Not enough threads on the Df

[nikofile]

<p>Look at this. Do you know how much I enjoyed moving around this old display tractor with my Df and my gorgeous little Voightlander? I set my film speed to ASA200 (Kodak) before I even started. I got behind the tractor, framed it with the rising sun, knocked down my aperture to 2.8, and then I rolled the shutter, watching the indication in the viewfinder, getting what I thought would be the right exposure for what I wanted to see. Then comes focusing that little 40mm jewel, maybe the best part. I took ten photos, so multiply all the previous by ten. This has got to be illegal.</p><div></div>

[marc_ravignat]

<p>Roy, I think you really nailed it in your previous posting. This camera is simply unique and cannot and should not be compared to anything else. Digital fusion is the right words to describe this camera with it's dual interface. </p>

[bebu_lamar]

<p>While I like the Df I don't like to call it digital fusion. I rather call it digital F series. </p>

[nikofile]

<p>I tried the Df with a 70-200 lens yesterday (V-1), and handling is fine. Obviously there isn't enough grip to carry the kit around hanging from your right hand. But there is enough to manually focus comfortably. The is the camera that will go to my grandson's graduation.</p>

[Andrew Garrard]

<p>Wow, this thread ran for longer than I'd realised.<br />

<br />

Roy, I'm very glad you're happy with the Df, and I'm glad to hear a positive experience with the 70-200. As an aside, my understanding of the 70-200 VR1 (I have the mk2) is that it has real corner issues at 200mm on a full frame camera - it being a lens that was released when Nikon's professional focus was on DX cameras; I assume you're aware of that (and for some styles of shooting it doesn't matter). It does have coverage, it's just a softness problem. But I digress.<br />

<br />

The impression I get is that most of the people who are extremely happy with the Df do not make frequent adjustments to ISO or exposure compensation, and/or don't worry about sub-stop adjustments to exposure settings. Many also seem to manual focus. Now, that's a) an impression, and b) one that I appreciate I'm generating through gross generalisation. But I do completely appreciate that if you're in that category, there's very little to complain about with the handling of the Df.<br />

<br />

For years before the Df launch, there were a lot of people asking for a camera which didn't have "unnecessary stuff" and had dedicated dials. The response was often that a lot of that "stuff" <i>was</i> necessary to a lot of people, so such a camera would have a reduced market, and that a modern camera needs more dials than can conveniently fit on the body - and that they'd cost more. I believe that this analysis was completely correct, but it didn't stop Nikon from feeling that there was enough commonality in these requests to provide such a camera anyway. Good for them - not all cameras have to be the same. I have my opinions about the details, and whether the Df's design was the best way to achieve that goal, but credit to them for accepting that not everyone wants the same camera.<br />

<br />

But please, let's keep the accusations of people being "stuck in their ways" under control. It's completely possible to use a Df just like an F3, and that doesn't stop it taking decent photos. If people are most comfortable with that style of shooting even on a digital camera, I'm certainly not going to judge - sometimes it's a perfectly sensible approach. If that's mostly what you do, nobody should accuse you of ignoring modern camera advances. However, if you do frequently use exposure adjustments that are directly under the fingers on other high-end Nikons, or if you find yourself making heavy use of a multi-cam 3500, your reasons for not picking the Df may not be "fear of the unknown". There's a lot of interest among relatively young photographers (a category I'm slightly wary of defining, as a 40 year old whose first serious camera was a DSLR) in retro styling and direct controls, but not every such solution is a perfect fit for everyone.<br />

<br />

For what it's worth, I was out this morning shooting bluebells with a D800, an F5 and a Pentax 645, trying not to let the straps arrange themselves in such a way as to throttle me. Historically I've used a rangefinder for the same kind of thing. I was tempted to take the finder off the F5 for compositional reasons (I was trying to get a fish-eye to flower level), although I was lazy and didn't. I don't believe I can be accused of being scared of older technology (okay, exposure compensation with focal length for a large format camera scares me a <i>little</i>), though I appreciate that these aren't the most ancient of film camera - and my Velvia stocks have been sitting around long enough to get out of date. For today, a Df would have worked perfectly well for me, although I quite liked having the resolution and low-ISO dynamic range of the D800 available. It's just less of a fit for my normal shooting style. (And I still owe Simon some replies to discuss that!)</p>

[nikofile]

<p>Andrew, we see it differently in many ways, and that is a good thing. If everyone were the same it could be pretty boring. Actually, I do change ISO a lot. I rarely use exposure compensation because I usually shoot manual, and I can see the offset in the viewfinder. I have ISO, aperture and shutter to make that what I want it to be. And I can setup the Df to be pretty much the same boring DSLR as all the others.</p>

