Scottelly: Frankly, I think someone at Sony is on crack. They should have been ready at launch with a whole group of 9 or 10 lenses, including a kit zoom (like a 28-90mm f3.5-5.6), a premium zoom (like a 24-105mm f4), a long zoom (like a 100-300mm f4-5.6), a standard prime (like a 50mm f1.4), a premium wide prime (like a 35mm f1.4), a macro (like a 100mm f2.8), a portrait lens (like a 135mm f2), a premium long telephoto (like a 300mm f2.8), and a super-wide zoom (like a 15-24mm f2.8). Then they could go from there, offering a longer telephoto, like a 500mm f4 prime and a super wide prime, like a 14mm f2.8. Eventually they could make an 85mm f1.2 to compete with the Canon L flagship lens. ALL of the new lenses should be weather sealed, and they could all be very good quality and priced to beat Nikons and the Canon L lenses. You don't launch a new line of cameras with no lenses! It's not like they don't have the ability to make lenses or something! I don't think I'll ever understand Sony.
"They should have been ready at launch with a whole group of 9 or 10 lenses"
Sounds like you're the one smoking crack. It really is a massive undertaking for any new camera system to launch with a large lens selection. Canon had the resources to launch their EOS system with a large selection of lenses, but it's partly because they had completely killed off their previous FD system, so *all* of their resources went into EOS. But it was quite a feat. (In comparison, Oly debuted their 4/3 system with only three lenses at launch.) Plus, Sony also has other ongoing systems, so A7/A7R are not their only systems they have to, or need to, support. They don't need to go all-in on this new system, like Canon needed to do with EOS.
Systems grow. They aren't born fully mature. It's naive to expect any system to simply arrive on the scene fully mature, or even remotely close to being mature. Some consumers think that companies have unlimited resources and unlimited powers. Dumb thinking.
Men on equipment forums certainly won't understand the point of this white SL1, but from a business perspective I think it's a no-brainer for Canon in the Asian market. Asian women will love it. Asian women are already the biggest buyers of Canon's "Kiss" cameras in that region. So a cute white version of their smallest and cutest "Kiss" model is easy money for Canon. This white camera kit will do well this Christmas, especially with the blatant "white Christmas" marketing campaign.
honza_lin: !!! DISCLOSURE ;-)
Looks like a pretty smart move to me. Canon probably knows the Asian market very well. The SL1 in white cost then nothing to develop, but it will appeal very strongly to Asian women. And clearly, the video add features an Asian woman using the camera. Sell to your market = smart move. A white SL1 should do very well amongst Asian women.
jonikon: With the A7s alongside their a99 and RX1, it appears Sony is aiming to be the king of of full frame niche cameras using two different lens mounts four different lens adapters and two different flash shoe mounts . Unfortunately for Sony, it is very unlikely that these niche cameras with their pedestrian performance and image quality that can be found in the much more popular Nikon lens mount cameras will ever be sold in quantities large enough to make them profitable for them. The only question is, how long will they keep trying?
Right now, the camera industry is in a transitional time, undergoing some tectonic shifts in the marketplace. At times like this, it's a good idea for companies to be trying new stuff and diversifying their product offerings. Tomorrow's camera market is not going to be the same as yesterday's camera market because it's as if the camera market is experiencing a massive climate change. So I see Sony's huge explosion of new cameras as being a very smart move-- like a burst of new species that allows them to better adapt to a changing environment. Evolve or die. Companies that can evolve their products more quickly and more creatively are more likely to come out better in the end. I see Sony as a company that is evolving their products more quickly and more creatively than Canon or Nikon, which have been very conservative and much more reluctant to move beyond the status quo that they've established for themselves. Evolve or die. What's true in nature is true in business.
Luego: The loud shutter sound is a real turn-off for me. Hopefully Sony will address this in their future version.Listen to this hollow sound of the shutter: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WmS2fUngz2o:
Sounds like an old film camera.
northernnomadic: I could be wrong, but I've yet to see any literature in the Nikon home site regarding the Df, that makes any reference to the word, 'Retro.' Closest I've seen is classic. So without getting into semantics here, I have a question, if anyone might consider, Regarding ASA adjustment, and Exposure Comp adjustment, do you think you could switch between adjustments faster with the D4, or the Df. My point is if, 'Retro,' to some means less, or more? Personally I would rather cruise between Exposure comp, or ASA with the knobs verses a menu. With a knob its one shot, otherwise how many more moves does one make with the alternate?
With "retro" or "classic" knobs and dials, it's not about the destination, it's about the journey. Yes, they are slower to operate compared to modern controls, but for a lot of oldsters, they don't mind that it's a bit more cumbersome to use these knobs and dials. They don't want to "cruise between" various settings.
