Jaberwok: Nice outer body containing basically yesterday's 16Mps electronics. Way overpriced, I wonder if they were talking to Leica on the pricing strategy?
I don't think Leica is making the M9 anymore. It's not useable much above ISO 800.
And I think the Df is decent value in that it readily outperforms the D610+D800 for lowlight high ISO shooting. No the Df is not cheap. But only the Canon 6D is close for high ISO lowlight shooting in that price range.
So you can get a Df or buy D4 or Canon 1D X instead--those latter two bodies are pricey though.
MPA1: If only it was the D4 sensor in a D800 body....!
Finally an actual proposal maybe possibly related to improved performance.
YogiGX20: I was initially excited but am now somewhat disappointed. Not necessarily about the Df but about the direction the camera market is going. And the Df is a perfect example for this.
These days, the manufacturers deliberately seem to make cameras worse to justify a - let's be honest, still - ridiculous price for what they are and then advertise it as the next best thing you never knew you could miss. Apart from the sensor, you could have a similar camera (including video) from a camera the fifth of the price! All that's missing now is for Canon to release a retro full frame camera that's worse than the 50D!I can understand this type of camera is appealing as a reminder of the "god old days" and/or status symbol. And everybody is entitled to their own opinion!!!It is, however, not a camera for someone like me, who is looking for an upgrade to my D7000 that hasn't got a ridiculous amount of MPs. Why not put the 16MP full frame sensor in a D300s and keep a cheaper retro line as well?
D7000? Horrid in lowlight compared to this. The D7100 has a slow buffer. The D4 sensor alone does in fact justify a price higher than the D610.
Flash sync: You do understand why that's limited with focal plane shutters, right?
Does Leica still sell the M9 new?
And the M9 is plenty easy to use, all you have to do is know how to use a rangefinder. Anyhow: I think you should look at the M240.
"Top range APS-C cameras can give the Df's low light performance a run for its money at 1/3 the cost." Ha, ha, ha, clearly you have no idea of what the D4 can do in lowlight. (The D7100 is decent in lowlight but doesn't get much further than D610 territory.)
That's "yesterday's electronics" sure shoots high ISO lowlight better than today's gear.
Have you priced a Leica M240? Clearly not. And that body sure is nearly noise free at the top ISO (6400), unlike say the D610 Sony A7.
ovatab: ... disappointing ...... small coverage ...... inconvenient ...... inconsistent ...... not best suited ...... falling off ...... awkward ...... not terribly comfortable ...... rather large and heavy ...... slow ...
classic fail :(
Nothing wrong with reading online before purchase, but in this case I'd also try to handle the body myself before purchase.
And you see, I have handled the body and shot say 45 raws with it.
I don't own the Df. However I have shot a bit with it.
Bamboojled: Some of the comments in the review are interesting, especially the focusing comments in low light, as I find the focusing on the Df to be as quick and as accurate as my D800.
I wonder if this is going to be scrutinized as much in the A7/r review as it was on the Df review.
Okay, but then the problem you experienced was with the non-center AF points, that's important information. As is the fact that you think the AF from the center point is good.
I do think that the AF from the D4 in the Df's body would have slowed sales of the D4. Perhaps as you realize if the D5 has even better AF, then the Df2 can get a better AF system.
PaulDavis: It will be interesting to see how the Sony a7 and a7r compare. They will probably have more pros and less cons and then a lower rating.
The A7 is a decent high ISO body, but can it readily be used at ISO 18,000?
I know for a fact that it has cyan and magenta blotching in shadows at ISO 16,000, probably lower too. I have my own raws which easily demonstrate this.
drummercam: Reviewed already? Why did DPR skip Pentax K-3?
Yes it appears that the simulated AA filter can be turn off while the image stabilization is still engaged. Check before purchase.
DC Akowua: 'is this a half-price D4 or a D610 with a 50% markup?' The reviewer ask....This camera is clearly a D610 with a 50% mark up. I don't know why some people refer to it as a mini D4....nonsenseThe D700 was a mini D3 because the D700 shared more than just the sensor.The Df look nice though...especially the black one.
That AF on the D700 wasn't very good, no where near as good as the D3s or the D4. (Now the D700 may have had the same AF system as the D3, but that's not a body I've used nor would I get excited about its high ISO performance.)
Then the Df sure is quieter than the D4.
AdamT: Same AF module as the Consumer D5300 whereas the £700 (with cashback) D7100 gets the full hit Pro 3500 AF module .. Japanese camera companies never cease to amaze me
Drop the requests for more mega pixels, buy a D610.
the Mtn Man: I love the retro styling. This might be the perfect anti-theft camera design. What thief is going to want to steal what at first glance looks like an obsolete, 35mm film camera that wouldn't fetch more than $10 at the pawn shop?
Kinda think most thieves are interested in a quick sale.
Digital Suicide: Thanks DPR for the right review. Got your final words. They speak to me in only way: D610 is much clever choice (for me).
Higher ISO numbers make for better lowlight shooting, like concerts. Or higher shutter speeds for things like indoor sporting events. This is all really obvious. And in fact 35mm film had advantages over digital, until about the year 2003 when digital's higher ISO capacity permanently won the race. Yet again: Technology moves on and improves, irony Kodak TV screen tech is about to replace all monitors.
You didn't say that you were limited to Nikon. Right the D610 is a plenty good camera.
Maverick_: Why punish Nikon for stepping out and producing a beautiful retro camera.
It's not like they abandoned their normal model range.
They just paid homage to the classics. Red Dot does it every day. Auto and motorcycle companies do this rather often too. Nothing wrong with it.
And of course the internals are from a current model, did you expect they create a whole new product just to sell a handful for those with a sense of nostalgia?
As a non-Nikon fan, I think Nikon should actually be praised for thinking out of the box for just one model. Nice concept!
Have you handled the Df? And shot with it?
jamesm1291: As an owner of the DF, I was was amazed by how much it resembled an attempt to damn with faint praise. Then I saw the rating and saw the reviewer had to concede the excellent performance of this camera in the face of his prejudices. I began seriously taking photos in the 50's through a series of Pentax, Canon and Nikon film SLR's. The DF harkens back to these days and I am unashamedly in love with it. Unlike the opinion the reviewer, I find this camera feels quite solid and substantial. It also has wonderful creative capabilities and provides logical access to them. No other DSLR can surpass it in the excellence of its images. It cries for prime lenses, not zooms.
If you are a lover of fine craftsmanship, appreciate the old days when the photographer controlled the camera and not the other way around, want the finest available image quality and are into walk around street photography and stunning portraiture, this camera shines. The price is high, but the rewards are great.
But the Nikon D800 isn't "better specced". And that's a point you chose to ignore. Now the D800 may do things that you find important, but that's only for your purposes.
Then whatever camera you use, the lenses really matter too.
It is simply untrue that the D800E has the best image quality. First of course the D4 is useable at much higher ISOs.
Then lenses matter a great deal for image quality. So that opens up the field to the Leica M240, and good Leica M lenses are better optically than good Zeiss lenses that you can use on this Nikon body.
Last you of course forgot the Sigma SD1, which at ISO 400 and below does amazing image quality.
You took a simplistic approach--thinking that mega pixels are everything. DR isn't great on the D800 either.
"Worse" in what way? And "worse" than which Nikon DSLR?
By the way "poor lowlight AF" is not an acceptable answer.
You may want to check the lowlight AF yourself, many people find the performance good.
The A7r is no where near as good at lowlight high ISO shooting as this Nikon.
Those aren't the greatest Zeiss lenses for the A7r and the A7r aint real good at lowlight high ISO shooting. Very audible be the A7r too.
This Df's sensor is also a good bit better at high ISO lowlight shooting than the sensor from the A7 or D610.