Nikon Df is Not Winning the Internets

I've just finished a grand tour of Nikon Df reviews on the web. I can sum them all up in two lines:

1. The Df takes great photos, but its not for me.

2. Nikon had a good idea, but got the execution wrong.

First point first:

People, from Thom Hogan to Ken Rockwell, Wai Wong to Ming Thein, and writers for every camera review site in between, have scratched their heads while speculating who it was that Nikon was targeting with this product. Hipsters? (fstoppers) People in need of "Magic" (KR)?

Yet the Df is selling well. Very well.

Let me take a stab it this. Let's go back 4-5 years, D700 era. Okay, Nikon now has a full frame camera that is, in a manner of speaking, affordable. Who bought it? Of those total number of owners, what fraction actually made money from the photos they took?

Sure, a significant number of those D700's ended up in the hands of the ubiquitous wedding photographer, a lot, I think, went to business and industry, some were backup bodies for working pros who owned D3s, many were used by professional photographers at all levels. But, in Japan at a least, a huge number also went to "old guys who walk around taking photos". The serious hobbyist, long-time Nikon user. Ladies and gentlemen, there's your Df market.

What is wrong with the D700 as a walk-around camera? Problem no. 1. It's a boat anchor. The body itself runs nearly 1.1 kg with the battery. Problem no. 2. It's cluttered up with a lot of pro/studio features that people just taking photos aren't ever going to use. 3. It doesn't work with the "classic" Nikkor Auto pre-Ai lenses. 4. (most controversially) The photographic controls are abstracted to the LCD display, rather than permanent dials.

Seen in that light, the Df is obviously the upgrade to the D700, as seen from the eyes of the serious (Japanese) Nikon hobbyist.

Second point, briefly:

I invite you to sit down and design an F-mount camera with physical dials for ISO and shutter speed, that works with every lens from Auto to G and has a modern autofocus system. You'll end up with the Df, it's almost inevitable. You can include video, but then you have to add yet more buttons, ports, and menus into an already cluttered camera. You could remove the locks on the dials, re-position some, and re-style everything to be less obviously aping the Nikon SLRs of yesteryear - but the well-documented idiosyncrasies of the overlapped traditional-modern interface will remain baked in.

The only way out, as I've said before, would be to drop lens support: a radical move Nikon would never have allowed - make the Df a manual focus camera only. AiS (AiP) support like the FM3, ground glass screen with focus aid. It is my personal, selfish wish that Nikon had done that. The AiS lenses are still in the catalog after all, there are the Cosina-built Zeiss ZF and ZF.2, as well as Voigtlander and of course the massive Nikkor used lens pool. It could have been a poster-child for for the "real" experience of old-school, slow photography.

But let's be real: they'd be selling at less than 1/100 th the pace that the Df is at currently, and the red ink at Nikon HQ would be overflowing.

Richard Murdey said:

What is wrong with the D700 as a walk-around camera? Problem no. 1. It's a boat anchor. The body itself runs nearly 1.1 kg with the battery. Problem no. 2. It's cluttered up with a lot of pro/studio features that people just taking photos aren't ever going to use. 3. It doesn't work with the "classic" Nikkor Auto pre-Ai lenses. 4. (most controversially) The photographic controls are abstracted to the LCD display, rather than permanent dials.

Click to expand...

1) The solution to this problem doesn't have to be a camera that has the DF's ergonomics. Ex : Canon 6D.

2) The Df isn't any less cluttered than the D700, it's got almost all of the D700 functions and controls. It's only got more dials (and less levers). And usually, a very basic, simplistic camera can appear cluttered if it's poorly designed, and a very complex camera can be very easy to master if its UI is well designed. I bet that if I showed to my very technically challenged mom a 6D and a Df, she'd be much more at ease with the 6D.

3) I'd really like to know if that is such an issue to a sizeable portion of people in 2014.

4) Camera companies have done a poor job at exploiting the possibilities of a top LCD, so I understand why labelled dials in comparison appear to have some advantages when it comes to looking at settings. But one thing that they could do (among many) is to simply leave the LCD info on at all time. After all, Nikon leaves it on to display remaining frames so I suppose it wouldn't be much of a stretch to leave the rest on as well as the ability to control the camera.

