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

Comments

Total comments: 1595
34567
Saffron_Blaze
By Saffron_Blaze (4 months ago)

Did I understand correctly that the poor focusing in low light effectively defeats the value of the impressive low light capability of the sensor?

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

You understood wrong.

0 upvotes
Saffron_Blaze
By Saffron_Blaze (4 months ago)

Ok, enlighten me. I wasn't being smug. I picked that up reading the pro/con list

0 upvotes
valdazis
By valdazis (4 months ago)

You understood correctly, except the occasions when using a manual lens. Why most of the crowd forgets that this product is targeted to the old, valuable and expensive manual lenses?

0 upvotes
wetsleet
By wetsleet (4 months ago)

But, valdazis, isn't that exactly the reason why this camera should have a split image viewfinder, and maybe interchangable screens also, for all those manual focus lenses which don't need an AF system but could usefully benefit from a split image?
I'm in two minds, because I never liked split image finders and got rid of mine for a ground glass - at least I had the choice. Here you don't.

4 upvotes
_Federico_
By _Federico_ (4 months ago)

This product isn't targeted to manual lenses…because its focusing screen is poor as any other DSLR on the market…. It's way better focusing with an EVF.

0 upvotes
RichRMA
By RichRMA (4 months ago)

It definitely doesn't help, and AF is very important with a DSLR in low-light as manual focusing is horrible in such a situation, unlike with modern EVF's.

0 upvotes
Bamboojled
By Bamboojled (4 months ago)

_frederico_
You seem to have a lot of opinions on a product you have never used, or have you shot this camera for a while and can comment on it's strengths and weaknesses

0 upvotes
MrPetkus
By MrPetkus (4 months ago)

Thanks for the review.
However, I don't see the huge fuss about a split prism focussing screen and wonder how many have actually used them (if you do, beg pardon). I have and hate them on a modern camera. It screws with metering and is a distraction when shooting AF. At best it's a novelty that the ordinary user will simply swap out while getting dust in the body.

5 upvotes
ravduc
By ravduc (4 months ago)

Split prism focusing screens have always been an annoyance to me and I have always changed them (when possible) in my older film cameras. Most people asking for this have never used them, or have forgotten how they were. I have always preferred fully mat screens with no distractions other than a grid.

2 upvotes
wetsleet
By wetsleet (4 months ago)

Me too. It was nice to have the choice, back then.

0 upvotes
NCB
By NCB (4 months ago)

I have a split prism on a Yashica FX3, nice camera. The split prism works OK, but it's no big deal. It harks back to pre-autofocus era. On autofocus cameras, film and digital, I use focus-confirmation, same as on the Df, if I want to manually focus; works just as well.

2 upvotes
Muus
By Muus (4 months ago)

Dear DPR staff, this may be nitpicking, but: 1/4000th sec is not maximum but minimum shutter speed. Please.

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

I agree the terminology is unsatisfactory, but 1/4000 s really is the maximum speed, even as it is the minimum duration.

7 upvotes
ryansholl
By ryansholl (4 months ago)

That's not even completely right. The literal speed of each curtain is constant unless I completely misunderstand how shutter timing works. Which is possible.

In the end, though, not a soul was confused by the terminology used. Find something better to do, Muus

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

To be exact; 1/4000th is the maximum speed of the shutter consequently the minimum exposure duration. @Muus=totally wrong statement, @Samuel Dilworth= Your agreement with Muus is wrong and illogical because your explanation is correct. IMHO the terminology is satisfactory and correct also.

0 upvotes
Jogger
By Jogger (4 months ago)

if you think of shutter speed as seconds/cycle, then it makes sense.. 1/4000 is the fastest it can complete a (shutter) cycle, i.e. the max "shutter speed"

0 upvotes
wetsleet
By wetsleet (4 months ago)

To be exact, oselimg, speed is not measured in units of time, ergo 1/4000th second is not a measure of speed, fast or slow.

1 upvote
le_alain
By le_alain (4 months ago)

move a shutter in a short time is speed and fast:
move = m, time = s
speed =m/s

0 upvotes
wetsleet
By wetsleet (4 months ago)

le_alain
The curtains moved at a fixed speed, regardless of the shutter "speed". The change in shutter speed is down to the change in the interval between the first and second curtain starting their travel.
It doesn't help that we always refer to shutter "speed", when it is really a shutter time.
Much ado about nothing I suppose, but I've got time on my hands...(said the watch).

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

Nikon communication campaign based on "pure photography" and other ad tricks created a lot of expectations, maybe too much especially on this website.
Then we discovered a very different look and a relatively high price. The later is why DPR review is what it is.
Despite missing an award on DPR, that camera is a very good one and should please those willing to use the excellent D4 sensor, external dials and legacy lenses.

If the Sony A7 & A7r receive an award, it will be an outrage I guess...

2 upvotes
ravduc
By ravduc (4 months ago)

The awards are very subjective and obviously not based on pointage. It's a very different dslr with a different user interface. For my style of photography, it's perfect. I have lots of other cameras if I need to use larger lenses, etc.

Comment edited 23 seconds after posting
1 upvote
AbrasiveReducer
By AbrasiveReducer (4 months ago)

Still not sure about the Df. It looks better in person (neither finish comes close to classic nickel/chrome or black enamel), handling is good, it's relatively light, it can take photos in the dark, for which my D700 is good enough, but still impressive.

Tried it with some old lenses and now I get the 16 mp. I still think the Df is a solution looking for a problem but it's a nice solution and I wouldn't expect anybody who buys one to say "it's nice but not perfect" even though this is the case.

2 upvotes
RichRMA
By RichRMA (4 months ago)

People were possibly tired of dull, black, cookie-cutter DSLRs. At least, anyone but the average consumer.

2 upvotes
rhlpetrus
By rhlpetrus (4 months ago)

Nice review overall, comments as expected, love it or hate it, no gray shades. More choices, good for everybody. Funny how people can get emotional about consumer products.

Happy Holidays and nice 2014 to all at DPR.

4 upvotes
ravduc
By ravduc (4 months ago)

You either like this camera or you don't. Like you said 'no gray shades'.

0 upvotes
Gesture
By Gesture (4 months ago)

The camera is almost a parody of what I believe it was intended to be. enough buttons, dials, switches to sink a battleship.

Like it or loathe it, at least the Pentax K-01 attempted to simplify the external interface.

10 upvotes
Henry M. Hertz
By Henry M. Hertz (4 months ago)

the DF is a camera for fashion morons.

the crappy AF alone renders this camera useless for most photographers. but as fashion accessoire it´s fine i guess....

6 upvotes
Bamboojled
By Bamboojled (4 months ago)

Henry, so sad...
Canon fanboi talking about things he has no knowledge of.
It's fine if you want to post an opinion, but please don't try to come across as if you have actually used this camera...

2 upvotes
Michael MacGillivray
By Michael MacGillivray (4 months ago)

If the goal was to achieve a "retro" look, it failed. It's a hybrid of modern and old, a mish-mash of dials that give it the appearance of a WWI battleship, which were ugly as sin.

7 upvotes
nicolaiecostel
By nicolaiecostel (4 months ago)

If it were for you, It would probably have no rear LCD :))

0 upvotes
HowaboutRAW
By HowaboutRAW (4 months ago)

Michael:

Have you handled the body?

