# Appeal of Nikon Df



## sanj (Nov 7, 2013)

My vote is #1

So much so that a photo of this camera is my desktop image these days.


----------



## Menace (Nov 7, 2013)

sanj said:


> My vote is #1



Same here


----------



## Aglet (Nov 7, 2013)

Love it, might buy one, Canon can't make one like it.


----------



## J.R. (Nov 7, 2013)

Option 4 - looks don't matter because with my eye on the viewfinder, I couldn't care less what my camera looks like. Unlocking and turning one of 7 dials for every change I want to make ... I think I'll pass - not interested.


----------



## Kwanon (Nov 7, 2013)

I wish it was just butt ugly. Its a lot worse.

the nikon df is the only camera that costs +2500$ and it looks like a 30$ toy camera.

LMAO if i see anyone taking pictures with that thing.


----------



## Danielle (Nov 7, 2013)

#1 here too.

However, canon can't really make one. That look out dates eos cameras, it's not happening. They won't make an ae-1 digital or any fd digitals. Very unlikely.


----------



## Harry Muff (Nov 7, 2013)

Don't see the point of it at that price.


----------



## LDS (Nov 7, 2013)

J.R. said:


> Unlocking and turning one of 7 dials for every change I want to make ... I think I'll pass - not interested.


Yes, it's an interesting exercies for nostalgic people... but camera UI and ergonomics made huge steps forward since the '70s (especially thanks to the Canon Ts, and electronics). Althogh I still use my A-1 sometimes (it's so small and light, compared to actual cameras!), I would not buy a DSLR resembling it. Maybe I would like to be able to use some of my FD lenses, but I wouldn't care about the camera body look.


----------



## cid (Nov 7, 2013)

No 1.: I like it, when I saw images I was like WOW, but according to early hands on the ergonomics is not top notch. If canon could produce something similar in terms of design and also add good handling capability, I'll be considering it :


----------



## RAKAMRAK (Nov 7, 2013)

No. 1


----------



## cervantes (Nov 7, 2013)

What is interesting is that it has nearly full compatibility with all the old Nikon lenses. Imagine Canon would release a similar FF Camera with compatibility with the FD mount... The used market would go nuts! ;-)


----------



## gmrza (Nov 7, 2013)

I think it has a similar appeal to a Land Rover Defender.

Owning a classic model can be a fun hobby, but there is not much point in buying a new one (while you still can, in the case of the Defender).


----------



## eLroberto (Nov 7, 2013)

"I'm a hipster" option is missing ;D


----------



## Sith Zombie (Nov 7, 2013)

I kinda like it but I wouldn't buy one, even if canon made one. I'm more interested in the new sony A7 really but even then, I just love the form factor of DSLR's and will probably use them until they stop making them.


----------



## bholliman (Nov 7, 2013)

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.


----------



## Coolhandchuck (Nov 7, 2013)

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.


----------



## Sporgon (Nov 7, 2013)

Mines #2.

This camera could have hit the bullseye but; no interchangeable screens for 'real' manual focus, plastic construction ( with an alloy top plate), unnecessarily 'retro', outdated control placement, far too higher price for a plastic camera and to cap it all - your computer will make a realistic film rewinding noise when you download images ! 

I mean the FM, FE and even th F3 ( without motordrive ) never had power rewind !

OK so you can disable this 'function' but it says a lot about who Nikon are aiming the camera at


----------



## sanj (Nov 7, 2013)

Sith Zombie said:


> I kinda like it but I wouldn't buy one, even if canon made one. I'm more interested in the new sony A7 really but even then, I just love the form factor of DSLR's and will probably use them until they stop making them.



God forbid.


----------



## sanj (Nov 7, 2013)

bholliman said:


> 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....


----------



## sanj (Nov 7, 2013)

Sporgon said:


> Mines #2.
> 
> This camera could have hit the bullseye but; no interchangeable screens for 'real' manual focus, plastic construction ( with an alloy top plate), unnecessarily 'retro', outdated control placement, far too higher price for a plastic camera and to cap it all - your computer will make a realistic film rewinding noise when you download images !
> 
> ...



