Previous page Next page

Nikon Df Review

December 2013 | By Richard Butler, Barney Britton
Buy on Amazon.com From $2,746.95


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
256
I own it
404
I want it
84
I had it
Discuss in the forums

Comments

Total comments: 1627
12345
Zoron

Nikon Df is still a lot cheaper and better than Leica....so good for us....y the hate?

2 upvotes
HowaboutRAW

Sort of true but to get anything close to the optical quality of good Leica M lenses you'll have to use the Zeiss manual focus lenses on this body.

1 upvote
armandino

this camera is nothing like Leica, unfortunately.

0 upvotes
yearofrolling

Why can't canon make a camera that looks like this?

0 upvotes
RDMPhotos

Well, they can... they just do not want to.

0 upvotes
armandino

thank God at least one company keeps it serious and does not jump in the bandwagon. Showing some marketing strategies that are not attracted by the temporary hypes. Now Canon I love your cameras but just give us a nice dynamic range.... we have been waiting long enough I think....

0 upvotes
NikonF3T

Canon doesn't have as long tradition of keeping analog ergonomics than Nikon has. Canon sort of abandoned it toward the end of FD mount system production (T-90) and neither on any of EOS series. So, it's probably hard to generate enough demand among Canon users. I also own EOS 5D, BTW.

0 upvotes
Babka08
4 upvotes
liveaudio

I was fascinated by this camera ... and even more so after reading the emotional postings by others here.

For one, I appreciate what Nikon is doing. There can certainly not be a single perfect camera, but for my needs, this seems like a good choice. A blend of high tech modern imaging technology in a familiar architecture.

The sort of machine I would enjoy grabbing on my way out the door. My guess is that I could snap the occasional good shot.

5 upvotes
waxwaine

Classic remades are a classic fail

Comment edited 2 minutes after posting
4 upvotes
HowaboutRAW

Mazda Miata (UK Mazda MX6).

0 upvotes
HowaboutRAW

UK MX5, before I hear about it. And it would be nice if these pages actually loaded, the old system worked better.

0 upvotes
RayManFOTO

Absolute statements are NEVER absolute. SOME classic re-mades are a classic SUCCESS!

2 upvotes
Soothsayerman

My favorite cameras of all time

Olympus OM-1, OM-2
Nikon FE, FM2

If this had really been created more in the spirit with the FE or FM2 I would have jumped in with both feet grinning, but this thing is big, bulky, goofy and just blech. I'm disappointed.

0 upvotes
armandino

The oracle said:
"everything that has a beginning has an end"

1 upvote
Vitruvius

I have never touched this camera and never plan to, but it does seem arrogant for Nikon to lower the specs on a camera and give it a retro look and then charge a fortune for it. No wonder it isn't selling well. It really seems like it wants to be one of those "look at me, I have too much money" kind of pompous cameras. I mean why else wouldn't you get a D800.

3 upvotes
HowaboutRAW

How are the specs lower?

Above base ISO the D800 doesn’t have the dynamic range of the Df. Nor obviously can the D800 shoot as well at such high ISOs.

The Df appears to be selling.

Look if good DR and lowlight high ISO shooting aren’t important to you, then there are other options.

Why don’t you try looking at the image quality produced instead of the box producing that image.

So I guess the D800 as a bigger buffer and more AF points, but then the D4 bests those D800 capacities.

Comment edited 8 minutes after posting
1 upvote
JDThomas

You know, I like my Df an awful lot, but HowaboutRAW you seem to put in an inordinate amount of time defending this camera. You belabor the same points over and over.

You may be right, but at what point are you going to stop tilting at windmills?

These people aren't interested in liking the Df and no amount of your arguing is going to change that. I agree with you, but damn, your posts are bordering on obnoxious and have gone on to the point of obsession. Dude, relax. It's just a camera, you don't have to defend it's honor.

9 upvotes
HowaboutRAW

JDT:

Yeah, I get that I’m playing Wack A Mole. But the moles keep popping up with the same made up story.

Hope you can see why I’d find the oft repeated line: “The Nikon D800 is a better camera,” to be obnoxious.

Just wait for another camera body with features that I respect and others pontificate inaccurately upon.

1 upvote
petemod

Haha, I agree with JDThomas. I check this thread out once a day or so just to see what HowaboutRAW wrote this time... it always cracks me up when I read how strongly he defends the DF.

The DF is a good camera with good specs. HOWEVER, Nikon chose to jump on the retro inspired bandwagon and to many it fell flat on its face. Had the DF not been prophesized to be the 'digital fusion' for 'pure photography' it would not have received the reception that it has. Expectations were raised so incredibly high that they only had one place to go.

Comment edited 45 seconds after posting
2 upvotes
HowaboutRAW

petemod:

It's not my fault you believed the marketing claims.

Remember the Microsoft marketing for Windows '95 or Windows Vista? As a camera the Df is better than those products.

0 upvotes
petemod

HowaboutRAW:

Yeah, stupid me... Why should I have thought that Nikon was capable of producing a DSLR that would elicit the same kind of "pure photography" experience of perhaps a Leica M, with the same stunning good looks, and "non-recycled" parts to match...

Oh wait, they released a mini-series of teaser clips suggesting that they could...

Fool me once Nikon, shame on you (I owned an oily D600),
Fool me twice Nikon, shame on me.

1 upvote
HowaboutRAW

petemod:

The Leica M240 is kinda thick. And still has the dumb hidden single SD card slot. (Yes, if I had a spare $18,000 in the bank, I'd order a M240 and the new M 50mm f/2.0.)

Don't think the oil problems with the D600 (and oil is always a risk with DSLRs) have anything to do with whether or not you personally like the aesthetics of the Nikon Df.

The Nikon Df is easy enough to use; it's just that you'd have to get used to different controls if you're used to a Nikon DSLR like the D600.

Got news, many manufacturers use the same parts in different models--the same is true for computer code. To avoid taking sales from the D4 and D800, Nikon was not likely going to develop an all new AF system for this very all new body.

Again, I didn't watch the marketing video, not likely I'd have believed it anyhow.

If the strong features of the Df (IQ, DR) aren't important to you, and knobs confuse things for you, don't purchase a Df.

1 upvote
petemod

Nothing wrong with a single SD slot if you're out there enjoying photography and not doing it commercially.

The oil problems with the D600 and the quickly released D610 have proved that Nikon would rather abandon its customers rather than acknowledge the problem. Clearly you haven't experienced it yourself as you would know that it is far from normal.

To sum up your other comments;
Where did I say I had a problem with the knobs or that I may be confused by them? Re-read my posts as it seems you're confused.
Yes companies reuse parts, however why would they reuse parts that people have already complained about (specifically the APSC sized AF array)?
By not having seen the videos you don't understand why many people feel the way they feel.

I'm not buying a DF. Why? Because of the poorly executed "classic" styling, the unacceptable AF array, and because I would have preferred the sensor from the D800.

Buy a DF and put your money where your mouth is, or are you only a dreamer?

1 upvote
HowaboutRAW

petemod:

Right now I don’t have the money to buy the Df, but I’d sure consider it if I did.

This is where you said you had a problem with the knobs, twice:

First: “I'm not buying a DF. Why? Because of the poorly executed "classic" styling,”

then from above:

“Yeah, stupid me... Why should I have thought that Nikon was capable of producing a DSLR that would elicit the same kind of "pure photography" experience of perhaps a Leica M, with the same stunning good looks, and "non-recycled" parts to match...”

It’s the “poorly executed” thing that more than implies you don’t like the knobs.

So hope that clarifies.

Now I’m not wedded to AF, since Nikon lenses aren’t optically great so I’d avoid them, and I don’t shoot sporting events. But indeed the AF is just fine on the Nikon Df. Though: No, not the AF from the D4.
Familiarize yourself with the SD slot on the Leica M240; its singleness aint the real problem.

continues:

0 upvotes
HowaboutRAW

Above base ISO the sensor from the D800 doesn’t have the dynamic range of the Df’s sensor, then there’s that other thing. So those are really important Df features that the D800 just can’t match. As I suspected you don’t care about image quality, just specs with bigger numbers.

0 upvotes
petemod

I'm convinced! The Nikon DF is a fantastic camera, and I am plain wrong for having a personal preference and wanting something different. If only everyone could see the light like you do. Thank you for converting me.

By the way, I DO LIKE THE KNOBS AND DIALS. It's the immediate transition to modern DSLR styling on the back that I do not like, along with the bloated look THAT TO ME makes the design look forced. Yet you implied that I would somehow be intellectually challenged by all the knobs. Stop reading in between the lines, because you're failing.

Different people have different needs. To some the final resolution of the image is of primary importance. You brought up a great point as well with the AF. What if I want to shoot sports or my kids running around? Should I be satisfied by the incredible dynamic range, and how clean the image is, even if it is out of focus?

You don't understand how broad photographers' needs can be. You demonstrate this every time you post.

0 upvotes
HowaboutRAW

petemod:

By all means the Df may not be the camera for you, and I never claimed otherwise.

Clearly every camera has trade offs, the D800 mostly gets in its own way with too many pixels for all but giant landscapes, and then less dynamic range, but it has a strong AF and likely a deeper buffer than the Df. Whereas the Df has different strengths.

It’s not like a D610 is some great sports camera either. Then there was sports photography before AF.

Now in the digital era to improve the chance of players and the ball being in focus: One trick of course is to use greater depth of field, and cameras that have better high ISO image quality help in that respect.

Nor am I reading between lines to say that you objected to the Df’s knobs, when you broadly objected to the design–only now raising specific points.

The Leica M240 has all sorts of buttons on the back akin to the back of the Nikon Df.

I've no idea where you get the idea that one camera can do everything.

0 upvotes
unknown member
By (unknown member) (11 months ago)

Double yawn! I look in once a week or so and the dear old boy HowaboutRAW is still beating his meat about the Df low light performance..round in circles, situation normal.

0 upvotes
HowaboutRAW

Jaber:

And evidently you didn’t read my above comment.

I’ll explain since you clearly don’t understand: “dynamic range” is not the same thing as good high ISO performance. Though since you brought it up, yes the D4 has better dynamic range at high ISOs than the dynamic range of the D800 at high ISOs–but that’s obvious.

Some people, not you, care about colour in colour photography.

Comment edited 13 minutes after posting
1 upvote
unknown member
By (unknown member) (11 months ago)

and has a hide like a rhinoceros, sarcasm just bounces straight off unnoticed..

0 upvotes
HowaboutRAW

Jaberw:

You’re not using the word “sarcasm” there correctly, your inability to lucidly read my point has mislead your apprehension.

So look up "sarcasm" when you look up the term "dynamic range".

0 upvotes
unknown member
By (unknown member) (10 months ago)

You've been watching Star Trek again and the famous split infinity..
'inability to lucidly read my point has mislead your apprehension.' This sounds like G Bush on a bad day: 'My enemies mis-underestimated me...'

0 upvotes
HowaboutRAW

Ah JaberW:

You don't know that the "split infinit[ity]" rule is one made up from Latin grammar, where infinitives need to come before the nouns they modify.

There's no such rule in English, only a forced style that has nothing to do with actual English grammar.

The point remains that you need to look up "dynamic range" and "sarcasm".

Comment edited 2 times, last edit 2 minutes after posting
0 upvotes
unknown member
By (unknown member) (10 months ago)

More bull from a guy paid by Nikon to spam the forum 24-7 365.
Get a life buddy!

0 upvotes
unknown member
By (unknown member) (10 months ago)

I just love yanking you chain babes! You bite the bait every time and don't even notice your hampden being pulled like all wooden trolls.

