# Has the Nikon Df has over-egged the retro styling?



## beesonthewhatnow (Nov 5, 2013)

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








WANT.


----------



## discokermit (Nov 5, 2013)

http://fstoppers.com/the-nikon-df-represents-everything-wrong-with-photography


----------



## Corax (Nov 5, 2013)

Can a mod stick the 'offered' tag at the front of the thread title please?

And yes, I'd be delighted to give it a good home bees - thanks.


----------



## FridgeMagnet (Nov 5, 2013)

discokermit said:


> http://fstoppers.com/the-nikon-df-represents-everything-wrong-with-photography


I'm not a big fan of this camera but that is a dumb article tbh, starting with "m43 is like a cameraphone" (wut) and continuing with such gems as "cable release is because they didn't have self timers" (wut).


----------



## Corax (Nov 5, 2013)

FridgeMagnet said:


> I'm not a big fan of this camera but that is a dumb article tbh, starting with "m43 is like a cameraphone" (wut) and continuing with such gems as "cable release is because they didn't have self timers" (wut).


It said "like self timer, infrared, or radio triggers" tbf - which makes a bit more sense to me (although I'm sadly not yet even an SLR owner).


----------



## discokermit (Nov 5, 2013)

FridgeMagnet said:


> I'm not a big fan of this camera but that is a dumb article tbh, starting with "m43 is like a cameraphone" (wut) and continuing with such gems as "cable release is because they didn't have self timers" (wut).


i think the cable release criticism is valid. maybe. ish. a cable release still has an element of mechanical movement about it, if you can do it electronically then you should.


----------



## FridgeMagnet (Nov 5, 2013)

discokermit said:


> i think the cable release criticism is valid. maybe. ish. a cable release still has an element of mechanical movement about it, if you can do it electronically then you should.


I like mechanical releases - IR ones cost money, need batteries and get broken whereas a cable costs a couple of quid and lasts forever. That's not to say the option shouldn't be available but simply having an electronically controlled shutter isn't good enough reason to remove it.

It's not so much that debate though, which is open to argument, as that he just seems against the whole idea because it's "old". He comes across like he's 14.


----------



## Corax (Nov 5, 2013)

FridgeMagnet said:


> It's not so much that debate though, which is open to argument, as that he just seems against the whole idea because it's "old".


It didn't come across like that to me really.  I read it more as a rant against the retro/hipster element.  I think it was the marketing angle that he perceived in the combination of style and features that irked him, rather than any real objection to the technology.  He said a couple of times that he may well buy one and in some ways he quite liked it.


----------



## RoyReed (Nov 5, 2013)

Camera for hipsters.


----------



## discokermit (Nov 5, 2013)

FridgeMagnet said:


> I like mechanical releases - IR ones cost money, need batteries and get broken whereas a cable costs a couple of quid and lasts forever. That's not to say the option shouldn't be available but simply having an electronically controlled shutter isn't good enough reason to remove it.
> 
> It's not so much that debate though, which is open to argument, as that he just seems against the whole idea because it's "old". He comes across like he's 14.


you can see the point he's trying to make but he does it very badly.


----------



## FridgeMagnet (Nov 5, 2013)

I preferred this review from a camera blog that actually has a lot of old cameras in it already - http://www.japancamerahunter.com/2013/11/nikon-df-retro-cool-overhyped-cash/ - where SPOILER the conclusion is that it's a cash-in that doesn't actually do anything new.

I like old cameras and I don't mind retro styling but not for the sake of it. The OM-D for instance is not only retro styled but also broke ground in being a proper pro camera in m43. Fair enough. This thing, I struggle to see how they've changed anything apart from by putting some dials on.

I think everyone hates the hype and marketing tbh just possibly for different reasons.


----------



## Hocus Eye. (Nov 5, 2013)

Perhaps the Retro style of the camera is not aimed at the photographer so much as his customers. It is all part of the  business pitch. The customers can not be expected to know about photography but will be impressed with something that looks very different from the kit that they use themselves.


----------



## FridgeMagnet (Nov 5, 2013)

I don't think it's a serious hard-nosed sales decision to make this, I think it's more a statement of intent that Nikon wants to move into the high end consumer market rather than just making lookalike DSLRs. They are a bit late there though.


----------



## cybertect (Nov 5, 2013)

FridgeMagnet said:


> I preferred this review from a camera blog that actually has a lot of old cameras in it already - http://www.japancamerahunter.com/2013/11/nikon-df-retro-cool-overhyped-cash/ - where SPOILER the conclusion is that it's a cash-in that doesn't actually do anything new.



I think that's a fair assessment. Fuji know how to do dial controls right on their XPro and XE bodies. Leica get it too (though they're waay out of my price range).

From the teasers, I had hoped for more - or perhaps rather less; _Less is more_. They seem to have had an idea and then a failure of nerve to commit to it properly: a split image finder for manual focus and at the very least a kit lens with an aperture ring (they went as far as to make it a 50mm then balked at the last hurdle, for heavens' sake).

If we are to judge on its appearance (since that is largely what this camera seems to be about) I've never thought that Nikon made particularly elegant cameras. Workmanlike, yes, but rarely elegant. The original Nikon F with an ETTL metering prism was beaten hard with the ugly stick. The DF does at least continue in that tradition.


----------



## editor (Nov 7, 2013)

I'm a big fan of retro styled digital cameras, but there's something about Nikon's new £2.8k dSLR that just seems over the top.

Whereas the Olympus OM-D still looks like a smart modern camera this looks more like a pastiche to me (although those top plate dials please me greatly). It just look too tubby and too tall. 

Opinions?






More: http://www.wirefresh.com/has-the-nikon-df-gone-too-far-with-the-retro-styling/


----------



## Pickman's model (Nov 7, 2013)

there is a reason retro cameras looked like retro cameras: because they were good and sturdy. thus i suspect the new look here.


----------



## bi0boy (Nov 7, 2013)

Pickman's model said:


> there is a reason retro cameras looked like retro cameras: because they were good and sturdy. thus i suspect the new look here.



Is that the reason? I doubt the sturdiness of an SLR body has much bearing on the likelihood of the important bits breaking should it be dropped or knocked.


----------



## Pickman's model (Nov 7, 2013)

bi0boy said:


> Is that the reason? I doubt the sturdiness of an SLR body has much bearing on the likelihood of the important bits breaking should it be dropped or knocked.


i said it looked good and sturdy, not that this camera was good and sturdy.


----------



## bi0boy (Nov 7, 2013)

Pickman's model said:


> i said it looked good and sturdy, not that this camera was good and sturdy.



You said the "look" of retro (actually "old") cameras derives from their good and sturdyness. I think it derived more from exposed metal being more fashionable than black plastic, and the subsequent advances in plastic materials.


----------



## Bernie Gunther (Nov 8, 2013)

I think the over the top bit is the price and maybe the size (have to handle one to know).

Otherwise it is pretty much my dream camera, an F3 (well OK, steroidal FM2) with the guts of a top line DSLR.

Perhaps if they did this with something approx D700 spec then they might shoehorn it into a body that really _was _F3-sized and be able to do so at a slightly more believable price.


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Nov 8, 2013)

editor said:


> I'm a big fan of retro styled digital cameras, but there's something about Nikon's new £2.8k dSLR that just seems over the top.
> 
> Whereas the Olympus OM-D still looks like a smart modern camera this looks more like a pastiche to me (although those top plate dials please me greatly). It just look too tubby and too tall.
> 
> ...


 
Does it take good pictures, though?

If the camera that was perfect for me in every way looked like a Polaroid Swinger, I'd buy it because it was the perfect camera. Or if it looked like a Brownie.


----------



## GarfieldLeChat (Nov 8, 2013)

Kinda wonder who this is aimed at as a market. 

it's not a 4k camera so no good for cinema it's not got good fps it's got a tiny sensor for that money I can buy a Canon EOS 5D Mark III and have change to spend a grans or thereabouts on a pro lens....

So retro styling (is it sliver plastic or metal?) bad price tag, low specs, what's this for again??


----------



## Bernie Gunther (Nov 8, 2013)

I suspect it'd be hard to tell with this unless you try it.

In theory, I strongly prefer the ergonomics of my ancient F3 to my D700 but I have no idea without trying one whether this actually simulates the ergonomics or just the look.

Obviously the imaging capabilities of anything with a D4 sensor and Nikon's latest autofocus in it are going to be very decent. 16mp with excellent dynamic range is plenty for my purposes.

Thing is though, the difference from say a D700 is probably going to be marginal unless they absolutely nailed the ergonomics, so with that price it's not a realistic purchase for anyone except the sort of people who are in the market for stuff like Leicas.


----------



## FridgeMagnet (Nov 8, 2013)

Already a thread on the Df - http://www.urban75.net/forums/threads/nikon-df.316887/

My opinion hasn't really changed tbh, I still think it's a style cash-in. We've had various high-profile "retro-styled" cameras recently but they've also had other innovative things - the OM-D's styling was secondary to performance, the Fujis have been compact with super fixed lenses and great sensors, etc. They gave actual functional options that other cameras didn't. I don't see how this does at all.


----------



## editor (Nov 8, 2013)

FridgeMagnet said:


> Already a thread on the Df - http://www.urban75.net/forums/threads/nikon-df.316887/
> 
> My opinion hasn't really changed tbh, I still think it's a style cash-in. We've had various high-profile "retro-styled" cameras recently but they've also had other innovative things - the OM-D's styling was secondary to performance, the Fujis have been compact with super fixed lenses and great sensors, etc. They gave actual functional options that other cameras didn't. I don't see how this does at all.


Just seen it and merged. 

I agree with you about the styling on this one. With the OM-D, the styling makes the camera more usable whereas the Df just seems to be more interested in recreating a copy of an old model.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Nov 8, 2013)

beesonthewhatnow said:


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



Looks like an F2 that's drunk way too many protein shakes!


----------



## dweller (Nov 8, 2013)

The controls on the top plate are pleasing as I think it is great to instantly see and be able to change those settings
even with the power off. They should  have released it with a lens which had an aperture ring to match.

overall though, the thing is ugly IMO.


----------



## dweller (Nov 8, 2013)




----------



## Idaho (Nov 8, 2013)

I haven't had any interest in camera gear for a very long time. Since they put lcd displays on maybe. Accordingly, I like this very much.


----------



## FridgeMagnet (Nov 8, 2013)

It has a massive LCD display.


----------



## weltweit (Nov 9, 2013)

Personally I like the styling and the spec is attractive to me also. I could definitely go for one of these if I had the budget. But it should not cost more than a standard dslr of that calibre imho.


----------



## weltweit (Nov 9, 2013)

PS: Does anyone know what its IP rating is?


----------



## 8115 (Nov 9, 2013)

discokermit said:


> i think the cable release criticism is valid. maybe. ish. a cable release still has an element of mechanical movement about it, if you can do it electronically then you should.


You can't do a cable release electronically.  Surely with a cable release you choose your moment but can take a self portrait/ avoid camera shake.

It looks ok.  I'd like a hipster camera, one day maybe.


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Nov 9, 2013)

I did some more background digging into this camera today. I don't think the issue is the styling - retro or otherwise.

It's functionality. To me, it sounds like a dream camera: a full frame DSLR with all the software bells and whistles, but with the ease of use that comes with a few well placed knobs and dials, as opposed to innumerable LCD pull up menus. Knobs and dials are intuitive in a way that menu screens aren't, imo.

Unfortunately, where the hell am I supposed to come up with that kind of dosh? Hopefully they'll start hitting the used market sooner or later.


----------



## editor (Nov 9, 2013)

It's _huge_.


----------



## FridgeMagnet (Nov 9, 2013)

The mere fact of something having manual controls does not make it ergonomic.

For instance, if you have an LCD display that can show speed and aperture, which this does, full wheels for speed and aperture (on body or lens) are a waste of time. You have to take your eyes off the finder anyway so why not just small wheels to adjust without being massive like this one? You need them on a mechanical SLR or one without a display - this is not a mechanical SLR. It's ornamentation.

Probably the best camera I have used in terms of manual controls is the Dynax 9, which doesn't have aperture or speed rings but has a whole bunch of other stuff that you can change in the dark with gloves on without moving your eye from the finder. Metering, PASM, compensation, drive, focus type / points, flash type, they all have buttons, dials or switches. I bet you would have to go through some irritating menu system to change several of those on the Df.


----------



## George & Bill (Nov 9, 2013)

Johnny Canuck3 said:


> Does it take good pictures, though?
> 
> If the camera that was perfect for me in every way looked like a Polaroid Swinger, I'd buy it because it was the perfect camera. Or if it looked like a Brownie.



Yes, it will take good pictures - it has the same sensor as the D4. But you could get a D600 with what for most people is a better sensor for half the price.


----------



## George & Bill (Nov 9, 2013)

editor said:


> View attachment 43210
> 
> It's _huge_.



Well, it's not - it's smaller than the previous smallest FX camera. But it's not nearly smaller enough for me to find it interesting, especially at that price.


----------



## George & Bill (Nov 9, 2013)

GarfieldLeChat said:


> Kinda wonder who this is aimed at as a market.
> 
> it's not a 4k camera so no good for cinema it's not got good fps it's got a tiny sensor for that money I can buy a Canon EOS 5D Mark III and have change to spend a grans or thereabouts on a pro lens....
> 
> So retro styling (is it sliver plastic or metal?) bad price tag, low specs, what's this for again??



Eh? It is a full-frame sensor and the price difference over a 5D MK3 is only about £300 so not nearly enough to buy any kind of pro lens. But I agree you'd still probably be mad to buy this rather than the Canon, or a D800 for that matter...


----------



## George & Bill (Nov 9, 2013)

Now, if someone came out with an FX camera the size of an old FM/OM - THAT would be interesting. Olympus are far ahead of Nikon on this front technologically I guess, though a Nikon one would be more useful owing to the range of lenses that already exists...


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Nov 9, 2013)

slowjoe said:


> Yes, it will take good pictures - it has the same sensor as the D4. But you could get a D600 with what for most people is a better sensor for half the price.


 
I've been looking around town for a used full frame DSLR with a CCD sensor: so far without luck.


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Nov 9, 2013)

FridgeMagnet said:


> The mere fact of something having manual controls does not make it ergonomic.
> 
> For instance, if you have an LCD display that can show speed and aperture, which this does, full wheels for speed and aperture (on body or lens) are a waste of time. You have to take your eyes off the finder anyway so why not just small wheels to adjust without being massive like this one? You need them on a mechanical SLR or one without a display - this is not a mechanical SLR. It's ornamentation.
> 
> Probably the best camera I have used in terms of manual controls is the Dynax 9, which doesn't have aperture or speed rings but has a whole bunch of other stuff that you can change in the dark with gloves on without moving your eye from the finder. Metering, PASM, compensation, drive, focus type / points, flash type, they all have buttons, dials or switches. I bet you would have to go through some irritating menu system to change several of those on the Df.


 
I went down to Future Shop yesterday to take a look, not realizing that the camera isn't  released till the end of the month. The test will come when one has the thing in one's hand, turning knobs etc.


----------



## weltweit (Nov 9, 2013)

I quite like the idea of the D600. I think the D800 could be overkill for my needs. This one looks nicer but if I can't afford it that is that.


----------



## Bernie Gunther (Nov 9, 2013)

slowjoe said:


> Now, if someone came out with an FX camera the size of an old FM/OM - THAT would be interesting. Olympus are far ahead of Nikon on this front technologically I guess, though a Nikon one would be more useful owing to the range of lenses that already exists...



Yep, that's pretty much what I was hoping this was when I first heard about it. 

Actually though, while it's probably a bit smaller than a D700 it's not nearly F3-sized. 

It does seem to have something very close to the F3HP finder though, which is my all-time favourite finder.


----------



## cybertect (Nov 10, 2013)

FridgeMagnet said:


> The mere fact of something having manual controls does not make it ergonomic.
> 
> For instance, if you have an LCD display that can show speed and aperture, which this does, full wheels for speed and aperture (on body or lens) are a waste of time. You have to take your eyes off the finder anyway so why not just small wheels to adjust without being massive like this one? You need them on a mechanical SLR or one without a display - this is not a mechanical SLR. It's ornamentation.



I don't disagree that the mere fact of a camera having manual controls does not make it ergonomic.

There are nevertheless some advantages to having a selection of dedicated controls, such as a shutter speed, aperture and perhaps ISO for digital cameras. I'd also add a focus scale on the lens, preferably with DoF markings to the list.

I like to be able to see what settings I have _before_ I raise the camera to my eye, ideally even when it's switched off. If you're shooting street, especially with manual exposure, you don't want to be waiting around until you can look through the viewfinder to see that you've still got it set at f/11.

Their presence does not exclude an eye-level display - indeed I'd want both, as many of my Canon FD bodies do.

How these controls are implemented makes a huge difference, though, and I'm not convinced that Nikon have it right with the DF as the controls are compromised by various modal choices - if you select the 1/3 stop mode on the shutter speed dial, then you have to control that from one of the other control wheels, so you end up with two different controls for the same parameter on the camera. Then again, you can have the PASM dial set to 'A' or 'P' mode and the setting you have on the shutter dial is ignored.

Why they chose to put the Exposure Compensation dial tucked away on top of the ISO dial, neither of which are easily accessible, confuses me. Fuji handle this kind of thing much better.

The welter of controls mitigates against the [marketing] concept of this camera. I think I'd have been more impressed if Nikon had been more ruthless with the simplification of the interface in the pursuit of 'pure photography'.


----------



## editor (Nov 10, 2013)

slowjoe said:


> Well, it's not - it's smaller than the previous smallest FX camera. But it's not nearly smaller enough for me to find it interesting, especially at that price.


It still looks uncomfortably chunky to me.


----------



## FridgeMagnet (Nov 10, 2013)

I was talking about the top LCD (I assume it has a finder display as well) - you can see speed and aperture from any position. If there was actually haptic feedback from larger dials like there is from switches or smaller dials/sliders that would be fair enough but I can't see looking at numbers on a top dial as better than looking at numbers on a top LCD (and in some cases worse - they're smaller and not illuminated). They're also a pain in the arse if you're wearing gloves, though nowhere near as bad as touchscreen controls, don't get me started on those


----------



## George & Bill (Nov 10, 2013)

editor said:


> It still looks uncomfortably chunky to me.



I agreed that it was still too big for it to interest me - but if you compare it to other FF DSLRs (those pictures aren't SLRs), it can't really be called 'huge', since it's smaller than most others...


----------



## weltweit (Nov 10, 2013)

I have large hands, some of these smaller cameras are like toys when I hold them, I want something more significant to hold. Suits me !!


----------



## George & Bill (Nov 10, 2013)

weltweit said:


> I have large hands, some of these smaller cameras are like toys when I hold them, I want something more significant to hold. Suits me !!



I prefer biggish cameras on the holding front (my D800 is about the idea size ergonomically), but when you're taking a camera around on the off-chance rather than for a solid shooting session, I prefer something smaller that stands our less and is easier to pack.


----------



## editor (Nov 10, 2013)

slowjoe said:


> I agreed that it was still too big for it to interest me - but if you compare it to other FF DSLRs (those pictures aren't SLRs), it can't really be called 'huge', since it's smaller than most others...


Huge to me! But then I'm a OM-D/Ricoh GR kinda shooter


----------



## FridgeMagnet (Nov 10, 2013)

It's certainly a lot bulkier than the manual SLRs it's stylistically imitating.


----------



## George & Bill (Nov 10, 2013)

editor said:


> Huge to me! But then I'm a OM-D/Ricoh GR kinda shooter



Fair enough - just thought as a tech reviewer you'd be more objective; it's small for its class


----------



## editor (Nov 10, 2013)

slowjoe said:


> Fair enough - just thought as a tech reviewer you'd be more objective; it's small for its class


Er, I'm not offering a 'tech review' here, and this isn't a tech review site!

I'm just giving my personal opinion. I don't like big cameras. The bigger they are, the less likely they're going to be on me when I go out.


----------



## editor (Nov 10, 2013)

FridgeMagnet said:


> It's certainly a lot bulkier than the manual SLRs it's stylistically imitating.


Indeed. That was the point I was making.


----------



## George & Bill (Nov 10, 2013)

editor said:


> Er, I'm not offering a 'tech review' here, and this isn't a tech review site!
> 
> I'm just giving my personal opinion. I don't like big cameras. The bigger they are, the less likely they're going to be on me when I go out.



No need to get tetchy! I know this isn't a tech site and you weren't reviewing, I was just commenting on how the complete picture one has of a given poster will colour how one interprets their posts - in this case, when you said the DF was 'huge', I assumed you were comparing to other cameras in the same class, rather than to film cameras or mirrorless digitals.


----------



## FridgeMagnet (Nov 10, 2013)

Depends what you consider its "class" to be really - if the class is "expensive retro styled cameras" it's pretty huge... unless Fuji decide they want to make an updated version of one of their old 6x9 "Texas Leicas"


----------



## George & Bill (Nov 10, 2013)

FridgeMagnet said:


> Depends what you consider its "class" to be really - if the class is "expensive retro styled cameras" it's pretty huge... unless Fuji decide they want to make an updated version of one of their old 6x9 "Texas Leicas"



As you like - personally I'd divide cameras into classes according to the functional attributes that people typically compare - sensor size, lens system, viewfinder type, etc. On this forum, lots of people have discussed upgrading to a DSLR, or upgrading to full frame, or changing from an APS-C SLR to a mirrorless M 4/3 - but I've never seen anyone advance 'expensive' or 'retro-styled' as key points for consideration.


----------



## FridgeMagnet (Nov 10, 2013)

slowjoe said:


> As you like - personally I'd divide cameras into classes according to the functional attributes that people typically compare - sensor size, lens system, viewfinder type, etc. On this forum, lots of people have discussed upgrading to a DSLR, or upgrading to full frame, or changing from an APS-C SLR to a mirrorless M 4/3 - but I've never seen anyone advance 'expensive' or 'retro-styled' as key points for consideration.


 I don't believe that Nikon or Canon or Sony or whoever would consider that this was in the same market space as their flagship pro DSLRs. I doubt anyone will think "I just can't decide between this 5D MkIII and this Nikon Df".

As I said earlier I don't think this is really a serious commercial offering anyway - it's more a statement of intent that Nikon _wants_ to enter a particular market, super high end consumer, which is mostly owned by Sony and Fuji at the moment I would say. (A bit by Olympus but they fall into a slightly different area.) I don't think it's a very successful statement, mind you.


----------



## GarfieldLeChat (Nov 10, 2013)

slowjoe said:


> I don't believe that Nikon or Canon or Sony or whoever would consider that this was in the same market space as their flagship pro DSLRs. I doubt anyone will think "I just can't decide between this 5D MkIII and this Nikon Df".
> 
> As I said earlier I don't think this is really a serious commercial offering anyway - it's more a statement of intent that Nikon _wants_ to enter a particular market, super high end consumer, which is mostly owned by Sony and Fuji at the moment I would say. (A bit by Olympus but they fall into a slightly different area.) I don't think it's a very successful statement, mind you.


surely Hassleblad and Lecia have the super high end sewn up without compare.  

Sony, Fuji aren't even in the same ball park.


----------



## FridgeMagnet (Nov 10, 2013)

GarfieldLeChat said:


> surely Hassleblad and Lecia have the super high end sewn up without compare.
> 
> Sony, Fuji aren't even in the same ball park.


Leica are in there but I bet they make nowhere near the amount that Sony do, just from volume.

Those consumer Hasslebads are a joke - in fact just rebranded Sonys. I know people who have Leicas or want Leicas (usually the latter) but not a non-MF Hassleblad.


----------



## artyfarty (Nov 10, 2013)

Only £2749 you say? I'll have two!
Shame cos I love my old F1, even though the prism is held on by a a cable tie...


----------



## weltweit (Nov 10, 2013)

artyfarty said:


> Only £2749 you say? I'll have two!
> Shame cos I love my old F1, even though the prism is held on by a a cable tie...


 
Wheras D600 £1,107.00 on Amazon ??


----------



## George & Bill (Nov 10, 2013)

FridgeMagnet said:


> I don't believe that Nikon or Canon or Sony or whoever would consider that this was in the same market space as their flagship pro DSLRs. I doubt anyone will think "I just can't decide between this 5D MkIII and this Nikon Df".



Loads of people will do just that - there are plenty of rich hobbyists buying pro cameras who are swayed by styling but also aware of technical considerations. The market isn't polarised into the completely hard-nosed and the entirely frivolous, there's a huge blurring between the two.


----------



## FridgeMagnet (Nov 10, 2013)

slowjoe said:


> Loads of people will do just that - there are plenty of rich hobbyists buying pro cameras who are swayed by styling but also aware of technical considerations. The market isn't polarised into the completely hard-nosed and the entirely frivolous, there's a huge blurring between the two.


Okay, to be fair, I can't imagine the majority of D610 buyers thinking "wait should I get a Df instead". People who might buy the Df are likely to wonder whether they should buy a cheaper FF instead, sure. I don't think the other way around works, and that's not just because of price, it's also branding. The Df isn't branded as a pro camera.


----------



## George & Bill (Nov 10, 2013)

FridgeMagnet said:


> Okay, to be fair, I can't imagine the majority of D610 buyers thinking "wait should I get a Df instead". People who might buy the Df are likely to wonder whether they should buy a cheaper FF instead, sure. I don't think the other way around works, and that's not just because of price, it's also branding. The Df isn't branded as a pro camera.



As an aside, I think the Df will come down in price very quickly. The list price is less than that of the D800, which is already down to £1800 on Amazon.


----------



## weltweit (Nov 10, 2013)

I like the wide lens compatibility.
Like the look.
Think the price is too high.


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Nov 10, 2013)

editor said:


> Huge to me! But then I'm a OM-D/Ricoh GR kinda shooter


 
I use different cameras for dedicated tasks. The smaller digitals for street etc. The SLR not so much, more for shots where I can take my time, use a tripod. And that thing is a heavy monster. I can't imagine this new Nikon to be bigger than that; and I'd use it [if I won the lottery and could actually buy one] in similar situations to the SLR.


----------



## weltweit (Nov 10, 2013)

Johnny Canuck3 said:


> I use different cameras for dedicated tasks. The smaller digitals for street etc. The SLR not so much, more for shots where I can take my time, use a tripod. And that thing is a heavy monster. I can't imagine this new Nikon to be bigger than that; and I'd use it [if I won the lottery and could actually buy one] in similar situations to the SLR.


 
All you rich photographers with multiple cameras!! I also have three: My 14 year old Fuji S2 dslr, my Nokia Mobile and my work iPhone 4S.

It is becoming a goal of mine to win a 10/10 in a camera club competition with a photo taken on my iPhone


----------



## weltweit (Nov 10, 2013)

And to think, I could have stayed in my warm lounge watching Bruce Willis saving the planet but instead I am up here posting on threads about over expensive cameras which I will never own!!! What is that all about?


----------



## editor (Nov 10, 2013)

weltweit said:


> All you rich photographers with multiple cameras!!


I only ever buy cameras after I'd made enough from selling photos. And the Daily Mail have just helped me out a bit on my next lens after I charged them for nicking one of my images


----------



## weltweit (Nov 10, 2013)

editor said:


> I only ever buy cameras after I'd made enough from selling photos. And the Daily Mail have just helped me out a bit on my next lens after I charged them for nicking one of my images


 
A few years ago I had a discussion with an art gallery owner about some of my abstracts, she was interested and wanted to see them, I never showed her them which was stupid. However even if I made some money from it I actually have enough photo gear for the kind of photos I like to make.


----------



## dweller (Nov 11, 2013)

weltweit said:


> All you rich photographers with multiple cameras!!



some people buy fancy clothes, run a car, ski holidays, all that,

some just mope about buying camera gear in a vain attempt to fill an empty hole in their being


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Nov 11, 2013)

weltweit said:


> All you rich photographers with multiple cameras!!


 
That would be nice. I have a not bad Canon compact digital..plus a couple others. All have been Christmas presents.

The SLR I bought myself used, for $150 or something similar.


----------



## Bernie Gunther (Nov 11, 2013)

slowjoe said:


> As you like - personally I'd divide cameras into classes according to the functional attributes that people typically compare - sensor size, lens system, viewfinder type, etc. On this forum, lots of people have discussed upgrading to a DSLR, or upgrading to full frame, or changing from an APS-C SLR to a mirrorless M 4/3 - but I've never seen anyone advance 'expensive' or 'retro-styled' as key points for consideration.



I've long wanted something that worked with all my Nikon lenses (there are some very nice ones from the late film era that balance well with a smaller camera body) and that had the guts of a full-frame DSLR in a body with the ergonomics of an F3 or similar.

Alas this doesn't appear to be it (mainly due to size) and anyway, is far too expensive to consider.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Nov 11, 2013)

slowjoe said:


> Loads of people will do just that - there are plenty of rich hobbyists buying pro cameras who are swayed by styling but also aware of technical considerations. The market isn't polarised into the completely hard-nosed and the entirely frivolous, there's a huge blurring between the two.



yep.
There's a fairly large "gearhead" tendency too, the folk who always update their camera so that they've got the latest "must have" features because they're convinced it'll make them better photographers.
A couple of classes in composition would probably serve them better, *and* be cheaper, in my experience!


----------



## editor (Nov 11, 2013)

The biggest improvements I look for are portability and functionality rather than whizzo features and even more MPs. The smaller the camera, the more pics I take!


----------



## George & Bill (Nov 11, 2013)

editor said:


> The biggest improvements I look for are portability and functionality rather than whizzo features and even more MPs. The smaller the camera, the more pics I take!



Well that's rather an easy distinction to make - of course 'functionality' is good and 'whizzo features' much less so - that much is embedded in how you've expressed the two things - but there's a fairly wide realm in which the two blur together, and it usually takes time for it to become clear which is which. You really would do well to adopt a less 'why can't everyone be as sensible as me' tone from time to time.


----------



## editor (Nov 11, 2013)

slowjoe said:


> You really would do well to adopt a less 'why can't everyone be as sensible as me' tone from time to time.


WTF? I wasn't speaking for anyone else _but myself_. That's why I started the sentence saying: "The biggest improvements *I look for*...."

Others may look for other features, but they're the ones that suit my style of photography and my needs. I'm sure yours are different.


----------



## editor (Nov 11, 2013)

Johnny Canuck3 said:


> That would be nice. I have a not bad Canon compact digital..plus a couple others. All have been Christmas presents.


I've never got on with Canon compacts. I really don't like their UI.


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Nov 11, 2013)

editor said:


> I've never got on with Canon compacts. I really don't like their UI.


 
I was unpleasantly surprised to find that my camera, the S110, has one of the smallest sensors for cameras of that type. Next time I might try that Sony RX100.

As for the interface, can't say I disagree. The complexity of the menus has meant that it's taken a long time to master some of the settings. It might be this experience that's making me cheerlead for a big DSLR with lots of knobs.


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Nov 11, 2013)

ViolentPanda said:


> yep.
> There's a fairly large "gearhead" tendency too, the folk who always update their camera so that they've got the latest "must have" features because they're convinced it'll make them better photographers.
> A couple of classes in composition would probably serve them better, *and* be cheaper, in my experience!


 
They're like golfers.


----------



## editor (Nov 11, 2013)

Johnny Canuck3 said:


> I was unpleasantly surprised to find that my camera, the S110, has one of the smallest sensors for cameras of that type. Next time I might try that Sony RX100.
> 
> As for the interface, can't say I disagree. The complexity of the menus has meant that it's taken a long time to master some of the settings. It might be this experience that's making me cheerlead for a big DSLR with lots of knobs.


The Ricoh GR has a marvellous interface - the best of any camera I've ever owned.

The Olympus OM-D UI is a bugger to get your head around because there's options for _everything_, but once it's been set up, it's very straightforward and hugely configurable.


----------



## George & Bill (Nov 11, 2013)

editor said:


> WTF? I wasn't speaking for anyone else _but myself_. That's why I started the sentence saying: "The biggest improvements *I look for*...."
> 
> Others may look for other features, but they're the ones that suit my style of photography and my needs. I'm sure yours are different.



Trust me, the tone is there.


----------



## editor (Nov 11, 2013)

slowjoe said:


> Trust me, the tone is there.


It's all in your head, I'm afraid. Please keep it there from now on because it's not very pleasant to be accused of something I'm not doing.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Nov 11, 2013)

editor said:


> The biggest improvements I look for are portability and functionality rather than whizzo features and even more MPs. The smaller the camera, the more pics I take!



Although to be fair, as someone who has used an Olympus XA on and off for what, 25-plus years, you may also be predisposed to preferring small cameras!


----------



## George & Bill (Nov 11, 2013)

editor said:


> It's all in your head, I'm afraid. Please keep it there from now on because it's not very pleasant to be accused of something I'm not doing.



Oh please, I'm commenting that you have a mildly self-satisfied tone (the things you look for in a camera are 'functionality', where others seek 'whizzy features'), not accusing you of child abuse! It is, I'm afraid, the prerogative of people other than yourself to determine how they think you come across, and to mention it in passing if they wish - it's not something on which you can assert the existence of some sort of objective truth.


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Nov 11, 2013)

editor said:


> The Ricoh GR has a marvellous interface - the best of any camera I've ever owned.
> 
> The Olympus OM-D UI is a bugger to get your head around because there's options for _everything_, but once it's been set up, it's very straightforward and hugely configurable.


 
The drawback for me, with the Ricoh, is that the widest aperture is 2.8. I do a lot of night shooting, and like the fastest lens possible. The Canon is f2; the Sony is 1.8, which is what caught my attention in the first place.


----------



## editor (Nov 11, 2013)

slowjoe said:


> Oh please, I'm commenting that you have a mildly self-satisfied tone (the things you look for in a camera are 'functionality', where others seek 'whizzy features'), not accusing you of child abuse!


Once again, this 'tone' all in your head. _Really_. 

I have nothing to be particularly 'self satisfied' about when it comes to my photography, I don't profess to know anything more than anyone else here (although I do, of course, know what suits my needs), and I remain more than a little baffled why you're going on about this.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Nov 11, 2013)

slowjoe said:


> Well that's rather an easy distinction to make - of course 'functionality' is good and 'whizzo features' much less so - that much is embedded in how you've expressed the two things - but there's a fairly wide realm in which the two blur together, and it usually takes time for it to become clear which is which. You really would do well to adopt a less 'why can't everyone be as sensible as me' tone from time to time.



Surely there's a reasonable distinction between "functionality" - the camera doing what a camera is supposed to do - and "whizzo features - afterthoughts/add-ons such as wi-fi connectivity, GPS etc - to be made?
And while I'll admit that the two do have some commonality for *some* users (individual needs/requirements will always mean different views on this), I'm not sure it's as wide a realm as you believe.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Nov 11, 2013)

Johnny Canuck3 said:


> The drawback for me, with the Ricoh, is that the widest aperture is 2.8. I do a lot of night shooting, and like the fastest lens possible. The Canon is f2; the Sony is 1.8, which is what caught my attention in the first place.



Which is why the latest model has such good low-light performance despite the relative "slowness" of the lens, I expect.


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Nov 11, 2013)

ViolentPanda said:


> Which is why the latest model has such good low-light performance despite the relative "slowness" of the lens, I expect.


 
The Sony, you mean?


----------



## editor (Nov 11, 2013)

Johnny Canuck3 said:


> The drawback for me, with the Ricoh, is that the widest aperture is 2.8. I do a lot of night shooting, and like the fastest lens possible. The Canon is f2; the Sony is 1.8, which is what caught my attention in the first place.


Sure, but with that big APS-C sized sensor you'll get far better results than most compacts because you can push the ISO that much higher. 

This is a cropped ISO 800 low light shot:







And this is ISO 6400 (also cropped)


----------



## George & Bill (Nov 11, 2013)

editor said:


> Once again, this 'tone' all in your head. _Really_.



Well, sure, if you like - what I said about your tone is of course my opinion, so yes it does exist in my head. Your refutation of it is your opinion and exists in your head. There is no way I know of to determine the objective truth of the matter


----------



## FridgeMagnet (Nov 11, 2013)

Johnny Canuck3 said:


> The drawback for me, with the Ricoh, is that the widest aperture is 2.8. I do a lot of night shooting, and like the fastest lens possible. The Canon is f2; the Sony is 1.8, which is what caught my attention in the first place.


It's less important when the sensor size means you can shoot at 3200 routinely.


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Nov 11, 2013)

editor said:


> Sure, but with that big APS-C sized sensor you'll get far better results than most compacts because you can push the ISO that much higher.
> 
> This is a cropped ISO 800 low light shot:
> 
> ...


 
I was just about to say that aperture will be compensated for by sensor size.

Re photos: were they shot on auto, shutter priority, etc?

What would be ideal for me, is large sensor plus fast lens.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Nov 11, 2013)

Johnny Canuck3 said:


> The Sony, you mean?



The Ricoh that the ed mentioned.
Although it seems to be a common theme with most digicams now to attempt to do software ameliorations of hardware shortcomings.


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Nov 11, 2013)

FridgeMagnet said:


> It's less important when the sensor size means you can shoot at 3200 routinely.


 
Are you retaining good IQ at 3200?


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Nov 11, 2013)

ViolentPanda said:


> The Ricoh that the ed mentioned.
> Although it seems to be a common theme with most digicams now to attempt to do software ameliorations of hardware shortcomings.


 
All of which is why I want a good, full frame DSLR for my night shooting. It's all done tripod, so camera size isn't a big issue.


----------



## George & Bill (Nov 11, 2013)

ViolentPanda said:


> Surely there's a reasonable distinction between "functionality" - the camera doing what a camera is supposed to do - and "whizzo features - afterthoughts/add-ons such as wi-fi connectivity, GPS etc - to be made?
> And while I'll admit that the two do have some commonality for *some* users (individual needs/requirements will always mean different views on this), I'm not sure it's as wide a realm as you believe.



Well I might have over-stated that a bit, but it's worth remembering that roll-film, viewfinders, auto-focus, and TTL metering were 'whizzy features' at some point, but are now considered central to a camera's functionality.


----------



## editor (Nov 11, 2013)

Johnny Canuck3 said:


> I was just about to say that aperture will be compensated for by sensor size.
> 
> Re photos: were they shot on auto, shutter priority, etc?


F2.8 is still pretty fast, you know. The top pic was shot in aperture priority/spot metering and the lower one was on auto. 

It's far easier to access the various modes on the GR on any other compact I've ever used so it's easy to switch to manual if need be. This was taken at ISO 3200, f32 aperture priority, manual focus. I'd be hard pressed to get equally good results with any of the SLRs I've owned.


----------



## editor (Nov 11, 2013)

Johnny Canuck3 said:


> All of which is why I want a good, full frame DSLR for my night shooting. It's all done tripod, so camera size isn't a big issue.


How big do you want to print these photos?


----------



## FridgeMagnet (Nov 11, 2013)

Johnny Canuck3 said:


> Are you retaining good IQ at 3200?


Yup. You can tell if you pixel-peep, but it's nothing that affects the picture. I'd put some samples up but Aperture is "repairing my library database"


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Nov 11, 2013)

ViolentPanda said:


> The Ricoh that the ed mentioned..


 
It certainly seems to get good reviews.


----------



## editor (Nov 11, 2013)

slowjoe said:


> Well I might have over-stated that a bit, but it's worth remembering that roll-film, viewfinders, auto-focus, and TTL metering were 'whizzy features' at some point, but are now considered central to a camera's functionality.


I meant 'whizzy' features like onboard GPS, Wi-Fi, 3G, endless scene modes, auto-panorama makers, built in sharing and all that kind of stuff - all the things that the Ricoh hasn't got.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Nov 11, 2013)

slowjoe said:


> Well I might have over-stated that a bit, but it's worth remembering that roll-film, viewfinders, auto-focus, and TTL metering were 'whizzy features' at some point, but are now considered central to a camera's functionality.



As a user of cameras without autofocus or TTL metering (or any in-camera metering at all!), and frequently with rudimentary Albada-type viewfinders, I take your point, but most of the features you mention evolved fairly organically, which I can't really see as having happened with adding GPS to a digi-cam, to be fair!


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Nov 11, 2013)

editor said:


> How big do you want to print these photos?


 
Not sure. I'd like to start showing some of my work. The size I'd print at would be determined by the IQ. Being completely honest with myself, the IQ I've been getting with a compact isn't up to snuff for that sort of thing.


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Nov 11, 2013)

FridgeMagnet said:


> Yup. You can tell if you pixel-peep, but it's nothing that affects the picture. I'd put some samples up but Aperture is "repairing my library database"


 
Maybe throw a couple onto the thread once the repairing is done...


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Nov 11, 2013)

editor said:


> I meant 'whizzy' features like onboard GPS, Wi-Fi, 3G, endless scene modes, auto-panorama makers, built in sharing and all that kind of stuff - all the things that the Ricoh hasn't got.


 
All the crap I don't want to pay for.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Nov 11, 2013)

Johnny Canuck3 said:


> All of which is why I want a good, full frame DSLR for my night shooting. It's all done tripod, so camera size isn't a big issue.



IIRC Sony DSLRs use the Minolta AF lens mount, which means you should be able to pick up a Minolta f1.4 50mm for an *affordable* price 2nd-hand, and an f1.7 at a reasonable price, rather than buying it with a brand new f1.8.


----------



## editor (Nov 11, 2013)

Johnny Canuck3 said:


> Not sure. I'd like to start showing some of my work. The size I'd print at would be determined by the IQ. Being completely honest with myself, the IQ I've been getting with a compact isn't up to snuff for that sort of thing.


Are you hoping to sell your work?  I've sold photos taken on quite ropey cameras, so I'm not sure getting hung up with examining images on a pixel level is really that important so long as you're starting with a half decent camera.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Nov 11, 2013)

Johnny Canuck3 said:


> All the crap I don't want to pay for.



Which is why, along with being able to use 40 years-worth of legacy lenses, why I love my Pentax K100D.


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Nov 11, 2013)

ViolentPanda said:


> Which is why, along with being able to use 40 years-worth of legacy lenses, why I love my Pentax K100D.


 
Just as I love mine. 

Actually, I wanted a Spotmatic, but got the K1000


----------



## George & Bill (Nov 11, 2013)

ViolentPanda said:


> As a user of cameras without autofocus or TTL metering (or any in-camera metering at all!), and frequently with rudimentary Albada-type viewfinders, I take your point, but most of the features you mention evolved fairly organically, which I can't really see as having happened with adding GPS to a digi-cam, to be fair!



Did they evolve organically? Personally I don't have the necessary information to say, but it feels conceivable that those features I mentioned were quite controversial when they came out. I remember a family friend telling me, aged 11 when I first got into photography, that quick-release plates where an unhelpful neologism and that I should choose a tripod without one!


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Nov 11, 2013)

editor said:


> Are you hoping to sell your work?  I've sold photos taken on quite ropey cameras, so I'm not sure getting hung up with examining images on a pixel level is really that important so long as you're starting with a half decent camera.


 
I'd love to sell it! 

Looking around the galleries here, I agree that people can sell with less than great IQ etc. It's sort of a point of pride with me. I like making this type of art; I want to make the best I possibly can.


----------



## editor (Nov 11, 2013)

I thought auto focus was 'cheating' for ages when I was still using my OM film cameras. There are some new slightly whizzy features I do like though. The touch-screen-to-snappily-focus screen on my OM-D has proved useful in a few tricky situations, and face detection can be useful too. But most of the time I'm quite happy with the hands-on approach demanded by the GR. Having to think a bit more often gets better results.


----------



## editor (Nov 11, 2013)

Johnny Canuck3 said:


> It's sort of a point of pride with me. I like making this type of art; I want to make the best I possibly can.


Sure, but the real art is the image you've captured, not the smoothness of the pixels!


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Nov 11, 2013)

editor said:


> I thought auto focus was 'cheating' for ages when I was still using my OM film cameras. There are some new slightly whizzy features I do like though. The touch-screen-to-snappily-focus screen on my OM-D has proved useful in a few tricky situations, and face detection can be useful too. But most of the time I'm quite happy with the hands-on approach demanded by the GR. Having to think a bit more often gets better results.


 
When do you use face detection?


----------



## editor (Nov 11, 2013)

Johnny Canuck3 said:


> When do you use face detection?


It's there on the OM-D if you need it. It's handy to ensure that the face is in focus if you're using a wide aperture in a cluttered scene. I don't use it much.

Actually, the GR night have it too, It's pretty standard these days.


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Nov 11, 2013)

editor said:


> Sure, but the real art is the image you've captured, not the smoothness of the pixels!


 
There's a long discussion here.

Over the years, I've gotten better cameras, and have gotten better using them, with time. I will return to the same locations and retake photos, after some years have passed.

In general, the newer photos have better IQ. Based on Flickr responses, people like the nice crisp IQ. I'd thought some of the earlier stuff was 'arty and atmospheric'. What it actually was, was work with less than good IQ.


----------



## FridgeMagnet (Nov 11, 2013)

So this is one I took randomly this evening at 3200, resized here:







and you can see a detailed slice at http://www.fridgemagnet.org.uk/uploads/ricohsample1_full_slice.jpg which I won't embed because it's too big. Not a particularly interesting photo, but about the most I can say is that there's some grain in the shadows and sky, particularly in places not in focus.

Here's another one at 3200:





eta: those are OOC JPEGs


----------



## ViolentPanda (Nov 11, 2013)

slowjoe said:


> Did they evolve organically? Personally I don't have the necessary information to say, but it feels conceivable that those features I mentioned were quite controversial when they came out. I remember a family friend telling me, aged 11 when I first got into photography, that quick-release plates where an unhelpful neologism and that I should choose a tripod without one!



Autofocus* was* controversial, because earlier (i.e. prior to the late '70s) attempts were easily defeated by movement, and the assumption with SLRs (fixed focal length compacts were a different proposition) was that not only was the detection technology not that great, but that the kind of motor necessary to to focus a glass and alloy lens would either mean a massive lens, or a fuck-off heavy body.  It took a while to work the bugs out, even from production models.  I've got a 55-200mm Pentacon AF lens made for the Praktica B bayonet-mount cameras.  it's slow enough that you could go and fill the kettle and switch it on while the lens "hunts" for focus. 

Viewfinders were pretty much a _sine qua non_ of camera technology from the advent of the view camera onward, though, and TTL metering was a technology that was very deliberately sought for decades by the camera industry, and by pro and am users (as was OTF metering), and rollfilm was simply an evolution from plates.  Early sheet film was, after all, produced by laying emulsion on rolls of celluloid, and then cutting the sheets from the roll.  Eastman realised that if you fitted a winding mechanism in a camera, and a receiving spool, then you could use the roll itself in the camera, without all the hassle of carrying cut-film holders.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Nov 11, 2013)

Johnny Canuck3 said:


> Just as I love mine.
> 
> Actually, I wanted a Spotmatic, but got the K1000



Heh, I've got a Spotmatic F (in black), a K1000 (with a bust meter, because Pentax haven't had the parts to repair K1000 meters for over a decade now) and a P30T besides my K100d. I'm a fan of Pentax kit.


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Nov 11, 2013)

ViolentPanda said:


> Heh, I've got a Spotmatic F (in black), a K1000 (with a bust meter, because Pentax haven't had the parts to repair K1000 meters for over a decade now) and a P30T besides my K100d. I'm a fan of Pentax kit.


 
The good news around here for Pentax fans is that for years, all the local photography schools used the K1000 as their cameras, so there's tons of them plus parts around for cheap.


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Nov 11, 2013)

FridgeMagnet said:


> So this is one I took randomly this evening at 3200, resized here:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 
There's some graininess in the blue night sky in the bottom one, but both are generally of better quality than I'd get out of my camera at 3200 or above.


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Nov 11, 2013)

This was done at 2000. I love the scene; but it's too freaking noisy.


----------



## George & Bill (Nov 11, 2013)

ViolentPanda said:


> Autofocus* was* controversial, because earlier (i.e. prior to the late '70s) attempts were easily defeated by movement, and the assumption with SLRs (fixed focal length compacts were a different proposition) was that not only was the detection technology not that great, but that the kind of motor necessary to to focus a glass and alloy lens would either mean a massive lens, or a fuck-off heavy body.  It took a while to work the bugs out, even from production models.  I've got a 55-200mm Pentacon AF lens made for the Praktica B bayonet-mount cameras.  it's slow enough that you could go and fill the kettle and switch it on while the lens "hunts" for focus.
> 
> Viewfinders were pretty much a _sine qua non_ of camera technology from the advent of the view camera onward, though, and TTL metering was a technology that was very deliberately sought for decades by the camera industry, and by pro and am users (as was OTF metering), and rollfilm was simply an evolution from plates.  Early sheet film was, after all, produced by laying emulsion on rolls of celluloid, and then cutting the sheets from the roll.  Eastman realised that if you fitted a winding mechanism in a camera, and a receiving spool, then you could use the roll itself in the camera, without all the hassle of carrying cut-film holders.



But the fact that something was sought by the industry (not that the industry is homogenous/monolithic, though, right?) doesn't mean there weren't plenty of photographers who thought TTL was a needless embellishment. Likewise it seems pretty plausible that photographers using plates scorned the idea of roll film at first, however much of a logical progression it seemed to the manufacturers at the time, or to us now.

A good recent example of the frequent indistinguishably of fluff and functionality is video. When the 5D MKii came out, lots of people scratched their heads or rolled their eyes. Then it became the tool of choice for a whole wave of indie film-makers and introduced a massive new element into the practice of a whole bunch of professional photojournalists.


----------



## FridgeMagnet (Nov 11, 2013)

Johnny Canuck3 said:


> There's some graininess in the blue night sky in the bottom one, but both are generally of better quality than I'd get out of my camera at 3200 or above.


Those are both at around 1/80-1/100 as well - if it's not moving targets you can reasonably handhold at less than half that with a 28mm equivalent lens, and maybe get down to 800.


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Nov 11, 2013)

FridgeMagnet said:


> Those are both at around 1/80-1/100 as well - if it's not moving targets you can reasonably handhold at less than half that with a 28mm equivalent lens, and maybe get down to 800.


 
Not bad.


----------



## starfish2000 (Jan 23, 2014)

I like this video, he does have a point.

http://fstoppers.com/the-fstoppers-nikon-df-camera-hipster-review


----------



## editor (Jan 23, 2014)

I think it's a horrible looking thing. Love the fella doing the video though!


----------



## George & Bill (Jan 24, 2014)

This guy is brilliant in front of the camera and the video is hilarious (and well-made) - but he was still fundamentally wrong, because the central problem with photography will always revolve around what people choose to take pictures of, and doesn't, as he suggested in his original piece, have anything to do with any one camera.


----------



## Bernie Gunther (Dec 11, 2015)

I had a fondle of one of these fairly recently (now available new for just over half the price mentioned at the head of the thread ... )

The viewfinder is terrific, as good as my old F3HP, and the focus screen is obviously designed for use with manual lenses, which is a big plus for me as a) I'm interested in macro and b) I have some nice old Ai and Ais lenses. While hipster guy has a point, there's intentional support for manual Nikkor photography going on here and if that stuff is important to you, then this camera has some compelling qualities.

Still pretty huge compared to e.g. the Fuji x-t1 or Olympus OM-D-whatever though. Felt marginally smaller and lighter than a D700 and about the same build quality.

I didn't like the grip, too skinny for the weight of camera and my giant ape hands.


----------

