Should Nikon update Df?

As far as I am concerned, I still use and FM2N and an FMA3a along with my D40 and soon to be acquired D7200 (because they are cheap now, and also this model can take my small collection of high performing AIS/AI lenses). The cost of film is what is doing it for me long term - I now only do B&W in 35mm.

 

The last Df I saw in the my town in the UK was going for £1200 second hand in Exc++ condition. It was there one minute and gone the next. I want one because I'm not too interested in the technical performance or specs. I'd just like the thought of using a digital camera as I do an analogue one. I also think that the Df is quite handsome. Had I been able to afford it I would have got it over any other DSLR at the time because it would have been similar to what I have been doing taking pictures since the 1980's. I think that I would feel comfortable with it. Basically all I want to be able to do is just immerse myself in the picture taking process and create good pictures. The Df certainly seems capable of doing that as much as my D40/FM2N and FM3a.

 

The only other two things I would want are the f2 200mm AIS telephoto and I'd love to get my hands on one of those ED glass 300mm 4.5 non-IFs Ai's that everyone goes on about except me because I have not got one. There was one on eBay recently for over £900, so fat chance!

Actually, it was a bit too rich for me, under normal circumstances - three forces combined to push me forward: My Son's wedding in Summer '94, the fact that it would successfully use every Nikon lens I own, and a bit of a windfall in hours from a part time job - income from which went to the camera fund. Worth every penny. Good used can be around $1299 here.

I think Nikon missed the chance of releasing a "commemorative updated Df" for their 100th anniversary. It should have been clear to them that there is a photographer population who would value a DSLR optimized for the use of manual focus lenses and that allows a more easily use of pre-Ai (or non-Ai) lenses. So take the Df and lose the AF, and the P and S modes. Loose the two-dial configuration; the camera will only be usable with lenses that have an aperture ring. Add the old way of attaching and indexing non-Ai lenses (complete with the Nikon shuffle). Provide at least four exchangeable screens optimized for manual focusing and readily exchangeable (K, L, B, E). Use a modified sensor from the D4 or D5 that not only performs well at high ISO but has a good DR at base ISO. Make a limited production run (30K, 100K?). Sell the whole thing for $2500 (or $3K at most).

"commemorative updated Df"

With the exception of a Queen Elizabeth Silver Jubilee Mug I was gifted with, I have managed to avoid Commemorative items. Across several ranges of collectables which I participate in, they have been generally proven to be overpriced, and to hold value less well than excellent condition originals. I will admit there exceptions in the photography world. To me a commemorative DF would have just whispered "Sucker!" to me down all the years - in any case, I've never bought something with the intent to sell - I have made a good trade or two!

I had intended "commemorative" to be a descriptive term indicating the celebration of Nikon's past - the camera was very much intended to be a user model and not a shelf queen. I do see though that anything associated with the 100th anniversary would likely attract the collector rather than the user.

Are we up to "what should have been, what is, what might oughta be in another close dimension, what neverwas what will never be even there in the timewarp", as yet?

 

Point taken, but really the thread topic itself dwells in that fourth dimension: in the wake of Sony A7 revolution, Nikon will of course never update the Df now (nor offer any Leica-emulating dedicated retro MF DSLR). There WAS still a window, at the moment the Df became available, where Nikon COULD have reaped huge publicity rewards and even more loyalty by taking a chance on their own DSLR version of the Leica M9 trip, but they squandered it with the eventual Df: thats what still irks a subgroup of Nikon shooters. Nikon was uniquely positioned to pull it off: no other SLR mfr has the 60 year legacy lens line that would have been compatible, pre-AI thru AFD. Plus the burgeoning number of superb new third-party MF glass from Zeiss, Voightlander, Rokinon, Mitakon, etc.

 

Realistically, Nikon can be forgiven for chickening out at the last minute: the camera market had begun to tank in earnest. Canon was the darling of the press, with article after article predicting Nikon's imminent demise against Canon's bigger bankroll and profitable ancillary businesses that subsidized their photo gear (ala Fuji). If the radical "Digital FM" didn't sell well enough to recoup its costs, it could have been deadly, so Nikon blinked and added AF. In any case, the best time to do it would have been the heyday of the D3 and D700 when the DSLR market was red hot and would have supported such a novelty act- by 2013 it was already getting too late (for Nikon: everybody else has been doing fantastic with retro).