Richard Murdey said:

I invite you to sit down and design an F-mount camera with physical dials for ISO and shutter speed, that works with every lens from Auto to G and has a modern autofocus system. You'll end up with the Df, it's almost inevitable. You can include video, but then you have to add yet more buttons, ports, and menus into an already cluttered camera. You could remove the locks on the dials, re-position some, and re-style everything to be less obviously aping the Nikon SLRs of yesteryear - but the well-documented idiosyncrasies of the overlapped traditional-modern interface will remain baked in.

Click to expand...

The problem with the Df design isn't that it's got old-school labelled dials. They have disadvantages (a lot) but also a few advantages that may indeed prove attractive. The problem is that if the Df had a dial layout close to Fuji's cameras, 100% of people who bought the Df for its dials would have still bought it, in addition to all those who didn't buy it because of some stupid ergonomical decisions, like putting the EV comp dial on the left, or designing the PASM dial the way it was designed. Properly thinking thoroughly about intelligent and relevant dial placement would have been a win-win situation.

Richard Murdey said:

I've just finished a grand tour of Nikon Df reviews on the web. I can sum them all up in two lines:

1. The Df takes great photos, but its not for me.

2. Nikon had a good idea, but got the execution wrong.

First point first:

People, from Thom Hogan to Ken Rockwell, Wai Wong to Ming Thein, and writers for every camera review site in between, have scratched their heads while speculating who it was that Nikon was targeting with this product. Hipsters? (fstoppers) People in need of "Magic" (KR)?

Yet the Df is selling well. Very well.

Let me take a stab it this. Let's go back 4-5 years, D700 era. Okay, Nikon now has a full frame camera that is, in a manner of speaking, affordable. Who bought it? Of those total number of owners, what fraction actually made money from the photos they took?

Sure, a significant number of those D700's ended up in the hands of the ubiquitous wedding photographer, a lot, I think, went to business and industry, some were backup bodies for working pros who owned D3s, many were used by professional photographers at all levels. But, in Japan at a least, a huge number also went to "old guys who walk around taking photos". The serious hobbyist, long-time Nikon user. Ladies and gentlemen, there's your Df market.

What is wrong with the D700 as a walk-around camera? Problem no. 1. It's a boat anchor. The body itself runs nearly 1.1 kg with the battery. Problem no. 2. It's cluttered up with a lot of pro/studio features that people just taking photos aren't ever going to use. 3. It doesn't work with the "classic" Nikkor Auto pre-Ai lenses. 4. (most controversially) The photographic controls are abstracted to the LCD display, rather than permanent dials.

Seen in that light, the Df is obviously the upgrade to the D700, as seen from the eyes of the serious (Japanese) Nikon hobbyist.

Second point, briefly:

I invite you to sit down and design an F-mount camera with physical dials for ISO and shutter speed, that works with every lens from Auto to G and has a modern autofocus system. You'll end up with the Df, it's almost inevitable. You can include video, but then you have to add yet more buttons, ports, and menus into an already cluttered camera. You could remove the locks on the dials, re-position some, and re-style everything to be less obviously aping the Nikon SLRs of yesteryear - but the well-documented idiosyncrasies of the overlapped traditional-modern interface will remain baked in.

The only way out, as I've said before, would be to drop lens support: a radical move Nikon would never have allowed - make the Df a manual focus camera only. AiS (AiP) support like the FM3, ground glass screen with focus aid. It is my opinion that Nikon should have done that. The AiS lenses are still in the catalog after all, there are the Cosina-built Zeiss ZF and ZF.2, as well as Voigtlander and of course the massive Nikkor used lens pool. It could have been a poster-child for for the "real" experience of old-school, slow photography.

But let's be real: they'd be selling at less than 1/100 th the pace that the Df is at currently, and the red ink at Nikon HQ would be overflowing.

Click to expand...

Maybe Nikon underestimated the market for the Df and that's why sales figures and demand seem inflated. I agree with your statement that to design the camera with everything you mentioned would result in the Df. It's Nikon smallest/lightest FX D-SLR and many Nikonites were eager for it to happen and have jumped on it with open arms. You either get the retro look or you don't, simple as that. The nature of the internet is to drum up emotions one way or another (you know who you are) and a lot of people unfairly jumped on the Df. The pictures posted on this forum have shown me that in the right hands it is a tremendous camera. In the wrong hands, it is a waste of time and money (again, you know who you are).

Note that the new SONY Xperia phone will have a 20MP camera so the trend is to a lot of MP in a small-form factor.

