Df vs the D750

[rayyan]

Very subjective one liner.

My Df wins for me.

 

[glenerrolrd]

Very subjective one liner.

My Df wins for me.

Having used both extensively ....each has exceptional capabilities ...even considering the higher MP or better high ISO offerings of the EVF designs.

Df ..wins on form and style ..just a joy to use ..probably one of the very best designs . Its small ,light yet built like a tank . While the sensor is only 16MPs ...it is very forgiving (when you don t need a 30x40 print) . AF is the 39point system which is noticeably weaker than the new 51pt (in D5,D850 etc). Color is strong and images are sharp ....I prefer to use the Df for B&W finding the 16/20MP professional sensors to be tricky for color balancing . It can be done I just don t have it to my standards .

D750 ...wins on all around performance ... a terrific camera if you shoot people . Color is true and skin tones better than the Df . Same 39pt system . Reasonable size and weight . My wife has used a d750 for 3-4 years now and its been flawless . She beats the heck out of that camera and it never has failed . Uses a 50/1.4AF Nikkor wide open and the AF just nails it .

The biggest weakness in both bodies is they are hard to use with manual lenses. In fact this is the biggest weakness for me in any DSLR ..the screens just are not good enough to focus a fast prime manually . The Af system does provide a manual focus aid but its not like focus peaking . This kills the fast primes from Zeiss ..which are beautiful wide open .

But if you haven t used a DSLR for few years ..pick one up ...and tell us that you can VIEW just as well with a EVF ?

 

[Thorkil]

Having used both extensively ....each has exceptional capabilities ...even considering the higher MP or better high ISO offerings of the EVF designs.

Df ..wins on form and style ..just a joy to use ..probably one of the very best designs . Its small ,light yet built like a tank . While the sensor is only 16MPs ...it is very forgiving (when you don t need a 30x40 print) . AF is the 39point system which is noticeably weaker than the new 51pt (in D5,D850 etc). Color is strong and images are sharp ....I prefer to use the Df for B&W finding the 16/20MP professional sensors to be tricky for color balancing . It can be done I just don t have it to my standards .

D750 ...wins on all around performance ... a terrific camera if you shoot people . Color is true and skin tones better than the Df . Same 39pt system . Reasonable size and weight . My wife has used a d750 for 3-4 years now and its been flawless . She beats the heck out of that camera and it never has failed . Uses a 50/1.4AF Nikkor wide open and the AF just nails it .

The biggest weakness in both bodies is they are hard to use with manual lenses. In fact this is the biggest weakness for me in any DSLR ..the screens just are not good enough to focus a fast prime manually . The Af system does provide a manual focus aid but its not like focus peaking . This kills the fast primes from Zeiss ..which are beautiful wide open .

But if you haven t used a DSLR for few years ..pick one up ...and tell us that you can VIEW just as well with a EVF ?

... :thumbs:
thorkil

 

[rayyan]

Roger, a very precise and succinct review of both the cameras.

My preference is only based on the files I get from both; and the Df that ' somehow ' ( ? ) I enjoy more.

Thanks again.

 

[Jack]

My observation only, as I only ever owned the Df and played with a few 750 files. That said, my opinion is:

1) the Df renders in a distinctly film-like way, high mid-range contrast, long headroom and longer low tone contrast. Saturation tends to follow suit, higher in the mid ranges, lower at the top and bottom ends. While color is very pleasing, it is not highly "accurate" by today's DSLR standards.

2) The D750 renders a more perfectly balanced, contemporary-style digital file; being more neutral head to toe on both contrast and saturation with very accurate color.

Which one prefers is based on desired results; nostalgic or accurate. No right or wrong IMHO, but there is a definite nostalgic "je-ne-sais-quoi" to the Df files that I like -- okay, LOVE.

My .02 only...

 

[Steen]

Tough call.

One is a nice acquaintance and a charm to use, and makes me look good .-)

The other one has 50 % more resolution, a newer processor (Expeed 4 vs Expeed 3), more focus points (51 vs 39), a tilting LCD, more screen resolution (1229000 vs 921000 screen dots), two card slots, a deeper grip, and far more pixels on the RGB metering sensor (91000 vs 2016 pixel).

At about half the price :lecture:

Unfortunately it only comes with the square DK-21 eyepiece without built-in viewfinder curtain / viewfinder shutter, which is an annoyance (for me).

On the other hand it has, in my opinion, the most vibrant colors and best contrast curve straight out of the box among the FX Nikon cameras I've ever tried (don't know about the D850 since I've never tried it).

Never mind built-in flash and video, I never use those features.

