News Reviews Buying Guide Sample Images Videos Articles Cameras LensesPhonesPrinters Forums Galleries Challenges

Nikon Df Review

December 2013 | By Richard Butler, Barney Britton

Buy on GearShop From $2,746.95 14 deals

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.

GearShop

Nikon Df DSLR Camera, Body Only (Black)●	14 deals	$2,746.96	Buy on GearShop
Nikon Df DSLR Camera Kit with AF-S NIKKOR 50mm f/1.8G Special Edition Lens (Black)●	14 deals	$2,996.95	Buy on GearShop
Nikon Df DSLR Camera, Body Only (Silver)●	14 deals	$2,746.95	Buy on GearShop
Nikon Df DSLR Camera Kit with AF-S NIKKOR 50mm f/1.8G Special Edition Lens (Silver)●	14 deals	$2,996.95	Buy on GearShop

Nikon Df 16.2 MP CMOS FX-Format Digital SLR Camera Body (Black)	$2,746.95
Nikon Df 16.2 MP CMOS FX-Format Digital SLR Camera with AF-S NIKKOR 50mm f/1.8G Special Edition Lens (Silver)	Too low to display
Nikon Df 16.2 MP CMOS FX-Format Digital SLR Camera Body (Black)	$2,746.95
Nikon Df 16.2 MP CMOS FX-Format Digital SLR Camera Body (Silver)	$2,746.95
Nikon Df 16.2 MP CMOS FX-Format Digital SLR Camera with AF-S NIKKOR 50mm f/1.8G Special Edition Lens (Black)	Too low to display
Nikon 1 V3 Digital Camera with 1 NIKKOR 10-30mm PD-Zoom Lens	$1,196.95
Nikon D5300 24.2 MP CMOS Digital SLR Camera with Built-in Wi-Fi and GPS Body Only (Black)	$796.95
Nikon D610 24.3 MP CMOS FX-Format Digital SLR Camera (Body Only)	$1,896.95
Nikon Df Digital SLR Camera Body (Silver) with 28-300mm VR Lens + 64GB Card + Case + Flash + Battery & Charger + Filters Kit	$3,799.95
Nikon D800 36.3 MP CMOS FX-Format Digital SLR Camera (Body Only)	$2,796.95
Nikon Df Digital SLR Camera & 50mm f/1.8G Lens (Black) with 64GB Card + Battery & Charger + 3 Filters + GPS Adapter + Kit	$2,998.00

Show all listings (11) ...

Get more prices from Amazon

Comments

Total comments: 1595

I think I've mastered the dails already. Don't like that the whole batt cover plate can come out.

so much less to worry about. just decide on 3 things and compose.

I don't it's for everyone, only those who think they're special. hahahahahahaha

0 upvotes

I still find it laughably ironic on how many reviewers complain about the locked exposure compensation dial...when it was Nikon's standard for over 40 years. And just one of the reasons why I DIDN'T buy a Nikon film SLR.

When the locked exposure dial was Nikon's standard, everyone thought it was "normal"; now that Nikon no longer uses the lock, everything thinks that is "normal" - in other words, everyone accepts what is most commonly handed to them [by Nikon] and learn to frown on the alternative.

Strange world.

1 upvote

I believe the dial is only locked in “A”. I’ll check to confirm. But this point was raised and explained months ago.

0 upvotes

I checked, and it's only the 1/3 setting that locks on the exposure dial.

So basically: Not a locking exposure dial.

0 upvotes

I saw this camera in real life a few days ago. The touch and fell and its look reminded me of a Chinese knock off of a Rolex watch you can buy in Canal Street.

0 upvotes

Did you shoot with the Df? Does the image quality lack? Does it not function well?

Then magnesium by volume is lighter than brass.

I think there's a certain irony that some have complained that the Df looks clunky, an aesthetic problem real, and fake, Rolex watches oft times have.

1 upvote

I have no doubt the image quality is outstanding, yet the main reason someone should buy this camera over a D4 is the look, touch and feel. Nikon failed to provide exactly on those 3 points.
The camera is a far cry from the original FM2 which it is inspired from. Also it is too big for no reason.

