Can a dedicated mirrorless shooter find true happiness with a DSLR?

from there, loving fujis analogue controls, and really wanting to step up my lowlight options, falling in lust from afar with the DF was easy. from what ive seen, and even from the samples you posted (esp #2), the files are stunningly dissimilar and superior to 90% of what i see on these forums. the low light results are like magic. there is a depth, a richness, to FF now that just sets me a flutter.

so thanks! i made a promise to myself long ago that i was not talented enough to warrant spending more than about $1500 on any single piece of equipment, so for now, i will happily live vicariously through you! cant wait to see/hear more.

Yo Tony - ain't you ever heard of INFLATION! :D And if you sell enough other stuff, you won't have to spend more than AN ADDITIONAL $1500 on a Df!

If I decide I want to go this way, I'll be able to do it without too much pain if I sell the RX1 kit, one of my m43 bodies, and a few m43 lenses. I'd keep one m43 body and a couple of the longer lenses and maybe a basic zoom. And I'd keep my Nikon A for pocket-ability and street shooting. But the Df would have to do everything else. And I'm a long way from being there. Yeah, the files are REALLY intoxicating and that holds some sway, but the whole Df shooting experience is very different than anything I'm used to (when I last had an SLR, auto-focus had just been invented and the fanciest thing my last one did was Aperture Priority mode. These new DSLR's are a different kettle of fish. I get the appeal of this camera but I also get what Nic said about being used to a full featured mirrorless camera where live view is the rule, not the crippled exception. But in terms of size and handling, I like the Df a lot. Just went out in single digits for a walk and it was a pleasure to use and an hour and a half out in that cold didn't even put a dent in the battery - where my EM1 ran through a battery in less time in higher temperatures last week.

-Ray
 
I have been intrigued with the Nikon DF...

Hmmm........ The Rx1 has spoiled all other cameras for me in regards to IQ..... No matter what other camera I used I always wondered how the shot I just took would look coming from the Rx1...... If the Nikon doesn't have me thinking this, it would be a winner for me....
 
both cameras are beyond my talents. But, I'm wondering if you could tell us if slightly lower resolution of the DF gives it any noticeable advantage, over the RX 1 in using slower shutter speeds in low light. Probably a moot point if you are able to use 12800 and beyond

If I notice anything I'll let you know, but I've never had any problem with using the RX1 in low light with low shutter speeds. So I can't imagine I'll see anything. I'm not sure I really get that concern, although I've heard it a lot - it seems to me that if you've got enough camera shake to show any blur at 36mp, you'd still see it at 16. I mean, ALL of the pixels would be moving, regardless of whether there are more of them or they're larger or smaller... I can imagine that the super hi-res sensors might need better lenses to get the most out of them, but the camera shake thing I just don't quite get.

-Ray
 
My next system camera upgrade -- and it will be a while -- will probably be the successor to the E-M5,or maybe an E-M1, but this looks like a seriously nice camera. Your test shots so far indicate pretty impressive files -- and I love the photo of your dog.
 
I went for another walk at the nearby ag preserve this morning. I have to admit the lure of new gear is a real motivator to get out when the temperatures are this far below freezing, although I went for a similar walk last week with my normal stuff, so maybe not. I started out at about 7 f and the sun came all the way up while I was out and by the time I got home it was up to 11 f. The camera did fine and I managed OK once the sun got to the level where I could feel it...

I'm not sure I'm able to do anything with this camera I can't with others in this type of light. In very low light it surely makes a difference, but I'm not sure about in good light. Then again it took a while for the RX1 to grow on me other than in low light too, so we'll see. A week in the Bay Area ought to tell me for sure. This sensor/lens combination definitely doesn't resolve like the RX1, but I only really see that when I pixel peep the files. I like them a lot at normal viewing sizes. Here are a few from this morning - the first is with the 35mm, the rest with the 24...:

View attachment 84991
Stroud Df-1-Edit by ramboorider1, on Flickr

View attachment 84992
Stroud Df-31-Edit by ramboorider1, on Flickr

View attachment 84993
Stroud Df-58-Edit by ramboorider1, on Flickr

View attachment 84994
Stroud Df-61-Edit by ramboorider1, on Flickr

View attachment 84995
Stroud Df-71-Edit by ramboorider1, on Flickr

View attachment 84996
Stroud Df-90-Edit by ramboorider1, on Flickr

-Ray
 
Interesting thread, Ray! In the next couple of weeks, I'll be able to use a Df for a week or so to test it. Today I was able to "feel" the camera and to compare it with the x-pro1. The difference in weight is negligible. In a way that weight is almost irrelevant if you use fast telelenses and zooms. Travelling with fast lenses on mirrorless cameras also involves a lot weight. Perhaps Leica lenses are lighter but I saw a 280mm f2.8 Leica lens today and that's a monster, almost as heavy as the Nikon 300mm f.2.8 VR.

I've been puzzled why the Df and D4 look different. After spending some on comparing the output of various cameras (web-only although I use a calibrated screen) my theory is that a 16MP is perhaps the best combination with contemporary sensor technologies. Pixel size does (seem to) matter. While the Df and D4 preserve a color richness and smoothness, other cameras quickly loose that spark (including sony and fuji) when light circumstances are not ideal (which is typically the case over here ;-) ).

So I am seriously considering to replace the x-pro by a combination of fuji x100s for short trips and the nikon Df with a set of (light weight) lenses for "serious" trips.

I am looking forward to learning from your tests!

Peter
 
Yeah I don't get it either but perhaps there is something less than intuitive about the human eye perceives a shift of less than one mp. Doesn't much matter as even a APS-C sensor is enough of a challenge for me in a lot of ways
 
''i'm not sure I'm able to do anything with this camera I can't with others in this type of light. In very low light it surely makes a difference, but I'm not sure about in good light... A week in the Bay Area ought to tell me for sure. This sensor/lens combination definitely doesn't resolve like the RX1, but I only really see that when I pixel peep the files. I like them a lot at normal viewing sizes. Here are a few from this morning - the first is with the 35mm, the rest with the 24...:''

first i really like the quality of those. second the light is very difficult and imo would detract even from the rx1 results. third, i note your reference to 'this sensor/ lens combination' and point out that, imo, the lenses youre using are just not going to optimize your IQ experience, and compared to the rx1's fabulous zeiss--well, they cant be compared! imo, if you really wanna see what that cam can do, comparatively to the rx, you really need some 'like quality' optic. i know you like 35, maybe you could rent a zf 35/2--its compact and should provide you with about the best youre gonna get from the camera.
 
first i really like the quality of those. second the light is very difficult and imo would detract even from the rx1 results. third, i note your reference to 'this sensor/ lens combination' and point out that, imo, the lenses youre using are just not going to optimize your IQ experience, and compared to the rx1's fabulous zeiss--well, they cant be compared! imo, if you really wanna see what that cam can do, comparatively to the rx, you really need some 'like quality' optic. i know you like 35, maybe you could rent a zf 35/2--its compact and should provide you with about the best youre gonna get from the camera.

I wasn't thinking the light was terribly difficult, but maybe I should have shot some back to back with the Df and RX1 (except it was so cold I think the RX1 batteries might have given me about ten shots each). I realized up front these lenses wouldn't optimize what the camera was capable of, but made a conscious decision to see how much I like the camera with this level of lens because there's no way I'd be interested in it with larger lenses. Even the high end versions of Nikon's own 24 and 35mm primes are huge in comparison, let alone if you start going for longer and wider lenses. So, I actually don't even WANT to know. Bottom line, the one place it seems to matter is under pretty intense pixel peeping which I only do when I'm first checking out a camera and really doesn't have anything to do with how I look at photographs. And it may be some of the flip side of the "smooth and creamy" look that I'm enjoying so much. The RX1 shots are a little bit crunchier, for lack of a better term. I like THAT a lot too, but it's different...

