The GetDPI Photography Forum

Great to see you here. Join our insightful photographic forum today and start tapping into a huge wealth of photographic knowledge. Completing our simple registration process will allow you to gain access to exclusive content, add your own topics and posts, share your work and connect with other members through your own private inbox! And don’t forget to say hi!

Nikon Df

docmoore

Subscriber and Workshop Member
Really about IQ...is that not why we struggle to find just the right combination of
camera lens Raw processor?

Nikon Df Nikon 105 F 2 DC



Chinese Pistach....








Merry Chistmas All






Bob
 

D&A

Well-known member
Really about IQ...is that not why we struggle to find just the right combination of
camera lens Raw processor?

Bob
It is Bob and on that account the Df greatly succeeds in my opinion. Image quality on almost all accounts leaves little to complain about but implementation, ergonomics, price point is where the controversy lies and opinions on how it should have been done vary.

Although not as sexy or creative, I somehow feel Nikon might have appealed to a wider audience if they released two separate variants. The first being a baby D4 body with similar features and capability much akin to what the Nikon D700 was to the Nikon D3. In other words a modern up to date DSLR body similar in style and layout to the Nikon D700/D800/D600 type bodies.

The second variant would be more of a purest camera along the lines of the current Df, but taking it a step further to incorporate features, style and layout that are representative of a classic film era SLR camera that is specifically designed to take advantage of manual focus lenses (ie: interchangeable focusing screens etc.) and who's manual controls are intuitive and easy to change on the fly, similar to the ergonomics and handling of some of the many of the beloved Nikon manual focus film era SLR's. Not an easy task and of course some compromises have to be made in deference to the digital aspects of the camera.

By trying to squeeze a little of both variants into a single body, alienated more than a few and criticism was bound to fly, as unfortunate as it might be to the Df's success.

The posted pics from the Df (yours and others) certainly speak to the image capabilities of this camera and in that respect most can agree that it's certainly a success.

Dave (D&A)
 
Last edited:

Jack

Sr. Administrator
Staff member
Although not as sexy or creative, I somehow feel Nikon might have appealed to a wider audience if they released two separate variants.
Dave, with all due respect, they do have two variants -- one is called a Df and the other is called a D4. If you want the sensor and don't like the looks or control layout of the Df, buy a D4. If you don't like the price of either, buy a D610.

End of day it's a tool. When it's in my hands and up to my eye, I don't see the dials, knobs or retro look, what I see is a viewfinder virtually identical to my D800's; and then I have main control buttons in close enough proximity to where they are on my D800's I don't need to hunt for them. Yes it feels a little smaller in my hands, but that does not alter how seamlessly it works for me.

I personally think Nikon hit it out of the park with this cam, even though it seems a little over-priced -- but in reality I believe it is a function of relativity, where the D800 was under-priced. I respect others opinions may vary, but it works for many as-is, myself included...
 

D&A

Well-known member
Jack, it is a tool and that's how I view it and other Nikon DSLR's I use. I think you might have greatly misinterpreted what I expressed in my postings. I most definitely am on the side of admiring the Df for exactly what it is and how it performs, not only image wise but how Nikon tried to implement things on this body for it's intended use! I'm already putting one extensively through it's paces and will not hesitate to purchase one although I think it probably could have been priced a bit lower.

My comments regarding Nikon's choice not to build two new (not one), more compact variants of the D4 sensor containing camera stems from all the comments written by those who wished Nikon designed things differently with regards to the Df and I can see their point of view too. Some (other than those wanting a classically designed DSLR along the lines of a film era camera), simply wanted a scaled down D4 body such as the D700 was to the D3 and I don't believe the D610 is that body, nor is the Df. The differences between the D4 and Df does leave a lot of room for a baby D4. Such a body would be designed along the lines of a D700 or D800 and would be at home where a more compact body than a D4 is desired when shooting multiple bodies in a venue. Been there and done that and although I've had multiple D3/D3s hanging from my neck at one time, capable fast shooting low light (read D4 sensor performing) smaller bodies on the order of the size and design of the D700 or D800 are most welcomed.

As the D800 stands, it doesn't fit in with use under the conditions I outlined nor others I've conversed with that were hoping for such a body. Just like the days of having a D2H and D2x simultaneously, now there are those that would simply like to have a similar sized D800 and a Baby D4 body together to utilize for certain jobs. Again differently designed and sized bodies are targeted for different purposes and there is a market for both I believe.

Again utilizing the Df in the way it was primarily intended and designed, I agree...Nikon hit a home run and no doubt I'll be using one...but it's control dials and certain other design features doesn't lend for shooting in the types of circumstances I described and work in. For better or worse that leave only one choice if no less than 16MP is desired for the best performance in low light work...and that is the D4.

