< ! --Digital window verification 001 -->

Weekly Nikon related news/links #72

  • In case you didn't know: Nikon has been using Phase One cameras to take some of their press images for a while. Some of the Nikon D3100 press shots were taken with a... Canon EOS-1Ds Mark III (see here, here and here). My only explanation is that those photographs were taken by the PR agency:

  • Digitalrev and other websites are actively spreading rumors about a Nikon D800 camera. I hope this time they have a better source than last year when they wrote about a D750 and a D400. You should know my thoughts on this by now - do I think a D700 replacement will be announced soon: YES, do I have any reliable information to backup me up: NO.
  • Another NikonD3100 introduction video after the break:


Note: It was just brought to my attention that multiple RSS feeds were send out every time I update a post. This was not the case before. I am using Google/Feedburner to publish my RSS and email updates and they must have changed the way they process their feeds. I will look into this and see if there is a way to disable multiple RSS feeds for the same post.

This entry was posted in Nikon D800, Weekly Nikon News Flash. Bookmark the permalink. Trackbacks are closed, but you can post a comment.
  • Ronald

    Hoping for the D800 :-)

    • S

      Well, since Nikon are in an (odd) camera naming cycle, you may well be waiting 2 whole years for that D800. Expect the naming convention to be odd, D700XS/D900. The (even) cycle will start with the dual release of D4 & D400 circa september 2011.

  • old-lenses-oldcamera

    Whoever contacted the agency, and the agency who assigned a photograher that uses Canon to shoot Nikon camera should not be……..????? You be the judged.

    • Del-Uks

      The poor guy just used the best camera he could to do the job… obviously not a Nikon D700x and the D3x is just too damn’ expensive !

      ;-P

      • http://synthetic.se Daniel

        Newsflash, Del-Uks: The Canon EOS-1Ds Mark III is only $1000 cheaper :S

        • http://fotografstuttgart.de Hochzeitsfotograf

          you mean costs 5 assignments such agency gets fron Nikon less, so why would they use some overpriced D3x when they probably had cheaper MkIII for long time already?

          • Ronan

            I have no idea what you just tried to say.

            • http://www.aslightdelay.com aslightdelay

              That’s okay, he doesn’t either. :)

    • Rafael

      unthinkable , embarrassing, Nikon should fire the advertising agency! and call me, Ill use my D3x no problem, or anyone with any Nikon even a D40x , but Canon!!!!

      Shame on you Nikon

      • Jesus

        that is right

        a mercedes promoter wouldn’t drive a bmw to get to a press conference…

        • Dave

          Well… The boss of mercedes is known to drive a Ferrari 430, while mercedes has a (better?) competitor with their SLS…

          on topic: Ofcourse it’s odd, but maybe they had some Canon’s lying around after ‘trying out some of the competition’ for R&D purposes. I mean, you gotta have an idea about what the competition is doing… And the 1Ds Mk3 is not a bad camera, so if you got it, why not just use it once in a while…

      • minivini

        Agreed, there are too many really good, hungry, creative ad agencies out there who are smart enough to either use Nikon to shoot for Nikon or at least lose the EXIF before publishing the images! Whatever the agency is, they deserve a Darwin award for this caliber screwup!

  • http://www.flickr.com/photos/rhlpedrosa/ rhlpetrus

    I recently visited the UCSF new Bay Mission campus in SF. It has a strong biotech research inclination. Nikon is one of the partners, with Genentech and others. They have donated a few millions in microscope equipment to the labs.

    Nikon seems to be doing very well, even though it’s arelatively small company compared to Sony, Panny, Canon and Samsung, better than Olympus, whichnis about of same overall size as Nikon.

    They were smart to concentrate on photography and precision instruments, including steppers for the chip industry. I always laugh recalling a Nikon person saying they were not inthe appliances business. ;)

    After some slow movements, Nikon seems to be entering a new active phase in photo gera, like 2007-2008. 2011 will be very interesting year, D4, D800, D400 and certainly a few new lenses (how about a 80-240 f/4 zoom to complete the streetman’s holy trinity?).

    Admin, keep up the good job, we Nikon users appreciate your efforts to keep us informed about new products. I bet our conversations here are heard at Sendai.

    • Roger

      Haha, I remember a comment like that. Nikon person was asked about Sony, and he replied “we are not worried about any house appliance companies”. That was sooooo funny!

      • Worminator

        Except for the little fact that Sony-fabbed sensors are in each and every Nikon camera.

        Not that it matters who makes their sensors any more than it matters who makes their expeed LSI chips, but Nikon’s so absurdly determined to pretend that it’s all “Nikon Inside(tm)” it’s unintentionally funny instead.

        • http://www.flickr.com/photos/rhlpedrosa/ rhlpetrus

          D3s’ and D700’s sensors as well? Not what insiders think.

        • http://www.flickr.com/photos/rhlpedrosa/ rhlpetrus

          D3s’ and D700’s sensors as well? Not what insiders think. And I don’t think the Nikon person was talking about Sony when he made the comment.

  • NikoDoby

    So some of you were actually wondering what a “fully extended 28-300″ looks like?!? Nikon porn indeed :)

    • WoutK89

      Looks in the front like the 80-400VR, only difference the “double zoom” barrel.

      Somebody mentioned the 28-300VR is almost a sized up version of the 18-200VR optical design, so my hopes are low that seeing external similarities, we will see a new version of the 80-400VR soon. :-(

      PS, Admin, great job to make it required to use a name as far as I can tell by the *’s :-D

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

        The next step will be requiring everyone to register before posting a comment. I really don’t want to do that, so let’s please keep it civilized here. Thanks! (WoutK89 this is not aimed at you)

  • dboy

    Nikon should definitely launch a medium format camera of their own; if nothing else, it would boost their hardcore image to new levels. Surely they must have the expertise, and Phase One/Hasselblad sales aren’t exactly bad either from what I understand…

    • PHB

      That would be a pointless waste of time.

      Launch of a medium format camera would require a huge investment in new lens designs for a small market likely to shrink in the near future as the upper end 35mm DSLRs approach the MF capabilities.

      Much better to concentrate 100% on the EVIL launch which will be make or break for the company.

      • dboy

        I don’t think so. Sometimes corporate pride is worth more than dollar investment (they Bugatti Veyron would never have been built otherwise, given dev/material costs), and if Nikon use Sony tech for their DX/FX ranges, why not a Nikon-tweaked Phase One sensor (for instance) in a med. format? Besides, Nikon is a multi-billion dollar company so they aren’t exactly short of cash. Finally, there IS still an appreciable gap between a 60 MP med.format and say, a D3X.

