Timmyjoe
Veteran
Might be a good time to take your own advice Highway 61. The OP asked for opinions and reviews from folks who have used the Df, and although I'm not disputing that you've used the Df, you've made 27 posts on this thread telling everyone what, in your opinion, is wrong with the Df. I think we all get it by this time, you don't recommend the OP purchase a Df. You don't need to keep repeating yourself.
I, for one, would like to hear from other users of the camera, and I would be very disappointed if they don't come forward because you keep arguing with anyone who posts anything positive, or even neutral, about this camera.
There are many things we can discuss about the camera that could be helpful to the OP, and to many more of us.
We've heard what you think of the camera, now let's hear from others.
Best,
-Tim
Monz
Monz
Dear JHP,
Thanks for the animated gif.
Does this screen effect the spot metering or matrix metering of the Df?
Can you still use the centre focus point with an AF lens?
Thanks.
--
Monz
chris91387
Well-known
seriously considering the df but at this point i should probably just wait for a new version.
i just want a Nikon FM in digital. that's it. manual focus, split prism, manual exposure (but with a meter). simple. i still have all my original 80s Ais glass in pristine condition. probably about 15 lenses.
i just want a Nikon FM in digital. that's it. manual focus, split prism, manual exposure (but with a meter). simple. i still have all my original 80s Ais glass in pristine condition. probably about 15 lenses.
Timmyjoe
Veteran
I'd be very interested in this as well. My concern with the aftermarket screens is if they would in any way mess up the AF when using AF lenses, mess with the available focus points, and if the aftermarket screens have any effect on the spot, average or matrix metering.
Thanks,
-Tim
Monz
Monz
Okay, I've just checked the "jerkwithacamera" website... he says the metering works fine with the screen!
Timmyjoe
Veteran
Thanks Monz. Can you use the center focus point with that split screen in place?
Best,
-Tim
Best,
-Tim
Monz
Monz
He doesn't say explicitly. He says, "It works Brilliantly! To start the manual focus seems to be BANG ON and the regular autofocus works just the same as it did with the factory screen."
Addy101
Well-known
If you read this thread (and the thread when the Df was released) you'll notice that the Df isn't the manual focus camera a lot of people hoped for. It is a lot like any other digital Nikon, just with a fancier exterior - it certainly isn't a digital FM.
Maybe the next one will be better suited for people like you, as it seems quite a lot of people would've liked something more dedicated to manual focus users. In the meantime consider the mirrorless options.
chris91387
Well-known
i have the A7 with nikon f adapter and although it allows me to use my old Nikon glass (and M lenses) ... "it's just not the same". i can't explain it any better than that. i find the A7 clumsy and slow. a fine camera and definitely groundbreaking but it's just not my cup of tea.
Digital Nikon FM. hey, a guy can dream.
RichC
Well-known
Answered in my review posts linked to here http://www.rangefinderforum.com/forums/showpost.php?p=2407384&postcount=184 - the screen is in a Nikon D800E but I'd expect the DF to behave identically.
Luke_Miller
Established
I've read many conflicting reports regarding manual focus with the Df. They range between "just another DSLR that is unsuitable for manual focusing" to "a redesigned focus screen that is optimized for manual focus." I was hesitant about getting one since my primary use of a Df would be with my Ai ans Ais lenses. Recently I found a decent deal on a used one and I jumped in.
Now that I've shot with it for a couple of weeks I am very pleased with how well I can focus my Ai & Ais glass. This morning I did a head-to-head manual focus comparison between the Df and my F3HP. I found no visible difference between the two when using the ground glass portion of the Type K focus screen in my F3HP. While the Type K screen also has the split-image and micro-prism focus aids I don't normally use them. So for my purpose the Df manually focuses as well as my F3HP.
The Type K screen is a big advantage over the plain screen for those who need the split-image or micro-prism capability for very precise focusing, and it would be great if Nikon offered it as an option. But for those who find those features a distraction (like I do) I prefer focusing through the DF viewfinder.
Now that I've shot with it for a couple of weeks I am very pleased with how well I can focus my Ai & Ais glass. This morning I did a head-to-head manual focus comparison between the Df and my F3HP. I found no visible difference between the two when using the ground glass portion of the Type K focus screen in my F3HP. While the Type K screen also has the split-image and micro-prism focus aids I don't normally use them. So for my purpose the Df manually focuses as well as my F3HP.
The Type K screen is a big advantage over the plain screen for those who need the split-image or micro-prism capability for very precise focusing, and it would be great if Nikon offered it as an option. But for those who find those features a distraction (like I do) I prefer focusing through the DF viewfinder.
Timmyjoe
Veteran
I've thought about this as well, but my concern is that instead of Nikon announcing a new Df (the Df2 or Dfs), Nikon will instead announce that they are discontinuing the Df and I will have missed my chance of getting one.
If I had the money, and unfortunately I don't, I would have bought a Df already.
Best,
-Tim
Timmyjoe
Veteran
Good to hear you say that Luke. The first thing I did when I got my F3HP was to swap out the Type K screen for a Type B screen (solid matte), which I prefer for focusing. Sounds like the Df screen should pretty much mimic the Type B, so if and when I can afford a Df, maybe I won't have to worry about changing out the focus screen.
Best,
-Tim
VertovSvilova
Well-known
I have the F3HP and compared the two when I rented the Df (I had one on order when they were first announced but rented one to be certain about it; but it turned out not to be the perfect fit for me personally. I wanted the D4 sensor but wasn't ready to give up my D3s for a new D4 at the time, either.) I found that the difference was that the F3HP screen is 'coarser' than the Df and not quite as bright. I could be wrong, but I think that might be part of what makes the older cameras a bit easier to manually focus.
I wonder if Nikon will continue with the Df and make another version. I hope so. But I think what's part of the issue with making a 'FM' style digital body are the current G lenses with no aperture ring. There will have to be a wheel or something to adjust the aperture and there's no way Nikon will make a camera that can't use their latest G lenses.
As an aside, when I am interested in a new photo product I try to rent first or borrow a demo from my vendor (another good reason to have a good relationship with a local retailer.) Invariably when one owns a camera or lens they will speak highly of it (why else would they still own it), and if they do not own then they will post the negative points that led to that decision. Wanting to feel good about what you own is just part of human nature, and dismissing something because it wasn't what they had hoped for is also normal; i.e., people take their personal preferences very personally. We rarely get unbiased views one way or another with these sorts of threads. It sometimes happens but it's not common (and this includes online 'reviewers', too; they have their own agendas.)
imho, the best thing is to look at the non-objectives specs and decide if they fit your needs. Then either rent the product or ask your vendor for a demo to use (or try one out with a vendor that has long term return policies if that's your only real option.) In the digital era with such competition among manufacturers and new 'improved' products popping up every 6 months, I think this is probably the best strategy in order to really answer the questions posed.
p.s., I see refurbished Df bodies for sale now for $2300. That can be tempting.
x-ray
Veteran
I have the micro prism screen, not the split image, but have removed it because I've not seen any improvement on accuracy with it vs the regular screen. the regular screen is no problem for me especially after I installed the nikon magnifier. I feel the standard Nikon screen is a touch brighter than the aftermarket.
Different people have different eyesight issues which might be some of the issue with some folks. I wear contact lenses which give me excellent vision. Even at my age I have no cataracts and have a mild prescription in my contacts. People with strong correction, cataracts and other issues might have a problem. Focusing is ever so critical with any digital camera especially when pixel peeping combined with fast glass. A tiny miss in focus makes a huge difference at 100%.
My micro prism screen had no effect on metering in any mode and had no effect on AF or accuracy manually focusing with any autofocus or manual focus lens.
Luke_Miller
Established
I agree - and this is often overlooked in the discussions. Also, I believe manual focusing is a skill acquired with practice. For these reasons different folk can achieve different results even with a viewfinder optimized for manual focusing.
x-ray
Veteran
I'm of the same opinion.
I have both The Df and the D800 and really see no difference between the manual focusing accuracy between the two or AF for that matter. Due to the kind of work I do I most often use manual focus even on the D800 with G series lenses. The nice thing is I can use autofocus lenses on either camera anytime I need AF and feel confident it will get a high percentage of sharp images. Even under very dim conditions I get a very good ratio of keepers. The only real difference in AF between the two that I'm able to see is the Df has fewer AF points which is no big deal. This doesn't mean less accuracy it only means a smaller area to select from.
x-ray
Veteran
Everyone thinks the Df is so huge and the M9 was so small. Here's a link to see a comparison. http://camerasize.com/compare/#213,495 /the real difference is the meter prism and mirror box. Actual body to body size is very close.
I did a comparison shot overhead and from the front once when i had my M9 but can't find it unfortunately. In reality they aren't that far apart other than the prism and mirror box. I've not personally seen the M 240 but I believe it's thicker than the M9.
I did a comparison shot overhead and from the front once when i had my M9 but can't find it unfortunately. In reality they aren't that far apart other than the prism and mirror box. I've not personally seen the M 240 but I believe it's thicker than the M9.
willie_901
Veteran
"
Leica M9 is 3% (4.5 mm) narrower and 27% (30 mm) shorter than Nikon Df.
Leica M9 is 44% (29.5 mm) thinner than Nikon Df.
Leica M9 [585 g] weights 24% (180 grams) less than Nikon Df [765 g] (*inc. batteries and memory card).
- See more at: http://camerasize.com/compare/#213,495
Leica M9 is 3% (4.5 mm) narrower and 27% (30 mm) shorter than Nikon Df.
Leica M9 is 44% (29.5 mm) thinner than Nikon Df.
Leica M9 [585 g] weights 24% (180 grams) less than Nikon Df [765 g] (*inc. batteries and memory card).
- See more at: http://camerasize.com/compare/#213,495
VertovSvilova
Well-known
I also feel the same way. And I have no issues with focusing with my D800E or D3s either, and also felt there was no real difference with the Df. And in fact, I tend to like focusing with the DSLRs even more more than with the F3. The finders seem to be brighter (and of course there's the AF option.)
But I also have DK-17M eyepieces on my DSLRs. I don't need glasses and can see the full frame perfectly fine with the D3s and D800E with the magnifying eyepiece. I highly recommend it, although I never really had any issues with manual focusing before I got them. So yeah, I think there is definitely a big variation depending on an individual's eyesight and focusing techniques, etc..