Nikon Introduces D3300, 35mm/f1.8 AF-S FX Lens and the Development of D4S

Albins images · January 8, 2014

Good post, Andrew! O, and I still desire the property of a Df.. ;-)

eric_arnold · January 8, 2014

The D610 is $1996.95 at B&H.

</blockquote>

ok, i stand corrected. i was under the impression the list price was more but that could have been the d600. maybe the d600's foibles caused nikon to lower the d610 price.

Because Fuji put all its eggs in the DX basket, whereas Nikon's are in the FX basket (for higher end lenses; they do make consumer lenses for DX). Nikon's FX lens lineup is far more advanced than that of any mirrorless system. If a manufacturer divides its attention among multiple systems, the result is like Sony's: few new lenses for any given system.

</blockquote>

i see your point, but my point was that nikon isn't plugging the obvious gaps in its lineup with the 58/1.4 and a new 18-55. the decision to abandon high-end DX has created logistical issues such as what i pointed out earlier about the 58/1.4, which would have made much more sense had it been priced in line with fuji's 56/1.2, i.e. around $1000.

Quite many advanced photographers seem to have taken a liking to this camera. It really has nothing to do with vanity, but personal preference on how they want to use a camera.

</blockquote>

if that was the case, then there wouldnt be any debate over the control layouts being at cross-purposes. the reason i called it a vanity cam is because the features alone dont justify the price.

Stabilization is kind of outdated now

</blockquote>

interesting argument but i disagree. just the amount of handheld video shooters alone justifies this, and it's super-useful on compact cameras with long lenses, not to mention any kind of low-light shooting at slower shutter speeds. remember you can always turn stabilization off.

The 24-70 doesn't have it because its users are expected to understand that a high shutter speed works better if the subject is moving, and if it's static the user most likely uses a tripod.

</blockquote>

now that's just silly. very few if any photojournalists carry tripods into the field, and sometimes, you do have to shoot at 1/10 or 1/15, a shutter speed where stabilization can make a difference. i don't always need to have stabilization, but it's nice to have. the fact its available on third-party lenses like the sigma 17-50 and tamron 24-70 but not on the nikon 24-70 is just daft, and if we were going to take your argument at face value, then the 16-35 VR would just be a 16-35 and there would be no 105 VR. there's a reason you see in-body stabilization becoming a de rigeur feature on Olympus and Panasonic cameras, even though Panasonic already has many OIS lenses.

How exciting are those really?

</blockquote>

actually, pretty exciting from what i hear. people love the Oly 12/2, 45/1.8 and 75/1.8, and the Panny 25/1.4 and 20/1.7. Panasonic just announced a $1500 42.5/1.2 prime, so someone is excited. moving over to X-mount, the 35/1.4's resolution figures are evoking Leica Summicron comparisons, and the 23 and 14 primes are almost as good.

With regards to mirrorless full frame, I recommend trying the following experiment

</blockquote>

that's also silly. of course you wont get much in focus at 1.8. but in this regard, FF mirrorless is no different from FX, so i dont see what the point of your experiment is at all, except to prove a straw-man argument. the appeal of FF mirrorless is in the high resolution + compact size. The bodies are smaller, the lenses are smaller, the resolution is the same as a d610 or d800e. That should be obvious, although as noted earlier, CDAF+PDAF can give you a wider array of focus points, which mirrored cameras can't.

As for the D3300 vs Fuji situation

</blockquote>

one key difference is that the kit lens for the xpro1/x-e1/2, the 18-55 2.8-4, is optically superior to the 18-55 by far. sure a 3300 has more resolution, but the kit lens can't handle all that, so if you want to take advantage, you have to buy a better, and likely bigger, lens. not so in the fuji's case. also, the d3300 is much more comparable to an x-e1/2 than an xpro1, if not an x-a1 (entry-level x-mount), both of which are smaller, more compact bodies than the xpro1.

Honestly, the D600/D610 is a lot less crippled than I was expecting, but people still complain that a D7100 is, in many ways, a better camera.

</blockquote>

the d610 isnt bad, but the fact that the d7100 has the better AF is just a head-scratcher. makes no sense.

I think much of the objection to the Df is that there are other cameras which many would have preferred Nikon to focus on

</blockquote>

the Df was reportedly product-tested/developed over 4 years. there's no reason for it to have as many issues as it does.

there may be some magic in there which we'll see in testing

</blockquote>

doubtful.

I take it as a good thing that Nikon is thinking inside the box for once

</blockquote>

um... if they were thinking inside the box, they would have addressed the d300/d700 replacements, given DX users more fast primes, updated the 16-85VR to an f/4, and given FX users that 24/1.8 G or 18/1.8. the 35/1.8 sort of addresses the sigma 35, because it's less expensive, but here we have nikon apparently ceding the IQ battle to a 3rd-party competitor (quelle horreur!). i'd be surprised if the 35/1.8 G has better IQ than the 35/1.4 AF-S, which is optically inferior to the Sigma 35.

bebu_lamar · January 8, 2014

the Df was reportedly product-tested/developed over 4 years. there's no reason for it to have as many issues as it does.

</blockquote>

Is there any issue with the Df? Someone has a defective Df?

Mike D · January 8, 2014

Mike H - I'm not that familiar with the D5300 but it might be the Toyota Avalon which is considered a step up from the Camry.

02Pete · January 8, 2014

Eric Arnold comments, in one of the posts above, that: "Let's take the [new] 35/1.8, an unimpressive, boring lens in and of itself." While I respect his views, I am not sure I agree about this particular lens.

In general terms, while 35mm lenses of f/2 or f/1.8 maximum aperture have been made in various iterations for many years, that is because they are a basic staple of 35mm film and FX DSLR photography. They also provide a 50mm-equivalent prime lens for DX cameras.

The specifications for Nikon's new AF-S 35mm f/1.8G ED lens compare well with those of Nikon's other 35mm prime lenses. In addition to covering FX format, the new lens (per Nikon's web site) incorporates 11 elements in 8 groups, including one aspheric element and one extra-low dispersion (ED) element, and weighs 10.7 oz. For comparison, Nikon's 35mm DX lens has 8 elements in 6 groups, one aspheric element, and weighs 7 oz.; the older AF Nikkor 35mm f/2D lens has 6 elements in 5 groups, with no aspheric or ED elements, and weighs 7.2 oz.; and the current Nikkor AF-S 35mm f/1.4G has 10 elements in 7 groups, one aspheric element, and weighs 21.2 oz.

