Nikon Df. Pure photography vs. a million dials and buttons.

[AlfSollund]

I had the pleasure of reading Ming Thein on "The importance of hapatics and tactility". He basically makes the same conclusions as have posted earlier in this thread. I lot of the Df naysayers fall in the category "I have rejected before trying" in the sense that they reject tactile handling without ever having tried.

http://blog.mingthein.com/2013/03/27/film-diaries-hapatics-1/
http://blog.mingthein.com/2013/03/29/film-diaries-hapatics-2/

"It seems that photographers fall roughly into two camps these days – those who care about feel, and those who don’t. Often, the latter simply don’t know any better because they’ve never had the opportunity to handle some really solid equipment, which is a shame, considering how much more accessible say a regular F2 is now than when it was first launched. Even more interesting is that a lot of the former vitriol-throwers change their minds after handling the Hasselblad Lunar in the flesh; it’s clear that the designer (re-designer?) understood the importance of tactility – even if we might disagree with some of the aesthetic choices, and the price point".

[Christoph C. Feldhaim]

I just returned from my dealer and they say they have a whole lot of people
pre-ordering the camera, more than at many other camera launches they have had.
And they said the majority are people with a lot of old Nikon glass in their shelves.
Just FYI ...

[Rob C]

I just returned from my dealer and they say they have a whole lot of people
pre-ordering the camera, more than at many other camera launches they have had.
And they said the majority are people with a lot of old Nikon glass in their shelves.
Just FYI ...

I wonder why? It's not as if the D700 or similar precluded the use of old Nikkors. All of mine, bar one, are just that, and I'm more than happy to have made that choice.

Regarding the F and F2: working both for long periods at a time, the F2's slightly more rounded edges made for a less painful day. About the only other difference I can remember is that the F2 went up to 1/2000th against the F's 1/1000. Big deal. But the thing is, those cameras just let you feel on top of your game.

Psychology might not make the world go round, but it sure makes us tick!

Rob C

[Vladimirovich]

I had the pleasure of reading Ming Thein on "The importance of hapatics and tactility". He basically makes the same conclusions as have posted earlier in this thread. I lot of the Df naysayers fall in the category "I have rejected before trying" in the sense that they reject tactile handling without ever having tried.

your (and his) logical error it that people can appreciate tactile handling and yet appreciate that in a regular modern dSLR design, instead of retro kitsch...

[TMARK]

Its funny that many people who rejected the Df do so because the perceioved "retro" look, as if they are above marketing, when that rejection is based entirely on its looks. And lack of video. 

In doing market research we never just take the pulse of a market through forums.  We interview actual human beings who tend to be more human than their On-Line personae.

[Christoph C. Feldhaim]

Its funny that many people who rejected the Df do so because the perceioved "retro" look, as if they are above marketing, when that rejection is based entirely on its looks. And lack of video. 

In doing market research we never just take the pulse of a market through forums.  We interview actual human beings who tend to be more human than their On-Line personae.

My main critique is the price per function.
I'd not pay that premium for design - though I actually like the design and the look.

[TMARK]

Yeah, that too. 

My main critique is the price per function.
I'd not pay that premium for design - though I actually like the design and the look.

[Rob C]

Well, T, you had the F-range old Nikons too; none of them had a top-plate nor, for that matter, front anything like this new thing.

I never found myself getting into difficulties with swapping settings, perhaps because I never did use those + or - options because eventually doing mostly transparencies, it was all Invercone and, later, Minolta Flash Meter. Frankly, looking at the snaps of this latest offering, it looks even more intimidating than the electrical cameras. If anything, I think it's a design decision based not on successful retro (as in simplifying to really basic needs) but more a matter of creating what might be thought of as a 'complicated' camera that, to the inexperienced, means a better camera and, by extension, suggests the owner is a pretty damned good snapper to be able to understand it. In other words, a new opportunity for photographers to indulge in some showing off.

My F4s had the huge advantage of that built-in diopter correction wheel; best new thing to come along in years. Other than that, it was too heavy and the self-loading sucked, almost at every attempt. In short, it was the first computer-on-a-neck-strap I ever experienced. Come to think of it, my existing/surviving F3 isn't as beautiful or solid-feeling as the models it replaced...

I guess as Cooter suggests, the digital F or FM2 ain't gonna come calling any time soon. Worst luck.

;-)

Rob C

[Christoph C. Feldhaim]

I guess as Cooter suggests, the digital F or FM2 ain't gonna come calling any time soon. Worst luck.