Frankly, I would avoid this camera if speed and ergonomic operation is important to you. I use exposure comp and ISO all the time, and I like those controls to be at my fingertips. In my experience, the only real benefit of these physical dials and knobs is that you can see the camera settings even when the camera is turned off or asleep. That's just not much of an advantage for me. After all, today's cameras wake from sleep, or power up, nearly instantly. But the disadvantage of these knobs and dials is that they are harder to reach during normal camera operation.
Stoker Ace: Yes. An interesting idea that seems to have divided the bloggers. However Leica have made a good wedge making "retro" digital camera's for several eons! I suspect than many may not realise that the satisfaction of owning/using something like an M8/9 is not in it's megabit framespeed or 4D video or whatever but in the tactile satisfaction of owning something that is not cutting edge but has a robust feel and is styled the same as their last 10 camera's. As an aside I think my SB11 will suddenly become a desirable retro flash for the Df if it comes the commercial success I suspect it will become.
The feel of a Leica is going to be very different from the Df. The Df is said to feel light, not terribly robust. Which makes sense, since it has a plastic body core. Only the top and bottom plates are metal. Quite different from a Leica, which feels quite solid because it's all metal. Also, the other joys of using a Leica are those silky smooth manual lenses, and the big manual focus viewfinder with focus aid. Most people will be using standard AF lenses on the Df, and the Df doesn't have a manual split prism focus screen. Leicas also have a simple elegance about them, which is what I think many people were hoping with a Nikon retro camera. Unfortunately, the Df looks like a cluttered hybrid mess. Far from the simple elegance of a Leica M9, or even a Nikon FM.
Also, Leicas have an unbroken heritage, model after model. This Df seems more like manufactured nostalgia, a product of marketing and cosmetics, retro accents on a modern body.
HowaboutRAW: And I bet the Sony factories making the sensors in the D800 and D610 charge less per-sensor made than a different factory making the sensor from the D4–this is mostly a volume thing.
Then Nikon had to substantially retool a production line to make the body with the wheels and knobs.
There’s also a new processor in this body, so that’s going to cost more wholesale, though with time that price may go down for Nikon.
So based on my guesses, your pure speculation could be entirely wrong–probably is.
If you don’t want this body and sensor, then don’t buy it. But if you want this sensor, you’ll then have to spend about $6000.
You sure are full of a lot of defensive, wild, baseless theories, aren't you? Give it a rest, why don't you. You act like this camera is your first born, or something. Some people will buy this camera, most wont. Don't take it so personal.
If you really want to support this camera, and support Nikon, go buy one! Heck, buy two. Everyone who loves this camera needs to put their money where their mouth is and buy this camera.
Coliban: The Df is NOT a "retro" camera, only people who´ve always stuck to the status quo and who never have enough fantasia to incorporate new developments think in this way. The Df is a step in the future, preserving techniques which have proved reasonable for one century and combining with state of the art quality High-Tech components. People who think the quality of a camera is the result of outwardness style may think as well they could give milk like a cow when they tie themselves a cowbell around their necks.
The reality is different.
You produce good photos when, first, you can make good photos and second, when you have they taste and abilities to do so. They outside look of a camera is not important. The Df is not "Retro" the Df is a camera with dials and wheels, proven to be good for most of the artist in the past.
Only ignorants can combine the outwardness style of a camera with a supposed quality of the results: the images, taken by the cam.
@NCB - "So "modern" means a chunky grip?"
No, modern means being able to utilize the refinements in ergonomic design that most of today's DSLRs offer. That means a grip that is sculpted and proportionally sized to the body and lens system. That means having a shutter button that is optimally placed on the grip where your finger naturally falls. SLR bodies universally adopted these particular design features because over many decades of refinement, iteration after iteration, this is what was found to be the best form. Form follows function. Unfortunately, in the case of the Df, form follows fashion: retro fashion.
They could have easily outfitted a camera with prominent dials and knobs for those who like these kinds of controls, but without sacrificing the ergonomics of a good grip and shutter button placement. Too bad they took retro too far, sacrificing good form for fashion/style. (Expensive fashion/style, too.) Sadly, they threw the baby out with the bath water.
"Who cares about the box as long as it functions well? There's a big difference between retro visuals and retro tech;"
That's what I'm saying: I think Nikon made the choice of retro visuals at the expense of function. By lopping off a big chunk of the grip in favor of a more primitive "retro" grip, they compromised ergonomics. Less grip to hold on to, and less room for their normal DSLR battery forcing them to use a much smaller battery. Also, putting the shutter button on the body was a choice of "retro visuals" too! Less ergonomic, no real reason for it. Also, the "retro" style VF hump with its leatherette covering: another "retro visual" that they chose instead of the D610's built-in flash; again, "retro visuals" over function. It's obvious that Nikon made the choice of "retro visuals" over function. It's marketing! This isn't merely a case of Nikon choosing "retro tech"; if that were the case, they could have just put some "retro tech" dials on a D610 body and called it the D610f.
"The Df is not "Retro" the Df is a camera with dials and wheels, proven to be good for most of the artist in the past"
No, the camera is "retro". If it were simply a Nikon DSLR "with dials and wheels", they wouldn't have given the Df such a small, shallow grip and wouldn't have moved the shutter button to the top plate. They would have preserved the deep, sculpted grip of their other DSLRs, along with the shutter button's ergonomic position atop the grip. But instead, they threw out these ergonomic considerations in favor of "retro". Also, do you seriously think the leatherette atop the viewfinder was put there by accident? Of course not! It was put there for "retro" style.
If they really wanted to just offer a camera with dials and wheels, they could have just put these wheels and dials on one of their other DSLR bodies, for example the D610 body, and offered it as a "dials and wheels" variant of the D610! Call it the D610f! Instead, they went with a full faux "retro" design.
ArunasS: In a way it's a nice camera, however D600/610 is not worse for a lot less. It's all about feeling and looks. OK, I could be possibly interested, if the size and weight is somewhere like my old lovely FM3a.
@Anastigmat - nevertheless, it hasn't kept the best photographers from doing great photography even in the harshest conditions. Just ask NatGeo photographers who regularly shoot in such extreme conditions with their battery-powered gear, from the jungles of the Amazon to highest peaks of Antarctica. Heck, they're even shooting video in these conditions!
Here are the photos (shot with DSLR) from that expedition, shot by Cory Richards:
So I have to laugh when people bring up the notion that DSLRs can't handle severe, tough conditions (unlike-- supposedly-- old film SLRs). They can, and they do. And it doesn't get any worse than those conditions!
Besides, in such harsh and demanding conditions, it can be a BIG advantage to not have to pop open the back of your camera every 36 shots to unload and load film!
Vitruvius: It makes perfect sense that the filthy rich purists are more likely to drop big cash on a sexy exclusive camera that the Joneses don't have if it DOESN'T have video (although it has HDMI) or wireless (even though those feature probably cost pennies), but for $2750 this thing dosn't even have 1/8000 shutter speed! I am sure some purist will get their shorts in a knot just because it has live view. Interesting that Nikon decided to fill the void that Hasselblad failed to fill.
@HowaboutRAW - so are you saying that cameras should base their current specs on what was available 25 years ago!!!
To compete in today's market, it really helps to have specs that are competitive with today's cameras. Or if it doesn't, it should at least have a low price. One or the other. Df doesn't do either one, so it's not surprising that (according to Nikon Rumors), the demand for the Df appears to be low. Maybe Nikon likes the Df being a low volume product. But Nikon's recent financials aren't great, so the timing is bad:
"Nikon Corp cut its full-year unit sales forecast for high-end cameras for the second quarter in a row on Thursday [Nov. 7, 2013], as a dramatic fall in demand among photography hobbyists that began last year accelerated faster than expected. The company posted a 41 percent drop in operating profit to 21.9 billion yen ($222 million) for the six months ended September, saying overseas demand for pricy single-lens reflex models had remained depressed."
T3: If "retro" never existed, and this was simply a brand new design of camera, I think people would be looking at it a bit more objectively (i.e., without the cloud of nostalgia love). Instead, we would be comparing it to other DSLR designs, and be saying...
...the grip is too small and shallow, the shutter button is poorly placed, the lug straps are poorly placed especially once the straps get installed, the top plate is cluttered, the dial and control markings are tiny, the top LCD is tiny, dial markings should be illuminated to make them easier to see in lower light, few of these controls are easily reachable from normal hand holding positions, the use of a mechanical plunge cable release negates the option of electronic intervalometer and radio remotes, other body designs with larger grips accommodate larger batteries, it's pricey, etc.
But instead, the love of "retro" allows all these normal considerations to be ignored. "Retro" certainly has a powerful and odd effect.
@NCB - CSC cameras and their lenses are generally much more compact than FF DSLR gear. So you really can't make a direct comparison. People move to CSC to use slimmer, more compact gear. The Df, on the other hand, is just a FF DSLR within a FF DSLR system of lenses, minus the ergonomic considerations of your typical FF DSLR. I just don't see why Nikon couldn't just give us a full, deep grip with a shutter button on it. It would certainly be more comfortable and ergonomic. Oh, yeah, they can't do that because it would spoil the "retro"-ness of this camera. Sounds absurd and very superficial. Well, if they didn't think they should do it for retro reasons, they should have looked at their own F4 prototype from 1985:
The F4 is certainly a "retro" camera, but with a decent grip that has a shutter button on it.
Tom Caldwell: Why is it always necessary to decry the lack of good video, and of course completely choke up over "no video" there are still just a few photographers who get by with stills only and who find that video buttons and other components just get in the way.
