Nikon Just Df things, seen by M shooter

I have the cv 75mm f/2.5 in F-mount as well :)
Hardly possible but they done it: the SL version is more gorgeous than the M39 version, and approximately the same size without counting the hood.

But that's a pricey lens nowadays. I'll be happy and treasure my M39 version with front focus and all, given I only paid ~200 € for it. The 1-meter MFD pesters me a little, but it's not the optical formula I don't think? They just limited it to 1 meter since that's the limit of M39 focusing standard. SL goes to 0.7 m. Which is funny since they could have reissued an M version with that MFD without touching the formula...

I think, for Nikon, I won't be chasing the 75mm options too hard. It's already too close to 50mm and there are the 85mm lenses instead. Or 80mm. Or 58mm ones, or 60mm... And one can get 70mm with a little help from a 1.4x TC adapter. ;)
 
Hardly possible but they done it: the SL version is more gorgeous than the M39 version, and approximately the same size without counting the hood.

But that's a pricey lens nowadays. I'll be happy and treasure my M39 version with front focus and all, given I only paid ~200 € for it. The 1-meter MFD pesters me a little, but it's not the optical formula I don't think? They just limited it to 1 meter since that's the limit of M39 focusing standard. SL goes to 0.7 m. Which is funny since they could have reissued an M version with that MFD without touching the formula...

I think, for Nikon, I won't be chasing the 75mm options too hard. It's already too close to 50mm and there are the 85mm lenses instead. Or 80mm. Or 58mm ones, or 60mm... And one can get 70mm with a little help from a 1.4x TC adapter. ;)
That's right.
All the CV SLR lenses that were discontinued took an extraordinary price rise on the 2nd hand market while they were more than reasonaly priced while they were still available.
I'm very glad I got my set before that. 180mm, 125mm, 90mm and 75mm. they are quite special.
 
The lens I'll receive today will be the third, THE THIRD lens I've bought while the Nikon has been away. Will I ever get it back? Feels like a forever and a half.


Second wonderment: why is the Nikkor 55mm f/1.2 so cheap while the 58mm f/1.2 so expensive? I pray the 55/1.2 won't be a fourth lens...

Add:

The Noct Nikkor 58/1.2 appears to be well corrected for wide open shooting, and it'll also apparently covers the medium format digital cameras for extra desirability. One can get Canadian Leica Noctiluxes for ~same money than these Nikkors.
 
Last edited:
Received the SB16 and the goods.

This flash is big but nice looking and well-featured. Its ISO selector is stiff as hell and it cannot possibly be adjusted when attached to the camera, so I worry about its usefulness with manual controls.

Nikon does not promise TTL support for DSLRs for a flash this old. So all CLS magic is also off the table. 45 euros buys you a brand new Meike with better manual controls so is the flash a total bust? I technically paid nothing for this but it's also not technically the whole story.

I mounted the flash on my Leica for tests. How fun! To great delight the flash communicates with M to the small degree that I get the flash readiness symbol right in my rangefinder viewfinder!

Other than that, the flash is too unwieldy to be mounted and used on M for any kind of serious job. It is a bit wobbly also. With a separate hand grip, maybe. On Nikon Df I believe an extra grip would be welcome.

Automatic (non-TTL) flash mode seems to do pretty fine. CV75 at f/8 and the camera at its base ISO of 200 the exposures all seemed to turn out pretty well. There's a quick adjustment A1 and A2 to adjust the flash output by two stops' difference, and of course adjusting the lens aperture or camera's ISO will also adjust the flash exposure.
 
Last edited:
Received the SB16 and the goods.

This flash is big but nice looking and well-featured. Its ISO selector is stiff as hell and it cannot possibly be adjusted when attached to the camera, so I worry about its usefulness with manual controls.

Nikon does not promise TTL support for DSLRs for a flash this old. So all CLS magic is also off the table. 45 euros buys you a brand new Meike with better manual controls so is the flash a total bust? I technically paid nothing for this but it's also not technically the whole story.

I mounted the flash on my Leica for tests. How fun! To great delight the flash communicates with M to the small degree that I get the flash readiness symbol right in my rangefinder viewfinder!

Other than that, the flash is too unwieldy to be mounted and used on M for any kind of serious job. It is a bit wobbly also. With a separate hand grip, maybe. On Nikon Df I believe an extra grip would be welcome.

Automatic (non-TTL) flash mode seems to do pretty fine. CV75 at f/8 and the camera at its base ISO of 200 the exposures all seemed to turn out pretty well. There's a quick adjustment A1 and A2 to adjust the flash output by two stops' difference, and of course adjusting the lens aperture or camera's ISO will also adjust the flash exposure.
At the time I've had an SB-16 with the special foot for my F3's. As far as I can remember, I agree with your findings, it just wasn't very comfortable to use. It also ate batteries c.q. depleted rechargeables like there was no tomorrow. I much preferred a Metz 45 (CL-4 in my case with the adapter for the F3), which I used a lot for family photos, including receptions, outings etc.
 
Missing my Df. My Leica skills remain sharp and the 35 Summicron performs stupendously as ever. But there are the merits of optical TTL.

I am having a new fever dream. To acquire a black Nikon Df and have it converted to monochrome. :eek:

It's nice that I explored the idea because now I also know that there are shops that can remove the OLPF off of my camera if I so want. Not cheap but then again, what is.

What a crazy idea. But it would solve the "Nikon color" problem that I am having.
 
Missing my Df. My Leica skills remain sharp and the 35 Summicron performs stupendously as ever. But there are the merits of optical TTL.

I am having a new fever dream. To acquire a black Nikon Df and have it converted to monochrome. :eek:

It's nice that I explored the idea because now I also know that there are shops that can remove the OLPF off of my camera if I so want. Not cheap but then again, what is.

What a crazy idea. But it would solve the "Nikon color" problem that I am having.
Nikon colours translate rather well to b&w with processing.
Not really necessary to convert the sensor.
Plus, since I'm not really good enough to shoot jpg, I use NEF's. I convert these with DxO PhotoLab and I have for while now, adopted the habit to apply the camera setting of the M9 to them.
Not only does this help to get a more consistent colour scheme over the output from the camera's I use but I also like the result better :blush:
Fortunately, I can alway call upon the Roman saying "you can't reason over taste and colour" :)
 
I think I have to set the picture profile on the camera to B&W because the color and the AWB is so poor on the picture reviews, it cools my enthusiasm. Shooting Leica is another story. Every shot even in the dullest of lights looks like the most vibrant of slide film shots without any processing. It actively encourages to go further, shoot more.

Of course the flipside of picture profiles is that they affect the blinkies and histogram, sadly.

I do agree that the Df files on the raw processing have nice flexibility and perhaps feels like having deeper tonality to them.

When the Df finally comes back to me, I will do A/B shooting between Leica and Df and then try to match the starting-point look between the files (towards Leica). Will not probably get 100% match but files being raw files, everything should be possible to the persistent.
 
Last edited:
There's some unfounded clickbaity rumors about a mirrorless APSC camera body that Nikon is going to possibly announce next week. It's rumored to be having retro styling so some people already consider the camera to be a successor to Df.

Now I don't think that an APSC camera can fulfill the shoes of the Df successor.

There's also the question of what Df even needs for a successor to be necessary. Plenty of nice-to-have little things but I don't know.

I haven't had that much time with Df or Nikons in general but a real Df 2 would have this one:

Much like the foldable Ai tab, also provide a foldable pre-Ai aperture prong! A must!
 
I think I have to set the picture profile on the camera to B&W because the color and the AWB is so poor on the picture reviews, it cools my enthusiasm. Shooting Leica is another story. Every shot even in the dullest of lights looks like the most vibrant of slide film shots without any processing. It actively encourages to go further, shoot more.

I didn't realize Nikons support this level of flexibility. Not just the couple of sliders in-camera, but fine-adjusted curves of this sort.

Nikon Df doesn't have the "Flat profile" of D810 and newer cameras -- with this tool one could implement it.

Sugoi, Nikon engineers!
 
Last edited:

I've probably said this before but it was after Fujifilm XT3 when I gained interest in Nikon Df. Df would be the Fuji XT3 "done right", I thought. With these custom profiles, a Nikon "hidden" feature, this just enforces that view.
 
I'll go retrieve my camera tomorrow. Should I bring with me a brand new (to me) lens (28mm, 50mm, 70-300) or something known and tried for the first outing with my new Dfs camera?

The weather is going to be brutal, hot and humid and the light will probably be very harsh. Maybe just a fifty then, or the AF-D 28-70?

