Nikon Df

[simon_crofts]

<blockquote>

<p>any idea what type of accent Kai Wong has?</p>

</blockquote>

<p><br />A fairly typical/generic south-east or London accent, not really any noticeable regional dialect.</p>

<p>Bebu, I wouldn't worry too much about the way he holds the camera or his opinions about the DF, there's no evidence he has any clue about anything to do with photography except marketing cameras. Looks like he's just trying to get clicks for his company's website by being controversial. Don't bother giving his silly views oxygen.</p>

[donbright]

<p>Simon,<br>

There are people here that have been adverse to the Df right from the date of release. I have read the threads, and they are not interested in hearing, or acknowledging any of the Df 's positives, only the negatives get the play here on the Df from the regular contributors. The Df is also not even considered a piece of Nikon equipment according to the equipment page here on P.Net. No mention of its existence on the Nikon equipment page. It's a non-camera. Wonder how Nikon would feel about that? I don't understand how a camera of this caliber could garner such bad review. If someone could wake me up from my 30 year coma in Photography, and explain this I would be most appreciative. </p>

[ShunCheung]

<blockquote>

<p>There are people here that have been adverse to the Df right from the date of release. I have read the threads, and they are not interested in hearing, or acknowledging any of the Df 's positives, only the negatives get the play here on the Df from the regular contributors.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Don, but the opposite is also true. Just read this very thread and it is clear that some people simply don't want to hear anything negative about the Df. All they are interested is to exaggerate the positives and cover up the negatives.</p>

<p>Thanks to Nikon USA, they loaned me a Df so that I got to use one for almost 3 months. I am writing up a review that will appear on photo.net in the near future. I already have a folder with plenty of images that I am going to use in the review: <a href="/photodb/folder?folder_id=1067109">http://www.photo.net/photodb/folder?folder_id=1067109</a></p>

<p>However, as a reviewer, I do not hesitate to point out the Df' negatives as well as positives. My objective is to help potential buyers make intelligent choices. Otherwise, people are going to accuse me for advertising for Nikon, as a number of people have attempted to do so over the years. The fact of the matter is that neither Nikon nor photo.net pays me anything. (As far as I know photo.net pays most of our reviewers, but I declined.) My main benefit is that I get to use some equipment for a little while for free.</p>

<p>As far as styling goes, the Df's small grip is certainly F3 like. Otherwise, the Df's retro appearance closely resambles the classic FM/FE, which have no grip. However, since the Df has a lot of electronics for digital capture as well as AF, it is unrealistic to expect it to be as small as the FM/FE.</p>

<center>

<p><img src="http://d6d2h4gfvy8t8.cloudfront.net/17712940-md.jpg" alt="" /></p>

</center>

[simon_crofts]

<blockquote>

<p>some people simply don't want to hear anything negative about the Df.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Shun, if you mean me, then I have mentioned negative points too as I went along. I haven't mentioned all of them (the rather flimsy battery compartment cover comes to mind too - though it's almost as flimsy on the D700 for that matter). And of course, there's lack of video (which you can take as a negative or a positive depending on your point of view, but it's a fact). Nor have I gone in to all the camera's positive points for that matter.</p>

<p>But as a picture-taking camera, and particularly for users of prime lenses, this is the best camera that Nikon, and I suspect anyone, have yet produced, and it's a big step forward in camera design (despite the retro look) so there is a reason to stress the positive about the camera. There are quite a few little niggles, but there always will be with any camera.</p>

<p>Don, I think there are several reasons why there has been such a campaign by amateur forums and amateur reviewers (I say amateur reviewers because professional magazine reviews I saw, like the British Journal of Photography one) have so far as I have seen (and I can't claim to have read them all) been very positive.</p>

