Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
D3s is official
- Thread starter FX120
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Obviously many of you are coming from a studio perspective and obviously the high ISO is worthless there.
However as a frequent sports shooter I would be in LOVE with the ability to shoot ISO 6400+ with good quality images.
Right now I frequently am pushing ISO 3200 with f2.8 glass (the fastest you can get in long tele) and of course they are difficult images to work with.
Don't be so short sighted however - not everyone shoots product photography in controlled lighting.
I'm a canon man for the last 15 years, but my 1dMKIII has been very disappointing and if it weren't for the large amount of money I have in L glass I'd be all over this body in a second.
I print 20x30 canvases frequently with my 10MP camera - you don't need more megapixels than this body in most situations I would need unless you're cropping heavily.
Bravo to Nikon, I can only hope canon gets their game into gear, I'm actually thinking of switching in the next year if they don't.
However as a frequent sports shooter I would be in LOVE with the ability to shoot ISO 6400+ with good quality images.
Right now I frequently am pushing ISO 3200 with f2.8 glass (the fastest you can get in long tele) and of course they are difficult images to work with.
Don't be so short sighted however - not everyone shoots product photography in controlled lighting.
I'm a canon man for the last 15 years, but my 1dMKIII has been very disappointing and if it weren't for the large amount of money I have in L glass I'd be all over this body in a second.
I print 20x30 canvases frequently with my 10MP camera - you don't need more megapixels than this body in most situations I would need unless you're cropping heavily.
Bravo to Nikon, I can only hope canon gets their game into gear, I'm actually thinking of switching in the next year if they don't.
Of course they have to keep pushing it, but do it internally in their labs and only release to the public when it is actually usable
There's all this hype over the internet that this camera will do some silly high ISO, when in fact it is a nothing feature.My criticism of the D3s stems from the fact that 720p video is, well, behind the times, and that I really hate their 's' upgrade policy with minor 'features'. As a note, I use Canon and Nikon kit (oh, and Leica and 'blad), so I'm not being partisan either. I think Canon balls things up too.
Well Nikon, Canon, Oly and in fact, almost all camera manufacturers highest ISO is typically usable only by a very small amount, so I don't see anything bad with Nikon trying to push the envelop. And look at Canon 50D, its higher ISO is crappier then 40D and even the cheaper T1i has better IQ then it. And since the D3s feature improved high ISO images, I expect it will just be something like how the T1i compares to the 50D.
720p well behind times, hmm well unless you usually view LCD with over 50" then its hard to see the difference. So actually 720p will suffice for many people. And whats to hate with their 's' policy, to me it feeds the crowd who always want an update from a manufacturer, even though many of us know lenses are meant to last for a very long time, there are a certain crowd who like wants the lens to be update just after 2 years of its release. Same as camera body, we will see another major revision when the D4, D800 and D400 is released, while their 'H' , 'S' and 'X' is just more of improvements. So if you are not happy with their H, S and X updates, who cares. Just ignore it and wait for the major update
The H, S and X is usually for those who want to upgrade from a lower level camera like D80 users to D300s and maybe D700 to D3s
Of course they have to keep pushing it, but do it internally in their labs and only release to the public when it is actually usable
My criticism of the D3s stems from the fact that 720p video is, well, behind the times, and that I really hate their 's' upgrade policy with minor 'features'. As a note, I use Canon and Nikon kit (oh, and Leica and 'blad), so I'm not being partisan either. I think Canon balls things up too.
Do you actually use all of that Canikcablad kit? Or are you just some doctor or lawyer who can afford a bundle of camera gear only to sit it in his open room and do extensive "noise tests" and sharpness tests?
As for your point about ISO 1,000,000 on the new D3 being useless, you fail to realize that the über-high ISO may be grainy, it actually improves the useful ISO range of the camera effectively making an 800 ISO shot as clean as a previous-gen ISO 400. THAT'S THE BENEFIT.
I was shooting an event for a Real Publication (not trolling in my living room for chroma noise while zoomed into 400% on my "extensive test shot") and we weren't allowed to use flash since our subject had poor vision. It was a shot of a VERY well known former Nobel winner.
Granted, we were in a well lit performance hall, but me and the other photog there both had to push our cameras. I could only push to about ISO 1600 @ f2.8 on my older model of cam. This guy was shooting a nice quick shutter speed at ISO 6400 and that shot ran in the local paper, cropped, at a nice size.
So your theory about how these upgrades are useless is completely short sighted because it DOES show useful improvement. As far as the comments go about how it would have been more useful to put lower ISO into the cam, did anyone read the specs? It does the "expansion" on both ends, of course, high ISO up to 125k and low ISO down to 100.
As far as the 720p being so behind the times, let's face this fact. Nikon has two "pro" level SLRs. Of the two, they've typically had the single digit or single digit plus H or S version as the "journalism" camera. D1h. D2h. D2hs. D3. D3s.
If you haven't noticed, the newspaper industry is HURTING. Guess where those journalists often work? NEWSPAPERS. What's the future of newspapers? THE INTERNETS. What can the internets provide? A MULTIMEDIA model for papers. Is full 1080p REALLY that usable on the web? Nah. Would it be nice? I bet it would be, and i'm sure it'll be in the D3xs.
I wouldn't film a TV commercial on a D300s. I have high end video equipment for that purpose.
But if i'm at an event, and I want to capture a quick video to put onto our paper's subscription based site as a value add, then boy, aren't I more valuable as a photographer/journalist?
What if I wanted to grab a quick few moments of that Nobel Peace winner's speech to give to my paper to supplement our reporting in the print edition?
Given the fact that newspapers are struggling, i'd say that the 720p option on my D300s is a pretty viable choice. For one, you can buy one camera for $5000 and not have to buy an Xl2 or some SONY for a similar price, it serves its purpose quite well, and provided you use it on a tripod the wobbly shutter issue can be worked around.
I just don't get the negativity about any of these cameras. I started out on a Nikon FM from the 60s, with manual focus. My first "AF" camera was a D100, and i've run through most of the Nikon gear. The thing that i can say is that with each iteration, these cameras provide a near quantum leap in image quality, noise control, AF speed--it's outstanding.
I don't think anyone upgrading from a D2x, D200 or D2h, would be disappointed. And don't think for a second that photo editors all over the world are chomping at the bit to get the D3s into their programs post haste. The original D3 weren't even readily available and both of our local papers adopted them. I'm sure the D3s will have a similar adoption rate, as pool equipment tends to get beat around quite a bit. Lastly, I have an email in my box from our local Nikon pro/rep offering a free cleaning of our current gear and a demo of the new D3s at our paper. They specifically call out the video feature in the email, and they talk about exactly what i did--how it can be a value add to get subscribers to buy into their paid-online portion of the site.
Ah... another feature-rich camera I can't afford... Can we critique ocean-going yachts next?
This post gave me the morning chuckle I needed. Thanks for that.
Do I use the kit? Yes. I work as a photographer (not a doctor or lawyer or whatever) I couldn't give a crap about 400% crops either. I use a Canon setup for personal work, journalism/press, Nikon for medical imaging, Leica when I want to shoot film and 'blad for medium format. As for a "noise test" - if you can see the noise from across the room, then, well, it's pretty obvious.
As for the 720p mode, yes, video has a point in the modern world - I've used it. However, it would have cost Nikon precisely nothing to enable 1080p on the camera - the chip is capable of it, the camera has enough processing power. However, they artificially cripple a professional level body to try and (possibly) drive sales of the much more expensive D3Xs (if one launches). I can get why you'd only have 720p on a D300s, or D90, but on a pro camera? Canon at least have the decency to push 1080p down the range. After all, products don't exist in a vacuum - they have to be compared to their competitors.
Note, I wasn't bashing the functionality of video at any point. You seem to have your own personal bee in your bonnet about that one.
For some reason, I can't believe you're a journalist and you are taking a crap on the improved ISO performance.
and to quote you:
again, as a journalist you should see the value in the D3's NOT doing full 1080p. Obviously, if you're a still journalist, you're likely working for publications that go to print. They probably have a web site also. It's the same as MP. For a journalist who may be out for hours at a time, conserving card space is pretty essential.
I'm paid firstly for the stills, and secondly for the video. Sure they could have enable 1080p but if the camera is aimed at PHOTOJOURNALISTS which is as Nikon has done since the D1/D1h/D1x, then you can understand why they don't want to go 1080p.
Hell, most TV stations don't even broadcast in 1080p. And i'm surely not going to make a film for Blu-Ray distro with a D3s, D300s or a Canon 5d mk II. Again, I have specific tools for that job. Of course, I wouldn't hesitate to do a video for my paper on my 300s, and I'm sure the real PJ's who get their hands on the D3 won't hesitate either.
It's all about speed in the journalistic world, and 720p is more than suitable for the purpose of this camera--to provide PJ's with a top-end tool.
Lastly, if I want to shoot in 1080p and get the highest quality, I'm going straight to the cameras built specifically to shoot HD Video. Just like a studio photographer would be more likely to use a Hassie for studio photography and use their D3s for their journalistic pursuits.
Speaking of which, could you also please post me some samples of medical imaging with Nikon? I'm in the market for gear for just this purpose. So awesome that you're in this line of work!
Also, it's always nice to see other PJ's work. Post some of that, as well as some of your medium format work.
Very interested to check out how you juggle that Canikcablad system!!
Improved ISO performance is good. Pushing the numbers upwards just because you can is pointless. We have no evidence currently if there has been a step down/improvement in noise levels at, say, ISO 3,200 with the D3s over the D3. It could be exactly the same, and all that has happened is that a new number gets shoved on the end of the range. In fact, as it doesn't look like a whole new shiny sensor generation, I'd doubt there's much change.
720p is enough. Hell, 4mp is enough for print...so why are we all using 10mp+ systems these days? If we play the "good enough" mentality, we'll be in the stone ages. You can down-scale 1080p to whatever format you want for web use, but you'll struggle to upscale if it is needed. As for flash cards, you can't be telling me you don't have a ridiculous number of cards lying round - I can put my hand on about 54GB worth right now.
I can send you a copy of some medical work, but I cannot publish online for confidentiality reasons. Drop me your email and I can squirt a few mid-res images over to you. Medical is generally studio based macro, or flash in operating theatres. As a note on medical, try and pick up the older 105mm Micro lens rather than the new VR model, and the SB-29 ringflash is far superior to the current R1 system. Our kit is a weird mix of old and new because of these suitability issues - ranging from a D3X down to still-in-use D100s.
Some recent PR/press work for the local rag. HRH The Queen, and two members of hospital staff in their environment. Then two press-line music shots. I don't sports - I don't personally like them, which means I can't really get into the whole thing, plus there's a local team who cover most events anyway. General gist anyway.
720p is enough. Hell, 4mp is enough for print...so why are we all using 10mp+ systems these days? If we play the "good enough" mentality, we'll be in the stone ages. You can down-scale 1080p to whatever format you want for web use, but you'll struggle to upscale if it is needed. As for flash cards, you can't be telling me you don't have a ridiculous number of cards lying round - I can put my hand on about 54GB worth right now.
I can send you a copy of some medical work, but I cannot publish online for confidentiality reasons. Drop me your email and I can squirt a few mid-res images over to you. Medical is generally studio based macro, or flash in operating theatres. As a note on medical, try and pick up the older 105mm Micro lens rather than the new VR model, and the SB-29 ringflash is far superior to the current R1 system. Our kit is a weird mix of old and new because of these suitability issues - ranging from a D3X down to still-in-use D100s.
Some recent PR/press work for the local rag. HRH The Queen, and two members of hospital staff in their environment. Then two press-line music shots. I don't sports - I don't personally like them, which means I can't really get into the whole thing, plus there's a local team who cover most events anyway. General gist anyway.
Attachments
Ok. Let's review.
D3 should have had 1080p because it wouldn't have costed any more but having ISO 102k is overkill.
Not having 1080p on a STILL CAM keeps it in the stone ages, but ISO 102k as a boost is not enough of an advancement to merit inclusion in the feature set.
In reality, we're dealing with a fast action tool marketed to the photojournalist where speed is paramount.
720p vids will a) download faster. b) are perfectly usable for the application intended, i.e. online video for photojournalists obviating the need for carrying extra equipment or videographers along and c) basically a "value-add" feature and not a legacy feature, per se. d) that vid will chomp less card space, which is important to a STILL PHOTOGRAPHER using a STILL CAMERA.
By adding the additional ISO expansions, Nikon is saying that the usable range is improved. That's why it's there. You're fixated on ISO 102k when in reality, the top end of the D3s is ISO200-12800 EXPANDABLE to 102k or ISO 100.
The original D3 ISO range is ISO-200-6400 EXPANDABLE to ISO 25,600. This implies that you'll get images at 12800 at quality that would compare to the previous gen's 6400.
They ARE showing improvement. By your logic, if we play "good enough" with ISO, we'd still be in the stone ages with grainy ISO3200 film images. Sure, you can scale down 1080p to whatever you want, but is this a videocamera or a DSLR still cam?
Last I checked, it's a still cam. Improving the ISO is more important to me as a photojournalist than a movie mode. As i've stated, if I need to shoot a commercial, I have equipment specifically for that.
I've just peeped the high ISO shots on Nikon's site, and i'm already thinking of how I could utilize the high ISO in terms of making art--going out at midnite and getting compelling, interesting natural light images. I think of street photography, I think of nature and landscapes. I think of being able to capture animals who are nocturnal and also quick. I think what I do at ISO 12800 in terms of performance photography. I can't wait to borrow one from the paper.
And when I need to make a feature film, i'd use it for on location stills. That said, I'll just rent or buy and HDX or grab my SONY or canon gear for that application.
Actually, no TV stations - or anybody at all - broadcasts in 1080p. Neither does anybody stream it or offer it On Demand. I've never seem any websites stream it either, just a few offering downloads for interested people. 1080p is ONLY present on disc. It might not cost them anything to add, but the benefits in the situation would essentially be useless. As I pointed out before, the controls and ergonomics of a DSLR do not suit themselves to polished video shooting. 720p is also "good enough" for the vastest quality of viewers, and you're not shooting amazing video on a DSLR. You're shooting "good enough" video. I should point out that no DSLR shoots video that's editor friendly, because M-JPEG is not a friendly acquisition format.
As of right now, only RED is really straddling those two paradigms effectively. Everybody's sticking to dedicated devices for still and photo now. It'll change soon enough, but that's the way it is in the meantime.
It pleases me to see so many of you repeat my point about bolstering intermediate ISO range quality, which is what I think most of us assumed Nikon was after from the beginning. I'd love to get a D700 or better, but I desire it for the ability to shoot higher than 800 ISO and a nice full-frame image, not some paltry video shooting.
Nice shot of the Queen. Shots with famous people, provided they're in focus, always work for me. Your doctor shot is excellent. I like your juxtapositioning of him with the medical elements in the background.
As far as that last music shot goes, I'd love to see that shot on the Nikon D3s @ ISO 12800. I bet that whole big black area (I can't see any details so I can't make out what it is) would have some detail!
The only two niggles i'd make with your shots is the disembodied hand in the shot of HRH and the harsh-ish lighting and lack of hair and makeup on the girl. But you can't always control those elements when shooting people working a job. I understand that!
Not quite, although we're going in circles here...
D3s should have 1080p, because it is capable of doing it, wouldn't cost any extra and the competition are doing it on their mid-level cameras. The function would be there, and would be high quality (well, rolling shutter dependant).
Your user can then customise their output. Don't want 1080p (your reasoning for that *is* sound, and valid for some people), then you can just simply select 720p and pump it out at that. The 1080p will be there if you ever need it, and you might at some time. I generally shoot at 1080p these days, although 720p is there if required (like I'm running low on card space).
As for the ISO stuff - I'll just stick to the "why bother putting expansion on" - and this applies to Canon and Nikon both. The camera has its natural ISO range...and then you push it too damn high with expansion and ruin the results. I can see that we want to be at the point where ISO <silly number> is usable - shooting in the dark would be great - but we're not there yet. They should ship the camera able to go to whatever the ISO range is without expansion.
EDIT: Critique!
The big black area is the roof of the stage - I purposely exposed to not get detail in there, aiming for block colour.
Disembodied hand is a fair cop - I was literally ontop of HRH at that time and couldn't move an inch. That was taken on a 16mm lens, APS-H sensor. The pic of the radiographer seems to have been chewed a bit on the way up on here, not sure what's happened. Makeup would be a luxury
D3s should have 1080p, because it is capable of doing it, wouldn't cost any extra and the competition are doing it on their mid-level cameras. The function would be there, and would be high quality (well, rolling shutter dependant).
Your user can then customise their output. Don't want 1080p (your reasoning for that *is* sound, and valid for some people), then you can just simply select 720p and pump it out at that. The 1080p will be there if you ever need it, and you might at some time. I generally shoot at 1080p these days, although 720p is there if required (like I'm running low on card space).
As for the ISO stuff - I'll just stick to the "why bother putting expansion on" - and this applies to Canon and Nikon both. The camera has its natural ISO range...and then you push it too damn high with expansion and ruin the results. I can see that we want to be at the point where ISO <silly number> is usable - shooting in the dark would be great - but we're not there yet. They should ship the camera able to go to whatever the ISO range is without expansion.
EDIT: Critique!
The big black area is the roof of the stage - I purposely exposed to not get detail in there, aiming for block colour.
Disembodied hand is a fair cop - I was literally ontop of HRH at that time and couldn't move an inch. That was taken on a 16mm lens, APS-H sensor. The pic of the radiographer seems to have been chewed a bit on the way up on here, not sure what's happened. Makeup would be a luxury
Not quite, although we're going in circles here...
D3s should have 1080p, because it is capable of doing it, wouldn't cost any extra and the competition are doing it on their mid-level cameras. The function would be there, and would be high quality (well, rolling shutter dependant).
Your user can then customise their output. Don't want 1080p (your reasoning for that *is* sound, and valid for some people), then you can just simply select 720p and pump it out at that. The 1080p will be there if you ever need it, and you might at some time. I generally shoot at 1080p these days, although 720p is there if required (like I'm running low on card space).
As for the ISO stuff - I'll just stick to the "why bother putting expansion on" - and this applies to Canon and Nikon both. The camera has its natural ISO range...and then you push it too damn high with expansion and ruin the results. I can see that we want to be at the point where ISO <silly number> is usable - shooting in the dark would be great - but we're not there yet. They should ship the camera able to go to whatever the ISO range is without expansion.
EDIT: Critique!
The big black area is the roof of the stage - I purposely exposed to not get detail in there, aiming for block colour.
Disembodied hand is a fair cop - I was literally ontop of HRH at that time and couldn't move an inch. That was taken on a 16mm lens, APS-H sensor. The pic of the radiographer seems to have been chewed a bit on the way up on here, not sure what's happened. Makeup would be a luxury
on top of the queen? rawr! did she enjoy?
your reasoning for wanting 1080p is justified. that said, i understand nikon's reasoning for putting it in at 720. They were working on the high ISO performance!
And if you take a look at the gallery on their site, it's impressive at 12800. Your critique of the reasoning behind putting expansion on, I get. But i'd rather hold Nikon's feet to the fire for some of the other stupid things they do. (I mean, if you're going to put mini-HDMI, include the damn cable guys!) They surely have their share of issues as a company. Most do.
But at the same token, I'm blown away by what they've accomplished in the past few years in terms of ISO. I couldn't put my D2h above 800 or else I had a grain fest and I can shoot my lowly D300s at 7fps with more accurate AF AND I can use ISO 3200. The thought of grabbing a D3s and getting quality 12800 files is droolworthy. The addition of 720p HD video recording? Like sugary sprinkles on top.
I mean, good lord:
on top of the queen? rawr! did she enjoy?
your reasoning for wanting 1080p is justified. that said, i understand nikon's reasoning for putting it in at 720. They were working on the high ISO performance!
And if you take a look at the gallery on their site, it's impressive at 12800. Your critique of the reasoning behind putting expansion on, I get. But i'd rather hold Nikon's feet to the fire for some of the other stupid things they do. (I mean, if you're going to put mini-HDMI, include the damn cable guys!) They surely have their share of issues as a company. Most do.
But at the same token, I'm blown away by what they've accomplished in the past few years in terms of ISO. I couldn't put my D2h above 800 or else I had a grain fest and I can shoot my lowly D300s at 7fps with more accurate AI AND I can use ISO 3200. The thought of grabbing a D3s and getting quality 128000 files is droolworthy. The addition of 720p HD video recording? Like sugary sprinkles on top.
I mean, good lord:
She loved it.
As for mini-HDMI, ugh. Canon play the same bloody trick - I tried plugging a normal HDMI cable into my 5D2 not long ago, and was floored when I realised it was some cretinous mini version.
Canon and Nikon have both come a long way in the last what, 8 years? No doubt, no argument. I remember trying to get a Kodak DCS camera to go past ISO 200, and failing. I also have no doubt that in a few generations time we'll have lovely smooth images without that much grain at ISO 6,400 or higher - but until then, my opinion will remain that it's a pointless exercise to include these silly expansions. The 12,800 on those images *is* good - but until I can use one in anger, I reserve the right to poo-poo Nikon's PR images
At this moment in time, I still won't take a shiny 5D2/D700 past 3,200 as that is my current cut off point where image quality starts degrading too far - the D3s may increase my point to 6,400 though.Ultimately, I then get really annoyed by all the internet heroes who wank off over ISO 100k.
Exactly.
Since sarcasticdesign pulled the "you can't be a real photographer" card, I'm waiting for him to post a small subset of his portfolio.
I mean, good lord:
Very impressive for those insanely high ISOs, which is presumably why you're posting them. However, I can't resist pointing out that these shots fall into the "because I can" category (meaning that's the only reasoning I imagine a photographer would offer for wanting to snap them). Perhaps that's some rare bird that is only ever spotted at night, and perhaps those two people are really famous or something. But I see two photos with apparently little if any journalistic content and really poor light.
So they are novelties in that very high ISO was used, but are not great examples of why anyone would really want to use that ISO. The boxer on the Nikon sample page is a much better example. As I said above, I'm in favor of cameras that can do really high ISO, but I hope it doesn't end up being a crutch that people turn to when there are better options for a particular shot.
Actually, you're sort of arguing with yourself here... if the D3s is "capable" of expanding it's ISO range, much like a photographer would have pushed film in the old days, then why not make it available? You can always limit your output, or dial down and stay in the acceptable range for yourself, just like with the video reasoning where you want the 1080p option, even if it's not that useful in practical use.
So, actually we're talking about two different things - video and High ISO performance. I have no problem with your point about dialing down your output on the vid to 720, but maintaining the capability of 1080p if it's there. (I still don't quite see the need of 1080p video in a DSLR when it's still a Blu-ray thing for the most part, and even 720p video looks great on a 63" Samsung 1080p plasma tv - but that really isn't that much of an issue for me - if they can offer it, then they should give folks the option.) I'm not sure why you have a issue with Nikon making it possible for some of us (those who see it as useful...
) being able to "expand" or "push" our ISOs for whatever purpose suits us. Kind of two sides of the same coin, don't you think?Anyway, this has been a fun, and lively discussion. I appreciate you're contributions to this... it does make one think a bit...
I probably am arguing with myself a little - I generally don't think things through *this* thoroughly, in a cohesive fashion. I'd probably say that offering quality 1080p is a little different to offering a barely/if at all usable feature of ISO expansion.
I'm glad people are having fun though - I'll freely admit to being more argumentative and prone to exaggeration on here just to generate talk. When Canon release the 1DIV (a little bird has told me next week at the London Pro Event which I'll be at) I will no doubt be annoyed at them for doing something stupid too.
I'm glad people are having fun though - I'll freely admit to being more argumentative and prone to exaggeration on here just to generate talk. When Canon release the 1DIV (a little bird has told me next week at the London Pro Event which I'll be at) I will no doubt be annoyed at them for doing something stupid too.
Actually, you're sort of arguing with yourself here... if the D3s is "capable" of expanding it's ISO range, much like a photographer would have pushed film in the old days, then why not make it available? You can always limit your output, or dial down and stay in the acceptable range for yourself, just like with the video reasoning where you want the 1080p option, even if it's not that useful in practical use.
So, actually we're talking about two different things - video and High ISO performance. I have no problem with your point about dialing down your output on the vid to 720, but maintaining the capability of 1080p if it's there. (I still don't quite see the need of 1080p video in a DSLR when it's still a Blu-ray thing for the most part, and even 720p video looks great on a 63" Samsung 1080p plasma tv - but that really isn't that much of an issue for me - if they can offer it, then they should give folks the option.) I'm not sure why you have a issue with Nikon making it possible for some of us (those who see it as useful...
Anyway, this has been a fun, and lively discussion. I appreciate you're contributions to this... it does make one think a bit...
Kinda the point I was trying to make, as well as how we should really be quite thrilled with these developments and giving Nikon (or canon, whoever) good, constructive input. Not "You don't need to put this in. why make it expandable!"
As far as work samples....
Highly unlikely. They're using these photos for commercial purposes, so presumably they needed model releases. Those two people are posed (and very much look it too).
Hey, it's all in good fun. It was fun verbally sparring a bit, and your photos are very strong.