-Ray
 
yes, i see your point, though i do think there are high quality optics that would not much compromise portability, like the zeiss i mentioned, is about the same size as the famous fuji 35/1.4. the zeiss zf line are in the main exceedingly manageable, though theyre not AF, and that may be a primary consideration for you. and the issue ive historically had with nikon is that its mount does not allow for nearly the cross platform interchangeability as canon. really, its nikon mount or leica r lenses, thats about it.
 
I am going to leave µ4/3 to a great extent and I am going to buy a full frame DSLR instead, therefore this thread is highly interesting! I have yet to decide which camera I am going to buy, but it will be either the Nikon D610, the Nikon Df or the Canon 6D with a small, but versatile set of primes. The Nikon Df is a great camera and I am interested in that camera, because of being able to mount lenses which are even 50 years old. If I buy this camera, I will most probably use some very nice manual lenses.
 
I am going to leave µ4/3 to a great extent and I am going to buy a full frame DSLR instead, therefore this thread is highly interesting! I have yet to decide which camera I am going to buy, but it will be either the Nikon D610, the Nikon Df or the Canon 6D with a small, but versatile set of primes. The Nikon Df is a great camera and I am interested in that camera, because of being able to mount lenses which are even 50 years old. If I buy this camera, I will most probably use some very nice manual lenses.

Pictor, I am enjoying the Df very much and would not hesitate to recommend it to those who can appreciate what it offers. It is already well established that the sensor is great and produces wonderful files. If you like the layout of the controls, as I do, then it is a done deal. Best wishes as you make your choice. I have been requiring myself to take and post a new picture everyday with it, and it has not yet disappointed me using a variety of lenses.
 
I went for another walk at the nearby ag preserve this morning. I have to admit the lure of new gear is a real motivator to get out when the temperatures are this far below freezing, although I went for a similar walk last week with my normal stuff, so maybe not. I started out at about 7 f and the sun came all the way up while I was out and by the time I got home it was up to 11 f. The camera did fine and I managed OK once the sun got to the level where I could feel it...
-Ray

As long as the wind isn't blowing it's not so bad. When I went out in single digits the wind was freezing the tears in my eyes. We went in. The X100s does really well out there though, I think better than I did! Getting the dslr bug yet Ray?
 
As long as the wind isn't blowing it's not so bad. When I went out in single digits the wind was freezing the tears in my eyes. We went in. The X100s does really well out there though, I think better than I did! Getting the dslr bug yet Ray?

LOOOONG day of shooting in Philly yesterday. And, yes, I got it BAD! Now the only question is whether I can bring myself to sell the RX1 because I have to if I want to get a Df. I'd have to sell the GX7 and 2-3 m43 lenses too, but that'll be easy because the Df will cover all of that. It'll cover what the RX1 does too, but I'm not buying any individual lenses that will match the Zeiss on the RX1 and that's a camera I dearly love. But it'll serve it right if I do sell it - it's the camera that started all of this full frame lust I seem to now have in the first place. So it should have to PAY for doing this to me.

Some additional impressions and more photos in the next post...

-Ray
 
OK, so after a very long day of walking and shooting in Philly yesterday, this camera won me over. I have the 24 and 35mm lenses. Yesterday, I took both, as well as a GX7 with the 7-14 and the Nikon A and I never took anything out of the bag but the Df with the 24mm firmly attached. So, some additional impressions:

* First, speaking of having the lens firmly attached, the Nikon lenses turn the wrong way! I guess there's no right or wrong, but every Olympus and Panasonic and Fuji and Sony lens I've used over the past few years (and if I've tried any other brands I'm forgetting, those too!) turns clockwise to mount (looking at the front of the camera) and counter clockwise to remove. Nikon does it the other way. I've had a couple of unsuccessful wrestling matches with the lenses to learn this lesson...

* These "D" lenses aren't quite as brilliant as the thoroughly magical Zeiss on the RX1 (which Luke contends is made from magic Unicorn dust), but if they're the weak point, I'm fine with 'em. And they're the right size and price. Jeez, I could but five primes ranging from 20-85mm for under $1500. One of the advantages of a brand with such a deep background of lenses.

