Previous page Next page

Studio Comparison (low light)

The low light scene is shot with Auto White Balance, to show how the camera's JPEGs look under artificial light. Any 'keep warm tone' options are left at their default setting.

The low light scene Raws are processed to demonstrate the capability of cameras in low-light shooting situations. Noise reduction is minimized and the white balance is neutralized to reveal blue channel noise. The black level is lifted to prevent noise being hidden by clipping. A standardized amount of sharpening is applied in Photoshop.

Note: this page features our new interactive studio scene. Click here for instructions on the widget.

At low ISO you can see that the Df's higher res rivals significantly out-resolve it. The Sony Alpha 7 looks sharper but the Nikon D610 (using a similar sensor) is producing the more convincing rendering.

At higher ISOs the Df's JPEGs are showing more noise in this, more challenging, lighting. However, look into areas of fine detail and you'll see that it's also producing a more realistic representation than its rivals.

Move up to the highest ISO setting all its rivals can match and the story is similar - with the Df showing quite a lot of noise but also some detail and hard edges being retained. However, looking at the Raw files (with noise reduction minimized) it's clear that, while the Df is doing well, it's not that far ahead of the Canon EOS 6D. That slight advantage is maintained, even when the images are reduced to a common output size.

Overall, then, the Df is capable of excellent low light images, but its advantage is not massive - especially when compared at a consistent resolution. And, of course, in bright light it can't compete with the resolution of its less expensive peers, let alone the higher pixel count models.

Previous page Next page
250
I own it
401
I want it
86
I had it
Discuss in the forums

Comments

Total comments: 1618
12345
HowaboutRAW

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
unknown member
By (unknown member) (11 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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

@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

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

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

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

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

3 upvotes
unknown member
By (unknown member) (11 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

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

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

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

"The AF works exceptionally well within its limitations."

love this description

4 upvotes
HowaboutRAW

ov:

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

1 upvote
cgarrard

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

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

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

3 upvotes
HowaboutRAW

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

"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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

How about Leica being full of sheet, RAW.

0 upvotes
Rage Joe

Canikon makes superior lenses, RAW.

0 upvotes
HowaboutRAW

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

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

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

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

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

@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

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

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

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

@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

MikeF4B:

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

0 upvotes
HetFotoAtelier

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

8 upvotes
PerL

Yep - a day and night difference.

5 upvotes
new boyz

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

" 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

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

2 upvotes
AngusR

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

3 upvotes
AngusR

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

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

@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

I have. It's lovely.

2 upvotes
mholdef

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

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

0 upvotes
JeffreyJC

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

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

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

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

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

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

6 upvotes
new boyz

"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

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

nb:

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

0 upvotes
marike6

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

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

2 upvotes
marike6

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

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

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

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

5 upvotes
Resom

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

"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

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

DarkS:

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

0 upvotes
King Penguin

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

"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

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

@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

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

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

@ 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

Some people/penguin simply can't read.

0 upvotes
John Tannock

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

Classic Film?

1 upvote
Ozark photographer

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

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

..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

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

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

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

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

"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

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

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

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

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

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

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

new boyz:

I got the Df because I can afford to.

1 upvote
davaodoc

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

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

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

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

1 upvote
abolit66

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

1 upvote
chooflaki

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

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

Any camera which riles the children must be good.

4 upvotes
Ozark photographer

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

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

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

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

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

0 upvotes
thinkfat

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

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

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

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

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

10 upvotes
chooflaki

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

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

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

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

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

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
Edmond Leung

Big companies already back to high quality FF market. Like Leica, Sony, Canon and Nikon, they also supply full range of FF lenses. A real benefit to the consumers.

For those small companies without FF cameras; and only with limited choice of lenses.... I am doubt those small companies cannot survive long in the market.

1 upvote
HowaboutRAW

Sony only has a range of full framed lenses if you count SLR lenses, and that would include going back to Minolta lenses.

Pentax sure has a range of lenses for Pentax APSC DSLRs.

Panasonic, Olympus, Fuji and Samsung have all done a range of lenses for their respective mirrorless systems. And many of those lenses are optically excellent, and one Samsung lens is staggeringly good, optically. Canikon should be embarrassed by the optical quality of good Samsung, Fuji and Olympus lenses. (Note no Sony in the above paragraph.)

0 upvotes
Edmond Leung

For Sony, all the excellent FF lenses made by Carl Zeiss for Sony already speak for itself.
Is there any Japanese/ Korean brand better than Carl Zeiss? No Way!

0 upvotes
Edmond Leung

Besides, other than Sony, any Japanese / Korea brand can produce the real professional camera like Sony F65?
Also, No Way!

0 upvotes
HowaboutRAW

EL:

What's the Sony F65? (Okay Wikipedia tells me it's movie camera, why bring those up?)

The Carl Zeiss lenses for Sony aren't usually the greatest examples of CZ lenses, though the 85mm one for Sony DSLRs is excellent. However the MF Zeiss lenses manufactured by Cosina are excellent.

"better than [good] Carl Zeiss [lenses]" no, nothing from the list qualifies, though one is beginning to seriously approach and another is not far behind.

My understand of Sony Zeiss lenses is that Sony does the manufacturing and design within CZ approved specifications. Eg the Sony Zeiss on the RX100 is not a great lens, particularly when fully zoomed.

Comment edited 7 minutes after posting
0 upvotes
cmvsm

If I had $2800 to kick around, I'd get one. Although not completely ideal in many categories, I do like the retro look and its blocky physique. That said, wouldn't be my first camera that I'd buy, but just on an enthusiast level. This is where the camera will fail, and I'll get a good price down the road.

0 upvotes
HowaboutRAW

raztec:

Okay, did you put an SD card in the body and shoot some raws? Take the card home and extract?

0 upvotes
raztec

There's no doubt the image quality is superb. No one's denying that. For me it was the ergonomics and small AF area that were deal breakers.

Seems like Nikon had an opportunity to win back a lot of people who are ditching the DSLRs but failed because they crippled the Df so as to not cannibalize the sales of their other FF cameras.

As others have mentioned, it might be the perfect back up for people with the D800 or D4, but as a stand alone it doesn't have the essentials features that many people want.

DPreview and Thom Hogan echoed my own first impressions. Just giving credit where credit is due. I've just gained a ton more respect for these guys.

1 upvote
Bamboojled

You keep mentioning Thom Hogan, but as stated numerous times, he recommended the camera and stated he had no issues with the focusing system. In fact he stated that it focused as fast as his D800 in low light and it tracked fine even in the poor light of a gymnasium.

