Comments on: Suspicious Nikon ads http://nikonrumors.com/2008/12/11/suspicious-nikon-ads.aspx/ where there’s smoke there’s fire Thu, 24 May 2012 20:47:06 +0000 hourly 1 By: WillyPete http://nikonrumors.com/2008/12/11/suspicious-nikon-ads.aspx/comment-page-1/#comment-12649 WillyPete Wed, 17 Dec 2008 20:48:23 +0000 http://nikonrumors.com/?p=2148#comment-12649 The prints were on a chair seat (top), and the table in the bottom left masked them. It's taken through a window. I'm on the pavement and these were in the basement studio. The prints were on a chair seat (top), and the table in the bottom left masked them.

It’s taken through a window. I’m on the pavement and these were in the basement studio.

]]> By: WillyPete http://nikonrumors.com/2008/12/11/suspicious-nikon-ads.aspx/comment-page-1/#comment-12648 WillyPete Wed, 17 Dec 2008 20:46:39 +0000 http://nikonrumors.com/?p=2148#comment-12648 I think you've nailed it. I sent this picture in because I couldn't suss out what the lenses were. You cleared it up for me. Cheers. If I see any more prints in their office, I'll try grab a shot or two. I think you’ve nailed it.
I sent this picture in because I couldn’t suss out what the lenses were.

You cleared it up for me.
Cheers.

If I see any more prints in their office, I’ll try grab a shot or two.

]]> By: mike http://nikonrumors.com/2008/12/11/suspicious-nikon-ads.aspx/comment-page-1/#comment-12385 mike Fri, 12 Dec 2008 22:41:40 +0000 http://nikonrumors.com/?p=2148#comment-12385 yes you're right it's a 300 2.8 and a 17-55 2.8 here compare: http://www.adorama.com/catlite.tpl?op=large_image&sku=NK1755DX.JPG http://www.adorama.com/catlite.tpl?op=large_image&sku=NK30028AFVRU.JPG yes you’re right it’s a 300 2.8 and a 17-55 2.8
here compare:
http://www.adorama.com/catlite.tpl?op=large_image&sku=NK1755DX.JPG
http://www.adorama.com/catlite.tpl?op=large_image&sku=NK30028AFVRU.JPG

]]> By: Joe http://nikonrumors.com/2008/12/11/suspicious-nikon-ads.aspx/comment-page-1/#comment-12384 Joe Fri, 12 Dec 2008 22:34:57 +0000 http://nikonrumors.com/?p=2148#comment-12384 I suspect it's an ad for the three new lenses they brought out when they announced the D2H back in 2003 - 17-55, 200-400 and 10.5 fish. In fact I'll eat my keyboard if on that lens ad there isn't a 10.5 fish. I suspect it’s an ad for the three new lenses they brought out when they announced the D2H back in 2003 – 17-55, 200-400 and 10.5 fish. In fact I’ll eat my keyboard if on that lens ad there isn’t a 10.5 fish.

]]> By: Dan Bills http://nikonrumors.com/2008/12/11/suspicious-nikon-ads.aspx/comment-page-1/#comment-12383 Dan Bills Fri, 12 Dec 2008 22:20:03 +0000 http://nikonrumors.com/?p=2148#comment-12383 The lens at the top right looks like it's the new 70-200mm f/2.8 there has been rumors about and the other lens you can see looks like a longer telephoto but it could be a new short zoom. The lenses do look different to the current range of lenses, smoother body and different zoom/focus rings. The lens at the top right looks like it’s the new 70-200mm f/2.8 there has been rumors about and the other lens you can see looks like a longer telephoto but it could be a new short zoom. The lenses do look different to the current range of lenses, smoother body and different zoom/focus rings.

