Forgot Password
Pentax Camera Forums Home
 

Reply
Show Printable Version Search this Thread
11-19-2013, 12:29 PM   #16
Senior Member
Paul MaudDib's Avatar

Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Michigan
Posts: 293
It's too expensive for what it is. It's deliberately crippled in some ways - eg no video.

It's nice that a manufacturer is making an attempt to get the size of bodies under control. Modern body sizes are just insane - A D4 has more volume than a Hasselblad 500 C/M. It's nice that they are adding manual controls too - but they didn't eliminate any of the buttons on the back, so it's a compact body with something like 16 controls on the back panel alone. What makes old bodies usable is a combination of simplicity and ergonomics, the Df misses that.

11-19-2013, 12:40 PM   #17
Pentaxian




Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Seattle
Posts: 9,472
QuoteOriginally posted by Paul MaudDib Quote
It's deliberately crippled in some ways - eg no video.
I wouldn't say intentionally omitting video is crippling it. If I were to buy a still camera and the salesman held two identical cameras one without video and one with it and told me one gets 1400 shots per battery charge and the other around 300 shots on a smaller battery, I know which one I'd choose and wouldn't think it was crippled in the least.
11-19-2013, 12:45 PM   #18
Senior Member
Paul MaudDib's Avatar

Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Michigan
Posts: 293
Adding video support wouldn't lessen the battery life, though. Recording video would, sure, but having the feature on the camera doesn't do anything. The feature was already in the D4 and it was taken out to create an artificial distinction, and that always irks me.

Even if the battery life is poor, it should still be offered to the user as a capability. Lots of other bleeding-edge capabilities are exposed to users - for example, I could shot at ISO3200 on my Canon 40D even though it looked like crap, because that might be the difference between getting a shot that needs some heavy cleanup and not getting a shot. If the user is OK with poor battery life in video mode, or purchases a grip, then they should be able to use the camera to its full capability.

Last edited by Paul MaudDib; 11-19-2013 at 12:52 PM.
11-19-2013, 12:46 PM   #19
Site Supporter
Site Supporter
RobA_Oz's Avatar

Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Tasmania, Australia
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 6,861
That comparison is a bit confusing. If they were identical, how could one have a smaller battery? If you don't use video, how does it affect battery performance? I can't imagine that the video circuitry would take up so much room that it would impinge on battery size.

11-19-2013, 12:51 PM   #20
Senior Member
Paul MaudDib's Avatar

Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Michigan
Posts: 293
QuoteOriginally posted by RobA_Oz Quote
That comparison is a bit confusing. If they were identical, how could one have a smaller battery? If you don't use video, how does it affect battery performance? I can't imagine that the video circuitry would take up so much room that it would impinge on battery size.
I would imagine the "video circuitry" is still in the image processor. It's the same EXPEED3 image processor as the D4.
11-19-2013, 12:52 PM   #21
Veteran Member
mrNewt's Avatar

Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: ON, RH
Posts: 2,179
Since I am not interested in videos, I would rather have my camera built for photography only.
Rather have more futures for photography and missing the video options...
11-19-2013, 01:00 PM   #22
Pentaxian




Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Seattle
Posts: 9,472
Look at Nikon's track record for number of shots using larger batteries in their other DSLRs. Half of the DF and the DF has the same guts as those with bigger batteries and fewer shots per charge. It looks like taking out video does the trick.

And at the price point of the DF it is not a camera for the frugal crowd. And it doesn't look designed to be a all-purpose DSLR where it would be your one-and-only camera that has to do everything. It's like a mirrorless in terms that a lot of people have both a mirrorless and DSLR.


Last edited by tuco; 11-19-2013 at 01:14 PM. Reason: Spelling
11-19-2013, 02:11 PM   #23
Senior Member
Paul MaudDib's Avatar

Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Michigan
Posts: 293
QuoteOriginally posted by tuco Quote
Look at Nikon's track record for number of shots using larger batteries in their other DSLRs. Half of the DF and the DF has the same guts as those with bigger batteries and fewer shots per charge. It looks like taking out video does the trick.
The Nikon D4 gets 2,600 shots out of a 22 watt-hour pack, the DF gets 1,400 from a 9 watt-hour pack. So the D4 is getting 119 shots per watt-hour and the Df is getting 155. It's not inconsequential, but it's not huge either. Battery life isn't really something that's a practical worry with DSLRs though - you really have to be laying into the shutter release before you can burn up a battery in less than a day, and those kind of shooters are going to be bringing a few spares and/or charging and rotating them out.

And again, I really don't see how disabling video would affect anything. The image processor still has video support, it's the same chip as the D4. What would be changed to reduce current usage? It's probably just slightly more power-efficient components across the board, being a year and a half newer than the D4.
11-19-2013, 02:22 PM   #24
Senior Member
Paul MaudDib's Avatar

Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Michigan
Posts: 293
QuoteOriginally posted by mrNewt Quote
Since I am not interested in videos, I would rather have my camera built for photography only.
Rather have more futures for photography and missing the video options...
Well, removing video doesn't really help still photography at all, they're two completely different things. There's no feature that removing video bought you.

I agree with you in the abstract that I'd rather have a great camera built exclusively for photography than a mediocre jack of all trades though. In that sense, Nikon has done at a stroke what Pentax has refused to for more than a decade: the DF is a full frame camera with mechanical controls, with a non-crippled lens mount capable of metering even the oldest Nikon lenses natively. It's just way expensive, and has some weird quirks for that niche use (like coming with a plain screen that is not officially user-interchangeable). If they launched at a lower price, some of the quirks and crippling would be a lot more tolerable.
11-19-2013, 02:26 PM   #25
Pentaxian




Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Seattle
Posts: 9,472
QuoteOriginally posted by Paul MaudDib Quote
...
And again, I really don't see how disabling video would affect anything.
Beats me. If I recall correctly, that was a cited reason for increasing battery life. My D800 gets fewer shots on a larger battery. It seems odd that people who will never buy this camera want to force it to have video for some reason.
11-19-2013, 02:50 PM   #26
Senior Member
Paul MaudDib's Avatar

Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Michigan
Posts: 293
"Will never buy the camera" is all a matter of price. There's no way I'm buying it at $2.7k when the Sony A7 is launching at over a grand less, with in-sensor PDAF, 50% more resolution, video, etc. If this is going to be a crippled-ish body specialized for shooting old glass, it needs to launch more in the "gimmick camera" price range like full-frame mirrorless cameras. That would at least offer a straight tradeoff: the Df handles native glass better, the mirrorless handles a wider range of glass on a single body. At $1700 vs $2750 it's not even a contest.

If we're going to start stripping systems off of the camera, just think how much power you would save by taking off the autofocus system, LCD, etc. Maybe the cost would be a touch more reasonable too.

e: Df is actually launching at $2750, not $3k even

Last edited by Paul MaudDib; 11-19-2013 at 02:59 PM.
11-19-2013, 03:00 PM   #27
Pentaxian




Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Seattle
Posts: 9,472
QuoteOriginally posted by Paul MaudDib Quote
"Will never buy the camera" is all a matter of price. There's no way I'm buying it at $3k when the Sony A7 is launching at just over half the cost
No doubt. But for someone already having FF Nikon system and looking for something like the DF might find it cheaper than the Sony. I mean, I'd want some native mount glass to go with that A7 ( don't always want to adapt and manual focus). And I'd probably get 3 lenses for it that look to cost around $800+ each. And I wouldn't have to maintain yet another camera system of lenses ( have 5 camera systems lenses as it is).
11-19-2013, 03:05 PM   #28
Veteran Member
Joel B's Avatar

Join Date: Aug 2013
Location: Barnett MO.
Photos: Albums
Posts: 2,336
QuoteOriginally posted by Paul MaudDib Quote
If we're going to start stripping systems off of the camera, just think how much power you would save by taking off the autofocus system, LCD, etc. Maybe the cost would be a touch more reasonable too.
Remove the essentials?? That's crazy talk!! You want retro not stone age!!!
11-19-2013, 03:15 PM - 1 Like   #29
Veteran Member
Nesster's Avatar

Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: NJ USA
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 13,056
QuoteOriginally posted by Joel B Quote
Remove the essentials?? That's crazy talk!! You want retro not stone age!!!
Though IRL the bird is pecking at the rear LCD...


11-19-2013, 03:25 PM   #30
Veteran Member
Joel B's Avatar

Join Date: Aug 2013
Location: Barnett MO.
Photos: Albums
Posts: 2,336
QuoteOriginally posted by Nesster Quote
Though IRL the bird is pecking at the rear LCD...

Forget magnesium body, How about stone!!!!! Oops sorry wrong thread!
Reply

Bookmarks
  • Submit Thread to Facebook Facebook
  • Submit Thread to Twitter Twitter
  • Submit Thread to Digg Digg
Tags - Make this thread easier to find by adding keywords to it!
camera, design, df, dslr, model, nikon, nikon df, pentax
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Nikon DF: specs and lots of pics Adam Non-Pentax Cameras: Canon, Nikon, etc. 33 11-16-2013 11:53 AM
Nikon DF: Size Comparison richard balonglong Non-Pentax Cameras: Canon, Nikon, etc. 40 11-07-2013 12:44 AM
Why does it seem like everyone is bashing the Nikon Df? bwDraco Non-Pentax Cameras: Canon, Nikon, etc. 53 11-06-2013 01:25 PM
First Nikon Df images up at SteveHuff Samsungian Non-Pentax Cameras: Canon, Nikon, etc. 60 11-05-2013 05:44 PM
New Nikon DF Full Frame TaxMan Photographic Industry and Professionals 26 10-29-2013 02:22 PM



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 05:32 AM. | See also: NikonForums.com, CanonForums.com part of our network of photo forums!
  • Red (Default)
  • Green
  • Gray
  • Dark
  • Dark Yellow
  • Dark Blue
  • Old Red
  • Old Green
  • Old Gray
  • Dial-Up Style
Hello! It's great to see you back on the forum! Have you considered joining the community?
register
Creating a FREE ACCOUNT takes under a minute, removes ads, and lets you post! [Dismiss]
Top