0 upvotes
l_d_allan
By l_d_allan (4 months ago)

"Cons" in the overall summary doesn't include lack of video?

Or has that been implemented? Firmware update?

My understanding is that on a camera with LiveView, video is "just" firmware.

My Canon 50d didn't have video, but did have LiveView. The MagicLantern firmware team were able to implement video on the 50d. Amazing.

2 upvotes
stevens37y
By stevens37y (4 months ago)

It will be a slap if once the nikonhackers will implement the video in DF.

0 upvotes
Richard Shih
By Richard Shih (4 months ago)

It's not "just" firmware, but there are a number of hardware considerations as well. Things like needing a larger memory buffer, additional CPU power to encode the video, and heatsinks to dissipate the heat from the sensor.

That's not to say that the Df doesn't have all those things and video can be enabled with "just" a firmware swap, but without knowing the engineering underneath the hood, no one can say for certain.

0 upvotes
beholder3
By beholder3 (4 months ago)

Df = mediocre + overpriced

Interesting to see how many grown-up people actually fall for a cheap packaging of completely mediocre content.
Even the sensor recycled from the D4 is meh at best.

Mediocre. Sad, if that is what comes to mind with a recent product. Mediocre.

4 upvotes
rhlpetrus
By rhlpetrus (4 months ago)

D4's sensor meh? Ok, case closed.

4 upvotes
unknown member
By (unknown member) (4 months ago)

I'm sure you are enamored with something I would think ridiculous. Different strokes. It's no skin off your teeth either way.

0 upvotes
jtan163
By jtan163 (4 months ago)

It's not surprising - people take their pet rocks to the pet rock doctor.
The level of delusion required to buy a tarted up D610 with no video if far lower.

0 upvotes
HowaboutRAW
By HowaboutRAW (4 months ago)

jtan163:

Better high ISO lowligher performance than the D610 is an odd way of saying "tarted up".

1 upvote
sadaka
By sadaka (4 months ago)

Too bulky, Too expensive!

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

Definitely Camera of the year.
Outstanding design.
Outstanding performance.
Outstanding image quality.
No video is absolutely the right direction. If you like good video...buy an Arri, not this one.
A real perfect camera.

4 upvotes
ravduc
By ravduc (4 months ago)

You have obviously used the camera for more than five minutes and understand the essence behind it.

7 upvotes
stevens37y
By stevens37y (4 months ago)

"If you like good video...buy an Arri, not this one."
Calm down. Noone will buy it for video.

2 upvotes
Lukino
By Lukino (4 months ago)

Am I the only one to find this camera ugly? I love old "F"s, but this Df looks to me more like a medium format Kiev than one of those sexy Nikons I lusted after in my youth...

13 upvotes
NCB
By NCB (4 months ago)

Do you mean the chrome one or the all black one? I've avoided chrome on any camera for a long time; I'm not into retro looks for the sake of it. But to me the black Df I've just bought looks superb.

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

I hate to say this, but I think you are the only one to find this camera ugly. It looks even better in real life, but beauty is in the eye of the beholder, right? If we all liked the same things, we would all be driving the same cars, and buying the same homes, etc.
p.s. It doesn't look like a medium format Kiev 60. I have one of those and I admit they are not very pretty but they get the job done.

1 upvote
physguy88
By physguy88 (4 months ago)

You and at least six other people who have seen your comment, including myself. A hodgepodge of silvery buttons stuck onto an angular silvery body with a plastic screen outback like some Frankenstein monster. Ugh!

4 upvotes
UnChatNoir
By UnChatNoir (4 months ago)

I've seen both the silver & black edition in the store. The silver version looks more credible than the black one, which feels to me 'plastic fake'. There's indeed in this concept something wrong, a certain refinement or better: consistency is missing in the design and concept. It's also smaller than I thought it would be, about the same size of a Fujifilm X-Pro1. It's an excellent camera's I'm sure, but both the price tag as the AF system cannot convince me. This marvelous sensor should have deserved something better than the D610's AF system, also in this camera the wrong choice. If you want an high end FF, just buy the D610 or D800 and they will offer you more value for a lower price.

0 upvotes
HowaboutRAW
By HowaboutRAW (4 months ago)

Not if you care about shooting in lowlight at high ISOs the D610 and D800 won't cut it.

0 upvotes
rhlpetrus
By rhlpetrus (4 months ago)

THe X-Pro is definitely large and feels wrong (tried one) for APS-C. Still need to try the Df, it looks like it will handle better. Actually, the X-Pro feels like one of those large consumer RFs, like the old Yashica Electro G35:

http://www.kenrockwell.com/yashica/images/electro-35/D3S_1597-left-1200.jpg

THis was the camera I lusted for back in 1972, but luckly I was able to get an AP Spotmatic F (still works perfectly to this day).

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

HowaboutRAW...

If you read the comments.. it's low light where the camera falls down (AF only good in good light?).. It will give good low noise images at High ISO but not a capable performer in focus terms; Not as well as the 'won't cut it' D800 you mentioned.

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

Alan, you have read enough personal reviews on the Nikon page frrom experienced users to know that not true.

1 upvote
HowaboutRAW
By HowaboutRAW (4 months ago)

Alan:

And if you've read comments here, AF in lowlight is fine; this has been my experience too. Looks to me like you're going with believing the review instead of those who say there's something wrong with the review.

Anyhow I use Zeiss MF lenses particularly since they improve high ISO shooting.

1 upvote
rbach44
By rbach44 (4 months ago)

I played with one of these in the store yesterday and I agree without his review: They picked and chose which features were "retro" quality and which parts were modern mid grade. The whole package just doesn't add up the way it should have.

Its a shame, because picking it up just doesn't feel anything close to an old F. It seems like the OM-D line to me in this regard, where they sacrificed ergonomics for classic styling without really digging into the core of what made these old cameras so great (and usable). I wish that this was an old style camera with a bit of the wisdom Nikon has gained from making what I consider the finest and most refined SLRs on the face of the planet. But it really ends up feeling like a compromised frankenstein. I was very excited for this camera, but I am actually pretty disappointed now that I saw it in person.

2 upvotes
HowaboutRAW
By HowaboutRAW (4 months ago)

What parts did you think were "modern mid grade"? (The kit lens can't be part of the answer. And true it doesn't have the AF of the D4.)

Have you handled and shot with an Olympus EM1?

0 upvotes
rbach44
By rbach44 (4 months ago)

I thought he body on a whole felt like modern techno plastic with some metal dials on top.

I feel like for such a "boutique" camera that feel + ergonomics should have been everything. But feel like they fell short on both. I honestly feel like my beloved D700 feels + handles better than the Df (at east with my short time with it)

Oh and I have used the EM1, and I rather like it. But I think Olympus is guilty of the same thing sometimes: trading ergonomics for style (the centered viewfinder in particular…). But the whole package is more successful than the the Df in my opinion...

1 upvote
HowaboutRAW
By HowaboutRAW (4 months ago)

rbach44:

"felt" that wasn't my question.

So which materials did you think were "modern and mid grade"?

The body is magnesium.

Also I didn't ask about Df ergonomics.

0 upvotes
NCB
By NCB (4 months ago)

My Df arrived yesterday, spent last night setting it up, today nipped down to the sea in wet squally conditions to try a few sample shots, and survived! Initial thoughts below.