Stan

I reckon I am, indeed, an "old guy" who walks around, taking pictures. After being initially disappointed in the execution of the Df, particularly the ergonomics and controls, several re-visits at a large local camera store have resulted in the Df "growing on me" to the extent that it has displaced the D800E at the top of my FX short list, regardless of what the internet pundits say. (I still like the D800E, but it can wait until I am shooting a signifcant number of landscape images.)

1w12q312qw1 said:

Richard Murdey said:

I've just finished a grand tour of Nikon Df reviews on the web. I can sum them all up in two lines:

1. The Df takes great photos, but its not for me.

2. Nikon had a good idea, but got the execution wrong.

First point first:

People, from Thom Hogan to Ken Rockwell, Wai Wong to Ming Thein, and writers for every camera review site in between, have scratched their heads while speculating who it was that Nikon was targeting with this product. Hipsters? (fstoppers) People in need of "Magic" (KR)?

Yet the Df is selling well. Very well.

Let me take a stab it this. Let's go back 4-5 years, D700 era. Okay, Nikon now has a full frame camera that is, in a manner of speaking, affordable. Who bought it? Of those total number of owners, what fraction actually made money from the photos they took?

Sure, a significant number of those D700's ended up in the hands of the ubiquitous wedding photographer, a lot, I think, went to business and industry, some were backup bodies for working pros who owned D3s, many were used by professional photographers at all levels. But, in Japan at a least, a huge number also went to "old guys who walk around taking photos". The serious hobbyist, long-time Nikon user. Ladies and gentlemen, there's your Df market.

What is wrong with the D700 as a walk-around camera? Problem no. 1. It's a boat anchor. The body itself runs nearly 1.1 kg with the battery. Problem no. 2. It's cluttered up with a lot of pro/studio features that people just taking photos aren't ever going to use. 3. It doesn't work with the "classic" Nikkor Auto pre-Ai lenses. 4. (most controversially) The photographic controls are abstracted to the LCD display, rather than permanent dials.

Seen in that light, the Df is obviously the upgrade to the D700, as seen from the eyes of the serious (Japanese) Nikon hobbyist.

Second point, briefly:

I invite you to sit down and design an F-mount camera with physical dials for ISO and shutter speed, that works with every lens from Auto to G and has a modern autofocus system. You'll end up with the Df, it's almost inevitable. You can include video, but then you have to add yet more buttons, ports, and menus into an already cluttered camera. You could remove the locks on the dials, re-position some, and re-style everything to be less obviously aping the Nikon SLRs of yesteryear - but the well-documented idiosyncrasies of the overlapped traditional-modern interface will remain baked in.

The only way out, as I've said before, would be to drop lens support: a radical move Nikon would never have allowed - make the Df a manual focus camera only. AiS (AiP) support like the FM3, ground glass screen with focus aid. It is my opinion that Nikon should have done that. The AiS lenses are still in the catalog after all, there are the Cosina-built Zeiss ZF and ZF.2, as well as Voigtlander and of course the massive Nikkor used lens pool. It could have been a poster-child for for the "real" experience of old-school, slow photography.

But let's be real: they'd be selling at less than 1/100 th the pace that the Df is at currently, and the red ink at Nikon HQ would be overflowing.

Click to expand...

Maybe Nikon underestimated the market for the Df and that's why sales figures and demand seem inflated. I agree with your statement that to design the camera with everything you mentioned would result in the Df. It's Nikon smallest/lightest FX D-SLR and many Nikonites were eager for it to happen and have jumped on it with open arms. You either get the retro look or you don't, simple as that. The nature of the internet is to drum up emotions one way or another (you know who you are) and a lot of people unfairly jumped on the Df. The pictures posted on this forum have shown me that in the right hands it is a tremendous camera. In the wrong hands, it is a waste of time and money (again, you know who you are).

Note that the new SONY Xperia phone will have a 20MP camera so the trend is to a lot of MP in a small-form factor.

Stan

Click to expand...

A lot of people did not like it because the ergonomics were not good.

I can't blame them and it's a valid point as well as it being expensive, but some people are happy to overlook those points because the visual styling is more important to them - that's their choice.

It doesn't hurt that the camera has excellent IQ, but no one is trashing that nor would I expect them to.

Ultimately its a camera that presumably has a large profit margin for nikon, and so although it does not appeal to me I am glad if they are selling well, so nikon can keep making cameras that I do like

Richard Murdey said:

Yet the Df is selling well. Very well.

Click to expand...

