Nikon Introduces Df Retro DSLR

[Andrew Garrard]

BeBu: I can understand not wanting to leave the camera with a nonzero EC, but between every shot? I

would likely take a few in a row with at least similar settings. I guess it depends on circumstance, and the

tendency to take extra shots with digital may make me more keen to persist with settings.

 

Dieter: thanks for your findings. I hope to find a store where I can play sometime soon.

 

Bjorn: believe it or not, my mass of postings in this thread is me trying to understand! Several forum

members whose expertise I definitely trust (you included, obviously) do get on with the Df, so I'm keen to

see how I am assessing it incorrectly. From other recent posts, I was beginning to wonder about the grip

position - if you're supposed to reach the EC and ISO dials left-handed, that suggests the right hand has a

much more supportive role than I'm used to. Since there's appreciably less grip for the right hand than on

a conventional Nikon, I can well believe it needs to be held differently. I'm not sure I understand how to

reach up to the shutter dial and the high shutter release if gripping from below (the corner of the camera in

the palm, yes?) - but, without seeing one yet, I'm just trying to prepare myself for when I do.

 

The Df is a camera whose logic I do not yet understand - admittedly, handicapped a bit by not actually

having played with it yet. I like puzzles, but I'm not beyond looking up an answer on the internet! When I do

play with a Df - despite being happy enough with my D800 that I can't imagine buying one - I want to give it

a fair shot. I've not seen many claims that the Df's handling is actually fast (including Nikon's marketing),

so news that it is gives me some encouragement to investigate.

[dan_south]

<blockquote>

<p>Photography--like life--has gotten so complicated.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>We have a great deal of control over the degree of complexity in our work. Some photographers use HDR and focus stacking in situations where another person else would find a way to get an equally effective shot in a single capture. Unless a particular technique or look is specified by a client, we have a great deal of latitude in the way that we approach our photos.<br>

</p>

<blockquote>

<p>I think that some of the appeal of the D<em>f</em> is the desire to go back to an earlier style of shooting, perhaps even an earlier style of living. </p>

</blockquote>

<p>Would a 4x5 shooting sheet film quality as an earlier style of shooting? Because, in my view, using a DSLR is less complicated than unloading film holder, keeping exposed sheets safe from contact with light, keeping track of which sheets require push processing, recording exposure data in a notebook, reloading those holders with sweaty hands in the back seat of a car or in a hotel room late at night (instead of sleeping), measuring the scene with a spot meter, focusing an image with a lot of edge falloff on a dim ground glass, developing film and sending the best frames away to be scanned.<br>

<br>

On the other hand you can use a DSLR with auto or manual focus, in live view or the viewfinder, check histograms and exposure peaking displays, download the files to a computer, process in easy to use software, and complete a project in the same day. I prefer the good NEW days to the good OLD days.<br>

</p>

[donbright]

<p><em>Photography--like life--has gotten so complicated.</em><br /> <br /> Photography is as complicated as the operator makes it, or a simple as one makes it.</p>

<p>Really! C'mon what's the problem? A renowned camera company introduces a comprehensive, logical way of going about the process of taking a picture, and is probably very happy there are a thousand plus posts on the subject, yet we continue to be blind to a, ' NEW,' approach to the process , and there are those that go blind to it. Old? New? Does anyone really know the difference? Is it a, 'Professional,' camera? Does anyone here know what Professional means regarding Photography? I doubt it. As you are a, ' Professional,' when you draw a dollar off of the frame presented to the client that hired you services rendered.</p>

<p>Nirvana,... Flowing from camera model to another, put the dial here, put the dial there, not enough pixels... Glad I got my 36 megapixels- I win! Hey! The day they come out with 40! Megapixels, I will concede that its the 40 that will improve my Photography. LOL</p>

<p>There's nothing like the Df. .eriod!<br>

<br /> Where's the dial? I can't find the / dial! LOL</p>

[Andrew Garrard]

<p>Don: Regarding the "professional camera" thing, it's Nikon that makes this distinction, from the perspective of NPS membership and, apparently, a few handling features. I don't think we're dissing the Df in any way because of its market position.<br />

<br />

Speaking as someone who does want to get a 5x4 (and is scared of trying to meter the thing correctly - I may be relying on the dynamic range of Portra a lot), I find a DSLR easier to understand, possibly even when using most of its features. (I <i>do</i> claim to understand the mechanics of a 5x4 and the exposure, but it's far from natural to me.) But then I really got into photography when I got a digital camera, and I didn't own a film SLR until after I owned a DSLR, so I may be atypical. Familiarity is not the same thing as usability, but it can be for some people. For all my whingeing (and I do still reserve some judgement until I've tried one, especially given Bjorn's comments about the grip) I do believe the Df is going to be usable, even if I find myself having to move my hands around a bit. But then, I could cope with a Pentax 645, for which I had to poke buttons to change various important settings, so I may have low standards even if I have high expectations.</p>

[mike_halliwell]

<p>Andrew, use the DSLR to take a 'test' shot, analyse the histos critically and apply those correct exposure settings to the 5 x 4 shutter.</p>

<p>Apart from any f & T-stop differences, it should work a treat!</p>

 

[Andrew Garrard]

<p>Mike: Yes... and any chromatic response differences. And extension. And trying to get any framing to match with a tilt and shift in place. :-) I'm only a little scared, but the cameras with a light probe that you can wave over the ground glass have some appeal! (Theoretically, I guess you could point the DSLR at the ground glass, but I'm not sure how well that works with a fresnel lens playing with the exposure.)<br />

<br />

I'm also interested that DxO keep reporting the supposed and measured ISO of various cameras are quite different. I thought DPReview used to try this and found cameras matched pretty well. I don't know whether there's really a variation these days, or whether DxO are measuring after some t-stops have been taken into account.<br />

<br />

Still, with luck I shouldn't be off by much more than a stop, when I eventually get a 5x4. Makes me a bit nervous about Velvia, but hopefully Portra and drum scanning to the rescue...</p>

[Landrum Kelly]

<blockquote>

<p>There's nothing like the Df. .eriod!</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>I suppose that the operative word here is ".eriod."</p>

<p>This thread has now been running from Nov. 4 to Dec. 4.</p>

<p>The Df is what it is. Most of us will not be buying, but I am sure that it is a fine camera. I will consider it if the price drops substantially. At $2750, it is beyond my budget. </p>

<p>--Lannie</p>

[simon_crofts]

<p>Andrew, correct exposure for 5x4 is far simpler than that. It's always a good idea with any film camera to add on one stop exposure to whatever your meter/DSLR is telling you if you're using colour negative film. If you're focussing on something closer, and on another stop. And shoot away.</p>

<p>Again, I think that it's being brought up on modern DSLRs that gives the impression that exposure is somehow complicated or a dark art. Of course, if you want to get into the Zone System (and I thoroughly recommend it - both for digital and film) then it can be. But getting a basically decently exposed frame is not hard.</p>

<p>Quite a lot of cameras of the Holga ilk have no meters, no aperture adjustment, and just two shutter speeds - a short shutter speed for sunshine and a longer one for dark days/inside. Also a B setting if you want go crazy. It's extraordinary how few frames are badly exposed using these methods, especially if you choose a slowish film for bright days and a fast film for dark/interiors.</p>

<p>Matrix metering and TTL really isn't very accurate in modern DSLRs - it is far too easily fooled and can give wildly wrong exposures. What is really impressive is not how often it gets it right, but how often it gets it wrong. If you're brought up with these cameras, it's easy to be misled into thinking that exposure is some kind of dark art. It isn't - on the whole, you could do almost as well - sometimes better, by taking a quick educated guess by looking at roughly how brightly lit the room/situation is. And working from there.</p>

 

[simon_crofts]

<blockquote>

<p>that it's being brought up on modern DSLRs that gives the impression</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Sorry Andrew, I realise that sounds a bit patronising - it wasn't meant to be aimed at you, I was trying to make a general observation about the problems of learning the trade on a typical modern DSLR, which I think can be a huge disadvantage for students today.</p>

 

[Andrew Garrard]