<p>I think the reasons are the following:</p>

<ul>

<li>an educational problem: a generation of photographers have grown up with cameras that have made it difficult to get their heads around apertures, shutter speeds etc. I see this constantly with photography students at art and photography colleges - it is astonishing how few really understand the basics of how a camera works, by which I mean aperture/shutter speed/ISO/depth of field, and very many find it hard to see clearly the difference between the different modes (A/M/P/S), let along start to understand how to balance flash and ambient light etc. That is scarcely surprising, since camera design with all its various modes have made it almost impossible for young photographers. Only the most determined get through. So when a camera comes along with dials that are clear and set out the basic functions, it scares the hebby jeebies out of them. The reaction is to dismiss it as 'retro'.</li>

</ul>

<ul>

<li>gear-head envy, or 'my lens is bigger than yours syndrome': the DF does not appeal to amateurs who want to look like a paparazzi, with enormous lenses (preferably white), a big camera with hand grip (if you can't afford a D4, you buy something smaller and stick a hand grip on it - 99% of punters won't know the difference), and a big flash stuck on top. This group of people is much larger than one might think, they make up a substantial percentage of any camera club. They constantly have loud semi-jocular arguments about whether you are a Nikon or a Canon user (who cares). The chance that any of them are going to take a decent photo is close to nil. But the DF is a threat to them. They've just invested in D800 + camera grip, and the guy with the DF in the corner is a threat to their territory and self-esteem. And they are slightly jealous that someone else knows what those dials mean and afraid that someone might ask them.</li>

</ul>

<ul>

<li>There is a sheep mentality - it was started by the various amateurs who felt threatened by the camera, but Canon helped start it by bringing out an ad attacking the DF as retro. So this became the mantra - that the DF was retro-looking and therefore not a good camera. There was no particular logic to this, since lots of the best designs of cameras - the Fuji x100, the Leica M9, are also retro and haven't particularly been attacked by it. And ultimately, it shouldn't really matter much whether a camera looks retro or not - it matters whether it is the best at doing what it does - function. But here Nikon was betraying their customer base of gear-heads in the amateur community, and they couldn't be forgiven for it. The actual fact that this is a brilliant camera was irrelevant, in fact, it made it worse, meaning there had to be even more noise - kind of shouting la-la-la and sticking the finger in their ears.</li>

</ul>

<ul>

<li>A lot of the reviewers are amateurs or inexperienced, and don't really know what they are talking about. You see this all the time, which is one reason why the best professionals tend to use different cameras from the run of amateurs. Until someone like, say, Bruce Gilden is spotted using something like Leica in a viral video and suddenly there is a crowd of clones copying him.</li>

</ul>

<ul>

<li>The DF isn't intended to appeal to everyone. It's no doubt the best general purpose Nikon around, but it's not designed for big lenses. cf: gear heads point above. It's also not going to be adopted by Reuters any time soon as their main camera for distributing to their sports photographers. It isn't, and doesn't claim to be, the camera for everything. What it ought to be, if the world had any sense (which of course, it doesn't) the best camera for most of us most of the time, but too many people have spent too much money on big lenses, and they'll defend them with their teeth. So the amateur reviews tend to concentrate on what are pretty much irrelevancies which miss the point of the camera - by concentrating on a detailed analysis handling with an extreme lens like a 70-200 etc.</li>

</ul>

<ul>

<li>Nikon over-priced the camera at introduction. In fact, if you looked closely it wasn't really over-priced for what you were getting, including not only a unique interface, but a D4 sensor, but it was certainly a large chunk of money, and it was going to put most people off just because of the cost. This gave all the people with a vested interest in trying to sink the DF gave a perfect excuse to attack the camera, and the number of people who would stump up the cost do prove the nay-sayers wrong was relatively few.</li>

</ul>

<p>I think that's a reasonable summary of it.</p>

[simon_crofts]

<p>By the way, in case anyone is wondering, I have no association in any way with Nikon (except having bought some of their cameras), I have never been contacted by Nikon, or offered any discounts from them or offered a camera for trialling, or any other kind of incentive. I paid market price for my DF (and the second one I just ordered too).</p>

