Nikon df or......

kxl said:
I've been wanting a Df for a while now, but other priorities seem to keep coming up. If and when I do purchase a Df, I'll probably look into installing a focusing screen like the one on this link.

http://www.jerkwithacamera.com/nikon-df-split-screen-manual-focusing-screen/comment-page-1/
Click to expand...

I bought the Chinese split prism screen off ebay. I really didn't find it any easier to focus than the screen that comes with the camera. The green confirmation light works so well. Eventually I removed the split image screen and reinstalled the stock screen.

I'd vote Df also. I have both the D800 and Df and use the Df 80% of the time. Low high ISO noise and stunning color plus easy manual focus compatibility. I especially like the skin tones. Nothing wrong with the D800 either especially the 14 stop dynamic range.

Your combo of lenses is almost the same as what I use. I use all AI or AIs lenses on it with the exception of my 85 1.4 which is a D series AF. I carry a 20 F3.5, 35 f1.4, 28 F2.8, 50 f1.2, 50 f3.5 Micro, 85 1.4D, 105 f2.5, 135 3.5 and 200 f4. I also use but do t carry usually 25-50 f4, 75-150 f3.5 and 70-200 f4.5. All perform quite well on the Df.

By the way I bought a new M9 and eventually got sick of it being in the shop and sold it. No regrets. I really enjoy using the Df more than the M9 and I'm a dedicated M film shooter for fifty years. Imo there's no comparison in functionality of the Df vs the M9 bot of course this is a subjective statement.
 
I had started a similar thread a few weeks back... finally pulled the trigger on a close to new DF with a bunch of extras on eBay. An interim run to try out DSLRs with an old Pentax DSLR - the Pentax *istDS - that I picked up in new condition for $50 convinced me I will really like the DF.

I will need to wait for a few months until I am back in the US to play with the DF...I plan to settle into the following arrangement:

* B/W - film cameras and scan or Leica M8
* Color = *ist and DF
* night / low light - DF (or MF @1600 ISO)
 
Just keep using the D700.

Unless analog signal-to-noise ratio and dynamic range (low-light performance), rather large prints or composure reliant on cropping is important to your work, the D700 should be fine. It is heavy though.
 
As one other poster suggested, I think the D750 is worth a look. Ergonomically, its much nicer than the DF - its rather like a lighter updated D700. That said, the DF works very well with older Nikon glass so I'd say its a toss up between those two.
 
A couple questions for the OP.

Do you ever shoot video with your 1DX? (I bought mine for cinema-style 1080p video in a hardened, weather-sealed case). And second, how's your investment in Canon glass?

I'd say you're not saving much size/weight with a 5DIII or a D700...Df isn't much smaller. If FF isn't an issue, look at the X-T1, or look at the Canon 6D if you need FF and video.

I honestly haven't touched my X-T1 since I bought my EOS 1DX. For light informal travel, the M9, for more explorational travel, just tote the 1DX and enjoy good video too.

Of course, there are always the Sony offerings, which will take all the different glass and offer video and FF.

It's a good time to buy a camera!!
 
Fraser said:
Not much love for the d800 or canon 5dmk3..........
Click to expand...

I love my D800 and have no complaints about it. One of the appealing things about the Df to me is I set it up to work pretty much like a film camera. I use manual focus lenses, set up the shutter speed dial rather than a wheel and use the aperture ring on the lenses. I even shut off the LCD on the back because i hate it flashing up in my eye every tome I make a photo. The D800 works different but is OK. It's a modern camera with wheels and buttons to make it work. On the Df even the ISO is set in the old way with a dial on the top of the camera.

I've shot film since the 50's and just like the way it works but I do love the D800 for specific jobs. For work the D800 is the one camera I'd own over all others. It's so good I sold my Hasselblad digital equipment. For personal work I'd take the Df. Files are plenty big and as I said I love the way it works and feels.
 
Personally I think of the DF as the tackiest DSLR of all time and the control layout looks as if it were designed by a committee. Some people do seem to love them though.

I'd go for the D750 if size/weight is an issue, it's virtually the same dimensions as a D7200.
 
