Nikon Df....First images

Yes I have, but it was a few years ago now. I don't really want to use the photos from those as they were very different in style to how I am choosing to shoot now so I have decided to completely start a fresh. I have two booked for this year, including one in Italy. Well the 35mm was supposed to arrive today with the camera, however I only found out that there was none in stock yesterday and it will arrive now on Thursday. I have a Canon 35mm still sat here but that's not gonna fit on the Df! :LOL:

This is the only time I will be in this situation so am just gonna suck it up and shoot it with one lens. I will just have to go far away for some shots. :)


85mm? Brenizer's - even just 3/4/6 shots will give you a nice wider perspective.


I'm thinking of switching to a nikon system and getting a df at some point as a 3rd body as a backup and a personal use camera.
 
Last edited:
85mm? Brenizer's - even just 3/4/6 shots will give you a nice wider perspective.


I'm thinking of switching to a nikon system and getting a df at some point as a 3rd body as a backup and a personal use camera.

I know the theory but not something I have ever tried. I may have a go. This body really is lovely IMO but I know lots of people don't like it. Just wish the pesky charger would stop flashing so I can shoot some random stuff with it! :lol:
 
Yes I have, but it was a few years ago now. I don't really want to use the photos from those as they were very different in style to how I am choosing to shoot now
Yeah I meant the cameras, not the photos. You've obviously been taking photos before your camera arrived this morning, so I thought you could use whatever you had. Can you borrow a wide lens from someone? Anyway, if you're shooting with 1 camera and 1 lens, it'll be fine.
 
Yeah I meant the cameras, not the photos. You've obviously been taking photos before your camera arrived this morning, so I thought you could use whatever you had. Can you borrow a wide lens from someone? Anyway, if you're shooting with 1 camera and 1 lens, it'll be fine.

Ah yes. I've sold all my canon gear apart from the 35mm. I was confident it would all be here in time. Alas, I was wrong. At least I won't have to change lenses.

Been taking some shots around the house and micro adjusting the 85mm wide open, and it's such a lovely camera to use. Makes a lovely sound! Look forward to making some proper photos with it later.
 
Just out of interest I'm wondering what lenses people are shooting on the Df?

It looks like any kind of zoom would ruin the balance in your hand and negate the whole point of such a camera. I know a lot of people will be shooting with the top of the line primes (at more than £1000 each) but that's something I would have to work upto, and I assume others would too. What to use in the meantime is the question?

I'm not sure how the older Nikon primes would work with this (24mm f2.8D etc).

I know Nikon have started to release a cheaper range of G primes for fullframe but I don't know much about the quality and they will obviously be missing the aperture ring.
 
Last edited:
Just out of interest I'm wondering what lenses people are shooting on the Df?

It looks like any kind of zoom would ruin the balance in your hand and negate the whole point of such a camera. I know a lot of people will be shooting with the top of the line primes (at more than £1000 each) but that's something I would have to work upto, and I assume others would too. What to use in the meantime is the question?

I'm not sure how the older Nikon primes would work with this (24mm f2.8D etc).

I know Nikon have started to release a cheaper range of G primes for fullframe but I don't know much about the quality and they will obviously be missing the aperture ring.

Why would it matter if they had aperture rings or not? Nikon and Sigma make some very good primes well under £1000.
 
I've given a lot of thought to this. Don't have a Df. Went for the Fuji. However I'd be using my manual focus ai lenses 24mm, 28mm, 35mm and auto focus 50mm AF-D
 
I've given a lot of thought to this. Don't have a Df. Went for the Fuji. However I'd be using my manual focus ai lenses 24mm, 28mm, 35mm and auto focus 50mm AF-D

Hi Trevor, I'm been lurking around the Fuji X-T1 thread as well. At the moment I have three cameras in mind which I've done some research on and it's just a matter of pulling the trigger really. The X-T1 excites me, and some of the features it has would be really useful but I've always had something at the back of my head which says 'buy kit you could use for professional work'. I don't shoot for a living, and I may never do so but it's one of those things I like to keep as an option. I know Kevin Mullins does some great work with Fuji kit but I still have a little doubt when it comes to the X-T1. I prefer to shoot with primes, so any setup will need to cater for 24, 35, 50, 85 focal lengths. I also have a serious level of OCD (I'm not joking) and the reality of the current lens lineup annoys the living hell out of me. The 23 and 56 look excellent but for me the 14 and 35 which I'd need to fill out my bag are not to the same quality or standard. There are rumours Fuji are going to rework the 35 to bring it inline with the XF range and there is a roadmap for a faster wide prime but I couldn't say what this would be.