I'm not entirely sure we will ever see that.
My impression is, that on the long run DSLRs are going to diminish even further -
the speed of this will depend on the development of the EVFs.
There are still many reasons to stick with OVFs, but I believe technical development will
at some point make them obsolete - and development is going fast

Cheers
~Chris

[BJL]

Its funny that many people who rejected the Df do so because the perceioved "retro" look, as if they are above marketing, when that rejection is based entirely on its looks. And lack of video.

The main complaints I see are about retrogressions in functionality and ergonomics, not retro looks. Meaning dials piled two-deep plus locking buttons that have to be held down while operating some of them, seemingly involving holding the camera down away from the eye and using two hands --- as if the abandonment of that old approach in favor of the common modern approach was due to some vast evil conspiracy against photographers, instead of being the natural consequence of expanded technological possibilities when settings no longer have to act through direct mechanical linkages. (I could also count the decision to omit video as a pointless retrogression in functionality, given that it could clearly be supported at a very minor extra cost and with no more added complexity than a fifth position on the mode dial.)

[ErikKaffehr]

Hi,

I would say it is interesting that Sony does. They have taken a normal DSLR and replaced the moving mirror with a pelicular one for AF and an electronic viewfinder. The next step is hybrid AF on sensor, so they can remove the pelicular mirror.

I guess that we are going to see similar models from Nikon and Canon. In the long run there are some advantages with a new system for mirrorless, but new technology can be introduced in an existing product line.

Best regards
Erik

I'm not entirely sure we will ever see that.
My impression is, that on the long run DSLRs are going to diminish even further -
the speed of this will depend on the development of the EVFs.
There are still many reasons to stick with OVFs, but I believe technical development will
at some point make them obsolete - and development is going fast

Cheers
~Chris

[Rob C]

I am no more a Nikon Company mind-reader than the next guy, but if the idea of 'retro' is to reduce to a focussed, minimalistic camera functionality, why on Earth would anyone expect video to be incorporated? That's the whole idea, to get away from the one-box-does-all mindset; to return to a time when all you wanted was what you needed: a stills box that did you proud, that allowed you to work as you felt like working, that had everything visible and under instant control.

Crying tears of anguish because some toy (video) is removed from the chest doesn't strike me as any love for pure photography at all, and those who feel that they prefer all the bells and whistles and even hope for a further pair of swinging tassles to be added to the thing simply miss the point: the camera some of us had hoped for wasn't meant for you, wasn't ever going to be forced upon you; your present toys were not going to be confiscated nor made more difficult to collect!

To those of us who do like simplicity and a basic, uncluttered functionality in the tools we use, this has not been a clever day.

Rob C

[BernardLanguillier]

I believe that many of us are a lot more influenced by the tactile and sound aspects of a human machine interaction than we realize or are willing to admit.

I believe a non insignificant pourcentage of Df buyers will make up their mind after having put their hands on the camera. This isn't a body that sells online well nor should it pre-order in huge numbers (although it seemd to be doing pretty well). This is IMHO an in store play and buy item.

Cheers,
Bernard

[TMARK]

These are perceived ergonomic short comings because few have handled it. There are few previews. I'm not saying it's great, it may be awful. I'm saying no one really knows enough to pronounce The End of Nikon.

The main complaints I see are about retrogressions in functionality and ergonomics, not retro looks. Meaning dials piled two-deep plus locking buttons that have to be held down while operating some of them, seemingly involving holding the camera down away from the eye and using two hands --- as if the abandonment of that old approach in favor of the common modern approach was due to some vast evil conspiracy against photographers, instead of being the natural consequence of expanded technological possibilities when settings no longer have to act through direct mechanical linkages. (I could also count the decision to omit video as a pointless retrogression in functionality, given that it could clearly be supported at a very minor extra cost and with no more added complexity than a fifth position on the mode dial.)

[BJL]

These are perceived ergonomic short comings because few have handled it. There are few previews. I'm not saying it's great, it may be awful. I'm saying no one really knows enough to pronounce The End of Nikon.

We could debate whether they really are shortcomings, or whether different ergonomic approaches are rationally preferred by different people (I much prefer the idea of adjusting exposure compensation or shutter speed with my right thumb via the rear dial while keeping the camera to my eye, index finger ready on the shutter and left hand fingers ready on the focus dial, over the Df approach of moving one hand to those dials on the top-left) but my point was only that the main criticisms are based on ergonomics, not due to "the perceived 'retro' look".

P. S. I am certainly not predicting "The End of Nikon", only forum trolls are. The Df seems to be attracting enough interest that it could well be a good decision from the marketing, revenue and profit perspective. I am just skeptical (note, not "cynical") that it will improve photography, or make it more "pure", for anyone who is already experienced with the modern control styles made possible by the addition of electronic interfaces to cameras.

