Re: Nikon entry level D3200 with 24 Mpix sensor announced

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by RichA, Apr 19, 2012.

  1. RichA

    RichA Guest

    On Apr 19, 4:34 am, "David J Taylor" <david-
    > wrote:
    > Nikon entry level D3200 with 24 Mpix sensor announced.
    >
    >  http://www.dpreview.com/news/2012/04/19/Nikon-D3200-with-WiFi-Option
    >
    > "Nikon has announced the D3200 24MP entry-level DSLR that can be used with
    > an optional WU-1a Wi-Fi module. The camera can now shoot up to 1080p30
    > video (rather than the D3100's 24p) and has a 920k dot LCD, up from 230k
    > dots. Beyond this, and improved continuous shoot rate despite the
    > pixel-count hike, the biggest change is the ability to add the Wi-Fi unit..
    > The WU-1a will sell for a recommended sale price of $59.95 and will be
    > able to broadcast to smartphones over a 49ft range. The D3200 is expected
    > in late April at an MSRP of $699.95."
    >
    > Cheers,
    > David


    1. An attempt to keep people from flocking to mirrorless cameras
    (even their own).
    2. Proves the D3x was the most vastly-overpriced DSLR in history.
    3. Will be funny asking D3100 owners to pony up for the lenses
    they'll need to really do it justice!
     
    RichA, Apr 19, 2012
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. RichA

    Bruce Guest

    RichA <> wrote:
    >On Apr 19, 4:34 am, "David J Taylor" <david-
    >> wrote:
    >> Nikon entry level D3200 with 24 Mpix sensor announced.

    >
    >1. An attempt to keep people from flocking to mirrorless cameras
    >(even their own).



    The Nikon J1 and V1 are selling well after some very heavy discounting
    in Europe and some very heavy advertising in the USA.


    >2. Proves the D3x was the most vastly-overpriced DSLR in history.



    It proves nothing of the sort. It might be an indication that Sony is
    having to offer the extremely noisy 24 MP APS-C sensor at extremely
    low prices for other manufacturers to take it.


    >3. Will be funny asking D3100 owners to pony up for the lenses
    >they'll need to really do it justice!



    No, they might know how to count pixels but it is unlikely they care
    too much about real image quality.

    It does make me wonder what the replacements for the D5100/7000/300s
    will look like. Specifically, what sensor(s) will they use?
     
    Bruce, Apr 19, 2012
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. RichA

    nospam Guest

    In article
    <>,
    RichA <> wrote:

    > 1. An attempt to keep people from flocking to mirrorless cameras
    > (even their own).


    different market segment. many people will have both.

    > 2. Proves the D3x was the most vastly-overpriced DSLR in history.


    not at all. the d3x competed with the canon 1ds which cost about the
    same amount. they're high end studio cameras.

    as for the most overpriced, that goes to the sigma sd1. nobody else
    comes close.

    > 3. Will be funny asking D3100 owners to pony up for the lenses
    > they'll need to really do it justice!


    not really. it will be better than what they had before.
     
    nospam, Apr 19, 2012
    #3
  4. RichA

    RichA Guest

    On Apr 19, 12:38 pm, Alfred Molon <> wrote:
    > So do we all need 24MP and never knew?
    > --


    Doesn't hurt, especially for the person who can only afford a D3200-
    class camera. They won't need quite as much expensive telephoto since
    they'll be able to produce higher-resolution crops.
    The funny thing is that this sensor will probably destroy Sony's in
    their A77 and A65 DSLRs ($1500/$1100 each, resp) which are horribly,
    horribly noisy.
     
    RichA, Apr 19, 2012
    #4
  5. In rec.photo.digital.slr-systems Bruce <> wrote:
    > It does make me wonder what the replacements for the D5100/7000/300s
    > will look like. Specifically, what sensor(s) will they use?


    Yeah, I wonder what the successor to the D300s will be; nothing Nikon's
    put out since then fits the same niche (pro-level DX body + controls),
    and how it's going to compare price-wise to the D800.

    Because at this point, the D800 (in DX crop mode) appears to trump the
    D300s in every way but max frame rate...

    - Solomon
    --
    Solomon Peachy pizza at shaftnet dot org
    Melbourne, FL ^^ (mail/jabber/gtalk) ^^
    Quidquid latine dictum sit, altum viditur.
     
    Stuffed Crust, Apr 19, 2012
    #5
  6. RichA

    Bruce Guest

    Stuffed Crust <> wrote:
    >In rec.photo.digital.slr-systems Bruce <> wrote:
    >> It does make me wonder what the replacements for the D5100/7000/300s
    >> will look like. Specifically, what sensor(s) will they use?

    >
    >Yeah, I wonder what the successor to the D300s will be; nothing Nikon's
    >put out since then fits the same niche (pro-level DX body + controls),
    >and how it's going to compare price-wise to the D800.
    >
    >Because at this point, the D800 (in DX crop mode) appears to trump the
    >D300s in every way but max frame rate...



    Yes, but only at a price. I would expect a D300s replacement to cost
    not too much more than half the price of a D800.

    If I worked for Nikon I would be concerned that the Sony 24 MP APS-C
    sensor is nowhere near good enough for the D300s replacement. Its use
    in the D3200 is a surprise, and places the sensor at a much lower
    level in the market than expected.
     
    Bruce, Apr 19, 2012
    #6
  7. Stuffed Crust <> writes:

    > In rec.photo.digital.slr-systems Bruce <> wrote:
    >> It does make me wonder what the replacements for the D5100/7000/300s
    >> will look like. Specifically, what sensor(s) will they use?

    >
    > Yeah, I wonder what the successor to the D300s will be; nothing Nikon's
    > put out since then fits the same niche (pro-level DX body + controls),
    > and how it's going to compare price-wise to the D800.
    >
    > Because at this point, the D800 (in DX crop mode) appears to trump the
    > D300s in every way but max frame rate...


    Yeah, but most especially including price! (That is, much higher price
    for the D800).
    --
    David Dyer-Bennet, ; http://dd-b.net/
    Snapshots: http://dd-b.net/dd-b/SnapshotAlbum/data/
    Photos: http://dd-b.net/photography/gallery/
    Dragaera: http://dragaera.info
     
    David Dyer-Bennet, Apr 19, 2012
    #7
  8. In rec.photo.digital RichA <> wrote:
    > On Apr 19, 12:38 pm, Alfred Molon <> wrote:
    >> So do we all need 24MP and never knew?
    >> --


    > Doesn't hurt, especially for the person who can only afford a D3200-
    > class camera. They won't need quite as much expensive telephoto since
    > they'll be able to produce higher-resolution crops.
    > The funny thing is that this sensor will probably destroy Sony's in
    > their A77 and A65 DSLRs ($1500/$1100 each, resp) which are horribly,
    > horribly noisy.


    At high ISOs. Why is everyone so obsessed with high ISO noise?

    I was under the impression that sensor noise and image quality were a
    trade off. If you made a sensor to get the best possible low ISO
    quality it would be noisy at high ISOs. And if you made a sensor to
    give the least noisy high ISOs low ISO image quality would suffer.

    What's the low ISO image quality of this noisy sensor like?

    --
    Chris Malcolm
     
    Chris Malcolm, Apr 20, 2012
    #8
  9. RichA

    RichA Guest

    On Apr 20, 6:22 am, Chris Malcolm <> wrote:
    > In rec.photo.digital RichA <> wrote:
    >
    > > On Apr 19, 12:38 pm, Alfred Molon <> wrote:
    > >> So do we all need 24MP and never knew?
    > >> --

    > > Doesn't hurt, especially for the person who can only afford a D3200-
    > > class camera.  They won't need quite as much expensive telephoto since
    > > they'll be able to produce higher-resolution crops.
    > > The funny thing is that this sensor will probably destroy Sony's in
    > > their A77 and A65 DSLRs ($1500/$1100 each, resp) which are horribly,
    > > horribly noisy.

