Velocity Reviews - Computer Hardware Reviews

Velocity Reviews > Newsgroups > Computing > Digital Photography > Nikon Digital SLR guidance

Reply
Thread Tools

Nikon Digital SLR guidance

 
 
nospam
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      08-06-2011
In article <(E-Mail Removed)>, Neil
Harrington <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

> I think Bruce has explained that adequately. Honest people make mistakes,
> and he obviously (from his other comments) was not thoroughly familiar with
> that model. It's something that someone intimately familiar with Nikons
> would know, but not necessarily anyone else.


he works at a camera store and the nikon d70s was a top selling model
in its day. it's not like it was an obscure model where only a few were
sold, so it it's a bit of a stretch to not know that it has a focus
motor.
 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
PeterN
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      08-06-2011
On 8/5/2011 6:19 PM, tony cooper wrote:
> On Fri, 05 Aug 2011 17:50:49 -0400, PeterN
> <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>
>> On 8/5/2011 3:23 PM, tony cooper wrote:
>>> On Fri, 05 Aug 2011 11:54:51 -0400, PeterN
>>> <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 8/5/2011 11:42 AM, Robert Coe wrote:
>>>>> On Wed, 03 Aug 2011 17:21:16 -0400, PeterN<(E-Mail Removed)>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>> : On 8/3/2011 5:15 PM, Bruce wrote:
>>>>> :> Savageduck<savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote:
>>>>> :>
>>>>> :>> ...and that might explain why you had it to sell. Whoever traded it to
>>>>> :>> your store had obviously damaged it, and you guys missed that.
>>>>> :>> The problem as I see it, is a photo-equipment store which sold a used,
>>>>> :>> damaged D70 without a disclosure.
>>>>> :>
>>>>> :>
>>>>> :> No, I missed it, I sold it and I personally take full responsibility
>>>>> :> for all used equipment sales. I buy almost all the used stock from
>>>>> :> the company's stores and sell it privately - it enables the company to
>>>>> :> accept used equipment in part exchange while avoiding the hassle of
>>>>> :> selling it on. The only exception is some high value used equipment,
>>>>> :> especially Leica gear, which is sold in one store only.
>>>>> :>
>>>>> :> The buyer is happy, because he got a great deal. The total price was
>>>>> :> less than the originally advertised price of the lenses alone. I gave
>>>>> :> him a large discount to get rid of some excess stock - I have about a
>>>>> :> dozen D70 and D70s bodies to sell.
>>>>> :>
>>>>> :> He knew all about the fault and was quite amused when I admitted I
>>>>> :> didn't know the camera had an AF motor, let alone one that didn't
>>>>> :> work. He said that, from his point of view, he paid for two lenses
>>>>> :> and got the camera body free. After we discussed the D70s he placed
>>>>> :> an order with us for a D300 replacement (D400?) so he wasn't in any
>>>>> :> way unhappy.
>>>>>
>>>>> Although I suppose it's of no relevance, some US states have "lemon laws" that
>>>>> might have forced you to return the camera or get it fixed. In such a case
>>>>> you'd have been well advised to trade it for one of your bodies with a
>>>>> functioning AF motor; the customer could change his mind later and go to a
>>>>> lawyer (especially if there turned out to be something else wrong with the
>>>>> camera).
>>>>>
>>>>> :> Of course he did not have the benefit of advice from a clutch of
>>>>> :> particularly nasty geriatric barrack-room lawyers posting on Usenet.
>>>>> :> If he had, he would no doubt be engaging a lawyer to sue my ass off
>>>>> :> for selling his client a faulty camera for nothing.
>>>>> :>
>>>>> :
>>>>> : Doesn't matter if the price was one Euro. Disclosure is the key.
>>>>>
>>>>> To this geriatric non-lawyer, the key disclosure is that Bruce was selling the
>>>>> camera privately. If that wasn't disclosed (in writing) and the sale took
>>>>> place in or near the store, I suspect that both Bruce and the store could be
>>>>> in serious trouble. If it were me, I think I'd immediately exchange that
>>>>> camera for my best fully functional D70/s body, whether the customer requested
>>>>> it or not.
>>>>>
>>>>> Bob
>>>>
>>>> Agreed, almost. While Bruce is an individual, according to him, he is in
>>>> the business of selling used cameras. That takes him outside the rule of
>>>> a casual sale between laymen.
>>>>
>>>> In NY the rule is if the seller "knew, or reasonably should have known."
>>>> Clearly, Bruce could have taken the trouble to look on the website, but
>>>> didn't, for whatever reason. As a consumer I have a right to rely on
>>>> experts. An exception is made where the merchandise is clearly marked:
>>>> "AS IS," and the bill of sale reflects that fact.
>>>>
>>>> A few years ago
>>>
>>> You're a lawyer, right? You should know, but as far as I know there
>>> is no requirement to write "as is" on any bill of sale. There is no
>>> legal requirement to even *provide* a bill of sale or even a receipt
>>> for most items. (Excluding vehicle and real property sales)
>>>
>>> I know state laws vary considerably, and New York may have some
>>> consumer protection laws I'm not aware of, but the sale of used
>>> merchandise is generally "as is" without any need for declaration of
>>> known problems and including puffery.
>>>
>>> Fraud is another matter, but that "knew, or reasonably should have
>>> known." isn't fraud in and by itself. Fraud is a deliberate action of
>>> misrepresentation.
>>>

