Nikon Introduces Df Retro DSLR

[dan_brown4]

I shot with the Df quite a bit today. The finder is very nice, better than the D800 because it is easier to see, and appears

crisper.

 

But...

 

I tried to shoot a 24/2.8 Ai-S and it was anything but easy to focus. To be fair, I was in the George W. Bush presidential

library, which has poor photographic lighting for sure. And I missed focus a lot. i needed f5.6 to get some depth of field.

Thank you Nikon, but I'll stick with AF lenses.

[Andrew Garrard]

<p>Re. the focus confirmation dot, if it helps, there are reports that the leniency of the dot is greater in manual focus mode than in AF mode (that is, the dot will report you are "in focus" with a manual focus lens while the AF system would report that it is <i>not</i> in focus). I'm unsure whether manual override of an AF-S lens counts as "manual" or "autofocus" from this perspective, but allegedly you'll get better accuracy in AF mode with focus set to AF-On only (not the shutter) and then using manual focus than you would in pure manual focus mode. This report from the suggestions about fine tuning. Of course, you'll still be only as accurate as the AF system, but at least you may be as accurate as the AF system can be rather than the watered-down version. Life's a bit harder if you have a genuine manual focus lens, unless you chip it. I've not experimented with this myself.<br />

<br />

Shun: I didn't say Nikon's logic made sense! You'd hope that the D610 would be new enough not to steal too many D800 sales either (if even the D600 had that risk), yet they didn't seem to take the opportunity to fix the number one complaint with the D600, and something that would make it a serious (budget) competitor to the 5D3 rather than the 6D, and put a MultiCAM3500 in that. If reports are true that the Df has been in development for a long time, maybe the decision on the AF system was made a while ago - or maybe they really felt the need to economize somewhere in a camera that's already priced very high (especially in the UK). I am of course speculating, but I'm open to other suggestions as to why Nikon put less-than-high-end specifications in a camera that already cost this much - it ought to have been worth the relative premium. (In contrast, I'm surprised the D600 was specced as well as it was - people called for a really cut down body with an FX sensor, and I predicted that people would complain about an expensive camera whose other components don't keep up. That's true to an extent, and there's been a lot of "buy a D7100 instead", but the D600 certainly wasn't completely cut down. The 6D is far more crippled with respect to the 5D3, for example.)<br />

<br />

The other, cynical, argument comes from an old story: Two friends join the army. As new recruits, they go to fitness assessment. "Drop and do as many press-ups as you can", they're told. The first friend does a hundred press-ups. The second does one, then collapses. "Aren't you ashamed?" says the first. "Not really," says the second, "Tomorrow I'll do two, and I'll have improved 100%. What will you do?"<br />

<br />

In other words, if Nikon ship these cameras now, then offer a D650 and (er...) Dg with a MultiCAM3500, and a D7200 or D7100h with a bigger buffer (probably "and wifi"), they'll get a lot of happy customers, many of whom will upgrade, for relatively little engineering effort. Why get customers to pay once when you can get them to pay twice?<br />

<br />

But, as I said, that's very cynical. I prefer to think that someone is protecting D800 and D4 sales, for better or worse. (I have seen a couple of offers on the D4, so there's the tiniest of chances that a D5 is coming... but it may just be that someone is really expecting the Df to do a little poaching.)</p>

[ilkka_nissila]

<p>The main point of the Katz Eye screens, and viewfinders designed for manual focus is not the focusing aids, but the way the screen and viewfinder renders out of focus areas and how clearly it shows which area is in focus at wide apertures (such as f/1.4, f/1.2). I saw a comparison between focusing screens some time ago posted online, it was photographed through the ocular and showed the massive increase in out of focus blur that the Katz eye screen showed relative to the standard screen with a fast lens, but I can't find the post now. I never used the split image for manual focus when I had it (on F3HP, D70, D200, and D700); it is not really suited for focusing on faces in my opinion; while it may work well for architecture and such subjects. Sports photographers used to use microprism discs for manual focus. The idea that the camera has influence on which part of the image I should focus on is unacceptable to me and the only truly non-discriminating method of focusing using the viewfinder is the matte area. It does take a lot of practice to focus manually and with most modern DSLRs it is impossible to do that at wide apertures without live view. Mirrorless cameras can have some focus aids i.e. zoomed image in EVF, or "focus peaking" but the latter on my X100s I find to be imprecise at best, so go figure; maybe it is better implemented in some other cameras.</p>

<p>Manual focus is difficult in low light with a slow lens like f/2.8, for sure that is true. But it is also a situation where autofocus gets erratic. Maybe AF works better, maybe manual focus, it depends on the viewfinder, focusing screen, the individual photographer's training and eyesight, the subject as well as lighting conditions. What I find to work well in documentary event photography indoors is to use autofocus (on AF-C) but to evaluate constantly where the focus is and then time exposures when the subject is in focus. For this, a good viewfinder is essential. I also like to use manual focus to focus on areas of the frame that are outside of the AF point array. With my F5, I can focus f/2 Zeiss primes very precisely (evaluated this on ATP1 which is an extremely fine grained slow film) but I cannot do that e.g. on D3 (even though the resolution of the camera is far lower than that film).</p>

<p>With regards to the Df's improved manual focusability, the people who are reporting this seem to be mostly experienced day-to-day manual focus users with very fast manual focus lenses such as the original Noct f/1.2 and similar. I would not be surprised if slow lenses such as f/2.8, f/4 are not easier to focus with the Df than a viewfinder that is designed to project the brightest possible image on slow lenses (such as the D800). Maybe they are, may be not. It is clearly not a camera meant for everybody, but those who like it, really seem to love it. I find it very strange how people who are not day-to-day manual focusers feel such an urge to comment on the Df. It's like I were to engage hotly in a debate about techniques used in underwater photography which I have absolutely zero experience in. People seem to want talk about a lot of stuff irrespective of whether it concerns them or whether they actually know anything about it, which I find very strange. Why don't people much rather talk about a subject that interests them, instead of something that is clearly meant for a different group of people? </p>

[Andrew Garrard]

<p>Ilkka: I'm allowed to be interested in things that I don't do a lot. I might learn something! (But mostly I'm sticking to discussing the bits of the camera that are more familiar to me. I do use manual focus on my Pentax 645 and on a Rolleiflex, when I borrow one, but comparing those screens to that of a 35mm camera needs more factors to take into account than I can be bothered to, fun though I find DX vs FX format discussions. I'll have to find a Df and make up my own mind.)</p>

[ShunCheung]

<p>Ilkka, for your information, I bought my first SLR, a Minolta SRT-101, with a 50mm/f1.4 kit lens way back in 1972, followed by more Minoltas, Nikon FT3, FE, and then FE2. It wasn't until 1989/1990 before I started switching to AF. So I have close to two decades of experience with manual focus only simply because AF wasn't available back then. Following that, I continue to use manual focus in some occasions. In particular, AF was primitive in those early days.</p>

<p>The problem with the Df is that while we know Nikon is putting its 2nd-tier components in it: AF system, shutter ..., to a degree that its features are slightly below the D600/D610, Nikon has also gone out of its way to make sure that it is compatible with pre-AI lenses without any AI conversion.</p>

<p>I bought my first Nikon in 1977, the year they introduced AI. In other words, the pre-AI era was from 1959 to 1977 (18 years), which ended 36 years ago. Remember I had an FE2, introduced in 1983, 6 years after the pre-AI era had ended. Even on the FE2, Nikon no longer lets you flip up the aperture follower tab to accomodate pre-AI lenses. Instead, owners of pre-AI lenses were expected to get them AI convered (at a very modest cost) because AI is far more convenient to use.</p>

