sgoldswo
Newbie
That's wrong. I owned the D600 too. The image in both the Df and the D810 VF is clearer for optical MF compared to the D600 and D810.
sgoldswo
Newbie
Or even "The image in both the Df and the D810 VF is clearer for optical MF compared to the D600 and D800"
johannielscom
Snorting silver salts
That's interesting, and never occurred to me. Might be the trick that makes all the difference, with my D700 or D300 indeed I never switch from AF to M on the body when mounting a manual focus lens, because I might switch back to an AF lens shortly after and cannot be bothered with flipping the switch to and fro all the time
I'll give that a try tomorrow and see if it makes any difference.
Huss
Veteran
Wait, what? Do not switch to MF mode? Very interesting! I assume this is for all Nikon DSLRs?
But, why? Why would Nikon decide that the focus tolerances do not need to be as precise in MF? Why would they make two sets of tolerances? One worse than the other? So, is this a real thing or ...?
I am asking this in all seriousness, as it may make me rent a D750 and try my AIS lenses on a Nikon DSLR again.
Highway 61
Revisited
A bit skeptical too. The AF/MF switch is mechanical, switching to MF makes the AF coupling screw retracting itself into the camera lens mount bayonet so that the in-camera AF motor drive isn't damaged when you manual focus with AF and AF-D lenses.
If setting that switch either to AF of to MF had some consequences on the fine-tuning manual focus, and the accuracy of the electronic rangefinder (green dot), why the hell wouldn't Nikon tell this officially in the cameras users manuals ?
And - did they tell this somewhere ? How was that trick discovered ?
Like Johan, I have left my AF/MF switch on AF many times on the D700 while using Ai-S lenses (because there is no risk whatsoever for the in-camera AF motor with them), and never noticed any improvement of the green dot accuracy...
Done with this thread for good now - will only read the explanations about that very point*.
*been searching forums and Nikon sites discussions for a good while since I read this and haven't found out anything about that "old Nikon trick" yet.
willie_901
Veteran
Focusing tolerances an interesting topic.
PDAF accuracy is highly dependent on mechanical alignment of the AF sensors. With some Nikon cameras the AF sensor alignment can be optimized inside the mirror box. Most recent Nikon DSLRs also support lens specific AF alignment parameters in the Menu system. These two adjustments – one hardware, the other software – affect accuracy.
PDAF is precise though. If the AF sensor alignment is mis-set. The focus error will be highly repeatable (precision) but incorrect (inaccurate).
The PDAF sensor alignment will affect the Green Dot response. It is entirely possible the current Nikon bodies have improved AF sensor system designs and Menu based or mechanical alignment is rarely required. I have no idea.
Contrast AF is both accurate and precise independent of any alignments since there are no separate AF sensors. However PDAF is slower, requires some degree of contrast in the focus region and is less flexible. To some extent these limitations are inherent to PDAF. But until very recently PDAF issues were also caused byless powerful CPUs commonly used in mirrorless cameras. There was no point in improving the PDAF algorithms since CPU speed was he limiting factor. As mirrorless camera CPU speeds have increased, PDAF performance and flexibility has increased as well. Also hybrid PDAD/CDAF systems are recent developments.
Nevertheless right now DSLR PDAF is still the fastest and most flexible method.
PDAF accuracy is highly dependent on mechanical alignment of the AF sensors. With some Nikon cameras the AF sensor alignment can be optimized inside the mirror box. Most recent Nikon DSLRs also support lens specific AF alignment parameters in the Menu system. These two adjustments – one hardware, the other software – affect accuracy.
PDAF is precise though. If the AF sensor alignment is mis-set. The focus error will be highly repeatable (precision) but incorrect (inaccurate).
The PDAF sensor alignment will affect the Green Dot response. It is entirely possible the current Nikon bodies have improved AF sensor system designs and Menu based or mechanical alignment is rarely required. I have no idea.
Contrast AF is both accurate and precise independent of any alignments since there are no separate AF sensors. However PDAF is slower, requires some degree of contrast in the focus region and is less flexible. To some extent these limitations are inherent to PDAF. But until very recently PDAF issues were also caused byless powerful CPUs commonly used in mirrorless cameras. There was no point in improving the PDAF algorithms since CPU speed was he limiting factor. As mirrorless camera CPU speeds have increased, PDAF performance and flexibility has increased as well. Also hybrid PDAD/CDAF systems are recent developments.
Nevertheless right now DSLR PDAF is still the fastest and most flexible method.
sgoldswo
Newbie
Sure, to be clear, I don't recommend doing this with AFD lenses (though it's absolutely fine with AFG lenses because they don't use the focus motor either).
This has been demonstrated on the DPR forums numerous times. Let me know if you would like a link. I believe there's even been interviews published with Nikon engineers where they confirmed this behaviour, which is designed to me more helpful in guiding MF, but simply isn't in the absence of multiple indicators for focus.
sgoldswo
Newbie
Yep, it is true of all Nikon DSLRs. The only point to note is that you'll need a Df to mount anything pre AIS. The D750 looks a great camera, but it's about as far from "pure photography" as you'll get. It's also worth noting that while the resolution looks great you only get that CCD like tonality from the sensor in the Df/D4/S. The reasons to get a D750 as far as I'm concerned are ergonomics, wifi and resolution. I don't have a strong enough argument yet, owning a Df and a D810.
willie_901
Veteran
CCD and CMOS use the same technology to convert and store light energy as electrical charge in a pin-diode semiconductor well (link). The only differences have to do with the construction and manufacturing processes. Tonality depends on may variables, but the crucial component – the pin-diode – is identical.
This is not to imply the Df/D4/S bodies do not have superior tonality. However for about a decade CCD sensors are not inherently superior to CMOS sensors in any way. Differences in AA filters (if relevant) IR filters, color filter array lens design and materials, signal to noise ratio and ADC design are responsible for perceived differences in tonality.
Out to Lunch
Ventor
A lot of words spent on this camera. The proof of the pudding is in the eating: if and when there will be a Df2, I'll retract my 'Edsel' comment. Otherwise, happy chatting.
VertovSvilova
Well-known
What does "pure photography" actually mean? One could argue that "pure photography" predates anything digital. Or predates celluloid. Or predates shutters and certainly any handheld devices.
In this case it can only specify a somewhat similar looking older Nikon body style and mechanical dials with numbers printed on them yet switched electronically instead of mechanical wheels with numbers appearing on an LCD screen that are also switched electronically. But nonetheless, I'd agree that "pure photography" probably was a good marketing strategy by Nikon in respect to the Df. Initially it perked me up a bit, I will admit. Although sadly it came up just a bit short for me personally after I tried a rental out for a week, and made me want to stick to my F3 for the round dials with numbers on them and MF AIS Nikkors (but with its electronically timed shutter and auto aperture priority mode I suppose the F3 is not as 'pure' as the F2
)Anyway, it's all good stuff these days. And I look forward to the next version of the Df.
rbelyell
Well-known
if its 'in the eating' then its by definition 'not in the cooking'. so here, if all we're concerned sbout is results, methinkst this camera cannot be beaten, putting it more in the ferrari camp than the edsel.
robert blu
quiet photographer
One week after I started this thread we have many answer, comments and a few ideas, sometimes "controversial", this is life
The reason for which I ask about this camera simple, I have two film Nikon (FM2 + FM100) and s few lenses, the most used camera is the FM2 with a 50/1,4 AIS and the 20/2,8 AFD. As film camera in 35mm I also use an m7 (35 and 50 cron + 75/2,5 CV). My only digital camera is an almost 4 years old Leica x1 which I bought because of size, weight and simple commands, menus are simple as well.
Now I feel the need for a more versatile digital camera which is not too complicated (not too many menus, gadgets etc etc) therefore I' looking at the market.
From what I have read I think the ImageQuality of the DF is up to my expectations, no doubts about. Weight could still be acceptable but size is for me a question point (I have small hands). price is a little on the high side but still in the possible range, if I consider that I would not need additional lenses (by the way I also have a 35-70 2,8 AFD + 80-200 2,8 AFD which I seldom use, but they are here just in case). Manual focus possibility I prefer not to comments...I'm confused...probably
Ideal would it be to rent one for a few days but this is not possible where I live, moreover in Italy the DF is marketed as a "pro" camera and not all the shops are allowed to sell it. I'll look for a shop where at least play with one a little bit, I'm of the school thinking that even the camera with the fastest autofocus and the better IQ is worthless if you miss the "moment" of the great photo because too busy to navigate through too many complicated menu!
Thanks to all who gave clear ideas in their contribution to this thread
robert
The reason for which I ask about this camera simple, I have two film Nikon (FM2 + FM100) and s few lenses, the most used camera is the FM2 with a 50/1,4 AIS and the 20/2,8 AFD. As film camera in 35mm I also use an m7 (35 and 50 cron + 75/2,5 CV). My only digital camera is an almost 4 years old Leica x1 which I bought because of size, weight and simple commands, menus are simple as well.
Now I feel the need for a more versatile digital camera which is not too complicated (not too many menus, gadgets etc etc) therefore I' looking at the market.
From what I have read I think the ImageQuality of the DF is up to my expectations, no doubts about. Weight could still be acceptable but size is for me a question point (I have small hands). price is a little on the high side but still in the possible range, if I consider that I would not need additional lenses (by the way I also have a 35-70 2,8 AFD + 80-200 2,8 AFD which I seldom use, but they are here just in case). Manual focus possibility I prefer not to comments...I'm confused...probably
Ideal would it be to rent one for a few days but this is not possible where I live, moreover in Italy the DF is marketed as a "pro" camera and not all the shops are allowed to sell it. I'll look for a shop where at least play with one a little bit, I'm of the school thinking that even the camera with the fastest autofocus and the better IQ is worthless if you miss the "moment" of the great photo because too busy to navigate through too many complicated menu!
Thanks to all who gave clear ideas in their contribution to this thread
robert
JHP
Well-known
Has anyone ordered/tried/is currently using a split screen focusing screen for their DF?
I just ordered mine... I will post my thoughts on it when I get it.
Hopefully this will solve my hunting issues focusing during dark concerts...
I just ordered mine... I will post my thoughts on it when I get it.
Hopefully this will solve my hunting issues focusing during dark concerts...
shadowfox
Darkroom printing lives
Robert, the whole point of Df is to move the essential control of the camera back into physical dials instead of requiring us to navigate menus.
If you look at the top view of the camera, you'll see that everything that is necessary for manual photography is there. The only thing missing is aperture control, which depends on the lens you use.
So I think it pretty close to what you're looking for.
x-ray
Veteran
I purchased the microprism screen and found it a little darker than the stock screen but not by much. I like the microprism but after some time using it I found it no more accurate than the stock screen. The green dot works best to confirm if there's any question.
Regarding size of the Df, I think I posted the images here but can't be certain it was on this forum, it's not an FM 2 neither is the M9 or M240 a film M in any way. All are chunky thick cameras compared to their film counterparts. They simply require more space to put all the components. The photo I made clearly showed there wasn't much difference in thickness between my M 9 and the Df with the exception of the added dimension of the mirror box which is part of all SLRs. The difference in heighth was the prism and is an essential component of an slr. My opinion is the Df is easier to grip than the stock M9. I found the chunky thick body and rounded shape made the M9 hard to hold. I guess that's why some people add $200+ accessories to aid gripping the M. The Df at least has a small ridge on the right front which helps. I found the ridge more than enough with primes but could have been a bit better with my 70-200 f2.8 vrII.
