Previous news story    Next news story

Nikon Df test scene samples added to first impressions review

By dpreview staff on Nov 28, 2013 at 00:14 GMT

Having spent a little more time with a full production unit, we've updated our Nikon Df coverage with images from our studio test scene and some more handing impressions. Nikon's thoroughly retro full-frame Df uses the same 16MP chip first seen in the D4, and provides an unprecedented level of support for legacy lenses. The new scene shows its performance in both daylight and low light, with downloadable image files. As always, you can compare the Df to the increasing number of cameras in our test scene.

188
I own it
391
I want it
83
I had it
Discuss in the forums

Comments

Total comments: 206
ajamess
By ajamess (4 months ago)

So, I went to Glazer's in Seattle and handled one of these fellas. It felt good in the hands, although I'm used to a gripped body (D800 / D7100), so maybe a bit small for my tastes.

One thing I noticed, though, was that the viewfinder was AMAZING. I mean, better than the D800E by a good margin. I don't know what they changed but it was SO easy to manually focus, even with the 50/1.8G SE on it.

0 upvotes
peevee1
By peevee1 (4 months ago)

Funniest thing in the world - look at Df vs E-M1 JPEG comparison at ISO 12,800. E-M1 has less detail smearing and WAY less color blotchiness than Df! Same 16 mpix, sensor is quarter of the size! Wow, Nikon's JPEG engine sucks! Totally useless, might as well be RAW-only cameras absolutely requiring Lightroom processing - like in the good old days. ;-)

2 upvotes
HowaboutRAW
By HowaboutRAW (4 months ago)

Olympus has a good reputation for out of camera jpegs. Also in my experience with the Olympus EM1, ISO 12,800 is a good bit beyond where that camera can be used comfortably.

Lightroom is not a way of processing raws, Adobe Camera Raw is, and ACR comes in other platforms than the notorious resource hog Lightroom. Then there will be many other ways of processing Nikon DF raws, some examples: Aperture, Capture NX2, CaptureOne, PhotoNinja, DXO 9. So there is no such thing as “absolutely requiring Lightroom processing”.

2 upvotes
peevee1
By peevee1 (4 months ago)

Well, if you say E-M1 is not usable at 12,800, then Df's JPEG is not usable even at 6,400 so bad it is.
I personally think they both are usable at 12,800 if you look at the picture and not at the pixels. On E-M1 even details are preserved.
Regarding ACR and Lightroom, I am pretty sure they share image processing code so produce the same results.
"Lightroom" was a joke-reference to lightroom for processing film in the times Df tries to emulate. :-) Lighten up. ;-)

0 upvotes
HowaboutRAW
By HowaboutRAW (4 months ago)

p-

I didn’t draw any conclusions about jpegs from either body. I’ve not shot, nor seen, jpegs from either body. However, I’ve shot raws with the EM1 and have raws from the DF, and the raws from the EM1 become problematic above ISO 6400–though not quite unusable, while DF and D4 raws are of course useable well beyond ISO 6400.

I know what a darkroom is, know what a light table is but have no idea what a lightroom is, albeit apprehend what the software product Lightroom is. Anyhow ACR is less of a pain through Photoshop, or then there are the other options like CaptureOne or Capture NX2.

I really like the Olympus EM1 and wish that Nikon’s ED lenses could match the optical performance of good Olympus 4/3 and m4/3s lenses.

0 upvotes
peevee1
By peevee1 (4 months ago)

"I’ve not shot, nor seen, jpegs from either body."

Look at the test scene. At least it is the same scene, although exposed differently for some reason.

0 upvotes
peevee1
By peevee1 (4 months ago)

"no idea what a lightroom is"

You do - its a software, obvious reference to darkrooms.

0 upvotes
HowaboutRAW
By HowaboutRAW (4 months ago)

p–

I don’t waste my time looking at in camera jpegs, partly because of a slow connection at home, but really mostly because I don’t care about jpegs. Lightroom still isn’t used for extraction/development–unlike a darkroom. And it’s the lower case lightroom that perplexes me. Not what the software is.

0 upvotes
Akpinxit
By Akpinxit (5 months ago)

Indeed ,as already was said here , or there is something wrong with sensor : or the lens , but the samples are way to soft .
One thing that can actually can be learn from these photos , is good IQ with high ISO

Comment edited 4 minutes after posting
0 upvotes
HowaboutRAW
By HowaboutRAW (5 months ago)

I think there are other examples one can look at elsewhere on the internets.

0 upvotes
naththo
By naththo (5 months ago)

Even K3 is same as Df in studio comparison. Way too soft. I had a look at another website like Image Resource seems to be better as it focus correctly. But remember, lens may be problem. Or they attempt to use Manual Focus.

0 upvotes
kecajkerugo
By kecajkerugo (5 months ago)

one more time: the Nikon is a great camera for those who really need the shallow FF DOF (for these guys who make high DOF photos any FF camera is DISADVANTAGE).
Quality eise pls note than most o the moder, high end cameras give you excellent results and you will not notice any difference on the screen of you TV set, the day you will show your pictures to your family.
Still, for pixel lowers proposing to make a test using the DP review comparometer: just bring to the comparison the E-M1, X-E2, GX-7 and the Nikon and then switch to the ISO 6400 in the daylight and after that in the "night light".
Be fair, look inti JPEGS and see that the FF does not bring obvious advantage and yet can loose with e.g the Fuji superior X sensor, at least in the daylight scene. So now the ergonomic and sort of pleasure dictates your choice and not pure picture quality, especially considering the bulkiness of the FF equipment! And please just be fair when you look into the suggested comparison....

1 upvote
HowaboutRAW
By HowaboutRAW (5 months ago)

I suggest you look at other samples than these posted by DPReview if in fact you’re interested in purchasing this camera or lens (an interest which doesn’t appear to be the case).

No, display on a screen is not the only method of viewing digital photos–most screens don’t come close to a good inkjet printer+good paper.

No, jpegs are not enough.

The D4 with a good lens does very good IQ, so likely the DF too.

In fact high ISOs are real important to some people. No one here is saying that for example the image quality of either the Canon 5D3 or Nikon D610 is poor.

You also seem confused about DOF.

0 upvotes
kecajkerugo
By kecajkerugo (4 months ago)

HowaboutRAW ....per your numerous comments which mostly make a lot sense I see that you own some pro-Nikons cameras and the RAW conversion is crucial for you and others with similar needs (I use it sometimes too). Pls accept that for many people the TV screen is the only viable device to display pictures. Who makes big prints these days? The DF is not a pro camera.It brings sort of nostalgic mood for enthusiast and there is nothing wrong with that but one shall accept that fact that given the limited tools to display the photos the difference between the FF and the APS-C will hardly be visible. And again, just for JPEG shooters: compare theses from DF and see how the Fuji wins. I am not confused by the DOF concept at all..do some work and search for information..It can be surprised for many pros using....smaller sensor just means more DOF, on a FF you need to compensate this by higher aperture number which translate to higher ISO needs (in some situations can be limiting)

Best regards

0 upvotes
HowaboutRAW
By HowaboutRAW (4 months ago)

kecajkerugo:

Wait until you see an AMOLED TV. Remember I only said most monitors are easily bested by a good inkjet printer with good paper–there are exceptions. My laptop has an LCD based exception.

I don’t waste my time looking at in camera jpegs, partly because of a slow connection at home, but really mostly because I don’t care about jpegs–got no problem with those who do care about jpegs, but don’t confuse jpeg quality with overall image quality from this body. (Here the Fuji X-ASPC cameras have an excellent jpeg engine–this is well known.)

No one claimed that the DF is a “pro” camera, but it sure has pro high ISO low noise capacity–that say the D800 doesn’t. And the DF sure is quieter than the D4, so can be used where the pro D4 just can’t.

You seem to have reversed your original point about DOF. Stopping down to focus, okay, some people use that technique, sometimes. So the D4/DF has a great high ISO sensor, unlike the Nex7. Focusing is usually the least of the problems.

0 upvotes
marike6
By marike6 (5 months ago)

Question for staff: is there any chance of reshooting these Nikon Df Studio samples?

I know you guys work hard on this stuff, but these Df samples seem a bit out-of-focus.

Thanks.

3 upvotes
marike6
By marike6 (5 months ago)

@HowaboutRAW

No, it's not me, I'm already buying the Df as I've downloaded tons of images which look great. It's that DPR Studio Samples do a disservice to future users and they do not represent the Df well at all.

