Should Nikon update Df?

[ilkka_nissila]

I find focus peaking distracts from seeing the subject clearly and it would not be my first choice for focusing manually. However, the Z6/Z7 viewfinder is very sharp and it may be possible to focus just using the image without magnification (to a certain precision). This would be how I would use manual focus lenses in hand-held use; magnification is suitable for tripod-based work but I don't like it in hand held shooting.

 

Of course, the photographers decide what they want to use.

[Dieter Schaefer]

I can't speak for the Nikon Z Series but on the Sony A7 Series I find focus peaking to be virtually useless in attempting to nail focus. The instantly available magnification is a much better help - but of course not really applicable on anything that moves.

[orsetto]

How does it work with regard to aperture? Does the Z6 show the wide-open view so you see the narrow DoF zone of the 1.4 and if you want to see the effect of smaller apertures, you stopdown somehow.?

 

I haven't handled a Z body yet, but in one of the current Z threads here there is quite a detailed explanation of how the viewing/focusing aperture mechanism operates. In a nutshell, its similar to the Sony A7 series when using native Z lenses: there is some weirdness in how the camera selects the viewing aperture unless you override its programming (i.e., viewing aperture might default to f/5.6, which can potentially impact manual focus precision with lenses that have significant focus shift at wider apertures).

 

With older manual focus or adapted AFD glass, the two brands seem to operate identically: the lens is always in stopped down mode, so whatever aperture you have set on its ring is the current viewing/focusing/shooting aperture. The Nikon is Z is a bit more confusing because its FTZ adapter does incorporate an auto-stopdown function which does work for some F-mount AF lenses, and mimics the "default viewing at f/5.6" behavior of native Z-mount lenses. Parsing how the FTZ handles the various generations of AF Nikkors gave me a headache, so its possible I'm misinterpreting: you can skim the threads yourself here and here.

 

As far as EVF and manual focus: I agree with those who feel the Sony focus peaking is more distracting than helpful. I use the standard finder image, or flip the magnification on if the subject is still enough. The newest cameras have better and better EVF and peaking quality.

Edited December 13, 2018 by orsetto

[mike_halliwell]

Ha! I got a headache too! That's why I asked...:-)

 

However, there is a way to force it to show the In Focus areas with something like the Sigma 135mm 1.8 @ 1.8, via the FTZ of course.

 

There is minimal focus shift with this lens but to actually see the razor thin zone in focus rather than 'see' it @ 5.6 and guess!

[Sandy Vongries]

In Re: the DF - simply stated - focusing works beautifully with each of my lenses, manually or AF - better than my D 750 equal to my D7200. I prefer the color on the DF to that of the D 750 - it is close with the D 7200. Here is a hand held shot from the back of the Musselshell Players Theatre with an old 180 F 2.8 Nikkor on the DF.

[mike_halliwell]

with an old 180 F 2.8 Nikkor

As far as i can see, 'old' MF could be up to 1970 to 2005 ...? or AF 1986 to 2006 onwards??

[BeBu Lamar]

They can't improve the Df at all. The way it is is the best they can and or willing to do. Now they might introduce a retro style camera but it won't be an SLR which to me is not an improved Df. Shun said a rangefinder but that impossible because it won't be a true rangefinder like the Leica M. Take that back may be it's possible. Using Z lenses and switch the control ring to focus function. Have a real optical rangefinder but the rangefinder moves in sync with the focusing ring via a motor.

[ShunCheung]

They can't improve the Df at all.

Says who?

 

Remember this thread from four years ago?

24K Gold Nikon Df, over $40,000

 

Price released for Brikk's 24k gold Nikon Df

 

I admit it is on the pricey side, though, but you get a free 14-24mm/f2.8 AF-S with it. :)

[BeBu Lamar]

Says who?

 

Remember this thread from four years ago?

24K Gold Nikon Df, over $40,000

 

Price released for Brikk's 24k gold Nikon Df

 

I admit it is on the pricey side, though, but you get a free 14-24mm/f2.8 AF-S with it. :)

 

I said so. That's 24KGold is a lousy camera. It looks extremely ugly.I don't know who wanted it. I am not saying it's not possible to improve but to improve it for 1 type of customer mean to make it worse for other type which all are within a small niche market and so it would make the market much smaller and the price won't be affordable.

