Mudman
Well-known
Just curious what others think that have gone through this. I'm planning on getting a Nikon DSLR to supplement my D3. The D3 is a workhorse and a tank, and gets the job done for photojournalism. Love the built in mic for recording names, fast AF, built in grip, etc.. But I've been shifting away from journalism due to well, the lack of money that journalism pays, and doing more portrait work, landscapes, etc. I can use smaller cameras to meet those demands. I tend towards my Leica M8 for a lot of my personal work, but I would love another body with more lowlight reliability and for using my nikon lenses for landscapes and portraits with flash. I've been leaning towards the Df or D800 (either of them used). They're around the same price on the used market. I don't really care for the layout or plastic nature of the D600 series, haven't seen a d750 yet but I'm betting I'd feel about the same.
I have no interest in mirrorless cameras to adapt my lenses to them. I want full functionality.
So here's the breakdown of thoughts I've had so far. I'd love other's input as well. This camera would supplement the D3. I'd keep the D3 for sports and general PJ where I need to move fast, record names and have a built in grip for large lenses. I'd love a second FX body for weddings, though my D2x or D300 are both still going strong, and are nice for having the crop for telephoto use.
Pros for the Df:
Lowlight sensor of the D4
Lightweight and small. My favorite backpacking Nikons are the F3 and FM2n.
Viewfinder better for MF lenses? I own quite a few. The D3 screen is nice, but I would prefer one better suited for MF lenses. Not sure on this one until I actually see/use it.
FPS: Higher than the D800, still useable for sports in a pinch if I need it.
Cons:
Unsure of the body design. I haven't seen one in person, and there is nowhere around to try one out in the store. That top pentaprism kind of looks gangly, but the overall body design is something I like from the F3 and FM2n standpoint.
SD Card location, and only one card. Not keen on having it in the same spot as the battery, or on the bottom of the camera where my arca swiss plate will go.
Consumer level AF points and top speed of 1/4000th. Generally not an issue (I rarely go higher than 1/2000th of a second) but it is nice in a pinch to have the higher speed.
D800 Pros:
Megapixels: Kind of a pro and a con. This sounds lovely for my landscape work, but overkill for portraits and just about everything else. For high MP work I've generally just brought a Hasselblad and had the negatives scanned at 24 MP or higher depending on what the client needs.
Body design: Similar to what I'm used to with the D3, D2x, D300, and F100.
Video: I do work with a production company doing documentary work. Having a DSLR that can double as a second video camera would be nice.
Multiple cards: I've grown accustomed to having dual cards from the D3. Not a deal killer to have only one, but nice that it does have two slots.
Cons:
FPS. This won't do for the type of sports I shoot (horse racing in particular). However for portraits and weddings I don't see any problems.
Storage. Huge files compared to what I'm used to. Might have to up the ram in my Mac Pro.
Size. It's bigger than the Df. something smaller for backpacking would be ideal
AF Issues? I'm assuming that Nikon has dealt with the AF left side focusing issues at this point.
Lowlight noise? I know the noise levels are higher than the sensor from the Df
Anything else? Both seem to have pluses and minuses. I'd love to hear from owners on why they chose one over the other. Probably a few months before I'd be buying anything.
I have no interest in mirrorless cameras to adapt my lenses to them. I want full functionality.
So here's the breakdown of thoughts I've had so far. I'd love other's input as well. This camera would supplement the D3. I'd keep the D3 for sports and general PJ where I need to move fast, record names and have a built in grip for large lenses. I'd love a second FX body for weddings, though my D2x or D300 are both still going strong, and are nice for having the crop for telephoto use.
Pros for the Df:
Lowlight sensor of the D4
Lightweight and small. My favorite backpacking Nikons are the F3 and FM2n.
Viewfinder better for MF lenses? I own quite a few. The D3 screen is nice, but I would prefer one better suited for MF lenses. Not sure on this one until I actually see/use it.
FPS: Higher than the D800, still useable for sports in a pinch if I need it.
Cons:
Unsure of the body design. I haven't seen one in person, and there is nowhere around to try one out in the store. That top pentaprism kind of looks gangly, but the overall body design is something I like from the F3 and FM2n standpoint.
SD Card location, and only one card. Not keen on having it in the same spot as the battery, or on the bottom of the camera where my arca swiss plate will go.
Consumer level AF points and top speed of 1/4000th. Generally not an issue (I rarely go higher than 1/2000th of a second) but it is nice in a pinch to have the higher speed.