Not so sure about that. The Df sales curve is lower than that of the D800, which is comparable in price. It is also lower than for the D600/D610, which is cheaper. Case in point is that the Df is the third best seller in a 4 FX camera line up.

Combine that given with the fact that FX sales are only about 10% of Nikon's DSLR turnover and you come to the conclusion that the Df represents at best 2.5% of Nikon sales.

The real question is whether that is under, at or over target. Anyone got the Nikon internal budget numbers?

Richard Murdey said:

Seen in that light, the Df is obviously the upgrade to the D700, as seen from the eyes of the serious (Japanese) Nikon hobbyist.

Click to expand...

Yes. And that is also acknowledged by many of the internet analysts and press (e.g. Thom Hogan). The issue is that the Df is not a direct descendant of the D700, like the D4 is of the D3. Many wanted the D800 body with the D4 sensor in it. Not a spruced up D600 body with a D4 sensor in it.

Richard Murdey said:

Second point, briefly:

I invite you to sit down and design an F-mount camera with physical dials for ISO and shutter speed, that works with every lens from Auto to G and has a modern autofocus system. You'll end up with the Df, it's almost inevitable.

Click to expand...

Fuji did that with the X-T1. Seems their dials are just that little bit better thought out and the various compenents they used match up better together.

I did not read any of the DF reviews. As soon as the camera specs were introduced I knew that I want it. Sensor from D4, build, style and rather small size sealed the deal. I'm surly enjoying this camera and its small RAW files

dantastical said:

Ultimately its a camera that presumably has a large profit margin for nikon, and so although it does not appeal to me I am glad if they are selling well, so nikon can keep making cameras that I do like

Click to expand...

"My Df is the kindest, bravest, warmest, most wonderful DSLR being I've ever known in my life. It runs circles around every other DSLR on the market and has a great out of the box experience (pretty packaging). I would rate it up there with my other 'just works' purchases - Ginsu knives, tube Denon amplifier with $5 pc speakers, Laser Pico dinghy, Metallic Pea Jeep Grand Cherokee Super Sports wagon and my soon to purchase $70k (isn't much to pay for a car today) muscle car. If given the opportunity, I would purchase again ... except I didn't. Also, all my photographer friends agree (and we are pros) If you don't like it, you're just jealous."

Seriously though. I'm sure the Df is a high-profit margin sale as you've mentioned dantastical. But low sales will keep from being any real success. I hope the Df gives Nikon direction. Regardless of what the execs say I doubt its has sales or is manufactured with any numbers to matter. I seem to recall Microsoft execs saying the same about their Surface tablets. Well, until the write-off occurred, at least.

I hope Df owners enjoy their hardware. It looks like a nice camera - just not for me.

user_name said:

A lot of people did not like it because the ergonomics were not good.

I can't blame them and it's a valid point as well as it being expensive, but some people are happy to overlook those points because the visual styling is more important to them - that's their choice.

Click to expand...

I didn't "overlook" the ergonomics because of the visual styling. I like the ergonomics.

There are negative reviews and there are positive reviews. However, I haven't read one single review that doesn't mention that the camera is expensive. This Nikon camera polarizes opinions more than any other. I happen to enjoy using it more than my other dslr's mainly because it offers me the options of using it like an older film slr and has the interface to use more modern lenses as well. For me, it's the best of both worlds.

The way the mode dial was implemented makes the camera compatible with older Nikkor lenses, and I like that. I don't see any problems with having a shutter dial 'lie to me' when the camera is set to A or P mode. I can easily tell which mode I have chosen by simply looking at the mode dial, the small lcd on top of the camera or looking into the viewfinder. How many more reminders do you really need? Many older auto cameras worked in the exactly the same way (ex. Olympus OM2). The shutter dial would become useless when the camera was set to aperture priority mode.

My only complaints with the camera is the front sub-command dial (I never use it) which should have been implemented like the Fuji XT-1; where Nikon placed the SD card; and with some of the switches like the AF/M switch that feel cheap for a camera costing this much. Nikon should also have provided exchangeable focusing screens. However, I have not experienced any real problems with manual focus by using the dot, and I am using manual lenses almost exclusively with this camera. The green dot in this camera seems to be quite accurate.

As for image quality, we all agree on that.

Small nuance Richard:

1. The Df takes great photos, but its not for me.

2. Nikon had a good idea, but got the execution wrong.

If you read all of the reviews you will note that the one's that fall into your second category did not say that Nikon got the excution wrong, but rather that for the reviewer Nikon got 'some' of the execution wrong.

