B&H has the Nikon D700 in stock

Discussion in 'Nikon' started by Andrew Koenig, Jul 25, 2008.

  1. Of course they'll probably sell them all by the time you read this, but I
    thought you'd like to know.
    Andrew Koenig, Jul 25, 2008
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. Andrew Koenig wrote:

    > Of course they'll probably sell them all by the time you read this,
    > but I thought you'd like to know.


    Old news! Ritz camera had them for the last two days.




    Rita
    --
    Stamping out Internet stupidity one idiot at a time. Never empower the
    idiot, embrace it and stimulate it. For more details go to the Usenet
    Stimulus Project page.

    http://ritaberk.myhosting247.com
    Rita Berkowitz, Jul 26, 2008
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. Andrew Koenig

    Dave Busch Guest

    On Fri, 25 Jul 2008 20:56:05 -0400, "Rita Berkowitz"
    <> wrote:


    >Old news! Ritz camera had them for the last two days.
    >

    I've had mine since Friday. So far, I think it's clever the way Nikon
    implemented so many D300 controls on the D700 (e.g. zoom during
    picture review, mode dial buttons, bracketing) so we'd instantly know
    whether we're using a D3 or D700. I'd hate it if both my FX cameras
    operated exactly the same.

    Dave
    -------------------------------------
    Everything I know, and then some:
    http://www.auctionmyths.com
    Dave Busch, Jul 28, 2008
    #3
  4. Dave Busch wrote:

    >> Old news! Ritz camera had them for the last two days.
    >>

    > I've had mine since Friday. So far, I think it's clever the way Nikon
    > implemented so many D300 controls on the D700 (e.g. zoom during
    > picture review, mode dial buttons, bracketing) so we'd instantly know
    > whether we're using a D3 or D700. I'd hate it if both my FX cameras
    > operated exactly the same.


    Congrats. It does seem like a sweet camera from what I've read and the
    image quality is great. Since I'm dragging my feet on the purchase of one,
    wouldn't you know it, everyone has them in stock. Nikon is getting so much
    better on their distribution of dSLR bodies. Now if they can deliver those
    two lenses I'm waiting on.



    Rita
    --
    Stamping out Internet stupidity one idiot at a time. Never empower the
    idiot, embrace it and stimulate it. For more details go to the Usenet
    Stimulus Project page.

    http://ritaberk.myhosting247.com
    Rita Berkowitz, Jul 28, 2008
    #4
  5. Andrew Koenig

    Andy Hall Guest

    On 2008-07-28 12:27:19 +0100, "Rita Berkowitz" <> said:

    > Dave Busch wrote:
    >
    >>> Old news! Ritz camera had them for the last two days.
    >>>

    >> I've had mine since Friday. So far, I think it's clever the way Nikon
    >> implemented so many D300 controls on the D700 (e.g. zoom during
    >> picture review, mode dial buttons, bracketing) so we'd instantly know
    >> whether we're using a D3 or D700. I'd hate it if both my FX cameras
    >> operated exactly the same.

    >
    > Congrats. It does seem like a sweet camera from what I've read and the
    > image quality is great. Since I'm dragging my feet on the purchase of one,
    > wouldn't you know it, everyone has them in stock. Nikon is getting so much
    > better on their distribution of dSLR bodies. Now if they can deliver those
    > two lenses I'm waiting on.
    >
    >
    >
    > Rita


    Which lenses are they?
    Andy Hall, Jul 29, 2008
    #5
  6. Andrew Koenig

    Andy Hall Guest

    On 2008-07-28 12:27:19 +0100, "Rita Berkowitz" <> said:

    > Dave Busch wrote:
    >
    >>> Old news! Ritz camera had them for the last two days.
    >>>

    >> I've had mine since Friday. So far, I think it's clever the way Nikon
    >> implemented so many D300 controls on the D700 (e.g. zoom during
    >> picture review, mode dial buttons, bracketing) so we'd instantly know
    >> whether we're using a D3 or D700. I'd hate it if both my FX cameras
    >> operated exactly the same.