D800 Pros:
Megapixels: Kind of a pro and a con. This sounds lovely for my landscape work, but overkill for portraits and just about everything else. For high MP work I've generally just brought a Hasselblad and had the negatives scanned at 24 MP or higher depending on what the client needs.
Body design: Similar to what I'm used to with the D3, D2x, D300, and F100.
Video: I do work with a production company doing documentary work. Having a DSLR that can double as a second video camera would be nice.
Multiple cards: I've grown accustomed to having dual cards from the D3. Not a deal killer to have only one, but nice that it does have two slots.
Cons:
FPS. This won't do for the type of sports I shoot (horse racing in particular). However for portraits and weddings I don't see any problems.
Storage. Huge files compared to what I'm used to. Might have to up the ram in my Mac Pro.
Size. It's bigger than the Df. something smaller for backpacking would be ideal
AF Issues? I'm assuming that Nikon has dealt with the AF left side focusing issues at this point.
Lowlight noise? I know the noise levels are higher than the sensor from the Df
Anything else? Both seem to have pluses and minuses. I'd love to hear from owners on why they chose one over the other. Probably a few months before I'd be buying anything.
Huss
Veteran
I've used both the DF and the D750. I much prefer the D750. Better to hold, better to use, better AF, better MF (I found it more accurate with my AI-S lenses than the DF), very similar high ISO, more pixels, built in flash, cheaper.
Rent both and see (or at least try them at a shop)
Rent both and see (or at least try them at a shop)
SolaresLarrave
My M5s need red dots!
You know what you want, and it's the D800. When it comes to file size, you can always decide what file size you want (they go by resolution, at least, that's how it is in my D700). When, then, will you use or need the FPS? I have it too, but I never use it so I set the AF indicator at S. In short, a lot of the shortcomings in the D800 can be turned off or avoided, so go for it. And if you're concerned about the focusing, there's always the D600 or the D810.
So, my recommendation is the D800. Take care!
So, my recommendation is the D800. Take care!
I would not consider the D800 to be small or light... the Df actually is.
Here's a breakdown:
http://camerasize.com/compare/#290,495
I prefer the Df to every other Nikon DSLR. In fact, I wouldn't even use a DSLR if it were not for the Df. It seems to me that if you are a fan of Nikon's typical body shapes, then the Df might not do it for you. My D800e is in the classifieds and I now have two Dfs. I'm going to be in the minority though.
Here's a breakdown:
http://camerasize.com/compare/#290,495
I prefer the Df to every other Nikon DSLR. In fact, I wouldn't even use a DSLR if it were not for the Df. It seems to me that if you are a fan of Nikon's typical body shapes, then the Df might not do it for you. My D800e is in the classifieds and I now have two Dfs. I'm going to be in the minority though.
Godfrey
somewhat colored
I've been considering the D750 body. It's more similar in shape and overall feel to the F6 than either D800 or Df; I want the 24Mpixel sensor.
G
G
John E Earley
Tuol Sleng S21-0174
I can't compare the various cameras other that having held all three (Df, D800, D750) and I found the D750, which I purchased, to be substantially better in the respect of grip-weight-size. I've also been extremely satisfied with the operation and output of the camera and was pleasantly surprised that I found the articulated screen to be very handy.
I'd love to have a D810 but if I never had the opportunity to get one I'd be satisfied with the D750.
I'd love to have a D810 but if I never had the opportunity to get one I'd be satisfied with the D750.
x-ray
Veteran
I own both he Df and D800 and shoot commercially with them. I bought both when they cam out so I have a pretty god feel for what they will and won't do.
You covered most of the pro's and con's pretty well. The construction of the Df is solid. It's rugged and compact for a sophisticated DSLR. No issues with the prism.
As I mentioned I do commercial work for advertising. This ranges from web to billboards and catalogs. It's mostly location work and ranges from very controlled conditions using studio strobes to horrible low mixed light when a client asks me to shoot a conference where I can't use a handheld strobe.
Without question the Df excels art low light. This camera can pull the scene right out of the dark. It's truly amazing how reliable the AF is and how low the image noise is even at very high ISO. I wound up shooting a conference hand held with the Df and 80-200 f2.8 VRII at near max ISO at 2.8-3.5 at a 1/15 - 1/30 of a second. I was able to prop myself up against a wall or stable object and got a very high percentage of good shots. The subjects motion was the limiting factor.