Really??? I did not know that. Sounds hilarious. 
And is it plastic? It looks so solid!


----------



## Knut Skywalker (Nov 7, 2013)

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 (Nov 7, 2013)

Coolhandchuck said:


> 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 (Nov 7, 2013)

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 (Nov 7, 2013)

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 (Nov 7, 2013)

sanj said:


> bholliman said:
> 
> 
> > I answered #4
> ...



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 (Nov 7, 2013)

Nishi Drew said:


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





Coolhandchuck said:


> 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 (Nov 7, 2013)

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 (Nov 7, 2013)

sanj said:


> 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 (Nov 7, 2013)

Orangutan said:


> 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 (Nov 7, 2013)

Nishi Drew said:


> Coolhandchuck said:
> 
> 
> > 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.
> ...



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


----------



## Orangutan (Nov 7, 2013)

paul13walnut5 said:


> Orangutan said:
> 
> 
> > 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.
> ...



 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 (Nov 7, 2013)

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 (Nov 7, 2013)

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 (Nov 7, 2013)

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 (Nov 7, 2013)

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

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


----------



## ewg963 (Nov 7, 2013)

Coolhandchuck said:


> 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 (Nov 7, 2013)

#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 (Nov 7, 2013)

ewg963 said:


> Coolhandchuck said:
> 
> 
> > 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 (Nov 7, 2013)

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 (Nov 8, 2013)

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.


----------



## dgatwood (Nov 8, 2013)

paul13walnut5 said:


> 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.



I'd prefer a stacked buffer sensor. IMO, the interline design makes no sense. It wastes half the photosite space on buffers. It would make a lot more sense to use a second layer behind the photosites, simultaneously shift every pixel in the vertical direction, and then shift the data horizontally towards one edge for each scan cycle. More costly, sure, but it's a much, much better design.


----------



## Rob.ONeill (Nov 8, 2013)

*Nikon Df, Nikon's retro 5D3*

People, am I the only person with this perception. The Nikon D800 never was a competitor to the 5D3. This camera is in a class entirely by itself. This is primarily a landscape photographers dream come true. The 5D3 is an all-around photographers tool. The 5D3 is a low-light and event photographers Holy Grail. These cameras are purposed for different assignments. Comparing them has always struck me as goofy. 
But when I consider the talents of Nikon's new Df camera, it is a specs matched camera with the 5D3. This camera will be used for the same purposes as the 5D3; -around, and low-light event photography. The big difference being it's retro body. I'm a long time Canon shooter, but I want one of these! This is an awesome camera. As Canon continues to raise it's prices to the point of usury, while stripping out features, Nikon continues to trump Canon with every new model release. Understanding these points makes it obvious why the Df is priced where it is... To compete not only with the 5D3, but all of the high end ILC's as well. Personally, I'd take the Df over any one of the ILC's. Well done Nikon!


----------



## Ewinter (Nov 8, 2013)

*Re: Nikon Df, Nikon's retro 5D3*

My one, big gripe with the Df is how much they crippled it. The D610 af is NOT good enough for this spec camera, and no dual cards either? Such small things that they just didn't put in


----------



## Lichtgestalt (Nov 8, 2013)

*Re: Nikon Df, Nikon's retro 5D3*

do we need another nikon DF thread in the EOS BODIES forum.. or any forum...?



> As Canon continues to raise it's prices to the point of usury, while stripping out features, Nikon continues to trump Canon with every new model release



sorry but what are you smoking?

the camera has no video, the AF is no competition.. how is that trumping.. in ugly design maybe?

just registered for trolling?


