Nikon Introduces Df Retro DSLR

[mike_halliwell]

<blockquote>

<p>to justify the research to develop such a device</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>Put a Nikon FA and a D610 in a bag and shake. The complex components are already in existence and have been tried and tested already. The bodywork isn't that hard. That's the dev costs for the Df.</p>

<p>Now, research! Anyone ever been asked about this? As someone pointed out above 'Lets go Retro and promote MF' and then made it with a fixed focusing screen, no focus peaking etc. That's how far the research budget went. It could have been a winner, but someone failed to ask a photographer.</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p> If their mirrorless cameras looked like this, they would sell cartloads.</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>Yup, almost tempted to make a photoshop pastiche of my V1 and the Df.</p>

<p> </p>

[Barry Clemmons Photography]

<p>Nikon of late really seems to like the $2700 area for pricing a lot. First the new 80-400mm lens and now the Df. The response to the 80-400mm sounded similar: "I like this but will wait for the price to drop to $2000". I have been on this site for several years and have noticed one thing: there appears to be an invisible barrier beyond $2000 that stops a majority of people from buying unless the product is vastly superior or introduces new technology. You have to really like nostalgia to pay this amount for a camera body with the Multi-Cam 4800 and single SD card slot. AF performance is equally as important to me as what sensor is used. <br>

Like others have stated, the Df seems primarily aimed at those in my generation. But a word to Nikon. If I am going to "Fall in love all over again", it will be with Hilary Duff and not Brigitte Bardot. :)</p>

[Dieter Schaefer]

<blockquote>

<p>But a word to Nikon. If I am going to "Fall in love all over again", it will be with Hilary Duff and not Brigitte Bardot. :)</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Thanks for giving me a good chuckle ;-)</p>

[aaron l]

<p>That thing is just cool. I had a moment of stress when I saw the new camera release and the D800 I just ordered is still in transit. That would have been classic if a minor update for the D800 showed up.<br /> I love the retro design. For travel, that might be really nice. It certainly doesn't scream steal me but rather "I'm so behind the times, say in the early '80's, that you'd only find pocket lint and film if you robbed me."<br /> Just need a second job. Not that the camera will make be cool, because I'm not, but I never shot with a Nikon back in the days when people said, "Eventually, you'll shoot Nikon." I was shooting with a Canon AE-1, not even an AE-1P.<br /> Like other posters have said, maybe this is the successor to the D700 for low light?<br>

And, it even has a threaded release cable. Now that's a touch of class.</p>

[robert_bouknight1]

<p>I like the camera, and can afford to buy it, but I won't. I can't find any performance advantage with it vs my current D600 and D3. For a lot less money, a D610 (or now even cheaper 2nd D600) makes more sense. In fact. I will probably swap out my D3 for a used or refirb D600 soon.</p>

<p>Really wish it had the D7100 AF module. My biggest beef with the D600 I have is the smallish AF array.</p>

<p>I am OK with 16MP and great high ISO. That would work well with what I am shooting currently. 5.5 FPS is fast enough for what I am shooting, rarely crank the D3 over 6FPS.</p>

<p>So, vs. a D600, I loose the 2nd card slot (pretty important to me) and 8MP (not so important), and over 1K$! Does it offer any advantages that I am missing?<br /> <br /> I have plenty of classic cameras sitting on shelves, I can load up an F2AS, FM, or Leica M3 if I feel the need for a classic experience.</p>

<p>And really, why not something like a 105/2.5 instead of the miserable performing early 43-86 in the press photo? They could have borrowed my 8.5-25cm zoom for the photo to spark interest in the earlier lenses.</p>

[john_hinkey]

