Previous news story    Next news story

Nikon Df real-world samples gallery

By dpreview staff on Dec 10, 2013 at 01:07 GMT
Buy on GearShopFrom $2,746.9514 deals

As we work on our full review of the Nikon Df, we've been shooting with it extensively and have put together a gallery of real-world samples. We've tried to use a selection of lenses, including older Nikon and third-party glass as well as the recently-launched AF-S Nikkor 58mm f/1.4 G. Here are 40 images shot at a range of ISOs to show how the camera performs. You can also learn more about the Nikon Df in our first impressions review

 Nikon Df samples gallery - published December 9th 2013
189
I own it
392
I want it
83
I had it
Discuss in the forums

Comments

Total comments: 224
12
Rage Joe
By Rage Joe (4 months ago)

double post, the comment to the review

Comment edited 6 minutes after posting
0 upvotes
ijustloveshooting
By ijustloveshooting (4 months ago)

in comparison page, what i see is a big fail in front of higher MP fullframe sensors such as 5DM, A7R,D800 etc...resolution means a lot,,, at higher isos, you can clearly see a lot more detail with high MP fullframes...16mp is just not sufficient when things come to comparison....

1 upvote
HowaboutRAW
By HowaboutRAW (4 months ago)

And the Df+D4 are useable at ISOs a good bit beyond where the 5DIII or D800 can be used.

Drop the requests for more mega pixels, they get in the way at high ISOs. In particular the D800 (likely too the A7r) has big magenta and cyan blotching problems in shadows above ISO 8000.

So yeah, this full framed 16MP sensor is plenty sufficient. 12MP would likely be better.

"Details" aren't every thing.

Perhaps I misread you, and you really like the 16MP sensor in this Df body, but then you've phrased something oddly.

3 upvotes
Joe Ogiba
By Joe Ogiba (4 months ago)

Entry level 20mp Sony A3000 vs the 16mp Nikon D4 @25600 iso:
http://farm6.staticflickr.com/5530/10043166153_69b61be5c6_o.jpg

@1600 iso:
http://farm4.staticflickr.com/3767/10676487114_ec81b5532e_o.jpg

@100 iso :
http://farm6.staticflickr.com/5550/10675590346_61c921cb88_o.jpg

0 upvotes
HowaboutRAW
By HowaboutRAW (4 months ago)

Joe:

Okay, at ISO 25,600 the Nikon produces a much more usable jpeg, but why go with jpeg examples from either camera? Jpegs from the camera only say anything about the jpeg engine. (Then at ISO 25,600 many people will tend to shoot raw.)

Also the pixels in the Sony are much more densely packed.

Some cameras to look at as comparisons, in raw, would the Canon 6D, Canon 1DX, Nikon D610, Sony A7, and Leica M240. (Nikon D4 and D3s too. And NOT the Sony A99.)

0 upvotes
Edmond Leung
By Edmond Leung (4 months ago)

Class leading!
Both image quality and the camera.

1 upvote
Reilly Diefenbach
By Reilly Diefenbach (4 months ago)

Beautiful. This is why we lug around full frame.

1 upvote
Dodi73
By Dodi73 (4 months ago)

Mah, Nikon lenses doesn't work that good on the Df imho.. It's a kind of imagery I don't like that much, at least.

0 upvotes
HowaboutRAW
By HowaboutRAW (4 months ago)

What Nikon lenses did you use when shooting with the Df?

The raws I shot with the kit f/1.8 50mm looked fine to me, good colour and sharp wide open. Is it the best Nikon lens available? No, but it's plenty good on this Df body.

2 upvotes
rfsIII
By rfsIII (4 months ago)

It doesn't show in the EXIF data, so does anyone know if any of the shots here were taken with custom white balance, on a tripod, with a cable release and mirror lockup?

0 upvotes
naththo
By naththo (4 months ago)

ISO 100 Shadow noise test:

As follow with ACR Camera RAW 8.3. Only adjustment made was set all 0 on all of it. And then set exposure to +2 and set shadow to +100 on all same images. Opened same size both DF and A7 at 4928 px across. Saved as JPG Max quality. Camera profile stays on Adobe Default colour.

To look at shadow noise, look at the bottle on bottom middle of image.

Nikon DF

http://www.dpreview.com/galleries/187176019/photos/2780969/dsc_0316

and

Sony A7

http://www.dpreview.com/galleries/187176019/photos/2780972/dsc00451

You need to click original to see the better size for the judge.

Nikon Df does look soft, probably to do with lens or focus?

But I am impressed with Nikon DF shadow noise, a bit better than A7 say a stop better. And probably the reason less MP in full frame exhibit less noise than more MP in full frame possibly.

Both images are belong to Dpreview.

Comment edited 1 minute after posting
0 upvotes
chooflaki
By chooflaki (4 months ago)

Nikon on their japanese website have put up an apolgy to customers because they cannot keep up with the unexpected demand. Looks like a winner.

5 upvotes
plasnu
By plasnu (4 months ago)

Naive. This simply intend to inflame thirstiness, which is very common marketing method in Japan. Even ice cream maker utilize the same method. The cameras that Nikon makes are very straight forward and less gimmicky than the other companies, but the marketing method they do these days are somewhat ethically questionable, teaser, stealth, then this...

1 upvote
nicolaiecostel
By nicolaiecostel (4 months ago)

Everyone's now an expert, especially if they own a mirrorless Sony :)) As someone was pointing out, Nikon could have made it from solid gold and sold it for half this price and people would still complain. That low-resolution outdated D4 sensor and that heavy, cold gold camera body would have been no match for the A7r LMAO.

6 upvotes
naththo
By naththo (4 months ago)

That camera is design for burst shooting mode especially sports and car racing with lower MP.

0 upvotes
molnarcs
By molnarcs (4 months ago)

The level of cluelessness reached another low on dpreview - reading the comment section is quite disheartening (thank you SONY trolls for polluting all Nikon news with your senseless drivel).

Then we have the couch photographers who think that low-light performance is all about noise (and numbers representing that noise) It isn't. In terms of noise levels, all new Nikon FX bodies are within 1/3 stop of each other.

What matters more is dynamic range and colour depth at high ISO levels. Why? Because reduced dynamic range and colour depth will result in blown highlights, and more often, blown colour channels. That is where the DF sensor shines. Above ISO 1600, it maintains 2/3 stop advantage compared to the d800 (or the SONY A7r, A7). You can fix noise in post-production, you can't fix blown channels easily. And that advantage also translates into more white balance leeway (another problem in low, mixed light conditions).

6 upvotes
naththo
By naththo (4 months ago)

I can recover shadow easily with Sony sensor on Nex 7 compare to my previous camera of Canon 10D, 50D, 7D cannot do that cos horrible shadow noise get worsen and the banding appears. But for highlight blownout for any camera, it would be impossible to fix. Unless if you are doing HDR then that would be alright. Or even LDR.

1 upvote
plasnu
By plasnu (4 months ago)

Agreed. Under certain circumstances, D800/A7R may give us higher quality images, but it is more like gamble. Df gives us constantly good images. I can't say which is better.

1 upvote
plasnu
By plasnu (4 months ago)

As a hybrid shooter (film + digital), I'm not impressed with this camera at all. I have tried this camera for a day with a high expectation (maybe too high expectation), I thought the overall design is not only ugly, but also somewhat unpractical for a digital camera, although I love real film camera's interface.

In terms of IQ, I can say Df's strength would be clean mid-high ISO and slightly better color at the high cost of the resolution. although the color is nothing special compared to film or CCD. To be honest, my Df's images are somewhat dated to my eyes that are accustomed to today's high MP digital images, and they are nothing comparable to real film images. What I'm impressed is the images from Df are very predictable and consistent, which would be very important for some professional photographers who always have to produce consistent images. So my conclusion is this camera would be a very good camera for wedding photographers or such, but not for me.

Comment edited 2 times, last edit 6 minutes after posting
0 upvotes
HowaboutRAW
By HowaboutRAW (4 months ago)

plasnu–

What raw extraction software did you use for the Df raws? And what lenses did you shoot with on the Df body?

Also, CCDs? Those are a low ISO medium format thing mostly now–albeit the Leica S2 can be used thru ISO 640 and the M9 can be easily used at ISO 800, but those are the limits and the neither body is $2700. So then there’s the 36MP Nikon D800/E, but that can’t really be used much above ISO 4000, and it doesn’t have great DR.

So there are all sorts of reasons for seeking out this Df body, yes I realize you know some of the reasons.

