Anyone order a Nikon DF?

Ok, I finally tried the Df today and may have to agree with Frank now. I thought I would like it more than the DXXX series, but I honestly didn't. They need to build from scratch for the next Df... it seemed like a DXXX with a new skin. I'm not saying I would never use it, but not at this price point.
 
Yeah I saw one in the flesh today too. Didn't handle it, but it (to me) looks like a cobbled together frankencamera. Half plastic consumer dslr with some nice touches half heartedly grafted on. If it were 2k or 1.8k I would be keen, but not at the price they are asking.
 
I've had my DF for about a week and a half now and had time to really explore it. I'm an old film guy and it just feels natural in my hands. It operates much more like a film camera as well but gives the option to operate much like a traditional DSLR, your option. It see it as a hybrid between he two with a bias tword a film slr.

Last week I used it on a shoot side by side with my D800 in DX mode. I had a fashion show and event to shoot for a client. The event at the request of the client must be shot available light and the fashion portion can be shot with strobes. I used the DF on the candid portion along with the D800. There's mixed fluorescent and tungsten in the room and the levels are very low. I shot at 6400 ISO with both cameras and was startled at how much better the files were in terms of noise between the two cameras. The DF was the clear winner in noise. I was also amazed that other than noise I couldn't tell the images apart. I used a combination of manual and auto focus with my 16-35 and 70-200 VR2. Both were a breeze to manually focus and autofocus was flawless.

I purchased the DF as a second body where FX is desirable and huge files not needed. I also wanted non AI lens comparability for manual focus and very low noise files for documentary work. I was looking for lighter weight and a less intrusive looking camera for my documentary work. The DF I find is that camera.

You might say I'm delighted and will keep it.
 
Don,

Just had a look at your gallery, that is some incredible work, over a long period of time. Glad you like the Df, though I wonder how it compares to the many different Leica's you used in so much of your work.

Best,
-Tim
 
Timmyjoe said:
Don,

Just had a look at your gallery, that is some incredible work, over a long period of time. Glad you like the Df, though I wonder how it compares to the many different Leica's you used in so much of your work.

Best,
-Tim
Click to expand...

Thanks Tim!

I've used a lot of Leica gear since 1968 and a lot of SLR equipment too. In the 60's there weren't many choices in 35mm. It was Leica RF, Nikon RF or Nikon SLR's. Others like Pentax and Canon existed but they didn't have the system and didn't cater to the pro. I've used M's since 1968 and Nikon off and on since 1970 or 71.

My opinion, I love the M2, 3, 4, 4-2, 4-P, M6 and MP. I've never owned an M5 and can't say much about it. IMO the M2 throughout he M4 were the best and the M4-2, M4-P and M6 are a strong 2nd. I had 3 MP's at one time and loved the feel and operation just as I did the early cameras and even liked them better because of the improved VF and choice of magnification if you special ordered them which I did. I used a Leicavit on each body as well and like that option. This of course is a carry over from the M4-2 up through the MP. I still have an M2 that I've had and used for decades and I finally had it serviced about three years ago. It's still going strong. I have a custom MP still and love it although it had a shutter fail in about 500 rolls. I can't in all honesty say the MP is made as well as the earlier cameras although it's still a great camera.

I broke down and bought an M9. I fought with it for a year and finally sent it with my lenses to Leica. Most of my lenses were back focusing severely. The body had severe color issues and was unpredictable when or where it would occur. Leica moved my warranty service and some out of warranty service to a front position because it is used professionally. After several weeks, way too long even then, I received a bill for over $800 to shim and modify my 70 Summilux and 90 Apo Asph Summicorn for the M9. My other gear was under warranty. When I received everything back the work order stated shimming the lenses as I expected and the sensor and mother board / processor in the camera were replaced. Mind you this was a brand new camera. Now the camera produces excellent images as I expected from the beginning. My lenses functioned properly until a month ago when my 90 Apo suddenly went out of calibration. All others are fine and just the 90 went out. No idea why but it was focusing at about 20ft when set at infinity. I sent it back to Leica under warranty and have hear nothing.

In recent years I started experiencing problems with lenses made in the 80's and later. Cheaper materials and shortcuts in construction I feel are behind the problems. Lenses since the 80's are not built to the same standard as earlier lenses. Optics are superb but the mounts are not.

My Nikon experiences, I've used Nikons heavily for decades. They became my primary camera and have never been a problem. I had a rewind gear on one of my F2 motors need replaced and a meter calibration and battery compartment latch on one of my F4 bodies replaced. All of the service was done under NPS (Nikon Professional Services) in 3 days including shipping fedex. Repair costs were minimal. At the time I sent them in Nikon asked if I needed a loaner until mu equipment was repaired. Nikon also provides free loans of lenses and bodies for the pro. You only pay shipping. Nikon provides priority service and equipment loaners at major events like the Kentucky Derby, Olympics and such for NPS members and NPS is a free service to the pros. Also Nikon can and will repair all professional bodies back to the Nikon F with a few exceptions of parts for meters.

As to digital, I started shooting Nikon digital with the D1 when it came out. I had D1x bodies also when the came out and then wen to Canon full frame bodies and left Nikon. I was very happy with both Nikon and Canon. None were perfect because it was the early days of digital technology although they were excellent cameras. Last year I went back to Nikon when the D800 came out and this year added a DF. I can honestly say I'm more pleased with the D800 and DF than any other digital camera I've owned or used. Canon is still excellent but Nikon is ahead of the game. I equate the reliability and quality of these cameras to the F2 and F5 which I think was the best of the F film cameras. I've never used the F6 but imagine it's first rate.

I had one minor problem with the PC terminal on the D800 but was fixed under NPS repairs and done quickly. It's simply an amazing camera in every way for the kind of work I do.

The DF is a big step in the right direction IMO for my documentary work. I wanted small, light, manual focus with AIS and non AI lenses, excellent dynamic range and low image noise, FX and the DF does it all. The file sizes are reasonable in size and the color is superb with an excellent dynamic range. The feel is right for me and very familiar in operation. Menus are like my D800 so no fumbling and they're easy to navigate and very logical. The analog dials are a plus. I like the operation of them and again the feel. The only negative is Nikon could and should offer interchangeable focusing screens for both the D800 and DF. This is my only gripe though with the stock screen it's very easy to focus with manual focus lenses. To me the DF feels solid and in no way feels like plastic. I think the DF will be a plus for me in my low light shooting in my documentary work. The high ISO is simply amazing even compared to the D800.

I have modern G series lenses for my D800 and find them superb and I'm putting together a really nice kit of manual focus lenses for the DF. My criterion for a good lens is reasonable edge to edge sharpness wide open. So far I have a 28 AIS f2.8 that's really good. I'm trying a late AIS 35mm f2 but haven't received it yet, picked up a new 50 1.2 that's remarkable, a 85 AF D 1.4 ( I know it's AF but I like the feel of the focus and body) that super, a 105 Micro 2.8 AIS thats killer sharp and a under estimated 135 f3,5 AIS that's so sharp it will cut you. I also have 1 25-50 f4 AI zoom that is remarkable even at f4.

This is a pretty ideal kit for my kind of work. I won't carry everything but have it when I need it.

Now this may surprise some, If I had one camera only between the M9, D800 and DF it would be the D800. It's the most universal do everything very well camera that I'v ever used. Second and close is the DF. If I didn't need large files for some commercial work I would have a pair of DF's.

This is just my opinion but the DF and the D800 smoke the M9 in every way. The only advantage and reason I tolerate the M9 is the optics. Wide open performance is second to none.
 
Although I am interested in the DF it does not really meet all of my needs. As such I think the D800 is likely to be my next SLR camera (present time D700 user)! Never the less a nice camera for those who can afford its relatively high cost.
 
I don't know - call me a traditionalist but the DF is just too thick. I wish it were a hair thinner; it is really, really thick...
 
If Tom had been the designer it would have been a D4. He seems to forget you can't have controls large enough to set with gloves on and have a compact body. The consumer remote connector is smaller than the round pro connector and I am just guessing there was no place for a larger round connector. Also relocating a couple of controls might have been due to less space to put them.

Much of his review simply sounds like he has a bug up his A$$. He needs to remember if he wants the features of a D4 then he should but a D4.

I read a complaint the other day regarding only one card slot. Honestly in the four DSLRs I've owned with dual slots I've never used two cards and never lost a frame. After all in the film days we didn't have cameras that shot two rolls of film at once or two sheets with one as a backup just in case.

My personal opinion is the DF is a great addition in the Nikon lineup. It gives another option for high performance capture in a smaller light weight system that's compatible with all but a small number of lenses. ( I counted 5 that won't work. 4 fisheye and the old 21 mm of which all require a mirror lockup.

I was thinking about price and thought back to the early days about fifteen or so years ago. Kodak had some huge and heavy beasts priced from $14,000 to around $30,000 for up to 5 mp. Then nikon came in and I entered the DSLR world with a D1 with a whopping 2.75 mp CCD at the bargain price of $5000.

Those were the early days and development costs money. I'd say were still in the development days. We're not at the end and cameras will only get better. Compare the price of the D1 in terms of adjusted dollars for the year it came out (2000?) vs what we get for $2750 today.
 
I'm really curious about the DF.

Price aside (which I don't like) there's two things that I'm interested in:

Firstly having an excellent low light sensor that retains detail and colour information to a reasonable ISO range. I shoot a lot of ambient + flash portraits so that's useful for me.

Secondly having a camera body that's lightish and smallish so I don't have a big monster of a thing to carry around to location and also to scare away the more frightened of subjects.