Third point: They almost all agree that the camera is expensive.

PepsiCan said:

PepsiCan said:

Second point, briefly:

Click to expand...

PepsiCan said:

I invite you to sit down and design an F-mount camera with physical dials for ISO and shutter speed, that works with every lens from Auto to G and has a modern autofocus system. You'll end up with the Df, it's almost inevitable.

Click to expand...

Fuji did that with the X-T1. Seems their dials are just that little bit better thought out and the various compenents they used match up better together.

Click to expand...

No they aren't - I own both and the Df controls are largely better (excepting the PASM dial)

user_name said:

A lot of people did not like it because the ergonomics were not good.

I can't blame them and it's a valid point as well as it being expensive, but some people are happy to overlook those points because the visual styling is more important to them - that's their choice.

Click to expand...

Just to be clear, there's nothing wrong with the ergonomics. The ergonomics are better than cameras like the A7/r and X-T1. A lot of people like the Df and bought it for the ergonomics not the visual styling.

There are many reviews of the Df, some positive, some negative and a few somewhere in between.

I believe a lot of the negativity (both reviewers and others) comes from long-term Nikon users who, for whatever reason, didn't get the camera that they wanted.

I also believe that once a well read review mentions something such as 'confused controls' for the Df or 'quirkiness' for the Fuji X-series, this is then often repeated ad nauseum by forumites who perhaps have never even handled the camera in question.

One thing does seem to be true: All those that own the Df are having a ball! :-D

sgoldswo said:

user_name said:

A lot of people did not like it because the ergonomics were not good.

I can't blame them and it's a valid point as well as it being expensive, but some people are happy to overlook those points because the visual styling is more important to them - that's their choice.

Click to expand...

Just to be clear, there's nothing wrong with the ergonomics. The ergonomics are better than cameras like the A7/r and X-T1. A lot of people like the Df and bought it for the ergonomics not the visual styling.

Click to expand...

Why do you think that the DF has better ergonomics than those cameras ?

I'd readily agree with you on that point for certain matters, such as AF point selection, but none of the ones I have in mind are specific to the Df and could very well be found in a D800 for example. So why do you think the DF dials (because after all, that's the only thing that differentiates this camera from others in Nikon's lineup) are better than the ones on the A7 or X-T1 ?

MayaTlab0 said:

sgoldswo said:

user_name said:

A lot of people did not like it because the ergonomics were not good.

I can't blame them and it's a valid point as well as it being expensive, but some people are happy to overlook those points because the visual styling is more important to them - that's their choice.

Click to expand...

Just to be clear, there's nothing wrong with the ergonomics. The ergonomics are better than cameras like the A7/r and X-T1. A lot of people like the Df and bought it for the ergonomics not the visual styling.

Click to expand...

Why do you think that the DF has better ergonomics than those cameras ?

I'd readily agree with you on that point for certain matters, such as AF point selection, but none of the ones I have in mind are specific to the Df and could very well be found in a D800 for example. So why do you think the DF dials (because after all, that's the only thing that differentiates this camera from others in Nikon's lineup) are better than the ones on the A7 or X-T1 ?

Click to expand...

The A7 dials are not as usable as the Df controls because the only things you can set without the camera being turned on are the shooting mode and exposure comp settings. The other dials cannot be set without looking into the VF and of course the camera also has to be turned on.

For me, it would be a better camera if it had similar exposure dials as the Df.

The XT1 is a different proposition altogether for me due to the above reasons.

Felts said:

MayaTlab0 said:

sgoldswo said:

user_name said:

A lot of people did not like it because the ergonomics were not good.

I can't blame them and it's a valid point as well as it being expensive, but some people are happy to overlook those points because the visual styling is more important to them - that's their choice.

Click to expand...

Just to be clear, there's nothing wrong with the ergonomics. The ergonomics are better than cameras like the A7/r and X-T1. A lot of people like the Df and bought it for the ergonomics not the visual styling.

Click to expand...

Why do you think that the DF has better ergonomics than those cameras ?

I'd readily agree with you on that point for certain matters, such as AF point selection, but none of the ones I have in mind are specific to the Df and could very well be found in a D800 for example. So why do you think the DF dials (because after all, that's the only thing that differentiates this camera from others in Nikon's lineup) are better than the ones on the A7 or X-T1 ?

Click to expand...

The A7 dials are not as usable as the Df controls because the only things you can set without the camera being turned on are the shooting mode and exposure comp settings. The other dials cannot be set without looking into the VF and of course the camera also has to be turned on.