1 upvote
raztec

Whether Thom recommended it or not is not the point. DPreview also gave it a score of 81.

The point is, these guys were very professional and objective about the camera in their reviews. They didn't gush all over it and they didn't deride it. They praised it where praise was due and critiqued it where it was obviously lacking.

They called it like it is. And for that I thank them and respect them. And I think many others do as well.

Merry Xmas

6 upvotes
Bamboojled

Sorry, but your definition of objectivity is different from most.
When they called the camera "silly" prior to even reviewing the camera, shows lack of objectivity.

You also made claims about the focusing system, when in fact the only review that had an issue with the focusing system was DPReview no other reviewer had these issues.

Interestingly the D610 focusing system is among the most advanced of the focusing systems with static and tracking subjects, better than any Fuji, Olympus, Ricoh, Panasonic, Sony, and only comes behind a few Nikon and Canon models.

2 upvotes
raztec

Sure, if you consider a focusing area that's less than half the size of the viewfinder adequate, then fine. For those who've shot with the D300 or F100 or FM2 it just doesn't cut it.

After spending 20 minutes with the DF, I'd consider "silly" understatement.

2 upvotes
sandy b

The focus spread on the Df and D610 is 1/8 inch narrower on a side than the 51 pt spread of the pro line up. Unfortunate, but hardly a catastrophe.

4 upvotes
Tonio Loewald

I don't think any reasonable person is saying the Df is a piece of junk (hint, if you're saying it's a piece of junk, you're probably not reasonable). This is more like a very lengthy debate as to whether it's a 4 star, 4.5 star, or 5 star camera. A "recommended" from Thom Hogan or an 81% from dpreview are saying something like 4-4.5 star (since dpreview has never ranked anything above 87% as far as I can recall).

Because this is an audacious design, a lot of people were hoping it would be some kind of perfect thing versus a compromise of competing requirements, which is what everything that actually ships is.

Comment edited 60 seconds after posting
1 upvote
HowaboutRAW

raztec:

But did you shoot with it?

And right, I care about image quality, lowlight high ISO shooting and would mostly use manual focus Zeiss lenses if I were to buy this Df body.

(Frankly I do see some problems in the layout of controls, but they're things one would get used to and I'm not committed to doing things one way.)

0 upvotes
binauralbeats

"Pure photography" LOL

10 upvotes
Bamboojled

LOL, 29% interest is almost double the recent gold award of the GM1 and almost 5 times the EM-1...amazing

3 upvotes
jimi1127

The Edsel also generated gallons of interest.

6 upvotes
JPMontez

The only problem is I cannot afford it... :-)

3 upvotes
new boyz

Consider yourself lucky. Hahahaha.

0 upvotes
marike6

Frankly, this review as a hachette job. I've always defended them against the claims of bias, but after this absurdly negative, nick-picky review, I feel zero compunction to defend anyone anymore.

Erroneous claims that the Df is the same price as the D800 and a high number of nit-pick Cons that were never mentioned for other reviewed cameras, i.e., 1/4000 max shutter speed, SD card on bottom, etc.

It could be that there are few if any DSLR shooters on staff but there are several extremely positive reviews of the Df on-line by top pros, see Sam Hurd, Nasim Mansurov, et al. But DPR couldn't be bothered talking about the the extremely quiet shutter, great battery life, or the fact that the Df beat the score of the legendary D3s the previous low-light champ on DxOMark. Instead they lamented the lack of time lapse mode. :-) The phrase "jumped the shark" comes to mind. Sorry guys.

25 upvotes
chooflaki

Also the WTF tone of the DPR preview did not help their credibility when it came to the final result. There is clearly something wrong with their AF results. Needs to be redone for sure. It appears their reviewers also don't have much of a clue how to manual focus.

Comment edited 3 times, last edit 7 minutes after posting
9 upvotes
raztec

DPreview and Thom Hogan were bang on. That's why they are so respected worldwide. They don't develop emotional attachments to inanimate objects and they call a spade a spade.

It's a well known fact in psychology that people will defend to the death their own purchases so they don't feel like idiots.

Comment edited 9 minutes after posting
22 upvotes
sharkcookie

@raztec The Df has not really been selling so who would the people who are defending their purchase?

3 upvotes
Samuel Dilworth

How can you call it a hatchet job? The complaints are restrained and to the point, while the praise is generous. The final score of 81 %, silly as such scores are, is very high.

I would have been much harder on a camera that fails to:
• make manual focus enjoyable
• meaningfully simplify the user interface
• revive the construction quality of elegant old Nikons
• convey any notion of “pure photography”, notwithstanding the token gesture of removing video
• look good doing the above.

The truth is the camera is unusually polarising and DPReview bent over backwards to portray all facets of it, regardless of how they personally felt about it. In fact, it’s hard to know what they personally thought of it. That’s professional!

15 upvotes
HowaboutRAW

raztec:

And you're sure those reviews were "bang on" because you've used the Df extensively of course.

3 upvotes
raztec

@ howabout

I handled it in the store, and that was enough.

For the in depth analysis, yes I do rely on these guys. Thankfully, they always pull through and give us the pros and cons in the most professional way possible.

1 upvote
sandy b

Marike, I wasn't crazy about the review, but hatchet job is over the top. There have been plenty of reviews I have seen both in the Phil days and currently that I disagree with, but they all have been presented with the integrity we all expect. DPR does not take payoffs, or cheat to push amazon sales. They review, and do their best, which is pretty damn good. This camera will stand fine on its own merits, the shots and user reviews will see to that. But as a niche camera, it will polarize, you either get or don't get it.
I do think the Df deserved gold, or at least silver, based on its strengths, but that's my opinion, and DPR reviewers are equally entitled to theirs. It is their review site after all. I believe Richard said that they would review the AF aspect of the review if there was a faulty camera, and that's more than fair.
Bjorn said that this camera is not for everybody, and Thoms review was critical, even if he did say he is keeping it.

Comment edited 6 minutes after posting
1 upvote
sandy b

And by the way, the DF seems to be selling just fine, Users have seemed enthusiastic, and this includes many respected long time posters here who do not pull punches.

Comment edited 2 minutes after posting
3 upvotes
Bamboojled

@raztec
Thom Hogan actually recommended the camera (something DPreview did not)
Also he had NO complaints with the auto focusing as he showed in his low light gymnasium shots as well as his comment that the camera focused as well as his D800 in low light.
He wasn't completely full of praise for the camera, but overall enjoyed it and ultimately recommended it.
So as it stands DPReview is the only review to date that has had a major beef with the camera

Comment edited 20 seconds after posting
4 upvotes
Bamboojled

As far as sales are concerned, the Df was out of stock until recently at most places.
It is not a high production camera, so it seems that Nikon is content to sell the quantities they are manufacturing...based on this, I would say that it is successful.