Comment edited 1 minute after posting
0 upvotes
unknown member
By (unknown member) (10 months ago)

Good point. While I agree with the ergonomics preferences of the Canon that Scott Kelby spoke of, it is quite clear Nikon is clearly well ahead of Canon when it comes to sensor improvements. For me, image quality is what matters the most. For him, he needs speed and apparently the Canons are better suited for that from an operational point of view.

So much BS spouted by broken records of fanboi hype...

I think to say that any photographer would NOT be concerned about Image quality is a bit of a stretch. I suspect that Kelby values image quality as much as anyone else. However I suspect that he hasn't bought into the Nikon fanboy hype, recognizing that from an IQ standpoint the output of whichever two Canon/Nikon devices he is comparing is going to be essentially indistinguishable which is the reality.

0 upvotes
HowaboutRAW

Jaber,

Not paid by Nikon, and more to the point I don't think Nikon would want to pay me. If you've read what I wrote, which you appear not to, you'd apprehend that point.

0 upvotes
NikonF3T

In case you haven't read, Nikon has been planning Df since 2008. Though it originally planned to release in 2011, the Tohoku Earthquake (East Japan Earthquake) of 3/11 damaged Miyagi Nikon facility, delaying the release until the end of 2013.

I have read what Nikon engineers responsible for designing Df had to say and the trouble with finding suppliers of back-then-common molding subcontractors and material suppliers. The carving of shutter dial that can do right, and the final compromise in using magnesium surface was another.

I happened to be in Tokyo when the earthquake came, and went over to Sendai where Miyagi Nikon is located. Little did I know they were planning Df then.

0 upvotes
johnbatten

Sorry folks, I have very bad news for most of you. My Df is a wonderful camera, and this review and most of its followers seem very prejudiced. I have been using my Df on pro shoots in parallel with my D800 as well as using it as a carry-around.

DPR has fallen below its high standards with this review. My Df is NOT awkwardly placed on my tripod. The EV dial lock is NOT inconvenient. I do NOT need two-button formatting. The Df's body is NOT large and heavy for FX and 1/4000th is NOT too low. Materials do NOT lack quality feel. I could go on.

As I said in my previous post the main point here is that all cameras are compromises. The Df's reduced size does not leave room for a second card and the larger battery needed for video. The front dial is a retro-quirk but hey, folks, you know what? Yep, that's right, it works!

For me the magnifying RGB histogram and the independent flash adjustability absent on most Nikons (inc. the D800) are absolutely vital - my Df has both.

Enjoy it!

14 upvotes
HowaboutRAW

Now, now, calling attention to features on the Df not included in the D800, quote:

“For me the magnifying RGB histogram and the independent flash adjustability absent on most Nikons (inc. the D800) are absolutely vital - my Df has both.”

Must mean you’ve actually used the Df and understand some of its strengths and the importance of having access to data about the images recorded, hence mention of the magnifying RGB histogram.

You mean that every camera can’t have every feature and be everything to every user, surprised not.

0 upvotes
johnbatten

P. S. To clarify (apologies for my sloppy ambiguous English) one point - the D800 does of course have a magnifying histogram which I use a lot, but its flash cannot be independently programmed.

0 upvotes
HowaboutRAW

johnb:

Thanks for the clarification, I'd have skipped posting if that point had been clear. And I was surprised that the D800 didn't have that feature.

Anyhow, nice to see some reporting from someone who has had the Df for a few weeks or a month now--someone who also owns a D800.

Comment edited 2 minutes after posting
0 upvotes
unknown member
By (unknown member) (11 months ago)

As seen on another camera forum..

'The Nikon Df thread has unfortunately been hijacked by techno geeks who apparently photograph brick walls by moonlight and then endlessly argue the toss on resolution. There hasn't been a sane post there for while. Lots of emotional 'Nikon FF is great' postings with opinions varying between 1/4- 1/2 baked. In reality most of the posters have never seen a Df beyond the DP review pages..'

7 upvotes
HowaboutRAW

Seem mighty sure of yourself.

You're going by internet claims about internet claims; claims about claims which just happen to agree with your claims--irony there.

J, you sure appear to be one of those people who haven't shot with the Df.

2 upvotes
DSLR depreciation rules

At first I was pumped about this camera, then real disappointment came to me when I first held it - I expected it to feel as solid as my FE2, instead it feels like an N80 in my hands - light and fragile. Then I learned about its gimped feature set and I was nearly sick. It's disgusting how much praise this camera has garnered. It is a gimped, overpriced, retro-look DSLR and nothing more. The lack of video capability, fixed focus screen and light, unsolid feel are inexcusable. What is the point of making a retro-looking DSLR then gimping it to the point where using many excellent, fast, old lenses is not realistic because it is nearly impossible to focus them? Getting accurate selective focus on an old <f2 lens is nearly impossible without a split prism or microprisms. The "dot" and rangefinder don't cut it.

6 upvotes
HowaboutRAW

Were you really expecting the Df to have the auto focus system from the D4? And the D4's buffer?

The focus screen on the D700 could be swapped at a service center. So it sure looks like you can get a split screen for use with that old f/2.0 manual focus lens.

Dynamic range above base ISO is a good bit better with the Df than the D800 (and the D800 appears to use the same focus screen set up), then there’s the high ISO low light capacity of the Df, which the D800 can’t match.

Video takes more battery power and has some AF problems on may DSLRs–though you can get a D610 if you like.

Magnesium is lighter than brass. Feels plenty solid to me. And magnesium is far from “fragile”.

Look, it’s fine if you really don’t like the aesthetics or really really want to be able to switch focus screens out in the field on your own, but making things up isn’t helpful.

Have you shot with the Df?

My Minolta SR-1 doesn't have a split prism and still manual focus works with fast lenses.

2 upvotes
johnbgood52

Who cares about video capability? If you want to shoot video, buy a video camera. IMHO, the Df is a step in the right direction for Nikon, but it doesn't go far enough. To an old school guy like me, 90% of the "features" of most DSLRs are superfluous junk that do nothing useful and only add to the cost and complexity of the camera - video capability especially so. I'm paying for things I don't need, don't want and won't use, and that doesn't make me happy.

If Nikon were to take the D800e's sensor and build something around it that actually looks and feels like a classic film camera - say an F3, for example - with only the traditional controls in the traditional locations (including a real shutter with an actual wind lever), I guarantee I'll be the first in line to buy it.

8 upvotes
HowaboutRAW

johnb:

Not a bad idea, but I'd avoid the D800's sensor, not great DR above base ISO is a big problem. A film advance lever to reset the shutter sure could quiet things.

0 upvotes
mandm

How about the film advance lever to turn the camera on and off.
I will be getting the Df. I learned on The ‘F’ back in high school in 69 and I still put a roll of film thru it every year.

Comment edited 6 minutes after posting
2 upvotes
Mike Griffin

I use a vintage micro Nikkor with an aperture coupling fork and manual focus on my D200 and have no focussing issues at all. I focus by eye then use the green spot to get it dead on. Anyone who complains that you can't do the same with a Df either hasn't used one or tried.

2 upvotes
Joed700

Beside the retro look, the D4 sensor and the ridiculous price, the Df is half-ass product. I took a picture with both the D610 & Df with a 50mm f/1.8 lens but the image looks so much better on the D610 LCD while the Df's is way to warm. The D610 gives more accurate colors than the Df. The aperture ring on the Df is a joke. If you have sweaty fingers, good luck turning that knob. I would wait for the Dfs....

4 upvotes
Zoron

warm.....canon warm?

0 upvotes
Joed700

Let's just say that the Df's LCD has a yellow tint to it, almost like the D800's LCD...

1 upvote
HowaboutRAW

Joed700–

It is a joke to make image quality judgments based on jpegs displayed on a camera’s LCD. And it means you’re not particularly serious about image quality in general.

The D610 is a fine camera, however it can’t come close to the high ISO lowlight performance of the Df.

Comment edited 54 seconds after posting
4 upvotes
Joed700

HowaboutRAW-

I think you placed your ego on the camera. NO, YOU ARE WRONG! I'm VERY serious about image quality in general, even including the LCD display. Speaking from the D700 performance, Nikon has taken steps backward in terms of the overall quality of their D800 to D610... I'm merely being critical about the product here, and for the price I paid for my cameras, I would expect it should show improvement with each new product that comes out and not going backward! Nikon and other camera makers would love people like you who are just willing to pay without demanding for quality. BTW, I don't give a hood about anything that's above ISO 1600. If you are serious about the quality of your images, you would agree with me....

Comment edited 5 times, last edit 15 minutes after posting
3 upvotes
HowaboutRAW

Joed700:

The fact that you’re going by the LCD image tells me real clearly that IQ isn’t that important–despite any claims you make about being serious. The LCD image is a jpeg. For these bodies you can only make IQ claims based on raws/tiffs/psds, either well printed or displayed on very very good monitors, and you should know that if you own these bodies.

Right, I think the IQ of the D700 is excellent; below ISO 1600 it may indeed be better than the Df/D4. So there I could very well agree with you. But that would depend on the lens, and the only time I shot with the D700 I used the not optically great Nikon 85mm f/1.4. And again you can’t use the LCD on the camera to make IQ judgements.

Then the Df/D4 has much better dynamic range than the D800 unless the D800 is set to base ISO. And the D4/Df are much better at higher ISOs than the D700 or D800.

continues

1 upvote
Joed700

HowaboutRAW:

I could care less about what you think of me since I needn't prove nothing to you. However, I do know one thing for sure, you have bad taste and not very intelligent. Anyhow, let me simplify my point here. Since Nikon was able to produce good LCD screens for the D700, now that they are charging way more for the D800/Df...but we are getting poor LCD... One more thing, you choice of lens also tells me that you don't know much about what you buy. I assume that you used the 85mm f1.4 AF-D for your D700. Try the 85mm f1.4 Ai-s or the 85mm f1.4g... Also, someone on the blog claimed that you work for Nikon, and I'm beginning to wonder...you never acknowledge any shortcoming of the Df. As an objective consumer, you should know that there's isn't a perfect camera out there. Why can't you just accept that? I realize the you have turned the Df into a personal religion...and you will attack anyone who's being critical about it....SO SAD! GO GET A LIFE!

Comment edited 2 times, last edit 14 minutes after posting
1 upvote
HowaboutRAW

Joed700:

Nikon doesn’t make LCDs. And the problem was not the complaints about the LCD, but the IQ judgements based on a LCD’s image.

I used the recent 85mm f/1.4 Nikon lens, it wasn’t great, but Nikon lenses aren’t optically great. But right the lower ISO shots with the D700 were good. And as I clearly said I have no particular problem with the D700 except the AF. I’m not going to chase down every Nikon 85mm f/1.4 lens for testing.

Um, regarding me working for Nikon, clearly you haven’t read my posts.

Then, I’ve been clear that some people may not like the aesthetics of the Df, nor do I claim it has the buffer or AF of the D4, so that’s more you haven’t bothered to read. Or perhaps some people want a separate card slot.

There you go: Throwing insults when you really have nothing more to say and can’t really defend your position.

Again: Why don’t try out the Df if you can and see if you like it, instead of making up things about it.

Also look up what a double negative is.

Comment edited 3 times, last edit 11 minutes after posting
1 upvote
Joed700

HowaboutRAW:

First of all, I did try the Df and compared to the D610. As I had stated on my original post, I just don't like the fact that Nikon's DSLR quality is going down hill while they are charging more for their products. You are the one who started insulting me about being not serious about images. Most importantly, I do not need to defend my position as you have stated because I'm a consumer, and I have every right to criticize a product as I please.

