Previous news story    Next news story

Nikon Df review: A classic remade?

By dpreview staff on Dec 20, 2013 at 01:00 GMT

The Nikon Df is, at first appearance, the camera many people have been wanting for years - a classically styled DSLR with traditional external controls. A lot of what's under the Df's retro skin is pretty familiar with the 16MP full-frame D4 sensor and the AF system from the D610. But does the Df bring together the best of the old and the new for a compelling shooting experience? Find out. 

189
I own it
391
I want it
83
I had it
Discuss in the forums

Comments

Total comments: 1595
12345
scopes
By scopes (3 months ago)

Nerds!!! You're all nerds!!!

2 upvotes
HowaboutRAW
By HowaboutRAW (3 months ago)

Yes.

Then so?

And 4 total comments in nearly 18 months and you take this opportunity?

4 upvotes
Hugo808
By Hugo808 (3 months ago)

"Nerds!!! You're all nerds!!!"

And proud!

0 upvotes
raztec
By raztec (4 months ago)

Is HowaboutRAW a paid Nikon employee? Just wondering. Look at the number of posts he's made here. I mean who's got time to respond to nearly EVERY single criticism of the Df? Even Shotcents has a wife he needs to keep happy.

8 upvotes
HowaboutRAW
By HowaboutRAW (4 months ago)

R:

So you clearly missed, or didn’t understand, where I said Nikon lenses aren’t real good optically. (Not something a Nikon employee would ever say and a position many Nikon users can't stand to read.)

Other things somewhat negative things I’ve said in these comments specifically about this Df body: “I can see how the layout would irk some users”. And: “I don’t like the card and battery sharing the same compartment”.

So your reaction is typical lazy, if someone likes something he/she must be working as a representative of that something.

Some other things I don’t like about Nikon: above base ISO the dynamic range of the D800 is not as good as it should be. And the buffer on the D7100 is far to slow for a camera of that price.

As for the number of comments I’ve made, my choice how to waste my time, and if I hadn’t repeatedly read comments akin to yours then...

1 upvote
Rage Joe
By Rage Joe (4 months ago)

Yeah, but you know what, the best Nikon lenses are just superb. Like the new 85mm/1.4, the best you can get, for any price. Even the dirt cheap kit lenses are good enough for professional use. So why to complain?

1 upvote
HowaboutRAW
By HowaboutRAW (4 months ago)

Rage J:

Right good Nikon lenses are indeed good optically, but "superb" is going too far. They lack colour subtlety that optically excellent lenses have.

No: That "new" Nikon 85mm f/1.4 is not particularly excellent optically--unless Nikon introduced something new in the last two months. Nor is that 58mm f/1.4 Nikon (actually new) particularly good optically.

0 upvotes
Rage Joe
By Rage Joe (4 months ago)

http://www.dxomark.com/Reviews/Which-lenses-for-your-Nikon-D800/Nikon-D800-and-standard-lens-choices

Can't see too many problems with these superb Nikon lenses, when all that data is backed by my own personal experience. And the colors? Are you color blind or something, or what is wrong with your colors?

2 upvotes
Jaberwok
By Jaberwok (4 months ago)

in reply to raztec
Nah The poster you refer to is extremely bright, luminous in fact.
A Transmitter and Receiver Of Laser Light no less.

Comment edited 45 seconds after posting
0 upvotes
HowaboutRAW
By HowaboutRAW (4 months ago)

Rage Joe:

Please don't cite DXO scores, they're not real helpful, they can say if a lens is good, but can't do much about saying if a lens is excellent.

Now as for your personal experience that only matters if you've also extensively used both good Zeiss and Leica M lenses. Most who have agree that Nikon lenses lack something in colour, though some disagree.

0 upvotes
HowaboutRAW
By HowaboutRAW (4 months ago)

J:

What on earth do lasers have to do with this, are you monochrome?

0 upvotes
Jaberwok
By Jaberwok (4 months ago)

No, not monochrome but perhaps slightly pickled: I had a really excellent lunch in my club today.

Comment edited 30 seconds after posting
0 upvotes
raztec
By raztec (4 months ago)

@howabout...
Some of the comments are just personal opinions. Don't understand why you feel obliged to get people to change them.

0 upvotes
HowaboutRAW
By HowaboutRAW (4 months ago)

raz:

Thought you'd just asked a question.

The colour subtlety of good lenses isn't opinion. Nor is the failure of resampling to reduce high ISO noise in anything like a real world example.

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

Hahahaha... maybe he really likes the camera.

1 upvote
binauralbeats
By binauralbeats (3 months ago)

HowaboutRaw: geez bud, it's just a camera. You don't need to respond to everything. Maybe try going outside and taking some pictures. And why take criticism so personally?

0 upvotes
HowaboutRAW
By HowaboutRAW (3 months ago)

binauralbeats:

Mostly I don't take it personally. Though yes I'm personally interested in purchasing this Df body.

I just see too much whining about the "retro" look, or the "bad" AF and have to ask "have you used it?", though not you.

Then I see preposterous, easily testable and easily proven wrong, claims about how to make high ISO files from the D800 equal the lower noise performance of the same ISO setting on the Df/D4, and I have to object strenuously.

It's a very interesting body to many because of the sensor alone. And to read so much garbage spewed by those who have not even handled it, and haven't a clue about why high ISO lowlight shooting with a reasonably quiet body may be important so some persons, is really irksome.

Shall I go on about the comments claiming the Fuji XE2 equals the low light performance of this Df sensor? How about those who insist this is an "ancient", and implicitly useless, sensor?

0 upvotes
Shamael
By Shamael (3 months ago)

@ HowaboutRaw: So, if I understand well, you defend this body with all weapons you can find and all words in your dictionary, but... you don't have one yet. I do not have one ether, and will not have one, unless Nikon changes a few things in it. I am against this camera for the simple reason of it's price, the AF is not what it should be, the resolution of the sensor is targetting night shooters only, and I am not among those, and for day shooting, I would like a higher resolution. Then, there are not enough manual focus assist facilities and you can't change the matte to a split ro fresnel type. Then, ability to shoot 25000 ISO clean and 1/4000th maximal speed, what is that good for. Even Oly M1 has 1/8000th. Nikon has build a low end product with a sensor with good capacities, for a high price. Nikon sucks, that's all., simply they walk beside there shoes. And forget the 6000$ camera sensor story, Nikon makes the prices, not the sensor.

Comment edited 3 minutes after posting
0 upvotes
HowaboutRAW
By HowaboutRAW (3 months ago)

Shamael:

The resolution of the sensor is fine and you know better than to raise the silly more pixels equals better image quality argument.

The AF is decent, as others attest.

Likely, one can send the body into a service centre for a screen swap, that's how the D700 worked, and the Df sure appears to work the same way.

You clearly care more about bragging rights to specced numbers than image quality, this suggests that you aren't particularly interested in digital photography.

It is a stretch to call the Df "clean" at ISO 25,000.

Nikon is not going to put the sensor from a future D5 in a body before the D5 ships and Nikon is not going to charge less than the D610 for a body with the D4's sensor.

Sports photos were taken with 1/1000 sec film bodies.

"if, if, if". Get a D610 or buy a D800, but don't whine about higher ISO fails with those bodies. And too bad that above base ISO the dynamic range of the D800 can't keep up with the Df's DR.

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

the Df is smaller, lighter and far quieter than a D700...use manual mode, fixed AIS lens and treat it like a film camera...you will be very happy and hardly have any reason to go into the camera's menu....shot with it yesterday...plan to buy two..good bye zoom lenses...

6 upvotes
HowaboutRAW
By HowaboutRAW (4 months ago)

I think some will stumble over this advice: " treat it like a film camera".

0 upvotes
Jaberwok
By Jaberwok (4 months ago)

Ah yes film. cellophane sandwich wrap used by the retro gang, large format specialists and sleepy senior citizens who remember the good old days of the Nikon F6.

1 upvote
Rage Joe
By Rage Joe (4 months ago)

"Locking exposure comp dial is inconvenient"...

Sony α7/α7R Experience:

... "and the EV compensation dial turns accidentally in a bag, and even when I'm just hand-holding the camera - I have to check it every time I want to take a picture." - by Shawn Barnett

17 upvotes
chooflaki
By chooflaki (4 months ago)

I have to say this the same for my Fuji Xpro 1 and X100. EV dial always gets out of whack. Has a mind of its own. EV dial on Df very safe and easy to change when one realises they have use their fingers.

Comment edited 44 seconds after posting
6 upvotes
Rage Joe
By Rage Joe (4 months ago)

I think that if a camera has an EV compensation dial the best thing to do is to be sure it's set to zero and then glue it permanently.

1 upvote
Rage Joe
By Rage Joe (4 months ago)

Long time ago. I tried EV compensation dial. What a disaster. It just did so much more harm, no good at all. The times I tried it I always forgot it in a wrong position. What a disaster, even worse with slide film. Everything ruined. Good bye.

Lesson learned. Never use that thing again. Never. And even now. With the warning signs and everything. What a hassle, how complicated, slow and clumsy. Why to do something stupid like that, when you have the possibility to use that perfect and accurate manual way of shooting, with just the information you need, uncluttered view finder. Relax. Exactly the right amount of compensating every time. All shown exactly, how much "correction" and in which direction, showing it all all the time you move your camera. No nervous warning sings in there. Just that fast and perfect manual info. The fastest way to expose perfectly. 99,9 % I shoot like that, or surely more.

Comment edited 3 times, last edit 11 minutes after posting
2 upvotes
HowaboutRAW
By HowaboutRAW (4 months ago)

Rage Joe:

Many people use them, though almost everyone using them has had the dials move inappropriately. As you know that's the reason for the lock on Df.

4 upvotes
NCB
By NCB (4 months ago)

The EV dial is fine; in spite of the lock I can turn it one handed. The one control I've found you have to watch is the one without a lock on it, the drive control. Because the on/off switch doesn't have a ridge on the side (so its harder to turn on accidentally), I find I need two fingers to operate it. One of those fingers can catch on the drive control.
No big problem. If you find you start taking multiple shots it's because you've knocked it into continuous.

1 upvote
paqman
By paqman (4 months ago)

you never give bad reviews to nikon, and this is no exception. this camera is pretty lame or at least shouldn't get "81%"

Comment edited 25 seconds after posting
4 upvotes
Mike Laughlin
By Mike Laughlin (4 months ago)

How many hours have you photographed with the Nikon Df, paqman? Oh ....

8 upvotes
HowaboutRAW
By HowaboutRAW (4 months ago)

paqman:

Excellent IQ at a large range of ISOs isn't very important?

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

Always appreciate DPR lab tests, but some "conclusions" seem subjective, and don't jibe with my shooting experience. Purchased Df kit, immediately flew to DC for shoot. Only quick perusal of manual. Raining, overcast. US Conservatory dark inside. Found Df intuitive, and fantastic for "photojournalist" style shooting. (Subjects behaving naturally in natural light and surroundings) I like: Shutter speed and ISO on dials. Great, true, TTL finder. Built-in diopter wheel. Light, compact, for full frame. Exceptional low light capability. Shooting ISO 6400 is like old ASA 160 film in image quality. Easy to manual-focus AiS and AI-converted lenses. Screen snaps, for me. Carets/bullet focus checker is accurate, becomes second nature. AF with G lens is fast, accurate. Cannot relate to some "criticisms". I prefer center-weighted focusing and metering for artistic control. Only a lab rat requires 1/8000th. Simply dial down the ISO until 1/4000 or slower works for exposure. I like this camera!

12 upvotes
LaFonte
By LaFonte (4 months ago)

Looks great on paper, but why they think a pro gear needs retro styling.
It is either geared to very old people or lomo steam punk crowd. By the price I'd say the first as it is quite larger than an iPhone. Why the mee-too retro styling, why?

5 upvotes
Mike Laughlin
By Mike Laughlin (4 months ago)

It's not "retro" so much as "useful" and "intuitive" in real world, photojournalist shooting situations. You may be too young to understand, if all you've been exposed-to are button and-menu digitals. No offense. When you have a body of work, look us "very old people" up. We'd love to compare images. Thanks.

6 upvotes
HowaboutRAW
By HowaboutRAW (4 months ago)

Which, iPhone model shoots raw and has a full framed sensor again?

And does that iPhone model take interchangeable lenses?

Name any iPhone model with a card slot?

Name any iPhone model on which you can field swap the battery.

If the Df doesn't suit your needs or aesthetics don't buy it, but don't complain about the price or imply that an iPhone somehow does this job, though perhaps you simply meant to say something only about size--not interchangeability with the iPhone (the language isn't clear but best not to bring up the iPhone since it's so limited as a camera).

Look the only thing close to the Df in price and high ISO performance is the Canon 6D. And that's not tiny, not "retro" either.

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

His language was clear as day to me, he's simply implying that the camera is more likely to be popular with old people than the lomo steam punk crowd because it will be too big for them.