Comments about the AF, the AF on both are excellent. The D800 has more points but that's rarely an issue. It's not hard to work around that. I'm from the generation before AF anything and motor drives so any perceived issues like this have an easy workaround.
Although the Df won't do 12 fps I wouldn't hesitate to go out and shoot sports of any kind with it. In the 60's I shoot sports with a Leica M and Visoflex II with a couple of Telyt lenses. Top speed on the Nikon F at the time was 3fps. If you can't do it with 5 fps or so you can't do it. Plan ahead and anticipate.
Dual card slots, never use them on any camera I've owned. Why, in the film days we didn't have cameras that shot two rolls of film at the same time. With digital just check it back. Honestly I've been fully digital since the D1 and never lost a frame and haven't met anyone who has. Have a little confidence in your equipment and yourself. On my Df I turned the preview off on the back. It's a distraction and if you know what you're doing you don't need to look at every shot. Use it to get the scene and lighting right then shoot. Review at the end. My first boss tole me that polaroid was a crutch for a weak photographer and he was right. I believe the same is true of the screen on the back of a DSLR.
My preferred system for general shooting is the Df. I carry the body with a complement of AIS primes. I carry a 20 3.5, 28 2.8, 35 1.4, 50 1.2, 85D 1.4 (only AF I carry), 105 2.5, 135 3.5 and Micro 50 3.5. I have several other AIS lenses but only carry them if needed. It all fits with a Minolta IV flash meter in a small Lowepro backpack. I carry a complement of cards and 3 extra batteries and small Mcbeth chart. It's my ideal kit.
I might add that MF is best done using the focus confirmation on both cameras. The screen on both are pretty much equal. I purchased an aftermarket spit image screen with micro prism collar and didn't find it any more accurate than focusing with the regular screen without focus confirmation. I don't think focusing is any less accurate than on a film SLR. I think the difference is we can enlarge the image so much we see the tiniest errors in focus on the monitor vs a 6x loupe and film. I believe if you enlarged film to the same degree you'd see the same focus errors.
The D800 replaced my Hasselblad digital gear. It's not quite at the level of MF digital but it's darn close. Any advantages that MF has doesn't reproduce on paper. The D800 is a truly amazing camera and jack of all trades IMO. It does everything very well including high ISO, speed and AF accuracy. It's not perfect but it's getting close. With my D800 I don' think there are too many jobs I couldn't tackle. the dynamic range is second only to the D810 possibly. I think the D810 is rated about a half stop better at 15 stops where the D800 is 14.5. I do quite a lot of architectural work for architects and this is a big advantage. The Df is excellent but no match when needing that extra couple of stops DR.
Besides architecture, I shoot a lot of chrome and highly polished metallic products. The DR of the D800 is excellent when it comes to that as well. It never leaves me wanting for more. Actually in many cases the DR is much greater than the scene / subject I'm shooting. Motor speed is good enough to do most anything and if you're using flash, the 1/250 of a second sync vs the Df 1/125 is a nice advantage. In the early days I went from Nikon D1x's to Canon !d and 1Ds then 1DsII cameras. The 1D was a dream with a 1/500 sync speed with studio strobes. Wish Nikon would do that.
My D800 kit is heavier by a good margin, My basic setup fits in a medium Lowepro backpack. I carry the D800, Sekonic combo incident/spot flash meter, 16-35, 24-70 2.8 and 70-200 VRII 2.8. In addition I carry a 24 PC-E, 85 PC-E, 300 f4 and 1.4x as needed.
IMO they each have their merit and it really depends on what you want to shoot. I do a good number of head shots for a couple of clients and the Df is the king of flesh tones. I'll mention I profile all my digital equipment. Color without profiling is excellent but if profiled properly it really sings.
General shooting and people especially low light the Df is the winner. Wide DR and detail or when you need a really big file the D800 wins. Don't get me wrong, the D800 has excellent skin tomes but there's something magic about the Df.
If large files are a problem with the D800 you can go to a 1.2x, 1.5 or a letterbox crop mode. I often use 1.2 and 1.5x modes when Dr is needed and small files.
You covered most of the pro's and con's pretty well. The construction of the Df is solid. It's rugged and compact for a sophisticated DSLR. No issues with the prism.
