Nikon "dfb" Digital Back?

[Hamish Gill]

Although the name Dfb isn’t shown in the image, the file name of the jpeg as received from my source is nikon_dfb.jpg. I checked the metadata in the slim hope I light find some nugget, but there isn't any info... In fact I've never seen a file with so little metadata!?

The image seems to show a fairly subtle hint of a digital sensor on what appears to be the folded out back of a nikon FM3a. I have a nikon FM3a and the back comes off with a little clip so I wonder if this could be an accessory back of some sorts? It wouldn’t be the first time that rumours about a back for the FM3a have circulated, when I first heard about the Nikon Df there was hints that it might even be a digital back. Perhaps the rumours then were actually about this product?

What is perhaps a little disappointing is that it looks as though the sensor is only DX sized and not FX.

I’m not a big fan of the Df, as I felt it was a near miss that could have been so much better! I really hope this doesn't turn out to be another near miss from Nikon … This could be a chance to really redeem themselves with the real purist punters out there!


Nikon Dfb by -Hamish_Gill-

 

[Larry Bolch]

A Nikon ad relating the Df to legacy cameras—related to their "Pure Photography" slogan. Digital backs for 35mm chassis have been tried and failed as a product. They only succeed with medium format cameras, because the buyers are willing to trade convenience for quality. Consumers would never put up with the lack of integration.

 

[Dave Green]

 

[Hamish Gill]

I'd have one ...

 

[Larry Bolch]

I'd have one ...

You have a very high day rate, understanding clients who pay you without negotiation, and are very patient with truly cranky equipment, capable of producing the highest possible digital quality. The problem is that a $3,000US camera may be all but indistinguishable from a $30,000 camera and much more pleasant to use on a day to day basis, as a working photographer.

The D300E shows a slight disadvantage when directly compared to a Hasselflex. The question becomes whether the client really cares enough to pay the price of your rental, when the image is going to be reduced for the web or for a catalogue. If you are shooting for a banner in a trade-show, perhaps. However, stitching is so easy and effective now that gigapixels are no longer a challenge. Even on a tiny print, it is difficult to see the difference between 360 ppi and 180 ppi. On a large print 90 ppi looks stunning.

Gear-heads can argue till the cows come home, over minutia of dynamic range and resolution. They never consider return on investment, since the camera is the goal, not the photograph. Working photographers know the size the image will be in publication, and rent accordingly. They also control the dynamic range, so it is not a problem. In objective terms, current medium format dSLRs are not particularly attractive, unless the demands of the client require that you rent one. It is certainly not an object of desire for any enthusiast who actually understands it limitations.

 

[Hamish Gill]

You have a very high day rate, understanding clients who pay you without negotiation...

Correct

 

[Pete Askew]

I've just pre-ordered one. I can hardly wait! I hear rumours of a series of monochrome versions too - different film simulations apparently!