<p>No offence taken. Simon. I <i>was</i> brought up on DSLRs, but I've since used plenty of film cameras. They've all had meters of a sort (the ones I used first had something of a matrix meter - or a lot of one, in the case of the F5), but I've been known to do my own thing, especially with infrared (and I <i>do</i> own the pertinent Ansel Adams trilogy, even if I have to translate zones into pixel values to use it). I agree that the matrix can be confused - my D800 seems more confused than my D700, if anything - but if its job is to be less confused than the user, it can be worked around. If doing things myself, I'm more comfortable with a spot meter, though dedicated examples seem pretty extortionate for a calibrated LDR with a tiny lens attached. Getting exposure out of your average 35mm or 120 roll camera doesn't scare me. 5x4 does, a bit, but that's probably a combination of the limited range of something like Velvia and the cost of a single frame, besides the more complex mechanics. Not that I plan to shoot macro at 5x4 (though I imagine "macro" might still be quite distant...) so hopefully I needn't worry.<br />

<br />

To try to wrench us back onto topic (much as I appreciate the encouragement!) could I confirm the theory that you can stop-down meter with a pre-AI lens on a Df? (I.e. - if I understand the process - do an AE lock with DoF preview held down with your selected aperture, rather than having to set the aperture in two places?) I'll be interested to know whether Nikon have tweaked the matrix meter behaviour at all relative to the D800, too.</p>

[Landrum Kelly]

<blockquote>

<p>I was trying to make a general observation about the problems of learning the trade on a typical modern DSLR, which I think can be a huge disadvantage for students today.</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>I hear this a lot, but I don't buy it. I certainly grew up on film (twenty-five years of it before I touched a digital camera), but if someone shoots on "P" on either film or digital, they will never learn much. Shooting on A or S is as demanding on digital as on film. </p>

<p>It may be said that digital allows persons to take too many shots, and that film forces them to slow down. I am not sure about that either, but even if so I see this counterbalanced by the near instant feedback that one gets with digital. I suspect that digital can speed up the learning process.</p>

<p>If people are going to avoid learning about exposure, they will always find a way to do so, and their photography will never get any better, regardless of the recording medium.</p>

<p>In any case, I certainly don't see the Nikon D<em>f</em> as promoting or impeding learning for amateurs. </p>

<p>--Lannie</p>

[studio460]

<p>Just curious . . . are any D<em>f</em> owners adjusting their aperture using the ring on the lens?</p>

[simon_crofts]

<blockquote>

<p>Getting exposure out of your average 35mm or 120 roll camera doesn't scare me. 5x4 does, a bit</p>

</blockquote>

<p>5x4 exposure works in exactly the same way as 35mm or 120. The only thing is that, not having through-the-lens metering means that the extension of the lens for close focussing isn't taken into account. It's very easy to add a factor for this in though. So nothing to be worried about, any more than for any other kind of film, except the cost of getting it wrong!</p>

<blockquote>

<p>could I confirm the theory that you can stop-down meter with a pre-AI lens on a Df?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Just want to check that it's really pre-AI lenses that you are interested in? Since most manual focus lenses around nowadays are AI lenses, and have been for the last 36 years, pre-AI lenses are pretty rare. I don't know the answer to the question for these very old lenses, but as you probably already know, the vast majority of Nikon manual lenses work pretty seamlessly on the likes of the D700 etc., no need to stop them down to meter. I doubt very much that the DF is any different, though of course worth checking.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>I suspect that digital can speed up the learning process.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Landrum, I agree entirely that digital can speed up the learning process. Being able to see immediately where you've gone wrong or the effect on the meter of a particular situation can help enormously. Though it can also have the opposite effect - for example, there's less incentive to learn manual flash exposure through guide numbers etc. The temptation is to try flash at a certain level and then correct up and down without understanding why the flash exposure is what it is. I find that few people -even teachers - can cope with manual flash on the hoof, which ought to be fairly simple.</p>

<p>The problem is that the horribly confused interface of your typical DSLR negates this advantage and confuses the hell out of the user. What should be simple becomes complicated.</p>

