I really enjoyed the original Df, but it had two fundamental flaws. Number one was that they had the stock focus screen of other cameras at the time like the D600, which is very bad for manual focus lenses. It showed you the depth of field of a 2.8 lens, so forget about trying to focus a 50 or 85mm 1.4.
Now one could use the AF 'rangefinder' dot, which was helpful, but the AF system they implemented was the D600/D7000 system. It had poor frame coverage and with lenses like the 58mm 1.4G, just poor performance. Compared to the D750...well there was no comparison. The Df could have been the choice of wedding photographers even with the bad battery life. It's not a huge deal to have a few extra cells on hand, but if the thing can't focus and you can't really focus it yourself...
The Zfc was cute but IMHO the point of a retro styled Nikon is to use the vaaaaast array of glass that would be available for it, much of it manual focus 24x36 lenses. I'm really glad they're coming out with this camera! Someone with a collection of ZF.2 lenses could do a lot of good work, much more easily with precision focusing. Personally I have the Voigtlander 40/2 and 55/1.2 and if the camera is compelling I'll sell my Panasonic S5II. I just like the retro bodies!
RoamingScott wrote:
I do enjoy the simultaneous lust for film style cameras and utter disdain for single card slots.
Too bad they never figured out how to make a film cam that could take 2 rolls at a time
What kind of argument is that? Because film cameras only took one roll of film, we should limit digital cameras produced decades later to only one memory card? Should we also limit the number of exposures per card to 36? I mean, after all, 36 was plenty of exposures for film cameras, right? I suppose we should also limit ISO to 3200?
Retro cameras aren't about replicating all of the terrible qualities of film cameras (like a single roll of film/memory card). It's about taking everything people enjoy about those cameras, like the aesthetics and ergonomics and combining them the decades of technological advancements, which, yes, should include dual memory cards.
i wouldn't use the term "terrible qualities" of film cameras. just think that was the best of the best during those days. just thing the early days of digital were to say nicely somewhat limiting and limited in use. i have a "few" slides that go back to 1976 and onward. travelled with quite a few rolls and learned quickly about shooting knowing what you had to work with.
sjms wrote:
i wouldn't use the term "terrible qualities" of film cameras. just think that was the best of the best during those days. just thing the early days of digital were to say nicely somewhat limiting and limited in use.
Okay, and relative to the technology available today, a roll of film with 36 exposures is a terrible quality, is it not? Would you buy a digital camera that was limited to 36 exposures per memory card because "it was good enough for photographers in the 80s"? Just the same way 128KB of RAM in a computer was considered a lot at one point, but is completely unuseable now.
My point is that it's a retarded argument to say "well because film cameras only held one roll of film, we should just poo poo the idea of a second card slot in a retro camera."
I don't think people like retro cameras because they want to be LARPing hipsters pretending that they're in the 1980's and limit themselves to the technology of the time. If that were the case, they would just buy used film cameras.
Again, I think what most people want in a retro camera is modern performance and features, coupled with the best characteristics of older cameras, like the ergonomics, the tactile knobs, and the aesthetics of the camera.
then there is no reason to bring them up. we all know where and when we are. i shot for many years using film. pretty much up to 2003. yes i like digital but i've lived/travelled with film. you shoot with whats state of the art at that particular moment in time.
sjms wrote:
then there is no reason to bring them up. we all know where and when we are. i shot for many years using film. pretty much up to 2003. yes i like digital but i've lived/travelled with film. you shoot with whats state of the art at that particular moment in time.
No, there IS a reason to bring them up because my post was in reponse to somebody who invoked a camera's single roll of film as some kind of rationale for why a retro camera should only have one memory card.
Nobody is arguing that film wasn't state of the art for the time. I'm arguing that having only one copy of the images from the camera is a terrible characteristic. It was terrible then, and it's terrible now. Many photographers lost a lot of images due to film being lost in the mail.
no, there is a reason because you felt a need to state the obvious. like i said ignore the DUH!
oh i have a few hundred* of those 36 shot slide boxes. i nice light table and a nifty Leitz Pradolux projector. along with that about 15 HiCap slide holders.
Tell me about it. We got like back to back to back birding lenses and when the 85 1.2 came out people were just non stop complaining asking for another birding lens. Was quite annoying. Max Power wrote:
Or not.
Honestly, the ratio of people whining about the 200-600 was 10 to 1 in my world.
RoamingScott wrote:
I do enjoy the simultaneous lust for film style cameras and utter disdain for single card slots.