        I agree that EVIL is more important though and the main priority.

    • Roger

      Brother, medium format cameras arent selling. Medium format market is small and getting smaller. It will eventually be completely eaten by the cameras like D3x and 1Ds Mark III and their successors.

      For Nikon to go medium format, it’d be one of the dumbest decisions they’ve made in a long time, probably since deciding to make the D2h and D2x.

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

        Hey, don’t knock the D2x. That camera was an incredible machine, at least in the right hands, notwithstanding its shortcoming (high ISO).

        • Suprchunk

          Why do you say ‘don’t knock it’, then proceed to knock it yourself?

          You seem to contradict yourself a lot here. There is no other commenter I wish that I could block more than you. Whether it’s the contradictions or the know-it-all (without actually knowing it all) attitude you display, it just gets a bit much. And then topping some of the replies with condescending attitudes toward someone, who is just posting an OPINION, unlike you passing your ‘knowledge’ as fact.

          Please add an ignore option NR.

          • Victor Hassleblood

            @suprchunk,

            LOL, someone sooner or later had to say this. It does not necessarily apply to the comment where it was placed, but yes, in general there is something to it.

            One good reason still NOT to say such a thing is, that usually Ron makes the rules here and plenty of banning suggestions, going as far as to the point, where he felt the need to emphasize that he does not own NR (ain’t that funny).
            I prefer it to be kept this way. No need to join him with even more banning suggestions and further NR-supervising. Let’s leave all such things to Ron.
            Personally I think the comment section is just fine (including Ron), if not taken too seriously. This is the funny part of NR (often unintended, but still funny).

            In other words: Jesus loves you (and Ron).
            Just chill.

            • Jay

              hmm… does that mean RON’s the new Ken Rockwell ROFL

            • Whatever

              WWRD?

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

            Please read carefully, chunk. I didn’t “knock” the D2x, I stated a fact. Twisting one’s words does not constitute a contradiction on their part. And aren’t you a bit like the pot calling the kettle black?

  • Victor Hassleblood

    D800:
    Well, 16MP would not be quite what I wished for in a D800 and it is not enough to cover a double page at 300dpi (which is a little sad) … but YES, I probably still would buy this camera anyway. Probably.

    “… were taken with a …”:
    Who cares. Professionals use all sorts of different equipment. I would be concerned, if sample shots were faked. Everything else/pictures of products are rather a non-issue to me.

    BTW, there were plenty of comments on the three or four most recent NR-posts, demanding certain behavior and using lots of “us”, “we” and “our” statements. One of the commenters even felt the need to “emphasize” that he does not own NR (probably because his comments often very much sound like as if he actually would own NR).

    What about comparisons and cameras of a certain other brand? Are they …

    1. … allowed to certain people only?

    2. … not allowed at all?

    3. … allowed if strongly in favor of Nikon (my D40 smokes any C#### any time)?

    4. … only allowed if this other brand is not called by its name but by the following term: “the abominable other brand”?

    To be honest, I don’t really see many other comparisons than the one to the cameras of “the abominable other brand”. Now I am a little confused what the rules are and who really makes them. Could one of the many rulers/NR-shareholders here please clarify? Thanks.

    • Rob

      16MP would not be quite what I wished for in a D800 and it is not enough to cover a double page at 300dpi

      Double page of what? Not a magazine that’s for sure.
      I have printed 20″x30″ off a 1mb file at 300dpi with no artifacts or pixillation.

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

        Thank you.

      • lolcatmaster FTW

        you can print it and you may think it looks good however this doesn´t translates at all into a good photo that will be examined really near the person watching it…

        Besides most of the people who post here never print anything AT ALL 16 is a huge waste for their needs, they need a camera that can do flickr… that´s all…

      • Discontinued

        @Rob,

        16MP does not cover a double page at a native 300dpi. Just do the math yourself.
        Of course magazine. No real photographer, editor, art director, client ever talks of anything else, when this term is used (but of course you know that, don’t you?).

        “I have printed 20″x30″ off a 1mb file at 300dpi with no artifacts or pixillation.”

        What, not bigger? You should try again, because I’ve even printed billboards from much, much smaller files. Vector based graphics of course. Do you get the difference between file size (gb, mb or kb) and unscaled resolution (MP)?
        Do you have the slightest idea what you are talking about?

        Funny thing is, that this VH-guy event wrote that he is probably going to buy this camera anyway. Still he must have managed to have hurt some silly fanboys feelings. How on earth did he manage that?

        I’ll try to do better than him. Here it goes:

        “Wow, if this D800 comes true I’ll (pre-) order it the day it is announced. That camera will be a real killer. I can’t believe how good the specs sounds. This is going to be Canon’s open casket funeral and I’ll be dancing on the grave, hugging my D800 and shooting double pages of moaning Canonian faces.”

        Was that alright with you Rob?

        • Rob

          My printing and photographic knowledge is very limited in my belief, that is why I only talk about what I know and have done.

          I don’t care what Victor thinks of a camera that doesn’t exist yet, I do care when he says you can’t print two pages with a 16mb camera, because as you also have pointed out that is BS.

          • Discontinued

            I didn’t point out that this is BS, but never mind, Rob.

            Of course you can print your shots as big as you want them, be it shot with 8, 10, 12, or 16MP. With one or the other you’ll exceed native resolution sooner or later, but there is no law against it and it just works fine for a lot of pictures and purposes (even way bigger than a double page).

            So I guess you are both right, just looking at it from a different point of view.

  • Nicola

    I sometimes work for an agency.Clients demand us impossible things,want miracles on screen and on paper,and we’re just getting ready to shot with cotton paper and print with holy water dye to meet those demands.
    And than these motherf..ullframers paid dozen times what we are paid use the crappy canons to shot ads?NIKON!!!…FIRE that agency!!!

    And businessly speaking…you f***ing build the F6,D3s,D3x..what the hell was going trough the head of the manager who said “Hey,we need pics of our products.How can we obtain them?Hey,lets pay an external agency!”
    For logic’s sake FIRE him too or you’ll be doomed by his stupidity.
    Never hire someone who looks like a Dilbert character.

    • PHB

      It would not surprise me if this was not due to Nikon rumors.

      If I was looking to prevent leaks of the pictures of the new model I would probably book time with the studio and not tell them anything at all about the client. Asking them what cameras they use up front would be a tip-off.

      Easy way out would be to simply demand sufficient pixels that they have to use a Phase one or a ‘blad.

      • Nicola

        Could be right,but..you are Nikon,what external studio do you ever need?
        You have dozen of engineers,light experts,light rooms,photographers already there,just an internal call away.Why lose money and risk leaks..all at once?

