Nikon Introduces Df Retro DSLR

[bebu_lamar]

<p>Being a mirrorless the A-7 doesn't let me focus the way I focus on an SLR. </p>

[Landrum Kelly]

<p>The relevant Sony for comparison with the Nikon D<strong><em>f</em></strong> would be either full-frame version, the <a href="http://www.dpreview.com/previews/sony-alpha-7-7r"><em><strong>Sony a7 at $1698 or the Sony a7R at $2298.</strong></em></a></p>

<p>There should be no presumption that the logical competitor is the 24-mp version. They are both far cheaper than the D<em><strong>f</strong></em> and represent possible alternatives.</p>

<p><em><strong>These are not mirrorless</strong></em>. They have a <a href="http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/sonyslta55/2"><em><strong>translucent mirror</strong></em></a>--probably a pellicle mirror.</p>

<p>"The A7R's 36 megapixel sensor (<em>sans</em> optical low-pass filter) is likely the same one used in the Nikon D800E." --DPReview.com</p>

<p>Has anyone actually used one?</p>

<p>--Lannie</p>

[Landrum Kelly]

<p>There is also this about the two new Sony full-frame cameras:</p>

<blockquote>

<p>"Meanwhile, in the absence of an optical finder, the main imaging sensor provides a full-time live view image via an electronic viewfinder in its place." --DPReview.com </p>

</blockquote>

<p>--Lannie</p>

[Andrew Garrard]

Lannie: just for the record, there's no mirror of any sort in an A7 or A7R. The A99 does have a pellicle

mirror, used to point light at the phase-detect AF sensors. The main sensor is used for composition, in live

view, with an EVF in all these cameras.

[donbright]

<p>Andrew,<br /> Thanks for pointing out the metering pattern control. Right in front of my face. Here's the back view of the Df.</p>

[donbright]

<p>Sorry, here's the image.</p><div></div>

[Landrum Kelly]

<p>SONY: MIRRORLESS.</p>

<p>Thank you, Andrew.</p>

<p>Wow, these things are small! A 50mm lens dwarfs the camera.</p>

<p>--Lannie</p>

[Landrum Kelly]

<p>I see also that the two new FF Sony cameras have yet another major problem: LENSES.</p>

<p>More precisely, they don't have any to speak of.</p>

<p>It sounds as if Sony needs to decide which horse it is going to ride where lenses are concerned. Is it possible to be too innovative? Constant flux in product lines is not what I want.</p>

<p>--Lannie</p>

[bebu_lamar]

<p>The big difference between the two is that the Nikon is designed to take just about any lenses Nikon ever made (not all of course) and the Sony really made few lenses for its A7 but it can take just about any lens from other manufacturers with a right adapter. The Nikon in the other hand with its long flange to sensor distance it's tough to adapt lenses made for other cameras.</p>

[Dieter Schaefer]

<blockquote>

<p>The adapter to mount the lens ... should cost no more than $20 on eBay.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Not my experience. I had to purchase three Leica-M-to-Sony-E-mount adapters to find one that works - and that one cost me $180. Similarly, I had to buy two to work with my Nikon lenses. On the first Leica adapter, one lens of mine wouldn't mount; similarly with the first Nikon adapter. On the second Leica adapter, all lenses mounted, but the release button scratched up my finger when holding the camera.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Digital cameras, by contrast, are a royal nuisance -- one has to hunt through one nested menu after another to find anything, all the menus are cluttered, and it takes forever to find and set the options one wants,</p>

</blockquote>

<p>A bit too much of a generalization I'm afraid, based on experience with a limited number of consumer-grade P&S cameras. It certainly doesn't hold true for any of the two-command dial Nikon DSLR's I have used. Though it rings very true when I consider the menu structure of my NEX 6.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>but because their controls, while flexible, are overly complex, and ridiculously clumsy and slow to use</p>

