Roger Hicks
Veteran
Dear David,
This is it. There's a curious mind-set among many: "This is not EXACTLY the camera I wanted, therefore it's no good at all."
Many complaints, of course, come from non-users; sometimes, from people who have never taken a picture with the camera.
Like a Leica, it's a good camera if you like it, and if you don't, well, you are neither obliged to buy one nor to make snide comments about the cameras or their users.
Cheers,
R.
dogberryjr
[Pithy phrase]
I kinda hoped people would hate, hate, hate the Dƒ, so I could get one on the cheap. Like Francisco said above, it's going to take a lot to unseat my D700, GAS be damned.
uhoh7
Veteran
No feelings about the camera, one way or the other, but I found the YouTube Teasers priceless.
What ho, Canon?
What ho, Canon?
willie_901
Veteran
I handled the Df in the camera shop while I was waiting for them to find and ring up my second XT-1 body. Of course a five minute experience is hardly conclusive.
I was very impressed by its lightness. I was not impressed by the size and shape. It seemed a bit chunky to me.
There will never be universal agreement regarding the manual focus suitability. I do not doubt those who are happy using manual focus with the Df. My frustration with MF on the D200/300/700 bodies made me reject the Df once its MF details were published. I couldn't help but think Nikon's product managers do not value MF.
I do not believe the camera is "no good at all". But it did disappoint me. I can honestly say if Nikon had implemented a different MF solution I would probably own a Df. The sensor produces lovely results. But so do the sensors of many other brands.
I was very impressed by its lightness. I was not impressed by the size and shape. It seemed a bit chunky to me.
There will never be universal agreement regarding the manual focus suitability. I do not doubt those who are happy using manual focus with the Df. My frustration with MF on the D200/300/700 bodies made me reject the Df once its MF details were published. I couldn't help but think Nikon's product managers do not value MF.
I do not believe the camera is "no good at all". But it did disappoint me. I can honestly say if Nikon had implemented a different MF solution I would probably own a Df. The sensor produces lovely results. But so do the sensors of many other brands.
johannielscom
Snorting silver salts
The images of the Df are those from a 16MP FF Sony sensor... why the hell would they sell either "easier" or "harder" ?
Because identical sensors give different results when you combine them with different optics and (camera) software. That 16MP FF Sony sensor isn't going to perform identical in any camera, Nicholas!
My clients love my D700 stuff because I have my act together using that camera. I was asking my questions to find out whether I would at least have a chance to pull that off again and if the answer was that the images look bland (like the ones from the D600 and D750 do, IMHO), I won't even bother renting one.
A D700 shot that the client (a political party that wanted their contribution to the Amsterdam Canal Parade documented in a photo essay) was enthusiastic about:
Last edited:
tunalegs
Pretended Artist
I tell all my clients that I never make the mistake of using camera brands that produce bland photos. :angel:
Highway 61
Revisited
It's going to perform identically in the Df and in the D4 at least.
I wonder who but nitpicking camera buffs could distinguish D700 pics from some taken with the Df... honestly.
The only downside of the Df that I can see for commercial use is that, like some folks shooting professionally with small film cameras some years ago, you may not be taken seriously by your customers because the camera, with its odd cosmetics (for people having got used to the "classic" DSLR form-factor), won't look like a pro DSLR of our time... :angel:
I sometimes have to resist the feeling of finding extremely strange that some photo webforums and websites assets want to deny other people the right to express their feelings about an expensive high-end manufactured product they are disappointed with, by calling what others write "snide comments".
I have carefully read what others faithful long-time Nikon users who, like me, are disappointed with this camera, wrote, and all the comments focus on the same topics :
- no interchangeable screens
- quite unaccurate MF focusing especially for portraits with luminous short telephoto lenses, even using the "green dot" in the VF (try to focus correctly for more than 30% of the photos of a series of, say, ten shots taken at about 2m from your subject using a MF 85mm f/2 or f/1.8 Nikkor at larger apertures and get back to us with the results, please)
- redundant and useless buttons everywhere spoiling the retro design attempts
- not even close to that "Pure Photography" concept we got fooled with
- MF lenses compatibility remained at the marketing trick step
- large body shell (same size as the D600/610 exactly)
- small and deceptive VF with low eyepoint and no eyepiece shutter
- questionable materials choice, mismatch of covering leatherettes
- rear panel coming from the D600, total mismatch with the rest of the camera design
- flimsy battery chamber door
- memory card stored inside the battery chamber like on a pocketable camera
- battery type not on par with the ones used on the other FX DSLRs.
I still have to find where are the "snide comments about the cameras or their users". Seriously.
Have I used one ? Yes.
Do I say it's not a good camera ? No. It has the D4 sensor in it so how could it be ?
At the end of the day, am I tempted to buy one ?
Well, yes, because it seems that Nikon won't make any successor to it, and that it will remain the only DSLR of its size and weight having a sensor in front of which the MF Nikkors still perform reasonably well.
So for MF Nikkors owners it's either a D700 (larger and heavier but with a better build quality) or this one (smaller and lighter but not the least bit more suited to MF lenses, and heavily deceptive especially after that teasing campaign which got us dreaming of what it could have been).
Cheers,
N.
