Previous page Next page

Nikon Df Review

December 2013 | By Richard Butler, Barney Britton
Buy on GearShopFrom $2,746.9514 deals


Review based on a production Nikon Df

The Nikon Df is, at first appearance, the camera that many people have been asking for, for years - a classically styled DSLR with traditional external controls. But, for all Nikon's talk of a return to 'Pure Photography,' an awful lot of what's under the Df's confidently retro skin is pretty familiar. The Df is built around the 16MP full frame sensor from the company's flagship D4 with the processor and AF system borrowed from the comparatively affordable D610.

The camera's appearance is inspired by a much earlier generation of film cameras. In fact, from the front the Df looks like an oversized Nikon FM (and not dissimilar to Canon's F1N). And, as well as the styling and dedicated external controls, the Df's other nod to the company's history is the inclusion of a retractable meter coupling tab, allowing the use of pre-1977 non-AI lenses.

For those of us raised on film SLRs the effect is rather intriguing. We understand that the Df has been at least four years in the making, and the glee of its creators is almost palpable in the many specific design cues obviously taken from earlier SLRs including the FM/2 and the long-lived professional-targeted Nikon F3.

Nikon Df key features

  • 16 megapixel full-frame CMOS sensor (same as D4)
  • ISO 100-25,600 (expandable to ISO 50 - 204,800 equiv)
  • Maximum 5.5 fps continuous shooting
  • 39-point AF system with 9 cross-type AF points (same as D610)
  • 3.2-inch, 921k-dot LCD screen
  • Physical shutter speed, ISO and exposure compensation dials
  • Compatible with virtually all Nikon F-mount lenses (including pre-Ai standard)
  • Single SD card slot
  • EN-EL14a battery (quoted endurance of ~1400 exposures)

According to Nikon, the 'F' in Df stands for 'fusion' - specifically, fusion of the old and the new. We know all about the old - the 'retro' styling - which leaves us with the 'D'. This of course stands for 'Digital'. The Nikon Df boasts a full-frame sensor, 39-point AF system and a maximum shooting rate of 5.5 fps. The LCD on the rear of the camera is a 3.2", 921k-dot display and, despite its 'fully manual' pretensions, the Df boasts front and rear electronic control dials alongside the dedicated physical dials on the top-plate. It's a thoroughly modern DSLR for the most part, but with one major difference.

What, no video?

That major difference is video - the Df cannot shoot it (making it one of only two current DSLRs which don't - the other being the Sigma SD1 Merrill). In conversation with Nikon engineers, we were told that video was never on the table as an option for the Df, apparently as much a philosophical point as anything else. This is a serious camera for serious people which is to be used for 'pure photography', not videos (oddly though, the Df still boasts a full complement of retouch options including the decidedly lightweight fisheye and miniature effects).

While it's true that many potential Df owners might not care about video, if you can add a function, why not do so? Since it's based around a video-capable sensor and shares its image processor with a camera that can shoot video, it's reasonable to assume it could be added via firmware, but the question is probably academic, since the Df has no built-in microphone nor a jack for adding one. Equally, the Df's relatively low-capacity EN-EL14a battery wouldn't last terribly long, even if such a feature were enabled.

Df - a D4 in F3 clothing?

If you look beyond the Df's outward appearance, another aspect of its appeal is the relatively inexpensive access it gives to the image sensor used in the company's flagship DSLR, the D4. And while that's true, the omission of video and high-speed frame rates mean you don't get to take full advantage of its capabilities. Even without those aspects, the well-respected low-light capabilities of the D4's sensor should lend some appeal to the Df.

Viewfinder

The Df's optical viewfinder is very large - the same size as the D800. The magnification is 0.70x and, naturally, coverage is 100%. We've also shown the viewfinder of the film-era F3 here for reference. As you can see, the F3 offered an impressively large finder, and even the high eye-point viewfinder that glasses wearers tended to prefer was still larger than the Df's. When a DX lens is attached to the Df, the viewfinder shows frame-lines indicating the DX image area.

One real shame (although perhaps not a surprise) is the fact that the Df's focusing screen is fixed. We had hoped for an accessory split-prism focusing screen for manual focus, but it's likely that the additional cost and incompatibility with modern pattern metering modes ruled that out at the design stage. Instead the Df has Nikon's standard 'rangefinder' display in the viewfinder, which uses the autofocus sensor to indicate when it thinks the lens is correctly focused.

