Chris T Loc: from England across the pond to New England

Of course … the gold ring on the older series Tamron lenses - didn't cost a single penny extra!!!

And, they look pretty good on whatever camera you put 'em on, Bill …

Chris T Loc: from England across the pond to New England

Wonder how good the Tamron gold band series lenses would look on your black Df, Bebu …

BebuLamar

I my humble opinion not good. In fact Tamron lenses do not look good on Nikon cameras. But who am I? Just my humble opinion.

Chris T Loc: from England across the pond to New England

They look GREAT on my Canon Rebels, Bebu … and, on my Pentax K-50, too …

Abo

Nothing like an inflection of the Russian word for "Yes"... it goes something like this: Daaaah!

I noticed the unit when it was first released. The form factor of the Df reminded me
a lot of the Nikon FM I shot my avatar with... that picture is a digital scan of the Kodacolor film negative.

The Nikon Df has a mechanical shutter only, so it is not practical to have it shoot 30 frames per second to create video.

Many digital cameras however, dont use a "shutter" per se and the image from the lens is scanned
by the image sensor electronically (commonly known as a "rolling" shutter"... even though there is no shutter).

DSLRs with mechanical shutters that shoot video probably just hold the shutter open and then use the technique described above.

An hour of video at 30 frames a second is 108,000 frames. 3 hours of that, would exceed the life
of the mechanical shutter of most DSLR cameras.

Below is an FM, and below that is the Df... of course.

Abo

Perhaps it's a circle of sows.

carl hervol Loc: jacksonville florida

this post is sure getting old !!!!!

Chris T Loc: from England across the pond to New England

A circle of SOWS, Abo? … Or, a Circle of COWS?

Oh, LOOK … in the next field … there's a circle of those old Singer Pedal-throw SEWING MACHINES!!!!

Now, where's that OTHER circle of old COWS, sowing cotton seeds ….

Chris T Loc: from England across the pond to New England

You're forgetting one thing, Abo, and that is - the Nikon FM, is, essentially, a Nikkormat - which used a smaller frame than the F series. and the Nikon Df - is essentially the same format as the original F. Here is a picture of my Nikkormat EL - which preceded the FM … only way to compare the three in a photo - is to have access to them all, and then line them up side by side - Nikkormat, FM/FG, Nikon F, Nikon Df ….

Nikkormat EL with Nikkor 50mm f2

Salo Loc: Cherry Hill, NJ

Shooting smooth video hand-held with even a "light-weight" mirrorless interchangeable lens camera is still no easy feat. Even my small Olympus PEN still feels heavy in my hands. IBIS helps but it's still much easier to shoot video with an extremely light P&S or even a cellphone. I think the largest group of video users are the vloggers who generally have their cameras mounted on a tripod or a gimbal or some other esoteric supporting device. I personally shoot only stills, but on the rare occasion that I want a video of something interesting, I will pull out my cellphone which produces video that's good enough for me or someone else to later enjoy. Unlike with my stills, I'm not trying to win an Oscar with video.

BebuLamar

The Df is bigger than even the Nikon F, F2 or F3 although it's not heavier.

Salo Loc: Cherry Hill, NJ

Chris, I also have a Nikkormat, the FT2, and it looks much larger than your picture of the EL. In fact, my FT2 is huge and has the weight of a small tank. The Nikkormat EL was the precursor to the Nikon FE which is significantly smaller and lighter than the FT2. Your EL seems to be about the same size as my FE so I think Nikon started to "downsize" their bodies starting with the EL, but the older Nikkormats were heavy and LARGE. Very nice looking EL, BTW.

Chris T Loc: from England across the pond to New England

Not sure how you can be certain about that, Salo … unless you have a pic of them all side-by-side. Prior to getting the Nikkormat EL - I had the previous version, and it seemed to me, they were just about the same size. I also have the FG - which I think, is about the same size as the FM … I guess I could stick up a pic of the two of them, side by side … not sure what it would prove, though … regardless, both my D7000 and my D7100 - seem to dwarf the film cameras ….

BTW, Salo … thanks for the compliment … as you can see, though - it has a few nicks in the prism - no doubt from being tossed around in a soft equipment case, with a handle-mount flash (Rollei E36RE) sorta laying on top of it … but the rest is pristine - partly because I've used that leather case bottom. Wait till you see my FG - looks still as new as the day it was bought. I just shot it, with the EL in the same pic and the D7100 in the middle. When I can finally get it up (have to shrink it, first) you will see - the EL is far bigger (wider) than the other two. But the 7100 is definitely bigger than the FG - hard to tell, as the FG has a motor drive on it … still … will try to get that pic up, shortly, Salo …

Chris T Loc: from England across the pond to New England

Oh, is it, Bebu? … I hadn't realized that - thought they used the same format ….

BebuLamar

The reason is really because the Df is a digital camera and it's an AF camera with built in drive.
The dimension between the lens mount and the back is significantly thicker due to the sensor thickness and the LCD.
The dimension between the bottom of the camera to the bottom of the lens mount is also thicker because there is the need to put the AF module at the bottom of the mirror box.
With these 2 dimension being bigger it makes holding the camera with only the left hand not as good as the old cameras. So there is the need for the grip for the right hand.