Dgeer: Lol....hey m43 is my choice for the same reasons as many others but I went from Nikon D90 to lumix G2 and now G3 simply because the Nikon wouldn't take ready to use shots from camera in daylight situations anywhere in the world. Nikon claim there is nothing wrong with it and friends always used there's in manual and raw and spent time in Photoshop or similar. I don't spend time touching up as I was originally a film user and you got 36 expensive shots only so you want to get it right in camera. You can take many more digitalis but at the end of the day you want the best compositions etc rather than anything else so I try to get exposure etc correct in camera. With the Lumix M43 and even their Tz smaller cameras they do this very well. The iA button lets u slip in and out of auto and now I rarely need to use A or S or other settings. Portability is another major reason for choosing m43 and the lenses quality from Panasoic and of course Olympus is awesome.
Just shows how subjective things are. I had a D90 - nothing wrong with those colors, but I think the Panasonics suffer from from an unpleasant magenta tint.
Ayoh: I am surprised by the unilateral enthusiasm for the EVF viewfinder. Based on my experience with the EM-1, the EVF gives a very pleasant experience in low and general indoor light. However in bright outdoor lighting with high contrast, the EVF experience is really behind that of an optical viewfinder due to low DR, brightness and washout due to stray light.
However it is still probably the flagship EVF experience. Especially compared to say a Fuji XE-1 which is genuinely poor with its slow refresh rate causing tearing effects even with slow panning, pixaleted view during AF, noise in low light. An OVF is still definitely best for clarity in bright light.
Its crude in that way that the EVF might show that highlights are blown or shadows blocked, even if it is within the DR of the sensor."MF with focus peaking and auto zoom" - if I shot a scene with people moving I can shot faster with ordinary MF on a FF OVF. If things are standing still, I can take all the time I want, even checking the LCD. Thats is what I meant.
PerL: Slowly coming in full circle and looks very much like the APS-C DSLRs it is competing with. The usual argument for mirror less is that people leave their DSLRs at home, because of the weight and bulk. Is this so radically different?
500g vs 670g vs760g. Is that the difference between always carry the camera with you vs always leaving it at home?
munro harrap: To be asked to pay out £1949 for this machime when you can buy a brand new Nikon Full-frame D800 and a good secondhand 28-105mm lens for the same money today says you are pushing poor product on purpose. I do not believe you actually ever bought one any more than Ken Rockwell buys all his.
I have an Oly 8080 with a similarly excellent Olympus zoom lens that delivers as much detail as is in your woodland scene, which is flat-no dynamic range to speak of, and I can guarantee that a Sony R1 would trash the IQ of this micro 4/3rds machine and all such, it just would and the lens-on this showing-is better.
£2000 is a lot of deception-amounting to fraud, sir, shame on you!
Le Frog,Subject isolation is a very important creative option, heavily used by pros and good shooters. If you dont want it, fine. But many, many talented photographers wants to have that tool in the box.
@String,I was more thinking about Nikon D610 with a 24-85 3.5-4.5. Scores higher on DxO vs an OM-D w 12-40 2.8, and have more subject isolation vs the m43 zoom (5.6 eqv). Might even be cheaper. Weight of combo about 1300g vs 900g or so. Surely that is an option some consider. Btw I certainly did not mean a seven year old Canon 5d, which you suggested in an other reply.
A low cost 24-85 on a FF gives anyway better IQ and subject isolation than a "pro zoom" on m43. Just read DxO.
You only see a very crude representation of exposure compensation, it is not based on RAW. The DR of the sensor is much better than the DR of EVF.The "advantages" are mainly if you often have problems with exposing right. Otherwise it is better to have a true view of the subject. IMO.Focus peaking and auto zoom with MF lenses - if you got time for that you have time for careful manual focus with the OVF or LCD.
Slowly coming in full circle and looks very much like the APS-C DSLRs it is competing with. The usual argument for mirror less is that people leave their DSLRs at home, because of the weight and bulk. Is this so radically different?
Tom Caldwell: Why is it always necessary to decry the lack of good video, and of course completely choke up over "no video" there are still just a few photographers who get by with stills only and who find that video buttons and other components just get in the way.
Heavens - someone motionless with an amazing retro (d)slr with a flip lcd out the side video making the kids concert. There are already plenty of camera admirably suited for this work. Why buy this sort of camera to "do video"?
