Nikon DF - Dpreview full review in

I think it makes a good point that even though a camera like that has been desired for a long time, it doesn't mean that a product like that answers the call. What I mean is, people asked for a digital camera in a "classic" body, what what people are REALLY asking for is a camera that has simple and instinctive interface that gives the user lots of control. It doesn't mean "classic-look". Nikon took it literally and made the Df, which in a big way turned out to be a disappointment ( considering its price). I really think, instead of the Df, Nikon should have just followed up with a D700 replacement... essentially a D800 with smaller sensor but better AF and a more compact body. Now with the D600/610 and the D800 taking up the product line-up, it makes a D700 replacement an awkward product to have for Nikon. I wish Nikon had taken its previous strategy of naming the D800 "D4X" or something, and a D700 replacement as the D800. That way, they can charge a bit more for the now D800 and have a logical spot for the D700 replacement. Screw Df. It will be one of those one-hit wonders without the hit.
 
The sample shots at 20,000 iso are impressive for the lack of noise (real world shots, not the test).

but that camera still feels like a form > function camera to me. The controls/dials seem like, to me, such a step backwards it's not even funny.

The list of Df's "pros" IS funny however.
 
Last edited:
Maybe I am just in the minority here, but I actually like this camera. I have read a few reviews that put the ISO performance of this camera on par with the D3s and D4. The major complaints about it (other than subjective aesthetic qualities and button placement) seem to be the 39pt AF system instead of the 51pt, and a max SS of 1/4000 instead of 1/8000. Some even complain about the FPS. If they packed all of that into the DF, you would have a D4, which you can already purchase for $6k.

The other argument seems to be that you can get a D800 for about the same price. Sure, its true, but they are two different animals. For people that dont NEED 36mp resolution, but want the best low light performance, the DF might be a good choice if you are really getting D4 ISO ratings at half the price.

Only one card slot isnt really even algl that inconveniencing. How long does it take to swap a memory card? 1400 shot battery life is pretty good.

I dunno....I see where people might be disappointed that they arent getting a smaller D4 with all the options for half the price. I mean, im pretty pissed at Nikon about that oversight too. However, D4 sensor with D4 ISO handling in a smaller, lighter, more battery efficient body that still has a very capable AF module sounds like a pretty good camera to me.

I will definitely be interested in seeing what the price is after a few months.
The DF could be a total sales flop and all it would mean for me is I could get one cheaper on the used market.
 
Last edited:
The look and the form factor has been a HUGE draw on many cameras over the decades. The "look" of a Rolleiflex twin-lens reflex for example, the "look" of the Speed Graphic, the "look" of the Leica M3, the "look" of the original Nikon F with the meterless prism, and then later the quintessential Nikon F "look" with the huge Photomic F-series metering prism, the decades of the Hasselblad 500 C and C/M and its unique "look"...those cameras ALL became hugely, iconic in movies, on TV, and in still photos. The way those cameras looked was a huge part of their appeal.

I find it amusing that so many people cannot seem to understand either how, or even why, the design, appearance, build, and "look" of a camera is a HUGE, integral part of the camera-use experience. But then again, we have the majority of people on the web reviewing cameras as 30-something young men who have never even held a Graphic, a Rolleiflex, a Leica M-series, or a Nikon F, F2,F3, FM,DE,FE-2, or FA, and have never shot a Hasselblad, and so on.

The telling part of most of the reviews is that the reviewers tend to describe it as ,"what is it NOT," as opposed to what it is. They really have a very skewed understanding of what a camera with a distinctive "look" is all about. They never owned a Rollei, a Hassy, a Leica, or an F-series camera...they grew up on point and shoots and modern digital cameras, and really, they almost all ***** and moan that, "I cannot f&&k around with my ISO while looking through the viewfinder!!! Wahhh! Wahh!" and ,"I don't like this...it's not what I know..it's different, it's not like every other Nikon or Canon d-slr..it's...it's..it's...something NEW. And different! I hate different! Nikon should have made this camera operate JUST LIKE what I am used to." " I never learned about analog controls in junior high school...analog controls--those are as stupid as those old-timey hands-and-face clocks," and so on."

It's amusing because most younger reviewers on today's "tech sites" are so flummoxed by with products that are designed with anything even remotely different than all-digital controls and readouts. It's like they're crippled mentally. "This isn't what I want! I want my Mt. Dew! I want my iPhone! I want my Facebook!" Instead, they get whole milk, a good book, and conversation...and they reject wholesome beverage, great literature, and real person-to-person "contact", and crave instead the unhealthy crap that they are addicted to 24/7 in this, the high-tech modern era.

Again...spend an evening and read a handful of Df reviews written by young tech-geeks in their 30's...they all describe this new camera as, "What it is NOT". And they cannot seem to get past, "what is different," and focus on what it actually is, and does.

It reminds me of little kids whining about , "Eating these yucky vegetables...I want some nachos and Mt. Dew for dinner!" "Let's cook some dinner...I think I have a box of frozen burritos!"
 
