Nikon DF Images and Experiences...

[--]

😀 Which are?

Warranty?? (given Nikon's recent offer of free oil on the sensor)

PCH in Brussels (no connection except their windows have my nose printing on them) sell it for €2.619 with the 50mm f:1.8. Anyone knowing the shop should be aware that it has moved 50 meters or so to the other side of rue Midi.

If I weren't broke I might buy one.

 

[jsrockit]

If it's night without any light source somewhere, what you are doing by pushing the ISO sensitivity of your sensor is displaying what we would see in a tunnel wearing some Soviet surplus military light-amplifier glasses. What's the point ?

Have you experimented with this enough to feel it has no worth whatsoever?

 

[KoNickon]

This is what I did. Yet I looked at the photograph - not at "the results" [of how the sensor and image processor can make a visible noise-free picture where there is almost no light hitting what is being photographed].

You've lost me -- what is the difference? You don't think your own vision, in a dark room at night, would give your brain a similar image? Since neither of us was actually there taking the picture, who's to say whether it's artificial or not?

 

[Highway 61]

You don't think your own vision, in a dark room at night, would give your brain a similar image?

Very possibly - especially because the human vision in a dark room at night is in black and white because of the human eye's micro-anatomy - but I don't use to take photos in a dark room at night, in general.

A photograph doesn't summarize itself to how well a sensor and processor are capable of managing electronic noise and an EV close to nil to instantly produce an acceptable image of something the human eye would only begin to perceive after twenty minutes in the dark.

If it was, light amplifiers would have been sold for film cameras already. Well, they used to, afterall.

 

[noimmunity]

If it's night without any light source somewhere, what you are doing by pushing the ISO sensitivity of your sensor is displaying what we would see in a tunnel wearing some Soviet surplus military light-amplifier glasses. What's the point ?

What are we gonna do? Photography is heading in the direction of prosthetic enhancement. Some future version of Google glasses are going to make that Soviet contraption seem ancient. Inevitably technology influences the way we see. Technological applications of optical inventions started with eyeglasses. That trajectory hasn't abated.

All's I'm saying is that it is possible to imagine a wide variety of different aesthetics within the field of vision. Not knocking your 'mystery-of-the-night' vision, so why knock others' desire to amplify light?

 

[KoNickon]

Very possibly - especially because the human vision in a dark room at night is in black and white because of the human eye's micro-anatomy - but I don't use to take photos in a dark room at night, in general.

A photograph doesn't summarize itself to how well a sensor and processor are capable of managing electronic noise and an EV close to nil to instantly produce an acceptable image of something the human eye would only begin to perceive after twenty minutes in the dark.

If it was, light amplifiers would have been sold for film cameras already. Well, they used to, afterall.

Certainly, one thing digital does, by cranking up the ISO, is enable available light photography much more than film can -- and thus bring photography a lot closer to what the human eye can perceive in "available darkness." For me (and I have not yet jumped to digital at all) this is one of its main attractions. It sounds like you don't care for this feature of digital at all. But how many pictures have we seen taken on film, by moonlight, with a very long exposure, that look as if they were taken at midday? People have been doing this for a long time; digital just makes it much more feasible.

 

[willie_901]

The very first thing I thought when I viewed Lynn's photos was, "The old Nikkor glass renders OOF areas so much better than the new AF-S/G4 Nikkors." There is practically no chromatic aberration or edge fringing on the boarders of bright OOF objects. I've owned and used several pre-AI, AI and AIS Nikkors. Many of them are uninteresting and inferior compared to modern lenses. Some of them are wonderful. I suspect the Zeiss F-mount lenses may pair well with the DF if manual focusing turns out to be a better than I thought it could be.

At this point my pessimism regarding the DF's in manual focus mode is lessened by these early reports. I guess I will have to wait until I can wander into my local camera shop and play with one in person with my few remaining Nikkor MF lenses.

