Forgot Password
Pentax Camera Forums Home
 

Reply
Show Printable Version Search this Thread
05-28-2016, 11:48 AM - 1 Like   #181
Site Supporter
acoufap's Avatar

Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: Munich, Germany
Photos: Albums
Posts: 700
QuoteOriginally posted by Nicolas06 Quote
My comments inside the quote...
You commented my "the high ISO capabilities (even in APSC mode)" like it was discussed in another PF thread. I followed the theoretical discussion about this topic and from the theoretical point of view I do understand the opinion that there should be no big difference between K1 APSC mode and the K-5.

But what I see in practice is that the K1 high ISO raw image quality in APSC mode is IMO clearly better than the high ISO raw images of the K-5 - funny isnít it?

To get it clear, I set up a litte still life at low light and compared ISO 6400, 12800, 25600 and 51200 - K1 in APSC crop mode and K-5.

Because it could be interesting for some people Iíd like to report about my insights.

What I see (100% view) from my not scientific test is that the higher the ISO setting the grainier K-1 images get. But the images donít show visible color noise (at least I donít see it ). As long as possible details stay while luminance noise gets stronger. In comparison K-5 images get mushier and mushier and color noise amplifies with every ISO step to totally loss of details.

K-1 APSC mode shots I can use on monitor up to ISO 25600 at least or even up to 51200 with acceptable quality. This is by far not possible with the K-5 images where going up to ISO 12800 is possible with some kind of images IMO.

My personal conclusion: K-1 is nearer to the theoretical optimum concerning high ISO abilities than K-5 at nearly same pixel size - thatís all. The why is not important to me.

05-28-2016, 12:47 PM   #182
Site Supporter
chickentender's Avatar

Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Seattle, WA
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 1,867
QuoteOriginally posted by monochrome Quote
K10D for the CCD sensor
K-01 for the 16Mp sensor (too bad it's only 12-bit)
K-3 for FoV with long lenses
K-1 for . . . Well. I've been waiting a long time for FF.
I miss my K10D sometimes - it took my photography in a different direction. A number of my favorite images were made using it.
Just loved the handling of it as well.

Last edited by chickentender; 05-28-2016 at 12:59 PM.
05-29-2016, 01:45 PM   #183
Pentaxian




Join Date: Nov 2013
Posts: 4,545
QuoteOriginally posted by acoufap Quote
You commented my "the high ISO capabilities (even in APSC mode)" like it was discussed in another PF thread. I followed the theoretical discussion about this topic and from the theoretical point of view I do understand the opinion that there should be no big difference between K1 APSC mode and the K-5.

But what I see in practice is that the K1 high ISO raw image quality in APSC mode is IMO clearly better than the high ISO raw images of the K-5 - funny isn’t it?

To get it clear, I set up a litte still life at low light and compared ISO 6400, 12800, 25600 and 51200 - K1 in APSC crop mode and K-5.

[...]

What I see (100% view) from my not scientific test is that the higher the ISO setting the grainier K-1 images get. But the images don’t show visible color noise (at least I don’t see it ). As long as possible details stay while luminance noise gets stronger. In comparison K-5 images get mushier and mushier and color noise amplifies with every ISO step to totally loss of details.

K-1 APSC mode shots I can use on monitor up to ISO 25600 at least or even up to 51200 with acceptable quality. This is by far not possible with the K-5 images where going up to ISO 12800 is possible with some kind of images IMO.
Was it supposed to be a link? Doesn't work for me.

Also for me if I use lightroom or DxO and enable noise reduction I can avoid color noise entirely. So I wonder how the comparison was done ? Was it JPEG, was it raw and then what software, what settings?

I would expect JPEG engine to be much better. I would not expect 2EV difference on the same surface on RAW quality as there no actual breakrough in technology that would explain that.

At least I am sure with proper post processing (done 100% automatically with DxO for example) I doesn't see any chroma noise at high iso with my K3, so it strange to me you get this issue.
05-29-2016, 09:25 PM   #184
Site Supporter
acoufap's Avatar

Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: Munich, Germany
Photos: Albums
Posts: 700
QuoteOriginally posted by Nicolas06 Quote
Was it supposed to be a link? Doesn't work for me.

Also for me if I use lightroom or DxO and enable noise reduction I can avoid color noise entirely. So I wonder how the comparison was done ? Was it JPEG, was it raw and then what software, what settings?

I would expect JPEG engine to be much better. I would not expect 2EV difference on the same surface on RAW quality as there no actual breakrough in technology that would explain that.

At least I am sure with proper post processing (done 100% automatically with DxO for example) I doesn't see any chroma noise at high iso with my K3, so it strange to me you get this issue.
  • No link - blue text color only to highlight the foundation of this post.
  • I don't use native jpeg. DNG raw - the data that shows what the sensor is able to deliver.
  • Raw Converter: Capture One Pro 9, import adjustments disabled, so no special adjustments for the K-1 (ICC profile "DNG neutral", curve auto) and K-5 (ICC profile "Pentax K5 Generic V2") raw files. The ICC profiles delivered the same colors and contrast IMO.
  • Well, you can do a lot in post. If you get everything you demand from your K-3 in post processing everything is fine - isn't it?


05-31-2016, 02:08 PM   #185
Pentaxian




Join Date: Nov 2013
Posts: 4,545
I managed to get chromatic noise with the K1 sample as well as K3 with Raw Therapee. I used it because DxO didn't (doesn't?) support K1 adn Raw therapee is free when I uploaded sample raws from imaging resources.

My experience with DxO is that noise removal is automatically done and the amount is customized for the camera, so you never have issues like chromatic noise. In exchange, you have to wait a bit for the new gear to be added to the database.

I don't know for Capture One Pro 9, but I guess it is possible to define profiles/preset/whatever so regardless of your actual camera it should apply the proper amount of noise removal.
05-31-2016, 11:48 PM   #186
Site Supporter




Join Date: Feb 2015
Photos: Albums
Posts: 2,824
QuoteOriginally posted by Nicolas06 Quote
Do we really need K1 resolution? For the fun you can actually take the time to respond to this poll to find out what max size the community is actually printing !
The primary point of FF isn't resolution, not even noise, it is subject separation and how an image look like. You keep coming back to noise, and resolution because those are figures from test labs such as DXO, but you omit the photographic side of things, i.e you see things as an engineer but you don't see the artistic expression of a photograph, whereas you'd have to consider everything. The reason is (Fuji X and Signal Art are the exception) that lenses aren't faster for APSC vs FF, there are the same (example: zoom 16-50 f2.8 for APSC, and zoom 24-70 f2.8) so if you shoot with a 24-70 f2.8 , it's like shooting with a 16-50 f2 on apsc, which does not exist. So, most lenses aren't one stop faster for APSC, that's the difference. You couldn't tell the difference between a fast prime on APSC and a FF shot out of a basic zoom. In other word, you need to take the best of the best prime on apsc (no flexibility) to get the same rendering as a FF image taken with a generic standard lens. I agree that FF isn't a big step up from APSC, but the sweet spot is FF simply because the mount and flange distances have been defined in film era so that to get the best out of optics. For wide angle, a FF flange distance on APSC body put some serious constrains on the optical design to reach the same field of view. Basically, my 24-70 @ 24mm is sharp accross the whole frame, while my 16mm on APSC isn't as 16mm requires to bend the light a lot more than 24mm. Regarding 3D pop, you get it easy with FF because 3D pop comes from being able to get a sharp subject with blurred background. If you are doing a portrait in a garden, use a FA50 F1.4 @ F2 on APSC, the background is blurred but the subject isn't popping out as much as if you used a 85 f1.4 @ F2.8 on FF, although in theory both systems are equivalent, the results are noticeably different (not really anything to do with DXO or engineering). If you shoot with a 85 f1.4 on APSC, the fow is narrow, you don't achieve the blurred background that lead the eye on the subject because on APSC more of the background is removed.
06-01-2016, 07:31 AM   #187
Site Supporter
reh321's Avatar

Join Date: Nov 2014
Location: South Bend, IN, USA
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 2,729
QuoteOriginally posted by biz-engineer Quote
The primary point of FF isn't resolution, not even noise, it is subject separation and how an image look like. You keep coming back to noise, and resolution because those are figures from test labs such as DXO, but you omit the photographic side of things, i.e you see things as an engineer but you don't see the artistic expression of a photograph, whereas you'd have to consider everything. The reason is (Fuji X and Signal Art are the exception) that lenses aren't faster for APSC vs FF, there are the same (example: zoom 16-50 f2.8 for APSC, and zoom 24-70 f2.8) so if you shoot with a 24-70 f2.8 , it's like shooting with a 16-50 f2 on apsc, which does not exist. So, most lenses aren't one stop faster for APSC, that's the difference. You couldn't tell the difference between a fast prime on APSC and a FF shot out of a basic zoom. In other word, you need to take the best of the best prime on apsc (no flexibility) to get the same rendering as a FF image taken with a generic standard lens. I agree that FF isn't a big step up from APSC, but the sweet spot is FF simply because the mount and flange distances have been defined in film era so that to get the best out of optics. For wide angle, a FF flange distance on APSC body put some serious constrains on the optical design to reach the same field of view. Basically, my 24-70 @ 24mm is sharp accross the whole frame, while my 16mm on APSC isn't as 16mm requires to bend the light a lot more than 24mm. Regarding 3D pop, you get it easy with FF because 3D pop comes from being able to get a sharp subject with blurred background. If you are doing a portrait in a garden, use a FA50 F1.4 @ F2 on APSC, the background is blurred but the subject isn't popping out as much as if you used a 85 f1.4 @ F2.8 on FF, although in theory both systems are equivalent, the results are noticeably different (not really anything to do with DXO or engineering). If you shoot with a 85 f1.4 on APSC, the fow is narrow, you don't achieve the blurred background that lead the eye on the subject because on APSC more of the background is removed.
Thank you for convincing me that I don't "need", in fact don't even want the K-1, as my style has always included putting the primary subject in the context of his/her/its environment.
06-01-2016, 07:54 AM   #188
Pentaxian
kh1234567890's Avatar

Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: Manchester, UK
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 2,327
QuoteOriginally posted by biz-engineer Quote
Basically, my 24-70 @ 24mm is sharp accross the whole frame, while my 16mm on APSC isn't as 16mm requires to bend the light a lot more than 24mm. Regarding 3D pop, you get it easy with FF because 3D pop comes from being able to get a sharp subject with blurred background.
My cheapo DA16-45 manages to 'bend the light' to where it is supposed to go, even to the corners at 16mm. And there is more to the '3D pop' than just a shallow depth of field. FF is just a passing fad engineered by camera manufacturers to sell more bodies and overpriced lenses.

06-01-2016, 08:30 AM   #189
Site Supporter




Join Date: Feb 2015
Photos: Albums
Posts: 2,824
QuoteOriginally posted by kh1234567890 Quote
FF is just a passing fad engineered by camera manufacturers to sell more bodies and overpriced lenses.
Ah ah , yes, the true part is that FF bodies and lenses should / could be priced about the same as APSC, the cost is far from double. FF cameras are priced in order to fit a market segment in between apsc and medium format, which has nothing to do with cost. Prices don't remove the properties inherent to each camera format, it's no different from what was in film era, folks saying that larger formats are irrelevant in the digital age are totally right in term of cost (costs model of digital is completely different from film) and completely wrong in term of what formats give to photography.

If the cost of FF digital sensors were affordable 15 years ago, apsc would not exist, FF would be the defacto popular standard , DSLR K1 would be priced like a K3II and everyone including you would have a FF, and no-one could say that FF is irrelevant. Now apsc was commercialized, became mainstream, improved, so now FF can't be priced like apsc because FF would canibalize apsc. FF cam can be made of the size of apsc (see Sony A7). Please don't take the argument of Fuji, they continue to claim that FF is useless because they don't have it. Every video is indirectly financed by the camera industry, so, everyone communicate some kind of propaganda depending on what company finances the advertising.

What can be said is that FF systems are overpriced, but it is simply not true that FF isn't technically better as image quality increases proportionally to the size of format.

Last edited by biz-engineer; 06-01-2016 at 08:43 AM.
06-01-2016, 12:45 PM   #190
Pentaxian




Join Date: Nov 2013
Posts: 4,545
QuoteOriginally posted by biz-engineer Quote
The primary point of FF isn't resolution, not even noise, it is subject separation and how an image look like. You keep coming back to noise, and resolution because those are figures from test labs such as DXO, but you omit the photographic side of things, i.e you see things as an engineer but you don't see the artistic expression of a photograph, whereas you'd have to consider everything. The reason is (Fuji X and Signal Art are the exception) that lenses aren't faster for APSC vs FF, there are the same (example: zoom 16-50 f2.8 for APSC, and zoom 24-70 f2.8) so if you shoot with a 24-70 f2.8 , it's like shooting with a 16-50 f2 on apsc, which does not exist. So, most lenses aren't one stop faster for APSC, that's the difference. You couldn't tell the difference between a fast prime on APSC and a FF shot out of a basic zoom. In other word, you need to take the best of the best prime on apsc (no flexibility) to get the same rendering as a FF image taken with a generic standard lens. I agree that FF isn't a big step up from APSC, but the sweet spot is FF simply because the mount and flange distances have been defined in film era so that to get the best out of optics. For wide angle, a FF flange distance on APSC body put some serious constrains on the optical design to reach the same field of view. Basically, my 24-70 @ 24mm is sharp accross the whole frame, while my 16mm on APSC isn't as 16mm requires to bend the light a lot more than 24mm. Regarding 3D pop, you get it easy with FF because 3D pop comes from being able to get a sharp subject with blurred background. If you are doing a portrait in a garden, use a FA50 F1.4 @ F2 on APSC, the background is blurred but the subject isn't popping out as much as if you used a 85 f1.4 @ F2.8 on FF, although in theory both systems are equivalent, the results are noticeably different (not really anything to do with DXO or engineering). If you shoot with a 85 f1.4 on APSC, the fow is narrow, you don't achieve the blurred background that lead the eye on the subject because on APSC more of the background is removed.
I agree with you one of the best benefit of FF is the conveniance (if you don't mind size/weight) you get with a 24-70 + 70-200, both f/2.8. But in this case really you get an heavy, big and expensive setup. Depending of the models this is 3500-6000$ for a body, and 2 f/2.8 lenses... A second body and even more acccessories willl bring you a bit south of 10000$. At 3500$ for the basic package, you'll find people that explain you may miss the 24mm range or miss the truely fast AF, so that isn't really good enough!

Anyway, that certainly a choice and if you are a pro, well the price should not be an issue and you should even be able to deduct the cost from your taxes. The weight well, you are paid for it, it your job, that part of the annoying parts. If you are not a pro, that of course still your money and choice.

But pro are a small minoritity and even among theses, not everybody has an FF.

In term of dof, f/2 vs f/2.8 (dof is 29%®small at f/2 than f/2.8) is small while knowing how to take photos and what to do to get the results you want will have many time more impact on the bokeh, subject separation and pop.

So really this is a choice and the one aspect to not forget is that this is just gear in the end. It will not break or make the photo while the photographer technique, the subject, choosing the right moment, right composition, having the right light will make or break the photo.

You still get 80-99% of the result (depending of your practice) with a K3 + 17-50 + 70-200 f/2.8 for a bit less than half the price of the entry level FF and 3-4 time less expensive for a more high end solution. As a consumer we pay significantly more and get heavier/bigger gear that is also more intrusive for not so visible improvements.

Last edited by Nicolas06; 06-01-2016 at 12:58 PM.
06-01-2016, 12:53 PM   #191
Pentaxian




Join Date: Nov 2013
Posts: 4,545
QuoteOriginally posted by biz-engineer Quote
What can be said is that FF systems are overpriced, but it is simply not true that FF isn't technically better as image quality increases proportionally to the size of format.
Sure that FF allow for better technical image quality but the question is how often it will be really visible on the final product like a medium sized print or on a display? Sure the whole thing is about that equiv. formula that 90% of people seems to not get + that lenses are sharper more closed down. In poor shooting conditions, the difference might be quite visible. The rest of the time, this doesn't really matter. So it depend of your practice, too.
06-02-2016, 01:05 PM - 1 Like   #192
Pentaxian
emalvick's Avatar

Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Davis, CA
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 1,466
I won't be upgrading to FF any time soon, mostly because my own photography wouldn't benefit enough. I figure I need to be selling photos to justify the need for FF. If you would have asked me 5+years ago (before or around the time of the K5), I would have said I was waiting anxiously for a FF. I even came close to jumping ship to Nikon just to get a FF. But then Pentax (and others like Nikon and Sony) started producing APSC cameras and sensors that solved some of the limitations I perceived in terms of image quality.

To change now would be for the subtle improvements one gets out of the physical difference in sensor size. I've gotten so used to shooting APSC that I am happy to stick with it for the time being. I'm also quite happy with the field of view on APS-C, and I now know my lenses very well with the format.

Finally, I'll be looking forward to the next flagship APS-C, assuming there is one. I'm not certain I'll jump on that as my K3 and K5 have me quite content, and perhaps when I really NEED a new body, I'll then consider a K-1.
06-09-2016, 09:58 AM - 1 Like   #193
Site Supporter




Join Date: Feb 2015
Photos: Albums
Posts: 2,824
QuoteOriginally posted by Nicolas06 Quote
Sure that FF allow for better technical image quality but the question is how often it will be really visible on the final product like a medium sized print or on a display? Sure the whole thing is about that equiv. formula that 90% of people seems to not get + that lenses are sharper more closed down. In poor shooting conditions, the difference might be quite visible. The rest of the time, this doesn't really matter. So it depend of your practice, too.
QuoteOriginally posted by emalvick Quote
I won't be upgrading to FF any time soon, mostly because my own photography wouldn't benefit enough. I figure I need to be selling photos to justify the need for FF. If you would have asked me 5+years ago (before or around the time of the K5), I would have said I was waiting anxiously for a FF. I even came close to jumping ship to Nikon just to get a FF. But then Pentax (and others like Nikon and Sony) started producing APSC cameras and sensors that solved some of the limitations I perceived in terms of image quality. To change now would be for the subtle improvements one gets out of the physical difference in sensor size. I've gotten so used to shooting APSC that I am happy to stick with it for the time being. I'm also quite happy with the field of view on APS-C, and I now know my lenses very well with the format. Finally, I'll be looking forward to the next flagship APS-C, assuming there is one. I'm not certain I'll jump on that as my K3 and K5 have me quite content, and perhaps when I really NEED a new body, I'll then consider a K-1.

As long as you don't try a K1 for a couple of weeks, you are safe :-) -

I mean, it's great to infer what image quality would be like on FF versus APSC, based on lens aperture, iso , crop factor and so on, backed with some conviction to defeat that FF images are a step above APSC images. I believed it, I was sure of it, but someone handed me a K1 to try for a week and using the K1 was biggest mistake I made, because I did not plan to upgrade to FF , but when I saw how good it was compared to APSC, I purchased it, along with new lenses. Today, I tried a Fuji X-T1, and yes, the AF is good in good like, faster than Pentax... but even with f1.4 pimes on it, image quality does not touch the IQ from the K1. The guy was telling me that his Fuji X-T1 deliver as good images as his 5DIII, he made a demo at ISO3200 with the Fuji 35 f1.4 prime lens, I took the same photo with the K1 and DFA24-70, the K1+zoom completely beat the Fuji with the prime. But of course the XT1+prime beats the K1 zoom for size. But I could also compare the XT1+prime to a K3+limited lens, and then I'm not sure if there is so much difference is size , except that the K3 can AF in the dark and the XT1 can't. We have to be carreful about theory because sometimes, practice gives different results.

Now I've lost interest in APSC, I don't use my K3 anymore. It looks like when pass the point of shooting with K1, it's the point of no return to APSC.

Here, in this thread, some people don't want to spend more money on photography, in order to avoid the spending the K1 involves, they need to find arguments to avoid taking the plunge into the Pentax K1 thing and I can understand them, but to be safe I don't recommend then to try a K1.
06-09-2016, 11:09 AM   #194
Site Supporter




Join Date: Feb 2015
Photos: Albums
Posts: 2,824
QuoteOriginally posted by kh1234567890 Quote
FF is just a passing fad engineered by camera manufacturers to sell more bodies and overpriced lenses.
K1 image quality is about 1.5 stop noise, color accuracy improvement over a K5 and more then 2 times the pixel count. When you upgraded from a K7 to a K5, it was only less than a stop of improvement and 2 more mega pixels, and you paid around $1K of the time (would be $1.2K or $1.3K of now if we consider inflation. So, I'm not sure if FF is a fad engineered by camera manufacturer, or if upgrading from apsc to apsc to apsc is the real scam. Also, some people , including me bought into the Pentax limited primes from Pentax in order to get a tiny bit better image quality with the drawback that the focal length is fixed. In addition, some people upgraded from a K5 to a K3, which in essence did increase the resolution by 50% but also increased the noise by the same amount, so from 400 ISO onwards, no improvement at all over a K5, nevertheless K3 owner still paid the full price of a new K3. So, I'm not sure if the total amount of money spent on trying to get better IQ with the same apsc sensor size was more valuable than spending the same amount of money a full frame system that deliver cumulative higher resolution and less noise. I know someone who sold his Pentax 5 years ago and purchased a D800, he still used the D800 and did not feel the need to buy 2 or 3 different APSC camera bodies, in the meantime he shot full frame for the last 4 years.

---------- Post added 09-06-16 at 20:43 ----------

Now, in 2016, if people were buying only things that are life critical, all economies would collapse. The APSC camera that you have, you don't need it , society made you desire it. Do you need to take photos to live, no you don't. Do you need a car, no you don't you can take the bus and the train instead. Do you need to go to watch a movie ? No you don't, watching movies is a waste of money, it's not life critical. Do you need a Full frame camera, no you don't, it's not life critical, you don't even need to take photos, it's a waste of time.

Last edited by biz-engineer; 06-09-2016 at 11:44 AM.
06-09-2016, 12:01 PM   #195
Pentaxian




Join Date: Nov 2013
Posts: 4,545
@biz-engineer

Really depend what is the priority. For me I mostly shoot iso 100. I don't like big gear and for common usage I want 24 to 200mm FF equiv framing.

I shoot high iso on occasion, and I will do that for my safari. But it may be only 1 time. And because reach is a priority as well as size and WR... Well the 55-300 was the clear answer, not the 150-450!. Sure I also shoot the occasionnal high iso shoot but that not the priority. They could look noticably better, sure.

I love my FA77, the framing and quality, and there no lens that offer that on the FF, a small 115-120mm lens with great quality. The F135 I have is nice but need f/5.6 to perform great and still a purple monster. It is great for portraiture at f/2.8, not for a distant landscape, a distant scene, a detail...

The second lens I use most often is DA15, and is not that sharp on borders. But there no DFA22mm neither. Even f/4 like the DA15 and small and sharp up to corners. I tried the FA*24 and it needs f/8 and is big and heavy. The FA20 f/2.8 look nice but would be justified only on FF, so I didn't try and the borders don't look terribly good.

I could use only 1 zoom, the 28-105 that could be a good compromize, but it start at 28mm, not 24. And f/5.6 at 105mm is a bit limiting in the end. Otherwise I would be stuck with 24-70 + 70-200 f/2.8 behemoh. That's crazy for me.

So I could buy K1 + 24-70 and crop when I need reach. Kind of best compromize. That would weight 1.8kg with the K1. I have an idea of how the 24-70 would feel. It look like the length of my 55-300 with more weight than the 50-135 I sold 2 years ago and larger. That not something I want all the time. That not something my friend or many candid subjects are comfortable with.

On top of all of that, it would cost me 3000€, so I would need to sell everything I have to do it at near 0 cost so I would not have a light kit anymore.

If I wait 2 years at least I may get a nice UWA or WA, maybe a ltd, that would be nice. The K-1 would be half it current price, the APSC bodies will have improved or Pentax may make a light K1 that is more 650g than 1kg. For me there really no reason to buy now.
Reply

Bookmarks
  • Submit Thread to Facebook Facebook
  • Submit Thread to Twitter Twitter
  • Submit Thread to Digg Digg
Tags - Make this thread easier to find by adding keywords to it!
aperture, apsc, apsc shooters, camera, dof, dslr, equivalence, f/2.8, f/4, film, format, formats, frame, glass, image, iso, k-1, k-3, k1, k3 2, lenses, light, pentax, people, photography, photos, platform
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
645D How To tell how many Actuations rollsman4 Pentax Medium Format 2 03-10-2015 05:51 PM
How many of you macro shooters photolady95 Macro Photography 40 09-06-2014 10:12 AM
How many will admit to using the "GREEN" Mode Driline Pentax K-5 60 03-27-2013 01:03 AM
How many DSLR makers will there be in 5 years? Impartial Photographic Technique 16 10-15-2010 02:16 PM
how many shutter cycles are to many on a used slr mikejax19 Troubleshooting and Beginner Help 14 08-30-2010 09:34 AM



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 04:11 PM. | See also: NikonForums.com, part of our network of photo forums!
  • Red (Default)
  • Green
  • Gray
  • Dark
  • Dark Yellow
  • Dark Blue
  • Old Red
  • Old Green
  • Old Gray
  • Dial-Up Style
Hello! It's great to see you back on the forum! Have you considered joining the community?
register
Creating a FREE ACCOUNT takes under a minute, removes ads, and lets you post! [Dismiss]
Top