Nikon retro-inspired camera

[agentlossing]

Somehow I though this product announcement would make people happy, or at least not-disappointed. Oh well.

I mean, I like it, kind of a lot. If there were several small, cheap primes already out I would probably get it. But it's shortsighted to get excited about a camera when the system doesn't have the lenses I'd like to see, and maybe never will.

 

[olakiril]

Get an adapter and put any MF and aperture ring lens you want on it. If you want small get the Fuji X mount to Nikon Z mount adapter and use any of the Fuji mount fully manual lenses on it.

Shawn

Yeah typically that is the solution that we have here and is fine for the most part. As I mentioned earlier in this thread TTArtisans has native Z mount manual lenses. Not that great apparently.

The point of my post was that even if small, there is market for manual focus oriented lenses. Offering a lens already developed with good optical design in a manual package might be to their benefit.

 

[JeffS7444]

Change the setting of this comedy piece from a book shop to a camera store, and imagine John Cleese as Nikon, and Marty Feldman as well, you'll see:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZYlOV7K-xOU

 

[olakiril]

Change the setting of this comedy piece from a book shop to a camera store, and imagine John Cleese as Nikon, and Marty Feldman as well, you'll see:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZYlOV7K-xOU

🙂 That was a good one. Marty Feldman represented us here I guess.

 

[Godfrey]

Somehow I though this product announcement would make people happy, or at least not-disappointed. Oh well.

No product announcement on this or any other photography equipment oriented web forum ever makes everyone happy. That's a given, ridiculous as it might be, and that's been a consistent meme since the internet and web forums began.

G

 

[jsrockit]

Somehow I though this product announcement would make people happy, or at least not-disappointed. Oh well.

People have unrealistic expectations for digital cameras. They just cannot be as simple as film cameras without costing a lot of $$$. The audience is small despite what RFF users think. For $950, this is spec'd well and is perfectly usable. As someone who has been using these "retro" digital cameras since the original Fuji X100, I'm just happy that a new one comes out every few years. I just like a dedicated shutter speed dial for the way I photograph.

 

[gavinlg]

People have unrealistic expectations for digital cameras. They just cannot be as simple as film cameras without costing a lot of $$$. The audience is small despite what RFF users think. For $950, this is spec'd well and is perfectly usable. As someone who has been using these "retro" digital cameras since the original Fuji X100, I'm just happy that a new one comes out every few years. I just like a dedicated shutter speed dial for the way I photograph.

Hear, hear!

 

[Highway 61]

People have unrealistic expectations for digital cameras. They just cannot be as simple as film cameras without costing a lot of $$$.

I beg to differ - and also to agree. Leica M people used to have realistic expectations for digital cameras and Leica, although a small company with few R&D forces, made what they wanted, and what is the audience for that system ? Low, very low. If I was in the market for a FF digital camera (i.e., if I wasn't mainly shooting black and white film, or if film got suddenly dead) and if the money wasn't a concern, I would buy a Leica M10-D and a set of three Leica M Summicron lenses (28, 35, 50, 90) and ita missa est. But : I have a nice collection of Ai Nikkors and I still very seldom shoot digital (I own a mint D610 w/ less than 5,000 shutter actuations and which costed me $490 from second hand, so I am an happy camper, because the value for money ratio is just exceptional here, but I must have myself taken less than 10 pictures with it so far). And, as you say, money is a concern : that Leica M digital stuff described above would cost me one year of salary income, so it's not possible.
But a Nikon digital camera cleverly designed the same way would cost less. I could cost $2,500 for instance. Still a lot of money but it's less than $5,000 for the body only, especially if you already have the lenses, and most of the old Ai Nikkors work very well with a FF 24MP sensor.
I have written this already and I don't want to ratiocinate ad nauseam but the only reasons why Nikon doesn't make a small FF digital camera in F-mount, blessed with a sleek design, an optical VF the standard of the "old" Nikons with high magnification and proper eyepoint (what the D610 miserable finder has not), interchangeable focusing screens and very few buttons, are pure marketing reasons, because such a camera would be a joy not only for Ai Nikkors users but for all AF-D and AF-S Nikkors users (a good OVF and interchangeable focusing screens don't tell it cannot be a DSLR with excellent AF). They stupidly missed the train with the Df and the train won't enter the station once again. The other problem with Nikon's new policy is about the lenses. We'll see whether nice DX lenses designed for the Z-mount will appear, or not ; I'd not be too optimistic about that. Here with the Zf-c they play it again with a "retro" kit lens which will likely be the only one of that odd family. And : a 28mm f/2.8 prime on an APS-C sensor ? Like another RFFer wrote, this is just meh, especially if you look at what Fuji makes.
We'll see if there is a Zf - or not. 😉

Just curious, where are you finding Nikon Df cameras cheap? Are you referring to the used market? Because the price for new purchase hasn't changed in the eight or so years it's been on the market. I'm really surprised, was thinking they would mark them down/clear them out, but they've been $2746 body only and $2996 body & 50mm lens since the beginning.