<p>So it's not a digital vs film issue I was highlighting, it's a clear vs cluttered and confused issue.</p>

<p>If there's a move to cameras like the DF there's some hope of improving the situation (though as always, I need to try a DF before working out whether it actually achieves it).</p>

[BelaMolnar]

<p><em>"Focusing manual lenses is far superior to using the same lenses on my other DSLRs. A lens such as a 35/1.4 AIS or 50/1.2 AIS is near impossible to focus accurately on most digital cameras, but not so on the Df. They snap in and out of focus."</em><br>

<em>Bjorn Rorslett</em><br>

I using the Df in a third day, indoor, pure lighting situation, and as Bjorn stated, focusing is easy and snappy with the lenses I'm using too. 35/1.4 50/1.2 28/2.8 20/3.5 18/4 100/2.8 105/2.5 200/4 all AI-S lenses. I my going to have a problem with bigger zooms, like 24-70, 17-35 or 70-200/4. Definitely, my need an extension battery grip of some kind. Even if it is just a solid, cosmetically nicely matching device, without secondary controls.</p>

[Andrew Garrard]

<p>Simon: Yes, the cost of the 5x4. :-) But thank you for the encouragement. At some point, I'll get there, and it'll probably do my photography good.<br />

<br />

It <i>was</i> specifically pre-AI lenses that I care about. Well, not because I have immediate plans to get a Df or any pre-AI lenses, but because the much-lauded compatibility of the Df with pre-AI because of the flippy aperture tab (which I <i>do</i> approve of) relies, in normal use, on setting the aperture with the lens and then setting the camera to the same thing with the aperture dial, as I understand it. I suggest this is a faff. It has been suggested that stop-down metering might work instead, and probably be less error-prone. I'm just curious how useful pre-AI lenses actually are on the Df. (I <i>do</i> have AI lenses that I use on my D800 - and also some lenses with no linkage at all that do need stop-down before use.)<br />

<br />

DSLRs don't confuse me too much. Compacts confuse me, but that's generally because it takes me longer to work out what "pet mode 3" might actually do than to set the camera up as needed.<br />

<br />

Bela: Interesting. Anyone want to give me a noct-nikkor to play with? :-)</p>

[dan_brown4]

<blockquote>

<p>Just curious . . . are any D<em>f</em> owners adjusting their aperture using the ring on the lens?</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>Yes, I have shot with both a 24/2.8 Ai-S and 200/4 Ai-S, using the lens aperture ring. You just need to enter the lens in the list of MF lenses so the camera can meter (even Matrix meter) these lenses. It works exactly as it did for decades.</p>

 

[bjørn rørslett]

<p>It's kind of hard to imagine any Df user <strong>NOT</strong> using the aperture ring on their manual lenses as the camera handling and support improves by doing so. Despite this Nikon has followed the current practice of setting the default aperture mode to be using the (front) thumbwheel. So you have to use Custom function f7 => Aperture setting => Off. Actually, the same setting is replicated on nearly all current Nikons. Aperture setting of "G" lenses will remain on the thumbwheel, either front (default) or rear (f7 => Change main/sub => ON).</p>

<p>The possibility of flipping up the aperture follower tab enables the Df to mount virtually all F-mount lenses. There are one or two old pre-AI lenses where the aperture collar is too thick or long to allow mounting (if memory serves the original 35/2.8 Nikkor-S and the first 5.5 cm f/3.5 Micro-Nikkor 1:1 model). In fact there is just a single Nikkor made since 1959 that must <strong>NOT</strong> be attempted with <strong>ANY</strong> Nikon made after Nikon F/F2/Nikkormat. The explanation is lengthy and will not be repeated here, but if you own the 2.1 mm f/4 Nikkor-O and wish to try it, heeding my warning will save you a hefty repair bill, or you can choose not to believe what I just wrote, and go on to break the mirror on your (D)SLR. Even the handful of Fisheye Nikkor that extend deep into the mirror chamber <strong>will work</strong> if you are desperate to try them. The recipe for doing so has been published on the net multiple times, and in this case, no harm is done to the camera (I've taken hundreds of such images, also with the Df).</p>

