Nikon Df General Discussion

WestEndBoy

That is a very good insight TTJ. Some will argue, "The DF is bigger in my hands than X.", but I doubt that matters much. It feels quite small in my hands.

I often said that I would like a third camera to complement my D800 (best image quality) and Coolpix A (best image quality available that fits in a pocket). Something in the middle. I called it a "Neica", basically a Nikon version of a Leica with auto-focus and a complementary lens system.

I find myself thinking of a DF instead of the Neica. Nikon has got me 90% of the way there without having to bring in a new lens system (which saves a pile of money as you pointed out) and better auto-focus than would be possible in a mirrorless to boot.

Tradewind35

Thanks for that summary of the options and case for the DF, Tao TeJared - very informed and informative.
Robin

kenadams

The whole comparison is only valid under certain preconditions. That's like comparing a Porsche to a 4WD because you have a set of all weather tires on the Porsche. I can see where you're coming from, but I think the whole discussions centers around the bare camera capabilities based on specs and not around whether you already have an external flash for one or the other and that's the better value there.

Tradewind35

In my case - I love those little Fuji cameras - beautifully crafted and capable enough for my modest requirements. No doubt the Sony/Oly etc are equally good as regards bare camera capabilities. DF body is way overpriced in comparison, but I already have 11 prime Nikkor lenses which I want to keep and use. That makes the DF a lot better prospect despite the ugly price tag.
Robin

TaoTeJared

The whole comparison is only valid under certain preconditions. That's like comparing a Porsche to a 4WD because you have a set of all weather tires on the Porsche. I can see where you're coming from, but I think the whole discussions centers around the bare camera capabilities based on specs and not around whether you already have an external flash for one or the other and that's the better value there.

The point is that the cerebral exercise that many are trying and failing at is that the DF is not a Porsche at all. It is a system that costs the same. You can't buy any other options without the tires therefore you must include that in the price.

donaldejose

Sure you can make the case that the Df is a good second body because it uses all the Nikon lenses. But by the same logic wouldn't a D7100 at half the cost of the Df be a better second body? Sure you lack some high ISO but do you really need more than ISO 3200 in a second body and sure you don't have an FX sensor but do you really need FX in a second body? If you really do need an FX sensor and you don't need to use ISO higher than about 1600 perhaps a D3 for about $2,000 would make a good second body. I would argue the best second body for a D600/D610 user would be a D7100 and the best second body for a D4/D800 user would be a D3 or D700 or D400 simply due to the same control layout. Sure, the D400 does not exist at this time. Hopefully it soon will.

I do agree that it is best to stay within the Nikon system when possible so you can mix and match components. I hope Nikon produces a DX D2XX series thin mirrorless body with an EV and few new f1.8 "pancake" style lenses (24mm, 28mm, 35mm) with an adapter to allow use of all longer legacy F-mount lenses.

Symphotic

As a D800 user, i would suppose that either a D610 or another D800 is better than a Df as a second body for my work (industrial photography), with video, a second slot, and a built in flash for commander mode. For walking around and recreating, the Df is lighter and more fun with my old lenses, but I can't see bringing it on a job unless I want a conversation piece. If I don't need full frame, I use the V1.

My colleague has a D800 and a D7000, both of which he bought from me. The D7000 now only gets used underwater (in an Ikelite housing), as for most shooting we both like the full frame and pixel density of the D800. There are lots of specs and theories about cameras, but for the admittedly specialized photography we do, FX is the way to go.

WestEndBoy

I think the DV is an ideal second body for several reasons, all of which are related to my personal tastes and may or may not make sense for everyone else.

1.
It is the smallest or near smallest full frame sensor in a DSLR, meaning a smaller size with great performance in every way that matters.

2.
I don’t want to deal with the DX crop factor in lenses. As I shoot in primes, I want to put a prime on and not have to think about whether I am shooting in 50mm or 85mm.

3.
Why would I tolerate sub-fx performance in a second body? I would be less inclined to use the second body.

4.
My goal is to have a 24mm, 35mm, 58mm and 85mm all in 1.4G. Then I will walk around with two bodies and the four lenses. A typical configuration might be a 24mm and 58mm (where space is tight), or a 35mm and 85mm (where I have more space) or something else if the situation calls for it. I tried this with a friend’s D800 and it was really versatile. It is easier to carry around, especially with a photo vest, than one camera and a bag. I will be able to get all the benefits of fast primes and mitigate the downsides not being able to zoom.

