The worst thing about the DF is the Disappointment

Started 9 months ago | Discussions thread
marike6
Senior MemberPosts: 5,070Gear list
Like?
Re: Without using it, who knows how close or not close Nikon came
In reply to David314, 9 months ago

David314 wrote:

A design intended to combine elements that appeal modern AF Nikon shooters longing for the superb low-light performance of the D4 sensor at a fraction of the D4 cost. And one also intended to appeal to users who prefer a slower, more methodical, traditional approach to photography and that also offers full compatability with pretty much all F-mount lenses ever made.

you can shoot slow and methodically with any of the nikon dslrs

astonishing enough, pre ai lenses mount quite nicely to the d5300 all the way bsck to the d40. In fact the d40 would mount practically any f mount lens

You can mount any f lens on a D5300, no pre-AI Nikkor will meter with it at all.

You can if you want look at all the limitations of using non-CPU lenses on the D600 for example.

http://imaging.nikon.com/lineup/dslr/d600/compatibility02.htm

Early user reports by Nikon experts like Bjorn Rorslett are that the viewfinder is significantly easier for manually focussing than the D800.

simply no better than a d800

You are making an assumption.  First of all I don't have much problem accurately focussing my AI lenses on my D800, but if Rorslett reports that the viewfinder is improved for MF (I've been reading him for years and think he's quite knowledgeable) I'm going to have to take his word for it.

I'm not sure why users here who haven't seen or shot with the Df are writing it off as a poor implementation, but I suspect if the price had been an impossibly low $2000, those users would have been far less in number.

i suspect outside of a vocal minority on this website, there will be few that want to spend $2750 for a camera, let alone $3000 for the d800 and then the Df, and for gosh sake, have you seen the price in Europe?

no at $1750 this would have sold more as it would have at $3500 if they would added more features

of course we can disagree

$1750 if you want Nikon to actually lose money on the Df.  I don't.  A Nikon that is not doing well financially is not good for anyone.

as built it is a camera that doesn't really officer any compelling features beyond the d800 and d600, and the price is a bit much just to get what is essentially a d600 with the d4 sensor

Compelling features?

  • It offers the D4 sensor with its large 7.3μm pixel pitch
  • smaller, more manageable files more appropriate for high volume shooters much like the D700.

why not buy a d3 or d3s, those would be even better!

I'd love a D3s, but last time I checked it was discontinued and used ones are much more expensive than $2700.

  • Better build quality and less generic, more unique design

better than what? It appears to be much like a d600

No.  The D600 only has magnesium alloy top plate and rear.  The only part on the Df that aren't magnesium alloy are the front plate near the DOF preview.

I rather like the D600 it looks and feels solid.  It does not appear as solid and well made as the Df, but I haven't held the Df.  Of course the Df is Made in Japan, and AFAIK, the D600 is not.

I'm not arguing that in the UK and in Europe the Df isn't priced high.  But so are all the other Nikon cameras relative to US prices.  All Nikons and Canons have different pricing scheme per region.  In the US, to price the Df between the D610 and D800 make perfect sense to me.  YMMV.

 marike6's gear list:marike6's gear list
Nikon Coolpix P330 Panasonic Lumix DMC-GH2 Nikon D800 Fujifilm X-E1 Panasonic Lumix G 20mm F1.7 ASPH +7 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Post (hide subjects)Posted by
????New
(unknown member)
(unknown member)
(unknown member)
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum PPrevious NNext WNext unread UUpvote SSubscribe RReply QQuote BBookmark post MMy threads
Color scheme? Blue / Yellow