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.
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.
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.
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.
TCMercury: Richard Butler makes a very good point about the feeling of the camera. I had a quick go with one, expecting OM-1 levels of sturdiness, and came away feeling that my D7000 would do better in a fight. What is metal is horribly light, and the area around the lens mount is only plastic (and arguably one of the most crucial points in terms of camera integrity). With a camera that seems to be selling itself so much on the feel and romance of it's usage, this is, as he said, disappointing.
I checked a Df body, the mount be metal. So you're wrong about that point.
ChapelThrill23: I do not shoot video very often but I appreciate having the ability to do it on my Nikon D610 because every now and then I use it in order to shoot video of my family. Were the DF cheaper than the D610, I'd be happy to forego the feature but I can't imagine wanting to spend $800 more for a body that lacks what is fast becoming a critical feature for a lot of users and that would have taken almost nothing for Nikon to add. It greatly limits the usefulness for a lot of users and shows the DF to be as much about style and making a statement as about substance. I don't think that this camera will ever be much of a player in this market at this price point.
And the D610 can't be used at as high an ISO as the Df/D4.
Video on DLSRs with contrast AF is a pain, and most SLR lenses make too much noise so one has to use an external audio recorder when shooting video with DSLRs--this is sometimes true with mirrorless systems too.
So yet again, many will seek out this Df body solely for the sensor.
DRNottage: I'll stick with my Panasonic TS2. Low noise reduction. Sharp lens. Good video. Built like a tank. Pocket-sized. After many ski trips and kyaking adventures, it's still going strong. Strange jpg noise structure, but that's Panasonic. Seems like the newer versions of it have inferior optics and greater noise supression going on, based on the reviews. I'll use mine until it croaks. This Nikon? Not for that money.
All fair enough as long as the Panasonic satisfies you and continues to work, but jpeg only, small sensor, not good at high ISO, and a slow lens don’t do much for image quality. The Nikon 1AW solves those problems, albeit the lens speed with different lenses. So assuming the bricked Nikons are a fluke, and assuming you care about image quality the Nikon 1AW is the obvious choice.
Panasonic limits itself with slow lensed tough cameras. Imagine a tough/waterproof version of the Panasonic GX7 with a fast lens. I guess a bit more expensive than the pocket tough cameras and likely more expensive than this Nikon.
I think it very unlikely that the lens mount is plastic, in fact I took the lens off the example of the DF that I’ve handled, and didn’t note any plastic bayonet–or bayonet engaging tabs. Of course I’d look more thoroughly before purchasing the DF body.
That lightness is magnesium. Perhaps, and this is only speculation by me, the D7000 uses more steel in that body. Magnesium being much more expensive to work.
Then of course for high ISO performance the DF is astounding better than the D7000.
Tee1up: I can't help but think Nikon will not find a lot of traction with this camera. Like the black & white only Leica, I am not sure who the target audience is for this. I feel strange saying this given how much I love the Fuji X100S.
Look into the waiting list for Leica M240 bodies.
Then look up the price of good condition used Nikon D700 body.
Smallish, quiet, light, useable at ISO 18,000.
Deleted pending purge: In short, it's a half-job again. While it is hard to imagine anything but an o-ring seal on the lens mount, the compartments (two, to double the risk) still close via funny gummy gaskets which are unreliable by default, since these depend upon hatch locking mechanism. For less money and easier construction, Nikon could have used a single access hatch sealed by another o-ring.This, along with some body shape thinking, and using command elements other than sealed push pins (reed switches / magnets would be best) could have set the camera a bit higher toward Nikonos which cost about the same but offered a lot more depth autonomy and water-resistance reliability.Nikon could also have used the Nikonos lens mount with this model, and used the elements housing for more modern glass. Having the o-ring exposed with dry-land lenses is also wrong, and whenever the camera is used with such optics I'd suggest the removal of the ring.
I’m not a supporter of those silly pad seals–so no argument there.
However I still think that a real digital Nikonos with an optically good AF 35mm f/2.4 lens would retail for a good bit more than $1000.
Some CAD/CAM files is significantly different than having the machine tools used for the entire manufacturing process.
Files are a start, but no camera, car engine, lens, etc can simply be produced in quantity reasonably inexpensively without the production machine tools. And tooling is much harder to back up than paper files or computer files.
You’ve mistaken one-off for production; the first is expensive and time consuming, and for specialized applications; the other is where Nikon would be trying to make money and dive camera systems.
Anyhow I was simply speculating that Nikon may have lost some of the equipment for production–and yes some of the machines could be robots from the 1990s.Then what mirrorless waterproof (or on land) AF 35mm f/2.4 lens would you think Nikon can simply adapt to a digital Nikonos? I think there’d be a lot of lens redesign given vignetting and the fact that flang distances are different on the Nikonos than on Nikon SLRs.
Robert Daniels: I too see sharpness and maybe focus issues. Please Nikon get all of this right. If anything you should make Df sensor tweaks that actually improve over D4
Had no sharpness problems with the D4 or Df raws that I've shot.
Of course they're not as sharp as something from the D800 with a good lens or the Leica M240 DNGs I've shot with the new 50mm f/2.0 M from Leica.
True the D3s was an amazing body, the D700 not so much, good though. Never shot with a D3, but it's the same sensor as the D700.
flak4af: I've had it in hand only since Nov. 29th. Like it. Lives up to all my expectations. Didn't need the kit lens but it was the only option at my local camera store, and I needed it ASAP. Works will with all my old, "magic" AI, AI-converted and AIS lenses. Each of these fast lenses would cost several thousand to replace today. I find it easy to manually focus on the screen. The green light in viewfinder confirms sharpest focus. Wish it were the size and simple capabilities of an FM3A-but-digital. At least it's smaller/lighter that the other full frames. After handling both the silver and black, I changed my mind and bought black. Silver doesn't look like Nikon chrome because it's a matte silver over the magnesium body. I want it to shoot, not collect, anyway. We always picked black because it's less attention-getting. I'll put black electrician tape over the NIKON logo, as always. Nice feature is the built-in diopter wheel. Can instantly change from eyeglasses to eyeball thru viewfinder.
