Nikon df or......

nongfuspring said:
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.
Click to expand...
I agree it could have been better, possibly a lot better, but it's still so far and away the closest anyone has come to a traditional film SLR.

NEVER let a bloody car designer anywhere near anything other than a car. In fact, quite a lot of 'em shouldn't be allowed near cars.

Cheers,

R.
 
Went for a black df and also upgraded my 50mm 1.8d for a 1.4d, seems alright so far time will tell!
It would be nice if Nikon updated the 50mm but kept the same design as the d not the g.
Only came with one battery, now I could waste some time going for non-oem or have most people bought originals?
Cheers.
 
Another quick question does the battery only display in the viewfinder when it is almost empty?
A wait I see it does!
 
Fraser said:
Only came with one battery, now I could waste some time going for non-oem or have most people bought originals?
Click to expand...

Honestly, I have two Nikon batteries, but I never even use the second one because the first one lasts for more than a whole day.
 
jsrockit said:
Honestly, I have two Nikon batteries, but I never even use the second one because the first one lasts for more than a whole day.
Click to expand...

Thats what I was thinking but I may just buy a new one as I don't know how old this one is.
Battery's have come a long way, I know my canon 1dxs the battery's last for a few days I only have one spare and never use it, with the original 1d you had to have about four spare!
 
Roger Hicks said:
I agree it could have been better, possibly a lot better, but it's still so far and away the closest anyone has come to a traditional film SLR.

NEVER let a bloody car designer anywhere near anything other than a car. In fact, quite a lot of 'em shouldn't be allowed near cars.

Cheers,

R.
Click to expand...

Not a fan of the F3,4,5 etc.?

I think the X-T1 is a better example of a traditional SLR control layout, i.e. no PASM dial and lenses with actual aperture rings. Granted, no OVF.
 
Well I've had my df for a couple off days, and I really like it pretty good alternative to my m9 (still in Germany!). Few observations autofocus is not as good as my canon 1dx shocker!!! But it cost a third of the price, it feels much lighter and more compact than the d700 and a great all day carry still feels like a good quality camera and not at all plasticky. The files are great from it and having a small camera that can be taken everywhere with such a great high ISO is brilliant I normally shoot my m9 up to 1600 ISO and my canons up to 10000 and the df can match the canons, 3200 and 6400 are great the kind of quality that you could just use as default setting when inside. I like the dials I'm used to using auto ISO but actually on the df it's nice to use the dial, I've got no g lenses so I don't really use the little dial on the front just the aperture ring.
I reckon the df is a great alternative to a Leica m now even more so they are available second hand.
I do miss my old m9!
 
Peter Wijninga said:
I am aware the Df has a following but do you guys really believe that at US$ 2,750 this is a good deal today?
Click to expand...

Absolutely! It's a fantastic camera. Light years ahead of the M9 and most likely all of the Leica RF digital offerings. Honestly my M9 was a huge disappointment. Image quality was fine but functionality was terrible as was the bloated design. The LCD was no better than the nikon D1 I had and the buffer was about like the D1 as well. Image quality was fine at base ISO but was so noisy atbove 400 like the D1. Other than base ISO being good the rest of the camera was no better than the D1
 
Nope. I can use all my old glass (Ais or converted) on my D610 with no issues what so ever. I'd love a Df but not at 3 grand.
 
... but who is paying $2750 for one? They're very available for much less. My minty used one with two year warranty and 1242 actuations was about $1600.
 
Wulfthari said:
No it's expensive..but for legacy shooters it appears it's the only game in town.
Click to expand...

No it's not, the Sony A7 series has 100% compatibility with legacy glass, from many brands. Adapters go from prices of USD 20 onwards, maybe even less. And its 24MP or 36MP sensor is very close to the Nikon sensor (which is Sony made anyway).

The Sony's are less expensive than a Df too. Once you get past the 'Sony made crappy walkmans' sentiment, you find that the camera handles pretty good and has very good image quality.
 
I would not change systems unless there is a really good reason.

Df or D800 will be an improvement over 700 for larger prints. Small you will see no difference. No difference on monitor.

Df is no advantage for Ai converted lenses except better low light performance.

Files are 3x the size for 800 so taxes your computer more. Do a pano of 3 D700 images, and see how yours works.

D750 is a worthy sucessor to 700 at decent cost and out preforms Df at any iso. It is about D700 size and weight.
 
I think it is Ken! Especially from a bricks and mortar vendor. I so hate dealing with big ticket items from ebay sooo damned risky and often SLOW.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom