Nikon Df General Discussion

donaldejose

I agree the 39 point focus module in the D600/D610 and Df is not as fast or as good as the 51 point focus module in the D4 and D800. I also agree the Df (D600/D610 included) would be better if Nikon had included the top-of-the-line focus module used in the D4. However, that doesn't necessarily mean you will not be able to use ISO 6400 to 12800 because the light will be too low to focus. You can be shooting at 1/500th or 1/640th second shutter speed to stop motion and need ISO 6400 when the light is still good enough for the 39 point focus module to easily focus.

Ade

… And the "Print" results are inconsistent with the sensor output results. If it is "normalized" Dynamic range should not change or at a minimum the increase shift should be equal no matter the sensor size (MP) and should not show an exponential shift as it does.

Why shouldn't the dynamic range change?

Dynamic range is essentially the difference between the noise floor ("black") and the maximum measurable intensity ("white"). Since downsampling reduces the noise floor, the dynamic range increases. DxO computes the DR function of a normalized sensor as:



where N is the resolution of the camera and N0 is the reference resolution. As the equation shows, normalized DR increases as resolution increases. The effect is small but measurable: for each doubling of resolution, the normalized DR increases by 0.5 bits.

donaldejose

PitchBlack: Actually, I have done so. I shot a full season of high school basketball in dimly lit gyms at ISO 3200 to ISO 6400, shutter speed around 1/400th second and f2.8. The D600 worked but the D800 was better due to two factors IMO: 1. The broader coverage of the AF area. and 2. The faster auto focusing. The D600 didn't fail to focus, it just took more time to do so. The D800 produced more keepers. But I wholeheartedly agree the D4 is the much better camera for low light action and would be the preferred choice over the Df. I do wish Nikon had put the D4 focusing module into the Df. Perhaps, a future version will get that module along with the Expeed 4 processor. Even then, the preferred choice for low light stop action shooting will be a D4. I do wish I could have one around for those few times I do such shooting. Most of the time I am shooing rather static subjects and desire the 24 or 26mp more than I desire blinding speed.

tc88

people think that Nikon is spouting marketing bs to justify charging double for the D4.

I followed the entire thread and don't remember reading anyone writing remotely what you claimed. It's either an issue of comprehension or some preconceived notion clouding your judgment. In either case, I don't see the point commenting further on the other stuff you wrote.

TTJ, here is what you wrote your last argument, bold is your own writing.

The Dynamic Range @6400 (higher Ev indicates better noise handling)
---Camera-----Ev Screen----Ev Print
- D3s ------9.25 ------9.56
- D4 ------9.21 ------9.73
- D800 ------8.07 ------9.1
This is the same with Tonal range and Color Sensitivity.

That means when the "Normalization" happens, COLOR IS ADDED = IMAGE IS CHANGED = LOSS OF ORIGINAL IMAGE as colors (which result in details) are replaced. THAT IS NOT "NORMALIZING" DATA that is changing it.

So your logic is "normalization -> DR/tone range increase -> color is added -> normalization is wrong". I explained to you that tone range increasing due to noise reduction just means you have finer color detail, because your last bit or so that was masked by noise is now detectable. So your color gets clearer. Nowhere does it indicate your red becomes brighter or darker, or some color is added.

This is as if you thought Pi is 3.14, and someone later told you a better value is 3.14159, and you argue Pi has changed which is clearly the wrong interpretation.

So my explanation clearly defeated your entire argument of "DR/tone range increase -> color is added -> normalization is wrong".

WestEndBoy

TC88, my comments are not based on what I have read in this single thread, but what I have read in all the threads that I have read everywhere and talked with numerous people about, which Nikon Rumours and all its threads are a SMAAAAAAAAAAALL part of.

tc88

jshickele, all right. Then don't relate what you read elsewhere with us then.

heartyfisher

Thanks all for your debate on this.. :-) in spite of the "personality clashes" i feel we have tweaked out a lot of information.
For me this is my take away.

One of the key differences of the DF is it has the D4 sensor.
Having the D4 sensor, it looks to me that to differentiate the Df from the D4 nikon has taken out the "Sports" functions : Highest shutter speed, fastest AF system, highest FPS. I think the baby that got thrown out(with the bathwater) was the lowest light AF capability. ie if they could separate that feature out they probably would have and kept it on the Df. ok i will try not cry over that weakness and move on. (sob!)