As I mentioned I do commercial work for advertising. This ranges from web to billboards and catalogs. It's mostly location work and ranges from very controlled conditions using studio strobes to horrible low mixed light when a client asks me to shoot a conference where I can't use a handheld strobe.
Without question the Df excels art low light. This camera can pull the scene right out of the dark. It's truly amazing how reliable the AF is and how low the image noise is even at very high ISO. I wound up shooting a conference hand held with the Df and 80-200 f2.8 VRII at near max ISO at 2.8-3.5 at a 1/15 - 1/30 of a second. I was able to prop myself up against a wall or stable object and got a very high percentage of good shots. The subjects motion was the limiting factor.
Comments about the AF, the AF on both are excellent. The D800 has more points but that's rarely an issue. It's not hard to work around that. I'm from the generation before AF anything and motor drives so any perceived issues like this have an easy workaround.
Although the Df won't do 12 fps I wouldn't hesitate to go out and shoot sports of any kind with it. In the 60's I shoot sports with a Leica M and Visoflex II with a couple of Telyt lenses. Top speed on the Nikon F at the time was 3fps. If you can't do it with 5 fps or so you can't do it. Plan ahead and anticipate.
Dual card slots, never use them on any camera I've owned. Why, in the film days we didn't have cameras that shot two rolls of film at the same time. With digital just check it back. Honestly I've been fully digital since the D1 and never lost a frame and haven't met anyone who has. Have a little confidence in your equipment and yourself. On my Df I turned the preview off on the back. It's a distraction and if you know what you're doing you don't need to look at every shot. Use it to get the scene and lighting right then shoot. Review at the end. My first boss tole me that polaroid was a crutch for a weak photographer and he was right. I believe the same is true of the screen on the back of a DSLR.
My preferred system for general shooting is the Df. I carry the body with a complement of AIS primes. I carry a 20 3.5, 28 2.8, 35 1.4, 50 1.2, 85D 1.4 (only AF I carry), 105 2.5, 135 3.5 and Micro 50 3.5. I have several other AIS lenses but only carry them if needed. It all fits with a Minolta IV flash meter in a small Lowepro backpack. I carry a complement of cards and 3 extra batteries and small Mcbeth chart. It's my ideal kit.
I might add that MF is best done using the focus confirmation on both cameras. The screen on both are pretty much equal. I purchased an aftermarket spit image screen with micro prism collar and didn't find it any more accurate than focusing with the regular screen without focus confirmation. I don't think focusing is any less accurate than on a film SLR. I think the difference is we can enlarge the image so much we see the tiniest errors in focus on the monitor vs a 6x loupe and film. I believe if you enlarged film to the same degree you'd see the same focus errors.
The D800 replaced my Hasselblad digital gear. It's not quite at the level of MF digital but it's darn close. Any advantages that MF has doesn't reproduce on paper. The D800 is a truly amazing camera and jack of all trades IMO. It does everything very well including high ISO, speed and AF accuracy. It's not perfect but it's getting close. With my D800 I don' think there are too many jobs I couldn't tackle. the dynamic range is second only to the D810 possibly. I think the D810 is rated about a half stop better at 15 stops where the D800 is 14.5. I do quite a lot of architectural work for architects and this is a big advantage. The Df is excellent but no match when needing that extra couple of stops DR.
Besides architecture, I shoot a lot of chrome and highly polished metallic products. The DR of the D800 is excellent when it comes to that as well. It never leaves me wanting for more. Actually in many cases the DR is much greater than the scene / subject I'm shooting. Motor speed is good enough to do most anything and if you're using flash, the 1/250 of a second sync vs the Df 1/125 is a nice advantage. In the early days I went from Nikon D1x's to Canon !d and 1Ds then 1DsII cameras. The 1D was a dream with a 1/500 sync speed with studio strobes. Wish Nikon would do that.
My D800 kit is heavier by a good margin, My basic setup fits in a medium Lowepro backpack. I carry the D800, Sekonic combo incident/spot flash meter, 16-35, 24-70 2.8 and 70-200 VRII 2.8. In addition I carry a 24 PC-E, 85 PC-E, 300 f4 and 1.4x as needed.
IMO they each have their merit and it really depends on what you want to shoot. I do a good number of head shots for a couple of clients and the Df is the king of flesh tones. I'll mention I profile all my digital equipment. Color without profiling is excellent but if profiled properly it really sings.
General shooting and people especially low light the Df is the winner. Wide DR and detail or when you need a really big file the D800 wins. Don't get me wrong, the D800 has excellent skin tomes but there's something magic about the Df.