0 upvotes

Gionni:

The Df is slightly better at high ISO lowlight shooting than the D4, and the Df can be set to shoot more quietly than the D4, so those are reasons to use the Df instead of the D4.

The Df is of course also lighter and less expensive than the D4, so those are two other reasons to buy it instead of the D4.

Making things smaller and just as functional costs monies. Note that the Leica M240 is thicker than the Leica M6.

0 upvotes

I love this camera! It is the best I've had by far. The dials are a bit tricky at first but give a lot more satisfaction when shooting.

It is a camera for people who like to tinker and adjust and play while shooting the perfect shot - not guys who take 5000 shots and then choose 2 out of them.

This is not a professional studio camera, it can be used as such but you can't adjust it as fast real-time as 5D, D3x or D4.

I'd recommend it to anyone who loves to take photos. Just add to it a nice 24-70, f/2 and you are good to go!

0 upvotes

The only thing that's "bad" on this faboulous camera is: autofocus in low light.

Comment edited 20 seconds after posting

0 upvotes

Nikon gave people who clamoured for it a retro camera. It's likely they won't do this again thanks to the reception it's gotten.

0 upvotes

Why? Is the Df not selling?

Could it be a better version of many dial control, like the Fuji XT1 or Olympus EM1? Yes?

0 upvotes

PLUS: D4 sensor inside a compact D600 / retro body. CONS: EVERYTHING else !

0 upvotes

For my kind of work (aerial photography) I need 3 camera bodies. I have a D3, D3x and a D4. Since I have the Df I never leave home without. It's by far the best camera I ever had. The 50mm 1.8 lens is a perfect match as well.

1 upvote

whenever I read these comments, it seems 99% of the people have never used the Df….I now own two, they are lighter, far quieter, smaller than the D700. I sold my zooms and the best feature is that with fast AIS lenses, I can easily focus on the ground glass…I never use Auto Focus, far faster to focus on the ground glass. I hardly look at my menu and the overall body construction is superb…I have shot for 42 years and this is an exceptional camera for travel, coverage of events, weddings…the high ISO quality is exceptional…use the camera and you will love it...

5 upvotes

Thank you for making the point about the easy of manual focusing.

0 upvotes

EXACTLY!!! I almost didn't buy it after all the negativity around the web.

The first shot is when I decided I don't want to use another one :)

0 upvotes

Please advice, which one is better DF or D800e??? I am just occasionally using camera to shoot

0 upvotes

i9imbig:

It matters what you're trying to shoot and the lenses you plan on using.

It also matters if the best dynamic range (also dependent on the lens) is really important to you.

0 upvotes

Will be looking hard at the Df
Oh! lord, did you really love the amateur, more than the photo-artist, you made so many of them ? And lord the 'Egos' please lighten them up.
It was much more fun, when you could pick from the two models that everyone made 'back in the days'. Who needs 64 models vs. 47 models?
Does it make the shutter pusher any better. Are we just paying for R&D ?
Yes I use some really old lenses from Nikon, I've built a mount for a Leica Long Focus, to work with a cheaper Nikon motor drives. It still works, even today.
Digital is nice for those who have to see if the camera really worked and the capture is there. While the world moves on.
My cameras' have taken me to many countries. And I've seen many different peoples through Nikon lenses and will some more.

0 upvotes

I do not want to be a troller or such. Maybe I do not understand Nikon philosophy because I do not own one. However, as much as I admire Nikon effort in producing exceptional cameras, I do not find myself a single all rounded camera to fully satisfy me for all conditions. Nikon made a tonne of bodies lately but i do not see a single do it all camera, that I would be ready to grab for all occasions. I.e, the performance body is the D4, but I would not take it with me traveling or to a party, just too heavy and intrusive for some situations. Also the resolution is at its minimum these days (landscape?). D800 is too much resolution and a tad too slow for all condition gear. The D610 sounds promising, but the AF is not quite up there. Really the D700 was THE camera of choice (although a bit low in resolution). Really I would not know what to pick right now for an all condition camera from Nikon. If somebody is happy with a crop sensor I guess the D7100 is excellent, but a no go for me.

