Cancellation of release of the DL series

[Andrew Garrard]

Thanks, Ross! I wouldn't consider the X Pro series and the Leica M range to be interchangeable except under duress. It's true that EVFs are a work in progress; they're improving, but currently I still prefer an optical finder (although I'd like more information in it). I honestly don't know whether they'll get to the stage where I'd prefer the EVF, but I don't believe it's impossible, and I see the dangers of dismissing the technology based on an old implementation. The first DSLRs weren't really competitive with film, either...

[rossb]

My OMD is the only EVF I have looked into. It's to Sci Fi like for me. I had a D200 and a F100 that I thought made a good combo since they could share the lenses that I owned. I preferred the F100. I wound up giving the entire kit to my oldest son when he was in his Masters program (University of Montana) and said he wanted to get into photography. I was mostly shooting the FM2n by then anyway. I bought the OMD for a travel camera but it turns out we do not fly anywhere and just go on road trips. I take the FM2n with me for that and the OMD just sits in the closet. My son sold it all and bought a Contax G1 with a 3 lens kit. Shooting the F100 fired him up for film. It's fun for me as I have someone to talk about photography with. I know my share of people and they all use their cell phone for photos. They just snap off some pics and do not make prints ever.

[iris_indigo]

nk

Not what I want to see happens but I think Nikon can recapture the market by introduce a whole new line of FX mirrorless with new lenses. They would have to work o n the EVF though.

[rossb]

Well I wish Nikon good luck. They have not sold a product that I would want to purchase for years now. I enjoy using mechanical camera's and my future is in that direction. Anyway I hope they downsize efficiently to meet the smaller digital market out there. Good luck to you guys and hopefully all the features you have wished for happen for you. I am just sticking with a regular camera and focus using the old fashioned squint and focus method. I am pretty fast at it and can usually keep up with the Grandkids as they tear around. Later!

[Ed_Ingold]

In cancelling the DL line, Nikon realized they can't invent a compact camera system to compete with Sony, Fuji and others in the mirrorless market. Direct competition would come at the expense of their DSLR market share, and a 1" sensor with a fixed lens doesn't offer much as an alternative. Nikon has to fish or cut bait.

[Andrew Garrard]

Ed: The irony is that there are some features in the DL line which would actually have been competitive, or at least novel. I wasn't personally after one, but I can see why people might have been interested (more so than the KeyMission line, anyway).<br />

<br />

Ross: I think, unfortunately, nobody is likely to be producing a new manual film camera, except possibly Lomography (and occasional specials from Leica and Fuji). Of course, now I've said that, Nikon will release an F7 - though it sounds as though that won't meet your needs anyway. Nikon are still making some good stuff - generally my problem is that there are things they've not got around to making, not that what they've made is bad. Of course, if it was bad, I probably wouldn't have bought it, and therefore wouldn't be in a position to complain about it...

[rossb]

You are correct Andrew and eventually it's going to be a problem for 35mm photographers. Leica still makes 3 film bodies and I thought I would just buy a Leica MP if I need to and go with that. The MP would provide for my needs very well. Family oriented photography is my interest. Currently there is some new films being brought back from the dead and some new stuff also. It's going to be fun.

 

 

I think Nikon and the other manufacturers are trying their best to bring out the camera's that the digital photographer would like to have. The possible features are endless. Low sales does add a problem to the industry however. New camera's while losing money is a tough nut to crack.

Edited February 17, 2017 by rossb

[rossb]

I checked out 2 Nikon's today at CostCo. They lacked appeal to me. Light, plastic contraptions and the dial on top had about 15 or 20 icons to choose from to take a photo. I am sure it's the bottom end or near the bottom end camera at under $600.00 with a lens maybe 2. .

 

Since there are no camera stores to see the different models that is what is available to the average consumer who would want a camera. I can see people looking at the piece of junk and the library of icons and thinking "forget it I will just use my phone".

