Praise for the unique Nikon DF

Huss said:
Tim, I respect and value your opinion.

I just feel it is a half baked concept. I think it bugs me because it could have been so much better. It is a very fat body, that feels, well, cheap. Turn that shutter speed dial, then turn one on an old Nikon FM. Why does the FM feel so much better built?

I honestly think Nikon would have had a market if they pulled out all the stops, made this thing the size of an FM or F3 even, made it solid, stripped it down and really made it a film sir with a digital back. Even remove the AF! Leica has shown it could be done.
If Nikon had to charge $5000 for it, it would still would have had a market. It would have blown people's minds.
I would have willingly paid that.
Click to expand...

The FM has a mechanical shutter, the DF has an electronically timed shutter. The FM shutter speed dial turns gears and levers which gives it a different feel than a dial that just moves a resistor on a circuit board. No quality difference, its a mechanical difference.
 
Chriscrawfordphoto said:
The FM has a mechanical shutter, the DF has an electronically timed shutter. The FM shutter speed dial turns gears and levers which gives it a different feel than a dial that just moves a resistor on a circuit board. No quality difference, its a mechanical difference.
Click to expand...

The shutter speed dial on the DF feels like a hollow plastic core with a thin metal covering. The shutter speed dial on the FM, or FE for that matter (which does not have a mechanical shutter) feels super dense and robust.
 
Oscuro said:
.. sometimes I take the D750 with 20-35 2.8 and little X100 for longer. .
Click to expand...

If you are out for a longer time? Or for longer focal length? Because I think the X100 has a 35mm equivalent lens. So the 20-35 zoom would cover that.
 
Huss said:
If you are out for a longer time? Or for longer focal length? Because I think the X100 has a 35mm equivalent lens. So the 20-35 zoom would cover that.
Click to expand...

Caro Huss,

Yes it would. But I often work with the X100F (darling husband "stole" my X100) and a TCL100. I look back at my post and I was not clear.

So then I say I'm 20-35 on the Nikon and 50 75 100 on the Fuji. This completely is everything I need.

Cordialmente,
Mme. O.
 
Like many, I was initially attracted to it because of its dedicated external controls. Not "retro" styling for the sake of styling, but because I like to set controls on dedicated dials and see what my settings are. I like having a camera where every function has a dedicated physical control just for that one function only. I hate spinning little wheels and looking at a display à la Canon cameras.

So, I was hoping for a digital version of my Nikon F4s (the last pro Nikon to use dedicated external controls). The Df had the bonus of using pre-AI lenses.

Ultimately the size - the bulk - and reports from people who had used them made me realize my F4s's were good enough and for digital I had the X-Pro1 and a D700.

I think they tried to do too much with the Df. Had it been essentially an FE2 with digital capture, it may have been much more successful.

All that said, I admire Nikon for making the Df (and the F6).
 
I bought one when they first came out to complement my D800 system. I’m basically retired now but bought them for my commercial work. The Df quickly became my primary camera.

I didn’t try to make it into something it isn’t. I sent buy it with the idea it was a digital FM or F3, I bought it for its flexibility and familiar operation and comparability with my shooting style. First of all I’ve shot film with an SLR since 1966. The operation of an SLR is imprinted in me. All the controls are familiar and function like a camera should without having to fiddle with buttons and wheels and menus.

I use prime lenses 99% of the time on my Df. All are Nikkor AI or AIs and have a hand picked array from 20mm to 180mm plus a set of current or one generation old AF ED and PC lenses. My preference is primes whenever possible.

I purchased nikons eyepiece magnifier and have no problem manual focusing. There’s also a very accurate electronic confirmation light. I did try a split image screen but found it no better than the stock screen so went back to the standard screen.

My camera is setup to function like a film camera. I use the shutter speed dial (doesn’t feel cheap to me), manual focus and aperture ring. I almost always work in manual exposure mode. I also disabled the preview screen on the back so it would come one every shot and distract. I only use it for a rough preview much like I used Polaroid in the day.

I’m still very pleased with the camera and image quality and have no reason to replace it. Matter of fact I’m probably going to keep it and sell all my other digital gear now that I’m pretty much retired.

Still film is my personal choice and I have no plans to abandon film for my personal use.
 
I think Nikon dropped the ball on keeping compromise.
DF shaped as brick bread as any DSLR comparing to manual focus SLR to accommodate AF, I guess.

Would Nikon skip it and make slick F2 like digital manual focus DSLR it would be the achievement. Nikon still sells manual focus F lenses.
 
Had the Df included a split-circle focusing screen for MF Nikkors that was also optimized for the fastest f/1.2 legacy lenses, that would have been an achievement. But they didn’t, nor did they follow it up with a version that was configured as such. Waited for the Df convinced with all the hype it would be. When it wasn’t that, I waved ¡adios! to Nikon DSLRs for good.
 
I wanted one, followed all the early leaks and teases, but when the launch finally happened it was a fail — in execution, size, focusing,looks, and price.

This coming from a long-time Nikon shooter; I was their intended target market; the concept was exactly what I was looking for but they missed the mark by a wide margin.

Maybe one day they will try again but given the market these days, it’s unlikely.
 
I'm on my fourth Df. Never had a problem with manual focus or autofocus in any light. I could go on and list a load of reasons why this camera is so much better than non users think but instead check this review - this photog says it all much better than I could.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2IPAeJaNJKw
 
Gid said:
I'm on my fourth Df. Never had a problem with manual focus or autofocus in any light. I could go on and list a load of reasons why this camera is so much better than non users think but instead check this review - this photog says it all much better than I could.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2IPAeJaNJKw
Click to expand...