Comment edited 2 minutes after posting

0 upvotes

to me this is just another wonderful tool that Nikon made in its scattered minded roadmap

1 upvote

amandino--

There's no such thing as the perfect all round camera, and Nikon wouldn't sell it anyhow even if they knew to make one. This was also true back in the film era.

Drop the idea that 16 MP is limited resolution--it's basically a delusion, and more mega pixels can easily degrade image quality.

The D7100 is fine camera body, and APSC sensors are excellent, this one included, but there's the buffering problem with that particular body.

1 upvote

I think 18-25 mp is a nice range for full frame MP count. 16 is just a tad low. I guess it still depends on the person's use, but for sport photography or where cropping is frequent it does make a difference for sure. Honestly the best all rounded camera on the market right now is the 5DMKIII. It would be nice if it had more dynamic range, but it does get away with what it has most of the times. I find that each Canon camera has a well defined marketing and purpose domain with the 5D being the happy medium. Nikon distribution is more chaotic to my taste, at times some cameras even cannibalize products within Nikon lineup (i.e. D800 vs D3x). Or jumping from the low MP count of D700 philosophy to the extreme opposite of the D800. Not to mention the Df, a no land camera. Do not get me wrong, I think they are all very fine cameras, potentially better then the Canon counterparts, yet the whole picture is not very organic. Some choices seem impulsive and not so well though out.

Comment edited 2 times, last edit 2 minutes after posting

0 upvotes

Ah, one more thing. Sure there cannot be a camera that is best at everything, however you can have a camera that excels at everything, I am not sure why Nikon would not want do make it, as it has shown will to cannibalize its own products for the sake of gaining market share. That would have been the D800 with a D600 sensor and a buffer and speed of the 5D MKIII.
Which is basically a 5DMKIII with improved sensor performance.

Comment edited 2 minutes after posting

0 upvotes

The 5D III is a nice camera. But not great at high ISOs and as you say DR lacks a bit. So those are reasons for fewer megapixels in say the 6D or the Nikon D4.

If you know what you're doing, much cropping isn't really necessary. And most people simply don't print at 20 by 30 inches.

1 upvote

Again for all rounded cropping is important. When you are shooting sports it is an very important feature. Have you actually used the 5D? ISO is really good, I am not sure why you insist that is not so much. Let me give you and example of how flexible this body is. I was in Brazil for 2 months I shot from fashion swimsuit to up to my neck deep in a lagoon shooting kite surfers, raw 1080 video, street photography. I cannot think of another camera that could have handled all of that to the same extent. Nikon D4 would have not been an option for some of these situations, like street photography, or no cropping power for kite surfing. I also shot surfing, but I only had a 300+1.4x cropping was important too, and weight was at time too.

Comment edited 2 minutes after posting

0 upvotes

armandino,

I think you're missing my point:

The 5D III is good at higher ISOs, but not great like the Df. (Here the Canon 6D is also better at high ISOs than the 5D III.)

Right, that kite surfing example would be a good place to use cropping, or an APSC sensored DSLR body. Then of course the D800 allows for more cropping than the 5D III, but for either the D800 or 5D III dynamic range limits come into play.

If you're shooting fashion, yes big prints come into play, but that's just not real common.

Comment edited 3 minutes after posting

0 upvotes

I have the camera for the past 2 weeks and it is exactly what I am looking for in a camera. I have a D800 and traded in my D3 for the Df.
I will give top marks for to the Df for its image quality, ease of use, and simply gorgeous design.
When fitted with the Nikon 50mm 1.4D, the combi works and looks great. Being able to use the aperture ring again is both nostalgic and exciting.
Top marks also for the retro and yet fully functional design. I agree that Df feels even better with primes.

2 upvotes

You know that you can use the aperture ring of AF and manual focus lenses on other Nikon's right? I'm not entirely which, but at least on the D7100, it's an option in the menu under the command dial settings, so the Df is not unique in this respect. The major advantage of the Df as far as lens compatability is the retractable AI tab.

0 upvotes

Very disappointed when this was released. Thanks to the rumours, there was me thinking it was going to be a full frame mirrorless camera and instead we end up with another bulky dslr. I would love a smaller camera with a retro (read simpler) layout that doesn't require trawling through menus to setup for a shot. Whilst the layout is 'retro', this camera is just a dslr without video and wifi yet stupidly priced. If only Fujifilm made a full frame camera!

