Previous page Next page

Menus cont.

Setup menu

In the Setup menu you'll find options for configuring the camera's basic settings such as date/time and monitor brightness, as well as more advanced options like AF fine-tuning.

Option Values / Actions Notes
Page one
Format memory card  • Yes
 • No
 
Monitor brightness  • Brightness (-5 to +5)  
Auto info display  • On
 • Off
Whether shooting information is displayed on the LCD when you release a halfway-pressed shutter.
Clean image sensor  • Clean now
 • Clean startup/shutdown
Clean at startup
Clean at shutdown
Clean at startup & shutdown
Cleaning off
 
Lock mirror up for cleaning  • Start  
Image Dust Off ref photo  • Start
 • Clean sensor and start
Capture a ' reference image' for the 'Dust Off' feature of Capture NX2.
Flicker reduction  • Auto
 • 50 Hz
 • 60 Hz
 
Time zone and date  • Time zone
Select
 • Date and time
Date set
Time set
 • Date format
yyyy/mm/dd
mm/dd/yyyy
dd/mm/yyyy
 • Daylight saving time
Off
On
 
Page two
Language  • Set language  
Auto image rotation  • On
 • Off
 
Image comment  • Done
 • Input comment
Text entry
 • Attach comment
When enabled the comment is written into the header of each image.
Copyright Information  • Done
 • Artist
Text entry
 • Copyright
Text entry
 • Attach copyright information
Information is stored as metadata.
Save/load settings  • Save settings
 • Load settings
 
Virtual horizon  • (Display)  
Non-CPU lens data  • Done
 • Lens number (1 - 9)
 • Focal length (6 - 4000)
 • Max aperture (F1.2 - F22)
 • Exposure meter coupling (AI, non-AI)
For older manual focus lenses that do not provide electronic communication to the camera.
AF fine tune  • AF fine tune (On/Off)
On
Off
 • Saved value (+/- 20)
 • Default (+/- 20)
 • List saved values
 
Page three
HDMI  • Output resolution
Auto
480p
576p
720p
1080i
 • Device control
On
Off
 
Location data

 • Standby timer
On
Off
 • Position
 • Set clock from satellite
On
Off

For use with the optional GP-1 and GP-1A GPS units.
Assign remote Fn button  • Same as camera Fn button
 • Same as camera Pv button
 • Same as camera AE/AF lock button
For use with the WR-1 and WR-R10/WR-T10 remote controllers.
Wireless mobile adapter  • Enable
 • Disable
Turn on the optional WU-1a Wi-Fi adapter.
Firmware Version  • Version No.
A x.00
B x.00
Information display only.

Retouch menu

The Retouch menu offers a collection of editing presets for post-capture processing of your images. NEF files can be selected for more extensive processing in which you can adjust the camera's currently configured image size, quality and color settings.

Option Values / Actions Notes
Page one
D-Lighting  • Select image
Low
Normal
High
 
Red-eye correction  • Select image
Trim  • Select image
Zoom / Scroll
Aspect
 
Monochrome  • Black-and-white  
 • Sepia
 • Cyanotype
 
Filter effects  • Skylight 
 • Warm filter
 • Red intensifier 
 • Green intensifier 
 • Blue intensifier 
 • Cross screen
 • Soft 
 
Color balance  • Select image
Color wheel
 
Image overlay  • Image 1
 • Image 2
 • Preview
 
NEF (RAW) processing  • Select image
Image quality
Image size
White balance
Exposure compensation
Picture Control
High ISO NR
Color Space
Vignette control
D-Lighting
Apply in-camera adjustments to a NEF file to create a re-processed JPEG.
Page two
Resize  • Select image
 • Choose size
2304 x 1536; 3.5MB
1920 x 1280; 2.5MB
1280 x 856; 1.1MB
960 x 640; 0.6MB
640 x 424; 0.3MB
 
Quick retouch  • Select image
High
Normal
Low
 
Straighten  • Select image (+/-20 adj)  
Distortion control  • Auto
Select image
 • Manual
Select image (+/-5 adj)
 
Fisheye  • Select image (slider adj)  
Color outline  • Select image
 
Color sketch • Select image
Vividness (+/-1 adj)
Outlines (+/-1 adj)
 
Perspective control  • Select image (+/-20 adj)  
Page three
Miniature effect  • Select image Define area to remain in focus.
Selective color  • Select image Select/adjust up to 3 colors.

My menu

Here you can store a customized selection of menu items for quick access. You do so by using the 'Add items' menu to select among a list of available options from each of the other five menu categories. Alternatively, you can swap this tab for one that populates itself with your most recently used menu items.

Option Values / Actions Notes
Add items  • Select items
Playback menu
Shooting menu
Custom setting menu
Setup menu
Retouch menu
 
Remove items  • Select item to remove  
Rank items  • Select item to re-order  
Choose tab  • My menu
 • Recent settings
Swap menus displayed in the tab.
Previous page Next page

Comments

Total comments: 1595
23456
Edmond Leung
By Edmond Leung (4 months ago)

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

2 upvotes
Jaberwok
By Jaberwok (4 months ago)

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
By cmvsm (4 months ago)

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
By Bamboojled (4 months ago)

@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
By Neodp (4 months ago)

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
By Lukino (4 months ago)

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
Jaberwok
By Jaberwok (4 months ago)

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
By jtan163 (4 months ago)

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
By Shamael (4 months ago)

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
By Holger Drallmeyer (4 months ago)

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
By Holger Drallmeyer (4 months ago)

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
By HowaboutRAW (4 months ago)

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
By mgblack74 (4 months ago)

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
Jaberwok
By Jaberwok (4 months ago)

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

1 upvote
Jaberwok
By Jaberwok (4 months ago)

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
By HowaboutRAW (4 months ago)

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
Jaberwok
By Jaberwok (4 months ago)

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
By Edmond Leung (4 months ago)

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
By yabokkie (4 months ago)

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

1 upvote
Jaberwok
By Jaberwok (4 months ago)

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
By HowaboutRAW (4 months ago)

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
By Bamboojled (4 months ago)

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

3 upvotes
Illumina
By Illumina (4 months ago)

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
By Bamboojled (4 months ago)

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
By MPA1 (4 months ago)

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
By Bamboojled (4 months ago)

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

2 upvotes
jtan163
By jtan163 (4 months ago)

"...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
By Stanchung (4 months ago)

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

11 upvotes
GPW
By GPW (4 months ago)

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
By HowaboutRAW (4 months ago)

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
Jaberwok
By Jaberwok (4 months ago)

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

2 upvotes
GPW
By GPW (4 months ago)

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
By HowaboutRAW (4 months ago)

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
By HowaboutRAW (4 months ago)

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
Jaberwok
By Jaberwok (4 months ago)

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
By HowaboutRAW (4 months ago)

Jaberw:

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

0 upvotes
Elliot234567
By Elliot234567 (4 months ago)

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
By ravduc (4 months ago)

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
By zzzorki7 (4 months ago)

I bought DF. Gorgeous camera.

2 upvotes
Shamael
By Shamael (4 months ago)

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
By ravduc (4 months ago)

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
By veroman (4 months ago)

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
By HowaboutRAW (4 months ago)

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
By HowaboutRAW (4 months ago)

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
Jaberwok
By Jaberwok (4 months ago)

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
By Optimal Prime (4 months ago)

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

5 upvotes
Jaberwok
By Jaberwok (4 months ago)

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
By HowaboutRAW (4 months ago)

OP:

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

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

0 upvotes
HowaboutRAW
By HowaboutRAW (4 months ago)

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
By Shamael (4 months ago)

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
By HowaboutRAW (4 months ago)

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
By TattooedMac (4 months ago)

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
By Shamael (4 months ago)

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
Jaberwok
By Jaberwok (4 months ago)

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
By HowaboutRAW (4 months ago)

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_
By _Federico_ (4 months ago)

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
By Shamael (4 months ago)

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
By HowaboutRAW (4 months ago)

_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
By nstam (4 months ago)

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

0 upvotes
HowaboutRAW
By HowaboutRAW (4 months ago)

Think you skipped the word "geek" in there.

2 upvotes
RichRMA
By RichRMA (4 months ago)

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
By Jahled (4 months ago)

Hahahahaahah! "The Df is rather pretty"

0 upvotes
MPA1
By MPA1 (4 months ago)

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

4 upvotes
HowaboutRAW
By HowaboutRAW (4 months ago)

Finally an actual proposal maybe possibly related to improved performance.

2 upvotes
yabokkie
By yabokkie (4 months ago)

D700

0 upvotes
Jaberwok
By Jaberwok (4 months ago)

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
By HowaboutRAW (4 months ago)

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
Jaberwok
By Jaberwok (4 months ago)

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
By HowaboutRAW (4 months ago)

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
Jaberwok
By Jaberwok (4 months ago)

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
By HowaboutRAW (4 months ago)

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
Jaberwok
By Jaberwok (4 months ago)

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
Jaberwok
By Jaberwok (4 months ago)

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
By Illumina (4 months ago)

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

0 upvotes
HowaboutRAW
By HowaboutRAW (4 months ago)

Illumina--

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

0 upvotes
HowaboutRAW
By HowaboutRAW (4 months ago)

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
Jaberwok
By Jaberwok (4 months ago)

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
By HowaboutRAW (4 months ago)

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
By Illumina (4 months ago)

@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_
By _Federico_ (4 months ago)

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
By Shamael (4 months ago)

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
By HowaboutRAW (4 months ago)

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
sixtiesphotographer
By sixtiesphotographer (4 months ago)

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
By AlpCns2 (4 months ago)

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

2 upvotes
kimchiflower
By kimchiflower (4 months ago)

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
By ravduc (4 months ago)

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
By kimchiflower (4 months ago)

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.
By Frank C. (4 months ago)

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
By AbrasiveReducer (4 months ago)

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
By Richard Franiec (4 months ago)

"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
By HowaboutRAW (4 months ago)

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
By tjwaggoner (4 months ago)

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
By mgblack74 (4 months ago)

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
By HowaboutRAW (4 months ago)

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
By Class A (4 months ago)

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
By Roland Karlsson (4 months ago)

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

0 upvotes
ManuelVilardeMacedo
By ManuelVilardeMacedo (4 months ago)

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

4 upvotes
Spectro
By Spectro (4 months ago)

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
ahaack
By ahaack (4 months ago)

Handling my DF feels just perfect. Everything goes where it should be.
It is pretty compact. Here Nikon's long experience shows.
The problems arise when it comes delivering results.

>>High quality JPEG images with pleasant color at default settings?

Nikon never had a good jpeg engine. And I can confirm what the review samples show: Horrible JPEGS with noise from ISO 3200 onwards.

My Fuji X.E1 and now X-E2 make much more pleasant JPEGS and is up to ISO 6400 practically noise free. Auto ISO works here pretty well.

With RAW processing everything will be likely much better.

An a low light sensor with a autofocus system that only works in bright sunlight makes no sense at all. At the Christmas market the Df was hunting focus all the time while my X-E2 can focus pretty well in the dark.

While manual controls often help a lot the controls Nikon screwed on top are useless gimmicks. E.g. setting the shutter dial does not turn on S-mode.

Comment edited 22 seconds after posting
4 upvotes
PerL
By PerL (4 months ago)

So the best low light performer on the market (DxO marks) has horrible noise at ISO 3200? Does the D3S/D4 have horrible noise at ISO 3200? Seems believable. To bad nobody told the pros.
And the AF of the Df only works in bright sunlight? OK.

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

A Fuji embarrassing this Nikon for low light focusing says enough!

1 upvote
frici
By frici (4 months ago)

@ahaack talked about JPEG noise
the NEF should be as good as the D3/D3s/D4 line

but how "pure" your photo experience will be if you have to spend many hours in front of such a complex machine as a computer using such a complex software as a RAW converter?

also they could have match the can-see-in-the-dark sensor with a can-see-in-the-dark autofocus system, not the cheaper one from the D7000

1 upvote
Bamboojled
By Bamboojled (4 months ago)

It is pretty obvious that ahaack has never used much less owns this camera.
Everything written in this post is pure BS

4 upvotes
AlpCns2
By AlpCns2 (4 months ago)

According to Thom Hogan - not exactly a newbee and idiot when it comes to cameras - the sensor of the Df is tweaked and even better than the D4, and (hence) the absolute king of low light. Odd that DPR didn't mention that interesting detail.

Thom doesn't complain about the AF either - to the contrary, to quote: "It's night, my big office is lit mostly by my monitor, there are deep shadows everywhere and I point the Df at something black over in one of those shadows that has no contrast and…the camera just focuses (I'm at ISO 1600, f/1.8 and 1/15 if you must know). Pretty much like I expect from my D800, actually. "

Otherwise I guess it's a question of taste - but I for one like the design.

Comment edited 7 minutes after posting
2 upvotes
ahaack
By ahaack (4 months ago)

Unfortunately Thom Hogan views are limited to Nikon gear.
A monitor can bright light source and he also says " Yes, if I try I can find things in the office where the camera struggles to find focus".
That are exactly the things where my X-E2 can focus (w/o focus light) and the Df keeps hunting focus and never locks.
Unfortunately these are pretty realistic scenarios.

He also states: "Yet the feature set feels more like the camera ought to be priced closer to the D600."
With that I go along. But what for the price the camera delivers is not acceptable.

0 upvotes
Mrrowe8
By Mrrowe8 (4 months ago)

What idiot is buying this ? and if bought one you are an idiot Seriously what real photographer that looks at bang for the buck and great image quality , there at least 2 canon's , 3 Nikons , 3 Sony's all better in a image and bang for your. $ then this .., waste of time to even consider this hunk o junk

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

Astonishing conclusion in your short review. I think that I rather skip this one. Really?

7 upvotes
marwiz
By marwiz (4 months ago)

I am a happy idiot, and I love my new Df. I sold my D600, and have to say that performance under low light is impressive, at least when compared to my old camera. And why can't we have a digital F3?

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

Are other testers idiots?
From Steve Huffs reviews:
”I love the design, feel, speed and look of the Df. I can have any DSLR or camera that I want and for me, the Df wins it.”
Asim Mansurov:
Nikon Df + 58mm f/1.4G – A Match Made In…
Been shooting with this combo for about a week now and I am amazed by the results.
Image quality is stunning, especially when shooting in low light situations. Armed with a fast f/1.4 lens, you could literally shoot in dark with the Df and get amazing results."

