Ronny _Olsson wrote:
Thanks' Andy... just love the Zeiss .. have 100MP ,85P 1.4, 50MP, 35 f2 and 21mm myself and a few Nikon MF
and I have a German Shepherd which may act model a lot
how do you experience MF with Zeiss on DF .. is the focus indicator reliable (green dot) ?
Hi Ronny, that is a good lens setup as well
I haven't checked it formally (against other cameras) but the fear I had with regards to MF focussing does appear to be ungrounded. Most of the time the viewfinder alone is sufficient to focus. Sometimes I take the green dot as auxilliary support and then either rely on it or fine tune accordingly. I am only at 1200 images with the Df, most of them with MF lenses, but focussing isn't a huge challenge. Is it as simples as an AF? No. Is it a lot of fun? Yes.
One thing I am really glad is that there is no micro prism (split screen) focussing screen in the Df. If Nikon would offer it, I am not sure I would go for it.
If I would compare it in this way:
In the past we had only one AF field in the center, reflecting the micro prism screen approach. In the last years, most modern cameras have 39 or 51 or whatever number of focus areas at their disposal. Combined with a sensor sensitivity that allows you to use high speed lenses in available light situations, focus and recompose isn't allways feasable and desirable. Ditto in other situations were the focus area is not in the center. The Df screen is a neutral playing field with regards to setting the focus area and focussing outside the center is as easy and hard as it is in the center.
Having said that. It is for me simpler to focus with wide angle lenses than with the telephoto, where more care seems to be necessary.
fsiagian wrote:
Andy, any picture of Df and the zeiss? One very handsome camera.
As this is a Df thread, here we go with some Zeiss lenses on the Df:
Thanks Andy .. appreciated
thinking of getting a new camera this spring ..
Have D700 now .. I had it for a few years and been very happy with it
considering Nikon DF or Nikon D800-E but are not entirely sure what I want
But a smaller and lighter camera bodies had been good .. but the ergonomics have to be good also
Sony A7-R is an option with adapter for my Nikon and Zeiss lenses
will in any case probably keep the D700 Also
so we'll see ..
Nikon DF is a beauty with zeiss lenses on
Is ergonomics good on DF with some heavier lenses? (like 100 MP and Apo 135)
The problem is that I have no shop near me where I can look and feel the DF
Have to drive 200 km to the nearest place that sells Nikon DF
Would anyone actually bet money that the Df MF experience is superior to other Nikon DSLR's or are they simply saying this to internally justify their purchases. Any objective review I have read states that if MF is difficult for you on a D800/610/700 than expect the same difficulty on a DF.
davewolfs wrote:
Would anyone actually bet money that the Df MF experience is superior to other Nikon DSLR's or are they simply saying this to internally justify their purchases. Any objective review I have read states that if MF is difficult for you on a D800/610/700 than expect the same difficulty on a DF.
davewolfs wrote:
Would anyone actually bet money that the Df MF experience is superior to other Nikon DSLR's or are they simply saying this to internally justify their purchases. Any objective review I have read states that if MF is difficult for you on a D800/610/700 than expect the same difficulty on a DF.
Betting money on a personal experience isn't the best thing someone could do. The MF experience is - like many things in life - a combination of multiple factors, the viewfinder being one.
For example, the smoothness of the focus ring of Zeiss lenses is different than the focus ring of the AFS 1.4G lenses. They are excellent lenses, just not purely optimized around MF.
The smaller size of the Df vs. other "big" bodies make the handholding experience a tad more comfortable - i.e. the Zeiss 25mm/2 on a Df vs. on a D4.
The VF of the D4 is a bit brighter than the VF of the Df.
The Df VF is less cluttered than the D4 VF though. Focussing with the D4 in low light, the red brackets of the AF systems glim up a bit. Its not a huge issue, just observing. There is no distraction from the exposure meter on the right side of the VF either. Again, nothing spectacular. Again, just observing,
In a A/B comparision, I wouldnt be surprised that many will say they are identical. For it is rather a mood issue the package "transmits" to the user. It is similar to different styles of cars. Even with "identical horsepower" one car "invites" the driver to rev up the engine as often as he can, while the other type of car "de-accelerate" the driver with its laid back attitude.
I know - a bad comparision. But some reflects my approach to both cameras. The D4 is the workhorse, dependable sidekick. It is here to deliver, fast and precise. It as almost bullying the user to speed up, deliver the next great shot. Why? Because the camera can.
The Df would probably be the "worst" camera for a working pro today, but it shines in a relaxed atmosphere. Enjoy the mood, benefit the relatively small size and take pictures when you want, not when your next assignment need you to exactly that.
