Home · Register · Search · View Winners · Software · Hosting · Software · Join Upload & Sell

Moderated by: Fred Miranda
Username   Password

  New fredmiranda.com Mobile Site
  

FM Forums | General Gear-talk | Join Upload & Sell

1
       2       end
  

Archive 2012 · Why I'm switching/upgrading to the Nikon D800 and why you...
  
 
aFeinberg
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #1 · Why I'm switching/upgrading to the Nikon D800 and why you shouldn't.


I posted this on a couple of social networking sites but thought I'd start a convo here...b/c I <3 you all

Why I'm switching/upgrading to the Nikon D800 and why you shouldn't.

One of the most asked questions I get when in my Galleries or on the street is what kind of gear I use. People are always curious what tools are utilized to create images and I completely understand. I've even been guilty of a few of those types of questions myself. However, for most people it's akin to asking a chef what type of pots and pans they use to cook the delicious food you just ate. It doesn't matter. And that is the true point to this post.

Gear is a tool. And we all need the equipment to be able to capture images but what gear is right for each person? Usually the answer is entry level with TOP lenses. Why? Sensors these days are incredible….truly. All entry level dSLRs are capable of producing great images that can be printed LARGE (up to 40x60 with proper technique!). The real difference comes down to the lenses that are used as the more expensive 'pro' glass will result in much sharper images and happier photographers.

So then why if I have been able to print 40x60 from my 16mp 1Ds2 (and 21mp 1ds3), do I take the leap and not only buy a NEW camera…which I've never done but completely switch brands? Good question.

In short I, and a handful of other photos are in the upper echelon of what we produce images for. By no means do I insinuate that lots of other photogs are not producing incredible imagery for their clients…they absolutely are, however what our goals are with our images tend to be slightly different. A good friend of mine and incredible wedding photographer, Preston Palmer, was completely stoked that the new 5d3 is only 22mp. As a wedding photog that's a great amount of detail. However a handful of us on the landscape side felt completely abandoned by Canon. 22mp is great…but now we have the 36mp D800. For those who's goal is LARGE (>60") fine art prints there only seems to be one option (outside of a very expensive medium format with lower high iso performance). I always tell people start with your basic or prosumer dSLR body and a GOOD lens and upgrade when you feel that the gear you have is limiting your creativity in some way (not your knowledge of how to use the gear).

So what am I getting at? 36mp is WAAAAAY too much for, I'm going to guess, 99% of photogs. There is no reason for that much resolution for what MOST people are shooting or producing for. For those of you that want to print a 90"+ pano cropped from a single frame…then 36mp is where you want to be. If you want to produce a 60" pano cropped from a single frame then stick with your 16 or 21/22mp even!

I'm curious to hear the discourse on this issue and believe me, switching brands was the last thing I wanted to do. However I'm excited to see what new possibilities I will be able to explore, even if it takes a few months and some headaches to make the dark side transition :P.

Thanks all and happy shooting!!!
aF



Apr 10, 2012 at 12:32 AM
ckcarr
Online
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.1 #2 · Why I'm switching/upgrading to the Nikon D800 and why you shouldn't.


Too late.



Apr 10, 2012 at 12:42 AM
aFeinberg
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #3 · Why I'm switching/upgrading to the Nikon D800 and why you shouldn't.


baaaahahahaha.


Apr 10, 2012 at 12:45 AM
Dustin Gent
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.1 #4 · Why I'm switching/upgrading to the Nikon D800 and why you shouldn't.


Here are my thoughts. If one is making money on photography, then of course this is a no brainier, especially doing landscapes and perhaps macro (?). However for the hobbyist or amateur, there really is no point in getting such a huge mp body - unless you are rich, then non of this matters, lol.

If i was selling prints and needed to go large, I would be in the same boat. Hopefully someday soon...



Apr 10, 2012 at 12:49 AM
ckcarr
Online
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.1 #5 · Why I'm switching/upgrading to the Nikon D800 and why you shouldn't.


To be perfectly honest, I enjoy printing. Not professionally, but I print a lot for friends, for my place, for offices. I have a nice Epson 3880 that I use. I had originally been trying to figure out how to afford a D3x for the higher resolution. Then this came along for 1/2 the price. So it was a no brainer for me.