They have recalibrated the autofocus so I should probably reset all AF fine tune adjustments before a stroll?

Then I should remember making the setting a5 to hide the focus points in MF mode. Sadly the screen didn't align perfectly dead center, I was told. It's probably not a big deal at all with manual focus lenses but we'll see what happens with AF lenses. I am guessing it's not going to be a nuisance.

The pessimist in me fears that the screen doesn't agree with the AF focus dot, or actual focus, in that matter. But these guys are pros and probably know what is what.

~

Of course the funny sad thing is that this Dfs is a new toy but I just the other day bought another new toy. It's never the best idea to have several fresh flings juggled at once.

I made this same mistake in March 2020 when it was my first time with Df. I just had bought the Panasonic GX80 and the 12-32 and really loved it as a complement for M.

But M9P is a very familiar camera already. There's hardly anything on the camera other than the sensor output that's new and exotic. So we shall see what happens. I am predicting a renewed honey moon period for Nikon Df and my leicas get neglected for a while...
 
Last edited:

Exit Df. Enter Dfs.​


The disablement of the ISO wheel lock is a tremendous success. It is now accurate and easy to change ISO on the fly and I will probably be using ISO for some exposure control way more now.

The K3 screen is not an exact fit and doesn't sit dead center. But other than that it is much brighter than the stock screen. I guess it doesn't have any matte grain for out-center focusing help. Doesn't matter much to me. The extra brightness I do appreciate for low light shooting.

The split is as predicted, very difficult and unaccurate compared to a rangefinder. The effect gets real subtle at a short distance, whereas a rangefinder can show you the minutests differences even miles away. The real tests start today when I mount a manual focus lens on the camera. My first outing was on a weak basis, I took with me the lens that may have trouble with the focus, needing AF fine tune previously and still being soft at far distances. I mount a 135mm f/2.8 and see if I can nail focus using the split and then we know things.
 
I strolled for a bit with the 28mm.

A story similar with the already-gone Samyang 21mm, it was easy and accurate to focus closely but any distance between the camera and the subject, the results were mostly poor. Either it's my focusing skills or the lenses both happen to underperform (which would partially look like misfocus) at far. I shot mostly at f/8 for far subjects and opened up to f/2 for close things.

Doing closeups I noticed I enjoy the ring of the micro prism more than the split. The prism yields an easier reading of accurate focus. It's great that this screen has bit of both.

But this early impression again cements a certain impression that Nikon is best left with telephoto lenses where it is easy to focus them because of shallower DOF.
 
I made careful focus tests with the 28mm at f/8. I guess there's nothing particularly wrong with the focusing at far distance.

I probably just overhyped myself to think that a Nikkor from the 70s was comparable to a modern Leica lens. No biggie, happens to the best of us.



I made focus to a nearby tree using four methods: focus using the optical aids, hyperfocal at infinity, focusing by the camera's ERF dot, and finally via live view.

I was pleasantly surprised to notice that the optical aids proved to be most accurate in this case. The live view method in particular wasn't as effective now because when you only have 16 megapixels and shoot a wide angle, the magnifications go to extreme levels and things just look mushy.

Hyperfocal at infinity is pretty okay too. The lens doesn't focus "past infinity" but the sharpness definitely drops off by a hint. Something a Leica shooter notices easily. ;)
 
Last edited:
I made careful focus tests with the 28mm at f/8. I guess there's nothing particularly wrong with the focusing at far distance.

I probably just overhyped myself to think that a Nikkor from the 70s was comparable to a modern Leica lens. No biggie, happens to the best of us.



I made focus to a nearby tree using four methods: focus using the optical aids, hyperfocal at infinity, focusing by the camera's ERF dot, and finally via live view.

I was pleasantly surprised to notice that the optical aids proved to be most accurate in this case. The live view method in particular wasn't as effective now because when you only have 16 megapixels and shoot a wide angle, the magnifications go to extreme levels and things just look mushy.

Hyperfocal at infinity is pretty okay too. The lens doesn't focus "past infinity" but the sharpness definitely drops off by a hint. Something a Leica shooter notices easily. ;)

Hi, some muscle memory from the past, when focusing to infinity, turn back, just a gentle little bit, and the focus is always perfect. Works 99% of the lenses I’ve used. And can’t remember the 1% it’s not working 🤔🤣
 
Since I got my Dfs back my enthusiasm towards Nikon has dropped by a great deal.