7 upvotes
Bamboojled
By Bamboojled (4 months ago)

Then you also have the reviews by Bjorn Roslett, that absolutely loves the camera.
Even the review by Thom Hogan which is a little more subdued, gives the camera a recommended rating and Thom even goes as far as saying that the camera focuses as well as his D800 in low light.
So what idiots are buying this camera?
The ones who read more than the one review and opinions of online forums members that have never shot the camera.

6 upvotes
AbrasiveReducer
By AbrasiveReducer (4 months ago)

Well, both these guys rave about everything. Nasim's site is for Nikon fans. Of course that doesn't mean it's not a great camera anyway. Ken Rockwell says it's the greatest camera since the universe was created so that makes three thumbs up.

1 upvote
ravduc
By ravduc (4 months ago)

It takes an idiot to write such a biased comment.

0 upvotes
fmian
By fmian (4 months ago)

Reviews are just opinions. And one persons opinion is just as valid as another persons.
Reading the comments/opinions here, I think the negative feedback for this camera is quite overwhelming.
A very small amount of people saying they like it doesn't really mean anything.

0 upvotes
AlpCns2
By AlpCns2 (4 months ago)

Ah, yet another "pro" who never held the camera or tried it. Odd, that this "pro" missed all the other testers (Steve Huff, Thom Hogan) who are quite impressed by the camera and the performance.

Talk about waste of time...

1 upvote
Shamael
By Shamael (4 months ago)

WE are all impressedabout the performance of the camera, ...... beyond 6 500 ISO. At 100 ISO it has nothing to compete with the rest of the market, or do you really think that 16 mpix FF is the paradise on earth. At Sony FF you can chose 24 or 36 mpix FF. Now, guess which one sells better?

0 upvotes
HowaboutRAW
By HowaboutRAW (4 months ago)

Shamael:

Of course the D610 is going to sell better than a specialized body like the Df.

Yeah, work above ISO 6400 is a real draw for many. And many of that many will also have another DLSR like the D800.

There is no Sony SLR with a 36MP sensor, nor is the A99 exactly an SLR. (And the A900 and A850 are no more.)

I'm sure that the Sony A7 and A7r are selling, but only time will tell if they are successes, while the D800 already is--for Nikon.

0 upvotes
RichRMA
By RichRMA (4 months ago)

The Df is Nikon's answer to mirror-less, a segment both they and Canon are terrified to really get into, for various reasons.

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

I don't know...
Maybe Df was the attempt to separate themselves from typical mirror-less segment but since Sony's A7's, they wil more likelyl revise the philosophy about the potential of smaller fully fledged system with slightly smaller lenses. Of course, this would put entry level lines of DSLR's at risk but on the other hand they are already at risk competing with maturing M4/3 systems. Interesting times ahead, I think. I can easily envision specialized pro segment parallell to "affordable" mirrorless (including FF) offerings in the near future from Canon and Nikon.

0 upvotes
fmian
By fmian (4 months ago)

RichRMA said: 'The Df is Nikon's answer to mirror-less, a segment both they and Canon are terrified to really get into, for various reasons.'
I don't know where you've been hiding for the past year or so but Nikon and Canon both have mirrorless cameras on the market, and the Df has a mirror so how can it be an answer to mirrorless? Unless the answer is denial/rejection.

1 upvote
_Federico_
By _Federico_ (4 months ago)

A DSLR can't be an answer to the mirrorless segment...

2 upvotes
nofumble
By nofumble (4 months ago)

Retro-styling - a sign of a technology in stagnation.

4 upvotes
PerL
By PerL (4 months ago)

You mean like the Olympus OM-D, EM-1 and the Fuji X-series?

2 upvotes
AbrasiveReducer
By AbrasiveReducer (4 months ago)

It's the admission that newer is not always better but there's a trick to it. You hide the new stuff in an old looking body and Fuji seems to have a handle on this.

4 upvotes
DaytonR
By DaytonR (4 months ago)

Interesting , its amazing how this camera is said to have been 4 years in the making yet its sensor is borrowed from the D4 and the autofocus is borrowed from the D610 ! I wonder which bits took 4 years to get right ? :)

1 upvote
georgehudetz
By georgehudetz (4 months ago)

Judging by the combination of features, I'd say they spent 4 years arguing over the target market/persona. In the end, they ended up with a collection of features that don't quite make sense. But they had to ship it eventually, so...

Comment edited 20 seconds after posting
2 upvotes
ahaack
By ahaack (4 months ago)

The locking pins probably took 4 years to design.

0 upvotes
gabriel foto
By gabriel foto (4 months ago)

To understand the Nikon Df, it must be viewed in perspective of SIZE and FEATURES - at the same time, because they are closely interrelated:

HOW SMALL AND LIGHT IS THE NIKON Df?
DpR write that "The Df is Nikon's smallest full-frame DSLR" - as if to imply that there would be other makers producing smaller cameras. No mention of weight in relation to other FF DSLRs

To be clear: This is the smallest and lightest full-frame DSLR ever - smaller and lighter than any FF DSLR from any maker.

WHAT CAN YOU PACK INTO A SMALL CAMERA BODY?
* the AF module
The 51-point AF module of the D800 or D4 takes up a lot more space at the bottom of the camera body than the 39-point module of the D600 / D610.

Dx cameras like the D7100 can accommodate the bigger module because they have a smaller mirror housing -> more space underneath. For the very compact Df, the 39-point module is the only option - just like for the D600 / D610.

(continued in next post)

7 upvotes
gabriel foto
By gabriel foto (4 months ago)

(continued from previous post)

* aperture control in live view (with G lenses)
Same thing. Nikon's lens bayonet requires a spring-loaded lever on the lens which opens and closes the aperture. In order to move this to correct settings when using live view, a step motor is necessary. There is no room for this in the Df, or the D600 / D610.

SMALL AND LIGHT, IS THIS GOOD OR BAD?
* It is too heavy
("The body is rather larger than you might expect and pretty heavy")

* No no, it's too light
(".. an attempt to keep weight down means it doesn't offer the same sense of quality and solidity.")

IS THE Df PERFECT?
No camera is perfect. I am going to stick with my D600 which is truly amazing, even better in some respects than the Df, and does the same thing. Still, the Df is very different, and I can understand that many people will fall in love with it, and will use it to make amazing photos.

Cheers, Gabriel

7 upvotes
_Federico_
By _Federico_ (4 months ago)

Gabriel…give me a SINGLE POINT AF system but that works very well and I'd bought a Nikon df. Give me a GREAT focusing screen and I'm in. Sorry, it's a failure. It's even too heavy for its bad ergonomics...

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

Try to hold one, with an heavy lens, you'll see….

Comment edited 15 seconds after posting
1 upvote
gabriel foto
By gabriel foto (4 months ago)

Federico, firstly my point is that the 39 point AF module is the only one that fits into the Df. But since you bring up its performance I cannot help wondering, have you used the Df (or the D600 / D610)?

I live in the dark north. I often take pictures in very dark environment, up to 10 000 ISO and slow shutter speeds.

I use single point all the time with my D600 (when I use AF, most of my lenses are MF). I find this single point completely satisfactory. If there is something lit enough for bothering to take a photo, the D600 (like the Df) will find focus.

