Luminous Landscape Forum
Equipment & Techniques => Cameras, Lenses and Shooting gear => Topic started by: PhotoEcosse on November 05, 2013, 04:59:20 am
-
Despite the predictions of the pundits, I suspect not. But it could make a bit of a dent in the Leica market, especially for the "street photographer".
Now that the Df has been announced, some of those same pundits are complaining about it "only" having the sensor of the D4 and about it having no movie mode. Also, of course, the price.
But how many of us ever use movie mode? (5% perhaps?). And who have you heard complaining about the image quality from the D4? And, although the Nikon launch price may seem high compared to their D800 (which is a very different beast anyway), it is a damn sight cheaper than a Leics M (also a different beast but for comparable purposes).
I'll not make any predictions but it could be interesting. (And, what will it do to the Sony 7R?)
-
Its a totally different camera than the Leica. A bit of Retro User Interface doesn't change that.
-
No.
-
Not even close.
People shoot the M for a variety of reasons some of which are the rangefinder experience, the lenses, the simplicity of the system, the prestigious brand name, etc.
None of these is being challenged by the Nikon Df.
-
I think the Df is the answer for guy (like me), who are tired of paying additional premiums for new cameras that have video incorporated, even if I/they have no interest in doing video. I'm a Canon guy, and I'd dearly love a 1Dx WITHOUT video. The so-called melding of still and video is, I believe, overhyped. Sure, many pro photographers may have a secret hankering to be the next great film director, but at this stage, I'm not one. (I actually started my semi-professional life more than 30-years ago as a cinematographer and morphed into still -- and was happier. I even won an Honorable Mention in Kodak's Amateur Film contest many, many moons ago.)
I think there's a strong market out there for still, and still only. Kudos to Nikon.
Nemo
-
I think the Df is the answer for guy (like me), who are tired of paying additional premiums for new cameras that have video incorporated
Trouble is, with the Df you're paying a premium to not have video. Get a D600 for substantially less money, and just don't use the video option. Now, if it was priced less than the D600/610, or even at the same price point, I'd seriously look at it. Herein the UK, the price is ridiculous, considerably more than for a D800.
-
I think the Df is the answer for guy (like me), who are tired of paying additional premiums for new cameras that have video incorporated, even if I/they have no interest in doing video. I'm a Canon guy, and I'd dearly love a 1Dx WITHOUT video. The so-called melding of still and video is, I believe, overhyped. Sure, many pro photographers may have a secret hankering to be the next great film director, but at this stage, I'm not one. (I actually started my semi-professional life more than 30-years ago as a cinematographer and morphed into still -- and was happier. I even won an Honorable Mention in Kodak's Amateur Film contest many, many moons ago.)
I think there's a strong market out there for still, and still only. Kudos to Nikon.
Nemo
Hardware-wise, video comes for free when LiveView is implemented.
Obviously, there is development expense for the firmware and testing.
John
-
Having no video on the Df is a pretentious, pseudo-retro "less is more" marketing gimmick; it has live view (which is silent video) and uses the same sensor and processing chip as the video-capable D4. Indeed, developing and manufacturing a special CMOS sensor without video capability would be a major additional cost. The only extra costs needed to add video would be (a) adding a fifth position the mode dial after M, A, S, and P (the shutter release could be used to activate video) and (b) a microphone (or perhaps even that could be omitted, offering retro-purists the chic of only making silent movies).
How much would this have added to the cost? Since cheap compact digital cameras costing a tiny fraction as much as the Df have video, clearly not a significant amount. It might actually reduce the retail price, by adding a few customers lost by the lack of video, and thus improving the economies of scale.
-
I agree with you, but for some reason there are guys (and I assume they are guys) who are OFFENDED with video in a still camera. I don't get the objection to the IDEA of video capability, especially since, physically, video adds only a mode switch position and a red LV button.
Having no video on the Df is a pretentious, pseudo-retro "less is more" marketing gimmick; it has live view (which is silent video) and uses the same sensor and processing chip as the video-capable D4. Indeed, developing and manufacturing a special CMOS sensor without video capability would be a major additional cost. The only extra costs needed to add video would be (a) adding a fifth position the mode dial after M, A, S, and P (the shutter release could be used to activate video) and (b) a microphone (or perhaps even that could be omitted, offering retro-purists the chic of only making silent movies).
