Matthewson: Would someone please tell Mr. Imano that sensor size is not just about image quality, or the perception of quality - it's about image control. It has less to do with megapixels, and more to do with the ability to control depth of field.
Depends what you want out of the camera. If you're someone who raves about bokeh and wants DOF as shallow as you want, then go FF and use fast primes. If you're someone who's looking for great depth of field, crisp detail from foreground to distance, then small sensors are fine. The only problem with small sensors then is too much noise from cramming too many pixels onto the sensor, and the associated problem of trying to hid it with over-done noise reduction. A 6mp m4/3 sensor could be a killer.
babalu: ...in five to ten years any camera with a mirror box will be as antiquated as film cameras are today .
DSLRs, like SLRs, are for people who take photographs, rather than gear junkies...
NCB: Sony deserves credit for producing an innovative camera which is capable, under the right circumstances, of producing excellent pics, and all in a light and compact body, for a full frame camera. BUT GOLD? Seems to me DPR has shrunk the market this camera is supposedly aimed at to the point it can consider that award. Fact is, it has quite a lot of minuses, ones which rivals from Canon and Nikon don't possess. It should be judged against the market those cameras are aimed it. It's a good first attempt from Sony, but GOLD implies that it's outstanding in its market, which, unless you shrink the market as I indicated, it patently isn't.
Err... how many Canon and Nikon pro users have switched then?
I can see quite a few committed FF users, pro or otherwise, adding this to their kit as it gives something different, weight and size in particular, and the very limited range of (extremely good) lenses may not matter too much if you're thinking of particular uses. Pro users ditching their whole main Nikon or Canon gear in favour of this is another matter entirely, and I just don't see it happening.
Sony deserves credit for producing an innovative camera which is capable, under the right circumstances, of producing excellent pics, and all in a light and compact body, for a full frame camera. BUT GOLD? Seems to me DPR has shrunk the market this camera is supposedly aimed at to the point it can consider that award. Fact is, it has quite a lot of minuses, ones which rivals from Canon and Nikon don't possess. It should be judged against the market those cameras are aimed it. It's a good first attempt from Sony, but GOLD implies that it's outstanding in its market, which, unless you shrink the market as I indicated, it patently isn't.
Canon have made the same mistake as Nikon, dropping the viewfinder, as Nikon did in the P7700 before bringing it back as as EVF in the P7800. Too much of the potential market for this sort of camera wants a viewfinder of some sort; the optical type was never that bad that omitting it was a good thing, and while the EVF in the P7800 isn't great, compared to other EVFs now appearing, it's better than nothing.
Unless Canon and Nikon start putting quality EVFs in this sort of camera, they might as well drop them; there are too many attractive alternatives around in the quality-but-not-too-large market. The sensor-size of the G1 X II isn't enough on its own to make a difference.
digiart: Nikon should be taking notes... This seems to be a gem of a camera. The right mix of analog and digital. Retro style camera done right.
Not sure what Nikon has to take note of... except that it's nice to see someone else following your lead!
The X-T1 and Df are remarkably similar in overall concept and execution. They have similar dials (except there's no mode dial on the X-T1), similar grips, and the same sort of appeal. The obvious difference is EVF versus OVF, and there it's a matter of personal taste.
Underneath, there are sharper differences to consider. The X-T1 only offers an APS-C sensor, and one not without the odd problem (mushy greens); the FF Df1 sensor is the superb D4 one. Currently the X series offers a limited range of rather pricey lenses, albeit of high quality; the Nikon range of lenses is huge, also of high quality, and the typical Df buyer may already have the ones he/she needs. Then there's the size/weight/price issues to consider.
None of these things means one camera is better than the other. It's nice to have the choice between two remarkable designs. Buy the one which suits you, and enjoy.
itchhh: This is what the Nikon DF should have been . . . . IMO.
itchhh - fine. This looks to be a good camera and if the details like EVF tick more boxes than the Df so be it. But the Df does offer some things which will appeal to others, like FF sensor, a sensor with huge pedigree, an OVF, and a huge range of quality lenses, many of which are very reasonably priced (if you haven't already got the Nikkor lenses you need).I think both the X-T1 (if it lives up to its promise) and the Df are fine cameras. The more genuine choice the better.
Looks to be a good camera. But ... I looked seriously at the X series and the one thing which put me off was a reputed tendency to mushy greens, which was born out in example pics I've seen (I'm interested in landscape photography, so things like good grass matter). Apart from that, a good addition to a good series.
Notice the top plate has the same controls as the Nikon Df, barring a mode dial, and it has a similar grip and position of the shutter button. I wonder if anybody will be screaming "retro - ugh!". I doubt it. Now why would that be?
The price with kit lens is half that of the Df, which is all to the good. However, the Df is full frame, has the wonderful D4 chip, and any number of usable lenses, some very good value for money. So maybe the relative pricing is about right.
NCB: Of course the D600 and 6D are peer to the A7. They all use FF sensors, they are all essentially exchangeable lens camera, they all have a typical range of features, and they compete with each other. The fact that the A7 uses an EVF is a technical detail. It's an important detail, because some people will think that's good and some people will think it isn't; for a lot of people, though, it's not a deal breaker. Strikes me this is an honest, informed review. Whether it puts people off the camera or not depends totally on the priorities of each individual, as always. Bottom line is, the A7 breaks new ground, for which it should be applauded, and has a number of weak points. Sony can and should fix some of them (A8?). Some of them are inherent in the concept, which is why Nikon and Canon will remain stiff competition.
Everlast66 - The D4 and 1D don't compete with the D600 and 6D; different markets. The D600 and and 6D do compete with the A7; same market. The Df doesn't compete with any of the above; unique market. Likewise Leica; unique market.
Of course the D600 and 6D are peer to the A7. They all use FF sensors, they are all essentially exchangeable lens camera, they all have a typical range of features, and they compete with each other. The fact that the A7 uses an EVF is a technical detail. It's an important detail, because some people will think that's good and some people will think it isn't; for a lot of people, though, it's not a deal breaker. Strikes me this is an honest, informed review. Whether it puts people off the camera or not depends totally on the priorities of each individual, as always. Bottom line is, the A7 breaks new ground, for which it should be applauded, and has a number of weak points. Sony can and should fix some of them (A8?). Some of them are inherent in the concept, which is why Nikon and Canon will remain stiff competition.
No, it's not OK. The whole point about journalistic photography is that you photograph what was there, and if you change the content you step over the boundary. Correcting technical flaws in the pic is one thing; altering the content is totally different.
retro76: The one thing I cannot figure out: Reviewers absolutely love Fuji cameras, but consumers do not - why is that ?
Fuji is probably high on most serious shooters' lists. But doesn't necessarily make it to the top.
Dodgy cameras??? Simple, we don't KNOW. Wait until they're available and tested before coming to a conclusion. At least they're not aiming at run of the mill stuff, with things like the Astro Zoom. If they can't offer something at least as good as the competition they'll be no more than a very minor blip on the market. If they do produce something good it'll help shake up the market a bit, to everyone's advantage. Remember when Panasonic started their Lumix line a lot of people laughed at the idea of them making cameras; in fact it drove the market forwards. With this new Kodak we don't know, but don't write them off just yet.
Rage Joe: "Locking exposure comp dial is inconvenient"...
Sony α7/α7R Experience:
... "and the EV compensation dial turns accidentally in a bag, and even when I'm just hand-holding the camera - I have to check it every time I want to take a picture." - by Shawn Barnett
The EV dial is fine; in spite of the lock I can turn it one handed. The one control I've found you have to watch is the one without a lock on it, the drive control. Because the on/off switch doesn't have a ridge on the side (so its harder to turn on accidentally), I find I need two fingers to operate it. One of those fingers can catch on the drive control.No big problem. If you find you start taking multiple shots it's because you've knocked it into continuous.
km25: The biggest point seems to be AF. Maybe firmware may solve this. This almost sounds like Fuji X-Pro 1 when it was reviewed. So combo of high price and AF. Well the X-Pro 1 has come down in price and had a lot of firmware upgrades. The other stuff, let's face it is pretty much.. minor. The bottom line is, what do the images look like. Some people have said DP has beeen unfair to Nikon, but the D600/610 has a very high score. I will also see how they review the Sony A7/A7R. Some are calling the dream camera. But thr mirror less users love using RF lens, Sony can not use shorter then 35mm RF lens and the A7 should focus better the A7R, some say that the A7R wins. That there are only two lens ready for it and with the history of slow Sony roll out?? But no matter what Sony does, any fast, very wide and/or long lens is going to drawf the A7s into an unbalanced mess. Will DP give 'em 90 and gold rating, we will see how this different camera does. Just say 36MP you get gold!
