Nikon Introduces Df Retro DSLR

[ShunCheung]

<p>I have said this before and will point it out again: the reason Nikon puts a 16MP sensor on the Df is that many people will use older AI/AI-S lenses on the Df, and some will even use pre-AI lenses. A 16MP will be far more forgiving to those older, mostly inferior optics. Remember Nikon has provided a list of modern lenses that can take more advantage of 36MP?</p>

<p>I have been using Nikon since 1977 and still own some equipment I bought during that era, so I know the difference between optics from the last 30+ years as well as how the controls and ergonomics have evolved.</p>

[dan_south]

<p>Put an old lens on a 36MP camera, and you can always limit your print or display size to cover up the flaws. Limit your prints to 12x18 inches or less or downsize your digital files.</p>

<p>Of course, you'll have to deal with pixel peepers, but they're not going to vanish just because the camera has a 16MP sensor.</p>

<p>The curious thing to me is that, I thought that these lower MP sensors were designed primarily for speed, i.e. frames per second. Putting the same sensor into a lower fps body negates that perceived advantage.</p>

 

[raczoliver]

<p>Dan, of course you can always limit your print size or downsize a 36MP image to lower resolution to hide your lens imperfections, but then you are not taking advantage of all the pixels, and you end up where you would have begun with a lower resolution sensor, except with much larger files to archive and make backups of.</p>

<p>Andrew, I'll have to disagree that the Df has little crossover with the strengths of a film camera. I think the single most important part of a film camera is its viewfinder. Those who have not yet switched to digital likely chose to stick with film not because of the quality of prints made from 35mm film, or their AF system, which have all been surpassed by DSLRs quite some time ago. They either like the ergonomics of their old manual focus film cameras (however perverted some here may find that), or more likely they have been unsatisfied with the viewfinders of DSLRs, which I am not surprised about, since my el cheapo Nikon FE-10 has a better viewfinder than any DSLR I have seen so far, including the D800. The Df definitely feels more like an old manual focus SLR than any other DSLR, and from what reports I have read so far, it appears that it also has the best viewfinder of all Nikon DSLRs. Why they decided to cripple it with the AF system that it has is much more incomprehensible to me than its 16MP sensor, which will probably still surpass the quality of 35mm film at most if not all ISO settings.</p>

[ShunCheung]

<p>Oliver, I am afraid that you are merely falling for more marketing BS. Besides the grip, the other issue I immediately checked on the Df was the viewfinder, and I also compared it against the D800 sitting next to it at the camera store. At least my first impression is that there is no difference significant enough to be highlighted.</p>

<p>Nikon could have put as good a viewfinder on the D4, D800, and D600/D610 as they wanted to. There is nothing inherently different on the Df so that it can have a better viewfinder. And if manual focus were indeed such a priority, Nikon definitely would have put a split-image focusing aid on the Df, at least as an option for those who need that for manual focusing. We have already discussed that on this recent thread: <a href="/nikon-camera-forum/00cCE0">http://www.photo.net/nikon-camera-forum/00cCE0</a></p>

<p>The real selling point for the Df is the retro look and controls, to those with nostalgia. That is why Nikon even provides those 1970's-style leather cases for the Df. It is all about "coolness" instead of photography and images. How much such styling is worth to certain individuals is totally up to them to decide.</p>

[bms]

<p>I appreciate Illka's and Shun's for their reviews, too, forgot to say that. </p>

<blockquote>

<p>Benjamin: A lot was discussing what we know and what we wanted to know. I think we've been remarkably information-dense, by internet standards.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I have to agree, did not mean to diss the whole conversation, some of those comments have informed my decision.</p>

<p> </p>

<blockquote>

<p>I guess I'd feel better if Nikon hadn't put one of their shortest-life (rated) shutters in the Df!</p>

</blockquote>

<p>It's been rated for 150,000 actutations AFAIK.... I don't think I have come close on any camera. I do not think many pros will make this their primary shooter.</p>

<p> </p>

<blockquote>

<p>Oliver, having 24MP on the entry-level D3200 is certainly marketing nonsense, so is having 41MP (or whatever) on some mobile phone camera, and not many people can take advantage of 36MP from the D800.<br>

Put an old lens on a 36MP camera, and you can always limit your print or display size to cover up the flaws. Limit your prints to 12x18 inches or less or downsize your digital files.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I remember many people "bitching" about 36 MP when the D800 came out. 36 MP and the focus issues (mine went back to Nikon twice) was certainly no fun. Then again, I could have just downsized and stopped pixel peaking.</p>

[bebu_lamar]

<p>When I focus manually I can't stand the split image focusing aid. So if Nikon made the fixed screen with the split image as the only choice then I don't want it. </p>

[dan_brown4]