I guess if you want really really good colour from a full framed CMOS sensor body that does nearly noise free shooting at ISO 6400, you could get a Leica M240 with say that new Leica M 50mm f/2.0. Much better than the D800.

1 upvote
armandino
By armandino (4 months ago)

HowaboutRaw, could you elaborate on the not so good DR of the D800? I never used one and everyone I have heard brags about its DR. This is the first time I hear of this opinion, so I am interested in more details. Thank you!

0 upvotes
naththo
By naththo (4 months ago)

How about all CMOS camera should add extra colours like Pentax does to make it look good.

0 upvotes
HowaboutRAW
By HowaboutRAW (4 months ago)

armandino:

Get D800 raws shot with a good lens and extract, compare to say the D4 with the same lens or the Leica M240.

0 upvotes
plasnu
By plasnu (4 months ago)

-HowaboutRAW,

Due to NDA, I can't give you the detail of the RAW converter. The lens is Planar 50 1.4 only. Nice lens, however, I guess it would match better with high MP cameras. I have no experience with any digital Leica, but seeing the images posted on the net, I felt M240 is nothing different from the other cheaper CMOS cameras. The color of M8 is very different,, for sure. M9?, it's okay. After all, I should understand that I should not expect good color from digital cameras, anyway.

0 upvotes
HowaboutRAW
By HowaboutRAW (4 months ago)

plasnu:

I suggest you get some Leica M240 DNGs shot with a good Leica M lens and enjoy. Not the ones from the Leica website posted a year ago--those were bad.

Just tried out ACR 8.3 with a Nikon Df ISO 20,000 raw file shot with the 50mm kit f1.8, looks better than the D4 for noise. Colour and sharpness are excellent at ISO 1000 f/2.0.

Comment edited 56 seconds after posting
0 upvotes
bakhtyar kurdi
By bakhtyar kurdi (4 months ago)

No, I settled on Nikon D7100 for auction, fast moving and candid photography, and they are not my style, but in case, I have D7100 with high quality AF-S zooms for that.
I have 18 Nikon lenses in total.
But I mainly shoot land scape and still life, I always use tripod with lowest ISO, live view, manual focus, so the Sony is better for me in that regard.
I also own a very good selection of Minolta AF lenses and Canon L glass that they both fully function with adapters on Sony A7R.
The DF is a nice camera also, but not for me.

0 upvotes
HowaboutRAW
By HowaboutRAW (4 months ago)

What do you mean the Sony is better for you?

Do you own a Sony DSLR? Or are you planning to buy one, or do you mean to say you bought the A7R? All not clear.

The A7R is all well and good, but kind of a different category and no where near the Df’s high ISO lowlight/performance. The A7R's shutter is very loud too.

The D7100 uses a Toshiba sensor, it’s nice camera but no where near the action camera that the D4 is–and the buffer on the D7100 is way too slow. Yes, of course the D4 body is nearly 6 times the price of the D7100. Now the D800 has good fast buffer and a good Sony sensor.

Do you plan on printing full 36MP files? That can be pricey.

0 upvotes
SonyA7r
By SonyA7r (4 months ago)

VERY loud like a gun fire? Don't be exaggerated!

0 upvotes
HowaboutRAW
By HowaboutRAW (4 months ago)

SonyA7r:

"Don't be exaggerated"? Don't exaggerate.

I said nothing about the sound of gun fire, but the A7+A7r are really loud, like Nikon D3 loud. Without a blimp you can't use a D3 on a movie set for example.

0 upvotes
dclivejazz
By dclivejazz (4 months ago)

How do you tell which images were shot as jpeg only and which were shot in RAW? Is there a mix of original files or are they all from one or the other?

The detail, color and contrast look very pleasing to me, especially for the high ISO shots. Has noise been manually reduced in Post?

Thanks.

0 upvotes
bakhtyar kurdi
By bakhtyar kurdi (4 months ago)

No thanks Nikon for your DeaF camera (I believe they call it deaf because it has no microphone), I am buying Sony A7r instead.

3 upvotes
HowaboutRAW
By HowaboutRAW (4 months ago)

That’s a fine choice if lens selection, an optical view finder and high ISO/lowlight shooting aren’t real important to you.

The thing is: you’re kind of sort of writing as if you really looked forward to Nikon shipping a small body with these kinds of capacities.

Video with DSLRs, and some mirrorless systems, can be a headache. Anyhow Nikon does indeed make DSLRs that shoot video. Also you should know that lens AF noise can be a real problem when using a mirrorless system to shoot video and record audio, so you’ll likely need a separate audio recorder in many instances with that A7R, ironic, you’ll need a second mic (though of course you can focus manually).

Kind of reads like you’re simply a Sony fan looking to bash Nikon. So weren't likely to "buy" the Df in any event.

5 upvotes
chooflaki
By chooflaki (4 months ago)

I have three mirrorless cameras with video capability and they remain video virgins. Still haven't got around to trying vidieo and most likely never will. A useless feature for me, just bloatware.

4 upvotes
HowaboutRAW
By HowaboutRAW (4 months ago)

chooflaki:

I think it's great feature, particularly since bigger sensors usually make for better high ISO/gain shooting. But as I said, the AF system bouncing the lens around is sometimes audible. With some lenses there are also odd high pitched whines and beeps.

So it's a bit extreme to call it bloatware, video is useful, but really needs things like phase detect AF on the sensor, if you want to use AF, and then you need a separate audio recorder.

Comment edited 4 times, last edit 7 minutes after posting
0 upvotes
SonyA7r
By SonyA7r (4 months ago)

EVF is in, OVF is an outdated technology!

0 upvotes
HowaboutRAW
By HowaboutRAW (4 months ago)

SonyA7r:

EVFs have a long way to go before they get to the optical quality of direct reflection. EVFs have their uses--but they don't surpass reality.

3 upvotes
Illumina
By Illumina (4 months ago)

What a newbie troll haha..
Don't you know that until 4 - 5 years ago, every camera has no microphone?
A7R has mic, but i'm sure the quality won't be good.. You need to buy another mic if you want to use ur cam to record audio properly
I am nikon user and i had interest A7R, but no need to bash around with something stupid statement like that..
I bet you just shoot test charts or take movie of ur cat haha

0 upvotes
Bamboojled
By Bamboojled (4 months ago)

Thank you, come again

0 upvotes
Allochka Emiliana
By Allochka Emiliana (4 months ago)

I don't get it - so many here are criticizing Sony sensor when 5-6 sensors out of the top 10 sensors in the world are made by Sony including sensor on the top Nikon cameras.

http://www.dxomark.com/Cameras/Ratings

What happened to Canon, non of their cameras are on the top 20!

Comment edited 2 minutes after posting
1 upvote
HowaboutRAW
By HowaboutRAW (4 months ago)

Allochka:

Nobody here is saying Sony full framed sensors are bad, just that those Sony sensors aren’t the high ISO lowlight equal of the top Nikon camera, the D4, which uses a sensor manufactured specially for Nikon by Renesas. And this new Nikon Df clearly uses that same D4 sensor. See the difference? Thru ISO 6400 the Sony sensors in the D800 and D610 are excellent, and the D610 can easily be pushed beyond ISO 6400, upto about 10,000.

Also it’s not a good idea to pay much attention to DXO sensor scoring--good or bad. DXO does not account for either the incamera processor or the lens used in those scores. That incamera processor is one reason Nikon does a better job with Sony full framed sensors than Sony can usually muster.

NB: Toshiba makes the excellent sensor for the APSC Nikon D7100.

3 upvotes
AbrasiveReducer
By AbrasiveReducer (4 months ago)

Well, if DxO sensor ratings were relevant, there wouldn't be anybody using a Canon camera. Certainly not a professional. From personal experience I can say that Canon's low light and dynamic range performance is not as good as Nikon's. And you know what? It rarely makes much difference. If I wanted to shoot at ISO 10,000, I will always take my Nikons. But to get the best quality, I try not to shoot at 10,000 so the Canon works fine.

4 upvotes
SonyA7r
By SonyA7r (4 months ago)

They are wasting their investment by not doing their research well...

0 upvotes
HowaboutRAW
By HowaboutRAW (4 months ago)

SonyA7r:

Did you not read AbrasiveReducer's point?

Sony makes plenty good sensors, but it's pretty easy to argue that Sony is wasting all sorts of resources by shipping so many different still camera systems.

2 upvotes
Gil Aegerter
By Gil Aegerter (4 months ago)

I think the DxO testing shows that Canon, Nikon and Sony all produce excellent cameras that produce pretty similar performance (except perhaps in high iso), so users will probably have to make their decisions based on lens selection, ergonomics, weight, evf vs. optical finder, etc. Maybe we should all get out shooting rather than arguing?

