RaymondC Posted January 16, 2014 Share Posted January 16, 2014 <p><em>In other words, if you are the type that tries to save money buying pre-AI lenses, it doesn't make much sense to over-pay for a Df body. Seriously, plenty of AI and AI-S lenses are dirt cheap in the used market too, and even their optical quality varies. There are few reasons to reach back to the pre-AI era for optical designs and manufacturing from over 36 years ago. "Shun". </em><br> <em> </em><br> Definitely not a money savings camera. If it was just use film and forgo the Df body price too. FWIW if I wanted to go retro I would just shoot film. <em> <br /></em></p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Albins images Posted January 16, 2014 Share Posted January 16, 2014 Older lenses definately give cheaper access to very diverse imaging capacities. And many are worth it too! I used and use old lenses on D200, 300 & 800 - all AI'd obviously. The D200 sensor was tricky, the others are pretty forgiving with respect to CA. The viewfinders of these camera's are the limiting factor. THAT's why (and where) I hoped (and hope) that the Df is better.. If not.. well.. than a D610 or another D800 is probably a more rational choice. . But who says I always make rational choices? I really find the retro styling of the Df attractive Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bebu_lamar Posted January 16, 2014 Share Posted January 16, 2014 <blockquote> <p>FWIW if I wanted to go retro I would just shoot film. </p> </blockquote> <p>I've been doing just that but recently it became so difficult to get film, get them processed, get the chemical to process them myself. So I get the Df.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Andrew Garrard Posted January 16, 2014 Author Share Posted January 16, 2014 <p>Chip: The missing word was "further". I'm staying out of <i>further</i> discussions about the universal benefits of the interface. :-)<br /> <br /> Film is a limiting factor with film cameras. A gentle drop-off to highlights and shadows is nice, as is the high theoretical resolution, albeit at low contrast. Lack of contrast at high frequencies, limited dynamic range of some films and heavy grain, especially at higher ISOs, count against it. I do believe that 35mm film was never the premium choice for high image quality. I still sometimes shoot 645 and I still have designs on a 5x4, but - while I'll probably use my 35mm film eventually - I'm unlikely to get much more except for the experience of using some unusual cameras. It's too expensive to use and develop in quantity.<br /> <br /> I'm not beyond using film for some unusual spectral characteristics, though.<br /> <br /> Anyway. I like my Bessa, though it doesn't play well with the post-laser state of my eyes, but it's no X100s. And I like my F5, but my D800 is the camera that gets used. If the FM3a weren't so expensive I'd be a little tempted for the experience. The same could be said for the Df, but I don't think I'd get a Df out of a wish I had a film camera in my hands. (And, while I'm expecting Bebu to be right about my shooting style, if I fall in love with a Df, it will be on its own merits.)</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
marc_ravignat Posted January 16, 2014 Share Posted January 16, 2014 <p>I have been using non ai lenses with my DF and they work just fine. I use them in A mode and simply choose the aperture on the lens first and then the same aperture with the main dial. If I want to underexpose or overexpose I simply modify the aperture on the lens by for example half a stop (in between clicks), leaving the aperture unchanged in the camera (from the main dial). <br> As for the mode dial, many are saying that it is a flawed system mainly because if you set the mode dial on A or P the speed dial becomes useless and will indicate anything but the right speed (Thom Hogan even says this). I don't have problems with this. My OM 2 camera works in exactly the same way. The OM 2 only has M or A mode, and if you set the camera on A mode the speed dial becomes inoperative. The speeds adjust automatically depending on the aperture, and they can be seen through the viewfinder as they adjust the exposure. You just know that you are in A mode, just like you know that you are in A mode with the DF. The dial is even locked in A mode. Nikon introduced the mode dial on the DF so that it can use older legacy lenses. <br> Many are saying that Nikon should have used the double A system (A on the speed dial and A on the aperture rings) an get rid of the mode dial. I don't have much of a background with Nikon cameras, but I don't think that Nikon ever made lenses with an A on the aperture ring. Did Nikon make lenses with an A on the aperture rings? I think that the double A system would (a la Fuji etc) only work if Nikon produced a new set of lenses with the A on the aperture ring. And what about using more modern G lenses without the mode dial; would that work?</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ShunCheung Posted January 16, 2014 Share Posted January 16, 2014 <blockquote> <p>As for the mode dial, many are saying that it is a flawed system mainly because if you set the mode dial on A or P the speed dial becomes useless and will indicate anything but the right speed (Thom Hogan even says this).</p> </blockquote> <p>That is not a new problem. Back in the days when the choices used to be either manual (M, manually selecting the shutter speed) or aperture priority (A), such as the FE and FE2, A is simply one of the choices on the shutter-speed knob. Once you start adding S, the exposure mode selection has to be on a separate control so that you can select Shutter Priority and also choose the shutter speed. The FA had this inconsistency with a shutter-speed knob and a separate SPAM control; so did the F4. To me, it is not a big deal.</p> <p>Of course Nikon resolved all of such inconsistencies with the F5 in 1996, by having two separate main and sub-command dials. By making things retro, they are bringing back old issues, although a minor one in this case.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
marc_ravignat Posted January 16, 2014 Share Posted January 16, 2014 <p>I agree that it is not an issue. On the Olympus OM 2 there is no A on the shutter speed dial. The camera uses a separate switch for M or A just like with a mode dial. The shutter dial on the OM2 with the camera on A mode, can be moved to any speed without affecting the exposure at all. It therefore 'lies to you' like Thom Hogan says. The DF works this way as well. Not a problem for me at all. We always know what mode we are in anyways don't we? A quick glance at the mode dial or through the viewfinder tells you.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RaymondC Posted January 16, 2014 Share Posted January 16, 2014 <p>Where's the commitment ... I import films from the US and export to the US for development. So expensive here. Your slide films are about 25% the price to our local price. Your lab costs are like 1/2 to us or a 1/3 if you desire mounting.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Andrew Garrard Posted January 16, 2014 Author Share Posted January 16, 2014 <p>Yes, I can't say the "dial is ignored" thing bothers me either, and I actually quite like the idea of a dial being preset to your "default" when you switch into the right mode to use it. For example, you can use aperture priority outdoors for creative depth of field control where there's plenty of light, and you could then switch to shutter priority indoors, where you want to ensure the shutter speed doesn't drop below the "shake limit" for your lens. (I already do the same kind of thing with auto-ISO on the D800, but I get that, on the Df interface, the alternative I suggested might have some appeal.) If anything, the problem is the inability to ignore the aperture ring setting on the lens, which you <i>do</i> have to put in "A" position (the minimum aperture) for camera-driven aperture settings to work. I do get that the logic might be jarring, though, especially if you're used to some "double A" cameras.<br /> <br /> Neither I (by logic, not examination) nor any reviewer I've found seems to like the implementation of the SPAM dial, but that's not the same thing as complaining about it not being "double A system". Besides, as you say, you'd actually need an "auto" position on the lens for it to work, which is a concept that wasn't even an option when the F mount was invented.<br /> <br /> Nikon did, with the F5 interface, avoid the problem of a labelled dial that doesn't do what it says on the label. They achieved it by having two dials that aren't labelled at all, and which either selectively become inoperative or do something completely different (in easy ISO or easy EC) according to mode. This doesn't bother me at all, but I can see why some aren't fans.<br /> <br /> Ray: An individual roll of Velvia 50 in 135 is, according to my default local retailer, £10.99. (Fortunately a 5 pack of 120 roll, which I'm more likely to use, is £28.99, which is marginally less likely to make me choke. I actually hadn't realised how bad it had got. If it wasn't probably expired, the contents of my fridge could buy my fridge...) At least one local lab adds £2.29 for developing, without scanning or mounting (actually going to the high street costs much more). Drum scanning at cheapdrumscanning.com adds £10+. So let's call it £13 for 36 images I don't use, plus quite a bit for anything worth scanning properly. At the 8fps of my F5, that's one of the faster ways I've got of spending money. Even at UK prices, that's 200 rolls for a Df. Developing, mounting and not scanning? £8.79. Call it £20 per roll of Velvia. About 140 rolls per Df, or about 5000 images. That's somewhere around twice the number of images I average taking as a guest at friends' weddings, usually across a couple of days. (Not keepers, obviously, but also not usually on continuous fire mode.) This is why my fridge is a mix of film yet to be developed and film that I've not found a good enough reason to expose.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
donbright Posted January 16, 2014 Share Posted January 16, 2014 <p>Canon made lenses with the 'A' marker after its smallest aperture. I don't think Nikon ever did the 'A' marker on the aperture ring. The Nikon method for at least on my FA, and at shutter priority, was to simply set the aperture to whatever the conditions bared the highest aperture. To be safe I simply set it to f16 even if f22 was available on the lens. If EV condition went higher than that, you would get either a 'FEE', or the shutter speed would check up^. I could be wrong on that, I'll break out the FA to confirm that to myself, but that's my current recollection.<br> Anyway whatever these camera's do, they're all different, and personally, or fortunately I've not had a problem adjusting from one camera to the next whatever the camera may be, so this constant angsting over what the Df does, or doesn't do is getting way over played in my view.<br> A person buys a camera they spend time with it, get to know it, learn it, and move on with making great pictures. Am I wrong? Every camera made is different from on to another. Should they all be the same? Why? Basically it's shutter, aperture combo's and ways to get there, and the ways to get there all vary. The Df is light, just small enough, and goes anywhere. This is a camera I want, and from what I'm hearing from users, they love it. So far I haven't hear anyone who owns a Df regret that they bought one. The picture quality at high ISO's are stunning, even at the hands of amateurs. </p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eric_arnold Posted January 16, 2014 Share Posted January 16, 2014 <blockquote> <p>I really find the retro styling of the Df attractive<br> By making things retro, they are bringing back old issues,</p> </blockquote> <p>hmm...</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