The look and the form factor has been a HUGE draw on many cameras over the decades. The "look" of a Rolleiflex twin-lens reflex for example, the "look" of the Speed Graphic, the "look" of the Leica M3, the "look" of the original Nikon F with the meterless prism, and then later the quintessential Nikon F "look" with the huge Photomic F-series metering prism, the decades of the Hasselblad 500 C and C/M and its unique "look"...those cameras ALL became hugely, iconic in movies, on TV, and in still photos. The way those cameras looked was a huge part of their appeal.

I find it amusing that so many people cannot seem to understand either how, or even why, the design, appearance, build, and "look" of a camera is a HUGE, integral part of the camera-use experience. But then again, we have the majority of people on the web reviewing cameras as 30-something young men who have never even held a Graphic, a Rolleiflex, a Leica M-series, or a Nikon F, F2,F3, FM,DE,FE-2, or FA, and have never shot a Hasselblad, and so on.

The telling part of most of the reviews is that the reviewers tend to describe it as ,"what is it NOT," as opposed to what it is. They really have a very skewed understanding of what a camera with a distinctive "look" is all about. They never owned a Rollei, a Hassy, a Leica, or an F-series camera...they grew up on point and shoots and modern digital cameras, and really, they almost all ***** and moan that, "I cannot f&&k around with my ISO while looking through the viewfinder!!! Wahhh! Wahh!" and ,"I don't like this...it's not what I know..it's different, it's not like every other Nikon or Canon d-slr..it's...it's..it's...something NEW. And different! I hate different! Nikon should have made this camera operate JUST LIKE what I am used to." " I never learned about analog controls in junior high school...analog controls--those are as stupid as those old-timey hands-and-face clocks," and so on."

It's amusing because most younger reviewers on today's "tech sites" are so flummoxed by with products that are designed with anything even remotely different than all-digital controls and readouts. It's like they're crippled mentally. "This isn't what I want! I want my Mt. Dew! I want my iPhone! I want my Facebook!" Instead, they get whole milk, a good book, and conversation...and they reject wholesome beverage, great literature, and real person-to-person "contact", and crave instead the unhealthy crap that they are addicted to 24/7 in this, the high-tech modern era.

Again...spend an evening and read a handful of Df reviews written by young tech-geeks in their 30's...they all describe this new camera as, "What it is NOT". And they cannot seem to get past, "what is different," and focus on what it actually is, and does.

It reminds me of little kids whining about , "Eating these yucky vegetables...I want some nachos and Mt. Dew for dinner!" "Let's cook some dinner...I think I have a box of frozen burritos!"

I take it you like this camera:sexywink:
 
I want a tv that doesn't take 15 minutes to switch between channels because the lag between decoding the digital signal is go great...
 
Doesn't matter, all the real photographers have switched to canon...;)
 
Doesn't matter, all the real photographers have switched to canon...;)

but does Canon offer mechanical remote shutter releases?
 
For what it's worth, as a 30 something tech geek, I loved my FM2 and FE2. If I had the money and could justify the expense I would buy the DF over any of the equivalently priced bodies just for that feel.
 
The look and the form factor has been a HUGE draw on many cameras over the decades. The "look" of a Rolleiflex twin-lens reflex for example, the "look" of the Speed Graphic, the "look" of the Leica M3, the "look" of the original Nikon F with the meterless prism, and then later the quintessential Nikon F "look" with the huge Photomic F-series metering prism, the decades of the Hasselblad 500 C and C/M and its unique "look"...those cameras ALL became hugely, iconic in movies, on TV, and in still photos. The way those cameras looked was a huge part of their appeal.

I find it amusing that so many people cannot seem to understand either how, or even why, the design, appearance, build, and "look" of a camera is a HUGE, integral part of the camera-use experience. But then again, we have the majority of people on the web reviewing cameras as 30-something young men who have never even held a Graphic, a Rolleiflex, a Leica M-series, or a Nikon F, F2,F3, FM,DE,FE-2, or FA, and have never shot a Hasselblad, and so on.

The telling part of most of the reviews is that the reviewers tend to describe it as ,"what is it NOT," as opposed to what it is. They really have a very skewed understanding of what a camera with a distinctive "look" is all about. They never owned a Rollei, a Hassy, a Leica, or an F-series camera...they grew up on point and shoots and modern digital cameras, and really, they almost all ***** and moan that, "I cannot f&&k around with my ISO while looking through the viewfinder!!! Wahhh! Wahh!" and ,"I don't like this...it's not what I know..it's different, it's not like every other Nikon or Canon d-slr..it's...it's..it's...something NEW. And different! I hate different! Nikon should have made this camera operate JUST LIKE what I am used to." " I never learned about analog controls in junior high school...analog controls--those are as stupid as those old-timey hands-and-face clocks," and so on."

It's amusing because most younger reviewers on today's "tech sites" are so flummoxed by with products that are designed with anything even remotely different than all-digital controls and readouts. It's like they're crippled mentally. "This isn't what I want! I want my Mt. Dew! I want my iPhone! I want my Facebook!" Instead, they get whole milk, a good book, and conversation...and they reject wholesome beverage, great literature, and real person-to-person "contact", and crave instead the unhealthy crap that they are addicted to 24/7 in this, the high-tech modern era.

Again...spend an evening and read a handful of Df reviews written by young tech-geeks in their 30's...they all describe this new camera as, "What it is NOT". And they cannot seem to get past, "what is different," and focus on what it actually is, and does.

It reminds me of little kids whining about , "Eating these yucky vegetables...I want some nachos and Mt. Dew for dinner!" "Let's cook some dinner...I think I have a box of frozen burritos!"

Happy to see you're enjoying your new Nikon and Sony chew toys!
 
I was totally disappointed that it's not available in Nikon red. :(. :lmao:
 
No, it's not that I like the camera...it's that I am disappointed to read shut a $hittily-written review on dPreview, by two people who are basically, incapable of adapting to cameras that do not fit their preconceptions. For example, in the earlier days of dPreview, camera functions were **explained**. The way a camera's functions were engineered were explained; in this review, the two-man team seems to simply as I wrote, write about what the camera "is NOT", and how things "Don not work in the way they expected," rather than address the way the camera is set up to work.

The IMMEDIATE, first issues were, 1) it doesn't shoot video! Why doesn't it shoot vide? It SHOULD shoot video! We want video!
2) it doesn't have a removable, split-image rangefinder screen (no kidding? what d-slr does? Oh..NONE of them,ever made. hugh..weird...it doesn't have a feature that NO OTHER d-slr has either--a factory-installed, removable, split-image finder screen!)
3) we're unable to manually focus well (because we have no skill in that...we're young AF-guys...lol)

I thought for example the dPreview "Con" that the camera is "heavy" was odd, considering that it's the lightest FX d-slr Nikons has ever made by a considerable margin. Huh...Nikon's lightest FX camera is...heavy.

Second...they state that the camera cannot focus in even moderately dim indoor lighting. YET, Thom Hogan says it can focus easily in an almost dark office with almost no light.and he says the autofocus on the Df works basically as well as on his other Nikon d-slr's...and Steve Huff, a "real-camera" enthusiast, says the Df is the best low-light camera he has ever seen, since the D3s...best lowlight images he's seen...the "king" of low-light...

I looked at the test images the two guys from dPreview shot. Laughable choices they made. SKY-high ISO values, and most of the lenses shot nearly wide-open where imaging performance is sub-par...they shot their wad often by going for sky-hgih ISO values most of the time, when stopping down to f/4 would have given a HUGELY better image quality. The 105mm f/2.5 Nikkor for example, at f/2.5 (ie, wide-open) at ISO 20,000 instead of at f/4? Jesus, what a blunder of a decision...get the whole FACE IN FOCUS! And the high-ISO nightclub shot of the Indian fellow, made at Minus 1.33 EV...it looks like $hi+ because one of those clowns under-exposed the crap out of it. It's almost like the two guys shot this thing without any real skill in how to SET a camera...WIDE-OPEN on faces from close range, so the lens performance is awful AND at sky-high ISO settings. It's like they're clueless about the performance of old MF lenses...wide-open is stupid when the speeds are as high as theirs were...they were throwing away tons of image quality all the time...

Why?

Read Steve Huff's review...he's NOT a d-slr fan, preferring rangefinder digital and mirrorless...

The Nikon Df Camera Review by Steve Huff | STEVE HUFF PHOTOS

It takes somebody who actually UNDERSTANDS how to "shoot" a camera like this. These dPreview clowns cannot even get the camera to focus in "moderately dim indoor light"? Thom Hogan says its "no slouch". Steve Huff says it is the "king of low-light"?
 
Last edited:
Dont sweat it Derrel...

The DF detractors are the same people that complain about Ford because their Focus doesnt come stock with a twin turbo 400 horsepower motor and a hand sewn italian leather interior for $18k.


Oh noes...nikon made a camera that doesn't have every single feature I think it should have had...now nikon sucks and will immediately fail as a company because they didnt build their new camera to MY specs....

Im switching to canon....
Wait....they havent innovated anything in years..they just keep recycling...
Guess I better go pitch my camera ideas to Sony so they wont be losers anymore. :)
 
Last edited:
FWIW Derrel I am very novice to all this and pretty much agree with your original post here. The only con they came up with that would bother me is the door falling off.I understand the aim of this camera and also that in the days of film you did not have a backup film in the camera etc etc. The fact that it can use almost every lens ever and can do 5 shots a second giving d4 quality shots at low and high iso + it looks the business. The point of this camera is lost on some and thats ok- they have the d610 or d800 to go to. I cant afford one now but it would be on my list if I want a FF camera
 

Most reactions

New Topics

Back
Top