Nikon Introduces Df Retro DSLR

[lex_jenkins]

<p>And just to reiterate the "old dudes with bad peepers" bit (I don't have plenty of money, so I'm only half a demographic)...</p>

<p>For years I was very happy with the E grid screen in my F3HP. I could accurately manually focus even in nighttime conditions. Same with the D2H - I always found it easy to use with my manual focus lenses. With both screens, all I needed to do was eyeball the unaided screen. (The green focus confirmation dot at the edge of the screen was useless for candid photography, and not particularly accurate either.)</p>

<p>No longer. My vision has really deteriorated the past year. I shouldn't complain - I'm 55 and didn't really need reading glasses for the computer until 2012.</p>

<p>But the original K screen is going back into my F3HP.</p>

[Dieter Schaefer]

<blockquote>

<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.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Same here - which is why I had Type B or E screens in all my film cameras. Does the Df include a screen that allows to see DOF at f/1.4, or f/2? It is my understanding and experience that the screens in my cameras don't show a difference until I stop down to f/2.8 at least. That doesn't make for accurate manual focusing of a f/1.4 lens, for example - unless I am relying on the "green dot" rangefinder which sometimes leaves me hanging as well. I can focus a faster than f/2.8 lens manually, but it takes a lot of moving back and forth trying to find the middle and then hope that I indeed nailed it - on the screen it looks the same no matter where I am in that range between too far and too close. I don;t have much experience manually focusing lenses faster than f/2.8 though - a 85/2 was the fastest I owned when shooting film and my remaining manual focus lenses are all f/2.5 - f/3.5. Will play around manually focusing the Sigma 35/1.4 to learn more.</p>

<p>BTW, manually focusing my 35/2 and 90/2 on a NEX 6 using focus peaking reveals that not to be the cat's meow under all circumstances either. Sometimes the peaking indicates focus but one is a little bit off( focusing in magnifying mode in usually helps but also slows one down).</p>

[kgavin]

<p>A lot of different opinions. I plan on purchasing one (a silver one) if I like the feel ergonomically, but I'm going to wait several months to allow any bugs to come out of the cracks (and maybe see a slight decrease in price). I currently have a D800 and a D700, but think I would rather travel with this camera, a 24-85mm, a 50mm, and a 105mm. I find I never need more than that when I travel anyway. I'm headed on a trip next month and that's all I'm taking with my D800. The D800 is overkill for simple photos, and the D4 sensor in this camera is much better than the already good sensor of the D700 as far as low light goes. Also, this camera does have a bit of a cool factor, and like my 14-24, I plan to keep it as a collector's item when/if I ever lose the desire to shoot.</p>

[lex_jenkins]

<p>That's a good point, Ray. The Df still has too many dedicated external buttons. There's very little need for a dedicated delete button. The Ricoh GRD has a far better design for quickly reviewing and deleting photos - it enables batch selecting photos in a way that's very similar to using a computer, which makes it very handy for deleting batches of photos. That way the "delete" button is multifunction and minimizes clutter. Even the Nikon V1 design lacks this efficient design.</p>

<p>Overall the Df seems more cluttered than need be. But Nikon may have felt stung by criticism of the over-simplified Nikon 1 System cameras. Although the problem with the J1 and V1 wasn't so much excessive simplicity - the top plate is brilliant, just three buttons, each perfectly designed. The main problem with the J1 and V1 was that dumb not-quite-mode dial.</p>

<p>But whereas the original V1 and J1 looked like the concept of a single mad genius engineer who never left the lab, the Df resembles a committee consensus project... by a bunch of engineers who never left the lab or asked for feedback from the 50-80 year old curmudgeons who infest most photography forums like blowflies.</p>

[Dieter Schaefer]

<blockquote>

<p>Overall the Df seems more cluttered than need be.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Yep, there seem to be some rather superfluous dials on that camera too ;-)</p>

[Two23]

<p>I did the questionaire, told them I wanted a D400, not a way overpriced FX camera. I told them the DF was too expensive and physically too large. I would be interested in a much smaller DX version of the camera, and have no interest at all in FX at this point. I also mentioned that if Nikon won't make the DX lenses I want, I will keep buying them from Sigma.</p>

<p>Kent in SD</p>

[johnw63]

<p>It gets rather tiresome to keep reading that people are really against this camera because it doesn't have the newest AF module or the newest big time sensor or video or.... guess what kids, Nikon already MAKES that camera. Go buy it ! This camera is NOT about pretending to be a video camera in a single shot camera. It is NOT all about screaming AF, and having a screen full of AF points. Again that is NOT what it was designed for. Did you not watch the teaser videos ? This camera is also NOT about showcasing the newest possible innovation. It's about blending a digital camera with manual controls that some people really wanted to see. If that wasn't YOU, then you should NOT be hammering on this camera. You weren't the target audience. </p>

<p>On the other hand, discussions and debate on whether it hit all the points it should have hit to be the camera they TEASED it to be, is just fine. Does it handle well when used in MANUAL mode ? Does it work well in LOW LIGHT ? Can in make good use of older lenses and MF ones, all the way back to AI and Pre-AI ? Are the controls laid out in a good way ? Can it take amazing shots with the lenses you have and allow you to use simple controls while doing so ? I won't know any of that until some real world users start reviewing it. The one BIG issue for many, may just be the price. I have no problem stating that it is over priced. But, Nikon does that a lot with MOST of their cameras ! </p>

<p> </p>

[Dieter Schaefer]

<blockquote>

<p>if Nikon won't make the DX lenses I want, I will keep buying them from Sigma</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Maybe that is exactly what Nikon wants - stop making (higher-end DX) glass that they can't make money on and leave that field to the third parties? It's somewhat odd that both Canon and Nikon seem to have the same strategy when it comes to lenses specific for the crop sensor cameras.</p>

[johnw63]

<p>Or , perhaps , with certain lenses, they KNOW they can't compete well with the 3rd party companies, so they don't waste time building a lens that most will say, " Well, for THAT money, I'll go buy a Sigma ! "</p>

<p> </p>

[joseph_smith3]

<p>So, Nikon is apparently soliciting opinions and feedback on the Df and 50/1.8G here: <a href="https://webc.nikonimaging.com/form/pub/info/df_en" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">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>I filled it out and answered all the questions and did not exceed 1000 words or spaces. Nothing happened when I submitted it. Just an infinite submission processing circle. Who knows what happened. So much for market research info from me, Nikon.</p>

<p>Joe Smith</p>

[Landrum Kelly]

<blockquote>

<p>As such, although I hate to say it: from a cold, hard practical point of view, I can't shake the feeling that the Df is a little bit... silly. <a href="http://www.dpreview.com/previews/nikon-df/6" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">http://www.dpreview.com/previews/nikon-df/6</a></p>

</blockquote>

<p>Very well, that is the opinion of one reviewer at DPReview.com. He does, however, go on to say this:</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Hardcore Nikon fans will point to the support for 50 year-old non-Ai lenses, which is valid, but I suspect that the constituency of photographers for whom this is a real selling point is vanishingly small. Of course, I could be wrong.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Most relevant to me, he also goes on to say this:</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Naturally, there will be some photographers who will see the Df purely in terms of a lower-cost shell for the D4's very capable sensor, and might not care about the design.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Yes, "<strong>a lower-cost shell for the D4's very capable sensor.</strong>"</p>

<p>That is <strong><em>IT</em></strong> for me. <strong><em> Let us see what the D4 sensor can do in a consumer grade camera.</em></strong> I don't really care about about all the retro stuff. I just want to know about (1) image quality (in low light at high ISO) and (2) ease of operation--not to say I won't stick an Ai-S lens or two on it from time to time if I decide to buy it.</p>

<p>I especially would like to see how it matches up against the D3s for night time street shooting. If it matches up well enough against the D3s on image quality at high ISO in low light, it might be time for me to sell the D3s to someone who can use all its features, not just the low-light capability.</p>

<p>In the meantime, the D3s is my best low-light camera. Will this camera take its place?</p>

<p>It might. <em>It just might.</em></p>

<p>--Lannie</p>

[CoryAmmerman]

<p>I filled out the questionnaire. I told them that I liked pretty much everything but the price. And I do. I'll probably buy one. If my current technology timeline holds true, it will probably be in 5-6 years, after a couple of more reincarnations come out. I just bought a D300 a couple of years ago. And I bought that because it was the best I could afford that was compatible with my MF glass.</p>

<p>I agree with John Williamson in that it seems that a lot of the detractors of this camera are not really who the camera is aimed at. I mean, they publicized it by picturing it next to a 43-86 for heaven's sake. They are emphasizing it's retro look and compatibility with manual focus lenses. Do you really think that those that want to use MF glass are going to be all that worked up about it not having the latest AF module? 36 mp? That's the D800's claim to fame. 24mp is more reasonable, but 16 is really enough for most of the target audience of this camera, I think. And the high ISO capabilities that the 16mp sensor gives would really come in handy with some of the the slower MF lenses and those that don't really perform all that great wide open and obviously have no VR.</p>