Having said that, there is no way to avoid the file size issue, triple the D700 if you shoot raw. You will also need patience for the computer transfer unless you have USB3 or a fast way to do it. And hopefully have, or upgrade to a 2or 3TB hard drive. That's if you're an amatuer like me. Professionals will need more. No point having a high resolution file if you can't see it well, so you may want a LARGE monior also.

In a strange way, the large file sizes might take some of the pleasure out of photography for some people. They require some serious file management skills, and if you simply want to share with friends - it will take some work. It's definitely a professional camera versus my D5100 that I use for hikes, motorcycling, etc...

All the above is just my opinion of course, and common sense observation (I'm not that into technospeak) as I've been using the camera, except paragraph one.

It's all moot and theoretical since you can't buy them anywhere anyway...



Apr 10, 2012 at 01:28 AM
Joseph Taub
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #6 · Why I'm switching/upgrading to the Nikon D800 and why you shouldn't.


Correct me if I'm wrong, but my understanding is that having more megapixels cuts both ways.

Does not cramming more pixels onto a sensor necessitate that those pixels be smaller? If this is so, does that not mean that they will be more susceptible to the effects of diffraction at smaller f-stops--which, of course, we landscape shooters often use to maximize DOF? I certainly see the effects of diffraction with my 17-40L and my 30D's reasonably sized pixels. (Perhaps they just need calibration).

Further, doesn't decreasing the pixel size also decrease the signal-noise ratio, making the sensor more susceptible to noise? I was under the impression that (relatively) few, large pixels and correspondingly high signal-noise ratio were in part responsible for the 5D series' excellent low-light performance. Based on that understanding, I was by no means upset that the 1DX, for example, was reported to only have 18MP.

Perhaps advances in sensor technology have offset or worked around these issues?

Admittedly, my education in these technical aspects is at a fairly amateur level, but maybe I can learn something new.



Apr 10, 2012 at 01:45 AM
gdanmitchell
Online
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.1 #7 · Why I'm switching/upgrading to the Nikon D800 and why you shouldn't.


How do I put this nicely... ? ;-)

OK, I'll start by pointing out that I always enjoy seeing your new photographs here at FM. I think of you as one of the "good guys" around here.

That said, I'm left wondering just a bit about the purpose of a post in which you imply that a particular camera, in this case the very nice Nikon D800, is something that might be needed by those (the photographic 1%?) who are in the "upper echelons" of photography, with the obvious implication that those who don't need such a camera (the 99%?) are at some sort of lower level photographically? You perhaps didn't mean that the way it sounds, but it is difficult to take it any other way.

I might also point out that the purpose of this board is specifically to focus on photographs and photography and not to focus on equipment. There is a very fine and very active equipment forum (a couple you could use, actually) here at FM where this post might have been very appropriate, or in which you could easily have added it to several existing threads..

If you really plan to regularly print beyond 40 x 60 (or at 40 x 60 in my view - I feel that, compared to high quality MF digital and LF film, consistently excellent quality beyond about 24" x 36" is tough with a DSLR) there are significant other issues with the full frame DSLR format besides photo site density that you must deal with... and the real answer is to move on to MF digital in almost all cases. You can produce quite decent print quality from full-frame DSLR originals, but at the sizes you mention the difference between this format and MF digital is not insignificant. Neither the D800 or some future Canon DSLR or any other FF DSLR with the same number of photo sites is going to get you to that place.

Speaking of "some future Canon DSLR," it is essentially certain that a high MP Canon camera will be introduced in a relatively short period of time. It is also almost certain that it will essentially (at least) equal the resolution of the fine D800. There are a ton of reasons why any other expectation would be the unlikely one. (Both the marketing reasons and the photographic reasons are compelling.) I would predict that within a year your "need" to switch to Nikon will seem a bit premature. We often hear from Brand A photographers who decide to "jump ship" when Brand B comes out with a produce that includes some feature not currently found on Brand A. But looked at in a time frame that is longer than months, such decisions more often turn out to be a matter of "jumping the gun" instead as the back and forth between Brands A and B plays out.

It is also well worth doing the calculation to see just how much larger you'll print at the same ppi resolution with the 36MP original. You may be surprised at the relatively modest increase.

I'm not dissing the D800 or Nikon at all. I'm absolutely convinced that Nikon is a fine company that makes absolutely top-notch gear and that the D800 is a wonderful camera. If I were a Nikon shooter I would almost certainly be getting one. As a Canon shooter who makes large and high quality prints, I'll continue to use my 21MP body for now.

I apologize for the relatively direct tone of this message, but I think that it calls for some very direct and honest dialog about a bunch of issues.

Take care,

Dan

aFeinberg wrote:
I posted this on a couple of social networking sites but thought I'd start a convo here...b/c I <3 you all

Why I'm switching/upgrading to the Nikon D800 and why you shouldn't.

One of the most asked questions I get when in my Galleries or on the street is what kind of gear I use. People are always curious what tools are utilized to create images and I completely understand. I've even been guilty of a few of those types of questions myself. However, for most people it's akin to asking a chef what type of pots and pans they use
...Show more


Edited on Apr 10, 2012 at 02:01 AM · View previous versions



Apr 10, 2012 at 01:47 AM
gdanmitchell
Online
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.1 #8 · Why I'm switching/upgrading to the Nikon D800 and why you shouldn't.


Dustin Gent wrote:
Here are my thoughts. If one is making money on photography, then of course this is a no brainier, especially doing landscapes and perhaps macro (?). However for the hobbyist or amateur, there really is no point in getting such a huge mp body - unless you are rich, then non of this matters, lol.

If i was selling prints and needed to go large, I would be in the same boat. Hopefully someday soon...


Actually, if you were selling landscape work that was consistently printed at the sizes mentioned here, you would most likely realize the the MP increase is not going to get you there and you would instead move to MF digital.

Dan



Apr 10, 2012 at 01:48 AM
mdaddyrabbit
Offline
• •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #9 · Why I'm switching/upgrading to the Nikon D800 and why you shouldn't.


Does the over kill of MP's really matter when printing, especially if your money allows for the purchase of a camera of this size. Maybe I am missing something with this thread but, if I plan on printing only 4x6 but my budget allows for a 36MP camera will the quality of the print suffer? If not what different does it make?


Apr 10, 2012 at 01:49 AM
gdanmitchell
Online
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.1 #10 · Why I'm switching/upgrading to the Nikon D800 and why you shouldn't.


mdaddyrabbit wrote:
Does the over kill of MP's really matter when printing, especially if your money allows for the purchase of a camera of this size. Maybe I am missing something with this thread but, if I plan on printing only 4x6 but my budget allows for a 36MP camera will the quality of the print suffer? If not what different does it make?


If you are printing at 4' x 6', it could matter - but you'd want a larger format anyway. If you print at 4" x 6"... it doesn't matter. :-)

Joseph Taub wrote:
Does not cramming more pixels onto a sensor necessitate that those pixels be smaller? If this is so, does that not mean that they will be more susceptible to the effects of diffraction at smaller f-stops--which, of course, we landscape shooters often use to maximize DOF? I certainly see the effects of diffraction with my 17-40L and my 30D's reasonably sized pixels. (Perhaps they just need calibration).


There is no more or less diffraction with sensors of different photo site density. A 36MP full frame sensor produces images with exactly the same amount of diffraction found in photographs made with a 12MP FF sensor.

When it comes to diffraction blur, the news about the higher MP sensor is neutral (if you shoot at small apertures where diffraction could be more of a factor). When it comes to other resolution issues, the news can be better than neutral if you shoot at slightly larger apertures with outstanding lenses and you manage all of the other issues that can affect sharpness. In most cases, though, this improvement will be so small as to be insignificant.

Diffraction blur - along with a number of other issues that affect resolution - becomes more of an issue with larger print sizes regardless of the photo site density.

Further, doesn't decreasing the pixel size also decrease the signal-noise ratio, making the sensor more susceptible to noise? I was under the impression that (relatively) few, large pixels and correspondingly high signal-noise ratio were in part responsible for the 5D series' excellent low-light performance. Based on that understanding, I was by no means upset that the 1DX, for example, was reported to only have 18MP.

The theory is that every increase in photo site density (and consequent decrease in potential size of individual photo sites, all else being equal) will reduce dynamic range and increase noise. However, consider that this claim has been made every time MP count increased - 6MP to 8MP, 8MP to 12MP, 12MP to 21MP, etc. If this were true, noise would be absolutely awful by now and dynamic range would have gotten smaller and smaller. But, in fact, pretty much the opposite has happened, and today's cameras have better noise performance and more dynamic range.

Perhaps advances in sensor technology have offset or worked around these issues?

Yup. :-)

Dan



Apr 10, 2012 at 01:57 AM
 

Search in Used Dept. 



chez
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.1 #11 · Why I'm switching/upgrading to the Nikon D800 and why you shouldn't.


I for one Aaron am anxious to see some of your images from the D800 hanging in your galleries. What you have today is very fine indeed...if the D800 improves on these, they will be amazing.

Please keep us informed regarding your experience with the D800.

Harry.

And as far as posting this here, I see nothing wrong as the discussion is focused on landscape photography equipment and everyone here has an interest in landscapes. We always seem to discuss post processing here when there is a dedicated forum on FM for post processing.



Apr 10, 2012 at 02:14 AM
river rover
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #12 · Why I'm switching/upgrading to the Nikon D800 and why you shouldn't.


OK, I'll say it and I'll probably hate myself in the morning...

We want the resolution for US! We want expanded dynamic range for US! Spending seven to eight hours a day in PS makes us hypercritical of our work. There might be one tenth of one percent of commercial clients that can tell the difference between a 22 MP and a 36 MP image on a 40"X60" print. And if they can then they're probably photographers and pixel peepers themselves. Yes, if you gave them the same image taken with two different cameras they MIGHT be able to tell the difference. The simple truth is that because of the ephemeral nature of light, the chances of two photographers having the same composition under the same lighting conditions where a prospective print buyer might have to choose is about as likely as winning the lottery twice on the same day and then getting struck by lightning. I seriously doubt any prospective buyer looked at an image and said, "You know, I'd buy that print, but the third palm from the left is a touch soft."

Justification of gear makes sense if the whether or not the shot gets made at all (I'm talking to you 5D Mark II AF) but the incremental difference in resolution is a cross we need to take on ourselves. We do it because we saw it 100% on screen straight out of camera, we know the file's weakness from the start and every minute in post is like a pimply nerd pumping iron. Even after the acne is gone and the muscles are built up, we look in the mirror and still see the nerd.



Apr 10, 2012 at 02:31 AM
aFeinberg
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #13 · Why I'm switching/upgrading to the Nikon D800 and why you shouldn't.


Thanks for the discourse all!

Quick link about the diffraction 'rumor'
http://nikonrumors.com/2012/04/09/motion-blur-diffraction-and-noise-are-not-impacted-by-high-megapixel-count.aspx/

@dan - appreciate the directness...and overall i think that this forum is much more educated than a lot of other places to interact on the web are. so the post was for the 'general' public.


The moral of the post was that 36mp is just way too much. I've been hearing photogs saying that the files are so big that they have to slow down and shoot more like film b/c of the extra processing time it takes to work through them....which I think is a good thing! If you're budget allows for a d800 but you only want to print 4x6 (inches) or 12x18 or hell even 20x30...stick with the current body, get a better lens (sharper) and refine post-processing skills (makes the biggest difference usually).

The argument against MF digital is that one, it's crazy expensive and 2 the iso range is shit. No way is a Hassy digital going to be able to shoot at iso 12800 (which I'm really looking forward to). Also you cant shoot at 15mm.

Print quality will come down to more detail in my standard 40x60 shots but also allow me to go to 60x90 and even crop to 30x90 out of one file!! Really powerful. Then of course there is stitching...yikes.

All in all I apologize if the tone wasnt sincere but was being a bit frank and a bit funny about the situation.

I tell people basically use what camera you have until you feel that that it is limiting what you are trying to achieve creatively. Then move to the next step. Most of the time cheaper bodies and pro lenses are the way to go anyway. Hell I have a 20x30 from my 8mp 20D in the Poipu Gallery...and bet you couldnt pick it out of the lineup...just not going to print that one 40x60 :P

And Harry...I have no idea how long the backorder is but all my glass is ready to go Now to sit and wait...thanks so much for the kind words.



woohoo...

aF



Apr 10, 2012 at 02:39 AM
toddlambert
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #14 · Why I'm switching/upgrading to the Nikon D800 and why you shouldn't.


river rover wrote:
OK, I'll say it and I'll probably hate myself in the morning...

We want the resolution for US! We want expanded dynamic range for US! Spending seven to eight hours a day in PS makes us hypercritical of our work. There might be one tenth of one percent of commercial clients that can tell the difference between a 22 MP and a 36 MP image on a 40"X60" print. And if they can then they're probably photographers and pixel peepers themselves. Yes, if you gave them the same image taken with two different cameras they MIGHT be able to tell
...Show more

Excellent post. [Thumbs up]



Apr 10, 2012 at 02:44 AM
toddlio
Offline
• •
Upload & Sell: On
p.1 #15 · Why I'm switching/upgrading to the Nikon D800 and why you shouldn't.


Aaron,
I'm sure I don't print 40x60 as much as you but what i've found is it often depends on the subject matter (a sunset silhouette can be blown up huge without much effort,wheras a finely detailed landscape- everything from capture forward needs to be spot on or a large print won't works as well as I'd like) more mp's will always be welcome in landscape/nature/wildlife. Often stitching is not an option with fleeting light, breaks in the wind etc. Having said all that none of that matters unless the image has enough emotional impact to the viewer to reach for the credit card.

@Dan, one major reason I personally don't go to MF digital is expense sure, but more important is flexibility and the range of focal lenghs availabile. Backpacking in the sierras, hiking with my kids (8,6), to super humid Costa Rica, to hot dry Death Valley. Some of my best bird shots are hiking back from a landscape shot and having 17-400 in relatively light setup is pretty nice.

I was a nikon guy until they declared they were not going full frame, and still feel my canon buttons rotate backwards . I put in an order for the D800E, (it just makes so much sense not to have it for this type of photography,theres a reason most medium format and Leica doesnt have them). and with the nikon 14-24 lens thats all the reason I need to run two systems for a while, but a full system switch would be hasty, Canon will come out with something its just a matter of when and how much. Anyone who teachs workshops will also see the benefit of knowing both systems inside and out. Besides the Canon 24 tse II and 70-200 2.8is II are just too sweet to abandon ship.



Apr 10, 2012 at 03:31 AM
Ben Horne
Offline
• • • • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.1 #16 · Why I'm switching/upgrading to the Nikon D800 and why you shouldn't.


I for one don't think 36MP is too much. If you print anything larger than 16x20, your 36MP images will need to see some interpolation. My desired print sizes are much more than that... in the range of 30x27 and 40x50.

To get the quality that I was after, I ditched my digital gear and took up large format film. My bank account is much happier this way too.... If I was shooting digital, I know I would have spent at least 6k on gear and lenses already this year. Instead, I'm shooting 400+ megapixel images on a wooden camera, and my bank account is much happier. :-)



Apr 10, 2012 at 03:56 AM
Scott Stoness
Online
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.1 #17 · Why I'm switching/upgrading to the Nikon D800 and why you shouldn't.


aFeinberg wrote:
I posted this on a couple of social networking sites but thought I'd start a convo here...b/c I <3 you all

Why I'm switching/upgrading to the Nikon D800 and why you shouldn't.

One of the most asked questions I get when in my Galleries or on the street is what kind of gear I use. People are always curious what tools are utilized to create images and I completely understand. I've even been guilty of a few of those types of questions myself. However, for most people it's akin to asking a chef what type of pots and pans they use
...Show more

While more pixels is better when shooting on a tripod with stationary objects (most landscapes) - you exxagerate the gain. it is a squared relationship such if you currently print to 60" pano (at 16x9 crop) with 22mpx, you would need a 50mpx camera, to get the same quality at 90" in the same format. So you are only getting about 25% more ability to blow up with the d800 vs 5diii, not 50%. So from 60" to 75", not 60" to 90".

In addition, if you are shooting stars or northern lights, the 5diii is likely to be better than the d800, to permit better noise at higher ISO.

Most people would have a hard time recognizing 25% difference in resolution.

