Nikon Df - official

[arthurking83]

following on from this rumour thread ....

Nikon Df

Personal thoughts:

+ Good idea.
- A bit late.
- Seemingly overpriced
- (for me) too small (or + depending on point of view)
++ D4 sensor
+ non Ai lens compatibility .. but this also extends to fully manually operated lenses too of which I have a few.

At closer to $2K, I'd have seriously considered it as an option for low light stuff and just general mucking about/fun.

Just read a quick hands on from Bjorn up there in the arctic ... he says that focusing is better than D800, even tho the screen is technically the same as that of the D800.
Another bonus in my book, as I'm a fan of many older manual lenses.

I don't really find that manual focusing lenses on the D800 is a major issue .. well compared to the same effort on either a D300 or D70 at least.
I had to eventually get a focusing screen for the D300 to help in that regard, but haven't really felt that the same was a necessity on the D800.
D800 appears about the same to me as the D300 is now with the KatzEye screen(obviously excepting for the split prism centre)

have though of getting an alternative screen for the D800 too .. but it's not imperative.
My hit rate for very shallow DOF images and the D800 is in the order of a bit of 50% spot on, and about 25% in the acceptable range.
Of course for fast action MF is pretty much useless, so time needs to be plentiful for manual focusing to get it right in shot.

So if it transpires that MF is indeed a bit better with the Df(than the D800), I may look at getting one in the long term future.

The ability to set aperture on non Ai lenses is a major selling point for me too. And I'm assuming this would also work for non native/adapted lenses too.
As the camera has no aperture prong to control the non Ai lens, the aperture is set on the lens and then entered into the camera for accurate metering.

I have a small selection of non coupled lenses that would benefit from this feature.

For me the major downsides are simply price and size(actually, size of grip).

Curious as to anyone else either considering it(or not).

[swifty]

Yep.. just continuing from the previous thread:

Going by the usual "preorder" US stores at $2746.95 and doing a current exchange rate conversion ( we all know that we all get milked in Aus. ) it works out at $2900.01 in Oz pesos.

It is too simply far too expensive for the limited features on offer and I reckon it needs to drop by 1K in Aus ( pretty bluddy quickly ) in order for it to be on anyone's wish list.

Its actually not the price to feature ratio that I'm concerned about. I'm fortunate in that I already have a D700, a very capable DSLR so I'm after a different tool for a different photographic experience. A D800/E is by all means more capable than this camera but will offer me little more than what my D700 does, not because it doesn't hands down out-spec practically every aspect of the D700 but because I need very little of those improvements (more MP, video etc.). The Df, or at least what I perceived as the concept behind it, had something.
But looking at the actual implementation I have some concerns, which I'll elaborate below.

Curious as to anyone else either considering it(or not).

As evident in my last thread when the camera was a rumour, I do have interest in this camera.
My +/- list goes like this:
+ D4 sensor
+ Build quality
+ small battery but specced to last a lot of shots. A nice surprise.

- AF (don't care too much bout the number of points but wider coverage and accuracy/sensitivity are important)
- Inability to CLS trigger
- No wifi

Unknowns:
. OVF: likely change to a plus as AK mentioned, early reports indicate an improvement despite having the same specs as previous already very good OVFs ie. D800.
. Size: size reduction seems adequate to me but really gotta hold it to make up my mind. Weight could come down but maybe that's the price you pay for good build.
. 1/4000 max shutter speed but offset by the base ISO 100. Daylight shooting with fast primes could still be a problem.
. The handling: Lots of dedicated dials and controls but having thought about how I'd actually use it, I see a worrying trend.

I'll likely want to use this camera with small G primes and explore some MF and AF-D primes too. But the likelihood is G primes will still be my most used lenses.
So in Aperture priority, I'd need to use the front dial and look at the top LCD (same as on my D700).
In Shutter priority, I can use the shutter dials but only in full stop increments. Or use the 1/3 step, in which case I'm back to the top LCD (like on my D700 again).
Similarly in Manual mode, combination of the above so the top LCD will be used a lot, just like on my D700.

I like the ISO dial and exposure compensation but I already wrote previously I think an auto ISO setting needs to be on there. It is on the left side which is a bummer but I guess the right side is already quite cluttered. With my D700, I've configured it such that I can use it one handed. I think I can do the same with the Df (bypassing the left controls with the front Pv and Fn buttons) but then I'm back to the D700 again.

