Possible Nikon D400 spy shot

Update: I got some more details from the people that took that picture (see the comments section) - it was taken on January 20th in Washington DC during the inauguration of now president Barack Obama. So, we know at least the picture is legit.

As already mentioned in the post, this could be the D300 (the Google translation was really bad this time):

I cannot see any mic holes. The only difference I can find between the above pictures and the current D300 is the chrome ring on the mode dial. Here is a D300 picture - the ring looks different:

Pictures source: Thomas Kang (Photoria Studio)

This entry was posted in Nikon D400. Bookmark the permalink. Trackbacks are closed, but you can post a comment.
  • Can you make out any EXIF Data? If the photo was taken recently, theres little reason to why it would be taped up.

    • Chris Pino

      I have my D3 all gaf taped up

      Maybe I’ll start a rumor

    • I don’t trust the EXIF data because it can easily be manipulated. The date in the EXIF is 1/20/2009.

    • mando

      The exif data of the camera taking the photo is of what use?????????

    • Talk Sense

      All the grounded photographers I know – so not the ones who are more interested in showing how small their manhood is by carrying the most expensive camera they could find – tape up all identifying features on their cameras/straps etc.

      1. Reduces fractionally the risk of theft (YES it DOES – studies with ex-street thieves in NY and London have shown that they look for high value ‘branded’ products rather than just grabbing wildly.

      2. Gets rid of those fools who stop you and display their small manhoods in public by telling you why their D300 is better than your D90 – its not by the way (Rockwell is right on this for once).

      3. Allows you to blend into the crowds a little if you cover major public events/riots/news and music festivals as I do.

      4. Stops you looking like a t****r. Like one of those people with ‘vanity’ plates on their cars. SAD!!! When will they realise that it doesn’t read (in UK) ‘RICHARD’ – its R164 ARD!

      5. Also, stop all beleiving that every taped up camera is a new model. A friend of mine in the ‘serious’ press corp – i.e. covers wars and humanitarian crisis around the world, rather than just events at home like me, is regularly provided with pre production ‘test’ cameras. Often the company just doesnt put the model number on it or places the current model number. E.g. He trialled a D3x last year but it said D3 on body.

      Please put your brains into gear before typing on this forum – its a great forum but some of the opinions are not the same as mine and also wrong.

      • Thanks for clarifying that if I DON’T have the logos on my cameras taped over, I’m not “grounded,” that my manhood is small, and that I look like a t****r. (Tailor? Toiler? Taster? Tanner?)

        Never mind that I don’t live in NY or London and seldom photograph in public. I guess I’d better get out a roll of tape and start gomming up my equipment. Or should I just shove the tape down the front of my pants to create a bigger bulge?

        Sheesh. I’m starting to feel about professional photographers the same way Clarkson feels about letting The Stig talk.

    • The last time I taped a camera was during riots… an all black camera is a wonderful thing at night…

      So, the real question is, why didn’t the shooter walk up and as the question… what are you shooting with?

  • # Camera Make = NIKON CORPORATION
    # Camera Model = NIKON D700

    From the exifs of that shot.

    More interestingly, what is that flash?

    • The flash looks like an ordinary SB-800 with the plastic plug removed from the power port on the front (revealing the triangular array of small round holes below the AF illuminator.)

      If she wanted to conceal the fact that she was using a Nikon, it’s kind of silly that she didn’t tape over the big logo on the flash unit, too.

  • tl

    The remote/flash sync covers are round on the D700. Maybe the chrome is just the effect of camera shake? The AF illuminator looks oval too.

  • Joe R

    That’s a tiny camera. When my finger is over the shutter button on my D300, the mode button is clearly visable. I have bigish hands so that’s either a tiny camera or a huge (yet not so manly) hands.

    Besides, the D400 is an FX shooter not a DX. I say that’s a new type of camera, a prosumer with video.

