Nikon Introduces Df Retro DSLR

[bjørn rørslett]

<p>Dieter: The camera <strong>does not know</strong>. As you said, it's a relative positioning. Initially the starting point for this relative scale is unknown. What happens if you don't communicate the maximum to the camera for a non-CPU AI or AIS lens? This is equivalent to putting a standard AI/AIS lens on the camera and start firing away. As you rotate the aperture ring you see the indication 'deltaF 0', deltaF 1', ..., deltaF N' in the finder. This allows the camera to calculate an exposure based on whatever position the aperture ring is set. As the true EV values are unknown, neither basic nor colour matrix metering is available, only centre-weighted and spot. No relevant EXIF data is recorded (focal length is 0, and aperture is later read out as f/0 or f/1 depending on the software used). If the photographer is satisfied with this situation there is no need to go further. Shoot away and be happy.</p>

<p>When you enter lens data in a list in camera to be selected later, or use a lens with a CPU, the potential to arrive at an improved metering exists. You will now have access to colour matrix metering as well because the camera's meter can calculate true EV values. However 3D matrix is not available because there is no distance information.</p>

<p>Nikon <strong>wants</strong> you to use the camera's thumbwheel to select the actual aperture for shooting, and this setting is default on all Nikons. However, this <strong>assumes</strong> the lens is <strong>AIS </strong>due to the the requirement for a linear step scale. If the lens instead is AI (or AI-modified), the camera will meter the correct aperture, but when the lens is stopped down under camera control for the actual shot, the aperture lever does <strong>not</strong> move to the correct position (side effect of non-linear scale). Even though metering is correct, the picture comes out under- or overexposed.</p>

<p>If the lens has an aperture ring itself, the far better approach is to tell the camera you want to use the <strong>aperture ring</strong> itself. This leads to better handling of the camera, no need to lock the aperture to the minimum, and more consistent exposures [due to the caveat outlined earlier]. The non-linearity issue is largely moot because the aperture lever will hit a hard stop inside the lens. </p>

<p>The beauty of having your manual lenses CPU-modified is that you don't have to consider any of the pitfalls described above, just attach the lens and shoot (assuming of course you are using the aperture ring). You get the most reliable metering the camera can deliver with that lens. The CPU adds another variable into the matrix meter equation, namely, the exit pupil. in particular for wide angle lenses, data on this will influence metering results in a significant manner.</p>

<p> </p>

[Andrew Garrard]

<p>Dieter: Yes, I know about the post. What I don't know is whether the DSLRs sense it! If AI lenses work without setting anything in the menu, I guess the cameras that support AI lenses must have this sensor.<br />

<br />

Shun: There's some information <a href="http://www.graysofwestminster.co.uk/glossary/ai_ais_difference.php">here</a>, but I was thinking of the focal length indexing flange on lenses longer than 135mm, which affects, particularly, how some early cameras with program modes behave. But you're quite right that the exact focal length isn't communicated mechanically.<br />

<br />

BeBu: There's a maximum aperture post on AI lenses (as Dieter says). For the sake of the Df, I'd have liked to see a feeler for the rabbit ears so you can get automatic aperture reading, but - as I suggested above not entirely facetiously - a truly impressive solution would be a small camera sensor facing down from the prism, using OCR to read the numbers! Given the limited number of fonts in use, this probably wouldn't be that hard to do, though it might need some (probably infrared, so as not to be annoying) integrated illumination...</p>

[Dieter Schaefer]

<blockquote>

<p>The AI and AI-S lenses do not communicate the maximum aperture to the camera at all</p>

</blockquote>

<p>As I wrote above, this simply isn't true - at least for the EM, FG, FG-20, FA, FA, F-301 (N2000), F-501 (N2020) make use of that "maximum aperture indexing post". AFAIK, no DSLR though utilizes that post - but every Ai and Ai-S lens has the means to communicate its maximum aperture - it's a case of transmitting information no one is actually listening to.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>What I don't know is whether the DSLRs sense it!</p>

</blockquote>

<p>As I said, none.</p>

<p>Thanks Bjorn - you summed up nicely what is essentially my understanding.</p>

[simon_crofts]

