< ! --Digital window verification 001 -->

Nikon D4? (busted)

Update: In a comment to this thread, Denisa Mrackova (portfolio) explains the origin of those images:

"Apologies to everyone for this misunderstanding. My creation of the image of (non-existent) Nikon D4 is a study for a product visualization on my portfolio. Personally, I am a Nikon fan and own Nikon D3s, so I tried to achieve visuals of Nikon's new camera based on what I knew and liked about their latest products. Unfortunately, just before finishing the image, I sent it to few of my colleagues to discuss possible improvements and few moments later, these images showed up online. I apologize to everyone for causing these fake news."

Here are some more pictures of this project - amazing job, the best one I've seen in the two years I am running this site (somebody should offer her a job):

Those Nikon D4 pictures came from the Nikon Rumors Forum. Thoughts?

Nikon D4

Full size

Nikon D4

Full size

Nikon D4

Full size

Update: good idea, let's start a poll:

 

This entry was posted in Nikon D4. Bookmark the permalink. Trackbacks are closed, but you can post a comment.
  • http://VirtualVice.net virtualvice

    I say shenanigans. Placement of the sensor in relation to the lens mount looks off — the geometry is wrong.

    • zzddrr

      What if it is not the sensor? What if it is a kind of steady mirror.

  • Nexstar5

    Where is the aperture coupling for AiS lenses?

  • ic00

    I’d wish this is the D4, then most of people would be done waiting for the D700 replacement. I kinda like it, like the bit of F4 feel. But the accessory shoe looks real fake to me despite the OoF. It doesn’t look like having any metal contacts on it nor guide tracks to each contact.

  • M!

    i’m sorry, but this appears to be a photoshopped version of the D3S.
    there are definite areas that show the PS, in addition to those already mentioned:
    In front view picture:
    1) Battery compartment area is now extruding, but look at the T shape piece under the FX logo.
    2) red trim inconsistent with lighting
    3) grip is now over squared but inconsistent with vertical grip design.
    4) reflection under the OFF +1 +2 is too intentional.
    in Back view picture:
    1) Battery compartment does not show same contour as in front picture, and suspicious highlights.
    2) FPS button is illogical. i gather this is for movie? if it were a variable function, try pressing it and rotating a dial to change. you can’t. it is not even ergonomic. it would have been around the ISO QUAL WB area. not up in the thumb area.
    In Top View picture:
    1) D4 logo very suspiciously high
    2) hot shoe.. i hope my flash will work on this.. lol.

    all in all, from a design perspective, it makes no sense for Nikon to redo the D3S with minimal changes like this. Flattening the sides and bulging the battery is contrary to Giugiaro’s ergonomic designs.

    • http://www.iamron.com Ron Adair

      I agree with most of what you’re saying, but with one critical exception: this is not a PS job, at least not exclusively, and probably not at all. If this is not a physical camera photographed, (which I incessantly assume), then this was produced in a 3D rendering app. The METER COUPLING LEVER is missing on the lens mount. This would need to be photoshopped OUT if it were a modified D3 picture. I can’t see any reason why a faker would want to take that out. It’s a dead giveaway that this is NOT a real camera from Nikon.

      • M!

        I meant it is a PS job as in someone Photographed a D3S and then PhotoShopped it with 3D renderings and simple PS techniques.
        yes, a physical camera had been photographed, and it was a D3S.

        • http://www.iamron.com Ron Adair

          I see what you’re saying. I understood what you said to mean this was a photoshop hack job of a D3s. Of course, it is not. But elements such as the LCD’s are probably real images composited in at the end.

          • M!

            “Of course, it is not. ”
            pointless in discussion with you then.
            just as it is pointless to render a D3S when you can photograph a D3S in much simply ways. unless they already have the cad files for a D3S.

  • Michae

    D4?? Old news guys! I put my money on the D5xs..

  • pawulon

    I think it is fake because of always opened card slot. Who makes front photos with card slot opened?

  • Anonymous

    If anyone has noticed. In the front view there is a pop up flash. In the top there is not.

    Fake

    • http://www.iamron.com Ron Adair

      There is no pop-up flash. That is the seam that is on every pro body.

