I have one and don't find the dial location a problem at all. The lock button keeps you from using the wrong dial, just press it with your index finger and spin the dial with your other fingers and thumb. Becomes second nature after you use it a few times.

For those who say the dials slow them down, they couldn't be more wrong. I have been a pro all of my life and find it is the menu diving in digital cameras that slows me down. One of the main reasons I bought the Df in the first place. Once the camera is set to your preferences, there is almost no need to visit the menus. It is just a great user friendly camera.

Actually it was the original f3.5-5.6 version Ken placed on his 10 worst list. He likes the newer f4 version much better.

As they say...A picture is worth a thousand words. The two large case system is a Nikon DSLR with lenses covering 20mm through 300mm. The small single case is a Fuji mirrorless system covering the same focal lengths. Other than the excellent low-light results with the Nikon DF and faster focus, the images are quite similar in quality.

Exactly! My love affair with Hassy started way back in '65 when I was in High School. I worked for a Hasselblad dealer during summers and bought my first Hassy through them. Hasselblad inscribed my name in the camera, I still own it.

As someone mentioned, it is the quality that captivates. The quality of the camera itself, the incredible lenses, and the amazing quality of the images they produce. Once smitten, it becomes a lifetime love affair.

I became an architectural photographer and used Hasselblads my entire career. I think I can safely say the 38mm Biogon used on the Hasselblad Superwide cameras was probably one of the finest, if not the finest, wide angle lens ever produced. The images it produced were stunning.

Over the years I accumulated every focal length lens Hassy ever produced. With great regret upon retirement, I sold everything but my original signed by Hasselblad body and four original silver lenses. One day I might pick up a digital back just so I can have the enjoyment of once again shooting what, in my opinion, is the greatest camera system ever made.

I had most of the great AIS Nikkors, but of all of them, I always felt the 35mm f1.4 was by far the best. The sharpness and contrast were Leica-like, right out to the edges. It blew away the 35 f2 and 2.8. I sold it and the 85 f1.4 before I realized they could be used on digital cameras. Have regretted it ever since.

I'm not sure what you are looking for. I shoot Nikon and Canon full frame cameras, but also use Olympus and Fuji for less size and weight. I find the smaller cameras to be just as sharp as the larger ones, sometimes with even better depth of field due to the shorter focal length of the smaller lenses.

I can see an argument, perhaps, for greater enlargeability from the larger sensors, just like larger negatives tend to produce better large prints. You might also notice a few more intermediate tones with the larger sensors, but sharpness should not be an issue. I've attached two photos taken with my Fuji X-T1 and 23mm f1.4 lens. I doubt you would see better sharpness with the larger cameras. Taken with natural window light.

X-T1, 23mm f1.4


X-T1, 23mm f1.4

I think it isn't the resolution that gives it away. In this case the images are too small to tell the actual resolution. It is the range of tones in the second image that clearly shows off the larger sensor, just like film.

Statistical information rarely deals in absolutes, and those with differing opinions can always argue the lesser probabilities. That being said, statistics rarely lie, and the statistical probablity that this v***s can be attributed to the influx of new immigrant children throughout the country is quite high.

If you follow the known map of major placements of the children (ie Colorado, Mass, Conn, etc), you will find those are the states where the infections began and are the most severe. The probability that those statistics are purely coincidental is quite low. That combined with the fact that this is a previously unseen strain of the v***s just adds fuel to the arguement. Like a previous contributor said, these kids have probably developed an immunity to the v***s that our kids don't have.

So, in my opinion, AJ is not spewing histerical feelings and beliefs, but rather stating a case based on quite strong circumstantial evidence.

Great photos.
One of my first cameras was a Pentax H1a with a few lenses. The camera bit the dust a long time ago, but I kept the lenses. I sold the 135 f3.5 (Mint) before I realized they could be adapted to the digital cameras. I kept your favorite, the 35mm f3.5, which has become one of my favorites as well.

My wife and I were at a local auction the other day and were very lucky to find a Pentax "kit" with an old Spotmatic, 28mm f3.5, 50mm f1.4, and the "big" find, a beautiful 300mm f4. All are SMC Takumars in mint condition.

I agree with you that the image quality leaves very little to be desired and compares well to some of the best of today's offerings. It's not only the sharpness, but the tonal quality is exquisite. They have a little less contrast compared to the latest coatings, but some of the images have a magical, almost
three dimensional quality about them.

I use them with Olympus OMD, Fuji XT1, and Canon 5D. With the Olympus OMD's, the 300mm gives me an effective focal length of 600mm f4 and can be hand held with their 5 way IS system.

That is a good article and explains it well. To get started with the least amount of brain clutter, the best "rule of thumb" is to focus one third into the scene. That will give you the greatest percentage of useable photographs until you master the subtleties of the hyper-focal calculator. The only variables are the apeture and proximity to your subject.