<p>I'm just someone who knows a good camera when he sees it, who makes a living from using it, who would really like Nikon to develop a DF2 further along the road, and who gets annoyed when he sees nonsense spouted in attacks on an excellent camera.</p>

[simon_crofts]

<p>Shun, just had a quick look at your portfolio. I notice that you are an amateur photographer who mostly takes pictures of birds (the feathered type) with what seems to be mostly (and understandably) long lenses. There's nothing wrong with that, but I wonder if you are the right profile of photographer to review the DF?</p>

<p>As a professional who takes the kind of general photography, photojournalism etc. that the DF is primarily aimed at, who makes a living from the camera day-in-day-out, I am happy to provide Photonet with a detailed review of the camera - for free.</p>

<p>Would you like to take me up on my offer?</p>

 

[Albins images]

Funny list of arguments and characterisations Simon! :-)

I came from a Praktica MTL camera, stayed long with M

and mostly use A for almost 20 years now.. (Last sentence

is supposed to characterise me, haha!).

 

And yes: I still want one! But what if the D800s comes out

with sRAW and I saved up for a second FX body? Hard

choice.

[Andrew Garrard]

<p>Simon wrote:</p>

 

<blockquote>It may well be that the DF isn't the camera for you - it's clearly not optimised for uses with those kinds of lenses (though it is usable). It is rather like a much more capable Leica M9, and aimed at someone who really wants to work fast and discreetly.</blockquote>

 

<p>I think we're in agreement (and I don't claim the Df is unusuable with big lenses, I just don't think it helps). If you're after the Cartier-Bresson style of shooting - set up the camera in advance, raise it to the eye only for the fraction of the second required to frame, and take the shot - the Df is perfectly functional. I even accept that it might be better at this than other current Nikons. (It would be better still if they'd put a bit more tactile feedback on the dials so it was easier to feel the position without looking at them, but that's for the Df2.) The counter to that is that I believe the camera has been made - slightly - harder to use if your model is keeping the camera to the eye and adjusting exposure settings dynamically. This is fine, they're two different ways of using a camera, and Nikon supports both. I'm just not prepared to say that the Df is a magical improvement to handling and that all future cameras should move to its interface style - both ways of using a camera are needed. The Df offers a more automated (but bigger) alternative to the typical Leica "set in advance, including focus distance" model.</p>

 

<blockquote>But to judge the DF as to whether it's the ideal camera to accompany that heavy trio is I think to miss the entire point of the camera. It's more of a Ferrari rather than a juggernaut.</blockquote>

 

<p>Absolutely. They happen to be the lenses I use, and, as I've argued, if you use lightweight lenses then the Df is likely a much more appealing proposition (as is a Leica!) While I certainly don't claim that everyone uses the f/2.8 zoom set, I also don't think I'm <i>that</i> weird (at least, as a photographer), so I think it's worth making clear that the Df probably works well for some people and probably <i>won't</i> work well for others. Especially those after a cheaper D4. A Ferrari is a lovely thing to own, but it's not just bad at shifting freight - it's also not brilliant for the school run. It's better as a second car (I speak as an MX-5 owner, the V1 of the sports car world), and I completely get wanting a Df to complement another DSLR. But I think you have to be committed if it's your only one.</p>

 

<blockquote>The Df is really a 2 handed camera. If you were to hold the camera with one hand, hold it with the left hand. It should be fine holding it with only the left hand even with lens like the 70-200mm f/2.8.</blockquote>

 

<p>This is precarious, Bela, though not as bad as trying to hit the ISO button right-handed on a D700 with a 150-500 (which I've tried before). The left hand can be significantly forward of the camera, and you then need to reach over the top with your right hand to get at ISO/EC. I'm not claiming it's impossible, but it's not what I'd call convenient.</p>

 

<blockquote>I think the reasons are the following</blockquote>

 

