Nikon Df....First images

Yv said:
Serious question and aplogies if this has already been answered - currently you can pre-order at £2750 from WEX [for example] with a 50mm lens. is anywhere taking pre-orders on body only, in fact have Nikon said they will sell body only, and if so, UK price?
Click to expand...

From AP: "The Nikon DF is due to go on sale on 28th November priced at £2749.99 with the 50mm f/1.8 lens. At present Nikon have said that there are no plans to release the camera for sale in a body-only version." http://www.amateurphotographer.co.uk/photo-news/540182/first-look-hands-on-review-nikon-df-dslr
 
The more I think about this the more I want to pick one up for my travel work:

- Small and light FF w/ ability to use my current lenses
- Weather sealed
- D4 Image quality in half sized package
- CLS compatible
- Full mag body

I'm 100% sure if this was in an ordinary DSLR body with 2 card slots and for $100-200 cheaper people would be hailing it as the next D700.
 
It seems focus screen is fixed, and from spec sheet, it looks to be the same screen as other DSLR. Meaning it is terrible for manual focusing. It's just a modern DSLR with a a lot of dials on top section.



Also, Df is a still a beast compared to film SLR's.

Nikon Df = 144mm wide, 110mm high and 67mm deep. Weight 760g. Body only
Nikon D600 = 141mm wide, 113mm high and 82mm deap. Weight 760g. Body only
Canon 6D = 145mm wide, 111mm high and 71mm deap. Weight 755g. Body only
Nikon FM2 = 142 wide, 90mm high and 60mm deep. Weight 540g. body only
Canon AE1 = 141 wide, 87 high and 48mm deep. Weight 590g. body only

Sony a7R = 127mm wide 94mm wide 48 mm deep. Weight 465g Body only
Fuji XE2 = 129mm wide, 75 mm high and 40mm deep, Weight 350g. Body only
Fuji X100S = 127mm wide, 74mm high and 54m deep. Weight 445g.

For light weight, I'd get myself a XE2 or A7 or X100s.
For light weight DSLR, nope, they don't exist, especially with their selection of lenses.
For retro SLR feel, I'd get myself a FM2 or AE1
For a fun camera on the side with retro feel, I'd get myself a X100.
 
jacob12_1993 said:
I'm 100% sure if this was in an ordinary DSLR body with 2 card slots and for $100-200 cheaper people would be hailing it as the next D700.
Click to expand...

Possibly the most sensible comment I've read so far on this camera (though I’d suggest $4-500).

To all those saying that the focus system is "flawed" because it's based on the D600 (or whatever, I lose track), :D:D:D:D:D:D:D:D:D. I'm guessing you never used firmware 1.0 on the D3.
 
I would have loved it to look like this (on the right).

What-the-Nikon-Df-camera-should-have-been.jpg
 
wuyanxu said:
It seems focus screen is fixed, and from spec sheet, it looks to be the same screen as other DSLR. Meaning it is terrible for manual focusing. It's just a modern DSLR with a a lot of dials on top section.
Click to expand...

And here's where looking at the spec sheet doesn't tell the full story.

I spoke to a Norwegian friend yesterday who's used the Df extensively and helped test it. The VF is light years ahead of anything on the D3/800/4. It has the same screen yes, but it has an entirely different prism and mirror box. For the first time with any DSLR he's been able to accurately focus using a Noct.

His comment (and he's not employed by Nikon) 'do not write this camera off based on specs. They tell you little about how it is in actual use'.
 
JonathanRyan said:
To all those saying that the focus system is "flawed" because it's based on the D600 (or whatever, I lose track), :D:D:D:D:D:D:D:D:D. I'm guessing you never used firmware 1.0 on the D3.
Click to expand...

But isn't that just looking backward, whereas technology should demonstrate improvements and the AF should be at least as wide as in the lesser priced D800?
Seems to me that rather than the Df it should have been the Dg, like the 'g' for 'gelded' lenses.
 
Radiohead said:
And here's where looking at the spec sheet doesn't tell the full story.

