simon_crofts

March 27, 2014

However, I could still be holding the combo with only my right hand while I need to pick up another lens from the bag with my left hand or mount a flash with my left hand .... Just because I am not shooting, the weight of the combo is still there and due to the Df's small grip, you may feel that it is going to slip away from your right hand.

</blockquote>

That's what I'm doing all the time - changing lenses hundreds of times a night. The DF is a lot lighter than the D700 I had before, so a lot easier generally in handling for this kind of thing. Of course, you have a camera strap too so if you do let go of the camera for a moment or two, it's not a problem.

Additionally, while I don't do that very often, I have taken pictures holding the camera only with my right hand and I hold a flash with my left hand, away from the camera. Once again, having a proper grip on the camera body makes life much easier.

</blockquote>

Camera grips = extra weight and make handling the camera one-handed more tiring. I often do this with my D700 + off camera flash, and the DF is easier. What isn't easier in this case on the DF is the exposure compensation - which requires left hand. The DF isn't absolutely perfect in every situation - it's just a huge improvement in most circumstances on what we already have.

March 27, 2014

The 70-200 is a highly niche product in any case - I doubt many people would be using one on a DF. It's nice to know that it's possible if necessary, but hardly a way to judge the camera, and for the few people for who using a 70-200 regularly (horrible lens for most purposes) is a priority, they'll probably be using a different camera anyway.

It's a bit like judging, say, a D4 according to whether it's good as a point-and-shoot and fits in a handbag. It's just about possible to do, but not what the design is intended to achieve.

March 27, 2014

if you mount a 70-200mm/f2.8 AF-S VR onto the Df and hold the combo only with your right hand, that tiny grip on the Df is going to put a lot of pressure on your finger tips due to the overall weight of the combo. In contrast, those Leica M lenses are tiny.

</blockquote>

I'd love to see him try to get a 70-200mm on a Leica M9 and see how he gets on. Of course, it's a huge disadvantage of the Leica M9 that it can't take those kinds of lenses.

I disagree about the DF being a niche product - it is only the silly gear-head reviews like that one linked to that make people think it should be so. But the DF - if you start to look at reviews by actual photographers, you get a different story. There is a series of reviews by professional photographers who actually know what they're talking about on this site: http://www.stevehuffphoto.com/?s=Nikon+df&searchsubmit= which are much more interesting.

March 26, 2014

So where's this Kai Wong article? He seems to be the guy behind Digitalrev. I'd like to see not only the article but also some evidence that he's absolutely brilliant at taking pictures, not just marketing them, before taking whatever he said seriously. There has been soooooooo much nonsense spoken about the DF, my presumption until proven otherwise is that he'll just be jumping on the bandwagon to get some publicity.

The reports from good professionals that I've read have been extremely positive. My experience has been extremely positive - I honestly think it is the best digital camera produces so far. It's problem has probably been that it is innovative, and reviewers are on the whole conservative, especially when they've just invested a fortune in and have an emotional attachment to a D800 or whatever. The DF really isn't hard to hold. Not for someone who has fingers and thumbs and one or two brain cells. It's not too heavy, and a good shape. It's certainly not harder to hold than a D700 (the DF is lighter which makes it easier, but slightly less rubbery, which means it can be slightly slippier until you get used to it, one tiny thing to watch out for, no biggie).

March 26, 2014

While of course anyone can want to try to put a grip on the DF if they want, I think I agree with Dan that that is missing the point of what the DF is trying to be, and why the DF is excellent at what it does. It would be a bit like looking at say a Leica M9 and trying to put a battery grip on that - it may be that someone somewhere might want to do that for some reason, and that reason may be perfectly legitimate, but it's not what the camera is about.

Personally, I hate battery grips, and can't imagine why anyone would want to put one on any camera, except perhaps to make the camera look more expensive. The weight and bulk and inconvenience of the built-in second hand grip is one of the main disadvantages of the likes of the D4 etc., and its absence is one of the DF's (and for that matter the D700, D800's etc.) biggest advantages. I accept that other people may have a different view. But the chances are a Nikon DF or a Leica M9 or a Fuji x100 are probably not going to be the right camera for that person.

