It has been a while since Nikon last caused so much controversy. Even before Df was announced, and, naturally, as soon as all of its specifications were leaked, crowds gathered and the battle was on. Not even D600 or D800 issues caused so much racket. This sort of comparison – Nikon Df versus D610 – is likely to be the most popular among the fans and those who just can’t justify the new camera. We, too, will take a closer look at how these two full-frame DSLRs stack-up against each other. Before you jump to conclusions though, make sure to read the summary – you will find that there is nothing to be so perplexed by. And be sure to pay attention to ISO comparisons between the Nikon Df and the D610 that are posted below.
First, let’s go over the key specifications:
Nikon Df vs D610 Specification Comparison
Camera Feature | Nikon Df | Nikon D610 |
---|---|---|
Sensor Resolution | 16.2 Million | 24.3 Million |
Sensor Type | CMOS | CMOS |
Sensor Size | 36×23.9mm | 35.9×24.0mm |
Sensor Pixel Size | 7.30µ | 5.96µ |
Low Pass Filter | Yes | Yes |
Sensor Dust Reduction | Yes | Yes |
Image Size | 4,928 × 3,280 | 6,016 x 4,016 |
Image Processor | EXPEED 3 | EXPEED 3 |
Viewfinder Type | Pentaprism | Pentaprism |
Viewfinder Coverage and Size | 100%, 0.70x | 100%, 0.70x |
Built-in Flash | No | Yes, with flash commander mode |
Flash Sync Speed | 1/250 | 1/200 |
Storage Media | 1x SD | 2x SD |
Continuous Shooting Speed | 5.5 FPS | 6 FPS |
Max Shutter Speed | 1/4000 to 30 sec | 1/4000 to 30 sec |
Shutter Durability | 150,000 cycles | 150,000 cycles |
Exposure Metering Sensor | 2,016-pixel RGB sensor 3D Color Matrix Metering II | 2,016-pixel RGB sensor 3D Color Matrix Metering II |
Base ISO | ISO 100 | ISO 100 |
Native ISO Sensitivity | ISO 100-12,800 | ISO 100-6,400 |
Boosted ISO Sensitivity | ISO 50, 25,600-204,800 | ISO 50, 12,800-25,600 |
Autofocus System | Multi-CAM 4800FX | Multi-CAM 4800FX |
Focus Points | 39, 9 cross-type | 39, 9 cross-type |
AF Detection | Up to f/8 | Up to f/8 |
Pre-AI Lens Compatibility | Yes | No |
Video Capability | No | Yes |
Video Output | N/A | MOV, Uncompressed |
Video Maximum Resolution | N/A | 1920×1080 (1080p) @ 24p, 25p, 30p |
Audio Recording | N/A | Built-in microphone External stereo microphone (optional) |
LCD Size | 3.2″ diagonal TFT-LCD | 3.2″ diagonal TFT-LCD |
LCD Resolution | 921,000 dots | 921,000 dots |
HDR Support | Yes | Yes |
Exposure Bracketing | 2 to 5 frames | 2 to 3 frames |
Built-in GPS | No | No |
Wi-Fi Functionality | Eye-Fi Compatible, WU-1b | Eye-Fi Compatible, WU-1b |
Battery | EN-EL14a Lithium-ion Battery | EN-EL15 Lithium-ion Battery |
Battery Life | 1400 shots (CIPA) | 900 shots (CIPA) |
Battery Charger | MH-24 Quick Charger | MH-25 Quick Charger |
Weather Sealed Body | Yes | Yes |
Build | Top and Rear Magnesium Alloy | Top and Rear Magnesium Alloy |
USB Version | 2.0 | 2.0 |
Weight (Body Only) | 710g | 760g |
Dimensions | 143.5 × 110 × 66.5mm | 141 × 113 × 82mm |
MSRP Price | $2,749 (as introduced) | $1,999 (as introduced) |
It is immediately clear that the new Nikon Df is heavily based on the current Nikon D600/D610 DSLR. There is very little difference on the inside with most changes apparent at first glance. However, the internal changes that did take place are quite significant, if not numerous. First and foremost, Nikon Df features the same sensor found in Nikon’s flagship DSLR model, the D4. It has a lower resolution by today’s standards, but actually more or less perfect for most users that do not want or need 24/36 megapixels for their daily photography. As you would expect from such a sensor, it has remarkable high ISO performance and will perform well under pretty much any lighting condition. Suffice to say both cameras are more or less state-of-the-art in terms of technical image quality and you will not be disappointed by either one. For a detailed ISO comparison, see further down below.
