Nikon Introduces Df Retro DSLR

[steve_johnston4]

<p>Sorry if I am repeating yourselves, since I have read only a few comments. I have several very sharp AI and AIS lenses. They shoot great on my D800E. Being a long ago recovering Leicaholic, it seems to me to be very possible that like LEICA, Nikon recognizes there is money to be made selling limited edition collector cameras to wealthy camera buffs.</p>

[bebu_lamar]

<p>There are many retro style cameras these days but this is the only one so far which is an SLR. Just as Leica M series are the only rangefinder digitals. </p>

[StuartMoxham]

<p>Mike it's 2999 euros where I am with the kit 50mm 1.8.</p>

[ilkka_nissila]

<p><em>No, it has no fine-tuning; that's not the same thing as not requiring it.</em><br>

<em> </em><br>

There is a little screw which is used to adjust the position of the focusing screen (look at the bayonet from the lens side, camera top side up, on the right side of the mirror box there is a screw). So it is adjustable. In many cases I've found manual focusing using the focusing screen to work well in situations (e.g. long distances) where autofocus fails.<br>

<em> 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.</em><br>

That is true, but in practice I've found that autofocus is less reliable than manual focus with certain lenses at long distances when calibrated for normal distances. For example, the 105 DC requires about 16 to 17 fine tune points different setting at head shot distances than at infinity, which is very annoying. The 85/1.4 AF-S has a bit smaller discrepancy but still the focus fine tune must be adjusted based on distance range. Manual focus in these cases seems to work at all distances, in my experience. The errors with AF vs. distance can be so large that given a relatively static subject I can improve the image by focusing manually by eye.</p>

<p><em>The only thing with a guarantee of accuracy is sensor-based autofocus, since the same optical path is involved.</em></p>

<p>But it means no optical viewfinder can be used (assuming through the lens viewing) and to me at least that would be the end of photography for me. I rely on real-time, clean image of the subject through the viewfinder when I'm photographing. I just went through a dozen EVFs at Heathrow and when turning the camera while looking through, so as would be needed when a subject approaches and passes by, the rolling shutter effect was sufficiently strong to lose all connection with the subject and make me literally feel sick. I need to be able to see the subject expression clearly between frames; EVF does not seem to provide that especially when a big part of the image needs to be updated at every refresh. I don't see a future in EVF; at least it won't be my future.</p>

<p>Also, main imaging sensor based AF so far has not been able to meet the speed of the best DSLR PDAF. If the subject is coming towards the camera, and you're shooting at f/2, this can be an issue.</p>

<p><em>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.</em></p>

<p>My experience has been, as I've stated, that there are systematic focus errors in using the AF system in Nikons that are uncorrectable by the user and that are solved by manual focusing using the focusing screen. Manual focus isn't precise to the level of individual pixels, but doesn't seem to suffer from these problems. I'm speaking from practical experience.</p>

<p>There are many other advantages to manual focusing. One is when shooting a portrait of a person wearing eyeglasses, it can be very difficult to get AF to focus exactly on the eye when the magnification and focus point area are such that the eye is small compared to the detected area. The other is that you don't have to waste time telling the camera which point of the image to focus on and fighting with the controls. You just look at the image and turn the ring. This results in the independence of composition from the specifics of the focusing system. Sometimes there is no detail at the point where the focus is to be set, e.g. when you want two object at different distances to be in focus. In this case the correct result cannot be achieved using autofocus. When there are obstructions such as leaves trough which the main subject is photographed, it can be difficult to tell the autofocus to ignore the close-by leaves through which you're trying to shoot - manual focus works fine in this case. There are so many cases that I could be writing this post all night with examples of specific situations where AF is not a good choice, if manual focus is well implemented in the camera.</p>

[Nick D.]

