"Retro" Nikon MILC?

Why do it as "Retro"?

I think with DF, Nikon tried to sell camera that can use any of old Nikon lenses as main selling point.

Why do it as "Retro"?

I think with DF, Nikon tried to sell camera that can use any of old Nikon lenses as main selling point.

I don't think so. I didn't buy it because of that. All the higher end Nikon DSLR can use AI/AI-S lenses just like the Df except for pre AI lenses. How many people bought the Df because it can use Pre AI lenses?

I don't think so. I didn't buy it because of that. All the higher end Nikon DSLR can use AI/AI-S lenses just like the Df except for pre AI lenses. How many people bought the Df because it can use Pre AI lenses?

It was niche camera anyway:(

It was niche camera anyway:(

The Df looks good with the f/1.2 lens pre AI. The lens looks too big for a camera like the F2/F3.

The Df looks good with the f/1.2 lens pre AI. The lens looks too big for a camera like the F2/F3.

Mine (AI converted) suits the F2A quite well; but who cares what it looks like?

The same haloed effect could be got with a soft focus filter on a more modern, easier to find and much cheaper, f/1.4 Ai-s lens. Plus the DoF would be about the same due to the fierce spherical aberration of the old f/1.2 design.

 

As for just under half-a-stop more light? Piffling when you can simply boost the ISO by that amount with almost no effect on image quality.

Mine (AI converted) suits the F2A quite well; but who cares what it looks like?

The same haloed effect could be got with a soft focus filter on a more modern, easier to find and much cheaper, f/1.4 Ai-s lens. Plus the DoF would be about the same due to the fierce spherical aberration of the old f/1.2 design.

 

As for just under half-a-stop more light? Piffling when you can simply boost the ISO by that amount with almost no effect on image quality.

I know you don't care about what it looks like but I do care. Look is very important for a camera in my opinion. And of course my comment about the lens is only how it looks not the extra half stop which I don't care. Besides I don't like the maximum aperture being in the in between stop. For example either f/1.4 or f/2 not f/1.7 or f/1.8. I really dislike the fact that Nikon chose to have their f/0.95 instead of f/1.0 nice round number.

I really dislike the fact that Nikon chose to have their f/0.95 instead of f/1.0 nice round number.

Gee BeBu, you do seem to put a lot of small and illogical dislikes in your own path.

 

The choice of f/0.95 makes a lot of sense to me, because the loss of light in a lens that complex is going to bring its transmission value close to T 1.0, and doubtless vignetting will make the corners a lot darker.

 

You might as well say that you don't like an f/2.8 lens because it should really be f/2.82843, and that f/5.6 ought really be rounded up to f/5.7; f/11 should properly be marked f/11.3, etc.

Look is very important for a camera in my opinion.

When you've got your eye to the viewfinder, you can't see what a camera looks like. What it feels like is much more important.

 

But the real question is: Are you willing to give up the fine control that 1/3rd stop aperture, shutter and ISO thumbwheels give, in order to get the more positive feel of the old mechanical one-stop detents we used to have?

Personally, no. But if someone else wants that, that's fine by me.

 

My only issue is with cameras like the Df, that give only the appearance of a mechanical camera, but have the feel of a sloppy plastic-detented potentiometer control.

Gee BeBu, you do seem to put a lot of small and illogical dislikes in your own path.

 

The choice of f/0.95 makes a lot of sense to me, because the loss of light in a lens that complex is going to bring its transmission value close to T 1.0, and doubtless vignetting will make the corners a lot darker.

 

You might as well say that you don't like an f/2.8 lens because it should really be f/2.82843, and that f/5.6 ought really be rounded up to f/5.7; f/11 should properly be marked f/11.3, etc.

 

When you've got your eye to the viewfinder, you can't see what a camera looks like. What it feels like is much more important.

 

But the real question is: Are you willing to give up the fine control that 1/3rd stop aperture, shutter and ISO thumbwheels give, in order to get the more positive feel of the old mechanical one-stop detents we used to have?

Personally, no. But if someone else wants that, that's fine by me.

