Understanding the Nikon Df, amazing jpegs & other things

Started Dec 28, 2013 | Discussions thread
brightcolours Forum Pro • Posts: 15,637
Re: Cam 3500 and cam 4800 look identical in size

gabriel foto wrote:

David314 wrote:

Iliah Borg wrote:

Fred Mueller wrote:

my only point is that the "size" of the 51 pt module (what ever it is) doesn't preclude it's use in a "compact" body, but just given the fact that that module IS in the 7100, one can only presume it's lack of use in the Df has little to do with cost of actual physical size, that leaves product segmentation, no ?

What is the vertical dimension of CAM module in D7100? Are you saying Df is created not to compete with D7100?

No that is NOT what he is saying at all

what he is saying is that the op said that the multicam 3500 sensor would have made the df larger and hence nikon did not use it

from the pictures and the fact it is in the d7100 and the d300, that logic seems to be false

Hi David (and others),

In fact Iliah has understood me well, but I have failed at explaining this very clearly.

I made two observations:

First, the 51-point CAM module, as seen in pictures, is higher than the 39-point module (apart from being wider, of course)

Second, there is a little more space under the floor of the mirror housing and the bottom plate in the D300 / D7100, on one hand, and the D600 / D610 / Df on the other hand.

There are obviously other things packed in this part of the camera, but the outside difference is about 5mm - not more, but clearly visible:

Cropped picture from Camera Size. D7100 to the left, Df to the right.

I do not think what you see.... I suspect you see the black area under the mirror as the bottom of the mirror box, but that is not correct. The dark grey part under that is the bottom of the mirror box. Same space for each then.

My conclusion is this:

* We have seen the same decisions in the Canon 6D vs the 5D MkIII - a smaller CAM module in a smaller body. This is not unique for Nikon. Incidentally, perhaps you could say that the 6D's module is even more limited in terms of outer focus points.

The 6D has a center point which takes up a lot of AF sensor real-estate. You can't just count the number of AF points and conclude that somehow the sensor module has to be deeper...

* I believe both Canon and Nikon have concluded that the AF performance of these cameras is entirely satisfactory, if the intended customer is not a sports shooter.

* I do not think that Nikon wanted to save 40 or 60 dollars (no, I don't know the actual cost difference) by specifying the 4800FX CAM module in the Df. Believe what you like, but Nikon is not stupid. If they can offer a higher-specified camera for a similar price, they will of course do so. Yes, I am very familiar with the term cannibalizing.

* I beleive they were strictly focused on making the most compact DSLR in the world - something that DpR, ironically, failed to acknowledge.

I agree that with a person choosing a camera with many old style dials, sports AF modules are not a high priority.

To one person asking: No, these are my conclusions only. I have not taken these cameras apart.

* In some respects, in this particular review, I had a strong impression that DpR chose only to see the back side of the coin. That bothered me, and that is one of the reason I opened this thread.


Post (hide subjects) Posted by
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum PPrevious NNext WNext unread UUpvote SSubscribe RReply QQuote BBookmark MMy threads
Color scheme? Blue / Yellow