[Andrew Garrard]

Yes, the D3x00 and D5x00 range are not aimed at experienced photographers. A D500 or D810 will feel like a robust professional tool to the user of any film Nikon, possibly short of an F5. A D7200, D610 or D750 should feel capable to anyone used to a smaller Nikon (not that I've compared one to the F100). The smaller Nikons are more toy-like, but they have to appeal to those not wanting to carry much (arguably someone carrying a D3400 on holiday is going on holiday and taking photos; someone taking a D810 and a bunch of big lenses is going on holiday TO take photos, and price and bulk can be higher). While I'm sure some will dismiss the cheaper bodies as too minimal, the risk is the same person looking at a D5 and saying "I'm not carrying THAT".<br />

<br />

It's easy to compare with something like an F3 and complain about build - but the D3x00 range has more in common with the F75 or Eos 500/Rebel - and they're also very plasticky. In fact, probably more so - the cheap DSLRs are light and tiny, but often surprisingly robust (considering). Cheap stuff was made in the past too - it's the high end stuff that tends to survive and make us think everything in the past was built better. My Bessa R and my old Eos 300D are way creakier than any modern DSLR, and I'd honestly suspect a D3400 might be more robust than a Rolleiflex.<br />

<br />

The irony is that the metering and autofocus quality of a consumer D5500 are significantly ahead of a pro F6 (though I concede the finder is budget-limited), even before we compare the capabilities of a modern CMOS sensor against 135 film (or a phone camera). You can ignore the dummy scene modes, and the camera is just as configurable as any film SLR (though you need a D7x00 series to get a second dial). But I can see how the novice interface could scare people off. Maybe Nikon should celebrate their 100th by making a camera the size and cost of a D3400 but with handling aimed at the FM3a crowd. Not a multi-dial hybrid like the Df (which is its own thing, and can't be cheap), just a consumer DSLR with the coolpix taken out (like the pro models do). Or make an F7 out of the D810 parts bin, but that'll cost a fortune, and I'm not all that sure I want Nikon's development team distracted by a niche project that size...

[Robin Smith]

I don't think the OVF of the XPro2 is terrible at all. I really like it.

[rossb]

Well Andrew for a company that is trying to sell camera's I must say I can see why they are going out of business.

[Andrew Garrard]

I'm not sure they're going out of business just yet - although it's easy for us all to second-guess Nikon management (and sometimes we're right). There's a danger in extrapolating our own requirements to the whole market: I absolutely have no interest in a D5500 or D3400, but I can see how others might. I never wanted a Df, but I went to tedious lengths on this forum trying to understand why others did. (Some reasons were completely legitimate; some suggested a misunderstanding of the handing and capabilities of the rest of Nikon's line - particularly the oft-stated claim about "going into menus" - that suggested Nikon weren't marketing well to that market segment). I do agree that there must be people after a moderately cheap DSLR to do the job of a beater film SLR, not just those who want to spend Df money on something recreating a mid-1980s handling experience. There must be a number of these put off by the consumer line's compact-like interface (especially as high-end compacts move away from that). You've never had to use the scene modes, but they're there. Are there enough of these people to justify a "budget camera for the photographically literate"? No idea - that's above my pay grade. But it's an interesting question.<br />

<br />

To be clear, I find scene modes counter-productive. I have a budget compact (somewhere) bought for use where something might happen to it. It has over fifty scene modes, including "pet 1", "pet 2" and "pet 3", plus multiple fireworks modes. None are documented. I basically can't use it because I have no way to predict what it's going to do to the image. Obviously it doesn't have the basic four SPAM modes (or any of them). If a Nikon DSLR went down this route, it would be completely unusable. Nikon never have made a DSLR without the "creative modes" (SPAM) easily accessible - but I appreciate that the more fluff there is in the interface, the less obvious this fact is. It's almost entirely a perception problem, not one of capability - but maybe it's one Nikon needs to fix. There have been many film shooters on this forum put off buying a DSLR (and, I believe, an over-fixation on the Df fixing everything - I'm sure Fuji made some sales out of the same perception). Now the "amateur market" can get good enough images from their phones, maybe it's time for Nikon to target the film shooters more effectively.

