Nikon turned down Photoshop, D700 price drop, F3 used in the filming of Indiana Jones

This is the last part of this week's Nikon news/links:

"In 1988, at the MacWorld show, the Nikon team was approached by two brothers who offered them the rights to market an imaging software application. The brothers were Thomas and John Knoll. The application was called Photoshop."

The article was written by Alan Bartlett who used to market new products for Nikon back in the 90's.

"A specially-modified F3 was used by Industrial Light and Magic to film POV shots during the mine-car sequence in Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom. The camera back was removed to accommodate a custom magazine, and the camera itself was mounted on a miniature gimbal that trailed the mine-car model. The gimbal was programmed to pan and tilt to simulate the point-of-view of a following mine car."

Read the whole story at

  • Sigma announced price and availability of three lenses announced at Photokina: the APO 120-300mm F2.8 EX DG OS HSM (street price: $3,199) and APO MACRO 150mm F2.8 EX DG OS HSM (street price: $1,099) will be available at the end of March in the US and the 12-24mm F4.5-5.6 II DG HSM (MSRP of $1,400) will follow in April.
This entry was posted in Weekly Nikon News Flash. Bookmark the permalink. Trackbacks are closed, but you can post a comment.
  • mshi

    Nikon missed a great investment opportunity.

    • Nau

      or maybe they saved photoshop as a product from been perpetuate ugly baby of Nikon corporation ?

      • Global

        Nikon would have screwed it up. Do you see what Nikon software is today? Thank goodness for Adobe.

        • Soap

          What I came here to say.

          Nikon software ignores conventions, even their own.

      • Unfortunately, while it had great hope, it hasn’t fared much better in the end. Now instead of being an ugly baby of Nikon, it’s the bloated, overpriced, flash-laden whore-baby of Adobe. Too bad.

        • Ren Kockwell

          Are you serious, Ron?

          • asdasd

            well it is true.
            It installs load of BullS, services and only reason people still using it is, that there is no better software.
            As for me, i stay by Version 7 because Capture 1 does for me all i want and take photoshop out only for heavy retouching.

            • iamlucky13

              You’re basically making Ren’s case – Photoshop is more powerful than pretty much anything else.

              Sure, it’s overkill for most users, complicated, and takes a lot of memory, but “there is no better software” (to quote your words), is hardly a scathing criticism.

              I’ve got misgivings about Adobe, too, but I still think Photoshop has done far better under their management than it would have under Nikon’s.

            • Here is how Adobe can fix the next version of CS.

              1) Add nothing.

              2) Stop. Go back and remove the stuff you added after ignoring mandate #1 (above)

              3) Fix all of the UI, UX, and cross-application uniformity flaws.

              4) Document Flash and actionscript FULLY and WELL, for once.

              5) Improve cross-app integration in all the little ways that drive developers, designers, and photographers mad every day.

              6) Create a new application that has the potential and hope that Lightroom had before Adobe mucked it up. This app should run as fast, as lean, and as effectively as the Adobe Camera Raw plugin. It should run independently of any app, and should cost $49. The ONLY difference it should implement is that it should NOT require any save interaction when editing images, thereby eliminating the need for one to obsessively save, exit, and re-open the application to continue editing. This app should NOT have drop shadows, glassy reflections, collections, libraries, galleries, or lavatories. It should do one thing: just what Camera Raw does now. ANY option or refinement that slows it down by even 1% is unacceptable.

              7) Feel free to charge 2-3x the above pricing if support for future camera models from supported vendors is promised for at least 5 years or 2 future versions, whichever is longer.

              8) Store app preferences in a persistent file that is not dependent on being updated before quit. Whenever your apps undergo a hard crash, the app settings are returned to factory default, including undo levels. Lame. Fix it.

              9) Fix Illustrator’s color picker box so that you can actually click inside the box, quickly drag your mouse past the outside constraints of the corner (when choosing white or black, for instance), just like we can in photoshop. How has this gone unnoticed for so many versions?

              10) Thank you for getting rid of the 4th screen mode that plagued Photoshop CS3 (in OS X). It will never be missed. Never bring it back.

              11) Is the “File Info” dialog built in Flash? Whatever it is, it can be excruciatingly slow. Make it stop. Please, we beg you.

              If you REALLY want to make Adobe apps relevant for the next 20 years, create an entirely new set of apps based on the principles of simplicity, minimalism, and perfection. Fight to keep anything above 1 feature per app (in total) out, and give us the best you got, and what the single biggest core of users need without delay, despite the fear that you’ll “run out” of things to sell. I would consider that worth $800/app. Not the bloatfest you currently sell. That is only worth about $100/app.

            • @iamlucky13: the idea that “there is nothing better so we’re OK” is the bane of corporate philosophy everywhere. Adobe has a fair amount of responsibility, as does any other single player in a given market, to make sure they don’t fall into complacency or feature-neurosis when it comes to their offerings. You might say that’s idealistic of me, and therefore irrelevant because it’s subjective. I would respond that this very complacency has been the very undoing of many an empire, corporate or otherwise.

              I’m not wroth because I think Adobe applications are worthless. The first rule of sales is that an angry customer is a caring one. No, I’m bothered because I feel Adobe apps have left their rich heritage behind in the pursuit of higher profits and broader markets. And that means I’m dependent on buggy, bloated apps that should have been so much better.

            • Discontinued

              I especially like Adobe’s different commands for the very same and simple step. Ai uses “shift, cmd, =” for zooming in instead of “cmd, +” like Ps does. F##king why ? ? ?