<p>Here is the way I see the evolution of this stuff. Technology, and it's application in cameras, has led us to pretty much a fixed design. Perhaps this is the most efficient design, particularly for people doing heavy duty stuff. This is evident by looking at shutter counts on used cameras. My D800E is two years old. The shutter count is a little over 5000. About 1100 of those were added at two weddings in March. Typically these cameras have shutter counts in excess of 20,000, and some approaching 100,000. If a hobby shooter like me has fired the shutter that many times, they must be bored spitless with photography. I am speculating here, of course.</p>

<p>It is pretty hard for me to be deliberate with a D800E. I know all the controls, and the position of them has been honed to the inth degree. I had forgotten how it felt to shoot the way I once did, and right out of the box I realized I had found it again with the Df. It is completely different. The same rules of exposure and composition apply, but it is a different feel. If a young person is not willing to try it, that person is never going to know, and that person will have missed something special. There was a time when only very talented people could make a living with a camera, even wedding photographers. Manual focus is an art, and most of us are not great artists. So for most, photography used to be purely about the pleasure of this hobby. Today, pro photographers are coming out of the woodwork. Why? Because the camera is pulling the wagon. AF, automatic everything, and sculpted bodies. The photog is just riding. I kinda like pulling the wagon. I know you can do that with a modern pro body, but I want the feel of "old". I want that shutter dial on top. I want the shutter button sticking straight up. I want a bloody aperture ring. And do you know what? I have not looked at that tiny LCD on top a single time while shooting. You just don't know how liberating that is. From the N90s until now I have lived by that bloody LCD. I wish they had left it off all together.</p>

<p>To be honest, I am using the focus indicator a lot, and it seems very accurate to me. The view screen in the Df is very good for manual focus, but I can't see for beans, particularly in low light. You know, I have read all about how the Df can't be used in low light. Saturday morning I took a photo downtown at ISO10000, and I could not have done it without the focus indicator. It was bloody dark out there. So "modern" isn't all bad. Nice to have a mix of the old and the new.</p>

[nikofile]

<blockquote>

<p>As an aside, my understanding of the 70-200 VR1 (I have the mk2) is that it has real corner issues at 200mm on a full frame camera - it being a lens that was released when Nikon's professional focus was on DX cameras; I assume you're aware of that (and for some styles of shooting it doesn't matter). It does have coverage, it's just a softness problem.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I suppose I should have addressed this. Remember that the original version was also intended for 35mm film. The corner softness thing on this lens is so far blown out of proportion that it is easy to see why we are where we are now. I have taken a lot of photos with this lens over a 6 year period, and I cannot remember having to address this so-called issue. Certainly photos of white walls look horrible. But I can live with that. The VR-1 is a marvelous lens. It is so good that I ignored the newer version when it was released. I cannot imagine it doing anything for me. Sharpness? The VR-1 is so sharp that anything better is just numbers on paper, to me. If you want a new lens you will buy a VR-2. And it is a fantastic lens, I know. But so is the original. I could upgrade. But I won't. I like the one I have.</p>

[simon_crofts]

<p>I've posted extensively on this in other threads, so won't go into it too much here, but just to add in my two-penniworth. We have two DF's (one silver and one black) which we used to replace our two D700's. To summarise, we're pretty ecstatic with them (the DF's that is). There are a few details which could be improved (perhaps the size of the aperture read out is the main one, but no biggie), but as a total picture taking experience the cameras are simply superb.<br>

<br /> Single card slot is a possible issue - but then the D700 only had single card slot too, so if you were happy with a camera like the D700 then no reason to hold the single slot against the DF. Even with multiple card slots there's nothing to stop a blip in sensor-transmitted information or the camera's CPU causing the files on both cards to be corrupted, so there's no absolute guarantee in any case, you are always dealing in probabilities.<br>

<br /> As someone else said: if the camera appeals to you, <em>just do it</em>.</p>

[nikofile]

<blockquote>

<p>There are a few details which could be improved (perhaps the size of the aperture read out is the main one, but no biggie)</p>

</blockquote>

<p>The one for me is the ISO wheel lock. I asked Nikon support if they would rip that thing out for me, and predictably they said no way. I am getting accustomed to it because I use it a lot. But that wheel has great detent, just like the shutter dial, so I don't understand that lock. Maybe on the Dg they will fix it. Hey, what are they going to do if they get to Dz?</p>

[simon_crofts]

<p>Roy, I know where you are coming from, and for me it was the biggest issue when buying the camera, whether I could live with that lock.</p>