I've said the same thing about the out-of-focus EM-1 RAW images in the DPR Studio Scene. It defeats the purpose of the Studio Scene database, and it would probably take less than an hour for them to fix it.

2 upvotes
kecajkerugo
By kecajkerugo (5 months ago)

marike6,...come on ..ypu do not have to fight for each Nikon camera which is evaluated by DP review and yet not score to your (read Nikon) expectations.....

0 upvotes
Eric Hensel
By Eric Hensel (5 months ago)

Resolution seems about identical to the sony-sensor 16mp cameras...why would you expect it to out-resolve these at 100 iso?

0 upvotes
Richard Butler
By Richard Butler (5 months ago)

@marike6

I'll go back and look at the focus confirmation images next time I get a chance (probably Tuesday, now), but re-shooting is several hours work, so I won't commit to that until I'm sure it's necessary.

5 upvotes
HowaboutRAW
By HowaboutRAW (5 months ago)

marike6:

My point wasn’t to question if these DPReview samples are out of focus; I’ll wait until ACR extracts the raws before downloading these files from DPReview. My point was don’t go by one example set. So look at what IR posted too–but as you say you have other examples for your purposes. (I will say here that I don’t find the new studio scene from DPReview real helpful.)

0 upvotes
marike6
By marike6 (5 months ago)

@R Butler

Thanks Richard. I know that you guys work really hard on the reviews.

But surprisingly in RAW, the text "As with you, so also with us" (above the center focus point of the scene) is nice and crisp on the Fujifilm X-Pro1, X-M1, G-M1, Nikon 1 J3, et al. Whereas the same text seems a soft, and blurry on the Df.

Since the studio samples are a big part of each camera review it would be nice to have each new camera well represented.
Anyway, thanks for taking the time to comment.

@kecajkerugo, @Eric Hensel

I've said the same about the EM-1 RAW studio samples below ISO 800 they are soft.

Besides, I'm not the only one saying these Df shots look "blurry" or back-focused. See the comments below. A Fujifilm X-E1 RAW file processed in LR, it should not noticeably better sharper than a FF DSLR.

2 upvotes
Eric Hensel
By Eric Hensel (5 months ago)

It's clear that this thing is fantastic at low-noise, at any ISO. I would assume, samples or no, it will resolve at least as well as any current 16mp sensor.
The issue for many, including myself, is the quirky pseudo-mechanical interface, and the lack of modern amenities for manual focusing, since they declined to provide a split-screen, or interchangeable screens. I will handle one, but doubt it's for me.

0 upvotes
HowaboutRAW
By HowaboutRAW (5 months ago)

Eric–

The D700 didn’t have a split screen, but like the DF+D4 the D700 has focus confirm that most certainly works well with at least some manual focus lenses–like the Zeiss F mounts. So that’s a very modern manual focus “amenity”.

Focusing an SLR without a split screen isn’t real difficult–clarity of the prism and lens helps a good bit here. And in the case of the Nikon D700, one could send that body into Nikon for installation of a split screen.

Also the wheels are not pseudo mechanical–they’re very real, with very real functions. Albeit no: It’s not a purely mechanical SLR like the Nikon F. But of course, a purely mechanical digital body would be an oxymoron.

Kind of reads like you’re not interested in many Nikon DSLRs, except the D4, since that's the Nikon DSLR on which you can swap a screen yourself. That too has wheels, somewhat different placement though.

0 upvotes
HowaboutRAW
By HowaboutRAW (4 months ago)

Eric–

I handled a DF body on Dec 3rd, and it sure looks like the focus screen can be removed with the right tools, so very like the D700.

0 upvotes
attomole
By attomole (5 months ago)

Its trivial comment I know but i can't decide if I like this or not!

Its not sufficiently retro fashionable, say like the Fuji X100 or tightly "resolved" modern designs like the D3 300/700 series, to really work in either way as something that makes me want it.

0 upvotes
HowaboutRAW
By HowaboutRAW (5 months ago)

Right "trivial" would be the right adjective.

Ironic the AF on the Fuji X100, no?

Have you handled the DF body?

0 upvotes
marike6
By marike6 (5 months ago)

After reading this excellent Sam Hurd Df review it can't imagine a better camera for most of us enthusiasts. Great images, really quiet shutter, nice LiveView implementation, and a great looking body. A must read with video previews.

http://www.samhurdphotography.com/2013/gear-reviews/nikon-df-dslr-retro-styled-camera-real-world-review-compared-to-nikon-d4

Comment edited 53 seconds after posting
2 upvotes
Mohammad AlLawati
By Mohammad AlLawati (5 months ago)

I want!

2 upvotes
King Penguin
By King Penguin (5 months ago)

I've a D600 and I like the Df, can't afford it but I like the idea of using the aperture ring on my AFD lenses........just like the old days.

1 upvote
Ken Johnes
By Ken Johnes (5 months ago)

buy the cheapo 50mm 1.8 D and saw off the aperture lever and there you have one great lens you can use like the old days ;-)

Comment edited 23 seconds after posting
4 upvotes
King Penguin
By King Penguin (5 months ago)

Bizarre reply!

3 upvotes
stevens37y
By stevens37y (5 months ago)

Buy a Pansonic LX7.
(I didn't want to be rude.)

0 upvotes
Ken Johnes
By Ken Johnes (5 months ago)

sorry, but the reply aint bizarre ,it´s the idea which is , with that lever gone the only way you can control aperture is by turning the aperture ring.
it works the same way you work with a nikon lens on a canon cam using an adapter. only drawback is, the viewfinder gets dark relative to the aperture u use, it´s like using the DOF preview button ;-)

0 upvotes
King Penguin
By King Penguin (5 months ago)

Thanks for the advice (not).......I'm just saying it would be nice to use the aperture ring on my Nikkor AFD lenses to set the aperture like in the old days and the Df would allow this, I know this is a strange to younger folk who've never had a camera to do this and don't understand why I would want this but many phptohrahers would.

I believe the XE1 and others Fujis have re-introduced this feature but I've got Nikkor AFD prime glass and like FF.

So the DF sounds nice to me, like the D600 + the above......shame about the price.

0 upvotes
sandy b
By sandy b (5 months ago)

I have a D600 with a 105 2.5 AI, and I can set the aperture with the lens aperture ring. So I am assuming you can also, right?

0 upvotes
King Penguin
By King Penguin (5 months ago)

Not with an AFD len , I've got the 20mm & 28mm.......unless anyone can tell me otherwise......

0 upvotes
Richard Butler
By Richard Butler (5 months ago)

King Penguin - if it's F mount and it's got an aperture ring, you can use the aperture ring on the Df. (explained in the 'Further Impressions' section on page 6).

0 upvotes
King Penguin
By King Penguin (5 months ago)

R Butler, I thought so and it's a feature that is not available on my D600....with AFD lenses anyway. Is that right, your experience and knowledge would be helpful......

0 upvotes
sandy b
By sandy b (5 months ago)

King Penguin see: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VmxK2k1nihs

0 upvotes
King Penguin
By King Penguin (4 months ago)

Sandy B - woah.......super, super super....thank you, it's made my day........remind myself to read the manual first next time! :)

1 upvote
Karl Summers
By Karl Summers (5 months ago)

Looks like the D610 was the smarter choice after all.

7 upvotes
HowaboutRAW
By HowaboutRAW (5 months ago)

“smarter” for what purpose? Not high ISOs. Did you choose to buy the D610 instead of waiting to see what the DF can do?

1 upvote
Ken Johnes
By Ken Johnes (5 months ago)

`smarter for allround use´.and it´s almost half the price. up to 12000 iso you wont be able to see any considerable advantage over a d600/610 .are we talking about insane iso´s? i´ll get a 5D3 if that is what you think one needs DF for.;-)

7 upvotes
HowaboutRAW
By HowaboutRAW (5 months ago)

Ken:

The D610 is not useable at ISO 12,800. (Except of course in bright light, where that ISO wouldn’t be real important.) There are very serious blotching problems with the D610 starting at about ISO 10,000.

Half of 2700 is 1350. The Nikon D610 body does NOT retail for 1350usd.

The Canon 5D III can’t touch the Nikon D4 for high ISO shooting.

Canon is not shipping a 2700usd body with the sensor from the EOS 1D X.

So instead of making things up, familiarize yourself with the D4 and the D610.

6 upvotes
armandino
By armandino (5 months ago)

Hi iso performance like D4 is a fairly specialized need, so for the few who need that this camera might be a nice alternative, for all the rest, not so much. To be honest I find Nikon cameras to be nice but a bit all over the places in terms of specs. If I had to pick one for all purposes there is nothing like the 5D MKIII.

4 upvotes
marike6
By marike6 (5 months ago)

DxOMark Low-Light scores
D4           2965 ISO
D610 2925 ISO
D800E     2979 ISO
5D III       2293 ISO

Note that these scores are in print mode (downsized to 8 mp).

In the DPR samples, the Df appears to have the least noise, not only a 12800, but visible at almost every ISO setting.

0 upvotes
Northgrove
By Northgrove (5 months ago)

ISO 12800 would be a niche use of niche uses. Even ISO 3200 is rare for me. I don't think any current full-frame format DSLR released by Nikon has high ISO performance being a bottleneck unless you're a highly specialized photographer.

0 upvotes
Ken Johnes
By Ken Johnes (5 months ago)

How about raw ,,, someone who shoots at 25000 iso dont necessarily need to shoot in raw, and the 5D3 at high iso in jpeg mode makes any nikon cam look week, including the d4,
by the way , i´d get a nikon D3s instead of D4 if i want to shoot at high iso with a nikon.
oh and im not making things up, i own a d800 which suits my work ,having worked with every nikon body and tried the DF few days back, i can say, if you are arguing about those minor difference in high iso´s , you havent touched a D4, d610 or the DF.
the DF aint worth the money........ it costs 3000Euros , D600 -1350 euro and the D610 -1650eur.
the Germany prices http://geizhals.at/de/?cat=dcamsp&sort=p&xf=516_Nikon~169_Vollformat

Comment edited 9 minutes after posting
1 upvote
HowaboutRAW
By HowaboutRAW (5 months ago)

Northgrove+armandino:

And in 2003, the idea of a DSLR that could shoot noise free at ISO 3200 would have been considered preposterous.

There are big reasons for low noise high ISO shooting, not limited to low light shooting either.

You don't get to decide what a niche market is.

For many people a basic APSC dslr, kit zoom and jpegs are fine. That doesn't mean there's no market for better lenses and better raw extraction software.

If you don't shoot above ISO 1600 much that's fine, but that's your situation. Then of course ISO 1600 never really worked for 35mm colour film, so you've already broken one barrier.

From a different field, your claims read like those who stated in, say the year 2000, that 1GB of ram is all you'll ever need for your computer.

A fine camera, the Canon 5D III, but not the equal of the D4 for shooting high ISOs.

0 upvotes
sandy b
By sandy b (5 months ago)

I have a friend who sells images from his D4 (indoor sports). 12800 is not unusual, and they look great. The thing about high ISO, it allows you to use higher shutter speeds. If I can shoot high quality shots and maintain high shutter speeds, this is the holy grail. There is nothing unusual about this, its what all photographers want, more light and more speed. NO other camera does it as well as the D4, and now the DF. If you shoot outdoors, fine, you don't need it. I see people say I don't shoot over 1600 or 3200. Its either because they can't or don't know they can. My D600 tops out rather nicely at 6400. I can get equal quality at 12800 with a Df. Thats valuable for indoor shooters. People should be GLAD that this kind of sensor is now available for under three grand instead of whining about it.

You don't need High ISO? Fine, but be glad its there for those that want/need it. Because some day that might be you.

1 upvote
armandino
By armandino (5 months ago)

HowaboutRaw & Sandy. I think there is something missing here:
Nikon D4 12,800 is outstanding, nevertheless the 5DMKIII does an excellent job. If you need speed a BMW maybe enough you do not have to have a Ferrari just because. Besides, Ferrari to deliver the specific performance needs to sacrifice somewhere else, it is not to just matter of price (i.e. comfort/capacity). For instance I'd rather get the extra 6 MP instead of the marginal performance in the non specialized iso range for an all-rounded camera.
Sometimes I think that the numbers on papers makes us blind to real use facts. I sell all the time sports shot at 12,800 from a 5DMKIII even blown at 18x11 they look fine. I am sure the D4 might have a bit cleaner print, but so what if the Canon prints are just fine?

Comment edited 2 times, last edit 5 minutes after posting
1 upvote
HowaboutRAW
By HowaboutRAW (5 months ago)

amandino:

Never said the 5D III is a bad high ISO camera, it's just not the D4 or D3s.

You can pick the one that suits you.

0 upvotes
HowaboutRAW
By HowaboutRAW (5 months ago)

Ken:

There you go making up inaccurate claims about what Nikon bodies I have and haven’t used or even touched. There are significant high ISO advantages to the D4, that the D610 can’t touch.

Never said the D800 is a crap camera. It’s just not up to the D4 for high ISO work and that’s important for some people, including me. The D800 has big blotchy magenta and cyan problems above ISO 8000. The same problems occur in the D610/600 at about ISO 10000.

It’s boring to see these kind of claims and they suggest that you’re not particularly familiar with any of these Nikon bodies.

I don’t care about jpegs, nor should you claim that’s how people shoot high ISOs--a further expression of ignorance on your part.

The pricing for the D610 that I cited was in US dollars; that point was obvious. And no a D610 body is not half the price of a DF kit in US dollars. Try checking next time.

0 upvotes
Matewka
By Matewka (5 months ago)

Nikon Df announcement: Nov 5, 2013 (3 weeks ago)
Pentax K-3 announcement: Oct 7, 2013 (7,5 weeks ago)

So far...
Df review includes: first impressions + full ISO range studio test
K-3 review includes: first impressions + worthless sample gallery

Either I'm overreacting or some brands are favoured by DPR.

Since the K-3 has this unique "software AA filter" feature, I guess many people (not only Pentax die-hards) are extremely curious what this baby can do. Not mentioning that overall Pentax IQ and NR in recent models are outstanding, even beating some FFs.

2 upvotes
Richard Butler
By Richard Butler (5 months ago)

The K-3 also has a full ISO range of studio test shots, so there's actually more content about the K-3 than the Df on this site.

Ultimately, though, we have limited resources - popularity with our readers is one of the biggest factors that we have to take into account when prioritising where to apply those resources. The Df has attracted more than twice the attention of the K-3 so, while we hope to review the K-3, the Df is likely to take priority.

11 upvotes
nawknai
By nawknai (5 months ago)

And it's fair enough that they'd prioritise a camera that has garnered more interest over one that hasn't. I'm sure it makes sense to (most) users.

People will still complain though.

0 upvotes
naththo
By naththo (5 months ago)

Nikon and Canon are the only two have the most backward compatibility lens. So those are the two are the top priority which is a main problem. Pentax is much smaller and seems quieter than the two and try to keep it low profile as they can in company until Ricoh recently joined last year and help them give a good head start but Pentax seems to be still keeping it low profile again. I don't think Pentax outlook is good at all. Ricoh/Pentax needs to return to drawing board and try get lots of good idea and create a lot more competitive and try catch up behind Canon/Nikon. It will takes years to catch up. Pentax seems to be sticking to APS-C sensor since there are some lens that mount for those cameras only. So I don't think Pentax wants to create FF camera yet. If they do then they have to make lots of new lens to fit that. See similar example of Sony new Alpha FF causes a big chaos/problem as they only have very few FE lens. Thast no good. Pentax is being careful.

0 upvotes
Rooru S
By Rooru S (5 months ago)

@naththo:
"Nikon and Canon are the only two have the most backward compatibility lens."
Sorry, what? As far as I know, only Nikon and Pentax are backward compatible with their old lenses from many many years ago. Canon has changed mount in order to get AF.

0 upvotes
backayonder
By backayonder (5 months ago)

I saw one in a shop in Sydney yesterday and it sure is big and clunky.

3 upvotes
HowaboutRAW
By HowaboutRAW (5 months ago)

“big” like Nikon D4 big? Did you handle the body you saw?

What do you consider a small DSLR?

What DSLR do you regularly shoot with?

Which full framed DSLR do you usually use?

2 upvotes
chooflaki
By chooflaki (5 months ago)

The DF is approx the same dimensions as my ASPC Fuji S5 Pro or the D200 but about 250 grams lighter. He must be comparing it to an entry level DSLR like the D3200.

4 upvotes
Ken Johnes
By Ken Johnes (5 months ago)

I dont know if you compared it with a d600 or d800, i played with one last week , it´s similar in size to d600, and lighter, funny thing is, it feels like a plastic body even compared to a d600.i dont mean the feel of the body coverings but the whole camera.my d800 feels like a brick in comparison .
it sure dosent feel like a 3000 Euro camera.

1 upvote
HowaboutRAW
By HowaboutRAW (5 months ago)

Ken J:

Likely magnesium be what you be feeling. My Contax N 35mm film body sure was lightweight and it was bigger than a D800.

0 upvotes
T3
By T3 (5 months ago)

@HowaboutRAW - Your Contax N film camera is lightweight because it is a film body. Film bodies don't have much of anything inside of them. And they didn't have big 3.2" color LCD panels on the back, either. That's why your big Contax N film body is so light! If you ripped out all the electronic guts out of a D800 (all that stuff that makes it "digital"), a D800 would be pretty light too!

As for the D4 being big, I don't see why Nikon couldn't put the D4 on a diet and make it about the size of a Df. Plus, with smoother contours and a more modern sculpted body, it won't look as clunky as the Df. A lot of that clunkiness comes from the overwrought "retro" aesthetics of the Df.

Comment edited 2 times, last edit 8 minutes after posting
1 upvote
Rickard Hansson
By Rickard Hansson (5 months ago)

T3, D4 is a brick in size and weight to better balance and support the bigger lenses that are widely being used with the D4.

0 upvotes
HowaboutRAW
By HowaboutRAW (5 months ago)

T3:

Odd the Nikon F5 was a good bit heavier than my Contax.
So no, the reason the Contax was light for a film SLR was the magnesium.

Rickard Hansson explains why the D4 should remain about that size and weight.

0 upvotes
AbrasiveReducer
By AbrasiveReducer (5 months ago)

I'm sure it wasn't planned, but maybe the Df is really a marketing exercise. Seriously. Of course they'll sell some, and there will be nitwits checking the camera's daily rank on Amazon. (A great way to make better photographs).

But getting buzz is expensive and love it or hate it, if people are still talking about the Df after CES, that's some awesome publicity. If a consumer decides the D800 is a better camera or the D610 is better value, so what? They're still buying Nikon even if they're not getting pure photography.

1 upvote
Ernest M Aquilio
By Ernest M Aquilio (5 months ago)

If you dislike the Df's performance dont buy it. Simple solution. If you like the A7's or whatever cameras performance better, then buy it. Simple solution. If you simply dont care about digital anything then just shoot your film camera. Simple solution.

11 upvotes
Nukunukoo
By Nukunukoo (5 months ago)

Df does show marginally better noise performance at the upper ISOs, especially when compared to the D610. No real advantage though, except for legacy lens and those who love lotsa knobs.

3 upvotes
sandy b
By sandy b (5 months ago)

I would say a stop better, with very usable shots above 6400. I may get this camera based on the high ISO sensor alone. That and my D600 provide a very potent 1-2 punch in low light shooting, which is important to me.

0 upvotes
marike6
By marike6 (5 months ago)

> Df does show marginally better noise performance at the upper ISOs

Upper ISOs? Seems to have less noise at every setting visible from ISO 400 and up.

3 upvotes
the-dude-75
By the-dude-75 (5 months ago)

did you scale down the otheresults to 16 mpix?

1 upvote
Coliban
By Coliban (5 months ago)

It is not only the noise performance, which may be " a little better". Is is also a higher color sensitivity and, of curse, a better dynamic bandwidth.

In short words, it is the D4 sensor.

1 upvote
Ken Johnes
By Ken Johnes (5 months ago)

well, d600 sensor actually has better colour depth as well as better Dynamic range ;-)

1 upvote
HowaboutRAW
By HowaboutRAW (5 months ago)

Ken Johnes:

What lens are you making those claims based upon? And at what ISO were both the D4 and D600 set when you did your testing?

The D800 doesn't look good to me, albeit my experience with the D600 was bit better. And then I've shot with a D4.

Comment edited 2 minutes after posting
0 upvotes
Coliban
By Coliban (5 months ago)

@Ken:

really?

Hmm, i don´t reach here the sensor comparison charts, normally, i do not need them.

regards

0 upvotes
Stanchung
By Stanchung (5 months ago)

don't get too excited

Comment edited 54 seconds after posting
0 upvotes
Ken Johnes
By Ken Johnes (5 months ago)

well, i dont really drool over the DXo charts, but you guys crack me up, so i´ll point you to dxo mark.com .
by the way ,no arguement that D4 is a better high iso cam, but not by much that one can jump up and down in extiement :-)

1 upvote
HowaboutRAW
By HowaboutRAW (5 months ago)

Ken,

The question remains what lenses did you use when testing the D4 and the D610?

0 upvotes
Ken Johnes
By Ken Johnes (5 months ago)

well, first of all, i wasnt doing any testing, i leave it to the lab pros, i was merely working with the cameras,that´s the real life testing ;-) .
with d800 as my main cam (and my own),being an NPS member i almost always get a backup cam from Nikon here, sometimes 2 if i am working with another pro, that´s when i get to use the d4 or any other body.
i only carry 24-70,70-200 2.8 ,35-1.4 .50-1.8 and 85-1.8
to be honest i use any of those primes on a backup body and leave it like that.
the dF i tried was with the new 50 1.8 .
i´ve been doing all my work with a d300 and d700 before i moved up to 800,so you know ,one learns to live with a few limitations and dont get too exited like someone who´s never had the chance to work with all those nikons out there.

by the way DF aint a mini d4, a d700 body with that sensor would warrant that price and is worth that badge...

Comment edited 1 minute after posting
1 upvote
HowaboutRAW
By HowaboutRAW (5 months ago)

Ken:

Then I think you need to wait until you have raws that you've extracted yourself. DXO sensor scoring is next to useless.

At least you've handled the DF body, but then didn't bother to get some raws for yourself--as best as I can tell.

No one claimed the DF is a mini D4.

0 upvotes
Digital Suicide
By Digital Suicide (5 months ago)

It doesn't look good. For it's price it' even bad.
"Pure photography" my *ss...

Comment edited 3 minutes after posting
17 upvotes
fleetwoodjazz
By fleetwoodjazz (5 months ago)

For pure photography, its a lot cheaper to go back to film photography and it is also a lot more "pure" :D

2 upvotes
marike6
By marike6 (5 months ago)

No offense, but what are you even talking about. Did you bother looking at the RAWs in Low-Light mode, where ALL of the other camera files except the Df's have tons of brutal chroma noise?

Go ahead try ISO 6400, and tell us which camera looks bad.

9 upvotes
Digital Suicide
By Digital Suicide (5 months ago)

Well yes, marike6, it does perform better in low light, but very marginally to my eye. Do you really think it is worth that huge extra money comparing to D610 performance? Anyway, I,m sure you shoot much more often at ISO 200 than ISO 6400. Peace :)

Comment edited 29 seconds after posting
3 upvotes
HowaboutRAW
By HowaboutRAW (5 months ago)

Digital Suicide--

Yes, lowlight performance is worth a good bit to many people and there's that whole blotchy mess that the D600+D800 experience at higher ISOs--so it aint simply a noise thing.

0 upvotes
marike6
By marike6 (5 months ago)

@Digital Suicide

The D610 is a great camera, but as a D800 user, honestly the Df is a more interesting camera to me just because of the smaller RAW files with absolutely great high ISO performance. But I agree with you that these studio images could have been shot better, or focused a bit more accurately.

0 upvotes
Shamael
By Shamael (5 months ago)

If you shoot your D800 with apsc lenses or in that format, you also get the same small raw files, sicne you will shoot in 16 mpix at that moment.

0 upvotes
HowaboutRAW
By HowaboutRAW (5 months ago)

Shamael:

Why use APSC lenses on D800, that means you can’t use the best quality lenses?

The D800 still has high ISO problems that the sensor in the D4 doesn’t. And no “resampling” doesn’t reduce noise; resampling makes the picture smaller.

The D800 is fine camera, just there are reasons for sticking with the D4's sensor.

0 upvotes
SteveNunez
By SteveNunez (5 months ago)

I really like the look of this Nikon but am somewhat disappointed in the image quality as posted by the sample studio image for comparison. My Oly OMD EM5 easily beats it and as such I can't justify the expense of the DF (even though I truly like the look of the camera itself)......I truly hope the sample picture is out of focus as it looks too soft......big let down .......I think the Sony A7 & &r will be the cameras to beat this year pending the new GH4 (or whatever it's called)....interesting times ahead.

4 upvotes
chris_j_l
By chris_j_l (5 months ago)

Compared with another 16MP sensor (eg the GX-7 which I have) and for below ISO400 there is no perceptible difference. On the other hand, above 800ISO and for textures like the sponge the difference is marked and very impressive.