<p>I think it's dangerously easy to dismiss the technical capabilities of those who are concerned about the Df. I agree that there are people who are brought up on scene modes and who haven't got their heads around shutter speed, aperture and ISO (partly due to miseducation - if I see one more "bigger number means smaller aperture" thread...); I claim to have a pretty good handle on this, whereas I've no idea what "pet mode 3" does on one of my compacts.<br />

<br />

I make no claim to artistic talent, but I'm enough of an engineer that channeling light doesn't threaten me. User interface design is also a science. Whether or not you find the Df "pretty" is one thing (I don't, but it wouldn't put me off buying one), but there are controls on the Df which definitively require more hand movement to operate than the equivalent on other Nikons. Now, the response to "doctor doctor, it hurts when I do <i>this</i>" is famously "don't do it then", so the confusion about the Df is whether not doing the things that seem to be less efficient is really an option.<br />

<br />

There are a lot of supposed issues raised with current cameras that (many) people claim are "fixed" on the Df. Let's visit a few:</p>

<dl>

<dt>The controls move around depending on exposure mode.</dt>

<dd>Not on a two-dial camera they don't. Unless you've changed it, the rear dial on a D800 is always shutter speed and the front dial is always aperture, except in program mode. I admit that if you use the dedicated shutter speed dial on the Df, the rear dial is freed up for exposure shift, so I concede that the Df has a better "point and shoot mode". The "unused" dial on a D800 can be used with "easy EC" or "easy ISO", and I admit that if you enable this, the "unused" dial moves. If you don't, you get at these options by pressing a button and moving the rear dial, always. The EC button is even where you can reach it, unlike the Df's dial.</dd>

<dt>You can use the Df without having to go into menus.</dt>

<dd>This keeps getting quoted. On no Nikon do you have to go into a menu to change the settings which the Df has dedicated dials for. The Df actually requires going into menus for a few more options (auto-ISO enabling and card formatting spring to mind). I'm not sure if every reviewer came from a compact camera or never used anything above a D5x00 series, but the dials on a Df don't offer any new functionality. They could have done, but they don't.</dd>

<dt>You can see the camera settings before you raise the camera to the eye.</dt>

<dd>The shutter dial is visible even when the meter's off, I admit. So you may have to brush the shutter release to wake up another DSLR. Once it has woken up, the exposure information, at least on a D800, is in much larger text than the information on the Df's dial (similar to the Df's own LCD), it can be illuminated, you can tell which AF point is selected, you can tell whether the camera is level, you can tell image quality mode, you can tell white balance... The dials on the Df are not easier to read, and they're dotted over the top of the camera so the information isn't all in one place.</dd>

<dt>You can control the settings by feel.</dt>

<dd>There's no absolute positioning on the Df's dials - you can see where they are, but you can't feel it. This could have been fixed, but currently what's there is - unless you ram into one of the lock positions - a series of identical click stops, just like the D800's dials. Except that you have no control over how fast you're moving between settings.</dd>

<dt>You can change the settings by more with a small finger movement.<dt>

<dd>With the exposed dials on the D800, I can run the entire length of my finger or thumb along the dial. This moves the settings a very long way. I can't do that with the dials on the Df.</dd>

</dl>

<p>The Df <i>does</i> work for some uses, particularly for being unobtrusive and minimising time with the camera at the eye (in as much as an FX camera's mirror is ever unobtrusive compared with, say, an X100s). I happen usually to shoot with the camera at my eye for a bit longer, giving me the chance to use the camera's meter and check focus. Used like that, the Df's dials don't, as far as I can tell, help, and actively get in the way (a bit).<br />

<br />

I do hear the "overloaded right hand" point, though I have the exact opposite request and want my left hand free just to support and aim (and manual focus, and zoom). I do hear the "not designed for big lenses" argument, though frankly I consider any SLR to be designed for big lenses and a rangefinder to be just as viable with something smaller. But there are a lot of claims about the failings of existing designs that just aren't true, sometimes raised by people who grew up on a conventional (pre-F5) film camera and who like the Df because it takes them back to their childhoods. I grew up on an Eos 300D before getting film cameras, so I have no nostalgia here, though I'm certainly not scared by dedicated dials.<br />

