# Why havent I seen the DF mentioned?



## JustJazzie (May 31, 2014)

Just came across this in my hunt for the perfect camera. I'm in LOVE. And I don't know why, but If I have to give in to the dslr world again- my heart is screaming "that's the one!" There aren't many reviews on it though- is it new? Or just not popular?


----------



## 480sparky (May 31, 2014)

I think it's too much of a niche market.



And too expensive for most.


----------



## hamlet (May 31, 2014)

The DF won the Grand Prix award. Clearly there are competent people out there that hold this camera in high regard.


----------



## pixmedic (May 31, 2014)

The Df is a love/hate kinda camera. some people love it, others hate it. 
aesthetics aside, (which is a deal-breaker for some people on this camera) its reported to be a great performer. 
I held one at our almost local camera store once, and i don't really have any issues with its ergonomics. 
your getting the sensor and processor of a  D4 at half the D4 price. I think its biggest problem is that its price bracket directly competes with the D800. 

But, comparing the Df to the D800 is a bit of a pitfall. I think they are two totally different animals, marketed at two totally different segments of photographers.  the Df is light, and has the D4 sensor and processor giving it tremendous ISO performance. It also does 5.5 FPS. you only get one card slot though, and it only has the 39 point AF module, no video, and a 1/4000 max shutter speed. Some people call it a stripped down D4 (though its half the price of one)

personally? I would take the Df over the D800. im sure the Df shoots portraits just fine, and it has better ISO performance than the D800. I don't really see any need for 36MP, and 39 AF points is plenty. People are getting all weird over its "kinda, almost retro" look, and a lot of old film people are complaining that it isn't enough like the f3 body.... I think many of the people complaining about it have never _*actually *_used one, or even _*seen*_ one in person. The dials take a few minutes to adjust to, but otherwise everything is fairly easy to get to and adjust.  I like it, but i seem to be in the minority there.


----------



## JustJazzie (May 31, 2014)

pixmedic said:


> The Df is a love/hate kinda camera. some people love it, others hate it. aesthetics aside, (which is a deal-breaker for some people on this camera) its reported to be a great performer. I held one at our almost local camera store once, and i don't really have any issues with its ergonomics. your getting the sensor and processor of a  D4 at half the D4 price. I think its biggest problem is that its price bracket directly competes with the D800.  But, comparing the Df to the D800 is a bit of a pitfall. I think they are two totally different animals, marketed at two totally different segments of photographers.  the Df is light, and has the D4 sensor and processor giving it tremendous ISO performance. It also does 5.5 FPS. you only get one card slot though, and it only has the 39 point AF module, no video, and a 1/4000 max shutter speed. Some people call it a stripped down D4 (though its half the price of one)  personally? I would take the Df over the D800. im sure the Df shoots portraits just fine, and it has better ISO performance than the D800. I don't really see any need for 36MP, and 39 AF points is plenty. People are getting all weird over its "kinda, almost retro" look, and a lot of old film people are complaining that it isn't enough like the f3 body.... I think many of the people complaining about it have never actually used one, or even seen one in person. The dials take a few minutes to adjust to, but otherwise everything is fairly easy to get to and adjust.  I like it, but i seem to be in the minority there.



Thanks for sharing your hands on review! I'm definitely going to be researching this one a bit more!


----------



## JustJazzie (May 31, 2014)

hamlet said:


> The DF won the Grand Prix award. Clearly there are competent people out there that hold this camera in high regard.



Really cool!! Thanks.


----------



## bigal1000 (May 31, 2014)

The price point is the killer it's the same (as others stated) price as a D800 and that is a lot to compete against.


----------



## Derrel (May 31, 2014)

The Df was a victim of a Nikon PR campaign that was called , "Pure photography," and had a series of videos of a man out in the wild places of Europe, shooting photos with a retro-looking camera. A LOT of buzz built up due to the campaign, and frankly, a lot of people thought the camera would be a cheap camera that they could easily afford, like say $1100. Since most of the camera tech press is made up of people in their late 20's and early 30's, they really had no actual basis for having used a Nikon that used things like an aperture ring on the lens, or an actual;, physical shutter speed "dial" on the body, and so on, and they whined and moaned about the ergonomics not being what they grew up with, you know, in the 2000's. 

Since the camera hit the streets at nearly $3,000 retail price, these peoples' daily latte money and funds for a third iPad were put in serious jeopardy by a pricey camera,aimed NOT at THEM, but instead aimed at well-heeled, middle-aged Nikon users, so the camera tech press basically bashed the camera the week it came out, and then went back to shooting their D7100's and such. The old-school control ethos befuddled most of the young techie writers, in a predictable manner that was a lot like a person who knows how to drive ONLY an automatic transmission car, being confronted with one of those icky,awful, too-complicated "*clutch thingies*" in a 5-speed manual transmission sports car. Cries of , "No,no,not good, not good! Not what I learned on! Must be crap!" Despite stellar image quality and ultra light weight.


----------



## JustJazzie (May 31, 2014)

I was hoping you would chime in, Derrel! I wouldn't mind the dials, and the small size is a huge plus for me! I'm a little flustered with the reviews I am finding on it though- the one I found testing it for action gave it a hit rate of about 50%- which is the same hit rate I am finding for the a6000.... and since sports is the only reason I'm even considering a change in camera, I have to think this probably isn't worth the price tag.....  Then again- I don't have to tell DH that. ;-) it looks like SUCH a fun camera to use! And fun is a factor too right?!


----------



## runnah (May 31, 2014)

JustJazzie said:


> I was hoping you would chime in, Derrel! I wouldn't mind the dials, and the small size is a huge plus for me! I'm a little flustered with the reviews I am finding on it though- the one I found testing it for action gave it a hit rate of about 50%- which is the same hit rate I am finding for the a6000.... and since sports is the only reason I'm even considering a change in camera, I have to think this probably isn't worth the price tag.....  Then again- I don't have to tell DH that. ;-) it looks like SUCH a fun camera to use! And fun is a factor too right?!



It is not a sports camera. If you are getting it for that purpose you will be disappointed. 

I don't like it because it was design purely for looking pretty. I use my camera as a tool, just as I would any other piece of equipment. All I care about is that it does what I want.  From the reviews I have seen the af system is pretty rubbish for high action, the dials aren't user friendly for fast paced shooting. They made some weird design choices that other similar retro themed did much better.

If you want a pretty camera that has a good sensor then go for it. If you want a high performing sports camera than try for a d4.


----------



## JustJazzie (May 31, 2014)

runnah said:


> It is not a sports camera. If you are getting it for that purpose you will be disappointed.  I don't like it because it was design purely for looking pretty. I use my camera as a tool, just as I would any other piece of equipment. All I care about is that it does what I want.  From the reviews I have seen the af system is pretty rubbish for high action, the dials aren't user friendly for fast paced shooting. They made some weird design choices that other similar retro themed did much better.  If you want a pretty camera that has a good sensor then go for it. If you want a high performing sports camera than try for a d4.


I'm not really looking for a "high performing sports camera" I'm just looking for a few focused images of my kids on their dirt bikes.  Right now, my nex7 has a 100% failure rate on action coming and going. (Side to side is fine) I'm definitely not in the market for the best- just better than what I have. Kwim?


----------



## pixmedic (May 31, 2014)

runnah said:


> JustJazzie said:
> 
> 
> > I was hoping you would chime in, Derrel! I wouldn't mind the dials, and the small size is a huge plus for me! I'm a little flustered with the reviews I am finding on it though- the one I found testing it for action gave it a hit rate of about 50%- which is the same hit rate I am finding for the a6000.... and since sports is the only reason I'm even considering a change in camera, I have to think this probably isn't worth the price tag.....  Then again- I don't have to tell DH that. ;-) it looks like SUCH a fun camera to use! And fun is a factor too right?!
> ...



yes...designed _*purely*_ for looking pretty....
except, you know, for the D4 sensor and processor and outrageous ISO performance. 
but other than that... :mrgreen:


----------



## runnah (May 31, 2014)

pixmedic said:


> yes...designed purely for looking pretty.... except, you know, for the D4 sensor and processor and outrageous ISO performance. but other than that... :mrgreen:



So it's like putting a Ferarri engine in a Yugo.


----------



## runnah (May 31, 2014)

JustJazzie said:


> I'm not really looking for a "high performing sports camera" I'm just looking for a few focused images of my kids on their dirt bikes.  Right now, my nex7 has a 100% failure rate on action coming and going. (Side to side is fine) I'm definitely not in the market for the best- just better than what I have. Kwim?



I think you'd be very happy with a d800.


----------



## 480sparky (May 31, 2014)

JustJazzie said:


> I'm not really looking for a "high performing sports camera" I'm just looking for a few focused images of my kids on their dirt bikes.  Right now, my nex7 has a 100% failure rate on action coming and going. (Side to side is fine) I'm definitely not in the market for the best- just better than what I have. Kwim?



Well, what's the difference between a 'high performing sports camera" and a "Get in-focus shots of my kids on dirt bikes camera"?  Does any camera offer a "Kids On Dirt Bikes" mode?  Sports and action are sports and action.  The subject(s) is(are) moving.... _fast_.  The camera doesn't care if the subjects are multi-million dollar sports idols or your kids in the back yard.  Fast-moving is fast-moving.


----------



## pixmedic (May 31, 2014)

runnah said:


> pixmedic said:
> 
> 
> > yes...designed purely for looking pretty.... except, you know, for the D4 sensor and processor and outrageous ISO performance. but other than that... :mrgreen:
> ...



and some people would buy the Yugo just to smoke mustangs and camaros...im sure some people are buying the Df for its low light abilities and faster FPS than the D800. 
personally, I think it should have been priced a little lower than the D800, but I can still see the value in the Df. I have actually gotten to use one, and i dont find the dials bothersome at all. anyone that has shot film will immediately get the hang of the aperture dial. Its not a terribly complicated piece of machinery. Given the budget, i would get a Df.  Like i said before...the Df seems to be a love/hate kinda camera.


----------



## JustJazzie (May 31, 2014)

runnah said:


> I think you'd be very happy with a d800.


It's a big inner struggle for me, balancing my need for small size ( I'm pretty miniature myself) and my desire for great IQ. The d800 is massive compared to my tiny hands, so I have to figure out if I'm willing to settle for "high quality snap shots" from the a6000, or if I would rather put up with the arthritis I may very well acquire from lugging around a d800 all day. *sigh*


----------



## runnah (May 31, 2014)

pixmedic said:


> and some people would buy the Yugo just to smoke mustangs and camaros...im sure some people are buying the Df for its low light abilities and faster FPS than the D800. personally, I think it should have been priced a little lower than the D800, but I can still see the value in the Df. I have actually gotten to use one, and i dont find the dials bothersome at all. anyone that has shot film will immediately get the hang of the aperture dial. Its not a terribly complicated piece of machinery. Given the budget, i would get a Df.  Like i said before...the Df seems to be a love/hate kinda camera.



I guess I am in the hate department. Well hate is a strong word, more in the wtf camp. I don't see the point honestly.


----------



## runnah (May 31, 2014)

JustJazzie said:


> It's a big inner struggle for me, balancing my need for small size ( I'm pretty miniature myself) and my desire for great IQ. The d800 is massive compared to my tiny hands, so I have to figure out if I'm willing to settle for "high quality snap shots" from the a6000, or if I would rather put up with the arthritis I may very well acquire from lugging around a d800 all day. *sigh*



You're a mom, you should be used to picking up screaming children. Mom muscles!


----------



## JustJazzie (May 31, 2014)

runnah said:


> You're a mom, you should be used to picking up screaming children. Mom muscles!


not with my hands! I strap em to my back!


----------



## pixmedic (May 31, 2014)

the best "sports" camera in the Nikon lineup is the D4.  huge ISO performance and 11 FPS. 
if you want to go with Nikon, and dont have D4 money, the D700 or D800 would be the next best thing. (they both also have the 51pt AF module)

if you are looking at other brands besides Nikon, and have the budget for a D800....you might consider a Canon 5DIII. I hear it makes a pretty good sports camera.


----------



## runnah (May 31, 2014)

pixmedic said:


> the best "sports" camera in the Nikon lineup is the D4.  huge ISO performance and 11 FPS. if you want to go with Nikon, and dont have D4 money, the D700 or D800 would be the next best thing. (they both also have the 51pt AF module)  if you are looking at other brands besides Nikon, and have the budget for a D800....you might consider a Canon 5DIII. I hear it makes a pretty good sports camera.



Eh it's ok. I keep hitting my buffer limit when shooting high bursts. I do shoot raw so that might be part of the problem. But I hardly ever miss the focus.


----------



## 480sparky (May 31, 2014)

I'll toss a third option into the love/hate categories thing.

Meh.  :er:

I was really interested in the Df when I first caught wind of it.  Sounded like the camera for me.  Then it came out and I got to fondle one. All I could think of was, "Ummm......  that's _it_?"


----------



## Derrel (May 31, 2014)

Here is a thorough review of the Nikon Df by a person who is actually qualified to discuss how well it focuses, and a whole lot of other issues.
Nikon Df Review | byThom | Thom Hogan


----------



## mmaria (May 31, 2014)

...and only thing I've read and remembered here is Yugo....


----------



## Derrel (May 31, 2014)

mmaria said:


> ...and only thing I've read and remembered here is Yugo....



Yugo, girl! ;-)


----------



## robbins.photo (May 31, 2014)

JustJazzie said:


> I was hoping you would chime in, Derrel! I wouldn't mind the dials, and the small size is a huge plus for me! I'm a little flustered with the reviews I am finding on it though- the one I found testing it for action gave it a hit rate of about 50%- which is the same hit rate I am finding for the a6000.... and since sports is the only reason I'm even considering a change in camera, I have to think this probably isn't worth the price tag..... Then again- I don't have to tell DH that. ;-) it looks like SUCH a fun camera to use! And fun is a factor too right?!



Well just my two cents worth of course but I think hit rate has a lot more to do with the photographer I think than the camera.  The autofocus system of any camera can only accomplish so much, being able to anticipate and activating the shutter at the right time will do far more for your hit rate than a different camera with more autofocus points.  Truth be told on most of my action shots I rarely if ever use more than either single point or sometimes the 9 point selection on the AF system - at least in my case I've found my hit rate actually goes down significantly if I try to let the camera use more focus points.

I've found that setting on either single or 9 point, leaving the focus point in the center and then shooting a little wide gives me my best results.  By shooting wide I can always compose the photograph to my liking in post and crop out whatever I don't need, and by leaving the focus point in the center it makes it a lot easier for me to aquire my target and keep them in the frame as I shoot.  Everyone has their own method of course, but that's what I found works best for me.


----------



## mmaria (May 31, 2014)

Derrel said:


> mmaria said:
> 
> 
> > ...and only thing I've read and remembered here is Yugo....
> ...


  I learned how to drive with Yugo. Blue one and I even remember it's registration plates. I was about 11-12 years old... I loved it back then


----------



## coastalconn (May 31, 2014)

Have you considered a crop camera with some really nice fast lenses? Sounds like motoX is probably outside in decent light.. just a thought and save a grand?


----------



## JustJazzie (May 31, 2014)

coastalconn said:


> Have you considered a crop camera with some really nice fast lenses? Sounds like motoX is probably outside in decent light.. just a thought and save a grand?


  Yes. Motocross is a daytime sport, and always outside! So a crop sensor would be fine for that purpose alone. I've been going around in circles trying to choose the "right"  camera. Price point isn't a huge consideration. (Though it is still a factor) I want a camera that will grow with me for the next 5-7 years. Yes, I need it to shoot sports for my kids, but my passion is in portraits. I drool over the dof from a full frame, and I really would appreciate the low light capabilities of the full frame sensor for when we are out last dark. So I feel like- if I'm going to go back to dslr's (and I'm eating my words here! I said I never would) that I might as well get "the last dslr I'll ever need" until mirror less finally suits my needs.   So I have it narrowed down to the nikon df and the canon 5dmkiiii. (I don't care about video at all) My heart says "the df is your soul mate" and I think it does just enough to keep me happy, and it will always be a fun camera even when something better comes along." And my head says "you can't argue with the reviews and features on the 5dmkiii"


----------



## Scatterbrained (May 31, 2014)

If I were you I'd get a 5DIII or D800 for what you want to do.  The Df is a cool looking camera, but that's just it.  It's a camera that puts form before function, whereas modern DSLRs put function first, which has dictated the form.    As far as shooting motorcross, I manage to shoot motorcycles with a 5DII no problem.  Feel free to ask around about peoples general perception of the 5DII's AF system, chances are it'll be pretty unfavorable.   It's more about technique than a state of the art AF system.  Unlike stick and ball sports, or erratic toddlers, motorsports may move fast but it's in a fairly predictable manner.   Shooting hare scrambles and motocross is less taxing on my AF system than shooting my 3yr old running around the family room.


----------



## Solarflare (Jun 1, 2014)

It has a bad bang for the buck ratio.

You can basically get the same camera when buying a D610.

The advantages are the look, the silent shutter, and maybe also the great high ISO performance (the D610 isnt too far behind though) and the very high number of shots per battery charge. Also some more controls like AF-ON and the ISO selection.

You lose a lot, too though. Second memory card slot, video, U1/U2 quick selections, ... and personally I hate the ergonomics of the Df, or rather the lack thereof. The front wheel control for example is akward to move, the mode selection button is a joke, etc.

Also, the Df doesnt fix any of the main issues I have with the D600:
- No flipscreen like the D5x00
- AF points too much in the center of the viewscreen, making the high number of AF points look really riddiculous
- No quick selection of AF points to set the right point in an instant (a feature I crave even more now I know the D4 finally got it)

So why would I get it ? If the Df2 is a real progress over my D600, I will definitely consider it - I certainly like both the silent shutter and the improved ISO performance of the Df.



About the autofocus, its good enough for me to manage sports ... not that I do that, like ever, mind. I only tried it once for fun, and the camera gave me no reason for complaints.

That was in good light, mind, and I'm talking about the D600, of course - but the Df has the same Autofocus system, apparently.





pixmedic said:


> except, you know, for the D4 sensor and processor and outrageous ISO performance.


 Native, useable ISO 12800 is nice, but thats already all. The actual performace at ISO 6400 isnt that much better than D4, D800, D600 or the old ISO king, the D3s. The D4s hasnt been tested yet last time I checked.

Besides, the new Sony A7s seems to offer useable ISO 25600. I guess thats the highest we'll see for a while, though. Even with the sweet Sony patent packet behind it, ISO 51200 looks crap, native or not.





pixmedic said:


> [...] you might consider a Canon 5DIII. I hear it makes a pretty good sports camera.


 Well, most definitely. But thats the wrong forum.





runnah said:


> Eh it's ok. I keep hitting my buffer limit when shooting high bursts. I do shoot raw so that might be part of the problem. But I hardly ever miss the focus.


 Ugh. So Canon has intentionally crippled the 5D3 with a too small buffer size. No fun.

Either way, from one can read on the net - the AF of the 5D3 is rather better than worse than that of the D800/D700.





JustJazzie said:


> I want a camera that will grow with me for the next 5-7 years.