        • PHB

          No, you are Nikon’s PR agency, different thing entirely.

    • Nicola

      No really,i just can’t figure it out. It’s just miles beyond my understanding of the universe.
      Can you imagine this guy?
      A manager room with walls full of state-of-the-art camera prototipes,a window with a view on the warehouse with thousands of $3000+ cameras,$5000+ cameras even in the mini fridge on his desk..and there is our hero,eyes stuck on the ceiling,empty look on his face,wondering “How can we take pictures of our products?” then in a total eclypse of reason answering himself “We’d better call someone with a professional camera to do this job!”

      • alvix

        +111 !!

      • Char

        He probably thought just what he should have thought – “Let us hire someone who has a studio setup and is able to operate it.” Having a good camera at hand does not make you a good photographer or able to produce good product shots.

        They should have hired someone with a non-Canon camera, though. Not that it really matters, it just looks slightly odd.

        Oh, by the way, PHB – great idea not telling them who the client is. I am sure that will help. Hey, could you shoot some product shots of the not-yet-announced Nikon D3100 for us? But we will not tell you who the client is.

        • Eric Pepin

          they hired an expert with a good portfolio, said expert uses whatever gear he wants as does every other photographer, nikon got the image they wanted. Not a single person in the entire world cares that the photographer used a amazingly good 1dsm3 instead of the amazingly good d3x or amazingly good MF.

          It was the photographers call, and only idiots spend all day looking at metadata to start flame wars on sites. If the photog for any reason thought he was doing something bad he could have just faked the metadata and put in “D4XS super Megapixel ten thousand double nano VR 8″

          • Stephan Mantler

            First reasonable response I’ve read on this non-issue.

            Thank you.

            • Discontinued

              Agreed. A non-issue.
              The amount and nature of responses is frightening. Raging fanboyism at its finest.

            • http://www.flickr.com/photos/rhlpedrosa/ rhlpetrus

              +1 who cares?

            • Char

              I did not say that it is an isssue. I personally do not care at all. It is just that there are some people who think this is slightly odd (as seen here), and it would probably not have been a problem to hire someone else.

              For me, it does not matter a pair of dingoes kidneys which camera they are using.

          • Nicola

            Sure.But the subtle thing is,if you pretend to be a company expert in imaging,what kind of outside expert/photographer do you ever need?Almost everybody there should be capable to take ads photos.
            Does Guinness hire someone to taste their beer..because they need an expert in beer?
            If you proclaim your company to be the leader,the finest there is in that thing,why call some one from outside?Shouldn’t you be proficient in what you’re doing all day?This is the obviousness that left me astonished..”Yeah we make superb cameras..well but we just make them,no idea on how to use them,sorry”
            Luckily it’s a bad management issue,not a “Nikon” issue..

            • Whatever

              Nikon has better things to do with my money than be a jack-of-all-trades.

              Publicity is a perfectly valid task to outsource. I would no more expect Nikon to maintain a vast PR department than Coke or Pepsi.

              I’m guessing Boeing executives fly in Lear small jets as well.

            • Char

              They are experts at producing cameras, not at taking images. It is just a coincidence that the thing you need to take images for the marketing happens to be the thing they produce.

              Do you think canon prints their marketing material on their own printers? Most likely not.

        • PHB

          No, the PR agency would book time with the studio for an unspecified product that would only be shown to the photographer on arrival. The agency then makes sure that they leave with every copy of the photographs. The photographer does not need to know what the product is until the shoot. It could be a camera or a coffee pot.

          Taking this type of shot takes more than just a camera. You need the right lighting and some expertise.

        • Worminator

          Couldn’t they have just scrubbed the EXIF?

        • LGO

          It will be interesting to see what camera was used to take a photo of the D90-replacement and see whether Nikon has learned something from this incident.

          If the camera used would still be a Canon, then it would be quite safe to conclude that the decision makers of Nikon Japan does not pay much attention to Nikon Rumor despite the vitriolic response this has generated among some of the visitors here.

          • BornOptimist

            Those pictures have been taken a long time ago. Probably at the same time as the D3100 pictures

      • Lolly

        hey, this scenario can make a good video !

  • S

    You know, at the beginning of the year, some Nikon rep. had stated that in future DSLR models they will adopt a more ‘balanced’ approach to their offerings. That would mean a definate increase in megapixels and for iso to stay at a similarly high level/possibly improve further. True to form, Nikon release their 1st DSLR of 2010…what do we have? A DX Nikon DSLR that has 2 more megapixels than some of their FX class leading cameras the D3S & D700!

    Now, in line with the reps. words, we are to expect that a D90 replacement it will also have more megapixels and better iso.

    Any replacement of the D700 HAS to also adopt this strategy, because it’s logical. It has to have a little more juice in most departments, that’s why I expect it to be a D700XS. More pixels, better iso, more fps, HD video. It will most probably come at photokina or just after, but believe you me, it’s coming, Nikon has done well to throw us off the trail this time, I’ll give them that.

    • PHB

      It is pretty clear that Nikon decided to up the megapixelage. The D4 and D400 will be at least 18MP.

      The decision to go for MP must have been taken at least a year ago to launch the D3100 as 14MP. And once that decision is taken it means no D700 replacement until there is a suitable sensor.

      What people are really asking for is a D3? for D700? money. So they are never going to be satisfied because there is always going to be a somewhat faster, somewhat better camera on the horizon.

      I am not going to switch to FX until there is a camera that can do everything my D300 can do at an acceptable price and weight. At the moment only the D3x is a real substitute (10MP DX mode) and the cost is out of sight. It stands to reason that that price will come down, the question is when.

      • Roger

        D4 should be at least 24mp with better low light performance than the D3s.

        If Nikon’s smart, that’s what they’ll do. If not, well, it’ll only mean less sales and money for the company. It’s only money, right? :D

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

          I disagree.

          The non-letter or “S” model (i.e. D3, D3s) is akin to the old “H” model in their digital lineup. The non-X models are meant to be the fast, rugged, capable cameras for shooters that need a ton of power at the expense of megapixels. Canon has a very similar philosophy. Note that the 1dMkIV is only 16mp. I don’t think Nikon NEEDS to put 24mp into the D4 body. Certainly not at the expense of high ISO.

          The “X” models, on the other hand, have been aimed at the higher MP and slower shooting speed market.

          The D3/D700/D3s has made a whole kit of Canon shooters envious, and even brought a fair number of them over from Canon in order to get the incredible low light capabilities combined with the absence of focus issues. Nikon really upset the balance of power in the market with their approach, and I think they’d be foolish to pander to the MP junkies just to try to get market share. They would, in essence, be undermining much of their current market in order to try win over a few with megapixels. Not necessarily the wisest decision.

