Previous page Next page

Nikon Df Review

December 2013 | By Richard Butler, Barney Britton
Buy on GearShopFrom $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
226
I own it
397
I want it
84
I had it
Discuss in the forums

Comments

Total comments: 1610
12345
David Dolsen
By David Dolsen (8 months ago)

The Df is a shooter's camera. It's a poor man's D4. The controls are great for those of us who shoot thousands of frames every week for a living, almost always in full manual. The fact that I can pop on my old manual lenses is a delight, especially knowing the sensor inside. Long overdue.

5 upvotes
Shamael
By Shamael (8 months ago)

Poor man's D4???? One needs thus to be poor to buy a 3000$ kit with 16 mpix, a 100 iso performance and IQ comparable to a D70, just because Nikon have the same sensor in a camera they sell 3 times the price it is worth. Strange attitude, you must belong to the rich, don't you?

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

" It's a poor man's D4"

No, it's not. At least not the same way as when D700 was a poor man's D3. Df is just different from D4.

D700 is long overdue for a replacement. Df is not the answer.

3 upvotes
Edmond Leung
By Edmond Leung (8 months ago)

" It's a poor man's D4" ???
Silly comment.

2 upvotes
AngusR
By AngusR (8 months ago)

I think most people are buying into this camera because of its image, rather than the images it takes

3 upvotes
AngusR
By AngusR (8 months ago)

I've just seen this quote by Ken Rockwell. I couldn't agree more:

" It's a camera we own for love and magic, not for logic's sake. We buy the Df with our hearts, not our brains. If you're a photographic artist, you want the Df, but if you're a computer technician, you'll prefer the D610 or D800. Nobody buys a Ferrari because they need one or because it makes sense either."

4 upvotes
David Dolsen
By David Dolsen (8 months ago)

When my D800 was in the shop, they loaned me a D4. It's an incredible camera. I could care less about the Df body, even though it does echo the FM and FM2 I used in my studio in the eighties and nineties. What I want is the D4 chip. The quality of images off that chip has to be seen, and I mean by someone who looks at more than test charts, to be believed. Thank you Nikon for making that chip available in the Df at an affordable price. Now if only I could have the 3fps quiet mode of a 5D MkIII as well.....

Comment edited 4 minutes after posting
6 upvotes
HowaboutRAW
By HowaboutRAW (8 months ago)

@David D:

You should see what the sensor in the D3s can do with a good lens in front of it.

3 upvotes
David Dolsen
By David Dolsen (8 months ago)

I have. It's lovely.

2 upvotes
mholdef
By mholdef (8 months ago)

I own this camera and it is GREAT ! Don't listen to these silly speculative comments from people who just look at spec sheets and who haven't handled the camera.

Indeed it isn't cheap but you get an incredible camera that handles well and is very light, a real charm with some small primes. Back to the basics.

Mark

Comment edited 43 seconds after posting
19 upvotes
Edmond Leung
By Edmond Leung (8 months ago)

Right!
Absolutely unnecessary to read those silly comments. Especially those silly comments from the people who never touch the camera.

0 upvotes
JeffreyJC
By JeffreyJC (8 months ago)

81% Yeah ok.

15+ negatives and some really bad ones like bad af,bad built quality and useless live view.

All points that any company besides Canon and Nikon would get a much lower score.

So what no silver and gold rating still a mind boggling score for an unrated camera.

1 upvote
Sad Joe
By Sad Joe (8 months ago)

As some of you may be aware ( I post fairly often) I use both Canon & Nikon - overall I prefer Canon but I think the Nikon DF whilst NOT a classic like my beloved Nikon FE, is a great camera and Nikon with the 'classic' DF has done what it set out to do - provide MASSIVE FREE marketing coverage for Nikon. Smart move !!

I saw the test results comparing the DF/ D4/ 6D etc - frankly I'd give house room to ANY of them. But if I were PAYING I'd stick with Canon (sorry Nikon fans) and spend the money on a 5D3 - just because I shot a lotta video and the DF offers none….

Roll on the classic AE1 D…or should that be A1 D ?

NOTE according to DR the percentage of people who own the 6D is HUGE the percentage of people who got rid is LOW - however these figures are TOTALY REVERSED when viewing the DF which seems to SHED OWNERS FAST….bit sobering - best advice if you HAVE to have a DF, want 12 mths and buy SECOND HAND - there appears by then there will be plenty around….

Comment edited 3 minutes after posting
2 upvotes
PerL
By PerL (8 months ago)

One can't trust those numbers. People who never owned the camera but wants to put it down clicks on the "had it" button.

9 upvotes
Resom
By Resom (8 months ago)

I agree with PerL.

"best advice if you HAVE to have a DF, want 12 mths and buy SECOND HAND"
And this fits better the retro congeniality of this camera. ;)

I guess its a camera with "character" and thats more as the most melted plastic cameras have ... except my pink/blue Pentax K-30, which is the most impressive camera since centuries!

1 upvote
HowaboutRAW
By HowaboutRAW (8 months ago)

Resom+Joe:

Don't think this body is going to sell used in good condition for $1500 in 12 months.

Check the price of a good condition used Nikon D3s or D700, today late 2013.

It's not like you can find a used Leica M9 for $2000 today, and that body has sever limitations. And is still sold new under the Leica M-E name.

0 upvotes
sgoldswo
By sgoldswo (8 months ago)

What a joke. I can't think of a single dissatisfied owner of the camera.

6 upvotes
new boyz
By new boyz (8 months ago)

"Check the price of a good condition used Nikon D3s or D700, today late 2013."

True. But that the old timer digital Nikon (what,like 5 years old? haha). Newer Nikon like... any newer Nikon body.. D7k, J1.. drop their prices pretty fast.

I know because I used to had a D7k(it's a good DSLR, btw). My friend bought one at full announcement price, I had it for 80% ... few months later, the price went to something like 60%. Mind you, this price drops happened before the D7100 announced.

D700 keeps its value because Nikon hasn't make its true replacement yet, and D700 is really a smaller (cheaper) version of the D3 (fast fps, same sensor, pro AF). Df is nothing like a D4 (slow fps, entry level AF, etc.). Except maybe for its sensor.

However I do think that its price will remain high, not for the same reason as D700, but for its limited edition factor.

