UK heads-up: AP review of the Df is out

[bebu_lamar]

<p>My take on the Df is this. I wanted a digital camera that work as close to the old Nikon in the pre AF/ pre built in drive era and the Df looks like it and I have found out that it also works like it. <br>

Compared to the F3, FM, FE cameras the Df is very close. <br>

1. Focusing screen is just as good as what I have on the F3 ( I think type B I can't remember but it's a plain screen without any focusing aid) and I have no problem with it.<br>

2. The shutter speed dial is easier to use than all of those above. It's larger, requires less force to operate yet provide very good tactile feedback. It locks at about the same position as the F3 and FE.<br>

3. The ISO dial is also easier to use than that of the F3.<br>

4. The EC dial is also easier to use than that of the F3.<br>

5. The camera handle about the same as the F3, FM and FE but not as nice because it's bigger. It's bigger than the Nikon F, F3 and F3.<br>

6. The on/off switch is easier to use than the F3 but the FM has a cool on/off switch in the film advance level.<br>

7. It requires the user to set the lens number in menu before using any AI lenses which of course one doesn't have to do with any of the classics. So it's a bit inconvenient here.<br>

8. The mode switch which makes the shutter speed dial illogical when in A and P mode. However, as Andrew has mentioned it makes for quick switching back and forth between M and A mode. With the F3 and FE one has the turn from the A position several clicks to get to the shutter speed one wants when switches to manual.<br>

9. The AE lock button is easier to use than both the F3 and FE but it lock the EV value (which makes logical sense) while the F3 and FE only lock the shutter speed. But with both the F3 and FE one can lock the shutter speed with the AE lock and then change the aperture for the exposure compensation purpose.<br>

10. The aperture display in the viewfinder when using the aperture ring only display in full stop while with the classic one can estimate the in between space and estimate the actual aperture. I wish that the Df can display aperture in 1/3 stop when using in this manner. <br>

11. Meter indication in manual mode is similar and better than the classics. <br>

Overall I didn't want a camera that only looks retro like the Fuji's but I rather one that works as close to the old classics as possible. The Fuji's are all electronic viewfinder and thus they are not the same as using the old classics. The Df is not 100% what I want but there is none comes closer and I doubt that there will be one that comes closer in the future. So I am very happy with it.</p>

[gary_leonard3]

<p>Despite having worked for the AP's opposition and having no particular love for the news co-op itself, I am pretty certain the wire service has a round file sitting on the floor where they "store" snippy complaints from people who do not have a clue as to how such a service works. They attempt to write in such a way ordinary folks, with no emotional stakes in the facts, will understand what is happening. They do not cater to Nattering Nabobs of Negativism or persons who believe everything in print should pass their personal, elitist censorship program. IMO.</p>

[Andrew Garrard]

<p>Thanks, BeBu. I'm still learning Df (and other Nikon) quirks. :-) I hadn't really thought about it, but the F3/FE lock affecting only shutter speed makes sense. Strictly speaking, you don't <i>need</i> to tell a modern camera about an AI lens, it's just that giving the camera the maximum aperture lets it record the aperture correctly, and knowing the actual aperture and focal length lets the matrix meter do its thing. The F6 can be given this information; the F5 can't, so you lose matrix metering on AI lenses; the F4 and FA know the focal length and aperture mechanically, and the F3 doesn't have a matrix meter. :-) It depends what you call a "classic"...<br />

<br />

The aperture follower granularity is odd for me as well. I guess it's a machining tolerance thing. The camera's meter does seem to update according to positions between the aperture ring stops <i>I think</i>, but my experiments with a D700 were hampered a bit by the quality of the lighting in my house. It's certainly easier to do fractional aperture stops controlled from the camera!<br />

<br />

I'm glad it's what you want, anyway! (As "first DSLR"s go, it's a heck of an option!)</p>

[Richard Williams]

<blockquote>

<p>Makes one wonder how Leica managed to keep - at least on paper - the thickness of their digital M cameras in line with that of their film camera - the M7 is 38mm thick, the M9 37mm and the M 42mm - these are taken directly from the Leica technical data sheets. Looking at the M9 and M images, it seems quite obvious that the numbers don't reflect that the digital Ms appear slightly thicker - though the difference in not as big as the one between the FE and Df that Shun mentioned above.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Not sure where Leica are measuring from, but when this came up on another forum, the M9 was found to be 4mm thicker at the base plate than a film M. The difference between the Df and FE looks like more than this, but perhaps it would be fairer to compare it with one of the AF film SLRs.</p>

[eric_arnold]

<blockquote>

<p>I'd be astonished if this camera was full-frame. OM-D competitor, maybe; Df competitor, doubtful.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>XT1 is 16mp APS-C. so? Fuji already has the best IQ of any crop body, and some lovely lenses. now they add a killer body at a fraction of the Df price, with more lenses to come. the XT1 will be a volume seller (like the d300, d700, and d7000 were), the Df a niche camera. nikon's decision to limit the fps and put the lesser AF module in the Df is going to hurt them in the long run. for $2700 it's a nostalgia camera, not a pro workhorse.</p>

[ShunCheung]

<blockquote>

<p>the M9 was found to be 4mm thicker at the base plate than a film M. The difference between the Df and FE looks like more than this, but perhaps it would be fairer to compare it with one of the AF film SLRs.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>AF mainly adds thickness to the bottom of the Nikon SLRs since the AF module is below the mirror.</p>

<p>See the attached image. Nikon uses a symbol with a little circle with a line through it to indicate the sensor plane. The back of the Df is about 18mm from its sensor plane. For the FE, it is only about 3mm. Therefore, the difference about 15mm.</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>the XT1 will be a volume seller (like the d300, d700, and d7000 were), the Df a niche camera.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Eric, I think few people would dispute that the Df is a niche, nostalgia camera. However, to me, the whole idea about retro cameras is silly because it merely un-does a lot of advances in the past 2, 3 decades. Moreover, it is a very bold prediction that the XT1 will be a volume seller like the D300 and D7000. Nikon sold approximately one millon D300 in its first year.</p><div></div>

[donbright]

<p><em>XT1 is 16mp APS-C. so? </em><br>

<em><br /></em>OK, so now full frame sensors don't matter? Please.</p>

[bebu_lamar]

<p>If you count pixels then the least expensive Nikon DSLR the D3300 has more pixels than the Df so?<br>

If you think retro although the Olympus and Fuji have the retro look but not at all retro in operation.</p>