Nikon Introduces Df Retro DSLR

Discussion in 'Nikon' started by shuncheung, Nov 4, 2013.

  1. ShunCheung

    ShunCheung Administrator

    After 6 teaser videos: http://www.photo.net/nikon-camera-forum/00c63K, I know it is all anticlimactic since the information has already been leaked from multiple sources. Here are the specs:
    • 16.2 CMOS sensor, similar to the one on the D4, with Expeed 3 electronics
    • ISO range from 100 to 12800, with extended range from Lo 1 (ISO 50 equivalent) to Hi 4 (ISO 204800 equivalent), same as the D4
    • Auto Focus: Mutli-CAM 4800 AF module with 39 AF points; the center 9 are cross type. Nikon uses that same AF module on the D600, D610, D7000, D5200, and D5300.
    • Memory Card: single SD
    • Metering: Spot, Center Weighted, and Matrix with 2016-pixel 3D scene recognition
    • Shutter speed: from 4 seconds to 1/4000 sec plus the B and T modes, maximum 5.5 frames/sec
    • No pop-up flash, Nikon iTTL/CLS compatible
    • Virtual Horizon: 3D
    • LCD: 3.2" and 921K dots
    • Live View: with 4×4 (16 cell) and 3×3 (9 cell) grid lines as well as16:9 and 1:1 crop lines.
    • Battery: Nikon EN-EL14a
    • No video capture capability
    Pricing in the US:
    • Nikon Df, body only, in chrome or black: $2749.95
    • Nikon Df kit with the retro-style 50mm/f1.8 G AF-S lens: $2999.95
    • Retro-style 50mm/f1.8 G AF-S lens only: $279.95
    These marketing images are from Nikon USA. The first image should give you a good idea what their targeted audience is.
    The Df will be a fairly low-volume, boutique product catered to collectors and a small group of affluent camera buyers. I am disappointed that Nikon doesn't put the Multi-CAM 3500 onto a $2750 DSLR, but then, a lot of those who buy the Df probably won't be using it to take pictures, at least not many of them.

    [​IMG]
    [​IMG]
    [​IMG]
    [​IMG]
     
  2. I can see this becoming my main Nikon shooting body. I do a lot of manual focus anyway so the AF module is not a killer. I have a lot of old lenses. I like the physical size versus other Nikon FX bodies although the weight is similar. Besides, its just pretty.
     
  3. I'm too poor to be a hipster these days. I'll stick with my RX100 and m4/3...and maybe bring out the d700 once in a blue moon. But don't real hispters shoot with like a beat up leica m2 and rolleicords:) Best to nikon though...
     
  4. ShunCheung

    ShunCheung Administrator

  5. I did have some interest in the thing as I LOVE "retro!" However, it's just not a good value for that kind of money. Too bad--they could have taken a lot of the buzz away from the new Sony by coming in well under it. I don't have the lenses for something like this, and Nikon doesn't really either, unless you want to use 1970s vintage lenses of course. I just don't see the point of buying this camera and then using 40+ yr. old lenses though. If Nikon had made this a DX version and put the D7100 AF system in it, then priced it ~$1,500, I most likely would have bought it. However, as it is, I'm going to have to pass partly because of price and partly because I just don't want to have to buy lenses for it. Wish they would make a D7100 with this styling though! I love "retro," but for this kind of money I could buy a Nikon S body and a couple of lenses and get real "retro!" It would hold its value better too. Looks like I'm SOL for doing "Pure Photography"............ Nikon could have really scored here as smaller cameras are "hot" now. I just don't know how many are going to buy this as it doesn't seem to me to be a very good value. And as I mentioned, I don't think Nikon even has lenses that are a good match. Maybe the Zeiss ZF lenses would be better suited for it?
    Leslie--
    I'm almost a "hipster." I regularly use the older Leica IIIc.
    I'm not quite cool enough to get an M2 yet. ;-)
    Oh yeah--I do shoot with a Rolleiflex too.
    Kent in SD
     
  6. Any manual focusing aids? Split-image, microprism collar? AF sensor bracket that illuminates when manually focused? That might help the retro appeal go more than skin deep.
     
  7. Full text of press release: http://www.nikonusa.com/en/About-Nikon/Press-Room/Press-Release/hndp8ist/Fall-in-Love-Again%3A-New-Df-D-SLR-is-Undeniably-a-Nikon-with-Legendary-Performance-and-Timeless-Design.html
     
  8. Even some cell phones have more than 16 MP. My RX100-2 P&S has 20 MP.
     
  9. The top dials don't fuss me too much they are still similar to a FM3A also with the ISO, expo compensation and the shutter etc. Mechanical cable release. Single SD that's all fine. I am also not that fussed with its FPS or AF s ystem either after all this is retro. Even if the price comes down and 2nd hand, it's a older Nikon F series than a FM. To me it's not one of their compact cameras for "pure" walkabout or street photography, where you can naturally snap the shot, it's a bit bulky and not that much different to the current spaceship dSLRs to me it's just retro as in skin deep. Clearly different to the Fuji's. Maybe diff target markets. Maybe Nikon is relying on its users not to ditch them due to the lenses they have invested .... and they here is a retro but not an FM but an F2/3. Rather get a used D3 in some yrs, spaceship man I am ... pairs up the D600 nicely. If I had not gotten the D600 maybe a D3 not this retro guy.
    Edit. Also not so much about the price, it is diff and retro after all. 16MP yeah whatever that's granted too. To me it's not workable given its size, it inhibits the pureness. Seriously a bulky F2/3 to just enjoy photography and capture spontaneous moments for a non-professional guy.
     
  10. ShunCheung

    ShunCheung Administrator

    I think Nikon puts 16MP on the Df for good reasons. People are supposed to use those old pre-AI and AI-S lenses on it. 36MP will quickly reveal how poor a lot of those antique lenses are. 16MP is much easier on those old lenses.
     
  11. This camera, in silver, will be my new travel camera! I'm just happy the D4 sensor is in a body smaller than a D4. My D800 was serious overkill for casual travel shooting.
     
  12. "The fusion of responsive, intuitive dial operation and 'flagship D4 image quality' in the smallest and lightest FX-format body--from the Nikon site"
    The retro appearance is the last thing that I am interested in. What interests me in the above blurb is reference to the "flagship D4 image quality." Being small and light sounds good, too.
    I think that Nikon will manufacture a lot--and sell a lot. (How many is "a lot"?)
    That is, I think Nikon hit a home run--and thus the great advertising campaign. Whether the price will drop or not very soon, I have no idea.
    Vis-a-vis "retro," however, I do like having knobs rather than having to dig deep into menus--but the more recent Nikon DSLRs seem to have been moving in that direction anyway--to some extent.
    I also like the HP viewfinder. I shot Canon FD from 1982 till 2006 (and before that Miranda from 1977), and I didn't miss many manual focus shots. I really like MF in many situations. I hope that there is a split-screen option built in, but I suspect that it will be offered as an option.
    In any case, I will judge it on function and performance, not appearance, and I hope that it lives up to its "flagship D4 image quality" billing. Wish I could buy one right now, but that isn't going to happen. I don't have the money, and I like what I have. I hope that I can keep it as I grow older as a semi-retired person. It won't be easy. Buying new stuff will be very difficult.
    The question is not what old geezers like me will buy. The question is what the younger shooters will do with it. Will they buy it?
    They might. They just might.
    --Lannie
     
  13. Another bow to camera fondlers. At least it's cheaper than a Leica.
    In the words of just about everyone at the recent PhotoPlus show in NYC, I'm sure it will "enhance the user experience" (unless the user wants WiFI and video...)
     
  14. I wonder what the impressions of this camera would have been without the teaser videos? So now Nikon users have a problem with D4 image quality? The camera represents styling of the past, and now its a Dud? Comments through the roof adnausium that modern DSLRs are too big to carry around, and now that Nikon makes a fix, virtually giving people what they ask for, now they don't want it? Wacked!
     
  15. Even some cell phones have more than 16 MP. My RX100-2 P&S has 20 MP.​
    How well do cell phones do at high ISO in low light?
    We know what cell phones can do. We also know what they cannot do. One thing they can't do is shoot worth a darn in near darkness.
    --Lannie
     
  16. The difference between 16MP and 20MP is not very significant resolution wise. A great lens on 16MP sensor will make a better looking print than a less good lens on a 20-24MP camera.

    I hope the camera succeeds in marketing, so that Nikon will release something in the future with a similar body and >36MP sensor. I also hope they rethink the front thickness and weight on future DF derivatives, with a view toward a smaller lighter body. Because the designers can do nothing to the mount register dimension and little to thin the distance between sensor and LCD screen on the back, dimensional contraction would have to come off the front of the camera, while still leaving an ergonomic grip.
     
  17. Here is the official news from Nikon:
    http://www.nikon.com/news/2013/1105_dslr_01.htm
    From one point of view, if the camera is made in Japan, its homeland, that means Nikon has recovered from Fukushima tragedy and that's good news.

    Perhaps I will not be able to buy it although I'm considering to move from one 300s and another 300 to a 8ooE. I think I'm more tech than retro.

    Anyway, welcome this new model !!!
     
  18. Well I give credit to Nikon for going out on a limb and trying something different. Of course they are going to be bashed by some, but I personally am glad to see they are at least trying something different other than adding megapixels and AF points. I don't think professional sports photographers are what Nikon had in mind with this camera. Given that a lot of the parts are from other cameras I don't think Nikon will need to sell a ton of them to make it worthwhile. I do agree that the price is a little steep however, but time and testing will eventually reveal how it performs. If I had the cash I'd love to have one for sure.
     
  19. I am disappointed that Nikon doesn't put the Multi-CAM 3500 onto a $2750 DSLR​
    yup. they certainly could have, without much fuss. but that's my only disappointment with this announcement, other than the price. this could be the go-to body for street/PJ/travel photographers. My D3s always looked silly with a small prime on it. when you think about it, the retro looks aid the use of older lenses and curios like the voigtlander 40/2 which would probably be a killer lens for this body.
     
  20. I think Nikon puts 16MP on the Df for good reasons. People are supposed to use those old pre-AI and AI-S lenses on it. 36MP will quickly reveal how poor a lot of those antique lenses are. 16MP is much easier on those old lenses.​
    I agree that those old lenses don't hold up well when used with hi res sensors. But newer, sharper lenses are available now. 24MP (or even 36MP) would have made this a much more desirable product, IMO.
     
  21. http://www.flickr.com/photos/71196598@N08/8137032685/
    Kind of like this.
     
  22. Any manual focusing aids? Split-image, microprism collar? AF sensor bracket that illuminates when manually focused?​
    Fixed focusing screen according to dpreview - by the looks of it, it's exactly the same as in the D600/D610. The screen is claimed to be not replaceable, which I thoroughly hope won't be the case as this camera in particular needs that option.
    I think it's a good sensor choice for this camera - cheapest access to the D3S/D4 performance. My main concern would be the ergonomics with that small grip and the shutter release high up on top of the camera; can't imagine this to be comfortable (never was for me with the FM/FM2/F3/FA; they all needed to be fitted with a motor drive to provide a grip and a more conveniently located shutter release).
    If I were to purchase one (which I won't because the price is too rich for me), I would set the shutter speed dial to the 1/3 Step setting and use the main command dial. AutoISO would eliminate the need to deal with the ISO dial, and I would find a way to work with that exposure compensation dial; it's just a different way to do things - but still requires a button push and the turning of a dial. Probably couldn't do it with the camera at my eye though. That sub-command dial up front doesn't look to be too comfortable to use either. In essence, the retro style would force some adaptation in the use of the camera.
     
  23. 24MP (or even 36MP) would have made this a much more desirable product, IMO.​
    ok, but if you need more MP, you can just buy a d610 or d800. i think nikon deserves kudos for finally delivering something that competes with both the new retro trend (fuji x100, olympus om-d) and FF compacts (sony a7, rx1). the limited edition 50/1.8 should have had an aperture ring, though.
     
  24. Shun:
    Why would they make it with a single SD card slot? Is it a matter of overall size?
    -O
     
  25. from a marketing / branding standpoint, the camera makes the rest of nikon's line look cooler. and i think the 16mp decision was a sensible one, since 24 or 36 can be overkill. of course, nikon could have come out with a retro DX camera, let's call it Coolpix Z, at $1500 with a 24/2 for $1000, at the same time, and really made a statement. after all, if you're just interested in this for the cool factor, then you dont care about FX. or, nikon could also integrate a retro-styled APS-C body with a fixed 24/2 lens and challenged fuji head-on. right now, if you're just interested in retro cool, an x100 will set you back just $750.
     
  26. I'd love to have this camera, mainly for the dials on top. I think the retro look is nice as well. Too bad it's WAY outside my budget. Oh well. Maybe I can sell a kidney. ;-)
     
  27. Why would they make it with a single SD card slot? Is it a matter of overall size?​
    No space for two - the card sits next to the battery and is accessed from the bottom of the camera. Seems to be very clear that there is not going to be a battery grip for this one.
     
  28. The camera is now presented on the Nikon open page.
     
  29. but then, a lot of those who buy the Df probably won't be using it to take pictures, at least not many of them.​
    Just because it doesn't fit YOUR needs , doesn't mean it will just be an unused collectable , sitting on some yuppies shelf. That's a ridicules statement. How much did you pay for a D1 or D2 or D3 Nikon, Shun ? If you got them new, it was TWICE what this is going for. Were you also some collector who just stuck them on a shelf ?
    Just realize that this camera is a tool and not EVERYONE wants or needs the same tool.
     
  30. The look of the Digital Frankenstein is growing on me - the black one looks really good, the silver one (or more precisely, the Panda version) - not so much.
     
  31. This camera doesn't have what my current d800e doesn't have.
    I don't want to spend extra $2750 for just the "look"
    size wise, it's not significantly small either. No video. Yeah. Nikon said , it's Pure photography. So my d800e is not?
    Also, it has only one command dial. I am used to 2 command dials. No split screen ?
    I pass, for now.
     
  32. From a former FM2n/FE2/FM3a user who longed for a return to the small, discreet etc. Will I be buying one? Nope, a little (actually a lot) out of my budget range, already own a D700, and don't see how spending more $$$$ will improve my photography. Money goes to lenses and travel. I think the camera is a lot larger than the FM/FE series.
     
  33. I've been interested in this release, and have ridden along here this last week, and a half, with the mindset of a lifelong Photographer who has never owned a DSLR, but I'm shopping! The D-600 got my attention because of the price, Then the D-600 had the nightmare issues with the shutter, Then Nikon released the D-610, now this the Df. The Df is $750 more than the 610. Does the Df justify the $750 over the D-610? I think so. As one who is not shooting weddings anymore, or providing any Professional service as a Photographer, I think the Df fits the bill. There are 8 Nikkor lenses involved in this decision too, so a Nikon D camera is somewhere in the mix. I'm sorry I missed out on the D-700, but this option with the Df is a priority buy for me as I will be watching out for performance reviews like a hawk.
     
  34. This camera doesn't have what my current d800e doesn't have.​
    I have the D800E, and, regardless of what anyone says, there is no way that the D800 series is going to beat the D3s or D4 in low light. The viewfinder is also noteworthy. Using other focusing screens on big DSLRs has been a frustration in the past. There may be more.
    There is also a simplicity to shooting cameras with fewer megapixels which I find very appealing--especially when there is some reason for the reduction in megapixels (low light capabilities and fast turn-around on processing).
    --Lannie
     
  35. Couldn't care less.
     
  36. While the functionality exposed through the dials needs some menu use on low-end Nikon's, I do want to stress that it never did at the high
    end. The new knobs don't stop you having to use menus (compared with, say, a D800), but they do make you move your hands away from
    the shutter release. I'm not going to claim that the D800 sensor can match the D4 at high ISO, but I do claim it's very close. The D3s is a
    different beast. I really think the D610 sensor would have made more sense, but then it wouldn't have the magic halo factor.


    Anyway, I hope it's a success, but I'm clearly not the target market, even if a lighter FX body and better lens compatibility had some appeal.
    I said the same about the 1 series and got one anyway - but only at better than half the launch price!
     
  37. Fine Corinthian leather. Gear shift lever falls readily to hand. A connection with my camera. Yes 2 hands and my forehead. I just want my camera to get out of the way and let me capture my vision. It's just a tool. It is close to my wish list though. D4 IQ. I'd like to know more. Suddenly that's not enough? Looks like the down sized d4 in the way the d700 was a downsized pro camera. Looks more like the replacement I wanted for the d700 than the d800. 16 mp probably all I need for portraiture. 5.5 fps, but more if battery pack? Maybe 8? I'm not sure about the intent to use the old lenses. Were the pros using old lenses on the $6k d4? Big question for me is the build of the body, is it a more durable pro construction? d4 has about 13 stops dynamic range, that I like. Useable iso to 12400. I didn't go beyond 1600-2400 on the d700 if I could help it. Could be my next camera inspite of the corny ads. Enough to make Mad men puke. Will have to see how I feel about the controls. Would be nice to have a wheel for ISO although I could change it on the d700 without taking it from my eye. In low light I adjust it in manual after selecting aperture then running out of shutter speed I need. I would give it at least 6 months and perhaps the price will drop a bit and any bugs will get ironed out. I too will be watching closely. As for the retro look, I'll paraphrase Ernst Haas, Leica smeika, retro metro. But that feel of fine Corinthian Leather, how can I resist. Fernando Montelban, where are you when we need you. Oh, and just in time for a relationship/connection for the holidays. I hope it buys me a good present.
     
  38. This camera weighs exactly what the F3HP weighed. It is not as small, then, as an FM2 or something, but I don't think you COULD make a FF camera that small and retain the LCD screen.
    Read the Hands on Review at DPReviews. Shun picked the worst comment out of the whole thing.
     
  39. I like the press photo with the old books, maps, pocket watch and compass. The money it's next to is about the amount of change you'd get from nearly £3000, as I'm sure there's going to be £:$ parity pricing.
    ...and what is it with the 'retro' label being demonstrated by all-things-British? All the vids are from here* as is the cash (£8.45) in the pic. Bit of cultural stereotyping going on...:)
    __________________
    *I think all the locations are Scottish, but being an English 'southener', I'm not sure. The cash is definitely English, that's no Scottish fiver!
     
  40. Nikon is continuing a tradition of keeping a line of cameras going which have the two following characteristics combined:
    (1) full-frame sensors and
    (2) modest numbers of megapixels.
    NO OTHER COMPANY HAS DONE THAT (with the exception of the Canon 5D), AND THAT IS THE REASON THAT NIKON HAS THE BEST LOW-LIGHT CAMERAS IN THE WORLD. HERE ARE THE CAMERAS IN THIS SUPERB LOW-LIGHT LINEAGE:
    D3 12 megapixels
    D700 12 megapixels

    D3s 12 megapixels
    D4 16 megapixels
    Df 16 megapixels
    THAT'S IT! This is a relatively small but very important lineage and legacy of low-light full-frame cameras from Nikon. THIS LINEAGE CHANGED THE FACE OF DIGITAL PHOTOGRAPHY WHEN CANON SEEMED TO BE RUNNING AWAY FROM THE FIELD WHERE FULL-FRAME DSLRs ARE CONCERNED.
    When I bought the D3s second-hand off eBay in the summer, many persons questioned my judgment, since I am not typically an action shooter--and I already had the D800E and the D7000.
    All that I can say is that I wanted the best low-light camera that I could afford. I HAVE BEEN OVERWHELMED BY THE D3s. IT IS WONDERFUL. It is more than I need in terms of features, but it does give me incredible low-light performance.
    I want this one, too--or, in exchange for the D3s.
    I rather like the retro design and some actual functional components from the retro tradition.
    Most of all, however, I like the guts in this new machine: THIS THING IS GOING TO SURPRISE SOME PEOPLE, BUT NOT THOSE WHO HAVE OWNED ONE OR MORE OF THE ABOVE CAMERAS.

    This is a great legacy camera from Nikon, and I happy to celebrate its announcement. There are going to be some believers.
    --Lannie
     
  41. D800/e is very close behind.
     
  42. D800/e is very close behind.​
    It is a lot of trouble compared to the simpler cameras referred to above. As I said above, I have both the D3s and the D800E and love them both--but I am sure glad that neither is the only tool at my disposal.
    There really is a lot to be said for the simplicity of handling smaller files. If I had to choose between one or the other, however, it would admittedly be a hard choice, since the D800E can do things that the cameras above cannot do.
    What I like about the Df and the other low megapixel cameras I mentioned above can be summed up in one word: SIMPLICITY.

    --Lannie
     
  43. Had the first pre-order 'Offer'.....£2749.....that's $4400 for the camera + lens. Crazy, crazy marketing!
     
  44. So here it is, the precise D700 replacement everyone was asking for: A D4 in a small body, designed purely for the ends of still photography, at about half the price. I might even trade my D4 for it.
     
  45. If this camera performs well with no hidden ergonomic or technical bugs I think it may well become a moderate bestseller and a cult camera, definitely not just going to collect dust in an collector´s cabinet.
    The absence of video may deter some buyers though.
     
  46. 15mm eyepoint means extremely difficult to use with eyeglasses. Multi-CAM 4800 is another downside. Interchangeable focusing
    screens should be made available. Otherwise I like the design and concept. Since I wear glasses, it's out of the realm of possibilities to
    buy this camera.

    I actually think 36MP files are such a nuisance (high image quality, yes, but it does limit how much I can shoot) that at this point anything
    less would be a relief. The D4 does have cleaner shadows at high ISO than D800(E) (the latter has cleaner low ISO).
     
  47. So here it is, the precise D700 replacement everyone was asking for​
    You're having a laugh, right?
     
  48. I`m having it, too! LoL
    Well, it is a very nice camera. Like the old film Leicas and Nikons.
    And as Bob says, it`s cheaper that a Leica. More people can buy it, and they will enjoy a cool, fashion camera.
     
  49. After the initial buzz of the first teaser movie, the ongoing series of movies took much too long for my short attention span. Somehow down that line, I lost interest. Now that it's here... no, highly unlikely I'll go for it. It needs to come down a good bit in price before I even start considering.
    The AF module is a bit disappointing, but I really would only use this camera with Ai/AiS primes. The sensor - great. I think the right choice. I bet my oldish Ai/Ais primes would fit perfectly fine with a Df...(and I happily accept their inferior performance for their rendering which I prefer).
    But just a bit too many niggles to really win me over; at this price, it should be a bit closer to perfection. Lovely, the dials on top - but too many of them, too many secondary-sub-dials. The F3 is simpler, and it should be F3-simple. The viewfinder I should really see in person how good it is for manual focussing; hopefully it was Nikon's prime concern in the design of this viewfinder, because it's who they try to appeal to... if it's not optimised enough for it, bummer. And it really should have been interchangable. Ergonomics, I'd have to feel it in my hands to know whether it feels right....it looks a bit too fat, really, at which point a larger handgrip becomes more comfortable, in my view. And if it doesn't give the feel that my F3 does... well then it's just a retro-looking D700 with slightly different specs, and I'd see no reason whatsoever to replace my D700 with it.
    Niche products - they're tricky to get right. Especially at €2500-3000 thereabouts.
    But kudos to Nikon for trying. I always have spoken up against the likelihood of Nikon doing a FM2/FM3-style niche digital camera, and they proved me wrong big time. And I think that's a good thing. More choice can't be wrong, and Nikon respecting its own heritage is not a bad thing either.
     
  50. "Viewfinder Eye-level pentaprism single-lens reflex viewfinder
    Frame coverage FX (36 × 24): Approx. 100% horizontal and 100% vertical
    Magnification Approx. 0.7x (50 mm f/1.4 lens at infinity, -1.0 m-1)
    Eyepoint 15 mm (-1.0 m-1; from center surface of viewfinder eyepiece lens)"
    Given the big bump on the camera I expected an outstanding viewfinder, this one is just good, I agree with Ilkka (eyeglasses too) 15mm eyepoint is too short, and "approximately" 100% means <100%.

    I will stay with my F3HP until my Coolscan falls apart, then I will go digital with this Df.
     
  51. BTW the layout mostly reminds me of the FA of 1984 vintage.
     
  52. I lie the light weight and the mechanical controls, and hope this camera sells despite the AF module and especially the 15mm eye-point. Maybe it will convince Nikon to produce successors. I'll wait for the DF3 HP.
     
  53. 5.5 fps, but more if battery pack? Maybe 8?​
    Except there is no battery pack! And with the positioning of the SD in the battery compartment, it seems rather unlikely that there will be one. Or do people want to remove it every time they need to access the card? Or tether the camera to a computer every time to transfer images?
     
  54. Now I've actually got to a computer rather than a tablet, and can see the full DxO analysis of the sensors, I should take back my previous assertion: the D800 and D610 keep the D4 pretty honest (within half a stop) up to about ISO 12800, after which a gap opens up. So it's true, this camera is probably your budget option if you want to shoot lowish resolutions at ISO 25600 - it's certainly cheaper than a D4 or a 1Dx. That still sounds like an unusual priority for this camera to me - the D4 will get used for a lot of almost-no-light images that end up on web pages or in low quality news print and a stratospheric ISO is probably useful, but that doesn't feel like how they're pitching this. Lannie: I'm with you on horses for courses - I'd love a D3s or a D4 (and this is probably competing with the used-D3s market) as a secondary option, but not as my only camera. And I've just had to take an ISO 3200 image with a V1, which was painful.

    I'm a little less against it when it appeared that you couldn't partly ignore the dials on top - I now get the impression that you can ignore them and use it as a normal two-dial Nikon (mostly and sort of), though things like changing mode and ISO are still annoying. I remain dubious about the ergonomics of a vertical front dial, but I'll await reports from people who have held it.

    Anyway, it's different, so I'm not going to bite Nikon's head off. I think they probably could have appealed to more people with something more obvious, but at least they did something. And I still wonder whether they're getting ready to ditch their sensor stocks before the D5. I'll be interested to know whether this is an unexpected hit - one reason I like lurking on this forum is to learn that other people see things differently from me (and occasionally, they're right!) At least I'm pretty sure it's not going to hurt sales of the D610, D800 or D4 much.
     
  55. This seems to me to be an utterly pointless release with little that's innovative. The pricing is hideous and the AF / single card slot must surely reduce the appeal to professionals, given the available alternatives. A mirrorless response to the new Sony twins may have been more interesting and relevant. As an ex Nikon user (now m4/3 with Olympus) I see the beginning of a slippery downward slope both for Nikon and Canon especially in the consumer DSLR market.
     
  56. As always, there needs to be a sacrificial lamb so I will be an early adopter. I have paid the price in the past with Nikon but will do it again.
     
  57. bms

    bms

    But don't real hispters shoot with like a beat up leica m2 and rolleicords:)
    True, Leslie, but maybe they'll just put a $5 pinhole on it :)
    Was initially somewhat excited about it... though I divested from Nikon in the past year, I miss my FX sometimes.... I also kept a few lenses, including some Ai....
    Then I look at my Oly OM-D E-M1 that arrived 4 days ago and ask myself..... why? The EM-1 looks 'retro" but is infinitely a modern camera and more customizable. Granted, it is not FX, but then again I am not a pro and DOF on my 75 f1.8 is good enough for my baby and cat :)
    I am sure many people will be happy with it. I will still keep my preoder in the queue at B&H just in case I change my mind... it's not like that camera will be available anytime soon (though I don't expcet Leica M kind of delays, either)
     
  58. Harvey: Please report back? :)

    Simon: I can't imagine this will appeal to most pro shooters anyway. For Nikon's sake, I hope it appeals to someone (and I hope Harvey doesn't regret it!)

    Hipsters may use an M2 and Rolleicord. I'm practical, and would like an M7 and a Rolleiflex. And a Sinar, and a Mamiya 7, and a pony (sorry, Christmas is starting to impinge on my consciousness). They can be beaten up, though. Except the pony. My F5 is missing a lot of paint, which is fine; so is my 135 f/2.8. Will rich hipsters be dragged away from their Ms and 'blads to this? I'll look forward to hearing. The jump to this from a film camera is going to be significant if people are actually moving from an F4.
     
  59. Approximately 100% is the best any camera can get; no optical viewfinder can be perfectly aligned.
     
  60. Lets see, a great sensor in a nice looking body with only a good AF system, a single memory card slot and no video... There are better Nikon choices for less money IMHO.
     
  61. I read somewhere that airlines care not one iota about filling their coach seats. The coach section can be empty, but if all the first class seats sell, the flight makes money.
     
  62. You're having a laugh, right?​
    Mike, of course the word "everyone" was an exaggeration. But at the same time, a /lot/ of people have been asking for a D4 in a D700-sized body with controls. I think it's a good spec for a small pro FX body, so long as the finder is up to snuff. I think it will have a market. They will realize the economic benefits of making their well worked-out D4 image pipeline in quantity. I also get the feeling this camera is designed not to become obsolete so quickly; it has the profile of a relatively mature product, and /no model number/. Given the D700's longevity, I think one can expect at least as much from the DF.
     
  63. If it were priced at a more consumer oriented level, I would have already ordered.
    The big, fat LCD on the back was also a bit of a let down. (I enjoy sans chimp screen mode for retro.)
     
  64. I read somewhere that airlines care not one iota about filling their coach seats. The coach section can be empty, but if all the first class seats sell, the flight makes money.​
    Not true any more. Most 1st Class seats go to frequent fliers as upgrades to coach fares (at least on Delta).
     
  65. I got my first Nikon in about 1960 and can't count how many I've had since. I have absolutely zero interest in this one, maybe less than zero.
     
