Re: And I thought the Nikon D300 forum was dead...

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by nick c, Jul 2, 2012.

  1. nick c

    nick c Guest

    On 6/30/2012 7:14 PM, Rich wrote:
    > I find it interesting that for a camera that supposedly sold in large
    > numbers (or so we were assuming) that they can't muster any more forum
    > support that what we see here? Is it possible the V1/J1 are just seen as
    > P&S's and not as viable alternatives to DSLRs?
    >
    > http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/forum.asp?forum=1058
    >


    The fellows at the local camera shop told me they sold a ton of them. I
    still have mine and use it as often as I can. In my opinion, Nikon
    screwed up when they made this camera 'cause it's a good one. A
    two-camera man could do well with a D700 and a D300 in his bag. When I
    put the 17-35 lens on the D700 and a 24-120 lens on the D300 I'm ready
    for just about anything I care to photograph.

    (An old Cowboy sing along song)

    Oh bury me not on the lone prairie,
    without my camera bag,
    where the wind blows free.
     
    nick c, Jul 2, 2012
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. nick c

    RichA Guest

    On Jul 1, 8:01 pm, nick c <> wrote:
    > On 6/30/2012 7:14 PM, Rich wrote:
    >
    > > I find it interesting that for a camera that supposedly sold in large
    > > numbers (or so we were assuming) that they can't muster any more forum
    > > support that what we see here?  Is it possible the V1/J1 are just seen as
    > > P&S's and not as viable alternatives to DSLRs?

    >
    > >http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/forum.asp?forum=1058

    >
    > The fellows at the local camera shop told me they sold a ton of them. I
    > still have mine and use it as often as I can. In my opinion, Nikon
    > screwed up when they made this camera 'cause it's a good one. A
    > two-camera man could do well with a D700 and a D300 in his bag. When I
    > put the 17-35 lens on the D700 and a 24-120 lens on the D300 I'm ready
    > for just about anything I care to photograph.
    >


    So you own a D700 and D300 and you like the output from the V1?
     
    RichA, Jul 2, 2012
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. nick c

    nick c Guest

    Savageduck wrote:
    > On 2012-07-01 17:01:36 -0700, nick c <> said:
    >
    >> On 6/30/2012 7:14 PM, Rich wrote:
    >>> I find it interesting that for a camera that supposedly sold in large
    >>> numbers (or so we were assuming) that they can't muster any more forum
    >>> support that what we see here? Is it possible the V1/J1 are just
    >>> seen as
    >>> P&S's and not as viable alternatives to DSLRs?
    >>>
    >>> http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/forum.asp?forum=1058
    >>>

    >>
    >> The fellows at the local camera shop told me they sold a ton of them.
    >> I still have mine and use it as often as I can. In my opinion, Nikon
    >> screwed up when they made this camera 'cause it's a good one. A
    >> two-camera man could do well with a D700 and a D300 in his bag. When I
    >> put the 17-35 lens on the D700 and a 24-120 lens on the D300 I'm ready
    >> for just about anything I care to photograph.
    >>
    >> (An old Cowboy sing along song)
    >>
    >> Oh bury me not on the lone prairie,
    >> without my camera bag,
    >> where the wind blows free.

    >
    > I have a feeling that Rich was referring to the, in his opinion, low
    > traffic on the dpreview Nikon V1/J1 forum. Mentioning the D300 forum was
    > just his circular reference to one of his earlier posts.
    >
    > If you are referring to the D300(s) then you are correct. It is is
    > probably one of the finest APC-S DSLR available, and teamed with a D700,
    > and good glass....
    >
    > My next question is, which 24-120mm are you talking about? There were
    > three of those in the Nikkor stable, better known as "The Good" AF-S
    > 24-120mm f/4G ED VR, "The Bad" AF-S VR 24-120mm f/3.5-5.6G, & "The Ugly"
    > AF-S 24-120mm f/3.5-5.6 ED.
    >


    I too think Rich was offering an opinion about the conversational
    traffic (or lack thereof) about a popular camera, on dpreview. I was
    attempting to support his opinion about the popularity of the D300. I've
    not regretted getting the one I have and have not yet encountered
    technical problems for which I would have sought the opinions of others
    concerning its use.