1 upvote
HowaboutRAW

raztec:

Okay, did you put an SD card in the body and shoot some raws? Take the card home and extract?

0 upvotes
dnaseigel

Df is selling well where I work. It's generating tons of interest and folks are saying that finally D4 image quality is now financially approachable. Frankly having to navigate only one or two cameras, users are not going to have the same frame of reference for what fit and finish shortcomings the camera may have presented to the reviewers who handle many cameras. There are plenty of excited people whose interest in cameras is to generate the best quality images who just won't be bothered by the ergonomics nor the absence of features whose necessity is questionable.

4 upvotes
nickkessler

Sam Hurd's review is awesome. He's a Photographer with good taste.

3 upvotes
G1Houston

"Thom Hogan actually recommended the camera (something DPreview did not)"

Here is what he said in the conclusion:

"I always look at what could have been, what should have been, as well as what we received. I don't think Nikon got the Df right, frankly. That doesn't make it a bad camera, it just makes it a disappointing camera to what it could have been."

This is pretty much the same conclusion from Dpreview, which did not "not recommend" this camera. Keep in mind that Thom, after all, is a long time Nikon royal fan, as are other so called "reviewers" on line. It will take a lot for them not to like a Nikon camera.

3 upvotes
reinish

I am allways dreaming of Nikon FM2 to be reborn in digital age, and I tought that dreams has come true ..... but this DF is such a dissapointment, becouse of its size, it`s HUUUUGE, it looks like clasical film Nikon fed by force with leftowers from Tour de France.

Common Nikon , go and by Panasonic GM1 , dismantle it and learn how to make things compact

http://www.flickr.com/photos/chengkiang/10692436833/in/photostream/

there they bouth are side by side

8 upvotes
HowaboutRAW

Well for starters: reduce the sensor size by three quarters, oh wait.

Maybe Nikon could improve the optical quality of its lenses instead of wasting effort chasing the tiniest. You see there Nikon has some catching up to do. And not simply to Leica and Zeiss.

0 upvotes
NCB

It's not HUGE. It's about the minimum you'd expect for a robust digital FF camera with a class optical viewfinder. And it handles like a dream. It's slightly larger and heavier larger than my old D80 but actually it's nicer to hold and use.

1 upvote
new boyz

"It's not HUGE. It's about the minimum you'd expect for a robust digital FF camera with a class optical viewfinder."

Optically, it shouldn't be much larger than an old time DSLR. Optics law hasn't changed much since then.

So that leaves electronic. Is it possible to make FM2 sized digital DSLR? My opinion, yes. Look at Sony RX-1. It lacks only a mirrorbox to become a perfect FM2 reborn. One forumer pointed out that it will become thicker because an electronic sensor is thicker than film. True, but that would be still slimmer than the Df.

1 upvote
robmanueb

Lovely bit of kit. Congrats to Nikon to getting this out inspite of the earthquake, tsunami and flooding they had to deal with. An exclusive purpose built SLR without the BS of video, luckily it is selling so we may see another generation and hopefully further specialisation towards photography.

6 upvotes
PicOne

This camera's review/rating, whether deserved or not, has led to it being banished to no-mans land.. At least I can't find it listed here, am I overlooking?

http://www.dpreview.com/camerareviews?sort=rating

0 upvotes
antoin

I'm sorry but this camera does not deserve a DPreview score of 81%.
Using the DPreview compare tool and adding the Pentax K01, I can see that the DF has approx. 30% more "value" compared to the K01 -
that's 30% more bang for buck. I bought a new K01 at a reduced price of AU$299. Compared to the DF
it has shake reduction,full hd movies, inbuilt flash, albeit the K01 is an APS-C format compared to the full frame Df. The Dxomark sensor score for the K01 is 79, which puts it near the top of the APS-C rankings.
Yet DPReview gave it a score of 69%, and comparing that figure to the 81% for the Df, well its a bit of a joke.
Regarding the Df - "Disappointing AF performance drops off in moderate light", I would imagine this would be a deal breaker if you are trying to get the most out of its excellent sensor in low light situations.

Comment edited 49 seconds after posting
1 upvote
InTheMist

Always the Pentax guys.

7 upvotes
PerL

Just read the KO1 review. No viewfinder is a pretty serious limitation.

5 upvotes
HowaboutRAW

antoin:

If you don't care about the lack of a VF, the K01 is a good APSC box. But that sensor isn't close to the high ISO performance of the sensor from the D4.

2 upvotes
ET2

K01 AF is worse. Read the review

1 upvote
antoin

"Read the review" - what makes you think I haven't read the review. I own a K01 with the latest firmware upgrade and I have no complaints with the auto focus, again I'd like to stress, anyone with half a brain could not say that the Df gives 30% more value. $2700 vs. $299, unless of course you're a Nikon fanboy, in which case reality gets distorted, the validity of the time-space continuum becomes an illusion

Comment edited 13 minutes after posting
0 upvotes
rb59020

My K-30 has a viewfinder.

0 upvotes
Bamboojled

LOL, PENTAX/Ricoh...
You guys are cute :)
Now let the adults talk OK?

Comment edited 36 seconds after posting
1 upvote
guytano

http://www.dpreview.com/articles/4416254604/camera-scores-ratings-explained

1 upvote
kadardr

It seems to me the market is ready for a D710 with the D4 sensor. Please Mr. Nikon do make it happen.

5 upvotes
HowaboutRAW

How about the D3s' sensor instead. And good auto focus unlike the D700.

0 upvotes
Sensible1

It's carefully targeted people segment camera. They, rather few i believe, love it. For the rest it's crap. The Nikon Df.

4 upvotes
HowaboutRAW

Pray tell why do you think this Df “crap”? Be specific, and try to avoid adjectives in composing an answer.

Also, of course, you’ve used this body, right?

4 upvotes
InTheMist

Well, then, they made it for me.

I hope they make you a camera too.

7 upvotes
HetFotoAtelier

WTF I'll still want this camera and I want a black one !

12 upvotes
nickkessler

I like the black one so much more

1 upvote
Frank C.

I hope Nikon learns from this episode and wises up unlike that other stallion of the Japanese economy, Tepco

1 upvote
HowaboutRAW

Why? The Df appears to be an excellent light, quiet camera body.

Nikon hasn't told lies about its performance.