  • Film_tool

    Looks real for me. I’m working with film cameras every day and everything is believable and logic. If Nikon come with this camera i’ll buy one for sure. I’m just curios how many FPS d4 can? I hope that more than 24 or 30. But logicly if there’s special button for the FPS you definetly can change the FPS continuously while recording movie.
    the (off +1 +2) button looks like ND filter switcher. A lot of PRO camera have this and its quite helpfull for video.

    • Robin

      ND filter. That would be a smart and simple thing to put on a dslr for video. Could come in handy to control dof easily for stills as well. Like!

  • Nash

    Hi guys.

    Well it seems to be a fake, but a good one.
    But can’t say if the features are fake or not. Nikon migh be introducing these in the future , you never know. But even though nikon is late with the d700 replacement, I’m sure they’re working hard to make this into a mean machine. Nikon has been late before with cameras , like the D200.. It took then 3 years for the D300. But when it came out, it was a great camera.. Still is … I just hope the replacement is not a dissapointment…

  • coolpux

    hopefully got iso 819200

  • Bob The Builder

    Look at the Nikon nameplate. It is not the correct font, it is too bold and the line underneath is straight at the center part of it. On the D3s this joining line is curved.

    • http://www.iamron.com Ron Adair

      Notice, too, that the tracking is off for the Logo. The Nikon on the front is more “squished” (and about 15% larger) than it is on other bodies.

  • Josh

    Nikon will revoke the NPS membership to the people who leaked this model.

  • jandson

    A couple of things seems odd to me.

    1. All three pictures are taken “2010:06:04 21:33:34″ according to the EXIF. All three in the same second? The D4 will be probably a very fast camera but that fast??

    2. The red triangle seems to be pasted on top of the black material, in pictures of other Nikons there is a distinct border between the different materials.

    But I don’t know where people see the popup-flash? The seam under the logo is not there because of a flash, the D3 has the same seam (altough with a more curving design as Bob The Builder wrote)

    And that the sensor doesn’t have straight lines, isn’t it the mirror we see? And the picture is made (not taken!) with the camera in the center, and that would make the mirror (which is at an 45 degree angle) slightly off-center and therefore not have straight lines. (and make the hot-shoe look like it is placed wrong) But wouldn’t the “AF Area Frame” be visible if the camera is on?

    I’m voting for FAKE!

    • http://www.iamron.com Ron Adair

      @jandson

      You are correct about the hot shoe being off center. I made a comment last night about the fact that it was not centered, but saw later that the whole body was skewed slightly on the front view.

      I still agree, fake.

  • zeiss darling

    Dammit this is too tantalizing, my local council firewall blocks flickr so i’m heading off into town just to see what u mofoz are on about. From what has been said tho.. if the body is a blocky or newbuild design it might just be a designer promoting himself on the back of all those what-if crazy designs by product designers the that the various rumors sites etc have been showing.

  • Pat

    Admin : Do you think this coincide with the rumor that D700S/X would not be out until March 2011?

    So nikon’s “surprise” to us this year is D4 is out one year earlier? So is D400 I guess?

    If this is real, that’s why there’s no D700 replacement this year ! All the way D800 next spring!

  • JoKRA

    this thing has a flash. no single digit promodel….

  • Joe Fish

    zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

  • http://modifiedphoto.wordpress.com/ ModifiedPhoto

    The top is awful dusty but why would they leave the battery door open in all of the angles?

    • M!

      That is CF slot not battery

  • http://www.stockfuel.com Stock Photography

    2K raw video would be very nice…. but i’m calling fake.

  • Robert

    I downloaded the Hi-res pictures of the D4 and also the once of D3s, Printed them on A3 and compared them. I can not find a “evidence” of a fake everything for me seems also logical. Why I say that this is not a fake:

    - You can see sall changes at the relase button, Why fake tem?
    - The Off +1 +2 dial is logical situated
    - As NR wrote: Why change/fake the pattern grip/body?

    So my guess we will see at Photokina 3 new Bodies

    D4 FX 16MP (available in Nov 2010)
    D8000 16MP (successor od D90)
    D600 FX 12MP sort of consumer FX with video

    greetings from Austria

    • guasch

      woah, i like that consumer grade FX with video, that would be rad, man

      and about the camera, i think the dust is there to fool us more, a few bits of imperfection giving the illusion that it is real and tangible.

    • Ronan

      Robert you just showed the whole internet how much of a FAIL you are.

      Good job.

