A fusion of Tech and Technique

Thanks for a nice review, well thought out and worded.

Hi,

The developers did a really good job on the Df. It looks like the FE and FM, and works most like the FA. If you added a motor drive, that is, since the film bodies were all single shot.

I have both an FE and an FA from back when they were being sold new, so I can sit and compare them to the Df. The Df even sports a ridge line towards rear of the top plate that is where the back edge of the stock film cameras would be. So, it is easy to see the difference in thickness. If one added a Data Back to the film cameras, as I did, then the thickness is almost identical.

The Df is a bit taller than the film cameras, until one adds a motor drive. Then, the film cameras become quite a bit larger and heavier. But, then, to get continuous shooting with the film cameras, one has to add a motor drive.

They even put the dials and switches in the same places, except for the PASM switch. On the FA, that is where the shooting mode switch is on the Df. With the film cameras, the shooting mode switch is on the motor drive, not the camera. They put the PASM switch where the film advance lever is on the film cameras. And, left the film advance lever off. I sort of wish they had added a faux film advance lever. But, the only DSLR that had one was the Leica R9 with the DMR digital back.

They had to add the power switch to the Df. The film cameras turned on when one moved the film advance lever out from the body. Or, in the case of the FA which was powered from the motor drive (the FE was not powered from its' motor drive), when you switched the motor drive on. They stuck that around the shutter button, and there is no control there on the film bodies.

The dial locks are the same as on the film bodies. Even the not-locked shutter speed dial except for the 1/3 Stop selection which locks. Just like the FE, where the last selection is Auto to put the FE into Aperture Priority mode. The FE only has M and A modes. It was the FA which first had S and P modes. The FM is a manual match-needle only type of camera.

The thing I wish the Df had was the ability to use AI-S lenses properly, like the FA did. In S and P modes, that is. But, Nikon hasn't had a camera that could do that since the F4. By the time they moved on to the F5, that ability was gone and everything uses AI-S as AI since then. Pity, but there were no AI-S lens mount parts around for them to put onto the Df. One needs the AI-S detect pin and that lever inside the mount for the lug on the back of the lens to engage with.

No flash on the Df, but as already pointed out, none on the old cameras either. I had a cute flash on the FA, the SB-15. And, the Df has an even cuter one, the SB-400. The Df and SB-400 works a *lot* better than the FA and SB-15 did.

I carried two bodies back when. The FE stand-alone with the AI 50/1.8 lens and the FA with MD-15 motor drive and MF-12 data back with an AI-S 35/2 lens. Those were the most used setups. The FA was prone to a damaged shutter, and eventually that happened to mine. I didn't fix it. Just bought an F4 to replace it. All three sit on a bookshelf these days.

They could have made the Df use changeable focusing screens, like the old bodies had. But, I can't say that I miss them. There is an issue with DSLRs and the old style K screens. They mess up the center AF point. Changing screens is fiddly on all but the F5, since one has to work thru the lens mount. And, one ought to change them when changing from MF to AF lenses.

I have an F5 with a digital back, and the F5 has swappable viewfinders. So, changing the screen is easy. Pop off the viewfinder, lift out the screen, drop in an new one, put the finder back on. Now, the F5 has the electronic rangefinder as well, but it can be hit and miss. The one in the Df is much better. Just turn the focusing ring past the dot, then bring it back to the dot and you have it.

I do have one regret when it comes to the Df. I waited five years too long to get one. I keep thinking I will get a second one. A black one this time. I have a silver FE and a black FA, and they keep each other company. So, maybe I need a black Df to keep my silver Df company.

Stan

I can probably get over the build of the camera if I sell it, but that 16 MP sensor is awesome for high ISO. Without using any technical measurement, and just to my eye, its image at ISO 12800 is more pleasing than the Z6.

Hi,

Yes, the way it works at high ISO is the main reason I finally bought one. Before that I had a pair of Nikon F5 bodies with digital backs. One, a 6 MP good for ISO 80 to 400 and one a 2 MP good for ISO 400 to 6400. They were from 2002 and I used them for a long time.