As far as extremely low light goes I think flat uninteresting light will always be flat and uninteresting. I find ISO 1600 (regardless of brand) is the limit in terms of the aesthetic utility for all but a few exceptions. For instance when a very fast shutter speed is required in normal light, extremely high ISO can save the day. However the analog signal to noise ratio and dynamic range is a degraded compared to lower ISO values. Fast shutter speeds, narrow apertures and scenes with extreme dynamic range are fundamentally problematic. Being able to use ISO 1600 or 3200 without hesitation delivers versatility we could only dream of in the past. But this doesn't mean we don't need to think about ISO anymore. In my view gratuitous use of auto ISO is a common and ironic error these days,

 

[Highway 61]

Not knocking your 'mystery-of-the-night' vision, so why knock others' desire to amplify light?

I'm not "knocking"... just writing what I am thinking.

My point was to say that the recent cameras ability to produce images where the human eye can't see nuffin' shouldn't be taken as something interesting for itself. I can shoot a bricks wall at overcast night, handheld, without any tripod, and okay you can count the grains in the bricks structure, and okay there is no electronic noise on the image because my camera doesn't exhibit noise at ISO 204,800.

But - is it a good and interesting photograph ?

 

[KoNickon]

For the overall impression of a sleeping cat, in very dim light, such as the human eye might see when walking into a dark room -- yes. Has a very painterly quality -- almost like a charcoal drawing.

 

[jsrockit]

My point was to say that the recent cameras ability to produce images where the human eye can't see nuffin' shouldn't be taken as something interesting for itself.

People have been doing this with flash forever. Anything that allows someone to photograph in a way that wasn't available before is not a bad thing. It's what someone does with it that matters.

 

[shadowfox]

The very first thing I thought when I viewed Lynn's photos was, "The old Nikkor glass renders OOF areas so much better than the new AF-S/G4 Nikkors."

Exactly.

That and "full-frame is so nice"

 

[Margu]

Why Nikon put the D4 sensor in DF and not the D800?

 

[noimmunity]

Just goes to show the best photos are of light/shadow, not objects.

Just goes to show the best photos are of light/shadow, not objects.

But - is it a good and interesting photograph ?

That's always a great question, and Willie's comments, as usual, are spot on.

Personnally, the photo of the cat in post #19 doesn't work for me, whereas the very first photo in the first post does. The former is taken in conditions where the light just wasn't interesting, and even if the object is interesting, the photo suffers, IMHO. But in the latter photo, the light is quite interesting, and the photo has more atmosphere. Nevertheless, I'm not very impressed with the black and white conversions here, but I assume it's too early to judge since the OP already mentions a need to spend more time learning digital PP.

 

[tomnrides]

Great OP posts with photos to look at, thanks.

 

[gilpen123]

Very nice Lynn, colors are really good and the bokeh of those lenses are creamy. Must resist for now.

 

[taemo]

i'm actually surprised by your positive review on manual focusing with the old lens.
how's the Df VF different compared to the D610, D800E and D4?

one thing that I wished Df did was simplify all those buttons in the back.

 

[kxl]

The past couple of years have taken us on a trend of comparable and even convergent image quality coming from various high end digital cameras. So, IMHO, the output of all of these high end cameras are more or less in the same zip code wrt image quality.

Again IMHO, the differentiators are in other areas. Before ordering a D800E, I looked closely at the Sony A7R, which would have allowed my to use my M lenses on a FF digital body; I briefly considered the DF for the reasons Lynn articulated (very well, I must add) in this thread; but in the end, the D800E met my needs.

So, I get what Lynn is saying about the DF meeting his particular needs wrt ergonomics and his methods.

 

[Margu]

Why Nikon put the D4 sensor in DF and not the D800?

i think the answer to my own question is a simple one. DF is designed to work with legacy nikon lenses and its 16mp sensor is going to be a lot more forgiving of those lenses. the 36mp sensor in D800 is completely unforgiven to most lenses other than the very hi-res modern ones that are designed for high mp digital sensors.

 

[willie_901]

Exactly.

That and "full-frame is so nice"

Uh... is that because the angle of view is maintained?

The G Nikkor primes all have significant fringing wide open on my D 700 bodies and is one reason why I now own five Fujinon XF lenses and the X-Pro 1.

 

[ChrisLivsey]

PCH in Brussels (no connection except their windows have my nose printing on them).

😀😀

Appreciated, my "friend" Google knows many people, some of whom may be dubious.