  66. I like it! I also like available light photography! This fits the bill!
    No worries here!
    00c85R-543398584.jpg
     
  67. ShunCheung

    ShunCheung Administrator

    But at the same time, a /lot/ of people have been asking for a D4 in a D700-sized body with controls.​
    The Df maybe very roughly similar in size as the D700, but it has anything but the D700's controls, or for that matter the D700's AF and frame rate.

    The Df is not exactly about photography. The emphasis is its retro styling. Again, its target is mainly collectors and those who find retro styling "cool."

    Those who think the Df's price will come down are merely dreaming. Concerning features, the Df is already "obsolete" the moment it is introduced: 16MP is very low in today's standards, Multi-CAM 4800 is not top of the line, there is no video, no dual memory cards ... and of course the controls are out of date by 2, 3 decades. However, retro, or obsolescence, is exactly the selling point. The Df will be like the FM3a and F6. Not many shoot film any more and even fewer need to get a new F6, but unlike the F5 and F100, the F6's price remains sky high for both new and used in mint condition.
     
  68. Shun said:
    ...its target is mainly collectors and those who find retro styling "cool."
    Yes, I thought of estate jewelry when I first saw the pictures. I also think that for the baby boomer wanting to travel or try a new hobby, it's a beautiful marriage of nostalgia & technology without getting mired in spec-ology.
     
  69. The styling is the only thing I really like here. If this thing were smaller and they knocked a thousand off the price, I would be interested. I was hoping for a small Leica/Sony/Fuji sized camera that accepted F-mount. Instead, it's a D700 sized camera with a D800 price tag! Oh well. It's not like I actually NEED a new camera right now, LOL. The DF might be more of a boost to Zeiss lens sales than Nikon's. Ironic, no? It does have a high "cool factor," but so does the vintage Leica I like to use, for which I paid $500.
    Kent in SD
     
  70. Although I owned a DSLR before I owned a film SLR and both before I owned a rangefinder (yes, I'm just about a young whippersnapper), I wouldn't mind playing with an FM3a, I'd like a Leica and an X100s, and if the F6 wasn't priced so extortionately I'd have one. But all these have the benefit that they're actually really good to use for a particular style of shooting - "retro" is only useful when it's not a synonym for "worse". I've no objection to different cameras for different uses. I've yet to understand the USP for this camera, although that doesn't mean it lacks one. (In the previous thread I suggested that Nikon had elected not to produce a number of other cameras that had been asked for. To be clear: I don't believe Nikon are idiots, and I assume that these decisions were rational and based on research to which I'm not privy.)
     
  71. After a week or so of using my D600, I started leaving my FE2 at home. The F100, FE2, and FM2 haven't been used in over a year, and the FA went on Ebay. The D600 is light and small, works well with my my AI'd lenses, my AI lenses, my AF-S lenses, and my AF-D lenses. The user interface is intuitive, after several years of shooting a D200 as my "good" digital camera. The only thing I don't like is that all 39 AF sensors are grouped in the center...might as well just have one.
    As much as I like the look and feel of old mechanical cameras, and as much as I'd like a dedicated knob for exposure compensation, I can't see paying that big a premium for it. The D600 and D610 do everything the Df does, plus more, for less money. All that extra money and the Df still has the lame AF sensor from the D600!
    Sorry, Nikon...I must've owned more than 10 Nikon bodies over the years, but this loyal customer is not buying a Df at that price. For *less* than a D610...maybe.
     
  72. Nikon is, I think, VASTLY overestimating the number of people who will buy this camera that has the wrong sensor, the wrong AF module, and the wrong price.
    Fire sale coming in the spring... $1500.00, get 'em while they're hot.
     
  73. Not many shoot film any more and even fewer need to get a new F6, but unlike the F5 and F100, the F6's price remains sky high for both new and used in mint condition​
    Then wouldn't the continued high prices for the F6 (and the FM3a, and the F100 isn't that cheap second hand either) suggest that the "retro" and film-shooting market is actually a bit bigger and a bit more serious than it might seem?
    The Df tries to fill a different niche than the other FX DSLRs. Fine, good thing. As said, I'm glad Nikon is trying, because apart from the cry for a DX-total-action-body (D400) there isn't much to add to the DSLR line-up at the moment. The normal models will only incrementally get better (D5200 to D5300 a perfect example) - urging us less and less to buy new cameras. And Nikon depends heavily on (selling) DSLRs - so, they'll have to move. This camera does make sense, even if it's appeal is more limited than that of a D800 or D610.
    So, why these negative valuation of the possible buyers of the Df? What if people just really want the handling of their F2/F3/FM2/FM3 back rather than what the D610/D800 etc. offer? I can imagine this wish, and well, here it is. Price is steep, and that will remain a hurdle. But it looks like this model is going to be put in the market as a niche, rather than a more mainstream model (like a D610 or D7100). So even the high price, the missing features - it does not need to be a disaster. There is space for this. Fuji shows well enough the demand is there, I'd say. Leica is doing quite well these days. And also those Fuji's and Leicas are being used by serious photographers to make photos; they don't sit on a shelve.
    Not all of us want and need the same thing. One can call my (beloved) AiS primes optically limited, crummy, old and bad - but they render me the photos in the way I like, while my new nanocoated stabilised zoom doesn't thrill me half as much. I like the feel of a F3 in my hands, the sound of its mirrorslap, the mechanical interface - using it just makes me happier. And in the end, that is a thing that matters a lot (especially for the non-pros). I can see the Df make people happy to be out and shooting, people that today cannot find the right camera.
    To each his own. Let's be glad Nikon added choice, rather than dismiss whoever will buy this new one.
    Hmmmm..... I do sound like the perfect demographic for the Df now. And yet, I still don't want it. Maybe a Df3 :)
     
  74. bms

    bms

    Reading all the pros and mostly cons, and thinking about this more I think that while the camera may have some merits, the price is just
    ridiculous. Preorder will get cancelled.... I'd rather add to my m4/3 arsenal, or even better, go on a nice photo trip....
     
  75. I want one!
     
  76. Nikon is, I think, VASTLY overestimating the number of people who will buy this camera that has the wrong sensor, the wrong AF module, and the wrong price.
    Fire sale coming in the spring... $1500.00, get 'em while they're hot​
    I agree, but in the UK, that would mean a 66% drop, which is never going to happen......and, more importantly, for the £ equivalent of $1500 ~ £1000, I could still go and get a brand new D7100 and fast standard lens....and get change.
    For me that's a 'No-Brainer'! I hope they do sell lots and put that money into sorting out a DX version of the D4!
     
  77. Wouter--
    What you are missing is this is a fairly large camera. The appeal of the Leica and Fuji is they are SMALL, and they have SMALL lenses. Same for the FM2n etc. I don't think it competes at all with the small Fuji/Oly/Leica/Sony cameras. The camera has cool styling, but that's about it's only appeal. That and "Pure Photography." ;-)
    Fahrvergnugen!

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eOnne-90CLI


    Kent in SD
     
  78. Kent,
    more like this.
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SPdfFb14nww
     
  79. 15mm eyepoint! I wear glasses.
    Wait, what is the eyepoint on the D800 and D700?
     
  80. I wasn't going to rush out an buy it anyway, but the lack of manual focusing aids is disappointing. If I had this camera I would often want to go lightweight with my MF lenses.
     
  81. In my opinion, the traditional control layout is something Nikon should have kept all along. It’s not about being “retro” for style, but about efficient ergonomics. I remember the first Nikon I had with a multifunction wheel and big LCD display on the topside, the N8008 (F-801 outside North America). I really hated the way it slowed me down when changing basic settings like shutter speed. I’m sure many people preferred the multifunction dial, but I hated it so much I traded it in for an F4, which is I think is Nikon’s best designed pro film camera, ergonomically perfect for me. I never bought another Nikon until my D800E, and while I love the image quality from the camera, I don’t love its controls which are only slightly better than the N8008.

    My Leica M9P is much nicer to use than the D800E. Shutter speed dials are great because you don’t even have to have the camera on to set it up for the available light if you are used to gauging conditions and know the sunny 16 guidelines. The Df goes one better than the Leica M DRF cameras with an ISO dial. Hooray for these time-tested controls which make photography faster and more enjoyable for me. It also appears you can ignore these on the Df and set it up to use multifunctional command dials, which is the best of both worlds though it surely ads a bit to the price tag which does seem a bit on the high side, but will inevitably come down in a year or two.

    If I had a need for a low light camera I would definitely buy a Nikon Df, but I will wait for a higher res version. I don’t think people are at all correct in saying this camera is only aimed at collectors and fondlers of cameras. Not every serious photographer thinks like you. This looks like a serious photography tool to me. It’s not exactly what I would want, but much, much closer to my ideal than any previous DSLR from any company.
     
  82. No thanks. I'm not putting anymore of my cameras on the shelf.
     
  83. That's too bad. The 15mm eyepoint finder is truly a deal breaker for me. And, I would have purchased one.
    :-(
     
  84. If Nikon thinks slapping a silver top on it with a dial makes an "experience," then they really don't understand. Useless
    focussing screen for manual lenses. Just a 15mm eyepoint. Just another chunky DSLR.
     
  85. Kent,
    Wouter--What you are missing is this is a fairly large camera.​
    Good point. As I said in my first post, I find it a bit fat (compared to the F3 I bought to become a hipster-with-too-small-a-budget-for-a-leica), which makes me doubt I'll like the size of the handgrip. It is larger than it should have been, I agree.
    On the other hand, maybe it isn't meant as a direct competitor to those Olympus/Fuji/Leica retro-cameras, but instead Nikon's own take on it. An alternative approach.
    As long as Nikon clearly markets it as a niche product, a product addressing specific needs and wants (rather than mass-appeal), it might work. Let the market decide. All I've tried to say: let's not be too dismissive about the product, its buyers and its potential uses before we actually hear back from those who use it, or read the message that none have been sold.
     
  86. If you want the camera and can afford it, buy it.
    If you want the camera but can't afford it:
    1. Get a second job
    2. Sell everything you need to to get it
    3. Borrow money from your cousin "Sharkey" at 25%
    4. Use what you have but tell everyone you used this camera
    5. Sell blood. Sell plasma. Sell bone marrow.
    6. Tell Nikon you're a "well known internet persona" who must have one to review
    7. Ask your boss for a raise. Have a second job lined up
    8. Open up a wedding photography business
    9. Corner the eBay market in used Nikon EM bodies. Make profit
    10. Sulk until your mom buys you one
    If you don't want one and can afford it... wow. A sensible person.
    :)
     
  87. Well it is very cool looking. So my first impression was to look hopefully at the technical specs and see why I should buy this beautiful retro piece. Oh if it only had voice memo and a better autofocus module..... Then, unimpressed, I thought Nikon was sort of crazy to put this out there. After an entire hour of thinking about this I have concluded that Nikon has done something very smart.
    This is not a camera for pixel peepers. They wouldn't buy 16MP if it could shoot in the dark. Soon the low-light claims will come flooding in and we will have to put up with that again but in the end the techo-geeks will not settle for it. Just like they still look skeptically at the D4.
    This is not a camera for professionals and it never was. It is gelded in most of the important places.
    This is a camera for people who have not pulled the digital trigger yet for sure. Their learning curve will be very short. They can use the Nikkor lenses they have convinced themselves are better because they are old and Japanese.
    One exception to the "pros" comment that I made comes to mind. This camera just might be a great studio camera. With the WIFI and ability to use older lenses it could just work. On a tripod those controls might be nice.
    This camera does not compete with any of the other Nikons. There is absolutely no good reason to buy it. That is why Nikon is smart to build it. Plenty of folks will buy it. It will soon have a cult following. Though I have a D4 and am so in love with my D7100 I might. I would buy it for the very reason Nikon built it. Just for fun. And I can't think of a better reason to buy a new camera.
     
  88. I would not be surprised to see Nikon making special editions of this Df, like Leica with the M6 "millenium" (wait for the 4th), MP à la carte (ostrich skin), Carbon fiber (instead of titanium),and above all the M9 Monochrom (I will buy it).
     
  89. The Df is a niche product. that's what nikon needs, to connect with its legacy, if it's going to survive the onslaught of mirrorless and camera phones. it would have been nice if it had focus peaking for MF, but if the camera is a hit, maybe well get a Df2 down the line. it's not going to save the company overnight, but makes sense if you think about a five year plan.
     
  90. I believe the purpose of this camera is not to gather 'retro' points or to target collectors, but to offer an excellent manual
    focusing experience (precise focusing is currently only offered though LV; this offers a high quality optical alternative to it),
    broad compatibility with F mount lenses and a modern sensor with mixed traditional / contemporary controls. Initial
    reports suggest the manual focusing with the Df is indeed excellent but I am suspicious of the eyepoint even though that number has
    been a somewhat unreliable indicator of how easy a camera is to use with glasses on in the past.

    If the viewfinder turns out to really be what I hope it is, this could be a very important camera for manual focus lens users.
    And there are many of us who prefer manual focus for many types of work. Live view manual focusing is about as
    pleasant as eating tar in those Nikon DSLRs that I've used it with.
     
  91. No battery pack/vertical grip is a deal breaker for me if that is the case.
     
  92. Wait, what is the eyepoint on the D800 and D700?​
    D700/D3/D3S/D3X/D4: 18mm
    D800: 17mm
    D600: 21mm
    F3HP: 25mm
    F4: 22mm
    D300: 19.5mm
    Df: 15mm - the shortest of all Nikon DSLRs AFAIK
    Like with any new Nikon camera announcement, I ask myself what Nikon will do to screw things up. And here it is: a camera that is specifically advertised to be used with ALL Nikon manual focus lenses, even non-Ai (even though the procedure is hideous) - and then one cannot put a focusing screen in that is optimized for manual focusing? And they were designing this for FOUR years - yet that discrepancy didn't occur to anybody?
    Then there is the price - the body isn't even constructed like the D800 or D700; it's the same construction as the D7000/D7100/D600/D610.
    @Wouter: the "fatness" of the Df may make that small grip work better than the one on the F3 does (which only marginally improved handling for me over the non-gripped FM/FM2 bodies).
    This retro reminds me of cars with stick shift: back in the days when automatic just came into being (in Germany anyways), it was easy to do better with the manual control. Technical progress now gives us an automatic that you can't even dream of beating with a stick (shift). I had to adjust to the Nikon's "new" two command dial ways with the D70 - but once I did, I can't see any advantage in the "old" way anymore. And that top LCD display is the best control center ever - everything is there in one place - what can possibly be more convenient?
     
  93. I think they ought to sell dozens of these.
     
  94. I have no problem with criticism.....but maaaaybe some of the haters can set up a separate thread to announce they will not be buying this camera?
    I love the camera if I could afford it. I think it is probably directed toward the hobby crowd, especially those with a collection of old mf Nikkors. I understand the critics that say it is not state-of-the-art, but I don't think that disqualifies it for its intended purpose.
     
  95. I do think this brings me back to the old days with my old film camera Nikons. But no, I will not be buying. Cute though :)
     
  96. I think Nikon should have taken this approach with their V system cameras rather than making an expensive retro DSLR that only a select few will want. If their mirrorless cameras looked like this, they would sell cartloads.
     
  97. And for roughly another $100.00 here in Canada could purchase a new D800 right out of the box.
    Nice idea but will it sell in sufficient numbers to justify the research to develop such a device?
    Kent Staubus is correct.
    "I'm almost a "hipster." I regularly use the older Leica IIIc.
    I'm not quite cool enough to get an M2 yet. ;-)
    Oh yeah--I do shoot with a Rolleiflex too."
    and maybe that's all anybody really needs as opposed to want.
     
  98. Would the AF mechanism worth the complaining, as people would put MF lenses on it anyway? But the focusing screen (is it switchable? and eyepoint) could be better though...Remember it is for the retro, could afford it buyers...
     
  99. Or, for about $175, you could buy a used F3 and have *genuine* retro...without the digital, of course, but why would anyone want that?
    :)
     
  100. I know I`m not the target for this camera.
    But I like it, it`s a nice camera, the AF for sure is capable in most situations, the sensor should be the best one for available light, it is smaller and lighter that others, old lenses can be attached, but...
    The main thing that makes me to move back is the lack of video... I don`t want to buy or to have two or three digital cameras (I cannot afford them, anyway). I already have too many cameras... and I find that these days, good video capability is a must, like on the D800. My iPhone will do the rest.
     
  101. to justify the research to develop such a device​
    Put a Nikon FA and a D610 in a bag and shake. The complex components are already in existence and have been tried and tested already. The bodywork isn't that hard. That's the dev costs for the Df.
    Now, research! Anyone ever been asked about this? As someone pointed out above 'Lets go Retro and promote MF' and then made it with a fixed focusing screen, no focus peaking etc. That's how far the research budget went. It could have been a winner, but someone failed to ask a photographer.
    If their mirrorless cameras looked like this, they would sell cartloads.​
    Yup, almost tempted to make a photoshop pastiche of my V1 and the Df.
     
  102. Nikon of late really seems to like the $2700 area for pricing a lot. First the new 80-400mm lens and now the Df. The response to the 80-400mm sounded similar: "I like this but will wait for the price to drop to $2000". I have been on this site for several years and have noticed one thing: there appears to be an invisible barrier beyond $2000 that stops a majority of people from buying unless the product is vastly superior or introduces new technology. You have to really like nostalgia to pay this amount for a camera body with the Multi-Cam 4800 and single SD card slot. AF performance is equally as important to me as what sensor is used.
    Like others have stated, the Df seems primarily aimed at those in my generation. But a word to Nikon. If I am going to "Fall in love all over again", it will be with Hilary Duff and not Brigitte Bardot. :)
     
  103. But a word to Nikon. If I am going to "Fall in love all over again", it will be with Hilary Duff and not Brigitte Bardot. :)
    Thanks for giving me a good chuckle ;-)
     
  104. That thing is just cool. I had a moment of stress when I saw the new camera release and the D800 I just ordered is still in transit. That would have been classic if a minor update for the D800 showed up.
    I love the retro design. For travel, that might be really nice. It certainly doesn't scream steal me but rather "I'm so behind the times, say in the early '80's, that you'd only find pocket lint and film if you robbed me."
    Just need a second job. Not that the camera will make be cool, because I'm not, but I never shot with a Nikon back in the days when people said, "Eventually, you'll shoot Nikon." I was shooting with a Canon AE-1, not even an AE-1P.
    Like other posters have said, maybe this is the successor to the D700 for low light?
    And, it even has a threaded release cable. Now that's a touch of class.
     
  105. I like the camera, and can afford to buy it, but I won't. I can't find any performance advantage with it vs my current D600 and D3. For a lot less money, a D610 (or now even cheaper 2nd D600) makes more sense. In fact. I will probably swap out my D3 for a used or refirb D600 soon.
    Really wish it had the D7100 AF module. My biggest beef with the D600 I have is the smallish AF array.
    I am OK with 16MP and great high ISO. That would work well with what I am shooting currently. 5.5 FPS is fast enough for what I am shooting, rarely crank the D3 over 6FPS.
    So, vs. a D600, I loose the 2nd card slot (pretty important to me) and 8MP (not so important), and over 1K$! Does it offer any advantages that I am missing?

    I have plenty of classic cameras sitting on shelves, I can load up an F2AS, FM, or Leica M3 if I feel the need for a classic experience.
    And really, why not something like a 105/2.5 instead of the miserable performing early 43-86 in the press photo? They could have borrowed my 8.5-25cm zoom for the photo to spark interest in the earlier lenses.
     
  106. Like the look, dislike the execution of the idea and the price.
    Contrary to popular belief, there are a lot of AI, AIS lenses that hold their own on 36MP, hence the idea of old, soft MF Nikkors is no excuse for 16MP. Some of my sharpest lenses on my D800 are AI/AIS Nikkors (in fact some MF Nikkors have no AFS peer). It's cost control and/or product differentiation at work, not lack of sharp old glass. I'm OK with that.
    What I'm not OK with is the lack of any innovation with this camera and lack of logical follow-through on the design. External controls are nice, but it truly is a Frankenstein of a camera that appears to be designed by committee after someone had a great idea at Nikon. It has the price of a D800, but much less capability and is neither fish nor fowl regarding a step towards older film camera ergonomics.
    If they wanted to built a MF-Nikkor optimized camera they failed: Focusing screen fixed, no extra focusing aids, low eye relief.
    If they wanted to build a much more compact, yet highly capable DSLR they failed: It's still pretty heavy and not all that much smaller, especially compared to the new competition, and it's crippled in too many ways.
    If they wanted to build a D700 successor they failed: No where near D700 capabilities (other than the 16MP sensor)
    If they wanted to innovate in technology or camera design they failed: Not one new innovative feature (I don't consider external dials and "retro" styling innovative)
    If they wanted to build an entry level FF DSLR for the masses they failed: Priced way too high and is either lacking features or has too many high end features.
    Now that all being said, as with any Nikon DSLR it is surely capable of taking excellent images and it will appeal to people. Personally as an owner of a D800 (and D80, D300, and D700 before that) I was looking forward to a different tool than my D800 that was far more optimized for using MF glass and hence am disappointed with the camera's capabilities:
    - 39 AF points - I could live with 5 as long as they were spread out across the frame and were all f/8
    - Fixed focusing screen - please allow us the option to swap it out for better options, even if we need to pay a premium for it
    - Better on camera controls - though I appreciate it, you didn't have to go all the way back to the F3, FA era to come up with something ergonomic and more functional than the high end DSLRs for more metered shooting
    - No 10 pin remote - really?
    - No true mechanical mirror lockup - really?
    - No built-in viewfinder cover - really?
    - Lack of video I get, but many will not
    - etc., etc.
    So, would I own such a camera? Yes, but not at a D800 price level. For this camera, with it's specifications, I'd only be interested at $2K or less. And even then I'd have a long hard look at the competition.
     
  107. Gup

    Gup Gup

    I have read every post both here and on the previous 'wish' thread (over 400). It's been interesting at times. Mostly a few things have been said a hundred different ways. I've watched as some of you have stated your views, flip-flopped and then flopped back again. The haters have been the most vocal, I think.
    After much personal reflection I think I 'love' the panda version, but would likely buy the black one (I remember cleaning all those little silver nooks and crannies), but will NOT pony-up $3500 ($500 CDN taxes) for either, even though my 'toy' account is bulging right now. Nikon isn't going to force-feed me another 50mm lens, either. $2400 for the body and I'm first in line. No, it isn't 'state of the art' technically speaking, and for that I too am very disappointed, but perhaps that version was considered but couldn't be produced for under $4000 - $5000? Maybe that version will be released next fall? If they had produced that version I know I would have bought it, hands down, because I am in the market for THAT camera. I don't buy new cameras everyday and now have to justify the expenditure so I need the reassurance that my NAS will be in remission for the next decade. I miss the sentimentality that 20+ years with a proven and trusted machine provides. So far every digital body I have owned has just been a stepping stone to the next while I fund Nikon's research and development department. I would have liked this Df to have surprised me in more ways than its retro appeal, which I fully expected. I am going to reserve further judgement until I hear what the reviewers have to say and until I get one in my own hands. The Df may still have more up its sleeve than we know. At least that's what I'm hoping for.
     
  108. Well Bjorn says that he had no troubles focusing his f/1.2 or f/1.4 lenses with the OVF - we'll see if that is indeed true as more people actually us it with MF Nikkors.

    It just feels to me that the concept was rushed - if it could have been thought out some more it could be a really fine photographic tool for the same amount of $$.
     
  109. I am tired of writing about this camera - Thom Hogan summed it up quite nicely for me: http://www.dslrbodies.com/newsviews/digital-confusion-with-the.html
    I have no "officially" entered "camera replacement mode" - I will replace what I currently have only when it breaks or when repair is uneconomical; and I will likely look for used or refurbished before buying new and taking the full brunt of the loss that comes with the purchase of any digital camera nowadays.
    Over the last few years, all new Nikon camera offerings had technical advances I would have liked and would have paid for - but most of them gave with one hand and took away something I had and liked before with the other. The result: not enough incentive for me to "upgrade". Sometimes, "good enough" for me is exactly that - good enough for me.
    Now I am going to sit back and wait what Nikon will come up with next - hoping they can make up their mind what the next generation cameras really should be. Hoping to sell purely based on style most certainly can't be it - though I suppose it will work on some (or even many).
    It just feels to me that the concept was rushed​
    That would be bad news indeed and would get me worried - given that I read that this design was four years in the making.
    Bjorn says that he had no troubles focusing his f/1.2 or f/1.4 lenses with the OVF​
    With the help of the electronic rangefinder, I suppose? Or with a different focusing screen? Just curious.
     
  110. I think it is ironic that the micro-site for a camera w/o video recording capability relies on videos of McNally, Krist and Goldsmith to market the camera.
     
  111. I hope Nikon have really thought this out - going retro styling after the horse has bolted, Fuji, Olympus etc doesn't quite feel like the right thing to do, as far as I'm concerned. Worse than that if other people are even a bit like me, they'll be directed towards buying a cool looking OMD or Fuji X.
    This camera means that Nikon is doubting its core philosophy and that worries me.
     
  112. Meanwhile, where is my D400?
     
  113. Rockwell adores it without even holding it in his hands...
    ...what does THAT tell you...
     
  114. If nothing else the Df has spiked a lot of attention and discussion. The prior thread here was closed at 379 comments, and there are as of now 690 comments on Rangefinderforum to name but two venues. Now that says nothing about translation into sales, but still ....
    Personally, I'll wait until I can play with one in the local camera shop (with my old AI lenses, yet) before passing judgment on the Df. After all I thought the Nikon V1 was bound to be a piece of crap until I had the chance to shoot with one, and you know, for what it is, it's a lot of fun, a great travel companion, and amazingly decent in IQ. (On the other hand the V1 wasn't over $2.7K USD.) In particular, I'll hold off on comments about ergonomics until I get my hands on a Df. I hauled out the old F3 with MD4 this morning, and you know, despite its pedigree and legend, I find it much more awkward than my D300 on multiple levels. So maybe the digital-oriented backside of the Df and the DSLR-style control dials are not a bad thing. Pretty sure I won't like the left top-mounted exposure compensation dial though.
    (And for those few who wanted an LCD-less Nikon DSLR, get real! I am all about being a retrogrouch -- as we used to say about cyclists who like to ride lugged steel frames while wearing woolen jerseys instead of swanning about all-lycra clad on carbon fiber frames with unobtanium components -- but only to a point.)
    00c8Af-543405084.JPG
     
  115. I'm just so disappointed with a 4049 euro price tag body only it's gone too far over my price range. I really hope it's a mistake but probably not.
     
  116. To Clive's and others point, I probably would get more benefit out of the newly released Sony A-7 to put the the many older but excellent lenses I have (Leitz, Zeiss, Schnieder, the list is long) back in use than I would with the Df. And I have to think that I would have been a marketing target customer for Nikon (Bought an FM new in 1977, been buying a lot of Nikon stuff since).
    I like retro, but only when it has benefits as well as style.
     
  117. This seems so close to being just right. If they'd given it the D800 AF system, a split prism and put an aperture ring on the
    kit lens I'd want one.
     
  118. Rockwell adores it without even holding it in his hands...
    ...what does THAT tell you...​
    It tells me you read his blog because you were interested in his opinion. There are a few people out there on the internets that have handled the camera (Bjorn Rorslett, apparently is one). Otherwise, aren't most people on this thread giving opinions about a camera they have never held?
     
  119. If they wanted to built a MF-Nikkor optimized camera they failed: Focusing screen fixed, no extra focusing aids, low eye relief.
    This is what one might conclude by looking at specs only, but when it comes to manual focusing, I'll take Bjorn's word that it works well. Let's not draw conclusions until we have a chance to put the camera into use. Interchangeability of the focusing screen should be similar to nearly all Nikon DSLRs, i.e. they're interchangeable but Nikon isn't offering alternative screens. That doesn't mean the screen that is supplied for a camera that is obviously targeted at manual focus lens users won't be good. In a few months we will know exactly how well Nikon succeeded in the viewfinder and focusing screen design.
    Manual focusing aides never were what I liked to use; they clutter the viewfinder central area and cannot be used at the peripheral areas of the frame. The matte surface of a good focusing screen is in my opinion much more useful for focusing as it is present at every part of the frame and so composition can be independent of the position of focusing aids ... when the focusing aid is just the matte surface itself. It worked excellently in my experience with F3HP which I used for many years. It was when I moved to autofocus primary camera that it became difficult to compose and focus effectively since the focus points were initially only in the center. It was so frustrating! I only switched to AF as a primary method of focusing with the Multi-CAM 3500 cameras that offered a reasonable spread of points, not fully satisfactory but so much better than 1, 5, and 11 points. Given a choice, I would pay a considerable amount of money to restore a good manual focusing experience to the DSLR, but before the Df, Nikon has been very unhelpful in this respect. One of the best things about MF is that one does not have to waste time moving the focus point around and recompose; one points the camera towards the subject and holds the optimal composition while focusing at whatever point in the frame needs to be in focus, using the matte area. With the right viewfinder it is an enjoyable and productive experience, and it frees the photographer from compositional restraints imposed by the camera AF system designer. It took me a very long time before I could accept these restrictions and in fact a lot of the time they force me to crop a significant part of the image away because even the outermost points of the Multi-CAM 3500 are still far from edges. I really do sometimes want to place the focus near one or two edges of the frame. Manual focusing lets me do this, with a camera that adequately supports it. Hopefully the Df is it, or one of its successors.
    In my opinion 16 MP is sufficient for all but the most demanding applications of photography. And it sure is a big relief from the point of view of freeing all that time spent waiting for the computer handle the raw files when processing 4000 images from some multi day trip or event. Personally I think 24MP is the ideal compromise between image quality and practical file size for FX. I can use and take advantage of 16, 24 and 36 MP files but my preference is not 36 MP; I only use it because it is what I could afford at the time I purchased the D800. Now, I think for me the time has come to move to a more practical file size. I don't think the D800 will be my primary camera in 1-2 years, and I don't see a need to revisit that file size in the future, either. I can wait a bit longer for the right feature set though. But it seems Nikon is now expanding the FX camera and lens ranges rapidly and eventually there will be a product that has the right feature set. It might not always be the first instance of a series of cameras.
     
