Home › Nikon DSLR cameras › Df
Custom Search
Howdy, Stranger!
It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
Categories
- 3.4K All Categories
- 34 Nikon Z lenses
- 77 Nikon Z cameras
- 1.4K Nikon DSLR cameras
- 11 Df
- 237 D6x0/D7x0/D8x0
- 27 D300/D300s/D500
- 29 D3x00
- 45 D3/D4/D5
- 31 D5x00
- 94 D90/D7x00
- 387 Nikon Lenses
- 9 Videos, Nikon et. al.
- 52 Nikon 1
- 18 Nikon Film Cameras
- 56 Nikon Flashes
- 25 Nikon Compact Cameras
- 48 Nikon Software
- 26 Nikon Deals
- 767 General Discussions
- 49 Gear Reviews
- 182 Other Manufacturers
- 105 Fun & Weird
- 128 Photo-a-day
In this Discussion
Who's Online (0)
Disclaimer: This site has no affiliation with Nikon Corporation or any of its subsidiary.
Disclosure: [NR] is sponsored by displaying advertising banners and links.
All trademarks and brands belong to their respective owners.
Want to advertise on NikonRumors.com? Contact [NR].
Copyright © 2008-2017 NikonRumors.com.
See our Privacy Policy.
Disclosure: [NR] is sponsored by displaying advertising banners and links.
All trademarks and brands belong to their respective owners.
Want to advertise on NikonRumors.com? Contact [NR].
Copyright © 2008-2017 NikonRumors.com.
See our Privacy Policy.
Comments
Sensor: Advantage Df. (Some people want to argue that. Go ahead. I won't.)
Size/Grip: I'll let this go as even. I've never shot a Df, so I don't feel qualified to comment. I haven't seen anybody excited about either, honestly.
FPS/shutter speed: Even. Df slightly more FPS. D800 to 1/8000 s. Does either really matter?
Control layout: Advantage D800.
AF: Advantage D800.
Metering: Advantage D800.
Battery: Advantage D800.
Storage: Advantage D800.
Built in flash: Advantage D800 (don't use it myself).
Video: Advantage D800 (use it rarely myself).
For 95 advanced amateurs/semipros/pros out of 100, the D800 is surely a better buy. Maybe 98/100? On that basis, I think it's OK to point out this camera is overpriced compared to the D800.
A few more thoughts:
--Nikon brought this anti-hipster-camera backlash on itself with the Pure Photography ad campaign and the gussied up 50 1.8 G. "It's in my hands again." Really, Son?
--Some of the backlash comes from the conscious/subconscious acceptance that this is a niche product, and niche products are OK, but we feel that more important products are being neglected. Maybe some of those "more important products" are niche deals themselves, and I'm sure there's no consensus on any one of them. But for each of us, there are one or two dear to our hearts and we're left thinking "Jesus Herbert Christ I need a [D400, VR updated 300 f/4, fast DX prime, whatever... in my case an 85 with DC, but never mind] and instead of working on that, Nikon has given up this scenester fashion accessory."
--At $2,000, I'm interested. D610 minus video, minus flash, plus a leftover D4 sensor seems like more than a fair trade for my needs. Plus, I'll get all the chicks. Well not @msmoto and her D4, but hey, she's out of my league.
sometimes i does with no ND filter if you are shooting wide open in daylight. Iso 50/100 might help but I normally have it at iso 200
a while back my paul c buff triggers failed and I had to jimmy rig with the sync cable/port and an adapter to fire the srobes and speed light. had i not had that adapter i would set the alien bee b800's and sb-8/900 to fire when it detects flash.
that was one of my main things for a drawback.
i was ok with what the d600 offered and if the DF had just a little bit more features i would have been more inclined to getting it.
The Df has the same flash sync port as the D800
The D800 shoots 900 frames on a single battery (CIPA)
The Df shoots 1400 frames with a single smaller battery, so I'd give the advantage to the Df here.
Per CIPA rules, if a camera has a built-in flash, then the flash must be used for 50% of the shots.
So during testing the D800 had an additional burden of firing its flash, which the Df did not.
While Kai makes some excellent points in this respect, my favorite part starts around 3:10.
... And no time to use them.
As for faster shutter speed of 1/8000, the Df is and was not targeted at sport photographers camera. A vast majority of those that buy or may consider the Df this feature is also a mute point.
The lack of video on the Df, I would agree was an error on Nikon's over all design.
As for battery, anyone that owns any form of digital camer, regardless of model, should have a spear battery with them at all times when he or she goes out shooting...Period.
As TTJ has said, "How you like them apples now?" :P
I liked the old camera bodies, but think the new ones have far better ergonomics. The only problem for me with this camera is the lack of Nikon's better autofocus system which, being in my 70s now, I have grown to depend on in the D300/D700/D800. When Nikon includes their high-end autofocus system, which a $3000.00 camera probably ought to include anyway, I will buy one. The idea of traveling with an older looking camera body with a couple pieces of old tape to cover the Df, and make it look older, really appeals to me.