March 25, 2014

- BTW I just used the DF to photograph a ballet performance in extreme low light, and was surprised that the AF was a lot more effective than on the D700. I had thought this would be a weak point on the DF. No doubt it's not as sensitive as the D4, but it was focussing crisply and quickly where my D700 would be hunting and struggling.

Generally, delighted with the camera, can barely suppress my exceitement (as you can probably tell!)

March 25, 2014

I found the handling of the DF superb so far. It's a huge improvement on my D700, this camera is really a game changer and the best thing Nikon (or I guess anyone else) have done so far. Of course there are a few little improvements that can be made here and there, but it's a huge step forward.

The small grip isn't a problem - certainly with prime lenses, it just requires holding the camera in a slightly different way, one's fingers soon adjust. Because the camera's lighter than a D700, it's much easier to hold over long periods. The much better interface on the DF also means it's easier on the fingers to use (and all round a faster camera than the D700, with just the odd qualification). And waaay easier to use than my old D2x.

My wife was trying to decide between the DF and a D800, but having used the DF for a bit, we just totally fell in love with the camera so we just ordered a second one. Looking again at the D800 this afternoon, it was the right decision. Looking forward to the second body coming so we don't have to compete for this one.

December 14, 2013

I think this thread has become so detached from actual photography and the way that cameras work and are used in practise that it has become positively misleading and confusing to any poor soul who is trying to read this thread in the hope of actually understanding the attractions of this camera (and this looks like it's going to be a cracking camera). Rather than trying and failing to understand a camera in theory, it would be better just to wait until it is available, then go out and use the camera, and report back on what worked and what didn't.

December 12, 2013

Andew, I wouldn't take too literally the Nikon marketing stuff about slowing down. It doesn't mean that the camera is slower to use. It can take pictures at 5.5 times a second, faster than my D700, and it has sophisticated autofocus etc. I think Nikon's marketing point is rather that it is a camera that encourages you to think, to take control. By having a clear interface.

Another aspect to this, the problem with the old interface of the D1x line, is that apertures and shutter speeds are presented to you as a string of numbers on a LCD. That's just about OK if you're used to interpreting those numbers and know your f-stops and shutter speeds backwards, and have used the camera for months or years, but it's not a good visual representation of what's happening.You're faced with a "60f2" in the viewfinder, and you have to try to work out what that means. If you're a student, then it's easy to get confused. You probably just go ahead and take the picture and rely on the camera to know what it's doing.

This is where dials have an enormous advantage - you can physically see that the "60" is on the physical lump of the camera that you associate with shutter speed (and always is associated with shutter speed on almost every camera you use), and that it is between the end stops of 8000th in one direction, down to "1" and "B" or whatever in the other direction. it gives you a physical sense of where you are, and a feeling as to whether you are in the middle of the range or at one extreme. You can put one type of camera down and pick another one up, like a medium format film camera, and carry on working in the same way. Which lets you concentrate on the photography rather than trying to remember how the dials on this one have been reprogrammed differently.

So, it encourages you to be aware of what you are doing, to understand it, and to take control of it. I think this is the kind of thing that Nikon have in mind by slowing down - not that the camera is actually slower to use. It ought to be the opposite unless Nikon have really seriously mucked it up - which they won't have - it ought to be faster to use because easier and more intuitive to control.

December 11, 2013

Andrew, I hope I haven't offended you. My comments really are not aimed at you at all (you have been one of the sanest voices on this thread).

I'm just trying to introduce some sense of perspective.

The 1/3 stop issue is a purely theoretical one, really nothing to do with real world photography. Most cameras have worked like this for a long time. In the real world, the way the DF will almost certainly work (because it's the way hundreds of other cameras work) is like this:

The 1/3 shutter speed question comes up in Aperture or Manual modes. In Aperture mode, you set the aperture - you can set it in between full stops, wherever you like. The camera will set the shutter speed, in a suitably small increment, usually 1/3 stops.