0 upvotes
HowaboutRAW
By HowaboutRAW (8 months ago)

new b:

I didn't say a thing about the price of any used Nikon APSC body. Check for fun how much a good condition used Nikon D2H or D2Hs sells for today in late 2013.

(Used on Amazon US: $1000 for a very good D2H, less for just "good", then the only D2Hs for sale lists for $1900, factory refurb though. Irony APSC.)

So blah, blah, blah, doesn't change the fact that the D3 (not amongst those I named originally), the D3s, and D700 are a pretty pricey used at the end of 2013.

Also I've shot with the D700, and its AF was not particularly impressive, nothing like either the D4 or D3s. So the D700 (used or not) has some draw backs. And no the D700 is not a limited edition.

Right: I agree that the Df isn't exactly a replacement for the D700. Such a body would in fact use the better sensor from the D3s--but that would really likely eat into D4 sales.

Comment edited 12 minutes after posting
0 upvotes
HowaboutRAW
By HowaboutRAW (8 months ago)

nb:

Scratch my comment about the D700 not being a limited edition. I get that you were referring to the Df.

0 upvotes
marike6
By marike6 (8 months ago)

It's hilarious that pretty much every camera with a shutter button gets an award on DPR. Some cameras like the X-E1 with its RAW conversion issues, subpar AF even get Gold Awards. The Nikon Df, perhaps because of a crowbarred comparison with the Fuji X cameras on day one ("retro done right") and the reviewer's fondness for the X cameras, gets zero, zip, nada. Lol. DPR was under no obligation to give the camera a good review, but giving it such a high score, but no award AT ALL was frankly a passive aggressive swipe at Nikon and Nikon users, not to mention kind of petty gesture.

I checked the Df out the other day at B&H and it's quite nice. It felt great in my hands, nice a bright VF, and it focused quickly and accurately. One thing is for sure, I'd trade my Fujifilm X-E1 and all my X lenses for the Df, in a second. Retro right or wrong, for me there is just no comparison between these two camera.

14 upvotes
ed rader
By ed rader (8 months ago)

you sound like a guy who easily makes big shifts in gear so that could explain it

2 upvotes
marike6
By marike6 (8 months ago)

No I don't make big shifts in gear. My main camera, one that I will never change, is my D800. And I have an X-E1 for kicks.

1 upvote
King Penguin
By King Penguin (8 months ago)

I'm a D600 user (amateur) and shoot with AFD primes, using the aperture ring on the lens....I just prefer it.

The Df doesn't offer much more but I'd buy it like a shot if I had the cash, it's a great camera.

......and by the way to all those sad M43 freaks trying to find ways of justifying their mistake in buying into a small sensor, if you get a bad back carrying a Df with a nice little AFD prime and perhaps another in your pocket..........the expression drama queen comes to mind..........Merry Xmas :)

8 upvotes
Tonio Loewald
By Tonio Loewald (8 months ago)

I've got the 50 1.8D and it looks tiny on my D600 (and 50% of the 1.8 is simply an integral lens hood; it could easily be half the size again). I also don't see why, aside from the size of the pentaprism housing, Nikon can't produce a K3 sized FX body (especially if they left out the focus motor, but then they'd really need to modernize their primes). Oh and the K3 has IBIS.

1 upvote
PerL
By PerL (8 months ago)

Nikon Df is almost as small as a K3 and it is lighter. And it is FF.

5 upvotes
Resom
By Resom (8 months ago)

Well - its 35g lighter, but not smaller.

This means, the K3 is not a toy. You can smack a bandit down with 1 hit! Ok, the lens is gone, but ... 1 hit! 35g makes the difference, I tell you.

1 upvote
T3
By T3 (8 months ago)

"if you get a bad back carrying a Df with a nice little AFD prime and perhaps another in your pocket..........the expression drama queen comes to mind..........Merry Xmas :)"

Keep in mind, a lot of us m4/3 users are also FF DSLR users! I am. There are just times when you want to travel lighter, and still have the flexibility of a good ILC camera system. Frankly, for the weight and size of a Df and a prime or two, I can carry a m4/3 body and a full complement of lenses.

I think the drama queens are the people who think you are a "freak" and that you've made a "mistake" if you use more than one format or more than one system. If you have the money, I think that's definitely the way to go! There are times when I prefer to use my FF gear, and there are times when I want to use my m4/3 gear. You should try it some time. I think it's pretty awesome.

1 upvote
DarkShift
By DarkShift (8 months ago)

Perhaps the biggest mistake with DF was the decision not to include video. Besides lowlight performance, I really can't find single feature why this would be more appealing choice than the D800 or D600.

Nikon should produce full frame mirrorless with shorter flange distance and adapter that would accept DSLR lenses. Sort of like Sony a7r but with more intuitive user interface and controls.

And why this silly MFT bashing going on? My EM-5 is very fine camera with nice features such as sensor stabilized video.

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

DarkS:

Video takes cooling and more battery power. So there's a trade going on.

0 upvotes
King Penguin
By King Penguin (8 months ago)

T3 and others......maybe I had a little too much mulled wine when I made the comment.......no wish to offend at all but I do read a lot of comments from the M43 brigade dissing FF cameras due to weight.

Most I'm sure haven't realised how compact AFD primes are, how cheap they are second hand and how nice they are to use.

My Nikkor 16mm f2.8 fisheye is almost as small as the M43 Panasonic 8mm f3.5 fisheye and much smaller than most M43 or APSC lens of a similar focal length.

FF stuff doesn't need to be massive........

0 upvotes
T3
By T3 (8 months ago)

"My Nikkor 16mm f2.8 fisheye is almost as small as the M43 Panasonic 8mm f3.5 fisheye"

The excellent little Rokikon 7.5mm fisheye for m4/3 is much smaller and lighter than the Nikkor 16mm fisheye, and it's only $269 new.
http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/822814-REG/Rokinon_FE75MFTS_7_5_mm_f_3_5_Ultra.html

Plus, you still have to put that larger Nikkor 16mm onto a MUCH larger FF body. Take it from someone who uses FF and m4/3, size comparison isn't even close. The Df might be the smallest of the FF DSLRs, but it's still huge compared to the E-M1 which is the largest m4/3 body Oly offers.

http://camerasize.com/compare/#495,482

Also, the "small" Nikon Df (765 g) weighs 54% more (268 grams more) than the "large"-- at least for m4/3-- Olympus E-M1 (which weighs only 497 grams).

Yes, FF DSLR is simply larger, bulkier, and heavier-- both the lenses and the bodies. That's not a "diss". That's just reality. And mature adults accept reality.

0 upvotes
King Penguin
By King Penguin (8 months ago)

268 grams more, wow, you're right......no wonder I've got a bad back, I must buy a M43 camera immediately......

0 upvotes
T3
By T3 (8 months ago)

@King Penguin - That's 268g for the body only. Start adding up the size/weight differences of FF lenses vs the m4/3 lenses, and it all starts adding up really quickly. Heck, the Nikkor 16mm f2.8 fisheye that you tout as being so small is already 90g heavier the the m4/3 Rokinon! That's a lot for such small lenses! A couple hundred grams here, a couple hundred grams there, and you start realizing a pretty big weight difference...forget about the SIZE difference! Also, that 268g difference is for the fairly "large" E-M1. There are definitely lighter m4/3 bodies. Plus, when I go around with my FF DSLR, it sticks out like a sore thumb. But when I go around with my m4/3, it basically goes unnoticed. Or if it is noticed, people ignore it because it's so small. You can't say the same about a FF DSLR with a FF lens! So for stealthier, low-key shooting, I *much* prefer to use my m4/3 gear! And the minimal size/weight are a lot more comfortable to carry than FF, especially when traveling.

Comment edited 2 times, last edit 14 minutes after posting
0 upvotes
HowaboutRAW
By HowaboutRAW (8 months ago)

Tonio:

Have you handled a Pentax K3? It's about the same size as the Df, and of course the Df has a bigger sensor. The K3 is in now way tiny.

0 upvotes
King Penguin
By King Penguin (8 months ago)

T3 - I rescind my apology, all this talk of a few grams here and there.........drama queen comes to mind.

If you're happy with your Olly and a 1/4 sized sensor that's fine by me, just don't harp on about. Perhaps if you emptied your pockets of loose change or left your gun at home, you'd achieve the same weight reduction and feel more comfortable carrying a FF camera.......

But as I don't carry a gun and I leave my loose change at home I'll stick with my D600 (or a Df if Santa thinks I've been good) and my nice lovely COMPACT and relatively cheap Nikkor AFD lenses..........merry Xmas :)

0 upvotes
T3
By T3 (8 months ago)

@ King Penguin - Haha, bringing up guns and loose change, look who's being a "drama queen." As someone who uses both m4/3 and FF, I can assure you that the weight diff is a lot more than "a few grams" that you (the drama queen that you are) have attempted to mischaracterize it as. The reality is that the weight diff easily becomes a few HUNDRED grams. Heck, even if you just look at your own example: Df plus Nikkor 16mm fisheye...well, that "small" combo is still 358g more than the "large" E-M1 with Rokinon 7.5mm. Now consider the smaller E-M5...the Df is 91% heavier (365g), so the weight diff is 455g with the lens. Almost half a kilo of weight diff, just with your "COMPACT" body/lens example! Add more lenses (especially the FF ones that aren't so "COMPACT"), get even greater weight diff (never mind the SIZE diff)! Grow up and face the facts. I have. That's why I use both, so i get the best of both worlds: small and big. It's great to have the choice! Each has its pros and cons.

Comment edited 3 times, last edit 12 minutes after posting
0 upvotes
Optimal Prime
By Optimal Prime (8 months ago)

Some people/penguin simply can't read.

0 upvotes
John Tannock
By John Tannock (8 months ago)

I think they should have called the WTF rather than the DF. While it is interesting looking as a novelty item, it's sort of a 'CF' of design, parts and performance in my opinion.

1 upvote
InTheMist
By InTheMist (8 months ago)

Classic Film?

1 upvote
Ozark photographer
By Ozark photographer (8 months ago)

Have you done any "real photography" other than with a auto focus instamatic or a cell phone? I mean like a film manual focus full featured interchangeable lens camera like the excellent FE, FE2, F3, or equivalent other brand? Medium format? It involves using your brain to visualize the image and think how to set the camera, dedicated knobs and rings really make the job easier! Putting proven current technology into a robust package is the formula of the F3, F4, and this camera! I would never call a fine fusion of this formula a CF! I would however consider a idiot like you a CF. So, WTF, it doesn't suit your drill down menu style of self gratifying photography, don't by one! Don't waste time with a opinion that has no clear point, or thought out intelligent critical observation that you can explain without the use of profane BS!

0 upvotes
John Tannock
By John Tannock (8 months ago)

Wow, Ozark, you've really gotten your tighties in a wad. To answer your questions about my photography, I've used all of the above and then some. What no mention of 4x5 view cameras? As for the use of auto focus and menus, yes, I like them. They allow me to focus on my subjects quickly and make adjustments while keeping my eye to the viewfinder. Oh, and isn't every photographer's work 'self satisfying'? If not, then you or whomever you're referring to should be in another line of work. The WTF reference was meant as a joke so sorry if I offended you, Ozark. However, based on handling the camera and comparing to the other 4 Nikon pro bodies that I use daily, I stand by my opinion that it's a novel design but not worth the price for what's inside it. Compared to the D800 that is nearly the same price there's no contest in value or performance.

0 upvotes
Nigel Ward 2
By Nigel Ward 2 (8 months ago)

..and why put a second rate autofocus module in a camera that is supposed to appeal to professionals?

..also...why bring out a new 35mm f/1.8 lens two months later? It would have made much more sense to have bundled the camera with that for photojournalism.

doh.

2 upvotes
Tonio Loewald
By Tonio Loewald (8 months ago)

Hey if you're going to complain about lens selection, why does Sony release anything at all? It's not like the Df is hurting for lens options.

Totally agree about the AF. It smells of a product crippled by marketing because they were afraid of cannibalizing D4 sales (after all, not everyone who buys a D4 shoots at 10fps).

Comment edited 3 minutes after posting
3 upvotes
HowaboutRAW
By HowaboutRAW (8 months ago)

Nigel:

Right it's not the AF system from the vaunted D4, but unlike this review many have found the Df's auto focus to be more than adequate in lowlight.

There are size considerations beyond taking sales away from the D4 considerations.

3 upvotes
davaodoc
By davaodoc (8 months ago)

I am an avid Nikon user. Between me, my wife and my son, we have the Df, D4, D800, two D7000, D3100 cameras as well as almost all the current nikon lenses, yet I hate the Df and I regret buying it.

I made the mistake of getting a Df as soon as it hit the market. I agree that it is a D610 with a 50% markup. In Nikon's desire to create a "retro camera", they ended reinventing the wheel.

How else can you justify: it costs the same as the D800, but has no video, NO HISTOGRAM IN LIVE VIEW (a mortal sin for landscape photographers), no built in viewfinder cover (again, a must for long exposures), can't adjust the ISO with one hand (try it) and a single SDHC slot?

I also have the mirrorless Fuji X-E2 and a side by side comparison shows the X-E2 beating the Df in every aspect. I'm sending it back.

Comment edited 4 minutes after posting
5 upvotes
chooflaki
By chooflaki (8 months ago)

You are one of the very few posters who has reported getting rid of the Df. You reasons are very suspicious since you quote cons right out of the Dpreview review. First post, no gear list hmmm...I believe you are just a troll who has never owned one.

Comment edited 2 times, last edit 5 minutes after posting
4 upvotes
sandy b
By sandy b (8 months ago)

"I also have the mirrorless Fuji X-E2 and a side by side comparison shows the X-E2 beating the Df in every aspect. I'm sending it back."

Right. NOW I believe you.

4 upvotes
HowaboutRAW
By HowaboutRAW (8 months ago)

davaodoc:

If you have a D800, why would you want to use the Df for landscape shooting?

And I'll bite: Do you shoot a lot of video with that Fuji XE2? Then how about the other Nikon DSLRs that you own?

Video takes cooling and battery power, so those are two reasons for excluding it from the Df body.

I give you the lack of a VF backlight block is a bit of a problem if you want to shoot long exposures, but that would take more space. As of course would a second card slot.

0 upvotes
new boyz
By new boyz (8 months ago)

There's no reason to get a Df if you already having a D4. Most people wanting this camera because of its sensor.

0 upvotes
HowaboutRAW
By HowaboutRAW (8 months ago)

nb:

A reason to get the Df if you already own the D4, well two, no three: The Df is a tiny bit better at high ISO lowlight shooting, it's lighter, and most important to many it's much quieter than the D4.

0 upvotes
davaodoc
By davaodoc (8 months ago)

Chooflaki:
Maybe the reason why I'm ONLY posting now is because this is the first camera purchase that I was disappointed with.

Maybe I quoted from the article because I ACTUALLY read it. Didn't you?

Maybe the reason why I didn't post my gear is because it would take a helluva time to do so.
See for yourself:
http://www.dpreview.com/galleries/1871251339/photos/2790769/cameras-gear-thumbnail

Comment edited 14 minutes after posting
1 upvote
davaodoc
By davaodoc (8 months ago)

sandy b:
http://www.dpreview.com/galleries/1871251339/photos/2790769/cameras-gear-thumbnail

see it? the Df is side by side with my X-E2

and unlike you, who probably handled the Df for a full 60 seconds, I have used it in the field since I got it over two weeks ago

1 upvote
davaodoc
By davaodoc (8 months ago)

HowaboutRAW:

"If you have a D800, why would you want to use the Df for landscape shooting?"

- why shouldn't I? I didn't read anything in the Df's manual that says I can't use it for taking pictures of rocks and trees.

If you looks closely at the viewfinder cover of the D800 and D4, it adds less than two millimeters to viewfinder's length, so yeah, it's a big deal when it comes to adding space to the Df.

1 upvote
davaodoc
By davaodoc (8 months ago)

new boyz:

I got the Df because I can afford to.

1 upvote
davaodoc
By davaodoc (8 months ago)

HowaboutRAW:

The D800 produces a very large file. In photoshop, a D800 file with 4-5 layers can reach over 1Gb in size, which slows down my computer considerably. If my intention is to print a photo up to a maximum of only 13 x 19 inches in size, I prefer to use the D4 (or the Df) because I can edit faster and there is no discernable difference in picture quality. If I need to print any thing larger or if I might need to crop the photo, I use the D800.

1 upvote
HowaboutRAW
By HowaboutRAW (8 months ago)

davaodoc:

I don't work with layers a lot, trying to keep things untrimmed + unpasted. But that 1GB for 4 or 5 layers seems big, I guess if each layer has lots of history that would make things bigger. I guess maximum bit depth would make things bigger to, I never see that much difference.

And if I were shooting landscapes with sky, I'd try to work with a graduated ND filter to avoid the layers as much as possible.

Right, 16MP is plenty for your 13" by 19" print, provided you're not cropping, but many who shoot landscape go on about "detail" and then D800E's images are in fact sharper.

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

davaodoc:

It occurs to me that one of the reasons people would seek out the D800E for landscape printing beyond the sharpness thing is the capacity to print beyond 300ppi, so in fact I suspect that would be hard for the Df files and the print size of 11" by 19". Though I'm sure your prints look excellent a that size from the D4/Df--details are over rated.

Comment edited 57 seconds after posting
0 upvotes
sandy b
By sandy b (8 months ago)

No, I want to see the shot of the Fuji beating the Nikon in every aspect. Pictures please.

1 upvote
abolit66
By abolit66 (8 months ago)

There should be "emotion" because this camera does not fit into "retro" category. First of all - there's no any manual focusing applications (split prizm or focus peeking).
Secondly : The adjustment wheels on the top of the camera placed by some guy who did not have any idea of what he was doing.
Thirdly: The camera is not cheap!

The only advantage of buying this camera is just a LOOK.. not good enough for me.

Another failure from Nikon... it's freaking "amazing"!...

2 upvotes
chooflaki
By chooflaki (8 months ago)

I own a camera with split image VF and two cameras with focus peaking and both are very good with these aids. My Df focuses just as good with my very own eyes with my manual lenses. Just get unlazy and don't expect the gear to do it all for you. The control wheel works fine. Just sync your brain with your eyes and fingers.

Comment edited 5 times, last edit 11 minutes after posting
9 upvotes
HowaboutRAW
By HowaboutRAW (8 months ago)

abolit66:

My Minolta SR-1 film SLR does not have a splitscreen. Splitcreen focusing aides are a later invention. And sometimes they can be a pain. Drop the requests for focus peaking and there is a MF aide, called focus confirm.

Likely too, one can send the body into Nikon for a screen swap if you want a splitscreen–that’s how it worked with the well liked D700.