0 upvotes
FoveonPureView
By FoveonPureView (4 months ago)

Pay ONLY (!) DOUBLE (!!) the price of the 16MP Df and buy a 40 MP MEDIUM FORMAT Pentax 645D instead. Nuff said.

1 upvote
bigconig
By bigconig (4 months ago)

Sure, pay only double the price and get less dynamic range, color depth and light sensitivity...what a bargain

6 upvotes
Tom_A
By Tom_A (4 months ago)

What a strange comment. Mind, I love medium format cameras (I still shoot film mf cameras), but they are totally NOT suitable for the kind of photography that the DF will excel at.

2 upvotes
HowaboutRAW
By HowaboutRAW (4 months ago)

@Foveon:

The screen name FoveonPure suggests you understand reasons for buying different cameras.

I don’t see anyone saying that a Pentax 645 can be easily substituted for a Nikon D4, Canon 1D X, or Leica M240.

Just particulars: It’s well understood that the Pentax can’t shoot at the high ISOs of the D4/Df (like SigmaFoveon bodies that Pentax 645D) and that there are other significant limitations to the Pentax.

0 upvotes
marike6
By marike6 (4 months ago)

The Pentax 645D is $9000 in the States, $7000 body only and $2000 for the 55 f/2.8 normal lens. The other two lenses are $5000 each.

You must be using some of that new math. :-)

7 upvotes
armandino
By armandino (4 months ago)

Used Pentax 645D ~$5,000
Used Pentax 35mm/3.5 ~$500
Used Pentax 75mm/2.8 ~$200
Used Pentax 150mm/2.8 ~$600
Used Pentax 300mm/4 ~$1500
While you pay a bit more on the body you save huge one lenses for similar optical performance. Nevertheless not ideal for low light conditions. Otherwise the Pentax takes far superior images.

1 upvote
HowaboutRAW
By HowaboutRAW (4 months ago)

armandino:

"the Pentax takes far superior images", please list the conditions, frame rate, ISO limit at which this is true?

Does the Pentax 645 take Zeiss medium format lenses; this Nikon sure takes excellent manual focus Zeiss 35mm lenses. Hey you made optical performance claims.

Does the Pentax use a CMOS sensor, unlikely and few basic CCDs can be used above ISO 400. I know you acknowledge that the Df is better at high ISOs, but that's way beyond ISO 400.

And what's with listing used Pentax pricing?

If resolution is important to you, why not buy a D800E? Cheaper than medium format and useable at much higher ISOs.

And no good Pentax lenses don't come optically close to good Zeiss lenses.

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

HaowaboutRaw,
Pricing is what I paid for them used, easily and not seeking for bargains. The 645D is of course a medium format not designed for high iso, however it will deliver well up to 1600 iso and likely outperform even a D4 when down-sampled from 40MP to 16MP. I was impressed with this CCD iso performance compared to other medium formats.
Pentax 645D will accept a number of third party lenses including a pool of Zeiss lenses. However what I meant is that to match the optical performance you have to spend far more with a 35mm Nikon. The idea was to point out that we are often looking at a cost of a body, which for a MF can be scary, however I found that the cost of the used equipment listed before in total is not more expensive than a Nikon system with similar optical capabilities, because of the savings in the lenses.
If you are comparing the D800E to the Pentax 645D obviously this discussion is over. It is like comparing a crop sensor to a full frame 35mm.

Comment edited 2 times, last edit 11 minutes after posting
0 upvotes
Tom_A
By Tom_A (4 months ago)

As I wrote above, I like medium format but the Pentax is quite simply a pear compared to the Nikon's apple. Yes the resolution is high and that wonderful MF look is nice, but the DF will be far more at ease making action pictures or evening pictures.

0 upvotes
HowaboutRAW
By HowaboutRAW (4 months ago)

armandino:

"downsampling" to reduce noise is myth. Really you can try it, I did with all of the options in Photoshop CS6 and it fails to do anything about reducing noise--the photo gets smaller. If tossing only the data from noisy pixels were that easy, NR in general would be really easy to do with incamera processing.

Good that the Pentax 645 accepts Zeiss--it still can't be used at ISO 10,000.

You should see what Zeiss is claiming for the performance of the new 58mm f/1.4 on the D800E--that would be medium format level performance. The lens is kind of expensive. And I'd guess that the 50mm f/2.0 Leica M lens is even better optically. Yes, I've shot samples with both.

There's nothing wrong with used pricing, but you can't then compare the prices to a new Nikon whatever--lens or body. And if the Pentax 645D works for your purposes great, but it's not a substitute for this Df.

1 upvote
armandino
By armandino (4 months ago)

HowaboutRaw, I am not sure what is wrong with you or if you missred the tread there:

1) I simply replied to the post by marike6 on costs. I made no arguments.

2) I admitted right there that if low light is your priority the D645 is not the ideal camera, so I do not understand why you are arguing there. Anyway, since you brought it up, I will make a comment: up to 1600 Iso the image quality does likely surpass what comes out of a DF. Will it retain more grain even when downsampling? Likely. Will it retain far more details? Absolutely.

I never argued that the Pentax is a substitute for for a DF. However as i said earlier if high iso and fast pace shooting are not in high demand, this camera dos not only easily surpass the DF, but any 35mm DSLR.

0 upvotes
armandino
By armandino (4 months ago)

On a different note while the D645 is not designed for action and does not get even close to most 35mm DSLR in this area, it does not mean it is not capable here too. I have taken spectacular sport images with this camera, the track focus is actually decent. I will mostly shoot with my 1D or 5D, but if the conditions are right I will grab this camera for the images that make the difference.

0 upvotes
HowaboutRAW
By HowaboutRAW (4 months ago)

armandino:

The OP (FoveonPureView) argued that the Pentax 645D was an easy substitute for the Nikon Df.

Elsewhere I acknowledged that you realize the Df beats the 645 at high ISOs.

Not sure how noise that remains from more megapixels being downsampled would allow for more details–I guess I could try with some D800 raws that I shot yesterday, or find some even noisier raws from a D800 or Sony A7r.

Comment edited 50 seconds after posting
0 upvotes
kadardr
By kadardr (4 months ago)

After reading the discussions like the one below on DPReview comments for a long time, I more and more sympathize with Ken Rockwell. Compared to this, that is quality.

8 upvotes
Duckie
By Duckie (4 months ago)

I doubt if the shots were well taken. Some of them look unusually blurry to my eyes, as deliberate formal samples. I choose not to draw any conclusions from this set of samples.

1 upvote
calking
By calking (4 months ago)

...said the King as he left the hall.....

1 upvote
chooflaki
By chooflaki (4 months ago)

Bjorn Rorslett is now saying that the Df and D800e may become his combination cameras to use.

1 upvote
Calistoga_Guy
By Calistoga_Guy (4 months ago)

This is a perfect camera for me. I work mostly doing event photography, and the light is always bad, or it's outdoors at night. While everyone is complaining about this and that, I'm just looking at what is currently the best image sensor you can find in a dSLR. If resolution isn't an issue, then the D3s is still KING.

As for noise, I work with nothing but high ISO. 800 is my base, and 3200 is where I live most of the time. But noise from a single RAW file that people look at isn't the whole story. When brining up shadows, that's where things can get ugly, and sorry, the D610 or D800 or Sony FF sensor just won't cut it. For roughly half the price of a D4, two of these bodies would work for me. Is the df perfect? Far from it. The images posted here that are from RAWs and not from the camera jpeg engine are very, very good. comparing this to a 5D III? Sorry, not even close. Only the 1D X sensor is worthy enough to compare.

5 upvotes
Thematic
By Thematic (4 months ago)

Great post but you are wrong about the DF having superior dynamic range vs D610 and D800 or Sony A7R - RAWs from all of them (I have tried them) prove that the DF has the worst dynamic range in the shadows (as does DXO results showing the DF to be the #32 dynamic range camera in their list).

6 upvotes
Stanchung
By Stanchung (4 months ago)

+1 what CFalistoga said
I live at 800-1600 with my D7000.[equipment limitation]

Comment edited 35 seconds after posting
0 upvotes
naththo
By naththo (4 months ago)

I have to dismiss your comment Thematic about the test of raw file.

Because ACR/LR does not yet support Nikon Df.

Using newest camera with beta test will not be acceptable as it may not be accurate as final update. And what you did was very unfair test.