 

The Df we got is a fine camera in its own right. The D4 sensor is unique, and produces files unlike ordinary Nikons. The moderate16MP resolution is exactly what proponents of the vaporware "D700mkII" were dying for (once they decided to kill the Digital FM, the smart move would have been to revise it into the hotly anticipated D700mkII, but again Nikon blew the opportunity). The Df we have is a great camera for the people who can bond with its quirks and exploit it properly, But it is neither fish nor fowl: the retro touches are weirdly engineered, no Nikon enthusiast has ever been thrilled with the D600 AF, the focus screen situation is unhelpful for those who require MF optimization, and the original retail price was insanely astronomical for what amounts to a budget D600 with retro frippery and a D4 sensor grafted in. Those who love it , love it- and sincerely, good for them. At $1299 used, its certainly a LOT more plausible than it was at $2799 new. I seriously considered a black one I saw for $1400 some months ago, but thought better of it (given the mirrorless MF advantage with EVF, I think I'm better off selling my Sony A7II and waiting for a used Z6/Z7 to replace it).

Edited December 15, 2018 by orsetto

Point taken, but really the thread topic itself dwells in that fourth dimension: in the wake of Sony A7 revolution, Nikon will of course never update the Df now (nor offer any Leica-emulating dedicated retro MF DSLR). There WAS still a window, at the moment the Df became available, where Nikon COULD have reaped huge publicity rewards and even more loyalty by taking a chance on their own DSLR version of the Leica M9 trip, but they squandered it with the eventual Df: thats what still irks a subgroup of Nikon shooters. Nikon was uniquely positioned to pull it off: no other SLR mfr has the 60 year legacy lens line that would have been compatible, pre-AI thru AFD. Plus the burgeoning number of superb new third-party MF glass from Zeiss, Voightlander, Rokinon, Mitakon, etc.

 

Realistically, Nikon can be forgiven for chickening out at the last minute: the camera market had begun to tank in earnest. Canon was the darling of the press, with article after article predicting Nikon's imminent demise against Canon's bigger bankroll and profitable ancillary businesses that subsidized their photo gear (ala Fuji). If the radical "Digital FM" didn't sell well enough to recoup its costs, it could have been deadly, so Nikon blinked and added AF. In any case, the best time to do it would have been the heyday of the D3 and D700 when the DSLR market was red hot and would have supported such a novelty act- by 2013 it was already getting too late (for Nikon: everybody else has been doing fantastic with retro).

 

The Df we got is a fine camera in its own right. The D4 sensor is unique, and produces files unlike ordinary Nikons. The moderate16MP resolution is exactly what proponents of the vaporware "D700mkII" were dying for (once they decided to kill the Digital FM, the smart move would have been to revise it into the hotly anticipated D700mkII, but again Nikon blew the opportunity). The Df we have is a great camera for the people who can bond with its quirks and exploit it properly, But it is neither fish nor fowl: the retro touches are weirdly engineered, no Nikon enthusiast has ever been thrilled with the D600 AF, the focus screen situation is unhelpful for those who require MF optimization, and the original retail price was insanely astronomical for what amounts to a budget D600 with retro frippery and a D4 sensor grafted in. Those who love it , love it- and sincerely, good for them. At $1299 used, its certainly a LOT more plausible than it was at $2799 new. I seriously considered a black one I saw for $1400 some months ago, but thought better of it (given the mirrorless MF advantage with EVF, I think I'm better off selling my Sony A7II and waiting for a used Z6/Z7 to replace it).

 

Still you do not describe how the digital FM or the Nikon version of the Leica M9 should be. If you can't describe it they can't make it.

As described in my long-ass post on the previous page:

 

It would've had the standard Nikon DSLR multi-display at screen bottom and usual AE modes, in addition to AI-coupled metered manual exposure. Fold-away AI tab (like the original FM) for mounting safety and stop-down metering with pre-AIs. Decent-look retro body approximating the FM/FE, OVF w/ old-school (interchangeable) matte focus screen with split image, usual LCD preview screen and touchpad on the back, physical shutter dial and aperture setting via the lens ring. Didn't need to have the pricey bespoke D4 sensor: the standard D600 sensor would have been fine (heck, even a leftover stock of D3/D700 sensor would have worked). What the thing would really be in essence is a "Digital FA", nobody calls it that simply because nobody is nostalgic for the FA while everyone has a soft spot for the FM/FE. The phrase "Digital FM/FE" instantly conjures a concept for the long-term Nikon enthusiasts who crave such a body. It doesn't have to be a perfect clone of the old FM/FE: it could be slightly larger, like the F2/F3, have the standard HP round eyepiece, etc. Main differentiation point was leaving out AF to aid compactness and simplifying operation with manual lenses like legacy Nikkors or the newest Zeiss, Voightlander, Rokinon, Mitakon etc F-mount glass.