Is there a way to simply all this. Probably.
The current implementation seems a bit cluttered. Maybe too cluttered for the experience I was after.
Of course I still can't wait to try it out haha.

Finally a lot have been said about the retro looks. I'm sure marketing has a lot to do with it.
Personally I think retro's fine as long as what's borrowed complements the design ideals. Good designs are often beautiful and so if borrowing from the past results in a good looking product, then even better.
However if the outer cladding was done with a modern material instead that shaved some weight whilst being stronger but changed the retro looks completely in the process, I'd still be all for it.

[Kym]

http://petapixel.com/2013/11/04/firs...f-show-online/

[fillum]

Massive FAIL Nikon !!

All I wanted was a D4 sensor in an FM2 body, but with the D4 51-point AF unit. Oh and the D4 metering stuff, the D4 frame-rate, Expeed 4 and 4k video (whatever that is). And built in wi-fi and GPS, and a little button on the back that within 5 minutes of being pressed someone turns up beside you with a fresh double-macchiato. And priced at $1200. Nikon would sell heaps but once again they fail to listen to their customers.

</sarcasm>[Sorry, been reading too many comments on NR and DPR . Will post something (possibly more sensible) shortly...]



Cheers.

[I @ M]

Random thoughts from a random person.

It is a block of butter lighter than a D800 and 35 grams lighter than a Pentax K3.

It is somewhat smaller than a D800 but somewhat bigger in all respects other than thickness to a Pentax K3.

It weighs the same as a D7100 but is somewhat bigger in all respects other than thickness.

I don't think anyone can quibble about the build quality of any of the four bodies so I don't see any advantages there.

Comparing them all at http://camerasize.com/ is pretty telling really.

Nothing about the size makes me go wow, it is still a DSLR with most of the size and weight to it.

It does support a very very large range of lenses. that will be a big plus to those who own some of the older Nikkor glass. Seeing as not all AI or AIS glass was of spectacular quality ( just the same way as not all D and G lenses are spectacular ) I feel that appeal is limited.

The Pentax K3 also mounts an extremely long and varied lineage of lenses, some of which are truly great bits of gear. The Pentax also has in body anti vibration measures which I guess further enhances the appeal of older lenses when shake reduction is required.
Rather obviously we are comparing two 35mm format sensor cameras against two APSC format sensor cameras but megapickle for megapickle at those sizes does the 35mm format hold a massive advantage?

Yep, it has "retro" styling with the visual design. Yes it has "retro" dials to control the basics needed for an exposure. It also has "modern" buttons and dials to control things that the "retro" dials cannot. I observed before that it seems a rather cluttered way of doing things so I view the "retro" features as more aimed at the hipster brigade.

Yes, it will be a well made camera that will take wonderful images and have a big appeal to some sections of the photographic world but I don't see it as something that appeals to me.

Oh yeah, then there is the price ------ reckon you could buy a new K3 Pentax and at least one really good lens for the same price as the DF body.

[arthurking83]

Actually the retro look to me is a negative.
Not a big fan of overly styled paraphernalia(although I try hard with my hair!)

ISO dial seemed like a good idea(to me at least) .. but I think a massive fail. Just as we start getting Nikon to listen to us and allow easily configured Auto ISO option .. they stuff it up again and hide it in a deep dark recess of the menu system!
Would it have been that hard to add an Auto point somewhere between 100 and 12800?

The use of dials as done doesn't bother me so much in itself .. I believe you either get used to it, or die.(or something in between those two extremes)
But a lack of detail implementation in the controls(such as an auto setting on the ISO dial .. just smells of a lack of understanding on the part of the engineers/marketeers.

We know from history that the price will come down. How far this particular product dips is an unknown and will be heavily dependent on how stubborn Nikon are as well as how hyped up consumers get.
D800 dropped slowly for the first few months(after a lot of hyped up hysteria about it and it's massive pixel count) .. but then dropped like a lead balloon in the few months after that. Within 12 months, it was about $1K below listed price.
Now it's basically close to $2K down from it's ridiculous high.
I see at least a $1K drop in price in 12 months or so .. by which time the bugs surrounding it's oiling up sensor and misfocusing AF points will have been sorted!