>>
>> See UCC article 2. Specifically the sections I cited in another
>> response. I don't know whether FL has adopted the UCC, but I think it has.

>
> I'm not going to pore through the UCC. Does it say "as is" must be
> written on the bill of sale? Does it say a bill of sale is required
> for the sale of all used merchandise?
>
>


the UCC states @ 2-316(3):

(3) Notwithstanding subsection (2)

(a) unless the circumstances indicate otherwise, all implied warranties
are excluded by expressions like "as is", "with all faults" or other
language that in common understanding calls the buyer's attention to the
exclusion of warranties, makes plain that there is no implied warranty,
and, in a consumer contract evidenced by a record, is set forth
conspicuously in the record;

(b) if the buyer before entering into the contract has examined the
goods or the sample or model as fully as desired or has refused to
examine the goods after a demand by the seller there is no implied
warranty with regard to defects that an examination in the circumstances
should have revealed to the buyer; and

(c) an implied warranty may also be excluded or modified by course of
dealing or course of performance or usage of trade.

(4) Remedies

While it need not be stated in the bill of sale, it seems to me that
prudence would dictate that a merchant seeking to avoid the implied
warranty, would provide proof right on the bill of sale, in order to
minimize a buyer's remorse claim that the disclaimer was not clear.


--
Peter
 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
PeterN
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      08-06-2011
On 8/5/2011 7:41 PM, tony cooper wrote:
> On Fri, 05 Aug 2011 17:49:02 -0400, PeterN
> <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>
>> On 8/5/2011 3:12 PM, tony cooper wrote:
>>> On Fri, 05 Aug 2011 11:42:21 -0400, Robert Coe<(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Wed, 03 Aug 2011 17:21:16 -0400, PeterN<(E-Mail Removed)>
>>>> wrote:
>>>> : On 8/3/2011 5:15 PM, Bruce wrote:
>>>> :> Savageduck<savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote:
>>>> :>
>>>> :>> ...and that might explain why you had it to sell. Whoever traded it to
>>>> :>> your store had obviously damaged it, and you guys missed that.
>>>> :>> The problem as I see it, is a photo-equipment store which sold a used,
>>>> :>> damaged D70 without a disclosure.
>>>> :>
>>>> :>
>>>> :> No, I missed it, I sold it and I personally take full responsibility
>>>> :> for all used equipment sales. I buy almost all the used stock from
>>>> :> the company's stores and sell it privately - it enables the company to
>>>> :> accept used equipment in part exchange while avoiding the hassle of
>>>> :> selling it on. The only exception is some high value used equipment,
>>>> :> especially Leica gear, which is sold in one store only.
>>>> :>
>>>> :> The buyer is happy, because he got a great deal. The total price was
>>>> :> less than the originally advertised price of the lenses alone. I gave
>>>> :> him a large discount to get rid of some excess stock - I have about a
>>>> :> dozen D70 and D70s bodies to sell.
>>>> :>
>>>> :> He knew all about the fault and was quite amused when I admitted I
>>>> :> didn't know the camera had an AF motor, let alone one that didn't
>>>> :> work. He said that, from his point of view, he paid for two lenses
>>>> :> and got the camera body free. After we discussed the D70s he placed
>>>> :> an order with us for a D300 replacement (D400?) so he wasn't in any
>>>> :> way unhappy.
>>>>
>>>> Although I suppose it's of no relevance, some US states have "lemon laws" that
>>>> might have forced you to return the camera or get it fixed. In such a case
>>>> you'd have been well advised to trade it for one of your bodies with a
>>>> functioning AF motor; the customer could change his mind later and go to a