</blockquote>

<p>The two command dials on a higher-end Nikon DSLR aren't any more complex, clumsy and slow to use than the shutter speed dial and aperture ring of a Nikon F or FM.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>What is wrong with the SONY A7 for $1,600?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>a) that it currently costs $1698. <br /> b) that it has an EVF instead of an optical viewfinder - for some that still makes a world of a difference. I do have a NEX 6 and while I see the advantage of an EVF under some conditions, I also see the advantages of a nice SLR finder (and so far, they trump the EVF experience).</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Has anyone actually used one?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Some lucky ones have - but it isn't available in stores yet.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>It sounds as if Sony needs to decide which horse it is going to ride where lenses are concerned. Is it possible to be too innovative? Constant flux in product lines is not what I want.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Certainly a problem with Sony. Of the Sony lenses available for the NEX cameras, I would want only the Zeiss 24/1.8; the rest seems to be not quite up to snuff if one cares about such trivial stuff as corner sharpness. I purchased the NEX 6 for use with some inherited Leica glass though - so I don't care about Sony's line of lenses. Similarly, IF I decide on a Sony A7 or A7R, it would not be to use Sony's glass on them.</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>Obviously, Nikon has introduced a camera nobody is interested in.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Talking about one isn't the same as actually buying one...</p>

[cc_chang1]

<blockquote>

<p>More precisely, they don't have any to speak of.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Isn't that great!? I think there is a conspiracy that these companies intentionally leave a big hole in their line up so their competitors can survive. How else can we explain this? SONY cannot make a cheap $200 50/1.8 lens, and Nikon cannot make a <$2000 FF cameras good for MF and more general use? </p>

<p>There are a couple hand-on previews using a pre-production model. People seem to like the handling and the menu and controls, and of course the sensor. The AF appears to have a mixed review. One review (by Steve Huff) focuses on the use of MF lenses, many of which are from Leica, and he likes it a lot. </p>

<p> </p>

[Dieter Schaefer]

<blockquote>

<p>More precisely, they don't have any to speak of.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>They do have, however, a roadmap of what they intend to offer in the next two years. When did we ever see such a thing from Nikon?</p>

[Andrew Garrard]

<p>Lannie: the Sonys do seem to have overpriced lenses and the full frame sensors make the camera/lens

combination quite big, which kind of negates the advantage of mirrorless. Kudos to Sony for, as usual,

thinking differently (and lowering the body price). But that's another thread.</p>

<blockquote>The M2, F and FM are simple, straightforward, intuitive, and very fast to use when taking

pictures. The three controls one really needs, shutter speed, aperture, and focus, are right there under

one's fingers. The image in the viewfinder, which I use for composing as well as focusing, is large and

clear. Digital cameras, by contrast, are a royal nuisance -- one has to hunt through one nested menu after

another to find anything, all the menus are cluttered, and it takes forever to find and set the options one

wants, by which time the light has changed and the subject has moved away.</blockquote>

 

<p>Peter: what you want from the Df - and claim to get from the older cameras - is exactly what I'm

concerned it doesn't deliver. The ISO and exposure compensation - and, of you don't treat it like a normal

digital and use the rear dial - the shutter speed are <i>not</i> under one's fingers - you have to take your

hand off the camera, and possibly stop looking through the finder, to adjust them. The front dial may not

be ergonomically as good as the conventionally-aligned alternative, though we must await reviews. The

shutter dial appears to require two-finger (at least) operation, meaning the finger has to move off the

shutter release. A primary reason for the move away from the round-the-lens aperture ring - beyond it not

really working for variable-aperture zooms - is that you can't reach it when using a long lens (not really a

problem for Leica, since rangefinders are best with shorter lenses anyway.<br />

<br />

On any two-dial Nikon, aperture and shutter are exactly under the fingers in shooting position. Manual

focus is where it has always been, on the lens, under the left hand. AF activation is on the shutter release

or under the thumb, as required (as on the Df). On no Nikon is it necessary to enter a menu to adjust any of

these settings. On two-dial Nikons, it is very rare to need to enter the menu at all. The two dial Nikons all

handle much like the F5, which obviously has no menus. The Df actually appears to require more menu

access, since it lacks some of the external controls of the D800 (say).<br />

<br />

The finder on a Df should be much better for composition than the film cameras you mention. In addition

to grid lines and more information in the finder, it shows roughly 100% of the image, like other recent

