Nikon Df

[bebu_lamar]

<p>Bela! In your link they recommend to have the right hand low for the vertical shot which I always do but I see that most people prefer the right hand high. The right hand high position is tiring for the right arm as it has to raise high. I guess that's why people want the vertical grip.<br>

When I use my F5 I never used the vertical grip.</p>

[marc_ravignat]

<p>This link on how to properly hold a dslr or slr camera should be sent to the clown reviewer Kai. He still holds a dslr like as if he is shooting with a point and shoot or holding a stinky diaper. </p>

[Andrew Garrard]

<p>Simon: Thank you. I think I'd correctly interpreted your description.<br />

<br />

When trying the Df, my right hand matched your grip (palm at chin level, wrist below the level of the camera, tucked into my "waist"), which is also what I do on other cameras with little to no grip. This seemed fine, so long as the camera wasn't trying to twist itself forward too hard - so it's okay with small and light lenses. When the camera has a deeper grip, like my D800, my palm is beside my cheek, my elbow higher, and my forearm braced by squashing my bicep. Because the fingers start more straight, they're in a better position to resists twisting, although I don't normally do anything but support the weight of the camera in my left hand anyway.<br />

<br />

Your left hand grip had never occurred to me when trying to hold a Df. I've normally got my hand well under the lens, with the point of my elbow resting on my belly (having experimented, I'm fat enough for a 400 f/2.8 but not a 500 f/4). Over the weekend I used my 70-200, and the base of my palm is resting on the lens collar - well clear of the camera. With smaller lenses, I accept that gripping the camera and not the lens can work (though I could do with a smaller nose), but it still rules out zoom and focus control. Still, interesting to see the options.<br />

<br />

Bela: Yes, that's how I hold a camera. But if that's how you hold a Df, you can't easily reach the EC or ISO dials. Hence the question - if Simon has found a grip that works for him and which allows him to reach these controls, I'm happy to learn that such a thing exists, since the inability to reach those controls is a problem for me. Maybe some Nikon engineers would be kind enough to show how they expected the camera to be held?<br />

<br />

Don: Apologies for being distracting about the grip. My biggest concern with the Df (well, apart from price) is ergonomic, and knowing whether the controls can be made easy to reach does depend on how you hold the camera. I hope we've now resolved the confusion, however, and I can shut up about it. There were mentions in previous threads, notably by Bjørn, about how the Df works well if you change your grip to suit it; my natural grip obviously doesn't suit it, and I'm glad to have some belated elaboration on that now, since I always felt I was missing something. I'm here to learn!<br />

<br />

BeBu: I've used the vertical grip on the F5, but I can't claim it's very comfortable. It's not really deep enough, for a start. I suspect (and I've not experimented much) the vertical grip on the big DSLRs is better.</p>

[BelaMolnar]

<p>Hi Andrew. You right, other then the handling problem with big lenses, many other thing is terribly badly designed. Nikon was overdoing the retro design, added to many dials, unnecessarily, some, on the worst place. I have no idea how Nikon approved this design, which is wrong almost all the way. The guys, or group whom designed the camera, has no idea of functionality and form-design at all. I really disappointed greatly of Nikon, a loyal user of 50 years, of this brand.<br>

Regardless, I like the camera, as a tool, the images quality slightly better then my D4, and I can cary a small package if I like to travel light. I using all my AI & AI-S lenses up to the 200/4 AI-S. But, I need a D3 or D4 type of camera beside this new Df.</p>

 

[Andrew Garrard]

<p>I'm not sure I'd go <i>that</i> far Bela! There are things that seem like strange decisions to me, for reasons that I think are logical, but clearly some people like them, so I won't quite resort to unqualified criticism! Nikon is allowed to cater to the minority sometimes, just as the BBC is allowed to make documentaries and drama alongside the endless selection of competitive cooking/talent shows. So "they'd have sold more if..." is a valid argument, but not necessarily a slam dunk. It's a bit of a shame for those who might have liked what they could have made, though, however happy I may be for those who find the Df is exactly what they wanted. Even so, I worry that it might have been someone's vanity project, and may not have had the ergonomic testing that it should have warranted, but it's good to see creative thought.<br />

