Retired - need recs. for good retirement camera - D7200 (?)

<blockquote>So I read yesterday from somewhere in internet that Nikon D3400 has wider dynamic range in base ISO than Nikon Df.</blockquote>

 

<p>So it must be true. :-) Actually, on this occasion, <a href="https://www.dxomark.com/Cameras/Compare/Side-by-side/Nikon-D3400-versus-Nikon-Df___1105_925">it is</a>. Of course, it gets a bit of a beating as the ISO rises.<br />

<br />

This is generally the behaviour of the sensors Nikon has used in its single-digit bodies (the Df sensor is the one from the D4, more or less); it's actually <i><a href="https://www.dxomark.com/Cameras/Compare/Side-by-side/Nikon-D5-versus-Nikon-Df-versus-Nikon-D3s___1062_925_628">better</a></i> than the D5's sensor at low ISO, which behaves a bit like the D700 and D3s (exceptional high-ISO performance but a roll-off in dynamic range at low ISO). This shouldn't matter to a sports journalist trying to get a JPEG in a hurry to send off to a press publication (although it's arguably a bit of an odd choice for the Df), but it's probably not the right set of characteristics for "fine art". It's also only 16MP.<br />

<br />

The D3400 does, however, <a href="https://www.dxomark.com/Cameras/Compare/Side-by-side/Nikon-D3400-versus-Nikon-D7200-versus-Nikon-D750___1105_1020_975">fall behind</a> the D7200 and D750 (although not by as much as one might think). While it's plenty light, you're losing a control dial compared with the D80 and D700 (which I'd find annoying even with a single-dial Eos 300D in my past; YMMV), you're getting a dimmer finder (than the D7x00 because it's a pentamirror rather than a pentaprism; than the D750 because it's additionally smaller), you're getting a much less capable autofocus system, you don't have metering with pre-AF lenses or autofocus with AF (not AF-S) lenses, and - if you do much post-processing work - you don't have a lossless or 14-bit raw option (you're on 12-bit lossy only). It's a very capable camera even so, but you're giving up a lot compared with the larger bodies. I'd not make that trade-off in Gene's place, but then I'm not Gene!</p>

Given the lenses that you have- go for the full-frame Nikon body. I bought the Df three years ago, it's as close to using an

F3 or FE2 as you can get with digital. Minimum use of menu selections.

 

Buying a camera today- I would look closely at the D750.

 

u43 is nice if you like to geek out over adapting lenses to a digital camera. Of course the crop factor is 2x, like sticking a 2x teleconvertor on everything.

 

I use a lot of non-Ai and some other adapted lenses on the Df, the ability to flip up the Ai coupling comes in handy. I use Nikon F-

Mount and Kodak Retina Reflex-S (Deckel mount) lenses with the Df. I also use the telephoto lenses made for the reflex housings for the Leica and Nikon RF mount.

While I wouldn't pick the Df (or a D4) for technical image

quality for "fine art", it's a perfectly decent camera if

you're after its handling characteristics (and it IS light for

an FX body). But I do want to challenge any suggestion

that the Df requires less menu usage than other DSLRs:

it doesn't.

 

Nothing the Df's dials let you set require use of the rear

LCD or menus on a conventional twin-dial Nikon - though

they do require that you look at the top LCD and/or the

information in the viewfinder rather than looking at the

position of dials. As I recall, there are some operations

that require menus on the Df but not other cameras -

toggling auto-ISO springs to mind. (These are generally

minor features, so this is me making a point, not a

criticism.)

 

It's true that the single dial cameras (D3x00/D5x00)

require more diving into menus; the dual-dial cameras

require more button press + dial operations, which some

people don't find comfortable or easy, but not menus for

most operations. The distinction is whether you have to

take your eye from the finder to change a setting - and

the dial positions on the Df arguably make it harder to

change at least some settings with the eye to the finder

even with dedicated dials (in my opinion, more so than

should have been the case). Of course, I eventually

worked out this wasn't the point, and the Df's interface is

suited for configuring the camera BEFORE bringing it to

the eye. Choose your shooting style!

 

I do wish the flip-up aperture following tab was available

(at least as an option, like on the F5/6) on other DSLRs.