Your are just going around in circles: me not serious about images; D800 not as good but D700 is....who cares! The point is, I'm restating it for the last time: Df doesn't live up to its price. If you are happy with it, good for you!

Comment edited 2 minutes after posting
0 upvotes
HowaboutRAW

Joed700:

It's not an insult to say you don't care about image quality if you make IQ judgments based on the camera LCD.

You can of course criticize the Df any way you like, but you're not going to be treated real seriously because of some of the claims you made.

For image quality, and apparently build quality, the Df lives up to the price of costing a bit more than the D610. No particular surprise there.

And no you didn't really try the Df, you took a picture with it, looked at the LCD result and supposed that to be the image quality of the overall camera. So did you take 10 raws, take the card home and extract with serious raw extraction software? It appears not.

1 upvote
Joed700

HowaboutRAW:

First of all, I had never implied that the image quality of the RAW files from the Df were bad. Even with my D800, images on the LCD looked like sh_t, but the post-processed pictures from RAW were excellent in terms of colors and sharpness. My frustration is the fact that Nikon had the know-how to make things right in the first place, but chose to do a half-ass job. If I didn't use the D300/D700 before, I wouldn't have been made those comparisons. Take Canon for an example, their 5D Mrk III is able produce quality images and a nice LCD to go with that.... This is like buying a brand new Ferrari with a bad paint job, and the bad paint job is the LCD in this case. Yes, the Ferrari is still able to pull all the horse power, but the paint job.....

continues

Comment edited 1 minute after posting
0 upvotes
Joed700

HowaboutRAW:

BTW, are you having trouble with the AF focus in dim light? This is the kind of half-ass I'm talking about. Also, I looked at many sample images produced by the Df, and I've noticed that starting at ISO 800, you will see images getting grainy but very uniform all the way through very high ISO, and this why I don't care for images about ISO 1600. There is a big different between being able to capture images at high ISO versus producing presentational images. You really need to ask yourself why are you taking photo in such poor lighting conditions?

Remember, you paid over $2700 and you don't even have a viewfinder shutter like the D700/D800. Your aperture knob and your LCD are piece sh_t; your AF don't even work in low light...

IF the mentioned issues don't bother you, then be very happy with your DF and happy shooting.

0 upvotes
HowaboutRAW

Joed700:

Shooting raw with the Df there’s barely any “grain” at ISO 3200, and that’s in deep shadows. So that raises the question are you shooting jpegs? Or then are you just looking at the camera LCD, neither has much to do with overall image quality.

I’ve had no particular problem with the AF of the Nikon Df in those same shadows. Is it the AF on the D4? No.

Here I agree with you, the jpegs on the LCD don’t look as good as the jpegs on the LCD built into the Fuji XE2, but again the LCD image has nothing to do with overall image quality.

I don’t have any particular problem with the knobs on the Nikon Df.

My guess would be that Nikon skipped the back light block in the viewfinder to make things smaller and lighter.

Indeed the Canon 5D MkIII is a very good camera, but it has no where near the high ISO low light capacity of the Df, nor is its dynamic range as good.

0 upvotes
HowaboutRAW

G1Hou:

And now I've used the Df with a Zeiss manual focus lens.

0 upvotes
G1Houston

But you are still not "owning" it? You should vote with your wallet if you are serious. As of now on Amazon in the US, there are "only" 11 available, order soon!

Comment edited 57 seconds after posting
0 upvotes
HowaboutRAW

G1Hou:

You’re being mighty free with my funds. Anyhow it’s best not to go out and buy newest X, there could be some undetermined durability problem.

So if I have the money I may in a few months, but I’m not going to purchase from Amazon of course–I give my business to more respectable photo gear retailers, where the item is in stock. I can’t go in to Amazon and say: “I’d like to try out X body with Y lens?”

0 upvotes
G1Houston

Next time when you go to one of those shops, could you try the Zeiss on a Sony a7, which weighs and costs half as much as the Df? The Sony is lacking in the purity department though as it still has video, HD video.

4 upvotes
HowaboutRAW

G1Houston:

The Sony A7 is no where near as good at high ISO lowlight shooting as the Df, so that “test” is only valid if you don’t care about important Df features. The A7 is also incredibly audible too.

1 upvote
G1Houston

"at high ISO lowlight shooting"

How high and how much better, how many people should care? You really should buy this camera right now before such a useful camera is snatched up by others. Unless, … you are waiting for the price to drop? Is it too expensive (for what it is)? :)

Seriously, if you have/own the camera, you can take lots of low light pictures together with the D800 or even D600 and show us how much better it is compared to the others.

Comment edited 9 minutes after posting
1 upvote
HowaboutRAW

G1Houston:

1 or 2 stops better than the D610, and the D610 is better than the D800 at high ISO lowlight shooting. No, I’m not going to share my raws from the D800, Df, D600 or D610. You can find examples for yourself. Above about ISO 8000, the D800 has deep shadow blotching problems–more serious than normal high ISO lowlight noise.

Then there’s the dynamic range problem too; in some ways this is more serious than the high ISO lowlight thing.

Look if the D610 or D800 does what you need, they’re good cameras, but they don’t do what I’d want.

Sure perhaps the price of the Df will drop a couple of hundred dollars in 6 months, if I have the cash maybe I’ll buy it. But the Zeiss lenses I’d want are not exactly cheap.

0 upvotes
G1Houston

Once you get the Df, take some pictures in the real world and show us what the Df can do while others cannot. You know the points that many people are making, which you keep rebutting more than 1000 times, is that most find the difference in ISO and DR insignificant for their needs. You didn't find the focus peaking feature useful on the A7 for your Zeiss? No body said Df is a bad camera, we said that it is not well thought out with feature sets and price point that do not make sense to most of us. Buy the A7 so you can "save" some money to buy the Zeiss. The SONY is 24MP so it can show of the resolution of the Zeiss better.

Comment edited 2 times, last edit 2 minutes after posting
1 upvote
HowaboutRAW

G1Houston:

Actually many have said the Df is a bad camera, sort of including you.

I've used the D4 in the real world and simply for IQ reasons there are big reasons for preferring that over the D610 or Sony A7.

The knobs on the Df, you'd get used to them. Aesthetics, well if it's not for you okay. Features, the Df has plenty.

Photography is not all about resolution, DR and lower noise are usually more important, the fact that you'd make the claim about 24MP being better for some undefined good Zeiss lens more than suggests you don't know much about digital photography.

Haven't tried a manual focus lens on an A7, anyhow need an adapter.

Comment edited 2 times, last edit 6 minutes after posting
0 upvotes
G1Houston

"Actually many have said the Df is a bad camera, sort of including you."

It is a poorly "designed," "marketed," and "priced" camera. This is basically what DPreview said despite the high score for IQ. As you said, "photography is not all about [IQ]," or low light performance in particular.

0 upvotes
HowaboutRAW

G1Houston:

What is this "priced" thing? The Df is not going to sell for less than a D610.

"designed"? Again, many find the Df is indeed well designed--so that's basically personal aesthetic preferences there.

Where did I say "photography isn't all about [IQ]" and why the insertion within the brackets? Albeit here I admit that potentially bad design of some hypothetical camera could become a bigger issue than good IQ, but that's theoretical speculation not related to the Df.

I can certainly imagine that I said, the high ISO lowlight capacity of the Df is not going to be that important to some photographers. However the dynamic range of the Df is a separate draw, one that the D800 and many Canon DSLRs can't match. (Though there Canon lenses can help.)

"marketed", I didn't watch the video, and don't care about its contents.

0 upvotes
HowaboutRAW

Jab:

Clearly you haven’t paid attention to what I’ve written, else you’d not posit as one of the options “paid by Nikon”.

No not real hazy on this tech, I’m sure I’ve posted something in error. But it’s not like I try to draw conclusions about tech I’ve not used--instead citing DXO scores. Asserting that Nikon lenses aren’t optically up to Zeiss lenses is not “hazy” it’s stating something that’s pretty clear–all puns intended there.

How I waste my time is kind of my choice.

0 upvotes
unknown member
By (unknown member) (11 months ago)

http://www.dslrbodies.com/newsviews/more-on-the-nikon-df-split.html

Another of Nikon's problems is that the bar for "good camera" is easily reached these days. Name me a 16mp or higher interchangeable lens camera that's offered by anyone that isn't capable of excellent images in a wide range of conditions when used well by a serious user. There are none. Sure, we can niggle and naggle over some details, such as how it shoots at ISO 12,800, or whether the focus is adequate or good in low light, or how long the battery lasts. But personally, I can't think of a 16mp+ interchangeable lens camera I couldn't be happy with the results from in most of my shooting needs. Indeed, it's really only pure action photography in low light where I'd start to weed a lot of the entries out, but the Df might probably be one of them, despite using the D4 sensor ;~).

1 upvote
HowaboutRAW

The problem is that how a FF framed DSLR body shoots at 12,800 ISO in the year 2014 isn't simple "niggling", nor is the fact that above base ISO D800 can't keep up with the dynamic range of the Df. And that second thing is indeed of generally more import.

Yes, all current FF DSLRs can produce excellent images--of course a good lens helps as does shooting raw.

Right for lowlight fast action the D4 is better than the Df, provided you're using AF lenses but manual Zeiss lenses get you more out of high ISO images than Nikon lenses. In fact Nikon lenses inhibit lowlight shooting because of optical quality problems.

0 upvotes
unknown member
By (unknown member) (11 months ago)

Indeed, out shooting brick walls by moonlight again?

1 upvote
HowaboutRAW

Jab:

Yes that's the kind of thing I've done or close enough. Anyhow the point you miss is that high ISOs also allow for slower F-stops and higher shutter speeds.

0 upvotes
LaFonte

I'd say if you can't make good photos with D700 then it is time to change the camera operator or find perhaps another hobby.
It is really pointless to list how much df is better than previous FF nikon, because you could either make good pics that sell well with both or neither and it isn't the cameras fault.
It is interesting concept but the primary factor is to look very retro.
I think this may be the main feature people will be buying it or not and it has nothing to do with photography but lot of with vanity which is a bit sad.
But hey Nikon can afford this, they seems to be doing well.

Comment edited 1 minute after posting
0 upvotes
HowaboutRAW

LaFonte:

No one here is saying the D700 is bad camera. It doesn't have particularly good AF though, and it's not real close to the D3s for high ISO performance.

So it has limitations, and they've been surpassed by newer gear, like the Df or the D4.

Simply the primary factor of the Df is NOT the look for many interested in it.

0 upvotes
Puddleglum

I am such a sucker for the retro look. This this is beautiful.

5 upvotes
Terry Breedlove

I don't get it. People loved the D700 and still do but hate the DF. Yet the DF out performs the D700 in every way and years later cost about the same as the D 700 did at introduction. So, same price, better sensor and looks what's not to like about the DF.

3 upvotes
HowaboutRAW

People will insist here that the D700's AF was excellent--it wasn't.

That the D700 had a better buffer, possible.

That it has card slot separate from the battery compartment, true.

But mostly that the D700 doesn't have all those knobs, and aesthetics matter more than performance of course, NOT.

0 upvotes
AbrasiveReducer

The D700 is now history and that's just the point. When introduced it was Nikon's first "affordable" FF camera; it has been trouble-free and is still quite usable, today. If someone wants to throw another $3000 at the Df, great. But if results from the D700 really aren't satisfactory, the obvious upgrade would be the D800.

2 upvotes
HowaboutRAW

And yet the Df surpasses the D800 in some performance characteristics, so there are big reasons to choose the Df instead of the D800/E depending on what you want to shoot.

2 upvotes
HowaboutRAW

And yet the Df surpasses the D800 in some performance characteristics, so there are big reasons to choose the Df instead of the D800/E depending on what you want to shoot.

