Nikon Introduces Df Retro DSLR

[Landrum Kelly]

<blockquote>

<p>Maybe a more customer-oriented model policy could have avoided this?</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>Maybe a global economic upturn could have avoided this?</p>

<p>--Lannie</p>

[Dieter Schaefer]

<blockquote>

<p>Maybe a global economic upturn could have avoided this?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Certainly wouldn't hurt. But the effect could still be negated or at least compromised by a "wrong" model policy.</p>

[Dieter Schaefer]

<p>oops. double post</p>

[daniel_bliss]

<p>@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.</p>

<p>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).</p>

[Andrew Garrard]

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.

[Nick D.]

<p>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.<br>

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. <br>

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.</p>

 

[donbright]

<p>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.</p>

[michael_chuang1]

<p>> <em>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</em>.</p>

<p>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?</p>

<p>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 <em>not</em> an Apple hater.)</p>

[owen_omeara]

<p>Don:<br>

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.</p>

<p>-Cheers</p>

[donbright]

<p>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.</p>

[donbright]

<p>OK, so its 10.9 X 16.4 at 300 dpi with a 16MP sensor. Disappointing.</p>

[donbright]

<p>Live view link short review.<br>

http://www.engadget.com/2013/11/04/nikon-df-camera/</p>

[Landrum Kelly]

<p>Don, do you always print at 300 dpi? I know I don't, although I certainly can with the D800E.</p>

<p><strong>BACK TO THE D<em>f</em></strong>: Shooting full-frame with relatively low-megapixel sensors has a certain charm and joy of its own, whether one is shooting the<strong> D3, D700, D3s, D4, </strong>or now this, the<strong> D</strong><em>f</em>.</p>

<p>For those who have never tried <strong>even an afternoon or evening</strong> 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.</p>

<p>That is, if you give one of these low megapixel cameras a try,<strong> DON'T FORGET TO SHOOT IT AFTER THE SUN GOES DOWN! </strong> You don't think that a stop or two can make a difference? Give one of these a try<em> <a href="/photo/17525940&size=lg"><strong>HANDHELD</strong></a> </em>when it is getting just about too dark to see.<strong><br /></strong><br>

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.<strong><br /></strong></p>

<p>In my quest for more, ever more megapixels and higher resolution, I then went on to get <a href="/photo/17530236&size=lg"><em><strong>the D800E</strong></em></a>. 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<a href="/photo/17506019&size=lg"><em><strong> the used D3s that I found on eBay</strong></em></a> this past summer.</p>

<p>So, sneer at 16 megapixels, much less 12, if you want to, but for sheer joy of shooting, there is nothing quite like <em>going BACK</em> not in style, but in MEGAPIXELS. File size is not the holy grail--except when it is.</p>

<p>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, <strong><em>try the extremes.</em></strong> 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.</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p><em>Low megapixels</em> on a <em>full-frame</em> sensor: there is nothing quite like it.</p>

<p>--Lannie</p>

[bebu_lamar]

<p>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. <br>

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. <br>

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. </p>

[sem_svizec]

<p>I think they should bundle it with a stylish walking cane that'd double as a monopod ;)</p>

[Andrew Garrard]

<p>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).<br />

<br />

Is that "pure photography"? Maybe. Henri Cartier-Bresson might have thought so. I doubt Ansel Adams would have done.</p>

[mark_loader]

<p>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.</p>

[Landrum Kelly]

<p>I'm sorry, y'all. That last post was intended to go in the Theater Rehearsal folder. (What site am I on?)</p>

<p>Along those lines, you have gotta love this:</p>

<blockquote>

<p>All this<em> Defcon5 level sabre rattling</em> 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.)</p>

</blockquote>

<p>"Defcon 5 level sabre rattling"</p>

<p>"prematurely burned at the stake"</p>

<p>Darn, thass mighty fine writin.'</p>

<p>--Lannie</p>

[ruslan]

<blockquote>

<p>Maybe a more customer-oriented model policy could have avoided this?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>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. </p>

[siphiwe_memela]

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.

[mark_loader]

<p>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 ;-)</p>

[cc_chang1]

<blockquote>

<p>Maybe a more customer-oriented model policy could have avoided this?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>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. </p>

<p>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. </p>

[m_allegretta]

<p>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!</p>

[Dieter Schaefer]

<blockquote>

<p>how much would have been an acceptable price for a D610 with a D4 sensor</p>

</blockquote>

<p>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). </p>

<p>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?</p>

[ilkka_nissila]

<p>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.</p>

<p>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.</p>