Nikon Introduces Df Retro DSLR

[Didier Lamy]

<p>Bela thanks for your reply, so one body per lens, mmm I am glad to see some good reason to stick to my old film cameras..</p>

[BelaMolnar]

<p><em>" 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."</em><br /> Bjorn. I wonder if I can use the 2.1 cm f/4 lens too. Or, some mechanical limitation on the bayonet mount or something else, witch my not recommended, my injuring some of the inner part of the camera?<br /> I using the FM3a, but with motor drive, MD-12 too, as other FM's and FE's<br>

It is not one body per lenses, it is two bodies only with the most probably needed lens on it. Witch is a wide angle zoom, like 17-35mm and a medium telephoto zoom 24-70/2.8, but mostly, my trusteed 50-135/3.5 zoom. <br>

Regardless, I like the Df very much, just has to get used to hold at my left hand when not shooting.</p>

[Dieter Schaefer]

<blockquote>

<p>Leica M cameras are even thinner still at 1.5" and people have no issues handling them.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I do - in fact, the M6 I used to own had to be handled like a piece of wet soap by applying a vise-like grip lest it slips away. A properly molded grip improves this substantially - no matter how often the purist demand that none is the best solution. Handled a X100S in the store - main complaint in handling comfort is the lack of a proper grip. The NEX 6 I own is a perfect example that a small camera can be made comfortable by the addition of a proper grip.</p>

[bjørn rørslett]

<p>Whatever you do, <strong>NEVER mount the 21/4 Nikkor to any camera other than Nikon F, F2, and Nikkormat</strong>. You will damage any other camera and probably break the mirror into pieces.</p>

[BelaMolnar]

<p>Thank you Bjorn, it is permanently on a F2 camera body.</p>

[donbright]

<p>Who operates their camera with one hand? Am I hearing this right? In portrait framing without holding even the lightest of camera's, bracing without the left palm doesn't seem right.</p>

[dan_south]

<blockquote>

<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>

</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I don't disagree at all. I tried my old manual focus Nikkors when I bought my D800. Sharpness on the edges was soft to the point of being unusable. That's not an academic conclusion; it's a visual evaluation.</p>

[DB_Gallery]

<blockquote>

<p>I do - in fact, the M6 I used to own had to be handled like a piece of wet soap by applying a vise-like grip lest it slips away. A properly molded grip improves this substantially - no matter how often the purist demand that none is the best solution. Handled a X100S in the store - main complaint in handling comfort is the lack of a proper grip. The NEX 6 I own is a perfect example that a small camera can be made comfortable by the addition of a proper grip.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Dieter, I have owned several M6's, still own and use an M3 and also own the X100S, I prefer the thinner bodies, I feel they are more secure than a thicker one and they pack into a lot more places. We all want different things, I know plenty of pro PJ's who have no issues with the M film bodies or the X100S. In fact, one well known Magnum PJ has pretty much stopped using the digital M's in favor of the incredible X100S, I know I have no desire to waste my money on an M9....<br>

I get the reason for a grip, some folks don't use them though...</p>

[ilkka_nissila]

<p><em>I don't disagree at all. I tried my old manual focus Nikkors when I bought my D800. Sharpness on the edges was soft to the point of being unusable. That's not an academic conclusion; it's a visual evaluation.</em></p>

<p>There are very many manual focus Nikkors, did you try them all to come up with such a conclusion (if you didn't, which ones did you evaluate, it could be useful information)? Which print size did you use to evaluate the lenses? Did you compare D800 with 35mm film of the same scene, or a lower resolution full frame digital camera, to make prints of the same size (or files resized to the same resolution) to come up with the idea that the D800 makes those lenses "unusable"? If there is no angle of incidence issue, all lenses should resolve from a bit more to a lot more detail on a D800 than lower resolution cameras (and the images have better tonality especially at low ISO compared to lower resolution digital, and across the ISO range compared to older technology). This certainly has been my experience; some lenses that I considered marginally acceptable but not exciting on 12MP FX yield great results on the D800 in a print.</p>

[Landrum Kelly]

