chooflaki: I really cant understand all the bitching. Nikon in the past couple of years has released 4 new full frame cameras all of them different and state of the art DSLR's. This one is for the purists and traditionalists who want something nostalgic and more hands on.
Just a Photographer:
No the D800 and the D4 are not comparable above ISO 3200 let alone at thru ISO 12800. The D4 is nearly noise free in shadows at ISO 3200, not the D800.
Try not making things up. The D800 is plenty good camera, just it lacks some things that this Df will have.
That you'd not buy the Df is clear, it was clear from your first post days ago. Who cares, others will seek Df out.
Drop the scaling thing, it only works if printing above 300ppi. And it is not for you to decide what ISO I'll use.
It's not clear that you ever used either the D4 or the D800, let alone the D3s or the D700. I've used them all.
Photowyzard: Beautiful camera. I like almost everything about it. I am one of those guys who was around when Film was in its hay-day. Love the look, especially the Black body…it calls to me. I agree with many that the price point is too high, but they are not marketing this camera to me, so I am not going to go slit my wrists over it.
I have been using a D800 for over a year now and have gotten very comfortable with the massive mp output…16mp seems a bit weak to me for the money. However, compatibility with 50 years of fantastic glass is a real bonus. I am a huge fan of the old lenses and one of my current favourites is the Nikon 400mm f3.5. No video…who cares. I use a camera for photography, not video.
Will I buy this… no. Would I like to own it…yes, but not at 16mp and not at the price. Beautiful design, well done, Nikon….because you CAN!
And people will seek out this 16MP sensor for obvious reasons.
About Nikon lenses, they aint that good.
Saffron_Blaze: I would love to have a reasonably priced prosumer camera with the D4 sensor in it. However, I was thinking more like D700 not D610. The D700 was as close to being professional grade as the D610 is to being consumer grade.
Stop quoting scores and look at raws from the D800 and D700 shot with the same lens. DXO sensor scoring is nearly useless--more useless than the lens scoring.
marike6: In case anyone missed it, Nikon Df sample images including some low-light images not included in the official samples (first link):
Df Official samples
Those Nikon samples are jpegs, no real reason to look in any great detail, unless you only shoot jpeg.
This sensor (not processor) is a well known quantity. You can find raws from the D4 for download--just saying.
Thank you for attempting to correct the notion that the D800 is better than the D700/D3 in lowlight. Though so many have the opposite assertion fixed in their minds that I think your post, if read, will not be apprehended.
Get a real dictionary. Then you'll apprehend the meaning.
Thomas Karlmann: Who wants a DF, anyway? Someone with disposable money that likes retro. Old geezers with loads of dough who have no clue how to spend it. What was Nikon thinking? Instead, Nikon could have made a a D4+ with a tilting, articulating LCD, full Video with lots of Slow-Motion options, built-in WiFi that allows interface to a Laptop -- forget the phone nonsense, light up ALL the controls, provide COMPLETE controls for vertical shooting, up the shutter speed sync from 1/250 to at least 1/500s (like the D70), afford an electronic shutter option for low-noise -- all of this AT LEAST. Want more -- ok -- make the whole thing LIGHTER!!!!!!
Now how about some stabilized prime lenses? Stop waiting for "Canon-to-do-it-first" nonsense, BE the leader in advanced DSLRs.
Take all the effort completely WASTED on that stupid DF camera, and you could have had all these things listed here! Let those D4+ new features trickle down to the lesser models. Wake up Nikon!!!!
And still you haven't looked at the price of the Canon 1D X. Or find a good condition Nikon D3s used for $2000, NOT.
"Whine I want Nikon to charge whatever I say is reasonable", gets tiresome.
Aimlessfool: I guess what would really be attractive is a no frills manual camera with a digital sensor and priced more competitively. I still use an FM2 and love how it feels in my hands, the entire process of looking through the viewfinder, focusing and manually adjusting the shutter and aperture to get the desired exposure and enjoy the split second of calm when you stop breathing for a moment and press the shutter release. Price is everything, for a lower price the Sony has a camera that has more features and good performance. Come on Nikon you can do better!
You don't have to use the aperture ring.
And the way to get this most out of this sensor is to use Zeiss lenses not Nikon lenses.
GlynHop: As a very satisfied D800 owner, I have to query why someone would buy the Df in preference to its yes, older, but much higher spec'd sibling at a not dissimilar price tag. It could only be for its "retro" look and not, in my view, a bona fide photography reason. That said, yer' pays yer' money etc...
I'm not saying the D4 is worth anything. I'm saying until now if you wanted that sensor you'd have to have spent 6000usd. And yes the sensor is more sought after than the sensor in the D800 or D600.
Then of course Canon's competition for the D4 sells for more than 6000usd.
Clearly this next 7000usd example has a huge factor going for it that Canikon can't touch without outside help: At high ISOs the Leica M (Type 240) is staggeringly better than the D800 or D600. But here's where good lenses really help. So that 20MP sensor that with native lenses easily betters Canikon for IQ. (Yes of course one can set ISO higher on the D4 and get a good Zeiss lens.) So there's a camera and system upon which it's easy to spend 30000 for a body and two lenses. There be a big waiting list.
jase: So for only the same price as a Sony A7 and a Canon EOS 6D I can get a Nikon DF. I suppose I could get a Nikon D800 and six Nikon FEs instead. I'd love one, but at £2749.00 in the UK, the one I want will be staying on the shelf.