Very good point! Optical physics is a very demanding science. Before the days of computers a new lense design could many take years to develop. Each problem/error had to be delt with on it's own with individual computations. Only after completing exhaustive calculations did they often find the result might affect a different error in the design of the lens. Thus the process had to start anew. We have come a long way.

Interesting comparison. It is both right and wrong, depending on which side of the coin you choose to look. I have owned all Leica M, R, and Leicaflex cameras at some point. I have also owned all models of Contax SLR's. The only thing I can't compare is Contax rangefinder cameras since I have never owned one. I have also owned the majority of both makers glass, including many of the exotics. Base on that, the following is my opinion.

I believe it comes down to design philosophy. Early on Leica chose the path of extremely high mechanical quality in both their cameras and lenses. The ruggedness of Leica lenses is legendary. I believe their M series cameras hold the high water mark for quality to this day, with the new Fuji mirrorless bodies perhaps coming close. Leica lost some of that edge however, when teaming up with Minolta, just as Contax did when joining with Yashica. Both companies were forced to do it to gain the electronic expertise.

As for their lenses, many of both companies designs were absolutely ingenius and ground breaking. The edge for complexity of design might go to Contax, I believe their 25mm retrofocus design is still considered to be the best ever. Leica, on the other hand, was superb in their execution with few companies to this day matching their combination of build quality and optical quality.

As I said, a lot comes down to design philosophy. Leica, in many of their designs, chose to emphasize image contrast even over pure resolution. This is what gives that "Leica look" to their images, they just pop. Contax chose tonal purity and resolution uber alles, but the complexity of some of their designs and the resulting number of glass surfaces actually held their contrast curve down. As a result, I usually used Leicas for landscape work and Contax and Nikon for portrait work.

This is not dissimilar to audio design. Many speakers use crossover design to emphasize tweeter output. This gives the initial impression of great detail and tends to draw in potential buyers. In the long run however, it is this very feature that tires the listener and drives him to a more neutral design.

Anytime one is chosing between the rarified air of Leica and Contax, there is no wrong choice. There is only personal opinion and the knowledge that history has given a reason for these to be among the finest of choices.

Great shot! It brings up another point, which I suppose could be a separate topic, but I wanted to reference your photo as it is a good example. Nikon seem to have a case of the "blues" when shooting outdoors from say, 10am through 2pm. This is especially true when using older lenses with older coatings. When we look at an object lit by light with differring color temperatures, our eyes automatically correct the color. Our cameras do that to some degree, but some still render colors cooler than that others. Olympus seems to have the best opinion of natural outdoor color rendition, at least to these eyes. Nikon on the other hand seems to think cooler is more correct. I was wondering if anyone else changes the color in their Nikon? I an using (in the camera) plus 2 red and plus 2 yellow.

The Obama Administration is working hand-in-hand with Central American governments to engineer this deliberate, unprecedented invasion of illegal aliens. La Raza groups are spreading the word that Obama will sign administrative amnesty. And nations like El Salvador and Honduras are urging women and children to make the grueling trek to cross the U.S. border, because Obama will never deport them, and they can receive jobs and taxpayer-funded welfare for life.

“Why doesn’t the Obama administration hire lawyers for the American citizens who are losing their jobs?” he said.
But the Administration says they need to defend a “vulnerable” population from “discrimination” based on their immigration status.


The reason behind this is simple, if we make them citizens, over 90% of them will vote democratic. Now the word is out that the Republicans have gotten "the word" from Wall St to allow amnesty so the Street can reap the rewards of the new 401K money and cheaper labor. Watch out for action from both sides this summer before the election.

Personally, as a registered Democrat, I would much prefer to keep my job rather than get a new vote from someone who is here with the express purpose of taking my job. And don't believe the polls...there in no way a majority of Americans, right or left, want amnesty for these people.

I can see from this exchange that "their" plan is working well. The plan is to have you all fight each other over their created reality (aka GWB), meanwhile the corporations, with the blessings of their political cronies (both parties), have both hands in all of your pockets and are sucking you dry. All the while you think you are argueing over something of substance, but it is in reality meaningless in the scheme of what is really happening to society. The nsa is watching every word we type, listening to our phone calls, and reading our emails. The authorities (read corp thugs) beat you to a pulp when you dare excercise your first ammendment rights to protest against the real villains on wall street. And our Supreme Court has become totally political. Folks, you are all great people here, but please wake up and smell the roses before it is too late. The wolf is at the door and you guys are playing THEIR silly games in la la land. If you truely want to save what is left of this once great country, vote prudently in the upcoming elections for people who will get the corporate money out of politics. It is all we have left. End of rant...sorry, I usually don't get involved in political discussions.