            • suprchunk

              Ron, Adobe will never document their stuff. Period. I am working on an app they developed for us and I must say, it is the biggest pile I have seen. We could fix it if we could understand what they were attempting to do in the code. But, alas, they don’t like to document. It’s not just CS so you know.

              And I don’t know what aspect of the Flash(Flex), and AS you want them to document in a delivered app that is closed source. Unless you are meaning an API they are releasing for free. If so you can expect as much support from them on a free product as equivalent to the amount you paid.

              And we were not discussing Illustrator here, so keep that POS out of the discussion. 🙂

        • Global

          Ron, you raise very few legitimate points but mainly are coming across as whining and slandering an excellent work that has not only supported SEVERAL industries, but which has advanced those industries almost single handedly. If you know a company that would have done it better — let’s see their programs!

          Instead of crying about probably the best graphics program the world has ever seen, you do have the freedom to use GIMP, Aperture, Painter or.. uhh.. MS Paint. I mean give me a break. Go APPLY to Adobe, instead of slandering them online. Otherwise, you can check out these real programs well-within your budget:

          1.) Adobe Photoshop Elements $100
          2.) Adobe Lightroom $200~, or
          3.) ANY USED version of Photoshop on the after-upgrade market?? They are extremely cheap and legal to buy and are “frozen in time” just like you enjoy. $25 bucks~$300.

          Adobe has done an extremely good job with a wide-variety of programs, very few of which had any origin next to one another (hence the difference commands, etc). Adobe has done an excellent job and has provided useful feature after useful feature. I think that its completely legitimate to encourage better coding, etc, etc, in a constructive way. But your rebuttle posting comes across as slander.

          I’m using CS5 and its a freaking miracle. Wonderful program. Extremely fast. Does anything you could imagine. And thats rather the point isn’t it? For work and play I can’t imagine missing any of it.

          You want them to give you the whole CS Suite for you to profit by and enjoy as a single piece of software for a $100 bucks, because you’ve got that much on you and you’ve got a Apple-cult members perspective on Flash. Sorry, buddy, that’s not how life works. We’ve got 50 year old bridges in this country too. You don’t demolish the world because someone shows you something bright and shiny in an idea form without any serious way to implement it.

          Considering that 1 desk and 1 chair for a graphic designer might cost $1,500 (unless its a sweat-shop), I don’t know even know what the heck you’re whining about unless we are talking about a hobbyist’s perspective. This is a business tool no less important than a forklift to a construction site and comes out to about $50/month — less than your cell phone — if purchased at full price newest edition! Haven’t even mentioned the discounted upgrades or the low cost of student editions. I may be a liberal but even I can see that this is exactly how capitalism is supposed to work correctly.

          If the competition steps it up a notch your view could be 100% supportable. But Microsoft, Apple, and “open-source” can’t match Adobe’s Suite, youre getting too close to slander.

          Kudos, Adobe. Thanks for a decade of better than anyone else. For the record, Adobe upgrades their RAW -far- faster than Nikon does! And that should settle that as far as who would have taken care of the product better.

          Engineering Uptopian Dreams set aside in the “woulda shoulda coulda, but YOU personally didn’t do anything to improve anything, so what are you whining about” bin, we are so glad for Adobe.

          • BornOptimist

            So it’s not accepted to whine about Adobe, but whining about Nikon is ok?
            Same about the crying for a >12MP camera. Nikon has D3X for those in need for more pixels. So why all this fuss? Too expensive – you don’t expect them to give profit away?

            but please tell me more about the “after upgrade marked” – where can I find this?
            I was interrested, and actually contacted Adobe in my country about this (quite some time ago, probably around v7 – CS), not only was they rude, but also said to me that it was not possible to buy used licenses.

          • Discontinued

            ROF & LMAO,

            don’t get me wrong Global. The funny part (that makes me break down in laughter) is, that your post could be Ron’s from a few month ago, if only some words would be replaced:
            Change Adobe for Nikon, change Ps for D700 and there you go. Could be exactly Ron, word by word. Man, that is truly funny.

            Soooo funny.

          • Global, I invite you to review my actual words and their intent. I was in no way slanderous. Neither was I libelous, as I’m sure you intended to say.

            “1.) Adobe Photoshop Elements $100”
            One undo? Yeah, give me a break.

            “2.) Adobe Lightroom $200~, or
            3.) ANY USED version of Photoshop on the after-upgrade market?? They are extremely cheap and legal to buy and are “frozen in time” just like you enjoy. $25 bucks~$300.”

            It seems you haven’t read my post, but simply jumped to the defense of Adobe. I don’t WANT Lightroom, or any older version of Photoshop. I want a current version, (or past, that’s fine) that reads my new NEF files, which are suspiciously incompatible despite them being the EXACT same format that has existed for many many years with very few changes. I also want the OPPOSITE of Lightroom, and I was VERY specific of what I was looking for. Please see above to clear up the confusion.

            “You want them to give you the whole CS Suite for you to profit by and enjoy as a single piece of software for a $100 bucks, ”

            See, you will lose the argument, because you did not READ or you misrepresented my words entirely. I never said such, and would never, either. I asked for one app, forty-nine dollars; a reasonable fee for something that is no longer usable after one cycle. It’s worth 2-3 times more if it is supported past its life cycle. This crap of locking customers out while offering the lame and arduous process of converting RAW files to DNG is an unacceptable solution to high priced short-term-yield apps.

            “If the competition steps it up a notch your view could be 100% supportable. ”

            And they will, my friend. Someone will. Isn’t that the first law of Capitalism. I mean, even monopolies aren’t immune. (Notice I am not calling Adobe a monopoly, as I have not identified monopolistic tendencies from them.) Take a look at Microsoft. I have said many times in the last 10 years that Microsoft was bound for doom. People laughed in my face. I didn’t say it because I hated Microsoft’s every atom (which I did), I said it because it was clear that Microsoft was acting in their best interest which was in direct contradiction to what was best for the market and their customer. People (then) would agree with me, then lament because they feared it impossible simply for the sheer size of the company. Well, nobody is laughing now. Microsoft has been humbled, and continues to fall in decline. I hope they survive. I hope Apple isn’t left alone in this market, because that would be equally as dangerous for them. Complacency is a dangerous allurement for any organization.

            • Mock Kenwell

              Well, I am definitely NOT an Adobe fan. Their promise of an integrated world swayed me away from Quark, but it’s been a promise still unrealized. The drag and drop utopia they spoke of still doesn’t happen as it should. Illustrator and InDesign’s print engines and color management still cause fits. I would agree with you that the old adage, “Only buy the even numbers” with regard to their incessant upgrades and random moving of perfectly functional palettes still holds true. They are constantly in my pocket.

              But for me, Photoshop is an amazing tool that gets better all the time. And there is nothing out there that even comes close. Your needs appear different than mine. But just as Quark stopped listening to consumers and paid the price, the same may well happen to Photoshop. I just don’t see it.

            • Soap

              DNG is neither a requite step or a lock-in.

            • @soap: It is requisite if you want to keep using your software after purchasing a new camera that is not supported. Essentially, you could be an owner of their software for two months and see it fall into obsolescence when a new version is released. They don’t have any after-life support where they know photographers need it most: RAW support. It’s a tactic, and a chumpy one at that.

            • Soap

              Blame Nikon about your NEF problems, not Adobe.

          • Hendog


            • Hendog

              I meant +1 to Global, not Ron. Photoshop and particularly lightroom are an awesome combo for me. I couldn’t live without lightroom. Sure it would be nice if they were both cheaper, but I believe I’m getting a hell of a lot of use for my money. Some better seamless integration between the two would be nice, but really I can do everything I need to do with a minimum of fuss. Stop whining about it and just use something else if you take issue.

        • Soap

          I have no idea why you feel you need flash to use PS or LR.

        • Eric Pepin

          just because you dont use the features doesent mean there stupid. Photoshop is hardly just for photographers, plenty of people in other fields use it and need the wacky features. CS5 runs like a dream most of the time and combined with lightroom for imports and management the whole system is great. Theres always adobe elements for you.

          • Is nobody reading what I’m writing? I guess the whole “reading between the lines” thing has actually resulted in skipping lines entirely.

            • CanonUser

              Cheer up! You have good & valid points Ron!

            • Ren Kockwell

              What’s a whore baby?

            • CanonUser2

              To Ren Kockwell,

              Your comment reflects your breeding!

    • Mock Kenwell

      Yeah, I also heard Nikon was the first choice to be the original Han Solo, but turned it down.

      • sirin

        Nikon just didn’t want to shoot first!

  • Rob

    The D700 for $2200 is a gray market version. Does anyone else sell a gray market version, and if so what is their price/what was their price? I can’t find any listed anywhere as gray market besides Adorama.

    • no, it says Nikon U.S.A. Warranty at the bottom of the listing

      • Rob

        They updated it to say gray market. It CANNOT be USA, because $2200 is well below Nikon’s minimum advertised price. Notice it also says cannot be used with the rebates – hence gray market.

        • they must have updated it in the last few minutes, at the bottom of the listing still says “Nikon U.S.A. Warranty”

          • Global

            Is there ANY difference between Nikon USA warranty and Grey for the camera body??

            I thought the Cameras have a 1-year warranty no matter where in the world you buy them. Thus, it could be covered by NikonUSA.

            Unlike lenses, which have an extended warranty only in the US, etc.

            • As far as I know Nikon USA won’t fix grey market cameras even if you pay them, if the camera breaks you got to trow it away unless you can fix it outside the US.

            • ZoetMB

              To be clear, if you buy an imported body in the U.S., Nikon will not repair it under warranty and they won’t even repair it if you’re willing to pay for it.

              If however, you buy the camera when traveling overseas from a legit dealer and have the receipt, Nikon USA will support the warranty.

              Most camera stores who sell grey market offer a non-Nikon warranty, like a Mack warranty in place of the Nikon warranty.

              Note that B&H does sell import (grey market) lenses, but they do not sell Nikon grey market bodies. I’m not sure why that’s the case.

          • D700guy

            They must have. I just looked out of morbid curiosity and it says:
            “Nikon D700 Digital SLR Camera Body, 12.1 Megapixel, 0.72x Zoom, FX Format, CMOS Image Sensor – No Rebates – Grey Market”

      • Rob

        Also, here’s the link to their USA version: I imagine they just copy and pasted the item description from this one to the grey market version when they got a shipment in, and didn’t notice to change the warranty part. As I said, they did change the title to point out both that it IS grey market and that it CANNOT be used with the Nikon USA rebates. When you posted it in the previous thread, neither of these were noted in the title; it just didn’t say USA.

        • exactly, I checked before publishing it and it did not say grey mark but it did say USA warranty at the bottom of the page that’s why I posted it online, I updated the post

          • Global

            Anyway — D700: $2,200.

            There you go. Just as good as USA.
            And USA only has 1 year warranty anyway (for camera bodies, not lenses), therefore, its perfectly acceptable.