Sometimes, I get the feeling that Nikon is playing a nickel-dime game on us with the features which is bit irritating to me, but its their nickel, not mine, because I will not buy something that is missing something essential to me for $3,000.00. If Nikon has a pre-design, target market, consumer feedback team Nikon will be well served to fire them all and start from scratch.
Nikon is killing themselves by not listening to their customers, and taking too long to respond to real issues; D800 left/right focus issues, and stretching loyalty to a thread fixing the overheating problem in the SB900 with the introduction of the SB 910, and the D600 oil/shutter abrasion problems with the introduction of the D610. Nikon needs customer feedback desperately, and has a wonderful user base to get feedback from; but for whatever reason Nikon keeps shooting themselves in the foot.
Any company worth its salt will occasionally shoot themselves in the foot, but Nikon's incredible velocity in reloading, and shooting themselves in the foot again, and again, is painful to watch.
Oops. Sorry this accidentally turned into a rant. But it frustrates me up to see NIkon struggling financially when it is completely unnecessary if they paid more attention to what their own users want.
It bugs me that Nikon (and other established camera manufacturers) intentionally cripple products to prevent competition with higher-priced, higher margin models. E.g., artificially limiting D7000's bracketing to only 3 frames to force some consumers towards the D300S. And yes I believe the Df was also intentionally down-spec'd to prevent competition with the D4.
It's an old game based on outdated marketing concepts of "product segmentation" and "price discrimination". Instead of giving what customers are asking for at a price they're willing to pay, features are purposefully taken away from certain models so you'd have to "overbuy" to get what you want.
I truly believe that if manufacturers stopped playing these games and concentrate instead on making the best product for each price point, they'd actually sell more cameras and make more money.
It would be interesting to see a statistics about vintage camera users.
For how many of them is this the single camera, or do most have another body which allows them to fill the spec gaps they need? How many of them are really complaining about this?
Nikon marketing did a good job, if they placed the DF in the niche they intended to and if it is making the desired profit for the company without taking profits from any other product line.
Its that simple.
Last time I commented on Nikon's lack of attention to their customers I got a very un-NR like attitude from a member here - heck, he even started a thread for the express reason of taking a poke at me
@rbrylawski: +1
@Ade: That is one of my pet peeves about the D7000 too. +1 on the rest of that post also.
"If you ask CEOs why good companies fail, you’ll likely get 10 different answers.
Indeed, modern companies have a tough job. They have to create innovative products that delight customers. They have to invent breakthrough technology. They need insanely great marketing. They’ve got to manage complex supply chains. And they operate in highly competitive global markets.
Did I forget anything? Oh yeah. They have executive management teams that are in charge of everything.
And therein, lies the rub. The reason why you’re likely to get so many different answers about why companies fail is that you’re not likely to find many executives who will just walk right over to the mirror and say, “That’s why.”
You see, companies aren’t just faceless entities that make products and build brands. They’re organizations that are run by people. And those people are responsible for making all the important decisions that make or break companies. That’s right, every single one of them.
Now, some management consultants love to talk about all sorts of neat concepts like competency, strategy, performance, vision, planning, effectiveness, core values, execution, company culture, and change management. They’ve got all sorts of jargon, buzz words, and management fads.
I look at management a bit differently. When you cut through all the BS, it always comes down to one thing. People. If you observe the people in charge, ask some good questions, and poke around a bit, you can usually figure out what’s really going on. And what’s really going wrong.
At the core of every company in trouble is usually a management team that’s not as competent as it needs to be, more complacent than it should be, and more dysfunctional than it can get away with.
If you look under the hood of once-great companies that have stalled or even crashed in recent years -- companies like Research in Motion (RIMM), Nokia (NOK), Sony (SNE), H-P (HPQ) and Yahoo (YHOO) -- that’s exactly what you’ll find: leaders who drove them into the ground or, in some cases, off a really high cliff.
And while bad leadership affects everything from corporate strategy and decision-making to product differentiation and organizational effectiveness, if you want to do anything about it, you’ve got to treat the cause, not the effect. And the way to do that is to recognize some of the more common warning signs:
They think they have all the answers. When you stop questioning and listening, that’s when you stop learning and adapting. When you’re sitting on top of the heap and you think you’ve got it all figured out, that’s when you’re in the most trouble. That’s because your competitors are looking for all sorts of innovative ways to bring you down. And sooner or later, they will.
They’re pushing a grandiose vision. Tell me if you’ve heard this one before: There once was a CEO with a huge ego and a grandiose vision. There were new board members, highly paid cronies, acquisitions, strategic imperatives, and the next thing you know, the company loses billions, shareholders lose their shirts, and employees lose their jobs. Ironically, the more grandiose the vision, the better the CEO is at selling it.
