mholdef: I am just baffled about the wildly negative reactions about this camera
"cosmetic upgrade"? To what Nikon DSLR body?
Nikon is not going to release a $2700 body that vastly out performs the D4, while the D4 is still selling.
In fact, the Df does outperform the D800 for high ISO/lowlight work. So the Df is not simply cosmetic and style.
D1N0: low light champ (just)
I didn’t say anything about the sensor in the D3; the D3s is a different body. And in the case of the D3, if it really were a Sony sensor, Sony were likely the subcontract builder.
FoveonPureView: Pay ONLY (!) DOUBLE (!!) the price of the 16MP Df and buy a 40 MP MEDIUM FORMAT Pentax 645D instead. Nuff said.
The screen name FoveonPure suggests you understand reasons for buying different cameras.
I don’t see anyone saying that a Pentax 645 can be easily substituted for a Nikon D4, Canon 1D X, or Leica M240.
Just particulars: It’s well understood that the Pentax can’t shoot at the high ISOs of the D4/Df (like SigmaFoveon bodies that Pentax 645D) and that there are other significant limitations to the Pentax.
No, Nikon should have used a sensor with even fewer mega pixels--a lower count would be a real selling point. But that may come in say the D5.
The D4+D3s don't use Sony sensors.
And an educated buyer would look at the Df body and realize that like the D700 the screen can likely be swapped if the body is sent into Nikon for that service.
Then another educated buyer would look the body with a lens and realize how easy manual focus is the way it comes from the factory.
So calling yourself an "educated buyer" is probably not real accurate.
Calistoga_Guy: This is a perfect camera for me. I work mostly doing event photography, and the light is always bad, or it's outdoors at night. While everyone is complaining about this and that, I'm just looking at what is currently the best image sensor you can find in a dSLR. If resolution isn't an issue, then the D3s is still KING.
As for noise, I work with nothing but high ISO. 800 is my base, and 3200 is where I live most of the time. But noise from a single RAW file that people look at isn't the whole story. When brining up shadows, that's where things can get ugly, and sorry, the D610 or D800 or Sony FF sensor just won't cut it. For roughly half the price of a D4, two of these bodies would work for me. Is the df perfect? Far from it. The images posted here that are from RAWs and not from the camera jpeg engine are very, very good. comparing this to a 5D III? Sorry, not even close. Only the 1D X sensor is worthy enough to compare.
With naththo, what raw extraction software are you using for A7+Df+A7r raws?
Then: ignore DXO sensor scoring.
Finally, you're using the same lens on all these bodies to test DR right? And you're printing to good paper with at least 6 colour inks? Or is it that you're using a 96bit monitor to view the tiffs?
dash2k8: Just my two cents: With all the talk about video focusing noise, I don't understand why someone would take video in autofocus mode. DSLRs, no matter what brand, aren't supposed to do that. There are things called video cameras for that purpose. And even the pro versions don't use autofocus, so this is really a moot point. The pro video shooters don't use auto anything, including focus, so focus noise is not an issue. A pro DSLR film shooter would know to use an external mic to get good sound, thereby rendering focus noise irrelevant.
Now, if external mics and manual focus are too much to handle and someone just wants a simple home video, there are tons of options out there much cheaper than the Df. Canon 70D does a tremendous job of silent autofocus with its STM lenses at a lower price. Even better, just get a cheap camcorder. Turn it on and go.
I don't think people are going to give up using AF for video. Yes it can be done, but manual focusing video has it's own problems--particularly if you the camera operator are also moving.
Right, external audio recording solves some problems but adds gear to carry.
In expensive camcorders aren't good in lowlight and don't do shallow depth of field.
ricktech: As an employee of a dealer my first impression was "an oversized piece of plastic." Retro look at a distance, but up close a plastic top cover? Pleaseeee!
Also too thick, not comfortable. No matter how capable the tool you are going to think twice each time you go to use it.
The times I've handled and shot with the body it sure looked like a solid magnesium body. So not "'an over sized piece of plastic'". Better try for a second impression.
I had no problem handling the body and getting to all of the functions easily and my hands aren't huge--not tiny either.
ethanolson: When it comes to top plates, I like the Epson R-D1 and the Fujifilm X100s. The Df is a bit busy and still has more features than I'd like. accommodating those extra features is its downfall. That's why it's too busy up top.
Now... where's my real Digital FM camera? Throw in the D610 sensor and I'm good. I don't even care if there's a rear LCD screen. But... give me a focusing screen from an FM as well! This is a bigtime gotta have if we're going manual... which I'd like.
