# D800 or DF?



## Trever1t (Nov 13, 2013)

I'm probably going to buy a D800. I shoot primarily portraiture. Some event work. I have a D700 and D300. I feel I'd make good use of the D800 resolution and dynamic range. Less concerned with ISO but it's pretty good on the D800 as well. 

That said a few friends have mentioned the DF. My concerns with DF is limited shutter speed (1/4000) and an AF system from a consumer line of camera. 


Edumacate me.


----------



## robbins.photo (Nov 13, 2013)

Trever1t said:


> I'm probably going to buy a D800. I shoot primarily portraiture. Some event work. I have a D700 and D300. I feel I'd make good use of the D800 resolution and dynamic range. Less concerned with ISO but it's pretty good on the D800 as well.
> 
> That said a few friends have mentioned the DF. My concerns with DF is limited shutter speed (1/4000) and an AF system from a consumer line of camera.
> 
> ...



I guess my first question would be how often do you find yourself using shutter speeds higher than 1/4000?  If it's something you find yourself doing often enough that might be a consideration.  As for the AF system, If most of your work is portrait then I think the AF system would probably be able to deal with that quite well.

But really of the 2 cameras I think I would probably go for the D800 myself, especially for portraits.  The image resolution on the D800 is amazing from what I've read.


----------



## PhotoWrangler (Nov 13, 2013)

Two different classes of cameras. 

D800 - every day driver.
Df - your "Sunday" driver.


----------



## Trever1t (Nov 13, 2013)

I find I shoot fairly wide open often where my shutter speeds are close to 1/8000 at times. Yes the DF can operate at artificially reduced ISO 50 but I really prefer a body that offers a full range. That said the sensor on the DF is intriguing. What am I giving up there?


----------



## Trever1t (Nov 13, 2013)

PhotoWrangler said:


> Two different classes of cameras.  D800 - every day driver. Df - your "Sunday" [QUOTE/]
> 
> 
> Please elaborate within the context of my needs.


----------



## PhotoWrangler (Nov 13, 2013)

Trever1t said:


> Please elaborate within the context of my needs.




Because of the way the controls are set up on the Df, I think it will slow you down.

I know how fast I flip through settings with my thumb and index finger when I am shooting, without removing my eye from the viewfinder. I don't think anyone is going to have that same speed with the Df.


----------



## Trever1t (Nov 13, 2013)

Ah, ok I understand. Ya, I adjust on the fly with eye to viewfinder also.


----------



## raventepes (Nov 14, 2013)

My vote is for the D800

When I first heard about the Df, I was excited. I REALLY wanted to like it, and I had hoped it would equal to something that could pass as a D700 upgrade, of sorts, or even be a mirrorless system. But sadly, on announcement day, I, like perhaps much of the Nikon community, was left completely underwhelmed by the Df. It isn't about the controls though. It's simply feature set versus price point. If it were priced, somewhere around, say $2000-$2200, yeah, sure, I may have bitten. But it just costs too much for what it delivers. To me, it's basically a retro styled D610 for the price of a D800.


----------



## PhotoWrangler (Nov 14, 2013)

The price will certainly fall quickly, like the D600 did. Give it time for Nikon to make a realistic analysis of their market.

I personally love the Df, and would love to have one... for a "Sunday" camera. It would be a great compliment to my gripped, all manual FM. I dont shoot manual film all the time, but when I do, my FM is my go to.


----------



## molested_cow (Nov 14, 2013)

If you already have a D700, I don't know why you will bother with a Df.


----------



## PhotoWrangler (Nov 14, 2013)

For me it would purely be a personal enjoyment thing. Like I said... "Sunday driver".


----------



## Derrel (Nov 14, 2013)

PhotoWrangler said:


> Trever1t said:
> 
> 
> > Please elaborate within the context of my needs.
> ...



The Df ALSO HAS a front command dial and a rear command dial...just like other Nikons...it has both the "old" AND the "new" in terms of exposure controls.

Bjorn Rorslett has shot the new Df...he says the viewfinder view through it is extremely good when wearing eyeglasses. He mentioned in his first impressions comments that the Df viewfinder system is significantly better than the one on the D800. For portraiture, being able to see through the camera finder very well is a big advantage; that's one of the differences between say the D600 and D7100 and the other "square eyepiece" finder cameras. The D800 and D700 viewfinders are not quite as good as those in the D3 series bodies if you wear glasses...just not quite as good. Does anybody here know what kind of in-finder displays the Df has?

The problem with the Df is that almost nobody except for those in "positions of influence" have had the chance to actually use a Df body, and some of them are people who really have no experience with anything that goes back more than a few years, so their impressions are often negative going in. Like for example, people who have say a 24 MP D5200 and think a 16 MP D4 or 12 MP D3 is somehow "not a very good camera"...

KInd of depends what a person wants...the D800 is a prosumer camera, with a high-MP sensor in it. The D3 series and the D4 are all "flagship-level" fully professional cameras. The Df is considered by Nikon as a pro camera, I believe. But it's really difficult to judge a camera until you've handled it and "seen it". LIke the Canon 5D Mk II versus 5D Mk III for example; the 5D-II was decidedly "prosumer"...the 5D Mark II decidedly better than that.


----------



## PhotoWrangler (Nov 14, 2013)

I'd venture to post a picture and ask where, but we all know how well that works out.

From all of the photos I've seen, there is no horizontal command dial on the front like all the other Nikons.


----------



## jaomul (Nov 14, 2013)

Specs wise the Df seems like a d600 with a d4 sensor, ability to use really old Nikon lenses and a nice old fashioned style body.  It would seem on the whole that the d800 is a better specified camera.  Is the 16 mp sensor used in the d4 better than the one used in the d800? Internet says they are close but I am sure the sensor in nikons flagship must have some performance benefit. I would get the d800 as the little worry about shutter speed isn't a concern.  Though I am fairly sure iso 50 would pose you no issues in actual photos


----------



## Solarflare (Nov 14, 2013)

Well ... if I had to buy a Nikon FX DSLR *now*, I would consider the Df.

The Df leaves a whole lot of stuff out that just isnt needed, and comes with useable ISO 100k (and ISO 200k, but thats more decorative than for real), which, for my kind of photography, would be quite amazing to have.

Still, other than the sensor, its mostly the technology of the D600, and the price is quite steep and hard to justify.

Plus I wear glasses and it seems that the D600 has the best viewfinder for this special condition.




PhotoWrangler said:


> From all of the photos I've seen, there is no horizontal command dial on the front like all the other Nikons.


 There is a command dial on the front, its just not horizontal. Instead you move it the way you would move the aperture of old lenses.




jaomul said:


> [...] Internet says they are close but I am sure the sensor in nikons flagship must have some performance benefit. [...]


 No.

Both the D800 and the D4 are cameras for professionals.

The D800 is the studio/landscape camera and has a Sony sensor that simply offers a ***load of resolution with no big issues in other respects.

The D4 is the reportage camera and comes with a sensor that is from Nikon and is made to still operate well even in the worst of condtions.


----------



## PhotoWrangler (Nov 14, 2013)

Ah.... well then, all the better.


----------



## jaomul (Nov 14, 2013)

Solarflare said:


> Well ... if I had to buy a Nikon FX DSLR *now*, I would consider the Df.
> 
> The Df leaves a whole lot of stuff out that just isnt needed, and comes with useable ISO 100k (and ISO 200k, but thats more decorative than for real), which, for my kind of photography, would be quite amazing to have.
> 
> ...



I was specifically just talking about the sensor here,  not the machine it is enclosed in


----------



## Solarflare (Nov 14, 2013)

jaomul said:


> I was specifically just talking about the sensor here,  not the machine it is enclosed in


 So did I.


----------



## daggah (Nov 14, 2013)

PhotoWrangler said:


> The price will certainly fall quickly, like the D600 did. Give it time for Nikon to make a realistic analysis of their market.



D600 announcement price:  $2,099, body only
D600 price now, with the D610 out:  $1,999, body only

There have been the occasional sales, yes, but I don't understand why people keep saying that the Df will quickly become cheaper than it is now, when Nikon doesn't have a history of really reducing their prices until the model is replaced by a newer variant.  Even the D800 has only dropped a couple hundred bucks.  The Df isn't a couple hundred dollars overpriced, it should've been a good solid $1,000 cheaper than it is.


----------



## gsgary (Nov 14, 2013)

If you want to look cool get DF

Sent from my GT-I9100P using Tapatalk 2


----------



## Bulb (Nov 14, 2013)

I would buy the D800, hands down.

The DF seems like a gimmick meant to appeal to nostalgia.


----------



## robbins.photo (Nov 14, 2013)

Trever1t said:


> I find I shoot fairly wide open often where my shutter speeds are close to 1/8000 at times. Yes the DF can operate at artificially reduced ISO 50 but I really prefer a body that offers a full range. That said the sensor on the DF is intriguing. What am I giving up there?



