Digital Nikon FM2

[Jorgen Udvang]

Well, I'm not going to judge the good or bad (I would have preferred a split-prism, but oh well). My question is this: what changed in the way they handled their internal focussing screens between the D700 (where you CAN get a Katzeye) and now (when you can't)?

I just would like to understand the differences.

This is an interesting question, actually. Officially, no Nikon cameras after the D2Xs and F6 have exchangeable focusing screens. Still, it's possible to change them on some (all?) models, for "servicing purposes", but Nikon don't offer any. Of the FX cameras, Katzeye only offer one screen for the D700. However, Focusing Screen also offer screens for the D600, D800 and D3/s/X. It's not 100% clear from the Focusing Screen website if there are any side effects or what they are. What I've heard from other sources is that these screens are actually modified F6 screens, while the D700 screen from Katzeye is purpose made for that camera and thus more expensive (F6 screens are very cheap).

Here's the instruction on how to change screens on the D800:
NIKON D800 D600 Focusing Screen Installation Instruction

There was a rather fierce debate about this subject on FM when the Canon 7D was launched, also officially without the option to change screens. The reason stated then was that the focusing screen on that and most other current cameras is an integrated part of the camera's viewfinder and that visible focusing points/lights etc. would not work with exchangeable screens since it was all interconnected. This has later been proven not to be true, and Katzeye sell a whole series of focusing screens for the 7D, stating clearly on their website that no functionality will be lost.

With all this in mind, I would be surprised if there isn't a third party solution for the Df coming up as well.

The only plausible reasons I can see for this policy from the camera makers are:

- It's more expensive to manufacture a camera that includes a user friendly way of changing screens, and since the solutions chosen are not user friendly, Canikon can hide behind the "not possible to change" clause if there are complaints or damaged cameras.

- Some screens, notably those with split screen, will cause spot metering from the central metering point to be off with around -2EV, sometimes more. Again, camera makers don't want complaints from thousands of users returning their cameras because the metering is off.

To me, this is a very sad development. Although automation is fine, and what most photographers are looking for, manual operation of cameras is something that adds to the photography experience for tens of thousands of photographers. I also find it puzzling to say the least, that what was indeed possible and seemingly very simple on the Nikon F6, is suddenly difficult or even impossible on more resent cameras. For the F6, with a production of 100 camera bodies per year, Nikon keep 7 different focusing screen in stock. For the Pure Photography Df, there will apparently be one or none

 

[Lars]

Jorgen, is a good split/prism focusing screen accurate enough to get exact focus down to the pixel level? Perhaps that's a consideration in the manufacturers' decisions not to provide screens suitable for manual focus.

 

[Jorgen Udvang]

Jorgen, is a good split/prism focusing screen accurate enough to get exact focus down to the pixel level? Perhaps that's a consideration in the manufacturers' decisions not to provide screens suitable for manual focus.

Probably not with a 36MP camera, but 16MP isn't too far from Velvia and other high resolution films that many of us used a decade or two ago, and I didn't have any problems getting my photos properly focused then. But even if a split screen isn't exact enough for accurate focus on a high MP camera, it's still much better than today's standard screens, and people do use manual focus lenses. Actually, some of the best lenses available, not least for Nikon cameras, are manual focus lenses. Like the Otus

When that is said, there has been an increasing emphasis on technical perfection since the dawn of digital photography, and it is possible that many of us didn't expect photos to be as sharp and detailed during the film days as seems to be the norm now. For me, this has turned out to become a dilemma, and that annoys me ever so slightly. It shouldn't be.

Edit: I read a few user reports from photographers who have installed the Katzeye screen on the D700. They are almost without exception very positive.

 

[greypilgrim]

Jorgen, is a good split/prism focusing screen accurate enough to get exact focus down to the pixel level? Perhaps that's a consideration in the manufacturers' decisions not to provide screens suitable for manual focus.

I might add to Jorgen's response that it is highly dubious that AF achieves that level of focus precision either...

Doug

 

[Jorgen Udvang]

Here are some nice, commercial and probably paid for, statements about the Df:

Joe McNally, Lynn Goldsmith and Bob Krist on Shooting with the Nikon Df

Despite the focusing screen I will most likely buy the Df. I can't afford it now, but hopefully some time next year. I think it's a beautiful camera, the ergonomics seem to be to my taste, it contains my favourite sensor and 16MP is to me the ideal file size.