Heavens - someone motionless with an amazing retro (d)slr with a flip lcd out the side video making the kids concert. There are already plenty of camera admirably suited for this work. Why buy this sort of camera to "do video"?
But I guess something has to be found to criticise - there seems little else.
I think it's absurd how video-hating photographers "choke up over" just a small video button. And yet, they seem to have no problem with a camera that gets a bunch of knobs, dials, switches, and locking pins, scattered all over the camera and even stacked on top of one another. Yeah, that stuff is awesome! One little video button? Terrible!
I just fail to see how the inclusion of video would have hurt the sale of the Df. What, video would have betrayed the "purity" of this old school retro manual camera? Let's face it, this camera isn't very "pure" regardless.
The irony is that the exclusion of video is being used as a marketing and pricing gimmick...I mean, tool. "Pay more for this *pure* camera that doesn't have video! Yes, taking away the video capability actually cost us more, so we have to pass that cost on to you, the buyer! Pay more for the privilege of not having that distracting video button!"
jackspra: Makes no sense to omit video.
You guys sound like the old grumps who want to go back to having cell phones that only made phone calls. You guys want a phone that has no camera, no video, no music playback, no internet, etc. Just phone calls! Because retro is cool, and that's how you think phones should be! Well, I think that train has long left the station, and people like a little bit more flexibility and capability with their devices whenever possible. Why? Because people like to decide for themselves which features of a product to use and how. And if there are some features they don't use, then they just don't use them, rather than forcing that particular feature to be removed for the sake of "purity" or just for the sake of denying someone else from having the option.
@GodSpeaks - I'd like to see a breakdown of how many videographers and movie makers would actually go out and buy DSLRs if DSLRs didn't do video. I am betting the numbers are quite low. Every wedding videographer I've worked with in the last few years at weddings is using DSLRs. That whole market is now mainly using DSLRs.
I'd also like to see the breakdown of photographers who have been in any way hurt or injured because of video in DSLR. I'm betting none.
The truth is that photographers who hate video in DSLRs are really just being defensively territorial. They hate the fact that the use case for DSLRs has been broadened and widened beyond the purely photographic community thanks to video. They hate that DSLRs are now being used to shoot music videos, commercials, indie movies, family birthday parties, vacations, wedding, etc. Oh, the sacrilege! How bare people use DSLRs for anything other than just photos! How dare DSLRs offer consumers more value for their dollar!
I guess if you only ever used smaller lenses, like the 50mm prime, the compromises in ergonomics and grip size won't be so much of an issue. But with larger lenses, and longer shooting days, I think people will missing having a more ergonomic body.
"nice with a slimmer DSLR, they have grown so fat over the years”
The Df really isn't a slimmer DSLR. It's simply the same size and weight as a Canon 6D. But with an inferior grip and ergonomics. In fact, that's the main way the Df attempted to slim down...by sacrificing the size of the grip, and the size of the battery (which would normally go into a larger grip). I think people will really have to consider the sacrifice in grip size, especially when using larger lenses. Roslett is being a bit optimistic when he calls it "ergonomically a dream come true."
The top view comparison really highlights just how small and shallow the Df's grip is, compared to a non-"retro" camera like the 6D. And it shows the dramatically different location of the shutter button. Over the years, with modern refinement, the shutter button was moved forward onto the grip for good reason! It's a more comfortable, natural, ergonomic location for your finger to be!
Nowelly: I find these comments incredible. As a current Nikon user, an ex-Canon user (back to the days when it all started with the EOS 650), I have to say that the Df is a refreshing addition. I will also say, as a Nikon user, in photography, ergonomics mean "ease of access to the majority of critical exposure and mode controls at a heartbeat" (because often in photography, you need to make a split second decision, not browse through endless menus and two-handed command dial + button options). Photography is all about getting that vital shot, not about faffing with over-complicated gear and impressing your mates with what hangs around the neck. The Df offers a return of that elusive one-turn dial adjustment or flick of a switch, made possible without removing an eye from the viewfinder ... many photographers will view that possibility alone, with D4 sensor, as worth it's weight in gold.
"The Df offers a return of that elusive one-turn dial adjustment or flick of a switch, made possible without removing an eye from the viewfinder ...
No, the Df is the opposite of what you're saying. These control dials aren't easily reached from normal hand holding positions, so good luck trying to turn them while your eye is to the viewfinder. Plus, most of these controls are locked, requiring you to depress locking pins before turning them. All the controls are designed to be slower to use than modern interfaces. That's "retro". Take the process of simply changing exposure comp, for example. It's a very easy, ergonomic process on a modern DSLR, easy to do even with your eye to the viewfinder. On the Df, it's on a dial located on the left side of the camera, and you have to depress a locking in to do so. Not exactly "ease of access to the majority of critical exposure and mode controls at a heartbeat". Just watch the video ads! This camera is all about slower operation.