My week-end advice to everyone playing with the idea of getting a Df : get a second hand D610 instead. Why ? Because :
- can be bought for dirt cheap in mint condition with a low shutter count, with just a bit of patience and persistance
- same size as the Df
- same weight as the Df
- better battery
- two SD cards slots so you can shoot in RAW and Jpeg simultaneously
- SD cards slots cover more robust - or less flimsy, depends on how you see things 😀
- exact same viewfinder (pentaprism, eyepoint, magnification, factory focusing screen, everything is identical) but for the eyepiece shape so that you will have to hack a DK-22 adapter if you want to use the DK-17M lupe on the D610 (not a difficult job)
- 24MP FF sensor instead of 16MP FF sensor : at the end of the day the 24MP sensor of the D610 & D750 is more interesting than the 16MP sensor of the D4 and Df, in spite of all the marketing blahblahblah about the Df sensor being the same as the D4 sensor
- the D610 will accept all Ai and Ai-S Nikkors with the same metering options as the Df, of course it won't accept non-Ai Nikkors because its Ai coupling tab isn't flippable, true, but, hey... 😉

 

[Timmyjoe]

- 24MP FF sensor instead of 16MP FF sensor : at the end of the day the 24MP sensor of the D610 & D750 is more interesting than the 16MP sensor of the D4 and Df, in spite of all the marketing blahblahblah about the Df sensor being the same as the D4 sensor

We will agree to have differing opinions on this one.

Caveat, if you're like me, and want a digital body to use with your "heritage" Nikon SLR glass, not only do you have the non-AI advantage with the Df, but I also find the D4/Df sensor a better fit with the older/vintage Nikkor glass. They render beautifully together, where the 24MP is going to show the flaws in the older glass.

Again, my humble opinion.

Best,
-Tim

 

[shawn]

I have written this already and I don't want to ratiocinate ad nauseam but the only reasons why Nikon doesn't make a small FF digital camera in F-mount, blessed with a sleek design, an optical VF the standard of the "old" Nikons with high magnification and proper eyepoint (what the D610 miserable finder has not), interchangeable focusing screens and very few buttons, are pure marketing reasons, because such a camera would be a joy not only for Ai Nikkors users but for all AF-D and AF-S Nikkors users (a good OVF and interchangeable focusing screens don't tell it cannot be a DSLR with excellent AF).

Of course it is marketing reasons, they didn't see a profitable market for such a camera. Yes, a few people would buy them and love them (and I agree it would be a sweet camera) but they must have felt not enough sales to make it worth the effort.

Yes, Leica did it with the M10D but that body cost almost $9k and was only on the market for about a year and a half. If they were selling they would still be selling them.

The Nikon D610 does look like a crazy good deal used. That sensor has more than a stop more DR than the DF too at ISO 100.

Shawn

 

[Highway 61]

Caveat, if you're like me, and want a digital body to use with your "heritage" Nikon SLR glass, not only do you have the non-AI advantage with the Df, but I also find the D4/Df sensor a better fit with the older/vintage Nikkor glass. They render beautifully together, where the 24MP is going to show the flaws in the older glass.

The concept of the Df sensor, with "only" 16MP, being the last FF sensor really usable with old MF Nikkors has been spreaded quite widely, yet you would be surprised with how well most of your legacy Nikkors work in front of the 24MP FF sensor of the D610 (or the D750, both cameras having the exact same sensor). Even with the D800 FF 36MP sensor the old good Nikkors don't change themselves in lemons as much as what the common saying tells. 😉
The worst which I have seen was with my D200. 10MP on an APS-C sensor designed twenty years ago was clearly too high a photosites density and too old a CCD technology for the old lenses. There was no pandemic at that time but I got vaccinated against using "heritage" manual focus Nikkor lenses on an APS-C sensor ! 😱 That was a tremendous chromatic aberrations and other oddities feast. When I sold the D200 and got a D700 I also got my beloved "heritage" lenses back, because they all performed very well with the D700, but at the end of the day the 12MP were not always that pleasant, with some lack of shades, especially for portraits. Also, the D700 was too big and too heavy, so I passed it onto someone who was in need of such a tool for weddings photograohy. So far and in spite of not having used it much (and by not much, I mean not much), what I can see from my old Nikkors in front of the D610 sensor is just stunning. This is confirmed by what I can read, and by what some friends, who use their D750 extensively, tell me.
Not saying that the 16MP sensor of the Df and D4 is bad, of course - just telling that the 24MP sensor of the D610 and D750 won't show old lenses flaws as much as what the marketing sirens tell. And the 24MP sensor has a better DR, like Shawn told it. So, for me, grabbing that $490 D610 was a no-brainer, but if a black Df in a similar condition had shown its head at an equivalent price, I would have raised my eyebrows and scratched my head for sure... 😉

 

[shawn]

The concept of the Df sensor, with "only" 16MP, being the last FF sensor really usable with old MF Nikkors has been spreaded quite widely, yet you would be surprised with how well most of your legacy Nikkors work in front of the 24MP FF sensor of the D610 (or the D750, both cameras having the exact same sensor).

Agreed, I've used a few old Nikkors on a 24 megapixel XPro2 and the 42 megapixel A7RII and they are wonderful. (105mm f2.5 Sonnar, 500mm f4P, 85 1.4D and a Tamron 90mm macro)

Shawn

 

[Ronald M]

My 1985? Leica M6 has has around 25 rolls of film. Looks perfect and is well maintained.

Started collecting Nikon F2 and now have 6 with all the finders and screens and Ai lenses I find useful.

I do not need imitation film cameras when I have real ones. Nikon digital are nice to use.
For small, digital M cameras serve me well .

 

[Disappointed_Horse]

My 1985? Leica M6 has has around 25 rolls of film. Looks perfect and is well maintained.

Started collecting Nikon F2 and now have 6 with all the finders and screens and Ai lenses I find useful.

I do not need imitation film cameras when I have real ones. Nikon digital are nice to use.
For small, digital M cameras serve me well .

You, sir, have excellent taste. But how is the Zfc an "imitation film camera" but the digital M camera is not? The digital M cameras are more similar to their film predecessors than anything Nikon or any other manufacturer makes today.

 

[jsrockit]

My 1985? Leica M6 has has around 25 rolls of film. Looks perfect and is well maintained.

Started collecting Nikon F2 and now have 6 with all the finders and screens and Ai lenses I find useful.

I do not need imitation film cameras when I have real ones. Nikon digital are nice to use.
For small, digital M cameras serve me well .

Well if you’ve only put 25 rolls of film through a camera in 35 years, then you are definitely right, this camera might not be for you. Digital cameras are for using! 😉 jokes, jokes….

 

[jsrockit]

I beg to differ - and also to agree. Leica M people used to have realistic expectations for digital cameras and Leica, although a small company with few R&D forces, made what they wanted, and what is the audience for that system ? Low, very low.

Well, you are completely agreeing no? The audience was small and the camera was expensive.

If I was in the market for a FF digital camera (i.e., if I wasn't mainly shooting black and white film, or if film got suddenly dead) and if the money wasn't a concern, I would buy a Leica M10-D and a set of three Leica M Summicron lenses (28, 35, 50, 90) and ita missa est.

So, we are comparing $20,000 worth of equipment to a $950 camera?

But : I have a nice collection of Ai Nikkors and I still very seldom shoot digital (I own a mint D610 w/ less than 5,000 shutter actuations and which costed me $490 from second hand, so I am an happy camper, because the value for money ratio is just exceptional here, but I must have myself taken less than 10 pictures with it so far).

Well, if you are happy with that, that's ok. But why is it bad that Nikon makes something for new customers? Customers that do not have F mount lenses. Companies cannot always worry about 60 year old lenses.

And, as you say, money is a concern : that Leica M digital stuff described above would cost me one year of salary income, so it's not possible.
But a Nikon digital camera cleverly designed the same way would cost less. I could cost $2,500 for instance. Still a lot of money but it's less than $5,000 for the body only, especially if you already have the lenses, and most of the old Ai Nikkors work very well with a FF 24MP sensor.

What makes you think it would be $2500? The Df was $2,750 many years ago and was like a D610 with a D4 sensor. If they made a brand new camera from scratch and stripped out all of the things people have come to expect from a digital camera, it will be more expensive, not less.

I have written this already and I don't want to ratiocinate ad nauseam but the only reasons why Nikon doesn't make a small FF digital camera in F-mount, blessed with a sleek design, an optical VF the standard of the "old" Nikons with high magnification and proper eyepoint (what the D610 miserable finder has not), interchangeable focusing screens and very few buttons, are pure marketing reasons, because such a camera would be a joy not only for Ai Nikkors users but for all AF-D and AF-S Nikkors users (a good OVF and interchangeable focusing screens don't tell it cannot be a DSLR with excellent AF).

No, the reason is that they have moved onto the Z mount and mirrorless. I would like the camera you describe, but we'd be in the minority.

They stupidly missed the train with the Df and the train won't enter the station once again.

Maybe not, but I used the Df and it was a very nice camera as long as you weren't expecting a FM2 digital. They marketed it wrong before release that is for sure.

