nikon vs a bear

[5711]

<p>browsing the internet, readin up on the history of nikon's tele lenses, i found this:</p>

<p>http://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2012/05/the-damage-waiver-bearly-covered-this-one</p>

<p>:)</p>

<p>some ppl in the comments recomment wrestling the grizzly over the d4.<br>

i do not want to see those photos....</p>

[bob_h]

<p>If he was within 20 yards of that grizzly he may be very lucky to have survived. It was much more fun when we could feed the bears as they came up to our car windows as a kid in the early 60's. Those bears were much friendlier and just wanted food, not to tear you or your camera up.</p>

[thomas_k.]

<p>Bears are territorial. Photographer came to it's home uninvited - the bear has all the right and the reason to inspect, play with, or trash what photographer brought with him.</p>

[Matthew Currie]

<p>Is it my imagination, or is that bear smiling a little in picture #2? </p>

[Two23]

<p>Uh oh. The dreaded "impact damage--not covered by warranty."</p>

<p>Kent in SD</p>

[02Pete]

<p>The photographer was in fact lucky. A member of my mother's family, living in California in the late 1800s, was in fact killed and partially eaten by a grizzly bear. Grizzlies are very large, strong and fast (they can run faster than the fastest human sprinter), have large claws and fangs, are carnivores, and do not take kindly to intrusions upon what they consider to be their territory. They should not be taken lightly, and getting anywhere near to one is not a good idea at all. A D4 may not be one of Nikon's cheaper cameras, but it is a very great deal less expensive than surgery to attempt repair of slash or bite wounds inflicted by a bear, or the cost of a funeral.</p>