3 upvotes
DPReview Staff
By DPReview Staff (5 months ago)

It's not soft, it's lower resolution than the other cameras. 16MP looks different because it resolves less detail.

5 upvotes
marike6
By marike6 (5 months ago)

> It's not soft, it's lower resolution than the other cameras

It's OOF, it has nothing to do with lower resolution. In RAW, check the text "As with you, also with us" in the center near the focus point. Versus the other 16 mp cameras like the the GM1, X-Pro1, (even on the Nikon 1 J3) you'll see that text is crisp whereas on the Df, it is blurry.

Note: the EM-1 is also OOF in RAW in all shots up until ISO 800, then someone at DPR corrected focus and it's sharp.

The Df images are never sharp at any ISO.

I'm hoping someone on DPR can shoot these again. It's a real pity that these show the camera in a really bad light and don't let people see what it's capable of.

Comment edited 3 times, last edit 9 minutes after posting
5 upvotes
sandy b
By sandy b (5 months ago)

I think Shawn is right. the text you refer to is sharper in raw then jpg. I think you are looking at a 16 mp limitation with nikons low sharpening standard.

2 upvotes
marike6
By marike6 (5 months ago)

> I think Shawn is right. the text you refer to is sharper in raw then jpg.

In RAW look at the 16 mp cameras, the Df, GM-1 and X-Pro1. With the two crop sensor cameras, the text is crisp, easily legible, and on the Df it is soft and blurry. There is absolutely no way an X-Pro1 (not known for it's sharpness in RAW) or m43 16 mp camera should be bitingly sharp and a FF Nikon not sharp. No way.

Comment edited 2 minutes after posting
4 upvotes
Shamael
By Shamael (5 months ago)

you do not need to talk long time to find why it draws less detail. A 16 mpix sensor in FF draws same as an 8 mpix APSC. The difference is the Dof. Bokeh on FF is more blurred and Dof is shallower. This camera makes picture Quality same as a 8 mpix APSC slr. If you pay that much to get a slightly improved D700, you are free to do so, I will not play Nikon's game. In a period where Sony has proven that a 36 mpix camera sells better than a 35% lower priced almost same camera with 24 mpix, Nikon's choice is totally stupid. All you can say here is that you have an oldie look camera with an old type low resolution sensor that is used in a fair overpriced 6k $ camera.

Comment edited 2 minutes after posting
0 upvotes
reginalddwight
By reginalddwight (5 months ago)

The images from the Df look soft and OOF to me.

11 upvotes
marike6
By marike6 (5 months ago)

Couldn't agree more. When DPR gets back from break they really ought to reshoot these Df samples. If the new studio scene database doesn't represent the best that these cameras are capable what is the point. The EM-1 files have the same issue, they are not in focus.

A Fujifilm X-Trans camera with well-documented ACR processing issues or even a m43 or Nikon 1 J3 camera should not be sharper and more detailed than a FF DSLR in RAW.

5 upvotes
samhain
By samhain (5 months ago)

Yeah, agreed. Maybe the lens needs some calibration...

1 upvote
Henry M. Hertz
By Henry M. Hertz (5 months ago)

maybe the camera is crap....

5 upvotes
technotic
By technotic (5 months ago)

Maybe not.

5 upvotes
Hwirt
By Hwirt (5 months ago)

The test chart results is what was expected based on the specifications; great noise characteristics but much less resolution then the higher megapixel sensors, no surprise here. This is an interesting camera from a styling perspective but really breaks no new ground functionally or otherwise.

2 upvotes
Jogger
By Jogger (5 months ago)

If i were in the market for a manual focus FF camera, i would get the Sony A7r and adapt be able to adapt every FF lens ever made.

Although, the DF makes sense if you are MFing Nikon lenses without aperture rings... but, then again those are modern lenses designed for AF with poor MFing mechanisms.

6 upvotes
Just a Photographer
By Just a Photographer (5 months ago)

Have fun with your lightmeter and your A7r in full manual....

0 upvotes
M Lammerse
By M Lammerse (5 months ago)

For a long long time Nikon users asked for a camera based on a popular film camera, which able users to operate it (partly) mechanically/manually as those film camera's . Nikon made a camera, based on requests from their own (longtime) user base.

I think Nikon did an excellent job. And this is a typical 'want' camera, aimed at Nikon users who miss/want to experience a manual operating camera with the benefits of a digital camera.

5 upvotes
Eleson
By Eleson (5 months ago)

@just ... What do you mean?

1 upvote
Just a Photographer
By Just a Photographer (5 months ago)

@Eleson, you'll soon find out as soon as you will start using your A7(r) with non-sony lenses.... and a e-mount to 3rd party lens adapter.

There will be no information about aperture and shutterspeed available as both can not be metered without Sony lenses or the Sony A-mount adapter. Which means once you've set your aperture (manually) you will need to find out the right shutterspeed. And for that to know you will need to have a lightmeter.

Comment edited 1 minute after posting
1 upvote
Combatmedic870
By Combatmedic870 (5 months ago)

@just, I believe that is false.
If the NEX cameras can do it just fine. I don't think suddenly the A7 series is going to have a problem.

I have personal experience with the nexs and m42 mount. No problem at all.

5 upvotes
Shamael
By Shamael (5 months ago)

If you shoot A7 or NEX with Sony adapter and A lenses, or Minolta A lenses, you get all the exif info you need. With other adpaters you get no info on diaphragm and lens specs only, but what does that cares me, I see what is on the shot, and that is what I show to people, i have many NEX shots done with my Nikon or Voight or Leica lenses, and no one cares, I do not even know what diaphragm it is, the adapter does not tell me, ancient lenses with diaphragm dials let me chose and note it down if I need it, but I never do. I look the result, and here it does not matters what diaphragm is selected, ISO rate and timing is given anyway in the exif file, so I can evalutae what diaphragm is was, also the bokeh betrays some of it, but still, this is not important to me, the result only counts.

2 upvotes
TrojMacReady
By TrojMacReady (5 months ago)

The camera meters off the main sensor at the aperture and shutterspeed that you choose. There is no need for a lightmeter, welcome to 2013 (or actually, way back when the first mirrorless cameras that work like this with legacy glass, were introduced).

4 upvotes
mick232
By mick232 (5 months ago)

@Just a photographer

This is non-sense. You can set any aperture you want, the camera will meter and determine the correct shutter speed. It does not need to know the aperture because it can measure the amount of available light.

3 upvotes
Eleson
By Eleson (5 months ago)

so @just is right:
"you'll soon find out as soon as you will start using your A7(r) with non-sony lenses" :)

0 upvotes
UnitedNations
By UnitedNations (5 months ago)

Interesting to see that the image quality of the DF is not much better than a Fuji X-E2. I expected more form the DF(D4) but I guess I over estimated the DF's sensor.

Comment edited 29 seconds after posting
0 upvotes
marike6
By marike6 (5 months ago)

I thought the same thing but see my post below on my I think DPR didn't focus these images properly. Note, the EM-1 is also mis-focused below ISO 800.

But I have a Fujifilm X-E1 and RAW files from it are much softer than any of the Nikon DSLRs. It just seems impossible that RAW files from a modern Nikon FF should be softer with less detail that ALL the Fujifilm X cameras (with ACR) and ALL of the other crop sensor cameras.

DPR should think about redoing these Df shots as frankly they do not look sharp at all.

2 upvotes
kecajkerugo
By kecajkerugo (5 months ago)

use proper RAW converter or....actually buy Fuji camera
We know you here...

0 upvotes
Henry M. Hertz
By Henry M. Hertz (5 months ago)

nikon is the worst underperformer in the nikkei....

and the DF will not make it better.. it´s an ugly abomination.

http://petapixel.com/2013/11/27/nikon-stock-almost-24-year-date-worst-performer-nikkey/

3 upvotes
technotic
By technotic (5 months ago)

What's Nikon's share price got to do with this camera? It is ugly to you but I like it.

10 upvotes
Shamael
By Shamael (5 months ago)

well cameras that seel make profit, and to sell they need to be good and pricey, and Nikon is not that good anymore in IQ and horribly bad in pricing policy. And such thinks are shown in the share index in stock exchange. Nikon and Canon are digging there own graves at the moment. Canon does fortunately research on sensor tech, what gave it a recent kick, but that could be just a moment. Pana, Oly, Samsung, and Sony show us the way to go, and to Nikon and Canon the only solution is taking the same way, unless they want to be burried in theri old dusty systems they eternally repolish. For a 6000$ camera sensor, this pictures are rather an insult than a discovery.

0 upvotes
HowaboutRAW
By HowaboutRAW (5 months ago)

Shamael:

The Nikon D7100, D5300, D4, D610+D800 all have very good image quality.

Are Nikon lenses optically the equal of the best from Olympus, Fuji, Samsung, Leica, Zeiss? No. But there are plenty good Nikon lenses for use on those excellent DSLR bodies.

Nikon also has the only rugged camera system with good image quality and optically very good lenses.

Many camera makers have struggled to keep up with having to introduce serious improvements every 18 months.

0 upvotes
Shamael
By Shamael (5 months ago)

the best lens does nothing on an old overdue system. I have Nikon Dslr systems bside of some mirrorless. None of all draws as good as Nex-7. My friend uses D7100 and D800, and only D800 equals Nex-7 Iq at low ISO rate. D7100 is a step away, despite using the same sensor as Nex-7. I await other tests on other sites, mainly Steve Huff's opinion and shots. Despite that, Df draws 8 mpix Apsc quality, and none of us will change that, it is 16 mpix FF, same density and pitch as a 8 mpix half sized sensor. I havs a sh.tload of lenses, also Nikon, and Nex takes them all, so does A7. Why should one then waste time with a low resolution camera who's only advantage is a better high ISO performance.

0 upvotes
HowaboutRAW
By HowaboutRAW (5 months ago)

Shamael:

Lens quality most certainly improves performance. So the "best" lens does something for older systems. Whatever "older" means here.

Also it's well known that many Sony Nex system lenses are a joke, so you've picked absolutely the wrong system to compare to any Nikon SLR lens. On average Samsung and Fuji make optically much better lenses for their respective mirrorless APSC systems.

The D7100 does NOT use the same sensor as the Sony Nex7. The D7100 uses a Toshiba sensor. And that Toshiba sensor is much better at high ISOs than the sensor in the Nex 7.

If high ISO isn't important to you, no great reason to seek out the D4's sensor, though it does better dynamic range than the Nex7 of course.

Simply put 16MP is not low resolution--you read like those who can only quote specs. Perhaps in 15 years 16MP will be considered low res, or perhaps in 15 years sensor tech will have worked out colour so much better that 16MP will still be normal resolution.

Comment edited 1 minute after posting
0 upvotes
mholdef
By mholdef (5 months ago)

In RAW, images look exceptionally good at ISO 1600 and above against anything out there (D800, Sony A7, 5D Mk III...)

4 upvotes
marike6
By marike6 (5 months ago)

Yes, at pixel level, the Df definitely has the least noise.

3 upvotes
nikoninmybag
By nikoninmybag (5 months ago)

The D610 looks virtually just as good noise wise only with morer rez. I'd choose a D610 in heart beat (assuming I could afford it) and I use MF glass!!

4 upvotes
HowaboutRAW
By HowaboutRAW (5 months ago)

Then D610 stops being useable at about ISO 10,000, whereas on can use the D4 thru at least ISO 20,000.

0 upvotes
M Lammerse
By M Lammerse (5 months ago)

@ Eugene Chan:

You are right. We (I work for a camera magazine) also tested the Df.
The manual focusing is not different to that of the D4 or D800 for example.

As with other Nikon camera's the manual focus assist you have is the 'in-focus' dot.

0 upvotes
Shamael
By Shamael (5 months ago)

And the dot can be set to focus front, rear, right left, or what. Only the EVF and focus peaking makes you select instantly where you want sharpness to be. Even with split prism and fresnel, you are limirted to the center only. If you enter in shallow dof all is easy, but in wide angle and large field in view try to find the spot you want sharpness to be, without evf focus peaking system, you're done.

0 upvotes
Lord Justin
By Lord Justin (5 months ago)

You know, while this looks like a very pretty camera, for rapportage, street photography and portraits it doesn't seem to do anything my D700 (and X-E1) can't do, apart from increase my overdraft by £2,700 odd.

Maybe I'm taking this hobby/passion of mine too seriously. But I've always thought that a good photographer's enduring statement should be his picture, not how he looks while he's taking it?

3 upvotes
InTheMist
By InTheMist (5 months ago)

I got it because it's the smallest full-frame camera that works seamlessly with my Nikkors, has a proper mirror, starts immediately, has a near-legendary sensor and looks that won't freak out my (non-pro) subjects.

3 upvotes
marike6
By marike6 (5 months ago)

The Df seems to be back-focusing.

In RAW, the easiest way to see it is by looking at the text in the center "As with you, also with us". With the other 16 mp APS-C cameras like the X-Pro1, X-M1, K-500, the Canon 700D, and m43 cameras like the GM1 and GX7, even the Nikon 1 J3, that same text is rendered in sharp focus.

Only the text from the mis-focused EM-1 RAW files is softer (note: switch EM-1 from ISO 100 to ISO 800, to see the text properly focused with the EM-1).

I know that DPR works hard on these Df studio samples, but something is up with the focus accuracy.

2 upvotes
Plastek
By Plastek (5 months ago)

Test scenes are focused manually.
And it's not the first time when dPreview can't focus all cameras in the same point (for another random example: see tests shots from Sony A77 review).

4 upvotes
marike6
By marike6 (5 months ago)

> dPreview can't focus all cameras in the same point

It's plain to see that the text "As with you, so also with you" is out of focus. And it's not a DOF issue as that text is dead center on the flat board that says "DPReview".

Compared to most other cameras, that text is just not sharp. When the Nikon 1 J3 and GM1 appear to be out-resolving the Df, you know there is a problem.

0 upvotes
marike6
By marike6 (5 months ago)

> And it's not the first time when dPreview can't focus all cameras in the same point.

Which is why exactly why DPR changed from the old studio test to this new flat studio scene: to mitigate DOF issues. But you still need to focus on the center target area which doesn't seem to be done.

1 upvote
D1N0
By D1N0 (5 months ago)

Pics look like they were shot in crop mode, the scale is off.

0 upvotes
Andy Crowe
By Andy Crowe (5 months ago)

The DF's sensor is 16MP and the studio chart images are 16MP, what's off about the scale?

2 upvotes
D1N0
By D1N0 (5 months ago)

because i thought it had a 24mp sensor

2 upvotes
Barney Britton
By Barney Britton (5 months ago)

It doesn't.

3 upvotes
chooflaki
By chooflaki (5 months ago)

I have been using the DF for two days now. Great IQ and state of the art manual focus. Does eveything else it should do. I didn't know ugly could be so beautiful. Looks like I will be becoming a hipster.

8 upvotes
Andy Crowe
By Andy Crowe (5 months ago)

I'm curious, how is the manual focus different to other FF DSLRs?

1 upvote
Eugene Chan
By Eugene Chan (5 months ago)

It's no different than other Nikon DSLRs, not sure what he was talking about it. OVF brightness should be similar to a D800/D4 and the AF screen is the D600/610's. The only manual focus peeking to be had is the arrows/dot in the embedded OVF display.

0 upvotes
chooflaki
By chooflaki (5 months ago)

I posted a thread on tis in the Nikon FX forum. Basicaly a clear bright viewfinder where graduations of focus snap in and out clearly. No digital enhancement like focus peaking. Focusing is a breeze with old AIS lenses even without the green dot.

Comment edited 2 times, last edit 9 minutes after posting
4 upvotes
Andy Crowe
By Andy Crowe (5 months ago)

> Basicaly a clear bright viewfinder where graduations of focus snap in and out clearly.

But again how's that different to other FF DSLRs? It's not like they've included a split-prism or anything...

3 upvotes
chooflaki
By chooflaki (5 months ago)

Focussing is better than my Fuji s5 pro which is set up for MF with a Katz Eye I don't know the technical reason why. Needs to be experienced. I am sure future reviews will confirm my opinion.

Comment edited 2 minutes after posting
0 upvotes
Andy Crowe
By Andy Crowe (5 months ago)

The Fuji S5 is a 6 year old APS camera, obviously the full frame DF will have a better looking viewfinder!

2 upvotes
chooflaki
By chooflaki (5 months ago)

Age has nothing to do with optical viewfinders. The best SLR viewfinders lived in the film days pre AF.

Comment edited 3 minutes after posting
3 upvotes
Andy Crowe
By Andy Crowe (5 months ago)

The main thing with the S5 is it's APS, which means the focus screen and prism of the DF is 1.5x bigger to begin with.

Comment edited 17 seconds after posting
1 upvote
nikoninmybag
By nikoninmybag (5 months ago)

"State of the art manual focus"

Me thinks you've never seen a manual focus screen from the pre AF days.