    • i would really like to know what evidence you might have that says the D400 will be FX? Quite frankly, i think that is a load… especially right now, its simply not marketly viable to do so! They need to keep the costs down, they cant afford to eleminate a sector of the market that relies on the 1.5x crop, and i still dont think there is enough “True” advantage in FX over DX to justify the cost of FX for the average consumer (especially if they already have invested in ANY DX Lenses!) to eleminate the line, or fundamentally alter the line.

      • Talk Sense

        You are mostly wrong about FX – except that, criticall, NOW is NOT the time they will introduce it to the lower range – not even to the ‘higher’ end of the lower range – e.g. D400!

        • what am i wrong about? i work for a California State University shooting sports, and while im still using my D200, there are many other photographers there from different media’s in the area that are still using D2x’s and i have spoken to them at leingth over this choice of theirs. Many said they had been given the option to use the D3 instead, but refused to do so despite the advantages in ISO performance and file size, simply because they had gotten used to the 1.5x crop and felt they didn’t need the ISO advantage. So obviously im not wrong in that there is a market of professional’s who relies on the 1.5x crop factor of DX… and if i held a 4×6 print of the same image, side by side, one shot by a D700, one by a D300, and one by a D90 and only had the price of the camera used to take the image above it, do you think there will be enough of a difference for an AVERAGE Consumer to justify to cost of the higher level camera’s? as someone who has Managed a specialty camera store for 2 years, my experience tells me that no they wont… so obviously im not wrong in that there is not (yet) enough of a difference between DX and FX to justify the added cost for the average consumer…

  • Ct

    @Jeroenw : I think you’re wrong, the bodie’s head (where there’s the prism) looks like a d300, and the sync flash cover too.

    For the flash, it must be a SB-900.
    Sometimes, people put black tape on the brand just to not show it (i saw it on a D3).

    But i believe that D400 will arrive this year because D300 was released almost 2 years ago and there’s the rumor of the alpha800…

    Wait and see

    • The flash is definitely an SB-800; I got mine out to check. On the SB900, the red AF illuminator cover runs farther up the front.

      Everything else looks exactly like a D300, which I have in hand as I write this, except the thicker chrome rim on the framing selector ring. As someone else posted, that could be the effect of blurring — like the neckstrap lug next to it, which also looks fatter than normal.

      But then again, we might expect a D400 to look a lot like the D300, mightn’t we?

      Gotta say I like the photographer’s leather “flying” helmet and red hair!

      • Ct

        oh, yep, the af light is huge on the sb-800…

        mm but i think that they will change a little bit the design of the body

    • “D300 was released almost 2 years ago…”

      No, it was not. It was released at the end of November 2007. That means it’s been out for just a little over a year. 2 months does not equal “almost a year.”

      • Ct

        uh yes, but what i want to mean is that if the D400 is released in for example 4-5 months, it will be almost 2 years after the d300 (to simplify)
        Even if it’s announced in may, it could be on sales on july

  • Pablov

    it’s a weird photo, it was taken SO directly to the camera, right in front of it… almost perfectly aligned to the lens, but a bit blurred due to handheld ?

    narrow depth of field too (the 1/180, f4, at 200mm settings could be right I guess)

    but it takes my attention the (almost) perfect alignment to the lens since it’s supposed to be taken handheld (according to the blur and exif data)…. Or was it processed in photoshop? hmmm

    • if those are the correct settings, i cant see how that is possible (without photoshop) unless the photographer had somewhat advanced Parkinsons Desease. 1/180th should be enough to stop motion in normal handheld movement. hell, i shoot from a moving Vehicle on occasion at 1/120th of a second and have very little issue.

      • Pablov

        1/180 at 200mm is almost at the limit of steady shoot.
        But if a 70-200 2.8 was used, then it should be VR, so it wouldn’t be blurred unless rare handheld. But we don’t know what exact lens was used, it only appears 200mm, so in my opinion it can be blurred because handheld.

        The most weird thing to me is the almost perfect alignement to the lens.

        The mirror told but John T can be the answer.

        The chrome highlight on the dial could be a new design on the D400.
        And of course as John also said, I don’t see any reason why D400 would be FX, it should be DX to “replace” the D300 and keep some DX bodies line. Wouldn’t make sense to introduce a FX body just after D300, it’s too clear !

        • Pablov

          (see below correction about the mirror possibility)

    • The fact of the perfect alignment with the lens could mean that this was actually a shot into a mirror of some sort, and then the image flipped so that it is back in a correct orientation. Also, don’t know why people keep assuming D400 will be FX. That is very questionable, especially if it is to replace the D300. I am assuming it will be a 14-15 MP DX, with the new backlit sensor from Sony.

      • Pablov

        i agree D400 will be DX

        • Pablov

          CORRECTION: if a mirror was used, then the camera shooting the image is the same appearing in the image, thus it should be a D700……(according to the Exif data)

          So the mirror is not possible, or the Exif data is not true.

  • Anonymous

    Is that the new 24-50mm f/2.0G ED-IF AF-S N?

  • fotomik

    It’s shot just very slightly from above, and slighlty blurred due to shake, that’s why the chrome strip looks larger than usual.
    The finder says DX all over, and the D400 is supposed to be FX.

    But a 24-50 2.0 AF-S I would pay nearly anything for. Pair it with a small DX-body, (or an FX!) and I´d be set for life! You can have the primes, I’ve got all I need in that zoom!

  • Martin

    I thought of another thing; the red nikon triangle always change from model to model (d200 to d300)
    This however looks the-same (judging from what one can see)

    BUT look at the on/off-sliderring, on the d300 there’s at-least a 3mm gap between the ring and the corner, but on this “spyshot” the gap is about 1mm!

    Also the the design behind the shutter up to the mode button looks to have a steeper design.

    btw, sorry if it’s hard to understand… english is not my native language 🙂

    • another reader

      nope, I don’t see that 3mm gap you’re talking about on the official photo, and on the D300 I have in front of me. Mine looks the same as the girl’s. The slope behind it looks the same as well. I really don’t think this is a D400.

  • Looks like a F7 to me!



  • I have my D2x taped, makes it a lot less visible when in crowds.
    I don’t have my SB-800’s and SB-600 taped.

    So to me this is just an innocent girl on a trip….

  • Danny

    Why not a D300x?

    The D400 must be a different chassis and body design.

  • Sarté

    its a d300

  • Trevor Nelmes

    It’s not a D700. Look at the strap ring on the right. Two ridges come forward to the sockets. On the D700 the lower one goes down at an angle of about 30 deg, but on the D300 both go horizontal.

    Now, look at where the flash popup button is. There is a molding seam running from it to the top of the sockets plug cover. On the D300, that seam is much lower, fro the bottom of the popup button itself.

    Now look at the reflection in the front glass of the lens. A Nikon logo in reverse? Maybe a Nikon shop or building? The flash is not an SB900, which has a curve top on the red cover. An SB800?

    • Pablov

      D700 is (supposed to be) the camera that was used to take the picutre, not that camera

  • dino

    What about the lens mounted? None of the ones coming to my mind (not from Nikon at least) has a such large front and all the writing engraved on one side.. it looks a 77 or 82 mm thread. Maybe a 24-70 by Sigma ?

  • Dan

    Its a D65!!!!!!

  • jon

    it is a d300. d700 has different 2-button black round caps. the flash is sb-800.

  • This is a self shot.
    The reflection on the filter is the girls glove.
    And she’s not a pro. she holds it like a first timer, on the tips of her fingers with a gloved hand? The hood is tilted, not clicked into position… clumsy.
    Definitely not D700 by the flash head size.
    I would say D300. The rubber front command dial appears almost flush as well… bad focus, even the dent on the ON/OFF is hard to notice, and that metallic thing can be blurred or maybe slightly more exposed in this camera.
    I am an underwater shooter, and trying different cameras of the same model on the same underwater housing you wouldn’t believe how can one camera differ from another in the same model!!!

    • Daf

      I think the fingertips could be explained by using her knee to steady the camera – she seems to need to extend her fingers to get the viewfinder up to eye level.

