Should Nikon update Df?

There was a digital FE2 in early 2014: the Fuji X-T1.

Yes, if you're gonna be logical: compact ground-up new camera, dedicated small fast sharp AF primes. Fuji has its eye on the ball, and rarely falters (witness their new GFX-50R medium-format "supersized XT1", which is about to nail the coffin shut on Hasselblad).

But we're not talking logic: we're talking a bunch of rapidly-aging film-era Nikon enthusiasts who would love to occasionally take a break from their mainstream DSLRs and kick back with a small genuine-Nikon retro compact OVF body that AI-couples to their small 35mm f/1.4 etc MF lenses. Basically a premium D40 sized body with FX sensor, manual shutter knob/aperture ring control, and AI feeler crammed into it (minus the AF if necessary). Will never happen for ROI reasons, but doesn't stop us from wanting it. Nikon's biggest problem with the Df is they teased the pie-in-the-sky digital FE2 first, then bait-and-switched. Had they just launched the Df as its own original thing without the impossible-dream baggage, it would have been received better.

how is the Df for manual focusing lenses compared to, say, the D850 or an F3?

Can't compare to the D 850 as I have never handled one, never mind used one - vs. the F3 (of course you don't have access to the various focusing screens), but with the DF set to manual, the process is the same. I don't find it hard to focus the DF with just the screen, but the focus indicator also works with all the older lenses I have, including the very old 35mm 3.5 PC I just obtained.

Ah, I wondered whether it had user changable screens.

Manually focusing long teles is hard on my D810. Green AF confirm spot only just accurate enough.

Maybe the Df2 will...:-)

I really like the idea of a Df as a second body. While I am not a fan of its low resolution as an only camera, its combination of small file size and low light capabilities does make perfect sense as a second camera. Its AF is adequate and I am confident it would encourage me to use older manual focus lenses more.

Having said that, a Df2 would lower the prices on used Dfs.:)

Never having even seen one properly, let alone used one, how is the Df for manual focusing lenses compared to, say, the D850 or an F3?

Manually focusing long teles is hard on my D810. Green AF confirm spot only just accurate enough.

It isn't as "good" as an F3, F2, FM, FE or other film-era body: no DSLR is, because the screen technology (and magnification) is markedly different. When I borrow my friend's Df, I don't see any advantage vs her D810 or my D700/D600 in terms of manual focus feel or accuracy. They're all about the same as far as screen contrast, snap, and green-arrow utility. Consensus of Df owners posting to various forums seems to be the Df screen is very slightly more optimized for manual focusing vs other FX Nikons, but there could be unconscious bias behind that (I paid $2799 for a retro body shown in marketing materials with pre-AI lenses attached, so it must have SOME manual focus advantage). The Df does use the nicer round "F3HP" eyepiece that is usually limited to the "pro" Nikons, so if one is coming from a D600 or D750 that could be a subtle improvement (esp for eyeglass wearers).

The least Nikon could have done to truly differentiate the Df as a manual-focus beast was offer optional screens, even if the screens had to be changed at a service center. All anyone really wants is what was available for the FM2/FE2: true old-school matte surface with either the cliche "K" split/micro focusing donut or "E" uncluttered matte with checkerboard grid lines. Unfortunately, screens with traditional manual focus aids wreak havoc with the matrix exposure meters in modern cameras. Nikon is loathe to get stuck supporting the inevitable army of newbs crying because their optional focus screen forces them to learn more about exposure and when to randomly over-ride the auto settings. This could be avoided by giving the Df-2 a traditional simple centerweighted meter system, but then they'd get complaints about that instead. Its a no-win for Nikon: as long as the Df includes AF, it cannot be truly great for MF. The required optimizations for AF/AE and MF are mutually exclusive.

With mirrorless finally a serious priority at Nikon and Canon, chances of us ever getting a body with MF-optimized OVF screens are now less than zero. For better and worse, the EVF (and clunky half-assed mount adapters) has been enshrined as the magic bullet for manual focus lenses.

Unfortunately, screens with traditional manual focus aids wreak havoc with the matrix exposure meters in modern cameras

I'm not doubting you, but this also isn't something I've heard before.

Nikon's first matrix metering camera, the FA, came a K screen standard and I think worked with any screen that would fit an FE2(don't hold me to that).

The F4, F5, and F6 all support interchangeable screens, and I know at least that K screens are available for the F4 and F5(I haven't researched that on the F6). Heck, when I bought my F5 it even came with an L screen-I ended up fitting the standard screen, but considering that genuine F5 L screens are in the hen's teeth category, I'm also not getting rid of it.

The FA of course has a fairly "primitive" 5 segment matrix meter, and I think the F4 is similar(I also seem to recall that F3 screens can fit, although without the focus area indication, and of course one might have to dial in compensation depending on the screen. The F5 made a big deal about having a 1005 pixel color 3D meter, and I'd GUESS that they wouldn't have offered optional screens if it messed up the metering that much. Of course, the F5 doesn't do matrix metering with non-CPU lenses, although the F4 and F6 both do.

An update of a 'retro' camera -

Let me think about that for a minute.

The old F Photomic TN took interchangeable screens as did every other F series Film camera up to and including F6. There were rumors of people changing screens in Nikon DSLRS, but I don't believe it ever worked well, and was expensive.

Edit - the F Photomic TN is my oldest model - the screens were probably in the F, F Photomic and F Photomic T as well.

That is why the Df's successor should be a Z body.

Too much invested in great lenses, old and new, as well as other equipment Z is just not a viable choice for me (and likely quite a lot of others!)..

The old F Photomic TN took interchangeable screens as did every other F series Film camera up to and including F6. There were rumors of people changing screens in Nikon DSLRS, but I don't believe it ever worked well, and was expensive.

The single digit D cameras have readily interchangeable screens at least up to the D3s(I don't have a D4 or D5 to look at), although I'm not sure what's available for the more recent cameras.

The D1 takes the same screens as the F100. A quick search shows that the E screen is reasonably available, but that seems to be the only common one. That does make some sense as the at least up through the D3s, you can't get on-demand grid lines like on lower end cameras.

Sandy, the Z6, even with the FTZ adapter, is still considerably cheaper than the Df when you compare new prices. If you can wait another year or two, I would imagine any used Z6 or Z7 will be in deep discount, especially after new models are available. (That is partly why I bought a Z6 instead of Z7. For one thing 24MP is plenty, and the depreciation on the Z6 is far more limited.)

But again, while clearly plenty of people don't mind, I don't like adapters.

The single digit D cameras have readily interchangeable screens at least up to the D3s(I don't have a D4 or D5 to look at), although I'm not sure what's available for the more recent cameras.

The focusing screen on both the D4 and D5 are user interchangeable. I know that very well because once I took one out to clean and had a hard time putting it back in. :( The viewfinder hasn't been interchangeable since the F5. (The F5 is the last with interchangeable finders.)

I'm not doubting you, but this also isn't something I've heard before.

If you search the topic "split image screen for DSLR" you should get some hits re the metering "black hole" triggered by the split image.The issue was discussed in many threads here and elsewhere, peaking from 2007 thru 2013. It kind of petered out after the one-two punch of Katz Eye going defunct, and the Df debuting with no optional screen facility. The Katz Eye staff (and I believe Rick Oleson and FocusingScreens.com) sold/sell their third-party split image focus screens with cautions of metering dysfunction, esp in Nikon DSLRs.

The meter systems in the DSLRs are apparently much more finicky than than the meters in Nikon film bodies: they are calibrated specifically to the standard DSLR screen. They really REALLY do not like the light transmission alterations caused by split image and/or microprism focus aids, or the darker old-school matte. Depending on the camera model and specific example of that camera, I've read reports of anything from "it works fine" to "my meter is now completely useless" (plus a lot of unpredictable behavior, with meter accuracy pinballing from shot to shot).

I'd always planned to get the Katz Eye split image screen once I bought a D700, feeling the tradeoff of manual focus accuracy vs potentially erratic meter was worth it. But by the time I picked up a nice used D700 the price of the Katz Eye + installation/calibration had shot up to half the cost of the body. That gave me pause, and in the time it took me to mull it over Katz Eye shut down (in the rare event one of those screens turns up on eBay, people are now asking $300-$400- insane). I manage tolerably well with the standard D700 screen, but with some lenses like the 28mm f/2 AIS even the green arrow rangefinder isn't accurate enough. The D600 is more difficult, and I wouldn't dare on a D800-810-850 (the higher resolution would ruthlessly expose small focus errors). I have no manual focus problems with the same lenses bolted to a Sony A7II, but thats a very different experience (as Sandy Vongries noted). Adapters are a kludge, even Nikon's own FTZ.

If you search the topic "split image screen for DSLR" you should get some hits re the metering "black hole" triggered by the split image.The issue was discussed in many threads here and elsewhere, peaking from 2007 thru 2013. It kind of petered out after the one-two punch of Katz Eye going defunct, and the Df debuting with no optional screen facility. The Katz Eye staff (and I believe Rick Oleson and FocusingScreens.com) sold/sell their third-party split image focus screens with cautions of metering dysfunction, esp in Nikon DSLRs.

Thanks-that's a period where I wasn't really active much here, so I guess I missed out on those discussions.

I forget about the 3rd party options for 35mm cameras also. I've bought a few screens from Rick Oleson over the years-he lives fairly close to me, although we've never met up in person. My Rolleicord Va and Hasselblad 500c both have screens sourced from him(the former bought sometime in 2007 and a split image, the latter bought earlier this year and his newer "brite screen" style with a microprism), but I don't recall him ever making 35mm/digital screens. I could be wrong...he use to post here, but I haven't seen him in ages.

In any case, when I passed on the absolutely beautiful, near new $1200 Df locally, I think that the availability of a split image screen(I'd actually prefer an L screen, but even a K) might have swayed me just a bit more.

BTW, for critical applications, even with AF lenses, I've found that I tend to do better on my D800 putting it in magnified live view mode for manual focus.

Since switching to Nikon for 35mm-sized photography, one of the things I've found myself really missing was the software package that shipped with my Rebel XS. The Canon software would allow me to tether my camera to the computer and see live view on the computer screen. I could then manually focus from the software using the lens focus motor to rack the lens in and out. Since I could make VERY tiny and precise movements and was looking at a 100% view on a computer screen, I found that I could nail focus consistently even working near 1:1, although it was slow. That was before I used strobes to do my macro work, which meant that I was on a tripod and had fairly long exposures even at modest apertures(I didn't want to crank up the ISO since I was never super happy with that camera over ~800 and long shutter speeds weren't really an issue)-having the mirror up and shutter open, along with controlling it entirely from a computer for the entire session, meant that didn't have to worry about vibration.

In any case, I digress. I've never gotten a firm answer as to whether Nikon Capture 2 will work the same way with my Nikon DSLRs, and considering that there's no trial or anything of the sort on an expensive piece of software, I haven't really explored it. Instead, I just took total control of the lighting and found that as a consequence I could hand hold many photos(although approaching and beyond 1:1, I still need a tripod even with strobes since there's so little depth of field that even though SOMETHING will be in focus, it may not be what I wanted).

software package that shipped with my Rebel XS. The Canon software would allow me to tether my camera to the computer

Yup, Canon provided it for free.

Nikon has Camera Control Pro 2 for ~ £150! ...and it's UI is horrid.

Control My Nikon 5 for $40 with lifetime support is wonderfully featured. Focus Stacking, timelapse etc etc...

I was (am?) a top potential customer for a Df concept, having started with an FM in the late 70, and still having too many manual focus Nikkors. Bill at the closest brick and mortar called me when they got a Df in, I enthusiastically drove 25 miles to check it out , but was disappointed the moment it came out of the box. My initial impression was that the proportions were just all wrong. Couple that with basically the same "less than ideal" optical focusing screen as other DSLRs, a less good AF system than the D700 I had at the time, and the less well implemented "2 wheel" Nikon interface, it was easy for me to pass. I may still get one someday if they get inexpensive enough, I like the results I have gotten from a D4, but would probably just get a D4 if price is about the same. I guess I am largely in agreement with the thoughts Orsetto has written in this thread.

For the moment, a gen 1 Sony A7 serves as my manual focus lens camera. I have given up with trying to use current Nikon DSLRs with manual focus lenses. I have a bag with a crazy mix of Contax, Leica, and Nikon RF lenses and the very good Sony 28/2AF. that I take when travelling and don't anticipate anything other than casual photo opportunities. I will probably replace the Sony (awkward and balky interface, enough so to keep me from switching systems!) with a Z at some point (no rush) since the pair of D810's I have are good enough for when I am serious about shooting.

While I don't find the Z unattractive, it could have looked better, FWIW.

I kinda assumed the Df was designed to be a bit old skool, for those experienced shooters from the days of film SLRs who wanted something more hands-on?

Very good MF at the cost of iffy Matrix Metering? An 'old' pro would be used to Spot Metering, and recompose if necessary...:D

Get used to focus peaking and EVF

How do you find the focus peaking on the Z6 with manual lenses? Fast, accurate, intuitive etc....I'm guessing you've tried a few by now...;)

So, if you're close to, say, a life size sculpture, you can see the wobbly 'In Focus' lines move over the profiles as you change focus, or lean closer/further away?

How does it work with regard to aperture? Does the Z6 show the wide-open view so you see the narrow DoF zone of the 1.4 and if you want to see the effect of smaller apertures, you stopdown somehow.?