20 November, 2013:
This will be a day-to-day summary of working with the new Nikon Df camera. I will report on whatever finding observed large or small, plus my thoughts on the entire Df concept. Thus, has Nikon gone crazy or are there underlying plans to this 'retro' design? Or is the Df pure nostalgia for its own sake? I aim to penetrate these enigmas over the coming days of actual usage of the Df.
There is no strict schedule, just rambling along with the Df inserted as the main camera in my usual workflow (in visible light).
For now I'll use a review camera, randomly pulled out of the production series. So the sample is in no way cherry-picked for the occasion. Later I probably purchase one for my own use (or abuse depending on whether I conclude stuff must be rearranged or readjusted with the camera itself).
This is an 'all blacks' model, not the silver 'panda' version of this Df. Nikon Nordic plans on only selling Df kits with the redesigned AFS 50 m f/1.8 Nikkor G included and thus I also got a new lens to test. Common sense dictates you should never test two new items in combination unless you are able to split them up and combine with items of previously known features and quality. Thus for now I'm only using the 50 G to get an insight in the speed and precision of autofocus of the Df, and later of course will verify with known standards such as the 24-70/2.8 AFS or 200/2 AFS.
However, the overall design of Nikon Df indicates it is made to cater for manual lenses, new or old. That in itself is highly interesting and shed light on how the makers' cameras have gradually precipitated towards a world of AF dominance, to the disadvantage of manual lenses. A tell-tale sign has been the evolution of the viewfinders to make them (overly) bright and virtually devoid of any grain structure, so you no longer can rely on them to focus fast lenses manually. The finder aerial image simply isn't broken up sufficiently to indicate precise focus. An overlooked side effect of this is that you cannot really trust the impression of depth of field given by these finders.
The finder of the Df, however, is made to be useful with manual lenses. The screen is a type B, matte adorned with an outline of focus points, and while the entire finder gives a clear, crisp and bright impression as you lift the camera and look into the finder, the view is no longer overly bright. Instead, the focused plane of the image snaps in and out of focus as it should do. Exactly how the Nikon engineers managed this feat of redesign is unclear to me, but the finder surely works well with say 50/1.2 Nikkor or the 58 mm f/1.2 Noct, to name but a few I tested so far. This focusability extends to wide fast lenses such as 24/2 or 35/1.4 as well, and fast and long lenses now is a breeze. It remains to be seen whether the slower lenses are equally well handled. I had no issues with the 25-50/4 zoom though and this has been problematic on the DSLRs earlier. Later I hook up the Df to some of my über-long cannons such as the 800/8 ED, 1000/11 Reflex, or the king of them all, the 360-1200/11. However, on my current trip the longest lens travelling with me is the Voigtländer 180/4 APO again chosen because it has been a difficult-to-focus item.
The finder itself makes a prominent 'hump' on the outline of the Df and reminds eerily of an FM2 or suchlike models. The entire finder image is easily seen corner to corner even with spectacles on. Among the many (flawed) speculations on the finder before actual samples started to appear, is that the finder specified to have an eyepoint of just 15 mm, must give problems in viewing and would vignette for people using prescription glasses. Several undocumented assertions claimed it would be equal to or even worse than the finder of say the D800 (the finder of which has 18 mm eyepoint). Now, with the Df in hand, it is easy to see where errors arose. The finder indeed has an eyepoint of 15 mm, but the bezel around the ocular is much lower than on the other models so the eye sits closer to the rear glass of the finder. That is why Nikon refrained from incorporating an ocular shutter because this would necessitate a higher eyepoint leading in turn to a bigger finder head or lower magnification. Always compare commensurable variables, as my professor in statistics tried to make us mere mortal students understand.
Time for some breakfast coffee so sign off for now.
NOTE: the relevant entries from the humongous thread over at FZ will be extracted and patched into this diary. Do understand this is a massive undertaking so takes time.
I have kept some of the questions asked by FZ members so as to keep the flow of information intact. These questions are presented in italics and tagged with the FZ member nick name, plus original time stamp. As the owner of FZ effectively killed this gargantuan thread by evicting me and removing all my publishing privileges, such a measure of copy/paste is justified by 'force majeure'. After all, the Df material remains in my copyright.
While the reconstruction is underway, the topic remains locked so editing is not disrupted. Later the restriction will be lifted. Just in case you wondered ...
Added note: I decided to break out the lens "porn" sequences from the Df thread. They deserve to have a direct access in their own grouping.