  • Anonymous

    Pros have an Fps button on top, dont need to switch between shots most of the time, and who the hell doesn’t know where the function button is. Besides the screws are all digital. This is clearly a scam/hoax or w/e

    • Anonymous

      and Nikon wouldn’t have had the bodies out long enough for a shoot this early in development either.

  • Lars

    Obviously a rendering, but I wouldn’t be surprised if it originated from Nikon so I’m calling plausibly real on this one. The OFF/+1/+2 switch (video gain or possibly D-lighting? Frame rate boost?) is well placed. RAW video would be very competitive, against Canon as well as the low end of RED market.

    • http://www.iamron.com Ron Adair

      If it came from Nikon, the small details, ie: METER COUPLING LEVER, Logo size/tracking, model number size etc. would be correct. With those omissions/problems, I think that pretty much proves this is not from Nikon.

      • Lars

        Ron,
        Maybe. Or it could be an early rendering, not purposed for public use. I don’t see any of what you metioned as clear evidence that these images did not originate within Nikon (nor the contrary). Proof is a strong word.

        For example, no meter coupling lever in the rendering simply means that the designer did not add it to the rendering. That’s all it means. Our interpretations of that are just interpretations..
        -Lars

        • http://www.iamron.com Ron Adair

          And the logo and D4 emblem? Those are details that would get any mid to low level employee cross looks at best, and fired at worst. Any higher up designer wouldn’t make those mistakes in the first place.

          They are gaudy. It’s the littlest details sometimes that tell the biggest story, if you stop and think about them.

          Also, as Jon pointed out below, the Off / +1 / +2 dial is NOT well placed, as it would directly interfere with the placement of the battery.

  • D

    This is not a photo of a real camera.
    But could it be coming from Nikon??? :)
    We’ll surly learn this – much later when the real D4 is out.

  • Dan

    So the D4 will now show [ 1] even if their is no memory card?

    Well the supposed leaked road map did say we’d have a new D4 this year.
    So this must be real.

    I say this is a mock-up but not a prototype of the body.

  • TTCorners

    Nikon D4, of course it will come naturally. If there is D1, D2, D3 then there will be D4. As naturally as F1, F2, F3, F4, F5, F6 …..not unless Nikon wrap up…..

  • Ryan Mack

    The reflections on the Off +1 +2 don’t match the width of the text above them.

  • pulu

    here’s another possibility. it’s a 3D rendering, not a photoshop job, and it comes from the designers or design firm. in my opinion it is simply too good to be somebody’s photoshop job, while at the same time it doesn’t look like a photograph either. so my guess is this really *is* the D4, but it’s not a photograph, but rather an in-house design rendering.

    if it were faked, the weird design additions like off/+1/+2, the V option on the back, and the FPS button would be labeled in a way that would be more explicit, so we would know exactly what they do. they seemed designed more for actual use than to make us drool.

  • That Guy

    The question isn’t about if the photos are real or manipulated. Ofcourse they are manipulated!

    The question is WHO DID IT. It’s pretty bloody good, we are talking about perhaps more a week worth of work. Anyone with that skill would be pretty fully booked and i’m having a hard time seeing someone doing this just for fun without giving himself props for doing it.

    It just doesn’t make sense – if you do a this good job you want to people who see it knowing you did it so you can get customers. It’s a perfect portfolio piece.

    To me, this all states one thing; This work was made to order. Someone (that someone being Nikon, who else would shell out money for a design concept of the D4?) paid money to get these images. I’m also 100% sure there are more then one design concept being requested and revised at Nikon, so the probability of the D4 looking like this is pretty slim. Even if they go for this design it will most likely be revised.

    So, what i really mean is; This is made for Nikon, but it means next to nothing. it’s a design study.

    • http://nikonrumors.com/ [NR] admin

      Also, those pictures were initially submitted on an anonymous hosting site, if someone wanted to promote their work they would post it on their own website, for example:
      http://photorumors.com/2010/05/31/another-amazing-samsung-concept-from-tecnofotografia/

      The pictures were submitted to the Nikon Rumors Forum and not through the “tip line” where I usually get rumors. It seems that the person did not really want much exposure, just wanted to share the images – they do not have a watermark or any other promotional labels.

      • i_want_a_D900

        I think one message whoever that did this is to tell the world the D4 would have 2K and 1080p video, both in AVI and RAW format.