----------



## Dylan777 (Nov 8, 2013)

*Re: Nikon Df, Nikon's retro 5D3*

Canon will destroy retro - mirrorless market if they release something like this with 35mm sensor 

Nikon Df looks :-\ just too many buttons


----------



## Lichtgestalt (Nov 8, 2013)

*Re: Nikon Df, Nikon's retro 5D3*

the shutter button on top and that position is just not ergonomical.
i prefer the usual DSLR design. retro is so...old. 

and there seems to be not much demand for the nikon DF:

http://petapixel.com/2013/11/08/nikon-cuts-sales-forecast-yet-dslr-sales-stall-df-preorders-come-subpar/



> But the bad news doesn’t stop there, it continues to roll with rumors of lackluster Df pre-sales published by Nikon Rumors. NR claims that unofficial info from several retailers has Df demand “not even close” to what D800 demand was when it came out.
> 
> To substantiate that claim, NR points out that the Df isn’t even in the top 20 best-selling DSLRs on Amazon, while the D610 (not exactly the most popular release Nikon has ever had, given all of the pissed off D600 users) is up at number 14.



much talk about how great this camera looks and blahblah.. but it seems it is just that.. "talk".
only a few are willing to pay 2750$ just for looks and bad ergonomics.


----------



## nda (Nov 8, 2013)

*Re: Nikon Df, Nikon's retro 5D3*


Nikon Df... DOA


----------



## Albi86 (Nov 9, 2013)

*Re: Nikon Df, Nikon's retro 5D3*



Lichtgestalt said:


> the shutter button on top and that position is just not ergonomical.
> i prefer the usual DSLR design. retro is so...old.
> 
> and there seems to be not much demand for the nikon DF:
> ...



The comparison with the D610 is a bit pointless, since the price gap is very big. If you compare the sales of the Canon 50mm f/1.8 and the 50mm L, then one should also infer that the latter is a flop.

The comparison with the D800 is much more interesting, since the price is pretty much the same. There are, however, 3 things to be considered:
- the Df is arriving only 1.5 years after the D800, 1 year after the D600, and a few months after the D610, meaning that at this point people are not likely to be still looking for a new camera.
- the Df, most honestly, is not bringing any significant improvement in IQ or functionality on the table. 
- the Df's (very much) retro design will be loved by some, but frowned upon by the most.

Nikon here has done a very big design mistake. This sort of camera (for its concept and price) can be only aimed at enthusiasts and pros looking for a leisure-time second camera, but the spec sheet doesn't make the target customers salivate. In many ways it is inferior to the D700.


----------



## Eldar (Nov 9, 2013)

Every now and then a product is launched that IMHO is totally pointless. This is clearly one.


----------



## candc (Nov 9, 2013)

i would buy one if fd lenses would work on it


----------



## moreorless (Nov 11, 2013)

dilbert said:


> Eldar said:
> 
> 
> > Every now and then a product is launched that IMHO is totally pointless. This is clearly one.
> ...



That seems a pretty pointless comparison to me considering how much of a success the D800 was and why that was the case. You look at the amazon DSLR chart and the Df seems to be doing pretty well to me with 4 different options all in the top 50.

Really what it shows for me is the position we've reached in the camera market, as we get into the realms of diminishing returns for more users it makes sense to go after the niche markets. The question is IMHO whether manifacturers can do this in a way that earns money, you look at the new Sony FF mirrorless and along with a whole raft of new lenses the investment involved must be massive, the same with Fuji's X system. I'm guessing Nikon spent a tiny fraction of that on the Df, really the only thing they needed to spend on was a new body design and some dials, no new sensor, no new AF system and most importantly no new lenses.


----------



## Rienzphotoz (Nov 11, 2013)

Initially I was excited about this camera, but the below reasons put me off:
a. the price tag, considering the limited features.
b. I do quite a bit of video and not having video on a modern DSLR is a no no for me.
c. I was expecting it to be smaller in height.

However, I do like:
a. "Retro" looks
b. I can use my existing Nikon glass without having to use any adapter.


----------



## DaveMiko (Nov 11, 2013)

All I have to say is: Canon rules!!!!


----------



## sdsr (Nov 11, 2013)

http://photographylife.com/announcing-the-nikon-dfb-burberry-edition#more-63460

Too bad they went and ruined it with the bit in bold italics at the end.


----------



## sandymandy (Nov 11, 2013)

looks like it was designed by somebody who isnt a photographer.


----------



## brianboru (Nov 11, 2013)

I voted "butt-ugly". 

At first glance, I saw the top of the camera and the retro knobs and had a brief "Oooh shiny" moment. Then the rest of the camera sank in - too tall, too many buttons on the front, and the back has no retro at all. (A 60D-esq pivoting screen should have been there so the user could have pretended they were time-traveling.) 

