One year later, the DF: any comment?

[NY_Dan]

For work I have the D4 and D800 -- it's easy to go back and forth between them -- I think I'd find it harder to go back and forth between either of these and a Df. But if I didn't need my 2 for work, I would buy the Df, because it appeals to me. However, for 35 format, I'd go full-Cal -- and get a Leica Monochrome. Now if I could have a 2 1/4 sq size D4 sensor in my Rolleiflex 2.8f -- that would be my heaven. Nikon recently patented Bio-Siphon technology that is set to power their next line of cameras -- Nikon BS_100 (Bio-Siphon uses human electrical current for power, and has an electro magnetic camera covering which acts as a storage resevoir). Nikon is also set to announce a biological solution to sensor dust -- black light activated gene mutated dust mites!

 

[fireblade]

Just curious... if one plans to use AF lenses most of the time, does that make the Df significantly less desirable?

You would have to ask Nikon, it's not the camera that set Nikons world on fire.

For work I have the D4 and D800 -- it's easy to go back and forth between them -- I think I'd find it harder to go back and forth between either of these and a Df. But if I didn't need my 2 for work, I would buy the Df, because it appeals to me. However, for 35 format, I'd go full-Cal -- and get a Leica Monochrome. Now if I could have a 2 1/4 sq size D4 sensor in my Rolleiflex 2.8f -- that would be my heaven. Nikon recently patented Bio-Siphon technology that is set to power their next line of cameras -- Nikon BS_100 (Bio-Siphon uses human electrical current for power, and has an electro magnetic camera covering which acts as a storage resevoir). Nikon is also set to announce a biological solution to sensor dust -- black light activated gene mutated dust mites!

lol.

 

[Huss]

I rented a DF for a week as I have a bunch of AIS lenses and also shoot with Nikon F2, F and FM2n cameras.
I had high hopes, I really wanted it to be the digital equivalent of those cameras, the way my Leica M-E is a digital equivalent to my M3s and M5. Essentially the same (but a little bigger) but digital.
Unfortunately this is not the case.

First off, the DF is able to take incredible photos. There is absolutely no issue with its potential to create really high quality images. But where it fell down for me was everywhere else.

1/ It is much fatter/bulkier in the hand than even my F2. Yet it feels much less substantial than even my FM2n. It really feels like a cheap shell, not a high quality item. The Fuji XT-1 that is similar in intent feels much more solid.
Leica's digital M series cameras feel really solid. Almost like their film cameras.

2/ Unlike Leica's (and to a point the Fuji XT-1) clean design, the Nikon has edges/knobs/protrubances that stick into your hand everywhere. For this reason the D610/D750 are a much better design. They are pleasant to actually hold.

3/ The Nikon DF was marketed as being able to use the old MF lenses. Backwards compatible. It can, but its implementation is no different than any of the other Nikon DSLRs. The marketing babble pretended otherwise, but you get the same focusing screen as the other cameras. There is no 'real' screen for manual focusing. Focusing my film Nikons is much better and more accurate than manually focusing the DF.
Leica gets this right - I guess it is much easier for them as they never had an AF implementation - but Nikon had it right with their old film cameras. So why couldn't they do it again?

So you can see, for me, the DF is such a disappointment as it could have been so very cool. But the reality is that it is just a marketing gimmick and it has neither the handling, the build quality, or the haptics that it should.
If I am going to shoot my AIS manual focus lenses on a Nikon DSLR, I would just get a D750. The focusing ability would be the same, but I wouldn't have to deal with the pretense of the poorly implemented design.

I really wanted the DF to join my Nikon film cameras. I am so glad I opted to rent one first.

 

[dasuess]

Thanks for all comments so far. One point I didn't understand from what I read in the net: when using lens with an aperture ring can you use the ring on the lens or you have to use the wheels on the camera body? I'm an old analog shooter and that what I'm used to do!
robert

If the lens has an aperture ring, you can use the aperture ring; however, the lens needs to be an "AI" compatible lens, either a true AI lens or one that's been updated. The update can be done either with the Nikon AI kits (assuming this is a Nikkor lens), but good luck finding any of these AI kits. Easiest way is to file the aperture ring - but I just send them to John White for $25 per lens.

 

[kxl]

1/ It is much fatter/bulkier in the hand than even my F2. Yet it feels much less substantial than even my FM2n. It really feels like a cheap shell, not a high quality item. The Fuji XT-1 that is similar in intent feels much more solid.
Leica's digital M series cameras feel really solid. Almost like their film cameras.

