D600 vs d7100

Started Apr 26, 2013 | Discussions
Grevture
Veteran MemberPosts: 4,053Gear list
Like?
DX lens prices vs FX lens prices
In reply to MikeInIndy, Apr 26, 2013

MikeInIndy wrote:

And anyone saying FX is cheaper needs to better explain that one.

What was said, was that FX lenses are not necessarily more expensive. This as a response to a poster who in rather unspecified terms claimed that FX lenses were more expensive then DX ones. Weighing in performance, the issue is a bit more convoluted then what appears on the surface. There is (still) a clear price difference between a DX system and a FX system as a whole, but most of that difference comes from the cameras, not the lenses (like the $800 difference between a D7100 and a D600).

Many people look at lens specifications alone, and forget that the sensor size actually play a role: If you are aiming for the same performance in resolution, in depth-of-field control and in light gathering performance, then FX lenses often actually is cheaper then DX lenses. The exception being when you shoot a lot with longer telephoto lenses where DX often is more cost effective.

But if one accepts less depth-of-field control and less good performance in low light, then DX certainly can be more cost effective.

-- hide signature --

I don't suffer from insanity, I enjoy every moment of it!
By the way, film is not dead.
It just smell funny

 Grevture's gear list:Grevture's gear list
Nikon D70s Nikon D3 Nikon D3S Nikon AF-S Nikkor 70-200mm f/2.8G ED VR II Nikon AF-S Nikkor 17-35mm f/2.8D ED-IF +7 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
chlamchowder
Senior MemberPosts: 2,083Gear list
Like?
Try this...
In reply to paulski66, Apr 26, 2013


Combining lenses like the (new or fairly new) 18-35/3.5-4.5, 24-85/3.5-4.5, the 28/1.8, the 50/1.8, and the 85/1.8 with a D600 produces a (potential) kit which is hard to beat for any roughly equivalent DX kit, both in terms of actual price and in terms of photographic usefulness.

The only lens that you can;t replicate in the above list is the 28 1.8; wide angle primes is the one area DX will fall short on every time.

But considering that the 35 f/1.8 and 50 f/1.8 replace (roughly) the 50 & 85, and any (cheaper) DX kit lens will replace the 24-85, and that there are a number of very strong wide-to-ultra options for DX (Tokina 11-16 or 12-24, Nikon 12-24 and 10-24), with the Tokinas costing a good bit less than the new Nikkor wide angle, I think you can assemble a low-price DX kit for less money than you can an equivalent DX kit.

Assuming, of course, that you're willing to forgo the fast wide angle prime. And that's always been the sore spot now, hasn't it?

While investigating options for a full frame lens setup, one of the combos I considered was:

  • Tamron 19-35/3.5-4.5 ($100 used)
  • Nikon AF 50/1.4 ($200 used)
  • Nikon AF 80-200/2.8 screw drive, AF-D or pre-AF-D version ($500 or less)

That would pretty much cover general purpose stuff for about $900. Swap out the 50/1.4 for a 50/1.8, and use a fixed 85/1.8 AF-D instead of the 80-200, and you get:

  • Tamron 19-35/3.5-4.5 ($100)
  • Nikon AF 50/1.8 ($80)
  • Nikon AF 85/1.8 ($300)

For a total of less than $500.

With a DX kit:

  • Wideangle going down to 14mm, to match 20mm on FF..???
  • Nikon AF-S 35/1.8 G ($170 used, no aperture control during live view)
  • Nikon AF 50/1.8 ($80)

To match the cost and focal range coverage of the FX kit, you'll have to find some 14mm or wider lens for $250 or less. I don't know of an option like that. The cheapest one I see is a Sigma 10-20 for $325. It goes wider, but is more expensive. Also, consider that FF with the same aperture gives better high ISO performance.

 chlamchowder's gear list:chlamchowder's gear list
Sony Alpha DSLR-A580 Nikon D600 Sony DT 18-55mm F3.5-5.6 SAM +8 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Grevture
Veteran MemberPosts: 4,053Gear list
Like?
D600 or d7100 - depends a lot on you
In reply to Pingpongrallyon, Apr 26, 2013

Pingpongrallyon wrote:

Hi. I am looking to buy a Dslr for taking photo of my 1 year old son. I can afford either a d600 or a d7100. Which one should I get? Thanks.