After using the Df for more than 3 years, all of the controls for ISO, exposure compensation, Shutter Speed, Aperture,

operating mode- do not require menu usage. I use the menu to format the SD card and have the front button set for lens

selection.<p>

 

You can setup the camera as you would an F3, using dials with numbers on them rather than thumb wheels, push buttons,

and menu readouts. That's the point of the camera.<p>

 

Anyone used to a Nikon F3 should be right at home with the Df. If you preferred the N70- you are right at home with most DSLRs.<p>

 

<img src="https://c6.staticflickr.com/9/8636/15672478053_7b14f71795_o.jpg" width="1024" height="597" alt="df_and_NikonF3_1"><p>

Brian: You can turn auto-ISO on/off without using the

menus on the Df? That's news to me and not obvious

from the manual. On (say) a D810 you can do this by

holding the ISO button and rotating the sub-command

dial. The Df has no ISO button and I believe this

functionality can't be mapped to a programmable button.

I believe changing white balance on the Df also fires up

the rear LCD whereas it's in on the top LCD of a D810 -

though I can't say I change white balance enough (as a

99% raw shooter) to remember what the finder indicates.

 

I'm nit-picking: I don't claim these particular bits of

functionality are critical (although I certainly toggle auto

ISO this way) and I'm not trying to criticise the Df (on this

occasion). I'm just aware that there seems to be a

perception that the Df requires less menu use than other

(high end) Nikons. It doesn't: ISO, exposure

compensation, aperture, shutter speed, exposure mode

and lens selection do not require menu usage on (say) a

D810 either. I'd argue that these controls are easier to

access on a D810 with the eye to the finder (you don't

have to take your right hand off the grip or use your left

hand at all), but I concede some may find them easier to

access on the Df when not holding the camera to the eye

- especially if you like setting shutter speed in whole

stops only and don't get on well with the top LCD as a

substitute for dedicated dials (you don't shoot in dim

conditions where the backlight is useful, the small

writing on the dials is easier for you than the larger but

more coarse text in the top LCD, etc.).

 

I don't suggest the Df is substantially more menu-prone

than the alternatives (while I don't agree with all of

Nikon's design decisions on the Df, they would have got

the philosophy for a traditional-style camera quite badly

wrong if this were the case), just that it's no better either,

in this respect. For the rest of the interface - some

clearly don't like the button-and-dial approach, so more

power to you if you find the Df preferable. Cameras like

the Fuji X100 series show there are people in this

category, and I'm not denying it.

 

I agree with your summary about familiarity of interfaces

- though honestly it's not that hard to adapt; I seem to be

able to use a Bessa R without trouble having been

brought up on DSLRs. Gene did say he already has a D80

and D700, so the Df would certainly be in interface

change for him - but it's not for me to say that's a bad

thing.

<p>As others have suggested,I would stick with FX. The D7200 is only 75g lighter than a D750. Incidentally, the 28-105 you already have is 25g lighter than the 16-80 DX and should perform well on 24Mp FX, but assume you want a wider range or VR if you're considering the 24-120 for FX.</p>

I don't use Auto-ISO on any of my cameras. One of the first things that I disable. I prefer making the decisions.

 

The Df does not need an ISO button: it has it on a dial, you can look down and see where you set the ISO. You can see

the shutter speed, aperture, F-Stop, shooting mode, exposure compensation- all like I'm used to.

 

After using Digital cameras since the DCS-200ir that was custom made for me, I have to say: after using Nikon SLR's for

40 years, the Df is the only DSLR that I really like to use.

Brian: I completely understand that the Df is the right

Nikon for you, and I'm not disputing that our trying to

persuade you otherwise - despite what some may recall

as my own doubts about the effectiveness of the Df

design and the time it took me to understand what the

designers were trying to achieve. Familiarity is an

important factor (even a switching of two buttons was

enough to make it hard for me to use a D800 and D700

simultaneously) and there ARE merits to the Df design

on its own grounds too, just as those who prefer

the F4 and those who prefer the F5 both have their

reasons. In other Nikons you can look down on the

top LCD and see, and set, the same information as you can with dials on the Df - which

interface is "better" is personal preference.

 

I wasn't attacking the Df. I just think that, even in this

"post-truth" world, it's worth pointing out for anyone

considering the Df that any suggestion that the Df

requires less menu use than other high end Nikons is

not factually correct. (You didn't explicitly say that, and I

apologise if I'm putting words in your mouth, but I [at

least] interpreted your statement as implying that this

was the case.)

