Nikon, steps in with an alternative....{merged}.

[Jaybob]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

A half the size, half price, D4 without the video and without the 11 frames a second that looks like that?

 

As a longtime Nikon AF user, I'd buy one.

 

It does have an insane amount of buttons...

[earleygallery]

In fact the body of the Nikon doesn't look like the F3 of FM2 at all, I think Leica did a far better job with the M.but maybe it's because the M is not " retro " but just M.

 

Exactly. Leica designed the original M8 because they wanted a digital version of the film M's purely to allow use of Leica lenses on a digital body. Therefore they kept the basic form and functionality of the film M camera as much as they could.

 

Nikon have taken a modern product and tried to make it look like an old film SLR. They are hampered of course by the fact that they need to include functionality for their newer lenses which don't have aperture rings.

 

It's not the same at all.

[stevelap]

..............No doubt it will sell, but I really don't know who too.

 

Possibly to me. Unlikely but certainly possible. I'm looking for a DSLR replacement (rather than something to mount Leica lenses on) and a lighter, more compact camera is high up on my list of requirements.

 

Until very recently Olympus was in pole position with the OMD EM-1, as I'd previously experimented with the EM-5 and, to my surprise, enjoyed it (the body and some controls were too small but the accessory grip transformed the handling for me). And then along came Sony with the A7/A7R.....hard to resist full-frame . Of course the larger lenses (particularly AF zooms) required for full-frame still leave Olympus with an overall system size/weight advantage but still, m4/3rds v FF.....

 

So, back to the Df. Forgetting retro for the moment, it's full-frame with an optical 100% VF and a mixture of D4 and D610 innards, sans video, all in a smaller, lighter body. As a previous Nikon user I can see an attraction, even though I was hoping for something still smaller. There is still the size of those AF FF lenses to consider though.......

[sfage]

[quote name=

[*]No optional split screen: are you kidding me? That's a major disappointment. This is where Nikon has really messed up the execution. Why take great care to ensure retrocompatibility with legacy lenses, and to make it possible to operate the camera without having to chimp at the LCD screen... only to forget addressing the focusing concerns? Really, this is utterly silly.

 

So... Df2, when?

 

 

Yeah, that "IS" stupid.

[charlesphoto99]

I think until I actually hold one and use it it's too early to say what I really think, and whether it's something I would switch from my D600 to. I really hate command dials (no matter what I'm always adjusting the wrong one) but at what premium is a real shutter speed dial worth?

 

Anymore though I'm giving new purchases at least 6 months to a year, as prices drop, used come up, and refurbs appear at better prices. Not to mention a whole new slew of cameras at least every nine months now (Nikon DFs/x/e/MKII/etc/etc?). I do like the idea and have never once used video on my other dslr's but the execution could have been better....

[AlanG]

I agree with CalArts 99 that Nikon isn't really expecting many to be using old lenses. That is a nostalgic marketing gimmick and the camera wasn't designed for it. If there was such a pent up demand by Nikon shooters to use old glass then why didn't they accommodate them a long time ago when this might have mattered? Most people have simply moved on. Decades ago, I filed down part of my 35mm PC to make it mount on later cameras. I've done my own Dremel AI modification to several lenses too. It isn't as if these lenses just came out.

 

I am sure this camera will work well. Not being a digital Nikon shooter I am not qualified to judge its usefulness. But to me, it doesn't seem to bring anything new to the table.

[flyalf]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I would for sure buy the Df except that I gave up on Nikon years ago because the did not have a camera like Df: .

 

And Ming Thein is wrong in header ("Retro for the sake of retro"). Retro is better because cameras used to be designed for taking photos, not as game consoles. The strength of Leica is that they have understood this, so that all Leicas seems "retro". Its simply not any better way to do interfacing with camera.

[AlanG]

I would for sure buy the Df except that I gave up on Nikon years ago because the did not have a camera like Df: .

 

And Ming Thein is wrong in header ("Retro for the sake of retro"). Retro is better because cameras used to be designed for taking photos, not as game consoles. The strength of Leica is that they have understood this, so that all Leicas seems "retro". Its simply not any better way to do interfacing with camera.

 

As a guy who has been using manual cameras for about 50 years I will only say that I have always gravitated to the more sophisticated cameras. Moving from Hasselblad to Rollei 6006, Nikon F2 and FM to N90s and finally to digital capture. Even in the view camera world Sinar added all kinds of electronics and complexity quite a long time ago and so have some other brands. Yes some still liked a very simple view camera.

 

As I pointed out before, the M with EVF actually has more controls on it than a Nex 6 has, despite having manual focus and no zoom lens, flash, or IS. There certainly must be a demand for modern features and digital interfaces or they would not be developed or accepted. Some companies do a better job of integrating the controls than others. The FD controls look horrible and confusing to me (Set the shutter speed dial to 1/3rds in order to change the shutter speeds using the thumb wheel.) Whereas the Sony A7 controls look pretty elegant and were very easy for me to learn and use within minutes of picking up the camera.

[Angora]

If there was such a pent up demand by Nikon shooters to use old glass then why didn't they accommodate them a long time ago when this might have mattered? Most people have simply moved on..

Yes and no.

On the one hand, there are people who indeed have moved on. On the other hand, there's also Nikon's own inertia which hampers its reactivity to market trends & demands (Canon is even worse).

 

And Ming Thein is wrong in header ("Retro for the sake of retro").

MT meant: "It looks retro because the marketing department wants so, not due to a careful ergonomic research". The result is pretty obvious, as discussed in this thread.

[zlatkob]

And Ming Thein is wrong in header ("Retro for the sake of retro"). Retro is better because cameras used to be designed for taking photos, not as game consoles. The strength of Leica is that they have understood this, so that all Leicas seems "retro". Its simply not any better way to do interfacing with camera.

 

Which cameras are designed as game consoles? I don't know of any. Every still camera I've ever used was designed for making photos.

[Paolo.Battista]

And Ming Thein is wrong in header ("Retro for the sake of retro").

 

I do not think so. Ming Thein is a very careful reviewer and before any other comment he is a really great photographer.

The legacy from Nikon is very strong (I mean the Nikon ai and ais lenses), the Df is clearly not targeted to it, so...

[stevelap]

If anyone is interested (probably not, judging by most of the comments here )The Df will be in London tomorrow, at Calumet, Drummond Street.

[CalArts 99]

If there was such a pent up demand by Nikon shooters to use old glass then why didn't they accommodate them a long time ago when this might have mattered?

 

What's somewhat ironic is that the current demand for the older Nikkors comes primarily from users of current Nikon DSLRs as video cameras. That's where they are still very popular, as budget cine lenses. And of course the DF doesn't have video capabilities

 

MT meant: "It looks retro because the marketing department wants so, not due to a careful ergonomic research". The result is pretty obvious, as discussed in this thread.

 

That's precisely what he was saying.

 

The strength of Leica is that they have understood this, so that all Leicas seems "retro".

 

So what do you think of the Leica R9? That it's some kind of 'retro' version of the Leicaflex?

 

 

Probably the stumbling block for Nikon in building the DF is that their current DSLR line is based on the F6 form factor. That camera (which was hugely popular as a professional film camera and arguably one of the best ever made) is basically a D3 film camera. Nikon's line of SLRs and DSLRs (if you line up all the pro models from the original F to the current D4) is very much evolutionary. But the DF becomes a departure in that it tries to combine full digital operations (including AF) to appeal to current DSLR users, along with the full analog operations to appeal to a market minority of 'retro' minded users. And that's when it turned into a bi-polar Frankenstein. (btw, it actually it looks more like the FA than the FM.)

[AlanG]

I agree with all of your points CalArts99 and am kind of mystified by the DF. But I know some pros who have an interest in it since they like the D4 sensor and see this as a cheaper smaller version. Non of them is thinking of using old lenses on it. So maybe there are some rational reasons for getting a DF although personally I don't get it.

 

When I look at where Sony is heading with the A7 and other products I can only hope that the DF is just a temporary departure for Nikon, a company that I have always considered to be very well in tune with the needs of pros.

 

I think that large DSLRs have really gone about as far as almost anyone needs them to go. (Yes a bit more res, dynamic range, etc. is always possible but the design can't be refined much further.) Whereas the A7 points to a new way.

 

BTW did anyone notice the story on DPReview that Canon's C100 video camera had a dual pixel PDAF sensor all along but it was not activated or revealed? It seems they put it in there before they had all of their ducks in a row on how to use it. Now they are offering to upgrade the cameras to work like the 700D for $500. (I am not sure if there is any modification to the hardware or if this is just a firmware change.) Some have knocked the price but this is similar to paying for any other software update for new features. People are going to wonder what else may be lurking inside their cameras.

 

Anyway, since the C100 is basically a mirrorless camera I have to figure that Canon is working on something similar to Sony's A7 but with the AF of a full frame PD sensor. I am not sure I can wait for it. since the Sony is so nice.

 

Today my friend from Calumet (Rockville, MD) called me up and said the Sony rep. was in the store if I want to talk to him... I have interest in remote control of a Nex 3N from a quadcopter. via a new wired interface in that camera. But I asked if the rep had an A7r with him that I could buy today. ( A weak moment for me..) He said no.

[CalArts 99]

I know some pros who have an interest in it since they like the D4 sensor and see this as a cheaper smaller version. Non of them is thinking of using old lenses on it.

 

That would my reason for getting one. I'd like a D4 sensor in a smaller form factor (and not costing 6k USD.) Something small and with high ISO could come in handy (PJ/documentary style, etc..) And although I'm probably in the minority, I'd actually rather see it without the redundant analog dials that are cluttering up the top plate. I have quite a few AI/AIS Nikkors that I use with my F3. And I do use them sometimes on my D3s. But I wouldn't buy a DF because I have those lenses.

 

Apparently the DF was conceived back in 2009. But its introduction was put on hold because of the 2011 earthquake/tsunami (I don't think people really realize how much the earthquake in Japan and the later flooding in Thailand affected Nikon as a company.)

[algrove]

And although I'm probably in the minority, I'd actually rather see it without the redundant analog dials that are cluttering up the top plate.

 

I agree with your comment on the over use of dials on the top plate. Too busy looking, IMHO.

[earleygallery]

Apparently the DF was conceived back in 2009. But its introduction was put on hold because of the 2011 earthquake/tsunami (I don't think people really realize how much the earthquake in Japan and the later flooding in Thailand affected Nikon as a company.)

 

As I've already said, the idea of the Df is nice, just the execution is poor.

 

I wonder if the Nikon designers had a rather different camera in mind to the one that has been released. Maybe time constraints meant that instead of designing a new type of DSLR, which Nikon would like us to believe the Df is, the only option was to take stuff from the parts bin, add some retro design clues and a shutter speed dial, and voila! Df is born.

[Jeffry Abt]

I've been using Nikon for a long time. The D1 was my 1st digital camera. I now use the D4 for sports and have my name on the list for a black Df (the chrome version looks silly to me).

I think it will be useable as an inexpensive D4.

 

My prediction: "They will sell lots of them. "

[Luke_Miller]

I've been using Nikon for a long time. The D1 was my 1st digital camera. I now use the D4 ....

 

Same here. Still have my manual focus primes from my Nikon F series days and have been hoping for an Nikon digital body that was sized like the film bodies they were designed for. The lenses work fine on the current bodies, but look out of place and are a challenge to focus. My digital M experience has renewed my interest in using these fine old Nikkor lenses. I'm hoping the Df is the solution. Initially I was disappointed in the Df's specifications that did not reveal any accomodation for manual focus. However I am now excited by reports from a respected reviewer who has hands-on experience using his manual focus lenses on the Df that manual focus is not an issue.

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Interesting Leica gear

[AlanG]

. Initially I was disappointed in the Df's specifications that did not reveal any accommodation for manual focus. However I am now excited by reports from a respected reviewer who has hands-on experience using his manual focus lenses on the Df that manual focus is not an issue.

 

The funny thing is that I use chipped adapters on my Nikon 28 and 35 PC lenses and on a 60 Micro when using them on my Canons and have AF focus confirmation on that camera.