[thxbb12]

I totally agree, it's as ugly as butt and much too big too.

It's funny to see all manufacturers jumping on the old retro look bandwagon one after another.

 

I can understand the range finder attraction: in terms of physical dimension and shape, it makes a lot of sense as it's very easy to pack in a small bag or a large pocket. However, an old fashion SLR form factor? It doesn't make a lot of sense in terms of form factor IMHO.

 

I also don't understand why they went with the D4 sensor. Why not going with the D610's instead? It's much better than the D4's in any measurable way while offering higher resolution.

 

Go figure...

[Guest]

Very nice design. I will buy one as soon as possible.

A D4 sensor is great and will give you a fantastic low light performance without the smearing of the Canon 6D .

 

best regards

Claus

[Brightcolours]

I totally agree, it's as ugly as butt and much too big too.

It's funny to see all manufacturers jumping on the old retro look bandwagon one after another.

 

I can understand the range finder attraction: in terms of physical dimension and shape, it makes a lot of sense as it's very easy to pack in a small bag or a large pocket. However, an old fashion SLR form factor? It doesn't make a lot of sense in terms of form factor IMHO.

 

I also don't understand why they went with the D4 sensor. Why not going with the D610's instead? It's much better than the D4's in any measurable way while offering higher resolution.

 

Go figure...

The D4 sensor is better in higher ISO than the D600/610. The D4 sensor is a nice sensor.

[Guest]

I can understand the range finder attraction: in terms of physical dimension and shape, it makes a lot of sense as it's very easy to pack in a small bag or a large pocket. However, an old fashion SLR form factor? It doesn't make a lot of sense in terms of form factor IMHO.

 

The problem is not with the old-fashioned SLR form factor but that the Df is not using this form factor. Nikon manual SLRs like the FM/FE/FM3a were all very small, comparable to Leica rangefinder cameras. The EM, FG, FG-20 were even considerably smaller.

 

If anything, then only the AF module can lead to inevitable bulk here. I doubt that the LCD or sensor thickness can be a significant cause, since Leica manages to keep the thickness of their digital bodies comparable to the film ones.

 

If the AF module is the cause, they should consider that people that would buy such a body for their pre-AI or AI lenses do not care about AF and would favor a more compact body.

 

The other possibility of course is that Nikon designed in a lazy way without even considering saving space or weight and just used D600 internal components and a fancy skin.

[JJ_SO]

I don't find it much uglier than most of the competitors also are - always a matter of taste, of course. And each one has his/her own favorites. It's kind of failsafe, low-risk design, a bit boring, a bit classy, nothing spectacular.

 

I just don't understand the high ISO range and the metering system going "only" from 0...+20 EV while the D4 goes from -1...+20 EV. So this Df has an ISO range like a D4 but with a slightly less sensitive metering system, no better focus help, shutter speeds until 1/4000 might be fast enough and also only high speed USB instead of USB 3.0 They really cut a lot away to make a cheap D4 (45% cheaper at the moment)

[thxbb12]

The D4 sensor is better in higher ISO than the D600/610. The D4 sensor is a nice sensor.

 

The D4 sensor has only a slightly better DR (less than 0.5 stop) at 1600 ISO and above. On the other hand, from ISO 100 to 800, the D610 is better by quite a margin (1.5 stops at base ISO).

Also, the D4's SNR figures are not any better than the D610's at any ISO.

Plus, the D610 has higher resolution.

 

That being said, the D4's sensor is good too, just not as good B)