advertisement


Nikon Df

Cheers, Cliff.

(Yes, I'm living vicariously through you.) :)

Joe
 
Yes, thank you Cliff from myself too,

I am tempted by the Df but I feel the need to wait a little in the forlorn hope that the price with reduce.

I wonder how the AI era lenses will perform vs modern era lenses.
 
clivem2 said:
I wonder how the AI era lenses will perform vs modern era lenses.
Click to expand...

There's not much change in the optical formula between the 35/1.4 AIS and the current AF-S one, aside from Nano coating. The same is true of the 85mm lenses. The 58/1.4 AF-S is a similar formula to the Noct Nikkor from the AIS era. Essentially, if you use a top of the range AIS lens from the 70s or 80s it'll produce a similar image to an AF-S lens from the naughties.
 
One unscientific test coming up: Three cameras, each mounted with 50mm F1.2 AIS lens. All cameras set to ISO3200. Manual focus using focus confirm in viewfinder based on the patterned bauble right of centre. Conversion from RAW in CS6 and Silver eFex Pro2. All three resized to the same 2000px wide (which helps the D800 with sharpness more than the other 2 I think) The Df was slightly easier to operate when focussing, the D7100 was the hardest of the three. In terms of the resulting sharpness, that's obvious, I think:

1) D800

D800.jpg


2) D7100

D7100.jpg


3) Df

Df.jpg
 
The difference in bokeh is quite large. I was looking at the books on the lhs, addmitedly just on my tablet screen. The D800 seems to come out worst.
 
interesting, for me its the glass bauble on the left with the stars on that shows what the D4's sensor in the Df is all about
 
cliffpatte said:
interesting, for me its the glass bauble on the left with the stars on that shows what the D4's sensor in the Df is all about
Click to expand...

Now that I look at that I agree that aspect is clear to see. My tablet screen is not great for this analysis vs my big screen at home.
 
Cliff,

I think the plane of focus is subtlety different from camera to camera to camera.

2lo6sg6.jpg


Look at the ornament to the left of the reindeer. It looks to be variation in focusing rather than sensor differences.

Joe
 
Joe P said:
Cliff,

I think the plane of focus is subtlety different from camera to camera to camera.


Look at the ornament to the left of the reindeer. It looks to be variation in focusing rather than sensor differences.

Joe
Click to expand...

Yes that was the point of the test: all three cameras illuminated the focus confirm light when the selected focus point was on that bauble. I suspect the d800 has a cross type sensor on that point and the d7100 and DF have a horizontal or vertical one.

I'll play a bit more in natural light.
 
Tony L said:
Seems to be about a stop difference in exposure too, the DF image looking far darker to me.
Click to expand...

they were all set to autoexpose on the same setting, no subterfuge intended there. As I said earlier, it wasn't scientific, and I think this is what most users will find. Using one of the outer AF sensors on any of these cameras in low light to assist in focussing fast lenses like the 50/1.2 AIS will result in some hit and miss focussing, not to mention hit and miss exposure if using spot metering mode.

Generally speaking, cameras with pixel peeping contrast area illumination are easier to get razor sharp than those that rely on AF confirm in a given detector area.

The newest Sony manufactured hybrid sensors feature phase and contrast detection AF on the chip itself, rather than on a separate sensor like the Nikons.

So, the OM-D E-M1 is a heck of a lot easier to MF than the Df. The EM2 from Fuji is easier to MF than the X-Pro1 too.
 
I wasn't suggesting shenanigans at all, I just found it interesting that the DF produced a darker image. As you say it is likely to do with the very slight hit and miss of autofocus / auto exposure, even at this level of the market. I'm actually surprised by how large the differences are, e.g. the tree lights look very different pic to pic. Interesting, and when one thinks about it, quite logical that even a very small amount of focus error may impact exposure too as by making a bright highlight area slightly more defuse it may also make it slightly larger. I'd never thought about that.
 
Joe,

They commented that it only does 5.5fps, and doesn't go above 1/4000th of a second...

I do wonder what they would make of, say a Hasselblad 500 system.

Have you bought one yet? Go on, you know you want to.

Cesare
 
When did 1/4000th become some sort of standard and who would possibly want higher? Almost all the film cameras I've owned (OM1, Spotmatic, Nikkormat etc) all topped-out at 1/1000th IIRC. The only one with 1/4000th was an FM2, and I can't ever recall using it!
 
Tony L said:
When did 1/4000th become some sort of standard and who would possibly want higher? Almost all the film cameras I've owned (OM1, Spotmatic, Nikkormat etc) all topped-out at 1/1000th IIRC. The only one with 1/4000th was an FM2, and I can't ever recall using it!
Click to expand...


Me for starters, used all the time. All sports and wildlife photographers use that speed. I can recall doing a golf swing sequence with Tiger Woods a few years back and even at 1/8000 with 10 fps then (quicker now at 14 max), it wasn't ideal.
 
Cesare -- I was just about to place an order when I read on dpreview that the Df's battery compartment is shared with the SD card slot. (I honestly think dpreview has hit the bonehead state of objectivism.)

Canonman -- I can see needing a very high shutter speed for action photography, but the Df would not be the camera of choice for sports and wildlife photographers.

Joe
 
You must log in or register to reply here.


advertisement


Back
Top