Comment edited 29 seconds after posting
1 upvote
HowaboutRAW
By HowaboutRAW (4 months ago)

fatdeeman:

Meaning that for the “lomo steam punk crowd” small is everything? Okay, but why bring up the iPhone? It’s not a small+capable camera, unlike say the Olympus XZ10 or the somewhat bigger Sony RX100II. Or even the Pentax Q7 is a lot more camera than the silly iPhone.

So my point remains, don’t bring up the iPhone in this situation in late 2013.

1 upvote
fatdeeman
By fatdeeman (4 months ago)

Because the lomo steam punk crowd/hipsters etc are the kind of people that use instagram and claim that an iphone is as good as any camera out there.

They also tend to be massive hypocrites because they also go around saying how film is better than digital even though they lack the technical and creative skills to do either medium justice.

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

fatdeeman:

I think you have a simplistic idea of what hipsters do with photography. They aint all shooting Instagram shots with the iPhone.

How do you know that those choosing to use 35mm film in 2013 can't shoot a good photo? And frankly at lower ISOs there's still reason to use film if you want the different look.

You seem to have a number of preconceived ideas, not one of which has much bearing on the Nikon Df's capacity as a photo capturing device.

0 upvotes
JDThomas
By JDThomas (4 months ago)

The fact that he lumped steam punks and hipsters into the same group leads me to believe that this person hasn't a clue as to what they are talking about.

Stop getting your information about sociological subcultures from DPReview.

0 upvotes
HowaboutRAW
By HowaboutRAW (4 months ago)

JDT:

Ah, now that I look up "steam punk" phatD makes less sense.

0 upvotes
JDThomas
By JDThomas (4 months ago)

Steam punks are the "nerds" and hipsters are the "cool kids". Not really the same demographic.

I'd honestly say that the Dƒ wouldn't appeal to either group. The steam punks would rather take a DSLR and "retrofit" it themselves and a hipster would prefer to use or be seen with a real Nikon F.

0 upvotes
JonB1975
By JonB1975 (4 months ago)

Great images - but with potentially annoying flaws. Sounds like Fuji - but will Nikon have the ongoing improvements and support?

Doubt it.....

1 upvote
HowaboutRAW
By HowaboutRAW (4 months ago)

Pray tell what to you think are the "annoy flaws" of the Nikon Df? And have you used the Df?

3 upvotes
Mike Laughlin
By Mike Laughlin (4 months ago)

Suspect all hat and no cattle

2 upvotes
AbrasiveReducer
By AbrasiveReducer (4 months ago)

He probably read the review.

5 upvotes
HowaboutRAW
By HowaboutRAW (4 months ago)

AbrasiveR:

So how would that answer the second question: "And have you used the Df?"

And still the OP has not listed what those "annoying flaws" are in his/her mind.

3 upvotes
aalaref
By aalaref (4 months ago)

reading the comments here are really depressing !
i bought the Df its not my main camera but i love it very much

8 upvotes
Charlie boots
By Charlie boots (4 months ago)

I use a D700 and would like to upgrade and add a second camera. The D800 has too large files for my use. I used F2 and F3's and have many legacy lenses, and the Df, with the excellent d4 sensor would be ideal. Reading the various reviews I am very disappointed as it seems that Nikon has short changed us for the price. Focus module, live view focusing, card in battery compartment, non pro connectors, max shutter speed (even my d700 does 1/8000sec). For the same price as a d800 I would expect to see a camera with similar or even better specs in these areas as technology has moved on since the D800 launch. We are seeing apsC sensors with equal capability. I will thus not buy at present. Sorry Nikon, a disappointed customer.

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

Why don’t you try the Df, before you count the AF system as a fail. Many have reported its AF just fine.

What is the obsession with higher shutter speeds? There was sports photography with 1/1000 sec bodies. If you need faster than 1/4000 sec buy a D4–that body’s AF is a good bit better than the not great AF in the D700.

Nikon is not going to sell the Df body for less than a D610 while the D4 is still on sale new.

And no this is simply untrue: “ We are seeing apsC sensors with equal capability”–suggesting you aren’t real familiar with what this sensor can do. Better live view focusing will require a different sensor, of course it’s not going to be in this body.

4 upvotes
Jaberwok
By Jaberwok (4 months ago)

Opinions are as similar to assholes: everybody has one, regardless of the level of knowledge of the proponent of said opinion.

3 upvotes
davaodoc
By davaodoc (4 months ago)

Charlie boots:

I totally agree. I bought the Df a few weeks ago and unfortunately, it is the only Nikon purchase that I am disappointed with. For $2700, you have to expect something for the money you spent.

7 upvotes
yabokkie
By yabokkie (4 months ago)

> D800 has too large files for my use

it depends on priority, better photos or smaller files.

4 upvotes
HowaboutRAW
By HowaboutRAW (4 months ago)

davaodoc:

Did you not handle the Df before purchase?

Also for your monies, you get the D4 sensor in a lighter and quieter body. (And I know you own a D4 already, so if you don't want the lightness and quiet shutter, the sensor probably doesn't matter too much to you since you already own it.)

1 upvote
AbrasiveReducer
By AbrasiveReducer (4 months ago)

If you don't like the Df, it's your fault because you haven't handled it. If you bought the Df and don't like it, it's your fault for not handling it enough before your bought it.

The D800 is the world's best SLR because look at all the megapixels you get. The Df is perfect because you didn't need all those megapixels in the first place.

1 upvote
HowaboutRAW
By HowaboutRAW (4 months ago)

AbrasiveReducer:

More megapixels can get in the way, but if you are going for mega pixels, the Leica S2 would beat the D800 in many ways. Then of course the D4 is much better at lowlight high ISO shooting than the D800. And the Pentax K3 is much quieter than the Leica or either Nikon.

So no the D800 is not simply the "best" DSLR, though it's a very good body.

And of course davadoc can dislike the Df, however I'm perplexed as to why someone would simply jump in and buy it, instead of waiting for reviews and endurance testing. Not at all clear that the OP tried the Df before purchase, and why buy it unheld if you already own a D4?

0 upvotes
Charlie boots
By Charlie boots (4 months ago)

HowaboutRaw:

It is not that I want 1/8000 or even use it, it is a matter of perceived value compared to Nikon's other offerings. I like the Df and it would suite my purposes well. I just feel that Nikon has overpriced the Df by limiting some specs for the price they are charging. Around Rrsp $2500 would seem to be a fair price if they want more they need to improve the specs. For exactly the same street price it does not appear to provide the same value as the D800.

I have no doubt that the focusing system is better than the D700 and more than adequate for my needs. Again here it is a preception of value for money and a feeling that I am being overcharged.

The "f" cameras were Nikon's premium line and one would expect a camera that Nikon presents as representing the "f" lineage to be also the best in its product class.

Comment edited 3 times, last edit 15 minutes after posting
0 upvotes
HowaboutRAW
By HowaboutRAW (4 months ago)

Charlie–

Realistically you may see something close to that wished for $2500 price in say 10 months.

“F” wasn’t always applied only to the top Nikon of the day. Didn’t FE overlap with the premium F3? Or was it FM?

I know I’m repeating myself, and you probably apprehend this point, but the Df has a sensor that is more valued by many than the sensor in the D800. And it’s not simply the better high ISO lowlight shooting results with the D4/Df’s sensor.

Right: Nikon could have put the sensor from the D4 in a body very close to the D800, but that body wouldn’t have been inexpensive either. And then there’s be less distinguishing it from the D800. So Nikon tried something else.

0 upvotes
Carlos Loff
By Carlos Loff (4 months ago)

How can a Camera that costs about 2.500$ only shoot 1/4000, only 39 Focus points, only have -+3EV ??? All this specs issues are symptoms of a non-top camera but hey, my attention into them can be considered exaggerated - But NOT when the damm camera costs 2.500$ - But no... Nikon is not wrong - Nikon has got smarter because it can turn consumers into very dumb people to pay that much for that less - Don't get me wrong - I would not mind having a DF that cuts into top specs but offers FF - But not for more than 1.500$, maybe 1.700$ tops

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

"if, if, and if".

0 upvotes
km25
By km25 (4 months ago)

The biggest point seems to be AF. Maybe firmware may solve this. This almost sounds like Fuji X-Pro 1 when it was reviewed. So combo of high price and AF. Well the X-Pro 1 has come down in price and had a lot of firmware upgrades. The other stuff, let's face it is pretty much.. minor. The bottom line is, what do the images look like.
Some people have said DP has beeen unfair to Nikon, but the D600/610 has a very high score. I will also see how they review the Sony A7/A7R. Some are calling the dream camera. But thr mirror less users love using RF lens, Sony can not use shorter then 35mm RF lens and the A7 should focus better the A7R, some say that the A7R wins. That there are only two lens ready for it and with the history of slow Sony roll out?? But no matter what Sony does, any fast, very wide and/or long lens is going to drawf the A7s into an unbalanced mess. Will DP give 'em 90 and gold rating, we will see how this different camera does. Just say 36MP you get gold!

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

While no one claims that the Df’s autofocus performs as well as the D4's, many have had a better experience with the Df’s auto focus in lowlight than that claimed in this review. The center AF point works well in lowlight.

The Sony A7/r are very good first steps for a Sony full framed mirrorless.

(I’ve no idea why you claim that 35mm is the shortest focal length that can be used on that system; see the first full framed mirrorless interchangeable body, aka the Leica M9.)

However the A7/r aren’t exactly competing with this Nikon Df.

A big problem with the Fuji X Pro 1 besides the AF when it first shipped was lack of excellent raw extraction software. The Silkypix that released with that Fuji body was surprisingly good, for the notoriously bad Silkypix, but it struggled at high ISOs where the sensor was still very capable. Then of course the first ACR to extract these X RAF files had troubles–particularly with foliage. CaptureOne did a much better job and then Adobe fixed ACR.

0 upvotes
Jaberwok
By Jaberwok (4 months ago)

ROFL.

Comment edited 2 times, last edit 3 minutes after posting
0 upvotes
marike6
By marike6 (4 months ago)

DPR is the ONLY tech website that is writing that the Nikon Df has "weak AF". The camera has the exact same AF module as the D600/D610 which is quite capable even in low-light.

As far as the A7R cares what score or award DPR gives the A7R or A7 (or any other camera for that matter)? The scoring and awards have become so random as to be almost meaningless.

Because the new Nikon received an unprecedented number of clicks here on DPR they hurried to bring us this Df review and it showed. It was truly a subpar effort. It felt rushed and had an overly negative tone with nitpicks that weren't mentioned for other cameras in the past.

Hopefully DPR will hire some more DSLR oriented writers because all this mirrorless talk / frame of reference is a bit of a snoozefest.

7 upvotes
NCB
By NCB (4 months ago)

I've tried the Df in next to total darkness, and sure enough it doesn't focus. But that's an extreme case. Overall the autofocus is fast and spot on, including in some pretty dim lighting. That's an unscientific way of putting it, but for me at least autofocus isn't an issue, at all.

I do get the impression that this review was rushed. Normally DPR publishes real-world pics, followed by the "official" review pics; this time we have just got the first lot. Did DPR want it out of the way for Christmas? After all, they couldn't have had the camera for long.

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

"While no one claims that the Df’s autofocus performs as well as the D4's, many have had a better experience with the Df’s auto focus in lowlight than that claimed in this review."

The problem here is AF speed totally reported on a "feels" basis. Scientific measurement, like MTF, will clear all doubts.

1 upvote
HowaboutRAW
By HowaboutRAW (4 months ago)

new boyz:

Feel free to set up the test and post the results. Of course use the same lens, same ISO setting, same aperture and make sure that no part of the lighting changes from testing the D800 to testing the Df.

I think you’ll find that the center point of the AF system on the Df works well, perhaps not a the D4 level, but...

1 upvote
Mike Laughlin
By Mike Laughlin (4 months ago)

In my experience, AF with the G lens is fast and accurate, down to scenes where the Df's captured image is actually brighter that my eye could see in the dark. This is the best performing camera for low-light and "photojournalism" situations I've handled ... in a lifetime of photojournalism and corporate image shooting. I don't understand the negative comments about AF. I guess there are lab rats, cowboy commenters (all-hat and no cattle) ... and actual, hands-on users.

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

I got one from B&H.
The box was covered in finger prints, as was the camera.
The camera had 932 actuation's!

As for the camera, the thing is a toy compared to other DSLRs.
Flimsy and nowehre near as stylish as some think.
I thought it quite badly executed and cheap looking and feeling.

It was shipped right back to B&H for a refund.

ET

1 upvote
kadardr
By kadardr (4 months ago)

Don`t deal with B&H. You see! They ruined the experience...

2 upvotes
HowaboutRAW
By HowaboutRAW (4 months ago)

EvilT:

"flimsy"? And "cheap looking and feeling"?

I can't claim to know how you think it should look, but it doesn't feel cheap.

Magnesium is lighter than brass.

Odd that B+H sent you a returned one, I'd have asked them for lightly used pricing, with a new warranty, and kept it. But if it's not to your taste I see why you returned it.

4 upvotes
Maaku
By Maaku (4 months ago)

BS. You're a troll

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

You are Evil, Ted. Hahahaha.

Sorry, can't help it.