The other two cameras are the Df and the D800. I don't think either of these bodies would offer me particularly quick or accurate manual focusing opportunities in a fast paced situation so I'd be a little reluctant to use non AF lenses.

What really brings the Df into contention is the current price of the kit version on DigitalRev, at less than £1700 for the body and 50mm lens it's not much off the X-T1 and 56mm price. But with a D4s sensor I believe.
 
Last edited:
4 lenses

24/35/50/85 f1.4's

That would be the ultimate goal but there is no way I could stump up the £4000 for all those lenses at once. My wife's understanding but I might be pushing it a bit with that option.

I suppose I'd have to go for either the older D series and then step up one lens at a time or take a look at the new fullframe G series (35, 50, 85 and the older 24 f2.8D) and step up one lens at a time.
 
I'm currently using the Nikon 35 and 85 F1.4's on mine. Would love to add the 24 at some point and would really love the 200mm F2.0 but that's probably not essential so not gonna happen at £3500 used. :lol:
 
Just out of interest I'm wondering what lenses people are shooting on the Df?

It looks like any kind of zoom would ruin the balance in your hand and negate the whole point of such a camera. I know a lot of people will be shooting with the top of the line primes (at more than £1000 each) but that's something I would have to work upto, and I assume others would too. What to use in the meantime is the question?

I'm not sure how the older Nikon primes would work with this (24mm f2.8D etc).

I know Nikon have started to release a cheaper range of G primes for fullframe but I don't know much about the quality and they will obviously be missing the aperture ring.

The 1.8G primes are excellent and in no way should be thought of as a stopgap, I would forego the older 'D' lenses personally as the newer 1.8Gs are so much better in every regard, except size (although the 1.8Gs aren't exactly massive). It's worth noting that the 1.4Gs are significantly heavier/bulkier, it's a personal thing but I find the 1.8Gs to be perfectly balanced on the Df. I did a short review of the Df/35mm 1.8G at the link below:

http://www.jpwilliamsphotography.com/2014/04/nikon-df-35mm-1-8g-fx/
 
The 1.8G primes are excellent and in no way should be thought of as a stopgap, I would forego the older 'D' lenses personally as the newer 1.8Gs are so much better in every regard, except size (although the 1.8Gs aren't exactly massive). It's worth noting that the 1.4Gs are significantly heavier/bulkier, it's a personal thing but I find the 1.8Gs to be perfectly balanced on the Df. I did a short review of the Df/35mm 1.8G at the link below:

http://www.jpwilliamsphotography.com/2014/04/nikon-df-35mm-1-8g-fx/


Thanks John. That's actually quite helpful. The images look dam good from the Df.

In the past I owned the 35 F1.8 DX and found that to be extremely sharp.
 
@JohnBradbury. There are plenty of times I've questioned buying the Fuji. It does so many things very well....but it's not the all rounder (for me) that I'd really like.
 
The new 1.8's are all very good and well worth the money.

I've had my lenses a few years now but use the 35/1.4 for about 80% of most weddings.

The last 7 weddings on my site are all Df.
 
What is the manual focusing like on these using older AI or A-IS lenses etc?
 
The last 7 weddings on my site are all Df.

I've just spend the past half hour going through each of those weddings and not to blow spoke up your jacksie but I'd hazard a guess you could pull off some fantastic images regardless of what camera you were using. Some really fantastic 'moments' you've captured. As opposed to the traditional, stiff group shots which have a place, but say nothing of the actual day and what happened.
 
Last edited:
Fer Juaristi uses one and gave me a go on it. In some ways its fantastic but there was enough things to put me off buying it.