Click to expand...

Or simply if it had a top LCD that stayed on when the camera is off and still allowed you to change settings ? I'm one of those still waiting to see mirrorless cameras with a low consumption top LCD to alter settings while the camera remains in a sort of sleep mode... anyway, I also believe camera manufacturers should try to "smartphonise" cameras in terms of power consumption management.

Felts said:

The XT1 is a different proposition altogether for me due to the above reasons.

Click to expand...

And for me, it's a little better than the Df at its own game, especially the EV compensation dial placement.

MayaTlab0 said:

sgoldswo said:

user_name said:

A lot of people did not like it because the ergonomics were not good.

I can't blame them and it's a valid point as well as it being expensive, but some people are happy to overlook those points because the visual styling is more important to them - that's their choice.

Click to expand...

Just to be clear, there's nothing wrong with the ergonomics. The ergonomics are better than cameras like the A7/r and X-T1. A lot of people like the Df and bought it for the ergonomics not the visual styling.

Click to expand...

Why do you think that the DF has better ergonomics than those cameras ?

I'd readily agree with you on that point for certain matters, such as AF point selection, but none of the ones I have in mind are specific to the Df and could very well be found in a D800 for example. So why do you think the DF dials (because after all, that's the only thing that differentiates this camera from others in Nikon's lineup) are better than the ones on the A7 or X-T1 ?

Click to expand...

There's a real problem with the A7's comfort in hand with the 55mm lens (and any similar/bigger lens) mounted. The grip is uncomfortable when paired with the larger lenses because there's not enough of a gap between the lens and the grip. To be honest this is a continuation of the issue NEX cameras had with small bodies and big lenses. Pair the A7 with the 35mm lens and there's no issue.

With the X-T1, the problems are the buttons (too recessed, hard to push), the ISO dial (harder to operate one handed than the Df) and the overall size of the camera - it could do with being a bit bigger.

I'll write a blog post on this when I have time but taking into account ergonomics and other factors I would take the Df over either of those cameras. There are times when I would take an A7 or X-T1 over a Df but they are size and weight related, not performance or ergonomics related.

sgoldswo said:

MayaTlab0 said:

sgoldswo said:

user_name said:

A lot of people did not like it because the ergonomics were not good.

I can't blame them and it's a valid point as well as it being expensive, but some people are happy to overlook those points because the visual styling is more important to them - that's their choice.

Click to expand...

Just to be clear, there's nothing wrong with the ergonomics. The ergonomics are better than cameras like the A7/r and X-T1. A lot of people like the Df and bought it for the ergonomics not the visual styling.

Click to expand...

Why do you think that the DF has better ergonomics than those cameras ?

I'd readily agree with you on that point for certain matters, such as AF point selection, but none of the ones I have in mind are specific to the Df and could very well be found in a D800 for example. So why do you think the DF dials (because after all, that's the only thing that differentiates this camera from others in Nikon's lineup) are better than the ones on the A7 or X-T1 ?

Click to expand...

There's a real problem with the A7's comfort in hand with the 55mm lens (and any similar/bigger lens) mounted. The grip is uncomfortable when paired with the larger lenses because there's not enough of a gap between the lens and the grip. To be honest this is a continuation of the issue NEX cameras had with small bodies and big lenses. Pair the A7 with the 35mm lens and there's no issue.

Click to expand...

Agreed, but any camera with a better grip would do, not just the Df... which in itself doesn't have the greatest of grips ever designed.

sgoldswo said:

With the X-T1, the problems are the buttons (too recessed, hard to push), the ISO dial (harder to operate one handed than the Df) and the overall size of the camera - it could do with being a bit bigger.

Click to expand...

Again, agreed, but only one of those concerns is in relation to the Df (the ISO dial). And it's balanced by the less than ideal exposure compensation placement and rather peculiar PASM dial design for example.

sgoldswo said:

I'll write a blog post on this when I have time but taking into account ergonomics and other factors I would take the Df over either of those cameras. There are times when I would take an A7 or X-T1 over a Df but they are size and weight related, not performance or ergonomics related.

Click to expand...

From your criticism of the A7 and X-T1 I'm not exactly sure I see why the Df and not, for example a 6D or a D610 was a more attractive solution to you from an ergonomical point of view. But I suppose it rather is because you prefer labelled dials and none of the Fujis satisfy you in that regard (not taking into account other factors) ?