D700 to DF transition with Zeiss lenses

[PatB]

<p>Hi All, <br>

Has anyone done a similar transition? I was considering a d810 upgrade instead but looking at countless image samples on Flickr, DF colour rendition seems to be more appealing compared to D810 which looks more artificial and sterile to my eye - too many pixels crammed in perhaps? I tend not to rely on AF lenses and the weight of the d700 is bothersome, hence the idea. I laughed when the Df was first introduced, especially, given the inflated pricing but it is much more affordable now. <br>

Has anyone done a similar transition? Any thoughts? Regrets? <br>

Pat</p>

[User_6502147]

<p>If you wish to jump into unknown waters of Zeiss optics + camera, that's OK, but unless you've used both cameras for quite a while....you shouldn't be critical of it. I use D610 and the colors out of the camera have v. little to do with bridges in Korea. You can tweak the color (and so many other features) in the edit, whether you use DF, D700, D810 or myriad of other cameras.</p>

<p>Just so you know, anything you see on Flicker (or elsewhere)....these images have been processed....and more than a camera, it reveals what the shooter determined to do after the pics were taken.</p>

<p>Les</p>

[bebu_lamar]

<blockquote>

<p>I laughed when the Df was first introduced, especially, given the inflated pricing but it is much more <a id="itxthook0" href="/nikon-camera-forum/00dTjm" rel="nofollow">affordable<img id="itxthook0icon" src="http://images.intellitxt.com/ast/adTypes/icon1.png" alt="" /></a>now. </p>

</blockquote>

<p>I have the Df and I like it very much but I don't think it delivers better images than the D800/D810. You can afford the Zeiss lenses and you think the Df is not affordable? Anyway you can buy used Df for less money just like any other cameras but the new Df is still the same price as when it was introduced. </p>

[PatB]

<p>Already have a couple of zeiss lenses and I have always felt less guilty about spending money on good glass - cameras are different. You can get a new grey market df for £1300 / $2000 at the moment, which is much more realistic than the introductory retail price. <br>

I've been living with d700 since 2013 - came to digital pretty late - but the d700 camera has only got about 10k clicks so you can see that my love for digital is not that great, I basically reach for analogue more. However, and I am aware that the processing can make a huge difference, the Df is the first digital camera (looking at the pictures only, the ergonomics and limited functionality of the camera are fine with me) that has made me appreciate the benefits of digital over film, especially the high iso and the improved dynamic range of the current sensors. The d610/750 have a different look, d810 also looks impressive but the size of the camera is an overkill, I will probably end up not using it in the same way the d700 has been neglected. <br>

A recent trip to China (which I shot on portra 160 only) made me realize that I was limited by my gear, there were many low light opportunities, with very cinematic qualities that I could not capture with film (or even film + tripod) and I haven't felt had that "equipment limitation feeling" in about 10 years. <br>

The Df seems to tick all the boxes in therms of my expectations: small size, low light capabilities, great WB but I am not sure whether it will improve much on the already good d700? </p>

<p> </p>

[ShunCheung]

<p>The primary reason most people buy the Df is that they like those old-fashioned controls.</p>

<p>Otherwise, if you prefer an FX DSLR that is small in size, with excellent low-light capabilities and great WB, the D750 is the easy answer. Additionally, the D750 has much better AF and a far better grip. It also has video capability and dual memory cards. Personally, I consider dual memory cards a must have feature in 2015 for serious photography. However, some people just prefer the Df, and I won't argue about personal preferences.<br>

And if you consider the D700 "good," any newer FX body is going to improve upon it.</p>

[bebu_lamar]

<p>I seriously don't think the OP likes the Df. The OP can certainly afford it but thought it's overpriced (the same way I think of the Pentax K1000 on the used market, I can afford buy many of them but they are overpriced and so I would never buy them). The OP doesn't think the Df is worth its asking price but others are. In that sense I really don't think the OP should get a Df. </p>

[Ian Rance]

<p>I think Df images do have a different look to the rest of the range - the colour seems more open. But that is only my findings - nothing scientific and of course with processing, anything is possible, just that the Df seems easier to get where I want it.<br>

One of the confusing things to me is why people are all over the retro mirrorless cameras yet the Df gets slated for being retro influenced. Anyway, for what I use the Df for the wheel controls are perfect. In low light I can look down the viewfinder and rotate the ISO dial until I get the shutter speed I need and the flip Ai tab means I can utilise my older lenses. I think it is an excellent camera with files that just beg to be printed A4 size - in fact I have been giving some prints as gifts. The feel of the camera is well built in my opinion and the shutter action just right. I fitted one of the new Nikon AR-11 releases and now the shutter action is almost addictive.<br>

But I would never recommend the Df as from experience I have found the technology I admire and look forward to using is not what other people like. I thought the Sony MiniDisc was a great system and I still use it but look what happened to that.</p>

[bebu_lamar]

<p>The minidisc used compressed format that's why I wouldn't use it. Oh well, but that's not why it failed. </p>

[PatB]

Thanks for your thoughts. I shoot different cameras

and don't find the old school ergonomics to be an

issue, I also don't rely on AF heavily in my shooting.

 

The main appeal is the overall look of the images

and the sensor performance, so a combination of

colour rendition, dynamic range, iso range and WB.

 

One other thing that concerns me is ease of manual

focusing (I use dk17m attachment on both my d700

and f5) any improvement over the d700 or F5 would

be a bonus as well - I find them satisfactory but not

as good as proper manual focus cameras.

[Wouter Willemse]

<p>I'm still on a D700 and tend to agree that results I see from the Df are to my eye more pleasing than what I see from the D6x0, D750 and D8x0 - it's hard to get a finger on it, but something about it is smoother and more subtle, where the others seem to have more punch and saturation.<br /> But I do have doubts whether that's actually really due to the sensor - I think it comes more down to users, and the lenses used. A lot of the Df photos on the internet are made with old primes, which in my view tend to be less saturated and punchy. Plus, Df users do tend to have a background where they've grown to appreciate that gentler rendering more. So, I'm hesitant to give full credit to the Df.<br>

Personally, I'm not looking to upgrade my D700, despite its weight (which can be a burden at times) - it still does perfectly fine what I want from it, and all the improvements found on new cameras are unimportant to my uses. Despite really liking my F3 and FM2 a lot, the Df is out. The problem, in my view, is not the classic control, but rather doubling all those controls to have a hybrid between the old control lay-out, and the current one. It seems a ergonomical identity crisis. If it wasn't for this, I'd be tempted by it, but as it is, I stick with the D700 and wait to see if a "Df2" (or whatever it'll be called) ever sees the light of day with a less schizofrenic set of controls. No rush.</p>

[rodeo_joe1]

<p>Pictures on Flickr? Yeah right! That's a real scientific comparison.</p>

<p>Patrick, sorry about the sarcasm, but I really think you ought to look at proper review samples before dismissing the D810 as "artificial and sterile". A digital image can be manipulated to give almost any look you like, and maybe Df users are generally a bit more conservative in the amount of saturation and sharpening they apply. I'm sure the D810 can match pictures from the Df exactly with the correct Picture Control settings or other tweaks.</p>

<p>I'd suggest you use Dave Eschells' excellent Camera Comparometer on his Imaging Resource website.<br /> https://www.imaging-resource.com/IMCOMP/COMPS01.HTM<br /> I was in contact with Dave a few years back and he's a technically savvy person with an utterly honest approach to camera testing. Looking at the Df against the D750 and D810 using Dave's Still Life setup, which contains a huge palette of colours and textures, I can see very little difference in rendering between the three cameras. If anything the Df looks a little more brash compared to the D810, with the D750 showing slightly more contrast and saturation than the other two. However this might be down to a slight variation in exposure, or just the difference in scale of the images. At any rate it's not a glaring difference and a slight tweak in tone curve, sharpening or exposure could completely reverse the situation.</p>

<p>In short Patrick I'd advise you to use Dave's "Comparometer" to properly compare images from various camera models before dismissing the D810. There's a lot more you can do with over twice the number of pixels and a built-in CLS capable flash. 16 megapixels is looking a bit puny these days. Even my quite old Kodak digital compact can equal that.</p>

<p>PS. Most importantly, Dave's sample pictures were all taken with the exact same lens (a Sigma 70mm macro for the still life) and under the same lighting with the same camera settings. That means any variations you see are genuinely down to the camera and its JPEG processing. Of course if you shoot RAW (and personally I think you should) then camera image-processing variations mean very little or nothing.</p>

[PatB]

<p>It's interesting that as current d700 owners our observations are so similar Wouter.<br>

On controls, I really don't fiddle with the controls on my d700, I have customized the Af-on, AE-L and function buttons for LV and spot metering, set it to RAW and shoot away in either Aperture or Manual mode, really, changing ISO when necessary.<br>

Df has been a bit of a marketing flop.... I mean "fusion"... they tried too hard. They should have used a less pretentious denominator like T for "tribute" or something. All this talk about pure photography didn't help either, although, Leica are getting away with similar amusing musings, releasing digital cameras with no LCD for example... which also makes me wonder whether people would rave about it if Leica released a Df-styled camera. <br>

All this negativity has obscured all the benefits of an amazing sensor, although, they did tread really carefully this time and tried really hard not to release another D4 killer, similar to the d700 / d3 situation. Two memory cards would be great, don't care for video personally. <br>