<blockquote>

<p> The camera <strong>does not know</strong>. As you said, it's a relative positioning. Initially the starting point for this relative scale is unknown.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Bjorn, I think that part of the confusion here is that the camera does know the aperture in one sense, but may not know in absolute terms. I've just been switching between a manual 50mm f1.4 and an AF 50mm f1.4g and pointing it at a blank evenly lit white wall in aperture priority mode. The lens data is not input into the camera, so from that point of view the camera doesn't 'know' what manual lens is on it.</p>

<p>In both cases, the camera calculates exactly the same, correct, shutter speed, whether the lens is wide open or stopped right down, it comes to exactly the same conclusion as to the required shutter speed (to reproduce the wall as a mid-tone): 1/20th of a second at f1.4 or 2.5 seconds at f11. There is absolutely no difference between the manual lens and the AF lens in this respect (leaving aside Matrix metering for a moment).</p>

<p>What the camera doesn't do is read out what aperture I've set in the LCD, or put it in EXIF. Whether or not it 'knows' what the actual aperture it is, or whether it's just reading the total amount of light coming through the lens at maximum aperture, and know how much I've stopped down the aperture from that it can calculate how much the aperture will reduce when the lens stops down to take the picture, I'm not sure - I'm assuming it's probably the latter.</p>

<p>But from the user point of view, the effect is the same as the camera knowing the aperture you've set. Unless you want to use Matrix metering - which I would argue isn't more accurate than centre-weighted anyway, more of a step backwards, but there's room for personal opinions on that.</p>

<p>So yes, the camera probably doesn't 'know' the aperture in absolute terms, but from the user's point of view the effect is pretty much as if it did!</p>

[Andrew Garrard]

<p>Sorry, Bjorn, we crossed over. You're quite right of course: with an AI lens on a camera with an aperture ring the camera knows how far down it's going to stop from whatever the wide-open metering value may be, without caring about the absolute aperture (unless, as you say, it's trying to use matrix), so it knows the effect that stopping down is going to have on the illumination levels. This makes me believe that the DSLRs with aperture feeler rings <i>don't</i> have hardware for reading the absolute aperture post.<br />

<br />

With an AI or AI-S lens (that has not been chipped), I don't believe Nikon lets you control the aperture from the camera in any way on a DSLR - either via the dials or in shutter priority/program mode; you <i>have</i> to use the lens aperture ring. I assume this is because they are concerned about nonlinearity of the aperture. However, it's annoying - given that you can tell the camera about the maximum aperture, it should be possible to tell it that the lens is AI-S, and that the aperture lever is perfectly linear and could be controlled by the camera.<br />

<br />

Assuming I'm not confused about this, it may be that you've not seen that behaviour: if the lens is chipped, the camera should be able to control the aperture itself anyway, just as I would hope AI-S lenses to work (but without having to tell the camera about it manually). Incidentally, I believe that's also the only way to get a D800 to work in trap focus mode (the camera will only "trap" if it thinks it's focussing, and it knows it's not if an un-chipped manual lens is attached); I assume the same is true of the Df.<br />

<br />

Edit: This time I crossed over with Dieter and Simon! But I think we're all on the same page. :-) (And I've learned something, if it's definitively the case that no DSLR checks the maximum aperture post.) Dieter - you don't happen to have an image of the post reading prong inside the mount of one of those older cameras, do you? Just curious what it looks like. Otherwise I'll do some googling. This all sounds like another reason to own the curio that is the FA...</p>

[Dieter Schaefer]

<blockquote>

<p>you don't happen to have an image of the post reading prong inside the mount of one of those older cameras, do you?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Here's one - the spring-loaded lever at the bottom interacts with the maximum aperture indexing post: http://cameragx.com/2009/10/07/5o-years-of-lens-mount-evolution-part-iv-of-vi/nikon-f-mount-3222/</p>

<p>Lots of crossover in the last few posts - I wrote my second before I read Bjorn's response. Re-reading my first one, I realize why he felt the need to clarify - I didn't mention there that the maximum aperture can be transmitted by Ai/Ai-S lenses but that DSLRs aren't reading it; it is not needed for metering in center-weighted and spot and for matrix, it's easier to rely on the user to enter the information in the menu.</p>