You are different from me and because of that there are plenty of cameras made tailored to your liking. Now as far as f/1.4 or f/2.8 they are just f/1.4 and 2.8 not 1.414. Just like f/5.6 is f/5.6 and not f/5.7

f/0.95 and f/1.0 is essentially the same as you said so I rather have them make and mark it as f/1.0.. I don't like the number f/0l95 although functionally it's the same only you have an extra click that is too close. Of course the lens is rare and few would have it and initially I thought you can only set it for either f/0.95 or f/1.0 but I though I asked someone who did have the lens and he said you can set the aperture at f/0.95 and f/1.0. So the 2 settings are too close together. I would like the spacing to be consitently 1/3 stop.

f0.95 provides the wow factor, since the aperture is wider than f1. IMO the wow factor is the primary purpose for that lens.

A lot of people use long-focal length lenses at wide apertures to isolate the subject and provide nice fore- and background blur. At shorter focal lengths this becomes much more difficult to do because the wider angle of view requires a smaller f-stop for features in the background to be rendered similarly blurry as with a longer focal length lens. So there is a part of the motivation for a lens like the 58/0.95, a lens that is a bit like a normal focal length lens but with some image characteristics from a 200/2 or 400/2.8. Personally I would be happy to own this lens and would use it, but I'm not willing to spend the required amount of money; an f/1.4 or f/1.2 will do nicely for me, and in fact for most purposes I also like f/1.8 although my observation is that there is perceptibly more noise in images made in dim restaurants in available light at f/1.8 than f/1.4 and thus there is some need for the latter (or f/1.2 which is what seems to be the new f/1.4). However, I don't think the 58/0.95 is just a fad; it goes to excess but no more so than (say) 200/2 or 400/2.8. If I had extra money and was focused on full-body portraits or similar subject matter, I might very well use such a lens. In practice, shoot a multitude of different subjects and this makes the pricing of such lenses difficult. It may be suited for a specialist. In fact I think the Z 50/1.8 S is a wonderful performer and probably where I would start. The in-camera VR makes it easier to achieve good low-light results which are typical applications for lenses like 50/1.4. Nikon likely made the 58/0.95 f/0.95 instead of f/1 because Leica makes a 50 mm f/0.95 and they don't want to be perceived as having a lower aperture in this lens. But Nikon did say that the 58/0.95 is just a start and they plan on making even larger-aperture lenses in the future. I am not sure if this will be realized, though.

Now as far as f/1.4 or f/2.8 they are just f/1.4 and 2.8 not 1.414. Just like f/5.6 is f/5.6 and not f/5.7

No. The diameter of the aperture has to increase or decrease by a factor of root 2 (1.41421356...) to get exactly one stop more or less light.

 

The conventional markings are approximations, and for some unknown reason have been wrongly rounded down at f/5.6, f/11, etc. Same as the shutter series is incorrectly halved at 1/15th and never gets back on track. So if you're going to get anal about aperture numbers, the whole conventional series is only a poor approximation!

 

WRT the old 55mm f/1.2 pre-AI lens. It's fuzzy halo wide open makes it even more 'specialised' than a modern, highly corrected lens IMO. And it doesn't even give the expected narrow DoF, because the strongly under-corrected spherical aberration acts to increase depth-of-field. - See Arthur Cox; Photographic Optics, Focal Press, for a good explanation of this effect.

Edited June 10, 2021 by rodeo_joe|1

No. The diameter of the aperture has to increase or decrease by a factor of root 2 (1.41421356...) to get exactly one stop more or less light.

 

The conventional markings are approximations, and for some unknown reason have been wrongly rounded down at f/5.6, f/11, etc. Same as the shutter series is incorrectly halved at 1/15th and never gets back on track. So if you're going to get anal about aperture numbers, the whole conventional series is only a poor approximation!

 

WRT the old 55mm f/1.2 pre-AI lens. It's fuzzy halo wide open makes it even more 'specialised' than a modern, highly corrected lens IMO. And it doesn't even give the expected narrow DoF, because the strongly under-corrected spherical aberration acts to increase depth-of-field. - See Arthur Cox; Photographic Optics, Focal Press, for a good explanation of this effect.