    • M!

      well, CANON did it~!

  • john

    The +1 +2 could be for the video ND filters

  • Cripple Crow

    Agree with ‘That Guy’ above… which means it is quite a ways off…

  • LB

    Fake .
    There is no speaker hole.

    • http://www.iamron.com Ron Adair

      Speaker hole was moved under the CF door button release guard on the D3s. So no, this render is correct in that case.

  • jay

    Easy to tell it’s a fake.

  • http://www.jonread.com/ Jon Read

    Very much FAKE. The Off/+1/+2 dial would intrude into the battery compartment.

    Amongst other things…

    • http://www.iamron.com Ron Adair

      HA! And Jon brings another one FTW! Good eyes, Jon.

  • bufo55

    Nikon proprietary RAW video… Converted in Nikon proprietary Capture NX 3HD?? We’ll need quantum computers or at least 64-core chips to process an hour in less than one lifetime.
    Someone is dreaming about a Nikon competitor to RED, but reality has to dampen one’s expectations. Even if Nikon swallowed their pride and partnered with someone who knows about video processing to develop software, there would still be line-skipping. RED doesn’t waste it’s pixels the way ALL the video dslrs have to.

  • http://www.thefactory21.com Jay

    The off 1/2 switch is an ND filter.

  • http://www.thefactory21.com Jay

    I vote for it being a solidworks model out of Nikon or their design agency.
    Would be a great camera but this is not a photo. Meter is showing wrong, lighting is off, open CF card door shows that the model was just rotated in Solidworks.
    This is a design brief in my opinion. Or a very skilled student.

  • http://www.thefactory21.com Jay

    Also the camera wouldnt show 260 shots remaining with no CF in the slot.

    • http://alexandre-mathieu.com Kzeon

      that’s more than right

  • photonut

    Fake!

    The red triangle fits too tightly to the black rubber. All my Nikon bodies have a small gap in between. (That’s in addition that the triangle looks like rendered)

  • http://www.swansphotos.com Scott T

    So, in pushing the envelope forward, they go backwards with the rear screen, and the less functional layout of a D1x. Fake, and if you think it’s real, your intelligence is fake as well.

  • solid_liq

    If you think this is a computer rendering, you’re on crack. Reasons why it’s not a rendering:

    1. There’s realistic looking dust and smudges on the camera. Ray tracing *still* has not gained the ability to produce convincing looking dirt. This is something that’s being researched heavily, but will need several more years of work to get right.
    2. The subtleties of the dynamics of lighting are not perfected well enough yet for the camera to look as realistic as it does from a rendering.

    I have been closely following raytracing for over 20 years, and I can say with confidence, this is NOT A RENDERING.

    Those of you who’ve said something about a line for where the pop-up flash is, I’m not listening to. You’ve obviously never seen a pro body from the D1/2/3 series before. I have one sitting next to me right now. That line looks right.

    The flat sides look very much like the sides on my old D1X. If someone faked this, I’d say they took the frame from a D1X, and added the top and bottom pieces from the D3s perhaps. Kudos to Scott T for noticing its resemblance to the D1X.

    I don’t have a clue what people are talking about regarding the hotshoe. The hotshoe in the pictures looks nearly identical to the one I’m looking at while holding the camera in my hand.

    The perspective lines in a rendering would be perfect. The math for that was perfected back in the 1960′s. So, those claiming that their misperception of the perspective is a reason to cite for it being a rendering, you’re just plain wrong. If the perspective were incorrect, that would be further proof that it is not a rendering.

    Someone quoted Occam’s Razor. According to that theory, the most likely answer is that this is a real D4. Barring that, then the next most plausible answer would be that someone hacked together bodies from multiple generations of the D1/2/3 series to create this composite model. That’s actually much easier to do than the other theories flying around here.

    • http://blackbeardben.smugmug.com Blackbeard Ben

      You’re on crack if you think this is a physical object and someone besides Nikon made it. Ron couldn’t have stated the case better.

      I do agree that it is more square though – my first thought was it’s a D1 style broad-shouldered body.