2 upvotes
Mike Laughlin
By Mike Laughlin (4 months ago)

Have to take your word for it ... however ... I've dealt with B&H for decades, on both the pro and personal levels, and never had less than a "10" experience. If they would sell a used or demo camera as new, I would be shocked as it would go totally against their policy and reputation.

1 upvote
naththo
By naththo (4 months ago)

@EvilTed - Pfft I don't believe your story. Troll more likely!

1 upvote
JimSavill
By JimSavill (4 months ago)

I was doing a project tonight testing the low light performance of my Fuji X1 vs a Nikon Df. It was raining hard so I took my old long grey mac and black woolly balaclava. My favourite place for night shooting is under the streetlamp by the hospital and round the corner by the nurses home.

Some of the girls have pet names for me. I can't hear too well under the balaclava but they shout my nickname in greeting from their windows.

I can report that over 20mins the Nikon far outperformed the Fuji. The whole colour balance and especially the flesh tones were excellent under really tricky light and through blinds and curtains.

I'd post some samples but unfortunately the camera and card were seized for evidence when I was arrested.

12 upvotes
yabokkie
By yabokkie (4 months ago)

> low light performance of my Fuji X1 vs a Nikon Df ...
> the Nikon far outperformed the Fuji.

low light performance is basically a lens issue. differences between sensors are quite small, about the same as error level.

0 upvotes
NCB
By NCB (4 months ago)

JimSavill - that's rough. Sounds like the Df would have been just perfect for some low light jailhouse shots.

2 upvotes
Kahiri78
By Kahiri78 (4 months ago)

Are you sure about that? I clicked and selected Fuji x Pro 1 camera on the high iso test widget done by DPreview above, and to my eyes, at iso 3200, the Df has about the same noise as X Pro 1, only that Df is slightly sharper!

For me thats quite and achievement considering the small sensor of fuji x pro 1 compares to DF.

No wonder some pros like Mansurov dares to say that if Fuji created new X series camera with full frame sensor, it will bring a serious threat to canon and Nikon. Juat take a look, even with a small sensor, fuji ia right up there with some of the best.

But seriously, i bought X Pro 1not because of ita superb iso accompany my D700, ita because the gorgeous color and superb hybrid viewfinder!

1 upvote
Jaberwok
By Jaberwok (4 months ago)

About time somebody had a gentle dig at the pompous old farts who claim they always shoot in candle light at ISO 20,000.

1 upvote
HowaboutRAW
By HowaboutRAW (4 months ago)

J:

Candlelight, ever tried it? 20,000 would be a bit low. And don't bring up "Barry Lyndon".

0 upvotes
Jaberwok
By Jaberwok (4 months ago)

Sorry. I forgot you were the low light advisor to Mr K back in '75.

2 upvotes
Dudders
By Dudders (4 months ago)

Thanks for the investigative effort "Jim". I just nearly choked on my toast and fell off my chair.

2 upvotes
HowaboutRAW
By HowaboutRAW (4 months ago)

J:

I think the shooting of the movie was done in 73-74.

0 upvotes
Mike Laughlin
By Mike Laughlin (4 months ago)

Keep your day job, JimSavill. (but I'm smiling)

1 upvote
AbrasiveReducer
By AbrasiveReducer (4 months ago)

It's truly frightening that some of the fans here don't even realize your post is a joke.

2 upvotes
HowaboutRAW
By HowaboutRAW (4 months ago)

Abrasive:

Duh. Well then check the year, see the continuation of the "joke" doesn't have to be on your terms.

And the point remains that ISO 20,000 would be a problem for some candlelit situations--particularly those exposed faster than 24th of second and with only one candle as a light source. A 0.7 Zeiss lens would help, shallow DOF though.

Suspect there's a joke to be made out of the term "Mr K" too.

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

Kahiri78:

How well does that Fuji XPro1 do when shooting ISO 12,800 and above?

Sure is quiet though and the best Fuji lenses are optically better than the best Nikon lenses. But that XPro1 AF, um...

0 upvotes
rb59020
By rb59020 (4 months ago)

More bad news, Moose Peterson can't stove raving about the Df.

http://www.moosepeterson.com/blog/category/technology/camera-tech/moose-bag/

3 upvotes
jimi1127
By jimi1127 (4 months ago)

Go to the link, scroll down and read Moose's reviews - is there any lens or body he dislikes? And ya know what - he's right! With proper technique and correctly selected gear, current cams and glass will successfully get the job done. The Df is no exception - its D4 sensor will crank out splendid images especially in low light situations. As to the Df's 'retro' layout, some shooters will be turned on, others turned off, however I'd wager for most us it's a neutral response. So why all the fuss & chatter? IMO the answer is VALUE. The Df is priced about 50 USDs below the D800 and about 250 USDs above the 800e. If the lower weight and better ISO performance works for you -- go for it. The Df is a wonderful image making machine. I must mention another issue with Df VALUE. Lurking 750 USDs below the Df is the D610 and of course for the brave of heart there are D600 bodies 1200-1300 USDs below Df prices.
Happy holidays and as we NYC street walkers like to say - 'shoot' a stranger everyday.

0 upvotes
AbrasiveReducer
By AbrasiveReducer (4 months ago)

There are endorsers and then there are de-facto endorsers. I'm not sure which he is. Or if there is a difference. Not that it's hard to say nice things about a nice camera.

1 upvote
gnnyman
By gnnyman (4 months ago)

I own that camera (among several others from Nikon) now from its very first week on the market and I can only wholeheartedly disagree to this rather negative sounding review!
A photographer, a real photographer, does not need the video function nor is the 1/8000 sec necessary - think about those famous photographs, even of sport events - none of these (older ones) had been taken with such short.exposure time. I also disagree to almost all other negative points except for the topic of the SD door at the bottom - this is not a good feature. For my photography, I use almost always a tripod and that is a bit cumbersome, but as the most recently launched SD cards are very reliable, even those with 32 and 64 GB, one can work around and not change the card anymore - the files are much smaller than those of a D800 and the battery is really a long-life-battery.
I do like that camery very much and have the feeling, that DP does not appreciate Nikon....(think about their negative 1,4/58mm review)

12 upvotes
yabokkie
By yabokkie (4 months ago)

it's not technical limitations that make photos great.

3 upvotes
Graham Tercero Graham
By Graham Tercero Graham (4 months ago)

I'm totaly accord with you,
GTG

1 upvote
HowaboutRAW
By HowaboutRAW (4 months ago)

gnnyman:

Do you own the new Nikon f/1.4 58mm lens?

0 upvotes
ruicarv79
By ruicarv79 (4 months ago)

Is it just me or does the temperature rises when you look at this beauty?
So sexyyyyy...
Why am I not rich? Why? :)
Gorgeous little thing!

6 upvotes
Aaron Sur
By Aaron Sur (4 months ago)

There is nothing little about it, Its like me with the Nikon Fm-2 , 25 years later with middle age girth

5 upvotes
mholdef
By mholdef (4 months ago)

I like Dpreview but this review confirms that it is more oriented towards high tech gear and spec sheets than the photographic experience.

11 upvotes
Revenant
By Revenant (4 months ago)

For me, it confirms the opposite.

12 upvotes
sebastian huvenaars
By sebastian huvenaars (4 months ago)

Fake 70's mojo that does harm to ergonomics is marketed as true photographic experience.

The D700 (and quite possibly D800) will be classics 30 years from now. Imagine how hip you where back in those days owning one of them ;)

6 upvotes
Samuel Dilworth
By Samuel Dilworth (4 months ago)

For me, it confirms that DPReview considers a wide range of factors when assessing a camera.

If this camera, which I consider gravely flawed (with a split personality but no split prism!), had been given a special award it would have made awards wholly meaningless.

The Df is dreadfully conservative and feels like it was designed by a committee of non-photographers. As such it falls far short of expectations at large (the digital FM2) and expectations generated by Nikon’s own hype campaign (‘pure photography’).

That it does some things well, or that its component parts are technically sound or even fractionally better than last year’s parts, or that some people mistake retro-fake for greatness, does not remotely justify a special award.

6 upvotes
Nikonparrothead
By Nikonparrothead (4 months ago)

Which digital camera does have a factory installed split prism again? Thought so. Like it, fine. Don't like it? Fine too. But what you consider a flaw may be a blessing to another.

8 upvotes
sebastian huvenaars
By sebastian huvenaars (4 months ago)

Awards can therefor be seen as a way for DPR to express their personal feelings without compromising objectivity and professionality in a review.

The Df is capable of producing beautiful images = 81%

DPR doesn't seem to like the camera as a tool, or the path Nikon chose with this product = no award.

Or at least, this is how i interpret these scorings...

Comment edited 5 minutes after posting
1 upvote
HowaboutRAW
By HowaboutRAW (4 months ago)

sebastian huvenaars:

I think you have a point about the body of the D800 being good contemporary design--so yes hip in 2013.

But as you clearly realize the Df does amazing image quality and that fact alone, "hip" or not, is a big deal to many potential purchasers.

Or: Right there are people who'd purchase this body of its look or not make the purchase for the same reason, but then there are many other considerations those interested in IQ take into account.

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

>Only the Nikon V1, Pentax K-01 and now the Df didn't get any >awards. And you think the awards a meaningful? lol.

Marike6 - I agree with several of your sentiments but the Pentax K-01 was a piece of garbage.

0 upvotes
sebastian huvenaars
By sebastian huvenaars (4 months ago)

The only thing not silly about the Df would be that customers are given access to D4's sensor at a lower price, like HowaboutRAW said.

For everything else, it's an ordinary premium priced dslr. The big knobs do exactly what scroll wheels do but without falling directly under your fingers. The boxy styling makes it less nice to carry and leads to the use plasticky parts between material transitions.

Fuji x camera's are much smaller, have hybrid focussing and lack a mirror. Their form factor is a result of all this, the subtile hints to a bygone era look quite nice even.

Comment edited 46 seconds after posting
0 upvotes
sebastian huvenaars
By sebastian huvenaars (4 months ago)

Well, i agree with you about which viewfinder is nicer, but thats another topic.

Df is the smallest but not small. I was looking forward to this camera, not to buy, just out of curiosity, the concept of pure photography is appealing! I was generally disappointed when i got my hands on one, disappointed in Nikon, i tend like their products a lot.

*huh haha? Where did you go?

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

sebastian:

The Df is a good bit less audible than the D4, that's a real draw for some people.

The Fuji X ASPC cameras are good cameras, but the first two had AF problems and none of the 3 total can shoot at the high ISOs of the D4.

3 upvotes
sebastian huvenaars
By sebastian huvenaars (4 months ago)

Oh no I wasn't trying to promote the Fuji cams, just wanted to give an example about how function can lead to a certain form factor without looking superficial. But then my conversational partner's posts disappeared all of a sudden...

Quiet shutters are a good thing by the way.

Have a good christmas :)

0 upvotes
HowaboutRAW
By HowaboutRAW (4 months ago)

sebastian huvenaars:

And those Fuji X ASPC cameras are even more quiet than the Df--near silent.

It's that others here have erroneously claimed that the Fuji X ASPC bodies equal the lowlight high ISO performance of the D4. That's why I react to claims about them here.

1 upvote
mholdef
By mholdef (4 months ago)

I have been using the Df the past two weeks (which by the way is officially my wife's as I own a D800E) and I can tell you the camera is a joy to use and produces beautiful images.

Which leads me to believe once again that The "Dpreview experience" as they would prefer it is much more aimed at the techy / gear freak than the photographer.

As everyone is entitled to their opinion including Dpreview that is my opinion as I frankly don't understand all the negativity around the Df...except maybe that some people felt alienated by the Nikon marketing campaign as not being photographers for all these years.

2 upvotes
Ian from Berks
By Ian from Berks (4 months ago)

Hopefully this might inspire other manufacturers to produce cameras aimed solely at photographers. If I wanted to video things I would buy a dedicated video camera. Oh and please may we have proper controls.
The Sony Alphas like the 65, 77 and 99 have had their metering function added to the function menu and are no longer regarded as a primary control.
Hurrah for Nikon for understanding what many photographers want.
I just hope that it is seen as a camera and not as a fashion accessory.

5 upvotes
PhotoCoffee
By PhotoCoffee (4 months ago)

I have several D4's, D800, D7100 and a variety of lenses and flashes to suit. I find the Df a sexy camera, that brings me back to as they say the 'simplicity' of photography and use it as designed with the 50mm 1.8 lens (a most underrated bit of kit)…
It makes me concentrate on subject, not get distracted other content and in a sense a purity of photography… It is light enough to pack away, put in the lap, use on the street etc…
Using a D4 or similar simply intimidates people - is heavy over a period of time and I refuse to use it on anything other than professional work…
Great Camera - and find the shortfalls described in the review not an issue at all :)

2 upvotes
MrPetkus
By MrPetkus (4 months ago)

I agree that the Df is a stunning camera. However, stepping back, I think your reaction (and mine) regarding the simplicity or purity of this camera is not entirely with merit. There is nothing about this camera over any other with a 50mm that will allow you to "concentrate" on your subject any better. Likewise, the size of the Df is not so different from the models you listed except the D4. It's a purely romantic notion (and that's fine).
Nikon has made a camera that triggers an emotional response more than anything else.