<br />

I should stress that I'm not getting at Simon, but in the interests of full and correct understanding, I really want to separate the genuine benefits of the Df from the supposed benefits. I'm sure there are more of the former than I (still) realise, but almost every review I've seen has said:</p>

<ol>

<li>The image quality is great, if 16MP is enough (no argument)</li>

<li>There are dedicated dials (yes, but there's no explanation of why it's better)</li>

<li>It has support for old lenses (sort of - but I've not seen a single reviewer actually use a pre-AI lens, and most seem to think stop-down metering works)</li>

<li>It's smaller than a D600 (it is, but not much)</li>

</ol>

<p>To any positive reviewer: give a clear explanation of why the Df is actually better for you, including exactly what you're doing with it and any changes that you had to make to your shooting style compared with another camera, and I'll be very interested, albeit academically. Any assertion that fixed dials are self-evidently better isn't going to cut it. To any negative reviewer, <i>any</i> camera has ways in which it can be used effectively. The trick is finding them, and letting prospective owners decide what works for them.<br />

<br />

So I'm very interested in Shun's review, which I trust will be balanced, but I'm also interested in what Simon has to say if he's kind enough to contribute (be that in a thread or as an article). There are enough people that love the Df that I believe there's something there - but, after a thousand posts across multiple threads, I've still not seen a completely clear explanation of what it is, and am told I just "don't get it". Believe me, I would love to "get it" if someone has the time to explain.</p>

 

[ShunCheung]

<p><a href="/photodb/user?user_id=5586095">Simon Crofts</a> writes:</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Shun, if you mean me</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Simon, it should be very obvious that you are one of the Df fanatics I have in mind. I posted once, and, right on cue, you had the urge to follow up with three consecutive posts. :-)</p>

[simon_crofts]

<blockquote>

<p>what if the D800s comes out with sRAW and I saved up for a second FX body? Hard choice.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Choices, choices! :)</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>If you're after... set up the camera in advance, raise it to the eye only for the fraction of the second required to frame, and take the shot - the Df is perfectly functional. I even accept that it might be better at this than other current Nikons. (It would be better still if they'd put a bit more tactile feedback on the dials so it was easier to feel the position without looking at them, but that's for the Df2.) The counter to that is that I believe the camera has been made - slightly - harder to use if your model is keeping the camera to the eye and adjusting exposure settings dynamically.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Andrew, my comments are based on, mostly, a mode of operating which involves adjusting settings while the camera is at the eye. Though actually I use a mix of the two, but it is critical to me to be able to make dynamic adjustments while shooting without lowering the camera. I get what you are saying - I still haven't decided whether the exposure compensation is as easy to use as 'easy exposure compensation' on the D700 (which is very easy to use), but the exposure compensation is at least 'almost as easy' - possibly 'as easy to use' - and perhaps even 'easier to use'. It's certainly a lot better than I expected - but I haven't decided whether exposure compensation is better than D700 or not. Most of the rest is better.</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>Simon, it should be very obvious that you are one of the Df fanatics I have in mind</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Shun, I have obviously offended you by my description of a stereotype amateur gear-head, obsessed with shooting bad pictures of robins with long lenses, incapable of taking a good picture, and I apologise if you took that personally. I honestly hadn't looked at your profile before saying that, and the description was not meant to be aimed at you.</p>

 

[Andrew Garrard]

<p>Thank you, Simon - it's useful to know that you're using the Df at your eye. I'm having to guess how people use it! Should you be able to furnish us a detailed review, including how you use it and why you find that better than how you were using other cameras (some of the positive Df comments seem to have been from people who weren't using their other cameras in the easiest way, though I don't accuse you of that) then I'll be very interested to learn from it. I'm not claiming that people shouldn't like the Df, I just want to understand why they do. It might help me, and it might help me help others. (Likewise, I look forward to what Shun has to say, but it helps to know whether we're "doing it right". There was a recent "review" of a remote trigger on one site that appeared to be by someone who had the wrong kind of trigger for their camera; without enough information, any review can be misleading.)</p>

