When my Df dies, I will...

[Airy]

I got used to the "vignetting " that was, by the way, more noticeable with the D700 than with the Df. It is like Leicaist having the lens obscuring the bottom right. I'd rather have it than not being able to focus manually.

[David H. Hartman]

The magnifier imposes another problem to me: the viewfinder image suffers from the vignetting.  I have used all of my D7000, D610 and the current D750 with the rubber eyepieces removed to get my eye as close to the ocular as possible.

The last (D)SLR with which I can focus comfortably was FM2 with E3 screen.  It was better than F3.  I figured that the mirror that let some portion of light through it to feed AF sensor or the metering sensor darken the finder image more considerably than I had imagined.  All DSLRs have such mirrors.

The Nikon FM2/n has a 0.86x finder with a 50mm lens focus to infinity (or something like that). The Nikon F3HP (DE-3) has a 0.75x finder while the F3 (DE-2) has a 0.80x if memory serves me. The eyepoint on the F3 (DE-2) is high enough that I can comfortably see the entire finder with my glasses on. The Nikon F3 offers me the best viewfinder experience in an SLR. The Nikon F3HP/F3 can use old style non-Red Dot focus screens that are the same optical design as the Nikon F and F2. The non-Red Dot screens are useful for super speed lenses.

I used a Nikon DK-17 (I'll have to check that model number) 1.2x magnifier on my D2H and it was fine but I can't see enough of the data at the bottom of my D800. I tried the 1.2x magnifier on my D300s and can't use it either.

Face structure plays a role in how much eye point on needs. This explains why some can use a finder comfortably with glasses and others not.

Dave Hartman

I'm going to have to check the percent magnification on the F3HP and F3. I originally put down 0.70x and 0.75x but I think that was wrong. I seem to remember the F100 has having a 0.70x finder and I didn't enjoy manual focusing on an E/B screen with the F100. The F5 was the same as the F3HP for finder magnification. The F5 was about the same as an F3HP with Red-Dot screen for manual focusing so it wasn't good for lenses faster than f/2.8~f/2.5.

[bjornthun]

So, the FM2 was 0.86x magnification, pretty close to the 0.9x of the Olympus OM-1. That explains why I liked the FM2 as well.

In addition to facial structure and eyepoint, subtleties of the glass prescription, curvature and thickness of the glass could determine, if a viewfinder works for an individual or not.

I once had glasses for use with contact lenses and another pair with another prescription for use without contact lenses. Suffice to say that they didn't work equally with the same viewfinder. So, the prescription matters as well.

Luckily, EVFs works well for me.

[Lorne]

When my Df's shutter failed (at 28K) at year's end I considered what I'd replace it with should the fault be terminal. If I couldn't find a good 2nd hand/refurbished Df, I suppose a D750 would be my FX choice and D500 a DX alternative. Shockingly, currency fluctuations mean that a new Df lists at 30% more than in 2013.

[Akira]

Dave, you are right about the magnification of both F3 finders (x0.75 and x0.8 ).  That's why I preferred non-HP finder even though I wear glasses.  No problem with the viewing the info display in the finder.

The viewfinder magnifications of Olympus and Pentax SLRs are larger, but I couldn't see the info when I view the entire image frame, which made me stay away from any of their cameras, although I was very much attracted to OM-2 spot/program, -3 and -4 as well as Pentax MX.

[David H. Hartman]

The FM3a which was based on the FE2 had a finder magnification of 0.83. I never even touched​ one of those but I suspect I would have preferred it to the slightly higher finder magnification of the FM2n and the FE2. I was OK with the 0.86 finders a tiny bit higher eye point would have helped.

Dave

[MILLIREHM]

The FM3a which was based on the FE2 ....

It should have been called FE3 (or FH- for the hybrid shutter), getting an M was misleading

[Airy]

Back to topic, if you don't mind.
The alternatives I brought were serious.

One slight change: should I switch to Leica, then I'd need a noctilux. I am getting used to the no to, that's why...

[Akira]

Noctilux has been a dream lens since I had seen an image on film taken with the previous f1.0 non-aspherical version.  Now that M10 allows live view, the vignetting should of little problem.  You can use Sony Alpha 7 series if you like.

[JJChan]

Back to topic, if you don't mind.
The alternatives I brought were serious.

One slight change: should I switch to Leica, then I'd need a noctilux. I am getting used to the no to, that's why...

My friend Airy - you got a Noct? We need proof! Photos please (from Df to keep in thread!)

JJ

[Airy]

One pic in another thread so far (see "guess who" under portraits). Others coming up.

[Hugh_3170]

It probably should have been called an FE-3m rather than the FM-3a, as it was IMHO more of an update to the FE-2 than the FM-2n, although it did offer the best of both of these two fine predecssors in the one body.

I still have mine and it is worth hunting down for those photographers still into film, even though it is not as plentiful as its two forebears. 

It is a shame that the FM-3a was released so late, as was the late release of lenses at that time such as the Ai-P series, in which only three examples hit the markets in those pre-AF days.  I understand that at one stage all of the Ai-S series of lenses were planned to be upgraded with a metering chip and were then to be released as Ai-P lenses. 

Oddly enough the FM-3a did not use the metering chip in the 45mm f/2.8 Ai-P pancake lens that was released alongside it.

It should have been called FE3 (or FH- for the hybrid shutter), getting an M was misleading

[David H. Hartman]

Who here is going to be buried with their Nikon Df when *it* dies?

Dave Hartman

[tommiejeep]

Talk about 'prying it from your cold, dead hands' 
I am regretting helping a young man sell his grandfather's, still boxed, unused Panda last year , $1,300 
Just hope Nikon comes up with something I want.
Tom

[Frank Fremerey]

Ok, let's hope it won't happen that soon. I do not have any visibility on the Df "line", assuming there is a "line". With growing age, I'll need better focussing aids for sure, even though "statistical shooting" (three shots to ensure a sharp one) greatly helps.

Yes. I also do bracketing to ensure at least one usable RAW when my ageing brain did not again forget to reset from "M" to "A" leaving an inside shooting. I even started to use the rear screen on weaker days!

The next Df will be delivered with a custom rollator in black and yellow with a tripod attached and a motif bell...