D800 or DF

E

Eddie

Senior Member
I've been following D800 since the day its was launched. I've read reviews, viewing sample photos and even read afew tricks / hints to make D8oo easy and fun to use. With its 36MP and also massive, massive file size, 2 2TB harddrive won't be sufficient. I've even came across many D800 users buying another harddrive just for images from this camera.
Then, there is DF. Low light monster with 16MP D4 sensor and about half the price of it. Just photos and doesn't do movies. Some criticize on its AF with its cluttered 39 points and some says it has problem in focusing low light environment. And as per norm, there are haters and lovers too.

Basically, its a battle of MP vs ISO ... Im a DX user and would love to jump to FX.
Please help me out, Which one would you prefer and why ... thanks
 
G

gqtuazon

Gear Head
Re: D8oo or DF

I'll have to pass on this question since my preference is going to be different. Granted that the Df has one of the best sensors today but the D800 is no slouch either.

You provide very little information on what your intended purpose since the Df is more of a pleasure camera.

Anyway, good luck on your decision.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
Whiskeyman

Whiskeyman

Senior Member
Re: D8oo or DF

Eddie, It sounds to me like you really want the D800, since you've followed it since it was introduced.

Buy a camera for what it will do and what you want and need it to do and don't worry about what computer gear you'll need to process it. The price of computer hard disk space is too inexpensive to use to sell yourself on a camera. Yes, it's a factor, but will the fact that you don't need another hard drive make you happy with your camera choice if you go with a lesser resolution camera sensor?

As Glenn said, you need to decide what you need/want the camera for, or what you want out of the camera. Then you can make your choice. Price shouldn't be much of a factor between the two of these choices, so that helps!

WM

And BTW, were it me, I'd go D800 due to the camera form is very similar to other cameras I have, and the higher resolution of the sensor.
 
R

Ruidoso Bill

Senior Member
Re: D8oo or DF

Eddie said:
I've been following D800 since the day its was launched. I've read reviews, viewing sample photos and even read afew tricks / hints to make D8oo easy and fun to use. With its 36MP and also massive, massive file size, 2 2TB harddrive won't be sufficient. I've even came across many D800 users buying another harddrive just for images from this camera.
Then, there is DF. Low light monster with 16MP D4 sensor and about half the price of it. Just photos and doesn't do movies. Some criticize on its AF with its cluttered 39 points and some says it has problem in focusing low light environment. And as per norm, there are haters and lovers too.

Basically, its a battle of MP vs ISO ... Im a DX user and would love to jump to FX.
Please help me out, Which one would you prefer and why ... thanks
Click to expand...

Looks like the DF is within a couple hundred bucks, certainly not half the D800 price.
 
R

RON_RIP

Senior Member
Re: D8oo or DF

The Df fascinates me. And I like the idea that it does not do video, as video is something I will never use and resent having to pay for it on my 7000. But I kinda feel that you are leaning toward the 800 and you have to go where your instincts lead you. So lots luck. You can always flip a coin.
 
B

Brian

Senior Member
What type of photography do you plan on doing, what cameras have you used so far, and what Legacy equipment do you have?

I bought Leica to use with a lot of rangefinder lenses going back to 1934, full-frame and RF coupled.

I bought the Df to use with Nikon F-mount lenses going back to 1959, through the lens focus with the lens wide-open. I have mirrorless cameras, don't like focusing with the lens stopped down. The low-light performance of the Df is an amazing bonus, it plus fast lenses- wow. A 16MPixel sensor is well matched to older optics; but I have several Micro-Nikkor lenses that would have been a good match for the D800e. If you get the D800- be prepared to layout more money for top of the line lenses.
 
E

Eddie

Senior Member
I shoot landscapes, streets and not so much on weddings. And have 2 AiS lens and 3 FX lens.
Both cameras are superb. D8oo take stunning beautiful pictures. And I don't think while using this camera, you need to have top of the range lens. In flickr, even nifty 50mm 1.4D can take awesome pictures. The only problem was, the shutter speed. Its more then 1/4000. Which DF unable to take the beating. But DF can cheat by using ND filter. Also, it doesn't mean when it call Retro, it goes nicely with legacy or Non/AiS lenses. My D300s can take nice shots with it too.