Comment edited 3 minutes after posting
6 upvotes
comet suisei

stupid comment

2 upvotes
Frank C.

true, Japanese (business) culture can be stupid sometimes (often)

0 upvotes
Josh152

I"m sure Nikon has learned well that if you release a product aimed at giving a passionate niche what it wants the product will sell well. Though it seems kind of obvious so maybe they didn't' have to learn anything and actually know what they are doing.

0 upvotes
Felts

I think all the locks on the dials are a mistake... The shutter speed lock is one thing that I would change on my XP1, that didn't need changing from the X100.

3 upvotes
nickkessler

I could not agree more. I love this cam and I am replacing my d800s with them but the locks should be gone or replaced with push once unlocked push again to re lock type.

0 upvotes
sgoldswo

The locks are actually easy to use...

0 upvotes
ArturK

How come there is no Award for this camera? My guess is Silver, considering all the reservations in the review....

0 upvotes
binauralbeats

You can guess all you want, but the fact is dpr did not give it any award.

0 upvotes
nickkessler

I give nikon a silver and gold for taking the chance.

Silver for waiting for the x100 to do well before going for it. But gold for doing it. I hope there are more dfs to come in the future. I like the sting a lot better than the d800 camera

0 upvotes
ArturK

yeah, but it got a very good score - 81%

0 upvotes
Saffron_Blaze

I am a wannabe professional, not a wannabe enthusiast retro shooter. Would someone please put the lovely sensor in a camera that supports all its capabilities?

0 upvotes
HowaboutRAW
7 upvotes
yabokkie

take the sensor from D4, throw it away,
and replace with any other one sounds good.

2 upvotes
physguy88

They put a better sensor in the D610 already, and an even better one in the D800/e.

Some people here are using a tunnel vision focus on a single aspect of sensor performance that most photographers rarely use to justify their infatuation with the Df. Let's be clear, other than high iso performance in certain circumstances, the D610 and D800 sensors are better in pretty much every other way.

The D4 is the top of the line Nikon product because of the entire system (Focus engine, shutter, image processor and buffer, ergonomics, etc) built around it. That sensor alone is not _making_ the D4 as a system.

How many professionals are going to be shooting their cameras at ISO 12,800 and above? And if they are, how many will care if there is slightly more magenta noise?

People who purchase the Df are indulging in a luxury. I think it's great for them that they can, but you don't have to feel like you're missing out on some magically great sensor. You are not.

9 upvotes
HowaboutRAW

physguy88:

Boring, the sensor in the D800 doesn’t have particularly good dynamic range.

And as you know the D4's sensor significantly outperforms the sensors from the D800 and D610 in one particularly important area.

If the D800 serves your purposes by all means then shoot with one.

You clearly don’t know much about high ISO lowlight shooting. And one of the things this sensor allows for is much faster shutter speeds with zoom lenses, so that has an obvious advantage beyond what would normally be called “lowlight”.
And it aint simply “magenta noise” that’s a problem with the D800 above ISO 6400, it’s magenta and cyan blotching. Since you clearly don’t understand this point: Blotches are much harder to remove than high gain noise.

Right, that "whole package" D4 costs a good bit more than this quiet+light body with the same sensor.

1 upvote
TrojMacReady

Actually, the amp glow (cyan and purple noise) of the D800 can very effectively be dealt with using a simple dark frame at the same exposure with the lenscap on. Easy tutorial in the Nikon forum.
The D800 DR is top class, never mind silly claims denying this. Try pushing D4 or DF shadows 6 stops and see the substantial difference.

And before anyone gets confused, DR is never measured anywhere else, because the highlight headroom is determined by exposure relative to middle grey (and gamma curve). Your choice, (shift) directly limited by usable shadow information.

Comment edited 2 minutes after posting
3 upvotes
HowaboutRAW

Troj:

That reads like extra post processing, got a link? I've also seen it asserted that vibrance is easy to recreate if your photo editing software doesn't have the feature. It's not easy to recreate.

I've never been impressed with the DR of things I've shot with the D800. The D600/610 are plenty good though. I'm not exactly interested in a lab test for DR, I'm interested in results. And my results put the D800 down with the APSC D7100, while the D4, D3s, D600, Df all look a good bit better.

Yet again: It's not simply cyan and magenta "noise"; it's big blotches of both--so not normal noise, I'd be impressed if the trick works, but calling it "noise" kind of suggests we're talking about different things.

0 upvotes
TrojMacReady

Search the Nikon forum for bias (which it isn't, it's a dark frame....) frame and D800.

The D7100 is nowhere near in usable DR because shadow banding already gets ugly at a simple two stop push. Beyond that even Nikdfine and Topaz, top banding removers, throw in the towel.
The DF and D4 sit somewherw inbetween the D800 and D7100. A lot less banding than the D7100 though.

2 upvotes
physguy88

HowaboutRAW:

I think your reply illustrates the exact symptoms I was talking about.

First you criticize an objectively superior area of the D800 sensor's performance using your subjective opinion. Why? And what about other areas such as resolution?

Then of you went right back to arguing about high iso performance under particular circumstances.

For the majority of people contemplating FF cameras out there, is that particular scenario so important that they need to pay for it by spending hundreds of dollars more and sacrificing video? Would that money not be better spent towards the cost of lenses and accessories that can help them in many different ways including low light situations?

Of course some people looked at the Df and said: I have to get that. For what ever reason. Then go and enjoy your camera! You don't need to justify your love of that camera by arguing about its superiority in special scenarios that you set up just so you can argue about it....

2 upvotes
HowaboutRAW

TrojMac:

If the trick is easy to find, then provide the link.

0 upvotes
HowaboutRAW

physguy88:

"objectively superior"? Um, you do know the meaning of those terms right? DXO sensor scores are next to worthless.

I don't care about "resolution" and I don't imagine that you'll be printing many posters either. If I want "resolution", I'll use a Leica S2, much better lenses and sharp across the entire sensor plane.

There's no argument about high ISO lowlight shooting with the D800 versus the Df/D4+D3s, the latter 3 are all better.

I never wrote that someone shouldn't buy the D800, just that someone shouldn't buy a D800/D610 for the best high ISO lowlight results. And don't imply that I did so.

I don't own the Df. Nor do I love it. However it sure has some better performance characteristics than the D800.

You really don't seem to get this point: I'm not contemplating a full framed camera, I'm contemplating what full framed camera I'd buy for my purposes. If the D800 works for you buy it. It doesn't work for me, and if I had the money it's not the 2nd FF body I'd buy.

Comment edited 3 minutes after posting
0 upvotes
HowaboutRAW

TrojMac:

So I looked up "camera amp glow" on the interwebs and that's not the cyan and magenta deep shadow blotches above ISO 5000 problem with the D800.

Now it's certainly possible that the sensor is heating up and that creates the botching, but the blotching occurs across the entire sensor.

(I guess if the blotching were indeed non-random one could make some type of mask in Photoshop layers and apply that, but it would then have to be limited to deep shadowed areas, so would be photo specific--in other words a huge amount of work.)

And no this blotching does not only occur with longer exposures.

Comment edited 8 minutes after posting
0 upvotes
guytano

I'm disappointed in this camera. It was always going to be a niche product, but it appears that Nikon couldn't, or wouldn't go all-in for that niche. For me at least, the compromises (size, manual focus limitations, etc) and price don't add up to a compelling camera.

6 upvotes
Richard Murdey

Can we agree on what "all in" means though? Otherwise the camera will have even less appeal than it does now.

The obvious "all in" would have been to drop support for AF lenses. More radically, to remove the rear LCD. (!) Why stop there though? They could have replaced the shutter with a mechanical model (Epson RD1) and removed the TTL meter and hot shoe (Nikon F).

Anyone still interested?

Comment edited 33 seconds after posting
0 upvotes
HowaboutRAW

_Federico:

At ISO 12,800 the D800 has serious magenta and cyan blotching problems, this is not simple noise.

And no resampling does not remove noise, it makes the photo (and the noise) smaller.

For someone who claims to own a D800, you don't seem real familiar with it. It's a plenty good camera but has significant problems above ISO 6400, in fact lower.

The D800 never seems to have the dynamic range of the D610 or D4/Df either.

3 upvotes
unknown member
By (unknown member) (11 months ago)

I'm curious to know what the fixation with low light is for the above poster. He/She/It raises this in every single post.
Are you a Gumshoe who needs a camera for imaging under street lamps? A Speleologist who delves under the earth or perhaps a Troll who lives under bridges and haunts dimly lit forums?
I'm wondering how many times in the real world of photography images are taken above ISO 1600?

Comment edited 3 times, last edit 6 minutes after posting
7 upvotes
HowaboutRAW

J:

Right, I am going to raise this point when posting about this camera or the D4, duh.

Good lowlight high ISO performance is important for me.

I often shoot under light not much more than streetlamps.

Frankly you don't seem real familiar with digital cameras in general--and your claims about ISO 1600 read like someone in the year 2002.

Comment edited 1 minute after posting
0 upvotes
MikeF4Black

@Jaberwock, quite a lot in my case. I have a D800, and use it a lot with the new 58 for portraits, usually with existing light across a table, preferably near a window. Set on auto ISO with a ceiling of 3200, minimum shutterspeed one step faster, 1/125 in the case of the 58, f2.0, ISO usually turns out around 2000, which is reasonably good with the D800. Over 3200 it gets progressivley worse. The Df will be noticeably better in these situations (I could use 1/60 then), but a lot of factors, price, wanting to keep the 58, ergonomics, are keeping me from trading the D800 for the Df, which actually might suit my shooting style better.

0 upvotes
unknown member
By (unknown member) (11 months ago)

And they say never feed the Trolls...There is another saying about not mud wrestling pigs.
I'm one of the 5% who makes a good living from photography, that probably disqualifies me from this forum given that I have to know how to generate a saleable image and what equipment to use to get that image.
I remember a time in a different job when I arrested a guy with his camera under a streetlamp at 3am.

Comment edited 1 minute after posting
2 upvotes
unknown member
By (unknown member) (11 months ago)

In reply to MikeF4Black
If the Df really does improve your shooting style and results then go for it.
However your example is 1/2 to 1 stop difference which seems a fairly limited reason to swap cameras. Whatever floats your boat. Are you doing this professionally or is this semi-pro / hobby?

4 upvotes
HowaboutRAW

Jaberwok:

So who cares if you make money as a photographer, most who make real money do studio work, so of course this camera isn't going to relate to that specialty. Nor is it a sports cameras, neither is it a great wedding camera. (Albeit not bad for shooting guests at tables in lowlight off in a corner.)

See where I'm going? It's a great lowlight street, concert, club event camera, exactly the kind of place that few make money shooting in--unless they're employed to cover such events.

That you don't think you can sell what you'd shoot with this camera says more about you than the camera.

0 upvotes
unknown member
By (unknown member) (11 months ago)

Second epistle to the Trolls.
So we've decided that a camera that costs >= D800 is no good for studio work where most pro's make their money. No good as a sports camera where sports pro make theirs and no good as a wedding camera where other pro's make their money. So what does it do? Low light work for amateurs or unpaid pro's.
Excellent value device: I'll have 2. It would probably suit my workflow which is high end outdoor buildings and landscapes. Unfortunately I already have a D610 and a range of aerial cameras which do the business. Nah! I'll pass on this.
This reminds me somewhat of the Contax N Digital.

Comment edited 1 minute after posting
2 upvotes
Bamboojled

Jaberwok...
A troll is someone that goes to a forum and tries to throw inflammatory responses to get a reaction (like you).

Secondly you claim you make a good living in photography, well seeing your profile and where your from, I can understand how that is the case, there probably is no one else in your village that has a camera.

You photograph a wedding and they pay you with a goat is a great payday for someone in your country.

Comment edited 2 minutes after posting
1 upvote
unknown member
By (unknown member) (11 months ago)

Thank you.
ذلك أشكر لك. العنزة شهي هنا. كثيراً ما يحصل في قرية العذارى ومراقبة داكن.

0 upvotes
Bamboojled

You're welcome...
Goat is delicious indeed. :)

0 upvotes
HowaboutRAW

Jaber:

The Contax N1 digital could not be used at ISO 400. So even though you know the name you don't seem real familiar with the body.

There you go assuming the Df is about making money for the photographer.

You need to see that there are other worlds than your own.
In fact I listed plenty of events that "pros" could use this Df in, eg concerts, club events.

Frankly: I'm surprised that you use a 35mm based DSLR for big outdoor+architectural work--I guess high f-stops solves some of the vignetting problems inherent in those body and lens combinations, including the Df.

The D610 is a good body, but not the equal of the Df for lowlight, and certainly no where near the equal of the Leica S2 for outdoor+architectural shooting--here even the D800E would be a better choice.

1 upvote
HowaboutRAW

MikeF:

Thank you for providing an example of where a Df would be useful and where a D800 has some limitations.

0 upvotes
unknown member
By (unknown member) (11 months ago)

Not always. Being somewhat behind the tech curve and far beyond the last blue mountain barred with snow I still use a 6x9 film camera with a shift lens. The aerial imaging has severe weight limitations.