          • Seems strange for sure. I wonder whether Adorama just made themselves liable for any potential out of warranty repairs, replacements, etc, or whether Nikon is somehow behind this unloading stock to make way for something niiiiice.

            Unsurprisingly, I’m hoping for the latter.

  • oh the what ifs in this world

  • Tonny

    warranty policy is another suck policy from Nikon. Disappointing!!!!

    If I live abroad for 1 year or 2 then go back I have to sell my gear and buy new one.

    Pay more or wait longer, I can accept, but not repair it is unacceptable.

    Standardization please !!!

    • Eric Pepin

      actually no, if you buy the gear when your abroad and can prove it any nikon service centre will fix it from US, Canada to god knows where. If i go on a year long hiking trip to brazil and buy a D700 there, then come back to north america with my receipt, Nikon will still allow me to send my camera for repair.

      So please stop feeding the trolls with ignorance, and know before you speak.

      • Tonny

        what do you mean by this, I only show receipt then they will repair my gear which I bought from Brazil. Not a chance.

        They don’t even care you go for hiking in Brazil for 2 years. How do you prove and what are the rules for them to accept or reject camera bought outside US. If I go for traveling in Malaysia for 2 weeks, buy D300s there and come back. One year later can I send them to repair in US.

        • zoetmb

          Actually, he’s right. Nikon USA will repair equipment purchased and delivered overseas by an authorized Nikon dealer as long as you have a receipt showing the retailer and the fact that you took delivery in the store or that it was shipped to a foreign address in the same country as the dealer.

          But I think they follow the US warranty rules, which means one year, even if Nikon offered two years in the country of origin (but I’m guessing about that.)

  • Scurvy hesh

    Sweet deal on the d700. I might just buy one

  • Eric Calabros
    • thanks, I’ve seen this and I will have a patent update in the next few days

  • Leave everything aside.

    Come up with better DSLR, D700 with fullHD, Dual Card. WiFi.

  • Hate on Adobe for they are making conventional user going mad of heavily complicated workflow. Why are we forced to learn how to work in PS? Editing process must be simply, user-friendly, not an nerdy brain exigent. I absolutely agree with Ron Adair here: philosophy “There’s just nothing better, so we are ok” is bullshit, because every monopoly leads to stagnation. People of Adobe are tending to create complicated apps, which are like the sheer labyrinth. The situation is critical when in Lightroom 3 the simpliest process of exporting photos from camera turned to the wandering into mist in the deep old forest. Adobe really needs some serious rivals for losing their Toyota-like everythingness. Please, third-party companies, show ’em crazy!

    • Global

      You guys are engaging in pure slander. Its not even close to a monopoly for one thing. And second, if you have entirely discounted an entire decade of innovation that has almost single-handed moved the industry forward. And third, if you want simple, straight forward versions at extremely cheap prices:

      Adobe Elements – $100~!!
      Adobe Lightroom – $200~!!

      I don’t know what kind of business you engage it, but anyone who sells something for free is selling crap. The fact that Adobe keeps getting better and better and that it has actually begun to become THE standard is not indicative of a monopoly — in fact it is purely in the FACE of raw competition, often free, often developed by powerful global corporations like Microsoft and Apple — and simply illustrates the extreme value of Adobe’s product.

      Wow, I am surprised at the crowd today. I bet they sell their photographs for $5.00 each including a frame and build websites for free as long as they can include links to their websites and shoot weddings for $50 bucks or a steak dinner.

      Adobe has done an exceptionally good job. Microsoft, Apple, Corel, open-source, and others have tried to come close. You are free to buy their crap. And since your art is made in your studio. Don’t even pretend its a monopoly. Its pure slander. You don’t value the latest suite, buy Elements or Lightroom or Corel Paint/er or Microsoft Expression or Apple Aperture or Gimps… or a used version of Photoshop from someone who has the CD but bought a newer version!

      • Religion is the opium for the masses. You adore your grateful god Adobe and miss that PS and LR are just tools which must be simple, powerful and ergonomical. Well, I agree with the point that with certain knowledge and experience one can create great pictures but I disagree with all the points which lead me to get irritated by how the tool works.

        I am not crazy with absolutely new versions of entire software. But let me argue that the old and obsolete Corel Draw X3 is much more user-friendly than Illustrators are. I worked for ages with curvative-models for cutting process on plot and mill lathe and having no plans to move forvard to the newest issues of CDR nor the any issue of ‘lustre’. That’s because workflow is so simple that I can easily draw the most complicated ornaments or drafts. Just by one tool which is epitome of powerful — free hand. Why Illustrator have no anything like that? Why when client brings me a model wrote in Adobe I am in rush to join all the nodes of it? The mill can not cut when the curve is disunite. Plotter is going to waste meters of films by the same case. This example shows how ‘the best software product among everything in this Universe’ works in the special tasks.

        Yes, PS, LR and IL are great for polygraphy, yes you can get the best of colors and precision. Yes, I agree that Corel Photopaint and Draw are bad when it goes to poly, but I find compromise solution that is so-so in terms of comfort, but doesn’t throws me mad when I working. I just draw everything in CDR, saving in EPS-format and doing all color work in Adobe products. But i really want Adobe’s color workflow to be much-much simplier.

        Now, let’s return to photography software. LR’s workflow is very complex. It designed like a labyrinth which prevents me from surfing on hard disc drive. Why Adobe forces me to import images, when I need to open them directly from the folder? Why Adobe forces me to use Bridge+ACR, when I can much softly operate with my files in Total Commander? It’s just small complain among many others which are not interesting for reading here, in Nikonrumors. At the end of all, I voted with my pocket: I use native Capture NX. It is slow, buggy, but lets me prevented from using PS.

        • Lightroom

          “LR’s workflow is very complex. It designed like a labyrinth which prevents me from surfing on hard disc drive. Why Adobe forces me to import images, when I need to open them directly from the folder?”

          I have NEVER had any of these problems–it has never forced imports. adobe asks if you would llike to import images from input device but you have the option click on the no button if you don’t wish to do this.

          Lightroom 3 is very fast.

      • Slow Gin has many valid points. Just because a tool as more, that does not make it better. Case in point: MS Word.

        “Wow, I am surprised at the crowd today. I bet they sell their photographs for $5.00 each including a frame and build websites for free as long as they can include links to their websites and shoot weddings for $50 bucks or a steak dinner.”

        There may be some that behave as you rudely accuse, no doubt some that even that visit this very site. I support my family with photography and web development/design. My model is nowhere near where you claim, nor is my work. Your personal insults just come off silly and frantic.

        I don’t mind paying even thousands of dollars for a suite of great apps. But companies today are sick with a virus (as they long have had) that deludes them into thinking the only way to keep themselves relevant and great is gorging their apps or products on new features. This is not a long-term sustainable model, and will eventually break the app for the sheer weight of it. I didn’t say Adobe should stop adding new features. I clearly stated that their refocus should be to fix existing problems, for which there are MANY, then to address new needs as they come. Sounds pretty logical to me, and I’d be much happier to pay their price if they took the level of pride in their work they were renown for in their earlier years.

        @Slow Gin:

        “LR’s workflow is very complex. It designed like a labyrinth which prevents me from surfing on hard disc drive. Why Adobe forces me to import images, when I need to open them directly from the folder? Why Adobe forces me to use Bridge+ACR, when I can much softly operate with my files in Total Commander?”

        Amen. I don’t WANT to import my images in your freaking library. I don’t want to import my images AT ALL. I want to do the same thing I’ve done in Bridge, ACR, PS, or any other editing app since the dawn of computer software. I will organize, edit, and offload my files the way I like, and YOU will take commands and do just as I asked. Nothing more, nothing less.

        • -1


        • Adobe

          this only occurs when you plug a device (Camera) into the computer while adobe is running–how is this a big problem?

          • The only way I have ever gotten images into Lightroom for editing is through the Import flow. If there is a way to browse, edit, and save files IN PLACE on your hard drive WITHOUT having to go through the Import flow (not the Library/Catalog feature-that is disabled), then it is not implemented elegantly or straightforwardly.

            And I’ll challenge the idea that Lightroom is not a resource hog. I have a MacBook Pro 2.66 Core i7 with plenty of ram, and a 640gb partitioned internal 7200rpm hd. If this gets choked up when LR is the only app open, then something is wrong. Case in point, why can ACR open up a folder of 300-400 14-bit files in about 1 minute, then allow me to preview/edit ALL of those immediately? And why can LR only do that after dozens of minutes of processing, if not longer? It seems like a huge resource cost for some pretty veneer. Same story since LR 1. To be fair, Aperture isn’t any better. And we all know Nikons software IS crap. At the end of the day, I wish the masses cared more about solid, simple apps as opposed to flashy, pretty (and subsequently slow) apps.

            • adobe

              I am using an AMD x4 3.4 w/ 6 gb ram and a velociraptor main hard drive–LR3 runs quick and smooth for me.
              I put my files in a specific folder and show the program where they are–i do not need to “import” files to another location; all information stays in the folders I set up manually.

            • adobe

              i think your problem is the 7200 HD.
              You would not believe what a SSD hard drive would do for your mac book pro’s speed.

            • For all the Catalog and Import deniers: if there is not a required import function—what, then, would you call a dialog that uses the word “Import” or “Catalog” no less than 5 times? I mean, did I miss something in my vocabulary class?


            • @adobe: that’s quite my point. Why should I need an SSD drive to get good performance when I have a machine that can move mountains? I don’t need an expensive SSD drive when I use ACR. ACR does the same thing as Lightroom. So what gives? I don’t want a supercomputer to edit my flipping images.

            • Adobe

              Your HD speed is a weak link on your computer. Fixing the weak link is not the same as needing a super computer and it’s not that expensive.
              It’s like someone complaining that their decent car doesn’t handle well because they decided to put crap tires on it.

            • Adobe

              I have a friend who uses an older Mac pro and he doesn’t have any troubles with cs4???

            • This is how Adobe doing its business.

              ‘If you are tired and sick of speed, go and buy a new computer!’

              I have no problems to understand that everything is evolving, everything is growing and we need to go with the time one-by-one. But doing something with no backwards compatibility is a dead thing. I was fucked up once during the installation of piece of software that told me the computer has no enough RAM for further operations.

              Such business makes a conventional user angry. I have pity on man from Leicarumors which is pissed off about Leica killed its R system. Someone is going to invest alot of bloody taken money and this is a totally brain-crushing disappointment to knew one day that your gear is to become an obsolete garbage just by somebody’s unfair decision.

              Nikon goes the same way with its lens system. Take off aperture ring, scratch DOF and IR marks, do a lens which does not stop at infinity and landscape, night and infrared shooters must go to Zeiss which has everything of this but has no autofocus and is ever pricey. I tell you this as a conventional user, as a investor to Nikon system, not a technical geek or something. Just lemme ask a question: why this way?

            • And last. People, sorry for my bad English. I am not English-speaking, so there are mistakes in every sentence. Sorry.