2 upvotes
Richt2000
By Richt2000 (4 months ago)

I think the Nikon designers were playing Towers of Hanoi when they designed this one...

7 upvotes
B Marsh
By B Marsh (4 months ago)

I can hardly wait to get my hands on one of these Df's. I still have an old FM2 with a few lenses. I don't care what anyone says, this camera is for the true still photographer. I don't like the idea of a video feature in my cameras and I'm so glad that Nikon has made this bold and appreciated move. As soon as I can afford one, I'll get it. Right now, my D3 will have to be my baby!! Thanks Nikon!! Peace all.

4 upvotes
Mike Laughlin
By Mike Laughlin (4 months ago)

BMarsh, you will like the Df with your AiS or AI lenses. It's like the FM2 or D3, but with faster, more accurate manual focusing, amazing low-light capabilities, and unlimited "film." I'm liking mine. Believe Nikon was thinking of me when they designed it.

0 upvotes
marike6
By marike6 (4 months ago)

In case you missed, Steve Huff reviewed the Nikon Df and he absolutely loves it. So much so that he bought one.

http://www.stevehuffphoto.com/2013/12/20/the-nikon-df-camera-review-by-steve-huff/

He talks about all the things this review didn't care to mention: the fact that the Df has dethroned legendary D3s on DxOMark as the low-light king, the quiet shutter compared to the A7's somewhat loud shutter sound, the outstanding battery life and body as the lightest FF DSLRs on the market.

Knowing that almost ALL cameras get awards on this website, with all those positives and class leading low-light performance going for it, the fact that the Df received a high score of 81 but no award was an uncalled for insult to Nikon users and readers of this website.

Huff, like most of the reviewers here, is a mirrorless and rangefinder fan, but he gave nothing but raves for the Df. And the quality of the images he made with the Df speak for themselves.

13 upvotes
Richard Murdey
By Richard Murdey (4 months ago)

"the fact that the Df received a high score of 81 but no award was an uncalled for insult to Nikon users and readers of this website"

Now that's just ridiculous.

8 upvotes
binauralbeats
By binauralbeats (4 months ago)

LOL it's hilarious to read grown men whine because a $3000 enthusiast camera didn't get an award. LOL

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

Almost as hilarious as reading you whine about it.

8 upvotes
binauralbeats
By binauralbeats (4 months ago)

Sandy, sorry to interrupt your whine-fest. Please get back to complaining about your Df not getting an award *cry*.

1 upvote
stevens37y
By stevens37y (4 months ago)

Nobody will buy it if it doesn't get a gold award on DP.

Comment edited 21 seconds after posting
0 upvotes
Charlie boots
By Charlie boots (4 months ago)

I thought only people from the east worried about face.

0 upvotes
Mike Laughlin
By Mike Laughlin (4 months ago)

Read Huff's writeup, after buying/using my Df. (Believe that's called "reducing cognitive dissonance" in communication theory.) Yes, he waxed poetic ... but, you know what, his shameless praise jibed with my actual experience. I like this camera!

0 upvotes
sebastian huvenaars
By sebastian huvenaars (4 months ago)

Played with a silver one today, its big! In my mind i've been falsely comparing it with an FE all this time. The D800 feels smaller and lighter, less pressure points.

0 upvotes
Bamboojled
By Bamboojled (4 months ago)

Add a motor drive to your FE and tell me how big it is now.
ANd the motor drive for the FE was sonly 3.5 frames per second

2 upvotes
sebastian huvenaars
By sebastian huvenaars (4 months ago)

I don't have the motor drive, but it would be quite big.

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

http://www.dpreview.com/products/compare/side-by-side?products=nikon_df&products=nikon_d800

The Df is 5 oz lighter, about a half inch shorter and a half inch thinner. It is the smallest FF Nikon

7 upvotes
armandino
By armandino (4 months ago)

no need of a motor drive here

3 upvotes
rb59020
By rb59020 (4 months ago)

http://camerasize.com/compact/#495,290,243,ha,f

http://camerasize.com/compact/#495.353,290.353,243.353,ha,t

1 upvote
sebastian huvenaars
By sebastian huvenaars (4 months ago)

Sandy i knew the Df is quite a bit lighter and smaller. The squareness makes it more substantial in a way.

0 upvotes
Cliffwms
By Cliffwms (4 months ago)

I have a Df, a D4, and a D800. The D800 does not feel smaller OR lighter... mostly because it's not. I've only had the Df for a few weeks, but I think it's great, it's the camera I reach for when I plan to go out and shoot for myself; my X100s used to have that spot, but not anymore. It seems that most of the criticism is coming from people who have held it for a minute or have never actually seen one. I'm not saying that it's for everyone, but I don't understand the hate. I don't care for the Pentax K-5, but it doesn't bother me that some people like it, more power to them!

1 upvote
Ozark photographer
By Ozark photographer (4 months ago)

Am I the only one that noted that this camera is spec'ed to have a metal frame and outside shell? Maybe pro level durability? And uses all F mount nikkor lenses? Now I would never care to use pre-AI optics, but excellent AI-S would be good. The split image and micro prism would be a nice touch, but it might have a bad effect on the metering. That might be why Nikon did not use one. Nikon has proven new technology for reliability on lesser cameras in the past, before using it in a higher scale workhorse. If you want to build a reliable product, you don't use unproven new technology. But I do question the use of the D610 parts, has that camera worked well? I have heard that there have been issues with the D600, but I do not know if that relates to the processor electronics or AF sensor.

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

I think the reason for the split screen omission is the AF. It sucks big amount of light, split screen will become very dark. Now I understand the decision. But they did have the option to go full-manual way(maybe with CDAF in LV mode), they just didn't have the gut to do "pure photography".

0 upvotes
Mike Laughlin
By Mike Laughlin (4 months ago)

D610 is the new and improved D600 and some reviews have said the D610 improves over the 800s in "parts." I have the Df and the AF with the G lens is fast and accurate.

0 upvotes
zidliyka
By zidliyka (4 months ago)

The black version is quite handsome. I had always liked the F3HP type sturdy knobs. Now there is plenty of them on one! Contax elegance with Nikon dependability and accuracy is an asset I think.

3 upvotes
NCB
By NCB (4 months ago)

Good point about Contax, never thought of that. Yep, if Contax was designing this sort of camera, this is the sort of thing they'd come up with.

1 upvote
HowaboutRAW
By HowaboutRAW (4 months ago)

new boyz:

Ah yes, and Canikon should be deeply concerned about the optical quality of lenses from various Korean manufacturers.

The example you chose begins to prove my point, and for the Samsung NX system, the optically good lenses are already better to extraordinarily better than what Canikon can do.

Good Fuji level optical performance would be a big improvement for Canikon lenses; Canikon doesn’t need to aim a lot higher. They can leave that to Leica, Olympus, Zeiss and Samsung.

It's pretty clear (ha) that the better lens makers have a different understanding of light and its interaction with basic optics than Nikon or Canon.

0 upvotes
Jaberwok
By Jaberwok (4 months ago)

The lenses may be good but the Samsung NX cameras still have serious issues such as very small image buffers and poor low light performance compared to similar APSC cameras by rival makers. Image quality above ISO 800 starts to go rapidly downwards, far more than say the Fuji range.The NX20 is a case in point where the burst mode is effectively unusable on RAW mode due to the 30 second 'processing' lock up after every 5 shots. Apart from this the NX range is grossly underestimated in overall performance and results obtained in decent light with the prime lenses are outstanding.

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

The image quality, raw that is, of Samsung NX cameras is excellent well above ISO 800. The NX100 can be used with excellent results thru ISO 2000, and the NX300 can be used with excellent results thru ISO 6400. Of course in both cases, the better lenses help. And the best Samsung lenses are better than Fuji X APSC lenses. Though the Fuji lenses maintain a higher average across all of the lenses.

Right, the buffering problems on the NX20 and even the newer NX300 are a very serious drawback.

One thing about earlier Samsung NX bodies, the included raw processing software, a version of Silkypix, was/is horrid, so to get the best image quality it's best to do the raw extraction with something like Adobe Camera Raw or CaptureOne.

Now, in early 2013, Samsung did start including a copy of Adobe Lightroom with some of its NX bodies, so that has ACR within it.

Comment edited 2 times, last edit 12 minutes after posting
0 upvotes
Ozark photographer
By Ozark photographer (4 months ago)

Nikon lens quality has been for the most part top shelf in the past. I guess they have let the smell of hot plastic go to their heads! If Tokina and other Japanese after market lens makers use more metal in construction at a lower price, why cannot nikkor quality optic formulas get stuffed into those mechanics?
CNC machining has lowered mfg costs of metal construction. I have had nothing but problems with bicarbonate mounts cracking, too cheep! Why has the cost of quality in high volume become so high for some?

1 upvote
HowaboutRAW
By HowaboutRAW (4 months ago)

Ozark photo:

All true about CNC, however where Nikon lenses lack is in optical quality not high build quality.

Good Samsung, Olympus + Fuji all better Canikon lenses for optical quality. Then of course Leica and Zeiss are better still, though Samsung and Olympus are catching up.

0 upvotes
Bamboojled
By Bamboojled (4 months ago)

Sorry HowaboutRAW...
I generally agree with most of your posts, but have to call you on this one.
I think you are talking out of your A__ on this post.
Canon and Nikon generally outperform all of the manufacturers you mentioned across the board.
Just open up DXO and start comparing optics and you will quickly see this.
Now does each brand have lenses that are stand outs? Yes, but overall Canon/Nikon smoke, yes I said it, Smoke the competitors.
Just because you say it doesn't make it true.
In fact the Zeiss lenses that you claim are at the top of the food chain generally underperform to the Nikon/Canon equivalents on Sony cameras; Again reference DXO.

2 upvotes
NCB
By NCB (4 months ago)

Nikon makes some outstanding lenses. And some excellent ones for the money. Take the 16-85 zoom for DX, or 70-300 for DX/FX. Great image quality, well made, relatively compact and light for what they are, and at reasonable prices. There may be better options for absolute image quality (including some Nikon ones), but these are cracking lenses at very good prices.

2 upvotes
HowaboutRAW
By HowaboutRAW (4 months ago)

Bamb:

Sorry DXO lens scores, though a bit more useful than the sensor scores, are still pretty useless. The scores can say if the lens is good, but can not distinguish a good lens from an extraordinary lens.

Good Leica, Zeiss, Oly lenses easily beat so called good ED Nikon lenses. As do good Samsung NX lenses, and one of the Samsung NX lenses equals Leica M lenses--the good ones, maybe not the best.

Nope, those Sony Zeiss aren't always the best of Zeiss though some are pretty close.

Skip DXO, and use a good monitor or printer.

Canikon has serious optical problems if you want color subtlety.

0 upvotes
Bamboojled
By Bamboojled (4 months ago)

So the obvious real world testing of lenses and the scoring of these lenses are not satisfactory for you, but we are supposed to take your word for it wham testing done shows different.
Hmmm, how does that work.
Also to say that Olympus lenses are better is absurd as Olympus has no full frame lenses to compare them against the other brands.
Not to mention that most Olympus lens design rely heavily on in camera processing.

Comment edited 50 seconds after posting
3 upvotes
Ozark photographer
By Ozark photographer (4 months ago)

You know it is not just about lab performance of a lens. If a lens is of good optical quality to suit the users subjective view, then it becomes the quality of the photographer that matters! A good photographer can make good pictures with any fair lens, a bad one cannot make good with the most godlike perfect lenses and cameras!

2 upvotes
Bamboojled
By Bamboojled (4 months ago)

Well then, HowaboutRAW and yourself should then say...
In my opinion, I find the lenses from so and so and so and so better than the equivalent lenses from this manufacturer; if you are posting an opinion on a given product then state it as so.
Instead the post was written as a fact; which it is not, based on testing done from reputable sites.
As far as your last point about a good photographer vs. bad, this has no bearing on the facts presented.

1 upvote
HowaboutRAW
By HowaboutRAW (4 months ago)

Bam:

Yeah, the best Olympus lenses are indeed optically better than the best Canikon lenses. (There aren’t a lot of Oly lenses that qualify.)

Don’t really care what DXO has to say, I’ve owned Leica M lenses and rented and owned good Zeiss lenses so I know of what I write.

There’s an emptiness to the colour in both Canon and Nikon lenses, though likely Canon’s best is a bit better than Nikon.

While Leica and Zeiss handle colour much better and often times sharpness too, and the only lenses I’ve seen that approach that subtlety are from Oly and Samsung. Fuji beats Canikon, but not Leica and Zeiss.

You can rent a good Zeiss lens, mount on Nikon body, and enjoy the results.

And yes, my post stands as fact.

It's not that Canikon make bad lenses, but those lenses on only optically good in comparison to the best lenses out there.