The other big difference is the omission of video recording in the Nikon Df, which aims to be more traditional in its approach to photography. On paper that is, of course, a drawback. But don’t forget, a lot of long-time Nikon users have been hoping for a functional photographic tool, not a video camera. Most people, including myself, do not ever utilize video functions of DSLR cameras.
Other changes are quite minor. The Df has no built-in pop-up flash, which, again, can be a plus or drawback depending on particular user’s needs (for most people it is a drawback). Nikon D610 also has a slightly faster frame rate at 6 fps against 5.5 fps of the Df. The latter, however, is slightly lighter, smaller and thinner (mostly thanks to the tiny grip), and uses a smaller battery shared with Nikon’s entry level APS-C cameras, such as the D5300. However, despite the smaller battery, official CIPA tests claim massively improved battery life, promising around 1400 shots per charge. As our eagle-eyed readers pointed out, however, the improved performance comes down to the fact Df lacks a built-in flash, which is normally used during CIPA standard testing. Also, D610 has two SD card slots for more storage or backup. That more or less concludes internal changes.
The exterior differences are extremely noticeable between these two cameras. Nikon D610 is thoroughly modern and incorporates the now-traditional button and dial controls. There is one mode dial with the usual Aperture, Shutter, Program and Manual exposure modes as well as some automated scene modes. Nikon Df does without the latter and, instead, only allows the user to select between the four main exposure modes on a small dial next to the shutter release button. It has separate dials for shutter-speed, exposure compensation and ISO sensitivity, and is obviously keen on emphasizing analogue controls. To those that are concerned about manually setting the shutter speed – it is still possible, as long as the shutter dial is set to “1/3 STEP”. Once set, you can change the shutter speed in 1/3 increments using the rear dial, while the front dial is used for changing the lens aperture (on modern “G” type lenses).
Overall, ergonomic differences between the two cameras are very apparent. But there is an elephant in the room. Nikon Df is, arguably, no better or worse than the popular D610 model – it is different. However, the enormous price difference is an issue for many users. Nikon charges an extra $750 for the retro-looking Nikon Df camera. Why? The same reason why Leica does it. Because Nikon Df is a premium product. It is not mainstream. It is different in its approach to how a digital SLR camera should look, feel and operate, despite being thoroughly modern inside, just like its close sibling. There is nothing wrong with that, nor anything to be annoyed with. Nikon’s move – the price, the looks, the controls – make Nikon Df a camera that targets a very specific niche of photographers. That is what makes the choice between D610 and Df so very easy. You either want one or the other and it is unlikely there to be something in between. Plus, you are getting the D4 sensor in a package that costs half as much.
Attention pixel peepers: you will surely want to see the below ISO comparisons!
Nikon Df vs D610 Low ISO Comparison
Please note that the images below are comparisons between the Nikon D4 and the D600. Since the Nikon Df has the same (or similar) sensor as the D4 and the D610 has exactly the same sensor as the D600, these comparisons between the two cameras are valid. Also, the below are 100% crops, without any down-sampling applied. If the Nikon D610 images are down-sampled to 16 MP resolution, the files will look cleaner. When comparing sensor performance, I will be providing pixel-level comparisons to illustrate differences between the Nikon Df and other cameras, without changing the angle of view or perspective. If you would like to compare these images at equal print size level, you can easily down-sample images to the same size in Photoshop / Lightroom and look at the differences (I have already done that for the most part in my reviews of Nikon DSLR cameras).
Warning: Simply clicking the images below does not show 100% crop performance (crops are large, so your browser will automatically show them in smaller size). If you would like to compare images head to head, please download the below crops to your computer and then view them!
