Nikon DF

...

I came to the conclusion that my ideal camera would not be laden down with too many electronic options, have no live view screen (rather OVF RF and EVF in the viewfinder, if the optics were possible) but it would never be commercial.

Yup. I think quite a few of us have arrived at more or less that conclusion. Each of us has some ideal camera in mind, though not the same one of course. Each of those ideal cameras would strip away various features that are popular in current offerings, and would add a few features not currently available. But, regardless of the resulting appeal to a few of us, none of those ideal cameras is likely to be produced.
 
Nikon faces a very large handicap in the current market environment.

The F mount and existing lens base, combined with sensor thickness, limit their ability to minimize their cameras' width. I do not think a mirrorless F-mount camera would be significantly thinner. It would not be as tall though.

I do not see how the LCD screen is an issue.

Most of Nikon's consumer base prefer rather large and heavy zoom lenses anyway.
 
I look forward to thinner screens. Not sure I understand the FE missing parts?

Thinner screens are OK if you use AF lenses, but they're a problem to focus accurately if you use MF lenses. Nobody can deny this, because obvious scientific explanations tell the story.

The Nikon FE was an amateur relatevely inexpensive camera yet it offered true Nikon K, B, E interchangeable screens. Those screens were sold by Nikon and delivered with an official pair of neat brucelle tweezers with official instructions and in an official Nikon box. Changing the screen wasn't something tricky, this didn't void the warranty, and you didn't have to wait for third parties company to make alternative (and sometimes of questionable quality) screens for your camera. And this happened in 1977.

So, in 2013, not having a K optional screen from factory to install on a $3,000 camera aimed (according to the teasing campaign) to MF lenses users is a major goof IMO.

As Keith, to the question : "What can the Df do which my D700 cannot", my answer is : nothing.
 
Highway - my comment was about LCD screen thinness. I now realise we were talking about different things.

And about the final thought - what does any DSLR do that other doesn't, other than offering incremental improvements and usability. Again - Df is is a Nikon DSLR. It's not a rangefinder, it's not a mirrorless, thus it operates and has functionality of a DSLR. And your final conclusion "nothing" is wrong - it does plenty differently from D700. To say that focus screen would make it substantially different from other Nikons would be as much of an exaggeration as is dismissal of all those parts that make it differ from other D series. But does one need to substitute D700/D600/D800 with a Df? That's a personal choice.
 
By the way - on megapixel topic, if this camera was 36MP like D800 say bye-bye to the benefit of using your Ai and Ai-S lenses. They will simply not be able to handle such resolution (having tried them on D800 convinced me of this).
Sure. This is why the D600 wasn't a good move over the D700 - too many magapixels for "us" already. 12~16MP is the perfect ballpark for the Ai and Ai-S lenses.

Nobody would want the Df2 to be more megapixels rich. We'd like it to be more MF-lenses oriented, with less redundant buttons, a cleaner rear panel and interchangeable screens. A camera like that damn teasing campaign let us think the Df was (which isn't the case at all).
 
Do not take this as a bold universal-truth statement, it applies to me personally, and I'm from "post-MF" generation, child of AF era 🙂 but in my case I do suffice with focus confirmation dot. Of course it is not a replacement for screens, but it works for me. Split-screen would have been nice, but I'm not about to dismiss the whole camera because of that, personally.
Now would I prefer Df or D800/D610. I know which one I prefer, but I won't say it, everyone should make that choice for themselves.
 
Every time a new camera comes out, forums are filled with opponents saying "My xyz does everyhing it does....too expensive...I'm not interested...." EVERY new camera. Who cares that you're not interested?

The average buyer may be someone, like me, who has NEVER had a DSLR. So if they have a choice between a substantially similar D700 or this Df, they can choose on the looks of the things. Their prices, with one lens, are similar right? It's ok for manufacturers to make different looking cars, trucks, retro bicycles, right? Or do the race car/bike drivers get to make all the decisions for the world?
 
It does plenty differently from D700.
It has a 16MP chip instead of a 12MP chip but otherwise, not too sure what is fundamentally different but for the speeds, EC and ISO ergonomics and the 100% vs 95% VF coverage.

My point of view is that this is en extremely nice camera but that this is not a "different" camera. It's just a matter of ergonomics, but this isn't a DLSR wanting to depart from the DSLR philosophy we've got used to. And by no way is it a return to the old Nikons we had got used to, either.

I would have called "different" a Nikon DSLR with the Df top cover and knobs, interchangeable screens, very few buttons on the back (the question of the size of the LCD isn't very relevant I have to admit), simplified lone center-point AF with no AF collimators joystick, no PSAM modes but just the S, A and M modes, no USB/HDMI/wireless connectors but two SD cards slots instead, an integrated eyepiece closing device, and a true HP eyepiece.

Nothing Nikon can't make - but this would require at least a clear marketing policy.

Marketing such a camera wouldn't imply that they stopped making the D600-610-800-800E-4 cameras.

My guess is that the Df is a start towards this "different" type of DSLR. A marketing beta-test, sort of.
 
I won't buy it, simply because I don't shoot digital, so my opinion is not the most relevant here.
But...

It has been said and I repeat: No split image finder is a deal breaker. I am not even curious about the rest. It's simply irrelevant (so is my opinion, of course...😉). Nikon cannot pretend they created something with MF users in mind and left the screen without an MF focusing aid. Period.
 
I would have called "different" a Nikon DSLR with the Df top cover and knobs, interchangeable screens, very few buttons on the back (the question of the size of the LCD isn't very relevant I have to admit), simplified lone center-point AF with no AF collimators joystick, no PSAM modes but just the S, A and M modes, no USB/HDMI/wireless connectors but two SD cards slots instead, an integrated eyepiece closing device, and a true HP eyepiece.

(...)

My guess is that the Df is a start towards this "different" type of DSLR. A marketing beta-test, sort of.

I hope Nikon is taking note.
 
I'm not sure if I should bother stating the obvious because seems there is some natural resistance, but what the hell, these are just a few very obvious differences:
- MUCH improved ISO
- Hugely different control ergonomics (those knobs do not tell that camera operates differently?)
- etc, etc (I do think I'm wasting time, there's plenty of spec lists out there).

And those points you would change - then we would swap places and I'd be the one complaining because i need most of the stuff you're dismissing. Center AF point only? No way. Less controls for vital functions? Naah. The type of departure from traditional SLR you're trying to come up with, even then I fail to see what would make it THAT different, other than mixing features a bit differently, but not that differntly. By the same measure there is absolutely no difference between F6 and D700. Oh well, some difference in media type with all the consequences, but by your measurements not that radically different (and I'd have to agree). If we disregard media type, I'd say Df is further from D700 than F6 is.
 
I'd be the one complaining because i need most of the stuff you're dismissing. Center AF point only? No way. Less controls for vital functions? Naah.

There is a place for different cameras geared towards different needs. The SP and S3 rangefinders are a perfect example of this, as the S3 was much simplified over the SP. The F-801 was kind of the "poor man's F4". And we could go on and on.
 
A large part of the reason for all the complaining is that Nikon only releases one or two new DSLR models per year and most of those have been incremental upgrades to existing models > D7000 to D7100 and so on... When they come up with a new design like the DF and they concentrate on decorative features aimed at dilettante bourgeoisie poseurs... it means they didn't release a responsive, well-engineered and designed model.

It's somewhat maddening because they have excellent designs with the D300/D700 chassis and all they needed to do is slip in that D4 chip and serious photographers would embrace it. Instead we get more expensive cameras with mediocre auto and manual focusing, a clunky UI, and potential quality control problems like the D600 and D800 had.

It's a case study in alienating very loyal customers... people have been complaining about oil on sensors, left focusing issues, lousy customer service for a few years now I know it sounds like a broken record but I think what you're seeing is people like me, who have had Nikons in one form or another for most of my career (30 years) realizing that there is nothing in their current model line-up that I'd even want, short of a D3s. And this blows because I really don't like the Canon UI and I don't see any other manufacturers coming close to have the responsive AF that the better Nikon models (had).

If you want to see an example of another Nikon blunder check out Thom Hogan's Safari notes where he points out how fragile the D800 is proving to be and how they are cracking and misaligning the lens mount.
 
Just pulled the trigger on a pre-order of two bodies, one in chrome and one in black.

The chrome will be used for color sd cards, the black for b&w.
 
Less controls for vital functions? Naah.
I have to admit - I have no idea of what those "vital functions" are.