Comment edited 3 minutes after posting
0 upvotes
Bamboojled
By Bamboojled (4 months ago)

OK, I guess there is no reasoning when one is arguing from a point of absolutes...
The tests prove differently, I have owned Leica glass, 75 1.4, 35 1.4 ASPH, 50 summi...
Fantastic lenses, and yes the colors out of them are very good.
But to say they are better compared to the lenses that I currently own in Nikon is ridiculous, and does not pan out in any review that has been done.

3 upvotes
HowaboutRAW
By HowaboutRAW (4 months ago)

Okay, you have indeed owned very good Leica M lenses. And to my eyes the results from those lenses are a good bit better than what good Canikon lenses can do optically.

I certainly won't claim to know what reviews you've read, but I've never seen anyone claim that Canikon equals the optical performance of those lenses, and the Leica 75mm f/1.4 is one that I owned. While the new Leica M 50mm f/1.4 has been called one of the sharpest lenses ever sold. (In 2013 now bested by the Leica M f/2.0 50mm.)

Here: Please don't cite DXO scoring, it's not very good for colour and you should know that.

Comment edited 8 minutes after posting
0 upvotes
Bamboojled
By Bamboojled (4 months ago)

@HowaboutRAW
Your last comment is the point I was driving at...to you the lenses outperform Nikon/Canon...
I can live with that as this is your feeling regarding those lenses.
My experience is different.
The 75 1.4 Leica is a beautiful lens, and no one can argue that the construction and feel of those lenses are top quality, and better than the Nikon/Canon's.
The 75 1.4 and the 35 1.4 Asph were my favorite lenses until I recently got the Nikon revamps.
I do wish they were more compact though...:)

0 upvotes
HowaboutRAW
By HowaboutRAW (4 months ago)

Bamboojled:

Okay, I'm not going to argue that you find the best Nikon lenses optically better than some of the best Leica M lenses, though never seen anyone who's used those Ms make that claim. So odd, to me.

0 upvotes
Revenant
By Revenant (4 months ago)

You can make objective statements regarding the sharpness, optical aberrations and build quality of a lens, but how well a lens "renders" the image, and the quality of its colours, those are really subjective things that cannot be stated in absolute terms. It's more a matter of taste than a matter of fact.

0 upvotes
HowaboutRAW
By HowaboutRAW (4 months ago)

Revenant:

I think it is possible to be close to objective about colour rendering, and that means setting up tests. However very good colour rendering likely comes from a better and significantly different understanding of colour, and right now in 2013 Zeiss, Leica and Optron (Samsung's lens maker) are the only camera lenses companies using this understanding of colour in their lens engineering.

And no one is real likely to want to share this better concept of colour publicly, so objective tests can't be run by third parties on colour subtlety.

No, it is not simply bit depth, and yes it is clear that some engineers at Adobe, Epson and HP also have a better understand of colour than is generally known.

In short: There are secrets about colour and DXO lens testing doesn't have a clue about how to account for them.

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

"[...] you are a small people, a silly people: greedy, barbarous, and cruel." - Lawrence of Arabia

3 upvotes
Jaberwok
By Jaberwok (4 months ago)

Diverting slightly: Back in film days I loved my Contax G2. I would dream of a digital G3, same body form, 24Mps sensor and no unnecessary bells, whistles or 'scene' modes. Seeing 'Grandma & the puppy at sunset' modes on high end cameras annoys me for some reason.
If Nikon took an FM3 out of the store and produced a stripped down manual digital I'd sell my 3 oldest wives.

Comment edited 3 times, last edit 8 minutes after posting
0 upvotes
Kabe Luna
By Kabe Luna (4 months ago)

Got a Dƒ yesterday. It''s not perfect, but I'll be damned if it's not a really well sorted product. It feels much smaller than it is. The shutter is nice and muted. The AF works exceptionally well within its limitations. Image quality is superb (even if I've gotten spoiled by the detail resolution of the D800's 36 MP sensor). The viewfinder, while not MF-era friendly, is easier to focus manually than any prior Nikon...and, more than anything else, it feels like a manual SLR in that it forces me to slow down and be more deliberate about my photography. This is the Dƒ's greatest trick. So far I'm loving this camera. The only thing I'd change is adding the 5:4 image area, as well as a 1:1 option, and reconfigure the position of the ISO lock, which really should be toward the front of the body so I can rotate the dial with my thumb.

16 upvotes
HowaboutRAW
By HowaboutRAW (4 months ago)

I think you make a good point about the ISO adjustment wheel.

Sad however to see the equation of resolution and image quality. Frankly above base ISO the D800 has trouble keeping up with the dynamic range of the D4/Df. And the sensor from the D3s would likely be even better than that from the D4.

0 upvotes
yabokkie
By yabokkie (4 months ago)

isn't worse handling all what Df is about?

the best ways that Nikon know, that we know at present can be found in D4, D800, 1DX, 5D3, ... already.

0 upvotes
ovatab
By ovatab (4 months ago)

"The AF works exceptionally well within its limitations."

love this description

4 upvotes
HowaboutRAW
By HowaboutRAW (4 months ago)

ov:

And the same description would also apply to the AF system in the vaunted Nikon D4.

1 upvote
cgarrard
By cgarrard (4 months ago)

I think the problem is that Nikon is trying to make two cameras into one while they should have just made one - a classic camera. Fusion isn't necessary when Nikon already has such excellent DSLRS in its lineup.

Make a classic styled camera go full bore with it, don't hold back. Go simpler than this and don't try to fuse so much.

It's only good that Nikon is even thinking at all about making a classically styled camera, my complaint is that they didn't nail this.

Carl

3 upvotes
chooflaki
By chooflaki (4 months ago)

If they made this a pure classic camera it would cost as much as a Leica. Will require expensive development of components and retooling and have a much smaller target market. Too many photographers expect modern bells and whistles.

If the Df proves to be an outstanding success I would not be surprised if they tried it. but expect to pay D4 prices at a minimum.

Comment edited 3 times, last edit 4 minutes after posting
3 upvotes
new boyz
By new boyz (4 months ago)

A Leica is expensive because it's a Leica, not because of anything else.

3 upvotes
HowaboutRAW
By HowaboutRAW (4 months ago)

new boyz:

I'm not reflecting on Leica cameras, though many are plenty well made and thought out, but clearly you've never used a good Leica M lens.

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

"but clearly you've never used a good Leica M lens."

Yes, I haven't. But that doesn't change my opinion - For an equivalent quality, Leica products are priced higher than Nikon or Canon.

1 upvote
HowaboutRAW
By HowaboutRAW (4 months ago)

n. b.

Nope, Canikon lenses can't touch the optical quality of good Leica M lenses. Canikon lenses are kind of optical jokes compared to optically good lenses. There are much better Japanese lens makers.

Now: Canikon sure can equal Leica for bodies, no question there. But a Canon 1D X costs pretty much the same as Leica M24O, and the Leica has the capacity to use M lenses.

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

I believe any lens maker can makes lenses with good optics, take Samyang for example. BTW that's not the real point of this argument. The point is if Nikon makes all-manual(or 90%) camera(FM2 digital), would it be as expensive as Leica? I say it will be cheaper. Not as cheap as Sony A7, but certainly cheaper than any digital Leica.

Comment edited 2 times, last edit 49 seconds after posting
0 upvotes
sandy b
By sandy b (4 months ago)

Problem is, if they made an all manual camera, very few would buy it. I sure wouldn't I kike the idea of fusion. If I want all manual, I'll throw a roll of film in my FE.

0 upvotes
HowaboutRAW
By HowaboutRAW (4 months ago)

new boyz:

Ah yes, and Canikon should be deeply concerned about the optical quality of lenses from various Korean manufacturers.

The example you chose begins to prove my point, and for the Samsung NX system, the optically good lenses are already better to extraordinarily better than what Canikon can do.

Good Fuji level optical performance would be a big improvement for Canikon lenses; Canikon doesn’t need to aim a lot higher. They can leave that to Leica, Olympus, Zeiss and Samsung.

It's pretty clear (ha) that the better lens makers have a different understanding of light and its interaction with basic optics than Nikon or Canon.

0 upvotes
Bamboojled
By Bamboojled (4 months ago)

Sorry HowaboutRAW...
I generally agree with most of your posts, but have to call you on this one.
I think you are talking out of your A__ on this post.
Canon and Nikon generally outperform all of the manufacturers you mentioned across the board, in lens depth and overall performance.
Take the venerable 85 1.4 Zeiss and compare it to the Nikon 851.4 G or even the 85 1.8G.
Also compare the 35 1.4g, 28 1.8g and finally compare the 24-70 Zeiss against the Canon or Nikon equivalent.
Don't get me wrong, Zeiss makes some amazing lenses, but to make the blanket statement you made regarding Canon and Nikon is plain wrong.
Just open up DXO and start comparing optics and you will quickly see this.
Now does each brand have lenses that are stand outs? Yes, but overall Canon/Nikon have greater and deeper offerings than any other brand.
In fact the Zeiss lenses that you claim are at the top of the food chain generally underperform to the Nikon/Canon equivalents on Sony cameras; Again reference DXO.

0 upvotes
HowaboutRAW
By HowaboutRAW (4 months ago)

Bam:

I've used the Nikon 85mm f/1.4 and the Zeiss 85 f/1.4. The Nikon is an optical joke in comparison to the Zeiss.

I just tried out the Nikon again two weeks ago, still not real good, though in that case the D800 body was likely the cause some of the DR trouble.

And I wrote not a word about range of offerings, when I see that comment, I see misdirection from the basic point.

Comment edited 3 times, last edit 5 minutes after posting
0 upvotes
Bamboojled
By Bamboojled (4 months ago)

Wow,
after this statement it really shows where you'r head is at.
The 85 1.4G is the reference lens for all 85mm's on the market.
There is no comparison, when it comes to center to edge sharpness, color rendition, micro contrast.
This is not even up for debate.
The fact that you think the D800 has dynamic range issues when this camera is also the reference for low ISO high dynamic range shows that arguing any point with you falls not on deaf ears, you have no ears at all (and obviously no eyes).

1 upvote
HowaboutRAW
By HowaboutRAW (4 months ago)

Bambooj:

The tests you keep quoting aren’t helpful. They don’t make your case.

You clearly haven’t used the Zeiss and/or Leica lenses that you claim Canikon can equal optically. For those who’ve used them, there is no dispute about which is optically superior.

A lot of what you post in defense of Canikon lenses read like those claiming that organically raised food doesn’t taste better than non-organically raised food stuffs.

It’s not like you’re the first person to make these claims in defense Canikon lenses, and you even fell into the range of lenses claims as if that had anything to do with my point.

Perhaps Canikon will get their acts together and ship better lenses, but the new 58mm f/1.4 from Nikon is not promising.

In other news, the Windows OS has many unstable variations, AutoCAD (Win) is horrid software, the sound quality of iTunes software was bad until the year 2013, so there are all these things that are standards of whatever industry that simply aren’t that good.

0 upvotes
HowaboutRAW
By HowaboutRAW (4 months ago)

Bambooj:

continued,

You may have a point about the good dynamic range of the D800 at base ISO, guess what, taking pictures isn’t confined to bright days outdoors.

Right: Nikon can make sharp lenses a point I’ve never disputed, however the colour of the ostensibly good ones (like the f/1.4 85mm you rave about) just isn’t very good. Here, and I’ve not used it, the Canon f/1.2 85mm likely surpasses Nikon. But Leica and Zeiss easily best both Canon and Nikon for colour subtlety.

I suggest you rent the Zeiss 85mm f/1.4 and try it out on a good Nikon body.

0 upvotes
Rage Joe
By Rage Joe (4 months ago)

How about Leica being full of sheet, RAW.

0 upvotes
Rage Joe
By Rage Joe (4 months ago)

Canikon makes superior lenses, RAW.

0 upvotes
HowaboutRAW
By HowaboutRAW (4 months ago)

Rage J:

Clearly you’ve never used good Leica or Zeiss lenses, they sure produce better image quality than ostensive good Nikon lenses. Make for better high ISO work.

It’s pretty clear that Canikon doesn’t understand something about colour and light that the better lens makers do. Images from the best Canikon lenses, which are decent optically, yet look dead in comparison to images shot with good Leica and Zeiss lenses.

Though yes Canikon lens bodies are well made and the optics can be very sharp focus. At their best Olympus and Fuji also surpass Canikon lenses for optical quality.

Don’t bother with the citation of DXO scores.

Given that I’ve used both good Nikon lenses and good Leica and Zeiss lenses your ill-evinced assertions don’t give me pause.

Not even clear that good Canikon lenses are optically superior to the best new Sigma lenses.

0 upvotes
Press Correspondent
By Press Correspondent (4 months ago)

Nikon is not as dumb as it seems: baby boomers are entering the nostalgic age. They've taken enough pictures already, they just need to hold something familiar that they can still recognize. 16 mp? Oh, my... Some may need new reading glasses.

1 upvote
T3
By T3 (4 months ago)

First of all, the Df is still quite different from the comparatively simple old Nikon manual cameras of decades past. In other words, it's not really as "familiar" as you might think. Secondly, I don't think there are as many aging baby boomers who are willing to drop $3K just to "hold something [supposedly] familiar" as you seem to think.

