Jamie Pillers
Skeptic
I use focusingscreen.com's F6-L in my D600. It works great. From everything I could find, these screens are Nikon screens cut down to fit the DSLR screen rack. So they won't be any dimmer since they are Nikon screens.
x-ray
Veteran
I use mine professionally and if I need autofocus it's perfectly fine under low light. It's easy as accurate as my D800. IMO no issues with the AF.
I use a Gitzo head now that I don't have to remove the camera from the tripod to access the battery and memory card. Battery capacity is fine. It's not like the battery that my canon 1DsII used but is a tiny fraction of the size. I get at least 700-900 frames which is a lot of shooting and carry one or two more in my pocket.
The camera isn't slow. It's not as fast as a D4 but it's a fraction of the size and weight. If you want D4 speed, buy a D4. Most pros don't need D4 speed unless they're shooting fast action.
I really like my Df and it's my general purpose go to camera for work. It's not perfect but no camera is IMO.
JHP
Well-known
Fair enough, I have found my DF hunting all over the show when trying to focus on live acts jumping around a stage in low/difficult lighting. I had no such issues with my D3S, it just locked focus every time. As far as I'm aware the D3S and D800 share more or less the same kind of auto focus where as the DF settled for a lesser system. To me this is the most obvious drawback with the DF.
In saying that, I use only single point auto focus. Perhaps you could give me a tip on how you nail your autofocus under low light?
*Edit - Just looked at your work, I love your wet plate images!
RichC
Well-known
OK it's on a Nikon D800E, but my review of the focusingscreen.com screen is valid for the DF. You do get a wider choice of screens for the DF. (I don't own a DF - fatal flaw is not 36MP like the D800E, which is only barely enough for my needs.)
See:
http://www.rangefinderforum.com/forums/showpost.php?p=2333995&postcount=71
http://www.rangefinderforum.com/forums/showpost.php?p=2334916&postcount=74
http://www.rangefinderforum.com/forums/showpost.php?p=2335033&postcount=81
Like X-ray earlier, I only use my camera in manual mode. I don't even own any autofocus Nikon lenses, as I've sold them since buying the screen! I have no trouble nailing focus with the split screen, and there are no downsides for me - especially since replacing the original screen takes 5 minutes (not that I have or will).
As I said in my links, autofocus seemed unaffected by the new screen. You do have more clutter in the centre of the screen, but that’s the price you pay...
When fitting an after-market screen, do study the procedure carefully before doing it: focusingscreen.com has instructions on its website - the English isn't great, but understandable. It is a very quick and simple procedure, if you do it right! If you screw up and scratch your original screen, a genuine Nikon replacement is cheap - but this is very unlikely if you've studied the instructions beforehand. Note that the focusingscreen.com screens are high quality - unsurprising since they are all modified genuine Canon or Nikon ones.
Fitting a (genuine) viewfinder magnifier made a huge difference to usability, including speed of nailing focus (this would hold true for me with the original screen too). I can't recall the part number, and I think the DF needs the same one (do check!). The magnifier still allows the entire viewfinder to be seen, just, but only if you don't wear glasses.
Lastly, I still think the advice not to use the manual focus switch on the camera because it makes focusing manual lenses less accurate is garbage. Some of the explanations, like it's a deliberate marketing ploy to sell autofocus lenses, make you sound like people who believe the moon landings were fake!
l did a quick test yesterday and didn't spot any difference whatsoever between the switch in AF and MF positions: the green dot behaviour did not change.(Incidentally, the green dot comes on when my split screen indicates perfect focus - so I could use the green dot to focus manual lenses accurately, but don't because I want to look at my subject when focusing not the edge of the viewfinder! With an exception: rather than use the traditional focus then recompose system for focusing on off-centre subjects, I prefer to move the focus point (I only use single-focus-point mode) and use the green dot because focus then recompose is NOT accurate - the distance to the subject changes! Think about it - you're moving your camera in an arc!)