<p>Like the look, dislike the execution of the idea and the price.<br /> Contrary to popular belief, there are a lot of AI, AIS lenses that hold their own on 36MP, hence the idea of old, soft MF Nikkors is no excuse for 16MP. Some of my sharpest lenses on my D800 are AI/AIS Nikkors (in fact some MF Nikkors have no AFS peer). It's cost control and/or product differentiation at work, not lack of sharp old glass. I'm OK with that.<br /> What I'm not OK with is the lack of any innovation with this camera and lack of logical follow-through on the design. External controls are nice, but it truly is a Frankenstein of a camera that appears to be designed by committee after someone had a great idea at Nikon. It has the price of a D800, but much less capability and is neither fish nor fowl regarding a step towards older film camera ergonomics.<br /> If they wanted to built a MF-Nikkor optimized camera they failed: Focusing screen fixed, no extra focusing aids, low eye relief.<br /> If they wanted to build a much more compact, yet highly capable DSLR they failed: It's still pretty heavy and not all that much smaller, especially compared to the new competition, and it's crippled in too many ways.<br /> If they wanted to build a D700 successor they failed: No where near D700 capabilities (other than the 16MP sensor)<br /> If they wanted to innovate in technology or camera design they failed: Not one new innovative feature (I don't consider external dials and "retro" styling innovative)<br /> If they wanted to build an entry level FF DSLR for the masses they failed: Priced way too high and is either lacking features or has too many high end features.<br /> Now that all being said, as with any Nikon DSLR it is surely capable of taking excellent images and it will appeal to people. Personally as an owner of a D800 (and D80, D300, and D700 before that) I was looking forward to a different tool than my D800 that was far more optimized for using MF glass and hence am disappointed with the camera's capabilities:<br /> - 39 AF points - I could live with 5 as long as they were spread out across the frame and were all f/8<br /> - Fixed focusing screen - please allow us the option to swap it out for better options, even if we need to pay a premium for it<br /> - Better on camera controls - though I appreciate it, you didn't have to go all the way back to the F3, FA era to come up with something ergonomic and more functional than the high end DSLRs for more metered shooting<br /> - No 10 pin remote - really?<br /> - No true mechanical mirror lockup - really?<br /> - No built-in viewfinder cover - really?<br /> - Lack of video I get, but many will not<br /> - etc., etc.</p>

<p>So, would I own such a camera? Yes, but not at a D800 price level. For this camera, with it's specifications, I'd only be interested at $2K or less. And even then I'd have a long hard look at the competition.</p>

[Gup]

<p>I have read every post both here and on the previous 'wish' thread (over 400). It's been interesting at times. Mostly a few things have been said a hundred different ways. I've watched as some of you have stated your views, flip-flopped and then flopped back again. The haters have been the most vocal, I think. <br>

After much personal reflection I think I 'love' the panda version, but would likely buy the black one (I remember cleaning all those little silver nooks and crannies), but will NOT pony-up $3500 ($500 CDN taxes) for either, even though my 'toy' account is bulging right now. Nikon isn't going to force-feed me another 50mm lens, either. $2400 for the body and I'm first in line. No, it isn't 'state of the art' technically speaking, and for that I too am very disappointed, but perhaps that version was considered but couldn't be produced for under $4000 - $5000? Maybe that version will be released next fall? If they had produced that version I know I would have bought it, hands down, because I am in the market for THAT camera. I don't buy new cameras everyday and now have to justify the expenditure so I need the reassurance that my NAS will be in remission for the next decade. I miss the sentimentality that 20+ years with a proven and trusted machine provides. So far every digital body I have owned has just been a stepping stone to the next while I fund Nikon's research and development department. I would have liked this Df to have surprised me in more ways than its retro appeal, which I fully expected. I am going to reserve further judgement until I hear what the reviewers have to say and until I get one in my own hands. The Df may still have more up its sleeve than we know. At least that's what I'm hoping for.</p>

[john_hinkey]

<p>Well Bjorn says that he had no troubles focusing his f/1.2 or f/1.4 lenses with the OVF - we'll see if that is indeed true as more people actually us it with MF Nikkors.<br>

<br />It just feels to me that the concept was rushed - if it could have been thought out some more it could be a really fine photographic tool for the same amount of $$.</p>

[Dieter Schaefer]

<p>I am tired of writing about this camera - Thom Hogan summed it up quite nicely for me: http://www.dslrbodies.com/newsviews/digital-confusion-with-the.html</p>

<p>I have no "officially" entered "camera replacement mode" - I will replace what I currently have only when it breaks or when repair is uneconomical; and I will likely look for used or refurbished before buying new and taking the full brunt of the loss that comes with the purchase of any digital camera nowadays. <br /> Over the last few years, all new Nikon camera offerings had technical advances I would have liked and would have paid for - but most of them gave with one hand and took away something I had and liked before with the other. The result: not enough incentive for me to "upgrade". Sometimes, "good enough" for me is exactly that - good enough for me.<br /> Now I am going to sit back and wait what Nikon will come up with next - hoping they can make up their mind what the next generation cameras really should be. Hoping to sell purely based on style most certainly can't be it - though I suppose it will work on some (or even many).</p>

<blockquote>

<p>It just feels to me that the concept was rushed</p>

</blockquote>

<p>That would be bad news indeed and would get me worried - given that I read that this design was <strong>four</strong> years in the making.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Bjorn says that he had no troubles focusing his f/1.2 or f/1.4 lenses with the OVF</p>

</blockquote>

<p>With the help of the electronic rangefinder, I suppose? Or with a different focusing screen? Just curious.</p>

[chuckm]

<p>I think it is ironic that the micro-site for a camera w/o video recording capability relies on videos of McNally, Krist and Goldsmith to market the camera.</p>

[clive_murray_white]

<p>I hope Nikon have really thought this out - going retro styling after the horse has bolted, Fuji, Olympus etc doesn't quite feel like the right thing to do, as far as I'm concerned. Worse than that if other people are even a bit like me, they'll be directed towards buying a cool looking OMD or Fuji X.</p>

<p>This camera means that Nikon is doubting its core philosophy and that worries me.</p>

[riclan]

<p>Meanwhile, where is my D400?</p>

[Peter_in_PA]

<p>Rockwell adores it without even holding it in his hands...</p>

<p>...what does THAT tell you...</p>

[michael_chuang1]

<p>If nothing else the Df has spiked a lot of attention and discussion. The prior thread here was closed at 379 comments, and there are as of now 690 comments on <strong>Rangefinder</strong>forum to name but two venues. Now that says nothing about translation into sales, but still ....</p>

<p>Personally, I'll wait until I can play with one in the local camera shop (with my old AI lenses, yet) before passing judgment on the Df. After all I thought the Nikon V1 was bound to be a piece of crap until I had the chance to shoot with one, and you know, for what it is, it's a lot of fun, a great travel companion, and amazingly decent in IQ. (On the other hand the V1 wasn't over $2.7K USD.) In particular, I'll hold off on comments about ergonomics until I get my hands on a Df. I hauled out the old F3 with MD4 this morning, and you know, despite its pedigree and legend, I find it much more awkward than my D300 on multiple levels. So maybe the digital-oriented backside of the Df and the DSLR-style control dials are not a bad thing. Pretty sure I won't like the left top-mounted exposure compensation dial though.</p>

<p>(And for those few who wanted an LCD-less Nikon DSLR, get real! I am all about being a <strong>retrogrouch</strong> -- as we used to say about cyclists who like to ride lugged steel frames while wearing woolen jerseys instead of swanning about all-lycra clad on carbon fiber frames with unobtanium components -- but only to a point.)</p>

<div></div>

[StuartMoxham]

<p>I'm just so disappointed with a 4049 euro price tag body only it's gone too far over my price range. I really hope it's a mistake but probably not.</p>

[robert_bouknight1]

<p>To Clive's and others point, I probably would get more benefit out of the newly released Sony A-7 to put the the many older but excellent lenses I have (Leitz, Zeiss, Schnieder, the list is long) back in use than I would with the Df. And I have to think that I would have been a marketing target customer for Nikon (Bought an FM new in 1977, been buying a lot of Nikon stuff since).</p>

<p>I like retro, but only when it has benefits as well as style.</p>

[andylynn]

This seems so close to being just right. If they'd given it the D800 AF system, a split prism and put an aperture ring on the

kit lens I'd want one.

[chip_chipowski]

<blockquote>

<p>Rockwell adores it without even holding it in his hands...<br>

...what does THAT tell you...</p>

</blockquote>

<p>It tells me you read his blog because you were interested in his opinion. There are a few people out there on the internets that have handled the camera (Bjorn Rorslett, apparently is one). Otherwise, aren't most people on this thread giving opinions about a camera they have never held?</p>

[ilkka_nissila]

<i> If they wanted to built a MF-Nikkor optimized camera they failed: Focusing screen fixed, no extra focusing aids, low eye relief.</i><p>

 

This is what one might conclude by looking at specs only, but when it comes to manual focusing, I'll take Bjorn's word that it works well. Let's not draw conclusions until we have a chance to put the camera into use. Interchangeability of the focusing screen should be similar to nearly all Nikon DSLRs, i.e. they're interchangeable but Nikon isn't offering alternative screens. That doesn't mean the screen that is supplied for a camera that is obviously targeted at manual focus lens users won't be good. In a few months we will know exactly how well Nikon succeeded in the viewfinder and focusing screen design.<p>

 

Manual focusing aides never were what I liked to use; they clutter the viewfinder central area and cannot be used at the peripheral areas of the frame. The matte surface of a good focusing screen is in my opinion much more useful for focusing as it is present at every part of the frame and so composition can be independent of the position of focusing aids ... when the focusing aid is just the matte surface itself. It worked excellently in my experience with F3HP which I used for many years. It was when I moved to autofocus primary camera that it became difficult to compose and focus effectively since the focus points were initially only in the center. It was so frustrating! I only switched to AF as a primary method of focusing with the Multi-CAM 3500 cameras that offered a reasonable spread of points, not fully satisfactory but so much better than 1, 5, and 11 points. Given a choice, I would pay a considerable amount of money to restore a good manual focusing experience to the DSLR, but before the Df, Nikon has been very unhelpful in this respect. One of the best things about MF is that one does not have to waste time moving the focus point around and recompose; one points the camera towards the subject and holds the optimal composition while focusing at whatever point in the frame needs to be in focus, using the matte area. With the right viewfinder it is an enjoyable and productive experience, and it frees the photographer from compositional restraints imposed by the camera AF system designer. It took me a very long time before I could accept these restrictions and in fact a lot of the time they force me to crop a significant part of the image away because even the outermost points of the Multi-CAM 3500 are still far from edges. I really do sometimes want to place the focus near one or two edges of the frame. Manual focusing lets me do this, with a camera that adequately supports it. Hopefully the Df is it, or one of its successors.<p>

 

In my opinion 16 MP is sufficient for all but the most demanding applications of photography. And it sure is a big relief from the point of view of freeing all that time spent waiting for the computer handle the raw files when processing 4000 images from some multi day trip or event. Personally I think 24MP is the ideal compromise between image quality and practical file size for FX. I can use and take advantage of 16, 24 and 36 MP files but my preference is not 36 MP; I only use it because it is what I could afford at the time I purchased the D800. Now, I think for me the time has come to move to a more practical file size. I don't think the D800 will be my primary camera in 1-2 years, and I don't see a need to revisit that file size in the future, either. I can wait a bit longer for the right feature set though. But it seems Nikon is now expanding the FX camera and lens ranges rapidly and eventually there will be a product that has the right feature set. It might not always be the first instance of a series of cameras.

[Landrum Kelly]

<p>This conversation has gotten more than a little bit ridiculous. This is going to be a fine little camera, and it is going to sell, and, yes, the price is going to drop.</p>

<p>The price <em><strong>ALWAYS</strong></em> drops.</p>

<p><a href="http://www.dpreview.com/previews/nikon-df/">http://www.dpreview.com/previews/nikon-df/</a></p>

<p><a href="http://www.dpreview.com/news/2013/11/05/hands-on-with-the-retro-nikon-df?utm_campaign=internal-link&utm_source=news-list&utm_medium=text&ref=title_0_1">http://www.dpreview.com/news/2013/11/05/hands-on-with-the-retro-nikon-df?utm_campaign=internal-link&utm_source=news-list&utm_medium=text&ref=title_0_1</a></p>

<p>--Lannie</p>

[JDMvW]

<p>16MP is just fine. Anything at or above 6MP images will work for a large percentage of the photographers using the things. That's what Nikon shooters said when that was all Nikon made, and - by golly - they were right.<br>

We passed the threshold on number of pixels dancing on the head of a sensor some time ago, after all.</p>

 

[michael_chuang1]

<p>So, Nikon is apparently soliciting opinions and feedback (whut?) on the Df and 50/1.8G here: <a href="https://webc.nikonimaging.com/form/pub/info/df_en">https://webc.nikonimaging.com/form/pub/info/df_en</a>. Let the Nikon folks know what you think instead/in addition to spouting off here.</p>

<p>My spouting off there (to the free-form final question of "Please feel free to describe anything about "Df" and "AF-S NIKKOR 50mm f/1.8G(Special Edition)". (Up to 1,000 characters)":<br /> <em>I wish you well with the Df, even though I REALLY want a "D400." PLEASE don't screw up the Df's marketing like you screwed up the Nikon One series (Ashton Kuchner, really? You should have marketed the V1 as the "Pro's vacation or sports camera" and touted the excellent AF. The hell with a man in his late 30's pretending to be a goofy teenager.) The depressed-seeming man with flat affect wandering in the highlands is not a promising start for the Df campaign.</em><br /><br /><em>The 50/1.8G to go with a retro/full control camera seems silly, the G part, that is. Waste of resources. Make some small short DX-optimized primes for the love of god.</em><br /><br /><em>Regarding the Df, the focusing screen had better work VERY well for manual focus. Otherwise you will be in for a lot of (deserved) criticism.</em><br /><br /><em>I really WANT to like the Df, whether I buy will depend on the MF issues and how it feels in the hand.</em><br /> <br /> <strong>Edited to add</strong>: Jeez. They managed to screw up the questionnaire!!! The last question says in 1000 characters? Not really. If you try to submit up to 1000 characters (which includes spaces) it gets kicked back to you with a red error message saying only 550 characters. Don't promise one thing then change the rules. Also, you apparently can't leave any of the click-options (Likert-scale type) blank. Way to piss people off, Nikon<em>.</em> If you don't understand that, Nikon, here's the deal. People answering the questionnaire are helping with your market research for free. That means you take the information you get and be appreciative. By forcing respondents to answer each point you are going to get lots of abandonments, which skews your sample drastically. Only those who really care about your product will have their opinions counted, so you get this dumb happy view of how everyone loves you. Even, or especially if it's not true.<em><br /></em></p>

[Rick Helmke]

<p>I recall paying about $2300 for each of my F4s bodies in maybe 1994 and they are still running just fine. The F2/MD-2 and the F4s allow me to do my work without getting in my way. I don't notice the camera I just use it. For me that's a succesful design. Nothing Nikon has ever made with those damned command dials has worked as well for me. The camera gets in my way. I've been wanting a digital camera with this control layout ever since I bought my first D1-X. I'll withhold final judgement until I try one out but right now I'm liking it. And if it does all I need for $2700 or so that's fine. Beats $8k all day long.</p>

<p>Rick H.</p>

[lex_jenkins]

<p>I responded to the survey as well. My main points were that the specs indicate the Df misses the target demographic of middle aged and older photographers. It needs a long eye relief finder to accommodate eyeglasses, or positive manual focus confirmation aids: split-image and/or microprism collar; or AF sensor brackets that illuminate to confirm focus.</p>

<p>Other than that it appears to be pretty well designed, although I'd have minor quibbles about the SPAM dial and placement of a couple of controls.</p>

<p>Overall the Df is interesting but I suspect the manual focus issue will be the make or break point for the target demographic - mostly older dudes with bad eyes but plenty of money.</p>

[RaymondC]

<p>To me it's not a pure camera. It's far from any manual focus camera. It's even got more buttons than my D70. My D70 doesn't have the i button, the info, the plus, the minus, the AF-ON. They coulda taken out the AF-L/AE-L and AF-ON and the user can assign whatever to the func button. Deleted bracketing, deleted GPS/ digital receiver connectors. Take out all the buttons left of the LCD. Just have a Playback and menu on top. Don't really need delete button. Could just go thru the menu for that. Have the info button if it wants. Take out LV.</p>