You might have an argument if this was really a digital version of a simple Nikon FE, with just two simple dials up top (ISO and shutter speed), that was similarly compact, and was only about $1500. But the Df is a very different beast from that. In many ways, I actually think the simple design and compactness of a Sony A7/A7R is closer to the spirit of an FE. I had a Nikon FE2, and when I look at the Sony A7/7R it makes me a lot more nostalgic about my FE2 than the Df, mainly because of the simple, cleaner, less cluttered design and smaller size. To me, the Df just looks like an overwrought, cluttered beast.

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

I agree with T3. I would be much more enthusiastic about a mirror-less incarnation of the Df. Particularly if it was priced like the A7.

1 upvote
HowaboutRAW
By HowaboutRAW (4 months ago)

guytano:

The thing about “compact FF” mirrorless, unless you’re running Leica, you’ll have to develop entirely new lenses for the system, witness Sony’s new FE mount lenses. Otherwise do you want Nikon to take the big box route Pentax experimented with?

Also the A7 has nowhere near the high ISO performance of the D4/Df, and that’s a drawback to your proposal. Nor is the Sony A7 particularly quiet. And I like the A7, but it’s only a very good first step, while the Df is highly developed.

Yet again: Nikon is not going to sell a body with the sensor from the D4 for less than the D610 while the D4 is still on sale new–even if that new body were FF mirrorless.

3 upvotes
T3
By T3 (4 months ago)

@HowaboutRAW- We're not saying we want the A7. We're saying we'd rather Nikon make their own version of the A7...lighter, more compact, less expensive. Face it, the Df might have "classic" aspirations, but it's still much chunkier and cluttered than any classic Nikon film SLR ever was. That's not very classic at all. Yes, a mirrorless Df would need a new lens system, but that'd be more worthwhile than investing in the dead-end, too-small CX format 1 system! And a mirrorless version of the Df would be much closer in size to a classic Nikon film SLR...like the Sony A7 already is.

I think the 1 system is a dead end. And I think the Df is a one-off niche camera. Moving forward, they should combine the mirrorless technology developed for their 1-system, but with the "classic" intent of the FF Df, to make a mirrorless FF Df system that can truly fit into a classic body size. Take the "highly developed" aspects of the Df, and the 1-system, and make a new FF system for the 21st century!

1 upvote
jimi1127
By jimi1127 (4 months ago)

Gotta agree --- as a certified B. Boomer there are indeed moments when I yearn to hold something familiar that I can still recognize. Not sure I can remember what to do with it but if I can recognize it -- that's a win.

2 upvotes
Shamael
By Shamael (4 months ago)

I have waited to buy a new camera to see this Nikon coming out. My intention was A7, and I stopped my decision when the Nikon teaser appeared, like so many of us. When the camera was shown, it was for me just deception, all it had was a huge look, for the rest, nuts. It started by 1/4000 - 16 mpix - 12500 ISO clean ability. This combination is not sane, 16 mpix for a FF is too low in resolution, we come here back to the pixel size and pitch half way between D7 and D200. D200 made huge shots, so the pitch to go was a 20 mpix FF sensor. Then, 12500 ISO clean possibility, and 1/4000 only. My NEX-7 has 800 ISO limit, but here too 1/4000 is not fast enough, in many situations I am locked at the speed. Then AF, here the 11 point AF from F6 had done a better job, and then add manual matte with split prism and fresnel. All this was not provided. Now, the future for me would be a unified mount, one mount for each sensor size. That is the way to go, then we had lens choice among many brands.

0 upvotes
HowaboutRAW
By HowaboutRAW (4 months ago)

T3:

Okay, but then Nikon would have to develop entirely new lenses, and I see you understand that point, but it’s still a huge investment.

Shamael:

16MP is plenty. And as you know that’s one of the reasons for “clean” pictures at ISO 12,800 with the D4.

Why do you keep going on about the Nikon D200? It has a CCD sensor and those are problematic at higher ISOs. So why not call attention to the much more promising D2Hs (still nearly $2000 in refurbed condition)?

0 upvotes
MikeF4Black
By MikeF4Black (4 months ago)

@HowaboutRaw ( and others): Yes, I find the Df's layout cluttered as well. It made me realize how much camera design has progressed.

Clumsy handling? My F2AS
Is a bit clumsy as well...

0 upvotes
HowaboutRAW
By HowaboutRAW (4 months ago)

MikeF4B:

I see why you say that, but it works, and image quality is of most import to me.

0 upvotes
HetFotoAtelier
By HetFotoAtelier (4 months ago)

http://www.stevehuffphoto.com/2013/12/20/the-nikon-df-camera-review-by-steve-huff/

8 upvotes
PerL
By PerL (4 months ago)

Yep - a day and night difference.

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

From the review...

*If Nikon came knocking on my door and said “Pick one camera and one lens for free..anything in our lineup” I would immediately, without hesitating, give a clear and concise answer… “The silver Df and 50 1.2 Ais lens”.

Yes my friends, I would take the Df over the D700, D800, D4 or any other Nikon DSLR made.*

Ok, maybe because this camera is overpriced and only worth for free? hahahaha... great photos though.

Comment edited 46 seconds after posting
2 upvotes
Shamael
By Shamael (4 months ago)

Steve makes great photos indeed, it is one of the sole sites where I go to see what a camera can do and what not, Stev has the knowhow anyway. But, none of his shots can convince me to buy this camera, low pixel chip, no way magic to get good higb ISO ability with that. On the other side, finesse, detail, simply IQ as we know it from other gear today, is missing. I come back to the same IQ in 100 ISO I can get from my D40, or my Fuji S5, that has better colors as DF anyway.
The best sensor Nikon ever had was D200 sensor, I love how that camera rendered. At ISO 100 DF is not worth the displacement, at ISO 12500 it is. Now, if we look this sole real advantage this camera has, and consider the disadvantages, no real good MF ability, bad AF, 1/4000 only, terrible ergonomy, the choice remains on the clean shot at ISO 12500. It is then a question of this choice only.

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

D200 did have good skin tones, it was also lo res and barely usable @ 1600. In its day a great shooter and still a nice low iso shooter but thats it.

And as far as 16 mp not being enough, well, personal needs must dictate that, if you need ultra high resolution, than its the D800 or something similar.

I'm saving for it. A lot of guys I have respected around here for more than a decade are happy with it, and to me, that carries more weight than a commercial review.

It's clear this camera is not for you, but its also clear that the vast majority of owners love it.

So Nikon made a low volume expensive camera that some very experienced shooters seem to love. I don't see a problem. Kinda like the D3x, horribly overpriced, but those that bought it, the very few, loved it.

3 upvotes
spbStan
By spbStan (4 months ago)

I was hoping it was more classic with real MF friendly focusing screen so was not really interested in it. I have two cameras I really like, a D800 and D7000. Suddenly over a week, 4 friends back in the US who are serious shooters, and regularly having images hanging on prestigious gallery walls, each emailed to say they had no intention of getting a DF but did and now love it.
There must be more to it, 3 of them do not care that much about hardware, seldom talk about and the 4th is a partial gear head.
I will have to give it a more objective look and try one. I do not mind the AF since it is an optimized FX version of the MultiCAM4800 which has been quite servicable in the DX version.
I have a new from factory Nikkor 50 1.2 and would have loved a MF oriented camera with 12-18mpx to go with it for a walk around kit, but I would be anxious to explore with my 24 1.4 as the ultimate street kit.

1 upvote
HowaboutRAW
By HowaboutRAW (4 months ago)

spbStan:

Likely the focus screen can be swapped at a service center--the D700 worked that way. As you may know, split screens can cause their own headaches.

This DF is of course useable at ISOs above where the D800 runs into trouble.

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

The Df is a shooter's camera. It's a poor man's D4. The controls are great for those of us who shoot thousands of frames every week for a living, almost always in full manual. The fact that I can pop on my old manual lenses is a delight, especially knowing the sensor inside. Long overdue.

5 upvotes
Shamael
By Shamael (4 months ago)

Poor man's D4???? One needs thus to be poor to buy a 3000$ kit with 16 mpix, a 100 iso performance and IQ comparable to a D70, just because Nikon have the same sensor in a camera they sell 3 times the price it is worth. Strange attitude, you must belong to the rich, don't you?

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

" It's a poor man's D4"

No, it's not. At least not the same way as when D700 was a poor man's D3. Df is just different from D4.

D700 is long overdue for a replacement. Df is not the answer.

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

" It's a poor man's D4" ???
Silly comment.

2 upvotes
AngusR
By AngusR (4 months ago)

I think most people are buying into this camera because of its image, rather than the images it takes

3 upvotes
AngusR
By AngusR (4 months ago)

I've just seen this quote by Ken Rockwell. I couldn't agree more:

" It's a camera we own for love and magic, not for logic's sake. We buy the Df with our hearts, not our brains. If you're a photographic artist, you want the Df, but if you're a computer technician, you'll prefer the D610 or D800. Nobody buys a Ferrari because they need one or because it makes sense either."

4 upvotes
David Dolsen
By David Dolsen (4 months ago)

When my D800 was in the shop, they loaned me a D4. It's an incredible camera. I could care less about the Df body, even though it does echo the FM and FM2 I used in my studio in the eighties and nineties. What I want is the D4 chip. The quality of images off that chip has to be seen, and I mean by someone who looks at more than test charts, to be believed. Thank you Nikon for making that chip available in the Df at an affordable price. Now if only I could have the 3fps quiet mode of a 5D MkIII as well.....

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

@David D:

You should see what the sensor in the D3s can do with a good lens in front of it.

3 upvotes
David Dolsen
By David Dolsen (4 months ago)

I have. It's lovely.

2 upvotes
mholdef
By mholdef (4 months ago)

I own this camera and it is GREAT ! Don't listen to these silly speculative comments from people who just look at spec sheets and who haven't handled the camera.

Indeed it isn't cheap but you get an incredible camera that handles well and is very light, a real charm with some small primes. Back to the basics.

Mark

Comment edited 43 seconds after posting
19 upvotes
Edmond Leung
By Edmond Leung (4 months ago)

Right!
Absolutely unnecessary to read those silly comments. Especially those silly comments from the people who never touch the camera.

0 upvotes
JeffreyJC
By JeffreyJC (4 months ago)

81% Yeah ok.

15+ negatives and some really bad ones like bad af,bad built quality and useless live view.

All points that any company besides Canon and Nikon would get a much lower score.

So what no silver and gold rating still a mind boggling score for an unrated camera.

1 upvote
Sad Joe
By Sad Joe (4 months ago)

As some of you may be aware ( I post fairly often) I use both Canon & Nikon - overall I prefer Canon but I think the Nikon DF whilst NOT a classic like my beloved Nikon FE, is a great camera and Nikon with the 'classic' DF has done what it set out to do - provide MASSIVE FREE marketing coverage for Nikon. Smart move !!

I saw the test results comparing the DF/ D4/ 6D etc - frankly I'd give house room to ANY of them. But if I were PAYING I'd stick with Canon (sorry Nikon fans) and spend the money on a 5D3 - just because I shot a lotta video and the DF offers none….

Roll on the classic AE1 D…or should that be A1 D ?

NOTE according to DR the percentage of people who own the 6D is HUGE the percentage of people who got rid is LOW - however these figures are TOTALY REVERSED when viewing the DF which seems to SHED OWNERS FAST….bit sobering - best advice if you HAVE to have a DF, want 12 mths and buy SECOND HAND - there appears by then there will be plenty around….

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

One can't trust those numbers. People who never owned the camera but wants to put it down clicks on the "had it" button.

9 upvotes
Resom
By Resom (4 months ago)

I agree with PerL.

"best advice if you HAVE to have a DF, want 12 mths and buy SECOND HAND"
And this fits better the retro congeniality of this camera. ;)

I guess its a camera with "character" and thats more as the most melted plastic cameras have ... except my pink/blue Pentax K-30, which is the most impressive camera since centuries!

1 upvote
HowaboutRAW
By HowaboutRAW (4 months ago)

Resom+Joe:

Don't think this body is going to sell used in good condition for $1500 in 12 months.

Check the price of a good condition used Nikon D3s or D700, today late 2013.

It's not like you can find a used Leica M9 for $2000 today, and that body has sever limitations. And is still sold new under the Leica M-E name.

0 upvotes
sgoldswo
By sgoldswo (4 months ago)

What a joke. I can't think of a single dissatisfied owner of the camera.

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

"Check the price of a good condition used Nikon D3s or D700, today late 2013."

True. But that the old timer digital Nikon (what,like 5 years old? haha). Newer Nikon like... any newer Nikon body.. D7k, J1.. drop their prices pretty fast.

I know because I used to had a D7k(it's a good DSLR, btw). My friend bought one at full announcement price, I had it for 80% ... few months later, the price went to something like 60%. Mind you, this price drops happened before the D7100 announced.

