How does using a modern SLR compare to using a DSLR?

Nikon Rumors Forum » Nikon Film Cameras

How does using a modern SLR compare to using a DSLR?

(73 posts) (10 voices)

Tags:

No tags yet.

« Previous 123 Next »

NSXType-R

preferred member
Joined: Mar '09
Posts: 2,803
offline

bmxdad said:
Actually I want for collection purpose only like to find a black F to be displayed beside my Nikon Candy box model F camera, but mint are in the $1000+ area

Actually even the F80 has been hard to find lately, maybe I should have bit higher on my last Ebay attempt at that camera

I would like a Film SLR body to use when I get my Lomography 38mm lens, maybe I should just use my old FG

Pete

My friend has an N80, I'm a bit jealous of him because pretty much all FX lenses work on it.

ChrisLange said:
Don't bother with an FM3a, prices are out the roof and well into the stratosphere. Find yourself an FE2 or FM2, as they are essentially identical cameras, at 1/4 the price. If you can get your hands on an FA, you'll do even better. F3s are also relatively easy to buy right now.

Yeah, you're right. I want something different from a FM2, I'm into collecting now. My dad has a FM2, and that's an outright awesome camera.

bmxdad said:
That is why I just bought the N(F)80 because it is fairly modern and less than half the cost of the F100, I paid app $85 incl shipment to Canada, I the camera as you know looks a bit like the a D80

I still would like to find a mint F, FM2 or maybe even a F5(that one is to heavy)

Pete

I wouldn't mind getting a F100. And you're right, B and H still sells them new. (!)

Posted 3 years ago #
NSXType-R

preferred member
Joined: Mar '09
Posts: 2,803
offline

Funny you asked, because I just got a modern SLR! Not a Nikon, but a Canon EOS Elan 7e, with 2 lenses, Sigmas 28-80 and 70-300.

Word about my photographic proficiency has seemed to have spread within my family and now everyone is dumping their old film gear on me!

Win win for me! Only issue is, I have no expensive batteries to put in and I still have no film...

Posted 3 years ago #
ChrisLange

preferred member
Joined: Apr '09
Posts: 359
offline

I'm still trying to get hold of a Leica M3 or a Leica CL/CLE. I had a chance to play with a CL at adorama last week and it was fantastic. Very compact, a shutter no louder than a whisper, and full access into the M mount...Cartier-Bresson would be proud.

Posted 3 years ago #
bmxdad

preferred member
Joined: May '09
Posts: 1,864
offline

NSXType-R said:
Funny you asked, because I just got a modern SLR! Not a Nikon, but a Canon EOS Elan 7e, with 2 lenses, Sigmas 28-80 and 70-300.

Word about my photographic proficiency has seemed to have spread within my family and now everyone is dumping their old film gear on me!

Win win for me! Only issue is, I have no expensive batteries to put in and I still have no film...

That Canon is known to have problems at higher ISO, and mine seems to have problems formatting it's fotographic medium and good luck trying to set the date on it

Pete

Posted 3 years ago #
NSXType-R

preferred member
Joined: Mar '09
Posts: 2,803
offline

ChrisLange said:
I'm still trying to get hold of a Leica M3 or a Leica CL/CLE. I had a chance to play with a CL at adorama last week and it was fantastic. Very compact, a shutter no louder than a whisper, and full access into the M mount...Cartier-Bresson would be proud.

Wow, expensive stuff!

bmxdad said:
That Canon is known to have problems at higher ISO, and mine seems to have problems formatting it's fotographic medium and good luck trying to set the date on it

Pete

Yeah, I don't think I'll be using ISO higher than 400, just because that's the cheap film right there. Trying to get some experience with it first before I step up.

I'll definitely have to search for the manual, and plus I don't think the flash pops up anymore, it's been taped shut. But then again, there's the hotshoe.

Posted 3 years ago #
ChrisLange

preferred member
Joined: Apr '09
Posts: 359
offline

kanuck said:
ahh wow so you are a film guy then interesting I have read some of your posts before but I wasn't sure. What do you think about the 105/2.5? I almost purchased that lens myself because I have heard such great things about it, but I decided on the 2.8 for micro instead. That 180 of yours is great to. My brother shoots with an F4S and he still loves it.