Interestingly, the new Nikkor AF-S 35mm f/1.8G ED has a more complex optical design than Nikon's other 35mm lenses, including the current Nikkor AF-S 35mm f/1.4G, with a greater number of elements and the use of ED glass. This suggests than Nikon's optical designers have paid careful attention to correcting aberrations in order to deliver better image quality than the older lenses.

In order to achieve an extra half-stop in maximum aperture, the slightly faster Sigma 35mm f/1.4 lens has to add complexity and considerable weight. The Sigma 35mm f/1.4 DG HSM lens has 13 elements in 11 groups, uses two aspheric elements and four FLD/SLD elements, and weighs 23.5 oz. -- almost a pound and a half.

In terms of convenience and handling, the new AF-S 35mm f/1.8G ED lens at 10.7 oz. is only about half the 21.2 oz. weight of Nikon's AF-S 35mm f/1.4G; and less than half the 23.5 oz. weight of the Sigma 35mm f/1.4 lens.

Nikon's list price for the new FX lens is $599.95. While about three times the $199.95 list price of the DX-format lens, this is only about one-third the $1,799.95 list price of the AF-S 35mm f/1.4G. It is also almost $300.00 less than the $899.00 "street" price that B&H Photo is advertising for the Sigma 35mm f/1.4 DG HSM lens.

Considered as an overall package, the new lens appears to offer full FX format coverage, a maximum aperture of f/1.8, a more complex optical design than Nikon's other current 35mm prime lenses, aspheric and ED elements, a weight about half of the Nikon AF-S 35mm f/1.4G and less than half of the Sigma 35mm f/1.4 DG HSM, and a competitive price one-third that of Nikon's AF-S 35mm f/1.4G and almost $300.00 lower than Sigma's 35mm f/1.4 DG HSM. It's the entire package, and the balance struck between the different characteristics of format, speed, optical design, weight and price, rather than any one individual aspect, which characterizes this new lens. Viewed in those terms, it looks to be desirable and highly competitive.

It will be very interesting to see what reviewers think of the performance of this lens in actual use. That, rather than formal specifications, is the real test of a lens. Thus far, however, the specifications look excellent.

.

eric_arnold · January 8, 2014

Eric Arnold comments, in one of the posts above, that: "Let's take the [new] 35/1.8, an unimpressive, boring lens in and of itself." While I respect his views, I am not sure I agree about this particular lens.

</blockquote>

sorry, but IMO, there's nothing terribly exciting about the new nikon 35mm, which looks to be competent and adequate but not a game changer like the sigma 35 (which was only $699 when i got one on sale, just a $100 differential). the main things it has going for it are size and price. it's a boring, unexciting announcement IMO. YMMV, of course, but it's not like this lens filled a gaping hole. it's almost certainly an attempt to undercut the sigma 35's sales by being lower in price. whether it shares the better-than-expected IQ of the 85/1.8 G--which at least was an expected update--remains to be seen, but as i stated before, nikon already has a "premium" 35, the 35/1.4 AF-S, which is overpriced compared to the sigma. i would probably expect more compromises in build than perhaps in IQ on the new 35, but the 1.8 G's arent built to the same specification as the 1.4s, so the difference is more than just a bit of aperture.

what would be more exciting would be if nikon had a compact mirrorless FX body for under $2000 and packaged it with the 35 as a kit for under $2500. what would also be exciting would be a 24mm/1.8 DX, sold in kits with the d7100. what would be exciting would be a Coolpix alphabet line with stabilization covering 28/35/50/75 focal length equivalents and 1.8 lenses.

again, YMMV, but i just cant get excited about any of these nikon announcements, which to me lack mojo.

Dieter Schaefer · January 8, 2014

I think it was high time for Nikon to "replace" the 35/2 with something more modern and the 35/1.8 is certainly not an unexpected update. The lens just has the "misfortune" to appear when there is a very attractive competitor in form of the Sigma 35/1.4 available. Yet I am certain that many will opt for the Nikkor, which is already significantly more expensive than the 35/2. I am actually looking forward to not only seeing tests for FX but also for the use of that lens on DX to find out if the lens could do double duty on DX and FX. Neither the Sigma nor the Nikkor 28/1.8 do that well wide open on DX (according to photozone).

A 24/1.8 would certainly be welcome - I wouldn't mind if it was FX as long as it would perform well on DX too. For the Sony NEX system, there's a Zeiss 24/1.8 - quite expensive at $1100 and with a optical quality that doesn't quite match that price tag. Eventually, I guess, Nikon will get around updating the remaining "old" AF-D primes 20/2.8 and 24/2.8. I no longer care whether or not Nikon produces another DX prime; between the Sigma 18-35/1.8 and the Tokina 11-16/2.8 that "problem" is solved.

RaymondC · January 9, 2014

Funny feeling for myself. But for general - a newer consumer body makes sense somewhat it is driven by avg Joe and Jane. The 35mm is just going that bit more than just F2 and it's improving the AF-S G lenses at their wides. As mentioned it is sig more than the current AFD 35/2 in price. But that's the whole thing with lenses over the years and with smartphones and all that stuff. But .. I am a anti compulsive consumer. My laptop is 8yrs old and my PC (for photography is 5yrs old). It's not like I need it to post process many pix. I just show maybe 12 images, print a few. With the group New Year event camp, I just edited quickly 165 in 30mins and hit export in LR. Facebook it. Outta there and forgotten.

Given my lenses are all old school but I shoot mainly scapes so I only shoot wide open are for friends/family websize Christmas/New Yr functions, birthdays etc ... no prints needed. Would I sell my lenses and upgrade them ALL to G versions - doubt it. And you can bet again this all will repeat itself after 8yrs or 12yrs.

I was at a New Yrs with a group at a summer camp here in the southern hemisphere. I had with me Velvia and a tripod and it was so good but when I was doing indoor group shots totally different even when I had a digital camera.

