Nikon Introduces Df Retro DSLR

[john_hinkey]

<p>Steve B - your analysis is exactly the way I've been looking at it: What am I getting for my $$ relative to a D610 or for nearly equivalent $$ a D800 or even an APS-C or m43 mirrorless system (camera + lenses).<br>

I have no bones at all with the specifications, controls, "looks", etc. It's for sure a very capable DSLR, but, I just can't get past the asking price for what it is.<br>

I have a lot of excellent manual focus glass (Nikon, Leica, Voigtlander) so I'm very interested in how the OVF performs, but even if it's a stellar OVF for manual focus it will be hard to justify such a steep price.<br>

Having a D800, which is an excellent all around camera, I have to ask how much I "need" a second camera with the Df's specifications for the asking price. Personally at $2800 I can't make that case.<br>

I will be one sitting on the sidelines watching the new and used prices in the next year or so to see if the cost comes down to a reasonable level for me. I'll give the camera a try out in the store as well to get a first hand impression as I have to hold a camera in my hand first before buying.</p>

 

[john_hinkey]

<p>I would now say to Nikon - for those of us that don't need all the expensive external buttons and dials, give us a version that is now slightly smaller, lighter with very similar specs that is not made in Japan.<br>

Personally I would love a very compact FX body with modern design features - I would forgo the ergonomics for the gain in compactness. </p>

[ruslan]

<p>If it is retro, I wish it had best Kodak films' emulations. </p>

[steve_bingham]

<p>So you want retro? How about a 1974 Nikon F modified to 9 FPS with FILM!</p>

[donbright]

<p>Is anyone here happy with their camera?</p>

[ShunCheung]

<blockquote>

<p>Personally I would love a very compact FX body with modern design features - I would forgo the ergonomics for the gain in compactness.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>You'll never get exactly what you want unless you have the resources to commission Nikon to tailor make a camera for you. Otherwise, something closely resembles what you are asking for has already existed for over a year. Ever heard of the D600 and its successor the D610?</p>

<p>I know, some people complain that the D600 is too small, and perhaps some people feel that it is not small enough.</p>

[john_hinkey]

<blockquote><a href="/photodb/user?user_id=24372">Shun Cheung</a> <a href="/member-status-icons"><img title="Moderator" src="/v3graphics/member-status-icons/mod.gif" alt="" /><img title="Subscriber" src="/v3graphics/member-status-icons/sub10plus.gif" alt="" /><img title="Frequent poster" src="/v3graphics/member-status-icons/3rolls.gif" alt="" /></a>, Nov 06, 2013; 12:28 p.m.

 

<blockquote>

<p>Personally I would love a very compact FX body with modern design features - I would forgo the ergonomics for the gain in compactness.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>You'll never get exactly what you want unless you have the resources to commission Nikon to tailor make a camera for you. Otherwise, something closely resembles what you are asking for has already existed for over a year. Ever heard of the D600 and its successor the D610?<br>

I know, some people complain that the D600 is too small, and perhaps some people feel that it is not small enough.</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>No, the camera I'm talking about doesn't exist and it's not the D600 or D610. I also realize that there will never be a camera I exactly want, but I can still express my desire for one. I don't feel that the D610 is that much smaller than my D800 to make a big enough difference. Now if we got a 16MP FX camera the size and weight of the FM3A that would be far closer to what I'd be looking for.</p>

[ShunCheung]

<blockquote>

<p>Now if we got a 16MP FX camera the size and weight of the FM3A that would be far closer to what I'd be looking for.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>If Nikon introduced such a DSLR, people would complain about the lack of weather sealing and the battery being too small. When the size is so small, something has to give.</p>

<p>I am old enough to remember that when Nikon first introduced the FM back in 1977, in an era when the F and F2 as well as the Nikkormat FTN series were big and heavy, the now defunct Modern Photography called the FM "flimsy." It was years later somehow the FM/FE series suddenly became the "rugged" cameras.</p>

[Dieter Schaefer]

<p>The Df is actually a very clever solution to the problem of giving us the D4 sensor in a more compact and lighter body that many have asked for without repeating the D3/D700 "mistake" - no one who needs fast fps and high ISO in one package will opt for the Df instead of the D4 - but many bought the D700 instead of the D3 because it was "almost the same". The fact that it fits into the current "retro" trend makes for a very believable and convenient excuse. The high price guaranties that the Df doesn't affect D610 sales. And if you opt for the D800/D800E instead - Nikon takes home almost the same amount - win-win for them.</p>

