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
291
I own it
397
I want it
85
I had it
Discuss in the forums

Comments

Total comments: 1624
23456
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) (Dec 21, 2013)

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) (Dec 21, 2013)

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) (Dec 21, 2013)

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) (Dec 21, 2013)

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) (Dec 21, 2013)

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) (Dec 21, 2013)

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
unknown member
By (unknown member) (Dec 21, 2013)

Found this in a discussion about retro cameras. Somebody likes something..

'I wanted to HATE the X100S

I thought I'd hate myself for all that Nikon gear I've bought.

Bought one anyway.

I love, love, love the X series

Damn you, Fuji....'

My point being that that Nikon could have looked at the competition lets say Fuji (cos I'm familiar with them) OK. Let's do a SWOT. It produces great images and in low light. Good cosmetic styling that works. Weaknesses are sensor size and poor compact style autofocus.
How do we trump this?
OK. FF sensor, we have a whole range. Interchangeable lenses-check, excellent AF / low light- check.
Styling: Pull out the catalogue of old gear. 80's FM2 perhaps or maybe something older?
Lets make sure the whole package works and price it as a premium model.

Comment edited 2 times, last edit 11 minutes after posting
2 upvotes
unknown member
By (unknown member) (Dec 21, 2013)

deleted.

Comment edited 1 minute after posting
0 upvotes
MarkByland

Interesting review. I have questions about the low light AF performance of this versus the D600/610. With the same AF engine, why the difference in performance? Seems the 600/610 rated satisfactorily. Why the lack of similar performance in the Df? Were all AF modes tested? Phase detect, etc? Do they perform differently with older lenses under varied circumstances?

I'm not willing to fault this camera based upon retro appearance merit, alone. I understand its place in the market. I think the retro movement is capturing what got skipped over by all-things-plastic at the onslaught of digital. I also think full backwards compatibility with all F mount lenses is a major feat to have accomplished. The fold-away aperture control tab is top notch engineering, IMO. If some one were looking for the finest thing to hang their collection of Nikkor glass off the front of, they've found their calling.

1 upvote
Fred Mueller

except it's only awkwardly compatible w manual lenses just like all the modern Nikon digital bodies - no true optical focusing aid, and no auto indexing when you mount AI-s lenses ... I don't understand why the position of the "tab" can't reveal the max aperture of the (manual) leans attached (so you have to menu dive when you attach a manual lens).

this is really a "parts bin" exercise by Nikon with some not very well thought out knobs attached, and to my eye, ugly finish in the "chromed" version.

2 upvotes
NCB

The "true optical focusing aid", e.g. split screen, went out of the window in most cameras when autofocus came in. Focus confirmation using the autofocus engine is generally quicker, neater and just as good, indeed under some circumstances better. The Df has focus confirmation.

1 upvote
DarkShift

If it works the same as on D800 then it's still quite lame method. Green dot on corner of the image is very unintuitive and inaccurate vs. how it should be.

2 upvotes
Bamboojled

Everyone that has shot this camera in manual focus has come away saying that it focuses better than on any other Nikon.
Bjorn Rorslett, Thom Hogan etc...
So no, it is not the same as the current cameras.
Also, folks around here either have a very short memory, or never shot film cameras, as most pros replaced the split screen with either a B screen (plain fresnel) or an E screen (grid lines) both of which are on the Df.

The split screen was considered amateurish and would often darken up when using slower lenses making it very, very difficult to get accurate focus.

1 upvote
HowaboutRAW

DarkShift:

With some MF lenses (newer Zeiss) and manually focusing with an AF lens, the focus indication on the Df is a red flash across the view finder.

I remember some thing like you describe with perhaps the D3s body.

1 upvote
DarkShift

If that's the case then Nikon might finally be on bar with Canon EOS... but it only took about zillion years to do that.

1 upvote
HowaboutRAW

DarkShift:

I think it changed a while ago.

0 upvotes
DarkShift

With the D800 there's red flash ONLY when half pressing shutter button, NOT on focus confirmation. I would be glad if that could be improved with FW update.

Comment edited 14 seconds after posting
1 upvote
HowaboutRAW

DarkShift:

I'll check, but it seemed to work as a red flash confirm. And I remember the green indicators from the past.

0 upvotes
HowaboutRAW

DarkShift:

Looks like you were right, there's only a red flash while manually focusing a AF lens if the shutter button is half depressed. And right the green arrows/dot are still in the corner.

The red flash confirm sure seems to work well though.

0 upvotes
Fred Mueller

Nikon did not have the courage to make a really retro FF digital camera ...

That camera would have been much simpler, might not have even needed a menu system - certainly not just "same old, same old" non-tabbed "list", and would have had an incredible optical viewfinder with focus screen options ... and like Nikons of old, it would index the max f-stop of the lenses (manual) when mounted (that is what "AI" means - auto indexing) ... and would have been kitted with the still in catalog 50mm 1.4 AI-s.

The Df = big engine/no shocks/shifter on the column

(yes I had a good/handle look at my LCS)

5 upvotes
Digital Suicide

All you have said means - inovation. When did Nikon implemented something last time? Hmmm...
Df is nothing but old parts from nikons warehouse. Except maybe body. But wait, it's the same D600 body, only they skiped smoothing when making it.

0 upvotes
HowaboutRAW

Digial Suicide:

Clearly you don't know much about machine tool setup or mold making.

This is not wood shop where you can simply rasp down the sharp corners of your box.

0 upvotes
ChristophBarthold

Spot on. That Nikon teaser "pure photography" sure hit a nerve and now there is a great deal of disappointment because the Df is a reshuffled Dxxx like all the rest.
Ultimately though, someone will come out with a dSLR as opposed to Dslr - perhaps Cosina? They'd be enterprising and crazy enough to do it.

1 upvote
HowaboutRAW

ChristophBarthold:

Well I guess Cosina has the manual focus lenses and can build the bodies.

But they'd need sensors that somehow standout. And then would need to develop a good AF system.

So it could be done but would take a huge commitment.

0 upvotes
Richard Murdey

I think this is the one legitimate way Nikon could have done it differently: made a straight up manual focus body. I'm not going to pretend it would have been much smaller or lighter, but it would have had a simplicity of purpose and function that would have brought it much closer to the "pure photography" catchline.

0 upvotes
HowaboutRAW

Richard:

Not a bad idea, works for Leica, but then Nikon wants to sell lenses not motivate Zeiss F mount lens sales.

And can you imagine how many people would whine in these comments?

1 upvote
cgarrard

I'm going to go right out and not buy one, thanks!

4 upvotes
itsastickup

Thanks for telling us.

8 upvotes
cgarrard

Thanks for replying.

1 upvote
mike kobal

rather then reading all those love/hate declarations for a silly camera, I would be very interested to hear how you guys are planning to finance yours
I for one will sell a few fashionable heels from my gf's closet
pssssst, she'll never know, she has hundreds she never wears

2 upvotes
rhlpetrus

I'm cutting on the fancy restaurants with wine. Just 4 weekends and it's paid for ;-) .

2 upvotes
unknown member
By (unknown member) (Dec 21, 2013)

Must be tough being a DP reviewer.

1 upvote
mike kobal

life could be worse, don't feel too bad for them ;)

2 upvotes
stevens37y

" she'll never know, "
She knows the pattern of arrangement by heart.

