Nikon Introduces Df Retro DSLR

[dan_brown4]

<p>Hey Andrew, don't lose sight of the likelihood that I am wrong ;-)</p>

[Andrew Garrard]

<p>Dan: Don't worry, precedent is good that if anyone's going to be wrong, it's me.<br />

<br />

However, I'm trying to sit on the fence about the Df, so that won't help much. I'm honestly in favour of the concepts of a D4 sensor in a cheap camera, a very light FX DSLR (though not using a pentamirror has mixed blessings there), and - for those who want it - a dials-based camera. I'm not sure the Df is the best solution to all those design goals, but everything has to be compromised somewhere. I'm really interested to see how well the design succeeds, even if I don't personally need it. And I really hope it does what people want of it.</p>

[donbright]

<p>25oz ! That's lighter that my 180mm 2.8 ED AIS. Dials compared to manual transmissions? The dials are options, and are not intended to be the commitment. As for reading the dials, the white against black? I wonder how dark it would have to be for one not to see those numbers? If one can't read those numbers, I would think maybe that person has other issues regarding eye sight than personal preference control navigation of a camera. I'm done! The Df is for me. I wont be shooting weddings, or freezing bullets in mid air. I need a DSLR that will go anywhere anytime, that offers the flexibility that the Df offers, and I really don't care where the card slot is either. Once its in, its gone, there are bigger fish to fry than wondering why the card is where it is. It would be convenient if every release of camera's wore the same arrangement of buttons so that we could have two or three bodies to mate with our lens collection, but so far, other than the D800, and D800E, there are variances, and it takes time to get familiar with each camera regardless. So far the specs check out. So far the so called, " Retro look," is overshadowed by comprehensive, and useful features that any experienced Photographer can use. Point is, the, "Retro look," to me is not a gimmick. The offering is a useful method of expanded control option, and if by nature is slows things down so be it, I need to be slowed down 90% of the time anyway, so I'll be embracing that.</p>

[Andrew Garrard]

<p>Don: I believe the only "option" is the shutter speed dial. As far as I can tell, the ISO and EC dials are the only mechanisms for explicitly changing those settings. (ISO only bothers me so much because it's awkward to change on the alternatives, and there's auto-ISO, but EC worries me.) I'll be interested to know whether "easy ISO" and "easy EC" work, but I would doubt it, given the dial focus. I'm waiting on the manual getting posted.<br />

<br />

I, too, could do with slowing down (part of my plans for a 5x4), though it would do me more good to think about the shot than to think about the camera settings! I hope you don't miss anything important in the remaining 10% of the time when you <i>didn't</i> want to be slowed down.<br />

<br />

Re. seeing the dials, I'd actually say that for shooting the sky at night, the mechanical dials could be a little annoying - the top LCD on most cameras isn't too bad when it comes to night vision, whereas the rear LCD will stop you from being able to see anything. Though I've been known to do this, I'll concede that it's a pretty specific case when it comes to a design complaint, even if the D4 sensor ought to be quite good at the night shooting thing.<br />

<br />

But, in general, I agree. The Df seems to be a reasonably flexible camera with some unique points of appeal and an interface which is different from the other cameras, to an extent. There are probably issues with that interface, but there are problems with the interface used by other cameras too, so it's easy to over-state it for all our analysis here. So long as anyone buying is aware a) that some of the issues they see with DSLRs might actually not be there in other cameras that still cost less than the Df, and b) that not everything about the Df design is going to be ergonomically perfect even if labelled dials are less intimidating than programmable ones, then I feel the criticisms on this thread have done their duty. There may be a lot of unjustified (or over-stated) panning of the design, but it's easy to err the other way, too.<br />

<br />

Good luck with your purchase! I hope it fits your needs well, and that you'll report back. :-)</p>

[mike_halliwell]

<p>Interesting that the same people who worry about how long the Pop-Up flash takes to re-charge don't understand the need for a camera with a high fps....it's a Funny Old World!</p>

[donbright]

<p>Andrew,<br>

Thanks, and I'll stay on it of course. As for slowing down, I guess that has a siding scale within any individuals ability, method, purpose. Some of us might be very well equipped to assess technical issues within the varying locations, and conditions, and some not. I find that anticipating what will happen with weather, and what it will do to enhance, or detract from the scene, or anticipate what will happen within conditions relative to humans, as to what message I want to convey, is more daunting than figuring out how to set up my camera. I was also thinking of how cool it will be to bring the 180 ED AIS back into action. You know a lens sitting in the bag is worthless. The money spent on the DF utilizing the D4 sensor, being able to shoot at ASA 800, or 1000, handheld in low light that I would normally give up on with my film camera at asa 400, the D4 sensor offering up IQ at that speed, resurrecting the 180 2.8 ED will be good money spent and it doesn't end there. As for 16MP, I can see 16X20s on the wall that will knock my eyes out, maybe not at 300dpi, but I'd be happy with 16X20s. A 16X20, or 24, after its framed, takes up a lot of space on the wall, and its more than adequate. Anything bigger, I have my Pentax 67II, Velvia 50, Drum scanned at 16bit, so my eagerness to go beyond that has flatlined. The Df is the obvious choice for me to utilize: Nikkors 20mm f3.5, 24mm f2, 55mm f2.8 micro, 105 f2.5, 180 2.8 ED, 400 3.5, all manual focus AIS, then theres a Voigtlander 40mm Utron in there. The digital option brings valuable flexibility to the Photographic experience. There's nothing about shooting film that will make me shoot less than I want to, but the digital option broadens possibilities, and the Df a first DSLR for me is a cinch.</p>

[Andrew Garrard]

<p>Don: Agreed about the set-up. (I'm a geek, I can understand camera settings; composing a decent photograph is much harder.) I worry slightly that not concentrating entirely on the timing and composition, and any time spent paying attention to the camera, may be detrimental - but it may be that the reverse is true. Maybe I should try to hire a Df and find out, though I'm hoping film options (however expensive to shoot) may help me there. After this thread, I probably should try to find something like an FA or F3 to play with and see what the fuss is about with the dials. :-)<br />

<br />

I don't suppose it helps for me to mention that the 180 ED AIS should work fine with any Nikon DSLR, and will meter on anything upwards of a D7000? (Just for anyone for whom using a lens like that is the only appeal of a Df.) The finder on the Df may, admittedly, be above average (though a D700 would let you use a third-party screen).<br />

<br />

Understood, re. the 6x7. I currently only go as far as 645, and the film grain is pretty visible even in cheap scans of Velvia, but I have hopes of drum scanning at 5x4 (though the lack of 5x4 Velvia 50 is disappointing - I must get a 5x4 before 100 disappears). The technologies are complementary, though there's a lot to be said for getting high pixel detail quickly (or checking it's been captured). My D800 appealed to me because my previous camera was "only" a 12MP D700. My 645 appealed in part because it could beat the D700's resolution, though I still like handling medium format slides. I guess if I were to start with the film equivalent of a D800 in pixel density, I'd be happier with a lower-resolution DSLR. (The D800 puts me off wanting a 6x7, though I'll take a Mamiya if anyone's offering, hence the 5x4 plans.) I'm sure the Df's high ISO behaviour will be a revelation compared with film, though don't expect complete noiselessness.<br />

<br />

Actually, now I think about it, I'm kind of curious that Fuji seems to be disposing of larger formats first. While I guess there were never as many big cameras around as 35mm, if anything I'd expect the bigger formats to be surviving the influx of digital better. While I still have some 135 rolls in my fridge (including some that need developing), I find it much harder to argue the benefits of 135 film compared with a DSLR than anything bigger. I wonder whether the Df will have a significant effect in drawing those shooting 135 film into digital, or whether there are enough shooting cheaper 35mm cameras that it won't make a dent.</p>

[ilkka_nissila]

