Appeal of Nikon Df

[Knut Skywalker]

I always found Nikon cameras ugly, dont know why. The overall design just doesn't appeal to me at all. Just look at a D800 and a 5D Mark II or Mark III, for example. The more rounded and clean appeal of a Canon is just way more appealing to me.

 

[Nishi Drew]

I like the concept of the camera. No video, only stills. I have not ever used the video mode on my camera. Actually, it would be nice if Canon could have used that space for more still photography features. Thats why I bought the camera in the first place.

Sorry, that's just a ridiculous statement, video doesn't "take up photo space", it's not extra hardware or neither does it take away from overall ability/quality or is in place of having "more photo features" (like, what more do you want??). It's just the live view mode made possible with the type of sensor that later lead to a recording ability, video. Taking video out doesn't help a stills oriented camera be any better at taking photos, it just can't do another basic feature technology today is expected to have.

As for how the Nikon DF is, well, they came close but it's still too fat and reminiscent of a very modern camera. Where's the slim, not too tall and simple film camera? Even if Nikon were to nail the look of an FM series camera better, that price! Sure, Canon sold tons of 5DIIs around that price, and this camera is probably better, but it's not cutting edge, and nor is this 2008, it's gone down in spec compared to modern releases but demands a premium. Meanwhile Fujifilm with their excellent cameras with sensible pricing. Not FF? Well the X100 rivals or even beats my 5DII for image quality and ISO performance, and the X series don't resemble any true retro camera, but they got the design right, it's nice to use and looks nostalgic enough, I did insult it for a while until I picked one up, used it a little, and fell in love~
If Canon made one, I always liked the New F1 but that's a lot of bulk and weight, something today's DSLRs already have, so like what a lot people seem to want, an AE-1? But seriously, if Canon did something similar they'd be bashed for copying Nikon AND be insulted for being late to the game...

 

[Rocguy]

I love the way it looks. Design matters. And I think (?) I would like the manual dials. But ultimately it still falls short for me and I'm not nearly as interested in this as in the Sony a7r. I've almost bought a x100s a bunch of times but have held back to see if they would do a FF version at some point. The a7r is almost that, except in the looks dept.

 

[Orangutan]

Option #6: It's the PT Cruiser of the digital camera world.

Someone in an earlier thread made an interesting point: this camera may be for people who are focused on enjoying the performance of photography more than the product. (Not to say that this camera won't take great pictures, I'll bet it will) I wonder if those who really like this model are theatrical types who like to "get into character" when they go out shooting. And maybe those of us who don't care for it are more techie types who just want a "fully adequate tool" to accomplish our mission.

 

[RAKAMRAK]

I answered #4

I owned a Nikon FM2 back in the 90's and kinda like the retro look of the DF, but for a working camera, I'll take my 6D any day. I'm not trying to impress anybody with the look of my photography equipment.

I know what you saying. But I will be honest and tell you that every time I buy a new camera or lens I like to look at it, feel it. Should I be ashamed of myself? Am I too much of a child?
When I get a new car I do take it for a drive with friends to the ice cream shop. Am I a bigger child for doing that.

When I buy a new lens I move the focus/zoom ring, see the writing on it, see the contacts, even look through the lens without mounting it on the camera. I guess I am hopeless....

I concur completely with you Mr. Sanj(ay)..... I also enjoy those moments.

there is a peculiar presumption going on (definitely fueled by the ads of Nikon) that this camera is a style statement and for show off. The point such presumptions tend to miss is that the buyer may just buy it for him/herself without any regard to what others think and whether others even notice it in his/her hands. Such naive negative and pessimistic looking glass can also be used to judge many 5D III or 1DX and great white lens owners (or even Nikon D4/D3 whatever) who never take any photo beyond that of their kids/pets/flower garden/brick wall (or for that matter those who prescribe such camera and lens combination to photograph kids/pets etc. by unsuspecting parents). The ownership of 1DX/5D iii in such instance is also nothing more than a style statement. The point that gets missed is it is just the choice of who is buying it, and if we start categorizing and generalizing people on such trivial matters of choice then the world would be a much more hostile place than it already is.

 

[Orangutan]

Actually, it would be nice if Canon could have used that space for more still photography features.

Taking video out doesn't help a stills oriented camera be any better at taking photos, it just can't do another basic feature technology today is expected to have.

I agree with you almost entirely. So far I count two ways where it *might* be true that video features affect stills. One is the strength of the AA filter. While it's conceivable that the AA filter could be tuned for better sharpness on a stills-only camera, it seems like lens, focus and other variables in a given image would be more important. Also, in a thread a long time ago (I wish I could find it) there was a post about someone having dissected a Canon sensor, and found that there had been a design choice made that decreased capture-to-capture time at the possible and small cost of noise. (I hope I remember that correctly).

