A Photo Of The New Nikon???

Started Jan 11, 2010 | Discussions
Thom Hogan Forum Pro • Posts: 13,659
Re: My Not-So-Elementary Deductions, Mr Watson.

Hans Giersberg wrote:

Got to say, I'm a little disappointed in the sleuthing abilities of this forum ; )

I haven't read the other responses to your post, but the clues to me are:

Now we're getting somewhere ;~)

Bob Krist is a Nikon shooter

Sounds like a good clue.

And since Bob mentioned the gear he was using is proprietary, we can assume it's new stuff,

Sounds like a good clue.

Because Bob is a travel photographer, he needs to travel light.

Okay, but don't necessarily take this tooooo far. Remember, Nikon doesn't make equipment to pro feature requests ;~).

Since Bob chose D90's over D700-sized bodies,

There's a clue in there somewhere ;~)

That's a big viewfinder hump, suggesting FX. Hmmmm. Bob likes small bodies.

So what's he shooting with?

But note that I made a remark about a lens hood. Any clues there? Anyone actually do some lens hood comparisons? Can you figure out the size of the lens? What kind of lens do you need for aerial twilight? Don't give up now...

-- hide signature --

Thom Hogan
author, Complete Guides to Nikon bodies (21 and counting)
http://www.bythom.com

photonut2008 Veteran Member • Posts: 4,940
Re: My Not-So-Elementary Deductions, Mr Watson.

Thom Hogan wrote:

So what's he shooting with?

No doubt a "D900."

But note that I made a remark about a lens hood. Any clues there? Anyone actually do some lens hood comparisons?

It would fit a 28mm lens. It looks like an HB-28.

Can you figure out the size of the lens? What kind of lens do you need for aerial twilight? Don't give up now...

28/1.4

My guess is the lens will cost $1800.
--
Anthony Beach

OP Hans Giersberg Veteran Member • Posts: 3,943
Regarding The Hood

Thom Hogan wrote:

But note that I made a remark about a lens hood. Any clues there? Anyone actually do some lens hood comparisons? Can you figure out the size of the lens? What kind of lens do you need for aerial twilight? Don't give up now...

You know Nikon's lenses way better than me, but to me that looks an awful lot like the hood on my 17-35/2.8. And since a replacement for that lens was one of the rumored new lenses, I'll guess that's a 16-35/2.8 with VR (personally I'd rather have a 16-40/4 VR, but that's just me).

As for the body, I still think that looks like an FX-sized viewfinder, so I think it's an FX body he's using. And I still think Bob would lean toward a body size smaller than a D700. A pro-spec body, tho (or at least build quality equivalent to a D700). Of course, the body could be an existing body - a D700 perhaps - and the only new equipment in the image is a new lens. But speculating about new bodies is more fun, so I'll stick with my comments on the body.

-- hide signature --

I Reject Your Reality And Substitute My Own

Web Site - http://www.visual-journeys.com/

Daves602
Daves602 Veteran Member • Posts: 5,640
Is it a new super wide design that allows filters?

That hood is reminisent of my 14-24 zoom, but being reversed must be removable, but why improve on the best wide angle they have made? Maybe it is a fixed 16mm f/2. The body does have a D3x appearance, but he makes a statement of "that's huge", so my guess is that he is using a FX body that has a 32 meg sensor and has generous ISO capacity.
--
Warm regards, Dave.
Australian NPS member
D3, D300, glass 10.5 to 400mm, f/1.4-2.8.
http://www.dksphotography.com.au
http://www.sydneyuniversitycricket.com.au

 Daves602's gear list:Daves602's gear list
Nikon D3 Nikon D300S Nikon D810 Nikon AF DX Fisheye-Nikkor 10.5mm f/2.8G ED Nikon AF-S Nikkor 14-24mm f/2.8G ED +25 more
Daves602
Daves602 Veteran Member • Posts: 5,640
I think Thom gave it away.
-- hide signature --

Warm regards, Dave.
Australian NPS member
D3, D300, glass 10.5 to 400mm, f/1.4-2.8.
http://www.dksphotography.com.au
http://www.sydneyuniversitycricket.com.au

 Daves602's gear list:Daves602's gear list
Nikon D3 Nikon D300S Nikon D810 Nikon AF DX Fisheye-Nikkor 10.5mm f/2.8G ED Nikon AF-S Nikkor 14-24mm f/2.8G ED +25 more
OP Hans Giersberg Veteran Member • Posts: 3,943
Re: My Not-So-Elementary Deductions, Mr Watson.

photonut2008 wrote:

28/1.4

Bob Krist is a zoom kind of guy. I don't see him making heavy use of a 28/1.4, so I don't see Nikon hiring Bob to demonstrate such a lens. And I don't think you need anything that fast for a twilight shot. There's tons of light in that scene. An f/2.8 or an f/4 should do nicely, especially if it had VR. Just my two cents.
--
I Reject Your Reality And Substitute My Own

Web Site - http://www.visual-journeys.com/

Daves602
Daves602 Veteran Member • Posts: 5,640
Re: I think Thom gave it away.

A standard zoom with VR at last
--
Warm regards, Dave.
Australian NPS member
D3, D300, glass 10.5 to 400mm, f/1.4-2.8.
http://www.dksphotography.com.au
http://www.sydneyuniversitycricket.com.au

 Daves602's gear list:Daves602's gear list
Nikon D3 Nikon D300S Nikon D810 Nikon AF DX Fisheye-Nikkor 10.5mm f/2.8G ED Nikon AF-S Nikkor 14-24mm f/2.8G ED +25 more
photonut2008 Veteran Member • Posts: 4,940
Re: My Not-So-Elementary Deductions, Mr Watson.

Hans Giersberg wrote:

photonut2008 wrote:

28/1.4

Bob Krist is a zoom kind of guy. I don't see him making heavy use of a 28/1.4,

Well, how about light use, as in for long enough to be photographed with one?

so I don't see Nikon hiring Bob to demonstrate such a lens. And I don't think you need anything that fast for a twilight shot. There's tons of light in that scene. An f/2.8 or an f/4 should do nicely, especially if it had VR.

I simply don't see Nikon putting VR on a lens in this range, not at f/2.8 when the 14-24 and 24-70 f/2.8 zooms don't have it. I am also skeptical that Nikon will release a wide angle f/4 zoom before they release a standard or telephoto f/4 zoom, and I doubt they will release two or three f/4 zooms all at once.
--
Anthony Beach

Thoughts R Us
Thoughts R Us Senior Member • Posts: 2,793
Re: My Not-So-Elementary Deductions, Mr Watson.

Perhaps the successor to the D700...the D800/D900...whatever they call it...will actually have a smaller and lighter body than the D700.

The one complaint that many D700 owners have is the size/weight of the body; perhaps Nikon is going to stun the world with an 18MP FF body, with ISO at least as good as the D700, in a slightly smaller/lighter package...that would sell.

Rumle
Rumle Senior Member • Posts: 1,461
Re: My guess

Im not sure really... huge, I dont know. Dragons, Unicorns and muses are huge Vampires and Warewolfs are just critters u know...
--
http://www.rumleskafte.com

 Rumle's gear list:Rumle's gear list
Panasonic Lumix DMC-LX3 Fujifilm X70 Nikon D200 Nikon D700 Nikon D3S +18 more
Thoughts R Us
Thoughts R Us Senior Member • Posts: 2,793
Re: My Not-So-Elementary Deductions, Mr Watson.

As a followup, I would say that we know that the new camera will be FF, for that is why Canon has all of a sudden dropped the price on their 5dii.

minim3 Contributing Member • Posts: 958
Re: Regarding The Hood

Yeah deffnetly a wide lens, the lens hood is very similar to my 17.35...
--
My flickr: http://www.flickr.com/photos/_gman_/

thafuzz Regular Member • Posts: 204
Re: My Not-So-Elementary Deductions, Mr Watson.

Thom you must know something.

D900 high mega pixel FX with 28 1.4 wide prime maybe?

PhotoRecon Veteran Member • Posts: 4,032
He's Doing Everything I Wouldn't Do.

