Nikon Introduces Df Retro DSLR

ilkka_nissila · December 10, 2013

For me, the vertical grip helps a lot when I have to shoot a lot of verticals during the course of an event or in a studio shoot, especially with telephoto lenses such as 135/2, 70-200/2.8 etc. I used to have problems in my back, neck, and left knee when I was using the D200 with 70-200/2.8 and those disappeared almost instantly when I stopped using that combination (I was in the US, left the lens while I was visiting my home in Finland and returned without the lens to see what would happen). I later sold the lens and used primes for a while. But later I've bought even larger lenses and used them mostly with cameras with vertical grips and the symptoms have not returned. I think the main problem was that with the D200, I was holding the lens with my left arm extended from the body, and the right hand was at the level of my forehead holding the camera from the grip. I could not support my right elbow against my chest or sides because I had to hold the camera quite high up to use it so all the weight of the camera was on my arms in an awkward position. When I later got the 70-200/2.8II I used it with D3 and could press my right elbow against my side or chest as I do with my left elbow, and all is well, I can hold it for several hours without problems. I find the vertical grip makes much more comfortable to use long lenses in vertical orientation during long hand-held shoots. I also use the 200/2II again it only starts to cause me problems if I add the 2X TC, then hand-holding time is reduced greatly. With the lens by itself I can hold it for a long time without any kind of issues, thanks to the weight being divided between two arms that both are supported against my body. If I only used relatively small lenses, such as 50mm etc. I might not see the need for a vertical grip, and I don't always carry them, e.g. when photographing landcape during the summer it would just be extra weight.

Actually I find that the vertical grip makes a vertical shooter less conspicuous on the streets than holding the right hand high up above the camera from the normal (horizontal) grip of a camera that doesn't support vertical shooting explicitly. The position where the photographer's right hand is above the eye level and holds the camera is a telltale sign of a photographer - no other activity would require such a position, whereas the normal holding of the camera with a vertical grip is not so startlingly noticeable, or that is my experience. When I use a camera without vertical grip to do verticals, when I turn the camera from the horizontal to vertical orientation, everybody seems to notice and look at me. But maybe that's just me. Or not, after all, they do make cameras with vertical grips. For photographing people on the streets I use 35mm, 58mm, 85mm and 105mm primes a lot and frankly I've never noticed that people would pay more attention to the camera with vertical grip, quite the opposite when it is being used they just assume I know what I'm doing. I find a good thing that most of the weight is close to the body, it is easier to control, more stable. Big lenses, on the other hand, do attract some attention and I prefer primes for street photography for that reason (as well as low light capability, cleaner backgrounds etc.). At outdoor events I often need to use long lenses to capture stage action and there it doesn't matter in the slightest as the public sees you're not photographing them.

For street photography what is most important is that the photographer is comfortable using whatever gear they are using and focuses on the task at hand. If they're not comfortable, people will notice that the photographer seems or feels out of place and nervous. Which is one of the many reasons it's important to use the kind of equipment that you're familiar with and comfortable with (apart from the very fact that it's comfortable!).

simon_crofts · December 10, 2013

Ikka, I think we are again coming back to the convenience of a vertical grip with lenses like the 70-200mm. There seems to be a theme here - most of the arguments around the use of bulky current DSLR layouts seem to centre on convenience with longer zoom lenses, especially the 70-200. Which I think again emphasises that the design philosophy is based around trio of heavy zooms - 14-24, 24-70, 70-200. If you don't like those lenses (and I for one don't), then the rational with the vertical grip and current typical DSLR control layout starts to fall apart, and you start to look at a much lighter and more nimble set up.

I don't find cameras with a vertical grip at all inconspicuous for street photography. But perhaps the clue to the divergence is in what you say here:

Actually I find that the vertical grip makes a vertical shooter less conspicuous on the streets than holding the right hand high up above the camera

</blockquote>

We all do things differently and there's no right way of course, but I can't imagine why you would want to hold the rotate a camera anticlockwise to take the picture with your shutter release hand above the camera. Yes it would look conspicuous and awkward, but it would also feel so. The more natural position (I think) is to rotate the camera clockwise to have your right hand under the camera with your elbow tucked into your side. It's not only a much more stable position, but very inconspicuous and more comfortable. Personally I find that more comfortable than having to switch between vertical and horizontal grip every time you rotate the camera. But maybe I'm switching between the two formats much faster than someone who has heavy zoom lenses on the camera, I can imagine it would get very tiring with a heavy camera and heavy lens and you might be more inclined just to hold one position.

It's not only on the street - it's taking pictures at events and weddings, and generally pretty much any photography where you're taking pictures of human beings that the inconspicuousness matters.

Andrew Garrard · December 10, 2013

Ilkka: You're persuading me, once again, that I cannot afford to lose weight. Especially if I ever want a 400 f/2.8. I rely entirely on being able to wedge my elbow on my belly, yet this being some distance in front of my spine. Fortunately I'm not yet at the stage where I can achieve this with the front-heavy 500 f/4 AI-P.

We might be coming back to the "square sensor" argument. I doubt we are in the FX space, but I wonder if the silicon cost is now low enough that it would be economical to make a DX sensor with a single grip but switchable orientation. (For smugness points, make it arbitrary orientation.) I've ignored the "rotating back" concept for a long time as silly, but if the DX sensor area is cheap enough, maybe it would be worth enlarging the mirror and shutter to FX size. But that's another thread.

Dieter: I maintain that Nikon's reasoning was probably: a) People want a D4 sensor in a cheaper body. b) People want a camera with F4 controls. c) There are only so many bodies that Nikon can economically manufacture. d) Enough people would be interested that the features they don't want would refrain from putting them off.

I think © must be critical. If Nikon actually wanted to make maximize sales and ramping up production didn't cost so much, I'm sure there'd be a D4 sensor in a D800 body (I'd call it a "D750", though I'd accept "D800s") and a D610 sensor in a Df body, maybe for less money than the Df currently is (although, again, I'm biased by UK prices currently being stratospheric for the Df compared with the US rate). The question for Nikon's bottom line is whether they're right that the things people want about the Df will outweigh the things that might put them off. The publicity might have helped balance the feeling of "erk, that's not what I wanted". I'm certainly prepared to give the new handling a go, especially after effusive feedback from Bjorn et al. (though I may just use my camera differently from them!), but I'm not sure everyone else will be so willing.

I completely buy that the DR advantage at ISO 1600 and up is useful - I do enough shooting in dim environments that I could use this. I'm still inclined to think that the better complement to a D800 is a D3s, since you then get speed and the grip as well as the high ISO advantage - so long as you're not just usually over ISO 1600 but over ISO 3200, and don't want the extra 4MP. As someone who mostly uses one camera, I'd rather have the D800 for when I can make use of the low ISO behaviour (and resolution), but if I had two, either a Df or a D3s would be pretty appealing. I'm not sure how many people would really benefit from a Df as their only camera, rather than a D610 or D800, other than those who want the handling, since to my mind low-light shooting tends to be hand-in-hand with speed and better autofocus (the professional requirements of "get the picture", even in terrible conditions).

But not everyone shoots like I do - I'm happy to criticise Nikon when I can't imagine any way in which their design decisions are helpful (like not being able to map the ISO and AF buttons to something right-handed), but I'm perfectly happy for Nikon to make a camera that will appeal to someone, so long as it's not me. There are certainly happy people on this thread, so I have to assume that Nikon hasn't got a complete failure on its hands, even if some of us are a bit unconvinced.

Has anyone had the chance to play with the aperture under DoF preview yet? I'll try to give a D600 a go when I can get to an appropriate local store, which might give good indication for the likelihood of the Df behaving the same. On that note, I believe I'm reading it correctly that the Df supports E (in the T/S and 800mm sense) lenses. Out of interest, does anything recent not support these? Support was added around the D3 vintage, IIRC. I know the D700 copes with them, but it was unusual at the time. I just wondered whether it was purely a generational thing, or whether there's a market position aspect too.

Andrew Garrard · December 10, 2013

Simon: Agreed, I can make sense of the Df's design much more easily if I discount the ability to work with big lenses. I just think that big lenses are the domain of the DSLR - with normal and (moderately) wider lenses, at least at reasonable working distances, I would just as soon work with a rangefinder. Seeing the Df as Nikon's response to the X-Pro1 and M series makes some sense - but it seems to mean that you have a camera that only works well with the type of lens that's appropriate to those cameras. That's not catastrophic - buying one camera that happens to sort of work with a big lens when you need it and mostly works well with the smaller lenses you normally use is not unreasonable, although you can nearly buy an X-Pro1 system and a D610 for the price of a Df. Of course, I'm still projecting here, since I've yet to see a Df in the flesh.