<p>Here is a shot using the D4 at ISO 12,800, here rendered both in color and in black-and-white on DPREVIEW.COM:</p>

<p><a href="https://s3.amazonaws.com/masters.galleries.dpreview.com/1793818.jpg?AWSAccessKeyId=14Y3MT0G2J4Y72K3ZXR2&Expires=1386590781&Signature=0iGO2KzufaeRGBojN%2B%2BwVv598CY%3D">https://s3.amazonaws.com/masters.galleries.dpreview.com/1793818.jpg?AWSAccessKeyId=14Y3MT0G2J4Y72K3ZXR2&Expires=1386590781&Signature=0iGO2KzufaeRGBojN%2B%2BwVv598CY%3D</a></p>

<p><a href="https://s3.amazonaws.com/masters.galleries.dpreview.com/1793819.jpg?AWSAccessKeyId=14Y3MT0G2J4Y72K3ZXR2&Expires=1386590527&Signature=EIAyuuXEa63T0GzJJVBmz87ityc%3D">https://s3.amazonaws.com/masters.galleries.dpreview.com/1793819.jpg?AWSAccessKeyId=14Y3MT0G2J4Y72K3ZXR2&Expires=1386590527&Signature=EIAyuuXEa63T0GzJJVBmz87ityc%3D</a></p>

<p>Since the 16-mp sensor of the D<em>f </em>is generally spoken of as being very similar to that of the D4, I was wondering if those of you who are now shooting the <em>Df</em> can offer your own evaluations of the D<em>f</em> at ISO 12,800. (The only camera that I have ever profitably shot ISO 12,800 with is the D3s, which has a 12-mp sensor. I have the D800E, but so far I have not pushed it that far in terms of high ISO.)</p>

<p>(I don't usually shoot the D3s at ISO 12,800, but <a href="/photodb/folder?folder_id=1062600"><strong><em>here is a folder</em></strong></a> in which all shots were made at 12,800, as a point of comparison. Most of these were shot hand-held. Usually ISO 6400 or below is good enough for my purposes, but I am rather intrigued by the possibilities of going higher, especially when shooting hand-held in near darkness.)</p>

<p>--Lannie<em><br /></em></p>

[Andrew Garrard]

<p>Just when I thought it was getting quiet...<br />

<br />

Bela: Yes, we've had a long academic discussion, in large part from those of us who have not yet had the chance to handle this camera, asking those who have to investigate things. Since you're lucky enough to have access to one, thank you for your feedback; by all means lend me one and I'll make a less academic analysis! Interesting grip, though. I'm surprised at not replicating at least the shutter, using the electronic shutter release cable.<br />

<br />

Mike: Mifsuds claim they've had a delivery (though I don't know whether they've sold out again yet). Everywhere else I commonly look is still taking preorders.<br />

<br />

There are some old lenses that are acceptably sharp. I wonder how many of them were pre-AI (and certainly <i>exclusively</i> pre-AI), but I'd be surprised if even the earliest 50mm lenses weren't sharp beyond 16MP when stopped down - the design didn't change much until the AF-S 50mm f/1.8.<br />

<br />

If you're using a pre-AF lens, you pretty much have to have a left hand under the camera, otherwise you can't move the aperture ring or focus. I'm not sure I understand the talk of a one-handed grip, unless we're specifically in the realm of preset aperture and zone focus. The strategy of setting the camera to hyperfocal distances and walking around with it ignoring the focus system may have seemed sensible in film days (and I'm not really trying to disparage film, just pointing out that "pixel peeping" was harder), but it's a recipe for really not making the most of a 16MP sensor.<br />

<br />

My understanding is that the mounting of invasive fish-eyes involves manually holding the mirror out of the way, or at least using mirror lock up and putting the lens on before the mirror comes down again. The mirror ends up resting on the lens. I'm prepared to believe that this hasn't been known to hurt anything (and I've heard of several people doing it), but it makes me somewhat nervous compared with an official permanent lock-up mechanism like the F5's. I can certainly believe that live view helps a great deal. With the proviso that a the edges of a circular fish-eye are obviously not going to be visible anyway, I'm curious whether the rear nodal point of these invasive lenses plays badly with a digital sensor (Leica having, famously, to do weird things to cope with lens designs that sit close to the film.)</p>