<p>I'm not trying to say it's a perfect camera, by any means. It's not. But it's very close to being perfect for me, as close as I really have any reason to expect. And I'm sure that there are others out there that feel the same. </p>

 

[pics]

<p>Judging from the comments here, one may be inclined to think photography couldn't possibly have existed prior to a few years ago and the advent of 25+ Mp sensors, 50+ blazing AF points, shooting video and using WIFI all the while coupled with $2000+ lenses. If you like the latest and greatest you are labeled a techno-geek more concerned with spec sheets than photography. If you like older technology or more traditional "retro" gear you are labeled as merely a camera fondling collector who is also not concerned with "real" photography. Personally I think it looks like a really neat concept. Aside from the price I would withhold judgement before actually using it. All of the negative comments may have some merit based on what that particular user is looking for, but for everything the DF lacks you can probably find it in a half dozen cameras on the market already. At this point there isn't really much technology left to develop that is seriously holding people back from producing world-class images. I give Nikon credit for taking the risk to address a new market segment</p>

[Landrum Kelly]

<p>From Shun's full review on the home page (<strong><a href="/nikon-camera-forum/%20http:/photo.net/reviews/nikon-df-preview/"> http://www.photo.net/reviews/nikon-df-preview/</a> </strong>):</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Retro-style 50mm/f1.8 G AF-S lens only: $279.95</p>

</blockquote>

<p>How on earth can a G lens be "retro"? The aperture ring is one thing I often do miss on modern lenses.</p>

<p>--Lannie</p>

[raczoliver]

I haven't found anything to confirm this, but I suppose the lens is

optically the same as the "old" one, just in a new housing and at a

premium price, is that right?

[Landrum Kelly]

<p>Also from Shun Cheung's full review on the home page (<strong><a href="/reviews/nikon-df-preview/" rel="nofollow">http://www.photo.net/reviews/nikon-df-preview/</a> </strong>) :</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Since the retro-style knobs are labor intensive to manufacture and assemble, with the high labor cost in Japan, I expect the Df’s cost to remain high for its entire product cycle. This is essentially a somewhat low volume, boutique camera catered to affluent photographers who prefer the class controls as well as camera collectors. For those Nikon customers, the Df is like a dream come true. As long as Nikon doesn’t over-produce them, the Df’s value is unlikely going to drop over time.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I hope that you are wrong about that part, Shun. I am hoping the reviewer from DPReview is right on this point instead:</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Naturally, there will be some photographers who will see the Df purely in terms of a lower-cost shell for the D4's very capable sensor, and might not care about the design. <a href="http://www.dpreview.com/previews/nikon-df/6" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">http://www.dpreview.com/previews/nikon-df/6</a></p>

</blockquote>

<p>If there is enough demand from regular shooters and not retro aficionados, that is, it seems likely that Nikon will produce a great many--or else Nikon might produce (in very substantial quantities) a non-retro version with upgraded AF and two card slots, etc., for modern users of DSLRs. In either case, this camera or one similar to it might wind up being affordable for "the rest of us."</p>

<p>At least that would be my hope.</p>

<p>--Lannie</p>

[richard_bach1]

<p >Am I the only one who was excited form a practical point of view when I saw this camera? I have a D700 right now and, before I saw this camera, was reluctant to upgrade because I see the new FF generation as a step back ergonomically. And ever since I got my X100, I just LOVE mechanical knobs and dials. I love the "just set it and go" feeling you get from a knob over a button.</p>

<p > </p>

<p >The black one is pure beauty to me, (OK, admittedly the silver is pretty hip…) and once I saw the pictures of the top plate I think its the prefect fit for me ergonomically. I LOVE the super simple PSAM dial (I always forget which mode I'm in withy D700…) and the lack of fluff. </p>

<p > </p>

<p >PLUS that D4 sensor.</p>

<p > </p>

<p >This is the camera I've dreamed of for years.</p>

[ruslan]

<p>Each time when I look at its controls I recall the <strong>Contax NX</strong>. <br />What about slightly mediocre specs? Even <strong>F801</strong> had 1/8000 - 20 years ago. <br />1/4000? Why? The shutter isn't machanical - it is electronic. They cut the ability to shoot at 1.4 in the bright light without ND filter. 5 fps? - Not too much. </p>

[donbright]