How much would this have added to the cost? Since cheap compact digital cameras costing a tiny fraction as much as the Df have video, clearly not a significant amount. It might actually reduce the retail price, by adding a few customers lost by the lack of video, and thus improving the economies of scale.
-
Absolutely, just like the Nikon F killed the Leica M3. :D
-
Absolutely, just like the Nikon F killed the Leica M3. :D
Excellent point
-
DPR is suggesting that one reason for not including video, aside from the retrogrouch appeal, is that the battery is too small to support video. Or, it could be the other way around ("Since we aren't including video, let's use a smaller battery, which allows the grip to be smaller and more F like.").
I'm not a Nikon guy, but if Canon had a similar camera, I might have considered it. Not for any serious reason, but just because I think it looks fun.
-
If only there were a pink Swarovski version ....
-
Hardware-wise, video comes for free when LiveView is implemented.
Obviously, there is development expense for the firmware and testing.
John
Actually, not true. My 1Ds Mark III has perfectly capabale LiveView... but no video. There'a a lot more to incorporating video than just have LiveView and firmware. Would I pay a "premium" for a 1Dx without video? Would pay, say $5000 for a near bullet proof camera, rather than the $6700 I shelled out? Absolutely. I can do a lot with that "extra" $1700. Could they give me the same for even $4500 or $4000? Most likely. Adding pro video capabilities to a camera body adds to the cost. I still like the idea of the Df - retro look or not. It has a premium focus system and premium chip.
-
In regards to the sIII, it was released before they started with video in the 5d2. I don't know if there are added costs for video in a LV DSLR, and if so how much, but I suspect it is a rounding error in terms of cost unless there is a hardware difference.
Actually, not true. My 1Ds Mark III has perfectly capabale LiveView... but no video. There'a a lot more to incorporating video than just have LiveView and firmware. Would I pay a "premium" for a 1Dx without video? Would pay, say $5000 for a near bullet proof camera, rather than the $6700 I shelled out? Absolutely. I can do a lot with that "extra" $1700. Could they give me the same for even $4500 or $4000? Most likely. Adding pro video capabilities to a camera body adds to the cost. I still like the idea of the Df - retro look or not. It has a premium focus system and premium chip.
-
I think once the LV and video codecs for a particular sensor are written in the processor, the only thing to add in a new camera is the video button.
Funny enough, not having video in the Df is a gimmick. Or kind of silly as Fstoppers said it.
The tactile controls are always nice to have if done right. In the Df they don't look well implemented.
I find the chrome version extremely bright and colorless and without a patina to be hideous.
Sorry Nikon, nice try but missed it.
Eduardo
In regards to the sIII, it was released before they started with video in the 5d2. I don't know if there are added costs for video in a LV DSLR, and if so how much, but I suspect it is a rounding error in terms of cost unless there is a hardware difference.
-
Actually, not true. My 1Ds Mark III has perfectly capabale LiveView... but no video. There'a a lot more to incorporating video than just have LiveView and firmware. Would I pay a "premium" for a 1Dx without video? Would pay, say $5000 for a near bullet proof camera, rather than the $6700 I shelled out? Absolutely. I can do a lot with that "extra" $1700. Could they give me the same for even $4500 or $4000? Most likely. Adding pro video capabilities to a camera body adds to the cost. I still like the idea of the Df - retro look or not. It has a premium focus system and premium chip.
Excepting audio , please help me understand what else would be needed besides firmware and testing?
(Just because the 1Ds3 did not have it is not proof that it could not have been done.)
-
I guess there is no value to nikon (and others) to simply make a minimalist camera (no video, only the knobs and menus you need) that has a modern design which represents evolution based on the things learned over the years. I find the retro styled cameras targeted more at hipsters than anyone else. I do appreciate old design that works, but it needs to be something that's can't be improved upon in a meaningful way.
I would not be surprised if nikon included a leather jacket, scarf and matching hat sold as the limited edition "hipster kit" with this camera.
-
My 1Ds Mark III has perfectly capabale LiveView... but no video. There'a a lot more to incorporating video than just have LiveView and firmware.
The firmware and such had not been developed for video in the 1DsIII back when it was announced back in August 2007, or for any other DSLR: the D90 was the first DSLR with video, a year later.
But the firmware for video support has now been developed, and specifically it exists for the sensor and processor combination in the Df, because both are the same as in the D4.
-
A word on marketing and Hipsters: The target market is not "Hipsters". In fact, there is no clearly delineated market for "Hipster". The reality is that "Hipster" covers lots of ground: age group 16 - 70, income $0 - Unlimited, ethnicity ALL, gender ALL. If your neighbor recycles s/he may be a Hipster. If you vote Social Democratic you may very well be a Hipster. If you wear a 20's costume EVERYDAY you are a Hipster. Steve Jobs was a Hipster. So is the bartender who dresses like an extra from Boardwalk Empire. Its more a set of attitudes than anything else. Now that I'm done with my rant, I feel better.
Its too busy to be retro. Its busier than an F4. The top LCD looks like it was dropped there with no concern to what is around it. The multiple stacked dials are too big. The viewfinder is too small and no split prism. I thought I knew who this camera is for, but now I don't.
I guess there is no value to nikon (and others) to simply make a minimalist camera (no video, only the knobs and menus you need) that has a modern design which represents evolution based on the things learned over the years. I find the retro styled cameras targeted more at hipsters than anyone else. I do appreciate old design that works, but it needs to be something that's can't be improved upon in a meaningful way.
I would not be surprised if nikon included a leather jacket, scarf and matching hat sold as the limited edition "hipster kit" with this camera.
-
Hi,
Keeping two separate firmware versions, one supporting video and the other not must be more expensing than maintaining one version.
Best regards
Erik
The firmware and such had not been developed for video in the 1DsIII back when it was announced back in August 2007, or for any other DSLR: the D90 was the first DSLR with video, a year later.
But the firmware for video support has now been developed, and specifically it exists for the sensor and processor combination in the Df, because both are the same as in the D4.
-
I feel that the retro looks of modern digital cameras make them look like they are wearing Halloween costumes. I'm all for simplicity and "back to the basics" controls, having started photography in the film era. However, there's something about this "costume" feel which bothers me, be it Nikon or Fuji or Olympus. And I cannot explain exactly what. Leica is the only one which looks rather organic.
-
I like the Fujis, they are functional and mostly well laid out. They have lots of innovation underneath a proven form factor. The XPro is nice, as is the X100s, if it were in black.
I think the Df's industrial design is the real problem.
I feel that the retro looks of modern digital cameras make them look like they are wearing Halloween costumes. I'm all for simplicity and "back to the basics" controls, having started photography in the film era. However, there's something about this "costume" feel which bothers me, be it Nikon or Fuji or Olympus. And I cannot explain exactly what. Leica is the only one which looks rather organic.
-
A word on marketing and Hipsters: The target market is not "Hipsters". In fact, there is no clearly delineated market for "Hipster". The reality is that "Hipster" covers lots of ground: age group 16 - 70, income $0 - Unlimited, ethnicity ALL, gender ALL. If your neighbor recycles s/he may be a Hipster. If you vote Social Democratic you may very well be a Hipster. If you wear a 20's costume EVERYDAY you are a Hipster. Steve Jobs was a Hipster. So is the bartender who dresses like an extra from Boardwalk Empire. Its more a set of attitudes than anything else. Now that I'm done with my rant, I feel better.
You tell them... LOL ;D
-
If anyone buys a NIKON Df and gets sick of it, just send it to me, I will give it a loving home.
NIKON, thanks again, if you can't sell them send them to me. I will love them all...
-
Hi,
Keeping two separate firmware versions, one supporting video and the other not must be more expensing than maintaining one version.
Best regards
Erik
As Adobe shows us - keeping ACR supporting or not certain features based on which PS versions is calling ACR is not a big deal... you just put some if then else in your code to hide video related items from menu ::)
-
I'm a Canon guy since 1980, but I really like the retro look of this new Nikon.
My cameras were: Asahi Pentax, Pentax SV, and Canon A-1, so this one looks like a "real" camera to an older fart like me.
If it doesn't have a prism bump, it's not a 35 mm camera. :D
I think the retro look will sell - isn't that what's it's all about for the manufacturer?
Glenn
What a Leica?
