Digital Nikon FM2

[Jorgen Udvang]

Thom Hogan has laid these out clearly. Keep in mind that this is a camera aimed at hard-core photographers:

* sensor

Same as the $6,000 D4. A great sensor, and probably more suitable for legacy lenses than a 24 or 36MP one.

* frame rate

Compared to what? The 4fps D800 or the 5fps D3X?

* AF system

For the target group, it's probably more than sufficient.

* slower shutter/flash sync

The D610 is 1/200s, the D800 1/250. Was there any reason to expect a revolution with this camera?

* no 10-pin connector for pro accessories

Some may need this, but maybe those were not the ones Nikon were targeting here? They still manufacture the D3X, the D4 and the D800.

* no second card slot

During my last 45 years of photography, I can honestly say that I have never ever felt the need for an additional card slot. My OM-1 could also only load one roll of film.

* low-end battery

It manages 1,400 exposures, sufficient for most. A lighter, smaller battery means less weight to carry. This camera was never intended for spray and pray photography.

* no flash

Neither have the F3, the D4 nor the D3X. This camera can shoot at ISO 204.800. That should cover most situations. If more light is needed, I believe Nikon sell flash units to fit on top of the camera that are more powerful and of higher quality than any built-in flash can ever become.

* no video

No, it's a camera intended for photography.

To which I would add:

* run-of-the-mill AF viewfinder which doesn't live up to the promise of "use all your old lenses"

I agree 100%. This is a major omission. Apart from that, I think Thom Hogan is totally off when it comes to the Df, but then he is known to be a techno nerd. Edit: A report from Bjørn Rørslett indicates strongly that the viewfinder is not run-of-the-mill at all, and as opposed to the rest of us, he has actually tried the camera with large aperture, manual focus lenses.

But for those who are really into retro style photography, here's a great deal from Nikon:
The Nikon F6 costs almost exactly the same as the Df, has exchangeable focusing screens (7 different available from Nikon) and none of the cluttering on the back that the Df has. It's also hand made in Sendai at a rate of 2 units per week. It doesn't get much more exclusive than that these days

 

[celina20]

"* run-of-the-mill AF viewfinder which doesn't live up to the promise of "use all your old lenses"

Bjørn Rørslett doesn't think the same.

 

[Jorgen Udvang]

"* run-of-the-mill AF viewfinder which doesn't live up to the promise of "use all your old lenses"

Bjørn Rørslett doesn't think the same.

Bjørn Rørslett has laser vision :ROTFL:

 

[glenerrolrd]

If the viewfinder is like the D800/E its anything but run of the mill . Compared to what ? Yes compared to the manual focus film era F bodies ...but not compared to any of the other current alternatives . Please compare the viewing thru the Sony A7R and tell me that you can actually see what you are framing .

Whats missing are the focus aids for those that want to use manual focus lenses ..this is a disappointment . Could be solved with interchangeable focus screens . They do this to avoid needing very tight tolerances . If you take out the screen you will find its shimmed to achieve the proper calibration . This is what limits the use of 3rd party replacement screens .

I use the D800 with manual focus lenses Leica R and Zeiss. The fast lenses (summiluxes) are easy for me to focus ...the slower F2.8 lenses require decent light (daylight in Florida is easy ....but at night not so good).

I expect VIEWING thru the 100% finder to be excellent ..its the darn lack of a focus aid that puts the pressure on your eyesight to confirm focus . On the other hand focusing off the screen requires no recomposing your framing .

 

[celina20]

Bjørn Rørslett has laser vision :ROTFL:

May be yes, may be not. Best we can do is test the VF when the camera arrives.

For me the problem is solved with my SmallHD DP4.

Luis

 

[Jorgen Udvang]

May be yes, may be not. Best we can do is test the VF when the camera arrives.

For me the problem is solved with my SmallHD DP4.

Luis

Wow... cool gadget. Not exactly retro though :ROTFL:

 

[glenerrolrd]

"* run-of-the-mill AF viewfinder which doesn't live up to the promise of "use all your old lenses"

Bjørn Rørslett doesn't think the same.

Maybe there is hope ....this report indicates that the viewfinder of the Df is much better than the D800....even if the screens are the same . Has anyone heard this type of claim elsewhere?

 

[Jorgen Udvang]

Maybe there is hope ....this report indicates that the viewfinder of the Df is much better than the D800....even if the screens are the same . Has anyone heard this type of claim elsewhere?

Nope, but if it's true, it changes the scenario. Bjørn knows his stuff, although his somewhat (that's probably the understatement of the year) tilted towards Nikon

The Df thread at nikongear.com is 13 pages. Does the claim appear somewhere in that thread, or is it a separate report by Bjørn?

Edit: Found it on page 2 of the thread. He says:
"The viewfinder is much better than the sheer numbers would indicate and I had no problem whatsoever seeing the entire frame plus info below with my spectacles on. Focusing manual lenses was a breeze, even the 50/1.2, Noct, or my 35/1.4."

Later, to the question "Any significant improvement over the D800's VF?", he answers: "Lightyears ahead."

Must be more than his laser vision then

 

[Oren Grad]

Same as the $6,000 D4. A great sensor, and probably more suitable for legacy lenses than a 24 or 36MP one.

Compared to what? The 4fps D800 or the 5fps D3X?

For the target group, it's probably more than sufficient.

The D610 is 1/200s, the D800 1/250. Was there any reason to expect a revolution with this camera?

Some may need this, but maybe those were not the ones Nikon were targeting here? They still manufacture the D3X, the D4 and the D800.

During my last 45 years of photography, I can honestly say that I have never ever felt the need for an additional card slot. My OM-1 could also only load one roll of film.

It manages 1,400 exposures, sufficient for most. A lighter, smaller battery means less weight to carry. This camera was never intended for spray and pray photography.

Neither have the F3, the D4 nor the D3X. This camera can shoot at ISO 204.800. That should cover most situations. If more light is needed, I believe Nikon sell flash units to fit on top of the camera that are more powerful and of higher quality than any built-in flash can ever become.

No, it's a camera intended for photography.

I apologize if I wasn't clear. My point wasn't that those component choices make a camera bad, only that they make it less expensive to manufacture.

Nikon is asking a near-D800 price for a camera whose manufacturing cost is probably much closer to that of the D600/610. That's all. The fact that they're reaching for higher margin isn't evil, it's what they need to try to do to survive in a difficult market. And if the distinctive design concept suits you, then you are getting value for the extra money.

Re the viewfinder, I'll reserve final judgment until I can try it for myself. If they have in fact gone against the trend and traded back some brightness for increased focusing acuity I will be happy. But even at that, the best solution *if optimal use of MF lenses is a priority* is to allow interchangeable screens. Even at "only" 16MP, focus errors are glaringly obvious.

 

[Jorgen Udvang]

I apologize if I wasn't clear. My point wasn't that those component choices make a camera bad, only that they make it less expensive to manufacture.

Nikon is asking a near-D800 price for a camera whose manufacturing cost is probably much closer to that of the D600/610. That's all. The fact that they're reaching for higher margin isn't evil, it's what they need to try to do to survive in a difficult market. And if the distinctive design concept suits you, then you are getting value for the extra money.

Re the viewfinder, I'll reserve final judgment until I can try it for myself. If they have in fact gone against the trend and traded back some brightness for increased focusing acuity I will be happy. But even at that, the best solution *if optimal use of MF lenses is a priority* is to allow interchangeable screens. Even at "only" 16MP, focus errors are glaringly obvious.

I have a feeling that pricing of most cameras these days is more or less "artificial". In this case, it obviously also adds to the price that the camera is assembled in Japan. I also agree that they have chosen the cheap route in one big way here: Using the D600/610 platform as the basis for the camera. However, I'm afraid it would have been much more expensive if it was developed on an individual, and possibly physically smaller, platform.

