|
Musket posted:Lfucking OHL.
|
#
?
Dec 10, 2013 22:50
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 9, 2024 17:46 |
|
|
nielsm posted:No way Nikon Df is getting a price drop. It has to be competitive with the Leica M Monochrom, you know. You're right. All the reviews I read predicted it wouldn't sell well since it only appeals to rich old men and K*Rock, not Real Photographers. My only real option is to mug the first person I see with one.
|
|
#
?
Dec 10, 2013 22:53
|
|
|
I don't see the draw of the df. It's like somebody crudely bolted some late 60s porsche body kit parts on an escalade.
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2013 00:10
|
|
|
a foolish pianist posted:I don't see the draw of the df. It's like somebody crudely bolted some late 60s porsche body kit parts on an escalade. The sensor is the reason ffs, read a loving book.
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2013 01:13
|
|
|
Musket posted:The sensor is the reason ffs, read a loving book. So buy a d600 and be better off for it.
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2013 01:41
|
|
|
a foolish pianist posted:I don't see the draw of the df. It's like somebody crudely bolted some late 60s porsche body kit parts on an escalade.   Close enough?
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2013 05:49
|
|
|
feigning interest posted:
Wow. That actually IS pretty close to a Df. gently caress that lowercase "f" while we're at it.
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2013 07:20
|
|
|
So much hate for a camera most would have been 'sperging out for if it had been $1000 cheaper. Everything I've seen has been pretty compelling about the DF earning its' keep pretty easily once you've had a chance to use it. Coming from mirrorless, it seems like a better compromise than going into most of the current faves, if only for some of the really nice glass options and the arguably excellent performance in low light. Not for everyone, but some people are sure to dig it. Every new camera out there has at least one fatal flaw, in the eyes of the abstainers. The vanity of the DF seems to be a lesser sin compared to some of its' competitors.
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2013 07:29
|
|
|
krackmonkey posted:So much hate for a camera most would have been 'sperging out for if it had been $1000 cheaper. Everything I've seen has been pretty compelling about the DF earning its' keep pretty easily once you've had a chance to use it. Coming from mirrorless, it seems like a better compromise than going into most of the current faves, if only for some of the really nice glass options and the arguably excellent performance in low light. Not for everyone, but some people are sure to dig it. Every new camera out there has at least one fatal flaw, in the eyes of the abstainers. The vanity of the DF seems to be a lesser sin compared to some of its' competitors. You've basically argued against it right there: The better glass options and low light you can get for much cheaper by using the D600. Sure, the Df lets you use non-AI lenses but the money you save on not getting the Df lets you spend on actual modern glass. The Df gets so much hate not exclusively because it's $1000 too expensive, it's because it's $1000 too expensive compared to almost the same camera.
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2013 11:31
|
|
|
I have trouble believing that the DF really earns its keep, whether in comparison to Nikon's own cameras or the many excellent mirrorless systems available right now. Having the D4's low light capability is interesting, but not enough to warrant spending an extra $1000 over a D600 in my mind. I'm also wondering what "sins" its competitors have committed?
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2013 16:48
|
|
|
The sensor's even better than the D4.
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2013 22:14
|
|
|
Nikon says it's the same sensor on their Df page. Whatever's giving it an edge in low light stuff on DxOMark must be elsewhere in the pipeline—unless Nikon is leaving something out about changes to the sensor for some reason.
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2013 22:49
|
|
|
powderific posted:Nikon says it's the same sensor on their Df page. Whatever's giving it an edge in low light stuff on DxOMark must be elsewhere in the pipeline—unless Nikon is leaving something out about changes to the sensor for some reason. It's the Df Glow.
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2013 23:56
|
|
|
powderific posted:Nikon says it's the same sensor on their Df page. Whatever's giving it an edge in low light stuff on DxOMark must be elsewhere in the pipeline—unless Nikon is leaving something out about changes to the sensor for some reason. My guess is it's the how the processor builds the image and accounts for noise.
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2013 00:37
|
|
|
HolyDukeNukem posted:My guess is it's the how the processor builds the image and accounts for noise. Nikon also says it's the same image processor as the D4.
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2013 04:52
|
|
|
Lets split hairs about 2 cameras most of you wont ever own.
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2013 16:44
|
|
|
Lets not forget that it doesn't have a split prism either.
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2013 18:36
|
|
|
NikOWND
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2013 18:36
|
|
|
Mr. Despair posted:NikOWND 
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2013 19:35
|
|
|
Mr. Despair posted:Lets not forget that it doesn't have a split prism either. You dont need a split prism to focus at f11.
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2013 20:10
|
|
|
My D600 is really, really good at taking pictures of sensor dust.
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2013 20:50
|
|
|
aliencowboy posted:My D600 is really, really good at taking pictures of sensor dust. You can do that with any camera with the right setup though. I know 
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2013 21:53
|
|
|
aliencowboy posted:My D600 is really, really good at taking pictures of sensor dust. I sent mine off finally to get it fixed. They wanted me to pay to ship it and I was like "uh...no. This is your problem, you pay." So they sent me prepaid labels! But the instructions I got were different from the boiler plate ones on the site (I didn't include proof of purchase which I was supposed to do because their instructions they emailed me didn't say too...but I registered the camera when I first got it so I didn't have a problem). Also they say ZERO accessories to be included, but I didn't know if that meant battery or not. I included a battery and a note explaining the problems with the sensor plus specifically adding that I included a battery. A few days later I got an invoice from them noting what they received for me. On it read "Letter received and read" and "No battery included."  So of course when they mailed it back a day or two later it didn't have the battery. They ended up replacing it for free though. All is well now.