[simon_crofts]

<p>Sure, Andrew, I was about to type a reply to you much along those lines as I saw that was a sticking point.</p>

<p>First of all, I don't want to talk you into thinking that this the camera for you - if you have picked it up and played with it, and just didn't 'click', then it probably isn't for you - perhaps because your hands work differently from mine, or you have a different approach to using dials, or different priorities, or you just didn't 'like' it emotionally. If you're going to spend a lot of time with a camera, the pleasure of using it is also important. If you didn't already like it, then probably it's best not to buy it. But if you did like it and it was just some details that were putting you off, or some of the silly reviews like that Digitalrev guy, then it's worth looking closer.</p>

<p>Anyway, back to the controls. I don't have the camera in front of me just at the moment, so this is from memory. My way of working is mostly based on Aperture priority, using exposure compensation dynamically and constantly while the camera is at the eye level. I have a second way of working, which is Manual and tending to preset, which as you say the DF is excellent at, but I'll leave this approach to one side for the moment, as most of the time I'm using the first approach and it's what you're asking about.</p>

<p>As already mentioned, I think what I am describing would break down with a really heavy lens like a 70-200mm because of the need to access exposure compensation with the left hand. So I'm assuming that I'm using a lighter lens than that.</p>

<p>So, with the camera at the eye in Aperture priority, setting aperture is obviously not a problem - it's done with the middle finger of the right hand turning the front dial (which is slightly easier to use than the D700's, as I already mentioned elsewhere). Thumb does the focussing via AF button. Shutter speed is of course initially taken care of by Aperture priority.</p>

<p>But exposure compensation is also important. I cup the camera between my two hands - left on left side, right on right. It's a comfortable and stable way to hold the camera. My hands are quite small, but I have no problem with, while the camera is at my face, depressing the exposure compensation lock button with the forefinger of my left hand and rotating the dial with my left thumb. Both the lock and the compensation are very light, so there is no difficulty in doing this. The amount of exposure compensation is shown through the viewfinder along with aperture and shutter speed, so this can be seamlessly done without looking at the compensation dial on the body.</p>

<p>It took me a couple of hours to get used to this new hand position with the left hand, once used to it I'm growing to like it. Though not sure whether I would if I had heavy lenses.</p>

<p>This is a lot easier than using the D700 in its default mode, which requires the exposure compensation button, which is awkwardly located, to be depressed while rotating a dial in a separate position. The D700 however does have an 'easy exposure' compensation customisation available, which makes this easier, and in that case compensation can be done quickly on the D700. The DF is scarcely harder though, because the compensation lock is located with the dial and can be adjusted in one movement. This was the thing that worried me about the camera most before buying, but it's turned out to be fine. I haven't yet decided whether the compensation lock is a good thing or a bad thing - on the whole I think at the moment it is a good thing - my Contax G2 used not to have such a lock and it drove me mad by making its own exposure compensation when pulled out of the bag etc. So I think that probably the DF's approach is the best one on this point.</p>

<p>Apart from that - what do you want to adjust with the camera at your eye? Manual ISO adjustment is possible (though slightly more awkward than exposure compensation), but there is such a good ISO Auto mode that there is not too much need to do this. The D700 was a bit awkward changing ISO anyway and probably involved camera to be taken down from your eye (I always did anyway). I have found that a good option is to customise one of the function buttons to switch quickly between Auto ISO and manual ISO, that way I can either take advantage of the camera's auto capabilities or impose my own manual choice quickly and easily, and switch between the two with the camera still at my eye.</p>

<p>I hope that description helps, but let me know if I've missed something out!</p>

[Andrew Garrard]