  120. 16MP is just fine. Anything at or above 6MP images will work for a large percentage of the photographers using the things. That's what Nikon shooters said when that was all Nikon made, and - by golly - they were right.
    We passed the threshold on number of pixels dancing on the head of a sensor some time ago, after all.
     
  121. So, Nikon is apparently soliciting opinions and feedback (whut?) on the Df and 50/1.8G here: https://webc.nikonimaging.com/form/pub/info/df_en. Let the Nikon folks know what you think instead/in addition to spouting off here.
    My spouting off there (to the free-form final question of "Please feel free to describe anything about "Df" and "AF-S NIKKOR 50mm f/1.8G(Special Edition)". (Up to 1,000 characters)":
    I wish you well with the Df, even though I REALLY want a "D400." PLEASE don't screw up the Df's marketing like you screwed up the Nikon One series (Ashton Kuchner, really? You should have marketed the V1 as the "Pro's vacation or sports camera" and touted the excellent AF. The hell with a man in his late 30's pretending to be a goofy teenager.) The depressed-seeming man with flat affect wandering in the highlands is not a promising start for the Df campaign.

    The 50/1.8G to go with a retro/full control camera seems silly, the G part, that is. Waste of resources. Make some small short DX-optimized primes for the love of god.

    Regarding the Df, the focusing screen had better work VERY well for manual focus. Otherwise you will be in for a lot of (deserved) criticism.

    I really WANT to like the Df, whether I buy will depend on the MF issues and how it feels in the hand.

    Edited to add: Jeez. They managed to screw up the questionnaire!!! The last question says in 1000 characters? Not really. If you try to submit up to 1000 characters (which includes spaces) it gets kicked back to you with a red error message saying only 550 characters. Don't promise one thing then change the rules. Also, you apparently can't leave any of the click-options (Likert-scale type) blank. Way to piss people off, Nikon. If you don't understand that, Nikon, here's the deal. People answering the questionnaire are helping with your market research for free. That means you take the information you get and be appreciative. By forcing respondents to answer each point you are going to get lots of abandonments, which skews your sample drastically. Only those who really care about your product will have their opinions counted, so you get this dumb happy view of how everyone loves you. Even, or especially if it's not true.
     
  122. I recall paying about $2300 for each of my F4s bodies in maybe 1994 and they are still running just fine. The F2/MD-2 and the F4s allow me to do my work without getting in my way. I don't notice the camera I just use it. For me that's a succesful design. Nothing Nikon has ever made with those damned command dials has worked as well for me. The camera gets in my way. I've been wanting a digital camera with this control layout ever since I bought my first D1-X. I'll withhold final judgement until I try one out but right now I'm liking it. And if it does all I need for $2700 or so that's fine. Beats $8k all day long.
    Rick H.
     
  123. I responded to the survey as well. My main points were that the specs indicate the Df misses the target demographic of middle aged and older photographers. It needs a long eye relief finder to accommodate eyeglasses, or positive manual focus confirmation aids: split-image and/or microprism collar; or AF sensor brackets that illuminate to confirm focus.
    Other than that it appears to be pretty well designed, although I'd have minor quibbles about the SPAM dial and placement of a couple of controls.
    Overall the Df is interesting but I suspect the manual focus issue will be the make or break point for the target demographic - mostly older dudes with bad eyes but plenty of money.
     
  124. To me it's not a pure camera. It's far from any manual focus camera. It's even got more buttons than my D70. My D70 doesn't have the i button, the info, the plus, the minus, the AF-ON. They coulda taken out the AF-L/AE-L and AF-ON and the user can assign whatever to the func button. Deleted bracketing, deleted GPS/ digital receiver connectors. Take out all the buttons left of the LCD. Just have a Playback and menu on top. Don't really need delete button. Could just go thru the menu for that. Have the info button if it wants. Take out LV.
     
  125. And just to reiterate the "old dudes with bad peepers" bit (I don't have plenty of money, so I'm only half a demographic)...
    For years I was very happy with the E grid screen in my F3HP. I could accurately manually focus even in nighttime conditions. Same with the D2H - I always found it easy to use with my manual focus lenses. With both screens, all I needed to do was eyeball the unaided screen. (The green focus confirmation dot at the edge of the screen was useless for candid photography, and not particularly accurate either.)
    No longer. My vision has really deteriorated the past year. I shouldn't complain - I'm 55 and didn't really need reading glasses for the computer until 2012.
    But the original K screen is going back into my F3HP.
     
  126. Manual focusing aides never were what I liked to use; they clutter the viewfinder central area and cannot be used at the peripheral areas of the frame. The matte surface of a good focusing screen is in my opinion much more useful for focusing as it is present at every part of the frame and so composition can be independent of the position of focusing aids ... when the focusing aid is just the matte surface itself.​
    Same here - which is why I had Type B or E screens in all my film cameras. Does the Df include a screen that allows to see DOF at f/1.4, or f/2? It is my understanding and experience that the screens in my cameras don't show a difference until I stop down to f/2.8 at least. That doesn't make for accurate manual focusing of a f/1.4 lens, for example - unless I am relying on the "green dot" rangefinder which sometimes leaves me hanging as well. I can focus a faster than f/2.8 lens manually, but it takes a lot of moving back and forth trying to find the middle and then hope that I indeed nailed it - on the screen it looks the same no matter where I am in that range between too far and too close. I don;t have much experience manually focusing lenses faster than f/2.8 though - a 85/2 was the fastest I owned when shooting film and my remaining manual focus lenses are all f/2.5 - f/3.5. Will play around manually focusing the Sigma 35/1.4 to learn more.
    BTW, manually focusing my 35/2 and 90/2 on a NEX 6 using focus peaking reveals that not to be the cat's meow under all circumstances either. Sometimes the peaking indicates focus but one is a little bit off( focusing in magnifying mode in usually helps but also slows one down).
     
  127. A lot of different opinions. I plan on purchasing one (a silver one) if I like the feel ergonomically, but I'm going to wait several months to allow any bugs to come out of the cracks (and maybe see a slight decrease in price). I currently have a D800 and a D700, but think I would rather travel with this camera, a 24-85mm, a 50mm, and a 105mm. I find I never need more than that when I travel anyway. I'm headed on a trip next month and that's all I'm taking with my D800. The D800 is overkill for simple photos, and the D4 sensor in this camera is much better than the already good sensor of the D700 as far as low light goes. Also, this camera does have a bit of a cool factor, and like my 14-24, I plan to keep it as a collector's item when/if I ever lose the desire to shoot.
     
  128. That's a good point, Ray. The Df still has too many dedicated external buttons. There's very little need for a dedicated delete button. The Ricoh GRD has a far better design for quickly reviewing and deleting photos - it enables batch selecting photos in a way that's very similar to using a computer, which makes it very handy for deleting batches of photos. That way the "delete" button is multifunction and minimizes clutter. Even the Nikon V1 design lacks this efficient design.
    Overall the Df seems more cluttered than need be. But Nikon may have felt stung by criticism of the over-simplified Nikon 1 System cameras. Although the problem with the J1 and V1 wasn't so much excessive simplicity - the top plate is brilliant, just three buttons, each perfectly designed. The main problem with the J1 and V1 was that dumb not-quite-mode dial.
    But whereas the original V1 and J1 looked like the concept of a single mad genius engineer who never left the lab, the Df resembles a committee consensus project... by a bunch of engineers who never left the lab or asked for feedback from the 50-80 year old curmudgeons who infest most photography forums like blowflies.
     
  129. Overall the Df seems more cluttered than need be.​
    Yep, there seem to be some rather superfluous dials on that camera too ;-)
     
  130. I did the questionaire, told them I wanted a D400, not a way overpriced FX camera. I told them the DF was too expensive and physically too large. I would be interested in a much smaller DX version of the camera, and have no interest at all in FX at this point. I also mentioned that if Nikon won't make the DX lenses I want, I will keep buying them from Sigma.
    Kent in SD
     
  131. It gets rather tiresome to keep reading that people are really against this camera because it doesn't have the newest AF module or the newest big time sensor or video or.... guess what kids, Nikon already MAKES that camera. Go buy it ! This camera is NOT about pretending to be a video camera in a single shot camera. It is NOT all about screaming AF, and having a screen full of AF points. Again that is NOT what it was designed for. Did you not watch the teaser videos ? This camera is also NOT about showcasing the newest possible innovation. It's about blending a digital camera with manual controls that some people really wanted to see. If that wasn't YOU, then you should NOT be hammering on this camera. You weren't the target audience.
    On the other hand, discussions and debate on whether it hit all the points it should have hit to be the camera they TEASED it to be, is just fine. Does it handle well when used in MANUAL mode ? Does it work well in LOW LIGHT ? Can in make good use of older lenses and MF ones, all the way back to AI and Pre-AI ? Are the controls laid out in a good way ? Can it take amazing shots with the lenses you have and allow you to use simple controls while doing so ? I won't know any of that until some real world users start reviewing it. The one BIG issue for many, may just be the price. I have no problem stating that it is over priced. But, Nikon does that a lot with MOST of their cameras !
     
  132. if Nikon won't make the DX lenses I want, I will keep buying them from Sigma​
    Maybe that is exactly what Nikon wants - stop making (higher-end DX) glass that they can't make money on and leave that field to the third parties? It's somewhat odd that both Canon and Nikon seem to have the same strategy when it comes to lenses specific for the crop sensor cameras.
     
  133. Or , perhaps , with certain lenses, they KNOW they can't compete well with the 3rd party companies, so they don't waste time building a lens that most will say, " Well, for THAT money, I'll go buy a Sigma ! "
     
  134. So, Nikon is apparently soliciting opinions and feedback on the Df and 50/1.8G here: https://webc.nikonimaging.com/form/pub/info/df_en. Let the Nikon folks know what you think instead/in addition to spouting off here.
    I filled it out and answered all the questions and did not exceed 1000 words or spaces. Nothing happened when I submitted it. Just an infinite submission processing circle. Who knows what happened. So much for market research info from me, Nikon.
    Joe Smith
     
  135. As such, although I hate to say it: from a cold, hard practical point of view, I can't shake the feeling that the Df is a little bit... silly. http://www.dpreview.com/previews/nikon-df/6
    Very well, that is the opinion of one reviewer at DPReview.com. He does, however, go on to say this:
    Hardcore Nikon fans will point to the support for 50 year-old non-Ai lenses, which is valid, but I suspect that the constituency of photographers for whom this is a real selling point is vanishingly small. Of course, I could be wrong.​
    Most relevant to me, he also goes on to say this:
    Naturally, there will be some photographers who will see the Df purely in terms of a lower-cost shell for the D4's very capable sensor, and might not care about the design.​
    Yes, "a lower-cost shell for the D4's very capable sensor."
    That is IT for me. Let us see what the D4 sensor can do in a consumer grade camera. I don't really care about about all the retro stuff. I just want to know about (1) image quality (in low light at high ISO) and (2) ease of operation--not to say I won't stick an Ai-S lens or two on it from time to time if I decide to buy it.
    I especially would like to see how it matches up against the D3s for night time street shooting. If it matches up well enough against the D3s on image quality at high ISO in low light, it might be time for me to sell the D3s to someone who can use all its features, not just the low-light capability.
    In the meantime, the D3s is my best low-light camera. Will this camera take its place?
    It might. It just might.
    --Lannie
     
  136. I filled out the questionnaire. I told them that I liked pretty much everything but the price. And I do. I'll probably buy one. If my current technology timeline holds true, it will probably be in 5-6 years, after a couple of more reincarnations come out. I just bought a D300 a couple of years ago. And I bought that because it was the best I could afford that was compatible with my MF glass.
    I agree with John Williamson in that it seems that a lot of the detractors of this camera are not really who the camera is aimed at. I mean, they publicized it by picturing it next to a 43-86 for heaven's sake. They are emphasizing it's retro look and compatibility with manual focus lenses. Do you really think that those that want to use MF glass are going to be all that worked up about it not having the latest AF module? 36 mp? That's the D800's claim to fame. 24mp is more reasonable, but 16 is really enough for most of the target audience of this camera, I think. And the high ISO capabilities that the 16mp sensor gives would really come in handy with some of the the slower MF lenses and those that don't really perform all that great wide open and obviously have no VR.
    I'm not trying to say it's a perfect camera, by any means. It's not. But it's very close to being perfect for me, as close as I really have any reason to expect. And I'm sure that there are others out there that feel the same.
     
  137. Judging from the comments here, one may be inclined to think photography couldn't possibly have existed prior to a few years ago and the advent of 25+ Mp sensors, 50+ blazing AF points, shooting video and using WIFI all the while coupled with $2000+ lenses. If you like the latest and greatest you are labeled a techno-geek more concerned with spec sheets than photography. If you like older technology or more traditional "retro" gear you are labeled as merely a camera fondling collector who is also not concerned with "real" photography. Personally I think it looks like a really neat concept. Aside from the price I would withhold judgement before actually using it. All of the negative comments may have some merit based on what that particular user is looking for, but for everything the DF lacks you can probably find it in a half dozen cameras on the market already. At this point there isn't really much technology left to develop that is seriously holding people back from producing world-class images. I give Nikon credit for taking the risk to address a new market segment
     
  138. From Shun's full review on the home page ( http://www.photo.net/reviews/nikon-df-preview/ ):
    Retro-style 50mm/f1.8 G AF-S lens only: $279.95​
    How on earth can a G lens be "retro"? The aperture ring is one thing I often do miss on modern lenses.
    --Lannie
     
  139. I haven't found anything to confirm this, but I suppose the lens is
    optically the same as the "old" one, just in a new housing and at a
    premium price, is that right?
     
  140. Also from Shun Cheung's full review on the home page (http://www.photo.net/reviews/nikon-df-preview/ ) :
    Since the retro-style knobs are labor intensive to manufacture and assemble, with the high labor cost in Japan, I expect the Df’s cost to remain high for its entire product cycle. This is essentially a somewhat low volume, boutique camera catered to affluent photographers who prefer the class controls as well as camera collectors. For those Nikon customers, the Df is like a dream come true. As long as Nikon doesn’t over-produce them, the Df’s value is unlikely going to drop over time.​
    I hope that you are wrong about that part, Shun. I am hoping the reviewer from DPReview is right on this point instead:
    Naturally, there will be some photographers who will see the Df purely in terms of a lower-cost shell for the D4's very capable sensor, and might not care about the design. http://www.dpreview.com/previews/nikon-df/6
    If there is enough demand from regular shooters and not retro aficionados, that is, it seems likely that Nikon will produce a great many--or else Nikon might produce (in very substantial quantities) a non-retro version with upgraded AF and two card slots, etc., for modern users of DSLRs. In either case, this camera or one similar to it might wind up being affordable for "the rest of us."
    At least that would be my hope.
    --Lannie
     
  141. Am I the only one who was excited form a practical point of view when I saw this camera? I have a D700 right now and, before I saw this camera, was reluctant to upgrade because I see the new FF generation as a step back ergonomically. And ever since I got my X100, I just LOVE mechanical knobs and dials. I love the "just set it and go" feeling you get from a knob over a button.
    The black one is pure beauty to me, (OK, admittedly the silver is pretty hip…) and once I saw the pictures of the top plate I think its the prefect fit for me ergonomically. I LOVE the super simple PSAM dial (I always forget which mode I'm in withy D700…) and the lack of fluff.
    PLUS that D4 sensor.
    This is the camera I've dreamed of for years.
     
  142. Each time when I look at its controls I recall the Contax NX.
    What about slightly mediocre specs? Even F801 had 1/8000 - 20 years ago.
    1/4000? Why? The shutter isn't machanical - it is electronic. They cut the ability to shoot at 1.4 in the bright light without ND filter. 5 fps? - Not too much.
     
  143. Well, one thing learned here after this intense read, people are into looks when it comes to their camera's. I'm shocked at how much,'Looks,' is a priority. Maybe its always been that way, and that the advent of social media has merely squeezed that out. I fall in the same vane too, that the Df is what I've been looking for, and my thinking is to use this forum to guide my decision making over the Df, but I'm going to take a different tack, and ignore this thread, and use my own pure common sense in assimilating information pertaining to the Df. At $750 more than the 610, and with obvious better build quality, the build quality alone may justify the Df. When the official test reports come out, there will have to be much more stringent negatives for me to look the other way, other than what I've heard here, so far. The camera weighs a mere 25 oz! Who knows what some are talking about that its too big, To big?
     
  144. " This camera is also NOT about showcasing the newest possible innovation. It's about blending a digital camera with manual controls that some people really wanted to see. If that wasn't YOU, then you should NOT be hammering on this camera. You weren't the target audience."

    I'm probably pretty close to their target. I love old cameras, and I have $$. The two reasons I probably won't buy it are (1) It's too expensive for what it is (2) It's a fairly large camera. Nikon made it D300/700 size; I was thinking Leica RF/FM2n size. If they had put a DX sensor in it and scaled down both the price and size, I would likely be pulling camera gear out of my closet tonight to sell it and buy a "DxF."

    Kent in SD​
     
  145. I don't think they will ever make a pure digital camera. Maybe a real digital is a D4 ... haha. Will just continue to shoot my FM2N with b/w film. This is just a modern full feature SLR with some looks thrown in without flash and without video. Maybe some users will find a use with that 120m radio receiver and that WiFi and GPS module and when they shoot a HDR ...
     
  146. The Df is not exactly about photography. The emphasis is its retro styling. Again, its target is mainly collectors and those who find retro styling "cool."

    Those who think the Df's price will come down are merely dreaming. Concerning features, the Df is already "obsolete" the moment it is introduced: 16MP is very low in today's standards, Multi-CAM 4800 is not top of the line, there is no video, no dual memory cards ... and of course the controls are out of date by 2, 3 decades. However, retro, or obsolescence, is exactly the selling point. The Df will be like the FM3a and F6. Not many shoot film any more and even fewer need to get a new F6, but unlike the F5 and F100, the F6's price remains sky high for both new and used in mint condition.​
    I agree with you, Shun. The FM3a was unique and it was at the affordable price.
     
  147. Kent,
    I agree, the price is out of my range. The size may or may NOT be a problem for me. I like my F4! I find my D7000 a little tight to hold steady, by comparison. I can't complain about the shots I can get with it, however. What this camera has made me wonder is how good the D4 sensor is. I never cared before because it was WELL out of my range. Now, I want to see some samples and read reviews, just to figure out what I might expect out of the Df.
     
  148. I like my F4!
    F4 had one of the best grips to hold.
     
  149. with obvious better build quality​
    From the image of the body that I've seen the construction seems to be quite similar to that of the D600/D610 and certainly not the full metal chassis of the D800. I don't see an "obvious better build quality" - in fact, the camera is slightly lighter than the D610. Do you have any information that confirms the "better build quality"?
    Here's a size comparison: Df vs D610 vs Sony A7. Both Nikon's with the 50/1.8 and the A7 with the 55/1.8: http://j.mp/16EB1GA

    While the NEX camera is much smaller, with the lens that advantage shrinks - but the combo is still lighter than the Nikon bodies alone.
    And just for kicks - here's the FM3A dimensions: 142.5 × 90 × 58 mm (pretty much the same as FM2)
    Compare to Df: 143.5 x 110 x 66.5 mm
    F3: 148.5 x 96.5 x 65.5 mm
    F100: 155 x 113 x 66mm

    That's not a whole lot of difference between the Df and the FM2/FM3A; the main difference is the height, which is indeed closer to the D300:
    D300: 147 x 114 x 74 mm
    D700: 147 x 123 x 77 mm
    Olympus managed to make their film cameras a lot smaller than Nikon: 136mm x 83mm x 50mm for the OM-1. And so did Pentax: 135.8 × 82.5 × 49.3 mm (MX).
    F4 had one of the best grips to hold.​
    Indeed - almost a little to big for my hands but workable and not uncomfortable.
     
  150. So here's what I didn't know. There's not a metal chassis, so that changes my thinking on build quality, yet there may be different thinking on that too.
    http://imaging.nikon.com/lineup/dslr/df/features04.htm
     
  151. Everyone is happily saying 'I can get my hands on the D4 sensor for less $$' etc, but AFAIK..
    • 16.2 CMOS sensor, similar to the one on the D4, with Expeed 3 electronics
    ..isn't the same.
    The DxO numbers for the D4 sensor aren't that great.
    D4's 13.1 EV for DR....14.4 for the D610 or D800
    ISO Score D4 2965, same as the D610, about 1/6 stop worse than the D3S @ 3250.
    Colour Depth for D4 24.7bit, 25.3 bit for the D800 and 25.1 for the D610.
    The D4 sensor doesn't come out top in ANY sensor related issue....but everyone wants one?
    Now the similar to D4 sensor in the Df may be a different kettle of fish, but that's an assumption.
    As for the 'I want smaller file sizes' either use the D800 in Medium Size, Fine JPEG setting, or far more sensibly downsample the image once you've done all the RAW conversion etc for even better noise control. Get a better computer; for half the price of the Df, you could get a real monster.
    Now don't get me wrong, I want a D4, but for the speed, ie high fps with all those very good (but not the best) sensor numbers in one sports 'holistic' package....in those terms nothing else gets close, apart from the D3S.
     
  152. Mike, do we trust DxO, or do we trust our lying eyes?
    1. Go to this page: http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/nikon-d600/21
    2. At the bottom left of the page, where it says the "Sony A99," dial in the Nikon D3s.
    3. At the bottom right of the page, where it says Canon 5D III, dial in the Nikon D4.
    4. Change the blanket settings above to ISO 12,800.
    5. Compare all four Nikon sensors, those of the D600, D800, D3s, and D4 at 12,800 ISO and below.
    It isn't much of a test, but it seems to be all we have for "eyewitness testimony," unless we have the cameras in question--I have the D800E and the D3s. I have shot the D600 for one afternoon. I have NOT shot the D4.
    I ask again,
    Do we trust DxO, or do we trust our lying eyes?


    All that I know is that I like shooting my D3s more than my D800E, since the D3s is often "good enough"--and I don't have to save to card, download, and process huge files. (Keep in mind that the D3s was an improvement over the D3 and the D700--which have a very loyal following to this day.)
    And the D3s almost sees in the dark! (That was hand-held.)

    The D4 appears to be even better than the D3s, which in turn is better (to some small degree) than the D3 and the D700.
    Unless one is going to crop a lot or print the size of a house, I don't see why--for most photography--the D4 would not be more than "good enough."
    My own interpretation of these data is affected by the fact that I like to shoot in low light--very often.
    I will also say this, the simplicity of using the smaller files is not to be sneezed at. I have the D800E. I love it. I shoot it. But I love shooting the D3s more, and I believe that the D4 can outdo it. I just don't see any point in shooting with the 36-mp sensor most of the time, or even the 24-mp sensor most of the time. A sensor designed for the D4 surely ought to be good enough--most of the time.
    Where is Ellis Vener when we need him? He has shot all of these, I feel sure.
    I admit that we do not know how the new sensor is going to perform, but after all this build-up, it had better be pretty good. (I think that I said something like that before.)
    Do we trust DxO, or do we trust our lying eyes?

    --Lannie
     
  153. I can see there will be no interest in this camera. Only 16 pages of posts in two whole days . . .
     
  154. Yep, it is only going to be a boutique camera for collectors.
    --Lannie
     
  155. Mike, sensor choice is all about balance of features and compromises. For example, the D3s has a little bit better
    SNR at high ISO than the D4 but the D4 has higher resolution and has better DR towards the low end of the ISO range.
    So the D4 has a more general purpose sensor than the D3s. It has ISO 100 which to me is mandatory for studio. For me, a sensor has to be good for all my applications since I am not likely to own two cameras of
    each type so that I have backups for everything. I do have several cameras but each of them has to be able to do
    everything acceptably, otherwise there can be real problems in case one of the cameras fail.

    If you compare D800 with D4, on dxomark, you'll see they are close but the D800 is a bit better at the low end of the ISO
    range in dynamic range whereas the D4 is better towards the high end. Again it might be that the D4 sensor does not win
    an individual measure, but it is a good balance. And if you compare the dxo results of the D4 with its main rival, the 1DX,
    the D4 sensor does very nicely indeed.

    As for shooting JPG, well the thing is that I want all the flexibility in tones nd color that I can get, especially
    when shooting in artificial light indoors. I am not interested in shooting JPG and never will be. Very high resolution,
    however, is something that I only need for one in ten thousand images or so, so it is a lot of pain to process through tens
    or hundreds of thousands of 36 MP images when 24 MP or 16 MP would suffice for all but a handful of images.
    Remember that today the primary presentation of images is the computer, tablet, or smartphone display, and even for
    high quality magazine paper, 16-24 MP should be fine. Those who photograph to make highly detailed wall size prints
    may disagree, of course, and for those applications D800/E or medium format digital may be the right choice. For the
    event photography that I do I think 16 MP is fine. 12 MP is a little low though; it is ok but you can see the difference to
    higher resolution cameras in hand-holdable prints. However, even though one can see the difference, doesn't mean it
    matters a lot; the message of the image is still communicated through the lower resolution image, the higher res image is
    just a little bit crispier. For landscape the D800 sensor is great; no argument from me there; and for overall the highest quality image, but it is a little problematic for events.

    Since a lot of my people images are shot at very wide apertures, sometimes in daylight, but also in very dim conditions
    indoors, the challenge with obtaining a crisp image is not so much related to the pixel count rather it requires extremely
    precise focusing. With AF I typically shoot 2-4 frames to get one or two that is perfectly in focus with 36MP. At a slightly
    lower resolution, such as the 24 MP of the D3X, visibly out of focus images in daylight are quite rare, yet the images are
    extremely detailed. I therefore find that the lower resolution gives me practically the same thing as the higher resolution,
    but at a lower cost in storage and post processing, and less stress and chimping while shooting. However, the D3X is
    obviously not good at high ISO. The D610 is nice but what really would help me at wide apertures is higher quality
    viewfinder optics, which the Df is reported to offer. I'd be happy if they had put in a 24 MP sensor and Multi-CAM 3500,
    but they didn't. Perhaps that will be seen in the next generation.
     
  156. This digital FA on steroids has raised more interest than anything else in Nikonland for a long time, so we are in for a lot of fun.
     
  157. The DxO numbers for the D4 sensor aren't that great.
    D4's 13.1 EV for DR....14.4 for the D610 or D800
    ISO Score D4 2965, same as the D610, about 1/6 stop worse than the D3S @ 3250.
    Colour Depth for D4 24.7bit, 25.3 bit for the D800 and 25.1 for the D610.​
    DxO may say one thing, but I've shot with a rented D4 a few times. The low-light performance of that sensor is just silly. It smokes my D700 and my D800. I've shot with a D3s as well, and the D4 is better than the D3s in low light (although not by a big margin). I hear you with the technical tests, but I think it's better to sample and compare the results in practice. Every time I rent a D4, I have a hard time sending it back, and have an equally hard time keeping my credit card in my pocket. The Df, with a D4 sensor (Nikon states "the same exceptional image quality as the D4"), works for me.
    The 39-point focus system (because all of the focus points are densely packed in the center of the frame) is the only thing that is a bit of a downer. That's one of the things (along with the body type) that kept me away from the D6xx/D7xxx cameras. But I don't necessarily need 51-point focusing either. If there was a system with the spread of the 51-point but with count of say a D90 (I think that had 12 points), that would be perfect for me. I don't plan on using this camera to track Usain Bolt in the 100...my D700 with the grip or a rented D4 is what that's for.
     
  158. Looks like the price was wrong where I live price is now 2999 with the 50 mm. I was going to get the new 50mm at some time. Much happier now. Just got to see it in the flesh to decide if I want it or not.
     
  159. Playing catch-up...

    DxO does report that the D4 and D3s are appreciably (about a stop) better at very high ISO. The image quality there is not good, but it's still better htan the D800/D610 and certainly than the D700/D3. The "high ISO" figure is for an image quality setting that's still pretty reasonable - so for an "ok" image quality, all the current FX cameras are roughly equivalent. Looking at the dynamic range graphs shows where the gap opens up - the D4 sensor will make the difference between a passable image and a useless one under very extreme circumstances, which is what you probably need as a journalist. It doesn't, so much, turn a very noisy image into a good one - it turns snow into grainy film. How useful this actually is for a Df owner, especially one used to shooting usable film speeds, is another matter.

    Good point that you can set (some of) the camera settings without turning the camera on. Although most modern DSLRs have a very long battery life when "on" anyway, so I'm not sure that this argument is a slam dunk.