On the topic of lenses, I had used a couple of zeiss lenses which I sold in favor of nikon AF offerings (35mm 50mm and 85mm), however, 2 years down the line (despite a more accurate focus overall and measurable technical superiority) I am getting rid of the Nikons as I find their rendering horrible and uninspiring. No matter how much processing you would put into the shots from Nikkors, the microcontrast from zeiss simply brought pictures to life. Of course, this is all very subjective and suits my style of shooting. <br>

I am really tempted by the Df, I will probably keep the d700 as a backup camera, selling it makes very little sense now and would be of little financial benefit. </p>

<p> </p>

[PatB]

<p>thanks Rodeo Joe, I get your point entirely and don't mind the sarcasm :) I realize that looking at images on flickr is not an ultimate test, there are high iso comparisons out there that are far more scientific but, just like with lenses, you can get an idea of a specific type of drawing. I typically compare images taken with the same lens but different bodies as well. <br>

I will have a look at his website, sounds very interesting.<br>

The d810 is the only one I could consider as an alternative, especially if I kept the D700 as a go-everywhere / backup camera but I've been reading conflicting opinions about D810's viewfinder an ease of manual focusing.</p>

[rodeo_joe1]

<p>Patrick, if you can manually focus with the D700, then you should have no problem using a D810 since their viewfinders are pretty much identical apart from the more accurate coverage of the D810.</p>

<p>FWIW, one "trick" that I use when manually focussing is to look for a slight 'shimmering' of texture in the subject when in focus. This, I believe, is due to moiré interference between the screen texture and texture in the subject. Whatever, I find that there's a point where the screen appears to shimmer slightly and this is when focus is bang on. It's not visible with all subjects and in all lighting conditions, but it's another weapon in the armoury when it comes to getting good focus. Live View is all very well, but it's cumbersome to use handheld, and a slight body sway can put the focus out between magnified focussing and full-frame composition. I guess using a tripod <em>all the time</em> is the answer, but we live in the real world where that's not always possible.</p>

[diane_madura]

<p>What is DF?</p>

[PatB]

<p>Nikon Df? <br>

http://imaging.nikon.com/lineup/dslr/df/</p>

[bob_h]

<p>The Df works just right for me. It has been much less frustrating for me to use than the D7000 is. D5000 was nice to use and a nice size. The Df feels just right in my hands, and brings many of my older lenses off the shelf and into use again. The D4 sensor is amazing to me especially in low light. I am perfectly satisfied with 16.2 MP of larger pixels and don't need 36 MP of little pixels for my use and style. Variety is good and there is no single right way for everyone.</p>

[Andrew Garrard]

<p>I don't think I've been aware of claims of the Df having a different "look", although I'm prepared to believe that Nikon changed the JPEG tuning and I simply failed to notice. There are reports that the D810 might have slightly different filters from the D800, so I guess it's possible that there's a hardware difference too. I'd expect any such difference in look to be relatively easy to reconstruct in software, though, and to be less significant than the tuning available with in-camera JPEG options. While Fuji and Olympus are known for their JPEG tuning, I'd have thought it strange if Nikon had significant differences between models. I certainly doubt the pixel density has any effect. I'm not saying you're not seeing a difference, but I don't think I've ever heard someone want to pick a Df over other Nikons based purely on look. First time for everything, though! While I'm a happy D810 (and former D800e) shooter, I'm not going to argue that everyone should feel the need for 36MP, though - and the Df sensor does have some low light benefits (though the D810 and D750 sensors have the edge at minimum ISO).</p>

<p>One thing I would say is bear in mind the Df's autofocus is a step backward from the D700's, at least in terms of number of points and coverage. That's obviously not going to affect autofocus as such with a manual-focus lens, but it does affect the digital rangefinder's ability to help you out. Accounts do suggest that the Df's finder screen is (slightly) better to focus on, though.</p>

<p>Ian: I'm surprised to hear you enjoy changing the Df's ISO while your eye is to the finder. I can understand the controls for changing the ISO when the camera is not in shooting position (the prepare-the-camera-then-shoot approach for street shooting with minimal camera-to-the-eye time), but I'd have thought that changing the ISO dial on the Df while the eye is at the finder would a) block the left eye (so you can't see what's going on outside the lens's field of view), b) mean you're not supporting the lens properly in shooting position, c) risk knuckling yourself in the eye (especially with the interlock), and d) risk trapping an eyebrow! I think I'd rather stick to the quick ISO/rec button as ISO options on the right hand of the other Nikons, but if it works for you... My feeling is that anyone looking at the Df should certainly handle it first. It has... quirks. If you can live with them, it has a lot to offer, but I wouldn't start with the "look" and put up with the rest. The sensor is a mixed blessing, and the D750's sensor is very good, in a less unusual body.</p>

[bebu_lamar]

<p>Patrick: I don't think the Df is a marketing flop by any mean. I believe Nikon has sold as many Df as they planned. They knew that it doesn't have a broad appeal from the start.<br>

Andrew: When you said that no Df owner picked the Df by look you meant by the look of the images it produces and not by the way it looks because the look of the Df (the camera not its image) is one of the reason I picked it. You said the Df has its quirk and if one can live with it. I think if one has to live with the Df quirk then one shouldn't buy the Df. </p>

[PatB]

sorry, didn't make myself clear there, the marketing itself was a bit of a flop in my opinion. I kept seeing that one

ad in particular, the compass, water pen etc. all we were missing was a smokng pipe and a map with a treasure...

I also found the whole talk about pure photography too much of a stretch and completely unnecessary. I happen

to like the look of the Df as well and I am able appreciate it based on its performance/design alone and don't

need a philosophy from Nikon. :)

 

I love the idea of using a low-light sensor, the smaller size, the 100% viewfinder, the smaller weight - they are all

benefits over my d700. I have been in touch with a couple of Df users and they still reach for d700 despite Df's

merrits and say while the image quality is improved it is not as dramatic as the time frame or technology/specs

would like us to believe. The d810, in my opinion, is the real game changer for Nikon in terms of image quality

due to the lack of lowpass filter - there's a massive iprovement in sharpness compared to other similar offerings.

However, it is just another bulky camera I would never take with me, the way I reach for my fuji GA645 for

instance.

[PatB]

<p>*fountain pen, not water pen... </p>

[Ian Rance]

<p>Andrew, I'm a left eye viewfinder user so I use my left index finger to press the button and thumb to turn the wheel. For me, that is easier than the other cameras where my cheek blocks the buttons to press the ISO button. But if you are right eyed I can understand the problem.</p>

[Andrew Garrard]

<p>Agreed that some will pick the Df for its looks. Personally I don't like them (especially the islands the buttons live on), but if I had any sense of aesthetics, I'd be a better photographer - so I reserve everyone's right to have a different opinion. Besides, I really don't care much what a camera looks like, and am a little surprised that some people care enough to have, for example, multiple colours of the J series available...let alone some of Pentax's offerings. But I take photos rather than being in them as much as possible, and it's a bit late to start worrying about my own appearance, let alone my camera's!</p>

<p>Patrick: As you say, the camera you take with you is the best one - my solution is to have an RX100 to carry around as well. If the limit is weight, I'd be sure you don't want a D750, though! (If you actually prefer the controls of a Df, I'm not going to try to talk you out of it.) The D810 doesn't give you much of a sharpness increase over the D800e, but I do agree that there's a huge difference compared with the strong low-pass filter on a D700 - shockingly so, having used both. Interesting to hear about Df users grabbing a D700; the Df's sensor <em>is</em> better than the D700's even at low ISO, although not by as much as, say, the sensor in the D750 (<a href="http://www.dxomark.com/Cameras/Compare/Side-by-side/Nikon-Df-versus-Nikon-D700-versus-Nikon-D750___925_441_975">link</a>). At higher ISO, the Df keeps anything but an A7s honest, and there's a larger gap over the D700. I found, when I had my D700 and D800e at the same time, I never bothered with the D700 (largely because the +/- swap drove me nuts). Maybe it's down to appropriate situations to use each type of controls.</p>

[Andrew Garrard]

<p>Ian: Thank you, that would have confused me! On recent high-end cameras it's typically possible to change ISO without touching anything under the cheek (it's a top-left button anyway on the D810, but you can map it to the movie button - no touching buttons by the rear screen either way). I agree that the buttons by the screen are badly-positioned for use with the eye to the finder - no matter which eye you use. It sounds as though you use ISO (and EC) to substitute for the shutter speed dial being in front of your right eye!</p>

<p>I hadn't really thought about it, but Nikon's conventional front and back dials do have the advantage that the fingers stay below the top of the camera (other than the shutter or when pressing something on the top, obviously). That's not true of the vertical front dial on Canon cameras (among others). If I were a left-eye shooter (and hadn't crippled myself trying to do Joe McNally's weird grip), I'd probably find that a plus of the Nikon bodies!</p>

[Ian Rance]

<p>That's pretty much it Andrew. I use aperture priority and adjust the ISO to get the shutter speed where I need it. Another plus of the Df is that the RAW files are (for me) just the right size. The Df really is a camera to use and keep using, the strengths only really show themselves after you have used it for a while.</p>