<br />

Still, I'm glad to hear your happy with the results, if not (all) the ergonomics!</p>

[simon_crofts]

<p>I think a lot of it comes down to whether you like dials or not. In terms of the DF having 'too many dials' - well it has three: shutter speed, exposure compensation and ISO. So having less dials would involve having two, one or none.</p>

<p>The big criticism that has long been levelled at the D4-type cameras is that they rely on buttons too much and don't have enough dials.So you take your pick of these two approaches.</p>

<p>If you hate the DF's layout, then you'll hate the layout of most of the best cameras around the Leicas, Contax G2's, most medium format cameras and so on. Personally, I love these cameras, and use them all the time. Most of the world's best pictures are taken on cameras like these.</p>

<p>Personally, I think the D4 layout is terrible - a mess. But for someone like Bela who apparently has managed to find their way around it and has bought into it, that's fine. An awful lot of people have, he's far from being alone. But I think that whether you love or hate the DF will depend on whether you've got used to dealing without dials. Personally, I think dedicated dials with a clear function and where it's immediately obvious what the settings are are a huge step forward (actually, re-adopting an idea from the past which just made sense). But that's me.</p>

<p>Glad to hear that, apart from Bela's dial-phobia, he's happy with the camera.</p>

[Andrew Garrard]

<p>I certainly don't have a problem with additional control points on a camera. I don't really have a problem with fixed dials - I get on okay with my Bessa, Pentax 645 (more if it was an -N!), with the Leicas and Rolleis I've used, and with my time spent with an X100. I do want to ensure that everything I want to change can be done as quickly as possible without moving my hands more than necessary, and without compromising my support of the camera - I don't want to miss a shot because I was changing settings. That's harder with fixed dials, but not impossible.<br />

<br />

There's also a distinction between fixed-purpose dials and dials with purely mechanical positions - you could have a dial that's only used for shutter speed, but which didn't have one speed = one dial position. That helps if you want 1/3 stops on one day and whole stops on another, for example. It's easier to have tactile feedback on the simple arrangement (not that Nikon does, in the way that Leica manage with an offset shutter speed dial), but not impossible in any case. The fixed dial position mapping is certainly less flexible than the multi-purpose dials, but the issues are separate, to an extent. A fixed shutter speed dial that "went around twice" and displayed the current speed in an LCD on top of it ought, by rights, to be easier to read, more flexible, and just as easy to find as a purely mechanical solution. (I'm not requesting this, just observing it.)<br />

<br />

Anyway, before I turn into another essay... I like fixed dials, but I think they need to be thought through more carefully than an arrangement with a small number of dials that the user can customize. My objection to the Df's handling has more to do with the location of the dials (and the implementation that doesn't have the flexibility of the conventional approach) than their existence. Some of the Df's features feel a bit incomplete - much like the pre-AI lens support. (The same is true for the - overdue - sraw on the D4s, sadly.)<br />

<br />

On the other hand, as it were, those who like using both hands for exposure control and who don't need to support large lenses may well feel that my desire for loading the right hand is actively detrimental. You can't please all of the people all of the time. Though I'd like to think it's possible to please more people than Nikon managed to (even if I'm not one of them) which is a bit of a shame!</p>

[simon_crofts]

<p>Andrew, I agree with most of what you say.<br>

If one takes the system of holding a camera with the hand under the lens as gospel (which I think is an inherently bad way to hold a camera unless you really have to eg. with a very heavy lens - if you do have a heavy lens then it is often necessary), then that rules out using most of the best camera designs. Try using a Leica M9 without moving your hands from the heavy-DSLR-position. On the whole, it doesn't even occur to the many brilliant photographers who use this camera (and other Leicas) to criticise it for this, because to do so would be an irrelevancy. For some reason, some people seem to try to apply a different set of criteria to judging the DF.</p>