1 upvote
mike kobal

I am afraid you are right, sure takes an awful long time to pick a pair - every time lol

0 upvotes
steveh0607

I noticed this camera was only given a numeric score. No "gold" or "silver" designation. Why?

0 upvotes
unknown member
By (unknown member) (Dec 21, 2013)

Fundamental shortcomings and disappointment I suspect.
Retro is fine on the outside but it's nice to have cutting edge innards included, specifically video and very good autofocus. This is a major failing when the product is pitched as a very high end product and priced accordingly.

2 upvotes
Lanski

Because they didn't think it deserved one, and they no longer offer a bronze award. It does seem a little odd that 81% = "outstanding" per the guidance and yet it doesn't get an award, but I think one of the reasons is value, which only takes a tiny role in the % score but may be more significant when it comes to the reviewer feeling the camera deserves an award.

2 upvotes
mike kobal

the Tri X jury was unable to reach consensus on what color to choose from the given options

4 upvotes
marike6

That's an easy one: passive aggression.

They decided from day one in the Preview that somehow the Fujifilm X cameras were great, and the Nikon Df was somehow lacking. Considering that I paid $2300 for my X-Pro1 kit, which by the way has the same 1/4000 max shutter speed, the same SD card slot on the base, RAW processing issues, and about the worst AF of any mirrorless cameras, it's the height of hypocrisy to hold the Nikon Df to a completely different standard regarding price/performance.

DPR had no obligation to give the Df a good review, but I'd at least expect them to be fair.

7 upvotes
tbcass

As someone who grew up using manual film cameras during the 60s on I think this whole concept is stupid. Why didn't they limit the number of photos to 36 by putting a tiny amount of memory in a film like canister (no memory cards), Eliminate the buttons and LCD. Intentionally make all IQ above iso 400-800 grainy. Even eliminate AF. These would make the illusion complete? Sometimes this nostalgia stupidity just doesn't make sense.

Comment edited 2 minutes after posting
9 upvotes
itsastickup

I think you're just being bloody minded. There's plenty of people who prefer classic styling.

So the Camera isn't perfect, but as a camera it's still a pretty good one. All things being equal, I would certainly prefer to get this over the DSLRs.

0 upvotes
Holger Drallmeyer

itsastickup...The Df is a DSLR. You retro styling doesn't make it a film camera just yet ;)

0 upvotes
itsastickup

Ah, totally thought it was mirrorless.

0 upvotes
unknown member
By (unknown member) (Dec 21, 2013)

This camera is competent, but no more. Hell it should be excellent! A triumph of marketing over substance. pricing really is plain silly: With Christmas special offers you can get a D800 for less. Hard choice guys?

This is designed to appeal to a certain market: Dare I say Footballers Wives? More money than sense: All fur coat and no knickers?

Comment edited 44 seconds after posting
5 upvotes
jimi1127

Agree with your appraisal and gotta love that final sentence.

3 upvotes
Lanski

"you can get a D800 for less". Quite a bit less from where I'm looking. That's the key point for me. I'm sure everyone is affected by style and marketing, even if they don't know it. But would you save up this kind of money and then miss out on a D800? I wouldn't, not for all the retro styling in the world.

2 upvotes
Shamael

no knickers is what gives it the kick, hahaha

0 upvotes
itsastickup

Not necessarily silly. the middle of the market is dropping away so why not aim for the ever-richer top of the market.

Comment edited 4 minutes after posting
1 upvote
NCB

OK, you can get a D800 for less. But that only applies if you want a D800. I don't; too big, too heavy, I'd find 36mp cumbersome, etc. I like the idea of a camera with 3/4 of a D4 inside it, controls of the sort I like using, and minimal weight/size for a FF camera. So I bought the Df; it's great, just what I wanted.
Price? Think of it as 75% a D4 and 25% a D610, and the price looks reasonable. Or think of it as around the same price as a Sony RX1, and it's a steal.

2 upvotes
sgoldswo

I responded to one of Richard Butler's messages back to me below, but I thought I would post this as a new message so it gets seen:

Richard,

One of the D600 bodies I owned had a duff AF module. It did work, but focus was a hair slower with AF-S lenses (almost imperceptibly), but more importantly the camera was prone to hunt in low light. I was only sure it wasn't working properly when I tried I with some AF-D lenses, where at least 50% of the time it wouldn't focus at all. I'm left wondering if that's what was wrong with the Df body DPR tested.

I think it would be worthwhile retesting AF with another body.

Best

Simon

0 upvotes
Richard Butler

I'll ask Nikon for one when I'm back in the office. If our review does turn out to be based on a mis-functioning unit, we'll amend it.

3 upvotes
sgoldswo

Can't say fairer than that. At the least I would expect you to find identical performance to the D600 (for obvious reasons). I actually think it's a bit better than the D600 I own, but I wouldn't be surprised if that's a FW issue rather than anything else (e.g. if it turned out to have identical performance to a D610 I would not be surprised at all).

0 upvotes
Shamael

Oil on sensors, no working AF on D600, AF Problems on D600, a low resolution camera with 16 mpix for 6000$. One can only say, "My GOD, how deep Nikon has fallen". And now, this Digital flopp.

1 upvote
Lea5

Owning the D800E and D4 for quite a while, I'm amazed to see this camera in the same IQ league, just with a beautiful body and the big plus of using old manual lenses in the right way. How fantastic is that? This camera slows me down, thinking more about the object I want to to photograph, like the way I use my old Rolleiflex. Manual focus of course. I can't imagine using AF on this camera. Outstanding IQ in bright and low light. High quality JPEG images with pleasant color at default settings. Good blend of traditional and contemporary controls and in a medium-priced range. That's what counts. Well done Nikon. I will get one as soon as possible.

4 upvotes
Shamael

Many can't imagine using AF on such a camera. but then, why has Nikon not made it suitable for AF. The light dot is not accurate, you misfocus in most occasions with it. Then, why no exchangeable focusing screen in the VF, and why no fresnel/split prism matte provided by factory? Then why not a simple AF like the 11 point FF AF from the F6 body, that was sufficent for this camera and it had given it a better AF system than the one it has now. Then, above all, why that overpricing? So many questions, no answers, like always.

1 upvote
PerL

Wow, internet is a nasty place.

12 upvotes
JS Burnie

Sad but true.

1 upvote
calking

Fortunately, the general public do not base buying decisions on the whimsical and baseless rants of loonies such as you have here.

1 upvote
MN13

"the ISO and even the EV is locked at all settings: every change requires a press-and-turn routine"

Many, many moons ago, I remember it being a criticism of the F3 that the ISO and the EV are easily moved (without any indication given in the view finder).

3 upvotes
_Federico_

I can accept a plastic body even for a camera which should be a digital FM, I can accept a bad, non interchangeable, focusing screen, I can accept to pay for it 3200 € ( in Italy) I can even accept, for this price, 1\4000 sec and exposure meter and shutter from an economic D600. I can accept a bad ergonomics and a single SD memory slot. But I can't accept all these factors AND a really bad AF system such like this one ( yes, I've owned a D600 and I was forced to sell it because it doesn't work with moving subjects and low light environment…too unreliable )

3 upvotes
Digital Suicide

Well there are plenty cameras with good AF systems. If I'd have too much money, I wouldn't care about how fast and reliable AF is in Df, because most of the time I'd use my old MF lenses.
So, no split F screen is bigger problem than crappy AF.

2 upvotes
HowaboutRAW

Digital Suicide:

And split screens are overrated.

Likely too you can get one installed if you really want it.

0 upvotes
yabokkie

> I can accept a plastic body

I'd prefer a plastic body.

0 upvotes
mholdef

So essentially Dpreview is saying this camera is outstanding (81% rating) just overpriced from a technology standpoint ?

Comment edited 18 seconds after posting
0 upvotes
Apollo18

Whether that's dpreview's opinion, I don't know, but it is certainly my opinion :-)

3 upvotes
Shamael

So many man, so many opinions, and, they are like butts, everyone has one.

2 upvotes
mholdef

Crazy all the emotional comments here about my camera being better than your camera...unbelievable. I also think that Dpreview is a bit hard on the camera with this review which deserves a better rating.

I own a D800E and my wife bought a Df which I personally love, it is lightweight, looks great, handles very well (except one beef I have is would have been nicer to have AF spread out more) and delivers outstanding images.

At the end of the day I think you need to try the camera yourself and see how you like it and how image quality meets expectations. Most people I know who have handled the camera like the camera more once they've had the opportunity to handle it.

Mark

14 upvotes
mike kobal

totally agree re emotional comments on cameras. absolutely nuts.

1 upvote
sebastian huvenaars

Emotion is probably the main reason most people want this lol, big chance rational buyers look elsewhere...

Emotional cam, emotional comments :)

Comment edited 2 times, last edit 1 minute after posting
1 upvote
locke_fc

Sorry, but I don't see that many emotion-based comments stating "my camera is better than yours" (or better than the Df).
On the other hand, there are a lot of comments saying the Df is disappointing for the price, which seems like a valid opinion to me.

0 upvotes
Richard Murdey

Just back from the local Bic Camera store for a quick hands on. The dpreview crew were spot on with their criticism of the design and (perceived) build quality.

Where my D200 feels like a solid metal bar, the Df feels tinny and strangely delicate. It is surprisingly light, which is arguably a good thing - but it does not feel "solid". And the top plate dials! At least the shutter speed dial rotates unlocked through the manual settings, but the ISO and even the EV is locked at all settings: every change requires a press-and-turn routine... or for the PASM dial, lift-and-turn. I found it drove the picture taking process to a screeching halt: You are basically locked out of the camera whenever you want to do anything more than adjust aperture/shutter speed.

Finally: as I suspected and dpreview already noted: its too big, its unbalanced and the grip / shutter button is simply the wrong choice for a camera of these dimensions. What works for an small MF dSLR doesn't work on a FX dSLR.

Comment edited 3 times, last edit 2 minutes after posting
3 upvotes
Fred Mueller

spot on assessment

0 upvotes
AnHund

Same on Nikon F4 and many other pro Nikons. The Locks are there to prevent accidental changes.

0 upvotes
raztec

Once again DP review proves that it is THE single best source for accurate, unbiased, reviews of modern digital cameras.

Thank you DPreview for your objective, well informed review. That is the reason we all keep coming back to your site and it is the most widely used site in the world for digital camera reviews.

Comment edited 9 minutes after posting
1 upvote
Bamboojled

Now we get to the root of your complaint "the pricing".
As far as an affront, Nikon currently has 5 full frame DSLR's in their stable, Nikon has reworked most of their prime lenses including the 1.4 and 1.8 series and according to Nikon Rumors Nikon has a 35 1.8G FF coming.

So how is this an affront to photographers?

They are just giving the purchaser choices, more than any other manufacturer.

If you don't like a particular model you have 4 more to chose from, relax, choices are good :)

1 upvote
raztec

D800/E is too big physically and in size of files
D610 has a pathetically small AF area
D4 is also too big physically in size
Df is just plain 'silly'

I just want a FF in a D300/D700 size body and build without a miniaturized AF area. Is that too difficult to do?

3 upvotes
chooflaki

What are you waiting for? Quite a few D700's going cheap on Ebay at the moment. Just don't come back and complain its too heavy.

Comment edited 2 times, last edit 3 minutes after posting
0 upvotes
Stu 5

raztec the D800 is lighter than a D700

Dimensions

D700 5.8 x 4.8 x 3.0 inches (147 x 123 x 77 mm )
D800 5.7 x 4.8 x 3.2 inches (146 x 123 x 81.5 mm )

Weight

D700 995g
D800 900g

5 upvotes
raztec

The 95% viewfinder in the D700 is a deal breaker for me. When I take I shot I want to know what exactly I'm capturing, and not have to crop later. That's why all pro cameras have 100% viewfinders.

0 upvotes
Bamboojled

So Goldylocks, I mean raztec, nothing is good enough for you, no camera out there is what you want....now I understand why you have so much time to complain, you never go out shooting.

1 upvote
raztec

The D300 was good enough for me. But the current Nikon FF line up is not.

Resorting to ad hominem attacks when you got nothing else to say is typical of bona fide fanboys with more money than sense or taste.

0 upvotes
Bamboojled

Well, again we narrow your issues...
If the D300 was good enough for you, then stick with it.
Nobody is forcing you to get anything else.
Again if the d300 with it's crop factor, poorer performance in low light, lesser dynamic range, less megapixels was good enough then stick with that and leave those that are interested in this camera or those that have used and or own this camera make the comments as you obviously have never tried the camera.

0 upvotes
raztec

I actually did try it out in the store briefly. DPreview and Thom Hogan's reviews are bang on. That's why they are so respected.

As for my D300, it was stolen, but for the time it was the perfect camera. Nikon did their best with that camera and charged a reasonable amount. Pro body, 100% viewfinder, great AF. And it was a huge seller. But why they can't/won't repeat that success eludes me. Instead they put out a 36mpx camera for studio shooters, or 24mpx with a pathetically small AF area, or the massive D4 for pro sports shooters primarily, and now the Df...and you know what I think of that.

0 upvotes
km25

It seems they are 'hard' on the Df, no gold or silver means they do not recommend the camera. The AF is the most troubling, but as I have heard from other reviews, it is just fine. It has no focus asst. light, by a flash. That would help. The only telling 'con', that they may have personal bias, is the 1/4000, that is top end for the 600/610 also. Oh well, a lot of people are hard on the X-Pro 1 and it seems to have started the mirroless craze. A little wait and see is best, I think the camera has much more merit then it is given.

1 upvote
Kelvin L

Perhaps Nikon could create a new enthusiast line of mirrorless cameras as a revival of the Nikon S rangefinder series? That would be cool. Something APS-C competing with the Fujifilm X series would be fine with me. I would have no problem with Nikon coming up with a brand new lens mount for it, as F-mount is probably long overdue for retirement anyway.

As for the Df I have no beef with it - a fine camera if it were only a bit cheaper. Currently it's priced in AU more or less the same as a D800.

1 upvote
onlooker

A real rangefinder, yes. It would be nice to have some competition for Leica at down to earth prices.