Alpanikonrex, the F6 and D300 are fairly close in release dates I believe maybe 1 1/2 years apart maybe? I guess the technology trickles down to digital eventually. I think the D200 and F6 were released very closely togther. My D300 was great, but I hated the noise especially over Iso 1600...

I love the 105/2.5 Kanuck ;), it's a good bit lighter than the 85/1.4, and I think less than half the weight of an AF 80-200/2.8 (I was comparing yesterday), it felt like it might be even more of a difference. Really it comes down to how I feel in the morning when I'm getting my bag ready. Like I said above, I just love my F4, but I think that camera might be pretty well ingrained in my family, my father used to own four of them, and something like 10 or 12 FE2s along with his hasselblad/mamiya gear when he was still doing fashion covers and magazine work on a regular basis. One F4 went in salt water a few too many times, and died, so we have 3 left, not including mine, which I bought a year ago while I was abroad.

Posted 3 years ago #
alphanikonrex

I'm under 18!
Joined: Apr '09
Posts: 1,999
offline

ChrisLange said:
The F4 is truly the jack of all trades, and takes pretty much any Nikkor lens ever made. It'll matrix meter manual focus and AF lenses, it'll use pre-ai lenses no problem (something the F5 won't do), and it can use G lenses no no problem. It's my go to body for just about everything. You can stick just about anything on and it'll work flawlessly.

WOW. You've caused me to really reconsider the F4. I still find it very old-fashioned, but that compatibility really can get one thinking...

ChrisLange said:
You haven't experienced what 35mm film can do, truly, until you've gone and shot a roll of Tri-X or Ilford FP4+, developed it, and enlarged it yourself onto at least an 8x10. Grain is beautiful, noise is not.

Alpha, you and me think in reverse :), I grab my digital when the shot isn't that important, or if I'm just going out for a bit with some friends, but as soon as I'm working for myself, or on a project, out come the film bodies.

You're right. I have no idea about the power of film. I've got no idea what "Tri-X or Ilford FP4+" is. I've never developed film either. This summer I really want to try it out for myself. I've got a great interest in film, but I simply don't shoot enough of it. And I blame that on the fact that my film camera is too difficult for me to use all the time.

I'm almost 100% sure I'd shoot a lot more film if I had a modern SLR. That's simply because all the cameras would be uniform in my hands. I'd just reach out, grab a camera, and take a roll out of my right pocket or a memory card out of my left. And that would be the end of the difference.

My problem is I have to have a completely different mindset when I pick up my F2. That's why I don't touch it as often. I don't have a problem at all with the medium though.

What a great collection you have there! I'm guessing you use the D70S the least?

kanuck said:
Alpanikonrex, the F6 and D300 are fairly close in release dates I believe maybe 1 1/2 years apart maybe? I guess the technology trickles down to digital eventually. I think the D200 and F6 were released very closely togther. My D300 was great, but I hated the noise especially over Iso 1600...

Technically, the F6 is a "flagshipized" FX D200 :^)

Posted 3 years ago #
kanuck

preferred member
Joined: Apr '09
Posts: 1,405
offline

Hey Chris, that 80-200 AF you mentioned, it's the push-pull ED right? If so, then you are right it is crazy heavy! I had one when I was first starting out because it is super cheap used at $300 and I needed a 2.8 telephoto for a trip around South East Asia. I found there is serious sample variation and even worse it performs terribly on digital. You throw it on a F90x or my brothe's F4 and wow its amazing. Again, REALLY HEAVY.

Being a film guy, I figured you would be into Leica Ms. The M3 is amazing I have heard. Its $1100-$1600 still here in South Korea where I work. The Mp4 is quite something to. you don't have a Leica body now do you?

Alphanikonrex you are right the F6 was the flagshipized FX D200. The F6 and the D200 were both flagships for Nikon at that time. Then things got interesting on August 23rd 2007 and my life has not been the same since! haha

Posted 3 years ago #
alphanikonrex

I'm under 18!
Joined: Apr '09
Posts: 1,999
offline

No, I don't consider the D200 a flagship. Flagships means that it MUST have 100% viewfinder coverage under my definition. That's why the F6 is a "flagshipized" version of the D200. Back in 2007 I still wanted a D40 :^) Now I'm eyeing some bigger things... ;^)

BTW, there are two AF 80-200 ED's, one is pushpull and the other isn't. I have the non-pushpull version. And it is super-heavy, especially for a weakling like me!