Right Nikon could have done an user changeable screen, then likely the prism box would have been bigger and there’d be added expense.

Why do you think the Df should be cheap? Magnesium isn’t cheap to work with. Yields on full framed sensors are less than smaller sensors. Was the Nikon F “cheap” in 1962 dollars?

As to be expected: This body costs a bit more than Nikon’s entry level full frame DSLR body–the D610.

There’s a huge lowlight high ISO advantage to this body.

If it's not for you, don't buy one.

Comment edited 3 minutes after posting
4 upvotes
Shamael
By Shamael (8 months ago)

If they had used aluminium instead of magnesium, considering the amount used, the camera had been 30 gramms heavier. Does that matters? The price difference had then been 30$ as well, does that matters? We have here an object with low amount of metal, not a rim for a sportscar. They could have made it in titanium, it has made 30 gramms less and 100$ more.

1 upvote
HowaboutRAW
By HowaboutRAW (8 months ago)

Shamael:

Aluminum has nowhere near the strength of magnesium.

Clearly you don't understand how hard it is to work complex forms out of titanium.

So you haven't thought much about this Df's strengths.

Yet again: If it's not for you don't buy one. New: But stop complaining about things that are strengths, like the 16MP sensor.

0 upvotes
Singh
By Singh (8 months ago)

Hey it's "only a camera", why all the emotion. If you like it then buy it if not then don't.

Although i shoot with Canon i admire Nikon for trying to be different. And, yes to an earlier comment all Canon DSLR do look alike

3 upvotes
stevens37y
By stevens37y (8 months ago)

Simply statistics. This is a niche product: only 0.001% of the photo-taking folks respects its values. The majority only laughs at it.

0 upvotes
chooflaki
By chooflaki (8 months ago)

0.001% get it and DPR traffic goes meltdown viral. Does not compute. if only Pentax got this kind of attention.

Comment edited 5 minutes after posting
1 upvote
mauritsvw
By mauritsvw (8 months ago)

I think Pentax did get almost as much attention when the K-01 was announced...

1 upvote
chooflaki
By chooflaki (8 months ago)

I believe the K-01 was universally panned. On the other hand some of Pentax's latest offerings get good press but here it is mostly silence. I don't shoot Pentax BTW.

0 upvotes
HowaboutRAW
By HowaboutRAW (8 months ago)

chooflaki:

As long as one didn't want a viewfinder I thought the K-01 a good boxy camera.

Comment edited 8 minutes after posting
1 upvote
Mark Alan Thomas
By Mark Alan Thomas (8 months ago)

Any camera which riles the children must be good.

4 upvotes
Ozark photographer
By Ozark photographer (8 months ago)

Ok, I have heard enough from some of you yahoo's out there! Obviously, you are not Nikon people. This camera for me is refreshing, I hated the menus and buttons with command dials for common settings that have been pushed out on the market since the first main stream AF Nikons came out! In my humble opinion this Df camera is a big step forward for actual photography, not digital snapshot shooting! Yes, expensive, I wish I could get one, or Nikon could make one in DX format. I always use an eternal flash anyway, gives better results.
Ok FX size is the biggest practical format sensor size. So the ones so touted for there techno innovations on mini rangefinder style camera are comparable to the Nikon Df? Apples to Oranges! The toughness of the Df looks to be up to the standards of hard use, not just a pretty shell and gimmicks. I am sure that a lot of Nikon shooters of the old school of real photography will want one, and that my friends is who matters to Nikon!

4 upvotes
HowaboutRAW
By HowaboutRAW (8 months ago)

Have you handled a Df?

The reason I ask, and I like it though don't own it, is I can see some of the reason for complaints about the control layout--that's including the buttons on the back of the body. Thom Hogan at dslrbodies.com goes into some detail about this.

You're right, there's no particular point in comparing this Df body to Fuji X-APSC bodies. Much better points of comparison would be the digital range finders from Leica and Epson.

(Of course even the high end P&S Canon G16 uses "retro" knobs and dials.)

0 upvotes
camerosity
By camerosity (8 months ago)

If Canon came out with something similar, dpreview.com would be creaming their pants all over it, giving it a Highly Recommended Gold Award...how dumb do you think we are?

4 upvotes
Josh152
By Josh152 (8 months ago)

No if canon came out with a a camera that was a 6D with retro clothes and a 1DX sensor they would have had basically the same opinion and some clown would have said:

"If Nikon came out with something similar, dpreview.com would be creaming their pants all over it, giving it a Highly Recommended Gold Award...how dumb do you think we are?"

Comment edited 16 seconds after posting
16 upvotes
kadardr
By kadardr (8 months ago)

but they did not, canon did not. thus no cream in the pants at dpr

0 upvotes
thinkfat
By thinkfat (8 months ago)

After the T90, all Canon cameras look the same anyway ;)

But I'd probably buy a camera styled after the A-1.

4 upvotes
Tonio Loewald
By Tonio Loewald (8 months ago)

Do you seriously think dpreview is biased against Nikon? Go look at the D600 review and compare it to the 6D review then come back. I think dpreview is pretty fair in general, although I preferred it when they simple rated stuff as "highly recommended" etc.

5 upvotes
spbStan
By spbStan (8 months ago)

I am a recovering Canon shooter. I loved my A1 and carried it all over the world. It was tough, very easy to use, but eventually loaned it to a GF who promptly sold it, the speedlights and 17 lenses. When getting back into photography I went looking for a Canon and discovered the smaller digital models I was looking for looked good on paper but lousy in hand and worse is impression of quality So I bought a D90 and was really impressed. That was 5 years ago and the D800 and D7000 sit in the main bag and the D90 feels a little lonely gathering dust after a frame count of 124,000. I love the super clean files these camera generate but the Df is starting to intrigue me. I do wish it was more like the A1 however with great MF smoothness. My 50 1.2 MF would live on it.

1 upvote
sunhorse
By sunhorse (8 months ago)

I do not understand the people who hate a camera they've never handled or used, and will never buy.

Happy Holidays everyone!

5 upvotes
Fred Mueller
By Fred Mueller (8 months ago)

it's not hate - it's disappointment that the Df is not REALLY what the "tease" set it up to be

10 upvotes
chooflaki
By chooflaki (8 months ago)

The tease said this was a fusion camera and it was always targeted to a niche audience that have been asking for something like this for ages. Nikon never made any claims this to be their latest greatest or that it was replacement of current models. Judging by sales this niche audience has suddenly grown vastly that Nikon cant keep up production. Numbskulls just don't get it.

Comment edited 2 times, last edit 5 minutes after posting
11 upvotes
raztec
By raztec (8 months ago)

I'd say it's extreme disappointment.

It's like a dumb blonde with fake boobs. If that's your taste, fine. But for others, they want the real deal.

1 upvote
sunhorse
By sunhorse (8 months ago)

Yep. I can understand why some people would be disappointed. The tease is what it is, and people saw what they hoped and wished for which did not quite turn out the way they wanted.

2 upvotes
thinkfat
By thinkfat (8 months ago)

Though the question stands what the "real deal" would be. An intelligent blonde with real boobs? A brunette? with fake boobs or without? Complaining to a camera maker for not fulfilling ones' secret dreams is like complaining to Santa for not delivering that house you put on your wish list.

Comment edited 55 seconds after posting
6 upvotes
AlanJones
By AlanJones (8 months ago)

It is ironic that so many experts come to DPR to read their reviews. When these "experts" don't agree with DPR then they are called biased or don't have credibility. Why don't these "experts" have their own review website if they have a higher level of technical knowledge or credibility than is illustrated here. I guess it's easier to complain about a perceived problem than become a solution?

7 upvotes
philharris
By philharris (8 months ago)

If you read reviews online by others you will find quite a substantial disparity between them.
The Df has been positively received by just about everyone except DPR, who are the only people to suggest that the AF is not good, surely that should arouse some doubt?

0 upvotes
Edmond Leung
By Edmond Leung (8 months ago)

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

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

1 upvote
HowaboutRAW
By HowaboutRAW (8 months ago)

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

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

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

0 upvotes
Edmond Leung
By Edmond Leung (8 months ago)

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

0 upvotes
Edmond Leung
By Edmond Leung (8 months ago)

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

0 upvotes
HowaboutRAW
By HowaboutRAW (8 months ago)

EL:

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

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

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

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

Comment edited 7 minutes after posting
0 upvotes
cmvsm
By cmvsm (8 months ago)

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

0 upvotes
HowaboutRAW
By HowaboutRAW (8 months ago)

raztec:

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

0 upvotes
raztec
By raztec (8 months ago)

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

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

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

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

1 upvote
Bamboojled
By Bamboojled (8 months ago)

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

1 upvote
raztec
By raztec (8 months ago)

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

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

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

Merry Xmas

6 upvotes
Bamboojled
By Bamboojled (8 months ago)

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

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

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

2 upvotes
raztec
By raztec (8 months ago)

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

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

2 upvotes
sandy b
By sandy b (8 months ago)

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

4 upvotes
Tonio Loewald
By Tonio Loewald (8 months ago)

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

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

Comment edited 60 seconds after posting
1 upvote
HowaboutRAW
By HowaboutRAW (8 months ago)

raztec:

But did you shoot with it?

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

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

0 upvotes
binauralbeats
By binauralbeats (8 months ago)

"Pure photography" LOL

10 upvotes
Bamboojled
By Bamboojled (8 months ago)

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

3 upvotes
jimi1127
By jimi1127 (8 months ago)

The Edsel also generated gallons of interest.

6 upvotes
JPMontez
By JPMontez (8 months ago)

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

3 upvotes
new boyz
By new boyz (8 months ago)

Consider yourself lucky. Hahahaha.

0 upvotes
marike6
By marike6 (8 months ago)

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

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

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

25 upvotes
chooflaki
By chooflaki (8 months ago)

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

Comment edited 3 times, last edit 7 minutes after posting
9 upvotes
raztec
By raztec (8 months ago)

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

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

Comment edited 9 minutes after posting
22 upvotes
sharkcookie
By sharkcookie (8 months ago)

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

3 upvotes
Samuel Dilworth
By Samuel Dilworth (8 months ago)

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

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

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

15 upvotes
HowaboutRAW
By HowaboutRAW (8 months ago)

raztec:

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

3 upvotes
raztec
By raztec (8 months ago)

@ howabout

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

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

1 upvote
sandy b
By sandy b (8 months ago)

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

Comment edited 6 minutes after posting
1 upvote
sandy b
By sandy b (8 months ago)

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

Comment edited 2 minutes after posting
3 upvotes
Bamboojled
By Bamboojled (8 months ago)

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

Comment edited 20 seconds after posting
4 upvotes
Bamboojled
By Bamboojled (8 months ago)

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

1 upvote
HowaboutRAW
By HowaboutRAW (8 months ago)

raztec:

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

0 upvotes
dnaseigel
By dnaseigel (8 months ago)

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

4 upvotes
nickkessler
By nickkessler (8 months ago)

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

3 upvotes
G1Houston
By G1Houston (8 months ago)

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

Here is what he said in the conclusion:

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

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

3 upvotes
reinish
By reinish (8 months ago)

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

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

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

there they bouth are side by side

8 upvotes
HowaboutRAW
By HowaboutRAW (8 months ago)

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

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

0 upvotes
NCB
By NCB (8 months ago)

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

1 upvote
new boyz
By new boyz (8 months ago)

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

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

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

1 upvote
robmanueb
By robmanueb (8 months ago)

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

6 upvotes
PicOne
By PicOne (8 months ago)

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

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

0 upvotes
antoin
By antoin (8 months ago)

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

Comment edited 49 seconds after posting
1 upvote
InTheMist
By InTheMist (8 months ago)

Always the Pentax guys.

7 upvotes
PerL
By PerL (8 months ago)

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

5 upvotes
HowaboutRAW
By HowaboutRAW (8 months ago)

antoin:

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

2 upvotes
ET2
By ET2 (8 months ago)

K01 AF is worse. Read the review

1 upvote
antoin
By antoin (8 months ago)

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

Comment edited 13 minutes after posting
0 upvotes
rb59020
By rb59020 (8 months ago)

My K-30 has a viewfinder.

0 upvotes
Bamboojled
By Bamboojled (8 months ago)

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

Comment edited 36 seconds after posting
1 upvote
guytano
By guytano (8 months ago)

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

1 upvote
kadardr
By kadardr (8 months ago)

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

5 upvotes
HowaboutRAW
By HowaboutRAW (8 months ago)

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

0 upvotes
Sensible1
By Sensible1 (8 months ago)

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

4 upvotes
HowaboutRAW
By HowaboutRAW (8 months ago)

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

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

4 upvotes
InTheMist
By InTheMist (8 months ago)

Well, then, they made it for me.

I hope they make you a camera too.

7 upvotes
HetFotoAtelier
By HetFotoAtelier (8 months ago)

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

12 upvotes
nickkessler
By nickkessler (8 months ago)

I like the black one so much more

1 upvote
Frank C.
By Frank C. (8 months ago)

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

1 upvote
HowaboutRAW
By HowaboutRAW (8 months ago)

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

Nikon hasn't told lies about its performance.

Comment edited 3 minutes after posting
6 upvotes
comet suisei
By comet suisei (8 months ago)

stupid comment

2 upvotes
Frank C.
By Frank C. (8 months ago)

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

0 upvotes
Josh152
By Josh152 (8 months ago)

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

0 upvotes
Felts
By Felts (8 months ago)

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

3 upvotes
nickkessler
By nickkessler (8 months ago)

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

0 upvotes
sgoldswo
By sgoldswo (8 months ago)

The locks are actually easy to use...

0 upvotes
ArturK
By ArturK (8 months ago)

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

0 upvotes
binauralbeats
By binauralbeats (8 months ago)

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

0 upvotes
nickkessler
By nickkessler (8 months ago)

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

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

0 upvotes
ArturK
By ArturK (8 months ago)

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

0 upvotes
Saffron_Blaze
By Saffron_Blaze (8 months ago)

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

0 upvotes
HowaboutRAW
By HowaboutRAW (8 months ago)

D4.

7 upvotes
yabokkie
By yabokkie (8 months ago)

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

2 upvotes
physguy88
By physguy88 (8 months ago)

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

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

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

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

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

9 upvotes
HowaboutRAW
By HowaboutRAW (8 months ago)

physguy88:

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

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

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

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

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

1 upvote
TrojMacReady
By TrojMacReady (8 months ago)

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

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

Comment edited 2 minutes after posting
3 upvotes
HowaboutRAW
By HowaboutRAW (8 months ago)

Troj:

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

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

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

0 upvotes
TrojMacReady
By TrojMacReady (8 months ago)

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

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

2 upvotes
physguy88
By physguy88 (8 months ago)

HowaboutRAW:

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

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

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

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

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

2 upvotes
HowaboutRAW
By HowaboutRAW (8 months ago)

TrojMac:

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

0 upvotes
HowaboutRAW
By HowaboutRAW (8 months ago)

physguy88:

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

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

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

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

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

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

Comment edited 3 minutes after posting
0 upvotes
HowaboutRAW
By HowaboutRAW (8 months ago)

TrojMac:

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

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

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

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

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

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

6 upvotes
Richard Murdey
By Richard Murdey (8 months ago)

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

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

Anyone still interested?

Comment edited 33 seconds after posting
0 upvotes
HowaboutRAW
By HowaboutRAW (8 months ago)

_Federico:

At ISO 12,800 the D800 has serious magenta and cyan blotching problems, this is not simple noise.

And no resampling does not remove noise, it makes the photo (and the noise) smaller.

For someone who claims to own a D800, you don't seem real familiar with it. It's a plenty good camera but has significant problems above ISO 6400, in fact lower.

The D800 never seems to have the dynamic range of the D610 or D4/Df either.

3 upvotes
unknown member
By (unknown member) (8 months ago)

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

Comment edited 3 times, last edit 6 minutes after posting
7 upvotes
HowaboutRAW
By HowaboutRAW (8 months ago)

J:

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

Good lowlight high ISO performance is important for me.

I often shoot under light not much more than streetlamps.

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

Comment edited 1 minute after posting
0 upvotes
MikeF4Black
By MikeF4Black (8 months ago)

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

0 upvotes
unknown member
By (unknown member) (8 months ago)

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

Comment edited 1 minute after posting
2 upvotes
unknown member
By (unknown member) (8 months ago)

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

4 upvotes
HowaboutRAW
By HowaboutRAW (8 months ago)

Jaberwok:

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

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

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

0 upvotes
unknown member
By (unknown member) (8 months ago)

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

Comment edited 1 minute after posting
2 upvotes
Bamboojled
By Bamboojled (8 months ago)

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

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

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

Comment edited 2 minutes after posting
1 upvote
unknown member
By (unknown member) (8 months ago)

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

0 upvotes
Bamboojled
By Bamboojled (8 months ago)

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

0 upvotes
HowaboutRAW
By HowaboutRAW (8 months ago)

Jaber:

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

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

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

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

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

1 upvote
HowaboutRAW
By HowaboutRAW (8 months ago)

MikeF:

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

0 upvotes
unknown member
By (unknown member) (8 months ago)

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

0 upvotes
HowaboutRAW
By HowaboutRAW (8 months ago)

J:

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

0 upvotes
physguy88
By physguy88 (8 months ago)

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

This is simple math.

1 upvote
HowaboutRAW
By HowaboutRAW (8 months ago)

physguy88:

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

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

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

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

0 upvotes
TrojMacReady
By TrojMacReady (8 months ago)

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

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

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

Comment edited 3 minutes after posting
3 upvotes
physguy88
By physguy88 (8 months ago)

Agree with TrojMacReady.

Also:

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

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

1 upvote
HowaboutRAW
By HowaboutRAW (8 months ago)

Troj:

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

Now what can work is printing beyond 300ppi.

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

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

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

physguy:

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

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

Comment edited 11 minutes after posting
0 upvotes
HowaboutRAW
By HowaboutRAW (8 months ago)

physguy:

(the extended version of above)

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

I read the links:

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

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

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

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

0 upvotes
Revenant
By Revenant (8 months ago)

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

0 upvotes
physguy88
By physguy88 (8 months ago)

HowaboutRAW,

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

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

Comment edited 2 times, last edit 6 minutes after posting
1 upvote
MikeF4Black
By MikeF4Black (8 months ago)

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

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

0 upvotes
sandy b
By sandy b (8 months ago)

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

1 upvote
MikeF4Black
By MikeF4Black (8 months ago)

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

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

1 upvote
HowaboutRAW
By HowaboutRAW (8 months ago)

physguy88:

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

0 upvotes
HowaboutRAW
By HowaboutRAW (8 months ago)

Revenant:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

TrojMac+physguy:

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

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

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

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

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

0 upvotes
physguy88
By physguy88 (8 months ago)

Let me put it to you a different way:

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

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

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

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

BTW are you actually getting one?

0 upvotes
HowaboutRAW
By HowaboutRAW (8 months ago)

phsyguy88:

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

Those are jpgs, so who cares?

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

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

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

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

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

Comment edited 2 minutes after posting
0 upvotes
HowaboutRAW
By HowaboutRAW (8 months ago)

physguy88:

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

0 upvotes
physguy88
By physguy88 (8 months ago)

So let me guess:

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

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

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

Comment edited 2 minutes after posting
0 upvotes
physguy88
By physguy88 (8 months ago)

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

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

0 upvotes
HowaboutRAW
By HowaboutRAW (8 months ago)

physguy88:

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

Why even bring up jpegs.

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

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

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

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

Comment edited 2 times, last edit 60 seconds after posting
0 upvotes
physguy88
By physguy88 (8 months ago)

Well,

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

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

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

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

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

Comment edited 2 times, last edit 1 minute after posting
0 upvotes
HowaboutRAW
By HowaboutRAW (8 months ago)

physguy:

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

Your downsampling trick doesn't really work.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

7 upvotes
HowaboutRAW
By HowaboutRAW (8 months ago)

Have you shot with the Df?

4 upvotes
plasnu
By plasnu (8 months ago)

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

1 upvote
HowaboutRAW
By HowaboutRAW (8 months ago)

p:

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

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

Comment edited 2 minutes after posting
0 upvotes
HowaboutRAW
By HowaboutRAW (8 months ago)

TrojMac+physguy:

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

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

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

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

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

0 upvotes
PedagangAsongan
By PedagangAsongan (8 months ago)

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

0 upvotes
justmeMN
By justmeMN (8 months ago)

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

5 upvotes
photosen
By photosen (8 months ago)

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

5 upvotes
ravduc
By ravduc (8 months ago)

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

5 upvotes
Josh152
By Josh152 (8 months ago)

@ravduc

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

1 upvote
ravduc
By ravduc (8 months ago)

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

2 upvotes
robmanueb
By robmanueb (8 months ago)

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

1 upvote
Josh152
By Josh152 (8 months ago)

@robmanueb

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

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

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

1 upvote
ravduc
By ravduc (8 months ago)

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

1 upvote
Josh152
By Josh152 (8 months ago)

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

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

0 upvotes
robmanueb
By robmanueb (8 months ago)

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

1 upvote
mauritsvw
By mauritsvw (8 months ago)

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

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

6 upvotes
NCB
By NCB (8 months ago)

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

8 upvotes
Matt1645f4
By Matt1645f4 (8 months ago)

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

7 upvotes
unknown member
By (unknown member) (8 months ago)

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

'I wanted to HATE the X100S

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

Bought one anyway.

I love, love, love the X series

Damn you, Fuji....'

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

Comment edited 2 times, last edit 11 minutes after posting
2 upvotes
unknown member
By (unknown member) (8 months ago)

deleted.

Comment edited 1 minute after posting
0 upvotes
MarkByland
By MarkByland (8 months ago)

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

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

1 upvote
Fred Mueller
By Fred Mueller (8 months ago)

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

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

2 upvotes
NCB
By NCB (8 months ago)

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

1 upvote
DarkShift
By DarkShift (8 months ago)

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

2 upvotes
Bamboojled
By Bamboojled (8 months ago)

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

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

1 upvote
HowaboutRAW
By HowaboutRAW (8 months ago)

DarkShift:

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

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

1 upvote
DarkShift
By DarkShift (8 months ago)

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

1 upvote
HowaboutRAW
By HowaboutRAW (8 months ago)

DarkShift:

I think it changed a while ago.

0 upvotes
DarkShift
By DarkShift (8 months ago)

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

Comment edited 14 seconds after posting
1 upvote
HowaboutRAW
By HowaboutRAW (8 months ago)

DarkShift:

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

0 upvotes
HowaboutRAW
By HowaboutRAW (8 months ago)

DarkShift:

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

The red flash confirm sure seems to work well though.

0 upvotes
Fred Mueller
By Fred Mueller (8 months ago)

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

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

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

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

5 upvotes
Digital Suicide
By Digital Suicide (8 months ago)

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

0 upvotes
HowaboutRAW
By HowaboutRAW (8 months ago)

Digial Suicide:

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

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

0 upvotes
ChristophBarthold
By ChristophBarthold (8 months ago)

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

1 upvote
HowaboutRAW
By HowaboutRAW (8 months ago)

ChristophBarthold:

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

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

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

0 upvotes
Richard Murdey
By Richard Murdey (8 months ago)

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

0 upvotes
HowaboutRAW
By HowaboutRAW (8 months ago)

Richard:

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

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

1 upvote
cgarrard
By cgarrard (8 months ago)

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

4 upvotes
itsastickup
By itsastickup (8 months ago)

Thanks for telling us.

8 upvotes
cgarrard
By cgarrard (8 months ago)

Thanks for replying.

1 upvote
mike kobal
By mike kobal (8 months ago)

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

2 upvotes
rhlpetrus
By rhlpetrus (8 months ago)

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

2 upvotes
unknown member
By (unknown member) (8 months ago)

Must be tough being a DP reviewer.

1 upvote
mike kobal
By mike kobal (8 months ago)

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

2 upvotes
stevens37y
By stevens37y (8 months ago)

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

1 upvote
mike kobal
By mike kobal (8 months ago)

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

0 upvotes
steveh0607
By steveh0607 (8 months ago)

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

0 upvotes
unknown member
By (unknown member) (8 months ago)

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

2 upvotes
Lanski
By Lanski (8 months ago)

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

2 upvotes
mike kobal
By mike kobal (8 months ago)

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

4 upvotes
marike6
By marike6 (8 months ago)

That's an easy one: passive aggression.

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

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

7 upvotes
tbcass
By tbcass (8 months ago)

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

Comment edited 2 minutes after posting
9 upvotes
itsastickup
By itsastickup (8 months ago)

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

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

0 upvotes
Holger Drallmeyer
By Holger Drallmeyer (8 months ago)

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

0 upvotes
itsastickup
By itsastickup (8 months ago)

Ah, totally thought it was mirrorless.

0 upvotes
Total comments: 1610
12345