dasuess
Nikon Freak
Nikon F with standard prism... Looks like we cannot even agree on what the ideal digi Nikon should look like 🙂
One year later, the DF: any comment?
- Thread starter robert blu
- Start date
- Latest activity Latest activity:
- Replies 252
- Views 29K
Nikon F with standard prism... Looks like we cannot even agree on what the ideal digi Nikon should look like 🙂
Roger Hicks
Veteran
Dear Keith,
Some way from perfect... Too many damn' buttons! If tomorrow someone were to offer me an M typ 240 as a free exchange for my M9, I'm not 100% sure I'd accept, even with an EVF thrown in.
Of course this may be a rationalization based on the facts that such an offer of exchange is deeply unlikely; that I can't otherwise afford an M typ 240; and that I could probably, in time, get used to those damn' buttons just as I've got used to them on my M9. Even so...
Cheers,
R.
Roger Hicks
Veteran
Yes we can. Any rational person admits that an F2 is a wimpish approximation to an F, designed for those who want blandness, standardization and petty conveniences at any price.
I'll be in my nuclear bunker if anyone wants me...
Cheers,
R.
jsrockit
Moderator
Roger Hicks
Veteran
Any time...
Seriously, I know you're not alone in your views. Just misguided. And I'd not bother to reply unless I had considerable respect for you.
Cheers,
R.
jsrockit
Moderator
Ok, if you think so Roger. I just prefer that model...
dasuess
Nikon Freak
Just thought I'd add some more info (fuel ???) on the Df manual focus discussion...
Just performed a little experiment here with my Df and F. Very early on with my F I exchanged out the split prism screen that came with it (a type B I believe) and put in a type D (matte fresnel) one. My main reason for putting in the type D screen was to remove all clutter from the viewfinder. This morning I swapped it out and put in a type A I had lying around, but never used. With a 28/f3.5 there was no question that the type A was better than the type D. Focusing the 28 on the Df was maybe a bit better, but could be my imagination. With an 85/f1.8 I found similar results, although the 85 was easier with the type D and on the Df as expected. These test were done in good daylight with the Df turned off so no green dot to help out.
I replicated the tests above in dim light. With the type D screen on the F and the 28/f3.5, the screen was very dark and impossible to focus. With the 85 it was much easier to focus as you would expect with the f1.8 vs f3.5 maximum aperture. Switching to the type A screen it was easy to focus both the 28 and 85. The Df viewfinder was much brighter with the 28 than with the type D on the F. It was also easier to focus, but that is relative. Using the green dot to lock in focus was very easy. With the 85 on the Df it was easy to focus and turning the camera on to confirm focus showed that I was able to achieve the same focus accuracy with or without the green dot to assist.
I freely admit that all of the above is pretty subjective and unscientific; however, I think Nikon has done a decent job of choosing a focusing screen for the Df that works in a variety of lighting conditions. Which is what I am looking for since I would not look forward to changing out a Df screen in the field, nor would I want to do that with an F body where it is much simpler to do so.
Consulting a chart of screens that were available for the F, it says that the type D is only "acceptable" for anything shorter than a 135 and not "recommended" until you get up to a 600. The type A (and similar type B) were "recommend" for all focal lengths.
Not sure if any of the above proves anything, but my hope would be that it may be useful to those F/F2 users out there with a gaggle of MF Nikkors who may be considering the purchase of a Df.
Just performed a little experiment here with my Df and F. Very early on with my F I exchanged out the split prism screen that came with it (a type B I believe) and put in a type D (matte fresnel) one. My main reason for putting in the type D screen was to remove all clutter from the viewfinder. This morning I swapped it out and put in a type A I had lying around, but never used. With a 28/f3.5 there was no question that the type A was better than the type D. Focusing the 28 on the Df was maybe a bit better, but could be my imagination. With an 85/f1.8 I found similar results, although the 85 was easier with the type D and on the Df as expected. These test were done in good daylight with the Df turned off so no green dot to help out.
I replicated the tests above in dim light. With the type D screen on the F and the 28/f3.5, the screen was very dark and impossible to focus. With the 85 it was much easier to focus as you would expect with the f1.8 vs f3.5 maximum aperture. Switching to the type A screen it was easy to focus both the 28 and 85. The Df viewfinder was much brighter with the 28 than with the type D on the F. It was also easier to focus, but that is relative. Using the green dot to lock in focus was very easy. With the 85 on the Df it was easy to focus and turning the camera on to confirm focus showed that I was able to achieve the same focus accuracy with or without the green dot to assist.
I freely admit that all of the above is pretty subjective and unscientific; however, I think Nikon has done a decent job of choosing a focusing screen for the Df that works in a variety of lighting conditions. Which is what I am looking for since I would not look forward to changing out a Df screen in the field, nor would I want to do that with an F body where it is much simpler to do so.
Consulting a chart of screens that were available for the F, it says that the type D is only "acceptable" for anything shorter than a 135 and not "recommended" until you get up to a 600. The type A (and similar type B) were "recommend" for all focal lengths.
Not sure if any of the above proves anything, but my hope would be that it may be useful to those F/F2 users out there with a gaggle of MF Nikkors who may be considering the purchase of a Df.
Highway 61
Revisited
I really love that "pixel peepers" versus "professionals" distingo of yours.
When you focus on someone's ears instead of someone's eyes, or on someone's nose end instead of someone's eyes, there is no need of being a "pixels peeper" to see that the focus isn't good.
Even a "professional" would see it. Or ?
Well. Looks like there are lots of people out there kindly accepting the marketing lies (specially designed for MF lenses etc) about this camera, just because of the form factor.
Good for Nikon afterall... why should I try to have them see things another way.
If you don't turn the Df on it's impossible to manual focus with it (as with any Nikon DSLR). The focusing screen overlay is designed to be run through by an electrical current so that the image in the VF displays normally.
dasuess
Nikon Freak
True, but I saw no difference in focusing with the camera on vs off. I did it both ways and then checked how I did against the green dot. In decent light, with both the 28 and the 85, my focus agreed with the green dot. In dim light with the 28 I would rely on the green dot.
Highway 61
Revisited
The problem with the green dot is that it will light up while you aren't in focus, especially with short telephoto lenses having a max. aperture wider than 2.8.
Anyway - it's like this, and what Nikon have done while designing the Df can't be undone.
Anyway - it's like this, and what Nikon have done while designing the Df can't be undone.
x-ray
Veteran
I would agree that the pixel peepers get overly critical. I've been a full time professional since 1968 and own a DF, do you or are you just repeating internet chatter, and find it very easy to hit focus with manual focus lenses.
I tried one of the aftermarket micro prism screens made from a canon screen. While I liked it ok I didn't find it any more accurate than the stock screen and found it a little bit darker. What I found is both the green dot and the micro prism have a range that shows as in focus. With the green dot there is no absolute in focus or out of focus. The band is narrow but it exists. This is true with my D800 also and was true with every digital camera I've owned since 2000.
The aftermarket micro prism screen as all micro prism screens do not fracture the image at an absolute point. There is a range in front and behind the point of absolute focus that doesn't cause the micro prism to fracture. I saw no difference in accuracy while pixel peeping. The only absolute way to hit focus I've found on any camera is with live view.
If you want to talk about marketing lies let's talk about Leica.
x-ray
Veteran
I'm curious as to whether you own a Df or did you just handle one in a store?
I don't find this to be true at all. I have no problems focusing my 85 1.4. Other than the 85's there aren't many short tells faster than f2.8. There's the 135 f2 and 105 f1.8 but that's about it. I don't think those are very popular lenses.
johannielscom
Snorting silver salts
Hm. Maybe it's the m.o. while focusing that causes a difference, Nicholas.
I cannot comment on anyone else's m.o. but my own. First, I have a single focusing point in the center of my viewfinder activated, even when shooting an AF lens fully automated. That carried over from my vintage film SLR years I suppose. Second, I focus until I see the green dot switch on, then shift my eye to the center focus point and fine-tune focusing while looking at the image there. Third, when I find I cannot improve focus more by rotating the focusing ring on the lens, I move my head and camera forward or backward to nail it.
I can focus the D700 with 2.0/135mm wide open and close up like this. Don't ask me to shoot 20 shots like this though or I will be neck cramped for a full day 😀 but at least I can get shots like this when the need arises and shooting 9 or 10 like this will get me a usable one...
Although, this shot was a single grab shot, not 'the best pic from a dozen attempts'...😎
I cannot comment on anyone else's m.o. but my own. First, I have a single focusing point in the center of my viewfinder activated, even when shooting an AF lens fully automated. That carried over from my vintage film SLR years I suppose. Second, I focus until I see the green dot switch on, then shift my eye to the center focus point and fine-tune focusing while looking at the image there. Third, when I find I cannot improve focus more by rotating the focusing ring on the lens, I move my head and camera forward or backward to nail it.
I can focus the D700 with 2.0/135mm wide open and close up like this. Don't ask me to shoot 20 shots like this though or I will be neck cramped for a full day 😀 but at least I can get shots like this when the need arises and shooting 9 or 10 like this will get me a usable one...
Although, this shot was a single grab shot, not 'the best pic from a dozen attempts'...😎
Last edited:
Jamie Pillers
Skeptic
I'll chime in here too. I've had no problems that I can detect, focusing the Nikkor 85/1.8G lens on my D600 using the green dot.
VertovSvilova
Well-known
Highway 61
Revisited
Not too sure.
Beautiful portrait of a very beautiful model Johan - yet it's easy to see that her nose end is sharp, while her splendid eyeballs aren't.
Being fond of those close-up portraits, this is a problem I very frequently had with the D700, while it never happens to me with either my F and F2 ('R' screen) or my Nikon RF bodies.
The problem isn't peculiar of the Df - it's the one of all those DSLRs designed to be used with AF lenses and accordingly focusing screens featured from factory.
I do not "hate" the Df the least bit. Why would I ? But it's simply not true to say that it's better with MF Nikkors than every other of the Nikon FX DSLR lineup. It just cannot be, because it's designed the very same way, with the same VF as in the D610, the same focusing screen, the same prism, the same eyepiece, the same focusing screen overlay, everything is the same.
All in all, let's say that what you see is what you get when you buy a D610, while you are mainly buying that "Pure Photography" concept when getting the other camera.
To each his own (personal preferences, budget, and the like).
I'm done with this thread. I don't want it to slip into something nasty.
We were just discussing a camera and all the marketing hype behind it : what the customers were waiting for, what Nikon heavily told they were about to make, and what came out eventually.
When all those things are very, very far away from each other, there uses to be some debate, in general.
johannielscom
Snorting silver salts
Nicholas, I must have misread the intentions of your replies and I'm sorry if that got you worked up. The highlighted stuff I can (of course!) all agree with. If it was hyped to be something it turned out not to be (ignorant me, I wasn't even aware of this since I refrained from joining the hype when the Df was launched), then that's questionable, to say the least! I merely tried to stress that the manual focusing in the current line of Nikon DSLR's is sufficient for me.
Quite a few people saw that portrait and while I cannot debate your observations on the focus point, you are the first one to point it out!
x-ray
Veteran
I think much of the discontent comes from the ability to look at digital images at 100%. When we shoot film we use a 4-6x magnifier. Big difference here plus grain masks unsharpness. How may people make 60" prints from their 35mm negs and look at them 6 inches away.
sgoldswo
Newbie
Love the Nikon Df
Love the Nikon Df
Have owned one for the best part of a year now and its a fantastic camera that produces really impressive images. Aside from that, its easy to use with both AIS/P and D/G lenses in AF and MF. The electronic rangefinder 😀 is actually incredibly precise down as far as f2 when used in AF mode (don't switch to MF when manually focusing because it produces sloppy focus results, old Nikon trick). The sensor produces just beautiful results. Leica should have considered using the sensor for the M240. It's that good.
By way of comparison, it kicks the X-T1 (which I also own) out of the park in both build and results. The existence of the Df means I have no desire for a D750. As I understand it the Df sold well everywhere except North America (e.g. many bought it instead of a mirrorless camera).
The biggest weakness is AF, but not low light AF, which I've not had issues with, but the spread of AF points, which is narrower than the D810/D750. I would love to see the 51 point AF system, built in wifi, the EFCS mode which is available on the D810 (and really does result in rangefinder sharp photos) and a separate SD card slot in a Df2, but that's about it.
Love the Nikon Df
Have owned one for the best part of a year now and its a fantastic camera that produces really impressive images. Aside from that, its easy to use with both AIS/P and D/G lenses in AF and MF. The electronic rangefinder 😀 is actually incredibly precise down as far as f2 when used in AF mode (don't switch to MF when manually focusing because it produces sloppy focus results, old Nikon trick). The sensor produces just beautiful results. Leica should have considered using the sensor for the M240. It's that good.
By way of comparison, it kicks the X-T1 (which I also own) out of the park in both build and results. The existence of the Df means I have no desire for a D750. As I understand it the Df sold well everywhere except North America (e.g. many bought it instead of a mirrorless camera).
The biggest weakness is AF, but not low light AF, which I've not had issues with, but the spread of AF points, which is narrower than the D810/D750. I would love to see the 51 point AF system, built in wifi, the EFCS mode which is available on the D810 (and really does result in rangefinder sharp photos) and a separate SD card slot in a Df2, but that's about it.
sgoldswo
Newbie
Just to be clear, this is absolutely INCORRECT. If you focus a MF lens on a Df in AF mode it will be incredibly precise with regard to focus. NEVER switch to MF mode when using an MF lens because it increases the focus tolerances...
Similar threads
- Article
- Article