I use my D700 with MF lenses only, in A or M mode only, from 200 to 1600 ISO only, in Auto WB 99% of the time. I shoot uncompressed NEF files only (which fool wouldn't given the huge IQ difference between the uncompressed NEF properly post-processed in Capture NX and the in-camera Jpegs), and I never connected it to a computer using the USB wire (I have an old computer yet it has an integrated multi-format cards hub). 95% of my shots are made in center-weighted metering mode (for A mode I have customized the camera so that I lock the metering value by half-depressing the shutter release so I never use the AE lock button) although I sometimes switch to matrix (without perceiving any actual difference at all, because I am an experienced photog. enough so that I know how/where to meter, thanks). I never used the built-in flash, I never bracket and I for G*d's sake do not need that darn AF-collimators joystick. The EC setting is always on -1/3, a basic safety tip to avoid clipping the highlights occasionally.

I grew up with a Nikon FE then was given a F3 then bought a FM2 then offered myself a F2SB, an F Eyelevel and an F2 DE-1, just before taking the plunge to the wonderful world of the Nikon RFs. Last year I purchased a mint Nikkor-O 35/2 which came with an equally mint Nikkormat FTn as a rear lens cap, and this simpliest body is a joy to use.

So - I haven't turned 50 yet and I'm by far not a retiring baby-boomer nor a dilettante poseur 😛 but I think that I know the Nikon tools quite a bit.

The D700 was a "reason purchase" (second hand yet mint with 2,341 shutter actuations only and for under $1,000 with two genuine Nikon batteries and lots of bonus - a bucks bang deal no doubt, I was lucky there) so that I was able to use my great MF Nikkors on an excellent FF DSLR for color photography (for B&W, film may still rule, but for color ita missa est) ; but, as many other folks, I had been waiting for the "FM3D" we all hoped Nikon would make eventually.

Not this time it seems.

My point of view is that I am definitely not the only folk out there to have hoped that the Df would be what we were waiting for, to be quite disappointed onwards.

It definitely is a nice camera. But it is NOT what the teasing campaign was saying it would be.

The marketing campaign was broadcasted as if its main assumed target was the Nikon long-term users and lovers crowd who had been crying for a back-to-the basics camera for long, and which Uncle Nikon had listened to at last (the "It's in my hands again" of the teaser #1 now sounds quite tricky-pathetic if you consider what the Df is actually). But the reality is that this is another lambda DSLR camera aimed to gather new customers thanks to an unachieved half-half retro design, not a camera made accordingly to what many Nikon users were waiting for as for a really different photographic tool of the mature digital age.

This is what is wrong with the Df release. This is even not the camera itself which is wrong.
 
I have to admit - I have no idea of what those "vital functions" are.

Vital (for me) functions located at the back:
- Menu button
- Review button
- Zoom in/out buttons
- Info button (not vital, but I like a quick overview of key settings at a glance and ability to change some non-direct setting without diving into menus)
- Metering switch
- AF/AE lock
- And indeed, very important, the focus point switch 🙂 I don't use center-point only, and I do use AF.

That pretty much covers most buttons on the back. And I'm not arguing against your requirements, i see your point. But the sacrifices you're willing to make in order to arrive to more "pure" experience are not applicable to me. Different strokes.
 
I would have called "different" a Nikon DSLR with the Df top cover and knobs, interchangeable screens, very few buttons on the back (the question of the size of the LCD isn't very relevant I have to admit), simplified lone center-point AF with no AF collimators joystick, no PSAM modes but just the S, A and M modes, no USB/HDMI/wireless connectors but two SD cards slots instead, an integrated eyepiece closing device, and a true HP eyepiece.

And another thing. When I read, quite a few pages back, that you can't use the aperture control ring on CPU lenses, that was DEAL BREAKER #1 for me. I want to use several AF Nikkors that I have, in addition to my AI ones; but I still want this camera to handle like a film Nikon. Like using an AF Nikkor on an FM3a, for instance. I don't want to have to turn the aperture ring to f/22. DEAL BREAKER #2 for me is the lack of manual focusing aids in the screen (but of course that could be taken care of by having interchangeable screens, as Highway61 said).

No extra AF points at all? Well, maybe, but I wouldn't object to maybe one on the left and one on the right, to eliminate cosine error.
 
Back
Top Bottom