Posted 3 years ago #
ChrisLange

preferred member
Joined: Apr '09
Posts: 359
offline

kanuck said:
Hey Chris, that 80-200 AF you mentioned, it's the push-pull ED right? If so, then you are right it is crazy heavy! I had one when I was first starting out because it is super cheap used at $300 and I needed a 2.8 telephoto for a trip around South East Asia. I found there is serious sample variation and even worse it performs terribly on digital. You throw it on a F90x or my brothe's F4 and wow its amazing. Again, REALLY HEAVY.

Being a film guy, I figured you would be into Leica Ms. The M3 is amazing I have heard. Its $1100-$1600 still here in South Korea where I work. The Mp4 is quite something to. you don't have a Leica body now do you?

Alphanikonrex you are right the F6 was the flagshipized FX D200. The F6 and the D200 were both flagships for Nikon at that time. Then things got interesting on August 23rd 2007 and my life has not been the same since! haha

That's right! The push pull ED 80-200. It's a beast! I don't have a Leica at the moment, but I do have two Zorki rangefinders, which are the Russian copies of the older Leica models. My Zorki 1C is an early model, and is pretty well put together, it's not whisper quiet in the same way as a Leica would be, but it's certainly a solid little camera, and with the collapsible 50mm/3.5 Elmar copy I have on there, is about as pocket sized as you can get while still retaining a coupled rangefinder and interchangeable lenses. I like it a lot.

My father's 80-200 works pretty well on our D300, but I hate using it cause I really just don't use zoom lenses all that often, only the 18-35. Coupled with an F4 though, it's just a ton of bricks, however it does outrun the competition in terms of stability in terms of resilience and build quality. Not a bit of plastic on the whole setup, pretty much.

I would love any Leica M body, they're so quiet that with a fast 35mm on it, and a 90 in my pocket, I can't see myself really needing much more than that. That 12mm lens by Voigtlander is quite something as well...

Alpha, you think that's heavy? Try using a Mamiya RB67 with a prism finder, and 180mm lens all day long. I had one for a while but sold it because I really didn't need the 67 when I could have a more flexible 645 system like the Bronica ETRS I now use for nearly all my medium format work. I use my father's Hasselblad 553 ELXs occasionally as well, they're really great field cameras.

Posted 3 years ago #
alphanikonrex

I'm under 18!
Joined: Apr '09
Posts: 1,999
offline

LOL, I stopped reading at "RB67" ;^)

But are you telling me that medium format is heavier than 35mm? Oh no!

Currently this is the heaviest photographic equipment I've ever picked up. I'm actually OK with it, it's just heavy when compared "relatively". I'm not very strong, but I have the endurance to deal with heavy stuff if I have too. And it's still a lot lighter than my little sister ;^)

Posted 3 years ago #
ChrisLange

preferred member
Joined: Apr '09
Posts: 359
offline

alphanikonrex said:
LOL, I stopped reading at "RB67" ;^)

But are you telling me that medium format is heavier than 35mm? Oh no!

Currently this is the heaviest photographic equipment I've ever picked up. I'm actually OK with it, it's just heavy when compared "relatively". I'm not very strong, but I have the endurance to deal with heavy stuff if I have too. And it's still a lot lighter than my little sister ;^)

Using a prism instead of the waist level finder adds another 2 pounds onto the package. The lens is another pound. A full RB67 setup, all told, can come in between 9/10 pounds, depending on what you've got on it. And thats just the body, prism, lens, and one back, it's advisable to have at least 2 or 3 backs, plus film.

On the upside, you can enlarge a 6x7 to huge dimensions, and a good high res scan of a fine grained 6x7 chrome or neg will yield about 50 to 60 megapixels of image data.

Posted 3 years ago #
alphanikonrex

I'm under 18!
Joined: Apr '09
Posts: 1,999
offline

Wow, that is insane. I'm certainly not stepping anytime soon!

What's the advantage of a prism instead of a waist level finder? 50x60 megapixels is plenty, but aren't larger film sizes more expensive to shoot and develop? Not much room to mess up and re-shoot.

Posted 3 years ago #
ChrisLange

preferred member
Joined: Apr '09
Posts: 359
offline

alphanikonrex said:
Wow, that is insane. I'm certainly not stepping anytime soon!

What's the advantage of a prism instead of a waist level finder? 50x60 megapixels is plenty, but aren't larger film sizes more expensive to shoot and develop? Not much room to mess up and re-shoot.

