Photoman: Love that these companies still use weasel bytes. 1MB=1,000,000 bytes. Shold be 1,024,000 for 1MB.
As per SI Standard 1MB (Megabyte) = 1'000'000 B and 1G (GigaByte) = 1'000'000'000 B. As per ICE Standard 1 MiB (MebiByte) = 1024^2 B '048'576 B and 1 GiB (GibiByte) = 1024^3 B = 1'073'741'824. Nothing is wrong here.
ahaack: Handling my DF feels just perfect. Everything goes where it should be.It is pretty compact. Here Nikon's long experience shows. The problems arise when it comes delivering results.
>>High quality JPEG images with pleasant color at default settings?
Nikon never had a good jpeg engine. And I can confirm what the review samples show: Horrible JPEGS with noise from ISO 3200 onwards.
My Fuji X.E1 and now X-E2 make much more pleasant JPEGS and is up to ISO 6400 practically noise free. Auto ISO works here pretty well.
With RAW processing everything will be likely much better.
An a low light sensor with a autofocus system that only works in bright sunlight makes no sense at all. At the Christmas market the Df was hunting focus all the time while my X-E2 can focus pretty well in the dark.
While manual controls often help a lot the controls Nikon screwed on top are useless gimmicks. E.g. setting the shutter dial does not turn on S-mode.
Unfortunately Thom Hogan views are limited to Nikon gear.A monitor can bright light source and he also says " Yes, if I try I can find things in the office where the camera struggles to find focus".That are exactly the things where my X-E2 can focus (w/o focus light) and the Df keeps hunting focus and never locks.Unfortunately these are pretty realistic scenarios.
He also states: "Yet the feature set feels more like the camera ought to be priced closer to the D600."With that I go along. But what for the price the camera delivers is not acceptable.
Ken Sky: Caveat:I'm not a Nikon user but Ive admired most of their products. It's hard to see where Nikon is going with this product. For the same price (approx.) you can get a state of the art sensor in a Sony A7r with a great prime Zeiss lens (either 35 or 55mm). I know it's like comparing apples and oranges. But this is 2013/14. It wasn't so long ago this very site was criticizing any new DSLR that didn't have video whether we wanted it or not. I could get an used film Nikon on eBay if I wanted to go retro for a lot less - or take the 610 and stay up to date. This appears to be price gouging for nostalgia's sake. What's worse, it doesn't show what direction Nikon is going. The only good thing is Nikon has not dropped any of the pre-existing choices and are still presenting their excellent lenses.
The lowlight AF of the Df is in the class of a 200$ camera. IF that is good you are set.
DaytonR: Interesting , its amazing how this camera is said to have been 4 years in the making yet its sensor is borrowed from the D4 and the autofocus is borrowed from the D610 ! I wonder which bits took 4 years to get right ? :)
The locking pins probably took 4 years to design.
Handling my DF feels just perfect. Everything goes where it should be.It is pretty compact. Here Nikon's long experience shows. The problems arise when it comes delivering results.
King Penguin: Ok it sure is a cute and attractive camera with great form and controls............but why would you purchase this when for the same(ish) money you can have a camera with a sensor FOUR, yes that's right, FOUR times the area, ie, a Nikon D600.
Yes, you are Wrong! The sensor of your D600 is TWICE as big as 4/3 not FOUR times. And you have a package with (e.g. With my 20mm Panasonic lens ) that slips in a coat pocket an can be carried every where without much. And it has excellence image quality and better color processing Nikon. There is no point in a good camera if you do not carry it around. For a pro it the size does not matter with all the other gear he carries. For a pro performance is all.
ChrisPee: Can somebody tell me where to find that (assumed) firmware update?
You need downlod the updater. Start the updater and teh you can select and follow the upgrade path 1.4 and 1.5.I
gfa5775: Maybe you should have specified a maximum F number. I wouldn't consider F8 or F10 as "wide", or are you leaving it up to the voters?
Actually the background-blur effect does much more depend on the (close) distant to the camera then on the aperture. And the proper term for what you want archive is SELECTIVE FOCUS. This way it turned out to be a junk photo contest where people load up there rubbish pictures that are totally out of focus. So you should have better thought about the description.