I think it's known that people rotate different ways to portrait. I've been known to toggle myself. The grip underneath is a little constrained, but I agree that it's less awkward than the elbow-in-the-air approach - but then it means you have to shoot left-eyed unless you want a very squished nose, which is a problem for some (including me, since I'll have the diopter set for my right eye). There's a reason both approaches are supported. With the Df, rotating the camera really dictates which hand you're going to use to set the top controls.

simon_crofts · December 10, 2013

I think that's right Andrew - the DF seems to be aimed at a certain, more lightweight, probably mainly prime lens, way of working. Trying to judge it by a different approach is a bit misguided I think - it's fine as an exercise to see if you can use it successfully with a heavy zoom lens approach, but it's rather missing the point of the camera I think.

I wouldn't see the DF as a response to X-Pro1 and M series however. These rangefinders are quite different. It's really intended to fill a different hole in the market - SLR's for prime lens users, which is a long way from the rangefinder market. It's hard to compare it to other cameras around at the moment, because it seems to be quite unique in the market

I've been dreaming daily of a camera like this for quite a long time even though I thought it unlikely to come along - I've felt a need for a reasonably heavy duty (but not heavy) SLR, with good controls that is nimble and can be used for shooting thousands of frames at a go, with high ISO performance, for use at weddings and such like. I'm shooting around 30 weddings a year and I need a workhorse. The D700 etc. is a fantastic camera for that kind of thing - but it has great shortcomings, especially in its interface, and on paper at least the DF addresses those, Nikon could easily have been reading my mind about what I needed. An X-Pro1 or a Leica couldn't fill that gap for a host of reasons.

Whether or not it lives up to the promise or not, I can't confirm until I've worked with one. But the concept looks great.

Re the holding the camera vertically - I hadn't thought of the nose getting in the way. I've never noticed that as an issue, but then my nose isn't particularly big(!) I just asked my wife, as she has rather a striking conk (I'm in trouble now) and she doesn't find it a problem either, she's never noticed or thought about it until I asked her just now, and she holds the camera with her hand at the bottom. So I think that it's not really in practise an issue. Perhaps one just inclines one's face slightly to the left without even noticing so the nose is out of the way, it's not really an issue.

Andrew Garrard · December 10, 2013

Simon: I do turn my head sideways when I use my left eye (occasionally, as with my Bessa) - but then I have a large nose. Ironically, I believe it's less of an issue with the single digit Nikons, since they have a more protruding eyepiece.

I agree that the Df is a thing to itself. Of course, there may be a reason that nobody else has used that market segment!

For weddings, the single card slot would worry me. But I can't say that an M or Fuji is any better. Of course, if anyone would like to lend me an M type 240 and a Noctilux, I'll happily see how they compare! I can see the desire for a lighter, cheaper D4 sensor camera - but were you actually dreaming of something with manual controls? I wonder how many people were actually dreaming of everything that the Df is, rather than just part of it.

simon_crofts · December 10, 2013

Andrew, we're both using right eye when shooting vertically with hand below the camera, nose isn't a problem for either of us.

Agreed about the single card slot being an issue. That is probably the biggest minus. Thought the likes of the D700 also has single card slot.

but were you actually dreaming of something with manual controls?

</blockquote>

Yes, good manual controls are essential, but also with an effective aperture priority mode with nice knobs for aperture and exposure compensation, and also with AF.

I wonder how many people were actually dreaming of everything that the Df is, rather than just part of it.

</blockquote>

I'm still looking at it on paper/in reviews. Until I try it, can't be sure.

simon_crofts · December 10, 2013

BTW, re single card slots - at a wedding it's a question of risk management. With two of us shooting simultaneously, there is always an inherent back up in any situation i.e. a key moment won't go unrecorded no matter what. From there it's a matter of ensuring that (a) you use card capacities that require switching from time to time so that the implications of a potential loss of one card are lessened; and (b) making sure that those cards are securely stored to reduce the risk of card loss. But there is no 100% safe solution, with any camera no matter how many slots etc. it has. If the camera is delivering corrupt files in the first place, for example. The point is to identify potential risks, and minimise each one so far as humanly possible. But having two shooters is a good start.

Dieter Schaefer · December 10, 2013

I maintain that Nikon's reasoning was probably: a) People want a D4 sensor in a cheaper body. b) People want a camera with F4 controls. c) There are only so many bodies that Nikon can economically manufacture. d) Enough people would be interested that the features they don't want would refrain from putting them off.

</blockquote>

I think Nikon would be in a much stronger position with an FX camera line-up like this:

- consumer D610

- D800X (= D800E) and D800H (D4 sensor), released simultaneously

- D4 and D4X (D800 sensor), released simultaneously.

Don't think that would create an issue with manufacturing. And I maintain, but certainly can't prove, that more people will be put off by the "retro" Df than attracted by it. Again, the price point doesn't help here either. Also, as mentioned before, I think Nikon managed to not repeat the D3/D700 mistake with the Df - people get the D4 sensor in a smaller body but that camera isn't an alternative to the D4 except for the low-light capabilities.

ShunCheung · December 10, 2013

Dieter, some D4X, as a high-pixel camera similar to the 36MP D800 but in a robust D4-style body, does not make much sense. People use a lot of pixels for studio work and landscape work; they don't shoot anywhere near 10 fps and don't need the D4 type construction, which is more like a hindrance if you take it hiking. That was why the D3X never made sense to me.

Expect the D3/D700 dual to be a one-time special case. Back in 2008, Nikon desperately needed an "affordable" FX body below the $5000 D3 to counter the Canon 5D and 5D Mark II, and Nikon didn't have another sensor available. Clearly the D700 hurt D3 sales. (I, for one, almost bought a D3 but opted for the cheaper D700.) That was why Nikon quickly bumped the D3 to the D3S with a better sensor and never updated the D700. We got a major break with the D700 and don't expect that to happen over and over.

The reality with the Df is that it is mostly a D600-based body minus dual SD cards, with some retro controls, which post some limitations in the digital era. The Df's shutter-speed dial is essentially useless if you want modern 1/3-stop increments. There is also no two-button memory card format capability as it is available on any other Nikon DSLR. You need to go to the menu every time you want to format your memory card on the camera.

Andrew Garrard · December 10, 2013

Simon: Fair enough. I'd not realised that there were many in the "want a D4 sensor" and "want F4 controls" category, but I'm here to learn! If there are a lot like you, the Df may be more popular than I surmised. (Does anyone know how the sales figures are going, by the way?) I concur that two cameras are more important than two cards, but Shun has horror stories about a single card, and nothing makes me paranoid like the concept of wedding shooting. Two shooters is better backup than two cameras on one shooter, of course - at least depending on how often you chimp your photos.

Dieter: That line-up is more what I would have expected. I'd certainly be more interested in a D800H (what I call a D750) than a Df; well, that's not true, because I'm interested in the Df partly because it's weird, but I'd be more likely to buy a D800H than a Df. Still, I'm concerned that the gap between the D610/D800 and Df/D4 is smaller than the D700/D3s generation, and - issues with blue noise aside - I'm not that convinced that the benefits of the D4 sensor are that worth it in the general case. Having done enough shooting in bad light, I'm not prepared to dismiss Ilkka's argument, though. I'd assume a "D800H" would be limited to 5-6 fps (the speed of the D800's shutter mechanism with a grip on it for 16MP DX shooting), which would be less of a competitor with the D4 than the D700's 8fps-with-grip was with the D3. I certainly think the Df goes out of its way to avoid being a D4 competitor (no grip, slow frame rate even compared with the D610, low-end AF, one card slot, consumer interface, no control familiarity with other Nikons...) though I'm sure a few will turn up in that role.

Would a "D800H" have stolen some D4 sales if launched concurrently? Maybe a bit. At least, by now, I'm sure the D4 sales have dropped off. I'm sure the electronics of each of these cameras would be significantly different, so it's not as simple as the D800/D800E pairing. Your line up does have one extra camera model (assuming that the D800 and D800e are essentially identical and count as one) than Nikon's current range, and doesn't allow for those who want something with Df handling (of which, on this thread at least, there seem to be more than I expected).

You also address the "D4x" issue. I know there's a call for a D800 sensor in a D4 body for those wanting to share systems, but I'm suspicious that the already-high price of the D4 combined with the overpriced D3x (bearing in mind the A900 had the same sensor for D700 money) means that Nikon don't think that model will sell. Honestly, I see far more of a case for the D800 than for the D4x, after the 5D2 proved that people would rather carry a small, cheap(er) body around a landscape than a 1Ds3. Maybe there are enough D4x prospective customers out there (and I don't deny they exist), but it's actually the camera segment I can most see Nikon ignoring. It's not like Canon have updated the 1Ds3. To me, the merits of a D4x with the same sensor as a D800 would really struggle to justify a price premium - I seriously considered a much smaller premium for a D3 instead of a D700, and chose against it. Maybe if the D800 didn't have an "-e" version and the D4x was it, or if the D4x has a 50+MP sensor (24MP DX pixel density), though Nikon is really going to risk showing up the quality of its optics with that - and it's still going to be a hard sell against an 80MP medium format back.

I'll wait to see sales figures to guess whether the Df is going to be a one-off or part of a range (and to try one before I form an opinion on its merits, no matter what I spout here). I'd expect some DX refreshes and maybe a D5 before too many other FX cameras, though. Nikon already currently makes more FX camera models than DX ones (D610, Df, D800/D800e, D4 vs D3200, D5300, D7100) despite most of its sales being DX - though we have to factor the availability of the "current" D3000, D3100, D5100, D5200, D7000, D300s and D3x into the numbers. Clearly - especially with the limited range of DX glass - Nikon want people to think about the high end, but I have to agree that the line-up is a bit "either/or" rather than meeting everyone's needs. Nikon are hardly alone in that, though Canon shooters at least have it clear that the 5D3 is "better" than the 6D and 5D2 in pretty much every way - if not necessarily by much.

Andrew Garrard · December 10, 2013

Shun got in while I was typing. But I agree: a D3x or 1Ds3 makes most sense as a studio camera, not as a landscape camera (those being the two big markets - as far as I know - for the high end of the resolution range). A grip for studio shooting is nice, but the battery advantage is a bit of a moot point if you're in the studio anyway, and I can believe that the frame rate advantage is a bit unnecessary, nice though 5fps is for a sequence when a model is moving. The D3x and 1Ds3 have not been directly replaced, but I'd be astonished if they're still selling in any quantity. The ergonomic benefits of them over putting a grip on a cheaper camera that's being subsidized by the amateur landscape market are pretty small for the price premium. Though maybe Nikon will change its manufacturing process to allow them to produce more different models - if this happens, I'd certainly expect a "D4x" to turn up on the wish list somewhere, but not while Nikon have to choose a limited number of models to put into the market. (There are lessons to learn from electronics manufacturers who try to sell a hundred different SKUs with subtle differences. Who's going to stock all of these? What shelves will they go on? The camera manufacturers probably learned this problem from the compact camera space, though I have to worry when someone starts offering their cameras in a large range of colours...)

Dieter Schaefer · December 10, 2013

Shun, I agree on the D4X - that camera doesn't make sense to me. I included it in the list only because I know that some pros are waiting for it.

D3/D700: what you write supports my notion that we can only expect something "out of the ballpark" from Nikon when Nikon is (or feels like they are) under pressure. If, as it currently seems, Nikon feels like they need to "protect" what they offer, we get offers that with one hand gives something nice and new and with the other take away something that one has become accustomed to. For me, the game doesn't work as I am not buying; it's what happens when you offer a "major break" once (actually twice, in form of the D300 and the D700). If more would be like me, Nikon would soon realize that their current policy could put them in dire straits.

Df vs D3S: it hasn't been mentioned explicitly I think, but used D3S bodies can be had for about as much as a new Df body and now - according to DxO quite equivalent high-ISO performance. So it is possible to get similar performance without having to deal with "retro".

Andrew: I don't buy the argument "stealing sales from the D4" - the D4 is a low-volume niche product and if Nikon was to sell two or three lower priced cameras for every D4 sale lost, then in the end that's more profit for Nikon.

simon_crofts · December 10, 2013

The Df's shutter-speed dial is essentially useless if you want modern 1/3-stop increments.

</blockquote>

No, the way it typically works is: in Aperture priority mode, you set the camera and the camera will set the shutter speed in, say, third stop increments. You will also be able to do exposure compensation in third stop increments (possibly less). In Manual mode typically you would set the shutter speed and aperture combination you want, then make fine adjustments to the aperture which may be a third of a stop or even finer if you want (with aperture ring) so that you can carry out very fine adjustments to exposure.

Cameras have worked this way for a loooong time.

ilkka_nissila · December 10, 2013

There seems to be a theme here - most of the arguments around the use of bulky current DSLR layouts seem to centre on convenience with longer zoom lenses, especially the 70-200

The f/2.8 telezoom has long been a key lens in the Nikon system. Many of the primes in its range have not received updates in a long time (105/2, 135/2, 180/2.8, 200/4 micro) and remain without SWM, and the 70-200/4 was updated only very recently. The 70-200/4 should answer the quest that many have for a lighter kit, together with the f/1.8 primes, though I personally wish Nikon would at least update the 135mm soon. Not all of Nikon's DSLRs are that bulky; several cameras of this generation are a bit lighter than in the previous. But I do think compact high quality lenses with reasonably useable maximum apertures and SWM are too few in the Nikon system.