<p>Just for completion sake - the Ai-S notch in the bayonet mount is only read by the FA, F-301, F-501, and F4. It's still being milled in AF lenses but not in G lenses.</p>

<p>I got my F3 before the FA was released - had I known it was coming, it would have been my choice. Trading was not an option back then for me - I still hold on to that F3 that was my high school graduation present from my parents.</p>

[Andrew Garrard]

<p>Ah! Thanks, Dieter. Definitely missing from the DSLRs I know of - and my F5! I know the Ai-S reading pin is missing from almost everything (and possibly unused by the F4), but since we can tell the DSLRs that a lens is Ai-S explicitly, it would have been nice to get the other metering modes and the on-camera dials back.<br />

<br />

Good reason to keep the F3. :-) I just vaguely like the idea of a Nikon camera that's <i>actually</i> fully compatible with every F-mount lens made. The F4 and adapted F5 and F6 are close (in subtly different ways), and the Df isn't far off (if you don't mind, like the F6, risking your mirror on invasive fisheyes and the absolute aperture behaviour). It's a shame that the Df isn't quite it, given how much it costs, although I can certainly understand diminishing returns for the older lenses. I wonder how much it would cost to make one - even a film camera - as a kickstarter project? It would be a heck of a challenge for a 3D printer...<br />

<br />

We may have veered a bit from the Df (other than discussing what "compatible with every F mount lens" actually means for it), but I've learned more about the <i>why</i> of the compatibility of different cameras. Thanks, everyone!</p>

[bebu_lamar]

<p>The F3 is not compatible with G type lenses. </p>

[Andrew Garrard]

<p>BeBu: I meant Dieter had a good reason to keep his F3! I'm not rushing to get one myself, though I've long thought I wouldn't mind an F4 for the experience of shooting with the different interface (not as my general camera, as most of my posts here have indicated!) - the Df price will have to drop quite a bit to fall into the same category, unless I fall in love with one when I get the chance to try it!<br />

<br />

To clarify my compatibility point:</p>

<ul>

<li>The FA has no way to mount pre-AI lenses (but can do program and shutter priority with AI lenses), no VR, and confused G lens support.</li>

<li>The F4 doesn't support VR and has no manual way to control aperture for a G lens (in aperture or manual mode). It has an Ai-S feeler, but doesn't seem to do anything with it (no program/shutter priority support).</li>

<li>The F5 doesn't have a maximum aperture feeler, so you don't get matrix metering (and have to stop-down) for pre-AI lenses. Needs aperture ring feeler modification for pre-AI lenses. There's no Ai-S feeler.</li>

<li>The F6 doesn't have a maximum aperture feeler but you can tell it about the lens as with high-end DSLRs, so you get matrix. Needs aperture feeler modification for pre-AI. No Ai-S feeler. Can't mirror lock-up, so you need to let the mirror whack your invasive fish-eye.</li>

<li>The Df behaves like an adapted F6, with the exception (as Bjorn reports) that, for pre-AI lenses, you can't use stop-down metering and have to set the aperture in two places.</li>

<li>I believe that none of these (and, after a little research, nothing since the F2) has a pin to engage with the meter coupling shoe ("rabbit ears"). If Nikon had been serious about getting the Df to work with pre-AI lenses... :-)</li>

</ul>

<p>For those interested, I'd not seen <a href="http://www.zi.ku.dk/personal/lhhansen/photo/AI-S-Comp.htm">this</a> page (and surrounding site) before - discovered via an historical link from a post of Dieter's. Very useful.<br />

<br />

I'll forgive Nikon for not supporting the few odd lenses that Bjorn mentions, or F3AF autofocus (though if the F4 can do it...) but as far as I can tell there's nothing fundamental about the lens designs that would stop a camera being built which supports everything. Except the cost, but surely there are enough lens testers out there by now that these things would be useful! (Nikon, I've found a market for the Dg!)<br />