Too bad they never figured out how to make a film cam that could take 2 rolls at a time
And desire for better AF than Z6 etc in a retro camera, just go and get Z8, you need the bulk as a heat sink.
honestly i have zero disdain for a single slot. the only real way i want 2 slots is that they are both the same and being CFexpB. since i have the Z6. there has never been a issue that truly required 2 separate slots. if i am shooting for the people. if i really need both raw and jpg i'll either use my Z9 or shoot both on the same card go back and split them off on my laptop and move them to whoever needs them as required. its been a good many long years and it works.
oguruma wrote:
What kind of argument is that? Because film cameras only took one roll of film, we should limit digital cameras produced decades later to only one memory card? Should we also limit the number of exposures per card to 36? I mean, after all, 36 was plenty of exposures for film cameras, right? I suppose we should also limit ISO to 3200?
Retro cameras aren't about replicating all of the terrible qualities of film cameras (like a single roll of film/memory card). It's about taking everything people enjoy about those cameras, like the aesthetics and ergonomics and combining them the decades of technological advancements, which, yes, should include dual memory cards....Show more →
I suspect that there was just a wee bit of irony that you missed.
sjms wrote:
honestly i have zero disdain for a single slot. the only real way i want 2 slots is that they are both the same and being CFexpB. since i have the Z6. there has never been a issue that truly required 2 separate slots. if i am shooting for the people. if i really need both raw and jpg i'll either use my Z9 or shoot both on the same card go back and split them off on my laptop and move them to whoever needs them as required. its been a good many long years and it works.
Same, love CFxB, single slot on my Z7 does not bother me at all.. although I am not a working professional so I can see the need there, but how many working professionals are buying a Zf as a workhorse anyway…
BPsmith511 wrote:
Same, love CFxB, single slot on my Z7 does not bother me at all.. although I am not a working professional so I can see the need there, but how many working professionals are buying a Zf as a workhorse anyway…
I have a Z9 as my primary camera, just bought a Z8 to serve as a second body/backup/travel camera.
I'd love a Z8 in a retro body, even if it cost $500-1000 more than a Z8. If it had the same sensor/AF/dual card slots, I'd take one.
I don't see dual card slots as a pro-only feature. I lost hundreds of photos to a lost memory card on a trip to Germany. Those photos of friends (some of whom are no longer alive) would be worth much more than any photos I've ever taken, professionally.
If adding a second card slot was some kind of technological marvel, I'd understand Nikon not adding that feature to all of their bodies, but the fact of the matter is that they've been making cameras with dual slots for over a decade, including in cameras that cost less than the Df probably will.
So, what's the trade-off? The body might have to be a little bit bigger, and it would cost a little bit more to manufacture?
BPsmith511 wrote:
Same, love CFxB, single slot on my Z7 does not bother me at all.. although I am not a working professional so I can see the need there, but how many working professionals are buying a Zf as a workhorse anyway…
if the shoe fits wear it. what more needs to be said.
Z6
i do a bit of history and service based stuff.
NIKON Z 6NIKKOR Z 24-70mm f/4 S lens28mm1/640s100 ISO
NIKON Z 6NIKKOR Z 24-70mm f/4 S lens40mm1/125s110 ISO
NIKON Z 6NIKKOR Z 24-70mm f/4 S lens48mm1/125s14400 ISO
OwlsEyes wrote:
I agree with your first point... the rumored specs and and price are not aligned.
If Nikon were to release a 47MP with "better than Z6II/Z7II AF" camera for $2000, this would seriously undercut sale of the latter models. It would be a brilliant move to grab market share back from Sony and Canon, but it won't happen.
bruce
Nobody buys Z6ii/Z7ii anymore. Those are completely dead.
$2k with 45mp is doable but it would likely mean no IBIS.
oguruma wrote:
I have a Z9 as my primary camera, just bought a Z8 to serve as a second body/backup/travel camera.
I'd love a Z8 in a retro body, even if it cost $500-1000 more than a Z8. If it had the same sensor/AF/dual card slots, I'd take one.
I don't see dual card slots as a pro-only feature. I lost hundreds of photos to a lost memory card on a trip to Germany. Those photos of friends (some of whom are no longer alive) would be worth much more than any photos I've ever taken, professionally.
If adding a second card slot was some kind of technological marvel, I'd understand Nikon not adding that feature to all of their bodies, but the fact of the matter is that they've been making cameras with dual slots for over a decade, including in cameras that cost less than the Df probably will.
So, what's the trade-off? The body might have to be a little bit bigger, and it would cost a little bit more to manufacture? ...Show more →
If ZF takes a small camera approach with no IBIS, it may also be a single slot camera to save every cubic centimeter and a few bucks of parts. If it is with IBIS, body will be thick enough for the second slot. Who knows.
