< ! --Digital window verification 001 -->

This realistic 3D model of the Nikon D600 camera is entirely computer generated

Nikon-D600-3D
Nikon_D600_3D_rendering_back
Nikon_D600_3D_model

Humster3d.com released their 3D model of the Nikon D600 DSLR. The camera looks very realistic and is created from scratch with the help of 3D software. Keep this post in mind next time we discuss if a certain image is real or fake - technology has advanced significantly since this Nikon D4 rendering from 2010. Humster3d also has a 3D model of the D5200:


Nikon_D5200_3D_model

Check out also this 2D Keyshot rendering of the Nikon D60 camera:

Keyshot-Nikon-D60-rendering

From the comments on this Nikon FM3a rendering: "That's no 3D render - that's drawn using Adobe Illustrator using only 2 tools - the pen tool and gradient meshes. Absolutely astounding if you ask me. The illustrator is Yukio Miyamoto - check out more of his work."

 

This entry was posted in Nikon D600. Bookmark the permalink. Trackbacks are closed, but you can post a comment.
  • Art

    Pretty darn cool. Sometimes, I wonder if a few of the people I know are simply 3-d models as well.

  • JoeJohnBear

    Slow news day?

  • MyrddinWilt

    But I want a 3D picture of a D400!

    • Spy Black

      That might as close as you may ever get to it.

      • fred

        They should have done a D400, that would have had tongues wagging, D300 owners dreaming/drooling.
        Also would have given me something to print out too…to show Santa what I want for Christmas!

        • Jojo

          I’m sure lots of people would be happy to give you a picture of a D400 for Christmas!!

          • fred

            Then I’d have 2 pictures?

          • fred

            Come on September.

      • MyrddinWilt

        I have a D800, I only want to see a D400 to see all the people after a cheap 12MP FX body dashed.

  • precipices

    Why not the D800 and 14-24mm? IT’S THE SAME EFFORT FOR CRYING OUT LOUD!

  • Aldo

    I’d believe it’s the real thing if there was oil on the sensor.

    • John Baxter Photography

      Boom! Damn so witty.

    • FredBear

      Then it would be a Leica or Canon that have more oil on sensor problems?

    • http://www.facebook.com/people/GhostRider-X/501795692 GhostRider X

      Still experiencing the oil on sensor problem after having it repaired by Nikon. They supposedly changed the entire shutter assembly with a new one. Not too bad with single shots, but combined in HDR, same problem. Not a happy camper.

      • Aldo

        sorry to hear that

  • AB

    You realize this only would work if the camera was not electrical (i.e. only mechanical) such as how 3-D guns are popular recently. It isn’t a damn a starship Enterprise like replicator.

    • 103David

      Make a firearm out of plastic with a 3D printer and you’ll find out jolly darn quick why the real ones are made of steel when you load a live cartridge in one and blow a couple of fingers off when you touch it off.
      Don’t do it!

      • Nothing to say

        They don’t last long, but they certainly work for a few shots. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wuDCW_Rn5JI

        • iamlucky13

          The lower receiver is not a high stress part on an AR-15. Even on the factory rifles they’re made out of aluminum or high strength plastic, because the strength of steel isn’t necessary for that part.

          The video was only significant because of all the parts that make up an AR-15, the lower receiver is the one that is regulated by the ATF and bears the serial number. That’s the part they consider to be the gun, and everything else is an accessory, so to speak. You can buy new or sell basically every other part across state lines, but to buy new or to sell a lower receiver to someone in another state, you need a licensed dealer to broker the sale.

        • 103david

          Checked out your video and saw an AR-15 coming apart after a (VERY) few rounds. While there is always a standing order for lab-rats to test the potential (probably) lethal consequences of really stupid behavior, I suppose placing what amounts to a small pipe-bomb against your face with nothing but low-temp, low-strength plastic to protect will always seem attractive to some.
          Reconstuctive and Eye surgeons everywhere applaud you! Go for it!

  • jaded

    Heck its been a slow news day around this site for months!

    • bjrichus

      Ever since the move to the new forum software?

    • http://nikonrumors.com/ Nikon Rumors

      Did I miss any Nikon announcements in the past few months? Don’t blame the messenger.

  • Spy Black

    The body looks good, then lens is weird.