The big question in my mind when ordering it was grip and handling. The grip is fine; I can just grab the camera with confidence, and it's designed to work well with the top mounted shutter release. Likewise handling feels great; no nasty uncomfortable edges where I wondered if there might be.

Don't understand the comments about quality. Feels like a solid, very well made camera, despite being relatively light; most modern DSLRs feel like plasticy lumps, even when they're not.

It's what I was looking for when ordering it; a relatively light and compact full frame camera which has traditional controls, thoroughly modern innards and handles well. Forget about nostalgia; it's that combination which appeals to me and to others.

Value for money? Same price as a fixed lens Sony RX1 with no grip or viewfinder.

16 upvotes
JDThomas
By JDThomas (4 months ago)

Your opinions reflect actual usage of the camera. I'm not sure if informed opinions are allowed here. :)

4 upvotes
AbrasiveReducer
By AbrasiveReducer (4 months ago)

Do you really expect somebody to buy one of these and say "Now that I've spent this much and used it for a while, I have to admit (to myself) that it's less than perfect".

3 upvotes
ravduc
By ravduc (4 months ago)

There is no such thing as perfection. I have purchased cameras that after using them, I did not like. I really don't agree with you on this. What's 'perfect' for you will not be for me, otherwise we would all be asking for the same products.

0 upvotes
wetsleet
By wetsleet (4 months ago)

@Abrasive
Yes. It's called Buyer's Remorse
"Buyer's remorse is the sense of regret after having made a purchase. It is frequently associated with the purchase of an expensive item such a car or house . It may stem from fear of making the wrong choice,..."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buyer's_remorse

1 upvote
marwiz
By marwiz (4 months ago)

So, let me understand. If you buy one and actually like it, you have buyer's remorse. If you did not buy it, or use it, or have any idea of what it is like, and you do not like it, you have an informed opinion. Haaaa...

2 upvotes
wetsleet
By wetsleet (4 months ago)

@marwiz
No, you got that wrong, but I think you know that already.

0 upvotes
MPA1
By MPA1 (4 months ago)

You mean you spent that much money without ever even handling the camera?!

0 upvotes
wetsleet
By wetsleet (4 months ago)

I don't think that follows from what has been said. You seem to imply that only by buying in haste is it possible to come to regret a purchase.

0 upvotes
HBowman
By HBowman (4 months ago)

EPIC FAIL IS EPIC !

9 upvotes
HowaboutRAW
By HowaboutRAW (4 months ago)

Have you shot with the Df? Doesn't appear so.

Also since when is 81 a fail?

7 upvotes
ravduc
By ravduc (4 months ago)

God just spoke! Over dramatization.

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

Yep, no award even a bronze. Epic fail indeed!

0 upvotes
HowaboutRAW
By HowaboutRAW (4 months ago)

Allochka:

81 out of 100. Odd definition of "epic fail".

0 upvotes
ravduc
By ravduc (4 months ago)

Yeh, all Olympians are epic failures if they do not win a medal. Give me a break! Your quite the analyst! Somewhat one sided I would say.

0 upvotes
Steve
By Steve (4 months ago)

a score of 81.. no matter how much griping DP has about a camera, it usually comes up with a score near or above 80... so they rave about one cam with score of 85 and are disappointed with another camera and give it an 85.. i'm questioning this rating system now.

0 upvotes
Managarm
By Managarm (4 months ago)

>> a score of 81.. no matter how much griping DP has about a camera, it usually comes up with a score near or above 80... <<

Agree. A rating system that only uses it's top 25% of the scale is kind of wasted.
I guess Amazon's ownership also doesn't like popular cameras receiving low scores. Would pretty much hurt the sales. Financial interests and honest opinions usually don't go well together.

Not aimed at the Nikon Df, but meant as a general statement.

Comment edited 2 times, last edit 3 minutes after posting
1 upvote
dstarr3
By dstarr3 (4 months ago)

$2,800 camera, $2 shutter release. A bargain!

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

Use this with all those old 500mb cards you have to get the true retro experience.

9 upvotes
HowaboutRAW
By HowaboutRAW (4 months ago)

Try 32MB for a real "retro" SD card.

4 upvotes
Bill Bentley
By Bill Bentley (4 months ago)

@ HowaboutRAW I still have my Canon labeled 16mb compact flash card that shipped with my 350D. ;-)

0 upvotes
HowaboutRAW
By HowaboutRAW (4 months ago)

Bill:

Yeah I have one of those 16mb CF cards; it came with my G2. I was sticking with SD though.

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

Having read the whole review, I concur with the opinion that it’s well done. The Nikon Df is an unusually hard camera to review and you’ve done a good job, all things considered. Very professional.

But I would have liked to hear the discussions between staff members that must have taken place about this camera. Something tells me the opinions were more diverse and emphatically expressed than any in the review!

2 upvotes
Peter Lacus
By Peter Lacus (4 months ago)

a "retro" camera with a non-replaceable focusing screen of a dubious quality (for manual focusing) - maybe it's just me, but the viewfinder quality is actually the thing I'd liked the most out of the cameras from the bygone era...

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

It’s not just you, Peter. Hundreds of us have said the same thing, even while we disagree on other things.

If the Df had had a viewfinder optimised for manual focus I would have forgiven it all its other flaws and assaults on good taste. THAT is what is missing in the SLR marketplace. Everything else can be worked around (dials or lack thereof, complexity, etc.), but if you can’t focus quickly and easily you simply can’t use manual-focus lenses in fast-paced situations.

6 upvotes
G1Houston
By G1Houston (4 months ago)

They could have used the live view more, as mentioned in the review to also include exposure information. How about focus peaking, as more and more companies are adding this to their cameras, Nikon is really behind in these high tech areas.

3 upvotes
Biowizard
By Biowizard (4 months ago)

Once in a while I just have to peer through one of my wide-aperture primes attached to my lovely original OM-1n (had it from new), to remind myself of JUST how lovely a viewfinder could look. Pity you need to use a 36-year-old camera to get that feel of being "in" your picture ...

Brian

8 upvotes
HowaboutRAW
By HowaboutRAW (4 months ago)

Biowizard:

The VF on the Df is excellent, certainly better than my OM4's and nearly as good as that on the D4 or Sony A900. Of course, as you know, the lens attached matters.

Comment edited 1 minute after posting
2 upvotes
ravduc
By ravduc (4 months ago)

I partially agree with you but I have had no problems with manually focusing lenses on this camera, not anymore than the film cameras that I still use a lot. There is no split image but then I have never liked split image focusing screens and have always replaced them with just a coarse mat screen. I agree with you that for the price they should have provided the possibility of using different screens. The overlay on the present screen (which alloys you to enable a grid) probably has something to do with this.

0 upvotes
HowaboutRAW
By HowaboutRAW (4 months ago)

rav:

I bet the screen can be swapped at a Nikon service centre.

0 upvotes
ravduc
By ravduc (4 months ago)

Maybe they will offer that option but for now I think that the digital overlay on top of the screen has something to do with this.

0 upvotes
wetsleet
By wetsleet (4 months ago)

@Biowizard
I thought I was the only one! I look through my FE2 for the same nostalgic reasons. I find that it is possible to hold the FE2 to one eye, the DSLR to the other, and you can get a very accurate sense of how much bigger the old viewfinder is. You can actually align the two images and compare the V and H dimensions. Even FF DSLRs, they still have not got a viewfinder to compare to an old film SLR. Why not, aaargh?