As a participant who just capture some websize images in difficult lighting. Haha, not easy task. I'm not gonna muck with primes. Not doing that for 3 or 4 days breakfast time to bed time. Carrying camera bag for 12+ hours 1 or 2 bodies, 2 or 3 lenses. I might upgrade to the 24-70mm even that gets superceded already some yrs old now. I have a clunky 35-70mm F2.8, clunky push/pull, AF system with a gotcha and it's not that wide for family scale "events / candids". I only have a old 18-35mm but I dunno about that. Those apertures would really test me in tricky lighting. I don't do them often or much but if you were to do a grab shot at the New Yrs countdown do you ummmm ... shoot the sucker at ISO 6400 wide open at F3.5. Then it would be another expense to get a G version F2.8 WA. Maybe hide away as a hermit and don't go to these functions won't need the equip then :-/ Stick with my FM2N ;-)

With the primes I have a 85 1.8D this 35mm 1.8 might makes sense I guess, but the F2 AFD is so much cheaper really. As long as it is AF with pple shots. Too slow to manual focus that. Forget it man if I had to focus in low light at F2 or F1.4. If it was my own work thou with streets, b/w film and just use the old lenses, it's all the character ...

Andrew Garrard · January 9, 2014

I'd been ignoring the 35 f/1.8 on the basis that I already own the Sigma, but I can't really criticize Nikon for filling a hole in their line-up. They were obviously losing sales to the Sigma (and, at the cheap end, maybe Samyang) in the 35mm range, and their own f/1.4 is too expensive for many customers. It's true that the Sigma overshadows it somewhat, but at least they're not charging more for it just as a "Nikon tax", and having a full range of f/1.8 lenses can only be a good thing. I'm a lot more tempted by the 85 f/1.8 than by the f/1.4 version, and I have, by choice, a 50mm f/1.8 rather than the f/1.4 options.

I see the reduced AF points on the D600 as understandable - differentiation from the D800, and it's designed to be cheaper (I presume the AF system actually is). It is, effectively, a full-frame D7000. I'm not so surprised that the D7100 had the multicam 3500, if it's supposed to be the D300s upgrade path (yes, yes, I know) - it's a relatively high-end system with the "compromise" being the small(er) sensor. The D7100 had to be an upgrade from the D7000, especially with the D5100 inheriting the D7000's AF system. If anything, I'm surprised that the D600 has an integrated AF motor. I don't believe the "best DX camera" has to be compromised in all the ways that a "budget FX camera" is.

If Nikon are to push full frame to the low end, the big ways of making the camera cheaper and lighter are to remove the focus motor and, possibly, put a pentamirror in it - though that would get rid of much of the finder brightness advantage from an FX camera. The carbon shell of the D5300 and D3300 (if that's really what it is - I'm impressed by the cost, if so) also seems to help weight appreciably; I'd been hoping they'd look at this, although I was expecting it at the high end first. At some point - possibly not in the next couple of years - I'd not be surprised to see a D600 derivative (D620?) with a multicam 3500, possibly alongside a "D650" that has the Df/D4 sensor, and a motor-less "D500" or similar, even more cut down relative to the state-of-the-art than the D600 was. It may well still be lower specified than whatever "D7200" exists by that point, assuming that has a larger buffer, still has a motor, and can hit a reasonably high frame rate.

And Mike: Sorry, now I see what you meant by "what's a D5300" - I thought you'd just missed the announcement. Thom seems to think that this is the money-spinner and sweet point in the camera range. Okay, fun, I've just put down a Top Gear magazine, let's see what I'd do... (Please forgive my UK bias in car sales and models. I still haven't recovered from seeing how big a Toyota Yaris [sedan] was in the states compared with the supermini definition of a Yaris in the UK.)

D3300: Built to a budget. Sells in quantity. Pretty good for the money. Deliberately small and light. Perhaps a Fiat 500? The D3200 is a little less exclusive, and perhaps a Ford Fiesta or Vauxhall Corsa.

D5300: Can do most things, unexcitingly. Good feature set in an affordable frame. VW Golf GTi springs to mind.

D7100: Fast and smallish, does most things pretty well. Premium over the "consumer" models, but not seen as pure high-end. Somewhere between a Porsche Boxter and an Audi R8.

D610: Bigger and slower than the D7100, but has some advantages. Can keep a D5300 honest, however. I'm thinking BMW M5.

D800: Specialist. Awkward to use. What it does, it does very well, but many people who want one would be better with a D610. Not necessarily fast, but amazing results in the right conditions. I'm torn between a Range Rover and a Maybach, though it's possible that the more exclusive sports cars (Nissan GT-R, McLaren MP-12C, Ferrari 458) would be a better comparison with the D4. Maybe the -e is the Spyder versions, for landscapes.

D4: Big, very fast, very heavy, very expensive. Bugatti Veyron, obviously. The D4s is the "supersport" edition.

D300s: Very fast and a bargain in its day, a bit lacking in some ways by modern standards, no new one in a while. TVR spring to mind - pick your model, pretty much anything could apply.

And the Df? A Morgan, perhaps?

Oh, and the 1-series is probably made by Ariel (or Caterham). Selectively very fast, but seriously compromised in key ways.

I presume the compact cameras count as motorbikes...

shutterbud · January 9, 2014

I read this Nikon anouncement and it could quite honestly be practically any Nikon anouncement since the launch of the D7000, which was a good, but still incremental step forward in one direction and a step back in the other. Another midrange zoom? Come on! they could at least have made it the XX-XX/XX-XX II and phased out one of their other 60 mid-range zooms. After spending some time on the u4/3 and Sony fora, in which something is actually happening, I feel that both Nikon and Canon have been simply unable to attract the talent they need to maintain themselves and are likely to go the way of Blackberry in a slow, steady decline.

In F1, you look to whoever has Adrian Newey on their staff. I think the photographic equivalents are sadly lacking at Nikon.

Andrew Garrard · January 9, 2014

Stephen: I'm not sure there's actually a step back, though I agree that the announcement isn't all that exciting. (Frankly, the Df was enough "excitement" for a while...) There have been plenty of "steps back" in the past - the lack of a "true successor" to the D300s and D700 spring to mind - but I'm not sure that the D3300 is worse in any way than its predecessor, and we have to assume that neither is the 35mm lens (and we know nothing about the D4s). There are plenty of opportunities to grumble at Nikon for giving with one hand and taking away with the other; on a rare occasion when this isn't one of them, let's not be unduly critical that some of the improvement is small. (And actually, some features like the improved battery, bigger finder view, reduced weight, support for 1080p60 and 5fps aren't all that minor.)