<p>Mike, if you try to use the pop-up flash as a commander in taking family group shots with children in them, I'm sure you'll run into the same problem I did very quickly. The kids are lively and can't stay put for long, and their expressions and activities change quickly. The pop up can only be used to capture a few frames (let's say 5) before it freezes the camera for a while, during which time you cannot take exposures (it recovers in, say 20 seconds). It is not the same as shooting away at 10fps. I try to time every shot individually to capture what I hope to show meaningful interaction, emotion and expressions. At the fastest I would take exposures at a rate of one shot per about 1-2 seconds when the action is going on. Faster than that I can't really analyze what's going on between frames; I'd get a lot of random noise. It is actually quite common that this kind of shoots are done with studio strobes because they can keep up with approximately 1 fps shooting rate and offer the option of good depth of field which fits the situation of a group shot well. I was doing this shoot with the pop up and one remote speedlight with umbrella to demonstrate that it is possible to do it with an inexpensive setup, but it was a failure; I could not keep up with the interaction of the kids at the speed I was able to shoot with the pop-up as the commander after the first 5 or so shots. What's more, the D80 that was used for the shoot for demonstration purposes (I believed the equipment should have been up to the task) caused most of the shots to have eye closures due to the timing of the pre-flashes when the remote was in TTL mode; this problem is not shared with higher end cameras as the timing of the pre-flashes relative to the main exposure is so short that the pre-flashes do not cause reflexive eye closure in time for the actual exposure. But that was related to the camera used; I could have solved that problem by using a D700, for example, or the D7000, with the SU-800. I didn't use manual flash at first because I was trying to show that the family could do this themselves without all that much expertise. But like I said I couldn't get any useable frames. Then I set the remote on manual and tried again, I still got eye closures but not quite as bad as with the TTL. The pop-up flash was fighting against me the whole way, in every possible way. This same scenario I use at work quite often but I use my current D800 with the SU-800 and a remote flash trio behind an umbrella, and it works fine, TTL and everything, with roughly 5% of the subjects with eyes closed only, so one person in a group of 20. To do a group of 40 people I only need a handful of exposures to get one where the expressions are good and eyes open on everyone. Since this needs to be done as quickly as possible, there is no fumbling around with pop-up flash that may or may not trigger the remotes, probably closes some eyes, and finally is likely to shut down the camera for a while if I try to capture enough frames to compensate for the problems. All of this has to happen in a minute or so, preferably less time as they all have places to go to and work to do. Thankfully I've been sensible enough to buy the SU-800 early on, it has been such a problem-free device in this type of work. Outdoors, I use radio instead to trigger the flashes. </p>

<p>I don't believe I've said that cameras with high fps are not useful at all. However I think there are many such options that are quite modern (2007+): D300, D300s, D700, D3, D3s, and D4. Since the first affordable high resolution model the D800 came out in spring 2012, many wannabe high resolution shooters bought 12MP cameras from roughly 2004 to 2012 since that's all that Nikon offered. I believe many of those high speed units never really did get much high speed use and thus should have a lot of life in them and can be purchased to budget. Thus I don't see what the problem is for the high speed shooter - compared to the problem faced by the high resolution Nikon shooter until just two years ago, the high speed shooters received a lot of love from Nikon.</p>

[Andrew Garrard]

<p>Ilkka: That's interesting, and surprises me. I must have a play with my D800, but I'm sure I've shot more frequently than, and for longer than, that using my D700's on-board flash as a trigger; it's possible that I imagined it. With the camera just acting as a CLS master, it's usually firing - I believe - at quite low power; I don't see why it should have trouble, though I can see that things would be different if it were trying to contribute to the image as well. My low-end Canon 300D used the on-board flash as an AF assist, often with considerable strobing, so I'm surprised a newer camera would struggle with what should be less power.<br />

<br />

However, I don't do this often enough to claim any authority. Like I said, I'm just surprised. (I've had occasions when CLS has failed to cope, but normally because a flash hasn't charged or because something's blocking the light, not knowingly for the situation you mention.)<br />

<br />

The speed shooters are still quite happy, if you don't mind a 1" sensor... :-)</p>

[dan_south]

