Tonight Nikon will announce announced the "revolutionary" Nikon DF Camera. By "revolutionary" I mean that they have taken a full frame sensor from a current digital DSLR and put it into a non-ergonomic retro body and removed many features, including video. Are we excited about this camera because of the photography we will be able to capture with it or are we excited because we will look trendy and fashionable holding it?
Due to the fact that many people are not finishing this article before attacking me for "Hating Nikon" I want to make it clear that I love Nikon and I honestly do not hate this camera. I look forward to reviewing it in the near future and I might even eventually own one. In this post I simply want to highlight that it's becoming trendy to be a photographer and cameras like this may be appealing to us as photographers for the wrong reasons.
Ergonomics
Let's first talk about ergonomics. Cameras look the way they do today because they have been made to fit comfortably in your hand. I've never heard a professional photographer complain that a camera was too big or too heavy. It has always been really strange to me that this whole micro 4/3 explosion has happened because I feel like I have a pretty decent camera built into my cell phone. If I want to take a professional picture, then I'm going to grab my professional camera. If I want to take a snap shot I'm going to pull out my phone. This of course does not apply to those of us who are travel photographers and who need a great camera that is easy to wear all day or throw in a back pack. The thing that you have to remember about the DF is that it is a full frame 35mm camera meaning that it is going to take the same massive lenses that a D4 takes. So please don't try to tell me you need a DF because it's so easy to travel with and then strap a 70-200mm to it. There is also no way that holding this camera with your fingers will ever be more comfortable than a full-handed grip on today's cameras.
Buttons: Digital vs Mechanical
I personally hate the button layout on prosumer Nikon cameras because they combine incredibly important buttons like ISO or White Balance with other functions. These layouts force you to hold one button on one side of the camera and rotate a knob on the other side. You'll notice that on the DF the white balance button is being shared by the "lock" function. The one thing that does intrigue me about the Nikon DF layout is that ISO and shutter speed are on physical rotater knobs.
You could make the argument that these physical knobs are easier and faster to deal with than a digital LCD and I might agree with you. Obviously I won't know until I try it but I still have to imagine that the Nikon D4's buttons were chosen with speed in mind. If physical knobs were faster, they would be in use today right? Due to the fact that current lenses do not have manual apertures anymore, the digital thumb knob will be in charge of changing your F-stop. That being said I wish that they could have made all 4 of the major settings (SS, F-Stop, ISO, and WB) all physical knobs to continue the theme of the camera as well as allow the user to know all of the settings at a glance, even when the camera was off. I think it's safe to say that this camera's buttons were not chosen with ergonomics or speed in mind, they were chosen to make it look like an old camera.
The Manual Shutter Release Cable
Do you know why older cameras had a mechanical shutter release cables? Because they hadn't invented better technology like self timer, infrared, or radio triggers.
When I saw a picture of this camera being used with a physical shutter release cable it was proof that my theory was correct: so many people don't care about pictures anymore, they just want to be "photographers." Using an outdated/obsolete device to take a picture makes you more of an artist today. This product exists to appeal to the same people who have gone out and bought film cameras recently because they are "too artistic" to use digital like everyone else. Instead of its intended purpose (to help with camera shake), a simple shutter release cable has now become the next trendy thing to use to look fashionable.
It Doesn't Shoot Video
You may not shoot video, you may not care about video, you may hate that still photography and video are merging. It doesn't matter what your opinion on video is, the fact is that removing features from a product does not make a product "revolutionary." If Nikon had a logical reason why this camera couldn't shoot video then I would be fine with it but we all know with a simple software update the camera could shoot amazing video like every other DSLR. I can guarantee you that version 2 of this camera will have video and it will make the resale value of the first camera go down and it will make the next one worth buying. Video is the future and I think that every still camera (aside from ultra high end cameras) from now on should have at least some sort of video option. If we keep moving in this direction we'll have a $5000 digital pinhole camera in a few years.
Why Is This Camera Exciting To You
When I first saw this camera I have to admit that I was excited, and for many reasons I still am. But I had to ask myself why? Is this camera going to help me take better pictures? Is my photography business going to improve if I buy it? Am I only excited because this camera looks different than other current cameras, or does this product only appeal to me because it reminds me of the first camera I ever owned?
I don't want to be too harsh on the DF because I have no doubt it's going to take great images. This article wasn't written to bash the camera but rather the state of photography today. Maybe I will fall in love with this little guy once I get to use it. I could see it becoming ideal for traveling (with prime lenses) and I hope to be able to bring one with me to our workshop in the Bahamas. I'm honestly really excited that Nikon is doing something "different" but at the same time I would hate to see this camera, which I believe in many ways is a massive step backwards, become the best selling "pro" camera simply because it looks cool. We buy things every day because of the way they make us feel and that's fine. I believe this camera will bring a lot of people a lot of joy. I just don't want you to forget that we are supposed to enjoy photography, and not just being fashionable photographers.
This is just a half naked girl holding a prop. What's this got to do with your flimsy argument?
She is holding a camera as a fashion statement
This is such a terrible example to back up your argument. If she was holding a paintbrush, would you insult all artists who still use paint and a canvas when they could do their work on an iPad?
You need to be careful when you go off on a rant, tarnishing people who still love shooting film, for whatever those reasons maybe. If that wasn't your intention, then that's fine. But it certinaly didn't come across that way.
I'm not attacking people who shoot film. I'm attacking people who shoot film because it makes them feel cool. After writing this article and then reading the comments I realize that I don't like controversy very much. I think I'll go back to writing How Tos :)
Isn't one of our assistants now part of this shoot film cause it's cool group? Personally I prefer knowing my images are out of focus or over exposed rather than blowing a whole shoot.
a photographer trained and practiced in their craft never needed to see his images to know they were in focus and properly exposed in the past... (there were polaroid backs for extreme situations). i'm just confused that today's "professionals" need this extra reassurance...
Don't give up stating what you believe because hordes disagree with you.
I just watched the promo video of the older guy walking around a castle saying "every frame is meaningful again." I think that's the point....every frame is already meaningful if you want it to be. Nikon is simply selling you a new look and nothing else. If image quality and price are important, there really isn't a reason not to just buy a D800 which tests have shown out perform the D4 sensor.
I would purchase this camera in a heartbeat if it had the auto focus system like the D4 - that is the only deal breaker here.
Thank you Lee for saying what need to be said. I couldn't agree more with his article. This camera is a let down in more than one way to me. It is nothing more that a D610 repackaged in a retro body with a 16MP sensor. The Nikon DF brings nothing new to my camera bag that I can't get done with my D800. No justification for this camera to cost $2746.95. I'd be better off spending the money on glass or buying a D610.
I am in agreement with Lee also ... sad to say.
I will join in on this a little. The whole point of these cameras like the Fuji X100 is that you get the same FF image quality out of a smaller camera that can fit in your pocket. Well this camera appears to be almost the exact same size as a D600 or D800 without the grip. I'll be forgiving and say that this camera is small enough to fit in your pocket....but it still uses FX Lenses! So why is this any better than buying a D600 with a 50mm 1.8 lens? Maybe I'm crazy but holding onto ANY camera with an Fmount lens on it is still going to be cumbersome enough for me not to carry it around town....I might as well just carry my D600/D800 right?
This article represents everything that is wrong with photography.
This comment represents my opinion very much!
Agreed... Knock a camera all you want, but do so on the capability of its intent... Not on ones own bias toward whatever narrow field view that surrounds them.
I feel the camera itself is an odd path for Nikon and a missed swing, when they could have hit a homerun against Fuji, Sony and the like. But I'm not sure the attitude in this article properly expresses the point.
I'm sorry but I don't get it. Looking over the specs Nikon appears to be selling a retro look and nothing else -- heck, it even has a mechanical cable release = Granted, it is 'pretty', but unless it has some [as yet undisclosed] secret weapon I can't see investing in this thing -- especially at $2700 for just the body. Add some pocket change to that and you could buy a D800. =| Fail.
It has the same sensor as a D4... I think this is more than a bargain.
D600 and D800 sensor out performs D4 sensor if you want to get really nitpicky. Just compared the specs and the DF camera is larger than the D600 but slightly thinner....so yeah def not a smaller camera for travel.
Not really, define out perform? More dynamic range sure but how about ISO sensitivity, S/N Ratio and color reproduction? D4 is the flagship for a reason.
We did our own tests between the D800 and D4 and found the D800 had about a stop better ISO performance. Same thing was found by DxO....D800 is still one of the top performing sensors of any DSLR.
You have completely missed the point of the Nikon DF. In fact, most of the articles on the internet may have missed the point. The camera was meant to be simply a straight forward, down to earth camera that took you to the roots of photography, physical controls over the 3 main settings that directly affect the photograph. The DF so far, has achieved this.
Yuck, it records onto SD cards only!
i would love to have this because of the sensor, the light-weight body and the knobs/dials. i hate having to switch to P,M,A,S on an lcd screen. same with exposure control. all one needs to do is look at the top and its all laid out. no need to activate the LCD to see where its set. 5.5FPS? awesome. i'd trade my D800 for one of these in a second.
