< ! --Digital window verification 001 -->

Nikon Df camera top LCD display

Pin It

Nikon-Df-camera-top-LCD-display
A quick update: this is most likely the top LCD display of the Nikon Df that will be located next to the program mode dial on top of the camera.

This entry was posted in Nikon Df and tagged . Bookmark the permalink. Trackbacks are closed, but you can post a comment.
  • Dino Brusco

    Fine – on top you just need very basic info. Time, aperture, shots left and few else. In the end this is what matters.

    • Arne

      I was not missing an LCD display on the F4. ;)

    • Zograf

      Why do you need to look for the basic info on the LCD? It is in front of you, on the dials. Oops sorry, I forgot, some of the lenses used will be “G”

      • Dino Brusco

        No problem, probably I could have even skipped the whole upper lcd but I’m happy Nikon didn’t overload it with too many info (no idea why BKT is always present.. never used anymore since film time.. )

  • Thomas

    FFS.. It’s just a camera !! ;o)

    • Last Mohican

      Yet it seems to have some salvific power in its belly … did you notice that it helped the actor overcome his ugly divorce?

      • Thomas

        So actually; “Df” doesn’t stand for “Digital Fusion”, but for “Doctor Freud” ;o)

  • Steve Griffin

    News Flash! Nikon release 1001 piece Jigsaw Puzzle of new Nikon DF camera.

    • ereshoping

      Then wait another 3 monthsmto get hold of one :)

  • pistnbroke

    If its expensive I dont want it
    If its not at least 36 MP I dont want it
    If its got dials that cannot be locked I dont want it
    If it uses the En EL 14 battery I dont want it ,,,,

    • Tomsky

      Maybe it doesn’t want you…

    • Killroy™

      I guess you are NOT getting it then cause I see 3 out of 4 that are almost positive that this camera has.

    • VP of Deals

      for you, D800 on Craigs List

    • Celtic

      Moving on would be much less painful than being rejected by a camera.

  • mikeswitz

    So after reams of digital posts (can digital have reams) we can safely say that:
    1. This may be the camera of my dreams!
    2. Why would anyone want a retro camera w/o video
    3. Looks okay, kinda boring (but posted every twenty minutes so we must be excited to be bored)!
    4.You must be really stupid if you think this camera is not an entry level FF and you are not a real photographer anyhow.
    5. It’s really way to small to be this big yet somehow not as big or even larger than any film camera built in the 70′s. And of course smaller than an 8×10 that you never shot with!
    6. Its going to be crap because it’s built by Nikon and we all know that Nikon has only built crap for the last twenty years.
    And finally….
    7. Wow. Looks pretty interesting. It might be something I could use for the way I shoot pictures….I guess we’ll have to wait and see.

    Thanks Nikon Rumors, it’s been a really entertaining couple of weeks! What would we all do without you (besides take pictures that is)?

    • Ryan McBride

      YOU SIR…

      • mikeswitz

        Yes?…..

  • hexx

    Nikon shooters, how do you feel about the rumoured sensor choice, 16mp? Considering there’s D4 with 16mp, D800 with 36mp and D610 with 24mp, which sensor would you prefer to have in this retro styled body if the rest of the spec should remain the same (processor, metering, fps…)? I’d prefer probably 24mp without low pass optical filter.

    • Last Mohican

      D4 16 Mp makes complete sense to me, given that this seems to be mainly targeted for people who want to use vintage manual lenses. What you prefer is already on sale and is called D610.

      • hexx

        I thought that D610 does have AA filter.

      • Read the FAQ

        fwiw, I use vintage lenses on my D800E and also my D3s and D600. They are fine on higher MP count sensors, too. Maybe there’s a difference when pixel peeping but it’s not ever seen with prints. That said, I’d much prefer the D4 sensor in this new camera. It kind of fits better into the theme of basic 35mm photography and with the benefit of high ISO. More like a discrete PJ or documentary style tool, imho.

        • Last Mohican

          Agree. Apart from that, for those who really want to max out on MP the present discounts on the D800 will probably make it cheaper than a new Df.

          • hexx

            I don’t have D800 because of the controls, that’s why I don’t use dSLRs.

            • Last Mohican

              Problem solved.

    • lancecouzens

      personally, i’d prefer 16mp… i’m a d700 user and have never printed anything large enough for 12mp to be a real limitation, and what i’d really like to have is screaming low-light performance

    • Tomsky

      16 MP for the same reasons as stated by previous posters. The theoretical maximum resolution of 35 mm 100 ISO film was somewhat around 13 – 14 MP and that was the resolution pre-digital lenses were designed for. So vintage glass should do fine on a 16 MP camera.

      • hexx

        So should on 24mp. I just don’t understand the choice of 16mp -> makes sense on D4, smaller file size, fast write speeds, fast fps and smaller files to transfer back to whoever hired you, but can’t get my head around the choice in a camera like this rumoured Df.

        • J. Dennis Thomas

          Larger pixel pitch = wider DR and lower noise.

          • hexx

            the thing is I have no experience with D4 sensor, been searching flickr groups to find some examples – not very impressed

            • Micky Finn

              Google D4 image samples, there’s nothing wrong with the D4′s image quality.

            • hexx

              but nothing special either, it seems to be geared towards sports/action

            • J. Dennis Thomas

              It’s a PJ/Sports camera for sure. I used it for shooting Formula car races. It was great.
              The D3X or D800 for studio/portraits/landscapes/big prints.
              The D600/610 for all-around and budget-minded shooters.
              The DF for shooters that don’t need all the bells and whistles. Hopefully the menu system will be minimal as well.

              Plenty of FX options.

            • hexx

              Interesting times, would like to see Canon’s response to both Nikon Df and Sony A7 -> there’s metabones adaptor which allows, although slow, AF with Canon lenses

            • Micky Finn

              Get any other camera with higher resolution instead of a Df, your choice entirely, but don’t complain about something you don’t have to buy.

            • J. Dennis Thomas

              I think the D3s is better in some respects, but some folks disagree. I’ve shot the D4 extensively. The quality is good. Surpassed only by the Canon 1DX in my opinion.

            • Pete Grady

              Try Sports Illustrated. I’d guess most of the action photography is shot with D4 or similar.

            • Scott M.

              While watching the World Series, I only saw black lenses. No white. Also a 800mm was there.

          • MrSkelter
            • J. Dennis Thomas

              Wow. A couple of random bloggers. I’m not convinced

              I pick neither.

            • MrSkelter

              Er… Mr. Clark is rather well qualified and pretty well known amongst photographers for his work debunking a lot of widely held ‘wisdom’ about digital.

              http://speclab.cr.usgs.gov

              If you read him you’ll see that you need to get to 33 MP on a 35mm body before diminishing returns re-sensel size vs. noise kick in. That number may sound familiar…

            • http://www.gordonmoat.com/ Gordon Moat
        • Micky Finn

          Take a picture with the Df when it’s released and try to find fault with the IQ, 16mp is more than enough resolution.

          • hexx

            there was this man once who said that 640kB of memory is enough…

            • Micky Finn

              Yes, however, this isn’t 640kb that we’re talking about, it’s 16mp, not really a good comparison.

        • http://www.gordonmoat.com/ Gordon Moat

          The real point is that years of marketing by camera companies has pushed end users to focus upon megapixels as the number one consideration when buying a digital camera. Obviously people will want more, especially after the introduction of the D800/D800E.

          Realistically, most end users will have these cameras in their hands, and not on a tripod. Quite simply the majority will not be able to hold the camera body steady enough to get the full capability out of the camera. While the file sizes will be 16 megapixels, careful technique and optimal conditions on a tripod would produce better results. Move upwards to 24 or 36 megapixels, and hand held shooting becomes more troublesome.

          In case anyone wants to try this in practice, mount a target on a wall, and then fastens a laser pointer onto the hotshoe. Then try repeating hand held shots with the dot at the same place on the target. I’m an excellent marksman, yet even I struggle with that.

      • Derek Smith

        Theoretical maximum resolution of 35 mm 100 ISO film was somewhat around 13 – 14 MP.

        That is most definitely inaccurate. You are looking at easily over 80 megapixels to truly capture 35mm film. Protecting NIkon`s choice of sensor resolution with outrageous claims is stepping over the cliff of being an Nikon apologist.

        • MrSkelter

          Unless ‘truly capture’ means image film grain there is nothing like 80MP of data in a 35mm frame. You’re confusing noise with detail.

          Kodak, who I used to work with, used to claim that 15-20 MP was necessary to surpass 35mm film and that was of course the highest resolution black and white in optimum conditions and processed by god herself.

          I shoot MF film and there’s not 80 MP in that either. Film defenders seem to have forgotten what films limitations are.

          (it’s simple to prove too 35mm was a ‘compact’ format and not used for much quality work in the film days. 80 MP files are adequate for anything imaginable nowadays. What’s changed if film was so great?)

          I happen to know the posters for the last three Bond movies were shot on 16MP Canon bodies. They were reproduced worldwide up to building size and no-one complained about the kit used.

          Detailed evidence here: http://www.clarkvision.com/articles/film.vs.digital.summary1.html/

        • http://www.gordonmoat.com/ Gordon Moat

          Hand held shooting it is difficult for anyone to get near 45 lp/mm, which happens to be the realm of the D3/D3S. Obviously some film specifications were beyond that, but the conditions were more ideal in testing. Zeiss and others have some articles on this, indicating the difficulty getting more than that out of a hand held camera. We carry smaller cameras to use them hand held. Different story when we go onto a tripod, or use strobes to stop movement.

          http://www.cambridgeincolour.com/tutorials/digital-camera-sensor-size.htm

          The other issue with all digital sensors is running into diffraction limits. Beyond 16 megapixels you lose some ability to stop down a lens before diffraction softens the image results. So the D4 based sensor makes sense for a hand held shooting bias.

      • http://www.davidkasman.com/ David Kasman

        35mm film isn’t my gold standard.

    • Last Mohican

      As a side note: this targeting towards camera lovers and people appreciating manual controls also makes Theo’s talk about “entry model” a bit farfetched and may indicate a fairly high price point — though I hope it won’t be as high as Chasseurs d’images claim of 3000 Euro without lens.

      • Derek Smith

        Just go use a film camera and enjoy, that is what I do. It is much cheaper and you don`t have to worry about chimping images. There is a time and place for digital.

        If there “people” truly enjoy manual controls and manual everything, then they should just get a F3 or a FM.

    • hexx

      OK, thank you for responses, looks like 16mp would be enough for you who replied. I’d want more, the problem is that once you see high res files it’s hard to go back to lower res files -> damn you Sigma and CFV-39 :)

    • Pete Grady

      16 MP is PLENTY. Clean high ISO trumps resolution (beyond a certain minimum) any day.

    • rosshj

      I have never shot with the D4, but I know I love 24mp. I feel like it gives me a bit more flexibility when it comes to cropping in post. Sometimes I don’t have the reach I need in the lens I have brought with me, but with 24mp I can safely crop in a fair amount. That being said, I think better low light ISO performance would ve a huge plus. I will wait and see some reviews and comparisons before selling my D600.