 

Nikon teased this for quite awhile on popular rumor sites, but then released the Df instead. The "disgruntled" enthusiast niche is founded on that (ultimately pointless) carnival barker tease: had Nikon hinted nothing, and simply dropped the Df as some random new model nobody particularly asked for, it wouldn't have got so much flack (aside from the ludicrous retail price, esp in UK). Measured against other DSLRs, and at the right price, the Df is uniquely suited to some photographers despite its somewhat clumsy execution: as with any other camera, you like what it offers or you don't. Measured against the teased "Digital FM", its a disappointment to those who were excited for that MF-dedicated concept. Most who wanted that have moved on to a Sony A7 series and adapters, eventually Nikon might recapture them with the Z series.

How would you "revise" your first perfect girlfriend? If you married her, she has absolutely updated you or left. As moot a question, and about as reasonable Vaporware, vapor cameras, ad infinitum!

As described in my long-ass post on the previous page:

 

It would've had the standard Nikon DSLR multi-display at screen bottom and usual AE modes, in addition to AI-coupled metered manual exposure. Fold-away AI tab (like the original FM) for mounting safety and stop-down metering with pre-AIs. Decent-look retro body approximating the FM/FE, OVF w/ old-school (interchangeable) matte focus screen with split image, usual LCD preview screen and touchpad on the back, physical shutter dial and aperture setting via the lens ring. Didn't need to have the pricey bespoke D4 sensor: the standard D600 sensor would have been fine (heck, even a leftover stock of D3/D700 sensor would have worked). What the thing would really be in essence is a "Digital FA", nobody calls it that simply because nobody is nostalgic for the FA while everyone has a soft spot for the FM/FE. The phrase "Digital FM/FE" instantly conjures a concept for the long-term Nikon enthusiasts who crave such a body. It doesn't have to be a perfect clone of the old FM/FE: it could be slightly larger, like the F2/F3, have the standard HP round eyepiece, etc. Main differentiation point was leaving out AF to aid compactness and simplifying operation with manual lenses like legacy Nikkors or the newest Zeiss, Voightlander, Rokinon, Mitakon etc F-mount glass.

 

Nikon teased this for quite awhile on popular rumor sites, but then released the Df instead. The "disgruntled" enthusiast niche is founded on that (ultimately pointless) carnival barker tease: had Nikon hinted nothing, and simply dropped the Df as some random new model nobody particularly asked for, it wouldn't have got so much flack (aside from the ludicrous retail price, esp in UK). Measured against other DSLRs, and at the right price, the Df is uniquely suited to some photographers despite its somewhat clumsy execution: as with any other camera, you like what it offers or you don't. Measured against the teased "Digital FM", its a disappointment to those who were excited for that MF-dedicated concept. Most who wanted that have moved on to a Sony A7 series and adapters, eventually Nikon might recapture them with the Z series.

 

That would be an improvement over the current Df but are you willing to pay $3000 or more. It has to be more expensive because the number of units sold will be less so the development and tooling cost will have to be shared with few units.

The Df originally cost close to $3K, and bombed because it really didn't offer anything to justify that price vs other Nikons (for most photographers). The "Digital FM" would have had way more takers at that price or even higher at the time, drawn by its specialized design.

 

But as Sandy_Vongries keeps (rationally) noting: that ship has sailed, the point is moot, the Digital FM was never and will never be made. Monty Python would refer to it as an "ex-parrot". OVF is dead and buried and has no future in manual focus handheld photography: its been replaced by EVF mirrorless (which should at least make it cheaper to build and sell niche models like the Df in the long run).

At the time, the FM was a sensation

 

- No. I was there. It was a budget, no-frills Nikon for the masses, or a backup camera for pros. Feeling tinny, decidedly underpowered and built down to a price compared to its properly professional F2 stablemate.

 

It didn't even compete with the likes of a Spotmatic in feel or function, but it had 'Nikon' on the pentaprism, which was its only selling point. If not for the Nikon name, people would have ignored it in droves.