I sort of see no point in comparing it to other cameras in many respects, especially on price as this one is really a bit more unique than most other cameras to begin with.

ie. a mini D4 with slightly lower specs, but an equally capable sensor. You just can't get ISO204K on any camera this side of $4K and above(and those two that have had nearly two years for their prices to settle to just above $4K too).

I think people are getting worked up about the pricing and visuals of this camera without actually seeing the true actual potential of it in a more pragmatic manner.

Yeah, it's over priced(and way out my my value for money range) and yeah it's not the smallest camera ever made, but was it ever supposed to be?
The hype leading up to it's revelation was all manufactured by a small select range of would be engineers(myself included) .. but I never expected it to be anything other than what Nikon introduced.

ie. in effect it has no competitors to argue with(as to which is the superior). I highly doubt that Nikon ever intended for it to compete against Sony A7's(r or not) .. nor Fuji X-trans mirrorlesses, nor Olympus's OMG's .. etc.

it's a camera style that Nikon seems to think is 'wanted' by some folks .. I happen to be one of them in some ways but with a massive sense of trepidation due to some idiotic detail points such as grip size and Auto ISO on the dial ... plus the (current)price of course.
It has nothing to do with the looks tho, nor the size, nor the price(so much).

I see this one as an easier to manual focus camera body, with compatibility for more lenses, but one that's harder to hold and costs about $1700 ..... and will make room for one in my bag in over a years time(if nothing else manifests to better it).

Why Nikon couldn't just put the D4 sensor into an already established body style ... and just call it the D700s is beyond my ability to reason.
They'd have saved themselves a lot of expense of tooling for body parts and ancillaries ... and it'd have been a lot more competitive on price.

Something else that also needs to be remembered too tho, while the D700 was a great camera for all that it did, it was a revolutionary camera body type for Nikon at the time.
It seems to be a point forgotten by many .. in that no other camera in Nikon's lineup could be compared it the D700 at the time.
It was smaller than a D3 and larger than a D300.
I have no issue with Nikon repeating history with the body design(although as already said, the retro style could have been eliminated).

So in essence this camera, while it has no direct physical relationship to the D700, is the re0incarnation of the D700 idea(or spirit).
A new type of camera for Nikon with a big heart(sensor lineage) and a bit less puff(performance specs of that sensor lineage).

I think it's a good job .. badly done!

- - - Updated - - -

......


+ small battery but specced to last a lot of shots. A nice surprise.

.....

According to the CIPA testing/methodolgy.

This method specifies that every alternate exposure is made with the onboard flash used.
So a direct comparison is hard against other cameras that use this battery.

ie. real work battery life may be harder to judge until real results start coming in.

ie. liveview useage, AF-S lenses, VR lenses .... metering power requirements .. etc.

[ricktas]

I wonder if this will be a 'one-off' that goes to be called a 'special edition' or if we will see a whole series of Df cameras from Nikon. Like all products, buy early and pay a premium for doing so, wait a while and you might just get an under $2K price, especially if it does take off and another model is 18-36 months away. But then you have the issue of buying an obsolete model.

I think sales on this one might be slow, except as I @ M said, from the hipsters who want it more for show than anything else.

I like the way it looks, and think it is an interesting move by Nikon. Would I buy one? No. But if it is successful and in a couple of generations that no, could become a maybe.

[Bennymiata]

As a Canon user, I do think it looks hot, and for some, that is all that is needed.

I don't think it's cheap for what it is, but true fashion statements rarely are.

The lack of video and some other features may put some people off, but now I wait for Canon's answer.

[bowjac]

I love it. It's almost perfect. I personally would have liked it a bit smaller. It's also a bit pricey, but that was predictable.

This camera could get me back to full frame, and I've got just enough old lenses to get me started.

[kaiser]

I,ve been without my D700 for almost twelve months now. I sold of most of my autofocus glass- but kept my 4 AIS lenses just because they didn't cost me much and I thought one day they might be useful on a new camera.
My digital camera during this time has been a Fuji X100s- and it was my first experience using an EVF. I've come to appreciate its benefits (focus peaking overlay, what you see is what you get exposure preview and zoom for manual focus. The optical viewfinder still gets used and has its strengths. The controls are well laid out and not overdone. I had high hopes for the Nikon, hoping that they would be brave and delivery something that would give my old lenses a new life.
As the teaser ads revealed more of the camera, I became less interested. I don't mind the retro styling, but not at the expense of ergonomics. I just don't see how all the physical control dials on top make ergonomic sense. EC dial on the left, that PSAM dial, the shutter button location, the strap lugs and that uncomfortable looking front command wheel. Personally I see that all that as a nostalgic step backwards at the expense of usability.

The fatal flaw for me however- is the lack of either an EVF with focus peaking- or a top notch OVF geared towards MF use. The D700 was the last Nikon that Katz Eye were able to manufacture an aftermarket screen for. Nikon have altered the design to make it quite difficult to design aftermarket screens.
If their marketing campaign did not hint so strongly about 'pure photography' (whatever that means) and slow, deliberate picture taking - I wouldnt have been so dumbfounded. To leave out this feature is a huge miss. I'm happy with 16mp, with the mid range AF and metering, hey I'll even forgive the lack of video (even if you don't want it- why not include it? is it that hard to add?) The ergos and viewfinder- which are really the main things you notice when actually using the camera- are mistakes IMHO.

Of course the market this will predominatly appeal to, seem to care more about the looks than the usability (nothing against anyone who is getting one- I'm sure it will still take amazing images in the hands of a competent user). I just can't see anything to justify the price and its too much of a compromise.
Im looking forward to see what Ricoh/Pentax, Olympus and Fujifilm do in the next 2 years and to see some user review of the upcoming Sony A7/a7r - to me these seem to be the companies coming out with the most pleasant surprises lately.

[Lance B]

Random thoughts from a random person.

It is a block of butter lighter than a D800 and 35 grams lighter than a Pentax K3.

A block of butter lighter than the D800? 190grams lighter 710gms vs 900gms.

It is somewhat smaller than a D800 but somewhat bigger in all respects other than thickness to a Pentax K3.

It weighs the same as a D7100 but is somewhat bigger in all respects other than thickness.

Almost the same weight, 675gms for the D7100, 710gms for the Df.

I don't think anyone can quibble about the build quality of any of the four bodies so I don't see any advantages there.

Comparing them all at http://camerasize.com/ is pretty telling really.

Nothing about the size makes me go wow, it is still a DSLR with most of the size and weight to it.

It does support a very very large range of lenses. that will be a big plus to those who own some of the older Nikkor glass. Seeing as not all AI or AIS glass was of spectacular quality ( just the same way as not all D and G lenses are spectacular ) I feel that appeal is limited.

The Pentax K3 also mounts an extremely long and varied lineage of lenses, some of which are truly great bits of gear. The Pentax also has in body anti vibration measures which I guess further enhances the appeal of older lenses when shake reduction is required.
Rather obviously we are comparing two 35mm format sensor cameras against two APSC format sensor cameras but megapickle for megapickle at those sizes does the 35mm format hold a massive advantage?

Yep, it has "retro" styling with the visual design. Yes it has "retro" dials to control the basics needed for an exposure. It also has "modern" buttons and dials to control things that the "retro" dials cannot. I observed before that it seems a rather cluttered way of doing things so I view the "retro" features as more aimed at the hipster brigade.

Yes, it will be a well made camera that will take wonderful images and have a big appeal to some sections of the photographic world but I don't see it as something that appeals to me.

Oh yeah, then there is the price ------ reckon you could buy a new K3 Pentax and at least one really good lens for the same price as the DF body.

Not much of an idea if you already own Nikon gear, though. I don't think I'd go back to APS C now that I have enjoyed FF.

I quite like the retro design, going back to the look of film cameras of the 80's. However, I don't think it is for me unless I won some money.

[I @ M]

A block of butter lighter than the D800? 190grams lighter 710gms vs 900gms.



Almost the same weight, 675gms for the D7100, 710gms for the Df.