I spoke to a Norwegian friend yesterday who's used the Df extensively and helped test it. The VF is light years ahead of anything on the D3/800/4. It has the same screen yes, but it has an entirely different prism and mirror box. For the first time with any DSLR he's been able to accurately focus using a Noct.

His comment (and he's not employed by Nikon) 'do not write this camera off based on specs. They tell you little about how it is in actual use'.
Click to expand...

This sounds extremely promising. Are there any links to any decent hands on review by actual photographers yet? Not the likes of Engadget et al.
 
Me² said:
I would have loved it to look like this (on the right).

What-the-Nikon-Df-camera-should-have-been.jpg
Click to expand...
It would be nice to see a DX version like the one on the right, I honestly wouldn't mind a very small rear screen to keep it small and a return of manual focus and aperture ring
 
jacob12_1993 said:
I'm 100% sure if this was in an ordinary DSLR body with 2 card slots and for $100-200 cheaper people would be hailing it as the next D700.
Click to expand...

I don't. Certainly not for just $100-200 less. It would be closer to a D610 with less pixels, but better high ISO performance because that. The same AF as the D610, but not as good as the five year old D700, and you would be missing the frames per second of the D700 with grip. And a normal styled camera would have no need to omit the video option.

The Df is only going to appeal to a small demographic, but it is the 35+ demographic which (in theory;)) have money to spend on a retro fashion item that may hark back to their film days. Obviously Nikon would be hoping for a wider customer base, but I think it is priced as a low volume/fashion item, certainly from the spec sheet, in comparison to their other cameras imho.
 
TheCrewDesigns said:
I am not sure to be honest, love retro cameras but that looks wrong somehow... looks very tall and its very much 80's looking which is probably the idea of course

I keep thinking of this when I see it

Lamborghini-Countach.jpg
Click to expand...
sexiest car in the world they just got the wheels wrong :bang: as for the camera $-£ straight conversion always is so way overpriced but looks great :nikon:
 
redhed17 said:
I don't. Certainly not for just $100-200 less. It would be closer to a D610 with less pixels, but better high ISO performance because that. The same AF as the D610, but not as good as the five year old D700, and you would be missing the frames per second of the D700 with grip. And a normal styled camera would have no need to omit the video option.

The Df is only going to appeal to a small demographic, but it is the 35+ demographic which (in theory;)) have money to spend on a retro fashion item that may hark back to their film days. Obviously Nikon would be hoping for a wider customer base, but I think it is priced as a low volume/fashion item, certainly from the spec sheet, in comparison to their other cameras imho.
Click to expand...

It is not designed to be a sport/ hi fps camera. It is designed to be more of travel / street camera where you think about the framing , set up the camera manually and then shoot. The reason they picked D4 sensor is because it is more suited for then older lens. I don't think the original FM cameras are for sports either.
 
gramps said:
But isn't that just looking backward, whereas technology should demonstrate improvements and the AF should be at least as wide as in the lesser priced D800?
Seems to me that rather than the Df it should have been the Dg, like the 'g' for 'gelded' lenses.
Click to expand...

So every new camera should be in every way better than every previous camera? Can't wait to see the price of that.....
 
I read earlier that Nikon planned to launch this last year but that the Tsunami put it back substantially.
 
JonathanRyan said:
So every new camera should be in every way better than every previous camera? Can't wait to see the price of that.....
Click to expand...

Not in every way, there clearly will be differences but IMO the primary features of sensor capability and AF should not go into reverse over cheaper models.
The D610 with its poorer (39 point) AF is currently selling for around £1400, the D800 with better (51 point) AF for around £1950 and the Df is priced at nearly £1k more so yes I expect better.
Now if the price drops to a realistic figure fairly soon then my view may change but ATM I see it as a fairly expensive bit of kit that falls short.
 
wuyanxu said:
Also, Df is a still a beast compared to film SLR's.

Nikon Df = 144mm wide, 110mm high and 67mm deep. Weight 760g. Body only
Nikon D600 = 141mm wide, 113mm high and 82mm deap. Weight 760g. Body only
Canon 6D = 145mm wide, 111mm high and 71mm deap. Weight 755g. Body only
Nikon FM2 = 142 wide, 90mm high and 60mm deep. Weight 540g. body only
Canon AE1 = 141 wide, 87 high and 48mm deep. Weight 590g. body only

Sony a7R = 127mm wide 94mm wide 48 mm deep. Weight 465g Body only
Fuji XE2 = 129mm wide, 75 mm high and 40mm deep, Weight 350g. Body only
Fuji X100S = 127mm wide, 74mm high and 54m deep. Weight 445g.

For light weight, I'd get myself a XE2 or A7 or X100s.
For light weight DSLR, nope, they don't exist, especially with their selection of lenses.
For retro SLR feel, I'd get myself a FM2 or AE1
For a fun camera on the side with retro feel, I'd get myself a X100.
Click to expand...

That's a rather carefully selected list. If you look at the top end Nikon F's, rather than the lower end models, you'll realise that not all film slr's were dinky little things. The Nikon F3 on which it could be argued the Df is loosely styled on is 148.5 x 96.5 x 65.5 mm and the Nikon F3HP 148.5 x 101.5 x 69 mm. Weights are Nikon F3: 705g approx.; Nikon F3HP: 760g approx. The Nikon F2 wasn't much smaller, in fact the photomic model was bigger. The F5 was a beast and my F6 is about the same size as my D700, to the point that I sometimes pick one up thinking it's the other.
 
gramps said:
Not in every way, there clearly will be differences but IMO the primary features of sensor capability and AF should not go into reverse over cheaper models.
The D610 with its poorer (39 point) AF is currently selling for around £1400, the D800 with better (51 point) AF for around £1950 and the Df is priced at nearly £1k more so yes I expect better.
Now if the price drops to a realistic figure fairly soon then my view may change but ATM I see it as a fairly expensive bit of kit that falls short.
Click to expand...

More stuff = more money.

I guess they could have put a "better" AF system in it and charged more. But I don't see people flocking to say they want to pay more for it.

If you shove every technological advance you possibly can into a camera and build it regardless of price then you end up with a camera very few will buy. (Basically you become Leica). Plus you hurt D4 sales. As an early adopter of the D3 I was one of the few Nikon shooters not delighted when they launched the D700.

But it seems it's not for you so you won't be getting one. Which is fine. It's not for me either - I'm pretty happy with the cameras I have and each one earns its keep. At the moment, this won't give me anything I need. Obviously I want one (up from being indifferent yesterday and not wanting one on Tuesday). But that's a different thing.
 
gramps said:
the D800 with better (51 point) AF for around £1950 and the Df is priced at nearly £1k more so yes I expect better.
Now if the price drops to a realistic figure fairly soon then my view may change but ATM I see it as a fairly expensive bit of kit that falls short.
Click to expand...

just to point out the d800 has been on the market for a good while and its rrp is about £2,600 which isn't so different. As you know, prices in the UK always take a while to stabilise after launch
 
boyfalldown said:
just to point out the d800 has been on the market for a good while and its rrp is about £2,600 which isn't so different. As you know, prices in the UK always take a while to stabilise after launch
Click to expand...

+1 it's very close to the D800 RRP at launch. Also the D610 was/is $2000+ at launch and it doesn't have full mag body, the sensor and processor from a $6k camera and a lens included in that price. I don't understand how much people really expected Nikon to charge for a 'niche' camera with 50% of the important guts of it's flashship $6k camera?
 
JonathanRyan said:
More stuff = more money.

I guess they could have put a "better" AF system in it and charged more. But I don't see people flocking to say they want to pay more for it.

If you shove every technological advance you possibly can into a camera and build it regardless of price then you end up with a camera very few will buy. (Basically you become Leica). Plus you hurt D4 sales. As an early adopter of the D3 I was one of the few Nikon shooters not delighted when they launched the D700.
Click to expand...

