Nikon Df General Discussion

Ade

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.

Those very high ISO sensors are called TDI sensors. Unfortunately they are not suitable for general photography since they work in "line scan" (1-dimensional) mode and require motion to produce a 2-dimensional image.

Adam Magyar used an industrial line scanner for his stills work described in this recent "Einstein's Camera" thread:

http://forum.nikonrumors.com/discussion/2228/hacking-time-with-hi-tech-images

(hence his subjects, like the subway, require motion). He uses a different type of camera for his video work.

The advanced technology found in industrial cameras actually come from consumer cameras, not the other way around, simply because the amount of money in the consumer camera market dwarfs the industrial camera market.

Specifically, the vast majority of sensor R&D advances are driven by the smartphone market. That's where the real innovations are happening currently, via the usual suspects of Sony, Aptina, Samsung, OmniVision, et al. The smartphone sensor market accounts for something like 80% of all camera sensors by volume.

These new innovations then trickle down from smartphones to our SLRs, and also to industrial machine vision cameras.

snakebunk

Why does Moose in the fireside chat love that the Df has no video? I really don't understand.

WestEndBoy

Why does Moose in the fireside chat love that the Df has no video? I really don't understand.

The DF is definitely NOT the camera for you Snakebunk. :-))

snakebunk

Why does Moose in the fireside chat love that the Df has no video? I really don't understand.

The DF is definitely NOT the camera for you Snakebunk. :-))

Ok :-)

I'll try to live with not understanding this camera. Hope it sells well though.

WestEndBoy

Why does Moose in the fireside chat love that the Df has no video? I really don't understand.

The DF is definitely NOT the camera for you Snakebunk. :-))

Ok :-)

I'll try to live with not understanding this camera. Hope it sells well though.

You might try googling:

"when less is more consumer aversion to unused utility"

or googles for similar terms for some marketing insights.

snakebunk

Why does Moose in the fireside chat love that the Df has no video? I really don't understand.

The DF is definitely NOT the camera for you Snakebunk. :-))

Ok :-)

I'll try to live with not understanding this camera. Hope it sells well though.

You might try googling:

"when less is more consumer aversion to unused utility"

or googles for similar terms for some marketing insights.

Thank you. I did google but I didn't feel like reading. If I ever meet anyone who has bought this camera for her own money I'll ask nicely how she likes it.

donaldejose

Moose Peterson's opinion of the Df is quite interesting; "a passion machine." Thanks for posting it Golf007sd, It was also interesting to hear he loves the 58mm f1.4's beauty and shoots events at ISO 3200 with the Df which is higher than he uses with his D4 (same sensor but improved image processing software for noise reduction). One final note. The soon to be released D4s surely will include at least that improved image processing software but likely will be some improvement over the Df.

Ade

I've been told that the Nikon Df actually has a different sensor than the D4, not just improved software.

One way to find out is to examine the structure of the raw data created from both cameras. If they are different, then most likely they use different sensors.

If someone has a sample .NEF from a Df, I could compare it to my D4 samples...

WestEndBoy

I've been told that the Nikon Df actually has a different sensor than the D4, not just improved software.

One way to find out is to examine the structure of the raw data created from both cameras. If they are different, then most likely they use different sensors.

If someone has a sample .NEF from a Df, I could compare it to my D4 samples...

This sounds highly implausible. I mean it's possible, I just find it very doubt that Nikon would spend ANY money to develop a sensor that's functionally nearly identical to the one in the D4.

The Japanese poineered Kaizen (Continuous Improvement). They might.

Ade

I don't mean to suggest the Df has an "all new" sensor Nikon spent a lot of money on.

There have been questions if software changes alone could explain the Df's ISO performance improvements over the D4. And if it's all software, could Nikon simply push a firmware update to D4 owners to gain this ISO improvement?

It's common in electronics to see a new "stepping number" (revision) of the same part, denoting some sort of internal improvement. These steppings are rolled out to fix defects, or to improve manufacturing efficiency / reduce cost, to introduce new features, or to improve some performance aspect.

With the D4, Nikon has to be careful to maintain the same exact image quality between steppings, to maintain consistency from the first D4 produced to the last D4 produced. With the Df, however, there is a chance that Nikon has actually implemented a new stepping with visibly improved ISO performance.

Now, inside a sensor there are "reserved" pixels which are not used in the image. For example, some rows of pixels in a sensor are masked off (not exposed to the lens) -- to provide a black reference.

Supposedly the structure of these reserved pixels have changed in the Df's sensor. That's something we should be able to directly test by comparing the structure of a D4 NEF vs. one from a Df.

So if anyone has a Df .NEF I can download (it can be of anything, even a blank wall)... let me know.

WestEndBoy

I do, but will not get to it until tonight. PM me so I can figure out how to get it to you.

Ade

Sweet! PM sent!

Vipmediastar_JZ

@ADE i beleive I also read that regarding the sensor. I can't rememer where though.

here is a link with DF and D4 samples http://photographylife.com/nikon-df-vs-nikon-d4-iso-performance

TaoTeJared

Those very high ISO sensors are called TDI sensors. Unfortunately they are not suitable for general photography since they work in "line scan" (1-dimensional) mode and require motion to produce a 2-dimensional image.

TDI sensors are a type that are used, but not what I was referring to - at all.

CCD and CMOS senors are used in the same type of applications as well (Most are CCDs due to the added sharpness they have but CMOS is starting to be used more). I have installed them at companies and know the specs very well. The consumer market is not driving industrial uses. The industrial market has been developing the tech for decades. Until recently, the industrial and consumer markets did not cross their R&D, but with the business climate, economy and large companies like Sony & others getting into the game, acquisitions and mergers of most manufacture shops have occurred where now the lines are now more blurred.

You are not informing me or others of anything - and please stop being so arrogant to believe what you read from your 5 minute Google search that you just ran, is doing so.

Ade

TDI sensors are a type that are used, but not what I was referring to - at all.

CCD and CMOS senors are used in the same type of applications as well (Most are CCDs due to the added sharpness they have but CMOS is starting to be used more).

Here's a hint: CCD and CMOS are not alternatives to TDI sensors.

TaoTeJared

Can't stand being wrong can you? You might start by stopping to assume what people are referring too and realize you are wrong when you do.

Every different technology has it's limits and uses. TDI's are used in extreme applications. All applications for monitoring quality control are not extreme. The world is much larger than that narrow scope.

Ade

TDI is a way of using CCD or CMOS in an array to enhance ISO performance. Some TDIs are made using CCD. Other TDIs are made using CMOS.

To say that "CCD and CMOS senors (sic) are used in the same type of applications as well" is rather nonsensical. CCD and CMOS are not alternatives to TDI. They are what make TDI possible. All commercial TDI sensors today are made with either CCD or with CMOS.

Ade

Big thanks to @jshickele for sending me a sample .NEF file from his Nikon Df!

And also thanks @Vipmediastar for posting the link to the Photographylife article (more below).

I did an initial comparison between the D4 and Df sensors and I was not able to see any overall structural differences between them. Unfortunately, due to a limitation of my toolset, I can't definitively say that the two sensors are identical, either.

Here's what I found:


The above is a 200% grayscale crop of the far right side of sample sensor data from the D4 (top) and Df (below). The "image boundary" is where the image data ends. Past this boundary, the sensor has 50 additional pixels but they are not used for imaging. These pixels are "masked" to help determine the black level, calculate the level of noise, etc.. The rightmost 8 pixels are pure black.

There is also a smaller masked area on the left side of the sensor (not shown). The overall structure of all these masked areas appear the same between the D4 and the Df, at least using a version of dcraw which I've modified a bit.

However, Iliah Borg (of LibRaw) commented in a Photographylife thread Vipmediastar referenced above that he was able to see a difference between the two sensors. You can see his illustration from the following link (D4 on top, Df on the bottom):

http://f.cl.ly/items/1G0P0e3d0a1g1Q2t422g/OB_D4onTop_DfonBottom.png

According to Iliah's findings, the Df sensor has an additional column of pixels in the masked area. Iliah also found that the noise characteristics of the masked regions are slightly different between the two sensors. However, I could not confirm Iliah's results, but I will try to contact him for more information.

As an aside, the RAW files for both cameras contain 4940x3292 active image pixels -- a tiny bit more than the 4928x3280 pixels you get from the in-camera JPEG or from a conventional RAW converter. Nikon basically crops 6 pixels in from each border, but the pixels left there in the raw file. So if you ever feel that you wish you had framed a shot just a tiny bit wider, you can actually recover these extra pixels using a specialized RAW converter.

Golf007sd

@Ade: Thanks for the info.

I truly hope that it is only a software/firmware update for us D4 owners. After all, we did pay a nice chunk of change for our D4's. It would be nice to be able to get every little bit of ISO performance as possible. Keeping fingers crossed that once the D4s is introduced, Nikon will release the update then. [-O<

Msmoto

From my point of view:

What is video? )

With my D4 I have shot some video…. when I accidentally pushed the wrong button….. more )

Actually, the Df looks more attractive all the time… as much as I hate to admit this…..

Symphotic

I've been reading Asahi Camera's book The Philosophy of the Nikon Df (ISBN978-4-02-272448-9) and I think I'm getting a feel for where Nikon's designers are aiming. Part of the thought is they are trying to both create an iconic work of industrial art and create a camera that will encourage the owners to know more about the art of photography. As such, Asahi Camera makes a case that this camera will appeal to former film users and to digital owners who want to study the art and science of using cameras.

It's not my call if Nikon will be successful in this: it may be too expensive. But Nikon's market will be those who want to pay extra to have something that can't be made cheaply rather than the photography students who could benefit from the stated philosophy. My impression is that if the perspective of the book reflects Nikon's target market, Nikon certainly hopes it will appeal to an aging population in Japan of Minolta and Yashica film camera owners who have finally got their houses paid off and their children through college and now want to buy the Leica they have always dreamed of, but couldn't afford--and still can't!

There are also quite a bit of helpful facts in the book. For example, the DR5 works with the Df--potentially a bit of useful information when focusing the old Nikkors. Also, there is comparison between the 58 1.4G and the 58 1.2 Noct. (To my eye, the bokeh of the 58 1.4G is more pleasing. Certainly the coma is better corrected in the 1.4G.)

Until now I thought I would buy a second D800 or maybe a D800e, but after some reflection, maybe the Df would be a good choice for me after all. I laughed my butt off watching the hipster review, but the appeal to hipsters comes from the industrial art design, and that is quite deliberate. Anyway, I could use a little hipping up. Maybe with the Df, I could become like Zaphod Beeblebrox: "... so hip I have difficulty seeing over my pelvis."

So, it comes down to just one question: black or silver?

rbrylawski

If you're looking for "hipping" the hip answer is silver.

WestEndBoy

Silver for me.

Symphotic

My F2s are all silver, except for my Titan.

Golf007sd

I agree with rbrylawski, jshickele, and Symphotic: Silver is the way to go. Two tone rocks