    I absolutely do not believe that having a load of manual controls on the top of the camera that need two or three fingers to activate (depending on how stiff they are when unlocked) is quicker than the conventional layout: with the conventional layout, you don't need to move your finger from the shutter release, and you certainly don't need to mess with the left side of the camera anything like as often. If it makes people feel more comfortable, I'm happy that Nikon have catered to them, but I will logically argue why this design went out of favour and I'm sticking to it. Most of my complaints about Nikon's ergonomics are based on the times when you do need to move your hand off the shutter. You can mostly ignore the controls on the top of the Df and use it like a camera that has the benefit of the last thirty years of user interface design, but I'm really concerned about how well that front dial wonks.

    I wondered when Thom would chime in. :) I mostly agree with him, at least on this. And on the PC-sync socket cover issue!

    I'm confused how Bjørn is managing to manual focus an f/1.2 lens on this camera, unless he's just using the digital rangefinder. I trust his expertise, and I've been meaning to subscribe, but if it's got a fresnel screen then it's highly unlikely that you can judge the DoF with any accuracy at f/1.2. If it's genuinely ground glass, it'll be better - but also hopelessly dim with a slow zoom. I really don't buy the argument of manual focus being "better" without some digital assistance - it's really just not accurate with modern sensor resolutions, and a split prism restricts you to the centre of the finder. I love my manual focus Pentax 645, but there's no way I'd claim it's better than live view with focus peaking. Of course, if Nikon really want this, maybe it's why they stuck to 16MP.

    I criticized the V1 for being overpriced with a tiny sensor, but was interested in the high speed abilities. The price dropped, and I got one just for high speed shooting. I don't think I'm going to be massively surprised about the Df, but I could always be wrong.

    Anyway, I'm not a hater. I'm not really in the market for a new Nikon at the moment, no matter what it is (I'm still a happy D800e shooter), so I have no reason for disappointment. I'm happy for the people who feel that this camera offers what they want - though I really hope they're right. I do feel sorry for the people who have genuinely been demanding a more conventional camera that Nikon don't offer, and presumably could have done in place of the Df. I think Nikon probably could have made a camera with more appeal than the Df that's more practical to shoot, and that Nikon are losing sales because they're trying to find a market segment that may or may not exist rather than satisfying the ones that do. I'm a little frustrated that I'm trying to understand Nikon's reasoning, and I'm not sure that I get it (or I worry that the decision just wasn't very good). But if it was supposed to be a marketing exercise and get Nikon's name discussed, it worked.

    The rangefinder forum? Seriously?
     
  160. Stuart, what currency are those figures? Euros?
    So, 2999 Euros @ E0.75 to the $, that's $4000. Gosh...that's a long way from the $2999 in the US.
    Mind you, on today's £:$ rate the Nikon Df kit is $4433 dollars. Not a cheap hobby or tool this..:-(
    Interestingly, if you take the $2999 dollars and convert down, you get £1860, which is exactly the stabilized price of a new D800. Co-incidence, I'm sure!
    So, if people think $2999 is way off piste in pricing, think again..:)
    ______
    Good to here Bjorn's views on the new Viewfinder. I may need to take a look myself!
     
  161. Wow, it was successful publicity stunt from Nikon, and there is no such thing as bad publicity.
    Otherwise, it will make some collectors happy, that's about it.
    I think, what the photographers want from Nikon is very simple, D700 with D4 sensor and D300s with D7100 sensor, no need to reinvent the wheel.
    It is not gonna kill D4 sales, those who buying D4, will buy it anyway, because it is necessary tool of trade for them.
     
  162. Nick: A D700 (or 800) with a D4 sensor wouldn't kill the D4 if it could only shoot at 4-6 fps (depending on how you measure the D800's shutter). If it could do the D700 battery grip trick and hit 8fps cheaply, I suspect that might tempt a few prospective D4 buyers, though clearly not all of them. I honestly don't know how the D4 is currently selling, and I'm curious whether there'll be a D5 (with a few more fps and pixels to keep the 1Dx honest) before the next Winter Olympics.

    Similarly, a 24MP D7100 sensor that had a decent buffer and could shoot at 8fps in a D300s style (with grip) might well poach a few D4 sales, at least in good light. Explaining to your manager why you needed to pay so much for 2/3 of the resolution may be tricky. I have to assume this is why the D7100's buffer issues haven't been worked over, and why there's been no "D400". Maybe a higher-spec D5 would help make a gap to fill.

    Strictly, Nikon haven't always avoided overlap. Technically, they still sell the D3x. I have to assume that "sell" mostly means "have sitting on shelves", though. I've no idea whether Nikon make any money out of the D4, or whether it's just having a halo effect.

    But yes, while everyone has slightly different ideas on the details, there has been clear demand for a "true" successor to the D700 and D300s, and the D800/D610/D7100 aren't quite that. I assume that Nikon did some research and decided that the demand didn't make these worth it, despite vocal calls for them. I assume that the Df is an attempt to try an market segment for which Nikon don't know that the camera won't sell - it's a risk compared with a known failure. Of course, I'm hoping that this market research was accurate!
     
  163. Perhaps those with a Nikon camera that includes video are not ‘photographers’ for Nikon. Silly and ridiculous. Those who cannot afford to buy this camera and do own a DX format, are not photographers for Nikon. Just consumers ... “let’s make our 2k + camera owners, pure photographers by owning this camera” ... Wow ...
    I would prefer the D4 one million times over this camera and never look back if I could afford it, otherwise, my new D7100, has nothing to envy to this one for much less money and beside, I don’t use video at all and I never will ... I forgot, another 50mm lens ? We already have a bunch. Nice addition Nikon !! ( what a bad joke .... ) /
     
  164. Andrew, he is not using the focus confirmation dot but the matte surface of the screen. The optical quality of the whole viewfinder
    assembly affects the clarity of the view and ability to focus manually. Regarding the market for this camera, there are a lot of us who
    prefer to focus manually on the matte area; it requires no distance dependent focus fine tuning like autofocus does and should make
    using the camera a lot more relaxing since one doesn't have to fire a number of shots to get one that has the focus in the right place, as
    one has to do with autofocus when working at wide apertures. Using the D700 with Katz Eye screen was already a big improvement; with
    this camera that apparently has better quality viewfinder optics, I'm looking forward to an experience where I will forget the annoying need
    to play with the focus point selector and miss shots doing it, and the fact that the AF system discriminates against having the main subject
    in the peripheral parts of the frame. AF with Multi-CAM 3500 is better for tracking a moving subject of course, but for many subjects such
    as portraits, manual focus using the matte surface of a camera like the F3HP is far more enjoyable.
     
  165. I think, what the photographers want from Nikon is very simple, D700 with D4 sensor and D300s with D7100 sensor, no need to reinvent the wheel.​
    Well said. A lot of us have been wanting a somewhat better D700 for a long time without the cost of a D3s--and the resolution of the D3s can be marginal as well at times, especially if one has to crop. This camera seems to have the sensor for a lot of applications, but some of us might have been happier with a more conventional set of controls and features.
    I keep reminding myself, however, that there is my own "landscape mode." When I am seriously in that mode, there is nothing quite like the D800E, even though I have gotten passable landscape shots at times with the D3s. I had sure better frame the shot right at the time of shooting, though. There is not much room for cropping with a 12-mp sensor. That is where the D4 sensor begins to sound really appealing.
    Sometimes we want one sensor that can do it all, but of course that does not exist. If I have to stay with the D3s/D800E combo, I will be more than happy. It is more than I ever thought that I would have when I first started shooting digital in 2002. If I can get a few more megapixels when I typically would shoot the D3s, then I will be all the happier--thus I am excited about the D4 sensor (or something very close to it).
    I don't take many shots with crop sensor cameras anymore, but I respect those who do. I still have my D7000, but it is not getting a lot of use these days. The D3s has just been too much fun--and I don't do this for a living.
    --Lannie
     
  166. pge

    pge

    It gets rather tiresome to keep reading that people are really against this camera because it doesn't have the newest AF module or the newest big time sensor or video or.... guess what kids, Nikon already MAKES that camera. Go buy it !​
    +1
    I can't even read many posts here anymore. Nikon makes lots of cameras that I don't want, so what. I don't want a D40, so what. I never post about it.
    But specifically one comment keeps cropping up and it is hard to understand. 16mp is too small and too old for people, really. I think this is a major misunderstanding of photography. If you can't shoot a good photo with 16mp's, especially with that sensor, it is time to take some lessons.
     
  167. As an unrepentant "camera fondler" I dig this camera! I might even, perish the thought, take pictures with it with my extensive Nikkor MF lens collection (that I never sold). A bit too expensive now but I L-O-V-E the FE retro styling. I still have and use (fondle) my old black FE2. Yes, unlike real photographers with loftier concerns, I appreciate camera design and appearance for its own sake. I don't need/want video/wi-fi. I really like traditional knobs. Glad to see Nikon get off their duff and come out with something interesting and unique. Maybe Canon will respond with something new and interesting, too.
     
  168. > If you can't shoot a good photo with 16mp's, especially with that sensor, it is time to take some lessons.
    Yes, absolutely. Or as you new-fangled kids, say: +1.
    Not sure if I agree with the following comment by Claire over at Kirk Tuck's place (http://visualsciencelab.blogspot.com/2013/11/im-not-least-bit-conflicted-about.html) but it made my day.
    "[The Df] actually makes me angry ... Nikon seems to take it's older customers for morons, and to count on a hard-on reaction ... to overshadow [its] huge functional shortcomings .... To me it's a whore with a bad boobjob and an extravagant fee."
     
  169. For those who think we're being too hard on this camera, photo.net is a place for photo and camera gear discussion... so we're discussing... so get over it...
    And I think we get to discuss whether we think Nikon has made wise or unwise choices here.
    Interesting, and telling, that this is without a doubt the most polarizing product release in Nikon's digital history, as far as I can tell. Seems some love it, many hate it. Some think it's the perfect mix of features, some think it's so off base it's almost funny.
    But here's another thought. It doesn't matter if they made the right call on this or not, just like it doesn't matter if any car company sells lots of their high-end sports cars. People who like it but can't afford it will still want Nikon, because they think that Nikon "gets" photographers. It's a "prestige piece".
    That said, if this camera came out about the time of the D300/D90/D3 with a 12MP sensor, more of us would love it, but it's years later now... and there are too many people who are going to complain about the (too) high price and lack of features that we now take for granted. (How many DSLRs currently can't do video from any manufacturer... by my count, just this one... How much would it have cost to leave that feature in? I suspect zero dollars... crazy... no vertical grip? How many Nikon DSLRs over 2000 have ever not had that option? Just this one... etc...)
    If this was a DX camera (and therefore smaller) with the same kind of layout and had video and was half the price, I might be sold... As it is... I continue to wonder if I shouldn't move to micro 4/3 or Fuji even more with this release... Or not... because now that I've been using DSLRs with the more modern ergonomics (in my case a D90), I'm kinda used to them... so retro cameras... I dunno... I can't even tell, right now, if that even appeals to me anymore, and I assure you it used to.
     
  170. To each his own. Really puzzled. Let's compare the D610 and Df.
    1- Weight is almost IDENTICAL to the D610 (no advantage)
    2- No on-board flash to use in an emergency or as a trigger (disadvantage)
    3- Only one memory slot - no backup or jpg assignment (disadvantage)
    4- $800 more (MSRP USA) (disadvantage)
    5- No video (disadvantage for news, family, etc)
    6- Less pixels - 16mp verses 24 mp (more on this later)
    7- FPS is lightly LESS in spite of only 16 mp
    So what are we paying $800 for? A retro look? (I owned at least a half dozen F models) More surface dials to twist? Faster use? (not really, as you better be pre-set before you start) Ability to use older Nikon lenses? Geezz. With modern pro glass soooo much better - why? Because you have them? New pro glass from Tamron and Sigma is now becoming somewhat affordable - and surpassing Nikon.

    Now here is the kicker. Take a 24mp file and down-size (resample) it to 16mp and watch about 1 stop of noise go away. Hmmm. In the proper hands this could negate the 1 stop ISO advantage of the Df?

    What would have been a bigger hit would have been to eliminate the 7 objections I posted! I think Nikon missed and that this camera will mostly sell to a very select audience . . . and I won't be one of them in spite of the wonderful retro look.
     
  171. Based on Bjorn's comments about the viewfinder (especially manual focus lens focusing and eyegalsses), I'm taking the plunge (preordered a black Df).
    -Dan
     
  172. For those of you who are saying 16 mp is not enough I have to ask. How much printing do you do? How much of that is bigger then A3?
    I shoot a D4 on a daily bases and sell prints from it all the time. A print from my D4 that is 40 inches on the long side looks just fine when you have your nose stuck right up to it.
    I do not want or need more pixels I want better color fidelity and a true 16 bit color. Even more dynamic range would be nice too.
     
  173. pge

    pge

    Dan, could you link to Bjorn's comments, my google searching is letting me down.
     
  174. ShunCheung

    ShunCheung Administrator

    I think Nikon missed and that this camera will mostly sell to a very select audience . . . and I won't be one of them in spite of the wonderful retro look.​
    I hope people realize that the whole point for collector's items is that they are uncommon. If every Jane and Joe next door has one, collectors won't be interested. I don't think Nikon is so dumb to think that the Df would sell in huge numbers. Otherwise, production for something so labor intensive would definitely have been in their Thailand factory. Instead, the Df is intended for a small, targeted market of affluent older folks and some young hipsters who find the retro style cool, as well as to collectors who will show off to their friends that they can directly mount a 1960's pre-AI lens onto it. As a camera for capturing images, it is very obvious that the Df does not compare favorably against the D4, D800, D600/D610 and D7100; that is what I have been pointing out from the beginning: http://www.photo.net/reviews/nikon-df-preview/
    I'm taking the plunge (preordered a black Df)​
    I am glad that someone is buying one. :)
     
  175. Steve B - your analysis is exactly the way I've been looking at it: What am I getting for my $$ relative to a D610 or for nearly equivalent $$ a D800 or even an APS-C or m43 mirrorless system (camera + lenses).
    I have no bones at all with the specifications, controls, "looks", etc. It's for sure a very capable DSLR, but, I just can't get past the asking price for what it is.
    I have a lot of excellent manual focus glass (Nikon, Leica, Voigtlander) so I'm very interested in how the OVF performs, but even if it's a stellar OVF for manual focus it will be hard to justify such a steep price.
    Having a D800, which is an excellent all around camera, I have to ask how much I "need" a second camera with the Df's specifications for the asking price. Personally at $2800 I can't make that case.
    I will be one sitting on the sidelines watching the new and used prices in the next year or so to see if the cost comes down to a reasonable level for me. I'll give the camera a try out in the store as well to get a first hand impression as I have to hold a camera in my hand first before buying.
     
  176. I would now say to Nikon - for those of us that don't need all the expensive external buttons and dials, give us a version that is now slightly smaller, lighter with very similar specs that is not made in Japan.
    Personally I would love a very compact FX body with modern design features - I would forgo the ergonomics for the gain in compactness.
     
  177. If it is retro, I wish it had best Kodak films' emulations.
     
  178. So you want retro? How about a 1974 Nikon F modified to 9 FPS with FILM!
     
  179. Is anyone here happy with their camera?
     
  180. ShunCheung

    ShunCheung Administrator

    Personally I would love a very compact FX body with modern design features - I would forgo the ergonomics for the gain in compactness.​
    You'll never get exactly what you want unless you have the resources to commission Nikon to tailor make a camera for you. Otherwise, something closely resembles what you are asking for has already existed for over a year. Ever heard of the D600 and its successor the D610?
    I know, some people complain that the D600 is too small, and perhaps some people feel that it is not small enough.
     
  181. Shun Cheung [​IMG][​IMG][​IMG], Nov 06, 2013; 12:28 p.m.
    Personally I would love a very compact FX body with modern design features - I would forgo the ergonomics for the gain in compactness.​
    You'll never get exactly what you want unless you have the resources to commission Nikon to tailor make a camera for you. Otherwise, something closely resembles what you are asking for has already existed for over a year. Ever heard of the D600 and its successor the D610?
    I know, some people complain that the D600 is too small, and perhaps some people feel that it is not small enough.​
    No, the camera I'm talking about doesn't exist and it's not the D600 or D610. I also realize that there will never be a camera I exactly want, but I can still express my desire for one. I don't feel that the D610 is that much smaller than my D800 to make a big enough difference. Now if we got a 16MP FX camera the size and weight of the FM3A that would be far closer to what I'd be looking for.
     
  182. ShunCheung

    ShunCheung Administrator

    Now if we got a 16MP FX camera the size and weight of the FM3A that would be far closer to what I'd be looking for.​
    If Nikon introduced such a DSLR, people would complain about the lack of weather sealing and the battery being too small. When the size is so small, something has to give.
    I am old enough to remember that when Nikon first introduced the FM back in 1977, in an era when the F and F2 as well as the Nikkormat FTN series were big and heavy, the now defunct Modern Photography called the FM "flimsy." It was years later somehow the FM/FE series suddenly became the "rugged" cameras.
     
  183. The Df is actually a very clever solution to the problem of giving us the D4 sensor in a more compact and lighter body that many have asked for without repeating the D3/D700 "mistake" - no one who needs fast fps and high ISO in one package will opt for the Df instead of the D4 - but many bought the D700 instead of the D3 because it was "almost the same". The fact that it fits into the current "retro" trend makes for a very believable and convenient excuse. The high price guaranties that the Df doesn't affect D610 sales. And if you opt for the D800/D800E instead - Nikon takes home almost the same amount - win-win for them.
    If you want to use your old manual focus primes on a small and light body that doesn't cost as much - buy the Sony A7 or A7R - and be content with an EVF and stop-down metering (how's that for retro?). I am sure that Nikon hopes not to many taking that path though ;-)
    Not sure that the fact that the Df is manufactured in Japan indicates that it won't be produced in large numbers - the D700 was too and I believe it was produced in large numbers. Besides, isn't the D4 the only camera currently produced in Sendai (other than the Df, of course)? Doubt they are still making the D3X - likely "selling" stock nowadays.
    I gave the dimensions of the FM2 and Df (and some other bodies) higher up in this thread - here are the ones for the D800: 146 x 123 x 81.5 mm.
    The Df is 2cm taller and 0.8cm deeper than the FM2 - and 1cm less tall and 1.5cm less deep than the D800; the difference in width is only 0.3cm. Not really a hell of a lot of difference.
     
  184. As a camera for capturing images, it is very obvious that the Df does not compare favorably against the D4, D800, D600/D610 and D7100​
    Shun, I ordered the D600 a bit over a year ago, wasn't impressed with it, sent it back and ordered the D800E.
    This past summer I bought the D3s used on eBay. I love it. I think that I would have loved the Df as much as a counterpoint to the D800E, since it is the low light capabilities that really interest me in both the D3s and the Df. In fact, for my purposes (low-light shooting), I think that the Df will be better than the D3s. If I were an action shooter, I would surely have a different point of view.
    I hear about downsampling to get the same low light quality from the D600, but why would I want to start with bigger files just so that I could downsample them? Why not start with smaller (not small) files and simplify my life from the start?
    The D600 at 24 mp does not have files that are 1.5 times bigger than the Df at 16mp. We have to square that 1.5 and get 2.25. That is, files from the D600, other things being equal, are 2.25 times bigger than files from the Df.
    SIMPLIFY! This is going to be simpler in many respects. I WANT SMALLER FILES MUCH OF THE TIME. When I want big files, I shoot my D800E. When I want to have fun, I shoot with smaller files. I'm thinking faster workflow in downloading and post-processing here. How much is my time worth? It's worth a lot to me--and I do not measure the worth of a camera by megapixels alone.
    Summing up: I don't want a backup in a second camera. I want a different beast entirely. If I were a pro, I would surely think otherwise.
    --Lannie
     
  185. I will add this: Since when is 16 mp small? Does anyone around here ever print anymore? Files from 16-mp cameras print beautifully.
    How big is big enough? Yes, size matters: smaller, that is, is sometimes better, if it is big enough, especially if the bonus is good low light capabilities when one spreads those 16 mp across the entire surface area of a full frame sensor.
    As I said, SIMPLIFY--and enjoy. Downloading and processing files has gotten to be burdensome with these huge cameras and their huge files It isn't always or even usually worth it. I shoot big when I want big files. The rest of the time, no. Twelve has been adequate with the D3s. For me, however, I think that sixteen ought to be just right.
    There is a happy medium to be found here. For some it might be 24 mp, for others 16.
    --Lannie
     
  186. Belatedly...
    Andrew, he is not using the focus confirmation dot but the matte surface of the screen. The optical quality of the whole viewfinder assembly affects the clarity of the view and ability to focus manually. Regarding the market for this camera, there are a lot of us who prefer to focus manually on the matte area;​
    I still don't understand how this works for an f/1.2 lens with a fresnel screen. I'm not saying that it doesn't, just that I don't understand it. The fresnel in most Nikons means that you can't see aperture changes below about f/2.5, and it's correspondingly difficult to spot anything that's within the depth of field of an f/2.5 lens but not within the depth of field of an f/1.2 one. I could understand how this would work if the Df has a ground glass screen instead of a fresnel, but that's unlikely given the detrimental effect on brightness.
    it requires no distance dependent focus fine tuning like autofocus does​
    No, it has no fine-tuning; that's not the same thing as not requiring it. You're still looking at light that has gone through a different optical path than when it reaches the sensor. If the mirror (the really lightweight thing that has to flap around a lot) is very slightly off alignment, you'll still have focus in the wrong place. The only thing with a guarantee of accuracy is sensor-based autofocus, since the same optical path is involved.
    and should make using the camera a lot more relaxing since one doesn't have to fire a number of shots to get one that has the focus in the right place, as one has to do with autofocus when working at wide apertures.​
    I'm not going to defend the inaccuracy of my D800's AF system, but I'm not buying this one. I think as sensor resolution increases, you're going to see just as many misses through manual focus. The possible exception would be with a microprism area covering most of the frame, where your accuracy has a chance of being as good as AF (though with the same slack in the mirror), but I still struggle to believe the accuracy is possible with a fast lens and a fresnel. And yes, I shoot manual focus cameras.
    The D600 at 24 mp does not have files that are 1.5 times bigger than the Df at 16mp. We have to square that 1.5 and get 2.25. That is, files from the D600, other things being equal, are 2.25 times bigger than files from the Df.​
    Sorry, Lannie: the files really are only 1.5x bigger (and should generally be less than that because compression works better on larger images). The linear resolution of the D600 is only 1.23x that of the D4. Though I still wish Nikon had implemented sRAW. I agree that having a second camera that doesn't overlap with the first is good, at least as an amateur, though.
     
  187. Sorry, Lannie: the files really are only 1.5x bigger​
    You are right, Andrew. No point in squaring it twice! I was thinking of moving from linear dimension to surface area, but megapixels are already spread out across surface area. Where was my mind?
    My larger point stands: Why start with bigger files so that I can downsample them?
    For what it's worth, I probably won't be buying this one either--at least not now, and not new. Maybe some day I can pick one up on the used market. It is certain that I will never be able to buy the D4. If I am stuck with the D3s and the D800E, well, there are a lot worse places to be stuck. I hope that I can keep them. At my age (sixty-eight), things start getting iffy. This can be an expensive hobby/passion to have as a semi-retired person.
    --Lannie
     
  188. The Df is actually a very clever solution to the problem of giving us the D4 sensor in a more compact and lighter body that many have asked for without repeating the D3/D700 "mistake" - no one who needs fast fps and high ISO in one package will opt for the Df instead of the D4 - but many bought the D700 instead of the D3 because it was "almost the same". The fact that it fits into the current "retro" trend makes for a very believable and convenient excuse. The high price guaranties that the Df doesn't affect D610 sales. And if you opt for the D800/D800E instead - Nikon takes home almost the same amount - win-win for them.​
    Dieter: +1, since that seems to be what all the cool dudes are saying. For this reason, I can completely understand why Nikon felt they could release this camera without hurting the sales of anything else. It's not such a good thing for the consumer, necessarily...
     
  189. Phil said:
    Dan, could you link to Bjorn's comments, my google searching is letting me down.​
    Link to forum (Bjorn posts as nfoto):
    http://nikongear.com/live/index.php/topic/51938-impressions-of-the-nikon-df/
     
  190. I think one of the reasons for 16MP in the Df is that it is much more forgiving of focus errors compared to the 24MP or 36MP sensors (as opposed to the inaccurate statement by many that 16MP is much more suitable to older glass). Mirror and focusing screen alignment are just as relevant if not way more so now with the Df as it was for film SLRs. It's far easier to see missed focus at 16MP digital than 16MP scanned slide film.
    I only hope that the Df has an adjustable/shim-able focusing screen - likely not though. Perhaps this part of the high cost of the Df - i.e., the mirror and focusing screen have been calibrated at the factory in Japan to much higher standards. I know the my AF dot (hence mirror and AF sensors) consistently focus behind on ALL of my lenses with the difference in the viewfinder image being indistinguishable between the proper focuses and back-focused images recorded by the sensor.
    I will have to give the Df a go at the local pro shop with some of my fast glass when it gets one (or more likely when the Nikon rep shows up with a demo model).
     
  191. From that link (posted by Dan two posts above):
    "If they can hook the magpie buyers and get them to part with their money then they will have had a great success, but if they fail to hook the discerning photographers at the asking price then they’ve got a potential disaster on their hands."

    I am not so sure. If the asking price is too high, you drop the price or you cut production and thus supply. I don't see Nikon losing money on this one.
    My guess is that they could drop it seven hundred dollars and still turn a profit--but that is admittedly a guess on my part.
    Judging by the number of posts on this thread and the previous one, they are going to sell some cameras--perhaps to some unlikely prospects.
    --Lannie
     
  192. Here's one response from Bjorn that was telling for me.
    [some other guy] Bjørn, I'm curious why you felt MF is so comfortable and easy to look into the viewfinder whose eyepoint is only 15mm which is 6mm shorter than that of D600/610. Did you felt it even better than that of D600 you have (even modified to full spectrum)?
    [Bjorn]: Much better. Bright, clear, everything plainly visible even with spectacles on. And the fast MF lenses snapped in and out of focus.
    Just goes to show the numbers game don't alway play out as one might expect. Perhaps the fact this is a circular (Df) vs rectangular (D600) has an influence? I don't know only relate what I observed.​
     
  193. My guess is that they could drop it seven hundred dollars and still turn a profit​
    Lannie, due to crappy Nikon international pricing policy, a $700 drop would bring the UK price 'DOWN' to $3700!
     
  194. Why on earth do they do that, Mike? That is, why are things so much more expensive in Europe (or at least in the UK)?
    --Lannie
     
  195. Nikon certainly got some buzz with this camera. It's not been quite so universally negative as the X Vario or the Lunar, and maybe it'll convert into sales. Honestly, if I see one in a store, I'll probably play with it (as I have with various Fujis and a D4); it's possible that I'll realise what I'm missing and come back a convert. I'd like to see a fuller review, or an objective report from Nikon on the circumstances under which they think the control scheme is better than what we've had since the F5.

    Meanwhile, I'm really not complaining about the camera, at least at this stage. I'm just trying to understand it.

    As for why more resolution and downsampling is better, it's simple: every now and then you might really need pixels. I have a big poster taken with my D700 when I went to the Grand Canyon a few years back. It doesn't have the resolution I'd like. A D800 would be somewhat better. I got my D800 just before the London Olympics, at which I was blocked from bringing a big lens, so I ended up making full use of its pixel density (and DX mode, for the first time on an FX camera). Even if you normally shoot small, I'd rather have the pixels and downsize them than start smaller and run out of detail - all else being equal, which it rarely is. Similarly, I almost never use video on a DSLR, but I'd rather have it for the 1% of times when I'd miss it.
    How many DSLRs currently can't do video from any manufacturer... by my count, just this one...​
    Technically, the D3x is still current...
     
  196. That is, why are things so much more expensive in Europe (or at least in the UK)?​
    a) Prices include the 20% tax (the US thing of not including the tax is because the states have different taxes; in the UK, it's all 20% VAT so it's included).
    b) I believe there's an additional import duty on camera gear, though I could be confused about that.
    c) There aren't any UK retailers with the clout of B&H or Adorama.
    d) Nikon adjust the pricing when GBP gets too out of whack with the other currencies, particularly getting weaker after the recent global economic issues, but it doesn't seem to correct very quickly when the pound gets stronger again.

    It could be worse. Back in 2008, US list prices for a 14-24 were about half the UK equivalent (and VAT was lower).
     
  197. Lannie, Andrew ...it's all true! It hurts!
    I've asked before (and never got an answer??), but if I have a pocket-full of Benjies (spelling??) what is this going to cost me as a walk-in customer to an 'average' US store to buy the Df + 50mm kit? What does $2990 actually mean as a 'Guide Price'?
     