<p>That is why I find it strange that Nikon is once again putting the flippable aperture follower tab on the Df to accomodate (unconverted) pre-AI lenses that are all over 36 years old by now. But since the Df is a post-AI body, once you flip up the follower tab, there is no longer coupling between the Df's meter and the lens' aperture, making it very inconvenient to use. Additionally, Nikon has developed new software so that one can enter pre-AI lenses separately, in addition to AI/AI-S lenses, into the Df's database. Meanwhile, the Df still lacks manual-focusing aids.</p>

<p>So while Nikon is skimping in some IMO critical areas such as the AF system on the Df, they are also going out of their way to strengthen areas that very very few people would need, as clearly there has been ample opportunities in the last 36 years for people to convert any useful pre-AI lenses. To me, that is merely a waste of resources.</p>

<p>The Df is fairly expensive for a reason. The fusion of old and new means inclusion of rarely needed capabilities, duplicated controls, e.g. while there is a knob to control shutter speed, it can only make full-stop increments. If you want 1/3-stop adjustments, you once again need to go to the command dial.</p>

<p>Now that I have seen the Df in person, even only for a short period of time, I went back to read the hands-on preview on DPReview: <a href="http://www.dpreview.com/previews/nikon-df/6">http://www.dpreview.com/previews/nikon-df/6</a><br />And I am largely in agreement with them. People should buy the Df because they like its retro style. There are plenty of people who are willing to spend thousands on fashion, many thousands on jewery. As long as you can afford it, there is nothing wrong being one of them, and most likely you'll love the Df.</p>

<p>As a practical DSLR, IMO there are plenty of more cost-effective choices other than the Df.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>In other words, if Nikon ship these cameras now, then offer a D650 and (er...) Dg with a MultiCAM3500, and a D7200 or D7100h with a bigger buffer (probably "and wifi"), they'll get a lot of happy customers, many of whom will upgrade, for relatively little engineering effort. Why get customers to pay once when you can get them to pay twice?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Andrew, such theory are nothing but merely theory. When there is competition, if a company deliberately withholds capabilities/features on their products, they will compare unfavorably against the competition and their customers will simply walk. Forget about selling similar items twice; instead of selling one product, you end up selling none and it won't be long before you go out of business.</p>

[bebu_lamar]

<p>Dan I see you are in the DFW area. Do you know a dealer that has a Df for me to check out?</p>

[Brian1664876441]

Bought mine on Saturday from a local camera shop, no problem manually focusing a Nikkor 55/1.2 on it. I put B or E screens into most of my Nikons that can take them. I've shot RF;s mostly for the last 15 years, Nikon and Leica. I can use my 1940s and 1950s Nikkors on the Leica M9 and M Monochrom, it's nice to be able to use some of my favorite Nikkors on a digital camera.

 

This is the first new Nikon SLR that I've bought in 12 years.

[dan_brown4]

<p>BeBu, Competitive Cameras is your best bet, not sure about whether it's in stock or not.</p>

[Andrew Garrard]

<p>Given the choice, I'd like to get the AI follower ring on my D800 converted to have a flip-up tab. I don't own any pre-AI lenses, and there are only a few that particularly interest me, but I can see the merits in "F mount will work no matter what" if a particular pre-AI lens crossed my path. I do think it a bit odd that Nikon didn't include the permanent mirror lock-up from the F5 (but not F6) for intrusive fish-eyes - especially since these would actually be useful with live view - but maybe that would actually have involved an engineering effort in the shutter mechanism - the rest of the Df feels like most of the critical parts are recycled. (This is a good thing, and why I felt confident in buying a D700 at launch.) Offering this feature <i>only</i> on the Df is a bit unfortunate, but at least it's offered somewhere. It's obscure, but I approve of that feature. But I also think it involved almost no work to add - a flippy tab and some menu options. If there was an illuminated optical sensor on the bottom of the prism that read the selected aperture via OCR, <i>then</i> I'd be impressed.<br />

<br />

Apologies if I caused any confusion with the "deliberate crippling conspiracy theory". I was just throwing out the only alternative I could think of to the theory that Nikon are down-speccing their systems so as to protect the D800 and D4. I'm happy to hear a better explanation for the Df's (and D610's) specs - I find my conspiracy theory highly unlikely.<br />

<br />

Brian: I'm glad you've found a system you're happy with (and amused, from my earlier comments, that we have a Monochrom shooter here). Welcome to the Nikon DSLR age! (What did you buy 12 years ago, out of interest?)</p>

[ilkka_nissila]

<p>In order to put some clarity into the manual focus situation, I repeated the manual focus operation ten times on a textured subject at approximately 40cm distance from the camera, using two cameras (my own D800, store's Df) and two lenses (35/1.4 AF-S (an autofocus lens) and 50/2 Makro Planar (a manual focus lens)). The textured subject was a magazine cover where I could see the print dot and determine the point of best focus that occurred in the final images. I determined the position and measured the error from my intended focus point. The whole procedure was done hand-held to simulate a realistic use situation; I know lower standard deviations couldbe obtained by making the tests on a tripod but I just wanted to get a feel for the situation. If I buy a Df camera I will be able to make a more conclusive study. The exposure was set to ISO 1600, f/2, 1/1250s for the 50mm lens, and ISO 800, f/1.4, 1/1250s for the 35mm lens. I used fast shutter speeds to avoid camera shake from contributing to the results.</p>

<p>Incidentally today the eyepoint did not bother me; I guess I was able to position my face in a better angle relative to the viewfinder compared to my previous testing of the Df on Friday. I now find the viewfinder satisfactory to use from one eyeglass wearer's point of view (mine!) but I still think a greater eyepoint would make the process of viewing the image easier especially when working at awkward angles with the camera on tripod.</p>

<p>OK. To the point; the mean of the focus error of the D800+35/1.4 was 0.8 units, with standard deviation 0.4 units. The mean of the focus error of the Df+35/1.4 was -0.4 units with standard deviation 0.3 units. So with the autofocus lens, I was able to achieve an average error of about one half with the Df compared to the D800.</p>

<p>With the D800+50mm f/2, the mean focus error was 0.4 units with standard deviation of 0.5 units. The mean focus error of the Df + 50/2 was 0.01 units with a standard deviation of 0.06 units.</p>

<p>Thus for what is worth it would seem that using an autofocus lens is bad for manual focus (hardly a surprise!) and combining the Df camera with a high quality manual focus lens reduced the focus errors considerably. Using the D800 with the manual focus lens would seem to reduce focus errors but the final accuracy nor reproducibility of focus weren't as good as with the combination of Df and manual focus lens.</p>

<p>I will not make a claim as to the statistical generalizibility of this test; it was just one experiment (with N = 10) by me; given adequate time and possible ownership of the Df in the future I may be able to make more conclusive test. In this case it seemed that the D800 camera's focusing screen may have been calibrated poorly and it has a slight tendency for backfocus. By recalibrating the screen it is possible that the results with the D800 would improve, but probably not to the level of the Df.</p>

<p>From my own needs, the test was sufficiently convincing that I will probably be purchasing a Df in the future. However, I urge people to do your own testing with your eyes and your technique. While I got a convincing result it may not be what others experience. In general I find manual focus much harder to do at greater distances than the relatively short distances exhibited in my test. I just did it at a short distance because my manual focus lens happened to be a macro lens so I figured focusing it in the semi-close-up range would be easier than at long distances. For long distance manual focus photography, a "regular" manual focus lens would be better suited but unfortunately most of the focus lenses that I currently own are some kind of macro types.</p>

[Andrew Garrard]

<p>Thanks, Ilkka. Good experimental results. (I assume your "units" weren't anything affected by resolution, but no reason they should be.) I'm sure it depends on lens and the calibration of the cameras, too, but the apparent ease of use difference is interesting. I'd like to see a full analysis of the reason for it, and see if there's an explanation for Shun's findings.<br />

<br />

My memory is iffy but I think, combined with the "Pure" thread before the launch, we're now past a thousand posts... [Edit: Having worked out where to see the number of posts in the previous thread... yup, past a kilopost.]</p>

[Albins images]

As I wrote on this forum probably more than once in the

last year, I have ample experience with MF on the D300

using 105/2.8 and 400/3.5. Hard work!

I was hoping to experience the F4 and F801 days with the

D800. . Now I have my hopes on the Df..

[ilkka_nissila]

<p>The D800 and D4 Multi-CAM 3500 autofocus systems may require components that are heavier or require more space inside the camera than the Multi-CAM 4800 used in the Df, and I think it's possible their higher performance requires more light to be diverted through the main mirror without ever reaching the viewfinder, thus the use of Multi-CAM 3500 may be bad for viewfinder image quality / brightness and also for manual focus with the viewfinder if my theory is correct (it might not be, but surely the area affected by the semitransparency of the mirror is likely to be larger in the Multi-CAM 3500 cameras). Quite often these decisions have an engineering basis and are not deliberate attempts to make less expensive cameras less powerful (though that is also a possibility). Also I believ the main reason the AF motor in the body is left out of the least expensive cameras is to make the camera body more compact, lighter weight, and less expensive. I am sure Nikon would have been happy to sell screwdriver lenses to these customers if it hadn't compromised other aims of the cameras.</p>

<p>For me I will be happy to own a separate autofocus-preferred Multi CAM 3500 camera, and another that is optimized for manual focus. This is because for some things, manual focus is better and for other things autofocus is better, and some of the highest quality lenses available today for the F mount are manual focus (e.g. Zeiss 55mm Otus which I do not have) thus it is nice to have a manual focus optimized camera body. I would still like to see interchangeable focusing screens to provide more options for manual focus, but for some reason Nikon no longer offers them.</p>

<p>Shun, I don't doubt your manual focus experience but since you have many times stated that you prefer AF today and preferred focus aids such as the split image when you used manual focus cameras, these facts suggest that your eyes are probably not suited for manual focus on the ground glass as well as the eyes of those of us who find the matte surface of the focusing screen the preferred method of focusing. And there are many of us who do. As to considering the Df a waste of resources, the thing is that likely Nikon will sell this year more Df cameras (in number of units sold) than they have sold fast superteles during the whole autofocus era. Thus I could make the argument that I find fast superteles unimportant niche items that few people need or can afford and Nikon should stop producing them immediately and devote more resources to products that actually sell in numbers, such as the Df camera. (I'm not actually arguing for dropping the superteles, but think it's an argument of no lesser quality as the one that some here present against the Df.) Many photographers will purchase the Df for reasons that have nothing to do with retro styling. I will <em>put up</em> with the retro controls (regarding which I have no opinion for or against) because the camera has a crucial feature for my photography that no other currently produced Nikon FX DSLR has. And the reason the Df is such a hotly debated topic is because a huge number of people are interested in it and in particular, for many people the decisive aspect is how it is for manual focus of fast lenses. There have been conflicting messages about this because a lot of people are not used to manual focus using the viewfinder matte surface and don't either have the eye required or the practice to do it well, or simply tried out the camera for too short a time to notice what the camera all about. It's about quiet shutter (which is why they didn't put the D800 shutter in it, this one is specifically designed to be quiet), excellent manual controls, lens compatibility and an excellent viewfinder. It is also very compact for an FX DSLR and incredibly lightweight considering the viewfinder it hosts. It is not a camera for everyone but the people who do like it seem to be ecstatic with it. Hardly a bad use of resources for Nikon if it makes many people happy. </p>

<p>Similarly I purchased the Fuji X100s because of its optical viewfinder and central chutter which is extremely quiet which makes the camera suitable for e.g. photography of concerts where a DSLR may be too noisy. The Df I will likely use for tele shots and the X100s for wide angle to minimize the noise I create. These cameras are both "retro" styled but it is because of their functionality that most photographers buy them, not stupid reasons such as what they look like. Both the X100s and Df have their own disadvantages (e.g. it is difficult for me to post-process X100s images to look like Nikon DSLR images but I continue to use it because I can use it where the use of other cameras would lead to me receiving negative feedback for making noise when the music is relatively quiet) but they nevertheless are strong at what they do, it can be argued that they're stronger than other cameras in the applications where their features make them shine.</p>

[simon_crofts]

<p>I haven't tried the DF yet, but on the face of it, if it is all that it promises to be, I'll very likely buy one.</p>

<p>I think it's great that Nikon is doing something at last to address the ergonomics of digital cameras, which has been little short of woeful. After several hundred thousand frames on my D700's and D2x's, I still find the interface absolutely maddening on what are otherwise superb cameras (and Nikon seems to me better than Canon in this respect). I understand why it wasn't a priority before, the focus was on producing the latest digital sensor in as economic and unified (therefore efficient to produce) a package as possible, but the ergonomics of the digital cameras to date has been not good as a user experience from a control/picture taking perspective.</p>

<p>I don't care about whether the camera looks retro or not particularly, what I want is a lean mean picture taking machine. Provided Nikon haven't screwed up the placement of the controls, the DF seems to be moving in that direction. I can't wait to try one and see if it lives up to the promise.</p>

[Andrew Garrard]

<p>Ilkka: Good theory about the space and brightness requirements of the MultiCAM 3500. I've no idea whether it's true, but good theory. :-)<br />

<br />

Superteles have a halo effect - people see big lenses at public events and want a "professional camera" from the same brand. Though as an owner of two of the cheaper big boys, I'm very grateful that they're made. I'm not sure that the Df will have such a halo effect, but I guess it's got some publicity.<br />

<br />

Simon: I find the ergonomics of the F5 and derived digital cameras to be extremely good, in general (I have my share of improvement requests, but none are addressed by the Df). As with my question about BeBu's grip, I'd be interested to know what bothers you about the D700's interface - not to tell you "you're doing it wrong", but to learn how others handle their cameras. I really don't think Nikon have been ignoring the ergonomics, but clearly they work better for some people than others - there are as many on this thread who see the controls on the Df as an archaic throwback to worse usability, as find them appealing. I'm sure we'd all learn something if we saw how everyone else shot.</p>

[simon_crofts]

<p>Hi Andrew, after abt 6 years and 400,000+ frames on the D700 and D2x, my fingers are beginning to adapt to the interface, and I've spent a long time trying to customise it in a way that actually works, but I'm still not entirely there.</p>

<p>I'll try to summarise why I think the ergonomics of the f5 derivatives is awful:<br>

I'm having to use 3 fingers of one hand to do nearly all the important camera functions: focussing, aperture, shutter speed, shutter release, exposure compensation. There are mostly the same fingers also to do other key functions such as changing mode (from eg. aperture priority to manual), flash compensation etc.. They are also the same fingers that change ISO and colour balance. The scope for finger confusion is enormous. I've spent a lot of time trying to customise the command dials so that they work in a logical way, but I can't iron out serious defects no matter how hard I try.</p>

<p>What's worse is that the three fingers that have to do everything are also the same fingers I have to operate my mouse with, which means they never get to rest. They are hurting as I type this.</p>

<p>I'm speaking from memory here, as I don't have my camera in front of me at the moment to double check - my fingers more or less know their way around most of the eccentricities by now. But for example, at the moment, in aperture mode the rear control dial controls exposure compensation ie. shutter speed. When I switch to manual, it switches to controlling aperture and the front control dial controls shutter speed instead of the back one. </p>

<p>Meanwhile, my left hand is doing nothing except hold the camera. In a more traditional set up, there would be a very simple separation between left hand which would focus (at least in manual focus lenses) and change aperture. Right hand would change shutter speed (and exposure compensation, which is pretty much the same thing in aperture priority) and take the picture. It was a beautifully logical system, and one could switch from camera to camera with barely any issues.</p>

<p>Now, if I have to switch to another Nikon that has been programmed slightly differently, I am screwed. </p>

<p>By contrast, using my Fuji X100 is much more seamless - and I can switch from one camera to another without thinking about it. Having said that, the Fuji has a much worse menu system than the Nikon's but once set up the ergonomics are excellent. I can switch from aperture priority to fully programmable or manual intuitively without having to think about it.</p>

