Nikon Df : sharing a message from Rachael Katz

[RichC]

Impossible to have interchangeable focusing screens in such a camera ? Ha, ha, ha. 🙄

As I said in my post above, it's nothing to do with cost or feasibility. Nikon simply doesn't want interchangeable screens.

To Nikon, it makes no economic or commercial sense. Like any company driven by capitalism, maximum profit is the name of the game.

Give it up. No major camera company will look to the past in the way you want.

 

[daveleo]

Not knowing what Nikon's manufactruing costs are, we can only speculate about what products they should produce. But, I don't feel they have done all their market assessment homework regarding a Df type camera.
From an engineering / manufacturing viewpoint, Nikon can put anything into this camera. In fact what the Df needs, IMO, is to have most of the fancy digital-age stuff removed from the design.

Somewhere in the mix of sales-projection numbers is a price point that will make them a profit from a "digital FM3a". Probably it's a high point for a "boutique" design (why did Leica just flash through my mind?).

I think Nikon thinks too much in terms of low margin & massive sales numbers and not too much in terms of making money from a high-priced specialty item.

It is fun to speculate !

 

[rbsinto]

I'm not really sure that I understand why they would give users the ability to put pre-AI Nikkors on this camera and then not give the option to swap a decent manual-focus screen into the camera. It seems absurd...

As a Nikon manual focus film camera user who only has blank or grid screens in his cameras, I'm thrilled that Nikon chose not to put the really annoying split screen in this camera.
I tried out a Df and found it very easy to manually focus (since I've done it this way for 35 years).
If it turns out to be possible for those wanting the split screen to swap them out, so much the better, but if not, when I probably buy a Df it will be just perfect for me.

 

[ChrisLivsey]

I think Nikon thinks too much in terms of low margin & massive sales numbers and not too much in terms of making money from a high-priced specialty item.

It is fun to speculate !

The high priced speciality rangefinder issues allegedly made them no money even at the prices they were marketed at, now they sell for considerably less even BNIB. Different field but once bitten....

 

[rbelyell]

As I said in my post above, it's nothing to do with cost or feasibility. Nikon simply doesn't want interchangeable screens.

To Nikon, it makes no economic or commercial sense. Like any company driven by capitalism, maximum profit is the name of the game.

Give it up. No major camera company will look to the past in the way you want.

if it doesnt cost them more to do so, doesnt present an engineering problem to do so, then help me understand how doing so, which can only increase sales by removing an obstacle for some whilst not in any way effecting sales to those to whom its not an obstacle, makes no economic or commercial sense. assuming the accuracy of your base premises, logic dictates exactly the opposite conclusion.

 

[Highway 61]

Give it up. No major camera company will look to the past in the way you want.

Of course. This is probably why Nikon themselves published that photo on all their official ads about the Df :

In other words : do they take us for complete morons ?

As a Nikon manual focus film camera user who only has blank or grid screens in his cameras, I'm thrilled that Nikon chose not to put the really annoying split screen in this camera.
I tried out a Df and found it very easy to manually focus (since I've done it this way for 35 years).

Try to use a MF Nikkor 85mm lens at f/2,8 (not even speaking of working at f/2 or f/1.8 or f/1.4) for some portrait work where you want the eyes of your model to be in focus, not the nose or the ears, and we'll talk about it. Even the use of the DK-17M lupe won't help.

For anything located at more than 5 meters, and shot with anything set at f/4 and above, perfect. But if you can't do some fine close-up portraits with a DSLR, WTF ?

Plus, you're confusing the old plain Fresnel B or E screens with the new blank microlenses ones designed for the AF. They've nothing in common. Plenty of data about this on the web for you to read.

The Df is a joy of a camera (I played with one extensively) but - like any camera fitted with a microlenses focusing screen designed for the AF - it simply does not work with MF lenses when you need to achieve very critical focus. That's it.

And with an interchangeable screen which would have costed nothing to Nikon, it would.

Nuts.

 

[RichC]

Nostalgia as marketing. The Nikon Df was never designed to be a Nikon F-type camera with a digital sensor, like many in this thread (including me) wish for. We are a niche market too trivial to consider; worse, such a camera could harm through negative reviews by mainstream users who would simply be confused. I recall one reviewer of the Epson R-D1 giving it 1 out of 10, writing that he couldn't see its point because it was barely more advanced than a camera built in the 1950s and that all it did was take pictures! (Granted Epson wasn't harmed by this attitude and low sales - the R-D1 was a prestige product to show off Epson not something primarily aimed at high sales and maximum profit. That the R-D1 has become a cult camera must have pleased Epson no end (cult doesn't equal high sales though, so don't expect an R-D2.)

So, the Nikon Df is a wholly modern dSLR with its design oriented towards nostalgia. Nikon had no desire to compromise any modern features in the camera, like autofocus and autoexposure - all these features had to perform equally to other dSLRs.

If you're really, really lucky Nikon might create a limited and expensive truly 'manual" dSLR as a prestige product to showcase the company a la the Epson R-D1 or the reproduction Nikon rangefinders. But I wouldn't hold your breath.

Bottom line: Nikon can easily create your dream manual camera, or at least one with interchangeable screens - but they don't want to.

This isn't to slight the Nikon Df. It is essentially a completely modern dSLR that can hold its own with the best, and has a unique style if its own. It may be able to use manual lenses, but it is primarily designed for autofocus and autoexposure like all other dSLRs.

 

[JRG]

.... The Nikon Df was never designed to be a Nikon F-type camera with a digital sensor, like many in this thread (including me) wish for. We are a niche market too trivial to consider ...