0 upvotes
HowaboutRAW

J:

Right, well that's a place to use film+big negatives.

0 upvotes
physguy88

Down sampling removes noise by averaging neighboring pixels. It does not just "makes the noise smaller".

This is simple math.

1 upvote
HowaboutRAW

physguy88:

No down sampling does not remove noise, if noise removal were that easy there'd be little interest in sensors like that from the Nikon D4 or Canon 6D or Canon 1D X.

Instead of quoting something you read somewhere as established, test it out with your own noisy raw. Extract to tiff with NR set at zero, then go thru the 6 downsampling options in Photoshop. None really help with noise control, all make the picture smaller though.

Not "simple math", but a made up model based on little understanding of NR.

If the D610 servers your purposes, by all means use one.

0 upvotes
TrojMacReady

Downsampling removes data and noise. No debate possible as established in math, thousands of tests and millions of practical applications every day. You'd have to be a flat earth believer to deny that. Anyone with a pair of eyes and more than a few days of processing experience should have noticed that too.

For a given size output, downsampling won't help. But to smaller sizes (or equal to lower resolution cameras) it does.

Then again, who am I trying to convince, your religious defense of the DF (well over a 50 posts in a single thread...) in here does ring alarm bells. ;)

Comment edited 3 minutes after posting
3 upvotes
physguy88

Agree with TrojMacReady.

Also:

http://www.cambridgeincolour.com/forums/thread18397.htm

http://photographylife.com/why-downsampling-an-image-reduces-noise

1 upvote
HowaboutRAW

Troj:

No, I don't have to be a believer in a pancake earth, I've tried the trick and it doesn't work. That's taking a D800 raw, extracting, in ACR with NR set to zero, then halving the tiff file--with all six options in Photoshop. It doesn't help. Unless you mean that the pixels representing the noise occupy less space, but then so too do the pixels representing a clean signal; that's not NR--that's just smaller representations of the noise. It still be there, while it's less there starting with a file from the Df shot.

Now what can work is printing beyond 300ppi.

You have a strange concept of the math of averages. If there are a hundred pixels 90 red and 10 blue, then you halve that and maintain the averages you still have the same percentage of R+B at output time.

There's no debate: The D4/Df's sensor is much better at high ISO lowlight, low noise output, shooting than the not great sensor in the D800/A7r. And resampling down the D800 files doesn't get the results from the D4.

Comment edited 2 times, last edit 8 minutes after posting
1 upvote
HowaboutRAW

physguy:

Sorry I tried it and "downsampling" doesn't work, links aren't going to prove me wrong.

Two problems with the assertions in the second link: "Adaptive noise filters.." and " correlation". The problem with the first is that's an added filter, then the second means a kind of non real world event of course not usually captured by a photo.

Comment edited 11 minutes after posting
0 upvotes
HowaboutRAW

physguy:

(the extended version of above)

Sorry I tried it and "downsampling" doesn't work, links aren't going to prove me wrong.

I read the links:

Two problems with the assertions in the second link: "Adaptive noise filters..." and " correlation". The problem with the first is that's an added filter, well okay, except that's not downsampling that's adding a filter. Then the second means a kind of non-real world event of course not usually captured by a photo. If a pixel really stands out against a smooth even background (non-correlation), yep chances are it's noise and a filter (that word again) can likely identify that noise, but that's an added filter that's not exactly in the Photoshop resampling options.

And did you not read through the comments from the first link?

So my results stand and my eyes and my testing with real world photos and PhotoShop CS6 don't misrepresent what is possible.

There's a reason noise reduction done well is hard.

0 upvotes
Revenant

Downsampling an image doesn't mean making the pixels smaller. You make the image smaller by removing pixels, including pixels representing false data, i.e. noise. As long as there is more real data than noise to begin with, the averaging of pixels will increase the signal-to-noise ratio. That this works is not hard to confirm in practice.

0 upvotes
physguy88

HowaboutRAW,

Yes I read the comments before I linked them. Did you understand the comments? If you understood the comments, for example, you might have picked up that you need to do a 2x2 downsample before you get significant noise reduction.

You seem to be confused about the basic concept of downsampling. The idea here is that you take a certain number of neighboring pixels, and extrapolate an "averaged" pixel based on some algorithm that is hopefully smarter than simple averaging. The result of binning neighboring pixels together is that certain types of noise that result from raising the ISO setting on a DSLR's sensor is reduced. You do have to downsample quite a bit to get significant noise reduction, but modern cameras give us quite a lot of pixels.

Comment edited 2 times, last edit 6 minutes after posting
1 upvote
MikeF4Black

@Jaberwok: just a hobby gone slightly out of control. In my experience, high ISO performance being equal (which it isn't), I lose a stop with the D800 because of the need to use a faster shutterspeed. So in effect, factoring in the better high ISO performance of the Df, there's a two stop difference.

I noticed some comments here on the allegedly lesser DR of the D800. In my experience (never having tried the D4 sensor) the D800's DR is excellent, noticeably better than the D700 which I had before.

0 upvotes
sandy b

The D800 does have excellent DR, but falls behind the Df after ISO 400. But not by miuch.
http://www.dxomark.com/Cameras/Compare/Side-by-side/Nikon-Df-versus-Nikon-D610-versus-Nikon-D800___925_915_792

1 upvote
MikeF4Black

@HowaboutRAW: I can see two advantages of the Df over the D800 for my style of shooting, in which existing light plays a large role: (slightly) better high ISO performance, and th use of slightly slower shutterspeeds because of the lesser pixels.

The weight advantage is a bit ambiguous to me, as the Df feels slightly "hollow" on first acqaintance; that might improve through using the thing though. The ergonomics of the D800 are plainly better, fall more naturelly to your hands and fingers, than the Df's.

1 upvote
HowaboutRAW

physguy88:

More and more it reads like you've never tried downsampling to remove noise, I have and it doesn't work the way you claim.

0 upvotes
HowaboutRAW

Revenant:

That's why I wrote: "It doesn't help. Unless you mean that the pixels representing the noise occupy less space, but then so too do the pixels representing a clean signal." So: Nothing about pixels getting smaller.

In practice in fact it's easy to confirm that downsampling doesn't really work.

And the real point missed, though not so much by you, is:

No, downsampling a 18,000 ISO file from a D800 does not equal the lowish noise of shooting that same exact shot with a D4/Df.

So no, one can NOT substitute a D800/E for a D4/Df for the purposes of high ISO shooting. And it's this last claim that I was objecting to so strenuously.