The overall point, however, remains valid: if video does negatively affect stills at all, it's going to be negligible for the vast majority of photographers and the vast majority of images.

 

[sanj]

I wonder if age has something to do with who will like this camera. I strongly suspect it is the 40+ people who will like it more. And I suspect it is made keeping them in mind.

 

[Sporgon]

And is it plastic? It looks so solid!

CR is normally the only forum I read, but I was interested to see the Nikonians view of the DF over at Nikonrumors, a site which is in sympathy with Nikon's menu system in that it is a mess, but I digress....

There is much disgruntled talk of it being predominately plastic, so I had a look about the web and from the pictures it does look like the chassis core, front and possibly back are plastic. Looks like it has a alloy bottom plate as well as top plate. It is very, very expensive for that construction, especially when one considers that the D800 and 5D are alloy construction.

In fact whilst I was looking for images of the Df bare chassis I was surprised to find that the D600 / 610 is also a plastic chassis with an alloy top plate. This is cheaper construction than the 6D which is predominantly an alloy chassis with plastic top cover. ( To allow wifi, gps so they say ).

Back in the days where the Df belongs, Nikons were hewn from solid granite whereas Canons were hideously plastic affairs, with the exception of the F-1. Canon seemed to believe that plastic was the way in those days with even the first EOD 1 being shelled in it. How things have changed. I am convinced that there is more intrinsic quality in a modern Canon Eos than there is in the equivalent modern Nikon. But then I would guess that Nikon as a company needs to make more per unit than Canon have to.

Anyway the Df is actually going to be a very useful camera because it will be able to give us a handle on one of the latest hot topics;

Does the inclusion of video on a modern dslr compromise the still image quality in any way ? Soon we will have the answer, 'cos we sure have as hell found that video inclusion doesn't make them more expensive ;D

 

[paul13walnut5]

The overall point, however, remains valid: if video does negatively affect stills at all, it's going to be negligible for the vast majority of photographers and the vast majority of images.

I am actually on the polar opposite, I wish they would take stills out of my DSLR and give me an FIT type read off sensor rather than Frame (i.e. so I can shoot 1080 50i) I wish they would give me an inverse square of HD video resolution for ease of downsampling, I quite fancy a 32MP sensor as this would largely negate bayer colour artefacts.

Or I suppose an 8MP sensor, and much larger photosites.

Yep, video is dragging the stills guys down, it's the other way about.

And after all we've given the stills guys:

LCDs
CMOS
CCD
Live View
Electronic shutter

 

[sanj]

I like the concept of the camera. No video, only stills. I have not ever used the video mode on my camera. Actually, it would be nice if Canon could have used that space for more still photography features. Thats why I bought the camera in the first place.

Sorry, that's just a ridiculous statement, video doesn't "take up photo space", it's not extra hardware or neither does it take away from overall ability/quality or is in place of having "more photo features" (like, what more do you want??). It's just the live view mode made possible with the type of sensor that later lead to a recording ability, video. Taking video out doesn't help a stills oriented camera be any better at taking photos, it just can't do another basic feature technology today is expected to have.

As for how the Nikon DF is, well, they came close but it's still too fat and reminiscent of a very modern camera. Where's the slim, not too tall and simple film camera? Even if Nikon were to nail the look of an FM series camera better, that price! Sure, Canon sold tons of 5DIIs around that price, and this camera is probably better, but it's not cutting edge, and nor is this 2008, it's gone down in spec compared to modern releases but demands a premium. Meanwhile Fujifilm with their excellent cameras with sensible pricing. Not FF? Well the X100 rivals or even beats my 5DII for image quality and ISO performance, and the X series don't resemble any true retro camera, but they got the design right, it's nice to use and looks nostalgic enough, I did insult it for a while until I picked one up, used it a little, and fell in love~
If Canon made one, I always liked the New F1 but that's a lot of bulk and weight, something today's DSLRs already have, so like what a lot people seem to want, an AE-1? But seriously, if Canon did something similar they'd be bashed for copying Nikon AND be insulted for being late to the game...

In all fairness, it is not a 'ridiculous' statement. Lack of video would certainly simplify menu and button layout.

 

[Orangutan]

The overall point, however, remains valid: if video does negatively affect stills at all, it's going to be negligible for the vast majority of photographers and the vast majority of images.