Ergonomically, it's just not as good as a DSLR. It's more awkward to hold. The aperture dial is style over function. The ISO dial was awkward to change quickly and the build in general isn't what I was expecting - it looks more robust in pictures and the Silver version looks kinda cheap in reality, but it's still cool looking.

I loved the sensor, but I shoot a D4 so why wouldn't I? The AF is disappointing and much slower than the D800. LV is really good though.

I really wanted to love the camera and was considering buying one as a backup body / personal camera. It's just got too many flaws. I guess nikon just don't make the camera I'm after; a frankenstein of their current range... A D800 with either a D4/D600 sensor or a DF with a few ergonomically tweaks, 2 card slots and better AF.
 
Not for everyone.

Personally I have found the aperture dial really handy to use. I can just glance down and spin the dial and it's easy enough to do with the camera to eye.

AF hasn't let me down at all and that's been in pretty low light. I certainly haven't felt I'm missing out having moved away from D3s's.

The real thing for me though is subject reaction (or rather lack of). The D3s often had comments about size and noise. The Df makes people smile if they even notice it.
 
I think the ergonomics are good but call for a different grip than with dslr, I support it almost completely with the left hand under the camera/lens and the right just rests on the grip. It feels really comfortable with small primes but doesn't work at all with zooms as there's not enough surface area for the right hand to get a good grip on.
 
I could use the aperture dial but I just don't get the point. It isn't as easy to use as a jog dial - stiffer, more awkward position. For me, that runs counter to a 'pure photography' claim but is rather one of style over function. Pure photography for me would be non-compromising in function and disregarding of style. I'm imagining that pretty much everyone who owns one uses the functional shutter jog rather than the stylish dials.

Weight balance was perfect for me as I shoot primes, the grip was just not comfortable.

I don't even think it's a case of not being 'for me' as a photographer. I really wanted to love it. Had it been done right it would be the perfect camera for me. D4 sensor in a smaller body is exactly what I want. If it had the D800 AF and 2 card slots I could overlook the ergonomic niggles - it would also help justify that price.

If there was a 16mp D800 I imagine a great deal less DFs would be sold.
 
Last edited:
I've been doing a little research and I've come across something about the AF system which doesn't make much sense. Looking at the reviews by Thom Hogan of the Df and the D610 (which share the same AF system) he seems to have widely different opinions on the AF performance of each camera. In the case of the D610 he says very little to dispel the internet mumblings of sluggish AF performance but goes so far as to praise the AF performance of the Df.

Am I missing something which would make one far better than the other despite using the same AF module?

When Talking about the Df:

A lot of folk are agonizing over the 39-point AF sensor Nikon chose for the Df. Heck, even the D7100 has the 51-point AF sensor, right? I've never quite gotten excited over this subject. There's really nothing wrong with the 39-point sensor, it's just a bit different. The cross sensors tend to be a little bigger (though fewer in number), a very different shape than the indicators in the viewfinder, and yes the frame coverage is a wee bit smaller, but frame coverage for either AF sensor on an FX body isn't going to set the world on fire. Is the 39-point sensor system slower? Not really. Focus performance tends to be determined more by the CPU horsepower and the internal bandwidth of the camera and other things like frame blackout time when you're shooting continuously.

It's night, my big office is lit mostly by my monitor, there are deep shadows everywhere and I point the Df at something black over in one of those shadows that has no contrast and…the camera just focuses (I'm at ISO 1600, f/1.8 and 1/15 if you must know). Pretty much like I expect from my D800, actually. Yes, if I try I can find things in the office where the camera struggles to find focus, but frankly, I'm surprised at the things that it can focus on. I really think that people put too much into the 39 versus 51 thing and aren't looking at the trees in the forest. To some degree, navigating 39 sensors is actually easier than finding the right one of 51 (though as in all the Nikons with these AF sensors, you can choose to simplify to 11 points to chose from if you don't like punching the Direction pad a lot to get from side to side.