Dave (D&A)
 
Last edited:

docmoore

Subscriber and Workshop Member
Small addendum to my comments about the Df....

I really do not use the high ISO capability of the Df often....traveling in W Africa and certain pubs in the UK it will be used...however there is a certain organic wholeness the the way it images....like the D3 D3s 1D 1Dx even at low ISO equivalents that I love.

Almost not CMOS in presentation....perhaps it will with the newer Sony chips allow us explore light and color as we imagine it without a film or filter covering its perception.

Bob
 

D&A

Well-known member
Small addendum to my comments about the Df....

I really do not use the high ISO capability of the Df often....traveling in W Africa and certain pubs in the UK it will be used...however there is a certain organic wholeness the the way it images....like the D3 D3s 1D 1Dx even at low ISO equivalents that I love.

Almost not CMOS in presentation....perhaps it will with the newer Sony chips allow us explore light and color as we imagine it without a film or filter covering its perception.

Bob
Again it comes back to image quality with the Df....whether it's the low light capabilities or it's use at or near base ISO. This isn't questioned for the most part. It's simply whether Nikon implemented the design and features of this camera in the way most would have liked or need. The previous sentence is stated as a rhetorical question, not a commentary one way or another regarding my own opinion on this camera.

Like most other things, if it's a success or Nikon sees there is a bigger market share for the image characteristics or capabilities of a downsized D4 sensor based camera....maybe there will be more diverse implementations with regards to bodies incorporating this sensor to choose from. The recent spate of Nikon DSLR's have much improved high ISO performance but there are times when the absolute best quality at these ISO's is needed or required.


Dave (D&A)
 

Jack

Sr. Administrator
Staff member
Dave, was just commenting, didn't mean to offend or sound offended! My comment was my own filter talking and I apologize. My bias is I personally am a little tired of the sort of the relatively common complaint of "If they had just done this or that and priced it lower, I would buy it!" I see it as a sort of backhanded "bashing" that seems to occur whenever a camera manufacturer -- any of them -- brings out a new cam regardless of what it is.

/rant and sorry for any offense,
 

D&A

Well-known member
Jack, no problem whatsoever....that's what productive discussions are for. I've heard (and read) all the hoopla this camera has generated in terms of what it is or could have been. For the 1st of it's kind in this genre of retro 35mm DSLR (full frame no less), it was bound to create a wide diversity of opinion generating much debate...although this usually happens with any landmark camera. Why I think it might have touched a nerve with some, is the two widely divergent camps. One group wanted it to be much more of a purest retro with more than a cursory nod to film era SLR's by truly emulating many of the capabilities of the best of the Nikon manual focus film era cameras. Alternatively the other group wanted that D4 sensor put into a more moderately sized D700/D800 type body with many of the major capabilities of the D4. Of course its impossible to accomplish both group's objectives in a single body and therefore I believe lies the outcry by some.

The Df in my opinion should be taken on it's own merits and not compared to any camera past or present and in that respect is for the most part except for a few changes I might wish for, is a joy to use and travel with not to mention it's superb image quality. On these fronts Nikon as you say hit a home run. Again I appreciate the lively discussion.

Dave (D&A)
 
Last edited:

GrahamWelland

Subscriber & Workshop Member
Trust me, shoot the Df in crappy low light and you'll understand why it's such a great contender as the replacement for the D3s and D700. Those who don't understand the versatility of this camera and are compelled to dive in to the bottomless resolution pit of the D800(& E) and A7/A7r won't see the benefit of the Df as the shoot anywhere, any time camera that it is.

The fixation of high resolution with 2013's poster child the D800/D800e and now the current new replacement of the A7r amuse me. Take some real pictures folks vs being beholden to measurebating. IMHO :)
 

johnnygoesdigital

New member
My first thought about the Df was it's a gimmick, but after reading more about it, and seeing the black version in a nice half case, I was intrigued. Lots of metal, and an easy camera to carry around! Actually, quite good as a camera to hike with if space and weight are a factor. I want to know more about the weather resistance as compared to a D800/D4. I own the D800 and think it has the best dynamic range of any camera i ever used, and simply amazing for landscapes, but often I shoot winter sports and need a light BU camera too. I personally i think 16 - 24 mega pixels is the best sensor size for today's lenses, aside from the OTUS. The DF has lot's of character and I loved my old Leica's because of the retro look and feel, and the DF gives me that.
 

D&A

Well-known member
Trust me, shoot the Df in crappy low light and you'll understand why it's such a great contender as the replacement for the D3s and D700. Those who don't understand the versatility of this camera and are compelled to dive in to the bottomless resolution pit of the D800(& E) and A7/A7r won't see the benefit of the Df as the shoot anywhere, any time camera that it is.