            • Brad

              Running CS5 and Lightroom 3 on a self build i7 machine plus music player, Firefox and a Virtual Machine at the same time and it doesn’t slow down … Maybe there’s something wrong with your OS or computer.

            • Adobe

              My other programs use more requirements than adobe does and I keep my computer updated to handle them so thats why I don’t consider adobe to be a problem or a resource hog.

            • Steve

              Is your Apple Computer slow? Here’s the solution.

            • I have a blah blah blah running blah blah blah that can do blah blah at the same time as blah.

              Time for some ABCs:

              A) Performance is AWESOME on my machine. That’s not the problem. Crappy, bloated, buggy software IS.

              B) You guys rebut how great LR is. You fail to address my logical proof which states that if I can edit images fine in one Adobe app, and cannot in another—made by the same software firm, and made do do the EXACT same thing, then the problem is not my poor little top of the line Mac.

              C) Are you really arguing that Adobe apps haven’t suffered in ANY way from feature creep or scope creep?

              This argument just seems silly.

              P.S. What happened to the arguments about import? Oh, suddenly they are vapor. Got it.

            • adobe

              #1 I already made my “argument” about importing; would you prefer that I repeat myself?

              #2 Your computer is obviously not awesome–my old computer that I rarely use anymore sounds like it can run LR better than your lap top. I noticed you did not mention what kind of video card you have; did you know that also effects performance. Since you have a laptop i can’t imagine it is any good. Stop blaming the programs.

              #3 it sounds like you don’t believe in upgrading or using better programs; i believe that ended the “argument” on my side.

            • Linus

              Hey Ron, your insecurities really crack me up.
              It’s obvious you don’t know the ABCs of Computer Hardware, it’s you against a couple of other users here on this board and only you have problems with Performance. So the logical conclusion is you are maxing out your Hardware and the other guys don’t. Or your “top of the line” hardware or OS isn’t that great. Just because it cost a ton of money and came in pretty packaging doesn’t make it good (yes I said it, rage all you want). Instead of flaming people on this board and blaming Adobe for everything why don’t you look into your problem and try fixing it.

              – Have you tried monitoring your system?
              – How much ram do you have, does it fill up fast?
              – Is swap/pagefile being used? (this will kill performance)
              – and what video card do you use? The new Adobe products all support GPUs because they are so much more efficient than the CPU for this kind of work

              Adobes products are everything put perfect I agree on that but you are experiencing problems others don’t so it’s not a general problem but a local one. There is no “it just runs” when using computers, such a thing only exists in commercials.

              Good Day

          • richard
            • AAAAAhahahahahahahahahahahahahahah!!!!! haaaaaaaaahahahahahahahahahahahhahaahhaha…….AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAhahahahahahhahahahahahhahahahahahahahahaha. HEeaaaaaaaaaaaawwwwwwwwawhahahahahahahahahahahahhaha. AAAAAAAhahahahahha. That’s WICKED FUNNY!!!!! ahahahahahahahah!

    • ZoetMB

      >>Why are we forced to learn how to work in PS?

      Because that’s how applications for professionals work. It’s not that it’s perfect and it’s not that there can’t be improvements to the UI, but professional applications are complex and comprehensive in order to accomplish all that they need to accomplish. If you don’t want that level of complexity, you can either use just the “automatic” functions of the application or you can use something that’s not designed for professionals, like Adobe Elements or Apple iPhoto or something of the like.

      I would maintain that as complex as some of these apps are, they’re still far less complex than mixing your own chemicals, working in a darkroom, choosing appropriate papers and using airbrushes, if you knew what you were doing.

      It’s the same with video editing. Apple has three levels of video editing apps, each with increasing levels of complexity, comprehensiveness and training needed: iMovie, Final Cut Express and Final Cut Studio. Avid has Media Composer for pros and Pinnacle for home editing.

      And for professionals, there are certain advantages to having these applications be both expensive and complex: it distinguishes professionals from amateurs. The average amateur will not own Photoshop and even if they do, they won’t necessarily know how to properly use it, especially when it comes to the more esoteric functions. That differentiation helps to keep pros in business because they can achieve things in Photoshop that amateurs can’t.

      And while it’s time consuming, there are some great training materials out there for these apps.

      • I have no real problem with complexity as you define it. What I take issue with is the UI/UX monstrosity which many apps have or will become. You can have complexity blended with elegance. Too many companies focus on features which only benefit a very small fraction of the market in order to appeal to a broader audience. All the while, they tarnish their core product and user group. This is abhorrent in any market, and any product, in my opinion. The user should never be forgotten.

        • +1, Ron. Have the same thought.

        • RON! Dont sully the troll zone with reasoned arguments! No matter how nuanced and concise you might be, you do not trump the “SONY IS GREAT NIKON SUK” parade.

          • zoetmb

            In no way can any reasonable person think my comments above were trolling. And it doesn’t even mention Sony.

            • zoetmb-

              For the record, I do not consider your comments trollish. Your tone was clearly logical and calm. I interpreted Scurvy’s comments as aimed at the general tone here, of which I’m sure I’ve played a significant part.

              As for the distinction that pros get from knowing more because they’re paying more for software, equipment, etc—that line is dwindling fast with the democratization of technology. In photography (in particular) I think we are seeing—and will continue to see—an interesting trend from this major shift in tech.

              First, as prices drop dramatically, barriers of entry all but disappear making it possible for the masses to flood the market bearing the title of “photographer”.

              Second, as demand pales in front of supply, cost threshold drops dramatically. Meanwhile, last year’s tricks are this years Photoshop action or online tut. Competition is fierce, and there is an infusion of vision, ideas, and techniques from which the industry was suffering a drought for many years/decades.