Kit options and pricing

The Nikon Df comes in two color options - silver and all-black, and in the USA, both will be available for $2749 body only. Nikon has created a special edition of its AF-S Nikkor 50mm F1.8G to match the 'retro' look and feel of the Df (optically it's identical to the standard version) and this is available separately for $279, or bundled with the Df for $2999.95.

The Df is being sold with a cosmetically reworked version of the AF-S Nikkor 50mm F1.8G, with some 'classic' (but entirely cosmetic) design accents to match the look of the new camera.

In the UK, the Df is available only as a kit with the 50mm lens, at a suggested price of £2749.99 - only £50 less than the recommended price of the 36MP D800 and revamped 50mm F1.8. Unlike the US figure, this includes 20% VAT, but that still works out as around the equivalent of $3660, even if you take this into account. That said, prices change at different rates in different markets so, once the initial rush of customers has subsided, the prices might begin to look less unreasonable.


If you're new to digital photography you may wish to read the Digital Photography Glossary before diving into this article (it may help you understand some of the terms used).

Conclusion / Recommendation / Ratings are based on the opinion of the reviewer, you should read the ENTIRE review before coming to your own conclusions.

Images which can be viewed at a larger size have a small magnifying glass icon in the bottom right corner of the image, clicking on the image will display a larger (typically VGA) image in a new window.

To navigate the review simply use the next / previous page buttons, to jump to a particular section either pick the section from the drop down or select it from the navigation bar at the top.

DPReview calibrate their monitors using Color Vision OptiCal at the (fairly well accepted) PC normal gamma 2.2, this means that on our monitors we can make out the difference between all of the (computer generated) grayscale blocks below. We recommend to make the most of this review you should be able to see the difference (at least) between X,Y and Z and ideally A,B and C.

This article is Copyright 2013 and may NOT in part or in whole be reproduced in any electronic or printed medium without prior permission from the author.

Previous page Next page

Comments

Total comments: 1595
12345
Edmond Leung
By Edmond Leung (4 months ago)

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

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

1 upvote
HowaboutRAW
By HowaboutRAW (4 months ago)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

0 upvotes
HowaboutRAW
By HowaboutRAW (4 months ago)

EL:

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

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

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

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

Comment edited 7 minutes after posting
0 upvotes
cmvsm
By cmvsm (4 months ago)

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

0 upvotes
HowaboutRAW
By HowaboutRAW (4 months ago)

raztec:

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

0 upvotes
raztec
By raztec (4 months ago)

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

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

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

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

1 upvote
Bamboojled
By Bamboojled (4 months ago)

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

1 upvote
raztec
By raztec (4 months ago)

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

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

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

Merry Xmas

6 upvotes
Bamboojled
By Bamboojled (4 months ago)

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

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

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

2 upvotes
raztec
By raztec (4 months ago)

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

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

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

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

4 upvotes
Tonio Loewald
By Tonio Loewald (4 months ago)

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

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

Comment edited 60 seconds after posting
1 upvote
HowaboutRAW
By HowaboutRAW (4 months ago)

raztec:

But did you shoot with it?

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

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

0 upvotes
binauralbeats
By binauralbeats (4 months ago)

"Pure photography" LOL

10 upvotes
Bamboojled
By Bamboojled (4 months ago)

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

3 upvotes
jimi1127
By jimi1127 (4 months ago)

The Edsel also generated gallons of interest.

6 upvotes
JPMontez
By JPMontez (4 months ago)

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

3 upvotes
new boyz
By new boyz (4 months ago)

Consider yourself lucky. Hahahaha.

0 upvotes
marike6
By marike6 (4 months ago)

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

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

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

25 upvotes
chooflaki
By chooflaki (4 months ago)

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

Comment edited 3 times, last edit 7 minutes after posting
9 upvotes
raztec
By raztec (4 months ago)

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

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

Comment edited 9 minutes after posting
22 upvotes
sharkcookie
By sharkcookie (4 months ago)

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

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

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

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

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

15 upvotes
HowaboutRAW
By HowaboutRAW (4 months ago)

raztec:

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

3 upvotes
raztec
By raztec (4 months ago)

@ howabout

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

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

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

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

Comment edited 6 minutes after posting
1 upvote
sandy b
By sandy b (4 months ago)

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

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

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

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

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

1 upvote
HowaboutRAW
By HowaboutRAW (4 months ago)

raztec:

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

0 upvotes
dnaseigel
By dnaseigel (4 months ago)

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

4 upvotes
nickkessler
By nickkessler (4 months ago)

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

3 upvotes
G1Houston
By G1Houston (4 months ago)

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

Here is what he said in the conclusion:

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

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

3 upvotes
reinish
By reinish (4 months ago)

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

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

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

there they bouth are side by side

8 upvotes
HowaboutRAW
By HowaboutRAW (4 months ago)

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

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

0 upvotes
NCB
By NCB (4 months ago)

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

1 upvote
new boyz
By new boyz (4 months ago)

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

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

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

1 upvote
robmanueb
By robmanueb (4 months ago)

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

6 upvotes
PicOne
By PicOne (4 months ago)

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

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

0 upvotes
antoin
By antoin (4 months ago)

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

Comment edited 49 seconds after posting
1 upvote
InTheMist
By InTheMist (4 months ago)

Always the Pentax guys.

7 upvotes
PerL
By PerL (4 months ago)

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

5 upvotes
HowaboutRAW
By HowaboutRAW (4 months ago)

antoin:

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

2 upvotes
ET2
By ET2 (4 months ago)

K01 AF is worse. Read the review

1 upvote
antoin
By antoin (4 months ago)

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

Comment edited 13 minutes after posting
0 upvotes
rb59020
By rb59020 (4 months ago)

My K-30 has a viewfinder.

0 upvotes
Bamboojled
By Bamboojled (4 months ago)

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

Comment edited 36 seconds after posting
1 upvote
guytano
By guytano (4 months ago)

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

1 upvote
kadardr
By kadardr (4 months ago)

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

5 upvotes
HowaboutRAW
By HowaboutRAW (4 months ago)

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

0 upvotes
Sensible1
By Sensible1 (4 months ago)

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

4 upvotes
HowaboutRAW
By HowaboutRAW (4 months ago)

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

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

4 upvotes
InTheMist
By InTheMist (4 months ago)

Well, then, they made it for me.

I hope they make you a camera too.

7 upvotes
HetFotoAtelier
By HetFotoAtelier (4 months ago)

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

12 upvotes
nickkessler
By nickkessler (4 months ago)

I like the black one so much more

1 upvote
Frank C.
By Frank C. (4 months ago)

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

1 upvote
HowaboutRAW
By HowaboutRAW (4 months ago)

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

Nikon hasn't told lies about its performance.

Comment edited 3 minutes after posting
6 upvotes
comet suisei
By comet suisei (4 months ago)

stupid comment

2 upvotes
Frank C.
By Frank C. (4 months ago)

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

0 upvotes
Josh152
By Josh152 (4 months ago)

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

0 upvotes
Felts
By Felts (4 months ago)

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

3 upvotes
nickkessler
By nickkessler (4 months ago)

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

0 upvotes
sgoldswo
By sgoldswo (4 months ago)

The locks are actually easy to use...

0 upvotes
ArturK
By ArturK (4 months ago)

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

0 upvotes
binauralbeats
By binauralbeats (4 months ago)

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

0 upvotes
nickkessler
By nickkessler (4 months ago)

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

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

0 upvotes
ArturK
By ArturK (4 months ago)

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

0 upvotes
Saffron_Blaze
By Saffron_Blaze (4 months ago)

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

0 upvotes
HowaboutRAW
By HowaboutRAW (4 months ago)

D4.

7 upvotes
yabokkie
By yabokkie (4 months ago)

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

2 upvotes
physguy88
By physguy88 (4 months ago)

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

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

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

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

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

9 upvotes
HowaboutRAW
By HowaboutRAW (4 months ago)

physguy88:

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

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

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

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

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

1 upvote
TrojMacReady
By TrojMacReady (4 months ago)

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

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

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

Troj:

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

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

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

0 upvotes
TrojMacReady
By TrojMacReady (4 months ago)

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

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

2 upvotes
physguy88
By physguy88 (4 months ago)

HowaboutRAW:

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

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

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

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

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

2 upvotes
HowaboutRAW
By HowaboutRAW (4 months ago)

TrojMac:

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

0 upvotes
HowaboutRAW
By HowaboutRAW (4 months ago)

physguy88:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

TrojMac:

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

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

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

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

Comment edited 8 minutes after posting
0 upvotes
guytano
By guytano (4 months ago)

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

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

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

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

Anyone still interested?

Comment edited 33 seconds after posting
0 upvotes
HowaboutRAW
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.

3 upvotes
Jaberwok
By Jaberwok (4 months ago)

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

Comment edited 3 times, last edit 6 minutes after posting
7 upvotes
HowaboutRAW
By HowaboutRAW (4 months ago)

J:

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

Good lowlight high ISO performance is important for me.