<p>If you want to use your old manual focus primes on a small and light body that doesn't cost as much - buy the Sony A7 or A7R - and be content with an EVF and stop-down metering (how's that for retro?). I am sure that Nikon hopes not to many taking that path though ;-)</p>

<p>Not sure that the fact that the Df is manufactured in Japan indicates that it won't be produced in large numbers - the D700 was too and I believe it was produced in large numbers. Besides, isn't the D4 the only camera currently produced in Sendai (other than the Df, of course)? Doubt they are still making the D3X - likely "selling" stock nowadays.</p>

<p>I gave the dimensions of the FM2 and Df (and some other bodies) higher up in this thread - here are the ones for the D800: 146 x 123 x 81.5 mm.<br>

The Df is 2cm taller and 0.8cm deeper than the FM2 - and 1cm less tall and 1.5cm less deep than the D800; the difference in width is only 0.3cm. Not really a hell of a lot of difference. </p>

[Landrum Kelly]

<blockquote>

<p>As a camera for capturing images, it is very obvious that the Df does not compare favorably against the D4, D800, D600/D610 and D7100</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Shun, I ordered the D600 a bit over a year ago, wasn't impressed with it, sent it back and ordered the D800E.</p>

<p>This past summer I bought the D3s used on eBay. I love it. I think that I would have loved the Df as much as a counterpoint to the D800E, since it is the low light capabilities that really interest me in both the D3s and the Df. In fact, for my purposes (low-light shooting), I think that the Df will be better than the D3s. If I were an action shooter, I would surely have a different point of view.</p>

<p>I hear about downsampling to get the same low light quality from the D600, but why would I want to start with bigger files just so that I could downsample them? Why not start with smaller (not small) files and simplify my life from the start?</p>

<p>The D600 at 24 mp does not have files that are 1.5 times bigger than the Df at 16mp. We have to square that 1.5 and get 2.25. That is, files from the D600, other things being equal, are 2.25 times bigger than files from the Df.</p>

<p><em><strong>SIMPLIFY!</strong></em> This is going to be simpler in many respects. I WANT SMALLER FILES MUCH OF THE TIME. When I want big files, I shoot my D800E. When I want to have fun, I shoot with smaller files. I'm thinking faster workflow in downloading and post-processing here. How much is my time worth? It's worth a lot to me--and I do not measure the worth of a camera by megapixels alone.</p>

<p>Summing up: I don't want a<strong><em> backup</em></strong> in a second camera. I want a <em><strong>different beast entirely</strong></em>. If I were a pro, I would surely think otherwise.</p>

<p>--Lannie</p>

[Landrum Kelly]

<p>I will add this: Since when is 16 mp small? Does anyone around here ever print anymore? Files from 16-mp cameras print beautifully.</p>

<p>How big is big enough? Yes, size matters: smaller, that is, is sometimes better, if it is big enough, especially if the bonus is good low light capabilities when one spreads those 16 mp across the entire surface area of a full frame sensor.</p>

<p>As I said, <strong>SIMPLIFY--and enjoy</strong>. Downloading and processing files has gotten to be <em><strong>burdensome</strong></em> with these huge cameras and their huge files It isn't always or even usually worth it. I shoot big when I want big files. The rest of the time, no. Twelve has been adequate with the D3s. For me, however, I think that sixteen ought to be just right.</p>

<p>There is a happy medium to be found here. For some it might be 24 mp, for others 16.</p>

<p>--Lannie</p>

[Andrew Garrard]

<p>Belatedly...</p>

 

<blockquote>Andrew, he is not using the focus confirmation dot but the matte surface of the screen. The optical quality of the whole viewfinder assembly affects the clarity of the view and ability to focus manually. Regarding the market for this camera, there are a lot of us who prefer to focus manually on the matte area;</blockquote>

 