There are many arguments supporting either choice: You are choosing between two (overall) very good cameras. They just have slightly different sets of advantages and disadvantages.

First of all the overall capability of a camera system comes from a combination of camera and lenses. Depending on what you shoot, you quite often get better performance from a cheaper camera with better lenses then with a more advanced camera but with lesser lenses. Which in you case mean it very likely could be better idea to buy a D7100 and spend the $800 price difference compared to the D600 on getting better lenses then you could afford if you got a D600.

A example: A D7100 with a kit zoom + Nikon AF-S 35/1.8 and Nikon AF-S 50/1.8 will give you more photo oppurtunities and possibly better photos then a D600 with just a kit zoom and no other lenses (those two extra lenses for the D7100 actually only cost about $420).

Overall, the D7100 has a noticeably more advanced AF system then the D600 which might come in handy when your son grows older and start moving around (with the surprising agility and speed of children). On the other hand, a D600 will work better in low light. You can make a long list of pluses and minuses for each camera, but without knowing more about you and your camera experience, it is a bit difficult to elaborate on this.

-- hide signature --

I don't suffer from insanity, I enjoy every moment of it!
By the way, film is not dead.
It just smell funny

 Grevture's gear list:Grevture's gear list
Nikon D70s Nikon D3 Nikon D3S Nikon AF-S Nikkor 70-200mm f/2.8G ED VR II Nikon AF-S Nikkor 17-35mm f/2.8D ED-IF +7 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
lera ion
Regular MemberPosts: 148Gear list
Like?
Re: DX lens prices vs FX lens prices
In reply to Grevture, Apr 26, 2013

D600 FX-DX, Nikon wanted to kill two birds with one stone and shot his leg...

 lera ion's gear list:lera ion's gear list
Sony Alpha DSLR-A200 Nikon D600 +1 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
A. Westreich
Senior MemberPosts: 1,195Gear list
Like?
Re: D600 vs d7100
In reply to Pingpongrallyon, Apr 26, 2013

Neither.

Get a D5100 and start a college fund with the difference.

From a parent with one kid in college and another one just done with college.

 A. Westreich's gear list:A. Westreich's gear list
Nikon D7100 Nikon AF Nikkor 35mm f/2D Nikon AF-S DX Micro Nikkor 40mm F2.8 Nikon AF-S Nikkor 80-400mm f/4.5-5.6G ED VR
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
MikeInIndy
Senior MemberPosts: 1,075Gear list
Like?
Re: Try again
In reply to Grevture, Apr 26, 2013

Grevture wrote:

Well, then factor in things like DOF control and light gathering (of a FX sensor) in the equation and the DX option has noticeable less performance for the same money. And aside from light gathering and DOF control, the lens on a 24 MP DX camera need to deliver 1.5 times higher resolution then a lens on a 24 MP FX camera to produce similar output resolution.

So no, any f3.5-5.6 kit zoom on a DX sensor will not offer a similiar performance as the 24-85/3.5-4.5 does on a FX sensor. For that you will need to buy a more expensive DX lens, like a AF-S 17-55/2.8. The same principle applies for DX wide angle zoom compared to the 18-35/3.5-4.5.

The area where DX still has a advantage is in the price of the camera itself and in telephoto where the crop factor mean you often can get away with cheaper lenses.

-- hide signature --

I don't suffer from insanity, I enjoy every moment of it!
By the way, film is not dead.
It just smell funny

If you're stuck on Nikon lenses, as I said in my reply, no, there's not a good option.  If you aren't, the third party 17-50 f2.8 options are all as cheap or cheaper than Nikons variable zooms, and MUCH cheaper than any fixed aperture zoom Nikon offers.  Same with the UWA, and frankly even Nikons own 12-24 f4 is the same price as the 18-35.  And in a UWA DOF control is not really a very relevant topic.  On the longer end a sigma 50-150 vs say a 70-200 f4 is still several hundred cheaper.  If you're a Nikon brand snob DX isn't really a much better option, at least until you get into the telephoto and longer ranges, but if you can live with third party solutions you can certainly get most of the performance of FX without the price tag.  Arguably, the "look" of FX is better, I love my D600, but for someone who's starting out and wants one camera, I'm not sure starting at a 2000 dollar body is a sound suggestion.

-- hide signature --

-Mike

 MikeInIndy's gear list:MikeInIndy's gear list
Canon PowerShot G3 Nikon Coolpix 950 Nikon D7000 Nikon 1 J1 Nikon D600 +13 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Adrian Van
Regular MemberPosts: 392Gear list
Like?
Re: D600 or d7100 - depends a lot on you
In reply to Grevture, Apr 26, 2013

To the OP:

After looking at the high ISO samples just posted on D7100 review, unfortunately above 1000 iso and the noise becomes quite visible, as a fine grain.

My older D700, I can get noise free images up to 1600 iso and also 2000 iso and lots of fine sharp detail.  Run it through DXO Pro 8 or Lightroom automated noise reduction, and you see literally no noise at all on screen up to 2000 iso and even highter. And very little before the reduction. Post processing has more leeway in FX I would think also.

If you have the money, I would go with a D600 over D7100 for ultimate portraiture and low light, provided, you got one without the oil lube splatter problem (if Nikon has cleaned up their act in that department).

For best AF system for action photos or fast moving children D7100 beats D600. Or find a lightly used D700.

Your decision of course is how important the level of fine noise is to you (and use of high iso) and the size and weight of the camera. Both are still great cameras.

 Adrian Van's gear list:Adrian Van's gear list
Panasonic Lumix DMC-LX5 Nikon D700 Nikon D300S Fujifilm X-M1 Nikon AF-S Nikkor 24-70mm f/2.8G ED +1 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Couper
Junior MemberPosts: 26Gear list
Like?
Re: D600 vs d7100
In reply to A. Westreich, Apr 26, 2013

A. Westreich wrote:

Neither.

Get a D5100 and start a college fund with the difference.

From a parent with one kid in college and another one just done with college.

Good answer!

The reviews I've seen suggest image quality between the D5100 and D7100 are indistinguishable in normal use.  Focus "engines" are different between the two, so if the OP were to rent a 5100 and determine it takes care of his needs, he could save a bundle of money.

I've been reviewing 7100 vs 600 and decided to go with the 7100.  I'd *really* love to have a D400, but this will tide me over for my needs and I'll consider the next round of FF cameras, hoping for faster I/O or larger buffers.

 Couper's gear list:Couper's gear list
Nikon D7100 Nikon AF-S Nikkor 50mm f/1.4G Nikon AF-Nikkor 80-200mm f/2.8D ED +1 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
A. Westreich
Senior MemberPosts: 1,195Gear list
Like?
Re: D600 vs d7100
In reply to Couper, Apr 26, 2013

Couper wrote:

A. Westreich wrote:

Neither.

Get a D5100 and start a college fund with the difference.

Good answer!

The reviews I've seen suggest image quality between the D5100 and D7100 are indistinguishable in normal use.  Focus "engines" are different between the two, so if the OP were to rent a 5100 and determine it takes care of his needs, he could save a bundle of money.

. . .

I know it sounded like a flip answer but I meant it sincerely.  All these answers going on about the arcane differences miss the op's point.  You are talking about taking photos of the kid at the park, in the pool, playing with grandparents - most of which are going to be either posted on Facebook or made into 5x7's to put on the piano or a holiday card.  It fits in a diaper bag, the IQ is great and you have plenty of money left over for a 35 1.8 (great for B-day parties) and a 70-300 for the infamous pre-school graduation (in four years!)

The only downside is that it probably isn't cheerio-proof.  But then I haven't seen any data on the D71K or D600 either . . .

 A. Westreich's gear list:A. Westreich's gear list
Nikon D7100 Nikon AF Nikkor 35mm f/2D Nikon AF-S DX Micro Nikkor 40mm F2.8 Nikon AF-S Nikkor 80-400mm f/4.5-5.6G ED VR
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
ultimitsu
Veteran MemberPosts: 5,667
Like?
Re: Not true, especially if you consider 3rd party options...
In reply to paulski66, Apr 26, 2013

paulski66 wrote:

Grevture wrote:

Combining lenses like the (new or fairly new) 18-35/3.5-4.5, 24-85/3.5-4.5, the 28/1.8, the 50/1.8, and the 85/1.8 with a D600 produces a (potential) kit which is hard to beat for any roughly equivalent DX kit, both in terms of actual price and in terms of photographic usefulness.

The only lens that you can;t replicate in the above list is the 28 1.8; wide angle primes is the one area DX will fall short on every time.

But considering that the 35 f/1.8 and 50 f/1.8 replace (roughly) the 50 & 85,

you need 35 F1.4 on DX to replace 50 F1.8 on FX

you need 50 F1.4 on DX to to replace 85 F1.8 on FX (not actual compression and sharpness do not come close)

See the cost difference?

and any (cheaper) DX kit lens will replace the 24-85,

No you cannot. The closest is is 17-55 which cost over twice the price and has no VR. Sigma 17-50 OS is a good candidate but it is shorter and narrower and has potential AF issues with non-sigma bodies.

and that there are a number of very strong wide-to-ultra options for DX (Tokina 11-16 or 12-24, Nikon 12-24 and 10-24),

Only the Tokina 11-16 DX is about the same speed as 18-35 on FX. then you have 16-28 F2.8 for FX that just cannot be replicated on DX.

with the Tokinas costing a good bit less than the new Nikkor wide angle, I think you can assemble a low-price DX kit for less money than you can an equivalent DX kit.

Not for the same performance.

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
RichLI
Regular MemberPosts: 100Gear list
Like?
Re: D600 vs d7100
In reply to A. Westreich, Apr 27, 2013

A. Westreich wrote:

Neither.

Get a D5100 and start a college fund with the difference.

From a parent with one kid in college and another one just done with college.

Correct -  depending on current and desired skill level - and price concern.

-- hide signature --

Rich
craft>learning>equipment

 RichLI's gear list:RichLI's gear list
Nikon D600 Nikon AF-S Nikkor 24-85mm F3.5-4.5G ED VR Nikon AF-S Nikkor 80-400mm f/4.5-5.6G ED VR Canon Pixma Pro-100 +1 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
tissunique
Veteran MemberPosts: 3,201
Like?
Re: D600 vs d7100
In reply to Pingpongrallyon, Apr 27, 2013

For family and holiday shots then it seems to me that the D7100 with the standard zoom will be quite sufficient for you and it's by no means a starter camera (which includes excellent video facility)! Once you use it you may build interest in photography and much later decide to upgrade.

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Just Having Fun
Senior MemberPosts: 3,869
Like?
D600 lens are easily cheaper
In reply to Grevture, Apr 27, 2013

I agree with the guys who are getting all the thumbs up

I tried shooting sports in doors with a D7100 the other day any my 70-300mm (F4-F/5.6) lens, and it couldn't do it.

I can get good results at ISO3200 and 6400 with the D600.  So where is a new F/2.8-F/4 (or less) zoom I can get for the D7100 that costs under $350 (like my Tamron)?

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
MikeInIndy
Senior MemberPosts: 1,075Gear list
Like?
Re: D600 lens are easily cheaper
In reply to Just Having Fun, Apr 27, 2013

The only NEW Tamron full frame fast zoom that is "cheap" is the 500 dollar 28-75.  The 17-50 f2.8 is the same price.  I'd like to see where a new full frame Tamron of any design is 350 bucks.

-- hide signature --

-Mike

 MikeInIndy's gear list:MikeInIndy's gear list
Canon PowerShot G3 Nikon Coolpix 950 Nikon D7000 Nikon 1 J1 Nikon D600 +13 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Grevture
Veteran MemberPosts: 4,053Gear list
Like?
To be fair ...
In reply to Just Having Fun, Apr 28, 2013

Just Having Fun wrote:

I agree with the guys who are getting all the thumbs up

I tried shooting sports in doors with a D7100 the other day any my 70-300mm (F4-F/5.6) lens, and it couldn't do it.

I can get good results at ISO3200 and 6400 with the D600.  So where is a new F/2.8-F/4 (or less) zoom I can get for the D7100 that costs under $350 (like my Tamron)?

To be fair, it is a case of both sides being right, just in slightly different ways.

I guess what our opponents say is that to get images in everyday use, it can very often be done with cheaper gear when going for the APS-C option rather then full frame.

What me and signature ultimitsu argue is that for the same actual performance (which might or might not be essential) FX can often be cheaper.

