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

[AlfSollund]

I am sorry I didn't read the entire thread. IMHO, such a multi-dialed body can only be fine for someone who tried this kind of camera in the past. For a newcomer (like me), such amount of single function dials is worse than a pain in the ass. I have got used to manually adjusting parameters (aperture and speed) without lifting my eye from the EVF, ISO preadjusted. This kind of camera doesn't add anything to me.

Regards

And for the users with those requirements there are a zillion models, from Nikon and others. For those preferring tactile hard buttons there have been no options from Nikon so far. Its also interesting to see that the few cameras that implements such interfaces seems to be received well and do ok commercially.

I want return to the "what is best" debate  , only  say that its a good thing to have both design options. So why not give both a try?

[TMARK]

14mm Eyepoint.  Perhaps perceived magnification is higher, since your eyelashes will be hitting the eye piece.

With the same 0.7x magnification and 100% coverage as all other current Nikon FX models, and no mention of added manual focusing aids, all I can think is that the Df has a higher eye-point to benefit spectacle wearers: the D800 is only 17mm and the D4 18mm, with the D610 surprising the highest at 21mm. That would both salvage one much-loved feature of the F3HP, and fit with the idea of being targeted at an older demographic. (I should refrain from saying "and hipsters wearing their Buddy Holly glasses".)

But I should also say that I am not competely down on this camera, despite its total lack of relevance to my photographic approach and my skepticism about a few of the design choices being driven by "image" rather than practicality. I have no complaint about the price, since it will clearly sell in far smaller numbers than recent entry-level 35mm format models like the D610, which can only hit that roughly $2000 price target through relatively high volume. The problem with the various proposals for a more minimal "just the features that I want" design is that there are numerous different versions of that minimal feature list, each of which would sell in even smaller numbers, requiring an even higher price.

[LKaven]

According to Bjorn, the numbers don't tell the story. He claims the camera is excellent for manual focus.

[BJL]

According to Bjorn, the numbers don't tell the story. He claims the camera is excellent for manual focus.

Well, Bjorn has some credibility, but it is mysterious, so I have to suspect the possibility that his "new toy" enthusiasm is interfering with totally dispassionate evaluation. After all, it has been claimed many times in this forum by numerous very experienced and competent photographers that the combination of lowish 0.7x magnification and no manual focusing aids (split image, micro prism collar) in modern viewfinders has been doom for accurate manual focusing ever since AF arrived, even with film, and the problem should surely be even worse if you print and view large enough to take full advantage of the 16MP sensor resolution. Have all the old experts in this forum been so wrong all along?

One point about manual focus on _any_ optical ground glass/frosted plastic TTL OVF: the scattered secondary image seen in such a VF only has about 2MP equivalent resolution, and is limited to about f/2.8 DOF even when the aperture is wider than that, so it is never going to be accurate enough for precise focusing when working with the shallow DOF of very low f-stops. But that might be irrelevant to what Bjorn (and many other photographers) are doing with manual focus; all could be well once stopped down enough to get a decent amount of the subject in focus.

[HSakols]

Couldn't you just glue knobs and maybe a few sequin on a d610 and spend the money you save on manual focus lenses?  The one element I do like is the sensor, but that could be placed in a body the size of the d610 and call it good.  I don't see what one gains.  I only see what is taken away and a rather high price tag.  It is hard to a camera like this seriously.  Maybe instead they should have designed a compact DX camera that had a really nice viewfinder and some new DX lenses with an aperture ring and depth of field scale?  Enough of my rant.

[TMARK]

The black model looks nice, I've decided.  I'll take a look at it once they are available to handle.  Maybe by summer.

[TMARK]

When using the Canon Precision matte screens I can do OK with a 5d2 and the 1.2 L lenses, even wide open.  I do mean OK.  I do better with the 1ds3 and its .76.  I did even better with the F4 and F5, even with teh AF screens.

