Approve the Cookies
This website uses cookies to improve your user experience. By using this site, you agree to our use of cookies and our Privacy Policy.
OK
Index  •   • New posts  •   • RTAT  •   • 'Best of'  •   • Gallery  •   • Gear  •   • Reviews
Guest
New posts  •   • RTAT  •   • 'Best of'  •   • Gallery  •   • Gear  •   • Reviews
Register to forums    Log in

 
FORUMS Canon Cameras, Lenses & Accessories Canon EOS Digital Cameras 
Thread started 09 Nov 2013 (Saturday) 01:47
Search threadPrev/next
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)

LOL Canon 6D is more "retro" than the Nikon Df

 
FuturamaJSP
Goldmember
Avatar
2,227 posts
Likes: 82
Joined Oct 2009
     
Feb 19, 2014 17:47 |  #61

Wilt wrote in post #16441347 (external link)
'Impress'?! If you carry a film camera (or a digital camera that looks like a film camera) most folks on the street have a look of puzzlement while gazing at 'the Luddite carrying the old fashioned film camera', and wonder why the Luddites don't keep up with the modern world.
Probably not unlike the average person looking at an audiophile who has an expensive turntable to play his LP's :lol:

I wonder what people would think if they see someone walking around with a Hasselblad Lunar or a HV :D


They asked me how well I understood theoretical physics. I said I had a theoretical degree in physics. They said welcome aboard! - Fallout New Vegas
blah blah blah
DA (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)
EOS-Mike
Goldmember
Avatar
1,033 posts
Gallery: 30 photos
Likes: 217
Joined Oct 2013
Location: Atlanta, Georgia
     
Feb 19, 2014 18:14 |  #62

The only thing that bothered me about the Nikon DF was the price. Otherwise I thought it was nice.

I don't see it as retro. I see today's black, puffy cameras as bigger than they need to be. It's a trend that started with the original film Rebels. Plastic is cheaper than metal, so they made DSLRs out of plastic.

But the original 35mm were a lot tougher. People dropped them all the time and they dented instead of cracking.


Sony A7 III and some lenses

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
EverydayGetaway
Cream of the Crop
Avatar
10,827 posts
Gallery: 11 photos
Likes: 4485
Joined Oct 2012
Location: GA Mountains
     
Feb 19, 2014 20:23 |  #63

EOS-Mike wrote in post #16702554 (external link)
The only thing that bothered me about the Nikon DF was the price. Otherwise I thought it was nice.

I don't see it as retro. I see today's black, puffy cameras as bigger than they need to be. It's a trend that started with the original film Rebels. Plastic is cheaper than metal, so they made DSLRs out of plastic.

But the original 35mm were a lot tougher. People dropped them all the time and they dented instead of cracking.

I'm sorry Mike, but everything you just said is false. Firstly, the Df is every bit as big as any other FF camera on the market, and a whole lot more chunky in certain areas, the thing looks even bigger because it's boxy.

Secondly, today's bodies are streamlined for the ease of use. The dials are put into locations to make them faster to access. Thanks to the rear and upper LCD's there was no longer a need for all the extra top dials (though I do enjoy them on my X-E1, but their definitely not faster).

Finally, today's DSLRs are without a doubt just as or more rugged than the cameras of old, lenses maybe not, bodies for sure are. My dad's been shooting professionally for 40 years and has told me himself that he's broken numerous film SLRs and has yet to break a DSLR.

Just because something is made of metal doesn't mean it's inherently stronger.


Fuji X-T3 // Fuji X-Pro2 (Full Spectrum) // Fuji X-H1 // Fuji X-T1
flickr (external link) // Instagram (external link)www.LucasGPhoto.com (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Wilt
Reader's Digest Condensed version of War and Peace [POTN Vol 1]
Avatar
43,919 posts
Gallery: 1 photo
Likes: 3309
Joined Aug 2005
Location: Belmont, CA
     
Feb 20, 2014 00:02 |  #64

EverydayGetaway wrote in post #16702891 (external link)
I'm sorry Mike, but everything you just said is false. Firstly, the Df is every bit as big as any other FF camera on the market, and a whole lot more chunky in certain areas, the thing looks even bigger because it's boxy.