 

Not that I expect this discussion to help Gene much - I'm

trying to clarify more for those considering the Df who

stumble across this thread and so that Brian knows why

I'm seeming argumentative!

 

Perhaps, since I already have one active(ish) thread

about future Nikon camera design and a "Df2" is

rumoured, this would be a good time to run an

equivalent thread on how people would like a Df

successor to work. With the goals as I understand them,

the Df is not quite what I would have designed. I hope

actual Df (and older film Nikon) owners, with a more

valid perspective than mine, will comment. I'll try to

create one soon.

<p>I'm kind of in your shoes, retired and my D7000 is getting a little gray. I've decided to go with a 2 pronged approach. A yr ago I got a Sony A6000 which is a blast. Small and sharp as a tack. And, I just bought a Nikon D750 FF and does just about everything well. </p>

<p>Yeah, like a couple of others, my creaky body and arthritic hands demanded I let go of bigger cameras and found relief, pleasure and wonderful image quality in the APS-C Sony system. The A6000 with a few lenses is so small and light it can be carried daily for prolonged periods without issue. With a small prime or kit zoom, it disappears into a jacket pocket. They are reasonably priced. The new A6500 adds touch-screen focusing and IBIS anti-shake to any lens you use. Older, adapted manual focus lenses focus well with a clear lens peaking feature. I also have the A7RII which while bigger and more expensive is full-frame yet still compact and light. Yes, the menu system takes some getting use to, yes, Sony doesn't have the remarkable lens catalog of Nikon. Yes, the newer models and top-tier lenses fetch premium prices, yet the system has brought me back into carrying a camera more and enjoying photography more. </p>

I'm reviving this thread from a year ago. Finally, after a zillion posts, decided to go with a D7500/16-80 for travel. Had considered all kinds of options - a 28-300, 24-120 for my D700, a DF and primes, etc. I'm 72, still hike, but I can no longer carry the backpack full of bodies and lenses. The 7500/16-80 is about as compact as I can go with good (for me) IQ. Liked the D7200 body a little better, particularly the strap loops, but the auto AF fine tune was the decider. Will wait for "Black Friday" to see if I can catch a deal on the combo. Already planning a Guatemala highlands trek for summer 2018. Might as well go out in style!

Thanks for reporting back to us! I'd actually missed that auto fine tune had made it to the D7500. I've generally considered it a downgrade compared with the D7200 because of the aperture following tab, second card slot and slight resolution difference, but I'll admit that auto fine tune is on my reasons for wanting to upgrade to a D850, so I can't fault your choice.

 

Best of luck with your travels, and I'm sure you'll enjoy the new camera.

I went with a D7200 + 18-140 lens as my "retirement" camera, replacing my old D70s (that died).

But as with FX, I found a similar problem with the D7200 + 18-140 . . . weight.

There are times I don't want to pull out the D7200, and will grab the smaller/lighter P&S. But the P&S was never satisfying to use, it was just convenient to carry.

 

So now I am looking at the even lighter D3400 + 18-55 as a "tweener" camera, when I don't want to haul out the D7200.

The D3400+18-55 is is a 40% weight reduction vs the D7200+18-140. 40% is enough weight reduction to make a difference.

 

I was NOT impressed by the higher end P&S cameras. Shutter lag is my biggest issue with P&S cameras.

The D3xxx family is nice and portable, and I found it quite nice for traveling, both because it's small and light, and because it's relatively inexpensive and thus not such a tragedy to break it or lose it. I moved up to a D7100 mostly for the viewfinder and the reduced noise, and prefer it for many reasons, but the little one makes good pictures and it's easy to use. Mine was very reliable, and the AF was spot on, and with luck so will yours be. Make sure you memorize all the buttons. The icons on mine wore off.

Occasionally I look at the now archived Nikon Coolpix A and wonder why it shouldn't have been possible to have made a decent DX mirrorless on the same chassis.

 

It seemed to have been designed by a photographer.....what went wrong?

what went wrong

A question only Nikon can answer - but maybe even they can't?

What went wrong with Series 1 and CX?

Why did Nikon give up on building a DX lens system? All they appear to have come up with quite regularly was yet-another-eighteen-to-something. Did they ever realize that 18mm isn't all that wide?