 

Plus it offered a cheap(ish) way to use pre-AI lenses, that at the time were cluttering the 'pre-owned' shelves of camera shops everywhere at bargain prices. Lenses that, quite rightly, had been abandoned as unfit for purpose by their professional or discerning former owners.

 

Being hewn out of solid brass and built to outlast the apocalypse didn't make the optics any better, or the crude coatings any less prone to flare.

From the very beginning, if you ask 10 people, there maybe 11, 12 different opinions about what this "Digital FM" or what the Df should be. As usual, there is simply no way to please everybody since there are conflicting needs and expectations. Any Df, or in fact any camera body, is going to involve a lot of compromises, and there are a lot of armchair camera designers who are quick to criticize whatever Nikon and others come up with. There is no doubt that any "Df2" design will suffer the same fate. Since this is such a small, niche market, I have little doubt that Nikon cannot afford to introduce another money loser.

 

For the record, Nikon USA was kind enough to loan me a Df for a couple of months back in 2014 and I wrote the review for photo.net back then. However, it is not my kind of camera so that I never bought one. I prefer the fastest AF, high frame rate, modern controls, and a ergonomic grip that fills my palm.

From the very beginning, if you ask 10 people, there maybe 11, 12 different opinions about what this "Digital FM" or what the Df should be. As usual, there is simply no way to please everybody since there are conflicting needs and expectations. Any Df, or in fact any camera body, is going to involve a lot of compromises, and there are a lot of armchair camera designers who are quick to criticize whatever Nikon and others come up with. There is no doubt that any "Df2" design will suffer the same fate. Since this is such a small, niche market, I have little doubt that Nikon cannot afford to introduce another money loser.

 

For the record, Nikon USA was kind enough to loan me a Df for a couple of months back in 2014 and I wrote the review for photo.net back then. However, it is not my kind of camera so that I never bought one. I prefer the fastest AF, high frame rate, modern controls, and a ergonomic grip that fills my palm.

 

And that's why I said the Df was really the best Nikon can do and I knew that when it came out. And the price was what I expected. For the people who said the $3000 price was too high, no manufacturer can make their "Digital FM" for them for less.

Nikon missed the boat in 2014 by hacking together a low-functioning, high-priced brick. Zero innovation. Recall seeing the ridiculous “panda” black and silver model that looked more like something from Lego than Nikon. Fujifilm, however, dug deeper and paid for a breakthrough design with the jewel-like X-T1. Even if Nikon tried to morph a digital FM/FE from the Z6-7 parts bins, they’d still be playing catch-up.

Nikon missed the boat in 2014 by hacking

And you own one that you've used heavily? Or just trolling. :D

In my head. I'm just trying to be like Galen Rowell so the Df is right up my street. I do not do sports with MF my cameras - the D40 can do that quite well as the well focussed and exposed shots of my son playing mini rugby will testify. As for focussing its usually hyperfocal at f8-f11 for me with the odd filter attached. Nikon had a go at retro and good for them. What did for them was the earthquake - not their products in my view. As I said, second hand is my way of getting one in the long run.

 

I think what may have also put paid to it is how easy it is to do colour photography these days. Even the cheaper models like my D40 and its successors make it as easy as falling off a log. Once you've seen what the cheaper SLRs can do, paying top whack for a Df seems rather silly. Old and new alike like cameras that are cheap and deal with the complexities of exposure etc., leaving us to focus on composition. But that is maybe everyone else - not me. That is why I'm trying to whack some B&W film through my Nikons before I get too old.

 

Mirrorless? Not interested at all because as a hobbyist I don't need the competitive do or die features that the mirrorless stampeed offers. If I was a pro and earning money things might well be different. So I am not denigrating progress or those who welcome it - it's just not for me. I mean, I'd like an F6 for goodness sake!!

second hand is my way of getting one in the long run.

And they are coming down substantially in price - was just checking today. Some under $1,300 U.S. So far, everything I've bought used over a good few years has been excellent.

Nikon missed the boat in 2014 by hacking together a low-functioning, high-priced brick. Zero innovation. Recall seeing the ridiculous “panda” black and silver model that looked more like something from Lego than Nikon. Fujifilm, however, dug deeper and paid for a breakthrough design with the jewel-like X-T1. Even if Nikon tried to morph a digital FM/FE from the Z6-7 parts bins, they’d still be playing catch-up.