Let me offer the following photograph for comparative sizing. The diminuitive yet full frame 24x36mm Olympus OM-1 film camera, the somwhat brutish Topcon Super D film camera from 1964 (and which was about in the same class as the Nikon F for both bulk and heft...they were both 'sledgehammers' in size/weight and sturdiness), and the Canon FF dSLR side by side

IMAGE: http://i69.photobucket.com/albums/i63/wiltonw/Equipment/Bodysize-1-8491_zpsdad1bce9.jpg
IMAGE: http://i69.photobucket.com/albums/i63/wiltonw/Equipment/Bodysize-2-8493_zps9e0761c7.jpg

The measurements:
Topcon Super D: 144mm x 100mm x 51mm (body+prism), 800g (body, battery)
Nikon Df: 144mm x 110mm x 66.5mm (body), 765g (body, battery, SD)
Canon 5D: 152mm x 113mm x 75mm, 810g (body)
Canon 40D: 145.5mm x 107.8mm x 73.5mm, 740g (body)

You need to give me OK to edit your image and repost! Keep POTN alive and well with member support https://photography-on-the.net/forum/donate.p​hp
Canon dSLR system, Olympus OM 35mm system, Bronica ETRSi 645 system, Horseman LS 4x5 system, Metz flashes, Dynalite studio lighting, and too many accessories to mention

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
EverydayGetaway
Cream of the Crop
Avatar
10,827 posts
Gallery: 11 photos
Likes: 4485
Joined Oct 2012
Location: GA Mountains
     
Feb 20, 2014 01:08 |  #65

Wilt wrote in post #16703293 (external link)
Let me offer the following photograph for comparative sizing. The diminuitive yet full frame 24x36mm Olympus OM-1 film camera, the somwhat brutish Topcon Super D film camera from 1964 (and which was about in the same class as the Nikon F for both bulk and heft...they were both 'sledgehammers' in size/weight and sturdiness), and the Canon FF dSLR side by side

QUOTED IMAGE
QUOTED IMAGE

The measurements:
Topcon Super D: 144mm x 100mm x 51mm (body+prism), 800g (body, battery)
Nikon Df: 144mm x 110mm x 66.5mm (body), 765g (body, battery, SD)
Canon 5D: 152mm x 113mm x 75mm, 810g (body)
Canon 40D: 145.5mm x 107.8mm x 73.5mm, 740g (body)

You should find a pick of the Df to add to that. The first time I saw the thing in someone's hands my first thought was "really?". The thing just looks massive, even if it isn't any bigger than a 5D.


Fuji X-T3 // Fuji X-Pro2 (Full Spectrum) // Fuji X-H1 // Fuji X-T1
flickr (external link) // Instagram (external link)www.LucasGPhoto.com (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
speedync
Goldmember
1,532 posts
Gallery: 121 photos
Likes: 1085
Joined May 2011
Location: Geelong, Australia
     
Feb 20, 2014 02:43 |  #66

h14nha wrote in post #16702283 (external link)
Have you used the A7/A7r ? ? ? I ask because I was surprised how nice the grip was, and how balanced it felt. I have removed the straps off my cameras too.........

No. Haven't even seen one in the wild, let alone used one :) I had a 550D before the 6d, and after using the 6D, I actually like the size of the body more, being that bit larger. At the risk of sounding like a fanboi, I find the 6D to be the Goldilocks camera for me :) Just right. One of the things that doesn't fill me with confidence with the Sony cameras, is their lens system. The Alpha series have been around for ages, yet there is very little choice in lenses. For sure they have the main lenses/focal lengths covered, but with Canon you have a choice of how much you want to spend for a certain focal length. Basic consumer lenses, right up to the luxury L's. That's pretty much the reason I went to full frame. For the variety & choice in lenses. Especially at the wider end.




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Tronhard
Senior Member
Avatar
612 posts
Gallery: 282 photos
Likes: 2204
Joined Jan 2020
Location: Auckland, New Zealand
Post edited 1 month ago by Tronhard. (9 edits in all)
     
Jan 02, 2021 14:21 |  #67

I must admit I have not read all of the posts on this thread, so for some I may be going over old territory.

I started shooting seriously about 40 years ago, and when I began to do so I got a couple of Nikon F3's and Canon A-1's: both arguably leading edge at that time. I appreciated each camera for its specific benefits and frankly at the level they sat at it was more of a case of horses for courses rather than one being demonstrably superior to the other.

When I went digital, I chose a single brand, and I did so on the strength of the glass, rather than the body. Frankly, for a period after the release of the Canon D60 until fairly recently, Nikon has, with some justification, claimed the better sensor. At the time I chose Canon, the Canon EF 70-200 L 2.8 IS USM MkII was a major draw card and I wanted the access to the vast array of lenses offered by Canon. Since then my collection has expanded to about $90k worth of gear, of which Canon represents about 95% of that - so I have a lot of skin in the game and I am certainly a loyal Canon client. I made an exception for the Nikon Df based on the body, and more specifically the interface. However, I also wanted digital performance and found it in the awesome sensor (adapted from the D4) that smoked contemporary Canons in low light performance.