I would not use the Df as my one and only camera, but as a fresh approach - it is the only "old-style" DSLRs camera on the market - it is fun to use,
It's biggest plus? Even if people reduce the DF discussion mostly around handling, style and usability, it is the sensor which allows me to extend my shooting into an area, the D600 and D800 currently can't deliver with identical ease: light weight night photography in general and people photography at night in particular.
By light weight I mean no tripod and no flash. Just 1 or 2 lenses and the Df in the Retrospective 5 bag.
>Would anyone actually bet money that the Df MF experience is superior to other Nikon DSLR's
Manually focusing the Df is much easier than with my other Full-Frame Nikon DSLR. Which is the E3, which most people have probably never heard of or used. Mine is the 67th made, maybe 100 total were built. So you'll just have to take my word for it.
AndreasE wrote:
Betting money on a personal experience isn't the best thing someone could do. The MF experience is - like many things in life - a combination of multiple factors, the viewfinder being one.
For example, the smoothness of the focus ring of Zeiss lenses is different than the focus ring of the AFS 1.4G lenses. They are excellent lenses, just not purely optimized around MF.
The smaller size of the Df vs. other "big" bodies make the handholding experience a tad more comfortable - i.e. the Zeiss 25mm/2 on a Df vs. on a D4.
The VF of the D4 is a bit brighter than the VF of the Df.
The Df VF is less cluttered than the D4 VF though. Focussing with the D4 in low light, the red brackets of the AF systems glim up a bit. Its not a huge issue, just observing. There is no distraction from the exposure meter on the right side of the VF either. Again, nothing spectacular. Again, just observing,
In a A/B comparision, I wouldnt be surprised that many will say they are identical. For it is rather a mood issue the package "transmits" to the user. It is similar to different styles of cars. Even with "identical horsepower" one car "invites" the driver to rev up the engine as often as he can, while the other type of car "de-accelerate" the driver with its laid back attitude.
I know - a bad comparision. But some reflects my approach to both cameras. The D4 is the workhorse, dependable sidekick. It is here to deliver, fast and precise. It as almost bullying the user to speed up, deliver the next great shot. Why? Because the camera can.
The Df would probably be the "worst" camera for a working pro today, but it shines in a relaxed atmosphere. Enjoy the mood, benefit the relatively small size and take pictures when you want, not when your next assignment need you to exactly that.
I would not use the Df as my one and only camera, but as a fresh approach - it is the only "old-style" DSLRs camera on the market - it is fun to use,
It's biggest plus? Even if people reduce the DF discussion mostly around handling, style and usability, it is the sensor which allows me to extend my shooting into an area, the D600 and D800 currently can't deliver with identical ease: light weight night photography in general and people photography at night in particular.
By light weight I mean no tripod and no flash. Just 1 or 2 lenses and the Df in the Retrospective 5 bag.
It's frustrating, because if Nikon had wanted to make a camera that was truly well-suited to MF lenses, they
easily could have, as evidenced by the decades of film cameras that excelled at MF use. They could have supported focus screens or included a larger viewfinder, or added focus peaking to live view.
Instead, we are left to talk about the spectre of possible maybe kind-of slightly-better MF abilities of the Df, which people may or may not notice at all.
OccAeon wrote:
It's frustrating, because if Nikon had wanted to make a camera that was truly well-suited to MF lenses, they easily could have, as evidenced by the decades of film cameras that excelled at MF use. They could have supported focus screens or included a larger viewfinder, or added focus peaking to live view.
Instead, we are left to talk about the spectre of possible maybe kind-of slightly-better MF abilities of the Df, which people may or may not notice at all.
Not sure I understand your frustration. If the camera doesn't fit your requirement, then you have 2 choices. Either you take some inconvenience into account, or your pass on this model. If there is no other model on the market which currently fits the whole set of requirements, then a potential customer has to wait until these features become available.
Some thoughts:
1) My way of shooting with the Df (and other DSLRs) hasn't changed versus early F cameras.
2) The precision needed at that time was considerable less what is now expected. People just didn't print out A0 sized prints and had 10 inch of viewing distance - this seems to be the new "normal" (100% viewing on screen of a 36 MP image with 100 dpi)
3) The mounting precision of replacable focus screens was probably sufficient 40 years ago. We are talking micrometers by today's standards.
4) The split prism focus screen I have in my D200 (Katzeye) is not easier to focus with vs. the current crop of FX cameras with plain focus screens. Just used it again on curiosity.