1 upvote
unknown member
By (unknown member) (11 months ago)

HowaboutRAW
You really do have too much time on your hands:
No home life?
A lonely pensioner with only a laptop for company?
Strapped up in a hospital bed operating the keys with one finger?
Paid by Nikon to stay in this thread 24/7
The latest generation of Nikon bot?
Get a life man, there's a big wide world out there..take some pics instead of yakking about technology..which TBH you are bit hazy about sometimes!

6 upvotes
HowaboutRAW

Jab:

Clearly you haven’t paid attention to what I’ve written, else you’d not posit as one of the options “paid by Nikon”.

No not real hazy on this tech, I’m sure I’ve posted something in error. But it’s not like I try to draw conclusions about tech I’ve not used--instead citing DXO scores. Asserting that Nikon lenses aren’t optically up to Zeiss lenses is not “hazy” it’s stating something that’s pretty clear–all puns intended there.

How I waste my time is kind of my choice.

0 upvotes
unknown member
By (unknown member) (11 months ago)

Really honestly mate: Get a life! Get out of here for a day or two: Find a woman, get drunk, smoke some wild weed. Live a little: maybe thump a cop or two?

Comment edited 3 times, last edit 1 minute after posting
3 upvotes
HowaboutRAW

Jab:

Except for the cop thing I've done all that.

0 upvotes
Rindahl

Jaberwok@ Personal attacks say far more about you than what you may or may not get right about the author. We all have biases and you are showing yours clearly.

I found the article to be interesting. This isn't a camera I'd choose but I do love the retro style. It brings back fond memories of past equipment. I also find it attractive to pair the Df with some old and very high quality manual lenses.

1 upvote
unknown member
By (unknown member) (11 months ago)

Yeah baby. I'm exercising an opinion on another posters (long winded and frequent) postings usually involving a specific point (low light / high ISO) repeated parrot fashion on numerous comments.
I'm sorry that you are unhappy with my posting. perhaps use the flag at right as inappropriate and leave the forum mod to intervene?

As for knowing anything about me: "Beware the Jabberwock, my son! The jaws that bite, the claws that catch! Beware the Jubjub bird, and shun The frumious Bandersnatch!"

Comment edited 2 minutes after posting
0 upvotes
HowaboutRAW

Jaberwok:

I repeat the high ISO performance point when other commenters claim the only interesting thing about the Df is the design of the box.

There's another, in some ways more preposterous, repeated claim about the high ISO performance of the D800 equaling that of the D4/Df. (Some not real informed commenter claimed the same for the Pentax K3 and the Fuji XE2.)

You see when I see these two silly comments parroted, and defended, by others again and again then I react. And the obvious point is that no in fact the Df is excellent at high ISO lowlight shooting so that is very important to some potential purchasers and will be a compelling reason for purchase.

I note here that you completely ignored the many times I've repeated the point that Nikon lenses can't match the optical quality of well done manual focus Zeiss lenses.

1 upvote
unknown member
By (unknown member) (11 months ago)

Rindahl
Hum A new id for a single comment as you are too scared - too much little boy to put your name to a comment?

Sad sad little boy..grow up.

0 upvotes
Joed700

You obviously have not compared the color accuracy between the latest Nikon DSLR with the D700. Yes, D700 has minimal pixels by today's standard, but the colors are brilliant. I was totally disappointed when I first got my D800 because it requires quite a bit post processing in order the get the white balance and colors correct. The Df is about the same at the D800...the LCD sucks.

Comment edited 2 minutes after posting
0 upvotes
HowaboutRAW

Joed700:

The sensor in the D700 likely has better dynamic range than that in the D800. The D800's dynamic range is well known to drop off above base ISO.

No one really cares about the LCD, that doesn't have much to do with overall image quality. In fact the Df has significantly better dynamic range than the D800, no surprise, and of course the Df far surpassed the high ISO lowlight capacity of the D800.

Raws from either the D800 or Df are really easy to process for "correct" WB in ACR 8.3. (Whereas the Pentax K3's raws take a tiny bit of work fix WB.)

0 upvotes
Joed700

HowaboutRAW-

Before you start yapping about the D700 focus flaws, I would advise you to take a 50mm f1.2 ais lens mount it on a D700, set it at f1.2 and focus it manually, then come back and tell me if you are not impress with the D700....

In regards to the LCD display, plenty of people do care about it because out in the field, your LCD is the only thing you got in terms of verifying what you've just shot. It's disappointing when your LCD looks greenish yellow at all time!

Comment edited 2 times, last edit 13 minutes after posting
0 upvotes
HowaboutRAW

Joed700:

I like the D700 well enough, but it doesn't have particularly good auto focus, and I never commented on the manual focus.

LCD, absolutely, it is something to be concerned about, however it doesn't reflect the image quality of pictures shot with whatever camera, nor do LCDs even particularly reflect the WB of cameras. So LCDs are really best for exposure.

Now if you really want the LCD to do something for you and the Df's doesn't, then right the Df is not for you. But that's really a limited set of potential Df users who'd only go by what the LCD displays. Check exposure, really RGB curves, and wait to extract the raw with serious software. If you have a decent lump of data under the curves you should have a shot you can work with; it's pretty simple.

0 upvotes
km25

I thouhgt it out and with the AA filter left in place. No interchangeable and/or "P" screen (it was just the most best ever ever focusing screen). And price. I well stay with my Fuji/Lecia combo.

0 upvotes
HowaboutRAW

km25:

Do you own other Nikon DSLR bodies? Lenses?

The D700? That focus screen could be swapped not by you, but by a technician.

Those Fuji X APSC cameras have good image quality, but can’t match this one for high ISO lowlight shooting.

As for the lack of AA filter, really? There was a Pentax K5 with a 16MP sensor, regular Bayer filter and no AA, but that model didn’t last. I guess the Leica M9 is closest and that was full framed, but more pixels help.

Good that you have Leica lenses for whatever X body you use.

0 upvotes
HowaboutRAW

G1Houston:

The Car Talk point contradicts you opening point. You want people to complain about design and aesthetics, but full well admit that you can get used to a knob or lever doing something different.

You are grossly misrepresenting my arguments in favor of Nikon, in fact I’m not real impressed by Nikon lenses and the D800 has dynamic range problems.

As for the aesthetics, I can see why some people wouldn’t like the Df, but that’s not got anything to do with sensor performance and the sensor is a big deal.

It does help your case that the YouTube guy does not know how to hold a SLR and makes preposterous high ISO image quality claims.

Irony of course, Hondas are mostly more durable than current or last 12 years BMWs, but yes a basic BMW would be more zippy than a basic Honda.

Look if high ISO low light shooting and great dynamic range above base ISO isn’t important than then stick with the D800.

0 upvotes
HowaboutRAW

hexxthalion:

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

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

0 upvotes
G1Houston

For those of you keep insisting that dppreview is the ONLY review site that views the Df negatively, see here:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qHNm54U1nQ4

And for those who think Thom Hogan "likes" the Df, should read this to know that overall he finds the Df "disappointing:"

http://www.dslrbodies.com/newsviews/more-on-the-nikon-df-split.html

2 upvotes
HowaboutRAW

That Youtube video is a guy whining about the aesthetics, doesn't seem to imagine that he could possibly get used to using those knobs.

At 8:10 he clearly demonstrates that he does not have clue as to how to stably hold a SLR--repeats this mistake several more times.

Doesn't appear to understand the importance of shooting raw at higher ISOs.

Makes the preposterous statement that the high ISO image quality of the D800 equals the Df's high ISO image quality. This alone disqualifies the guy from reviewing digital cameras and being taken seriously.

And last he calls Nikon a "Canon chaser"--um look this idiot can dislike the body and that's his taste but nearly all of the rest is a joke not to be treated seriously.

Comment edited 3 minutes after posting
2 upvotes
G1Houston

Thom said it best that he, and many of us, cannot help but look at the Df thinking about what it could or should have been. Some of you seem incapable of evaluating Nikon's design, marketing, and pricing objectively. Whatever Nikon throws at you, as long as it can take good picture, you will find a reason to like it. Of course the Df can take good pictures consistent of having the D4 sensor inside, and of course some of you would want it.

I am sure some people will buy a Honda CIVIC with a BMW 325's engine for $35,000.

Speaking of cars, there was an episode of Car Talk when some one complained that when she turned on the radio, the wiper came on instead, and when she used the power window, the lights come on (or something like that). So Ray repeated what she said and then asked " so what seems to be the problem?"

2 upvotes
HowaboutRAW

G1Houston:

The Car Talk point contradicts you opening point. You want people to complain about design and aesthetics, but full well admit that you can get used to a knob or lever doing something different.

You are grossly misrepresenting my arguments in favor of Nikon, in fact I’m not real impressed by Nikon lenses and the D800 has dynamic range problems.

As for the aesthetics, I can see why some people wouldn’t like the Df, but that’s not got anything to do with sensor performance and the sensor is a big deal.

It does help your case that the YouTube guy does not know how to hold a SLR and makes preposterous high ISO image quality claims.

Irony of course, Hondas are mostly more durable than current or last 12 years BMWs, but yes a basic BMW would be more zippy than a basic Honda.

Look if high ISO low light shooting and great dynamic range above base ISO isn’t important than then stick with the D800.

1 upvote
HowaboutRAW

corrected paragraph 4: It does not help your case that the YouTube guy does not know how to hold a SLR and makes preposterous high ISO image quality claims.

Comment edited 2 minutes after posting
0 upvotes
unknown member
By (unknown member) (11 months ago)

deleted.

Comment edited 1 minute after posting
0 upvotes
binauralbeats

He brings up a good point in the video about the poor interface with the mode dial and shutter dial. When you are set to A and start turning the shutter dial, does it ignore it or change modes?

0 upvotes
HowaboutRAW

binauralbeats:

I saw that question, I'll have to check. I image it ignores it. It's one of his few good questions.

0 upvotes
HowaboutRAW

binauralbeats:

As I thought, the PASM dial overrides the shutter wheel. So if the PASM dial is set to A, then the aperture is controlled by the aperture control wheel on the front and turning the shutter knob does nothing. Then of course the opposite is true if the PASM dial is set to S.

That guy in the video has a reasonably polished presentation and makes good enough aesthetic points, but isn't real smart about cameras.

0 upvotes
binauralbeats

Hmm... not how I would've done it. If I'm in some mode and I go to change the shutter speed, I want the shutter speed to change. Seems the right way would for nikon to have an option for what mode to default to if the shutter dial changes.

0 upvotes
HowaboutRAW

binauralbeats:

But then that setting would override the PASM dial. Or is it a different order of letters?

The shutter knob works when the PASM dial is set to M or S.

I don't think it's real hard to follow that rule.

Comment edited 4 minutes after posting
0 upvotes
binauralbeats

I know you defend the Df at all costs, but for me a tool needs to get out of the way and work. And if I'm turning the shutter knob, I obviously want to change shutter speed.

0 upvotes
HowaboutRAW

binauralbeats:

No, I don't defend the Df at all costs, just don't see how it could work the other way absent some confusing series of "if then" conditions, which would in some cases override the master control of the PASM dial.

I think it's easy enough to remember that you have to be in M or S for the shutter knob to control the shutter speed.

0 upvotes
Gernot1965

"The spring-locked exposure compensation dial doesn't work so well - its position on the left shoulder is a clear nod to historic Nikon SLRs, but it's awkward to change with the camera to your eye, and downright impractical if you're already using your left hand to cradle a large lens."