[Andrew Garrard]

<p>To follow Lannie's question, I'm interested in the reports that the Df has more dynamic range at low ISO than the D4 (based on shadow noise). I believe DxO and sensorgen are yet to report, but that would remove one of the big disadvantages of the D4 compared with the D800/D600/D610. If those with a Df are in any position to compare, I'd be interested to know what they find. (I'm fully expecting the <i>high</i> ISO performance to be impressive, though I'm still only expecting a bit under a stop advantage compared with the other current gripless full-frame Nikons.)</p>

[mike_halliwell]

<blockquote>

<p>Who operates their camera with one hand? Am I hearing this right? In portrait framing without holding even the lightest of camera's, bracing without the left palm doesn't seem right.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Not me. I meant if you support the lens with your left hand towards the front, the right hand has more of the weight and I use my fingers around the grip, kinda hook to hook. So it's not holding it laterally or pincer-like, it's holding it, errrr...like a hook!</p>

<p>EDIT. Thanks for the tip Andrew G. I'll see if I can moisy over.</p><div></div>

[Andrew Garrard]

<p>Mike: Now I'm confused. My left hand is invariably at the balance point of the camera and lens. My right hand is - except when Nikon makes me move it - invariably wrapped around the grip, with a finger on the shutter. In portrait mode, that's your hook hold, unless I have a grip (and I can keep my hand in its natural position). My thumb is on the back of the camera, but I can lift it off and still hold the camera by the grip of my fingers. Probably not with a Df, of course. Anyway, I rarely take much weight of the camera that way - I'm only pivoting it around my left hand, which is acting as a ball head.<br />

<br />

What exactly is the pincer grip? I'm confused enough by Bjorn's suggestion of gripping the Df from underneath (I'm assuming I'll work out what he means when I get the chance to play with a Df). I still need to give McNally's grip a go - but I've only recently got a grip for my D700, so up until now I'd only have used it on an F5 anyway. Last time I attempted it, it cut off the circulation to half my brain, but I may have been doing it wrong. Something tells me it would be incompatible with the Df's dial positions, which is ironic given that McNally seems to have been wheeled out to advertise the camera - but I need more research!</p>

[simon_crofts]

<p>I'm a bit sceptical about theorising about grips, balance etc. The easiest camera that I have had to hold is probably my Nikon FM2. My D700 is also fine - I can grasp it, I don't have a particular problem with it, but it's bulky and clumsy compared to the lightweight convenience of the FM2. When I'm carrying the D700 around all day day in day out, I dream of carrying something like an FM2 instead. The DF may be bigger than the FM2, but it doesn't look a million miles off on the face of it.</p>

<p>The D2x I had before was a huge ugly weight and I would hate to go back to carrying something that heavy, grips or no grips, and I found the double grip-two release arrangement clumsy and heavy and unnecessary - I could work faster and easier by turning a camera with a profile like the FM2 on its side. The D700 was a big improvement on the D2x-style form simply because it was lighter and simpler. Adding a battery grip to it for handling would I think be a big mistake. I think people mainly do it because they want to fool passersby into thinking they have a bigger more 'professional' looking camera. I can't think of any other reason - if you need a spare battery better to keep it in your camera bag.</p>

<p>The DF - I don't know because I haven't handled it. But it looks like it has a small grip which is probably the ideal solution. If it's profile is something like an FM2 then that would be ideal. Whether or not the controls come to hand in a usable and logical manner is for me the most interesting question. I'll have to try it to find out. But in the meantime, I'm very sceptical of all this talk of vertical battery grips and so on.</p>

[mike_halliwell]

<blockquote>

<p>Adding a battery grip to it for handling would I think be a big mistake. I think people mainly do it because they want to fool passersby into thinking they have a bigger more 'professional' looking camera. I can't think of any other reason - if you need a spare battery better to keep it in your camera bag.</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>We'll that's truly a cynics viewpoint....:-) The main reason is, it goes much <strong>faster*</strong>, for sports shooters, that's a very big plus! It balances big, heavy lenses better too. I know no-one that uses one <em>solely</em> to increase battery capacity....or, come to think of it, as a poseur! </p>