5) focus peaking is for me a no go in such a camera. While it is good when the camera is on a tripod, it is pretty useless in "dynamic" shooting. Add the issue of EVF and live view with low light scenarios. From my POV, there need to be some more iterations of innovation before it becomes as intutive as the current OVF.
The reason I wrote my response the way I wrote it is: We are talking about experiences and not measurable facts. The only real "benchmark" here is: Please try it for yourself.
AndreasE wrote:
Not sure I understand your frustration. If the camera doesn't fit your requirement, then you have 2 choices. Either you take some inconvenience into account, or your pass on this model. If there is no other model on the market which currently fits the whole set of requirements, then a potential customer has to wait until these features become available.
Some thoughts:
1) My way of shooting with the Df (and other DSLRs) hasn't changed versus early F cameras.
2) The precision needed at that time was considerable less what is now expected. People just didn't print out A0 sized prints and had 10 inch of viewing distance - this seems to be the new "normal" (100% viewing on screen of a 36 MP image with 100 dpi)
3) The mounting precision of replacable focus screens was probably sufficient 40 years ago. We are talking micrometers by today's standards.
4) The split prism focus screen I have in my D200 (Katzeye) is not easier to focus with vs. the current crop of FX cameras with plain focus screens. Just used it again on curiosity.
5) focus peaking is for me a no go in such a camera. While it is good when the camera is on a tripod, it is pretty useless in "dynamic" shooting. Add the issue of EVF and live view with low light scenarios. From my POV, there need to be some more iterations of innovation before it becomes as intutive as the current OVF.
The reason I wrote my response the way I wrote it is: We are talking about experiences and not measurable facts. The only real "benchmark" here is: Please try it for yourself.
Andy, you couldn't be more right! People are bad mouthing this camera without even trying it out. I've had mine for almost a month now and love it! It is light weight and I love all of the dials, switches, and buttons. It is very easy to use and it is also a very sophisticated camera. This camera is a great value for what it has in it! I have the D800 and have used the D4. The D4 is fantastic, but I am not willing to shell out $6000. As I have said before, this body is a great compliment to my D800. It will probably become my personal camera. I can hardly put it down!!
AndreasE wrote:
Not sure I understand your frustration. If the camera doesn't fit your requirement, then you have 2 choices. Either you take some inconvenience into account, or your pass on this model. If there is no other model on the market which currently fits the whole set of requirements, then a potential customer has to wait until these features become available.
Some thoughts:
1) My way of shooting with the Df (and other DSLRs) hasn't changed versus early F cameras.
2) The precision needed at that time was considerable less what is now expected. People just didn't print out A0 sized prints and had 10 inch of viewing distance - this seems to be the new "normal" (100% viewing on screen of a 36 MP image with 100 dpi)
3) The mounting precision of replacable focus screens was probably sufficient 40 years ago. We are talking micrometers by today's standards.
4) The split prism focus screen I have in my D200 (Katzeye) is not easier to focus with vs. the current crop of FX cameras with plain focus screens. Just used it again on curiosity.
5) focus peaking is for me a no go in such a camera. While it is good when the camera is on a tripod, it is pretty useless in "dynamic" shooting. Add the issue of EVF and live view with low light scenarios. From my POV, there need to be some more iterations of innovation before it becomes as intutive as the current OVF.
The reason I wrote my response the way I wrote it is: We are talking about experiences and not measurable facts. The only real "benchmark" here is: Please try it for yourself.
Both cameras would give the same field-of-view with a given lens, the Df offers better low-light performance. They complement each other. If you have a number of lenses that you like with the 1.5x crop, then it makes sense to keep the D7100.
I finally got a chance to get hands on with the DF yesterday... here are my thoughts:
-Felt like a D7000/D71000/D610 body, which is to say, built "tough enough" but not as solid as a D700/D800.
-I loved the viewfinder. Side by side with my D800 and a D4, it looked great, and it was nice and bright.
-AF point layout was adequate, but for the price, it SHOULD have had the coverage of D700/D800's AF module. That said, focus was fast and accurate, as with the D610.
-Button layout was nice, the ISO and EV dial was well designed for one-handed adjustment, but even with my small hands, the front command dial felt bunched up compared to a beefier DSLR like my D800 - but that's just a matter of preference, having learned on a Nikon F and then having gotten used to professionally using & abusing big-grip Nikons like the F100, D800, and my old D2H's grip.
Overall: It's a D4 sensor in a lightweight body that uses cheaper batteries at half the price of a D4 only trading off burst frame rate and AF point coverage? Not a bad deal, but there are better professional tools, and I look forward to buying one of these used when the next one gets released lol Usability was good, and image quality left nothing to be desired, which is the most important part.
