Hello, teacher. I saw the Nikon Df camera very beautiful today. I want to hear your opinion.

1, Nikon DF is a first-class SLR camera, much better than Fuji XT 1. D750 is better than D750 in focusing, unique flip screen and better grip, while D750' s straight-out image quality is much better than D750' s, and D750' s image quality is better than D750' s in general late-stage ability and slightly better in strong late-stage ability. I call myself an old bird, but I still think it is much more convenient to drive DF than D750. Between DF and D750, as long as the telephoto lens is not often used, DF is recommended, and D750 is more suitable if a large lens is used. Both DF and D750 beat XT 1.

2. The sensor of 2.DF is a16 megapixel Quan Huafu sensor developed by Nikon and manufactured by Renesas. Excellent RGB color separation technology, excellent color. It is Nikon's flagship SLR D4 (now the flagship is D5), with the same picture quality and better tolerance than D5. DXO Laboratory, the most authoritative sensor evaluation institution in France, scored 89 points, of which the color depth was 24.6, the dynamic range was 13. 1, and the usable sensitivity was 3297, which was the first level. The sensor developed by Nikon is only used in its own flagship SLR (such as D5 and D500), and DF is the only exception. Nikon's other SLR uses sensors developed by Sony (such as D8 10, D750, D6 10), and a few use Toshiba sensors (such as D5200). The main differences between Nikon and Sony sensors are: Nikon has excellent color and good tolerance, Sony has excellent tolerance, but the color is relatively weak, and Canon and Fuji sensors have good color but weak tolerance (Canon has obviously improved its tolerance since 80D and 5D4, but it is still weaker than Nikon, and no one knows what will happen in the future). Panasonic sensor has a good photoelectric signal conversion technology, but the color and tolerance are good. Therefore, the technical level of Nikon sensors is very advanced;

3. Many photographers spit out that the DF sensor has only16 million pixels, which is perfect if it is 36 million pixels. Many professional photographers also complain about this. In fact, pixels are a very professional problem. Low pixels have the advantage of low pixels, and high pixels have the use of high pixels. It cannot be said that one size fits all is better. Signal-to-noise ratio is the most important imaging index of sensor. Because the sensor converts photoelectric signals (the working principle of the sensor is to convert the light collected by the lens into electrical signals, which will inevitably produce thermal noise, and the noise will affect the image quality, and then the image processor will convert the electrical signals into electronic files visible to human eyes), because the pixels per inch of the low-pixel sensor is low, the area of a single pixel is large, and the light sensitivity is more sufficient, so the noise will be less. The imaging will be stereoscopic and the image quality will be pure. The higher the pixel, the more noise there is in photoelectric conversion, and the purity of image quality will be reduced, especially the high sense. This is an insurmountable gap under the current sensor technology, that is, the signal-to-noise ratio theory in the professional field. Of course, the sensor can't have too few pixels. If there are too few pixels, it will be difficult to support the pixel values required for large-format output. Once the magnification exceeds the pixel value limit, the image will become a mosaic, and the key is to balance it. Why don't flagship SLR such as Canon Nikon Pentax achieve the highest pixel? (The pixels of the second flagship SLR are higher than those of the flagship SLR, and besides the factor of data processing speed, the signal-to-noise ratio index is the core), so we should do it, not not not do it. So, how many pixels is the most suitable? The key is to use it yourself. I think the lower the pixel, the better the effect as long as it is within the range of pixel value I need (including the range that may be cut out). For example, the mainstream 1920X 1080P display only needs 2 million pixels to display photos perfectly (too much is useless), and the high-end 4K(3840X2 160) display needs 8 million pixels. If the photos taken by DF are not cut off by more than half (that is, minus 1600 pixels), of course, if there is a huge demand for advertising shooting, it is really difficult for16 million pixels to support a huge output frame. So pixels are a double-edged sword. Higher pixels are not only helpful for large-format output, but also bring negative effects such as signal-to-noise ratio decline. Nowadays, merchants blindly take the promotion of pixels as the highlight of the upgrade. In fact, they are more catering to consumers, and more from the perspective of marketing, because consumers mistakenly think that high pixels are equal to high image quality. In fact, high pixels are not helpful to improve the image quality, but have an impact on the number of output frames. Some photographers say that high pixels capture more details, so the picture quality is better, but it is specious. On the one hand, taking a 4K display as an example, a photo that meets the 4K display needs 8 million pixels. If the resolution of the photo exceeds 8 million pixels, the extra pixels are invisible to the naked eye on the display screen. Only when a certain part of the picture is cut, the pixel value of the low-pixel photo cannot support the picture, and the details will be lost, while the pixel value hidden in the high-pixel photo can show its advantages, and the details will not be lost after enlargement. Therefore, although high pixels can capture more details, these details are invisible to the human eye in the display carrier, and the results are the same, and only a larger frame can be output on the premise of ensuring the same details. In fact, as long as you do a simple experiment, you can take photos of the same scene with different pixel devices at low sensitivity, and watch the hidden parameters on a 4K display (without cutting off some enlargement). Who can tell which one is taken with high pixels and which one is taken with low pixels? It must be the Monkey King. Only by intercepting a part of the enlargement (called a few hairs in the circle) can high pixels have obvious advantages. On the other hand, for example, the average size of RAW photos taken by D8 10 with 36 million pixels is 40M (TIFF format has a larger capacity), while the size of RAW photos taken by DF with160,000 pixels is about 20M, so the photos with high pixels certainly contain more details (at this time, high pixels do have obvious advantages when viewing screenshots). However, because the photos in RAW format cannot be displayed on the normal display carrier, they must be converted into JPG format. Once converted into JPG, the image software discards the data it thinks unnecessary, and all the photos are compressed into a volume of about 15M-20M (the compression rate of professional image software), and the result is the same. The degree of detail retention is only related to the intelligence of the software. In this case, whether the screenshot is enlarged or not, the result is the same. Therefore, the statement that high pixels can capture more details is of little value;

Nikon's image processor is famous for its clarity. Although clarity is not equal to resolution, resolution is determined by sensor and lens, which is objective and no different from processor technology. Sharpness can also be enhanced by later software, but Nikon's processor is sharper, giving people a sense of visual clarity, which is also a convenience. Although Nikon's treatment of portrait skin color is not the best, except for Nikon sensors such as D4 and DF, the direct color of DF is very good, the color reproduction is true, and the direct effect is better than that of Fuji, but there is no exclusive film mode of Fuji. The straight-out level of DF is well known, and it is better in the later stage. It is a very good camera.

5. The only drawback of 5.DF is two points. One is a 39-point focusing system, which is the same as Nikon's entry-level Quan Huafu D6 10. Generally, there is nothing wrong at home, but it is a bit too much to shoot special scenes such as sports meetings and dark scenes. This is a place where there is a lot of spit in the circle. D 10 is also the same focusing system, but few people spit, just because DF sells the price of high-end machines. Second, the grip is not very good, especially when it is matched with a large lens, which makes sense. As a SLR, DF is very harmonious only with compact lens, and it is really a pity to use large lens. As for retro modeling and emotional expression, everyone's feelings are different, and there is no uniform standard for whether it is worth spending money. Judging from the price of DF, it is the lowest point now. When it first came out, it was a single machine 16000, and the price/performance ratio was no problem. Personally, I feel that the color of DF is much better than that of D750. No matter whether it is straight out or later, the brown treatment of D750 is not ideal, and the requirements for later stage are higher, but the straight out is not very good;

6. If the landlord has a budget of DF, it is suggested to choose DF, which is better than XT 1 in handling and image quality. It is better than XT 1 in detail reproduction, color expression, night shooting ability and so on, and of course the price is also better than XT 1. Moreover, the lens group support of Nikon SLR is beyond Fuji's reach, and the lens accounts for a large proportion of the image quality.

7. Sigma's lenses were not very good before, but since the advent of Sigma's art series lenses, Sigma's lenses have entered the first-class ranks and have the strength to compete with first-class lens manufacturers such as Zeiss, Leica and Schneider. The quality of some lenses has surpassed that of original lenses such as Canon Nikon. ART series lenses are of good quality and moderate price, which is a very good choice. At present, the resolution of Sigma's 35mmF 1.4a lens ranks second (the first is Canon's 35mmf 1.4 red circle second generation), and Sigma's 50mmF 1.4a lens ranks second (the first is Zeiss Otus55mmF 1.4 manual pan/tilt), but Sima's 85mmf 1.4a has just come out, and the professional evaluation has not been announced, but it is definitely among the best. Sigma's 24-35mmF2 is the black technology with the largest aperture of zoom lens, no one, and so on. It is suggested that the landlord use DF+ Sigma 35mmF 1.4a lens with perfect picture quality. Although the Sigma lens is out of focus, DF has autofocus AF fine-tuning function, and Sigma's USB DOCK focusing base can help, which is not a problem.