[Sandy Vongries]

'old' MF could be up to 1970 to 2005 ...? or AF 1986 to 2006 onwards??

Old enough that John White at AI Conversions converted it. to AI

[ben_hutcherson]

but to improve it for 1 type of customer mean to make it worse for other type which all are within a small niche market and so it would make the market much smaller and the price won't be affordable.

 

I mentioned a few changes I would like, and can itemize a few others that I may not have specifically mentioned.

 

1. Use the 20mp D5 sensor

2. Put a lock on the flip-up aperture tab

3. Put the card door on the side, and preferably switch to XQD

4. Offer interchangeable focusing screens, preferably with a "K" option

 

Of these, I would think #2 wouldn't cause any issues for folks who actually make use of the function-after all it's what's "normal" on other Nikons. #1 would just seem a logical upgrade, and even though the D5 sensor isn't that much higher in resolution everything I've seen from it makes it look significantly better than the D4 sensor(in the Df) in pretty much all other respects-including both high ISO noise and dynamic range. #4 is something that wouldn't affect you unless you WANT to use that functionality. I can see #3 being controversial-not so much the location change-but the switch to XQD-but I'm not alone in disliking SD cards and preferring not to see them in a $3K camera.

 

So, do you have an issue with any of the changes I suggested?

[ben_hutcherson]

I know that very well because once I took one out to clean and had a hard time putting it back in. :( The viewfinder hasn't been interchangeable since the F5.

 

That reminds me-I think my D1X came from a portrait studio, as someone took a pen and inked off the top and bottom of the screen for 4:5 and drew an oval I guess for head positioning. Since I have a couple of D1Hs that will likely never work again, I need to rob a screen out of one of them. Fortunately, the D1 series is FAIRLY straight forward to change screens in(although not as easy as an F5 or any other removable finder camera).

[Sandy Vongries]

switch to XQD

Why? SDHC works splendidly - more available, less costly. Besides, most of us already have a bunch of them.

[peterbphotos]

Df is a funny preposition. When it was announced what seems like many years ago, I thought it was going to be a digital Nikon FM. It was a camera that many people had wanted in the years leading up to the launch of the Df. That meant a relatively compact and affordable camera with no-nonsense controls. Despite a few design quirks where the Df seems to have lost the simplicity of the original Nikon FM, I don't think it quite got down to the size I thought it would and some of the design/styling seemed more pseudo-retro than functional (as in say the Olympus OM-D E-M5).

 

I think the shocker was really the cost which has made it unpopular to most people. I guess this rarity and the unwillingness of Nikon to drop the cost as it ages has kept sales numbers extremely low and used prices are high due to its rarity. I would have really liked it due to its outstanding low-light performance.

 

The Df is a camera that really could have done with a couple of minor revisions over the past few years to keep it relevant. If it had, a sensor change would now be due. Considering the financial constraints on Nikon, they need to concentrate on areas of growth before considering the niche that was never quite fulfilled.

 

I am still waiting for the compact, light but strong digital FM. In the meantime the D750 seems the closest fit although I went for the D7500 while I wait. Just not holding my breath.

[BeBu Lamar]

I mentioned a few changes I would like, and can itemize a few others that I may not have specifically mentioned.

 

1. Use the 20mp D5 sensor

2. Put a lock on the flip-up aperture tab

3. Put the card door on the side, and preferably switch to XQD

4. Offer interchangeable focusing screens, preferably with a "K" option

 

Of these, I would think #2 wouldn't cause any issues for folks who actually make use of the function-after all it's what's "normal" on other Nikons. #1 would just seem a logical upgrade, and even though the D5 sensor isn't that much higher in resolution everything I've seen from it makes it look significantly better than the D4 sensor(in the Df) in pretty much all other respects-including both high ISO noise and dynamic range. #4 is something that wouldn't affect you unless you WANT to use that functionality. I can see #3 being controversial-not so much the location change-but the switch to XQD-but I'm not alone in disliking SD cards and preferring not to see them in a $3K camera.

 

So, do you have an issue with any of the changes I suggested?

 

Now #1 is OK. #2 is OK. #3 for me XQD is better but not needed but I want the card slot at the bottom. I don't replace card before battery. As for interchangeable screen is welcome but I wouldn't be caught dead using the K screen. That screen is anti SLR and in that case I might as well go for the mirrorless.