Frankley, I have few problems focusing manually on the D800e with 1.4, F2 and 2.8 AIs lenses.  My concern with a viewfinder is really teh view.  The D800 indeed lets you see the whole frame, even wearing specs, but its like sitting in teh cheap seats at a ball game as opposed to watching a movie from teh midddle of teh 6th row.

I don't know what Bjorn is getting on about, but I would like to know more.

Well, Bjorn has some credibility, but it is mysterious, so I have to suspect the possibility that his "new toy" enthusiasm is interfering with totally dispassionate evaluation. After all, it has been claimed many times in this forum by numerous very experienced and competent photographers that the combination of lowish 0.7x magnification and no manual focusing aids (split image, micro prism collar) in modern viewfinders has been doom for accurate manual focusing ever since AF arrived, even with film, and the problem should surely be even worse if you print and view large enough to take full advantage of the 16MP sensor resolution. Have all the old experts in this forum been so wrong all along?

One point about manual focus on _any_ optical ground glass/frosted plastic TTL OVF: the scattered secondary image seen in such a VF only has about 2MP equivalent resolution, and is limited to about f/2.8 DOF even when the aperture is wider than that, so it is never going to be accurate enough for precise focusing when working with the shallow DOF of very low f-stops. But that might be irrelevant to what Bjorn (and many other photographers) are doing with manual focus; all could be well once stopped down enough to get a decent amount of the subject in focus.

[LKaven]

I notice a big difference focusing between my D800 and my D4.  I find it rather difficult on the D800 and easy on the D4.  Yet on paper, they are very close.  The D800 is .7x/17mm, and the D4 is .7x/18mm.  I don't know why they'd be so different, but they are.

[AlfSollund]

Strange that no one has mentioned the digital camera with the ultimate interfacing; the Epson RD-1. So here we go, the Epson RD-1 had the ultimate user interface with analogue dials and dedicated hard buttons. It even had the thumb operated wind-up level. All digitals should be compared with the Epson RD-1. Oh, and did I mention that I liked the Epson RD-1 because it had the best interface  ?

[Fine_Art]

The style reminds me of the Maxxum 5

 

[TMARK]

I think that is just the silver.  The silver/chrome reminds me of a Rebel.

The black, acyually, is far better looking, in fact it is slimming.  Doesn't look so busy.

The style reminds me of the Maxxum 5

 

[MrSmith27]

Strange that no one has mentioned the digital camera with the ultimate interfacing; the Epson RD-1. So here we go, the Epson RD-1 had the ultimate user interface with analogue dials and dedicated hard buttons. It even had the thumb operated wind-up level. All digitals should be compared with the Epson RD-1. Oh, and did I mention that I liked the Epson RD-1 because it had the best interface  ?

like?

[Rob C]

Strange that no one has mentioned the digital camera with the ultimate interfacing; the Epson RD-1. So here we go, the Epson RD-1 had the ultimate user interface with analogue dials and dedicated hard buttons. It even had the thumb operated wind-up level. All digitals should be compared with the Epson RD-1. Oh, and did I mention that I liked the Epson RD-1 because it had the best interface  ?

Good point; it just had the misfortune to be born into a printer family instead of a camera one.

I think that it could have been developed and turned into something really good.

Rob C

[Telecaster]

Strange that no one has mentioned the digital camera with the ultimate interfacing; the Epson RD-1. So here we go, the Epson RD-1 had the ultimate user interface with analogue dials and dedicated hard buttons. It even had the thumb operated wind-up level. All digitals should be compared with the Epson RD-1. Oh, and did I mention that I liked the Epson RD-1 because it had the best interface  ?

Hey, I still have (& use) my R-D1. It's a weird beastie in some ways--a Cosina film RF body with a sensor & some Epson electronics added on--but it works. And you can flip & fold in the rear LCD and pretend you're shooting film, if that's your thing (not mine). Has a variant of the 6mp Sony CCD sensor that worked so well in Nikon's D70. Nicely tuned AA filter. Better highlight tonal gradation than its Canon 10D & 20D contemporaries. Sucks batteries dry in no time. Focusing is hit & miss with lenses longer than 50mm (no framelines for longer focal lengths anyway) and tricky even with faster 50s. It will never be sold nor given away. If/when it dies I'll put it on my golden oldies shelf and look at it fondly.