<blockquote>

<p>I have said this before and will point it out again: the reason Nikon puts a 16MP sensor on the Df is that many people will use older AI/AI-S lenses on the Df, and some will even use pre-AI lenses.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Do you know that for a fact? I kind of doubt that is the reason for the sensor/processor specification on the Df. I think they were going for flagship professional image quality in a compact, traditional body style. Plus, they had those parts available and well proven. As a D800 owner, I welcomed this. Every image I process from my D800 is dramatically down-sampled in its final 'presentation' copy. Digital photography has now matured to where the pixel-races are pointless, except for a narrow of range of high resolution application that the vast majority of customers have no need for. For that matter, event the 12 Mpixel D700 is just fine for 'regular' users.</p>

[Landrum Kelly]

<p>I think you nailed it on all those points, Dan. I think that a lot of people who have never pushed the limits of available light ("low-light) photography" are going to be pleasantly surprised by what this kind of sensor can do.</p>

<p>Whether Nikon designed this camera for a niche market I cannot say, but I think that it will have a broader appeal. </p>

<p>--Lannie</p>

[ShunCheung]

<p>Dan, to be blunt, nothing on the Df is flagship. The shutter is rated to 150K actuations as discussed above, the frame rate is 5.5 fps, the AF module is the second-tier Multi-CAM 4800. Those are merely consumer/prosumer D600 standards. Having said that, other than the widely discussed dust/oil issue, the D600 is a fine camera, but it is a fine $2000 camera.</p>

<p>The Canon 1DX has 18MP and the D4 is 16MP because they need to process 10 fps. You want relatively fewer pixels because its adds up quickly at 10 fps, which is demanding on the electronics inside the camera as well as storage inside the camera and on the computer. Otherwise, there is nothing top-of-the-line about 16MP, which is low in today's standards. As I said, ever since the 2008 D3X and 2012 D800, Nikon has been promoting more pixels as a selling point. Both the D600 and D610 are 24MP as well as all of their current generation DX bodies: D3200, D5300 (and the earlier D5200), and D7100.</p>

<p>The Df is nowhere close to the D4's 10 fps nor has the D4's top-of-the-line AF capability for low light. Suggesting that the Df uses the D4's so called "top-of-the-line" sensor for low-light performance is merely more BS. Even the originally $1200 D7100 (now selling for around $1100) has the Multi-CAM 3500. I am sure Nikon could have easily put that on the Df.</p>

<p>I know it is going to be very difficult for those who are buying the Df to swallow, but you are paying $2750 for a camera that is essentially on par with the D600/D610 for the retro appearance and the "Made in Japan" label. That is why I fully expect lots and lots of excuses to justify the higher price tag. We have seen similar excuses before many times and sometimes it is amusing to read.</p>

<p>P.S. Feature-wise, actually I rate the Df a bit lower than the D600/D610 due to the lack of video capability (yes, I am sure plenty of people will claim that the absence of video is an "advantage") and dual memory cards, which is now standard on the D7000/D7100-grade Nikons.</p>

[Landrum Kelly]

<blockquote>

<p>Suggesting that the Df uses the D4's so called "top-of-the-line" sensor for low-light performance is merely more BS.</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>Perhaps, perhaps not, but it is not a par with that which was emanating from here in denial of the oil/dust problem of the D600.</p>

<p>--Lannie</p>

[Andrew Garrard]

I'm unconvinced that the Df's sensor is lower resolution to make older lenses look good; used at the right

aperture, some older primes are still very sharp even by AF lens standards. Measured solely by sharpness

and used below f/5.6, I've heard no criticism of the 50mm f/1.8 (all the related designs) or 55mm micro, for

example. Yes, some lenses will show that they're not as perfect as myth would suggest, but I can't believe

the Df would be deliberately crippled to compensate. I also think that it's perfectly possible for a consumer

to make good use of a D800's resolution, even if it's not always needed (though I claim 24MP is a good

compromise). I really think Nikon heard the call for a cheaper camera with the D4 sensor (even if 2/3 of a

stop may be less of an improvement than some might expect) and for a retro camera, and made them the

same camera because they can only support a certain number of SKUs rather than because the concept

was the best fit.

 

But apparently it couldn't compete with the D800 and certainly not the D4, so (like the D610) it can't have

the multicam 3500. It has a load of expensive dials and almost definitely is more niche than the other

DSLRs, so it cost a lot. Supposedly it's been in development for a while, so it has specs matching the

D600, not the D610 refresh. Just meeting one set of requests would probably give a camera that was

cheaper and less compromised - but I guess Nikon choose not to risk so as to accommodate the requests

of other customers. Yes, the result is expensive and behind in some specifications, but it's certainly

different.