The fixation of high resolution with 2013's poster child the D800/D800e and now the current new replacement of the A7r amuse me. Take some real pictures folks vs being beholden to measurebating. IMHO :)
Graham, I most heartily agree with almost all you expressed except for one point. Putting aside image quality for a moment, the reason the Df in my opinion isn't a contender as a direct replacement for a D3s or D700 is simply this: Those cameras have/had been workhorses for many in the serious/pro sports, PJ and theater & arts shooing, where fast paced capture with equally fast AF tracking and sometimes extremely low light shooting (or a combination of all three) was required, not to mention quick on the fly changes in operational setting on the camera during difficult shooting senario's (often in near darkness). Having a wider spread of Af sensors also is a boon to those types of situations.

The Df wasn't designed with this in mind nor should it be expected that it should have been. So image quality wise, it most certainly is a more than adequate replacement for those two aforementioned cameras and can certainly hold it's own and even superseded them in a number of areas, especially where image quality is concerned. Where it also excels at in my opinion, is the joy of having a a camera that smaller, lighter, extremely capable and harkins back to the day where all controls could be looked at by a simple glance without having to touch any button or wheel. There is so much to like about this camera and how it performs and handles.

As I stated in my previous two postings (above and recently revised), I feel it has created it's own genre of camera which really can't be compared to any other 35mm DSLR and has to be evaluated on its own merits....and in that case it's a great success in my eyes.

Dave (D&A)
 

Jack

Sr. Administrator
Staff member
Re Df DR (and noise)

Not the greatest image, but an example to post for noise and DR. This is straight out of cam via C1, NO added processing for color, contrast, sharpening or NR, basically straight out of cam as shot with AWB. It is taken inside a very dark bar in Genoa, NV, hand-held using my 28/1.4, 1/30 @ f2.8 at ISO 5000:



C1 exposure evaluation suggested it was 0.3 stops underexposed. I pushed it 2 full stops for an effective ISO 20,000(!), with the same (no) settings as above. Here is a crop of the old boot in the shadow of the buffalo at effective ISO 20,000:



Yes it's noisy to nearly unusable at pixel level, but color and DR hold surprisingly well IMHO, and shows how good this sensor is at low light. I could no doubt improve this image significantly with some careful processing and NR application, but that wasn't the point and this image isn't worth the effort ;)
 

craigrudlin

New member
Re: the comments above that resolution is not important...

There is a place for high resolution. My "small" print is 20x30 and my preferred
print size is 40x60. I know, I am a "rarity" (both for predominately printing my
images rather than posting them online, and for the size of the prints). So, my
need for a D800E or a A7R is based on the reality of my client's needs. I do use
non-autofocus lenses such as leica's adapted to the D800E and am interested in
doing the same on the A7R. But, I find manual focus on the D800E "less than ideal."
I was hoping the Df would be higher in resolution and
be the smaller, easier to focus manually, camera to substitute for the D800E.
But that is not the case, and as I said, I am a small minority so I understand Nikon's
decision to spec the Df for a larger market share. Perhaps they will release a D4X
with improved view finder, maybe interchangeable screens.
 

D&A

Well-known member
I too often have to print large for clients of images with an extreme amount of small detail. There is a place and time for both a higher resolution camera and one that puts an emphasis on higher ISO performance. Many photographers are in a similar situation and that's why DSLR bodies are highly subjective when choosing one for particular requirements.

Dave (D&A)
 

GrahamWelland

Subscriber & Workshop Member
As Dave implies, there is a case for using the right tool for the right job. I wouldn't use a fine chisel as a screwdriver ...
 

D&A

Well-known member
As Dave implies, there is a case for using the right tool for the right job. I wouldn't use a fine chisel as a screwdriver ...
I would...LOL! But seriously, I sometimes do have an issue when someone takes issue with another when they say a popular camera as good as it might be, simply isn't capable or can't do a job with the proper efficiency or performance for their intended use. It brings to mind a very popular Pentax DSLR many years ago which as capable as it might have been for the majority of its users, failed miserably with severe mis focusing with the majority of its high end lenses simply because under certain artifical wavelengths of stage lighting, the AF would act erratic. It's AF under low light conditions would simply cease to function.

Those that never encountered these issues would exclaim they saw no problems with the camera. Even Pentax Corp which I had a strong working relationship with acknowledge these were severe shortcomings of this particular camera. Eventually others shooting in similar venues also voiced their complaints.

As Graham so aptly expressed, it's simply selecting the right tool for a given job.

Dave (D&A)
 
Last edited:

johnnygoesdigital

New member
D&A- "I sometimes do have an issue when someone takes issue with another when they say a popular camera as good as it might be, simply isn't capable or can't do a job with the proper efficiency or performance for their intended use."

Yeah, I know what you mean.
 
Top