<p>--Lannie</p>

<p>Mark: My policy has been that a different camera might allow me to take different images, or take images more easily than what I've got. There are plenty of images you can't take with a Holga - though there are, obviously, many very good images you can take with one.<br />

<br />

That's really what worries me about the Df: while there <i>are</i> images I could take with a Df better than I could with one of my other cameras, and there are some circumstances under which using a Df would be easier (mostly because it's lighter), for me that's an awfully small set of the images I could possibly take, especially for the going price of the Df. Obviously, not every camera has to appeal to me, and not everyone is lucky enough to have spent money they don't have on a selection of other cameras already, as I have. I worry a little that the number of images I could take better with a Df (and nothing else) are smaller than the number of images I could take better with, say, a D610, but I'm sure there are people who - for their style of photography - will find the opposite is true. I just hope that the hype and radical design of the Df doesn't make too many people end up with one, when a cheaper camera would have been a better choice - but maybe I've been trying to guide people on the beginner forum for too long!<br />

<br />

Lannie/Mark: If that's really Mark's site, very nice (although, as an arachnophobe, I could have done without the first image I saw!) As Lannie says, I will definitely always be an amateur (and one who <i>knows</i> that product photography is hard); Lannie - at least you're comfortable enough to share your images on this site!</p>

<p>HaHa! No he's the OTHER ML! Yes I've seen his site before and when I tell people he shoots a lot of booze they don't seem surprised nor find it funny. So NY Mark is the pro and Oz Mark is the enthusiastic dog-with-a-bone amateur. This is me One thing I will say is that many folks prefer my subjects to his...I don't know why! ;-)</p>

<p>Ah, I see. But still very nice images, Mark!</p>

<p>@Andrew G...oh yeah it's horses for courses definitely. In fact I'd say most guys would prefer a D600/610, because it suits their way of shooting (and it's got video). And I think that even this choice boils down to (that word again) knowledge. If some cash-up bozo buys it because it's the latest thing off the rack then too bad. He shoulda/woulda/coulda done more homework. The teaser trailers practically screamed "listen up! If your style/genre includes the slower, thoughtful and more considered type of shooting, then we've got something for you". Many people just missed that completely and more fool them. It's clearly aimed at a healthy minority (me me me) who will grow to love it. For the last year or so I have been shooting almost exclusively with a Fuji X-E1 & X100. It was love at first click. No more Leica envy for me! I formed a "relationship" with these that I didn't believe possible outside that expensive German marque. I know that sounds wierd, but it's true. Going back to my DSLRs was like going back to an appliance at best and a brick at worst. Holding the Df, even for a short time, gave me hope that a DSLR could give me that unique experience again. Now of course this is highly personal, and I wouldn't blame anyone for opting for something more "conventional". The funniest thing of all? I've only been shooting for just under 5 years, yet the "old ways" seem so much more natural to me. I turned 57 today so that must be the answer! Maybe I'll hassle Nikon to re-release the FM3/A and shoot only b&w! ;-)</p>

<blockquote>

<p>The teaser trailers practically screamed "listen up! </p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>I wonder if Nikon's going to do themed videos for it's next releases? .....or maybe this 'style' was a one-off for such a 'Healthy Minority'? </p>

<p>I can almost see the one for the D5....guy in Pit Lane, jazzy colours & carbon fibre everywhere....Night Triathlon with broken bikes and mud....maybe a Polar explorer with huskies?.......advertising cliches are alive and kicking!</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>Going back to my DSLRs was like going back to an appliance at best and a brick at worst.</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>Harsh, but fair! I often wondered what the difference was between a Tool and an Appliance?...now a brick, I can understand!</p>

<p>I got a chance to play with the Df a bit today in my local store. The ISO dial is very easy to use with the left hand only; you press the lock button with your left thumb and rotate the wheel with your left forefinger. This goes on to show that some reviews are just not worth the time and bandwidth they require to read.</p>