5.
And shooting with the DF is a different kind of shooting than a DSLR with the standard layout. Many people are focused on “the most efficient layout” etc. However, photography is about more than that. The DF will encourage a more thoughtful approach to photography, especially with a manual focus lens. This broadens my "photographic experience" and makes photography more interesting, which is why it is my hobby.

donaldejose

jshickele: Agreed, for those who want to shoot and think in the old standard primes keeping both bodies FX would be very helpful. Less to clutter the mind. By the same logic if both bodies used the same control layout there is less to clutter the mind. I have been shooting a D800 and D600 combination along with a DX D7000 or D5100 set to small basic jpeg used for facebook type snapshots my wife keeps asking me to make. Works well enough. Still I would prefer to have all the bodies I use function through the same control layout so I don't have to keep remembering which body I have up to my eye. Maybe I should just shoot with too copies of the same body? I hope Nikon will expand the Df line so those who like that control layout can get it with the same 24mp sensor as in the D610 or the same 36mp sensor as in the D800 or the same 50mp? sensor as in the yet to be released D4x. I don't think it would make any sense to put a DX sensor into the Df body.

Vipmediastar_JZ

I did a walkabout on this beautiful chicago day sunny and 40 degrees with the d800 and 70-200
I had a few people say things like oh look Nikon and one guy from his truck asked me if it was DX.
So my big setup is always an attention gatherer and truly thats something I dont want in chicago. Im doing architecture so i need my FX.

Had I had the DF with a prime maybe I would go unnoticed.

However since topic has changed to second bodies my first choice would be another D800.

I honestly like the DF

shawnino

TTJ has posted a useful price comparison, but only in the narrowest context of somebody already being a Nikon shooter. If somebody already had an X-whatever and a bunch of Fuji lenses, the choice would be equally clear by TTJ's logic, but in the opposite direction.

Now I understand this is NRF and not FujiRF, but my claim was always about the wider world and the notion that if you are objectively comparing camera-to-camera, the only thing Df and XT-1 have in common is retro faddishness. Different sized sensors, vastly different price points. That the body that costs twice as much has a performance advantage should really come as no surprise.

I do wonder how much better the Df/D4 sensor really is over the D610 sensor. I've yet to find a technical site that shows the D4/Df sensor as substantially better. Which makes me wonder what advantage the Df has at all over the D610. About 2 oz. lighter I guess. I can tell you where the D610 beats it, perhaps in similarly minor areas: video, twice as many card slots. Oh, and $750.

As to jshickele's fifth point that he prefers the Df experience because the Df layout is sufficiently obtuse in comparison to other Nikon bodies that it slows him down, I think his point is valid because it is rooted in personal preference. It doesn't happen to be my preference.

I hope Nikon sells a ton of these.

bland

This may be nothing at all or some extra light popped in but in my last 2 concert shoots I had my D800 auto iso set at 6400 high and my Df at 8000 high at the last concert.

The D800 would go to the 6400 about half of the time whereas the Df wouldn't go near that high with similar shots and normally shot around 1600-2800 iso.

Weird but interesting.

NikonMick

shawnino wrote regarding the Df and the Fuji XT-1:

"I get that they're both hipster bait. But so is a $70 Holga and a $7000 Leica M."

I suggest that, unfortunately, the Df is NOT hipster bait, although I would have loved it to have been.

I specifically went to my local camera store to compare the looks (and ergo, weight, size, etc) of the Df to what I consider a "classic" look, namely the Nikkormat series, specifically the FT-3.

http://www.flickr.com/photos/68039985@N08/11213892414/in/photostream

My observation is that the Df looks more like the Canon G series in form factor than any earlier, or even recent, Nikon bodies.

Mick

WestEndBoy

Th

This may be nothing at all or some extra light popped in but in my last 2 concert shoots I had my D800 auto iso set at 6400 high and my Df at 8000 high at the last concert.