      Minor stuff really though.

  • peter

    i;d love someone to explain why they gaffa tape the brand/ model of their camera. in the case of a d2x especially. do you think it makes it less noticeable that its a pro camera ? you gotta be shitting me here. thats quote possibly the stupidest thing i’ve ever heard.

    • Ernst

      The stupidest thing you’ve “ever heard?” What hyperbole.

      Taping over bright white labels makes them less distracting. Our eyes naturally notice high-contrast details and without even meaning to we read what’s written there. By taping over them, you’re not participating in that distraction.

      People who “don’t get” taping labels probably “don’t get” why a photographer might compose an image to exclude a distracting telephone wire or bit of trash, either.

    • Talk Sense

      Peter – the lights are on but nobody is home eh? You appear to be a few sandwiches short of the full picnic eh?

      All the grounded photographers I know – so not the ones who are more interested in showing how small their manhood is by carrying the most expensive camera they could find – tape up all identifying features on their cameras/straps etc.

      1. Reduces fractionally the risk of theft (YES it DOES – studies with ex-street thieves in NY and London have shown that they look for high value ‘branded’ products rather than just grabbing wildly.

      2. Gets rid of those fools who stop you and display their small manhoods in public by telling you why their D300 is better than your D90 – its not by the way (Rockwell is right on this for once).

      3. Allows you to blend into the crowds a little if you cover major public events/riots/news and music festivals as I do.

      4. Stops you looking like a t****r. Like one of those people with ‘vanity’ plates on their cars. SAD!!! When will they realise that it doesn’t read (in UK) ‘RICHARD’ – its R164 ARD!

      5. Also, stop all beleiving that every taped up camera is a new model. A friend of mine in the ’serious’ press corp – i.e. covers wars and humanitarian crisis around the world, rather than just events at home like me, is regularly provided with pre production ‘test’ cameras. Often the company just doesnt put the model number on it or places the current model number. E.g. He trialled a D3x last year but it said D3 on body.

      Please put your brains into gear before typing on this forum – its a great forum but some of the opinions are ludicrous!

      • Ultimate Authority

        “Deja vu all over again,” as the joke goes… this rant isn’t any funnier than it was the first time it was spewed farther up the thread.

        Can someone page Billy Goat Gruff to come and butt this troll off the bridge?

        • JC

          Or perhaps you should find the edge of a bridge and then keep going forward… I think the writer was merely replying again to a point already expressed about three times in postings. For the record I completely agree with the points made.

  • another reader

    taping labels is just another precautionary step for strangers to not recognize what you’re using as a Nikon (or even a camera), if you’re taking pictures of wildlife I suppose you would never do it : P it’s mainly for people taking candids and that kind of stuff.

    I agree, it looks just like a D300 and a SB-800. And it doesn’t look like a mirror shot at all. In the admin’s post, look at the difference of the angle between the official D300 product shot, and the girl’s camera. It’s different. To be honest, it just looks like a FX image – lol, maybe it’s the vignetting ; ) it’s clear she’s aiming the camera at the photographer with the D700, but it’s too off to be a mirror shot, sorry.

  • PJS

    My D300 has a chrome ring just as shown – it is on the bottom of the Release Mode dial. At a given angle it is visible, just as in the photo. OR — Maybe I really have a D400! How do I get the manual?

  • More fun with what might be called “Crouching Photographer, Hidden Nameplate”…

    I don’t think the pictures could have been taken via mirror reflections of the camera shown IN the pictures (even though the reflection in the lens does look a lot like the photographer’s gloved thumb; it still could have been a lot of other things.) Here’s why:

    — When I take the same position as the photographer shown in the picture, the distance from my elbow to the top of my head is about 25″. If we assume the woman pictured is about 5-1/2 feet tall, she would be 89% of my height, and we could assume the same distance on her is about 22”. This part of the image occupies 58% of the picture height, so if the camera used to take the picture really was a D700, the original image height would have been about 14mm. Assuming the EXIF data is correct and the lens used was set to 200mm, this means the shooting distance would have been (200/14) * 22 = about 314 in = about 26 feet away. This seems plausible from the “look” of the picture.