-Dave-

[bcooter]

Hey, I still have (& use) my R-D1. It's a weird beastie in some ways--a Cosina film RF body with a sensor & some Epson electronics added on--but it works. And you can flip & fold in the rear LCD and pretend you're shooting film, if that's your thing (not mine). Has a variant of the 6mp Sony CCD sensor that worked so well in Nikon's D70. Nicely tuned AA filter. Better highlight tonal gradation than its Canon 10D & 20D contemporaries. Sucks batteries dry in no time. Focusing is hit & miss with lenses longer than 50mm (no framelines for longer focal lengths anyway) and tricky even with faster 50s. It will never be sold nor given away. If/when it dies I'll put it on my golden oldies shelf and look at it fondly.

-Dave-

I think the RD1 is the coolest looking camera I've ever seen by a wide, wide margin.

Man if the'd only gone forward, or really crazy.

Think how awesome that would be with a 31 or 40mpx ccd medium format chip that tethered.

Why the medium format boys don't make a big rangefinder type camera is beyond me.

IMO

BC

[Christoph C. Feldhaim]

Why the medium format boys don't make a big rangefinder type camera is beyond me.

+1000
Fuji X Pro1 on steroids ....
Mamiya 7 II gone digital ...

[eronald]

You can find Mamiya 7's adapted for digibacks on ebay.

Edmund

I think the RD1 is the coolest looking camera I've ever seen by a wide, wide margin.

Man if the'd only gone forward, or really crazy.

Think how awesome that would be with a 31 or 40mpx ccd medium format chip that tethered.

Why the medium format boys don't make a big rangefinder type camera is beyond me.

IMO

BC

[Telecaster]

Just a couple of hours ago I shot a Coke bottle on some rocks...

I like it! And I like reflex lenses too. Funny...the first lens I tried out with the Oly E-M1 after unboxing it was a Tokina Micro Four-Thirds 300mm reflex. I wanted to see if the camera's IS system read the lens' focal length. (Nope, just like the E-M5...the camera otherwise knows it's a 300mm f/6.3 but chooses not to let IS in on the secret.) The attached pic didn't really reach what I was going for (not enough tonal variety in the background) but it does show that, contrary to every online & print review I've read, the lens is plenty crisp at the point of focus.

-Dave-

[Rob C]

I like it! And I like reflex lenses too. Funny...the first lens I tried out with the Oly E-M1 after unboxing it was a Tokina Micro Four-Thirds 300mm reflex. I wanted to see if the camera's IS system read the lens' focal length. (Nope, just like the E-M5...the camera otherwise knows it's a 300mm f/6.3 but chooses not to let IS in on the secret.) The attached pic didn't really reach what I was going for (not enough tonal variety in the background) but it does show that, contrary to every online & print review I've read, the lens is plenty crisp at the point of focus.

-Dave-

Great minds etc.!

300mm isn't as hard to steady as 500mm, but that 500mm really needs the big Gitzo, which is now far too heavy for me to cart around. I have used it off-base by roping it to a wheelie shopping-bag chassis, but it's such a hassle to make/break the contraption... I did get reasonably sharp Kodachromes with my first 500 reflex many years ago, but the problem was communication: I didn't have a walkie talkie and, anyway, you can't shoot a model holding one to her ear in every shot - the wind on beaches drowns out human voices at that range...

But then, unless you have lots of ambient highlights, you're better off using a standard lens of the same length.

Rob C

[Rob C]

I think the RD1 is the coolest looking camera I've ever seen by a wide, wide margin.

Man if the'd only gone forward, or really crazy.

Think how awesome that would be with a 31 or 40mpx ccd medium format chip that tethered.

Why the medium format boys don't make a big rangefinder type camera is beyond me.IMO

BC

Maybe because it would be too hard to focus it properly without resorting to Live View etc. and that negates rangefinders, in my mind.

Rob C