<p>I tried a number of AI-S and AF-D lenses on the D800 and D800E. I wasn't happy with any of them. Perhaps a 16MP body won't show the flaws of these lenses as easily, but you're going to notice when you enlarge past a certain point. I would expect extremely sharp 20x30 inch prints from a quality 16MP full frame sensor and sharp prints that would pass almost any degree of scrutiny up to 24x36. If the lens underperforms, you'll notice at that size.</p>

<p>I have not had the pleasure to shoot with a 180mm f/2.8 D. I hear that they are superb lenses, but then so is the 70-200 f/2.8 VRII G. Unless you need macro capabilities, why not choose the latter in order to harness the VR, the up to date glass and coatings, and the versatile zoom range?</p>

<p>I felt that my 21MP 5D Mark II was every bit as sharp as the best 6x7 chromes that I shot over the years. I used every trick to make those 6x7 images as sharp as possible - heavy tripod, custom body plate, remote release, and mirror lockup. The convenience of digital retired my Pentax 67II. I keep telling myself that I should take it out for old times sake, but I never do.</p>

<p>I don't think that a drum-scanned 4x5 chrome has anything to offer over the output of a D800 or D800E. I love shooting 4x5, but I keep mine mostly for nostalgic reasons or when I might need movements for a focal length that I can't get in a PC/TS lens. Depth of field is always a problem with 4x5. There's always some bokeh - setting the movements just moves it around - and in order to limit bokeh, you need to shoot at f/16 - f/32, i.e. the realm of diffraction. And then you have to pay for the scans.</p>

<p>In my opinion, 4x5 improves on the D800E/sharp lens combination in only two cases: when movements are required and a PC lens is not available in that focal length, or when using an all-analog capture to print workflow (especially in B&W).</p>

<p>Nikon has not only leveled the playing field; they've landscaped it.</p>

[Landrum Kelly]

<blockquote>

<p>I don't think that a drum-scanned 4x5 chrome has anything to offer over the output of a D800 or D800E.</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>Wow, Dan. That is quite an endorsement of the D800/E. I like the D800E very well myself, but I have no results from large negatives to compare it to. I just know that it is the sharpest thing that I have ever shot.</p>

<p>That said, for sheer joy of shooting, I love the simplicity of my second-hand D3s, although there are days when I wish that it had just a bit more resolution--thus my interest in the Df, even though I know that I will not be buying.</p>

<p>--Lannie</p>

[donbright]

<p>Dan,<br>

Yes, no doubt there's some attractive new glass to be chosen wisely. </p>

[Dieter Schaefer]

<blockquote>

<p>With the camera just acting as a CLS master, it's usually firing - I believe - at quite low power</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I fried the pop-up flash on my D200 while using it to drive two R200 units. I got a bit careless and fired away too quickly and/or too many in "rapid" succession - and there went the flash. And the metering system. And a few other functions. Now I only use the pop-up if I have no other choice.</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>The Df seems to be a reasonably flexible camera with some unique points of appeal and an interface which is different from the other cameras, to an extent.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I have no doubt that more Df bodies would be sold if it wasn't for the "retro" interface. As this thread (and many others) show, many want to handle the camera first before committing. The camera sure looks nice (in black a lot better than in silver) and I can see the appeal of using it with older manual focus lenses in a slow methodical way. Fast paced use - I rather have a D800- or D4-style camera.</p>

<p> </p>

[mike_halliwell]

<blockquote>

<p>Thus I don't see what the problem is for the high speed shooter - compared to the problem faced by the high resolution Nikon shooter until just two years ago, the high speed shooters received a lot of love from Nikon.</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>Ikka, so you got your D3X in <em>Dec <strong>2008</strong></em> and have been happy ever since? That's 5 years ago. Now if you'd said <em>affordable</em>, well YES! Like the D4 isn't affordable to most either.</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p> I believe many of those high speed units.......can be purchased to budget<br>

</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I have a gripped D300 & D700, I don't want a D3, there's no benefit....and a used D3S is still £2300 AKA $3500!!<br>

