Most ridiculous camera ever?

AcutancePhotography said:
Mitch.Conner said:
I am alone at feeling unease when all they say, regarding the charitable portion, is that a specific amount of aid will be donated - without ever specifying that specific amount?

That is not uncommon as the amount/ratio organizations donate can change. What is knowable is what they donated in previous years. You can use that a a guide.

Why at least specify a percentage?
 
Upvote 0
Honestly, I doubt you would get robbed because it looks like a cheap fake toy camera to me. Definitely from a distance. It's probably safer to lug this heavy POS around than a 1DX with a big L lens that actually looks (and is) expensive.

And I've never quite understood the concept of paying a company for an overpriced product to achieve a charity donation. Heck, I don't even understand the NPR Pledge drive gifts. If you want to donate, donate. Give the money, get a written record and write it off. Done. All the rest just complicates matters.
 
Upvote 0
ajfotofilmagem said:
My thought: What an ugly disgrace from hell!
Another thought: Rob me, rob me, rob me.
5293793996.jpg
Looks like a toy or a paperweight. The gold makes it look cheaper and tackier compared to the normal silver DF. They couldn't even spell brick properly... :P
 
Upvote 0
Mitch.Conner said:
AcutancePhotography said:
Mitch.Conner said:
I am alone at feeling unease when all they say, regarding the charitable portion, is that a specific amount of aid will be donated - without ever specifying that specific amount?

That is not uncommon as the amount/ratio organizations donate can change. What is knowable is what they donated in previous years. You can use that a a guide.

Why at least specify a percentage?

Yeah, you would think they could at least give the precentage. But to be honest, the company will donate just enough money to move them into a different tax bracket so it is ultimately up to the accounting department, how much money they will donate. And that depends on how the rest of the business did that year.
 
Upvote 0
Most ridiculous camera...so far. I have no doubt that at some point in the future, someone will top this. Hard to believe it can be beaten but it will. In the meantime, yes, this takes the current crown for "least pleasing to the eye". We all love gold but just cause you put gold on something, doesn't make it better. It just makes it pricier.
 
Upvote 0
MrFotoFool said:
The original version was enough of a mystery. (The mystery being who in their right mind would buy one?).
Now we have this limited version:
http://www.dpreview.com/articles/8641626030/price-released-for-brikk-s-24k-gold-nikon-df

Oooh, but how cool is a gold plated lens? Sorry, the lens itself is not gold plated, just the hood and lens cap! :o

But hey they are donating a portion of the 41K sale price to "humanitarian causes." Great, all for it, but they do not say what percent, I imagine it is well below a thousand dollars. So you can do that or you can buy a regular DF for three grand and mail the extra 37 grand yourself straight to your favorite charity. (Or buy a camera that actually makes sense and send the extra whatever is left to charity).

If you are going to have a single gold plated lens, wouldn't a 24-70 make more sense?
 
Upvote 0