Now, I still use the 6 MP once in a while as a secondary body. But, the Df just plain blows it away. I did look at the Z series, at a Z7 before the Z6 was available with the idea of getting a Z6. But, I decided against waiting and left the shop with a Df. And, I am content. Mainly because I still have many AI lenses. Maybe down the road, after the Z system fills out, I will get one.

But there will be no reason to get rid of the Df. And, I do like the Old School way of operating it. Icing on the cake.

Stan

Stan Disbrow said:

I do have one regret when it comes to the Df. I waited five years too long to get one. I keep thinking I will get a second one. A black one this time. I have a silver FE and a black FA, and they keep each other company. So, maybe I need a black Df to keep my silver Df company.

Stan

Click to expand...

Hi Stan:

Thank you for the really excellent response. I actually agree about the swapable focusing screens to some degree: I had the cross-hairs one on my Nikon F3s and I found it very helpful.

Being a Canon user normally I only heard about the Df fairly recently myself - about a year ago and since then I have bought the silver one, and the limited edition Gold one too. That one had a the soft shutter button and I must admit I quite like that.

To keep things simple (I could not afford to start collecting multiple Nikon lenses) I got the 28-300 and the 24-120 lenses and they each stay on a camera body. I shall be doing a multi-day hike on New Zealand's Rakiura Island in about 3 weeks and the silver one with the big range zoom will be my take-along camera. With that great ISO performance it will do well in the full moon and maybe even the Aurora Australis if I am lucky.

Hi,

Thanks. I do try. When I was finally deciding to get serious about getting a Df, I was unable to find any descriptions between it and what it was supposed to be retro for. The best I came up was the FM. But, that was close enough for me. Of course, after I got one, I had to dig up my old stuff, which was packed in an incorrectly marked box. After that, it is easy when they are all sitting in a group.

There is an older Nikon lens, the 28-105 f3.5-4.5D, which has a really useful Macro mode. I have used one since they first came out. They go for around 100-150 USD these days. That makes for a grand basic lens on the Df.

Beyond that, I like to use old AI prime lenses. I would like to normally go places with two cameras, one with whichever prime I choose and then the other with that zoom for things I find that the prime isn't right for. I will eventually get another one.

Anyway, the Df is quite like using those older film cameras, especially when the old lenses are on it. But, with digital and AF capabilities far beyond an FA. They got the name right: Digital Fusion.

Stan

I keep reading of the Df MkII in the offing, suggesting it will have 4K video and a lot of other stuff. PERSONALLY I hope the video is not included: it would lose the f part of the camera's identity for me.

What I hope will be added is the addition of a side panel to access the card(s) - whatever they decide to install, and the option of a battery grip.

I anticipate an upgrade to the focusing points (because people want them), and the same for the sensor and processor - to keep it current since it will be a new release. That said I am comfortable with the 16MB sensor, so if they do an upgrade I hope it is for an even better low light capability.

In the end though, I hope they don't lose that personality that makes this unit unique.

Hi,

I am not holding my breath. The rumors of a Df update are two years old now and it still isn't here. I delayed my purchase of a Df until after Photokina last year because if there were to be an announcement, that was the most logical time. And, of course, no anno. Plus, that let me also take a hard look at the Z7 at my local photo store (with the idea of waiting for the Z6).

Stan

Member said:

The removal of video to concentrate on stills, making the camera more compact and lighter.

Click to expand...

Can you support this claim in any way?

My feeling is that yes, leaving out video makes the menus/software/operation slightly simpler, and I wouldn't miss video myself, but in no way does it change size or weight.

Maybe a few milligrams for a tiny chip and one or two components on the motherboard.

theonetruepath said:

Tronhar said:

The removal of video to concentrate on stills, making the camera more compact and lighter.

Click to expand...

Can you support this claim in any way?

My feeling is that yes, leaving out video makes the menus/software/operation slightly simpler, and I wouldn't miss video myself, but in no way does it change size or weight.

Maybe a few milligrams for a tiny chip and one or two components on the motherboard.

Click to expand...