When talking about the D610:

One of the key complaints many have about the D610 is the use of the 39-point focus sensor. Yes, between the reduced number of focus points and the FX frame, the area covered by the focus sensors is small, at best. Somewhat smaller than the 51-point sensor covers, and very noticeably smaller for anyone moving from DX to FX (the D7000 user moving to D610, for example, which Nikon has been promoting as an upgrade path). Note that the focus system doesn't perform any differently than before. If you've used the 39-point system in an earlier Nikon DSLR, you can expect pretty much the same performance in the D610. Actual focusing seems ever so slightly better in the D610 than it was in the D7000, all else equal (I suspect some additional smarts in the metering/focus sensor integration), plus the system will focus at the center point with f/8 lenses (and a subset between f/5.6 and f/8). So there have been some gains.

But that smaller "area" is what gets people: the focus sensors don't even hit the one-third points. The actual area seen by the D610 focus sensor is the same as is seen by the D7000 focus sensor, by the way. It's the change in angle of view (DX crop versus FX) that changes the apparent area covered. There's good news and bad news buried in the 39-point focus sensor for those of you contemplating the D610. This is the best implementation of the 39-point system so far, by a tiny bit. Many people also don't realize that the line sensors in the 39-point version are somewhat larger than those in the 51-point version, either. That has both positive and negative implications in and of itself. The positive and the negative is that it's more likely that sensor is seeing something that isn't perfectly centered on the viewfinder indicators. Sometimes that means the camera is finding the subject you didn't quite get the sensor on and that's what you wanted, sometimes it means that the camera is seeing something you don't want it to see when focusing. Remember, those viewfinder indicators are not indicative of the size and shape of the autofocus sensor.

But let me cut to the chase here: a lot of consumers just focus in the center. Good news: the nine central sensors are all cross hatched and large. Central focus is pretty darned sure and reliable. Even Dynamic Area 9-point with the center area selected is darned good. It's all the things that you can do outside those central nine sensors (3D Tracking, Auto Area, 21-point/39-point Dynamic Area, Single Point with one of the outer sensors, etc.) that would probably get you into focus situations where you might not like the performance as much. As it is, a lot of shooters are focus-and-reframers. Great, stick to the central area and learn how the geometry of reframing works and you'll be just fine.

Sources: Df, D610
 
Played with one in Hong Kong. It's not as big as I thought, great built quality.

bZXmm3H.jpg


3Q46W8x.jpg
 
I've been doing a little research and I've come across something about the AF system which doesn't make much sense. Looking at the reviews by Thom Hogan of the Df and the D610 (which share the same AF system) he seems to have widely different opinions on the AF performance of each camera. In the case of the D610 he says very little to dispel the internet mumblings of sluggish AF performance but goes so far as to praise the AF performance of the Df.

Am I missing something which would make one far better than the other despite using the same AF module?

This bit:
Focus performance tends to be determined more by the CPU horsepower and the internal bandwidth of the camera and other things like frame blackout time when you're shooting continuously.

They may have the same AF hardware but it's conceivable that the Df has a bit more juice to throw at it. I noticed a difference between the D700 and D3 AF despite them having the same AF module, the D3 was noticeably more responsive.
 
But there's not.

Yes, I am aware of that.

I'm making the point that the camera is being bought by many because the camera they want is not being made.

All 3 df users I know would rather a 16mp d800 (and have as much criticism as they have praise for it). It would be superior in every way to the df without question, barring perhaps looks, but that's subjective.

I'm not saying all of this without reason. Im a professional photographer and was a potential buyer who was very excited about the camera as it was rumoured. Criticism is important. Nikon will have to take it on board should they decide to replace it in a few years.
 
What would be the advantages of having a DF over a hypothetical 16mp D800?

I can see none beyond aesthetics.

It's a disappointment of a camera for me. It could've been utterly amazing with just a few changes.
 
What would be the advantages of having a DF over a hypothetical 16mp D800?

I can see none beyond aesthetics.

It's a disappointment of a camera for me. It could've been utterly amazing with just a few changes.

I'd imagine the size and weight reduction would be a massive benefit to a professional wedding photographer who has to carry kit around all day.
 
What would be the advantages of having a DF over a hypothetical 16mp D800?