Lance, I haven't ever weighed a DF, a D7100 or a D800, I was just going by the Nikon Australia web site which lists the weights either with or without battery and I thought that the weights given with battery were the logical ones to compare.
According to Nikon the DF weighs 765 grams, the D7100 weighs 765 grams and the D800 weighs 1,000 grams. OK, maybe a block of butter is a little heavier than the 235 grams difference between the DF and the D800, 15 grams is 15 grams after all.

Not much of an idea if you already own Nikon gear, though. I don't think I'd go back to APS C now that I have enjoyed FF.

I don't see using APSC cameras as a "backward" step, come to think of it the APSC bodies in the household here still out number the FX bodies.

APSC = 3 Nikon and Fuji = 1
FX = 3 Nikon

My comment was meant to reflect that people without an "allegiance" to a brand looking at something to use with old lens compatibility, excellent build quality and similar size + weight considerations would probably be better off saving some money for glass and looking at the D7100 / K3 models.

As for owning one, I could wander into a camera store the day they are released and buy one but at times the head has to overrule the heart and this is one camera that simply does not fit my needs and doesn't rank overly highly on the want scale either.

I guess there will be a lot of ( Japanese ) dentists that will flock to it though.

[swifty]

My comment was meant to reflect that people without an "allegiance" to a brand looking at something to use with old lens compatibility, excellent build quality and similar size + weight considerations would probably be better off saving some money for glass and looking at the D7100 / K3 models.

I think for those looking for maximum flexibility for legacy lens compatibility (and don't mind using adapters), they should really be look at mirrorless options. Excluding Leicas, currently only the Sony A7/r give you that capability if you want native FOV for 135 legacy lenses.
The Df's appeal is really within the Nikon camp. And I think they missed the mark there for the reasons that Kaiser outlined above. But I'll still reserve judgement on that OVF until I've had a chance to test it.
Comparing to D7100/K3 doesn't seem fair purely due to the sensor size difference and resultant FOV. A trimmed down APS-C DSLR would most certainly be a fair bit smaller than the Df (and the D7100/K3 too), hence why I think the concept would work for the DX line, provided some dedicated small DX primes were released alongside eg. a 23mm/1.8 DX. If that should happen it should give the Fuji X models a run for their money.

[Lance B]

Lance, I haven't ever weighed a DF, a D7100 or a D800, I was just going by the Nikon Australia web site which lists the weights either with or without battery and I thought that the weights given with battery were the logical ones to compare.
According to Nikon the DF weighs 765 grams, the D7100 weighs 765 grams and the D800 weighs 1,000 grams. OK, maybe a block of butter is a little heavier than the 235 grams difference between the DF and the D800, 15 grams is 15 grams after all.

Fair enough. I must have looked at the weights without battery. Anyway, we are splitting hairs and my responses were meant to be a little lighthearted.

I don't see using APSC cameras as a "backward" step, come to think of it the APSC bodies in the household here still out number the FX bodies.

APSC = 3 Nikon and Fuji = 1
FX = 3 Nikon

Well, I was talking about me, that is why I said I don't think I would go back to APS C. You are free to do what you like, of course.

My comment was meant to reflect that people without an "allegiance" to a brand looking at something to use with old lens compatibility, excellent build quality and similar size + weight considerations would probably be better off saving some money for glass and looking at the D7100 / K3 models.

People without allegiance would be hardly likely to buy a retro camera anyway, IMO.

As for owning one, I could wander into a camera store the day they are released and buy one but at times the head has to overrule the heart and this is one camera that simply does not fit my needs and doesn't rank overly highly on the want scale either.

I guess there will be a lot of ( Japanese ) dentists that will flock to it though.

It may hit a chord with old film diehards and this is why I was saying that I don't think people who are first time DSLR purchasers would be looking at it at all. It would be people who are already entrenched in Nikon that may look at this camera, hardly a first timer would ever look at it, IMO.

[I @ M]

Swifty, I have deliberately ignored the other brands that you can use old glass on because they aren't a DSLR, which the DF is, they require adaptors to mount "off" brand glass and don't fall into the size / weight area.

Sony, errr, when then settle on a lens format to give their customers peace of mind and then can actually service a camera without sending it back to Japan plus a written guarantee that they won't suddenly force you to use a memory device that no one in the rest of the world uses can they then be taken seriously. Also, the 2k price bracket is still on the high side for such a camera.

Fuji, well we all know simply how well they work in a small format body. Still not a DSLR though.

