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

[Angora]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

In what way does it perform worse and what are the root causes?

 

Quoting Ming Thein again (I encourage you guys to read his full article, which is rather short):

 

I think the choice of the D4′s 16MP sensor was a smart one: [...] it’s not a very demanding sensor in terms of lens resolving power. Those old lenses are going to produce great-looking results under most conditions, and it’s going to tolerate a little misfocus, camera shake and generally be less demanding of technique.

[algrove]

I think it looks awful and contrary to a minimalist camera.

[Advertisement]

The Leica Q3 is available for pre-order at B&H Photo Video and Adorama

[Paulus]

The new retro Nikon doesn't have video.

 

So digital camera makers can and do make this choice. Maybe this will affect the next Leica M?

 

Nikon Df First Impressions Review: Digital Photography Review

 

Maybe there is a market for it. If Nikon says so....

[george +]

Please forgive me if I think the discussion that will follow could learn from my favorite bumper sticker.

 

"If you are against abortions - do not have one."

[lct]

I used a split image screen on my Canon 5D, though it wasn't manufactured by Canon.

Hi Steve same here (Brightscreen) but i asked about later cameras.

[Paolo.Battista]

As an old Nikon user, the Df is quite disappointing for my personal taste.

Nikon created this model more using existing parts from other cameras and giving it a retro look.

Seriously, sensor from D4 (which is a very good one but thought for a very fast sport camera, which clearly is not the Df territory - and the new 24 sensor of the A7 seems to outperform it from the first tests), AF system from D610, classical (relatively) small Nikon DSLR viewfinder with no interchangeable focusing screen, no video, pricing very close to the D800.

That sounds like: ok, I give you a retro look but forget manual lenses please, and at the same time forget the very best in modern technologies. So, I really miss its usefulness, apart from aesthetically points of view.

[CalArts 99]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

It is likely a very fine camera, but a real shutter speed or ISO dial would make no difference to my photography. I would not pay extra just to have that. Canon dials are super easy to use.

 

As a user and fan of analog film cameras I'm kind of surprised to hear myself saying this, but..... I actually prefer the command dials on modern DSLRs. It's much faster and more ergonomic; I can adjust everything seamlessly and quickly while never taking my eye away from the viewfinder.

 

I think I might end up a bit schizophrenic with something like the DF. Do I move the camera away from my eye to use the analog dials on the top plate or keep it at eye level and use the command dials?

 

I'm not so sure that stepping back in time is what we should be doing with digital FF single lens reflex cameras. Yes, the camera tugs at my emotional side but is it truly practical overall? I seem to be okay when using my F3, but then again it has very few options. The DF seems to have too many options, like a mashup of sorts.

 

Smaller size is good. And I have no issues with using the D4 sensor. It's pretty stellar in low light.

[AlanG]

It is likely a very fine camera, but a real shutter speed or ISO dial would make no difference to my photography. I would not pay extra just to have that. Canon dials are super easy to use.

 

Yes your comment jumped out to me also. But keep in mind that this supposed back to the basics retro camera has two shutter speed dials!

 

I have a bunch of old AI and pre AI Nikkors, tried them on my 1Ds when I bought it 10 years ago and didn't think much of them compared to the newer Canon glass. I haven't shot with them since on the Canon or on the Nex 6. I use the 35mm PC lens quite a lot since Canon doesn't have one that size. It is pretty good.

 

So what is the attraction of using these old MF lenses and wouldn't it be simpler just to put them on a Sony A7? You'd get focus peaking and magnified view too.

 

I'm guessing Nikon doesn't see such a large market for this camera but expects to make a good profit by pricing it so high. They next need to make a monochrome version with a 36 MP sensor and charge $5,000 or so. And after that a digital Nikon SP system without, LCD, live view, or video, charge $10,000 for body with 50 1.4, and steal away the last rangefinder purists. Nikon said earlier this year that they had to think of some new kinds of products now that so many people are using cell phones in place of cameras.

Edited November 6, 2013 by AlanG

[bocaburger]

Say, how about a special version of the M with no LCD, and which accepts just a proprietary memory card that holds only 36 DNGs

 

What I don't get is why the M doesn't have a menu item to disable or re-assign the video and live-view buttons to prevent accidental activation. (Or does it? )

[CalArts 99]

So what is the attraction of using these old MF lenses and wouldn't it be simpler just to put them on a Sony A7? You'd get focus peaking and magnified view too.