<p>In practise, having used it for a while, it's turned out that I don't mind it at all. There are pluses and minuses to having a lock. Several of the other cameras I have owned - Contax G2, Fuji X100 etc didn't have the lock, but that had the disadvantage that the exposure compensation could be easily knocked, or that I was just less conscious of where I had left it when I had taken the previous picture perhaps minutes before (if I hadn't zeroed it). Having the lock perhaps forces me to be a bit more aware of where I have left the compensation, and once set it doesn't move unless you really want it to. I also found I can operate it reasonably easily with the camera at eye level with only a minor adjustment to left-hand position. The effective use of AEL function also becomes a bit more important if there's a lock than on a camera where there isn't.</p>

<p>So, in summary, after initial apprehension I've grown to quite like the lock. Some other cameras I use also have a lock eg. the Mamiya 7, but the unlike the DF's lock, that one can't be operated with the camera at eye level.</p>

<p>It's just a slightly different way of working.</p>

[dan_brown4]

<p>With 5 months of regular use, I can say that the Df is the ideal FX digital camera for me. Plan to keep it indefinitely. In fact, heading up to Wisconsin in June for a family wedding and vacation, and all I'll take is the Df with 28-70/3.5-4.5D-AF and 85/1.8D-AF in a little Domke bag. Very nice to travel with, very competent at taking great pictures, a true pleasure to shoot with.<br>

<img src="http://dlaab.com/photo/Df/Df2870.JPG" alt="" /></p>

[simon_crofts]

<p>BTW, one very nice way to use the camera with exposure compensation + AEL is the following:</p>

<p>Set whatever exposure compensation you think is appropriate, and press AEL button. Take your picture. You can review your picture and its histogram on the back of the camera and check that you were right and your exposure is exactly what you wanted (and doing so won't disengage your recorded AEL setting). If you got it a bit wrong, go back to taking picture mode and you can if you want tweak/fine-tune the AEL locked exposure from there using the exposure compensation dial. You can then proceed to take pictures at the refined setting. You can also change aperture if you want to vary depth of field and shutter speed will automatically shift through settings to compensate.<br>

As the subject/lighting/composition changes you can carry out further fine-tuning for different pictures using the compensation dial, all the time keeping you first base exposure locked via AEL. Provided you don't switch the camera off, the AEL will remain engaged, and you can keep fine-tuning and reviewing using the compensation dial. Just resist the temptation to turn the camera off.</p>

<p>To operate that way, I think you have to go into the settings and tick the various buttons that stop AEL disengaging after a certain number of seconds etc.</p>

[simon_crofts]

<p>Dan, that looks delicious. One of the main things for me is that the nice feel of the camera has just made me want to take it out and take pictures with it. Before I was using the digital D700 for work and the Mamiya 7 for personal work. I still love the Mamiya 7, but the DF is getting more than it's fair share of personal work. It's just a pleasure to hold and use.</p>

<p>And for work it's been a huge step forward too.</p>

 

[nikofile]

<p>That's a beauty, Dan. Your 28-70 looks as good as mine. That makes a great combo. I like the black Df. And I like the chrome. I think maybe everyone should have one of each.</p>

[dan_brown4]

Thanks Roy, and Simon. I would like a second Df, maybe I should trade my D800 and get a Silver one? I'd put the 70-

210/f4.0-5.6D-AF tele-zoom on it and go into event-shooter mode :-)

[nikofile]

<blockquote>

<p> I'd put the 70- 210/f4.0-5.6D-AF tele-zoom on it and go into event-shooter mode :-)</p>

</blockquote>

<p> <br>

Now that's just flaunting it. You have that D version? That one was kinda pricey last time I looked.<br>

<br>

I got my AI 200mm f4 today, and the thing looks new. The hood is very snug, and the focus ring is too. So I guess it's off to Nikon with this thing for a lube job. Wow, the photos look sorta like film out of this thing. It's a beauty. I wonder if it was ever used. The seller said it is from an estate sale. It has those beautiful engraved numbers painted the colors of a rainbow, and there isn't a mark on it anywhere. No dust, no nothing. And the glass is absolutely pristine. Only $99 but the cleaning bill will probably be that much as well.</p>

[dan_brown4]

Nice 200, that will be cool.

 

The Df caused me to rediscover the range of AF-D Nikkors from back around 2000. There are some real gems (and a

few dogs), and it is affordable and enjoyable to try them out. That 70-210 was Bargain grade at KEH, and fairly cheap.

 

Another really great little one-lens kit is the 35-105/3.5-4.5D-AF push-pull zoom. That lens is optically very good,

compact, and solid as a rock. You just don't get focus closer than about 2.5 feet. Fits the Df to perfection, must-have

lens, IMHO.

[john_tran14]

<p>I haven't had a chance to try the Df, but I believe I can handle its controls well. There wouldn't be any issues in that sense. I just wonder how good manual focusing is, compared to an F3 or FM. Does Nikon have manual focusing options for focusing screens? I'd appreciate if those of you, who are lucky owners of the Df, comment on manual focusing <strong>without</strong> split image</p>

[dan_brown4]

Manual focus is no better than the D700, IMHO.

