So has anyone played with a Nikon Df yet?
- This topic has 11 replies, 5 voices, and was last updated Feb 12, 2014 at 7:40 pm by
.
-
Posts
-
I still want one. My D600 is fine, but I don’t need 24MP and I don’t use the video function. And the build quality is not there for what I paid for it. I think a used market Df may be in my future.
Zach
Zach, IMHO the DF is a very expensive camera for what it is.
I think Nikon, like all the big players in cameras were desperate and threw it together.
I say that loving the look and idea of retro/modern camera design, but the DF is the same money as the D800 and wouldn’t get anywhere near it for image quality.On the plus side, it won’t tax a lens like something with more resolution and might pull chicks ???
www.dsaphoto.com
A picture is thousand words that takes less than a second while a thousand words is a picture that takes a month.
I have had my hands on one and for the money I would definitely go a D800. For that price I would not go with the DF no matter how cool it looks.
Zach,
Agree with the others, can’t see what the Df has to offer for the price. But, as you’re thinking, bodies might pretty quickly begin showing up on used markets, and if the used price is significantly lower . . .
Or go back to DX. Been reading lots of good stuff about the D7100. A bit lighter/smaller.
On that same smaller/lighter vein, I’ve been pretty happy with the M4/3 system. 16mp, about half the weight, size and price of a FF system. Flash is pretty good, not quite like the SB800/900s, but good. Primary downside I’ve seen so far, and it’s not a showstopper for most uses, is that it doesn’t track action nearly as well as the Nikons. Did some side-by-side shots of some string instruments, and used both the D800 and Oly E-M5. You could definitely see the difference, but the Oly files made some really nice prints that more than satisfied the customer. And my computer wheezes less when pulling up a 16MP file compared to a 36MP file.
Size/weight makes trekking through airports much easier, and attendants don’t even look at the case at the gate (as opposed to the “you’ll have to gate check that” refrain I get with the larger case the Nikon gear requires.
Buzz
I am definitely holding off on the Df until it hits the used market. 16MP is perfect for what I do and the lighter body size is very appealing. I also like the idea of being able to twiddle the dials without digging through menus, but I am currently using a D600, which is the most consumer-y camera I’ve shot with in a long time. I don’t like it.
Zach
I’ve seen the “very expensive for what it is” comment quite a bit in various forums, which I feel is relative to one’s needs and intentions for the tool.
The DF is a very interesting product from my perspective. It’s basically a D4 that loses the premium fast-action components (frame rate and more advanced AF array) as well as HALF the price. So, if you are after certain capabilities of the D4 minus the flagship speed – the DF is very inexpensive for what it is.
So why would you want one? There’s a huge use case for street photography, where the pro SLR form factor draws a lot of attention. Those who focus on still imagery should also benefit from the dial-based approach of the controls. In my mind though, there has always been a balance between resolution, file size, pixel density, and IQ. Speaking personally about my own needs, I have never been happier with a camera sensor than I am with the D4. It produces an output that is balanced – manageable file sizes, sufficient latitude for reasonable cropping, excellent color fidelity, and plenty of resolution for my print/publication needs.
I have a use case for a D800, which is rather narrow and specialized. Overall, I don’t want 75MB 14-bit RAW files for 90% of what I do. A half-price, physically smaller and lighter D4 for scenarios that aren’t fast-action is very appealing to me for everything from a backup with identical IQ to a travel/water body. The DF includes a pro sensor, pro processor, pro menu system, pro weather sealing…etc. without what boils down to a $3000 price premium for stuff that hauls ass. I’ve also been watching with a lot of interest to see if anyone is going to make a housing for the DF because that could yield a less expensive, more compact UW solution with the D4’s image output.
As a D4 shooter, my main consideration is that I already have a D4. I have niche uses for a number of other capabilities, and the business case for those may win out for a while – we’ll see. The question of to DF or not to DF is really about what strengths it brings to the table and whether or not you value them.
Frankly, if it were not for birds in flight, the DF would be my primary. I think it’s a bargain, and will be even more of one on the used market.
Glass half full Brett !! 🙂
www.dsaphoto.com
A picture is thousand words that takes less than a second while a thousand words is a picture that takes a month.
Can I make a quick case for more resolution for the same money ?
I’ve just been through all my digital fishing photos from 2004 – 2008 and I’m SO wishing I had the 800e back then.
Some of the high ISO stuff might as well have been done with a box of crayons…lol
I’m horrified I submitted some of it for print !!My point ?
What’s everything on the DF going to look like 10 years from now compared to the 800e and whatever cameras come after ?
Is that a stupid point ??
Probably, but it’s MUCH easier to take away resolution as opposed to adding it so it’s worth thinking about IMHO.Ok, everything is done on tiny phone screens now and nobody gives a rats ass about printed content, but what if everything goes to big 4K screens or 12K or a number we can’t even imagine now ?
Personally, I think the D4, like the Canon 1Dx is about newspaper photographers and agency guys who just need it fast, but will that cut the mustard when an ad agency is looking for a stock shot of a couple of frogs doing some horizontal folk dancing and it comes down to the DF shot or the 800E shot ?
You lose DF shooter, unless you’re sleeping with the editor..I say all this mostly tung and cheek, but it wasn’t so long ago in the film days that the above situation happened all the time.
It happened to me more than a few times when I chose to shoot 35mm instead of the more tedious 120 film.As a side note, I also agree that a camera like the new Olympus OMD thingy and a couple lens makes more sense if you don’t need the resolution because you’re saving a lot of bulk and money over FF alternatives.
www.dsaphoto.com
A picture is thousand words that takes less than a second while a thousand words is a picture that takes a month.
Image longevity is a good point David, and it’s a topic I have thought quite a bit about. I’d be interested in other people’s take here as well.
Shooting at 36MP when my current customer needs are met by 12MP and nicely exceeded by 16MP can be looked at 2 ways. On one hand it reduces my available frame rate, requires more storage (both primary and backup) and creates post processing overhead as well. The flip side would be to consider these pain points as front-loading a long-term investment in the imagery and it may very well extend the marketable lifespan of a portfolio. It’s probably a substantial consideration for stock photographers and so forth.
What I see over a time period like the 10 years you mention is continuous improvement in equipment and the decreasing cost of better technologies which then become more accessible. For example, in 10 years when the DF and D800e are competing for that piece of business…what if there’s also a guy at the table with the latest Phase One medium format back which 10 years from now will probably cost about what a D4 does today? He will be there not only with an 80MP file, but one that boasts vastly superior IQ due to the advantages of sensor size. Many of these systems today also use leaf shutter mechanisms, which enable native flash sync speeds of 1/1600.
In 10 years I may indeed wish all of my portfolio was shot at 36MP, or the market may have changed and FX could be as outdated and shoddy-looking as your 2004-2008 work is right now. We might all be carrying around 16fps medium format bodies that shoot richly detailed, stunning 100MP captures with which today’s tools don’t compete at all.
Medium format is always tempting, but IMHO the camera systems have a long way to go before you would take one fishing or game stalking in the woods.
The manufactures seem stuck on studio formats based on Blad designs from world war II…
Where’s the modern80mp Mamiya 6 or 7 that I could carry around tucked into my waders and happily shoot at 80 ISO or stick on a light tripod for remote landscapes ???
I would have one in a heartbeat !
(though it might be the last time my heart beat after the beating my wife would give me -lol)
That said, I also looked very closely at some test shots I did ten years ago (on a fishing trip) with a Hasselblad V system and a Phase One 25mp back and the shots have really stood the test of time.I can see the advantages in normal rez cameras for specific work when it comes to space and back-up and processing.
Like I said above, I shot a lot of work on 35mm out of pure laziness that would have looked much better on 120.FWIW, I’ve asked Nikon for a loaner DF and I’m going to put one through it’s paces on the water.
www.dsaphoto.com
A picture is thousand words that takes less than a second while a thousand words is a picture that takes a month.
I’m not publishing in the same circles as you guys, but I am publishing. The only images I have *ever* had rejected due to file size were those rare cases where I had saved a proof for web use but lost track of the original hi-res due to old computers dying on me. I’ve shot on 6MP, 10MP and 24MP pro bodies and quite frankly in the hook and bullet press 10MP gets it done for any application. I look at the 16MP of the D4/Df as a luxury, and I absolutely do not need the 24MP of my D600, which is why I shoot with it dialed back. Then again, I also shoot all JPEG, so clearly for my purposes file size is more valuable than absolute quality. And while I am not shooting for stock companies or commercial ads like you guys, I have published maybe 100+ images in national magazines.
All I’m saying is, sometimes I think the pixel hunt is overrated. If the photo content is good enough, or if the price is right, they’ll find a way to use it.
Now, if they issue a 12K tablet, David, you will have my apologies in advance. 🙂
Zach
Now, if they issue a 12K tablet, David, you will have my apologies in advance.
I’ll send you a 100 megabyte in your face Zach Matthews email from one…LOL
www.dsaphoto.com
A picture is thousand words that takes less than a second while a thousand words is a picture that takes a month.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.