The internet chatter is the Df is huge and the M9/240 are small but in reality there's not much difference. Things just have a way of getting blown out of proportion. The only way for you to know if it's right is to spend some quality time with one. Don't try to judge it in 60seconds. Handle it, shoot a bunch of frames and give it a thorough test. Remember there's not a single full frame digital camera that's the same size and weight as it's film counterpart. I would guess the closest is the Nikon D4 vs the F5 film body, both are large and heavy.
Regarding size of the Df, I think I posted the images here but can't be certain it was on this forum, it's not an FM 2 neither is the M9 or M240 a film M in any way. All are chunky thick cameras compared to their film counterparts. They simply require more space to put all the components. The photo I made clearly showed there wasn't much difference in thickness between my M 9 and the Df with the exception of the added dimension of the mirror box which is part of all SLRs. The difference in heighth was the prism and is an essential component of an slr. My opinion is the Df is easier to grip than the stock M9. I found the chunky thick body and rounded shape made the M9 hard to hold. I guess that's why some people add $200+ accessories to aid gripping the M. The Df at least has a small ridge on the right front which helps. I found the ridge more than enough with primes but could have been a bit better with my 70-200 f2.8 vrII.
The internet chatter is the Df is huge and the M9/240 are small but in reality there's not much difference. Things just have a way of getting blown out of proportion. The only way for you to know if it's right is to spend some quality time with one. Don't try to judge it in 60seconds. Handle it, shoot a bunch of frames and give it a thorough test. Remember there's not a single full frame digital camera that's the same size and weight as it's film counterpart. I would guess the closest is the Nikon D4 vs the F5 film body, both are large and heavy.
x-ray
Veteran
I should add that I shoot my Df just like a film camera. I turned the LCD off and use AIS lenses with one exception and I use it in manual focus and use manual aperture. I use the shutter speed dial on the top and aperture ring just like the film days. I mainly use the menue for reformatting and artificial horizon. It feels so and operates so close to how a film camera works. It's a real joy to use and the images are excellent. I prefer the images to my D800 with two exceptions. I prefer the D800 when I need the extended dynamic range of 14.4 stops and the larger file size. Over all the Df has exceptional high ISO and beautiful files.
dasuess
Nikon Freak
After 3 solid months with the Df, I find it easier in the hands than my F - which is not faint praise. While physically a bit bigger, it is easier to hold, both with one hand or two. And as you state in a later post in this thread, I also use it just like my film Nikon.
uhoh7
Veteran
nothing puts me to sleep faster than a discussion of the finer points of auto-focus.
if the DF is the same size as the M9 I guess it's smaller than the A7, because in actual use, with lens attached the A7 is usually bigger than my M9.
If the A7 was more friendly with RF glass 35 and wider, that might not be the case. But too often it wants an SLR lens to tease out the best image.
Canon decided they should follow nikon's "pure photography" propaganda, but save on actually making anything, so we have "see impossible",
Put an M9 in the hands of the wandering photog in those silly Nikon ads, and something would actually ring true.
However to those who love the DF, enjoy your luck, as they will never recoup the cost of that production. Someone should enjoy them, at the least.
if the DF is the same size as the M9 I guess it's smaller than the A7, because in actual use, with lens attached the A7 is usually bigger than my M9.
If the A7 was more friendly with RF glass 35 and wider, that might not be the case. But too often it wants an SLR lens to tease out the best image.
Canon decided they should follow nikon's "pure photography" propaganda, but save on actually making anything, so we have "see impossible",
Put an M9 in the hands of the wandering photog in those silly Nikon ads, and something would actually ring true.
However to those who love the DF, enjoy your luck, as they will never recoup the cost of that production. Someone should enjoy them, at the least.
Huss
Veteran
I visited the local camera shop yesterday with my Nikon 105 1.8 AIS MF lens and a memory card. I was able to focus the D750 more accurately at 1.8 than the DF using the dot confirmation.