0 upvotes

its smaller than other ff dslrs but isnt that small especially since i had the omd em 5 and such mirrorless cameras the sizes are not comparable and that is a definite minus for the df however as for the layout i think i can say you are sort of wrong i have been using the df for about 2-3 months now and i never and i mean NEVER use the liveview menus or layout especially because there is a button or dial for everything i just wished it had focus peaking though the viewfinder is nice big and bright ive been spoiled with my partners red line focus peaking thing on the fuji .........

0 upvotes

jedy--

The menus simply aren't a problem with this camera.

Full frame and then a smaller mirrorless body would mean entirely new lenses. (Like the Sony A7/R).

Wifi is not exactly universal, I believe there are different standards around the world, so it's best to leave it out. Anyhow would add space.

Video takes more power so the bigger battery would add space and weight.

Thru ISO 6400 both the Sony A7 and the Leica M240 are excellent full framed mirrorless systems. (The A7 is a bit too loud, and there still aren't enough lenses, but that will change in years to come.)

0 upvotes

That’s what the used departments of B+H or Adorama, etc are for.

Or Ebay.

And I think more manufacturers should copy the idea of big sensors with fewer pixels in smaller, lighter, less expensive bodies the way that Nikon did with the Df and to a lesser extent Canon did with the 6D. (And no I’ve not forgotten the Sony A7.)

0 upvotes

I think 6D is as good if not better. Smaller, better AF, video, ergonomics and $1,000 less. Df only better if you need better iso above 12,000. Nothing else really.

0 upvotes

6D is nice, but not quite the high ISO performance of the Df.

Also of course, the neither the Df or 6D sell for less than $1000, and that's not going to happen for a while.

Then video in the Df would mean a bigger battery. And there are all sorts of problems with video on DSLRs, some will get fixed, but not this year.

0 upvotes

6D is better or equal in pretty much all aspects. No many can justify to spend $1,000 more for a lesser camera just for the look and superior ISO performance for 25,600 and upward. HowaboutRaw, you seem obsessed by extremely high ISO performance, most of us are not.

0 upvotes

arm:

I admit that high ISOs are important to me. And the 6D sure is good.

But there are Canon sensor DR problems, here Zeiss can help, but then Zeiss helps Nikon too.

I kind of agree that the Df should have been something like a D800 but with fewer mega pixels. (But the knobs don't bother me.)

Also what was the price of the 6D when if first released? It's been out for more than a year, so predictably its price has gone down. Same will happen with the Df in 18 months.

0 upvotes

Howabout...you seem to be obsessed with ultra-high ISO performance. What are you shooting? Bunnies by moonlight? :)

0 upvotes

I think Nikon should of just made this a film camera than turn one of their DSLRs into a "retro" film camera.

0 upvotes

That’s what the used departments of B+H or Adorama, etc are for.

Or Ebay.

0 upvotes

Full Frame sensor in a small body, for half the price of a D4, same low noise at hi ISO as D4, love the camera, even the battery is great ….. there are some not so spectacular reviews but Thom has it right, read what he has to say ……. Berger Brothers beat all prices, and I got a black one with retro lens. ….. love it , can't wait for spring.

4 upvotes

Will all my Nikon manual FM2 lens - 23mm 35 70 and 70 210mm work with DF?

1 upvote

Yes, of course. Even older Nikkors or equivalents from other brands (Sigma, Tokina, Vivitar, Tamron, etc.). This is great!, I have a lot of old optics that I was next to bid, but with this camera, I am happy to be able to use them again.

0 upvotes

I'm using a bag full of both AFS and AIS glass- love it!

2 upvotes

HowaboutRAW, you are still here? Have you bought the SONY A7 yet? It won the Silveraward!

1 upvote

The Sony A7 is really audible, and doesn't have many native lenses.

Also that Sony isn't a great high ISO camera, in year 2014 terms.

Then there's the compressed raw format issue--could be fixed with firmware I'd posit.

0 upvotes

no IBIS ?....about time Nikon..

Comment edited 27 seconds after posting

1 upvote

Body based stabilization: Like which other Nikon DSLR?