3 upvotes
Hugo808
By Hugo808 (5 months ago)

Can I ask how well the aperture ring on old lenses works with the DF?

0 upvotes
Stacey_K
By Stacey_K (5 months ago)

focus aides are not required. I just installed a -plain matte- screen from katz eye in my d200. On first use it looks the same as the stock screen but it manually focuses MUCH easier. It doesn't take much of a change in the surface finish of the focus screen to do this.

Comment edited 18 seconds after posting
1 upvote
Photomonkey
By Photomonkey (5 months ago)

Before AF we had VFs optimized for fast MF. Now they are optimized for brightness. I have not seen the Df but if they had a VF similar to an F3 it would be great MF tool.

3 upvotes
mick232
By mick232 (5 months ago)

State-of-the-art in manual focus nowadays is peaking and live view magnification, not a green dot.

Comment edited 25 seconds after posting
1 upvote
ogl
By ogl (5 months ago)

Lower resolution than A7 and D610 and looks weaker than K-3.
Not low noise. Not impressed IQ.

8 upvotes
sandy b
By sandy b (5 months ago)

C'mon, read your posts, you NEVER liked it. Or any Nikon. And your eyes don't work very well. Try glasses.

22 upvotes
Resom
By Resom (5 months ago)

My Pentax Q is still better. Or - if I had one - A7R II

0 upvotes
JF69
By JF69 (5 months ago)

ogl is saying he doesn't like the numbers; because that is all there is to know about a DSLR's capabilities (!)

0 upvotes
Eugene Chan
By Eugene Chan (5 months ago)

sandy b, the only thing I can take away from this test scene comparison is that my D610 is better through 6400 ISO with in-camera JPEG processing, and probably better with RAW files after using minimal noise reduction. The Df wins at 12800 and above, but honestly who is shooting in that strata? I like the design of the body, but that really doesn't justify Nikon's MRAP.

3 upvotes
CFynn
By CFynn (5 months ago)

@Eugene Chan

Maybe good for nightclubs. ;-)

1 upvote
marike6
By marike6 (5 months ago)

> my D610 is better through 6400 ISO with in-camera JPEG processing

JPEG or RAW, which is really all that matters, the Df has less noise at every ISO setting. There is no need to go as high as 12800 to see how much cleaner the Df files are.

1 upvote
Eugene Chan
By Eugene Chan (4 months ago)

>JPEG or RAW, which is really all that matters, the Df has less noise at every ISO setting. There is no need to go as high as 12800 to see how much cleaner the Df files are.

Apply moderate noise reduction and scale the 24mp image down to 16mp. ;)

0 upvotes
Picturenaut
By Picturenaut (5 months ago)

We still have 3 vintage Nikon FM-2's in service, and one was used recently at -40 °C in Siberia, because it doesn't fail in frost... The more I think about this Df thing the less I like it. It is simply fake , like a pseudo cuckoo clock with an electronic clockwork. Hipsters, of course, will love it like wearing fake glasses. I mean, this Df thing has AF! And there's no film winder. So you never experience the way of shooting you had with such a full mechanical SLR. I don't think that the old days of film shooting were better, no, but a digital camera should be made looking into the future, not the past.

Plus, I don't think that Nikon today is able to meet the quality of the old FM series anymore. Our D300 died before reaching 90.000 shutter actuations (repair would be too expensive), and it falls literally into pieces after only 4-5 yrs use in rough environment. Our oldest FM-2 is more than 20 yrs old and still perfect.

Comment edited 20 seconds after posting
10 upvotes
CFynn
By CFynn (5 months ago)

@ Picturenaut ~ You're right.

I still have an F2 and Nikkormat FTn that work perfectly, though they are pretty battered. These are both about 40 years old and were carried to many remote parts of the world over a period of about 12 years in total using only local transport and a backpack (including a whole winter at -40 °C and below in the Yukon) Also have a lovely, well travelled FM3a, - though that is not so old.

I doubt if any digital camera, even a D3 or D4, will last like these - let alone modern lenses.

Comment edited 5 minutes after posting
2 upvotes
Photomonkey
By Photomonkey (5 months ago)

I think we have to realize that to sustain sales volumes needed in today's electronics, they have to be cheaply made and stylish. While I think Nikon Canon et al. still aim for the highest quality, there are real compromises in lifespan with an all electronic platform.

2 upvotes
Picturenaut
By Picturenaut (5 months ago)

@CFynn: nice gear ;-). I also have a about 50 ys old Kodak Retina III, which was my first camera and it was already cool & vintage when I got it.

@ Photomonkey: you're right, of course. We have a Canon gear, too, and my 7D proved to be much more rugged and well made then at least our copy of a D300. Still works fine. But what does this help if its electronic guts age within a few yrs?

The most absurd gadget is a digital Leica, because a true classic Leica was made for a whole life. I think they should bring out a model with an exchangeable sensor/electronics/LCD unit so you can keep the body/ mechanics with all its great patina and throw away the rest after every 3-5 yrs.

1 upvote
Rooru S
By Rooru S (5 months ago)

Hey dpreview, any chance to see high end cameras make it into the test? I mean, like the top top from both Canon and Nikon.

2 upvotes
Just a Photographer
By Just a Photographer (5 months ago)

I fully agree DPReview should be more focussed on the 'enthousiast' and professionals.

All the rest will soon be taking photographs with their smartphone anyway - at least that is what all current sales figures are showing us.

0 upvotes
GMart
By GMart (5 months ago)

Bet you drive with all the AUTO mod con car driving gizmos on?

0 upvotes
Leandros S
By Leandros S (5 months ago)

Test scene photos: All shot with different lenses and sometimes different apertures. At f7.1, I'd expect the Canon to be sharper than the Nikons at f5.6. We're not learning anything here - even the two Nikon samples are with different lenses! DPR trolling is getting to new heights.

10 upvotes
Eleson
By Eleson (5 months ago)

True to an extent.
But now, when sensors out resolve the lens why test at all? These tests had a different purpose when cameras had 6mp sensors.

What is the purpose of the tests?
And 2nd, are these test the right way to address that purpose?

0 upvotes
jpeg prince
By jpeg prince (5 months ago)

Why should f7.1 give a sharper image than f5.6 when shooting a test chart with approx. 2 inch DOF??? Don't mix up sharpness with DOF.

3 upvotes
Zdman
By Zdman (5 months ago)

Exactly! Whats the point of this test these days. Resolution has much more to do with the lens and how well focused it is and we're better off looking at grey bars and the coin for ISO. I do like the comparison but lots of the nitpicking is due to focus/lens errors.

1 upvote
Plastek
By Plastek (5 months ago)

"But now, when sensors out resolve the lens" - they do? Now that's a news. What lenses you shoot? 18-55 on APS-C?

0 upvotes
Eleson
By Eleson (5 months ago)

I'd say many lenses are pushed to their limits with 24mp aps-c or 36mp ff. But not all.

0 upvotes
PixelMover
By PixelMover (5 months ago)

My god, you can't even say "I like a Big Mac" these days without some Sony shill or 'fan' popping up and saying: "A7 is better"... Is Sony SO worried that the camera will flop? Are the Sony fans SO worried that they might be buying into a system that will be discontinued in 2 years after only 2 lenses have been released? You're more annoying and desperate than those friendly people who come knocking at your door on Sunday morning to spread the good news...
Do you really need to bring up the A7 in every unrelated other product just so you can sleep at night? Maybe you think you're showing support, but the ridiculous amount of unrelated comments about the A7 makes it look more like sheer blind insecure panic.
Why not simply take some pride in the fact that there is nothing to directly compare it to, as it is the only FF mirrorles DSC. Have some dignity, Sony... please have some dignity.

24 upvotes
Miwok
By Miwok (5 months ago)

Dignity?? Lol
It's normal than people compare those 2 (3) new camera
New A7 is something really new, cheap and exciting!!
New Canikon is same old, same old, really expensive and boring.
System from Sony (A & E) never die, why the FF E should it?
I don't like Mac Do and i like what Sony is showing!

Comment edited 2 minutes after posting
10 upvotes
Richard Murdey
By Richard Murdey (5 months ago)

Calm down Fido.

They just happen to be coming to market at the same time, it's natural for people to draw comparisons, especially as they are about as different as two full frame digital cameras could possibly be from each other.

That said, trolling Nikon fanboys over the Df is cruel and should be frowned upon. It's also poor sport.

6 upvotes
Boerseuntjie
By Boerseuntjie (5 months ago)

Big Mac sucks Whopper is better ;) Nikon fanboys crying is just funny.

