Home · Register · Search · View Winners · Software · Hosting · Software · Join Upload & Sell

Moderated by: Fred Miranda
Username   Password

  New fredmiranda.com Mobile Site
  New Feature: SMS Notification alert
  New Feature: Buy & Sell Watchlist
  

FM Forums | Nikon Forum | Join Upload & Sell

1       2       3      
4
       end
  

Nikon Df - Steve Huff's thoughts
  
 
mawz
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.4 #1 · p.4 #1 · Nikon Df - Steve Huff's thoughts


anthonysemone wrote:
Ergonomics is why I gave my F5 to my son whose hands are much larger than mine. "If the glove don't fit, you must acquit."


Yep, and why my small hands rather liked the Df's ergonomics (which surprised me).



Dec 27, 2013 at 01:34 AM
kwhaley29
Offline
• •
Upload & Sell: On
p.4 #2 · p.4 #2 · Nikon Df - Steve Huff's thoughts


When I first held the Df it felt very foreign and awkward but eventually it started to feel really great the more that I picked it up.

Edited on Dec 27, 2013 at 03:07 AM · View previous versions



Dec 27, 2013 at 02:05 AM
Mikael Risedal
Offline
• •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.4 #3 · p.4 #3 · Nikon Df - Steve Huff's thoughts


AMaji wrote:
I believe the new Nikon DX dSLRs have the same pixel pitch as an FX 56 MP sensor. Are you hearing a lot of grumble from people using those dSLRs about having to push their SS or having to buy very expensive glass?

yes they have , but that a Sony or Toshiba sensor, not a Nikon / Renesas sensor as in Df and D4 with different read out



Dec 27, 2013 at 02:34 AM
BrianVS
Offline
• •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.4 #4 · p.4 #4 · Nikon Df - Steve Huff's thoughts


I never remember people whining about the Nikon FM ergonomics being different from the F2 or EL2. I don't remember whining about it having a fixed screen. Or a top shutter speed of 1/1000th then the F2 had 1/2000th. When the FM2 and FE2 came out with 1/4000th sec top shutter speed no one whined that they could not live without 1/8000th. Or that the MD-11 had a top speed of only 3.5FPS.

How did people survive.



Dec 27, 2013 at 02:47 AM
mawz
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.4 #5 · p.4 #5 · Nikon Df - Steve Huff's thoughts


BrianVS wrote:
I never remember people whining about the Nikon FM ergonomics being different from the F2 or EL2. I don't remember whining about it having a fixed screen. Or a top shutter speed of 1/1000th then the F2 had 1/2000th. When the FM2 and FE2 came out with 1/4000th sec top shutter speed no one whined that they could not live without 1/8000th. Or that the MD-11 had a top speed of only 3.5FPS.

How did people survive.


Back then 3.5fps was fast, and ISO 100 was a mid-speed film. 1/1000 was a usable max shutter for even f1.4 in daylight when you were shooting ISO 25 film pulled a stop to ISO 12 (or even two to ISO 6). Today it's not hard to bounce off 1/4000 without getting wide open.

Today, when you are at ISO 100 for your max DR and IQ, and you want to shoot wide open you need a few stops more shutter speed to get the same results (or a ND filter). The same goes for the low sync speeds, they were a lot easier to deal with due to the low ISO film available. 1/125 on an FM is a lot more flexible with ISO 25 film pulled a stop than 1/250th is today with an ISO 50 minimum.

Give me ISO 12, or even 25 and I'll stop complaining about a 1/4000 max shutter.

Modern sensors have done incredible things for high ISO's (and that once meant ISO 400), but we've lost a massive amount of flexibility in lower ISO's. A film camera generally offered ISO 6-6400 for range, and even today you can get B&W films which can be shot quite well at ISO 6.



Dec 27, 2013 at 03:54 AM
 

Search in Used Dept. 



VinnieJ
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.4 #6 · p.4 #6 · Nikon Df - Steve Huff's thoughts


I usually top out at 1/3000 when shooting wildlife. Then again I'm not trying to shoot f1.2 in bright sunlight. If I did I would bust out a filter.


Dec 27, 2013 at 04:10 AM
mawz
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.4 #7 · p.4 #7 · Nikon Df - Steve Huff's thoughts


VinnieJ wrote:
I usually top out at 1/3000 when shooting wildlife. Then again I'm not trying to shoot f1.2 in bright sunlight. If I did I would bust out a filter.


ND filters are the modern solution, but they carry their own set of problems including lens compatibility (filter ring size, lack of filter rings, etc), focusing issues (they dim the finder, the meter and the AF unit) and of course the fact they are rarely truly neutral.

A true landscape camera with a much lower base ISO than current would be all sorts of awesome. The same range of course wouldn't work for a PJ/sports camera although I'd suspect an ISO 6400 max would do fine for a wildlife camera as long as performance at 6400 was comparable to current bodies. There's other advantages to ISO 6, most can be approximated with a 3-stop ND and ISO 50, but that comes with a far larger set of compromises.



Dec 27, 2013 at 04:14 AM
AMaji
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.4 #8 · p.4 #8 · Nikon Df - Steve Huff's thoughts


BrianVS wrote:
...How did people survive.


I guess the photographers depended more on skill and timing than on spray and pray. I think all these modern bells and whistles are making us lazier.



Dec 27, 2013 at 05:29 AM
BrianVS
Offline
• •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.4 #9 · p.4 #9 · Nikon Df - Steve Huff's thoughts


Twenty years ago I had a "film vs Digital" discussion with one of my Summer students, I calculated 400MBytes per second to match Panatomic-X being pushed through my Nikon F2 with the MD2/MB1 on it. I used 100LP/mm for the resolution. Pretty close to a D800. That was very fast twenty years ago.


Dec 27, 2013 at 02:31 PM
1       2       3      
4
       end




FM Forums | Nikon Forum | Join Upload & Sell

1       2       3      
4
       end
    
 

You are not logged in. Login or Register

Username   Password    Retrive password