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!

Why is so much hatred for DF (vs the great mirrorless 1st version gadgets)?

Kyndel

Member
It's funny to see this thread come up again. And it's funny to realize that even though I've been at the store several times and have a nice little gaggle of Nikon lenses that I could put to use on one, I haven't been interested enough in the DF to even take one off the shelf and look at it.

All the buttons, dials, knobs, etc still seem like a lot of clutter to my eye, but I do see that it's physically not quite as huge as it seemed in the photos.

G
I agree, I do not care about the nostalgic look, I could not care less, but I am after this fine sensor in a light body, but if it struggle
or hunt in low light, I will forget about it
 

Guy Mancuso

Administrator, Instructor
Hatred is a very strong word I agree. I was shooting Nikon at the time this was released and was looking for something other than the D800E to be more a PR, fast shooting AF cam plus a APS sensor to get some reach. This one came close but just did not fit the bill totally the price was a little high I thought and the retro look was really not something I clamored for. I don't care much about looks but more about usability for me. Plus I needed a vertical grip and Nikon does not provide one although months later I see some 3rd party made one. The one big thing it does have is a nice sensor and nice high ISO. Other than that it just was a no go for me. Im fine with that as not much is made to my personal specs anyway. The cameras are disposable to me which is fine but we do need more product and Nikon seems to have slowed down or is waiting for Photokinia . But as a working Pro you wait for nothing to be released you get what you can and workaround stuff.
 

Godfrey

Well-known member
Godfrey,

I agree that all the knobs and dials make it look cluttered, even gimmicky. But, if you hold one, that crap disappears and you will probably like the feel and ergos of it. Moreover, for the types of imaging you do, it may be the ideal sensor to date... And you already have the glass :D
Jack,

I have a few lenses ... 18mm f/3.5 AI-S, 50mm f/1.2 AI-S, Micro 55mm f/3.5 PreAI, 85mm f/1.8 PreAI, Micro 105mm f/2.8 AI-S, Sigma 600mm f/8 cat ... but I wouldn't call that "all the glass." My best lenses are Leica R: 19, 24, 35, 50x2, 90, 135, 180x2. I have both Nikon F and Leicaflex SL bodies to use these lenses for film capture. Of these lenses, I use the R 24, 50/1.4, and 90/2 the most.

I use all these lenses on the Sony A7 body via a pair of Novoflex adapters. They all work very well on that body, and its half the size of the Nikon DF (never mind half the price). The Sony A7 sensor is pretty good. Set up the way I prefer to use it, the Sony is a little clunky but simple and neat. I've been considering obtaining an A7r as well, perhaps later this year.

Do you think the Df sensor outperforms the A7 sensor? or A7r sensor? In what way?

G
 

BlinkingEye

New member
The Df has a great low light sensor in a restyled D610 body. It's priced too high.

I think it got hammered because the marketing campaign promised a return to "pure photography" and we were all hoping for an FM2 with a digital sensor. We got a repackaged D610.
Brad I agree. I want one because I want access to the sensor for half the price of a D4s, in a body half the size, too.

While the price is high, someone please tell me high compared to what.

The only comparable camera is the Sony A7s which has a price of $2500 for access to basically the same sensor. For most to move to Sony lens mount there would be a penalty of having to buy lenses, thus soaking up any price difference between the two cameras.

I do agree Nikon missed the mark on the body size.
 

Godfrey

Well-known member
Brad I agree. I want one because I want access to the sensor for half the price of a D4s, in a body half the size, too.

While the price is high, someone please tell me high compared to what.

The only comparable camera is the Sony A7s which has a price of $2500 for access to basically the same sensor. For most to move to Sony lens mount there would be a penalty of having to buy lenses, thus soaking up any price difference between the two cameras.

I do agree Nikon missed the mark on the body size.
Why do you say the A7s specifically? Is it for the extended ISO range beyond the A7's already almost crazy clean output up to ISO 12800?

Unless you want autofocus, Program and Shutter priority AE modes, the only thing you need to use any Nikon lens on a Sony A7/r/s camera is a Novoflex NEX/NIK adapter, which is a lot less than the price difference between an A7 and Df body.

G
 

Jack

Sr. Administrator
Staff member
Jack,



Do you think the Df sensor outperforms the A7 sensor? or A7r sensor? In what way?

G
Outperforms is based so much on personal preferences at this point in this level of cameras IMHO. But for me, yes it is superior, primarily in color rendition and noise character to almost anything else out there including my D800's. Sure you can push color around and get almost anything you want, but this cam delivers it straight off the sensor without dorking around -- sort of a Vericolor-ish palette if that makes sense, especially at higher ISO. Noise at high ISO is exceptional, and when it shows is film-ish pleasing to me. So it's in the look and feel of the file, not the pixel count.
 

D&A

Well-known member
I completely agree with Jack's assessment. The Df sensor and it's output, color pallet, the way it renders and presents a very pleasing image, it's high ISO performance...has by far by in my humble opinion, the best output of any Nikon DSLR to date, bar none (excluding perhaps the D4s). Of course lens selection and how the RAW files are adjusted as well as RAW converter employed can play a major role, but when I've employed the same exact few test lenses across the board with each successive Nikon DSLR since the days of the hybrid Nikon/Fuji E2s and each model thereafter, this is the conclusion I come to.

I personally feel the Df, output wise is without equal among Nikon DSLR's, except possibly the D4s. By the numbers it may not measure the best, but much like a lot of Leica lenses, specifically referring to Mandler designed optics, there is a difference between what's exceptionally pleasing vs. what might measure the best, but that might not equate with what looks the best.

This often is very subjective and not everyone might agree, so what I've posted is simply my own personal opinion.

Dave (D&A)
 
Last edited:

Godfrey

Well-known member
Interesting.

From what you're saying, I suspect that the Nikon Df and Sony A7 are both so good it's more 'what you like' than 'how it performs'. My Leica R lenses are my best lenses, and I have a full kit of them, and they work very very nicely on the A7 ... and they can't work without modification on the Df. So I know what I'll be sticking with.

Besides, the R8 body I acquired for a steal will be along any day and I look forward to using these fine lenses on the body they were originally designed for once in a while. :)

G
 

Kyndel

Member
I completely agree with Jack's assessment. The Df sensor and it's output, color pallet, the way it renders and presents a very pleasing image, it's high ISO performance...has by far by in my humble opinion, the best output of any Nikon DSLR to date, bar none (excluding perhaps the D4s). Of course lens selection and how the RAW files are adjusted as well as RAW converter employed can play a major role, but when I've employed the same exact few test lenses across the board with each successive Nikon DSLR since the days of the hybrid Nikon/Fuji E2s,

I personally feel the Df, output wise is without equal among Nikon DSLR's, except possibly the D4s. By the numbers it may not measure the best, but much like a lot of Leica lenses, specifically referring to Mandler designed optics, there is a difference between what's exceptionally pleasing vs. what might measure the best, but that might not equate with what looks the best.

This often is very subjective and not everyone might agree, so what I've posted is simply my own personal opinion.

Dave (D&A)
I agree, from the pictures I have seen, there is a certain "touch" or perhaps we can call it velvet smooth pictures, and that is what I am after (and also fine colors, even the iso goes up)but not if there are troubles in paradise with low light AF= I look forward to the answer from Kurt.
 
Top