I'm a tech freak, but I much prefer physical clicks for my exposure settings, and cheap cables to the overpriced junk that the manufactures peddle as release cables. To me, it's a case where newer is not always better. I loathe video, and it would have been better without if but for one thing: the price! How can you charge nearly $3,000 for a camera that does very little better than the 610 and has fewer features? Nikon was SO close ... and I'm really against so much complaining and nitpicking. (I don't even give a crap about the supposedly awful grease spots on my D600.) I'm scratching my head a bit on this one.
@Lee Morris.
Horrible byline...you talk down to others about wanting clicks???
This article is everything that's wrong with FStoppers these days.
Would have expected better journalism from you. The article reads as arrogant and aggrandizing.
But I'm stunned that, according to you, a camera is "everything that's wrong with photography"
Brutal.
I'm a canon user and I think you're all wrong. This is a great camera: it is full frame, it is 16mp, it works with old lenses, it looks nice, it does not do video, what else? The only con is the price: in 6 month it will be US$1999 and everybody will be happy. It sure don't pretend to replace a D600 or d700 but it is made for another public.
$5000 for a pinhole camera? I better get to work on patents.
I will NOT buy this camera. Having said that, I LOVE this camera. I began learning about photography with my dad's Olympus OM-1. I still have it. So I love the idea that finally digital cameras have reached this point. It took quite awhile, relatively speaking, for Nikon or Canon to make "full frame" digital cameras. And by the time they did, the target audience was strictly professional level photogs. Yaddy, yaddy, yadda. For every reason imaginable I want this camera. BUT. I'm a filmmaker now, not a photographer. As much as I want this thing, I simply can not justify spending the money on this. So, sadly, I will not buy this camera. Maybe I'll get a chance to try it though.
Lee, I read the whole article but I do think you are still missing the point here. Nikon isn't just indulging in a recent retro fad, or going backwards just to be cool. Nikon has had a long, long history and they're always proud of it. This isn't a recent fad for them, it is about the purity of the art form of still photo capture, it is about keeping traditions alive simply because you appreciate them.
You're right, why the heck would I use a mechanical cable release when I can simply program in my bulb shutter speeds into a $30 intervalometer? I'll probably use a wired elecronic remote (or maybe even the cheap IR one, if it's compatible) However it's still something that I can appreciate.
As a hobbyist and as a professional, I think there is a fine line between being a "photo hipster" who does something just to be popular, and simply enjoying something classic. I already know you understand and agree with this though LOL, I just wanted to make that initial point about Nikon's rich history being the reason behind the DF, NOT any silly recent fad.
While I agree and feel Nikon swung and missed with this one. I certainly would not get all high and mighty, trying to say this "represents everything wrong with photography". Such a statement is pompous at the least.
Even more so when you go beyond condemning the camera, to condemning an entire platform (m43).
There are cameras for all tastes and desires and more pop up every month. Your needs do not define mine or anyone else. Some people enjoy textile adjustments, some do not need or even want video, some enjoy the retro looks, some want mechanical shutter cables and some like the cookie cutter DSLRs from CaNikon. For that, I feel this represents much of what is great about photography....
For better or worse, more choices on the market results in a larger buffet for consumers... and we will always be hungry.
I agree with the article 100%
This is like buying a new car that's modeled like one from the 80's. Remove the airbags, jack up the price and you have yourself an automobile that only hipsters and morons would drive.
Loose the arrogance, price and build its a kick butt camera, you dont like it dont get one that simple.
I somewhat agree with this. As I don't like people who get old cameras then think they're amazing just cause they're retro. Especially because I live in a university town and there are so many hipsters on our campus that are like that. I know some who are talented and a great many more who frankly just aren't.
but on the car reference... I think it's like a Caterham 7. based on the Lotus 7 and is totally retro and is very basic in car terms taking away a lot of modern car amenities. But its still a great car loved and chosen by many for that simple fact because its timeless, works, and just a great load of fun!
Also this would just be so much better it it had split prism focus screen. then it truly would be retro and much more worth buying! but maybe thats just me.
I concur @gunnarrathbun:disqus !Not so much that it would be more worth buying but it seems a fail to have passed over the inclusion of such a wonderful system.
Have you seen the screens from http://www.katzeyeoptics.com ? If not worth a look....
LOL at all the idiots getting so upset over this article. Lee is not classifying all film shooters as hipsters, that fact is there are a lot of ppl buying old film cameras to be cool, and this is evidenced in fashion magazines too, much like in the pic Lee posted in the comments.
As far as "evevything wrong with photography" - Im sure it was tongue in cheek, you guys really need to get some air..