We all do things differently and there's no right way of course, but I can't imagine why you would want to hold the rotate a camera anticlockwise to take the picture with your shutter release hand above the camera.

My wrist simply won't turn into such a position that I could shoot with the right hand under the camera for verticals in a natural way. It's not comfortable - it's even a bit painful, and I'd have to hold the camera with my right hand fingertips to make it possible. So the weight would be on the tips of my fingers and I'd have to push the shutter button with a finger that makes an inch-diameter loop in air. Not very easy to make a soft press that way. There is also a second reason, that I want to use the same eye for shots in both orientations and prefer not to have to clean my glasses all the time. I normally compose with my right eye both for horizontal and vertical compositions; when I turn from horizontal to vertical I turn the camera counterclockwise. This way the diopter of the ocular is adjusted to my right eye and I don't have to smear my glasses with sweat at any point. Also, I don't have to press my nose as much against the back of the camera. If I used the left eye to compose, in horizontal orientation my fingers would smear and conflict for space with the right eyeglass, and for verticals, I'd have to move the camera far to the left to use the left eye to avoid smearing of the right eyeglass (and my nose would get squeezed). So I'd either get dirty glasses or have to adjust the diopter on the fly, or a broken wrist... It is much more natural for me to turn the right hand above the camera, it is simply the only way my wrist will comfortably allow, or use the vertical grip which I find the best option of all. But this is about everyone's individual body; I can only say what works for me, others will have a different method that suits their body. Just a year or so ago I saw someone holding the camera vertically with their hand under the grip, and the right hand fingertips were touching the camera, not the palm. That photographer was using a monopod under the lens. It's the same way with me; I could only do it with my fingertips, not with the palm around the grip, as should be for the weight to be on the hand and not fingers.

I can imagine it would get very tiring with a heavy camera and heavy lens and you might be more inclined just to hold one position.

I can imagine it would get very tiring to switch between prime lenses and you might be more inclined just to hold one focal length. ;-)

I've gotten used to the weight and muscle strength grows to adopt to the requirements. I move to a different active focus point when I switch from horizontal to vertical and unfortunately in Nikon DSLRs, this has to be done manually if one wants to retain control over the active focus point (some new Canons can switch the position automatically when the camera is rotated). It takes more time to move the focus point than the actual turning of the camera's orientation and moving my hands to new positions. I suppose I could just use the center point in which case no jiggling with the focus point is required, but then I'd not be able to track moving subjects at a designated part of the frame so easily.

I can make sense of the Df's design much more easily if I discount the ability to work with big lenses.

I agree that the body design seems more suited to relatively lightweight, small lenses. But also it can work with big lenses if you mount the lens on a tripod, freeing the left hand and the lack of vertical grip is also not as problematic in such a situation since the photographer doesn't have to hold the weight of the rig.

I just think that big lenses are the domain of the DSLR - with normal and (moderately) wider lenses, at least at reasonable working distances, I would just as soon work with a rangefinder.

DSLRs have many advantages for shorter lenses as well. Macro, T/S, fast zoom, fast autofocus, more accurate viewfinder framing than rangefinder and a real-time view of the subject and the Df can act as backup for another camera perhaps more suited to telephoto work (yet take up its function in a pinch, which a Leica can not).

It's not only on the street - it's taking pictures at events and weddings, and generally pretty much any photography where you're taking pictures of human beings that the inconspicuousness matters.

I agree that being inconspicuous is important, but I find the decisive factor to be the photographer's own behaviour and not the size of the camera as even a large camera is much smaller than the photographer. A long lens pointed straight up at the subject's face is going to be very noticeable and can cause a reaction since the precise pointing of the lens reveals the photographer's intentions and the front element can be rather big, but if we for the moment ignore long lenses, and discuss the photography of people at moderate distances with a wide angle, normal or a short tele, then I really don't find the camera size itself plays much role in making the photographer conspicuous. I'm comfortable with the equipment I use and people just let me do my thing without a second glance. I do tend to choose smaller / shorter lenses for people photography at close range, but for the camera body it's more important that the camera body fits my hands and body well than that it's small. But I have no objection to owning and using a small camera as long as they are not the only option. ;-)