Unlike the Df, my D600 has a focus assist lamp which I never need to use.

I am not saying that all is good.

Just that the Df is a very small full frame DSLR and that it is rather witless to criticize it for limitations which come with its small size.

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

Federico, but no one will believe you because you take beautiful pictures - disqualifies you instantly ;)

4 upvotes
gabriel foto
By gabriel foto (4 months ago)

I just tested again, put the lights out in my living room, with just a faint glow coming from the room next door, and aimed at a picture in the corner, not a contrasty scene, could hardly see with my bare eye.

My D600 locked focus instantly with the 24-85 VR at 85mm, ISO 10 000 (Hi 0.7), 1/10s at F4.5.

I guess Nikon had it coming, claiming that the Df sensor goes all the way to ISO 204 000 - reviewers will dial in this high ISO and point the camera out into the darkness, and the AF will go hunting.

I know there are better autofocusing cameras out there, like the D4, but I find the AF module of the Df (= D600 = D610) impressive, even in very dark environment.

3 upvotes
_Federico_
By _Federico_ (4 months ago)

Sorry, my D600 couldn't focus even in easier ( brighter ) environment. I mean moving subjects, of course.

0 upvotes
_Federico_
By _Federico_ (4 months ago)

Thank you, Mike!! I do really appreciate your work !

0 upvotes
waxwaine
By waxwaine (4 months ago)

Well DPReview, don´t bother doing more reviews. With this unjustified 81% you lost all credibility. And, yes, not having video at this price for a common old 35mm sensor is unforgiveness. It doesn´t deserve more than 75%, recognising Nikons efforts of cheating consumers.

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

Such a biased opinion has no credibility.

0 upvotes
HowaboutRAW
By HowaboutRAW (4 months ago)

_Federico:

You may want to check the lowlight AF yourself, many people find the performance good.

The A7r is no where near as good at lowlight high ISO shooting as this Nikon.

@Ken:

Those aren't the greatest Zeiss lenses for the A7r and the A7r aint real good at lowlight high ISO shooting. Very audible be the A7r too.

This Df's sensor is also a good bit better at high ISO lowlight shooting than the sensor from the A7 or D610.

1 upvote
_Federico_
By _Federico_ (4 months ago)

I've sold my D600 because of its AF system. Working with available light ( wedding and reportage) the camera was unable to lock focus in difficult situations…
Bought another D800e, I'm happy with it, so I think the A7r could be fine.

Comment edited 55 seconds after posting
0 upvotes
fmian
By fmian (4 months ago)

Such an atrocious camera design on the Nikon. The on off switch is fiddly to use, the mode dial needs to be pulled to adjust, the shutter dial has a locking button but you can force the dial without pressing the button anyway. The front dial requires you to dig a fingernail into it to rotate. The ISO dial and lock require awkward finger placement to use, the fake leather is different on the front compared to the back, and it feels so light you have to wonder if its really metal.
Also, the lcd panel on the top is so small it doesn't have anything more than the basic info on it. Which you're meant to be able to see on the dials anyway. But because this camera design tries to do everything at once, it doesn't do any one particular thing well.
I've used manual film cameras from the 60's and this camera is nothing like those. Have we really gone backwards with this sort of thing?
Another nail in Nikons impending coffin.

2 upvotes
ravduc
By ravduc (4 months ago)

I don't believe you when you say that you have used cameras from the 60's. Camera's in the sixties did not have integrated exposure meters etc etc. I have a whole collection of cameras that date all the way back to 1902 and believe me this camera is totally different from any cameras from the sixties and behaves like a fusion between cameras from the 70's and modern digital cameras. By the way, I don't remember seeing large lcd panels on top of cameras in the sixties. The DF is not perfect but it offers the option of using it like any other dslr and also the option of using it like older cameras with dials. It functions both ways very well as long as you understand both user interfaces.

Comment edited 2 times, last edit 1 minute after posting
4 upvotes
fmian
By fmian (4 months ago)

The Minolta SRT-101 was released in the 60's and had a TTL meter. Based on this I didn't think it was worthwhile reading the rest of your comment.
Now please go away.

0 upvotes
ravduc
By ravduc (4 months ago)

The minolta srt-101 was released in the late 60's and early 70's.

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

fmain:

Think you've confused an Minolta SR-1 with an SRT101.

My SR-1 does not have meter built in to it.

1 upvote
ravduc
By ravduc (4 months ago)

fmain, you sound like you are really exhausted trying to use this camera. You make it sound so terrible. I would hate to see you run a marathon. I don't think it would be very healthy for you to use SUCH a complicated camera.

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

Oh I forgot, one more thing fmain
Please go away!

0 upvotes
fmian
By fmian (4 months ago)

ravduc: Surely you are trolling but you said:
"Camera's in the sixties did not have integrated exposure meters etc etc." and offered that as a reason to believe I hadn't used older cameras.
Then I proved you wrong and you came back with a rather weak rebuttal. You could have just admitted you were wrong. But here it is again via a statement from Wikipedia:
"The Minolta SR-T 101 is a 35mm manual focus SLR camera with Through-The-Lens exposure metering - TTL for short, that was launched in 1966"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minolta_SR-T_101

That's 1966, which was part of the sixties (correct me if I'm wrong)
Basically, your many years of camera use and your collection of old cameras adds nothing to your knowledge and expertise. (What a waste!) Therefore you have absolutely no grounds to add anything useful to this discussion, and that shows in your poor responses.
I might also suggest you take up some reading and comprehension classes. Helps when you're on discussion board.

1 upvote
Charlie boots
By Charlie boots (4 months ago)

I use a D700 and D300 and want to trade the D300. 16mp is just right, D4 too expensive, D800 too large files, Df looks ideal and I really like the manual controls for the major functions. Would immediately buy one but feel Nikon have short changed us with the focusing system as the price is now more or equal to the D800 in the USA.

Will for the present I will keep what I have.

Comment edited 2 times, last edit 2 minutes after posting
1 upvote
Richt2000
By Richt2000 (4 months ago)

Fugly gold award!
What's the point when AF is Duff
Give me a D4 or a Sony A7r and keep the faux retro for Fuji!!!

1 upvote
HowaboutRAW
By HowaboutRAW (4 months ago)

And many people have reported that the AF in lowlight is just fine.

It’s a lot quieter than the D4, less monies too.

So why don’t you try out the body somehow before believing what you’ve read online.

NB: Manual focus works well and there was a world before AF, in fact AF on SLRs was a joke for years.

Also not "faux" anything nor is say a Fuji XPro1.

0 upvotes
ravduc
By ravduc (4 months ago)

This has been to only review which mentions anything about slow focus.

0 upvotes
AlpCns2
By AlpCns2 (4 months ago)

Thom Hogan:

"It's night, my big office is lit mostly by my monitor, there are deep shadows everywhere and I point the Df at something black over in one of those shadows that has no contrast and…the camera just focuses (I'm at ISO 1600, f/1.8 and 1/15 if you must know). Pretty much like I expect from my D800, actually. "

and

"but frankly, I'm surprised at the things that it can focus on".

Hmmm. Odd, that this seasoned (real!) pro seems to think differently.