    — Now let’s look at the nearer man in the background and assume that his foot is about 12 inches long. (I know, the foot is at a slight angle, but let’s ignore that for the sake of easier calculation.) The foot takes up roughly 16% of the image width, which on a D700 would be about 5.7mm. Again assuming a 200mm lens, the shooting distance must have been (200/5.7) * 12 inches = 421 in = 35 ft, so the man was standing about 9 feet behind the crouching photographer. Again, this seems to fit acceptably with the picture’s “look.”

    — Notice how the bottom of the man’s foot aligns almost perfectly with the photographer’s kneecap? In the crouching pose, the distance from my foot to my kneecap is about 22 inches, which again assuming the photographer is 89% of my height means 19-1/2 inches on her. If the man is standing 9 feet (108 in) behind her, and her kneecap is 19.5 inches higher than his foot, then by similar triangles we can see that the photographer who took the picture did so from a height of (19/108) * 35 feet (total distance) = about 6.16 feet. That’s a pretty tall photographer, but with so much assumption and rounding I think it’s safe to simplify it down to a camera height of about 6 feet — roughly what you’d expect from a photographer standing upright.

    In other words, the picture shown here was taken by a photographer roughly 6 feet tall, standing upright, shooting downward toward the crouching photographer from a distance of about 26 feet.

    Incidentally, the shape of the lower “petal” visible on the crouching photographer’s lens hood looks identical to that of the lens hood on my 24-70 Sigma DG lens. Unlike Nikon hoods, these Sigma hoods do NOT have a click stop in the mounted position; it’s easy for the hood to get rotated slightly, so no fair kvetching about the photographer not having the hood aligned correctly! Also, for whomever said she’s a non-professional because she’s operating the camera with her fingertips: it looks from the largest version as if that’s simply because the palm of her glove is against the grip, leaving the bare fingers farther to reach. And if it’s cold enough where she is to need a leather helmet, I’d want to keep my gloves on, too! (Or maybe I’m just biased in favor of red-headed photographers…)

    • The Facts

      You have alot of opinions and few of them make sense. I have just run a programme that tells me everything that you tried to explain above but took less time.

      Basically, you’re plain wrong.

      I could just about tell how many people were outside of shot and how many of them did/didn’t floss that morning.

      Just to draw this matter to a close – I can confirm the camera is a Nikon D300. Having just made one phone call, I realise I didn’t even need my computer programme.

      • Indisputable Truth

        (sigh) Someone’s daddy needs to change his screen-locker password…

  • Anonymous

    The flash is covered with a diffuser and pointed up at 45 degrees for a bounce shot. However, the photographer appears to be standing outside. Is this a pro who would be given a new model Nikon to try out?

    • I see a lot of newspaper shooters who keep a flash mounted when shooting outdoors, in case they need it for shadow fill. Tilting the head and leaving the diffuser on (that’s the standard diffuser ‘cup’ supplied with the SB-800, by the way) is something I do all the time myself; it helps soften the fill light to reduce the “lit-by-flash” look.

      So, we can’t use that to rule out the possibility that this is a professional shooter.

      I almost hate to suggest this, but are people being so skeptical simply because the photographer is a young woman, and a young woman doesn’t fit their image of a professional photographer?

  • Anonymous

    Looking closely at my D300, I noticed that the line where the rubber grip material ends (just below the D300 logo and next to the flash sync socket) differs from the one on the camera in the picture. On the D300, the line curves downwards, while this one continues all the way across to the flash socket/10 pin socket. Additionally, it’s way higher than on the D300 – this is almost at the top of the flash socket, while on the D300 it’s a little more than a third of the way up.

    • Anonymous

      And on the same note, that whole area of the camera in the photo looks nothing like the D700. It looks like a D300, but for the weird layout of the rubber/magnesium.

    • I think that continued texture and edge is the piece of tape she used to cover up the model designation, not the body covering material.