1 upvote
Shamael

There are many cars on the market, other than a Rolls Royce or a Maybach, this has never changed anything to the price of those 2 brands, and the hell knows how many brands exist. So, do you realy think that any competition for Leica in rangefinders will change anything to Leica's marketing policy and prices. You have the choice between a Leica and same camera in Panasonic on some models, Except the red dot and color, they are the same. Despite that fact, many buy the Leica. The reason is simple, it is a Leica. Some have changed to Sony A, but most will never admit the A making better shots than a Leica, despite tests giving a full advantage to Sony A. Well, maybe one should put a blue dot on the A and sell it 10000$, then something could change in Leica's policy, they would then certainly rise their prices. All in life resides in faith. Leica is such a faith.

Comment edited 2 minutes after posting
0 upvotes
jtan163

Yes and a new mount for what would initially be a secondary line would be a good opportunity to introduce a new mount.
I'd plan the mount to be big enough to accomodate 35x24mm sensor, even if the initial models are APS-C.
Eventually it seems likley to me tha t35x24mm will again be the standard format and keeping the mount big enough to accomodate that seems to make sense - to me.

And of course you could make it protocol compatible (or at least have a compatible mode) for F mount AF-S/AF-G, so that adapted F mount's can be used.

0 upvotes
onlooker

> There are many cars on the market, other than a Rolls Royce or a Maybach, this has never changed anything to the price of those 2 brands

And which of those two is Nikon in your comparison?

> So, do you realy think that any competition for Leica in rangefinders will change anything to Leica's marketing policy and prices

No idea, but it would be nice to have a Nikoni rangefinder at Nikon prices.

> All in life resides in faith. Leica is such a faith.

I have no idea what that means.

0 upvotes
wkay

I'm not a Nikon guy but have long beefed that there is no excuse for a semi=pro/pro camera not to have external f-stop and shutter speed rings instead of menu buttons and scroll knobs. Today's photographers can't take a picture unless the computer does it? Sounds like the Asiana crash at SFO..

3 upvotes
Richard Murdey

Two control wheels with persistent top LCD display, or two labelled dials/rings ... two different but equally effective usage paradigms.

Since you are sooner-or-later back to menu dials and function buttons with a digital camera anyway, for ISO, WB, what have you, the argument can be made that its clearer and more straightforward to consolidate the information on the top LCD, and keep the same control dials for everything.

I mean, I love my old film cameras as much as the next guy but, geez, there is no intrinsic advantage to importing that control motif into a full-function, professional grade digital SLR.

Comment edited 48 seconds after posting
2 upvotes
Bamboojled

And once again, the Df continues to get the most attention and the most posts of any camera that DPReview has reviewed in recent history.

Nikon obviously did something right.

9 upvotes
fmian

''And once again, the Df continues to get the most *negative* attention and the most *critical* posts of any camera that DPReview has reviewed in recent history.

Nikon obviously did something *wrong*.''

Fixed!

8 upvotes
Bamboojled

Ah, I see...
Unfortunately, 99.9% of the negative posts are from other fanboi camps that have never actually used the camera.

All of the posters and most of the reviews that have ACTUALLY shot the camera have come away with very favorable responses.
That is of course except for DPReview, although we all new this was going to be the case from the very first article announcing the camera and the snide remarks they made.

So which camp are you in? Have you actually tried the camera or are you just parroting other nay sayers.

BTW, what's up with your image, do you work in Las Vegas or do you just walk around trying to look like a magician?

Comment edited 3 minutes after posting
10 upvotes
fmian

I have used the camera for about half a day. Everyone I know who has handled the camera (about a handful of people) hate the camera. And these are people I normally disagree with. Some of them own Nikon DSLRS.
Nikon created a vague ad on the camera to generate interest in something that takes you back to 'pure' photography. Most assumed this meant simple manual controls and a camera that just lets you take photos instead of getting in the way. What they made only 'looks' like an old manual camera but doesn't really control like one.
Nikon has also as of late been pi$$ing off a lot of it's users with various debacles. So Nikon is a company that us photo snobs like to make fun of. Cause they keep making silly decisions.
Please keep in mind that every one of us was a potential customer for this new Nikon camera. It could have received high praise if Nikon had their head screwed on right.
Re: My photo. I am neither. It's just a self portrait. *shrugs*

6 upvotes
Bamboojled

Got it, I guess the camera is not for you if you have used it and don't care for it.

As far as looks are concerned, and the controls; the camera handles like most of the Nikon cameras from the 70's and 80's including classics like the F3HP and FA, FM-2, down to the locking control knobs...
Something the reviewers don't care for.
It also has the full stop shutter speeds, again something the reviewers don't like as you have to go in the sub control wheel if you want 1/3 increments, of course the reviewers don't seem to understand how big that control wheel would have to be to accommodate 1/3 stop increments.

Again, if you truly have used it and don't care for it that is fine, but for many that have used classic Nikon's this camera checks of many boxes...

2 upvotes
_Federico_

I've sold my D600 for its AF system ( can't lock a moving subject in low light situation….). I won't do the same mistake for an higher price tag and a bad ergonomics. And, yes, I've used the df. Can't still believe it's a Nikon…

3 upvotes
Shamael

"Ah, I see...
Unfortunately, 99.9% of the negative posts are from other fanboi camps that have never actually used the camera."

Ah, I see...
Fortunately, 99.9% of the positive posts are from the Nikon fanboi camps that have never used the camera, or might use it some day to find out that it is a Digital Flopp.

Life in the universe is based on duality, plus and minus, here and there, good and bad, light and darkness, us and them. Our posts confirm this once again.

Comment edited 2 minutes after posting
1 upvote
ravduc

The camera was never intended to be for everyone and that's fine. There are other options for the one's that don't like it. The camera can be used like an older camera. You just have to learn how to use it.

1 upvote
ravduc

Fmian, I really don't know where you are coming from. The camera can be used exactly like an older camera if you know how. It can also be used like any other dslr except for maybe the exposure compensation mechanism for which operation cannot be moved to the control dials. Do you really understand how to use an old analog camera such as match needle exposure camera? From your comments, I am beginning to doubt this very much.

2 upvotes
fmian

ravduc: I believe I already showed that you don't actually know what you are talking about regarding older cameras, based on your obvious lack of knowledge from the previous post.
To answer your above comment, I'd like to ask you to show me one older camera where the shutter dial is made redundant due to the setting on another dial.
I just picked up the Df 5 minutes ago and began spinning the the shutter dial around but the shutter speed of the camera was not changing. Ahhh!! The mode dial was set to A!
Does it really make design sense for a tiny little dial with only 1/3 of the space on it used up to make a much larger dial full of options useless?
PLEASE show me an older camera that presents a control hurdle such as this.
Could have easily been solved by putting an AUTO option on the shutter dial.
I think you have perhaps already purchased this camera, or are set on purchasing it, and this thread runs the risk of breaking your heart. Sorry about that.

0 upvotes
ravduc

You are such a bullshiter. You obviously know nothing about cameras. That small dial allows you to use different modes. This is not an old camera but a camera which combines digital and analog. Changing the shutter speed dial will work in speed mode or manual mode, not in aperture mode. You need to take a basic course in photography and should stay away from these forums. You make yourself look so ridiculous.

1 upvote
ravduc

One more thing fmian. There is a reason why Nikon chose to use a mode dial instead of a AUTO option on the shutter dial. This camera is designed to use all former nikkor lenses and most of these lenses don't have an A function on the aperture ring. You obviously haven't used the DF enough to understand why they designed it the way they did. Putting an AUTO option on the shutter dial would have been pointless. And, don't lecture me on using older cameras. I have been using them for more years than you have been on this planet. You behave like a snotty little pretentious school boy.

0 upvotes
noirdude

if only nikon can make the body as small or slightly bigger than the sony A7… the Df design is just too bulky for a retro camera

5 upvotes
binauralbeats

Agreed... it really doesn't work. Chubby Df needs to go on a diet.

4 upvotes
RichRMA

There is nothing to suggest the A7 won't be the same kind of sales failure as the rest of Sony's products. Despite radical innovation, the conservatism (adhering to Nikon and Canon) of the N. American buyer will likely doom it.

2 upvotes
Bamboojled

@RichRMA
I agree with most of your post, except that radical innovation does not make up for the lack of system or system depth that all of Sony's cameras suffer from, I don't think it is an issue of conservatism.

1 upvote
hippo84

@RichRMA
Nikon DF is on the 77th place in Amazon rankings, Sony takes 7th and 14th places with A7R and A7. Still think DF is more successful than A7/A7R ?

6 upvotes
pgb

When I heard about this I thought it would be an FM3 clone or similar to the A7. Too many knobs on top too, I don't remember classic cameras looking like that, maybe 1950's models.

Comment edited 27 seconds after posting
2 upvotes
Bamboojled

@pgb,
simple go down to you local camera store and garb an FA, F3HP, or FM2 and you will see all the knobs you are complaining about were on these cameras as well.

0 upvotes
binauralbeats

Nikon DF is a hipster camera... retro facade without even a split prism.

12 upvotes
johnCam

Interesting... 81% and no silver or gold award.

1 upvote
Jeff Keller

See the section on awards:

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

1 upvote
Edmond Leung

FF is the future.
Olympus, Fuji, Panasonic, Pentax..... Wake up!
Where are your FF?
Do you want to quit the camera market?

2 upvotes
unknown member
By (unknown member) (Dec 21, 2013)

tell me what you are on..'cos I want some! The companies you quote are all the current innovators. They are the ones making the sales, taking the money and developing the tech. Full frame is utterly irrelevant for 95% of the population who just want piccies.

12 upvotes
cmvsm

Future for whom? The 5% of the market that actually make money with their gear, or the other 95% that doesn't know what FF is, and could frankly care less? If the camera is small, takes a few lenses, and is competent on the soccer field and birthday parties, that is good enough for the masses.

6 upvotes
Bamboojled

@Jaberwok
Yes, and are also the companies with the least market share and the ones showing no profit year over year.
Go figure...

Comment edited 4 minutes after posting
1 upvote
Neodp

Well I see your point; but no. People can see the resultant IQ. Even non-technical ones. FF sensor cameras actually do make better pictures. You don't have to know what FF is to see it. The reality, that many are blind is another matter.

Comment edited 2 times, last edit 53 seconds after posting
1 upvote
Lukino

Wait, wait, go slowly, my head is spinning...
Are you telling me..
...FOR REAL?...
...you mean...
...a 2700$ camera makes better pictures than one that costs 1000$? Woah, man, you really opened my eyes!

1 upvote
unknown member
By (unknown member) (Dec 21, 2013)

This FF Nikon snobbery is very silly. The heart of the camera is its sensor (incidentally an analogue device) which Nikon don't make. Leica used Kodak, Dunno who Canon use but Nikon use Sony & Samsung. The very companies that the passionate Nikophiles are so rude about.

Comment edited 30 seconds after posting
0 upvotes
jtan163

35x24mm if, that is what you mean by FF is the past.
There is no inherent magic to it, other than the fact that there area pile of old lenses, which in reality most people don't bother to use - except those Oly, Pany, Fuji and Sony users who adapt them.
There is nothing tha ta 35mmx24mm sensor can do that say a 50x50 could not do better.
Similarly there is very little a 35x24m sensor can do that an M43 or an APSC sensor can't do.
There are some things - bit not enough to make a difference for the majority of users.
As has been noted by others, virtually all innovation is coming from the smaller players.
Oly, Pany, Pentax, Fuji.
Canikon is too attached to the status quo, to innovate or realise how the status quo is going to hurt them in the long run, unless they are lucky.

1 upvote
Shamael

DF make only better shots in the darkness, that's all. Now, compare a 100 iso shot to the one of a NEX-7, an Oly M1, or a Pana GX7, and then you come back and we discuss. Or do you believe that a FF sensor with an 8 mpix APS-C pixel pitch can compete in sharpness and IQ with any 16 to 24 mpix APS-C sensor. All you get on a FF is shallower DOF. Now, take the common mortal who takes family and party pics, and see what he wants? Well, he wants a picture where all the people present are seen sharp and neat. A FF will never give you that satisfaction, while a shallower DOF can be achieved with hyperfast lenses on a smaller sensors as well. So, do you really think that FF is the paradise? I bet all you want that, if they sell medium format cameras with 80 mpix for 2500$, many people would not buy it, and if they do, they would use it occasionally.
A FF at 16 mpix is ridiculous, except for high ISO rates, and with that pixel size, there is no magic at all, it's simply physical normality.

0 upvotes
Holger Drallmeyer

Now when you say FF is the future can you please explain why Edmond? Btw. I shoot up to 8x10 sheet film but that doen't mean sensor size shout move up to 8x10 too.
I actually believe sensor size will decrease again in the future. Just wait a few years.

0 upvotes
Holger Drallmeyer

Jaberwork...A sensor is NOT an analogue device. Google Analogue Signal. It actually has nothing to do with film and photography at all. Analogue is a term birthed by the Lomo movement and is incorrectly applied in the English language.
Analogue refers mainly to audio recording and has incorrectly infiltrated the world of photography. Just saying :)

1 upvote
HowaboutRAW

JaberWok:

You're not even familiar with which firms Nikon uses for sensor! Canon either! Canon makes it's own big sensors.

Nikon uses: Sony, Toshiba, Rensas and Aptina sensors. (Guess which one provides the sensor in the Df/D4?)

1 upvote
mgblack74

Jaberwork. Apparently the only camera types that are making money are DSLRs. Mirrorless are still a smaller porportion of the ILC market. And sales numbers show that it is stagnant. Whereas DSLRs are still growing. Slowing down, but still growing.

2 upvotes
unknown member
By (unknown member) (Dec 21, 2013)

You've got that arseways..go back and read it again.

1 upvote
unknown member
By (unknown member) (Dec 21, 2013)

This retro scheme is a real dead duck. Mostly an attempt to prise money from those with more of it than common sense. Nikon has missed a trick here. Olympus & Fuji manage it well: Their cameras are technically 'up to the minute' and very competitively priced so you get both style and performance. This Nikon is simply not a runner.
DSLR's as a species are becoming marginalised. The real development money is going into the smaller mirror less full frames and wireless phone hybrids and the quality of these is improving all the time. I'm looking forward to the next Fuji X 30Mps incarnation due in March 14 along with its spectacular low light capability.

2 upvotes
HowaboutRAW

Some people really like optical view finders. So SLRs aren't going away anytime soon.

It's is very unlikely that a year 2014 30MP APSC sensor camera will have spectacular high ISO low light performance. Right now good APSC cameras are limited to about ISO 6400, with the possible exception of the Toshiba sensor in the D7100.

So for that hypothetical Fuji to be spectacular at high ISOs some radical new tech would need to be included. Easier to go with fewer mega pixels, oh wait like the Df/D4.

Though styled well, the Olympus E1 simply does not match the performance of this Df body, excellent, if pricey, lenses though.

Comment edited 2 minutes after posting
3 upvotes
unknown member
By (unknown member) (Dec 21, 2013)

You really are out of date. You should get out more and see what the competition is doing in other formats including technically excellent switchable optical / electronic viewfinders. Your quoted figures for ISO are unfortunately completely wrong. New radical sensors are indeed appearing.

1 upvote
Edmond Leung

The market is looking for FF.

APSC? 4/3? No way!

Why people still waiting for low quality APSC and 4/3?

Come on, wake up!

3 upvotes
yabokkie

it's definitely silly but silly customers' money is same as good.

1 upvote
unknown member
By (unknown member) (Dec 21, 2013)

Wake up indeed. Another guy who spouts off with no knowledge. The top selling cameras are the smaller formats. and if you reckon the quality is low then I'm deeply sorry but you are farting fire.

4 upvotes
HowaboutRAW

Jaber:

You really don't seem up on new radical sensors.

"excellent switchable optical / electronic", there's one in the Fuji XPro1; it's a bit of a gimmick, and is really for rangefinder like things.

No the setup in the Sony A99 is not switchable, so that's discounted.

No, my ISO figures for APSC sensors are not wrong. Here you can't trust the top two numbers quoted by the camera manufacturers.

So unless you have secret information from many camera and sensor makers--information that they'd not share with each other let alone you. You're sorely and broadly uninformed.

Comment edited 2 minutes after posting
1 upvote
Bamboojled

Wow Jaberwok,
you really are out of touch.
The best selling cameras are DSLR's period.

3 upvotes
Illumina

How can E-M1 is competitively priced?
Call me old school, but i still prefer basic FF whether it is 6D, D600, D610 than 'technologically advanced' E-M1

1 upvote
Bamboojled

I was about to respond again to one of your posts, but then decided to look at your profile and saw where your from, so I figured your life is hard enough as it is, so i will let you rant on.
After all a Df would be very expensive for you (how many goats would that cost you?), so I understand your frustration.

0 upvotes
MPA1

Anyone who actually has to travel with their gear without a horde of assistants to carry it all will gladly embrace a system that weighs 50% if a FF system. Hence at least 3 Magnum photographers now shoot paid assignments on M43 cameras....

0 upvotes
Bamboojled

WOW 3???
That is amazing, I guess you've made your point resoundingly.

2 upvotes
jtan163

"...Mostly an attempt to prise money from those with more of it than common sense. ... "

To be fair, people who have more money than sense, or people who have enough money that they don't have to worry about paying a premium for aesthetics and a warm fuzzy feeling are the best customers.
But that does not make the object of those people's desires good or bad, just well conceived in the market.

0 upvotes
Stanchung

From the review I gather that if it was cheaper there would be less bitching about this camera?

11 upvotes
GPW

My question is, why the hell didn't Nikon release a pro DX (D400) instead of the DF? I think it would have made more sense.

1 upvote
HowaboutRAW

DX. It that enough of an answer?

No reason Nikon can't release an improved D7100 and call it the D400. Already good in lowlight, just needs very good AF and a much much better buffer.

0 upvotes
unknown member
By (unknown member) (Dec 21, 2013)

For God sake change the record on the 'low light' is that all you consider in a camera?

2 upvotes
GPW

NO it's NOT enough, and I knew I would get dumb ass remarks like yours. DX accounts for a great deal of Nikons profits NOT FF.

1 upvote
HowaboutRAW

GPW:

Boring. You have internal profit breakdowns from Nikon?

DX is the answer, and remember I pointed out that the D7100 could be worked up into a better body. No need for a new sensor.

0 upvotes
HowaboutRAW

Jabber:

No, I will not change the basic point about what is so appealing about this sensor in this Df body. If you don’t want it, don’t buy the Df.

This body functions well, appears to be well made.

If I wanted other features from other cameras, I’d seek those bodies out.

1 upvote
unknown member
By (unknown member) (Dec 21, 2013)

I can't spell 'anally impacted' but I suggest you go buy some laxatives (light ones) and get it out of your system.

Comment edited 23 seconds after posting
2 upvotes
HowaboutRAW

Jaberw:

No, I'm not going to change my basic point just because you insist on tossing dung around.

0 upvotes
Elliot234567

Although the camera it was modeled after was attractive in its own way, I think this camera is just plain UGLY. It is just Gaudy and cheap looking to me. To compare it to a Canon F1 is insulting to the Canon which may have been the best looking camera ever made. This is a chunky, clunky, amateur camera, both crippled and with a high price. I really don't understand who would buy this? I can only guess it is for people who don't know much about cameras.

9 upvotes
ravduc

I have been using cameras for fourty years with over sixty cameras over a number of years and you are telling me that I know nothing about cameras. Give me a break! You are just about to win a medal for one of the most ridiculous comments to date. The DF did not win a medal but you might just. You haven't handled this camera it's quite obvious. I just think that it's the best of both worlds- digital and analog. You just need to learn how to use the dual interface.

4 upvotes
zzzorki7

I bought DF. Gorgeous camera.

2 upvotes
Shamael

ravduc, I hope you will not order some day a Mercedes Benz with a hand crank to start it. The interface of the DF is a horror, the sensor is low resolution, same IQ as an old 8 mpix APS-C sensor, thus the high ISO ability is not magic, just physical normality.
All thgis camera has is 4 things, a nice look, a terrible ergonomy, and a low resolution FF 16 mpix sensor, on can find in 6000$ body that, as it seems to me when I read about it, sells like fresh bread in the early morning at the bakery, and last not least, a totally fancy price, just like the one I mentionned before.

And then, what? Learn to use the interface? one needs that with just any camera, or any other technological device. This will not change the fact that the interface is terrible, the AF is bad, the MF ability is nuts, the price too high, the camera too bulky, and what ever else people comment in a negative way about this Nikon wonder baby. Simply said, it is a flopp.

2 upvotes
ravduc

Have you spent time trying the camera? Obviously not. Your comment holds no water. It's a flop in your head only and other's who can't appreciate the camera for it's dual interface. Go buy yourself something else and stop complaining about something that you can't afford. By the way I don't drive a Mercedes and never will. I drive a Subaru impreza wrx and have just sold my Ducati 900ss for another sports bike. One can enjoy performance and still appreciate using retro cameras such as my Contax ll from 1937. The interface on the DF works fine by me. I have learned to use all kinds of technologies. You have obviously not.

2 upvotes
veroman

A yesteryear design with not much else going for it ... unless ISO 6400 is your base ISO most of the time. Really, this is about as transparent a marketing idea as I've ever seen.

As a designer myself, I think it looks pretty terrible. As a photographer, having this camera would do nothing for me that I can't do with my other FF cameras. I don't get it. I really don't.

I can only guess that Nikon decided something like this would move the deep-pockets to reach in and help their bottom line. What other reason could they possibly have for putting out such a dated, clumsy-looking retrospective product?

Well, if I were Nikon, I would have concentrated on a top-tier mirror-less or, even better as a retro product, a digital rangefinder and Leica M9 killer.

10 upvotes
HowaboutRAW

Okay, lowlight high ISO work isn't important to you. No big deal. That kind of shooting however is really important to other people.

As for your aesthetic comments, also fine, but I'd hope you'd handle the body before affirming that you don't like the aesthetics of it.

2 upvotes
HowaboutRAW

Also the Leica M9 has been replaced with the M240.

And Nikon can’t match the optical quality of good Leica M lenses.

1 upvote
unknown member
By (unknown member) (Dec 21, 2013)

I envisage Nikon Df to be a camera for meticulous old farts with a bunch of old Nikon lenses. This vision simply cannot be true. There is no company on earth that want to put such a product on the market.

5 upvotes
Optimal Prime

Agree about the uninspiring & heavy design. As for the FF M9 killer, Sony is the one. Not Canon. Not Nikon.

5 upvotes
unknown member
By (unknown member) (Dec 21, 2013)

Also the Leica M9 has been replaced with the M240.

I don't know what HowaboutRAW's problem is with low light performance..his only criteria? The M9 is still available new whether or not replaced by the M240 and is still as ergonomic as a Dalek

Comment edited 21 seconds after posting
2 upvotes
HowaboutRAW

OP:

"Heavy", so you've not handled it.

The M9 has passed. Sony could, but won't manage to replace it.

0 upvotes
HowaboutRAW

J:

No high ISO lowlight shooting is not my only criteria, though it is very important for a repeated event that I've shot for years now. So of course I'm drawn to cameras like the D3s or D4, hence the interest in this Df.

And anybody else interested in the D4 for high ISO shooting would certainly take note of the release of the Df.

Didn't know that you've handled a Dalek. I find the M9 and M240 plenty easy to use, dumb SD card slot location of course.

0 upvotes
Shamael

one can never replace something by something else, and no camera manufacturer known, else than Leica, would build such a thing or even think to replace it.

1 upvote
HowaboutRAW

Shamael:

You have a funny definition of the word "replace". In fact with a bit of investigation: Leica has indeed replaced the name "M9" with the name "M-E".

0 upvotes
TattooedMac

All in all, no matter what people say, haters will be haters, but if i had the 3k sitting in my back pocket, (which i do and its going towards a new Fang Dangle Mac Pro) i would like to have it my stable for the tourist shots on holidays.
Because of the Retro look, it would be nice to hold something like the 'Originals' and have people think your still old skool shooting film.

Thats all it would be for me, the WOW factor out and about and having people looking at me with it :) **I like being centre of attention**

1 upvote
Shamael

you are the kinda modern slave that fits in the brave new world. The people think, the people say .... that says it all. Bet you even live with the hope to be seen on TV some day.... sic

0 upvotes
unknown member
By (unknown member) (Dec 21, 2013)

So judging by this line of posts the only benefit of a very expensive 16Mps retro camera with dodgy autofocus s its low light performance. Well hell. I must remember that when I'm shooting bats in a mineshaft. For the rest of the time a D800 kicks ass?

3 upvotes
HowaboutRAW

Many report that the AF is indeed good, even in lowlight.

Don't imply that more mega pixel are to be sought, fewer would be better this case.

The Df/D4 cannot see in the dark, so "bats in a mineshaft" doesn't make much sense. The D800 is not useable above about ISO 8000.

0 upvotes
_Federico_

I've got several very good big prints even from 12.800 ISO and beyond… Please resize the D800e file and compare it to a D4 file… ( same magnification, of course).

0 upvotes
Shamael

If I understand correctly, to get a huge big image, you shoot 12500 ISO with a 16 mpix FF and you resize it to 36 mpix the get the same results as a D800 with a camera that you pay higher in price.

Do I miss something here iiiiaaaahhh?

1 upvote
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.

0 upvotes
nstam

does every camera come out of the haystack when a review is released?

0 upvotes
HowaboutRAW

Think you skipped the word "geek" in there.

2 upvotes
RichRMA

Still the very best noise control (even if you downsize D610 or D800 images they don't match it) of any camera under $6000. So IMO, it's a bargain.

2 upvotes
Jahled

Hahahahaahah! "The Df is rather pretty"

0 upvotes
MPA1

If only it was the D4 sensor in a D800 body....!

4 upvotes
HowaboutRAW

Finally an actual proposal maybe possibly related to improved performance.

2 upvotes
yabokkie
0 upvotes
unknown member
By (unknown member) (Dec 21, 2013)

Nice outer body containing basically yesterday's 16Mps electronics. Way overpriced, I wonder if they were talking to Leica on the pricing strategy?

5 upvotes
HowaboutRAW

That's "yesterday's electronics" sure shoots high ISO lowlight better than today's gear.

Have you priced a Leica M240? Clearly not. And that body sure is nearly noise free at the top ISO (6400), unlike say the D610 Sony A7.

2 upvotes
unknown member
By (unknown member) (Dec 21, 2013)

My Leica comment (which didn't give an exact price) was placed to indicate a high price 'exclusive' marketing position to differentiate the camera from its betters. Bit like the M9 which costs a fortune and is a horrible clunky thing to use with a dreadful rear screen and no live view.
Top range APS-C cameras can give the Df's low light performance a run for its money at 1/3 the cost.

Comment edited 3 times, last edit 5 minutes after posting
2 upvotes
HowaboutRAW

Jab:

Does Leica still sell the M9 new?

And the M9 is plenty easy to use, all you have to do is know how to use a rangefinder. Anyhow: I think you should look at the M240.

"Top range APS-C cameras can give the Df's low light performance a run for its money at 1/3 the cost." Ha, ha, ha, clearly you have no idea of what the D4 can do in lowlight. (The D7100 is decent in lowlight but doesn't get much further than D610 territory.)

Comment edited 10 minutes after posting
1 upvote
unknown member
By (unknown member) (Dec 21, 2013)

Just checked the Leica site and it's still listed.
I don't wish to start a flame war. Not my intention. I just reckon the Df is poor value. Now if Nikon had used that great retro body (which I like lots) and packed a cutting edge camera in it I'd buy 2. As is I have money down on a D610.

0 upvotes
HowaboutRAW

Jaberwok:

I don't think Leica is making the M9 anymore. It's not useable much above ISO 800.

And I think the Df is decent value in that it readily outperforms the D610+D800 for lowlight high ISO shooting. No the Df is not cheap. But only the Canon 6D is close for high ISO lowlight shooting in that price range.

So you can get a Df or buy D4 or Canon 1D X instead--those latter two bodies are pricey though.

0 upvotes
unknown member
By (unknown member) (Dec 21, 2013)

I do know rangefinders. I grew up with them and still sometimes use a Fuji 645zi. D7100 low light is pants. Check the new crop of APS-C cameras out now.

0 upvotes
unknown member
By (unknown member) (Dec 21, 2013)

Check the Leica site re the M9 You move the goal posts on the low light question and start on about the D4. We are talking about the Df and is this its only strongpoint?

0 upvotes
Illumina

What is the top flight ApSc that can give Df a run for it's money?

0 upvotes
HowaboutRAW

Illumina--

None in December 2013--perhaps in Dec. 2015.

