I think Thom was right, again...

Started Mar 26, 2013 | Discussions
PHXAZCRAIG
Forum ProPosts: 11,089Gear list
Like?
I think Thom was right, again...
Mar 26, 2013

Some time ago Thom Hogan posted that digital might not actually be cheaper than film, because you end up buying new bodies so often.     I'm starting to agree with him, even though I shoot far more digital shots than film.

Here it is 2013 and I just bought yet another Nikon.   This year it's a D800e.

In late 2005 I bought a D70s.

In early 2007 I bought a D200.

In late 2007 I bought a D300.

In late 2010 I bought a D700.

Hmm.  5 cameras in 8 years.    And they've been significant upgrades, in at least some ways.  Enough to basically have me stop using the previous generation, except I did use D200 and D300 at the same time.

Which makes me wonder, what is Nikon going to have 2-3 years down the road that is going to obsolete my D800e?

(Or perhaps complement it.   I could see buying a D800es, which simply gives me 8fps and some small autofocus improvement.)

In contrast, I bought an N90s in 1995 and used it until 2005.   All I had to upgrade was the film I used.

-- hide signature --

Craig
www.cjcphoto.net

 PHXAZCRAIG's gear list:PHXAZCRAIG's gear list
Nikon 1 V1 Nikon D200 Nikon D300 Nikon D700 Nikon D800E +32 more
Nikon D200 Nikon D300 Nikon D700 Nikon D70s Nikon D800E
If you believe there are incorrect tags, please send us this post using our feedback form.
Carl Maiorino
Senior MemberPosts: 1,856
Like?
Nobody Makes You Upgrrade...
In reply to PHXAZCRAIG, Mar 26, 2013

...and that is where Thom Hogan's premise is wrong.  The cameras don't have a self-destruct mechanism that goes off on a certain date.  I can use any old digital camera I please and still get great results.  The decision to upgrade is an option, not a requirement.  Digital is only as expensive as we make it...

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
ultimitsu
Veteran MemberPosts: 5,860
Like?
Re: I think Thom was right, again...
In reply to PHXAZCRAIG, Mar 26, 2013

PHXAZCRAIG wrote:

Hmm. 5 cameras in 8 years. And they've been significant upgrades, in at least some ways. Enough to basically have me stop using the previous generation, except I did use D200 and D300 at the same time.

People shot a lot less with film, both in number of photos and in ways in which they shoot photos.

With digital, clicks are free, people get to experiment with all sorts of shooting, everyone who buys a SLR try out action shooting, many find after 500 or 1000 clicks, it is not for them. In film days, how many people could afford doing this ?

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Event_shooter
Senior MemberPosts: 1,009
Like?
Re: I think Thom was right, again...
In reply to PHXAZCRAIG, Mar 26, 2013

Do the math and you'll see he's wrong. at about .25 per developed photo and film if you shoot 10K photo you'd spend $2,500.00. Some shoot 10k in a month.

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Chad Gladstone
Senior MemberPosts: 2,608Gear list
Like?
Re: I think Thom was right, again...
In reply to PHXAZCRAIG, Mar 26, 2013

PHXAZCRAIG wrote:

Some time ago Thom Hogan posted that digital might not actually be cheaper than film, because you end up buying new bodies so often. I'm starting to agree with him, even though I shoot far more digital shots than film.

Here it is 2013 and I just bought yet another Nikon. This year it's a D800e.

In late 2005 I bought a D70s.

In early 2007 I bought a D200.

In late 2007 I bought a D300.

In late 2010 I bought a D700.

Hmm. 5 cameras in 8 years. And they've been significant upgrades, in at least some ways. Enough to basically have me stop using the previous generation, except I did use D200 and D300 at the same time.

Which makes me wonder, what is Nikon going to have 2-3 years down the road that is going to obsolete my D800e?

(Or perhaps complement it. I could see buying a D800es, which simply gives me 8fps and some small autofocus improvement.)

In contrast, I bought an N90s in 1995 and used it until 2005. All I had to upgrade was the film I used.

-- hide signature --

Craig
www.cjcphoto.net

He would be right in my case (almost the same upgrade path as you), but I would not even be tempted to shoot film, irrespective of the cost as I enjoy the gratification of digital and the most important benefit, the delete button.

-- hide signature --

Chad Gladstone

 Chad Gladstone's gear list:Chad Gladstone's gear list
Nikon D800E Nikon 1 V1 Nikon AF-S Nikkor 24-70mm f/2.8G ED Nikon AF-S Nikkor 28mm f/1.8G Nikon AF-S Nikkor 50mm f/1.4G +7 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
photoreddi
Senior MemberPosts: 4,694
Like?
Re: I think Thom was right, again...
In reply to PHXAZCRAIG, Mar 26, 2013

PHXAZCRAIG wrote:

Some time ago Thom Hogan posted that digital might not actually be cheaper than film, because you end up buying new bodies so often. I'm starting to agree with him, even though I shoot far more digital shots than film.

Here it is 2013 and I just bought yet another Nikon. This year it's a D800e.

In late 2005 I bought a D70s.

In early 2007 I bought a D200.

In late 2007 I bought a D300.

In late 2010 I bought a D700.

Hmm. 5 cameras in 8 years. And they've been significant upgrades, in at least some ways. Enough to basically have me stop using the previous generation, except I did use D200 and D300 at the same time.

Which makes me wonder, what is Nikon going to have 2-3 years down the road that is going to obsolete my D800e?

(Or perhaps complement it. I could see buying a D800es, which simply gives me 8fps and some small autofocus improvement.)

In contrast, I bought an N90s in 1995 and used it until 2005. All I had to upgrade was the film I used.

Yes, but what if to be able to use the newer, better film, you also had to upgrade the camera? You and other N90s owners might have upgraded to a newer model in 1998. For image quality alone I would take my D300 over any 35mm film camera and I think that many D90/D300/D700 owners would agree. But many owners of discontinued DSLRs have or will upgrade to newer models because there are significant image quality improvements (higher resolution, lower noise at higher ISO, higher speed, better features, etc.)? I like the way digital embeds EXIF data in the image files. The N90s could save some exposure data for many rolls of film but to access it you needed to upload it to a Sharp Wizard. Ugh.

Anyone that is satisfied with their older DSLRs has no need to upgrade, yet many do anyway. So be honest, now that you have a D800 (and it's the "e" model no less), how often would you set it aside and take your D70s or D200 out for a day's shooting, assuming you still have either of them? I still have my D70s but it's used only slightly more often than I now use my old Palm Pilot, the same one that I got rid of years before I bought the D70s.

Thom may be right about the total cost per year being higher for digital cameras vs film cameras, but there's another way to look at it. I'm sure that I'm not the only one that found that the cost per photo was much higher for film cameras than for digital because there were several reasons why I shot such a smaller number of film photos per year than I shot digitally per month. There are a number of pros and advanced amateurs here that regularly wear out their shutters at 400k to 500k actuations. That amounts to somewhere between 12,000 and 20,000 rolls of film. Film and processing costs from a drugstore for this amount of photos would probably come to somewhere between $100,000 and $200,000. Pros and advanced amateurs would be more likely to use a custom lab so the cost rises. This makes DSLRs seem like the bargain of the century.

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
PHXAZCRAIG
Forum ProPosts: 11,089Gear list
Like?
Re: I think Thom was right, again...
In reply to photoreddi, Mar 26, 2013

How often do I take my old cameras out and use them?   Pretty much it's like I'm looking for a reason to shoot the D700 now that I have the D800 - it's that much better.   I used the D300 only for wildlife when I got the D700.   I put the D200 on the shelf and don't use it.

Which is also to say that I have all four of my most recent 4 DSLR's.  I did sell my D70s, but only because a friend of mine needed a camera.   I still have my N90s and N8008s.   Never use them.

-- hide signature --

Craig
www.cjcphoto.net

 PHXAZCRAIG's gear list:PHXAZCRAIG's gear list
Nikon 1 V1 Nikon D200 Nikon D300 Nikon D700 Nikon D800E +32 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Wellington100
Veteran MemberPosts: 6,353Gear list
Like?
Re: I think Thom was right, again...
In reply to photoreddi, Mar 26, 2013

photoreddi wrote:

PHXAZCRAIG wrote:

Some time ago Thom Hogan posted that digital might not actually be cheaper than film, because you end up buying new bodies so often. I'm starting to agree with him, even though I shoot far more digital shots than film.

Here it is 2013 and I just bought yet another Nikon. This year it's a D800e.

In late 2005 I bought a D70s.

In early 2007 I bought a D200.

In late 2007 I bought a D300.

In late 2010 I bought a D700.

Hmm. 5 cameras in 8 years. And they've been significant upgrades, in at least some ways. Enough to basically have me stop using the previous generation, except I did use D200 and D300 at the same time.

Which makes me wonder, what is Nikon going to have 2-3 years down the road that is going to obsolete my D800e?

(Or perhaps complement it. I could see buying a D800es, which simply gives me 8fps and some small autofocus improvement.)

In contrast, I bought an N90s in 1995 and used it until 2005. All I had to upgrade was the film I used.

Yes, but what if to be able to use the newer, better film, you also had to upgrade the camera? You and other N90s owners might have upgraded to a newer model in 1998. For image quality alone I would take my D300 over any 35mm film camera and I think that many D90/D300/D700 owners would agree. But many owners of discontinued DSLRs have or will upgrade to newer models because there are significant image quality improvements (higher resolution, lower noise at higher ISO, higher speed, better features, etc.)? I like the way digital embeds EXIF data in the image files. The N90s could save some exposure data for many rolls of film but to access it you needed to upload it to a Sharp Wizard. Ugh.

Anyone that is satisfied with their older DSLRs has no need to upgrade, yet many do anyway. So be honest, now that you have a D800 (and it's the "e" model no less), how often would you set it aside and take your D70s or D200 out for a day's shooting, assuming you still have either of them? I still have my D70s but it's used only slightly more often than I now use my old Palm Pilot, the same one that I got rid of years before I bought the D70s.

Thom may be right about the total cost per year being higher for digital cameras vs film cameras, but there's another way to look at it. I'm sure that I'm not the only one that found that the cost per photo was much higher for film cameras than for digital because there were several reasons why I shot such a smaller number of film photos per year than I shot digitally per month. There are a number of pros and advanced amateurs here that regularly wear out their shutters at 400k to 500k actuations. That amounts to somewhere between 12,000 and 20,000 rolls of film. Film and processing costs from a drugstore for this amount of photos would probably come to somewhere between $100,000 and $200,000. Pros and advanced amateurs would be more likely to use a custom lab so the cost rises. This makes DSLRs seem like the bargain of the century.

Good point, and then there are the indirect benefits such as the ability to share images at no extra cost, the convenience of storing images digitally rather than investing in expensive archive systems, the ability to view images at any size at no extra cost, the savings in  not having to track and store negatives and slides, etc etc

Its also not essential to shoot with a D800 if you are a hobbyist and just want to have some fun, my 90 quid Fuji F300 compact is a lot of fun as well and makes photography a virtually free hobby for those on a budget. I have stopped shooting my D40 and S5 DSLR's because I enjoy this little camera so much though I am hankering for a quality landscape setup. I have a D600 with the 28-300 in mind. This is the sort of stuff I like to shoot:

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
lanefAU
Senior MemberPosts: 4,717Gear list
Like?
Re: I think Thom was right, again...
In reply to ultimitsu, Mar 26, 2013

ultimitsu wrote:

PHXAZCRAIG wrote:

Hmm. 5 cameras in 8 years. And they've been significant upgrades, in at least some ways. Enough to basically have me stop using the previous generation, except I did use D200 and D300 at the same time.

People shot a lot less with film, both in number of photos and in ways in which they shoot photos.

With digital, clicks are free, people get to experiment with all sorts of shooting, everyone who buys a SLR try out action shooting, many find after 500 or 1000 clicks, it is not for them. In film days, how many people could afford doing this ?

I don't think your film in your camera would survive this:

"A tourist’s underwater camera has survived a 9600km, five-year voyage at sea to end up on Taiwan shores after being lost in Hawaii."

"The memory card with photos of Scallan's Hawaii visit remained intact inside the camera."

http://au.totaltravel.yahoo.com/travel-ideas/news-opinions/news/a/-/16447101/lost-in-hawaii-underwater-camera-found-five-years-on-in-taiwan/?src=y7homepage

 lanefAU's gear list:lanefAU's gear list
Canon PowerShot G1 X II Nikon D810 Nikon AF-S Nikkor 24-70mm f/2.8G ED Nikon AF-S Nikkor 16-35mm f/4G ED VR Nikon AF-S Nikkor 70-300mm f/4.5-5.6G VR +2 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Just a Photographer
Senior MemberPosts: 1,151Gear list
Like?
Re: I think Thom was right, again...
In reply to PHXAZCRAIG, Mar 26, 2013

PHXAZCRAIG wrote:

Some time ago Thom Hogan posted that digital might not actually be cheaper than film, because you end up buying new bodies so often. I'm starting to agree with him, even though I shoot far more digital shots than film.

Here it is 2013 and I just bought yet another Nikon. This year it's a D800e.

In late 2005 I bought a D70s.

In early 2007 I bought a D200.

In late 2007 I bought a D300.

In late 2010 I bought a D700.

Hmm. 5 cameras in 8 years. And they've been significant upgrades, in at least some ways. Enough to basically have me stop using the previous generation, except I did use D200 and D300 at the same time.

Which makes me wonder, what is Nikon going to have 2-3 years down the road that is going to obsolete my D800e?

(Or perhaps complement it. I could see buying a D800es, which simply gives me 8fps and some small autofocus improvement.)

In contrast, I bought an N90s in 1995 and used it until 2005. All I had to upgrade was the film I used.

-- hide signature --

Craig
www.cjcphoto.net

No Thom is not right, by far not!

Why? Because he forgets that when time progesses and technology increases there is now a point in time where you do not need to upgrade your camera anymore once a new model comes out.
The D800 is a perfect example of that. It has a wide dynamic range, has plenty of resolution for 95% of the people that uses a camera, has a powerfull AF system on board (thom and some other whiners disagree :)) , is a featurerich camera with its video options etc. and can shoot well up to ISO 12600.

New camera's will only be marginal upgrades from now on, like wifi, touch screens and other gadgety improvements. New camera's will not bring that many revolutionary new features anymore, but will be evolutions of the older system.

Also Thom forgot that for every situation, outdoors/indoors/bright sunny days/shadowy days/ etc. you needed a specific role of film while in all current camera's you have all those cameraroles in one body. From ISO 50 to ISO 12600 (in the days of film one could hardly get hold of ISO 3200 rolls).

Now I have D800 at my hands I do not see myself buying a new camera before 2018/2020.
I just don't see the need for upgrading now camera's already have 90% of the featureset you need.

 Just a Photographer's gear list:Just a Photographer's gear list
Nikon D800E Nikon D4 Fujifilm X-T1 Nikon AF-S Nikkor 14-24mm f/2.8G ED Nikon AF-S Nikkor 50mm f/1.4G +8 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Margouillat
Regular MemberPosts: 429Gear list
Like?
Re: I think Thom was right, again...
In reply to photoreddi, Mar 26, 2013

Not so sure about that higher film cost... Most of us had a small wet lab for B&W, and for color went for slides. Developing a B&W film is amazingly cheap, can be done anywhere, need no electricity, nor to make a contact sheet.

Printing via an enlarger needs a bit more space and a bit of electricity, papers were the costliest part, specially if you went in gallery grade.

A camera was more of a lens holder, or sometimes a base for a system (aka F3), a battery would last more then a year and cameras like the FM2 would nicely work without any (just had to guess metering). But whether you had a cheap camera or a sophisticated one you could use the latest film with the best lenses, and usually that got the picture...

The costs with DSLRs is not only with the camera and it's upgrades, but with computers, softwares and their upgrades. Not to speak of archival systems that now are in Terabytes units. Most pictures are seen on a screen through dedicated web sites (sharing or personal), sometimes printed in a coffee table book, and sometimes printed... With a printer that could come free with each bunch of ink cartridges such the prices are disproportionately high !!!

When we did 300 pictures at a marriage, we now do 3000 (at a minimum), great, we have more choices, but precisely that's also part of the problem as it takes time (money) to go through all of them and choose (or worse, ask the client to choose)!!!

So, yes, I believe Thom is right. Digital has a lot of advantages, but being "cheaper" isn't one, alas !

-- hide signature --

"Un photographe, finalement, c'est quelqu'un comme les autres, mais qui prend des photos." - Man Ray
http://www.flickr.com/photos/archivue/

 Margouillat's gear list:Margouillat's gear list
Nikon D3X Nikon Df Nikon D700 +1 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
stany buyle
Senior MemberPosts: 1,957Gear list
Like?
---Might--- not actually be cheaper...
In reply to PHXAZCRAIG, Mar 26, 2013

PHXAZCRAIG wrote:

Some time ago Thom Hogan posted that digital might not actually be cheaper than film,
Craig
www.cjcphoto.net

"Might" is the key word here.

  • If I would take only the same number of pictures as I did with film, digital is MUCH cheaper.
  • If I would have stayed with my D100 or D200 which was comparable with asa sensivities and IQ in low light, digital would be MUCH cheaper. I still have my D1H and my D200 and they both operate perfect.

But, while I want to be able to shoot at iso 3200 and get silk clean images and even at 25600, -which was impossible in film days with amateur gear-, digital might be more expensive.

So Thom wrote "might", which everybody knew.

-- hide signature --

Kindest regards.
Stany Buyle
http://www.nikonuser.info/fotoforum
I like better one good picture in a day than 10 bad ones in a second..

 stany buyle's gear list:stany buyle's gear list
Nikon D1
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
coudet
Veteran MemberPosts: 3,814
Like?
No, he was wrong.
In reply to PHXAZCRAIG, Mar 26, 2013

PHXAZCRAIG wrote:

Some time ago Thom Hogan posted that digital might not actually be cheaper than film, because you end up buying new bodies so often. I'm starting to agree with him, even though I shoot far more digital shots than film.

No one forces you to upgrade.

Do the math - how many shots you take with digital and how much would it cost to shoot that much on film?

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
rhlpetrus
Forum ProPosts: 23,507Gear list
Like?
Thom also said Re: I think Thom was right, again...
In reply to PHXAZCRAIG, Mar 26, 2013

that a smart way is to update every other release (once you have stabilized your system). That would make you buy cameras every 4-6 years or even longer, depending on line. In six years now I have owned 2 bodies. I think that's good enough (I'm not a pro, so I actually don't need two bodies at a time, I use a Nikon V1 as secondary system).

-- hide signature --

Renato.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/rhlpedrosa/
OnExposure member
http://www.onexposure.net/
Good shooting and good luck
(after Ed Murrow)

 rhlpetrus's gear list:rhlpetrus's gear list
Nikon 1 V1 Nikon D7000 Nikon 1 Nikkor 10mm f/2.8 Nikon AF Nikkor 35mm f/2D Nikon AF-S Nikkor 70-300mm f/4.5-5.6G VR +3 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
BackPacker1532
Forum MemberPosts: 87Gear list
Like?
Re: Nobody Makes You Upgrrade...
In reply to Carl Maiorino, Mar 26, 2013

Carl Maiorino wrote:

...and that is where Thom Hogan's premise is wrong. The cameras don't have a self-destruct mechanism that goes off on a certain date. I can use any old digital camera I please and still get great results. The decision to upgrade is an option, not a requirement. Digital is only as expensive as we make it...

True, but I think Thom was taking into account the "must have", or "Kit envy" element in all of us to a greater or lesser degree.

I would like a D800 or even a D600, but make do with a D3.  If the next D4 variant, probably the D4x has 24mp and retains its fast frame rate, I will be very, very tempted.

 BackPacker1532's gear list:BackPacker1532's gear list
Leica S2 Nikon D3
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
overniteman
Contributing MemberPosts: 573
Like?
Re: Thom also said Re: I think Thom was right, again...
In reply to rhlpetrus, Mar 26, 2013

I've never calculated the difference between frames of digital vs. film. Started with a D2x in 2006 and moved to a D700 in 2010. So two bodies in 7 years.

My F-5 was used for 9 years until Kodachrome's demise. I have a deep feeling that if Kodachrome and good processing had stayed around, I'd still be using the F-5.

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Rick Knepper
Forum ProPosts: 10,554Gear list
Like?
If it weren't for digital, I'd have no desire for photography
In reply to PHXAZCRAIG, Mar 26, 2013

So, I don't know how one would go about cost-analyzing that.

-- hide signature --

Rick Knepper, photographer, non-professional, shooting for pleasure, check my profile for gear list and philosophy.