In manual mode: you may if you like start by setting the aperture. You then set the most appropriate whole stop shutter speed. If the recommended shutter speed is in between two stops, you give a tweak to the aperture to compensate and get the perfect exposure. If you're already at maximum aperture, then you may have to tweak down very slightly, say from f1.4 to f1.6. This makes little real-world difference to your depth of field. Or you can overexpose by a third of a stop. Again, no real world difference.

It sounds like the DF may have the ability to fine tune the shutter speed instead of the aperture. If so, then that's dandy. Puts it one up on most other cameras. But it's really a theoretical difference - in practise, it really doesn't matter.

While it's interesting to get to the bottom of the finest detail of how the camera's interface works in a technical discussion, that's fine - but to start to judge a camera on something irrelevant like this is just bizarre and has nothing to do with actual photography and the camera's use in the real world.

December 11, 2013

I really don't think it's because we're amateurs and don't worry our pretty heads about how we use a camera

</blockquote>

Everyone is entitled to an opinion, and some amateurs know an awful lot (and quite often professionals can be astonishingly ignorant). At the same time, they are relatively few, and it would be odd if people who use a camera occasionally at a weekend knew as much about it as people who are professionals using the tool day in day out. The former can learn a lot from the latter (and often the latter can learn something from the former, but that's less common).

I worked as a long time as a lawyer, and believe me, if you read the opinions being spouted on legal issues on amateur forums, it makes your eyes water. Photography is not so different, except that everyone likes to think they can do it, whether or not they can. I'm not getting at you (I have no idea about the depth of your knowledge), I'm just pointing out that there is a huge range of experience, and one of the issues as a professional is always meeting people who think they know a lot about something where they don't know so much.

I was recently being lectured by an experienced amateur photographer who was trying to convince me that bounce flash took time to bounce and therefore you need to set a longer shutter speed to allow time for the flash to hit the ceiling and reach the subject...

I smiled and nodded and moved on. That kind of thing gets tiring.

I would really be astonished if the Df's interface was adopted for any but the minority

</blockquote>

And I would be astonished if it wasn't. Neither of us have used the camera.

December 11, 2013

I think a lot of the issue is between people who earn their bread day in day out with cameras, and get to know the strengths and weaknesses of different cameras inside out, and people who use them from time to time - the latter can't be expected to have thought through the issues so much, it's not their profession. There's nothing wrong with that, it's just a fact.

This forum is really an amateur forum (few professionals would bother to wade through all the cokey opinions being expressed in here), and lots of them will be starry-eyed with the buttons and functions on the latest DSLR. So the reaction in this thread on a (not wanting to be rude, just a fact) what is essentially an amateur gear-head forum is not a surprise.

Some may be even attracted to the DF for the same reason. I think it's appeal lies in three directions - with serious professionals who really know what they want, secondly with amateurs who don't really know what they want, but think it looks cool. And thirdly seriously discerning amateurs who may not care whether it looks cool, but just want a camera with sensible controls.

The Fuji x100 really appealed to the same groups and has been very successful, and is heavily used by professionals and amateurs alike. Not because of its looks at all. Because of its superb functionality (superb in a relative sense - there's huge room for improvement, but it's miles ahead of the competition).

That's not to say that the serious professionals will only want the DF - far from it. Probably the majority will go on using D1x style layouts, and for good reasons (heavy lenses, price, compatibility with other bodies.. But most of them won't need the benefits of that style of layout explaining to them, it will be obvious. And a lot of them will buy it.

Whether the DF actually solves the ergonomics problems, we don't know yet - I certainly don't. But I do know that it's great that Nikon are thinking about it and trying to move in the direction of sorting it out.

December 11, 2013

I'm not sure that some of those wanting the Df's controls wouldn't be better acclimatizing to a current high-end camera. Equally, those who have acclimatized will need convincing that the Df's controls are good,

</blockquote>

I've spent nine years and well on my way to a million frames acclimatising, I think I'm just about acclimatised by now. Now it's time for something better.