0 upvotes
HowaboutRAW

Jaberwok:

No, I didn't move the goal posts. A big reason people are excited about the Df is having the D4's high ISO lowlight performance in a lighter, less expensive, quieter body. This point has been obvious since the announcement.

For what it's worth B+H in New York says the M9 is no longer available.

I referred originally to the Leica M240, which has very good high ISO performance, but it has a limiter. And for you it has live view too.

0 upvotes
unknown member
By (unknown member) (Dec 21, 2013)

B&H are wrong (nothing new there) M9 is still listed and available off the shelf in at least 3 London dealers..just checked their webpages. Current crop of APS-C cameras which equal the Df in low light are Fuji X range, new Pentax K3 and the upcoming and grossly underated Samsung NX30 (Feb 2014).
You won't be convinced, see my post about the target user for this camera 'boring old farts looking backwards etc'.

0 upvotes
HowaboutRAW

Jaber:

Okay then some London dealers still have M9s to sell, that doesn't mean Leica is making them. Possibly yes. And I didn't ask about where it could be bought. If it were available for purchase new B+H would say so too.

No the Fuji X cameras can't touch the D4 for high ISO lowlight performance, and the fact that you'd make such a claim shows an extraordinary ignorance on your part. Those X bodies are decent through about ISO 6400, blurred but okay. Even the D7100 beats the Fuji X bodies for high ISO work.

No, the Pentax K3 can't be used much above ISO 6400, a tiny bit perhaps. The more you post the more ignorance gets repeated by you. You see, I've shot with the K3 and the X bodies and the D4 and the D3s and the Df and the D700 and the Canon 6D.

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

@jaberwok :
I used to believe that fuji x can come close to FF, many web review stated that, but several months ago i got the chance to try XE1 for a week and my conclusion is : no, it's still not there, my D600 definitely produce better results at high ISO
I believe my own eye more than just any web reviews out there :)
I never try D4 sensor, so i can't comment about how much better it will be than my D600
But i have used D800 side by side ( my co-worker use it ) , and i conclude that D600 is better at high ISO than D800 even though DXO say otherwise..
But in low ISO, D800 is a different beast..

1 upvote
_Federico_

There's no real situation I do really need something above 12.800 ISO. And D800e can do a very fine job at this ISO level. Do you really shoot what you can't see by your eyes?

0 upvotes
Shamael

It can not be yesterday's, at that time we where limited to 400 ASA, and anyone talking about 12500 ISO would have been locked into an asylum for mentally disabled. But we may talk as much as we want, there is only one factor that justifies all the scrappy things and all the price, and that is 12500 ISO clean. Beware, it has becoeme a religion alreaddy.

0 upvotes
HowaboutRAW

Jaber:

Upon further checking: the "M9" has been replaced by Leica with something called the "M-E", same camera body, still easy to use. The M240 is much better at high ISOs though.

_Federico:

The D800E has big troubles at ISO 12,800, that you don't need that sensitivity only speaks to your concerns.

Frankly there are a lot of better cameras for that ISO level: The D600, D610, Sony A7, D7100, D4, D3s, Canon 6D, 1D X and more. Note the APSC sensored body.

Comment edited 2 minutes after posting
0 upvotes
unknown member
By (unknown member) (Dec 21, 2013)

This review has brought out all the evangelist haters who typically invade other forums incessantly trying to proselytize the One Great Camera or the One Great Format.

The Df is a niche camera of decent and reasonable performance, designed to appeal to those who enjoy handling a fine instrument. It's not intended as the be-all of photography.

If you don't like it, fine - plenty of other people do. To insult others and Nikon just shows your immaturity.

13 upvotes
AlpCns2

Thank you for injecting a bit of sanity in here. It's quite tiring, all these screaming idiots.

2 upvotes
kimchiflower

According to the gear link above, 66 people clicked "I had it"

I think they meant "I've had it [with this piece of junk]"

0 upvotes
ravduc

Nice analytical comment on your part. I think you have just proven to everyone how much of a biased reviewer you can be. Congratulations on making one of the most ridiculous comments today.

Comment edited 29 seconds after posting
4 upvotes
kimchiflower

I wonder how the project managers & designers at Nikon feel after spending 4 years to produce such an embarrassment.

Their problem is they think Canon are their main competitors.

6 upvotes
Frank C.

Both Canon and Nikon are sleeping at the switch. It's only Fuji, Sony and Olympus that are designing exciting and compelling cameras as of late

3 upvotes
AbrasiveReducer

If they were less secretive and had shown it to people other than their endorsers/celebrities they might have gotten a clearer picture. It's hard to see what ground breaking technology could have been stolen.

Comment edited 2 times, last edit 36 seconds after posting
1 upvote
Richard Franiec

"I wonder how the project managers & designers at Nikon feel after spending 4 years to produce such an embarrassment."

They're probably looking for employment at Sigma

"Their problem is they think Canon are their main competitors."

Sounds realistic.

Just a joke to keep up with the spirit of comments.

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

Frank C.

Those Fuji X APSC bodies have had some troubles. The lenses are good.

Olympus has ISO limitations, though excellent if expensive lenses, Sony just thinks that launching 5 different systems will win the struggle. SLR FF, SLR APSC, SLT FF, SLT APSC, mirrorless APSC, mirrorless FF, so 6.

Needless to say you forgot Samsung, excellent image quality. One of the lenses surpasses the optical quality of the best Fuji and Olympus lenses, bodies have some design oddities, but work well enough if you don't need a fast buffer. More lenses than the Sony mirrorless system.

Then the Panasonic GX7 is excellent, not the kit zoom though. And it suffers from high ISO trouble like the Olympus bodies.

0 upvotes
tjwaggoner

Little bit of exaggeration with sony and the number of systems. The slr and slt models aren't different systems. No more than a d800 and DF are different systems based on having a different viewfinder.
They do produce a few more bodies than most but big deal. They have two lens mounts same as canon and nikon. A slr/t mount and mirrorless mount. The only difference is they make a ff mirrorless model.

2 upvotes
mgblack74

No, it shows that everyone cedes the DSLR market to Canon and Nikon. If Fuji put a full frame X sensor in a D800 body that uses Nikon lenses like they did with the SPro series... I would take a look. For wedding work, DSLR's still rule. OVFs still rule.

0 upvotes
HowaboutRAW

tjwaggoner:

Limited to lens mounts you sort of have a point, but there are two mirrorless lens mounts from Sony--yes I know they kind of overlap.

And I think of SLTs as a different system than SLRs, though right they take the same lenses as long as you don't try to mount one of the APSC only lenses on an A99 or A900, but Nikon would have that trouble too.

Sony has taken a very scattered approach and ignored the big holes in the Nex system lens line up for too long. Doesn't auger well for the FF mirrorless system--though that's off to a better start.

0 upvotes
Class A

Kudos to the DPReview staff who did not go gaga over the retro styling but maintained a sober perspective on a camera that is neither here nor there.

Comment edited 20 seconds after posting
8 upvotes
Roland Karlsson

Do Nikon provide a split image focussing screen for this camera?

0 upvotes
ManuelVilardeMacedo

No. It is clear from the review. Shame...

4 upvotes
Spectro

3rd party company can do it for u if u really wanted it. Few people had mod their dslr before. Just google it.

2 upvotes
Total comments: 1624
23456