Additionally, the newly released "retro-lens" has no retro to it. Even Ken Rockwell, who proves daily with his web-site to have almost no design esthetic in him, chose a vintage lens for the picture candc cross posted.


----------



## Pinchers of Peril (Nov 11, 2013)

This camera is kind of cool looking at first glance, but I HATE how they put all that black around the top by the pentaprism/hotshoe... bleh. I dont' know why you would buy this when you could just buy the BEAUTIFUL Fuji x100s for cheaper.


----------



## dtaylor (Nov 11, 2013)

The silver Df doesn't look like a classic SLR. It looks like a caricature of a classic SLR. Fuji's stuff has a retro look that works. This just looks silly, almost like a toy camera.

The black one looks a bit better, but still not right.


----------



## iam2nd (Nov 11, 2013)

Voted. It would be much MORE appealing to me if it were much LESS expensive. Whether it's made by Nikon or Canon doesn't matter to me.

Would I use it every day? Likely not. But I know many people, young and old, that would think it's "cool" if I shot my next event with that camera. It would be a talking point and open the door for conversations. But that's the only reason I would buy it, honestly. And for that "privilege", I could never justify the cost.


----------



## candc (Nov 11, 2013)

I hate to say this but I agree with Ken Rockwell on this statement:

Nikon has gone so far to show us an image with the Df and two F-Mount lenses, the 55mm f/1.2 (a good lens) and the classic Nikon 43-86mm f/3.5 (1963-1976), which is actually Nikon's poorest-performing lens of all time; a lens so optically awful that it single-handedly gave all zoom lenses a bad reputation for the next two or three decades.

But hey, it's all about the marketing and it looks good


----------



## AdamJ (Nov 12, 2013)

Sporgon said:


> sanj said:
> 
> 
> > And is it plastic? It looks so solid!
> ...



As far as I can make out, the 6D has an alloy front piece and an alloy back piece. To me, it feels like a marketing gesture - my 6D doesn't feel anything like as robust as my 7D or the 5DII I had until recently.

6D






7D





5D MkII


----------



## ajfotofilmagem (Nov 12, 2013)

The concept is not all bad. I like the physical controls, resolution, and image quality supposedly equal to D4. Everything else seems unnecessarily ugly and bad ergonomics, price and targeted for people who want a nostalgic photo camera "classic" and dream of Leica. It is not my case.


----------



## Aglet (Nov 12, 2013)

I suspect the Df is one Nikon body the price might actually drop on in a shorter time frame because of the lacklustre sales.
If it does, I'll be ready to pounce if I still have a paycheck by then.


----------



## Rienzphotoz (Nov 12, 2013)

Aglet said:


> I suspect the Df is one Nikon body the price might actually drop on in a shorter time frame because of the lacklustre sales.
> If it does, I'll be ready to pounce if I still have a paycheck by then.


+1 ... but only if the price goes below US$ 1500


----------



## Albi86 (Nov 13, 2013)

Rienzphotoz said:


> Aglet said:
> 
> 
> > I suspect the Df is one Nikon body the price might actually drop on in a shorter time frame because of the lacklustre sales.
> ...



They'd rather discontinue it and call it a _limited edition_


----------



## Rienzphotoz (Nov 13, 2013)

Albi86 said:


> Rienzphotoz said:
> 
> 
> > Aglet said:
> ...


It is already a "limited edition" ;D ... it has no video (a very important feature for me) and yet the price is similar to Nkion's FF DLSR(s)


----------



## StudentOfLight (Nov 16, 2013)

In South Africa the Nikon DF (body only) is on pre-order for R37,995 ($3,650). This doesn't make sense to me. If anything, this concept should appeal to the consumer/enthusiast market not the pro-end of the price spectrum, especially since (on paper) it doesn't seem to bring any significant innovation to the table. 

I will suspend judgement until I read in-depth reviews but this is unlikely to be on my wishlist anytime soon.