[donbright]

<p>The manual focusing issue was my biggest itch to scratch with the Df throughout those early on threads, so in January, I think it was I brought my 55mm 2.8 micro, and 105mm 2.5 to the now defunct Calumet to solve this question. I...Personally have not seen such decisiveness in a viewfinder. It made my 105 seem like another lens. Very distinctive in, and out of focus, very positive. In fact redundant. I found myself overkilling it all the time, until I realized; Relax man!</p>

[nikofile]

<blockquote>

<p>Does Nikon have manual focusing options for focusing screens?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I think the screen is fine when the scene is just so. I think it is definitely a step up from the D800E. However, I am not the best judge of this because I really don't see that well. In low light I definitely count on the focus indicator. So far I have found it to be more accurate than I am anyway.</p>

<p>I am pretty sure Nikon has no screen option, but I saw information on one that does. It is focusingscreen.com, and they have a choice of five or six (split prism and plain matte). I don't believe katzeye has anything yet for the Df. I am going to stick with the original.</p>

[Andrew Garrard]

<blockquote>Andrew, we see it differently in many ways, and that is a good thing. If everyone were the same it could be pretty boring. Actually, I do change ISO a lot. I rarely use exposure compensation because I usually shoot manual, and I can see the offset in the viewfinder. I have ISO, aperture and shutter to make that what I want it to be.</blockquote>

 

<p>Hmm. Just because I made a sweeping generalisation doesn't mean it was accurate! Thanks for the feedback about ISO changing. To be honest, I may well use manual controls over shutter, aperture and ISO more than I do if it were easier to get at the ISO controls on pretty much any high-end Nikon DSLR. There are advantages to auto-ISO and exposure compensation, but the biggest reason I use this approach is that I can actually reach the exposure compensation button on a D800 without moving my hands.<br />

<br />

I continue to learn how people are using these cameras, and I'd like to think it'll help my photographic technique, so thank you - and Simon - for sharing your approaches.<br />

<br />

Re. the 70-200 VR1, I based my opinion on seeing what the corners looked like in sample images at 200mm. Sure, there's <i>something</i> there, and it's not useless on a film camera - but I'm sure that Nikon were worrying primarily about the performance on DX when they designed it. I have exactly the same criticism for the (older) Sigma 50mm f/1.4 - or, indeed, the 85 f/1.4 AF-D. I'd recommend both lenses in a heartbeat to someone with a DX camera, but I happen to shoot subjects that often have in-focus regions crossing the edges of the frame, and it's distracting if the optics fall apart. I appreciate that it makes little difference to many shots, however, so my personal choices should not be interpreted as "bad lens". I hope it works well for you!</p>

[marc_ravignat]

<p>I have been using manual focusing on the DF almost exclusively for the last six months, so have quite a bit of experience with the focusing screen. I am still a user of many older slr's with manual focusing and all I can say is that focusing the DF manually is just as accurate as with my older slr's. There seems to be a point where the viewfinder just snaps into focus. A bit of practice makes perfect. Many photographers today over estimate the split focusing screen. Maybe because that's all they can remember using. Many haven't manually focused in years and have lost much of the ability to do so accurately. I never liked the split focusing screens and always removed them when I could (ex. on my OM1 and OM2). A split focusing screen would probably also affect the central auto focus on the DF. As for interchangeable screens, it would have been nice for Nikon to provide this. However, I don't think I would have even bothered changing the screen had Nikon provided this. In many ways I share Bjorn Rorslett's view on this. <br>

http://www.fotozones.com/live/index.php/page/articles/_/reviews/living-and-working-with-the-new-nikon-df-camera-r85</p>

 

[nikofile]

<blockquote>

<p>Many photographers today over estimate the split focusing screen.</p>

</blockquote>

<p> <br>

I can remember when many people were replacing them with plain matte or a screen with just the fresnel. Those split prisms were a pain.</p>

[Andrew Garrard]

<p>Well, I was using as split prism yesterday, in my Pentax 645. Or trying to, since it wasn't playing very well with my f/4 lens. Honestly, even in a finder the size of the 645's, it wasn't <i>that</i> nice to use - and it got in the way of composition. It's also, of course, only usable near the centre of the frame, which means you're stuck with focus and recompose (has anyone ever done a split prism with multiple prisms?) - and focus and recompose is awkward on modern high-resolution sensors, at least unless you do a Hasselblad and play with the gyro to compensate.<br />

<br />

I don't hate split prisms, but I'm not going to claim that they're state of the art. If you want accurate manual focus, there's always live view, ideally with a bit of focus peaking as assistance.</p>