>>>> lawyer (especially if there turned out to be something else wrong with the
>>>> camera).
>>>>
>>>> :> Of course he did not have the benefit of advice from a clutch of
>>>> :> particularly nasty geriatric barrack-room lawyers posting on Usenet.
>>>> :> If he had, he would no doubt be engaging a lawyer to sue my ass off
>>>> :> for selling his client a faulty camera for nothing.
>>>> :>
>>>> :
>>>> : Doesn't matter if the price was one Euro. Disclosure is the key.
>>>>
>>>> To this geriatric non-lawyer, the key disclosure is that Bruce was selling the
>>>> camera privately. If that wasn't disclosed (in writing) and the sale took
>>>> place in or near the store, I suspect that both Bruce and the store could be
>>>> in serious trouble. If it were me, I think I'd immediately exchange that
>>>> camera for my best fully functional D70/s body, whether the customer requested
>>>> it or not.
>>>>
>>> Bruce is in the UK, but that sale here would be "as is" and the
>>> customer would have no recourse no matter where the sale was made or
>>> who sold it as long as no warranty or fraud was involved. Fraud
>>> requires deliberate misrepresentation.

>>
>> Not so in NY. this is not a sale under the UCC as between merchants. It
>> is between a merchant and a non-merchant.
>>
>> Also, see UCC s-315, et. seq.
>>

>
> Wouldn't it be private party to private party? Bruce was not acting
> as an agent or employee of the store.
>
> The thing that bothers me about this is that it gives the impression
> that if a person buys something, and the buyer thinks something is
> wrong, that all the buyer has to do is waltz on back to the seller and
> demand his money back.
>
> It doesn't work like that. Even if there is a substantial defect, or
> misrepresentation, the only recourse for the buyer is to bring a case
> in small claims court. That means taking a day off from work, and
> that could be a bigger loss than the cost of the item.
>
> Then, you have to win in small claims court. You can't just claim
> that "he told me it was in perfect working order". In some cases, the
> seller is going to say "Who knows what he did to it after he bought
> it?". In civil cases, you can win without a particularly high
> standard of proof, but you have to have *something* that is more than
> "he said".
>
> I was in small claims court once. A fired employee claimed some
> additional commission was due. It was really an attempt to extort
> money since he filed the case in Broward County and thought I would
> lose by default because I wouldn't drive the four hours to appear in
> court.
>
> I did appear, and produced the necessary paperwork, and won.
>
> I spent almost the whole damn day in court because there was no time
> set for the hearing. I was a claim for about $800, but my main
> motivation in defending myself was 1) stubbornness, and 2), I was
> curious to see what small claims court was like. Also, I used the
> trip to see some customers.
>
>


there is a world of difference between the practical considerations and
what the rule is. Frequently I would advise my clients that in
litigation only I would come out ahead and he was better off settling.
that even if he won the case, he would lose the war. If the amount is
question was not at least $100,000, I would not litigate a commercial
case. If my client insisted I would send him elsewhere. At my rate of
$250 per hour, up to 1995 when I ceased practice, fees added up fast.

I think that even if Bruce was acting as a private party, under the UCC
he would be considered a knowledgeable seller.

I used to sit as an arbitrator in Small Claims Court, an unpaid
volunteer position. Who won was based upon which witness I believed. In
NY strict rules of evidence, notwithstanding what you might see on Judge
Judy, are relaxed and our mandate was to do substantial justice.