[ilkka_nissila]

In cities there are still camera stores where you can see more of what is available, but most people nevertheless shop cameras online. Within 20km of where I live I can find at least four stores with most Nikon DSLRs in stock, probable more. At least two have all of them with demo samples you can test a bit. In my opinion, Nikon DSLRs and lenses have never been as good as they are now and they have many advantages compared to the competition. Of course, the competition also have their own advantages. I use Nikons because I liked their viewfinders better than Canons at the time I got started and still I find that to be true today. Canon also have a nice system but it would be disasterously expensive to switch and I would lose a lot and gain very little. Sony I am not interested in because I cannot use nor like an EVF. Canon I could work with, though it would not be a pleasant change. The main benefit would be having less equipment since half of what I have would be lost in the trade. Anyway if I were to start over with no gear, I would still buy Nikon given the available options. If I had started in photography 15 years ago, I would probably have gone with Canon given their advantage in USM primes they had at the time (today it's a disadvantage since Nikon's AF-S prime lineup is new) and their full frame sensors which came before Nikon's (again today Nikon has something of an advantage in sensors as well).

[ilkka_nissila]

I think one should look from the D7200 up if you are interested in a camera that is intended for a knowledgeable user. There are scene modes but there are also the normal exposure modes familiar from film SLRs and some customizable modes which remember your last settings. I never felt finding the A or M mode which I typically use in the dial. However, I do like the Df concept as one can change settings without turning the camera's meter on, or in fact the camera on at all, so it is faster in that sense. It is primarily favoured by those who use lenses with aperture rings, I believe. I think the Df probably has the best viewfinder of any digital camera. However, the autofocus module could be better and have larger coverage. This is why I didn't buy the camera (although I do wish I had). I haven't had any issues using the D5/D810/D7100 user interfaces (not identical but similar enough) but it does put me off sometimes that one has to turn on the meter by pressing the shutter button half way to change many basic settings. It's just an unnecessary and trivial handshake I would rather avoid. I would like to turn the joystick and it would show the af point and let me adjust the position without any hanshake. Same with aperture and shutter speed. I am grateful that the pop up flash is on its way out in the better models and the viewfinder can be optimized to use morenof the viewfinder housing and without getting in the way of PC ultrawide angle movements. So, a lot of anticipation on the D810's successor.

 

If the D7200 or D750 or D810 seems too expensive as a starter digital camera to a film camera user, it's good to remember that one can shoot hundreds of thousands of images with it, something that few could afford using film.

[rossb]

You guys all have good points. Since there are no camera stores around I cannot actually go and see new models. If I were to drive a fair distance I can find a camera store. Keeble and Schuchatt was about 70miles from the house but that big place closed up a few months ago due to low customer base. San Jose Camera is a few miles closer and the only choice that I know of now. . I am not going in there however as it's to far to look at camera's that I am not interested in. They do not even sell Domke bags anymore which is the brand I use.

 

The CostCo camera to me does not feel like it has any quality or durability. It's as ugly as a lump of coal. I would not accept the camera even for free and I am sure it sells poorly. It has an optical viewfinder that is small but I would prefer it to the EVF of my Olympus. The camera however may provide excellent photos.

 

Anyway I do not know a thing about marketing. It's for Nikon to figure out what will sell and what will not. I think the Pro Line camera's will always sell steady. Maybe the rest of the camera's are just an albatross at this point. I don't know really. To me it seems like the D7200 should sell ok as the price range is good and it would seem like it would appeal to the hobbyist. They should get rid of the scene modes and make it more of a photographers camera for the hobbyist.

 

Today my oldest son is coming over and is giving me 10 rolls of StreetPan400 B/W film and I am excited to try it out. It's being sold by the Japan Camera Hunter, Bellamy Hunt. It's a rebadged cine film that is being resurrected from the grave.

[Andrew Garrard]

The need for the meter to be active before turning the dials takes an effect is a consequence of them not having interlocks - otherwise those who put the camera down without turning it off would be perpetually changing settings accidentally as the camera rubs against things. I do buy that the behaviour could be optional, though (I do turn the camera off when I put it down). The handing of a modern DSLR does assume you're changing settings with the camera to your eye (or does since Nikon understood the need to change ISO in this manner) - and changing exposure without checking against the meter is perhaps unusual these days. I don't think pressing the shutter gently is much worse of an interlock than the shutter speed lock button on a Df, but I concede you need to try not to shoot accidentally. An aperture ring doesn't need an interlock because of its position (on any camera), but the merits and limitations of an aperture ring at the lens mount are another discussion. I'm not dismissing the Df (although in many discussions I've said that's not how I'd have met the design goals as I understand them) - but I do take the "change the dials with the camera off" argument as a mixed blessing. Still, anything looking like the Df has a price premium; making something with the features of a D3400 but looking like a D7200 (even if it has to have a single dial) might appeal to some (or not).<br />

<br />

I do agree about costs - there's no way I could pay to develop the thousands of images I've put through my DSLRs, and I don't spray and pray. Current film and developing prices make it worse - I have exposed film in my fridge from several years ago waiting for me to get it developed. Still, the cost of a DSLR is almost entirely up front, and fora high end body that can still put people off.<br />

<br />

I occasionally use the integrated flash when I need light for documentation rather than creativity. That it's there is better than leaving a dongle at home. More importantly, the integrated flash is a CLS trigger. It could be made ir-only, possibly without popping up, but getting rid of it entirely is bad for me. I don't mind going radio (though having a load of SB-600s I couldn't trigger would be annoying), but any external dongle that needs to be remembered and which is just as precarious as the pop-up flash when attached to the camera (and blocks the wired trigger...) isn't really what I want.

[Andrew Garrard]

It used to be, I'm told, that Nikon made their money from the D5x00 range. The D3x00s were low profit and don't cause many lens sales - and persuading a customer to step up to the D5x00 range wasn't such a hard sell; the D7x00 and above sold in much lower quantities (partly because they weren't so common in big department stores). While DSLR sales are reducing, they're still ahead of mirrorless (I think) - and I'm sure the majority are still the budget models. Whether Nikon makes much profit from them, with the retail v chain fairly stuffed with old stock, is another matter. Enjoy the StreetPan!

[ilkka_nissila]

Looking at known serial numbers in Roland Vink's database, D5x00 sales seem only somewhat greater than D7x00. Of course the list is incomplete but I would not be surprised if the D7x00 brought in more money or at least comparable to the D5x00. Especially given that D7x00 users are likely to buy more and higher end lenses. Since D7x00 supports manual focus lenses better and has the screwdrive motor and focus fine tuning, their users are more likely to be satisfied and speak well of Nikon products (though some D7000's did have AF issues with fast primes).

 

Optical flash triggering is really useless to me since it is a gamble, whether it will work in a given situation. I can't think of any situation where triggering by the pop up flash would have lead to an acceptable result in my photography. In fact I am willing to pay a significant premium for a camera body to be rid of the pop-up. But I am not saying that all models should be without it, as sometimes any image is better than none, though it is not for me.

Edited February 19, 2017 by ilkka_nissila

[Dieter Schaefer]

I've had situations where I could have used a flash - any flash really - and totally forgot that there's a built-in one. I have also fried a camera while using the on-board flash. No argument from me here if Nikon decides from now on to have none and provide an improved viewfinder experience instead.

<br><br>

No longer a friend of shutter speed dial, mode dial and aperture ring; things of the past. Top-LCD control center with two dials and a sufficient number of programmable buttons are a major improvement over the old way of doing things.

<br><br>

Don't really understand the argument about changing settings: either it is pressing an interlock button or the shutter release. What's the big difference?