They believe in the status quo. When you start hearing phrases like, “That’s not how we do it here” or “That’s how we did it before and it worked great,” that should be a red flag. We live in an ever-changing world. Markets change. Innovation happens. Competition happens. As they say in investing, past performance is no guarantee of future results. It’s also true in the business world. Complacency, conventional wisdom, the status quo, call it what you want, it kills companies.
They breathe their own fumes. I remember when Apple launched the first iPhone and Google Android phones appeared, the response from BlackBerry-maker RIM’s co-CEOs was disbelief and mockery. They didn’t think a multi-touch display and virtual keyboard would catch on with users. How’d that work out for them?
They surround themselves with yes-men. Countless times we’ve seen leaders surround themselves with incompetent fools who sugar-coat the truth and tell them what they want to hear to cover their own you-know-whats and gain favor. There will always be weak-minded yes-men, but it’s the executives who hire and listen to them that are the real problem. When delivering bad news, constructive conflict, and honest debate are in any way discouraged, that’s a recipe for disaster.
They’re afraid to lose what they have. The flipside of taking huge risks with other people’s money is unwillingness to take risks because you’re afraid to fail and lose what you have. After being diagnosed with pancreatic cancer and facing mortality, Steve Jobs realized the folly of the latter approach, "Remembering that you are going to die is the best way I know to avoid the trap of thinking you have something to lose."
On a positive note Nikon has enabled me to take truckloads of good pictures, and sometimes they do make products that take me time to appreciate fully. The V1 was a good example; I could not believe Nikon went with the CX format, but now have come to appreciate the CX format, so much so that I now have three of them. I would not have suggested, or even considered the CX format but now appreciate what it can do for me..
When I look at my peer group here in Atlanta most of the professionals are now shooting Cañon, especially for portraits, fashion, glamour, boudoir, and lingerie. Sports professionals lean even more toward Cañon, and many top notch landscape photographers. Cañon's lens systems are more affordable, and they have had a selection that filled in where Nikon was too slow for years now; examples are the 100-400mm, and the very useful 24-120mm which would have been well served to be improved earlier. Cañon portrait, and wedding photographers probably use the 24-120mm 90 percent of the time. I have a large investment in Nikon lenses, and really like the Nikon cameras I own, but want to buy more of them.
I sincerely want Nikon to be successful, but am not a Nikon Fan boy.
I can find 1,000 things that are far reaching hyperboles in that article. It's the same platitudes written by 1,000s before who never actually knew or have any experience being in the room at the "top." The over-generalizing remarks he points too only kills companies from below and middle management, not the top. He gives way too much credit to CEOs and their counterparts for the daily grind that exists. If you have read Mr. Tobak articles and looked into his bio, you would soon find out he is nothing more than a snake oil salesman. He has zero insight or experience except for writing opinions.
I do think Nikon does have some of those qualities at the moment though. What that is driven buy, is more important than that they exist. Cash strapped at the moment is my guess. Japan finely weakened the Yen so exports should be rising, compact sales are bottoming out, most of the world is still in or just out of recession, and unemployment is high around the globe. Add that to rebuilding efforts from the tsunami in Thailand, earthquakes in Japan by them and vendors, and they have been hit hard for 5 years. Most long lasting companies hunker down and just keep driving forward. Canon, Nikon, Ricoh(Pentax), and Panasonic camera divisions have not changed much or released anything really new except for Nikon, with the Nikon 1 system. And actually if you look at it, Nikon is the only one who did really gamble out of them. Olympus and Fujifilm were almost dead and were forced to play a new hand, and Sony decided to finely get into the game, is dumping tons of money into it, and are pushing for marked share. Those are the three base business models that have been taught forever.
I'm not sure why Nikon didn't take the AF system of the 1-series, dropped the mirror and dumped that into a smaller DF body. (I do know that has much to do with the sensor design (as the AF is on it) and is why that can't happen.) Along that idea, making it a DX 16mp D300 (with all wiz-bangs) replacement would have been smarter. Satisfy many more users at a better price point.
There is an Aptina 16 MP DX sensor. Nikon know about it and i am sure it must be in the nikon labs in some camera exactly like what you say. but its up to the marketing guys in Nikon to bring it to market. and at this time the marketing guys at Nikon are a bit sus.
Being a photographer is a lot like being a Christian: Some people look at you funny but do not see the amazing beauty all around them - heartyfisher.
There are a ton of low light sensors out there that are used in manufacturing, shipping, etc. (industrial sector) that are in use. And those uses would astound photographers if they knew about them - like being able to direct cracks in a part at really high ISOs while moving by at high speed. Especially B&W ones. I'm sure they can't just be put into "cameras" but the technology is already there.