  198. I've asked before (and never got an answer??), but if I have a pocket-full of Benjies (spelling??) what is this going to cost me as a walk-in customer to an 'average' US store to buy the Df + 50mm kit? What does $2990 actually mean as a 'Guide Price'?
    If you walked into B+H with cash you could buy the Df + 50/1.8G for their advertised price of 2996.95 USD plus 8.875% tax (4% to New York State, 4.5% to New York City and a bonus 0.375% going toward the "Metropolitan Commuter Transportation District" whatever that is. Most places you just pay the state sales tax on top of whatever price you and the seller mutually agree is acceptable (meaning there is no special "city tax" in the vast majority of the US). Tax is almost never figured into advertised prices in the US (for photographic stuff; for gasoline or cigarettes tax is folded in, for example). If you mail-ordered from B+H outside the state of New York B+H would not collect your local state tax, but you are supposed to voluntarily pony up that fee (as a "use tax") to your state government when you receive your goods. This is a major bone of contention between brick+mortar businesses and on-line entities such as Amazon since many Americans don't bother to send in the use tax, thus disadvantaging the physical storefront places relative to out-state mail order houses.
    Not sure what "Guide Price" means, but in often there is a manufacturer-decreed minimum advertised price (MAP) so that the end seller can sell the product for whatever they want, but they can't publish below the MAP so as to avoid the perception of undercutting other authorized sellers. For something as new and desirable (at least to some) as the Df, I highly doubt you'd get much of a discount over the stated price. On the other hand, I just bought an OM-D E-M1 (not even delivered yet) and the local camera store is doing a $50 rebate on the body and $100 rebate on the lens (this a store thing and separate from a rebate from Olympus for buying the E-M1 and 12-40/2.8 as a package), so you never know. That said, this is a mighty big and high-volume store, and not some little corner business.
    These suspicious days if you walked into a store and bought something over $3k with cash some amateur busybody would probably suspect you of being a drug dealer or something and alert the professional busybodies. Land of the free indeed.
     
  199. I'm not feeling the DF and I am not sure what it could be.

    First off, it looks far too cluttered / clunky, all the controls are on steroids compared to my FM3A, too big. In fact, the whole
    camera looks too big and what is with the grip, FM's are fine without it. I find it odd that they would omit a split microprism
    focus aide too, kind of a wasted opportunity. I get what they are trying to do here but Leica already did it with the M8, 9,
    MM, etc and Fuji outdid the both of them with the slim profiled X100S, now that is a retro styled camera that works
    incredibly well.

    The thing of it is too, the DSLR has seen it's peak use come and go, it's on the decline. I just feel like Nikon has lost sight
    of what makes photography great and great photographers who they are, raw talent. So the whole hype machine of
    selling cameras on the promise of earth bending photos at your fingertips, those days are over Nikon. First you tell people
    who make photos they deem contest worthy on film that they can no longer enter the Nikon Photo Contest, even with a
    newly purchased F6. Then you have the gall to ask 3 grand for yet another digi-snapper that plays stunt double to the
    very cameras you are no longer interested in seeing work from?

    Seems like a company who is very worried about their iPhone filled future grasping at straws, not the same brand I
    started with 25 years ago, that's for sure...

    Maybe I would feel differently if I used it, I'm sure Lens Rentals will have a few next year. But man, $2,700, my FM3A was $500 brand new from B&H when I got it in 2002.
     
  200. Sorry if I am repeating yourselves, since I have read only a few comments. I have several very sharp AI and AIS lenses. They shoot great on my D800E. Being a long ago recovering Leicaholic, it seems to me to be very possible that like LEICA, Nikon recognizes there is money to be made selling limited edition collector cameras to wealthy camera buffs.
     
  201. There are many retro style cameras these days but this is the only one so far which is an SLR. Just as Leica M series are the only rangefinder digitals.
     
  202. Mike it's 2999 euros where I am with the kit 50mm 1.8.
     
  203. No, it has no fine-tuning; that's not the same thing as not requiring it.

    There is a little screw which is used to adjust the position of the focusing screen (look at the bayonet from the lens side, camera top side up, on the right side of the mirror box there is a screw). So it is adjustable. In many cases I've found manual focusing using the focusing screen to work well in situations (e.g. long distances) where autofocus fails.
    You're still looking at light that has gone through a different optical path than when it reaches the sensor. If the mirror (the really lightweight thing that has to flap around a lot) is very slightly off alignment, you'll still have focus in the wrong place.
    That is true, but in practice I've found that autofocus is less reliable than manual focus with certain lenses at long distances when calibrated for normal distances. For example, the 105 DC requires about 16 to 17 fine tune points different setting at head shot distances than at infinity, which is very annoying. The 85/1.4 AF-S has a bit smaller discrepancy but still the focus fine tune must be adjusted based on distance range. Manual focus in these cases seems to work at all distances, in my experience. The errors with AF vs. distance can be so large that given a relatively static subject I can improve the image by focusing manually by eye.
    The only thing with a guarantee of accuracy is sensor-based autofocus, since the same optical path is involved.
    But it means no optical viewfinder can be used (assuming through the lens viewing) and to me at least that would be the end of photography for me. I rely on real-time, clean image of the subject through the viewfinder when I'm photographing. I just went through a dozen EVFs at Heathrow and when turning the camera while looking through, so as would be needed when a subject approaches and passes by, the rolling shutter effect was sufficiently strong to lose all connection with the subject and make me literally feel sick. I need to be able to see the subject expression clearly between frames; EVF does not seem to provide that especially when a big part of the image needs to be updated at every refresh. I don't see a future in EVF; at least it won't be my future.
    Also, main imaging sensor based AF so far has not been able to meet the speed of the best DSLR PDAF. If the subject is coming towards the camera, and you're shooting at f/2, this can be an issue.
    I'm not going to defend the inaccuracy of my D800's AF system, but I'm not buying this one. I think as sensor resolution increases, you're going to see just as many misses through manual focus.
    My experience has been, as I've stated, that there are systematic focus errors in using the AF system in Nikons that are uncorrectable by the user and that are solved by manual focusing using the focusing screen. Manual focus isn't precise to the level of individual pixels, but doesn't seem to suffer from these problems. I'm speaking from practical experience.
    There are many other advantages to manual focusing. One is when shooting a portrait of a person wearing eyeglasses, it can be very difficult to get AF to focus exactly on the eye when the magnification and focus point area are such that the eye is small compared to the detected area. The other is that you don't have to waste time telling the camera which point of the image to focus on and fighting with the controls. You just look at the image and turn the ring. This results in the independence of composition from the specifics of the focusing system. Sometimes there is no detail at the point where the focus is to be set, e.g. when you want two object at different distances to be in focus. In this case the correct result cannot be achieved using autofocus. When there are obstructions such as leaves trough which the main subject is photographed, it can be difficult to tell the autofocus to ignore the close-by leaves through which you're trying to shoot - manual focus works fine in this case. There are so many cases that I could be writing this post all night with examples of specific situations where AF is not a good choice, if manual focus is well implemented in the camera.
     
  204. "Nikon recognizes there is money to be made selling limited edition collector cameras to wealthy camera buffs."
    Nothing wrong with it as niche product, but better for Nikon also recognize, that 5D3 is quietly eating Nikon lunch, as all around workhorse.
     
  205. Strongly agree with the person a few pages back who said they never should have gotten rid of the dials [for shutter speed, ISO, etc.] in the first place. Good for them for putting them back -- and consider extending that feature up and down the line, or offering it as an option.
     
  206. If I has an extra three grand I would buy it just because it doesn't have video (if you want video buy a video camera). But I left my D300 home and took a Fuji point and shoot on our recent trip to Russia because I'm tired of hauling around separate bodies and lenses. But I sure do like the look.
     
  207. It has my interest, but I will wait to hear how it works in the real world. With sales of DSLRs in the air, why NOT try something that is basically a creative project with parts you already have laying around ? All the R&D money was spent on re-inventing knobs and a retro exterior. I still see nothing wrong with that. If the tools works well for the INTENDED PURPOSE, then I say, "Well done." .
    If you just can't understand it, and must keep saying that it's only use is to sit on collectors shelves, go gaze at the other Nikon products and fondle your brand new, not " antique " lenses and come back when the dust settles. Seriously, not everyone CAN buy new Nikon glass every time they release a new one, and not EVERYONE think lenses they made decades ago are doorstops. Some of you have spent well more on one LENS than this camera costs and act like this so horribly pricey. I still think it is over priced, but compared to a lot of other Nikon cameras, it's not out of their norm for new stuff.
     
  208. 5D3 is quietly eating Nikon lunch, as all around workhorse.​
    My first impression upon reading this was that it was written by a Canon-using troll. Upon reflection, however, if I had nothing invested in Nikon by way of lenses, and I was just starting out, there is no way that I would pay $2749 for this Nikon Df while the Canon 5D III is being offered for $2999 on Amazon AT THIS MOMENT.
    In other words, BRING DOWN THE PRICE, Nikon, unless you simply do not want to sell very many. The 5D III is very clean at high ISO and low light, and in every other way seems to be miles ahead of the Df--not to mention the D600 and D610.
    I wonder if Canon is bringing down the price of the 5D III in order to undercut sales of this new camera. A lot of fed-up Nikon users are already looking in that direction anyway.
    Canon's advertising strategy (offering better service) on the home page of Photo.net also shows that Canon is more than willing to offer its services and product line to disgruntled Nikon users. I knew that when the dust/oil problems on the D600 were being soft-pedaled on this very forum that Canon might be waiting in the wings--and that Nikon was making a frightful error in customer relations not to acknowledge the problem.
    I shot Canon from 1982 to 2012. I know, as does everyone else, that Canon makes fine equipment--and offers fast turn-around on service.
    Then Nikon comes along and offers the D610 without ever conceding problems with the D600--and now offers this camera at a ridiculously high price?
    Let us see just how clever Nikon's marketing really has been.
    As for rationalizations about the price, how rational has this advertising campaign been if all that Nikon wants to do is sell this to a few collectors. That is nonsense. Nikon clearly wants to sell a lot of these.
    CONCLUSION: THE PRICE WILL DROP, FAR AND FAST. Otherwise, this camera is Nikon's Thanksgiving Turkey.
    --Lannie
     
  209. Ilkka Nissila[​IMG], Nov 06, 2013; 07:49 p.m. No, it has no fine-tuning; that's not the same thing as not requiring it.

    There is a little screw which is used to adjust the position of the focusing screen (look at the bayonet from the lens side, camera top side up, on the right side of the mirror box there is a screw). So it is adjustable.​
    Not that I don't believe you, but do you have a picture of this screw? How do you know it's for adjusting the focusing screen?
     
  210. Who has pre-ordered a Df? That should tell the real tale.
    24MP is the new standard, preferably without an anti-aliasing filter. Nikon's cheapest DX cameras have 24MP sensors.
    Three grand for a shiny box with an underpowered sensor? Sorry, but I don't see the logic behind this product.
     
  211. But how does one do fine tuning for each lens differently ...
    I am only a hacker hobbyist, even if I had the money I cannot spend these much on it. But to me as a middle person - they chose a larger F3 design cool that's thier choice. They wanted retro - cool also. They should have the marketing intelligence etc ... Maybe it's so good like Bjorn says you don't need a focus screen - also ok and this is the 21st century. Memory card, battery also sweet surely they didn't need to open a back/bottom cover to access them or a pretend film advance lever. It's expensive - that's fine also because they are a business and this retro has appeal, it's one of their premium product. Sure at this day and age it couldn't just be manual focus, single fire shutter ....
    But to me it was how it was implemented. Couldn't they just provided us a special edition AIS 50mm lens that woudl be more wholesome product instead of a plastic G lens paired with this camera they spend a lot of time designing. Very little work was done at the back - it jsut looks like another dSLR. It has more buttons like a D70 including just the back of the camera. It has bracketing, all the diff modes including P or P for professional haha. HDR, GPS, WiFi, 120m receiver options, consumer plug in cable release as well as the traditional one. It's just another dSLR with a retro look that works with pre Ai lenses with a few retro bells and whistles.
    Apart from the ISO selector with a modern lens it has both a rear dial and a weird front dial - it functions just like a modern dSLR.
     
  212. This 16MP thing - eventually unless they ditch the Df it will be updated with a higher MP sensor ... so if not now and if old lenses gets negatively affected by the higher MP sensor it may eventually bite.
     
  213. Missed The Boat, Part II: Retro Styling - Do we really care what a camera looks like? Do we plan to look at the camera or at what comes out of it? A camera could look like a jar of peanut butter if the image quality, specs, and handling are top notch.
    When you watched Citizen Kane or Casablanca or Star Wars or The Godfather or Apocalypse Now, did you care what the cameras looked like (the ones that shot the scenes)?
     
  214. This isn't exactly a pro camera IMO ;-) It's targetted for the enthusiast, hobbyist, someone with a love of photogrraphy than just getting the job done. Apart from pro's I am sure there are decent amount of normal people out there who craves for that D4 or this Df or a Leica M, that iPhone or that Samsung S4 or that latest iPad. And re: movies, some viewers may watch particular movies if they have their favorite actor in it.
    But maybe they couldn't do much with the back of the camera design - some customers may complain that their retro dSLR isn't as streamlined as their other Nikon dSLRs .. or that customer intelligence said that customers still wanted these other features like HDR, GPS etc.
     
  215. The more I read the -like and dislike- comments here and elsewhere my belief increases that tired old Auntie Nikon may have struck a gold mine.
     
  216. Whoo! I thought I was joking a couple of weeks ago, when I suggested it might look like a Chrome-plated D700, but I wasn't far off the mark. Except the chrome version looks more like it was sprayed with cheap silver aerosol paint. And what the heck is that monster high-rise pentaprism all about? The FM/FE/FE2 style front elevation just looks a bit cheap and cheesy to me; like a high speed collision between a D600 and an FE.
    IMO its only good feature is that the Ai coupler tab can be lifted clear of the lens. Now why couldn't Nikon simply have done that on the rest of their higher-end DSLRs?
    It makes an expensive back cap for anyone's collection of Ai and Pre-Ai Nikkors, that's for sure. However, what's missing is a special battery and combined card-holder in the shape of a 35mm film cassette (available in Plus-X or Kodachrome 25 livery, of course).
     
  217. It is not necessary to adjust the manual focus screen for each lens; the need to do this is a pecularity of the PDAF system through several mirrors and optical systems that make focus error dependent on the optical design. I'm not saying optical manual focusing will be as precise as LV focusing but it suits some situations better than other focusing methods.
    Who has pre-ordered a Df? That should tell the real tale.
    I think it would be foolish to order a camera without trying it out. Preorders mean nothing really; what is important is longer term interest and sales.
    24MP is the new standard, preferably without an anti-aliasing filter.
    24MP is a common thing in Nikons though the market leader, Canon, hasn't made one camera that is greater than 22MP so far. Personally I think the world is moving towards 3-5MP displays and that's what the camera needs to be at a minimum, to suffice for most applications, since prints are made by few people and large prints by even fewer. I think 12MP is a little low for my needs, 24MP is perfect but 16MP would suffice for a lot of applications, especially low light and event photography. 36MP I may get rid of at some point as it is a little overkill for my photography and more suitable options by Nikon are appearing now, at a lower price point than the D4. I am not saying that the image quality of the D800(E) isn't the best - it is, but it is a burden I don't want to carry for the majority of my photography if I don't have to. And I never liked the ergonomics of that camera.
    AA filterless 24MP FX doesn't interest me; it is too low spatial frequency to leave the filter out. Since most images are printed small or shown in digital format, additional detail contrast that would appear in an A2 print doesn't matter as much as artifacts that display at even the smallest sizes matter a great deal more to me. As an imaging system developer myself, I often have to deal with incorrect imaging and artifacts at work and I reject voluntarily choosing an unsound imaging system that produces artifacts over a clean, accurate image of slightly less resolution (but still higher resolution than needed by the application). A lot of people seem to not understand that the aliased detail results in artifacts that are present even at the lowest spatial frequencies of the image so they display basically at all sizes, whereas the resolution loss due to the AA filter starts to show when the print is large. In my opinion the quality of the small to moderate prints is necessary to get correct whereas small differences in the quality of the 0.01% that get printed large can be acceptable since in the end the meaningful content of the image (emotion, etc.) is at the lower spatial frequencies and seen at all print sizes. But a landscape photographer may see it differently, of course; I don't think the Df is really intended to become a primary instrument for that despite the advertising videos.
     
  218. > However, what's missing is a special battery and combined card-holder in the shape of a 35mm film cassette (available in Plus-X or Kodachrome 25 livery, of course).
    Hah! That is an excellent idea. Get a design patent on that quick. Seriously.
    I don't miss PKM, but I do miss my original RDP.
    Oh, and re John Williamson's comment at 11:08: Well said.
     
  219. Rodeo Joe, I always liked the HP viewfinder on the F3, and so it looks fine to me.
    If you have never looked through a HP viewfinder, you are in for a treat. This is not about how the camera appears from outside. It is about how the world looks through that viewfinder.
    This is a serious camera. It is simply over-priced. Seven hundred dollars for double-thick dials? Uh-uh. Too much fat in that price.
    Again, for the record, if 16 mp is good enough for the D4, it is good enough for me. Again, it is simply OVER-PRICED!
    --Lannie
     
  220. "If you have never looked through a HP viewfinder...... " - just imagine your D700 or D800 viewfinder a tiny bit smaller and covered in dust spots. Also imagine a collection of concentric circles in the centre, together with a short horizontal line. Then, if you have less-than-perfect eyesight, imagine your D700/800 screen a bit out of focus, and with no dioptre adjustment to correct it. And there you have the view through the F3HP's finder.
    "....., you are in for a treat." - Yes, if you're lucky enough to have eyesight that's suited to the F3HP, or you manage to purchase or have made a suitable eyepiece correction lens; then all that dust and those circles will pop into gloriously distracting detail, along with the mottled and coarsely ground focusing surface. Then you can spend many happy hours using the split-image finder to photograph the bars of zoo cages (rather than the animals), scaffolding poles, distant tree trunks, brickwork, fence posts etc., or hoping that your portrait sitter wears stripes so you've got something to focus on. But don't even contemplate putting a lens of f/4 or smaller on the camera, or doing macro work, because then you'll have a nice black semi-circle in the middle of the screen that you can't use to focus on anything at all.
    Even if you swap out the distracting Type-K screen for a nice plain Type-B, you then have to invest in a cumbersome flip-up eyepiece magnifier to be able to focus accurately with it. So then where's your high eyepoint gone to?
    Please Lannie, enough nostalgia. Modern dust-sealed DSLR screens with built-in dioptre correction, eye relief of 15-18mm and a focus confirmation dot that works at f/8 are far more universally useable than those old split-image/microprism things.
     
  221. If the price would come down to about 2K I might get one as I would like to get another body for corporate and ad work
    besides my D800's. But man did Nikon tick me off with that whole no film images in the photo contest thing, a lousy idea
    and a smack in the face, especially for pros like me who are nearly all film shooters once again. I guess the looks of it are growing on me a bit, I do love the dials on my X100S, very second
    nature, but so is working with command dials since the F5.

    And Dan South's post a couple pages back about 24MP being some kind of "Standard" BS sir, there is no standard, it is a
    number telling how many pixels you have in a given area, nothing more. I have had clients publish 20 foot wide displays
    with 8MP images and web sized photos from 36MP, size has only mattered in some cases.

    16MP would be fine but the damn lack of a manual focusing aide like a split micro-prism is baffling to me, what an
    omission.
     
  222. I like it because of the lack of manual focusing aid and the ability to turn off the focusing point. I use MF lenses a lot but I like a plain screen without any aid. When I bought my Nikon F2 in 77 and the F3 in 82 the first thing I did was to run out to buy a plain focusing screen to put in. Using focusing aid makes the camera less of an SLR and more like a rangefinder.
     
  223. pge

    pge

    Here is a link to a Japanese website that has many photographs, inside and out, and with various Nikkors mounted to the Df

    http://dc.watch.impress.co.jp/docs/news/20131106_622251.html
    I love that soft case.
    I have an idea about SPAM, not one that was implimented on the Df but could be in the future.
    Imagine a dial for ISO, shutter speed (both as on the Df) and aperture. Ignore for the moment the fact that the aperture dial would be complicated by the fact that different lenses have different aperture settings. With me so far? Each of these three dials would have all the various settings plus an Auto setting. Would this not do away with the need for SPAM. Set all the dials to Auto and you effectively have P, set just the aperture dial to auto and you effectively have S, set all dials to something and you have M, etc.
     
  224. Phil, that's a very interesting idea. It would elevate ISO to the same status as shutter and aperture, which in this day and age, it is. Three parameters, adjust to your hearts content, or let the camera, selectively, do them for you.
    Sweet.
     
  225. Yes, looks terrific and I am sure beautifully built, but it's £1,000 overpriced
     
  226. Phil, that is the way the X100S works and it is a really good setup, I agree the Df would be a good candidate.
     
  227. Nikon needs to look to Apple to simplify their camera design. It is critical to edit the feature list, it is not only important to add features to a camera but it is also important to take features out. Apple did not hesitate to take out floppy disc drive and DVD drive in their computer and a physical keyboard in a phone in order to make the devices much smaller. People LOVE to carry their phone AND camera with them, if they could, but Nikon cameras and lenses are still bulky, heavy, and expensive. A big camera package may not be an issue to a pro, but for the rest, the best camera is the one that you carry with you all the time.
    While Nikon should be given credits for maintaining the F mount as they entered the digital age, as the FF sensors become so capable of resolving details, is it really a top design priority to come up with a camera such that the very few would pay $3,000 just to use their old dusty MF lenses that are no match for the resolution of the sensor? Nikon has the D800 and D610 with state of the art auto-focus, why don't they come up with a mirror-less camera with on-sensor AF so that the camera itself can be shrunk to the size of SONY A7? A mirror-less camera will use all MF lenses with a cheap adapter. No video in a $3,000 digital camera with rear LCD? This is for "Pure" Photography? Remember D90 (which I still own) was the first dSLR to have video, what a revolutionary idea, and now Nikon is all for "pure" photography? At the end, this "smallest" FF camera at $3,000 is close to 800g, as compared to the $1,700 SONY A7 that is just 474g. The SONY is half the size and half the price and yet it still has HD video, tilting LCD, and 1/8000 sec shutter speed! SONY really did Nikon a favor by asking people to pay $900 for a f1.8 50 mm lens, $900!!! (Well and Nikon really did SONY a favor by making a camera that is so much more expensive and heavier yet has fewer features. I think they did this on purpose!)
    Please, Nikon, make a mirror-less FF camera so it is no bigger/heavier than the FM2 (=SONY A7) and price it at $1,500 (=A7). Live view AF as you have in the 1 system is good enough for 90% of the photographers in the world. HD video, plus a fully articulating screen. Besides a 24-85 zoom, bundle it with a three prime set and a pancake. $200 50/1.8, $400 each of 28/2.8, 85/1.8 and 45/2.8 (pancake) and you will take the market by storm.
     
  228. With 16MP and a good lens shooting with care, you can take an image that makes a stunningly sharp, 300dpi at 10.9 x 16.4” print image. With a very small stretch to 274dpi, you could make a fine 12x19” print, and if you’re not going to make prints you expect to be viewed at 12” distance you should be able to go to even larger sizes. Even a 24” wide print would still exceed 200dpi, and look good from two feet away. Maybe 16MP won’t satisfy pixel peepers or people who want to make really big prints, but then if you want a sharp 5 foot wide print you should be shooting a 4x5” or 8x10" film camera. The difference between 16 and 24MP is not as big as the MP numbers suggest. The actual linear resolution difference is only about 20-21%, which is not significant for most photographers. Most people criticizing the Df/D4 resolution are ignoring these numbers and not thinking rationally about the real resolution difference to 24MP cameras. You really do need to jump up to 36MP to get a significant resolution bump.
     
  229. I have an idea about SPAM, not one that was implimented on the Df but could be in the future.
    Imagine a dial for ISO, shutter speed (both as on the Df) and aperture. Ignore for the moment the fact that the aperture dial would be complicated by the fact that different lenses have different aperture settings. With me so far? Each of these three dials would have all the various settings plus an Auto setting. Would this not do away with the need for SPAM. Set all the dials to Auto and you effectively have P, set just the aperture dial to auto and you effectively have S, set all dials to something and you have M, etc.
    I do agree that's the best way to go about SPAM but Nikon has a problem that many of their lens doesn't have an aperture ring to put the A mark on. In fact they are always in A.
     
  230. Ilkka: thank you for your explanation. It occurs to me that I may have missed the point on the screen - a
    Fresnel does alter how out of focus things look, but the focus point should be detectable regardless of
    aperture. My knowledge of phase detect focus is limited; I'm unsure what exactly the problem with focal
    length is, though I've certainly seen it. I guess the telecentricity of the lens varies, or something? Anyway,
    I've always doubted my ability to hit perfect focus using the screen - and I do own several manual-focus
    lenses - but maybe I should trust it more. And to clarify: I'm not saying we should only use sensor-based
    focus and live view (I usually use phase-detect AF), just that it's the most reliable solution. Other options
    have different benefits.


    It's true that Canon doesn't offer a 24MP camera. However, they also don't offer anything as low as 16MP.
    I do believe that the 5D3 is a better general-purpose camera than the D800 (mostly because of speed) and
    D610 (mostly because of the AF system); Nikon could respond by putting a D800 AF module in a D610
    (which would still be slightly inferior on handling, but could be made cheaper) - but they'd also poach D800
    sales, and I assume Nikon are keen not to compete with themselves and someone is making this trade-off
    decision. However, the 5D3's low light performance is very much in line with the D610 and D800, with
    appreciably worse dynamic range (excluding dual-ISO trick) at low ISO. The 1Dx is significantly better, and
    roughly identical to, if not better than, the D4 - with more resolution, better AF and a faster frame rate
    (which is why I expect a D5 at some point). What the 5D does have is very good - or at least strong -
    software noise reduction, which is why high ISO JPEGs look good. You can do the same in post to the
    output of the other cameras, if you don't mind some editing. I've accepted that, selectively, the D4 sensor
    has merits over the 24MP Nikon uses elsewhere. But I have doubts that those benefits are so useful in this
    camera's apparent target market - 24MP is the new "general purpose", especially in the "why didn't you buy
    a compact" conversation/sales pitch.



    John W: if any of that was at my comments, I want to clarify: I do own a lens that cost more than this
    camera, but I also own manual focus lenses, including a Nikkor from the 1970s and a Leica from 1949. I
    have several manual focus cameras and cameras with direct control knobs. The reason I have them is
    that they do something very well, better than my other cameras. That's true of everything I own, be it a £40
    compact, a V1, a GF2, a Pentax 645, a Bessa R, an F5, a D800e and others. What I want to know is why this
    camera is better at something than cheaper alternatives - Nikon must think there's a reason so they can
    sell it. I get why Nikon picked the specs not to hurt sales of their other cameras, but I'm trying to
    understand what it does for customers. So far, I have "a bit better at very high ISO than a D610 and lighter
    than a used D3s", which seems a bit niche.


    If I don't understand, that's not necessarily a criticism - I may be missing something that could improve my
    photography. If it's solely for people who prefer the F4 interface because they're not willing to get used to
    the style of newer cameras, I'm glad they have an option, but I'll stop thinking I'm missing out. A friend's
    father recently expressed a wish for an alphabetical keyboard, even though they have been shown to be
    inefficient. I think he's do better just to put in the time to learn to type, but that's not my call to make.
    (Incidentally, I usually use a Kinesis ergo set to Dvorak layout.) People are allowed to be different - but
    sometimes there are things to learn from the people who differ from you.
     
  231. Apple only targets the middle sector of the market and their products often annoy technical people a lot since they (in particular, iOS products) offer extremely limited control of how things are done, to the user. Apple basically decides what can and can't be done with their tablets and phones and users have to obtain Apple's approval to do just about anything. Others love the streamlined use and simplicity of their products. Nikon FX by contrast is aimed at high end users and professionals and control, flexibilityand good ergonomics are key features, and simplicity has to be sacrificed to obtain the necessary flexibility. I don't think it is possible to go on the road of taking out features; it is precisely the versatility to fit almost every conceivable application that is one of the strongest features of Nikon's F mount system and this means that options must be provided to adopt the camera intended to professional use to fit any situation. In the case of the Df, no video features are provided so this is a simplification they have made, but otherwise it appears to be fully featured. I really like the control layout that they have done on this camera so far, but of course it has to be used to fully get how it works.
    A big camera package may not be an issue to a pro, but for the rest, the best camera is the one that you carry with you all the time.
    I disagree. Anyone who aims to making the best possible images that they can, is likely to sacrifice personal comfort to obtaining the result that they seek. Professional photographers today are a tiny fraction of the communicty of serious photographers. Initially I thought that compactness and light weight are good things but over time I've realized that the camera size really doesn't matter much, as long as you're comfortable with it and don't display obvious discomfort (which is reflected in the subject's expression as well leading to different pictures than where the photographer is relaxed, giving example to the subject).
    Camera phones that are good to carry in a pocket don't have one of the basic features of photography i.e. the ability to change focal length. This is an extreme limitation; it basically means that only a particular type of image can be made. The user interface is terrible for photography as are ergonomics and there is very limited control over the image's technical parameters. Timing of the shot is poorly controllable. If your purpose fits the camera phone's design well, great, but I think most photographers find it limitating to the extreme. That is Apple's philosophy also, though not to the same extent with the other features in their phones. A serious photographer will in most cases want absolute control over the image's technical parameters, timing, angle of view (focal length), focus, depth of field etc. The camera phone IMO is well suited to posting poor quality images on facebook, quality so poor that it is like a parody of how bad things can get when the masses get excited about doing something really badly. It is so bad that if you post now a good image instead of a weird expression on a fuzzy, dark, vignetted self-portrait you're seen asocial and as "not getting it". And some people actually think this is the future of photography. Thankfully they are not correct; there will always be a minority of people who like to do things well, whatever their pursuit is.
     
  232. My first impression upon reading this was that it was written by a Canon-using troll.​
    Completely unfair comment, Lannie - anyone taking an objective look at the 5D Mk III compared to the D800 would agree that the Canon is more of an all-rounder than the Nikon, which is all Nick is saying:
    5D3 is quietly eating Nikon lunch, as all around workhorse.​
    He's 100% right. Doesn't make him a troll.
     
