People must have learned the Df specifications very well by now, although only few have had hands-on experience so far. For me, it is quite disappointing, comparing to what I would expect from this camera: something reliable, simple, and elegant.
It seems that Nikon simply wanted to re-package the existing technologies and parts, and it did not bother to improve any of them. The focusing system, for example, is designed for DX cemaras. It is rediculous for an FX like D600, but it is further passed to the new Df. This does not make sense to me. Yes, Nikon redesigned the 50mm prime lens to go with the Df. But the effort is superficial (cosmetic only), and Nikon, again, did not bother to add the aperture ring while that is one of the key retro features and part of the old beauty (one can control aperture and speed with two hands at the same time quickly while both hands can still hold the cemara firmly).
The Df looks simplified by removing something like movie and all the scene modes. But it is still very complicated comparing to the FE/FM's. The Df also added physical dials. However, the true new physical dial is that for ISO, because all the other major controls are physical in most current DSLR's (the difference is in style and layout). While I like the new (or rather, old) speed dial on the top right side of the Df, the engineering design for exposure compensation and ISO dials on the top left is not well made. I am not quite sure whether the operation of the Df will be easier. With the existing DSLR's, I can use one hand to control aperture, speed, and exposure compensation while holding the camera. I usually use the left hand to hold the lens to keep the cemara steady, but with the Df I may need to lift the left hand to change exposure compensation. In addition, I have to lock or unlock the dial (an extra step). The only gain is probably the dial for ISO (again we have to lift another hand to use it). That can be welcome but not that crucial as we change ISO relatively less often in a particular moment.
My overall feeling is that the camera maker focuses too much on marketing stratgies and forgot the true reasons to be retro. The job is therefore done in halfway. Meanwhile, the price was marked high (the D4 sensor may be used to justify this - but I would prefer the newer D6100 sensor). The Df imitates the old FE/FM's, which were closer to D610 level, and the Df is hardly more advanced than the D610 in practical terms (even with the D4 sensor). The price, however, is close to that of D800. It therefore may not be justified from buyers' point of view, nor optimized in marketing terms. I suspect that the Df is not selling as well as D800 and D610 following their annoucement.
Another question in my mind is about the materials used in the cemera. In the old days, cameras used to have casted metal chassis and sell for a few hundred dollars. Nowadays, to reduce cost and weight, even cameras with a $3000 price tag like the Df do not use metal except for the top and bottom. I believe modern plastic body is strong enough. But on the other hand, does the little amount of metal used in camera really cost that much? As for weight, megnesium alloy may not be that heavy anyway. For many people, including myself, metal is more appealing than plastic, even just for the feelings, and that is part of the style thing people are looking for, especially in a retro camera. Why do camera makers want to disappoint people by these little and easy things? They offer you a relatively expensive suit, but with cheap buttons.
I can be wrong and trivial, and I would like to hear other people's opinions.