          I think somewhere between 14-24mp is possible, but I’d probably guess that in order to keep (or improve upon) the 102,000 ISO, they’ll peg the sensor somewhere around 16-18mp. I could be wrong, but I certainly won’t be surprised if the resolution falls somewhere in this range.

          Now, the D4x is another story entirely. :)

          • zzddrr

            Ron – I think it is possible to put 24Mp (or even a bit more) without sacraficing iso into a D4. I mean, just think for a second this machine has to be on the market for at least 2 yrs. I think if it would be below 20Mp Nikon would be behind again.

            Another alternative I can imagine is that somehow Nikon will figure out a way of providing multiple sensor options for the same body. If that’s the case they can extend the lifecycle with an additional 2-4 yrs. I would love to see something along this line.

            • http://www.flickr.com/photos/rhlpedrosa/ rhlpetrus

              Problem is not ISO, but speed, it has to shoot and record files at 10fps and 14 bits, not so simple at 24 MP. And do PJs and action shooters really need 24MP?

              Until yesterday the top gun from Canon was 10MP, now it’s 16MP and I never hear an action shooter asking for more than that.

              Leave high res to where it’s needed.

            • Whatever

              You’re also assuming Nikon isn’t approaching physical limits when it comes to photons to capture.

            • zzddrr

              rhlpetrus – the Expeed 2 can handle the 1080p. I would address this buy using 2 of them. I think we will in fact see the same performance at higher Mp count. Besides, if you do not need the 24Mp perhaps you can select a lower resolution in the menu to shot your sport images (let’s say a friendy face among the available options ….. 12Mp) :-).

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

              @zzddrr

              Let me put it this way: I can buy a 24mp D4 if Nikon HAS found a way to cram 24mp into the FX chip without sacrificing low light performance at all from the D3s. Impossible? No. Likely? I doubt it. As @rhlpetrus mentioned, speed is the other big concern, and 24mp 14-bit (or higher) processing IS a large task, even for the flagship models.

              But hey, here’s to hoping you’re right. a 14-bit 24mp @ 102,000 ISO shooting 9+ fps including a 12mp downres (not crop) mode would be an amazing machine.

            • Sensor Size…

              Is 2:1 downres really a reasonable expectation? I’d much more expect a 4:1 ratio.

          • Roger

            The reason why D3s/D3/D2h and Canons 1D cameras are low megapixels is frames per second. They will continue to increase in megapixels with every generation, and there will be no sacrificing the low light performance.

            • http://www.flickr.com/photos/rhlpedrosa/ rhlpetrus

              Oops, I missed your post.

          • PHB

            Nikon can keep selling the D3s after the D4 is launched.

            The real issue for MP is actually pulling the data off the chip quickly. More MP means more data to move.

            The low light issue is an artifact of measuring the noise response at maximum resolution. If you take a 24MP image and intelligently down res to 12MP you should get better low light / noise characteristics than with a native 12MP of the same technology.

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

              “If you take a 24MP image and intelligently down res to 12MP you should get better low light / noise characteristics than with a native 12MP of the same technology ”

              I’ve often wondered what the limitations are of this kind of mode.

              I’ve been extremely surprised by the improvements the D3x made in high ISO over the D2x. What a difference 3 years of R&D made. Nikon went from the back of the pack in high ISO performance to pioneering the field.

              Everything I’ve seen in the noise comparisons between the D3x and the D3/D3s is that the D3x has a significant aid in low light performance, that being resolution. When the D3 files are up-ressed to the D3x size, (or the D3x is down-ressed to the D3 size) the D3x has the advantage in sharpness and is very close to par with noise. Of course, the D3s can hit 102,000 ISO, where the D3x cannot. But if the D3x was reworked like the D3 to get an equivalent 2 additional stops, that would put it at 25,600 ISO – with 6,400 looking as good, presumably, as the current 1,600. What a thought!

            • PHB

              I agree that it is an interesting thing to test. But its not something that I have seen testing on.

              From the theory perspective splitting the cell in half will cost one stop of ISO as a minimum. But the D3x was two stops behind the D3. One possible answer is that the D3x is not optimized for low light in the way that the D3 was. I think it pretty clear that the D3s has some very special low light magic in it, though exactly what is unclear. All we can tell is that it is not something that they could easily add to either the D300s or the D3100 – or they would have done so.

              It would not surprise me if the technique killed yield and so it was acceptable for a $5500 camera sold in low volume but not for a high volume body.

              Another face off I would like to see is between a D300 with a 200 f/2 and a D3 with a 300 f/2.8.

              According to some on these boards the difference should be incredible. According to optical theory the difference should be well within the variations that you get from one lens to another.

              The difference on a wide angle on the other hand should be very much greater.

              DX will clearly become more or less obsolete once it is possible to make a 24MP sensor for $100. But we are clearly nowhere near that point yet.

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

              http://www.prophotohome.com/Nikon-D3x-Canon-5D-MKII-High-ISO-Image-Quality-Review

              There’s one of the links I have looked at recently. Can’t seem to find the other with actual upressed and downressed samples. I’ll keep looking…

          • Jabs

            @Ron Adair,
            How are you? I read most of your posts and I admire your measured responses and often calm demeanor plus the practical aspects of your arguments or posts. I see many here who appear to be like ‘spec. junkies’ as in obsessed with higher and higher megapixels, numbers, quantities – perhaps for bragging rights or such.
            However, most seem to fail to realize that there is an underlying infrastructure needed within the cameras to handle and DELIVER quality results from higher megapixels and HD video now to the market. I see Canon as going after ‘spec, freaks’ and Nikon going after ‘results perfectionists’ and now both perhaps trying to balance things out.
            Me, I fall into the ‘results category’ but I look at things as job related and thus NO two tools have the same function in a multi-tiered strategy to get a job done. Nikon has always been best at the two tier strategy and thus as an example, the D3/D300 got everyone blown away and seemingly caught off guard. The D700 added to the strength of Nikon and then Canon seems to have countered with a 5DMK2 based upon older tech until they could get out their current response to the D3/D300s/D700 series in their two tiered 7D/Mk4. Both Canon cameras were playing catch up to older Nikon’s and surpassed them ONLY in video in my opinion. The problem then becomes who is chasing who? Some here complain about Nikon as being behind and lacks innovation due to their OWN consumer or ‘specmanship’ focus while when one points to the KNOWN advances of Nikon that no one has even replicated YET, they now tell you about PRICE, PRICE and more price. Damned if you do or don’t, comes to mind.
            Tell us here then what Company has a response that is better than the older Nikon D3? Certainly nothing except maybe the way OLDER Canon 21 megapixel full frame comes close and Canon has NO current generation full frame DSLR at all. So now, who is behind depends on WHAT market you look at. Canon is ahead in the consumer space and Nikon has little real competition in the pro ranks and not even to mention the D3X, as they will all say – RIP OFF, too expensive while those who use it make money and ignore them. Different tools for different jobs by different photographers and NO one size or one thrust that fits all. When is anyone going to catch up with the OLDER D3 (not the D3S) as a PRO body, is my question?