D700 keeps its value because Nikon hasn't make its true replacement yet, and D700 is really a smaller (cheaper) version of the D3 (fast fps, same sensor, pro AF). Df is nothing like a D4 (slow fps, entry level AF, etc.). Except maybe for its sensor.

However I do think that its price will remain high, not for the same reason as D700, but for its limited edition factor.

0 upvotes
HowaboutRAW
By HowaboutRAW (4 months ago)

new b:

I didn't say a thing about the price of any used Nikon APSC body. Check for fun how much a good condition used Nikon D2H or D2Hs sells for today in late 2013.

(Used on Amazon US: $1000 for a very good D2H, less for just "good", then the only D2Hs for sale lists for $1900, factory refurb though. Irony APSC.)

So blah, blah, blah, doesn't change the fact that the D3 (not amongst those I named originally), the D3s, and D700 are a pretty pricey used at the end of 2013.

Also I've shot with the D700, and its AF was not particularly impressive, nothing like either the D4 or D3s. So the D700 (used or not) has some draw backs. And no the D700 is not a limited edition.

Right: I agree that the Df isn't exactly a replacement for the D700. Such a body would in fact use the better sensor from the D3s--but that would really likely eat into D4 sales.

Comment edited 12 minutes after posting
0 upvotes
HowaboutRAW
By HowaboutRAW (4 months ago)

nb:

Scratch my comment about the D700 not being a limited edition. I get that you were referring to the Df.

0 upvotes
marike6
By marike6 (4 months ago)

It's hilarious that pretty much every camera with a shutter button gets an award on DPR. Some cameras like the X-E1 with its RAW conversion issues, subpar AF even get Gold Awards. The Nikon Df, perhaps because of a crowbarred comparison with the Fuji X cameras on day one ("retro done right") and the reviewer's fondness for the X cameras, gets zero, zip, nada. Lol. DPR was under no obligation to give the camera a good review, but giving it such a high score, but no award AT ALL was frankly a passive aggressive swipe at Nikon and Nikon users, not to mention kind of petty gesture.

I checked the Df out the other day at B&H and it's quite nice. It felt great in my hands, nice a bright VF, and it focused quickly and accurately. One thing is for sure, I'd trade my Fujifilm X-E1 and all my X lenses for the Df, in a second. Retro right or wrong, for me there is just no comparison between these two camera.

14 upvotes
ed rader
By ed rader (4 months ago)

you sound like a guy who easily makes big shifts in gear so that could explain it

2 upvotes
marike6
By marike6 (4 months ago)

No I don't make big shifts in gear. My main camera, one that I will never change, is my D800. And I have an X-E1 for kicks.

1 upvote
King Penguin
By King Penguin (4 months ago)

I'm a D600 user (amateur) and shoot with AFD primes, using the aperture ring on the lens....I just prefer it.

The Df doesn't offer much more but I'd buy it like a shot if I had the cash, it's a great camera.

......and by the way to all those sad M43 freaks trying to find ways of justifying their mistake in buying into a small sensor, if you get a bad back carrying a Df with a nice little AFD prime and perhaps another in your pocket..........the expression drama queen comes to mind..........Merry Xmas :)

8 upvotes
Tonio Loewald
By Tonio Loewald (4 months ago)

I've got the 50 1.8D and it looks tiny on my D600 (and 50% of the 1.8 is simply an integral lens hood; it could easily be half the size again). I also don't see why, aside from the size of the pentaprism housing, Nikon can't produce a K3 sized FX body (especially if they left out the focus motor, but then they'd really need to modernize their primes). Oh and the K3 has IBIS.

1 upvote
PerL
By PerL (4 months ago)

Nikon Df is almost as small as a K3 and it is lighter. And it is FF.

5 upvotes
Resom
By Resom (4 months ago)

Well - its 35g lighter, but not smaller.

This means, the K3 is not a toy. You can smack a bandit down with 1 hit! Ok, the lens is gone, but ... 1 hit! 35g makes the difference, I tell you.

1 upvote
T3
By T3 (4 months ago)

"if you get a bad back carrying a Df with a nice little AFD prime and perhaps another in your pocket..........the expression drama queen comes to mind..........Merry Xmas :)"

Keep in mind, a lot of us m4/3 users are also FF DSLR users! I am. There are just times when you want to travel lighter, and still have the flexibility of a good ILC camera system. Frankly, for the weight and size of a Df and a prime or two, I can carry a m4/3 body and a full complement of lenses.

I think the drama queens are the people who think you are a "freak" and that you've made a "mistake" if you use more than one format or more than one system. If you have the money, I think that's definitely the way to go! There are times when I prefer to use my FF gear, and there are times when I want to use my m4/3 gear. You should try it some time. I think it's pretty awesome.

1 upvote
DarkShift
By DarkShift (4 months ago)

Perhaps the biggest mistake with DF was the decision not to include video. Besides lowlight performance, I really can't find single feature why this would be more appealing choice than the D800 or D600.

Nikon should produce full frame mirrorless with shorter flange distance and adapter that would accept DSLR lenses. Sort of like Sony a7r but with more intuitive user interface and controls.

And why this silly MFT bashing going on? My EM-5 is very fine camera with nice features such as sensor stabilized video.

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

DarkS:

Video takes cooling and more battery power. So there's a trade going on.

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

T3 and others......maybe I had a little too much mulled wine when I made the comment.......no wish to offend at all but I do read a lot of comments from the M43 brigade dissing FF cameras due to weight.

Most I'm sure haven't realised how compact AFD primes are, how cheap they are second hand and how nice they are to use.

My Nikkor 16mm f2.8 fisheye is almost as small as the M43 Panasonic 8mm f3.5 fisheye and much smaller than most M43 or APSC lens of a similar focal length.

FF stuff doesn't need to be massive........

0 upvotes
T3
By T3 (4 months ago)

"My Nikkor 16mm f2.8 fisheye is almost as small as the M43 Panasonic 8mm f3.5 fisheye"

The excellent little Rokikon 7.5mm fisheye for m4/3 is much smaller and lighter than the Nikkor 16mm fisheye, and it's only $269 new.
http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/822814-REG/Rokinon_FE75MFTS_7_5_mm_f_3_5_Ultra.html

Plus, you still have to put that larger Nikkor 16mm onto a MUCH larger FF body. Take it from someone who uses FF and m4/3, size comparison isn't even close. The Df might be the smallest of the FF DSLRs, but it's still huge compared to the E-M1 which is the largest m4/3 body Oly offers.

http://camerasize.com/compare/#495,482

Also, the "small" Nikon Df (765 g) weighs 54% more (268 grams more) than the "large"-- at least for m4/3-- Olympus E-M1 (which weighs only 497 grams).

Yes, FF DSLR is simply larger, bulkier, and heavier-- both the lenses and the bodies. That's not a "diss". That's just reality. And mature adults accept reality.

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

268 grams more, wow, you're right......no wonder I've got a bad back, I must buy a M43 camera immediately......

0 upvotes
T3
By T3 (4 months ago)

@King Penguin - That's 268g for the body only. Start adding up the size/weight differences of FF lenses vs the m4/3 lenses, and it all starts adding up really quickly. Heck, the Nikkor 16mm f2.8 fisheye that you tout as being so small is already 90g heavier the the m4/3 Rokinon! That's a lot for such small lenses! A couple hundred grams here, a couple hundred grams there, and you start realizing a pretty big weight difference...forget about the SIZE difference! Also, that 268g difference is for the fairly "large" E-M1. There are definitely lighter m4/3 bodies. Plus, when I go around with my FF DSLR, it sticks out like a sore thumb. But when I go around with my m4/3, it basically goes unnoticed. Or if it is noticed, people ignore it because it's so small. You can't say the same about a FF DSLR with a FF lens! So for stealthier, low-key shooting, I *much* prefer to use my m4/3 gear! And the minimal size/weight are a lot more comfortable to carry than FF, especially when traveling.

Comment edited 2 times, last edit 14 minutes after posting
0 upvotes
HowaboutRAW
By HowaboutRAW (4 months ago)

Tonio:

Have you handled a Pentax K3? It's about the same size as the Df, and of course the Df has a bigger sensor. The K3 is in now way tiny.

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

T3 - I rescind my apology, all this talk of a few grams here and there.........drama queen comes to mind.

If you're happy with your Olly and a 1/4 sized sensor that's fine by me, just don't harp on about. Perhaps if you emptied your pockets of loose change or left your gun at home, you'd achieve the same weight reduction and feel more comfortable carrying a FF camera.......

But as I don't carry a gun and I leave my loose change at home I'll stick with my D600 (or a Df if Santa thinks I've been good) and my nice lovely COMPACT and relatively cheap Nikkor AFD lenses..........merry Xmas :)

0 upvotes
T3
By T3 (4 months ago)

@ King Penguin - Haha, bringing up guns and loose change, look who's being a "drama queen." As someone who uses both m4/3 and FF, I can assure you that the weight diff is a lot more than "a few grams" that you (the drama queen that you are) have attempted to mischaracterize it as. The reality is that the weight diff easily becomes a few HUNDRED grams. Heck, even if you just look at your own example: Df plus Nikkor 16mm fisheye...well, that "small" combo is still 358g more than the "large" E-M1 with Rokinon 7.5mm. Now consider the smaller E-M5...the Df is 91% heavier (365g), so the weight diff is 455g with the lens. Almost half a kilo of weight diff, just with your "COMPACT" body/lens example! Add more lenses (especially the FF ones that aren't so "COMPACT"), get even greater weight diff (never mind the SIZE diff)! Grow up and face the facts. I have. That's why I use both, so i get the best of both worlds: small and big. It's great to have the choice! Each has its pros and cons.

Comment edited 3 times, last edit 12 minutes after posting
0 upvotes
Optimal Prime
By Optimal Prime (4 months ago)

Some people/penguin simply can't read.

0 upvotes
John Tannock
By John Tannock (4 months ago)

I think they should have called the WTF rather than the DF. While it is interesting looking as a novelty item, it's sort of a 'CF' of design, parts and performance in my opinion.

1 upvote
InTheMist
By InTheMist (4 months ago)

Classic Film?

1 upvote
Ozark photographer
By Ozark photographer (4 months ago)

Have you done any "real photography" other than with a auto focus instamatic or a cell phone? I mean like a film manual focus full featured interchangeable lens camera like the excellent FE, FE2, F3, or equivalent other brand? Medium format? It involves using your brain to visualize the image and think how to set the camera, dedicated knobs and rings really make the job easier! Putting proven current technology into a robust package is the formula of the F3, F4, and this camera! I would never call a fine fusion of this formula a CF! I would however consider a idiot like you a CF. So, WTF, it doesn't suit your drill down menu style of self gratifying photography, don't by one! Don't waste time with a opinion that has no clear point, or thought out intelligent critical observation that you can explain without the use of profane BS!

0 upvotes
John Tannock
By John Tannock (4 months ago)

Wow, Ozark, you've really gotten your tighties in a wad. To answer your questions about my photography, I've used all of the above and then some. What no mention of 4x5 view cameras? As for the use of auto focus and menus, yes, I like them. They allow me to focus on my subjects quickly and make adjustments while keeping my eye to the viewfinder. Oh, and isn't every photographer's work 'self satisfying'? If not, then you or whomever you're referring to should be in another line of work. The WTF reference was meant as a joke so sorry if I offended you, Ozark. However, based on handling the camera and comparing to the other 4 Nikon pro bodies that I use daily, I stand by my opinion that it's a novel design but not worth the price for what's inside it. Compared to the D800 that is nearly the same price there's no contest in value or performance.

0 upvotes
Nigel Ward 2
By Nigel Ward 2 (4 months ago)

..and why put a second rate autofocus module in a camera that is supposed to appeal to professionals?

..also...why bring out a new 35mm f/1.8 lens two months later? It would have made much more sense to have bundled the camera with that for photojournalism.

doh.

2 upvotes
Tonio Loewald
By Tonio Loewald (4 months ago)

Hey if you're going to complain about lens selection, why does Sony release anything at all? It's not like the Df is hurting for lens options.

Totally agree about the AF. It smells of a product crippled by marketing because they were afraid of cannibalizing D4 sales (after all, not everyone who buys a D4 shoots at 10fps).

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

Nigel:

Right it's not the AF system from the vaunted D4, but unlike this review many have found the Df's auto focus to be more than adequate in lowlight.

There are size considerations beyond taking sales away from the D4 considerations.

3 upvotes
davaodoc
By davaodoc (4 months ago)

I am an avid Nikon user. Between me, my wife and my son, we have the Df, D4, D800, two D7000, D3100 cameras as well as almost all the current nikon lenses, yet I hate the Df and I regret buying it.

I made the mistake of getting a Df as soon as it hit the market. I agree that it is a D610 with a 50% markup. In Nikon's desire to create a "retro camera", they ended reinventing the wheel.

How else can you justify: it costs the same as the D800, but has no video, NO HISTOGRAM IN LIVE VIEW (a mortal sin for landscape photographers), no built in viewfinder cover (again, a must for long exposures), can't adjust the ISO with one hand (try it) and a single SDHC slot?