DSLRs. The FM's 93% finder is pretty conservative, and of course an M2's finder is no more than

approximate.<br />

<br />

The only lens compatibility advantage of the Df is with non-AI lenses, for which you have to set the

aperture twice (or stop-down meter). I happily use AI lenses on my D800. I do suggest you look again at

the current lens range: Nikon make many good, fast primes, many of which would take a drop that would

permanently ding a solid metal lens. Yes, there are cheaper and slower zooms too, but we've never had it

so good. And they'll also autofocus in light too dark to see clearly. By the way, the D800 is mostly metal; a

fair bit of the Df frame appears to be plastic, though I could be wrong. (Not that I have a problem with

that.)<br />

<br />

Despite all this, the Df may be the camera for you, if only for familiarity. But it sounds to me as though you

may have been burnt by using very consumer-grade cameras some years ago, and believe the handling of

the current prosumer line is similarly poor. It isn't - if DSLRs handled as you seem to think, the D4 would

have been styled like the F4 long ago. As with many who like the look of the Df, I'd be really sure that the

current Nikon range doesn't behave better than you expect before singling out this model. Just because

dpreview like showing all the menus doesn't mean you need to use them during normal shooting.</p>

 

 

[Andrew Garrard]

Edit: what Dieter said about the two-dial ergonomics. Sorry, can't find my Bluetooth keyboard, typing is a

bit slow. :-)

[Dieter Schaefer]

<p>Leica's digital M cameras come IMO closest to what some here want from a "digital FM2". Obviously, no AF on an M camera - which eliminates buttons and menu entrances already. Aperture ring is on the lens, and it's stop-down metering. One shutter speed dial; and keypad and a whole bunch of buttons on the back. Up front, lens release button and a focus button that magnifies the live-view image to help with focusing. As simple as it can get - except that for anything but aperture and shutter speed, one needs to dig into the menus. I have never been able to change shutter speed on any Leica M with just one finger - except for the M5 which IMO had the best dial on any Leica ever (it stuck out in front of the camera and was a joy to turn with just one finger).</p>

<p>Maybe that IS the design many want and refer to when they state that using film forces you too slow down. Using a digital M does the same thing - it slows you down (performing tasks not necessarily to concentrate more on your subject). I am afraid, the same will come true for the Df - hunting all over the place for those dials and buttons, and having to dig into the menu more often that with the "conventional" DSLR design will not benefit the concentration of what is being photographed but how to set up the camera.</p>

<p>Those who think that a digital camera can live without a LCD in the back - think again. Such a camera would need more dials and buttons all over than a warthog has warts (and it would look the part too ;-)). </p>

<p>Not having handled an A7/A7R, it seems that almost all the controls are meant to be used with the right hand only - there's only the menu button for left hand operation on the back of the camera. How well things work without taking the camera from the eye remains to be seen. Except for the exposure compensation and the mode, nothing can be seen without looking through the viewfinder or at the back LCD.</p>

[Andrew Garrard]

Dieter: please don't tell me Sony has worked out that camera controls should be on the right hand when

Nikon hasn't. My wife told me I got one switch (Canon to Nikon, five years back), and no more!

 

I like the handling of my Bessa R, which is Leica-like (with a parallax finder, a sensible film loading

mechanism and a lot more plastic) - but, having just had a play, adjusting the shutter speed IS really

intrusive. Honestly, if your shooting style is to set the exposure and focus in advance and capture the

perfect moment, maybe it's all fine - but for many forms of shooting, slowing down doesn't help, however

good it may be for composition technique. (I still plan to get a 5x4, which will slow me down nicely, but I

don't plan to shoot sports and wildlife with it.)

[Landrum Kelly]

<blockquote>

<p>I still plan to get a 5x4, which will slow me down nicely, but I don't plan to shoot sports and wildlife with it.</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>It's about the challenge, Andrew, the challenge. . . </p>

<p>--Lannie</p>

[donbright]

<p>Does not the Df offer front, and rear command dials for custom option, shutter, or aperture, and that the top shutter speed knob is just another option? Also, who changes ASA, and Exposure Comp, with their eye in the viewfinder? The Dfs exposure comp dial is a one shot move, unlock button pressed during the rotation of the dial choosing the EV, One zap! its done. Otherwise its the pressing of the EX Comp button, then choosing the value. To me that's two steps.</p><div></div>

[Dieter Schaefer]