I often shoot under light not much more than streetlamps.

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

Comment edited 1 minute after posting
0 upvotes
MikeF4Black
By MikeF4Black (4 months ago)

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

0 upvotes
Jaberwok
By Jaberwok (4 months ago)

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

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

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

4 upvotes
HowaboutRAW
By HowaboutRAW (4 months ago)

Jaberwok:

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

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

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

0 upvotes
Jaberwok
By Jaberwok (4 months ago)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

0 upvotes
Bamboojled
By Bamboojled (4 months ago)

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

0 upvotes
HowaboutRAW
By HowaboutRAW (4 months ago)

Jaber:

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

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

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

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

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

1 upvote
HowaboutRAW
By HowaboutRAW (4 months ago)

MikeF:

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

0 upvotes
Jaberwok
By Jaberwok (4 months ago)

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

0 upvotes
HowaboutRAW
By HowaboutRAW (4 months ago)

J:

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

0 upvotes
physguy88
By physguy88 (4 months ago)

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

This is simple math.

1 upvote
HowaboutRAW
By HowaboutRAW (4 months ago)

physguy88:

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

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

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

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

0 upvotes
TrojMacReady
By TrojMacReady (4 months ago)

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

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

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

Comment edited 3 minutes after posting
3 upvotes
physguy88
By physguy88 (4 months ago)

Agree with TrojMacReady.

Also:

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

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

1 upvote
HowaboutRAW
By HowaboutRAW (4 months ago)

Troj:

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

Now what can work is printing beyond 300ppi.

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

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

Comment edited 2 times, last edit 8 minutes after posting
1 upvote
HowaboutRAW
By HowaboutRAW (4 months ago)

physguy:

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

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

Comment edited 11 minutes after posting
0 upvotes
HowaboutRAW
By HowaboutRAW (4 months ago)

physguy:

(the extended version of above)

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

I read the links:

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

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

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

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

0 upvotes
Revenant
By Revenant (4 months ago)

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

0 upvotes
physguy88
By physguy88 (4 months ago)

HowaboutRAW,

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

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

Comment edited 2 times, last edit 6 minutes after posting
1 upvote
MikeF4Black
By MikeF4Black (4 months ago)

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

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

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

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

1 upvote
MikeF4Black
By MikeF4Black (4 months ago)

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

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

1 upvote
HowaboutRAW
By HowaboutRAW (4 months ago)

physguy88:

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

0 upvotes
HowaboutRAW
By HowaboutRAW (4 months ago)

Revenant:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

TrojMac+physguy:

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

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

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

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

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

0 upvotes
physguy88
By physguy88 (4 months ago)

Let me put it to you a different way:

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

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

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

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

BTW are you actually getting one?

0 upvotes
HowaboutRAW
By HowaboutRAW (4 months ago)

phsyguy88:

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

Those are jpgs, so who cares?

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

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

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

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

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

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

physguy88:

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

0 upvotes
physguy88
By physguy88 (4 months ago)

So let me guess:

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

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

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

Comment edited 2 minutes after posting
0 upvotes
physguy88
By physguy88 (4 months ago)

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

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

0 upvotes
HowaboutRAW
By HowaboutRAW (4 months ago)

physguy88:

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

Why even bring up jpegs.

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

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

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

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

Comment edited 2 times, last edit 60 seconds after posting
0 upvotes
physguy88
By physguy88 (4 months ago)

Well,

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

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

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

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

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

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

physguy:

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

Your downsampling trick doesn't really work.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

7 upvotes
HowaboutRAW
By HowaboutRAW (4 months ago)

Have you shot with the Df?

4 upvotes
plasnu
By plasnu (4 months ago)

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

1 upvote
HowaboutRAW
By HowaboutRAW (4 months ago)

p:

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

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

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

TrojMac+physguy:

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

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

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

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

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

0 upvotes
PedagangAsongan
By PedagangAsongan (4 months ago)

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

0 upvotes
justmeMN
By justmeMN (4 months ago)

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

5 upvotes
photosen
By photosen (4 months ago)

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

5 upvotes
ravduc
By ravduc (4 months ago)

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

5 upvotes
Josh152
By Josh152 (4 months ago)

@ravduc

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

1 upvote
ravduc
By ravduc (4 months ago)

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

2 upvotes
robmanueb
By robmanueb (4 months ago)

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

1 upvote
Josh152
By Josh152 (4 months ago)

@robmanueb

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

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

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

1 upvote
ravduc
By ravduc (4 months ago)

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

1 upvote
Josh152
By Josh152 (4 months ago)

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

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

0 upvotes
robmanueb
By robmanueb (4 months ago)

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

1 upvote
mauritsvw
By mauritsvw (4 months ago)

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

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

6 upvotes
NCB
By NCB (4 months ago)

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

8 upvotes
Matt1645f4
By Matt1645f4 (4 months ago)

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

7 upvotes
Jaberwok
By Jaberwok (4 months ago)

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

'I wanted to HATE the X100S

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

Bought one anyway.