1 upvote
Ken Sky
By Ken Sky (4 months ago)

Caveat:I'm not a Nikon user but Ive admired most of their products. It's hard to see where Nikon is going with this product. For the same price (approx.) you can get a state of the art sensor in a Sony A7r with a great prime Zeiss lens (either 35 or 55mm). I know it's like comparing apples and oranges. But this is 2013/14. It wasn't so long ago this very site was criticizing any new DSLR that didn't have video whether we wanted it or not. I could get an used film Nikon on eBay if I wanted to go retro for a lot less - or take the 610 and stay up to date. This appears to be price gouging for nostalgia's sake. What's worse, it doesn't show what direction Nikon is going. The only good thing is Nikon has not dropped any of the pre-existing choices and are still presenting their excellent lenses.

6 upvotes
RichRMA
By RichRMA (4 months ago)

So tell us what it should have cost? As much as a plastic D5300? The same as the heavily-compromised D7100 body?

0 upvotes
Bamboojled
By Bamboojled (4 months ago)

Obviously you are not a Nikon user.
A7r with 55 is more expensive (2399 + 1000) $3399 give or take.
Secondly with the Nikon you have:
A real camera system with a vast array of native lenses that cover fisheye through 800 mm that goes back almost 50 years
A state of the art flash system that also is wireless.
A full upgrade path up or down.

With the Sony camera you have:
A small camera body that loses it's size once you add legacy lenses and adaptor as well as loosing most of the key features (AF, VR) once you attach with adaptor.
A camera with no lens system (if you have to use adaptors and mount other lenses, that is not a system)
Focus tracking that is equivalent to a point and shoot not a DSLR.

2 upvotes
_Federico_
By _Federico_ (4 months ago)

The best low light camera which can't focus when light levels are low…interesting. A D600 which costs, here in Italy, 3200 €. No, thanks. I'll keep my 2 D800e and I'll get a Sony A7r.

1 upvote
HowaboutRAW
By HowaboutRAW (4 months ago)

_Federico:

You may want to check the lowlight AF yourself, many people find the performance good.

The A7r is no where near as good at lowlight high ISO shooting as this Nikon.

@Ken:

Those aren't the greatest Zeiss lenses for the A7r and the A7r aint real good at lowlight high ISO shooting. Very audible be the A7r too.

This Df's sensor is also a good bit better at high ISO lowlight shooting than the sensor from the A7 or D610.

0 upvotes
ahaack
By ahaack (4 months ago)

The lowlight AF of the Df is in the class of a 200$ camera. IF that is good you are set.

0 upvotes
Bamboojled
By Bamboojled (4 months ago)

@ahaack,
above you post that you own a Df...
It is pretty clear you don't and are just flaming...
You are so sad...makes me want to cry, LOL

1 upvote
YogiGX20
By YogiGX20 (4 months ago)

I was initially excited but am now somewhat disappointed. Not necessarily about the Df but about the direction the camera market is going. And the Df is a perfect example for this.

These days, the manufacturers deliberately seem to make cameras worse to justify a - let's be honest, still - ridiculous price for what they are and then advertise it as the next best thing you never knew you could miss.
Apart from the sensor, you could have a similar camera (including video) from a camera the fifth of the price! All that's missing now is for Canon to release a retro full frame camera that's worse than the 50D!
I can understand this type of camera is appealing as a reminder of the "god old days" and/or status symbol. And everybody is entitled to their own opinion!!!
It is, however, not a camera for someone like me, who is looking for an upgrade to my D7000 that hasn't got a ridiculous amount of MPs. Why not put the 16MP full frame sensor in a D300s and keep a cheaper retro line as well?

1 upvote
RichRMA
By RichRMA (4 months ago)

Because the D300s body with that sensor would cost $2500+ now (it's far above your D7000's body) and that puts it above the range of the D610 (which also has a second-rate body). Nikon has set its targets and any new body in that area will be a D800 upgrade.

Comment edited 26 seconds after posting
0 upvotes
YogiGX20
By YogiGX20 (4 months ago)

RichRMA, if the D300s is far above the D7000, I would like to ask the question, what Nikon replaced it with? Different target groups, I agree. Although the 16 MP sensor is literally years ahead in engineering of the D300s.
Where is the Nikon all metal bodied APS-C model like the Pentax K-3?
A D300s with that sensor would put the D610 and the Df to shame! And at $2500 dollars I would get one of those!!! That is my point exactly!!!

Comment edited 7 minutes after posting
1 upvote
HowaboutRAW
By HowaboutRAW (4 months ago)

Yogi:

"Worse" in what way? And "worse" than which Nikon DSLR?

By the way "poor lowlight AF" is not an acceptable answer.

0 upvotes
YogiGX20
By YogiGX20 (4 months ago)

I'm talking about shutter speed, flash x-speed, max frames in a burst, AF points, .... that sort of thing. All those things that we know, Nikon is capable of performing well in certain models.
For any product in that price range, I'd expect at least the standard set of features of a £600 D7000 for example, plus something else. The sensor alone can't justify a £2000 premium, can it? So what is all that money spend on - downgrading? Putting it into a most profit margin price bracket for all the wrong reasons? I don't get it. I wouldn't buy a brand new very overpriced car, that is poorly equipped, has no extras, looks like a 70's old timer but drives well, would you? I'd either have the real thing or go with the times to make life as easy as possible. But then you can't argue argue about something that's decided with emotions. Not my cup of tea though.

Comment edited 20 seconds after posting
1 upvote
HowaboutRAW
By HowaboutRAW (4 months ago)

Yogi:

D7000? Horrid in lowlight compared to this. The D7100 has a slow buffer. The D4 sensor alone does in fact justify a price higher than the D610.

Flash sync: You do understand why that's limited with focal plane shutters, right?

Comment edited 5 minutes after posting
0 upvotes
YogiGX20
By YogiGX20 (4 months ago)

You don't get my point, do you? It should take better pictures than the D7000 at that price! And do you know the production price of a 16MP Full Frame sensor? I don't. It's funny how all comments on forums become personal insults after post 3!

To clarify: I'm not interested in the "why", I am a consumer who is used to a standard. If I can't get the standard I'm used to, I look somewhere else. Plain and simple. That's what market research is all about. I'm not a fanboy trying to force myself to like everything a manufacturer produces. Or insult people who do ... I'm out of here and will go and take some pictures. More fun ....

1 upvote
Shamael
By Shamael (4 months ago)

By what criteria can a sensor justify the pricing of a camera. A D4 sensor could possibly cost a bit more because of the smaller amountd made. There is no magic in the D4 sensor. It has pixels as big as an old 8 mpix APSC sensor of the mid 90 ies. The fact it has this high senitivity in darkness and that is due to 2 things only. First the physical part, huge big pixels, then the progress in technology. Sony, or any other sensor designer could take a 10 mpix APS-C sensor like the excellent one in D200, and make a super camera with high sensitivity in low light with the knowledge we acquired in 15 years. There is no magic in this sensor. If there was a 36 mpix having this sensitivity, I would speak about real progress in sensor tech. So, what makes then the price of 6000$ for the D4 and 2750$ for this Digital Flopp? The answer is Nikon, not the sensor. An F6 11 point AF system, a matte with Fresnel/split prism, price to 1950$ for the kit, and Nikon sells sh.tloads of them.