    As for the 24-120 lens, I have the VR F4 ED version. I don't care to use
    either of the other two versions. I also have the Nikon 16-85 VR ED IF
    DX lens and used to use it on the D300 but for /adaptability/ ease, I
    much rather team the D300 to the 24-120 F4 lens, and, when I deem it
    wise to do so in the field, also use it on the D700. Actually, almost
    all my lenses are full frame lenses.
     
    nick c, Jul 2, 2012
    #3
  4. nick c

    nick c Guest

    RichA wrote:
    > On Jul 1, 8:01 pm, nick c <> wrote:
    >> On 6/30/2012 7:14 PM, Rich wrote:
    >>
    >>> I find it interesting that for a camera that supposedly sold in large
    >>> numbers (or so we were assuming) that they can't muster any more forum
    >>> support that what we see here? Is it possible the V1/J1 are just seen as
    >>> P&S's and not as viable alternatives to DSLRs?
    >>> http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/forum.asp?forum=1058

    >> The fellows at the local camera shop told me they sold a ton of them. I
    >> still have mine and use it as often as I can. In my opinion, Nikon
    >> screwed up when they made this camera 'cause it's a good one. A
    >> two-camera man could do well with a D700 and a D300 in his bag. When I
    >> put the 17-35 lens on the D700 and a 24-120 lens on the D300 I'm ready
    >> for just about anything I care to photograph.
    >>

    >
    > So you own a D700 and D300 and you like the output from the V1?
    >
    >


    :)) Actually, I also have other cameras but I'm sold on the D700 mated
    to the D300 as my primary system. For a while there, I thought about
    getting the D800 but decided to pass on it. Having that camera would not
    have made me any better photographer than I am (nor worse than I am) so
    I decided to pass on it. As for the V1, I've no interest in the V1 at all.
     
    nick c, Jul 2, 2012
    #4
  5. nick c

    Rob Guest

    On 2/07/2012 10:37 AM, Savageduck wrote:
    > On 2012-07-01 17:01:36 -0700, nick c <> said:
    >
    >> On 6/30/2012 7:14 PM, Rich wrote:
    >>> I find it interesting that for a camera that supposedly sold in large
    >>> numbers (or so we were assuming) that they can't muster any more forum
    >>> support that what we see here? Is it possible the V1/J1 are just
    >>> seen as
    >>> P&S's and not as viable alternatives to DSLRs?
    >>>
    >>> http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/forum.asp?forum=1058
    >>>

    >>
    >> The fellows at the local camera shop told me they sold a ton of them.
    >> I still have mine and use it as often as I can. In my opinion, Nikon
    >> screwed up when they made this camera 'cause it's a good one. A
    >> two-camera man could do well with a D700 and a D300 in his bag. When I
    >> put the 17-35 lens on the D700 and a 24-120 lens on the D300 I'm ready
    >> for just about anything I care to photograph.
    >>
    >> (An old Cowboy sing along song)
    >>
    >> Oh bury me not on the lone prairie,
    >> without my camera bag,
    >> where the wind blows free.

    >
    > I have a feeling that Rich was referring to the, in his opinion, low
    > traffic on the dpreview Nikon V1/J1 forum. Mentioning the D300 forum was
    > just his circular reference to one of his earlier posts.
    >
    > If you are referring to the D300(s) then you are correct. It is is
    > probably one of the finest APC-S DSLR available, and teamed with a D700,
    > and good glass....
    >
    > My next question is, which 24-120mm are you talking about? There were
    > three of those in the Nikkor stable, better known as "The Good" AF-S
    > 24-120mm f/4G ED VR, "The Bad" AF-S VR 24-120mm f/3.5-5.6G, & "The Ugly"
    > AF-S 24-120mm f/3.5-5.6 ED.
    >



    i have and have all three of these lenses, firstly used with my F4 or
    F5 ?? actually had two one sharper than the other, very bulky and slow
    focus. Sold one then bought the next version this lens actually seized
    in the focusing in 2010. as a replacement had to buy the newly released
    f4 variant.

    The current version is by far the best and sharpest. But they will
    ingest water into the body when it rains, so now looking for a new clean
    lens again or have it cleaned. my current f4 version has a couple of
    water marks on the rear of the front element.

    My success in having lenses repaired is not good as they come back with
    various problems like, focus, camel hairs, oil spots, oil on shutter
    blades, no one can do a good bodgie job nowadays.

    haven't had a good run with the 24-120 lenses.
     
