Nikon Df General Discussion

msoon77

How many of you use the "focus & recompose" method for composing outside of the AF point areas? And how many of you switch to manual focus instead?

Would like to hear your thoughts on focusing on a 9-AF point system.

Msmoto

@msoon77

Good question so I opened a new thread to discuss this subject.

http://forum.nikonrumors.com/discussion/2034/continuous-servo-vs-single-servo-autofocus-vs-manual-focus-when-and-how

bland

I didn't denoise these ...... f5.6 @ 6400 ISO

Elvishefer

@bland - I see the DF is helping you get a head in photography.

bland

@bland - I see the DF is helping you get a head in photography.

Small heads but heads none the less! LOL

I first saw those heads at the Woolaroc museum over 50 years ago as a kid and I'm still amazed by them.
They remind me of a rock band that got of course and ran into the wrong people. LOL

Here's a link to my shoot yesterday. All were shot with my Df and didn't deniose any of them.
It was the first time to shoot outside with it and it did amazing. AF was super fast and it shot much sharper than I was expecting.
Outdoor shots with the buffalo were shot with the 70-200 and the indoor museum shots were done with the 24-70.

https://www.facebook.com/media/set/?set=a.10201833772199805.1073741910.1647615973&type=1&l=518c5ad0a1

Golf007sd

For those that give some credit to DxO here is some welcoming news for the new Df owners: Lord of Darkness

Msmoto

Gosh, if they just would have packaged it in a D800 body….LOL )

spraynpray

Absolutely. +1

Ade

More the pity that they didn't pair that sensor with a better AF unit.

WestEndBoy

Their AF unit might be better than the spec suggests. Some prior posts by actual users seem to be suggesting it. I handled one the other day. Besides wishing it was heavier, I really liked it. I don't mind the weight and like a heavy professional feel, despite the fact that I like the small physical size.

Golf007sd

Nikon Df vs Nikon D4 ISO Performance article by our friends over at Photographylife.com

Quote: "First of all, DxOMark down-samples / resizes images from cameras to around 8 Megapixels of resolution, as explained in this article. This alone creates a problem, because noise levels look very different when software resizing algorithms are involved. Second, there might be differences in lighting, focus, white balance and other camera settings that might make one camera appear better or worse. DxOMark cannot account for those differences, so it just reports a different score. In my opinion, DxOMark’s scoring system is quite confusing and sometimes even misleading."

spraynpray

@Golf007sd: Not that I actually know anything about their methods, but reading the quote above, it doesn't seem like they actually know most of that as fact due to their use of the word 'might'. They only say they actually know that DxOMark downsize and so as the two sensors are the same size and pixel count, your attempt to see a flaw in the statement that the DF's low light performance measures better than the D4's may in itself be flawed.

donaldejose

While it is great to have DxOMark "scientific" and "objective" test numbers we must remember all tests contain a certain range of error (+ or - 10% or even + or - 20% sometimes) and results falling within that range really are indistinguishable. The ISO number for the Df and the D4 surely must fall within that range of indistinguishable results and it is foolish for DxOMark to hype the Df as being the best. I would bet if DxOMark took 10 Df and 10 D4 cameras and tested them they would find the numbers not only vary but actually overlap: some Df bodies will be better than some D4 bodies and some of the D4 bodies will be better than some of the Df bodies. So really, we should consider them the same.

Golf007sd

@spraynpray: Valid point. I personally have always found DxO's process a bit questionable, but still find their data worthy of a conversation. I just found it interesting that the ISO of Df result were better than the D4, which by the way I totally disagree with. The numbers should have been the same. Moreover, their earlier number on the D4 was an error in the first place. The D4's processor in addressing noise, though small, is better than the D3s from what I have seen/come across.

spraynpray

I am not so sure Ali. The DF is after all two years younger than the D4. As an instance, the 12mp sensor was used in many bodies and the low light performance wasn't the same in all of them so I am guessing it is possible that the DF could be a better low light camera than the D4.

I'll give you $20 for that heap of junk so you can get a decent camera.... )

PB_PM

Other explanations could be that a) as sensor yields have picked up, so has the quality of the process. The only way to be sure would be to buy a current D4 and put it head to head again the Df. b) refinements on the sensor have been made over the past two years, and it is a revision.

Lets not forget the D3 and D700 had the same sensor, but the D700 had slightly cleaner files.