December 11, 2013

If all the old controls were so desirable, Nikon wouldn't have replaced them back in 1996 on the F5 and continued to do so on almost every SLR they introduced in the last 17 years

</blockquote>

There are good reasons why the Nikon and Canon control layouts have been a mess for the last 17-odd years. I think it must partly be to do with economics - the fact that they have been concentrating on sensor design and the electronics and needed a fairly modular approach to allow compatibility from body to body - put as much of the controls as possible into internal electronics which can be moved from one body to the next - controlling through a standardised command dial + buttons where necessary must make this a lot easier. Digital cameras are essentially disposable - they will be used for a few years then discarded for a camera with a newer sensor etc., therefore they need to be as modular and economic as possible.

Partly it must be to do with cost - manufacturing all these knobs, weather sealing the big holes created for them etc. must cost a lot of money. Again, see above re disposability of digital cameras.

And it must also be to do with their for a long time pinning their philosophy to the trio of the big slow heavy zoom lenses.

There've been signs of a turn around in this philosophy - quite a lot of new prime lenses being brought out. And it's only natural that part of that should be addressing the awful control layouts of the D1x derivatives.

It's natural to look at the highly developed control systems that have gone before partly because they work well, and partly because they're industry standard, so that switching from one camera to the next can be done seamlessly. I can pick up pretty much any camera and use it intuitively, with barely any learning what's where - with the sole exception of Canon. I tried a 5D2 a while ago, and couldn't work out the controls at all. Finally I had to ask the owner to brief me on it, which he did. It was then that I realised that Canon were worse than Nikon in this regard. I don't blame Nikon at all - they've produced a range of superb digital cameras, and the interface, while not great, has at least been usable. But it's time to move on, and Nikon have clearly realised this.

Some people won't 'get it'. Maybe even a majority of people. And some people will have a real need for a camera optimised for long heavy zooms. So the reactions of some people in this thread are not surprising at all. But that's fine because they'll still have the D800's, D3's, D4's etc. to choose from.

For the majority of people, I think a layout like the DF's is likely to be by far the most sensible choice. Whether or not people realise that is another question. So long as it wins enough followers that Nikon carry on developing bodies in a sensible direction, that's fine.

December 10, 2013

sometimes you want to fix it at some aperture due to either lighting or depth of field reasons

</blockquote>

If you need to be absolutely sure that you've fixed your aperture at a certain setting, like f1.4, you're likely to be using Aperture priority, and the shutter will fluctuate (I presume) in 1/3 stop increments.

December 10, 2013

You do know that you can do this with any Nikon DSLR, don't you? Nice single clicks per stop.

</blockquote>

No., you can't, not on a D700 anyway. If I have my Nikon 50mm 1.4G on the D700, I can't set the aperture to adjust in 1/3 increments and the shutter speed to adjust in single stop increments. There's just a global setting of EV increments for both. Inevitably this will have to be set to 1/3 stop adjustments (or at a stretch half stop).

December 10, 2013

I'm a little bemused as to what exactly would have been lost by putting an LCD on the dial rather than engraving it, letting the dial turn through more than 360 degrees, but I imagine some users actively dislike LCDs and really wanted the fixed positions

</blockquote>

Andrew, I was just addressing any implication that the whole stops on the shutter dial might stop you somehow making fine exposure adjustments. It doesn't, and in actual practical use in photography the single stop click isn't a limitation at all, and hasn't been in the generations of cameras that have had shutter dials.

How often I would use the shutter dial versus other approaches I can't tell until after I've used the camera for a while. But one thing that is important to me is that when using the shutter dial (or equivalent) is that I can quickly count whole stops without having to actually look at the camera. Nice single clicks per stop.

I switch lenses fairly often, but there is always the chance of missing a shot or not having the right lens on at a time.

</blockquote>

Definitely - there's no perfect way that always works in 100% of circumstances. Most of it is about anticipation - about knowing what you are going to want in, say, a few seconds time. If you're reacting to what you want NOW, then you're probably too late to take the picture anyway. I was just pointing out that the main perceived advantage of zooms - the ability to change focal length quickly - is sometimes the case, but sometimes isn't.

December 10, 2013

Definitely Dan.

