Nikon Df like film slr

anerjee said:
Singapore, so yes ... :D
Click to expand...

Well, here's a thought. The DF is holding pretty well in value. Get one. Lenses are cheap really and they are steady in value also. Try it for a few months.

Within 4 months there will used M9s with the latest sensor, which will be fine in your location, available for 2200ish, I think.

So by that time if you are missing the Ikon-like experience in digital, sell the DF and lenses, buy an M9 for nearly the same amount.

If you are over the moon about the DF, well......you have one :)

You could start with the AIS 28/2 and 50/1.4, which combined should not cost more than 350USD, or bit more.
 
Addy101 said:
Wouldn't a F100 and D810 combination more comparable then the Df and any film camera?
Click to expand...

Physical look and feel maybe. But in operation perhaps not. My experience with the F100 has been that the auto focus is too slow and tends to hunt badly indoors. During events I would get so frustrated that I switch off AF and focus manually. But then the problem is the F100 screen is not good for manual focusing -- it relies entirely on the sharpness of your eyesight, there are no manual focusing aids, lacking even a simple ground glass area. Conversely, the N90S (FX90) is slightly better with manual lenses). So I wouldn't think an F100 and D800/810 would go nicely together. I have my F100 with a Fuji S5 Pro at the same time and while they look similar visually, they operate rather differently.

A DF + F3, yes, that would be close. The DF is a bit thicker, though. Same with an M pairing -- digital M's are noticeably larger in the hand when you are used to film M's.

One cheaper idea would be to pair the ZI with an XE or X-Pro.
 
Like I said before I'm a long time Leica user but I had problems going from high performance digital equipment to the M9. When I bough the M9 I was using the D800, a Hasselblad digital system and bought the Df. Honestly the M9 was like stepping back to the D1 Nikon I bought in 2000. The buffer depth, buffer speed and LCD on the back were pretty much the same. Image quality from the M9 was better by a big margin than the D1 but reliability and counting on the camera functioning properly was always an issue. The Nikon systems proceed reliability, exceptional dynamic range, resolution, superb color, speed, versatility and incredably low noise at extreme ISO. The Hasselblad smoked all of them in image quality.

I tried to love the M9 but even disregarding reliability it wasn't in the same class as the other gear. It produced nice images when it was working but I had to guess what my images looked like on the poor LCD and wait for what seemed like eternity for the buffer to clear and it didn't feel like a leica such is one of the great qualities of an M body.

I think most people looking objectively at the two systems after having used the Df for a period of time will have a real problem moving to an M9.
 
x-ray said:
I think most people looking objectively at the two systems after having used the Df for a period of time will have a real problem moving to an M9.
Click to expand...

I'm not so sure. I think it depends on what each person wants or likes. And I don't think technical capability is the ultimate arbitrator in art.

Based on side by side blind tests made by someone I forget who now, the CCD vs CMOS difference may just boil down to nothing more than a placebo effect. But placebos are worth something to people who believe in them. And it has even been demonstrated in clinical trials, that it can work on cancer patients -- not because of any medical properties, but rather the effect that faith (and hope) has on the will and spirit.

By the same token, even though the DF -- like the M240 -- may yield far better technical images than an M8 or M9, if the holder hates using it to take photos then it may just have an effect on their eventual output. And the placebo effect of the M9's CCD images may just convince them that they have taken some really great images.

People like to say it's the photographer, not the camera. But I know painters and sculptors who favour certain brands of tools -- hammer, chisels, sables -- because it feels better in their hands, and this mental state has an effect on their output.
 
@anerjee: sorry to be a little intrusive but curious if you bought the DF or anything else and if are you satisfied...
robert
 
food for thought but what about a Canon DSLR body instead of Nikon?

I initially bought a D610 to be used exclusively with my AI-S lenses but hated the Nikon body/interface.
Bought my uncle's 5D and my hand just felt at home. Bought an AI-S to EF adapter and my Nikon lenses works in it, just waiting for my Ee-S focusing screen and hopefully it will give me a film SLR experience.
 
Ronald M said:
You need Ai or AiS lenses to use with later Nikon film bodies or you damage the metering.
Click to expand...

Depending upon the lens the old ones are pretty easy to convert to AI too. I've converted an original 10.5CM F 2.5 (sonnar version) and a 5CM f2 to AI.

The 5CM was a little tricky as the aperture ring is actually smaller than the metering tab on my D700 or F3. So I had to extend it slightly to engage.

Some nice pre-ai lenses can be had *cheap* at this point. Not all current Nikon's will meter them when AI converted though.

Shawn
 
I have a total of nine non-AI Nikkors that have been converted to AI and use them with my Df. Three I purchased in the 70's. The other six were purchased really dirt cheap after I bought my Df in July of 2014.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom