Leica0Series
Well-known
agentlossing
Well-known
I jusr knew from the tone of your post what the Etsy link would be! Ain't nothin' wrong with those straps!
farlymac
PF McFarland
Don't need a replica meter when I have the real thing. And as for the straps...well
Camera Straps by P F McFarland, on Flickr
I think I'm pretty much fixed on those too.
PF
Archlich
Well-known
AFAIK Mr. Goto Tetsuro, the man behind the SP 2005 and the FM3a, had to fight hard to pull the Df off for that reason. The end product was, quite tellingly, a compromise to what had been envisioned initially. It split the market: neither the die-hard fans or the general consumers were completely satisfied.
He had since then left Nikon.
Armoured
Well-known
I don't have a strong opinion on the Dfc - I don't think it's for me, is the short form.
BUT: what I'm disappointed by is the 28 f2.8. Anyone else?
I really think a lens targeting the 40mm shooters should have been an f2 or even slightly faster. I mean, it's fifty years or more after the 35mm fixed-lens rangefinder boom, when ~40mm f1.7-2s were almost commonplace and many of them were quite good.
I like the 40mm focal length but after all this time and optical and technology improvements and the Z-mount's larger and deeper throat, they'd be able to come up with something more compelling and new. (Even if only aps-c coverage).
40mm equiv at f2.8? Just not compelling, fifty years later.
BUT: what I'm disappointed by is the 28 f2.8. Anyone else?
I really think a lens targeting the 40mm shooters should have been an f2 or even slightly faster. I mean, it's fifty years or more after the 35mm fixed-lens rangefinder boom, when ~40mm f1.7-2s were almost commonplace and many of them were quite good.
I like the 40mm focal length but after all this time and optical and technology improvements and the Z-mount's larger and deeper throat, they'd be able to come up with something more compelling and new. (Even if only aps-c coverage).
40mm equiv at f2.8? Just not compelling, fifty years later.
Spluff
Saras
I'm sure someone will correct me, but at 40mm, is it still effectively a f2.8 or does that change to an f4.0?
Highway 61
Revisited
It's a real 28mm f/2.8. The max aperture is f/2.8 and when used wide open, the amount of light which will go through the lens is the same 1/√2/√2/√2 (i.e. : 1/2.8) which will go through all other f/2.8 lenses. Since it's a lens designed to cover the so-called APS-C sensor size, it will more or less frame like a 42mm lens designed to cover the 24x36 sensor (or film) size. But it remains a genuine 28mm by its internal optical criteria, so its angle of view and depth of field are the ones of a 28mm lens ; what makes it frame like a longer lens in front of a larger sensor is the smaller size of the sensor it's designed for [ (for optics and barrel size reasons, it also provides a smaller image circle diameter, thus it cannot be used with a 24x36 camera : here, it would frame like any other 28mm lens, for example the old Nikkor Ai-S 28mm f/2.8 it's mimicking, but the corners of the image would be dark). ]
This means that, if you use it on the camera body it's made for, and if you stand side by side with someone using a 42mm f/2.8 lens with a 24x36 camera, both lenses will frame the same and will need the same speed and aperture settings for a correct exposure, but yours will have more depth of field at all apertures, whatever the focusing distance is, because it's a 28mm while the other guy's lens is a 42mm. A lens focal length and aperture scale are maths values and won't change whatever the lens image circle will be. Example : on a 6x6 camera the standard 75mm lens will frame more or less like a 50mm in 24x36 ; yet, it's a 75mm, so at all focusing distances its depth of field will be shallower than the one of the 50mm lens designed for the 24x36 format.
Someone will correct me as well but what changes the real value of the set aperture is the focusing distance once you enter the macrophoto universe. For instance, in macrophoto, with image ratios bigger than 1:1, you need to correct the exposure, because at a set aperture of f/2.8, the real aperture value will be f/4 if the image ratio is of 2:1, etc. IIRC, though - that's been a very, very long time since I haven't used a bellows unit for macrophoto, with ratios bigger than 1:1 !
Last edited:
keytarjunkie
no longer addicted
FYI the Nikkor Z 28mm f/2.8 is a full frame lens, despite being paired with this APS-C camera.
OK, here's my take on explaining this. In terms of light transmission, nothing changes in regards to sensor size. A f/2.8 lens is transmitting the same amount of light no matter how large your sensor is.
What you're probably referring to is depth of field. This is what changes. Depth of field has multiple factors, and one of them is the size of the sensor/film area. Other factors notwithstanding, the smaller the sensor, the greater the depth of field (think smartphone camera); the larger the sensor, the shallower the depth of field (think 8x10 view camera portrait). This is why even on a f/1.7 lens on a smartphone, the depth of field is really deep, but you can use a lens at f/5.6 on a large format camera and have a very shallow plane of focus.
(other factors that influence depth of field are 1) aperture (obviously), 2) focal length, and 3) distance to subject.)
When you compare a 40mm f/2.8 on a full-frame sensor versus 28mm f/2.8 on a APS-C sensor versus 20mm f/2.8 on micro 4/3, the field of view ends up roughly the same, but the depth of field is deeper on the smaller sensor and shallower on the larger sensor. And of course the exposure will remain the same.
shawn
Veteran
The camera is APS-C, the 28mm lens is an FX lens so it most definitely can be used with a full size sensor without any restrictions.
Shawn
Highway 61
Revisited
Ah, okay then. For whatever reason I was thinking it was a Z DX lens, like the kit zoom which can be bought as well with that new Zf-c. I edited my previous post. Thanks to the both of you !
So it can be used on the Z5-6-7 ? Not bad... I am eager to get the impressions of FX Z bodies users on that Z 28mm f/2.8.
Another serious clue of a possible FF Zf_ to come out if you think of the total mismatch that lens makes for, once mounted on a Z5-6-7, design wise... It vaguely gets interesting.
Someone to confirm - or deny - my remembrance about the need for some exposure correction due to the set aperture value not matching the actual amount of transmitted light in macrophoto ?
Spluff
Saras
Like a Bear with a small brain (Pooh Bear btw!) - I understood that! Thank you so much. Yes, I am referring to the change in the depth of field between sensors.
Spluff
Saras
Thank you too! Referencing the example of 75mm on a TLR made sense to me, very helpful. Years since I have done macrophotography - and never on a digital camera, must try it again sometime!
Highway 61
Revisited
Very interesting, thanks. At the end of the day the main problem with the Df is its miserable viewfinder, which is the same "tunnel like" finder with the pesky low eyepoint & poor magnification which you will find in the D610 and D750 finders. If that camera had been fitted with a good viewfinder the standard of the legacy Nikon bodies (100% image covering, high eyepoint so that glasses wearers weren't punished, high image magnification, a set of three interchangeable focusing screens so that you can, at least, easily install a split image screen for accurate manual focus), all the rest of that camera specs. and design points would have been neglictible matter for small talk pro vs cons coffee discussion. What you buy an expensive SLR or FF DSLR for is the viewfinder.
shawn
Veteran
Have not used a D610 but looking at specs it isn't very different...
A D610 has 70% magnification with 100% H/V coverage and a 21mm eyepoint.
A D6 has 72% magnification with 100% H/V coverage and a 17mm eyepoint.
F5 is 75% magnification with 100% H/V coverage and 20.5mm eyepoint.
F4 is 70% magnification with 100% H/V coverage and 22mm eyepoint
F3HP is 75% magnification) with 100% H/V coverage and I think 24mm eyepoint.
I think all specs are listed at -1 diopter.
Shawn
Highway 61
Revisited
Thanks. It clearly shows how Nikon lowered their standards even with the D6 for instance. This is not surprising, I once looked through a D850 viewfinder and it was terribly disappointing.
When you cannot help keeping your glasses on all the time (strong astigmatism) and thus, set the viewfinder eyepiece at 0.0 diopter, those specs, especially the magnification, make a huge viewing comfort difference. The previous Nikons (F and F2, first F3 w/DE-2 finder) had even a higher magnification and their eyepoints were lower than the F3HP one but higher than the recent DSLR's. This is really day and night between my 1978 F2 and my 2014 D610 viewfinders. Really. It doesn't even compare. The F2 DE-1 finder is 80% magnification. Go figure.
When you cannot help keeping your glasses on all the time (strong astigmatism) and thus, set the viewfinder eyepiece at 0.0 diopter, those specs, especially the magnification, make a huge viewing comfort difference. The previous Nikons (F and F2, first F3 w/DE-2 finder) had even a higher magnification and their eyepoints were lower than the F3HP one but higher than the recent DSLR's. This is really day and night between my 1978 F2 and my 2014 D610 viewfinders. Really. It doesn't even compare. The F2 DE-1 finder is 80% magnification. Go figure.
shawn
Veteran
The non-HP F3 is 80% magnification.
Clearly a D610s (or DFs) viewfinder isn't really specced lower than any professional Nikons of the last 3 decades. All manufacturers lowered their viewfinders magnification around the same time.
10% difference is fairly large but I am not sure it was Nikon lowering their standards but adapting for the market. Lower magnification gives a brighter screen (focusing in low light) and was also probably better suited for the more advanced metering, AF and all the other things a modern viewfinder supports that a F2 can't do. Also supports a longer eyepoint that lets you see more of the screen while wearing glasses. (See F3 dropping from .8 to .75 to gain eyepoint)
That is also one of the areas where there is such large differences in EVFs.
