11/12/13 10:07 AM

In 1975 I got a Nikon Ftn, Nikkor 50 f1.4, all black (rare back then,) all manual (didn't even need a battery except to meter,) eventually stolen (heavy sigh)
In the early 2000's got a Nikon D80, let the ex take that. Liked it well enough.
A few years later my brother gave me his Nikon Coolpix pseudo-SLR. Nikon optics but otherwise a real pain, shutter lag, write lag, settings choice dilemma.

And now THIS:
It might be love,
This time in silver
The Nikon Df

11/12/13 11:09 AM

I saw this on DP the other day and said what a great idea. I like the controls and looks, and its full frame so wide angle is easier. I want it.

The only thing I would change is to make the lens a 1.4.

11/12/13 11:31 AM

Very cool looking! It looks like it's out of the 1970s!

I've dropped out of the SLR game, in favor of one of these:
http://panasonic.net/avc/lumix/compact/fz150/

Now, I know there's no substitute for an SLR when you need the highest image quality. But these superzooms take quite nice photos (they produce 8X10 images quite well) and there is a special joy in always having the right lens on the camera (35mm equivalent of 25mm to 600mm). Leica lens. Outstanding image stabilization.

I take a lot of nature photography, and there's nothing more frustrating than missing a bear -- or a sunset -- while you're changing lenses. (Or, worse yet, leaving your camera gear behind because it's too heavy to carry around all the time.)

I don't mean to suggest this is the right camera for you (the Coolpix you found lacking may be quite similar), but I smile every time I pull out this compact, lightweight camera...

Alan

11/12/13 2:09 PM

but "shutter lag, write lag, settings choice dilemma..."

Or the other side of the coin: "left behind because it's too heavy..."

At the highest level, photography is alwats a quest of best image quality. But when the camera got left behind, or the bird flown out of the frame due to shutter lack, there's no "image" to speak of quality!

I have a nice DSLR and I did get a bunch of really nice images. But now that my phone got an ok camera, the DSLR doesn't get taken out half as often. Instead, I maybe riding down the road and saw a grey blue heron perched on top of a stone wall with waterfall surrounded by fall foliage on the background, the phone is the only device that could capture the moment!

11/12/13 2:11 PM

it sort of reminds me of my old FM. I will disagree w/r/t SLRs, though; match-image viewfinders (e.g., Leica) will do a fine job. I just wish so many cameras these days didn't have the back covered by a screen!

11/12/13 2:22 PM

quote:

---

I just wish so many cameras these days didn't have the back covered by a screen!

---

11/12/13 2:29 PM

The screen on the back is not a viewfinder. They don't work in the sun, and holding at arms length leads to shake.

I have a Panasonic LX7 which is a point and shoot with a 1.4 leica lens that is from 24-90 effective, and plan to buy an FZ200, which is a 28-200 f2.8 constant.

I'm no longer serious about photography ( being half blind) but if I were I'd want a large sensor DSLR.

11/12/13 2:41 PM

quote:

---

The screen on the back is not a viewfinder. They don't work in the sun, and holding at arms length leads to shake.

---

11/12/13 3:00 PM

"I'd love it if a camera had only basic settings and maybe an external control box to handle the custom stuff. "


No option of non advanced menu mode? or is that asking too much for the simple solution. Which I would lean towards myself.

11/12/13 3:09 PM

quote:

---

The screen on the back is not a viewfinder

---

quote:

---

I realize that modern cameras have a large number of settings, but I suspect there must be a better way to handle all the control that those require than by using that big screen

---

11/12/13 3:48 PM

I was talking about camera today that don't have an eye level finder.

I find todays cameras much harder to operate than a 70's era mechanical camera that had basic settings in 4 locations. No way to get in trouble in the wrong menu,etc. Todays cameras have feature creep in my opinion- so many features that they get in the way of actually using the camera.

11/12/13 3:55 PM

I'm aware of dumb cameras that don't have view finders. My phone being one such example. But all the "serious" camera such as DSLR all have viewfinders

Andy's statement confused the hell out of me:

quote:

---

I just wish so many cameras these days didn't have the back covered by a screen!

---

11/12/13 4:18 PM

For MANY years i shot totally manual using a Nikromatte. It was a brick but was a fantastic camera. I miss that feel and the sound of that real shutter at times.

Talk about some great pics.

11/12/13 5:50 PM

quote:

---

the sound of that real shutter at times

---

11/12/13 6:53 PM

My superzoom Panasonic Lumix has both a screen and a viewfinder. For me, the big advantage of the viewfinder is that I need reading glasses to properly view the screen. But the viewfinder has an adjustable diopter adjustment. If I'm without reading glasses (which is quite often), I can happily use the viewfinder, which is "permanently" adjusted to my vision, and displays all the same info as the screen.

Other advantages, too: It's always viewable, no matter how bright the light is. You can hold the camera steadier using a viewfinder. It also conserves battery life.

Alan

11/12/13 9:08 PM

For the same money Nikon offers a DSLR with:
double the pixels 16M vs 32M in a full frame format,
and 1080p video; the Df is pure still photography
with 21st century styling and controls.

Is anyone here doing "DSLR video?"
--How is the microphone? (Part of my duty is to record the winter school concert)
I know that more pixels can be interpreted as "Kodachrome 25" or freaking ISO 6400. Latitude, baby.
--but how much of a drawback is 16M vs 32M?

My eye is not the only one the Df caught. The pre-release is sold out, with silver outselling black a little.

The cynic or pragmatist in me wonders if Nikon recognized that someone who might find themselves suddenly sold on a $3000 camera - might deduce a functional trade-up for the same price as a worthy compromise against superior design derived from nostalgia.

11/12/13 9:39 PM

From Wikipedia

A 35mm Kodachrome transparency, like other 35mm transparencies on films of comparable ISO rating, contains an equivalent of approximately 20 megapixels of data in the 24 mm x 36 mm image.

Link

Seeing how Kodachrome topped out at ISO 200, digital isn't doing bad at all.

11/12/13 10:03 PM

The Nikon looks cute and sexy but compares badly to Nikon own non-retro DSLR cameras.

See preview's assessment here:

http://www.dpreview.com/previews/nikon-df/6

But form often wins over function when it comes to toys like cameras and cars... and come to think of it, bikes too! :)

Sandiway

11/12/13 10:14 PM

quote:

---

The screen on the back is not a viewfinder. They don't work in the sun, and holding at arms length leads to shake.

---

11/13/13 7:31 AM

I've seen a lot of positive and negative feedback about the new Nikon, but I really like it. I'm an old Nikon film guy, and this seems like a pretty nice machine, even if it is priced a bit at the "hipster toy" level compared to many other quite competent cameras. A lot of people have lamented for years that Nikon did not make a digital F, and this is pretty close. Since I'm still using some of those old lenses, a camera that uses them properly might have some economic edge even if it's an expensive body. Not that I'm going to rush right out and buy one, but if (as I hope some day soon) we get to go on one of those photo safaris to someplace like the Galapagos, it's definitely a possibility.

11/13/13 3:52 PM

I figure if I can't easily carry a camera with me wherever I go, I won't use it much. I have a DSLR (a Pentax with several lenses), a Fuji X-E1 with a couple of lenses, and a Sony RX100, which has a 28-100 equivalent zoom. The Sony gets used far more than the others, as it's small enough to fit in a trouser pocket, or the side pocket of a daypack, or the side pocket of a saddlebag. For the same reason, although I've owned SLRs since the 1960s, most of my best photos over the years have been taken with pocketable cameras such as the Rollei 35, Olympus XA, Ricoh GR1, etc, because they're the camera I have with me when the unexpected opportunity arises.

The Sony is the modern equlvalent of those. And it has a reasonably large sensor and a decent lens - I got a friend with a photo exhibition printing business to print one of the Sony images for me on 24" wide roll paper, and I hung it on my wall. Several people haven't believed me when I wave a little cigarette-packet-sized camera at them and tell them that the photo was taken with that.

If anyone wants to see the sort of detail you can get from the 1" sensor on the Sony, I uploaded an image here (it's the one I have hanging on the wall, image file is 16Mb in size): https://www.dropbox.com/s/h2y9fooiy4682dw/DSC00053_filtered.TIF

11/13/13 4:16 PM

quote:

---

If anyone wants to see the sort of detail you can get from the 1" sensor on the Sony,

---

11/13/13 4:19 PM

See this WSJ article

The Point-and-Shoot Camera Faces Its Existential Moment

http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424127887324251504578580263719432252

11/13/13 6:47 PM

I agree point-n-shoot is about to go extinct due to the improvement of cell phone camera.

I have a DSLR, which I still use when I EXPECT to shoot in difficult light conditions (or subject matter that I really care, like, the trip to the Galapagos!). It got taken out maybe 2-3 times a year and that's it! (ok, I used to travel a lot more and the camera got a lot more action that that)

I also own a point-n-shoot, which I USED TO take when I'm going on bike rides or hikes where I don't expect a lot of challenging photography opportunities. It hasn't been used much the last couple of years. The last 2-3 years, I had NEVER taken it on bike rides, nor hikes. The only time it got used was for kayaking and skiing.

Basically, if I expect to shoot some good photos, I bring my DSLR. If I don't expect to take picture but a view became "recordable", the cell phone had filled in quite decently! The "in between" situation when I need the low weight and slim form factor, yet still require decent optical performance out of my camera, are few and far between.

The only times that point-n-shoot ever got used the last few years had been exclusively for kayaking. The P-n-S is waterproof (I got it with that in mind as the top priority!) while the cell phone is not. Had it not been for the waterproof feature of it, it would have become a paper weight long ago!

[P.S.]
I do find the PnS useful when shooting ski related photos. The reason? Surprise, surprise! The PnS has an optical viewfinder! It's nearly impossible to see the cellphone screen in the bright light of snow! Except, I haven't gone to any "interesting" destination for skiing for the last couple years. So the PnS didn't see any action on snow...

Last edited by April on 11/14/13 8:40 AM; edited 1 time in total

11/13/13 7:53 PM

I can't see the damn screen anymore. My arms are to short. My phone can be hard to see too.

I shoot my cameras through the view finder which can be focused for my crappy close up vision.