Now in Photoshop CS6, yes the various downsampling options (filters sort of) play different games with noise, but none really reduce noise; the different options lump it together differently.

Yet again: If NR were that easy no one would seek out the D3s, D4, D4, 1DX, and 6D DSLR bodies.

Comment edited 2 times, last edit 4 minutes after posting
0 upvotes
HowaboutRAW

TrojMac+physguy:

So I figured out how to make the downsampling trick “work”. It only “works” to produce a blurred mess suitable for emailing to a friend, but not much more. Here’s how: Toss (er “resample”) at least 80 percent of the data and right there’s sort of less “noise”–and a lot less detail too.

However I’m completely correct when I say halving the data from a high ISO D800 file does NOT produce a low noise image like that shot with the D4/Df or D3s at the same ISO.

So if you need to post something to FBook shot in lowlight with the D800 set above ISO 4000, this trick will “work” for that purpose. But not for making reasonably big prints or display full sized on a decent monitor.

Yet again: NR is not easy, hence people seek out bodies like the Df.

Get the trialware of DXO-9 and test its "prime" feature out with noisy images: That takes a long time to sort, average and clean up noise. Those resources are not available in a camera body and are not likely to be for years.

0 upvotes
physguy88

Let me put it to you a different way:

http://www.dpreview.com/galleries/1361783495/albums/iso-6400

ISO 6400. Downsampled to 11'' X 8'' 240 ppi print.

There are differences, but do you think it's enough to throw out, depending on which camera you compare it to, 8 MPixels or 20 Mpixels of resolution, video, possibly a much better focusing engine, or $700 to more than $1000 that could be spent on lenses, other gear, good photoprocessing software?

The Df is something you buy with the heart. It has its advantages in low light. Those advantages are worth mentioning, but not harping on Ad nauseam.

BTW are you actually getting one?

0 upvotes
HowaboutRAW

phsyguy88:

I'll use my own raw examples. And already have.

Those are jpgs, so who cares?

Then there's not a lot of what I'd call deep shadow there either. You also need to go a bit higher than ISO 6400 to really see where the D4 bests the D800.

Last you clearly didn't read how to make "downsampling" NR work for your Fbook posting. I tried it again, this time with a noise 12,800 raw from the Samsung NX300, halving the data does not decrease noise. Tossing 80 percent of the data will do what you claim but that's not downsampling a D800 raw to the size of D4/Df file.

Yet again: if NR were easy no one would seek out D4s or Df, or Canon 6Ds.

If I have the money in a few months, yes I will buy the Df and a Zeiss 1.4 85mm lens, but I await further testing for trouble, though not sensor or AF performance.

I checked that link and those "large" files are preposterously small and in no way represent a full sized jpeg from a D4 or half sized jpeg from a D800. That's really sloppy.

Comment edited 2 minutes after posting
0 upvotes
HowaboutRAW

physguy88:

continued from above, and the shadows near the wine bottles look like crap in those tiny jpegs you linked. So exactly my point, though made with a bad example.

0 upvotes
physguy88

So let me guess:

You have a NX300, and you're probably not getting the Df? ;)

You do know, of course, that JPEGs lose shadow and highlight data outside a range you decide to keep? Those JPEGs are there to show what happens when you process the RAW into a form you could display or print. I downloaded ISO6400 RAWs from the studio tests scene and processed them in ACR. They are not for you to play around with your contrast sliders.

BTW, which of those images, exactly, do you think is "crap"? The one from the Df? The D4?? Or do they all "look like crap" to you because they didn't keep color information that your monitor can't display? ;)

Comment edited 2 minutes after posting
0 upvotes
physguy88

Also, NR techniques are not magical. They are not going to rescue images from a crop sensor camera (about 2 stops worse than a modern FF DSLR) operating at iso 12,800.

But I'm sure you knew that. Oh wait.....

0 upvotes
HowaboutRAW

physguy88:

Nope, I don't own an NX300, the buffer is too slow.

Why even bring up jpegs.

Your downloads and extractions and data tossing proved my point well.

Instead of making up things and then when someone challenges you skewing the data, try the test, you'll find that the D800 tiffs at high ISO halved don't equal the performance of the same shot done with a D4.

But you see you didn't halve the examples, you did the 80 percent data toss, which I acknowledged does work if you're only going to post the result to Fbook, 410kb, really are we printing 1.3" X2" now?

And as I said already, find examples that aren't the studio test scene. You really seem to think I'm new to photo manipulation software.

Comment edited 2 times, last edit 60 seconds after posting
0 upvotes
physguy88

Well,

TBH I don't know what to think. On the one hand, you have made seemingly hundreds of posts on this thread alone regarding various aspects of the Df, but you won't answer a simple question about whether you are getting one.

You seem to hold yourself out as some sort of knowledgeable person regarding digital photography, but at first you seem to have misunderstood the basic idea of downsampling an image.

Now you seem to not deny that the "data" in photos have to be placed on some medium for presentation and use. Usually something like a computer screen or a print.

I'm guessing that you have not even figured out which of the pictures I posted came from the D4, D600, Df, etc? Actually you haven't seemed to read their sizes correctly (what?).

I'm not sure what else I should say to you. Actually, I'm just going to be polite and say nothing. :)

Comment edited 2 times, last edit 1 minute after posting
0 upvotes
HowaboutRAW

physguy:

I very clearly answered the question about buying the Df. Which suggests you don't bother to read my points.

Your downsampling trick doesn't really work.

All of the photos you linked were tiny files, I don't care what camera they came from, they're all too tiny to draw any conclusion about the camera body. It's also a problem that they're jpegs. I am not going to hack thru your useless data to rediscover that my basic point stands: Downsampling for noise reduction only sort of "works" for massive file size reduction. (In other words Fbook posts.)

Instead of wasting time making inaccurate claims about downsampling, deal with the fact that the Df/D4 is much better at high ISO lowlight shooting than the D800, and downsampling D800 files to the size of a D4 file does not mean that the D800 files now have lower D4 level noise. In other words stop misrepresenting what downsampling can do.

If you actually tried it, instead of making claims about it, you'd see the problem.

Comment edited 4 minutes after posting
0 upvotes
FrenchTwist

Finally got ahold of the DF and am relieved that I was not Wowed! Regardless of its capabilities just felt no love for the body- small grip, jutting edges, crammed busy/clumsy dial layout. I did like the sound of the shutter but other than that found it lacking. No finesse or tactile joy!
My first D4 had the dreaded left/AF issue so I would also be hesitant to buy another Nikon using the same sensor that could be plagued with the same issue.