Where they have gone an extra yard is by choosing an, in my opinion, superior and more suitable sensor. There are now also indications that work has been done on the viewfinder. That will be very interesting to try out

 

[Oren Grad]

Jorgen -

Happy 6000th!

 

[tashley]

So they fitted a pony and trap with satnav? Pur-lease!

 

[Kolor-Pikker]

I have a feeling that pricing of most cameras these days is more or less "artificial". In this case, it obviously also adds to the price that the camera is assembled in Japan. I also agree that they have chosen the cheap route in one big way here: Using the D600/610 platform as the basis for the camera. However, I'm afraid it would have been much more expensive if it was developed on an individual, and possibly physically smaller, platform.

Where they have gone an extra yard is by choosing an, in my opinion, superior and more suitable sensor. There are now also indications that work has been done on the viewfinder. That will be very interesting to try out

The pricing of modern cameras is indeed artificial. The D4 doesn't cost $6000 because of it's 16mp sensor, but because it shoots non-stop at 10fps and can focus fast enough to keep up with that frame rate.

Take the 1Ds3 vs. the 5D2, or the 1Dx vs. the 5D3 for example, both sets of cameras have nearly identically performing sensors, but one costs double because of a faster shooting rate or AF and other physical niceties. If $3000 can amount to a difference that has nothing to do with the sensor, then clearly the sensor has nothing to do with the price at all. Canon has been churning sensors out on the same 500nm line for a decade, and have a comfortable 99.9% yield that they can only profit from, so the sensors essentially pay for themselves. Same goes for Sony, seeing as they make everything, including the sensors in one's smartphone or tablet.

The D4 sensor isn't really that amazing, it's simply incidental that it has fewer/larger pixels, and as a result has good dynamic range and noise performance. Nikon chose to use it because it was logical, they already have a bunch no one wants to buy, and "hand-held in available light" would be the target use for which it's ideal. Two birds, one stone, and that stone is a cruise missile with a lock-on for rose-tinted glasses.

 

[rayyan]

Wonderful. Such threads. Irrespective of which brand of camera is being talked about.

Talking about ponies and traps, leads me to a story.

Between Bond street and Brooke st. ( or Grosvenor st....the ' s ' is silent just for clarification ) lies a place which amongst other things has an ' afternoon tea '.

Now I am a Lipton cuppa guy..but once in a while I indulge myself. So I retreat to this place with pleasant company to partake of what the dear Duchess of Bedford ( I think ) the kindly Anna invented for us plebes to follow.

Now folks this ain't a place for supersize. One does not hear the clink of china..that would be so..well it is not done. There are more teas to choose from then I guarantee you knew even existed. Then are the pastries...French. And hidden are the crumpets. ( and nothing derogatory is implied here mind)

And of course, one just does not walk in and order a cheeseburger to go around these parts. One reserves months in advance. months mind you..to have tea.

Which reminds me of the time when I would walk to the nice lady at the night stall in Warwick and get me a cup of tea from a flask. They had 20 shillings to a pound in those days.

The point is I loved that tea from the flask as much as I have loved the tea at this place in Mayfair. ( truth be told..I loved the company more. ) unfortunately I did not partake of the champagne tea! I let me friend have her fill. I would have mine later.

What has this got to do with the Nikon Df. Nothing. Really.

There is tea for everyone. The varieties, the price, the flavor and the potency.
Oh! Yes. Indeed there is aphrodisiac tea too. But that is another story for another time.

Enjoy your afternoon tea. Wherever you have it. Let others enjoy their cuppa too.

 

[glenerrolrd]

Not sure what is so offensive about the pricing ? Nikon wants you to buy into FX . The D800 has been produced at volume now for more than a year . When the D600 was introduced it was $2295 US and everyone howled about over pricing . It should have been at $2000 or less . A year or so later it was at $1995 and then at $1800 new recently or refurbished at $1600 or less . Typical price progression over the life of a new camera .