<p>I felt the camera fit my hands very nicely and was very easy to operate. The AF area coverage is too small; in practice a lot of the time I'd end up using one of the center points and just recomposing and adjusting manually where needed to account for subjects in the peripheral areas. The AF seemed to work ok with the 50/1.8. The kit felt lightweight and the sounds from the camera were pleasing.</p>

<p>The viewfinder is bright and crisp, but I had to press my nose against the back of the camera to see the whole image at the same time. I don't think it was much easier or harder to see than the D800 viewfinder with glasses on. Without a side by side comparison and repeated trials I cannot say how much better it is to manual focus with but my subjective impression is that the viewfinder image quality is high. However because of the eyepoint issue I am undecided. I'm so tired of wading through thousands and thousands of 36MP NEFs when the purpose of the images does not necessitate the large file size (but when the best dynamic range and color sensitivity is essential, e.g. in indoor available artificial light to correct color in skin tone it is quite a challenge with the D800's ISO 6400; I expect D4/Df to be better behaving at ISO 6400 when the blue channel needs to be amplified in post processing to gain neutral or closer to neutral colors).</p>

<p>I grabbed some portraits in the store space at ISO 204,800 (Hi-4) and the quality was impressive. I would mainly be interested in the improved dynamic range over the D800 from ISO 640 to 6400; I believe I would rarely use 12800 or higher, but it is astonishing to see it produce such good image integrity at the highest setting. For me the 3200-6400 are quite common settings needed in the wintertime and at events indoors and I'm sure 12800 would be used from time to time as well.</p>

<p>For me the decision between D4 and Df rests mainly on 1) how my face would get used to the two different viewfinders, and 2) how easy it is to focus the image manually and to see autofocus errors before the shot is taken visually in the viewfinder; in low light the autofocus of even AF-S lenses jitters a lot and timing the shots according to viewfinder feedback is essential at wide apertures. I will investigate this when I have more time to play with the two cameras and bring a selection of fast lenses to test with. The light weight of the Df and its nice handling are clear benefits for me, but for the D4 the use of the camera on vertical shots is more ergonomic, and the Multi-CAM 3500 certainly is a big advantage. Obviously the Df is much less expensive than the D4, but if Nikon introduces a D4X then there may be some lightly used second hand D4's that become available and then the price difference between D4 and Df is likely to be smaller. I can only say so far that in the brief testing of the Df I wasn't able to decide either way, for or against it, but it certainly handled very nicely and was very attractive from that point of view. It would be nice if i could try both for a few days but alas, I don't have that option.</p>

<p>I think my next step is to take with me some of my own fast lenses and perform focus accuracy testing using both the AF and MF of the Df and my D800, to get some statistics of how good the AF system and viewfinder are. I wish they had achieved a greater eyepoint with the Df, and put in Multi-CAM 3500. In that case the decision would be easy. The Df being how it is, however, I'll need to perform further testing.</p>

<p>Ilkka: Thanks for the review. I'm not expecting a big problem with ISO (give or take using the left hand at all) - I've got an F5, and the interlocks are similar (once you get the hang of tying your fingers in knots). I'm a little more worried about the contortions necessary for the EC dial, but I'd have to try it. Good to hear that the ergonomics are not catastrophic, at least!<br />

<br />

According to DxO, I think you'll only see a dynamic range boost over the D800 above about ISO 3200, but that sounds as though that's still at the upper end of your interest range. I agree about unnecessarily large images, though - why Nikon don't have an sRAW implementation yet, I don't know. I'd have thought some form of binning should be an option.<br />

<br />

Mark: There's something to be said for "getting" an interface. For example, I assume there are some people in the world who can use PowerPoint without feeling the urge to throw the computer out of the nearest window every five minutes; I am not one of them. I honestly do like the idea of the Fuji cameras (except, as with the Df, the price) - though I can also see how the controls are always under my fingers. I'm not sure this is true for me with the Df, but maybe it's true for others. (There are a lot of shooters out there who support the left side of the camera from above the bridge of the nose, so that the dials are to hand, right? :-) )<br />