<p>In practice, good photographers tend to be much more adaptable and flexible in the way they use cameras. What really matters is whether it's a good tool and works clearly and easily, not whether the camera conforms to some abstract (and wrong-headed) notion of where the hands 'ought' to be. I'm not suggesting you're doing this Andrew, but just pointing out that people seem to be trying to evaluate the DF by measuring it against some principles that they wouldn't apply to most other good cameras.</p>

[donbright]

<p>Simon,<br />Again....on target. I have never seen, or heard of any, anything, let alone a camera acquire so much strife. The hand-ability as mentioned earlier, in the thread is such a non-issue. We can't determine the photographic experience, SOLELY, on the inflated size differential of modern DSLRs. There are other platforms to suit the varying methods of expression. Note: This point doesn't render any one design platform better than another, because the offerings of these big DSLRs, provide tools for the professional as necessary, I'm simply pointing out that the Dfs design platform, and functions, and to re-enforce a point, is justified.</p>

[simon_crofts]

<p>Don, I think emotions are high because the DF challenges expectations of what Nikon are 'supposed' to do. More than that, it challenges a whole philosophy (of buying into big cameras, flashy lenses, complicated buttons and so on). It looks like a 'betrayal' by Nikon.</p>

<p>It also upsets a lot of people who've just invested a big sum in a D800 or similar. The DF is the spark in the right, or wrong, place that ignites a conflagration.</p>

<p>It also just happens to be the best digital camera around at the moment, which just makes the whole thing worse. </p>

<p>Incidentally, I was just checking specs against the Leica M9. The DF is almost as quiet (at least, according to a Leica M9 user who has both, I haven't compared myself) and not very much heavier (756g compared to 600g, with battery in each case), and especially the black DF is very discreet. It must be quite a challenge to M9 sales. I hope the Leica line carries on being developed because they're great cameras.</p>

[bebu_lamar]

<p>I bought the Df primarily for its controls. I like its controls. I want to use my dslr like my favorite slr the Nikon F3HP. My F5 was way too slow to use and I bought it out of curiousity. When I started photography again in 2002 I made a few decision.<br>

The digital is not good enough at that point in time.<br>

I could still buy a brand new Nikon F3HP which is my favorite camera in the 80's.<br>

I could buy the F5 which is the latest and greatest Nikon SLR.<br>

I bought the F5 because I wanted to find out what has changed in almost 20 years. I found out that I don't need most of its feature and after 2 years of trying I decided that the matrix metering simply doesn't work for me. Auto focus can be useful at times but not necessary and giving me the problem that I didn't have with the MF camera. I had to decide on the focus point. With MF I simply focus on any part of the screen. The grips and wheels on the F5 really disappointed me. <br>

So I bought the Df for the primary reason is to have a DSLR that works as close as my favorite SLR the Nikon F3HP and it does come very close. All other aspect of the Df is good but they are secondary. But I think it's me only. I have not found anyone who shares my preference. Many bought the Df but for its sensor, its small size, its compatibility with old lenses. but not for it's handling. </p>

[simon_crofts]

Bebu, I think you're far from alone for choosing the DF for its handling. If you read through those reviews by a number of

different pros that I linked to, you'll see that there are lots of people who think the same way.

 

We spent all of yesterday wandering the coast taking pictures with our DF's. It was a real delight, just a pleasure to use.

we would never do that with our D700's (excellent camera though that was) - that was strictly for work and would get left

behind when taking personal pictures.

 

The other advantages - size, sensor etc. are just the icing on the cake.

[Andrew Garrard]

<p>Well, I've been away for a few days. I hope you enjoyed the peace and quiet. I discovered just how far Royal Photo is from downtown Montreal, but at least I have an 85 f/1.8 and some exercise to show for my time.<br />

<br />

Speaking as a very vocal contributor to the Df threads, I do want to be clear that I don't hate the Df; I'm neither upset by it because it came out while the D800 was available (I got my D800e just before the 2012 Olympics) nor because I wanted Nikon to produce a particular camera. I certainly don't have an urge for the Df to look like a D4s and, while I don't mind some heft on a camera, I'm not somehow offended that it's fairly light. (I'm actually a little disappointed that the D3300 isn't smaller.)<br />