I do like the design, to a degree (i.e. it's a big of a fatty), it's just an interesting objective decision to remove the emotion and think - is this actually more suited than a D6100 say.
 
x-ray said:
If Tom had been the designer it would have been a D4. He seems to forget you can't have controls large enough to set with gloves on and have a compact body. The consumer remote connector is smaller than the round pro connector and I am just guessing there was no place for a larger round connector. Also relocating a couple of controls might have been due to less space to put them.

Much of his review simply sounds like he has a bug up his A$$. He needs to remember if he wants the features of a D4 then he should but a D4.

I read a complaint the other day regarding only one card slot. Honestly in the four DSLRs I've owned with dual slots I've never used two cards and never lost a frame. After all in the film days we didn't have cameras that shot two rolls of film at once or two sheets with one as a backup just in case.

My personal opinion is the DF is a great addition in the Nikon lineup. It gives another option for high performance capture in a smaller light weight system that's compatible with all but a small number of lenses. ( I counted 5 that won't work. 4 fisheye and the old 21 mm of which all require a mirror lockup.

I was thinking about price and thought back to the early days about fifteen or so years ago. Kodak had some huge and heavy beasts priced from $14,000 to around $30,000 for up to 5 mp. Then nikon came in and I entered the DSLR world with a D1 with a whopping 2.75 mp CCD at the bargain price of $5000.

Those were the early days and development costs money. I'd say were still in the development days. We're not at the end and cameras will only get better. Compare the price of the D1 in terms of adjusted dollars for the year it came out (2000?) vs what we get for $2750 today.
Click to expand...
If you want one, you want one 😉

I think he wanted the 16mp sensor in a D700 body - and I think he probably is right because that would make for a much better camera it seems. However, Nikon probably would sell more Df's then of a D710's. And in the end that is what is important to Nikon.

btw: the D4 is $6.000,-. Comparable to the D1 back in 1999, almost 15 years ago....
 
There is the question of the general feeling about the styling, size, mix-up of "old-school" and "modern" design. This is afterall very subjective.

Still can't understand why Nikon didn't release that camera with :

- a real viewfinder eyepiece shutter
- some interchangeable screens
- no useless ports on the left side of the body (ain't it a camera aimed towards photographers ?)
- no dummy 16/9 image size ratio
- a stronger battery
- two cards slots

Those points are reasonable and on the objective side when it comes to the good features such a "different" DSLR should have IMO. Nothing related to any kinda "flame war" whatsoever.

This, alongside with an all-metal inwards (knowing that the lens mount is bolted on a plastic chassis really bugs me) and a slightly more "sober" design, would make it really more seducing, even without no major changes...

Given what Nikon has got us used to, there is little doubt about a Df2 or a DfN coming soon... wait and see.
 
I think if I was in the market for another digicam it would have to be the SD1M ... I think it would be more use to me than a DF.
 
Keith said:
I think if I was in the market for another digicam it would have to be the SD1M ... I think it would be more use to me than a DF.
Click to expand...

The Sigma cameras are great, the IQ is fantastic.

Though the SD1M is almost the opposite of the Df - compact (ish), amazing IQ but terrible high ISO performance.

I tried a DP2M for a bit, loved the images when it was fine but I found in diminishing sun (ie sunset) it was very difficult to get a shot in focus, the camera would need to long a shutter speed, would have a hard time focusing etc - and that wasn't even when it was getting dark, just a bit dulled.
 
Funny how polarizing the DF has become... some people seem to love it while many wouldn't even consider it. It will be interesting to see the sales figures and also how many used ones are for sale down the road.

Personally I think it will flop after the initial excitement... Nikon would have to pay me to use the ugly beast but to each their own.
 
ww12345 said:
I don't know - call me a traditionalist but the DF is just too thick. I wish it were a hair thinner; it is really, really thick...
Click to expand...

Admittedly I don't have huge hands, but the ergonomics make absolutely no sense to me. When I am gripping the camera, my thumb and forefinger can barely touch the shutter dial, let alone turn it. I would have to hold the camera in my left hand, release the grip, and turn the dial. To me the point of the fat grip is that you can keep gripping it, for extended periods if need be, and have relative freedom of your left hand, while still controlling the camera. I suppose there is a reason most fat dslrs are controlled by thumb buttons and scroll wheels.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Disappointed_Horse
Nikon Close-Up Filters
Replies
16
Views
605
phofseth
P
LLR0P
Unusual Strap Lugs and Model Number on My Mamiya 7 — Need Help Identifying
Replies
5
Views
360
Johngwill
Johngwill
Particular
Pennsylvania 20/20 Photo Festival in Philadelphia
Replies
4
Views
280
Particular
Particular
p.giannakis
Has anyone seen a damage like this?
Replies
9
Views
847
wlewisiii
W
T
Nikon FA dead - can anyone help?
Replies
8
Views
339
Rob-F
Rob-F
Back
Top Bottom