If large files are a problem with the D800 you can go to a 1.2x, 1.5 or a letterbox crop mode. I often use 1.2 and 1.5x modes when Dr is needed and small files.
uhoh7
Veteran
Well it sounds like the DF is seeing some great use Size does matter.
It's interesting the 6D is one of the few FF DSLRs very close to the DF in footprint and weight.
Size does matter.It's interesting the 6D is one of the few FF DSLRs very close to the DF in footprint and weight.
olakiril
Well-known
If you are used to the ergonomics of D3 then the D800 is the obvious choice. Also coming from D3 the differences in size/weight between D800/Df is not that much especially when you weigh in the better ergonomics of D800 when shooting for many hours. Not to mention that if you plan to use anything other than low weight primes the ergonomics of the D800 will make the Df feel like a brick.
The Df is not as durable as the D800. Its plastic front/back. Feels alright but plastic.
AF performance in low light is also worse in Df.
Moreover, if you use the D300/D2x as crop/telephoto, then the high resolution of the D800 will offer the same advantage.
As others have mentioned, the OVF is practically the same. Typical marketing promotion.
I wasn't that much into video until I actually started using it and now its 50/50 between video and stills. Now, video ability would definitely be the deciding factor for me.
Really what Df offers is better low light performance and better aesthetics.
The Df is not as durable as the D800. Its plastic front/back. Feels alright but plastic.
AF performance in low light is also worse in Df.
Moreover, if you use the D300/D2x as crop/telephoto, then the high resolution of the D800 will offer the same advantage.
As others have mentioned, the OVF is practically the same. Typical marketing promotion.
I wasn't that much into video until I actually started using it and now its 50/50 between video and stills. Now, video ability would definitely be the deciding factor for me.
Really what Df offers is better low light performance and better aesthetics.
x-ray
Veteran
I don't find any difference in AF accuracy under low light between the two. I'm not sure where this comes from. As to durability, time will tell but I expect the Df to be very rugged. Plastics don't necessarily equate to less durable. Theres not really that much plastic in it anyway.
olakiril
Well-known
Assist light? Even though I always felt that the D3/D4 are better at low light even without the assist light but that was probably due to better processing.
You might be right, plastic can indeed be very durable. I just have seen what the D3/D800 can go through...
Highway 61
Revisited
This is all true... and a no-brainer. The D750 viewfinder, in particular, is really better than the one of the Df. The D750 body is also smaller than the Df.
And the 24MP sensor is more than convincing even with old primes. Many people agree to say that 24MP is the perfect gauge for a 24x36 sensor.
The only drawback of the D750 is that you can't use non-Ai lenses with it. Yet, mounting non-Ai lenses on the Df is more a marketing trick than a real bonus. There are plenty enough Ai and Ai-S lenses out there...
Photon42
burn the box
I do have first hand experience with the DF, being my first Nikon body since a lot of years, mainly to make use again of my AI/s lenses. I also used it with AF lenses, and only used the DF for street and portraiture - employing the Churchill doctrine: No sports
I like the sensor, the look of the files and even the look of the camera. It works perfectly well with the AIs 50/1.2 or the AIs 1.4/85 - both combinations I really enjoy.
The DF is by comparison a small camera, true. Similar to the D750, which I do not know from shooting experience. However, really small cameras are mirrorless today.
When I look to what the OP wants to do, I think the D800 sounds like a better choice for him overall. Portraiture, Landscapes. Nothing requiring top of the line camera response, but a field where more megapixels come in handy.
However, there is a sight size penalty to bear Now, if you bring 3-5 Lenses and a body, the size of the body is not particularly important anymore.
I have no experience with 36MB files, but never store all my files in RAW. Just those I feel I should - which is approximately 5% of the pictures I take.
I like the sensor, the look of the files and even the look of the camera
. It works perfectly well with the AIs 50/1.2 or the AIs 1.4/85 - both combinations I really enjoy.The DF is by comparison a small camera, true. Similar to the D750, which I do not know from shooting experience. However, really small cameras are mirrorless today.
When I look to what the OP wants to do, I think the D800 sounds like a better choice for him overall. Portraiture, Landscapes. Nothing requiring top of the line camera response, but a field where more megapixels come in handy.