<br>

The high-res guys should be more than happy with Nikon's new DX and FX output. There's nothing new except the D4 for ANY speed merchant, DX or FX, and that's still £4200 or $6000...(same as the release price)</p>

[Andrew Garrard]

<p>I'll chime in on the above posts shortly, but as a priority, I thought people would like to know that the Df manual/user guide is now available. It doesn't seem to be on the Nikon US site yet, but it's <a href="http://download3.nikonimglib.com/archive1/gHeBU00qXTcS00AUE5j77UXcD571/Df_EU(En)01.pdf">on Nikon UK</a> (or, if that doesn't work, try from <a href="https://nikoneurope-en.custhelp.com/app/answers/list#s=eyJzZiI6eyIxNTEwNDUiOnsiZmlsdGVycyI6eyJub190cnVuY2F0ZSI6MCwicGFnZSI6MSwic2VhcmNoVHlwZSI6eyJmaWx0ZXJzIjp7ImRhdGEiOjQsInJuU2VhcmNoVHlwZSI6InNlYXJjaFR5cGUiLCJmbHRyX2lkIjo0fX0sImtleXdvcmQiOnsiZmlsdGVycyI6eyJkYXRhIjoiIiwicm5TZWFyY2hUeXBlIjoia2V5d29yZCJ9fSwicCI6eyJmaWx0ZXJzIjp7ImRhdGEiOnsiMCI6WzE5LDgyNCwxMjU5XSwicmVjb25zdHJ1Y3REYXRhIjpbeyJsZXZlbCI6MywibGFiZWwiOiJEZiIsImhpZXJMaXN0IjoiMTksODI0LDEyNTkifV19LCJyblNlYXJjaFR5cGUiOiJtZW51ZmlsdGVyIiwiZmx0cl9pZCI6Mn19LCJjIjp7ImZpbHRlcnMiOnsiZGF0YSI6eyIwIjpbXX0sInJuU2VhcmNoVHlwZSI6Im1lbnVmaWx0ZXIiLCJmbHRyX2lkIjozfX0sInNvcnRfYXJncyI6eyJmaWx0ZXJzIjp7ImRhdGEiOnsiY29sX2lkIjpudWxsLCJzb3J0X2RpcmVjdGlvbiI6bnVsbH19fX19fSwiYyI6OX0.">here</a>). I'll be having a read in a little while...<br />

<br />

Edit: On a first skim, there doesn't seem to be a quick ISO or exposure compensation (dedicated dials only), though there is an "easy shutter speed shift" - though only between the labelled shutter speed and the adjacent one. There seems to be a 100% preview toggle option, though I could be mis-reading that. You can turn auto-ISO on and off without a menu if you dedicate a custom button to it. More after I've done some more reading!</p>

[dan_brown4]

<p>Thanks Andrew, download and at the top of my reading list.</p>

[mark_loader]

<p>Ok, I've just got back from the Df launch here in my part of Oz. The guest speaker was renowned photojournalist David Dare Parker, who just happens to be an aquaintance of the friend who I went with (damn). So we were able to have a nice chat with him beforehand, where he told us of his experiences and some of HIS friends e.g. Greg (Bang Bang Club) Marinovich and James Nachtwey (DAMN!) to name a few. He is very pleased with the DF, not least because of the weight issue, a relief, he says, from his beloved D4. I held the thing briefly, and my first impression was "Geez, is there a battery in this thing?"..."Yes"...so the early comments (guesses really) by some people as to it's being beefy were wrong in my view. And I've mostly been using the Fuji X series. And when I told him of some gear junkies opinions of the D4 sensor as being "2 years old, therefore out of date and futile", he just laughed and said "Those 'guys' (not the actual term he used) wouldn't have a clue". So out of the 50 or so attendees (including someone's dog who had a Nikon collar!) I think maybe 45 of us want one...time to pass the hat around then!</p>

[Landrum Kelly]

<p>Thanks go to Dan Brown for getting us some <strong>early sample images</strong>:</p>