All very subjective.

 

[Thorkil]

My observation only, as I only ever owned the Df and played with a few 750 files. That said, my opinion is:

1) the Df renders in a distinctly film-like way, high mid-range contrast, long headroom and longer low tone contrast. Saturation tends to follow suit, higher in the mid ranges, lower at the top and bottom ends. While color is very pleasing, it is not highly "accurate" by today's DSLR standards.

2) The D750 renders a more perfectly balanced, contemporary-style digital file; being more neutral head to toe on both contrast and saturation with very accurate color.

Which one prefers is based on desired results; nostalgic or accurate. No right or wrong IMHO, but there is a definite nostalgic "je-ne-sais-quoi" to the Df files that I like -- okay, LOVE.

My .02 only...

:thumbup:
as I like to say, why shall a picture look like being there, while its far more interesting when it looks like a dream of being there...:angel:
thorkil

 

[epforever]

The biggest weakness in both bodies is they are hard to use with manual lenses. In fact this is the biggest weakness for me in any DSLR ..the screens just are not good enough to focus a fast prime manually . The Af system does provide a manual focus aid but its not like focus peaking . This kills the fast primes from Zeiss ..which are beautiful wide open

For what it's worth, I find the Zeiss primes to be eminently usable on my D850. (Thus far I only have the Milvus 35mm f/2.) I use the focusing aid in the viewfinder (directional arrows with dot in middle), and when that dot is solid, the focus is tack-sharp, even wide open. It's pure joy. The dot is solid in only a miniscule portion of the focus throw; there seems to be virtually no play / guessing / slop factor. Note that I did an in-camera focus adjustment with the Lens Align tool right after buying the lens.

 

[glenerrolrd]

My experience with DSLR verse EVF ..is based on using the D810 and the Leica SL with a set of Leica R lenses . The focus aid on the D810 works well IF the subject is large enough . Try shooting a tennis player from high in the stands (small subject at a distance ) . With the D810 or really for any of the Nikon DSLR bodies ....you are never sure you have the focus point right on the player ....AND you will have a hard time confirming focus in the viewfinder . With the Leica SL ...you get a magnified view of the subject that is large enough to visually confirm focus .

Shoot almost an scene where a magnified view of the point of focus would help and the EVF will out perform the DSLR .

But ..you are using best practices with your D850 and the Milvus ...if it works for you ..you will achieve great image quality .

 

[GrahamWelland]

All I can add is that when I moved out of Nikon I kept my AIS lenses and the Df. Then I sold the Df. Then I bought another one ...

I don’t miss my D800/810 but I did miss my Df. Nothing scientific about that but I did tend to travel with the 16mp Df and leave the mega pixel monster D8xx’s at home. I realize that probably makes little sense but I think that it relates to the files that like Jack I love for reasons that I just can’t quantify objectively.

The only real thing that has ever bothered me has been the D600 viewfinder and focus grouping. I would have much preferred the ability to set a focus confirmation point anywhere in the VF vs the tighter grouping. Also, I never used the EV compensation dial but always set mine to use the rear dial for compensation instead. Whilst I liked the retro styling it was irrelevant to me. Thankfully the center button zoom was carried over from the bigger D brothers vs the highly irritating jpg modes with the D600.

I’ve bought and sold a number of systems (Nikon & Sony for example) but I still have my Df, much in the same way that I returned to Leica M after a few years in the Sony wilderness.

YMMV.

 

[rayyan]

As I progressively head toward dementia, the brain memory banks throw out the latest memories and what remains are the early ones.

A very healthy discussion, with no right or wrong. Just preference, which in my case is driven by what Jack ( correctly imo ) as nostalgia.

I want adventure ( thanks Graham ) before dementia.
Yippe. Childhood again. Adventure, mistakes, irrational decisions.

I love this stage of life, and I think I have chosen my poison.

 

[DougDolde]

For what it's worth, I find the Zeiss primes to be eminently usable on my D850. (Thus far I only have the Milvus 35mm f/2.) I use the focusing aid in the viewfinder (directional arrows with dot in middle), and when that dot is solid, the focus is tack-sharp, even wide open. It's pure joy. The dot is solid in only a miniscule portion of the focus throw; there seems to be virtually no play / guessing / slop factor. Note that I did an in-camera focus adjustment with the Lens Align tool right after buying the lens.

I'm using the D850 with three Zeiss ZF.2 lenses,,,,21mm, 28mm, 85mm. Always use live view focus peaking. No issues nailing focus that way

 

[glenerrolrd]

I'm using the D850 with three Zeiss ZF.2 lenses,,,,21mm, 28mm, 85mm. Always use live view focus peaking. No issues nailing focus that way

I must be missing something here . When using LV on a D850 you are looking at the LCD ..not thru the viewfinder ...correct ?

 

[DougDolde]

I must be missing something here . When using LV on a D850 you are looking at the LCD ..not thru the viewfinder ...correct ?

Yes the LCD. Then one touch on the LCD trips the shutter

 

[glenerrolrd]

Yes the LCD. Then one touch on the LCD trips the shutter

Useful discussion as it shows we have very different “frames of reference “ .

It would appear that your interests are primarily in landscape ,architecture etc ..maybe some studio ..but the subject is fixed (not moving ) . From my experience with landscape ....I try to shoot at F11 or sometimes smaller to gain as much depth of field as possible . The camera is best used on a tripod for these applications (although some handheld shooting maybe required ). In this environment Live View on the LCD works great and the focusing process can leverage the ability to zoom in and use focus peaking .

But once we add in some movement ..either the photographer or the subject or both ....working off the LCD is a non starter . As an example coming back from 14 days in Paris...we photographed at the French Open Tennis Tournament , the Prix deDiane Longines , the Louvre and plenty of Paris street shooting . There were situations where using a tripod would have been great ..the subject called for it ..but the logics of carrying and setting up a tripod would have been no fun .

I study my work and have a good handle on what situations yield good results . For me I need a responsive system (no shutter lag or black out ever ) and I have to be able to see and frame in the viewfinder (be it a RF,EVF or DSLR) .

This isn t just street shooting ..I can t imagine shooting any of our family stuff using LV/LCD etc . So my frame of reference is the viewfinder and I want to SEE that the subject is in focus .

One of the things I enjoy about my Leica S is the ability to use AF to get close and fine tune visually /manually off the screen .

With the Nikon s I have found that the AF is so darn good and the ability to move the focal points so fast ...that I can easily shoot wide open F1.4 with the 105 AF lens. In that case I have learned to trust the AF system .

Sorry for the somewhat off topic lengthy post .. I assume most of us are attempting to match the best tool to our requirements . And those requirements can be significantly different by person.

 

[JohnBrew]

I'm convinced. Just ordered a Df (in silver, natch) for my new travel camera.

 

[robdeszan]

I've enjoyed reading people's opinions and thought I'd share mine.

I pondered over df for far too long personally. Ordered one about three years ago, wanting to replace a d700, which I found too large for travel/backpacking, but returned it upon initial comparison (it was still a large DSLR) and went with two sigma merrills instead.

After three years with sigmas, I know that I simply prefer an optical viewfinder and full frame rendering. I bought a Df again. Yes df is larger and heavier than both sigmas combined, it is a compromise of sorts, but it is still more compact than your standard DSLR. I had other Nikon users asking me if it is a mirrorless camera a few times, it simply appears and feels much smaller.

I like the design and find it intuitive, af is absolutely fine (use sigma art lenses with it and shoot portraits predominantly) but I prefer to use manual focus lenses for travel anyway (I have a custom canon focusing screen for fast glass and a Nikon viewfinder magnifier which allows to focus very accurately, even wide open).

It does not balance too well with very heavy lenses. With a Sigma 85mm art (which is a behemoth!) for instance it would benefit from a more pronounced grip. You need to adjust your technique and support the camera with your left hand as well. It does not bother me personally as I don't take these lenses when travelling, only on shoots, and I can live with that limitation then.

It renders pictures in a very cinematic way and without tweaking, when combined with the right glass, d700 had a similar quality but d810 (I used to shoot) less so. 16MP means it is less demanding than a d810 technique-wise / for hand-held shooting. Yes, iso performance is unreal.

Is better than a d750? I have no clue, never had one. I used to own a d810 and d700, though, both are long gone and the df is the only 35mm DSLR standing.

 

[JohnBrew]

Hi Rob, thanks for posting. Can you enlighten me a little more about the Canon focusing screen?

 

[glenerrolrd]

Hi Rob, thanks for posting. Can you enlighten me a little more about the Canon focusing screen?

focusing screen.com ........suggest you google replacement screens for Nikon Df ....plenty of information including how to videos . Not easy and calibration requires luck or skill .

 

[Frankly]

I'm 58 and have the typical diminished eyesight of such yet I simply focus my Zeiss manual focus lenses on my D8xx like I always have since the get go. You have to concentrate and engage.

The magnified eyepiece helps as does the focusing cup. The focus assist arrows are imprecise for wide open long lenses.