Have you handled a DF body?
Not one of the wheels or knobs is connected to an "extra feature"--they're just normal features on a DSLR body. It's the access to the features that be different.
@le_alain: I bet you could have said it better.
Waimak Stud: I have never been more excited about a camera than this one, but picked one up the other day, had a bit of a play with it, and was quite disappointed. Felt a lot more plasticky than i expected, has great ability to use old Nikon lenses but no focussing screen, and the adjustments were really fiddly, with having to push a little button every time. Think I might defect to the Sony A7 after all.
What converter did you use to get the tiffs?
Also I'm going by a lot more examples than what's posted at DPReview. I have my own raws shot with the D4, DF, A7 and A7R. (D610, D600 and D800 too.)
Right, Nikon wants to sell DF bodies, and the D4 sensor is a hook, but you see you the D4's sensor is a good bit better at lowlight high ISO shooting than the sensor in the D610. (People skip the D600 for real reasons.)
Sure is nice to have the D4 sensor in a body with a quiet shutter and mirror. It's a niche, and Nikon made a camera body for it. I don't see Canon shipping a small, light, quiet body with the sensor from the 1D X.
armandino: Nice colours at high iso.In terms of grain, no much different from my 5DMKIII. At least up to 12800 ISO. Maybe just the samples are not so good.
No. Not even the Nikon D610 is simply one stop behind the D4 in the shadows--and the D610 is decent at high ISOs.
I don't look at jpegs for this kind of purpose.
retro76: If there is one thing I have noticed for last few months is that every camera whether it's a FF or APC Canon / Nikon, Sony NEX, Micro 4/3rds, the Nikon 1 series, or Fuji all produce very similar IQ (under the right conditions, there are some exceptions). There just isn't anything special about the IQ from a given camera anymore, everything has reached the point of maturity. A few years back I would have given my left arm for the Nikon DF, but I really feel that Nikon waited too long (and their price point is too high). I have moved on and entered into the mirrorless camera realm where everything I could possibly need is available. I am sure this camera will be a success either way, it's beautiful and Nikon is definitely the king of sensors at this point and continue to push out new lenses faster than any other manufacturer.
And if the point were made in those terms, I’d sort of agree. But the boxes really are different. Think audio playback, even on a computer the software for playback matters, no matter what components comprise the rest of the system; the iTunes software sound quality was awful for years--only somewhat fixed with the release of iTunes 11 in 2013.
So it’s a bit simplified to say that the tech in the box doesn’t matter too much.
All cameras are used to capture light, however there are indeed different cameras.
And you see, now in the digital era, the film comes with the body and stays with the body for its entire life.
And real film is the thing that you put in the box to catch the light; there were different kinds of film back then.
Then there are things called lenses, different lenses do different things.
You can make your own pinhole digital camera if you want, it's unlikely to be as capable as this Nikon.
Skip the DXO sensor scores and go with raws, right the D4 is certainly one of the best sensors out there for lowlight, but irony the D3s' sensor is likely better. Yes, I've used both bodies.
And why am I not commenting on Df raws? Because ACR 8 doesn't extract that file type yet.
Try going by raws from the D4/Df and A7. The link is to A7R samples, which is a different camera that will be worse at high ISOs than the A7, and the OP referred to the A7, not A7R.
So yeah, a lot of people going for the Df will seek it out for low light+high ISOs. Anyhow the D610 is likely a good bit better in lowlight than the A7, irony that’s a very similar Sony sensor to the A7's.
I think the A7 is an interesting first start for Sony’s FF mirrorless systems, but there are problems that Nikon has worked out for its DSLRs.
This statement above: “and I am sure very high percentage of the photographers shoot during day time” is preposterous. Like saying cars aren’t driven in the rain.
More likely at least 2 stops in the shadows.
As you say: "there are some exceptions".
So "plasticy" now is another term for made of magnesium?
The Sony A7 is nice, but doesn't have anywhere near the high ISO performance. If that's not important to you, and a limited choice of lenses isn't a problem.
The focus screen on the Nikon D700 could be changed, if one sent it into Nikon. This Df looks to be the same.
So you're left with not liking the knobs, okay.
There’s an “AF-S Nikkor 58mm f/1.8 G”?
There’s a newish f/1.8 50mm in the Df kit, and there’s the new 55mm f/1.4, not part of any Nikon body/lens kit.