I fear that this assessment is all too accurate. 🙁

 

[rayfoxlee]

Being weaned on manual focus, I bought a Pentax K5, partly for the ability to use the many manual Pentax lenses available at silly low prices, but also because I could change the screen. Sure, Pentax does not offer a split, so I had to go with Katzeye and shim the screen. I lost spot metering and centre-weighted too, but that is the price you pay (as well as a hefty price for the screen in the UK after tax and shipping). But it works and the ability to focus with accuracy on a very small part of the image is invaluable to me.

For most manufacturers, it seems as if there are just too many compromises needed to achieve the right balance between ease of use and cost - but as one poster mentioned, I guess the costs to the manufacturers has a big part to play in Nikon's decision. It's still seems strange to market the Df as a blast from the past and not be able to offer a split image screen to those you can live with the compromises.

Ray

 

[willie_901]

As I said in my post above, it's nothing to do with cost or feasibility. Nikon simply doesn't want interchangeable screens.

To Nikon, it makes no economic or commercial sense. Like any company driven by capitalism, maximum profit is the name of the game.

Give it up. No major camera company will look to the past in the way you want.

Nikon is doing really well at that maximizing profit game. Their stock fell from $30 to $18 over the past 52 weeks.

 

[santino]

I think the exposure problem with a different screen could be easily solved by the camera's software (e.g. you could be able to choose the type of focusing screen in the menu etc.).
Nikon just has more AF lenses in their repertoir than MF ones!

 

[RichC]

Nikon is doing really well at that maximizing profit game. Their stock fell from $30 to $18 over the past 52 weeks.

Even more reason why we won't see the camera we want, sadly - I forgot that even the all-singing, all-dancing, semi-automatic digital camera is now seen as old-fashioned and falling out of favour with many consumers.

Looks like you might have to use Google Glasses or a phone to take photos before too long if you want to buy a new "camera"...! 😱

 

[wjlapier]

Nikon has a split image screen for the F6.

 

[Highway 61]

Nikon has a split image screen for the F6.

So ? Do you think we can use it in the Df without difficult shimming after having cut it down ?

 

[Phil_F_NM]

So ? Do you think we can use it in the Df without difficult shimming after having cut it down ?

It is the same screen as the D3, but the BriteView screen in the Df is a Mk VIII while the screen in the D3 is a Mk VI which makes sense as the D4 and D3x both have Mk VII screens. They are all the same and can be swapped, no shims necessary for the Nikon screens in the digital cameras with swap capability. The screen for the F6 screen looks identical in every way but the tab may be at a slightly different location to keep along with Nikon's planned obsolescence/incompatibility. Either way, it is soft polycarbonate and can easily be filed off to fit the D3/D4/Df.

Phil Forrest

 

[Highway 61]

So filing an F6 screen tab off would be the only thing to do to install an F6 screen in a Df ? Are you sure ?

Geez... they cost less than $40.

Plus, of course, taking the risk of having Nikon say that the warranty has been voided if they can discover any clue about someone having swapped the screen during the warranty period. But if you don't use tools but your fingers covered with nitrile gloves instead, in a dust-free environment, to swap the screens, I wonder how they could.

 

[Phil_F_NM]

The issue with the Nikon split prism screen is that it is still a bright screen optimized with a shallow scattering angle and fresnell pattern for the slower lenses that they have moved to. The Canon screens have a bright spot in the center but the field of view is mostly a stop darker due to the coarse grit of their screens. I prefer this over the brighter view as it allows a greater focus precision over the whole field. The Canon screen I use also doesn't have a fresnel pattern which I find annoying.

I'd have to have the F6 screen in front of me to compare it to the D3 screen but I'm reasonably sure if there is any difference it is the location of the tab.

Phil Forrest

 

[ssmc]

I fail to see how the mirror adjustment can't do the whole job, but I'm open to a concise explanation of that.

The mirror adjusting screw tilts the main mirror up and down but the crucial thing is that this also tilts the secondary mirror mounted underneath, which changes what is seen by the AF sensors mounted below. Here are a couple of pics (not mine) that illustrate this relationship:

http://nikonrumors.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/09/nikon-mirror-patent.JPG

http://i.imgur.com/ZWqaXiJ.jpg

Doing this means the AF points will no longer lie over what you see marked on the VF screen, and (just as bad, but in a different way) would make manual focusing only possible in one specific vertical location in the finder (if at all).

Shimming the VF screen is not hard - see my post here: http://www.rangefinderforum.com/forums/showthread.php?t=98098
but Nikon's recent decision to not sell spare parts to individuals may put a spanner in the works.

 

[Contarama]

but - like any camera fitted with a microlenses focusing screen designed for the AF - it simply does not work with MF lenses when you need to achieve very critical focus. That's it.

And with an interchangeable screen which would have costed nothing to Nikon, it would.

Nuts.

So this is why it is so difficult to achieve the focus I am after with my D5000 and old lenses (85 and 105) despite seeing my model's eyes perfectly in focus in the viewfinder...interesting.

It is so easy with H2 screen or an E screen on a F2 in fact I would say effortless compared to the DSLR.

Wouldn't it be cool if they just used a good old rangefinder patch...but then that wouldn't be good for AF lenses I suppose.

I have never really cared for AF for some strange reason maybe this is why.

 

[kjoosten]

And here we go...

And here we go...

I have never tried one of these, but here we go:

http://www.focusingscreen.com/index.php?cPath=22_139