BebuLamar wrote:
Would you buy the Df if the price is $300 lower? What's wrong with the controls of the Df? Why the Df is not retro? At one point in the past Nikon was selling new D810 for less than the Df.
I bought the Df at it's higher price, so yes, I would have gladly paid $300 less. As for the controls, no complaints here, I think they are the best of any digital Nikon to date.
Why is the Df not retro? Well, I suppose it is, if you want to call visible controls retro. But I don't think that should be it's main selling point, it's selling point should be it's superior functionality and ease of use.
The fact that the D810 was selling for less than the Df only amplifies my argument that Nikon priced the Df out of contention.
Strodav wrote:
As a design engineer and statistician I tend to see the world as one normal bell shaped curve after another. That means most stuff fits in the middle +/- 2 Sigma (about 95%), but there is stuff that hangs out of the low probability areas of the left side and right side of the curve. In others words, no company / R&D organization / engineering group / manufacturer will ever be able to satisfy everyone, just the vast majority of their customers especially with a major technology change like film to digital. At least, one can still buy film cameras if they want to.
As a design engineer and statistician I tend to se... (
show quote)
You are absolutely right, you can't please everyone. It is a truism that applies across the board to most things in life. Do I think there could have been a smoother transition from film to digital, certainly. But I think, in the case of the Df, Nikon never really gave it a chance. It was a camera that could have changed the entire direction of their designs going forward. But they started by over pricing it, not by a lot, but enough to preclude most, or at least many impulse buyers. Then they never followed up with a higher res sensor, or fixing the few complaints there were about the camera. I look at it as a missed opportunity on the part of Nikon.
I also think it is possible Nikon is hitching it's wagon to the wrong star with the Z line. Sure Sony is #1 right now, but largely because they are the only full frame ML game in town. I say to Nikon, do what you do well, and success will follow. Fuji was successful and they don't even have a FF ML camera, but they did their own thing.
To paraphrase Robert Frost, sometimes taking the road less traveled can make all of the difference.
As a long working pro during the "film era" of photography, I had the great pleasure of taking photos with magnificent precision made machines from the likes of Hasselblad, Leica, and Nikon. When the digital wave hit I considered quitting photography rather than be forced to take photos with a plastic computer with a lens on the front. I know any change is hard, but I can't help feeling the camera companies sold their soul when they allowed the young computer geeks to completely design the new cameras. There was no transition from manual controls, it was a jump right off the cliff into digital oblivion. Many of these designers were too young to have even experienced the joy of a simple three point control of a photograph. The idea that there was no need to take your eye off the subject to read a menu and lose the shot.
Then along came Fuji to save the day with their great camera controls. When I shoot with the GFX and X cameras they allow me, once again, to forget about the equipment and concentrate on the subject.
Perhaps my greatest disappointment was the way Nikon introduced their greatest achievement to date, the Df. The price was too close to the D810, a simple $300 reduction would have probably doubled the sales. Then they called it retro.....what the h___ is retro!? Com'on Nikon, it's not about the looks, although it helps, people bought that camera because of the controls. I know I did. Which brings me to my point.... Am I the only one who would like to see one of the Nikon Mirrorless cameras come with Df/Fuji style surface controls? I am really surprised no one has mentioned this.
InfiniteISO wrote:
Have you ever considered how much of the image your lens projects gets thrown away because there is no sensor to capture it? I started playing around with an FX lens on a DX body and somehow my mind meandered to this topic. It would naturally follow from the opposite arrangement, a DX lens on an FX body, but hey, my noodle is a bit askew.
Lenses are round. Photographic images, at least as they're usually presented, are rectangles. We also know from grade school math that squares are rectangles too. The great grandfathers of today's camera designers knew one of the most mechanically efficient ways to capture the image coming through a round lens was to use a square negative.
Cameras that emulate the 35mm style have sensors with a 3 to 2 dimensional ratio. Nikon's FX sensor is 36 x 24 mm and the DX is 24 x 16 mm. To cast an image on the corner of the rectangle of an FX image, the lens projects a circle that is slightly larger than 43mm. (see photo drawing) Now whether all that image makes it through the camera body, and where it gets clipped is a design issue. The point is the potential image size for those lenses is there.
Now let's think about sensor production. I think it would be safe to say that after re-tooling costs were factored out, a square sensor and a rectangular sensor of the same area, pixel concentration, and technology would cost roughly the same to produce. A square sensor that had about the same area as an Nikon FX sensor would be 29mm across.
My question to you camera guys out there is: Would you consider a camera that had a square sensor of about the same area as your current body if the cost was the same? It would probably be mirrorless; since that would be easier to develop - no new shutters to design, tool, etc. If properly designed, it might be able to use an existing family of lenses.