--
Peter
 
Reply With Quote
 
PeterN
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      08-06-2011
On 8/5/2011 7:41 PM, tony cooper wrote:
> On Fri, 05 Aug 2011 17:55:14 -0400, PeterN
> <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>
>> On 8/5/2011 3:41 PM, tony cooper wrote:
>>> On Fri, 05 Aug 2011 11:42:21 -0400, Robert Coe<(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Wed, 03 Aug 2011 17:21:16 -0400, PeterN<(E-Mail Removed)>
>>>> wrote:
>>>> : On 8/3/2011 5:15 PM, Bruce wrote:
>>>> :> Savageduck<savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote:
>>>> :>
>>>> :>> ...and that might explain why you had it to sell. Whoever traded it to
>>>> :>> your store had obviously damaged it, and you guys missed that.
>>>> :>> The problem as I see it, is a photo-equipment store which sold a used,
>>>> :>> damaged D70 without a disclosure.
>>>> :>
>>>> :>
>>>> :> No, I missed it, I sold it and I personally take full responsibility
>>>> :> for all used equipment sales. I buy almost all the used stock from
>>>> :> the company's stores and sell it privately - it enables the company to
>>>> :> accept used equipment in part exchange while avoiding the hassle of
>>>> :> selling it on. The only exception is some high value used equipment,
>>>> :> especially Leica gear, which is sold in one store only.
>>>> :>
>>>> :> The buyer is happy, because he got a great deal. The total price was
>>>> :> less than the originally advertised price of the lenses alone. I gave
>>>> :> him a large discount to get rid of some excess stock - I have about a
>>>> :> dozen D70 and D70s bodies to sell.
>>>> :>
>>>> :> He knew all about the fault and was quite amused when I admitted I
>>>> :> didn't know the camera had an AF motor, let alone one that didn't
>>>> :> work. He said that, from his point of view, he paid for two lenses
>>>> :> and got the camera body free. After we discussed the D70s he placed
>>>> :> an order with us for a D300 replacement (D400?) so he wasn't in any
>>>> :> way unhappy.
>>>>
>>>> Although I suppose it's of no relevance, some US states have "lemon laws" that
>>>> might have forced you to return the camera or get it fixed. In such a case
>>>> you'd have been well advised to trade it for one of your bodies with a
>>>> functioning AF motor; the customer could change his mind later and go to a
>>>> lawyer (especially if there turned out to be something else wrong with the
>>>> camera).
>>>>
>>>> :> Of course he did not have the benefit of advice from a clutch of
>>>> :> particularly nasty geriatric barrack-room lawyers posting on Usenet.
>>>> :> If he had, he would no doubt be engaging a lawyer to sue my ass off
>>>> :> for selling his client a faulty camera for nothing.
>>>> :>
>>>> :
>>>> : Doesn't matter if the price was one Euro. Disclosure is the key.
>>>>
>>>> To this geriatric non-lawyer, the key disclosure is that Bruce was selling the
>>>> camera privately. If that wasn't disclosed (in writing) and the sale took
>>>> place in or near the store, I suspect that both Bruce and the store could be
>>>> in serious trouble. If it were me, I think I'd immediately exchange that
>>>> camera for my best fully functional D70/s body, whether the customer requested
>>>> it or not.
>>>>
>>>
>>> The largest camera store in this town - Colonial Photo& Hobby - has
>>> a similar deal with one of their employees. They take in trades, but
>>> do not sell used merchandise. One clerk - and about six work the
>>> counter each day - handles all of the used merchandise sales. He
>>> sells the used stuff privately but not in the store.
>>>
>>> I happen to know this because I was at a camera "yard sale" a few
>>> months back and talked to the Colonial employee. He had two tables
>>> of used stuff. You may remember the photos I took there:
>>> http://i48.photobucket.com/albums/f2...1-05-01-01.jpg
>>>
>>> I don't know what his arrangement is with the store as far as buying
>>> the trade-ins. That's not something I'd ask him about. I imagine
>>> they have a deal with the employee just to keep them out of the used
>>> market but still have a way to take in trades.
>>>
>>> The other major store in town accepts trades but has some deal with
>>> Keh where all used merchandise goes to Keh. In fact, they're running
>>> a deal now: http://www.harmonphoto.com/
>>>

>>
>> As a consumer I like that policy. It makes it harder for the store to
>> sell new merchandise as new. (A practice that is not unknown.)

>
> You want to re-think that one?
>

Yup! should be used merchandise as new.

--
Peter
 
Reply With Quote
 
PeterN
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      08-06-2011
On 8/5/2011 9:16 PM, Robert Coe wrote:
> On Fri, 05 Aug 2011 19:41:41 -0400, tony cooper<(E-Mail Removed)>
> wrote:
> : On Fri, 05 Aug 2011 17:55:14 -0400, PeterN
> :<(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
> :
> :>As a consumer I like that policy. It makes it harder for the store to
> :>sell new merchandise as new. (A practice that is not unknown.)
> :
> : You want to re-think that one?
>
> Good catch! ;^)
>
> Bob


the statement was not untrue. Just obviously not what I meant.

--
Peter
 
Reply With Quote
 
PeterN
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      08-06-2011
On 8/5/2011 9:58 PM, Neil Harrington wrote:
> nospam wrote:
>> In article<(E-Mail Removed) >, tony cooper
>> <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>>
>>>> Doesn't matter if the price was one Euro. Disclosure is the key.
>>>
>>> You have to know to disclose. Obviously, Bruce didn't know. But, he
>>> manned up and called the buyer. He wouldn't have called the buyer if
>>> he wasn't willing to make things right for the buyer if the buyer was
>>> dissatisfied.

>>
>> so he claims.

>
> I see no reason to suppose he's telling anything but the truth.
>
>>
>>> If I buy something used and get treated like Bruce treated his buyer,
>>> Bruce would have my business for life. I don't expect that a store
>>> that takes in trades is going to catch every problem or doesn't make
>>> mistakes. A store that calls me and gives me a chance to right a
>>> wrong deserves my loyalty, though.

>>
>> a store that sells used products without checking them out for defects
>> is *not* the type of store i'd want to shop in.

>
> I think Bruce has explained that adequately. Honest people make mistakes,
> and he obviously (from his other comments) was not thoroughly familiar with
> that model. It's something that someone intimately familiar with Nikons
> would know, but not necessarily anyone else.
>
>>
>> the used camera stores in which i shop will test everything and tell
>> you what works and what doesn't. they are rated on a scale from
>> like-new all the way down to as-is or parts/repair, and priced
>> accordingly.
>>
>> it's unlikely that any camera store is going to price a bunch of
>> lenses and throw in a camera that supposedly has no defect for free,
>> as he claims:
>>
>> In article<(E-Mail Removed) >, Bruce
>> <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>>> He knew all about the fault and was quite amused when I admitted I
>>> didn't know the camera had an AF motor, let alone one that didn't
>>> work. He said that, from his point of view, he paid for two lenses
>>> and got the camera body free.

>
> So that was the way the buyer looked at it, nothing to do with the way Bruce
> represented it.
>
>

Except IIRC Bruce at one time claimed he used Nikons in his wedding
photography business.

And no, I am not going to research the archives to prove the point.
Truthfully, Bruce and I don't give a rat's rear end about each other and
claims to have plonked me, when I challenged him to prove some wild
statement he made.
--
Peter
 
Reply With Quote
 
tony cooper
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      08-06-2011
On Fri, 05 Aug 2011 23:05:28 -0400, PeterN
<(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

>On 8/5/2011 9:16 PM, Robert Coe wrote:
>> On Fri, 05 Aug 2011 19:41:41 -0400, tony cooper<(E-Mail Removed)>
>> wrote:
>> : On Fri, 05 Aug 2011 17:55:14 -0400, PeterN
>> :<(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>> :
>> :>As a consumer I like that policy. It makes it harder for the store to
>> :>sell new merchandise as new. (A practice that is not unknown.)
>> :
>> : You want to re-think that one?
>>
>> Good catch! ;^)
>>
>> Bob

>
>the statement was not untrue. Just obviously not what I meant.


I understand that. I've just caught a couple of typos in my posts
today. I couldn't resist, though.