2/ Unlike Leica's (and to a point the Fuji XT-1) clean design, the Nikon has edges/knobs/protrubances that stick into your hand everywhere. For this reason the D610/D750 are a much better design. They are pleasant to actually hold.

3/ The Nikon DF was marketed as being able to use the old MF lenses. Backwards compatible. It can, but its implementation is no different than any of the other Nikon DSLRs. The marketing babble pretended otherwise, but you get the same focusing screen as the other cameras. There is no 'real' screen for manual focusing. Focusing my film Nikons is much better and more accurate than manually focusing the DF.
Leica gets this right - I guess it is much easier for them as they never had an AF implementation - but Nikon had it right with their old film cameras. So why couldn't they do it again?

So you can see, for me, the DF is such a disappointment as it could have been so very cool. But the reality is that it is just a marketing gimmick and it has neither the handling, the build quality, or the haptics that it should.
If I am going to shoot my AIS manual focus lenses on a Nikon DSLR, I would just get a D750. The focusing ability would be the same, but I wouldn't have to deal with the pretense of the poorly implemented design.

I really wanted the DF to join my Nikon film cameras. I am so glad I opted to rent one first.

I am in the process of find a second DSLR to back up my D800e. My obvious choices are: a second D800(e), a D810 or a D750. I was wondering whether I should add the Df as another candidate. Your post is incredibly helpful. Thank you! 🙂

 

[Range-rover]

Seems to be a perfectly fine camera... I would love to have one and might eventually get one.

Your joining us Nikon guy's, Wow


Range

 

[dasuess]

I have had my Df since July and love it. I'm happy and have not looked back once. My Oly E-M5 kit has seen zero usage since I got the Df.

I know people either love it or hate it, or do not understand it. I would compare the experience to the digital Leice M cameras - they are Leicas with a digital sensor. That's how I view the Df and it works for me. I ignore most of the controls on it and use it pretty much like my Nikon F bought back in 1972, although I do use the aperture priority exposure mode a lot. When I bought the Df, I had three MF Nikkors, all over 40 years old and all non-AI. I had those lenses cut to AI and bought four more - cheap 'cos most Nikon users don't want them. These four also non-AI were cut to AI. I highly recommend John White for this (aiconversions.com).

And then there's that sensor the Df has...

 

[jsrockit]

Your joining us Nikon guy's, Wow!

Bob

Not so fast Bob! 😀

 

[VertovSvilova]

I rented a DF for a week as I have a bunch of AIS lenses and also shoot with Nikon F2, F and FM2n cameras.
I had high hopes, I really wanted it to be the digital equivalent of those cameras, the way my Leica M-E is a digital equivalent to my M3s and M5. Essentially the same (but a little bigger) but digital.
Unfortunately this is not the case.

First off, the DF is able to take incredible photos. There is absolutely no issue with its potential to create really high quality images. But where it fell down for me was everywhere else.

........

So you can see, for me, the DF is such a disappointment as it could have been so very cool. But the reality is that it is just a marketing gimmick and it has neither the handling, the build quality, or the haptics that it should.
If I am going to shoot my AIS manual focus lenses on a Nikon DSLR, I would just get a D750. The focusing ability would be the same, but I wouldn't have to deal with the pretense of the poorly implemented design.

I really wanted the DF to join my Nikon film cameras. I am so glad I opted to rent one first.

This mirrors my feelings (see my post above.) And I'm glad I rented one first, too. I had also anticipated a much better attempt at this by Nikon. In the end it feels like the camera was designed by a very conservative committee who had the accountants and marketing divisions watching every move. It's a disappointment to me that Nikon didn't take a much bigger risk and go all out with something that could have been really, really great (they have the ability.) I would have paid good money for something extraordinary (and with that D4 sensor.) It made me sad that they didn't go for it, and instead just played it safe. I guess they aren't in a financial position these days to take on risks. The Df was a let down after that big teaser campaign before the camera was released. Maybe that marketing campaign was the mistake; it got everybody dreaming.

It's not that I 'don't understand' the Df or that I don't like dials (I use the F3 and the Leica M6 and M4 all the time), it's just that the Df was not executed the way it could have been. It could have been really extraordinary. But I do hope it sold well enough for Nikon to try it again someday.

(btw, I have more Nikkor AIS lenses than I do AF Nikkors. I use them on the D800E and manual focusing with them is perfectly fine. Although I did get the DK-17M eyepiece.)

 

[Highway 61]

So why couldn't they do it again?

Marketing rules...

:bang:

I would have paid good money for something extraordinary (and with that D4 sensor.) It made me sad that they didn't go for it, and instead just played it safe. I guess they aren't in a financial position these days to take on risks. The Df was a let down after that big teaser campaign before the camera was released. Maybe that marketing campaign was the mistake; it got everybody dreaming.

It's not that I 'don't understand' the Df or that I don't like dials (I use the F3 and the Leica M6 and M4 all the time), it's just that the Df was not executed the way it could have been. It could have been really extraordinary. But I do hope it sold well enough for Nikon to try it again someday.

Word for word what I wrote almost one year ago, a few days after it came out, and after I put my hands on it. I got flamed for this in this very forum... 😛

Thanks.

 

[Range-rover]

It's true when I finally saw it I was disappointed as well just another digital
camera, It would have been great if the made it into a FM size camera, that
would of been something.

Range

 

[zleica]

I am in the process of find a second DSLR to back up my D800e. My obvious choices are: a second D800(e), a D810 or a D750. I was wondering whether I should add the Df as another candidate. Your post is incredibly helpful. Thank you! 🙂

If you are happy with your D800(e), the Df will make a good back-up. For me, the AF performance (not the speed, but the accuracy) is laking. I wish Nikon put the newer AF system for the Df. If they put the D4s/D810 AF system in the Df, it will be real capable and versatile camera. I find the color rendition in Df is better than that in D800.

 

[johannielscom]

Anybody here that uses the Df professionally? I see a lot of 'coulda beens, shoulda beens' w/ regards to ergonomics, but is it paying anyones bills and if so, how good is it at that?

 

[Roger Hicks]

Anybody here that uses the Df professionally? I see a lot of 'coulda beens, shoulda beens' w/ regards to ergonomics, but is it paying anyones bills and if so, how good is it at that?

As good as any decent camera. I'm currently shooting a commercial book with one (not self-published, in other words) and the proposal is out there. After all, why shouldn't it work?

Cheers,

R.

 

[johannielscom]

As good as any decent camera. I'm currently shooting a commercial book with one (not self-published, in other words) and the proposal is out there. After all, why shouldn't it work?

Cheers,

R.

Roger,

you're right I suppose.

A good photographer can get his or her work sold with any camera that is capable of getting the job done. Still I was wondering if there was anything that makes selling the images of the Df easier, or harder. But I guess there isn't and so there might not be a downside in getting one as a working camera, apart from the purchase price...😉

 

[Highway 61]

Still I was wondering if there was anything that makes selling the images of the Df easier, or harder.

The images of the Df are those from a 16MP FF Sony sensor... why the hell would they sell either "easier" or "harder" ?

😕

 

[GarageBoy]

I like the idea, but it seems kinda half a$$ed
No real MF screen (hell, at least give us the option to take interchangeable screens)
Weird UI

The D4 sensor is a cool feature, though

 

[Calzone]

However, for 35 format, I'd go full-Cal -- and get a Leica Monochrome. !/quote]

Dan,

The Leica Monochrom for B&W kinda nails the simplicity that an old school film shooter would embrace. Leica kinda made my dream camera. Somehow the DF in some ways did not go far enough. The D4 focusing should have been incoporated... Changable focusing screens would of made it more like a pro camera...

I hope you get your supersized D4 sensor dream camera. For me I'd like a supersized sensor that would be like my MM. Pixel size would advance the tonality to make it more medium format.

Cal

 

[SolaresLarrave]

Well, I still like it, and given the simplicity of my work, I might get it... some day. However, my D700 is not showing signs of aging and will probably last a few years more, and I honestly don't believe that after the 600, 610, 800, 810 and 750, the Df may last.

Sad... unless Nikon puts out a model with LESS features and does return to the basics. But they won't. Why? By then, video and HDR will be considered "basics."

Better stick to my Leicas. 🙂

 

[dasuess]

I like the idea, but it seems kinda half a$$ed
No real MF screen (hell, at least give us the option to take interchangeable screens)
Weird UI

The screen is interchangeable, but I have not found the need to do so.

As I said in my previous post, I ignore most of the controls. I spent some time to go through the various settings available and set the camera up the way I want. The only times I need to use the "weird UI" is to 1) select which non-CPU lens I am using, 2) view images on the card, 3) delete images/reformat a card.

Is the Df perfect? No... Is there anything out there that is better for ME? No...

I personally hate the form the modern digital DSLR has taken, but I don't spend a lot of time complaining - I just didn't buy one. IMHO the Df is a better camera, but YMMV.