I assume you made the same point about the Sony A7.

0 upvotes

There are a lot of us older photographers that have been both disappointed and thrilled by the trends of the digital camera age. The technology and operational options that have developed with the advent of digital are simply marvelous. However, the film camera industry evolved into cameras like the F3 and F4 that where truly the panicle of basic photographic control. Frankly, it is much faster and easier to set a dial with the graduations labeled on it than it is to push a button, spin a wheel and read a screen. Or worse; dig into a menu. The digital camera age brought about a sort of schizophrenia in the camera industry. The film camera had evolved to an extremely usable state and yet it was as if the manufacturers had forgotten all that advancement and started over by hiring engineering staffs from Fischer-Price for their new digital lines. So, many of us don’t see this as a “retro” sales gimmick, but as an apparent return to sanity by Olympus, Fuji, and now Nikon.

13 upvotes

Splitting your sentences into paragraphs makes an easier read; you're making interesting arguments that are lost in that single solid mass of words.

1 upvote

WG I think that's the best description i've heard, of how I feel about digital cameras. I'm blown away by the creative potential of digital, but frustrated by menus and screens that don't allow me to take control intuitively. I don't need a retro style camera, but a camera that improves and develops upon where film was. Unfortunately I think the manufactures have gone over board cramming their digitals with functions few people use, because these functions are a marketing tool, and show off their tech. I wish digital cameras were to follow the simple idiom of creative photography 'Less is more'. DSLRs are now so bulky and obtriusive. With a little less digital gubbins and a more manual control the scale could be reduced (along with the price) and a truly usable camera produced. For me the Df isn't it, too expensive for what it is, and no smaller than my D700. The new Fuji XT1 is interesting though, apart from being APSC, and having an EVF it seems to be going in the right direction.

1 upvote

What are you digging through menus for?

I can set my DSLR to M mode and turn off autofocus without digging much, if any.

And with the two wheels by the thumb and index finger, and the focus ring on the lens, I have all the controls I would have on my old Nikon film version of this camera.

What I do have when I go into menus and start looking for extra controls is more power and convenience. After all, I can change ISO on the fly, no need to replace the roll of film. Sure, it's an extra button, but really, does taking this away make it the new "sanity"?

0 upvotes

ABSOLUTELY!!!
Layered menus tedious at best.
Mechanical dials are totally intuitive.
Now I have a camera that I can use right out of the box!
Our kids instantly took to the Df and quickly understood what the various settings do. They are well versed in typical menu-driven DSLR's but when they saw the Df, my college age daughter said "this is the coolest thing I have ever seen". She took it into our studio and started shooting. Her nine year old sister took right to it as well.
SEE - SHOOT - MANIPULATE - SHOOT - UNDERSTAND
Wow!! What a great tool to teach photography!

This camera rocks and you can throw the stupid manual away.
In my way of viewing technology, if I need the manual, I'm a slave to the technology rather than the technology working for me.

I want total control. I want technology to be as simple as a light switch or the rotary knobs on a cook stove.

Thank you Nikon!!!

2 upvotes

I agree as an intuitive tool for learning photography. It is probably good also for who is taking a picture for the pleasure of it. Not so good for quick action. There is a reason why pro bodies do not look like this and evolved in a different direction.

0 upvotes

Interesting, did Nikon abandon their standard setting CLS flash system? I don't see it anywhere in the specs for inbody master control - and haven't researched if will function with an SU-800 (or master flash) in the hotshoe. CLS is my backup to PW's since I don't use on body flash which is required a master if not using and SU-800 controller. When used as backup, I use the in camera master and pop-up flash (missing on DF) as trigger, but set to -3 for minimal on camera flash impact since can't turn off and just use pre-flash.

0 upvotes

Hello, ever find an answer to this question?

0 upvotes

I don't know if I'd buy it (mostly because it's a bit pricier than other full frame cameras), but I am very much in admiration of the camera-styling. To clarify, I don't prefer to call it retro styling because I never fully accepted the puffed up, black plastic cameras of the last 25 years. Yes, yes, of course I purchase these big, black cameras and I love them. But the artist, technician, and manly-man in me says that a camera should look like a camera, and the Nikon DF screams real camera in styling.

