There is a new “Lord of Darkness” (Nikon Df DxOMark test scores, low light ISO comparison with D800, 6D)

The Nikon Df has better low light performance than the D4

DxOMark published their test results for the Nikon Df camera ($2,746.95) and it seems that Nikon were able to further improve the low light performance of their 16Mp sensor: the Df score is 3279 vs. 2965 for the D4 (the D3s score was 3253). The Df's sensor dynamic range performance is identical to the D4 (the D610/D800 still have better dynamic range). Few other comparisons:

Nikon-Df-DxOMark-comparison Nikon-Df-vs-Canon-DxOMark-test-score


Their conclusion:

"Nikon certainly threw a curve ball with the Df. On the one hand it has the first-rate sensor of the D4 in a much more compact and lighter weight body, but the choice of retro controls appears to be a step backwards.

They make sense with older manual focus lenses, with their manual aperture rings, providing they can be focused accurately but models like the F100 and F6 are proven over those earlier models when used with autofocus lenses, and that includes the current G-series (which lack aperture rings).

As it stands, Nikon may find the Df sidelined by both the D800, and the D600, which is a pity as the sensor is a superb performer in low light."

There is a new "Lord of Darkness"

The Nikon Df currently has the best low-light performance in the DxOMark database:

Here are some high ISO comparisons shots of the Nikon Df vs. the D800 vs. the Canon 6D sent by a reader (click for larger view):

Nikon Df vs D800 vs Canon 6D high ISO comparison 1

ISO 100, 5 stops underexposed and pushed +5EV in LR, 100% crop

Nikon Df vs D800 vs Canon 6D high ISO comparison 2

ISO 12,800, 100% crop

Nikon Df vs D800 vs Canon 6D high ISO comparison 3

ISO 102,400, 100% crop

Carl Zeiss Apo Sonnar T* 2,0/135 ZF.2 test results

DxOMark also tested the Carl Zeiss Apo Sonnar T* 2,0/135 ZF.2 lens (currently in stock for $2,122):

"The fixed 135mm focal length isn’t as popular as it was once mainly due to lenses like the 70-200mm f/2.8. Nevertheless, fast lenses like this are making a comeback. The Zeiss Apo Sonnar T* is without doubt one of the finest 135mm f2.0 lenses ever produced, and at $2,200, even the price doesn’t seem unreasonable for quality like this."


This entry was posted in Nikon Df and tagged , , . Bookmark the permalink. Both comments and trackbacks are currently closed.
  • Paulo Goulart

    Strange…so much interest before launch and now, zero…

    • desmo

      you made it increase,
      now it’s one!

      • Paulo Goulart


    • Reese

      It was the price that killed it…

      • Paulo Goulart

        It killed my personal interest in buying one right now, that’s for sure…

      • DTB

        That is for sure… at $1800 – $2000, it would have sold very well. But, at nearly $3000, it is arguably overpriced, though that is subjective…

    • Drazen B

      The hype was all on addition of manual controls, wheels, nobs etc…the stuff that excites us who were shooting old Nikon film cameras back in the day.

      Then came the size, weight and price…that affected its popularity in a slightly negative way.

      • Paulo Goulart

        Yes, I was very excited…I had a couple of great film SLRs (altough not Nikon).
        But when I tried to sell my beloved D300, no buyers (at least for €400!)…
        So, for now, no go.

    • Ronan

      Sold out here so…

    • Eric Duminil

      Weird ergonomics, stupid PASM dial, slow x-sync, no dual slot, ….

      • Mike

        Can I finish your sentence? … dual slot, therefore this camera isn’t for me and Nikon has plenty of DSLR’s to choose from that are very capable. For the rest of you, enjoy your purchase.

  • Marcel Speta

    whoops. Could someone explain why Df is having better ISO than D4 as long as there is same sensor? Some tweaking of existing one? Or new DxO measure method? :-)
    Seems Df reaches the D3s value. Hm…

    • JohnWood

      could be due to slower channel read speed.

      • Marcel Speta

        OK. How do you know that? Is it written somewhere? Honestly i ddin’t check yet, but usualy Nikon is not publishing tech details

        • FredBear

          There’s a thread on DPR about it.

    • neonspark

      electronic processes get improved all the time. It may be all in software or it may be better materials and fabrication leading to less noise on the data pathways. Nikon sure as hell will never tell.

      • InTheMist

        I think Neonspark is right. I suspect just incremental improvements over time at the fabrication level. Probably a D4 off the factory floor today would measure the same as the Df today.

      • EJP

        Exactly! I spent half my life making microprocessors and chipsets for the world’s largest semiconductor. There are constant improvements made on the manufacturing line and often even small design tweaks in the mask sets to improve manufacturability, performance, reliability, yield, etc. Something tested 2 years ago and the same product tested today will likely have somewhat different outcomes even if you take into account simple process variation by testing a large sample of each and establishing a bell curve for each.

    • RMJ

      It’s not necessary the same sensor as was in the very first D4. It could be next revision of the sensor, possibly even newer D4s has this already, who knows (no one has tested since the release of D4). There is also plenty of other hardware involved in the image quality.

      And, of course, it can simply be within the error margin. Though, DxO usually has very reliable testing procedure, haven’t seen much variation within the same sensors.

      My guess is, it’s simply a bit tweaked. Newer generation of the D4 sensor. Either way, it’s pretty awesome !

  • broxibear

    Why do you think the Df is showing up better in low light, is it the exact same sensor as the D4 or is this the D4s sensor?, has it been “tweaked” ?…or is it software ?

    • Drazen B

      Well it was originally designed few years back but only released now, after a D4 has been out for some time. So yes, most likely additionally ‘tweaked’, compared to the D4.

      • broxibear

        Hi Drazen B,
        You’d presume Nikon knew it was better than the D4 in low light, so why not use that as part of the marketing and launch ?…seems a bit odd.

        • neonspark

          because nobody buying a D4 can replace it with this…

          • broxibear

            Hi neonspark,
            I didn’t mean it that way, I meant Nikon could have used the fact that it was their best low light camera as part of their marketing…I think more people would have taken notice and maybe the criticism would have been lighter.

        • Duncan Dimanche

          cause they don’t want to diminish the D4 wish is suppose to be the top notch in the nikon line up…

          “hey our new DF with same sensor does a better job than our 5000€ camera and it’s only 2800€”

          it would seem a bit odd for them to promote that don’t u think ?


          • broxibear

            Hey Duncan,
            No, not really because as neonspark said they’re two different cameras for two different purposes…no one’s going to use a Df with a 400mm to cover F1, and no photographer would be choosing between the Df or D4.
            I don’t think it would diminish the D4 as Nikon’s top camera at all…for me the Df such a different camera it sits on it’s own.

  • Vin

    This is not surprising, there is no video, so it can preform at its best, doing what it is intended to do. I bet it has better long shutter speed performance two.

    • Vin

      I bet it has better long exposure ability also, I question if this is actually, exactly the same sensor by the same fab when this camera was announced.

      • Vin

        I am wondering if Toshiba is making FF sensor now? I hear the have an outstanding supply of silicon for sensor production.

    • rkas

      Video has nothing to do with it..

      • Vin


        • rkas

          Why would it?

  • Dpablo unfiltered

    That must be quite a lens as the other two listed are excellent. Maybe a comparison with 135 lenses would be better.

    • FredBear

      They haven’t tested the Nikon 135 F2 DC yet and one can’t compare other lenses on different camera bodies.

      • Can’t Believe It

        They can’t compare it because the 135 DC is incomparable. It and the 105DC are lenses designed for a single purpose. Nevertheless it would be interesting to see what they make of it.

        • FredBear

          I have the 105 DC and the Zeiss 135 APO and they are certainly incomparable.
          Zeiss by a very large margin.

  • Dpablo unfiltered

    And the D800 provides the best of the three test images.

    • pricer

      They should price DF to really sell… 1500- 1900

    • 1234

      and the DF is the best low light scoring camera

      • Dpablo unfiltered

        (The first three test images)
        The next three belong to the DF.
        (I never use that ISO.)
        However, I might have to start…
        The last three belong to the DF as well, but I have to note that the Canon wasn’t far off. None of the images looked good at the third ISO, so the test is really about which camera is least bad at doing something you will make every effort to avoid doing. But I suppose that one good thing we can say is that we can say that Canon now doesn’t have edge in the low dollar high ISO full frame shooting match. When I looked at the pictures of the shoes the result was much closer between the two cameras. I don’t know if that suggests real world or if there was a different flash.
        I also wonder if, with post processing, you couldn’t actually pull a better image out of the D800 on all three settings. There seemed to be a lot of detail there, just not very contrasty and the color had been muted.

        • Dpablo unfiltered

          But really, the big news is the Zeiss lens. I’ll bet it’s sharper than my AI/AIS…
          Do I get it in AF if I have a Sony?

          • Lord Chickenbeard

            You don’t get AF in it no matter what body you have, sadly.

  • Sean Molin

    Who cares? Check out that sexy dynamic range and shadow performance from the D800.


    • Pablo Ricasso

      In theory, yes. But no, not really.

      • george

        More in practice than in theory in fact. The D800 easily outperforms by two-thee stops of dynamic range ANY other camera, do give a sample RAW image a shot before dismissing it…

        • meartur

          Yes, at ISO100. But not really at 6400 or so.

        • ShakyLens

          Except the D610, by the numbers above.

      • Sean Molin

        In practice, absolutely. I shoot with both the D800 and D4, and the D800 is a shadow monster. It’s insane. The D4’s advantages don’t really come into play over the D800 until around ISO 6400.

        • MyrddinWilt

          What sort of light do you have to be in to use an f/1.4 lens at ISO 6400?

          I can’t see any point to these cameras unless they are being used with the best lenses available. Unless I am filming really fast moving objects I don’t need to drop below 1/100 sec. So I find myself with more light than I want far more often than too little.

          The point where I recently had a problem was shooting video and found that the V1 can’t do slow motion video without a huge amount of light. And then when I reached for the D800, does not do slow mo at all :(

          • george

            Why does it have to be a f/1.4 lens? I shoot weddings, and while I do use a 85 1.4, 105 f/2 etc, there are occasions that you just can’t use 1.4. You may need more dof, maybe you are using a longer focal length for isolation, or you just have to use a faster shutter speed to prevent blur from the motion of the subject (the couple’s dance for instance).
            In fact, I find myself using ISO3200-6400 most of the time during the church and reception, unless of course I use the flash…

  • Roger

    Conclusion; DXOmark ratings are complete crap

    • neonspark

      canon user?

    • lololalallll

      I think I agree… How can it be better than the D4, if it’s the SAME DAMN SENSOR.

      • RMJ

        For various reasons. There is margin of error, there are hardware differences, and there are software differences.

        • nukunukoo

          You are spot-on, my friend.

      • Sports

        It’s actually allowed to improve a product (like a sensor) without sending a press release to the whole world.
        On a high end product, it’s very likely that they’re actually able to improve some details, reduce tolerances and errors, etc.
        On a low end product, they’ll probably optimize for cost, not for quality.

      • FredBear

        There’s evidence on the internet that the sensor is actually not the same – it’s been tweaked since the D4 was released.
        However, it’s probable that the newer D4’s will have this updated sensor to.
        DXO’s tests were probably done on a first generation D4 sensor.

      • InTheMist

        I suspect it’s just improvements at the fab level. I bet if you took a new D4 off the factory floor today, it would measure the same as the Df – a bit better than the early sensors.

    • dgr

      Conclusion; DXOmark ratings are for the development of their software. Taking it to mean much more than that is pointless. An individual can not determine a camera’s usability by synthetic sensors tests alone. Calling it “complete crap” shows a lack of understanding of it’s purpose.

  • catinhat

    The low light performance differences may well be within the margin of error or differences among individual samples, or both.

  • neonspark

    slap that sensor in a mirrorless body. profit.

    • callibrator

      And end up with sub-standard AF system. Loss.

      • InTheMist

        You forgot slow booting, battery sucking, view-through-tv-feeling, adapter needing…

        • dgr

          EVF, focus by wire…it’s more computer than camera.

        • Steven Wade

          Sony EVF’s are outstanding.

          • Drazen B

            Yet still behind OVFs.

      • Steven Wade

        But you gain supreme lightness, portability, and discreetness. Trying to get candid shots with my D800 is a joke, now with my a7R or Fuji, cake. Not to mention the a7R’s picture quality is incredible.

        • zoetmb

          I played with the A7 at a recent photo show and loved it conceptually. I’d really love to be walking around with a lighter load. But the focus is slow. I’m going to wait a few years and see what they do for the second iteration of that body.

          Having said that, I would like to see Nikon attempt their version of an A7 equivalent, although they probably think the Df is already it. But it doesn’t necessarily have to be mirrorless – I think we’re going to see another solution coming down the road and so far, mirrorless has no sold well in the U.S., for reasons I don’t quite understand.

          Aside from the prism on the top, it’s not the mirror that’s adding all the weight and size to the camera. If they take a little more size and weight out of the Df, do it in a regularly styled body and come out with physically smaller f-mount lenses and Nikon will have something far superior than the A7.

          • dgr

            The mirrorless market is not a big one and has many competitors. It may open up more now that there is a full frame option that doesn’t cost $7K. The profitability part won’t happen until there is more consolidation amongst the players.