I don't know this Bob Krist guy. I'm not one to follow the Who's-Who world, but now that I go back and look at this image of him a second time, I think to myself, he's simply making a snap-shot; or, he's really not cut-out to be what the others here are making of him.

I don't know. And who am I to say? However:

1) he's not even supporting the lens; which, as he seems to be in a helicopter, is nothing short of critical.

2) He's positioning/shoving the lens up near the glass (or whatever the window material is made of); which, to any pilot or aircraft owner is a Super-Big NO-NO.

3) his body position is not at all at an optimal angle to the camera. I mean, really.
(strapped-in by the waist belt? Well, loosen it !)

4) I've yet to meet anyone who conducts professional work from the air by bringing along a non-used lens shade - let alone sticking it on the lens as that of an obstacle. Why not stick it in an auxilary bag, attached to either the photog or the machine? If to hide a not-yet-known Nikon logo or gold ring - why not black-tape it?

5) If he's a high-end VIP photog, why not utilize a gyroscopic stabilizer? Photo at dawn or dusk? - do you not think a gyro would be the weapon of choice?

Okay, say he's using a new, undisclosed VRII lens. Still - common, professional wisdom says a gyro shall still be attached to the bottom of the camera (at least mine does when shooting from the air, let alone at dawn or dusk). Am I wise? Not really: I'd prefer to ride on the skid. But I absolutely KNOW I wouldn't shoot through glass if I had any say-so what-so-ever - regardless of outside temp.. I'd have a different platform used (where the window or door could be opened) if I were shooting for some project, of any sort. Some windows can be opened: most doors can be removed. The use of an inexpensive Pipe Cub airplane? A Robinson helicopter?

But I'm different - and to me, that makes all the difference.

We've got this long & growing thread about some obviously VIP person, and in my own opinion - he looks like some-sort of tourist.

Just being honest, though with hope, in a kind, constructive way.
marc

EDIT: I glanced somewhere above & read that Bob Krist likes to use lightweight cameras. When in the air & bouncing around, a gyroscopic stabilizer, although somewhat heavy (depending upon which model is used) - balances its self out. In my own, personal experiences, with the gyro attached, the set-up is not even felt or noticed. I now regularly use a 6-pound gyro. m.

Thom Hogan Forum Pro • Posts: 13,659
Re: My Not-So-Elementary Deductions, Mr Watson.

thafuzz wrote:

Thom you must know something.

I suppose I must know something. If I didn't know anything, I wouldn't be able to type this ;~). Sorry, couldn't resist.

-- hide signature --

Thom Hogan
author, Complete Guides to Nikon bodies (21 and counting)
http://www.bythom.com

Thom Hogan Forum Pro • Posts: 13,659
Re: I think Thom gave it away.

I don't think I've given anything away. I'm just trying to get you speculators to actually look at the photo.

Look, let's make this simple. There's a camera and a lens in the shot. There are four possibilities:

1. New Camera. New Lens.
2. New Camera. Old Lens.
3. Old Camera. New Lens.
4. Old Camera. Old Lens.

First, can you rule out any of those based upon what Bob has written and shown you?

Second, can you rule any of those out based upon what you know about Nikon products?

Third, can you make any assessment based upon your knowledge of Bob's photography?
Fourth, why would they be in a chopper at twilight?

-- hide signature --

Thom Hogan
author, Complete Guides to Nikon bodies (21 and counting)
http://www.bythom.com

RobertKM Forum Member • Posts: 87
Re: My Not-So-Elementary Deductions, Mr Watson.

OK. I'll bite.

Thom Hogan wrote:

Hans Giersberg wrote:

Got to say, I'm a little disappointed in the sleuthing abilities of this forum ; )

I haven't read the other responses to your post, but the clues to me are:

Now we're getting somewhere ;~)

Bob Krist is a Nikon shooter

Sounds like a good clue.

And since Bob mentioned the gear he was using is proprietary, we can assume it's new stuff,

Sounds like a good clue.

Because Bob is a travel photographer, he needs to travel light.

Okay, but don't necessarily take this tooooo far. Remember, Nikon doesn't make equipment to pro feature requests ;~).