Comment edited 44 seconds after posting
2 upvotes
mick232
By mick232 (5 months ago)

First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win.

Looks like we are somewhere between stage 2 and stage 3 currently.

0 upvotes
Shamael
By Shamael (5 months ago)

all that can only be true if you play the game. Most of us do not play it, they just watch it. The smart ones only enter the game when there is money to win. Unfortunately, in this one you can only lose , there is nothing written, nor is there anything visible that justifies the price of this camera.

0 upvotes
Juck
By Juck (5 months ago)

Nice, but Alpha 7 is much better.

13 upvotes
Dave Luttmann
By Dave Luttmann (5 months ago)

Kind of like saying the hammer is better than the socks.

24 upvotes
WilliamJ
By WilliamJ (5 months ago)

Right. Moreover Blair's Ultra Death Sauce is wa---y better than, say, Newman's Own Bombolina Pasta Sauce. So what would one say ?

Comment edited 11 seconds after posting
0 upvotes
Spectro
By Spectro (5 months ago)

How you use it. A7, d610 24mp has more detail then the Df 16mp. In the high ISO is where the Df shine, look at the chromatic noise. Shooting landscape then more mp wins, doing lowlight Df it is.

2 upvotes
psn
By psn (5 months ago)

@Juck: Why do you say that? As far as IQ is concerned there's not a whole lot of difference. The A7 might be a little better but not much better.

0 upvotes
naththo
By naththo (5 months ago)

Here's hint, Df got AA filter on. Thats a good move. Its a lot better off with that saving you a heck of time editing to remove moire.

6 upvotes
sandy b
By sandy b (5 months ago)

better at low iso vs resolution, but at higher ISO in raw the Sony trails the pack.

0 upvotes
naththo
By naththo (5 months ago)

Seems shame that Lightroom or Photoshop ACR has issue problem with demosaicing for Sony raw files of A7 which has AA filter on while A7R doesn't have it. Raw Therapee can do a lot better in demosaicing and I don't see moire in A7 actually!

Comment edited 4 minutes after posting
3 upvotes
ageha
By ageha (5 months ago)

Here's hint, naththo: A7 has an AA filter, too.

0 upvotes
Mark Alan Thomas
By Mark Alan Thomas (5 months ago)

Alpha 8 makes Alpha 7 look like Alpha 6.

4 upvotes
InTheMist
By InTheMist (5 months ago)

Right, I prefer the false texture and moire in the fisherman and the boy image.

0 upvotes
Just a Photographer
By Just a Photographer (5 months ago)

Good for you!
But how do you want to make photo's at larger apertures with your A7 without any bulky adapter, to which you will loose all electronic information about aperture and shutterspeed?

And then the whopping 4 lenses available for your A7.
WOW what a great system this Sony crap is......

1 upvote
Managarm
By Managarm (5 months ago)

The adapter + camera isn't any bulkier than the Df body itself - else the lens won't fit.

Losing EXIF information when adapting lenses? Yes, but who cares about those once the picture is on the wall? In case you don't mainly take pictures but prefer logging EXIF files instead, that sure is a problem.

The system is completely new, so no surprise there are only few native lenses yet. Anyway, you can use every single Nikon F mount lens too on the Sonys. Additionally to the ones from Canon, Pentax, etc. - in case you don't need AF, of course. ;)

My Nikkor 50/1.2 or Nikkor 14-24 work like a charm on this 36 MP "Sony crap". Thanks to the high quality LiveView function on the Sony, shooting landscapes is even significantly less fuss than on the rather mediocre display and LiveView implementation of the D800...

No doubt the Nikon DSLRs also have their strong points. Be it a Df , D800 or whatever. But so do the Sonys. Calling them crap simply shows you've never really used what you judge.

Comment edited 3 times, last edit 11 minutes after posting
4 upvotes
sandy b
By sandy b (5 months ago)

Nice Mana. Where was your righteous indignation to Jucks silly post that started this silly dust up? And the adapter does mitigate the whole reason for carrying a small DSLR as well as adding to the size and weight. Why carry a small DSLR that's larger and more expensive with the adapter and still can't outperform, basically a niche camera? Sony with native, small glass, I get, the adapter, I don't get.

1 upvote
Richard Murdey
By Richard Murdey (5 months ago)

Like shooting fish in a barrel much?

Yes, the A7 is better than the Df: it is cheaper, smaller, lighter, better proportioned, and comes with such creature comforts as a fold out LCD. Did I mention cheaper? As in neatly one half.

But some people want a digital Nikon FM2, even if it has gone on a Sumo wrestlers diet and, looks like a brick (in a bad way), and insists on putting locks on every single control switch. If you have a stack of Nikon glass, and want something more manly than a D610, you now have a nice option. So leave them alone.

Comment edited 42 seconds after posting
2 upvotes
naththo
By naththo (5 months ago)

ageha, are you blind? I already said A7 has AA filter. And once again, the A7 AA filter is much weaker than Nikon and still exhibit horrible aliasing problem and moire. And it seems that Sony JPEG engine oversharpen too as I noticed. RAW looks MUCH better but moire is MUCH more horrible than Nikon Df to compare forcing you to work harder to remove moire with paintbrush in ACR or Lightroom. Sony doesn't have much as good lens as Nikon or Canon has as well. And I heard a lot of thing that A7 has AF problem in several people. They said A7R outperform A7 in AF. It is very strange. Sony must have made a mistake. Canon 70D flogged all brand with hybrid AF and Canon 70D still get sharp images and win hand down. Come on have some honest and fix that asap.

0 upvotes
Managarm
By Managarm (5 months ago)

@ sandy b:

If you only see a point in mirrorless systems because of their higher potential of smaller size, than I agree that adapting lenses on a A7(R) doesn't really make much sense compared to DSLRs. I don't really care that much for the size advantage, but absolutely love the possibility of using any lens I want on the Sony. My menzioned Nikkors, some excellent glas from Canon, Pentax and Olympus (like the "legendary" OM 90/2.0 that is awesome on the A7R). Moreover I simply don't want the whole fuss with mirrorboxes back again. I adjusted so many focus inconsistencies, changed focussing screnns to be able to use high speed glass and so on. I'm just too hooked on the advantages of mirrorless systems. And for the cases I really care about smaller size, I can use native lenses, although not that many up to now. ;)

That said, I'm not of the opinion that mirrorless is the solution for everything and better than DSLRs like a Df, D800 or whatever. They just fit me better, that's all.

Comment edited 21 seconds after posting
2 upvotes
steelhead3
By steelhead3 (5 months ago)

DP, is it true that the Df has a plastic mount?

0 upvotes
Richard Butler
By Richard Butler (5 months ago)

The mount certainly isn't plastic. I can't be sure about the front plate section immediately behind it, but the mount itself is metal.

6 upvotes
Edmond Leung
By Edmond Leung (5 months ago)

Exceptional color rendition.
Nikon, excellent job!

3 upvotes
fPrime
By fPrime (5 months ago)

Thanks, but pretty limited as a comparator without D4 images to look at alongside. I'd imagine the pixel peepers want to verify the Df sensor delivers exactly the same performance as the D4.

Speaking of image comparators, a select group of classic cameras from each camera company ought to be reshot with this new studio scene. I'd personally like to see the D700 and D200 added for Nikon. Any plans?

1 upvote
Richard Butler
By Richard Butler (5 months ago)

We'd certainly like to add more older cameras - though finding examples in good condition is proving a little tricky.

At the moment our studio is totally tied-up testing cameras for the roundups we've been publishing - a surge that has seen us jump from around 20 cameras to 50, with the addition of the Df.

It's not as comprehensive a list as we had in the old scene, but it's getting to the stage where, for future reviews, it'll include all the latest peers.

6 upvotes
PixelMover
By PixelMover (5 months ago)

Will dpreview ever do a full rundown of the D4 and 1DX?

4 upvotes
rb59020
By rb59020 (5 months ago)

My D5200 is better.

3 upvotes
Red5TX
By Red5TX (5 months ago)

Good to see a little pre-Thanksgiving humor around here.

24 upvotes
psn
By psn (5 months ago)

The one you've got is always better than the one you don't have.

It's way better than the one you can never have.

11 upvotes
JF69
By JF69 (5 months ago)

if you can't produce better images with a D5200 than you would with a Dƒ under practically ALL but the extremely low-light of conditions, than it's not the camera's fault ;-)
(comment not directed at rb59020)

2 upvotes
Total comments: 206