 I would be happy if I knew what will happen in the next 3 years. We see the first hint of a transition from DSLR to Mirrorless. We see new technologies emerge in all places.


----------



## TheLost (Jun 2, 2014)

JustJazzie said:


> runnah said:
> 
> 
> > I think you'd be very happy with a d800.
> ...



Keep in mind that the Nikon DF is not that much smaller then the D800..  Make sure you go out and hold both to compare. 

I loved the idea of the DF... but after playing with one its not something i can use.  The controls slow me down to much for the type of sports i shoot.

I've posted this before, but here is the best Nikon DF review you'll see (its a very 'tong-in-cheek'.. but all the points are true)


----------



## bigal1000 (Jun 2, 2014)

Do you want be warm and fuzzy or get the best camera for where you want your photography to go,by the way there is no "Perfect Camera" in my opinion.........


----------



## goodguy (Jun 2, 2014)

What I like about the Df

1.Love the design
2.Love dials on it
3.Love its low light performance

What I dont like about the Df

1.Price
2.No video (not a deal breaker really)
3.16MP for me is not enough

Would I want one ?
Heck yeah but I would rather get the D800 over it.


----------



## astroNikon (Jun 2, 2014)

funny video .. family in the park camera


----------



## molested_cow (Jun 2, 2014)

Nikon missed the product pricing cus hipsters can't afford it.


----------



## Solarflare (Jun 3, 2014)

goodguy said:


> 3.16MP for me is not enough


I want Nikon to make a DSLR with the new 12 Megapixel Sony sensor now found in the Sony A7s. 

Wont complain about 4K Video either, of course. :mrgreen:


----------



## JustJazzie (Jun 3, 2014)

TheLost said:


> Keep in mind that the Nikon DF is not that much smaller then the D800..  Make sure you go out and hold both to compare.  I loved the idea of the DF... but after playing with one its not something i can use.  The controls slow me down to much for the type of sports i shoot.  I've posted this before, but here is the best Nikon DF review you'll see (its a very 'tong-in-cheek'.. but all the points are true) YouTube Link: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=en5z-Q4po4M



:giggle: that was pretty funny! Thanks for sharing it.


----------



## TMortPhotos (Jun 4, 2014)

That video is AWESOME!  lol  =)

To the OP poster, you might take a look at the Pentax K3 Silver Edition. Looks a lot like the DF but done much better imo. It's not a FX camera though but very nice. From what I researched it fits right between the D7100 and D610.




TheLost said:


> JustJazzie said:
> 
> 
> > runnah said:
> ...


----------



## hamlet (Jun 4, 2014)

molested_cow said:


> Nikon missed the product pricing cus hipsters can't afford it.



Why would a hamster be a hippie, and is Nikon short on Sunflower seeds? Poof would probably use the df as a potty hole or nesting place.


----------



## bigal1000 (Jun 5, 2014)

molested_cow said:


> Nikon missed the product pricing cus hipsters can't afford it.



What does that mean I don't speak hipster.......


----------



## bigal1000 (Jun 5, 2014)

Solarflare said:


> It has a bad bang for the buck ratio.
> 
> You can basically get the same camera when buying a D610.
> 
> ...



The DF is a nice niche camera for people with a lot of disposable income!!! But that's only my opinion...........


----------



## Trainwizard (Jun 6, 2014)

If they lowered the price to $1000 then maybe I might consider it.  But it does have the D4 sensor maybe that's why it costs so much. I love the idea and the look, but it really ends there. I don't see myself shooting sports with it since the dials are going to get a lot of getting used to. Maybe it would make a great backup camera, but it just doesn't justify the $3K price tag. I love that video!