  • Nilrem

    One word: why?

  • jimbocurtis

    what is the point of spending so much time to make this?

    • iamlucky13

      Most likely as a project to learn how to do photorealistic rendering. I wouldn’t be surprised if the artist did it for a class assignment.

  • jimbocurtis

    what is the point of spending so much time to make this?

    • groucher

      As an aid to visualising/designing the next models – standard engineering practice. Nothing new here.

  • Gareth O’Neill

    FAKE!

  • macsavageg4

    Either I am blind or it is missing the aperture indexing tab.

  • Remedy

    Sorry Mr Admin Sir, but the technology in 3D world hasn’t advance a tiny bit since 2010. This kind of render (it really can be done better) was possible even 10 years ago. There is absolutely nothing groundbreaking in this image and as a matter of fact the D4 You mentioned earlier was a better model and better textured overall. You might argue about the light being too harsh and dimmed at the same time on those D4 renders but that’s it.
    Now if You look closely You will notice poorly placed (too flat) rear screen menu. It looks as if it was sticker placed on top of the screen. The display itself is beneath the glass and the glass has it’s thickness. You can’t see this here.

    …but overall it’s a good model and pretty nice render.

    • lexfu

      The technology that enables renders like these are a lot more accesible to the ‘general public’ compared to a few years ago though.

      • rearranged

        No not really. For example Vray or Maxwell were accesible to everybody already 5 years ago. And people doing stuff like this aren’t general public but designers who work a lot with 3d. Did you know that since many years a lot of the Car Industry advertising Images aren’t shot photographically but rendered? A good product design rendering needs skill and not super modern software technology. And this is why the D4 images are way better done than this, especially the top side image which for me almost isn’t distinguishable from a photograph.

        • fumlu

          I think most products should just be rendered in 3-D instead of shot with a camera. It just makes more sense, its more cost effective, and they can be easily edited if need be. Hell, H&M used 3-D models for some of their “fashion photography”

          • zoetmb

            Don’t be absurd – it’s not more cost effective. Do you know how many hours it takes to create a 3D illustration? Try it sometime. Illustrator is a nightmare even for 2D.

            • nikonian

              I did this for a living… Oddly enough some companies already do this (Auto manufacturers are notorious
              for this)

            • Shingo

              >> Do you know how many hours it takes to create a 3D illustration? Try it sometime.

              On the contrary but it depends on the kind of image you are capturing. Car images are almost all done in 3D because 3D renderings are much more cost effective than a photo shoot.

              The 3D model is often obtained from the manufacturer as a CAD file. Once the scene is textured and lit, it can be rendered to any resolution and changes made effortlessly. In the case of car renderings, it means easily changing the color, lighting etc.

              Plus you can render the scene in passes to get huge amounts of control so that you can effectively alter the lighting in the retouching phase.

        • http://micahmedia.com/ Micah

          The technology isn’t just the software (which is pretty mature), it’s the hardware. You can build a strong render rig for under a grand today, which rivals “pro” gear from ten years ago.

          • rearranged

            Yes but the only difference to a strong rig is that it just takes less time to render. You can just leave the computer running over night, that has the same effect.

            • Ol

              I have to agree, it’s not the best of renders. And it has been possible to get this quality for quite a few years now.

              A large % of product/auto adverts use CG instead of photography/video. One of the upsides is the flexibility it provides, especially when it comes to changes being made. Ikea announced that they will be phasing out their photography studios in place of CG too.

              CG has had a big effect on the photography/advertising industry, and I’m sure it will continue to.

    • RMJ

      Indeed, the D4 is far superior modelling and texturing quality. (maybe even rendering quality, hard to say as the overal set is very different)
      The D600 looks like a cheap plastic toy. For example, where is the rough black, signature paint finish of modern Nikon camera ? Also, why does the rubber, the plastic and the metal have exactly the same looking finish ? If you look at your own camra (D600, or any other Nikon), you will see that it has several different “shades of black”. It has glossy or semi-glossy black buttons and switches, rough matt paint finish in body itself, matt / semi-glossy rubber (depends how much you have used it).

      The funniest things are the IR and little signal lights that have the same generic black surface as pretty much everything else.

      • Spy Black

        The technology is one half of the equation. The person doing it is another. You’re simply seeing a lack of attention to detail. The model itself is very good however.