<p>Simon: I think you've given me an "aha" moment. I had no idea that people were using it with the left hand gripping the left side of the camera, rather than the bottom. My default grip - and I assume most people's - is to have the bottom of the lens resting in my left fingers and either the lens or base of the camera in the ball of my left hand. Geoff Lawrence has a <a href="http://www.geofflawrence.com/holding_the_camera.html">Holding the camera</a> page that I believe shows what you're suggesting (under how <i>not</i> to do it!)<br />

<br />

I fear I may be precluded from this approach by the size of my nose, and I imagine it makes manual focus or zoom a bit awkward, but I can see how it lets you get at the EC controls.<br />

<br />

I actually don't have a problem with the D700's (or D800's) EC button, but that's personal. It would be nice if, like everything else, you could map it to the DoF preview and Fn buttons.<br />

<br />

Anyway, thank you for elaborating. I may not be able to apply the same technique (just as I can't comfortably use McNally's over-the-shoulder grip), but at least I think I understand how you're doing the impossible without a fing-longer!</p>

[simon_crofts]

<blockquote>

<p>Geoff Lawrence has a <a href="http://www.geofflawrence.com/holding_the_camera.html" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">Holding the camera</a> page that I believe shows what you're suggesting (under how <em>not</em> to do it!)</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Mmm I don't believe too much in these 'how to hold a camera the correct way' pieces - though none of the pictures there show how I'm suggesting holding it, which is using the palm of the left hand for support, not the fingers.</p>

<p>His 'correct' position on any camera looks awkward to me, but I probably need to take a picture of myself holding a camera to be sure I wouldn't ever do that. I think in practise one is moving one's hands to different positions, there isn't one 'correct' position.</p>

<p>I did a reasonable amount of competitive pistol shooting years ago, and I think that really helps with holding a camera (and taking pictures at slower shutter speeds) - there are different ways to hold a pistol (that guy's recommended approach to holding a camera seems to be close to 'New York cop' style with the hand underneath, and I suspect might be inspired by it), and muscle relaxation and especially breathing are important. But ultimately, I suppose it's a matter of getting a comfortable grip using mostly the palms of the hands rather than pinching the body in the fingers.</p>

<p>Anyway, that's a whole other discussion.</p>

[Andrew Garrard]

<p>I think I get you, Simon (and I did struggle a bit to find an image of what I thought you meant - I'm now imagining your wrists and elbows being very close together, if that helps), but if you <i>do</i> take a picture of yourself using your grip, I'd find it helpful. I may as well learn something, after all these Df posts! Knowing how to hold a Df in a way that makes the controls work is quite key to whether the camera is worth considering, I suspect. Much as I've never really got the hang of where Nikon puts the AF mode switch - though it finally felt comfortable when I tried a D4s/85 f/1.4 combination recently - and I'd love to have a slightly different grip that worked with the controls better.</p>

[simon_crofts]

<p>I will see if I can get my wife to take a picture of me holding it a bit later on! I don't think I have my elbows very close together though, kind of medium distance, in their natural position - the important thing is to be relaxed and comfortable but with the camera held firmly, rather than trying to 'adopt' a particular pose, I reckon the thing is to do whatever is comfortable. Your elbows may have different joints to mine!</p>

[simon_crofts]

<p>Andrew, I took a couple of pictures, one of how I hold the D700 normally and one of how I hold the DF when fiddling with exposure compensation. The main difference is an adjustment to the height of the left palm. In both cases the camera is supported on the left side by the palm of the hand and the fingers essentially used for fiddling with controls and minor support.</p>

<p>Not saying this is the best way to do it, but just an indication of one way to use the DF:-</p>

<p><a href="http://www.flickr.com/photos/41430514@N02/13470936995/">Holding Nikon DF while fiddling with exposure compensation</a><br>

<a href="http://www.flickr.com/photos/41430514@N02/13471038173/">Holding Nikon D700 'normally' (my way)</a></p>

<p>Made them b&w because can't be bothered to colour match them ;)</p>

[donbright]