Why should somebody take the eye from the camera when changing the exposure compensation dial on the left?
The camera do not have an EVF to see the changes in the viewfinder at all. It only makes sense in LiveView mode, looking on the backside's display, but then the eye is anyhow already gone from the camera.
Or did I miss the point here??

0 upvotes
srados

Wow 1400 comment of which maybe 2 people actually used the camera...and all are "experts" in camera engineering and "use". Generating this much traffic is good for DPR...

2 upvotes
johnbatten

This review fails to address the primary driver here, which is that Nikon decided on a small-size, reduced weight FX body. That logically meant less space for an extra card and the larger battery needed for video etc etc.

All cameras are compromises. Nikon decided not to compromise on the small size, which has meant other comprises have had to be made elsewhere.

It’s a great camera. I use it as my carry-around and back up to the D800 I use professionally.

If you don't like the Df, don't buy it. Simple!

Me? I love it...

6 upvotes
HowaboutRAW

Madness, I say madness, someone who has used the Df and bought it too commenting on it.

1 upvote
pannyics

I'd be excellent if they'd allow interchangeable prism with the Nikon F series.

0 upvotes
Hugo808

It would be even more excellent if it didn't look like a tart's handbag.

Or if the controls were remotely useful rather than simply bolted on to give it some kitsch retro-appeal. Maybe if it had focus aids for the M/F lenses it's designed for or a decent AF module instead of the DX one.

Or how about a range of AF lenses with aperture rings so we can use it as a proper retro camera?

I'd like one for the picture quality but I'm not paying for a camera I'd have to put in a bag in case people laugh.

8 upvotes
HowaboutRAW

pannyics:

So more weight and more expense just to be able to swap the prism box?

0 upvotes
HowaboutRAW

Hugo:

There's focus confirm for at least some MF lenses.

The AF is indeed decent.

I think concerning yourself about being laughed at means you're still likely a teenager.

1 upvote
Hugo808

No, the AF is not decent. It's a DX module and covers a very small part of the viewfinder. It's a cheap shot and the reason I didn't fork out for a D610, I'll wait until Nikon produce a camera without such obvious compromises.

Focus confirmation? Big deal. To use it like a proper old camera you have to focus on a screen that wasn't designed for manual focusing.

No aperture rings on AF lenses means I have to use the stupid dials anyway.

Style over substance, and very poor style at that...

Comment edited 51 seconds after posting
6 upvotes
HowaboutRAW

Hugo88:

By quoting specifications it looks like you’ve not tried out the Df.

Is that the case, or are you basing your judgements after having picked up a Df, with lens, and shot more than 3 photos–ideally in raw and recorded to your own SD card?

You see many people, including myself, who reach the conclusion that the Df’s auto focus is indeed decent have tested out the body with a lens.

Is it the AF from the D4? No.

You should look further into how Nikon handles focus confirm for at least some MF lenses.

Now, as for style, right you can dislike it, but that's not some objective judgment you're making there. It's simply not to your taste stylistically.

2 upvotes
Hugo808

Ah, I see. You actually bought one and are obviously feeling a bit sensitive about your kitsch investment and are now overcompensating at every naysayer to protect your ego over it's shame. Much as I would if I'd got an Action Man in a ballerina costume for christmas when I was a boy. "Ballet is for men, it is! it is!"

1 upvote
HowaboutRAW

Hugo88:

Wrong, I don’t own a Df, nor have I ever owned one.

So fairly simplistic “analysis” on your part. Does it make you feel better about conclusions you’ve jumped to without actually using the Df?

I certainly like the image quality that I’ve gotten out of the Df raws I’ve shot, but I don’t run out and buy newest; there could be some undisclosed problem like oil and the Nikon D600, or the crappy auto focus on the Fuji XPro1–at least firmware has begun to fix the Fuji XPro1's AF problem.

If the Df is not for you don’t buy the Df, but your claims don’t appear to be based on things other than what you’ve see on the interwebs.

NB: You don’t seem to know much about ballet, indeed it is very much for men.

1 upvote
Hugo808

I think you should learn to take jokes in the proper spirit....

0 upvotes
HowaboutRAW

Hugo:

Suggestion: reexamine what you think is humorous.

And if you're going to comment on a camera, lens, etc, expect the question: "have you used it?"

1 upvote
G1Houston

You said this to someone: "Madness, I say madness, someone who has used the Df and bought it too commenting on it." and yet you also said this about yourself: "Wrong, I don’t own a Df, nor have I ever owned one."

So you can defend the Df in every post critical of it without actually ever touching the Df?

0 upvotes
HowaboutRAW

G1Houston:

Get a dictionary and look up the word "own" then next look up the word "use", see they don't mean the same thing, nor does "touch" necessarily mean "own".

Right I've used a Df, so far only with the kit 50mm lens, I've shot perhaps a total of 60 raws recorded to my own SD card. And still I don't own a Df, nor did I own one and sell it.

Gee I can see two or three ways that's easily possible sans ownership.

Frankly I can't believe you asked that question. And made that huge a mistake with those two verbs.

0 upvotes
G1Houston

OK, my fault. You did touch it. :)

0 upvotes
HowaboutRAW

G1Houston:

And I used it. That's a lot more than "touch".

0 upvotes
HowaboutRAW

G1Hou:

And now I've used the Df with a Zeiss manual focus lens.

0 upvotes
JF69

@HowaboutRAW*** you don't have a clue on what you're talking about, you admitted to not having one.
***PS: "raw" is not an acronym, a common mistake misguided internet "experts" make all the time.

0 upvotes
HowaboutRAW

JF69:

Never thought RAW an acronym, just made it capitals for emphasis. NEF, now that’s an acronym, or PEF, but now what’s CRW?

Regarding the Df, I know of what I write, because I’ve used the Df for a bit of raw shooting. Have I shot 1000 raws with it? No. Have I used the Df with every lens that can be mounted on it? No.

The the reason for emphasizing raw in my screen name, it’s that sample raws can be hard to come by in online review forums. Generally the availability of raws from new raw capable cameras is a strength of DPReview, IR, and PhotographyBlog. But for example the New York Times never posts raws, even when doing a serious review of a raw capable camera.

Also never called myself an "'expert'" on digital photography. However I don't draw conclusions about interesting new cameras based solely on things posted online.

Have you shot with the Df, more than a few jpegs?

Look up the verbs: "borrow", "rent" and "use", just to confirm for yourself they don't mean "own".

0 upvotes
WalPhoto

May be I'm wrong, but the DPR was more photo-centric, now it's gadget-centric somehow. Don't want to insult anybody, but a great part of the content is smart-phones like and less about the photography-like aspects. There are a lot of quite respectable web sites qualifying Df 'gold' like - DPR is a good complement to them for me, deeply technical; but how it comes it didn't get any award here? It's not about the 'award' anyway, but the DPR-message. I interpret it as a changing paradigm of DPR; to explain: check youtube and have a look at Df in action against D4 - totally different animals, very nice yet different. Now it depends on your preferences/paradigm/needs, which one you give what 'award' - and that's what I mean, DPR is the 'D4-like' direction. It's ok and correct, yet not compatible with all of us ;-). I'm shooting/developing pictures more than 35 years now, had a lot of devices and thinking about Canon->Nikon switch some day - and checking the Nikon terrain a bit sometimes.

1 upvote
Funduro

Why are all these Negative Nancy's doing posting comments on a DSLR's review they don't like much to begin with ? Clearly shows the nattering nabobs of negativism like to whine.

6 upvotes
Hugo808

Probably because it's a gear site and the comment section is for discussing the pro's and cons of the stuff that manufacturers are trying to get us to part with our money for.

If someone thinks that a favourite manufacturer has slipped up it's often interesting to hear why.

With the DF it was obvious from the start. On the Nikon rumours site there was endless wild speculation about how fantastic it was going to be and when the first photo appeared everyone thought it was a mock up as Nikon could never make a camera so embarassingly stupid looking!

Digital rev made the best comment: watching Nikon trying to do something cool is like watching your uncle do an Ali G impression. Chortle.

3 upvotes
Funduro

The Df high tech retro is on my shopping list. Hopefully this year. See my avatar, that's a Fuji X100, that will be sold so I can get the Df. D4 sensor at half price with a beautiful body, yea baby !

2 upvotes
2manybikes

If you are interested in this expensive camera, rent it for a week or two and if you like it, buy it. You can't argue from reviews because you're not the person using the camera. If I ran DPReview I would moderate the juvenalia in evidence from these comments.

2 upvotes
dw2001

how much extra $ can one charge for a madiocre camera just because it's semi-retro styled? looks awful btw...

3 upvotes
HowaboutRAW

dw2001:

Specifically, why do you think the Df “mediocre”?

By all appearances it's well made in the sense of durable, has excellent image quality, and once familiar has easy enough to use controls.

Have you handled the body? And shot with it?

You may in fact think the body looks awful, others don't so that's only a reason you'd not buy it.

6 upvotes
dw2001

seriously, are you a bot or what?!?

given the pricepoint it's mediocre. AF-system is subpar, no video, nothing extra compared to everything only retro looks. seriously, how can anyone justify the price-tag?

3 upvotes
HowaboutRAW

dw2001:

Let's see, many have reported and experienced the AF as being just fine in lowlight.

The Df easily bests the D800 and D610 for high ISO lowlight shooting. At anything above base ISO, the Df has better dynamic range than the D800.

For a SLR it's reasonably quiet.

The only thing close from Canon, only sort of in performance, and yes price is the 6D, not the 1DX.

So those are all reasons it's worth plenty for many purposes and to many potential users--including those that already own a D4.

Then repeating myself have you used the Df?

Yet again, video takes battery life and cooling and AF is best with a different kind of sensor, so there are pretty clear reasons for Nikon to skip video in the Df. Get a D610 if you want video, has the video AF problems though.

Comment edited 1 minute after posting
2 upvotes
scopes

Nerds!!! You're all nerds!!!

2 upvotes
HowaboutRAW

Yes.

Then so?

And 4 total comments in nearly 18 months and you take this opportunity?

4 upvotes
Hugo808

"Nerds!!! You're all nerds!!!"

And proud!

0 upvotes
raztec

Is HowaboutRAW a paid Nikon employee? Just wondering. Look at the number of posts he's made here. I mean who's got time to respond to nearly EVERY single criticism of the Df? Even Shotcents has a wife he needs to keep happy.

8 upvotes
HowaboutRAW

R:

So you clearly missed, or didn’t understand, where I said Nikon lenses aren’t real good optically. (Not something a Nikon employee would ever say and a position many Nikon users can't stand to read.)

Other things somewhat negative things I’ve said in these comments specifically about this Df body: “I can see how the layout would irk some users”. And: “I don’t like the card and battery sharing the same compartment”.

So your reaction is typical lazy, if someone likes something he/she must be working as a representative of that something.

Some other things I don’t like about Nikon: above base ISO the dynamic range of the D800 is not as good as it should be. And the buffer on the D7100 is far to slow for a camera of that price.

As for the number of comments I’ve made, my choice how to waste my time, and if I hadn’t repeatedly read comments akin to yours then...

1 upvote
Rage Joe

Yeah, but you know what, the best Nikon lenses are just superb. Like the new 85mm/1.4, the best you can get, for any price. Even the dirt cheap kit lenses are good enough for professional use. So why to complain?

1 upvote
HowaboutRAW

Rage J:

Right good Nikon lenses are indeed good optically, but "superb" is going too far. They lack colour subtlety that optically excellent lenses have.

No: That "new" Nikon 85mm f/1.4 is not particularly excellent optically--unless Nikon introduced something new in the last two months. Nor is that 58mm f/1.4 Nikon (actually new) particularly good optically.

0 upvotes
Rage Joe

http://www.dxomark.com/Reviews/Which-lenses-for-your-Nikon-D800/Nikon-D800-and-standard-lens-choices

Can't see too many problems with these superb Nikon lenses, when all that data is backed by my own personal experience. And the colors? Are you color blind or something, or what is wrong with your colors?

2 upvotes
unknown member
By (unknown member) (Dec 30, 2013)

in reply to raztec
Nah The poster you refer to is extremely bright, luminous in fact.
A Transmitter and Receiver Of Laser Light no less.

Comment edited 45 seconds after posting
0 upvotes
HowaboutRAW

Rage Joe:

Please don't cite DXO scores, they're not real helpful, they can say if a lens is good, but can't do much about saying if a lens is excellent.

Now as for your personal experience that only matters if you've also extensively used both good Zeiss and Leica M lenses. Most who have agree that Nikon lenses lack something in colour, though some disagree.

0 upvotes
HowaboutRAW

J:

What on earth do lasers have to do with this, are you monochrome?

0 upvotes
unknown member
By (unknown member) (Dec 30, 2013)

No, not monochrome but perhaps slightly pickled: I had a really excellent lunch in my club today.

Comment edited 30 seconds after posting
0 upvotes
raztec

@howabout...
Some of the comments are just personal opinions. Don't understand why you feel obliged to get people to change them.

0 upvotes
HowaboutRAW

raz:

Thought you'd just asked a question.

The colour subtlety of good lenses isn't opinion. Nor is the failure of resampling to reduce high ISO noise in anything like a real world example.

Comment edited 4 minutes after posting
0 upvotes
new boyz

Hahahaha... maybe he really likes the camera.

1 upvote
binauralbeats

HowaboutRaw: geez bud, it's just a camera. You don't need to respond to everything. Maybe try going outside and taking some pictures. And why take criticism so personally?

0 upvotes
HowaboutRAW

binauralbeats:

Mostly I don't take it personally. Though yes I'm personally interested in purchasing this Df body.

I just see too much whining about the "retro" look, or the "bad" AF and have to ask "have you used it?", though not you.

Then I see preposterous, easily testable and easily proven wrong, claims about how to make high ISO files from the D800 equal the lower noise performance of the same ISO setting on the Df/D4, and I have to object strenuously.

It's a very interesting body to many because of the sensor alone. And to read so much garbage spewed by those who have not even handled it, and haven't a clue about why high ISO lowlight shooting with a reasonably quiet body may be important so some persons, is really irksome.

Shall I go on about the comments claiming the Fuji XE2 equals the low light performance of this Df sensor? How about those who insist this is an "ancient", and implicitly useless, sensor?

0 upvotes
Shamael

@ HowaboutRaw: So, if I understand well, you defend this body with all weapons you can find and all words in your dictionary, but... you don't have one yet. I do not have one ether, and will not have one, unless Nikon changes a few things in it. I am against this camera for the simple reason of it's price, the AF is not what it should be, the resolution of the sensor is targetting night shooters only, and I am not among those, and for day shooting, I would like a higher resolution. Then, there are not enough manual focus assist facilities and you can't change the matte to a split ro fresnel type. Then, ability to shoot 25000 ISO clean and 1/4000th maximal speed, what is that good for. Even Oly M1 has 1/8000th. Nikon has build a low end product with a sensor with good capacities, for a high price. Nikon sucks, that's all., simply they walk beside there shoes. And forget the 6000$ camera sensor story, Nikon makes the prices, not the sensor.

Comment edited 3 minutes after posting
0 upvotes
HowaboutRAW

Shamael:

The resolution of the sensor is fine and you know better than to raise the silly more pixels equals better image quality argument.

The AF is decent, as others attest.

Likely, one can send the body into a service centre for a screen swap, that's how the D700 worked, and the Df sure appears to work the same way.

You clearly care more about bragging rights to specced numbers than image quality, this suggests that you aren't particularly interested in digital photography.

It is a stretch to call the Df "clean" at ISO 25,000.

Nikon is not going to put the sensor from a future D5 in a body before the D5 ships and Nikon is not going to charge less than the D610 for a body with the D4's sensor.

Sports photos were taken with 1/1000 sec film bodies.

"if, if, if". Get a D610 or buy a D800, but don't whine about higher ISO fails with those bodies. And too bad that above base ISO the dynamic range of the D800 can't keep up with the Df's DR.

Comment edited 1 minute after posting
0 upvotes
davidbarbour

the Df is smaller, lighter and far quieter than a D700...use manual mode, fixed AIS lens and treat it like a film camera...you will be very happy and hardly have any reason to go into the camera's menu....shot with it yesterday...plan to buy two..good bye zoom lenses...

6 upvotes
HowaboutRAW

I think some will stumble over this advice: " treat it like a film camera".

0 upvotes
unknown member
By (unknown member) (Dec 30, 2013)

Ah yes film. cellophane sandwich wrap used by the retro gang, large format specialists and sleepy senior citizens who remember the good old days of the Nikon F6.

1 upvote
Rage Joe

"Locking exposure comp dial is inconvenient"...

Sony α7/α7R Experience:

... "and the EV compensation dial turns accidentally in a bag, and even when I'm just hand-holding the camera - I have to check it every time I want to take a picture." - by Shawn Barnett

17 upvotes
chooflaki

I have to say this the same for my Fuji Xpro 1 and X100. EV dial always gets out of whack. Has a mind of its own. EV dial on Df very safe and easy to change when one realises they have use their fingers.

Comment edited 44 seconds after posting
6 upvotes
Rage Joe

I think that if a camera has an EV compensation dial the best thing to do is to be sure it's set to zero and then glue it permanently.

1 upvote
Rage Joe

Long time ago. I tried EV compensation dial. What a disaster. It just did so much more harm, no good at all. The times I tried it I always forgot it in a wrong position. What a disaster, even worse with slide film. Everything ruined. Good bye.

Lesson learned. Never use that thing again. Never. And even now. With the warning signs and everything. What a hassle, how complicated, slow and clumsy. Why to do something stupid like that, when you have the possibility to use that perfect and accurate manual way of shooting, with just the information you need, uncluttered view finder. Relax. Exactly the right amount of compensating every time. All shown exactly, how much "correction" and in which direction, showing it all all the time you move your camera. No nervous warning sings in there. Just that fast and perfect manual info. The fastest way to expose perfectly. 99,9 % I shoot like that, or surely more.

Comment edited 3 times, last edit 11 minutes after posting
2 upvotes
HowaboutRAW

Rage Joe:

Many people use them, though almost everyone using them has had the dials move inappropriately. As you know that's the reason for the lock on Df.

4 upvotes
NCB

The EV dial is fine; in spite of the lock I can turn it one handed. The one control I've found you have to watch is the one without a lock on it, the drive control. Because the on/off switch doesn't have a ridge on the side (so its harder to turn on accidentally), I find I need two fingers to operate it. One of those fingers can catch on the drive control.
No big problem. If you find you start taking multiple shots it's because you've knocked it into continuous.

1 upvote
paqman

you never give bad reviews to nikon, and this is no exception. this camera is pretty lame or at least shouldn't get "81%"

Comment edited 25 seconds after posting
4 upvotes
Mike Laughlin

How many hours have you photographed with the Nikon Df, paqman? Oh ....

8 upvotes
HowaboutRAW

paqman:

Excellent IQ at a large range of ISOs isn't very important?

Comment edited 5 minutes after posting
3 upvotes
Mike Laughlin

Always appreciate DPR lab tests, but some "conclusions" seem subjective, and don't jibe with my shooting experience. Purchased Df kit, immediately flew to DC for shoot. Only quick perusal of manual. Raining, overcast. US Conservatory dark inside. Found Df intuitive, and fantastic for "photojournalist" style shooting. (Subjects behaving naturally in natural light and surroundings) I like: Shutter speed and ISO on dials. Great, true, TTL finder. Built-in diopter wheel. Light, compact, for full frame. Exceptional low light capability. Shooting ISO 6400 is like old ASA 160 film in image quality. Easy to manual-focus AiS and AI-converted lenses. Screen snaps, for me. Carets/bullet focus checker is accurate, becomes second nature. AF with G lens is fast, accurate. Cannot relate to some "criticisms". I prefer center-weighted focusing and metering for artistic control. Only a lab rat requires 1/8000th. Simply dial down the ISO until 1/4000 or slower works for exposure. I like this camera!

12 upvotes
LaFonte

Looks great on paper, but why they think a pro gear needs retro styling.
It is either geared to very old people or lomo steam punk crowd. By the price I'd say the first as it is quite larger than an iPhone. Why the mee-too retro styling, why?

5 upvotes
Mike Laughlin

It's not "retro" so much as "useful" and "intuitive" in real world, photojournalist shooting situations. You may be too young to understand, if all you've been exposed-to are button and-menu digitals. No offense. When you have a body of work, look us "very old people" up. We'd love to compare images. Thanks.

6 upvotes
HowaboutRAW

Which, iPhone model shoots raw and has a full framed sensor again?

And does that iPhone model take interchangeable lenses?

Name any iPhone model with a card slot?

Name any iPhone model on which you can field swap the battery.

If the Df doesn't suit your needs or aesthetics don't buy it, but don't complain about the price or imply that an iPhone somehow does this job, though perhaps you simply meant to say something only about size--not interchangeability with the iPhone (the language isn't clear but best not to bring up the iPhone since it's so limited as a camera).

Look the only thing close to the Df in price and high ISO performance is the Canon 6D. And that's not tiny, not "retro" either.

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

His language was clear as day to me, he's simply implying that the camera is more likely to be popular with old people than the lomo steam punk crowd because it will be too big for them.

Comment edited 29 seconds after posting
1 upvote
HowaboutRAW

fatdeeman:

Meaning that for the “lomo steam punk crowd” small is everything? Okay, but why bring up the iPhone? It’s not a small+capable camera, unlike say the Olympus XZ10 or the somewhat bigger Sony RX100II. Or even the Pentax Q7 is a lot more camera than the silly iPhone.

So my point remains, don’t bring up the iPhone in this situation in late 2013.

1 upvote
fatdeeman

Because the lomo steam punk crowd/hipsters etc are the kind of people that use instagram and claim that an iphone is as good as any camera out there.

They also tend to be massive hypocrites because they also go around saying how film is better than digital even though they lack the technical and creative skills to do either medium justice.

Comment edited 1 minute after posting
0 upvotes
HowaboutRAW

fatdeeman:

I think you have a simplistic idea of what hipsters do with photography. They aint all shooting Instagram shots with the iPhone.

How do you know that those choosing to use 35mm film in 2013 can't shoot a good photo? And frankly at lower ISOs there's still reason to use film if you want the different look.

You seem to have a number of preconceived ideas, not one of which has much bearing on the Nikon Df's capacity as a photo capturing device.

0 upvotes
JDThomas

The fact that he lumped steam punks and hipsters into the same group leads me to believe that this person hasn't a clue as to what they are talking about.

Stop getting your information about sociological subcultures from DPReview.

0 upvotes
HowaboutRAW

JDT:

Ah, now that I look up "steam punk" phatD makes less sense.

0 upvotes
JDThomas

Steam punks are the "nerds" and hipsters are the "cool kids". Not really the same demographic.

I'd honestly say that the Dƒ wouldn't appeal to either group. The steam punks would rather take a DSLR and "retrofit" it themselves and a hipster would prefer to use or be seen with a real Nikon F.

0 upvotes
JonB1975

Great images - but with potentially annoying flaws. Sounds like Fuji - but will Nikon have the ongoing improvements and support?

Doubt it.....

1 upvote
HowaboutRAW

Pray tell what to you think are the "annoy flaws" of the Nikon Df? And have you used the Df?

3 upvotes
Mike Laughlin

Suspect all hat and no cattle

2 upvotes
AbrasiveReducer

He probably read the review.

5 upvotes
HowaboutRAW

AbrasiveR:

So how would that answer the second question: "And have you used the Df?"

And still the OP has not listed what those "annoying flaws" are in his/her mind.

3 upvotes
aalaref

reading the comments here are really depressing !
i bought the Df its not my main camera but i love it very much

8 upvotes
Charlie boots

I use a D700 and would like to upgrade and add a second camera. The D800 has too large files for my use. I used F2 and F3's and have many legacy lenses, and the Df, with the excellent d4 sensor would be ideal. Reading the various reviews I am very disappointed as it seems that Nikon has short changed us for the price. Focus module, live view focusing, card in battery compartment, non pro connectors, max shutter speed (even my d700 does 1/8000sec). For the same price as a d800 I would expect to see a camera with similar or even better specs in these areas as technology has moved on since the D800 launch. We are seeing apsC sensors with equal capability. I will thus not buy at present. Sorry Nikon, a disappointed customer.

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

Why don’t you try the Df, before you count the AF system as a fail. Many have reported its AF just fine.

What is the obsession with higher shutter speeds? There was sports photography with 1/1000 sec bodies. If you need faster than 1/4000 sec buy a D4–that body’s AF is a good bit better than the not great AF in the D700.

Nikon is not going to sell the Df body for less than a D610 while the D4 is still on sale new.

And no this is simply untrue: “ We are seeing apsC sensors with equal capability”–suggesting you aren’t real familiar with what this sensor can do. Better live view focusing will require a different sensor, of course it’s not going to be in this body.

4 upvotes
unknown member
By (unknown member) (Dec 27, 2013)

Opinions are as similar to assholes: everybody has one, regardless of the level of knowledge of the proponent of said opinion.

3 upvotes
davaodoc

Charlie boots:

I totally agree. I bought the Df a few weeks ago and unfortunately, it is the only Nikon purchase that I am disappointed with. For $2700, you have to expect something for the money you spent.

7 upvotes
yabokkie

> D800 has too large files for my use

it depends on priority, better photos or smaller files.

4 upvotes
HowaboutRAW

davaodoc:

Did you not handle the Df before purchase?

Also for your monies, you get the D4 sensor in a lighter and quieter body. (And I know you own a D4 already, so if you don't want the lightness and quiet shutter, the sensor probably doesn't matter too much to you since you already own it.)

1 upvote
AbrasiveReducer

If you don't like the Df, it's your fault because you haven't handled it. If you bought the Df and don't like it, it's your fault for not handling it enough before your bought it.

The D800 is the world's best SLR because look at all the megapixels you get. The Df is perfect because you didn't need all those megapixels in the first place.

1 upvote
HowaboutRAW

AbrasiveReducer:

More megapixels can get in the way, but if you are going for mega pixels, the Leica S2 would beat the D800 in many ways. Then of course the D4 is much better at lowlight high ISO shooting than the D800. And the Pentax K3 is much quieter than the Leica or either Nikon.

So no the D800 is not simply the "best" DSLR, though it's a very good body.

And of course davadoc can dislike the Df, however I'm perplexed as to why someone would simply jump in and buy it, instead of waiting for reviews and endurance testing. Not at all clear that the OP tried the Df before purchase, and why buy it unheld if you already own a D4?

0 upvotes
Charlie boots

HowaboutRaw:

It is not that I want 1/8000 or even use it, it is a matter of perceived value compared to Nikon's other offerings. I like the Df and it would suite my purposes well. I just feel that Nikon has overpriced the Df by limiting some specs for the price they are charging. Around Rrsp $2500 would seem to be a fair price if they want more they need to improve the specs. For exactly the same street price it does not appear to provide the same value as the D800.

I have no doubt that the focusing system is better than the D700 and more than adequate for my needs. Again here it is a preception of value for money and a feeling that I am being overcharged.

The "f" cameras were Nikon's premium line and one would expect a camera that Nikon presents as representing the "f" lineage to be also the best in its product class.

Comment edited 3 times, last edit 15 minutes after posting
0 upvotes
HowaboutRAW

Charlie–

Realistically you may see something close to that wished for $2500 price in say 10 months.

“F” wasn’t always applied only to the top Nikon of the day. Didn’t FE overlap with the premium F3? Or was it FM?

I know I’m repeating myself, and you probably apprehend this point, but the Df has a sensor that is more valued by many than the sensor in the D800. And it’s not simply the better high ISO lowlight shooting results with the D4/Df’s sensor.

Right: Nikon could have put the sensor from the D4 in a body very close to the D800, but that body wouldn’t have been inexpensive either. And then there’s be less distinguishing it from the D800. So Nikon tried something else.

0 upvotes
Carlos Loff

How can a Camera that costs about 2.500$ only shoot 1/4000, only 39 Focus points, only have -+3EV ??? All this specs issues are symptoms of a non-top camera but hey, my attention into them can be considered exaggerated - But NOT when the damm camera costs 2.500$ - But no... Nikon is not wrong - Nikon has got smarter because it can turn consumers into very dumb people to pay that much for that less - Don't get me wrong - I would not mind having a DF that cuts into top specs but offers FF - But not for more than 1.500$, maybe 1.700$ tops

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

"if, if, and if".

0 upvotes
km25

The biggest point seems to be AF. Maybe firmware may solve this. This almost sounds like Fuji X-Pro 1 when it was reviewed. So combo of high price and AF. Well the X-Pro 1 has come down in price and had a lot of firmware upgrades. The other stuff, let's face it is pretty much.. minor. The bottom line is, what do the images look like.
Some people have said DP has beeen unfair to Nikon, but the D600/610 has a very high score. I will also see how they review the Sony A7/A7R. Some are calling the dream camera. But thr mirror less users love using RF lens, Sony can not use shorter then 35mm RF lens and the A7 should focus better the A7R, some say that the A7R wins. That there are only two lens ready for it and with the history of slow Sony roll out?? But no matter what Sony does, any fast, very wide and/or long lens is going to drawf the A7s into an unbalanced mess. Will DP give 'em 90 and gold rating, we will see how this different camera does. Just say 36MP you get gold!

Comment edited 2 minutes after posting
1 upvote
HowaboutRAW

While no one claims that the Df’s autofocus performs as well as the D4's, many have had a better experience with the Df’s auto focus in lowlight than that claimed in this review. The center AF point works well in lowlight.

The Sony A7/r are very good first steps for a Sony full framed mirrorless.

(I’ve no idea why you claim that 35mm is the shortest focal length that can be used on that system; see the first full framed mirrorless interchangeable body, aka the Leica M9.)

However the A7/r aren’t exactly competing with this Nikon Df.

A big problem with the Fuji X Pro 1 besides the AF when it first shipped was lack of excellent raw extraction software. The Silkypix that released with that Fuji body was surprisingly good, for the notoriously bad Silkypix, but it struggled at high ISOs where the sensor was still very capable. Then of course the first ACR to extract these X RAF files had troubles–particularly with foliage. CaptureOne did a much better job and then Adobe fixed ACR.

0 upvotes
unknown member
By (unknown member) (Dec 26, 2013)

ROFL.

Comment edited 2 times, last edit 3 minutes after posting
0 upvotes
marike6

DPR is the ONLY tech website that is writing that the Nikon Df has "weak AF". The camera has the exact same AF module as the D600/D610 which is quite capable even in low-light.

As far as the A7R cares what score or award DPR gives the A7R or A7 (or any other camera for that matter)? The scoring and awards have become so random as to be almost meaningless.

Because the new Nikon received an unprecedented number of clicks here on DPR they hurried to bring us this Df review and it showed. It was truly a subpar effort. It felt rushed and had an overly negative tone with nitpicks that weren't mentioned for other cameras in the past.

Hopefully DPR will hire some more DSLR oriented writers because all this mirrorless talk / frame of reference is a bit of a snoozefest.

7 upvotes
NCB

I've tried the Df in next to total darkness, and sure enough it doesn't focus. But that's an extreme case. Overall the autofocus is fast and spot on, including in some pretty dim lighting. That's an unscientific way of putting it, but for me at least autofocus isn't an issue, at all.

I do get the impression that this review was rushed. Normally DPR publishes real-world pics, followed by the "official" review pics; this time we have just got the first lot. Did DPR want it out of the way for Christmas? After all, they couldn't have had the camera for long.

4 upvotes
new boyz

"While no one claims that the Df’s autofocus performs as well as the D4's, many have had a better experience with the Df’s auto focus in lowlight than that claimed in this review."

The problem here is AF speed totally reported on a "feels" basis. Scientific measurement, like MTF, will clear all doubts.

1 upvote
HowaboutRAW

new boyz:

Feel free to set up the test and post the results. Of course use the same lens, same ISO setting, same aperture and make sure that no part of the lighting changes from testing the D800 to testing the Df.

I think you’ll find that the center point of the AF system on the Df works well, perhaps not a the D4 level, but...

1 upvote
Mike Laughlin

In my experience, AF with the G lens is fast and accurate, down to scenes where the Df's captured image is actually brighter that my eye could see in the dark. This is the best performing camera for low-light and "photojournalism" situations I've handled ... in a lifetime of photojournalism and corporate image shooting. I don't understand the negative comments about AF. I guess there are lab rats, cowboy commenters (all-hat and no cattle) ... and actual, hands-on users.

Comment edited 2 minutes after posting
4 upvotes
EvilTed

I got one from B&H.
The box was covered in finger prints, as was the camera.
The camera had 932 actuation's!

As for the camera, the thing is a toy compared to other DSLRs.
Flimsy and nowehre near as stylish as some think.
I thought it quite badly executed and cheap looking and feeling.

It was shipped right back to B&H for a refund.

ET

1 upvote
kadardr

Don`t deal with B&H. You see! They ruined the experience...

2 upvotes
HowaboutRAW

EvilT:

"flimsy"? And "cheap looking and feeling"?

I can't claim to know how you think it should look, but it doesn't feel cheap.

Magnesium is lighter than brass.

Odd that B+H sent you a returned one, I'd have asked them for lightly used pricing, with a new warranty, and kept it. But if it's not to your taste I see why you returned it.

4 upvotes
Maaku

BS. You're a troll

2 upvotes
new boyz

You are Evil, Ted. Hahahaha.

Sorry, can't help it.

2 upvotes
Mike Laughlin

Have to take your word for it ... however ... I've dealt with B&H for decades, on both the pro and personal levels, and never had less than a "10" experience. If they would sell a used or demo camera as new, I would be shocked as it would go totally against their policy and reputation.

1 upvote
naththo

@EvilTed - Pfft I don't believe your story. Troll more likely!

1 upvote
JimSavill

I was doing a project tonight testing the low light performance of my Fuji X1 vs a Nikon Df. It was raining hard so I took my old long grey mac and black woolly balaclava. My favourite place for night shooting is under the streetlamp by the hospital and round the corner by the nurses home.

Some of the girls have pet names for me. I can't hear too well under the balaclava but they shout my nickname in greeting from their windows.

I can report that over 20mins the Nikon far outperformed the Fuji. The whole colour balance and especially the flesh tones were excellent under really tricky light and through blinds and curtains.

I'd post some samples but unfortunately the camera and card were seized for evidence when I was arrested.

12 upvotes
yabokkie

> low light performance of my Fuji X1 vs a Nikon Df ...
> the Nikon far outperformed the Fuji.

low light performance is basically a lens issue. differences between sensors are quite small, about the same as error level.