----------



## pixmedic (Jun 6, 2014)

I think most people have dismissed this camera having never actually seen it in person, and there are plenty of people that make their decisions based on specs alone. 
I don't really think Nikon "botched" this camera....I just think pricing it the almost the same as a D800 was overreaching a bit...Im not a market analyst or anything, but i would have personally liked to have seen this camera priced more _*between*_ the D610 and the D800.  That being said, i did go to our almost local camera store and check it out, and i have asked to see it on our last few visits just to have actually had one in hand a few times to get a good feel for it. 

one of the biggest turn off's for me on the Df was the front command dial. didn't like that at all. I can see adjusting to it after a while, but if you are switching between bodies, i can see it getting annoying. The dial is small, and in a vertical position.  (anyone that has actually handled this camera, and not just read about it will know exactly what i am talking about) Also, the way the lock works on the ISO dial almost makes it almost necessary to use two hands to change it. (the lock is almost on the _*side*_, not the rear of the camera where it would be easier to get too with your left hand) not cool Nikon, not cool. 
there are some other minor issues as well, but those were the biggies for me that concerned _*actual shooting*_ with the camera. 
the single SD card being in the battery compartment on the bottom of the camera was kinda weird too, but whatever. inconvenient for tripod/monopod work. 
no AF assist light...well, to be fair, the D4 doesn't have that either.  I never use video so...totally dont care about that feature..but for those that do, no video _*could *_be a dealbreaker. 

but there was plenty to like about this camera too...
I loved the SS, ISO, and EC dials. very old school, and had a good feel to them. I was not as fast on adjusting them as i am with my usual dual command wheels, but it was not terribly slow either. I chalk it up to needing more practice, but it did feel _*slightly*_ less efficient. 
The leather half case you can get for this camera was really cool. now they need a top snap on section like the older film cameras had. 
its a D4 sensor and processor. totally bada**. 
It was pretty light. I would say it weighs the same as my D7100. 

Overall, i really _*do*_ like the Df. 
I just don't know if I would _*actually*_ get one over a D800 or not.  (not that its in the budget anyway)
maybe at some point when I don't need all my money (and then some) for things like car repairs and specialist visits for the kid 
I will look at what the Df is going for on the used market and see if anyone is having enough trouble unloading one to sell it under what a D610 costs.


----------



## 480sparky (Jun 6, 2014)

I've actually fondled it several times at the camera store.  I really don't _hate_ it.... I just don't see any benefit to actually owning one.


----------



## pixmedic (Jun 6, 2014)

480sparky said:


> I've actually fondled it several times at the camera store.  I really don't _hate_ it.... I just don't see any benefit to actually owning one.



price is the biggest issue for me. 
i really do like the camera...
i can see why its more than a D600, but i just don't think i could justify spending D800 money on it. 
i kinda _*want*_ to... but dont think i could actually _*do*_ it.


----------



## runnah (Jun 6, 2014)

pixmedic said:


> 480sparky said:
> 
> 
> > I've actually fondled it several times at the camera store.  I really don't _hate_ it.... I just don't see any benefit to actually owning one.
> ...




It's like buying a brand new car that has a carb and crank start just because it's old school. It's stupid.


----------



## 480sparky (Jun 6, 2014)

pixmedic said:


> 480sparky said:
> 
> 
> > I've actually fondled it several times at the camera store.  I really don't _hate_ it.... I just don't see any benefit to actually owning one.
> ...




Price isn't an issue for me. I base my buying decisions on what a particular piece of gear can do for me.  I'm not saying I'm filthy rich and can buy Bill and Warren 6 times over.  But when I decide to buy something, I do my research, make comparisons, converse with actual users if possible, get my chuckles at KR's site, then once I make a decision I start looking for the best deal.

When I first caught wind of the Df, I was intrigued to say the least.  Maybe Nikon was reading my mind, I thought.  The pre-release videos certainly got me salivating.  

But, once the local store had one on-hand and I got to paw it........... I was non-plussed to the max.  "New Coke" was all I could think of.

My version of the Df would be a D800 sensor in an FM2n body.


----------



## runnah (Jun 6, 2014)

The Fuji X T1 does the retro styling correctly. Nikon kinda half-assed the design.


----------

