My review: Fuji X-T1 vs the Nikon Df

Started 3 months ago | Discussions thread
shigzeo ?
Senior MemberPosts: 1,262Gear list
Like?
Re: Meaningful comparison: Fuji X-T1 vs the Nikon Df
In reply to sgoldswo, 3 months ago

sgoldswo wrote:

shigzeo ? wrote:

sgoldswo wrote:

shigzeo ? wrote:

sgoldswo wrote:

shigzeo ? wrote:

sgoldswo wrote:

shigzeo ? wrote:

Lens-wise that is as close as it gets, though the Nikon 50/1,8 effectively is faster than the 35/1,4 on native sensors.

But that Nikon Df is massive isn't it? I really wish they would work on making a good, classic-sized dSLR.

Massive!? No. I own a FM3A. Aside from a small difference in thickness (which you can put down to the screen) it's actually not that different in size from the Df. I think the FM3A is about 100g lighter. It weights the same as my Leica M.

The Df is a very small and light DSLR. I think it's a bit odd when it is suggested it isn't. Here it is next to my D800E, you can really see how much smaller the Df is in this picture:

I have used both cameras back to back a CP+2014. The Df is at least twice the volume of the FE, which is roughly the same size as the FM3A. I don't have images of the two next to each other, but Three Guys does.

The Df is somewhat small next to the D800, but the D800 is nearly 3x the volume of the FM3A.

Sorry, I just don't agree. The comparison posted doesn't ring true to me at all in its textual description of the difference. The Df is marginally larger (1/4 to 1/3 in volume, less in overall dimensions), that's all. I've shot both side by side for months. The Df is a small camera. I carry it in the same bags I used for my now sold X-Pro1

1/3 to 1/4 on every edge adds up to over 2x the volume. The Df is large compared to traditional SLR cameras. It is a 'small' full frame digital dSLR, but only because the only players in the game make cameras that are large compared to film SLRs.

The Df is a fine camera, I agree with that. But it isn't 'small' unless compared to today's dSLR cameras.

No, it's larger compared to the smallest SLRs one could get back in the day such as the FE/FM/OM Models. Since those were dense for their size and were still thick at the mirrorbox, there's actually little practical difference in size and weight. If I compare the Df to my F6 the F6 is slightly thinner, but otherwise bigger. The F5 was bigger again than the F6.

I'm just left scratching my head at the idea that the Df is a big camera. It is a big camera vs a sony RX100. It's not that different to either an xt1 or an A7. It certainly isn't that different in size to an xpro1.

Starting with the F4, Nikon made its SLRs huge. The Df isn't a sports camera, nor is it a military camera. Even the F2 and F3 were much smaller than the F6 and F4 and F5. The Df, by mimicking an older Nikon SLR at first glance, is at an unfair advantage because none of them were as large as it.
Modern Nikon SLRs from the F4 on were massive, but they were the professional, all-automatic, made to be massive professional cameras in par with today's D3/4. The consumer models, which the Df mimics, are all much smaller. Some of them were the size of small rangefinder cameras. Unless you are out to compare the Df with professional sports cameras of their day, the Df - which isn't a professional sports cameras - is large.

It has a few mm extra height wise vs your small SLRs to accommodate a 100% VF, equally it has a few mm extra thickness to accommodate the LCD screen and sensor, so no, it isn't large.

I think we have to put this one down to subjective differences in perception I'm afraid. Aside from the VF hump, the Df is the same size as a Leica M240.

Please don't get me wrong. I'm not hating the Df. But I've done the measurements, compared side by side, and there are dozens of millimetres between the two. The top plate is the same size as the old FM3A or Leica, but the camera extends at least 4mm in every direction from that (except to the side). The shoulder height of the FM series is lower than the Leica and the Leica is around 3cm shorter than the Df's hump. The Df's shoulder height is the closest thing to the M series, but even so, it is much taller.

Some of this is illustrated at snapsport. Obviously, snapsport isn't a great resource, but it is 'good enough' in this instance.

The modern Leica M is overall larger than a typical high-end non-sports SLR camera. Only the humps on those cameras rise above the Leica's top. Volumetrically, the M240 and an FE/FM would be roughly equivalent. The Df is roughly twice the volume of either camera. It may not seem that way to you, but everything measured (and Nikon took pains to hide it), the Df is a large camera. It is, however, the smallest full frame Nikon digital camera, a step in the right direction. I hope they can go all the way.

 shigzeo ?'s gear list:shigzeo ?'s gear list
Nikon D200 Fujifilm X-Pro1 Nikon D800 Sony Alpha 7R Fujifilm X-T1 +6 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Post (hide subjects)Posted by
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum PPrevious NNext WNext unread UUpvote SSubscribe RReply QQuote BBookmark post MMy threads
Color scheme? Blue / Yellow