24K Gold Nikon Df, over $40,000

<p>Article on DPreview: http://www.dpreview.com/articles/8641626030/price-released-for-brikk-s-24k-gold-nikon-df<br>

It looks like the price includes a gold 14-24mm/f2.8 AF-S zoom.<br>

At 15000 Euros (< US$20K), the Leica M Edition 60 seems "cheap" in comparison: http://www.photo.net/nikon-camera-forum/00cpmz</p>

<p>But it looks like > $40K still doesn't get you the 51-AF-point Multi-CAM 3500, though. :-)</p>

<p>That has got to be the <em>UGLIEST</em> camera and lens combo I have ever seen.</p>

<p>Matt or Satin Gold may have been bearable. It's going to make fingerprints on a DeLorean look nice!</p>

<p>However, I suppose it's never going to see the light of day, never mind even take a picture.</p>

<p>> Brikk claims to donate a proportion of its profits to 'populations around the world which are suffering'</p>

<p>My aesthetic sense is reeling from the garish tastelessness of it all and I feel faintly nauseated. In fact, I am suffering. Perhaps Brikk will give me a handout? I have my guesses as to where this wretched excess will sell, but should probably keep that speculation to myself. Perhaps the lucky purchasers will celebrate their new acquisition with a nice glass of grand cru Burgundy, well mixed with a generous slug of Diet Coke to make it palatable. </p>

<p>Haha, this is awesome. They made 77!!! Amazing to think they apparently will be able to find dozens of takers for this.</p>

<p>Btw, from an aesthetic point of view I don't think this is any worse than the red Nikon DSLR models.</p>

<p>Time for yet another sequel in the movie franchise <em>"The Gods Must Be Crazy"</em>. Suggested working title: <em>"Df of the Gods: Offal of the Awful"</em>.</p>

<p>What a total waste of a good camera.</p>

<p>Only gold <em>plated</em>? For that price I'd want solid gold parts. Jeez, you get 24ct gold flashing thicker than 5 microns on relatively cheap hi-fi connectors and SCART plugs these days. And they didn't even bother to go the whole tasteless hog and replace the black leather-cloth with green lizard skin.</p>

<p>Not only that, but from those pictures some guy in dirty jeans has had his greasy mechanic's fingers all over it. I want a brand new sealed boxed one, or they're definitely not getting my 30 thousand quid.</p>

A camera fit for the Karcrashians and their pet rapper.

<p>Like the rest of you, I don't care for that gold-plated camera. But somehow it doesn't bother me nearly as much as that <strong>gold plated lens cap!!! </strong>Can you imagine losing it? Or being so concerned about losing it that you forget that the camera can be used to make photographs? That's what bothers me.</p>

<p>It'll look good in the hands of C-3PO. </p>

<p>Why isn't the charger gold-plated? Seems like the price is a bit high unless they can add that.</p>

Good one Michael Chang!

<p>They won't have any problem selling them unless there are less than 77 Russian oligarchs. </p>

<p>My thoughts:</p>

<p>1. You know a camera is in trouble when they start offering it in different colors!<br>

2. I'd rather have a regular Leica M6.<br>

3. Pimp my camera!</p>

<p>Wonder if they've sold one to Kim Jung Il yet? </p>

<p>Kent in SD</p>

<blockquote>

<p><em>1. You know a camera is in trouble when they start offering it in different colors!</em></p>

</blockquote>

<p>LOL... Right, it happened with Tutankhamun, only really dead items became gold plated for the eternity...</p>

<blockquote>

<p>And they didn't even bother to go the whole tasteless hog and replace the black leather-cloth with green lizard skin.<br>

</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Well, they couldn't find enough specimens of the rare Tasteless Lesser-Green Lizard, so they went fishing...</p>

<blockquote>

<p> <br>

Parts not plated, including the body, grip, prism and the focus and zoom rings of the lens, are covered with <strong><em>stingray skin</em></strong>, chosen for its durability and textured finish. <br>

</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Imagine taking it to sport's day to capture the kid's? Maybe not!!</p>

<blockquote>

<p> <br>

But somehow it doesn't bother me nearly as much as that <strong>gold plated lens cap!!!</strong><br /><br>

</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Maybe it doubles as a large, flat shot glass for ice-chilled Vodka?</p>

<p>The horror... the horror...</p>

<p>Shun, have you contacted them and asked for a review unit?</p>

<p>To reach the heights of hypocrisy the buyer of such a camera can go on the streets to photograph homeless and deranged claiming some social mission.</p>

<p>A gold Df? Well, I suppose it's to be expected, as we have seen gold plated models in the past (but not for $40k, that's more crazy then 'Leica crazy'). But who in their right mind would hang that 14-24 on a Df? now that's real crazy LOL.</p>

<p>I'm with Mike. That camera is completely hideous. And the fact that they gold plated it only makes it worse. :-)<br />

<br />

Actually, I'm more bothered by the lizard skin effect than by the gold. I'd kind of expect them to invert all the existing gold markings.<br />

<br />

If they're going to this effort, I'd be more impressed if they replaced the frame with titanium (which is a bit harder on the Df given that part of it's plastic). And I do prefer brushed gold - at least in the Contax G2 "champagne effect" - to this bling.<br />

<br />

RJ: At least one can dubiously argue the merits of gold connectors. I was more impressed when a friend found a gold-plated TOSLINK cable. And yes, the packaging claimed that the gold plating improved the audio quality. By that argument, this camera will obviously make better pictures. Or at least, act as its own gold reflector...</p>

<p>The 14-24 is a telling choice. It isn't exactly anyone's most-used lens (except in my case when I'm on a UWA jag temporarily). It's most salient quality is its size and particularly the size of its bulbous front element. It looks like a phallic symbol, and I'd have to guess that this is what it's purpose is in being there.</p>

<p>Luke: Well, my 14-24 is pretty heavily-used, although so is my 200 f/2. I'm not sure I'd say the 14-24 is phallic - although I can assert that a Sigma 150-500 is, especially if you zoom it out with the hood reversed. The front element of a 14-24 is arguably vaguely mastoid, but it's a reach. But the 14-24 <i>is</i> distinctive, and has a particularly silly lens cap. Still, it could have been the 6mm f/2.8. Although not for only $40k.<br />

<br />

I've now stopped thinking of the gold FA (only £2250) that Gray's keep advertising looks tasteless...</p>

<p>Hey Andrew -- so to be sure my 14-24 is heavily used as well, but I wouldn't say it is the one lens I would buy packaged with a camera as a walk-around proposition. And while you might say a 200/2 is more phallic, I might suggest that the fat part is more important to conveying the right impression than the long part. After all, everyone walks around with long lenses today, but few walk around with fat ones. Few of the long lenses have the provocative power of the bulbous, jewel-like 14-24 front end. It draws more stares.</p>

<p>Only here would the 12-24mm 2.8 become an auric codpiece....:-)</p>

<p>Happy Halloween everyone!</p>