<p>I still don't understand how this works for an f/1.2 lens with a fresnel screen. I'm not saying that it doesn't, just that I don't understand it. The fresnel in most Nikons means that you can't see aperture changes below about f/2.5, and it's correspondingly difficult to spot anything that's within the depth of field of an f/2.5 lens but not within the depth of field of an f/1.2 one. I could understand how this would work if the Df has a ground glass screen instead of a fresnel, but that's unlikely given the detrimental effect on brightness.</p>

 

<blockquote>it requires no distance dependent focus fine tuning like autofocus does</blockquote>

 

<p>No, it <i>has</i> no fine-tuning; that's not the same thing as not requiring it. You're still looking at light that has gone through a different optical path than when it reaches the sensor. If the mirror (the really lightweight thing that has to flap around a lot) is very slightly off alignment, you'll still have focus in the wrong place. The only thing with a guarantee of accuracy is sensor-based autofocus, since the same optical path is involved.</p>

 

<blockquote>and should make using the camera a lot more relaxing since one doesn't have to fire a number of shots to get one that has the focus in the right place, as one has to do with autofocus when working at wide apertures.</blockquote>

 

<p>I'm not going to defend the inaccuracy of my D800's AF system, but I'm not buying this one. I think as sensor resolution increases, you're going to see just as many misses through manual focus. The possible exception would be with a microprism area covering most of the frame, where your accuracy has a chance of being as good as AF (though with the same slack in the mirror), but I still struggle to believe the accuracy is possible with a fast lens and a fresnel. And yes, I shoot manual focus cameras.</p>

 

<blockquote>The D600 at 24 mp does not have files that are 1.5 times bigger than the Df at 16mp. We have to square that 1.5 and get 2.25. That is, files from the D600, other things being equal, are 2.25 times bigger than files from the Df.</blockquote>

 

<p>Sorry, Lannie: the files really are only 1.5x bigger (and should generally be less than that because compression works better on larger images). The linear resolution of the D600 is only 1.23x that of the D4. Though I still wish Nikon had implemented sRAW. I agree that having a second camera that doesn't overlap with the first is good, at least as an amateur, though.</p>

[Landrum Kelly]

<blockquote>

<p>Sorry, Lannie: the files really are only 1.5x bigger</p>

</blockquote>

<p>You are right, Andrew. No point in squaring it twice! I was thinking of moving from linear dimension to surface area, but megapixels are already spread out across surface area. Where was my mind?</p>

<p>My larger point stands: Why start with bigger files so that I can downsample them?</p>

<p>For what it's worth, I probably won't be buying this one either--at least not now, and not new. Maybe some day I can pick one up on the used market. It is certain that I will never be able to buy the D4. If I am stuck with the D3s and the D800E, well, there are a lot worse places to be stuck. I hope that I can keep them. At my age (sixty-eight), things start getting iffy. This can be an expensive hobby/passion to have as a semi-retired person.</p>

<p>--Lannie</p>

[Andrew Garrard]

<blockquote>The Df is actually a very clever solution to the problem of giving us the D4 sensor in a more compact and lighter body that many have asked for without repeating the D3/D700 "mistake" - no one who needs fast fps and high ISO in one package will opt for the Df instead of the D4 - but many bought the D700 instead of the D3 because it was "almost the same". The fact that it fits into the current "retro" trend makes for a very believable and convenient excuse. The high price guaranties that the Df doesn't affect D610 sales. And if you opt for the D800/D800E instead - Nikon takes home almost the same amount - win-win for them.</blockquote>

 

<p>Dieter: +1, since that seems to be what all the cool dudes are saying. For this reason, I can completely understand why Nikon felt they could release this camera without hurting the sales of anything else. It's not such a good thing for the consumer, necessarily...</p>

[dan_brown4]

<p>Phil said:</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Dan, could you link to Bjorn's comments, my google searching is letting me down.</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>Link to forum (Bjorn posts as nfoto):</p>

<p>http://nikongear.com/live/index.php/topic/51938-impressions-of-the-nikon-df/</p>

[john_hinkey]

<p>I think one of the reasons for 16MP in the Df is that it is much more forgiving of focus errors compared to the 24MP or 36MP sensors (as opposed to the inaccurate statement by many that 16MP is much more suitable to older glass). Mirror and focusing screen alignment are just as relevant if not way more so now with the Df as it was for film SLRs. It's far easier to see missed focus at 16MP digital than 16MP scanned slide film.<br>

I only hope that the Df has an adjustable/shim-able focusing screen - likely not though. Perhaps this part of the high cost of the Df - i.e., the mirror and focusing screen have been calibrated at the factory in Japan to much higher standards. I know the my AF dot (hence mirror and AF sensors) consistently focus behind on ALL of my lenses with the difference in the viewfinder image being indistinguishable between the proper focuses and back-focused images recorded by the sensor. <br>

I will have to give the Df a go at the local pro shop with some of my fast glass when it gets one (or more likely when the Nikon rep shows up with a demo model).</p>

[Landrum Kelly]

<p>From that link (posted by Dan two posts above):</p>

<p>"If they can hook the magpie buyers and get them to part with their money then they will have had a great success, but if they fail to hook the discerning photographers at the asking price then they’ve got a potential disaster on their hands."<br /> <br /> I am not so sure. If the asking price is too high, you drop the price or you cut production and thus supply. I don't see Nikon losing money on this one. <br /> My guess is that they could drop it seven hundred dollars and still turn a profit--but that is admittedly a guess on my part.</p>

<p>Judging by the number of posts on this thread and the previous one, they are going to sell some cameras--perhaps to some unlikely prospects.</p>

<p>--Lannie</p>

[dan_brown4]

<p>Here's one response from Bjorn that was telling for me.</p>

<blockquote data-author="Akira" data-cid="415447" data-time="1383678117">

<p>[some other guy] Bjørn, I'm curious why you felt MF is so comfortable and easy to look into the viewfinder whose eyepoint is only 15mm which is 6mm shorter than that of D600/610. Did you felt it even better than that of D600 you have (even modified to full spectrum)?</p>

</blockquote>

 

<blockquote data-author="Akira" data-cid="415447" data-time="1383678117">

 

</blockquote>

<blockquote>

<p>[bjorn]: Much better. Bright, clear, everything plainly visible even with spectacles on. And the fast MF lenses snapped in and out of focus.<br>

Just goes to show the numbers game don't alway play out as one might expect. Perhaps the fact this is a circular (Df) vs rectangular (D600) has an influence? I don't know only relate what I observed.</p>

</blockquote>

[mike_halliwell]

<blockquote>

<p>My guess is that they could drop it seven hundred dollars and still turn a profit</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>Lannie, due to crappy Nikon international pricing policy, a $700 drop would bring the UK price '<strong><em>DOWN</em></strong>' to $3700!</p>

[Landrum Kelly]

<p>Why on earth do they do that, Mike? That is, why are things so much more expensive in Europe (or at least in the UK)?</p>

<p>--Lannie</p>

[Andrew Garrard]

<p>Nikon certainly got some buzz with this camera. It's not been quite so universally negative as the X Vario or the Lunar, and maybe it'll convert into sales. Honestly, if I see one in a store, I'll probably play with it (as I have with various Fujis and a D4); it's possible that I'll realise what I'm missing and come back a convert. I'd like to see a fuller review, or an objective report from Nikon on the circumstances under which they think the control scheme is better than what we've had since the F5.<br />

<br />

Meanwhile, I'm really not complaining about the camera, at least at this stage. I'm just trying to understand it.<br />

<br />

As for why more resolution and downsampling is better, it's simple: every now and then you might really need pixels. I have a big poster taken with my D700 when I went to the Grand Canyon a few years back. It doesn't have the resolution I'd like. A D800 would be somewhat better. I got my D800 just before the London Olympics, at which I was blocked from bringing a big lens, so I ended up making full use of its pixel density (and DX mode, for the first time on an FX camera). Even if you normally shoot small, I'd rather have the pixels and downsize them than start smaller and run out of detail - all else being equal, which it rarely is. Similarly, I almost never use video on a DSLR, but I'd rather have it for the 1% of times when I'd miss it.</p>

 

<blockquote>How many DSLRs currently can't do video from any manufacturer... by my count, just this one...</blockquote>

 

<p>Technically, the D3x is still current...</p>

[Andrew Garrard]

<blockquote>That is, why are things so much more expensive in Europe (or at least in the UK)?</blockquote>

 