    >
    > Congrats. It does seem like a sweet camera from what I've read and the
    > image quality is great. Since I'm dragging my feet on the purchase of one,
    > wouldn't you know it, everyone has them in stock. Nikon is getting so much
    > better on their distribution of dSLR bodies. Now if they can deliver those
    > two lenses I'm waiting on.
    >
    >
    >
    > Rita


    Which lenses are they?
    Andy Hall, Jul 29, 2008
    #6
  7. Andrew Koenig

    Me Guest

    Rita Berkowitz wrote:
    > Nikon is getting so much
    > better on their distribution of dSLR bodies. Now if they can deliver those
    > two lenses I'm waiting on.
    >

    I'm guessing that they overestimated demand.
    The shortage of lenses probably indicates that they sold a lot of D3s,
    though Nikon have been slow on lens deliveries in the past.
    $3k / $4.5k - not really that much difference in price if it's a work
    tool - they've already saturated some of the pro market, but $3k is
    still a hefty price tag for most amateurs, especially when many wouldn't
    be happy to see the expected 24mp FX released soon.
    Me, Jul 29, 2008
    #7
  8. Me wrote:

    > I'm guessing that they overestimated demand.
    > The shortage of lenses probably indicates that they sold a lot of D3s,
    > though Nikon have been slow on lens deliveries in the past.
    > $3k / $4.5k - not really that much difference in price if it's a work
    > tool - they've already saturated some of the pro market, but $3k is
    > still a hefty price tag for most amateurs, especially when many
    > wouldn't be happy to see the expected 24mp FX released soon.


    I suspect D700 prices will drop to about $2,500 before the end of the year.
    I don't think Nikon overestimated demand; they just underestimated the
    crappy US dollar. The D3 did quench the FF lust that every Nikon shooter
    had. I'm not sure it had a major impact on D700 sales. I wouldn't think a
    24MP FX would make anyone unhappy. The people that need it will buy it and
    use it.




    Rita
    --
    Stamping out Internet stupidity one idiot at a time. Never empower the
    idiot, embrace it and stimulate it. For more details go to the Usenet
    Stimulus Project page.

    http://ritaberk.myhosting247.com
    Rita Berkowitz, Jul 29, 2008
    #8
  9. Andy Hall wrote:

    >> Congrats. It does seem like a sweet camera from what I've read and
    >> the image quality is great. Since I'm dragging my feet on the
    >> purchase of one, wouldn't you know it, everyone has them in stock.
    >> Nikon is getting so much better on their distribution of dSLR
    >> bodies. Now if they can deliver those two lenses I'm waiting on.

    >
    > Which lenses are they?


    One of them is the 400/2.8.



    Rita
    --
    Stamping out Internet stupidity one idiot at a time. Never empower the
    idiot, embrace it and stimulate it. For more details go to the Usenet
    Stimulus Project page.

    http://ritaberk.myhosting247.com
    Rita Berkowitz, Jul 29, 2008
    #9
  10. Andrew Koenig

    Me Guest

    Rita Berkowitz wrote:
    > Me wrote:
    >
    >> I'm guessing that they overestimated demand.
    >> The shortage of lenses probably indicates that they sold a lot of D3s,
    >> though Nikon have been slow on lens deliveries in the past.
    >> $3k / $4.5k - not really that much difference in price if it's a work
    >> tool - they've already saturated some of the pro market, but $3k is
    >> still a hefty price tag for most amateurs, especially when many
    >> wouldn't be happy to see the expected 24mp FX released soon.

    >
    > I suspect D700 prices will drop to about $2,500 before the end of the year.

    I doubt it. The D3 price has only dropped slightly, only a little more
    than the cost of the "free" capture NX.
    > I don't think Nikon overestimated demand; they just underestimated the
    > crappy US dollar.

    Perhaps they should have made it in Thailand.
    The D3 did quench the FF lust that every Nikon shooter
    > had. I'm not sure it had a major impact on D700 sales. I wouldn't think a
    > 24MP FX would make anyone unhappy. The people that need it will buy it and
    > use it.

    Perception - not reality - matters. When >20mp Fx is commonplace, 12mp
    FX will seem like 6mp Dx does now - the few who realise that it doesn't
    matter much will be a minority.
    Me, Jul 29, 2008
    #10
  11. Andrew Koenig

    Andy Hall Guest

    On 2008-07-29 21:22:02 +0100, "Rita Berkowitz" <> said:

    > Andy Hall wrote:
    >
    >>> Congrats. It does seem like a sweet camera from what I've read and
    >>> the image quality is great. Since I'm dragging my feet on the
    >>> purchase of one, wouldn't you know it, everyone has them in stock.
    >>> Nikon is getting so much better on their distribution of dSLR
    >>> bodies. Now if they can deliver those two lenses I'm waiting on.

    >>
    >> Which lenses are they?

    >
    > One of them is the 400/2.8.
    >
    >
    >
    > Rita


    I see.