      Anyway, what we’ve concluded so far is that there’s no reason NOT to assume this is just a garden-variety D300. The only things that raise the possibility that it might be an unannounced model are that she taped over the brand and model designations on the camera body (which some people say they do routinely to make their cameras less conspicuous) and the extended chrome rim, which could be smearing via motion blur.

      What we CAN say is that if it IS an unannounced camera, it’s sure gonna look a lot like a D300!

      • Anonymous

        Interesting thought – to me, though, the texture of the material below the on/off and shutter release looks to be pretty much the same as that next to the flash sync. On the D300, the model number is above where the tape would be covering.

        Either way, it certainly does look a lot like a D300.

  • chris

    okok this photo was taken on jan. 20. 2009 the inauguration day. I post this picture to the Korean SLRclub.com. this photo was taken by my photograpy teacher that day. we were looking at his photos and i found out something interests everyone so i posted it.. nothing was photoshoped or touched. this is for ur interest, nobody knows its D400 or D300. only she(person in the picture) knows. this could be D300. who knows…Only reason i put a post is to entertain people… *Accordding to the picture and my D300, it just looks like D300 except taping. I thought it could be D400…

    • Tnanks Chris – if you give me a link or a name, I can give credit for this picture to your studio. Just drop me a line.

  • chris

    and IT IS NOT A MIRROR SHOT! my teacher took this photo b/c she was taking picture of him and he did the same..

  • Jacob

    Oh wow, I can’t believe this made it to nikonrumors…
    I’m Chris’s friend and we work at the same studio.
    The main photographer took this on his day at the inauguration, and we had argued for hours what this could be. Chris believes it could possibly be the D400… Me, I personally believe this is the D300. Anyway, whatever it is, I can GUARANTEE this is NOT photoshopped, and there is no tricks… The photographer that took this didn’t take it to capture a sighting, he just took it because the lady was shooting photos of him too, and we just noticed it when he got back to the studio… Anyway have fun speculating guys…

    • Jacob, if you want you can give me a link or a name so I can give you credit for the picture.

  • Jacob

    PS the EXIF is not altered. He shot it with a D700 and the Nikon 80-200mm AF-S

    • chris

      Thanks Jacob
      btw, LoL!!!

  • MB

    Someone is being naughty.
    This image EXIF data HAS been altered.

    • Chris

      as me and my friend said, this EXIF date is correct and never been altered.

      where do you think its been altered?
      i dont know why do you say that… lol

      • MB

        Some EXIF data, that is otherwise always present unless it has been altered by some programs, is missing from the image. Nikon software does note remove that data. Adobe software does not also. Some other programs do discard that data. Intentionally or not the data has been altered.
        Camera on the image has D300 body, bitten a little and missing plastic ring from the control knob, but otherwise unmodified D300 body. No difference whatsoever.
        There is nothing intriguing really, unless you dream of redheaded girls in black leather disguise.

  • aw

    Why tape up the NIKON on new cameras? Chase Jarvis did it with the D90 also. Anyone who would even recognize that someone is carrying around a model that has yet to be released can identify a Nikon camera in less than a second. Why don’t they attempt to cover up more that NIKON and DXX? That would leave something for the imagination!

  • DS

    No one from Nikon in possession of any new model SLR yet alone a D400 or unreleased SLR of any sort would shoot with an SB800, this model was discontinued which is rare for Nikon to discontinue anything. Anyone that works for Nikon or was special enough to have an early model SLR in their hands would never shoot it combined with an SB800 which was not designed to work with a new SLR in the same way an SB900 is, only SB900 will be seen combined with a new model SLR. This image provides no insight into future products.

  • Ernst

    The camera in the photo is indistinguishable from a D300 with gaffer tape over the Nikon logo and model number. Why are we talking about this?

    • Eton Eritas

      I’d guess boredom has a lot to do with it…

  • greg

    I think this is person is Mikal from Chase Jarvis photography. He gives his staff new cameras to try (search the D90 chase jarvis) on youtube. If this is the case, she wouldn’t be a pro. I am willing to bet there will be another youtube video about the DXXX in 6 weeks after this model has been released.