<p>Of course Nikon wouldn't be Nikon if they hadn't stubbornly <em>prevented</em> stop-down metering of the pre-AI lenses. I do know the underlying rationale as I've discussed this theme with Nikon representatives on a higher level more than once but they are adamant on this issue. Instead, with the Df you have a new option when you set up a non-CPU lens, as you now have to specify whether it is AI/AIS or pre-AI. The difference is that with the pre-AI lens you have to transfer the aperture value used for metering to the lens before taking the shot. Not as awkward as it seems as one can select a suitable aperture in the opening of the shoot and set the lens to this value, then forget about this aspect. Nikon's approach does have the benefit you get the relevant exposure data recorded in the EXIF. As nearly all my oldest lenses are converted to AI, plus practically each and every manual lens has been CPU modified, these strange sides of the Df capabilities don't bother me much.</p>

[ShunCheung]

<p>By chance, I switched from Minolta to Nikon in 1977, and that was the year Nikon started introducing AI cameras and lenses. As a result, I only have post-AI equipment, although now I may buy at least one old pre-AI lens to test the Df with.</p>

<p>Essentially, the history for pre-AI was merely 18 years, from 1959 to 1977. The post-AI era has been 36 years and counting, and AI conversion is not all that expensive. There clearly has been plenty of opportunities (and time) for those who need to use their pre-AI lenses to have them converted in the last 36 years.</p>

[Andrew Garrard]

<p>Thanks, Bjorn. I'm reassured that you've tried the invasive fish-eye thing without damage, though I'm not rushing to give it a go!<br />

<br />

I appreciate that the aperture mechanism on the Df isn't too much of an issue if you don't actually change the aperture much, but it's still disappointing to hear that stop-down metering (which would seem to me to be the easier and less error-prone approach) doesn't work - though I get your point about the EXIF. Maybe they'll open up new options for a Df.2 - or, if we're really lucky, a BIOS update. Not that I'm overflowing with pre-AI lenses either, but I'd still rather have the ability than not!</p>

[bjørn rørslett]

<p>Chances for Nikon allowing true stop-down metering in future models are virtually nil. Cannot go into details here as my information is not meant to be public.</p>

[bebu_lamar]

<p>Andrew! I am not sure but I think you can do stop down metering with pre AI (or even AI lenses with the tab out of the way, the camera can't tell if it's AI lens) but someone can try. The Df can meter at full aperture with pre AI lens so why do we need stop down metering?</p>

[ShunCheung]

<blockquote>

<p>The Df can meter at full aperture with pre AI lens so why do we need stop down metering?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Please re-read what Bjorn wrote above.</p>

<p>Once you flip up the aperture follower tab to mount a pre-AI lens onto the Df, there is no longer coupling between the body and the lens' aperture. Therefore, you need to manually open up the aperture to meter, get the exposure reading and then manually stop down the aperture based on that reading.</p>

<p>Pre-AI bodies have an extra pin to connect to the "rabbit ear" on the lenses to make that coupling. Nikon introduced AI in 1977 to make it much easier to mount and unmount lenses. That is why for those who still own pre-AI lenses from over 36 years ago, the much better approach is to get them AI converted, which doesn't cost all that much on those special pre-AI lenses that you like.</p>

<p>The problem is that if a lens is a collector's item and needs to be kept in a pristine, original condition. That is a different story.</p>

[bjørn rørslett]

<p>Shun: Not entirely correct. The Df does know the lens data and thus will meter at the wide-open aperture. It's just the linkage from the aperture ring to the meter that isn't there. So you you don't need to open the lens aperture for metering, or stop it down afterwards. Just rotate the aperture ring to the value given by the meter and fire away. The camera will stop down the lens for you.</p>

<p> </p>

[ShunCheung]

<p>Oh right; what was I thinking? Once you mount the lens to the camera, the mechanical lever on the body will automatically open the aperture diaphragm fully.</p>

<p>Thanks Bjorn.</p>

[bjørn rørslett]

<p>There you have mentioned one of the underlying reasons why Nikon will not implement stop-down metering.</p>