Amnon G: Before the onslaught on Nikon begins...It is possible this is an oversight (i.e. testing at Nikon happens only with 1st party batteries).Claiming evil with no proof is just childish. It's unfortunate for sure, but hopefully will get resolved with another update shortly.I'm relating to reactions I've seen on different sites - I think that the step function reaction is a bit childish and assuming people don't know what they're doing (even though the person making the bold name calling doesn't have even a fraction of the data to make such claims) is irrelevant.Nikon's actions in the next few months will be the determining factor whether this was an oversight in good faith or really a silly attempt at making more money.
None of the above. It's not an oversight. The D600 was an oversight. Nikon is not "evil". Well, maybe Nikon USA, but they're the exception. And it's not a silly attempt to make money, it's smart because they get a great markup on batteries.
G K: You won't hear a single word out of Nikon on this for sure.
ScottnLaguna: Smart business practice. No more cheap Chinese batteries causing warranty issues. Fine with me.
Now let's suppose this is true. And the only battery that will work is "made" by Nikon (quite possibly in the same factory that makes the no-name batteries). Now that Nikon batteries are the only ones that will work, what do you suppose Nikon will do with their price?
Ben Herrmann: Yup - I discovered this almost immediately with my P7700 and found that after doing this 1.3 firmware update, my superb 3rd party Wasabi batteries no longer functioned.
But alas - I still had a copy of the previous version 1.2 firmware and I updated my camera back to version 1.2 - now all is well and I will not touch 1.3 again. It was simple to do. I'm really PO'd at Nikon for pulling this stunt. And the new P7800 and I take it the D5300 will not be able to use 3rd party batteries - bummer.
Firmware is like software. Older is usually better and always less trouble.
James JC: I don’t know if it was intentional or an oversight nor do I care.Why should Nikon be responsible for supporting knock off products? Third party manufacturers should consider themselves lucky they are not being sued. Just ask Polaroid…
Far from being responsible for knock off products, I have no doubt Nikon will happily add cheap batteries to their list of why it's "not under warranty." Looked at that way, off brand batteries could be a real money saver for Nikon.
The irony is that Nikon isn't a battery manufacturer so Nikon batteries are third party batteries. It would be interesting and pretty easy for DPR to get a bunch of off-brand batteries and see if there's really a difference and if one brand is better than another.
The other question is, at what point do users decide the "OEM" price is too high and Nikon loses the sale, even if their battery is better. You could probably sell a $125 battery to a D800 owner but a guy with Coolpix probably figures $20 is enough.
Absolutic: Thank you for posting samples from beautiful and picturesque London (which I loved dpreview samples before) and not completely uninspiring Seattle pictures. Seattle pictures got old pretty quickly. Can you guys go back to do all the samples in London and not in Seattle?
I saw the mountain once. Always wondered why so many computer millionaires chose Seattle and not, say, Hawaii.
Like (almost) all Fuji lenses it's obviously excellent. But if I was that excited about a 35mm lens to spend this much, I'd just get the X100. I don't dispute that 35mm is a great general purpose focal length but for portraits and out of focus backgrounds? To each his own.
CameraLabTester: No wonder teenagers and young professionals will never buy Time Magazine.
These are the 10 reasons.
There was a time when teenagers would put down their copy of Penthouse or Cosmo and run to the newsstand as soon as the new Time magazine appeared. No more!
Another year of suffering and death. Except for the seal that got away from the shark. Still, it's Time magazine, not National Geographic. It does make you realize that many of the world's people don't have the luxury of worrying if 6 more megapixels would really make a difference.
What I don't get from these comments is why this was iconic when Robert Capa did it, or Eddie Adams, but nowadays it's just in poor taste.
Joe Ogiba: It's no different than posting the top ten ice cream flavors.
Edmond Leung: Good !Victory in anti-counterfeiting.It prevents the fake products spread out to the whole world.An excellent decision from the court.
This has nothing to do with counterfeiting which is serious (and illegal). The concept here is that the appearance of the Nikon was so unique, it was proprietary. Imagine arguing that people went to buy a genuine Nikon and got a Sakar Polaroid by accident. Whoops! Well, this victory will put a stop to that.
Sadly, real counterfeiting is all over the place. Used to be only things perceived as overpriced, like OEM batteries & chargers (which Canon/Nikon don't make themselves, anyway), but now even even lens caps are faked, right down to the packaging.
aandegoons: A new low... DPR Anti Nikon trolls rooting for the thief.
Sakar is actually using the molds from the Nikon 1 system.
Thom has no way of knowing, and that's not what he said. He speculated is that it the two cameras might have been made from the same mold (obviously not by Nikon, or they should sue themselves).
Then, the real revelation: In China, everybody copies everything. Wow. The lawsuits that appear reasonable pertain to technology, trademarks and counterfeiting. If Sakar wrote Nikon on the camera, that would be a serious attempt to fool people.
It's only a matter of time before Canon cracks down on those drinking cups that look like L lenses.
Here's a thought. Instead of worrying about super-brand conscious Nikon customers accidentally buying a "Polaroid", perhaps Nikon could turn their lawyers loose on copies that really do create confusion, like counterfeit Nikon batteries.
jaygeephoto: Considering what Polaroid did to it's retiree's (went bankrupt and stole their pensions - like Enron) I wouldn't buy a toilet brush with their name on it.
You don't have to bet; it isn't the same company.
ET2: The Nikon lawsuit reminds me of Apple's "rectangle with rounded corners" crap.
The cameras (functionally, sensor, software, lenses, etc) have nothing in common.
Since there's no dispute that the two cameras have different features, I wonder if the judge required Nikon to document that large numbers of consumers bought the Polaroid, mistaking it for the Nikon.
Nikon may sometimes be slow developing new lenses or filling backorders but when it comes to suing they are up there with Apple & Samsung. I do see the similarity in these inspired designs but I don't see how consumers might confuse one with the other.
Frank_BR: Nano coating? Oh, no, another manufacturer who tries to tell other version of the same old fairy tale about lens coating!
It all started in the '60s when Asahi Pentax created a hype with SMC (Super Multi-Coating). Since then, the world has had to hear all this blah blah blah about the magical qualities of the various types of coating used in photographic lenses.
Some acronyms created since then by the fertile imagination of the lens manufacturers:SMC PentaxEBC: FujiT*: ZeissMC: Pentacon, CZJ, TokinaSSC: CanonC: NikonN: NikonSHMC: HoyaUMC: SamyangVMC: Vivitar
When Asahi started "multicoating" all Pentax lenses, it caught Nikon off guard. For a year and half, they ran ads saying "Nikon multicoats its lenses too--but only those that really need and benefit from the extra coatings." I wonder how many Nikon, Canon lenses are single coated these days....
rsf3127: 580g! Better have an outstanding IQ and negligible distortion.
I wouldn't bet on negligible distortion.