]]> By: Niloy http://nikonrumors.com/2008/12/11/suspicious-nikon-ads.aspx/comment-page-1/#comment-12319 Niloy Fri, 12 Dec 2008 14:57:52 +0000 http://nikonrumors.com/?p=2148#comment-12319 I swear I saw this on a print magazine ages ago. It was probably something older than the D80, though. I swear I saw this on a print magazine ages ago. It was probably something older than the D80, though.

]]> By: Jeroenw http://nikonrumors.com/2008/12/11/suspicious-nikon-ads.aspx/comment-page-1/#comment-12300 Jeroenw Fri, 12 Dec 2008 07:06:52 +0000 http://nikonrumors.com/?p=2148#comment-12300 That slogan.. it's cheesy, it's no fun at all. I'm thinking north american market :D Anyway, it's very common to try some slogans out by printing them on final artwork. Pictures look nice and very nikon. That slogan.. it’s cheesy, it’s no fun at all. I’m thinking north american market :D

Anyway, it’s very common to try some slogans out by printing them on final artwork. Pictures look nice and very nikon.

]]> By: Alex http://nikonrumors.com/2008/12/11/suspicious-nikon-ads.aspx/comment-page-1/#comment-12293 Alex Fri, 12 Dec 2008 02:14:37 +0000 http://nikonrumors.com/?p=2148#comment-12293 (forgot to mention, the 200-400 was released in 2004) (forgot to mention, the 200-400 was released in 2004)

]]> By: Alex http://nikonrumors.com/2008/12/11/suspicious-nikon-ads.aspx/comment-page-1/#comment-12292 Alex Fri, 12 Dec 2008 02:12:46 +0000 http://nikonrumors.com/?p=2148#comment-12292 I agree with brandon on the lenses. I doubt anything here is new. Why would they have a picture of new lenses behind a picture of the old D80 anyway? I think the bottom lens is the 300mm f/2.8. The D80 was released in 2006, and the 300mm f/2.8 was released in 2005, so it's more likely to be the 300, rather than the 200-400 I agree with brandon on the lenses. I doubt anything here is new. Why would they have a picture of new lenses behind a picture of the old D80 anyway? I think the bottom lens is the 300mm f/2.8. The D80 was released in 2006, and the 300mm f/2.8 was released in 2005, so it’s more likely to be the 300, rather than the 200-400

]]> By: dino http://nikonrumors.com/2008/12/11/suspicious-nikon-ads.aspx/comment-page-1/#comment-12277 dino Thu, 11 Dec 2008 23:30:21 +0000 http://nikonrumors.com/?p=2148#comment-12277 For what I see: 1) No idea which camera is, although the "scene" dial on the left makes me thinking of a consumer DSLR; 2) what really drives me crazy are lenses. It's clearly visible a telephoto but the lining of both lenses showed is different from whatever we have ever seen in Nikon design. Maybe some truth is in the AD, however I think if it's true we'll know it soon. For what I see:

1) No idea which camera is, although the “scene” dial on the left makes me thinking of a consumer DSLR;
2) what really drives me crazy are lenses. It’s clearly visible a telephoto but the lining of both lenses showed is different from whatever we have ever seen in Nikon design.

Maybe some truth is in the AD, however I think if it’s true we’ll know it soon.

]]> By: Brandon http://nikonrumors.com/2008/12/11/suspicious-nikon-ads.aspx/comment-page-1/#comment-12283 Brandon Thu, 11 Dec 2008 23:00:18 +0000 http://nikonrumors.com/?p=2148#comment-12283 The small lens is the 17-55 2.8, the large lens is most likely the 300 2.8 VR, could be the 200-400. Nothing new here The small lens is the 17-55 2.8, the large lens is most likely the 300 2.8 VR, could be the 200-400. Nothing new here

]]> By: brandon http://nikonrumors.com/2008/12/11/suspicious-nikon-ads.aspx/comment-page-1/#comment-12282 brandon Thu, 11 Dec 2008 22:58:04 +0000 http://nikonrumors.com/?p=2148#comment-12282 The small lens is the 17-55 2.8, the large lens is probably the 300 2.8 VR, could be the 200-400 VR. Nothing new here. The small lens is the 17-55 2.8, the large lens is probably the 300 2.8 VR, could be the 200-400 VR. Nothing new here.

]]> By: Joe http://nikonrumors.com/2008/12/11/suspicious-nikon-ads.aspx/comment-page-1/#comment-12276 Joe Thu, 11 Dec 2008 22:29:10 +0000 http://nikonrumors.com/?p=2148#comment-12276 Yup, that's the old D80 ad they ran here in the UK. Not sure about the lenses though, don't recognise the ad. Smaller one looks like a 17-55/2.8, and the larger looks like the 300/2.8. Yup, that’s the old D80 ad they ran here in the UK. Not sure about the lenses though, don’t recognise the ad. Smaller one looks like a 17-55/2.8, and the larger looks like the 300/2.8.

]]> By: Joe http://nikonrumors.com/2008/12/11/suspicious-nikon-ads.aspx/comment-page-1/#comment-12274 Joe Thu, 11 Dec 2008 22:09:23 +0000 http://nikonrumors.com/?p=2148#comment-12274 Who says Nikon aren't making one? Who says Nikon aren’t making one?

]]> By: Energizer Bunny http://nikonrumors.com/2008/12/11/suspicious-nikon-ads.aspx/comment-page-1/#comment-12273 Energizer Bunny Thu, 11 Dec 2008 22:08:53 +0000 http://nikonrumors.com/?p=2148#comment-12273 They keep going and going and going.... Those who do not learn from the mistakes of history will repeat them in the future. They aren't reading, just commenting! Too Funny Admin, you might want to post on the front page that it is busted (not new) / old. They keep going and going and going….

Those who do not learn from the mistakes of history will repeat them in the future.

They aren’t reading, just commenting!
Too Funny

Admin, you might want to post on the front page that it is busted (not new) / old.

]]> By: Joe http://nikonrumors.com/2008/12/11/suspicious-nikon-ads.aspx/comment-page-1/#comment-12272 Joe Thu, 11 Dec 2008 22:08:18 +0000 http://nikonrumors.com/?p=2148#comment-12272 Well they did, here in the UK at least. Made me chuckle when flicking through The Guardian Saturday magazine those two years ago. Well they did, here in the UK at least. Made me chuckle when flicking through The Guardian Saturday magazine those two years ago.

]]> By: pete http://nikonrumors.com/2008/12/11/suspicious-nikon-ads.aspx/comment-page-1/#comment-12268 pete Thu, 11 Dec 2008 21:10:57 +0000 http://nikonrumors.com/?p=2148#comment-12268 no reason MX cant co-exist with the D3x. a 40mp hi end MX nikon could cost up to $20k. just another step in the system. no reason MX cant co-exist with the D3x. a 40mp hi end MX nikon could cost up to $20k. just another step in the system.

]]> By: pete http://nikonrumors.com/2008/12/11/suspicious-nikon-ads.aspx/comment-page-1/#comment-12267 pete Thu, 11 Dec 2008 21:08:32 +0000 http://nikonrumors.com/?p=2148#comment-12267 that slogan has already been used. that slogan has already been used.

]]> By: Daf http://nikonrumors.com/2008/12/11/suspicious-nikon-ads.aspx/comment-page-1/#comment-12266 Daf Thu, 11 Dec 2008 20:57:48 +0000 http://nikonrumors.com/?p=2148#comment-12266 Ha ha the 24-105 f4 is a Canon lens! Ha ha the 24-105 f4 is a Canon lens!

]]> By: uppis http://nikonrumors.com/2008/12/11/suspicious-nikon-ads.aspx/comment-page-1/#comment-12265 uppis Thu, 11 Dec 2008 20:57:17 +0000 http://nikonrumors.com/?p=2148#comment-12265 I was thinking the same.. I was thinking the same..

]]>