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.
HAHAHAHAHA. HAHAHAHAHA. HAHAHAHAH OH MAN HAHAHAHA...
I don't know where you're getting angry. People mistake confidence for anger a lot, maybe that's what you're picking up on because I'm not angry at all. I never said a pro studio was relying on a 7 year old TECH machine to run the business on, or even that it had any connection with any studio in existence. I didn't even say it was a photo studio. I've never had a virus, spyware, whatever security issues you refer to on any PC for the last 20 years (and I've been to some shady places). It couldn't be simpler to avoid such things. I don't even know if I have a virus scanner active on this thing. Apple computers on the other hand, there's a crash screen in about a dozen languages.
You're full of assumptions yourself. You assume I'm at a (likely) failing "pro photo studio" that's keeping around a system with 7 year old performance parts, probably full of duct tape. What I actually said, was the part was 7 years old system needed to be replaced. It's seen a couple different PC systems and saved me a ton of money over the years. You don't just throw a PC out the window and refinance your house for a new one. The "7 year old tech machine" you refer to outspecs anything at the studio for a fraction of the cost. I'm open minded and I want the best. When it's time to completely replace a system or add one, I've looked into Apple computers. For less money I can take a couple hours and slap together a PC that crushes it and makes me more productive for years.
My original statement still holds true my dear friend. *kisses & hugs*. Internet pals 4eva xxoo
Talking about unnecessary features. It all depends on how you like to work. Personally I can think of some features that should be ADDED to the cameras, rather then current ones removed to make it "retro". Want some examples?
1) After focussing, my camera knows the distance to the subject, the aperture and the focal width. So, why couldn't it calculate the DOF for me?! "DOF front 2.5m, DOF back 8.8m" right there on your camera display, how cool would that be!
2) I avoid auto-ISO for the fear it might jump outside my preferred range. But if I could set that range myself, I would definitely use it all the time. Actually the same would be useful for aperture and shutterspeed as well. So if you are shooting a concert, you'd set your iso range from 1600 to 4000, your aperture from F/2.8 to F/8, and the shutter from 1/80s to 1/125s.
Sorry for being a little OT. But curious to hear, what others think about the ideas...
The one aspect of these retro looking cameras that really appeals to me is the dials. I cut my teeth on old rangefinders and SLR's and dials on the top of the body and on the lens barrel are second nature. I really couldn't give a hoot what it looks like.
I personally think it was a bold (and quite a risky) move of Nikon to spend the time and resources in R&D to design, develop, and market such a product at an age when everyone is concerned about megapixels, high ISO capabilities and 4K 120fps video. But then again, if these are your concerns when buying a camera, this camera isn't for you (and Nikonn knows it). Without sounding like Donald Draper, what this camera sells - above all else - is a feeling. The way it makes you feel with its metal body, retro design, and manual controls. The typography on the dials alone spurs up feelings of nostalgia for many of us. The "Pure Photography" videos illustrate this perfectly. It's not about spray-and-pray shooting. It's about thinking, it's about composing, it's about setting your exposure manually, and perhaps even focus, and then - and only then - taking the shot.
This camera isn't for a striving videographer. It's not for a wedding shooter, or a fashion photographer. This camera isn't for a wildlife photographer with 800mm lens. And this camera, most certainly, isn't for the budget conscious.
This camera is for a niche market, a market which Leica has appealed to successfully (and profitably) for decades by selling bodies like the M9 for $5000.
This camera encourages effort with every shot, and I for one, applaud Nikon for diversifying the photographic landscape with such a unique little gem.
http://www.michaelkormosphotography.com
I think you are missing a serious point; many of us own these cameras not to make us better photographer but to have the pleasure of owning many toys; the idea is fascinating and worth the price. The joy of holding this machine is what makes this a good buy. I can bet you Nikon will sell out easily.
Currently my full frame equipment is only FM2 and FE. For me an ideal camera would b a fully mechanical operated one except the digital sensor. Like a Mamiya RB67 with a digital back but in 35mm format and sized.
Being an oldster and having begun photography before most of the current batch of 'kool kids', I have owned F1s FMs and many high end film cameras. I agree that the modern DSLRs are a world apart from the old days. I see this a Nikon's answer to the Fuji craze for retro-sales. Some see a camera as a fashion statement, not a tool and this release, in my view, answers that faux image. No matter baby's cry nothing new there.
Thank you for saying what was on my mind, Lee. I agree with you wholeheartedly.
Sweet contrarian opinion, bro. Thankfully you are not the arbiter of all industrial designs and those that want to use this product because it's a flipping mini D4 can do so.
Very well said.