APSC vs FX. Yep, there is the technical DOF equation but I still reckon I would put my money on a modern F/1.4 lens on a 2013 DX body rather than a 20+ year old F/1.8, 2.8, 3.5 lens to produce nicer backgrounds.

[arthurking83]

..... The D700 was the last Nikon that Katz Eye were able to manufacture an aftermarket screen for. Nikon have altered the design to make it quite difficult to design aftermarket screens.
.....

As far as I can tell, there's no difference in the design of the D800 focusing matte compared to the D700(which I'm assuming is the same as the D300).

Spring clip holding the matte screen in place. Unclip, remove, replace, reclip.

I think Katzeye not having a dedicated D800 product is more of a business decision rather than an issue of engineering a product. ie. there may not be a large enough market to warrant the effort in designing one.

The current internet gossip is that the Df offers a better manual focusing effort compared to D800 and D4.

I personally don't find I'm having a lot of difficulty in manually focusing my fast manual lenses with the D800 .. well as much trouble as many seem to be having at least.

I modded my D300 with the brightview Katzeye screen with split prism.
While the D300 is technically a touch more accurate than the standard D800, this is generally down to the split prism itself, which is only relevant if the subject in in the centre of the frame.
The comparison between focusing mattes themselves(D300 Katzeye vs D800 std) tho is about that they feel on par.

lenses I have to use are listed in my sig, but for reference: 24/2, 50/1.2, 105/1.8(as well as others listed) .. but they're the harder ones, with shallow DOF compared to the other manual lenses.

Having experienced a recent model EVF again ... I'm not overly impressed by them(still).
While focus peaking seems to be a panacea to some long forgotten ill .. the problem is that for real shallow DOF and critical focusing, focus peaking appears to not be the correct cure.
(read the Tennessee Sony A7r article doing the rounds on many blog/news sites).

While EVFs may be fine for smaller less marginal situations such as you will get on APS-C cameras .. I don't think they're yet anywhere near good enough for prime time on a pro camera!
Don't get me wrong tho. I love the idea of them, and can't wait for the day when they take ownership of every DSLR as the primary method of viewing through the lens.
In fact, years back I was probably one of the loudest voices in hoping the technology improves quickly enough for their use in top end cameras.

For now, if I need to rely on an artificial rendering for critical focusing(eg. macro) .. nothing beats a proper large live view image for focusing, even tho the D800's review screen isn't perfect for that.

I thought about a Sony A7r just for the fact that it has such a short register distance, and hence I could mount some of the really goofy lenses I have here(plus look into getting many others).
But that article referring to the focus peaking not being as good as people think it should be, with the shallower DOF you get on a larger frame + fast lens , it just doesn't seem to be the full answer that everyone believes it to be.
Either that, or the tog was a right ol hack(unlikely tho).


It'd be hard to tell exactly how many die hard film fantatics still using their FM2s and F4s are still out there .. if any at all.
The vast majority of those crying out for this camera claiming that they are this diehard (FM2/F4) user are in reality some snotty 14 yo ROTFLHAO at yet another baiting post on DPR! (to which many will respond too).

The last of the true diehards bought himself a D700 when it came out .. and I can't ever remember hearing a word from him that the D700 was too big, too techno or too complicated for him.
Haven't heard from him for a good many years tho ... so have no idea if he subsequently updated to a D800 either. Last I heard, he was still migrating from FM2 to D700.

I think once these cameras start appearing in hands of users out in the streets ... if you stop to ask these people what other cameras they have, they'll probably rattle off the most likely devices you'd expect .. Fuji X Pro1, Olympus OMD-E1, Holga, ... etc

.....

APSC vs FX. Yep, there is the technical DOF equation but I still reckon I would put my money on a modern F/1.4 lens on a 2013 DX body rather than a 20+ year old F/1.8, 2.8, 3.5 lens to produce nicer backgrounds.

LOL! I could post sample images arguing for and against for both sides actually. But that would make my reply even larger than it currently got at this point .. and I've even bored myself to the point of having fallen asleep mid way through it.