    Rob, Jul 2, 2012
    #5
  6. nick c

    nick c Guest

    On 7/2/2012 12:16 AM, Rob wrote:
    > On 2/07/2012 10:37 AM, Savageduck wrote:
    >> On 2012-07-01 17:01:36 -0700, nick c <> said:
    >>
    >>> On 6/30/2012 7:14 PM, Rich wrote:
    >>>> I find it interesting that for a camera that supposedly sold in large
    >>>> numbers (or so we were assuming) that they can't muster any more forum
    >>>> support that what we see here? Is it possible the V1/J1 are just
    >>>> seen as
    >>>> P&S's and not as viable alternatives to DSLRs?
    >>>>
    >>>> http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/forum.asp?forum=1058
    >>>>
    >>>
    >>> The fellows at the local camera shop told me they sold a ton of them.
    >>> I still have mine and use it as often as I can. In my opinion, Nikon
    >>> screwed up when they made this camera 'cause it's a good one. A
    >>> two-camera man could do well with a D700 and a D300 in his bag. When I
    >>> put the 17-35 lens on the D700 and a 24-120 lens on the D300 I'm ready
    >>> for just about anything I care to photograph.
    >>>
    >>> (An old Cowboy sing along song)
    >>>
    >>> Oh bury me not on the lone prairie,
    >>> without my camera bag,
    >>> where the wind blows free.

    >>
    >> I have a feeling that Rich was referring to the, in his opinion, low
    >> traffic on the dpreview Nikon V1/J1 forum. Mentioning the D300 forum was
    >> just his circular reference to one of his earlier posts.
    >>
    >> If you are referring to the D300(s) then you are correct. It is is
    >> probably one of the finest APC-S DSLR available, and teamed with a D700,
    >> and good glass....
    >>
    >> My next question is, which 24-120mm are you talking about? There were
    >> three of those in the Nikkor stable, better known as "The Good" AF-S
    >> 24-120mm f/4G ED VR, "The Bad" AF-S VR 24-120mm f/3.5-5.6G, & "The Ugly"
    >> AF-S 24-120mm f/3.5-5.6 ED.
    >>

    >
    >
    > i have and have all three of these lenses, firstly used with my F4 or
    > F5 ?? actually had two one sharper than the other, very bulky and slow
    > focus. Sold one then bought the next version this lens actually seized
    > in the focusing in 2010. as a replacement had to buy the newly released
    > f4 variant.
    >
    > The current version is by far the best and sharpest. But they will
    > ingest water into the body when it rains, so now looking for a new clean
    > lens again or have it cleaned. my current f4 version has a couple of
    > water marks on the rear of the front element.
    >
    > My success in having lenses repaired is not good as they come back with
    > various problems like, focus, camel hairs, oil spots, oil on shutter
    > blades, no one can do a good bodgie job nowadays.
    >
    > haven't had a good run with the 24-120 lenses.
    >


    Bummer .....

    Getting water in your (unprotected) camera when it rains reminds me of a
    time when I experienced the same type problem using a Minolta camera
    system, in Fiji. Perhaps what I did, at the time, may be of some
    informative help to you.

    On one rainy day in Suva, being young and foolish as I was in those
    days, I decided to photograph the yachts that were docked in the harbor.
    When needing to change a lens, I found small droplets of water in my
    camera. After mumbling a few choice un-prayerful type words to the
    deities that may be listening, (obviously, /I/ wasn't doing anything
    wrong) I obtained a tube of clear silicon (fishing) reel grease and
    /thinly/ coated the lens ring being very careful not to get the silicon
    grease on the electrical connection nodes. From that time on, while in
    Suva, I didn't see any evidence of lens-camera water leakage, in either
    the camera or the lens.

    The down side to that corrective action was that I continued to
    occasionally use the silicon grease as just a matter of routine
    maintenance. Then came a day when I was photographing a ghost town in
    Arizona I chanced to encounter being caught in a momentary a desert dust
    swirl while changing lenses. In those days I was using Canon equipment;
    not that it matters what type equipment I was using.

    Unfortunately, though I tried changing lenses using my jacket as a
    protective cover and my arms through the sleeves, some of that gritty
    sand swirl found its way to the greased area of my lens and camera ring.
    Being in the field and totally unprepared for the incident, I couldn't
    get the connection area clean free from the gritty elements of the
    swirl. I had to pack up and get back to my trailer and clean the
    equipment somewhat properly, using compressed air, swabs of Q-Tip type
    cotton (I used a handy toothpick) and lighter fluid.

    Be that as it may, the clear silicon grease did work well for me, at the
    time.

    Applying the theatrical:

    Hark, the dawn breaks upon a new day, every day, oftentimes with new
    experiences yet to encounter, as we travel along, stumbling upon the
    rocky road of life. [Applause acknowledged -- bowing. :))]
     
    nick c, Jul 3, 2012
    #6
  7. nick c

    Rob Guest

    On 3/07/2012 10:06 AM, nick c wrote:
    > On 7/2/2012 12:16 AM, Rob wrote:
    >> On 2/07/2012 10:37 AM, Savageduck wrote:
    >>> On 2012-07-01 17:01:36 -0700, nick c <> said:
    >>>
    >>>> On 6/30/2012 7:14 PM, Rich wrote:
    >>>>> I find it interesting that for a camera that supposedly sold in large
    >>>>> numbers (or so we were assuming) that they can't muster any more forum
    >>>>> support that what we see here? Is it possible the V1/J1 are just
    >>>>> seen as
    >>>>> P&S's and not as viable alternatives to DSLRs?
    >>>>>
    >>>>> http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/forum.asp?forum=1058
    >>>>>
    >>>>
    >>>> The fellows at the local camera shop told me they sold a ton of them.
    >>>> I still have mine and use it as often as I can. In my opinion, Nikon
    >>>> screwed up when they made this camera 'cause it's a good one. A
    >>>> two-camera man could do well with a D700 and a D300 in his bag. When I
    >>>> put the 17-35 lens on the D700 and a 24-120 lens on the D300 I'm ready
    >>>> for just about anything I care to photograph.
    >>>>
    >>>> (An old Cowboy sing along song)
    >>>>
    >>>> Oh bury me not on the lone prairie,
    >>>> without my camera bag,
    >>>> where the wind blows free.
    >>>
    >>> I have a feeling that Rich was referring to the, in his opinion, low
    >>> traffic on the dpreview Nikon V1/J1 forum. Mentioning the D300 forum was
    >>> just his circular reference to one of his earlier posts.
    >>>
    >>> If you are referring to the D300(s) then you are correct. It is is
    >>> probably one of the finest APC-S DSLR available, and teamed with a D700,
    >>> and good glass....
    >>>
    >>> My next question is, which 24-120mm are you talking about? There were
    >>> three of those in the Nikkor stable, better known as "The Good" AF-S
    >>> 24-120mm f/4G ED VR, "The Bad" AF-S VR 24-120mm f/3.5-5.6G, & "The Ugly"
    >>> AF-S 24-120mm f/3.5-5.6 ED.
    >>>

    >>
    >>
    >> i have and have all three of these lenses, firstly used with my F4 or
    >> F5 ?? actually had two one sharper than the other, very bulky and slow
    >> focus. Sold one then bought the next version this lens actually seized
    >> in the focusing in 2010. as a replacement had to buy the newly released
    >> f4 variant.
    >>
    >> The current version is by far the best and sharpest. But they will
    >> ingest water into the body when it rains, so now looking for a new clean
    >> lens again or have it cleaned. my current f4 version has a couple of
    >> water marks on the rear of the front element.
    >>
    >> My success in having lenses repaired is not good as they come back with
    >> various problems like, focus, camel hairs, oil spots, oil on shutter
    >> blades, no one can do a good bodgie job nowadays.
    >>
    >> haven't had a good run with the 24-120 lenses.
    >>

    >
    > Bummer .....
    >
    > Getting water in your (unprotected) camera when it rains reminds me of a
    > time when I experienced the same type problem using a Minolta camera
    > system, in Fiji. Perhaps what I did, at the time, may be of some
    > informative help to you.
    >
    > On one rainy day in Suva, being young and foolish as I was in those
    > days, I decided to photograph the yachts that were docked in the harbor.
    > When needing to change a lens, I found small droplets of water in my
    > camera. After mumbling a few choice un-prayerful type words to the
    > deities that may be listening, (obviously, /I/ wasn't doing anything
    > wrong) I obtained a tube of clear silicon (fishing) reel grease and
    > /thinly/ coated the lens ring being very careful not to get the silicon
    > grease on the electrical connection nodes. From that time on, while in
    > Suva, I didn't see any evidence of lens-camera water leakage, in either
    > the camera or the lens.
    >
    > The down side to that corrective action was that I continued to
    > occasionally use the silicon grease as just a matter of routine
    > maintenance. Then came a day when I was photographing a ghost town in
    > Arizona I chanced to encounter being caught in a momentary a desert dust
    > swirl while changing lenses. In those days I was using Canon equipment;
    > not that it matters what type equipment I was using.
    >
    > Unfortunately, though I tried changing lenses using my jacket as a
    > protective cover and my arms through the sleeves, some of that gritty
    > sand swirl found its way to the greased area of my lens and camera ring.
    > Being in the field and totally unprepared for the incident, I couldn't
    > get the connection area clean free from the gritty elements of the
    > swirl. I had to pack up and get back to my trailer and clean the
    > equipment somewhat properly, using compressed air, swabs of Q-Tip type
    > cotton (I used a handy toothpick) and lighter fluid.
    >
    > Be that as it may, the clear silicon grease did work well for me, at the
    > time.
    >
    > Applying the theatrical:
    >
    > Hark, the dawn breaks upon a new day, every day, oftentimes with new
    > experiences yet to encounter, as we travel along, stumbling upon the
    > rocky road of life. [Applause acknowledged -- bowing. :))]
    >
    >
    >