<p>Leaving aside the Fuji's menu system, I was pretty much able to pick it up and use it without reading the manual, fluidly, intuitively. The Nikon's after several hundred thousand frames and many years of using them day in and day out, they still drive me bananas.</p>

<p>A camera with sound ergonomics will be comfortable, lightweight, intuitive. And there will be clearly separated controls for the key camera functions: (1) Aperture (2) focussing (3) shutter speed. And they will be consistent from camera to camera - allowing me to switch brands or cameras with barely a glance.</p>

<p>I'm also having to spend an awful lot of time trying to explain the basics of photography to people who have grown up with these digital cameras and are so totally confused that they can't understand the basics of what a camera does. Things that are blindingly obvious to anyone who has worked with a camera with well designed controls and ergonomics have been turned into unfathomable rocket science for the poor student who starts out on your typical DSLR.</p>

 

[dan_south]

I have used Nikons for years. I rarely read more than a few pages of the manual, even for operations such as micro fine

tuning of lenses. Okay, I'll admit that I needed to fiddle around with the settings for fifteen minutes in order to figure out

that feature. But I did, and from that point forward it seemed perfectly intuitive.

 

A few years ago, I picked up me first Canon body. That was equally easy to learn, and I've used two other models since.

 

I find compact cameras to be confusing with their limited options and obscure menus. But give me any brand of DSLR,

and I'll be fully at home with it by the second day.

 

I don't mean to discount those who struggle to learn their camera interfaces. I'm certain that the pain that you feel is very

real. I just don't agree that it's the camera's fault. It probably has more to do with the way that you expect to process

information.

 

If you want to checkout a difficult to use interface, pick up a violin. Or a golf club. Or a pipe organ. A DSLR just isn't that

difficult to use.

[Ian Taylor]

<p>Played with one yesterday. Great camera. The high ISO capability is amazing, the files at ISO6400 in low light are incredible.</p>

[Brian1664876441]

Andrew- 12 years ago (about) I bought a pair of D1x's when they first came out with every Micro-Nikkor that was available at the time, the 60/2.8, 105/2.8, 200/4, and 70~180 Micro-Nikkor-Zoom. That was for work. The DF is for home.

 

20 years ago- a Kodak DCS200ir- the first Digital IR made by Kodak, $12,400 for 1.6MPixels. Basically, an N8008s with a digital back using an integral 80MByte SCSI drive,

 

The DF was cheap by comparison.

[simon_crofts]

<p>Dan, I think the D700's etc. can be very intuitive if you don't mind taking the camera out of the box and pressing the button to take pictures while letting the camera take care of everything. But if you want to take control and get the camera to behave in a reasonably acceptable way you have to spend a lot of time customising the settings. You don't necessarily need to read the manual, but you need to spend hours - days, or even weeks in the menus, experimenting, trying to get things behaving in a reasonably logical way. So that dials turn consistently in the same direction when you switch from mode to mode (the camera still won't let me achieve that particular nirvana - in Manual mode no matter how I arrange the settings I have to increase the aperture by turning the dial in the opposite direction from when I'm in Aperture priority). It's critical to decouple the autofocus from the autoexposure (that's a crazy default setting - why would I always want to focus on the thing I meter the exposure off, am I supposed only to focus on mid-grey objects?) and so on. All that takes a lot of time, and I don't think that 'intuitive' is a word that can be used here.</p>

<p>The saving grace is that Canons seem to be even less ergonomic than Nikon, from my limited experience with them.</p>

<p>So I for one can't wait to play with this DF and see whether it has re-introduced some sanity, it looks very promising!</p>

<p>Sorry to rant, I just need to get several years of frustration of working around the limitations of bad design off my chest. I do love my D700's - but for the quality of pictures it's capable of taking, once you've got over the crazy interface. </p>

[dan_brown4]