[Andrew Garrard]

Hmm. I've never had a problem with on-camera flash, other than it being aesthetically poor. I've also not had too much trouble with optical triggering, although I've not used hugely exotic configurations and concede that radio is a better solution. But sometimes - including last weekend - the camera I'm using to capture relatively arty shots of an event in progress (where I usually rely on ambient light to reduce interference and avoid white balancing issues) also gets used for a documentary image in worse conditions - such as a trophy presentation in a dark pub. The winner won't have the patience for me to set up external flashes even if I could be bothered to bring them. I used the integrated flash in Yellowstone to capture reflections in ice - where an external flash would have been impractical and inconvenient for me and the group I was with. I could use a flashlight, but it's a poor substitute. Like video mode, I almost never use it, but when I need it, I'm glad it's there.

[ilkka_nissila]

Don't really understand the argument about changing settings: either it is pressing an interlock button or the shutter release. What's the big difference?

 

If I have the camera hanging around my neck, it is typically off. Now, I may be walking and approaching a situation where I start thinking about a shot, or getting prepared for a shot. If I have to press the shutter button halfway and access the dials, I basically have to lift the camera up in my hand, turn it on, press and hold the shutter button half way and access the dials. Making large changes in settings (aperture, shutter speed) requires going through quite a number of clicks and sometimes the camera counts the clicks correctly, other times not. I have to keep watching the display to see the change of settings. This is a slow and cumbersome procedure. With a classical user interface, the aperture ring and shutter speed dial are always there and the camera doesn't need to be on and I don't need to hold the camera in my hands in shooting position to adjust settings. It can still hang low and I can click through the settings rather quickly. I don't have to turn the camera on lift it up, and adjust. I can just turn the dial and ring. Yes, there is a lock in the dial but that's accessible with my forefinger while turning the dial with my thumb and middle finger (and in the classical user interface e.g. F3 the lock was only needed for getting out of aperture priority, B or T; it did not lock on any of the manually set shutter speeds. To me these controls are easy to access while the camera is hanging from my neck, no need to lift it or tilt it down to adjust these settings. If I lift the camera up, people may already assume I am going to make photographs of them, and I may not want to bring that kind of attention to myself. With classical UI I can do it while the camera is still down so when I do want do make a shot, I just lift it up and press the shutter button, it has already been configured before I lift it up. The "modern" dials works best when one has the camera lifted up to shoot but this works against me if I want to prepare for a shot without alerting my subject, in case I'm trying to do candids. The main and sub command dial system is ergonomic when the camera is in shooting position but not when it's hanging from my neck. Also the aperture and shutter dials are absolute, and you can't adjust the dial from f/1.4 to f/5.6 and not have the aperture change inside the camera's computer like one can sometimes do when spinning the sub command dial. So you can count the clicks if you remember where you were, or you can just watch the text engraved on the dial. With the modern controls the only way to know is to watch the screen and hope it registers all the clicks you dial (it does no always do that, in my experience). In practice what you do is keep spinning until you see the setting you're looking for. But this requires a more complex process (because you have to watch the camera reacting or not). By the way, spin the aperture ring from f/1.4 to f/11 and see how long that takes you, and do the same with the sub command dial. When I used lenses with aperture rings I tended to use the whole scale on an as needed basis; nowadays I'm usually at f/8 to f/11, or wide open. I guess I don't find it convenient enough to adjust the aperture now to bother doing it depending on the subject. When I use live view for tripod based shooting, it is such a pain to go to wide open for focusing and stopping down for shooting aperture with the sub command dial. Yes, I understand there is option to increase the step size but with the aperture ring I can set sub stops and still be quick about it, back and forth in a second or two. I get it that the aperture ring is not fit for hand held operation of large telephoto lenses, and for that the body control is nice. Anyway with the Df you can conveniently choose between new and old controls, although arguably the handling of the sub command dial is not as nice as it could be. Anyway, I greatly miss the controls of my F3HP and the shooting experience, and hope Nikon updates the Df with a modern high end autofocus module and provide user interchangeable focusing screen options for different lens aperture ranges. I think the concept is excellent, but the implementation could use some improvements. I also don't like the Df's use of a smaller battery than EN-EL!5 or the lack of dual card slots. Anyway; I can obviously work with the modern interface, but I would also like to have a well implemented camera with the classical interface for applications where it works well. I suspect I would use it a lot. Quite a few well known professional photographers use the Df.

