dasuess
Nikon Freak
Another (very) happy Df user. I have 10 vintage Nikkors converted to AI and they work great on my Df. Looking ahead to a Df-2 in the future.
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
Luke_Miller
Established
I shoot my Df with manual focus Nikkors exclusively and have no problem with focus. When I do a side by side comparison with my F3HP I don't see a noticeable difference in my focus ability using the ground glass portion of the focus screen. My primary use is event shooting where quick focus rather than precise focus is my priority. The split image and microprism focus aids in the F3HP focus screen make it superior for precise focus, but I find them a distraction in my use. I add a Nikon DK17-M magnifying eyepiece to my Df which makes the viewfinder image a bit larger.
My Nikon Ai and Ai-s lenses are the 24 f2.8 and f2, 28 f2, 35 f2 and f1.4, 50 f1.2, 85 f2, 105 f2.5, 135 f2.8, and 200 f4. These are hold overs from my film days and have gained renewed life on my Df. They also worked fine on my other Nikon DSLRs, but sort of looked out of place and were rarely used. I am very satisfied with the quality of the images they capture, but they are not a match for my Summicrons and Elmarit-Ms particularly at wider apertures.
I have old eyes as well and manual focus had become a challenge. Both moderate astigmatism and cataracts worked against me. Since my cataract surgery my ability to manual focus has improved to the point where it is no longer an issue.
My Nikon Ai and Ai-s lenses are the 24 f2.8 and f2, 28 f2, 35 f2 and f1.4, 50 f1.2, 85 f2, 105 f2.5, 135 f2.8, and 200 f4. These are hold overs from my film days and have gained renewed life on my Df. They also worked fine on my other Nikon DSLRs, but sort of looked out of place and were rarely used. I am very satisfied with the quality of the images they capture, but they are not a match for my Summicrons and Elmarit-Ms particularly at wider apertures.
I have old eyes as well and manual focus had become a challenge. Both moderate astigmatism and cataracts worked against me. Since my cataract surgery my ability to manual focus has improved to the point where it is no longer an issue.
Fraser
Well-known
If I didn't already have a d700 for my old nikkors I would definitely pickup a df just for my 50mm 1.2. I use canon gear for work and only really use my m9 for holidays etc but if I was to do it all again and wanted a fun camera I think I would go for the df over a m9, just have a look at the big auction site for all the old nikkors, I picked up my 50mm 1.2 for a £130 and it easily matches my canon ef 50mm 1.2. What the price of a secondhand 50mm summilux or even a summicron not £130.
Fraser
Well-known
That's a bit of a strange choice of fd cameras the top pro body or the bottom (no manual control) amateur body at least go for an AE-1
x-ray
Veteran
Manual focusing with the Df is no issue. If in doubt I use the green focus confirmation light.
Understand I don't hate Leica. I've used since 1968 and still use their film bodies regularly. I'm still using B&W film in my work and many times my Leica kit is the right choice for the shoot. I still have 3 bodies (M2 that I've had for decades, M4-P and MP) and a selection of current to vintage Leica glass with a few CV and Nikkor RF lenses thrown in. I pick the glass and system that best suits what I'm doing at the moment. I don't believe any single company has the answer to all needs or makes every lens "the best".
I shoot under terrible lighting conditions frequently. I owned a superb set of current Leica glass and sold most of it. I had the 24 Elmar, 35 summicron V1, 50 summilux asph, 35 fle, 75 summilux, 90 Elmarit V1 and 90 Apo asph. I've owned or used where I worked most of the M glass since the 60's. The current glass is certainly sharp and if sharp is your criterion for the best thing going it's the best. For my work and personal taste I didn't warm up to most. Under low and contrasty light where light sources are on the edge of the frame I find the current asph glass flares more than spherical lenses. I also don't care for the artificial / plastic IMO look of some of the images from these lenses. IMO they're harsh and artificial looking. This is just my opinion. Some of the older glass isn't great either. This is why I selected a variety of makers glass that I'm comfortable with. My Leica kit includes the 3 bodies, 15 CV, 21 SA f3.4, 28 CV f1.9, 35 Biogon f2, 35 summicron v1, 50 Planar, 50 Nikkor ltm f2, 75 summilux, 85 Nkkor f2 ltm, 90 Elmarit v1, 90 Minolta Elmar and 105 Nikkor f2.5 ltm. I put together a small selection of lenses for any particular shoot based on what I feel will do the best job. I don't generally carry more than 4 or 5 lenses.