2 upvotes
MPA1
By MPA1 (4 months ago)

Yes - and interchangeable finders with things like High Eyepoint options.
The versatility of modern cameras is actually not as great as the F3, F4 etc was from that pov.

1 upvote
micronean
By micronean (4 months ago)

an 81 on a non-recommended camera?

It seems like DPreview was very generous on their review. Had its name been anything but Nikon, its real place would have been somewhere in the low 70s.

1 upvote
Richard Shih
By Richard Shih (4 months ago)

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

Take a look at the pie chart. The scores are heavily weighted towards image quality and the Df does that splendidly. If its name had been anything but Nikon, it would still have the same score.

2 upvotes
ravduc
By ravduc (4 months ago)

Where did you see non-recommended?

1 upvote
Alphoid
By Alphoid (4 months ago)

Man. This or the Hasselblad Lunar... Tough choice.

8 upvotes
ravduc
By ravduc (4 months ago)

I think you deserve the Lunar. You would never understand the DF.

4 upvotes
GPW
By GPW (4 months ago)

I applaud DPREVIEW for their honest review, and not catering to the people who might get upset because it's not what they wanted to hear, it is what it is.

4 upvotes
ravduc
By ravduc (4 months ago)

It is what it is for these reviewers but not necessarily for all reviewers and users. You are giving DPR too much credibility without even looking at what other reviewers have said. They are not the Holy Grail of reviewers.

5 upvotes
G1Houston
By G1Houston (4 months ago)

Thom Hogan's review largely agrees with DPreview's.

1 upvote
ravduc
By ravduc (4 months ago)

I really don't think so since he has chosen to keep one for himself.

1 upvote
G1Houston
By G1Houston (4 months ago)

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

He listed the reasons why some people may like it, but he also pointed out many issues in the Df showing evidence that it was rushed to the market before it is ready.

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

interesting to see so many comments about af performance and very few complaining about the exposure compensation dial on the wrong side and to rub salt into the would - you need to unlock it before you can turn it, now THAT was the real deal breaker for me. Most current DSLR's and ILC's have it on the right hand side, it won't matter if the Df is you only camera but using it as a second body on a shoot this sure throws a wench in your workflow

2 upvotes
wetsleet
By wetsleet (4 months ago)

In case you hadn't noticed, this camera is not looking towards "most current DSLR's". It looks back, to non-current non-D SLRs. Back then the compensation dial was on the left, forming part of the ISO selection mechanism, and it locked.

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

of course. what was I thinking......
as logical as pairing drum brakes with Ducati's 851 engine

3 upvotes
Zamac
By Zamac (4 months ago)

Ha! Not everyone even had an exposure dial. For 25 years I used an OM-1 where exposure compensation was moving the exposure pointer off centre. Before that it was Sekonic.

5 upvotes
G1Houston
By G1Houston (4 months ago)

" It looks back, "

it is indeed backward looking.

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

And forward as it has as good IQ as any camera available, and better AF in any camera except Nikons 51 pt.

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

@mike
in your sarcasm you overlook the essential: it is the the camera's control layout and ergonomics which hark back, whilst its technology is modern. So your analogy with drum brakes, an old technology, is inappropriate.
If you would have the Df ape the modern camera's control paradigm then very little would be left of its 'retro' appeal.
If you don't like the control and ergonomics of a 30-40 year old design I can well understand, but to criticise a camera, whose aim is to reanimate that design, for succeeding in that aim, seems odd.

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

This is a camera that I don't need any review to buy it. The look and the specs are enough for me to buy it without doubts.

Extremely Well Done Nikon.

Comment edited 21 seconds after posting
5 upvotes
HBowman
By HBowman (4 months ago)

Aleoluyaaa

1 upvote
Digital Suicide
By Digital Suicide (4 months ago)

So why you're here? :)

4 upvotes
MPA1
By MPA1 (4 months ago)

If only money was so unimportant to all of us....!

1 upvote
kadardr
By kadardr (4 months ago)

I used to be a marketing guy and one of the anticompetitive strategies was repositioning the competitor product.
From the pros and cons Df is much worse than D610, lame, out of style, there is an imbalance of sensor, processor, and af speed and coverage, it is out of anything, especially of scope. Cheap selection of materials, bad handling, too expensive.
From the review 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.

It is obvious that this time the review went too far.

0 upvotes
HowaboutRAW
By HowaboutRAW (4 months ago)

And still the Df is better at high ISO lowlight shooting than the D610.

"Cheap selection of materials", huh? So you've not handled it then. Magnesium is not cheap to work with.

1 upvote
ravduc
By ravduc (4 months ago)

I don't think that you can say that they used cheap material. The camera is extremely well put together. The battery door thing is an exception. I haven't had any problems with this and I would think that most are not having any problems. Handling is excellent as far as I am concerned and I use quite a few dslr's. The handling is just different which doesn't equate to poor handling. The reviewers imho do not understand the essence of this camera. My only complaint with the camera is the price. They could have priced it lower, instead they decided to make into an exclusive item.

0 upvotes
tjbates
By tjbates (4 months ago)

I'm all for the retro approach to modern digital cameras, but I just walked past the window of my local camera store where the Df sat next to the latest lineup of retro cameras and the Df looked cheap and a little silly - like a wedding cake of buttons and dials. I don't know why, but the silver finish - to me looks cheap. That said, I'd love to try it out but with poor low light AF it wouldn't make it onto my Santas list.

0 upvotes
kadardr
By kadardr (4 months ago)

I wanted to say that I do not believe Nikon wanted to screw up everything of this camera. I do not believe that the AF is failure. Simply too much criticism only to bring the df down.

0 upvotes
HowaboutRAW
By HowaboutRAW (4 months ago)

kadardr:

So you've not used the body? Many people in these comments think the AF is good in lowlight, me included. And I've shot with it--albeit only test shots.

0 upvotes
HowaboutRAW
By HowaboutRAW (4 months ago)

tjbates :

Looks can deceive. Looks "cheap" doesn't mean made on the cheap.

Test the lowlight AF yourself.

0 upvotes
AlexBakerPhotoz
By AlexBakerPhotoz (4 months ago)

I still have a Nikkormat EL and some classic pre-AI lenses from the early '70s - 135mm f/2.8, 55mm f/3.5 Macro, 50mm f/1.4, so when the Df was announced, I was pretty excited about it. But now that I have calmed down some I realize that my D600 (dust problem all fixed now) is really wonderful. I traded my D7000 for a Sony Nex-6 that fits in my pocket and amazingly I got a Fotodiox adapter that allows me to use all the old Nikon lenses on the Nex-6! So I'll pass on the Df, but I think it was courageous of Nikon to make it. If anything, I may wind up getting a D7100 as a backup for the broader AF area and no anti-aliasing. If I were starting all over from scratch, I'd have to say the new FF Sony's sure look tempting.

Comment edited 48 seconds after posting
2 upvotes
HowaboutRAW
By HowaboutRAW (4 months ago)

Great if those Nikon DSLR bodies work for you, why would anybody jump at the Df except for lowlight high ISO shooting, or I guess if you didn't already own a good FF DSLR?

0 upvotes
JDThomas
By JDThomas (4 months ago)

If all you're looking for in the D7100 as a backup is broader AF area and no AA filter, save yourself some money and get the D5300. Basically a D7100 in a tiny body.

I like mine a lot. Not as a main camera of course, but as a secondary camera.

0 upvotes
Matt
By Matt (4 months ago)

Who are those people who cant do "pure" photography unless some modern controls are stripped away from their camere?

"Oh noz, I cant take good photos because my camera offers all those features that I dont want to use but must use!"

give me a break. If someone is such an accomplished photogrpaher that the pure thought of modern controls ruins their photos, then either give it up or put your D800 rig in M and MF or whatever else.

The ultimate idiocy is the use of a cable release instead of a wireless remote shutter release. if someone is so stuck in the past that they must use a cable remote release and by doing so risk vibrating their camera slightly instead of a RF or IR remote release that would assure the camera isnt shaking then its pretty clear that the retro camera is just a fad to show of that they are some photo master because they dont use any modern gizmos that would distract their superior artistic skills. Those people should give it up

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

I dont think Nikon implied "can't" sounds like you just made that up.

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

Matt: look up how a Bowden cable transmits energy. Used right, a cable release transmits no appreciable vibration.

Additionally:
• it’s non-proprietary and works with other cameras
• it’s dirt-cheap
• it’s tiny and weighs almost nothing
• it requires no batteries
• it lasts forever
• it doesn’t need fixing.

0 upvotes
Matt
By Matt (4 months ago)

@Samuel:

Why would I attach a cable to my camera risking to jerk or vibrate it just for the sake of "Hey look at me, I am so retro and artistic!".

To give up technological benefits just to look retro-hip seems a bit silly to me ...

Its dirt cheap? Great but if you cant foot $20 for an RF remote, maybe buying that cool retro camera was a poor choice to begin with ....
A RF remote is small and weighs also almost nothing. If you can lug around a retro hip camera and a tripod (and I am sure we not be using carbon as thats not retro and would take away our artistic skills ;) ) than an RF remote will do
great it uses no batteries, but your camera does anyways and batteries in IR remotes last years, so thats hardly a concern.
it doesnt need fixing until you bugger up the threads or kink it ...
You know if you must screw a cable release in your retro styled camera to take really artistic pictures, then great. Whatever helps.
For my part I will use all features that help me taking photos.

1 upvote
Samuel Dilworth
By Samuel Dilworth (4 months ago)

Matt, I have no interest in “retro” and in fact dislike it. I am interested in functionality. For me, the traditional cable release is more functional for the reasons I mentioned (and by “doesn’t need fixing” I meant it was a solution to the problem that didn’t need to be changed).

I’m not obsessed with this, mind you. It’s just another small aspect of camera design that manufacturers changed to follow fads or make more money, rather than to thoughtfully improve usability.

0 upvotes
justmeMN
By justmeMN (4 months ago)

The camera wasn't good enough to get an Award, but DPR should have at least given it a Participation Ribbon. :-)

3 upvotes
Jogger
By Jogger (4 months ago)

It didnt get an award because there arent any DSLR shooters left on the DPR review team.

3 upvotes
retro76
By retro76 (4 months ago)

I didn't get an award because it doesn't do video lol, you know the feature that every photographer secretly can't live without (rolling eyes)

1 upvote
D1N0
By D1N0 (4 months ago)

Maybe it should get the booby award. But dpreview doesn't have that. I would say Gold IQ and back to the drawing board.

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

It didn't get an award because the reviewers didn't end up loving the camera. Simple as that. I can't wait for the Df2 though, if and when it appears.

4 upvotes
Markol
By Markol (4 months ago)

Almost every camera here used to get a recommended or highly so. Now it is the awards. And if one does not get one every now and then, ppl start complaining. Come on Barney, do not tell me you think this system is good?
Limit youself to no more than 25% get an award. That will make for meaningful awards.

1 upvote
babalu
By babalu (4 months ago)

@Barney
Thanks, I call that a clear statement .

0 upvotes
D1N0
By D1N0 (4 months ago)

Clearly Nikon wants everybody to buy a D800. A D800 functionality body with d600 size with a 24mp kick ass sensor is what Nikon should have made. Use a scaled down version for the 24mp aps-c sensor and the longed for D400 is also a fact.

2 upvotes
HowaboutRAW
By HowaboutRAW (4 months ago)

Drop the requests for more mega pixels in this body.

As you clearly already know, Nikon has bodies with full frame sensors with a greater MP count.

0 upvotes
D1N0
By D1N0 (4 months ago)

When you would have read my post comprehensively you would have known that I am not requesting this body at all. I could care less how many mega pixels it has.

0 upvotes
HowaboutRAW
By HowaboutRAW (4 months ago)

D1NO:

Reread what you wrote above. You specifically asked for a D800 with a "24MP kick ass sensor". That is a request for more mega pixels.

0 upvotes
D1N0
By D1N0 (4 months ago)

you said "in this body" meaning Df. I don't care about the Df, not even with more mp. Nikon should have made a different Camera. That was my point.

0 upvotes
HowaboutRAW
By HowaboutRAW (4 months ago)

D1NO:

And a "D800" that's actually good at high ISOs would have a pixel count of from 12MP to 14MP--not the more MPs you asked for.

The request for a different body is fine, the request for more MPs is not.

0 upvotes
D1N0
By D1N0 (4 months ago)

The d800 is very good at high iso. Almost as Good as the D4. The greatest con of 36mp is slower operation and large file sizes, not noise.

0 upvotes
HowaboutRAW
By HowaboutRAW (3 months ago)

D1N0:

No the D800 is not anywhere near the high ISO performance of the D4. It's a preposterous claim, and it's tiresome to see it repeated. That's why I spent the effort responding a month later.

0 upvotes
photo perzon
By photo perzon (4 months ago)

Nikon should make a smaller AFS retro for the rest of us.

2 upvotes
Nukunukoo
By Nukunukoo (4 months ago)

True. It's called "Fuji"... ;-)

Comment edited 15 seconds after posting
4 upvotes
Digital Suicide
By Digital Suicide (4 months ago)

Can you mount AI lens on your "Fuji"?

0 upvotes
Jonathan F/2
By Jonathan F/2 (4 months ago)

Umm, actually you can.

1 upvote
rhlpetrus
By rhlpetrus (4 months ago)

Hmm, the X-Pro? No thanks, feels awful in my hands. And ugly as well.

0 upvotes
JimmyDP
By JimmyDP (4 months ago)

I assume that pro's will not buy this as their go to camera. However, looks as if it makes a great backup to the D4 since it sports the same sensor. If I were a "pro" my first choice would be the D4 as my living would depend on it. And, as a "pro", you have to have a backup. Try telling a "the bride" "Sorry folks, I have to go back to the studio ...". Your next camera would be a point & shoot.

0 upvotes
JDThomas
By JDThomas (4 months ago)

I'm a pro. And I bought one as my go-to camera. I have no need for a D4. I shoot lots of different things and while the D4 is a nice camera my living doesn't depend on having one.

