You can stay up to date with Matts latest work at www.mattgrange... - join the mailing list! Check out the Nikon Expert Setup Guide: learn.mattgran... / _mattgranger / mattgranger
The camera is gorgeous. Especially the silver one. Enough with the best specs. Enough of lazy photographers. Spent ten seconds for manual focus instead of autofocus. Spent five minutes with a tripod for low ISO. Spent time with composition and light metering instead of shooting continuously with bracketing or different compositions. This camera is for the pleasure of slow photography. Why everything should be fast, like fast food, fast sex, fast profits, fast travels, fast everything.
Watching this 6 years after you've filmed it, overwhelms me how accurate your judgement was at that time. The Df is the only post FM2 Nikon camera I ever was considering up to now. A late thanks for your video.
I'm just watching it too and I'm currently looking to buy one(had the D700 for years). Owning a Sony a9 and still looking for something better in low light. Oh, and I don't need video...
I also have a full Sony kit of an A9&A9ii and high spec lenses which I’ll keep and still use for sports and normal use but always liked the look of the Df. I’ve had Fuji before too but just it didn’t do well enough in low light action. The Df I’ve just bought and to be delivered in the next day does excite me to go and shoot and make a change from the A9. Hopefully it’s not too old and cumbersome but this video helped!
For me it's great. I am 50 and have owned Nikons since the FM in 1977. My favorite camera of all time is the F3hp, I've used mine since 1984. I never use video on the DSLR. I'd love it if the monitor could have been replaced with just a bright display for settings only. I love the design, the feel, the pentaprism. I wish it could be converted to a split image rangefinder and forgo the AF completely. The near death of cellulose film is heartbreaking. All you born in the 80's are thinking I'm crazy, but there is great wonder in the equation of Photographer + Film SLR + Film + Anticipation = The Full Photographic Experience. But I'll have to go forward with the Df. I'll survive.
The film will never die! There are so many new films' shooters around the world and they are not all "Lomo-addicts", I own several "top-of-line" Nikon's DSLR but there is nothing more superb than a couple of Tri-X rolls from my Nikon F3 HP, my Nikon F5 or my Hasselblad 503 Cxi, even the tiny Rollei 35s can make wonderful pictures from T-Max or Tri-X rolls! Even some 50 years old cameras correctly overhauled can shoot for at least 50 more years because the construction of these mechanicals jewels is just perfect but I don't think the battery, the sensor and even the electronic shutter of my D4 will last more than 20 years and then there won't be any specialist to fix it properly, unfortunately! Keep the Faith my friend! If we are united, we can convert the world again! ;-) Some brand-new film come out even in 2014, look at the Rollei RPX 25, a real killer for Hi-resolution works! ;-)
MacPro8CoreMan I started with the borrowed Kodak Retina 1a in 1974, then Pentax MX, MEsuper. After switching to digital in 1989 and finally happy with Nikon DSLR's the Df could of been my favorite. But I embrace the future, and as of 2016, for me, it's all Sony A7R2!
Very objective, thorough and intelligent review, thank you! I love my Df and I also own a D-810, so for me, this is the perfect mix! Having said this, I am always more attracted to pick up my Df. There's just something about it that makes me want to shoot more! Thank you for wonderful videos!
I think the reason most people were upset is because Nikon was heavily insinuating in their marketing that this would be a whole new type of camera geared toward people who love the simplicity and 'purity' (their word) of using film cameras, but then released a regular DSLR (albeit a quality one) with some retro styling and mechanical knobs on top.
I see a lot of people complaining that the Df can't stand up to the D4. D4 has better autofocus, yes. D4 has faster burst rates, yes. D4 has more card slots, yes. The D4 also costs more than twice what a Df body costs. I can't see any justification for bashing the Df based on its performance when compared to the D4. That said, it has the same sensor as the D4 and actually slightly better ISO performance. So at the end of the day, you are getting the same image quality as the D4 for half the price. If you need 11fps, get a D4. No need to complain about every camera that doesn't shoot 11fps. When I bought my Df, I was on the fence between the D800 and the Df. I chose the Df for its ISO performance (styling is a plus too). I have not regretted my purchase for a single second. Just depends on what you are looking to get out of it.
Been using a Dƒ for a couple of months and it is absolutely wonderful. Totally works for me. Oh, and I do have a Fuji X100s, which is a great backup for me.
I recently purchased the Nikon D610. That was actually an easy decision for me as I wanted a full frame camera and neither the Df nor the D800 gave me what I wanted. I definitely cannot afford the D4 so that's out of the question. The D800 I had deemed too slow (4FPS) for what I wanted this camera for and the huge file sizes mean less pictures on my Memory cards. I came from a D70 and know that more megapixels doesn't necessarily mean better picture quality. The decision was between the Df and the D610. My previous camera didn't have video so that wasn't an issue. It came down to speed of handling. You see, back in the day, when my sister-in-law was getting married and I was asked to be a wedding photographer, I ended up borrowing an N8008s and a matching autofocus lens or two instead of using my trusty FE2. Why? Speed of handling. The N8008s allowed me to get shots off quickly without me needing to fuss with the settings or focus like the FE2 would have made me do. The D610, likewise, allows me to just take the pictures and the camera doesn't get in the way. Yes, I know, slow down, get the shot, do it right. There are situations where you just can't do that and a fast handling camera allows me to capture the moment and not lose that opportunity because I was fussing with it. You can slow down and be methodical with the D610, but, you cannot use the Df as effectively in, say, my daughter's volleyball game where the higher speed and easier to access controls allows you to concentrate on the one thing that you brought a camera for: to get the pictures. Sure, you can say "buy both". Nope, can't afford it. Won't do it.
I have used the D4 for 3+ years and the Df for 2.5 years and I love them both. Even though they have the same sensor I get a slightly different look from them. The Df seems to have a better skin tone feel. Warmer, silky? Hard to explain, but I like it. The D4 is my studio camera and has a more realistic tone. Each have excellent latitude, with nice details in the dark and light areas. Just recently I have been using the Sony A7R2 and comparing it to the Nikons. So far in natural light it's way easier to get more usable shots fast since it can live display your settings immediately. And see your shot in the EVF immediately. Amazing low light ability since it has 5axis stabilization and the OSS in the 24-240 lens I have. This lens is not set up for low light but I'm still getting amazing night shots just the same. Meanwhile Nikon is still putting out their usual large camera products. Do you think they will try and compete head to head with the mirrorless brand leaders in the future?
Personally I love the camera and the fact it’s designed to be reminiscent of older Nikon film bodies. Sensor is most important to me & obviously having a great iso capability. I think so many modern DSLRs include way too many extras that it’s almost distracting and unnecessary. I just want a camera that can help me take beautiful photos without all the crazy scene modes and features that are designed to help beginner photographers. Plus, I’m so tired of the look of all DSLRs being chunky, black bricks. This camera is refreshing imo
Hello, "That Nikon Guy" is what I remembered when getting in to Digital Photography earlier in 2012 with very first purchase of D5100 after my last purchase of F501 back in 1993-94. Love your videos, reviews. DF was my interest way before it was launched and got my hands on one as soon as it was available. This was my third digital camera in the journey which started with D5100. D800, DF, X100S and XT1 is what I have now. I just rushed in getting gear before learning how to take good photos. My very first comment on youtube is here to say thank you for very informative and education videos, great help. Cheers, Nadeem from UAE
Do pros/advanced amateurs use AF or manual? Df is welcoming film shooters with a camera that can accept the oldest pre-AI lenses. D4 sensor is excellent for situations where very high resolution is unnecessary. Older lenses may not work well with 24/36MP sensors. The new zoom AF-VR II lenses outweigh the cost of a camera body. Old prime lenses have excellent image quality. Low weight is important for some people. Its low light performance compares with Sony A7R ii and beats the D810. This is targeted at a different audience who may love it for the slow paced charm of old world. Fast food vs full course meals!
Hi Matt, Your missing the point....I don't shoot video or a million frames per second. I only shoot manual and I only have 2 prime lenses both Zeiss so the DF is perfect for me and anyone else over 50 who used to shoot old FE's . You pays your money and you takes your choice...
I completely agree with you. I come from the 35mm and medium format era, I don't use any post processing or cheats, the DF is ideal for me as a hands on manual user. love it.
Would you really pay such a premium for something film has been offering for years and at a lower price point? I get that it's for people who want a slower shooting experience but you can do that with any modern (and cheaper) camera.
100% agree, from D300s till DF, which I have bought few weeks ago, I have never used video feature, I mostly use two primes, so it’s the perfect photo camera for me, after I own many nikon DSLR s, D50, D80, more D300, D300s, D5300, D5500, D7200, several D600, two D750, final in 2019, I strongly feel, that I have found my perfect photographic tool for me, I like using it, I like the feeling, the ergonomics, the image quality is superb, 16MP it’s more, than enough for me, not to mention the low light ability! IT’S a GREAT camera...!!!
It is an OK camera, great sensor but the price is too high for what you get, I have dismissed it out of hand for my work though, the reason I am sticking with my D700s is that I used a D600 for a little while and the autofocus, while fast enough for my work, is not spread wide enough. Focus and recompose results in many more missed shots that composing and then focusing on my D700s. I also think it suffers badly in comparison to Fuji's design and ergonomics. The use of A modes on the shutter and aperture dials of the Fujis are a far better implementation of the mode settings than the Df's PASM dial. Ergonomically the front dial is awkward (I'm sure you get used to it but it doesn't fall into place naturally), and the strap lug on the right side is in a terrible place. Nikon are in a bad situation to start with trying to combine a traditional dial operated camera with their G series lenses, but their solution is anything but elegant. The lack of interchangeable focus screens, is the biggest missing feature though. Nikon cannot be serious about backwards compatibility with older lenses if a visual focusing aid is not even an option. Thank goodness someone is making these, but it should have been Nikon. I love Nikon, I do, but while I was excited about the Df announcement I found it disappointing in reality. In the end I still shoot on my two D700s for most of my work, (addicted to TTL and CLS) and now of a couple of Fuji's fill in when I want less weight. I am still waiting for a worthy replacement for the d700, I may have to but the big, heavy, expensive flagship model to get it.
I wonder what you think of this camera now in 2023? Nice and cheap. I think it’s aged really well. Personally love the thing for the image it puts out.
My thoughts are that the Df should be for the purist. That means no video and it should only shoot RAW since the purist will be post processing and will be judging the shot via the histogram on the LCD screen and checking focus and composition.
I would like to add the D610 to the list of alternatives for those who want high resolution. Actually its a great camera that people should consider when getting a full frame camera, period.
I'm about to get one, for several reasons; I can't afford a bloody D4 and I need high sensitivity, I don't need 36mpx shots (who the hell needs them? but whatever) and I don't do video, hell my iPhone has better focus tracking than a DSLR for the casual video need, since I don't do pro video at all, and when I need I have a mate who can lend me his BlackMagic Cinema Camera, and yes, I'm a sucker for that hipster design and I'm too poor to own the Ultimate Hipster Cam (Leica M Monochrome)
Hi Matt ! Thank you very much for these very good statements. I own a D700 and I`m still very glad to have it - superb handling, superb image quality, superb flash performance over all, especially with TTL & CLS, even only with the built-in flash. For me as a Nikon fan the best Nikon would be a camera with the modern technique and features of the D4s and the design of the Df, but with a built-in flash (CLS !!). C´mon Nikon, go and make one!!
great review. I'm quite happy with my Df. I wish it had a better manual focusing screen.... i wonder if they will ever make one that we can add on... I use it primarily with my manual Carl zeiss lenses...
A well balanced review. Thank you! As a person looking to go digital from a heap of Nikon film cameras (F3, F4, FM) and older (but good) Nikon fit lenses, this is just what I asked Nikon for several years ago. I don't expect that I'm the only one that's tried to twist an executive arm at Nikon but it's nice that exactly what I was looking for has been provided: full frame, good resolution, backwardly compatible with the older lenses - and with knobs on. I'm aware that it's not everyone's cup of tea - horses fer courses, as they say, but it is mine. Haven't quite got around to raiding the piggy bank yet but I think that this is what I want.
I dont think ¨your paying a premium for the looks¨ I also own one, (for 2 months) and your paying a premium for a fine sensor! and small size, a very nice pentaprism that takes all Nikon accessories that the D600/610 cant, this is NOT just looks and styling, I do dance photography and I also love the silent beautiful sound of the shutter, is a very nice travel camera, and screw video!
I think you are wearing rose glasses - which I appreciate as it IS such a lovely camera to use (rather than sit and judge from a distance). But stepping back and being objective, looking at the market and offerings out there - I think you have to admit there is a style price premium on the Df
Matt Granger What is the fair price for a camera that has the best ISO performance, cleanest pixel to pixel image EVEN rated better than the New D4s with it's Expeed 4, at $6500? I can see why it is the same $ as the old D700. The focus button and 5 frame bracketing along with being able to use your bargain priced D series lenses that are easy to find along with their F stop rings, to me makes it a step above the D610. Yet to be fair, a D800 is a lot of camera for the same price.
The thing is that the market is clearly go towards the mirrorless world, and Nikon should have focused its resources on it instead of coming with another reflex. The premium features that the Df has got are OK, but for that huge amount of money (because it's not cheap at all) there's not a valid reason to not choose the D610 instead, which is a fantastic full frame camera too. I think that the Nikon Df is positioned in a sector of the marketplace where there is basically no demand (because the D4 attracts the super experts with extremely particular needs - e.g.: Olympics/sport photographers - the D800 the Pros and the D610 the super enthusiasts/semi-Pro), and so it is destined to fail very soon. There's no reason to choose the Df, but for the vintage design (which is a weird mix of old and new). The mirrorless is clearly the future and the way to go. Nikon is also loosing several influent photographers who where Nikon clients before (e.g. The Strobist, or Tray Ratcliff) who now went for mirrorless cameras, and they're converting a huge amount of people to sell their reflex. The general reviews for the Df on the Web are quite bad actually, everybody was clearly expecting a mirrorless and I don't see anyone saying that this camera is really worth the money. Neither do you, Matt :) I think the Df is a huge mistake and that Nikon is going through a huge risk if they don't come out with something serious and excellent with mirrorless. Fujifilm has now a incredible huge advantage on the marketplace.
price, looks, features... only thing that matters is if what you got works for you. (feel free to apply this principle to computers or what have you too) :)
This camera would have been exceptional at half the price of a d800, with the d800 sensor and no video. The fact that it doesn't have that, and a lower megapixel sensor, even if better iso, just makes it a kodak slr/n from 10 years ago, let alone a d700,, that little extra low light capability doesn't make it worth another $1500, unless maybe all you are is a night shooter. For the majority of shooting situations the kodak will actually perform better, the kodak is under $500 used now, with a better more unique color assignment for its processor. The DF is a completely useless product at the pricepoint they've assigned it.
I haven't ever been asked a 36mpx file, And I have never owned a camera with more than 20mpx, unless you do landscape or studio portraits and print them in the side of buildings you'll never use them, the D4 sensor is a lot better than the D810 sensor, unless you print your pictures 5 meters wide, it's got better dynamic range, better colour rendition and better noise control.
Nice review. I'm still a bit uncertain what benefit the DF provides, besides high ISO performance, over the D800 or D4. Why would you put this camera in your bag instead of the D800 or the 1DX? Under what conditions would you prefer this camera over the others?
Antonio Alcala Seems like a weak justification. Sure anything's smaller compared to the 1DX, but it's only slightly smaller than the D800, and if I'm only taking one camera, I want video too.
Jonathan Stewart I respect your opinion, I have a D800, and trust me the Df is much smaller, and much better high ISO, and lets you snap 16mp files while on vacation instead of shooting all the time 36 MP huge files during your holidays so… if you need a small walk around camera like I do, and dont care for video (like I do) you´ll love the Df.
Thanks for sharing your thoughts on the Df, Matt! This video nicely illustrates the quality I value most about your Web site and TH-cam channel...you're objective about the gear. You own and use equipment from numerous manufacturers and have no axe to grind against any of them. If your recommend a piece of kit, it's because you've used it with good results. With respect to the folks having difficulty understanding why you like the Df, I would suggest they look at the question from another perspective. How about just simply accepting the fact that you do enjoy shooting with the Df and that it delivers for you, both in your professional work and in your personal photography. The Df isn't my cup of tea but I can easily see the appeal to others, in terms of performance, value and styling.
I love my DF, I have a D800 and D610 as well but the DF is hands-down my favorite. The build quality is fantastic, better than any other camera I've had my hands on, the "typical" Nikon bodies feel cheap and plasticy, even the D800 in my opinion.
An excellent review Matt, as always. One factor that must effect many Nikon users, like myself, is that over the years I have built up my "portfolio" of Nikon lenses. As a result, although my personal preference would be for the retro looking Fuji XT which has more of the features I would like, I would opt for the Df. The Fuji + some lenses would take me close to the Df price I think, plus having the extra gear to carry around. Just my 2 cents worth.
The problem with the Df is that the marketing prior to it's announcement heavily suggested the Df would be something like a digital version of the FM series. Instead it is just a D610 with retro styling and a couple of old style dials stuck on top. If the Df lived up to the marketing hype (I.E. was basically a Digital FM-10) and the new 50mm was part of a complete line of new 1.8 primes with aperture rings instead of just a cosmetic update no one would be criticizing the Df even at a higher price than it currently sells for. Nikon had a chance to actually make a premium product instead of just charging more for cosmetics and at the same time make something unique and truly special in the DSLR market and they blew it IMO.
I really like the Df, but the "deal breaker" for me was the fiddly lock-down sytem on the knobs which make the adjustment of settings cumbersome. I can understand having a safety on a gun, but I'm only shooting photos!
Thanks for the balanced review after you've used the DF for a while. Really bothers me that for a "premium line" and price, Nikon has compromised features like the AF system, fastest shutter speed, lack of video and only one card slot. All that should have been better for the price. Would like the low-light capability and to use it for people shots, so might get one when it's a lot cheaper.
Would love to see you do an Uncut Photoshoot segment while using the Df. I ended up selling all my DSLR gear and have replaced it with a mirrorless setup (E-M1). All the lenses I need to replace are pretty much available on m43 and that portability (lightness and size) is just heavenly. Where my 50D used to sit at home in storage waiting until a day I was expecting to use it, my E-M1 is with me all the time and since I was using an older body, I've actually found the E-M1 has become an improvement in image quality and build quality (weather sealing). As you say, people need to find the gear that suits them and their photography best :)
Great review it was very balanced . I own onw and jump ship from canon . I knew what i was getting as i always wanted a retro dial kind of camera plus the great d4 sensor . I had a 5d mark iii i never used video so i didnt need that .
If you put image quality above all else, I think the df delivers big time! I'm here to say there is a huge difference in the way the df processes and captures light versus any crop frame or mft cameras. I own the d4, d800, df, em1,em5 etc etc and every fast lens there is that is any good. And use them daily.
In a way, I find it amusing how back when the DF was first release, it received so much hate for lacking video features having the lesser AF system. Now with how the trend is going back to retro and pure photographic cameras, the DF had risen in popularity - swear this camera aged like wine haha!
Exactly. People buy cameras for all kinds of reasons because people have all kinds of needs and desires. For example, if you've deeply invested is high-quality Nikon lenses then getting a DF might not be much more expensive than starting from scratch with an Olympus OMD-1 and two high-quality MFT lenses. Also, if you know what you need you are more accepting of a camera that others might see as limited or "crippled" but, for you, fills the gap. As great as the D800 is the size of its files is too much for some people and, thus, the D800 isn't for them. A lot of people never shoot at 1/8000 but act as if a 1/4000 camera won't even take pictures. Some people aren't interested in video. And, please, let's not pretend that people aren't taking great photos using 39 auto focus points -- sure, 51 or more might be faster and better but we're not talking light year's difference in performance. By the logic of more tech is always better we should have kicked Ansel Adams to the curb (ha, ha). I highly value the DF's great sensor with its low-light capability; I don't need a D4s such that I would buy one, but I would pay for it's sensor in DF. Is the DF expensive? Yes. But once you cross a certain threshold in photography -- MFT, full frame, cropped sensor, medium format -- it's all expensive! I think a lot of people complained about the DF because when you don't know what you want you tend to want things to be all things to all people, and that's a prescription for perpetual dissatisfaction.
It doesn't have the tracking or the high frame rate: that's the trade off for a smaller and lighter camera. To get those you'd need bigger motors and more batteries. Some people say, "why can't it be as small as an old FE?" Well, they could probably get pretty close, if you were willing to wind a mechanically powered shutter, and forego auto focus.
Thanks for a great review as usual Matt.....this camera is for a traditional photographer who loves the "feel" of the metal knobs and switches ala film cameras. Its about using analog controls and getting a digital result. There are many photographers today with D800s etc who say "what do I need video for?" "If I needed video I would buy a video cam!". When you consider this cam as a specialist, special interest line of camera you can see it doesn't deserve the flak. If you want those other features..as you point out...buy another camera in the Nikon line up. On another note its interesting to hear people complaining about their D800's burning so much memory.....I own a D800 and when I dont need 36mp shots i choose M setting and get 20 mp shots which are absolutely perfect for their intended use. They still have all the benefits of full frame. The D800 is not as restrictive as some people believe.
Thanks for the Honest review Matt! I'm torn between the D800 or DF. The D800 is better spec wise on some levels but the DF blows it out of the water with ISO performance. If your into astrophotography like me great low light performance is a plus to have.
Thanks Matt best Nikon DF review yet,, DXO only rates the sensor a bit better than the D800e, No video, No pro AF, 4000 sec, one SD slot, and the same price, What a --- off, I think you should sell the canon 1DX, and get another D800E and the Otus 50-1.4 . two d800E's one for video and the df can stay in the bag for backup,,,Really just want you to get the Otus
D700 was essentially a D3 in a small body, whereas DF is completely screwed up camera. Sadly Nikon hasnt released a camera to replace the good old D700 yet and looks like they wont release such a camera anytime soon.
I don't feel comfortable when the camera doesn't have a proper shutter dial and can't get used to lenses that don't have aperture rings. Creativity just isn't there while pushing some cheap buttons or multifunction dials. The DF is a move in the right direction, however, Nikon has dropped the aperture ring in their G lenses and D lenses don't get top optics. Leica M cameras are the best, but terribly expensive, they also lack a 80-200 f/2.8 zoom for portrait photography. Fuji X cameras don't have full size sensors and lack some additional details. So, the DF is a good option there. Nikon still has a nice selection of lenses with aperture rings like the: - 50mm f/1.2 manial focus or the 50mm f/1.4D - 80-200mm f/2.8D - the DC 105 and 135mm f/2.0D portrait lenses and some others Too bad something like the 20-35mm f/2.8D isn't available anymore. Nikon could easily round up a complete basic selection of D lenses, with just a few additional. Dropping the aperture ring makes no sense. Not sure about video recording, though. They didn't record video initially, but Leica M does nowadays.
I thinks it`s a good first step into the retro look camera market.Yeah it`s not perfect but the next version of the DF the DFs or whatever they call it will have the improvements that people are looking for. I`ll still be sticking to my Fuji X camera,it`s out of my price range.
I guess what annoys me about the DF is that the controls don't seem to be that well thought out compared to other retro designs like the Fuji's - not having used the camera, I can't really comment, but I would be interested in your comments Matt...
My biggest issue with the DF is it's 'BIG' when you compare it to something like the XT-1 or EM-1 and retro style 35mm film cameras. For the me it's purely cosmetics that people are paying for the DF and if I wanted a retro style camera I'd definitely lean towards the XT-1.
Unfortunately for me the Df is just a very weak camera. The spec's are decidedly average, what surprised me the most was, when I had a play with the camera, how weak the ergonomics were. I don't have any problems with a retro idea but I don't think Nikon has done a good job, especially with the dial locking mechanism, which is a pain. I can't disagree with you about the sensor, ability to attach lenses and quiet mode, which are all good but this camera doesn't feel like a premium camera, especially with the cheap plastic, on the front, it is this kind of little detail, which really brings the camera down. Fuji for me have done a much better job with their designs and build from my limited experience with them, they are much more fun to use. The Df was meant to be a fun camera and too me, it wasn't.
It's a Nikon DSLR with knobs on. I really like it. In order to take great pictures I have to like my camera. It's really all about the user interface and not just the looks. Back in the latter days of film, camera manufacturers replaced dials and knobs with menus and buttons. The primary reason for this was that it is a lot easier and cheaper to design and manufacture a camera in this way... More profit .. Lower price. It's far more expensive too design and manufacture a camera with mechanical input than a totally electronic input. Hence the higher price. Think about it, an analog Swiss watch will cost you a hell of a lot more than a digital watch . They both tell the time. You make your choice. I'm prepared to pay the premium for the "See at a glance" "Adjust by feel". Car manufactures never replaced the main car controls with buttons and menus. imagine trying to steer and control a car via multi function buttons and menus. A camera is similar , it's a "real time" device and the human interface should be as seamless as possible. So yeah it looks retro but that's because retro is the best way to go about doing it. It's worth it. I'd like to see more DSLR's going this way. Looking forward to the DfX
i'm not sure if that is intentional, why are you not mentioning D600/610 in the argument? it's the sole reason for polarizing people IMO. A D4 sensor and D600 sensor isn't really that HUGE of a difference. I think people can accept a Df with a premium over the D610 and it's well worth it, but Nikon screw things up by raising the price tag to D800 level but without the features.
After all these years....Leica M10 has same functionalities as the DF. No video, dedicated ISO dial and still all manual focus. And it still cost 6k. These are very specific cameras. If I had the money I would buy it. I ended up choose to go with A7s. Because I wanted to get into video but if I hadn't I would've bought the DF. People complaining about not having a video functionality and saying it's the way of the future are also are the people that doesn't understand why their are still people buying film cameras and films. Same as they are people who loves their hybrid or electric cars, and their are people who loves old classic cars and loud rice rockets and some of them doesn't even have AC or power steering and cost more than a new car.
The camera looks great but falls short in way too many areas for that money. If I wanted a retro looking camera that is worth the money I'd go with a Fuji. Eventually I might get one.
I have a bunch of Nikon cameras, the DF is always my go to camera, once you get the hang of it , its great. I use my D600 for studio shoots for the higher res, In fast situations you don't have to use the dials on the DF you can use it like a normal DSLR too.
With all due respect, to be honest this video was more a comparison and not an in depth review of the actual camera -which I expected from a video with the title "3 month owners review" It would have been good to get some insight on your personal experience with the camera, not spec info comparisons.
Matt, Very honest and informative review. I have a question I am thinking of using if for weddings and have question regarding its ability to focus in low light situations without having to crank up the ISO to much. I like keeping the ISO below < 1600 if possible. What is your opinion on its focusing capabilities in low light?
Hi Matt, was hoping for a bit more on what using the DF has been like over the past three months. How do you get on with the controls? Are those dials nearly as much fun as you thought they would be? Has the DF caused you to slow down and enjoy your photography?
I know this is a “older” video but anyway. In hindsight it is almost like Nikon tried and failed, then Fujifilm comes along and showed how to “do it right” with the XT-1 and now XT-2… Same concept, but better executed. No?
I just wanted a digital back for my FM. Don't want an LCD, don't even want a card slot. Just give me a sensor, built in memory and a USB socket (or wireless) to get the files out. I want to shoot my FM body to digital files
I have a question for all camera makers. Why the hell are some of these cameras priced so ridiculously high considering the age and evolvement of the technology in recent years. There's no way that anyone can convince me that it cost as much money to produce a camera as it does some automobiles. It's ridiculous IMO, and it becomes more of a bragging rights thing than an actual product superiority thing. I've seen images from a $400 camera that look as good as images from a $4,000 camera. I mean look, when a person can spend well in excess of $10,000 for 1 camera body and 1 lens it prices many millions of individuals out of the market.
technology change and the look for it cost money, just dont expect that those corporate monsters just look for pennies after their sales, for about the phones probably you need to ask personally and profecional photographer to show you whats the diference from a cellphone picture vs a profecional dslr
I agree completely but hey.., welcome to Capitalism Whiskey. What pisses me off more is the dribs and drabs of technological advancement that become available to us (again, capitalism). It makes financial sense for technology based companies to release advancements in technology incrementally. if they gave us all we need for the next ten years, you wouldn't need to buy from them for ten years. I'd wage a bet they have 10 years or more up their sleeves. but who has ten years to hold out when we want what we want (or whats available) now. we're all getting robbed brother, no matter how rich or poor.
Agreed Whisky Joe... I think Hasselblad win the "We Are Taking The P*ss Out Of Our Customers" trophy the most by re-clothing the Sony Alpha 99, rebranding it as the Hasselblad HV, and sell it for 3 times the price at around $8000 US! What Hassie are trying to say is: "the titanium mode dial and the aluminium casing is worth 3 times more than the magnesium alloy shell of the A99, whilst Hasselblad have added not one single tech feature that makes it unique (e.g. A ground breaking EVF design might've been deserved!). Seems like they are all at it: the Canon EOS 5D Mk III came to the market at a ridiculously inflated price over the MkII, the Canon 200-400 f/4 zoom costs best part of 2.5 times more than the Nikon version (just for a built in 1.4 extender from what i can see!). Time we stopped getting ripped off because digital photography is expensive enough, especially for us amateur enthusiasts who dont make our living, but instead do it as a passion.
Love your videos Matt. Have you seen Lee Morris' video? You have other cameras. If this was the only camera you had, like many of us, you wouldn't be satisfied, I think;)
Those that want video probably already have the D800. It's a way to keep people buying Nikon when they want a sensor that has smaller file size and better ISO (5D?)
the only FX camera that is fully compatible AI lenses unless you go with a film camera so not really a bad camera if you use it for an attendant purpose to run your 60s to 70s and D lenses
I was at my local camera shop and after playing with a few cameras, i think fuji x t1 series, sony 7 series is giving nikon a slap in the face lol. Nikon need to bring the nikon fe back. Either 4/3s or crop would be great!
If you absolutely need to have the D4 sensor but already sold one of your kidneys the Df is probably your best option. On the other hand, if you don't really care about that sensor and if you just want to upgrade from DX to FX something like the D600/6100 would probably be the better option. They are cheaper, offer more features and the money that you save can be invested into better full frame lenses. The switch to FX is an expensive one afterall and every dollar that you save on the body helps making it easier on your wallet. Also, the D600, D610 and Df all have the same AF system anyway. Except for the high ISO performance you are not gonna see an incredible difference in image quality anyway... D4 sensor, D600/610 AF... What is the freaking point? I'm a guy who doesn't really care about the looks of a device. I want something that performs well and offers a lot of features at a reasonable price. And since the Df is really just made for the looks and since it costs as much as a D800 I am almost willing to say that the Df is completely pointless, just like any other product that exists only for the looks. Take the Laica cameras for example. They are like a sports car. You don't need it, it's just fun to drive during the weekends. If I had the money and if I already had the professional lenses I would not even consider the Df. I would get the D800/e. And if I would start putting money aside for a FX camera right now I would save my money for a D600. I have never even touched the video mode of my DSLRs but the Df still isn't an option for me at all.
I love the look of the df. However personally prefer bang for buck. I wouldn't mind at all if there were more cameras without video. Just because I feel like I'm paying for something I never use. I would love nikon to make a camera that has the bare essentials but does them really well. But I'm probably in the minority for this one. :) great review of the df too!
I consider myself to be a somewhat of an advanced armature photographer. I recently upgraded from a D3100 to a D610. Reason being is that I want to move forward. The DF is a throwback to the old days. That is why you will not see video on a camera of this kind. The question is who is Nikon is trying to target with this body, the old timers or the yuppies? My personal opinion is that the camera it way over engendered, pricing it way to high. Remember Malcolm Forbes? This would be the camera he would own while he rides his custom Harley with Elisabeth taylor. Ridiculous, don't you think so?
lown noise on high iso is Nice to have but the problem on high iso say 6400iso where it is dark minus ev 2 is not noise but lack of dynamic range, on my d800 the noise is high compared to my friends 6d from canon on the same iso the 6d simply smokes the d800
My question is, does the df make a high quality picture? Similar to the d4s? Does it make a better pix than the 610 or 800? That should be the determining factor of the price.
Matt I think you are missing the point on this one, you keep saying what it doesn't have. It doesn't have it because its meant to be a more fun camera less stress, less weight. Why do we need two card slots. It's not built for doing weddings or pro shooting. But yet you could use it for that. It is a weekend throw in your bag camera, and go have fun. Less in this case is more.
Lol just realized this is for a different camera, I thought you were reviewing the Nikon ZFC. I take back everything I said. I realized other comments were from 8 years ago. 😁😀🤭
If you include video, you need to make compromises for heat dissipation, processor power, etc, etc, and you're getting a backwards compatible camera with a d4 sensor for one third the price.....
Hi Matt I've been shooting with the D700 for a while now and the shutter count is getting up there, which camera do you think handles higher iso better, that or the D800?
the Df only selling point is high iso and pretty much it. to pay similar price against D800 without all those features apart from high iso is more of luxury than practical camera. If the Df is similar to Sony a7 which is full frame mirrorless and really small size then it will be heaps more attractive as a true retro wallaround dslr.
This is almost like the Cube Apple made a decade ago. It looked cool but was hugely over-priced and not many features compared to other computers in the same price range Apple made at the time.
Excellent wrap-up Matt ! I have the Df now since november 28 2013, sold my Leica M9 and lenses and didn't miss it one single moment. The Df is for me just a step-up in everything from the Leica for less less money. You say Leica "Earn' because the lenses, don't forget many of the AI-S Lenses are stunning at this Df
My gripe with this camera had nothing to do with the concept(I absolutely love the concept), but with the extremely bad execution. Ex: why put dials on the body if they can be overridden in the menu with no outside indication that they are; what would it have cost to put an A for auto on the ISO dial for example? Why is the lens that it come with(sold at a premium) has no aperture control ring? Comparison with Fuji offering falls short, simply because Fuji offering are actually well thought out and designed(aperture control on the lens, dials that actually do what they indicate that they do, menu system that augment control without overridding etc), while the DF looks, feels and operate like it was designed over a week-end by first year engineering students out of left over parts bins AND sold at a premium price. Frankly I'm a bit baffled as to why and how a photographer with your experience and technical knowledge like, and bought, this poor excuse of a camera. It bode poorly for the future as it will encourage companies to get lazy with their design.
100% agreed... I am a Nikon user and i don't want their R&D standards slipping down the toilet anymore than they already have over the past couple of years. I love Nikon optics in particular (used to use Canon ones, but love the contrast, sharpness, "standard" 9 rounded blade diaphragms that Canon simply do not offer), but camera body design is behind Canon (innovation levels similar, not design/ ergonomics though). Nikon need to step up their game here
![[LIVE] : ONE ลุมพินี 82 วันนี้!! คู่เอก | ยอดไอคิว vs อับดัลลาห์](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/hSsyTl_9bqs/mqdefault.jpg)
The camera is gorgeous. Especially the silver one. Enough with the best specs. Enough of lazy photographers.
Spent ten seconds for manual focus instead of autofocus.
Spent five minutes with a tripod for low ISO.
Spent time with composition and light metering instead of shooting continuously with bracketing or different compositions.
This camera is for the pleasure of slow photography. Why everything should be fast, like fast food, fast sex, fast profits, fast travels, fast everything.
Achilleas Labrou who likes fast sex
Watching this 6 years after you've filmed it, overwhelms me how accurate your judgement was at that time. The Df is the only post FM2 Nikon camera I ever was considering up to now. A late thanks for your video.
I'm just watching it too and I'm currently looking to buy one(had the D700 for years). Owning a Sony a9 and still looking for something better in low light. Oh, and I don't need video...
I also have a full Sony kit of an A9&A9ii and high spec lenses which I’ll keep and still use for sports and normal use but always liked the look of the Df. I’ve had Fuji before too but just it didn’t do well enough in low light action. The Df I’ve just bought and to be delivered in the next day does excite me to go and shoot and make a change from the A9. Hopefully it’s not too old and cumbersome but this video helped!
For me it's great. I am 50 and have owned Nikons since the FM in 1977. My favorite camera of all time is the F3hp, I've used mine since 1984. I never use video on the DSLR. I'd love it if the monitor could have been replaced with just a bright display for settings only. I love the design, the feel, the pentaprism. I wish it could be converted to a split image rangefinder and forgo the AF completely. The near death of cellulose film is heartbreaking. All you born in the 80's are thinking I'm crazy, but there is great wonder in the equation of Photographer + Film SLR + Film + Anticipation = The Full Photographic Experience. But I'll have to go forward with the Df. I'll survive.
The film will never die! There are so many new films' shooters around the world and they are not all "Lomo-addicts", I own several "top-of-line" Nikon's DSLR but there is nothing more superb than a couple of Tri-X rolls from my Nikon F3 HP, my Nikon F5 or my Hasselblad 503 Cxi, even the tiny Rollei 35s can make wonderful pictures from T-Max or Tri-X rolls!
Even some 50 years old cameras correctly overhauled can shoot for at least 50 more years because the construction of these mechanicals jewels is just perfect but I don't think the battery, the sensor and even the electronic shutter of my D4 will last more than 20 years and then there won't be any specialist to fix it properly, unfortunately!
Keep the Faith my friend! If we are united, we can convert the world again! ;-) Some brand-new film come out even in 2014, look at the Rollei RPX 25, a real killer for Hi-resolution works! ;-)
MacPro8CoreMan I started with the borrowed Kodak Retina 1a in 1974, then Pentax MX, MEsuper. After switching to digital in 1989 and finally happy with Nikon DSLR's the Df could of been my favorite. But I embrace the future, and as of 2016, for me, it's all Sony A7R2!
totally agree
Very objective, thorough and intelligent review, thank you! I love my Df and I also own a D-810, so for me, this is the perfect mix! Having said this, I am always more attracted to pick up my Df. There's just something about it that makes me want to shoot more! Thank you for wonderful videos!
is the DF better in low light than the D810?
I think the reason most people were upset is because Nikon was heavily insinuating in their marketing that this would be a whole new type of camera geared toward people who love the simplicity and 'purity' (their word) of using film cameras, but then released a regular DSLR (albeit a quality one) with some retro styling and mechanical knobs on top.
I see a lot of people complaining that the Df can't stand up to the D4. D4 has better autofocus, yes. D4 has faster burst rates, yes. D4 has more card slots, yes. The D4 also costs more than twice what a Df body costs. I can't see any justification for bashing the Df based on its performance when compared to the D4. That said, it has the same sensor as the D4 and actually slightly better ISO performance. So at the end of the day, you are getting the same image quality as the D4 for half the price. If you need 11fps, get a D4. No need to complain about every camera that doesn't shoot 11fps.
When I bought my Df, I was on the fence between the D800 and the Df. I chose the Df for its ISO performance (styling is a plus too). I have not regretted my purchase for a single second. Just depends on what you are looking to get out of it.
Agree with you, how many times in fifty (50) years would you shoot at 11 FPS; unless you cover Car Racing, Wild Life or Sports every Day.
Been using a Dƒ for a couple of months and it is absolutely wonderful. Totally works for me. Oh, and I do have a Fuji X100s, which is a great backup for me.
I recently purchased the Nikon D610. That was actually an easy decision for me as I wanted a full frame camera and neither the Df nor the D800 gave me what I wanted. I definitely cannot afford the D4 so that's out of the question. The D800 I had deemed too slow (4FPS) for what I wanted this camera for and the huge file sizes mean less pictures on my Memory cards. I came from a D70 and know that more megapixels doesn't necessarily mean better picture quality.
The decision was between the Df and the D610. My previous camera didn't have video so that wasn't an issue. It came down to speed of handling. You see, back in the day, when my sister-in-law was getting married and I was asked to be a wedding photographer, I ended up borrowing an N8008s and a matching autofocus lens or two instead of using my trusty FE2. Why? Speed of handling. The N8008s allowed me to get shots off quickly without me needing to fuss with the settings or focus like the FE2 would have made me do. The D610, likewise, allows me to just take the pictures and the camera doesn't get in the way. Yes, I know, slow down, get the shot, do it right. There are situations where you just can't do that and a fast handling camera allows me to capture the moment and not lose that opportunity because I was fussing with it. You can slow down and be methodical with the D610, but, you cannot use the Df as effectively in, say, my daughter's volleyball game where the higher speed and easier to access controls allows you to concentrate on the one thing that you brought a camera for: to get the pictures. Sure, you can say "buy both". Nope, can't afford it. Won't do it.
I have used the D4 for 3+ years and the Df for 2.5 years and I love them both. Even though they have the same sensor I get a slightly different look from them. The Df seems to have a better skin tone feel. Warmer, silky? Hard to explain, but I like it. The D4 is my studio camera and has a more realistic tone. Each have excellent latitude, with nice details in the dark and light areas. Just recently I have been using the Sony A7R2 and comparing it to the Nikons. So far in natural light it's way easier to get more usable shots fast since it can live display your settings immediately. And see your shot in the EVF immediately. Amazing low light ability since it has 5axis stabilization and the OSS in the 24-240 lens I have. This lens is not set up for low light but I'm still getting amazing night shots just the same. Meanwhile Nikon is still putting out their usual large camera products. Do you think they will try and compete head to head with the mirrorless brand leaders in the future?
Personally I love the camera and the fact it’s designed to be reminiscent of older Nikon film bodies. Sensor is most important to me & obviously having a great iso capability. I think so many modern DSLRs include way too many extras that it’s almost distracting and unnecessary. I just want a camera that can help me take beautiful photos without all the crazy scene modes and features that are designed to help beginner photographers. Plus, I’m so tired of the look of all DSLRs being chunky, black bricks. This camera is refreshing imo
Hello,
"That Nikon Guy" is what I remembered when getting in to Digital Photography earlier in 2012 with very first purchase of D5100 after my last purchase of F501 back in 1993-94. Love your videos, reviews. DF was my interest way before it was launched and got my hands on one as soon as it was available. This was my third digital camera in the journey which started with D5100. D800, DF, X100S and XT1 is what I have now. I just rushed in getting gear before learning how to take good photos.
My very first comment on youtube is here to say thank you for very informative and education videos, great help. Cheers, Nadeem from UAE
Do pros/advanced amateurs use AF or manual? Df is welcoming film shooters with a camera that can accept the oldest pre-AI lenses. D4 sensor is excellent for situations where very high resolution is unnecessary. Older lenses may not work well with 24/36MP sensors. The new zoom AF-VR II lenses outweigh the cost of a camera body. Old prime lenses have excellent image quality. Low weight is important for some people. Its low light performance compares with Sony A7R ii and beats the D810. This is targeted at a different audience who may love it for the slow paced charm of old world. Fast food vs full course meals!
Hi Matt,
Your missing the point....I don't shoot video or a million frames per second. I only shoot manual and I only have 2 prime lenses both Zeiss so the DF is perfect for me and anyone else over 50 who used to shoot old FE's . You pays your money and you takes your choice...
I completely agree with you. I come from the 35mm and medium format era, I don't use any post processing or cheats, the DF is ideal for me as a hands on manual user. love it.
Would you really pay such a premium for something film has been offering for years and at a lower price point?
I get that it's for people who want a slower shooting experience but you can do that with any modern (and cheaper) camera.
if you use film everyday, or worse, professionally, it will run you up more than a df would in a year.
100% agree, from D300s till DF, which I have bought few weeks ago, I have never used video feature, I mostly use two primes, so it’s the perfect photo camera for me, after I own many nikon DSLR s, D50, D80, more D300, D300s, D5300, D5500, D7200, several D600, two D750, final in 2019, I strongly feel, that I have found my perfect photographic tool for me, I like using it, I like the feeling, the ergonomics, the image quality is superb, 16MP it’s more, than enough for me, not to mention the low light ability! IT’S a GREAT camera...!!!
It is an OK camera, great sensor but the price is too high for what you get, I have dismissed it out of hand for my work though, the reason I am sticking with my D700s is that I used a D600 for a little while and the autofocus, while fast enough for my work, is not spread wide enough. Focus and recompose results in many more missed shots that composing and then focusing on my D700s.
I also think it suffers badly in comparison to Fuji's design and ergonomics. The use of A modes on the shutter and aperture dials of the Fujis are a far better implementation of the mode settings than the Df's PASM dial. Ergonomically the front dial is awkward (I'm sure you get used to it but it doesn't fall into place naturally), and the strap lug on the right side is in a terrible place. Nikon are in a bad situation to start with trying to combine a traditional dial operated camera with their G series lenses, but their solution is anything but elegant.
The lack of interchangeable focus screens, is the biggest missing feature though. Nikon cannot be serious about backwards compatibility with older lenses if a visual focusing aid is not even an option. Thank goodness someone is making these, but it should have been Nikon.
I love Nikon, I do, but while I was excited about the Df announcement I found it disappointing in reality. In the end I still shoot on my two D700s for most of my work, (addicted to TTL and CLS) and now of a couple of Fuji's fill in when I want less weight. I am still waiting for a worthy replacement for the d700, I may have to but the big, heavy, expensive flagship model to get it.
I wonder what you think of this camera now in 2023? Nice and cheap. I think it’s aged really well. Personally love the thing for the image it puts out.
My thoughts are that the Df should be for the purist. That means no video and it should only shoot RAW since the purist will be post processing and will be judging the shot via the histogram on the LCD screen and checking focus and composition.
I would like to add the D610 to the list of alternatives for those who want high resolution. Actually its a great camera that people should consider when getting a full frame camera, period.
the D610 cant take all the viewfinder pro accessories that the Df and the D800 and the D4 can take.
Sure. It's still a camera people should consider.
true, great camera the D610
"You buy it for the things it work WELL, not the missing feature it does not have"
I'm about to get one, for several reasons; I can't afford a bloody D4 and I need high sensitivity, I don't need 36mpx shots (who the hell needs them? but whatever) and I don't do video, hell my iPhone has better focus tracking than a DSLR for the casual video need, since I don't do pro video at all, and when I need I have a mate who can lend me his BlackMagic Cinema Camera, and yes, I'm a sucker for that hipster design and I'm too poor to own the Ultimate Hipster Cam (Leica M Monochrome)
Simple, Get the D500
Hi Matt ! Thank you very much for these very good statements.
I own a D700 and I`m still very glad to have it - superb handling, superb image quality, superb flash performance over all, especially with TTL & CLS, even only with the built-in flash.
For me as a Nikon fan the best Nikon would be a camera with the modern technique and features of the D4s and the design of the Df, but with a built-in flash (CLS !!). C´mon Nikon, go and make one!!
great review. I'm quite happy with my Df. I wish it had a better manual focusing screen.... i wonder if they will ever make one that we can add on... I use it primarily with my manual Carl zeiss lenses...
A well balanced review. Thank you!
As a person looking to go digital from a heap of Nikon film cameras (F3, F4, FM) and older (but good) Nikon fit lenses, this is just what I asked Nikon for several years ago. I don't expect that I'm the only one that's tried to twist an executive arm at Nikon but it's nice that exactly what I was looking for has been provided: full frame, good resolution, backwardly compatible with the older lenses - and with knobs on.
I'm aware that it's not everyone's cup of tea - horses fer courses, as they say, but it is mine.
Haven't quite got around to raiding the piggy bank yet but I think that this is what I want.
I dont think ¨your paying a premium for the looks¨ I also own one, (for 2 months) and your paying a premium for a fine sensor! and small size, a very nice pentaprism that takes all Nikon accessories that the D600/610 cant, this is NOT just looks and styling, I do dance photography and I also love the silent beautiful sound of the shutter, is a very nice travel camera, and screw video!
I think you are wearing rose glasses - which I appreciate as it IS such a lovely camera to use (rather than sit and judge from a distance). But stepping back and being objective, looking at the market and offerings out there - I think you have to admit there is a style price premium on the Df
Matt Granger What is the fair price for a camera that has the best ISO performance, cleanest pixel to pixel image EVEN rated better than the New D4s with it's Expeed 4, at $6500? I can see why it is the same $ as the old D700. The focus button and 5 frame bracketing along with being able to use your bargain priced D series lenses that are easy to find along with their F stop rings, to me makes it a step above the D610. Yet to be fair, a D800 is a lot of camera for the same price.
The thing is that the market is clearly go towards the mirrorless world, and Nikon should have focused its resources on it instead of coming with another reflex. The premium features that the Df has got are OK, but for that huge amount of money (because it's not cheap at all) there's not a valid reason to not choose the D610 instead, which is a fantastic full frame camera too. I think that the Nikon Df is positioned in a sector of the marketplace where there is basically no demand (because the D4 attracts the super experts with extremely particular needs - e.g.: Olympics/sport photographers - the D800 the Pros and the D610 the super enthusiasts/semi-Pro), and so it is destined to fail very soon. There's no reason to choose the Df, but for the vintage design (which is a weird mix of old and new).
The mirrorless is clearly the future and the way to go. Nikon is also loosing several influent photographers who where Nikon clients before (e.g. The Strobist, or Tray Ratcliff) who now went for mirrorless cameras, and they're converting a huge amount of people to sell their reflex.
The general reviews for the Df on the Web are quite bad actually, everybody was clearly expecting a mirrorless and I don't see anyone saying that this camera is really worth the money. Neither do you, Matt :)
I think the Df is a huge mistake and that Nikon is going through a huge risk if they don't come out with something serious and excellent with mirrorless. Fujifilm has now a incredible huge advantage on the marketplace.
Very fair and reasonable review, Matt.
price, looks, features... only thing that matters is if what you got works for you. (feel free to apply this principle to computers or what have you too) :)
This camera would have been exceptional at half the price of a d800, with the d800 sensor and no video. The fact that it doesn't have that, and a lower megapixel sensor, even if better iso, just makes it a kodak slr/n from 10 years ago, let alone a d700,, that little extra low light capability doesn't make it worth another $1500, unless maybe all you are is a night shooter. For the majority of shooting situations the kodak will actually perform better, the kodak is under $500 used now, with a better more unique color assignment for its processor. The DF is a completely useless product at the pricepoint they've assigned it.
I haven't ever been asked a 36mpx file, And I have never owned a camera with more than 20mpx, unless you do landscape or studio portraits and print them in the side of buildings you'll never use them, the D4 sensor is a lot better than the D810 sensor, unless you print your pictures 5 meters wide, it's got better dynamic range, better colour rendition and better noise control.
Nice review. I'm still a bit uncertain what benefit the DF provides, besides high ISO performance, over the D800 or D4. Why would you put this camera in your bag instead of the D800 or the 1DX? Under what conditions would you prefer this camera over the others?
size
Antonio Alcala Seems like a weak justification. Sure anything's smaller compared to the 1DX, but it's only slightly smaller than the D800, and if I'm only taking one camera, I want video too.
Jonathan Stewart I respect your opinion, I have a D800, and trust me the Df is much smaller, and much better high ISO, and lets you snap 16mp files while on vacation instead of shooting all the time 36 MP huge files during your holidays so… if you need a small walk around camera like I do, and dont care for video (like I do) you´ll love the Df.
ummm, I think I outlined the advantages (for me) pretty clearly. It won't suit all.
Rajeshwar Rao Naidu 6yf
Thanks for sharing your thoughts on the Df, Matt! This video nicely illustrates the quality I value most about your Web site and TH-cam channel...you're objective about the gear. You own and use equipment from numerous manufacturers and have no axe to grind against any of them. If your recommend a piece of kit, it's because you've used it with good results. With respect to the folks having difficulty understanding why you like the Df, I would suggest they look at the question from another perspective. How about just simply accepting the fact that you do enjoy shooting with the Df and that it delivers for you, both in your professional work and in your personal photography. The Df isn't my cup of tea but I can easily see the appeal to others, in terms of performance, value and styling.
I love my DF, I have a D800 and D610 as well but the DF is hands-down my favorite. The build quality is fantastic, better than any other camera I've had my hands on, the "typical" Nikon bodies feel cheap and plasticy, even the D800 in my opinion.
An excellent review Matt, as always.
One factor that must effect many Nikon users, like myself, is that over the years I have built up my "portfolio" of Nikon lenses.
As a result, although my personal preference would be for the retro looking Fuji XT which has more of the features I would like, I would opt for the Df.
The Fuji + some lenses would take me close to the Df price I think, plus having the extra gear to carry around. Just my 2 cents worth.
The problem with the Df is that the marketing prior to it's announcement heavily suggested the Df would be something like a digital version of the FM series. Instead it is just a D610 with retro styling and a couple of old style dials stuck on top. If the Df lived up to the marketing hype (I.E. was basically a Digital FM-10) and the new 50mm was part of a complete line of new 1.8 primes with aperture rings instead of just a cosmetic update no one would be criticizing the Df even at a higher price than it currently sells for. Nikon had a chance to actually make a premium product instead of just charging more for cosmetics and at the same time make something unique and truly special in the DSLR market and they blew it IMO.
I really like the Df, but the "deal breaker" for me was the fiddly lock-down sytem on the knobs which make the adjustment of settings cumbersome. I can understand having a safety on a gun, but I'm only shooting photos!
Thanks for the balanced review after you've used the DF for a while. Really bothers me that for a "premium line" and price, Nikon has compromised features like the AF system, fastest shutter speed, lack of video and only one card slot. All that should have been better for the price. Would like the low-light capability and to use it for people shots, so might get one when it's a lot cheaper.
Would love to see you do an Uncut Photoshoot segment while using the Df.
I ended up selling all my DSLR gear and have replaced it with a mirrorless setup (E-M1). All the lenses I need to replace are pretty much available on m43 and that portability (lightness and size) is just heavenly. Where my 50D used to sit at home in storage waiting until a day I was expecting to use it, my E-M1 is with me all the time and since I was using an older body, I've actually found the E-M1 has become an improvement in image quality and build quality (weather sealing).
As you say, people need to find the gear that suits them and their photography best :)
Great review it was very balanced . I own onw and jump ship from canon . I knew what i was getting as i always wanted a retro dial kind of camera plus the great d4 sensor . I had a 5d mark iii i never used video so i didnt need that .
If you put image quality above all else, I think the df delivers big time! I'm here to say there is a huge difference in the way the df processes and captures light versus any crop frame or mft cameras. I own the d4, d800, df, em1,em5 etc etc and every fast lens there is that is any good. And use them daily.
I love holding this camera in my hands. Reminds me of my first camera, the Nikon F.
In a way, I find it amusing how back when the DF was first release, it received so much hate for lacking video features having the lesser AF system.
Now with how the trend is going back to retro and pure photographic cameras, the DF had risen in popularity - swear this camera aged like wine haha!
Did it receive so much hate?
If I don't need it, I don't need it. There is no reason to include video and video optimization on this camera
Exactly. People buy cameras for all kinds of reasons because people have all kinds of needs and desires. For example, if you've deeply invested is high-quality Nikon lenses then getting a DF might not be much more expensive than starting from scratch with an Olympus OMD-1 and two high-quality MFT lenses. Also, if you know what you need you are more accepting of a camera that others might see as limited or "crippled" but, for you, fills the gap. As great as the D800 is the size of its files is too much for some people and, thus, the D800 isn't for them. A lot of people never shoot at 1/8000 but act as if a 1/4000 camera won't even take pictures. Some people aren't interested in video. And, please, let's not pretend that people aren't taking great photos using 39 auto focus points -- sure, 51 or more might be faster and better but we're not talking light year's difference in performance. By the logic of more tech is always better we should have kicked Ansel Adams to the curb (ha, ha). I highly value the DF's great sensor with its low-light capability; I don't need a D4s such that I would buy one, but I would pay for it's sensor in DF. Is the DF expensive? Yes. But once you cross a certain threshold in photography -- MFT, full frame, cropped sensor, medium format -- it's all expensive! I think a lot of people complained about the DF because when you don't know what you want you tend to want things to be all things to all people, and that's a prescription for perpetual dissatisfaction.
It doesn't have the tracking or the high frame rate: that's the trade off for a smaller and lighter camera. To get those you'd need bigger motors and more batteries. Some people say, "why can't it be as small as an old FE?" Well, they could probably get pretty close, if you were willing to wind a mechanically powered shutter, and forego auto focus.
Thanks for a great review as usual Matt.....this camera is for a traditional photographer who loves the "feel" of the metal knobs and switches ala film cameras. Its about using analog controls and getting a digital result. There are many photographers today with D800s etc who say "what do I need video for?" "If I needed video I would buy a video cam!". When you consider this cam as a specialist, special interest line of camera you can see it doesn't deserve the flak. If you want those other features..as you point out...buy another camera in the Nikon line up. On another note its interesting to hear people complaining about their D800's burning so much memory.....I own a D800 and when I dont need 36mp shots i choose M setting and get 20 mp shots which are absolutely perfect for their intended use. They still have all the benefits of full frame. The D800 is not as restrictive as some people believe.
Thanks for the Honest review Matt! I'm torn between the D800 or DF. The D800 is better spec wise on some levels but the DF blows it out of the water with ISO performance. If your into astrophotography like me great low light performance is a plus to have.
The high ISO capabilities are more then people realize. The D4 sensor makes all the difference
Thanks Matt best Nikon DF review yet,, DXO only rates the sensor a bit better than the D800e, No video, No pro AF, 4000 sec, one SD slot, and the same price, What a --- off, I think you should sell the canon 1DX, and get another D800E and the Otus 50-1.4 . two d800E's one for video and the df can stay in the bag for backup,,,Really just want you to get the Otus
D700 was essentially a D3 in a small body, whereas DF is completely screwed up camera. Sadly Nikon hasnt released a camera to replace the good old D700 yet and looks like they wont release such a camera anytime soon.
I don't feel comfortable when the camera doesn't have a proper shutter dial and can't get used to lenses that don't have aperture rings.
Creativity just isn't there while pushing some cheap buttons or multifunction dials.
The DF is a move in the right direction, however, Nikon has dropped the aperture ring in their G lenses and D lenses don't get top optics.
Leica M cameras are the best, but terribly expensive, they also lack a 80-200 f/2.8 zoom for portrait photography.
Fuji X cameras don't have full size sensors and lack some additional details.
So, the DF is a good option there. Nikon still has a nice selection of lenses with aperture rings like the:
- 50mm f/1.2 manial focus or the 50mm f/1.4D
- 80-200mm f/2.8D
- the DC 105 and 135mm f/2.0D portrait lenses and some others
Too bad something like the 20-35mm f/2.8D isn't available anymore. Nikon could easily round up a complete basic selection of D lenses, with just a few additional. Dropping the aperture ring makes no sense.
Not sure about video recording, though. They didn't record video initially, but Leica M does nowadays.
I thinks it`s a good first step into the retro look camera market.Yeah it`s not perfect but the next version of the DF the DFs or whatever they call it will have the improvements that people are looking for.
I`ll still be sticking to my Fuji X camera,it`s out of my price range.
I think that if this camera came from Pentax, no one would bat an eye because it just seems classic Pentax.
I wish Nikon would have followed up with a version II. I miss my Nikon F3.
Only 1/4000 shutter :-( I remember my old Nikon film camera and it had 1/1000th. LOL We have come a long way.
I guess what annoys me about the DF is that the controls don't seem to be that well thought out compared to other retro designs like the Fuji's - not having used the camera, I can't really comment, but I would be interested in your comments Matt...
Very well presented Matt!
My biggest issue with the DF is it's 'BIG' when you compare it to something like the XT-1 or EM-1 and retro style 35mm film cameras. For the me it's purely cosmetics that people are paying for the DF and if I wanted a retro style camera I'd definitely lean towards the XT-1.
the XT1 as a mirrorless camera with EVF is more 'retro' than a DSLR?
I'd say the XT-1 is definitely more retro looking :)
Unfortunately for me the Df is just a very weak camera. The spec's are decidedly average, what surprised me the most was, when I had a play with the camera, how weak the ergonomics were. I don't have any problems with a retro idea but I don't think Nikon has done a good job, especially with the dial locking mechanism, which is a pain.
I can't disagree with you about the sensor, ability to attach lenses and quiet mode, which are all good but this camera doesn't feel like a premium camera, especially with the cheap plastic, on the front, it is this kind of little detail, which really brings the camera down.
Fuji for me have done a much better job with their designs and build from my limited experience with them, they are much more fun to use. The Df was meant to be a fun camera and too me, it wasn't.
It's a Nikon DSLR with knobs on. I really like it. In order to take great pictures I have to like my camera.
It's really all about the user interface and not just the looks. Back in the latter days of film, camera manufacturers replaced dials and knobs with menus and buttons. The primary reason for this was that it is a lot easier and cheaper to design and manufacture a camera in this way... More profit .. Lower price.
It's far more expensive too design and manufacture a camera with mechanical input than a totally electronic input. Hence the higher price. Think about it, an analog Swiss watch will cost you a hell of a lot more than a digital watch . They both tell the time.
You make your choice.
I'm prepared to pay the premium for the "See at a glance" "Adjust by feel".
Car manufactures never replaced the main car controls with buttons and menus. imagine trying to steer and control a car via multi function buttons and menus.
A camera is similar , it's a "real time" device and the human interface should be as seamless as possible.
So yeah it looks retro but that's because retro is the best way to go about doing it.
It's worth it.
I'd like to see more DSLR's going this way.
Looking forward to the DfX
i'm not sure if that is intentional, why are you not mentioning D600/610 in the argument?
it's the sole reason for polarizing people IMO. A D4 sensor and D600 sensor isn't really that HUGE of a difference. I think people can accept a Df with a premium over the D610 and it's well worth it, but Nikon screw things up by raising the price tag to D800 level but without the features.
In a single sentence, the Df is a pretty D600/D610 with top-notch ISO performance yet without video.
After all these years....Leica M10 has same functionalities as the DF. No video, dedicated ISO dial and still all manual focus. And it still cost 6k. These are very specific cameras. If I had the money I would buy it. I ended up choose to go with A7s. Because I wanted to get into video but if I hadn't I would've bought the DF. People complaining about not having a video functionality and saying it's the way of the future are also are the people that doesn't understand why their are still people buying film cameras and films. Same as they are people who loves their hybrid or electric cars, and their are people who loves old classic cars and loud rice rockets and some of them doesn't even have AC or power steering and cost more than a new car.
The camera looks great but falls short in way too many areas for that money. If I wanted a retro looking camera that is worth the money I'd go with a Fuji. Eventually I might get one.
I agree absolutely and it is the best looking dslr out there
I have a bunch of Nikon cameras, the DF is always my go to camera, once you get the hang of it , its great. I use my D600 for studio shoots for the higher res, In fast situations you don't have to use the dials on the DF you can use it like a normal DSLR too.
photographerjonathan
glad you are learning
Your reviews are great, by being subjective you probably have some of the most objective reviews around.
I have a Canon EOS 6D. There are two things that bug me, the more serious is the maximum shutter speed of 1/4000.
With all due respect, to be honest this video was more a comparison and not an in depth review of the actual camera -which I expected from a video with the title "3 month owners review"
It would have been good to get some insight on your personal experience with the camera, not spec info comparisons.
Exactly, please read my comment, the review seemed to be non-objective at all.
Matt,
Very honest and informative review.
I have a question I am thinking of using if for weddings and have question regarding its ability to focus in low light situations without having to crank up the ISO to much. I like keeping the ISO below < 1600 if possible. What is your opinion on its focusing capabilities in low light?
Hi Matt, was hoping for a bit more on what using the DF has been like over the past three months. How do you get on with the controls? Are those dials nearly as much fun as you thought they would be? Has the DF caused you to slow down and enjoy your photography?
I know this is a “older” video but anyway. In hindsight it is almost like Nikon tried and failed, then Fujifilm comes along
and showed how to “do it right” with the XT-1 and now XT-2…
Same concept, but better executed. No?
I'd go for the D4 type body but I don't have the money..The Df looks pretty cool,but I'm still keeping my D610
I just wanted a digital back for my FM. Don't want an LCD, don't even want a card slot. Just give me a sensor, built in memory and a USB socket (or wireless) to get the files out. I want to shoot my FM body to digital files
I have a question for all camera makers. Why the hell are some of these cameras priced so ridiculously high considering the age and evolvement of the technology in recent years. There's no way that anyone can convince me that it cost as much money to produce a camera as it does some automobiles. It's ridiculous IMO, and it becomes more of a bragging rights thing than an actual product superiority thing. I've seen images from a $400 camera that look as good as images from a $4,000 camera. I mean look, when a person can spend well in excess of $10,000 for 1 camera body and 1 lens it prices many millions of individuals out of the market.
technology change and the look for it cost money, just dont expect that those corporate monsters just look for pennies after their sales, for about the phones probably you need to ask personally and profecional photographer to show you whats the diference from a cellphone picture vs a profecional dslr
I agree completely but hey.., welcome to Capitalism Whiskey.
What pisses me off more is the dribs and drabs of technological advancement that become available to us (again, capitalism).
It makes financial sense for technology based companies to release advancements in technology incrementally.
if they gave us all we need for the next ten years, you wouldn't need to buy from them for ten years.
I'd wage a bet they have 10 years or more up their sleeves. but who has ten years to hold out when we want what we want (or whats available) now.
we're all getting robbed brother, no matter how rich or poor.
Agreed Whisky Joe... I think Hasselblad win the "We Are Taking The P*ss Out Of Our Customers" trophy the most by re-clothing the Sony Alpha 99, rebranding it as the Hasselblad HV, and sell it for 3 times the price at around $8000 US! What Hassie are trying to say is: "the titanium mode dial and the aluminium casing is worth 3 times more than the magnesium alloy shell of the A99, whilst Hasselblad have added not one single tech feature that makes it unique (e.g. A ground breaking EVF design might've been deserved!). Seems like they are all at it: the Canon EOS 5D Mk III came to the market at a ridiculously inflated price over the MkII, the Canon 200-400 f/4 zoom costs best part of 2.5 times more than the Nikon version (just for a built in 1.4 extender from what i can see!). Time we stopped getting ripped off because digital photography is expensive enough, especially for us amateur enthusiasts who dont make our living, but instead do it as a passion.
Love your videos Matt. Have you seen Lee Morris' video? You have other cameras. If this was the only camera you had, like many of us, you wouldn't be satisfied, I think;)
Those that want video probably already have the D800. It's a way to keep people buying Nikon when they want a sensor that has smaller file size and better ISO (5D?)
The premium on the Df I think is much higher than the premium for the X series.
the only FX camera that is fully compatible AI lenses unless you go with a film camera so not really a bad camera if you use it for an attendant purpose to run your 60s to 70s and D lenses
I was at my local camera shop and after playing with a few cameras, i think fuji x t1 series, sony 7 series is giving nikon a slap in the face lol. Nikon need to bring the nikon fe back. Either 4/3s or crop would be great!
you should talk about sony and their translucid mirror there is a lot to say in this topics a lot of people thinks its the future ....
If you absolutely need to have the D4 sensor but already sold one of your kidneys the Df is probably your best option.
On the other hand, if you don't really care about that sensor and if you just want to upgrade from DX to FX something like the D600/6100 would probably be the better option. They are cheaper, offer more features and the money that you save can be invested into better full frame lenses. The switch to FX is an expensive one afterall and every dollar that you save on the body helps making it easier on your wallet.
Also, the D600, D610 and Df all have the same AF system anyway. Except for the high ISO performance you are not gonna see an incredible difference in image quality anyway... D4 sensor, D600/610 AF... What is the freaking point?
I'm a guy who doesn't really care about the looks of a device. I want something that performs well and offers a lot of features at a reasonable price. And since the Df is really just made for the looks and since it costs as much as a D800 I am almost willing to say that the Df is completely pointless, just like any other product that exists only for the looks. Take the Laica cameras for example. They are like a sports car. You don't need it, it's just fun to drive during the weekends.
If I had the money and if I already had the professional lenses I would not even consider the Df. I would get the D800/e. And if I would start putting money aside for a FX camera right now I would save my money for a D600. I have never even touched the video mode of my DSLRs but the Df still isn't an option for me at all.
I love the look of the df. However personally prefer bang for buck. I wouldn't mind at all if there were more cameras without video. Just because I feel like I'm paying for something I never use. I would love nikon to make a camera that has the bare essentials but does them really well. But I'm probably in the minority for this one. :) great review of the df too!
I consider myself to be a somewhat of an advanced armature photographer. I recently upgraded from a D3100 to a D610. Reason being is that I want to move forward. The DF is a throwback to the old days. That is why you will not see video on a camera of this kind. The question is who is Nikon is trying to target with this body, the old timers or the yuppies? My personal opinion is that the camera it way over engendered, pricing it way to high. Remember Malcolm Forbes? This would be the camera he would own while he rides his custom Harley with Elisabeth taylor. Ridiculous, don't you think so?
lown noise on high iso is Nice to have but the problem on high iso say 6400iso where it is dark minus ev 2 is not noise but lack of dynamic range, on my d800 the noise is high compared to my friends 6d from canon on the same iso the 6d simply smokes the d800
My question is, does the df make a high quality picture?
Similar to the d4s? Does it make a better pix than the 610 or 800?
That should be the determining factor of the price.
Before you buy the DF you knew this camera for pure photography only , for who want to manual shooting and no video . MATT you criticised are wrong
Try comparison with Pentax K3 ;)
Matt I think you are missing the point on this one, you keep saying what it doesn't have. It doesn't have it because its meant to be a more fun camera less stress, less weight. Why do we need two card slots. It's not built for doing weddings or pro shooting. But yet you could use it for that. It is a weekend throw in your bag camera, and go have fun.
Less in this case is more.
Lol just realized this is for a different camera, I thought you were reviewing the Nikon ZFC.
I take back everything I said. I realized other comments were from 8 years ago.
😁😀🤭
All g mate
If you include video, you need to make compromises for heat dissipation, processor power, etc, etc, and you're getting a backwards compatible camera with a d4 sensor for one third the price.....
i have the df and I love it. yes it is a lot of money just for the look but it is a grate camera i have the d800e but my df is my go to camera
Hi Matt I've been shooting with the D700 for a while now and the shutter count is getting up there, which camera do you think handles higher iso better, that or the D800?
nikon should make an fx dslr the size of the fm10 cheap as well, probably not posible but would be cool.
Would be a fine camera at a $1500 price tag, but with the D 610 and D 800 in the game, no way...
I would have bought it in a heartbeat if it had the d810 sensor.
Hey Matt, I would love to see photos that you took with the df. Is there somewhere I could check out the results with this camera?
Matt,
Thoughts on using the Df as a second body with a D4 for weddings?
the Df only selling point is high iso and pretty much it. to pay similar price against D800 without all those features apart from high iso is more of luxury than practical camera. If the Df is similar to Sony a7 which is full frame mirrorless and really small size then it will be heaps more attractive as a true retro wallaround dslr.
This is almost like the Cube Apple made a decade ago. It looked cool but was hugely over-priced and not many features compared to other computers in the same price range Apple made at the time.
Why did you sell your d4? Doesn't it have better autofocus than the d800?
Get what works for you.
Excellent wrap-up Matt !
I have the Df now since november 28 2013, sold my Leica M9 and lenses and didn't miss it one single moment. The Df is for me just a step-up in everything from the Leica for less less money.
You say Leica "Earn' because the lenses, don't forget many of the AI-S Lenses are stunning at this Df
My gripe with this camera had nothing to do with the concept(I absolutely love the concept), but with the extremely bad execution. Ex: why put dials on the body if they can be overridden in the menu with no outside indication that they are; what would it have cost to put an A for auto on the ISO dial for example? Why is the lens that it come with(sold at a premium) has no aperture control ring?
Comparison with Fuji offering falls short, simply because Fuji offering are actually well thought out and designed(aperture control on the lens, dials that actually do what they indicate that they do, menu system that augment control without overridding etc), while the DF looks, feels and operate like it was designed over a week-end by first year engineering students out of left over parts bins AND sold at a premium price.
Frankly I'm a bit baffled as to why and how a photographer with your experience and technical knowledge like, and bought, this poor excuse of a camera. It bode poorly for the future as it will encourage companies to get lazy with their design.
100% agreed... I am a Nikon user and i don't want their R&D standards slipping down the toilet anymore than they already have over the past couple of years. I love Nikon optics in particular (used to use Canon ones, but love the contrast, sharpness, "standard" 9 rounded blade diaphragms that Canon simply do not offer), but camera body design is behind Canon (innovation levels similar, not design/ ergonomics though). Nikon need to step up their game here