I also have the mirrorless Fuji X-E2 and a side by side comparison shows the X-E2 beating the Df in every aspect. I'm sending it back.

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

You are one of the very few posters who has reported getting rid of the Df. You reasons are very suspicious since you quote cons right out of the Dpreview review. First post, no gear list hmmm...I believe you are just a troll who has never owned one.

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

"I also have the mirrorless Fuji X-E2 and a side by side comparison shows the X-E2 beating the Df in every aspect. I'm sending it back."

Right. NOW I believe you.

4 upvotes
HowaboutRAW
By HowaboutRAW (4 months ago)

davaodoc:

If you have a D800, why would you want to use the Df for landscape shooting?

And I'll bite: Do you shoot a lot of video with that Fuji XE2? Then how about the other Nikon DSLRs that you own?

Video takes cooling and battery power, so those are two reasons for excluding it from the Df body.

I give you the lack of a VF backlight block is a bit of a problem if you want to shoot long exposures, but that would take more space. As of course would a second card slot.

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

There's no reason to get a Df if you already having a D4. Most people wanting this camera because of its sensor.

0 upvotes
HowaboutRAW
By HowaboutRAW (4 months ago)

nb:

A reason to get the Df if you already own the D4, well two, no three: The Df is a tiny bit better at high ISO lowlight shooting, it's lighter, and most important to many it's much quieter than the D4.

0 upvotes
davaodoc
By davaodoc (4 months ago)

Chooflaki:
Maybe the reason why I'm ONLY posting now is because this is the first camera purchase that I was disappointed with.

Maybe I quoted from the article because I ACTUALLY read it. Didn't you?

Maybe the reason why I didn't post my gear is because it would take a helluva time to do so.
See for yourself:
http://www.dpreview.com/galleries/1871251339/photos/2790769/cameras-gear-thumbnail

Comment edited 14 minutes after posting
1 upvote
davaodoc
By davaodoc (4 months ago)

sandy b:
http://www.dpreview.com/galleries/1871251339/photos/2790769/cameras-gear-thumbnail

see it? the Df is side by side with my X-E2

and unlike you, who probably handled the Df for a full 60 seconds, I have used it in the field since I got it over two weeks ago

1 upvote
davaodoc
By davaodoc (4 months ago)

HowaboutRAW:

"If you have a D800, why would you want to use the Df for landscape shooting?"

- why shouldn't I? I didn't read anything in the Df's manual that says I can't use it for taking pictures of rocks and trees.

If you looks closely at the viewfinder cover of the D800 and D4, it adds less than two millimeters to viewfinder's length, so yeah, it's a big deal when it comes to adding space to the Df.

1 upvote
davaodoc
By davaodoc (4 months ago)

new boyz:

I got the Df because I can afford to.

1 upvote
davaodoc
By davaodoc (4 months ago)

HowaboutRAW:

The D800 produces a very large file. In photoshop, a D800 file with 4-5 layers can reach over 1Gb in size, which slows down my computer considerably. If my intention is to print a photo up to a maximum of only 13 x 19 inches in size, I prefer to use the D4 (or the Df) because I can edit faster and there is no discernable difference in picture quality. If I need to print any thing larger or if I might need to crop the photo, I use the D800.

1 upvote
HowaboutRAW
By HowaboutRAW (4 months ago)

davaodoc:

I don't work with layers a lot, trying to keep things untrimmed + unpasted. But that 1GB for 4 or 5 layers seems big, I guess if each layer has lots of history that would make things bigger. I guess maximum bit depth would make things bigger to, I never see that much difference.

And if I were shooting landscapes with sky, I'd try to work with a graduated ND filter to avoid the layers as much as possible.

Right, 16MP is plenty for your 13" by 19" print, provided you're not cropping, but many who shoot landscape go on about "detail" and then D800E's images are in fact sharper.

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

davaodoc:

It occurs to me that one of the reasons people would seek out the D800E for landscape printing beyond the sharpness thing is the capacity to print beyond 300ppi, so in fact I suspect that would be hard for the Df files and the print size of 11" by 19". Though I'm sure your prints look excellent a that size from the D4/Df--details are over rated.

Comment edited 57 seconds after posting
0 upvotes
sandy b
By sandy b (4 months ago)

No, I want to see the shot of the Fuji beating the Nikon in every aspect. Pictures please.

1 upvote
abolit66
By abolit66 (4 months ago)

There should be "emotion" because this camera does not fit into "retro" category. First of all - there's no any manual focusing applications (split prizm or focus peeking).
Secondly : The adjustment wheels on the top of the camera placed by some guy who did not have any idea of what he was doing.
Thirdly: The camera is not cheap!

The only advantage of buying this camera is just a LOOK.. not good enough for me.

Another failure from Nikon... it's freaking "amazing"!...

2 upvotes
chooflaki
By chooflaki (4 months ago)

I own a camera with split image VF and two cameras with focus peaking and both are very good with these aids. My Df focuses just as good with my very own eyes with my manual lenses. Just get unlazy and don't expect the gear to do it all for you. The control wheel works fine. Just sync your brain with your eyes and fingers.

Comment edited 5 times, last edit 11 minutes after posting
9 upvotes
HowaboutRAW
By HowaboutRAW (4 months ago)

abolit66:

My Minolta SR-1 film SLR does not have a splitscreen. Splitcreen focusing aides are a later invention. And sometimes they can be a pain. Drop the requests for focus peaking and there is a MF aide, called focus confirm.

Likely too, one can send the body into Nikon for a screen swap if you want a splitscreen–that’s how it worked with the well liked D700.

Right Nikon could have done an user changeable screen, then likely the prism box would have been bigger and there’d be added expense.

Why do you think the Df should be cheap? Magnesium isn’t cheap to work with. Yields on full framed sensors are less than smaller sensors. Was the Nikon F “cheap” in 1962 dollars?

As to be expected: This body costs a bit more than Nikon’s entry level full frame DSLR body–the D610.

There’s a huge lowlight high ISO advantage to this body.

If it's not for you, don't buy one.

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

If they had used aluminium instead of magnesium, considering the amount used, the camera had been 30 gramms heavier. Does that matters? The price difference had then been 30$ as well, does that matters? We have here an object with low amount of metal, not a rim for a sportscar. They could have made it in titanium, it has made 30 gramms less and 100$ more.

1 upvote
HowaboutRAW
By HowaboutRAW (4 months ago)

Shamael:

Aluminum has nowhere near the strength of magnesium.

Clearly you don't understand how hard it is to work complex forms out of titanium.

So you haven't thought much about this Df's strengths.

Yet again: If it's not for you don't buy one. New: But stop complaining about things that are strengths, like the 16MP sensor.

0 upvotes
Singh
By Singh (4 months ago)

Hey it's "only a camera", why all the emotion. If you like it then buy it if not then don't.

Although i shoot with Canon i admire Nikon for trying to be different. And, yes to an earlier comment all Canon DSLR do look alike

3 upvotes
stevens37y
By stevens37y (4 months ago)

Simply statistics. This is a niche product: only 0.001% of the photo-taking folks respects its values. The majority only laughs at it.

0 upvotes
chooflaki
By chooflaki (4 months ago)

0.001% get it and DPR traffic goes meltdown viral. Does not compute. if only Pentax got this kind of attention.

Comment edited 5 minutes after posting
1 upvote
mauritsvw
By mauritsvw (4 months ago)

I think Pentax did get almost as much attention when the K-01 was announced...

1 upvote
chooflaki
By chooflaki (4 months ago)

I believe the K-01 was universally panned. On the other hand some of Pentax's latest offerings get good press but here it is mostly silence. I don't shoot Pentax BTW.

0 upvotes
HowaboutRAW
By HowaboutRAW (4 months ago)

chooflaki:

As long as one didn't want a viewfinder I thought the K-01 a good boxy camera.

Comment edited 8 minutes after posting
1 upvote
Mark Alan Thomas
By Mark Alan Thomas (4 months ago)

Any camera which riles the children must be good.

4 upvotes
Ozark photographer
By Ozark photographer (4 months ago)

Ok, I have heard enough from some of you yahoo's out there! Obviously, you are not Nikon people. This camera for me is refreshing, I hated the menus and buttons with command dials for common settings that have been pushed out on the market since the first main stream AF Nikons came out! In my humble opinion this Df camera is a big step forward for actual photography, not digital snapshot shooting! Yes, expensive, I wish I could get one, or Nikon could make one in DX format. I always use an eternal flash anyway, gives better results.
Ok FX size is the biggest practical format sensor size. So the ones so touted for there techno innovations on mini rangefinder style camera are comparable to the Nikon Df? Apples to Oranges! The toughness of the Df looks to be up to the standards of hard use, not just a pretty shell and gimmicks. I am sure that a lot of Nikon shooters of the old school of real photography will want one, and that my friends is who matters to Nikon!

4 upvotes
HowaboutRAW
By HowaboutRAW (4 months ago)

Have you handled a Df?

The reason I ask, and I like it though don't own it, is I can see some of the reason for complaints about the control layout--that's including the buttons on the back of the body. Thom Hogan at dslrbodies.com goes into some detail about this.

You're right, there's no particular point in comparing this Df body to Fuji X-APSC bodies. Much better points of comparison would be the digital range finders from Leica and Epson.

(Of course even the high end P&S Canon G16 uses "retro" knobs and dials.)

0 upvotes
camerosity
By camerosity (4 months ago)

If Canon came out with something similar, dpreview.com would be creaming their pants all over it, giving it a Highly Recommended Gold Award...how dumb do you think we are?

4 upvotes
Josh152
By Josh152 (4 months ago)

No if canon came out with a a camera that was a 6D with retro clothes and a 1DX sensor they would have had basically the same opinion and some clown would have said:

"If Nikon came out with something similar, dpreview.com would be creaming their pants all over it, giving it a Highly Recommended Gold Award...how dumb do you think we are?"

Comment edited 16 seconds after posting
16 upvotes
kadardr
By kadardr (4 months ago)

but they did not, canon did not. thus no cream in the pants at dpr

0 upvotes
thinkfat
By thinkfat (4 months ago)

After the T90, all Canon cameras look the same anyway ;)

But I'd probably buy a camera styled after the A-1.

4 upvotes
Tonio Loewald
By Tonio Loewald (4 months ago)

Do you seriously think dpreview is biased against Nikon? Go look at the D600 review and compare it to the 6D review then come back. I think dpreview is pretty fair in general, although I preferred it when they simple rated stuff as "highly recommended" etc.

5 upvotes
spbStan
By spbStan (4 months ago)

I am a recovering Canon shooter. I loved my A1 and carried it all over the world. It was tough, very easy to use, but eventually loaned it to a GF who promptly sold it, the speedlights and 17 lenses. When getting back into photography I went looking for a Canon and discovered the smaller digital models I was looking for looked good on paper but lousy in hand and worse is impression of quality So I bought a D90 and was really impressed. That was 5 years ago and the D800 and D7000 sit in the main bag and the D90 feels a little lonely gathering dust after a frame count of 124,000. I love the super clean files these camera generate but the Df is starting to intrigue me. I do wish it was more like the A1 however with great MF smoothness. My 50 1.2 MF would live on it.

1 upvote
sunhorse
By sunhorse (4 months ago)

I do not understand the people who hate a camera they've never handled or used, and will never buy.

Happy Holidays everyone!

5 upvotes
Fred Mueller
By Fred Mueller (4 months ago)

it's not hate - it's disappointment that the Df is not REALLY what the "tease" set it up to be

10 upvotes
chooflaki
By chooflaki (4 months ago)

The tease said this was a fusion camera and it was always targeted to a niche audience that have been asking for something like this for ages. Nikon never made any claims this to be their latest greatest or that it was replacement of current models. Judging by sales this niche audience has suddenly grown vastly that Nikon cant keep up production. Numbskulls just don't get it.

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

I'd say it's extreme disappointment.

It's like a dumb blonde with fake boobs. If that's your taste, fine. But for others, they want the real deal.

1 upvote
sunhorse
By sunhorse (4 months ago)

Yep. I can understand why some people would be disappointed. The tease is what it is, and people saw what they hoped and wished for which did not quite turn out the way they wanted.

2 upvotes
thinkfat
By thinkfat (4 months ago)

Though the question stands what the "real deal" would be. An intelligent blonde with real boobs? A brunette? with fake boobs or without? Complaining to a camera maker for not fulfilling ones' secret dreams is like complaining to Santa for not delivering that house you put on your wish list.

Comment edited 55 seconds after posting
6 upvotes
AlanJones
By AlanJones (4 months ago)

It is ironic that so many experts come to DPR to read their reviews. When these "experts" don't agree with DPR then they are called biased or don't have credibility. Why don't these "experts" have their own review website if they have a higher level of technical knowledge or credibility than is illustrated here. I guess it's easier to complain about a perceived problem than become a solution?

7 upvotes
philharris
By philharris (4 months ago)

If you read reviews online by others you will find quite a substantial disparity between them.
The Df has been positively received by just about everyone except DPR, who are the only people to suggest that the AF is not good, surely that should arouse some doubt?

0 upvotes
Total comments: 1595
12345