The D800 would go to the 6400 about half of the time whereas the Df wouldn't go near that high with similar shots and normally shot around 1600-2800 iso.

Weird but interesting.

What lens was on each camera?

bland

What lens was on each camera?

24-70 on the D800 and 70-200 on the Df. The thing is before getting my Df I shot both those lenes on my D800 equally during a concert shoot (one lens with the first song and the other lens with the second song) and the iso reaction was pretty much the same.

The only thing I can figure is they both spot meter a little different creating different iso, not sure though.

donaldejose

bland: the Df had the lens with the narrower able of view eliminating more of the background. Perhaps it was cropping out more of the black background and thus the meter was taking its reading from a larger percentage of the frame covered by the lights. Next concert swap lenses and see if the Df still shoots at lower auto ISOs.

bland

bland: the Df had the lens with the narrower able of view eliminating more of the background. Perhaps it was cropping out more of the black background and thus the meter was taking its reading from a larger percentage of the frame covered by the lights. Next concert swap lenses and see if the Df still shoots at lower auto ISOs.

I figured it probably had something to do with the backdrop, as you stated. I'll swap them out at the next concert and see what happens.

TaoTeJared

TTJ has posted a useful price comparison, but only in the narrowest context of somebody already being a Nikon shooter. If somebody already had an X-whatever and a bunch of Fuji lenses, the choice would be equally clear by TTJ's logic, but in the opposite direction.

I narrowed the scope of my comparison to Nikon Shooters because that is who the camera is made for - hence utilizing the existing mount. If they were going for a new market, they would have designed new lenses a la Sony. Add to that, as anyone who has tried to use 3-party non-Nikon mount glass already knows, Nikon's mount and flange distance does not play well with other systems at all. It was made for a very narrow market - It wasn't me who made it that way. I don't see anything wrong with that at all.

I do agree that it is a very hard thing to justify moving systems or if you already have invested in 2 systems - be it Fuji, Sony, m4/3rds, or others. If you have already and are satisfied with that system, then to me the DF is less of a "grab" based on price alone. Now if you are really disappointed in available light shooting of those other systems, then the DF is the best option out there.

Loving my X100 I am really looking at upgrading it to the X100s or Sony RX1 (for the focal plane shutter) and possibly the XT-1 with the 35mm & 52mm. With the X100s wide adapter that would give me 28,35,50,85 which is what I would like. My pocket book though would settle with the X100s, wide adapter and the new 50mm adapter if I can get over the odd look of adapters. Then again the OMD M10 with a 25mm 1.8 is only $1Kish as well. That it a really small option. I do like the Fuji-s though. There are a lot of great systems out there, but it comes to a question, "How many systems does one want to invest in?" And that leads me to look at the new PowerShot G1 X Mark II. Just being real

I agree with @donaldejose that shooting with the same or similar bodies has it's advantages and I do see the point in that statement and the DF isn't for you then. But like I said before, don't expect a 16mp D600/800, Nikon is not going to undercut sales again like what happened with the D700. No D4 sensor in a D800/600 body. Some just can't seem to understand that their own pocket book is not a valid reason for a company to please them. :P

I do wonder how much better the Df/D4 sensor really is over the D610 sensor. I've yet to find a technical site that shows the D4/Df sensor as substantially better. Which makes me wonder what advantage the Df has at all over the D610. About 2 oz. lighter I guess. I can tell you where the D610 beats it, perhaps in similarly minor areas: video, twice as many card slots. Oh, and $750.

Just my experience in comparing D4/D800 images, that 16mp sensor has about 2-2.5 stops more headroom/additional IQ at lower ISOs than my D800 (varies by environment a bit) and dynamic range holds at least 1 stop or more over the D800. To me that is very substantial. That is more accurate color, richer saturation, more contrast at higher ISOs, etc. Now for what each person shoots and venues they are in, it could be substantial or no difference at all.
If you get off the DXO type sites and find real shooters (who don't try to make a living at reviewing) most seem to agree with that and many prefer the D4. There is a place for major MP systems and for High ISO systems - each have advantages and minuses.

shawnino

TTJ writes in part: If you get off the DXO type sites and find real shooters (who don't try to make a living at reviewing) most seem to agree with [the 16MP sensor having about two stops more ISO headroom and one stop dynamic range] and many prefer the D4.

