fishone0 Loc: Kingman AZ

taken with Df and Nikon 24 to 120mm lens

wingclui44 Loc: CT USA

Df with the Nikon 24-50mmAF lens

Dick Z. Loc: Downers Grove IL

:thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup:

camerapapi Loc: Miami, Fl.

I am not in the market for a full frame camera but if I were the D800 would be it.

brrywill

I would like to challenge the use of the word "retro" in regards to the Nikon Df. Correct me if I am wrong, but I believe Nikon never used the word retro in any of their promotional material or advertising of the Df. That term was applied by a few of the early reviewers of the camera, many of whom, I dare say, are younger photographers. I own a Df and I love it. I didn't buy it for it's looks, or it's so called retro design, I bought it for it's function. I want control over all elements of the photograph to be at my fingertips. I don't want to take my fingers or my mind off the concept of the photograph even for a minute to menu dive.

It took more than a century for the industry to perfect the design of the camera in an effort to maximize it's efficiency and usefulness to the photographer. The goal has always been to make hardware secondary to the thought process of creating the photograph. Not having to remember what anonymous button to push to check the ISO, depending on which camera you are using on any given day. I am sure you have heard the truism, form follows function, when it comes to industrial design. Perhaps the entire concept of "retro" in a negative sense is incorrect. What if the current generation of young photographers is wrong and the so called "retro" machines are actually the most efficient means with which to create a quality, technically correct photograph? The success of Fuji's X series and the early success of the Df seems to bear this out, at least to some degree. In fact who among us can say with certainty that the DSLR machines we have been calling cameras for the past 15 or 20 years are actually cameras at all? I believe Ken Rockwell refers to them as black plastic turds with computers inside. A far cry from the all metal precision machines of the film era.

Some of this mindset can be attributed to a generation of budding photographers brought up on fully auto-everything cameras. Having a technical problem? Don't worry, the camera will take care of it. They are less in tuned with the art of photography. That need to understand the laws of physics that determine why a specific amount of light (aperture) applied for a specific amount of time (shutter speed) onto a medium with a specific sensitivity to light(ISO/ASA) creates a visible image. Knowledge is power, and I applaud Nikon, Fuji, and a few other progressive companies for having the courage to put that power back into the hands of the photographer.

Bridges Loc: Memphis, Charleston SC, now Nazareth PA

I think it's a great looking camera with lots to offer. I do think it's over priced and most likely due to the need to recoup engineering costs like one poster said. My thought though is that on the secondary market it may be very reasonably priced as the seller would not need to recover the cost of production, but rather be forced to sell it for the value it actually possesses. If that is an accurate prediction, one might be in my future.

CO

I think the extra cost of the Df is due to all of those parts that are machined out of aluminum rather then being molded plastic. To start with, the aluminum is more expensive than plastic. There's a lot of time spent machining the components. Some of the knobs have knurling which is done on a lathe.

SharpShooter Loc: NorCal

CO, I doubt anybody ever even touches those parts except to assemble the camera. They are all made on 5 axis CNC machines. Every single machine-able piece.
The better new cameras all have Magnesium bodies with polycarbonate shells, not exactly plastic.
The high cost is due to the low sales expectation. ;-)
SS

joer Loc: Colorado/Illinois

I agree. The cost of the machined parts is probably the least of the total expense.

Moles Loc: South Carolina

The answer would depend on what you are using the camera for. For example: D800 is great for portrature with high MP's, but usless for sports with only 4fps.

amehta Loc: Boston

I don't shoot continuous when I shoot sports, so 4fps doesn't bother me. :-)
Also, the other two only get to 5.5fps, so that's not significantly better.

Kuzano

I have no problem with your challenge of the word "retro". and in fact as far as stating your opinion, I think your point well taken, so far as personal opinion goes.

Personally, I don't use the word "retro" in a negative sense. At 70, i myself am "retro"... a classic old design that still smacks of a "value added functionary".

If you read negativity into my use of the word "retro" I suspect your sensitivities to paying money for the design runs close to the surface. Give me an SLR look any day, with dials on the top deck for controls, etc.

I am not aware if Nikon used the term "retro", but in fact taking back the top deck dials and the prism, and the appearance of the older Nikon F2 or other similarities has commonly come to be known as retro design. Therefore as far as common folk clarity is concerned, the name "retro styling" fits nicely and does not impune the other fine features of the camera.

Olympus made the E-1 ten years ago, with a prism included. A wonderful camera. In spite of it's five megapixel capability, it created wonderful images with it's Kodak sensor putting out wonderful, dynamic colors. I still have and shoot one today.