<br />

I <i>am</i> a little frustrated:<br />

<br />

a) That I don't fully "get" the design decisions of the Df. It seems to be a camera that is designed to be used in a "different way". Some people find this "different way" naturally; others, like me, really don't see how it can be used in a way that's not inferior to other designs. Nikon have not gone out of their way to explain this, in the way that Leica were keen to promote the operational advantages of the M9. I really think they should have done. This doesn't make me angry with the Df, it just makes me wish for a clear explanation, and doubt that Nikon's design team managed to communicate with their marketing team. It also makes me grill happy Df customers in the hope of learning what Nikon aren't telling me.<br />

<br />

b) That there seem to be some handling disadvantages (which is not the same as "different" or saying that it has no benefits), and that Nikon might have been able to address these with some slightly different decisions. I'm perfectly happy to have a logical camera layout that I don't want to use, but I do have a <i>bit</i> of usability training, and some of the Df's design seems mildly problemmatic. This doesn't make me angry, but does make me feel that someone might not have done their job properly.<br />

<br />

c) That for a camera with its stated design aims, it seems a bit half-finished. That doesn't make it bad, just not all it could be. Even more so than, say, shipping the D800 without SRAW support. This doesn't make me angry, but it does make me sorry for those who wanted the camera this could have been.<br />

<br />

The Df has some handling advantages compared with (say) a D800. For me, they're small(er) compared with the handling <i>disadvantages</i>, but everyone's different, and I'm not going to call you "wrong" just because you have different priorities. I think it should have been possible to come up with a design that solved the problems the Df does without compromising it, but it won't be the first time I've seen a missed opportunity in the industry.<br />

<br />

My handling discussions are about trying to understand the Df. It's not that I believe one grip is "right", it's that I genuinely - at least before this thread - had no idea how to hold it and make the design not get in my way, despite having handled one a few times. I still think the solution won't work for my typical lens set-up, but at least I now understand how others can be getting on with it.<br />

<br />

Simon: I've not handled an M9, but I've handled an M3, a Voigtlander Bessa R and a Fuji X100/X100s. They share the "aperture on the lens, shutter top right" controls. The smaller grip means, as with a Df, my right elbow is lower than with my D800, because the little finger on my right hand is closer to the base of my thumb (my hand is less "open"). Wikipedia's entry on the thumb tells me that my D800 grip is a "power grip" and my Bessa grip is a "precision grip", I think. For the record, "ball of the thumb" is ambiguous, otherwise I'd be able to explain better. However, other than extending the thumb and first two fingers of my right hand, depending on how much force the shutter speed dial needs, my right hand grip remains otherwise unchanged on all cameras. My left hand grip is <i>completely</i> unchanged on all cameras, except for how far back my palm rests - either under the camera or under the lens. That's true from a compact, through micro 4/3, Bessa, M3, X100, Eos 500, Eos 300D, F5, D700, D800e, Mamiya 7 or Pentax 645... the only camera that's really made me change has been a Rolleiflex. Though a battery grip can push a small lens up to fingertip position on my left hand.<br />

<br />

The Df is the <i>only</i> camera that has put controls that I need to reach top left, out of all of these. Not all controls - the ISO on the D700/D800 is there, and I whinge about that as well - but I can live without them more than the EC/ISO pair on the Df. Now, it's not entirely alone - the X-T1 also has an ISO dial top left and, while EC is on the right, I don't believe it works with auto-ISO in manual mode. Fuji <a href="http://www.fujifilm.com/products/digital_cameras/x/fujifilm_x_t1/features/page_03.html#section06">shows</a> someone adjusting it, with their hands on the side of the camera rather than under the lens. It's clearly possible, but does rather remove the hand that might have been controlling focus or zoom.<br />

<br />

This clearly doesn't make for an unusable camera. But it does make a <i>less</i> usable camera. How much less depends on whether you can learn how to compensate for this arrangement - something that seems to be less obvious than for other cameras. And that's why I keep the threads going - some people are clearly happy enough that there's something to be learned here, even if I repeatedly fail to learn it.</p>

 

[simon_crofts]

