FA Limited
missing in action
i do find it weird that they decided there was no room on the ISO dial for AUTO
Nikon DF
- Thread starter stitchohana
- Start date
- Latest activity Latest activity:
- Replies 1K
- Views 103K
FTL
Newbie
I've learned from handing an X-Pro1 to someone to use that just getting them to learn how to put it in full auto was too much. You need to be able to set full auto from the single mode dial to keep it simple (or 'just set it on the green setting' mode)
NIKON KIU
Did you say Nippon Kogaku?
NIKON KIU
Did you say Nippon Kogaku?
Highway,
I know how many Nikons and Nikkors you have and this resistance is futile!
🙂
Those issues can be resolved via a software upgrade.
I think they scared Phantomas away!
Kiu
RichC
Well-known
Quick actual hand on review: http://www.threeguyswithcameras.com/2013/11/three-guys-first-thoughts-nikon-df#more-1204
For me, the two main problems remain ease of use and only 16 MP. But I stress those are my particular bugbears:
● The "analogue" controls on my film cameras are intuitive, but it is clear from this and other reviews that the DF's controls will be - for me - somewhat awkward and clunky. In fact, it's clear that the "digital" controls on my Nikon D800E will be much easier to use!
● I shoot medium-format film and make 20 x 30 inch prints and larger, and the 645 format equates to about 35 MP - hence my choice of the 36 MP Nikon D800E. I could live with a 24 MP camera, but not 16 MP.*
My favourite digital camera was the Epson R-D1 I once owned (as many may recall, I ran the R-D1 FAQ website for many years, now on Cameraquest's website) - despite the camera's flaws. This was replaced by a Leica M8 - which I found less ergonomic in use than the R-D1, something I never got used to over 5 years' ownership (too few dials, too much buried in menus). Both cameras were replaced by my need for higher resolution.
So, I like to think I have fair overview of digital cameras using traditional controls. Sadly, it seems that the DF was not designed around it's analogue controls: rather, they seem somewhat superficial.
* As an aside, and nothing to do with the DF, a while ago I needed a definitive answer to how many megapixels a frame of typical colour film is equivalent to. The web is full of all sorts of answers, most complete rubbish. So, I did my own rigorous calculations from scratch, with the endpoint being a digital image file (i.e. film will be scanned).
The calculations started with "true" measured resolutions of film and sensors taken from manufacturers' experiments - not theoretical resolutions. Then, the impact of various degradations were taken into account, such as signal processing in digital cameras and resolution loss when scanning film. The lens was assumed to be at its ideal aperture (~f/8).
The answer is that for 645 format a good colour film like Porta = 35-40 MP, if scanned on a dedicated high-end film scanner like a Hasselblad Flextight. 35mm film = 20-25 MP.
Note that flat-bed scanners destroy resolution, and my calculations indicate that an Epson 700, say, will halve these resolutions, so 35mm film is equivalent to only a 10 MP camera!
I have a science degree, and have written several books on physics and chemistry (including co-authoring the big Bloomsbury and Collins English dictionaries), so I stand by my calculations!
For me, the two main problems remain ease of use and only 16 MP. But I stress those are my particular bugbears:
● The "analogue" controls on my film cameras are intuitive, but it is clear from this and other reviews that the DF's controls will be - for me - somewhat awkward and clunky. In fact, it's clear that the "digital" controls on my Nikon D800E will be much easier to use!
● I shoot medium-format film and make 20 x 30 inch prints and larger, and the 645 format equates to about 35 MP - hence my choice of the 36 MP Nikon D800E. I could live with a 24 MP camera, but not 16 MP.*
My favourite digital camera was the Epson R-D1 I once owned (as many may recall, I ran the R-D1 FAQ website for many years, now on Cameraquest's website) - despite the camera's flaws. This was replaced by a Leica M8 - which I found less ergonomic in use than the R-D1, something I never got used to over 5 years' ownership (too few dials, too much buried in menus). Both cameras were replaced by my need for higher resolution.
So, I like to think I have fair overview of digital cameras using traditional controls. Sadly, it seems that the DF was not designed around it's analogue controls: rather, they seem somewhat superficial.
* As an aside, and nothing to do with the DF, a while ago I needed a definitive answer to how many megapixels a frame of typical colour film is equivalent to. The web is full of all sorts of answers, most complete rubbish. So, I did my own rigorous calculations from scratch, with the endpoint being a digital image file (i.e. film will be scanned).
The calculations started with "true" measured resolutions of film and sensors taken from manufacturers' experiments - not theoretical resolutions. Then, the impact of various degradations were taken into account, such as signal processing in digital cameras and resolution loss when scanning film. The lens was assumed to be at its ideal aperture (~f/8).
The answer is that for 645 format a good colour film like Porta = 35-40 MP, if scanned on a dedicated high-end film scanner like a Hasselblad Flextight. 35mm film = 20-25 MP.
Note that flat-bed scanners destroy resolution, and my calculations indicate that an Epson 700, say, will halve these resolutions, so 35mm film is equivalent to only a 10 MP camera!
I have a science degree, and have written several books on physics and chemistry (including co-authoring the big Bloomsbury and Collins English dictionaries), so I stand by my calculations!
Frank Petronio
Well-known
My experience tends to mesh with yours, especially considering "real world" testing versus idealized conditions. However I've also got to temper those relatively low file size equivalents with the practical consideration that you don't need a lot of resolution for ink jet printing... that 10mp will still make a nice 10x15 inch print (or a great 14x44 foot billboard for that matter).
I don't see any DSLR as being a high resolution "landscape camera". To get the quality out of a D800 you end up using it on a tripod with good technique at optimal apertures. You might just as well stitch or use 4x5.