I don't believe DxO Mark for some reason as I prefer to test myself under final update of Camera raw not Alpha/Beta rubbish. Using Alpha or Beta is enter at your own risk and may not represent accurate file output result for example maybe they have not yet resolve some problem for some newest camera such as noise, dynamic range, colour fault, demosaicing problem etc.

I only prefer test any raw file with LR or ACR software and thats it. Testing with other software is not fair test either as Dpreview use LR and ACR to test it as well.

1 upvote
HowaboutRAW
By HowaboutRAW (4 months ago)

Thematic:

With naththo, what raw extraction software are you using for A7+Df+A7r raws?

Then: ignore DXO sensor scoring.

Finally, you're using the same lens on all these bodies to test DR right? And you're printing to good paper with at least 6 colour inks? Or is it that you're using a 96bit monitor to view the tiffs?

1 upvote
marike6
By marike6 (4 months ago)

He's right. Above ISO 800, the Df does have better dynamic range than the D800/D610. I don't remember if it's 1 EV or 1/2 EV but it's a fairly significant difference.

0 upvotes
naththo
By naththo (4 months ago)

Okay here is good news Adobe had release new version of Camera Raw and LR for the Nikon DF and among other latest camera out about. So you can now test the DF properly with that.

1 upvote
armandino
By armandino (4 months ago)

Nice colours at high iso.
In terms of grain, no much different from my 5DMKIII. At least up to 12800 ISO. Maybe just the samples are not so good.

Comment edited 38 seconds after posting
2 upvotes
HowaboutRAW
By HowaboutRAW (4 months ago)

jpegs.

2 upvotes
armandino
By armandino (4 months ago)

whatever, the pictures are of course smudged because of noise compression/jpg artifact. I process enough raw/jpg in the 12,800 iso range that I get a sense of the iso performance raw and jpg. I am saying this is not much different from what I see actually, I have seen better from my camera. In simple worlds up to this iso there is no additional value for practical use from a 5D MKIII. Things might be different at 20,000 or higher.

0 upvotes
HowaboutRAW
By HowaboutRAW (4 months ago)

armandino:

Have you processed raws from either the D4 or Df shot at ISO 12,800 or above? And if you processed raws from the Df what extraction software did you use?

Also why process from raw to jpeg for image quality claims? Raw to tiff or PSD is the method. Then later move to jpeg after further adjustment.

Right, I think the point is that this camera is readily usable beyond ISO 12,800.

Nobody is saying that the D800, D610 or 5DIII are bad camera bodies, just that the D4/Df are better at high ISOs than the two best high ISO bodies on that list.

If you want to compare this Df body to a Canon body for high ISO work, start with the 1DX.

Comment edited 2 minutes after posting
0 upvotes
armandino
By armandino (4 months ago)

I agree, I am eager to see images from this camera at higher iso. My statement is that there is not much difference up to 12,800. I mean, possibly the Canon might not be as good there but not enough to take decisions based on that.For what I have seen the 1DX is not much better either up to here too. I do see this mark a the limit for the 5DMKIII while I believe the DF and the D4 must have at least another stop to go. My original comment is that I expected better from this camera at 12,800, or maybe the samples are not a good representation.

Comment edited 1 minute after posting
0 upvotes
gerard boulanger
By gerard boulanger (4 months ago)

Very good at high ISO, good DR. Expected from the D4 sensor.
I do not own Nikon gear anymore, but when it's good, it's good.

7 upvotes
mholdef
By mholdef (4 months ago)

I am just baffled about the wildly negative reactions about this camera

11 upvotes
sandy b
By sandy b (4 months ago)

It's not the camera, its Nikon. No matter whats posted the same people spew hate. Look at any Nikon announcement. Nikon could sell the perfect camera, 18 K gold, for five dollars and the people here would complain.

18 upvotes
AbrasiveReducer
By AbrasiveReducer (4 months ago)

I've owned two SPs, two F, FT, FTn, FM, FE, two FE2, F3 and a D700. I go back a lot further than most of Nikon's fans and am the first to admit they make some outstanding products. Do I like the company or it's polices? No. Does their customer service compare well with Canon, Olympus, Fuji, Pentax or Ricoh (all of whom I have dealt with)? No.

In short, it's their attitude, not their gear.

2 upvotes
Paul Ennis
By Paul Ennis (4 months ago)

It's not Nikon or Adobe or Canon that are the problem, it's the fact there are a lot of photographers who are wildly negative about everything which does not offer everything they can possibly imagine, as well as having everything they ever had in all their previous cameras, at a price less than they paid for any of their previous cameras.

8 upvotes
marike6
By marike6 (4 months ago)

Lots of the negativity in these boards comes from mirrorless fans. And some comes from our friends abroad in European countries where Nikon's pricing is unfortunately high.

But the Df negativity started right out of the gate, not only on the forums but from so-called professional reviewers. Language like "silly" and "eye-watering price" started early on in the Df Preview in spite of the fact that the Df offers D3s level high ISO performance for a little over 1/3 of the price of the D3s/D4, a price that sits between the affordable D610 and D800 in most regions. Honestly don't remember such a negative camera Preview in all the years I've been reading this website since early Phil Askey days.

And I'd bet the farm that the negativity will continue straight through the actual review in spite of the fact that the Df is turning out to be an extremely capable camera that is easily in the upper echelon of cameras released in 2013. Is it a Fujifilm X? Thankfully, no.

Comment edited 5 minutes after posting
11 upvotes
DPReview Staff
By DPReview Staff (4 months ago)

@sandy b: 18 Karat? Only 18 Karat? Anything less than 24 Karat would be an insult to photographers everywhere.

9 upvotes
new boyz
By new boyz (4 months ago)

An educated buyer is a dangerous one. Too much education makes everything imperfect.

I am an educated buyer too, so my complaint is DF should comes with an oldie but goodie split-circle focusing screen for pure manual focus experience. Or at least make the focusing screen interchangeable.

0 upvotes
HowaboutRAW
By HowaboutRAW (4 months ago)

new boyz--

And an educated buyer would look at the Df body and realize that like the D700 the screen can likely be swapped if the body is sent into Nikon for that service.

Then another educated buyer would look the body with a lens and realize how easy manual focus is the way it comes from the factory.

So calling yourself an "educated buyer" is probably not real accurate.

0 upvotes
Blue Swan Media
By Blue Swan Media (4 months ago)

@marike6, I'm going to have to disagree with you. I think a lot of the negativity comes from professional users who were looking forward to having something 'fun' like this to work with, but who were let down by the DF's lack of professional autofocus (as found on the D700/800), as well as it's lack of a second card slot which, though admittedly a lesser sin in my eyes, is a must for many.

1 upvote
Teru Kage
By Teru Kage (4 months ago)

Aside from the usual trolling, much of the ire seems to be directed at Nikon rather than the actual camera. It seems many Nikonians are disappointed that Nikon would release a model that was basically a cosmetic upgrade rather than a performance one, with the concern being that Nikon is focusing on the wrong things (i.e. style over substance).

0 upvotes
marike6
By marike6 (4 months ago)

@Blue Swan Media Nikon is not about to put the D4 AF system in other classes of cameras. They remember what happened with the D700/D3.

@Teru Kage It's hard to be "style over substance" with that sensor performance, which amazingly edged out the legendary D3s on DxOMark in Low-Light score. But Nikon users for years were asking for this type of camera (i.e. FM Digital). Its hard to fault Nikon who listened to users and delivered.

2 upvotes
Shamael
By Shamael (4 months ago)

I do not see what's to discuss about this camera, it is excellent in high ISO, only. Now let's see the rest. It draws a little better then a D40 in detail, less good as a D200, since it has a pixel size same as an 8 mpix Apsc sensor, it has an AF system made for apsc, the same as D600/610 that is criticized by those who have one of those, it has a huge look, feels like plastic despite being metal, it is in ergonomy not a bargain, it has no visual MF aid on focusing screen, it is 1100$ overpriced. So, what is now so exciting in this camera. It is not a question of the product itself, it is the attitude of Nikon since more than 7 years now. I had Nikon gear only from 1969 to 2012, I stopped when the D3X came out with the "Leica style " pricing, the time Nikon lost the ground under it's feet. I went Fuji S5 in 2008, stepped over to the NEX-7 in 2012, and still ow my Nikon and Fuji gear. I will buy Nikon the day when Nikon comes back to reality. Only D800 pixel count keeps me away form it.

0 upvotes
Shamael
By Shamael (4 months ago)

To close this, if it had a 24 mpix sensor and that same clean shot at 12500 ISO, i would sat whoooow. But, at 16 mpix with that single pixel size and todays state in technology and know how, does anyone thinks that this sensor is a wonderwork. D700 was already a bargain in high ISO shooting at the moment it came out, with 12 mpix and the pitch of the D70, 6 mpix sensor, it was not a great piece of art. The trick is to get clean and neat shots in high ISO with a 24 or 36 mpix sensor, but here, beyond 6500 ISO, what is way a performance, we are at the end of what is acceptable. Now, we all discuss about this high ISO values. I have known times when talks about 12000 iso had brought you in an asylum for mentaly disabled right away, our good old Tri X at 400 ASA and huge grain was the top of the line in those days.

Comment edited 2 times, last edit 4 minutes after posting
0 upvotes
HowaboutRAW
By HowaboutRAW (4 months ago)

Teru K:

"cosmetic upgrade"? To what Nikon DSLR body?

Nikon is not going to release a $2700 body that vastly out performs the D4, while the D4 is still selling.

In fact, the Df does outperform the D800 for high ISO/lowlight work. So the Df is not simply cosmetic and style.

0 upvotes
alendrake
By alendrake (4 months ago)

What actually Nikon meant by D(ea)f?

2 upvotes
JEROME NOLAS
By JEROME NOLAS (4 months ago)

Digital fool...or just maybe fabulous! :)

Comment edited 26 seconds after posting
0 upvotes
Edgar Matias
By Edgar Matias (4 months ago)

Wish it had a film advance lever. :-)

I'm not kidding BTW. It could be used tell the camera to create a new folder on the SD card. This would be a really convenient way to organize your photos as you're shooting -- much better than having the camera create a new folder after every 100 shots.

4 upvotes
epicycloid
By epicycloid (4 months ago)

For recharging. Keep pushing the lever for half an hour and you're good to go again :-)

12 upvotes
guytano
By guytano (4 months ago)

I actually felt it's absence a bit when I handled one. It definitely has some of the feel of a film camera.

1 upvote
Blue Swan Media
By Blue Swan Media (4 months ago)

This idea - GENIUS.

0 upvotes
Shamael
By Shamael (4 months ago)

why not put a rotating dynamo under that lever, so, like on the army flashlight, keep pusshing to load the battery, hahahaha.
On the other side, a button to push to create and change a folder is not such a bad idea.

0 upvotes
Vladik
By Vladik (4 months ago)

These are some real good quality samples!

3 upvotes
Shamael
By Shamael (4 months ago)

http://www.directsight.co.uk/

you need to go to this site, it's urgent.

0 upvotes
D1N0
By D1N0 (4 months ago)

low light champ (just)

http://www.dxomark.com/Reviews/Nikon-Df-review-New-low-light-champion/Nikon-Df-sensor-performance-Best-Low-Light-ISO-score

2 upvotes
Allochka Emiliana
By Allochka Emiliana (4 months ago)

Just low light...what about the other categories?

4 upvotes
sandy b
By sandy b (4 months ago)

The other categories are still more than respectable. If we need, we have the D800 and D600. Both of which AF with Nikon glass and IMO are better than their sony counterparts. You seem to be under the impression this review is about Sony cameras. Its not, its a Nikon rview.

3 upvotes
HowaboutRAW
By HowaboutRAW (4 months ago)

D1NO:

Skip the DXO sensor scores and go with raws, right the D4 is certainly one of the best sensors out there for lowlight, but irony the D3s' sensor is likely better. Yes, I've used both bodies.

And why am I not commenting on Df raws? Because ACR 8 doesn't extract that file type yet.

2 upvotes
Biggs23
By Biggs23 (4 months ago)

I prefer the D4's files to the D3s's. More flexibility in my experience. I have the Df but haven't used it enough to really give a complete opinion about its files yet. Plus, as mentioned, the files have to be modified to use anyway.

0 upvotes
RichRMA
By RichRMA (4 months ago)

They should have gone for 24mp. The minor gain over the D4 isn't worth keeping it at 16mp. I guess sensor tech has hit a bit of a barrier, they've milked the Sony's for all they can?

2 upvotes
Josh152
By Josh152 (4 months ago)

@RichRMA

They couldn't' do that because they need the D4 sensor to be a hook people could use to say/tell themselves "See See a gussied up D600 with one less card slot and no video is worth $3000! I'm not buying it because I like the look or because I have an emotional attachment to it I'm buying for the D4 sensor! It's a D4 for half the price!!" It was the perfect decision.

3 upvotes
Allochka Emiliana
By Allochka Emiliana (4 months ago)

Sandy, that is the point of the review. If you read DP's review, they are comparing every camera with other cameras. It seems you can't accept that there are better cameras out there than DF.

2 upvotes
sandy b
By sandy b (4 months ago)

I know there are, but they are all made by Nikon, Silly boy.

2 upvotes
marike6
By marike6 (4 months ago)

> I guess sensor tech has hit a bit of a barrier, they've milked the Sony's for all they can?

The D4/Df sensor is not made by Sony, it's designed in-house by Nikon and fabricated by Renesas.

2 upvotes
HowaboutRAW
By HowaboutRAW (4 months ago)

@Josh152:

Right, Nikon wants to sell DF bodies, and the D4 sensor is a hook, but you see you the D4's sensor is a good bit better at lowlight high ISO shooting than the sensor in the D610. (People skip the D600 for real reasons.)

Sure is nice to have the D4 sensor in a body with a quiet shutter and mirror. It's a niche, and Nikon made a camera body for it. I don't see Canon shipping a small, light, quiet body with the sensor from the 1D X.

1 upvote
HowaboutRAW
By HowaboutRAW (4 months ago)

@RichRMA:

No, Nikon should have used a sensor with even fewer mega pixels--a lower count would be a real selling point. But that may come in say the D5.

The D4+D3s don't use Sony sensors.

Comment edited 3 minutes after posting
1 upvote
Shamael
By Shamael (4 months ago)

d4 has a Nikon designed sensor, but the 12.1 of D3 is a Sony sensor, you are wrong on that part. We have disassembled a broken D3 body that felt 5 flors deep and had major damages inside as well as outside. The sensor is a Sony type. Now, I suspect D4 sensors to take dust in the stock room, one more reason to put the sensor of this Digital flopp, and get rid of them. That the sensor is best in low light is not a great deal when you consider the pixel pitch that is same as a 8 mpix apsc camera. We are in some way back at D70 vs D2H times, some 8 years ago. D2H had a huge IQ and better high ISO perfomance than D70, but it was a 4 mpix only. And here we are again, comparing 24 and 36 mpix gear to a low resolution 16 mpix sensor. That is totally idiot. Want high ISO perf, go lower in pixels, want high resolution go higher and lose high ISO perf. That's life, and here you have to know what's good for you and you pay consequently the price they ask you for that. You can't get it all in one.

0 upvotes
Shamael
By Shamael (4 months ago)

Nikon came so often with their own sensor story. They started that trick with D200. The sensor was using a different pipelining system that other cameras with the same sensor, but it was a Sony. They did the same with D3X, where they used again another managing, but it was the same as A900 sensor from Sony. D700, D3 and D3S are Nikon designed sensors, used by Nikon only, no other camera uses them, but the manufacturing is made by a sub-company that makes Sony's sensors as well. Some are made by Toshiba, for Sony. From there to say that Nikon sensors like D4 type are better is to be proven. Let's see Nikon designing a 36 mpix and compare it to Sony's sensor, only then we can say if one or the other does better. What is a bargain at Nikon is there expeed engine that is far better than the Bionz from Sony, despite that Sony digs the distance. It's just a question of time to be equal or better. What makes Nikon's bad side is the color accuracy, tends to green, while Sony tends to red.

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

Note by the way also that the expeed prgramm is written by Fuji. Nikon works with Fuji for this matter.

0 upvotes
HowaboutRAW
By HowaboutRAW (4 months ago)

Shamael:

I didn’t say anything about the sensor in the D3; the D3s is a different body. And in the case of the D3, if it really were a Sony sensor, Sony were likely the subcontract builder.

0 upvotes
Allochka Emiliana
By Allochka Emiliana (4 months ago)

marike6, why is wrong with Sony sensor when 5-6 sensors out of the top ten sensors around the world were made by Sony? http://www.dxomark.com/Cameras/Ratings

1 upvote
marike6
By marike6 (4 months ago)

@Allochka Emiliana

Nothing is wrong with Sony sensors. Someone above wrote:

"They should have gone for 24mp. The minor gain over the D4 isn't worth keeping it at 16mp. I guess sensor tech has hit a bit of a barrier, they've milked the Sony's for all they can?"

The point is Nikon is not "milking" anything, they use sensors from Renesas, Sony, Toshiba, Aptina, et al. Anyway, it's hard to believe that some people are complaining about the sensor in the Df, which is absolutely great. I have a D800, it's great, but file sizes are pretty huge often making it overkill for everyday casual shooting. The 16 mp sensor in the Df is perfect for high volume, event or travel type shooting.

1 upvote
driftnomore
By driftnomore (4 months ago)

i would appreciate much had they marketed first the d400,then this one..

0 upvotes
Mike99999
By Mike99999 (4 months ago)

DX is dead :(

1 upvote
driftnomore
By driftnomore (4 months ago)

yes,true,the mirrorless is gonna kill them.i won't have to wait for the d400 or whatever D's the'll come up with...nikon is stubborn.

0 upvotes
Teru Kage
By Teru Kage (4 months ago)

I'm surprised at all the posts complaining about the lack of image quality improvements. The main (some would say sole) selling point of the Nikon Df is its body. This model is clearly catered to a very specific market that values the retro form and function of the camera. It was never meant to be a breakthrough in performance and to harp on this shortcoming is like complaining about a motorcycle being having less stability than a car.

And no, I'm not planning on getting one. I'm happy with my D700 and E-PL5 combo. I'll invest in a body again when Nikon features a FF sensor with major improvements in DR.

Comment edited 5 minutes after posting
11 upvotes
Jogger
By Jogger (4 months ago)

Still waiting for the D700 replacement.. i.e. the 16mp chip in a D800 body. I prefer the modern SLR controls because i can operate them without taking my eye away from the OVF.

2 upvotes
JDThomas
By JDThomas (4 months ago)

You are aware that you can set the controls on the Df in exactly the same same way as the D700/D800 right? You aren't forced to use the shutter speed dial. You can set the speed with the rear command dial and the aperture with front command dial, set the ISO to the Fn button and then you can change them all using only your right hand without ever looking away from the VF.

2 upvotes
Richard Butler
By Richard Butler (4 months ago)

@JDThomas - but you are forced to use the locking exposure comp dial on the left shoulder of the camera.

2 upvotes
le_alain
By le_alain (4 months ago)

And the M, A, S pull up button

0 upvotes
marike6
By marike6 (4 months ago)

> but you are forced to use the locking exposure comp dial on the left shoulder of the camera.

Yes the EV comp dial is locking, a GOOD thing. I can't tell you how many time I accidentally move the EV comp on my X-E1, not realizing it until after I've made an image.

Some reviewers are making a big deal about the Df locks on the exposure dials but in actuality the EV comp and ISO dial can be operated with one hand and changed quite easily. The same for the shutter speed dial.

5 upvotes
sandy b
By sandy b (4 months ago)

Haven't I seen complaints agianst Nikon for NOT using locking dials in a DPR review? Or two?

3 upvotes
Blue Swan Media
By Blue Swan Media (4 months ago)

@marike6, again, I have to disagree. In my experience anyway, the exposure comp dial on my XP1 or x100 S is not where I want it to be more because I've forgotten to reset it then it is because it's been knocked out of place.

Also, have you use the dials on the DF? I played around with a bit on photo in Maine. The dials are not like those on the Fuji, where you can press the button, then take your finger off the button and move the dial. On the Df, you have to hold down the locking button and move the dial at the same time. Much more difficult to operate one handed this way, especially on the left side of the camera.

Also, as many including Steve Huff have noted, it has a decidedly cheap feel to it. To me it feels like a GI Joe toy from when I was 8. I know I know, weight. You know what though? My Fuji X-stuff feels like pure sex from the moment you pick it up, and that to me is worth a little extra weight.

0 upvotes
MarkByland
By MarkByland (4 months ago)

I would most certainly shoot one. I like the concept, the design, shape, basically the whole idea in general. Is the sensor Sony or other? It would be nice if it weren't Sony. Shots look good, nice color, and ISO9000 looks to be pretty impressive despite what others are saying. Better than most, certainly.

1 upvote
Allochka Emiliana
By Allochka Emiliana (4 months ago)

what is wrong with Sony sensor? D800 is using a Sony sensor. The two of the top 3 sensors in the world are made by Sony. http://www.dxomark.com/Cameras/Ratings

2 upvotes
Revenant
By Revenant (4 months ago)

If it's the D4 sensor, it's not made by Sony. It's a Nikon design manufactured by Renesas.

3 upvotes
Allochka Emiliana
By Allochka Emiliana (4 months ago)

@Revenant, Semi-Pro D800 (Sony Sensor) is way better than D4 in sensor rating...

2 upvotes
sandy b
By sandy b (4 months ago)

Way better, huh? Spoken like a true fan boy.

6 upvotes
Eleson
By Eleson (4 months ago)

Yes, a fanboy is easy to spot!

4 upvotes
ryan2007
By ryan2007 (4 months ago)

The samples are not that impressive to make me want to buy the camera. Any DSLR or mirror-less camera can do this from what is shown here. I don't see how you are getting what you pay for here.

4 upvotes
Cane
By Cane (4 months ago)

Has there ever not been a comment like this for sample pics of a single camera released on this site. It's like the sun rising. Why even bother?

10 upvotes
sandy b
By sandy b (4 months ago)

Show me any other camera that can do that ISO 20000 shot and look anywhere as good.

6 upvotes
SeeRoy
By SeeRoy (4 months ago)

I'm now showing you a D4.

2 upvotes
ryan2007
By ryan2007 (4 months ago)

@Sandy b, are you taking every shot at ISO 20000, Just because my car can go over 100 mph does not mean I take it there.

4 upvotes
sandy b
By sandy b (4 months ago)

One does not haave to shoot 20000 to see the difference, it is quite obvious at 6400. And many people are low light shooters, its one of the main strengths of dslrs.

6 upvotes
Mir_ro
By Mir_ro (4 months ago)

Not very impressed by the high ISO quality. At 16Mpix FF I was hoping for much more clean output....

2 upvotes
sandy b
By sandy b (4 months ago)

Show me any other camera that can do that ISO 20000 shot and look anywhere as good.

There is NO other DSLR better at low light shooting. Anywhere.

6 upvotes
SeeRoy
By SeeRoy (4 months ago)

See above.

1 upvote
sandy b
By sandy b (4 months ago)

Actually, Df beat the D4 lowlight score. So technically, it is the lowlight champ sensor wise. Applies to above too.

1 upvote
ccm
By ccm (4 months ago)

By 1/5 of a stop. I'd call that sensor variation and within the error of measurements. Looks like the same sensor to me.

1 upvote
AbrasiveReducer
By AbrasiveReducer (4 months ago)

I try not to use ISO 200000 that much. For years, I got by with ASA 400, pushed to 800 or 1000 and that was plenty.

4 upvotes
Revenant
By Revenant (4 months ago)

According to DxO, the error of margin in their tests is 1/3 EV, so their results suggest that D4 and Df use the exact same sensor.

1 upvote
Shamael
By Shamael (4 months ago)

clean at ISO 20000 and the resolution and IQ of an 8 mpix apsc sensor. Evena D200 makes abetter shot at 100 iso. Now, if you want a low resolution, average IQ shot, this is the camera you need. If it had 36 mpix and a clean 12500 ISO, I would pull my hat. But at 16 mpix, and todays know how, 12500 clean, or almost, is not a huge performance, to my opinion.

0 upvotes
Waimak Stud
By Waimak Stud (4 months ago)

I have never been more excited about a camera than this one, but picked one up the other day, had a bit of a play with it, and was quite disappointed. Felt a lot more plasticky than i expected, has great ability to use old Nikon lenses but no focussing screen, and the adjustments were really fiddly, with having to push a little button every time. Think I might defect to the Sony A7 after all.

3 upvotes
HowaboutRAW
By HowaboutRAW (4 months ago)

So "plasticy" now is another term for made of magnesium?

The Sony A7 is nice, but doesn't have anywhere near the high ISO performance. If that's not important to you, and a limited choice of lenses isn't a problem.

The focus screen on the Nikon D700 could be changed, if one sent it into Nikon. This Df looks to be the same.

So you're left with not liking the knobs, okay.

8 upvotes
Allochka Emiliana
By Allochka Emiliana (4 months ago)

@HowAboutRaw, I don't think you check the A7/r high ISO samples at http://www.dpreview.com/galleries/reviewsamples/albums/sony-alpha-7r-samples-gallery/slideshow and sensor rating is better than Nikon's DF and I won't even mention the price for what you get for...