Baby of Macon said:
As one other poster suggested, I think the D750 is worth a look. Ergonomically, its much nicer than the DF - its rather like a lighter updated D700. That said, the DF works very well with older Nikon glass so I'd say its a toss up between those two.
Click to expand...
One major problem I have with the D750 is the lack of a dedicated AF-ON button for use with AF lenses. It's a nonstarter for me, and probably for most other back-button AF users too.
 
nongfuspring said:
Personally I think of the DF as the tackiest DSLR of all time and the control layout looks as if it were designed by a committee. Some people do seem to love them though.

I'd go for the D750 if size/weight is an issue, it's virtually the same dimensions as a D7200.
Click to expand...
What do you find "tacky" about it?

And if it was a committee, at least it was a committee of photographers, not a committee of computer nerds.

Cheers,

R.
 
I chose the A7ii over the Df, despite 30 years of Nikon loyalty, as I think the Df is uncompetitively priced in comparison, though I'm sure it's a lovely camera.
 
I was in a similar position recently and did some fairly exhaustive research. I couldn't commit to the Df despite how much I loved the concept because of the mediocre autofocus system, no autofocus assist, and the fact that it felt like a big chunk of plastic. Those may not be huge issues, but when the camera is priced where it's at there shouldn't be any "buts." For what it's worth I went with the 5DIII and 24-70 2.8II. I didn't have a bunch of Nikon glass though. I shot my first event with it over the weekend and am very pleased with the output.
 
David_Manning said:
A couple questions for the OP.

Do you ever shoot video with your 1DX? (I bought mine for cinema-style 1080p video in a hardened, weather-sealed case). And second, how's your investment in Canon glass?

I'd say you're not saving much size/weight with a 5DIII or a D700...Df isn't much smaller. If FF isn't an issue, look at the X-T1, or look at the Canon 6D if you need FF and video.

I honestly haven't touched my X-T1 since I bought my EOS 1DX. For light informal travel, the M9, for more explorational travel, just tote the 1DX and enjoy good video too.

Of course, there are always the Sony offerings, which will take all the different glass and offer video and FF.

It's a good time to buy a camera!!
Click to expand...

Never shoot video with my 1Dxs
as for Canon glass
I have
24 1.4
50 1.2
135 2
14 2.8
16-35
70-200
300
All rather heavy perfect for my work but nothing else. I did have a 6d and thought it was great, bought it to use with my 50 1.2 but the af just didn't like the 50.
If I do buy a df I will probably only use 50 1.4 or 35 2 most of the time, will see how it goes and if i don't like it will sell it once my M9 comes back!

Cheers.
 
Nathan King said:
I was in a similar position recently and did some fairly exhaustive research. I couldn't commit to the Df despite how much I loved the concept because of the mediocre autofocus system, no autofocus assist, and the fact that it felt like a big chunk of plastic. Those may not be huge issues, but when the camera is priced where it's at there shouldn't be any "buts." For what it's worth I went with the 5DIII and 24-70 2.8II. I didn't have a bunch of Nikon glass though. I shot my first event with it over the weekend and am very pleased with the output.
Click to expand...

I've shot a few jobs with AF lenses that were under terrible light. I shot two jobs in a large conference hall where the lights were dimmed to a point I had to shoot at very high ISO at 1/15 second at f3.5 with my 80-200 VRII. Never a problem with the AF. Motion of the subjects was an issue but there was a high percentage of keepers. Most bad frames were due to subject motion not focus. If you feel you need an AF assist light, which I don't, I think Nikon makes an attachment that goes in the hot shoe.

I have the black version and perhaps the chrome is different but there's nothing plastic feeling about it. Matter of fact I think it's mostly metal. I don't feel it's any more plastic than my D800 or the Canon 1DsII I had. Each to their own opinion though.
 
Roger Hicks said:
What do you find "tacky" about it?

And if it was a committee, at least it was a committee of photographers, not a committee of computer nerds.

Cheers,

R.
Click to expand...

Maybe conceited or kitschy might be a better word than tacky. It could have been a homage but it settled for disfigured facsimile, I think its proportions are aggressively ugly. As far as the layout goes there's quite a bit of redundancy which goes against the whole principle of minimalist manual shooting that the camera was supposed to (in the marketing anyway) represent. They ought to have gotten Giorgetti Giugiaro to design it.

But the sensor is good, and people take good pictures with it so my opinion on it shouldn't matter.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom