Tempted by the D700

Little Brit · May 10, 2009

--
Hi there,

Camera lust is striking strongly

I have the go ahead from hubby for a D700 and 24-70.

I have a few questions maybe you can help me with,

I currently use the D300, which I really like, and my lenses are 17-55, (replace or add the 24-70) 70-200, 300 F4, 12-24, (use mainly on D300), 85 1.4, (love) sigma 30 1.4 (D300), 50 1.8. TC's. 18-200 (sell)

So I do have a few for full frame.

My concerns are how do you find focusing for portraits using wide open on the D700?, On the D300 I use the af-on and move the focus point to over the eye as I tend to really fill the frame with the face. Focus and recompose seems to miss somewhat for me. The D700 doesn't have focus points that fill the frame so well.

My favorite lens 85 1.4 may now be too short. I am thinking maybe 135 DC? I have noticed when I do portrait with the 70-200 on the D300 that I seem to be at around 100.

I think the 70-200 will be a great length for portrait, it is pretty darned heavy though, I use my 85 way more. so wondering if I would be better to sell it and buy the 135, (I can't have everything

)

or maybe I should get the 135 in addition and not get the 24-70? it is a great general lens though, and when I used to have an SLR I used 35-70 all the time.

Arrrrrrrrrrggggggg. I am so tempted. Do I need it? not really, although I do really like low light portraiture. Then the lens costs, and the weight.

It will be awesome to get back to full frame again. Most of my photography is portraiture, not in studio but outdoors or at someones house.

Have you found it difficult with the 95% viewfinder? especially going back and forth between the D300 and D700.

Whew! that was long. I will be interested in your thoughts.

Phobos 790 · May 10, 2009

Focusing portraits (or anything) wide open is fine on the D700. I don't recommend shooting wide open unless you have to. Your 85mm 1.4 is not too short and meant as the perfect portrait lens on FX. Shoot that at 2.0-2.8 and you get excellent sharpness and capture smooth bokeh.

Keep your 70-200 for your D300 if you can afford to. Definitely replace the 17-55mm with the 24-70mm. Sell the 18-200mm and 12-24mm and consider saving towards a 17-35mm (mint used - c.$1200).

A 17-35mm will serve you well in the future. That on the D700 and the 24-70mm (acting like a 36mm-105mm) on the D300 will have you ready for most situations as a starting combo. At this point you'll have a killer lens line-up with your Sigma 30 1.4, 50 1.8, 85 1.4, 70-200 and 300mm when needed.

I like the 95% viewfinder. Sometimes you catch something integral in a corner that would've been missed in a 100% VF.

I have both the D300 and D700 and a serious lens collection. It's nice to focus on shooting and be totally confident in your gear. Happy hunting.

--
http://www.ricmarderimagery.com

Little Brit · May 10, 2009

Phobos 790 said:
Focusing portraits (or anything) wide open is fine on the D700. I
don't recommend shooting wide open unless you have to. Your 85mm 1.4
is not too short and meant as the perfect portrait lens on FX. Shoot
that at 2.0-2.8 and you get excellent sharpness and capture smooth
bokeh.

Thanks very much for your reply

I do shoot mainly at just over f2. and it should be easier with the low light abilities with the D700. Like to catch at least both eyes sharp.

Phobos 790 said:
Keep your 70-200 for your D300 if you can afford to. Definitely
replace the 17-55mm with the 24-70mm. Sell the 18-200mm and 12-24mm
and consider saving towards a 17-35mm (mint used - c.$1200).

Sounds good, I was debating the 17-35, but thinking that the 12-24 with the D300 would be lighter for travel. Not sure I would use the wide except for my personal fun shots. (I am thinking I should keep the D300 as back-up). Do you think the D700 and 17-35 a lot better?

Phobos 790 said:
A 17-35mm will serve you well in the future. That on the D700 and the
24-70mm (acting like a 36mm-105mm) on the D300 will have you ready
for most situations as a starting combo. At this point you'll have a
killer lens line-up with your Sigma 30 1.4, 50 1.8, 85 1.4, 70-200
and 300mm when needed.

Sigma only good for D300,

but the others are nice.

Phobos 790 said:
I like the 95% viewfinder. Sometimes you catch something integral in
a corner that would've been missed in a 100% VF.

Mmmmmm could be. I do sometimes have the tendency to get in very tight. Can always crop a little after.

Phobos 790 said:
I have both the D300 and D700 and a serious lens collection. It's
nice to focus on shooting and be totally confident in your gear.
Happy hunting.

LOL are we ever really satisfied? I think I would have to stop checking out this forum for that to happen. When I had SLR and no internet, I was happy with one lens.

Phobos 790 said:
--
http://www.ricmarderimagery.com

Thanks for your advice.

Steve Bingham · May 10, 2009

The 105 VR will make a marvelous portrait lens - second to none.
Now, what was your second question? :^)
--
Steve Bingham
http://www.dustylens.com
http://www.ghost-town-photography.com

Little Brit · May 10, 2009

Steve Bingham said:
The 105 VR will make a marvelous portrait lens - second to none.
Now, what was your second question? :^)
--
Steve Bingham
http://www.dustylens.com
http://www.ghost-town-photography.com

--
LOL thanks for you reply

I did wonder about the micro, but isn't it brutally unforgiving for skin? I like that I can focus close without thinking about it, but I also heard something about the gearing? slow focus or something? that a micro does. I have never used one though.

I love that my 85 is sharp but has a soft gentle look somehow. (all my fav. pics are with that lens) that is why I was thinking DC, I thought it had a similar look.

I also wondered if the 105 was a little too close to the 85, so thought the 135 had better spacing.

idle_wild · May 10, 2009

It's been 2 days for me with the D700 and the 24-70 and I have fallen in love... head over heels!! If you have the money, go for it. It is a no-regret move.

Since you mainly shoot portraits, 105 VR will be a great lens for you. A friend of mine takes fashion portraits with 105 on a D200 body (he gets DX equivalent focal length) and gets some amazing shots

Considering that, maybe a 135 would not be bad as a portrait lens on D700.

My target all-zoom lens stable is 14-24 (out-of-this-world lens, expensive, am saving for it) + 24-70 (outstanding again, have it, love it) + 70-200 VR (saving for it).

Weight issue: D700 + 24-70 is a HEAVY package and I mean that. I tend to hold my gear with one hand when I am walking to stop it from bumping around, and it starts to feel heavy within a few minutes. Left alone on the neck, it pulls you down hard. Am expressly looking at waist bags to quickly store away after completing a burst. While shooting, the heavy glass feels solid and on hands which are rested, you will immediately feel the steadier grip, enabled by the weight and the good balance and ergonomics of the grip.

Cheers!

Phobos 790 · May 10, 2009

Yes, the 17-35mm on FX has significant advantages over the 12-24mm on DX.

I really don't understand the 105VR suggestions when Little Brit hasn't mentioned a micro as a need. Yes, it takes nice portraits, but "second to none"? Do you own the 85 1.4? It's soft glow while being sharp is the quality that enthralls it's users.

Why add to her already long list? (imho)

After your main set of lenses, a macro or fisheye would add exotic elements to your collection.

Brooks Lester · May 11, 2009

DC glass is specially formulated to render flesh tones in a pleasing manner. It produces bokeh that is on par or better than the 85 f/1.4D. The Defocus Control function is an added creative element and unique in it's ability to "move" depth of field forwards or backwards for a given aperture.. The 105 DC is one of all time Nikon's best lenses. Professional reviewers say this, not just me. Very few pros use macro lenses for portraiture.

The 135mm f/2 DC is also an excellent lens, though rated slightly below the 105DC. 105mm is a nice jump up from 70 on FX - it will "look" significantly longer and deliver noticably more compression than the 70mm end of the 24-70.

D700 and 24-70 - NOT too heavy. It's a great combo and handles very well. It's nowhere near as bulky or heavy as a D700 and 70-200VR. That being said, the 70-200 on FX is a fabulous one-lens portrait solution unless you want a smaller footprint. At a certain point with bigger lenses you are holding the lens barrel to support the camera, not the body. Your body hand is simply operating the camera body's controls. You're already doing this with the D300/70-200VR so the D700 is not going to be a huge jump.

You will love FX for portraits.

Dodi73 · May 11, 2009

Ciao Brit

I've the D700 since february, around 3000 shots done til now and this is what I can tell you after this period.

1) Focus. Indeed D700 has a quite awkward choice of focusing point, compared to - let's say - my old D200 where all the 11 af points were cross and evenly distributed. D700 has them only in the central part (DX frame) and neither in the "rule of thirds" intersection lines; plus, all crossed type sensor are in the central rows (no idea why) so side sensors may be slower to focus sometimes. This is however the only "negative" news for you.

2) You say you want D700 + 24-70. Nice, excellent combo, I'd say but have you considered a Tamron 28-75 that could make you save enough for another lens? Of course as for build quality, Tamron is NOT on par with Nikon but among standard zooms it's the best you can find around, although some complain about defective samples for lesser quality controls than Nikon. But here you would save around 1000$ if no more (and the 24-28 range which might be useful for you, I don't know). It's also true that you have also a 12-24 which could cover you in the 18-36 range (D700 will crop automatically for you) but you could also keep the 17-55 (cropped to 25-82.5 F/2.8...wouldn't it be good?)

3) About long lenses, I'd wait a bit. If you have the 70/200, keep it at the moment. Rumors about a new 85 or 135 coming before the end of the year have been already spotted now and then somewhere. Actually, if you crop the 85 you have all the focus points active in the DX area and this might help you, although "losing" several MP in your final image (5.1 vs 12)

However, personally I'm waiting for such 135, so the same is for you. I had the 105 and as you said I felt too compressed between these two fl. 135 is better spaced and DC, if you want a nice effect straight out of the cam is really "wow".

4) I had never problems with the 95% viewfinder (especially considering it's more a pixel peeper or studio thing, where you might want to know exactly what you're framing, but "losing a 5% all spread across your whole border isn't that problem, believe me).

5) About DX crop please consider it a side effect if you have FX lenses mounted on. I don't know if you know (sorry for the pun) RF cameras, like Leica M's, Zeiss Ikon, Voigtlander Bessa, etc. and you choose DX crop you have a RF-view effect where you can even "see" the shot one second before it really happens. This has been one of the nicest "discoveries" I did. On RF you have a parallax problem which isn't present here because you see through the lens and not with another (completely different) optical path.

However... good luck with your purchase, I'm sure you will enjoy it especially in low light where you can't use flash.

--
All the best from northern Italy, Dino.
I'm on the NIK side of photography.

JMD-70 · May 11, 2009

...Here's my spin~

"I currently use the D300, which I really like, and my lenses are 17-55, (replace or add the 24-70) 70-200, 300 F4, 12-24, (use mainly on D300), 85 1.4, (love) sigma 30 1.4 (D300), 50 1.8. TC's. 18-200 (sell)"

Keep the following:
85 1.4 (Oh my...you already know you're keeping this one)
70-200 (Oh,...the wide-open Bokeh is so creamy,...a must for weddings)
300 F4 (I don't have, but since you do, you may as well give it a spin on D700)

17-55 (Keep if you don't want to shell out $$$$ for 24-70,..if you get 24-70,..simply sell 17-55. Most here will tell you that the 17-55 is one of Nikon's best and is a must for DX, but not so for FX)

Sell the following:
18-200 (Do you do need a walk-about lens?)
17-55 (I have this lens,...and will keep it as long as I have my D2X bodies)
TC's (Not sure how many you have, but keep one,..sell all others.)

Note, one should look at this from a "business" point of view! Keep what works for your business based on how you go about working your business with available tools. IMHO, lens should be maintained based on the type of camera body...i.e., FF glass works best on FX body,..DX glass works best on DX body. Once you accept this 100%,...you will find it quite easy to make the appropriate 'business' decisions.

Hth.
JMD

Little Brit · May 11, 2009

idle_wild said:
It's been 2 days for me with the D700 and the 24-70 and I have fallen
in love... head over heels!! If you have the money, go for it. It is
a no-regret move.

Since you mainly shoot portraits, 105 VR will be a great lens for
you. A friend of mine takes fashion portraits with 105 on a D200 body
(he gets DX equivalent focal length) and gets some amazing shots
Considering that, maybe a 135 would not be bad as a portrait lens on
D700.

My target all-zoom lens stable is 14-24 (out-of-this-world lens,
expensive, am saving for it) + 24-70 (outstanding again, have it,
love it) + 70-200 VR (saving for it).

Weight issue: D700 + 24-70 is a HEAVY package and I mean that. I tend
to hold my gear with one hand when I am walking to stop it from
bumping around, and it starts to feel heavy within a few minutes.
Left alone on the neck, it pulls you down hard. Am expressly looking
at waist bags to quickly store away after completing a burst. While
shooting, the heavy glass feels solid and on hands which are rested,
you will immediately feel the steadier grip, enabled by the weight
and the good balance and ergonomics of the grip.

Cheers!

--

I am pleased you are enjoying your new D700 everyone who gets one seems to swoon

I picked up the D700 combo in the store, it feels like a brick alright, but even when I use the 70-200 I don't mind too much, but I would never use it to carry around, only for specific uses. I never put a camera around my neck.

Little Brit · May 11, 2009

Phobos 790 said:
Yes, the 17-35mm on FX has significant advantages over the 12-24mm on
DX.

I really don't understand the 105VR suggestions when Little Brit
hasn't mentioned a micro as a need. Yes, it takes nice portraits, but
"second to none"? Do you own the 85 1.4? It's soft glow while being
sharp is the quality that enthralls it's users.

Why add to her already long list? (imho)

After your main set of lenses, a macro or fisheye would add exotic
elements to your collection.

--

Ok then I may well switch to that. I am not a big wide shooter though so it probably can wait a bit. I wouldn't go 14-24 that would be overkill for me.

85 1.4 is special for me. I think it will replace my fifty and be decent indoors. Just don't think I can get close enough for tight headshots.

Little Brit · May 11, 2009

Brooks Lester said:
DC glass is specially formulated to render flesh tones in a pleasing
manner. It produces bokeh that is on par or better than the 85
f/1.4D. The Defocus Control function is an added creative element and
unique in it's ability to "move" depth of field forwards or backwards
for a given aperture.. The 105 DC is one of all time Nikon's best
lenses. Professional reviewers say this, not just me. Very few pros
use macro lenses for portraiture.

The 135mm f/2 DC is also an excellent lens, though rated slightly
below the 105DC. 105mm is a nice jump up from 70 on FX - it will
"look" significantly longer and deliver noticably more compression
than the 70mm end of the 24-70.

I am very very tempted by these lenses. The 135 mainly because when I use my 70-200 I find that I am at around 100, so I think that length would be good. I am concerned about the DC lenses though. I have heard a lot about problems with these two, on full frame.

Brooks Lester said:
D700 and 24-70 - NOT too heavy. It's a great combo and handles very
well. It's nowhere near as bulky or heavy as a D700 and 70-200VR.
That being said, the 70-200 on FX is a fabulous one-lens portrait
solution unless you want a smaller footprint. At a certain point with
bigger lenses you are holding the lens barrel to support the camera,
not the body. Your body hand is simply operating the camera body's
controls. You're already doing this with the D300/70-200VR so the
D700 is not going to be a huge jump.

My concern more with the 24-70 is that I may not use it so much for portraits and due to the weight I won't use it for a walk about either. So it may not get used nearly enough for the dollars. I really like my 17-55 and will keep my DX system also, so I may hold off on it for now, not sure. I will use the 70-200 and see how it goes. I don't like it as much as my 85 though. The zoom is certainly useful and necessary in certain situations. I will likely keep it.

I actually always support the camera by the lens barrel. I have small hands and am only 5'1" I only carry over the shoulder with an upstrap.

Brooks Lester said:
You will love FX for portraits.

It certainly is very tempting

Thanks for your reply.

Little Brit · May 11, 2009

Dodi73 said:
Ciao Brit

Ciao Dino

Dodi73 said:
I've the D700 since february, around 3000 shots done til now and this
is what I can tell you after this period.

1) Focus. Indeed D700 has a quite awkward choice of focusing point,
compared to - let's say - my old D200 where all the 11 af points were
cross and evenly distributed. D700 has them only in the central part
(DX frame) and neither in the "rule of thirds" intersection lines;
plus, all crossed type sensor are in the central rows (no idea why)
so side sensors may be slower to focus sometimes. This is however the
only "negative" news for you.

I used to focus and recompose, maybe I should try it again on my D300 and see how it goes. Would work better by the sound of it for the 700.

Dodi73 said:
2) You say you want D700 + 24-70. Nice, excellent combo, I'd say but
have you considered a Tamron 28-75 that could make you save enough
for another lens? Of course as for build quality, Tamron is NOT on
par with Nikon but among standard zooms it's the best you can find
around, although some complain about defective samples for lesser
quality controls than Nikon. But here you would save around 1000$ if
no more (and the 24-28 range which might be useful for you, I don't
know). It's also true that you have also a 12-24 which could cover
you in the 18-36 range (D700 will crop automatically for you) but you
could also keep the 17-55 (cropped to 25-82.5 F/2.8...wouldn't it be
good?)

I like my 17-55, and I am not sure if I should change it for the 24-70 or not. It might be useful to be able to have it on my D300 and my 85 and 70-200 for the D700. I would hold off but I know I can get the 24-70 at a good price from a friend at the. I would prefer to stay Nikon though.

Dodi73 said:
3) About long lenses, I'd wait a bit. If you have the 70/200, keep it
at the moment. Rumors about a new 85 or 135 coming before the end of
the year have been already spotted now and then somewhere. Actually,
if you crop the 85 you have all the focus points active in the DX
area and this might help you, although "losing" several MP in your
final image (5.1 vs 12)
However, personally I'm waiting for such 135, so the same is for you.
I had the 105 and as you said I felt too compressed between these two
fl. 135 is better spaced and DC, if you want a nice effect straight
out of the cam is really "wow".

Yes I think it might be better to wait for a bit for the extra portrait lens

Particularly the 135.

Dodi73 said:
4) I had never problems with the 95% viewfinder (especially
considering it's more a pixel peeper or studio thing, where you might
want to know exactly what you're framing, but "losing a 5% all spread
across your whole border isn't that problem, believe me).

I believe you

good news.

Dodi73 said:
5) About DX crop please consider it a side effect if you have FX
lenses mounted on. I don't know if you know (sorry for the pun) RF
cameras, like Leica M's, Zeiss Ikon, Voigtlander Bessa, etc. and you
choose DX crop you have a RF-view effect where you can even "see" the
shot one second before it really happens. This has been one of the
nicest "discoveries" I did. On RF you have a parallax problem which
isn't present here because you see through the lens and not with
another (completely different) optical path.

I am more likely to keep my D300 for my DX lenses I think, although I will give them a try. I am keeping it for my 300mm plus TC for shooting wildlife.

Dodi73 said:
However... good luck with your purchase, I'm sure you will enjoy it
especially in low light where you can't use flash.

--
All the best from northern Italy, Dino.
I'm on the NIK side of photography.

Little Brit · May 11, 2009

JMD-70 said:
...Here's my spin~

"I currently use the D300, which I really like, and my lenses are
17-55, (replace or add the 24-70) 70-200, 300 F4, 12-24, (use mainly
on D300), 85 1.4, (love) sigma 30 1.4 (D300), 50 1.8. TC's. 18-200
(sell)"

Keep the following:
85 1.4 (Oh my...you already know you're keeping this one)

For sure

JMD-70 said:
70-200 (Oh,...the wide-open Bokeh is so creamy,...a must for weddings)
300 F4 (I don't have, but since you do, you may as well give it a
spin on D700)

I love this lens. Even really fun for portrait

JMD-70 said:
17-55 (Keep if you don't want to shell out $$$$ for 24-70,..if you
get 24-70,..simply sell 17-55. Most here will tell you that the
17-55 is one of Nikon's best and is a must for DX, but not so for FX)

I will be keeping DX also, not sure if I need to change to FX for this one as yet.

JMD-70 said:
Sell the following:
18-200 (Do you do need a walk-about lens?)

Will sell, don't like. Walk about I use a prime.

JMD-70 said:
17-55 (I have this lens,...and will keep it as long as I have my D2X
bodies)
TC's (Not sure how many you have, but keep one,..sell all others.)

yes I have the 14 and 17 but only use the 17.

JMD-70 said:
Note, one should look at this from a "business" point of view! Keep
what works for your business based on how you go about working your
business with available tools. IMHO, lens should be maintained based
on the type of camera body...i.e., FF glass works best on FX
body,..DX glass works best on DX body. Once you accept this
100%,...you will find it quite easy to make the appropriate
'business' decisions.

I will always keep my DX also, it is useful for back up and I want the reach for wildlife

so then it is what is best for each situation, FX obviously whenever I want better for lower light. DX for reach and weight.

Thanks very much for your response.

JMD-70 said:
Hth.
JMD

Dennis DH · May 11, 2009

--

If you want some thing longer than the 85 you might take a look at the 180 f2.8. I most often use the 85 f1.4 and 180 f2.8 for outdoor portraits. I do think the 105s are to close to the 85 to own both. So go with either the 135 DC or the 180 I think either would do what you want with out having to pack the larger 70-200, how ever the zoom does have it's advantages.

I am like you and don't do a lot of wide angle work so I just put the 35 f2 in a pocket. If money were not an issue I would have the 17-35 you can't go wrong with this lens.
Dennis

Little Brit · May 11, 2009

Dennis DH said:
--
If you want some thing longer than the 85 you might take a look at
the 180 f2.8. I most often use the 85 f1.4 and 180 f2.8 for outdoor
portraits. I do think the 105s are to close to the 85 to own both. So
go with either the 135 DC or the 180 I think either would do what you
want with out having to pack the larger 70-200, how ever the zoom
does have it's advantages.
I am like you and don't do a lot of wide angle work so I just put
the 35 f2 in a pocket. If money were not an issue I would have the
17-35 you can't go wrong with this lens.
Dennis

I have seen the recent threads on the 180 2.8 and do find it very interesting.

I also pop a prime in my pocket, usually the 50 1.8, but I bought the sigma 30 1.4 and although I like it. I wish I got the lighter, closer focusing 35 f2. It wouldn't hurt for me to sell the 12-24 and pick up the 17-35 instead though. I may well do that.

Maybe I should just get the D700 for now. Play with my current lenses on it and see where it takes me. Bearing in mind all these useful options.

Little Brit · Oct 25, 2009

Well after all this time, I finally have one. Probably just in time for Nikon to bring out the successor, lol. I don't think I can go wrong with this though. Hubby surprised me by bringing me home a D700 and a 24-70. No more indecision. Battery is charged, my settings all set, time for me to go out and shoot

Thanks for all your input everyone. I am now officially part of this forum.

palker · Oct 25, 2009

I have one.

One word - Fantastic - I have had mine for about 9 mths - two weddings (amerturish

) loads of portraits. never disappointed - me or my clients.

but I do not use zooms any longer - I was once a Leica user and never got over fast glass - well I may never get to the same levels - but ..

I have replaced them all by high speed quality primes.

to be exact:

20 2.8, 35 2.0, 50 1.4, 60 2.8 (micro), 85 1.4 and 180 2.8.

all proper nikon AF-D - all used either from eBay, my local camera shop or another French web site - well I do live in France .. also Rangefinderforum .. yea my old Leica user background ..

Search and you will find some real jewels at much lower then you'll think - i think my 85 was about 380 on eBay - the 20 was about 125 ... a crappy set of photos but a local pick up so I could verify.

I stopped watching the rumor sites so I have no idea what is on its way - but even so I do not regret my investment.

spbStan · Oct 25, 2009

Congratulations!! Great Hubby!
Now if I could find such a wife....but my GF would be very jealous:> )

My suggestion...don't buy anything or sell anything yet. Go play and learn what each of current collection does for you with FX by playing/taking lots of varied photos. I really do not think you have any worries in the portrait department. You might however find that they fill different roles for you than what you used them for with the D300. Sure the 85 is a little short but it also becomes a great walking around lens and less tight portrait lens. The 70-200 becomes an even better portrait lens. If anything the d700+24-70 or 70-200 will probably feel better balanced to you with a little more weight on the back half.

I shoot a lot with the 70-200 for clubs and concerts where it is hand held for 3-8 hours at a time. That is too much for someone your size but adding one simple strap called the Black Rapid, that combo becomes a breeze to handle. http://www.blackrapid.com/

I read about it on another forum and thought it was a bunch of hype but actually ended up with one and it really does what they claim, takes the stress out of carrying a heavy long lens/camera combo.

Although you do not shoot much wide, you owe it to yourself to try the 14-24 2.8 to complete the collection of 14 to 200 all at 2.8. The 14-24 will change your thoughts about wide and your shooting style. There is nothing like it. The other lenses held in high regard are actually 1 of a number of good choices for a particular focal length. No so with the 14-24, there is no equivalent. You will start seeing opportunity at every turn that be wonderful subjects for such a lens that you never concerned yourself with before.

Have fun and take care of that husband of yours....
--
Stan
St Petersburg Russia

Tempted by the D700

Forum Enthusiast

Leading Member

Forum Enthusiast

Forum Pro

Forum Enthusiast

Member

Leading Member

Senior Member

Senior Member

Senior Member

Forum Enthusiast

Forum Enthusiast

Forum Enthusiast

Forum Enthusiast

Forum Enthusiast

Senior Member

Forum Enthusiast

Forum Enthusiast

Well-known member

Senior Member

Keyboard shortcuts