# Retro gone wrong? dpr first impressions and test shots, Nikon DF



## candc (Nov 28, 2013)

http://www.dpreview.com/previews/nikon-df/6


----------



## Albi86 (Nov 28, 2013)

Typical DPReview.

"The Df is a bit silly"

"The Df is one of the most interesting cameras of the year"



I don't find it silly, but I find it overly retro (seriously, retro should be the inspiration, but there's no good in going back to the manufacturing limitations of the 60s) and with a price that hardly reflects the spec sheet. Also, besides the design, the overall functionality doesn't seem to support manual lenses all that much.


----------



## candc (Nov 28, 2013)

i like the idea but i would want an ae-1p with digital innards, no need for all that extra stuff. look at how huge it is, its like a brick with knobs!


----------



## Dylan777 (Nov 28, 2013)

candc said:


> http://www.dpreview.com/previews/nikon-df/6


Fuji seems to be on the right track with retro design. Can't wait for ff x series.
Df is too bulky with too many buttons.


----------



## MrFotoFool (Nov 28, 2013)

I found the pre-announcement teaser videos very enticing. But as soon as I saw a picture of the real thing, my interest dropped to zero. I do not know who would buy that camera at that price.


----------



## Dylan777 (Nov 28, 2013)

MrFotoFool said:


> I found the pre-announcement teaser videos very enticing. But as soon as I saw a picture of the real thing, my interest dropped to zero. I do not know who would buy that camera at that price.



+1


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Nov 28, 2013)

I don't buy cameras as a fashion statement, but as tools to get a job done. There seems to be little need for the DF in that regard, its for those with lots of money to burn that want a toy to show off.


----------



## RomainF (Nov 29, 2013)

Dylan777 said:


> MrFotoFool said:
> 
> 
> > I found the pre-announcement teaser videos very enticing. But as soon as I saw a picture of the real thing, my interest dropped to zero. I do not know who would buy that camera at that price.
> ...



I'd say that Leica cameras sell pretty well regarding their prices and spec sheets.
I imagine that Nikons people tried to come up with their "response" to Leica. A good enough camera for fortunate amateurs. A camera which is more interesting than powerful. A camera to sell to folks who don't care shooting @ 12.800iso but who want a very-interesting/good-looking one. And there are guys like these all over the world. Fortunate people who want a "luxury"-item as a camera. Leicas are too restrictive. The rangefinder is a real pain in the ass for people who just want to shoot pictures of their holidays, their friends and eventually some flowers in their garden on a sunny sunday afternoon. The Nikon DF could be the good one for them.


----------



## ajfotofilmagem (Nov 29, 2013)

Really seems that Nikon DF is targeting the wealthy amateurs who buy Leica, but do not want the limitations of Rangefinder: No autofocus, no zoom lenses, no macro lenses, no ultra wide lens, no super tele lenses, no vision truly through lens, etc... :-[ However, it could be an attractive sensor Nikon DF had black and white, like the Leica Monocrom.


----------



## K13X5C (Nov 29, 2013)

Mt Spokane Photography said:


> I don't buy cameras as a fashion statement, but as tools to get a job done. There seems to be little need for the DF in that regard, its for those with lots of money to burn that want a toy to show off.



Well said.


----------



## candc (Nov 29, 2013)

I can understand the appeal that leica has. Small, simple, classy, excellent image quality. I would even buy one if money were no object. This Nikon on the other hand is an example of trying to do too much and succeeding at nothing. I don't think I would ever use it if you gave it to me, it's just frankensteinish.


----------



## Woody (Nov 29, 2013)

Awful design. Awful price. Awfully big and heavy. Unnecessary wastage of company funds. A sure misfire, just like Canon's Powershot N.


----------



## Nishi Drew (Nov 29, 2013)

Well typical Nikon, like with the SB900 to SB910 and D600 to D610, they'll soon enough get an update, like a DFs or something, that will cost the same but address the problems it inherently has... or not.

And this isn't mentioned much but the DF was apparently on the design board since 2009, that's 4 years worth of work in design for something that has focus on looks over function but they fail completely in understanding their own history.
If they didn't overkill with the price and just essentially stuck a digital sensor into a reworked FM2 then terrific! You please those with nostalgia and the hipsters alike. It'd be compact, though with a screen and buttons that need arrangement, but it will look and feel like a classic and it wouldn't even need as fancy of an AF or much speed.

The Fuji X series, especially the X100 doesn't look like any retro camera, but they got it down right, it's slim and beautiful, with enough analogue control and a good feel. Also a rangefinder is just fun to use, while classic SLRs, I love them not just with their weight and size but the viewfinder, I look through an AE1 and the magnification feels great, like I'm apart of the scene and not just peering into it, a 50mm feels wider than it actually is even though the viewfinder doesn't cover 100% of the image, I'm sure others can relate to that feel.


----------



## candc (Nov 29, 2013)

i couldn't resist


----------



## mrsfotografie (Nov 29, 2013)

Dylan777 said:


> candc said:
> 
> 
> > http://www.dpreview.com/previews/nikon-df/6
> ...



In fact it looks like it could be painful in use. Big, heavy, bulky and look at that grip.... :-\

It's not 'retro' design but 'reverse' design (reverse as in backward).


----------



## EchoLocation (Nov 29, 2013)

Dylan777 said:


> MrFotoFool said:
> 
> 
> > I found the pre-announcement teaser videos very enticing. But as soon as I saw a picture of the real thing, my interest dropped to zero. I do not know who would buy that camera at that price.
> ...