0 upvotes
Jogger
By Jogger (4 months ago)

I think a lot of the hurt is because the likes of Sony, Panasonic, Oly, etc.. would absolutely kill to be able to sell a $2700 SLR/ILC camera body. They simply cant because no one would buy one from them... although, Sony is doing well with their RX1/r.

I also suspect the Df will easily outsell the flagships from those companies as well.. let me know when these companies start profiting from their ILC cameras.

2 upvotes
Pritzl
By Pritzl (4 months ago)

So it's a Frankencamera?

Such a shame to handicap such a great sensor with so-so AF and confused manual controls. I just hope that this is not the last foray into retro design because with a little more thought (e.g. non-locking, better placed dials and removal of the redundant mode dial) the directness of control would have been nice.

2 upvotes
optic67
By optic67 (4 months ago)

i dont recognise the camera in this review , mine is fantastic and performs superbly , especially in low light

7 upvotes
nikheat
By nikheat (4 months ago)

You obviously dont use your camera in low enough light, my D600 struggles to AF in low light situations my D4 has no problems in, and so the Df sensor and its AF are mismatched in my opinion.

I would love a camera in the Df form factor if it could AF in low light better, no point of a great low light sensor if the AF reduces your chances of low light focus. The D4 is just a bit to bulky for for band photography in small venues. The D600/610 has very good low light performance up to ISO3200 and costs half the price. Function is more important than aesthetic, and the sensor to AF mismatch in the Df kills it for me, so sticking with D600 and D4.

3 upvotes
Bamboojled
By Bamboojled (4 months ago)

@nikheat
The focusing system on the Df is improved over the D600 as EVERY review has said.
So once again we have individuals that have never shot the Df giving their opinion.
Interestingly no other reviewer has had any issues with the Df focusing

0 upvotes
HowaboutRAW
By HowaboutRAW (4 months ago)

@nikheat:

The D610 is not half the price of the Df, really now. (Don't here claim you referred the D600--no one in his right mind will buy one of those, hence the discount.)

And frankly for a full framed DSLR ISO 3200 is not considered high ISO any more.

0 upvotes
JDThomas
By JDThomas (4 months ago)

I haven't finished my review yet, but I have had some issues with the Dƒ AF in low light. It could be better. The far AF points are especially prone to hunting in low light.

Since the AF array is so cramped, for concerts I've resorted to focus/recompose anyway, so using the center AF point (which works great in low light) is the only logical workaround.

I like my Dƒ a lot, but it isn't perfect. Really the weakest link in my book is the AF.

2 upvotes
Bamboojled
By Bamboojled (4 months ago)

The focusing points on all DSLR's are weakest at the edges, that's a given.
The review did not specify the far edges, it said focusing in low light was poor (as in all Points)
Based on your comments the center points focus fine in low light.
So I believe this is where you and the review differ.

1 upvote
JDThomas
By JDThomas (4 months ago)

The far focus points on the Df are worse than on any other camera I've used. In my opinion that makes it poor for focusing in low-light. Yes, the center point is fine. But if I can ONLY use the center point in low-light, which is what I shoot 80% if the time then YES. The AF is poor.

My assessment of whether an AF system works is based on the AF system as a whole, not bits and pieces. And on the whole the AF kind of sucks in low light.

You're so insistent on calling people out about this. Let me ask you, how many times have you used the Df in a low light situation? And I mean a real working situation, not strolling around the block at night.

3 upvotes
Cailean Gallimore
By Cailean Gallimore (4 months ago)

So it's a triumph of form over function.

Good to know.

9 upvotes
drummercam
By drummercam (4 months ago)

Yes, obviously:
"The Nikon Df is a product that's as much about invoking nostalgia as it is about capturing the moment."

1 upvote
mpgxsvcd
By mpgxsvcd (4 months ago)

Is this the first camera that Dpreview didn’t even give a Silver or Gold award to?

4 upvotes
drummercam
By drummercam (4 months ago)

They had a gold stamp on it for a while, at least. I saw it. Maybe it was pulled.

0 upvotes
marike6
By marike6 (4 months ago)

No. The Pentax K-01 and the Nikon V1, the first mirrorless camera that with a quality PDAF system and blazing fast processing/fps got zero love from reviewers.

But in general, almost every half way decent camera gets at least a Silver Award. But with Amadou seemingly gone, and few DSLR shooters on staff I expect we'll see more negative reviews like this one to come.

8 upvotes
Bamboojled
By Bamboojled (4 months ago)

@marike6
Wow you hit the nail, the reviews on this site definitely have a slant to them.

1 upvote
Barney Britton
By Barney Britton (4 months ago)

@ marike6 - you've been trolling our reviews for years - do you need me to explain our scoring system to you again?

8 upvotes
JakeB
By JakeB (4 months ago)

Wow.

marike6 officially called out as a troll.

Well done, Barney, for exposing that tiresome know-it-all.

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

Thanks DPR for the right review. Got your final words. They speak to me in only way: D610 is much clever choice (for me).

6 upvotes
HowaboutRAW
By HowaboutRAW (4 months ago)

The D610 a good camera, but not great above ISO 10,000 and not on sale for $1200.

Consider too the Canon 6D.

And suggestion: Handle a Df.

1 upvote
Nukunukoo
By Nukunukoo (4 months ago)

Seriously, how many DSLR people will use anything above 3200 regularly?

8 upvotes
HowaboutRAW
By HowaboutRAW (4 months ago)

Nukunukoo:

Many do, or would like to. That you don't isn't important to the general point.

In the 35mm film era until about the year 2002, ISO 400 was the limit for colour film. Higher ISOs existed but had real problems--particularly in lowlight.

Then came decent Kodak ISO 800 colour film. So by your logic you'd never go above ISO 800 with a DSLR.

Technology moves on.

2 upvotes
Digital Suicide
By Digital Suicide (4 months ago)

What is wrong with people obsessed with huge ISO numbers?
I don't need 10'000. It's ridiculous. And why would you offer me canon for my MF Nikkor lenses?

0 upvotes
rhlpetrus
By rhlpetrus (4 months ago)

@Nukunukoo: just any dark venue where you need high SS to freeze action, like ballet, concerts, etc., especially with longer lenses. Actually, ISO 3200 is the minimum requirement for such shooting.

0 upvotes
dyoon153
By dyoon153 (4 months ago)

I'm not a pro but enthusiast... I don't carry any flash nor use on-camera ones that often either, and often I cannot carry tripod around (it's too burdensome after off-work shooting) Which means I occasionally have higher ISO settings (3200, 6400, 12800, sometimes higher on extreme cases). I'm not obsessed in numbers, but good high ISO performance is a perk for someone like me to keep on shooting..

1 upvote
HowaboutRAW
By HowaboutRAW (4 months ago)

Digital Suicide:

Higher ISO numbers make for better lowlight shooting, like concerts. Or higher shutter speeds for things like indoor sporting events. This is all really obvious. And in fact 35mm film had advantages over digital, until about the year 2003 when digital's higher ISO capacity permanently won the race. Yet again: Technology moves on and improves, irony Kodak TV screen tech is about to replace all monitors.

You didn't say that you were limited to Nikon. Right the D610 is a plenty good camera.

0 upvotes
the Mtn Man
By the Mtn Man (4 months ago)

I love the retro styling. This might be the perfect anti-theft camera design. What thief is going to want to steal what at first glance looks like an obsolete, 35mm film camera that wouldn't fetch more than $10 at the pawn shop?

