What will Canon do based on Nikon's first release choice (D4 vs D800)?

[poias]

Could you check how NIKON CORPORATION would appear in your LR? Make the dialog narrower, as well.

nope...it does not change fontsize as i wrote.
when i make the dialog as narrow as it gets then all letters that do not fit are replaced with "..."

I think different LR setups might behave differently. I have seen dialog font sizes adjust to the width of the initial popup in the past (I use a PC though).

[Canon-F1]

I think different LR setups might behave differently. I have seen dialog font sizes adjust to the width of the initial popup in the past (I use a PC though).

i use LR since version 1 (also PC) and never noticed it.
but i noticed immediately that the nikon type is shifted. 

imo it would make no sence to adjust fontsize in only one (a few) line of the menu. that would look like a mess.

[Gothmoth]

i think it´s fake.
a bad one.

[Edwin Herdman]

I think thats faked. The NIKON word for the camera "Model" tag looks like its been tampered with...the letter spacing is different. You can tell because the latter N is farther right than the N of the word NIKON from the "Make" tag. If Lightroom rendered that itself, both 'NIKON' instances would be identical...there would be no letter spacing difference. The drop shadow on the model field is also a little different than the drop shadow for the rest of the EXIF fields...ever so slightly softer, not as crisp.

Nice catch.  Not sure it's conclusive but it might be something.

That, combined with some of the stuff being blacked out (why in the world would someone black out the filename and timestamp info?? Seems like a setup to me!!)

I think that's legitimate to worry about - they may well be (and should be) concerned that the camera when returned to Canon will have an internal record of filenames and timestamps for the purpose of rooting out leakers.  Just speculation on my part, but if I was in the position of a leaker, I'd be paranoid too.

[jrista]

That, combined with some of the stuff being blacked out (why in the world would someone black out the filename and timestamp info?? Seems like a setup to me!!)

I think that's legitimate to worry about - they may well be (and should be) concerned that the camera when returned to Canon will have an internal record of filenames and timestamps for the purpose of rooting out leakers.  Just speculation on my part, but if I was in the position of a leaker, I'd be paranoid too.

Ah, good point, and well put.

The evidence that its a fake certainly isn't conclusive, however its extremely suspicious. About as suspicious as the choice of photographic subject for sample shots...could they have picked anything less suitable to demonstrate the uber awesomeness of the D800?

[torger]

I would be surprised if the D800 sensor somehow magically performs much better on high ISOs than the D7000 sensor, seen per pixel (they have the same pixel pitch). My guess is that it will perform more or less exactly the same per pixel, and gain advantage from the large area and resolution. Sensors are evolving slowly now, don't expect a revolution.

It will compared to the alternatives be fine up to ISO3200 (don't forget noise averaging due to the high res!), then there will be significant drop in performance, poor color reproduction at very high ISOs will in real prints be more of a problem than noise. If you're a ISO6400 - ISO25600 user then this is not the camera for you, then you need D4 if Nikon user and 1DX if Canon.

The D800 sensor is a high res sensor, so I think it would be much more interesting to look at what it can do at base ISO, and it will be much interesting to see how full-frame lenses perform resolution-wise in the corners.

[Isaac]

i think it´s fake.
a bad one.

+1