This ^
 
viewfromthenorth said:
That's a rather carefully selected list. If you look at the top end Nikon F's, rather than the lower end models, you'll realise that not all film slr's were dinky little things. The Nikon F3 on which it could be argued the Df is loosely styled on is 148.5 x 96.5 x 65.5 mm and the Nikon F3HP 148.5 x 101.5 x 69 mm. Weights are Nikon F3: 705g approx.; Nikon F3HP: 760g approx. The Nikon F2 wasn't much smaller, in fact the photomic model was bigger. The F5 was a beast and my F6 is about the same size as my D700, to the point that I sometimes pick one up thinking it's the other.
Click to expand...

I'm 99% sure the body is based on an F3HP or similar and therefore the size is VERY similar to the film version.
 
wuyanxu said:
It seems focus screen is fixed, and from spec sheet, it looks to be the same screen as other DSLR. Meaning it is terrible for manual focusing. It's just a modern DSLR with a a lot of dials on top section.



Also, Df is a still a beast compared to film SLR's.

Nikon Df = 144mm wide, 110mm high and 67mm deep. Weight 760g. Body only
Nikon D600 = 141mm wide, 113mm high and 82mm deap. Weight 760g. Body only
Canon 6D = 145mm wide, 111mm high and 71mm deap. Weight 755g. Body only
Nikon FM2 = 142 wide, 90mm high and 60mm deep. Weight 540g. body only
Canon AE1 = 141 wide, 87 high and 48mm deep. Weight 590g. body only

Sony a7R = 127mm wide 94mm wide 48 mm deep. Weight 465g Body only
Fuji XE2 = 129mm wide, 75 mm high and 40mm deep, Weight 350g. Body only
Fuji X100S = 127mm wide, 74mm high and 54m deep. Weight 445g.

For light weight, I'd get myself a XE2 or A7 or X100s.
For light weight DSLR, nope, they don't exist, especially with their selection of lenses.
For retro SLR feel, I'd get myself a FM2 or AE1
For a fun camera on the side with retro feel, I'd get myself a X100.
Click to expand...

It's a heck of a lot smaller and lighter than any film camera that can shoot at 5fps.
 
I have to say, size and weight are fine - the body needs to be balanced with lenses. M43 bodies can get away being lighter as their lenses are lighter.

I'm just now waiting to handle one - if it feels 'right' in the hand, then I will consider it.

But price discrimination is silly - in Japan price is around £1600, so one could probably fly to Japan, buy the camera from there and fly back cheaper than buying it in the UK......
 
hyeongsoong said:
It is not designed to be a sport/ hi fps camera. It is designed to be more of travel / street camera where you think about the framing , set up the camera manually and then shoot. The reason they picked D4 sensor is because it is more suited for then older lens. I don't think the original FM cameras are for sports either.
Click to expand...

I know it's not designed to be a sport / high fps camera. I was replying to Jacob, (which is why I quoted him;)) as to why it probably wouldn't have been considered by many as an update to a D700. :shrug:
 
Amazon Japan about £1579 for the body, not much more with lens

£500ish return flight

Who's going?
 
Last edited:
I didnt realise at first but the viewfinder/pyramid thing (I dont even know what you call it) is incredibly ugly and far too bulky. It really ruins it for me, I know its only a minor issue but still, it just looks horrible. Im referring to the big wedge between the word Nikon and the hot-shoe btw. I only realised it when I just saw a hands-on video!

Nikon-Df-DLSR-2.jpg
 
jamiewednesday said:
Amazon Japan about £1579 for the body, not much more with lens

£500ish return flight

Who's going?
Click to expand...

It's cheaper by post. No different to buying a grey import, with all the hassle and warranty concerns, customs, import tax and VAT.
 
Thrash said:
I didnt realise at first but the viewfinder/pyramid thing (I dont even know what you call it) is incredibly ugly and far too bulky. It really ruins it for me, I know its only a minor issue but still, it just looks horrible. Im referring to the big wedge between the word Nikon and the hot-shoe btw. I only realised it when I just saw a hands-on video!

Nikon-Df-DLSR-2.jpg
Click to expand...

You mean the pentaprism? Unavoidable if you want a big, bright 100% view optical viewfinder on full frame.
 
Last edited:
double post
 
If money were no object then this camera (and a collection of the best Nikon glass) would be mine, and a substitute for the FE2 I could never afford when I was younger.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top