Waist levels are better for a compact package, and street work, but prism's allow you to focus more accurately and will provide a laterally correct image in both the x and y axis, while a waist level finder will give you a vertically correct picture, but laterally reversed in the x axis, so left is right and right is left.

120 film is about the same cost as a roll of 35mm, maybe a little less depending on the film type. You tend to get it right more often the first time with film in general, and this idea increases as you step up in format, 120 allows you 10 shots on 6x7, 12 on 6x6, or 15 on 645. 4x5" people and 8x10" are limited to one or two sheets per holder!

My personal favorite 6x7 system is the Pentax 67 series, they're pretty hefty, but still about 1/2 the weight of an RB. Imagine a really, really beefed up Nikon F or Pentax Spotmatic, and you have the P67. They're a ton of fun to shoot :) especially when you've got the 105mm/2.4 lens for it, which gives about the same angle as a 50 would on 35mm film/FX, or 35mm would on DX.

I took this on Ilford Pan F+ 50 with the Pentax 67 last summer, the raw scan came in at about 50mp and there were levels of skin detail simply unthinkable on small format digital.

Posted 3 years ago #
ChrisLange

preferred member
Joined: Apr '09
Posts: 359
offline

Course there's nothing wrong with ASA 400 black and white in 35mm either...

control is all about simply knowing your principals. You know your principals, and you can use almost any camera system on the current, or vintage market, provided it has a well implemented interface. This is why it's no big deal for me to jump from my F3 to F4 in a heartbeat, or from Rolleiflex to 35mm rangefinder. Once you know, it's just a matter of pointing your camera in the right direction and letting the mechanical bits do the rest for you.

I'm not interested in photography, really, I'm more interested in using it as a means to stop life, if even for a split second.

Posted 3 years ago #
alphanikonrex

I'm under 18!
Joined: Apr '09
Posts: 1,999
offline

I just looked at your photos on Flickr, and whether you are interested in photography or not, you've taken some great images! :^)

I still have so much to learn about photography—I've only brushed such a small part.

Medium format must be beautiful. Just by looking at your image, I can tell I'd love to work with something like that. Especially because I tend to love images with a shallow DOF. I can barely imagine the detail MF can bring out...

What are the major differences in your opinion between 35mm and 6x7 format?

Posted 3 years ago #
ChrisLange

preferred member
Joined: Apr '09
Posts: 359
offline

Thanks for the kind words alpha :),

6x6 and 6x7 come in handy when you want a big negative without a tripod being necessary. The other advantage is that, simply due to the much larger imaging area compared to that of digital or 35mm, there is much more tonal gradation captured, and overall, less grain shows in enlargements because the factor of magnification is a great deal less than that of 35mm. Dynamic range is increased as well, along with overall sharpness. You also get a viewfinder that puts those of even 35mm film cameras to shame. Use a fine grained film like Ilford PanF+ or Fuji Neopan Acros, and you'll have a sight to behold when the print comes out on paper, or the image shows up from the scan.

The trick to using the P67 effectively is knowing its limits. When you use 6x7 film, you need a mirror and shutter that cover 6x7, and as you might imagine, these are much, much larger than their small format equivalents. The extra weight behind the mirror and massive focal plane shutter mechanisms causes more vibration than the comparitively miniature mechanics of 35mm. As such, I try to stay between 1/125 and 1/1000 (the top speed on the Pentax) at all times, although if necessary, I am able to hand hold pretty effectively down to 1/30. Past that, it's a guessing game about whether your shot is going to be good or not. Of course a tripod solves -most- of these issues. Lenses are also a good deal bigger since they need a much larger image circle. The 105/2.4 is the fastest lens in the Pentax 67 system, and if I'm not mistaken, the fastest 6x7 lens available. You're not going to be doing much street night photography with a 6x7 camera. The other downside, particularly applicable to me, is that these things are LOUD. You're not gonna be playing James Bond with a Pentax 67 anytime soon; when that shutter goes off, there's a nice metallic sounding "KA-THUNK". On the other hand, no one is gonna bother a Pentax user cause the 67 is big enough, and heavy enough to qualify as an assault weapon, and it sounds like one too.

I'd like to try one of the Fuji 6x7 or 6x9 rangefinders some time too...

