Nikon Introduces Df Retro DSLR

[dan_brown4]

<p>If Nikon based its camera design on the responses in this thread, they would quite literally go insane.</p>

[john_hinkey]

<blockquote>

<p><a href="/photodb/user?user_id=752258">m allegretta</a>, Nov 08, 2013; 12:02 p.m.</p>

 

<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>

 

</blockquote>

 

<p>If I were to eventually get a Df, I would pair it with:<br>

16/3.5 AI<br>

20/2.8 D (or AIS)<br>

45/2.8P<br>

either 90/3.5 CV, 105/2.5 AIS, or 135/3.5 AIS depending on the situation.<br>

and <br>

180/4 CV (if I still have it)<br>

For a pretty darned compact and excellent kit.<br>

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.</p>

 

[bebu_lamar]

<p>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?</p>

[cc_chang1]

<blockquote>

<p>If Nikon based its camera design on the responses in this thread, they would quite literally go insane.</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>It seems that they are asking for it openly, they are asking people to tell them what we think, and I did.</p>

<p>https://webc.nikonimaging.com/form/pub/info/df_en</p>

[Andrew Garrard]

<p>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 <i>seem</i> 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 <i>would</i> explain the Df, then. :-)<br />

<br />

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.<br />

<br />

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 <i>more</i> 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>I'm</i> missing something (which is why I'm asking questions).</p>

 

<blockquote>I don't want a camera with movie mode, nor scene mode or built in flash.</blockquote>

 

<p>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 <i>do</i> 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.</p>

 

<blockquote>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.</blockquote>

 

<p>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 <i>need</i> a camera without a video button" (ahem) posts, there's one that would genuinely improve shooting experiences.</p>

 

<blockquote>Dieter, I think in technology we got to the point where any hi-end camera is good enough for common photography application,</blockquote>

 

<p>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.<br />

<br />

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 <i>this</i> camera, and <i>these</i> ergonomics - everything else I own is better than the alternatives I could have got at <i>something</i>.</p>

 

<blockquote>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).</blockquote>

 

<p>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.<br />

<br />

And that's way too much for one post, even for me.</p>

[wogears]

<p><strong>Mark Loader: </strong>I expect that in the entire history of dpreview, there have not been 2000 comments on photographs.</p>

<p>In fact, I don't 'get' all of the endless threads about gear. Don't like it, don't buy it. To <strong>ME</strong>, 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.</p>

<p>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.</p>

[cc_chang1]

<blockquote>

<p>Some functionality now requires <em>more</em> 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".</p>

</blockquote>

<p>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.</p>

[Andrew Garrard]

<p>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.<br />

<br />

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 <i>know</i> 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.<br />

<br />

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 <i>am</i> 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.<br />

<br />

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 <i>worse</i>, 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.<br />

<br />

Anyway. For someone who doesn't care for the dial arrangement - which obviously includes me, but I realise that some people <i>do</i> 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.</p>

[Dieter Schaefer]

<blockquote>

<p>Andrew: Do we know that for sure?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>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.</p>

<p>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. </p>

[Jim_Tardio]

<p>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.</p>

 

[Landrum Kelly]

<p>Who makes the sensor for the D4? Does Nikon make it? I thought Sony made most Nikon sensors.</p>

<p>Any idea as to how similar the D<em>f</em> sensor is to the sensor of the D4? Might it be an improvement? Sensor technology does not stand still, after all.</p>

<p>--Lannie</p>

[Andrew Garrard]

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!)

[steve_johnston4]

<p>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. </p>

[Dieter Schaefer]

<blockquote>

<p>Who makes the sensor for the D4? Does Nikon make it?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>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.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Any idea as to how similar the D<em>f</em> sensor is to the sensor of the D4?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>My guess is that it is the same - we will know for sure once someone has disassembled a Df and had a look inside. </p>

[donbright]

<p><em>How is the Df going to improve your Photography? </em><br /> <em><br /></em>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.<br /> 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.<br /> 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. <br /> 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.<br /> 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.</p>

[bebu_lamar]

<blockquote>

<p>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!)</p>

</blockquote>

<p> <br>

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. </p>

[dan_south]

<blockquote>

<p>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.</p>

</blockquote>

<p> 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.<br>

<br>

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.<br>

<br>

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.</p>

<p> </p>

<blockquote>

<p>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. </p>

</blockquote>

<p> Yes, watch out for those pixel peepers, the bane of society. Perhaps all cameras should be limited to 6MP to ensure photographic purity.<br>

<br>

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."<br>

<br>

</p>

<blockquote>

<p>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.</p>

</blockquote>

<p> 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.</p>

<p> </p>

<blockquote>

<p> 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.</p>

</blockquote>

<p> 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.<br>

<br>

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.<br>

<br>

</p>

[ruslan]

<p><strong>Dan</strong>, 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. <br />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.<br />If we say about FM3A - I remember how it was met by photographers, when it appeared, - with a storm of applause. <br /><br />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 <em>analogue</em> style of settings. <br /><br />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. </p>

[Andrew Garrard]

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.

[Landrum Kelly]

<blockquote>

<p>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.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>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.</p>

<p><br />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?</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>--Lannie</p>

[Landrum Kelly]

<blockquote>

<p>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.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>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.</p>

<p>[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: "<em>SIMPLICITY!"</em> again.]</p>

<p>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 <em>on full-frame cameras</em> 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 D<em>f</em> 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.</p>

<p>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."</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>In any case, I do think that we are in for more products using <strong><em>full-frame sensors</em></strong>--but with <strong><em>modest numbers of megapixels</em></strong>. 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.</p>

<p>I suspect that derivative products from some of the same ideas as are already in the D<em>f</em> 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.</p>

<p>--Lannie</p>

[Andrew Garrard]

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.

[Landrum Kelly]

<p>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.</p>

<p>I just came up on this site, although some must have seen it already, based on comments above:</p>

<p><a href="http://petapixel.com/2013/11/08/nikon-cuts-sales-forecast-yet-dslr-sales-stall-df-preorders-come-subpar/">http://petapixel.com/2013/11/08/nikon-cuts-sales-forecast-yet-dslr-sales-stall-df-preorders-come-subpar/</a></p>

<p>Is there a problem with Nikon sales or pre-orders (as the site suggests)?</p>

<p>Well, DROP THE PRICE! Watch the numbers soar! Zounds. <em>This camera is over-priced.</em><br>

<em> </em><br>

Is the market saturated? I have three DSLRs from Nikon. How many do I need? Others have many more.<em><br /></em></p>

<p>--Lannie</p>

[mfophotos]

<p>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.</p>

 

[ShunCheung]

<blockquote>

<p>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?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>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.</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>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<br>

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</p>

<p>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.</p>