 

So I think it's wrong to say the Df is one thing, and point out what it's lacking compared with what a

camera with one set of unusual design needs could be. It's trying to be everything that current DSLRs are

not, even if many would prefer SOME of what the rest of Nikon's range is already. Whether enough people

need what it offers despite what it doesn't remains to be seen. If what's been bothering you about current

cameras is enough of a problem, maybe this is your camera - like voting for a specialist political party

founded on one issue. I doubt that positioning will get Nikon as many upgrades as they'd like, but maybe it

will get Nikon some of the film camera stalwarts after all. I just don't know how many of them there are

any more - did any of the pros that Nikon wheeled out at the launch still shoot film?

[dan_brown4]

<p>Here is an audio recording of the D800, Df, F100, Leice IIf, D800 Quiet, Df Quiet.</p>

<p>Recorded with manual audio level control using a pair of Audio Technica AT4021 cardioid studio condenser microphones (professional quality) arranged as an X-Y pair at 90º and located 0.5 meters in front of the cameras, all cameras set for 1/125 second at f8, and recorded on a Marantz PMD660 digital recorder in 44.1k MP3 format with no audio processing. File is less than 400kbytes.</p>

<p><a title="External link" href="http://www.dlaab.com/audio/Shutter.MP3" rel="nofollow external">http://www.dlaab.com/audio/Shutter.MP3</a></p>

 

[bebu_lamar]

<p>My guess and certainly a guess that Nikon picked the 16MP sensor for the Df because they wanted to attract people like me who will be buying a DSLR for the first time coming from film. Coming from film the most attractive aspect of digital is their capability to go really high ISO and the sensor in the Df is best in this respect. Coming from film even very high resolution film like Ektar or Kodachrome doesn't have resolution better than 16MP any way (likely less and I don't want to start a big discussion about this). </p>

[Andrew Garrard]

Thanks, Dan - interesting. I've heard the criticism that the D800 "quiet mode" isn't (and experienced it

myself - despite coming from a D700 with no quiet mode at all). I've read that the D600's quiet mode is

quieter - I assume it's the same shutter mechanism, approximately. Having used a Rolleiflex, I'm again

surprised how loud the old Leicas are (I've used an M3 before, so this just reminds me). I do think a quieter

shutter is a good feature - other than the life rating, I'm actually not going to say anything bad about the

choice of shutter.

[Andrew Garrard]

BeBu: I guess there are two ways to look at it, as a way to attract film shooters: either give the camera the

sensor that's strongest where film is weakest (as you say, the D4's high-ISO sensor may be this) or think

that film shooters will have given up on high ISO long ago, and that any remaining will be better suited by a

sensor with other strengths. I've no idea which thought process is more valid.

 

I see we're past 600 posts, now. I hope this means I actually get to play with one soon.

[bebu_lamar]

<p>Talking about go play with one, anyone knows which dealer in the Dallas, TX area has the Df on display? I moved from Chicago to Dallas a couple of years ago so I don't know. </p>

[donbright]

<p>So the Df is the quietest on Q mode, the Leica within that range but has a shorter duration. The D800 and F100 being the loudest.</p>

[Andrew Garrard]

Don: I guess. Canon had an edge over the D800 with the 5DIII's silent shutter modes, and it's not until the

D600 shutter that Nikon responded. I'd be interested to hear the D610 and D4 alongside the others.

Though if I was really after a quiet shutter, I'd look to Fuji (or a 1-series) anyway.

 

A poke around suggests at least one retailer offering the Df in the UK for under £2000 (including without

the lens), where the main retailers are still suggesting pre-orders nearer £2750 - I guess it's a US import, or

just dodgy. I've not looked very hard yet, though.

 

A well-known rumour site links some interviews with the Df's designer. The claim is that the choice of

16MP was because the D3's 12MP wasn't quite enough for magazine work. That makes sense for the D4;

I'm not so sure about the Df. However, Google really struggles with the translation - I'm sure a native

speaker could get some more details.

[bebu_lamar]

<p>Went out this afternoon in search of the Df but found none. The salesman recommend the D610 or D800 so I took a look at them. The D800 is much nicer than the D610 in term of build quality. If the Df viewfinder is the same as the D800 I am ok with that. I can manual focus the 24mm lens quite easily and can see the entire screen with my glasses on. The ergonomic (which Shun said I know nothing about) of the the D800 is poor in my opinion. I felt like I had to grip hard otherwise the camera would fall out of my hand. I still think all the grips in modern SLR due to the fact that they need room to accomodate their battery and motors rather than user ergonomic. With an old SLR I only hold the camera with my left hand while the right hand only hold the camera loosely and thus it's free to adjust the shutter speed, shutter lock, stop down button etc... </p>

[donbright]