Timmyjoe
Veteran
Can someone clear this up for me. One of the things that would make buying a Df a slam-dunk for me is if I could change out the screen for something that would work better with my MF lenses. I don't have the easiest time nailing critical focus with my MF lenses on my D700 and if I could configure a Df so I could focus more accurately than I can with my D700, it would be a no-brainer.
Thanks,
-Tim
Monz
Monz
I found this after some research...
http://www.focusingscreen.com/index.php?cPath=22_139
... but haven't bought one yet.
EDIT: Fitting instructions here...
http://www.focusingscreen.com/work/d800en.htm
Phil_F_NM
Camera hacker
Tim,
Nikon doesn't make a focusing screen that is both compatible with the Df and split/microprism with the coarse grit that we all knew from cameras prior to the F4 era.
But Canon does...
Canon still makes a series of screens in variations of grit and focusing aid for their pro level film and digital line. So, you get the Canon screen that is to your liking, file off a few tabs then stick it in to the DF. This is what I did with my D3 as I've written about a bunch of times on this forum, and that camera's finder is as accurate and as bright as my old F4 finder.
Tailor your screen to the lenses you use though. Nikon and Canon used to keep this whole line available to users for variations of max aperture (super-speed) and focal length (telephotos >300mm.)
Phil Forrest
Timmyjoe
Veteran
Thanks Phil, good to know.
Monz, are those screens only sold in Japan? Is there a place in the States where you can buy those?
Best,
-Tim
Monz, are those screens only sold in Japan? Is there a place in the States where you can buy those?
Best,
-Tim
x-ray
Veteran
I've been a M user since 1968. I bought into the hype of how great the M9 was but I couldn't have been more disappointed. Poor reliability in virtually every area of the camera, LCD on the same quality level as my nikon D1 from 14 years ago, sensor issues, card issues and RF / lens issues just to name a few. It was fat and slow unlike the sleek M film cameras and it was noisy both in sound and image. Everyone goes on about the size of the body but I shot side by side comparisons of my M9 and Df and other than the mirror box and prism the body was about the same size.
I'm delighted with my Df and sold the M9 never to return to Leica digital.
faris
Well-known
Got me a Df very recently. I have been a M, Nikon user for ages. Recently also got me a XT1.
Just a few hours and I felt right at home with the Df. Super sensor. Accurate, if
not blazing fast af. No issues in low light. Great low light capability.
For the kind of shooting I do, street and travel..a beautiful fit for me.
Besides it is Nikon's smallest and lightest full frame digital cam.
Love it.
Just a few hours and I felt right at home with the Df. Super sensor. Accurate, if
not blazing fast af. No issues in low light. Great low light capability.
For the kind of shooting I do, street and travel..a beautiful fit for me.
Besides it is Nikon's smallest and lightest full frame digital cam.
Love it.
x-ray
Veteran
I shoot commercial work and have a D800 and Df. The Df is the main camera when I don't need 36mp. As mentioned I think the color is better than the D800 which is excellent.
x-ray
Veteran
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...
Why are folks willing to pay more than double for a Leica M240 or M9 and not $3k for the Df. I've had far less trouble out of my Df than I did my M9. I don't buy into quite construction or image quality as being superior in the Leica. I've owned both.
Huss
Veteran
Because I love using my Leica and I really did not like using the DF that I rented. I'd pay double for a camera that I'd love to use than save money on one that I do not want to use.
You feel the other way, which is cool as we all have choices.
I'd buy a D750 to use my AIS lenses, not the DF.
And its sensor gives spectacular images. Here is a real world review:
http://www.rossharvey.com/reviews/nikon-d750-review
faris
Well-known
So does the Df sensor. Glad we have choices.
SOOC, jpg, crop, in cam mono, Nikon 50/1.4 G
SOOC, jpg, crop, in cam mono, Nikon 50/1.4 G
Highway 61
Revisited
Most of your Ai-S lenses won't perform very well in front of the D750 24MP FX sensor (resolution issues, vignetting, purple fringing, CAs).
For those lenses designed during the film era, the 12MP (D3/D700) or 16MP (D4/Df) FX sensors are the perfect match.
Then there is that darn manual focusing problem...
johannielscom
Snorting silver salts
Thanks, x-ray. For me the Df would be a topside addition to the D700, when it comes to high ISO, where I still have some room available, gear wise
36MP from the D800, I just don't need it for my stuff. I had a D600 but even the 24MP from that was overkill.
Please point me to where I stated I'm unwilling to pay for a Df and I'll correct it?! I'm a working photographer with two kids at home, I simply can't afford one.
Leica? Been there. Had the M8 and hated it, the M9 and M are too expensive and feebly-built to rely on as a working photographer. At least, with the kind of money I make.
Highway 61
Revisited
I don't think you were ever told this Johan.
Bottom line : you have a working D700 you're satisfied with (and for good reasons : I had no complaint re. mine but for its size and weight - this wasn't a 24/24 carry around camera). Use it until its shutter dies... then you'll see what's on the market then.
You won't see a huge difference between the D700 and the Df sensors, both for resolution and noise at high ISOs.
Me, I am an amateur photographer having dreamt of a small full metal-jacket FX Nikon DSLR with that very sensor, no built-in flash, analog dials, very few buttons, and interchangeable screens for accurate MF focusing. The Df achieves this half-way only.
The price isn't the issue - like some other folk wrote it in a previous post, I would have paid top dollars for that Nikon.
Alas...