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
215
I own it
392
I want it
83
I had it
Discuss in the forums

Comments

Total comments: 1618
34567
Apollo18
By Apollo18 (7 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 (7 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 (7 months ago)

The d610 sells for £1300 right now.

0 upvotes
HowaboutRAW
By HowaboutRAW (7 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 (7 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 (7 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 (7 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 (7 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 (7 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 (7 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 (7 months ago)

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

Can't please everybody..

1 upvote
RichRMA
By RichRMA (7 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 (7 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 (7 months ago)

KR loves it.

1 upvote
_Federico_
By _Federico_ (7 months ago)

Enough to stay away.

1 upvote
jamesm1291
By jamesm1291 (7 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 (7 months ago)

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

5 upvotes
Cane
By Cane (7 months ago)

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

10 upvotes
techmine
By techmine (7 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 (7 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 (7 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 (7 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 (7 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 (7 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 (7 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 (7 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_ (7 months ago)

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

0 upvotes
Richard Murdey
By Richard Murdey (7 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 (7 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 (7 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_ (7 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 (7 months ago)

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

1 upvote
HowaboutRAW
By HowaboutRAW (7 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 (7 months ago)

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

0 upvotes
HowaboutRAW
By HowaboutRAW (6 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 (7 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 (7 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 (7 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 (7 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_ (7 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 (7 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 (7 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 (7 months ago)

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

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

2 upvotes
HowaboutRAW
By HowaboutRAW (7 months ago)

Roland:

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

0 upvotes
Richard Murdey
By Richard Murdey (7 months ago)

Nice concept. Poor execution.

2 upvotes
_Federico_
By _Federico_ (7 months ago)

Agree.

0 upvotes
HowaboutRAW
By HowaboutRAW (7 months ago)

Richard Murdey:

Have you handled the Df? And shot with it?

0 upvotes
hexxthalion
By hexxthalion (7 months ago)

@HowaboutRAW - re the new M - have you?

0 upvotes
HowaboutRAW
By HowaboutRAW (6 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 (7 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 (7 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 (7 months ago)

It's a Gollum.

0 upvotes
Bamboojled
By Bamboojled (7 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 (7 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 (7 months ago)

The joke is on you.

0 upvotes
DELETED88781
By DELETED88781 (7 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 (7 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 (7 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 (7 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 (7 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 (7 months ago)

a review from who?

some blogger with too much free time?

5 upvotes
Simon Joinson
By Simon Joinson (7 months ago)

finally a review from someone who agrees with me

10 upvotes
ravduc
By ravduc (7 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 (7 months ago)

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

0 upvotes
Scott Everett
By Scott Everett (7 months ago)

I think you missed the sarcasm. :)

2 upvotes
InTheMist
By InTheMist (7 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 (7 months ago)

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

0 upvotes
ET2
By ET2 (7 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 (7 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 (7 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 (7 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 (7 months ago)

Quite true.

0 upvotes
crisotunity
By crisotunity (7 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 (7 months ago)

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

0 upvotes
InTheMist
By InTheMist (7 months ago)

@crisotunity

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

0 upvotes
Bamboojled
By Bamboojled (7 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 (7 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_ (7 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 (7 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 (7 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 (7 months ago)

Huff shouldn't be taken seriously

0 upvotes
physguy88
By physguy88 (7 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 (7 months ago)

The Pinto?

6 upvotes
String
By String (7 months ago)

More like a Mustang II I'd say.

1 upvote
Saffron_Blaze
By Saffron_Blaze (7 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 (7 months ago)

You understood wrong.

0 upvotes
Saffron_Blaze
By Saffron_Blaze (7 months ago)

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

0 upvotes
valdazis
By valdazis (7 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 (7 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_ (7 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 (7 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 (7 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 (7 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 (7 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 (7 months ago)

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

0 upvotes
NCB
By NCB (7 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 (7 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 (7 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 (7 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 (7 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 (7 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 (7 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 (7 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 (7 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 (7 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 (7 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 (7 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 (7 months ago)

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

2 upvotes
rhlpetrus
By rhlpetrus (7 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 (7 months ago)

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

0 upvotes
Gesture
By Gesture (7 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 (7 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 (7 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 (7 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 (7 months ago)

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

0 upvotes
HowaboutRAW
By HowaboutRAW (7 months ago)

Michael:

Have you handled the body?

