Discussion in 'News and Rumors' started by Boid, Nov 1, 2014.
Recipe for an exciting adventure:
What you need is (a) a gold-plated Nikon, (b) some really outstanding health insurance and/or life insurance, and (c) a wild urge to shoot "street" in a economically depressed neighborhood.
I hope the hip hop moguls that buy this like WIDE angle photography. a 14-24mm lens on a full frame body is a very limiting choice. And it's not like any other lenses will look right on that body.
Also, the stingray skin is pretty dope.
C'mon, BRIKK, where's the Fuji?
Well, that's just stupid...
I wouldn't even want it if you GAVE it to me, unless the gold content alone was worth enough to melt it down and sell it for a LOT and scrap the burnt out camera/lens...
Hey, they published a photo of my new camera without asking my approval. I wanted to present it to y'all first.
So I see no other choice than send it back.
ya know, a steam punk one that is made with copper that would discolor over time would be cooler, but you couldn't charge a ton for it
I can't imagine a bigger waste of money.
ooooooooo, shiney. . .
I like the silver bodies, but I've never seen a gold body that looks good. Not sure why.
You could say the same thing about gold watches, too.
It all depends on the type of watch.....this is a classic model (I know others hate it!). Let's turn this into a gold thread. ;-)
And this, when people are starving and homeless. If I had money to throw away on crap like this, I wouldnt. I'd probably put it into medical research instead.
Slippery slope there Sue - you could legitimately make that point about probably 80% of the stuff some of us buy around here. It's just that we perceive real value with most of what we buy, so it seems more justifiable than this, which is purely bling. But really, a $6000 Leica or D4s or something would seem just as obscene to anyone not WAY into photography...
No slippery slopes there, Ray. I take your point but gold plating on a camera is way way beyond anything I would spend on, even if I could afford it. I stand by my comment.
Nikon, Olympus and others have done this sort of thing for decades. They used to give them as gifts to top dealers. I have seen a gold FA and an OM4 before now, nof to mention the Leica Luxus edition in the 1920's... Nothing new here, just eternally tasteless.
To many folks, an E-PL3 with the kit lens is a HUGE purchase!
Case in point, I know a homeless guy that about 2x a year, posts to Flickr. I offered him my old E-PL1 and he was most gracious!
(Now I just gotta find him to give it to him)..
I agree with you completely Sue. I'm just making the point that a lot of stuff you and I buy would elicit the same reaction from most in the world. When so many are hungry, how do we even justify having several hundred dollars worth of camera equipment (let alone a few thousand) when anyone's phone can take a decent photo today. I own a Nikon Df (non gold plated version) and several lenses for it. Worth more than many on the planet make in a year. I could find it very difficult to justify that too, if I thought about it that way very often. I'm just saying it's tough to throw stones when I live in a glass house myself, albeit a much smaller one than someone who spends $40 grand on a gold plated camera...
and with how soft gold is, can you imagine if anyone actually USED it.....it would be all scratched up and nasty.
Good Lord, its not for actually USING!! Its only use is its pose value and I'm afraid thats completely lost on me
Gold is pretty in small touches. I'm fine with gold watches. I assume this camera is more for collectors than photographers.
I don't why with cases like these, the finger is pointed at buyer......costs a bit to make these types of toys too but the purchasers always seem bear most of the brunt.
No makers = no buyers.
Separate names with a comma.