Well if you'll use the faster shutter speed but don't really need the ISO boost quite so much, then sounds like the D800 would be a better choice overall.  Just a quick look over at DXOMark and it appears that the D800 sensor is actually superior in most regards:

Nikon D800 Sensor performance - DxOMark


----------



## 412 Burgh (Nov 14, 2013)

My vote is for the D800 based upon your needs and other's statements. Worst comes to worse you ship the D800 to me and I'll take care of it for you.


----------



## amolitor (Nov 14, 2013)

I find it interesting that immensely high resolution is seen as a good thing for portraiture.


----------



## robbins.photo (Nov 14, 2013)

amolitor said:


> I find it interesting that immensely high resolution is seen as a good thing for portraiture.



Where was that stated?  I must have missed it.


----------



## amolitor (Nov 14, 2013)

robbins.photo said:


> amolitor said:
> 
> 
> > I find it interesting that immensely high resolution is seen as a good thing for portraiture.
> ...



Here and there. Some guy said this:



> But really of the 2 cameras I think I would probably go for the D800 myself, especially for portraits. The image resolution on the D800 is amazing from what I've read.



for instance.


----------



## robbins.photo (Nov 14, 2013)

amolitor said:


> robbins.photo said:
> 
> 
> > amolitor said:
> ...



I would go for the D800 for portraits, and yes the image resolution is amazing.  Doesn't necessarily mean that high image resolution is a good thing for all portrait work.  For some, yes.. but for all?  Not necessarily.


----------



## gsgary (Nov 14, 2013)

I would go with the DF, D800 is ugly


----------



## Derrel (Nov 14, 2013)

PhotoWrangler said:


> I'd venture to post a picture and ask where, but we all know how well that works out.
> 
> From all of the photos I've seen, there is no horizontal command dial on the front like all the other Nikons.



You're right--the front command dial on the Df is oriented _vertically_ and is the knurled-edged dial located just inside (toward the lens) the name "Df" and right below the shutter release button. That is the camera's front command dial, and I am going to guess that moving the dial "in" or "out" follows the the aperture ring input effect of Nikkor lenses. As Bjorn noted, the Df's front command dial moves very smoothly and without a lot of force needed, and it has a very "quality" feel to its operation and build. 

I have not used every single camera, but when I was last in the market for a camera, I looked at the Canon 5D Mark III, the Nikon D4, the Nikon D800,and the Nikon D700, and the Nikon D3s and D3x. Ever since the 1980's, the MAIN thing I look for in a camera is how well I can SEE all four corners of the frame when wearing eyeglasses, and also, how good the viewfinder image quality is. That's the main reason I shot the *Nikon F3HP* (aka the F3 *H*igh-eye*p*oint model,with the special optimized-for-eyeglasses pentaprism, not the cheaper, 'stock' finder). The small-body Nikons FM-FE-FE-2-FM-2 I also owned at various times, but I found that the inability to actually just look through the camera and literally SEE all four image corners was a huge liability. When shooting portraits, the need to move my eye around the see the corners of the frame made hand-held framing a regal PITA, especially when shooting with tight framing. The small Nikons also has 97% viewfinders, not the 100% accurate finder of the F3HP. For "people work", for me, the advantages of a BIG, CLEAR finder that is allows me to SEE the entire framing area easily, always, trumps almost everything else. That is why I rejected the Nikon D700 and D800...their viewfinders are not as good as I am used to from the F3HP, the D1, D1h, or my D2x.


The D700 had the worst viewfinder image and worst eyepoint. The D800 was next. The 5D-III was decent. The D4 was excellent, but I didn't like the body feel as well as that of the 5D-III. The D3s and D3x both had the body feel and ergos AND a superb viewfinder image, and good eyepoint. I suspect the reason the D800 viewfinder is not as good as some of the other high-end cameras is because they had to make some design compromises due to the built-in flash unit, and they had to make a more-compact pentaprism. And as Bjorn said of the Df, it DEFINITELY is NOT the same viewfinder as is in the D4, or the D800. He stated that the Df viewfinder system performs very well for focusing manual focus lenses like the 55/1.2 Noct-Nikkor and 35mm f/1.4 manual focus lenses he brought to the launch of the Df for the Nordic region. ALthough the "specs" state the viewfinder screen is a standard model, Bjorn was able to shoot good keeper rate in manual focus with the Noct...which he cannot do with other Nikons. He feels that the viewfinder system has been subtly tuned for better manual focus discernment on the Df.

I dunno...I'm familiar with the kinds of pics Bill shoots. I think viewfinder image quality, and usability, are high priorities in a camera that's used mostly hand-held and on people, and where framing precisely is a big deal. But that's just me. Also, fit, feel, familiarity are issues some people would have. If you do not "like" a camera, it's not the right camera.