    • decisivemoment

      I personally think the 24MP unit makes the most sense, and in view of the Leica M240 I’d like to see it without a low pass filter especially if they can get the moire reduction right with in-camera processing. Part of it is the higher dynamic range of the 24 and 36MP sensors than on the D4, and part of it is that the D4 doesn’t really have a high ISO advantage over the D600/610, so why limit yourself needlessly? Also, 24 is a fit for the rumored specs; there’s enough bandwidth on Expeed 3 to deliver 5.5 to six frames a second at 24 megapixels, and the main reason for the D4 to stick to 16, aside from the huge volumes of photographs a typical D4 shooter will generate, is to be able to get those photos at nine frames a second. The user being targeted by Nikon’s DF ad campaign is not a D4 machine-gunner; it’s someone who wants to recapture the feel of film in traditional cameras, but in digital.

      And, on the subject of recreating film, having used very slow slide film a lot, I’m not satisfied that 16 in a Bayer sensor is a sure-fire bet against film for resolution. The really thin emulsion ISO 25 and 50 and 64 films could get a tremendous amount of detail, and were quite ruthless on second-rate glass used at too wide an aperture — just like the D600 and D800. I’d rather have some extra wiggle room for fine detail and the occasional cropping.

    • http://Flickr.com/inthemist InTheMist

      I already have a D800 so yeah, I prefer 16MP clean.

      I’m annoyed about bolting it to a D600 shutter and D5300 focusing screen tho.

    • chromedome

      I’m happy it is the D4 sensor. Being able to that high iso capability is much better than getting the D600/610 sensor.

  • JohnH

    So, what’s the “delta” F symbols for?

    • http://www.davidkasman.com/ David Kasman

      Aperture stop

  • Micky Finn

    1) For what it’s worth, I reckon it will be priced around £1200 to £1500 ($2000 to $2800), that seems about right.

    2) Who cares about the lack of video, and why does every camera have to have video capability these days? Nikon have decided to make a stills camera that only takes stills, surely we are allowed one camera that hasn’t had video bolted on, if you don’t like it, but a different DSLR that has that function.

    3) For all of the people that have whinged about a lack of specs, maybe the Df should rather be potentially considered a camera that has had the fat stripped away and been honed to do what we actually require of it – take photos, but with the emphasis on the photographer, a brave move if it’s the case.

    4) What’s this obsession with tiny cameras about? I admit I liked the design of the Olympus OM-D, but then having seen it and held it, it’s just far too small and looks like a toy. This is an FX camera (no such thing as full frame – don’t get me started on that), it has to be of a certain size to accommodate the sensor etc.

    • J. Dennis Thomas

      I’m really tired of this tiny camera crusade. Everyone is going NUTS over cameras being too big, but 2 years ago everyone was mad because they didn’t have a grip for the D3XXX/D5XXX system and the cameras were “too small”.

      • Micky Finn

        Surely what matters is ergonomics and for them to be right, a camera has to be the right size, it also often helps with stability.

        • J. Dennis Thomas

          People will jump on a bandwagons and defend it to the death.

          I liked the size of the XPro-1, but that’s about a small as I’d want to get.

          I also think that 36X24 sensors are needless in a small camera. But that’s just my 2¢.

          • Pete Grady

            I’m a bit in agreement about 24X36 sensors, except that the ISO and DR are better. I also like the selective focus qualities a bit more on FX. Having said that, I’ve been using a D300s for a while now and am impressed with the quality and it’s DX. I’ve made 20 x 30 prints that looked exceptional. The lenses for FX would run me A LOT more. If you know what you’re doing DX is fine.

            • J. Dennis Thomas

              If you look down below there are people arguing that ISO and DR are not better in FX sensors. (I say it IS, but they provided 10 year old links to prove it isn’t. But I digress.

              The Fuji DX sensor is top notch and beside the DoF issue, which I think is minor (too many people shooting wide open these days), the full-frame sensor in a compact is dumb. Small cameras with big slow lenses? How is that better?

          • Micky Finn

            I liked the size of the XPro-1 as well, I wouldn’t want a serious camera to be any smaller, it’s just right for a rangefinder. However when I tried one, I found it was not for me, it had slow focus, annoying controls and despite the reviews, a lousy viewfinder, and I wanted to like it.

            Some people want a smaller camera because they want to take it everywhere, fine, they should get a four thirds based camera. As you suggest, smaller sensors are good for smaller cameras.

            • J. Dennis Thomas

              Don’t get me started on the XPro-1. I wanted to like it so much that I foolishly bought one. Sent it back. Then convinced myself I didn’t give it enough of a chance and bought one AGAIN after the new firmware. Only to STILL hate the way it handled.

              Great image quality though.

            • Micky Finn

              Yes, it’s a pity that the XPro-1 doesn’t have the handling to match it’s image quality.

              I managed not to buy an XPro-1, thankfully, and only because I saw one at the big UK trade show after it was announced and released. I felt immediately it was a huge let down and wondered what all the fuss was about.

            • J. Dennis Thomas

              After seeing this Nikon I can safely say that the Fuji is out of the picture for me even if the XPro-2 is fixed. I’m waiting for an M9 to come in to my local shop at a good price. That’s the only rangefinder I want now. This Df is definitely what I was looking for in the Fuji system, maybe it’s a little larger, but I have the lenses and I know the AF will work when I need it to. Still hoping the 39pt system has been upgraded to actual FX size.

            • Micky Finn

              I agree, it looks like the Nikon fits the bill, and as there’s not going to be the expense of buying lenses for a different system, it’s a win win situation.

            • J. Dennis Thomas

              Sure enough. I wasn’t really excited about buying a third set of lenses for the Fuji.

    • Roy Masters

      Right on, Mickey… A clean digital camera with a few “analog” controls (wheels with click stops) and just the basics regarding digital capture (ISO, WB, Bracket, etc.)… and NO video. I agree… why must I pay for video when I have no interest in it, especially on my still camera? If I want to shoot video, it will be with a dedicated video camera for true pro quality and handling.

    • photographer_cum_videographer

      “why does every camera have to have video capability these days?”

      Why not? If you don’t need video, just don’t press the button. Others might need it. And no, video omission doesn’t make camera cheaper.

      • J. Dennis Thomas

        If you don’t have video, then you eliminate the video button, the headphone jack, mic input, built-in mic, built-in speakers, and possibly even the HDMI out.

        All of those things take up space and cost money to implement. Video isn’t exactly free when you think about the extra hardware it requires.

        • http://Flickr.com/inthemist InTheMist

          Right! And thousands of hours of engineering.

          • photographer_cum_videographer

            Nikon engineers can copy and paste existing video library from D90/D800/etc project. Magic-Lantern team was able to make cool things by reverse engineering. And they did that for free. Nikon engineer should be able to do that in no time – they have proper sensor documentation, state of the art lab, existing code and being paid.

            • mikeswitz

              The point is Nikon did not want to put video in the Df. And I’m sure it was not an arbitrary decision. And it probably had nothing to do with price. It’s not going to be a cheap camera. If you want video buy another camera–this one is not for you.

        • photographer_cum_videographer

          They can include video feature without video button(Pentax K-5). Ok, there’s cost saving.. but how much? HDMI will be there, video or not. Speaker, mic, extra wires.. probably less than USD 10. Unless they developed the sensor from the scratch, most CMOS sensors in the market are video capable.

      • Micky Finn

        I didn’t suggest that a lack of video capability would make the Df cheaper, I only suggested that for what this camera is there is a realistic price point in my opinion.

        The concept of the Df, looking at the promos and what Nikon have clearly gone for in it’s concept, is a pure stills camera, no other distractions, so adding video to it would veer away from the clear concept. Understand that, understand what this camera is for and who it is aimed at.

        And no, not every camera has to have video because someone might need it, get one of the many cameras on the market that have video, I’m sure you’d be happy with whatever you choose. Just because video capability can be put into a stills camera, doesn’t mean it always should be, especially not because of the off chance someone might need it!

  • per

    With the benefit of hindsight one must admire the brilliance of this campaign. Making it a story about nostalgia. Hybrid technology being low battery consumption. Even having a model roam the hills of Scotland and utter random platitudes. No wonder everyone was clueless. No wonder everyone thought that Nikon had lost the plot, that Nikon is a has-been that no longer can create groundbreaking technology. Never since Operation Overlord has the true intentions of a campaign been so cleverly concealed. Digital fusion is hybrid viewfinder revolution. The invasion is coming…

    • Scott M.

      Who really cares about low battery consumption as the reason to buy a camera? FM is one thing but we like our digital to have more power and carry extra batteries. Hybrid viewfinder? Maybe.

    • MrSkelter

      I hope you’re right. Source?

  • Manuel

    A three-step battery meter is one thing that I’m really not missing from classic cameras. Today, it’s a no-go for me, it’s one of the most painful reminders of those cameras for me. If this is real, the Df may be as sweet as apple pie, I won’t spend a single Euro on it.

    • chromedome

      so a battery indicator in an LCD is a deal-breaker for you? really?

  • Pete Grady

    To add a dose of reality to the wild speculation on these boards over the last week or so, check out “Related posts: #1. Nikon D90…” above. It WILL be amusing to see what the Df actually IS.

  • jon

    Yeah I get it, but 39 point focus, small battery, still digital just pretending not to be… I agree the D4 sensor is a nice idea, and I guess this is Nikon’s idea of making a D700 after the D3 with the same sensor.

  • Daniel
    • Jet

      DOn’t waste your time looking at this! horrible mock up! :-(

    • venanio

      as others have observed, the Df does not wear the red thong… there’s still confusion on the Nikonfusion… let’s just hope it is a D4 sensor… if not, we’ll just have to roll with the blow…

    • http://www.davidkasman.com/ David Kasman

      No.

    • web

      wow, just threw up in my mouth a bit

    • http://Flickr.com/inthemist InTheMist

      That page is a parody. Kind of funny for German speakers.

  • Derek Smith

    If the bloody thing is too expensive (i.e. 2500-3000), has the same D600 AF points (oh God), I am out. Nikon is always so worried about cannibalizing sales from its higher end cameras. They did it with the D600 and I hope they aren`t going to do it with the DF.

    They however forget that if you don`t cannibalize yourself, someone else is going to cannibalize you!

    • Sandy Bartlett

      Really, people go on about the D610 af points, here is a comparisom with the D800. If you can’t shoot with this minor limitation, well…

      • Magem

        Becouse, there is differents. Have you compare those (example D800 vs D6x0) side by side?

        • Sandy Bartlett

          This is an overlay, D800 gray, D610 black.

          • Derek Smith

            If NIkon plans to charge 2500-3000 for this DF, then it is quite significant.

            • http://Flickr.com/inthemist InTheMist

              Exactly. I would be somewhat put off with the D610 focusing system. But at 3000 is’t a no-buy for me.

      • J. Dennis Thomas

        Those aren’t drawn to exact scale. sorry to rain on your parade.

        • Sandy Bartlett

          Actually, they are. I shoot with both,

          • J. Dennis Thomas

            I’ve owned nearly all of Nikon’s DSLR’s as well as some Kodak/Nikon’s and even a Canon 30D once. I’ve shot extensively with both the D600 and D800 and wrote guides for both cameras as well.

            The image Erik posted is closer to my experience.

      • Erik

        What makes me and many else upset is that they are using a DX AF module in an FX body

  • amaral

    Im wondering about de LCD. i think we could expect something new. maybe you can hide it, to look like a 35mm body.

    • Hexagon Jr.

      That would be lovely.

  • PaulK2

    This LCD screen is pretty much genius.

  • tap0

    less than 24 hours away from the launch…any info on price and how it actually looks ….

  • Back to top