As expected, at base ISO 100, both cameras look very clean.
The same at ISO 200.
At ISO 400, the D610 has a hint more noise in some areas than the Df, but it is still very clean, even in the shadows.
We see a similar situation at ISO 800 – both cameras are very clean, only with very slight, almost unnoticeable differences in noise performance.
Nikon Df vs D610 High ISO Comparison
Let’s see if there are any differences at high ISOs:
At ISO 1600 both cameras start to show traces of noise. At pixel level, the D600/D610 seems to produce a little more noise.
At ISO 3200, it is pretty clear that the D4/Df has a pixel size advantage. Images appear cleaner in comparison, although the noise pattern is quite similar. Down-sampling the two to equal sizes will obviously reduce these differences.
And the performance gap grows even more at ISO 6400. Now the pixel-level grain on the D600/D610 appears larger, although there is obviously a clear difference in size between the two.
The same thing happens at ISO 12800 – the D4/Df retains shadow details pretty well, while the D600/D610 loses quite a bit.
Lastly, if we look at both cameras at ISO 25600, it is pretty clear that the Nikon D4/Df does a better overall job, even if the D600/D610 image is down-sampled. Take a look at the shadow noise and discoloration on the D610 image. The Nikon D4/Df retains a lot more details and colors both in the shadows and highlights.
The Nikon Df offers three more “boosted” ISO levels: ISO 51,200, ISO 102,400 and ISO 204,800. While ISO 204,800 is extremely noisy and unacceptable for most people, ISO 51,200 and 102,400 could be somewhat usable when down-sampled:
If you compare ISO 51200 to ISO 25600, the noise patterns are pretty close. The D600/D610 still looks a tad better, but not by a whole lot, so there is a little less than a stop of difference here.
Now keep in mind once again that we are purely looking at pixel level performance here. Once 24 MP images from the D610 are resized to 16 MP, the performance differences shrink more. Only at ISO 12800 and above the Nikon D4/Df seems to offer an advantage when down-sampled. And obviously it can go even beyond that all the way to ISO 204,800, while the D610 stops at ISO 25600.
In essence, if the ISO capabilities of both cameras are pretty similar below ISO 12800, what IS the advantage of the Df sensor, you might ask? Well, there are several of them. First, the files are obviously smaller, which translates to more images per card and faster post-processing workflow. Second, as we already know from using very high-resolution DSLRs like Nikon D800, handling and technique can become an issue. Lower resolution sensors are much more forgiving in terms of camera shake / minimum acceptable shutter speed to get the sharpest images at pixel level. Lastly, many of the older Nikkor lenses might have issues with resolving enough details on high resolution cameras. So a smaller resolution sensor would once again be much more forgiving for those that are planning to utilize old Nikkor classics.
Summary
For a lot of users, D610 is a much, much better choice for less money. For some, Nikon Df will be worth every penny. I have no doubt in my mind it will be very popular and with good reason. I also have no doubt in my mind that skeptics will once again fail to understand why. Here’s a tip – there’s no logical reason behind it. A D610 is a camera that you can easily buy with your mind. It is completely justifiable when compared to the Nikon D800, Df or rivaling cameras from other manufacturers. One buys Nikon Df with his heart. That is reason enough, and if it isn’t for you, don’t sweat over it. No one is forcing the camera on you, and if you ever encounter a snobbish look from someone owning a brand new Nikon Df, while you have a “regular” D610 in your hands, just smile and walk away. Nikon Df buyers should, likewise, do the same.
Next up: Nikon Df vs D800.
Having a D600, my first FX DSLR, has been a great experience (my fairly early body have had its shutter updated after minute oil splatter on the sensor, for free, of course) I must say things have really moved on since I bought it.
Today, my feeling is that the Z6 has taken its place in the marketplace, but as I personally can’t afford one just now, the D600 is still my low-light, low-iSO, camera.
It is a lovely camera for portraits and landscape, with no real issues. And big, or close-up, BOG, or BOBs (birds on ground or birds on a branch).
I use mine mainly with manual focus prime lenses, and my 70-200/4.0G.