Posted 3 years ago #
alphanikonrex

I'm under 18!
Joined: Apr '09
Posts: 1,999
offline

Hmmm, so 6x7 is not the best in low-light and not the best for a grab-and-go. So it seems like it requires more effort, dedication, and patience? But I suppose the results are totally worth the effort...

I didn't know you had to use such high shutterspeeds on these things. Do you find that a nuisance often?

And when you say the lenses are bigger, are they bigger in diameter, length, or both to cover the film? And you have to use a (twice?) longer focal length, I suppose, which also adds size and weight. Are there any ultra-ultra-wides for 6x7 format? I'm guessing they're not the best for super-telephoto shooting.

Posted 3 years ago #
ChrisLange

preferred member
Joined: Apr '09
Posts: 359
offline

The easiest way to think of it is as a reverse crop factor, what we consider to be the baseline in 35mm format lenses is inapplicable to medium format. Standard in 6x7 is anywhere between 90mm at the widish normal and 127mm on the longish normal end. Ultra wides are available for certain systems, there's a 45mm for the Pentax 67, a 43mm for the Mamiya 7, and 45mm for the Mamiya RB67/RZ 67. Super tele's are available, but they cost a ton. I believe there is a 1200mm lens for the Pentax, which is about equivalent to a 500/600mm in 35. The longest I have is a 250mm, and I rarely use it. Usually it's the 105 or the 165. Physically they are larger, simply because they need to couple to the massive mount of the 67.

To answer your questions about shutter speeds, I don't find it much of a bother since even with 50 speed film on a sunny day I can use 1/250 @ about 5.6, and from there I have roughly three stops of wiggle room between the shutter and the aperture to account for shadows. Since grain and detail are much less of a worry factor than on 35mm, I'm not worried about using higher speed films either. 400 is perfectly acceptable, and will still give essentially grainless 8x10" or 11x14" prints if shot correctly. With ASA 50 film, you can enlarge to 16x20, or 20x24 and still have negligible grain. Pushing 400 to 1600 is something I rarely do with medium format, if only because I mostly shoot it during the day, or with studio lights, but from what I have seen, there's a lot more leeway than on 35mm in regards to exposure. At night I favor my 35mm bodies which are smaller, quieter, and a bit less conspicuous. Also, it's a bitch to reload a medium format camera in the dark, especially if your camera doesn't use film backs (like the Pentax).

Posted 3 years ago #
alphanikonrex

I'm under 18!
Joined: Apr '09
Posts: 1,999
offline

Wait a minute here; I have to step back a moment: please tell me a little more about film in general. You've mentioned "grain" many times, but I realize that I have no idea what it is. For a little while I was thinking it was like resolution ("and a good high res scan of a fine grained 6x7 chrome or neg will yield about 50 to 60 megapixels of image data" = good film resolution means better scan). Now I'm thinking grain is like noise ("400 is perfectly acceptable, and will still give essentially grainless 8x10" or 11x14" prints if shot correctly. With ASA 50 film, you can enlarge to 16x20, or 20x24 and still have negligible grain." = lower ASA means less noise).

I feel like this is a stupid question. I know nothing whatsoever about film :^(

Posted 3 years ago #
NSXType-R

preferred member
Joined: Mar '09
Posts: 2,803
offline

alphanikonrex said:
Wait a minute here; I have to step back a moment: please tell me a little more about film in general. You've mentioned "grain" many times, but I realize that I have no idea what it is. For a little while I was thinking it was like resolution ("and a good high res scan of a fine grained 6x7 chrome or neg will yield about 50 to 60 megapixels of image data" = good film resolution means better scan). Now I'm thinking grain is like noise ("400 is perfectly acceptable, and will still give essentially grainless 8x10" or 11x14" prints if shot correctly. With ASA 50 film, you can enlarge to 16x20, or 20x24 and still have negligible grain." = lower ASA means less noise).

I feel like this is a stupid question. I know nothing whatsoever about film :^(

Yeah, grain as in noise. Digital really does handle noise a lot better than film now, film used to have really noticeable noise starting from 800 up I believe. But I never really use more than 400 film, since I'm just starting out anyway. I use the cheapo Fuji Film stuff. I might want to grab a roll of black and white though.