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2013 21:53
|
|
|
Anybody own the 28mm 1.8? If so, your thoughts? As dumb as this might sound, I'm thinking about unloading my 24-70 2.8 because it's too drat big and heavy for a walk around and I've thought about partially replacing it with the 28 1.8. I already own a 50 1.8 so I'd be trading the size and zoom for convenience and I'd pocket some cash in the process. So is the 28 any good?
|
|
#
?
Dec 17, 2013 05:54
|
|
|
On FF or crop? Like most of the new primes it's pretty good, with edge coma and chromatic and spherical aberrations being the main drawbacks. The problem is really that they're selling something like that for $700.
|
|
#
?
Dec 17, 2013 13:24
|
|
|
Jimmy Thief posted:Anybody own the 28mm 1.8? If so, your thoughts? As dumb as this might sound, I'm thinking about unloading my 24-70 2.8 because it's too drat big and heavy for a walk around and I've thought about partially replacing it with the 28 1.8. I already own a 50 1.8 so I'd be trading the size and zoom for convenience and I'd pocket some cash in the process. But... but... but... the 24-70 f2.8 is the one lens to rule them all! (whatdaya want for it?)
|
|
#
?
Dec 17, 2013 14:26
|
|
|
thetzar posted:But... but... but... the 24-70 f2.8 is the one lens to rule them all! (whatdaya want for it?)
|
|
#
?
Dec 17, 2013 14:49
|
|
|
evil_bunnY posted:S/He's right that it's heavy as gently caress though. Every time I swap out my 50/1,8 I curse a little. Yeah, I rented one once when I was covering a friend's wedding as a favor. It's a brick, but it was the only lens I needed for the whole night. Attached to a then-newly-released D3s, I was marveling at a rig that could see in the dark better than I could.
|
|
#
?
Dec 17, 2013 18:51
|
|
|
Nikon nerds everywhere, the gods smile upon you. At least 1 person at Nikon realizes using 20 year old 35/2 lenses on their new crop of FX bodies doesn't really make sense. http://nikonrumors.com/2013/12/16/new-nikon-af-s-nikkor-35mm-f1-8g-fx-lens-to-be-announced-in-early-january.aspx/
|
|
#
?
Dec 24, 2013 17:52
|
|
|
Yaaaay. I love the poo poo out of my 35mm f2 for its teeny-ness and close focus distance, but I'd love to have the AF-S motor and some nicer optics.
|
|
#
?
Dec 24, 2013 19:17
|
|
|
powderific posted:Yaaaay. I love the poo poo out of my 35mm f2 for its teeny-ness and close focus distance, but I'd love to have the AF-S motor and some nicer optics. Yeah, also it vignettes like a mofo wide open.
|
|
#
?
Dec 24, 2013 19:26
|
|
|
evil_bunnY posted:Nikon nerds everywhere, the gods smile upon you. At least 1 person at Nikon realizes using 20 year old 35/2 lenses on their new crop of FX bodies doesn't really make sense. Goddamn, finally. The 35/2 has the cheap rear end feel of 90s AF-D lenses that makes you wonder how hard you have to grip to break it in your hand. Also remembering it's hood... lol.
|
|
#
?
Dec 25, 2013 04:39
|
|
|
God loving damnit. I spent the morning shooting incredible low lying mist in the fields out behind my parent's house in the south of Ireland, wondering why my shutter speed was bouncing off 1/4000 on f/22. As soon as the mist lifted I realised I was still on iso 3200 from the night before 
|
|
#
?
Dec 25, 2013 14:05
|
|
|
Got a 40mm f/2.8 Micro for Christmas. poo poo owns hard despite somewhat close working distance. The "fruity" thread tag, at 1:1 (MBP, hi-res-but-not-retina display).
|
|
#
?
Dec 26, 2013 11:47
|
|
|
SoundMonkey posted:Got a 40mm f/2.8 Micro for Christmas. poo poo owns hard despite somewhat close working distance. The "fruity" thread tag, at 1:1 (MBP, hi-res-but-not-retina display). Its a p.good lens. Get some manual extension tubes for 12bux.
|
|
#
?
Dec 26, 2013 18:44
|
|
|
SoundMonkey posted:Got a 40mm f/2.8 Micro for Christmas. poo poo owns hard despite somewhat close working distance. The "fruity" thread tag, at 1:1 (MBP, hi-res-but-not-retina display). psssh, put some tubes on that already.  Galaxy Nexus by MrDespair, on Flickr and then mount it to a microscope 
|
|
#
?
Dec 26, 2013 18:46
|
|
|
Musket posted:Its a p.good lens. Get some manual extension tubes for 12bux. Already got 6" of bellows  EDIT: Although I'd probably just use a 50 or something on the bellows because lol no aperture ring SoundMonkey fucked around with this message at 23:05 on Dec 26, 2013 |
|
#
?
Dec 26, 2013 23:02
|
|
|
SoundMonkey posted:Already got 6" of bellows Just glue them fully open 
|
|
#
?
Dec 27, 2013 16:38
|
|
|
One of my local camera shops has a D600 that they claim was just serviced at Nikon and upgraded to D610 specs. Does that sound "normal"? They also want $1,500 for the body.
|
|
#
?
Dec 27, 2013 17:42
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 9, 2024 17:46 |
|
|
emotive posted:One of my local camera shops has a D600 that they claim was just serviced at Nikon and upgraded to D610 specs. Does that sound "normal"? It looks like the major difference between the D600 and D610 is the shutter, which got a minor upgrade, so I guess it's plausible Nikon put the new shutter in while replacing it and then flashed it to modern specs. I don't see any other references to that process anywhere though.
|
|
#
?
Dec 27, 2013 17:48
|
|