Highway 61
Revisited
Yes.
Like that :
I wonder how I could mistakenly perceive what you were considering. Really.
Nikon DF
- Thread starter stitchohana
- Start date
- Latest activity Latest activity:
- Replies 1K
- Views 103K
Jan Van Laethem
Nikkor. What else?
I have no experience with recent DSLRs, so I'm not really into a position to judge. I think manual focusing with this camera will be one of the main points that will be adressed in reviews. So I'll sit on the fence for a while and watch and listen before committing myself.
david.elliott
Well-known
My understanding is that you need a different screen if you intend to use fast glass at or near wide open. The screen being used will not permit you to differentiate what is precisely in focus at anything faster than f/2.8. The range of what will appear to be in focus is too great.
I could be wrong though. If I am, I'm sure somebody will correct me.
gavinlg
Veteran
Not too sure. OK there are weather sealings and the top and bottom are made of molded magnesium but the inwards are plastic (polycarbonate, yes, but plastic nonetheless) and so the lens mount is bolted on a plastic plate.
This was my concern when the D600 came out, because I have a heavy lens I use very often (Nikkor Ai-S 180/2.8 ED). This is why I got a D700 eventually. And also why Nikon is said to have reinforced things somehow on the D610, although the D610 is still plastic made.
At that price for the body only I'm quite disappointed to discover that it's the same plastic inwards construction as on the D600-610...
🙁
plastic chassis? Is that a joke? My x-pro1 has a magnesium alloy chassis and costs literally 1/3 of the price.
Damnit Nikon. :bang:
Timmyjoe
Veteran
Not a fan of the split screen for manual focus, much prefer the bright matte screen. Not that I'm in the market for a camera like this, but my bigger concern than the focus screen is the apparent lack of a diopter adjustment on the camera. I've been spoiled by the F4S, D4, F5 and D700 I've owned over the last twenty years.
Best,
-Tim
Highway 61
Revisited
From a good experience of manual focusing with the D700 original screen and many different MF Nikkors : no.
There is a cheap accessory which really makes manual focusing a breeze, that's the Nikon DK-17M lupe. With it the VF image is larger and what comes in focus "pops" very easily.
And, in case, there is the excellent built-in electronic rangefinder (green dot in the VF which tells you're in focus).
When I used to own my D200, that was another story. But no problem whatsoever with the D700. And the Df finder won't be worse than the D700 one.
Keith
The best camera is one that still works!
My son races very high tech RC cars and I can't help but notice that areas of the car that require a lot of rigidity are often plastic. It's not your average plastic obviously but why should cameras be exempt from choices of ultra modern materials where appropriate?
Magnesium has good thermal stability but it also fractures quite easily and will degrade over time.
Magnesium has good thermal stability but it also fractures quite easily and will degrade over time.
thirtyfivefifty
Well-known
I was looking at the tech specs, and it checked out all fine despite the lack of video, except for one glaring aspect. WHY THE HECK DID THEY DECIDE TO GIVE THE CAMERA A 15MM EYEPOINT? No one with glasses will be able to see the viewfinder clearly.
gavinlg
Veteran
On the whole I basically hate plastic. It is toxic to manufacture, difficult to dispose of, toxic to the environment and humans when it does break down, and ages poorly. Also I can't really think of one plastic camera that has aged well in terms of durability. Metal cameras on the other hand...
daveleo
what?
On the hopeful side . . . this may just be Nikon's first step in this direction.
The first Panasonic (mirrorless) 4/3 camera was a silly design - it was built just like a DSLR. It evolved beyond that.
Possibly, Nikon will evolve this concept as well.
The first Panasonic (mirrorless) 4/3 camera was a silly design - it was built just like a DSLR. It evolved beyond that.
Possibly, Nikon will evolve this concept as well.
Spyro
Well-known
I'm all for plastic, it keeps weight down, but I would understand the concern if I was using long heavy lenses. Nikon have probably done their testing though... you'd think
david.elliott
Well-known
Ugh. I didnt notice that....
Keith
The best camera is one that still works!
You're generalising about plastics based on what you assume to be correct.
We're not talking about shopping bags here! 😀
gavinlg
Veteran
Honestly I don't think weight is why they use plastic. Its sole purpose is cost cutting.
The x-pro1 is magnesium alloy chassis and some sort of alloy shell, and it is one of the lighter big sensor cameras. Almost Half the weight of the Df.
gavinlg
Veteran
I look at cars with plastic bumpers which warp, fade and go powdery over time. Also look at any plastic camera from the 90s, and compare it to any metal camera made over the last 50 years. It is true I don't know what these new plastics are like, but given the chance to choose between an original dodge challenger or a prius on durability alone, I know which I would choose 😎
daveleo
what?
Good point. RC cars get beat to hell in jumps, flips and crashes and they keep on running. That composite material is incredible.
IMO the only advantage of (some) metals is that they're more ductile and ductile outer structures reduce shock loads to internals.
When rigidity, light weight and strength are needed (for internal frames), composites rule.
sevo
Fokutorendaburando
That is possible, but entirely independent of the split prism focus aid - many ultrabright screens have such a small proportion of scattered light relative to the aerial image they present through rather than on the screen that there are many situations where the eye's focus will snap onto a off-screen aerial image.
gavinlg
Veteran
Sorry but I Don't buy this. RC cars aren't a great example because comparatively they are extremely light (I used to have a really good one too) so the forces imparted on their components are not that high (comparatively to a normal car). If composites were so much more rigid and light than metal they would use them for general automotive suspension components. Especially the companies that are striving for lower weight designs in search of higher performance - think the BMW M3, the porsche 911, all of which generally use aluminum suspension arms and supports.
It is true that cars like the mclaren mp12-4c use a carbon composite monocoque chassis but that is FAR beyond what is going into a consumer camera.
edit: For that matter - why wouldn't the canon 1dx or the d4 use composite chassis if they were actually better and lighter?
swoop
Well-known
Because despite their hefty, they actually are comfortable to hold for hours at a time. If you're a professional, regardless of your genre, news, fashion, events, sports, you're holding a camera for hours at a time, these mirrorless cameras, the A7, OM-D, X-E1, NEX, they're ok for taking a shot here and there but when you have to literally have a camera in your hand all day long these liittle things are just too small to be comfortable and these are things no one is thinking about when arguing about which is the better camera. None of them are if they're painful to hold.
Addy101
Well-known
In silver it looks a lot like an FG ... which I've never really liked the look of.
You obviously don't know the Canon EOS 50E (Some Elan in the USA), here is a picture of one: look at the dial close to the viewfinder hump, the colorscheme, and the round thing on the left side (it is a AF assist light on the EOS 50E):
Source: http://canon-eos.bplaced.net/frames/pics/fullsize/canon_eos_50e_1.htm
The 50E is a nice camera!
Similar threads