Why are you on your fourth? Did you wear three of them out??
 
Huss said:
Tim, I respect and value your opinion.

I just feel it is a half baked concept. I think it bugs me because it could have been so much better. It is a very fat body, that feels, well, cheap. Turn that shutter speed dial, then turn one on an old Nikon FM. Why does the FM feel so much better built?

I honestly think Nikon would have had a market if they pulled out all the stops, made this thing the size of an FM or F3 even, made it solid, stripped it down and really made it a film sir with a digital back. Even remove the AF! Leica has shown it could be done.
If Nikon had to charge $5000 for it, it would still would have had a market. It would have blown people's minds.
I would have willingly paid that.
Click to expand...
Everything Huss, says here... I was so disappointed when Nikon unveiled the DF.

I expected and would have accepted compromises, but the camera was basically just skin-deep bling, rather than being designed from the ground up as a synthesis of cutting-edge digital and traditional manual controls. It could have been done: Leica did it, Epson did it...
 
Chriscrawfordphoto said:
Why are you on your fourth? Did you wear three of them out??
Click to expand...

Mostly because I'm stupid. Every time I sold one of my previous Dfs I missed it and re-bought. The reason I bought one in the first place is because it had everything I wanted in a digital camera - full frame, OVF, manual controls, great IQ especially at high iso values, access to small (ish) high quality manual focus primes (at reasonable cost) and relatively low weight. I tried a whole range of other digitals and none of them really met my original criteria - the closest was the Leica M240 but its not much lighter than the Df and a lot more expensive (I will almost certainly buy another M240 in the near future) but for the time being I'm happy using the Df and my recently acquired (and fourth) Leica M8.:eek:
 
peterm1 said:
Thank you. I always get a kick out of listening to Kai. Ahh memories of his time in HK.

And you are right I think in this instance he pretty well nailed it.
Click to expand...

Yes! Oh yes! This is exactly the problems we had with the Df. I say before: beautiful files out of this camera. But, o my goodness... getting to making the files - I mean taking the picture.... not so good for us. The big problems: interaction of mode and shutter/aperture dials, Auto ISO, and auto focus.

I am happy that it works for Gid! It is a very good camera for file output. Outstanding. And not so many Euros as for D4 (and not so many kilos as D4!!)

Ciao,
Be safe please!

Mme. O
 
Gid said:
Is your opinion based ownership and use of a Df?
Click to expand...

Thank you for calling me on this. I should have thought to qualify my comment. No I do not own one but some years back I was looking into purchasing and was curious about them as a Nikon owner and user with lots of MF Nikkors in my cupboard. I tried one a few times (though only in the shop) and also researched it quite closely online. So, what I was really saying in my post is that Kai's comments seemed congruent with my understanding (but not with my experience - at least not as an owner).
Kai is a quirky character and in particular during his time at DigitalRev he demonstrated this. But one thing I always admired about him was that he spoke his mind and told everyone exactly what he thought of equipment he was reviewing - often in the bluntest possible terms. This must have been something his employers (who after all were trying to sell the equipment) must have been very nervous about. Hence I always had some respect for his opinion. In this case I think he was reasonably balanced in his opinion about the camera - which I was also getting at when I said I thought he got it right.
But you are right, I should have been clear about this.
To be even more clear I am not saying I think its a bad camera. I am just saying it did not quite suit me and that (like many others) I felt it did not seem to me that Nikon had quite hit the bullseye with its design for various reasons and with its price point. (If you are going to offer a niche camera at a premium price you had better make sure it is something the majority of potential niche buyers are going to really drool over and hence will be willing to pay the asking price to own. Which means its features and design have to be something really "out of the box" so it is perceived as really being special and even unique). When companies do this they will calculate their costs and work out that if they sell it at price X they need to sell Y units to make a profit. They know they would sell more units if they price it lower - at a comparable price to their more "normal" cameras but they also know that if they do, this will eat into sales of that other line of cameras. Hence the premium price so the two lines do not compete so much. But as I say a premium price demands a premium product that pushes all the buttons and hence is perceived as being drool worthy enough to have a cachet of being special enough to outlay all those extra hard earned greenbacks.
To me the Df was interesting but not really all that special other than that it had a different look. I suspect that most Nikon users tend to be "meat and potato" users - basically down to earth photographers more interested in the equipment's output than having a special version of a Nikon even though they may feel nostalgic about the old FM2 they once had. So a Df was always going to be a hard ask. Which together with the other factors I mentioned above, is essentially why I kept my D700 and did not buy a Df.
On the other hand, if it suits others and they love it. That is great.

PS. Possibly the most interesting feature of the Df for me was its ability to mount non Ai lenses. In principle! I say in principle only because I have personally converted almost all of my non Ai lenses to be AI compliant. It is simple to do both neatly and in a functional way for people like me who have basic tool skills and the interest and confidence to do it. Granted, many people are not in this category and hence could find the Df to be useful for this reason if no other if they like me enjoy using that older, classic glass.
 
One thing that always baffled me is the hate that is inspired by the Df. I can understand it not being your cup of tea, or not being comfortable in your hands, or not being a camera that you are interested in. But the hate, it really confuses me.

There are multiple cameras that I have tried to use over the years that didn't work out for me, so I didn't buy them, or sold them if I had, and moved on. I never had the level of anger that I see so many folks express about the Df. It's like Nikon offended them personally by bringing out this camera.

Mystifying.

Best,
-Tim
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom