Off Brand: Nikon Announces the Df

[RC]

...the DF is more likely to be a fashion accessory than a primary shooting tool.

Exactly. I'd rather put my money towards my next practical lens.

 

[kpk1]

Once again Canon seems to look so boring.
At least Nikon is trying to do something even if the Df is not that inovative. But GOD I like it a lot and its specs.
I have a 5D2 and a 5D3. I'll sell the 5D2 for the new to come in my bag, the Df. Maybe it's my ticket to Nikon.
For a while I'll keep both systems.
For the past 2 years the only things they did inovative was the damn radio into 600EX-RT. It's great but not enough for the hall system.
They need a big refresh, bodies and lenses.
Where's the 5D with great DR and ISO ?
Where is the compact(retro) body with top specs for the pure photographer ?
Where are the 50mm lenses ?
Where are the 85mm lenses ?
Where is the new 35L ? Sigma smacked them with de 35/1.4 Art lens.

So Canon if my opinion counts then you should do:
A body in the Df style but with the 5D3 AF, slimer and lighter. Yes I would pay 2,5k.
Bring them faster into the market: 35/1.4L II, 50/2 IS, 58/1.4, 85/2 IS
5D4 with no more than 18mpx and great DR, good ISO 6400, 12800, a little better than the 1DX.
The mirrorless FF.

 

[Dylan777]

I'm a big fan of retro style((fuji x100s), but this Df doesn't look appealing at all.

I'm going to wait for Fuji FF mirrorless instead...

 

[iam2nd]

Oh, can we also put to bed the "take away video and make the camera cheaper!" arguments for good now. Here's a stills camera aimed at photographers at the expense of videographers, and its 50% more expensive than their more mass-market D600/D610. It's gonna double the street price of the 6D, which is the same size and has video.

No video makes it more niche, which makes it more expensive

To put the argument to bed, wouldn't we need evidence that [at least part of] the reason that THIS camera is 50% more expensive than the D6X0 is -because- it lacks video? And if they later release a "Dfv" model with video, should it cost more of less than the Df?

I like the Df concept. In a down economy, it makes me wonder what's going on in the marketing and architect's heads. I guess their website says it clearly:
"...SEE HOW THE NIKON Df IS REIGNITING PASSION FOR PHOTOGRAPHY"
"...A REMINDER OF WHAT WAS ONCE SO IMPORTANT TO HER"
"...A WONDERFUL AND IMAGINATIVE BLEND OF OLD AND NEW"
"...A FAMILIAR, COMFORTABLE FEEL THAT STREAMLINES HIS PROCESS"
"HOW WILL Df REIGNITE YOUR PASSION FOR PHOTOGRAPHY?"

How many of us are in this target market?

 

[Orangutan]

Oh, can we also put to bed the "take away video and make the camera cheaper!" arguments for good now. Here's a stills camera aimed at photographers at the expense of videographers, and its 50% more expensive than their more mass-market D600/D610. It's gonna double the street price of the 6D, which is the same size and has video.

No video makes it more niche, which makes it more expensive

+1

Well, it's a great marketing test: basically they crammed D4 innards into a retro design. This may tell Nikon a few things:

• How many stills-purists are out there; i.e. whether they constitute a legit market
• How many wealthy amateurs over 60 still pine for their glory days, and want to carry an expensive reminder. It's kinda like seeing a paunchy guy with thin grey hair driving an early-70's Barracuda.

And to all you CR stills-purists, here's your big chance to make your case. But if this doesn't sell well, please accept the results of the experiment and drop the anti-video complaints. (this comes from someone who rarely shoots video)

 

[AvTvM]

Oh, can we also put to bed the "take away video and make the camera cheaper!" arguments for good now. Here's a stills camera aimed at photographers at the expense of videographers, and its 50% more expensive than their more mass-market D600/D610. It's gonna double the street price of the 6D, which is the same size and has video.
No video makes it more niche, which makes it more expensive

Completely wrong. Nikon s decision to launch this Digital Frankenstein for USD/€ 2750,- has nothing to do with video yes/or no. It's the price point for a pseduo-retro, pseudo hipster fashion accessory.

A true test would be for CaNikon to sell say the 6D and D610 each in a video-enabled" "v"-version and a "p"- pure photography version with absolutely everything equal, including outer design, except video-capture/video out [not firmware hackable]. "p" version being sold at USD/€ 1500 and the "v" version at 2500. One grand more is still dirt cheap compared to purchase of both a video and a stills camera. THAT way, we would see, whether videographers are just cheapskates piggybacking on stills shooter's DSLRs or whether they are willing to pay at least for a portion of their desired dual-use cameras.

I KNOW what the market split would be. Less than 10% of those yelling for all sorts of video crap in DSLRs wpould be willing to pay anything for it.

 

[Grumbaki]

Nikon DF - 5.6 x 4.3 x 2.6" :: 710g for camera body
Canon 6D - 5.7 x 4.4 x 2.8" :: 770g for camera body

BTW, I think they've gone overboard on the pricing - the DF is more likely to be a fashion accessory than a primary shooting tool.

Thanks for pulling out the stats, the nail in the coffin of the mirrorless FF interchangeable lenses system crap on a stick.

Give us a damn mirror less FF 50m 1.2 and be done with it!

PS: apologies for badmouthing the a7r design, nikon manage to achieve worse (by doing a retro a7r, including the awful hump)

 

[tiger82]

If I were a Nikon afficionado, for the same price, why would I buy a Df over a D800?

 

[Orangutan]

Oh, can we also put to bed the "take away video and make the camera cheaper!" arguments for good now. Here's a stills camera aimed at photographers at the expense of videographers, and its 50% more expensive than their more mass-market D600/D610. It's gonna double the street price of the 6D, which is the same size and has video.
No video makes it more niche, which makes it more expensive

A true test would be for CaNikon to sell say the 6D and D610 each in a video-enabled" "v"-version and a "p"- pure photography version with absolutely everything equal, including outer design, except video-capture/video out [not firmware hackable]. "p" version being sold at USD/€ 1500 and the "v" version at 2500. One grand more is still dirt cheap compared to purchase of both a video and a stills camera. THAT way, we would see, whether videogrpahers really are only cheapskates piggybacking on stills shooter's DSLRs or whether they are willing to pay for the fact, that they want to use a device for two purposes.

I KNOW what the market split would be. Less than 10% of those yelling for all sorts of video crap in DSLRs wpould be willing to pay anything for it.

More faulty logic: you are still assuming that video costs extra, whereas it's been well-argued (1) that video is largely a bonus derived from LiveView. Furthermore, the difference in manufacturing costs is negligible, it's all about R&D and sales volume. Mainstream cameras without video will not sell well, which will drive up the per-unit costs.

If you don't believe that video is nearly free, consider that there's half-decent video in $300 P&S cameras. Try to argue your way around that. A truer test would be to offer both models at the same price, and see which sells.

I KNOW what the market split would be

If you really believe that then you are deficient in your science education. No one "knows" until the test is actually done.

(1) I say "well-argued" because while we don't have direct access to Canon's cost info, the principles have been well developed.

 

[Orangutan]

If I were a Nikon afficionado, for the same price, why would I buy a Df over a D800?

Because you already own a D800 and D800E? I think this is marketed to wealthy hobbyists.

 

[Expat]

"Digital (con)Fusion with the Nikon Df" is what a genuine Nikon guy has to say about the Nikon Df at:
http://www.dslrbodies.com/newsviews/digital-confusion-with-the.html
That would be Thom Hogan who wrote: "when camera makers start making differentials by purely style issues, that means they've hit a wall in terms of technology, performance, innovation, and features".
I bought my first Nikkormat with a 50/2 lens in 1976. I opened my own fashion/editorial/advertising photographic studio in Montreal in the early 80s and whenever I used 35mm format it was all Nikon. I used Nikon all the way up to the F4. And I had a boat load of lenses. So it brings me no pleasure to express that I think the Df is hideous and to sadly wonder if this looking back with deep nostalgia by Nikon isn't an indication of numbered days for the brand.
The return to "real photography" jargon expressed in the article that began "yes, this is a Canon site" could have well been written by Nikon's marketing department. Which is really sad too. In one of the marketing pictures there are two really old lenses pictures. The 43-86 zoom is the absolute worse zoom lens I have ever used and its reputation as garbage is well known. The fast 55 pictured was not that good either. It also may have contained at least one radioactive element to correct aberrations - such as Thorium. In our time - the 21st century - we are looking to be as environmentally and health smart as we can so to see as a marketing ploy by Nikon a garbage zoom beside a lens that could make a Geiger Counter sing is super sad.
I was under the impression, though I could be totally wrong, that this site was not maintained by anyone who could fit the following description by Thom Hogan: "So what retro design tends to be is a pure nostalgia play. A big part of the DSLR user base is older, and it learned photography on film SLRs that had dials. Suddenly we old-timers get dials back and we go all weak-artificial-kneed and start drooling, apparently."
For the curious, I have been a Canon user since the EOS 1. My equipment list is long. But when I go out the door these days I grab a 6D with a 40/2.8 STM pancake mounted, and the 24/2.8 IS in my tiny sling bag. All that attached images were made at ISO3200 - just because....

 

[mikea]

Beautiful!
Over the weekend I was looking at 1970s SLRs and my old Canon A1, which I'll never sell, and feeling all nostalgic about those great designs. Unfortunately, whereas you can still use a classic car, a film camera now has little practical use. I wish there was a way to put my 5DII innards into my A1 body.
If I had the spare cash, I'd definitely buy this DF even if just for fun.

 

[wtlloyd]

There's a place for nostalgia, and tech ain't it. Unless it's Steampunk, that which is but never was.

Where's the brass, Nikon?

Looking at that camera just makes me feel tired.

 

[pedro]

Outside the issue of ugliness, I liked the specifications. I'm serious. Use a good quality and low resolution sensor is the dream of some (few people) and costs less than D4. Honestly, if canon makes a retro camera (beautiful) with the same 1DX sensor, and sells cheaper, I'd love to.

Plus one. Nikon seems to read the fora ;-) I could imagine buying a retro Canon AE1 type designed DSLR, 18 MP ... but as a high ISO freak I would like the 1Dx's high ISO range in it... 8) Looking at Canon's current price tags they might still ask 3K, just for the retro look ;-)

 

[tolusina]

I think the top half looks great, I think the bottom half looks like any other nikon. I would have loved to have seen a traditional stop down lever.

I would also loved to have seen a 'thumbs up' style rest, where the film winder would have been.

The kit lens doesn't even have an aperture ring.......

Yes, stop down lever would have been a nice touch, at least it's got a prominent button, unlike my 6D that makes me wish for Elastic Man superpowers every time I reach for it.

Hadn't thought of the winder lever/thumb rest, good catch, had to go handle the AE-1 to recall the feel, maybe a lever there could be for BBF, er, BLF?

Missing aperture ring indeed, that was one of the first things to catch my eye.
I've worn out two digital Nikons, still breaking in my first digital Canon, EVERY time I've picked up any of those 3 DSLRs, I lament the missing aperture ring, I really, really miss those.
I was downright giddy when I first handled my daughter's S90, aperture ring on steroids!!

........ retro fixie bike way.....

been there, got the bike long before there were Hipsters, got the t-shirt.

......adorned in flares and a kipper tie........

Um, please Paul, what's a kipper tie??
----
I really like the look of this Nf but I'm ticked enough at Nikon from experience, I've got a few more years (at least) of saying and meaning "I never ever want to own another Nikon" that I just can't consider owning this new beauty.

Does make me continue to wish for a Pentax dLX, LXd, whatever they'd call an LX like, FF digital.

 

[paul13walnut5]

Um, please Paul, what's a kipper tie??

 

[tolusina]

Oh, can we also put to bed the "take away video and make the camera cheaper!" arguments for good now. Here's a stills camera aimed at photographers at the expense of videographers, and its 50% more expensive than their more mass-market D600/D610. It's gonna double the street price of the 6D, which is the same size and has video.

No video makes it more niche, which makes it more expensive

Um, can't really compare Df to D610, Df doesn't have D610 guts, it's got D4 guts at less than half the price.

 

[7enderbender]

If I were a Nikon afficionado, for the same price, why would I buy a Df over a D800?

Because you already own a D800 and D800E? I think this is marketed to wealthy hobbyists.

I know next to nothing about the Nikon system, but I think the appeal here may be that this camera is compatible with all the old Nikkor lenses. Something that Nikon had moved away from for all practical purposes on their more recent pro level cameras? Again, I'm not sure about this.

If this were the case it would make me sad in a way since this will never ever be a reasonable option for Canon. I have a bag full of nice old FD glass. I never liked the EOS/AF approach and only bought into it since with digital there was no other Canon choice available. And I didn't want to go the Nikon route a few years back because there are some Canon lenses for which Nikon doesn't have an equivalent. And a few other reasons at the time.

But had this thing been around and if it really takes old MF lenses without compromises (again, not sure about that) I would have had a very close look at this. I hope it's successful and hits a nerve with people who are sick of the spaceship cameras with touch screens and plastic lenses. I hope it's a trend because I would love to shoot again with a camera like that. Does it "take better pictures"? No. That was never the question. Remember the days when every camera loaded pretty much the same film? So that's not the point. It's how well a camera feels and handles and if you are happy to bring it along often.

 

[RustyTheGeek]

I skimmed this thread and honestly, my heads hurts a little. I can already see this thread going off into all kinds of rants. Frankly, I love the retro stuff. I'll likely never sell my little AE-1 kit either. And I would love to have my 5D3 or 6D crammed inside of my AE-1. Or maybe a rangefinder. It would be sooo cool.

But that isn't going to happen and some of you may remember my own little rant a year ago about wanting a simple non-video low-res DSLR dedicated to photography. And now, here it is from Nikon for an insane price. And as much as I would love to see this from Canon, I have to admit that the Nikon is pretty silly mostly because of the insane price.

So my revised wish would be to have a 6D or 60D crammed into the old retro AE-1 Program body and priced around the same price or less of a 6D or 60D if it were APS-C. That would be fun. That's all. Fun. For those with disposable income that want a nostalgic fun camera. Don't beat me up about whether adding video costs more or not, recovering R&D budgets, market segments, etc.

It would just be fun to see and I might even buy one if it used my current lenses and flash.

 

[AvTvM]

More faulty logic: you are still assuming that video costs extra,

You got it wrong. I don't care in at all, how much it costs a camera maker to add video capability to a DSLR (it does cost something). ALL I am saying is, that camera makers should CHARGE more for dual purpose gear compared to single purpose gear.

They should sell all cameras in a video-enabled version and a video disabled version. Video disabled version at significantly lower price. Video-enabled version at much higher price, but still much lower than combined cost of a stills and a video camera. That would be fair. That way, those who clamour for additional usage and functionality in a camera that is NOT required by many (stills photographers) would be made to pay for their part of the ride.

It's like going on a cruise ... passage in cabin with sea view does not cause (significantly) higher cost to the cruise company than passengers in a "inner" cabin. But the price charged is hugely different. Simply, because users of the outward cabin get extra functionality/pleasure.