A question only Nikon can answer - but maybe even they can't?

What went wrong with Series 1 and CX?

Why did Nikon give up on building a DX lens system? All they appear to have come up with quite regularly was yet-another-eighteen-to-something. Did they ever realize that 18mm isn't all that wide?

 

Yes, I would love the lens to start at 16mm, similar to my 24mm on my film camera.

But as I recall, in the film days, many people could not deal with a lens wider than 28mm, because of the wide angle distortion/effect of the wider lens.

But as I recall, in the film days, many people could not deal with a lens wider than 28mm

I very much coveted the Nikon 25-50/4 that Nikon released back in 1979 but could not afford it. Probably one of the first, if not the first, zoom lens that went substantially wider than what was available in zooms at the time. Later I got the AF 24-50, which in turn got replaced by the 24-120 streetsweeper. But generally speaking, 28mm was indeed the low-end limit of zooms back then.

What went wrong with the CoolPix A was a combination of the Ricoh GR (which was roughly the same thing but substantially cheaper), the Fuji X100 (which is the same thing but with a more innovative interface, a faster lens and better ergonomics), and the RX100 series (which are much more portable and still have good image quality). Nikon priced it over $1000, in the same class as a prosumer DX body (possibly to protect their DSLR sales). I strongly suspect those wanting one as their primary body would take a long hard look at what cheaper DSLR kits could do before buying into a less flexible and only somewhat more portable system. Those wanting a portable back-up to their DSLRs had the same problem - I got an RX100 because it actually fits in my pocket, but even if I wanted something I could leave in a bag, the CoolPix A was twice the price I'd pay for what it did. Now they're on eBay for £250 I'm actually a lot more tempted, but how much one would give me over my RX100 is questionable.

 

Series 1, in my opinion, had similar problems. I have a V1, but only once the prices had tanked, and only for the 1200fps video mode. They were always very expensive for what they were, and much less portable than the Sony and Canon compacts with the same sensor size. AF only gets you so far (although Sony are trying again with the RX100 V). If you're going to make something smaller than a DSLR, make it fit in a pocket, otherwise there's no much point. My understanding is that the 1 series sold well in Japan, so I assume Nikon were a bit blind to how it was received elsewhere. They also made the classic mistake of offering lots of colour variations, which (as manufacturers of MP3 players found out) just annoys vendors who have to try to keep all the SKUs in stock, and don't have shelf space. But I hope Japanese ladies liked their hot pink J1s as much as Nikon management thought they would. Uniquely for the ILC bodies I own, I only have the kit lens for the V1, and I have no interest in anything else. I believe Thom Hogan considers the range to be more useful than most, but I'm not sold on it.

 

In DX, I've always believed that Nikon expect you to upgrade to FX if you want lens choice (at least, to FX lenses). Especially once the D3 came out and Nikon stopped considering DX to be "professional". This is one reason I keep arguing that Nikon should push an FX body as low in price as they can (presumably cutting features to do it) - then at least they don't have to worry about having a less-complete lens selection than either micro 4/3 or Fuji.

 

When and if Nikon have another go at mirrorless, I hope they realise they can't price themselves out of the market to protect DSLR sales. As Thom Hogan pointed out, the J1 had very few moving components and should have been very cheap to produce, but that wasn't how it was sold. The market is full of decent mirrorless options, DSLRs with a lot of lenses available, very capable compacts, and people who already have pretty good cameras on their phones. If they stick a minimal coolpix interface on the thing and charge D7500 money for it (or D610 money if it's FX), they'll have an up-hill struggle, especially if they don't give it the features to compete. (That means, at least, phase detect on sensor and 4K video.) I'd not put it beyond them to produce another Pentax K-01 and get derided for it. It's too easy for companies to be blinded by their popularity in their country of origin, especially where they're fairly dominant - I suspect Nikon has a lot of people who are really excited to be part of the legacy of the company, and who can forget that in other markets the brand name won't make up for an uncompetitive product. Or maybe I'm old and cynical.

 

I've always found 24mm to be useful (and I have a number of landscapes taken with a 28mm held diagonally so I could fit more horizon in). But then I'm not that much of a fan of the middle ground - my 24-70 is more often at one extreme or the other than in the middle. Cartier-Bresson is welcome to 50mm.