 

I find it odd that Nikon promoted this camera as something that can use MF Nikkor lenses. It even has a tab on the mount that can be flipped out of the way for pre-AI lenses. And they posted a marketing image on their website with an older lens mounted on the camera. But instead of using a newly designed finder and with a proper screen for manual focusing, they used the current D610/D800 finder with .7x magnification.

 

It seems like they aren't really expecting people to use legacy lenses. Instead this is primarily an AF DSLR. Specifically, a D610 with a D4 sensor in a smaller package and some analog dials attached onto the top plate.

 

I agree that the Sony is the better solution for using MF Nikkor lenses even if one has to use adapters.

[AlanG]

 

I agree that the Sony is the better solution for using MF Nikkor lenses even if one has to use adapters.

 

I am trying to avoid thinking about the Sony at least until the 24-70 comes out. I got a big assignment today and am trying my best not to think I have money burning a hole in my pocket. I was at Calumet Photo today and spoke to a friend who works there. He said some of his customers ordered the A7r to use with Canon lenses because they think that even if Canon comes out with a 36MP camera before too long, it will be much more expensive than the A7r. I somehow got out the door without ordering one.

 

I figure Nikon thought through the Df and that I simply don't get it. After all there are different cameras for different people. On the other hand, this also could have been something that seemed like a good idea at the time and then was designed by committee.

Edited November 6, 2013 by AlanG

[Rick]

Sometimes i get a headache. On this forum, Leica gets routinely bashed for being behind the technological times and now Nikon is going to praised for gutting simple technology from their camera? I give up.

Edited November 6, 2013 by RickLeica

[jaapv]

Upping the price by kitsching the design? No thanks.

[Guest malland]

The issues are discussed in-depth in Thom Hogan's article: Digital (con)Fusion with the Nikon Df. I like the reference to the nonfunctional silver ring on the 50mm lens.

 

—Mitch/Bangkok

Looking for Baudelaire [WIP]

[stevelap]

Yes, I read Thom too, an interesting article.

 

Mods: Time for another thread merge perhaps?

[earleygallery]

It's clear now that the Df is just another Nikon DSLR with stuff added on to it.

 

The designers at Nikon stuffed up when they tried to translate 'less is more' in google and it came out as 'more is less'!

[almoore]

The designers at Nikon stuffed up when they tried to translate 'less is more' in google and it came out as 'more is less'!

 

Yes, it's truly bizarre.

 

That top plate is insanely cluttered and the front of the camera appears to be covered in warts. I've never seen a more maximalist looking camera. Love the wallpapering of the pentaprism though...I'm surprised they didn't half-timber it as well.

[pgk]

I have a bunch of old AI and pre AI Nikkors, tried them on my 1Ds when I bought it 10 years ago and didn't think much of them compared to the newer Canon glass.

My experience also. And some older Canon lenses were poor on the 1DS - the 20/2.8 was unusable due to truly terrible corners (and was very fussy indeed over filters which dropped corner performance even more especially polarisers) and I got rid of it, and the 35/2 too shows poor corners but is acceptable well stopped down, and I retained it for specific purposes. In both cases its probably image field curvature that's the problem.

 

But such problems show up on 10MPixel cameras and the idea that 'only 15MPixels' will serve older lenses is simply a none starter. Some older designed lenses look really good on high MPixel cameras (the 80/1.4 Summilux comes to mind used wide open) despite being 'resolution limited' at this aperture, so its not really about the MPixels.

 

The idea that lower MPixels is better compatible with older glass is to me rather bizarre. Its a bit like suggesting that some medium format cameras should only ever be used with very fast film. And whilst higher MPixels may require more exacting technique to fully utilise their potential, this again is not always true and is highly dependent on the subject matter and prevailing conditions. Its also important to realise that lenses aren't all about resolution and this isn't the be all and end all of performance.

 

Anyway, this camera seems to be aimed at an ill-defined sector of the market to me. No doubt it will sell, but I really don't know who too.

[Paulus]

Sometimes i get a headache. On this forum, Leica gets routinely bashed for being behind the technological times and now Nikon is going to praised for gutting simple technology from their camera? I give up.

 

O no, I really like the Leica M I said it before, but I really wonder why Nikon chose for the non video option and Leica did. I use the video on my M occasionally nowadays " because it is there " , but the implications for Leica could be, that they bring out an " MP " version of the M without the video. Not a Monochrome, not a Leica M, but a Leica M " p " ....

 

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.

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Interesting Leica gear

[Paul J]

What a pointless gimmick of a camera. I would say style over substance but with all that clutter maybe it's the other way around.