You read like someone with a bit too much envy.
Steve oliphant: I used to own a FM2 best film camera ever,the nikon D4s best DSLR so far D300/300s nice cameras great build ,but this is not a $3000.00 dollar camera this is not a $2000.00 dollar camera it is really a peace of crap ,sorry i know this will really pee off lots of nikon fans but i think theres going to be quite a few nikon fans that will really really hate this camera, sorry for my early comment but man the build quality on this camera is so bad it's laughable .
Manual focusing works just fine with the Df. The AF into low contrast deep shadows didn't present a real problem when I tried out the Df a few days ago, but more testing is in order.
So your preparation for hunting is likely premature.
flynnstone: Maybe I am missing something here but I dont understand how you can get a sharper image out of a 16mp ff sensor then you can out of a 16mp crop sensor with the same features. You have the same # of mp spread over a larger area. It almost seems like a step backwards to me. Now if you are talking about 24 or even 36mp on ff you should see a good improvement. It seems like a marketing ploy to me.
It is simply wrong to say that there's no high ISO advantage to the D4 over the D800, the D800 large shadow blotching above ISO 8000. Reads like you can check for that cyan and magenta blotchiness. The D800 is really only good through ISO 6400, which is fine for many people.
A big reason for buying the DF would be the lowlight high ISO capacity of the sensor from the Nikon D4–better than anything out there, with the possible exception the the Canon 1D X.
No, the Nikon D800 is not really useable above ISO 8000, and downsampling a high ISO D800 raw to 16MP does not make the shot the equal to the low noise of something shot with a Nikon D4/DF.
Pure speculation on my part, but perhaps Nikon didn't preserve the machine tools to make the Nikonos V bodies.
(Or perhaps the tsunami/earthquake destroyed the tooling--I know that the factory making the D4 bodies was severely damaged.)
Then I don't think a Nikonos DV would be inexpensive--think about at least $1500 with a new AF 35mm f/2.4 lens and a 16MP APSC phase detect AF sensor. Once sales grew the price could go down a bit.
ShatteredSky: So far I am not convinced that this is much better than the TG-1 I own, except noise. But it misses the wide-angle, and the macro capabilities ... A 24-120 equiv. zoom would have been nice to go with that ... or if Olympus may finally add RAW to the TG-3, and a slightly bigger sensor. I would not mind a larger size, even a RX10 sized fixed-lens 24-120 beast and 1 inch sensor would be nice.
Why don't you try raw on a small sensored camera like the Oly XZ10. Raw sure makes dealing with noise much easier, and then there's the white balance adjustment thing with raw.
These two points are completely separate from any possible added dynamic range or exposure compensation.
The more you post the less you seem to know about digital photography.
jennajenna: Biggest problem with the nikon frankly is the lack of wide angle lenses. The best it can do is 27mm. The olympus tg2 is 25mm BUT with an adapter it can get as wide as ~ 21mm. That is massive as a field of view advantage (over 20%) compared to the nikon's 27mm max - and the real world of underwater video or photos... you want a wide vista of your experience. Also the tg2 aperture of 2.0 lets in twice the light of nikon so it can take lower iso shots.
Yeah raw is a big deal, and so is the one inch sensor, two big things that raw help with noise and white balance.
The TG1 is not really useable above ISO 400. Whereas the 1 series bodies can be used at ISO 6400.
Raw is a huge advantage that those who'd seek out the 1 AWS would likely know about.
So you only have point about image stabilization on a camera with crappy image quality.
You don't appear to be real familiar with raw on any kind of camera, sure helps with my Panasonic LX5, usable at ISO 1000 when shooting raw (there was a firmware update).
pocoloco: I am not so convinced a compact camera could not have captured that unique moment : http://www.dpreview.com/galleries/3225500706/photos/160652/turtle?inalbum=beneath-da-surface
You seem confused on this point: The Nikon 1 AWS has more than one lens, there's the fixed 10mm. Then in the future Nikon will likely release other waterproof lenses for the 1-AWS system.
You can look up dry land 1 series lenses for some ideas about which lenses may ship in waterproof in the future--one lens is a good bit faster than f/2.0.
Basically the Aptina sensor tech is better Sony's, BSI so far has only been applied to one recent 1" sensor. And even that Sony 1" BSI sensor isn't too much better than the Aptina sensors in the Nikon 1 series. The Nikon 1s shoot raw, the TG2 doesn't. The 1 cameras look great at ISO 1600.
So you're left with the image stabilized jpegs. Okay, if in the future Nikon wants to release some body stabilization variation of the 1 series bodies, that's a fine idea as long as it doesn't interfere with shooting in some manor. But it's not the make or break feature for this Nikon 1 AWS: Raw, interchangeable lenses, and a 1" sensor are.
yabokkie: AW1 is more a hide-out for Nikon 1 to survive. I'd prefer a larger one, like E-M1 for easy handling in water or snow.
battery life is fatal, better no battery change for whole day (that battery, media, and lens change should be in hotel room as much as possible).
The 1 series isn't particularly bulky; depending on the lens the AWS is akin to some P&S bodies--think Canon G15/G16.
Bulky cases are not ever a wanted feature. Note here all those asking for a real digital Nikonos in these comments.
This AWS is a good first step into much higher image quality tough cameras.