[BeBu Lamar]

Df is a funny preposition. When it was announced what seems like many years ago, I thought it was going to be a digital Nikon FM. It was a camera that many people had wanted in the years leading up to the launch of the Df. That meant a relatively compact and affordable camera with no-nonsense controls. Despite a few design quirks where the Df seems to have lost the simplicity of the original Nikon FM, I don't think it quite got down to the size I thought it would and some of the design/styling seemed more pseudo-retro than functional (as in say the Olympus OM-D E-M5).

 

I think the shocker was really the cost which has made it unpopular to most people. I guess this rarity and the unwillingness of Nikon to drop the cost as it ages has kept sales numbers extremely low and used prices are high due to its rarity. I would have really liked it due to its outstanding low-light performance.

 

The Df is a camera that really could have done with a couple of minor revisions over the past few years to keep it relevant. If it had, a sensor change would now be due. Considering the financial constraints on Nikon, they need to concentrate on areas of growth before considering the niche that was never quite fulfilled.

 

I am still waiting for the compact, light but strong digital FM. In the meantime the D750 seems the closest fit although I went for the D7500 while I wait. Just not holding my breath.

 

I heard a lot of people asking for the digital FM but nobody really describe how it is.

[rodeo_joe1]

A digital FM?

Really?

 

How many people are going to put up with watching 3 flickering LEDs for metering these days? And a pokey viewfinder with hardly any eye relief. With a distracting array of circles and lines in that viewfinder that add nothing to getting accurate focus.

 

I don't know which FM the rest of the world was using, but it can't have been the same clunky camera that I remember.

 

A digital F3HP might be bearable, if you fit it with a type B or microprism screen. Not every scene has a nice straight line just where you want to focus.

[mike_halliwell]

it can't have been the same clunky camera that I remember

Ah, nostalgia, it's not what it used to be.....;)

 

FM's were horrible. That's why they built the FM2!!

[ben_hutcherson]

FM's were horrible. That's why they built the FM2!!

 

When it comes right down to it, I prefer the F2SB/F2AS over the FM or FM2. The viewfinder has the same information, but it's all where it should be across the bottom of the frame, and not scattered all over the place as in the FM or FM2. I have a real dislike of read-outs on the left hand side of the viewfinder-I can't pinpoint why it is, but I dislike the fact that the FM/FM2 shutter speed read-out is there(I feel the same about the Canon FTb) and also the fact that entire meter scale is there on the EL/EL2/FE/FE2. The FM10 also commits this same "sin" by putting the meter LEDs on the left. Apparently I'm not alone in this, as at least all the Nikon DSLRs I've used(and contemporary high end SLRs) tend to keep their read-outs under and to the right of the frame.

 

Aside from that, though, I'm happy to leave my FM on the shelf. On the other hand, I have two FM2Ns in regular use, and a 3rd on the way...

[orsetto]

A digital FM?

Really?

 

How many people are going to put up with watching 3 flickering LEDs for metering these days? And a pokey viewfinder with hardly any eye relief. With a distracting array of circles and lines in that viewfinder that add nothing to getting accurate focus.

 

I don't know which FM the rest of the world was using, but it can't have been the same clunky camera that I remember.

 

A digital F3HP might be bearable, if you fit it with a type B or microprism screen. Not every scene has a nice straight line just where you want to focus.

 

Oh, brother: where to even begin unpacking this...

 

First, no one was asking for a *literal* digital FM, nor was Nikon teasing a *literal* digital FM prior to the Df launch. Both Nikon users and Nikon weren't stupid enough to believe Nikon is Leica, and could get away with selling 1953 tech in 2013 at nosebleed prices. People who want a "Digital FM" use that phrase to invoke a concept: the FM size and industrial design was a perfect fit for many film photographers back in the day, and they'd love a similar digital package now. Remember, we're NOT talking about a general-purpose body here.The "Digital FM" was expected to be a niche body optimized for those who enjoy using the gazillion nice manual-focus AI, AIS and pre-AI Nikkors (that will survive the zombie apocalypse, much to Nikons annoyance). Alone among other brands, Nikon competes against its own plethora of manual lenses that are still in use and popular. So for a brief tantalizing moment, Nikon entertained the thought of not fighting the people who still want mainly to use those legacy lenses: leverage that legacy, offer a manual-focus, meter coupled body optimized for MF, charge a premium for it, and then maybe drop the expensive AI feature from their other mainstream bodies.