  233. Meant to say... Wayne, you'd really spend $3000 on a camera just so you don't have a small red button on
    it? If you're that easily distracted, can I recommend masking tape?


    Ilkka: since you've been kind enough to pick on Apple's philosophy (and I agree - they ensure that what
    works at all, works well) I'm morally obliged since I'm employed by Samsung to mention the S4 zoom... But
    I don't own one and it's no substitute for my D800!


    Keith: yes. Although I know nothing about how well they're selling. I got a D800 and have no interest in the
    5D3 because I knew my requirements, but I'm assuming that the requirements of most others differ - not
    least because I don't expect everyone to complement their choice with a D700 + grip. Equally, I've no idea
    how the 6D is selling, since I see very little reason to pick one over a D610 beyond brand loyalty. At some
    point, Nikon may compete more directly with the 5D3 with a "D710" - a D610 sensor and shutter in a D800
    body and AF system. But I doubt it'll be soon, and they'd have to under-cut the price if the multi-cam 3500
    isn't going to look a bit old.
     
  234. I just have to comment on smartphone touch screen keyboards.
    They suck!
     
  235. pge

    pge

    BeBu Lamar said:
    I do agree that's the best way to go about SPAM but Nikon has a problem that many of their lens doesn't have an aperture ring to put the A mark on. In fact they are always in A.​
    It would be a dial controlled by the body. Here is my very simple mockup replacing the SPAM dial.
    00c8Tv-543431184.jpg
     
  236. Phil, I think they would be better off with no dial at the SPAM ones place. They should have made the controls even simpler, with no redundancies. It’s not a really bad layout, but it could be improved.
     
  237. Dan: I used phones with physical keyboards until I found I was faster with Swype. YMMV. Though while
    we're on the topic, I notice the video testimonials on Amazon (Joe McNally et al.) need flash, and are
    therefore hard to view on a recent Android device - which suggests that Nikon wasn't too serious about the S800c.

    Steven: I concur. One disadvantage of the "auto position on the dials" approach is that it makes fast mode
    switching difficult, though a stronger detent or a dial which doesn't rotate fully helps. Not that I change
    modes often, so I prefer the mode button approach on high-end Nikon's. But I'd also prefer a camera that
    doesn't get caught on things and whose dials are easy to use with one finger in the cold and wet. I hope
    the Df's dials are good for this. Leica's asymmetric dial trick is a good way to make up for ignoring the
    advances in materials science and sticking to metal wheels. I'm particularly worried about that front dial,
    but I guess it's "only" for use with G lenses. I'm not as worried by the interlocks, since I'm used to the finger
    contortions of an F5, but they're an acquired taste.

    Oh well. I gather there are many preorders - if they're not cancelled when people try them, I guess Nikon
    knows best.
     
  238. Nikon FX by contrast is aimed at high end users and professionals and control, flexibilityand good ergonomics are key features, and simplicity has to be sacrificed to obtain the necessary flexibility.​
    My point is that it does not have to be. There are many many new Moms and New Dads who would love to take pictures of their kids with the IQ of a FF camera. It is easy to make a complicated piece of equipment complicated but a lot harder to do the reverse. I would give Nikon the benefit of the doubt that they could make a SONY A7 like camera. However as the way their current camera system is set up, such a camera may cut into the sale of D7100; thus they came up with Df that squeezes between D800 and D610.
     
  239. Phil! The aperture dial on the body is a continuous dial which has no end so how do you put the A mark on it? Also there are lenses with the aperture ring and I don't think it's good to limit aperture control on the body only.
    I think I will buy the Df but I think Nikon could do better in the look department. Both the Nikon FM and F3 are better looking.
     
  240. BeBu: When you turn the dial, the LCD (and viewfinder) show what you've selected. An auto position is like
    any other. Putting a detent on it is trickier (unless you just stop it wrapping). Given the vertical orientation,
    I'm inclined to suggest pulling it out to make it easier to turn, like setting a watch, and push in for auto.
    You'd need settings to distinguish between minimum aperture and auto mode even with most non-G
    lenses. Incidentally, while I approve of the floppy aperture tab and wish I could replace the ring on my
    D800 like the F5/F6, what would really have impressed me in an AI-S detector pin.

    I don't care at all about the looks, though I'm not a fan of the programmable button bump - which I guess is
    to deepen the effective grip. But I hope you enjoy it! If it was priced like the D600 (best done by taking off
    all the fiddly dials) I may have been more tempted to join you, but I'll look forward to hearing what you
    make of it.
     
  241. I don't see myself using the lens aperture ring at all. I'll just assign aperture control the the Command wheel, use the shutter speed dial, and relegate the Sub-Command wheel to decorative duty :)
     
  242. Nothing wrong with it as niche product, but better for Nikon also recognize, that 5D3 is quietly eating Nikon lunch, as all around workhorse. --Nick Doronin
    My first impression upon reading this was that it was written by a Canon-using troll. ---LK
    Completely unfair comment, Lannie--Keith Reeder​
    Keith, a first impression is simply a first impression. There is nothing fair or unfair about a first impression. It simply IS, or WAS.
    The point of beginning my response that way was to point out that my first impression was WRONG: Nick had a point. I will certainly stand by my other comments vis-a-vis the Canon 5D III.
    Here is the beginning of my response to Nick:
    My first impression upon reading this was that it was written by a Canon-using troll. Upon reflection, however, if I had nothing invested in Nikon by way of lenses, and I was just starting out, there is no way that I would pay $2749 for this Nikon Df while the Canon 5D III is being offered for $2999 on Amazon AT THIS MOMENT.
    If anyone wants to read the rest of my response, it is at this point in this discussion:
    Landrum Kelly[​IMG][​IMG], Nov 06, 2013; 11:28 p.m.
    --Lannie
     
  243. The battery door lock mechanism looks good to me. I never liked the flimsy little tab-like switch on my D200, although I have never had an actual problem with it. The lock on the Df looks much more robust.
     
  244. the lock on the battery compartment makes it looks like the F and F2 back latch
     
  245. Lannie: well, I read what you said. :) I still disagree about supposed low light advantage of the 5D3 (from
    reviews - I've handled but not tested one), but I agree that the 5D3 is a camera that I can see many good
    reasons to buy. I really don't think the Df is supposed to compete with it - whether Nikon should produce a
    direct competitor is another matter.

    In the last generation, Canon made, in the 5D2, a reasonable all-rounder, which was a bit slow and had old
    autofocus with an above average sensor, especially for landscapes. The D700 was slightly behind the
    resolution curve with a low light advantage, but faster and with much better AF. This time, Canon fixed the
    speed/AF and Nikon fixed the resolution deficit. Next time, I'm sure Canon will consider a resolution bump
    (the 1Dx already has an edge over the D4). I'm sure Nikon are speeding up their processing and looking at
    a MultiCam 3500 successor. The good thing about wanting a better camera is that you just have to wait -
    the only question is how long. (With apologies to D300s owners.)
     
  246. Guys, I did not meant stir the pot, I do not have brand loyalty, I had Panasonic, Fuji, Nikon, I am using Canon now.
    The point of my post was, that Nikon being capable of making terrific cameras like F6, D700, D3, which were really moving technology ahead, seems start shooting in all directions, with highly specialized niche products, leaving mainstream line neglected. It is gonna hurt everybody, even Canon crowd, because of the lack of competition.
     
  247. Andrew and Nick, I think that it is a very good question as to what is competing with what these days with regard to Nikon and Canon. I would personally put the Nikon D600/610 in pretty close competition with the Canon 6D, but beyond that there appear to be no real head-to-head contests between Nikon and Canon.
    I don't think that Nikon has anything that goes head to head with the 5D III, and right now Canon has nothing that goes head to head with the D800/E. (The 5D III and the D800 are surely not direct competitors.)
    I do believe that Canon has positioned itself somewhat better in terms of gaining market shares with the 5D III. The 5D III might not be the best low light camera, but it sure is pretty clean. Surely its clean images are in part the result of not trying to put too many pixels on a full-frame sensor. It has other strengths as well. For the record, I did not leave Canon because its products were inferior, but because I lost my job in the fall of 2011 and had to sell all of my Canon gear to survive during the spring of 2012. About that time the D800E came out, and I just had to have it. (I finally ordered it in October, 2012 after I started working again.) Since then I have also learned why people loved and still love the D3, D700, and D3s. I am pretty well hooked on Nikon now, not to take a single thing away from Canon. I do enjoy watching the marketing strategies of both companies, as well as Sony's. I guess that those are the big three where full-frame cameras are concerned.
    I think that I would enjoy the Df, but right now it is not something I could consider at any price, much less at $2749, and that is why I say that the price has to drop. Perhaps that is wishful thinking.
    I am rather astonished, however, to see the 5D III coming in below $3,000, even if only by one dollar. I loved the 5D II, and so I know that I would love the 5D III.
    I also, Nick, am not trying to stir the Nikon v. Canon pot--just making a few observations. Since the D600 (or 610) really is quite inferior to the 5D III, the impact of Canon's price drop on the 5D III will be interesting to watch. As I said, Canon appears to be well-positioned to dominate the FF market--if anyone is. That is not meant to be provocative, since I am now shooting Nikon. That is simply the way I see it. Things can change fast, though, especially with Sony really now firmly in the FF game.
    --Lannie
     
  248. Somber news: Nikon Corp cut its full-year unit sales forecast for high-end cameras for the second quarter in a row to 6.20 million from a previous forecast of 6.55 million, which had predicted the first fall in sales of the format since Nikon's first digital SLR in 1999.
    http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/11/07/nikon-earnings-idUSL3N0IR39F20131107
    Maybe a more customer-oriented model policy could have avoided this?
     
  249. Maybe a more customer-oriented model policy could have avoided this?​
    Maybe a global economic upturn could have avoided this?
    --Lannie
     
  250. Maybe a global economic upturn could have avoided this?​
    Certainly wouldn't hurt. But the effect could still be negated or at least compromised by a "wrong" model policy.
     
  251. oops. double post
     
  252. @Ilkka Nissila; I agree up to a point that there are some systemic focusing errors in Nikon AF, but in my experience it seems to have been not so much by (lack of) design as by quality control problems. I noticed iffy performance and a tendency toward backfocus under incandescent on both my D2H and D200; when I rented a Fuji S5 and noticed it nailing the correct focus every time, it piqued my interest to say the least, but it was not until I bought a pair of D7000 bodies that both backfocused every time under incandescent that I went a little bit incandescent and sent them both back to Nikon. I had read the horror stories about multiple D7000 trips to Nikon with no resolution, so I tested them very thoroughly to sort out which situations produced inaccurate focus, and in which direction, and which situations produced accurate focus, and provided those findings to Nikon as well. Turned out there was an adjustment problem on both bodies with the AF mirror angle; once fixed, both cameras have been very dependable, though I have now sold one of them.
    I think that, especially with lenses that have high CA, the mirror angle simply brings up the images the phase-detect AF has to align in a place on the sensor that varies depending on the color temperature. If that mirror angle is correct, the images shift as predicted in any white balance situation; if it is not correct, the only one that will work accurately is the 5500 Kelvin for which Nikon seems to calibrate their AF, and in my case, the camera front-focused outdoors on cloudy days (7000 Kelvin) and backfocused moderately with flash (4000 Kelvin) and backfocused horribly under incandescent (2700 Kelvin).
     
  253. Lannie: I'm really not sure about the high ISO vs megapixels thing. It's true that the D4 and 1Dx, with
    relatively large sensor sites, have a lead, but the 5D3, D610 and D800 are pretty much equivalent despite a
    resolution difference. There are clearly differences in approach, with Canon losing more dynamic range at
    low ISO - the Nikon behaviour since the D7000 is very close to shooting everything at base ISO and scaling
    digitally, while the Canons act more like the D3/D3s generations - but at high ISO they're remarkably
    equivalent. Since we got gapless microlenses, I believe we no longer have the difference in light gathering
    between lower and higher resolutions - per area, a D7100 keeps a D610 quite honest. I hope the Df does
    match the D4: I worry that some processing is off-chip, and D4 sensor may not mean the premium parts
    bin for the rest of processing.


    I'd no idea how much of a drop the 5D3 has gone through - finally less than the D800e, I see. The D610 is
    currently, at least in the UK, not much cheaper than the plain D800, but I'm sure that will change. If the 610
    drops near the price of the 600, it's still got some merits - where it really loses to the 5D3 is in AF and, a bit,
    video, and some shooters would reasonably take the discount. At launch price, the Df doesn't look nearly
    such a good buy to me - at least, purely as a D600 with a D4 sensor - but some clearly think otherwise. A
    D610 with a D4 sensor in a D610 body might actually have appealed to me, having brushed up on some
    figures, but the current price is very close to a used D3s, which has its own appeal. I'll be interested to see
    how prices change, but if it's pitched at collectors and there's a big queue for pre-orders it may take a
    while.
     
  254. Dieter, I think in technology we got to the point where any hi-end camera is good enough for common photography application, I hope megapixels war is over, most of us in this forum old enough to remember, that 24x36 will never beat 6x9 in resolution, film grain size notwithstanding.
    Lannie, I had Fuji S3pro, and loved colours and files fidelity was incredible, but it was slow as molasses, so I got Nikon D300, since mount was the same and it was best available then.
    Camera was fantastic, responsive, autofocus terrific, but I did not like the colours, I tried all kind of software, still did not like it. That time Canon 1D3 took lot's of beating with autofocus issues with glass like 300/2.8 or 400/2.8, I wish I could afford that glass, so autofocus wasn't problem for me, I tried camera and loved those files and colours, for $2000 with 3000 activations it was a steal. This summer in Istanbul I realized, that 1.3 crop is kind of limiting in close quoters, I got 6D for that kind of game. Now I have huge problem, how to convince my wife, that I definitely need 2 cameras.
     
  255. High end camera market stalls. I wonder if these threads have anything to do with that? Or...are people tired of getting soaked with jive camera models that don't deliver what they were looking for. Or is it that the wise guys that blew their wad on these various models are catching on to the scheme. Or, did the high end camera market tick up, because at the time of its its peak, it could bear rich guys splurging on the toys they wanted simply because they could. It stand to reason there's frustration with the buyer. More and more camera buyers are opting down with the knowledge the extra $2000 isn't going to improve their Photography, because they suck at Photography. Saturation, maybe were there.
     
  256. > More and more camera buyers are opting down with the knowledge the extra $2000 isn't going to improve their Photography, because they suck at Photography.
    Maybe, but people are ever-hopeful that a new piece of equipment will fix everything. For another of my cycling-oriented analogies (collect 'em all, kids!): Didja ever see the 50-lb overweight guy riding a $5000 carbon fiber frame with an additional several kilobucks in titanium-everything parts because THAT will fix his inability to keep up on the hills?
    Re Apple design philosophy and iPhone photography: I'm largely with Ilkka, who's said it better than I could. (As I type this on my MacBook Pro with my iPhone on my belt, so not an Apple hater.)
     
  257. Don:
    Your words are well taken, at least by me. I was teaching a workshop last weekend and was fascinated by watching one of the students working with an ancient camera to produce wet plate images. His exposure was determined by how long he kept the lens cover off the even more ancient lens. The results of his work was breathtaking and food foe serious thought about where all of this is going. I have a nikon d7100 at the moment and have come to the conclusion that I really don't need more. In short, technology has evolved faster than our ability to use it. The race will continue to be sure but I don't think I have to be a contestant until I master what I have, if I ever do.
    -Cheers
     
  258. Well, I certainly don't want to deviate from the posted subject at hand the Nikon Df. As I see at this point, the contributors here are massively informed, and well versed on the knowledge of modern camera's, and their suggestions for Nikon, or any other producer to get it right is all well taken. Yet, I'm using the knowledge of others here to navigate a purchase for a modern digital camera, and as it goes around and around, I see the various models always missing something, always just not quite there. I now have to agree, the Df is expensive for a 16MP camera. someone said, 16MP will only punch out a print 10.5 X 18? at 300dpi, if thats true, and I don't know this, thats not adequate in my view coming from a $2800 camera. I do like the concept. I like the layout for navigating set ups. I don't think it will get in the way after one spends the time with it. The D-610 at this point is the front runner as my first DSLR purchase.
     
  259. OK, so its 10.9 X 16.4 at 300 dpi with a 16MP sensor. Disappointing.
     
  260. Live view link short review.
    http://www.engadget.com/2013/11/04/nikon-df-camera/
     
  261. Don, do you always print at 300 dpi? I know I don't, although I certainly can with the D800E.
    BACK TO THE Df: Shooting full-frame with relatively low-megapixel sensors has a certain charm and joy of its own, whether one is shooting the D3, D700, D3s, D4, or now this, the Df.
    For those who have never tried even an afternoon or evening of shooting with one of the models in boldface listed just above, I invite you to try it. Step back in time: Low file size ON A FULL-FRAME SENSOR can be wonderful for a change, especially when the light begins to fail.
    That is, if you give one of these low megapixel cameras a try, DON'T FORGET TO SHOOT IT AFTER THE SUN GOES DOWN! You don't think that a stop or two can make a difference? Give one of these a try HANDHELD when it is getting just about too dark to see.

    That will be the "Eureka!" moment for some. For those who never try it, they will never have any idea what all the noise was/is about. I know that I rather sneered at Nikon's low-light cameras with 12 megapixels when my arsenal consisted of the Canon 5D II and the Canon 1Ds Mark II.
    In my quest for more, ever more megapixels and higher resolution, I then went on to get the D800E. Nor was that a mistake. Yet, though I truly love that camera and what it can do, nothing has quite captured my photographic imagination nor given me more inspiration than the used D3s that I found on eBay this past summer.
    So, sneer at 16 megapixels, much less 12, if you want to, but for sheer joy of shooting, there is nothing quite like going BACK not in style, but in MEGAPIXELS. File size is not the holy grail--except when it is.
    If you are going to be shooting one camera and one camera only, then perhaps 24 mp (or even 21 or 22) is the best compromise candidate, but, if you are going to be shooting at least two full frame cameras, try the extremes. I love pushing the limits in both directions: high resolution (D800E) and high ISO capability in low light (one of the bold-faced cameras in the second paragraph above). I am talking about two completely different photographic experiences.
    All of the shots I linked to above were made hand-held in near darkness, except for the one shot with a D800E, for which I used a tripod.
    Low megapixels on a full-frame sensor: there is nothing quite like it.
    --Lannie
     
  262. I do consider buying the Df! I will make the decision once I have a chance to handle it in person and may take a few shots with it. I never considered the D600 or the D610. I do want a better looking camera than most DSLR but it doesn't have to have the retro look nor all the dials. I do not like the hand grip but realize that modern camera need space for the battery.
    But unlike what Don Bright said about print size. I doubt that I would ever print larger than 11x14. I shoot film for almost 40 years I have make a print larger than 11x14 so I see no need now. But may be I am just looking for a camera that replace my film camera as I am perfectly happy with film but it's getting difficult to buy and process film.
    Most of what I like about the Df over the D600/D610 is about what it doesn't have. I don't want a camera with movie mode, nor scene mode or built in flash. And I am one who don't expect that when a manufacturer takes features out of a product it has to be less expensive I expect it to be more expenisive as compared to the D610 I don't think it's overpriced in that stand point.
     
  263. I think they should bundle it with a stylish walking cane that'd double as a monopod ;)
     
  264. Lannie: I do agree that I shot differently with my D700 than I do with my D800e. I spent much less effort on accurate autofocus due to the lower pixel density. I shot more at wider apertures, since lens aberrations were less visible. Since there was little additional dynamic range at low ISO, I left the camera in auto-ISO and paid little attention to it. The D800e can produce more detail - in pixel density, per-pixel sharpness and dynamic range/high-ISO performance - and I could get better images than the D700 just by shooting the same way and downsampling. But I feel that I should try to get the best out of the camera, which means I shoot differently (or at least, have to choose explicitly to do otherwise).

    Is that "pure photography"? Maybe. Henri Cartier-Bresson might have thought so. I doubt Ansel Adams would have done.
     
  265. As a PS to Lannie & Rob's comments recently...seeing as how it's such a "niche" product and no-one other than collectors/hipsters/those-not-in-their-right-minds will buy it, why all the fuss over something that's gonna die a swift death? Apparently? And why the "passion" (read : vitriol ) over its demise? Have you seen dpreviews comments? Talk about bloodsport! All this Defcon5 level sabre rattling must mean that its A: dead in the water, lousy IQ etc or B : damn good. The last time i saw something prematurely burned at the stake was the Fuji X100S...and THAT turned out to be ....damn good. Hmmmmm...hey, I've got an idea! Let's wait until we actually see the IQ and then we can, bleating and babbling, fall on his neck with a scream.
     
  266. I'm sorry, y'all. That last post was intended to go in the Theater Rehearsal folder. (What site am I on?)
    Along those lines, you have gotta love this:
    All this Defcon5 level sabre rattling must mean that its A: dead in the water, lousy IQ etc or B : damn good. The last time i saw something prematurely burned at the stake was the Fuji X100S...and THAT turned out to be ....damn good. (Emphasis supplied.)​
    "Defcon 5 level sabre rattling"
    "prematurely burned at the stake"
    Darn, thass mighty fine writin.'
    --Lannie
     
  267. Maybe a more customer-oriented model policy could have avoided this?​
    The whole photographic market has grown overheated. The waves' theory does matter. If the camera were less 40% costly it would be a sucsess. If at this price point, the camera, as I see it, must have sensational specs - very close to top cameras (at least as I see it 24-25 Mp and 8-9 PFS and 1/8000 + dual slot combination.
     
  268. I find this camera very desirable, in the same way that I found the D700 just as desirable. With dimensions less than a D600, direct controls, AF-ON, no video, and the amazing D4 sensor. It's quite hard not to love it. Just the price disappoints but looking at it objectively, how much would have been an acceptable price for a D610 with a D4 sensor? The sensor itself packaged in a D4 does not sell in huge numbers, therefore I kind of understand why it is not cheap in this body.
     
  269. Lannie...have you SEEN what's going on at dpreview? You'll need a glass or three of some fine sippin' whisky first....2000+ comments, some by me (Ranford Stealth) but mostly the unholy grumblings and rumblings of a frenzied pagan mob, who seem sorely distressed by this outrageous newcomer. And rather than taking crayon to paper instead fill that unholy gathering with barely concealed vehemence, trying to turn this new camera in to some kind of vile abomination. Perhaps they should, dare I say it, lighten up? It's just a camera, one of many they won't buy. Oh well, I suppose it gives 'em something to do with their torches and pitchforks. I mean really, it's enough to make a man lose all his mirth...you know, like Whisky Tango Foxtrot?? Whatever, love from Downunder ;-)
     
  270. Maybe a more customer-oriented model policy could have avoided this?​
    Certainly. Nikon seems to blame the decline in dSLR sale to economy, but one wonders how many of their would-be customers have bought something else instead from the m4/3, SONY NEX, and now Fuji. I know I have.
    More importantly, with the Df, I do not quite see what is the design principle behind this camera that will truly make your photography better and easier. A retro done right is to bring back what is good in the past and integrate it with the new technology, and in the process makes intelligent decisions to send old junk to the garbage bin. The Df is a fusion resulted from a collision between the old and new.
     
  271. I like the exterior look and the intuitive dials. The 16MP sensor is a good choice for low light work and plenty sharp. I would pair this body with a 28/2.8, 50/1.4 or 105/2.5 Ais. Except for sensor cleaning and old lens designation, I would not even bother with the other menu selections. All you need to adjust is ISO, SHUTTER and FOCUS - thats IT!
     
  272. how much would have been an acceptable price for a D610 with a D4 sensor​
    Same price as for a D610 with the current 24MP sensor. The D4 sensor is no more expensive to manufacture than the D610 sensor and if it was to go "mainstream" in a D610-type body, it'll recover its development etc. costs just as fast as the 24MP sensor (the number of D4 cameras sold from that point on will be a mere fraction of what would be sold of a D610 with the 16MP sensor).
    IMO, Nikon would have done a lot better had they released a D800X and D800H together, one with the current sensor from the D800E and one with either the D3S sensor or the D4 sensor. I assume that production of D800/D800 exceeds that of the D4 by a factor of 5 to 6 (probably more after initial demand has been satisfied) - and I would certainly expect that Nikon would have sold more than 3 times the number of D4 units (assuming an even split in D800X vs D800H sales and half the profit for a camera that sells for half the price) - making more profit from the combined D800H/D4 sales than with D4 sales alone. Trying to protect D4 sales - as many in this forum keep mentioning is obviously moving Nikon into a corner. Why protect the sales of what I expect to be the lowest volume model?
     
  273. Nikon designs their professional cameras based on feedback and requests from professional photographers, not internet forums. This is because the cameras need to be suitable for, and competitive in daily professional use. Professional photographers have great symbolic value which boosts the sales of products across the Nikon lineup, also they generally buy a lot more lenses than the average consumer, thus their satisfaction is important to Nikon financially and as a brand, and it puts pride in the hearts of the owners and engineers alike. Without the professionals buying Nikons their lens lineup probably would have to be shrunk to the same level as Sony and Pentax systems have, since the advanced photographers would follow where the pros go, in that case Canon, and the general consumers would also ask their serious amateur and professional photographer friends for advice on which brand to go to.
    If Nikon followed internet forum crowd requests in the design of their professional cameras, probably the cameras would be less suitable for use by the serious photographer and professional. It is best that they consult the photographers who know photography best when it comes to advice in which direction to take their future professional cameras. Which is what they do. The result may be pricing and feature sets which are not ideal to satisfy requests by the general consumer but they keep the ship afloat as the cameras will be functional and useful. And that's more important in the long term than the absolute number of cameras sold.
     
  274. If Nikon based its camera design on the responses in this thread, they would quite literally go insane.
     
  275. m allegretta, Nov 08, 2013; 12:02 p.m.
    I like the exterior look and the intuitive dials. The 16MP sensor is a good choice for low light work and plenty sharp. I would pair this body with a 28/2.8, 50/1.4 or 105/2.5 Ais. Except for sensor cleaning and old lens designation, I would not even bother with the other menu selections. All you need to adjust is ISO, SHUTTER and FOCUS - thats IT!​
    If I were to eventually get a Df, I would pair it with:
    16/3.5 AI
    20/2.8 D (or AIS)
    45/2.8P
    either 90/3.5 CV, 105/2.5 AIS, or 135/3.5 AIS depending on the situation.
    and
    180/4 CV (if I still have it)
    For a pretty darned compact and excellent kit.
    Just waiting for the price of the Df to drop to something more reasonable (or a sale of some sort), which may be a while. In the mean time I'll make due with my D800 and m43 gear.
     
  276. I have a question for all and especially Shun Cheung. I want to buy a brand new Df at the lowest price and I can wait as long as it takes. When should I buy it? I don't want a used or refurbished one so no it's not several years down the road. The price is now at $2749 in the US. Would it come down? Would it go up? What do you all think?
     
  277. If Nikon based its camera design on the responses in this thread, they would quite literally go insane.​
    It seems that they are asking for it openly, they are asking people to tell them what we think, and I did.
    https://webc.nikonimaging.com/form/pub/info/df_en
     
  278. I've not checked the DPReview comments, but actually I'm quite gratified that the comments on this thread seem to be reasonable. I don't think there has been a great deal of panning the camera without justification (though there has been a fair bit of "this doesn't seem like a good idea", which I think is perfectly rational), nor has there been "OMG this will be the best camera evor!!!" Funnily enough, that's the reason I tend to frequent this forum more. Though, that said, Dan: Nikon reading this forum would explain the Df, then. :)

    CC: In as much as I understand the Df, I strongly agree with your last paragraph. But maybe I don't understand it at all.

    m - And aperture? And shooting mode? And white point? And image size? And frame rate? And flash control? And... The thing is, the controls that have dedicated dials on the Df were already accessible without using menus on the existing higher-end Nikons. Some functionality now requires more going into menus (how do you enable and disable auto-ISO?) To me, it still feels like "let's put in a load of dedicated dials" was the design goal at the cost of "let's make the camera as intuitive as possible". That's probably exactly what it is, otherwise Nikon wouldn't have had essentially the same interface since the F5, but it does seem a bit like taking the starter motor out of a car because someone missed the feel of crank-starting it. (I was going to find a more timely analogy, probably about smartphones, but then I realised that I was probably aiming at the right audience...) So if you really find the interface of a Df or an F4 easier to use than a D800 or F5, I think you're probably either just very used to how the old camera works and aren't willing to switch, or you're missing something - but I'm still happy for you that this camera exists. But maybe I'm missing something (which is why I'm asking questions).
    I don't want a camera with movie mode, nor scene mode or built in flash.​
    Bebu: Scene modes I kind of understand. They're annoying, and taking up dial space is slightly unhelpful (not that I actually want a dial shooting mode interface anyway). I'd hope you could just ignore them, though. The same is extremely true of movie mode: I understand not wanting to pay to have it, but since it costs nothing (being subsidized by people who do want video), I'd rather have it there for the one day in four years when something was worth videoing and I didn't have a better option. I'm capable of ignoring a small red button. As for the flash, maybe there are robustness advantages (though Thom has had recent things to say about dropping a D800), as in the single-digit Nikons, but I'm pretty grateful that there's a flash on my D700 and D800, because I use it to trigger my off-camera flashes. Buying a transmitter separately would be annoying and bulky. I'll live without it, but I'd prefer to have one - it hardly adds bulk.
    Nikon designs their professional cameras based on feedback and requests from professional photographers, not internet forums. This is because the cameras need to be suitable for, and competitive in daily professional use.​
    Ilkka: I completely agree. And the Df feels exactly like a camera that was designed to meet the requests of people on internet forums. I really don't see how it helps professional photographers any. Nikon have included a few things I requested (directly), though I doubt I was the only one to do so. Having said that, I do think Nikon might benefit from having an intern trawl some groups for decent ideas, if they don't do so. I promise I try to suggest features only when I think they'll help everyone (or at least harm no-one, though I've sometimes needed educating about my wrongness), and there have been plenty of good suggestions from other group members. For every few "I really need a camera without a video button" (ahem) posts, there's one that would genuinely improve shooting experiences.
    Dieter, I think in technology we got to the point where any hi-end camera is good enough for common photography application,​
    I'd meant to say, I agree. That doesn't mean that we can't discuss whether you'll be more likely to get the once-in-a-lifetime shot with the 1% that one camera can do that another can't, nor that it's unreasonably to want the best for your money even if second-best is only fractionally behind. I'm very happy with my D800, but honestly if it didn't exist I doubt a D610 or 5D3 would distress me - there'd just be a very few shots that didn't contain the detail where I felt it mattered.