I guess I did overhype myself about the wonders of split image focusing. The reality is that it's difficult to nail focus this way. It is in my nature to be fast about operating the camera.

Rangefinders are the perfect combination of fast and accurate focusing. The split image or microprisms require much more care to achieve the same. Nikon's own ERF system is fast and somewhat accurate but the indicator sits in the corner -- it draws my eye away from the action.

Perhaps the screen is not properly fitted. It is also eating me a bit that the screen is not perfectly aligned to center. If it was, the ERF and the optical focusing tools were better in sync.

If only Nikon had a Pentax-style AF-point illumination confirmation when manually focusing. It's not as flexible as the ERF's three-led system.

~~

I go back to the time in May/June 2020 when I had some Nikkor lenses but no body for them. I strolled for a few times shooting them with M240 and live view. I really felt I was getting stronger, more enjoyable files out of that combo -- crisper, sharper, better color, perhaps even less fringing -- than the lens shot using Df.

I don't know what the future will hold for me wrt Nikon. The system does offer me things Leica M never could. Interesting (and not to mention, affordable) lenses way beyond 135mm, optical composition, malleable files. My current reaction is to desire a Leica SL or SL2-S or Panasonic S1 as a backup desire and mount my Nikkor lenses on it.

I also have to endure my decision to sink hundreds of euros into Df service, live with the sunken cost fallacy looming above the camera.
 
Since I got my Dfs back my enthusiasm towards Nikon has dropped by a great deal.

I guess I did overhype myself about the wonders of split image focusing. The reality is that it's difficult to nail focus this way. It is in my nature to be fast about operating the camera.

Rangefinders are the perfect combination of fast and accurate focusing. The split image or microprisms require much more care to achieve the same. Nikon's own ERF system is fast and somewhat accurate but the indicator sits in the corner -- it draws my eye away from the action.

Perhaps the screen is not properly fitted. It is also eating me a bit that the screen is not perfectly aligned to center. If it was, the ERF and the optical focusing tools were better in sync.

If only Nikon had a Pentax-style AF-point illumination confirmation when manually focusing. It's not as flexible as the ERF's three-led system.

~~

I go back to the time in May/June 2020 when I had some Nikkor lenses but no body for them. I strolled for a few times shooting them with M240 and live view. I really felt I was getting stronger, more enjoyable files out of that combo -- crisper, sharper, better color, perhaps even less fringing -- than the lens shot using Df.

I don't know what the future will hold for me wrt Nikon. The system does offer me things Leica M never could. Interesting (and not to mention, affordable) lenses way beyond 135mm, optical composition, malleable files. My current reaction is to desire a Leica SL or SL2-S or Panasonic S1 as a backup desire and mount my Nikkor lenses on it.

I also have to endure my decision to sink hundreds of euros into Df service, live with the sunken cost fallacy looming above the camera.
A Nikkor 180mm F2.8 might get you back into it, breathtaking optics/ results unmatched in the RF world. Used copies seem suspiciously cheap or maybe that’s a reflection of availability and prices in Europe now compared to where I have been in Australia. But you wouldn’t be making much loss and it would present a new aspect to using your dslr.
 
I think you need to give yourself more time to get used to the focussing.
As someone who uses both systems as well, for me they are almost interchangeable.
Almost because I have one beef with the rangefinder focussing system: if you want to focus up close on something with a repeating pattern, a lilac for instance, it's as good as impossible to know if you're aligning the proper "cel" in the pattern.
Not sure I explain this correctly.
You don't have this with an slr system.
Also, don't "focus" too much on the split image of the finder: the microprism collar and even the ground glass overall is perfectly useable.

Perhaps the focus screen isn't installed properly. I've never heard of a decentered focus screen.

As for Pentax, perhaps you know I started with Pentax in the analogue years and as my first digital slr (K10D).
I switched to Nikon because Pentax didn't offer 'full frame' and claimed loudly they never would.
If there had been a full frame Pentax available or even one in the making, I would never have changed.
Pentax always focussed on small form equipment, extremely well built and wonderful ergonomics.
As for available low budget lenses with simply great optics, with one extremely cheap adaptor, you enter the treasure trove of the M42 world.
Pentax also offers something called the focus trap: you press the shutter button while you focus. When focus is achieved, the camera fires.
The Pentax files are also really good.
 
Back
Top