<p>There's a point where shutter noise becomes subjective, or any noise emitted by a camera becomes subjective, simply as to who's ear is where, and where is. I went through this with my Contax G2. Buzzes here and there over the noise that the G2 makes while focusing. True, it does that, but who hears it? The victim in front of the camera can't, and if its not bothering them, then let it fly. Of course in environments, closed rooms where no ones talking, my F3 with the MD-4 attached would not be a good idea, but we're talking modern camera's here, and we have come a long way. Note that on television during a Presidential news conference, the noise of mirrors hitting dampers from modern DSLRs still exists, and I wonder if any mirrored camera will ever overcome the intrusion. So it seems as the thread draws on and we continue to dissect the Df, the Df continues to score in the delight of some, and shegrin of others.</p>

[donbright]

<p>BeBu,<br>

I agree that the need to fill the palm with as much plastic as it will hold, has nothing to do with Photography.</p>

[Andrew Garrard]

BeBu: Now I'm intrigued by your grip, and what it means for controls like the Df's. I support the weight of a

camera (or lens) in my left hand and steer the camera with the right. With a lightish lens, the right hand has

good control - needed so I can hop between a zoom and focus ring with the left. Except with a big lens, I

can hang the camera from my fingers securely with my D800's grip even if I'm not squeezing to my palm.

 

The concept of holding (as opposed to supporting) the camera in the left hand is alien to me, and explains

why I don't "get" moving the hand around to change dials. I'm not saying your grip is "wrong", but it does

sound different to what I do. Actually, I can imagine such a left-handed grip from the way I use my Bessa

with a short lens, but not with a bigger lens.

 

I suspect any DSLR may cause trouble here. Almost all - I believe including the Df - protrude much less on

the non-grip side of the lens mount than most film cameras because you don't need to fit a film roll in

there. I can imagine this leaves less body to grip, left-handed.

 

Am I understanding your grip correctly? Maybe someone could make a prosthetic grip. (Actually, an L-

plate might be enough.)

[dan_south]

The D800 feels perfectly comfortable in my hands. Everyone is different.

[raczoliver]

Maybe I have fallen prey to marketing BS, I don't know. The thing with marketing

BS is, it can be pretty effective unfortunately when done by skilled BSers :-)

Several people said in the previous Df thread that although they hated to admit,

some of the marketing strategies Nikon employed with the Df did work. We all like

to think we're immune to them, but reality is often otherwise. However, I have

never actually read from Nikon themselves that the Df's viewfinder was special.

This all came from forum members here and elsewhere.

 

 

BeBu, I don't know how you checked manual focusing with the D800, but if only by

looking through the viewfinder,  it may be misleading. With the D700, manual

focus is a hit or miss for me,  as often the subject appears to be perfectly in focus

through the viewfinder, but reviewing the picture on the LCD reveals errors, quite

huge at times. I imagine with its 36 megapixels,  the D800 would be even harder

to focus, even if the viewfinder is somewhat better on it. The focus confirmation

dot comes on for a wide range and is not nearly accurate enough for manual

focus confirmation. Admittedly,  I may be doing something wrong. 

[ShunCheung]

<blockquote>

<p>However, I have never actually read from Nikon themselves that the Df's viewfinder was special. This all came from forum members here and elsewhere.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Oliver, at least in the US, the Df was not available in camera stores until yesterday. However, we have been reading for a week or two that the Df's viewfinder is far superior to the likes of the D800. Clearly, the info is coming from people with connection to Nikon and therefore had advanced access to the Df. Admittedly, I only had a few minutes with the Df at a camera store yesterday, but so far I find none of that is true. Hopefully I'll have access to a Df to test it thoroughly.</p>

<p>As far as I am concerned, the "electronic viewfinder" focus confirmation dot is next to useless. It is indeed on for a wide range so that you have no idea where the precise focus is. 10 years ago I was using a Contax 645 and since they have a few manual-focus macro lenses, I had no choice but to get a split-image focusing screen. Clearly not everybody likes that option, but as I pointed out on the other thread, the fact that KatzEye is around only to sell aftermarket focusing screens, there is clearly a fairly large customer base for split-image screens. While I understand such screens is going to affect AF point selection and matrix metering on modern cameras, I wish at least such an option were available to the Df, where Nikon emphases compatibility with manual-focus lenses.</p>

<p>Of couse, with DSLRs, there is now the option to use live view to manual focus. In such case the optical viewfinder is not even in the picture.</p>

<p>Andrew, we are in December, 2013 already. The D4 and D800 were introduced in January and February, 2012. So it is almost 2 full years since their debut. Sales of those "old" models has to be tapering off. I can't imagine that Nikon is still concerned about any new model affecting sales for such "old" models.</p>