Nikon D4 or Nikon D750 ?.

[za33photo]

I am looking at these 2 camera's with the tentative idea of upgrading from my Canon G1X.

Both camera's are priced very similarly , but the D4 seems a bit bulky to me.

Which one would you suggest for general use or should I pass on these ?.

Thanks.

 

Thanks.

 

[orsetto]

While its often tempting to go for the older big "pro" model if its the same price as a newer "amateur" model, D750 may be the more natural step up from a PowerShot type of camera: the D4 is quite a lot of camera to tackle (and carry) if you haven't had much experience with DSLRs.

They are comparable in some respects, very different in others. The most obvious difference is the size and weight of the D4: it definitely has some advantages that make it a worthy choice, but unless you very specifically need those advantages for your type of photography you'd be carrying more camera than necessary. The larger, more obviously pro D4 can also attract more attention than you might want during street or travel photography: it can be more intimidating or provoking, and makes you a more noticeable target for thieves in some situations.

Other than predictable "pro" niceties like battleship build quality, the D4 has two distinct qualities that set it apart from the D750. The main advantage is pro AF system including brute force torque power to quickly focus older mechanical AF lenses, and more electric power to quickly focus electronic AF lenses (Nikon made both over many years). If your primary interest is sports photography or animal/bird photos with long zoom or tele lenses, the D4 becomes more interesting. 

A more debatable advantage for some users would be the unique-to-D4 imaging sensor, which was optimized for low light sports environments (largely overtaken today by newer sensors, but some still prefer the rendition of D4).  Its also a bit lower resolution than the D750. This sensor would be somewhat more forgiving of the optical flaws in older lenses. If you planned to explore the tons of now-cheaper mechanical screw drive AF Nikkor lenses, or even older manual focus Nikkor lenses, the D4 might be preferable. The specialty Nikon Df body (marketed as Nikon's best platform for older lenses) borrowed its sensor from the D4.

Factors that favor the D750 are size, weight, and more recent engineering. It has the now-ubiquitous Sony 24MP sensor, a variation of which has been standard in countless midrange FX cameras for several years now. The popular D750 (and its followup D780) were/are considered phenomenal midrange enthusiast DSLR cameras.

The decision comes down to being realistic about how big a camera you're willing to carry around, and whether the specific shooting advantages of the larger camera will help you in any significant way. Nikon offered several different DSLR configurations, all of which work well for general photography, but each was optimized for different tasks. 700 series was pitched for typical broad-range enthusiast photography, 800 series for those needing higher resolution and/or improved AF, and the single-digit pro D4, D5, D6 for the ultimate combination of AF performance, shooting speed and rugged build. 

Edited March 17, 2023 by orsetto

[orsetto]

BTW, the above assumes you have decided you want to invest in a DSLR system for your own personal reasons.

Camera mfrs have turned away from DSLR in favor of the newer "mirrorless" technology with electronic viewfinder. Some older mirrorless models contemporary with the D750 are available at similar second-hand pricing: worth considering if you'd prefer your lens investment to be future-proof. Nothing wrong with DSLR: many still prefer the handling and direct optical viewfinder. But it is rapidly being abandoned by mfrs going forward.

Nikon, Canon, Sony, Fuji, Olympus, Panasonic etc all offer a variety of mirrorless bodies, new and used. One of the smaller DX or M4/3 mirrorless cameras would be even closer in size/weight to your Canon G1X. Check them out at a camera store before jumping to a used DSLR: if you find mirrorless comfortable to use, going that route would ensure any lenses you buy today will remain relevant to future cameras you might upgrade to.

[Jochen_S]

What do you mean by "general use" and similary important: What lenses do you have in mind? - If I'll hear 70-200/2.8 (as your heavily used primary work horse), I'd say the big pro body shouldn't harm. 

Realistically speaking, as a more or less enthusiastic amateur (without butler and body guards, who could carry bits of kit for me): Shop weight and bulk conscious! Shelf queens stay at home and don't take pictures. 

A D750 with 24-120 seems like a reasonable and recommendable upgrade from a Powershot. That lens also shouldn't shout for a mirrorless body instead, like a fast portrait prime already might do.

FTR: I don't shoot Nikon FX. But my EOS punches in the same league and guess what: It stays at home. To maybe take a picture, I rather carry something lighter like a modest and weathered Leica kit or (a pair of) APS beaters without overly bulky glass.