I also often carry a Nikon and selection of similar glass biased tword longer and faster lenses.
Zeiss was mentioned and I'm a Zeiss fan but I purchased a three ZF/ lenses, 25 f/, 35 f2 and 100 f2 and after testing against new G series Nikon glass on my D800 I returned them. The problems, they're very heavy but the big issue was they weren't any better than the Nikkor in some ways. The 25 and 35 didn't get sharp throughout the frame until they hit f8. I was looking for great f2 performance and while sharp in the center they were disappointing in the outer field. The 100 had terrible chromatic a berating wide open as well. In all honesty some of my AIS glass outperformed the ZF glass.
Years ago I used a Rollei 3003 system. I had the system for quite a few years. My lens system was all Zeiss and with film I was very pleased. But like every other lens maker not all lenses are created equal. Some excelled and others were good.
Just my opinion and worth what you paid for it.
Understand I don't hate Leica. I've used since 1968 and still use their film bodies regularly. I'm still using B&W film in my work and many times my Leica kit is the right choice for the shoot. I still have 3 bodies (M2 that I've had for decades, M4-P and MP) and a selection of current to vintage Leica glass with a few CV and Nikkor RF lenses thrown in. I pick the glass and system that best suits what I'm doing at the moment. I don't believe any single company has the answer to all needs or makes every lens "the best".
I shoot under terrible lighting conditions frequently. I owned a superb set of current Leica glass and sold most of it. I had the 24 Elmar, 35 summicron V1, 50 summilux asph, 35 fle, 75 summilux, 90 Elmarit V1 and 90 Apo asph. I've owned or used where I worked most of the M glass since the 60's. The current glass is certainly sharp and if sharp is your criterion for the best thing going it's the best. For my work and personal taste I didn't warm up to most. Under low and contrasty light where light sources are on the edge of the frame I find the current asph glass flares more than spherical lenses. I also don't care for the artificial / plastic IMO look of some of the images from these lenses. IMO they're harsh and artificial looking. This is just my opinion. Some of the older glass isn't great either. This is why I selected a variety of makers glass that I'm comfortable with. My Leica kit includes the 3 bodies, 15 CV, 21 SA f3.4, 28 CV f1.9, 35 Biogon f2, 35 summicron v1, 50 Planar, 50 Nikkor ltm f2, 75 summilux, 85 Nkkor f2 ltm, 90 Elmarit v1, 90 Minolta Elmar and 105 Nikkor f2.5 ltm. I put together a small selection of lenses for any particular shoot based on what I feel will do the best job. I don't generally carry more than 4 or 5 lenses.
I also often carry a Nikon and selection of similar glass biased tword longer and faster lenses.
Zeiss was mentioned and I'm a Zeiss fan but I purchased a three ZF/ lenses, 25 f/, 35 f2 and 100 f2 and after testing against new G series Nikon glass on my D800 I returned them. The problems, they're very heavy but the big issue was they weren't any better than the Nikkor in some ways. The 25 and 35 didn't get sharp throughout the frame until they hit f8. I was looking for great f2 performance and while sharp in the center they were disappointing in the outer field. The 100 had terrible chromatic a berating wide open as well. In all honesty some of my AIS glass outperformed the ZF glass.
Years ago I used a Rollei 3003 system. I had the system for quite a few years. My lens system was all Zeiss and with film I was very pleased. But like every other lens maker not all lenses are created equal. Some excelled and others were good.
Just my opinion and worth what you paid for it.
AlexBG
Well-known
That's a bit of a strange choice of fd cameras the top pro body or the bottom (no manual control) amateur body at least go for an AE-1
I only use aperture priority with film so AV-1 would be fine for me. It's the lens that I love the look it gives, not bothered about the body. To be honest it just means it would sit in auto and take pictures. No messing about. There's a £300 difference between the AV-1 and F1N so I need to have a play with both and decide.
Calzone
Gear Whore #1
Check out post number 767 in the "Nikon F3 Tribute" thread. There's a picture of my F3HP disguised and styled as a Nikon DF with a DF pictured on its side for comparison. The overall feel of the camera is like holding a brick, meaning a very solid feel, especially with the AH-4 hand strap. Be aware that I had one instance where my F3 was mistaken for a handgun in Queens Plaza.
I added a DF-18 Databack which is not seen so the overall thickness is of a digital camera. The added aftermarket grip I bought off the RFF classified.
As far as 28mm FOV the 28/2.8 AIS is Nikon's most corrected lens and it has amazing performance. Can close focus to 1 foot. This lens also is mighty small. Amazingly you can buy this lens for no money (around $300.00).
Also know that I use this F3/DF with a AF-D 28/1.4 primarily.
Cal
I added a DF-18 Databack which is not seen so the overall thickness is of a digital camera. The added aftermarket grip I bought off the RFF classified.
As far as 28mm FOV the 28/2.8 AIS is Nikon's most corrected lens and it has amazing performance. Can close focus to 1 foot. This lens also is mighty small. Amazingly you can buy this lens for no money (around $300.00).
Also know that I use this F3/DF with a AF-D 28/1.4 primarily.
Cal
x-ray
Veteran
People should know that often there were optical changes between non AI, AI and AIS versions. The 28 f2.8 is a good example. The formula changed in every one including the AF version. The 24 f2.8 changed two times from what I've read. Also the 105 f2.5 appeared in two formulas with the first being a Sonnar.
x-ray
Veteran
When people ask me what equipment I use and what brand is best I tell them if there was a true superiority of one brand over another all of us that make a living shooting would use that brand. There would be only one brand then but in reality there's no superior brand. We each have our personal preferences but understand among the top few there's no superior system. It's indivdual need and features to satisfy that need. Lenses and cameras are all so good now that the differece comes down to the creativity and skill of the person behind the camera.
Consider the greatest images in history and what they've been shot with. To think there's only one brand that's best is silly.
Consider the greatest images in history and what they've been shot with. To think there's only one brand that's best is silly.
willie_901
Veteran
I was surprised at how light the Df was the first time I picked one up. Their data stream performance is excellent.
I suppose I didn't consider one because Nikon does not appreciate customers who like to manual focus any of their lenses. I used the green dot on the D200/300/700 bodies. I had a Katz-Eye (r.i.p.) split focus screen installed on the D200. MF is practical but Nikon could make improve the MF experience if they cared one iota about photographers who enjoy manual focusing. Nikon could have produced a Df style camera years earlier. My rejection of the Df was more a vote-with-my-money protest than anything else.
I owned quite a few AIS, AI lenses. The 105/2.5 AI is the only one I miss. The others all had issues (ghosting with the 24/2.8 for instance) or annoying levels of longitudinal chromatic aberrations. I had no emotional attachment to these lenses and selling all of them was easy. The AF lenses are very good but nothing special... and they also had the longitudinal chromatic aberration issue. When I decided to abandon Nikon I knew I wouldn't miss their lenses.
I suppose I didn't consider one because Nikon does not appreciate customers who like to manual focus any of their lenses. I used the green dot on the D200/300/700 bodies. I had a Katz-Eye (r.i.p.) split focus screen installed on the D200. MF is practical but Nikon could make improve the MF experience if they cared one iota about photographers who enjoy manual focusing. Nikon could have produced a Df style camera years earlier. My rejection of the Df was more a vote-with-my-money protest than anything else.
I owned quite a few AIS, AI lenses. The 105/2.5 AI is the only one I miss. The others all had issues (ghosting with the 24/2.8 for instance) or annoying levels of longitudinal chromatic aberrations. I had no emotional attachment to these lenses and selling all of them was easy. The AF lenses are very good but nothing special... and they also had the longitudinal chromatic aberration issue. When I decided to abandon Nikon I knew I wouldn't miss their lenses.
Kent
Finally at home...
I'd like to second x-ray's first posts.
The Df is an amazing camera and really feels like a film cam - even more than the Fuji X-T1 does! (I've got both and like the Fuji but love the Nikon.)
As for a matching film camera, the F3 is a perfect twin. You also can use non-AI lenses, just like with the Df, but you also can benefit from AI-lenses.
The Df is an amazing camera and really feels like a film cam - even more than the Fuji X-T1 does! (I've got both and like the Fuji but love the Nikon.)
As for a matching film camera, the F3 is a perfect twin. You also can use non-AI lenses, just like with the Df, but you also can benefit from AI-lenses.