But I guess something has to be found to criticise - there seems little else.
You can avoid a lot of button and dials by hiding them in menus at the price of general confusion. There was an almost hilarious thread on the m43 forum where someone asked for help on how to set basics like shutter speed and aperture on an Olympus OM-D.
T3: If "retro" never existed, and this was simply a brand new design of camera, I think people would be looking at it a bit more objectively (i.e., without the cloud of nostalgia love). Instead, we would be comparing it to other DSLR designs, and be saying...
...the grip is too small and shallow, the shutter button is poorly placed, the lug straps are poorly placed especially once the straps get installed, the top plate is cluttered, the dial and control markings are tiny, the top LCD is tiny, dial markings should be illuminated to make them easier to see in lower light, few of these controls are easily reachable from normal hand holding positions, the use of a mechanical plunge cable release negates the option of electronic intervalometer and radio remotes, other body designs with larger grips accommodate larger batteries, it's pricey, etc.
But instead, the love of "retro" allows all these normal considerations to be ignored. "Retro" certainly has a powerful and odd effect.
I agree that this camera is best suited for primes like 20, 24, 35, 50, 85 or smaller zooms. But thats how I would use it.Larger lenses like 70-200 2.8 handles better with a deeper grip.
I guess one have to handle it to have an opinion. Bjorn Roslett wrote "ergonomically a dream come true" with "perfect balance".Otherwise I think many would say "nice with a slimmer DSLR, they have grown so fat over the years” and they would probably appreciate that its the smallest, lightest FF DSLR yet.But a bit pricey as you say.
Craig from Nevada: Retro is soooo 2012
@SaffronIf some are disappointed it is because they had hope for the retro concept. Obviously it generates a lot of interest.
Close to 2000 comments on a preview, what does that say?
bill77429: At $2700, my non AI lenses will stay sitting on the shelf beside my old Black Body F. I remember that my first Nikon Photomic and 35mm lens cost around $400 back in the day. The high price tag is really absurd when you think about it. If I want to shoot this old stuff, I will just load up a roll of film.
But how much was 400 dollars then, considering 40 years of inflation.
Reports from hands on experiences indicates that the Df is much better at focusing manual lenses than D800 or D600. If that is correct it is a major plus.Respected Nikon expert Bjorn Rorslett says that for the first time he found an DSLR good enough for manual focus with the vintage lenses, testing with a 50 1.2 and a 35 1.4.
robmanueb: "All things being equal, if you can add a function, why not do so?"
Then they mention the battery might not be up to it and the lack of microphone jack. Well that would seem like two good reasons right there. Whatever format video comes out at on modern SLR cameras someone will always complain that it's needs to be higher resolution with another frame rate with more manual control over all the video functions and no jello roll regardless of how prone CMOS is to that effect.
So I'll give a third reason, price, video as a function is not a free lunch and it's not a firmware hack away. So a bunch of photographers who don't take video get to rationali$e buying a high quality camera they wouldn't have been able to afford if it had video. The high ISO will make people covet this over a D610. So it has niche.
Well done NIkon.
It depends on if you put your prorities towards compact build or video. I think many would choose smaller size.
AndreSJ: Anyone else a little disappointing with this camera?? It seems to be a retro styled D4, with less functionality and it seems to be be aimed at no body.
I was hoping soo much that it was going to be a mirror-less. STEP FORWARD NOT BACK
As I see it, mirrorless is a step back, mainly there for cost cutting reasons.
PerL: After checking on camera size com one can see that the Df is not much bigger than a Panasonic m43 G3H (15 mm thinner actually) , close to the same size as APS-C Pentax K3 and a little bit lighter (and 11 mm thinner). Just mentioning for those claiming it is large and bulky.
@ carabasLook at thishttp://camerasize.com/compare/#495,381and see if "gigantic" vs G3H is the right word.
@WT21The Df is the smallest FF DSLR on the market with a proper OVF. That is why it is interesting to compare with other formats. And why would one exclude the grip in a comparison?
After checking on camera size com one can see that the Df is not much bigger than a Panasonic m43 G3H (15 mm thinner actually) , close to the same size as APS-C Pentax K3 and a little bit lighter (and 11 mm thinner). Just mentioning for those claiming it is large and bulky.