 

No one seriously expected the FM three-LED interface in a digital body. The standard Nikon DSLR multi-display at screen bottom and usual AE modes, in addition to metered manual exposure, were assumed. Decent-look retro body, old-school matte focus screen with split image, small LCD preview screen and touchpad on the back, physical shutter dial and aperture setting via the lens ring. What the thing would really be in essence is a "Digital FA", nobody calls it that simply because nobody is nostalgic for the FA while everyone has a soft spot for the FM/FE. The phrase "Digital FM/FE" instantly conjures a concept for the long-term Nikon enthusiasts who crave such a body. It doesn't have to be a perfect clone of the old FM/FE: it could be slightly larger, like the F2/F3, have the standard HP round eyepiece, etc. The Df actually came pretty close in most of the bullet points, before it hit a pothole and went careening down the ditch of Nikon's gutless management. Where the Df stumbles is its bolted-on half-hearted D600 AF system: leaving it out would have allowed the purer, less-cluttered, smaller, old-school design. Typical of Nikon, they couldn't admit they were too chicken to offer a manual-focus-only body, and too chicken to chance a retro-styled full-on D800 with D4 sensor, so instead gifted us with the Df which satisfied neither market.

 

As far as your rips on the original FM: you're viewing a 1977 manual-focus film camera by 2018 AF DSLR standards. At the time, the FM was a sensation: one of the few moments when Nikon had its back to the wall and responded perfectly. The Olympus OM1 / OM2 were decimating sales of the big heavy dated Nikkormat FT2 and EL. The FM/FE were flawlessly executed comebacks: the bodies were just that bit larger enough to suit those who found the OMs too small, the FM 3-LED gallium meter was more sensitive and versatile than the OM1 CdS galvanometer, and the FE answered every feature of the OM2 while sidestepping its foibles. The "lines in the viewfinder" you find so irritating were the standard manual focus aids: every pre-AF SLR on the planet came with the same screen. If you didn't like it, Nikon would swap it for a plain matte or checker grid (the revised FM2/FE2 made those user-installable options). That "pokey" viewfinder with low eye relief was also a standard feature after 1974: high magnification was considered more important than eye relief (to hell with eyeglass wearers). Viewfinder preferences are trendy and highly subjective: the "relief" afforded by modern cameras seems like tunnel vision to those of us weaned on OMs and FM/FE with their IMAX screens (pick up the lowly EM or FG for the most amazing viewfinder size and clarity Nikon ever offered).

 

Going back to literal interpretations, a "Digital F3HP" would be an unmitigated disaster. Tiny unreadable unlit display of auto-set shutter speed at the top of the screen, uninformative invisible +- manual exposure indicators? No thanks: that makes the always-visible, three-LED FM display seem comprehensive. And that 80% obese spot meter coupled to aperture-priority AE with no ergonomic integrated exposure lock and useless manual mode? Perhaps the single most awful idea Nikon ever had (including the Pronea system). They were so blinded by concern about F3 battery life they made the whole metering system a trainwreck in service to it. They should have just doubled down and warned people it was a primarily motor-drive camera: always use the MD4, and you'll never worry about batteries. Use a wider, always-lit LCD panel, or a row of LED shutter numbers like everybody else from Contax to Minolta. As problematic as the F4 was, its a far better F3 than the F3 could ever be. For me, the usable Fs jump directly from F2AS to F5 with no stops between (usually end up picking the F2AS for film projects).

Edited December 14, 2018 by orsetto

[Dieter Schaefer]

When it comes right down to it, I prefer the F2SB/F2AS over the FM or FM2. The viewfinder has the same information, but it's all where it should be across the bottom of the frame, and not scattered all over the place as in the FM or FM2. I have a real dislike of read-outs on the left hand side of the viewfinder

I heartily agree with everything being said. I wear glasses and the FM viewfinder (as well as the identical one in the FM2) was almost impossible to view whole. I never understood why Nikon didn't choose the same information layout as in the F2AS. Regarding viewfinder information, the alternative camera to the FM I considered at the time - the Canon A1 - did a whole lot better in that aspect.

I don't know which FM the rest of the world was using, but it can't have been the same clunky camera that I remember.

Yep, sure was loud. Especially with the MD-11/MD-12 motor drive. Something that really was brought home to me when my wife acquired the F100 - from that point on, I really hated the sound of the FM.

 

A digital F3HP might be bearable, if you fit it with a type B or microprism screen. Not every scene has a nice straight line just where you want to focus.

I never liked the K screen (or any screen with the split-level indicator in the center) and always exchanged mine for a B or E. Never had to deal with really fast glass though.

 

What the thing would really be in essence is a "Digital FA"

Bingo!

 

Typical of Nikon, they couldn't admit they were too chicken to offer a manual-focus-only body, and too chicken to chance a retro-styled full-on D800 with D4 sensor, so instead gifted us with the Df which satisfied neither market.

Hits nail squarely on the head :p

 

one of the few moments when Nikon had its back to the wall and responded perfectly

It appears that Nikon always needs to have its back against to wall to hit one out of the park.

 

I think it ultimately was a mistake to put the D4 sensor into the Df - it made the camera interesting as a "cheap D4 alternative" for a range of customers that coped with rather than liked the retro design.

Edited December 14, 2018 by Dieter Schaefer

[BeBu Lamar]

Oh, brother: where to even begin unpacking this...

 

First, no one was asking for a *literal* digital FM, nor was Nikon teasing a *literal* digital FM prior to the Df launch. Both Nikon users and Nikon weren't stupid enough to believe Nikon is Leica, and could get away with selling 1953 tech in 2013 at nosebleed prices. People who want a "Digital FM" use that phrase to invoke a concept: the FM size and industrial design was a perfect fit for many film photographers back in the day, and they'd love a similar digital package now. Remember, we're NOT talking about a general-purpose body here.The "Digital FM" was expected to be a niche body optimized for those who enjoy using the gazillion nice manual-focus AI, AIS and pre-AI Nikkors (that will survive the zombie apocalypse, much to Nikons annoyance). Alone among other brands, Nikon competes against its own plethora of manual lenses that are still in use and popular. So for a brief tantalizing moment, Nikon entertained the thought of not fighting the people who still want mainly to use those legacy lenses: leverage that legacy, offer a manual-focus, meter coupled body optimized for MF, charge a premium for it, and then maybe drop the expensive AI feature from their other mainstream bodies.

 

No one seriously expected the FM three-LED interface in a digital body. The standard Nikon DSLR multi-display at screen bottom and usual AE modes, in addition to metered manual exposure, were assumed. Decent-look retro body, old-school matte focus screen with split image, small LCD preview screen and touchpad on the back, physical shutter dial and aperture setting via the lens ring. What the thing would really be in essence is a "Digital FA", nobody calls it that simply because nobody is nostalgic for the FA while everyone has a soft spot for the FM/FE. The phrase "Digital FM/FE" instantly conjures a concept for the long-term Nikon enthusiasts who crave such a body. It doesn't have to be a perfect clone of the old FM/FE: it could be slightly larger, like the F2/F3, have the standard HP round eyepiece, etc. The Df actually came pretty close in most of the bullet points, before it hit a pothole and went careening down the ditch of Nikon's gutless management. Where the Df stumbles is its bolted-on half-hearted D600 AF system: leaving it out would have allowed the purer, less-cluttered, smaller, old-school design. Typical of Nikon, they couldn't admit they were too chicken to offer a manual-focus-only body, and too chicken to chance a retro-styled full-on D800 with D4 sensor, so instead gifted us with the Df which satisfied neither market.

 

As far as your rips on the original FM: you're viewing a 1977 manual-focus film camera by 2018 AF DSLR standards. At the time, the FM was a sensation: one of the few moments when Nikon had its back to the wall and responded perfectly. The Olympus OM1 / OM2 were decimating sales of the big heavy dated Nikkormat FT2 and EL. The FM/FE were flawlessly executed comebacks: the bodies were just that bit larger enough to suit those who found the OMs too small, the FM 3-LED gallium meter was more sensitive and versatile than the OM1 CdS galvanometer, and the FE answered every feature of the OM2 while sidestepping its foibles. The "lines in the viewfinder" you find so irritating were the standard manual focus aids: every pre-AF SLR on the planet came with the same screen. If you didn't like it, Nikon would swap it for a plain matte or checker grid (the revised FM2/FE2 made those user-installable options). That "pokey" viewfinder with low eye relief was also a standard feature after 1974: high magnification was considered more important than eye relief (to hell with eyeglass wearers). Viewfinder preferences are trendy and highly subjective: the "relief" afforded by modern cameras seems like tunnel vision to those of us weaned on OMs and FM/FE with their IMAX screens (pick up the lowly EM or FG for the most amazing viewfinder size and clarity Nikon ever offered).