    The 24-120 actually has a rubber sealing flange on the mounting ring.
    water was sucked in through the sliding tubes.
     
    Rob, Jul 3, 2012
    #7
  8. nick c

    nick c Guest

    On 7/3/2012 1:16 AM, Rob wrote:
    > On 3/07/2012 10:06 AM, nick c wrote:
    >> On 7/2/2012 12:16 AM, Rob wrote:
    >>> On 2/07/2012 10:37 AM, Savageduck wrote:
    >>>> On 2012-07-01 17:01:36 -0700, nick c <> said:
    >>>>
    >>>>> On 6/30/2012 7:14 PM, Rich wrote:
    >>>>>> I find it interesting that for a camera that supposedly sold in large
    >>>>>> numbers (or so we were assuming) that they can't muster any more
    >>>>>> forum
    >>>>>> support that what we see here? Is it possible the V1/J1 are just
    >>>>>> seen as
    >>>>>> P&S's and not as viable alternatives to DSLRs?
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>> http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/forum.asp?forum=1058
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>
    >>>>> The fellows at the local camera shop told me they sold a ton of them.
    >>>>> I still have mine and use it as often as I can. In my opinion, Nikon
    >>>>> screwed up when they made this camera 'cause it's a good one. A
    >>>>> two-camera man could do well with a D700 and a D300 in his bag. When I
    >>>>> put the 17-35 lens on the D700 and a 24-120 lens on the D300 I'm ready
    >>>>> for just about anything I care to photograph.
    >>>>>
    >>>>> (An old Cowboy sing along song)
    >>>>>
    >>>>> Oh bury me not on the lone prairie,
    >>>>> without my camera bag,
    >>>>> where the wind blows free.
    >>>>
    >>>> I have a feeling that Rich was referring to the, in his opinion, low
    >>>> traffic on the dpreview Nikon V1/J1 forum. Mentioning the D300 forum
    >>>> was
    >>>> just his circular reference to one of his earlier posts.
    >>>>
    >>>> If you are referring to the D300(s) then you are correct. It is is
    >>>> probably one of the finest APC-S DSLR available, and teamed with a
    >>>> D700,
    >>>> and good glass....
    >>>>
    >>>> My next question is, which 24-120mm are you talking about? There were
    >>>> three of those in the Nikkor stable, better known as "The Good" AF-S
    >>>> 24-120mm f/4G ED VR, "The Bad" AF-S VR 24-120mm f/3.5-5.6G, & "The
    >>>> Ugly"
    >>>> AF-S 24-120mm f/3.5-5.6 ED.
    >>>>
    >>>
    >>>
    >>> i have and have all three of these lenses, firstly used with my F4 or
    >>> F5 ?? actually had two one sharper than the other, very bulky and slow
    >>> focus. Sold one then bought the next version this lens actually seized
    >>> in the focusing in 2010. as a replacement had to buy the newly released
    >>> f4 variant.
    >>>
    >>> The current version is by far the best and sharpest. But they will
    >>> ingest water into the body when it rains, so now looking for a new clean
    >>> lens again or have it cleaned. my current f4 version has a couple of
    >>> water marks on the rear of the front element.
    >>>
    >>> My success in having lenses repaired is not good as they come back with
    >>> various problems like, focus, camel hairs, oil spots, oil on shutter
    >>> blades, no one can do a good bodgie job nowadays.
    >>>
    >>> haven't had a good run with the 24-120 lenses.
    >>>