In my mind, since I flip my body from portrait to landscape constantly, taking that decision away would be a plus. As I stated above, a 29mm square would have equal area to the FX. Make the sensor a bit smaller, say 27mm and issues like vignetting start to diminish if we keep those FX size lenses.
Now let's really go outside the box. What if your sensor array was round? Well not exactly, it would actually be rows and columns of sensors that approximated a round shape. The output could be buffered to make the raw file square (black in the corners), but the body would be designed to capture everything projected by the lens, warts and all. You wouldn't display these images in their native form, but the real estate would be there and you could decide where to crop it.
What do you think?
Have you ever considered how much of the image you... (
show quote)
In a heartbeat! As an old square shooter from the film days, I love the square format. Like you said, no need to turn the camera is a big deal, and your mind does "think square" after a little use. I was, in fact, thinking of buying a D850 just for that feature, but in your scenario the picture area would be a staggering 46.9% larger! I think it is an idea worthy of investigation by one of the camera makers.
As some of the other posters mentioned, it would probably have to be a square rather than round sensor to keep the cost down.
rgrenaderphoto wrote:
Because the D850 is a Professional Camera and a pop up flash would be useless. That and using all the real estate in the pentaprism makes for a much brighter and more detailed viewfinder.
I am sorry but I have to respectfully disagree with that assumption. A flash built into any camera, professional or otherwise, can be invaluable in a multitude of situations. Sure an off camera flash is going to be more powerful and might have a better quality of light, but how many shots can you lose while digging into your camera bag for the flash, mounting it on the camera and turning it on? When a good shot presents itself in a hopeless lighting situation, light vs no light wins every time.
Also, pop-up flashes aren't necessarily poor quality. Fuji's X-100 series of cameras has one of the finest fill-flash systems in the industry. It's almost hard to get a bad shot, and it's just a small pop-up flash. There are manufacturers of professional cameras that agree with my opinion on this. My $25,000 Hasselblad H4D-50 has, yes, a pop-up flash. So count me among the supporters of built in flash.
Fotoartist wrote:
I have about (20) Nikon 52mm color correction filters in various colors. Value at this point, 0.
Hi Fotoartist,
I will give you $1 each if you want to sell them. I have an extensive old Nikon and Nikkormat collection I could use them with.
Thanks
rgrenaderphoto wrote:
The Nikon rumour mill "thinks" that the new mirrorless will have its own line of lenses, but will come with an adapter for existing F mount product. This makes me think that the "flange distance," the measurement from the lens mount base to the sensor, will be shorter (more compact body) than the current DSLR line. Which makes sense, if you compare something like a Fuji Xt-whatever to a D850.
But, as announcement date gets closer, the true appearance and specifications will become known.
The Nikon rumour mill "thinks" that the ... (
show quote)
This brings out another advantage of mirrorless in that it allows the use of non-retrofocus designs in wide angle lenses. In days of film one of the main reasons the Leica and Zeiss rangefinder cameras were so popular was their standard designed wide-angle lenses were superior to their retro-focus cousins. The whole idea of a retro-focus design was more or less counter intuitive to the laws of physics. The early ones were "work-arounds" at best and usually inferior in sharpness, especially around the edges. The need to make room for the mirror in a reflex design eliminated the ability to place the rear element of the lens close to the film plane as required in standard wide-angle designs such as the Zeiss Biogon, Leica Super-Angulon-M, etc.
Standard wide angle lens designs require fewer elements which usually results in superior sharpness, and they spread the light more evenly across the sensor or film plane resulting in less light fall-off around the edges.
DavidM wrote:
Considering the Fuji X-E2s for a compact travel camera as the price is excelent currently. Just wanting some feed back as to pros and cons you may have and if you would consider anything else after using it?
Thanks,
Dave
All of the Fuji X cameras are excellent. I've been using an X-E1 and X-T1 since they came out and I love them both. The image quality is superb, and the X-E1 in particular feels very "Leica-like" in performance.
I just purchased a Factory Refurbished X-E2 kit because I wanted an extra 18-55, it came a few days ago. I intended to put the body up on ebay, but if you would like it, or if anyone here would like to have it, just drop me a note. It comes with a 3 month transferable factory warranty.
Body still sealed with original box.
Hi,
What exactly is that looking through the camera? Somali?
Barry
speters wrote:
The CMOS sensor will give you a lot more flexibility as far as ISO is concerned, which would be helpful in landscape shooting and as far as IQ goes, the CMOS is supposedly just as capable as the CCD's! There is however still the option of staying with film out there (which I believe trumps digital with ease)!