    I mentioned that I have multiple cameras. A few times, there are functional differences. Nothing else I own has the D800's dynamic range. Nothing but the V1 can do a decent resolution at 60fps, or shoot at 1200fps. Only my D700 shoots well at ISO 6400 at 8fps (with a grip). My 645 has the biggest film area I can access, until I get a 5x4 or someone gives me a Mamiya 7. But a lot of the time, it's about ergonomics. My Bessa R gets used (occasionally) because some scenarios are best shot with a rangefinder. My F5 gets used when I want AF and an accurate finder - and still want film. My GF2 is a compromise between a decent sensor and portability, with direct controls and a touchscreen. (I got the V1 despite its ergonomics, not because of them.) I've tried a 5D, and it's the different ergonomics that bother me. not the image quality, though a little of that is acclimatizing. So maybe I shouldn't be surprised that Nikon made a camera with different ergonomics. All that confuses me is why it's this camera, and these ergonomics - everything else I own is better than the alternatives I could have got at something.
    The D4 sensor is no more expensive to manufacture than the D610 sensor and if it was to go "mainstream" in a D610-type body, it'll recover its development etc. costs just as fast as the 24MP sensor (the number of D4 cameras sold from that point on will be a mere fraction of what would be sold of a D610 with the 16MP sensor).​
    Dieter: Do we know that for sure? I'm not saying otherwise, but I could imagine that some of the D4's low-light performance might require some expensive components. Or not. You would not be alone in thinking that a D800H/D800x combination (or, back in the day, a D700x) would sell, and it seems a little odd that Nikon wouldn't take the chance to amortize their costs by having multiple very similar models in this way - but I do see the reason for a halo camera. Currently, on specs, the halo D4 appears to be behind the 1Dx, though, so I'm not sure how worthy of protection it is.

    And that's way too much for one post, even for me.
     
  279. Mark Loader: I expect that in the entire history of dpreview, there have not been 2000 comments on photographs.
    In fact, I don't 'get' all of the endless threads about gear. Don't like it, don't buy it. To ME, the Df looks pretty and has enough pixels. If this is not true for you, don't purchase one. I think it's a bit overpriced, but that's me, not you.
    I also understand that gear is important. There are reasonable questions to ask, most of which can be quickly answered. Dose the Df have interchangeable screens? No. How will it work for manual focus then? Wait until you can try one.
     
  280. Some functionality now requires more going into menus (how do you enable and disable auto-ISO?) To me, it still feels like "let's put in a load of dedicated dials" was the design goal at the cost of "let's make the camera as intuitive as possible".​
    Andrew, this is exactly how I feel. In the Df, after all the teasing from Nikon, I am disappointed to see no innovation in this camera. It is just a recycling of existing parts to jam them all into a box. It seems that for anybody, pro or not, making a camera quick to use should be a top priority. In the days when the FF sensors are so good with ISO, is it really necessary to put a large dial just to adjust ISO? From the way it is designed, it seems that you need to put it where it says "1/3 step" and then turn the command dial in order to change ISO in 1/3 of a stop? This seems inconvenient. Nikon already has the best implementation of auto ISO and they should let people take advantage of that. Leave it in auto ISO, and just worry about aperture and shutter speed, for which the two command dials can do so very efficiently without taking your eyes from the VF, day and night. The program dial is under utilized with just four positions and may be more can be add it to it? WB? Custom settings? … When we begin to think this way, one cannot help but notice that Nikon's dSLRs already have most of these … Thus for pro, the selling features are really the slight reduction in weight (about 100g), as compared to D610, and the D4 sensor, but in return, you will pay $1,000 more while losing the video, built in flash, and a much cleaner camera design.
     
  281. Les: Before spending a lot of money on something, I like to research it. For electronic products recently, that usually includes reading the manual on-line, for example. A thread like this helps me to understand what a new product is good for, and what it isn't. It also gives me good ideas for how to use the products I have, which might make me a better photographer, in this case. It also gives a pretty good hint about what might be coming to the market later, and tells me about alternative products. All this is useful.

    In a photo review, I get to read a lot of "cool image" comments and the occasional piece of constructive feedback, mostly about an artistic decision that could have been taken either way. I've never posted a photograph for review here because I still believe there's plenty that I know I want to improve about my photography; at some point, I'll be at the stage where I want more advice and reconsider. I'll gladly look at an image and enjoy it, but I gain little from an artistic analysis. I'm now at the stage where there aren't many images for which I need to ask "how was this done?" - my challenge is having the insight to make an original image, and having discipline to apply the techniques that I already know. I'm not dissing image review threads, but I'll say that their signal-to-noise ratio, especially for someone with a little experience, is not necessarily higher than an educated product thread.

    These threads have been very long, but we're not entirely repeating ourselves yet. Sure, there are only so many variants of "it looks pretty" that can be informative (and actually, I am vaguely interested to know that some people like the looks, even if they don't affect my use of the camera one jot), but there's a lot of sensor analysis, comparative ergonomics and different ways of using cameras still coming up. And yes, we'll know more when we can try one.

    CC: I do want to change ISO (mostly because I'd rather have 14 stops of dynamic range for shadow recovery from time to time, so I try to keep my D800 at ISO 100 where possible - less so my D700). Frustratingly, "quick ISO" doesn't play with manual mode and you can't remap the ISO button to Fn/DoF/AE/AF, so the only way I can control shutter speed, aperture and ISO without taking my hand off the grip is to work in auto-ISO and play with exposure compensation. The Df has made this worse, by moving both ISO and exposure compensation to the "wrong" side of the camera. However, I believe you can move the ISO in 1/3 stop increments - it's the shutter speed that you can't do that with, and have to use the conventional dial instead. Honestly, I think the nicer solution would have been something like the concentric gearing on some micrometers to let you have coarse and fine setting of dial positions. But it would have cost more.

    Anyway. For someone who doesn't care for the dial arrangement - which obviously includes me, but I realise that some people do apparently like it - I agree that it's a lighter and possibly slightly more robust D600 with a D4 sensor (though some of the weight advantage is because of the dinky battery and missing flash). It does have the flippy AI follower tab, though. That would have made me interested, in a cheaper camera - though again I'd just like to retrofit my D800.
     
  282. Andrew: Do we know that for sure?​
    No, at least I don't - it's an assumption but since Nikon indeed designs their own sensors, it's possible that they add a secret sauce to make them more delicious. Similar to the angel dust Leica bestows on their lenses maybe? IIRC, then the D3S didn't cost more than the D3 (talking about introduction price here) - which if indeed correct, would point to the fact that no special sauce needed to be paid for to get the better high ISO results.
    It is normal that an "unusual" or "out of the ordinary" design like the Df polarizes people. The (only mildly interesting) question that we will likely never get an answer to is whether more people purchased the DF because of the style than were turned away by it (no need to account for those who don't care one way or another). All else being equal (when is it ever that?), I'd rather purchase the D4 sensor in a D800 body than the Df. Same for the the D4 sensor on a D610 body? I can't say for sure since more compromises are involved. If I were to add a Df to a camera bag that already has either a D800 or a D610, then I would have to cope with an entirely different UI - not something I am particularly fond of.
     
  283. I had hoped for this camera a few years ago. But, alas, this is too large and it doesn't have the beautiful split-image viewfinder. It's a Frankenstein camera. Why couldn't they just use the FM3a body? What a missed opportunity.
     
  284. Who makes the sensor for the D4? Does Nikon make it? I thought Sony made most Nikon sensors.
    Any idea as to how similar the Df sensor is to the sensor of the D4? Might it be an improvement? Sensor technology does not stand still, after all.
    --Lannie
     
  285. Jim - care to elaborate? I would suspect the FM3a body is out because a) it would need to be thicker to
    have a digital sensor, b) it wouldn't support G lenses, c) it wouldn't support non-AI lenses, d) it wouldn't
    support autofocus, e) it would need a bigger battery, f) you need some means of changing aperture and
    ISO... What exactly did you have in mind? I have nothing against the FM3a and I think it's clear that I have
    doubts about the Df controls, but there's a mismatch here. Even Leica have an LCD, which in recent times
    does live view, and I'm sure they'd have autofocus and auto-aperture if they weren't sticking to a mount
    that precluded them.

    But the FM3a was a throwback when it was launched, so I assume you specifically want an almost fully
    manual DSLR (and ignoring features won't do)? Just checking. That's a valid thing to want, and it exists in
    medium format, but I suspect that it would get fewer buyers than the current Df. (On the other hand,
    making it smaller and lighter by leaving all the legacy dials off sounds appealing!)
     
  286. I have not seen this much discourse since I asked if I should switch from PC to Apple. Nikon may regret releasing such a non-essential body.
     
  287. Who makes the sensor for the D4? Does Nikon make it?​
    The D4 sensor NC81366W is fabricated for Nikon by Renesas (and so were the D3/D700 and D3S sensors). The D800 sensor IMX094 is made by Sony, and so is the D600 sensor IMX128L. The D5200 is manufactured by Toshiba and so is the D7100 sensor.
    Any idea as to how similar the Df sensor is to the sensor of the D4?​
    My guess is that it is the same - we will know for sure once someone has disassembled a Df and had a look inside.
     
  288. How is the Df going to improve your Photography?

    How is the Df going to make your Photography worse? You know, the Df is been on my mind all day at work. I'm unsettled between the Df, and the 610, but the more I hear the Df slammed, the more I want it. Also for me, its a case of evaluating the way I shoot, and what the Df is all about. I love My F3HP. I've had the F3 new, since 1984. I lived with what I didn't like about it, the 60th flash sync, the flash mount, but that's it.
    I'm not interested is sports Photography, air show stuff, flowers, whatever. I shoot landscapes with my Pentax 67II, use Tango scans to 600MB for big prints, and sell prints. I also enjoy piddling around the street, or on location, travel Photography. My FM3a is a joy to use, but a camera as light as the Df is will provide the workflow advantages. I don't even understand what the comments are about pertaining to looks, I think the Df looks great, but I live with the F3, and others don't, I don't hold that against them, yet function, purpose, clarity of purpose are fundamentals we should be focusing on.
    I don't like the price of the Df. I don't like the price of the D4. I don't like the price of the D3X. I don't like the price of the D800E. My 2 cents advice is for Nikon to drop the price of the Df $500, but thats not going to happen. Confused? yes, but the Df is getting clearer, and clearer.
    I despise the notion that the Df is a freak, and rendered only to geriatric cane walkers that have money to burn. I despise the notion that beautiful pictures can't be made by the Df.
    I think when the emotional build up from the teaser campaign wears off, the purpose of the Df will be seen more clearly, then we'll find out who the real Frankensteins are.
     
  289. But the FM3a was a throwback when it was launched, so I assume you specifically want an almost fully manual DSLR (and ignoring features won't do)? Just checking. That's a valid thing to want, and it exists in medium format, but I suspect that it would get fewer buyers than the current Df. (On the other hand, making it smaller and lighter by leaving all the legacy dials off sounds appealing!)​

    I agree and Jim I understand the want for a fully manual, simple, small camera like the FM but are you willing to pay for it? It will have to cost more than the Df and not less. The less features the less buyers the higher the price. I am willing to pay the extra price for the Df instead of the D610 but not all the way to a digital FM which Nikon made it I think would be in the $5000 range.
     
  290. With 16MP and a good lens shooting with care, you can take an image that makes a stunningly sharp, 300dpi at 10.9 x 16.4” print image. With a very small stretch to 274dpi, you could make a fine 12x19” print, and if you’re not going to make prints you expect to be viewed at 12” distance you should be able to go to even larger sizes.​
    Somehow, photography class and math class never seem to agree. I was amazed years ago when I saw a collection of amazingly sharp 13x19 inch prints from an 8.2MP small-sensor Canon 20D. I'm even more amazed to hear that Nikon needs twice as many pixels and a full frame sensor to make a 12x19 inch print that can't be viewed from closer than 12 inches. That's not much of a recommendation for Nikon gear.

    I've made 45x30 inch prints from a 21MP camera. People told me that it looked "sharper than real life." That's six times the surface area that you claim that one could theoretically print from a Df. You might want to rethink those numbers.

    I've seen several galleries of large prints shot with 21 MP Canon gear and I've always been impressed with the detail in those prints. Nikon entered the resolution race late, but their 24 and 36 MP cameras are extremely capable. I'm sure that the Df and the D4 are capable as well; they're just a little short on pixel power.
    Maybe 16MP won’t satisfy pixel peepers or people who want to make really big prints, but then if you want a sharp 5 foot wide print you should be shooting a 4x5” or 8x10" film camera.​
    Yes, watch out for those pixel peepers, the bane of society. Perhaps all cameras should be limited to 6MP to ensure photographic purity.

    I shot 4x5 for years (but never 8x10). I see more detail in my 21 to 36 MP digital files than I do in drum scans of the film. It's fun to shoot LF film, but it's no longer "The Answer."

    The difference between 16 and 24MP is not as big as the MP numbers suggest. The actual linear resolution difference is only about 20-21%, which is not significant for most photographers.​
    Again, the numbers can be deceiving. I can tell you from first hand experience that the 5D Mark III captures noticeably more detail that the 5D Mark II, and they differ by 1 MP. I think the Mark III's AA filter must be a heck of a lot sharper. And the 5D Mark II was an impressive camera and a HUGE step up from my D700's rather anemic resolution. Night and day.
    Most people criticizing the Df/D4 resolution are ignoring these numbers and not thinking rationally about the real resolution difference to 24MP cameras. You really do need to jump up to 36MP to get a significant resolution bump.​
    Yes, I am ignoring the numbers, because when you compare prints, the 24 isn't much better than 16 argument doesn't hold true, multiplication tables notwithstanding. (See my 5D remarks above). And who knows? The Df might have the most amazing 16 MP sensor ever manufactured. I hope that it's surprisingly capable and that Df owners will love the files that they get from their impressive-looking cameras.

    That said, if 36 MP represents the next significant jump in resolution, as you suggest, Nikon does have such a sensor ready to go. The could have fitted this lovely little body with a real high-res powerhouse.
     
  291. Dan, I do understand you, but 24 full frame (and 36 Mp) would have a benefit versus 12 Mp at A2 size printing, if shot at a very high shutter-speed of with using a tripod, using very sharp center-to-border lens.
    But if we say about D800, I do not like to examine its photos at full-resolution, I just see NR and how a small pixel "degrades" the picture.
    If we say about FM3A - I remember how it was met by photographers, when it appeared, - with a storm of applause.

    The new Nikon Df can produce good images I think, the whole thing, if a shooter like Nikons - its rendering the colors by Nikon and if he needs analogue style of settings.

    On the one hand they make G lenses (not compatible with machanical cameras), they are going to stop their D-line, aren't they? On the other, they make this camera compatible with very old lenses.
     
  292. I would like to say that I think, at least in this thread (and it's predecessor), that there hasn't been too much
    "panning" and the response has been surprisingly unemotional - which may be the problem, if Nikon are
    counting on people buying this out of desire. I don't think anyone has doubted that the Df should be able to
    take good images. My only concern on that front is that the D610 can take good images as well; the
    advantages to the sensor are likely to be at very high ISO, and that seems to be an odd focus for a camera
    the way Nikon are positioning it. We're in the same position as the D700 launch - we know what the sensor
    can do, though the handling is more of an unknown quantity. I think it's okay to express concern at the
    handling when there seems to be a logical issue - hopefully it helps people know what they're getting, and
    those actually using the camera can advise whether the apparent issues are genuine.


    Yes, a 50% resolution hike isn't as big as it sounds - though it's the same as the difference between the
    D610 and D800. My D800 can't resolve two linear pixels for every one of my D700. Still, any extra
    resolution is nice to have, if it costs you nothing - the question is whether the high ISO performance is
    "nothing" to you. When I can't get good light and shoot around ISO 100, I do spend a lot of time in the 3200-
    6400 range, so maybe I shouldn't rush to dismiss - but then I always kind of wanted a D3s.


    You can make a 2MP image look "sharp" - remember how people are blown away the first time they see an
    HDTV? Digital images don't have the MTF fall-off of film, so while at some point you're resolving aliasing,
    sharpness is preserved - also why a lot of people found a 1280x1024 LCD monitor to be "superior" to a
    CRT that could show 1600x1200 cleanly. Most processing includes some edge enhancement (unsharp
    mask or high pass filtering) which makes things "sharper than real life" without adding detail. You can
    "make up" detail using superresolution techniques. People tend to view big prints from farther away (my
    issue with my D700 image from the Grand Canyon is that I shot at 24mm and wanted to stand close for
    the panoramic effect), so absolute print size is a poor estimator of resolution requirements. People are
    very poor at judging absolute sharpness - I've seen a book full of small 35mm shots reproduced quite well
    that looked fine until an image shot at 6x6 appeared on the same page. Image quality expectations have
    risen over time - it's not just whether a camera (or lens) is good, it's whether a cheap alternative is better.
    But sometimes, absolute resolution makes a difference - for example, it can be the difference between
    resolving the strings on a tennis player's racquet or just having blur, or whether you can make out an
    expression in a crowd, or the writing on a distant bill board. Most images work at a large scale, but
    occasionally the detail matters, and I'd rather have it than not.


    I do agree that the D800 is a little noisy at the pixel level, though you can fix that. And - while I'm happy
    with it - I concede that 36MP is more than many are happy with. 24MP seems to be the new happy default,
    though, and a step back seems slightly incongruous, even if I buy the "old glass" argument.


    I almost always shoot raw, so the colour handling doesn't interest me much - but I concede that the target
    market doesn't seem to be the kind doing a lot of post-processing, so I'll be interested to see what Nikon
    have done.
     
  293. I would like to say that I think, at least in this thread (and it's predecessor), that there hasn't been too much "panning" and the response has been surprisingly unemotional - which may be the problem, if Nikon are counting on people buying this out of desire.​
    Yet, yet, Andrew, the thread continues, whether it is driven by emotion or not. Do releases of new Nikon bodies usually elicit such long discussions? This is, after all, the second very long thread in a row about this camera.

    Actually, though far less vitriolic than the discussion at DPReview.com, it seems to me that there has been a good bit of animosity expressed about this camera for no apparent reason. Is Nikon (more than other brands) a lightning rod for negative comments?
    Is some of the vitriol, that is, simply about the brand rather than about the retro styling or other specs? If so, I would like to understand why.
    --Lannie
     
  294. I do agree that the D800 is a little noisy at the pixel level, though you can fix that. And - while I'm happy with it - I concede that 36MP is more than many are happy with. 24MP seems to be the new happy default, though, and a step back seems slightly incongruous, even if I buy the "old glass" argument.​
    Again, Andrew, is it so much about image quality as about the trouble one has to go through to do photography with larger files? In spite of cheaper storage, I simply do not like to have to fool with downloading, processing, storing, or backing up the large files--for casual shooting, when the odds of deciding to print might be quite low.
    [There is also the low-light advantage and the fast shutter speeds afforded by high ISO, but I won't get into those issues again here--although I think that, once one really begins to get free of tripods for most shots with DSLRs, one really is not going to want to go back. The same can be true for flashes. I would rather have them both (tripod and flash) with me--but in the car, not on my person. I do not think that I am alone. I am not a lazy shooter, but every outing need not become a major expedition: "SIMPLICITY!" again.]
    I would not be greatly surprised if Nikon were trying to tap into that more general reaction against unwieldy files. Where the "sweet spot" is with regard to sensor size on full-frame cameras in general photography will surely remain a point of considerable debate. (Must there be only one? I doubt it.) In any case, I would not be surprised to see this body--and other more modern versions of essentially the same "formula"--become quite popular, in spite of much speculation that the Df is targeting only a small percentage of photographers. This one might or might not be based on a small niche market (I am not convinced), but other versions based on the same idea could ditch the retro styling and still offer a sensor like that in the D4--and sell to some target market of indeterminate size.
    There is another consideration, that of revolt against menus. I think that we have long since matured sufficiently that we are not at all impressed simply by the fact that something is digital--especially when analog often is better, whether in photography or on other things. In class, I still often (certainly not always) prefer to get up to go to the chalkboard rather than use some electronic device to throw up a webpage (or something else) on the screen. That is another issue, but I think that a lot of us are justifiably impatient with camera manufacturers or others who think that, because digital has triumphed over film (in most venues) that digital controls must likewise be better than analog. I would say, sometimes "yes" and sometimes "no."
    The fusion of both digital and analog controls is, in any case, a very good idea: LET US THE SHOOTERS CHOOSE in a given instance how to proceed. We are not, after all, neanderthals about technology--especially if we happen to like manual focusing at times, etc., although it is amazing how many persons have felt compelled to come to the defense of auto focus. We built the choice into the lenses long ago--why not into the bodies in a way that gives us real choices, and allows us as many creative options as possible? Thus again does the fusion of digital and analog make sense.
    In any case, I do think that we are in for more products using full-frame sensors--but with modest numbers of megapixels. There is surely at the very least a "niche" market for such products, but what if the niche were to be the larger part of the market? We here on the NIkon forum PN are not necessarily a representative sample, after all, of those who might buy this camera. In fact, we are almost certainly not a representative sample of the larger potential market.
    I suspect that derivative products from some of the same ideas as are already in the Df are already in the pipeline, or at least in the planning stages. This could be the harbinger of many things to come, quite apart form the issue of retro styling, whcih has no particular appeal to me.
    --Lannie
     
  295. I think the level of discussion here probably reflects a combination of how different this camera is - and
    I'm sure the F4/F5 transition would have engendered similar amounts of discussion if the same numbers
    had forum access (I've not checked Usenet). Many other recent cameras have been variations on the
    same theme and there's been less to say. And the logic of some cameras has been easier to understand.


    I have no problem with a D4 sensor in a small - especially cheap - body. Having reviewed the tests, I've
    revised my claims that it has little high ISO advantage - though I still say it's significant only at VERY high
    ISO. I do buy that shooting at "only" 16MP has some appeal. I'm not sure that the advantages coincide
    with Nikon's marketing or apparent positioning of the Df, but maybe that doesn't matter.


    I do want to disagree about the dials vs menus debate - not because I think a menu interface is better, but
    because, in any twin-dial DSLR, you simply very rarely need to use a menu. Compared with a D5300, there
    are ergonomic advantages to dials - which is why people pay a premium for a D90 or D7000. Compared
    with a D610, the Df replaces dials that are always under your fingers with ones that are dotted all over the
    camera. That's why I'm dubious about the interface. But if you're more comfortable with dedicated dials
    despite this, I'm not going to criticise you (and by "you" I mean any prospective Df owner - I'm not picking
    on Lannie) - I just choose to use a camera differently.
     
  296. You're probably right about the dials, Andrew. I haven't systematically studied this particular layout. I do like the layout on the D800E, for what that's worth--and I base that on actual shooting.
    I just came up on this site, although some must have seen it already, based on comments above:
    http://petapixel.com/2013/11/08/nik...et-dslr-sales-stall-df-preorders-come-subpar/
    Is there a problem with Nikon sales or pre-orders (as the site suggests)?
    Well, DROP THE PRICE! Watch the numbers soar! Zounds. This camera is over-priced.

    Is the market saturated? I have three DSLRs from Nikon. How many do I need? Others have many more.
    --Lannie
     
  297. I like the looks and the controls are perfect for someone like me that still shoots a fair amount of film in Nikon bodies. Price.. well, I will wait and see what i can save up for it. The 16 MP is fine. So many people carp about it not being 24 MP... please tell us how big you are making prints. I am doing 12 x18" exhibition prints from my D90, and honestly, that is as big as I want to print, considering it's going into an 18x24" frame. And for the snarky cell phone comment... it it meaningless. A full frame sensor would allow me to use my old glass to its full potential. However, I would like to handle one and see what I think about it. It IS a pretty camera, and a departure from the all-black chunks of plastic that essentially look the same, whether they are Canon, Sony, Pentax, or Nikon.
     
  298. ShunCheung

    ShunCheung Administrator

    I have a question for all and especially Shun Cheung. I want to buy a brand new Df at the lowest price and I can wait as long as it takes. When should I buy it? I don't want a used or refurbished one so no it's not several years down the road. The price is now at $2749 in the US. Would it come down? Would it go up? What do you all think?​
    Just keep in mind that this is merely my opinion, and I have been wrong before and I am sure I will be wrong again in the future.
    I don't see prices for the Df will come down any time soon. The old-fashioned knobs are labor intensive to put together, and since the Df is made in Japan, manufacturing cost is clearly high. If the Df does not sell well at $2749, Nikon will simple make fewer of them or stop production altogether. Nikon is in a very unique position to produce this type of camera since only Canon and Sony make full-35mm-frame DSLRs outside of Nikon. Both Canon and Minolta, which Sony took over, changed their lens mounts when they entered the AF era, they cannot produce DSLRs that are compatible with lenses from the 1960's and 1970's without adapters. Essentially the Df is a special-purpose camera with no possible competition.
    Take a look at the Nikon F6, introduced in late 2004 when the rapid switch over to digital had already started earlier that year. Back in January 2005, the F6 was $2300, body only: http://www.photo.net/nikon-camera-forum/00AtmX
    Now almost 9 years later, Nikon can't possibly be selling a whole lot of new F6 bodies today, if any. Do we see a lower price due to the low demand? Absolutely not. You can buy a new one from B&H at $2450 now: http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/352116-USA/Nikon_1799_F6_35mm_SLR_Autofocus.html
    I have zero plans to buy a Df myself, although I am very interested in testing one. But if the Df is what you want, you can wait a bit to see whether there are any major production issues or check the used market to see whether some people get tired of theirs after a short while and want to resell. If you want a new one, prices for these special-interest, limited-appeal items that attract collectors will unlikely come down.
     
  299. We've reached 300! ;-)
    Nikon are counting on people buying this out of desire.​
    I believe that that was their intention. And it is an interesting concept. And it is a capable camera. I just think that the design missed the boat a bit on potential "wow factor."
    At the moment, I find myself "desiring" a Sony A7R more than a Nikon Dr. Though to be fair, I probably won't buy either camera. I'm very happy with my D800E/5DIII tandem.
     
  300. I'm very happy with my D800E/5DIII tandem.​
    That's a lot to be happy about, Dan--if one can afford it. (I'm talking about two sets of lenses here above all.)
    --Lannie
     
  301. I do agree that the D800 is a little noisy at the pixel level, though you can fix that.​
    That's an interesting assessment. Your eyes are younger than mine, Andrew, so perhaps you're seeing more detail than I am. :)

    Or perhaps I'm just spoiled by how clean the D800 is compared to the 5D2 that I lugged around for a few years. The 5D2's tag line should have been "sharp, detailed photos - just don't look too closely at the pixels!" (Or the shadows, for that matter...)

    The D800E amazes me in so many ways.
     
  302. Now almost 9 years later, Nikon can't possibly be selling a whole lot of new F6 bodies today, if any. Do we see a lower price due to the low demand? Absolutely not. You can buy a new one from B&H at $2450 now​
    Shun, perhaps the key to a critical difference lies hidden beneath your own words: "Nikon can't possibly be selling a whole lot of new F6 bodies today, if any."
    True, but the reason, of course, is that the market for high end film cameras has collapsed. Since that is not [yet] the case for high end DSLRs, I do believe that Nikon could drop the price and stimulate demand--and still turn a profit.
    In other words, to paraphrase you with a very different meaning, "Nikon CAN possibly be selling a whole lot of new Df bodies. . ."
    . . . if Nikon will simply lower the price.
    My own prediction is that Nikon will only lower the price after the initial burst of sales is over. I anticipate that the price will slowly come down, not drop all at once, in proportion to slackening demand. At what point will it be unprofitable to keep producing them and selling them at a lower price? I have no idea, but they have already tooled up for production, and so why not keep producing as long as camera sales can bring a profit?
    We will just have to wait and see.
    --Lannie
     
  303. I'm talking about two sets of lenses here above all.​

    Good point, but I'm not a lens addict, and I don't like to carry a lot of weight.

    I use only three lenses with the D800E (24-70/2.8, 70-200/2.8 VRII, 24PC-E). No macro. No super-wide-angle. No long telephotos. No fast primes. No portrait lenses. Just three sharp, reliable lenses to cover all of the bases.