Highway 61
Revisited
I performed the same test yesterday and came to the same conclusions as yours.Lastly, I still think the advice not to use the manual focus switch on the camera because it makes focusing manual lenses less accurate is garbage. Some of the explanations, like it's a deliberate marketing ploy to sell autofocus lenses, make you sound like people who believe the moon landings were fake!
Hoax, as most of us thought it was from the beginning.
mfunnell
Shaken, so blurred
Well that puts paid to my theory! (Note: I own no Nikon autofocus cameras nor lenses nor Nikon digital anythings, so my theory was - um - very theoretical.) That theory was based on comparing manual focus on a Pentax DSLR with the equivalent on a Canon DSLR. My observation is that there's considerable "slop" with Pentax AF confirmation of MF (on a very old Pentax DSLR) to the extent that visual confirmation from the focusing screen is far superior. Whereas Canon AF confirmation of MF is precisely where the AF would have focused, within tolerances closer than I can judge using the focusing screen. I was going to put this down to Canon's AF having only ever being designed specifically for AF lenses, with little if any allowance being made for MF (assuming those with TS lenses can be considered to know what they're doing). And I was going to suggest that Nikon's AF confirmation of MF may have been designed similarly to the Pentax (ie. making an allowance for +/- compared to where the AF would have liked to put things).
But from what Rich has said, that doesn't seem all that likely, or at least not for top-end Nikon AF DSLRs. (Maybe different models have different tolerances set for AF confirmation of MF? Who knows? But I'd guess that's pretty unlikely.)
I was going to post this, but now I'm not as I appear to be talking drivel, in the light of Rich's findings...
Then again, I just did, just in case this makes any kind of sense to someone...
...Mike
RichC
Well-known
To be honest, it's no surprise that the green dot is accurate: if it wasn't, Nikon wouldn't have included it nor designed their dSLRs to use manual lenses. Can you imagine the flak they'd get if the green dot didn't work!?
Whether using the green dot to confirm focus suits you is a different kettle of fish!
Machine vision - i.e. the camera's autofocus mechanism - is inherently more precise than the camera's manual focus indicator combined with the foibles of human vision. But unless the depth of field is as narrow as a gnat's wotsit, manual focus is sufficiently accurate - and perfectly usable in most situations if you prefer it to autofocus (as I do).
There is a certain amount of "slop" inherent to the green dot, but manual systems such as split-focus or microprism patches have "focus slop" too. Developing a focusing method together with practice helps a lot with the green dot (just as it does with the screen patches): for example, I tend to nail the focus more often when the green dot just flickers into being, whereas when my friend borrows my camera she finds it more accurate to wait until the green dot just stops flickering and becomes solid.
Whether using the green dot to confirm focus suits you is a different kettle of fish!
Machine vision - i.e. the camera's autofocus mechanism - is inherently more precise than the camera's manual focus indicator combined with the foibles of human vision. But unless the depth of field is as narrow as a gnat's wotsit, manual focus is sufficiently accurate - and perfectly usable in most situations if you prefer it to autofocus (as I do).
There is a certain amount of "slop" inherent to the green dot, but manual systems such as split-focus or microprism patches have "focus slop" too. Developing a focusing method together with practice helps a lot with the green dot (just as it does with the screen patches): for example, I tend to nail the focus more often when the green dot just flickers into being, whereas when my friend borrows my camera she finds it more accurate to wait until the green dot just stops flickering and becomes solid.
David_Manning
Well-known
I liked the idea of the Df...I was really excited about it's debut. However, after handling it, I bought a Fujifilm X-T1, which is what the Df should've been. The X-T1 is the size, shape, and heft of my FE2, and actually feels a bit more solid. The APS-C/full-frame argument never crossed my mind...I did lots of published work with a Nikon D2X and it had a CCD APS-C sensor.
X-T1 is smaller, more compact, faster in many respects (fast-enough for me), uses great Fuji (Hassleblad) glass, and is weather-sealed. It's a GREAT FE2/FM2 update.