If that is true, and I have no reason to doubt it, his point is very well taken. I wish one of the high-ISO wizards on here (well, I'm thinking of a witch, but I mean that in the nicest possible way) who can get the most out of the D4 would put the D600/610 through its paces at ISO 6400-ish and let us know. I converted my D600 to IR and while I'm very pleased with it, I can't just borrow a D4 and do an apples-to-apples comparison anymore.

TTJ also makes the point that once one is invested in a system, that system has something of a golden grip on us. I too want something smaller than my D800, but I'm disinclined to plunk down what TTJ has pointed out would be at least another $3K for a system and at least that much for a divorce lawyer.

That said, I also find myself agreeing with TTJ that (for me, grey-market) Sony RX1/RX1R looks perfect. Wonder if I could convince the missus that it has a very small sensor and that Carl Zeiss is some guy from Taiwan who copies other people's lenses on the cheap.

Net-net, I find myself agreeing with PitchBlack as well. I'd be much less dismissive of the D4 if it was closer to D600 in price.

Symphotic

I keep looking over this thread and I'll say it one more time... the D800 is only $50 more on Amazon.com. Fifty bucks. Preposterous.

From day one the D800 has been an incredible deal for a full frame, high performance DSLR. We were fully prepared to pay $500 more for it when it came out. To date, we've bought three D800s, and these have all been carefully weighed business decisions and approved by our clients and other stake holders.
That said, I am a Df owner, although I bought it with my own funds: it is my first personal DSLR camera. Wannabe hipster, I guess...

donaldejose

"I'd be much less dismissive of the D4 if it was closer to D600 in price." Agreed. The D4 sensor simply cannot cost much more then the D600/D610 sensor. How much more? $50 maybe? Maybe it even costs less!

As to high ISO comparison between the different sensors anyone can compare the DxOMark numbers and there is this comparison. http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/comparisons/2012-04-05-High-ISO/

WestEndBoy

I think that he meant the DF, the D4 being a typo. However, the comment makes sense.

However, I think that it is futile and missing the point to compare the DF to any other camera in Nikon's lineup. It is in a category of its own and is not designed to be evaluated and compared based on its specs (not to say that specs are not important). If you assign it a category and include other cameras in the same category (the Olympus OM-D perhaps), it is the best camera in its category and until a competitor in its category with similar performance is released, the price is a mute point.

And to TTJ's point, would we be happy if the DF was only $1,800 but had a different mount (say to accommodate a shorter flange to focal distance combined with a mirrorless design to make all the mirrorless people happy)?

Then we would not be talking about a $1,800 or $3,000 camera, but a $10,000 camera!!! Assuming 4 or 5 professional grade lenses.

If you are comparing the DF to a D610 based on price and specs, buy the D610 (or the D800) and nobody has any cause to complain. If you appreciate what the DF was designed for and want full frame, it is the only game in town, Nikon is fully justified in charging $3,000 and nobody has any cause to complain. If you are upset that Nikon is upset about "spending precious resources" on the DF instead of your pet project (mirrorless full frame, D400 or whatever) then buy enough stock to get a seat on Nikon's board and vote for change or switch to Canon.

My two bits.

Jeff

shawnino

Yes, typo, I meant Df. Apologies.

D4 rocks and in my mind the sensor is but one of many reasons why it costs so much more. My suspicion is that while the sensor used to be very much alone-at-the-top, the D610 sensor has largely caught up (my original point)... but the D4's sturdy build, 10-11 fps on FX, and capacity for XQD remain untouched. (Well, until the D4s shows up Tuesday.)

shawnino

Jeff, you write: "[Df] is in a category of its own and is not designed to be evaluated and compared based on its specs (not to say that specs are not important). If you assign it a category and include other cameras in the same category (the Olympus OM-D perhaps), it is the best camera in its category..."

What category could we assign it?

WestEndBoy

Call it the "DF Category" if you like. But clearly it is a different category than Nikon and Canon's other DSLRs. The control layout "demands" a different approach to photography. If you try to operate a DF like you would a D800, I can imagine that would be very frustrating and vica versa.