<p>Here's a graph of sensor noise performance; D4 vs. Df:</p>

<p><a href="http://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/52612104">http://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/52612104</a></p>

[studio460]

<p><strong>No one-click 100% zoom feature on Nikon D<em>f</em>?</strong></p>

<p>Apologies if this has already been revealed and discussed, but I just read the relevant sections of the Nikon D<em>f</em> user manual PDF. Unfortunately, there apparently is <strong><em>no</em></strong> one-click, 100% zoom feature on playback (please correct me if I'm wrong).</p>

[bms]

<p>So I got the Df today and so far only used it briefly.</p>

<p>Here are my first impression:<br /> 1) it is very light! The first feeling was actually one of disappointment. It does not "feel" like a solid Pro body. More like a pro-sumer DX camera. I mounted my old 28 mm f2 Ai-S and the weight pretty much doubled. I think this is an illusion though, it overall solidly built , as far as I can tell.<br /> 2) The disappointment makes room for more affection when you shoot it. Though Shun is right, the grip is small-ish. Holding in one handed is not that comfortable.<br /> 3) Preliminary review of some random images at ISO 6400 confirms darn good low light performance - I don't have the D800 anymore for comparison, but I downloaded the JPGs from dpreview and down-sampled the D800 to the Df size. The Df seems to have a slight edge, though probably insignificant in practice.<br /> 4) Manual focus using the "dot" seems easy to do even in low light (tried 28, 50 and 105 mm). I cannot comment on the viewfinder in comparison with other FX cameras... it certainly is nice, though.<br /> 5) The power button causes ambivalence - it takes effort to switch it on and off, which can be good or bad. Similarly, the mechanism to open the battery compartment requires turning a little lever, which makes it more secure AND cumbersome.<br /> 6) The quiet mode is... quiet. On par or quieter with the D7000 (but lower in frequency)<br /> 7) I never have used the new 50 f1.8 G, but the 'special edition' certainly is no pro lens. The manual focus ring seems dampened, certainly more than the 85 mm f1.4 AF-S (my only other AF-S prime).<br /> <br />After some initial apprehension.... this is a camera you like or you don't. For me it is a like so far, but it has some quirks. It certainly is different as far as full frame cameras go. I will certainly test it more.</p>

<p>I leave you with a really random "test shots" from my house.... all shot with Df, 28mm f2.8 at f2.8, ISO 6400, hand held; NOT claiming any validity or reproducibility (these are RAW images processed in camera, so really they are JPGs, with some noise reduction applied)</p>

<p><img src="http://d6d2h4gfvy8t8.cloudfront.net/17617975-md.jpg" alt="" width="680" height="452" /></p>

<p><img src="http://d6d2h4gfvy8t8.cloudfront.net/17617976-lg.jpg" alt="" width="600" height="399" /></p>

<p>100% crop<br /> <img src="http://d6d2h4gfvy8t8.cloudfront.net/17617977-lg.jpg" alt="" width="600" height="600" /></p>

[studio460]

<p>According to statements made in Matt Granger's Nikon D<em>f</em> review on YouTube [<a href="

], he states that NPS considers the Nikon D<em>f</em> a <em>consumer</em> camera, thus supporting the suspicion that there is no one-click, 100% zoom in playback.</p>

[dan_south]

Individual photographers have different needs and approaches to shooting. I owned a D700 for four years and found it intuitive and easy

to use.

 

A few years ago, after getting tired of waiting for Nikon to release an inexpensive alternative to the D3X, I decided to try a 5D Mark II. I

was reluctant, because I feared that Canon might present a steep learning curve for a "Nikon guy". Fears unfounded. Easy to use from

Day 1.

 

Lots of people use these popular cameras or other models with similar control and menu layouts. For some, that usage is a challenge. I

understand and appreciate their frustration. The controls and menus don't seem clear to them. But most folks don't struggle to change an

f-stop or dial in a different ISO setting on these bodies. They just don't. They turn a knob, and the camera does what they want it to do.

And they get the shot.

 

Is it fair to blame the camera?