<blockquote>

<p>Does not the Df offer front, and rear command dials for custom option, shutter, or aperture, and that the top shutter speed knob is just another option?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Yes, but whether that front button is ergonomically placed remains to be seen.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Also, who changes ASA, and Exposure Comp, with their eye in the viewfinder?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I do - at least for exposure comp. There are plenty of situations were the exposure comp needs to be changed fast. Press the button and turn that dial - counting clicks. And you better know which way to turn. You take that camera off your eye and the situation is gone. And unless I have a very compelling reason not to, my cameras are always on AutoISO.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>The Dfs exposure comp dial is a one shot move, unlock button pressed during the rotation of the dial choosing the EV, One zap! its done. Otherwise its the pressing of the EX Comp button, then choosing the value. To me that's two steps.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>You press a button and turn a dial either way. Most importantly - the exposure comp dial on the Df is on the left side - and my left hand is holding the lens. There is no way I can change that exposure comp as fast as I can with a two-command dial setup. And I can't imagine doing it without lowering the camera. And there is the "easy exposure compensation" option on some DSLRs that allow you to change exposure compensation without even pushing the exposure comp button - too easy for me as I am prone to accidentally turn that dial (and it is a different one depending on whether I am in A or S mode).</p>

[Andrew Garrard]

I'm with Dieter - I change exposure compensation - usually on auto-ISO - with my eye to the finder; on my

current cameras, I can do that with my hand on the grip (and, at a push, keeping a finger on the shutter). I'd

change ISO manually too if Nikon hadn't put the button on the wrong side of the D800. And yes, I could use

the conventional rear dial and ignore the dedicated shutter speed dial (and would, if I owned a Df), but

that's an argument for whether that dial is actually useful at all. Maybe I'm reading too much into it.

 

Lannie: I always felt my lack of photographic talent was challenge enough. Though for truth in advertising

reasons, I'd love to see a camera company say "we messed up the ergonomics to make you a better

photographer". (I'm not picking on Nikon, here - there have been much worse ergonomic crimes than the

one I imagine being committed with the Df.)

[donbright]

<p><em>(I'm not picking on Nikon, here - there have been much worse ergonomic crimes than the one I imagine being committed with the Df.)</em><br>

<em><br /></em>I think thats a better way to make my point.</p>

[dan_south]

<blockquote>

<p>(I still plan to get a 5x4, which will slow me down nicely, but I don't plan to shoot sports and wildlife with it.)</p>

</blockquote>

<p>"An interesting choice this photographer I think makes. Enjoy focusing with a loupe on ground glass he will. Lean to load film holders in a changing bag he must. Hmm!" - Master Yoda<br>

<br>

"Use the Movements, Luke!" - OBWan<br>

<br>

"Come to the Dark Cloth!" - Darth Vader<br>

<br>

"Oh, dear! A single light leak could destroy the entire image!" - C3PO<br>

<br>

"Strap yourself in, kid. This could be a rough ride." - Han Solo<br>

<br>

"Mwaaaahh!" - Chewy<br>

<br>

"Messuh SO confused wit deez upside-down images!" - Jar-Jar</p>

[Andrew Garrard]

Don: Yes, while I suspect the interface of the Df makes the camera slower to use than Nikon's

conventional interface, I'm really not trying to claim it's completely unusable. All things are relative -

apologies if I'd sounded more dismissive than that.

 

Besides, I'm obliged to use PowerPoint on a regular basis. I know what "completely unusable" is. :-)

[Andrew Garrard]

Dan: well, now I know it's been a long thread. :-) Though I've been encouraging my Canon-using friends to

come to the dark (lens) side for some time.

 

Don't blame it on the sublight

 

Don't blame it on the nav guide

 

Don't blame it on the fuel line

 

Blame it on the Wookiee

[Andrew Garrard]

<blockquote>"Messuh SO confused wit deez upside-down images!" - Jar-Jar</blockquote>

 

<p>Speaking of which (!) I'm a little surprised that a camera like the Df wouldn't attract interest from people wanting a waist-level finder, like the one I'd quite like to acquire for my F5 (I assume I'm not just supposed to use it with the prism off, though I'm not sure it does any harm). Or, at least, I'm surprised that Nikon didn't try to accommodate people wanting this kind of finder. Maybe they feel the D5xxx series do that. I quite liked my experience with a borrowed Rolleiflex, although part of that was the silence of the leaf shutter.<br />

<br />

Out of interest, are there many people using a waist-level (optical) finder on a Nikon? I realise it's a bit smaller than on medium format, which might reduce the appeal. I'm wondering whether there's cross-over between people who like this and those who'd like the retro-styling of the Df.<br />

<br />

And yes, this thread is almost as long as its predecessor, I have noticed...</p>