----------



## robbins.photo (Nov 14, 2013)

Derrel said:


> PhotoWrangler said:
> 
> 
> > I'd venture to post a picture and ask where, but we all know how well that works out.
> ...



Wouldn't disagree with you on any particular point Derrel, just that he mentioned the higher shutter speed was important to him.  Haven't really worked with the D700/D800 or the DF myself so just basing this off of what I have for information and what he's saying he's particularly interested in when making the recommendation.  I think both are very fine cameras and ultimately both would serve well, just which one would be best for his particular needs is really the only issue.


----------



## Derrel (Nov 14, 2013)

I think Bill is coming to full-frame from DX Nikon, so the loss of one shutter speed is mitigated by the shallower DOF that FX provides over DX--ESPECIALLY in the "people photography" focal lengths and distance ranges. I do not see 1/4000 top shutter speed as a significant limitation. I grew up on 35mm SLR cameras that had 1/1000 as the top speed on the vast majority of models; as a young man, Nikon edged up to 1/2000, then 1/4000 when they brought out the FM-2. The larger the capture format, the shallower the DOF for any given picture angle. My medium format bodies only go up to 1/500 second, but since they are larger format, I get MUCH, much shallower DOF with both a normal, or with a short tele, or with the longer tele. So...the idea that he "needs" to shoot wide-open in sunlight and therefore "needs" 1/8000 second is a somewhat debatable point if he is indeed coming to this from DX Nikon.

The weird thing about DX is this: because the format is "small", it gives a lot of DOF at each picture angle, compared against larger formats. Because it crops off the outer image circle, DX forces the photographer to literally "stand back farther" with lenses like an 85mm, just to be able to shoot a standing person full-frame. And the thing is...not at macro ranges, and not at close-up ranges, but once one moves into the normal distance ranges from 2 meters out to 10 to 12 meters or so, *DOF increases at a VERY rapid pace with increasing distance. *DOF is not a perfectly linear thing. As the distances grow longer, DOF on APS-C increases at a rate roughly 2.7x faster than it does at close-up distances [this according to Bob Atkins]. What this means is that if you WANT to "blow out" the backgrounds in full-length shots of people, you can do it more easily with an FX camera than with an APS-C camera; by the time you move down in sensor size to a 4/3 sensor, or a compact sensor camera, the DOF with their lenses, and their shooting distances, is soooooo great that achieving foreground/background separation through selective focusing and shallow DOF is basically, IMPOSSIBLE with the lenses that exist today. 

There's a reason that so many fashionistas like medium format film cameras; they give shallow depth of field that allows them to easily throw backgrounds well out of focus, even in brighter, outdoor lighting conditions, with lenses that often top out at f/4 max aperture, and even at f/8 at 1/500 second in bright light, they STILL have shallowish DOF whenever longer lenses are used. Conversely, at the opposite end are high-level street shooters who absolutely LOVE the ability to shoot deep depth of field photos in fluid social situations because their format is small, and they are using lenses as short as 12mm for their wide-angle photos. A 14mm lens on a Fuji EX series is a 21mm 35mm FOV equivalent, and when used on a smaller format like that, the lens has deep DOF, so it makes pulling deep DOF shots easy! And so, to me, the "value" of 1/8000 second on an FX camera seems rather limited to me.


----------



## robbins.photo (Nov 14, 2013)

Derrel said:


> I think Bill is coming to full-frame from DX Nikon, so the loss of one shutter speed is mitigated by the shallower DOF that FX provides over DX--ESPECIALLY in the "people photography" focal lengths and distance ranges. I do not see 1/4000 top shutter speed as a significant limitation. I grew up on 35mm SLR cameras that had 1/1000 as the top speed on the vast majority of models; as a young man, Nikon edged up to 1/2000, then 1/4000 when they brought out the FM-2. The larger the capture format, the shallower the DOF for any given picture angle. My medium format bodies only go up to 1/500 second, but since they are larger format, I get MUCH, much shallower DOF with both a normal, or with a short tele, or with the longer tele. So...the idea that he "needs" to shoot wide-open in sunlight and therefore "needs" 1/8000 second is a somewhat debatable point if he is indeed coming to this from DX Nikon.
> 
> The weird thing about DX is this: because the format is "small", it gives a lot of DOF at each picture angle, compared against larger formats. Because it crops off the outer image circle, DX forces the photographer to literally "stand back farther" with lenses like an 85mm, just to be able to shoot a standing person full-frame. And the thing is...not at macro ranges, and not at close-up ranges, but once one moves into the normal distance ranges from 2 meters out to 10 to 12 meters or so, *DOF increases at a VERY rapid pace with increasing distance. *DOF is not a perfectly linear thing. As the distances grow longer, DOF on APS-C increases at a rate roughly 2.7x faster than it does at close-up distances [this according to Bob Atkins]. What this means is that if you WANT to "blow out" the backgrounds in full-length shots of people, you can do it more easily with an FX camera than with an APS-C camera; by the time you move down in sensor size to a 4/3 sensor, or a compact sensor camera, the DOF with their lenses, and their shooting distances, is soooooo great that achieving foreground/background separation through selective focusing and shallow DOF is basically, IMPOSSIBLE with the lenses that exist today.
> 
> There's a reason that so many fashionistas like medium format film cameras; they give shallow depth of field that allows them to easily throw backgrounds well out of focus, even in brighter, outdoor lighting conditions, with lenses that often top out at f/4 max aperture, and even at f/8 at 1/500 second in bright light, they STILL have shallowish DOF whenever longer lenses are used. Conversely, at the opposite end are high-level street shooters who absolutely LOVE the ability to shoot deep depth of field photos in fluid social situations because their format is small, and they are using lenses as short as 12mm for their wide-angle photos. A 14mm lens on a Fuji EX series is a 21mm 35mm FOV equivalent, and when used on a smaller format like that, the lens has deep DOF, so it makes pulling deep DOF shots easy! And so, to me, the "value" of 1/8000 second on an FX camera seems rather limited to me.



Very true Derrel, and honestly not something I'd really considered.  I myself won't be stepping up to FX anytime soon, it's just not feasbile given my budget.  But definately something well worth considering overall.  Great points as usual Derrel!


----------



## amolitor (Nov 14, 2013)

I think something we'll be seeing more of (this is pretty off topic, sorry) is wider use of Brenizering. In-camera Brenizer makes much of the sensor-size issues go away, and from a software perspective it's pretty much exactly the same as in-camera panorama software.


----------



## Derrel (Nov 14, 2013)

amolitor said:


> I think something we'll be seeing more of (this is pretty off topic, sorry) is wider use of Brenizering. In-camera Brenizer makes much of the sensor-size issues go away, and from a software perspective it's pretty much exactly the same as in-camera panorama software.



Well, it is a bit off-topic, but whatever; this is the first of many D800 versus Df threads that we will see, since the two are priced pretty close. The problem with the Brenizer method is simply how many doggone frames it takes, and its inability to be easily applied to fluid or dynamic scenes and subjects. It's fine on rock-steady, posed shots and landscapes, and it allows some nifty "large format DOF" and ultra-high-rez types of effects, and it's kinda' cool too!

I love cameras. I love talking about them, discussing them, even arguing about them sometimes! I've used a lot of different types of cameras, and each "type" has its strengths and weaknesses. Sometimes a strength in one type of shooting is a weakness in another area. Some specific cameras have quirky features or quirky limitations, design issues, etc.. For the kind of outdoor portraiture/glamour/beauty stuff that Bill shoots a lot of, I think there are a number of good cameras he could buy, and be pretty happy with.I could make a case for any number of cameras as being "the best option" for Bill! But it's reallllly difficult to compare an existing model (D800) against one that is only JUST announced and is not yet shipping (Df), and is still just a pre-order item.


----------



## TheFantasticG (Nov 14, 2013)

Honestly, Derrell, it's much easier for me to read your posts when there isn't lots of bolded text or caps. Despite that I still try to read 'em cause of the experience you're speaking with... and that post you got in #31 is why I'd love to buy a Phase One setup for macro. Of course, the reason I haven't because my CEO won't let me  "No. We have to pay the mortgage for the next year." is something I constantly hear. Despite that I still got me a new motorcycle this year


----------



## amolitor (Nov 14, 2013)

I think I've already trotted out my Nikon 1 + Brenizer concept. The Nikon 1 already takes a batch of pictures at 60fps for you, and picks out "the good ones". No reason it couldn't do the same while you wave it around a bit, and have it "pick out the good ones, and stitch up a bigger picture". You're right that you're gonna get weird shearing on dynamic scenes, no question about that. Basically a worse, and 2D, version of the shear you get from a focal plane shutter.

Now pile this software into a Nikon Df, and suddenly the Phase One guys are in a bit of trouble.. Bang on the 105mm lens, "paint" the model, and POW, medium format at a zillion pixels. And with that sensor, you can damn near do it in the dark.


----------