I am actually on the polar opposite, I wish they would take stills out of my DSLR and give me an FIT type read off sensor rather than Frame (i.e. so I can shoot 1080 50i) I wish they would give me an inverse square of HD video resolution for ease of downsampling, I quite fancy a 32MP sensor as this would largely negate bayer colour artefacts.

Or I suppose an 8MP sensor, and much larger photosites.

Yep, video is dragging the stills guys down, it's the other way about.

And after all we've given the stills guys:

LCDs
CMOS
CCD
Live View
Electronic shutter

You know more than I about this stuff.

By the way, Paul, I always enjoy your posts: you clearly know your craft, and write thoughtful posts that go beyond the superficial. Yours is one of the names I scan for as page through the comments.

 

[dickgrafixstop]

I was interested in the Nikon announcement but decided that is was designed by a committee - maybe they
tried too hard to keep today's capabilities with yesterday's "features". Were Canon ever to try something
similar, I'd like to see a "digital AE1p" or "T70" with only basic exposure controls and, obviously, the FD mount.
The APS sensor would be fine and the pricing less than $1000 would make a very interesting entry in the
market - with a lot more potential customers than the EOS-M in it's current form. Now that would be the kind
of camera that could take us back to basic techniques and thinking about images - though I'm not sure I'd like
a frame counter that would limit us to 36 exposures per SD card.

 

[MLfan3]

no video , then no one actually buys it.
I love the look to be honest, but why does it not get at least 1080p at 30f/s?
and it should have gotten an EVF for proper manual focusing.
anyway, I do not understand why so many threads for this junk Nikon here and LL, and most of camera fora?
I am more interested in the new Canon C100 PDAF and the new Cinema quality 4K display from Canon.

 

[unfocused]

I voted Fuji.

Simple reason: I see the Fuji as "classic" designs, but without compromises in functionality. They are very attractive cameras, but they are well-designed and meant to be used.

I see the Nikon as pure nostalgia. Jam a digital camera into a retro-style body, throw in the kitchen sink, jack up the price and hope it sells to geezers and hipsters. It has desperation written all over it.

Now, I would admit that if they had priced it in line with the D600 the story might be much different. It's too expensive for a novelty purchase and too idiosyncratic for everyday use.

 

[Lichtgestalt]

i am not interested in retro look for DSLR´s at all

a m43 with a fuji kind of retro look... ok.

 

[ewg963]

I like the concept of the camera. No video, only stills. I have not ever used the video mode on my camera. Actually, it would be nice if Canon could have used that space for more still photography features. Thats why I bought the camera in the first place.

+1

 

[drolo61]

#2

reasons:
I am old enough to still enjoy the classic layout of controls to touch most important settings intuitively, even in the dark. Have and like my Epson D-R1.

I still own - and will not let go of - my FM2. Bulletproof design and make, does not need any energy.

Dislike the plastic construction.
Dislike the "wrong form faktor" (too thick - like Leica M9 over my classic M6)

If you got for rebuilding retro, get it right.

 

[Lichtgestalt]

I like the concept of the camera. No video, only stills. I have not ever used the video mode on my camera. Actually, it would be nice if Canon could have used that space

space? what space?

for more still photography features. Thats why I bought the camera in the first place.

and removing video makes a camera better?
mhm.. care to explain why?

it´s not that the camera is cheaper because it has no video.
at least this urban myth should be killed by the nikon DF.
if not 1080P able 100 euro cameras have done that already.

and i really don´t get why people are unable to just ignore video if they don´t want to shoot video. puzzles me every day. :

some cameras have art filter.. i don´t use art filter... i don´t care if a camera has art filters or not. now im not spamming every website that i don´t like art filters in my cameras... i just don´t use them.

removing video makes no sense from a business point of view.

a few old geezers may buy a camera because it has NO video (for the same price as one with video).
but the majority of consumers will buy a camera that has stills and video features.
because they think in a more logical way:

when i need it is good to have it... when i don´t need im not forced to use it.

 

[Mt Spokane Photography]

Its the wrong product at the wrong time. What's wrong at Nikon? First they don't impress with the Nikon one system, and now this? It appears to be a high profit item, probably kicked out because they have a surplus of sensors that won't work on video that they need to dump.
I'm not talking style, some do buy for style, and some for function.

 

[dgatwood]

There are a few decisions that I don't like, like the lack of video, the low resolution, etc. but the less confusing controls for manual settings would have major, major appeal to me if it were on a Canon camera.

Of course, what I really want is the 5D Mark III's autofocus system on the 6D, with those manual controls added. Video, GPS, Wi-Fi, and full manual controls. That is a camera that I'd preorder, right now, without hesitation, even though my 6D is only a few months old. Hence the reason I'm absolutely certain Canon won't build it.