I will let you argue with Nikon on that one, this is almost an exact quote from their own description. The lightness comes from not only the chips but reducing the size of the body itself, made possible by a reduced wafer size. Then there is the decision not to include a flash unit on board, further reducing bulk and some weight. The reduction of the energy load means the battery can be smaller and lighter - so let the numbers speak for themselves: Gross weight including batteries from the specs published here.-

Nikon Df.... 760g

Nikon D4... 1340g

Nikon D850... 1005g

Nikon D700... 1074g

They all have magnesium bodies.

Call it what you like, the camera weighs a LOT less than the alternatives.

Very compelling assessment of a lovely and unique DSLR, thanks. With the years passing by, the Df is gradually becoming a classic in its own right. It has really grown on me in the last 5 years, little quirks and all.

My biggest error was to fit a third party focusing screen on mine. The fiddly process badly smudged my viewfinder. It is expensive to get Nikon to clean up the mess, and attempting that yourself only makes things worse. Plus the split screen is a much WORSE focusing aid than the electronic viewfinder “dot”. Better to leave the split screen where it belongs: on our film bodies.

Apart from that, it has remained a faithful, reliable, pleasant and good looking friend, aging gracefully.

funny thing is that the Df is the only digital camera that my daughter accepts to use, and she has been borrowing it since she was 14. It looks and feels special.

I also came to realise that while the Df is aesthetically and intellectually most appealing to use with (old) manual lenses, its AF works just fine and performs well enough for the most recent high res gems, even if it lags quite some way behind the D850 for example, especially in low light.

The only things the Df is not a good tool for are the big zooms and heavier monsters: the grip is not designed for those (and any other grip design would ‘uglify’ the camera). Something like the Zeiss 135mm is already beyond its comfort zone for balance in my hands. The same was true with its film ancestors, which required heavy additional motorised grips, such as the dreaded MD-12, to be useable with the telelenses.

One could also mention that the Df is publicised by Nikon as “weather resistent”: it is way tougher than it looks. Worth adding a couple of similarly protected lenses to the AI/AFD collection for those rainy street shooting days.....

Hi,

I used my silver Df yesterday with a Type A PreAI 85mm f1.8 and that is a grand-looking setup.

For those that don't know, the Type A is what Nikon called the original lens designs for the F, with the scalloped metal focusing ring. Mine had the aperture ring changed for an AI one long ago. So, it works perfectly with the Df.

I was shooting a vintage tractor for an antique farm equipment club. This, to be the featured machine at their Spring show in March. The shot is to be put on their T-shirts by me, using a specialized inkjet photo printer. So, this is a money-maker for us.

The fun part was others there thought I was using an old film camera and were surprised that it was digital. I think at least one person is going to buy one, as they loved it.

So, I focused on the nearest point and looked at the distance scale, the the furthest point, then set it in between, set the aperture and 'click' - got it right off the bat. Just as always with a manual focus lens.

The electronic rangefinder does do the job. I had wondered about that with the Df before I bought one. My previous unit, an F5, didn't always work so well that way. But, it has easily swapped focusing screens. Fortunately, they improved that part so I don't have to think about swapping out the Df screen.

Stan

Tronhar said:

theonetruepath said:

Tronhar said:

The removal of video to concentrate on stills, making the camera more compact and lighter.

Click to expand...

Can you support this claim in any way?

My feeling is that yes, leaving out video makes the menus/software/operation slightly simpler, and I wouldn't miss video myself, but in no way does it change size or weight.

Maybe a few milligrams for a tiny chip and one or two components on the motherboard.

Click to expand...

I will let you argue with Nikon on that one, this is almost an exact quote from their own description. The lightness comes from not only the chips but reducing the size of the body itself, made possible by a reduced wafer size. Then there is the decision not to include a flash unit on board, further reducing bulk and some weight. The reduction of the energy load means the battery can be smaller and lighter - so let the numbers speak for themselves: Gross weight including batteries from the specs published here.-

Nikon Df.... 760g

Nikon D4... 1340g

Nikon D850... 1005g

Nikon D700... 1074g

They all have magnesium bodies.

Call it what you like, the camera weighs a LOT less than the alternatives.

Click to expand...

...and D3300 at 460g. Not a magnesium body but that's not the only reason. If they added video capability to the DF my feeling is they could do it at pretty much the same weight. Flash would certainly add much more than video.

And if they took video out of the design of any of your listed bodies they would not suddenly have the ability to make it significantly lighter.

Where does this idea that video adds extra weight come from? I see it frequently.

A modern DSLR has everything in place for video with the tiniest addition of smarts and pretty much zero significant physical mods.

theonetruepath said:

Tronhar said:

theonetruepath said:

Tronhar said:

The removal of video to concentrate on stills, making the camera more compact and lighter.

Click to expand...

Can you support this claim in any way?

My feeling is that yes, leaving out video makes the menus/software/operation slightly simpler, and I wouldn't miss video myself, but in no way does it change size or weight.

Maybe a few milligrams for a tiny chip and one or two components on the motherboard.

Click to expand...

I will let you argue with Nikon on that one, this is almost an exact quote from their own description. The lightness comes from not only the chips but reducing the size of the body itself, made possible by a reduced wafer size. Then there is the decision not to include a flash unit on board, further reducing bulk and some weight. The reduction of the energy load means the battery can be smaller and lighter - so let the numbers speak for themselves: Gross weight including batteries from the specs published here.-

Nikon Df.... 760g

Nikon D4... 1340g

Nikon D850... 1005g

Nikon D700... 1074g

They all have magnesium bodies.

Call it what you like, the camera weighs a LOT less than the alternatives.

Click to expand...

...and D3300 at 460g. Not a magnesium body but that's not the only reason. If they added video capability to the DF my feeling is they could do it at pretty much the same weight. Flash would certainly add much more than video.

And if they took video out of the design of any of your listed bodies they would not suddenly have the ability to make it significantly lighter.

Where does this idea that video adds extra weight come from? I see it frequently.

A modern DSLR has everything in place for video with the tiniest addition of smarts and pretty much zero significant physical mods.

Click to expand...

I understand your logic, but frankly you need to take that one up with Nikon who made this statement in the first place. See: Ref: http://www.nikon.co.nz/en_NZ/product/digital-slr-cameras/df#features_explained/1

"The Df is designed for photographers who want to concentrate solely on the art of photography. This dedication to still photography led to the removal of the movie-making components of the camera, including the operation knob and button, the microphone terminal and the speaker. The result is a smaller, lighter and more mobile camera body."

I am not sure where you are going with this... are you simply debating the statement as it appeared or are you, for some reason, trying to suggest they should put video on the Df. If it is the latter I see no reason to ruin the retro character of this unique camera by making it pretty much like every other camera on the market. I personally LIKE that it doesn't take video, because that's what the cameras it is emulating were like and I am a stills photographer.

Member said:

"The Df is designed for photographers who want to concentrate solely on the art of photography. This dedication to still photography led to the removal of the movie-making components of the camera, including the operation knob and button, the microphone terminal and the speaker. The result is a smaller, lighter and more mobile camera body."

I am not sure where you are going with this... are you simply debating the statement as it appeared or are you, for some reason, trying to suggest they should put video on the Df. If it is the latter I see no reason to ruin the retro character of this unique camera by making it pretty much like every other camera on the market. I personally LIKE that it doesn't take video, because that's what the cameras it is emulating were like and I am a stills photographer.

Click to expand...

Yep I agree video is not the point of the beast... or any DSLR really. I just take issue with Nikon claiming that they were able to make it significantly smaller as a result. That's just 'puff'. The microphone/speaker add maybe 20g or less.

Of course if my D810 had fast, capable on-sensor AF which resulted in usable video I wouldn't complain, but I don't believe I'm carrying around an extra 100g of camera just because they added video capability.

You don't see them admitting a camera is heavier because of video, but they claim it's lighter without. Whatever suits the marketing dept.

Well, for WHATEVER reason, it certainly is lighter and I like that!;-)