0 upvotes
NCB

JimSavill - that's rough. Sounds like the Df would have been just perfect for some low light jailhouse shots.

2 upvotes
Kahiri78

Are you sure about that? I clicked and selected Fuji x Pro 1 camera on the high iso test widget done by DPreview above, and to my eyes, at iso 3200, the Df has about the same noise as X Pro 1, only that Df is slightly sharper!

For me thats quite and achievement considering the small sensor of fuji x pro 1 compares to DF.

No wonder some pros like Mansurov dares to say that if Fuji created new X series camera with full frame sensor, it will bring a serious threat to canon and Nikon. Juat take a look, even with a small sensor, fuji ia right up there with some of the best.

But seriously, i bought X Pro 1not because of ita superb iso accompany my D700, ita because the gorgeous color and superb hybrid viewfinder!

1 upvote
unknown member
By (unknown member) (Dec 26, 2013)

About time somebody had a gentle dig at the pompous old farts who claim they always shoot in candle light at ISO 20,000.

1 upvote
HowaboutRAW

J:

Candlelight, ever tried it? 20,000 would be a bit low. And don't bring up "Barry Lyndon".

0 upvotes
unknown member
By (unknown member) (Dec 26, 2013)

Sorry. I forgot you were the low light advisor to Mr K back in '75.

2 upvotes
Dudders

Thanks for the investigative effort "Jim". I just nearly choked on my toast and fell off my chair.

2 upvotes
HowaboutRAW

J:

I think the shooting of the movie was done in 73-74.

0 upvotes
Mike Laughlin

Keep your day job, JimSavill. (but I'm smiling)

1 upvote
AbrasiveReducer

It's truly frightening that some of the fans here don't even realize your post is a joke.

2 upvotes
HowaboutRAW

Abrasive:

Duh. Well then check the year, see the continuation of the "joke" doesn't have to be on your terms.

And the point remains that ISO 20,000 would be a problem for some candlelit situations--particularly those exposed faster than 24th of second and with only one candle as a light source. A 0.7 Zeiss lens would help, shallow DOF though.

Suspect there's a joke to be made out of the term "Mr K" too.

Comment edited 2 times, last edit 6 minutes after posting
1 upvote
HowaboutRAW

Kahiri78:

How well does that Fuji XPro1 do when shooting ISO 12,800 and above?

Sure is quiet though and the best Fuji lenses are optically better than the best Nikon lenses. But that XPro1 AF, um...

0 upvotes
rb59020

More bad news, Moose Peterson can't stove raving about the Df.

http://www.moosepeterson.com/blog/category/technology/camera-tech/moose-bag/

3 upvotes
jimi1127

Go to the link, scroll down and read Moose's reviews - is there any lens or body he dislikes? And ya know what - he's right! With proper technique and correctly selected gear, current cams and glass will successfully get the job done. The Df is no exception - its D4 sensor will crank out splendid images especially in low light situations. As to the Df's 'retro' layout, some shooters will be turned on, others turned off, however I'd wager for most us it's a neutral response. So why all the fuss & chatter? IMO the answer is VALUE. The Df is priced about 50 USDs below the D800 and about 250 USDs above the 800e. If the lower weight and better ISO performance works for you -- go for it. The Df is a wonderful image making machine. I must mention another issue with Df VALUE. Lurking 750 USDs below the Df is the D610 and of course for the brave of heart there are D600 bodies 1200-1300 USDs below Df prices.
Happy holidays and as we NYC street walkers like to say - 'shoot' a stranger everyday.

0 upvotes
AbrasiveReducer

There are endorsers and then there are de-facto endorsers. I'm not sure which he is. Or if there is a difference. Not that it's hard to say nice things about a nice camera.

1 upvote
gnnyman

I own that camera (among several others from Nikon) now from its very first week on the market and I can only wholeheartedly disagree to this rather negative sounding review!
A photographer, a real photographer, does not need the video function nor is the 1/8000 sec necessary - think about those famous photographs, even of sport events - none of these (older ones) had been taken with such short.exposure time. I also disagree to almost all other negative points except for the topic of the SD door at the bottom - this is not a good feature. For my photography, I use almost always a tripod and that is a bit cumbersome, but as the most recently launched SD cards are very reliable, even those with 32 and 64 GB, one can work around and not change the card anymore - the files are much smaller than those of a D800 and the battery is really a long-life-battery.
I do like that camery very much and have the feeling, that DP does not appreciate Nikon....(think about their negative 1,4/58mm review)

12 upvotes
yabokkie

it's not technical limitations that make photos great.

3 upvotes
Graham Tercero Graham

I'm totaly accord with you,
GTG

1 upvote
HowaboutRAW

gnnyman:

Do you own the new Nikon f/1.4 58mm lens?

0 upvotes
ruicarv79

Is it just me or does the temperature rises when you look at this beauty?
So sexyyyyy...
Why am I not rich? Why? :)
Gorgeous little thing!

6 upvotes
Aaron Sur

There is nothing little about it, Its like me with the Nikon Fm-2 , 25 years later with middle age girth

5 upvotes
mholdef

I like Dpreview but this review confirms that it is more oriented towards high tech gear and spec sheets than the photographic experience.

11 upvotes
Revenant

For me, it confirms the opposite.

12 upvotes
sebastian huvenaars

Fake 70's mojo that does harm to ergonomics is marketed as true photographic experience.

The D700 (and quite possibly D800) will be classics 30 years from now. Imagine how hip you where back in those days owning one of them ;)

6 upvotes
Samuel Dilworth

For me, it confirms that DPReview considers a wide range of factors when assessing a camera.

If this camera, which I consider gravely flawed (with a split personality but no split prism!), had been given a special award it would have made awards wholly meaningless.

The Df is dreadfully conservative and feels like it was designed by a committee of non-photographers. As such it falls far short of expectations at large (the digital FM2) and expectations generated by Nikon’s own hype campaign (‘pure photography’).

That it does some things well, or that its component parts are technically sound or even fractionally better than last year’s parts, or that some people mistake retro-fake for greatness, does not remotely justify a special award.

6 upvotes
Nikonparrothead

Which digital camera does have a factory installed split prism again? Thought so. Like it, fine. Don't like it? Fine too. But what you consider a flaw may be a blessing to another.

8 upvotes
sebastian huvenaars

Awards can therefor be seen as a way for DPR to express their personal feelings without compromising objectivity and professionality in a review.

The Df is capable of producing beautiful images = 81%

DPR doesn't seem to like the camera as a tool, or the path Nikon chose with this product = no award.

Or at least, this is how i interpret these scorings...

Comment edited 5 minutes after posting
1 upvote
HowaboutRAW

sebastian huvenaars:

I think you have a point about the body of the D800 being good contemporary design--so yes hip in 2013.

But as you clearly realize the Df does amazing image quality and that fact alone, "hip" or not, is a big deal to many potential purchasers.

Or: Right there are people who'd purchase this body of its look or not make the purchase for the same reason, but then there are many other considerations those interested in IQ take into account.

Comment edited 3 minutes after posting
2 upvotes
MrPetkus

>Only the Nikon V1, Pentax K-01 and now the Df didn't get any >awards. And you think the awards a meaningful? lol.

Marike6 - I agree with several of your sentiments but the Pentax K-01 was a piece of garbage.

0 upvotes
sebastian huvenaars

The only thing not silly about the Df would be that customers are given access to D4's sensor at a lower price, like HowaboutRAW said.

For everything else, it's an ordinary premium priced dslr. The big knobs do exactly what scroll wheels do but without falling directly under your fingers. The boxy styling makes it less nice to carry and leads to the use plasticky parts between material transitions.

Fuji x camera's are much smaller, have hybrid focussing and lack a mirror. Their form factor is a result of all this, the subtile hints to a bygone era look quite nice even.

Comment edited 46 seconds after posting
0 upvotes
sebastian huvenaars

Well, i agree with you about which viewfinder is nicer, but thats another topic.

Df is the smallest but not small. I was looking forward to this camera, not to buy, just out of curiosity, the concept of pure photography is appealing! I was generally disappointed when i got my hands on one, disappointed in Nikon, i tend like their products a lot.

*huh haha? Where did you go?

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

sebastian:

The Df is a good bit less audible than the D4, that's a real draw for some people.

The Fuji X ASPC cameras are good cameras, but the first two had AF problems and none of the 3 total can shoot at the high ISOs of the D4.

3 upvotes
sebastian huvenaars

Oh no I wasn't trying to promote the Fuji cams, just wanted to give an example about how function can lead to a certain form factor without looking superficial. But then my conversational partner's posts disappeared all of a sudden...

Quiet shutters are a good thing by the way.

Have a good christmas :)

0 upvotes
HowaboutRAW

sebastian huvenaars:

And those Fuji X ASPC cameras are even more quiet than the Df--near silent.

It's that others here have erroneously claimed that the Fuji X ASPC bodies equal the lowlight high ISO performance of the D4. That's why I react to claims about them here.

1 upvote
mholdef

I have been using the Df the past two weeks (which by the way is officially my wife's as I own a D800E) and I can tell you the camera is a joy to use and produces beautiful images.

Which leads me to believe once again that The "Dpreview experience" as they would prefer it is much more aimed at the techy / gear freak than the photographer.

As everyone is entitled to their opinion including Dpreview that is my opinion as I frankly don't understand all the negativity around the Df...except maybe that some people felt alienated by the Nikon marketing campaign as not being photographers for all these years.

2 upvotes
Ian from Berks

Hopefully this might inspire other manufacturers to produce cameras aimed solely at photographers. If I wanted to video things I would buy a dedicated video camera. Oh and please may we have proper controls.
The Sony Alphas like the 65, 77 and 99 have had their metering function added to the function menu and are no longer regarded as a primary control.
Hurrah for Nikon for understanding what many photographers want.
I just hope that it is seen as a camera and not as a fashion accessory.

5 upvotes
PhotoCoffee

I have several D4's, D800, D7100 and a variety of lenses and flashes to suit. I find the Df a sexy camera, that brings me back to as they say the 'simplicity' of photography and use it as designed with the 50mm 1.8 lens (a most underrated bit of kit)…
It makes me concentrate on subject, not get distracted other content and in a sense a purity of photography… It is light enough to pack away, put in the lap, use on the street etc…
Using a D4 or similar simply intimidates people - is heavy over a period of time and I refuse to use it on anything other than professional work…
Great Camera - and find the shortfalls described in the review not an issue at all :)

2 upvotes
MrPetkus

I agree that the Df is a stunning camera. However, stepping back, I think your reaction (and mine) regarding the simplicity or purity of this camera is not entirely with merit. There is nothing about this camera over any other with a 50mm that will allow you to "concentrate" on your subject any better. Likewise, the size of the Df is not so different from the models you listed except the D4. It's a purely romantic notion (and that's fine).
Nikon has made a camera that triggers an emotional response more than anything else.

2 upvotes
Richt2000

I think the Nikon designers were playing Towers of Hanoi when they designed this one...

7 upvotes
B Marsh

I can hardly wait to get my hands on one of these Df's. I still have an old FM2 with a few lenses. I don't care what anyone says, this camera is for the true still photographer. I don't like the idea of a video feature in my cameras and I'm so glad that Nikon has made this bold and appreciated move. As soon as I can afford one, I'll get it. Right now, my D3 will have to be my baby!! Thanks Nikon!! Peace all.

4 upvotes
Mike Laughlin

BMarsh, you will like the Df with your AiS or AI lenses. It's like the FM2 or D3, but with faster, more accurate manual focusing, amazing low-light capabilities, and unlimited "film." I'm liking mine. Believe Nikon was thinking of me when they designed it.

0 upvotes
Total comments: 1627
12345