marc_ravignat Posted January 16, 2014 Share Posted January 16, 2014 <p>Eric, why do you think that they are worthwhile issues? The mode dial is not an issue. It has no negative impact whatsoever on the performance of the camera and on being creative with the camera. </p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Andrew Garrard Posted January 16, 2014 Author Share Posted January 16, 2014 <p>Marc: The reports I've seen suggest that the "lift-and-pull" handling of the mode dial is a bit awkward to change, especially compared with the "don't take your hand off the shutter" approach on, say, the D800. I can't imagine that this is a critical problem, given that I don't typically change mode all that frequently, but it seems awkward enough that multiple reviewers have commented on it. However justified the design of some of the Df, the mode dial does feel like change for its own sake (as does the vertical front dial) rather than an attempt to provide a control in keeping with the camera design. But, as ever, I'm only parroting reviews, and there may be some design principles behind it. That there's <i>some</i> was of changing mode is another matter.<br /> <br /> Interesting, Don - my knowledge of pre-Eos Canons is a bit limited. Of course, Canon went through multiple mount updates even in that era. Nikon had a lot of mechanical aperture and metering backward-compatibility to try to maintain (for better or for worse, looking at modern G and electronic aperture lenses that essentially clone EF) by the time the first shutter-priority Nikon cameras appeared, and I suspect not breaking the F3 was a higher priority than making the FA's interface nicer, and anything relying on a lens change would have a lot of lenses to deal with. (Not that I have any objections to the FA's PSAM dial - I'm sure it's a little harder to access than the Df's, but it also takes up less space on the camera.)</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ShunCheung Posted January 16, 2014 Share Posted January 16, 2014 <p>Some of us can recall that the D7000's SPAM knob on the left side of the viewfinder has no lock, and there has been complaints that people have experienced unintentional setting changes. After the D7000, the subsequent D600, D7100, and D610 that have the same design all have a knob with lock.</p> <p>The Df's design follows the same philosophy. That SPAM exposure mode dial, exposure compensation dial and ISO dial all have locks. Whenever there is a lock, it is going to be a bit slower to operate; you simply can't have it both ways. Personally, I don't have any particular objections on those three controls. The way the shutter-speed knob and the main command dial work together is weird, but we have already beaten that to death.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
donbright Posted January 17, 2014 Share Posted January 17, 2014 <p>I think the Dfs mode dial is more awkward to operate than the FAs, but in the case of a mode dial, and mode dial only, that wouldn't be a deal breaker for me. Possibly if the Df has adopted the same mode dial as the FA, but with a ball check detent, we would have simply pinned it as a copy, and moved on to something else, but again, once the mode dial is set I've never been under pressure for the need to change it from one to the next. So the Dfs mode dial is fine, there are other positive characteristics of the Df that outshine the mode dial.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Landrum Kelly Posted January 17, 2014 Share Posted January 17, 2014 <blockquote> <p>I'm not sure I'd have expected their conclusion that the camera would be best kept below ISO 3200</p> </blockquote> <p>That is a rather bizarre statement about a camera which is widely viewed as being the best camera ever in terms of low-light/high ISO performance. Just about any DSLR worth its salt can be routinely shot at ISO 3200 these days without excessive noise.</p> <blockquote> <p>I just wanted to take a moment to say AAAAAAARGH. And make an appeal for accuracy in reviewing. Similar to several other reviews, we have the sentence: "Should you want to change the shutter speed, sensitivity or exposure compensation, there's no need to scroll through on-screen settings - simply use the dials on top of the camera." Every review I see like this makes me think someone is being told that you need to go into menus to change shutter speed, ISO and EC on a modern (non-introductory) DSLR.</p> </blockquote> <p>Andrew, this alone would make this thread worth starting. So many criticisms of DSLRs are still coming from those who commitment to film has resulted in an absolute unwillingness to try a modern DSLR. "There are none so blind as those who will not see." I rarely go into menus anymore while actually shooting. There typically simply is not a need to do so.</p> <p>--Lannie</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bebu_lamar Posted January 17, 2014 Share Posted January 17, 2014 <blockquote> <p>Andrew, this alone would make this thread worth starting. So many criticisms of DSLRs are still coming from those who commitment to<a id="itxthook0" href="/nikon-camera-forum/00cJLA?start=40" rel="nofollow">film<img id="itxthook0icon" src="http://images.intellitxt.com/ast/adTypes/icon1.png" alt="" /></a> has resulted in an absolute unwillingness to try a modern DSLR. "There are none so blind as those who will not see." I rarely go into menus anymore while actually shooting. There typically simply is not a need to do so.<br> --Lannie</p> </blockquote> <p>I got burned when I paid good money for the F5 in 2002. I dislike its controls. Newer cameras have improvements over that of the F5 but not by a whole lot. They are still basically the same type of user interface. </p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cc_chang1 Posted January 17, 2014 Share Posted January 17, 2014 <blockquote> <p>So many criticisms of DSLRs are still coming from those who commitment to film has resulted in an absolute unwillingness to try a modern DSLR.</p> </blockquote> <p>Very true or they would base their criticisms on the experience of using some kind of outdated P&S. Indeed, looking at the Df, you begin to realize how good the controls on modern dSLRs are. If anyone wants to use MF Nikon lenses on a FF digital camera, SONY has already made one for you, the A7, which is about the size of the FM and is just $1,700. It has a state of the art EVF and a tiltable screen with magnification MF assist and focus peaking to make it easy to use MF lenses. To me personally, $1500-1700 is the right price point to use these old lenses. For videographers, who prefer to MF, the A7 can allow these people to shoot HD videos. I am not inviting criticisms by saying good things about SONY, which I do not own, in a Nikon forum. But looking at the competition, it is easier to see how Nikon has missed the mark. </p> <p>To understand why Df provokes such heated debates, and why I, and others, feel compel to say something about Df, after participating in the previous thread, Thom Hogan said it best that despite the fact that Df can take great pictures, some of us cannot help but wonder what it could and should have been. Yes the Df works, and it has a great sensor, but is this all we care about in cameras? Some will say yes, and some will say no.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bebu_lamar Posted January 17, 2014 Share Posted January 17, 2014 <p>Facing with so much criticism when it was announced Nov 6, 2013 I had hoped that nobody will buy it but it seems now that it does sell quite well. </p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ShunCheung Posted January 17, 2014 Share Posted January 17, 2014 <blockquote> <p>Indeed, looking at the Df, you begin to realize how good the controls on modern dSLRs are.</p> </blockquote> <p>CC Chang, I learned that in 1997, when I bought my F5 a year after its introduction in 1996. Prior to the F5, my main body from 1990 to 1997 was an F4, which I was keeping as a backup. After using the F5 for a few months, I realized that I couldn't stand the F4 again and eventually I bought an F100 as a second body. The F100 and F5 have similar controls and were the predecessor of today's DSLR controls.</p> <p>Of course, BeBu Lamar has a completely different reaction to the F5.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
marc_ravignat Posted January 17, 2014 Share Posted January 17, 2014 <p>Bebu, I have no problems switching back and forth from my 'modern' dslr's and the Nikon DF, no more than I have from switching from my rangefinder Contax ll (1937) and my film slr's. It only takes a minute to adjust to the changeover. I guess I like variety. </p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cc_chang1 Posted January 17, 2014 Share Posted January 17, 2014 <blockquote> <p>but it seems now that it does sell quite well.</p> </blockquote> <p>Care to share your source of this information. Keep in mind that Nikon was expected to make just 15,000 of Df per month, and it is well stocked at Amazon in the USA. As of now, body only, there are 20 of these in stock, and it says "order soon."</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bebu_lamar Posted January 17, 2014 Share Posted January 17, 2014 <p>Andrew could not get to see one in real life. But any way I hoped that Nikon sells very few of them so that they have to drop the price to get rid of stock. I also hope the they realize that it's bad idea and drop it altogether. </p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dan_brown4 Posted January 17, 2014 Share Posted January 17, 2014 <p>Just out of curiosity, are there any members here on photo.net that have purchased a Df and are now unhappy with it?</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
marc_ravignat Posted January 17, 2014 Share Posted January 17, 2014 <p>I don't get it. Why would anyone want the DF to be a sales failure and Nikon to realise that it's a bad idea? Purchasers of this camera don't think that it's a bad idea. The only motive behind this kind of thinking is 'if I can't afford it, or don't like it, than no one else should like the camera, and they should not be buying it'. Unfortunately for you Bebu, there are people buying the camera and the vast majority of these buyers are enjoying the camera. There are other choices for people who don't like the camera.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now