    My Canon kit has five lenses, including a macro. I try to keep my bags light and tight.
     
  304. Dan, with regard to noise, I like to go to this page and plug in whatever camera(s) I want at whatever ISO I want. Most of the FF ones I am interested in are pretty clean at 6400, some up to 12,800. I suppose that you have done this yourself:
    http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/nikon-d800-d800e/33
    I have shot the 5D II at 12,800. Yes, the shadow noise could be pretty bad--on some shots. Dropping back a stop often solved the problem for me.
    I have never shot the 5D III.
    The D4 looks pretty good on the DPReview widget to me--surely an approximation to the Df.
    --Lannie
     
  305. Jim - care to elaborate?

    Basically, the downside for me is the lack of the split-image viewfinder. I'm fine with the digital necessities like the LCD. I don't see why it would need a larger battery, and I don't see why it couldn't be slimmed down a bit.
    But it doesn't matter now. I'm sure it's a fine camera and perhaps I'll pick up a used one down the road.
     
  306. Dan - I'm not really claiming that the D800 is noisy, just that I've seen a little more pixel-level noise at
    relatively low ISO than I might anticipate given its frame-level performance. It's not a problem, just not
    perfectly smooth at ISO 800 (say) as I might expect a D4 to be.


    I would buy an F6 now if it was priced at £500 - more so with a more recent AF system. It doesn't even
    have to be built like an F6: what I want is (adapted) F5 lens compatibility - pre-AI/MLU through G and VR -
    and I'd be happy for it to have the weight of an F75. I still shoot my F5 occasionally. It behaves like the
    D800, and I have no need for F4 styling. But, if you spend all your time shooting an old-style Nikon, maybe
    a DSLR with similar handling makes sense. I just wouldn't associate this handling with all film Nikons.


    Lannie: I could be entirely wrong about the handling - I kind of hope I am, because I'll learn something. But
    other recent cameras with manual controls - notably the Fuji and Leicas - still put those controls in places
    that seem logical for the camera's style of shooting. Either the Df doesn't do this, or I'm missing
    something.


    I agree that I'd not expect a price drop, if only for build cost reasons. I'm a little frustrated that the "D750"
    that many want (D4 sensor in a D800) might have been cheaper to build. I certainly expect a D610 with a
    multicam 3500 - with the D4 sensor or the D610's - would be. But it may be unusual for Nikon to place
    profit over sales volume, so it's a bit harsh to criticise them for it now. I do like Shun's reasoning that
    nobody else could do a Df in the same way (depending how you see Leica).


    Mark: if that was me, I'd not meant to be snarky, and some cell phones take decent images. I was just
    making a point that "sharp" is subjective, but resolution is absolute (and, occasionally, useful). Usually, I
    print small. Occasionally, I've printed at 30x20", and that's when my D700 became a bottleneck. I've
    sometimes wanted to crop, too! As for looks, with the possible exception of some wooden 5x4s, I have no
    concept of "pretty" in a camera, though I just about have the concept of "ugly" (the bulbous Fn/dof button
    mount does look funny to me, but we're not talking Pentax K-01). Perhaps that's one reason the Df doesn't
    appeal to me.
     
  307. Thank you, Jim. It's good to understand. I'm sure technology will allow a bit more slimming over time. As
    for the split prism, it seems a bit odd not to offer replacement screens - or even an F5-style replacement
    finder (I'd still like a WLF). But as a default option, you really need something that shows the AF points.
    The F5's arrows around the finder edge suffice when you have only 5 AF points, but not so much with the
    newer AF systems.
     
  308. Take a look at the Nikon F6, introduced in late 2004 when the rapid switch over to digital had already started earlier that year. Back in January 2005, the F6 was $2300, body only: http://www.photo.net/nikon-camera-forum/00AtmX
    Now almost 9 years later, Nikon can't possibly be selling a whole lot of new F6 bodies today, if any. Do we see a lower price due to the low demand? Absolutely not. You can buy a new one from B&H at $2450 now: (link)
    But 2004 $$ are equal to about 24% more in 2013 dollars. So that F6 in today's dollars was introduced at $2,852, not even accounting for the increase in the Yen over that time. So it's effectively less expensive and last I could find (about a year ago) they are still making just a few per month. The tooling, etc. has long been paid for so they may be working off of stored up parts.
     
  309. Shun! Thank you for your reply and I agree with you. Although both of us don't know what the price will be but I think that it won't come down and possibly goes up. The Df does look like it's the camera for me with the information I got from the internet but I have to wait until I can try one in my hands to really decide if it really is. I hope the build quality is high but I have to see it in person to decide. Also I will have to wait if any bugs show up in the camera and I sure hope not. I do not want to get a used one. I also afraid that Nikon may ship production to Thailand and I don't want that.
    In my opinion the price is right compared to other Nikon offers. To me it's worth significantly more than the D600/610 and the same as the D800 although the D800 isn't for me. The Df isn't exactly my ideal camera but it comes closer than any others.
     
  310. Gup

    Gup Gup

    Well, after all this waiting (and three D700s later) the new Df has caused me to finally pull the trigger on a D800E, so I have it to thank for that. I've been on the fence since the D800 focus issues hit the fan but after waiting all this time for a D700x or the new 'retro' model to finally make an appearance I'm now resigned to buy into the 36meg platform. I think the Df is a beauty and I would love it to be my new companion but not at the expense of technology I want. Maybe Nikon will make me a Df-pro next year. Time will tell. Meanwhile, I've got something to play with until then.
     
  311. prices for these special-interest, limited-appeal items that attract collectors will unlikely come down.​
    Just because you don't like it, doesn't mean only collectors will. Why is it so hard to believe people might actually buy this camera to USE it ?
     
  312. As for the split prism, it seems a bit odd not to offer replacement screens...

    Well, there's always Katzeye. I used their screens in other DSLRs with success. Hopefully, they'll offer one.
     
  313. JohnH: I'm sure Nikon aren't currently manufacturing F6s, though they may be able to make more if there
    was a rush on them. At the rate I have to assume they sell, I have to think Nikon have a big pile somewhere
    made whenever the production run was worthwhile.


    BeBu: I'm hoping that one good thing about the Df is that it ought to be relatively issue-free: it's a known
    sensor combined with a known shutter and AF system. The UI is new, but mostly cut down from other
    cameras - hopefully Nikon know how to make dials. So I don't think it's quite as safe a buy as my D700
    was, but it's close.


    JohnW: It seems to be an odd mix: not quite esoteric enough or styled enough on a classic Nikon to be a
    very desirable collectors' item (like some special edition Leicas, the gold Nikons, or - help us - a Lunar), but
    - and I speak with some UI training but reserve my right to reconsider when I've handled it - not designed
    with ease of use foremost either. Honestly, if I had one I'd certainly shoot with it, but I'd prefer something
    styled (apparently) less for looks and more for ergonomics - though maybe Nikon are concerned that they
    needed a digital collectors' camera to go with their recent rangefinder special editions (though those
    cameras got their status by being good tools before being collected). I expect most owners would use it,
    though.
     
  314. just not perfectly smooth at ISO 800 (say) as I might expect a D4 to be.​
    I understand and agree. I start adding post-processing noise reduction on D800 files shot at ISO 800 or higher (1600 and higher with my Canons).

    Perhaps it's a matter of expectations. We expect perfection at high ISO now. ISO 1600 film looks like is was shot in a snow storm, but we want our ISO 1600 digital photos to be flawless. And with a little bit of noise reduction, presto! They are! I feel almost silly complaining about any camera that's manufactured today.
     
  315. Now that I think about it, the Df seems like the "new" D700. Same resolution as the flagship/sports/photojournalism model with a slower frame rate at about half of the price.
    2008: D3 - D700 - D3X
    2013: D4 - Df - D800/D800E

    The big difference is in the pricing of the D800 (affordable) versus the D3X (astronomical). The D610 occupies its own little niche.
    If you liked the D700, the Df is probably the closest thing to a sequel.
     
  316. Dan - agreed. For what it's worth, this thread encouraged me to check out reviews of the X100s - I still want
    one, but they're awfully expensive for what they are. Still, at ISO 800 and above, the output does look
    cleaner pixel-for-pixel than the D800 (and the crop size means the sensor sites are a similar size). Maybe
    the raw converters and in-camera engine are doing more noise reduction than the Nikon, or maybe the
    sensor really has a small edge. While I may want one, I'm not in the market for trading my D800 any time
    soon.

    As for the Df as "D750", the problem is that it has the D600 autofocus and shutter, and no 8fps with grip. I
    do think Nikon could have had more happy customers if they'd either done a D4 sensor in a D800 at the Df
    price (even without the D700's 8fps trick), or just offered a D4 sensor version of the D610, at D610 prices. I
    assume they feel there's a neglected segment who want something like the Df, and they won't poach other
    sales with it.

    The D3 and D700 never sat well together - the more rounded lineup was D700 (prosumer FX), D3s (D700
    on speed and low-light steroids for sports an journalism), D3x (pro studio and - just - landscape). What
    interests me now is an apparent increase in the rate of FX releases. Technically the D3x is still current,
    though not a good buy for most. That gives us a lineup of D610 (consumer FX), D800/D800e (prosumer
    landscape/studio), Df (prosumer low light and historical handling/street shooting?), D4 (professional
    sports/journalism), D3x (people who really want to pay for the handling differences from the D610 and
    D800).

    Compare with D3200, D5300 and D7100, with various older models not having sold out yet but highly
    unlikely still to be produced (especially D90 and D300s). Nikon now have a bigger FX range than DX,
    arguably. Since I believe they're getting most of their money from DX I doubt Nikon are going to abandon it
    soon, but they've been slow to roll out all the DX primes people ask for. Maybe they're looking at mirrorless
    and want to differentiate by going bigger. (Sony may have full-frame mirrorless, but since it makes the
    lenses bigger I'm not sure that will have the appeal of smaller sensor mirrorless. Even current mirrorless
    platform sales seem to be plateauing.) But they can't cede all portability. Solution: smaller DSLRs, like the
    Df (a bit) and the 100D. Just a thought.
     
  317. Read a couple of reviews of Nikon Df and I feel D600 or D610 are better options and offer more value for money. Yes, Df is one of the coolest full frame DSLR but I won't use it unless someone offers it to me for free but, at the same time it would be great to carry it around for street and travel photography.
     
  318. If you liked the D700, the Df is probably the closest thing to a sequel.​
    Dan, this is perhaps also linked to the fact that the Df is the ONLY thing (at present) close to being a consumer version of the D4--but I guess that that is what you are pointing out.
    That is rather sad when one thinks about it, since a mainstream (not retro) derivative camera of the D4 would certainly have had a market--perhaps a far larger one than both the D4 and the Df put together. That is, the beginning price could have been reasonable enough to ensure wide consumer appeal without the advanced feature set that might endanger sales of the D4.
    Such a marketing strategy might also have lain not only in the projected sales of the camera(s), but in the projected derivative sales of large, expensive professional lenses for consumer grade full-frame cameras. Is that not where the money really is in the DSLR business, in the sale of good and expensive glass? (This would be especially the case for those who are new to Nikon DSLRs, that is, those who would have little or no glass that would be appropriate.)
    I am not saying that the Df will spur no sales of lenses. Of course it will, but at the current price it will likely generate minimal lens sales. Alternatively, the prospect of more lens sales might be a reason why the price of the Df could be allowed to float downward as the market for the Df becomes saturated at its current price. Dropping the price over a period of time would bring new buyers of the camera--and derivatively of the lenses as well.
    On the other hand, if the price is artificially prevented from sagging very much, due to cutbacks in production, there may yet be room for another Nikon FF--the true mainstream consumer grade version of the D4. It may yet be coming, but the hour is late. New markets and new technologies move on.
    I am simply puzzled that this is the only camera that is in any way derivative of the professional grade D4--a camera that has not yet even been fully reviewed at DPReview.com in the same way that the D3 and D3s were. Was the presumption at DPReview.com that the D4 was not likely to be of wide interest to consumers? (If I am not mistaken, there has likewise been no full review of Canon's 1 DX--Canon's flagship professional grade camera. That is a remarkable shift from the days when the D3X, D3s, ID, and 1Ds series cameras were fully reviewed--and when consumers who had no realistic chance of buying such expensive cameras yet waited with bated breath to see who was on top at the highest, professional level: Canon or Nikon. Now along comes Sony the Spoiler, but that is another story. . . .)
    In any case, it may be noteworthy that Canon is doing quite well overall with DSLR market shares by offering NO cameras with more than 22 mp. That is one reason that I think that a true consumer grade version of the D4 would sell, but it would surely look and function differently from the Df.

    Nikon Professional Flagship D4 16 megapixels

    Canon Professional Flagship 1 D X 18 megapixels
    Is there no market for consumer grade FULL-FRAME versions of these cameras? (Canon's 6D perhaps comes closest, at least in terms of megapixels.)
    The presumption seems to be that consumers will bite only if there are more and more megapixels, but in marketing one does not only respond to demand: one CREATES demand. The D700 did that--and not only because it was one of the two early Nikon full-frame cameras. IT ALSO TOOK (AND STILL TAKES) VERY GOOD PICTURES.
    A marketing push for a lower-priced mainstream derivative of the D4, not a retro version, would have made some sense, in my opinion. People loved the D700. They still do, all of the talk about the limitations of twelve megapixels to the contrary notwithstanding. The used D3s that I picked up on eBay over the summer comes from the same realization that low light and fast shutters can trump loaded sensors for a LOT of discerning consumers--for a certain popular style of shooting.
    --Lannie (ersatz marketing analyst, still shaking my head)
     
  319. The camera isn't yet available, so no review can exist yet. I understood that on around Nov 28 the first units should arrive.

    A niche is relative. Nikon is initially making 14000 Df's per month.
     
  320. Lannie: at the risk of being unusually brief, agreed.

    Ilkka: I actually wasn't expecting that many to be made. And I am waiting for full reviews, with interest (if
    not great expectations of buying).
     
  321. Nikon is initially making 14000 Df's per month.​
    So, if Nikon were to continue that pace for a year, the total for the first year would be 168,000. How does that compare with other new models?
    --Lannie
     
  322. Read a couple of reviews of Nikon Df and I feel D600 or D610 are better options and offer more value for money.​
    You read previews, not reviews. It might be better to hold off on a firm decision until you see the results--unless you simply know that the specs are not at all what you want.
    --Lannie
     
  323. How does that compare with other new models?​
    At introduction, I recall the numbers for the D800 were 30,000 per month, and 5,000 for the D4. If memory serves, then 60,000 was the initial number for the D300; and 12,000 for the D3. Couldn't find any production numbers for the D600/D610.
     
  324. ShunCheung

    ShunCheung Administrator

    Basically, the downside for me is the lack of the split-image viewfinder. I'm fine with the digital necessities like the LCD. I don't see why it would need a larger battery, and I don't see why it couldn't be slimmed down a bit.​
    Jim, the Df uses the EN-EL14a, which is the same tiny battery as the one the D5300 uses and is interchangeable with the EN-EL14 on the D5200. It is by no means a large battery. Even the EN-EL15 on the D7000, D7100, D600, D610, and D800/D800E is not large, but Nikon uses a smaller EN-EL14a on the Df.
    The rating for the battery on the Df seems high is deceptive, because on cameras with a pop-up flash, the battery life is measured with using the pop-up flash on some of the images. Since the Df has no pop-up flash, its battery lift is tested without any flash use and therefore is not an apple-to-apple comparison against DSLRs with pop-up flash.
    One issue with the split-image focusing screen is that it can interfere with the matrix metering system, which is inside the viewfinder. AF is not an issue since the AF system does not go through the focusing screen.
    Nikon is initially making 14000 Df's per month.​
    Ilkka, where is your source of that statistics?
    Nikon does not provide such statistics very often, as it is kind of proprietary info. Back in 2007, Nikon did share that initially, they were making 8000 D3 and 80,000 D300 (8 thousand and 80 thousand) a month. Early last year, they were making 30,000 D800 and D800E a month (30 thousand), and about 10% were the D800E.
    I am sure none of those rates is sustainable for a full year. In early 2012, there was major shortage for the D800 such that scalpers were charging $500, $1000 extra. I ordered my D800E in mid April, 2012 and finally took delivery in mid June. Those endless complaints about not being able to find a new D800 seems to be distant memory by now. The D800 shortage finally ended about 5, 6 months later by July, August, 2012.
    Let's see whether there is any Df shortage at all.
     
  325. Shun: just to be clear, a split prism wouldn't stop AF from working, but it would make it harder to show
    which AF point was selected in the finder. You are, of course, right that it actively affects the metering
    system.

    I'm not expecting the Df to sell in enormous numbers, partly because of price and partly because it's a bit
    odd. 14000 sounds like a bigger commitment to the camera than I expected, especially if the D4 is well
    below that (though the D4 presumably is now past its sales rush - I don't know whether the 5000 figure
    was a peak at launch). Still, I could be wrong, and I'll learn a lot from how the market responds to this
    camera. Nikon dealers apparently have big stocks of older models, so I imagine some conservatism in
    getting them in. I hope there aren't too many returns!
     
  326. The split image focusing aid is really a rangefinder and only work at the center of the screen. It's like a 1 point AF camera. On an SLR I prefer to manually focus at any part of the screen.
     
  327. On an SLR I prefer to manually focus at any part of the screen.​
    Same here - which is why I had the K screen replaced in any of my film cameras with either a B or an E (which is identical to the B but with grid lines).
     
  328. I found a reliance on split image screens as the eyesight wained. Now that I've implemented the proper diopters, +0.5 on the F3, and FM3a, I noticed much less, if no reliance on the split, preferring focus check on the entire screen. If there are technical advantages eliminating a split image for auto focus performance, some may know more on this, but it would make sense if this is the case.
     
  329. Sorry Shun, I got that figure slightly wrong; at nikongear.com, Bjorn quotes a figure of 12000/month in Sendai according to his Nikon sources. Sorry for the figure being altered slightly in my memory.
    My only interest in this camera is its viewfinder, as the usual DSLR viewfinders provide poor contrast between in- and out-of-focus areas. I noticed a distinct loss in focusability by eye going from the F5 to the D3 and it is frustrating as I often shoot at very wide apertures and there's no way I can focus manually using the current screens in a way that I could trust, and certainly the AF system of e.g. the D800 is improved from that of e.g. the F5, but still it cannot be trusted fully. I used the Katz Eye screens on my D200 and D700, but on 100% viewfinder FX cameras they are not available. If the initial reports that the viewfinder is a big improvement over that in the D800 turn out accurate I will certainly buy the Df. The viewfinder is a central element of the camera for the way I make photos and the premium price of the Df, for me, is easily worth it, if it meets my expectations. The other stuff, the dials etc., support for pre-AI lenses, I have no interest in, and the use of the Multi-CAM 4800 module is disappointing but perhaps it was necessary to meet a price point; in the Multi-CAM 3500 module with 51 points the peripheral points are the least reliable and these have sort of been left out in the AF region of the 4800 module, so maybe it requires less precision to calibrate? My experiences with the earlier incarnation of that module in the D7000 are very discouraging, but it seems there was a problem with my camera as Nikon made modifications to it free of charge after its new owner took it to service.
    However, I would not expect to use the AF on the Df much if at all. I might use it to catch the approximate focus on the subject and the adjust manually by eye. We shall see how this works. For me it is a big deal as with the D800 often in action scenarios I have to take quite a number of shots at wide apertures to get one or two in precise focus, and sometimes all are out of focus with a few problem lenses. E.g the 85/1.4 AF-S I find to focus very accurately in the near range when it is fine tuned to work there, but near infinity, wide open, or just at distances of 10 m and more, the fine tuning has to be altered to give acceptable results in the far range. I have 3-4 lenses that behave like this and I prefer to use them for the visual characteristics of the image that they produce. It is a source of great frustration when I forget to adjust focus fine tune to the appropriate range on these lenses, as all pictures will be out of focus. With a good viewfinder that is designed for manual focus, I can see these problems in advance and take preventive measures. And don't tell me that the 85 is designed for portraits and should be used just for that. I specifically want to use fast tele primes at longer distances to make full body portraits and also to isolate one person in a crowd of people. The 200/2 II can do this reliably but it's enormous and heavy, not so much fun to use, not to mention it does gather a lot of attention if used in public. So I try to use smaller lenses for the same effect, with some success if I remember to adjust the focus for the far range. On my 105 DC this difference is 17 fine tune points and on the 135 DC it is similar but I don't remember exactly. On the 85/1.4 AF-S it is about 7-8 points if I recall correctly. Sigma's USB dock allows the user to adjust the different distance ranges separately but they only have a few lenses that support it so far. Personally I think it would be the easiest if Nikon just made proper viewfinders again. The D3X, D4, D800 are not bad by any means but they're optimized to give a bright image that works nicely with f/5.6 or f/4 lenses. For focusing fast primes they can be poor. I used to be satisfied thanks to D700's Katz Eye screen that I could use for difficult situations but I sold that camera as I'm planning on getting a newer camera to replace it soon.
    A lot of people seem to be requesting Nikon to add EVF or hybrid EVF/OVF viewfinder and PDAF on the main sensor to their dSLRs, but I would be happy with a much simpler and less expensive change, just put a better viewfinder in the D4s or D800s, and I'll spend money on it. The Df's AF module makes it a too special-purpose camera really, and it is a pity they'd do that. Nikon's idea of the quality and utility of the Multi-CAM 4800 is really puzzling. I need focus points spread out the image area, not just in a couple of rows in the middle, and IMO it is absurd that they'd sell a 3000€ camera with less than their best AF system. I think a lot of people would feel more positive about the Df if it came with the D800/D4's AF module. Similar thing is true of the D610. I hope Nikon can make these changes to the FX lineup within 12 months. I.e. better viewfinder in all cameras, possible hybrid EVF/OVF in a couple of models, and Multi-CAM 3500 or better, preferably augmented with cross type points all over the 51 point array. The high resolution of modern cameras has increased the need for trustworthy, precise focusing, both AF and MF so that consistent results can be obtained. I was just shooting with my D800, 200/2 II at f/2, about 1/320s, ISO 2000 at a choir concert on Saturday and everything else worked out but when I used the top rightmost focus point I got a set of out of focus images. From the past I know this is the weakest point but I needed it for compositional reasons. It is a pity really that there are these problems. I used the Fuji X100s (a fixed 23/2 DX compact camera) to capture wide angle images quietly, and it is funny though it uses an AF system on the main imaging sensor, about 1/4 or slightly fewer of the images were completely out of focus. The rest were correctly focused. So it is not only Nikon who have focusing problems. I believe Nikon's quality control regarding AF has been improving and my D800 after repair produced a nicely reduced need for fine tuning across my lens system so there is progress, but the system can still be better, and Nikon should get on with it. The Df viewfinder should be a step in the right direction but it, by itself is not enough; the AF system needs work as well.
    I believe there is quite a sizeable market of people who for various reasons prefer manual focusing. For example for macro, landscape and architectural work it is understandable by everyone. Thus I see that there is quite a bit of interest in the Df. Whether the camera meets expectations is another thing entirely. I hope it will, and there will be follow up models where the issues of the first model are fixed. Sometimes Nikon just leaves out something critical from a lens. For example the first 200/2 that I had had a wobbly tripod mount, this was fixed in the Mk II, and it is now an almost perfect lens that I use a lot e.g. in situations such as indoor concerts. But its optics are also excellent for long distance tele landscape photography, and here the tripod mount becomes important. It can also be used nicely for photographing plants with nice out of focus effects; again the tripod mount is important. Similarly the D7100 has a too small buffer, the D610 and Df have too small AF point spread, and so on. Little things that they could fix if they wanted to and really wanted to make the models a big success beyond what they are now. These little things don't prevent photographers from capturing great images with the gear, which they do of course, but still it is a little puzzling sometimes why Nikon underengineers tripod mounts, AF systems, and viewfinders in many of their products. Perhaps I just don't understand Nikon.
    I was just testing my new 58/1.4 a few days, playing with its focusing and bokeh, and it is a fantastic lens, but honestly I could not focus it at all manually with any kind of consistency with the D800's viewfinder, in that indoor lighting (very dim, I admit). The manual focus ring is excellent, the best of any AF lens I've ever used, I think, but the viewfinder doesn't match expectations here. The reason I wanted to focus manually was because I wanted the object focused on to be near the edge of the frame. Now, I could put the camera on tripod and use live view to focus exactly on where I need the focus to be. That is the way to do the shot for real in a critical situation. But photography is a lot more fun when you can do things quickly, hand-held, even though it might mean the resolution of images is far from the 36MP potential. I don't care - I just wanted to enjoy a bit of photography, easily. I think for me, a camera like the Df, if the viewfinder meets my expectations will let me have fun with photography more. And when something is fun, you tend to do a lot more of it, and something worthwhile can come out of the experience. I think a part of people's interest in mirrorless cameras is because they make it easier to experiment with some things. They might have glitches, as the Fuji that I have, but it was so much fun to be able to AF at points peripheral to the image without forcing me to recompose, even if the outcome was not always perfect. I think Nikon needs to adopt the DSLR to meet the challenge. There are various ways they could do it; I know PDAF through mirrors cannot cover the whole frame on FX (a D7100 nearly can), but manual focus on the focusing screen can, and alternatively main sensor CDAF or PDAF can do that also, but not without lifting the eye from the viewfinder at the moment. I think recycling the Multi-CAM 4800 module in FX cameras has a chance of alienating users from Nikon, and it could be a huge mistake if they persist at it in the long term. Photography is hard enough without artificial limitations introduced by the manufacturer. Canon suffers from a bit of the same; they stifle users from getting access to their best AF system and Nikon seems to love to copy Canon in camera features a lot of the time. However, the Df is entirely Nikon, and something that Canon would never do since they never had proper MF lens compatibility to their old lenses. My guess is that the FM3A and Df are cameras that are very dear to some people in high places inside Nikon's R&D network and that's why we see them in the first place. But they are not alone and there is quite a bit of interest in this camera despite its shortcomings much discussed here.
     
  330. I do think Nikon could have had more happy customers if they'd either done a D4 sensor in a D800 at the Df price (even without the D700's 8fps trick), or just offered a D4 sensor version of the D610, at D610 prices.

    A marketing push for a lower-priced mainstream derivative of the D4, not a retro version, would have made some sense, in my opinion.​

    the more i think about the Df, the more i think its a whiff, other than in the looks department. pro sports shooters might need the d4's fps, but there's an underserved pool of photojournalists and advanced enthusuasts who just need better low-light performance, dont necessarily need 24 or 36 mp, and either can't afford the d4 or dont need that big of a body. some of nikon's confusing decisions are coming home to roost: after giving us a $1600 body with the best AF they offer, we get a $1100 body with better AF than a $2200 body, and now a $2800 body with worse AF than an $1100 body. in other words, if you need a compact body, top-notch high-ISO performance, and top-notch AF, nikon doesnt have anything for you. at that price point there no excuse not to but the better AF system in there, especially because there's no video.
     
  331. Good points that there's no one camera that does it all, and if there is a strategy within camera manufactures to keep this titillation going, then its just contingent upon the buyer to identify there shooting priorities and buy what will make them happy, verses buying an experiment.
    Looks like there's no one camera for me, so I've decided that, pending reviews, to go with the Df. I shoot landscapes with a Pentax 67II, and access drum scans for that rare image, but I need a DSLR, and the Df fits the bill. The viewfinder, weight, size, construction, FX, less reliance on menus, easily readable info contrast on the black version. I'm waiting for the reviews, as I think the initial unfavorable preview opinions have been brutally unfair. We'll see, I'm still open for real unfavorable findings, but I've got the feeling thats not going to happen. Define the tool for you.
     
  332. I'm starting to think more highly of the Df.
    1. I realized that the Df improves on every camera that Nikon made two years ago.
    Better resolution than: D3, D3s, D700
    Better noise and live view implementation than: D3, D3s, D3x, D700
    Less expensive and more portable than: D3, D3s, D3x
    2. With regard to speed, if you need 10 fps, buy a D4. It has the shutter to handle machine-gun bursts if you're into that sort of thing. Unless you're shooting sports, I don't see the point in that kind of speed.
    3. With regard to AF, I remember when everyone and their brother dismissed the 5D Mark II as junk because of its simple AF design. Then I bought one and found it to be an amazing camera. And as long as you could live with the center AF point, it focused just fine. If fact, it hunted less and was more reliable than my Nikons did. I'm sure that the Df is a capable camera with capable AF. Just because some people can't tolerate anything less than the cutting edge doesn't mean that less than cutting edge is unusable.
    4. The Df looks like a heck of a lot of fun for street and travel shooting.
    5. The knobs remind me of my beloved Pentax 67 II.
    6. Is it just me, or does the Df seem to be screaming for a manually focused Zeiss lens or two?
    7. Does any serious shooter walk around with one battery? I carry three spares with the D800E.
    8. I've shot with a single memory card in my cameras for years. No failures yet. For critical events that require redundancy there's still the D4 and other dual-card bodies.
     
  333. 4. The Df looks like a heck of a lot of fun for street and travel shooting.​
    Yep, and for when it starts getting dark and the tripod and flash are in the car two blocks away or a half-hour back down the trail. . .
    FUN.
    I think that that will be its major selling point. I think that I could even get used to the funky retro design.
    I want to see some samples shot at ISO 12,800 at twilight, hand-held. I want to be free of my camera bag for a few hours.
    FUN.
    When will we start seeing samples?
    --Lannie