The following submission was presented to a YouTube review that was written by someone who had never even used the camera, yet felt qualified to express an "expert opinion".
---------------
The Df is an amazing camera and was hammered by people who have no or minimal contact with it. This is a camera that CAN be used as as digital DSLR, or it can be the digital version of the film cameras I used to use back in the days when I first started as a photographer. You can choose which personality you choose or apply a combination of those two interfaces.

Its intent is to re-create, as much as possible, the experience that photographers had when using a film camera. But it recognizes that digital photography has other elements that film did not have and it has tried to deal with those without losing the analogue interface. The experience of using film required a discipline of approach that one does not have to have today and what some regard as shortcomings, I see as a recreation of those conditions, and I'm fine with it. The clues to the fusion philosophy are in the whole design ethic:

1. The ability to use Non-AI lenses
2. The use of analogue dials controlling the essentials
3. The fabulous sensor, upgraded with a new processor to improve low-light/high ISO performance. It encourages you to use available light and fast prime lenses.
4. The removal of video to concentrate on stills, (according to Nikon) making the camera more compact.
5. The lack of alternative focusing screens


Let me address some of the criticisms I have seen hurled at this:

FIRST: It's a STILL photographers' camera - that deserves no apology, there are many DSLRs out there that do video just fine. Nikon F-series cameras were still cameras.

SECOND: It doesn't have a built-in flash. Neither did the film cameras, but it has a perfectly serviceable flash hot shoe with all the capabilities of any Nikon camera built-in.

THIRD: The unit does not have enough focusing points. It has a lot more that film cameras did and it works fine if you know how to use it.

FOURTH: There is only one card slot. Film cameras could only hold one film at a time. In the days of film when I was shooting around NZ, Australia and Asia for landscape, wildlife and travel production I could carry only a limited amount of film and that had a finite life in the very hot conditions. When I took a photo I would not know if it came out for maybe a month before it was developed. The temptation was to take several bracketing shots, but then there was the limited film capacity to consider. It generated a discipline of being sparing and very careful with my settings and composition. I still do that today with digital and shoot a lot less than my contemporaries who only knew the digital environment.

FIFTH: The controls have lock on them - yep and so did most of the film cameras, it's about learning to get used to them, once you do it's automatic.

Sixth: Lack of focusing screens - there are some available via 3rd party suppliers, but considering I use auto-focus lenses I use spot focus and let the system do its job.

To me, and those who value this camera, it is all about taking time to enjoy the process of taking a photo, as well as the final outcome. In a similar situation my daughter's boyfriend asked about my record turntable and asked why I would still have one of those when an MP3 player was much more efficient. My response was that playing a record becomes an occasion in its own right and that was a big part of the enjoyment for me - in exactly the same way as taking a photo with the Df does.

I have now retired from my photographic career, I take photos for free and for me. I still have over $90k of Canon gear, which I have used since I went digital and I shall continue to use it. I chose Canon digital for its glass, but I always respected Nikon - I used them both when I shot film. I chose to switch brands for this body alone because of what it is specifically and I am happy that I have done so.

There are a lot of photographers out there who crave the latest technology on the belief that a better camera will make them a better photographer, or that the gear is somehow holding back their innate abilities. In 40 years of photography I have never felt constrained by the gear (I have used Nikon, Canon, Olympus and several other medium format brands). I have felt constrained by my skill in using what I have. For those who want the latest tech this is not for you, move on and be happy. For those of us who value the process this is a fine camera and worthy of respect.

The period around the release of the Df was marked by a lot of vitriol aimed at the camera, much of which was based on bias, tribal brand loyalty and ignorance. Since then the Df has established its place as a niche camera with a loyal following from those who appreciate its particular strengths.
===============

Regarding the debate on the relative physical attributes of the Df vs. an equivalent Canon.

NOTE: I am comparing the Df to the 5DMkIII as they both have professional-quality FF grade sensors in them, the EOS 6D did not. In the case of the Df, it has the same sensor from the highly respected Nikon D4, which was, at the time, Nikon's flagship camera. The Canon 5DIII was Canon's flagship camera.

Links to comparison of the sensors of the Df, 5DIII and D4 by DxOmark: https://www.dxomark.co​m …us-Nikon-D4___925_795_767 (external link) show the sensor performance for the Df and D4 are consistently the same, except the Df had been tweaked to significantly improve low light performance, while the 5DIII lagged behind across the board.