For BIF (birds in flight) I use more modern stuff, like my D7500, or Nikon 1 V2.
Romanas – thanks for the good info. I was considering the Df, D800 and D610 as an upgrade from my current D60. Shoot wildlife on safaris, equestrian sports and dabble in landscapes and macro plants etc. Finally pulled the trigger and purchased a Nikon D610 as the best compromise between safaris and equestrian sports. Now working on lenses. I plan to purchase the the 80-400 before the trip in May 2014 to Namibia and eventually a Nikkor 70-200 2.8 VRII. Right now focusing on landscape/all around lens-considering the Nikon AF-S Nikkor 24-70 F2.8 G ED vs Nikon AF-S Nikkor 24-120 F4G ED. Do you have a recomendation of one over the other? Only wanted to mess with 2 lenses in Namibia. Thanks. r
Richard,
as an all-rounder, I’d take the 24-120mm f/4 VR. It will be smaller, lighter, much more suitable for travel, and you would not use f/2.8 for landscape photography anyway, whilst the longer focal length might come in handy.
Richard, I was in Namibia. For landscapes you are going to be very well served with the 24-70mm; and as Romanas said the 24-120mm could be even better. In the part of Namibia were I was, also a 70-200 mm comes very handy for landscape shooting. To photograph wilde animals, at least in Namibia, nothing is enough. You will need a lot of milimeters of focal lenght.
But here comes my most important advice: Buy an anti-snake pair of boots. They will not protect you against a black mamba (they stand up more than two meters and they could bite your face), but they are useful against other dangerous species like the puff adder. It is a fact that when you are looking for a nice landscape photo you can miss a well camouflaged snake. Here you have a link of a good pair of boots that you could buy in Amazon: www.amazon.com/LaCro…olife0c-20
Thanks-both of you for your quick comments. I did order the 24-70 because I have never had a fast high quality lens. we will see when it gets here how I like the weight, ergonomics etc. Plan to get the 80-400 in late march or so to allow some time to get used to it before I go. I had recomendations from 3 safaris sites to get that lens as a good compromise for being banged around in a vehicle all day vs photo reach- guess those guys don’t recommend the 600 primes unless you have a personal porter which I will not have.
Thanks also for the tip on the snake boots. Will contact our tour company on whether we will be out of the vehicle or not. Were really not allowed out during the Tanzania trip with same folks but I know there are some trek items on this trip in the sand dunes etc. Do plan to go the 70-200 route but unless I win the lottery, not happening before I go to Africa. that should be my primary equestrian sports lens for the future. Migrating from tossing hay bales to capturing photos as i progress towards 70. lol
Hey great article. So many intelligent comments and some ignorant ones too! The Df is just going to come down to that one question. Do you love it? I think I really would. I have a bunch of old film bodies that I drag around because they feel so awesome and put me in touch with my photos in a way that digital doesn’t. But developing and getting film is starting to be a real bummer. I also have a bunch of old Nikon lenses that would just be a blast to shoot on the Df and would bring new life to their capabilities. Think about the 20-35mm 2.8on the Df, or any of the old 50mm’s. Fun! Or the 28mm! With the lowlight capabilities of the Df and 85mm 1.4d you could get the best night shots and just look like someone passing through. I want one for sure! I will wait for the Dfs to come out and fix some trivial junk and then I will have a Df for around $2000. The tortoise always finishes the race!
Would love to see a sample picture taken with a D610 at the base ISO with Zeis Otus at f/4 and f/5.6.
Maybe one day some lucky owner of them both would post it …
In spanish it is correct to say “mil veces mas barato” ( a thousand times cheaper ). Gareth must use his imagination to understand without complaining. By the way, I think that the most people who speak English are not capable to talk in a second language.
“Plus, you are getting the D4 sensor in a package that is twice cheaper.”
Twice cheaper? You mean half the price.
You cannot use a multiple to describe a fraction. You have taken poor grammar / syntax to a whole new level.
Gareth,
thank you for the note, already fixed. Although I have to say the last remark wasn’t really necessary. I am a Russian born in Lithuania, and considering that I would say my knowledge of (British) English is rather good, if not quite flawless. Sometimes, I make errors and either Nasim or our readers are then kind enough to point them out in an understanding and polite manner, which I wholeheartedly appreciate.
What is your excuse?
Also, I’d just like to say thanks for the comparison. You did a super thorough job, and I am a big fan of pictures when it comes to reviews/comparisons of cameras. And your summary really says it all—live and let live. There are a lot of jaded people out there who believe that whatever pretty thing they have reigns supreme and everything else is just a joke. It’s nice to see someone (i.e., YOU) create a space to allow everybody and their pretty things to commingle together in peace. :) Thank you.
The Df is indeed a pretty camera, and it’s aesthetics probably bring on nostalgia for a lot of old-school photographers. I can’t imagine that I would pay that much though for a camera that is lacking in certain things (like a built-in flash—I think most people use this, even if built-in flashes aren’t the best quality). I think I’d probably just stick with the D610 and use the extra money saved from not buying the Df to get a nice lens or something! ;)
Kayla, thanks for your thoughts. :)
I personally don’t use the built-in flash for anything but commander mode which allows me to use the Sb-900. As a fill-flash option, I think the built-in unit works extremely poorly and I never, ever use it for that purpose. But then, to each his own. For me, the lack of built-in flash is more of an advantage than a disadvantage, for someone else it is a must-have feature.
I’ve to agree with Kayla, and say that built in flash is a huge convenience, and most people who don’t know better yet use it. I’m not a big flash user (mostly because I’m new to it, and I find it very frustrating), but I’ve seen people work magic with off camera flash.
But the Nikon Df is not for most people. Most users would find it a pain to use, so I’ll agree with Romanas and say confidently that people getting the Df will not be missing the built in flash anyway because they are pros or advanced amateurs.
In any case, I’ve had a change of heart. I think I’ll end up taking the D610 and spend the rest in better glass. The Df is a camera one buys strictly for the looks, because $ 2,800 is a laughable price for what the camera can do. You’re basically buying a Nikon D4 sensor in nice wrapping. Mind you, I hate 24MP. 16MP is my favorite number. So if I get a Df, it will be for less MP.
“The Df is indeed a pretty camera, and it’s aesthetics probably bring on nostalgia for a lot of old-school photographers”
Exactly! I hate flashes so I buy good glass with big Apertures. I seriously almost never use flash except for artistic indoor shoots where they are on triggers anyway. Customers and people in general hate flashes being fired at them. Get in, get your snaps and get out. The Df little footprint is just like that. Go do some street shooting with a D3 or a D7000 with handgrip and 70-200 2.8 attached and have people offer to break your camera for you (ask me how I know). I think the Df is an expensive act of genius from Nikon and shows respect for the older dorks like me who have old lenses. That price will have to go down soon anyway. We can already get a D600 for $1300-$1400 if you look hard. Cameras come and go anyway, but glass will last a lifetime.
Hi
I have got the olympus em 1 recently and I am very disappointed with it. So I think of getting one of this two NIkon cameras. The reason of disappointment is the long exposure noise. All reviews are talking about the high ISO performance but no review is telling anything about long exposures. Olympus em-1 was getting very good scores at very high ISO but on the tripod (used by me all the time) with exposures of 30-60 seconds olympus appeared to be absolute disaster. More than 50% of pixels in the dark areas were bad pixels. I will never get back to olympus but also I am afraid to buy a new equipment without finding first how the camera cope with long exposures.
Could you be so kind and run some test on this issue. Simply comparison of 30 or 60 seconds on ISO 100 should be bough.
Miro from www.otravistagallery.com
Hi, guys,
Want to ask a question.
If a picture is taken with D610 (24 mp) with a 50 mm lens and then cropped (not downscaled) to 16 mp, would its quality comparable to a picture taken with Df and 70 mm lens?
Basically, how much image IQ will I lose if I use digital zoom during post-production? If loss of image quality is negligible, it might mean that I do not have to frequently switch between a normal and portrait primes.
Just a question. Any comment is very appreciated.
Thank you in advance.