<p>Andrew, the solution, if you don't 'get' the controls for you personally - is not to buy one, and don't worry about it. There's no point in endlessly trying to analyse why it's not for you. Just move on to a camera that is.</p>

<p>You'll be missing out big time, but so will most people, thank goodness, the camera is for a minority who do get it.</p>

<p>The day before yesterday we shot a wedding using two DF's, it was extremely intense and an excellent work out for the cameras. The cameras just couldn't have been better - we were both exhilarated about what a huge step forward over the D700 they are, in pretty much every way (and the D700 was an excellent camera), it was a revelation and we couldn't stop talking about what a delight they were to use all the way back home, how much easier they made our day - better interface, more sensitive sensor, much, much quieter, faster focussing, worked better with flashes, more discreet, lighter to carry. The result will be better pictures for the client. But most of all, it's just a pleasure to use - I always left the D700 behind when taking my own pictures, it was strictly work, but the DF I actually want to take with me.</p>

<p>Incidentally, small thing but it took 2200 pictures on one battery (if I remember right it's only supposed to take around 1400). There was still some juice in the battery even after that, but I switched to the spare battery at that point as I was worried about card corruption if the battery ran out mid-picture. Maybe that was just because it was a new battery, but I was expecting to be switching batteries earlier. Not bad.</p>

[Andrew Garrard]

<p>Thanks, Simon. :-) I admit that it's mostly an academic exercise - I don't like not understanding things. I think it's a bit of a shame for those of us who are apparently missing out that there seems to be some difficulty (more on Nikon's part than for those who have been kind enough to try to put me out of my misery here) explaining the advantages of the Df clearly. Saying "it's not good for <i>this</i> style of shooting, but it's really good for <i>this</i> style" would have done a lot to fend off the dismissive comments. Though I guess they generated publicity.<br />

<br />

I'm glad that Nikon did produce a camera that's suiting some people. However much it offends my intellectual aspirations to learn all about photography (except possibly, you know, the artistic bit that requires some talent), I'd rather that customers be happy than that a camera purchase be a terrible mistake, and if Nikon are going to make something, I'd rather it contributed to their future research budget than fell flat. Vive la différence.</p>

[simon_crofts]

<p>That's no problem you wanting to understand it Andrew, no doubt a good thing. The problem comes really when not understanding it starts to cloud the issues and mislead people who may be trying to get to the bottom of the camera.</p>

<p>So for example, you were saying that "the camera seems a bit half-finished" and that the disadvantages of the handling outweigh the advantages compared to the D800. Which is all very misleading for anyone who might be reading the thread for information - this camera really has superb handling, probably better than any other camera on the market, and it's far from half-finished (it's not clear why you might think it isn't, it's just an odd comment). </p>

<p>So those kinds of 'academic exercise' comments from someone who is not that interested in the camera just become unhelpful in case there is someone who actually wants to understand the camera in practical use.</p>

 

[Andrew Garrard]

<p>Apologies, Simon - and to anyone else misled. The last thing I'm trying to be is unhelpful. Allow me to put my comments in context, which will helpfully mitigate my error. I suspect I slightly rushed a response to allegations of having an irrational bias, or that the Df is "the best camera" - <i>no</i> camera is "best", but there are cameras that are arguably best <i>at a certain style of shooting</i> or <i>for a particular person</i> - and my attempt at balance clearly failed.<br />

<br />

Note to moderators (or bored readers): we're veering into whether there's a reason that there are two different camps of views about the Df, and whether the difference of opinion is rational. I believe this might be informative and that we can do it without standing either side of a fence and blowing raspberries, but I realise it might look like we're about to have a flame war, so I wanted to plea for mercy. I'll try to justify it.</p>

 

<blockquote>I said: "The camera seems a bit half-finished."</blockquote>

 