The Canon 6D was an equivalent to the Nikon D600.

According to DPReview the following apply to the Df and the EOS 5DMkIII

Weight (inc. batteries) Nikon Df 760 g (1.68 lb / 26.81 oz), Canon 5DIII 950 g (2.09 lb / 33.51 oz) so the Canon is 190gm (25%) heavier
Dimensions Nikon Df 144 x 110 x 67 mm (5.67 x 4.33 x 2.64″) Canon 5DIII 152 x 116 x 76 mm (5.98 x 4.57 x 2.99″)

While at first glance the 5DIII and the Df seem to be a similar size. However, while dimensions are absolute, they don't tell you everything, for example how the camera body is shaped within those maximum parameters, so here is where some photos add to that perception.

IMAGE: https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/50792712536_d4a21c6be2_h.jpg

IMAGE: https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/50792831627_a158e6bf9d_h.jpg

IMAGE: https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/50792832077_9798fc6f96_h.jpg

IMAGE: https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/50792712721_e00322aa51_h.jpg

From these images it is evident that the bulk of the Canon is greater across a much wider area.

"All the beauty of life is made up of light and shadow", Leo Tolstoy;
"Skill in photography is acquired by practice and not by purchase" Percy W. Harris
We aren't remembered for the gear we use, rather the quality of the images we create. Me...
Trevor

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Tronhard
Senior Member
Avatar
612 posts
Gallery: 282 photos
Likes: 2204
Joined Jan 2020
Location: Auckland, New Zealand
Post edited 1 month ago by Tronhard.
     
Jan 02, 2021 16:08 |  #68

EverydayGetaway wrote in post #16702891 (external link)
I'm sorry Mike, but everything you just said is false. Firstly, the Df is every bit as big as any other FF camera on the market, and a whole lot more chunky in certain areas, the thing looks even bigger because it's boxy.

Secondly, today's bodies are streamlined for the ease of use. The dials are put into locations to make them faster to access. Thanks to the rear and upper LCD's there was no longer a need for all the extra top dials (though I do enjoy them on my X-E1, but their definitely not faster).

Finally, today's DSLRs are without a doubt just as or more rugged than the cameras of old, lenses maybe not, bodies for sure are. My dad's been shooting professionally for 40 years and has told me himself that he's broken numerous film SLRs and has yet to break a DSLR.

Just because something is made of metal doesn't mean it's inherently stronger.

I too have been shooting for over 40 years now, and I have never broken ANY camera. How one individual uses a camera varies by person, by activity and likely even by age and experience. As to your impressions of the Df body size and weight, I would refer you to my post above that is based on actual comparisons of bodies that I have, placed side by side, the dimensions supplied by DPReview (I checked them against the makers).


"All the beauty of life is made up of light and shadow", Leo Tolstoy;
"Skill in photography is acquired by practice and not by purchase" Percy W. Harris
We aren't remembered for the gear we use, rather the quality of the images we create. Me...
Trevor

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)

13,404 views & 0 likes for this thread
LOL Canon 6D is more "retro" than the Nikon Df
FORUMS Canon Cameras, Lenses & Accessories Canon EOS Digital Cameras 
AAA
x 1600
y 1600

Jump to forum...   •  Rules   •  Index   •  New posts   •  RTAT   •  'Best of'   •  Gallery   •  Gear   •  Reviews   •  Member list   •  Polls   •  Image rules   •  Search   •  Password reset

Not a member yet?
Register to forums
Registered members may log in to forums and access all the features: full search, image upload, follow forums, own gear list and ratings, likes, more forums, private messaging, thread follow, notifications, own gallery, all settings, view hosted photos, own reviews, see more and do more... and all is free. Don't be a stranger - register now and start posting!


COOKIES DISCLAIMER: This website uses cookies to improve your user experience. By using this site, you agree to our use of cookies and to our privacy policy.
Privacy policy and cookie usage info.


POWERED BY AMASS forum software 2.1forum software
version 2.1 /
code and design
by Pekka Saarinen ©
for photography-on-the.net

Latest registered member is henry65
667 guests, 195 members online
Simultaneous users record so far is 15144, that happened on Nov 22, 2018

Photography-on-the.net Digital Photography Forums is the website for photographers and all who love great photos, camera and post processing techniques, gear talk, discussion and sharing. Professionals, hobbyists, newbies and those who don't even own a camera -- all are welcome regardless of skill, favourite brand, gear, gender or age. Registering and usage is free.