<p>a) Prices include the 20% tax (the US thing of not including the tax is because the states have different taxes; in the UK, it's all 20% VAT so it's included).<br />

b) I believe there's an additional import duty on camera gear, though I could be confused about that.<br />

c) There aren't any UK retailers with the clout of B&H or Adorama.<br />

d) Nikon adjust the pricing when GBP gets too out of whack with the other currencies, particularly getting weaker after the recent global economic issues, but it doesn't seem to correct very quickly when the pound gets stronger again.<br />

<br />

It could be worse. Back in 2008, US list prices for a 14-24 were about half the UK equivalent (and VAT was lower).</p>

[mike_halliwell]

<p>Lannie, Andrew ...it's all true! It hurts!</p>

<p>I've asked before (and never got an answer??), but if I have a pocket-full of Benjies (spelling??) what is this going to cost me as a walk-in customer to an 'average' US store to buy the Df + 50mm kit? What does $2990 actually mean as a 'Guide Price'?</p>

[michael_chuang1]

<p><em>I've asked before (and never got an answer??), but if I have a pocket-full of Benjies (spelling??) what is this going to cost me as a walk-in customer to an 'average' US store to buy the Df + 50mm kit? What does $2990 actually mean as a 'Guide Price'?</em></p>

<p>If you walked into B+H with cash you could buy the Df + 50/1.8G for their advertised price of 2996.95 USD plus 8.875% tax (4% to New York State, 4.5% to New York City and a bonus 0.375% going toward the "Metropolitan Commuter Transportation District" whatever that is. Most places you just pay the state sales tax on top of whatever price you and the seller mutually agree is acceptable (meaning there is no special "city tax" in the vast majority of the US). Tax is almost never figured into advertised prices in the US (for photographic stuff; for gasoline or cigarettes tax is folded in, for example). If you mail-ordered from B+H outside the state of New York B+H would not collect your local state tax, but you are supposed to voluntarily pony up that fee (as a "use tax") to your state government when you receive your goods. This is a major bone of contention between brick+mortar businesses and on-line entities such as Amazon since many Americans don't bother to send in the use tax, thus disadvantaging the physical storefront places relative to out-state mail order houses.</p>

<p>Not sure what "Guide Price" means, but in often there is a manufacturer-decreed minimum advertised price (MAP) so that the end seller can sell the product for whatever they want, but they can't publish below the MAP so as to avoid the perception of undercutting other authorized sellers. For something as new and desirable (at least to some) as the Df, I highly doubt you'd get much of a discount over the stated price. On the other hand, I just bought an OM-D E-M1 (not even delivered yet) and the local camera store is doing a $50 rebate on the body and $100 rebate on the lens (this a store thing and separate from a rebate from Olympus for buying the E-M1 and 12-40/2.8 as a package), so you never know. That said, this is a mighty big and high-volume store, and not some little corner business.</p>

<p>These suspicious days if you walked into a store and bought something over $3k with cash some amateur busybody would probably suspect you of being a drug dealer or something and alert the professional busybodies. Land of the free indeed.</p>

[DB_Gallery]

I'm not feeling the DF and I am not sure what it could be.

 

First off, it looks far too cluttered / clunky, all the controls are on steroids compared to my FM3A, too big. In fact, the whole

camera looks too big and what is with the grip, FM's are fine without it. I find it odd that they would omit a split microprism

focus aide too, kind of a wasted opportunity. I get what they are trying to do here but Leica already did it with the M8, 9,

MM, etc and Fuji outdid the both of them with the slim profiled X100S, now that is a retro styled camera that works

incredibly well.

 

The thing of it is too, the DSLR has seen it's peak use come and go, it's on the decline. I just feel like Nikon has lost sight

of what makes photography great and great photographers who they are, raw talent. So the whole hype machine of

selling cameras on the promise of earth bending photos at your fingertips, those days are over Nikon. First you tell people

who make photos they deem contest worthy on film that they can no longer enter the Nikon Photo Contest, even with a

newly purchased F6. Then you have the gall to ask 3 grand for yet another digi-snapper that plays stunt double to the

very cameras you are no longer interested in seeing work from?

 

Seems like a company who is very worried about their iPhone filled future grasping at straws, not the same brand I

started with 25 years ago, that's for sure...

 

Maybe I would feel differently if I used it, I'm sure Lens Rentals will have a few next year. But man, $2,700, my FM3A was $500 brand new from B&H when I got it in 2002.