 

[white.elephant]

Despite the focusing screen I will most likely buy the Df. I can't afford it now, but hopefully some time next year. I think it's a beautiful camera, the ergonomics seem to be to my taste, it contains my favourite sensor and 16MP is to me the ideal file size.

I know that I'm going to use Zeiss glass on my DF (when I get one) and at my age, I need more help than what a confirmation light gives me. So, hence my question about 3rd party screens.

I really like the camera for all the reasons you've listed. Honestly, while I respect everyone's opinion here, I think the camera ticks MOST of the boxes it promised in the videos.

Mine's pre-ordered.

 

[Jorgen Udvang]

Nikon seem to take things seriously this time. They have a survey online:

https://webc.nikonimaging.com/form/pub/info/df_en

:thumbup:

 

[jonoslack]

When that is said, there has been an increasing emphasis on technical perfection since the dawn of digital photography, and it is possible that many of us didn't expect photos to be as sharp and detailed during the film days as seems to be the norm now. For me, this has turned out to become a dilemma, and that annoys me ever so slightly. It shouldn't be.

I think this brings up really interesting issues. It seems to me that whereas AF was pretty much universally used at the start of the century, it's become more usual to use manual focus, especially with really good lenses.
I quite agree Jorgen that we now expect cameras to be sharper and more detailed. The irony here is that it really is easier to manually focus a lense with one of the new BIG EVFs rather than any optical viewfinder (with the possible exception of a rangefinder)..... So maybe the Sony A7r really is the sensible answer for those lovely Zeiss lenses.

 

[Vivek]

Filled out the questionaire!

Nikon seem to take things seriously this time. They have a survey online:

https://webc.nikonimaging.com/form/pub/info/df_en

:thumbup:

 

[Jorgen Udvang]

So maybe the Sony A7r really is the sensible answer for those lovely Zeiss lenses.

You are probably right, but there's more to this than sensible thinking. I change between optical and electronic viewfinders not so much because one is better or more suitable for a task than the other, but because they make me look upon a scene in a different way. I'm sure that the resulting photo will be different as well. The road that takes me to the image will often influence how I interpret the scenery at my destination.

 

[jonoslack]

You are probably right, but there's more to this than sensible thinking. I change between optical and electronic viewfinders not so much because one is better or more suitable for a task than the other, but because they make me look upon a scene in a different way. I'm sure that the resulting photo will be different as well. The road that takes me to the image will often influence how I interpret the scenery at my destination.

Oh! I couldn't agree more - currently I'm shooting E-M1 and M9 - different in every way, and they lead to different results. I was (and still am) interested in Nikon for this very reason . . . . . but worried a bit about it's usefulness in manual focusing - I don't need another AF machine to use with zooms (the E-M1 does it very well, with quality zooms at a reasonable size).

 

[ondebanks]

Bit puzzled by the negative sentiments here seemingly outnumbering the positive ones.

I am thrilled by the specs on this camera. The user interface matters a lot to me. Look at that top plate: crammed with analogue dials, dials, dials!

I think that with this design direction, Nikon have been strongly influenced with what Fuji has been doing with their successful X series...they took that ball and ran even further with it! Hurray, I say; let that be the way forward in camera design. My Canon 5DII has all the charm and attractiveness of a TV remote control. My Mamiya 645AFD's design falls somewhere in between; the later Mamiyas from AFDII to DF+ are progressively worse, more Canon-like. People talk about Olympus doing retro well, but I disagree: their Pen and OM-D bodies are still all fiddly Canon-esque buttons.

Everyone is saying that in appearance it's very like the FE2/FM2/F3, but to me, with the PASM exposure mode dial and the drive-mode dial on top, and the focus mode switch on the front, it's functionally a lot more like the exquisitely designed F4. All it's missing really is the F4's interchangeable viewfinders and focus screens...I'd settle for a tilting LCD screen instead, but they didn't go for that either, pity.

So for me it's not perfect, but it's the most appealing Nikon since the F4 or F5, and definitely the most appealing thing they've ever produced in digital.