      The amount of work that goes into a prototype is abso-f***inglutely insane. I did a design project this spring that only involved designing and manufacturing a prototype “motorcycle oil change adapter” out of aluminum. Manufacturing it alone took us an estimated 700 man-hours, and we had minimal hand-milling and turning to do. To make something as detailed as this camera from scratch, you would need to have access to rapid prototyping and multi-axis CNC machines, not to mention printing for the decals, etc., etc., etc. Even so, it would take so much time that no one with access to those tools would waste their time on an unsanctioned prototype. You might as well save the time and money and wait until the D4 comes out – you probably would have saved enough to fly out to Japan and pick up two of the first D4s off the assembly line. Oh, and did I mention that you’d have to model it first anyway before making a prototype/design mockup this detailed?

      So what about assembling it from parts of other Nikon cameras? Well, there’s whole metric sh*t-ton of stuff that reveals that this can’t possibly be done via that method. Let’s start with the basics. THE NIKON LOGO ISN”T THE RIGHT STYLE. It is far more bold than on actual pro Nikon cameras, and Nikon has been using the same f***ing logo since the F4 came out in 1988, without changes. The D4 isn’t the right shape either – the D is too tall and too large in proportion to the shutter release. The 4 may not be the right style either – it should probably be in almost exactly the same style as the F4. That’s not a given however, since Nikon hypothetically could have changed the character more. But the ‘F’ stayed the same from the F3 to the F6, and the ’3′ in F3 is almost identical to the ’3′ in the D3 – so I think it is a reasonable assumption to make.

      There are plenty of minor body differences as well that would be impossible if you were using the D3 upper, If you look at the top body plate seam under the Nikon logo on the prism, it is close but not exactly the same as the D3. The seam is far more different on the D2 and D1 series bodies. The right shoulder as viewed from front is more squared like the D1 bodies, but it is enough different that it definitely can’t be taken from any of them. The port cover is of course different, but that would be relatively simple to replace if the rest were similar.

      Yes, the outside edge is flatter like the D1, but if you were to use one for the middle body section you wouldn’t get the new style lens release button, FX logo, lens mount surround, or preview and function buttons (who the hell would label those, BTW) – all of which feature prominently on the D3 (and D2 for that matter), yet are slightly different in shape than what is visible in the “photo” of the alleged D4. Not to mention, the wheels are at different angles (nearly horizontal and vertical, but not quite), closer matching the D2 (which has exactly horizontal and vertical), yet being closer to the D3 in the rest of its shape. Oh, and that reminds me of the horizontal wheel. It’s larger than the wheel size that has been used since the F5, yet it has a smaller “window” to access it with than any pro Nikon camera. Don’t think anyone would change that in a prototype assembled from parts of older cameras, or hell, a new one either. Might as well save the effort of making new wheels for no reason. Yet on the other hand, it would be a perfectly reasonable mistake (or ill-conceived change) to make when modeling.

      Oh, and I should mention the FX logo. Look at the corners and the space in the middle of the X – it is not the same shape as on the D3. Who the hell would make a mock-up using bits of other cameras yet not use the logo from one of them – on more than one occasion?

      Finally, lets hit up the bottom of the camera. The vertical shutter release doesn’t match ANYTHING Nikon has made, ever. The shutter release button and lock switch are shaped differently than any other Nikon, and the outside line of the body is more square than even the D1. Then on the right side, the battery holder is a new shape – it sticks out a bit, almost like the MB-D200. Of course, then there’s the OFF/+1/+2 switch as well. Nothing else has had this shape ever, so it would have had to been custom prototyped anyway.

      Of course, I haven’t even covered everything that’s different on the front – let alone the rest of the body. But putting this together from multiple cameras just didn’t happen because there are so many changed detail (major and minor) that would have made it a waste of time. They differences are far more akin to the differences that arise in scanning/plotting photos of the cameras and modeling a new D4. Or, creating a completely new prototype – which like I said, would have been an insane waste of time, money, and effort. If it were Nikon (they will certainly make prototype of the D4 at some point), they would have at least taken the time to get their f***ing logo right.

      So again, Occam’s Razor leads us to the conclusion that this is most likely a rendering. Or maybe, Schroedinger’s Cat says that is actually a rendering, fake prototype, and real prototype all at the same time until we find out?

