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

[KurtKamka]

I've been looking for something with excellent auto focus, great low light ability and a comfortable size for use on the street in fast moving situations.

I deliberated between the most recent Nikon, Olympus and Sony offerings. I grabbed a DF because it most closely matched my requirements. In the end, if a camera works the way that you envision it will and enables you to get the results you were aiming to achieve, the internal debate about price and outlying features and benefits quickly fall by the wayside.

After putting the camera through a few thousand shots on the streets over the past several weeks, I have to say that I love, love, love using it on the street.

 

[rayyan]

IMHO, the Df got hammered because it's pricepoint 'felt' too high to folks who wanted it.

Exactly.

 

[Bob]

All the rush to new cameras, like nobody would be caught dead wearing last year's Pradas.
-bob

 

[JohnBrew]

I feel the concept was a high aspiration that failed in the execution. Nikon can still fix this by implementing an all manual device. I believe most of us were pretty clear on what we wanted to see built. I suppose the bean-counters got in the way...
I know many are satisfied with the Df. Good for you. I have seen some remarkable images posted on this site. No question the D4 sensor rules. I still intend to rent one to see for myself, but I'm not expecting a digital FM2 (which is what I want).

 

[fotografz]

Small FF cameras are hardly "emotional asides". Anyone lugging around a bag of bricks for 8 hours straight may have a different "emotional reaction" … actually, a physical reaction is more like it.

That said, were I still toting Nikon stuff, I'd be interested in at least looking at the DF because of the sensor performance. But I'm in the USA where it seems priced a bit more reasonably.

- Marc

 

[glenerrolrd]

I've been looking for something with excellent auto focus, great low light ability and a comfortable size for use on the street in fast moving situations.

I deliberated between the most recent Nikon, Olympus and Sony offerings. I grabbed a DF because it most closely matched my requirements. In the end, if a camera works the way that you envision it will and enables you to get the results you were aiming to achieve, the internal debate about price and outlying features and benefits quickly fall by the wayside.

After putting the camera through a few thousand shots on the streets over the past several weeks, I have to say that I love, love, love using it on the street.

Kurt

I am impressed by the results you are getting on the street with the Df …how much of the AF capability are you using ? I have a hard time getting beyond the straightforward ..spot focus ..but I think you can use some of the continuous focus and maybe facial recognition parts of the AF system .

 

[Jorgen Udvang]

I finally had a chance to try it out. It's nice, and the pusher says he sells a lot of them. But, he also says he sells more Sony A7 and more Fuji X-Series. And that makes sense. If the traditional photo experience is the most important, particularly the Fujis have more to offer. They have aperture rings, electronic split screen, a size and design that is similar to cameras from the seventies and thereabouts and an X-E2 costs less than half of the price of the Df.

As nice as the Df is, and the sensor is exceptional, it cannot hide the fact that it's a computer with dials, a D610 in disguise. 5 years ago, it would have been a sensation. Today, Fuji, Olympus and Sony have shown that there are more advanced ways of thinking retro, looking in the back mirror and on the road ahead at the same time. I would really have liked to have one, but unless I stumble across a substantial pile of cash, it probably won't be. I will envy each and every owner I see using one though

 

[KurtKamka]

Kurt

I am impressed by the results you are getting on the street with the Df …how much of the AF capability are you using ? I have a hard time getting beyond the straightforward ..spot focus ..but I think you can use some of the continuous focus and maybe facial recognition parts of the AF system .

Thanks for the compliment Roger. I'm not certain I'm much of an expert on AF after mostly stepping away from anything (except the S2 (and that's not much of an AF system)) with AF for the past 3-4 years. I'm just using using spot focus and mashing away. It's not perfect, but it's a nice option in situations when I know the camera will be faster and more accurate than I can hope to be. On a whim, I decided to pick up an adapter to use my Mamiya 80/1.9 on the camera. To my surprise, manual focus is much easier and more accurate than I thought.

As for the camera size, buttons and dials on the outside and any other functionality that it may or may not have, none of it really bothers me too much as I really like the sensor. It's ability to almost see at night adds another dimension to what I like to shoot.