<p>The 'pincer' is what you have to do if there's not a deep enough grip to hook under in portrait orientation.<br>

If I'm using a longish zoom, say my 70-200mm VRII, my left hand can't really be at the balance point as you effectively need just your 2 fingers on the zoom ring to get enough freedom for a quick 200>70 or 70>200mm full rotate. In landscape that's OK as the base of your right palm can support the corner..however for me, I have quite small hands, when it's portrait time and there's no hook you have to clamp with your fingers and not hook. Clamping is definitely more tiring. The D700 has a nice deep hook, the Df <em>looks</em> quite shallow. When I find one I'll try it out!</p>

<p>*with AAs or an EnEl4(a)</p>

[simon_crofts]

<blockquote>

<p>We'll that's truly a cynics viewpoint....:-) The main reason is, it goes much <strong>faster*</strong>, for sports shooters</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I'd say it's more of a non-sports shooter's point of view. I fully accept that there will be specialist applications that will require their own specialist equipment. The overwhelming majority of users aren't going to be professional sports shooters. I doubt that the DF is aimed at that part of the market, so I think it would be illogical to judge it on that basis any more than it would be logical to judge a Leica M6 on its suitability for sports shooting.</p>

<p>If the DF does happen to be the ideal camera for sports shooting too, then that would be wonderful, but I don't think it's the right criteria to judge it's handling.</p>

<p>I also really don't think that the DF is aimed at the kind of users who will be using the likes of a 70-200mm very often. Again, if it can be effectively used with such a lens then that's great, but I doubt that it's the target market. Certainly irrelevant for people like me.</p>

 

[Brian1664876441]

I have my Df .nef files working in LR4 now, hex patch offset '0183' to be an ascii '4' rather than an 'f'.

 

ISO 20,000 shot is with all LR noise reduction turned off.

 

http://www.leicaplace.com/album.php?albumid=73

 

other shots range from ISO100 to ISO 12,800.

 

A write-up published on "theme",

 

http://www.the.me/nikon-df-hands-on-the-closest-slr-to-a-leica-minus-rangefinder/

 

I like this camera, feels somewhere between the F3 and F2 for handling the top deck. Vivitar 135/2.3 Series 1 non-Ai is easy to focus with it, easy to shoot with.

[donbright]

<p>The handholding of the camera issue through the eyes of others has confused me too, but I think we're actually all in the same place with this. Certainly not a point to dissect as everyone has some digit somewhere on the camera somewhere else, so who cares, right? If I can offer a tip, and this may be redundant to many here, but I found a technique that I use thereby giving the neck strap another job other than security, and giving us a break between shoots. I set the length of the neck strap purposely to offer tension between, either the neck, or the shoulder when setting up a shot. So when holding the camera as the eye greets the viewfinder, there's tension on the strap on the back of the neck adjusted, or set by the wrists, and arm position. This provides a kind of a tripod effect as there's going to be less camera shake governed by the neck than there would be just supported by the hands. It works! The strap can't be too short as that would be inconvenient taking the camera on and off the neck, but you can set the tension with the left hand, or arm against the strap.</p>

[Andrew Garrard]

<p>I think those of us confused by the Df's dials care because our grip would make it hard to reach some controls! But I'm prepared to give the camera a fair go and see how to make my grip adapt to it. :-) As Simon says, it may be that it's just not designed to be used with big lenses, so the left hand is free(er) to move around.<br />

<br />

I happened to be re-reading Thom Hogan's D600 (now /D610) review and he reports what I thought I remembered: the D600/D610 can't change aperture in live view or video shooting, which I thought meant that (like the D700) it can't change aperture with DoF preview held down either, unless you release and re-press the button (the aperture lever movement is tied to the mirror lift); this is a trick that the D3 variants, D4 and D800 <i>can</i> do. Specifically talking about AF lenses, obviously - if you control the aperture with the ring, it works because the lever doesn't have to move. I worry that I didn't explain things properly when Bjorn reported on this earlier. Can anyone offer a second opinion?</p>

