After about a week of photographing with the Nikon Df, I am pleased to say that its CMOS sensor appears to come the closest to behaving like the CCD sensor I’ve long respected in the Leica M9.
I can actually pull more shadow detail out of the files (which came as a complete surprise) and the highlight recovery is also superior (not a surprise).
Of course, the Df is not a rangefinder (so if you’re like me, and like to manually focus, that makes things more difficult… also, I miss seeing the scene “outside of the frame” that a rangefinder offers) and the stable of lenses for the Nikon F-mount are larger and generally not as well corrected as the Leica equivalents (having said that, the Voigtländer 40mm f/2 SL-II I’m using is very competent and compact).
For micro-contrast and tonality, CCD wins every time.
On the other hand, the Df has rock-solid reliable electronic guts (with robust processing power), does not feel like a beta product, and has an external ISO dial (I love this).
More photos to follow…
—Peter.
Prosophos 
Very happy for you Peter.
Sounds like a wonderful camera.
>
This is a camera I would consider Peter, though personally would have prefer the size be closer to the old Nikon FM/2. That may be impossible with FF sensor and mirrors, etc…..
Certainly for me, it’s the best of the CMOS sensors I’ve seen.
Surprised you like it.
I so empathize with your photographic conundrum. You just have to keep trying until the right camera comes along.
Do you work in .nef format? What happens to the micro tones when you print DF files? In my experience, Nikon has produced really nice files in general. I would have stayed with that company but with age and previous experience I find I much prefer to look down at a screen to take an image and thus can balance the camera much more easily than holding it up to my eye. I also like the ability to use different formats in-camera as part of the composition, something Nikon doesn’t provide in general.
I await patiently and optimistically for good news around Photokina. Believe it or not the only camera that works for me at the moment is the Sony RX100 Mk2. It does almost everything I would wish in a camera (in particular with the articulating screen I can pretend its my old Hasselblad). I just wish the sensor were larger as the micro tones are somewhat abrupt; yet, it produces very nice10x15 prints, just not ultimate gallery quality. So I keep photographing – better to have images than none at all while the industry gets around to making a camera that meets my needs. I have used the latest Fuji cameras but the raw file processing is an on-going issue in the Lightroom workflow.
To retain the creaminess of tones and the sense of presence in a print, I’m seriously considering going back to medium format film. The current batch of medium format digital cameras are simply way too expensive and clumsy, clearly designed for studio use. Thus, I have been following with interest your experience with the Mamiya, in particular in color.
Hi Peter,
Interesting about the dynamic range and tonality of the DF’s smaller sensor. I wonderif the larger pixels in the new Sony A7S offer an improvement over the A7 and A7R.
Have you tried the current Leica S? Large sensor + CCD + great lenses + super large optical viewfinder, might = your needs. Leica prices on steroids of course!