Should Nikon update Df?

Thanks for explaining, BeBu. I can see unexpected dynamic shutter speed changes being annoying. I usually shoot in manual with auto ISO to avoid this, but I should shoot in aperture priority more than I do, so I'm sympathetic. Feels like a broken image either way, but I take your concern. I'd like it as an option, but get that the expensive solutions for reading the aperture mechanically or optically are "better".

 

I get the 1/3 dial concern - so does Nikon, which is why you have the 1, 1/2, 1/3 option on current bodies. I was assuming with the readout on the dial that this would still be an option. You could even have something like "mouse acceleration", but that would possibly be confusing.

 

ISO: fair enough.

 

You find a plain screen accurate enough with fast lenses?

 

On excess functions: I basically never change the jpeg settings, but I see that some might need them. Would you accept video mode as a subsidy to your camera (because those wanting video would buy it) if it didn't get in the way of your camera use? On my D8x0 bodies, the movie rec button is the ISO or mode button way more than it's used for video...

Is plain screen accurate enough with fast lenses? I don't know. I have been doing it since 1977. My fastest lenses is 50mm f/1.4 and 85 f/2. I almost never use aperture larger than f/5.6 as I almost always want more DOF rather than less.

As for the multi turn shutter speed dial I am still not sure. I found that with the F5 I tried to turn the wheel fast I tend to overshoot and have to turn it back the other way. I may run into the same problem with the multi turn dial. Besides the full stop shutter speed doesn't bother me. I do fine adjustment of exposure via the aperture ring in between stop. The DOF doesn't change much for 1/3 stop.

If I remember correctly, besides the FA, the F4 also has this capability so that one can use shutter priority or the program mode with AI but non-AI-S lenses. However, no other Nikon SLR body has that feature besides the FA and F4.

The F4 is among my most used film cameras.

Non-CPU lenses only function in A and M modes-it's completely illogical to me as to why AI-s lenses don't work considering that the camera can detect when an AI-s lens is mounted.

Aside from the FA, the FG, N2000, and N2020 give full program exposure with manual focus lenses. I think that the FA is the only fully multi-mode camera out of this bunch.

Of course, the FA and F4 give full matrix metering with "real" AI and AI-s lenses-another complication of the mess.

Also, insomnia and late night ponderings can be dangerous combination-before reading the comments on here this morning on the 20mm f/4, I went to Ebay and ended up making a deal on a nearly unused example. I paid little enough for it that it shouldn't be out too much if I decide I hate it.

When shopping, though, I did look at several listings to make sure I was getting a real AI lens-again given my like of the F4, I wanted a real one(not a conversion) so that I could get matrix metering. Late pre-AI lenses with factory conversion rings can be difficult to tell apart from factory AI lenses.

On excess functions: I basically never change the jpeg settings, but I see that some might need them. Would you accept video mode as a subsidy to your camera (because those wanting video would buy it) if it didn't get in the way of your camera use? On my D8x0 bodies, the movie rec button is the ISO or mode button way more than it's used for video...

Video is of no concern to me, but I also don't understand the concern with excess features.

I never use program mode and rarely shutter priority(the latter really only out of necessity when using G lenses on the F4) or auto ISO. If that was a criteria for buying a camera, there would not be a camera I could buy-even the Df has those modes.

Like you, on my D800 the video record button serves a different purpose-on mine it lets me pick the crop mode(something that admittedly I never do after setting it up).

- Not my words. So please don't put quotation marks around what was never said in so many words.[...] It's not the best camera Nikon ever made. Get over it!

Nothing for me to get over: never claimed the FM to be the best camera ever. It isn't: its flawed, just like every other camera from Alpa to Hasselblad to Leica to Pentax to Zenit. I favor the F2AS and F2SB as my film Nikons, but have had decades use from the FMs as well. For a long time the FM2N was my go-to cam for sneaky NYC subway shooting, but that model proved to be problematic in terms of reliability. I replaced it with a much cheaper pair of used original FMs which weren't as feature-laden but also have never crapped out on me since 1994 (and they were already old then). They weren't built down to a price: they have the exact same feature set as my Nikkormats (in a smaller lighter motor-capable body with more modern meter and FAR more accurate viewfinder coverage). Nikon F series, Nikkormats, and FM derivatives all have their own advantages, but apparent build quality or heft doesn't always indicate long-term reliability (i.e. the plastic fantastic FG is surprisingly rugged, while the F2 shutter or film advance can kill you, and the F & Nikkormat meters are often dead/useless today). Horses for courses: sometimes I bail on my Nikons altogether and use Olympus OM1, Konica T3 or Pentax SP for 35mm film shooting (120 film finds me switching between Haselblad SLR or Mamiya TLR).

My apologies for paraphrasing your critical remarks on the FM and old Nikkors, I should have simply quoted you directly. This is what I was responding to, and it was really only in the thread context re Nikon misguidedly using FM and pre-AI lens nostalgia as pre-release bait for the Df. We all have our own respective opinions about the new or vintage gear that works for us (or doesn't): if we all agreed all the time, eBay and KEH would wither away.

- 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.

I do not want any extra functions on my camera that I don't use. I don't like having useless functions on anything I own.

I sometimes feel similarly, but considering the amount of features and functions a modern camera has, I'm not sure anyone uses more than a fraction of them. I definitely don't. Even a relatively simple camera would most likely have one or two functions that I don't use, but at the same time I may be missing some if the camera is too simple. It would be a very unlikely coincidence if anyone found a camera that had everything they needed and nothing more. Unless it's a custom made camera.

I sometimes feel similarly, but considering the amount of features and functions a modern camera has, I'm not sure anyone uses more than a fraction of them. I definitely don't. Even a relatively simple camera would most likely have one or two functions that I don't use, but at the same time I may be missing some if the camera is too simple. It would be a very unlikely coincidence if anyone found a camera that had everything they needed and nothing more. Unless it's a custom made camera.

What you said is true and of course there is none exactly like I or you want and I do buy cameras with extra features that I hate to have but that is because I can't afford the one without.

Ah where to start - no, I won't discuss the patronizing tone, the absolute assurance that what is important to you has equal importance or validity to others, to criticize a thing never having used it to a significant degree - also it comes down to your phrase -

Would someone care to explain to me how on any planet it's appropriate for a moderator to to bash another member for giving their opinion in such a public manner.

I don' read anything patronizing or anything of the sort in Andrew's post, and I'm disappointed that we have a moderator who is making his DISAGREEMENT with this member's post such a public issue.

Yes, I am a moderator - no I do not have to sit quietly at the implication that I and others who like and purchased a particular camera are rich idiots. Only human, sorry.

My entire goal as moderator is to help this site - any time admin wants me gone, no problem, and no coming back with a different name.

I think you're reading WAY too much into what was meant as a critique of a camera that you happen to own.

I did not read any implication of it being for "rich idiots" in Andrew's post. I don't agree with some of his suggestions for improvement, but then I'm sure others don't agree with me on many things.

As I've said, I would love to own a Df and have been close to buying one-but never have.

Oh dear. Sorry, gentlemen - I hope we can put it down to a misunderstanding? Sandy - I hope my apology/explanation has clarified that I'd certainly not meant to imply that anyone on this forum was a rich idiot, only that someone buying a camera that they know does not suit them (irrespective of whoever else it might suit) would be; I'd only brought that up because of the previous assertion in the thread that Df owners know the design best (true), with some implication that non-owners may be less qualified to comment (partly, I believe, false). Ben - thank you for the defence, but I have a thick skin, and I've been misunderstood plenty in the past so I'm not taking it too personally; let's say no more about it? I like reading what everyone here has to say, and don't want a misunderstanding, especially one I caused, grinding the gears. (I'm still worried that I accidentally forced Bjorn off the forum with a discussion about equivalence a few years ago, and don't want to rile anyone else!)

But back on topic, I'm interested in other improvement suggestions, or a critique of mine. :)

Oh dear. Sorry, gentlemen - I hope we can put it down to a misunderstanding? Sandy - I hope my apology/explanation has clarified that I'd certainly not meant to imply that anyone on this forum was a rich idiot, only that someone buying a camera that they know does not suit them (irrespective of whoever else it might suit) would be; I'd only brought that up because of the previous assertion in the thread that Df owners know the design best (true), with some implication that non-owners may be less qualified to comment (partly, I believe, false). Ben - thank you for the defence, but I have a thick skin, and I've been misunderstood plenty in the past so I'm not taking it too personally; let's say no more about it? I like reading what everyone here has to say, and don't want a misunderstanding, especially one I caused, grinding the gears. (I'm still worried that I accidentally forced Bjorn off the forum with a discussion about equivalence a few years ago, and don't want to rile anyone else!)

 

But back on topic, I'm interested in other improvement suggestions, or a critique of mine. :)

While I don't think I am but I would like to be Rich and Idiot. I would be a lot happier. As I said Nikon can not improve on the Df because the original Df is the best compromise they made in order to make money. To improve some people will love it and some will hate it. For me the improvement would be to make the camera much simpler, having far fewer features, shorter and thinner yet keeping it an SLR not mirrorless. I don't think Nikon can sell such a thing. And yet the price would be higher.

Well, I'm half way there, BeBu. :)

Andrew, I am half way there too. The problem is that while you are rich, the other half describes me very well. :rolleyes:

I wish, Shun! If only my finances reflected BeBu's opinion of them - I wonder if he's trying to get me burgled, which will be quite a disappointment to any felons... Just because I live near Windsor and have the surname Garrard doesn't mean I actually have access to the crown jewels.

Money can't buy happiness, but if I had any, it could at least buy cameras! I could say something moving and seasonal about capturing priceless memories - I've just been digging up very old, pre-Nikon for me, images of my cats. There's a saying "If I had all the money I've spent on drink, I'd spend it on drink" - it probably applies to cameras.

I aspire to be a wit. I'm half way there with that one, too.

I aspire to be a wit. I'm half way there with that one, too.

I kinda doubt you mean half-wit - or do you? :confused:

I kinda doubt you mean half-wit - or do you? :confused:

I do. My poor attempts at humour are failing this evening, which proves it. In my defence, I'm not feeling very well; hopefully next week I'll be better (both in health and competence) and can contribute to the last Nikon Wednesday of the season, to distract me from trying to be "funny".

At least I seem to have moved the conversation on!

So... What would actual Df owners like from a putative update? BeBu says shorter and simpler; we've heard no autofocus, and maybe (although personally I'm not sure about this because of the low ISO dynamic range) the D5 sensor. Anything else?

All I can say is that the Df is capable of making great images and that is what matters at the end of the day for any of us. I'm quite sure that if the Df was the last camera on earth everyone one of us on this blog are talented enough to get some good images out of it - of that I am certain.

BTW - the FM's viewfinder is far too dim for me which is why I chose the FM3a and an FM2N with an FM3a focussing screen in it.

Have a Cool Yule folks.

 

So... What would actual Df owners like from a putative update? BeBu says shorter and simpler; we've heard no autofocus, and maybe (although personally I'm not sure about this because of the low ISO dynamic range) the D5 sensor. Anything else?

As I said previously the improvement on the Df for me would be big steps backward for most so I don't expect Nikon to make it but here it goes.

1. Sensor: For the sensor (which I think on this point many would agree with me) I think something like the sensor from the Z7 would be fine. It performs well at ISO 1600 I think and for that it's good enough for all around low ISO performance. Frame rate 5fps with buffer size of RAW and JPEG of 36 frames.

2. Shorter and thinner. AF is a plus for me except it has 2 problems. First it may be the reason why Nikon has to make the Df taller from the bottom of the lens mount to the camera bottom plate. Perhaps because of the AF module? Second the overlay LCD on the focusing screen for the focus point indication makes the focusing screen doesn't work as well for manual focus. So I would accept no AF if it fixes these 2 problems. As for thinner (dimension from sensor plane to the back of the camera) I don't know how much this can be reduced? How much can it be less if the LCD panel is not there? When these 2 dimensions can be trimmed down the grip can be eliminated.

3. Interchangeable screen and viewfinder like that of the F3.

4. 1/3 stop aperture readout when the aperture ring is used.

5. Eliminate the mode dial by eliminate S and P mode so the shutter speed dial has the A setting for aperture priority mode.

6. Perhaps swap the ISO for EC. The EC dial is much easier to use than the ISO dial. I don't need the EC so I want to put the ISO dial where the EC is.

"would someone care to explain to me how on any planet it's appropriate for a moderator to to bash another member for giving their opinion in such a public manner" Andrew..

Yes, I would. Sandy offered a opinion, why would that be so upsetting to anyone?

Rich or poor camera choice is a individual choice! why would anyone feel the need to cascade someone for that.

Personally, I think the DF is cool camera really like the retro thing. Hey, remember,it is the bloke behind the camera that 18 inches....words of wisdom from Ansell Adams.

Really, the DF appeal is for folk who like a retro Nikon. Something different as opposed to the usual run of things. Variety, so it is said, is the spice of life.

Yes, it can be upgraded, but then why would Nikon do that. It is all about how many boxes are sold. That simple.

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.

The screens from the original Nikon F are fully interchangeable up through the last Nikon F2 bodies. The "F" type screen: large Microprism spot was discontinued early on, does not meter properly with TTL meters. I use it in my Nikon F Photomic "Bullseye". The frame on the F3 screen is different, I've never tried changing out the glass with an older screen- but they look the same. I have enough to find out. I've used the screens in the newer FE2 in my FE- fits perfectly, just remember to use exposure compensation to correct for the brighter screen. On the Df- I activated the electronic grid lines, making it an "E" screen- which I use in the F2AS.

I like the Df- I have my 10 most used lenses programmed into it, even use it with a Deckel adapter for my Kodak Retina lenses. Uncoupled metering is something I'm used to on the Photomic Bullseye. After setting up the camera when first bought, I use the Menu to format cards and the dials for just about everything else. Front button for selecting lenses.

On newer lenses- A friend asked me to test the newer Micro-Nikkor 105/2.8 ED VR lens, told me it just did not seem sharp on her D850. My AF-D 105/2.8 is better. Not just my test, but several others found online. The CA on the newer ED lens is more than the AF-D lenses that they replaced. All I can think of- the new 105 was designed when 12MPixel sensors were in the Nikon Flagship cameras. 16MPixels is fine for most every lens that Nikon makes. Nikon needs to update their lenses before updating their cameras.

My AF-D 105/2.8 is better. Not just my test, but several others found online. The CA on the newer ED lens is more than the AF-D lenses that they replaced

Nikon Micro lenses are a funny thing.

My 105mm f/2.8D is one of my more heavily used lenses, or at least in the studio. I don't OFTEN use it all the way to 1:1, but 1:4 is quite common for me and I prefer the working distance that a 105mm lens gives me over a 55mm(or 60mm).

I owned the 105mm f/2.8 VR, and I too found that it really didn't hold up both for macro work and for general use. I bought it with the intention of replacing my 105mm f/2.8D, but I ended up selling the relatively expensive newer chunk of glass instead.

With all of that said, I do occasionally work on bellows also, and I usually use a 55mm for that. When I do use the 105mm, though, the presence of an aperture ring is a BIG benefit since I actually have aperture control with the lens on the bellows and/or reversed.

BTW, I don't like the much-revered 55mm f/2.8 AI-s Micro lens either. As a normal lens that is occasionally focused close, it's probably a tiny bit better than the older 55mm f/3.5 AI(or even the late pre-AI lens, which I think is the same optically). When you start getting in the 1:2 range, though, the AI-s lens falls apart and I've found it terrible with extension tubes or bellows. By contrast, even my pre-AI 55mm f/3.5 looks great on my D800 even cranked out to 4x or so-I suspect that the floating element in the AI-s lens, not present in the older design, is the culprit. I'll also mention that I have one each of the pre-AI and AI versions of the lens, and I honestly don't even pay that much attention to which I'm using since it doesn't matter on the bellows and/or reversed, and I can't see any difference in the results when I HAVE tested them side by side.