-
Seeing all this Retro discussion I start missing my Mamiya Press - a camera you don't have to care for when it falls on your foot - you'd have to take care of the foot instead ...
-
This must be the only great DSLR to come from Nikon in terms of handling except for lack of decent MF. It looks like it even best the M in terms of layout and perhaps handling. But for me this camera is at least 5 years to late. Also its just Nikon lenses, not Leica, so Leica is not to worry.
Also, Nikon is now associated with advanced DSLRs based on a certain design. I would say one that effectively disables the fun of photography. Its very hard to change this except of they scarp all models except Df.
-
Yeah, crippling software is no big deal. What I say is that maintaing two different versions is expensive. Having one software and crippling it several ways is a cheap trick. Cheap and trick.
Best regards
Erik
As Adobe shows us - keeping ACR supporting or not certain features based on which PS versions is calling ACR is not a big deal... you just put some if then else in your code to hide video related items from menu ::)
-
My first Canon SLR, purchased in 1970, looked a lot like that. It was a good look for its time, but this should be an era of looking forward, not back.
-
Absolutely, just like the Nikon F killed the Leica M3. :D
I was there at the time Leica's professional music died.
My last employer’s 35mm arsenal (1965!) included several Leicas, one of them an M3. He also had a Nikon F and several lenses for both systems. The only use the M3 ended up getting was with a 21mm that we used to shoot room sets up at the BBC tv studios in Glasgow. Everything else that required the format was given over to Nikon, with most of the rest done with Mamiya, Rolleiflex TLR and Sinar. He eventually sold the M3 to an ex-assistant for old times’ sake.
In the wider world, Leica lost its laurels to Nikon when the Leicas being serviced during the Korean episode were replaced by temporary Nikons that surprised the editors back in the States (a song in there, somewhere?) by permitting better-quality reproduction in the press, presumably because of different lens design parameters. From then on, Leica slipped into the grasp of the wealthy amateur and hasn’t really had much of a professional comeback since.
I could easily have bought Leicas of either body type in my working days; I never did because the rangefinders were simply too vague regarding actual coverage of the scene in a world where getting the last ounce out of real estate was essential - cropping was for farmers. The reflex Leicas always seemed to be a few years behind everybody else, and their screens never showed 100% as the Nikon F did. They failed the first, crucial test of WYSIWYG.
Again, today as sometimes in the past, price is no definitive guide to value.
Rob C
-
Yeah, crippling software is no big deal. What I say is that maintaing two different versions is expensive. Having one software and crippling it several ways is a cheap trick. Cheap and trick.
I almost wonder if there could be a "Magic Lantern" firmware hack to enable (silent) video!
-
Seeing all this Retro discussion I start missing my Mamiya Press - a camera you don't have to care for when it falls on your foot - you'd have to take care of the foot instead ...
Great camera
-
Are you kidding OP? DF has nothing in common with a M. I can't understand why you would even bring up this topic.
If Nikon, Canon or Fuji make a frue Leica knockoff that took Leica glass and had a FF 28 to 36 mp sensor and sold for $3000...OK, then Leica may be heading for the graveyard.
I for one would buy 2 or 3 of such rangefinders. I've given up on Leica myself. They are nothing but a rich man's plaything to fondle. They are no longer a working photojournalists cam.
-
Great camera
Yeah - But I have fallen in love with the 7 II .... stellar glass, lightweight, awesome IQ ....
If they'd make a digital equivalent I'd be in .... like a 60 MP large sensor version of the X-Pro 1
-
Absolutely, just like the Nikon F killed the Leica M3. :D
Actually, for those of us who were shooting in the 50s, early 60s, particularly reportage, the F was the first camera that offered a reasonably alternative to the M3 by giving us a longer range of lenses; we were no longer limited to the excellent but extremely cumbersome Elmarit 135/2.8 with its goggles. IIRC, my first Nikon purchase was an F and a 180/2.8 and a 300, but these were adjuncts to my Leicas, not replacements.
-
Actually, for those of us who were shooting in the 50s, early 60s, particularly reportage, the F was the first camera that offered a reasonable alternative to the M3 by giving us a longer range of lenses; we were no longer limited to the excellent but extremely cumbersome Elmarit 135/2.8 with its goggles. IIRC, my first Nikon purchase was an F and a 180/2.8 and a 300, but these were adjuncts to my Leicas, not replacements.
Somewhere in the house I have a book containing a photo of Larry Burrows in Vietnam during the war...he's got two cameras hanging off his neck: a Leica + 35mm lens and a Nikon F + 180mm. I've always thought of that photo as recording the moment in time when one mode of photojournalism began dissolving into another.
I bought my dad a used but mint Nikon F2 plus 28/50/105mm lenses for his 85th birthday. They were his tools of choice during the last six years of his life. He could no longer focus accurately with his Leica or Retina, but the F2...no problem.
-Dave-
-
The Df certainly isn't for PJ work, not saying it can't perform that job well. The M is no longer for PJ work either. Those days are long, long gone. Its all big bodied Canons and Nikons, with a small bodied Canon or Nikon as a second camera.
When I was a PJ, late 80's early 90's, I carried a Leica M6, but only for environmental type portraits or where I needed to be discrete. My main cameras were F4s's and an FM2, because they were fast to load film and were/are TTL. The F4 doubled as personal protection, it was like carying a brick.
I would think that now a Fuji X series camera would be a real replacement for the Leica M. If Fuji came out with a full frame Xpro or X100 type camera, and made excellent lenses for them, Leica would have more problems. But this Df is not a threat. The price isn't high enough.
-
The Df certainly isn't for PJ work, not saying it can't perform that job well. The M is no longer for PJ work either. Those days are long, long gone. Its all big bodied Canons and Nikons, with a small bodied Canon or Nikon as a second camera.
When I was a PJ, late 80's early 90's, I carried a Leica M6, but only for environmental type portraits or where I needed to be discrete. My main cameras were F4s's and an FM2, because they were fast to load film and were/are TTL. The F4 doubled as personal protection, it was like carying a brick.
I would think that now a Fuji X series camera would be a real replacement for the Leica M. If Fuji came out with a full frame Xpro or X100 type camera, and made excellent lenses for them, Leica would have more problems. But this Df is not a threat. The price isn't high enough.
I am not sure that Leica's are now only used by wealthy amateurs. It is true that it would very strange to see an M in a throng of photographers shooting an event such as the Toronto Mayor's press conference yesterday: full auto everything, xxx frames per second, and perhaps wi-fi direct to the newsroom. I am finding that people are curious about my photographing with an old-fashioned camera (an M9) "....can you still get film today?" It establishes a different type of relationship, perhaps a welcome intrusion into their lives. So, for much of what I do an M or something similar is what I want; for much of the rest of my work it is a 5d2 or whatever I eventually replace it with.
Jean-Michel
-
I don't think the M is just for wealthy dentists etc. It just isn't a hard core PJ camera you would find in Syria or Afghanistan. Its GREAT for editorials. I rarely shoot assignments anymore, but when I do they are editorial portraits. I use M9s and a D800e, maybe MF film if I can.
I am not sure that Leica's are now only used by wealthy amateurs. It is true that it would very strange to see an M in a throng of photographers shooting an event such as the Toronto Mayor's press conference yesterday: full auto everything, xxx frames per second, and perhaps wi-fi direct to the newsroom. I am finding that people are curious about my photographing with an old-fashioned camera (an M9) "....can you still get film today?" It establishes a different type of relationship, perhaps a welcome intrusion into their lives. So, for much of what I do an M or something similar is what I want; for much of the rest of my work it is a 5d2 or whatever I eventually replace it with.
Jean-Michel
-
I don't think the M is just for wealthy dentists etc. It just isn't a hard core PJ camera you would find in Syria or Afghanistan. Its GREAT for editorials. I rarely shoot assignments anymore, but when I do they are editorial portraits. I use M9s and a D800e, maybe MF film if I can.
Once upon a time, the Leica was a particularly well engineered "robust" camera well suited to photojournalism in extreme conditions. The same camera might give 20 years of service.
In today's "throw away" world where a camera is obsolete in a couple of years, such robust longevity is no longer appreciated the way it once was.
Photo journalists, like all professional photographers, have to consider the cost/benefit analysis of their purchases - unlike we genuine amateurs who can (obviously within the limits of personal budgets) splash money about to indulge our whims and fancies without any vfm considerations.