Nikon have just done one "try to be exciting" release; they're allowed to play safe with this one. I agree that if they were really inclined to play safe then there are a lot more products that customers would be asking for, but presumably someone has done a lot of market research and is prepared to stand by their decisions in the face of the considerable public call to release different products. I'd be a bit happier if they showed their working, as it were, but I'd like to think the decision isn't entirely based on bloody-mindedness, even if I believe size of corporation is no guarantee of making informed and rational decisions.

It would be nice to see Nikon produce either a product that we're all asking for (and I suspect we'll see a 300 f/4 VR before we see a D400) or something that we get excited about (and boggling at it, like the Df, doesn't count - though at least we didn't all dismiss it like we did with the 1-series) next, though. Meanwhile, have a heart for the poor product managers who get criticised no matter what they release.

cc_chang1 · January 9, 2014

If Nikon are to push full frame to the low end, the big ways of making the camera cheaper and lighter are to remove the focus motor and, possibly, put a pentamirror in it

</blockquote>

Andrew, I could not agree more. The D40, I remember was a game changer for the DX format b/c of this. Why do they assume that people who buy the D610 still own a lot of old lenses? If these people follow the D3xxx, 5xxx, 7xxx update pathway, wouldn't they have gotten rid of their old lenses already? With the SONY A7, the slight weight loss in the Df is just so insignificant before we even look at the price. At one point, making cameras compatible with all the lenses ever made is both impractical and unnecessary, provided that the goal is to make them simple and easy to use at a much more reasonable price point.

In reading these posts, I saw quite a few people complaining about Nikon due to their experience with the mirror less system, whether it is the m4/3, NEX, or Fuji, which is a new phenomenon. This suggests that many long time Nikon users, me included, could not find what they want from Nikon and have to go elsewhere. I still keep a basic Nikon kit but many have sold all of them. While the whole mirror less sale in the US is still small, mostly due to the ineffective marketing of Panasonic and Olympus, IMO, they now clearly represent an alternative for a much lighter, smaller, and user friendly system that in many ways are more modern, useful for most of the users.

While the update to D3200 is as expected, at this point in time, is this sufficient? Most of the people who buy entry level dSLRs are new moms and dads, and they need both still and videos. Has Nikon addressed the sluggish AF performance in live view? Still no touch screen and touch AF? The Df is the big splash that Nikon does make, and I for one think that it is terrible from the design and marketing point of view, after 4 years of work. I am not sure what Nikon is doing now. What is their vision for the future? "Pure" photography?

eric_arnold · January 9, 2014

I see the reduced AF points on the D600 as understandable - differentiation from the D800, and it's designed to be cheaper (I presume the AF system actually is).

</blockquote>

the problem is that you have a $1200 camera which in some ways is higher-specc'ed than a $2000 camera. essentially nikon is giving you a choice of 24mp FF with a lesser AF module or 36mp with the better module in the 800. what's problematic is not everyone needs or wants 36mp FX. if they're trying to push d700 owners toward a d4 just to get the same AF they had previously, that seems cruel, callous, and probably not working out so well. it would make so much more sense if a 24mp model with the 3500 AF module was available, but since there isn't, it's confusing. even putting that module in the Df would have made a difference, though the D4 sensor without the retro dials with a 3500 AF module (and no video) would likely be even more welcomed.

no motor in an FX body? egad. that pretty much goes against nikon's selling point for FX, that you can use all the older lenses with full functionality. have to say i think that would be a disaster.

ilkka_nissila · January 9, 2014

Actually some of the most important reasons why many people want full frame is so that they can use their older lenses as they were intended to be used. I have eight F mount manual focus lenses and three that are AF D but not AF-S, and I'm not even much of a manual focus enthusiast. I have some friends who have many non-AF-S F mount lenses. Another reason to want full frame is the nice viewfinder; ruining it with a pentamirror design would defeat the whole point of a full frame DSLR. I don't think either backwards compatibility or viewfinder can be sacrificed; if doing that it would make much more sense to do it by going for a new mount and mirrorless paradigm (when the technology is ready). But I think it's better to keep the F mount and its plethora of lenses as well as the optical viewfinder. Even if it is more expensive, which isn't really shown to be the case, as the few EVFs that get positive comments are in expensive camera models. Many EVFs are quite bad which is probably the reason why many simply buy cameras without any kind of viewfinder and use it at arm's length, although this is bad for telephoto use and stability, but nevertheless it is the chosen technique by the majority of the world's camera weilding public. In any case it is not really ethical to put to rest perfectly good lenses that have a lot of life in them just because a manufacturer could obsolete them by making them incompatible with new cameras. It would be a waste. If you want incompatibility with your existing lenses, buy a system by another manufacturer, that'll certainly do it.

Has Nikon addressed the sluggish AF performance in live view?

It is not something that can be easily addressed. Traditional DSLR AF lenses move focus fast from one position to another, as this is what is required with PDAF that gives information about how far out of focus the lens is and to which direction and by how much it must be moved to be in focus. These lenses have slow start and stop times but move very fast when going some distance. CDAF can be implemented by either doing an exhaustive search of all possible focus positions and calculating the optimum contrast in the image for each position. With these AF-S lenses, there number of positions to go through is virtually infinite, which is why it takes a long time to do CDAF. What manufacturers that rely on CDAF have done is implement focusing using stepper motors, where the focus is absolutely reproducible and there are a finite number of focus positions. Then the camera can do a gradient search by first evaluating the contrast function for the current focus, then moving it by a tiny little distance into some direction very quickly and re-evaluating the contrast function. Based on the change it gets a gradient (PDAF gets this information without moving the lens), it can do optimization in a better way than the slow method of going though all focus positions. If the camera attempts to do this kind of optimization with a regular DSLR lens, the long stopping and starting times mean it is a jittery, slow process compared to the stepper motor approach which is reasonably fast. The problem with stepper motors is that it is only fast if there are really finite number of focus positions. This is why mirrorless cameras don't have a lot of autofocus lenses with really thin depth of field, it would take too long to focus. It's also why Canon has implemented a couple of DSLR lenses with stepper motors, to facilitate live view and video autofocus. If users want fast CDAF with DSLRs, it means new lenses must be made. This is why when dpreview.com reviewed the OM-D EM-1, which has PDAF on the main sensor, they found the AF was hunting more with adapter to classical Four Thirds Olympus DSLR lenses than with native (stepper motor equipped) lenses for Micro Four Thirds. It's also a good reason why the idea of using an adapter to bridge from Nikon dSLR lenses to mirrorless may not work well. I tried the 85/1.4 AF-S with J1 and FT-1 adapter and I couldn't really get anything useful out of it at a wide aperture, even though that camera too has on main sensor PDAF and all the equipment was Nikon. It's likely that mirrorless cameras will always have their own dedicated lenses and DSLR lenses remain the domain of DSLRs for the most part, unless you want to focus manually or accept poorly functioning AF.

