Praise for the unique Nikon DF

[f.hayek]

The strong opinions probably stem from the false expectations fed by the marketing before its release.

PeterM’s experience isn’t unique. Lots of us had collections of AI glass hoping to use it on a native Nikon body again without the limitations of the focusing screens of digital cameras. Instead, it was nothing like that at all. Dials upon dials, complex menus. It lacked the simplicity of the FM series many of us learned photography with.
Despite the cost, only Leica M continues in that purist ethos.

 

[Bolo Kukus]

A fine camera in almost every way, with its own quirks and foibles, but overall a most excellent image-producing machine such as Nikon usually produces.

I acquired one in a trade-off last year but found I didn't bond with the ergonomics. (I had the same problem with a Nikon F Photomic I bought in 1993 and to me the Df was much the same in its handling.) Most likely this isn't a problem with the Df, it's just me. Fortunately, the previously owner regretted the trade and wanted it back, so we agreed to re-exchange. Then I was offered an as-new D800 with 1800 actuations and I acquired it for the same trade and a reasonable cash payment. I love this D800 and it has an honored place in my arsenal of Nikon DSLRs - I also own and often use two Nikon D700s.

I saw the Df on sale new in two Melbourne camera shops but like other posters have commented, the asking price put me off. To me the Df is underkill for what the sellers wanted for it, and the Nikon 58 1.4 G lens never really clicked with me, I have an elderly 50 14 early AF and it still produces superb images after 25+ years. On a recent visit to these same camera shops I noted they still had the Dfs in their windows, which may well say it all. 'Underkill' or 'underwhelmed' were my two key impressions of it.

 

[jsrockit]

The strong opinions probably stem from the false expectations fed by the marketing before its release.

Exactly... but as someone who wanted to use it as an AF body and liked AF lenses... but wanted a DSLR with old school controls and no huge DSLR grip, it was very unique. I enjoyed it. Yeah, it was fat, yeah...Nikon cheaped out on the AF (D600 AF instead of the D750 at least), and it was more expensive than seemingly better DSLRs... but it was the right one for me for a period of time. I might have to get one for the collection one day.

 

[Timmyjoe]

The strong opinions probably stem from the false expectations fed by the marketing before its release.

PeterM’s experience isn’t unique. Lots of us had collections of AI glass hoping to use it on a native Nikon body again without the limitations of the focusing screens of digital cameras. Instead, it was nothing like that at all. Dials upon dials, complex menus. It lacked the simplicity of the FM series many of us learned photography with.
Despite the cost, only Leica M continues in that purist ethos.

OMG get over it! The marketing campaign went on for a few months, Seven Years Ago! Sure it looked a bit like a FM in the teasers, but they were TEASERS (do you understand the concept?). It's a digital SLR that uses legacy Nikon SLR non-AI lenses (something no other DSLR at that time could do), along with a few other things, and had the top of the line Nikon sensor at that time (and it makes remarkable images). It wasn't advertised as the second coming of Christ!

Best,
-Tim

 

[madNbad]

Thanks, Tim. It wasn’t quite the home run Nikon was looking for but a pretty good sacrifice fly to advance the runner.

 

[Freakscene]

Despite the cost, only Leica M continues in that purist ethos.

The Leica S SLRs have even simpler controls and menus than the digital Ms, but at even higher cost. A used S2 is pretty inexpensive these days, however, if you are willing to take the risk inherent in an 8+ year old digital camera from a manufacturer whose history with electronics is spotted at best.

Marty

 

[jarski]

DF price seems to hold better than contemporary D610 and D750. it was here in RFF almost as controversial as Leica M8, some seemingly expected personal apology from Nikon marketing, even when they didn't buy the camera 😀

would be fun to own one for my only manual Nikkor: 105/2.5.

 

[Timmyjoe]

would be fun to own one for my only manual Nikkor: 105/2.5.

Funny you mention that lens. I had that lens and one other non-AI lens, the 50mm f1.4 back in 2016 when I borrowed a Df for a couple days. Put the 50mm on it and thought, this is pretty cool, but wasn't that impressed. Put the 105mm on it and was like, "Son of a *****, I gotta get me one of these."

The 105mm with the D4 sensor is really sweet.

Since I got the camera I've gotten the following non-AI lenses, 20mm, 35mm f2, 85mm f1.8. They all shine with the Df and that D4 sensor. And I'm an old guy who likes to shoot like we did back in the 1970's with a simpler camera and beautiful old primes.

Best,
-Tim

 

[splitimageview]

I don't see 'hate' per se (that's an overused term, IMHO.) It's more just disappointment.

Nikon had a huge opportunity to please a large number of serious Nikon devotees, and failed miserably.

Sure, it is a great sensor, and undoubtedly is capable of producing quality photographs, no question about it. But there was a big gap in excecution compared to the hype.

 

[Huss]

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

Tim, for me it's about disappointment. I was so excited when it was announced, but when the release was a D610 in a different body with a D4 sensor, well, I was out.