I can see none beyond aesthetics.

It's a disappointment of a camera for me. It could've been utterly amazing with just a few changes.

Analogue controls. Though I like the Df looks, they come a distant second for me. Fuji X-T1 is another (better?) example, especially with apertures around the lens.
 
The analogue controls slow you down though - hence most df owners using the dslr style jog wheel for shutter. Are they really an advantage?

As for wedding photogs, its not that much lighter. Also, the awkward grip kinda negates the weight saving in my hands. Im a wedding photog myself and the fact it has one card slot puts me totally off. The same sensor in a d800 body though would've been the best wedding cam you could buy.

As you say, the xt1 does it better. Offers a real, viable alternative to a dslr. Its controls are better and its significantly lighter and smaller. They even offer a grip so it handles better.
 
The analogue controls slow you down though - hence most df owners using the dslr style jog wheel for shutter. Are they really an advantage?

As for wedding photogs, its not that much lighter. Also, the awkward grip kinda negates the weight saving in my hands. Im a wedding photog myself and the fact it has one card slot puts me totally off. The same sensor in a d800 body though would've been the best wedding cam you could buy.

As you say, the xt1 does it better. Offers a real, viable alternative to a dslr. Its controls are better and its significantly lighter and smaller. They even offer a grip so it handles better.

I like analogue controls, and they're faster/easier for me - look down at the camera, and there it all is, with direct access. I rarely adjust settings while shooting - set it up, then concentrate on the subject. The only other thing I look at while working is the AF point.

Rather than analogue dials slowing things down, it's fiddling with multifunction buttons that slows me down. My Canons for example, changing the shutter speed - which way do I turn the dial? Have to double-check and confirm that on the top LCD. Then change from Manual to Av and the main control dials have switched functions. Adjusting ISO - press button, remember which dial to use, double-check on top LCD. Same with drive mode, on a different dial, and everything else.

A lot of the way cameras are currently designed has to do with ease of manufacture and cost - one multi-function button and dial are cheap, and can adjust dozens of settings (most of which I never use). They're probably more robust/reliable, and easier to weather-proof, too. But they're not the only way, or the best way for some users. If the Df was a Canon, I'd be using it.
 
I think Nikon cameras are generally really good for access in terms of the D4 and D800 at least - their DSLR ergonomics are the reason I still shoot Nikon despite the 5D3 Canon being more what I want spec-wise. There's 2 designated jog-wheels for Shutter and Aperture and a quick press of the REC button (if assigned) gives you ISO. All one-handed, all straight forward.

I dunno about other shooters but I've never mistaken which way to turn the jogs - it's pretty much muscle memory for me and the direction can be assigned to suit your tastes. I can change everything without taking my eyes off the viewfinder - which incidentally gives me all the info that I need on what my ISO, Shutter speed and aperture are. If I look down on the top of the camera I can just as readily see my settings on the top screen. This ability to change settings quickly without looking away is highly advantageous for wedding/documentary photography and that's why I see analogue dials as a step backwards.

Again, as I said before, any DF users I know use the shutter jog wheel rather than the physical dial. The advantage being you can adjust it blindly and you can use 1/3 stop measures.

In terms of the rest of the functions, the DF is exactly the same as the DSLRS - in fact it lacks the 2 physical switches for focus controls that the D700 and D3/D3s have, instead the DF has the more awkward multifunction one button+2 jog wheels control. It has basically the same outdated menu structure of the DSLRs - something Nikon hasn't addressed/improved in years.
 
No. They don't.

Well, that's a well constructed counter-argument. I stated all the reasons how they do, and there's no question that setting your ISO/Aperture/Shutter one handedly while still able to look through a viewfinder is quicker. Nikon intimated as much in their DF literature - that the DF analogue controls are designed to slow you down, make you more purposeful. The very fact that they include a 1/3 setting on the shutter dial is evidence of this - if the analogue dials were quicker, it would negate the need of a jog wheel altogether.

The DF is a good camera, capable of taking great pictures. But it is simply not a perfect camera, and thus open to criticism.
 
Back
Top