<p>I'm not the only one to have stated this impression. For a high-end camera, at least by price, it's far from clear that putting the D5200's autofocus system in it was financially sound (or the D600's live view aperture system and meter). A lot of people have called for a split-image finder, or at least the ability to fit one. There's "support" for pre-AI lenses, but not stop-down metering with them, nor are there feelers for "bunny ears" on the prism (or a modern solution such as OCR) or a proper mirror lock-up for invasive fish-eyes. The way auto-ISO interacts with the ISO dial seems largely nonsensical. There's no fast way to format a memory card. The SD card is under the same cover as the battery, cheap compact style (I don't mind this, but it seems to bother some people) and there's only one card slot. The grip appears to have been made smaller to make the camera look more like an older film camera, not for any technical or ergonomic reason, with consequences for the front dial. The mode dial seems to be a dial out of koumpounophobia rather than because a dial was the best solution, and the fixed-function dials don't reflect the mode. Some of the buttons on the rear stick out enough that they can be actively uncomfortable, especially if the camera bangs against you. From some handling positions, the strap lugs get in the way. The top LCD doesn't show as much information as other Nikons. The D4 sensor, fine though it is, doesn't seem an obvious fit for a "use me slowly" camera. The shutter speed dial sort-of works, but sort-of needs to use the (modern) conventional dial for some settings. There's no tactile feedback for dial position. Most importantly (to me), the thing I keep harping on about: you can't get at EC without taking your hands (significantly) away from the conventional shooting position needed for larger lenses, manual focus lenses, or zooms, and the grip size compromises even this.<br />

<br />

There are issues. You can certainly say that they're not important to you or don't bother you - for many people, they're not important at all, and these people should certainly not be put off by my questions. (For some people who want to buy a Df just because it looks a bit like a 1980s Nikon, they <i>may</i> be important, and you should make up your own mind if you know about them. Many of my early Df posts were to help save a few people who appeared to be in this category from themselves.) Nonetheless, they're issues, and some of them may have been solved by further development.<br />

<br />

Thom Hogan reported that an early draft design of the Df looks almost identical to the final version, and drew the conclusion that there didn't seem to have been much customer feedback to the Df design process - because <i>something</i> should have been worth changing. I don't claim he's authoritative, but the Df does feel more like a project to build an iconic camera than a project to build a <i>good</i> camera, however happy some people may have been with the results. Some people <i>are</i> happy - but I think <i>more</i> could have been happy with some changes. That doesn't make it bad, but it does feel as though some users either weren't asked, or were ignored. Or possibly the project was about to be cancelled, and they shipped what they had.<br />

<br />

I have a plenty-long wish list for the D800 as well, but many of the above seem to be a step back to problems that had already been solved by the design of other Nikon DSLRs.</p>

 

<blockquote>I said: "the disadvantages of the handling outweigh the advantages compared to the D800"</blockquote>

 

<p>Actually, I said "<i>For me,</i> [the handling advantages are] small(er) compared with the handling disadvantages". I generally use quite large lenses that are often "G" and/or zoom, I don't mind having the camera to my eye (rather than adjusting in my hands and raising it to the eye for a shot), I use EC a lot, I'm perfectly comfortable with the D800's dial layout (though not <i>everything</i> about the D800). I don't mind a fixed shutter speed dial/aperture ring combination, in an X100/Leica style, but they don't make the camera more usable for me. I don't think a camera that slows me down is helping me - not that I'm put off wanting a 5x4. Others should have their own priorities; I certainly don't recommend everyone shoots the way I do - I make no claims to know what I'm doing.<br />

<br />

So I hope that's cleared things up a bit. If you don't shoot like me, please consider a Df. If you do, I think we've all agreed that the Df may not be the right choice. I certainly don't want my academic interest/analysis to put off potential purchasers - but equally, I'd like real information for those who <i>do</i> want to buy, because there seems to be a lot of small print when deciding whether the Df is a suitable camera for you.<br />

<br />

So, I'll counter. The "handling issues" that I have with the Df - mostly listed above - are mainly based around there being an increase in hand movement and decrease in flexibility when using the fixed-function dials, compared with the arrangement on other Nikon DSLRs. For my needs, the Df would actively slow me down and get in my way (a bit - I realise I'm over-stating the extent of the problem, but it might be enough to miss the shot of a lifetime). To me, the F5 redesign had concrete logic behind it. That doesn't make me hate the idea of a camera that handles like the F4, but I'd find it "interesting" rather than "better".<br />