Shawn
Highway 61
Revisited
I once used the huge and beasty D3, and there its viewfinder could really compare with the F2 or non-HP F3 finders, the difference with the D700/750/610/800 etc finders was very noticeable. Never looked through a D6 but, according to the specs you posted above, it may be similar to what I saw in the D850, and which disappointed me so much. Either lowering the standards or adapting for the market, the result is the same : the FF DSLRs viewfinders are getting smaller. The hell with "the market", at some point.
I can't really tell if the recent DSLRs screens are really brighter than the F4 screens (which can be easily retrofitted in all the older Nikons, from the F to the F3). For me the brightness is about the same. The difference may rather be with the Fresnel pattern. Either still visible (and thus allowing for critical manual focus) or gone away (thus making accurate manual focus very difficult if not impossible).
Looks like it's trying to put a circle in a square, with Nikon, nowadays. No big deal.
I can't really tell if the recent DSLRs screens are really brighter than the F4 screens (which can be easily retrofitted in all the older Nikons, from the F to the F3). For me the brightness is about the same. The difference may rather be with the Fresnel pattern. Either still visible (and thus allowing for critical manual focus) or gone away (thus making accurate manual focus very difficult if not impossible).
Looks like it's trying to put a circle in a square, with Nikon, nowadays. No big deal.
shawn
Veteran
I once used the huge and beasty D3, and there its viewfinder could really compare with the F2 or non-HP F3 finders, the difference with the D700/750/610/800 etc finders was very noticeable. Never looked through a D6 but, according to the specs you posted above, it may be similar to what I saw in the D850, and which disappointed me so much. Either lowering the standards or adapting for the market, the result is the same : the FF DSLRs viewfinders are getting smaller. The hell with "the market", at some point.
I can't really tell if the recent DSLRs screens are really brighter than the F4 screens (which can be easily retrofitted in all the older Nikons, from the F to the F3). For me the brightness is about the same. The difference may rather be with the Fresnel pattern. Either still visible (and thus allowing for critical manual focus) or gone away (thus making accurate manual focus very difficult if not impossible).
Looks like it's trying to put a circle in a square, with Nikon, nowadays. No big deal.
Actually, the D3 has the same viewfinder magnification as the D610 and 3mm less eyepoint.
If you take the same amount of light (controlled by the lens attached) and essentially spread it over a larger area (viewfinder magnification) the brightness is going to be less in a given area.
Shawn
Highway 61
Revisited
Thank you again. The key might be the eyepoint then. I may have en eyesight which needs a tad more than 70% magnification, and a regular eyepoint. Eyepoints over 18mm may be a disadvantage not an advantage in my case, contrarily to what I would have thought from scratch. But - even with its low 15mm eyepoint, the Df viewfinder shows that "tunnel like" effect which I cannot deal with. Why? Because of its 70% magnification? Mystery.
Brightness is a minor concern especially if you use manual focus lenses. Onwards from a certain level of brightness, more brightness doesn't really improve things, it just makes critical manual focus very difficult, because everything tends to appear in focus while it's not (think of the bad experiences all the Hasselblad 500CM users had with the new "acute matte" screens). Of course this is is not to say that the Nikkormat or Nikon FM/FE dim focusing screens should be the standard, but what the F4 screens achieved was just perfect, even in low light, even with f/3.5 lenses.
The D700 viewfinder (72% magnification and 18mm eyepoint), once fitted with the DK-17M loupe, was a very good match for me, even with my glasses on. Strange, but true. Of course, it offered 95% covering only...
Again, thanks for all the data and explanations. Actual food for thought. I am thinking of the cleanest way to adapt the DK-17M loupe on the D610. I got the rare Nikon NEPS-1 adapter (a kind of refined DK-22 with the proper threads) which allows to screw the loupe directly on the eyepiece, but then, the loupe optics are too far from the pentaprism, and by no means can I see the whole frame, even without my glasses on.
It may be that I have to move away from trying to find a FF DSLR with a viewfinder that fits my eyesight, and that I'd rather stick to my old film SLRs when it comes to OVFs.
shawn
Veteran
Less eyepoint being an advantage would be weird since that is literally the distance from which the whole viewfinder can be seen.
You should check out numerous EVFs to see the differences in viewfinder magnification. They vary quite dramatically from tunnel like finders up to 90% magnification.
Shawn
You should check out numerous EVFs to see the differences in viewfinder magnification. They vary quite dramatically from tunnel like finders up to 90% magnification.
Shawn