 

Yes and I go by 'Conventional Marking". For me f/1.4 is an enumerated value representing exactly 1 stop smaller than f/1. And also f/5.6 is exactly 5 stops smaller. The same thing that 1/1000 is 10 stops from 1 sec and not 1024.

The conventional markings are nominal. Not an approximation, nor 'enumerated'. Names that are easier to use than 1.4142 etc.

You can express a preference in this, but it makes very little sense to do so.

 

As far as fast lenses are concerned: it is difficult (though with computers less than it was) and (still) very expensive to make lenses faster than the one mentioned in this thread, that do still produce images of any appreciable quality. Special purpose lenses, that do not need to meet the needs of general photography, yes. But it is nonsensical to produce such for normal photography. There is noone here who needs one, nor who would pay the price.

Edited June 10, 2021 by q.g._de_bakker

Well NR thinks we only have to wait a few more days...:D

 

So, if 'nominal' aperture is focal length / entrance diameter....

 

Why can't I have an 20mm f0.5 wide angle with a 40mm entrance diameter?

 

However, I can see the problems with a 500mm f1, although i daresay those lenses on board certain satellites are in that ballpark, or more:p

Lenses are limited by practical and theoretical limitations. Large-aperture lenses need to be decently corrected to provide a useful image and most lenses faster than f/0.95 are not, they are mostly good for impressionistic images where there is nothing really sharp (or technical purposes). For example, f/0.7 lenses were made for x-ray video (called fluoroscopy) in medical imaging where the large aperture was needed to capture the image in a short time without exposing the human body to excessive radiation and some use these lenses now for photography but it can be debated whether the results are worthwhile. ;-)

Fuji rolled out the X-T1 in early 2014. Closest thing I've ever seen to a digital FE/FM. Maybe Nikon should just rebadge the current X-T4. The Df was an utter dud. Nikon appears rudderless.

it's all still rumours and speculation...

 

Part of that rumurs is that it will possibly be an APS-C camera, now tah would make it less interresting for many but more interresting for me .. ;):cool:

Maybe Nikon should just rebadge

Like Fuji did with the Nikon F60 to make a Fuji DSLR, the Fuji S1Pro? Right rudderless...;)

Like Fuji did with the Nikon F60 to make a Fuji DSLR, the Fuji S1Pro? Right rudderless...;)

 

I thought is was the Nikon N80. But any way if anyone consider a mirrorless camera (even an APS-C size) as a digital version Nikon FM/FE then the Df wasn't designed for those people. The idea was that the FM/FE (in fact any f cameras) is an SLR so the digital version of them must be DSLR.and all the f are FX.

Edited June 11, 2021 by BeBu Lamar

Like Fuji did with the Nikon F60 to make a Fuji DSLR, the Fuji S1Pro? Right rudderless...;)

 

That those early Fuji DSLRs were built on Nikons didn't matter much. It was the Fuji-designed sensor/processor that set them apart.

I thought is was the Nikon N80. But any way if anyone consider a mirrorless camera (even an APS-C size) as a digital version Nikon FM/FE then the Df wasn't designed for those people. The idea was that the FM/FE (in fact any f cameras) is an SLR so the digital version of them must be DSLR.and all the f are FX.

The Fuji X-T1-4 cameras routinely get mistaken for "old film cameras." Nikon designers seemingly never considered ditching the ancient prism/mirror box for an EVF as the key to a smaller form factor than the hulking Df. Recall the promo hype ahead of the dull thud Df rollout.

Fuji rolled out the X-T1 in early 2014. Closest thing I've ever seen to a digital FE/FM. Maybe Nikon should just rebadge the current X-T4. The Df was an utter dud. Nikon appears rudderless.

If you haven't owned and used a Df as I have, your evaluation of no worth. A fine camera with the same sensor as the D4 that produces excellent photos.

I thought is was the Nikon N80

It was the F80 (N80 in the States) for the Fuji S2 and S3 Pro.

 

..and the S5 was a modded D200.

Interesting camera design choice by Nikon.....:cool:

I thought Nikon would announce it today but it's not so.