              Third, many pros retire early, change focus, or change careers entirely.

              Fourth, “weekend warriors” burn out after a few years once they realize that you really CAN’T shoot a high-quality wedding for $800 and be profitable, or make up in volume what you’re losing for each and every portrait sessions you take. Meanwhile, the allure of cheap will wear off for many customers; service, quality, and competency will again be the predominant factors for choosing a photographer. The market experiences another exodus, but this time it is many of the amateurs and semi-pros that want out.

              Fifth, pros are now better, stronger, smarter, and more versatile. The market is again ready to enable growth and reward true service-focused individuals who are committed to the long haul of the business of photography.

              The real key, I believe, to making it through the slump of market saturation is to have the penetrating desire to do the work, and the willingness to stay sharp and recognize where you can stand apart in your offerings.

              Nowadays if a photographer thinks that paying thousands of dollars for software sets them apart, they’re probably not going to make it.

  • ericnl

    the D700 has been €1,699.00 at my local shop for a while now (that’s $2,287.62).
    but that’s the price including 19% VAT, without the VAT it’s: €1,427.73 (that’s $1,922.72)
    I’m guessing Adorama’s $2,199.95 price doesn’t include state taxes yet?

    the only downside is that it’s been out of stock for a while now…

  • asdasd

    why, use Capture One, it have better RAW converter then NX2 is.

    • Kbjr

      I love Capture 1, except their high ISO noise reduction sucks. They must feel that everyone uses a digital back in studio with low ISO.

  • Phil

    @Global: It’s not slander, it’s just their opinion. Conjecture perhaps, but slander…no. No one’s accusing Adobe of anything illegal, they’re just not happy with the direction of product development.

  • D700guy

    …and then they quickly turned around and created an inferior version of PS called CaptureNX

    • BornOptimist

      CaptureNX is not made by Nikon, but Nik Software.
      The last version Nikon made was Capture 4.4.2

      • zoetmb

        Nik is owned by Nikon, no?

  • Shutup RonAdair

    Shutup Ron, get with the times

    • Go Go Ron

      Ron injected valid and useful comments than yours!

  • Pat

    Where’s the story on the F3 used for Indiana Jones?

  • dave

    Wow, this Photoshop “debate” has degraded beyond the depths of the “FX vs DX” debate.

    For me, I imagine if Nikon had bought the rights to PS, then PS would have morphed into Capture NX2.

    One of the reasons for the success of PS is because Adobe marketed it heavily. For a while in the ’90s, almost every printer, flatbed scanner, CD-ROM/R/RW, and even some monitors came bundled with Photoshop SE. Nikon never would have put that kind of marketing muscle behind it and Photoshop would have been relegated to the proprietary software that came bundled with their film scanner.

    In short, if Nikon had purchased the rights to Photoshop, then at best , today we’d be arguing about a buggy, ill-supported, slow, feature-barren Nikon Photoshop NX2, and a bloated, expensive, but fast Adobe line of PhotoPhoo products including PhotoPhoo CS5, PhotoPhoo Elements and PhotoPhoo Lightroom.

    As someone who has used Nikon Capture NX2 since it was first available and Capture NX before that, I can say that Lightroom 3 was a godsend. Image changes are instantaneous, and it hasn’t crashed on me once yet. With NX2, any change takes 2 to 3 minutes and at least one crash a session is the norm. And there are some images where I can load it, but making any change crashes NX2. Nikon ought to be ashamed of themselves. If NX3 does come out at some point, I will NOT be buying it.

    • Agree

      +1 “Lightroom 3 is a godsend”
      Nik sofware plug-ins are also awesome

      • ShaoLynx

        I second that, whole-heartedly!
        I’ve used LR3, since the beta1 came out, and I am very happy with it.
        I’ve used it a ton, for many projects.
        I recently bought the Nik SW suite for LR3, and I couldn’t be happier with the combination.
        So, in my oppinion, there’s nothing one could say about it that would make me like it less.

  • fordstr

    I tried LR 3 and have to agree with Ron. The business of importing and completely reworking workflow and my filing system just to meet Adobe’s arcane standards for incredibly slow editing was a joke. If they sold ACR (which is damn good) separately, I would use GIMP for everything else.

    • +1 for GIMP
      (besides it’s your only realistic option if you follow the LAMP model in your workspace)

    • I’ve never used GIMP, but I would pay for ACR as a separate app today. In fact, given the choice between ACR and LR side by side for the same price, I’d pick ACR hands down, and never look back. And that’s ON TOP of owning a copy of PS. I just want a light, fast, solid RAW processing app. With that criteria in mind, nothing comes close to ACR.

  • Loyola


    With a so clear vision of the need of the market you Whois septum a company ASAP and show to Adobe as Musharraf they are wrong in their strategy.

    customer are sauront for a révolution, you should be the liberator of this incredibel quantity of slave exploited by Adobe.

    L’été do it rugby now, with a so smart vision it will be easy to rais e the fund and to make a quick fortune.

    • Rob

      Sil vous plait. And a camera and lens company too. Ergos to be vetted by Ron, Thom and Ken.

  • If they say the camera is gray market the Nikon USA warranty is a mistake, but they are typically sloppy about things like that.

  • Mock Kenwell

    Gray market products are perfectly fine—it’s the same thing as a USA model. The only difference is a few measly months of coverage. Honestly, for what Nikon charges and the emphasis they place on quality, it’s shameful they only cover their items for a year. I’m continually amazed at all these electronics products that are supposed to be such pinnacles of technology, yet their manufacturers can’t be bothered to stand behind them for more than 12 pathetic months.

    • +1 my Cam is Gray market and believe it or not ITS THE SAME CAMERA. You can even get Nikon USA to repair it. No that I ever needed it. I’m on 650k+++ actuations with my D2Hs’s original shutter

  • Jk

    There are a bunch of now it alls here.

    If you all have the answer then make your own and sell it. If not then accept the fact that everyones needs are different.

    I wonder how any company survives without all your answers.

    Perhaps someday I will be as qualified.

    • know

      i couln’t help but correct your spelling. you have: now it alls–should be know it alls

      • Mock Kenwell

        Technically, it should be know-it-alls.

      • proper spelling was deemed an anachronism by the invention called interent.

        • Discontinued

          satz ride!

  • KC

    I love my d700 + 16-35 combo.

  • PanosP

    Thank god Nikon didn’t buy Photoshop, because with the rate that they release new products, Photoshop would still be in version 3.1.0

  • Anonymous

    Nikon lately sucks. Zero innovation! Except big fu** mouth a-hole Nikon executives trying to sell the same crap 12MP and coolpix shit. Really disappointed. I think we need to send the blue pill to these impotent Nikon execs. Or perhaps just hope that sony will finish faster the work and throw a bone for the asshole Nikon execs.

    Now that was a good healthy rant 🙂

    • No that was blather. Zero innovation? Really? Have you not experienced the awesomeness of CLS? Nikons peerless auto-focusing? The amazing primes that are out? The ruggedness and durability to last a lifetime? The amazing ultra wides? The joy of reverse compatibility? So Sony is the big innovator then? Have you actually handled the new Sony camereas? They are like D40s with pelicle mirrors. You ok ese? Need to put some Tussin on it? Do you not see that new cameras are going to drop this year? Do you not understand product cycles? Do you not take good pictures with your existing gear? Probably not..

      • Anonymous

        Tell me what really new came out from Nikon during the last 3 yrs. The only good thing was the D3/D300 and the rest is just iterations. But hey, the D3 technology is alredy 4yrs old … perhaps it is still new in technology eh?

        • They really didnt have to update. they have been ahead of the game before that. Again the product cycle is right about to change so quityabitchin’ So whats new??? the D7000 comes to mind (believe it or not it is an amazing little camera) as well as the all the new lenses the launched, the new flashes but they really didnt even need to do that. Nikons Flash System is light years ahead of anyone else.

          I guess the real question is, what is innovation? updating already great products? Or adding goofy features like light robbing pelicle mirrors or getting ahead of yourself with dense pixel arrays and poor imaging engines?

          • Anonymous

            No, but at least matching the competition. Go and read what dpreview wrote about the D3/D300 release… back in 2007 they were saying that 12MP may sound a bit conservative. Four fu**n years passed by and Nikon is still at 12MP in the FX line. (D3x has a sony sensor and I doubt it Nikon could have produced anything beyond 12MP).

            Yeah, lenses. What innovation do you see there? I can’t see anything special except they make them cheaper to manufacture and guess what they charge the same or more.

            Pelicle mirrors from Sony? Well, at least they try something. Nikon just released basically nothing in the DSLR department. The D7000 again comes with a sony sensor. Besides, you can record better quality HD with a pocketcam than with the mighty D3s. Ok, Nikon is a king of fu***n’ innovation, yes they nailed the price of the D3x and dudes like you think only that’s right.

            So where is the big surprise the asshole impotent Nikon execs have been barking about for the last couple of years. They should f***n shut up and deliver first! Look, at least sony has the guts to show prototypes. Nikon has nothing! I said nothing otherwise we would have seen something or at least we would have heard rumors.

            Now let me bet with you! Nikon will release a shitty D5000 replacement in March and after we can fu*** dream for another 6-8 months until sony gives a damn sensor to that impotent Nikon team. You will see.

            • Anonymous

              Some will undoubtedly question Nikon for ‘only’ delivering twelve megapixels on their first full frame digital SLR….


              Now this was right after the D3 release. So what on earth is Nikon doing???

              Then again the D3s
              Conclusion: ■Doesn’t answer the main criticism of the D3 – 12MP was considered a fairly low resolution in 2007…


              Nikon only serves either the blind in middle of the dark night or the super rich (thanks for the 24MP sony sensor). In between Nikon sends the message that says, “I promise I do something about this but just buy my lenses … but I in reality i don’t give a damn about you asshole customers!”

  • JM

    Nothing beats free. I use THE GIMP. It’s almost as feature-laden as photoshop, almost as complicated but none of the price. I sold over $2,500 of large scale prints edited with this free software.

    • +1
      I prefer to use GIMP too. Although there might be little bugs creeping up now and again, it’s as good 😀

  • DT

    Adobe had higher net income in 2010 than nikon.

    On the other hand who know how it would come out?

  • Bruce

    Whilst I’m no cheer leader for NX2 I’m reasonably confident that if Nikon had picked up PS it would not be the bloated, slow, resource intensive, over-priced bundle of tools that it is today.

    Adobe’s customer service is truly horrible. I have only one contact with Nikon on NX2 and that was resolved very efficiently.

    I’m not a big fan of photo-based art being passed off as photography so I’m by no means a PS power user.

    +1 for the GIMP in my book too.

  • Brooke

    I just called Adorama and they said they had a few left of the USA warranty Nikon D700’s for $2199.95. So I bought one. Hope it’s not anything sketchy. They said they took it off the site because they had so few left.

  • Bah, NX2 is better than any Adobe product anyway…

  • Back to top