 

[turtle]

There seems to be consensus on price and I agree. I think its far too expensive for what's on offer. As for the sensor, while it may have great high ISO, its not 'big news' any more. Most cameras, from the D610 to the 5D III to the A7/R have superb high ISO and while the DF may be better, is it better enough for most people to care? It seems not, or not at that price point anyway.

Compared to some of the mirrorless cameras, it does not appear to break new ground and this is the big thing. I think your synopses of the above mentioned cameras is a little unfair. After all, the A7R does offer D800E image quality in a package close to the size of the X100 and significantly smaller the Oly EM-1, which is not to be sniffed at. As for the FE accompanying lenses, have you seen the optical performance, ultra low weight etc? They are extremely impressive lenses and certainly not to be compared to standard kit/low end lenses of similar speed.

Even the Panny GM-1 has done something far more impressive to me than the DF, which is put a M43 sensor into a body smaller than an RX100, with the option of changing lenses. The thing is minute, but performance is right up there with M43 bodies with over double the volume.

It all depends on what you want. A lot of people welcome the stunning imaging performance of the A7/R cameras in such a light package. Some were thrilled at the all in one performance of the X100 years back and some are over the moon about the high ISO and relative compactness of the DF, just fewer people are interested in paying such a steep premium over cameras that come very close, like the D610. I thought the DF was a cool concept until I saw the price! Cameras like the GM-1 and A7R don't have close competition in the way the DF does.

 

[Shashin]

Cost is related to it production, not whether photographers are impressed by ISO or looks or it "breaks new ground."

 

[D&A]

My perception from actual use of the Df is that for some the sum of its parts is greater than the whole. Just like the Leica M9 including its sensor is leagues behind current generations of cameras, it's image quality and overall shooting experience transcends it's mediocre stats and test measurments.
The Df and its image quality is about more than just high ISO performance. Like the M9, whether it's worth it's end price, will always be quite subjective.

Dave (D&A)

 

[pixelatedscraps]

I would have loved the Df if it had dropped autofocus in favor of a brighter viewfinder, and if it lost the thickness of the rear LCD and the battery power it requires--with possibly a small monochrome display, where the only chimping possible would be with a histogram.

Hear, hear. That would be a true D-FM. Interchangeable focus screens would just compete that camera. Let's hope sales of the Df are high enough to provoke Nikon to expand the Df line into something more.

 

[Godfrey]

Having finally handled a DF at the shop, I now have a basis to think about it other than the commercials and reviews.

- It's more compact than it appears in the commercials. But it's not particularly handy IMO. And its still bigger than I want to carry.

- There are WAY too many buttons, knobs, switches, dials, locking gizmos, etc on it. I thought the Olympus E-5 and E-M1 had a bit of an overload here ... the Nikon's magic wurlitzer of knob upon dial upon button, etc, just puts me off completely.

- I suspect that with some study the bejonga overload of control things will make sense. At which point it is still a large, complex, very expensive camera that I only have a couple of lenses that might work on. The focusing screen isn't all that great for manual focusing, which nixes all of my lenses but one.

If Nikon made a simple, FE2 or F3 digital camera equivalent (at least on the same level of simplicity that I can configure either the E-M1 or A7 to be), I'd likely buy one. But the DF just isn't that.

G

 

[pixelatedscraps]

- It's more compact than it appears in the commercials. But it's not particularly handy IMO. And its still bigger than I want to carry.

- There are WAY too many buttons, knobs, switches, dials, locking gizmos, etc on it. I thought the Olympus E-5 and E-M1 had a bit of an overload here ... the Nikon's magic wurlitzer of knob upon dial upon button, etc, just puts me off completely.

- I suspect that with some study the bejonga overload of control things will make sense. At which point it is still a large, complex, very expensive camera that I only have a couple of lenses that might work on. The focusing screen isn't all that great for manual focusing, which nixes all of my lenses but one.

If Nikon made a simple, FE2 or F3 digital camera equivalent (at least on the same level of simplicity that I can configure either the E-M1 or A7 to be), I'd likely buy one. But the DF just isn't that.