Yes, I agree, I do like the flexibility offered by the higher effective ISO very much. My concerns are mostly with the smaller size of the CMOS. My wide angle lenses would be more or less "neutered" by the lens factor, which I believe is 1.45. Also the same number of pixels are spread over a much larger area with the CCD sensor, allowing for larger pixels and more space in between. Some people have said that creates a slightly better looking image. Unfortunately I haven't seen results of either in person, which is why I was hoping someone here might have used both.
Most of the work I would be doing with it would be on a tripod. So while wonderful to have, the increased speed capabilities of the CMOS wouldn't be absolutely necessary.
As for film, you are spot on! Film has the look of life. Digital, while making great strides, isn't there yet.
Thanks,
Barry
BebuLamar wrote:
I never had a Hasselblad but my question to you is. Do you think the H system has the look and the feel of the V system?
Like Bob mentioned, there is a big difference in the look and feel of the two systems. The V system was a true class act in all respects, and won many industrial design awards. The H system has the disadvantage (from a design perspective), of having to acquiesce to all things digital.
Barry
rmalarz wrote:
If you have the money to support that digital move with the V system, go for it. Likewise with the H system.
Personally, for a fraction of the cost of either converting or buying new, you can purchase a great scanner and enter the digital world that way. I use a 500C/M, along with 4 lenses. My Epson Perfection 3200, driven by Silverfast software, does a great job scanning negatives. My recommendation is to look into an Epson scanner that will scan 120 format film.
--Bob
Hi Bob,
Thank you for the suggestion. Actually that thought never occurred to me. The only downside for me would be that I no longer have my lab, so I would have to give up control, which I'm not crazy about. Also you give up the instant gratification one gets from digital by waiting for film. And by going through another step by scanning, you introduce another set of variables which, in theory, could take that extra edge off the image quality I am seeking. Of course I couldn't be sure until I tried it. The last time I scanned anything was back in the days of the old (but expensive) Nikon scanners and it was a bit of a chore.
That's a creative approach however, and I will look into the Epson in any event for the hundreds of rolls of film I already have. Do you have a model you could recommend that does a decent job?
Thanks,
Barry
Like many of you I have an older "V" system of Hasselblad equipment (C/M body with eight lenses, both C and CF) that I would like to bring into the digital world. After using it professionally for many years, it was with deep regret I had to place it on the shelf when digital took over. I have by necessity, and quite reluctantly I might add, gotten into digital with a Nikon Df system, Fuji XT1 system, and an Olympus OMD system. While I'm not complaining about the digital equipment, quite frankly nothing "does it" for me like the Hasselblads did! Nothing seems to come close to the look, the feel, or especially the results of the Hassy.
Anyway, I retired a few years ago and would like to start using the Hasselblad equipment again for some landscape and lite studio work. So my two questions are these: Does anyone have experience using the 50mp CCD sensor back (CFV-50) vs the newer and smaller 50mp CMOS sensor back (CFV-50c). My main concerns of course would be overall image quality and usablity.
My second and followup question is this.... Should I dump the entire system and buy a used "H" system camera like the H3D or H4D-50 to gain the autofocus and in camera metering? Or for that matter any other advantage the newer system might offer? I have never used either a digital back or an "H" camera, so I am totally open to your suggestions. Many thanks in advance!
BobHartung wrote:
Yes. I use the H5D-50. It produces beautiful images with little noise. The downside is that it is large and the lenses are very heavy.
I am awaiting my new Hasselblad X1D with two lenses. I have play with it, and while the firmware is undergoing continuous updates the images are beautiful, the LCD screen is stunning and it weighs only slightly more than the Sony A7R-II. Lenses are limited, but a number have been announced.
I will keep my 300mm HCD lens and use that with an adapter that is available.
HTH
Yes. I use the H5D-50. It produces beautiful ima... (
show quote)
Sorry, I don't mean to be redundant, but I should have quoted the original message so everyone knows who I was responding to.
Is that H5D-50 the CCD 50 back or 50C (CMOS)? I have a 500C/M with 8 or 9 lenses and was thinking of either a 50 back for the C/M or a used H3 or H4D with a 50 back. Haven't tried either so not sure which way to go. I know the 50C is a smaller sensor and wasn't sure if the image quality would be up to the larger CCD 50 sensor?
Is that H5D-50 the 50 back or 50C (CMOS)? I have a 500C/M with 8 or 9 lenses and was thinking of either a 50 back for the C/M or a used H3 or H4D with a 50 back. Haven't tried either so not sure which way to go. I know the 50C is a smaller sensor and wasn't sure if the image quality would be up to the larger CCD 50 sensor?
Thanks