      Photo sources:
      http://a.img-dpreview.com/reviews/NikonD2X/Images/frontview.jpg
      http://a.img-dpreview.com/reviews/NikonD3/Images/frontview2.jpg
      http://a.img-dpreview.com/reviews/nikond1x/images/allroundview.jpg
      http://a.img-dpreview.com/reviews/NikonD1x/Images/frontview.jpg
      http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/3/30/Nikon_F3_HP.JPG
      http://www.mir.com.my/rb/photography/companies/nikon/htmls/models/images/f4sBIG_i.jpg
      http://www.jafaphotography.com/images/eq/F5_resize.jpg

    • http://blackbeardben.smugmug.com Blackbeard Ben

      You’re on crack if you think this is a physical object. Ron couldn’t have stated the case better.

      I do agree that it is more square though – my first thought was it’s a D1 style broad-shouldered body.

      The amount of work that goes into a prototype is abso-f***inglutely insane. I did a design project this spring that only involved designing and manufacturing a prototype “motorcycle oil change adapter” out of aluminum. Manufacturing it alone took us an estimated 700 man-hours, and we had minimal hand-milling and turning to do. To make something as detailed as this camera from scratch, you would need to have access to rapid prototyping and multi-axis CNC machines, not to mention printing for the decals, etc., etc., etc. Even so, it would take so much time that no one with access to those tools would waste their time on an unsanctioned prototype. You might as well save the time and money and wait until the D4 comes out – you probably would have saved enough to fly out to Japan and pick up two of the first D4s off the assembly line. Oh, and did I mention that you’d have to model it first anyway before making a prototype/design mockup this detailed?

      So what about assembling it from parts of other Nikon cameras? Well, there’s whole metric sh*t-ton of stuff that reveals that this can’t possibly be done via that method. Let’s start with the basics. THE NIKON LOGO ISN”T THE RIGHT STYLE. It is far more bold than on actual pro Nikon cameras, and Nikon has been using the same f***ing logo since the F4 came out in 1988, without changes. The D4 isn’t the right shape either – the D is too tall and too large in proportion to the shutter release. The 4 may not be the right style either – it should probably be in almost exactly the same style as the F4. That’s not a given however, since Nikon hypothetically could have changed the character more. But the ‘F’ stayed the same from the F3 to the F6, and the ’3′ in F3 is almost identical to the ’3′ in the D3 – so I think it is a reasonable assumption to make.

      There are plenty of minor body differences as well that would be impossible if you were using the D3 upper, If you look at the top body plate seam under the Nikon logo on the prism, it is close but not exactly the same as the D3. The seam is far more different on the D2 and D1 series bodies. The right shoulder as viewed from front is more squared like the D1 bodies, but it is enough different that it definitely can’t be taken from any of them. The port cover is of course different, but that would be relatively simple to replace if the rest were similar.

      Yes, the outside edge is flatter like the D1, but if you were to use one for the middle body section you wouldn’t get the new style lens release button, FX logo, lens mount surround, or preview and function buttons (who the hell would label those, BTW) – all of which feature prominently on the D3 (and D2 for that matter), yet are slightly different in shape than what is visible in the “photo” of the alleged D4. Not to mention, the wheels are at different angles (nearly horizontal and vertical, but not quite), closer matching the D2 (which has exactly horizontal and vertical), yet being closer to the D3 in the rest of its shape. Oh, and that reminds me of the horizontal wheel. It’s larger than the wheel size that has been used since the F5, yet it has a smaller “window” to access it with than any pro Nikon camera. Don’t think anyone would change that in a prototype assembled from parts of older cameras, or hell, a new one either. Might as well save the effort of making new wheels for no reason. Yet on the other hand, it would be a perfectly reasonable mistake (or ill-conceived change) to make when modeling.

      • http://www.iamron.com Ron Adair

        Couldn’t agree with what you’ve said more. And I appreciate your sharing your personal experiences in this category to shed more light on why this is simply not plausibly a real object, but rather a very good rendering.

        • http://www.iamron.com Ron Adair

          Watch this:

          http://vimeo.com/5407991

          (For those of you who can’t believe this can have a little dust and dirt and realistic lighting and still be a render).

    • http://blackbeardben.smugmug.com Blackbeard Ben

      Oh, and I should mention the FX logo. Look at the corners and the space in the middle of the X – it is not the same shape as on the D3. Who the hell would make a mock-up using bits of other cameras yet not use the logo from one of them – on more than one occasion?