Dang. Why can't Nikon make a camera that everyone dream off. All in one nice chunky, retro with all the greatness of specs and functions ..... sigh ....... decision, decision, decision

thanks to those who helped out choosing. I don't want to spend then sell it off.
Just need one more and that's it. One future proof camera ... I hope ... hehee ... :wink-new:
 
B

Brian

Senior Member
I would go with the D800 if i were you. All of your lenses will work with the D800, and you will be doing landscapes and street. High-speed shooting and low-light are not primary concerns. 1/4000th is fast enough to use a 55/1.2 wide-open, ISO 100 under most situations. You can always drop to ISO50. But 1/8000th- nicer for wide-open, outdoors.
 
R

rocketman122

Senior Member
I think the DF is an overpriced crippled camera. IQ is better by a bit at high iso, but all the bad parts and missing features like slow af, no video and more make the choice so easy. without even winking, definitely the D800. there is nothing to talk about. if it was a $2000 camera and it was between the D610 and DF, then it would be a fair comparison. D800 and dont look back.

you can even shoot the 17-55 you have at 15mp cropped!
 
Last edited:
B

Brian

Senior Member
I don't agree that the Df is "crippled", it's optimized for what it does. Getting rid of electronics is easier than isolating the noise from them. Using a smaller Af sensor saves size, and cutting the clock-rate in half lowers noise. as far as Video: that would cripple me with everyone wanting a Video when I want a photograph. I have a Video camera- it is small and fits in the case if I need it. Also have a pair of u43 cameras, EPL1's are down to $100 and have an EVF for eye-level viewing while shooting video. I hate "Chimping". The EPL1 and EP2 are fine for Video and can use Leica lenses to keep the size small.

There should be more to selecting a camera than just counting the number of features and adding up all of the numbers in the specs. You should like how the camera handles, and ask is it the best for the job. For Landscape work: large blow-ups, slower use: the D800 has higher resolution. The D800e, most lenses will be "soft enough" to act like a low-pass filter. I've seen aliasing artifacts in my Leica M8, not so much in the M9 which has a thicker IR cut filter- so ask to see some Landscape shots done with a D800e showing aliasing artifacts before buying. For high-speed sports, it would be a D4. I take a camera along for day-trips, family shots, vacation photographs, and for fun and relaxation. The Df was the best for that.
 
Last edited:
E

Eddie

Senior Member
Here is what I don't understand.
Why some compare ISO's with D800/e with D700?

I saw many pictures taken from D800 using ISO 6400.
Can you guys show me yours, nikoniters ?
 
B

Brian

Senior Member
That might be correct, but there is a lot more to photography than what modern technology has to offer. Not everything in a modern camera makes for better photography, and a lot of it gets in the way of taking the photograph that you want. I've rendered assistance to a number of people trying "to get the shot" that were fighting with their cameras. I tend to be able to get it into the mode that they want, usually by turning it off of "easy/auto-everything refuse to take the shot when the button is pressed mode". So back to get a camera (and lens) that you can get along with, balanced with one that is technically best for the job.

My test for the Df was "cut and dry". Walked into the shop with a Vivitar Series 1 135/2.3 non-Ai lens. This circa 1974 lens used floating optics for close-focus to 3ft, years before Nikon used them in their telephoto lenses. No problem getting sharp focus using any part of the screen, bought the camera kit. Second lens used was the 55/1.2. eventually I put a AF lenses on it, including the 70~180 AF-Micro-Nikkor zoom. This is a slower F4.5~F5.6 lens,


DSC_0514

"Dumb test of AF", at 180mm F5.6, ISO 204,800 (or whatever the highest setting is), hand-held. No NR.
 
Last edited:
Whiskeyman

Whiskeyman

Senior Member
Brian said:
That might be correct, but there is a lot more to photography than what modern technology has to offer. Not everything in a modern camera makes for better photography, and a lot of it gets in the way of taking the photograph that you want. I've rendered assistance to a number of people trying "to get the shot" that were fighting with their cameras. I tend to be able to get it into the mode that they want, usually by turning it off of "easy/auto-everything refuse to take the shot when the button is pressed mode". So back to get a camera (and lens) that you can get along with, balanced with one that is technically best for the job.
Click to expand...


I certainly understand what you mean about turning off the automated modes of the camera. I find myself using manual exposure mode more and more lately. As long as I have an 18% reference, like green grass, or a card, I often get a better image to start with. Focus, though, is a different matter; no way I'm even close to autofocus for most of my photos.

WM
 
R

rocketman122

Senior Member
Brian said:
I don't agree that the Df is "crippled", it's optimized for what it does. Getting rid of electronics is easier than isolating the noise from them. Using a smaller Af sensor saves size, and cutting the clock-rate in half lowers noise. as far as Video: that would cripple me with everyone wanting a Video when I want a photograph. I have a Video camera- it is small and fits in the case if I need it. Also have a pair of u43 cameras, EPL1's are down to $100 and have an EVF for eye-level viewing while shooting video. I hate "Chimping". The EPL1 and EP2 are fine for Video and can use Leica lenses to keep the size small.

There should be more to selecting a camera than just counting the number of features and adding up all of the numbers in the specs. You should like how the camera handles, and ask is it the best for the job. For Landscape work: large blow-ups, slower use: the D800 has higher resolution. The D800e, most lenses will be "soft enough" to act like a low-pass filter. I've seen aliasing artifacts in my Leica M8, not so much in the M9 which has a thicker IR cut filter- so ask to see some Landscape shots done with a D800e showing aliasing artifacts before buying. For high-speed sports, it would be a D4. I take a camera along for day-trips, family shots, vacation photographs, and for fun and relaxation. The Df was the best for that.
Click to expand...


getting rid of electronics should mean a smaller body to preserve the look of the older FE/FM style camera. this is just a fattened up mutant. the fact that it has the D4 sensor is the only thing I find great about the camera. the problem is, having a lower end AF sensor kills the point. its an excuse to say if I want to do video ill buy a video camera. the D800 and even the D600 can put some amazing video footage. having video and stills is not a compromise. IQ is unparalleled. youre compromising but not having video in it. your statement is weird. no I dont need video because I have another video camera I like shlepping around that cant give me the IQ my camera would have given me, if nikon werent cheap and hadnt included it. yes, the IQ on my smartphone is just as great as my little camera I have thats cumbersome to carry because I need memory cards extra batteries and a charger (because they dont last) with me instead of the convenience of better IQ and less weight to carry around had it been in my DSLR which I carry around anyway. your point is a little off.

I guess im a bit biased when it comes to choosing a cmaera since I shoot weddings and having a fast AF system is a huge plus. having video is also a plus. your pace is slower than mine and I guess you can compromise on not having certain features. I need features that will give me speed. the DF is the opposite. speed is not its thing.

my biggest problem is the fact that I think the DF is just overpriced for what it gives. D800 can go to iso6400 and is more future proof than the DF for the next few years since it can take advantage of newer lenses that will come out that can take advantage of the sensor. the new sigma 50 ART comes to mind. the fact there is no grip for the DF is a huge downfall IMO.the retro look is why most people bought it. I dont look back to the past so there is no point imo. that and the D4 is the only thing it has going for it. meh.

I think nikon did a halfazz job with the camera. if they would had at least the D600 specs and had the D800 AF sensor then I would say, yea its complete. and of course ask anyone who bought it and theyll say "its the best thing since sliced bread" no one will ever say "nah its an overpriced crippled camera" no one wants to feel like theyre a sucker for choosing it. me? I dont mind saying I think my D600 is a meh camera. im very practical and logical in thinking. its just a short step for me when I upgrade but after buying a lot of gear I needed another FF camera and sold my POS D300 and needed something. if I had the money I would have chosen the D800. im waiting for the D800s to arrive so I can get the D800 at a lower price. If I got the camera for free, I would sell it cheap and get the D800. its a way complete camera...and video camera.
 
R

rocketman122

Senior Member
Brian said:
I don't agree that the Df is "crippled", it's optimized for what it does. Getting rid of electronics is easier than isolating the noise from them. Using a smaller Af sensor saves size, and cutting the clock-rate in half lowers noise. as far as Video: that would cripple me with everyone wanting a Video when I want a photograph. I have a Video camera- it is small and fits in the case if I need it. Also have a pair of u43 cameras, EPL1's are down to $100 and have an EVF for eye-level viewing while shooting video. I hate "Chimping". The EPL1 and EP2 are fine for Video and can use Leica lenses to keep the size small.