Comment edited 4 minutes after posting
5 upvotes
sandy b
By sandy b (4 months ago)

Allochola, for the price you get a camera that can actually auto focus with Nikon lens, focus on a moving target and is a stop better at the higher ISO's. May not be worth it too you, but this review is about a NIKON camera, not a SONY. And the DXO rating for low light shooting, the Df is king.

Comment edited 8 minutes after posting
10 upvotes
TrojMacReady
By TrojMacReady (4 months ago)

A stop in shadows, half a stop in midtones and highlights.

2 upvotes
Allochka Emiliana
By Allochka Emiliana (4 months ago)

sandy b, if you are after low light then yes but A7r trumps DF from 3 other categories ;-) and I am sure very high percentage of the photographers shoot during day time.

Comment edited 1 minute after posting
5 upvotes
HowaboutRAW
By HowaboutRAW (4 months ago)

Allochola:

Try going by raws from the D4/Df and A7. The link is to A7R samples, which is a different camera that will be worse at high ISOs than the A7, and the OP referred to the A7, not A7R.

So yeah, a lot of people going for the Df will seek it out for low light+high ISOs. Anyhow the D610 is likely a good bit better in lowlight than the A7, irony that’s a very similar Sony sensor to the A7's.

I think the A7 is an interesting first start for Sony’s FF mirrorless systems, but there are problems that Nikon has worked out for its DSLRs.

This statement above: “and I am sure very high percentage of the photographers shoot during day time” is preposterous. Like saying cars aren’t driven in the rain.

@Troj:

More likely at least 2 stops in the shadows.

1 upvote
TrojMacReady
By TrojMacReady (4 months ago)

A hair less than one stop in shadows if you're using a converter with correct (or manually corrected for) blue/yellow plus magenta/green balance at high ISO. Which is exactly in line with what DXO measured in shadows.

DF@ 100% crop vs A7:
http://oi43.tinypic.com/madj46.jpg

Comment edited 27 seconds after posting
3 upvotes
AbrasiveReducer
By AbrasiveReducer (4 months ago)

It's definitely not plastic. OTOH, neither the silver or black finish is as nice as the ones they're supposed to be reminiscent of. The days of black enamel over brass are gone, but this would make the camera heavier and more expensive.

1 upvote
HowaboutRAW
By HowaboutRAW (4 months ago)

Troj:

No. Not even the Nikon D610 is simply one stop behind the D4 in the shadows--and the D610 is decent at high ISOs.

I don't look at jpegs for this kind of purpose.

0 upvotes
TrojMacReady
By TrojMacReady (4 months ago)

I compared TIF's from RAW, as you can see in the screenshot.

A lot of people forget that many converters are calibrated at base ISO and not every individual ISO, which can mean (and often does mean) color shifts at high ISO. After correction, it's as posted above, hard to debate visual and measured results. Then again, you have a history of making wild claims with just your word as back up.

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

Troj:

What converter did you use to get the tiffs?

Also I'm going by a lot more examples than what's posted at DPReview. I have my own raws shot with the D4, DF, A7 and A7R. (D610, D600 and D800 too.)

0 upvotes
Waimak Stud
By Waimak Stud (4 months ago)

I'm just saying that since I got into DSLR photography I have been wishing for a camera that is reminiscent of the Old film cameras. I don't have Nikon, but something like my Canon AE-1. Manual adjustments, solid, small, easy to focus etc. For the price and the hype I really expected to the DF to live up to that. I had heard that it's not going to be possible to change the focussing screen in the DF, which seems odd since it's compatibility with old lenses is a big drawing card.

I know it may sound petty to complain about pushing a fiddly little knob, but the DF makes a big deal about being able to change all parameters at the turn of a dial, so I think I would get annoyed having to do that for everything.

And there may not be many native lenses for the A7, but manual focussing is a breeze and there are a plethora of adaptors. Plus the size and form factor is far closer to my Canon AE-1.

I still think the DF is a far superior camera in theory, however. It's a thing of beauty!

Comment edited 2 minutes after posting
0 upvotes
retro76
By retro76 (4 months ago)

If there is one thing I have noticed for last few months is that every camera whether it's a FF or APC Canon / Nikon, Sony NEX, Micro 4/3rds, the Nikon 1 series, or Fuji all produce very similar IQ (under the right conditions, there are some exceptions). There just isn't anything special about the IQ from a given camera anymore, everything has reached the point of maturity. A few years back I would have given my left arm for the Nikon DF, but I really feel that Nikon waited too long (and their price point is too high). I have moved on and entered into the mirrorless camera realm where everything I could possibly need is available. I am sure this camera will be a success either way, it's beautiful and Nikon is definitely the king of sensors at this point and continue to push out new lenses faster than any other manufacturer.

Comment edited 2 times, last edit 5 minutes after posting
10 upvotes
neo_nights
By neo_nights (4 months ago)

I agree. Up to ISO1600/3200 most cameras are producing very close results. You only start to see a difference (IQ-wise) on higher ISOs only.

Just this weekend I've made a little photoshoot with a Nikon D3000 (a friend asked me to do it with her camera). Since I was able to keep the ISO down, I didn't see any significant difference between those shots from the ones with my Pentax K5 or Sony Nex 6.

It all comes down to a matter of preference; if you already have lenses for that system, if the size/weight is right for you, if you want knobs and dials everywhere or something simpler.

5 upvotes
HowaboutRAW
By HowaboutRAW (4 months ago)

As you say: "there are some exceptions".

5 upvotes
audijam
By audijam (4 months ago)

camera itself is just a box that capture light...all cameras are the same the only difference is who is using it and how.

1 upvote
HowaboutRAW
By HowaboutRAW (4 months ago)

aujijam:

All cameras are used to capture light, however there are indeed different cameras.

And you see, now in the digital era, the film comes with the body and stays with the body for its entire life.

And real film is the thing that you put in the box to catch the light; there were different kinds of film back then.

Then there are things called lenses, different lenses do different things.

You can make your own pinhole digital camera if you want, it's unlikely to be as capable as this Nikon.

1 upvote
b craw
By b craw (4 months ago)

Yes, largely we have arrived at a point where image quality commentary addresses the minutiae. I think it is healthy to have such discussion for those requiring such a nuanced difference. But, my suspicion is that very few photographers fall into that category. So, progressively, the discussions might shift primary concentration to, features, ergonomics, and build.

Sometimes it is very important to step back and remind ourselves that the gear doesn't do the work; some of the best work is done by photographers with equipment that would be harped on by many here as well behind the curve.

5 upvotes
AbrasiveReducer
By AbrasiveReducer (4 months ago)

b craw is right. All the high end, digital cameras are great and things like DxO, 36mp or ISO 100,000 are not relevant to getting high quality images in most situations.

0 upvotes
b craw
By b craw (4 months ago)

howaboutRAW, I do believe audijam is somewhat off the mark, oversimplifing. But I get the sentiment. Differences in equipment and technical knowledge - understanding how those differences affect the production of image(s) - is beneficial in so far as it results in greater latitude of potential. But I think it is far to say that in many cases, applications trend toward rather masturbatory repetition of technique entirely for the sake of technique. Hence, what underlies
audijam's position, as I understand it: the photographer/artist is the foundation of the creative process, not the gear.

0 upvotes
b craw
By b craw (4 months ago)

AbrasiveReducer: I often enjoy your commentary, even in the times that I disagree with it. Consider yourself invited to my holiday party. :)

0 upvotes
NCB
By NCB (4 months ago)

Similar IQ doesn't mean similar images, and the differences matter. I like the Fuji X-series cameras, good IQ, except there's the issue of mushy greens, which would seriously affect the sort of shots I take (grass figures a fair amount). NEX cameras produce attractive output, until I start looking at examples similar to the sort of landscape stuff I shoot a lot, and the colours don't do it for me.
So, cameras are still different, and it's up to you work out what sort of output you want and which camera is most likely to give it to. Me, I've gone with Nikon output for some time, and I think this Df gallery is just great; there's life in the output, and the colours are just what I'm looking for. Add in superb high ISO performance and the possibilities are enormous.

0 upvotes
HowaboutRAW
By HowaboutRAW (4 months ago)

b craw:

And if the point were made in those terms, I’d sort of agree. But the boxes really are different. Think audio playback, even on a computer the software for playback matters, no matter what components comprise the rest of the system; the iTunes software sound quality was awful for years--only somewhat fixed with the release of iTunes 11 in 2013.

So it’s a bit simplified to say that the tech in the box doesn’t matter too much.

