NikonGear'23
Gear Talk => Camera Talk => Topic started by: BruceSD on July 02, 2022, 06:55:52
-
.
A few years ago I owned a Df body. I had it only a short period of time before selling it.
Lately I've been mostly shooting my Z6 body.
While the images I'm making with the Z6 are very nice, I kind of wish that I'd kept my Df so I could directly compare the image quality between the two bodies.
Do any of you own both the Df and one of the modern full frame mirrorless offerings from Nikon? How doe the image quality of color files compare? How do the black and white files compare?
From my very limited personal experience and research, I think I might slightly prefer the IQ of the Df over the Z6. Which do you prefer and why?
-
A good and relevant question, Bruce.
The answer probably depends on the manner in which you shoot and how you process your captures later. I regard the Zx cameras as picture machines and the Df as an imaging tool.
-
Picture machine. . . . . . imaging tool. I like that, Birna, thank you. The little Darling and the Da Vinci, in my case.
-
I’ve used Df, Z6 and Z9. They are all good. It took me longer to get good images with the Z6, but once I figured it out I did not really pick up the df again.
-
.
Thanks to all for taking the time to respond!
I'm not yet fully comfortable with my Z6. Maybe in time, I'll be like Jack and fine tune it's capture setting and post processing protocol and realize images that I love. I guess that it just takes time.
-
Do you still get to use your DF since moving to the Z system? Or has the Zfc totally replaced the Df?
The Nikon Df was once a dream camera for me, however, I couldnt justify the price. Now am really thinking hard if I can shift to the system. Am slowly selling some of my seldom used Nikkor F lens to help fund the switch.
A good and relevant question, Bruce.
The answer probably depends on the manner in which you shoot and how you process your captures later. I regard the Zx cameras as picture machines and the Df as an imaging tool.
-
... I think I might slightly prefer the IQ of the Df over the Z6. Which do you prefer and why?
From what was told by Nikon Pro Service when Df was released;
The Df sensor is based on the sensor of the D4, and the difference/advantage of the Df is that the sensor and electronics are fully designed without video to provide a very clean image.
I'm sure you can find more if you go back and look when it was released.
Much more on the Df;
https://nikongear.net/revival/index.php?topic=9850.0 (https://nikongear.net/revival/index.php?topic=9850.0)
-
I own both the Df and Z6. There are sometimes marked differenced in the colour rendering between the two cameras but it would be hard to say which one is better. Partly because aperture information is retained and partly because it's simply a more natural experience, I now use my MF legacy primes and AF-D lenses such as the excellent 80-200 mainly with the Df rather than through the adaptor and the results are at least on a par. At very high ISO, the Df has extremely good colour retention at the expense of slightly more noise than the Z6 (at any rate when equalized for resolution) but they're both fine in 99% of situations.
-
Can't Nikon please put the Df sensor in a Z body and call it a day? Charge $2000 and half the people on this forum would buy it!
-
I'd rather have a Df-like body, i.e. a full frame Zf
-
A good and relevant question, Bruce.
The answer probably depends on the manner in which you shoot and how you process your captures later. I regard the Zx cameras as picture machines and the Df as an imaging tool.
Can you expound on this? The Z being a "picture machine" implies being a bit cold and clinical, or am i reading into your comment too much? I have Z6 and a Df, but the Df has not gotten much use lately (and I gave the D750 to my nephew to "pay it forward" I hope!)
-
Call it a day, certainly, but get off to an earlier start, with an OVF, mirror and prism and a full 35mm frame- an earlier sunrise, not stretch the sunset, Nikon, just start the day where it should have started- on a new FM sized Df- years ago.
-
I have both: Df and Z6, and I use both, my Df has about 182000 actuations, my Z6 only 5000... (vs 40k for my Z7)
This summer I have used my Df in the mountains with my 28-300 lens, a jolly lens that's good enough for a 16 Mpix sensor
I use the Z6 for night street photography, the electronic viewfinder helps a lot in dark corners, with a traditional optical finder you wouldn't even be able to frame the pic...
Ciao from Massimo
-
I have both: Df and Z6, and I use both, my Df has about 182000 actuations, my Z6 only 5000... (vs 40k for my Z7)
This summer I have used my Df in the mountains with my 28-300 lens, a jolly lens that's good enough for a 16 Mpix sensor
I use the Z6 for night street photography, the electronic viewfinder helps a lot in dark corners, with a traditional optical finder you wouldn't even be able to frame the pic...
Ciao from Massimo
Hello Massimo, I am using Df and prime lenses as 35mm 1.4, 50mm 1.2 and 105mm 2.8. You mentioned, that your 28-300 is good enough for a 16 mpix sensor. Would You be so kind to explain this. Thanks a lot Michael
-
Sometimes the faults of lenses are apparent on high resolution sensors. He is saying that since the Df sensor is relatively speaking lower resolution, that this lens can stand up.
Of course todays lenses and sensors are usually far outpacing us photographers capabilities!!
-
I'd even say that the 28-300 is good enough for any picture that is not enlarged beyond A4 and not watched with a magnifying glass. It is "human", so to say. That is, provided you got rid of the pincushion distortion that can become nasty, depending on the subject (e.g. cityscapes shot around 110mm FL).
Back to main subject - I am still resisting the temptation to buy a Z5 and make direct comparisons with the Df (a matter of weeks it seems... with Xmas nearing, my defenses are wearing down). My busy agenda keeps me from doing that. Also, I've not had any night strolls for a long time, so the use case "not even being able to frame" has become too rare, alas.