<br />

I still like (in principle) that the Df allows pre-AI lenses, but the more I read up on the history, the more I'm a little sad they didn't make it easier. Asking more than an adapted F6 is being a bit critical, though. (But I remain intrigued as to what the "good reason" is for not supporting stop-down metering, even if Bjorn isn't allowed to say!)</p>

[Brian1664876441]

Pre-AI lenses required a lot of extra work to meter properly wide-open, much more than just providing the coupling for the bunny rabbit ears. The Photomic T, Photomic Tn, and Nikkormat Ft required that the ASA dial be indexed manually to the maximum aperture of the lens. The Ftn meter, DP-1, DP-2, DP-3, FT-2, El, and ELw all did the "F5.6 shuffle" to index the maximum aperture of the lens. If you've ever taken the name plate off of a Photomic meter, it's a relatively complex mechanism. The Df method is similar to using uncoupled lenses with the older Photomic meters: you used a sliding lever on the front of the meter to set the aperture in use, readout at the back of the meter just above the finder.

[Andrew Garrard]

<p>Brian: Thank you, that encouraged me to read a page on the mir site that I might never have read! I agree - it seems complex. Still, while Ai and Ai-S are an improvement, presumably people used to cope with the f/5.6 shuffle on coupled lenses. I'd like to think it would be cheaper to implement using modern technology than the entirely mechanical solution for the original finders. With uncoupled lenses, I'd have thought that stop down metering or Bjorn's "don't change the aperture very often" solution would be worth it most of the time, rather than the hassle of setting things twice - though the Df's aperture setting is at least in a more convenient place than on the front of the prism!<br />

<br />

Of course, I've not tried it yet (though there are signs that the Df is showing up in the UK, so <i>soon</i>...) It may be that setting the aperture once with each hand seems natural. I just worry that I'm quite error-prone, given the opportunity. But then, if I <i>will</i> insist on not getting my (hypothetical) lens AI-adapted, I guess I deserve a little inconvenience.</p>

[Dieter Schaefer]

<blockquote>

<p>But I remain intrigued as to what the "good reason" is for not supporting stop-down metering, even if Bjorn isn't allowed to say!</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Wouldn't be surprised if it has something to do with the meter looking at the focusing screen and not actually seeing the full amount of light coming through the lens. Similar to not being able to see the DOF correctly in the range f/1.2 to f/2.8. Maybe the meter only sees the light for f/2.8 or f/4 for faster lenses; i.e. stopping a lens down (via the DOF preview button, for example) from f/1.4 to f/2 wouldn't make a difference for the meter (and might explain why Nikon turns the meter off when the DOF preview button is pressed). Of course, this could be overcome by pre-Ai lenses communicating their maximum aperture to the camera - something Nikon may not want to implement for the cost involved? Just guessing here...<br /> I only have an F-mount converted Leica Apo-Telyt 180/3.4 that I use on my Nikon DSLRs - it's maximum aperture is too small to test my hypothesis (there is no automatic diaphragm once the mount is converted, so metering is always at the aperture that's set on the lens).</p>

<p>Andrew, of all the manual focus Nikon film bodies I liked the F4 best (with the small MB-20). I know, it has AF but I actually never used it (except for a one-time test). When it was time to sell film cameras, I wanted to keep an F4 (but I had only beaters) and ended up keeping the "crippled" (but mint) F5. In the end it didn't matter, after a few years I also sold the F5 (in monetary terms the worst film camera purchase I ever made). Never even seen much less handled an F6.</p>

<p>Am actually wondering if I wouldn't rather use pre-Ai lenses on a Sony A7 or A7R then on a Df. Manual focusing on the EVF with the option to magnify the image should allow for very precise focusing - better than on the Df's screen? Of course, there wouldn't be any EXIF data and metering is at whatever aperture the lens is set to. I had a chance to look through (or actually "at") the EVF of the A7 - best one I've see so far (haven't seen the E-M1's finder yet).</p>

[Andrew Garrard]

<p>Interesting thought, Dieter. I would also be guessing. I'm not sure that the finder doesn't get <i>brighter</i> on the faster side of f/2.5 (so the meter readings would still increase), even if the visible depth of field is unchanged; I could believe that the remaining intensity is diffused inside the finder. However, last time I tried it was with an f/1.8 lens, and the difference between f/2.5 and f/1.8 is relatively small. I could try again with an f/1.4, because I'm quite prepared to be talking rubbish; I'm yet at home, so I can't try the obvious experiment. I briefly wondered about the reverse problem (relating to split prism finders going black as the aperture shrinks), but I think I've just confused myself even more. (It's late, I'm tired, I need to experiment with a camera so that I look less of an idiot.)<br />

<br />

I'm certainly assuming that the decision not to put the AI max aperture lever on newer bodies was cost-based. Since the aperture ring is enough to get some sort of metering anyway, and most of the bodies that could do anything clever more recently had an electronic means to tell the camera the aperture, I can see it being low down the priority list. In many cases, as it should be - I'd just like to think that if we're going to pay a premium for a DSLR that's marketed as having backward compatibility, we may as well pay the small premium to have it work seamlessly with as much as possible. ("Small premium" in a "cost of mechanics" sense; the premium in terms of development cost, compared to sweeping a Df together out of D600 and D4 parts, is probably substantial. And I admit a little bit of me approves of the fact that, because most of the parts have been seen elsewhere, the Df is likely to <i>work</i>.) Again, I'm biased because the UK list price for the Df is currently way higher than the D800. At US prices, it seems far more of a practical prosumer camera than a collectors' piece, even if it's still somewhat steep. Cost cutting on a D3200 makes sense; for a Df, I'd throw the kitchen sink at it (it kind of looks like they did already...) so long as the result didn't look like it was going to cost in the D4 range. It's already competing with a D3s.<br />

<br />

My F5 - bought in 2008 - was deliberately a beater: partly because it was cheap (it doesn't get much use) and partly because I'd prefer my cameras not to look worth stealing. Besides, you can scrape quite a lot of paint off an F5 before you do anything to the innards, and mechanically it's fine - or was when I last checked (cue paranoia). I bought it specifically for the compatibility, and the fact that the price premium over an F100 was very small. I don't think I've ever seen an F6 either. I'd love one, but not as much as I'd love the money. (I just checked Amazon UK, and the F6 costs £10 less than a D800. The F6 is a lovely camera, but that's ridiculous - it's not <i>that</i> much better than an F5. What we need here is an F7, so the F6 prices drop.)<br />

<br />

Anyway. I hope I find one of your beater F4s some time!<br />

<br />

As for the Sony idea, I'd be interested to know how you find it, but you'd presumably need an adaptor that let you toggle between wide open and stopped down, if the aperture lever was used. (At least, it would help.) There's the argument that, for a long time, the best way to get a manual-focus pre-AI Nikkor onto a DSLR with metering was to adapt it onto a Canon. (That may still be true, depending on how much you like stop-down metering!) Lest Canon owners get smug, the best way to get FD Canon mount glass to work is to ignore the DSLR and mount it on a CSC of some sort. And, lest <i>I</i> sound too smug, I want to be clear that Samsung NX cameras having a flange distance that doesn't support M-mount lenses <i>wasn't my fault</i> despite my employer. :-)</p>

[mike_halliwell]

<p>Gosh, this post is covering a LOT of ground!</p>

<p>Does the Df provide 'Real Time' Live View histograms? </p>

[Andrew Garrard]

<p>Mike: Well, <i>I'm</i> learning stuff! :-) (I hope my summary of compatibility limitations of different cameras, above, was actually accurate, though. It's embarrassing to leave misinformation lying around! I've done enough of that in this thread already...)<br />

<br />

From what I can tell in the manual and its description of live view and of histograms, it would appear that you only get histograms in playback, not live view. But it's always possible that the manual (or my reading of it) and reality diverge. :-)</p>

[donbright]

<p>The Nikon website has posted the manual for the Df. Looks like the histogram is visible in playback mode.</p>

[BelaMolnar]