0 upvotes
HowaboutRAW
By HowaboutRAW (4 months ago)

Shamael:

Sure there's magic in this 16MP sensor, like the 12MP full framed sensor before it.

The magic is called better dynamic range, then of course there's that other thing.

Even the D610 does better DR than the D800, see the equation there?

0 upvotes
Petroglyph
By Petroglyph (4 months ago)

DPReview, thank you for the review. Lots of interesting cams to discuss these days. This one is out of my price range for a while but it doesn't mean I don't like to read about it.
Cheers.

1 upvote
racketman
By racketman (4 months ago)

Looks great in black.
Canon user.

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

For some reason i keep looking at the Df... It looks like one of those tiny keychain fake camera's, blown up to actual camera size.

Comment edited 1 minute after posting
3 upvotes
Roland Karlsson
By Roland Karlsson (4 months ago)

Bulls eye! I tried to nail it myself. But .... you did it for me. Thanks.

1 upvote
ravduc
By ravduc (4 months ago)

It's a tribute to older cameras in many. No one expects you to understand this.

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

I owned (still have the FE actually) two of those older camera's and loved them. Calling Nikon's latest half baked retro attempt a tribute to the original engineering miracles they made is just not right, understand that.

Nikon want a piece of the retro slice and this is what they came up with, nothing more nothing less

0 upvotes
Apollo18
By Apollo18 (4 months ago)

Happy to buy at £1600 body only. This seems a fair price to me for a camera spec-ed similarly to the D600, but with better build quality.

Instead, I'm forced to buy at £2749 with a lens I don't need. No thanks!

Quite simply, this camera is over priced.

6 upvotes
HowaboutRAW
By HowaboutRAW (4 months ago)

A:

Nikon is not going the sell the Df for less money than the D610, particularly while the D4 is still selling new.

0 upvotes
Apollo18
By Apollo18 (4 months ago)

The d610 sells for £1300 right now.

0 upvotes
HowaboutRAW
By HowaboutRAW (4 months ago)

A:

Unlikely, please provide the link to a reputable photo gear retailer at that price. Don't confuse the D600 with the D610.

Then again: "Nikon is not going the sell the Df for less money than the D610, particularly while the D4 is still selling new."

0 upvotes
Apollo18
By Apollo18 (4 months ago)

£1344 at amazon.co.uk

http://www.amazon.co.uk/dp/B00FPH2CQS/ref=asc_df_B00FPH2CQS15374559?smid=A3P5ROKL5A1OLE&tag=cpbcom-21&linkCode=asn&creative=22206&creativeASIN=B00FPH2CQS

It's also selling for £1450 at many other retailers.

So, once again, I'm not saying that they should sell the Df for less than the D600/610. I thought I made that very clear in my initial post when i said "Happy to buy at £1600 body only."

0 upvotes
HowaboutRAW
By HowaboutRAW (4 months ago)

A:

Now I get your point. (Think I read "1600usd", originally, my mistake.)

The Df body alone will likely drop a bit in price over the next 12 months. Though not as much as you want.

0 upvotes
Clueless Wanderer
By Clueless Wanderer (4 months ago)

The reviewer came across as trying his damned hardest to fault it and some of his comments 'cons' seemed almost petty.

Criticizing having to use the exposure compensation dial with your left hand that may be supporting a lens?.. Isn't this the case with all camera's modern or old?

It seem's the reviewer was comparing ease of use of controls to that of modern camera's.
Hmm.. product development means improvements on past ways of thinking. This is a retro camera harking back to an era where dials and the like were not the most ergonomic by today's standards but seen as the best at that time.
A modern DSLR of today looks like it does because of these developments. If the DF was as ergonomic as a modern DSLR then it wouldn't look retro.

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

just admit it, people, everybody wants one, all those negative comments are just lame attempts to talk yourself out of it, if I wouldn't have to work for a living,
I would get two, one for color one for b/w

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

It looks like an abomination. Handles like a Nikon. (Clumsily.) Feels cheap. And is overpriced.
Canon- take note- produce a digital FTb or F-1 that takes EOS lenses and eschews the "melted-down" look, and I'm there.

2 upvotes
HowaboutRAW
By HowaboutRAW (4 months ago)

Gee the one I shot some test shots with handled just fine and felt plenty solidly made.

0 upvotes
Clueless Wanderer
By Clueless Wanderer (4 months ago)

Lol :-) I think canon's feel cheap and UI are awkward.

Can't please everybody..

1 upvote
RichRMA
By RichRMA (4 months ago)

Sure you are. I can't tell you how often people use that "If it had "X" I'd buy it in a heartbeat!" when we know it's all hot air. Canon would charge $3000 for an F-1 remake, at least, and you wouldn't buy it.

0 upvotes
TFD
By TFD (4 months ago)

They should have built it with a mech. shutter a mech self timer and match needle exposure.

An optional external flashbulb flash using number 5 flashbulbs :)

Retro technology gee, if it was cheap and cheerful that would be great, not at these prices.

1 upvote
rb59020
By rb59020 (4 months ago)

KR loves it.

1 upvote
_Federico_
By _Federico_ (4 months ago)

Enough to stay away.

1 upvote
jamesm1291
By jamesm1291 (4 months ago)

As an owner of the DF, I was was amazed by how much it resembled an attempt to damn with faint praise. Then I saw the rating and saw the reviewer had to concede the excellent performance of this camera in the face of his prejudices. I began seriously taking photos in the 50's through a series of Pentax, Canon and Nikon film SLR's. The DF harkens back to these days and I am unashamedly in love with it. Unlike the opinion the reviewer, I find this camera feels quite solid and substantial. It also has wonderful creative capabilities and provides logical access to them. No other DSLR can surpass it in the excellence of its images. It cries for prime lenses, not zooms.

If you are a lover of fine craftsmanship, appreciate the old days when the photographer controlled the camera and not the other way around, want the finest available image quality and are into walk around street photography and stunning portraiture, this camera shines. The price is high, but the rewards are great.

16 upvotes
ravduc
By ravduc (4 months ago)

Very well said. I believe that you have understood what this camera is all about.

5 upvotes
Cane
By Cane (4 months ago)

No, if you are an old guy trying to relive the 70's, this cameras for you.

10 upvotes
techmine
By techmine (4 months ago)

Agree; this camera takes you to dark ages in fast forward mode. I never photographed with film camera so why should I bother to go back in time that I never lived. Hype and God knows where Nikon is going. Damn, give us a Sony Alpha 7 camera.

PS: I am a Nikon Shooter (D300s and D40).

2 upvotes
NCB
By NCB (4 months ago)

Solid and substantial. Yet not overly heavy. Spot on. I can't see where the "quality" criticism is coming from. The Df feels fine to me. And nothing wrong with the looks. Nostalgia doesn't come into it. It's a thoroughly modern camera inside yet offering the traditional controls a fair number of us like.

When you realise that it's roughly the same price as a Sony RX1 (which was given a Gold award), yet the RX1 has a single fixed lens, no viewfinder, no grip whatever and limited external controls, the Df looks good value for money.

7 upvotes
ravduc
By ravduc (4 months ago)

Techmine, you don't need to go back in time, Nikon has other options for you. If you can't appreciate the DF, just buy another camera. No one is forcing you to buy this one.

4 upvotes
kpaddler
By kpaddler (4 months ago)

"...why should I bother to go back in time..."