So the Df will be $2750 now and $2500 after the backlog of new orders is filled . But Nikon will actually ship within a month of introduction ...not a year later as in the Leica M . They will monitor sales and if need be ..drop the price another $250 with rebates . There will always be slight 10-20% pricing differences based on supply and demand . The last thing Nikon wants to do is shift demand abruptly from the D610 and D800 products .

They are betting that enough photographers want the sensor of the D4 in a excellent product at less than half the price of the Pro body .

 

[glenerrolrd]

The most important aspect of the new Df is the use of the D4 sensor . You now have a choice between 16MP(D4/Df) ; 24MP(D610) and 36MP(D800). I use the D800E/D4 combination and Carolyn (the wife) uses the D600 . First they are all three fabulous sensors and pretty much in the ISO400-1600 range ..all three are excellent .

The D800/E sensor has been thrashed to death here ..my experience is that it exceeds any expectations I have for anything short of MF . I ve learned to keep the shutter speeds a little higher and to take more care in my shooting technique . The color takes more work in post than I would like ...but with calibration and presets it can look like the best CMOS files I ve seen .

The D600/610 has another excellent sensor ..not sure why the negative comments about the Df being like a D600? Its a little more forgiving in technique than the D800/E and it has better color . This is the sensor from the Sony Rx1 . Its seems to be tuned for a nice color pallet in the range of 200-1600....maybe not as capable up at 3200-6400. Other than sports and maybe landscape(to large prints ) not sure what you can t shoot well with this camera .

So the D4 sensor was aimed at sports and reportage work . To match the high FPS and high speed auto focus needed by that type of work . I use my D4 to shoot Polo , Surfing,Tennis etc . Pushing a 36MP 14bit file doesn t quite work at 10FPS . Files from the D4 have a "Pop" ..they are very crisp and with deep saturated colors . They are not the lower contrast linear look I would want for high quality printing . The high ISO capability is second to none and you can get sharp crisp files at crazy high ISO .

Now we don t know how Nikon tuned the new Df sensor so it maybe different than the D4 setup ....but we can make a decent guess.

So ..sure there is overlap between the cameras as there should be ...but at these price levels ..the question should be what sensor best matches my shooting requirements . This looks like an abundance of riches ...not a blown opportunity .

 

[Steen]

I apologize if I wasn't clear. My point wasn't that those component choices make a camera bad, only that they make it less expensive to manufacture.

(...)

You were perfectly clear, Oren.

Here's yet another funny detail to the feature / component list.

USB 2.0 was released in April 2000
USB 3.0 was released in November 2008 (~ 10 times faster)

Which one of them would you expect in a 24595 DKK digital camera (which equals 4457 USD, or 2770 GBP, or 3297 EUR)

In 2013 that is ...

 

[Jorgen Udvang]

You were perfectly clear, Oren.

Here's yet another funny detail to the feature / component list.

USB 2.0 was released in April 2000
USB 3.0 was released in November 2008 (~ 10 times faster)

Which one of them would you expect in a 24595 DKK digital camera (which equals 4457 USD, or 2770 GBP, or 3297 EUR)

In 2013 that is ...

The D610 also has USB 2.0. That's the chassis the camera appears to be built on, so no surprise. Also, the D4 and the D3X, the Canon 70D, 6D and 5D III all have USB 2.0. It seems to be the norm rather than the exception.

 

[cam]

The D610 also has USB 2.0. That's the chassis the camera appears to be built on, so no surprise. Also, the D4 and the D3X, the Canon 70D, 6D and 5D III all have USB 2.0. It seems to be the norm rather than the exception.

ummmm, who actually uses the USB in their cameras, anyways?

 

[ptomsu]

So to make all discussion short - one should take the D610 - right? This is what most of you are suggesting at least!

And I must say, after having use the D800E for a pro shoot today mixing images and video, I clearly need a cam like this, so the D610 might be the best alternative.