<p>Shun. I don't agree on this.<em> "People are supposed to use those old pre-AI and AI-S lenses on it. 36MP will quickly reveal how poor a lot of those antique lenses are. 16MP is much easier on those old lenses." </em><br /> It is unbelievable haw far people gone here with academic discussion on everything about photographic technic and knowledge, technicality, but very little about the actual camera and handling.<br /> I'm using this camera a week now, image quality is superb, using AI converted NON AI lenses and has to hold it in my left hand under the camera and the lens, because it is unbearable to hold the camera in my right hand, holding with my two, 2 finger only as I demonstrate with the attached image here. As I said earlier, it is the biggest mistake from Nikon to eliminate the option for an extended battery grip. And the stupid placement for the memory card. Originally I wanted to buy two, but now, I reconsidering because of the handling issue. If I had a chance to use it for a week before I decided to buy it, I would not buy the camera, stay with my heavy D3s and the D4. All of my non AI lenses all ready converted to AI, and using them on this two cameras anyway.</p><div></div>

[BelaMolnar]

<p>Solution. Extended battery grip for the Nikon Df. No duplicate control necessary, I lived 40 years with motor-drive on all my film cameras and never had a problem shooting portrait mode. </p><div></div>

[Didier Lamy]

<p>"Originally I wanted to buy two"<br>

why two??</p>

[mike_halliwell]

<p>Yup, that grip does not <em><strong>look</strong></em> too comfortable to me.</p>

<p>When they appear here in the UK, I'll pop into a shop with my 80-200mm push-pull, ie no tripod foot, and see if it's holdable or maybe a 180mm 2.8. The weight, as such, doesn't bother me, but for portrait ie holding on it's side lack-of-grip might. I tend to hook my hand around the grip, so i suppose it almost hangs from my fingers. </p>

[BelaMolnar]

<p>Hi Didier. Because I wanted to read of my D3s and D4 for a smaller and lighter cameras of a same quality bodies, as l always had minimum two bodies. Avoiding lens change if possible, specially with digital sensors, dust issues, exposing the sensor to dust during lens changes. And, convenience.<br>

Mike. It is more comfortable holding the camera with 4 finger then two fingers. And you can argue on this issues for infinite time if you mind set for negative approach to the issue. It is much better then nothing. Somebody my get a better idea, shape, design then this 5 minute sketch here.</p>

[bebu_lamar]

<p>I am one who doesn't like live view but since the Df has live view any way I wonder what kind of cost involved giving the Df a mirror lock up. I know it does have a mirror lock up for a good 30 sec. I mean a mirror lock up function that allow one to use the old fish eye that protrude into the camera. Back in the time of the Nikon F one would have to use an in accurate viewfinder but with live view one can accurately frame and focus with such a lens if it has mirror lock up. </p>

[bjørn rørslett]

<p>You certainly can use the old type Fisheye-Nikkors on the Df. I've tried with 7.5 mm f/5.6 and 10 mm f/5.6 OP, no problem at all. For this kind of application, LiveView is a huge benefit.</p>

[DB_Gallery]

<p>Interesting that you find you can not hold the Df very easily, it is actually spec'd to be a little heavier and thicker than an FM3A which I find a breeze to handle. The FM3A is 1.23 pounds and the Df a few ounces more at 1.56 and maybe a little thicker at 2.6" compared to the FM3A's 2.3" inches. Leica M cameras are even thinner still at 1.5" and people have no issues handling them. <br /> Maybe you are just too used to the big brick bodies that are a D3S and D4, I never really use them because they are just too big for my line of work and it is just as easy to add a grip to my D800. I think a grip option for the Df would be interesting it if were like an MD-12, not the odd ball mismatch posted above.<br /> <br /> This camera looks really cool, I would love to check one out some day, but it is a about a grand overpriced for me, I use less and less digital these days so I just don't see the point in investing in more of it when that is not where I am headed. Looks like a nice camera all the same, glad to see people getting them.</p>

[dan_brown4]

<p>I have zero problems holding the Df. In fact, I spent the last hour shooting in the snow while wearing a pair of calfskin gloves. Worked well, I never had to take the gloves off, and I was using the ISO and Exp. Comp. dials regularly, shooting aperture priority as well. The center button on the multi-selector was a little dicy, that was set for instant histogram.</p>

<p>The more I shoot this camera the more I like it.</p>