Rob-F
Likes Leicas
Leica vs. Nikon? Well, I don't have a Df (yet) but I shoot an M8.2 and a D700. For portability and for the enjoyment of using my Leica gear, I will take along the M8.2 and maybe 3 lenses in a small bag. This can be just right for an airline trip, for example. For sheer versatility, usability, and high-ISO performance, I use Nikon. I can use any focal length from 15mm to 400mm and still be able to see what I'm doing in the finder.
To paraphrase Master Card: "For everything else, there's Nikon."
edit: Funny, my avatar went away. I wonder why? Because it shows my barnacks, and they were insulted?
To paraphrase Master Card: "For everything else, there's Nikon."
edit: Funny, my avatar went away. I wonder why? Because it shows my barnacks, and they were insulted?
Jbig
Member
Recently got a DF and am finding it hard to pick up anything else, even Leica.
giganova
Well-known
I really don't understand what would be consistent here. Maybe the lens mount and the size of the body (not even that, though), and that's about it. Digital and film have a completely different work flow. Going through menus instead of knobs & dials -- that's enough difference to make them completely inconsistent with each other, so I'm not quite sure what you want to achieve. Just because the Df has a retro design doesn't mean that it handles like a film camera.
Calzone
Gear Whore #1
The DF is very much like a film camera and is somewhat stripped down, somewhat basic, and elemental. The thing that would be consistent perhaps is to have a Nikon film camera that somewhat seamlessly strongly resembles the handling and feel of the DF. For some it is the F3.
Workflow aside... the DF was purposely designed to be like a film camera...
Not sure if you are stuck or muddled in digital verses film mode. I shoot both. As far as menus, knobs and dials the only ones generally important to me are aperture and shutter speed. In this regard shooting film or digital are very much the same.
Processing the image captured is where other hardware like developing tanks, scanners and computers, printers or enlargers come into play and your workflow comes into play as being different.
Cal
anerjee
Well-known
Consistent in how you view and focus (ruling out EVF).
Consistent in lens selection, and how they behave across bodies. Of course, digital sensors need more correction, we understand that. But none of the corner smearing and color issues.
Canon EF and Leica M also provide this sort of consistency, but in different ways.
I'm increasingly convinced about the Nikon Df. The big advantage is the garden of Nikkor lenses is more inviting due to the lower cost of entry.
Consistent in lens selection, and how they behave across bodies. Of course, digital sensors need more correction, we understand that. But none of the corner smearing and color issues.
Canon EF and Leica M also provide this sort of consistency, but in different ways.
I'm increasingly convinced about the Nikon Df. The big advantage is the garden of Nikkor lenses is more inviting due to the lower cost of entry.
Addy101
Well-known
Wouldn't a F100 and D810 combination more comparable then the Df and any film camera?
MCTuomey
Veteran
Yes, agree with you. I'm not a Nikon user, never have been, yet the idea of a solid inventory of lenses that seamlessly swaps between sweet-handling film and digital bodies is majorly compelling. Leica will get you there, truly excellent IQ and haptics, at premium cost. For the price of one fast Leica lens, it sounds like one could do a used Df, a film body, and2-3 really fine nikkor lenses.
If you're good with dSLR use (willing to jettison your ZI kit), sounds like an excellent way to go. I would figure out a way to try out a Df though.
x-ray
Veteran
It's about the same. I have a D800 and F100 and there fairly close in feel and operation. The F3 and Df are very close in operation and feel also.
Contarama
Well-known
If Pentax ever comes out with the FF then Nikon will have a legacy lens contender.
The reason Df cannot do interchangeable screens has to do with the digital sensor but they have optimized the viewfinder for the old lenses the best they can (one does not need a Katzeye split ring what you get is essentially an E screen like from the F2 assuming you enable grid function)...same deal with AF system...don't need AF system the camera was made for the old lenses. IMO it will be the last backwards compatible rig offered up by Nikon unless they do some mirrorless type camera perhaps. They are going fully electronic with their glass all of it gelded. The Df will become a cult classic camera.
The reason Df cannot do interchangeable screens has to do with the digital sensor but they have optimized the viewfinder for the old lenses the best they can (one does not need a Katzeye split ring what you get is essentially an E screen like from the F2 assuming you enable grid function)...same deal with AF system...don't need AF system the camera was made for the old lenses. IMO it will be the last backwards compatible rig offered up by Nikon unless they do some mirrorless type camera perhaps. They are going fully electronic with their glass all of it gelded. The Df will become a cult classic camera.