Nikon DF

[Timmyjoe]

Wow, looking at those pictures the DF just got a lot more appealing to me. Not that much bigger than the F3, and quite a bit smaller than the D800 (a camera I never cared much for). Not in the market right now, but if it's around in a year or two when I retire my D700, would seriously consider it.

Best,
-Tim

 

[Highway 61]

I look at the pictures in the galleries and such and most are pretty darn static, which is a shame. Some of this technology is really wonderful in that it really does allow us to track running children or birds in flight and get a stream of well-exposed, in focus photos at ridiculously high ISOs, all of which would be unimaginably back in the film days. Why not use a tool to its best capability? Not saying that the DF needed to be a sports or wildlife camera but I am kind of sick of paying more for less.

Back in the 1980's I used to photograph trains a lot for specialized books and papers (I even got paid to it).

Some of the trains I shot were running quite fast and what I had back then was a FM2 with no motordrive. I had got pretty well used to quickly prefocus where I wanted the front of the train to be then to depress the shutter when the front of the train virtually hit that point I had in my mind.

At that time AF was still being tested on cameras prototypes but there were plenty of sharp sports pictures in the newspapers too.

Don't you think that sometimes we think that we need some automation while we actually don't ?

At its beginning, AF for advanced amateurs was mainly marketed as something being of some great help for people having nearsight problems and thus, getting unable to make sharp photos using their MF SLR's any longer. That wasn't something advertised to make "less static" pics.

One of the most motion-rich pics I ever took was shot by chance with a Minox 35GT in 1986... go figure, a pocketable plastic thing having absolutely nothing inside to help you to focus.

And no i button. 😀

 

[Argenticien]

You know, Nikon has demonstrated that they can put EVERYTHING into (onto ?) a camera body. I think the next evolution is to see what the remove to simplify the physical design.

Brilliant point. You don't see consumer goods vendors do enough removal. I have started asking the question at work (alas, not a consumer goods firm, but still...) when sitting at presentations where someone is touting what they are about to add as new features in version n+1 of something: "yes but what will you take out?" Whether it's physical clutter on a camera back, or virtual clutter in an online UI, or information scatter when yet another non-MECE information source is introduced in a complex organization -- a lot of people are moving in the wrong direction. The user can't forever deal with monotonic increases in features.

--Dave

 

[tunalegs]

One of the nice things about trains, as compared to birds, is that you can usually tell where the train is going to go by looking at the tracks. This also holds generally true for things like race cars too. Animals don't always do what we expect them to.

 

[Frank Petronio]

Back in the 1980's I used to photograph trains a lot for specialized books and papers (I even got paid to it).

Some of the trains I shot were running quite fast and what I had back then was a FM2 with no motordrive. I had got pretty well used to quickly prefocus where I wanted the front of the train to be then to depress the shutter when the front of the train virtually hit that point I had in my mind.

At that time AF was still being tested on cameras prototypes but there were plenty of sharp sports pictures in the newspapers too.

Don't you think that sometimes we think that we need some automation while we actually don't ?

At its beginning, AF for advanced amateurs was mainly marketed as something being of some great help for people having nearsight problems and thus, getting unable to make sharp photos using their MF SLR's any longer. That wasn't something advertised to make "less static" pics.

One of the most motion-rich pics I ever took was shot by chance with a Minox 35GT in 1986... go figure, a pocketable plastic thing having absolutely nothing inside to help you to focus. That's one of the few distinctions left but it's a pretty good one!

And no i button. 😀

Me too. But have you ever sat down and actually read the instructions and set up a camera to do focus tracking correctly? It not only makes getting the best photo easier, but much more likely, especially in adverse conditions (unpredictable movement (i.e. not a train) or dimmer light for instance).

If Nikon or Canon had the stones they would market their cameras as the ones that can "get the shots" which the other brands, mirrorless, and compacts can not. That's one of the few distinctions left but it's a pretty good one!

 

[Keith]

Me too. But have you ever sat down and actually read the instructions and set up a camera to do focus tracking correctly? It not only makes getting the best photo easier, but much more likely, especially in adverse conditions (unpredictable movement (i.e. not a train) or dimmer light for instance).

If Nikon or Canon had the stones they would market their cameras as the ones that can "get the shots" which the other brands, mirrorless, and compacts can not. That's one of the few distinctions left but it's a pretty good one!

I did this recently with my D700 courtesy of a link I found on the net by a guy who shoots a lot of sports with a D3s. He simplified the process of setting the camera up to maximise it's efficiency at focusing on moving targets and once done it's damned impressive the way the AF system of a pro Nikon can track moving subjects travelling at speed.