<br />

While I have no problem with the camera being what people other than me want (and I really hope it is), I am a little concerned that people will get it because of what they <i>think</i> they want, and then find otherwise after paying a lot of money. But maybe that's just because I'm incredibly patronizing...<br />

<br />

Now, the Df <i>monochrom</i>? That would be interesting. (And have an extra stop or so of low light performance. If there's a D800e, how hard could a variant with no filters be?)</p>

<p>"I wish they had achieved a greater eyepoint with the Df"<br>

Thanks Ilkka for your comments, </p>

<blockquote>

<p>HaHa! No he's the OTHER ML! Yes I've seen his site before and when I tell people he shoots a lot of booze they don't seem surprised nor find it funny. So NY Mark is the pro and Oz Mark is the enthusiastic dog-with-a-bone amateur. This is me <a href="http://www.flickr.com/photos/ranfordstealth/" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">http://www.flickr.com/photos/ranfordstealth/</a> One thing I will say is that many folks prefer my subjects to his...I don't know why! ;-)</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>Yep, your subjects really are better, Mark. Very nice work. Thanks for the link (just above).</p>

<p>--Lannie</p>

Picked up the black Df kit today. It has a solid quality feel for sure. Remarkably compact and lightweight with the kit lens.

Dials move nicely, quality feel of the detents engaging.

 

The viewfinder is the best I have used in a Nikon DSLR, including the D700 and D800. No problem for eyeglasses,

significantly easier to see than the D800. Diopter adjustment is less picky, there are 2-3 clicks where it's in sharp focus.

With D800, there was one and only one.

 

There is no protective cover for the LCD.

 

Will get some shutter time tomorrow, but the test shots around the house look as good as I expected.

 

I love the bottom battery/card slot.

 

Just a lovely digital camera.

<p><em>According to DxO, I think you'll only see a dynamic range boost over the D800 above about ISO 3200,</em></p>

<p>I just double checked the dynamic range graphs (for "print"), the crossing over point above which the D4 has greater dynamic range than the D800, is DXO's measured ISO 400 and manufacturer's nominal ISO 640. From ISO 1600 upwards, the dynamic range of the D4 is about 0.6-0.7 EV greater than that of the D800. On the other hand the D800 has greater DR than the D4 at ISO 100 and 200. I would guess that of my photography, ISO 100-200 is about 10% of the number of pictures that I shoot (including formal groups, studio work, landscape and architecture). ISO 1600 and above is about 40% (weddings, indoor concerts, wintertime outdoors concerts at night, theatre, dance, academic events, winter sports such as figure skating, water polo, indoor photography of children) and the rest of my shooting is generally outdoors of people subjects in the 400-1250 range. So the most frequent situation is that my ISO is in the intermediate area where it doesn't matter much which camera I choose (which is why I don't have such a strong opinion on sensor choice based on image quality) from the point of view of tonality (higher resolution however is higher resolution, whether it is needed or useful can always be debated; IMO it can be useful but is not necessary to me a lot of the time), but a considerable part of my photography volume is in the range where the Df / D4 sensor would excel. Since multiple cameras are necessary in any case to avoid a failure to capture the images in the event of equipment malfunction (irrespective of whether the photography is paid or not), in my opinion it makes some sense to have the different cameras equipped with different types of sensors as then a broader range of conditions can be covered with the best results when all cameras are in working condition, which would be most of the time. When a camera is in service and if you're shooting a wedding ... then you need a second backup. The backup doesn't have to be ideal camera for the situation as long as it is acceptable.</p>

<p>On Friday I shot a PhD defence that required me to shoot in strongly colored light at ISO 3200 and that setting was a compromise; if the sensor had been better, I would have gone for ISO 6400. That was the lecture room of the actual defence. I got f/2.8 1/200s and that didn't stop all movement. The the dynamic range was extremely problematic because two projector screens were on all the time and for wide angle images showing the speakers and the screen, you need to capture a huge dynamic range to render the faces as nicely as possible without blowing out the screen. For this situation I'm often forced to make a black and white conversion (losing the color information in the slide) as the faces would be very poor quality if I tried to do it in color. With a camera that has a better dynamic range at high ISO, this kind of situation where the available light has complex colour and very high contrast is more manageable. <br /> <br /> <em>(There are a lot of shooters out there who support the left side of the camera from above the bridge of the nose, so that the dials are to hand, right? :-) )</em></p>

<p>That's not how you use the Df. To use the dials on the top, you lower the camera and adjust them from waist or chest height. The design is intentional and meant to stop you to consider what you're doing before doing it. The dial solution has advantages; e.g. you don't have to first activate the meter to adjust exposure controls, as you do with "normal" DSLRs. It's very annoying when it happens that just as I'm about to adjust the aperture or shutter speed, the camera shuts down the meter, and I have to reactivate the meter to get access to the controls.</p>

<p><em>Now, the Df monochrom? That would be interesting. (And have an extra stop or so of low light performance. If there's a D800e, how hard could a variant with no filters be?)</em></p>

<p>I always color correct the images in as far as I can before converting them to monochrome, since the weighting of the color channels affects the contrast of the subject and the appearance of skin. I would not find a camera where I can not make adjustments to the weighting of colors, acceptable. I do not believ it would yield to black and white images with the kind of consistent look that I want to achieve. When I look at my old prints made from black and white film I can't but think how terrible they really are, compared with what I get today by starting from color images.</p>

<p>Got to play around with a Df at my local camera store today. Manual focusing through an optical viewfinder without the split-image and microprism aids is always challenging to me, but the Df seems to be ok. I also had a D800 right next to it. At least I don't find the Df to be all that different from the D800 in this area.</p>

<p>One thing I seriously dislike about the Df is the grip; it is way too small, which should be clear in the Nikon-supplied images in my opening post. I don't have very large hands, but I find the D800's grip far more comfortable for my right hnd. I think Nikon is clearly making a lot of compromises in order to make the Df relatively small. The grip is one, and using the tiny EN-EL14 battery (instead of the more common EN-EL15 on the D800, D600/D610, D7000, D7100 and V1 with higher capacity) and having just one SD card slot are others.</p>

<p>Of coures, with any design, there will always be people who are unhappy with it.</p>

<P>

P.S. My wife is quite petit (5'1"/155 cm) with very small hands. I also asked her to hold the Df, and she feels the grip is comfortable enough for her.

</P>

<p>Other than the sensor of the D4, there's nothing like the Df. How's that for getting a grip?</p>

<p>I find it interesting - almost 600 comments, most of them before anyone handled the camera.... I guess mostly from people who don't like it. Also, this must be the only Nikon pro body that was available on the release date... this camera will likely be a somewhat of a flop.... maybe it will receive cult status when it's out of production :)</p>

<p>Maybe I am just susceptible to marketing, but I, for one, have made another 180 turn. After I had cancelled my previous pre-order, I decided that I wanted to see for myself and my Df will arrive Monday. A few months ago I had sold my D800 and most zoom lenses, but kept some primes. While the D800 was more than I needed (I did not shoot video once with it and never printed large), I think the Df will suit me well. 16 MP is plenty for my purposes, the capability of the D4 sensor are attractive, and I am now old enough so that the 'retro' look suits me :) Or maybe I am just a wanna be hipster. I will report back...</p>

<p>I think people who buy the Df are making a conscious decision not to buy into the latest and greatest hype.... and maybe happy longer with their choice, as the camera is already "out of date" (until the Df2Dfx/Dfs comes out, which may never happen)</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>I find it interesting - almost 600 comments, most of them before anyone handled the camera....</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Benjamin, there is a lot one can tell solely based on the specifications and images showing the features (and the lack of certain features) of a product.</p>

