When the Nikon Df arrived on the scene a couple months back, I tried to temper the hype (my own included) with a good dose of high expectations. Yes, it looked bad ass. Yes, it housed the same sensor as the D4. Yes, the optical viewfinder has 100% field of view.
But as a compact camera fiend and someone whose owned probably 50 cameras or more, I’m no pushover. So when Adorama shipped the Df to my door, I filmed the unboxing in old school 2006 internet style and wasted no time taking a test run (sparse couple images below).
To determine if the Df hit all the marks, let’s take a look back at those point by point…
—
From my original notes on appearance when the camera launched…. 1. Ergonomics. Roughly… “I like how all the dials/controls for shutter speed, exposure compensation, and ISO give you the option of being really hands on with setting your exposure. Shooting this way really increases my connection with what you’re creating with the camera. The Nikon DF looks like it’ll do a nice job of recreating (or perhaps simulating) that experience of “making” pictures like the cameras of old… That feel helps me be connecting to the art just a little bit more–i.e. slowing down a tad– than some of my other tools in my shed.”
ACTUAL THOUGHTS on ergonomics having shot with this thing. I’m NOT happy with ergonomics. The dials are pretty cool and give you the retro feel, but they’re in goofy places and hard-ish to reach. The aperature dial on the FACE of the body at your right finger is bizarre. The shutter sound is nice. The grip depth is in no man’s land…not flat enough to feel retro and not deep enough to hold it like a “new”camera. Feels “plastic-y”. Which is easy to see why… because the shell of the camera is entirely largely out of styled plastic. The lens? Plastic.
—
Now my notes on The size. The size was a huge surprise – as you can see from the video. WAY bigger than I thought from the original marketing materials. WAY bigger. In truth I feel like the product shots were actually aimed to trick me into thinking this would feel like a little body. It doesn’t. Yes, it’s smaller than a D4 or pro body – but bigger than I want for lots of circumstances…similar to a D7000 of D600 or any pro-sumer higher end body. When I’m on a pro gig I use/need the pro body to lean on, bang around, pound nails and otherwise be tough and sturdy. But in this class of camera, I really prefer the portability. So what gives here? I dunno. They made up a nice advertising story about “back to basics” with a “real camera” but they among other things, it’s really just styled like an old camera. Also, rumor has it they couldn’t keep the guts cool enough to shoot video because mechanically that stuff takes up space. That’s probably why it doesn’t shoot video – not based on any “purity”. Jury is out. I like the purity angle, but it’s 2014…
I guess my reaction above says it all. There are good surprises and there are bad surprises. I think we know where that shoe dropped re: size.
—
3. The sensor. This is this cameras very best feature, bar none. I LOVE LOVE LOVE this sensor. It has the same 16.2-megapixel sensor as Nikon’s pro-focused D4, which is the best still sensor of all time IMHO. You can basically shoot this thing in the dark – can it focus in the dark? Not all that well it turns out. But I still love that they packed that sensor in this body. The images are buttery but not overly so like Canon 5d sensors.
—
MY ORIGINAL NOTES ON….4. Focus. It better be decent. Nikons have historically kicked everyones ass in this department. This better not be a let down. I hope the focus is fast and accurate. (Speaking of fast…we know it’s not fast in frames per second department. 5 ‘n’ change. Not bad. But not fast. Who cares really – that’s not what this camera is for.) We really do want the focus to be fast, however, if it’s to stand out from it’s peers. BTW, how is the manual focus mode? It better kick ass. I’m curious to see if there are any features to assist with this. There’s a lot of marketing around this camera highlighting its ability to use all the old non-AI lenses, but the cameras from that time had focusing screens built for manual focus. Without tools like focus peaking, a split image screen, or a microprism screen, shooting with manual focus lenses might just be a pain in the ass. Let’s hope they get it right.
ACTUAL THOUGHTS on FOCUS having shot with this thing. It didn’t measure up. It wasn’t fast. It was pretty accurate, but it wasn’t fast and accurate, which is what I really wanted. I’m sure that Nikon would respond…”but it has the same x and y as the z so it will do …blah”. It’s a great sensor, but the focus isn’t as fast as other cameras in the compact/mirrorless class. Which is sort of a travesty if you love Nikon still cameras given that that is a huge advantage for Nikon in nearly every other case.
—
MY ORIGINAL notes on this… 5. Pro shit. I’m excited to see how “professional” the camera can be. Can I pound nails with this thing? Is it heavy and durable? We use a ton of different cameras for video, but the D4 is my go-to camera for EVERY SINGLE commercial photo shoot we do. Could the DF could come along on our shoots as a good BTS rig? Even in our BTS stuff we expect pro quality That would be nice if this delivered. I will always have a couple D4 backups, but for the solo photographer, the DF could potentially save pro photographers some weight and coin if (and only if) it can produce professional results in a pinch.
I can’t tell if it has an alloy metal chassis, but its exterior is plastic-y. That isn’t pro. This isn’t a pro backup camera. The images look really nice, a great sensor but it falls short in other categories.
—
OVERALL
This is a good camera. Actually it’s a great camera. It will make nice pictures. It’s just not the camera I thought I was gonna get. If you LOVE Nikon you should buy this body. You will not be disappointed if you take what I’ve said here with a grain of salt. I know they are selling like hotcakes so the world really likes this camera. I’m just a tad hard on it. Like I said above, the plus on this baby is the D4 sensor in a much cheaper body. Beautiful dynamic range and looks great in low light. Another plus is that Nikon is at least watching what other manufacturers are doing with their products. The negatives are that they don’t know what their consumers want. Generally speaking we are not posers. This camera’s appearance it trying too hard. And it’s too damn big. But like I said – if you’re a photog who loves Nikon – you might be pleased as punch – so take my words here w a grain of salt.
Bounce on over to Adorama to see the Nikon Df HERE
IMAGES
I did have a short day around our cabin making pizza with my pal Jeff and then taking a quick walk on the beach to grab a few snapshots for this initial post to you guys… I intentionally shot slow moving, simple stuff where I thought this camera could perform. It worked well for that – but I knew the limits. The below are just very very minimally processed jpgs. You can see the magic simplicity with this sensor. It just WORKS. (check out the one image with the white house, the open, dark garage with the lightbulb on, during the day. Crazy subtle. THATS the kind of camera I want in my pocket. Portable.
It also does a nice job with a completely flat scene on the grey beach on a grey day shooting photos of grey stuff. Again, quality sensor. Focus? it was a pain to shoot inside and nail the focus shooting at F2.2 etc. But overall you can tell this camera works. If you can take the gimmicky styling it’ll do you right. If you can’t, then you’ll need a different sword of choice.
Bounce on over to Adorama to see the Nikon Df details HERE
I thought this thing was ugly from the get go. It’s “new nostalgia” and it shows.
If these images are not processed then its awesome.
I was also intrigued by the size question, so went to my local camera store with a Nikkormat FT-3 from the archive.
And took a quick grab of the Df and the FT-3 side-by-side, photo at the URL following.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/68039985@N08/11213892414/in/photostream.
Maybe of interest,
Mick
Hello, It seems like you manage to misunderstand what this camera is. I still use an FM2 and 500CM for the simple reason that I can’t work well if I don’t have real exposure control. Luckily we finally have some choice, so I can finally start working with a digital camera. I know there are plenty of photographers like me in my field (fine art photography). I really don’t care whether it looks like it came from the future or the 80’s (the people who go on about “looks” don’t get that design is not about looks). I have only handled the Df for half an hour in a store and I was also surprised at the light weight. Not dense like an FM. The thing is, if they made it out of brass it would be too heavy considering the size. I think I will get used to the light weight and, after a week, actually be grateful it isn’t heavier. You write that it feels all plastic which surprises me as it has the nicest feeling shutter release of all Nikon bodies by far. Really outstanding metal shutter release and great shutter sound. The surface feels the same or better than any other Nikon DSLR – only lighter. I agree they should have made it smaller by removing the autofocus. A totally unnecessary function considering the concept. The FM3a or a Leica doesn’t need it – the Df doesn’t need it.
Probably one of the main concerns for the customer of this sort of camera is how it works with manual lenses, specifically ais Nikkors, yet you don’t take off the ridiculous kit lens. You also avoid writing how the perceived quality of the body is lowered when held together with the cheap and plastic 1,8G. An observation a ten year old would be able to make. If I put the 50 1,8D on my FM2 it significantly cheapens the feel of the camera. In the store I put an ais Nikkor on the Df and the camera felt really good and not plasticky at all.
Because you only test it with the POS kit lens you use it just like you would a D800 – with control wheels. Well what’s the point then? Why test it at all? Also, you wrote yourself that an important point with this camera is how it is to manually focus, yet you don’t stick a manual lens on and you don’t test it?
When you write that you have to “LOVE” Nikon to enjoy this camera you are just pulling off a really cheap and manipulative semantic trick designed to please those who prefer conventional DSLR’s and unconsciously feel threatened by this different camera. And that speaks loads about your integrity, or rather, the lack of it.
Too anyone honestly interested in this camera – look elsewhere, because Chase Jarvis is not interested in writing or thinking about the camera, he is interested in stroking a certain group of people the right way. Good critique is valuable, sadly this “review” is either of two things: ignorant and incompetent or manipulative and cynical. Opportunistic populist drivel! Yuck!
Yeah look — I reckon a review from the gut is worth 10 from the head.
I have a problem with your attitude to kit lenses. Why should we simply acknowledge that manufacturers make “POS” kit lenses. The kit elms with my Olympus OM-D is utterly bombproof. It feels so good to work with.
If a camera doesn’t feel great and rock solid out of the box, not after you’ve pimped it with extra gear, I think it’s missed its mark.
Speaking of drivel…I’ve just read 5 paragraphs of it; it’s time that I regret, I want it back.
Wow, you really took a shot at his integrity just for sharing his opinion? I think that speaks more to your integrity, or rather, the lack of it. It seems to me like chase is just sharing his opinion on this camera based on the things that matter to him and the things he needs as a professional. Obviously people will look at things differently based on their needs, some may love it, others may hate it. Citing how you think this camera is great while insulting the man for expressing what he thinks just makes you sound pompous. If you don’t like what he has to say, do your own unboxing video and express your opinion.
Alright, so today I got home to a good internet connection and could actually watch the video as well. My previous long, and pissed off, post was based on the article. I still stand by my thoughts but as my temper has cooled I apologise for having an unnecessary hard tone – I should have made an effort to express myself more politely. Sometimes it’s just hard to be firm and polite at the same time you know.
It’s not a matter of “just expressing ones opinion”, that’s exactly what he is not doing in the text and that is why I was angry. In the video, sure, he came across as sincere and honest and I have zero problems with the video. But, the text is manipulative. Either consciously or unconsciously. In my opinion that style of writing – a sort of baiting if you will, is a thing I see more and more on these types of blogs. Read between the lines.
Regarding the kit lens. The 1.8G is a very good lens but it feels like crap and if you test the Df its insanity not to test it with a lens featuring an aperture ring. The whole point of the camera is to bring the opportunity to use real controls instead of wheels and menus. I write in my first post how Chase Jarvis wrote initially about testing the viewfinder, manual lenses, and then when he gets the camera he shoots just as he would a D800! Well what is the point then I ask? Other than that he completely missed the point of the camera and its intended customer.
If at least Nikon would have skipped autofocus, P and S modes we wouldn’t have these silly misunderstandings. Was the release of the F4 this chaotic as well? (considering the Df and F4 have very similar ergonomics and controls)
I have thought about this and I have say that I regret being foulmouthed and attacking Chase Jarvis integrity. I am sorry.
Even if someone actually does write drivel, it doesn’t mean you should respond by lowering yourself even further. I had a really bad day, one of those days where everything goes wrong, The rather innocent article was just that tiny little drop that makes the glass spill over.
I hope that all of you have a nice day, especially Chase Jarvis.