YOU, don't have to go anywhere..buy what pleases you.

0 upvotes
Bamboojled
By Bamboojled (4 months ago)

techmine...
absolutely get the A7 a camera that has no system, no second party support, slow focusing, terrible tracking, kludge adaptors to mount lenses that rob it of it's size advantages.

Kudos, you get the cluelessness award

2 upvotes
String
By String (4 months ago)

Actually no, you buy a Leica. Or I guess you can drink the Nikon Coolaid, its your money.

0 upvotes
Apollo18
By Apollo18 (4 months ago)

This looks like a good camera, but I just can't get past the fact that it is (at least in Europe (I'm in the UK)) waaaay overpriced. Buying a D800, a far better spec-ed camera is hundreds of pounds cheaper here.

Those looking for manual controls can alternatively look at an X-pro1 or X-E2 plus a full set of lenses for the same price.

At this price the Df just does not make sense, unless money is no object.

I will wait and buy one second hand in a few years from now.

1 upvote
Frisian
By Frisian (4 months ago)

Focus in advance, choose the right aperture and shutterspeed combo for the expected situation. (If you left the grey card at home, use deep green grass)
Frame and concentrated on the coming event that you want to capture.
People who do not understand this, use a 10 fps automatic thing with VR2. (and if you are lucky you get one real good picture every day .... )

0 upvotes
_Federico_
By _Federico_ (4 months ago)

If you you want the finest availabe image quality, go for a D800e.

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

If you really want to "appreciate the old days when the photographer controlled the camera" why the heck does your camera have the Nikon Multi-CAM 4800 autofocus sensor module with TTL phase detection, fine-tuning, and 39 focus points? 2,016-pixel RGB sensor metering? "Programmed auto with flexible program"? (wrf!?)

2 upvotes
HowaboutRAW
By HowaboutRAW (4 months ago)

_Federico:

It is simply untrue that the D800E has the best image quality. First of course the D4 is useable at much higher ISOs.

Then lenses matter a great deal for image quality. So that opens up the field to the Leica M240, and good Leica M lenses are better optically than good Zeiss lenses that you can use on this Nikon body.

Last you of course forgot the Sigma SD1, which at ISO 400 and below does amazing image quality.

You took a simplistic approach--thinking that mega pixels are everything. DR isn't great on the D800 either.

1 upvote
HowaboutRAW
By HowaboutRAW (4 months ago)

Apollo:

But the Nikon D800 isn't "better specced". And that's a point you chose to ignore. Now the D800 may do things that you find important, but that's only for your purposes.

Then whatever camera you use, the lenses really matter too.

0 upvotes
_Federico_
By _Federico_ (4 months ago)

Until 6400 ISO D800e is way better than a Nikon D4. Lenses? Have you ever tried a 55 Zeiss Otus? No Leica can be a match…. not even the Apo Summicron.

1 upvote
Apollo18
By Apollo18 (4 months ago)

HowaboutRaw: Of course it is. What are you smoking?

1 upvote
HowaboutRAW
By HowaboutRAW (4 months ago)

_Federico:

Yes I've tried out the Otus on a D800 and D700 indoors and out, but you see I've also tried out the new Leica M f/2.0 50mm. Further testing is in order, but if I had to pick today I'd say the Leica wins pretty easily.

Then, the problem with the lower ISOs on the D800E is dynamic range, or course a better lens does help there, and yes you've picked a good example.

And it's certainly not like I think the D800 a bad camera.

Apollo18:

There's no "of course" about it with the same lens the D4 will beat the D800 for dynamic in range into lower ISOs. And then of course for high ISO shooting the Df is much better specced than the D800.

Also you completely ignored the points about the Leica M240 and the Sigma SD1.

The D800/E is a good camera body, but it has drawbacks in some situations.

You don't seem real interested in good image quality.

0 upvotes
hexxthalion
By hexxthalion (4 months ago)

@HowaboutRAW - you might want to check Ming's two part review of Otus ;)

0 upvotes
HowaboutRAW
By HowaboutRAW (3 months ago)

hexxthalion:

Okay Ming Thein thinks the Otus excellent, so do I. Didn't see flair when I tried the Leica 50mm f2.0 APO. And the Leica appears to handle colour better, though more testing is in order.

One problem with Ming's point, he seems to think that f/1.4 makes the Zeiss a better lens than the f/2.0; that's simplistic thinking that he should know to avoid. Of course, right the Otus is indeed faster.

0 upvotes
Abhijith Kannankavil
By Abhijith Kannankavil (4 months ago)

the not so great low light autofocus, non interchangeable focusing screen and no focus peaking are the only problems I see with this camera.

I may not like it's looks, but that's just me.

1 upvote
durrace
By durrace (4 months ago)

I'm happy with the Df as it was a no brainer for me ... I was unmotivated to want to carry my D3f as it was too large and too heavy for the kind of photography I was using it for. I wanted D4 quality at least, and I had a large investment in Nikon lenses. I don't see any AF problems and other limitations noted are not a show stopper for me. I ordered an excellent condition non-Ai lens on eBay for $100 for use with it. Photography has gotten better for me with the Df. D4 quality - half the size, half the weight, and half the cost. An even trade in dollars for my D3s ... I'm happy.

Comment edited 3 times, last edit 2 minutes after posting
2 upvotes
Magnus3D
By Magnus3D (4 months ago)

When reading this review i came to the conclusion that the Fujifilm X100S i just bought was a good investment after all, and that at a much more humane price than this retromonster from Nikon.

1 upvote
InTheMist
By InTheMist (4 months ago)

Funny, I wanted the Dƒ because I wasn't entirely satisfied with the X100s.

Great images and colors tho.

1 upvote
Maverick_
By Maverick_ (4 months ago)

Why punish Nikon for stepping out and producing a beautiful retro camera.

It's not like they abandoned their normal model range.

They just paid homage to the classics. Red Dot does it every day. Auto and motorcycle companies do this rather often too. Nothing wrong with it.

And of course the internals are from a current model, did you expect they create a whole new product just to sell a handful for those with a sense of nostalgia?

As a non-Nikon fan, I think Nikon should actually be praised for thinking out of the box for just one model. Nice concept!

15 upvotes
AbrasiveReducer
By AbrasiveReducer (4 months ago)

I agree. But they built this up to be bigger than the D800 when it's more of a nice design exercise. The whole idea of a retro-breakthrough is awkward and implies older was better. That may be true with stuff like cars or computer operating systems but obviously not with high end digital cameras.

0 upvotes
Roland Karlsson
By Roland Karlsson (4 months ago)

The problem is that it does not look authentic. Red dot makes cameras that has that old style and looks to be made out of all metal. The Df looks clumsy and not well designed. Just like DPR says, it looks to be made out of to many not compatible materials.

That said - it is a rather pretty camera. It just misses the mark for looking genuinely retro.

2 upvotes
kpaddler
By kpaddler (4 months ago)

"...or computer operating systems..."

I'm sorry, did you say you miss Windows 3, or VISTA :-)

2 upvotes
HowaboutRAW
By HowaboutRAW (4 months ago)

Roland:

Have you handled a Leica M240? It's kind of clunky.

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

Nice concept. Poor execution.

2 upvotes
_Federico_
By _Federico_ (4 months ago)

Agree.

