Groundbreaking resolution that proves, beyond a doubt, that we can achieve medium format results with DSLR features.
sorinx: Is this legal? it is a kind of monopoly. It is like for example Ford refuses to make spare parts available to everybody.
What if M$ refuses to sell Windows to all PC manufacturers?
Not valid period. You have already bought their products. Nikon's decision affects your past purchases regardless of what you do in the future.
I've got a Nikon authorized service center in this area and it worked on a gray market Nikon lens for me a number of years ago. If they can still buy Nikon parts wouldn't they still be able to repair gray market equipment? Of course maybe they shouldn't have been working on it in the first place. Does anyone know?
Another take on this is maybe Nikon can't keep up with the parts demand so they have decided to favor authorized service centers. My 24-70 has been at Melville since February 2nd awaiting parts. That's 5 1/2 weeks of dead time with no end in sight.
Solarcoaster: I'm pretty sure Adobe could just make more money by requiring a dongle or "ignition key" to use its software, preventing piracy, rather than bilking people who are essentially donating them money for software they could pirate for free if they wanted.
I think that Adobe's new policy is bound to cost them customers. When you don't give previous customers some type of break when they are trying to upgrade the software product they bought from you previously, I think that you are asking for trouble; particulary given the high cost of CS5 and LR3. I personally hope that they get a lot of competition in response to this move and it ends up costing them. They may be the big dog now but ask Kodak how that works!
choochoo22: Could someone who would actually consider buying one please help me understand why a professional photographer would put up with cameras the size and weight of a D4? Is it really just "mine is bigger than yours"? Unless you are using them to club your way through crowds it can't possibly be an advantage to wield a 4lb (guessing) camera the size of a shoebox. There's nothing in there that isn't in a D5100, just a slightly bigger sensor and more computing power. I would think Nikon, or any competent camera company, could build something like this half this size if the market demanded it. So why aren't people demanding it?
Back in the 70's the OM-1 showed the world an SLR didn't need to be so big and heavy and in a few years all the companies were making smaller models. It seems way past time for a similar revolution in DSLRs.
They might be able to provide a body that is a little lighter and more compact but once you include the battery grip, state of the art electronics to support professional features and a FF sensor, large viewfinder and rear LCD, and encase it in a metal body, you are bound to have a size and weight difference vis-a-vie the D5100.
It was a tough choice to move from NX2 to Adobe products. The cost was one of the issues and if I hadn't had upgrade privileges from a copy of elements that was on my computer, I wouldn't have upgraded at all. I initially started with CS4 and was disappointed with it. I upgraded to CS5 and Lightroom after trying them out and discovering the improvements. I like the Adobe editing tools and will likely continue with my upgrades now that I have them BUT Kelby hit the nail on the head. Any approach that doesn't give the users with older versions some credit for their previous purchases is a pretty strong incentive to never go down the Adobe photoshop road.