DB_Gallery · December 10, 2013

A guy on RFF sold a brand new black Df for 2K last night, I was ever so slightly tempted. A lot of discussion on here the past couple pages of what cameras are for...kind of the web mentality I guess, the real world is often different. I use my D800 for advertising that involves high action and some corporate work that is PJ driven, often in low light. Often enough, some of the uses end up being really large mural output and the MP count works quite a bit in my favor, a D4 would be a fair step down in this regard and the sheer size is a no-go for a lot of the outdoor stuff I do, the thing is just huge. So I would like to see a D900 that had either a higher frame rate like 6FPS or one that stepped down to 24MP output in favor of 8FPS, something along those lines. I need the higher MP count of the D800 often enough but could really benefit from at least 6FPS. I don't need more than 36MP though since I use medium and large format film for landscapes and the D800 handles most ad / corporate needs readily. I understand that my needs are fairly unique but they are legit.

ShunCheung · December 10, 2013

A guy on RFF sold a brand new black Df for 2K last night, I was ever so slightly tempted.

</blockquote>

You mean someone sold a new Df for $2000? Why would someone sell it at that price while everybody else is selling at $2750 or so, unless there is some catch such as damaged or stolen stuff.

Dieter Schaefer · December 10, 2013

A guy on RFF sold a brand new black Df for 2K last night

</blockquote>

The picture shows only the box - so I am with Shun on that one - something smells awfully fishy.

simon_crofts · December 10, 2013

I can imagine it would get very tiring to switch between prime lenses and you might be more inclined just to hold one focal length.

</blockquote>

Not really, as mentioned earlier I'm typically changing lenses hundreds of times a day, I barely notice that I'm doing it most of the time.

I find the decisive factor to be the photographer's own behaviour

</blockquote>

There's a lot of truth in that, but very few people would choose a big heavy SLR like the D3 or D4 for street photography. I've only once seen someone trying to do it seriously and (a) he wasn't a very good photographer and (b) he annoyed a lot of people on the street as he went along. I'm not saying it can't be done, just that it's almost certainly not the best tool for the job, which is why almost none of the best street photographers (or in fact, none that I know) use one. They nearly all (actually - all of the photographers I can think of) use cameras like Leicas, X100's and so on. There's a reason for that.

Not that that's a criticism particularly of a heavy DSLR + zoom, just that it's not generally a good tool for that job. It's good at other things.

dan_brown4 · December 10, 2013

I swap lenses fairly often, and one important factor is having a bag on your shoulder that you can work out of effectively, and a willingness to let the lenses knock about just a bit ;-)

simon_crofts · December 10, 2013

Definitely Dan.

Sometimes people think that it's easier to change focal length quickly with zooms, but that's only true if you're changing focal length within the zoom's range eg. within 24 to 70. I will typically be changing focal length fast from, say, 20mm to 50mm to 105mm for consecutive pictures. With zooms, that would be hard to do, it would take a lot of shifting of heavy lenses. With primes, I can do take all three shots in a matter of a few seconds.

Another common misconception is that changing lenses makes you vulnerable to dust. We don't find that to be the case - most of the dust seems to come from the camera's internal mechanisms, which is hardly surprising when you consider all that grinding of metal on metal going on. After thousands of lens changes, I find very little dust on the sensor, I have to clean it once every few months and all is fine. I suspect when I open the lens box up, more dust probably falls out than falls in.

DB_Gallery · December 10, 2013

You mean someone sold a new Df for $2000? Why would someone sell it at that price while everybody else is selling at $2750 or so, unless there is some catch such as damaged or stolen stuff.

</blockquote>

Normally I would say yes, but in this case, I have dealt with Vince directly on several sales, he is a stand up guy. The ad did read that a friend owed him money so he sold it for him but with the warranty not able to be transferred, he set the price really low.

It does look odd though and honestly what Nikon *should* be charging for this camera...

Andrew Garrard · December 10, 2013

Simon: Forgive my doubts about the ergonomics, but I'm not convinced by claims that the shutter speed dial isn't obsolete because you can use the camera in aperture priority (and therefore ignore it entirely) or hop between the shutter dial, the EC dial and the 1/3 stop shifts. I agree that this functionality is there, but I assume that people want to use the dial mostly as it stands. I'm a little bemused as to what exactly would have been lost by putting an LCD on the dial rather than engraving it, letting the dial turn through more than 360 degrees, but I imagine some users actively dislike LCDs and really wanted the fixed positions.