      Finally, lets hit up the bottom of the camera. The vertical shutter release doesn’t match ANYTHING Nikon has made, ever. The shutter release button and lock switch are shaped differently than any other Nikon, and the outside line of the body is more square than even the D1. Then on the right side, the battery holder is a new shape – it sticks out a bit, almost like the MB-D200. Of course, then there’s the OFF/+1/+2 switch as well. Nothing else has had this shape ever, so it would have had to been custom prototyped anyway.

    • http://blackbeardben.smugmug.com Blackbeard Ben

      Of course, I haven’t even covered everything that’s different on the front – let alone the rest of the body. But putting this together from multiple cameras just didn’t happen because there are so many changed detail (major and minor) that would have made it a waste of time. They differences are far more akin to the differences that arise in scanning/plotting photos of the cameras and modeling a new D4. Or, creating a completely new prototype – which like I said, would have been an insane waste of time, money, and effort. If it were Nikon (they will certainly make prototype of the D4 at some point), they would have at least taken the time to get their f***ing logo right.

      So again, Occam’s Razor leads us to the conclusion that this is most likely a rendering. Or maybe, Schroedinger’s Cat says that is actually a rendering, fake prototype, and real prototype all at the same time until we find out?

      • solid_liq

        Sorry, but your one experience with touching on design work didn’t teach you enough. All one has to do is to modify some existing work to fake a D4. If the person who created this works for a company where they have SLR/DSLR body designs, then he has cad files to base this upon. Also note, if you can create everything you need to render a fake D4 for raytracing, you can use the same data to mill out a body for it, and put on the finishing touches by gluing rubber on where needed. Then you just silk screen on the print. It’s very easy to do when you don’t need the result to actually be functional.

        How do I know this? I am an engineer. Are you?

        • http://blackbeardben.smugmug.com Blackbeard Ben

          For the record, yes, I am an engineer. Mechanical to be exact.

          As I was saying, the images did indeed turn out to be renders. There’s too many little things amiss with them for it to be real.

          Now, I’ll give it to you that those are the most realistic looking renderings that I’ve ever seen. Even more awe-inspiring is the likelyhood that in 10 years’ time we will be watching movies, TV, and playing video games (all in 3D of course) that are that beautiful.

    • http://virtualvice.net Virtual Vice

      LOL. Somewhere P.T. Barnum is smiling. ;)

    • rkas

      You know, you dont even have to use ray tracing to achieve a photo real render. ;)

  • http://virtualvice.net Virtual Vice

    Mother of god who cares – it’s just a friggin’ camera. New models are inevitable, but this ain’t it. What would really be exciting is if Nikon could actually keep existing products in stock! Still trying to get my hands on a USA D3s.

  • optimaforever

    Fake.
    I agree with Peter that the main texture is wrong (a bit too big and not chic enough), and with Ron about the weird look of the rubber covers in general, not to mention the lack of electric connectors nor the aperture knob. but what strikes me first is the F5 look of the grip and this fake-looking D4 logo. Is it the correct font?
    very good effort from the 3Dgraphics student though!
    (I ‘m a 3D artist-wannabe myself) ;-)

  • Jo

    photoshop disaster

  • neuro

    Ok to the question…. 3D or Photoshop this is 3D … with good photoshop retuch after that … Being real mmmm no don`t think that nikon would let prototipe 3d models to go in the net because at the best that is prototipe model.
    For me this is done by someone that wanted to try his skills at 3D and Photoshop and to see bu how many people will belive that is real. I have to admit … as 3D animator this is good job … still not perfect but rly good one.

    • neuro

      -.- to be honest thought I don`t like only the metal how it looks XD … the rest are damn good …. still comparing images from D3 and these …..

  • Clark

    Huh?
    If the D4 is going to look like this, I’m never buyin. Ugly.
    Come’on guys, we all know Nikon can do better.

    Someone already mentioned this but it’s obvious they just combined D1 with D3.

  • Anonymous

    Even if Nikon released anything next month, it won’t be in stock for a year or more, so who cares.

  • coolpux

    okay, i admit it. i did it with mspaint.

  • Just a Thought

    Could the only thing wrong with it be the FX badge, if no new FF body is coming?

  • TJ

    That’s a REAL FAKE.

  • http://trippletech.com Hamza

    Looks fake, but for some reason if it is true, then i think Nikon is going Retro design wise

  • Back to top