    Have you tried this one out? Ignoring the differences of having f2.8
    and speed of autofocus, have you used and compared with the 80/400 zoom?

    The reason for the question is that I have been looking at 400-600
    prime lenses for wildlife work. Thus far, a 70/200 with
    teleconverter hasn't done a bad job but I am looking at options for
    improvement.

    Any thoughts?
    Andy Hall, Jul 30, 2008
    #11
  12. Andrew Koenig

    D-Mac Guest

    Andy Hall wrote:
    > On 2008-07-29 21:22:02 +0100, "Rita Berkowitz" <> said:
    >
    >> Andy Hall wrote:
    >>
    >>>> Congrats. It does seem like a sweet camera from what I've read and
    >>>> the image quality is great. Since I'm dragging my feet on the
    >>>> purchase of one, wouldn't you know it, everyone has them in stock.
    >>>> Nikon is getting so much better on their distribution of dSLR
    >>>> bodies. Now if they can deliver those two lenses I'm waiting on.
    >>>
    >>> Which lenses are they?

    >>
    >> One of them is the 400/2.8.
    >>
    >>
    >>
    >> Rita

    >
    > I see.
    >
    > Have you tried this one out? Ignoring the differences of having f2.8
    > and speed of autofocus, have you used and compared with the 80/400 zoom?
    >
    > The reason for the question is that I have been looking at 400-600 prime
    > lenses for wildlife work. Thus far, a 70/200 with teleconverter
    > hasn't done a bad job but I am looking at options for improvement.
    >
    > Any thoughts?
    >
    >
    >


    Far be it for me to butt in and rock the boat but... Plenty of people
    are thrilled to bits with the results from their Sigma 120-300 F/2.8.
    Some sports shooters say it's up there with prime lens quality. I was
    certainly blown away by it's images compared to the Canon 20 - 200 F/2.8
    with 2X converter I had previously used. It's only drawback (if you do
    much work hand held) is no VR or IS system.

    I recently sold mine. I used it on a Canon 20D and 5D, sometimes with a
    2x converter for shooting birds and speed boats. I seriously believe if
    funding is tight, these $2500 lenses just can't be ignored. The thing to
    be aware of is if you need a polariser, it will cost you serious money
    due to the front element size but gathering light was never cheap.

    --

    visit www.D-Mac.info
    to relieve the tension...
    Usenet is after all Usenet!
    D-Mac, Jul 30, 2008
    #12
  13. Andrew Koenig

    Andy Hall Guest

    On 2008-07-30 06:11:29 +0100, D-Mac <> said:

    > Andy Hall wrote:
    >>
    >> I see.
    >>
    >> Have you tried this one out? Ignoring the differences of having f2.8
    >> and speed of autofocus, have you used and compared with the 80/400 zoom?
    >>
    >> The reason for the question is that I have been looking at 400-600
    >> prime lenses for wildlife work. Thus far, a 70/200 with
    >> teleconverter hasn't done a bad job but I am looking at options for
    >> improvement.
    >>
    >> Any thoughts?
    >>
    >>
    >>

    >
    > Far be it for me to butt in and rock the boat but...


    That's OK.


    > Plenty of people are thrilled to bits with the results from their Sigma
    > 120-300 F/2.8. Some sports shooters say it's up there with prime lens
    > quality.


    I'm not really doing action stuff - at least not in the fast sports sense.

    > I was certainly blown away by it's images compared to the Canon 20 -
    > 200 F/2.8 with 2X converter I had previously used. It's only drawback
    > (if you do much work hand held) is no VR or IS system.


    300 is really too short for my needs so would need to go with a
    teleconverter. In the Nikon range, I believe the 300mm prime is
    relatively physically small whereas the 500s etc. are fairly
    substantial in terms of size and weight.

    I'm not bothered about VR for a long focus lens because I would be
    using a tripod or beanbag anyway.

    >
    > I recently sold mine. I used it on a Canon 20D and 5D, sometimes with a
    > 2x converter for shooting birds and speed boats. I seriously believe if
    > funding is tight, these $2500 lenses just can't be ignored.


    I have used off-brand lenses before and had issues with autofocus and
    other functionality being not quite right, so I am somewhat reluctant
    to repeat that mistake. The lenses may cost somewhat less but if
    there's a problem it's very difficult to get it rectified. If I
    buy a Nikon camera and a Nikon lens, any issues are handled in one
    place.



    > The thing to be aware of is if you need a polariser, it will cost you
    > serious money due to the front element size but gathering light was
    > never cheap.


    I have a Lee system.
    Andy Hall, Jul 30, 2008
    #13
  14. Andrew Koenig

    Paul Furman Guest

    Andy Hall wrote:
    > Rita Berkowitz said:
    >> Andy Hall wrote:
    >>
    >>>> Congrats. It does seem like a sweet camera from what I've read and
    >>>> the image quality is great. Since I'm dragging my feet on the
    >>>> purchase of one, wouldn't you know it, everyone has them in stock.
    >>>> Nikon is getting so much better on their distribution of dSLR
    >>>> bodies. Now if they can deliver those two lenses I'm waiting on.
    >>>
    >>> Which lenses are they?

    >>
    >> One of them is the 400/2.8.

    >
    > I see.
    >
    > Have you tried this one out? Ignoring the differences of having f2.8
    > and speed of autofocus, have you used and compared with the 80/400 zoom?
    >
    > The reason for the question is that I have been looking at 400-600 prime
    > lenses for wildlife work. Thus far, a 70/200 with teleconverter
    > hasn't done a bad job but I am looking at options for improvement.
    >
    > Any thoughts?


    Sadly, the 70-200 seems to be getting sour reports on full frame digital
    corner sharpness (probably not a problem for wildlife in the center). I
    have one and an old beat up sports shooter's manual Tokina 300mm f/2.8
    ATX SD 'cult classic' with perfect glass. I'm thinking of replacing the
    300 with a Nikon VR... well dreaming really... The 300/2.8 is super
    useful; it's a very manageable size and a significant step up from the
    70-200 as far as reach, and does well with teleconverters, extension
    tubes, etc. The size is like a 70-200 with an iron coffee can on the
    front. I hardly use the 70-200 since I got that. I also have an ancient
    primitive beast of a Century 500mm f/4.5 which is amazing to use but
    ungodly useless off a tripod: CA is bad, blah blah blah but it is darn
    fun however the 300 is very reasonable to haul around in the woods hand
    held.

    --
    Paul Furman
    www.edgehill.net
    www.baynatives.com

    all google groups messages filtered due to spam
    Paul Furman, Jul 30, 2008
    #14
  15. Andy Hall wrote:

    >>> Which lenses are they?

    >>
    >> One of them is the 400/2.8.

    >
    > I see.
    >
    > Have you tried this one out? Ignoring the differences of having
    > f2.8 and speed of autofocus, have you used and compared with the
    > 80/400 zoom?


    No, I haven't compared the 80-400. I'm sticking with primes for all my long
    lenses. I even passed up the world famous 200-400/4 in favor of the 500/4.
    I'm extremely happy with my 500.

    > The reason for the question is that I have been looking at 400-600
    > prime lenses for wildlife work. Thus far, a 70/200 with
    > teleconverter hasn't done a bad job but I am looking at options for
    > improvement.


    I'm sure the 80-400 is a decent lens, but nothing beats the sharpness and
    contrast of these legendary long Nikkors. I've played with the 70-200/2.8
    and 2x TC with great results and will use this if I feel I need zoom. And
    beyond popular belief the 70-200/2.8 does extremely well on the FF.



    Rita
    --
    Stamping out Internet stupidity one idiot at a time. Never empower the
    idiot, embrace it and stimulate it. For more details go to the Usenet
    Stimulus Project page.

    http://ritaberk.myhosting247.com
    Rita Berkowitz, Jul 30, 2008
    #15
  16. Andrew Koenig

    Andy Hall Guest

    On 2008-07-30 07:17:27 +0100, Paul Furman <> said:

    > Andy Hall wrote:
    >> Rita Berkowitz said:
    >>> Andy Hall wrote:
    >>>
    >>>>> Congrats. It does seem like a sweet camera from what I've read and
    >>>>> the image quality is great. Since I'm dragging my feet on the
    >>>>> purchase of one, wouldn't you know it, everyone has them in stock.
    >>>>> Nikon is getting so much better on their distribution of dSLR
    >>>>> bodies. Now if they can deliver those two lenses I'm waiting on.
    >>>>
    >>>> Which lenses are they?
    >>>
    >>> One of them is the 400/2.8.

    >>
    >> I see.
    >>
    >> Have you tried this one out? Ignoring the differences of having f2.8
    >> and speed of autofocus, have you used and compared with the 80/400 zoom?
    >>
    >> The reason for the question is that I have been looking at 400-600
    >> prime lenses for wildlife work. Thus far, a 70/200 with
    >> teleconverter hasn't done a bad job but I am looking at options for
    >> improvement.
    >>
    >> Any thoughts?