I switch lenses fairly often, but there is always the chance of missing a shot or not having the right lens on at a time. There's only so much I can carry with me, too. I treat my 70-200 as a compromise when I don't need the performance of an 85 f/1.4, 150 f/2.8 or 200 f/2 but do want to have some DoF control and change framing between shots.

For street photography, I'd be inclined to use a D5300 (or older equivalent) - the flip-out finder is useful for not intimidating people. Something with rangefinder ergonomics - especially with a quiet shutter - does have merits. A D3 would be pretty intrusive, I admit. At weddings, shooting candids (as a guest), I'll carry a 70-200 or 200 f/2 (or, optics aside, 150-500) but that's about getting people from a distance when they're involved in something else, and often I can't move around as much as an official photographer could without disrupting proceedings. The D800 may help - people see a big circle from the front of a lens, not a camera. As you say, different cameras for different uses. I'm sticking to that, which is why I've got several cameras, against my wife's best wishes...

Daniel: I would guess a resolution bump in the D4 successor, and I wouldn't be surprised if it matches the 24MP DX bodies while keeping a high frame rate. I doubt it'll be cheap, though. At 6 fps, the D610 is pretty capable; don't forget the D800 can do 24MP at 5fps if you don't mind a 1.2x crop.

Ilkka: I did say at reasonable working distances - I was trying to rule out the "macro is better with DSLRs" argument. It is, but then so are a lot of compacts! Personally, for macro, I'd go with the D5300 again (flip-out screen for positioning, pixel density for reach). For T/S, I'd take live view any day (and this is the big reason I waited instead of getting an original 5D - the D700 was the first full frame camera with live view that I could afford), though I'd still like my idea of splitting the image into quadrants. You could also argue the merits of an ultrawide in a DSLR. Rangefinders aren't the solution for any of these either, but one could argue against a DSLR in favour of another camera type; it's certainly the most flexible option. Still, as someone who mostly uses SLRs, I'm still a bit bemused by a camera that appears to be designed mostly for where the SLR's advantage over other cameras is weakest.

Incidentally, I agree about the 135 f/2 (Nikon are allowed to replace it now I've got rid of mine...), especially if they fix the LoCA. I'm a little tempted by the Zeiss, though I'm still trying to be convinced about the Otus (sharpness yes, bokeh... maybe, need more reviews) and it'll take a long time for me to afford either. The DC 135mm is a pretty solid lump, though - I'm not sure I'd find it all that comfortable if I was trying to hop my hands around the camera. My AI-S 135 f/2.8 is much more convenient. I wonder whether Nikon will update that?

simon_crofts · December 10, 2013

I'm a little bemused as to what exactly would have been lost by putting an LCD on the dial rather than engraving it, letting the dial turn through more than 360 degrees, but I imagine some users actively dislike LCDs and really wanted the fixed positions

</blockquote>

Andrew, I was just addressing any implication that the whole stops on the shutter dial might stop you somehow making fine exposure adjustments. It doesn't, and in actual practical use in photography the single stop click isn't a limitation at all, and hasn't been in the generations of cameras that have had shutter dials.

How often I would use the shutter dial versus other approaches I can't tell until after I've used the camera for a while. But one thing that is important to me is that when using the shutter dial (or equivalent) is that I can quickly count whole stops without having to actually look at the camera. Nice single clicks per stop.

I switch lenses fairly often, but there is always the chance of missing a shot or not having the right lens on at a time.

</blockquote>

Definitely - there's no perfect way that always works in 100% of circumstances. Most of it is about anticipation - about knowing what you are going to want in, say, a few seconds time. If you're reacting to what you want NOW, then you're probably too late to take the picture anyway. I was just pointing out that the main perceived advantage of zooms - the ability to change focal length quickly - is sometimes the case, but sometimes isn't.

dan_brown4 · December 10, 2013

Call the shutter speed dial 'obsolete' it ludicrous to me?

When I shoot my Df in manual, I use the shutter speed dial to set the shutter speed (or select X-sync) and the sub-command dial to set aperture (or aperture ring on Ai-S Nikkors), and I also use the ISO dial to set, well, ISO. The aperture dial gives 1/3 stop increments and so does the ISO dial, so there is nothing lost in exposure precision with 1-stop shutter speed increments.

I think you folks may be over analyzing all this.

Sign In

Nikon Introduces Df Retro DSLR

Recommended Posts

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Posted Images

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

Create an account

Sign in