Since the A7r is such a lightweight camera, people report vibration issues for which reason people have put weights under the camera to get sharp pics:

http://thecameraforum.com/a7r-shutter-vibration-problem-explained/

Lightweight and high resolution are a tough match; my experience is that it's easier to get high resolution if you have some weight in the camera and lens. Another approach is shown here:

http://diglloyd.com/blog/2013/20131221_3-SonyA7R-Zeiss55f1_4-support.html

Robert Cicalo's comments on the A7r:

http://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2013/12/a-bit-of-a7r-sanity

It seems like an early prototype which got launched to eager testers who will pay the development costs to make it actually work.

I shoot moving (even directly approaching) subjects at f/1.4 and f/2 all the time, the majority of my people photography is shot in this style. It works very well on the D800 with some lenses such as 58/1.4, 85/1.4 and 200/2, even at night after some practice. I like the main subject to be pin sharp and the environment blurry.

58/1.4 at f/1.4

58/1.4 at f/1.4

200/2 at 2:

105 DC at f/2:

85/1.4G at f/1.4:

so to suggest it'll never work is just not true; in recent years a very high percentage of my shots are action wide open or one stop down.

A short focal length with VR can yield the opposite effect where the main subject is blurry in a sharp environment. This can be very successful if the photographer is brilliant:

http://www.nhm.ac.uk/visit-us/wpy/gallery/2013/images/animal-portraits/4729/essence-of-elephants.html

but I can't get results like that; all my trials with slow shutter speeds and moving subjects have failed to result in true keepers. Richard d'Ianson wrote that one must practice photographing movement at slow speeds at every available opportunity because it takes such a long time to learn it well enough to get anything useable - I can underline that! I take the easy road and have my main subjects frozen by a fast shutter speed (normally 1/200s or faster for sitting or standing people; 1/500s or 1/1000s if the subjects are active) and surround usually blurred by a wide aperture, but not always. By contast if the photographer combines a wide aperture (blurring the surround) with a slow shutter speed (i.e. 1/15s, 1/30s, resulting in blurred movement of the main subject) and in-camera stabilization, everything is likely to be blurred (certainly by 36MP standards) if the main subject is a living being, unless they're lying on a sofa.

Dieter, Nikon has patents on 18/1.8 and 20/1.8 so one of those may fit the bill if realized into products. They are probably FX lenses though.

mike_halliwell · January 9, 2014

no motor in an FX body? egad. that pretty much goes against nikon's selling point for FX

</blockquote>

What is the selling point of FX?

Sure, the Df and the D800 might need full lens legacy support, but I'm not so sure about the D600/D610 or D4.

It will get to the point very soon where the lenses from not-so-long ago will not be worth using on a high-res body.

ShunCheung · January 9, 2014

I am merely one data sample, but in my case, I bought my first Nikon SLR in 1977, the year they introduced AI. I still own exactly one AI lens and one AI-S lens.

I still have about 5 AF/AF-D lenses; most of them I rarely use any more, such as the 24mm/f2.8 AF-D and 10.5mm/f2.8 DX (the only DX lens that is not AF-S). I occasionally use the 105mm and 200mm AF macros, but it would be perfectly ok if I need to manually focus them. The other 20 lenses or so lenses I have are all AF-S or PC-E.

In other words, I can certainly see Nikon introducing an FX version of the D3300 or D5300 with only AF-S compatibility @ $1500 new and gradually moving lower. The fact that Nikon is adding a bunch of affordable f1.8 lenses and f3.5-4.5 zooms is exactly paving the way to affordable FX DSLRs.

For those who need to use AI/AI-S lenses, there will be the higher-end D800 and Df that cost them more money. It would be silly that every FX model must be fully compatible with those legacy lenses. Let those who need those features pay more for them.

Andrew Garrard · January 9, 2014

Eric: You have the nub of why I wasn't expecting Nikon to produce a cheap FX camera: if you're trying to budget cut the features on an FX body, at some point the features other than the sensor end up being lower-end than the top of the DX line.

I was surprised both that the D600 appeared and that the D7100 inherited the MultiCAM 3500. I was expecting a sports DX body "D400", but I was expecting it to cost more than a D600, which would have resolved this confusion; I also wasn't expecting the D5200 to get the D7000's AF system.

Of course, the D600 had to compete with the 6D - what Canon does, Nikon does also (suspiciously effectively). Canon really did cripple the 6D: compared with the D600 it has no flash, it's slower, it has lower resolution, it has worse dynamic range, it has fewer AF points (same as the D3000, though admittedly with some low light magic) and it has only one card slot. It does have a D4/Df-matching high ISO response (essentially the same as them from ISO 3200, and overtaking the D610 at ISO 1600) especially combined with Canon's trick JPEG processing, so it's a good camera for shooting stationary stuff in the dark (by slightly less than half a stop over the D610...), and it has the equivalent of a built-in Eye-Fi, but otherwise it looks really poor in comparison. If the ISO thing bothered Nikon, making a D610 variant with a Df sensor would have solved it. Anyway, if you're worried about the D610 being crippled, be thankful we're not Canon - look at the 6D vs the 2009-vintage 7D.

Nikon are trying to differentiate their cameras. It would be easier if each more expensive model was definitively better than each cheaper one in every way - something Canon seems better at than Nikon, in part because the 5D3 is more of a generalist than the D800 is. We end up asking for Nikon to give us the "other specialty", so a great landscape camera like the D800 leads to calls for a sports camera. To be fair, Nikon already had a perfectly good sports camera in the D700, and if it weren't for battery legislation they'd probably still sell it to you, maybe even with the D3s sensor. Of course, the D700 meant that Nikon had to come up with the D3x to keep landscape shooters happy (or, as the case may be, make them buy Canon) and the 5D2 meant that Canon had to try to sell the 1D3/1D4 to anyone wanting action (or hope the 7D would do).

Nikon almost definitely wants D700 owners wanting an upgrade to get a D800. The only thing the D800 can't do - excluding handling differences and some oddities like trap focus - is hit 8fps with a grip. It can't do 5fps full frame, but it can do so in 24MP 1.2x crop mode, so arguing that it's slower than a D700 is a bit dubious. It also writes to cards faster and has less mirror black out. The 8fps with a grip was the thing that was stealing D3 sales; if you were in the market for a budget equivalent of the high-end sports body, then Nikon would like you to buy the D4(s). Or a 1-series, so you can get 60fps. I really think that Nikon missed a trick by not putting some form of sRAW into the D800, but 36MP isn't as scary as many seem to think - a lot of computers are 3x faster now than they were in 2008 when the D700 was launched.

So no, there's no perfect D700 replacement - the D800 is, if anything, a 5D2 replacement. Assuming the D700's ability to keep a D3 honest was an anomaly, the D800 is, nonetheless, a pretty good approximation to a D700 replacement. I got mine to complement my D700, and my D700 is now barely used. Even if Nikon make a "D750" (D4 sensor in a D800), I doubt they'll let it do the 8fps-with-a-grip trick, because journalists are really on a budget these days: there are a surprising number of 5D3s being used for newspaper images, and I wonder if Canon weren't forced into a D700/D3-like situation with the 5D3/1Dx (making it pretty fast and giving it pro-grade autofocus) by the 1Dx being late and by the appearance of the D800, and I'm sure 1Dx sales were lost by it. And a 6fps D4 sensor in a D800 body is only a tiny improvement over the D800, if you're after a D700 replacement.

A D4 sensor in a D610 body might surprise me less (especially since they've done it, if you pull the wheels off a Df). I'm sure the MultiCAM 3500 will end up in the D6x0 range at some point, but if it's soon, there'll be a load of people complaining that their D610s are devalued, just as D600 owners grumbled about the D610 release. If Nikon decide to compete more directly with the 6D, putting the Df's sensor in a D610 would do so nicely. They're under no pressure to update the AF, though. (On the D4 and, maybe, D800, yes; on the D610, no. If they felt pressured, I'm sure the MultiCAM 3500 would have been included in the D600/D610 switch. Customers would even have liked that...)

Everybody wants different features. It's all very well to say "I only want this feature, you can throw away the rest and make the camera cheap", but nobody agrees on what. Better AF is one such thing, but a lot of users won't care and won't want to pay for it. Screw focus is another: there are plenty of solutions if you do want to use a pre-AF-S lens, but I'm sure many modern shooters won't care, and Nikon would rather take your money (after you bought a cheap camera) for their current lenses than let you buy used. Personally, I was expecting someone to say that a pentamirror wasn't an option either. You could also leave off the flash, although I consider that to be a Canon fad. Nikon gave up on their "all lenses since 1960 work" ethos around the D40. If they're pushing full frame now, I'm sure it has more to do with differentiation from compact cameras and mirrorless (except Sony, but why make a mirrorless camera unless it's going to be small?) than compatibility with lenses that may or may not keep up with the sensor.

So. If Nikon really wanted to give up on DX and make the cheapest possible FX camera, I'd predict a pentamirror, one card slot, a cheap AF module and no motor. Maybe even only one dial, D5x00-style. It could easily be the lightest full-frame DSLR out there, as well as the cheapest. Bonus marks for spending some money making the pentamirror collapse flat and the lens mount collapse towards the sensor (with mirror lock up) so it folds up nearly as small as a mirrorless camera. It might even sell for less than the "D7200". Like the D600, people will complain that it's crippled. Like the D600, people will buy it anyway, and be very glad that Nikon have just fleshed out a line of semi-affordable f/1.8 primes.

Differentiation is better than the alternative. If Nikon actually made a D3300, D5300, D7100, D7100-with-folding-LCD, D7100-with-a-bigger-buffer, D610, "D550" D610-with-a-Df-sensor, "D650" D610-with-a-MultiCAM-3500, "D750" D800-with-a-Df-sensor, Df, "Dfx" Df-with-a-D800-sensor, D4 and D4x... who exactly is going to understand which camera to buy? Who would actually stock all those SKUs? It's hard enough to manage all the bundles that Nikon sells, and I'm sure every retailer cringes when Nikon or Pentax announce how many pastel shades their latest camera will be sold in. (Tip to manufacturers: Just because it's easy to make doesn't make it easy to sell. You want to sell a thousand variations, talk to Dell about how to do it and watch your store frontage collapse.) Nikon had to pick something. Frankly, I think they're trying too hard to separate their lines, but at least they're not guilty of the alternative. I'm happier that Nikon made the D800e than that I have a D600 and spend my life wishing I could afford medium format digital (though I won't turn down an 80MP back if anyone offers); better that there be specialists than that every model be a generalist, so long as Nikon actually sells the different variants. And at least Nikon does sell a better sports camera than a D700 - you just have to save up for it (or, Ferrari-style, consider the budget model to be a used one - the D3s lives!) Vive la différence.

miguel_martinez4 · January 9, 2014

I'll chime in late. I now believe that Canikon have mismanaged APS-C since its introduction, mostly due to a strong emphasis on backwards compativility. At least Canon had the foresight to introduce the EF-S mount to extract more performance out of the lenses, and offered an early upgrade path to APS-H and 35mm.

Nikon, on the other hand, was DX only from 1999 until 2007. All the love the DX format has received in terms of lenses is represented by the 10.5mm fisheye, the 12-24 f/4 (plus the 10-24 later on), the 35mm f1.8 and the 17-55/2.8. Well, we also have two macro lenses nobody understands, nine 18-xx and three 55-xxx. I get the teles, but I can't fathom why we'd need such a large amount of 18-xx. Even the lauded 16-85 is a slow 3.5-5.6. One would imagine that, in that period of time, maybe Nikon would have wanted to release more high end lenses.

Shun's argument that Nikon sees all the professionals at FX also neglects the fact that yes, maybe FX will see all the pro lenses from now on, but DX isn't getting even prosumer lenses. No f/4 zooms or f/2 wide angle primes. No takes on a 55-150/2.8. Just... well, 18-140 f/3.5-5.6 says it all. And if Nikon wants to shut 3rd party from selling superzooms, they may as well want to shut them from f/2.8 zooms (Tokina 11-16 anyone?). One could counter back saying those lenses may not sell well, but that's easily rebutted by looking at how many 40mm and 85mm macro have been sold. Besides, I'd be willing to bet more D3200 have been sold that the full number of Nikon FX cameras. No one argues Nikon should stop making these cameras.

And finally, maybe the reason Nikon doesn't produce a 10fps, 24 Mp D400 is avoiding cannibalizing not only D600, but D4 as well. High MP, high DR, low read noise sensor, similar FPS at $3500 less than a D4? With a x1.52 crop factor? Sounds very attractive as long as you're not into wide-angle or need less DoF.

BTW: It's true that FX performs better than DX. But ULV processors perform worse than normal laptop processors, let alone Desktop processors, and we still see *a ton* of Macbook Airs around. Maybe the DX compromise is good for many, as is MP3 or inline-4 engines in FWD cars.

Andrew Garrard · January 9, 2014

Edit: A few people got in while I was writing the above essay. I wonder how that could have happened? :-)

Ilkka: You prove my point about priorities. Nonetheless, there were plenty of film cameras with pentamirrors, and they were cheap and light. My Eos 500 (which also doesn't have a motor!) is 370g, lighter than a D3300. Come from a pentamirror DX DSLR and the FX camera's pentamirror will still be brighter and larger. Come from a D7100 and, not so much, but then we were trying to under-cut the D7100, remember? I'm certainly not suggesting that Nikon put a pentamirror in the next D800, but I don't believe it's unthinkable on a budget. Likewise the integrated motor. If you don't like it, pay more - but I suspect a lot of people would happily take the discount.

Like Shun, I still have AF-D lenses (and an AI-S lens, and some... weirder stuff). I mostly use the AF-S lenses, though. My life would only be slightly poorer if I had to. Oh, that reminds me: they could get rid of the aperture follower ring, too.

Anyway. I'm with Mike and Shun: if Nikon produced an FX camera without all the bells and whistles, I do think they could sell it, especially if the AF module didn't get too much of a downgrade. It would still spank a D5200 in the dark or for depth of field control, and if we want "better than the next cheaper model", that's all it has to do.

But I'll be a bit surprised if these are the changes Nikon build into the D4s!

Andrew Garrard · January 9, 2014

Miguel: I agree about the "D400" - or at least, I think it's a reason. If Nikon gets the D5 to 15fps and 24MP, then I think it's possible to argue than a 10fps, 24MP D400 might not hurt sales much. But since I'm not in the market for either, I may not know what's really an alternative here.

On the DX lenses: yes. Maybe Nikon feel they're only going to sell kit lenses that are bundled with the camera - hence the 18-xx options - because buyers on a budget will get their lens upgrades from third parties. They may just feel unable to compete with Sigma's DC lens line (certainly the 18-35!) or they may feel that, despite the large number of DX camera sales, there just aren't enough lens purchases to justify making them. They may feel that every FX lens is also a DX lens, so they are covering that market (except at the wide end), while also keeping FX customers happy. And they could be wrong about any of those - there are certainly plenty of people who want DX-grade, wide-ish lenses, and Nikon's current range only satisfies at a heavy premium.

That said, Nikon have had a habit - especially in the early 2000s - of producing FX lenses that were optimized for DX (deliberately or not); I claim the 70-200 VR1 is the prime example, but there are other lenses that are very iffy in the corners. Sigma did the same with the 50mm f/1.4.

Incidentally, while I think I've seen it in the past, how many 40mm and 85mm macro lenses were sold? The 40mm is awfully short, if cheap, for most macro shooting (like the 65mm full-frame lens), and all I've heard about the 85mm suggests that most would be better saving money and getting a 90mm Tamron instead. I'm not sure they're prime (hoho) examples of why Nikon should sell DX lenses.

miguel_martinez4 · January 9, 2014

I've personally never seen one of the DX macros outside a shop, Andrew. Incidentally, I'm now in a DX-FX shared environment, and I was interested in replacing the 35/1.8 DX for something that:

<ol>

<li>Would work properly in FX</li>

<li>Would have less CA's than the DX lenses (and thus accurately focus *also* under incandescent light)</li>

<li>Focus faster (the 35 is too slow for my toddler, whereas the 50/1.8G is fine)</li>

</ol>

The lens is, however, too expensive as announced. Or at least it will be once the price is anounced in GBP. From the MTF, I'd guess the lens will be less sharp than the DX version on a D7000, plus will suffer from strong curvature. Sadly, the corners of the Sigma are lackluster on a D7000, and the 28/1.8G (which would be a nice alternative) is also unsharp in the D7000 borders and suffers from a strong field curvature.

OT: What's on a D7k that makes the corners of the 28/1.8G, 35/1.4G and Sigma 35 A so bad? The OLPF? But it works great in telephotos? Also, given the similar sampling to the D800, has anyone seen mid-frame weakness in those lenses on a D800?

eric_arnold · January 9, 2014

so to suggest it'll never work is just not true; in recent years a very high percentage of my shots are action wide open or one stop down.

</blockquote>

ilkka, i appreciate you providing samples of your style in action, as it were. i also appreciate the fact you provided examples shot with so many different lenses. however, my point was just that shallow DoF on full-frame nikons will still be as shallow on mirrorless FF. which brings us to another point, that with crop sensor cameras, particularly m4/3, you get the light-gathering benefits of wide apertures with fast lenses but also the potential benefit of deeper Dof for more focus accuracy/keepers. of course that comes at the expense of hi-ISO performance and maybe dynamic range. so there's a trade-off with every format.