<br />

I'd like to know why people think the Df's handling is <i>better</i> than other DSLRs. So far, I can think of:</p>

<ul>

<li>You can set the Df's dials without worrying that the meter has turned off and the camera is ignoring you. (True, but see D800 function C2, auto meter-off delay.)</li>

<li>The dials let you see setting easily. (Probably not more easily than "all in one place and backlit on an LCD", though.)</li>

<li>The right hand on a conventional DSLR design is overloaded with too many controls. (I accept this, though my left hand is overloaded holding a lens!)</li>

<li>The dials on a conventional DSLR design change function depending on mode. (Shutter and aperture don't actually move. Easy-ISO and Easy-EC do, but you don't have to use them. The Df's dials aren't meaningful in some modes.)</li>

<li>The Df's ground glass appears to be <i>slightly</i> more sensitive to faster lenses. (I presume this makes it dimmer with slow zooms, but I've not checked - in any case, it's subtle.)</li>

<li>The Df is small and light. (True, though it's not that much lighter than a D610, barely lighter at all than a 6D, wider than a D610, and mostly smaller by having a smaller grip - which doesn't affect portability when there's a lens on the front. It might have been smaller and lighter without the dials, however.)</li>

<li>The Df is pretty. (It's <i>distinctive</i>; anything else is subjective. I don't actually like the looks, but I also care not at all for how the camera looks, compared with the images it takes, so this wouldn't influence a purchase either way for me.)</li>

</ul>

 

<p>Of course, there's also "it behaves like an FM3a, and that's the best camera ever." And yes, it's a <i>bit</i> like that, and for some familiarity may outweigh handling improvements - "different" is more important than "worse". Which is fine and valid. And I certainly don't assert that every happy Df owner is in this category, but it won't persuade many who already like their DSLRs' handling to switch.<br />

<br />

There have been many calls on this forum (and, I'm sure, others) asking for a camera with "all the features I don't use removed", usually with disagreements on <i>what</i> features any given person doesn't use. I, and others, always claimed that it would hurt sales for a manufacturer to make a camera that had functionality removed, making it more expensive. I get the impression - and this may be false - that the Df is popular with people who mostly don't use EC or auto-ISO as often as I do, and that moving the controls to the top left of the camera effectively did "remove them from the camera", or at least from interfering with the handling of people who rarely use these features. Which is good for them, and allows the camera layout to be different, but not so good for those of us who do need these features. And it made the camera less popular and more expensive. :-)<br />

<br />

I'm not dismissing any of these reasons, despite my qualifying why they aren't universally convincing in parentheses. If there are more clear handling benefits, I'd genuinely like to see them stated (again, if I've missed some) - reviewers (without having seen Shun's yet!) seem bad at stating them clearly, and the "pro-buy" case should be made on more than just emotional response to the dial interface.<br />

<br />

Oh, and I'm not denying the merits of the D4 sensor, though the advantage over the D610 is not huge. But a 6D is a cheap way to similar low light performance, and anyone buying a Df hoping to get a cheap D4 is likely to be a bit underwhelmed - it's less of a D4 than the D700 was of a D3.</p>

 

[ShunCheung]

<p>Andrew, if you would like to learn swimming, sooner or later you need to go into a swimming pool or go to the beach (or maybe a lake or river ...). You can't learn swimming by keep on talking about it.</p>

<p>Likewise, I think it has been quite clear a few months ago that the Df is unlikely to be a camera that meets your individual needs. However, if you would like to learn more about it, you need to use one for a while; just playing around with one at a couple of camera stores is not going to do it. Recall that when you went to Phoenix, Arizona back in February, I suggested that you should get one there at a price lower than it is in the UK, and if you don't need one in the long run, you can always sell it, perhaps even make a small profit. At least you need to rent/hire one for a week or two.</p>

<p>To me, it makes no sense to keep talking about a camera that you are not interested in buying, but that is not my business. In any case, if you have any further discussion with Simon Crofts on the Df, please take it to private e-mail.</p>