Ray

 

[Paratom]

I think this brings up really interesting issues. It seems to me that whereas AF was pretty much universally used at the start of the century, it's become more usual to use manual focus, especially with really good lenses.
I quite agree Jorgen that we now expect cameras to be sharper and more detailed. The irony here is that it really is easier to manually focus a lense with one of the new BIG EVFs rather than any optical viewfinder (with the possible exception of a rangefinder)..... So maybe the Sony A7r really is the sensible answer for those lovely Zeiss lenses.

Jono, I think there are 2 "problems":
1) There are not soo many AF-lenses which are up to the high resolution of Nikon/Canon/Sony sensors with 24/36MP. Therefore many people start using ZEISS or Leica or CV or other third party lenses, which are mostly NOT available as AF-version. I don't think people buy MF-lenses because they prefer MF, but because those lenses are not available in AF.
2) Lens quality control and many AF-systems (not all) seem not to be up to the task to focus very accurate. And a good manual focus is better than a bad AF.

But is the solution that we do have go back to manual focus and to be forced to use EVF?
EVF-for those who prefer it (and there seem to be quite many) - fine.
But there also seem to be many who prefer OVF, who do not like to have a delay and who want to see the subject in the color and light how it looks for our eyes.

I think the camera brands should focus to offer more high quality AF-lenses, and the everybody is free to focus manually or automatic, and to use EVF or OVF.

 

[ondebanks]

I hate to burst anyone's bubble but manual controls for iso and compensation? Why on earth would you invent a thumb wheel to control such things if manual dials were such a good idea?

Why? Cost reduction. Why is a tablet so much cheaper than a laptop? Anything you can migrate from multiple mechanical moving parts to single or no moving parts is cheaper to produce.

Also, modernist design trends from the mid-80s - "thumbwheels are new and therefore better; consumers won't want to buy stuff with those old-fashioned looking dials anymore!".

Ray

 

[Guy Mancuso]

Important point here and always has been the case as much as everyone thinks AF is the greatest thing since sliced bread it really is only good as the operator behind the camera to make sure it is actually doing the job. The camera is guessing at it as well. Its easily fooled and from my seat never to be trusted. Seriously when money is on the line I'm in manual mode.

 

[jonoslack]

HI There Tom

But is the solution that we do have go back to manual focus and to be forced to use EVF?
EVF-for those who prefer it (and there seem to be quite many) - fine.
But there also seem to be many who prefer OVF, who do not like to have a delay and who want to see the subject in the color and light how it looks for our eyes.

I think the camera brands should focus to offer more high quality AF-lenses, and the everybody is free to focus manually or automatic, and to use EVF or OVF.

Well, I think there is always going to be an issue with AF and SLR cameras, in that the calibration must match the lens - hence so many cameras having an option to fine tune focusing - of course you don't need this on an EVF

Added to which, AF is decides what to focus on - often it's right, sometimes it's wrong (even using spot).

Important point here and always has been the case as much as everyone thinks AF is the greatest thing since sliced bread it really is only good as the operator behind the camera to make sure it is actually doing the job. The camera is guessing at it as well. Its easily fooled and from my seat never to be trusted. Seriously when money is on the line I'm in manual mode.

I quite agree Guy - like you, when it's critical, I'm with manual focus. Except that I think that the trouble with AF is that it is really only as good as the camera . . . not the operator - which is where it's problem lies. When AF can read your mind, it'll be all good!

 

[Elderly]

Look at that top plate: crammed ...........


Ray

For me that's one of this camera's problems,
I was hoping it would be as Nikon marketing-speak
lead me to believe - 'Pure'.

Ian.

 

[charlesphoto]

Does anyone know what the viewfinder info is like? I'm assuming the same difficult to read (for me at least) LCD along the bottom as it has been since the F5. I wouldn't necessarily welcome a return to the match needle, but some sort of elegant hybrid solution would have been nice, though since it hasn't been highlighted in any of the reviews or the Nikon site I'm figuring it's same as d600.

I like the black version of this camera, but think I will wait a year or so until refurb/used/price drops happen.

 

[ptomsu]

The longer I look at this camera, the more I do not understand why NO VIDEO. Meanwhile the Df has so many controls that it is really crammed, so adding the 2 more or so necessary for video would not have made a difference.

I think that it could have been pure as well - if you do not want to use video, just don't!

 

[roanjoh]

Took the survey - hopefully Nikon listens and produces a better version of this product line in the future.