Nikon Df vs. D700 in terms of usability

[zuglufttier]

Hi there,

I currently use the D700 and I'm pretty happy with it. I bought it used a few years ago and never had to worry about anything. At first I thought the ISO performance could be better but then I also started to use darktable, the linux equivelent to Adobe's lightroom, more and more. Now I'm happy with ISO3200 because I also care less about ultimate image performance but more about the mood of a photo and I don't hesitate to do some or more image editing to achieve that mood.

That said: I'd like to see the D700 in a smaller package with added usability. I can't remember when I last used an autofocus lens with the D700, so that's no concern as well. But what bothers sometimes is the inability to see whether I pressed the ISO-Button correcty in the viewfinder or if I found the button for the mode to change from A to M or something like that.

Is this something to expect from the Df? Like having the camera first set to A and then switching to M, adjusting the exposure compensation and changing ISO without taking the eye from the viewfinder?

PS: Is there a really quick way on the Df to toggle Auto ISO?

[Erik Lund]

I don't think the size/weight is that different... But It's at least one or two full stops better ISO and the overall look and feel of the raw file is amazing like the D4 D4s and a good MP size for almost everything... If you sell the D700 it still fetches a fair amount of cash if that helps...

[Jakov Minić]

p.s. I assigned the function button on the Df for changing to Auto ISO.

I haven't been switching from A to M without taking my eye off the viewfinder, so can't help there, but you should be able to do it.

The ISO performance of the Df is far superior. If I am to guess D700 @ ISO 1600 is Df @ ISO 12800.

The only advantages that the D700 has are the AF, pop-up flash (as a controller) and ergonomics (but ergonomics are personal).
If you aren't using AF lenses you will thoroughly enjoy the Df!!!

[zuglufttier]

Thanks for your input!

I don't think the size/weight is that different...

That is the part that bothers me the most

p.s. I assigned the function button on the Df for changing to Auto ISO.

So it's just one click on that button to turn Auto ISO completely on and off?

The only advantages that the D700 has are the AF, pop-up flash (as a controller) and ergonomics (but ergonomics are personal).

The better ISO performance would come in handy here and there. But ergonomics would the my main reasons to get the Df after all!

Maybe someone coming from a D300, D700 or something like that can comment how the Df feels in comparison.

[Frank Fremerey]

I feel the size is smaller and the weight is less. The D810 would be the natural replacement for the D700 IMO.

BUT:

As you prefer MF, the Df as a smaller and lighter body is a very nice companion to Nikkor MF glass. That is what she is designed for after all. And if you are still accustomed to the classical way of dialling in time and aperture the Df is yours as well.

[Andrea B.]

The Df is a very manual camera. Its ergonomics are not "automated".

You can see the change from A to M in the Df viewfinder. But it is tricky to hold the cam in your left hand, keep it close to your eye, and use your right hand to lift and turn the mode button from A to M.

Similarly you can see the ISO changes in the viewfinder. But it is tricky to hold the cam in your right hand, keep it close to your eye and use your left hand to depress the ISO release with your left thumb while simultaneously turning the ISO dial to the desired setting with your left forefinger.

That said, the Df is a wonderful image maker. I absolutely love it.

Before purchasing a Df, you absolutely must rent one and use it for a good solid week to be sure you can live with it. It *is* different, and you do have to put some time into getting the feel of it.

The Df was born for primes. This is not a cam which is comfy with something like the 24-70/2.8G AFS or 70-200/4 VR.
I've been keeping this new 28/1.8G plasteek wunderLens on my Df, and the combo just sings. I also like the Nikkor 60/2.8 macros on the Df.

***************

I used both the D300 and the D700. Good in their day, but Nikon has moved on. (Not quite far enough for my taste, but that's another matter.....). The Df does not at all "feel like" the D700 to me.