 

Regarding the pop-up flash, used as a commander, in my experience it pollutes the foreground area with the sync flash light even when set not to emit light. It doesn't trigger the remote flash reliably and the recharge period is very long, which means I can't grab 3-5 frames in a quick succession which is a technique I use for groups to get shots with all eyes open. It tends to close subjects' eyes with high frequency. I've tried to use it when CLS was new, and I was naive. I've tried to teach others who are not equipped with lots of separate flashes, how to use it to trigger a single remote flash, but the results were poor. The SU-800 is much nicer, it has a fast recycle period (I don't shoot fast enough for it not to keep up), emits no visible light that the sensor would pick up, triggers the remote with less delay, doesn't cause eye closures, and so on. Much much better than the pop-up in every way as a commander. The drawback is that in dark large rooms (such as church) where there is no significant reflected light from surfaces, it doesn't work reliably. Same thing outdoors. The new radio control system fixes all these problems, and Nikon's system is very reliable (100% so far, not a single misfire). I mostly use Elinchrom flashes nowadays, and their radio trigger works well outdoors but indoors it sometimes fails to trigger flashes reliably. Nikon managed a better implementation obviously. I find it peculiar that people by and large seem to have ignored the SB-5000 and the D5/D500's radio control system as it is very well made and I think if people gave it a try it would win back some of the goodwill lost on Snapbridge etc. stuff that Nikon wasn't able to make work well. It's just that it came a bit late as I had invested heavily on Elinchroms. However, Nikon's new system's reliability has really impressed me and I intend to use it more in the future as the D810's successor likely has the same system. I don't want to rely too much on a system which I only have on one camera at present, it would not sit well if that camera malfunctioned (which it has not, but stuff sometimes happen). I am especially happy that the SB-910 and SB-700 can be used on the hot shoe for bounced flash, and the radio triggered unit and the on camera unit work perfectly in sync. I guess putting on the dongle is a bit of a pain but I don't think if it breaks, or is bent, I suspect the camera's electronics are unlike to be fried by it; just take it off and use a different method of triggering if necessary. I doubt it will break in use, though. I don't believe that any camera manufacturer has implemented a built in radio triggering for flash yet, in any of their cameras. And many use external triggers with less than stellar reliability so that would not be a good omen for a built in trigger with compromises in the antenna shape and proximity to the camera's metal chassis. The advantage of an external larger transmitter such as the Elinchrom HS Skyport or the Canon trigger, or many third party ones is that they have a panel and buttons for adjustment, whereas Nikon's settings are adjusted in the camera menus, which may or may not be as convenient, but it does allow the transmitter to be small, and by the way it doesn't require a battery of its own like other systems, which is nice, since there is always a lot of batteries to charge when using remote flashes. I appreciate that there is just the camera battery, and the flash battery, and not a trigger battery and a receiver battery like with many third party systems when used with Nikon flashes. There is so much to like about the new system; the main drawback is its late timing and the fact that I'm still waiting for more cameras to support it.

 

As to use of the pop up flash as a light source, I don't like the look of 1980-1990s point and shoot cameras party shots indoors with flash; I've seen those images too many times and I prefer not to do them myself. It emphasizes shadows and lines on faces, has a propensity of creating a tiny but bright catch light which to me looks unnatural, not to mention the possibility of red eye, it closes subjects' eyes frequently, and so on. Used as a fill light it produces unnatural looking shadows where the natural gradation of the luminosity is broken and the filled-in shadows tend to emphasize skin blemishes, moles etc which would not be obvious if softer light were used. I don't like the results and am embarrassed that people see me with a camera that has a pop-up flash even if it is not used, its presence suggests that I accept it, which I do not. Finally these cameras that have pop up flashes have a focus assist light and I would prefer the surface of the camera to be all black. If I need a focus assist light I will use the red, less intrusive one built into speedlights. Yes, I could use black tape but I don't want glue residue spreading everywhere.

Edited February 19, 2017 by ilkka_nissila

[rossb]

My Olympus will automatically go to sleep at a set time that you program and it will also power down after 1/2 hour of non use. The weird thing about it is if it goes to sleep the wake up time is slower then just turning it on to shoot. If it's awake there is no lag time in the shutter that I can determine. A device might measure something but I cannot. It has a small flash that comes with it that is similar to a built in flash. However it is removable and replaceable for only $50.00 I think. It can be used for a close up on board flash or as a trigger for off camera flash unit or units.

 

I talked to my son about the Olympus and he does not want it. He says that I will one day just want to use it for travel or whatever. I was going to give it away but no takers so I will just keep it around. The value is not enough to bother selling. Maybe $250.00 for the kit. About a 80% depreciation over the few years that I owned it.

 

The good news is I now have 5 rolls of Street Pan 400.. I gave him a Yashica rangefinder and a mint condition Nikon FG with the body cap. He is excited about both of them.

[Dieter Schaefer]

The "modern" dials works best when one has the camera lifted up to shoot but this works against me if I want to prepare for a shot without alerting my subject, in case I'm trying to do candids.

Understood, Ilkka; all valid points indeed. Coming originally from an FM, the described way of operating is quite familiar to me (with the caveat that the setting I choose "blindly" may turn out not to be the one for a correct exposure, something I would only realize when the camera was up at the eye and the meter actually turned on). Got fairly good at judging correct exposure though. <br><br>Nowadays, there's mainly two things that my way of shooting differs from what you described. For one, when I am out and about shooting I never turn my camera off. And two, I almost always have it set up with aperture and shutter speed values that allow me to get the shot without having to preset anything beforehand. And if I realize that the current settings aren't appropriate anymore (because the lighting has changed, or I moved from indoors to outdoors or vice versa, or what I intend to shoot has changed (architecture to candids or some such), I make the adjustment right there and then (and nothing would be different if I was using a classical set-up scheme or the modern LCD-based one; the camera wouldn't come up any higher or needed to be tilted any different). Since the camera is turned on, all I have to do is press the shutter release halfway, and turn command and/or sub-command dials to the new values I want. Maybe select another AF area mode too. No need to lift the camera up any more than with the classical dial setup (it's always in my hand anyway as I don't use neckstraps but wriststraps only). I usually know what the camera is set to, so potentially I could adjust aperture and shutter speed with the dials counting clicks without lifting the camera up at all or even looking at it (though given that I am prone to turning the dials the wrong way despite knowing which way they need to be turned, it is not a scenario I want to find myself in; this partially comes about because the Sony can't be set to turn the same way my Nikons do).

The weird thing about it is if it goes to sleep the wake up time is slower then just turning it on to shoot.

My Sony A7 was the same way; luckily the A7II that replaced it wakes up a lot faster. No such issue with any DSLR I ever owned.

Edited February 20, 2017 by Dieter Schaefer

[BeBu Lamar]

Anyway, I greatly miss the controls of my F3HP and the shooting experience, and hope Nikon updates the Df with a modern high end autofocus module

 

Contradiction. F3HP shooting experience with modern high end AF module?

[rossb]

I think he was just talking about the controls of the F3HP and also just hoping the DF would get a better autofocus. However the F3 did have an autofocus model at one point but I am sure that he was not referring to it. It was introduced in 83 and called the F3AF and came with 2 AF lenses. I do not know how well it worked. Edited February 20, 2017 by rossb