Getty intends to share the ad revenue with those whose images get embedded. They have a similar program for commercial users called Connect. Initially with the Connect program, Getty rounded down figures while placing the threshold for renumeration at 1 cent, which required thousands of views to achieve. Moreover they made the threshold specific to an image not collective for all images of a photgrapher. It doesn't take a genius to fgure out what the outcome was. Getty was always collecting revenue on the collective use of all images across their library while not being obligated to pay the indiovidual photgraphers due to the rounding down, per image and threshold requirements. The scheme was eventually amended to be more fair to the photgrapher; however even those with sizeable portfolios are only reporting revenue in the pennies per month range from Connect.
I guess 500px thinks it can rival Getty.
Haha, they give the Df the Expeed 3 then turn around and offer the Expeed 4 in this consumer package.
The old version was quite excellent... how good will this thing be?
I am a wannabe professional, not a wannabe enthusiast retro shooter. Would someone please put the lovely sensor in a camera that supports all its capabilities?
Saffron_Blaze: Did I understand correctly that the poor focusing in low light effectively defeats the value of the impressive low light capability of the sensor?
Ok, enlighten me. I wasn't being smug. I picked that up reading the pro/con list
Did I understand correctly that the poor focusing in low light effectively defeats the value of the impressive low light capability of the sensor?
I wonder what the mark-up on the Df is compared to the D610 and the D800? They'll probably make more selling one Df than two D800s.
deltaskyking: Anybody else think it's a mistake that Nikon didn't include video on this camera? The camera model "Df" means "Digital fusion" meaning combining the old style of Nikon's camera body with the new capability of digital cameras. Personally, I like the look. However, after being bitten by the oil spotting the sensor problem on my Nikon D600 and Nikon's slow reluctance to even address that issue, I'm going to spend my money elsewhere - maybe a new Sony A-7.
...or people that understand marketing. That said, I am fairly confident I know something about DSLRs and marketing and I am not pleased with the price, nor some of the features both present and absent from the Df. If Nikon can sell the D800 for less than this Df throughout much of Europe that is fair indication it is over priced.
Saffron_Blaze: I would love to have a reasonably priced prosumer camera with the D4 sensor in it. However, I was thinking more like D700 not D610. The D700 was as close to being professional grade as the D610 is to being consumer grade.
"DXO sensor scoring is nearly useless"
DPR likely disagrees with you.
The only real mistake Nikon made with this camera is the price. It bought them much negativity.
You are one of the few that think the D800 was a replacement for the D700.
I would love to have a reasonably priced prosumer camera with the D4 sensor in it. However, I was thinking more like D700 not D610. The D700 was as close to being professional grade as the D610 is to being consumer grade.
NR is reporting that sales of the Df are very underwhelming and is attributing this to price.
Paying $3000 for a camera because it looks good seems rather silly.
$2000 gets me a D610.$3000 gets me a D800 or a Df.The Df is a D610 with a D4 sensor.Is the D4 sensor worth the extra $1000 (minus video, and flash)?Is the D4 sensor really better than the D800's?
Craig from Nevada: Retro is soooo 2012
There are 2000 comments because many people are justifiably disappointed at the price and a few apologists are desperately trying to justify selling a retro D600 for $3000.
This "pure photography" marketing hype is overdone. The is a DIGITAL SLR with a pretty dress on, and your wife will not appreciate how much money you have spent on getting access to it.
marike6: I get some UK users complaining about price, but people here in the US and elsewhere forget that the D800 debuted at $2995, less than $500 below the nearest competitor, the Canon 5D Mk III. And the D600 was the first FF DSLR offered below the $2000 threshold.
It's very strange indeed to read DPR reviewers and USA commenters below complain about the pricing of the Df considering it is priced smack between the D600 and the D800, two groundbreaking FF DSLRs in terms of value, bodies that Nikon was universally applauded for pricing so competitively.
So if we agree that the D600 and D800 were extremely competitively priced at launch, how do we possibly conclude that the Df has an "eye watering" high price when it's priced between the D600 and D800?
Because the Df is both a little more and somewhat less than a D600?
Jack Simpson: Got the product code, MSRP and MAP :) Now, just waiting for the stores "how much"
Danel: It would be a good deal at half the price.
The Df is by no means a worthy successor to the D700. When the D700 was released it was small package of all the best that was available for pros. Yes, the D700 had a pro like price. The Df is a small package of all that is available from consumers grade FX and Dx cameras yet is has a pro like price.