cabbageseed

Likewise for the Canon F-1 I’ve had for decades

AndyGarcia

Agree 100% with you. I'm not interested in video. If I want it I'll use my iPhone 6.

ToBoldlyGo Loc: London U.K.

Everyone seems to have missed my earlier post. It's not going to make a difference in cost. It's software which exists in other cameras. They're not going to save an appreciable amount of money by not including this part of the software. Who knows how they write software, it could even be more effort to remove nowadays.

Norm Rosenberg

As with most electronics and software today, and for the last 20 years or so, most of the capability is there in the product. Often, if a feature is not wanted it must not be enabled or often, disabled by additional software making a product with fewer features slightly more expensive to develop and sometimes to produce. Having several products with slightly different feature sets can be more expensive for a company to make, inventory and maintain. Often, if you don't like certain features don't use the.

wingclui44 Loc: CT USA

no, I ordered it right before it came to the market in 2013, no recommendation but looking at it's specification that matching my need.

BebuLamar

That was what I meant! Recommendation of the Df doesn't help anyone. Whoever likes it buy it. Df owners made the decision for themselves. Because if one asks for recommendation and he/she may have 1 who recommends the Df and 10 against it.

GPS Phil Loc: Dayton Ohio

I always had that strange feeling that the Df was custom made for me. Do I think the Df is the best camera? No, of course not, however it is the best for me. Without a doubt, it is a pure joy as a street camera!

BebuLamar

I like the Df and have the Df since 2013 but if I were to ask people which camera should I buy I would have very few if any recommendation for the Df and a whole lot of others.

CatMarley Loc: North Carolina

It is not just software. The hardware is a lot of the problem. If I were designing a digital camera for myself. It would have three dials, no menus. One dial for shutter speed, one for ISO and perhaps a switch to turn autofocus on or off. On screen in the viewfinder would be a large split prism, and an exposure meter, clearly visible. That's it! Just a machine for taking digital pictures. An LCD screen fully articulated on the back for high and low shots would be nice. Such a camera could be small, thin and light weight and FF. about the same size or a bit smaller than my old FM. And it could be relatively cheap too.

BebuLamar

Three dials? Shutter speed and ISO what does the third one do? Just to turn AF on and off? There is no focus point selection? I assume the camera only has M mode right.
As far for size it's possible only if it doesn't use existing Nikon F mount lenses. If it uses Nikon F mount lenses than the dimension between the sensor and the lens mount must be the same as the FM. Behind the the sensor there must be the thickness of the sensor and its electronic and then the thickness of the LCD screen. There is no way to make this dimension the same as from the film to the back of the FM.
As far as cost if they build it, it has to be more expensive than the current Df that is more than $3000. The reason? They don't save much by not having all the bells and whistles because people demand those features and they learned how to make those features inexpensively. For example between a manual only and a camera with PSAM modes the largest cost is really the dial to switch between these modes. Same thing for video feature. However the reason it will have to cost a lot because they can't sell many of them and thus economy of scale isn't there. Example are the Nikon Df and the Leica M-D which doesn't even have the LCD.

Designdweeb Loc: Metro NYC & East Stroudsburg, PA

IIRC, the brownie cameras introduced roll film, then upgraded to unloading and reloading by the customer, eliminating the need to mail the camera to Kodak for processing and reloading.

CatMarley Loc: North Carolina

The body of my FM is 1.25 inches thick. The depth at the lensmount to the back is 1 7/8. The additional 5/8 inch is lensmount. The depth of my 5500 excluding the lensmount and grip is 1.5 inches and it includes an LCD. So a Nikon could easily be a rather slender camera like a Fuji but to use the Legacy glass it would need the projecting lensmount. But the depth of the FM from lensmount to filmplane is 27mm - that's all the depth you need to use the legacy glass. Put that sensor flat on the backplate and you have a pretty slender machine. Yes you would have to include a few more things like dials for choosing the focus area and some dedicated buttons - the FM had a few extra buttons on it too. Incidentally, the Fuji XT's are just a few mm shy of the Nikon 5500 body in depth, but it does not need the projecting lensmount, so it appears much less rotund. Anyhow, it is not just software.

MarkSki

I don't read them. But I don't understand why so much of what I thought was a general photography forum is occupied by so many Canon and Nikon discussions. I see so many replies to other specific gear questions that suggest the member go to the related forum for the answer, that I am left wondering why the Canon and Nikon folks don't go to those forums for the answers to their questions.

AndyGarcia

I'm pretty new to this group. I've noticed the same thing. I've shot Nikon all my life but I'm now shooting Fuji XT1/XE2 most of the time. I use the Nikons for action - surfing shots, wildlife shots etc. Smae goes for Lightroom. I'm slowly moving away from Lightroom. Use Luminar 18, Alien Skin Exposure X2 and Iridient (for my Fuji Raw conversion).....

carl hervol Loc: jacksonville florida

Not the same thing