I’ll just leave this here then? [confused]
Well, yes. But digital is a given these days, particularly for small cameras.
never mind, then.
Yes, that’s what the Reflex is about.
I suppose Micro 4/3 is just DSL… that won’t cause confusion with the populace, will it?
I was elaborating on your Micro 4/3 =/= DSLR statement, not arguing against it.
EVIL-- Electronic Viewfinder, Interchangeable Lens.
…snif…
Is the single lens reflex possible with micro four thirds?
No, as others have said. I meant to say that I’m perfectly happy with EVIL cameras, even though there’s no reassuring mirror clatter. Micro 4/3 is fine with me as I do very little low light shooting and I enjoy finally being able to use my 35mm glass again.
i chanced across this recently
Why I hate electronic viewfinders
Having never used one, I’m skeptical. i’d like to at least try an electronic focusing aid, for instance.
But a camera without any viewfinder-- bleh. In my experience, the LCD washes out at precisely the wrong moments.
Electronic viewfinders are a total pain, we hates them.
My favorite thing by far is the certain age cutoff I see when I’m out being a tourist and hand someone my DSLR to take a photo. They either put it to the eye and take the photo or hold it out and get very confused about how they are supposed to see what they’re taking a photo of.
I try to take my camera back from the latter fairly quickly…
Resolution doesn’t mean much if all you’re printing is 4x5 prints (or posting your photos online), which is the vast majority of usage for folks these days. And I have 36x24 prints in my house taken from my old Nikon D50 (6 megapixel) that I am EXTREMELY happy with. You can currently pick that camera up for about $150 on ebay as well.
It is, except this camera runs about $3000.
The market seems to have decided on ILC, interchangeable lens camera, to refer to non-DSLRs with removable lenses.
As for this “review” - I actually agree with him on a few points. This camera is a BEAST. It’s huge, and heavy. That’s a good thing for some folks, but not for me.
1 Like
He might have some legit points. But I object to the snarky sarcastic tone. If someone wants to buy a Nikon Df to take pictures at $3000 rather than spend the money on a new car or the like, that’s none of his business. The D600 is essentially the same sort of camera for $2000 so you are spending the extra $1000 for the retro styling.
On this blog we have countless art sculptures that have no functionality and cost lots more than $1000 to build. Until Datamancer passed away, many of us queued up to spend $1000+ on what was essentially a $40 keyboard in drag.
The Df does not pretend to be anything it isn’t. It is simply a lighter weight, cheaper version of the D4 with one major feature taken out for people who want to be seen with a stylish camera but don’t want to lug a D4 about. It is certainly not for everyone. In fact I would suggest it is for the sort of person who goes round with a PA to look after them.
Nikon only needs to make 10,000 or so a year to mop up the lower spec D4 sensors and they will have no shortage of buyers. They come out with bling editions every couple of years, the last one was a gold plated D5200. They sell out without any difficulty at very high prices.
Oh yeah, on that point I agree entirely. I don’t know about this guy’s writing style in general, maybe he’s always sarcastic like that, but it really is a kind of sneering tone he has, and that’s enough to put me off too.
Looking at the DxOMark comparison between the two of them, the D610 and Df are pretty close, numbers-wise. The D610 comes out ahead in dynamic range and colour depth, the Df in low light performance. So folks are definitely paying a $1000 premium to get the extra twisty dials. Which some people would gladly pay for, along with the (admittedly kinda cool) retro styling. Not me (hell, I can’t even muster up the cash to get a D610, nevermind a Df), but if money was no object I might consider getting one of these, just for the fun of it.
If we were talking about a $250,000 supercar, then making fun of the expense might have some point. But on a $3000 camera…
Making fun of the idiots who just want to have the D4 sensor for D610 money, likewise. There has been a very long, very tedious thread on NikonRumors with people demanding a replacement for the D700. As if the D800, D610 and Df are not enough options for full frame bodies. Oh no! just have to have the D4 sensor with D800 controls for a D610 price.
The same people are convinced that larger sensor sizes always improve pictures (nope!) and bigger pixels allow better low light pictures (nope!). What they don’t seem to realize is that the key to low light and depth of field is actually the lens out in front of the sensor. Big lenses collect more light and allow shallower depth of field. There are good reasons why DX lenses on F-Mount bodies are disappointing compared to FX. But the birders would love a D400.
It isn’t at all surprising that the D610 and Df have the same performance as they both come from the same manufacturer and were launched at practically the same time. There isn’t very much difference in resolution either.
Having just bought a D800, I don’t want or need a new body right now and I don’t expect to replace it for five or more years at the earliest. Part of what me rather annoyed at the carping is that this is really a new golden age of photography. We have better equipment available now than any Ansell Adams had, including those full format monsters. And there is new stuff coming out far faster than anyone can really keep up. Many Pro photographers make a good living using five or eight year old gear. But all some folk can do is whine about new stuff not coming out fast enough or not being exactly what they want with no features that someone else might need but not them.
This topic was automatically closed after 5 days. New replies are no longer allowed.
