Nikon Introduces Df Retro DSLR

[dan_south]

<p>We've reached 300! ;-)</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Nikon are counting on people buying this out of desire.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>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."</p>

<p>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.</p>

[Landrum Kelly]

<blockquote>

<p>I'm very happy with my D800E/5DIII tandem.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>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.)</p>

<p>--Lannie</p>

[dan_south]

<blockquote>

<p>I do agree that the D800 is a little noisy at the pixel level, though you can fix that.</p>

</blockquote>

<p> That's an interesting assessment. Your eyes are younger than mine, Andrew, so perhaps you're seeing more detail than I am. :-)<br>

<br>

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...)<br>

<br>

The D800E amazes me in so many ways.</p>

[Landrum Kelly]

<blockquote>

<p>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</p>

</blockquote>

<p>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."</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>In other words, to paraphrase you with a very different meaning, "Nikon CAN possibly be selling a whole lot of new D<em>f</em> bodies. . ."</p>

<p>. . . if Nikon will simply lower the price.</p>

<p>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?</p>

<p> We will just have to wait and see.</p>

<p>--Lannie</p>

[dan_south]

<blockquote>

<p>I'm talking about two sets of lenses here above all.</p>

</blockquote>

<p> <br>

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

<br>

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.<br>

<br>

My Canon kit has five lenses, including a macro. I try to keep my bags light and tight.</p>

<p> </p>

[Landrum Kelly]

<p>Dan, with regard to noise, I like to go to this page and plug in <strong>whatever camera</strong>(s) I want at <strong>whatever ISO</strong> 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:</p>

<p><a href="http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/nikon-d800-d800e/33">http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/nikon-d800-d800e/33</a></p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>I have never shot the 5D III.</p>

<p>The D4 looks pretty good on the DPReview widget to me--surely an approximation to the Df.</p>

<p>--Lannie</p>

[Jim_Tardio]

<p><em>Jim - care to elaborate?</em><br>

<em><br /></em>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.<br>

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.</p>

[Andrew Garrard]

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.

[Andrew Garrard]

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.

[john_hinkey]

<blockquote>

<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: <a href="/nikon-camera-forum/00AtmX" rel="nofollow">http://www.photo.net/nikon-camera-forum/00AtmX</a><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: <a href="http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/352116-USA/Nikon_1799_F6_35mm_SLR_Autofocus.html" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">(link)</a></p>

</blockquote>

<p>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. </p>

[bebu_lamar]

<p>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. <br>

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. </p>

[Gup]

<p>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.</p>

[johnw63]

<blockquote>

<p>prices for these special-interest, limited-appeal items that attract collectors will unlikely come down.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>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 ? </p>

<p> </p>

[Jim_Tardio]

<p><em>As for the split prism, it seems a bit odd not to offer replacement screens...</em><br>

<em><br /></em>Well, there's always Katzeye. I used their screens in other DSLRs with success. Hopefully, they'll offer one.</p>

[Andrew Garrard]

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.

[dan_south]

<blockquote>

<p>just not perfectly smooth at ISO 800 (say) as I might expect a D4 to be.</p>

</blockquote>

<p> 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).<br>

<br>

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.</p>

[dan_south]

<p>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. </p>

<p><strong>2008: D3 - D700 - D3X</strong></p>

<p><strong>2013: D4 - Df - D800/D800E </strong></p>

<p>The big difference is in the pricing of the D800 (affordable) versus the D3X (astronomical). The D610 occupies its own little niche.</p>

<p>If you liked the D700, the Df is probably the closest thing to a sequel.</p>

[Andrew Garrard]

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.

[tanveer_aslam]

<p>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.</p>

[Landrum Kelly]

<blockquote>

<p>If you liked the D700, the Df is probably the closest thing to a sequel.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Dan, this is perhaps also linked to the fact that the D<em>f</em> 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.</p>

<p>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 D<em>f</em> 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.</p>

<p>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.)</p>

<p>I am not saying that the D<em>f</em> 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 D<em>f</em> 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.</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>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. . . .)</p>

<p>In any case, it may be noteworthy that Canon is doing quite well overall with DSLR market shares by offering <em>NO</em> 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 D<em>f.</em><br /> <br /> <em>Nikon Professional Flagship D4 16 megapixels</em><br /> <br /> <em>Canon Professional Flagship 1 D X 18 megapixels</em></p>

<p>Is there no market for consumer grade <strong>FULL-FRAME</strong> versions of these cameras? (Canon's 6D perhaps comes closest, at least in terms of megapixels.)<em> <br /></em></p>

<p>The presumption seems to be that consumers will bite only if there are <strong><em>more and more megapixels</em></strong>, 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.<em><br /></em></p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>--Lannie (ersatz marketing analyst, still shaking my head)</p>

[ilkka_nissila]

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.

[Andrew Garrard]

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).

[Landrum Kelly]

<blockquote>

<p>Nikon is initially making 14000 Df's per month.</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>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?</p>

<p>--Lannie</p>

[Landrum Kelly]

<blockquote>

<p>Read a couple of reviews of Nikon Df and I feel D600 or D610 are better options and offer more value for money.</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>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.</p>

<p>--Lannie</p>

[Dieter Schaefer]

<blockquote>

<p>How does that compare with other new models?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>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.</p>