I really dont know why so many people are offended by this article. You got a problem? Ignore the article, people like Shawn saying "Get over yourselves.." wow man, you need to chill out.
This is a great camera. But its not. It doesn't serve a purpose, it just look cool but other than that isn't useful. The reason you buy a D4 and its inferior sensor to the 800 or 600 is because you need speed.You buy a D800 or D600 as you want the best image quality but don't need amazing speed (although they are pretty damn fast, although if you're shooting some super fact sport than hasn't been invented yet, you might need speed). So here, you are paying more than a D600, for lesser IQ, lesser speed, and no video? Excuse me?
Marketed towards older people who learned to use camera's in the 80s? Nah. Also the car example of Caterham doesn't work, the idea of a car like that is to be simple, raw, mechanial, no electronics, just you and the car, your skill, no aids, you can feel what the car does which is more fun.
I would argue that full manual control in a camera gets in the way of making a photo, the best camera would be one that can read your thoughts and adjust itself, failing that, auto works a lot of the time and allows you to concentrate on the image, not the camera settings. However, adjusting things yourself is definitely more fun.
Whats to stop people with current cameras "thinking" about their photographs, rather than machine gunning? So that whole argument is dumb too.
I have an X100 and I love it, but hate it at the same time. But it is the camera I take everywhere with me. A nikon competitor to that, or the X pro 1, would have been amazing.
Nikon missed the mark here. The camera is too big for a fun camera to take around with you. Look at the FM and FE etc that this DF is supposedly based on. They are tiny, and "full frame".
IMO, a DX sized sensor, with this styling with controls laid out (which I do prefer over wheels), in a compact bod the size of an F3 would be ideal. That allows you to keep lense sizes down. I suspect the size of this camera is a result of engineering, i.e. it had to be this big for an FX sensor.
Make it DX, $1599, retro styled, simple, and you have a winner. Or $2000, FX, and smaller! It literally fails at what its trying to achieve as it stands.
I would argue that the editor misses one crucial point. Photography in the way he describes it, is mainly performed by pros when it's all about making money. In that case ergonomics, efficiency and speed are of utmost importance.
But I guess there are a lot of folks out there who don't care about the aforementioned traits but rather enjoy holding a pseudo-old-fashioned device in their hands. It doesn't make any sense at all but makes the owner feel good. And happy customers are willing to spend money.
Following the editors rationale all photographers would ditch their iPads in favor of a SurfacePro because the MS product lends itself so much more to the needs of pro photography. However the iPad will probably stay the tool-of-choice for quite a while. Rationale behind ?
I'd be lying if I said part of my wasn't very interested in this camera. But on the other hand, no matter how I try to justify it - whether on the basis of the appeal for a 'simpler' return to pure photography, or whatever - in reality, for me, those are thinly-veiled masks for one thing: it looks cool because it's a vintage throw-back, and I'll bet it feels fun to shoot with. Those can be valid, important points. But the reality is - I'm trading off less features, worse ergonomics (c'mon. there is no denying that were modern DSLRs worse ergonomically, this basic design would have never changed), and intentionally stunted performance so that it doesn't cannibalize D4 sales.
Were another product to release a 'revamped' classic along the same lines, would we really bite at this price compared to the modern equivalent? I think that's the point of the article... I'm sure it has good image quality. But if Nikon released a D4 sensor in a D600 body, with no video, and charged this price... what exactly would be the point, unless it was COOL to be RETRO.
I give you... the Nikon Tf!
http://gallery.photo.net/photo/17587213-lg.jpg
wrong with photography ? isn't photography basically "taking pictures" ? ah c'mon.. every photographer has its own path to happiness (actually every person has it), if this can be one then it's welcome. This is a tool, is it good to accomplish your job ? is it enough for your needs or for your client's needs? does it make you feel good when you use it ? then why not ? It's a lovely camera.
Lee, a real (i mean pro) photographer won't be appealed by a camera for wrong reasons.
Only an amateur will and fulfill Nikon's goal, fill the cash tray. So good move Nikon.
It's precisely it's look and lack of video that makes this a Camera! This is what the first D series should have looked like. For my money it should have gone from F3 to F5 (missing out the F4) to this the Df I am a big fan of the D3. It will be my next camera (again missing out the D4) for precisely the points I have made in my book, this camera will set a new standard in digital photography.
no it will not as many reviews pointed out already.
cumbersome to handle.. just looks no benefits.
a camera for simpletons with more money then brains....