Gid mentions no issues with manual focus. It is glaringly bad for me, the clue is turn the focus ring and watch the 'you are in focus' dot in the viewfinder. It lights up, you continue turning the focus ring, it stays lit until after further turning it eventually goes out. It is clear from this that it is not accurate. There is far too much play. The D750 and especially the D850 have tightened this up.
You fixed yours by using an aftermarket split image focus screen. Nikon should have provided something like this as standard equipment. Why does the much older F6 have better manual focus than the DF?

It should have been a basic, stripped down SLR with a digital sensor. But that would have involved far more developmental costs. Instead they took the easy option and created a parts bin special that the marketing department tried to spin as a new classic.

 

[jsrockit]

It should have been a basic, stripped down SLR with a digital sensor. But that would have involved far more developmental costs. Instead they took the easy option and created a parts bin special that the marketing department tried to spin as a new classic.

It should have been in your opinion...but was that expectation ever reasonable? All of us would like an old school SLR in digital form. Nobody has done it... and it appears nobody will. I'd say expecting a digital FM2 was unreasonable. I agree though...the marketing did them no favors and the manual focus was not accurate.

 

[css9450]

I was so excited when it was announced, but when the release was a D610 in a different body ...


It should have been a basic, stripped down SLR with a digital sensor.

I think as far as full-frame DSLRs go, the D610 is already a stripped-down model. From there, I'm not sure where everyone expected Nikon to go.... Eliminate the A, S and P modes for example?


That is part of the problem. I don't think a handful of guys could ever sit down and agree on what the Df should or should not have been. One guy's dream camera is another guy's hopelessly overloaded white elephant.

 

[splitimageview]

They could have at the *very* least provided a focusing screen (at least as good as the one they put into film cameras) for manual focus, even leaving everything else the same. This would have required zero additional engineering resources...

 

[jsrockit]

I think as far as full-frame DSLRs go, the D610 is already a stripped-down model.

I think he means a high quality stripped down small body like an FM2 or even F3 etc. Like the DSLR equivalent of a Leica Digital M.

 

[Huss]

They could have at the *very* least provided a focusing screen (at least as good as the one they put into film cameras) for manual focus, even leaving everything else the same. This would have required zero additional engineering resources...

The Nikon F6 has it, it even has a selection of different focusing screens that are very easy to switch out. And of course it also has AF.

So why didn't they do this with the DF? Especially since they bragged about how great it is with the old manual lenses? When it actually is worse than the D750 etc.
The only advantage it has is the flippable aperture indexing tab.

 

[Timmyjoe]

Again, the negativity is really baffling. It's like Nikon shot your best dog.

I'm in my mid 60's, need reading glasses to see most things these days, and I can't understand how anyone can be so crippled by trying to focus the Df with any manual focus prime. Set the diopter, use a DK-17M if you'd like, and if that is still too much for you, there's a little green dot that lights up when the lens (manual or auto) is in focus.

Come on folks. Can't believe everyone thinks this is so difficult.

Best,
-Tim

 

[Huss]

Again, the negativity is really baffling. It's like Nikon shot your best dog.

I'm in my mid 60's, need reading glasses to see most things these days, and I can't understand how anyone can be so crippled by trying to focus the Df with any manual focus prime. Set the diopter, use a DK-17M if you'd like, and if that is still too much for you, there's a little green dot that lights up when the lens (manual or auto) is in focus.

Come on folks. Can't believe everyone thinks this is so difficult.

Best,
-Tim

C'mon Tim, you know that green dot has far too much play in it. It shows a range of what could be in focus. It should be far more binary.

 

[css9450]

C'mon Tim, you know that green dot has far too much play in it. It shows a range of what could be in focus. It should be far more binary.

I tend to think it depends on the lens.... I could agree with a wide range on a lens like a 28mm but on something like my 300/f4 it is very precise and even the tiniest of movements changes the dot to one or the other of the arrows.


None of my experience is on a Df though, so I might be way off the mark.

 

[kshapero]

Say what you want, the DF could really knock some great image profile. Taken with a non-Ai 50mm f1.4 at 1.4

 

[Timmyjoe]

Huss, C'mon Buddy. You mean to tell me that you can't focus a Nikon Df? Seriously? You tried, by first setting the diopter, (don't know if you have the DK-17M eyepiece), and then using a manual focus lens, not an Autofocus AF-D lens, which are a nightmare to focus manually on any camera, but an honest to goodness Nikon MF lens? I personally don't use the green dot because I've never had a problem focusing the camera.

Image below, focused on the Nikon logo on the S2, shot with Df and old Micro Nikkor 55mm:

Sure, the Df wouldn't be the first camera I reached for if I was covering sports like football or something where I had to track fast motion, but for normal shooting with manual focus lenses, I certainly don't see the problem everyone is whining about.

Best,
-Tim