[swifty]

Sony, errr, when then settle on a lens format to give their customers peace of mind and then can actually service a camera without sending it back to Japan plus a written guarantee that they won't suddenly force you to use a memory device that no one in the rest of the world uses can they then be taken seriously. Also, the 2k price bracket is still on the high side for such a camera.

I agree with your opinions on Sony's commitment to a format/mount. But since we're talking about adapted legacy lens and not native lens support, their mount commitment is not really an issue.

Fuji, well we all know simply how well they work in a small format body. Still not a DSLR though.

Ok.. fair enough. I still think if we're purely talking legacy lens flexibility, we have to include mirrorless but I think we're getting side tracked here. I agree with Lance that this is purely a Nikon MF lens thing. The ability and ease to adapt any other legacy lens is irrelevant to a Nikon Df.

APSC vs FX. Yep, there is the technical DOF equation but I still reckon I would put my money on a modern F/1.4 lens on a 2013 DX body rather than a 20+ year old F/1.8, 2.8, 3.5 lens to produce nicer backgrounds.

You're forgetting there're also modern MF lens you can stick on a Df so FX will always hold advantages in some areas (just as DX will always have a size advantage). Not all the modern MF lenses are expensive and many perform very well so we're not limited to pre-digital MF Nikkor fun.
DOF and lens IQ aside, I still don't think its valid bringing DX cameras into the comparison. The resultant FOV on DX changes everything. Simply the Df has no direct peers currently so we can only judge it against itself.

- - - Updated - - -

AK: To further your point on EVF. I also agree they aren't quite there yet but my quibble has less to do with the actual accuracy when in use. The focusing aids (magnifcation/peaking etc.) work fine. Its just that its a completely different experience using any of these aids. For me my best reference is a Contax 645 OVF and its the feeling of when my subjects snap into focus vs when an area of greatest contrast in my EVF lights up.

Kaiser: for your reference I believe AK had been referencing this thread on NikonGear regarding the OVF.
http://nikongear.com/live/index.php/topic/51938-impressions-of-the-nikon-df/
If you care to read it, pay attention to nfoto (Bjorn Rorslett) who I'm sure you know use to run the naturfotograf website. He's the one who's tested it and has been reporting more favourable results than both the D4 and D800, despite what the specs says. Perhaps there's something special about the prism and where additional costs went. If so, kudos to the engineers but its a failure of the marketing team not to highlight it.

I think I'm beginning to understand the Df now and why it is called a fusion. I think I've been looking at it the wrong way. With G lenses, it should perform like my D700. But there's a split personality and with MF, aperture-ring-enabled lenses its behaviour changes completely.

[kaiser]

Kaiser: for your reference I believe AK had been referencing this thread on NikonGear regarding the OVF.
http://nikongear.com/live/index.php/...-the-nikon-df/
If you care to read it, pay attention to nfoto (Bjorn Rorslett) who I'm sure you know use to run the naturfotograf website. He's the one who's tested it and has been reporting more favourable results than both the D4 and D800, despite what the specs says. Perhaps there's something special about the prism and where additional costs went.

Thanks Swifty. I had a good read of that thread last night. Whilst I respect the accuracy of Bjørn's MF lens database- when it comes to new product launches, I'd rather wait for real world reviews from average user, or even better, actually try one for myself in a shop (although I cant see it being carried in store in Brisbane anywhere for a while. People's views on the OVF will be quite personal, and what may be "light years" ahead for one person may only a small improvement for another.

Im hoping he is right about the OVF, I always remain a little skeptical though until those claims can be backed up by a majority. Time will tell

[fillum]

Not sure if they've been posted...Aus prices (at ECS):

Release date is 28th November. Reserve your camera today!
Nikon Df (Silver or Black) $2995
Nikon Df with matched 50mm F1.8 $3295
For a limited time, purchase a Nikon Df and receive a free 32GB Extreme Pro SD! Valued at $125!!!

I haven't done the gozintas but I think this is cheaper than the US price with exchange rate and GST taken into account.

[swifty]

Im hoping he is right about the OVF, I always remain a little skeptical though until those claims can be backed up by a majority. Time will tell

Absolutely. I wasn't trying to say with certainly the OVF is better or anything, after all I haven't tried it yet. I got caught myself dismissing the OVF based on the spec sheets but it appears there's more to it. So it's another lesson learnt for myself not to make premature judgments.