--
Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida
 
Reply With Quote
 
PeterN
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      08-06-2011
On 8/5/2011 8:09 PM, John Turco wrote:
> PeterN wrote:
>>
>>> On 7/29/2011 1:21 AM, nospam wrote:
>>> In article<(E-Mail Removed)>, Paul Furman
>>>> <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>>> If I want closer focus I use extension tubes.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> that also degrades things, since the lens was probably not designed
>>>>>> for an extension (some lenses might be though).
>>>>>
>>>>> It should have little noticeable effect on the resolution. ...
>>>>
>>>> Extension tubes might work to overcome the described problem with
>>>> softness at closest focus at 200mm because the lens wouldn't be in the
>>>> closest focus arrangement. You would lose AF-S though except maybe with
>>>> a third party extension tube. BTW I have used my 70-200 VR with a 500D
>>>> closeup lens ($150) for chasing butterflies and such, it's nice to have
>>>> the VR, zoom and AF-S for that task. It's still not a 200mm f/4 Micro
>>>> but works OK. The closeup lens does degrade things some.
>>>
>>> the 500d is an excellent multi-element closeup lens. there is very
>>> little degradation with it.
>>>
>>> also, some zooms don't work with extension tubes at all. they won't be
>>> able to focus at *any* distance because the closest focus point is
>>> inside the lens

>>
>> If you overdo anything it can have a harmful result. Water is good for
>> you. Too much, not properly dealt with, can kill you.

>
> Drinking "too much" water can be fatal, in fact. (It's not only drowning
> accidents that are lethal, which you'd presumably meant.)
>
>> BTW
>> If you are snipping, snip with integrity so we know who said what.

>
> It's conceivable "nospam" just did some careless editing, is it not?
>


Yup!
He is not unknown to also be careless with logic.

--
Peter
 
Reply With Quote
 
PeterN
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      08-06-2011
On 8/5/2011 9:01 PM, nospam wrote:
> In article<(E-Mail Removed)>, John Turco
> <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>
>>> BTW
>>> If you are snipping, snip with integrity so we know who said what.

>>
>> It's conceivable "nospam" just did some careless editing, is it not?

>
> no, since i generally snip all attributions except the person to whom i
> am directly responding.


That can easily take things out of context.

--
Peter
 
Reply With Quote
 
PeterN
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      08-06-2011
On 8/5/2011 11:01 PM, Neil Harrington wrote:
> PeterN wrote:
>> On 8/5/2011 11:27 AM, tony cooper wrote:
>>> On Fri, 05 Aug 2011 10:28:32 -0400, PeterN
>>> <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>>>

>
>>>>
>>>> It's not that clear to me that Bruce made the disclosure. His
>>>> posting came after he learned here about the fault.
>>>
>>> Well, he said he did, and he's never given me reason to doubt him. He
>>> could have called the customer between the first post and his
>>> follow-up.
>>>
>>> Also, he admitted that he screwed up. How often do you see that
>>> here?

>>
>> He was caught cold and could not wiggle out. Sorry, but I could be
>> letting my feelings about his blustering enter my evaluation.

>
> I haven't noticed any "blustering" from Bruce. Actually I've found his posts
> about the camera market, what sells well and what not, etc., interesting and
> informative.
>
>


OK! I have considered many of his comments to be just that. I shall
point out future incidences, and you may or may not agree with my
assessment.

--
Peter
 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
Reply

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
January 2007 - The Nikon D80 digital slr is still Nikon's most popular camera george@dpmac.com Digital Photography 1 01-08-2007 10:06 AM
Film SLR Flash unit on a Digital SLR - Possible? alex Digital Photography 12 06-24-2006 09:51 PM
Kodak DCS Pro SLR/n and DCS Pro SLR/c digital SLRs have been discontinued... Newsgroups Digital Photography 2 06-01-2005 03:08 PM
Digital Photography RFD: rec.photo.digital.slr vs rec.photo.digital.slr-systems? Lionel Digital Photography 16 09-17-2004 12:48 PM
Prosumer Digital SLR from Nikon ??? Raj Digital Photography 2 09-09-2003 10:59 PM



Advertisments