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

              Great post, @Jabs.

              I agree with your points. I think you’ve defined the two main groups perfectly—’Specs Junkies’ and ‘Results Perfectionists’. It seems that’s why there is such a tremendous clash between a few folks here. I care about results more than specs, and others feel probably just opposite to me. I suppose I’m haughty for believing that my opinion is the more balanced one. Who cares what the spec is if you can get some great (or better) results from a lower ‘spec’ tool?

              Definitely there are some here (they know who they are even though they may openly deny it) who are constantly beating their drum of how Nikon is an embarrassment to them in some way. Usually they claim too few megapixels, and evidence is given by comparing the current lineup with the closest competitor—an wholly arbitrary metric. There’s the complaint about video, how it’s worse than the security cameras in Cameroon in the early 1970’s. Of course, there are the complaints about price, lens selection, price, lineup, price, availability, and price. And then there are the people that are concerned mostly with the price.

              These complaints are usually just that, complaints. The truth is just as you say: Nikon has done some incredible things in the last 3 years, and has really led the charge in creating cameras that defy limitations and shatter our expectations. Can anyone remember the moment they read that the D3 was capable of 25,000 ISO? Then 102,000 ISO in the D3s? A 25 megapixel D3x? We forget too soon how great these feats are in our constant quest for more.

              Canon can keep their 21 megapixels and disingenuous 102,000 ISO. Their promises come at a cost. I suppose for some that may be acceptable. For me, it is not.

              In the end, I feel as I always have: the two best options in the market really are spectacular. Canon and Nikon are definitely head to head. When I compare Canon and Nikon cameras, I am not comparing the worst in the market with the best. I’m comparing the worst of the best, and the best of the best. I see in stark opposites. It’s how my brain works. I call Canon abysmal and terrible and embarrassing because of the little things, not any big things. Canon gear in the right hands can produce some spectacular results, results that even I envy. But personally, I strongly prefer using Nikon gear. I prefer the ergonomics, the workflow, the image qualities and characteristics; I prefer the little things that all add up to make Nikon the better choice for me. That’s why I come to a Nikon related site to discuss this with other like-minded folks. I’m just confused when I get here and all I hear about is the other camera company whose name shall not be spoken.

              Anyway, thanks Jabs for your kind comments, and for helping to put things into perspective for us.

  • Lance

    That 28-300 looks ridiculous mounted on a D3100, and only a little more realistic on the D700. How many people are going to want to drag that thing around? It makes me appreciate my little 28-200 even more, plastic mount and all.

    • Eric Pepin

      Line press photographers, they love those lenses, go from group shots to head shots in one twist of the ring along with being able to crank it to 28 and get in close and blast away.

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

        I have to admit, that range looks sexy. The variable aperture, not so much. I HATE variable aperture…

        • Jesus

          agreed

        • TheJoker

          The variable aperture is far less of a problem than it used to be. With the ISO range on most current bodies, just upping the ISO by one stop compensates for it admirably.

          In the situation outlined, the press-gang are not going to worry if it was taken at F3.5 of F5.6 expecially if they are on AP mode. Even on Prog Mode with manual adjustment to say F8 it don’t really matter in the end.

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

            I could deal with it better than ever before with the current cameras, to be sure. But that’s also assuming I’m willing to shoot in automatic, which I’m not. I am always shooting manual mode coupled with wide open. That makes for constant adjustment on vari lenses.

            But the horror of vari aperture lenses was reaffirmed to me while shooting video with one recently—ANY aperture choice resulted in the same thing: flickering exposure during zoom, as the lens adjusted the aperture to compensate for the light loss while zooming.

            • Turning Nikonese

              Hey Ron, as a prime lens user & a relative noob, I’ve been curious as to why some people prefer (if not swear by) fixed aperture zooms.

              For example, the new Nikon 24-120mm f/4G. If it were f/3.5-5.6, would you rather sacrifice that extra little bit of light you could squeeze out @f/3.5 when needed to have a constant f/4 across the whole zoom range? What if it were an f/2.8-5.6 lens (just for the sake of argument), would you still rather have a fixed f/4?

              I have a few Canon friends (I know… but that’s a whole other subject) that are always boasting about their 24-105mm f/4L zooms & I could never understand why they’d prefer that over the 24-70mm f/2.8L for “about” the same price. Obviously you’d lose a little on the tele end, but I’m curious as to how f/4 max. would limit you on the wide end – not to mention how it would affect the bokeh.

              I could see how the horror you mentioned would be unbearable as related to video – but when related to stills – is it more about how you set up the camera & what modes you prefer to shoot in? -Thx

  • zzddrr

    Oh dear, this is rather embarrassing, I mean couldn’t they get shots taken by an actual Nikon camera? It is just hard to believe.

  • I Am Nikon

    Nikon D3x is expensive even for Nikon themselves!

  • http://products.plantae.sk miso

    oh what a discredit, nikon shooted by canon. i am frustrated.
    and ilustrative picture in dslr tester form is made by ricoh of even !
    so, that is real proof, that top nikons are missing not only in B+H offer.
    maybe they are now producing D4 as a reserve.
    :-D

    • http://products.plantae.sk miso

      Ricoh Caplio R2
      dishonour

    • http://davidandstella.wordpress.com/ David

      Now everybody can say.. “We take pictures of the world’s best photo products.”

  • safeg

    16.7MP
    ISO200-12800(Lo1,Hi1,Hi2)
    100% coverage View Finder(New Nikon’s Patent Used)
    1080 HD Video
    Body only $2999 ,28-300kit $3999 ,24-120kit $4199
    Nikon D800 is coming!!

    • Victor Hassleblood

      Yes, and I guess I’ve already made up my mind. Be it 16 or 20MP, I still want it. Probably.

    • Eric Pepin

      if this is true it means cheeper d700 for me maybea few months early so yes please nikon.. yes please. Discontinue that D700, let all the folks with moneyz change and ill gobble up a d700, or maybe a pair.

  • Fake Anonymous

    Is it posssible to accomodate any popup flash on 100% viewfinder? Why not, it will be a little bigger but ok, imo…

    • Victor Hassleblood

      Maybe they drop the popup flash? OK, IMO …

      • Anonymous

        Full viewfinder is superb, but it’s not a good idea to drop the popup flash though.

  • Fred

    “Some of the Nikon D3100 press shots were taken with a… Canon EOS-1Ds Mark III”
    I for some reason died a little inside…

    Still waiting for some 24-120 f/4 examples.

    • Abhinav

      ya man :(100 % agreeed !

  • Donald

    anyone know if the new 28-300 lens is compatibile with teleconvertors ?
    compatability pdf on nikon website has not been updated.

    • Whatever

      Are ANY f/5.6 lenses officially supported by Nikon for use with teleconvertors?

    • Eric Pepin

      are you insane. The 28-300 will not be of the caliber to accept any TC. We will see if its sharp enough wide open for use on its own let alone with a TC.

  • http://galleries.gorji.com Gorji

    Nikon will announce TC compatibility soon. My guess is that these lenses mentioned above will not be TC compatible as the aperture is already 5.6.

    On a related topic can anyone guess what the D4 will cost whenever it comes out? $5500 or $8200?

    • http://www.iamron.com Ron Adair

      D4: $5,199
      D4x: $7,999.95

      *Or less, if we get lucky. :)

      • zzddrr

        D4: $5,198

        Sorry, I could not resist this one (… my price compared to your’s is a bargain :-) )

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

          Hey, a buck saved is a buck saved. ;)

  • Abhinav

    man this is just poor strategy from Nikon .first they don’t release 1080p videos, and boasts about 1080p capabiliy of D3100 :(

  • Woopdidooh

    The reason why the press photo’s of the D3100, was shot using that Canon camera, was because Nikon wanted to prove a point:

    That no matter how crappy your camera is, if you take a picture of a Nikon camera, it will always turn out great!

    • Fred

      LMFAO, that’s great, you just made my day.

  • Global

    1.) This is why Nikon is stupid: They should have let the PR department borrow a D3x for the assignment. And Nikon should know to require by contract that all pictures be taken with a Nikon camera or have the exif data removed.

    2.) This is why We are stupid: This isn’t like a way-of-life decision. Its not like choosing between Communist USSR bloc and the Free World championed by the U.S. & West. The fact of the matter is that these cameras serve a functional business purpose almost as well as each other. If the PR department had used a Canon S90, it would be a scandal. If they use a top of the line camera (of any brand) to take nice pictures — that should be no problem to anyone. Let’s not pretend that we are choosing between world political realties that will forever alter the future. Its just a product shot. And if exif had been removed, no one could even tell. So who cares. =P

    • Global

      (To make sure admin doesn’t think this is an insult: I don’t really mean “stupid”, just odd that they don’t require that kind of agreement. And odd that we even worry about these things.)

    • BenS

      1.) This is why Nikon is stupid >>> Nikon is not Stupid. It is just that they are not insecure of whatever Canon has :)

    • gt

      +100

  • http://www.oxfordvipclub.co.uk Stinger

    What about new Nikon EVIL camera 14Mp with Nikon F-mount lenses?

    • f/2.8

      You mean with an adapter.

  • Global

    I really want a 28-300 as my nonsense walk-around lens. I’d rather have a single prime for night — but in day, I don’t see the point of taking 2-$1,700 lenses everywhere, and a prime in daylight isn’t all that handy, unless you are in love with the focal length. I have the 28-200 right now, and it serves its purpose because its compact, lightweight, and has such range. I’m worried about the 28-300’s heft — but if it makes better images than the (often fuzzy) 28-200, then I am in. Seeing it extended, its too bad to see it has a “double-extension” hidden in the barrel. Those kind are always weird looking, extended. Not a big deal.

    • f/2.8

      Looks much like a bigger 18-200.

  • Ron Scubadiver

    No D700 by Photokina means no D700 this year. My hunch is a 3 year cycle, just like the Canon 5D had before the MkII was released. There is a waiting list for D3S bodies so anyone who thinks those sensors are going in a D700 is dreaming. The only other FX sensor available is in the D3x and everyone has concluded that is not going in the D700. Add to that Sony bailing on FX and no 5DII replacement this year and that adds up to more life for the D700.

    • http://www.iamron.com Ron Adair

      If I recall correctly, the D3 was in very short supply when the D700 was released. Maybe Nikon saw this as a mistake after it was done, but my gut tells me it was a strategy that worked out well for them, and could do so again in the future.

    • Anonymous

      “everyone has concluded that is not going in the D700″ Who? Which everyone? In your opinion that I understand…

      • Ron Scubadiver

        Well, I should have made that statement a bit tighter. There were numerous reports here and elsewhere back in may that there would be no D700 replacement this year. However, in your race to be rude, I suppose you forgot that. Those are facts, not “IMO”.

  • Broxibear

    “do I think a D700 replacement will be announced soon: YES, do I have any reliable information to backup me up: NO.”
    For what it’s worth I’ve heard the D90 replacement will be announced at Photokina with a Dec 2010 release, a D700 replacement will be announced in the 2nd quarter 2011 around May, a D400 announced in 4th quarter 2011 and a D4 in 2nd Quarter 2012. All I know is the person who gave me this info isn’t lying, but that’s the info he was given…wether what he was told was 100% accurate I don’t know?
    The timescale sounds right to me especially the D400 and D4 info because of the London Olympics ?…Just speculation I suppose.

    • PhillipG

      Unless something goes completely wrong with development or production of the D4, the D4 will almost certainly be announced about a year from now, in mid to late summer 2011 to be shown off at Photokina 2011. The release schedule for a new generation of Nikon’s pro models is very regular:

      D1: June 1999
      D2h: July 2003
      D3: August 2007
      D4: Probably mid/late summer 2011

      • Anonymous

        There’s no Photokina 2011, it’s held biennially.

  • ArthurCH

    Is it just me or do the 85 1.4 bokeh samples look kind of nervous (especially the first one)? The portrait samples looked wonderful though, and so does the color.

    • Eric Pepin

      looks exactly like the old one , which is a good thing

    • Roger

      It’s not you, there are many samples (not just the official Nikon ones), and it really shows poor bokeh. I’m waiting to see more, we’ll know for certain when actual users buy it and test it.

      • Peter

        If these samples are genuine – it will be the worst thing Nikon has ever done – i was really looking forward to an improved 85mm AF-D… I’m so envious of that new Ziess ZA 85mm 1.4 that Alpha users have now! It’s crisp throughout and offers technically excellent bokeh.. ohwell.

        I’ll be hanging out for more samples too..i find it hard to believe Nikon would make such a big mistake; the stakes on this lens are far too high.

  • Denko

    I find the product shots being taken by Canon cameras hilarious or is it just me?

    The reason for it… smells like an inside joke… “Look Canon, the only thing worth doing with your cameras are to take product shots and leave the real picture taking for our cameras. ”

    Note: No offense to photographers that are doing product shots, its a living and handsomely payed off too.

  • BenS

    Whatever camera that agency is using, just let it be people. Personally I feel that a company that forces you to use their “products”, instead of letting you use the product that you are confident with , is an INSECURE company.

    Nikon gains the trust, loyalty and respect for their products NOT by forcing other people to use them but by making products with high standards that is expected of Nikon.

    Nikon is not insecure about Canon and Nikon respects photographers , whatever gear they shoot with.

  • Rafael

    fine , well see Goodyear tires TV commercials , but in reality the cars will be using Bridgestone, and the advertising will be for Goodyear.

    or maybe, well see a Mc Donalds ad using a whopper burger…

    nicely done Nikon .. niceeeee

    • preston

      Your comparisons don’t relate to nikon’s situation at all. Nikon product shots advertise their own products, not someone else’s like in your examples. There are not going to be photos of the T2i in the D3100 brochure.

      • Matt XVI

        + 1

    • BenS

      Hahaha – you know that is not what i meant .

    • jimmy

      “fine , well see Goodyear tires TV commercials , but in reality the cars will be using Bridgestone, and the advertising will be for Goodyear.

      or maybe, well see a Mc Donalds ad using a whopper burger… ”

      It’s not really the same thing. If they had said, “photos from the new 3100″ when the exif data showed otherwise, that is bad. I don’t see the harm in using a Canon camera to take photo’s of a Nikon camera. If they hire a specific photography he shouldn’t have to shoot on an unfamiliar camera.

  • Ren Kockwell

    Do any of you actually work at an agency? Well, I do, and I can tell you I’d have my head handed to me if I did something so stupid as to shoot my client’s product with a competitor’s gear. I’ve seen agencies fired for far less. You can rationalize it all you want and pontificate about insecurity and ask who cares, but in the end this is just a profound lack of attention to detail and professionalism. Even if Nikon were so scatter-brained as to not contractually require their products be shot with Nikons, the agency of record should be intelligent enough to recommend and do so (or merely wipe the EXIF data). If they don’t realize the potential firestorm this could stir up in online communities such as this one, then they are neither bright enough to understand the demographic nor visionary enough to understand the power of mon-traditional media for spreading positive and negative content. If there are not scathing Monday morning conference calls about such stupidity, then shame on Nikon as well.

    • Gary

      I agree. It seems common sense that any ad agency should know that, if their client is a camera company, they use that brand of camera to shoot the ad. Period. No question.

      It would be like meeting with Coca Cola execs and serving Pepsi. It’s just negligent of showing basic respect for your client.

      Now contrast that with some video ads I’ve seen for the Olympus PEN, where they actually broadcast that the video was shot by a PEN. Now that’s the way to do it.

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

        +1

        Not a huge deal in the whole scheme of things. Thousands of people died of hunger or thirst while I wrote this comment. But still, it shows a lack of professionalism and care for your client. A good way to get unhired in the future, let’s say.

      • Cs

        I work in a hotel. And every time Coke comes and do business conferences, we make goddamn sure we aren’t serving any Pepsi products. In fact their contracts with meeting planners say so too.

      • PHB

        Oh no, I have sold stuff to Coca-Cola. We were warned to avoid mentioning the word Pepsi in the building. The phrase they used was ‘our competitor’.

        If this was a Coke/Pepsi thing the photos would have gone from the site days ago and mass firings would ensue.

    • Matt XVI

      + 1 again.

  • steve

    Simon Edduh (sp?) is about as enthusiastic as a pancake. Nikon, call me. I will move to Europe and have all kinds of excitement about promoting and selling Nikon cameras and other gear.

  • Kingyo

    Regardless of the reason, somebody dropped the ball in regards to this info getting out that the Nikon press shots were done with a Canon..I don’t really care what camera they used, but they should have at least removed/changed the Exif data.
    Now a possible D800 camera of sorts being kept secret by Nikon for 2010 is definitely something to get excited about :) ..hopefully, as Admin pointed out.. there’s some real substance to this rumor ;)

  • Stefan

    Just applied for the DSLR-Tester job – let’s hope it’s a Nikon and i get to play with the D800 next week ;-)

    • Victor Hassleblood

      LOL,
      is that your real name and face? If yes, your application has just been deleted. Next time you apply, make sure you don’t spread it on Nikon Rumors like butter on bread or at least make sure you erase your “EXIF” first.

  • Roland

    For me, it is all about “professionalism” and attention to even the smallest details. Just what photography is all about. Especially when it comes to product shooting, right?
    This agency is probably some kind of preferred partner with the Nikon PR department, but with this lack of professionalism that will probably change.
    If Nikon just accepts this, what will they (this PRO Canon agency) get away with next? Sample shots from the new Nikon lenses, mounted on a Canon body via some crappy adapter?
    This whole thing is just FAIL and if the Nikon PR department where aware of it, they would probably remove the Metadata from the pictures and fire that agency already.
    I am really embarrassed on Nikon’s behalf.

  • Gilad

    Are there any pictures of the 24-120 f/4 extended?

    • http://www.flickr.com/photos/rhlpedrosa/ rhlpetrus

      I’m also hoping to see more samples with the 24-120, including DX shots. It’d complement well my 12-24 f/4, covering 99% of what I need.

    • Discontinued

      OMG, girls are weird.

  • j

    RE. Press shots, These kind of shots are outsourced to crappy little “packshot” photo studios for $20 a shot. Digital has dumbed photography down at the low and middle level jobs.

  • http://www.voynix.com juannacho

    Just to be clear though – that 28-300mm is that range for FX, but on DX it’s 42-450mm? That really is hella long. All very confusing this FX lenses on DX bodies business…

    Doesn’t look that big though does it?

    Product shots with a Canon though is just dopey. It just cries out for Canon fanboys to wet themselves about Nikon not using their own cameras for their product shots.

    Very silly (totally avoidable) mistake.

    • http://www.flickr.com/photos/rhlpedrosa/ rhlpetrus

      And it IS an FX lens, so should have excellent performance on a DX. I was thinking about getting a 24-120 f/4, which is certainly a better lens optically and re built than the 28-300, and faster, but the range is then 36-180mm, not bad, but 42-450mm, good grief!