0 upvotes
Red5TX
By Red5TX (4 months ago)

Thieves are smarter than you think.

5 upvotes
audijam
By audijam (4 months ago)

they use dpreview you know....geez

4 upvotes
stevens37y
By stevens37y (4 months ago)

a nostalgic thief

6 upvotes
HowaboutRAW
By HowaboutRAW (4 months ago)

stevens37y:

Kinda think most thieves are interested in a quick sale.

0 upvotes
nikonhudson
By nikonhudson (4 months ago)

Rating this review, I give it a 62% with no bronze, silver or gold award. The quality of reviews on DPR has declined and this one hits bottom.

5 upvotes
JakeB
By JakeB (4 months ago)

Or you could stop being a child and provide REASONS why you disagree with dpreview's assessment.

4 upvotes
Maji
By Maji (4 months ago)

How about the speed of AF in low light... here is an excerpt from an Df user shooting a gig in low light - "Ray your question is most important - how is autofocus in low light. Tonight I shot with stage lighting and the Df felt quick and responsive in both focusing and tracking and very similar to the D800 or D3s. After tonight (stage lighting of course), my confidence level in Df focus ability went way up. Only a handful of images were out of focus and it was because of user error and small grip (my thumb came off the af-on button)."

http://www.dpreview.com/forums/thread/3594551#forum-post-52746911

I think DPR may have gotten a faulty camera. I can't believe Nikon's QC will be sloppy after the other problems they faced recently.

1 upvote
PicOne
By PicOne (4 months ago)

How does one digest the apparent contradictions?

"Conclusion - PROs
...Good blend of traditional and contemporary controls
...Fairly accessible menu system, considering the camera's complexity

Conclusion - CONs
...Locking exposure comp dial is inconvenient (especially with large lenses)
...Front command dial not terribly comfortable to use
...No two-button card format option
No 'live' aperture control in live view mode presents inconsistencies between lens types
No time-lapse option (available on D610)
No infrared remote trigger option"

0 upvotes
rhlpetrus
By rhlpetrus (4 months ago)

Re AF, maybe reading this thread would help people get a better perspective:

http://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/52746911

1 upvote
mpgxsvcd
By mpgxsvcd (4 months ago)

For the people who want a camera like this it is perfect. For the people who don't there are so many other options. That sounds like a success to me.

4 upvotes
agentul
By agentul (4 months ago)

"a camera like this" meaning "interesting looking but of poor quality build and without basic functions like battery level indicator"? all for $2750 before tax? perfect indeed.

5 upvotes
marike6
By marike6 (4 months ago)

> without basic functions like battery level indicator

Of course the Df has a battery level indicator, just no percentage of charge left. It also gets an extremely high number of shots per charge (CIPA 1400), something I didn't see mentioned in the review.

1 upvote
Samuel Dilworth
By Samuel Dilworth (4 months ago)

Page 4, marike6. They even mention the necessary caveat (which you omit): the CIPA battery-life test fires any built-in flash every second shot, and the Nikon Df has no built-in flash, so its 1400-shot rating is not directly comparable with the CIPA numbers of cameras with built-in flash units.

1 upvote
stevens37y
By stevens37y (4 months ago)

"For the people who want a camera like this it is perfect."
Theory Of Relativity of the camera world.

0 upvotes
HowaboutRAW
By HowaboutRAW (4 months ago)

mpgxsvcd:

I like this camera plenty, but see some problems: No separate SD compartment, a battery door that interferes with a tripod mount, having to send it into Nikon to have the screen changed and in some situations, particularly with the silver body, I can imagine having difficulty reading the knobs. So that list means that it’s not “perfect” to someone, me, who really likes the camera.

0 upvotes
marike6
By marike6 (4 months ago)

@Samuel Dilworth

Yes the Df has no flash which contributes to the extremely high 1400 shot rating. That said, DPR complains about the lack of a battery percentage meter (causing confusion like above), but unlike Thom Hogan in his Nikon Df review, they don't mention the excellent battery life it gets from such a small battery. Kind of an odd omission wouldn't you say?

1 upvote
Samuel Dilworth
By Samuel Dilworth (4 months ago)

That the battery charge isn’t described as a precise percentage doesn’t matter to me. There’s no pressing need for that kind of granularity. Evidently DPReview thinks slightly differently, which is hardly an unforgivable difference of opinion. The reader can make up her own mind.

In real life most of us chimp and check histograms and autofocus five times before we take a shot, and we almost never use a built-in flash. In this kind of usage, it would surprise me if the Df lasts any longer than a D600 or D800 – or even as long – but hey, maybe pushing fewer pixels really does offset the lower energy capacity.

Apparently the Df’s battery life wasn’t remarkable enough, one way or the other, to make the conclusions page.

0 upvotes
JDThomas
By JDThomas (4 months ago)

I use the percentage meter A LOT. If you shoot all day music festivals or sporting events it's a very handy feature to have.

0 upvotes
marike6
By marike6 (4 months ago)

From Page 11

"...but the Df costs as much as the D800, *which* does include the more sophisticated 51-point Mulit-Cam 3500FX system."

Nikon D800 $2996
Nikon Df $2746

Adding emphasis via italics can help drive a point home, but it won't make a false statement more true. :-) But seriously, why the claim that the Df is the same price as the D800?

2 upvotes
xpanded
By xpanded (4 months ago)

In Europe the Df is almost 50% more than the D800.

5 upvotes
marike6
By marike6 (4 months ago)

Yes in Europe. In the US, where DPR is mostly based these days and has a Gear Shop, the Df does not cost as much as the D800. Not sure why the reviewers are making this confusing claim in the region where they are based.

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

B&H Photo or Amazon price for Nikon D800: $2,796.95
B&H Photo or Amazon price for Nikon Df: $2,746.95

That’s a difference of only fifty bucks.

In Europe prices are set by the retailers (competition law and all that), so initial prices are always very high. The Df price will collapse after the first few months, as the price of all recent Nikon cameras and lenses has done after the early adopters pay through the nose and availability improves.

3 upvotes
marike6
By marike6 (4 months ago)

The D800 released at $2996 and the D800E at $3296.

The D800 price of $2,796 on B&H you are quoting is a special "Instant Savings" for the holidays, something you didn't mention.

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/842926-REG/Nikon_D800_D_800_SLR_Digital_Camera.html

2 upvotes
Toccata47
By Toccata47 (4 months ago)

I know three pro's that are using a df to at least back up a d4, (in one case replace). All three circumvent the retro dials in favor of manually programmed buttons and menu diving.

I think this is probably an excellent camera despite the handling hiccups, but the "pro" column in the summary here seems rather well padded, not something I expect to see in a dpr review.

Classic styling
Good blend of traditional and contemporary controls
Gives sensible choice for using aperture ring or command dial
Fairly accessible menu system, considering the camera's complexity
Screw-in shutter release socket
In-camera Raw reprocessing

6/12 pro's seem either superfluous, subjective, obvious or even dubious. Given the tone of the review I'm quite surprised to see the camera score as highly as it has.