Yep, I'm sure that many seek the D4's sensor in a quiet body. In fact many would prefer the older sensor from the D3s.
Have you checked D4 sales?
Drop the down sampling thing, if that really worked it would mean that there's software which can easily distinguish a noisy pixel from a clear signal and then toss the noise. And such software would solve a lot problems, but it doesn't exist.
Why would I lose interest in this sensor by looking at jpegs from Nikon? I've shot with the D4 and prefer its lowlight results to anything but the D3s. I don't look at jpegs from Nikon's website to judge image quality. My problem with the IQ of this camera is that Nikon does not make especially optically good lenses, but Canon doesn't either.
To many the bible is a book full of tales justifying all sorts of abuses of one's neighbor and the tribe in the next valley. I don't need faith to see that the results are better from the D4's sensor.
AbrasiveReducer: How hard it would be to make a D710? Just a few more megapixels; same features, reliability and build quality as the D700. And people would know what they were buying. Right now, people are arguing over a camera they have never used because it's not a great "value" which is not the point of the Df.
If you want value for your money, get a 610. It really is a bargain. If you want prestige, or a different camera handling "experience" or to brag about the D4 sensor being in a $6000 camera, get the Df. Or get both, and a pair of D800s.
In all likelihood one can send this Df body into Nikon for a screen swap–that’s how the D700 worked.
Manual focusing sans a splitscreen isn’t particularly hard with a bright prism.
No, 24MP would not make this body more appealing for many, example: See the newish Leica M (Type 240).
And yet again: If you’d wanted this sensor until this Df was announced you’d have to have spent $6000 on a D4 body. Given the price of the D700, this body just wasn’t going to sell for $1800. Buy a Canon 6D or Nikon D610.
The contrast of sweat and sour is infact a very respected method of food preparation.
snegron2: Awesome camera! I love Nikon's attention to details on the Df. Even the older style font they used is outstanding! Thank you Nikon!
It what way is the D4's sensor rotten? Please explain with examples for download, in raw, the D4 sensor's failings?
That’s an appealing, though inaccurate, platitude you’ve posted. The Df has functionality that the D800 does not, so it is not “crazy” for Nikon to charge pretty much exactly the same price. This means that the comment by Just a Photographer can not be 100% correct.
migus: Overall the Df scored more comments on DPR than any other recent camera. That's plenty of feedback for marketing analytics.
However, I'm appalled by the number and quality of personal attacks here - unrelated to the factual product and its features. Pros, amateurs, voyeurs, trolls etc. emanating a bestiary of strong feelings, and a scarcity of civilised dialog.
I wonder why is photography generating such visceral responses? Mitch
"That curvy look on recent cameras is what's called ergonomics" a look is not ergonomics, get it? This Df appears to have perfectly good ergonomics, if you like curves more, just say you do.
I didn't comment on the lenses, are you saying that Nikon should redo all its lenses so there are aperture rings on them--like with the manual focus Zeisses one can mount on this body? Read Radford Stealth to set aperture.
Yet again, this is a better sensor for lowlight than the sensor in the D600. And your feelings about the D600 being good enough for your purposes are new to this particular thread. You see, you'd just decided to go off on the retro look of this box because clearly you'd like different jewelry. But now that you've been identified as a fashionista it's suddenly about price and your odd version of ergonomics.
All you had to say is: "This boxy look is not for me, I'm happy with the look and the features of the D600."
NB: Nice watches start at $10,000 a pop.
HawaiiVolcanoes: it's interesting to think that anyone is foolish enough to plunk down more than 3 grand for this ugly brick. thank you
Ah, yes, because if it’s “ugly” to you it must be ugly to others. And if it’s ugly universally, then it must not work well or offer features some seek, NOT.
“Tis more the pity that we ‘fools’ may not speak wisely, what ‘wise men’ do foolishly.” You’d be the ‘wise man’ in this quotation.
"not dissimilar...sibling", the D4 has a much higher price, so in that way the Df is not like the D4.
Once reason to seek this out instead of the D4 would be that the Df's shutter/mirror is quieter.
No, the sensor in the D4 is better in lowlight high ISO than the sensor in the D800. Drop the assertions about down sampling; down sampling really only works in printing beyond 300ppi. There’s no software that can identify noise and toss it out during down sampling. If such software existed a lot of noise problems would be solved.
The D800 isn’t a bad camera; it’s just not as useful in lowlight.
effstawp: In the grand scheme of things, I highly doubt Nikon's DF can take away Fuji's thunder. Even the upcoming XE-2 is a more compelling option for most; body+lens being cheaper.
Nikon needs to vastly improve the optical quality of high end Nikon lenses, right now they can't touch a good Zeiss or Leica, even good Olympus and Samsung NX lenses embarrass Nikon.
Perhaps Nikon has started to get its act together with the new 58mm f/1.4 lens just announced.
Saffron_Blaze: NR is reporting that sales of the Df are very underwhelming and is attributing this to price.
Is that a particularly big Dutch retailer of camera gear?
The point remains wait until the body has been out for a least 6 months.