I would recommend looking quite seriously at the D750 as the step up from the D700 because along with having all the latest Nikon-ery, it has the wonderful U1 and U2 settings. I love being able to save two sets of shooting parameters and access them on the upper left dial sooooo easily. And a third set of shooting parameters can be set under the A (or M). I usually keep "artistic" settings under M where I will be making lots of changes while working. I keep U1 on settings to support daylight, sequence/action shooting and usually keep U2 on settings to support B&W.

It is difficult to figure out why Nikon did not see fit to give the D810 the U1 and U2 settings. Very very lame.

(Please Nikon give me at least 10 settings banks easily accessed via a button setting!!! And please let me load in some custom curve and colour calibrations!!! Oh Please!!!)

***************

Df = 16MP. This is a very nice amount of MP and manageable filesizes.

D750 = 24 MP. Still mostlly manageable.

D810 = 36MP. Well, meh. Turns out I really have not liked 36 MP all that well. It is overkill unless you are making crazy-large prints. YMMV.

For some reason when jumping from 24MP to 36MP, I have had to learn new editing trickery. Especially when it comes to sharpening and detail/clarity sliders. I still don't have it figured out.

Oddly enough, even though the D810 has almost perfect colour, I like its colour the least. Go figure! I have no explanation for this.

[afx]

Do you use the exposure compensation often on the D700?
Then look at the placement of the dial on the Df and then think about how much of a PITA that is. You have to take your hand off your lens to use it.

cheers
afx

[stenrasmussen]

Well, having used them all (D2, D3, D4, D700, D750, D800/810) I do not find it difficult to use the controls on the Df's top left deck with my eye still at the viewfinder.
The "MASP" selector on the upper right deck is awkward though. But as I tend to leave it at "A" and occasionally at "M" I have no big issues with it.
As said by our Blum woman above, the Df is not a cam for the big zoomers, action, etc. Smack a smaller prime on and Bob will be your uncle for a looong time.
16MP is more than enough for 99% of the photographic population.

[Frank Fremerey]

AndreaB: Love your contribution. Somehow magically or inevitably all the things you said are exactly what I did experience with the cameras mentioned.

Esp when it comes to the "upgrade" from 24 to 36 I feel editing changes, colour does not feel so natural anymore.

Esp. when it comes to renting the Df before making an buying decision. After my week I felt all the buttons to be in the wrong place, while a similar layout worked perfect for me on my Fuji.

Esp. if I would not be so happy with the D600 I would jump for the D750. But as I already have the D600 the leap is not big enough for my taste.

Thank you, Andrea!

(My personal Nikon experience: FM-2, F4, F100, D70, D70s, D2H, D200, D3, D3s, D300s, D7000, D4, D600, D800E, D810, Df, D750)

[zuglufttier]

Do you use the exposure compensation often on the D700?
Then look at the placement of the dial on the Df and then think about how much of a PITA that is. You have to take your hand off your lens to use it.

I do, quite often so and some of the dials, with their dedicated lock buttons, look a bit cumbersome...

You can see the change from A to M in the Df viewfinder. But it is tricky to hold the cam in your left hand, keep it close to your eye, and use your right hand to lift and turn the mode button from A to M.

Similarly you can see the ISO changes in the viewfinder. But it is tricky to hold the cam in your right hand, keep it close to your eye and use your left hand to depress the ISO release with your left thumb while simultaneously turning the ISO dial to the desired setting with your left forefinger.

Well, it is a bit tricky with the D700 so I guess, it wouldn't change that much after all.

I used both the D300 and the D700. Good in their day, but Nikon has moved on. (Not quite far enough for my taste, but that's another matter.....). The Df does not at all "feel like" the D700 to me.

I also feel that the newer cameras just add a bit in ISO performance and that's about it. There are no big advancements in terms of usability, sometimes even steps backwards....

I would recommend looking quite seriously at the D750 as the step up from the D700 because along with having all the latest Nikon-ery, it has the wonderful U1 and U2 settings. I love being able to save two sets of shooting parameters and access them on the upper left dial sooooo easily. And a third set of shooting parameters can be set under the A (or M). I usually keep "artistic" settings under M where I will be making lots of changes while working. I keep U1 on settings to support daylight, sequence/action shooting and usually keep U2 on settings to support B&W.