    • scott800

      that is exactly what i want! With video of course. I would even pay the $3k if it had all the goodies.

      • Duncan Dimanche

        amen scott800

        • scott800

          oh! and in-body 5-axis stabilization… but i think i’m getting too greedy. :)

    • dgr

      and stop being profitable like the rest of the mirrorless market

  • george

    The D800 outperfrorms any other current camera up to ISO6400, regardless of its DxO score. Anybody disagreeing, just try and you’ll see.
    And I’m not talking looking at 100% crops.
    If you compare it to say a 5Dmk3, then downsample the 36mp file to 20 and check which of the cameras resolves better details.
    Same goes true for the Df, downsample the D800 file to 16mp and then compare the two. The D800 will be at least as good as the Df…

    • meartur

      Noise isn’t everything. Look at what happens with colour saturation and dynamic range when you increase the iso with D800 and D4. Downsampling doesn’t solve this.

      • Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ

        Own both the D4 and D800, and I agree with both posts here. D800 beats everything, hands down, but just as long as you stay below 6400. Above 6400 the D800 is starting to take hard hits in the color information and dynamic range, but my D4 just goes on, and thats where the Df and D4 shines, at ISOs above 6400.

        • meartur

          I own D4 and D800 as well, and the colours with D4 above ISO1600 are much better than with D800. I think that the dynamic range is comparable up to 3200. However, D800 is just amazing at ISO100-400. But that just my personal experience…

          • Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ

            I haven’t noticed much of a difference in medium ISOs, might very well be. But I know there’s a major difference at ISOs above 6400.
            I think both of them are amazing, in their own areas. D800 at low ISOs, and D4 at high.

        • george

          No arguments there, but the D800 only goes up to 6400 real ISO, anything above that is “extended range”, probably some sort of digital pushing, so it’s not really fair comparing D800’s 12800/25600 ISO with the D4’s…

          • Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ

            Whats real ISO and whats not is a confusing topic on how sensors, light, photosites, pixels, noise, analog signals and read-noise works, so I’m not into it.
            But the D800 is limited to native 6400 ISO for a reason, and one of them would be that 12800 is too “ugly” to have as a usable ISO, so nikon just have it as a boost ISO.

          • meartur

            You are probably right, but I’ve got one “test” in my head, that I did with D4 and D800. D800 gave me rather dull colours at ISO 3200, whereas D4 produced much richer image at ISO 8000. The “test” was very unscientific, but it made me go “wow”, and realise the real difference between the D4 and D800. This becomes really visible when you start pulling some details and increasing saturation in post.

            • kassim

              Image with a high dynamic range will look rather dull. That normal I think.

    • anatoly

      You are completely wrong. I have a D4 and a D800E. There is no comparing my D800 ISO to my D4. The D4 is good at 6400, the D800E ISO 3200 is outright grainy even if downsampling to the D4 file size.

      • george

        Well, I had them both at a time as well, and will have to disagree. The D800 downsampled is at least as good (most of the times it’s hard to distinguish them though), as the D4.
        What makes the D800 files better in my view is the much finer grain, which results in more pleasing prints (can’t quantify that though, it’s something you can only see on prints side by side). I often use 6400ISO shots from the D800 in wedding albums, even full page sizes, with excellent results. While the D4 files may look cleaner on the screen, the D800 files look sharper when printed.

        • kassim

          Maybe you two use different downsampling algorithms? Different algorithms gives different results. Just saying.

          I own neither so I cannot confirm this.

          • george

            Have never given much thought to the resampling method actually.
            I simply do all the editing on a master file in full resolution, then just copy/paste it onto the album page template, let photoshop take care of the resampling method.
            Sampling method does make a difference when up-sampling though. But that’s the exciting part with using a D800, you start with a file with insane resolution and pretty good noise characteristics, which, for most practical purposes, you have to reduce its resolution for output, thus resulting in superior images…

  • Ufupuw

    You do realize that the difference between 3270 and 2960 is only 0.14 stop?

    That’s easily within margin of error

    • Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ

      DXO’s point system are not stops, its just a overall performens rating which have no real value in any real world situation.

      • nukunukoo

        Wrong, those are computed ISO scores. And he is right, it’s essentially less than a quarter of a stop.

        • Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ

          Well, the 6D is 2340 and the Df is 3279, thats close to a half stop. does it look like a half stop less noise in thoes samples?

          • nukunukoo

            And your point? You have to understand that the higher-rez samples are downsampled. The higher res 6D will exhibit more uniform noise pattern as expected.

            • Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ

              Unless you missed it the first time, DXO points have no value in the real world.
              The downsample is comparable in the real world. You have to crop away information for thoes numbers to make sense.
              So if you shoot normal like everyone else, the 6D perform close to the Df, but if you use your 6D like a crop camera and always crop you image like you do in DXO world than Df is 1.5 stop better. make sense?

            • nukunukoo

              You’re moving away from the issue of your original response and that is your claim that the DxO ISO scores are meaningless in any real-world evaluation and cannot be translated to fractional stops. The ISO (and not some arbitrary unit of measure) of the Df is essentially less than a quarter stop better than the D800 which is appreciatively within a margin of error. Hardly “the Lord of Darkness”. You claim that the ISO numbers in that post cannot be translated as stops and we say it can.

            • Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ

              Moving away from it? are you even reading my posts?
              Df and D800 is only close if you scale them the same, otherwise D800 would have a 1 stop or above ISO advantage compared the D4 if the images was scaled the same. and that also counter the high-res argument you made with your 6D post.

              According to you. The scores demonstrate the real world when viewed at 100% when we compare the 6D and Df. And when We compare the D800 with Df, the scores represent real world when both images are scaled to 8 megapixels.

              If the D800 was just as good or better than the D4/Df at High ISO. Why is the D4 beating the D800 in ever sample at ISO 12800 and higher?

            • nukunukoo

              Never made such claim but only interpreted the original OP’s premise. I translated the ISO scores to stops. Period. What is so difficult about that?

              And kindly refrain into interpreting what you claim I said in hyperboles, m’kay?


              Kindly stay within the subject. Which part of your statement “DXO’s [ISO] point system are not stops” was not addressed? The point (no pun intended) was that you were saying that DxO’s ISO numbers cannot be translated to stops. Inversly, which part of the “You claim that the ISO numbers in that post cannot be translated as stops and we say it can” is so difficult to understand?

            • Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ

              Well, if you know how it works, maybe you can tell me the secret of understanding DXO scores.
              Are the scores based of the image viewed at 100% or the whole image scaled the same, or are they just picking at random. are the choosing specific ISO numbers or make an average for the whole ISO range?

              Here’s the statment you made

              “You have to understand that the higher-rez samples are downsampled. The higher res 6D will exhibit more uniform noise pattern as expected.”

              If I may ask, are you saying that the 6D has a lower score than Df because it will have more noise if it isn’t downscaled to the same megapixels?
              If yes, than the D800 would have a score around 1200-1800 because it has around 1.5 stops more noise as high ISO if not scaled to the same megapixels as the D4.

              It might be hard for me to understand because you’re not answering my questions that would help me understand.
              Other than the quote from you above, I haven’t seen much more from you that state that thoes ISO scores represent ISO stops. If thats even what you meant?

              When I said that thoes ISO points are not stops I meant, thoes points are not made to represent ISO stops.
              And now, if you think they do, then I ask you how.
              I’m looking for an universal point system here, where you can calculate the scores to represent the ISO performens on ALL cameras without changing the rules.

              If one have to change the rules to adapt the points to stops between different cameras, then the scores isn’t really representing ISO stops. One is just changing the rules to magically make certain cameras scores fit with ISO stops.
              And what kind of value has that in the real world?

              Back to my orginal statement.
              If these scores can’t be compared together, and if one have to guess the actual performens from each camera, it has no value in the real world.
              If I’m wrong, again, please tell me.

            • farqre

              It’s really hard to understand DXO score meanings. Especially if you don’t read the info. Info such as that all scores are for the same class only, and scaled to print size.

            • Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ

              And by class they mean brand? Because 6D and 5D3 is about 500 points off when compared to nikons equivalent cameras in real world samples.
              In the measurements 5D3 and D800 is pretty much neck and neck in SNR, but somehow 5D3 ended up with a low light score of 2293 and the D800 at 2853.
              5D3 might even be a step above D800 in ISOs at 12800 and above if I remember correctly. even scaled the same the 5D3 has slightly less noise and cleaner shadows and colors. which would make 5D3 more usable in low light.
              So, is DXO making comparable cameras “uncomparable” with their scores and compare them anyway?

            • nukunukoo

              Kindly don’t complicate the subject. Let’s get down to fundamentals, alright?

              (1) I said ISOs can be translated to stops. That’s it. No underlying meaning, no agenda, no Issues against any real-word applications. No conspiracies. No Albert Einstein between the lines. It’s the equivalent of 1+1=2.

              What’s so complicated about that? It’s just an interpretation of units, has nothing to do with saying “Df is inferior, blah blah” (Df is a great cam) Seriously man, get over it.

              (2) Answering your statement on “performens” (it’s performance)…

              Bottom line: I didn’t and did not intend to. And I couldn’t care less.

              I didn’t say which one is better, all I said is that since each image have been resized, you cannot base any objective judgement with it.

              Period. End of subject. Full stop. No underlying meaning, no agenda, no Issues against any real-word applications. No conspiracies. No Albert Einstein between the lines.

              I didn’t say (NOR did I refute) whether or not it has any real application. I only reported observable truths. It is you who went into different directions about performance and so many other tangents!


              You think too much bro, keep it simple. =) Stop putting meaning and paragraphs to my two liners!

            • Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ

              Then don’t tell me I’m wrong when you don’t actaully have something to back it up with, simple as that.
              All this “stupidness” (from both sides) could be avoided.

            • nukunukoo

              Wrong. You said the ISO units from DxO cannot be translated to stops. It’s flat incorrect.

              FULL STOP

              There is NO both sides, there’s only you doing it ad infinitum. Don’t quote “stupidity” to cover your tracks.

            • Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ

              I said “DXO’s point system are not stops, its just a overall performens rating which have no real value in any real world situation.”
              Scores do NOT represent actual performance diffrences in ISO levels between cameras!
              I’ve never said anything about be able to translate it. That’s something you keep insisting me that I’ve stated.

              The “stupidness” from my side is that I keep going in to this discussion all the time, yours is that you basicly put a feather on a cake and called it a bird, and it might be a bird for you, but for me its a cake with a feather on it.

              And you keep telling me I’m wrong because its a bird to you. Thats is what we are doing in this conversation.
              Unless you can’t see it, its stupidness from both sides, we don’t understand each other and now we just argue over not understand each other.

              This train has crached a long time ago, and I wonder why I’m still sitting in it.
              So I’m going to back out after this.

              And here’s the things we learnd from this.

              Q1: Can you translate DXO scores to stop value?
              A1: Its math, sure you can.

              Q2: What do that have to do with anything?
              A2: Nothing at all, it was never stated by the orginal posters.

              Q3: Do DXO scores represent the actual performance of the camera in the real world, are they calculated in stops and are they comparable to other cameras?
              A3: I haven’t seen any evidence or statment to say that they do, so I would say no.

              Q4: Do DXO scores have any value in the real world?
              A4: Sense they do not represent the actual performance of the camera, I would say no. The scores alone can’t tell you if one camera is better than the other and vice-versa.

              Q5: Am I wrong for my orginal statment which reads: “DXO’s point system are not stops, its just a overall performens rating which have no real value in any real world situation.”?
              A5: Doesn’t look like it, no.

              And there we have it!
              Now, I’m done and I won’t waste more time here.

            • nukunukoo

              Changing goalposts I see…

              The original poster WAS talking about ISO. I repeat… ISO. Your response was that that number was meaningless nor do they represent stops. No DUH, you have to change the units of measure first!

              That response was wrong. And now your digging deeper into a mess. Like I said:

              Once more (with feelings this time):

              That’s it. Period. End of subject. Full stop. No underlying meaning, no bias, no agenda, no Issues against any real-word applications. No conspiracies. No Albert Einstein between the lines. It’s the equivalent of 1+1=2.

            • nukunukoo

              And one more thing. Your statement that I claim I made:

              “According to you. The scores demonstrate the real world when viewed at 100% when we compare the 6D and Df. And when We compare the D800 with Df, the scores represent real world when both images are scaled to 8 megapixels.”

              What on earth are you trying to say? All I’m saying is that the test images are not absolutely objective.

            • little joey

              the DF is the top scoring camera, it might not be by much but it is the best low light scoring camera. making it the current “lord of the darkness”
              it seems the df can’t win either way, it comes in as the best scoring low light camera and ppl are still whinging about it.
              and if you’re going to carry on about margins of error, i guess the same could be said with the d800e.
              apply the same or similar margin of error between it and a d610.

              just accept the DF has the top score and move on

            • nukunukoo

              Geesh and where did you get that I’m bashing Df? Oh of course, it’s butterfly guy’s fictional invention of what he thinks I’m saying. Sorry but I’m just quoting the truth of the OP’s value rating. Nothing more. I moved on a LOOOOOONG time ago.

            • rkas

              What are you talking about? DXO doesnt crop anything!

            • Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ

              Never said DXO crop anything.
              What I said was that you have to crop all 6D real world images to be able to translate real world noise levels to DXO score stops.
              Its all based on nuku’s statment that the 6D has a lower score than Df/D4 because DXO scores are based on a non downscaled image.

              Seriously, don’t read too much into this conversation. its just junk (from all sides).

            • nukunukoo

              “Seriously, don’t read too much into this conversation. its just junk (from all sides)”

              Good Lord, you WROTE the book on reading too much on things! For example:

              “Its all based on nuku’s statment that the 6D has a lower score than Df/D4 because DXO scores are based on a non downscaled image.”

              I made NO SUCH STATEMENT. Geesh, is that how you troll? Do you really have this habit of writing fiction???

    • MyrddinWilt

      It is probably within the sample differences. But also remember that the D4 figure is from a while back and there will have been production improvements since. So if you buy a D4 today the chances are that it will perform exactly the same as the Df does.

      The same is not likely to continue though. The next logical step is to sort the sensors and choose the best ones for the flagship and the less good ones for the Df. Then announce an update for the D4, the D4s that claims an extra stop of ISO performance. The actual difference is likely only .25 of a stop but if it makes the difference between one stop and the next then that is what matters.

      • Vin

        Good point, a new D4 may be just exactly the same scores as Df, because the score is very minimal. I would not be selling my D800 for one. I don’t see a lot of people buying the Df as first steps into FF. It seems more people will buy as second or third camera. So that does limit overall sales. I still like it, but going to see how 2014 shows up for new Nikon surprises.

    • dgr

      The biggest difference is in price and size.

  • scott800

    I first turned the ISO dial to 12,800 on our Df and was amazed. It maintains proper color and decent detail even at extremes. We shoot on 2 d800s, and try to never shoot above iso3200 to keep the image manageable, but i would happily go flash-less and shoot reception guests at 6400-12800.

    • nukunukoo

      Strange. Using a loaner Df (actually, it never left the camera shoppe) against my D800 (refurbished). At 6400 AND using poorly lit targets, subjective comparisons is very slim. Also, I’m sure I can even get better results if I resized the D800 images down to 16MP. Overpriced.

      • Ronan

        So you get different results than what everyone else is reporting?

        Got photo proofs?

        • Rudi

          Everyone has a D800 and a Df and is reporting what?

      • Smiths

        So strange…. I had a chance to test Df shortly at Nikon store in my city with my own memory card. My result is opposite to what you got. Df’s file is obviously cleaner. So, I think dxomark is right.

      • Mike

        I find that the D800 is very capable of getting great shots at ISO 6400, BUT I have to over expose to make it clean. And in that kind of light it’s the difference between 1/60 and 1/50 of a second. The D800 needs all the shutter speed it can get.

        The D800 is certainly more versatile than many initially and still claim it to be, but I think the biggest difference between the Df (& D3s & D4) vs the D800 is there is just less work involved to make it look like a 16mp, noise free image. Less work to make it look like a down sampled and noise-squeezed-out D800 shot. If all you’re doing with D800 files is making them look like D4/Df 16mp files, then who has spent their money unwisely?

    • ronin

      What do you do with the shadows under their hair and eyes and noses and chins caused by the harsh overhead lighting?

      • Can’t Believe It

        And the freaky color casts caused by one kind of bulbs in the down lights and a different kind in the chandeliers or overhead fixtures?

        • scott800

          usually if there are mixed overhead lights, or different types or tiers of lights we will dim or turn off one of the types. In almost every venue that has fluorescent lighting, we talk the couple into shutting them off and bringing in other more intimate table lighting way before the actual event. If we can help it, we like to know the wedding planner and see any lights they plan on using ahead of time.

          • zoetmb

            Well, you seem to really know what you’re doing, but in the end, it seems to me that in order to light up faces and eyes, one needs to be using fill-flash (aside from the ceremony itself, which if religious in nature, almost never permits flash). I use flash less than i used to also because of the low-light capability of the D800, but where the face counts, I still use it.

            • scott800

              not sure i really know what I’m doing, but agree about some flash some of the time. i still use a 4-light pocket wizard set-up with my d800s at receptions, there are however, instances where we take photos with no fill flash and position ourselves to allow other sources to provide fill. One of the planners we like to work with has clusters of large paper lanterns she hangs over tables that provide fantastic ambient fill.
              And yes, we almost never flash during any ceremony, but this one will be in the dark. Aisles with candles and some dim perimeter lanterns. We will make sure we get the decorator to put candles at and above eye level around the alter. Usually even dark church have alter or stage lighting or sunlight through windows so flash is not required. I should’ve said the couple want no flash or lighting other than candles.

            • peterw

              are you shure they do want pictures?


              succes, I bet it will be beautiful (no irony there)

      • scott800

        What we usually try to do is position ourselves at slight angles from other source lighting. Most of the venues we work at light tables with candles and turn the overheads down. competing with crazy purple up-lighting is usually more of a problem (blowing out backgrounds and whatnot) so often we will use them as a light source if the subject is far enough away to minimize the uplight effect. receptions are long, so we are very patient and find the good spots to shoot from around the room first. Before the wedding we always talk with our clients about the importance of lighting make their day look better (including mixing types of light, such as tungsten and fluorescent). Educating them about lighting and mood always gives up points, but also helps us out greatly on the big day.

    • rkas

      Viewed at 100% I guess (which is rather pointless)?

  • timmy tim tims

    DF shows its much more then just a great functioning/practical camera

    • InTheMist

      What bothers me is the thought of smug Nikon executives sitting around the conference table nodding to each other, congratulating themselves on the price. Which is in my view, still much too high.

      • Etr brony

        You’re right, and that maybe the case but if ppl are happy to pay the price… the value of a product is dependent on what a consumer is happy to pay. And if ppl are happy to pay for the df and there selling at a rate that nikon is happy with then who can blame them, after all it is a business.
        Also hopefully the price does drop as time goes on, and in agree with your point

      • Andy

        Just because you cannot afford something doesn’t mean it’s overpriced.

        • Andy can’t read

          He has one dummy

        • Derek Smith

          Only Idiots would pay full price for this. I purchased a refurb D800 for 2100. My buttocks feel alot better.

          • cheap


          • Ronan

            Exactly! I purchased a D7000 as a back up camera. 10k actuations, $550!

          • hey charlie

            there is no refurb option here in Australia (and many other countries), so does that mean every person who bought a new df in Australia is an idiot?
            use your brain, some ppl are more then happy to pay the price nikon is asking for NEW cameras and have a local warranty
            just because you’re happy with buying a used refurb doesn’t mean everyone else wants to.
            each to there own mate

          • InTheMist

            …I paid full price.


        • CSIROC

          No…but the fact its $50 less than a D800 right now sure does.

        • InTheMist

          I did buy it and…

        • ereshoping

          Just because you CAN afford something it doesnt mean its NOT overpriced.

  • nukunukoo

    Professionally, I never go 6400+ anyways, unless I wanted to capture the Milky Way.

    • Chapulin Colorado

      If you need an ISO of 6400 to capture the Milky Way, you’re doing something wrong.

  • Milen

    I am still on D610 ship, if I must reconsider, I`ll go for D800E

    • InTheMist

      I have been enjoying my Dƒ a lot, but I don’t think it should be anyone’s first, or even only FX camera. The D800 just has so many advantages at low ISO, and not that many disadvantages (though visible I think) at high ISO.

      What are you shooting now?

      Frankly, the D610 is just sooo good, and has such a fair price. At one point when I was considering the need of a backup FX camera, I had abandoned the idea of getting the Dƒ and had the D610 in my cart instead! What put me over the edge in the end is the D4 sensor, not competing with my D800, but complimenting it in lower light situations.

  • Can’t Believe It

    I’m very confused by all this downsampling that everyone says they’re doing. I’ve never down-sampled in my life as far as I know, and I don’t think my clients would dig it if I did.
    Who among us downsamples on a regular basis? And why?
    Isn’t the point of buying a higher-megapixel camera so that you can make larger prints and less-detectable portrait fixes?
    And what kind of downsampling? Is it the TIFF stage? JPEGS? And what software? Are we talking ACR? Lightroom? Aperture? Does Nikon ViewNX even let you downsample?

    Sincerely Confused

    • InTheMist

      Imagine if you take eight pixels, and each of them has some random noise in them. Once darker, one lighter, one too red, one too blue, one too yellow, and so on. Take these eight pixels, and average them out to just one pixel and the ugly noise appears less because the “error” has been averaged out.

      This happens sort of automatically, when you print, or certainly when you export from Lightroom as a file smaller than the original.

  • dgr

    If the release price was $2000 there would still be people complaining it’s over priced because the 6D or D600 could be had for cheaper…..blah blah blah. The argument is getting old. $2750 for one of the best high iso performers in a small compact package. What a deal!

  • Funduro

    WOW ! That’s awesome ! Shame,but my next DSLR will be a D800e.

  • Zach

    For yall who can’t afford a 2799 dollar camera, move the fuck on! there are plenty of people who can, and actually did buy it. Df are extremely high demand in Japan, prices are actually gone UP in many stores where they have Df in stock. For all you whiners who can’t afford this camera now, please wait one or two more years when people start to sell their used Df

    • InTheMist

      I bought it, shoot it, love it. But I still think it’s $500 too expensive.

      Plus, as I said on my blog ( the guy who decided to put that focusing system in this wonderful camera needs a kick in the balls. Really, really hard.

      • dgr

        For every person complaining about the AF system I bet you could find someone complaining about the fact that the camera wasn’t made to be 100% manual.

      • SteveDK

        In a year (+/-) it may be $500 cheaper. Such is often the case with these cameras.

    • dclivejazz

      Hey, it’s overpriced because it has seriously hobbled specs, besides having a D4 sensor. That kind of compromise should come cheaper. If you bought it, good for you. Have fun. I’ll wait, thank you.

    • peterw

      Silly snobistic comment you post, stating others can’t afford what you can, adding some filthy words. One could guess you yourself cannot afford a real camera like a D4? Or a Leica or Hasselblad? Df is your standard?

      Consider that you could have bought a D3 sensor in a D700 body sharing a lot of D3 characteristics. The best thing of this Df are the sensor and its low weight, it is vastly overprised.

      • zach

        First of all, I did NOT claim that I could afford it. And your stupid comment by saying D4 is REAL camera ONLY means you are the one who actually think so. Secondly, I only presented you a HARD FACT that Df are SOLD OUT most of places in my homeland Japan, for those stores where they have stock, they intentionally increase the price by 10% or so, since there is a GREAT demand of this camera. Everyone wants play God’s rule in this market, you think you have the rights to judge a product without even having one? YOU are one of those people who simply judge a book by its cover. The tech specs and the way it looks don’t mean shit when you are out there to take pictures. Dissing this product being overpriced only means what you expect to pay for such a camera doesn’t match it’s price tag in REALITY. You DONT represent the entire market NOR the majority of it. If you have complaints about this camera WITHOUT even having one, Please go complain to Nikon, not in this public forum where people need honest opinions and thoughts from those who OWN it.

        • peterw

          I mistook your comment in buying the camera yourself, sorry for that. That’s what made me compare it to other camera’s.

          I read your other points. I do like the way you put emotion in it. But from this cover, I will not buy your book.

          nice light to you

  • scott800

    Nikon must have changed the way the live-view display operates on the DF (maybe another reason for non-video functionality?) The live-view seems really different than on my d800s, and it keeps the screen really bright and contrast-y. Its very easy to focus manually in the dark, like way too easy! i think the way they process the image for live view speaks to how amazing the video function could be on a camera like this. Using a voigtlander 40mm f/2 and nikon 50 f/1.4 .

    • alex

      My beloved Voigt 40mm and 20mm would be the only lenses I would put on that camera. Try the CVoigt 58 1.4 instead of the nikon 50mm!

      • scott800

        i will check it out thanks! it looks like it isn’t all that expensive either :)

      • scott800

        i will check it out thanks! it looks like it isn’t all that expensive either :)

    • Horshack

      The D800 was a big step backwards in terms of Live View clarity and refresh rate. Thankfully the Df corrected those regressions. The Df’s Live View clarity/refresh rate is on par with the D7000/D5100, for anyone who has ever used those bodies.

  • photographerintokyo

    For what it is worth, the Nikon Df is currently the best selling DSLR in Japan according to

    • Jimmy

      Great price when you think about it, the $2700 paid for the pound of bluefin for the group appetizer is gone in an hour, but the camera used to record the event lives on.

    • kassim

      Congratulation. Japanese definitely have a very different preference than the rest of the world.

  • Ronan

    [Insert Troll Comment and switching to Canon]

    That’s done, go Df!!!

  • Alex

    This Dxomark thing …

    I think it is important to say that Dxomark numbers are accurate but we can be easily mistaken in their interpretation.
    The iso score stands for the highest usable iso for a given noise level in a A4 print. It means the 6D, D800 and Df reach that quality treshold at that Iso value. It does not mean that the amount of noise follow a strait line as you increase the iso! Canon and Nikon work quite diferent, Nikon FX cameras are generally better than Canon up to 3200, Canon takes the lead from 6400iso and above.
    The lower MPixel count sensors wont make any noticeable difference (regarding noise & on the same size print) below 3200iso but they wont crash like a D800 at 6400iso.
    It is a wrong interpretation to think “D600 is better than 5Diii in low light because Dxomark says 3000isos vs 2300isos” as it is in reality very much the opposite… Something like “the D600 is better than the 5Diii up to 3000iso and even higher, till the point it suddenly dies and the 5DIII becomes king” looks more realistic.

    Same thing for DRange. It is true that Nikons kill Canons at low iso, but from 800iso they are no differences.
    Lower MPcount have lower DR at low iso but hold it for longer …
    There is no miracle sensor, it all come to your views, needs and goals. I chose the D800 sensor as the most usefull for my work.

    Although I would love the Df look because it may noticeably change the interaction of your subject/model with the camera and this is very valuable to me. I would buy one straight away if it had the same batterie as the D800 even better if it had the D800 sensor! My reasons, my choice…


    • nukunukoo

      Agree completely on the ISO noise observation. I work with clients’ RAW for over a decade with different cameras. Canon and Nikon process noise differently in their systems.

      While Canon’s noise rendition look more “digital” (less random pattern), Nikon’s noise is more filmlike and pleasing. However, at 2000 higher (depending on the subject’s color and illumination), Canon’s noise pattern becomes more pleasing and acceptable especially on dim architectural shots.

      Also, the non-AA Nikons (D800e and D7100/D5300) exhibit slightly higher noise that is quite pronounced at that ISO range. But that is not necessarily a bad thing because there are more edge information present than the AA versions, especially on text, woodgrain and fur.

      That being said. I have not notice any clear DR advantage with the Canons over the Nikons at higher ISOs. Subjectively, the 5D MkII’s DR is more maneageable than the MkIII in many cases. However, in general (and contrary to some) I noticed Canon’s RAWs are better at recovering extreme highlights while the Nikon’s talent is in those shadows with respect to noise banding and chroma noise.

  • Mansgame

    I bet all the sports photographers will just flock to the Df now! Or perhaps they’re smart enough to buy cameras because of functionality and not because they look old.

    • alex

      If it feels good for him shooting with the Df he might make better pictures, with a better feeling … who knows? What I know is that he will miss the focus many times but this is not the whole point!

      • Mansgame

        maybe they should send a box of prozac with every d600 that’s sent in for dust removal.

    • dgr

      I’m going to take wild guess that Nikon did not release the Df to compete with the D4 in the fast action sports shooting.

  • EJP

    Definitely within the measurement error. That’s not to say that it isn’t a tiny bit better but unless they are taking many samples from many bodies, this difference is so small that no final conclusion can really be drawn from it. It is also possible that Nikon or the sensor manufacturer have made slight improvements on the sensor or other electronics production line since the introduction of the D4 and that a D4 tested today could produce the same results.

  • EJP

    Definitely within the measurement error. That’s not to say that it isn’t a tiny bit better but unless they are taking many samples from many bodies, this difference is so small that no final conclusion can really be drawn from it. It is also possible that Nikon or the sensor manufacturer have made slight improvements on the sensor or other electronics production line since the introduction of the D4 and that a D4 tested today could produce the same results.

  • koenshaku

    So doesn’t this camera have -1 EV auto focus sensitivity? What is the point of being the lord of darkness if you can’t focus well in it?

    • Rick

      Do you try Df yourself? Even though Df adopts the same focus module from D600/610, Df’s focus accuracy and speed is much superior to D610. Kinda strange. I guess Nikon may tweak up something in Df’s firmware.

      • koenshaku

        I haven’t I will have to wait for low light focus test in reviews to see.

  • o.b.1ne

    I’m still not convinced. Someone needs to take a photo of their cat, underexposed (of course) then bring up the exposure in post, then zoom in 100% and have a look at the detail you get on the fur of your cat’s ball sack.

    Then compare it to other cameras and see which camera is the best, because in the end it’s all about the 100% crop, and the best sensor = best photographer.

  • Ethan

    wow… Just wow finally it’s unbelievable and very impressed to know that we have a new low-light champion. Df can dethrone D3s and blow away D800 and D4 to pieces for clean ISO capability. D610 even cannot come close….Superb!!

    • peterw

      blow away you state… :)
      How many stops is it from 2853 D800 to 3279 Df? Almost 1/3 stop perhaps? I would not buy a new crippled camera to gain 1/3 stop iso.

      • Matthias

        *sign* you dont understand how dxomark test ISO and low-light ability at all. That’s score really matters in reality.

        • peterw

          I’ll check DxO:
          “A difference in low-light ISO of 25% represents 1/3 EV and is only slightly noticeable.”

          (3279-2853)/3279 ~ 13 %

          can you help me see what I don’t see?

          • JorPet

            Their 25% represents 1/3 stop doesn’t make sense. That means that the DF and D3s at 3279 are only one stop better than a camera that scores 1,400. I suspect that they wrote that back when cameras were around 1,200 and 300 was closer to that 1/3 stop. Otherwise their numbers just don’t make sense.

  • silmasan

    That APO-Sonnar is so good there is certainly no need for an Otu$ at 135mm. Good thing it wasn’t branded (and priced) as one!

    Btw I think it needs its own post, admin, it isn’t getting the attention it deserves. Coupled with other reviews available so far. Why, don’t you want your readers to go buy some? 😉

  • Wills

    It’s funny to see people’s responses to DXOMARK. Every time that dxomark publishes test results in your favor people praise how great their products are. However, whenever the test result is against your thought or your decision, then they blame how unreliable dxomark is. What ego you guys have!

    • Cathy

      Absolutely true….

    • Canton

      It’s nature of human. Naturally we always defend our decision or our investment.

    • Global

      All the DXO mark does is confirm that the Df uses recycled technology. Barely any difference — negligible — from the D3S. You can buy a D3S for the same price and much more fully featured, such as being twice as fast 11fps, and video, and exactly the same low light ability. Df is less useful than a used camera at the same price, released 4 years ago….

      • Yampa see

        No it’s not. What dxomark says is the confirmation of superb balance in Nikon’s technologies, innovation, and photographer spirits. The success in Japan and several Asian countries confirm this undeniably.

  • Spy Black

    Finally had a chance to check out a Df. Man that thing feels great! Wish I could afford one right now.

  • Bellark

    I would like to congratulate to whoever behind the Df project. According to and other Japan websites, Df has been continuously ranked 1st as the best seller camera in Japan. Nikon deserves this glory. Df is best all-round and second-to-none camera indeed.

    • Global

      You cant call it “all around” if it doesnt do video. We’re in a new era. The Df doesnt even qualify as an “all around”. Whoever imagined the Df without video was an idiot who should be fired, because a lot of people wont buy it for that reason. The Df is a speciality low light, medium performer, with corners cut, yet excellent low light, not an all around.

      • Kanse

        “Whoever imagined the Df without video was an idiot who should be fired”
        lol …… Why Nikon should fire the team who brings their achievement. You have no idea how well the volume of sales Df is.

  • sbhf

    What’s wrong with having options? If you want the DF and can afford it, then go it. If you don’t want it, don’t buy it. Don’t bash a camera bc you don’t want it or can’t afford it. At the end of the day, you decide with your wallet and the company decide with theirs. Someone is paying for the manufacturing coat, be it the consumer or the company. Don’t be that internet troll hating on something just because you woke up on the wrong side of he bed. We should all be glad that there are so many options out there for photographers.

    • kassim

      Maybe they are afraid Nikon has wasted resources on something people just don’t buy. Option like D3x vs D3s (MP monster vs speed monster) seems a pretty good option, by comparison.

  • Andrew

    Admin, please correct:

    “Nikon certainly threw a curve ball with the Df. On[e] the one hand”.

    • Nikon Rumors

      This time it’s not my mistake, I copied it from DxOMark :)

  • Global

    Why does the Df look like CRAP at that users ISO100 comparison?

    Is the Df supposed to look terrible at low ISOs?

    Also, if this rating is exactly the same as the D3S… whats the big deal?

    • C-Anon

      Yes, if the rumor of Nikon uses thinner color filter is true. Thin color filter has the high ISO advantage, but less usable on lower ISO.

    • Global

      And, likewise, why does the D800 look so good?

  • John_Skinner

    There is going to have to be a huge improvement to ISO low light levels for me to even start considering ANY upgrade for a body. You couldn’t pry the D3s out of my dead hands.. And if this one dies, I’ll repair it and shoot with the second D3s body here.. These “increases” are so minimal and petty, you’d have to really be a pixel peeping goof off to justify the costs of the Df with it’s feature set, or the D4 with such a price variance as compared.. The world has officially gone mad.

  • jk

    what ever they say, I will still gladly take my M over anything else, I love my D800E too but if I have to keep only one camera that would have to be the M240.

    but for the amazing lowlight score, I may end up getting a copy of Df for my birthday.
    sounds I need the Df in addition to my D800/D800E and my M240, I guess I won’t need any more new camera for long time.
    as most of us already know the current bayer sensor tech is already matured, and there is almost no room left for improvement over the Df the D800E /the Leica M, until we actually get some Organic sensor in use , we will not need to buy any more new camera.

  • Arthur Tazo

    You all need to buy plenty of these cameras so that they can show up on the used market soon at which point I will buy one.

  • Mike

    The only reason why Nikon scores so high on ISO noise is because of their thin color filters. This results is good scores on charts and TERRIBLE color reproduction (which is not reported on DxO).

    • SteveDK

      The Canon 5D Mark III and the D800E test quite similarly in color sensitivity, and both just slightly worse than the Df. See:

      • Mike

        Wrong. DxO’s test don’t report color separation…

        • SteveDK

          Who has a better measurement of their color spaces/gamuts? Enlighten me.

          At any rate I’m happy with my D800E’s color reproduction, which is usually quite realistic. And no digital camera is yet perfect in reproduction of reality (though neither is the human eye).

    • SteveDK

      Screen Capture of color sensitivity, showing the color response vs. ISO speed:

      Both Canon and Nikon make very fine DSLR cameras and some very good lenses now.

      • Mike

        Once again, DxO does not report color accuracy / metamerism (SMI) of cameras (because they are sponsored by Nikon).

        The color sensitivity charts you reference are bogus, and do not represent color accuracy (SMI).

        • Nikon Rumors

          Sponsored by Nikon? Just because Nikon cameras took the top spots in their charts?

        • SteveDK

          Then please answer this: where are these SMI test results published?

  • duquos

    the difference is so small and marginal and may well depend on the particular body tested. So the test amounts to almost nothing. To test and evaluate objectively, you need at least 10 copies. Other sites are better equipped than DxO. As for Lens, Zeiss wins as is always.

    • J. Dennis Thomas

      Does DxO base their tests on a single camera?

  • jk

    I just hope people don’t start calling it the lord of darkness.

  • Jason Schultz

    So it’s a D3 chip after all.

    • SteveDK

      D4, not D3.

  • mikeswitz

    I was just wondering. How many angels can dance on the head of a pin?

  • Joseph Li

    wow ok..zeiss (and sigma) is generating some hot lenses recently, while nikon is really goofing around in DX and FX lenses except maybe the 800mm. I just returned my 58mm 1.4G btw…never thought I would go with a manual focus, but figured I would try out the zeiss 135mm f/2 over x’mas and see if I can MF it for portraits with the stupid digital bodies

  • Funduro

    So many great Nikon DSLR’s, so little money.

  • bored

    you all should spend less time online arguing about ISO and quarter stops of light and spend more time making pictures

  • nykon

    I would rather call it King of Flop.

    Don’t believe me? There will be a huge price drop. It will happen sooner than later.

    • Wilss

      Lol…..Why do they have to do so? Df is like hot cakes in Japan and several Asian countries.

      • John_Skinner

        Man cannot survive on rice alone.

      • J. Dennis Thomas

        Yeah, it MUST be a flop. That’s why everyone is having problems keeping them in stock in the USA.

  • Jon Pertwee

    Goodness.. Lots of name calling and arguing about theoretical guesswork, with no real experience.

    Real world example from personal experience.

    I’ve a D3s, I shoot Circus events in high contrast low lighting conditions. I’ve also a D800 on which I do similar.. I regularly shoot at 12800 ISO on the D3s and 6400 on the D800, I get paid for my work, my images are regularly blown up to 2m tall.

    Looking at the Df, the advantages for me are simple. As you increase the ISO on any camera, you begin to lose colour depth and contrast, meaning that it starts to become very easy to blow highlights in situations where the light is changing quickly.

    So the advantage of a camera with 16MPix camera with better low light performance than the D3s is fairly obvious to me.. Bigger pictures, better quality, fewer blown colour highlights. I almost never use my D3s’s high shutter speed.

    Compared to a D800, my D3s produces better High ISO prints by about a stop.. That is, at normal print sizes, the pictures produced by the D800 at 6400 ISO are comparable with the images produced by the D3s at 12800 ISO, however at a stop below that, 3200ISO and 6400ISO, the images from the D800 are superior.

    For my particular case, I will get better picture quality on the Df than the D3s (I’ve tried them side by side) and it’s significantly lighter with similar shot counts for each battery, and selling my D3s will almost completely pay for the Df.

    I’m seriously considering this camera. I wouldn’t, however, swap my D800 for this.. I do a few portrait sessions, and I love the D800 for this. :)

  • Back to top