Your example illustrate one of those situations where FX lenses can be a cheaper option to get the images you want.

-- hide signature --

I don't suffer from insanity, I enjoy every moment of it!
By the way, film is not dead.
It just smell funny

 Grevture's gear list:Grevture's gear list
Nikon D70s Nikon D3 Nikon D3S Nikon AF-S Nikkor 70-200mm f/2.8G ED VR II Nikon AF-S Nikkor 17-35mm f/2.8D ED-IF +7 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
noirdesir
Forum ProPosts: 11,041
Like?
Re: Try again
In reply to Grevture, Apr 28, 2013

Grevture wrote:

paulski66 wrote:

Grevture wrote:

Combining lenses like the (new or fairly new) 18-35/3.5-4.5, 24-85/3.5-4.5, the 28/1.8, the 50/1.8, and the 85/1.8 with a D600 produces a (potential) kit which is hard to beat for any roughly equivalent DX kit, both in terms of actual price and in terms of photographic usefulness.

The only lens that you can;t replicate in the above list is the 28 1.8; wide angle primes is the one area DX will fall short on every time.

But considering that the 35 f/1.8 and 50 f/1.8 replace (roughly) the 50 & 85, and any (cheaper) DX kit lens will replace the 24-85, and that there are a number of very strong wide-to-ultra options for DX (Tokina 11-16 or 12-24, Nikon 12-24 and 10-24), with the Tokinas costing a good bit less than the new Nikkor wide angle, I think you can assemble a low-price DX kit for less money than you can an equivalent DX kit.

Assuming, of course, that you're willing to forgo the fast wide angle prime. And that's always been the sore spot now, hasn't it?

Well, then factor in things like DOF control and light gathering (of a FX sensor) in the equation and the DX option has noticeable less performance for the same money. And aside from light gathering and DOF control, the lens on a 24 MP DX camera need to deliver 1.5 times higher resolution then a lens on a 24 MP FX camera to produce similar output resolution.

So no, any f3.5-5.6 kit zoom on a DX sensor will not offer a similiar performance as the 24-85/3.5-4.5 does on a FX sensor. For that you will need to buy a more expensive DX lens, like a AF-S 17-55/2.8. The same principle applies for DX wide angle zoom compared to the 18-35/3.5-4.5.

But that is the whole point, FX is more expensive but you get also better capabilities. If you could duplicate the capabilities of FX completely with DX, there would be no point in going FX (yes there other things like base ISO performance, larger viewfinder).

Put another way, there are no FX equivalents to the 'slow' DX wide-angle zooms, nor to the slow kit zooms (or even the 'slow' 16-85 mm).

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
ultimitsu
Veteran MemberPosts: 5,667
Like?
Re: Try again
In reply to noirdesir, Apr 29, 2013

noirdesir wrote:

But that is the whole point, FX is more expensive but you get also better capabilities. If you could duplicate the capabilities of FX completely with DX, there would be no point in going FX (yes there other things like base ISO performance, larger viewfinder).

The point is to have more choices. With an FF body you can choose:

  • buy cheap and save money while still get same performance as DX with much more expensive lens, or 
  • buy similarly expensive lens and get much better performance, or
  • get the middle ground, buy mid range lenses and get moderate better performance than DX with top end lens.

Put another way, there are no FX equivalents to the 'slow' DX wide-angle zooms, nor to the slow kit zooms (or even the 'slow' 16-85 mm).

Isn't that great? Even in worst case scenario you are still better off with FF

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
MikeInIndy
Senior MemberPosts: 1,075Gear list
Like?
Re: Try again
In reply to ultimitsu, Apr 29, 2013

ultimitsu wrote:

noirdesir wrote:

But that is the whole point, FX is more expensive but you get also better capabilities. If you could duplicate the capabilities of FX completely with DX, there would be no point in going FX (yes there other things like base ISO performance, larger viewfinder).

The point is to have more choices. With an FF body you can choose:

  • buy cheap and save money while still get same performance as DX with much more expensive lens, or 
  • buy similarly expensive lens and get much better performance, or
  • get the middle ground, buy mid range lenses and get moderate better performance than DX with top end lens.

Put another way, there are no FX equivalents to the 'slow' DX wide-angle zooms, nor to the slow kit zooms (or even the 'slow' 16-85 mm).