The factors between the Df/D4 sensor and the D600 and D800 seems to me to be
A) The MP - clearly the advantages of detail goes to the higher MP D600 and D800 especially at the lower ISO. Here is the most significant disadvantage of the Df. the D800's the ability to significantly crop is a huge advantage of the D800 that no camera can match.

High ISO
1) iso 100-400 - the D600/D800 is a better in DR. For me personaly it is a significant weakness on the Df. I get irked by losing details in highlights and shadows when I try to get them back in PP. But i am happy to live with that, you cant have everything :-).(its only about 0.5ev advantage at 200 iso (sob!))
2) ISO 800- 2000 - really no differences at all especially when normalisation is taken into account.
3) IS0 3200 - 6400 - Significant advantage to the Df/D4 if normalisation is not taken into account.
4) ISO 6400 - 25600 clear advantage to the Df/d4
5) above 25600 no contest. Df/D4

So it is clear to me that if you are low light shooter and love to work in ISO greater than 3200 the Df is by far the best value kit you can get. At low light high noise situations the high MP of the D800 is no advantage at all. For me personally the high ISO capability is the primary reason to get the Df. I am irked by the fact that they had to take out the best low light AF because they felt they needed to de"sport" it. but I am comfortable with manual focusing with a split prism focusing screen so for me that is probably not a big issue. The other factor of focus accuracy does not seem to be an issue as the Df/D600 is accurate enough once it finds lock(its the slower AF speed that is the issue).

The other bonus for me is of course all the manual dials especially the ISO dial !! man what a joy that will be to use! Of course I will need to use it to know but I can already imagine the simplicity of setting and knowing the ISO(etc) its been set at without the electronics being on.

For me another bonus of the Df/D4 sensor (that has not been discussed) is the very subjective and subtle quality of the tone of the colours.. I am not exactly sure what it is but to me there is a more "organic" tone to it that seems to make nature/people photos that little bit more relatable, intimate, sensual and inclusive.

moreorless

PitchBlack: Actually, I have done so. I shot a full season of high school basketball in dimly lit gyms at ISO 3200 to ISO 6400, shutter speed around 1/400th second and f2.8. The D600 worked but the D800 was better due to two factors IMO: 1. The broader coverage of the AF area. and 2. The faster auto focusing. The D600 didn't fail to focus, it just took more time to do so. The D800 produced more keepers. But I wholeheartedly agree the D4 is the much better camera for low light action and would be the preferred choice over the Df. I do wish Nikon had put the D4 focusing module into the Df. Perhaps, a future version will get that module along with the Expeed 4 processor. Even then, the preferred choice for low light stop action shooting will be a D4. I do wish I could have one around for those few times I do such shooting. Most of the time I am shooing rather static subjects and desire the 24 or 26mp more than I desire blinding speed.

Then they would have both a larger camera and one in much more direct competition with the D4 which would likely mean a higher price.

This clearly isn't an action camera(the grip obviously doesn't suit big lenses either) but that doesn't mean theres no use for higher ISO's, as I said according to DxO mark(yes the equalised stats!) the Df's advantage in dynamic range starts at ISO 400 and is close to its maximum of just under 1 stop by around ISO 1200.

Msmoto

I suspect we all have done our speculating on this thread….so, who has one of the Df bodies in hand? After all, the topic is about the Df, not the other bodies from Nikon. I think it may be prudent to attempt to look only at the Df, and in particular, relate the real life experiences of members on the forum.

From my experience with any camera I conclude in every case….the camera outperforms me every time. The argument about all the finite details may not be all that important until I can actually push the equipment to the wall.

donaldejose

True PitchBlack, all parts are known so we can make comparisons and we do have real world experience with all the parts, even with the old style bodies. Thus, I do think all the comparisons have validity. What we don't yet know is how much people will like or dislike the new (old) user interface. A few of us old folks remember using that type of user interface so we too can make comparisons from experience without having the Df body in hand.

I just dug out my old Nikon FE2 to see how it felt in my hands. Honestly (and surprisingly), I didn't like it anymore! Why? Too small, too many sharp corners, insufficient hand grip for one handed carry. My conclusion is that the modern ergonomics are so vastly superior I don't want to use anything else. I think that Df would feel too strange in my hands to switch between it and a D4, D800, D600, D7100, etc. If you have an old film era analogue dial Nikon around try it yourself and see if you would want to be switching back and forth. It is not just the dials, it is the whole shape of the body. Modern Nikons can be safely carried with the right hand, no neck strap attached, but the old ergonomics would make me go back to using a neck strap. I think those cameras were designed to hang from your neck, although I do remember using a few motor drives which did have sufficient hand grips for one handed carry. But it doesn't look like there will be a battery grip for the Df since I do not see any connection points on the bottom plate. While the Df does have a larger hand grip than found on the older film era bodies it still doesn't look sufficient to me for one handed carry.

Recently I have been shooting with two bodies in a bag with a 70-200 zoom on one and a 28-70 zoom on the other, no neck straps. I just grab the body with the focal length I want for the shot, shoot and put it back into the case. No neck straps to get in the way. If I have to move around a lot while shooting I will occasionally hang the two bodies from my neck with straps.

While I sure would like a D4 sensor at half the price (but definitely also with the D4 focus module) I don't see a Df in my future. Today's handling of a FE2 convinced me that I don't want to go back to the past. My fond memories must be far more rosy than was the actual reality!

heartyfisher

I have always loved shooting with 2 bodies. For me I think the Df is going to be one of those bodies. It just adds so much functionality to a non D4 based system. It would seem to me to work so well with just about any other nikon DSLR.

The following lists an existing system and the effect of adding a Df to it.
1) D4 : Df adds a smaller lighter camera to the system. Images will be exactly the same in Tone, DR, etc.
2) D800 : Df covers the weakness of the D800 in the High ISO and adds slightly faster FPS.
3) D600/D610 : Df covers for the highest ISO. (Hmm not much else .. ? )
4) D7100 : The D7100 gives the system extra reach and focus speed. The DF extends the High Iso capability by a huge amount ! having a dual DX FX system doubles the functionality of the lenses.
5) Nikon1 V1/2/3 or AW1 : dual CX/FX system has even more reach if non CX lenses are used on the CX body. Adds High ISO capability, DOF. Adds CLS capability. The total system becomes very flexible and covers the most functionality.

moreorless

I just dug out my old Nikon FE2 to see how it felt in my hands. Honestly (and surprisingly), I didn't like it anymore! Why? Too small, too many sharp corners, insufficient hand grip for one handed carry. My conclusion is that the modern ergonomics are so vastly superior I don't want to use anything else. - See more at: http://forum.nikonrumors.com/discussion/1826/nikon-df-general-discussion/p10#sthash.tKQhzL7P.dpuf

While the looks are similar to an FM2/FE2 the ergonomics are not really, the Df is larger and has a rounded grip albeit not as large as other current FX camera's.

donaldejose

I realise the differences. However, it won't be like holding a D800 or D4. I think it still will have a significant difference as I explained.

moreorless

I'd say it depends on the lens your using, its definitely not going to be as easy to hold with a big zoom but I don't think that's the intended market.

heartyfisher

good point .. so lets discuss what would be the bests lens to go with the Df, .. I would think a prime like the 24mm or 28 or 35 would be a great pairing for the Df. or even the manual focus nikkor pancake 45mm..

spraynpray

Personally, If I had to choose a prime lens over a wide to normal zoom, I'd go 35mm on FX or 24mm on DX.

spraynpray

Of course PitchBlack, my point was that in my opinion, the DF is not a 'job' camera (perhaps I am wrong) I think it is a 'time off' camera so in the spirit of 'simple' (or 'pure'), if I had to choose one lens and not a bagful, it would be the 35mm. Their 50mm f1.8 looks great on that body, so a 35 just like it - perhaps with the IQ of the Sigma - would be great.

Msmoto

I believe I suggested this before, but for those of us who are chronologically more mature, i.e., the geriatric set, we remember the Speed Graphic 4"x5" camera which had a 135mm "normal" lens. By using the same diagonal to focal length ratio, 0.94 x diagonal is “normal” based upon this ratio. Thus a "normal" for full frame is 40mm. And, on my full frame, the Sigma 35mm is a nice prime.

In my opinion, as we develop in photography, expand our experiences, we tend to have a more fixed idea how to shoot any particular venue. I find 10.5mm to 800mm a good range….LOL. But, my subject determines the lens used for a specific job.

Interestingly enough, I will place a prime on the body and go shoot whatever I find with the one lens. And, I do this even with the fisheye. My Nikkor lenses from the 1960's were 24, 35, 85, 300mm. Thus, for me, the new Df would work in the "nostalgic mode", when fitted with one of the focal lengths I had used in the past. Mmm… I guess this means I have to get a 300mm f/2.8 now, huh?

heartyfisher

Yeah .. i loved my 40mm FOV on my old olympus pen ... got a bit spoilt by that in my formative years.. all 50mm seem too long now and 35 too wide .. sigh.. ..

donaldejose

If I had a Df I probably would use it with the range from 35 to 150mm because anything larger would be too big and unbalance the body. The "pro" zooms commonly used today would be far to large for the Df IMO. I like the idea of a two lens set-up for walk around or travel photography. One of the two lenses would be a 28,35, or 50mm prime depending upon personal preference (and I would zoom with my feet for composition). The other lens would be a lightweight moderate zoom like the old Nikon Series E 75-150 f3.5 zoom. If I wanted AF I would look for something like the old Nikon 80-200 4.5-5.6 D Af lens. I would keep the prime on the camera hanging around my neck and the zoom in a jacket pocket or in a very small fanny pack (worn backwards with the pouch in front for quick access to grab a lens and store the one just taken off the camera). Probably 80% of the time I would use only the prime but I would want quick access to a zoom for taking a portrait style photo or in a situation where I just couldn't walk any closer to the subject. Another possibility would be to skip the zoom and carry a very lightweight moderate tele such as the old manual focus 100mm f2.8. But that is just my "style." Others would equip the Df with lenses which best fit their own style for the use they are putting the camera to at the time.

Golf007sd

The more I have been thinking about the Df, the more I can see myself buying one.

The Df body, with it's neat retro look and feel is a very functional camera. I'm willing to gamble that if this body was put in one of our hands, we would be able to produce outstanding results. The "we" are those pro-active member...hence you are not a novice.

The Df is designed to allow the shooter (me) a great amount of flexibility in its use. It's lighter weight and size is key and a huge bonus. The D4 sensor is the icing on the cake...for me.

Like msmoto hinted at, slap on a nice 24-85mm prime and go to town. Why carry around my bulky D4 at a party (like our NRF dinner in Colorado) when this new bad boy will do the job and not take up so much real-estate on the table or my neck. There have been many time when I've wanted to go out and see the world...be it for street, landscape or architecture photography, but was not feeling up to caring around my full size DSLR bodies. Hello Df. With it, I can see myself just grab this baby, two primes and off I go.

The Df is for those photographer who's skill and passion for photography is at a level where they want great image quality in a "small box." Individual like me, that have allocated good amount of capital towards gear, are not shocked by its asking price either. Those that are, do not see this body in the same light as I do. Thus, the Df, in my hands, will be far more appreciated than those just getting it as their first D-SLR body. In fact, I would not recommend this body to a person that does not have a good knowledge base on digital photography. That is what a DX bodies is for.

Lastly, I would not want to mount 70-200/300/400 2.8 lens one it, much rather use my D4 given its body architecture.

The Df allows me to fill a gap that I have found missing in my gear, so for that, thank you Nikon.

For now I'm just waiting to read some more hands-on reviews, before I hit the buy button on it and the 58 1.4.

Symphotic

....My Nikkor lenses from the 1960's were 24, 35, 85, 300mm....

My old Minolta CLE came with a 40 mm lens, and my travel F2 always had a 35 mm lens on it.

If I buy the Df (I might pick one up in Japan in early December) it will put my F2's 35 or 24 on it, and like donaldejose, I would carry a second lens, but probably not a zoom. I've got a beautiful 135 f/2.8 I can use.

Before I buy I really want to see what manual focus is like on the Df, as I am not too keen on how it works on the D800.

donaldejose

The old 135 f2.8 would make a great second lens. It works well for portraits, especially street portraiture, when you want to keep as much distance from your subject as possible.

sevencrossing

I think Nikon has hit a winner, there must be thousands if not millions of AI lenses out there . If every one who owns one, buys a Df for them. Nikons financial woes are over

donaldejose

Yes, but many of the old lenses which will match the looks of the Df will be manual focus lenses and people may get tired of focusing themselves. But then, that it the "pure" way to do it, isn' it? Yet, many of us old timers will have trouble with eyesight and will not be the best manual focusers. I assume there will some sort of "in focus" indicator in the bottom of the viewfinder to assist with manual focus.