Sometimes people think that it's easier to change focal length quickly with zooms, but that's only true if you're changing focal length within the zoom's range eg. within 24 to 70. I will typically be changing focal length fast from, say, 20mm to 50mm to 105mm for consecutive pictures. With zooms, that would be hard to do, it would take a lot of shifting of heavy lenses. With primes, I can do take all three shots in a matter of a few seconds.

Another common misconception is that changing lenses makes you vulnerable to dust. We don't find that to be the case - most of the dust seems to come from the camera's internal mechanisms, which is hardly surprising when you consider all that grinding of metal on metal going on. After thousands of lens changes, I find very little dust on the sensor, I have to clean it once every few months and all is fine. I suspect when I open the lens box up, more dust probably falls out than falls in.

December 10, 2013

I can imagine it would get very tiring to switch between prime lenses and you might be more inclined just to hold one focal length.

</blockquote>

Not really, as mentioned earlier I'm typically changing lenses hundreds of times a day, I barely notice that I'm doing it most of the time.

I find the decisive factor to be the photographer's own behaviour

</blockquote>

There's a lot of truth in that, but very few people would choose a big heavy SLR like the D3 or D4 for street photography. I've only once seen someone trying to do it seriously and (a) he wasn't a very good photographer and (b) he annoyed a lot of people on the street as he went along. I'm not saying it can't be done, just that it's almost certainly not the best tool for the job, which is why almost none of the best street photographers (or in fact, none that I know) use one. They nearly all (actually - all of the photographers I can think of) use cameras like Leicas, X100's and so on. There's a reason for that.

Not that that's a criticism particularly of a heavy DSLR + zoom, just that it's not generally a good tool for that job. It's good at other things.

December 10, 2013

The Df's shutter-speed dial is essentially useless if you want modern 1/3-stop increments.

</blockquote>

No, the way it typically works is: in Aperture priority mode, you set the camera and the camera will set the shutter speed in, say, third stop increments. You will also be able to do exposure compensation in third stop increments (possibly less). In Manual mode typically you would set the shutter speed and aperture combination you want, then make fine adjustments to the aperture which may be a third of a stop or even finer if you want (with aperture ring) so that you can carry out very fine adjustments to exposure.

Cameras have worked this way for a loooong time.

December 10, 2013

BTW, re single card slots - at a wedding it's a question of risk management. With two of us shooting simultaneously, there is always an inherent back up in any situation i.e. a key moment won't go unrecorded no matter what. From there it's a matter of ensuring that (a) you use card capacities that require switching from time to time so that the implications of a potential loss of one card are lessened; and (b) making sure that those cards are securely stored to reduce the risk of card loss. But there is no 100% safe solution, with any camera no matter how many slots etc. it has. If the camera is delivering corrupt files in the first place, for example. The point is to identify potential risks, and minimise each one so far as humanly possible. But having two shooters is a good start.

December 10, 2013

Andrew, we're both using right eye when shooting vertically with hand below the camera, nose isn't a problem for either of us.

Agreed about the single card slot being an issue. That is probably the biggest minus. Thought the likes of the D700 also has single card slot.

but were you actually dreaming of something with manual controls?

</blockquote>

Yes, good manual controls are essential, but also with an effective aperture priority mode with nice knobs for aperture and exposure compensation, and also with AF.

I wonder how many people were actually dreaming of everything that the Df is, rather than just part of it.

</blockquote>

I'm still looking at it on paper/in reviews. Until I try it, can't be sure.

December 10, 2013

I think that's right Andrew - the DF seems to be aimed at a certain, more lightweight, probably mainly prime lens, way of working. Trying to judge it by a different approach is a bit misguided I think - it's fine as an exercise to see if you can use it successfully with a heavy zoom lens approach, but it's rather missing the point of the camera I think.

I wouldn't see the DF as a response to X-Pro1 and M series however. These rangefinders are quite different. It's really intended to fill a different hole in the market - SLR's for prime lens users, which is a long way from the rangefinder market. It's hard to compare it to other cameras around at the moment, because it seems to be quite unique in the market

I've been dreaming daily of a camera like this for quite a long time even though I thought it unlikely to come along - I've felt a need for a reasonably heavy duty (but not heavy) SLR, with good controls that is nimble and can be used for shooting thousands of frames at a go, with high ISO performance, for use at weddings and such like. I'm shooting around 30 weddings a year and I need a workhorse. The D700 etc. is a fantastic camera for that kind of thing - but it has great shortcomings, especially in its interface, and on paper at least the DF addresses those, Nikon could easily have been reading my mind about what I needed. An X-Pro1 or a Leica couldn't fill that gap for a host of reasons.

Whether or not it lives up to the promise or not, I can't confirm until I've worked with one. But the concept looks great.

Re the holding the camera vertically - I hadn't thought of the nose getting in the way. I've never noticed that as an issue, but then my nose isn't particularly big(!) I just asked my wife, as she has rather a striking conk (I'm in trouble now) and she doesn't find it a problem either, she's never noticed or thought about it until I asked her just now, and she holds the camera with her hand at the bottom. So I think that it's not really in practise an issue. Perhaps one just inclines one's face slightly to the left without even noticing so the nose is out of the way, it's not really an issue.

December 10, 2013

Ikka, I think we are again coming back to the convenience of a vertical grip with lenses like the 70-200mm. There seems to be a theme here - most of the arguments around the use of bulky current DSLR layouts seem to centre on convenience with longer zoom lenses, especially the 70-200. Which I think again emphasises that the design philosophy is based around trio of heavy zooms - 14-24, 24-70, 70-200. If you don't like those lenses (and I for one don't), then the rational with the vertical grip and current typical DSLR control layout starts to fall apart, and you start to look at a much lighter and more nimble set up.

I don't find cameras with a vertical grip at all inconspicuous for street photography. But perhaps the clue to the divergence is in what you say here:

Actually I find that the vertical grip makes a vertical shooter less conspicuous on the streets than holding the right hand high up above the camera

</blockquote>

We all do things differently and there's no right way of course, but I can't imagine why you would want to hold the rotate a camera anticlockwise to take the picture with your shutter release hand above the camera. Yes it would look conspicuous and awkward, but it would also feel so. The more natural position (I think) is to rotate the camera clockwise to have your right hand under the camera with your elbow tucked into your side. It's not only a much more stable position, but very inconspicuous and more comfortable. Personally I find that more comfortable than having to switch between vertical and horizontal grip every time you rotate the camera. But maybe I'm switching between the two formats much faster than someone who has heavy zoom lenses on the camera, I can imagine it would get very tiring with a heavy camera and heavy lens and you might be more inclined just to hold one position.

It's not only on the street - it's taking pictures at events and weddings, and generally pretty much any photography where you're taking pictures of human beings that the inconspicuousness matters.

December 9, 2013

Is it possible that your machine is unluckily a dud?

</blockquote>

It's possible. The thing is to try it. Take an image and try to get it to display on different laptops and compare them. Really you need to find ones with Photoshop installed side by side and apply colour shifts of varying degrees and see which screens react to the colour shifts. So the ideal is to find a friend photographer who has a Retina and a non-Retina both with Photoshop, where you can compare the same image with applying the same shifts of Magenta, Cyan, Green, etc. etc.) side-by-side.

Or that the rMBP's representing a colour shift less than other laptops is a problem with the other laptops, not the rMBP?

</blockquote>

Where colour shifts are visible on every other monitor, and show up also in prints, but aren't evident on the Retina's screen, it becomes a problem.

You shouldn't take what I say as definitely damning the Retina's screen, I'm just one person on the internet - but I would be very cautious about all the hyperbole surrounding it when it came out.

I also mentioned the issues to one or two friends/acquaintances, and they told me that they'd heard other people reporting the same thing. I haven't researched it through forums etc. and don't know where they'd heard it, and so I don't know for certain if it's true - maybe I'm the only one seeing the issue and it's just a dud screen. But I would check it out before buying one. Actually, if I couldn't buy the 17" Macbook any more (and of course, it's been discontinued) then I might well buy a Retina even with the experience we have had (the Retina we have is my wife's one), because it's a cool machine. But I would do it expecting to have to do colour work using an external monitor.

Sign In

Profiles

Forums

Blogs

Events

Downloads

Gallery

Store

Posts posted by simon_crofts