<p>Well, one thing learned here after this intense read, people are into looks when it comes to their camera's. I'm shocked at how much,'Looks,' is a priority. Maybe its always been that way, and that the advent of social media has merely squeezed that out. I fall in the same vane too, that the Df is what I've been looking for, and my thinking is to use this forum to guide my decision making over the Df, but I'm going to take a different tack, and ignore this thread, and use my own pure common sense in assimilating information pertaining to the Df. At $750 more than the 610, and with obvious better build quality, the build quality alone may justify the Df. When the official test reports come out, there will have to be much more stringent negatives for me to look the other way, other than what I've heard here, so far. The camera weighs a mere 25 oz! Who knows what some are talking about that its too big, To big? </p>

[Two23]

<blockquote>

<p>" This camera is also NOT about showcasing the newest possible innovation. It's about blending a digital camera with manual controls that some people really wanted to see. If that wasn't YOU, then you should NOT be hammering on this camera. You weren't the target audience."<br /> <br /> I'm probably pretty close to their target. I love old cameras, and I have $$. The two reasons I probably won't buy it are (1) It's too expensive for what it is (2) It's a fairly large camera. Nikon made it D300/700 size; I was thinking Leica RF/FM2n size. If they had put a DX sensor in it and scaled down both the price and size, I would likely be pulling camera gear out of my closet tonight to sell it and buy a "DxF." <br /> <br /> Kent in SD</p>

</blockquote>

[RaymondC]

<p>I don't think they will ever make a pure digital camera. Maybe a real digital is a D4 ... haha. Will just continue to shoot my FM2N with b/w film. This is just a modern full feature SLR with some looks thrown in without flash and without video. Maybe some users will find a use with that 120m radio receiver and that WiFi and GPS module and when they shoot a HDR ...</p>

[ruslan]

<blockquote>

<p>The Df is not exactly about photography. The emphasis is its retro styling. Again, its target is mainly collectors and those who find retro styling "cool."<br /><br />Those who think the Df's price will come down are merely dreaming. Concerning features, the Df is already "obsolete" the moment it is introduced: 16MP is very low in today's standards, Multi-CAM 4800 is not top of the line, there is no video, no dual memory cards ... and of course the controls are out of date by 2, 3 decades. However, retro, or obsolescence, is exactly the selling point. The Df will be like the FM3a and F6. Not many shoot film any more and even fewer need to get a new F6, but unlike the F5 and F100, the F6's price remains sky high for both new and used in mint condition.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I agree with you, Shun. The FM3a was unique and it was at the affordable price.</p>

[johnw63]

<p>Kent,</p>

<p>I agree, the price is out of my range. The size may or may NOT be a problem for me. I like my F4! I find my D7000 a little tight to hold steady, by comparison. I can't complain about the shots I can get with it, however. What this camera has made me wonder is how good the D4 sensor is. I never cared before because it was WELL out of my range. Now, I want to see some samples and read reviews, just to figure out what I might expect out of the Df. </p>

<p> </p>

[ruslan]

<blockquote>

<p>I like my F4!<br /><br /></p>

</blockquote>

<p>F4 had one of the best grips to hold. </p>

[Dieter Schaefer]

<blockquote>

<p>with obvious better build quality</p>

</blockquote>

<p>From the image of the body that I've seen the construction seems to be quite similar to that of the D600/D610 and certainly not the full metal chassis of the D800. I don't see an "obvious better build quality" - in fact, the camera is slightly lighter than the D610. Do you have any information that confirms the "better build quality"?</p>

<p>Here's a size comparison: Df vs D610 vs Sony A7. Both Nikon's with the 50/1.8 and the A7 with the 55/1.8: http://j.mp/16EB1GA<br /><br />While the NEX camera is much smaller, with the lens that advantage shrinks - but the combo is still lighter than the Nikon bodies alone.</p>

<p>And just for kicks - here's the FM3A dimensions: 142.5 × 90 × 58 mm (pretty much the same as FM2)<br /> Compare to Df: 143.5 x 110 x 66.5 mm<br /> F3: 148.5 x 96.5 x 65.5 mm<br /> F100: 155 x 113 x 66mm<br /><br /> That's not a whole lot of difference between the Df and the FM2/FM3A; the main difference is the height, which is indeed closer to the D300:<br /> D300: 147 x 114 x 74 mm<br /> D700: 147 x 123 x 77 mm</p>

<p>Olympus managed to make their film cameras a lot smaller than Nikon: 136mm x 83mm x 50mm for the OM-1. And so did Pentax: 135.8 × 82.5 × 49.3 mm (MX).</p>

<blockquote>

<p>F4 had one of the best grips to hold.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Indeed - almost a little to big for my hands but workable and not uncomfortable.</p>