    • umeshrw

      Also the icons in the glass menu look as if they are actual buttons.

  • dnguyen

    Looks fake

  • Eric Calabos

    I know you are preparing us for upcoming fake D400 pictures
    you naughty Peter

  • Smudger

    ……….and the point of this, is what?

  • Smudger

    ……….and the point of this, is what?

  • PT

    Technology may have advanced since that D4 render, but the D600 definitely looks less convincing – completely obvious it’s a model – too perfect and isn’t even black.

    • Spy Black

      That’s the fault of the artist, not the technology.

  • 103David

    Unless someone is paying big buckaroos, I’m still trying to figure out why the fanboy crowd goes to all the trouble and bother to do it.

    • Sahaja

      These days, can’t you just put a real camera in a 3D scanner to get the initial shape?

      • 103david

        The question remains the same. Why?

  • Per K

    Today most images you see in brochures of new cars, trucks etc are 3D rendered since many years. One good example is the IKEA catalog – everything is rendered. How do I know? I was system owner virtual systems at a large Swedish company in automotive.

  • bob sacamora

    Like others have mentioned, I’d be interested if this were a D400 (pre-release with actual layout) rendering.

  • ronadair

    These 3d artists seem to need one lesson above all others: an ounce of contrast equals a pound of believability:

    In my opinion, and aside from the “floating” screen (that should be inset below the surface of the glass rather than on it), this is a fairly believable render once even a quick contrast is applied.

    • MyrddinWilt

      I was about to say that I think the main issue is with the simulation of the photography effects. Not quite the right DOF effect.

      The photos we are used to seeing are usually downscaled from bigger images. That tends to make them more contrasty amongst other things.

    • Spy Black

      That still doesn’t help the lens, the lens is simply not modeled right. The body components need to be better colored to match the differences in materials as well.

  • Al Richardson

    Thought it’d be interesting to drop this here:

    http://images.weadmire.net/fullImages/design-fullimage-1220.jpg

    That’s no 3D render – that’s drawn using Adobe Illustrator using only 2 tools – the pen tool and gradient meshes. Absolutely astounding if you ask me. The illustrator is Yukio Miyamoto – check out more of his work.

    • http://nikonrumors.com/ Nikon Rumors

      Very nice!

      • Sahaja

        Nice camera too. Now if Nikon made a digital version of that….

    • Desca

      And to boot, it looks way more realistic than the image from the OP.

  • FDF

    Looks nice but can it take pictures like my real one?

    • Vicne

      No. It takes renderings.

  • http://www.flickr.com/jaybie Jay Donahue

    Should have been a D400!

  • stefan

    They forgot to include the dust spots in the top left corner……. :-|

  • stefan

    they forgot the dust spots on the top left corner of the image….. :-|

  • http://micahmedia.com/ Micah

    Is the model good enough to make custom parts from?

  • notimpressed

    Not very impressive.

  • nikonian

    The dead giveaway is the glass in the lens. It is still very hard to render a properly refracted lens.

  • benstephens

    Holy shit I can’t believe this is a story.

    • http://Flickr.com/inthemist InTheMist

      There must be some rumors out there!

  • Volchesta Jfr

    Yes, but can you generate a realistic looking monkey riding a dog being chased by a hamster?

  • Crusty

    Why must we do this to ourselves?

  • CJ

    “wasting time” came to my mind immediately !

  • Csphoto

    Big deal,I’ve been doing this for years. I use Solidworks and could make this in a few hours. I’ve done large assemblies like a flare station that burns off natural gas, used at your local landfill. To designing my own boom-slider for my video work. I’ve drawn cameras to help in the design process. I don’t get to detailed with the camera as its just for reference and it takes too long. I could have drawn this on an older 1998 version as well so the technology has been around a good amount of time. It’s what they use to come up with this stuff.

    • Csphoto

      After closer observation, there is a lot of detail in these and would take some time to get it accurate. They did a nice job, I would have put it on a surface like granite or something to make it more realistic.

  • AJ

    The D4 model is actually better done. Rather, I should say the texturing is better. The D600 is immediately identifiable as a render by the lens – the texture of the plastic elements is the same as the rubber parts. The D4 is quite well done.

  • Back to top