dannyboy5400: Less features for more money? Nikon deserves to make money off any fool willing to buy this.
Quality instrument like the broken D600?
Plastic dials and the AF unit from an APS-C camera. Enjoy your 'quality instrument' my friend....
techPro: Big bulky and too expensive better to get the EM1 or G7.
@Tom_A, the df obliterates nothing about the EM1.
The EM1 destroys the DF in autofocus speed and accuracy. I know this because my current Nikon DSLR has the same crippled AF unit. Once you try the Olympus AF, you know it nails every shot, and you feel crippled when you get back to your Nikon DSLR. What good is full frame if half your shots are out of focus? What are they thinking putting an APS-C AF unit in a full frame camera anyway?
The EM1 destroys the DF in stabilization on fast primes. Sure you can get VR on zoom lenses, but not on the f/1.4 and f/1.8 primes.
That and the Olympus lenses are generally better than the Nikon ones. It's a matter of taste of course, but that 50mm f/1.8G is rubbish.
photo nerd: this is the worst joke in camera history... wtf is Nikon thinking the price is ridonculously. They did have all the possibility to create a massive Market leader in retro looking camera but instead they made a huge pile of ... *headscratching*.. na I can't say it on here but you all know what I mean.
@vFunct: this is like 1999 all over again and people shouting "NO PROFESSIONAL USES AN LCD SCREEN". Look how many people are still using ugly big CRT screens...
Sony is 2 years ahead of the game.
And Zeiss glass poops all over your 'professional' Nikon and Canon glass anyway.
Regueira Photo and Film: I'll be delighted to see is someone is selling his/her D7100 to pay less than half of this camera.
I'm sorry to be sarcastic, but looks like Nkn Engineers just didn't learn anything from Leica's M about how to make a retro camera and producing a good and relative cheap one for the masses.
Appealing of DF is fantastic, but I will not trade it, neither ergonomics, functions or capabilities for a less capable camera, specially paying more than $750 over a better one (D610/6D). Nice try. Good for snob and riches. May be good for Nikon and/or Nikonians.
But we will see in a few months if this is a goal or a fail.What do you think about it?
As a Nikon user I feel insulted by this camera. It's like a grotesque retro Pentax K1.
I will sell my Nikon DSLR and f/2.8 Nikon zooms and either stick with my excellent Olympus PEN or get the new Sony. I find it insulting that my cheap-ish PEN half-frame camera works better than my Nikon DSLR.
valdazis: For this price it supposed to have 51 point AF module at least. That "sanitary towel" on a FX viewfinder in Nikon is just not right. I like the idea that it's 16MP by the way, but that again does not add up to the pricing. Good camera - bad strategy. Pity though...
The problem with the Nikon 39-point AF module is that it doesn't work. It's slow and misses focus all the time. Also, it is intended for APS-C, so on full frame all the focus points are squished in the center of the frame. It's terrible.
stormwatch888: Nikon, Nikon....what is more to say about "this"? Old old sensor, old AF, old expeed, one card slot, no wi-fi, no gps, no video, and tons of other features expected, but of course not implemented. Ridiculous ammount of knobs and dials, mediocre design from start, but catastrophy in the real world, too big, with those ridiculous "new" old lens with glued silver ring around it.
Whom you gonna sell "this" in 2013 and 2014 except the "great" audience of ~5000 people...what are you actually doing? You launched 3 new cameras this year - "this", D610 ( but it's only the old D600 with fixed oil problems) and the D5300, which is the best ever crop camera regarding IQ, and from the samples on your site, D5300 performs better in high ISO than "this" and moreover it HAS Expeed 4, video, gps, wi-fi and it looks like a modern camera, not like an old bat with hypster mutations after some serious hangover ride in time machine.
This camera is aimed at old farts who cannot deal with the mirrorless revolution.
It will join the ranks of ugly CRT screens, beige desktop computers (vs. laptops) and of course hard disk drives.
Anirban Banerjee: This is a good move by Nikon. Fuji has been the pioneer of the 'retro' look with its X100/s and the X* series cameras -- esp. the physical shutter speed dial -- and Fuji has been very successful.
Fuji has been successful because it offers exciting lenses in a reasonably sized and priced package. Plus the Fuji cameras have clean lines somewhat in the direction of Leica.
The Nikon has an incredibly ugly, bloated design. It has nothing to do with the Fuji looks.
It looks insanely bloated. There's a comparison pic on Steve Huff's blog: the Sony and the Leica have such clean lines, and then there's the Nikon bloatfest.
Worst of all, you are paying $3000 for a camera with broken autofocus intended for APS-C. I have the Nikon Multi-CAM 4800 autofocus module in my current Nikon DSLR, and I know first-hand that it doesn't work at all. What an insult. Why carry a DSLR if the autofocus isn't even competitive with an Olympus PEN.
And don't get me started about that dreaded 50mm f/1.8G. I own it. It doesn't get sharp until f/2.8. The bokeh and rendering is horrible. I very much prefer my Panasonic Leica 25mm f/1.4. One would expect the full frame lens to be 4x better but it isn't, it's inferior.
I think I'm done with Nikon. It's just insult after insult. Abandoning DX, then forcing us to the broken D600 which is absolutely terrible in every aspect, and then this bloated attempt to compete with Sony/Olympus and Fuji. It's a poorly skinned D600 :(
liquid stereo: Deck chairs on the titanic...
Oly/Pana/Fuji/Sony: Here are different/better offerings — ergo, sensor size, solution size, high ISO performance, etc. — at a lower price.
Nikon: Here's one of our cams — same features, in an angled body — for the same (high) price.
Canon: What's all this then?
@Plasterk, I find it very hard to believe that Sony would be losing money as they supply all the sensors including for Nikon.
And yes, INSANELY bulky. It is 2 cm fatter than the retro Nikon cameras it is trying to imitate (which are also F-mount). Why should I be carrying this useless amount plastic when the slim Sony camera does the same thing better?
Other bulky items that got phased out by technological advancement: CRT screens, desktop computers, hard disks, walkmans, etc...
dgrogers: Somebody at Nikon was paying attention to the success of the OMD E-M5.
And yet the Olympus lens selection wipes the floor with almost everything Nikkor out there..
Those old AI lenses don't work well on digital. Especially on full frame.
The next year will be crucial to see what is possible in digital. Keep in mind that micro four thirds has f/0.95 (f/1.8 equivalent) at the wide end. Sony started at f/2.8. It will remain to be seen if f/2 or faster is possible without micro lenses or gigantic tele centric designs.... (something micro four thirds has no problem with at all).
Donnie G: My guess is that this camera will be a bare bones, entry level, full framer that will replace the APS-C D300 series in the Nikon lineup. Having some type of hybrid ovf/evf switchable viewfinder and support for full compatibility with all of Nikon's legacy dslr glass along with completely analog controls will be the camera's defining feature set. I'm also guessing that this camera will be priced at around USD $1800, just like the D300 series was. To me, that would be the move that would make the most sense within the Nikon marketing scheme. :)
The camera is already said to be costing 3000 euros.
The Nikon will go in direct competition with the Sony A7.
Nikon: > $3000, insanely bulky, crippled D600 autofocus, mediocre Nikkor glass.
Sony: $1600, slim design, world class Zeiss glass.
As it seems that Nikon has abandoned the DX system, I will be selling my D7000 and all my DX glass. I want to replace it with a slim and modern full frame system, to complement my PEN camera which I absolutely love.
nofumble: Nikon just want to send you a message, wait don't sell your Nikon gears and buy the Sony A7 just yet.
Exactly, and I am incredibly close to selling all my Nikon gear. Especially if this new Nikon Df has the crippled D600 (=D7000) autofocus.
mpgxsvcd: The conclusions should have looked more like this.
Pros:It is a Canon camera
Outstanding image Quality for a sensor using 4 year old technology.
Dynamic Range that a compact camera would be proud of.
Battery life that equals its competition when in the off position.
Inventive new Auto Focus that delivers almost as good auto focus as the original Mirrorless cameras
Enables Canon to make a profit by requiring you to rebuy all new versions of your lenses.
If you look at the provided samples, the sensor is being beat by sensors one quarter of the size.
NiklaiN: Why the hell don't you compenzate the underexposed nikon d7100 test pic?I know, you guys like cannon but they don't need these kind of advantage...
The E-P5 shot is slightly out of focus (if you compare to the identical E-PL5 and E-M5).
Just admit already that you're being paid to botch the results in favor of Canon.
Dylthedog: When I bought into Canon their sensors were the only game in town. Since then I've purchased a bag full of lenses and five bodies over the years but, like many, I feel that Canon have failed to innovate since that initial lead.
This is the first camera in a while that looks like they have done something attractive. The trouble is I find myself reaching for my M43 Oly kit before my 5D3 on many occasions and having truly compact system (more so than APS-C anyway) with a FF option means I'll never look at this camera.
Canon need this kind of tech with a competitive DR sensor across the range. Here's hoping for 2014.
Same story here...
It looks VERY promising, but first I will need a detailed comparison with other compact systems before I buy in. I need to know which compact primes will exist for Sony and how they fare against the excellent micro four thirds primes.
At the moment there is only the 35mm f/2.8 which is reasonably sized and I would like to know how it fares compared to the excellent PL 20mm f/1.7 on micro four thirds. Both have a 12mm maximum aperture, field of view is about the same, and the PL has proven to be incredibly sharp with beautiful rendering. It would be incredibly interesting to me to compare these two to see exactly how big the full frame advantage is!
On top of that I'd like to know which wide angle and tele primes Sony plans to make, how large those lenses will be.
If Sony fails to impress with the lenses, the upcoming Nikon DF seems far more enticing. The Nikon body will balance far better with the larger FF lenses, and many of us already have a lot of Nikon glass.
caver3d: Not impressed at all. The Oly E-M1 and Pany GX7 can do it better. A lot better.
Is this dynamic range myth real? I mean, if you crop an image in half, does it affect the dynamic range at all?
I'm asking because when I compare my FF, APS-C and MFT cameras, I see no major differences in DR, and dx0mark measurements seems to agree with that observation.
Deleted78792: Once again, the Equivalent Aperture chart shines and informs. The constant aperture F2.8 seems to be the new race after the interest in megapixels has waned- and it's good to see a return of focus (intended!) to optics.
The Stylus 1 does look interesting at almost half the price of the Sony RX10. The colours and contrast look great in the samples, and one does expect that from Olympus jpegs. It would have been interesting to see the size comparison against the RX10.
I also really enjoyed the photography in the samples, much nicer than the cold clinical approach to samples that DPR sometimes prefers. The good lighting and the beautiful season help of course.
I don't understand why review sites keep sticking to the archaic focal length / relative aperture / ISO ratings. These specifications are meaningless on digital and are used as a smoke screen to confuse customers.
The most important spec of a lens should be it's angle of view, in degrees. Focal length is an empty metric without the sensor size.
Aperture should be shown in absolute aperture, because this and only this will determine what the capture image will look like. Lens/camera systems with the same angle of view and the same absolute aperture will produce the same image.
And finally, something needs to be done about the ISO myth. Right now, the ISO scale is scaled to the sensor size, to match the equally scaled focal length and aperture. This is why we get the illusion that ISO 800 looks cleaner on full frame than on smaller sensors, regardless of the pixel pitch. This is nonsense, and does not give a clear picture of sensor efficiency.