ATTENTION ALL PHOTOGRAPHERS (professional and otherwise): Get over yourselves. This is a single tool in a pool of many options. Create how you best can. Let others do the same. Its just a camera for crying out loud.
Somethings aren't measured in increased sales, ergonomics or outright performance.
I love my old Canon AE-1 for the simplicity of it. This is their attempt at bringing back simplicity in photography. No bells and whistle, no bluetooth or radio trigger included.
This, is clearly adressed at people who DON'T make a living out of photography. It's for people who don't have their camera in their hands 12h a day for a wedding.
You are missing the point completely.
EDIT: I'm sure you feel the same way with the retro looks of Mustangs,Chargers and the like? Same philosophy here. Execpt Nikon has better build quality than those retro cars...
This is one of the reasons I don't read this site or Petapixel... most of the articles go for shock value rather than quality of content. I think you represent everything that's wrong in the language used to write this article:
You see the problem is that you are too worried about what everyone else do instead of worrying of what you do, let people be and let them make the choices they want, you aren't them, you don't know them, you don't know why they choose different than you.
You are giving far too much weight to the relevance of a bunch of electronics, metal, plastic and glass, you think you won't be a pro if you don't shoot a "pro" camera and that IS the real problem with photography today: too much weight on the gear we use little weight on our brains and creativity.
But there are facts that you have skipped that may be what people look: easy and fast access to ISO, Shutter speed, Exp compensation, drive modes, etc. which is way faster than doing ISO button presses with dial rotation combinations, the fact the camera can get 1400 shots on a single battery charge, or the fact that even when it is smaller it is all magnesium alloy with weather sealing?
Also the fact that you take so much interest on what other people use to shoot, I'm sorry but is there an international law that forbids people to shoot professionally with a m4/3 camera? or with an APS-C sensor? or using a mirrorless? or using a camera without vertical grip? or using a camera without video features? or using Nikon? Or Canon? Or Pentax? Or Sony?
The problem is that you are trying to set an standard that can't be set, we aren't you, we don't use the same tools as you, we don't do things like you do simply because we are different people. But your I can perceive your background is gear centric, yo
BTW a physical shutter release won't need batteries ;), nor will it have issues with frequency interferences ;) nor it will have problems connecting because one of the pins is bent or dirty ;).
The most laughable fact is that YOU were the one who did the article and video http://fstoppers.com/iphone following the trend of people shooting "pro stuff" with their Iphones... Really? Reeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeally???
I am interested in renting this camera to see how the retro controls work out. I remember old film cameras where rotating those knobs on the left side were a choir because I always had to look at them to verify setting. It'll be interesting to see if that's the case here.
As for retro that works: I really enjoy the Fuji X100S.
But, if Nikon built this camera to drawn in people who like this sort of styling who would otherwise hold off on buying a DSLR, that's great. Hopefully it is well designed enough to prove to be a camera worth owning long term.
This article is everything that's wrong with photography.
My 35 year old Olympus Trip 35RC has a mechanical self-timer. The mechanical shutter release is there for a different reason. There are occasions when a wired cable release is preferable to an infra-red or radio trigger. It's simple technology that always works.
This camera might be a hit, or it might not be. Thousands of people have been waiting for a D300 replacement though (the elusive and ethereal D400), so wouldn't it have made more sense to produce a sure thing?
They failed on everything except the sensor in it, wich is great ! If they wanted to go the Fuji X way for example wich is more "pure photography" than this (though this term doesn't mean nothing at all), they didn't understand nor created the good concept. In the case of Fuji, everything (ok almost everything) is thought as retro, not only the stylish of the cameras. I have a Fuji X100s along other bodies of other brand and I really can tell it's a different experience than shooting with my 7d and 5d, and this experience is more enjoyable IMO.
Nikon just mixed things that won't melt en a good way. The back of the camera is similar to modern cameras like the D800, so it kinda negates the use of the knobs on the top plate...
Strange frankencamera that is !!
wow... someone needs to get out and start shooting, and perhaps learn a bit more about the craft and history before coming up with statements like this. Fine for a personal FB post, but certainly not what's expected on this forum. Be critical is fine, but I would expect fStopper to at least be intelligent.
Good Article, maybe to a general title but you have good points.
I agree with everything said in this article.... but i still want one cause they look cool hahah
At that price I doubt people will get it just to "look cool".
While I agree the number of knobs on this baby is overkill, I do love me some retro loving.. though for the right balance between retro style and shooting ergonomics, I still love my Fuji systems (X100s and the X-E1) more than this...
As someone who's 50 to 100 year old "outdated/obsolete" (yet still functioning) camera's enabled me to keep shooting when my "modern/super fancy feature fest" just up and stopped working and had to go away for 8 weeks, I take issue with the "just wanting to be photographers" statement. Some people learn the old ways to understand the new ways.
The look and feel of a photograph are paramount, but the look and feel of a camera is irrelevant? Seems like an artist might appreciate a tool -because- it looks different. Anything that changes the process at all is good in my opinion. In an industry where aesthetics is all, should function trump form?
I don't shoot video, and don't care to. What I know is this: I am getting a D4 still camera for less than half the price of a D4. Okay, I can't shoot 11 FPS. I don't need 11 FPS. I need the sensor and the processing engine. I need to be able to shoot with my 30 year old AI and AI-S lenses. Everything else is a wash. I'd love a D4, but I prefer to carry two bodies. As a non-professional who can't deduct the cost of gear from my taxes, I can't justify purchasing 2 $6000.00 bodies when I can get the same image quality out of something half the price. My very old D2h feels great in my hand, and I'm sure the D4 would also, but short of winning the lottery, I cannot justify that kind of expense.
D800 for the win?
I love nikon but as a professional it would be hell using it's knobs at a wedding coverage
"Video is the future..."
That is what is wrong. It's not.
This camera is the proverbial middle finger to such, saying we HAVE to become both in this day and age to be relevant.
Sometimes revolutions are fought over because of philosophy, maybe this is the beginning of that.
Suspended animation is why we do what we do, not literal animation.
Video dictates the pace to the viewer. A still photograph, you as the viewer are free to explore on your own, at your own pace. Look at it for 10 seconds, 10 minutes, 10 hours or over time after 10 years.
Again, I see this move as a philosophical statement more than technology or calculated business move. If it is, as I suspect, Nikon has the largest cujones and have only deepend my respect for them.
I like this article almost as much as I dislike this camera.
The manual shutter release cable doesn't require batteries, it's more than just the look. At least a bit.
Retro sells.
Next stop a retro iPhone at $1500, with no touch screen and 1.3 Mp camera.
Nice article, great title.
lee ..... you must be deaf...... 'no pro or other complains that the camera is too big or heavy' Really? Anyway, have the balls to say what you think without making excuses, if you don't like the direction photography is going in, in certain cases just say so.... it's your right. Like you I have not seen it to use, yes I could buy one, but and being a Nikon user, I agree it may deliver, it may appeal at some time but it 'do' appear 'trendy-first' anyway.... what has been good in the past is how you speak your mind.... don't let that slip
Everything mentioned in the article is accurate.
Ergonomics are awful, the price is absurd, and it STILL doesn't have an EVF or split prism. It's just another DSLR. Anyone who get's this claiming they want something small or light for travel photography is kidding themselves.
I recall with great fondness my Nikon FE, Nikkormat, F3 and other classics I owned. If the iso rotator seems weird, it is only because they were standard features a long time ago. I have always missed the rotating shutter dial, and I learnt the bread and butter on my FE. As a pro, I would not trade my d800 for this for work, as work is work, and features count when you least expect them at times. But this is the camera that is for the nostalgics amongst us. However, this is the camera I'd take on a vacation, and love every time I turned those dials, as it reminds me of the roots, the hooked me on Nikon in the first place. If you have never used the early Nikons, then this camera will seem foreign to you, however, if you pick it up one day and try it, it may also be the first time you 'fall in love' with a Nikon camera as such. Time will tell!
Whats wrong with Photography? Not a damn thing! I am a 40+ year Nikon shooter. As a pro we depend on our D3, D3s (2) D800 and D7000 for our daily workflow. And I still like the familiar feel of our F3 and FM2 film cameras. This new Df body from Nikon will appeal to a wide selection of shooters that admire the quality and ruggedness of the old film bodies, me included. With 4 very capable digital cameras all capable of video we find that video is not a priority in our business. Case in point, my go to camera is the D3s and it has shot no video in years. The Df is not too small for my large hands as the F3 still fits beautifully.
As I read (and in dumbfounded amazement re-read) this piece I wonder how an expert such as yourself find justification in dictating what the photography consumer does and does not want, like, need, or appreciate. I find issue with almost every point in your article. Photographers are an independent and artistic breed, and in being so will all differ in their choice of cameras, lenses, gear and do-dads. So let the camera makers creative juices flow and let us vote on what we like and don't like with our pocket books. I for one love the look and assume will love the feel of the new Df. As a pro, will I find a business need for the new Nikon? Probably not. But as a photographer lover with a passion for the craft and art, it my become my new personal favorite.
YOU MISSED THE BOAT MY FRIEND.
The premise and tone of your article leads me to think that it was geared towards photographers that make a living from photography, not the broader group of people that enjoy taking photographs (pros, amateurs, hobbyists, etc). Your critique of the ergonomics/button/dials again comes from a professional standpoint as well (Df not designed for comfort or speed). So you kinda missed the boat here. It's NOT a camera to be used in a professional capacity. Was never supposed to be.
It's clear that Nikon made this camera for different albeit retro experience of shooting with the benefits of digital. But that's something that appeals to all photographers because we're all human! Think of it this way: shucking oysters, cracking open a lobster, the sound of a car engine when you rev it up shift gears, the smell of bacon. All these things illustrate how one's senses positively affect one's experience. In the case of this camera, it's the tangible experience Nikon is tapping into.
Nikon should have used the phase "EXPERIENCE PHOTOGRAPHY" not, Pure Photography.
This is a better answer I think...http://www.lighting-essentials.com/whats-wrong-with-photography-nothing-...
I believe the author of this opinion article should just do that: stick to his opinion. Let me explain.
It's interesting to notice that he titled this piece "The Nikon DF Represents Everything Wrong With Photography" and ends up stepping back from that notion featured by covering his (future Df reviewer) back writing things like "I look forward to reviewing it in the near future and I might even eventually own one" and "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".
How can he envision owning such an expensive camera if, in his own analysis of the camera features, he believes that it is lacking in terms of "ergonomics", "buttons" and "video"? And that, ultimately, he is not excited anymore about this Nikon outing?
Personally, with opinion articles like these that are not incisive and unapologetic about a major player in the photo industry is like giving a green card for these companies to continue to shell out such, in my opinion, poor products like the Nikon Df.
The reason why, in my opinion, retro looking products lacking in innovative and current expected features (improved ergonomy and user experience,video, Gps, wifi, etc) are somewhat a sales success is because they aren't reviewed or discussed truthfully in major photography related sites, exibiting fully their flaws to the consumer. Not (enterily) because they are "trendy"..
How can someone in these days of economic uncertainty and restraint be ok with a feature stripped camera that costs about 3000 $ (!!) just because it has a design that is a throwback to a "classic" and supposedly more "artful" era??
Incredible as it may be for "purists" or "trenders" I prefer the design of such products like the D800 and D4...
If I was a street, travel photographer, I would love this camera. Having all the dials and the LCD screen on top, you can see and set all your settings. Still think it should be $1K less though....
I absolutely love to bits my Nikon D3, but is a heavy beast to be lugging around the streets of Budapest...my Fujifilm x100s is outstanding in many respects and means my D3 is now my studio camera. The tools need to fit the work, if people have a need (a practical or aesthetic one) for a lighter, stripped back retro looking camera then Nikon are gonna sell enough of this model to make a tidy profit. You don't like its looks or specs...then pass it by.
I cannot be more agree with you. A great camera is the one that helps to capture great photos, not the one which looks great.
http://www.lighting-essentials.com/whats-wrong-with-photography-nothing-...
Well I believe you are not attacking Nikon or the DF. If not revolutionary it is in a way evolutionary. It fits more technology into a smaller package. What you really seem to disapprove of is other people trying to look like "real" photographers with their new retro expensive camera when they are only ameateurs and can not be differentiated from you the serious professional photographer.
The problem is, it doesn't fit "more technology" in "a smaller package". It's supposedly not even really smaller than the D600, that's part of what makes it so weird. It may look smaller, especially in silver, because the top and bottom caps produce an illusion of film-body contours.
Remember that Nikon didn't even include this camera in the same category as the D800 D610 or even the D7100, its in a class all its own not made for what the D4 or D800 were made to do.
This camera will make money for Nikon because there is a demand for this retro type of product. Whether it is good for photography doesn't really matter to Nikon if it is going to make a profit. And even before their analysts and researchers read all the reviews and feedback I bet they already have plans to make a DF2 with a bigger sensor and video so that all of those enthusiasts and professionals with enough money that weren't sucked into buying the DF will buy the DF2. Which I might have to start saving for now because it does really remind me of the Spotmatics is had when I first started photography, and my D70 is very beat up and falling apart and has less pixels than my phone.
that camera really is a thing of beauty! and i'm a Canon shooter....
I was about to move to canon (and i still might) until I saw this camera, this one might not be right for me but I feel like they will put out another one like it.
I guess people were hoping for Nikon to produce the DSLR that would be what Olympus's OM-1 was for film cameras; instead, they made the D600 a bit worse.
For crying out loud, I could have a D800 plus the very same lens that's on the Df (minus the tacky cosmetics) for so much less than the Df that I could also get a second battery, battery grip, and a cable release before hitting the Df kit preorder price.
Oh, and I already have a 50/1.8, so I could drive somewhere nice to take photos and still come up cheaper.