This camera is a joke. It's ugly.... way too big and despite being lighter and smaller than almost all DSLR's, looks like a brick.
While it is retro, it is certainly not retro done right. 
As people have noted earlier, it should be much more beneficial to manual focusing and the price should be more in line with the features. 
NOT giving us video does not make we want to pay out an extra 800 dollars over the D610.
Additionally, while the knobs are nice looking, I believe that modern DSLR controls are easier to use and better ergonomically. 
Also, while the pre announcement marketing was great, it built up expectations to high for what the product was actually delivering. 
This was a major failure by Nikon.


----------



## alexanderferdinand (Nov 29, 2013)

Although I like the look of it, I prefer the modern interface.
For example: I would miss the exposure +/- on the big wheel on the back.


----------



## Hillsilly (Nov 29, 2013)

It's not that there's a problem with the camera - I think many people would consider owning one. But the pricing is wrong. It's the same price as the D800. And for most purposes the D800 is a better camera. Not sure how it is going sale-wise. They need to drop the price to around $2k or do a quick revision and add the D800 sensor and some better manual focusing aids - eg focus peaking, split prism etc.



Mt Spokane Photography said:


> I don't buy cameras as a fashion statement, but as tools to get a job done. There seems to be little need for the DF in that regard, its for those with lots of money to burn that want a toy to show off.


.
Logically, I agree, which is why I feel nearly everyone will choose a D800 over a DF at the same price. But if I'm choosing between two essentially identical things, I'll go with the better looking one every time. I'm happy to give Nikon some credit for having the guts to produce soemthing that isn't a generic black lump.


----------



## Rienzphotoz (Nov 29, 2013)

Mt Spokane Photography said:


> I don't buy cameras as a fashion statement, but as tools to get a job done. There seems to be little need for the DF in that regard, its for those with lots of money to burn that want a toy to show off.


I don't mind a bit of "show off" is at work, but not at the price point Nikon has decided to sell this camera with limited features.


----------



## sagittariansrock (Nov 29, 2013)

Hillsilly said:


> And for most purposes the D800 is a better camera.



I would say, for all purposes, D800 is a better camera, no?



Hillsilly said:


> But if I'm choosing between two essentially identical things, I'll go with the better looking one every time.



I'm sure everyone will. Having said that, I personally feel D800 is better looking (or most cameras that look either modern or retro- but not both at the same time). However, if form comes at the cost of function, that is a step backward. No two ways about it.


----------



## Jay H (Nov 29, 2013)

I agree with all of the negative opinions listed above and elsewhere, except for the objections to the overall thickness - looks like a brick - etc.

To make the Df more svelte they would have to abandon all previous Nikon lenses, you know, like Canon did back when they went digital.

I do not need the size, weight or FPS of a D4. I'm getting a smaller, lighter, slower camera with the same sensor for half price.


----------



## zlatko (Nov 29, 2013)

If I were a Nikon user, the Df might appeal to me as a D700 replacement. It's going to be a high quality image maker with a D4 sensor. But the retro aspect of the design has no particular appeal for me — even though my first cameras were the Nikon FM and FE. 

I would not care to see an AE-1 inspired Canon DSLR as that was not a particularly elegant design in the film days. However, I do appreciate efforts to make full-frame cameras smaller and lighter. The 6D is a definite step in the right direction — smaller and lighter. It doesn't need retro-style ISO and shutter speed dials like the Df. EOS cameras already have excellent ISO and shutter speed dials.


----------



## sanj (Nov 29, 2013)

Hillsilly said:


> It's not that there's a problem with the camera - I think many people would consider owning one. But the pricing is wrong. It's the same price as the D800. And for most purposes the D800 is a better camera. Not sure how it is going sale-wise. They need to drop the price to around $2k or do a quick revision and add the D800 sensor and some better manual focusing aids - eg focus peaking, split prism etc.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Agree.


----------



## Harry Muff (Dec 11, 2013)

Had a play with one a couple of days ago. It's big! Not my idea of a travel camera, the X100s fits the bill far better there. 


It was in the cabinet next to a D800 and I couldn't help but think, for the same price, I'd rather have one of those. 


The sales guy made the best defence of the Df with the point that it's the only way to get a D4 sensor for half the price. 
Apparently, DxO have tested it and say it's of the highest standard.


Use-wise, I found it didn't focus particularly quick with the kit 50mm, and the dials were not the easiest to work. You certainly would need to take it away from your eye to change a lot of the settings.




I'm really not sure about this camera, it just seems to be a pretty camera with only the sensor to make it worth considering for a serious photographer. Especially for all that money.




If Nikon were the only company around, I'd have a D800 and wouldn't even consider the Df.


----------



## Rienzphotoz (Dec 11, 2013)

Harry Muff said:


> If Nikon were the only company around, I'd have a D800 and wouldn't even consider the Df.


+! ... I cannot understand Nikon's logic with the pricing of this camera, so I bought the D610 instead ... its a lot more versatile with far more advanced features than the Df.


----------



## rpiotr01 (Dec 11, 2013)

DPR has shots of it next to an old F1 body and can't believe how bulky this thing looks.


----------



## Fleetie (Dec 12, 2013)

mrsfotografie said:


> Dylan777 said:
> 
> 
> > candc said:
> ...




"retrograde".


----------