I don't see any DSLR as being a high resolution "landscape camera". To get the quality out of a D800 you end up using it on a tripod with good technique at optimal apertures. You might just as well stitch or use 4x5.
RichC
Well-known
Well, "still life camera" in my case....
I hear what you say, but sometimes it comes down to cost amd convenience, when digital wins out. On balance I prefer medium /large format colour film - which still, I feel, handles tone better than digital. My poison's Portra, and its subtle colour is difficult to match in digital - though Nikon dSLR Raws processed in Nikon Capture NX aren't bad at all...
ernesto
Well-known
Interesting camera!
I feel better with analog controls, that are areally intuitive.
16 Megapixels is enough in my opinion.
I wonder if a similar rangefinder (not SRL) could be produced by nikon. It seems it is time to do it.
I wonder about the lens mount...
I am sure they will not do an M mount, but perhaps they can do a lens mount that could accept an M adapter.
That would be a geat thing, and probably many M users will consider that option obviously cheaper compared to the Leica M
Ernesto
I feel better with analog controls, that are areally intuitive.
16 Megapixels is enough in my opinion.
I wonder if a similar rangefinder (not SRL) could be produced by nikon. It seems it is time to do it.
I wonder about the lens mount...
I am sure they will not do an M mount, but perhaps they can do a lens mount that could accept an M adapter.
That would be a geat thing, and probably many M users will consider that option obviously cheaper compared to the Leica M
Ernesto
Highway 61
Revisited
Kiu : I have a mint D700 which has only 3141 shutter actuations so far. I bought it second hand boxed for $950 (no joking) in last March and the kit included two Nikon EN-EL3e batteries, three 4GB CF cards and a NIB Nikkor 50/1.8 AF-D lens (which I never use, because I use MF Nikkors only, but, hey, I got it for free, sort of).
Why would I now drop $3000 on the Df ? Really ?
I could have done it if the Df had been the small minimalist FX DSLR I was really believing Nikon was about to release this time.
Now that the teasing dust has settled I have no interest in that camera any longer. Either they make a Df2 to correct themselves eventually, or I'll stick to my D700 'till it dies.
😉
Keith
The best camera is one that still works!
Highway 61
Revisited
Not quite, yet... almost !
I have to admit - I was very lucky on that deal. At that price I can live with the extra bulk and the "not retro" ergonomics... 😉
Keith
The best camera is one that still works!
NIKON KIU
Did you say Nippon Kogaku?
Exactly!
Highway, I am way behind you, I don't even have anything decent like a D700, I shoot a D40x I bought for $275
As for the D700, I think they are a bit less now, I am looking for a D7000, they are not full frame but it serves my purpose, and it's cheaper, I am saving to buy one for $500-$600
This camera will be hard to resist, say 2 years from now at $1000, or may be even $1500
Would it not?
Kiu
Frontman
Well-known
The DF is being released on the 28th in Japan, which coincidentally enough happens to be payday... 🙄
--s
Well-known
so instead of carrying his hard earned money home to keep his children from starving, the working man will steal into the nearest nikon boutique......
P. Lynn Miller
Well-known
Here is what I wrote in an E-mail to a friend about my new Df...
It is near enough to my Nikon F that I set the ISO at 400, the camera on manual and forgot about it. Focuses manual lenses right on the money, big bright viewfinder, can see the whole finder including the display below even with my spectacles on, lightweight, but solid, quiet, not much louder than my M5 and quieter than any of my Bessa cameras. Far too many buttons on the back and confusing menus, but thankfully did not even have to touch them.
Everything is where it should be on the top deck. As near perfect I will get till they build a Nikon F with a sensor. Cost far too much money, but I am tired of not taking photos and having zero inspiration to do so.
There will be a lot of camera gear for sale over the next few weeks as I no longer need, large format, medium format, or even rangefinder stuff. Back to basics, a Nikon body and good, old Nikkors, back where I started about 30 years ago.
So a very happy Nikon Df owner... broke, but happy.
It is near enough to my Nikon F that I set the ISO at 400, the camera on manual and forgot about it. Focuses manual lenses right on the money, big bright viewfinder, can see the whole finder including the display below even with my spectacles on, lightweight, but solid, quiet, not much louder than my M5 and quieter than any of my Bessa cameras. Far too many buttons on the back and confusing menus, but thankfully did not even have to touch them.
Everything is where it should be on the top deck. As near perfect I will get till they build a Nikon F with a sensor. Cost far too much money, but I am tired of not taking photos and having zero inspiration to do so.
There will be a lot of camera gear for sale over the next few weeks as I no longer need, large format, medium format, or even rangefinder stuff. Back to basics, a Nikon body and good, old Nikkors, back where I started about 30 years ago.
So a very happy Nikon Df owner... broke, but happy.
tunalegs
Pretended Artist
It sounds like you're saying it is not quite as good as a Nikon F, but you don't need film.
rivercityrocker
Well-known
My camera store has them in stock, but can't sell them until Friday. I paid them for it, but they still couldn't be convinced to let me leave with it. They let me test drive it in the store though. Anyway, I have to wait until Friday because Thursday is Thanksgiving here in the ol' USA and everything is closed.
Here's my initial impression of the Dƒ: http://deadsailorproductions.blogspot.com/2013/11/quick-hands-on-nikon-df.html
Here's my initial impression of the Dƒ: http://deadsailorproductions.blogspot.com/2013/11/quick-hands-on-nikon-df.html
P. Lynn Miller
Well-known
No camera will ever be as good as the Nikon F... in my opinion.
I am sure there are plenty of people who disagree and rightly so.
Godfrey
somewhat colored
The Nikon F was/is eternal. 🙂
I don't even care if there are other cameras as good as or whatever.
I even own a couple of them.
G
Similar threads