----------



## MLfan3 (Nov 19, 2013)

this one would be a huge mistake for Nikon , and it may even kill Nikon , Nikon should be more honest and sincere to its high end camera users...... remember what Nikon has done to the D600 users?
so it is hard to trust a company like Nikon.
cutting corners to make it cheap cheap does not help them , but produces many many QC issues.
Nikon should wake up and make it more solid and really works as advertised.
and Nikon obviously has too many bodies , Nikon did not need 2 identical D800 models , the D610, the D5300,etc.
just make a few very solid offerings.
and do not embarrass yourself by releasing expensive but poorly built 58mm f1.4G, 24mm f1.4G and 35mm f1.4G kind of lousy lenses, they are all worse than similar specced Zeiss , Canon and Sigma lenses.

but the DF and the 58mm kind of poorly done products announcements really helped me to get rid of all my Nikon for Sony Alpha 7.

now, I have Sony Alpha 7, NEX6, Fuji X-E2 and Canon 5D2 and 6D and I am quite happy about my decision selling all my Nikon gear for the Sony Fuji kit.
Nikon did not treat us (long time high end Nikon body uers) right with real respect when they sold many many bad copies of D800/D600 and D4, so for me no more Nikon..............and most of Nikon glass are of poor quality and imho none of G 24 - 50mm range Nikon glass are up to the D800E standard.
the 24mm f1.4G is really bad , the 35mm is soft and much less sharp than the Sigma A and the Zeiss ZF2 , and even a bit weaker optically than the venerable Canon L.
the 50mm f1.4G is a joke , the new 58mm f1.4G is an embarrassment , in fact , if we want to fully optimize the Nikon D800E , then we all need to go ZF Zeiss + Sigma 35mm f1.4 A lens route.
so , it is not worth it even if the sensor is great , the same story goes for the Df as well.
further more , Nikon stock gets really hard and many many guessing it won't be around in a few years.....


----------



## Arctic Photo (Nov 19, 2013)

Aglet said:


> Love it, might buy one, Canon can't make one like it.


I agree that they can't make a Nikon camera, but I guess that wasn't your point.

I voted 4, don't care about looks on a tool lime this. Ergonomy and performance matters.


----------



## grahamclarkphoto (Dec 6, 2013)

sanj said:


> My vote is #1
> 
> So much so that a photo of this camera is my desktop image these days.



The Nikon Df seems like it would appeal to that still shooter looking for the 35mm character. With the cost falling in the same range with the Nikon D800/800E, it definitely has a novelty price tag associated with it and without features such as an integrated GPS, WiFi or video capture, it certainly dings the future-proofness of the Nikon Df.

I think a good first place to start is to consider the following:

- 16.2MP
- No video capture
- No integrated GPS

Another interesting aspect of the Nikon Df is that the top pentaprism box is not metal alloy as the rest of the body, in-line with F-series design cues. So why not integrate GPS?

Canon employed a polycarbonate reinforced fiberglass material in the the 6D – to permit WiFi and GPS. You’d think that this would be a great opportunity for Nikon, seeing how they’re using a material that could pass GPS through to employ an integrated GPS into the Df... : (


Graham

grahamclarkphoto.com


----------



## Aglet (Dec 7, 2013)

I just played with one a few minutes after work today. 
GACK! 
I think it was about the coolest looking body on the shelf but I really did NOT like how it felt in my hand. It certainly is lighter than something like the D800 but the D800 fits my hand comfortably while the Df feels like an unpleasantly sized box with a bit of a grip on it.
Altho I like the control wheels, I don't like how it's not easy to press the lock button and turn them, or lift the mode dial to turn it.
NOPE, the Df will not make it to my shopping list. It could have been an epic success but the design needs some minor improvements. As it is, I could buy 2 perfectly ergonomic and fun to use Olympus EM1s for that price.


----------



## tat3406 (Dec 12, 2013)

The price was drop 10% after a month launch!


----------



## sanj (Dec 13, 2013)

grahamclarkphoto said:


> sanj said:
> 
> 
> > My vote is #1
> ...



Different needs for different people I guess. 16.2 mp is fine for me for this camera, my needs are high ISO.
I do not shoot video and do not need GPS.

Btw love your photos on your website.


----------



## Zv (Dec 13, 2013)

Useless expensive butt ugly junk. 

I hate it.


----------