[Dieter Schaefer]

<blockquote>

<p>DxOMark published their test results for the Nikon Df camera and it seems that Nikon were able to further improve the low light performance of their 16Mp sensor: the Df score is 3279 vs. 2965 for the D4 (the D3s score was 3253). The Df's sensor dynamic range performance is identical to the D4 (the D610/D800 still have better dynamic range): http://www.dxomark.com/Reviews/Nikon-Df-review-New-low-light-champion/Nikon-Df-Versus-Nikon-D4-Competitive-Edge</p>

</blockquote>

[Andrew Garrard]

<p>Thanks, Dieter. Oh well, that's a shame - I was hoping, based on the shadow reports, that there was some more low ISO DR going on. It still looks complementary to the D800, in that case. (Though, if ISO 1600 isn't used much, the D3s still looks a pretty good complement too.) I'm curious that the graphs on DxO's site don't show much of a difference for SNR, but the log/log scale hides quite a big apparent numerical gap.</p>

[Dieter Schaefer]

<p>Andrew, DxO numbers are a mystery to me when it comes to their significance in real life shooting situations. In other words, I don't know what difference in the numbers is relevant and what isn't. I had been pretty much the same for lens tests - but thanks to Roger Cicala from lensrental.com I finally got a handle on those seeing that sample variations are often much larger than variations among different lenses and moreover most of these variations aren't field relevant.</p>

<p>Here's what DxO says about high ISO performance:</p>

<blockquote>

<p>It’s only marginally ahead of the D4 and more by luck than judgment it’s ahead of the D3s; though in real world terms the low-light capabilities are the same.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Guess Lannie can stop salivating over the Df now ;-)</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Nikon users have been crying out for a replacement for the D700 but the retro controls of the <a href="http://www.dxomark.com/Cameras/Nikon/Df" target="_blank">Df</a> are likely at odds with the majority of those potential customers.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Unfortunately, that's true for me - in addition to the price being some $800 too high. I will, however, put the Df high on the list of used cameras to purchase a few years down the road when my D700 needs replacing - provided Nikon continues on its current trend of not offering a new camera that I consider worth purchasing outright. The lenses I currently use on the D700 would handle fine on the Df as well; leaving only the misplaced EC dial as an issue (for what I shoot with FX, I guess I could make do with the 39 area AF sensor (bad choice by Nikon for a $2800 camera though)).</p>

[Landrum Kelly]

<p>Thanks, Brian, Dieter, others. Yes, this camera has appealed to me from the beginning because of the low-light potential. Unfortunately, that doesn't mean that I will ever be able to buy it.</p>

<p>In fact, if I were buying right now, I might just take Shun's advice and get the D610. It is not quite as good in low light, but it does have more megapixels. I am quite sure that the D610 would be my camera of choice right now if I could only afford one DSLR. It is not the best at anything, but it is quite good at just about everything, especially given the price.</p>

<p>--Lannie</p>

[ilkka_nissila]

<p><em>The Df's sensor dynamic range performance is identical to the D4 (the D610/D800 still have better dynamic range)</em></p>

<p>The D800 has better dynamic range at ISO 100-200 but from 800 on upwards the Df/D4 have better dynamic range. The D610 graph intersects at a later point so it appears to have better dynamic range than the Df/D4 also at 800, but from 1600 the Df/D4 lead.</p>

<p>The dynamic range at high ISO is very important to me as often the lighting in low artificial available light is extremely high contrast and thus all the dynamic range that can be obtained is a significant benefit. What's more when attempting to color correct the images from warm (low-K) artificial light, the blue channel noise in the D800 has been a severe limitation, I'd expect this problem to be less severe in the Df/D4 given that it has less shadow noise. Of course base ISO dynamic range is important as well, if one is photographing e.g. people in direct sunlight at base ISO the D800 can produce noticeably higher quality output with cleaner shadows. I think the idea that the Df and D800 complement each other has a lot of merit (and it can partly answer why Nikon would choose the Df's sensor the way they did.)</p>