 

Going back to literal interpretations, a "Digital F3HP" would be an unmitigated disaster. Tiny unreadable unlit display of auto-set shutter speed at the top of the screen, uninformative invisible +- manual exposure indicators? No thanks: that makes the always-visible, three-LED FM display seem comprehensive. And that 80% obese spot meter coupled to aperture-priority AE with no ergonomic integrated exposure lock and useless manual mode? Perhaps the single most awful idea Nikon ever had (including the Pronea system). They were so blinded by concern about F3 battery life they made the whole metering system a trainwreck in service to it. They should have just doubled down and warned people it was a primarily motor-drive camera: always use the MD4, and you'll never worry about batteries. Use a wider, always-lit LCD panel, or a row of LED shutter numbers like everybody else from Contax to Minolta. As problematic as the F4 was, its a far better F3 than the F3 could ever be. For me, the usable Fs jump directly from F2AS to F5 with no stops between (usually end up picking the F2AS for film projects).

 

So can you describe what it is like?

[robert_bouknight1]

I remember studying the Nikon sales brochure, trying to decide whether to get a Nikkormat or FM. Wow. Glad I chose an FM that would accept the MD-11, I did wind up having a lot of fun shooting college sports for the newspaper and yearbook. Also, I wound up able to tap into the fairly extensive Nikon system that the yearbook had at the time.

 

I now find the K screen annoying, but might not have purchased a Nikon if only a plain screen was offered. As a newbie at that time, I thought the split screen was important. Picking up the good condition FE2 I have at my office, I still think it looks nice, maybe better than the F2A I have here. Plain prism F and F2 cameras do look better than the metered versions, IMO. The FE2 here is very easy to focus with a 50/2 on it. It is nosier than the F2a and some digital cameras I have around here, but my Leica M3DS is not totally silent, either. The 3 LED FM metering system did seem to stay in calibration well, better than F2 DP1 & 11 meters, it seemed.

 

Realistically, the 1.8G primes and other good AF lenses have pretty much relegated the MF Nikkors I have to nostalgia use for me. I don't think many people would have bought a manual focus only DSLR limited to Nikon only lenses. When the concept of "any" manual focus lens is included, I did vote with my wallet to get a Sony A7 which I have enjoyed with MF Nikon and other lenses. Maybe one of the Nikon Z cameras will replace the A7, once I figure a way to economically adapt Contax/Nikon RF lenses on it, I have an adapter that lets me focus the Zeiss inner mount 50/1.5 on the Sony. C'mon Nikon, how about a Nikon RF to Z? Maybe I have one of the focusing C/N RF to LTM adapters somewhere, then add LTM to Z. Will have to look.

[ShunCheung]

I remember studying the Nikon sales brochure, trying to decide whether to get a Nikkormat or FM. Wow. Glad I chose an FM that would accept the MD-11, I did wind up having a lot of fun shooting college sports for the newspaper and yearbook. Also, I wound up able to tap into the fairly extensive Nikon system that the yearbook had at the time.

Sounds like you and I went to college around the same time. I bought an FT3 (that and the FM were the very first AI bodies) in the summer right before my freshman year and avoided all pre-AI lenses. But I had an electronic Minolta before that so that when the FE came out the following year, I bought one and therefore never owned an FM. However, those two are fairly similar bodies.

 

The difference is that I went to a small school and there was no "extensive Nikon system" owned by the college or school paper. They had a darkroom I could use, though.

[Sandy Vongries]

Are we up to "what should have been, what is, what might oughta be in another close dimension, what neverwas what will never be even there in the timewarp", as yet? Good fun,interesting, though I struggle with the longest posts. Have had and used my DF heavily for more than 4 years with no problem . I'll keep an eye on dwindling supply of New U.S. models from my favorite distributors. If nothing I like better comes along as time passes, I'll buy another new or low click as new used. In combination with my other Nikons (which are replaceable) it does everything I need in a way I enjoy. :)