* I inadvertently shot a ton of jpegs yesterday - I created a second custom bank of shooting settings for higher minimum shutter speeds and ISO settings, but I forgot to switch the files to raw in that one. So I shot almost the whole day in that bank of settings until I realized I was shooting jpeg. All with whatever the default settings are. And they're absolutely phenomenal. I'll be shooting raw going forward, but it's nice to know the jpegs are this good. Even very very high ISO shots with default NR applied was very workable and only showed minimal artifacts and you had to look CLOSE to see 'em.

* One thing I NEVER EVER EVER imagined myself doing with a DSLR was street photography. Yesterday I did a ton of street photography with the Df. And it was a thoroughly pleasant shooting experience. The controls are perfect for it - switch between manual and auto focus with the flick of a switch down near the lens ring and then turn the ring to the distance scale ON the ring. Roughly as nice as the m43 bodies with the Olympus 12 or 14mm lenses, the only difference being it doesn't remember the last MF distance so you have to set it each time you switch, but that's about a quarter of a second to do. And the camera feels about the same size as the Fuji X-Pro other than the pentaprism hump, and I used to shoot on the street with the X-Pro all the time. All that and Nikon's utterly brilliant auto-ISO setup makes for a great shooting experience. The shutter isn't silent, but it's about as unobtrusive as any shutter I've used other than a leaf shutter. I'll still likely take the Nikon A if I'm just going out for some dedicated street shooting, but I'll never hesitate to use the Df for street work if I've got it and the ultimate in quiet isn't a big deal (which it rarely is on the streets of Philly).

* For the mix of shooting I was doing yesterday, I was even OK with the exposure comp dial where it was. I'm moving the camera between my eye and belly a lot and street shooting is where I use exposure comp the most anyway. And it became something reasonably close to second nature to adjust on the fly. And now that Dan showed me how to get the aperture ring on the lens to work, I don't have to go to the control dials to do much of anything. Which is great.

OK, some photographs (more on Flickr). And yeah they're processed as mine tend to be. But far from that being a waste of such a great sensor, the files from this sensor hold up better under my processing than many many files. So it's an advantage whether you like 'em clean or dirty:

12248492296_7282dbd336_b.jpg

Philly Df-74-Edit by ramboorider1, on Flickr

12248090313_26d71048ea_b.jpg

Philly Df-280-Edit-3 by ramboorider1, on Flickr

View attachment 85110
Philly Df-212-Edit by ramboorider1, on Flickr

Just people walking down the street, but I found their expressions interesting enough to keep:
View attachment 85111
Philly Df-139-Edit by ramboorider1, on Flickr

View attachment 85112
Philly Df-41-Edit by ramboorider1, on Flickr

One of the rare homeless shots I keep - I find the interaction (and lack thereof) pretty compelling:
View attachment 85113
Philly Df-118-Edit by ramboorider1, on Flickr

View attachment 85114
Philly Df-205-Edit by ramboorider1, on Flickr

Someone else's art - I just liked it enough to copy it shamelessly:
View attachment 85115
Philly Df-271-Edit by ramboorider1, on Flickr

-Ray
 
Ray, these JPEGs seem to be tweaked as hard as usual (maybe moreso on some), but they seem less artifacty to me. Would you say these files handle a heavy slider hand better than others? BTW, I really like 'em....#2 & 4 especially.
 
Luke,

The most malleable jpegs I'd ever seen before were those from the Fuji X-trans cams (in my case, starting with the X-Pro) and the RX100 I owned briefly. I could work those almost as hard as raw files and still come out pretty good. These Nikon jpegs are at least that good and that much better at high ISOs. The jpegs from the Nikon A are also pretty good but start getting pretty funky by ISO 6400 - these from the Df still work pretty well at 12,800, which strikes me as a freakish thing. The raw files are still that much better - are amazing really, only matched in my experience by the RX1 (which has slightly different strengths and weaknesses), but the jpegs are good enough that if I was shooting something that was more about accuracy than expression, I wouldn't hesitate to use the jpegs. Or if I started running low on space on my SD card....

-Ray
 
Back
Top