Since Bob chose D90's over D700-sized bodies,

There's a clue in there somewhere ;~)

So for Bob Krist, who regularly uses a D90, a D700 or a D3(X/s) would be huge. I agree that the hump makes it seem like an FX body. It seems to curve down near the front, so I would say that it is either a D3X or a D3s. Also, the lower part of the body seems to extend down quite a bit, again suggesting a D3(X/s) instead of a D700/900 with a battery grip, because I don't think Bob Krist would add a battery grip for this shoot. Not sure, because there seems to be a camera strap obscuring the view as well.

That's a big viewfinder hump, suggesting FX. Hmmmm. Bob likes small bodies.

So what's he shooting with?

But note that I made a remark about a lens hood. Any clues there? Anyone actually do some lens hood comparisons? Can you figure out the size of the lens? What kind of lens do you need for aerial twilight? Don't give up now...

As for the lens hood, it's obviously a wide angle hood. It looks to be designed for a 24mm or 28mm lens. As you said, the hood is reversed. I also see the M/A-M switch on the lens. There's no VR switch, so it's not a VR lens. The reversed hood obscures a ring near the front of the lens. so that's got to be the focus ring. If it were a zoom ring, he would remove the hood from its position in order to handle the lens. One complication is the position of the M/A-M switch. It's quite a distance away from the body, enough for there to be a zoom ring behind it. But then again, the lens is huge. So maybe the switch needs to be where it is in order to clear the expanding slope in front of the mount. The lens is enormous, so I would say that it is a fast wide prime, probably a 24mm f/1.4 to go head-to-head with the Canon. Indeed, it's about the same size as the Canon 24 f/1.4.

So for Bob Krist, both the lens and the camera are huge.

Thoughts R Us
Thoughts R Us Senior Member • Posts: 2,793
Re: I think Thom gave it away.

Thom Hogan wrote:

Look, let's make this simple. There's a camera and a lens in the shot. There are four possibilities:

1. New Camera. New Lens.
2. New Camera. Old Lens.
3. Old Camera. New Lens.
4. Old Camera. Old Lens.

First, can you rule out any of those based upon what Bob has written and shown you?

We can rule out option 4...old camera. old lens.

Second, can you rule any of those out based upon what you know about Nikon products?

Stumped me on that one. I would still guess a new camera, as I don't believe that Nikon would shoot a campaign like this for a lens alone.

Third, can you make any assessment based upon your knowledge of Bob's photography?

No answer on that one, except the observation others have made that Bob likes to travel light, and thus favors smaller, lighter bodies.

Fourth, why would they be in a chopper at twilight?

To show off low light/high ISO capabilities.
BTW, thanks Thom for your insight and making this so much more fun!

-- hide signature --

Thom Hogan
author, Complete Guides to Nikon bodies (21 and counting)
http://www.bythom.com

PhotoRecon Veteran Member • Posts: 4,032
Re: He's Doing Everything I Wouldn't Do.

I don't mean to be pointed at Bob Krist, as I don't know who he is. I'm simply speaking my mind, based upon my own, hard-learned experiences.

If he's purposefully testing new equipment for promotional purposes; well, then I suppose he can fire the device however he wishes. But for me, I'd have gone about the proceedure differently.

m.

Cerumen
Cerumen Senior Member • Posts: 1,963
Re: He's Doing Everything I Wouldn't Do.

Marc, I've known Bob Krist since the early 1980s when I ran a camera store in his town. He knows his stuff, and has produced tons of travel and travel/editorial pictures for 30 years, and was a columnist in Travel and Leisure, as well as shooting pieces for National Geo. Traveler and other first-class mags. He's highly regarded, and has done videos with McNally and others. He's a very entertaining writer as well, and as nice a guy as you're likely to find.

From what I've seen of your work, you're darn near the top of your craft with your aviation work. Your stuff is jaw-dropping, really incredible.

That said, who knows what variables were going on with this shot. I know Bob has shot a bunch of aerial work, but he may not go after the same sort of thing that you do.
Everyone finds their niche, and works it as the situation allows.
--
Eric
http://www.pbase.com/cerumen
http://www.insectography.com

Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum MMy threads