I love, love, love the X series

Damn you, Fuji....'

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

Comment edited 2 times, last edit 11 minutes after posting
2 upvotes
Jaberwok
By Jaberwok (4 months ago)

deleted.

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

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

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

1 upvote
Fred Mueller
By Fred Mueller (4 months ago)

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

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

2 upvotes
NCB
By NCB (4 months ago)

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

1 upvote
DarkShift
By DarkShift (4 months ago)

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

2 upvotes
Bamboojled
By Bamboojled (4 months ago)

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

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

1 upvote
HowaboutRAW
By HowaboutRAW (4 months ago)

DarkShift:

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

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

1 upvote
DarkShift
By DarkShift (4 months ago)

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

1 upvote
HowaboutRAW
By HowaboutRAW (4 months ago)

DarkShift:

I think it changed a while ago.

0 upvotes
DarkShift
By DarkShift (4 months ago)

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

Comment edited 14 seconds after posting
1 upvote
HowaboutRAW
By HowaboutRAW (4 months ago)

DarkShift:

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

0 upvotes
HowaboutRAW
By HowaboutRAW (4 months ago)

DarkShift:

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

The red flash confirm sure seems to work well though.

0 upvotes
Fred Mueller
By Fred Mueller (4 months ago)

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

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

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

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

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

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

0 upvotes
HowaboutRAW
By HowaboutRAW (4 months ago)

Digial Suicide:

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

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

0 upvotes
ChristophBarthold
By ChristophBarthold (4 months ago)

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

1 upvote
HowaboutRAW
By HowaboutRAW (4 months ago)

ChristophBarthold:

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

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

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

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

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

0 upvotes
HowaboutRAW
By HowaboutRAW (4 months ago)

Richard:

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

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

1 upvote
cgarrard
By cgarrard (4 months ago)

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

4 upvotes
itsastickup
By itsastickup (4 months ago)

Thanks for telling us.

8 upvotes
cgarrard
By cgarrard (4 months ago)

Thanks for replying.

1 upvote
mike kobal
By mike kobal (4 months ago)

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

2 upvotes
rhlpetrus
By rhlpetrus (4 months ago)

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

2 upvotes
Jaberwok
By Jaberwok (4 months ago)

Must be tough being a DP reviewer.

1 upvote
mike kobal
By mike kobal (4 months ago)

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

2 upvotes
stevens37y
By stevens37y (4 months ago)

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

1 upvote
mike kobal
By mike kobal (4 months ago)

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

0 upvotes
steveh0607
By steveh0607 (4 months ago)

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

0 upvotes
Jaberwok
By Jaberwok (4 months ago)

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

2 upvotes
Lanski
By Lanski (4 months ago)

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

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

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

4 upvotes
marike6
By marike6 (4 months ago)

That's an easy one: passive aggression.

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

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

7 upvotes
tbcass
By tbcass (4 months ago)

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

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

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

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

0 upvotes
Holger Drallmeyer
By Holger Drallmeyer (4 months ago)

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

0 upvotes
itsastickup
By itsastickup (4 months ago)

Ah, totally thought it was mirrorless.

0 upvotes
Jaberwok
By Jaberwok (4 months ago)

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

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

Comment edited 44 seconds after posting
5 upvotes
jimi1127
By jimi1127 (4 months ago)

Agree with your appraisal and gotta love that final sentence.

3 upvotes
Lanski
By Lanski (4 months ago)

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

2 upvotes
Shamael
By Shamael (4 months ago)

no knickers is what gives it the kick, hahaha

0 upvotes
itsastickup
By itsastickup (4 months ago)

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

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

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

2 upvotes
sgoldswo
By sgoldswo (4 months ago)

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

Richard,

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

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

Best

Simon

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

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

3 upvotes
sgoldswo
By sgoldswo (4 months ago)

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

0 upvotes
Shamael
By Shamael (4 months ago)

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

1 upvote
Lea5
By Lea5 (4 months ago)

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

4 upvotes
Shamael
By Shamael (4 months ago)

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

1 upvote
PerL
By PerL (4 months ago)

Wow, internet is a nasty place.