    • Greg, I will remember your comment – we will revisit it in few weeks 🙂

  • Anonymous

    maybe its the fuji s6 ??

  • martin

    Please, I’m really hoping this few last comments are all jokes… otherwise it REALLY makes me scared

    I do put a little bit of proudness into being a nikon owner (I know it’s silly and no, im not a retardedfanboy) So i hope all these unimaginably stupid comments are a joke.

  • Jason

    Just getting back to the matter in hand for a moment . . .

    Does anyone else thing that Red Gloves Lady brought some pretty odd gear with her to cover the new president’s inauguration? Wouldn’t you have packed your telephotos, and not bother with the flash? What’s she taking pictures of?

  • There is one *very* good reason to tape your logos that no one else has mentioned yet: Re-Sale.

    I tape all the text and chrome on my lenses and bodies if possible, as when it comes time for resale, off comes the tape, an suddenly my gear looks pretty fresh, even after lots of travel use.

    And I must say, anytime I use a tapped body in public, someone comes up to me assuming I’m using a film SLR body! I’m guessing that thieves prolly get a similar impression.

  • Alex

    Hmm… Look closely at the place where the “D300” is written in the D300 product shot. It’s pretty high up. In the actual photographs, I don’t see any gaffer tape in that same area. It looks like there’s some gaffer tape to the left of the PC sync port, but that’s definitely not where the logo is on the D300. The logo is higher up than the PC sync port. I think maybe Nikon decided not to paint D400 on these testing models, and the gaffer tape to the left of the sync port is actually covering up a microphone.

  • James Kettless

    Anyone who has taken a self-portrait with a Nikon D300, SB-900, and 18mm-135mm DX lens will recognise this as the kit in the photo. I can’t believe this even sparked such debate. All points about the crome ring, and tape placement are not taking into account the angle the shot was taken from, ie slightly above, with sunlight reflecting off the ring. Get a D300. Get an SB-900. Get an 18mm-135mm DX lens. Get a friend to pose in the same lighting conditions. You will see that this is just a pic of a security-conscious amateur, taken by another amateur, and posted by a paranoid conspiracy theorist. Grow up.

    • Jacob

      Your comment was unnecessary and rude. FYI, the photographer that took this photograph has been in the industry for over 30 years. To his credit he’s directed and has shot advertisements for some of the largest corporations in the world. He’s taught photography at a university in Korea, and continues to teach in the Korean community in the States. Just because he takes a snapshot of some random person on the street, and his apprentice decides to post it on the web, doesn’t make him an amateur. The photo was posted as a POSSIBLE sighting, if people want to imagine things, then let them. I think it’s you who needs to grow up, and stop taking matters so seriously. I feel sorry for you, such a bitter cynic with illogical hate for something that shouldn’t really affect your life.

  • David Johnson

    The reason for ALL this speculation is quite simple. The Nikon D90 and D300s are really GREAT cameras. When the Nikon D400 comes out in DX (not FX for certain) it will be a GREAT TOOL. Many of us who have shot pro for years realize what digital DX has done for us. I shoot a wide variety of subjects none for ego…..I shot 8×10 and big panoramic film cameras for years and lucky for me…….I realized the 35mms I METERED with often stole the best shots of the day. High end gear WILL NOT by necessarily make better photos. But we are smart to pay attention to what new gear is coming out IF it has a practical edge. The D300 does. The D200 is still producing nice work. We just think the D400 will be worth the time waitib for it and money spent when it finally becomes available. Those who believe photos help them enjoy life more…..are not wasting our time eagerly awaiting the new releases. Look at Canon’s Mark II D5. That is a nice tool that should last many years. Simply put Nikon WILL introduce the D400pretty soon. So there truly is AMPLE reason to wonder, when? ARE THE prototypes being tested right now? My guess is YES. So this photo on your post does have interest! Even if it is not really a test mule. Still interesting!

  • Back to top