I know you want a mirrorless! But if Nikon made the Df mirrorless I woudn't own one.

And you own one that you've used heavily? Or just trolling. :D

 

And you? Baby sat a friend's for a month 2 years ago. Expected image quality but weird ergonomics that followed from the flawed design. Liked the flip-up Ai tab--something Nikon felt obliged to include with the faux retro look. BTW since when was displeasure with a product regarded as trolling? Just asking...

Had it since June '14 - first camera I reach for.

when was displeasure with a product regarded as trolling?

Language usage tells the tale, IMO. No prob - I like it, you don't.

Put me down as a happy Df user. When the camera was announced in the fall of 2013 I thought, finally, Nikon has made the camera I've been waiting for. I bought a black version when it became available and I've been thrilled with it since.

 

With a few chipped Voigtlander primes — the 20mm f/3.5, 28mm f/2.8 and 40mm f/2 — and a 105mm f/2.5 or 105mm f/4 Micro-Nikkor or 75-150mm f/3.5 e-series zoom (of which I select one lens based on expected use) I have a wonderful smallish, light-weight full-frame DSLR.

 

That it looks like a camera should is, of course, an added bonus.

 

I'd be very interested in a DF II, but I strongly suspect the DF was a one-off.

 

Joe

 

P.S. It's a great camera for catography, though admittedly I used one of them thar new Nikons on it — Curious cat

Edited December 16, 2018 by joe_petrik

Bang for your buck is a D600. Same specs as a D750, a bit slower auto focus.

 

DF, really a fondlers cam, for folks who want a digital sort of like a film camera..".sort of" being the operative word..

 

Nothing wrong with that. Your money spend it where you want.

Liked the flip-up Ai tab--something Nikon felt obliged to include with the faux retro look

 

Having not owned one but having been close to buying one, are you bothered in principle by the mere inclusion of the flip-up AI tab or by the execution?

 

I'm annoyed by the execution-Nikon has been putting flip up tabs on cameras since 1977, and the Df is the only one that doesn't lock in the down position. I use cameras with flip up AI tabs regularly, including my much-beloved pair of F4s, and I'm glad it's there when I need it.

 

Despite the annoyance of it flipping up when you don't want it to, I'm glad that the ability is there so it will take pre-AI lenses without conversion. Despite my dislike of some of its other ergonomic "features" I still will likely one day own one(and those who have seen me around the Nikon forum probably know how reliable my "one will will own one" predictions generally are). In fact, I started a thread debating between a Df, D3s, and D4 a while back, and someone commented that for me it was probably a matter of which one I would buy first(the D3s won after I dallied too long on the 20K shot, near perfect black $1195 Df at the local store).

Jumping in from the side; I don't have Nikon heritage stuff and don't get along with their current DSLR menu systems.

As far as I am understanding the entire discussion:

Nikon don't have an abundance of R&D resources and maybe lack golden touch with their heritage glass integrating & retro vibes generating DSLR design.

Why not leave the chore to 3rd parties? Cosina and AFAIK also some USSR based company made f-mount cameras back in film days. Cosina also made the (back then) appealing Epson R-D1, so they might be capable of catering manual F-mount.

As I am seeing things: The Df, trying to be an FE-D, is the least grateful for updates* market segment for Nikon; they won't sell new lenses for it and unlike the D3#00 series it doesn't have an unlimited customer base.

We could ponder if a Ds made more sense to produce. Basically the situation for it is even better than it was for the original Ss; There are just Leica to compete with and if Nikon get going again they 'll most likely offer more bang for the buck since they could toss in superior sensors, processors etc. And they'd benefit from a chance to sell lenses.

 

Since DSLRs aren't exactly trending these days I suppose the next trial to build a retro vibes camera will be a Zf kind of competing with X-T#

 

*= Looking at myself I think retro camera customers are less eager to upgrade than the "modern" crowd. A retro body is fun to shoot but is it really tempting to build a full system (3 bodies 4+x lenses...) based upon these? - I guess who shoots wild enough to need such most likely branched out into other body categories or systems by now.

 

Who might be left awaiting some digital manual SLR? - I understand folks who stuck to their F2/3s until the 6MP DSLRs arrived. - But that was a while ago. Maybe they are sticking to film forever, switched to MILCs & adapters or gave up SLR shooting due to age or bit the bullet and switched to modern DSLRs in between?