I defy any little mirrorless (full frame or other) to match this ability!

 

[willie_901]

😱

I don't get what you are basing that assumption on. There are probably as many fine prime lenses as heavy zoom lenses in use, it's all down to personal preference.

When I see people out and about with DSLR cameras at the zoo, sporting events, picnics, social functions and even weddings, I have never seen a prime lens. All I see are really large zoom lenses.

I think Nikon's lens product line and pricing structure is consistent with zooms being much more popular than primes.

 

[willie_901]

I did this recently with my D700 courtesy of a link I found on the net by a guy who shoots a lot of sports with a D3s. He simplified the process of setting the camera up to maximise it's efficiency at focusing on moving targets and once done it's damned impressive the way the AF system of a pro Nikon can track moving subjects travelling at speed.

I defy any little mirrorless (full frame or other) to match this ability!

When the D300 or D700 AF menu parameters are optimized for action photography, the performance is shocking. A fuill-time sports pro showed me how to do this during an indoor gymnastics meet gig.

No flashes are allowed. The D300 with a battery grip could track and focus moving athletes on the balance beam in between individual frames of a shutter burst. The money shot was the dismount. It was easy to keep the athlete in focus at f 2 while they were in motion using a 50 mm lens. This did chew up batteries though.

 

[Vince Lupo]

Here you go, side-by-side. Excuse the quality of the quick kitchen table top shot. No time to set up a "studio".

Extremely informative! Reinforces my decision to get one.

BTW how do you find manual focusing with the Df and the older lenses? Many here seem to think that it will be very difficult to do without a split-image, but since you are the one person here who has actually used the Df, how is it really?

 

[literiter]

Look at that camera on the far left! It oozes style, functionality, and simplicity. What a beautiful piece of kit.

I want one of those! I hope it takes film.

The other two, well...all very nice, I'm sure.

 

[loneranger]

WOW, these pictures provide a whole new perspective. Up to now I was dismissing tthe DF as others have, but now I actually want to get one. That thing is beautiful compared to the cousins.

 

[Godfrey]

The size comparison improves my feelings about it on that front, but it's still got too darn many knobs, dials, switches, etc. However, I hope it works nicely in the hand.

G

 

[ZeissFan]

I was thinking the same thing about the number of buttons, dials and switches. Much of the beauty of the FM is in its simplicity. Oh well, that's simply the reality of a digital camera, I guess.

 

[Pablito]

The only thing this thread needs now is Roseanne Roseannadanna. Because if it's not one thing, it's another.

 

[Jamie Pillers]

The only thing this thread needs now is Roseanne Roseannadanna. Because if it's not one thing, it's another.

Funny! Thanks for the flashback. 🙂

 

[jonmanjiro]

Here you go, side-by-side. Excuse the quality of the quick kitchen table top shot. No time to set up a "studio".

<photos snipped>

Disclaimer for the old and bitter among us: no robberies, banking scams, capitalisation on the poor and unfortunate have been performed, affiliation with governments bureaucracies established, trust funds used, or anything unethical or morally questionable involved in acquisition of these cameras. In fact besides F3 and the two MF lenses none of them have been really "acquired".

As a side-note: I never fully understood fascination with F3 (partially - yes). Sure, it's a great camera, built like a tank, functions wonderfully, but too small, too awkward to hold. Df feels much better in hand.

Hmmmm noticeably smaller than the D800 and actually very handsome in black! I just felt my first bout of gear lust for the Df... 😱

P.S. Phantomas, you lucky dawg getting to play with all the new toys before anyone else in the sandbox 😀

 

[fdarnell]

[QUOTE="yes but what will you take out?"
--Dave[/QUOTE]


Apple's already done this so well they have even removed the photographer from the camera.

Thanks for the comparison with the F3HP - gives some better understanding for us. Looking at the shots on the Nikon website, does this sensor have better dynamic range than the others? Shadows in the rocks on the lighthouse photo look very nice. Now just put Zeiss glass on it and see...

 

[Keith]

The black definitely looks better than the silver IMO ... which actually has an arkward look to it for some reason!

 

[tunalegs]

The black definitely looks better than the silver IMO ... which actually has an arkward look to it for some reason!

Black is a slimming color. 😀

 

[Keith]

I think the styling of any camera has to be exceptional for it to look better in silver than black. The Zeiss Ikon comes to mind ... stunning in silver, drab in black IMO.

Leica Ms have no particular shape ... boring in either finish really! (runs ducking) 😀