<p>Shun,<br>

We can agree that within the hundreds of threads pertaining to the Df, there are two sides of the isle. As there is always two sides to any isle in any issue, ours in Photography, or lets say, in politics, but I would never question, or doubt your function here on P.net on your reviews of Nikon camera’s as you do such a thorough job in bringing the features of new releases to our attention, and I don’t recall making mention of who does, or doesn’t get paid for what they do, and that’s none of my business anyway. So long as the information is presented without a personal tint, I’m all ears from someone like you, that has the energy, and the where withal, and experience when getting these camera’s in hand. I admire those who have this access, I don’t, that’s why I tune in! Keep it up. FYI... I know what the Df is, and I also know what the Df is not. The Df is more than worthy, it is just another option as a picture taking tool for those who have a method that works for them....Key point, works for them, Just like any other camera anywhere. There is no camera to date...that offers all Photographic methodology to all. In fact, it might be impossible. Although I’m confused as to why the Df is excluded in the P.net equipment page, as later releases are included, What is that?</p>

<p>Simon,<br>

Your analysis to describe the Df for what it is, is so paved with detail,...actually I’m going to re-read your thread again, because its packed with operational issues that if viewers don’t scrutinize, well, they're just not interested. Thanks for your insight.</p>

<p>Since this is a social media forum to contribute opinions, It is mine that there’s too much emphasis on the grip issue, please! Enough already with how the Df is held, its not your hands.. its your mind as to how to hold things. Forget about your fingers, or what hand does what, just hold the camera. Depending on the size of the lens, it might be the right, it might be the left. Who cares?</p>

[ShunCheung]

<blockquote>

<p>Shun, We can agree that within the hundreds of threads pertaining to the Df, there are two sides of the isle.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I think there are far more than just two sides of the isle. There are many different opinions on the Df, just like on any other camera.</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>Although I’m confused as to why the Df is excluded in the P.net equipment page, as later releases are included, What is that?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I am not even sure which photo.net equipment page you are referring to. I rarely read those pages. Last time I checked, which was a few years ago, photo.net's Nikon information page was fairly out of date. I probably know far more about Nikon SLRs than whoever on the photo.net's staff that maintains those pages so that there is no point for my to read that, anyway. With so many new cameras introduced every month, I sure am glad that I am not responsible for keeping such information up to date. It must be a time-consuming and tedious job.<br>

<br>

If you really want to know why some info is missing, please send an e-mail to the editor in charge.</p>

[donbright]

<p>Yes, the Nikon equipment page is not very well maintained. I"ll look into this. Seems that if the site's purpose is to provide current information on new releases, it should be <em>current.</em></p>

[simon_crofts]

<p>Don, you're right, the grip is a non-issue.</p>

 

[BelaMolnar]

<p>Some people is kidding here I believe, to shown, how to hold a camera. A Df, or any 35mm camera. See the page below. And it has a logical explanation too.<br /> http://www.google.ca/search?q=how+to+hold+a+camera&client=safari&rls=en&tbm=isch&tbo=u&source=univ&sa=X&ei=eN42U5P1FpPzqwHKzYAw&ved=0CCkQsAQ&biw=1473&bih=1049<br /> It is long practiced and thought, in schools and by pros, how to hold a camera and, how to hold a heavy machine-gun.</p>

[BelaMolnar]

<p>More.<br>

http://digital-photography-school.com/how-to-hold-a-digital-camera</p>

[BelaMolnar]

<p>The video for those whom like a demonstration.<br>

[nikofile]

<blockquote>

<p>I think there are far more than just two sides of the isle. There are many different opinions on the Df, just like on any other camera.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I think you're right. I look forward to your review. I have never met a Nikon camera I did not like, and I know I would like the Df. But there is variety in usage, and I like them for different reasons. I look forward to your review. I think you are fortunate to have that arrangement. You do a nice job of reporting on these cameras, so those of us who won't get a chance to handle the Df can glean a little pleasure from your review.</p>