Then Olympus and Panasonic made the Evolt E300 and the DMC L1 with the prism and mirrors turned sideways in the body and a flat top deck. They sold poorly, confirming the fact that a buying public wanted a prism on top of the camera to consider a camera serious business.

I am talking here about a large potential market of non-photographers diving into the digital camera market. They had been looking at SLR's as professional cameras for thirty or more years, and the HUMP was tantamount to being a serious or professional photographer..... something all the "new" buyers envisioned themselves becoming.

In other words an extremely powerful marketing tool for those of us in the Marketing Profession, as I was at the time.

The HUMP was a moneymaker, extraordinaire.

So Olympus and Panasonic both put the prism hump back.

Later the rangefinder crowd...mostly older photographers latched onto the faux rangefinder styling of ealier years, and dug into Oly PENS, Fuji X-series, etc. Also "retro" plus....

Then a few years later Olympus hit gold. They came out with RETRO PEN styling.. their old PEN half frames from four decades ago. Gold happened again with the RETRO OMD EM5 recreating camera's that looked much like the 1970's/80's OM Olympus' so many of us bought then, and still use today. I have a wonderful, recently rebuilt OM-1 all black film camera, that I use alongside a nicely working OM-2P.

Fujifilm just announced a nice throwback (styling wise) to their old fuji "humped" SLR film camera's (one of which i have... the Fujica ST-701 with thread mount lenses). I, as you mentioned, do not see much of the word "retro" in the Fuji marketing materials, but the design is clearly taking us back about 40 years in styling.... or a "retrograde" styling exercise, to use the whole word..."retrograde"

The new "Fujifilm WITH a HUMP, is the Fujifilm X-T1 and 16mp X-Trans Sensor, as in the pseudo rangefinder X series camera's. In fact, as I read it, the X-T1 is an X series camera in a HUMPED, top deck control dialed body. A few minor pluses I am sure. And the X-series already added the top deck control dials pretty much. So the real new feature, and it is "retro" is the HUMP and whatever lives in the hump.

Not that that is a bad thing.

Even though Nikon does now say so, and even though Fuji seem also reluctant, we have seen both of these camera bodies before... about 30-40 years before. That is, in fact a retrograde styling excercise. Olympus is proud to use such terminology, as they understand the number of old souls out there who find value in their memories of better times and better gear.

So, your challenge is noted. I appreciate your opinion.

Retro is not a bad thing, and in this instance it sells camera's. More DF's are likely being sold as a result of a couple of styling throwbacks, that also result in better remembered functions such as top deck control dials and the return of the prism.

In all the time I have been shooting camera's I have always considered the prism hump a definitive plus to "serious camera MFR). I was never much of a "flat top" rangefinder fan, preferring to focus through the lens with a split image focus screen.

Therefore, while I have been shooting mirrorless (Olympus PEN) I will say that when the OMD EM5 put the prism back on the Olympus mirrorless, as well as top deck control dials, I perked up. The EM10 is in my future.... because it seems a good camera.... and because it is "Retro".

If the name bothers you... it is just a name. In my case, it adds a serious plus to my psychological acceptance of the camera.

I'm not a Nikon fan... but I would buy the DF long before I would buy the D800, D610 or D7100. Why..... because in addition to your wonderful points, in my book, and in spite of Nikons overlooking, it is "retro".... a good thing.

I contend that if Nikon had been truly smart, they would have played on the term "retro" and be selling even more DF models. Frankly, I've never found Nikon's marketing to be really creative in that sense.

Their sad response and lack of commitment to a serious mirrorless product is evidence of that. Nikon is not a risk taking enterprise. Perhaps if they truly had to fight for their dominance in the market, we would see more development from them in other arenas than those they persist in.

But, I do love their DF styling in conjunction with other established and staid functions. If only they had not waited, and been preceded by a long time in digital terms, by Olympus and a near hit with the X-T1 from Fuji... and if they had deigned to use the word "retro", which was in fact used by the rumour sites... who knows?

fishone0 Loc: Kingman AZ

Nikon did not call it "reto" but you are able to use your old lenses on it that you can't use on your other Nikon DSLRs

lighthouse Loc: No Fixed Abode

?!!???!????!?

A bit of fleshing out on this statement would be good.
I had assumed the mounting and backward compatibility would be exactly the same for all Nikon FF cameras.

Moles Loc: South Carolina

I wasn't really comparing, just using the D800 as an example. For sports, a used D700 with 8fps or my D4's with 10fps fill the bill nicely.