Many valid points, however, IMO, this is NOT a professional camera (i.e. one AIMED at working professionals), it is a camera aimed at enthusiasts who are hooked on the FF image benefits (like myself). For me, taking a picture is an experience to be enjoyed, and not just a means to an end (to earn cash). In that respect, I think that the Df is hopefully fit for purpose. You want speed, reliability and super IQ that keeps you in business? then go for a D3s / D4 etc...
Nikon should be applauded for producing this camera and giving us all a wider (FF) choice. (Although the biggest applause should go to Fuji for getting this (practical) retro ball rolling albeit in APSC). Personally, I'd go one step further to cut down on the bulk, get rid of the rear display; if I need to review images in the field (NOT as a pro), I'd rather have the option to do so on my nfc / wifi enabled phablet - how's that for revolutionary and controversial! (and for some totally stupid perhaps, but maybe not for others). Viva the choice!
it´s a camera aimed at FASHION FREAKS...period.
we are in a world of photographs (photographers), without photographs(photographers)
They don't know how to make survive dsrl and photography in general....
There is no difference between a pro and a non pro.This is not true only for very high end photography and art photography.
The future of photography is actually only in galleries and museum,i mean art photography.
smartphones will replace cameras soon and when will be easy ,fast,and economical to capture full frame high resolution photos from videos,even even Ap photographers will be out of work.
That will happen sooner then we think.
I will never buy a camera like this or a digital leica.
Or you *could* spend a couple of hundred dollars on a used Nikon FM kit
& shoot a couple of thousand dollars worth of 35mm film.
You've GOT to be kidding me. "I'm cool because my camera looks old"?? This BS coming from the site, and most of the writers, who strictly adhere to "I'm cool because I have an Apple device". You really have no right to bash anything from the trendy bandwagon angle.
Arguing a point with false logic doesn't advance your opinion. If you really believe Apple products offer nothing but trendy bandwagon cred, you're blind. I've been a Mac user for years, and it has nothing to do with trends. Unix based Mac OS X is far superior to any Microsoft/Linux offering for creative pros. Stability, security, memory handling, multi tasking--it's a superior platform from almost every angle.
I didn't exactly say that, but you did so it must be in the back of your mind. You seem pretty defensive. Apple products are good for people who are less savvy consumers, and users of the particular products. There were better offerings for mp3 players, better TV interfaces, far better computers, and better phones. We're now seeing Apple copy features of devices that have been around for years, and the less knowledgeable consumer and Apple zealot, shouts from the rooftops about it. The rest of us are just surprised features weren't already there, and can't wrap our heads around why someone would pay a premium for less features and control. The debate will never end as long as people aren't informed. Apple products are "ok". There has never been a case of someone on the computer side being correct about them being easier to use or more reliable, certainly not more powerful. It's not an opinion, it's a fact. I've been using both for ages and when there's a problem with Apple hardware, it's a huge pain to deal with, and happens just as often as other machines. I just had a component fail in a system that's been running for 7 years straight. The fix cost me $130 and about 20 minutes of my time. I'm good for another 7 years at least. Good luck swapping a part on an Apple. My studio tried. They told us we had to buy a new one. You can't just swap this part? "Nope,. we're Apple *#&% you." Sure, what's another $2,500 for an uninformed consumer? People saying "PC's don't work", are buying $500 all in one units from a retail store, and don't know how to use a computer to begin with. Limiting options doesn't equal better performance or reliability.
You're just wrong because you're uninformed on the topic. Simple as that.
Your assumptions about me are staggering. I'm an IT professional. I manage tech, Windows, Mac, and Linux for 25 schools in New York City. I code in Java, C++, Cocoa, and Ruby. I have a double degree in literature comp sci from a top 10 university. I'm not uninformed. It is universally acknowledged by people in my industry that unix based systems--like Mac OSX--are more stable and secure. Dispute it, call me stupid and all the other things you want, it's an indisputable fact. I never said PC's don't work, all my PC's work just fine. But my Macs require far less intermittent maintenance--both at home and in my business. Occasionally repairs are more expensive, even prohibitively so, but when the logic board on my windows server fails, it's usually not worth the cost of repair either if it's 7 years old and can be replaced by an upgraded unit. Whoever advocates for "your studio" at the apple store isn't earning their money either. I worked for Apple for 5 years. Laptops are repaired for a slat rate of $249 or $349 unless there's accidental damage. Desktops are repaired on a cost per part basis. If the MLB on a 7 yr old Mac Pro died, then yeah, it's probably not worth repairing. Putting a $900-$1000 part into a 7 year old tech machine usually isn't, Windows or Mac. You (1) have some serious anger issues in your response and (2) don't seem nearly informed as you proclaim. Seriously, what kind of pro studio is crying over a 7+ yr old machine?!?! Haha. Oh man... You're funny. And so angry.