The other problem with Nikon's new policy is about the lenses. We'll see whether nice DX lenses designed for the Z-mount will appear, or not ; I'd not be too optimistic about that. Here with the Zf-c they play it again with a "retro" kit lens which will likely be the only one of that odd family. And : a 28mm f/2.8 prime on an APS-C sensor ? Like another RFFer wrote, this is just meh, especially if you look at what Fuji makes. We'll see if there is a Zf - or not. 😉

Well, it's a relatively new system so let's see. I will agree that Nikon's APSC history is not great. There is nothing wrong with using FF lenses on APSC. It works. And far as meh, that is subjective completely. 40-45mm just happens to be my preferred focal length and I'm not the type to have every focal length covered. I'm pretty much a 28-85mm fan... and these days, I basically only use 35 through 50mm. So, for me, I could use the Z fc with the 28mm and be happy. I understand other might not be happy. I am a Fuji user generally, so I can't deny that they are doing a great job. But they have been doing it for 10 years now.

My week-end advice to everyone playing with the idea of getting a Df : get a second hand D610 instead. Why ? Because :
- can be bought for dirt cheap in mint condition with a low shutter count, with just a bit of patience and persistance
- same size as the Df
- same weight as the Df
- better battery
- two SD cards slots so you can shoot in RAW and Jpeg simultaneously
- SD cards slots cover more robust - or less flimsy, depends on how you see things 😀
- exact same viewfinder (pentaprism, eyepoint, magnification, factory focusing screen, everything is identical) but for the eyepiece shape so that you will have to hack a DK-22 adapter if you want to use the DK-17M lupe on the D610 (not a difficult job)
- 24MP FF sensor instead of 16MP FF sensor : at the end of the day the 24MP sensor of the D610 & D750 is more interesting than the 16MP sensor of the D4 and Df, in spite of all the marketing blahblahblah about the Df sensor being the same as the D4 sensor
- the D610 will accept all Ai and Ai-S Nikkors with the same metering options as the Df, of course it won't accept non-Ai Nikkors because its Ai coupling tab isn't flippable, true, but, hey... 😉

Nothing wrong with this if saving cash is your priority, but I would choose the Df and the Z fc any day of the week. I'm just not into PSAM blobs.

 

[farlymac]

Okay, since we've diverted this thread to other cameras, here goes.

I bought a D610 so I could still use my D series lenses on it, as I don't have any G series in FX. Love the results those older lenses give me on the newer, better resolution camera. A Z5 would be lighter than the D610, but then I lose the screw drive for the D lenses.

Now on the DX front, I have a couple D300s bodies that replaced my D80's, and a nice variety of DX lenses, only missing the fisheye. the 10-24, and 85 micro (no AF-P because the D300s can't use them). An FTZ adapter would make those lenses viable on the Z50/Zfc. So I'm wondering if going with a Z DX body will improve the results I get with the older DX lenses.

For now I'm thinking about holding out on switching to Z50/Zfc until real user results come rolling in, as I'm sure they will be adapted to a variety of mounts (would like to keep using my Leica glass if I go all digital). Also want to wait until all the bugs get worked out.

But it's driving me nuts after waiting all this time to see what Nikon was going to do with the DX line, and finding out they don't have much of a plan for Z DX lenses.

PF

 

[olakiril]

But it's driving me nuts after waiting all this time to see what Nikon was going to do with the DX line, and finding out they don't have much of a plan for Z DX lenses.

I remember waiting for a mirrorless FF Nikon for many years. I was a Nikon diehard. I eventually tried the Sony and by the time the Z series arrived I was already too invested in the Sony system. I think the Z cameras are good but they have nothing exceptional that will make me sell of my lenses and switch systems.

So I believe Nikon is using the Zfc as a way to also attract a new generation of users, that will eventually have to move to FF and still keep most of their lens lineup. While with Df I was too pessimistic, I think with Zfc they might actually pull it off.

 

[farlymac]

I remember waiting for a mirrorless FF Nikon for many years. I was a Nikon diehard. I eventually tried the Sony and by the time the Z series arrived I was already too invested in the Sony system. I think the Z cameras are good but they have nothing exceptional that will make me sell of my lenses and switch systems.

So I believe Nikon is using the Zfc as a way to also attract a new generation of users, that will eventually have to move to FF and still keep most of their lens lineup. While with Df I was too pessimistic, I think with Zfc they might actually pull it off.

I hope they do. But it's kind of frustrating to have to wait so long for new DX bodies only to find there is not much in the works for lenses. What they've done with the Zfc is commendable, but for now I'd rather use my older DX lenses with the FTZ than get any of the current offerings.

PF

 

[Jamie Pillers]

Perfect retro accessory

Perfect retro accessory

If you go for the new Nikon, you might want to have this in your bag as well:
https://www.dpreview.com/news/98661...ary-with-a-golden-limited-edition-light-meter


And don't forget one of these:
https://www.etsy.com/listing/800317...ven&ref=sr_gallery-1-2&organic_search_click=1