<p><a href="http://dc.watch.impress.co.jp/docs/review/newproduct/20131127_625119.html"><strong>http://dc.watch.impress.co.jp/docs/review/newproduct/20131127_625119.html</strong></a><br /> <br /> Those high ISO low-light shots are impressive.</p>

<p>The above can be found at Dan's <a href="/nikon-camera-forum/00cBst"><strong>new thread about the NIKON Df here on Photo.net,</strong></a> in case you missed it.</p>

<p>--Lannie<strong><br /></strong></p>

[dan_brown4]

<p>Nice post mark, very colorful, but I have to ask … does the dog number amongst the 45? LOL</p>

[dan_brown4]

<p>Here are some more DF/vintage lens shots. Even the 43-86 Ai.</p>

<p><a href="http://photo.yodobashi.com/gear/nikon/cameras/df/sr.html">http://photo.yodobashi.com/gear/nikon/cameras/df/sr.html</a></p>

[Andrew Garrard]

<p>Well, the 35 f/1.4 AI-S seems to have <i>horrible</i> bokeh (or the image has just been over-sharpened. :-)<br />

<br />

Dan: dpreview apparently suddenly started noticing lens aberrations once the pixel density crossed a boundary (I think in the Eos 50D vintage). I'm sure the D4 will hide some issues that the D800 would show - downsampling should allow confirmation. It'll still be more taxing than a D700, of course. The 180 f/2.8 has a stellar reputation, but - while it's good - it's certainly not up to the standards of a modern 70-200, let alone a 200 f/2, at least in sharpness. Of course, it's a lot cheaper and lighter... (There are, occasionally, calls for Nikon to update the design. I suspect the result would then only be lighter!)<br />

<br />

I'm surprised that a 5D2 can quite keep a 6x7 honest, though the extinction characteristics of film and digital are different enough that I can see how the result can look sharper. My 645 can clearly outresolve my D700, although it also scares small children and wildlife with the racket it makes; otherwise it's not too hard to use. (It also fell on my head out of an airline overhead locker, once, due to a careless fellow passenger. I'm kind of glad it wasn't the F5.) I'd not expect a huge difference, though. Most of what I've heard is that (high end) medium format digital can keep up quite well with at least 5x4 and maybe 10x8, but I expect the D800 to be a little farther behind. Maybe I should budget for a 10x8! (As for scans, my policy is only to scan the images that are good enough to want to keep. Since I expect to be utterly incompetent, it may not cost me much. The developing won't be cheap, though.) I'd be happier if Nikon refreshed their tilt-shift line, at least if I could afford the result.<br />

<br />

Dieter: Yargh. Okay, maybe I should get an SU-800...<br />

<br />

Well, there is <i>some</i> benefit to a D3 over a D700 + grip. But not much, I admit. The prosumer FX cameras are now good enough in low light that I doubt we'll see one hit very high frame rates for as long as Nikon expect to be able to sell D4-class cameras. If the photojournalism profession actually collapses under the weight of cameraphones, maybe we'll get something, especially if technology makes them cheaper to make.<br />

<br />

I want to see the dog in the hat! (Thanks for the feedback and images, guys.) Right, must RTFM. [Edit: <i>Oh</i> - it's a self-timer lamp. I wondered what that was.]</p>

[Andrew Garrard]

<p>Next random observation: The finder doesn't have the in-finder electronic horizon that the D800 has (it's a one-dimensional thing like the D610 and D700). The in-finder info strip seems to be very similar to the D600's, except that the read-outs used for ISO sensitivity and exposure compensation are merged into one. I'm not sure I approve, but I doubt it's a deal-breaker. It does seem like a slightly odd choice, though.<br />

<br />

I can now see that the behaviour of the <i>i</i> button and info button are different. Not very, but a bit. I'm sure it'll just be a matter of practice for it to stop being confusing, at least for all those Df users who like Nikon's digital interface. :-)<br />

<br />

You can definitely swap the command dials (and their directions), though. The menus seem appreciably shorter than the D800's - mostly it's the "b" menu, which no longer has ways (obviously) to set ISO and EC step values or easy EC - but looking at them side by side it's interesting how much smaller the menu gets without this, without AF illumination, without video, etc. There's still Eye-Fi support.<br />

<br />

There's a little flop-out section on the edge of the battery compartment that I'd not noticed before, so you can put an EP-5A external power connector where the battery lives, then close the cover while still having somewhere for the cable to go. Odd.<br />

<br />

The buffer size in the manual is 29 14-bit raw, lossless compressed images; 37 in 12-bit. It drops to 25 in uncompressed. Anything you do with a JPEG gives a buffer capacity of 100. That should keep the D7100 shooters happy. Or possibly frustrated, depending on your outlook. They quote 1400 shots CIPA standard, and 2900 "Nikon standard".<br />

<br />

The remote release (electronic, as opposed to the screw-in one) is an MC-DC2, same as the D7000, D90, D5000 etc. But I guess there weren't many peripherals to share with a D700/800 or D3/4 anyway.<br />

<br />

Well, that's most of what I could find on the first pass, of things that struck me as different from other Nikons. Generally, though the manual lacks the easy contents page of the D800's, it's definitely a Nikon, just with some functions missing because they're on dials (or, er, missing). Which I guess is what we should expect. I want to see more hands-on comments, though, because it'll be the ergonomics of the controls that matters more than what they do (for once).</p>

[Landrum Kelly]

<blockquote>

<p><a href="http://dc.watch.impress.co.jp/img/dcw/docs/625/119/html/97.jpg.html"><strong>http://dc.watch.impress.co.jp/img/dcw/docs/625/119/html/97.jpg.html</strong></a></p>

</blockquote>

<p>It is hard to believe how clean some of these pictures are at ISO 12,800. I chose that number because that is as high as I shoot with the D3s--although I try to stay well below that.</p>

<p>Here is the same shot at ISO 25,600:</p>

<blockquote>

<p><a href="http://dc.watch.impress.co.jp/img/dcw/docs/625/119/html/98.jpg.html"><strong>http://dc.watch.impress.co.jp/img/dcw/docs/625/119/html/98.jpg.html</strong></a></p>

</blockquote>

<p>It is certainly still very usable for many applications. I guess that these were shot with a tripod, but I have to say that I shoot the D3s a lot at night without a tripod. These files are a bit bigger. I am not sure if they are any cleaner. They just might be.<strong><br /></strong></p>

<p>Here is the link again:</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p><a href="http://dc.watch.impress.co.jp/docs/review/newproduct/20131127_625119.html" rel="nofollow" target="_blank"><strong>http://dc.watch.impress.co.jp/docs/review/newproduct/20131127_625119.html</strong></a></p>

</blockquote>

<p>--Lannie<strong><br /></strong></p>

[Dieter Schaefer]

<p>I wouldn't call those clean - rather quite unusable. ISO 6400 is about as high as I would tolerate to go. Horses for courses, so YMMV.</p>

<p>From: http://www.imaging-resource.com/PRODS/nikon-df/nikon-dfA.HTM - hands-on experience:</p>

<blockquote>

<p>The ISO dial is a bear and takes two hands, one to press the lock release and one to turn the dial, which is really frustrating. And the Shutter Speed dial is pointless to me, because in order to achieve precise speeds you have to turn the dial close to where you want it, and then use the common digital scroll wheel to get it precise. But if you just set the dial to 1/3 increments then you can do this anyway, and I am guessing most people will set it there and never touch it again, using the more common and easy rear dial instead.</p>

</blockquote>

[Landrum Kelly]

<p>Unusable for what? Printed or displayed at what size?</p>

<p>Here is what I said: "It is certainly still very usable for many applications."</p>

<p>I shoot the D3s (in addition to the D800E), and I likewise rarely shoot over ISO 6400--but sometimes I do get good shots at higher ISOs.</p>

<p>Let me put it this way: I am not aware of any camera that is currently producing cleaner images at these ISOs, with the possible exception of the D3s, but for all practical purposes there is no difference between the two.</p>

<p>Being a regular low-light shooter, I am personally quite impressed.</p>

<p>--Lannie</p>

<p> </p>