TaoTeJared

http://photographylife.com/nikon-df-vs-nikon-d4-iso-performance
Error in the link above.

Nikon Df vs Nikon D4 ISO Performance article by our friends over at Photographylife.com

Quote: "First of all, DxOMark down-samples / resizes images from cameras to around 8 Megapixels of resolution, as explained in this article. This alone creates a problem, because noise levels look very different when software resizing algorithms are involved. Second, there might be differences in lighting, focus, white balance and other camera settings that might make one camera appear better or worse. DxOMark cannot account for those differences, so it just reports a different score. In my opinion, DxOMark’s scoring system is quite confusing and sometimes even misleading."

Worth re-posting. DxO's "re-sizing" (or what they call their 'Print') is what destroys their "scientific" claims and is an invalid score as it involves a process outside the camera (separate piece of software) that changes the output of the files.

Is it the "King" - I'm along the lines of @donaldejose - a tenth of a stop is nothing more than a 3% "error range" with a 3% error (different) lighting spilling into the tests, and a bit of firmware update. I'm willing to bet if they tested a new D4 the numbers would change a bit as well.

Comparison to other "bodies" in it's user class (available light). In this class it is King by a long shot. Most point and shoot cameras scores are what the DF turns in at ISO 6400.

Dx0 has not tested any of the X-trans sensors from Fuji which is disappointing to see. It is also rather telling of the limitations of their testing methods as well.

Ade

Worth re-posting. DxO's "re-sizing" (or what they call their 'Print') is what destroys their "scientific" claims and is an invalid score as it involves a process outside the camera (separate piece of software) that changes the output of the files.

Except that is complete BS from Nasim.

Just compare both the normalized chart and the raw data chart (not normalized) for the D4 vs Df. Except for the scale, they are identical. So DxO would have reached the SAME conclusion whether using normalized data or not.

Df vs. D4 normalized ISO data chart


Df vs. D4 raw ISO data chart


Furthermore basic math tells us that changing normalization parameters simply adjusts the graphs up or down by a constant. That is, the comparative results cannot change.

Put it another way, normalization cannot suddenly make the Df better (or worse) than the D4, since both will shift up or down by the same factor.

WestEndBoy

Are you guys going to have another normalization argument? I am going to buy a D4 and compare it to my D800 myself.

TaoTeJared

Worth re-posting. DxO's "re-sizing" (or what they call their 'Print') is what destroys their "scientific" claims and is an invalid score as it involves a process outside the camera (separate piece of software) that changes the output of the files.

Except that is complete BS from Nasim.

You didn't read the article before you posted your comment. Didn't need basic math to see that Incorrect assumption there.

You might want to read it and then rethink what you posted as that was not his topic at all.

Ade

I did read the article. Nasim claims normalization is one of potentially three factors which may have skewed the results in favor of the Df. And he is wrong. The Df and the D4, having the same sized sensor, would be normalized in the same exact way. The two charts above (raw data and normalized data) clearly shows that.

WestEndBoy

Interesting comment in the DF review in this sites blog about the DF being better at low light than the D4. Seems to reinforce what DXO Mark said. This despite having the same "spec" (sensor).

If it is real, it is a reminder that we can get caught up in evaluating gear based on a spec rather than actual use.

I also recall reading that the auto-focus was better than the D610, despite having the same focus system.

bland

@jshickele I agree with your thoughts completely.

I'm not a pro photographer and have no where the knowledge and skills as most on here but here's my findings after 2 weeks shooting my Df.

The AF seems no different than my D800, both focus extremely well.
My Df shoots low light with less noise than my D800 does.

The file size is much smaller than the D800 but that's known going in and I'm sure that helps the noise results.
The Df is not designed to change settings as fast and freely as the D800 but that's also known going in.

It's an awesome camera and I find no faults with it, at all. Plus, it's a hoot to shoot!

heartyfisher

I am considering the Df.. but one of the ways I shoot is with the little pop up flash as a CLS master to control my SB800 off camera. What options do I have now that the Df does not have that handy little popup CLS master?

Photobug

Heartyfisher, regarding a flash since there is no pop up flash on the Df. In talking with a Nikon Representative today he told me the SB400 has been discontinued and he had the new SB300 on the D4 and we switched it to the Df. I thought it looked good on that body.