0 upvotes
HowaboutRAW
By HowaboutRAW (4 months ago)

Richard Murdey:

Have you handled the Df? And shot with it?

0 upvotes
hexxthalion
By hexxthalion (4 months ago)

@HowaboutRAW - re the new M - have you?

0 upvotes
HowaboutRAW
By HowaboutRAW (3 months ago)

hexxthalion:

Yes I've shot with the Leica M240, new fall 2012. No, not days of testing in all sorts of environments, but say 50 raws with various M lenses over a few days at a trade show.

0 upvotes
kpaddler
By kpaddler (4 months ago)

I don't care too much about this retro look, even though it looks good.

What I like is the performance and the smaller size than D4. I never cared for D800 as good as that camera is, I don't need to fill my drives twice as fast.

1 upvote
Henry M. Hertz
By Henry M. Hertz (4 months ago)

the camera is NOT pretty.. that is purely subjectiv and has nothing to do with a review.

50% think this camera is butt ugly.
that´s why they is called "DigitalFrankenstein"......

and the AF really IS a joke, i tested it in one of our local stores.
the DF could hardly focus in the light.

DOA....

Comment edited 2 times, last edit 42 seconds after posting
7 upvotes
stevens37y
By stevens37y (4 months ago)

It's a Gollum.

0 upvotes
Bamboojled
By Bamboojled (4 months ago)

Actually you obviously never picked one up or used it Henry...
I am calling your post BULL.
No reviewer other than DPReview had issues with the focusing, many of which are much more accomplished photographers and familiar with Nikon focusing systems.
Thom Hogan, even though not a huge fan of the design conceded that it focused as well as his D800 in low light.
So based on your lack of use, don't make statements as fact...
Your welcome to your opinion, but don't make it sound like you have any experience with the product and found it wanting.

2 upvotes
Apollo18
By Apollo18 (4 months ago)

yup, D600 AF system at a price higher than the D800. Having said that, for this camera top notch AF isn't really the point.

2 upvotes
ravduc
By ravduc (4 months ago)

The joke is on you.

0 upvotes
DELETED88781
By DELETED88781 (4 months ago)

My own error?
NEF Files can not complete the download for low light comparison.

http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/nikon-df/16

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

What camera (I'm assuming the Df) and ISO combination are you referring? I was able to successfully download the Df low light scene at ISO 100 Raw.

0 upvotes
DELETED88781
By DELETED88781 (4 months ago)

Network Error
I did manage to download jpeg but not RAW at any iso or any camera. strange...

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

Steve Huff's review is up. I find his review is closer to my own reaction to the Dƒ.

"I can have any DSLR or camera that I want and for me, the Df wins it. If I designed a DSLR for my own use it would be 75% Df and 0% Canon 5D. Enough said."

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

3 upvotes
ravduc
By ravduc (4 months ago)

Finally, a real user review by someone who understands the essence behind this camera.

1 upvote
Henry M. Hertz
By Henry M. Hertz (4 months ago)

a review from who?

some blogger with too much free time?

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

finally a review from someone who agrees with me

10 upvotes
ravduc
By ravduc (4 months ago)

I think it's a fair review with positives and negatives. I still feel that he better understands the essence behind this camera. You should read it.

2 upvotes
InTheMist
By InTheMist (4 months ago)

@Simon Aha! The DPR staff divided? Nikon has succeeded.

0 upvotes
Scott Everett
By Scott Everett (4 months ago)

I think you missed the sarcasm. :)

2 upvotes
InTheMist
By InTheMist (4 months ago)

@Scott Glashauswohner

But seriously, I would love to hear the bar-dialogue. Surprisingly large number of samples images come from there! You can't be unanimous all of the time, can you?

0 upvotes
ravduc
By ravduc (4 months ago)

A reviewer should never be sarcastic. Remember who pays you.

0 upvotes
ET2
By ET2 (4 months ago)

"A reviewer should never be sarcastic."

The sarcasm reference was to Simon's comment -- not the review.

"Remember who pays you."

Grow up

Comment edited 18 seconds after posting
1 upvote
ravduc
By ravduc (4 months ago)

You grow up. I had fully understood that he was referring to Simon's comment which was initially addressed to me. Go take a walk and calm down. I would hate to be responsible if anything happens to your blood pressure.

0 upvotes
ET2
By ET2 (4 months ago)

Ah, you don't raise my blood pressure. Don't worry about that ;)

"Remember who pays you."

Yeah, whatever, clown. You are paying nothing to use the site.

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

@ravduc
"A reviewer should never be sarcastic."
Or overly enthusiastic.

"Remember who pays you"
You can always take your money and run...to what tickle your fancy better.

0 upvotes
ravduc
By ravduc (4 months ago)

Quite true.

0 upvotes
crisotunity
By crisotunity (4 months ago)

Ah the legendary Steve Huff, also known as
"Blogger Steve Stonewall Sets World Record with 400th Consecutive Positive Review"
http://newcameranews.com/2013/11/30/blogger-steve-stonewall-sets-world-record-400th-consecutive-positive-review/

Has there been a camera or lens that Steve Huff has not liked?

3 upvotes
ravduc
By ravduc (4 months ago)

Yes, all of the Fuji X cameras except the X100, all other dslr's etc.

0 upvotes
InTheMist
By InTheMist (4 months ago)

@crisotunity

Uh, newcamerareviews.com is a humour site. theonion.com of photography news.

0 upvotes
Bamboojled
By Bamboojled (4 months ago)

Actually Simon and Scott...
pretty much all the reviews have been more positive than the one presented here.

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

Man, the DPReview reviewers are real heretics. They also revealed decentering issues with S100 lens which no one else even noticed.

1 upvote
_Federico_
By _Federico_ (4 months ago)

Steve Huff? The same who says that with that old style you won't dive into menu? Truly professional review… I won't use the menu even on my D800e, it's quite the same since I can control every parameter as with the nikon df….bah.

0 upvotes
RichRMA
By RichRMA (4 months ago)

Reviewers over 40 should probably qualify themselves as such. Gives and idea as to where their sympathies are regarding 1970's-style cameras.

0 upvotes
fmian
By fmian (4 months ago)

He calls it a winning camera, but what about the 25% of it that he doesn't like?

0 upvotes
hexxthalion
By hexxthalion (4 months ago)

Huff shouldn't be taken seriously

0 upvotes
physguy88
By physguy88 (4 months ago)

When trying to recreate a classic, its important to remember the functional ethos that made the original great in their time. The originals not only looked a certain way, but were the best performing equipment of their times. The pure functionality of the originals imbued every aspect of their design with passion and meaning, and allows the classic to stand the test of time.

When trying to recreate the classic, one approach is to pair a slavishly retro design with sub par performance so that a product can be sold at a high profit margin. Or, you can utilize the design elements of the original in a modern body with the highest performance achievable in the modern day, hence creating a modern evolution of the classic and pulling its heritage into an even greater story.

The Ford Thunderbird 2.0 was retro. The modern 911and Corvette are classics. Guess which one is the Df?

1 upvote
MrPetkus
By MrPetkus (4 months ago)

The Pinto?

6 upvotes
String
By String (4 months ago)

More like a Mustang II I'd say.

1 upvote
Total comments: 1595
23456