ZAnton: "The Nikon 1 V1 and V2 are two cameras that are not frequently discussed among camera enthusiasts."The only way they can change that is to make bright lenses for it. Bright zooms (f/2) AND very bright fixes (f/1.4).Otherwise Canon G1X mk2 is way better than Nikon 1 line.There are also Sony RX, Canon G15/16, and Nikon P7700/7800, although the last one is a tiny bit slower on AF than G16.So basically Nikon 1 loose to the whole bunch of the "normal" enthusiast P&Ss.UPD. Oh, that dark camera doesn't even have a hot shoe, so that i could mount my SB700? I assume the DPreview authors must rethink the market placement of V3. I don't see _any_ reason for an enthusiast to buy this camera.
Richard,You are talking too much sense for the armchair photographers and gearophiles to comprehend. Thank you for a sensible post, perhaps one of a handful amongst this drivel.
RichRMA: I'm fairly certain the only thing Nikon is making a profit off are their lenses so I understand why they'd be trying to eliminate some competition. The Sigma lenses must use specific methods that Nikon uses to make its VR system work. But I wonder then if this is a semi-standardized system, how Panasonic and Canon avoided copying Nikon, or did Canon's I.S. lenses come before Nikon's?
Nikon produced the first optical stabilized lens, a 38–105 mm f/4-7.8 zoom built into the Nikon Zoom 700VR (US: Zoom-Touch 105 VR) camera in 1994)http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image_stabilization
select: I was expecting better burst frame rate... 11fps when canon 1dx can do 14fps...when you do sport photography there's a huge difference
still using XQD and CF cards?? I hoped they put SD UHS II slots
no gps and no wifi
no 4k video, no focus peaking and no Zebra
what are you doing Nikon?
Were you planning to upgrade to a D4s from your D5300 if it had those features?
Nathan Cowlishaw: Can I just say, when I heard about the Nikon D600 being so notorious for dust it's what made me all the more happier and merrier switching to Micro Four Thirds in 2008! ;)
Sounds like grapes are sour to me :)
Beautiful evocative images. Perhaps not everyone's cup of tea but I surely love them. The stories told in the images make them so powerful.
Fuji has been doing some great work in the designing sensors (and film... Provia, Velvia etc.). Even when they were using Nikon bodies, their sensors had better DR than the contemporary dSLRs. Remember the S3 and S5?
I hope Nikon uses Fuji's sensors in some of their dSLRs. I like the rendering of Fuji's sensors.
I was reading a posting by Nikon on Nikkor history, when I read an article on the Noct lens. The Noct (58/1.2) was compared with the 50/1.2S in the article. Here is something that should explain why the Noct is more expensive. I am sure something similar is applicable to the 58/1/4G, which has its roots in the famed Noct.
"Moreover, it is essential for a high precision lens to be inspected with high precision. In the case of the Noct NIKKOR, it is needless to say that an aspherical lens element was measured its surface shape. In order to control amount of flare of each product, the assembled lens was measured aberration by a special inspection instrument in addition to a routine inspection of resolving power test. Although you cannot tell the difference from the Ai Nikkor 50mm f/1.2S at a first glance, you may have understood why the price was triple. From manufacturing to inspection, they spent so much time and effort on this lens." http://imaging.nikon.com/history/nikkor/16/
Peiasdf: Another half-baked product with attractive spec just like most stuff from S. Korea. Samsung should focus on firmware update to get existing products working as advertised.
Peiasdf... reminds me of another S. Korean product... the Kia and Hyundai cars that were spec'd to have great gas mileage but in reality...
I don't know why there is so much negativity out here. These are very nice pictures and deserve praise. If you believe you can do better, then post it on your gallery here and let the viewers decide.
Thanks to DPR for posting these pictures here.
Merry Christmas to everyone.
nikonhudson: Rating this review, I give it a 62% with no bronze, silver or gold award. The quality of reviews on DPR has declined and this one hits bottom.
How about the speed of AF in low light... here is an excerpt from an Df user shooting a gig in low light - "Ray your question is most important - how is autofocus in low light. Tonight I shot with stage lighting and the Df felt quick and responsive in both focusing and tracking and very similar to the D800 or D3s. After tonight (stage lighting of course), my confidence level in Df focus ability went way up. Only a handful of images were out of focus and it was because of user error and small grip (my thumb came off the af-on button)."
I think DPR may have gotten a faulty camera. I can't believe Nikon's QC will be sloppy after the other problems they faced recently.
Creativity abound... and kudos to Roger for making all that come together.
Michel F: Wait for the Sigma 50mm f/1.4 ART. It's going to trounce it for far less money. For the investment involved, I'm not overly impressed.
Everyone talks about how great the Sigma Art 35 is and how it will kick Nikon's butt WHEN they come out with other focal lengths. I wonder have you all counted the number of duds Sigma has produced over the years compared to its one great lens?
intruder61: the sigma 50 spanks this Nikon offering.
was that a serious comment or just sarcasm?
CFynn: Wonder how this compares to the Voigtlander Nokton 58mm f/1.4?That lens is the same focal length and speed, but available at less than one third the price. Has nice bokeh too.
I had the Voigt but I sold it. My eyes are getting old and it is getting difficult to manually focus when DOF are thin. The Voigts do have great color rendering and micro-contrast. However, I think the Nikkor is a tad better than the Voigt, but not 3 times better. But then, you can't always use the difference in price to judge the incremental IQ. Sometimes it takes a lot of costly exotic glass elements to get rid of a slight coma, fringing etc.
ceaiu: It's a desirable lens, but too expensive.Sigma will do better when they'll release their ART variant.
Sigma has produced one good lens, the 35/1.4. How many duds have Sigma produced before that?
Wow... you can predict how good a Sigma will be before they release it.
Digital Suicide: I'm totaly fine with:-Design,-No built-in flash,-Size of a DSLR,-Old sensor,-Max shutter speed,-Battery,-Buttons. Human can get used to anything.And other old or crap parts.
I'm not fine with:-No video (at least 720p for sake)-No split focusing screen.This camera is presented as retro, that takes old MF so it's a must be.-PRICE. Man oh man... Can't comment on that. No buy.
I read a review by a well known reviewer stating that MF with the Df is a breeze and the ergonomics is excellent. I wish most of the people complaining here at least hold their horses till they get a chance to hold that camera. However, I agree that Nikon priced it high, but then if it is out of your reach, don't buy it.
Derek Feng: OMG! This is really, indeed a beautiful camera, A real CAMERA. I have been a die-hard fan of Canon for at least 25 years. But now I start to question myself, are you sure about that in font of this particular Nikon? Come on, Canon, could we have a digital F1 or something similar, please?
Do you think even in Canon brings one out, it can mount FD lens? This Df mounts almost every lens ever made my Nikon!!
Frank_BR: In the beginning there was the D800 for $3000. So Nikon stripped the AA filter and tge D800E was born. Because less is more, Nikon charges $3300 for the D800E. The next logical step would be a D800F with a configurable AA filter for $5000. E la nave va.
The addition of the plate involves additional parts and labor... so Nikon charges more. What is wrong with that?
Very creative. Kudos!!