G

I have to disagree with you on your first two points. I think the Df is about the limit for what I want to handhold and be comfortable with shooting for more than quick snaps. I have another thread over at RFF asking about recommendations for a 'professionally portable' system (with an eye on replacing my Nikon work gear in future) for travel editorial work and it came down to the Fuji XM-1 or the Panasonic GM-1. After handling both cameras and current lenses and the Df in-store, I have to say: I would much rather shoot the Df all day long. I like dials and buttons and wish more cameras had controls like the Df or even Olympus/Fuji's take on implementing them with the EM-1 and XT-1.

That said, I see manual focusing with the Df to be a slightly crippled (or tacked on affair, much like the design quirks) especially with faster f/1.4 or f/1.2 lenses. IF it had interchangeable focus screens...oh man. What a missed opportunity, though then what would we have to look forward to in the Df2?

The Df in Hong Kong is retailing at US$2000. Not a bad deal, I'd say, for a camera with the D4 sensor. Stick to the central AF point. Gold.

 

[Godfrey]

it's fine to disagree with my feelings about the DF ... I just didn't like it, much like I feel about the Fuji X-P1 and X-T1. And many other cameras.

The Olympus E-M1 is great in my hands, superb controls, just the right number of them, and all very configurable. The Sony A7 is a bit clunky in feel and second rate on ergonomics, but has just enough configurability to be comfortable and useful. I can shoot with either of these cameras all day long and not get tired, just like I can shoot all day with the Olympus E-1, a Nikon F3 or FM2, and a Leica M of almost any vintage.

I can't imagine using an XM-1 or GM-1 for any day-long work, personally. Too small, too cramped for me. It's a narrow range of designs that I find truly comfortable and inviting to use for real work...

G

 

[raist3d]

From what I have read the DF got hammered (and keep in mind, even Nikon-Jarvis did so I don't think it's just "those who wanted one but could not afford it" issue at all) - is because the "retro" was not done quite right.

Thom Hogan has a lot on that and so do some reviews. Then add to that Nikon's own line up, etc. Many cite the Fuji X-T1 as an example of "what Nikon could have done right."

Personally? I have not used one but looking at the controls does suggest the critique is right. I would not pick one even if done well because I don't like big cameras anymore (big enough not to fit at least in a coat pocket) but I could give it kudos if I see it's a good camera even if it's not for me.

- Ricardo

 

[raist3d]

I forgot to add Ecuador I completely missed your point on the "version 1" of things-

First, some of the other version 1 mirrorless did get beaten up. AF speed was a big one or Olympus and the fuji x100.

Second- because that was years ago and this is now. If you are coming out with a product to compete in today's market it will be held to today's standard (or an updated set of them), particularly if you are going to command a high price for the item

Add this then to my previous post and I think you get the picture.

- Ricardo

 

[Kyndel]

Thanks for the compliment Roger. I'm not certain I'm much of an expert on AF after mostly stepping away from anything (except the S2 (and that's not much of an AF system)) with AF for the past 3-4 years. I'm just using using spot focus and mashing away. It's not perfect, but it's a nice option in situations when I know the camera will be faster and more accurate than I can hope to be. On a whim, I decided to pick up an adapter to use my Mamiya 80/1.9 on the camera. To my surprise, manual focus is much easier and more accurate than I thought.

As for the camera size, buttons and dials on the outside and any other functionality that it may or may not have, none of it really bothers me too much as I really like the sensor. It's ability to almost see at night adds another dimension to what I like to shoot.

Interesting.

I am at the fence for this camera, and has been for a while, but what I am concerned about is: Why did they not put a better AF-machine in such a beauty for low light ??


(I asume it is about marketing, not "selling out" of the D4(s), and as usual the stock holders are more important, than their photographers)

I know both the AF-machines and the 51 point is clearly the best.

I normally only use spot-focus when very backlit situations - or very odd/different colors, but the interesting thing here is:

I read about another camera (do not recall what camera it was), that the cameras spot-focus was much more fast and precise, than the "matrix".

And now - after this long story - comes my question to you:

Is it the same with this DF ??= It the spot-focus faster and more precise ?

THANKS

---

Correction =IS the spot-focus faster and more precise ? (than Matrix)

 

[Godfrey]

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

 

[Jack]

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