[Sanford]

Every statistic favors the D750 over the D4, but the pure exhilaration of using the very best of it's time counts for something. 

[ShunCheung]

I wonder whether the OP has any existing Nikon F-mount lenses. If not, the upgrade from a Canon G1X to a Nikon DSLR that is around 10 years ago seems very strange to me. The D4 was introduced in January 2012 as a pro, flagship body at the time. The D750 is almost 3 years newer from late 2014. Both are kind of old, but improvements of DSLRs have slowed down in the last decade, such that I still use my D750 occasionally. Not sure why the OP wants to deal with a big and heavy D4, which has two memory card slots, one XQD and one CF (Compact Flash, not CFexpress). Since Nikon never provides any firmware upgrade to make that XQD slot compatible with CFexpress Type B, the D4 and D4s are the only two Nikon bodies that can use XQD but not CFx B. To me, that is an important pain point: that you need to deal with old-type memory cards. The EN-EL18 battery is still current, with the latest version EN-LE18D for the Z9. All variations of the EN-EL18 are interchangeable.

The D750 uses two SD cards and the EN-EL15 battery. Both are current. The latest is EN-EL15c, but again, all variations are interchangeable.

If there is no compelling reason to buy a Nikon DSLR, at this point I would consider a mirrorless body instead. And if the OP is not bounded by the F-mount, there are many options in other brands as well.

[za33photo]

Thank you all for your very prompt replies , they have been noted and are appreciated.

It looks like I will have to give this matter much more time and thought 😄.

I have a Nikon FM2n which I like very much , this is the reason why I am looking at Nikon digitals as an upgrade to my G1X , although I really like the Canon.

I will also investigate other camera brands in digital full frame format.

Newer Camera's are too expensive for me.

 

[ShunCheung]

As far as capturing still images goes, I think pretty much all Nikon DSLRs from the last 10 years can still give you great images. Essentially around 2012 was the pinnacle for DSLRs and sales was going through the roof. However, improvements since that point are more gradual. Some of the big differences are in video, but IMO DSLRs are not very suitable for video capture. That development is mainly on the mirrorless die.

Concerning the D4, the size and weight are the obvious concerns. The D4 was the very first still camera that used XQD cards (but only one of the two slots is XQD, the other CF as I mentioned earlier). Since Sony has patents on XQD, whoever makes XQD needs to pay royalty to Sony. Hence XQD was never popular, and mostly only Sony and Lexar (when they were owned by Micron) produced them. I think later on Delkin produced XQD cards for a while. When Micron sold the Lexar brand name to the Chinese LongSys in 2017, Lexar could no longer produce XQD cards after that sale. Otherwise, in 2012, only a few Sony camcorders also use XQD cards.

Essentially Nikon introduced the following cameras with an XQD slot, before CFx B became commercially available around 2019: D4, D4s, D5 (2 XQD or 2 CF versions), D500, D850, Z6 and Z7. After that, the D6, Z6ii, Z7ii, and Z9 were introduced when CFx B was already available. Subsequently Nikon provided firmware upgrades to the D5, D500, D850, Z6 and Z7 so that they can use both XQD and CFx B. The D4 and D4s are the only two stuck with XQD or CF. If one doesn't already have a bunch XQD cards, that alone may be a good reason to avoid the D4, D4s.

[tonybeach_1961]

I would choose the D750 over a D4, but would take a low shutter count D800 over that.

[za33photo]

1 hour ago, ShunCheung said:

As far as capturing still images goes, I think pretty much all Nikon DSLRs from the last 10 years can still give you great images. Essentially around 2012 was the pinnacle for DSLRs and sales was going through the roof. However, improvements since that point are more gradual. Some of the big differences are in video, but IMO DSLRs are not very suitable for video capture. That development is mainly on the mirrorless die.

Concerning the D4, the size and weight are the obvious concerns. The D4 was the very first still camera that used XQD cards (but only one of the two slots is XQD, the other CF as I mentioned earlier). Since Sony has patents on XQD, whoever makes XQD needs to pay royalty to Sony. Hence XQD was never popular, and mostly only Sony and Lexar (when they were owned by Micron) produced them. I think later on Delkin produced XQD cards for a while. When Micron sold the Lexar brand name to the Chinese LongSys in 2017, Lexar could no longer produce XQD cards after that sale. Otherwise, in 2012, only a few Sony camcorders also use XQD cards.

Essentially Nikon introduced the following cameras with an XQD slot, before CFx B became commercially available around 2019: D4, D4s, D5 (2 XQD or 2 CF versions), D500, D850, Z6 and Z7. After that, the D6, Z6ii, Z7ii, and Z9 were introduced when CFx B was already available. Subsequently Nikon provided firmware upgrades to the D5, D500, D850, Z6 and Z7 so that they can use both XQD and CFx B. The D4 and D4s are the only two stuck with XQD or CF. If one doesn't already have a bunch XQD cards, that alone may be a good reason to avoid the D4, D4s.

Thanks , you make a very valid point regarding the D4 as to batteries and cards , I will rule it out because of this.

 

[orsetto]

The point about memory cards is a crucial one that I forgot in my reply: most non-gearhead photographers will find bog-standard SD card support more useful than the shooting speed improvements of more arcane specialty cards. Everything is subject to change, however: nobody expected the once-standard midrange CF cards to evaporate off the face of the earth. Finding reasonably priced cards for my old Nikon D700 and various digital P/S cams can be a real pain sometimes.

A digital equivalent of your film Nikon FM2n has been the holy grail sought by many photographers for over a decade, but it hasn't happened yet and probably never will in the ever-contracting camera market. The closest you can get would be a second-hand full frame (FX) mirrorless body like Nikon Z5 or Z6: fairly compact, and electronic viewfinder helps tremendously with manual focusing of non-AF lenses. If you have a mix of manual focus lenses for your FM2n plus a few AF lenses, the D750 is a good compromise: it can meter couple with both manual AI lenses and electronic AF lenses, and AF with both older screw drive and new internal-motor AF lenses.

It really depends how extensively you expect to work with old manual focus (non-AF) glass: if thats your primary interest, you'll find a mirrorless body much easier and quicker to nail focus manually. OTOH, mirrorless AF is optimized for new mirrorless lenses: mount adapters are available to AF older DSLR lenses but performance can suffer. Adapters that can bridge mirrorless bodies to operate autofocus on even older screw-drive AF lenses are uncommon, and not yet available for Nikon Z system at all. A Nikon DSLR like D750 or D4 offers the broadest range of compatibility with pre-mirrorless AF lenses, while maintaining traditional meter connection with old manual Nikon lenses (tho some of us struggle nailing manual focus with DSLR viewfinders, which can be frustratingly imprecise at larger apertures).

For a size/bulk comparison, see attached pic of three of my Nikons. My FM is on loan to a friend, so I substituted the comparable-sized D40 (on right). I don't own a D4-class body, but my film Nikon F2 with attached motor drive (left) is a close approximation (the D4 would be notably rounder and thicker). My D700 (center) evolved into the similar-bodied D800 series: a D750 or 780 would be slightly smaller, like their predecessors D600/D610.

The weight increase from film FM2n to nearly any full-frame (FX) DSLR is substantial: don't underestimate this. Without motor attached, my Nikon F2 is 35% larger and heavier than the FM2, but the D700 dwarfs it: I can happily shoot an F2 all day but the D700 gets real tiring real quick (despite the excellent integrated grip, hand strain is off the charts). So I imagine the D4 would kill me altogether.

This is where the smaller DX format cameras shine: my tiny D40 feels lighter than an FM2. Nikon recycled, updated and enhanced this body size repeatedly, thru much newer cameras like D3100, 3200, 5100, 5200, 5300, 5500.  They're killer travel and street cameras, but are effectively limited to the newer AFS type lenses if you want the best experience they can offer. Smallish, dinky viewfinder isn't good for manual focusing lenses, there is no meter coupling for manual focus lenses (so no AE or exposure indications). A big tradeoff for the small size is omission of the screw drive motor needed to autofocus the old-style mechanical AF-D type of lenses (these will meter and offer AE, but no AF is possible).

Mirrorless DX or M4/3 systems can be as small or smaller, and their EVF can help with manual focus/exposure, but on the whole are best used with their dedicated AF lenses. Some full-frame FX cameras like Sony A7 series are very compact, but the minute you attach a good lens it balloons in size (surprisingly few dedicated  FX mirrorless lenses coordinate in size with the small bodies). Using manual focus or different-brand lenses on mirrorless FX requires a mount adapter (basically a hollow tube) to push the lens out to where it would mount on a DSLR mirror box. This combination of camera body, adapter and lens can look really strange (the 50mm lens you might have on your FM2n gets stuck on a mount adapter almost as thick as the lens, which makes it look more like a 135mm tele when hanging off a Sony A7 or Nikon Z).

You'd find handling the various options personally at a dealer enormously helpful with your decision. If there are no dealers or stores near you, consider buying from a reputable second-hand camera specialist like KEH or B&H that have good return/exchange policies. Buying from random eBay sellers can be less expensive, but if you don't like the camera style you might get stuck with a loss on resale. Generally speaking, the newer the camera, the better the low light imaging capability: if this is important, save up for a more recent option.

 

Edited March 17, 2023 by orsetto

[za33photo]

orsetto , thank you for your time and detailed post , it has helped tremendously and has steered me in the right direction , I will bear all your points in mind before I make a decision.

Thanks again.

 

[BeBu Lamar]

Orsetto! If you take the pictures of the camera on the side you will see the F2AS and its MD-2/MB-1 combo is much thinner than the little D40. Digital camera is too thick.

[ShunCheung]

15 minutes ago, BeBu Lamar said:

Orsetto! If you take the pictures of the camera on the side you will see the F2AS and its MD-2/MB-1 combo is much thinner than the little D40. Digital camera is too thick.

Compared to film SLRs, DSLRs have more electronics behind the sensor and then typically have an LCD on the back to display the images and settings. Some LCDs can also swivel. Hence DSLRs tend to be thicker than film SLRs. However, if the objective is to have a thinner body, just get rid of the mirror, which takes up a lot of thickness.

[ShunCheung]

To the OP, it is still not clear to me why you need to upgrade and what your photography preferences are. Also why you were choosing between the Nikon D4 and D750. If you prefer to, share with us what your photography objectives and subject preferences, as well as what your budget constraint is. That may help us provide better answers. Otherwise, there are many web sites out there helping people decide what to get.

As I said, essentially DSLRs are out of favor, but they can certainly still capture great still images. Canon and Nikon both have had a lot of great DSLRs and lenses. On the mirrorless side, micro 4/3 from Olympus and Panasonic have a lot of excellent and small cameras and lenses, if size makes a difference. Fujifilm specializes in the APS-C format with classic-style controls. Otherwise, Canon, Nikon, and Sony provide a lot of options. One series I would avoid is Canon's EOS-M APS-C cameras, as I believe that lens mount is already a dead end. If you choose to go Canon, get RF-mount equipment. Likewise for the now defunct Nikon 1, one-inch-sensor mirrorless.

[Jochen_S]

Dunno what to say about FM2n leading into Nikon DSLRs. I had a bunch of manual Pentax lenses that got me into that DSLR system. I started with the assumption that I'd get by with those and the AF kit zooms from consumer grade film bodies. Unfortunately very few AF SLR bodies come with a screen that supports manual focusing at least as well as we are used to from manual bodies. So while manual lenses can be utilized, it will feel quite tempting to either replace them with AF counterparts or get a mirrorless body, to adapt them to. - If financial constraints urge you to skip getting an AF zoom with the D750, maybe ask around if there is a somewhat desirable mirrorless in your budget. 

[Rick Helmke]

I’ve not been bitten by the mirrorless bug and don’t plan to go that way. What I’ve found about Nikon bodies going all the way back to the F2 is that the flagship bodies are easier to use than the next level down. You don’t have to pay attention you can simply go to work. This is true of the F2, F3,4,5 and 6, they are all easier to use than the Nikkormats, the FM and FE bodies and the N90 and F100. You pay attention to what you are photographing and the aperture and shutter speeds don’t distract you. Same is true in my experience with the flagship digital and the next level down. The camera doesn’t get in the way of making photographs. All that said, I would get the D4. It’s a bit bigger and heavier but after all this time I am still able to carry two around all day. It’s fast, smooth, fits my hand and gets the job done. As for what cards it uses I don’t think it matters.

 

Rick H.

[orsetto]

3 hours ago, BeBu Lamar said:

Orsetto! If you take the pictures of the camera on the side you will see the F2AS and its MD-2/MB-1 combo is much thinner than the little D40. Digital camera is too thick.