12 upvotes
JS Burnie
By JS Burnie (4 months ago)

Sad but true.

1 upvote
calking
By calking (4 months ago)

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

1 upvote
MN13
By MN13 (4 months ago)

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

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

3 upvotes
_Federico_
By _Federico_ (4 months ago)

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

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

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

2 upvotes
HowaboutRAW
By HowaboutRAW (4 months ago)

Digital Suicide:

And split screens are overrated.

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

0 upvotes
yabokkie
By yabokkie (4 months ago)

> I can accept a plastic body

I'd prefer a plastic body.

0 upvotes
mholdef
By mholdef (4 months ago)

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

Comment edited 18 seconds after posting
0 upvotes
Apollo18
By Apollo18 (4 months ago)

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

3 upvotes
Shamael
By Shamael (4 months ago)

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

2 upvotes
mholdef
By mholdef (4 months ago)

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

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

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

Mark

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

totally agree re emotional comments on cameras. absolutely nuts.

1 upvote
sebastian huvenaars
By sebastian huvenaars (4 months ago)

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

Emotional cam, emotional comments :)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

spot on assessment

0 upvotes
AnHund
By AnHund (4 months ago)

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

0 upvotes
raztec
By raztec (4 months ago)

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

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

Comment edited 9 minutes after posting
1 upvote
Bamboojled
By Bamboojled (4 months ago)

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

So how is this an affront to photographers?

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

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

1 upvote
raztec
By raztec (4 months ago)

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

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

3 upvotes
chooflaki
By chooflaki (4 months ago)

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

Comment edited 2 times, last edit 3 minutes after posting
0 upvotes
Stu 5
By Stu 5 (4 months ago)

raztec the D800 is lighter than a D700

Dimensions

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

Weight

D700 995g
D800 900g

5 upvotes
raztec
By raztec (4 months ago)

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

0 upvotes
Bamboojled
By Bamboojled (4 months ago)

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

1 upvote
raztec
By raztec (4 months ago)

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

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

0 upvotes
Bamboojled
By Bamboojled (4 months ago)

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

0 upvotes
raztec
By raztec (4 months ago)

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

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

0 upvotes
km25
By km25 (4 months ago)

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

1 upvote
Kelvin L
By Kelvin L (4 months ago)

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

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

1 upvote
onlooker
By onlooker (4 months ago)

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

1 upvote
Shamael
By Shamael (4 months ago)

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

Comment edited 2 minutes after posting
0 upvotes
jtan163
By jtan163 (4 months ago)

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

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

0 upvotes
onlooker
By onlooker (4 months ago)

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

And which of those two is Nikon in your comparison?

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

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

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

I have no idea what that means.

0 upvotes
wkay
By wkay (4 months ago)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Nikon obviously did something right.

9 upvotes
fmian
By fmian (4 months ago)

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

Nikon obviously did something *wrong*.''

Fixed!

8 upvotes
Bamboojled
By Bamboojled (4 months ago)

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

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

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

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

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

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

6 upvotes
Bamboojled
By Bamboojled (4 months ago)

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

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

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

2 upvotes
_Federico_
By _Federico_ (4 months ago)

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

3 upvotes
Shamael
By Shamael (4 months ago)

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

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

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

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

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

1 upvote
ravduc
By ravduc (4 months ago)

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

2 upvotes
fmian
By fmian (4 months ago)

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

0 upvotes
ravduc
By ravduc (4 months ago)

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

1 upvote
ravduc
By ravduc (4 months ago)

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

0 upvotes
noirdude
By noirdude (4 months ago)

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

5 upvotes
binauralbeats
By binauralbeats (4 months ago)

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

4 upvotes
RichRMA
By RichRMA (4 months ago)

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

2 upvotes
Bamboojled
By Bamboojled (4 months ago)

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

1 upvote
hippo84
By hippo84 (4 months ago)

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

6 upvotes
pgb
By pgb (4 months ago)

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

Comment edited 27 seconds after posting
2 upvotes
Bamboojled
By Bamboojled (4 months ago)

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

0 upvotes
binauralbeats
By binauralbeats (4 months ago)

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

12 upvotes
johnCam
By johnCam (4 months ago)

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

1 upvote
Jeff Keller
By Jeff Keller (4 months ago)

See the section on awards:

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

1 upvote
Total comments: 1595
12345