P. P. S. One of the appeals sometimes mentioned of old SLR designs was their ability to work without a battery. That is clearly not relevant here, but in a certain other forum some "photographic Bourbons" were fantasizing that the "digital FM2” would somehow achieve that, like a self-winding watch.

[Rob C]

P. P. S. One of the appeals sometimes mentioned of old SLR designs was their ability to work without a battery. That is clearly not relevant here, but in a certain other forum some "photographic Bourbons" were fantasizing that the "digital FM2” would somehow achieve that, like a self-winding watch.

Non-electrical digital... are you sure these are photographic forumes to which you refer?

Amazing concept. The ultimate hybrid, then: works off mechanics and air.

Rob C

[TMARK]

I get this and you certainly aren't a troll.  I didn't mean to imply that were a troll etc.

My point is that, until we hold one in our hot little hands, we won't know if it will work for us.  I broke out the F4, which has a busy layout of knobs and switches, many with locks.  I find, and always found, the ergos to be good.  Then again, I shot that camera beginning in 1990 or so.  I found the F5 with the control dials to be better.  In fact, I have not used a camera with better feel and ergos than the F5.

I hope its great, but for the real deal I have my M9s. 

As to exposure compensation, I'm a simpleton.  I usually use Aperture priority, with almost every camera I own that supports it.  If I have lenses with an aperture ring, I'll lock exposure with the shutter release and stop down/open up the lens.  I've only used the dedicated dials etc in extreme situations, like a snowy field.  In that case, I set it and forget it until I'm away from the snow.  I think in practice the F5 and later pro slr/dslrs are fine, except for the focusing screen. 

We could debate whether they really are shortcomings, or whether different ergonomic approaches are rationally preferred by different people (I much prefer the idea of adjusting exposure compensation or shutter speed with my right thumb via the rear dial while keeping the camera to my eye, index finger ready on the shutter and left hand fingers ready on the focus dial, over the Df approach of moving one hand to those dials on the top-left) but my point was only that the main criticisms are based on ergonomics, not due to "the perceived 'retro' look".

P. S. I am certainly not predicting "The End of Nikon", only forum trolls are. The Df seems to be attracting enough interest that it could well be a good decision from the marketing, revenue and profit perspective. I am just skeptical (note, not "cynical") that it will improve photography, or make it more "pure", for anyone who is already experienced with the modern control styles made possible by the addition of electronic interfaces to cameras.

P. P. S. One of the appeals sometimes mentioned of old SLR designs was their ability to work without a battery. That is clearly not relevant here, but in a certain other forum some "photographic Bourbons" were fantasizing that the "digital FM2” would somehow achieve that, like a self-winding watch.

[Isaac]

I would say it is interesting that Sony does. They have taken a normal DSLR and replaced the moving mirror with a pelicular one for AF and an electronic viewfinder. The next step is hybrid AF on sensor, so they can remove the pelicular mirror.

Yes, I think it helps to understand current camera technology as transitional --

That's the "technical limitation" that Sony has to deal with on their SLT,

• A given amount of time (1/24, 130, even 1/60 sec)
• A given lens communication protocol (Minolta, from the 1980s, where no one thought of using this stuff for video)
• A given motor and gear configuration (again, Minolta, from the 1980s)

...

We're in the "horseless carriage" days. Many years ago, when gas, diesel, and steam motors just started to be practical, carriage companies started fitting their carriages with them, making "horseless carriages". Eventually, they gave way to people who made "cars", vehicles "purpose built" to be powered transportation, instead of adapter to it.

SLT is one of the horseless carriages. The car, in this case, is EVIL. The pieces are just starting to come together. Oly and Samsung pioneered the format, and started reaping the advantages, in compact, high performance lenses. Sony followed suit with NEX, a pretty refined system which really pushed the limits on the EVF. Fuji and Nikon built hybrid sensors that could do PDAF without diverting light to a second AF sensor. All those things will get better, and the SLT and SLR will eventually die off.

Does E-mount provide many more possibilities for camera and lens design than the old A-mount?

[BJL]

I get this and you certainly aren't a troll.  I didn't mean to imply that were a troll etc.

No worries; that is not what I meant! I was just alluding to my frustration that so often, a legitimate variety of opinions (such as yours and mine, I like to think) get polluted by extremist nonsense, and people (including me) get lured into reacting to that rather than discussing the stuff that is actually worth discussing.

[Vladimirovich]

These are perceived ergonomic short comings because few have handled it.

and exactly the opposite - a perceived ergonomic advantage because of that...