Somewhere in my wall of text, I did mention the D4 would be "rounder and thicker" than the stand-in F2AS with motor drive. 😉 Height and width would be comparable, but the D4 depth and larger grip add more bulk. OTOH, the D4 is lighter weight than F2 + motor drive + the countless AA batteries that power it (1337g vs 1544g). I've never used the motor drive to shoot film in my F2 cameras, its just a nifty toy I picked up back in 2007 when everyone was dumping film gear for pennies on the dollar. 

za33photo would benefit from a visit to a well-stocked camera dealer, for sure: nothing narrows down a confusing array of choices like trying them out with your own hands and eyes. But first carefully evaluate what needs their current G1X + FM2n don't satisfy, and whether a "bargain" used older camera makes long-term sense vs saving for something more current. Older second-hand digital can be a great price/performance deal, as long as one fully understands the tradeoffs involved. Some photographers truly need to ride the bleeding edge of every new innovation that enhances their capabilities, others can go for years quite happily using "obsolete" (but sill as good as it ever was) gear.

Edited March 18, 2023 by orsetto

[za33photo]

9 hours ago, ShunCheung said:

To the OP, it is still not clear to me why you need to upgrade and what your photography preferences are. Also why you were choosing between the Nikon D4 and D750. If you prefer to, share with us what your photography objectives and subject preferences, as well as what your budget constraint is. That may help us provide better answers. Otherwise, there are many web sites out there helping people decide what to get.

As I said, essentially DSLRs are out of favor, but they can certainly still capture great still images. Canon and Nikon both have had a lot of great DSLRs and lenses. On the mirrorless side, micro 4/3 from Olympus and Panasonic have a lot of excellent and small cameras and lenses, if size makes a difference. Fujifilm specializes in the APS-C format with classic-style controls. Otherwise, Canon, Nikon, and Sony provide a lot of options. One series I would avoid is Canon's EOS-M APS-C cameras, as I believe that lens mount is already a dead end. If you choose to go Canon, get RF-mount equipment. Likewise for the now defunct Nikon 1, one-inch-sensor mirrorless.

I don't "need" to upgrade my digital setup from the Canon G1X , I am just THINKING about doing this 😁😁.

The G1X is a very nice camera and I really like it , but sometimes I find that the camera can be very slow in operation , for example , the Autofocus can on occasion be rather slow.

The reason that I am looking at the D4 and D750 , is that IF I upgrade my digital setup I want to buy full frame and the best that I can afford , and it makes no sense , to me , to buy a smaller sensor digital camera , also I would like to use my existing lenses that I have for my Nikon FM2n.

I enjoy using Film and will not stop , but I need to ration my use of film because of the current high cost of film and processing.

Digital IS more convenient and the "running costs" are lower , but NOTHING is more satisfying to me than using a good solidly built manual film camera 😊😊.

I want to thank everyone again for all the freely given advice and suggestions , rest assured that it is noted and VERY much appreciated.

Thanks.

[rodeo_joe1]

21 hours ago, Sanford said:

Every statistic favors the D750 over the D4, but the pure exhilaration of using the very best of it's time counts for something. 

I think the words 'of its time' need emphasis there. As well as a questioning of 'best'. Best suited to taking a professional battering maybe, but delivering superior image-quality? Questionable. 

Speaking for myself, before I got a mirrorless body I would reach for the much neater and lighter D7200 over the hugely more bulky D800 as an everyday user camera. 

Then there's the question of condition. A lightly used, amateur-owned D750 versus a well used, pro-owned D4 at about the same money? A total no-brainer. D750 please! 

[glen_h]

Some of us still use old film cameras, for the fun of it.

And using old(er) digital cameras, just to use them, is sometimes fun.

Not so much longer, and I can post my D1 on the Facebook

"Antique and Classic Cameras" page, which says 25 years.

 

Otherwise, both the D4 and D750 should be fine cameras.

The weight of the D4 is a consideration, though.

[ShunCheung]

4 hours ago, za33photo said:

The reason that I am looking at the D4 and D750 , is that IF I upgrade my digital setup I want to buy full frame and the best that I can afford , and it makes no sense , to me , to buy a smaller sensor digital camera , also I would like to use my existing lenses that I have for my Nikon FM2n.

I enjoy using Film and will not stop , but I need to ration my use of film because of the current high cost of film and processing.

Digital IS more convenient and the "running costs" are lower , but NOTHING is more satisfying to me than using a good solidly built manual film camera 😊😊.

It sure sounds like the Nikon Df is designed for your type of users. I believe the Df is now only available used. Not sure it meets your price point. However, the Df is totally the wrong camera for me, but when it was introduced in 2013, Nikon USA gave me a loaner for a month or so. Here is a picture of the Df next to the FE I still own (purchased new in 1978). I don't like that shallow (horizontal) grip.

The Df uses the same 16MP sensor as the D4 and has one SD memory card slot. It has a lower-grade AF module, same as that on the D600 and D610, but if you mainly focus manually, that doesn't matter much. The Df cannot capture video.

[Sanford]

I agree, finding a lightly used D4 could be nearly impossible. Physical condition would be the best clue as to it's previous life.

[Dieter Schaefer]

3 hours ago, za33photo said:

I would like to use my existing lenses that I have for my Nikon FM2n

The only way I can use manual focus lenses is on mirrorless cameras; the "focusing" screens in AF film cameras and DSLRs don't work all that well when one tries to nail the focus.

1 hour ago, ShunCheung said:

Not sure it meets your price point.

Used Df bodies are about twice the price of a used D4 or D750 (at around $1500). Cheapest full frame Nikon mirrorless is the Z5 at around $1000.

[orsetto]

za33photo said:

"I would like to use my existing lenses that I have for my Nikon FM2n"

"The G1X is a very nice camera and I really like it , but sometimes I find that the camera can be very slow in operation , for example , the Autofocus can on occasion be rather slow."

These are two somewhat conflicting use cases which you may not be able to fully resolve in one camera body without spending (a lot) more on some new lenses. If the priority is to easily share lenses between your FM2n and digital, most any Nikon FX DSLR will suit. They'll meter couple with your manual focus lenses, and if in future you limit yourself to screw-drive AF-D lenses (the ones with manual aperture ring) you can get fast AE and AF on the DSLR while maintaining full manual compatibility with the FM2n. The DSLRs also take the latest AF-S lenses with built-in motor, but these will not work usefully on the FM2n because they have no aperture ring (defaulting to f/16 or darker).

Challenging to disappointing manual focus is the drawback with DSLRs like D750 or even D4. Digital is ruthless toward older lens designs, so missed focus can suck the joy out of old glass altogether. If you have a collection of manual focus lenses for your FM2n (half dozen or more), a mirrorless body would be more suitable as digital host, and allow choice of brands beyond Nikon (tho its hard to beat the Nikon Z series). The drawback with a mirrorless body is inability to AF with any lens thats also fully compatible with your FM2n. You would need separate AF lenses, which won't work at all on your FM2n, making your film and digital systems less cooperative.

As I mentioned in earlier replies, the choice comes down to your personal priorities: broader lens sharing compatibility between film and digital bodies (at the expense of challenging manual focus on digital), or optimization of manual focus across film and digital (at the cost of needing dedicated AF lenses for the digital that can't be shared with your film body). And of course the mirrorless lens mount would be the more future-proof choice, with nearly all new AF lenses being designed for it.

The Nikon Df is an interesting sidebar camera whose original raison d'etre has been largely usurped by the mirrorless Z series. It does net you three unique features that some find indispensable: the interesting D4 sensor in a much smaller body, the polarizing quasi-retro appearance and controls, and ability to mount and fully AE meter (albeit clumsily) the millions of ancient pre-AI manual focus Nikkor lenses (which can't mount safely on any other stock unmodified Nikon FX DSLR).

Otherwise its essentially a D610 that Cinderella's tipsy fairy godmother waved a reluctant wand over in an attempt to placate a loud subgroup of Nikonians, who (back then) desperately wanted a "digital FM2". I admit to being part of that extremely unrealistic group, who delusionally hoped Nikon could mfr and sell a compact bespoke manual focus digital body akin to the $9000 Leica M9 for $1799. To their credit, Nikon at least tried to offer something, but ended up fielding the peculiar Df. Which didn't answer the "digital FM2" demand so much as create an entirely new subgroup of Df enthusiasts. 

All of this transpired before the introduction of smaller, more versatile full frame FX mirrorless bodies: these quickly became the "digital FM2n" for manual lens enthusiasts. In 2013, the Nikon Df was about as good a digital platform as you could get for those lenses, but today most manual and pre-AI glass shooters find the magnified EVF of a Z5 or Z6 the game changer they'd needed. DSLR optical viewing is more natural and lag-free, but it takes incredible eyesight and instinct to nail manual focus (even with the slightly coarsened Df screen). Ten years on, with the D4 selling for nearly half the price of the Df, I'd be more inclined to jump on a clean dentist-owned D4 (if I wanted the Df sensor with pro AF) or D750 (for the newer sensor). Unless one has a large collection of pre-AI lenses they absolutely cannot or will not modify to AI, the Df remains a bit overpriced vs D4 or D750.

Edited March 18, 2023 by orsetto