Posted 3 years ago #
ChrisLange

preferred member
Joined: Apr '09
Posts: 359
offline

alphanikonrex said:
Wait a minute here; I have to step back a moment: please tell me a little more about film in general. You've mentioned "grain" many times, but I realize that I have no idea what it is. For a little while I was thinking it was like resolution ("and a good high res scan of a fine grained 6x7 chrome or neg will yield about 50 to 60 megapixels of image data" = good film resolution means better scan). Now I'm thinking grain is like noise ("400 is perfectly acceptable, and will still give essentially grainless 8x10" or 11x14" prints if shot correctly. With ASA 50 film, you can enlarge to 16x20, or 20x24 and still have negligible grain." = lower ASA means less noise).

I feel like this is a stupid question. I know nothing whatsoever about film :^(

Images on black and white film are made up of silver, (I can brag to people about how I have pounds of silver at home, too bad it's in flat strips...). Tiny silver grains are what construct the image, and the "speed" of a film is determined by how sensitive the emulsion is. I won't get into details, but essentially, the faster a film, the bigger the grains (just like bigger pixels gather more light, so too do bigger silver particles). The difference between noise and grain is a big one though, grain has a texture, and isn't patterned, it's completely random due to its chemical nature. It also doesn't cause odd splotches or loss of acutance like noise does. This is why a print of a 3200 speed film negative can look fantastic while the digital file will look relatively flat (this is excepting the D700/D3 series cameras).

Color negatives and chromes are different in that they too are initially made up of layers of silver, but in the C-41 or E-6 process, the silver is bleached out leaving only the dye clouds which form the color negative or positive.

This isn't my photograph, but it is a 3200 speed 6x7 negative scan:
photo credit to Billy Plum, unfortunately scans really don't do any justice to negatives or prints since noise is added by the sensor in the scanner, and not all detail is captured. A well printed enlargement of this would be great...

Posted 3 years ago #
alphanikonrex

I'm under 18!
Joined: Apr '09
Posts: 1,999
offline

Thanks Chris, I think I'm beginning to grasp the concept.

So you can make larger prints of films with a lower ASA because the grains are smaller, right? And what exactly does "fine grain" mean—does it mean the grains are smaller?

BTW, are there any other fundamentals of film I should know about? Film is such a mysterious thing to me...

Posted 3 years ago #
ChrisLange

preferred member
Joined: Apr '09
Posts: 359
offline

That's correct, when a film is termed "fine grain" it is usually a slower speed film, since the grains are smaller, resulting in increased detail. There are numerous other factors in obtaining a certain look with black and white, and there's all sorts of things to tweak. Your film of course has its own characteristics, and this is why some people swear by Kodak's TMax films, and why others hate them. I personally can't stand the straight line contrast curve of TMax, since it looks so much like digital black and white. I much prefer the look of Tri-X 400 as far as kodak is concerned. Same with TMax 100, I'll take Plus-X 125 over it any day of the week, no question about it. Your choice of developer is also a factor. Developers like Ilford Perceptol or Kodak's Microdol-X are designed to minimize grain and maximize resolution, especially with films like PanF+ or Delta 100, whereas a developer like Acufine is designed for push processing, giving Tri-X a native speed boost up to 1000 from 400, and is capable of taking the film well into the 6400 range, while minimizing the grain associated with large pushes (to a degree).

Of course sometimes big grain is desirable, and is a stylistic choice. I usually obtain this by shooting a relatively grainy film such as Tri-X, souping it in Rodinal at a strong 1 part of rodinal to 25 parts water ratio, or even in paper developer versus film developer, with lots of agitation. This will give a very grainy negative, in contrast to what Tri-X would look like if developed in straight D76 or a more diluted Rodinal solution such as 1 part rodinal to 100 parts water.

Posted 3 years ago #
alphanikonrex

I'm under 18!
Joined: Apr '09
Posts: 1,999
offline

So when you push film the grains get larger? How does that work out? And a more diluted solution will cause a negative to have smaller grains, while a less diluted one will create bigger grains, right?

It seems like when you're shooting film you make a lot of decision, first by choosing a film, then by choosing how to develop it, and then (I'm guessing) there are many ways to print it?

Posted 3 years ago #

RSS feed for this topic

« Previous 123 Next »

Reply »

You must log in to post.

The new Nikon Rumors Forum is now live at http://forum.nikonrumors.com/discussions. This forum is now in "read only" mode until I figure a proper way to import all data over to the new platform. Please register over at the new forum.

How does using a modern SLR compare to using a DSLR?

Reply »