1 upvote
jadot
By jadot (4 months ago)

All Looks as expected (I'm referencing the D4 here).
Really love the look of that Pentax Prime in there, too.
Also, nice to see the 35mm f2 make an appearance. It's one of my favourite small primes, though doesn't fare too well on the D800. D600, no problem.

Still a way toy go to tempt me away from my x100s, though...

Money Money Money

0 upvotes
Caplin
By Caplin (4 months ago)

Camera look great, has a great options, I have no doubt that Nikon knows it best. Looking at the first photo samples, i didn't saw anything new in the terms of the quality. Already seen.
Conclusion: Why some of the big manufacturers with great bodies, don't make a camera with the foveon sensor? :)

0 upvotes
HowaboutRAW
By HowaboutRAW (4 months ago)

Because Foveon is owned by Sigma and perhaps Sigma doesn't want to license them, then Foveon sensors can't be used above ISO 400 and only be used to shoot raw.

There are rumors that Sony has a 3 layer sensor in development.

0 upvotes
YouDidntDidYou
By YouDidntDidYou (4 months ago)

@dpreview
has dpreview always used exposure compensation to correct the camera's metering in "real world" samples or was it introduced/only for the nikon df???

1 upvote
InTheMist
By InTheMist (4 months ago)

Without scene modes, how is the camera supposed to know what you wanted?

Exposure compensation is a part of photography.

Only with the cheapest point-and-shoot, or my iPhone, do I allow the camera to choose for me.

5 upvotes
Andy Westlake
By Andy Westlake (4 months ago)

We frequently use exposure compensation to adjust the camera's metering (and have done for years).

9 upvotes
rhlpetrus
By rhlpetrus (4 months ago)

Real photogs use manual ... (just kidding).

0 upvotes
Pixnat2
By Pixnat2 (4 months ago)

The D600/610 deliver better images at low ISOs. So if you're not a high ISO shooter, they are better value.

1 upvote
Eleson
By Eleson (4 months ago)

Which is a universal thruth for almost all Hi-rez contra Lo-rez sensors. And brands.

3 upvotes
NCB
By NCB (4 months ago)

If by better you mean higher resolution, then how often do you need that higher resolution? 16mp is enough to deliver a top quality end product for almost all purposes. I think Nikon has got it right here going for pixel quality not quantity. If you aren't actually utilising the extra pixels then those extra pixels are a pain; larger files, extra processing.

Great gallery by the way. Those pics have a zing to them.

Comment edited 5 minutes after posting
6 upvotes
InTheMist
By InTheMist (4 months ago)

I agree, Pixnat.

I bought a Df, and I've been carrying it every day since then. I love it, but a good value, it's not.

Neither is Mustang.

I wanted a Mustang for when my Minivan isn't necessary ;)

0 upvotes
AbrasiveReducer
By AbrasiveReducer (4 months ago)

It does seem amusing that the 12mp on a D700 is now considered a joke, yet 16mp on a Df is more than enough for professional applications.

Comment edited 21 seconds after posting
2 upvotes
marmotto
By marmotto (4 months ago)

Sorry for the bad English: I think the purchase of the DF is a "fetish".
To spend € 3000 should be sure to improve my photos ... compared to those produced with a "poor" D90 and I'm not sure that this is possible.
I live in Rome and the DF is equivalent, in the field of photography, to what "was" the 'Hummer in the automotive field: an exhibition of testosterone ...

16 upvotes
mike kobal
By mike kobal (4 months ago)

...or the lack of ....;)

2 upvotes
Jimmy jang Boo
By Jimmy jang Boo (4 months ago)

A better or more expensive camera will not make you a better photographer any more than a Hummer will make you a better driver.

But a a better camera (like a Hummer instead of Ford Focus) has a number of advantages beyond 'testosterone' and egomania.

2 upvotes
BillyNZ
By BillyNZ (4 months ago)

I really like this camera, but I checked this gallery after checking the sample gallery of the Fujifilm XF 23mm lens and for the first time I could see what many pros say about being better to invest in good glass first than a in new camera body. At least for my amateur eye the samples of the Fuji lens looks more pleasant even I can see in some of the pictures the limitations of the smaller sensor

3 upvotes
Lea5
By Lea5 (4 months ago)

Images look like from my D4. Seems a great camera.

Comment edited 21 seconds after posting
1 upvote
JF69
By JF69 (4 months ago)

Thanks for posting these, keep up the great work.
Interesting samples, straight out-of-cam skin tones are still unpleasant though (the old venerable Fujifilm S5 is still the king of the hill in that regard by quite a long shot)

0 upvotes
groucher
By groucher (4 months ago)

How can you say that on the evidence of those shots? Unless you took the photos yourself, you don't know what the skin-tones were.

5 upvotes
iudex
By iudex (4 months ago)

Alhough I read "selection of lenses", I did not expect old Pentax manual prime. Nice job!

1 upvote
Just a Photographer
By Just a Photographer (4 months ago)

A nice camera, but way overpriced for what you get.

How foolish must one be to buy this camera in Europe where it is still $500 MORE expensive then a D800E?

This in a time where the dollar is worth just 0.65 cents to the Euro.

9 upvotes
Shamael
By Shamael (4 months ago)

I wonder myself why everyone find those shots so amazing. Steve Huff compared a few days ago shots of DF with those of a Sony A7R, and there, it is evident that the DF sensor is winner when it comes to compare noise ratio. To be clear, one can not compare a 36 mpix sensor to a 16 mpix when comparing noise levels. When comparing details, one can not compare a 16 mpix sensor to a 36 mpix one. All that is comparing apples and watermelons, so simple said, bullsh.. . Now, lets give this Nikon sensor what it is made for, an excellent sensor with a huge pixel pitch and low noise, with excellent detail. That's it and when we see the specs of the sensor, there is no need to speak about miracles. When it comes to finer detail, the 24 and 36 mpix draw better, specially in a mirrorless designs like A7.

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

One can not have it all in one camera, except if someone come with an A7 type camera and interchangable sensor modules.
So, on the end, if you want a camera with a low resolution sensor that performs super in high ISO range, an average, but good, AF, no MF assistance on screen, and fairly overpriced, Nikon DF is made for you. Period.

2 upvotes
four under
By four under (4 months ago)

@ Shamael:
Enlighten me, why does a sensor "draw" any better in a mirrorless design?

0 upvotes
Biggs23
By Biggs23 (4 months ago)

More like .73 actually.

0 upvotes
Shamael
By Shamael (4 months ago)

Well, try yourself if any mirror reflex is able to draw the same quality with the same sensor as a NEX-7, many Nikon cameras use the same sensor, Pentax uses it too, translucend mirror Sony's as well, so it is easy to check. Now, try it yourself, then, try A7R compared to D800, and you see. The absence of any mechanical part between the lens and the sensor makes the camera draw better all over. I have enough dslr's, mirror and OVF types, translucend mirror types, and mirrorless systems. In sharpness and detail, the mirrorless takes it over on all the other types. This is a question of experience I did myself, not a theory that comes out of a book. Now, not convinced, take the test shots in DPR, compare NEX-7 to any other camera and you will see it yourself. Same counts for A7R to D800, even if here the difference is more marginal. Maybe you should try to step a four over some time.

0 upvotes
jhinkey
By jhinkey (4 months ago)

Is there a 135/2.5 Nikkor? Perhaps it really is a 105/2.5 . . .

1 upvote
new boyz
By new boyz (4 months ago)

Or a Nikon 135mm f/2 DC.

2 upvotes
Barney Britton
By Barney Britton (4 months ago)

It's a 105mm F2.5, sorry about that. Now corrected.

0 upvotes
jhinkey
By jhinkey (4 months ago)

Thought so.
Sometimes I mess up the non-CPU lens registers in my D800 and I end up with non-existing lens combinations.
Good to see some classic (and very very good) non-AF Nikon glass in the images.

0 upvotes
InTheMist
By InTheMist (4 months ago)

Lovely images.

I can't help but wonder how many cameras' fates hang on the weather in Seattle.

5 upvotes
karlchwe
By karlchwe (4 months ago)

Yay! But you know, right, that most readers are still wondering why it takes 9 months to review a camera? So I said it! Sorr-eeeee!

0 upvotes
Simon Joinson
By Simon Joinson (4 months ago)

But it was only announced 4 weeks ago

19 upvotes
steelski
By steelski (4 months ago)

9 Month Gestation period.
Obviously.......
in all seriousness....
Simon/Richard.......How is the K-3 review coming along.

2 upvotes
Roderick63
By Roderick63 (4 months ago)

I didn't know there was such a thing as a 135 f2.5 Nikkor….

0 upvotes
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.

5 upvotes
Total comments: 224
12