There should be more to selecting a camera than just counting the number of features and adding up all of the numbers in the specs. You should like how the camera handles, and ask is it the best for the job. For Landscape work: large blow-ups, slower use: the D800 has higher resolution. The D800e, most lenses will be "soft enough" to act like a low-pass filter. I've seen aliasing artifacts in my Leica M8, not so much in the M9 which has a thicker IR cut filter- so ask to see some Landscape shots done with a D800e showing aliasing artifacts before buying. For high-speed sports, it would be a D4. I take a camera along for day-trips, family shots, vacation photographs, and for fun and relaxation. The Df was the best for that.
Click to expand...


getting rid of electronics should mean a smaller body to preserve the look of the older FE/FM style camera. this is just a fattened up mutant. the fact that it has the D4 sensor is the only thing I find great about the camera. the problem is, having a lower end AF sensor kills the point. its an excuse to say if I want to do video ill buy a video camera. the D800 and even the D600 can put some amazing video footage. having video and stills is not a compromise. IQ is unparalleled. youre compromising but not having video in it. your statement is weird. no I dont need video because I have another video camera I like shlepping around that cant give me the IQ my camera would have given me, if nikon werent cheap and hadnt included it. yes, the IQ on my smartphone is just as great as my little camera I have thats cumbersome to carry because I need memory cards extra batteries and a charger (because they dont last) with me instead of the convenience of better IQ and less weight to carry around had it been in my DSLR which I carry around anyway. your point is a little off.

I guess im a bit biased when it comes to choosing a cmaera since I shoot weddings and having a fast AF system is a huge plus. having video is also a plus. your pace is slower than mine and I guess you can compromise on not having certain features. I need features that will give me speed. the DF is the opposite. speed is not its thing.

my biggest problem is the fact that I think the DF is just overpriced for what it gives. D800 can go to iso6400 and is more future proof than the DF for the next few years since it can take advantage of newer lenses that will come out that can take advantage of the sensor. the new sigma 50 ART comes to mind. the fact there is no grip for the DF is a huge downfall IMO.the retro look is why most people bought it. I dont look back to the past so there is no point imo. that and the D4 is the only thing it has going for it. meh.

I think nikon did a halfazz job with the camera. if they would had at least the D600 specs and had the D800 AF sensor then I would say, yea its complete. and of course ask anyone who bought it and theyll say "its the best thing since sliced bread" no one will ever say "nah its an overpriced crippled camera" no one wants to feel like theyre a sucker for choosing it. me? I dont mind saying I think my D600 is a meh camera. im very practical and logical in thinking. its just a short step for me when I upgrade but after buying a lot of gear I needed another FF camera and sold my POS D300 and needed something. if I had the money I would have chosen the D800. im waiting for the D800s to arrive so I can get the D800 at a lower price. If I got the camera for free, I would sell it cheap and get the D800. its a way complete camera...and video camera.

not sure why you posted the image of santa? it doesnt point anything out to me. tons of chroma noise, so its not useable. subject is still, you can use a tripod or even handheld. if youre trying to show the sensors ability, you didnt succeeed. the image might be saved as BW but other than that I would not use it. try the dance floor at weddings when its crowded and dark and the light changes from second to second. that will test your camera and your ability. I can bump iso 12800 or more with the D600 and get tons of chroma noise and get a shot similar to this but if I showed images that looked like this to the BG I would be sued. its not proving your point Brian. if you showed me a clean image of a moving subject at 12800 I would be impressed but santa, is not showing me anything.
 
R

rocketman122

Senior Member
thats quite a comment there. how about primes like the $100 50 1.8 AFD thats razor sharp from 2.8? that rivals the 24-70 thats $1900. I guess that doesnt qualify. or how about the 55 AF 2.8 macro which is one of the most sharpest lenses. I guess that doesnt count or how about the 105 2.5 thats razor sharp at f/4. I guess that doesnt count as well. I guess what Im saying, is that what youre saying is nonsense. the price of the lens has nothing to do with choosing a proper lens for the D800. you know, you dont have to shoot at the highest rez all the time, right? if I bought the D800, not every event requires 36mp files. even 24mp on my D600 is overkill. a nice size from the D3 is just perfect. VERY few will ever use more than 8mp for an enlargement. think before you post.
 
Top