<p>"Nikon recognizes there is money to be made selling limited edition collector cameras to wealthy camera buffs."<br>

Nothing wrong with it as niche product, but better for Nikon also recognize, that 5D3 is quietly eating Nikon lunch, as all around workhorse.</p>

[clark_yerrington1]

<p>Strongly agree with the person a few pages back who said they never should have gotten rid of the dials [for shutter speed, ISO, etc.] in the first place. Good for them for putting them back -- and consider extending that feature up and down the line, or offering it as an option.</p>

[tri-x1]

<p>If I has an extra three grand I would buy it just because it doesn't have video (if you want video buy a video camera). But I left my D300 home and took a Fuji point and shoot on our recent trip to Russia because I'm tired of hauling around separate bodies and lenses. But I sure do like the look.</p>

[johnw63]

<p>It has my interest, but I will wait to hear how it works in the real world. With sales of DSLRs in the air, why NOT try something that is basically a creative project with parts you already have laying around ? All the R&D money was spent on re-inventing knobs and a retro exterior. I still see nothing wrong with that. If the tools works well for the INTENDED PURPOSE, then I say, "Well done." .</p>

<p>If you just can't understand it, and must keep saying that it's only use is to sit on collectors shelves, go gaze at the other Nikon products and fondle your brand new, not " antique " lenses and come back when the dust settles. Seriously, not everyone CAN buy new Nikon glass every time they release a new one, and not EVERYONE think lenses they made decades ago are doorstops. Some of you have spent well more on one LENS than this camera costs and act like this so horribly pricey. I still think it is over priced, but compared to a lot of other Nikon cameras, it's not out of their norm for new stuff. </p>

[Landrum Kelly]

<blockquote>

<p>5D3 is quietly eating Nikon lunch, as all around workhorse.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>My first impression upon reading this was that it was written by a Canon-using troll. Upon reflection, however, if I had nothing invested in Nikon by way of lenses, and I was just starting out, there is no way that I would pay $2749 for this Nikon D<em>f</em> while <strong>the Canon 5D III is being offered for $2999 on Amazon</strong> <strong>AT THIS MOMENT.</strong></p>

<p>In other words, BRING DOWN THE PRICE, Nikon, unless you simply do not want to sell very many. The 5D III is very clean at high ISO and low light, and in every other way seems to be miles ahead of the D<em>f--</em>not to mention the D600 and D610.</p>

<p>I wonder if Canon is bringing down the price of the 5D III in order to undercut sales of this new camera. A lot of fed-up Nikon users are already looking in that direction anyway.</p>

<p>Canon's advertising strategy (offering better service) on the home page of Photo.net also shows that Canon is more than willing to offer its services and product line to disgruntled Nikon users. I knew that when the dust/oil problems on the D600 were being soft-pedaled on this very forum that Canon might be waiting in the wings--and that Nikon was making a frightful error in customer relations not to acknowledge the problem.</p>

<p>I shot Canon from 1982 to 2012. I know, as does everyone else, that Canon makes fine equipment--and offers fast turn-around on service.</p>

<p>Then Nikon comes along and offers the D610 without ever conceding problems with the D600--and now offers this camera at a ridiculously high price?</p>

<p>Let us see just how clever Nikon's marketing really has been.</p>

<p>As for rationalizations about the price, how rational has this advertising campaign been if all that Nikon wants to do is sell this to a few collectors. That is nonsense. Nikon clearly wants to sell a lot of these.</p>

<p><strong>CONCLUSION: THE PRICE WILL DROP, FAR AND FAST.</strong> Otherwise, this camera is Nikon's Thanksgiving Turkey.<strong><br /></strong></p>

<p>--Lannie</p>

[john_hinkey]

<blockquote>

<p><a href="/photodb/user?user_id=19054">Ilkka Nissila</a><a href="/member-status-icons"><img title="Frequent poster" src="/v3graphics/member-status-icons/1roll.gif" alt="" /></a>, Nov 06, 2013; 07:49 p.m. <em>No, it has no fine-tuning; that's not the same thing as not requiring it.</em><br /><br /> There is a little screw which is used to adjust the position of the focusing screen (look at the bayonet from the lens side, camera top side up, on the right side of the mirror box there is a screw). So it is adjustable.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Not that I don't believe you, but do you have a picture of this screw? How do you know it's for adjusting the focusing screen?</p>

[dan_south]

<p>Who has pre-ordered a Df? That should tell the real tale.</p>

<p>24MP is the new standard, preferably without an anti-aliasing filter. Nikon's cheapest DX cameras have 24MP sensors.</p>

<p>Three grand for a shiny box with an underpowered sensor? Sorry, but I don't see the logic behind this product.</p>

[RaymondC]

<p>But how does one do fine tuning for each lens differently ...</p>

<p>I am only a hacker hobbyist, even if I had the money I cannot spend these much on it. But to me as a middle person - they chose a larger F3 design cool that's thier choice. They wanted retro - cool also. They should have the marketing intelligence etc ... Maybe it's so good like Bjorn says you don't need a focus screen - also ok and this is the 21st century. Memory card, battery also sweet surely they didn't need to open a back/bottom cover to access them or a pretend film advance lever. It's expensive - that's fine also because they are a business and this retro has appeal, it's one of their premium product. Sure at this day and age it couldn't just be manual focus, single fire shutter ....</p>

<p>But to me it was how it was implemented. Couldn't they just provided us a special edition AIS 50mm lens that woudl be more wholesome product instead of a plastic G lens paired with this camera they spend a lot of time designing. Very little work was done at the back - it jsut looks like another dSLR. It has more buttons like a D70 including just the back of the camera. It has bracketing, all the diff modes including P or P for professional haha. HDR, GPS, WiFi, 120m receiver options, consumer plug in cable release as well as the traditional one. It's just another dSLR with a retro look that works with pre Ai lenses with a few retro bells and whistles.</p>

<p>Apart from the ISO selector with a modern lens it has both a rear dial and a weird front dial - it functions just like a modern dSLR. </p>

[RaymondC]

<p>This 16MP thing - eventually unless they ditch the Df it will be updated with a higher MP sensor ... so if not now and if old lenses gets negatively affected by the higher MP sensor it may eventually bite. </p>

[dan_south]

<p><em><strong>Missed The Boat, Part II: Retro Styling</strong></em> - Do we really care what a camera looks like? Do we plan to look at the camera or at what comes out of it? A camera could look like a jar of peanut butter if the image quality, specs, and handling are top notch.</p>

<p>When you watched <em>Citizen Kane</em> or <em>Casablanca</em> or <em>Star Wars</em> or <em>The Godfather</em> or <em>Apocalypse Now</em>, did you care what the cameras looked like (the ones that shot the scenes)?</p>

[RaymondC]

<p>This isn't exactly a pro camera IMO ;-) It's targetted for the enthusiast, hobbyist, someone with a love of photogrraphy than just getting the job done. Apart from pro's I am sure there are decent amount of normal people out there who craves for that D4 or this Df or a Leica M, that iPhone or that Samsung S4 or that latest iPad. And re: movies, some viewers may watch particular movies if they have their favorite actor in it.</p>

<p>But maybe they couldn't do much with the back of the camera design - some customers may complain that their retro dSLR isn't as streamlined as their other Nikon dSLRs .. or that customer intelligence said that customers still wanted these other features like HDR, GPS etc. </p>

[borgis_karl_johan1]

<p>The more I read the -like and dislike- comments here and elsewhere my belief increases that tired old Auntie Nikon may have struck a gold mine.</p>

[rodeo_joe1]

<p>Whoo! I thought I was joking a couple of weeks ago, when I suggested it might look like a Chrome-plated D700, but I wasn't far off the mark. Except the chrome version looks more like it was sprayed with cheap silver aerosol paint. And what the heck is that monster high-rise pentaprism all about? The FM/FE/FE2 style front elevation just looks a bit cheap and cheesy to me; like a high speed collision between a D600 and an FE.</p>

<p>IMO its only good feature is that the Ai coupler tab can be lifted clear of the lens. Now why couldn't Nikon simply have done that on the rest of their higher-end DSLRs?</p>

<p>It makes an expensive back cap for anyone's collection of Ai and Pre-Ai Nikkors, that's for sure. However, what's missing is a special battery and combined card-holder in the shape of a 35mm film cassette (available in Plus-X or Kodachrome 25 livery, of course).</p>

[ilkka_nissila]

<p>It is not necessary to adjust the manual focus screen for each lens; the need to do this is a pecularity of the PDAF system through several mirrors and optical systems that make focus error dependent on the optical design. I'm not saying optical manual focusing will be as precise as LV focusing but it suits some situations better than other focusing methods.</p>

<p><em>Who has pre-ordered a Df? That should tell the real tale.</em></p>

<p>I think it would be foolish to order a camera without trying it out. Preorders mean nothing really; what is important is longer term interest and sales. </p>

<p><em>24MP is the new standard, preferably without an anti-aliasing filter.</em></p>

<p>24MP is a common thing in Nikons though the market leader, Canon, hasn't made one camera that is greater than 22MP so far. Personally I think the world is moving towards 3-5MP displays and that's what the camera needs to be at a minimum, to suffice for most applications, since prints are made by few people and large prints by even fewer. I think 12MP is a little low for my needs, 24MP is perfect but 16MP would suffice for a lot of applications, especially low light and event photography. 36MP I may get rid of at some point as it is a little overkill for my photography and more suitable options by Nikon are appearing now, at a lower price point than the D4. I am not saying that the image quality of the D800(E) isn't the best - it is, but it is a burden I don't want to carry for the majority of my photography if I don't have to. And I never liked the ergonomics of that camera.</p>

<p>AA filterless 24MP FX doesn't interest me; it is too low spatial frequency to leave the filter out. Since most images are printed small or shown in digital format, additional detail contrast that would appear in an A2 print doesn't matter as much as artifacts that display at even the smallest sizes matter a great deal more to me. As an imaging system developer myself, I often have to deal with incorrect imaging and artifacts at work and I reject voluntarily choosing an unsound imaging system that produces artifacts over a clean, accurate image of slightly less resolution (but still higher resolution than needed by the application). A lot of people seem to not understand that the aliased detail results in artifacts that are present even at the lowest spatial frequencies of the image so they display basically at all sizes, whereas the resolution loss due to the AA filter starts to show when the print is large. In my opinion the quality of the small to moderate prints is necessary to get correct whereas small differences in the quality of the 0.01% that get printed large can be acceptable since in the end the meaningful content of the image (emotion, etc.) is at the lower spatial frequencies and seen at all print sizes. But a landscape photographer may see it differently, of course; I don't think the Df is really intended to become a primary instrument for that despite the advertising videos. </p>

[michael_chuang1]

<p>> <em>However, what's missing is a special battery and combined card-holder in the shape of a 35mm film cassette (available in Plus-X or Kodachrome 25 livery, of course).</em></p>

<p>Hah! That is an excellent idea. Get a design patent on that quick. Seriously.<br>

I don't miss PKM, but I do miss my original RDP.</p>

<p>Oh, and re <strong>John Williamson</strong>'s comment at 11:08: Well said.</p>

[Landrum Kelly]

<p>Rodeo Joe, I always liked the HP viewfinder on the F3, and so it looks fine to me.</p>

<p>If you have never looked through a HP viewfinder, you are in for a treat. This is not about how the camera appears from outside. It is about <strong><em>how the world looks through that viewfinder.</em></strong></p>

<p>This is a serious camera. It is simply over-priced. Seven hundred dollars for double-thick dials? Uh-uh. Too much fat in that price.</p>

<p>Again, for the record, if 16 mp is good enough for the D4, it is good enough for me. Again, it is simply <strong>OVER-PRICED!</strong></p>

<p>--Lannie</p>

[dan_brown4]

<p>Here is a link to a Japanese website that has many photographs, inside and out, and with various Nikkors mounted to the D<em>f</em><br>

<br /> <a href="http://dc.watch.impress.co.jp/docs/news/20131106_622251.html">http://dc.watch.impress.co.jp/docs/news/20131106_622251.html</a></p>

[rodeo_joe1]

<p>"If you have never looked through a HP viewfinder...... " - just imagine your D700 or D800 viewfinder a tiny bit smaller and covered in dust spots. Also imagine a collection of concentric circles in the centre, together with a short horizontal line. Then, if you have less-than-perfect eyesight, imagine your D700/800 screen a bit out of focus, and with no dioptre adjustment to correct it. And there you have the view through the F3HP's finder.</p>

<p>"....., you are in for a treat." - Yes, if you're lucky enough to have eyesight that's suited to the F3HP, or you manage to purchase or have made a suitable eyepiece correction lens; then all that dust and those circles will pop into gloriously distracting detail, along with the mottled and coarsely ground focusing surface. Then you can spend many happy hours using the split-image finder to photograph the bars of zoo cages (rather than the animals), scaffolding poles, distant tree trunks, brickwork, fence posts etc., or hoping that your portrait sitter wears stripes so you've got something to focus on. But don't even contemplate putting a lens of f/4 or smaller on the camera, or doing macro work, because then you'll have a nice black semi-circle in the middle of the screen that you can't use to focus on anything at all.</p>

<p>Even if you swap out the distracting Type-K screen for a nice plain Type-B, you then have to invest in a cumbersome flip-up eyepiece magnifier to be able to focus accurately with it. So then where's your high eyepoint gone to?</p>

<p>Please Lannie, enough nostalgia. Modern dust-sealed DSLR screens with built-in dioptre correction, eye relief of 15-18mm and a focus confirmation dot that works at f/8 are far more universally useable than those old split-image/microprism things.</p>

[DB_Gallery]

If the price would come down to about 2K I might get one as I would like to get another body for corporate and ad work

besides my D800's. But man did Nikon tick me off with that whole no film images in the photo contest thing, a lousy idea

and a smack in the face, especially for pros like me who are nearly all film shooters once again. I guess the looks of it are growing on me a bit, I do love the dials on my X100S, very second

nature, but so is working with command dials since the F5.

 

And Dan South's post a couple pages back about 24MP being some kind of "Standard" BS sir, there is no standard, it is a

number telling how many pixels you have in a given area, nothing more. I have had clients publish 20 foot wide displays

with 8MP images and web sized photos from 36MP, size has only mattered in some cases.

 

16MP would be fine but the damn lack of a manual focusing aide like a split micro-prism is baffling to me, what an

omission.

[bebu_lamar]

<p>I like it because of the lack of manual focusing aid and the ability to turn off the focusing point. I use MF lenses a lot but I like a plain screen without any aid. When I bought my Nikon F2 in 77 and the F3 in 82 the first thing I did was to run out to buy a plain focusing screen to put in. Using focusing aid makes the camera less of an SLR and more like a rangefinder. </p>

[pge]

<blockquote>

<p>Here is a link to a Japanese website that has many photographs, inside and out, and with various Nikkors mounted to the D<em>f</em><br /> <br /> <a href="http://dc.watch.impress.co.jp/docs/news/20131106_622251.html" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">http://dc.watch.impress.co.jp/docs/news/20131106_622251.html</a></p>

</blockquote>

<p>I love that soft case.</p>

<p>I have an idea about SPAM, not one that was implimented on the Df but could be in the future.<br /> Imagine a dial for ISO, shutter speed (both as on the Df) and aperture. Ignore for the moment the fact that the aperture dial would be complicated by the fact that different lenses have different aperture settings. With me so far? Each of these three dials would have all the various settings plus an Auto setting. Would this not do away with the need for SPAM. Set all the dials to Auto and you effectively have P, set just the aperture dial to auto and you effectively have S, set all dials to something and you have M, etc.</p>