 Rick Knepper's gear list:Rick Knepper's gear list
Nikon D800E Canon EOS 5D Mark III Canon EOS 6D Nikon D3X Canon EF 100mm f/2.8L Macro IS USM +17 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
ScottRH
Senior MemberPosts: 1,658
Like?
Re: I think Thom was right, again...
In reply to PHXAZCRAIG, Mar 26, 2013

PHXAZCRAIG wrote:

Some time ago Thom Hogan posted that digital might not actually be cheaper than film, because you end up buying new bodies so often. I'm starting to agree with him, even though I shoot far more digital shots than film.

Here it is 2013 and I just bought yet another Nikon. This year it's a D800e.

In late 2005 I bought a D70s.

In early 2007 I bought a D200.

In late 2007 I bought a D300.

In late 2010 I bought a D700.

Hmm. 5 cameras in 8 years. And they've been significant upgrades, in at least some ways. Enough to basically have me stop using the previous generation, except I did use D200 and D300 at the same time.

Which makes me wonder, what is Nikon going to have 2-3 years down the road that is going to obsolete my D800e?

(Or perhaps complement it. I could see buying a D800es, which simply gives me 8fps and some small autofocus improvement.)

In contrast, I bought an N90s in 1995 and used it until 2005. All I had to upgrade was the film I used.

-- hide signature --

Craig
www.cjcphoto.net

>(Or perhaps complement it. I could see buying a D800es, which simply gives me 8fps and some small autofocus improvement.)

Now your talkin' D700 replacement !

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
orchidblooms
Senior MemberPosts: 1,163
Like?
Re: not sure I agree...
In reply to PHXAZCRAIG, Mar 26, 2013

not so sure I agree -- I used an olympus E-1 for many many years... 2006-20012 (2004-2006 E-20N - 2003-2006 d500L)

Finally last march i went to see my salesman at local shop - and he started to tell me about the upcoming d800's

ordered the 'E' on the spot...

plan on using this for years....

I was happy with the E-1 - except for long exposures - sensor heated up - making it impossible to do astrophotography - missed many shots at the keck observatory... they all were unusable -

I guess it depends what your interest really is in your gear - to use it or own 'the latest n greatest'....

Phil

PS: (edit) there may be some ring of truth to this - I used my Pentax / Canon film gear from late 70's up to purchase of the d500L!

-- hide signature --

Phillip "Iggy" Murphy http://phillipmurphy.com
ILM Sandra Murphy - "The Orchid Lady" http://orchidblooms.com

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Lance B
Forum ProPosts: 27,415Gear list
Like?
Digital is cheaper than film by far. Check your cost per shot.
In reply to PHXAZCRAIG, Mar 26, 2013

Let's go back to my D700. Cost me $AU$3,100 and I have taken 14,000 shots with it. That's $AU0.22/shot. Back when I was shooting film about 10 years ago, film cost about AU$7.00 for a roll of 36 neg film, thats about the same cost per shot, but if we factor in inflation, film would probably be even dearer now. Slide film was even dearer. However, I am about to sell my D700 for about AU$1,200, so effectively the camera only cost me AU$1,900, so the cost per shot is only about $AU0.14/shot, much cheaper than film.

Fast forward to my D800. Cost me AU$3,500, sold for AU$2,000 to a friend for cheaper than I would normally have sold it. That's a cost of AU$1,500 and I have taken about a similar number of shutter actuations to my D700, 14670, so that is about $AU0.10/shot, which is much cheaper than film!

You also have to remember that you have to factor in the cost of a film SLR camera back in the film days which would have been a dearer item per shot because you have to add the cost of film and the cost of the camera together. A Nikon F6 was about $2,400 new, so almost the cost of a D800 and you still had to buy film!

I think we can assume that a camera these days is just like rolls of film, basically a throw away item and when we upgrade to a new DSLR, it's like changing films.

 Lance B's gear list:Lance B's gear list
Nikon D810 Nikon AF-S Nikkor 14-24mm f/2.8G ED Nikon AF-S Nikkor 16-35mm f/4G ED VR Nikon AF-S Nikkor 24-70mm f/2.8G ED Nikon AF-S Nikkor 70-200mm f/2.8G ED VR II +11 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum MMy threads