I wouldn't be able to use the DK-17M on smaller bodies like the D750, so that's not an option. I really got used to it by now... I never use different settings on the camera, always shooting in RAW, no JPEG. I go from A to M and turn Auto ISO on or off. That's about all I do

When using primes (99% of the time), I set the camera to M, turn on Auto ISO and I adjust aperture and time on my own. This works great unless the lighting situation changes very quickly, then I just switch to A which gives me only a little bit less control.

Talking about colour performance, this might sound a bit heretic to some of you, I don't think there is such a thing. I just dial in the colour I want later on.

[Andrea B.]

I set the camera to M, turn on Auto ISO and I adjust aperture and time on my own.

Isn't this a wonderful way to work? I use this set-up constantly.

****

The physical changes from D300/700 to the newer models might be small but they are useful.
Live view, U1/U2 buttons on some models, +/- button for quick enlargement to check the shot - and more.

Then there is the huge improvements in dynamic range, ISO-capability and colour. My working style is to get as much as possible correct in-camera so that I have to do as little editing as possible later. You will especially notice the hugely improved capability in handling highlights. The D810 is the best at highlights that I've ever seen.

Granted, it is for some folks a horrendous effort & experience to convert their NEFs in a Nikon converter. I sympathize, but I'm used to it and don't mind so much. It really isn't all that time consuming to batch convert NEFs in a Nikon converter and save them as TIFs for further work in another editor. It is worth this effort to preserve all the great settings Nikon gives us. And newer converters like Photo Ninja and Iridient have made great strides at preserving the in-camera shots. ACR needs to get better because the Indies are dancing rings around them - and not just with Nikon conversions.

****

Just for the record so that I do not sound like such a Nikon Fangirl -  - I also shoot Lumix (m4/3) and Pentax (crop sensor). And if a chunk of Free Money suddenly fell from the sky, I would absolutely indulge in a Fuji X-Trans. I don't think I even know another person who shoots Pentax! I really like their lens line - esp those little pancake-y things.

I'm not yet intrigued by Sony because they are being such Dimwits about the compressed raws. It makes absolutely no sense whatsoever. Yes I know such compression prolly does not matter and posterization is a very rare event. But still....

****

We shoot the primary Brand we shoot mostly because of "historical accident". The first digital camera in my family was my sister's little Canon point-n-shoot.  Sister see, sister do - so I had to get a digicam. But I got a Nikon 'cause I didn't want to be a copycat sister. Now here I am several gazillion dollars later with a bookcase full of Nikongear. And so it goes.........



[Edited to restore the spacing which somehow got lost.]

[zuglufttier]

Thanks, Andrea, for your insights. The D700 is nice but not perfect in handling highlights, that's true...

Oh, yes, liveview I keep forgetting about that. It is almost unusable on the D700. Maybe on a tripod in the darkest night...

Is it any good on the Df? Does it suck as much as battery life as on my D700?

[Frank Fremerey]

The Df  has a smaller battery than the D810 and D750. So less pictures per battery. And if you use live view a lot fir
precise MF even less battery time.

I needed mains for the D3 in the studio only but I need a spare battery for the D600 always. I guess for the tiny battery in the Df I would
need two or three spares like I need for my Fuji.

[Andrea B.]

I have not noticed that the smaller Df battery supplies "less pictures per battery". Not at all!! I used the Df for between 750-1000+ shots per day recently on one battery per day during my Yellowstone touring and each day the battery still had power left at the end of the day. I do turn the camera off between shooting whenever I'm touring. I wasn't using Live View much.

I don't have any numbers at hand right now, but I do know that I use up the fat D810 batteries faster than I do the thin Df batteries.

These comments, FWIW and YMMV.

[Bjørn Rørslett]

Liveview on Df is excellent. But yes, use it a lot means stressing the battery. Perhaps not as much as you might think, though.

I tend to get 3-400 shots per charge with my Df. Which is more or less the same i get from most modern Nikons, by the way.