0 upvotes
l_d_allan
By l_d_allan (7 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 (7 months ago)

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

0 upvotes
Richard Shih
By Richard Shih (7 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 (7 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 (7 months ago)

D4's sensor meh? Ok, case closed.

4 upvotes
unknown member
By (unknown member) (7 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 (7 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 (7 months ago)

jtan163:

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

1 upvote
sadaka
By sadaka (7 months ago)

Too bulky, Too expensive!

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

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

7 upvotes
stevens37y
By stevens37y (7 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 (7 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 (7 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 (7 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 (7 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 (7 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 (7 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 (7 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 (7 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 (7 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 (7 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 (7 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 (7 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 (7 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 (7 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 (7 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 (7 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 (7 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 (7 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 (7 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 (7 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 (7 months ago)

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

0 upvotes
MPA1
By MPA1 (7 months ago)

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

0 upvotes
wetsleet
By wetsleet (7 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 (7 months ago)

EPIC FAIL IS EPIC !

9 upvotes
HowaboutRAW
By HowaboutRAW (7 months ago)

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

Also since when is 81 a fail?

7 upvotes
ravduc
By ravduc (7 months ago)

God just spoke! Over dramatization.

2 upvotes
Allochka Emiliana
By Allochka Emiliana (7 months ago)

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

0 upvotes
HowaboutRAW
By HowaboutRAW (7 months ago)

Allochka:

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

0 upvotes
ravduc
By ravduc (7 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 (7 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 (7 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 (7 months ago)

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

2 upvotes
Paul Guba
By Paul Guba (7 months ago)

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

9 upvotes
HowaboutRAW
By HowaboutRAW (7 months ago)

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

4 upvotes
Bill Bentley
By Bill Bentley (7 months ago)

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

0 upvotes
HowaboutRAW
By HowaboutRAW (7 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 (7 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 (7 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 (7 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 (7 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 (7 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 (7 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 (7 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 (7 months ago)

rav:

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

0 upvotes
ravduc
By ravduc (7 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 (7 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 (7 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 (7 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 (7 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 (7 months ago)

Where did you see non-recommended?

1 upvote
Alphoid
By Alphoid (7 months ago)

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

8 upvotes
ravduc
By ravduc (7 months ago)

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

4 upvotes
GPW
By GPW (7 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 (7 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 (7 months ago)

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

1 upvote
ravduc
By ravduc (7 months ago)

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

1 upvote
G1Houston
By G1Houston (7 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 (7 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 (7 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 (7 months ago)

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

3 upvotes
Zamac
By Zamac (7 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 (7 months ago)

" It looks back, "

it is indeed backward looking.

1 upvote
sandy b
By sandy b (7 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 (7 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 (7 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 (7 months ago)

Aleoluyaaa

1 upvote
Digital Suicide
By Digital Suicide (7 months ago)

So why you're here? :)

4 upvotes
MPA1
By MPA1 (7 months ago)

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

1 upvote
kadardr
By kadardr (7 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 (7 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 (7 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 (7 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 (7 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 (7 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 (7 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 (7 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 (7 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 (7 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 (7 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 (7 months ago)

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

0 upvotes
Samuel Dilworth
By Samuel Dilworth (7 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 (7 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 (7 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 (7 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 (7 months ago)

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

3 upvotes
retro76
By retro76 (7 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 (7 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 (7 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
babalu
By babalu (7 months ago)

@Barney
Thanks, I call that a clear statement .

0 upvotes
D1N0
By D1N0 (7 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 (7 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 (7 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 (7 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 (7 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 (7 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 (7 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 (6 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 (7 months ago)

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

2 upvotes
Nukunukoo
By Nukunukoo (7 months ago)

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

Comment edited 15 seconds after posting
4 upvotes
Digital Suicide
By Digital Suicide (7 months ago)

Can you mount AI lens on your "Fuji"?

0 upvotes
Jonathan F/2
By Jonathan F/2 (7 months ago)

Umm, actually you can.

1 upvote
rhlpetrus
By rhlpetrus (7 months ago)

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

0 upvotes
JimmyDP
By JimmyDP (7 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 (7 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 (7 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 (7 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
Total comments: 1618
34567