I've tried the Df in next to total darkness, and sure enough it doesn't focus. But that's an extreme case. Overall the autofocus is fast and spot on, including in some pretty dim lighting. That's an unscientific way of putting it, but for me at least autofocus isn't an issue, at all.
I do get the impression that this review was rushed. Normally DPR publishes real-world pics, followed by the "official" review pics; this time we have just got the first lot. Did DPR want it out of the way for Christmas? After all, they couldn't have had the camera for long.
JimSavill: I was doing a project tonight testing the low light performance of my Fuji X1 vs a Nikon Df. It was raining hard so I took my old long grey mac and black woolly balaclava. My favourite place for night shooting is under the streetlamp by the hospital and round the corner by the nurses home.
Some of the girls have pet names for me. I can't hear too well under the balaclava but they shout my nickname in greeting from their windows.
I can report that over 20mins the Nikon far outperformed the Fuji. The whole colour balance and especially the flesh tones were excellent under really tricky light and through blinds and curtains.
I'd post some samples but unfortunately the camera and card were seized for evidence when I was arrested.
JimSavill - that's rough. Sounds like the Df would have been just perfect for some low light jailhouse shots.
zidliyka: The black version is quite handsome. I had always liked the F3HP type sturdy knobs. Now there is plenty of them on one! Contax elegance with Nikon dependability and accuracy is an asset I think.
Good point about Contax, never thought of that. Yep, if Contax was designing this sort of camera, this is the sort of thing they'd come up with.
HowaboutRAW: new boyz:
Ah yes, and Canikon should be deeply concerned about the optical quality of lenses from various Korean manufacturers.
The example you chose begins to prove my point, and for the Samsung NX system, the optically good lenses are already better to extraordinarily better than what Canikon can do.
Good Fuji level optical performance would be a big improvement for Canikon lenses; Canikon doesn’t need to aim a lot higher. They can leave that to Leica, Olympus, Zeiss and Samsung.
It's pretty clear (ha) that the better lens makers have a different understanding of light and its interaction with basic optics than Nikon or Canon.
Nikon makes some outstanding lenses. And some excellent ones for the money. Take the 16-85 zoom for DX, or 70-300 for DX/FX. Great image quality, well made, relatively compact and light for what they are, and at reasonable prices. There may be better options for absolute image quality (including some Nikon ones), but these are cracking lenses at very good prices.
reinish: I am allways dreaming of Nikon FM2 to be reborn in digital age, and I tought that dreams has come true ..... but this DF is such a dissapointment, becouse of its size, it`s HUUUUGE, it looks like clasical film Nikon fed by force with leftowers from Tour de France.
Common Nikon , go and by Panasonic GM1 , dismantle it and learn how to make things compact
there they bouth are side by side
It's not HUGE. It's about the minimum you'd expect for a robust digital FF camera with a class optical viewfinder. And it handles like a dream. It's slightly larger and heavier larger than my old D80 but actually it's nicer to hold and use.
Jaberwok: This camera is competent, but no more. Hell it should be excellent! A triumph of marketing over substance. pricing really is plain silly: With Christmas special offers you can get a D800 for less. Hard choice guys?
This is designed to appeal to a certain market: Dare I say Footballers Wives? More money than sense: All fur coat and no knickers?
OK, you can get a D800 for less. But that only applies if you want a D800. I don't; too big, too heavy, I'd find 36mp cumbersome, etc. I like the idea of a camera with 3/4 of a D4 inside it, controls of the sort I like using, and minimal weight/size for a FF camera. So I bought the Df; it's great, just what I wanted.Price? Think of it as 75% a D4 and 25% a D610, and the price looks reasonable. Or think of it as around the same price as a Sony RX1, and it's a steal.