Not saying you are wrong - just that the difference is not as dramatic as you are saying and for some landscape shooting, the 5dii (or d700) might be better.

And then you have to take into account that canon might have better tilt shift lens than nikon, which might make more difference than the resolution. etc.



Apr 10, 2012 at 04:33 AM
JimFox
Offline
• • • • • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.1 #18 · Why I'm switching/upgrading to the Nikon D800 and why you shouldn't.


As an active owner and user of a new Nikon D800 I will just say the camera is awesome! And even if I never printed anything for anyone, and it was simply for my own enjoyment, I would recommend it. The dynamic range in it is so incredibly crazy! While the file sizes are larger, my processing time has already been cut down and I have to do less blending. The high ISO performance is improved over the D700, so out goes the window the thought that with smaller pixels you would get more noise... because there is even less noise with the D800.

Now if someone was working as a pro, and printing even just regular prints I would recommend it. How much of an improvement will there be with 36mp in printing large, time will tell, but I do know it won't be worse, and by all accounts of what I have seen from my own files, it will definitely be a big step up.

In the Landscape forum here, we have always kept the discussions of one camera vs another to a minimum. Because as mentioned, they are a tool. But not all tools are created equal, and clearly the D800 is letting us start getting into the realm of the MF camera's but with the ability to have high ISO also which MF really lacks.

Many have called the D800 a game changer... it sure feels that way to me. This in no way is meant to be a D800 vs 5dIII conversation, and we are usually pretty good on keeping things civil in here. But the fact is, with 36mp at an affordable price, the D800 definitely is worth considering and of being aware of. With Aaron being a working Pro, I do think it's valuable to hear about his upcoming switch to a different camera and the reasons why.

Jim



Apr 10, 2012 at 04:58 AM
dereksurfs
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #19 · Why I'm switching/upgrading to the Nikon D800 and why you shouldn't.


Ben Horne wrote:
I for one don't think 36MP is too much. If you print anything larger than 16x20, your 36MP images will need to see some interpolation. My desired print sizes are much more than that... in the range of 30x27 and 40x50.

To get the quality that I was after, I ditched my digital gear and took up large format film. My bank account is much happier this way too.... If I was shooting digital, I know I would have spent at least 6k on gear and lenses already this year. Instead, I'm shooting 400+ megapixel images on a wooden
...Show more

That's really where you are going to see leaps and bounds differences in fine detail. But the jump from digital to LF film and all that it entails is just too much for most. For all the benefits you get with the increased resolution, tilt/shifts, great color and dynamic range you sacrifice a lot with that as well. Just the cost of the film per shot and the drum scans can get pretty crazy if you take a lot of pictures (1000s). Then there is the increased susceptibility to the elements, especially for those who shoot at the coast (wind, sand, salt water, etc...). I think that's why you see fewer LF shooters along the coast than you do in other environments.

That said I do think the final image looks much better in LF for ultimate front to back detail in larger landscape prints. But for certain types of images the differences can be negliable, especially where parts are silhouetted/de-emphasized. I know a number of LF shooters, some who even purchased their own drum scanners. However as the technololgy has advanced with digital they have slowly begun using digital in more circumstances. Nikon has raised the bar again. Of course others like Canon will soon follow. Every year new advancements occur narrowing the gap. These are interesting times we live in for sure.

Although the new Nikon is appealing the cost of changing from Canon to Nikon over a body is simply not worth it for me. For others it is. It really boils down to the individual needs of the photographer. I tend to agree that bodies come and go. What's hot today will be yesterdays new in not too long a time because of sensor advancements. There was a time when Canon was the only game in town for FF sensors. Then Nikon got their act together and gave Canon a real run for their money. Now its Canon's turn. This is the way it has always been and its great for the consumer. Both companies are well known for leapfrog technology innovation.

Derek



Apr 10, 2012 at 05:10 AM
ingemar
Offline
• •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #20 · Why I'm switching/upgrading to the Nikon D800 and why you shouldn't.


I only suggest that you keep the Canon lenses because next time you will be tempted to change back to Canon.


Apr 10, 2012 at 08:02 AM
1
       2       end




FM Forums | General Gear-talk | Join Upload & Sell

1
       2       end
    
 

You are not logged in. Login or Register

Username   Password    Retrive password