<p>For example, back in the 1970's and early 1980's, I didn't know any better about ergonomics and was comfortable with the boxy FM, FE and F3. Starting from 1988 with the F4, Nikon SLRs began to have a larger grip that fits your right palm, and that continues to impove over the 25 years since then. When you take away a lot of those improvements, ergonomics and otherwise, for the sake of retro, while it is going to appeal to a small group of people, it is likely going to turn off a larger group of customers. When I first saw the product images of the Df, the small grip just stood out and therefore it was the first thing I tried when I literally had a Df in my hands for the first time, and I also seeked my wife's opinion since she has very small hands.</p>

<p>I don't need to actually use a Df to know that it is a botique camera that is going to appel to a fairly small group of customers. If you happen to fall into that group, you will love the Df and we are going to hear all sorts of excuses from some of those owners to justify their purchase. Most people will likely find the Df to have an inconvenient design and its limited features doesn't quite justify the cost that is essentially on par with the D800.</p>

<p>Back in late 2008 to 2009, Nikon used to ask for $8000 for the D3X while its primary difference from the $5000 D3 was 24MP vs. 12MP and a much slower frame rate. Back then, Nikon used more pixels to justify the cost and continue to advertise the advantages of 36MP when they introduced the D800/D800E early last year. Why all of a sudden 16MP is now an advantage on the Df even though the bottom-of-the-line D3200 is 24MP? That is merely marketing nonsense that a lot of us are going to dismiss.</p>

I don't understand why they didn't just put the 36MP sensor in the Df. You can always scale back resolution, but you can't

add what you didn't capture.

 

Personally, I find Sony's A7r to be much more enticing, even though I LOVE the retro look of the Df and generally dislike

EVF cameras. It's the output that matter. The Sony has the resolution, and it costs less.

 

Instead of a Df, I'll buy another lens or two for my beloved D800E.

<p>Shun,</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Benjamin, there is a lot one can tell solely based on the specifications and images showing the features (and the lack of certain features) of a product.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>No argument - you can tell a lot from the feature set. That's why I pre-ordered my D800 before it hit the shelves (none hit the shelves where I live, anyway). I am 6'5", I have no doubt that the Df will be a bit undersized - then again, I no longer shoot any gigs where I shoot a camera for hours. The OM-D series is even smaller and I feel comfortable using it. <br>

My statement meant to reflect that fact that I do not remember any recent Nikon camera eliciting such a busy discussion... even before the release date.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>I don't need to actually use a Df to know that it is a <em>boutique</em> camera that is going to appeal to a fairly small group of customers</p>

</blockquote>

<p><br />I may hate the camera once I use it - who knows. And I think - as stated - that it will likely be a 'flop', or not very profitable for Nikon.... and I fully profess to buying it in part because it appeals to me on an emotional level.</p>

<p>The size, the light weight, the low light clean captures from the D4 sensor, the to go anywhere portability, the dial options of getting the job done providing more flexibility. I don't see what looks has to do with it, and I don't see where the Df is a step backwards as a tool for making great pictures. I do see where some have already blown their wad on too many camera's, and they need a reason not to like the Df.</p>

Ilkka: I've spouted a lot of misinformation about the D4 sensor in this thread. Apologies to anyone I've

confused. Please put it down to a combination of not being able to run the DxO comparison on my tablet

and trying to fit a D610, D800, D3s and D4 into a tool that only supports three-way comparison. I'd clearly

conflated the D4 with the D3s (which does only overtake the D800 at ISO 3200, and thereafter closely

matches the D4). The D4 does stand alone - by, as you say, just over half a stop - at ISO 1600, and I've

done enough shooting in the 1600-6400 range that I can see the benefits of a camera that's strong there

(though the D800/D4 gap is smaller than the D3/D3s). Though as complements to a D800 go, I wish it was

priced like a D610 and - for professional shooting - had two card slots. Maybe I'll start wanting one after all

- when the UK price drops to a lot less than the current large premium over the D800 and if a "D610s"

doesn't appear first.

 

I was being facetious about the handling, but you make a good point about the camera switching off its

meter when changing setting - even though I'm normally making changes with the finder to my eye, this

does sometimes happen to me. So congratulations, you've persuaded a cynic that there's a genuine

advantage to the Df's controls, at least for the fixed dials.

 

There are definite advantages to shooting colour images and selectively converting to mono. Still, there

are resolution, moiré and sensitivity merits to losing the colour filters, and being able to choose a specific

filter other than the three on the sensor. I'd not want my only camera to be mono, but - just as I sometimes

shoot mono film even if I'm scanning - I'd quite like it to complement my main camera. Leica seem to find

some people who like the idea.

 

Shun: Thanks for the review. Since the grip doesn't really affect the size of a camera much when the lens

dominates the depth, I don't see much merit in shrinking it, though the D4's is a bit deeper than I find

comfortable despite large hands. I feel the concerns about resolution storage and processing will be

mitigated by time and Moore's Law, so the main merit of a lower resolution is in a camera designed for a

high frame rate and a large number of shots in a session - like the D4 but not, I believe, like the Df.

However, for now, the D4 sensor does have some dynamic range merits over the D800/D610 that - just -

justify its choice in a Df. And I believe Nikon are STILL trying to charge a big premium for a D3x, though I

doubt there are many sales.

 

Dan: Glad to hear good things about the feel, especially since I'd seen other reports casting some doubts!

The detents are good news. I hope you enjoy your new toy!

 

Benjamin: A lot was discussing what we know and what we wanted to know. I think we've been remarkably

information-dense, by internet standards. I look forward to your report. As for future-proofing, I guess I'd

feel better if Nikon hadn't put one of their shortest-life (rated) shutters in the Df! Still, I doubt the current

range of sensors will get vastly surpassed. Other technology - AF and speed especially - I expect to

improve. But a D700 is still a very good and useful camera. While some older sensors really are a long way

behind (I won't argue that a D1 wouldn't be limiting), many cameras are only as obsolete as you want them

to be. Technology improving quickly can only be a good thing, compared with the alternative.

<p>I didn't buy my D800E for its low-light capabilities, but I am still stunned by the new Sony A7r, at least as seen here:</p>

<p><em><strong><a href="http://www.dpreview.com/previews/sony-alpha-7-7r/7">http://www.dpreview.com/previews/sony-alpha-7-7r/7</a></strong></em><br>

<em><strong> </strong></em><br>

On the other hand, dialing in the Df and other bodies at high ISOs on the above link indicates that the Df is going to be able to hold its own with the big sensor cameras.</p>

<p>I personally think that Nikon is likely to sell quite a few of these new cameras, but we shall see.</p>

<p>--Lannie<em><strong><br /></strong></em></p>

<p>Shun I did started almost 40 years ago with the F2AS and then the F3HP, lately I got a good number of old film cameras. I have no problem with most of them ergonomically. I did have problem ergonomically with the F5 I bought in 2002. I found that it wants to leave my hand even though it has a very sticky rubber on its grip. Its big grip is actually harder for me to hold than the flat boxy camera like the FM. Indeed I have real problem holding the FM with the MD-12 mounted. The F3 and MD-4 combo are ok. But the old camera like FM or F3 alone without motor drive is easiest to hold for me.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Why all of a sudden 16MP is now an advantage on the Df even though the bottom-of-the-line D3200 is 24MP? That is merely marketing nonsense that a lot of us are going to dismiss.</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>I'm going to go ahead and say that putting a 24MP sensor in a bottom-of-the-line D3200 is a much bigger marketing nonsense that most of us should dismiss. When is the average person using a D3200 going to get anywhere near to making full use of those 24 megapixels? Those viewfinders are next to useless for accurate focusing to begin with. Of course, you can use live view, but I think most entry-level DSLR owners are not going to go through the trouble of taking their holiday snapshots using a tripod, live view, mirror lock up, remote release or timer etc. so they can send the 600x900 pixel pictures to their friends and family in email, or have small prints made. Most people who want to use their camera for much more than that are quickly going to realize that while the D3200 is physically capable of taking beautiful pictures of high quality, the camera is just crippled in too many ways to make it an easy task and are going to want an upgrade of some sort.</p>

<p>In fact, Shun, about a year and a half ago, you strongly recommended the D700 over the D800 for someone (ok, me) mostly making around 12 inch prints, and only occasionally larger than that. You basically said that unless I knew I needed the high resolution, I really didn't need it, because it would just be a burden and a waste of money. Why does an entry-level camera now need a 24MP sensor? I did end up buying a D700 while it was still available new, and it really is good enough for the great majority of the applications that I use it for, so while the Df may be overpriced and have a couple of shortcomings, it is hard for me to understand why merely the fact that it doesn't use a higher resolution sensor is marketing nonsense. It is clearly not meant to replace the D800, or any other camera in Nikon's line-up, and not meant for professional use. I see the Df as a final attempt to convince those who are <em>still </em>using 35mm film SLRs to finally convert to digital, or maybe as a lightweight travel camera for those who do not want to lug their heavier cameras around all the time and do not yet have something else for this purpose. I can't see the Df as a clear upgrade from any current or recently discontinued Nikon DSLR.</p>

<p>To BeBu Lamar, if you find cameras such as the FM and F3 are easy to hold, ergonomics clearly means nothing to you. I still own the FE that I bought back in 1978; it is sitting right next to me as I am typing.</p>

<p>Oliver, having 24MP on the entry-level D3200 is certainly marketing nonsense, so is having 41MP (or whatever) on some mobile phone camera, and not many people can take advantage of 36MP from the D800. Those are still true as always. However, my point is that in the last few years, Nikon themselves were telling us that having 24MP and then 36MP was important, and they were charging us extra for more pixels. (In fact, just last month Sony announced very similar A7 and A7R cameras, but they also charge considerably more for 36MP vs. 24.) Now the same people are all of a sudden stressing the the advantage of having fewer pixels, e.g., 16MP. The is definitely talking from both sides of their mouths. All of the above is simply marketing nonsense.</p>

<p> </p>

BeBu: I find all of my D700, D800 and F5 to be very solid in my grip. I guess we're all different! (There's

probably room for a line in accessory grips that are custom molded to the hand...)

 

Oliver: Putting 24MP costs very little, gives a marketing point over Canon, and might give the chance to

crop rather than buying a longer lens (which might matter for the budget-conscious D3200 owner - at

least those shooting at an optimal aperture in good light). Do most users need it most of the time? No, but

since it costs little to provide, Nikon are offering a small amount of extra functionality when needed.

Besides, they have to compete with compacts and phones with sensors around 20MP.

 

If the D800 cost the same as the D700, I'm sure Shun would have advised differently. With the Df, it just

seems odd not to have offered a sensor better suited to the slow and methodical shooting that the Df

promotes. There are some advantages to the D4 sensor, it's just that I wouldn't normally associate them

with the style of shooting that Nikon seems to advertise - the Df seems better suited to landscapes,

portraits and street shooting than the press crush or dimly-lit rooms. Perhaps that's just my impression of

the ergonomics. A consumer D4 sensor makes sense (and it's easier to explain megapixels are not the

only factor in image quality as the sensor grows), but I feel the only reason it's in THIS camera is that

Nikon can only make so many cameras.

 

As you say, it does a fine job of not taking sales from any other Nikon. I'm not sure that concern is the

most important factor in maintaining Nikon's profits or keeping customers happy, but it seems to have

been here. By trying to fill all the holes - and avoid repeating functionality - in their lineup with one camera,

I worry that Nikon may have filled none of them very well. But I'm coloured in part by the UK price, which

is a little more extreme than the US one (partly because you can't buy it without the 50mm f/1.8 here,

which seems mad to me - one lens vintage shooters will already have is a 50mm, I'd expect). The Df is a

lot of money for film shooters upgrading, with a sensor suited to film's weakest point (high ISO noise) and

little crossover with the strengths of a film camera.

 

That doesn't mean it won't sell, or that Nikon don't know what they're doing, just that some decisions in its

design surprised me. And in discussing it, I may learn something about the market and how people use

their cameras.