    >
    > Sadly, the 70-200 seems to be getting sour reports on full frame
    > digital corner sharpness (probably not a problem for wildlife in the
    > center). I have one and an old beat up sports shooter's manual Tokina
    > 300mm f/2.8 ATX SD 'cult classic' with perfect glass. I'm thinking of
    > replacing the 300 with a Nikon VR... well dreaming really... The
    > 300/2.8 is super useful; it's a very manageable size and a significant
    > step up from the 70-200 as far as reach, and does well with
    > teleconverters, extension tubes, etc. The size is like a 70-200 with an
    > iron coffee can on the front. I hardly use the 70-200 since I got that.
    > I also have an ancient primitive beast of a Century 500mm f/4.5 which
    > is amazing to use but ungodly useless off a tripod: CA is bad, blah
    > blah blah but it is darn fun however the 300 is very reasonable to haul
    > around in the woods hand held.


    Thanks for that. Certainly (reasonable) portability is a factor.
    There's no point in having something that it is impractical to use in
    the field because of the weight. Which TC have you tried with the
    300? The 1.7, or the 2?
    Does the 500 give you substantially better results or is there not that
    much in it?
    Andy Hall, Jul 31, 2008
    #16
  17. Andrew Koenig

    Andy Hall Guest

    On 2008-07-30 12:37:39 +0100, "Rita Berkowitz" <> said:

    > Andy Hall wrote:
    >
    >>>> Which lenses are they?
    >>>
    >>> One of them is the 400/2.8.

    >>
    >> I see.
    >>
    >> Have you tried this one out? Ignoring the differences of having
    >> f2.8 and speed of autofocus, have you used and compared with the
    >> 80/400 zoom?

    >
    > No, I haven't compared the 80-400. I'm sticking with primes for all my long
    > lenses. I even passed up the world famous 200-400/4 in favor of the 500/4.
    > I'm extremely happy with my 500.
    >
    >> The reason for the question is that I have been looking at 400-600
    >> prime lenses for wildlife work. Thus far, a 70/200 with
    >> teleconverter hasn't done a bad job but I am looking at options for
    >> improvement.

    >
    > I'm sure the 80-400 is a decent lens, but nothing beats the sharpness and
    > contrast of these legendary long Nikkors. I've played with the 70-200/2.8
    > and 2x TC with great results and will use this if I feel I need zoom. And
    > beyond popular belief the 70-200/2.8 does extremely well on the FF.
    >
    >
    >
    > Rita


    OK, thanks for that.
    Andy Hall, Jul 31, 2008
    #17
  18. Andrew Koenig

    Paul Furman Guest

    Andy Hall wrote:
    > On 2008-07-30 07:17:27 +0100, Paul Furman <> said:
    >
    >> Andy Hall wrote:
    >>> Rita Berkowitz said:
    >>>> Andy Hall wrote:
    >>>>
    >>>>>> Congrats. It does seem like a sweet camera from what I've read and
    >>>>>> the image quality is great. Since I'm dragging my feet on the
    >>>>>> purchase of one, wouldn't you know it, everyone has them in stock.
    >>>>>> Nikon is getting so much better on their distribution of dSLR
    >>>>>> bodies. Now if they can deliver those two lenses I'm waiting on.
    >>>>>
    >>>>> Which lenses are they?
    >>>>
    >>>> One of them is the 400/2.8.
    >>>
    >>> I see.
    >>>
    >>> Have you tried this one out? Ignoring the differences of having
    >>> f2.8 and speed of autofocus, have you used and compared with the
    >>> 80/400 zoom?
    >>>
    >>> The reason for the question is that I have been looking at 400-600
    >>> prime lenses for wildlife work. Thus far, a 70/200 with
    >>> teleconverter hasn't done a bad job but I am looking at options for
    >>> improvement.
    >>>
    >>> Any thoughts?

    >>
    >> Sadly, the 70-200 seems to be getting sour reports on full frame
    >> digital corner sharpness (probably not a problem for wildlife in the
    >> center). I have one and an old beat up sports shooter's manual Tokina
    >> 300mm f/2.8 ATX SD 'cult classic' with perfect glass. I'm thinking of
    >> replacing the 300 with a Nikon VR... well dreaming really... The
    >> 300/2.8 is super useful; it's a very manageable size and a significant
    >> step up from the 70-200 as far as reach, and does well with
    >> teleconverters, extension tubes, etc. The size is like a 70-200 with
    >> an iron coffee can on the front. I hardly use the 70-200 since I got
    >> that. I also have an ancient primitive beast of a Century 500mm f/4.5
    >> which is amazing to use but ungodly useless off a tripod: CA is bad,
    >> blah blah blah but it is darn fun however the 300 is very reasonable
    >> to haul around in the woods hand held.

    >
    > Thanks for that. Certainly (reasonable) portability is a factor.
    > There's no point in having something that it is impractical to use in
    > the field because of the weight. Which TC have you tried with the
    > 300? The 1.7, or the 2?
    > Does the 500 give you substantially better results or is there not that
    > much in it?


    1.4 and 2x with a little tab ground off to allow stacking them. The 500
    really is dramatically better than the 300 even though the 70-200 goes
    to 560mm with stacked converters. The 1.4 is really nice and
    surprisingly small. I was lucky to get it used for $50, a little metal
    rim was bent, easily bent back. The stacked TCs definitely take a lot
    out of image quality but testing, it really does resolve more detail
    assuming you are cropping and over-enlarging anyways. Absolute sharpness
    corner to corner suffers though.

    BTW I've got a D200 so 300mm looks like 450mm on full frame.

    Here's what you really need on a D3 (600mm f/4 VR):
    http://edgehill.net/gallery/photo-update/2-17-08/pg3pc15
    -that's a really wide angle shot & the angle exaggerates considerably
    but yes he was actually able to use it hand held on an experimental
    basis (rental). The last 2 sections are just lens shade and the 300 gets
    a whole lot bigger with the shade on too. Another guy on that outing had
    a 200-400 f/4 VR that he was very happy with for wildlife shooting. It
    was sort of a reasonable size.

    --
    Paul Furman
    www.edgehill.net
    www.baynatives.com

    all google groups messages filtered due to spam
    Paul Furman, Jul 31, 2008
    #18
  19. Andrew Koenig

    Andy Hall Guest

    On 2008-07-31 16:23:57 +0100, Paul Furman <> said:
    >
    > 1.4 and 2x with a little tab ground off to allow stacking them.


    Didn't know that one could do that.

    > The 500 really is dramatically better than the 300 even though the
    > 70-200 goes to 560mm with stacked converters. The 1.4 is really nice
    > and surprisingly small. I was lucky to get it used for $50, a little
    > metal rim was bent, easily bent back. The stacked TCs definitely take a
    > lot out of image quality but testing, it really does resolve more
    > detail assuming you are cropping and over-enlarging anyways. Absolute
    > sharpness corner to corner suffers though.
    >
    > BTW I've got a D200 so 300mm looks like 450mm on full frame.


    Yes, I have a D300.



    >
    > Here's what you really need on a D3 (600mm f/4 VR):
    > http://edgehill.net/gallery/photo-update/2-17-08/pg3pc15
    > -that's a really wide angle shot & the angle exaggerates considerably
    > but yes he was actually able to use it hand held on an experimental
    > basis (rental). The last 2 sections are just lens shade and the 300
    > gets a whole lot bigger with the shade on too. Another guy on that
    > outing had a 200-400 f/4 VR that he was very happy with for wildlife
    > shooting. It was sort of a reasonable size.


    That was another one in the frame (as it were).
    Andy Hall, Jul 31, 2008
    #19
  20. Rita Berkowitz, Aug 1, 2008
    #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. frederick

    Nikon D700

    frederick, Jun 18, 2008, in forum: Nikon
    Replies:
    9
    Views:
    665
    frederick
    Jun 19, 2008
  2. none

    D700 At Nikon USA :)

    none, Jul 1, 2008, in forum: Nikon
    Replies:
    22
    Views:
    667
    Paul Furman
    Jul 3, 2008
  3. RLL

    Nikon D700

    RLL, Jul 29, 2008, in forum: Nikon
    Replies:
    14
    Views:
    514
    Burgerman
    Aug 1, 2008
  4. Kulvinder Singh Matharu

    Digiscoping with Nikon D700?

    Kulvinder Singh Matharu, Dec 5, 2008, in forum: Nikon
    Replies:
    9
    Views:
    2,248
    Kulvinder Singh Matharu
    Dec 9, 2008
  5. USU Shooter
    Replies:
    9
    Views:
    3,143
    Paul Furman
    Feb 28, 2009
Loading...

Share This Page