    >>
    >> Bummer .....
    >>
    >> Getting water in your (unprotected) camera when it rains reminds me of a
    >> time when I experienced the same type problem using a Minolta camera
    >> system, in Fiji. Perhaps what I did, at the time, may be of some
    >> informative help to you.
    >>
    >> On one rainy day in Suva, being young and foolish as I was in those
    >> days, I decided to photograph the yachts that were docked in the harbor.
    >> When needing to change a lens, I found small droplets of water in my
    >> camera. After mumbling a few choice un-prayerful type words to the
    >> deities that may be listening, (obviously, /I/ wasn't doing anything
    >> wrong) I obtained a tube of clear silicon (fishing) reel grease and
    >> /thinly/ coated the lens ring being very careful not to get the silicon
    >> grease on the electrical connection nodes. From that time on, while in
    >> Suva, I didn't see any evidence of lens-camera water leakage, in either
    >> the camera or the lens.
    >>
    >> The down side to that corrective action was that I continued to
    >> occasionally use the silicon grease as just a matter of routine
    >> maintenance. Then came a day when I was photographing a ghost town in
    >> Arizona I chanced to encounter being caught in a momentary a desert dust
    >> swirl while changing lenses. In those days I was using Canon equipment;
    >> not that it matters what type equipment I was using.
    >>
    >> Unfortunately, though I tried changing lenses using my jacket as a
    >> protective cover and my arms through the sleeves, some of that gritty
    >> sand swirl found its way to the greased area of my lens and camera ring.
    >> Being in the field and totally unprepared for the incident, I couldn't
    >> get the connection area clean free from the gritty elements of the
    >> swirl. I had to pack up and get back to my trailer and clean the
    >> equipment somewhat properly, using compressed air, swabs of Q-Tip type
    >> cotton (I used a handy toothpick) and lighter fluid.
    >>
    >> Be that as it may, the clear silicon grease did work well for me, at the
    >> time.
    >>
    >> Applying the theatrical:
    >>
    >> Hark, the dawn breaks upon a new day, every day, oftentimes with new
    >> experiences yet to encounter, as we travel along, stumbling upon the
    >> rocky road of life. [Applause acknowledged -- bowing. :))]
    >>
    >>
    >>

    >
    > The 24-120 actually has a rubber sealing flange on the mounting ring.
    > water was sucked in through the sliding tubes.
    >


    Yes, there is a rubber sealing flange on the mounting ring. As I said in
    my post, your experience /reminds me of a time .../. The seal, as I
    understand the function of the seal, is to prevent particulates such as
    dust and such, from entering the camera (not the lens). It's not
    intended to act as being a /water/ seal.

    As for water being "sucked" into the lens through the sliding tubes, I
    did think of that possibility but I dismissed the thought due to my
    experiences, design intent of the rubber sealing flange, and the lens
    not being vacuum sealed. Not readily having a cross section of the lens
    to see if there are sliding O'rings installed I have to wonder if lens
    designers would think there's no need to include such O'ring seals when
    thinking there is a need to have a dust seal on the mounting ring
    flange. However, I will acknowledge water seepage may have occurred
    through the tubes (as well as through the rubber (dust) sealing flange),
    which I have yet to experience.
     
    nick c, Jul 3, 2012
    #8
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. Floyd L. Davidson

    Nikon D3 and D300 NEF raw files now supported by Dave Coffin'sdcraw

    Floyd L. Davidson, Nov 6, 2007, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    5
    Views:
    455
    ejmartin
    Nov 13, 2007
  2. =?iso-8859-1?Q?Rita_=C4_Berkowitz?=

    Nikon D3 and D300 Are Officially In The USA!

    =?iso-8859-1?Q?Rita_=C4_Berkowitz?=, Nov 12, 2007, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    5
    Views:
    336
  3. Chris W

    Nikon D200 / D300 and GPS

    Chris W, Nov 12, 2007, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    6
    Views:
    2,798
    Cynicor
    Nov 13, 2007
  4. evmartha

    NIKON D300 Training Videos Volume 1 and 2 NOW RELEASED

    evmartha, Dec 13, 2007, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    2
    Views:
    376
    Sosumi
    Dec 13, 2007
  5. Canon 40D and 5D vs. Nikon D40 and D300

    , Jul 19, 2008, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    25
    Views:
    885
    Steve
    Jul 21, 2008
Loading...

Share This Page