Comment edited 4 minutes after posting
0 upvotes
plasnu

I mostly agree with the review. This is not a photographer's camera, anyway. Instead, this is for CAMERA enthusiasts after all. Or for someone really wants that D4 sensor.

7 upvotes
HowaboutRAW

Have you shot with the Df?

4 upvotes
plasnu

Yes. I wrote a brief impression already and you had replied my post a few days ago!

1 upvote
HowaboutRAW

p:

I don't keep a spread sheet record of my replies to comments on DPReview. Nor if such a record existed would I be inclined to check it before asking my question.

Sorry I forgot your reply from a different thread. Best to say if you've shot with Df whenever commenting about it. That's if you want your comments treated seriously.

Comment edited 2 minutes after posting
0 upvotes
HowaboutRAW

TrojMac+physguy:

So I figured out how to make the downsampling trick “work”. It only “works” to produce a blurred mess suitable for emailing to a friend, but not much more. Here’s how: Toss (er “resample”) at least 80 percent of the data and right there’s sort of less “noise”–and a lot less detail too.

However I’m completely correct when I say halving the data from a high ISO D800 file does NOT produce a low noise image like that shot with the D4/Df or D3s at the same ISO.

So if you need to post something to FBook shot in lowlight with the D800 set above ISO 4000, this trick will “work” for that purpose. But not for making reasonably big prints or display full sized on a decent monitor.

Yet again: NR is not easy, hence people seek out bodies like the Df.

Get the trialware of DXO-9 and test its "prime" feature out with noisy images: That takes a long time to sort, average and clean up noise. Those resources are not available in a camera body and are not likely to be for years.

0 upvotes
PedagangAsongan

it wil be a great cam if nikon put a 91K-pixel RGB sensor

0 upvotes
justmeMN

Substance aside, I think it's a very nice looking camera. If someone wants to give me one, I prefer the all black version. :-)

5 upvotes
photosen

Baby boomer trophy camera? Nothing wrong with that, particularly if they recycled existing parts. For those of us who never really worked with film era cameras, we can just shrug and move on. On a more practical note *for me*: that 6D keeps looking good!

5 upvotes
ravduc

This is exactly what you should do 'shrug and move on'. Nothing wrong with that. The camera is not for you. There are other cameras for you. One more thing, the camera is not a trophy camera and will be used extensively by people who can appreciate it and know how to use it's interface.

5 upvotes
Josh152

@ravduc

Why dont' you "shrug and move on?" It's just a camera. It's ok if some people dont' like it and you do. It doesn't mean you might be wrong. You don't have to post rebuttals to every person who criticizes or has a negative opinion the Df to prove you are right in liking it.

1 upvote
ravduc

I totally agree with you. I am not concerned about being wrong. I fullly understand that this camera is not for everyone, but some people seem to think that we are idiots if we buy this camera. Also I am not posting rebuttals to every person. If I did I would be spending all my time here.

2 upvotes
robmanueb

Feeling I get from the comments is that a lot people here are intrigued with ANY attempts at simplifying the digital photography experience, most from people who use their cameras a lot and realize how awkward current menu systems are to alter on the fly. Many here would love to try it out even though the price puts it out of touch.

1 upvote
Josh152

@robmanueb

While many would like a camera with a simpler menu system the Df isn't it. It has the same menus as any other Nikon DSLR and basically the same manual controls just in a different form. All the settings you can change without the menu on the Df you can also change without the menu on any other Nikon FF DSLR.

Your last sentence is just utter and complete nonsense. I know fanboys love to think people dont' like their favorite camera/car/software/whatever only out of jealousy and really secretly want one because it is really the best but that is simply not reality in almost all cases.

When it comes to the Df specifically it has nothing to do with being able to afford it or not. The Df only appeals to those who romanticize the film era look and controls and those who shoot at ISO 6400+ all the time and want the D4 sensor at half the price. For everyone else the D610 or D800 are clearly better cameras and the Df looks over priced by about $1000 given the features it has.

1 upvote
ravduc

Josh, you use the word fanboy as if I am a Nikon advocate. It's so easy to dismiss someone's opinion by calling them fanboys. This is my very first nikon in over 35 years of photography. You can call me whatever you want, but certainly not a Nikon fanboy. I have always used Olympus cameras and most recently a Sony A850 with Minolta lenses. I would have purchased another camera if other companies had manufactured a camera like the DF. Nikon gets my money this time, like it or not.

1 upvote
Josh152

@ravduc I never called you a fan boy but jumping on everyone who criticizes the Df as you have been sure makes you look like one and will effect the weight people give your opinions which are clearly biased by a strong emotional attachment to the Df.

I was talking to robmanureb who foolishly suggested the reason people don't like the Df is because they can't afford one and are jealous.

0 upvotes
robmanueb

I point out the fascination for simpler controls and I'm a Df fanboy. I go on to explain how I think people feel about the camera IE nice but pricey and it becomes why people don't like the camera? I don't think people dislike the camera, it is selling well, if people don't want it they will buy something else, why would anyone hate a consumer item?

1 upvote
mauritsvw

The Df seems to me like a good idea, but I wonder if it hasn't been a victim of the tier approach by Canon and Nikon -- milking every level of customer by limiting the features at each level. Of course the Df must not take sales away from the D4 and thus it had to be crippled in some ways (non-interchangeable screen, no infrared control, etc).

In any event, I think they will sell enough to make it worth their while, and of course it's retro appearance (which I like) differentiates it from all the plain Jane Nikons and Canons out there, which is refreshing for the brand.

6 upvotes
NCB

Part of the design philosophy of the Df is that Nikon aimed to produce the smallest, lightest FF camera in its range, which in turn strongly influences what features can or cannot be employed. Thus one single card slot sharing the base compartment with the battery; there simply isn't room in the body for a side opening card slot, or dual cards. Unless you enlarge the grip a fair amount, which somewhat defeats what Nikon was aiming for (and personally I like the grip as it is; I'm not one of those shouting for a larger grip).
Same with interchangeable screens; these would increase the bulk of the finder, weight and probably price; there are alternative cameras which offer these.
No infra-red control. But it does have wireless control.
Don't think it's crippled; rather, Nikon has chosen the features which fit in with its concept.

8 upvotes
Matt1645f4

Right i'll have my two pence worth, I love the look of this camera. being able to quickly view all your settings on the dials is brilliant, and the rest of the specs are good. as for being out of date and having NO video is great!! i wish video scores would be separated completely in reviews as it distorts a cameras true photographic ability.

7 upvotes
Total comments: 1618
12345