X-T1 is smaller, more compact, faster in many respects (fast-enough for me), uses great Fuji (Hassleblad) glass, and is weather-sealed. It's a GREAT FE2/FM2 update.
x-ray
Veteran
My brother has one of the Fuji mirror less cameras and it's very nice but is totally different. There's no question it produces top notch images but I can't stand evf's. Also my preference is FF sensors. Much of how I feel comes from a lifetime of shooting film and seeing the actual image through the lens not an electronic representation.
dougwillobee
Newbie
Summary: I've had the Df for about a year now. I love it...
Background: My first camera was a Pentax Spotmatic... After a several decades hiatus I came back to it through a Fuji X-Pro1. Much happiness ensued. Which caused me to get back into film, dragging out my FE and Nikon lenses. Now the collection includes the Df, FE, X-Pro1, X100, X-T1, Mamiya 7, M6 & ZI. And appropriate lens kits for each.
The Df is one of my favorites. I try to rotate through the entire collection, but the Df gets more than it's fair share. AF has never been an issue for me. I don't think I've ever needed to go to my second battery. I have a quick release on my tripod, so no issue getting to the SD card or battery.
I prefer setting the shutter speed using the top dial, just like I prefer using the aperture ring rather than the front command dial. Personal preference.
I find the Df much more responsive than the X-T1...but like the size of the X-T1 for hiking. The X-T1's EVF and focus peeking makes manual focusing a dream, but I prefer an optical VF. The Fuji -Trans sensor is amazing...but I am in love with the D4 sensor. Again, all personal preference.
I think the Df is to the FE what the X-Pro1 is to the M6: Modern interpretations of classics. I don't expect the Df to be a FE, just as I don't expect the X-Pro1 to be a rangefinder. Each has it's own personality and each inspire me to shoot differently. Neither the Df or X-Pro1 is perfect (I've never found a perfect camera which is why I own so many) but I delight in using either.
Doug
Background: My first camera was a Pentax Spotmatic... After a several decades hiatus I came back to it through a Fuji X-Pro1. Much happiness ensued. Which caused me to get back into film, dragging out my FE and Nikon lenses. Now the collection includes the Df, FE, X-Pro1, X100, X-T1, Mamiya 7, M6 & ZI. And appropriate lens kits for each.
The Df is one of my favorites. I try to rotate through the entire collection, but the Df gets more than it's fair share. AF has never been an issue for me. I don't think I've ever needed to go to my second battery. I have a quick release on my tripod, so no issue getting to the SD card or battery.
I prefer setting the shutter speed using the top dial, just like I prefer using the aperture ring rather than the front command dial. Personal preference.
I find the Df much more responsive than the X-T1...but like the size of the X-T1 for hiking. The X-T1's EVF and focus peeking makes manual focusing a dream, but I prefer an optical VF. The Fuji -Trans sensor is amazing...but I am in love with the D4 sensor. Again, all personal preference.
I think the Df is to the FE what the X-Pro1 is to the M6: Modern interpretations of classics. I don't expect the Df to be a FE, just as I don't expect the X-Pro1 to be a rangefinder. Each has it's own personality and each inspire me to shoot differently. Neither the Df or X-Pro1 is perfect (I've never found a perfect camera which is why I own so many) but I delight in using either.
Doug
Addy101
Well-known
As I said a year ago: if you want to manual focus those old MF lenses, just get a Sony A7 with a decent adapter an you've got money to spend on something else.
furcafe
Veteran
That's what I've done, but I can see why many prefer a more traditional user interface (I'm 1 of them). Maybe Sony will come out w/a "classic" full-frame Alpha, w/a chrome finish of course, that has a shutter speed dial & a removable grip. Maybe they could even partner up w/Leica!
Roger Hicks
Veteran
Dear David,
So... a full-frame DSLR should have been an APS-C camera with an EVF?
Yeah, right. That would be really useful with all my Nikon fit MF lenses from 14mm to 600mm.
If you don't want a full-frame DSLR, fine, but to pretend that a full-frame DSLR should have been an APS-C camera with an EVF defies both comprehension and parody.
Cheers,
R.
David_Manning
Well-known
Roger, I didn't even mention the EVF...however, yes, the Df should've been more compact and closer to the FE2 in style and function. Sony can put a FF sensor in a compact body, and Fuji can make a camera operate in a "traditional" way. Why can't Nikon?
I totally stand by what I said...it's not about the X-T1, it's about what I think the Df SHOULD'VE been. Slapping dials on a dSLR and wrapping it in plastic isn't the way. I love the Nikon sensors and have always shot Nikon (F6, D2X, D300, D700). I think they missed the mark on the Df...great marketing, but swing and a miss...but don't sound so offended, it's only my opinion. I'm sure it makes fantastic images.
Cheers,
David.
I totally stand by what I said...it's not about the X-T1, it's about what I think the Df SHOULD'VE been. Slapping dials on a dSLR and wrapping it in plastic isn't the way. I love the Nikon sensors and have always shot Nikon (F6, D2X, D300, D700). I think they missed the mark on the Df...great marketing, but swing and a miss...but don't sound so offended, it's only my opinion. I'm sure it makes fantastic images.
Cheers,
David.
jarski
Veteran
Am sure ff-sensor can be put on smaller size dSLR, but so far all makers, including Nikon have been reluctant to do so. Smallest at the moment are 6D and D610, which are pretty hefty still.
JHP
Well-known
Isn't it the mirror that is the issue, not the sensor in terms of size? Having to cram the electronics, sensor, and large flipping mirror into a body would make it hard to be compact. I don't know, I'm no expert.
jarski
Veteran
Not expert either, but since equal size flipping mirror was possible to fit such cameras as OM1, Pentax MX and Nikon FM/FE, we are still far from digital equivalents. My guess is that ff-sensor is still reserved for the upper category = pricier models. That's why Nikon, Canon and Sony are reluctant to do small ff-camera that would cannibalize their cheaper models also.
Highway 61
Revisited
It's the sensor mothercard, battery chamber, built-in flash, hand grip, LCD panel and screen.
There is absolutely nothing that prevents a company like Nikon to build a FF DSLR the size of an FM2. Recently on the D750 they built the sensor mothercard around it, not behind it, so the D750 has a thinner body than the D610 (but this is globally unnoticeable because of the camera tilting screen).
Think of the M240 and add a mirror box and prism for the 24x36 sensor, and you get the idea.
Of course this camera would have a small battery, a small LCD top panel (or no one), a small grip (if any), fewer external controls, buttons and ports, but people have to know what they want.
This is what the Df should have been - the "pro" versus "amateur" thing is irrelevant there. The F2, F3 and FM2 sold either to "pros" or "amateurs".
Sadly the recent marketing woes have invented some nasty concepts like "enthusiasts" or "prosumers" - so the smart Nikon marketing guys thought that if the Df had been that incredible camera which had put Nikon all over the map again, it would have been honey to pigs, probably.
x-ray
Veteran
The op was asking about opinions from those of us that have and use the camera extensively not a laundry list of what it could have been. Why not start a thread " why I hate the Df" and let us users keep this thread on track.
You've never answered how much quality time you've spent actually shooting this camera. I question whether you've even handled one. You mention built in flash, the Df doesn't have a built in flash.
Leave this thread for those of us that use and own the camera. Go troll somewhere else. You hate the Df and you've made your point.
Highway 61
Revisited
1/I don't "hate" the Df so your point is OT.
2/Yes I've used that camera, and what I can say is that it has the fantastic 16MP FF Sony sensor of the D4 and the VF and size of the D610 which has an equally fantastic 24MP FF Sony sensor and some nice features of its own (ah yes it has no "genuine" external dials). I wonder what else could be said about it afterall. It's not made of titanium and leather and has nothing really special (ah yes the flippable Ai tab and the external dials which are nice enough).
I mentioned "built-in flash" in an answer to someone asking about the general size of a FF DSLR. Thanks for helping me noticing that the Df hasn't any, I had missed that.
3/You're not the forum owner and if you're not happy with my posts, this is your own problem. I do not "hate" the Df and I really wonder why I would, and where you've read this in what I wrote.