1 upvote
marike6
By marike6 (4 months ago)

If anything a number of the Cons are padded and completely dubious:

* SD card slot under camera awkward for tripod work
* No two-button card format option
* No time-lapse option
* 1/4000th sec maximum shutter speed

These things are true for tons of cameras. I mean the 6D, D600, X-E1, X-Pro1 have the same 1/4000 max shutter. 1/4000 is typical for this class of camera. Heck the Nikon F2 and FM maxed at 1/1000 so a retro Df with 1/4000 makes complete sense. But they needed to find "Cons" to fit their narrative about this camera.

In the Pro section they absolutely should have added:
* Extremely quiet shutter
* Class leading battery life of CIPA 1400 images
* Smallest, lightest FF DSLR on the market

And THE most surprising omission from the "Pros" list:

* Lowest noise high ISO performance of any camera to date including the previous low-light king the Nikon D3s (See DxOMark sensor ratings)

But they had a set narrative and stuck with it.

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

Maybe those cons were listed because they're expected features on a $2,750 body but not on bodies costing much less?

Would a reviewer for a Porsche 911 use the same criteria for cons as he would for a Toyota Camry?

* Fits only two people
* Suspension too stiff
* Trunk is small
* Cup holder can't accommodate a Big Gulp
* Poor gas mileage

Comment edited 34 seconds after posting
3 upvotes
Samuel Dilworth
By Samuel Dilworth (4 months ago)

If I hear another weak car analogy I’m going to throw myself under the wheels of the next passing skateboard.

2 upvotes
Biowizard
By Biowizard (4 months ago)

Lack of time lapse is fairly obvious, considering that video is not supported. Or did you mean an intervalometer? Which is different. And thanks to the threaded shutter button, should be easy to arrange with any number of third-party, mechanical devices.

Brian

0 upvotes
VBLondon
By VBLondon (4 months ago)

I have a Df I am delighted with. I do think this is a good and useful review.
I happen to value the Pros of the Df and not really care about the Cons identified.
That weighting is a personal preferences, DPR's overall conclusion reflects the reviewers' judgement (and I guess the price), which is fair.

I've found the AF in low light just as good as the D3S I had before, but, to be fair, I think that's only using the centre focus point.

7 upvotes
retro76
By retro76 (4 months ago)

Dpreview, I used to worship your reviews, but I feel as though bias now plagues your site. A site that praises the SL1 which uses a dated sensor that can't even produce the dynamic range of many mirrorless models ( a glorified repackages T3i from years ago). A site which gives praise to Olympus mirrorless models which also have quite a steep 'retro' tax applied and many models continue to suffer from shutter shock which in my experience with the EM5 led to countless OOF shots. I don't own the DF, but I can't help to feel as though their is inconsistency and/or bias in your reviews. I dunno, maybe I am wrong, if so I do apologize in advance.

6 upvotes
plevyadophy
By plevyadophy (4 months ago)

Well they scored the camera over 80%, and you're still whining?!! Wow!! That's a darn sight more than I would have scored it. I think the cam is a mess. Great concept, great looks, great compatibility with old lenses (notwithstanding the lack of interchangeable focus screens), but overall poor in execution (e.g. what's with the falling off battery door?!, the mismatched materials on the top plate of the silver version, and why can't Nikon still not get live view right?!!!)

I think this cam is Nikon's "Fuji X100 moment".

Now the fact that you whine about bias, and Fourt Thirds fanboys whine about bias (in favour of Canikon), and Sigma fans whine too, tells me that there is no real bias here at DPReview, and that they are obviously getting things right overall.

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

Can't really say dpreview is biased against nikon or retro cameras, but i do agree it's a tad inconsistent. Frankly, I think "value" should be set aside when rating things — prices change. Is this a good camera or not?

Many of the criticisms stand, even ignoring price: why use an inferior AF system? Front command dial is poorly designed. Design of back is inconsistent with rest of camera.

0 upvotes
retro76
By retro76 (4 months ago)

plevyadophy, i am not whining, nor am I biased. I have owned too many brands to be biased. You yourself admitted to the inconsistency - that they scored it 80% and yet listed a ton of CONS with the camera and admitted at the end they really didn't like it.

0 upvotes
Bamboojled
By Bamboojled (4 months ago)

What is funny is that the inferior focusing system as many are stating, is still far more advanced than pretty much all cameras reviewed by DPreview from Olympus, Sony, Fuji, Panasonic, Ricoh, and even over some Nikon and Canon models.
So everyone that is making comments on the focusing system and have never used the focusing of the D610 or Df have no clue as to how accurate it is.

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

Every time we post a review that is perceived as unusually positive or negative, the accusations of brand bias start flying. If you actually track the specific conspiracy theories, we're supposedly anti-Canon, pro-Canon, anti-Nikon but also biased in favor of Nikon, we were anti-Olympus for a long time (until Olympus started making really good cameras, oddly, at which point we were pro Olympus)....

It's all very tedious.

6 upvotes
JDThomas
By JDThomas (4 months ago)

"It's all very tedious."

Welcome to the interwebs Barney.

1 upvote
whawha
By whawha (4 months ago)

You have to be truly insane to buy a £2700 camera with lousy autofocus and bits that fall off...

17 upvotes
marike6
By marike6 (4 months ago)

The Df doesn't have "lousy AF". Lousy AF would be something like the original Fujifilm X-E1, one of DPR's Gold Award cameras. Sighs. The X-E1 AF even after the firmware update is pretty mediocre in ALL kinds of light. Using a consumer grade camera like the D600 or Df, it's a question of knowing when to use the center AF point (or one of the other 8 cross-type sensors).

But I do agree that the UK price is high. In the US, the Df is absolutely NOT the same price as the D800 as the review incorrectly states, its $250 less.

7 upvotes
Bamboojled
By Bamboojled (4 months ago)

What is funny is that the inferior focusing system as many are stating, is still far more advanced than pretty much all cameras reviewed by DPreview from Olympus, Sony, Fuji, Panasonic,
Ricoh, and even over some Nikon and Canon models.

So everyone that is making comments on the focusing system and have never used the focusing of the D610 or Df have no clue as to how accurate it is.

2 upvotes
Coliban
By Coliban (4 months ago)

I find this Review close to reality and the main issues DPR is complaining are the same features i am missing: The too small AF-Area. The AF-Module from the D610 (Low ISO and problems with the AF??). And, for me, one of the severe issues ist the fixed focus screen, and, very ridiculous, no split-prism focus screen. That the..., is the sense in building a camera also for manuell and old lenses without a split-prism focus screen? Had Nikon never tried to screw a Zeiss lens on a Nikon and tried to focus with a shallow focus area of several mm? I do not understand this. This camera is in the right way but Nikon stopped at the wrong milestone. And the dimensions like depth could be a little more Analog like, a little bit less.

Nevertheless, i think 81% percent is not quite fair, about 90% this camera has deserved more, it still has one of the best sensors. It is a step in the right direction, but i will wait until the DF2.

1 upvote
Revenant
By Revenant (4 months ago)

81% may not look impressive, but according to DPR's explanation of their scoring system, everything above 80% is "outstanding". I don't think any camera have ever been given a 90% score.

2 upvotes
HowaboutRAW
By HowaboutRAW (4 months ago)

Coliban:

With the D700 one could send the body into Nikon for a screen swap. The Df sure looks the same.

I don't own the Df, but I've tried it and had no particular problem with lowlight AF. Manual focus is pretty easy too.

1 upvote
Total comments: 1595
34567