  • http://www.jeansebstudio.com J-S Cossette

    Nikon D700 FX replacement is vital for the nikon pro user…this year ! As a professional since 20 years with Nikon, we expect a full (FX) pro body with a comfortable ISO like the Canon Mark III or IV. Not in 2011…. this year ! IF not, a LOT A serious photographer will have to change an make the switch !

    • http://www.flickr.com/photos/rhlpedrosa/ rhlpetrus

      Hmm, D700 already has that type of performance, and those cameras are full-bodied, why not get then a D3s? The 1D3 is 10MP only, the 1D4 is 16MP. 12MP is not much less.

      If you were talking about 20+ MP AND D3s’ high ISO, then agree, you need to wait, no camera does it, any brand, yet.

  • Rahul

    Ah, can you imagine Ferrari CEO owning and using a Lamborghini ?
    How about BMW head arriving in office driving a Mercedes-Benz ?

    It’s blasphemous , right ? So is Nikon ad work/PR being done by a rival brand camera – I mean , forget the professionalism of ad agency shooting Nikons with a Canon , doesn’t Nikon have their own studios and photographers to accomplish this ? This is like BMW CEO going to Mercedes workshop for a routine service ! Yikes.

    All that aside, I’m hoping to pick up a D90 cheap but availability here seems to be an issue. I’d have to stretch a bit ($300 or more) for a D95 besides the long wait.

  • D800 different spec

    A different specification for the Nikon D800 is given at http://informationondigitalcamera.blogspot.com/search/label/Nikon%20D800%20%28D700X%29 with 3 links.
    Here are the 3 links:
    http://product.pchome.net/dc_nikon_d800/265747.html
    http://product.yesky.com/product/595/595627/
    http://detail.zol.com.cn/digital_camera/index226396.shtml
    If you have the Google Toolbar in Firefox, it is dead easy to translate these links .

    • http://www.flickr.com/photos/rhlpedrosa/ rhlpetrus

      I can create a set of specs, better than those. What’s the credibility of those sites and blogs?

    • D800 different spec

      Or just use Google Translate to translate these 3 links.

      Here is the different D800 spec that is given at http://informationondigitalcamera.blogspot.com/search/label/Nikon%20D800%20%28D700X%29
      NIKON D800 Specs
      ● Sensor Size : 35.9 × 24mm CMOS
      ● Effective pixels : 24.6Mp
      ● Maximum resolution : 6048 × 4032
      ● Continuous functions : 7 / sec
      ● Display size : 3-inch 920,000-pixel LCD screen
      ● HD camera: Support – 1920×1080 (24fps), 1280×720 (24fps), 640×424 (24fps), 320×216 (24fps)
      ● Focus by Nikon Multi-CAM 3500FX AF of 51 points 
      ● ISO 200-6400 – 1 / 3, 1 / 2 or 1 EV step adjustment; below ISO 200, you can about 0.3,0.5,0.7, or 1 EV (equivalent to ISO 100) to adjust; higher than ISO 6400, you can about 0.3,0.5,0.7,1 EV (equivalent to ISO 12800) or 2 EV (equivalent to ISO 25600) to regulate

      Personally, 24 MP is too much I must say. I would rather have the D800 spec given at http://www.digitalrev.com/en/nikon-d800—the-best-goes-to-those-who-wait-6474-article
      12 MP is already amply sufficient for 99% of anybody’s needs so to have to store pictures using a 24 MP camera is a waste of space I must say :
      Nikon D800 Specifications
      Sensor size 36.0 x 23.9mm Full Frame FX format
      Sensor type CMOS sensor
      Sensor resolution 16 megapixels
      ISO Sensitivity ISO 200 to ISO 12800 (Extendable to 102400)
      Continuous Burst Speed 9fps (11fps in DX mode)
      Focus System Multi-CAM 3500FX 51-point AF
      Video Mode Full HD 1920x1080p (24, 25, 30, 50, 60fps) with Stereo sound & AF
      LCD 3-inch (921k dots) VGA LCD

  • Aaron

    Is it me, or is it kind of disturbing that no one cares that Nikon is providing humanitarian aid?

    • http://www.flickr.com/photos/rhlpedrosa/ rhlpetrus

      Most big companies have now “eco” or “humanitarian” activities. It’s ok, even nice, but not “new” news. BP invested 500 million USD in a UC Berkeley project called “Beyond Petroleum” (“BP”, no?). It’s really nice, actually, the idea is to foster biotech R&D projects related to “clean” energy (whatever that means). But, that spill …

  • Ren Kockwell

    A genius PR stunt would be to have faked the EXIF data to read:
    Device Model: Nikon D4
    Focal length: 85mm
    Fnumber: 1.1

  • Tony888

    I agree with Rahul. Nikon doesn’t have their own PR/Marketing Dept to photograph their own cameras with a D3X? Has anyone brought this to Nikon’s attn? I would be pretty embarrassed.

    I remember an old commercial where a celebrity did a TV commercial for Pepsi and it was found out shortly afterwards that she usually drank Coke. I think a month or 2 later she was being interviewed about something totally unrelated and there was a Coke Classic can on her desk. Oops.

  • lolcatmaster FTW

    Ugh… whatever to the “they used a Canon camera IT IS THE END OF THE WORLD!!! EVERYONE PAAAAAAAAAAAAAAANIC” to tell you the truth I could care less with what camera they did the frigging product shots… but ohhhh noo…we have to be soooooooooooooooo dramatic: the world continues to spin, the polar caps are intact contrary to the belief that they would melt if this something like this happened, not a single Iguana exploded because of the “paradox”, the D3100 didn´t disappeared disintegrated into dust blown by the wind because it had a Canon camera in front of it…

    This is only “newsworthy” to cat shooters (they spend their time counting how many whiskers are in focus), wall shooters (they count the amount of sand used in the mortar and bricks) and measurbators (count each pixel to see if it is true that the image has 14 millions of pixels), 99.95% of the people buying this or any other camera doesn´t cares at all which camera they used to shot the D3100´s product shots….

    This is “news” is ony a dpreview forum feeder.

    • Ren Kockwell

      Work in the field you’re criticizing and then pop off. You clearly have no idea.

      • lolcatmaster FTW

        Ren go to a camera store and ask people buying it if they care the photos of the camera used in the press release were taken with a Canon DSLR, most will look at you like the kind of freak you surely are and ignore you.

        This internet drama is only here to feed wankers in dpreview.

  • http://www.seanmolin.com Sean Molin

    I cannot believe I just read through 160 comments where 95% of them were about the product shots.

    I wanted to see some input on the 85mm samples, but found about 4 posts about it.

  • Back to top