Isn't that great? Even in worst case scenario you are still better off with FF

Or you can buy a D3200, 18-55 VR and a flash for the OP's application and put the other oh, I dunno, 1400 dollars or so, in your pocket.  All you "FX is cheaper" guys need to quit pretending like DX somehow HAS to reach an equivalency to FX, or that somehow DX is so grossly inferior that no one will ever be able to take a good picture with it.  I mean surely no one ever made a good picture with a D200...

-- hide signature --

-Mike

 MikeInIndy's gear list:MikeInIndy's gear list
Canon PowerShot G3 Nikon Coolpix 950 Nikon D7000 Nikon 1 J1 Nikon D600 +13 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
ultimitsu
Veteran MemberPosts: 5,667
Like?
Re: Try again
In reply to MikeInIndy, Apr 29, 2013

MikeInIndy wrote:

ultimitsu wrote:

noirdesir wrote:

But that is the whole point, FX is more expensive but you get also better capabilities. If you could duplicate the capabilities of FX completely with DX, there would be no point in going FX (yes there other things like base ISO performance, larger viewfinder).

The point is to have more choices. With an FF body you can choose:

  • buy cheap and save money while still get same performance as DX with much more expensive lens, or 
  • buy similarly expensive lens and get much better performance, or
  • get the middle ground, buy mid range lenses and get moderate better performance than DX with top end lens.

Put another way, there are no FX equivalents to the 'slow' DX wide-angle zooms, nor to the slow kit zooms (or even the 'slow' 16-85 mm).

Isn't that great? Even in worst case scenario you are still better off with FF

Or you can buy a D3200, 18-55 VR and a flash for the OP's application and put the other oh, I dunno, 1400 dollars or so, in your pocket.

And why would you do that? does 1400 bucks in your pocket make you happier or take better photos? Why go with D3200 and 18-55? why not get a fuji JZ100 for 81 bucks?

All you "FX is cheaper" guys need to quit pretending like DX somehow HAS to reach an equivalency to FX,

Who said that?

or that somehow DX is so grossly inferior that no one will ever be able to take a good picture with it.

Who said that?

I mean surely no one ever made a good picture with a D200...

How can you be so sure?

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Grevture
Veteran MemberPosts: 4,053Gear list
Like?
Why so defensive?
In reply to MikeInIndy, Apr 29, 2013

MikeInIndy wrote:

ultimitsu wrote:

noirdesir wrote:

But that is the whole point, FX is more expensive but you get also better capabilities. If you could duplicate the capabilities of FX completely with DX, there would be no point in going FX (yes there other things like base ISO performance, larger viewfinder).

The point is to have more choices. With an FF body you can choose:

  • buy cheap and save money while still get same performance as DX with much more expensive lens, or 
  • buy similarly expensive lens and get much better performance, or
  • get the middle ground, buy mid range lenses and get moderate better performance than DX with top end lens.

Put another way, there are no FX equivalents to the 'slow' DX wide-angle zooms, nor to the slow kit zooms (or even the 'slow' 16-85 mm).

Isn't that great? Even in worst case scenario you are still better off with FF

Or you can buy a D3200, 18-55 VR and a flash for the OP's application and put the other oh, I dunno, 1400 dollars or so, in your pocket.  All you "FX is cheaper" guys need to quit pretending like DX somehow HAS to reach an equivalency to FX, or that somehow DX is so grossly inferior that no one will ever be able to take a good picture with it.  I mean surely no one ever made a good picture with a D200...

Me and some others just pointed out that the common blanket argument "DX does the same thing cheaper" is not entirely accurate. You pay different prices for different things, and depending on the perspective FX often can be cheaper (to provide a given result).

You seem to take this as some sort of personal insult.

Nobody claimed DX is inferior (except - indirectly - you). We just pointed out that in terms of bang-for-the-buck DX is not always cheaper.

-- hide signature --

I don't suffer from insanity, I enjoy every moment of it!
By the way, film is not dead.
It just smell funny

 Grevture's gear list:Grevture's gear list
Nikon D70s Nikon D3 Nikon D3S Nikon AF-S Nikkor 70-200mm f/2.8G ED VR II Nikon AF-S Nikkor 17-35mm f/2.8D ED-IF +7 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum MMy threads