I also know my point of view is mostly superficial and that if a camera can do the same or more in a puffy, plastic body, then I should be smart and not throw away a few extra hundred dollars for something that appeals to my eyes.

Function is a priority, but anyone who says style doesn't matter is not being honest with himself. Style is why one guy is able to score more women than an unstylish man of equal wealth and beauty (or lack of the former or latter). Style matters.

2 upvotes

There are plenty of stylish cars that don't function well, or drive at all for more than 200 miles without serious trouble. Think 1970s era, some very famous names too.

Comment edited 6 minutes after posting

2 upvotes

The style of a camera can make you excited to go out and shoot, for sure.

0 upvotes

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

2 upvotes

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

1 upvote

this camera is nothing like Leica, unfortunately.

0 upvotes

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

0 upvotes

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

0 upvotes

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

0 upvotes

Yawn.

4 upvotes

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

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

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

5 upvotes

Classic remades are a classic fail

Comment edited 2 minutes after posting

4 upvotes

Mazda Miata (UK Mazda MX6).

0 upvotes

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

0 upvotes

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

1 upvote

My favorite cameras of all time

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

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

0 upvotes

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

0 upvotes

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

3 upvotes

How are the specs lower?

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

The Df appears to be selling.

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

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

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

Comment edited 8 minutes after posting

1 upvote

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

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

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

9 upvotes

JDT:

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

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

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

1 upvote

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

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

Comment edited 45 seconds after posting

2 upvotes

petemod:

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

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

0 upvotes

HowaboutRAW:

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

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

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

1 upvote

petemod:

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

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

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

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

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

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

1 upvote

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

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

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

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

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

1 upvote

petemod:

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

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

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

then from above:

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

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

So hope that clarifies.

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

continues:

0 upvotes

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

0 upvotes

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

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

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

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

0 upvotes

petemod:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

0 upvotes

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

0 upvotes

Jaber:

And evidently you didn’t read my above comment.

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

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

Comment edited 13 minutes after posting

1 upvote

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

0 upvotes

Jaberw:

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

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

0 upvotes

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

0 upvotes

Ah JaberW:

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

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

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

Comment edited 2 times, last edit 2 minutes after posting

0 upvotes

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

0 upvotes

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

Comment edited 1 minute after posting

0 upvotes

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

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

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

0 upvotes

Jaber,

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

0 upvotes

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

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

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

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

Enjoy it!

13 upvotes

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

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

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

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

0 upvotes

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

0 upvotes

johnb:

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

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

Comment edited 2 minutes after posting

0 upvotes

As seen on another camera forum..

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

7 upvotes

Seem mighty sure of yourself.

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

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

2 upvotes

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

6 upvotes

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

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

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

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

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

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

Have you shot with the Df?

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

2 upvotes

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

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

8 upvotes

johnb:

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

0 upvotes

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

Comment edited 6 minutes after posting

2 upvotes

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

2 upvotes

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

4 upvotes

warm.....canon warm?

0 upvotes

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

1 upvote

Joed700–

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

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

Comment edited 54 seconds after posting

4 upvotes

HowaboutRAW-

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

Comment edited 5 times, last edit 15 minutes after posting

3 upvotes

Joed700:

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

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

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

continues

1 upvote

HowaboutRAW:

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

Comment edited 2 times, last edit 14 minutes after posting

1 upvote

Joed700:

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

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

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

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

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

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

Also look up what a double negative is.

Comment edited 3 times, last edit 11 minutes after posting

1 upvote

HowaboutRAW:

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

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

Comment edited 2 minutes after posting

0 upvotes

Joed700:

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

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

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

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

1 upvote

HowaboutRAW:

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

continues

Comment edited 1 minute after posting

0 upvotes

HowaboutRAW:

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

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

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

0 upvotes

Joed700:

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

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

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

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

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

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

0 upvotes

G1Hou:

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

0 upvotes

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

Comment edited 57 seconds after posting

0 upvotes

G1Hou:

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

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

0 upvotes

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

4 upvotes

G1Houston:

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

1 upvote

"at high ISO lowlight shooting"

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

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

Comment edited 9 minutes after posting

1 upvote

G1Houston:

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

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

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

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

0 upvotes

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

Comment edited 2 times, last edit 2 minutes after posting

1 upvote

G1Houston:

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

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

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

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

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

Comment edited 2 times, last edit 6 minutes after posting

0 upvotes

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

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

0 upvotes

G1Houston:

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

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

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

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

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

0 upvotes

Jab:

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

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

How I waste my time is kind of my choice.

