07-03-2021, 07:58 PM
(This post was last modified: 07-03-2021, 08:17 PM by Brightcolours.)
Nost were very favorable about the 1D X too (and 1D X II and now 1D X III, what exactly is your point? The D4 was ok with high speed rate and tracking , that is why it was... a sports camera. And of course build and battery time.
Why would sports photographers need more DR? I don't get what you are trying to get at...
07-04-2021, 10:57 AM
(This post was last modified: 07-04-2021, 11:38 AM by Brightcolours.)
And what makes it (the 16mp D4/DF sensor) so very good, compared to other sensors, Dave? Like say a D610 or D750 which have noticeably higher resolution? What does it do that makes it better?
You went on a tangent to argue that it was a good sports camera and therefore bclaff (DPReview profile name), a Nikon shooter, should not be credible a source?
I just point out why the D4 was a good sports camera (just like the more popular 1D X of the time)... Which had little to do with the D4 sensor being special.
You want or need the Df to be a special camera for some reason, and if the UI can't make it special, or its needlessly complicated way it deals with lenses of the era its looks hark back to, it needs to be the sensor. But DPReview test shots and bclaff's measurements show it is not that special (fine, just like the sensor of the Canon EOS 6D was also fine). The D750 actually had a better DR and 8mp more... And is of the same era, but a Sony sensor. Yes, the D4 has bigger pixels, but that is only interesting to pixel peepers, not image shooters... That is why bclaff's photons to photos is... sensical (if that is nota correct word, it should be?)
And you know that I don't find higher DR that interesting at all so I am not knocking the D4 Nikon/Renesas sensor for having a lower DR than a D800 or D750. I just don't see what makes that 16MP sensor special. The AF system, the build and handling, and the 10fps, with buffer to match, make the D4 an impressive sports camera.
And to be clear... The Df is not the only camera that has a contrived UI... But it is one of those that do.
To quote Thom Hogan:
"However, the nostalgic design really only applies to the front and top of the camera. The left side and back are clearly current "Nikon DSLR." If anything, this gives the camera just a touch of a frankencamera look, as there clearly is a graft point: front/top film SLR, back/side DSLR."
"The deeper you get into studying the Df, the more you tend to scratch your head at some of the design decisions."
"If you're getting the impression that I'm not in love with the controls on the Df, you're correct. After nearly 20 years of using and only occasionally refining the button+dial system, suddenly we have a camera that's, well, just different to use and takes us back to where we were before Nikon hired someone to improve their ergonomics."
"Overall, handling is the worst aspect of the Df, and by a long margin. It just doesn't feel fully thought out and carefully designed to meld the old and current Nikon UIs. It's one thing to be nostalgic for the look of a much older camera style, it's another thing to experience the seemingly random decisions that the early camera designs often foisted on us. "
07-04-2021, 11:36 AM
(This post was last modified: 07-04-2021, 11:53 AM by davidmanze.)
Thank you so much for your input BC ........
........ perhaps we could continue this topic in another life ......... as I'm trying to get the best out of what's left of my current one ......
........toodle pip !!