    >
    > At high ISOs. Why is everyone so obsessed with high ISO noise?
    >
    > I was under the impression that sensor noise and image quality were a
    > trade off.  If you made a sensor to get the best possible low ISO
    > quality it would be noisy at high ISOs. And if you made a sensor to
    > give the least noisy high ISOs low ISO image quality would suffer.
    >
    > What's the low ISO image quality of this noisy sensor like?
    >
    > --
    > Chris Malcolm


    Noisy. At 100 ISO, you can still detect noise in some situations.
    To give you an idea, the NEX-7 sensor is less noisy, yet it itself is
    noisy compared to say the sensor in the D7000. The A77 and A65 sensor
    IMO, is very noisy. Go to this page, check the noise at 100 (you'll
    see it in the Sony A77 images) and then dial it up to 3200 and look at
    how it compares to the default cameras in the group.

    http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/sonyslta77/14
     
    RichA, Apr 20, 2012
    #9
  10. Chris Malcolm <> writes:

    > In rec.photo.digital RichA <> wrote:
    >> On Apr 19, 12:38 pm, Alfred Molon <> wrote:
    >>> So do we all need 24MP and never knew?
    >>> --

    >
    >> Doesn't hurt, especially for the person who can only afford a D3200-
    >> class camera. They won't need quite as much expensive telephoto since
    >> they'll be able to produce higher-resolution crops.
    >> The funny thing is that this sensor will probably destroy Sony's in
    >> their A77 and A65 DSLRs ($1500/$1100 each, resp) which are horribly,
    >> horribly noisy.

    >
    > At high ISOs. Why is everyone so obsessed with high ISO noise?


    Wouldn't care to speak for everybody.

    I spent last weekend shooting at ISO 3200 and 6400, usually around 1/200
    sec, at f/2.8 to f/4. Would have been nice to have a solid 1/250 and a
    solid f/5.6 (partly because the action had depth, but also to cover
    focus inaccuracy a bit more). But on balance, I don't feel the HI.1 and
    up ISOs on my D700 are good enough to use except in severe necessity,
    which this wasn't, quite. (Mostly I avoid 6400 also, but that may be
    overly conservative; the difference is much more obvious pixel peeping
    than looking at actual pictures.)

    I'm going to spend a chunk of the weekend after that doing similar
    shooting (though that arena is a bit better lit, at least).

    Generally, I do a LOT of high ISO shooting. It's why I bought a D700 in
    the first place.

    > I was under the impression that sensor noise and image quality were a
    > trade off. If you made a sensor to get the best possible low ISO
    > quality it would be noisy at high ISOs. And if you made a sensor to
    > give the least noisy high ISOs low ISO image quality would suffer.
    >
    > What's the low ISO image quality of this noisy sensor like?


    I don't think that's mostly true, though we don't seem to have a lot of
    actual sensor designers to give expert opinions available.
    --
    David Dyer-Bennet, ; http://dd-b.net/
    Snapshots: http://dd-b.net/dd-b/SnapshotAlbum/data/
    Photos: http://dd-b.net/photography/gallery/
    Dragaera: http://dragaera.info
     
    David Dyer-Bennet, Apr 20, 2012
    #10
  11. RichA

    RichA Guest

    On Apr 20, 2:47 pm, Alfred Molon <> wrote:
    > In article <bf6b8918-7626-44c5-8688-33cc34f19f4e@
    > 21g2000vbh.googlegroups.com>, RichA says...
    >
    > > Go to this page, check the noise at 100 (you'll
    > > see it in the Sony A77 images) and then dial it up to 3200 and look at
    > > how it compares to the default cameras in the group.

    >
    > >http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/sonyslta77/14

    >
    > There is no visible noise at ISO 100 for the A77 on that page and if you
    > look at the noise graphs, the A77 is as noisy as the other cameras of
    > the group.
    > --


    NoisieR.
     
    RichA, Apr 21, 2012
    #11
  12. RichA

    nchen711 Guest

    On 5/21/2012 11:15 AM, Alan Browne wrote:
    > On 2012-04-19 12:38 , Alfred Molon wrote:
    >> So do we all need 24MP and never knew?

    >
    > When the 24 Mpix Sony a900 (full frame) came out there were several
    > around here saying "12 Mpix is more than enough and most lenses can't
    > resolve more than that anyway."
    >
    > They were mainly Nikon fanbois, IIRC.
    >
    > Now that 36 Mpix cameras area available from Nikon, that crowd has gone
    > mute on that issue.
    >
    > Amusing, really.
    >



    I suppose some people may see the issue as more like if 12 Mpix's and 24
    Mpix's are progressively good, 36 Mpix's must be a hell-of-a-lot better.
    Since I have no specific interest in just the 36 Mpix's, I'll not debate
    the pro's and con's of the matter. As far as I'm concerned, for my type
    of photographic interests, I'm very satisfied using my D700 and D300 as
    a two camera set-up and see no reason to change. However, being very
    satisfied doesn't sell more cameras.
     
    nchen711, May 21, 2012
    #12
  13. Alan Browne <> writes:

    > On 2012-04-19 12:38 , Alfred Molon wrote:
    >> So do we all need 24MP and never knew?

    >
    > When the 24 Mpix Sony a900 (full frame) came out there were several
    > around here saying "12 Mpix is more than enough and most lenses can't
    > resolve more than that anyway."
    >
    > They were mainly Nikon fanbois, IIRC.
    >
    > Now that 36 Mpix cameras area available from Nikon, that crowd has
    > gone mute on that issue.


    I've got a 24x36 (paper size; image size somewhat smaller, maybe 20x30)
    print from a 6MP digital original on my wall. It looks far better than
    any film shot I've ever printed near that big.

    I can see how more resolution in the original would improve the print
    slightly, at least when examined closely, so I can't say (with a
    straight face) that I couldn't possibly need more megapixels; but big
    art prints are a total side issue for me, my equipment was chosen for
    fast action and low light. The fact that equipment optimized for that
    also does so well on big prints is a general commentary on just how good
    the top DSLRs are these days.

    I do have to say I'm terribly disappointed (personally) by the Nikon
    D800; it's in no sense a "successor" to the D700 (which is my current
    camera). On the other hand, it's a whole new thing in itself, and I see
    why people are very excited about it. It's just people with a different
    set of priorities than me.

    It does seem to complete Nikon's total demolition of Canon, anyway.
    Mind you, I expect that to be temporary, as Canon's earlier dominance of
    DSLR digital was. The natural, healthy state is for them to be always
    nipping at each other's heels, and passing each other periodically in
    various areas. It'd be good if another company or two played at that
    level, but that's not looking likely just yet.
    --
    David Dyer-Bennet, ; http://dd-b.net/
    Snapshots: http://dd-b.net/dd-b/SnapshotAlbum/data/
    Photos: http://dd-b.net/photography/gallery/
    Dragaera: http://dragaera.info
     
    David Dyer-Bennet, May 22, 2012
    #13
  14. RichA

    Bruce Guest

    David Dyer-Bennet <> wrote:
    >I do have to say I'm terribly disappointed (personally) by the Nikon
    >D800; it's in no sense a "successor" to the D700 (which is my current
    >camera). On the other hand, it's a whole new thing in itself, and I see
    >why people are very excited about it. It's just people with a different
    >set of priorities than me.



    The Nikon D600 will be the true successor to the D700.

    Nikon took care during the launch of the D800/D800E to make it clear
    that neither of them was a replacement for the D700. Nikon will not
    be similarly reticent about the D600.

    The D800 and D800E address a distinctly different market, one that you
    are clearly not in. They are not aimed at you, so you have no reason
    to be "disappointed" in them, "personally" or otherwise.
     
    Bruce, May 22, 2012
    #14
  15. Bruce <> writes:

    > David Dyer-Bennet <> wrote:
    >>I do have to say I'm terribly disappointed (personally) by the Nikon
    >>D800; it's in no sense a "successor" to the D700 (which is my current
    >>camera). On the other hand, it's a whole new thing in itself, and I see
    >>why people are very excited about it. It's just people with a different
    >>set of priorities than me.

    >
    >
    > The Nikon D600 will be the true successor to the D700.
    >
    > Nikon took care during the launch of the D800/D800E to make it clear
    > that neither of them was a replacement for the D700. Nikon will not
    > be similarly reticent about the D600.
    >
    > The D800 and D800E address a distinctly different market, one that you
    > are clearly not in. They are not aimed at you, so you have no reason
    > to be "disappointed" in them, "personally" or otherwise.


    I'm hanging on to that shot. But the general pattern of adding one to
    the most-significant digit for the successor model is very strongly
    established in Nikon digital, so the concept of the D800 not being the
    successor to the D700 sounded pretty weird. The D600 being the
    successor sounds even weirder, that's *going backwards*.

    Well, my D700 works fine currently. And maybe I can afford a used D3s
    or something in a while.
    --
    David Dyer-Bennet, ; http://dd-b.net/
    Snapshots: http://dd-b.net/dd-b/SnapshotAlbum/data/
    Photos: http://dd-b.net/photography/gallery/
    Dragaera: http://dragaera.info
     
    David Dyer-Bennet, May 23, 2012
    #15
  16. RichA

    Bruce Guest

    David Dyer-Bennet <> wrote:
    >But the general pattern of adding one to
    >the most-significant digit for the successor model is very strongly
    >established in Nikon digital, so the concept of the D800 not being the
    >successor to the D700 sounded pretty weird. The D600 being the
    >successor sounds even weirder, that's *going backwards*.



    Nikon seems to have lost its way with model numbering. For example,
    is the D7000 really a consumer-grade camera? It is certainly capable
    of producing top quality results and many pros carry it as a second or
    spare body.

    In film days, the F801 and F801s (N8008 and N8008s) were
    augmented/replaced by the F70 and F90 (N70 and N90) and later the F90X
    (N90s). There was not much logic in any of that either.

    Plus, I always thought it was silly to number both DX and FX DSLR
    bodies in the same series, i.e. D100, D200, D300, D700 and now D800.

    The anticipated price point of the D600 suggests that it will be a lot
    cheaper than the D700. Perhaps that provides Nikon with a
    justification for using a lower number?

    The only conclusion is that Nikon is at least as confused by its model
    numbering "system" as its customers. ;-)
     
    Bruce, May 23, 2012
    #16
  17. David Dyer-Bennet <> wrote:

    [D800]

    > It does seem to complete Nikon's total demolition of Canon, anyway.


    Resolution wise, yes, and uncompressed HDMI "straight from
    the chip" is gonna be /very/ popular with the DSLR-movie crowd
    (Canon's gotta be fuming they missed that trick). 'Far as I can
    tell, the D800 does have a better dynamic range at low ISO, too.
    It certainly is a very good camera --- being a Canon customer
    myself, I am glad it's there. Keeps Canon on the toes.

    But there are some other values, like FPS, where the D800 is not
    as competitive. How about the AF? Does it hold up? (And it
    better does, if you want the 36 MPix to impress.) Canon put
    their top model into the 5D3 ...

    > Mind you, I expect that to be temporary, as Canon's earlier dominance of
    > DSLR digital was. The natural, healthy state is for them to be always
    > nipping at each other's heels, and passing each other periodically in
    > various areas. It'd be good if another company or two played at that
    > level, but that's not looking likely just yet.


    Yep, 4 companies leapfrogging each other would be grand.
    No competition means Microsoft.

    -Wolfgang
     
    Wolfgang Weisselberg, May 25, 2012
    #17
  18. Wolfgang Weisselberg <> writes:

    > David Dyer-Bennet <> wrote:
    >
    > [D800]
    >
    >> It does seem to complete Nikon's total demolition of Canon, anyway.

    >
    > Resolution wise, yes, and uncompressed HDMI "straight from
    > the chip" is gonna be /very/ popular with the DSLR-movie crowd
    > (Canon's gotta be fuming they missed that trick). 'Far as I can
    > tell, the D800 does have a better dynamic range at low ISO, too.
    > It certainly is a very good camera --- being a Canon customer
    > myself, I am glad it's there. Keeps Canon on the toes.
    >
    > But there are some other values, like FPS, where the D800 is not
    > as competitive. How about the AF? Does it hold up? (And it
    > better does, if you want the 36 MPix to impress.) Canon put
    > their top model into the 5D3 ...


    The D800 is a high-res camera, not a photojournalist camera. The D700
    and the D3s and the D4 have the high frame rate. Both companies have
    pretty much recognized that division at the very top of their line --
    Nikon going back to the D2x and D2h models, Canon with the full-frame
    high-res cameras in the 1Ds line vs. the photojournalist cameras in the
    1.3x line.

    Actually, the D800 AF is reported by all reviewers I've seen to be
    first-rate; better thant he D700, which had the full D3 AF suite in it.

    >> Mind you, I expect that to be temporary, as Canon's earlier dominance of
    >> DSLR digital was. The natural, healthy state is for them to be always
    >> nipping at each other's heels, and passing each other periodically in
    >> various areas. It'd be good if another company or two played at that
    >> level, but that's not looking likely just yet.

    >
    > Yep, 4 companies leapfrogging each other would be grand.
    > No competition means Microsoft.

    --
    David Dyer-Bennet, ; http://dd-b.net/
    Snapshots: http://dd-b.net/dd-b/SnapshotAlbum/data/
    Photos: http://dd-b.net/photography/gallery/
    Dragaera: http://dragaera.info
     
    David Dyer-Bennet, May 26, 2012
    #18
  19. David Dyer-Bennet <> wrote:
    > Wolfgang Weisselberg <> writes:
    >> David Dyer-Bennet <> wrote:


    >> [D800]


    >>> It does seem to complete Nikon's total demolition of Canon, anyway.


    >> Resolution wise, yes, and uncompressed HDMI "straight from
    >> the chip" is gonna be /very/ popular with the DSLR-movie crowd
    >> (Canon's gotta be fuming they missed that trick). 'Far as I can
    >> tell, the D800 does have a better dynamic range at low ISO, too.
    >> It certainly is a very good camera --- being a Canon customer
    >> myself, I am glad it's there. Keeps Canon on the toes.


    >> But there are some other values, like FPS, where the D800 is not
    >> as competitive. How about the AF? Does it hold up? (And it
    >> better does, if you want the 36 MPix to impress.) Canon put
    >> their top model into the 5D3 ...


    > The D800 is a high-res camera, not a photojournalist camera. The D700
    > and the D3s and the D4 have the high frame rate. Both companies have
    > pretty much recognized that division at the very top of their line --
    > Nikon going back to the D2x and D2h models, Canon with the full-frame
    > high-res cameras in the 1Ds line vs. the photojournalist cameras in the
    > 1.3x line.


    You should look at the Canon 1DX, which is both.
    High frame rate, high resolution, good AF, high price.

    -Wolfgang
     
    Wolfgang Weisselberg, May 27, 2012
    #19
  20. Wolfgang Weisselberg <> writes:

    > David Dyer-Bennet <> wrote:
    >> Wolfgang Weisselberg <> writes:
    >>> David Dyer-Bennet <> wrote:

    >
    >>> [D800]

    >
    >>>> It does seem to complete Nikon's total demolition of Canon, anyway.

    >
    >>> Resolution wise, yes, and uncompressed HDMI "straight from
    >>> the chip" is gonna be /very/ popular with the DSLR-movie crowd
    >>> (Canon's gotta be fuming they missed that trick). 'Far as I can
    >>> tell, the D800 does have a better dynamic range at low ISO, too.
    >>> It certainly is a very good camera --- being a Canon customer
    >>> myself, I am glad it's there. Keeps Canon on the toes.

    >
    >>> But there are some other values, like FPS, where the D800 is not
    >>> as competitive. How about the AF? Does it hold up? (And it
    >>> better does, if you want the 36 MPix to impress.) Canon put
    >>> their top model into the 5D3 ...

    >
    >> The D800 is a high-res camera, not a photojournalist camera. The D700
    >> and the D3s and the D4 have the high frame rate. Both companies have
    >> pretty much recognized that division at the very top of their line --
    >> Nikon going back to the D2x and D2h models, Canon with the full-frame
    >> high-res cameras in the 1Ds line vs. the photojournalist cameras in the
    >> 1.3x line.

    >
    > You should look at the Canon 1DX, which is both.
    > High frame rate, high resolution, good AF, high price.


    I was not impressed; when that came out it looked like a total miss to
    me.
    --
    David Dyer-Bennet, ; http://dd-b.net/
    Snapshots: http://dd-b.net/dd-b/SnapshotAlbum/data/
    Photos: http://dd-b.net/photography/gallery/
    Dragaera: http://dragaera.info
     
    David Dyer-Bennet, May 28, 2012
    #20
    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. Woody
    Replies:
    9
    Views:
    365
  2. Walt Hanks

    Nikon D90 PRO announced. 12 Mpix 20D killer

    Walt Hanks, Apr 1, 2005, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    60
    Views:
    1,277
    Roxy d'Urban
    Apr 2, 2005
  3. jamie kim
    Replies:
    2
    Views:
    360
    dj_nme
    Mar 6, 2007
  4. RichA

    Nikon falling behind in the entry level

    RichA, Feb 14, 2010, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    23
    Views:
    978
    Eric Stevens
    Feb 19, 2010
  5. Rob

    Nikon D3200

    Rob, Nov 27, 2012, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    11
    Views:
    396
    Anthony Polson
    Nov 30, 2012
Loading...

Share This Page