0 upvotes

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

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

1 upvote

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

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

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

0 upvotes

Indeed, out shooting brick walls by moonlight again?

1 upvote

Jab:

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

0 upvotes

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

Comment edited 1 minute after posting

0 upvotes

LaFonte:

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

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

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

0 upvotes

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

5 upvotes

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

3 upvotes

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

That the D700 had a better buffer, possible.

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

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

0 upvotes

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

2 upvotes

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

2 upvotes

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

1 upvote

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

6 upvotes

Jab:

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

How I waste my time is kind of my choice.

0 upvotes

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

Comment edited 3 times, last edit 1 minute after posting

3 upvotes

Jab:

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

0 upvotes

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

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

1 upvote

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

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

Comment edited 2 minutes after posting

0 upvotes

Jaberwok:

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

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

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

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

1 upvote

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

Sad sad little boy..grow up.

0 upvotes

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

Comment edited 2 minutes after posting

0 upvotes

Joed700:

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

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

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

0 upvotes

HowaboutRAW-

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

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

Comment edited 2 times, last edit 13 minutes after posting

0 upvotes

Joed700:

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

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

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

0 upvotes

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

0 upvotes

km25:

Do you own other Nikon DSLR bodies? Lenses?

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

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

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

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

0 upvotes

G1Houston:

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

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

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

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

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

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

0 upvotes

hexxthalion:

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

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

0 upvotes

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

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

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

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

2 upvotes

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

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

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

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

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

Comment edited 3 minutes after posting

2 upvotes

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

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

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

2 upvotes

G1Houston:

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

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

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

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

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

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

1 upvote

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

Comment edited 2 minutes after posting

0 upvotes

deleted.

Comment edited 1 minute after posting

0 upvotes

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

0 upvotes

binauralbeats:

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

0 upvotes

binauralbeats:

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

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

0 upvotes

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

0 upvotes

binauralbeats:

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

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

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

Comment edited 4 minutes after posting

0 upvotes

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

0 upvotes

binauralbeats:

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

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

0 upvotes

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

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

0 upvotes

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

2 upvotes

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

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

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

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

Me? I love it...

6 upvotes

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

1 upvote

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

0 upvotes

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

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

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

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

8 upvotes

pannyics:

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

0 upvotes

Hugo:

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

The AF is indeed decent.

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

1 upvote

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

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

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

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

Comment edited 51 seconds after posting

6 upvotes

Hugo88:

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

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

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

Is it the AF from the D4? No.

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

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

2 upvotes

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

1 upvote

Hugo88:

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

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

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

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

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

1 upvote

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

0 upvotes

Hugo:

Suggestion: reexamine what you think is humorous.

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

1 upvote

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

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

0 upvotes

G1Houston:

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

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

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

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

0 upvotes

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

0 upvotes

G1Houston:

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

0 upvotes

G1Hou:

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

0 upvotes

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

0 upvotes

JF69:

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

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

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

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

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

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

0 upvotes

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

1 upvote

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

6 upvotes

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

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

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

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

3 upvotes

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

2 upvotes

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

2 upvotes

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

3 upvotes

dw2001:

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

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

Have you handled the body? And shot with it?

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

6 upvotes

seriously, are you a bot or what?!?

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

3 upvotes

dw2001:

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

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

For a SLR it's reasonably quiet.

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

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

Then repeating myself have you used the Df?

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

Comment edited 1 minute after posting

2 upvotes

Total comments: 1595

Editorial content

Product database

Community

About us Write for us Advertise with us FAQ Feedback Interest-Based Ads Privacy Legal

All content, design, and layout are Copyright © 1998 - 2014 Digital Photography Review All Rights Reserved. Reproduction in whole or part in any form or medium without specific written permission is prohibited.

Mobile site