However, there is a sight size penalty to bear
Now, if you bring 3-5 Lenses and a body, the size of the body is not particularly important anymore. I have no experience with 36MB files, but never store all my files in RAW. Just those I feel I should - which is approximately 5% of the pictures I take.
Photon42
burn the box
You must have a very early DF - mine is sync'ing up to 1/250 (X is 1/200) with no issues
Just tired it again, as I rarely use it.OT: As to the 1/500 / wasn't the D70 doing this as well?
Cheers
Ivo
(still have your Leicavit
)
Mudman
Well-known
Good information so far, thanks all. I think the suggestion to rent them both is probably a good one, along with the D600/750 I guess. The 600 series and 750 just don't excite me when I see photographs of the bodies, though I guess the real test is in how they perform. I'd honestly be more likely to go with the D600 and save the money over the latest 750.
X-Ray, re: dual card slots. I don't use them as a backup, I use them so that I have extra space. Two 8 gig cards at the same time. The prices have come down so far on cards though that it's probably a mute point nowadays.
The D800 is appealing, I just don't know if I really need the MP or the associated storage. I've been completely happy with 10-12 MP for printing up to 12x18. I rarely print larger than that (though I guess if I had the MP to do it, I'd have to make a couple of large prints...). My normal lenses with the D3 are 17-35mm f2.8, 50mm f1.4, 28-75 f2.8 tamron, 80-200 f2.8 afs/the latest 70-200 f2.8 (dead cpu chip at the moment, it's at my repairman hopefully to be revived).
For lightweight shooting I also have the 20mm f2.8 af, 24mm f2.8 af, 35mm f2 AIS, 50mm f1.4 af, 85mm f2 AIS, 105 f2.5 AIS (generally one or the other of those two lenses), and 180 f2.8 af. The last three also get replaced by a 70-210 f4 af lens if I need af and zoom in a lightweight package. I think the Df would work well with all of the later lenses, not sure how well it would balance with the 80-200 f2.8 zoom length.
X-Ray, re: dual card slots. I don't use them as a backup, I use them so that I have extra space. Two 8 gig cards at the same time. The prices have come down so far on cards though that it's probably a mute point nowadays.
The D800 is appealing, I just don't know if I really need the MP or the associated storage. I've been completely happy with 10-12 MP for printing up to 12x18. I rarely print larger than that (though I guess if I had the MP to do it, I'd have to make a couple of large prints...). My normal lenses with the D3 are 17-35mm f2.8, 50mm f1.4, 28-75 f2.8 tamron, 80-200 f2.8 afs/the latest 70-200 f2.8 (dead cpu chip at the moment, it's at my repairman hopefully to be revived).
For lightweight shooting I also have the 20mm f2.8 af, 24mm f2.8 af, 35mm f2 AIS, 50mm f1.4 af, 85mm f2 AIS, 105 f2.5 AIS (generally one or the other of those two lenses), and 180 f2.8 af. The last three also get replaced by a 70-210 f4 af lens if I need af and zoom in a lightweight package. I think the Df would work well with all of the later lenses, not sure how well it would balance with the 80-200 f2.8 zoom length.
Roger Hicks
Veteran
If you like straightforward, old-fashioned controls, then the Df is the "no-brainer": the more so if (as I do) you have lots of old lenses, going back several decades. That's ignoring the unbelievable high-ISO performance of the Df. I seriously considered both the D800 and the Df, and went for the Df. If ever I need the extra megapixels of the D800 I'll buy that too (or an 810 or whatever its successor may be by then).
The other drawback of the D750 is that it's a generic "melted ashtray" or "partially formed turd" DSLR. All too often, "no-brainer" is as bad as saying "I have no brain ".
Cheers,
R.
In what way is the VF better?
Also, the Df is not larger than the D750:
http://camerasize.com/compare/#495,567
Keith
The best camera is one that still works!
That melted ashtray or partially formed turd you refer to is actually carbon fiber reinforced thermoplastic Roger!
Lets keep it accurate please!
Lets keep it accurate please!
RObert Budding
D'oh!
I've been very happy with my D750. One person's 'partially formed turd' is another person's ergonomically designed body. I like the light weight and the incredible AF performance.
Roger Hicks
Veteran
Dear Keith,That melted ashtray or partially formed turd you refer to is actually carbon fiber reinforced thermoplastic Roger!
Lets keep it accurate please!
Sorry: a carbon fiber reinforced thermoplastic replica of a melted ashtray or partially formed turd.
Cheers,
R.