If Nikon really wanted to give up on DX and make the cheapest possible FX camera

</blockquote>

that would be suicide, since Dx is their highest-selling market segment. the problem as i see it is that there's no clear upgrade path due to the confusion with the product line. if nikon isnt making the camera/specs you want, now there's more competition, and not just from canon, which is already resulting in attrition from previously-loyal customers, who may have already moved to m4/3, fuji, or sony. that's essentially the same thing Thom Hogan has consistently pointed out, that the notion of brand loyalty in a wide-open consumer marketplace driven by tech innovation is pretty much a myth.

Even the lauded 16-85 is a slow 3.5-5.6

</blockquote>

upgrading that to an f/4 would have made a lot of people happy and would have been a sensible move on nikon's part. of course, fuji addressed this by making their kit lens, the 18-55, better than most other manufacturers, which saves a step in the purchasing chain.

DX isn't getting even prosumer lenses. No f/4 zooms or f/2 wide angle primes. No takes on a 55-150/2.8. Just... well, 18-140 f/3.5-5.6 says it all.

</blockquote>

meanwhile, over in Fuji and m4/3 land, there are now (or soon) f/2 w/a primes and 2.8 standard and telezooms. the one area where DSLRs still have the edge is AF, but nikon wont take advantage of this by distributing its best module where you'd sensibly expect it to be.

at least Nikon does sell a better sports camera than a D700 - you just have to save up for it (or, Ferrari-style, consider the budget model to be a used one - the D3s lives!

</blockquote>

okay, but if you currently own a D3s like i do, you will almost certainly find the d600/610 underwhelming and may not feel compelled to get a d4 or even d4s. OTOH, what i dislike most about the D3s--heavy weight--is only partially addressed with the Frankensteinian parts bin mashup that is the Df. if i'm going to spend $3k on a body, arent i entitled to the best AF nikon has, especially when previous bodies had that before?

because i couldnt get excited about nikon's current FF offerings, i went out and bought a sigma 35/1.4 to show the D3s some love. that was about the only way i could improve it, since i already have 24-70 and 70-200. i would consider a d610 just for the better resolution, but it's not a priority.

and, because i didnt see any true successor to the d300s, i jumped into mirrorless and now have something which is going to address my other issue: back/shoulder pain from lugging my FX body w/pro lenses. right when i did that, fuji announced a bunch of lenses which appeal to me much more than nikon's latest offerings.

i dont want to say i've reached the end of the line with nikon, but i only have so much money to spend on camera gear. if my current assortment of nikon bodies and lenses is working just fine, though aging, i need a compelling reason to upgrade. i could maybe use more resolution than 12mp, but i get that on APS-C with the fuji x-e1, in a more compact package. i'd be much more interested in the d600/610/Df if it had the same AF or better than my current nikon FX body. i dont think i'm alone in this situation, but it may take significant attrition of its customer base for nikon to wise up.

ShunCheung · January 9, 2014

You have the nub of why I wasn't expecting Nikon to produce a cheap FX camera: if you're trying to budget cut the features on an FX body, at some point the features other than the sensor end up being lower-end than the top of the DX line.

</blockquote>

There is actually nothing wrong with the lower end FX body having certain lower specs than the top DX body.

Just take the Df as an example, if the target users are those with lots of AI-S and even pre-AI lenses, what is the point to put the top AF module in it? The Multi-CAM 4800 is still a good AF module, just not as good as the 3500.

The problem with the Df is that it is not even an option to change to a screen with split-image focusing aid. That simply defeats the argument that it is a manual-focus-friendly camera. Yes, some people can manual focus with just ground glass, but a lot of people can't; I can't.

If the selling point for the Df is high ISO, you really should have either good manaul-focus aid or top-of-the-line AF, preferably both.

And finally, maybe the reason Nikon doesn't produce a 10fps, 24 Mp D400 is avoiding cannibalizing not only D600, but D4 as well. High MP, high DR, low read noise sensor, similar FPS at $3500 less than a D4? With a x1.52 crop factor? Sounds very attractive as long as you're not into wide-angle or need less DoF.

</blockquote>

A 10fps DX DSLR is exactly the $4000 DX camera I was talking about. If you want 10 fps, you need the construction quality of the D2, D3 and D4, not D300 and certainly not D7100. If you think that can be $3500 cheaper than the D4, you are merely dreaming. And I deliberately left out the 24MP part. Keep in mind that the $6700 Canon 1DX is only 18MP and the D4 is 16MP. If you want 24MP @ 10fps and the mechanical construction and AF to support such frame rate, it will cost a lot of money. If they could somehow speed up a D7100 to 10 fps, its mirror and shutter will fall apart pretty quickly with that kind of abuse.

I wouldn't expect Nikon to be able to sell very many such $4000 DX bodies to break even.

cc_chang1 · January 9, 2014

Some of you here may not know how small these so called mirror-less cameras are. If I remember correctly, if I add the weight of E-PL5 (A compact camera with a titled screen, the same sensor as EM1), 12-35/2.8, 20/1.7 and 45/1.8 together, it more or less equal the weight of a D800 body alone. With cameras and lenses so small, you only need a very small tripod for the P&S camera to support them to greatly improve sharpness. However there are people, not pro, who will carry a D800 class of camera with several lenses for traveling, considering this a lighter kit than the D3 or D4. What if all of them, and those who own a D7100, try one of these mirror-less cameras, … many will likely switch (or at least wish they could switch). Of course we live in a world that despite internet and all the technology, we still cannot fully examine all our options so many Nikon shooters will never know the alternatives. The lack of marketing from many of these companies certainly does not help. When I first looked at the weight of the G1, the first mirror less camera from Panasonic, I did not find it attractive since a D3xxx is not that much more in weight. However, I saw it together with its lens in person in a shop and that changed every thing. There are many ways to make good photographs and you don't always need a heavy, large, and expensive system.

ShunCheung · January 9, 2014

Some of you here may not know how small these so called mirror-less cameras are.

</blockquote>

I do. I reviewed the Nikon J1, the Olympus E-PL3: http://www.photo.net/equipment/olympus/pen/e-pl3/review/ and am currently writing up a short review of the Nikon AW1.

To me, those cameras are way too small and uncomfortable to hold. Lots of the controls are burred deep in the menu. If anything, I think the D7100 is always too small, and I use that on a regular basis.

But worse yet, as far as I know most of the companies that are making mirrorless cameras are losing money in their camera business. Remember this thread from a couple of weeks ago? <a href="/casual-conversations-forum/00cGuu">Article about mirrorless flop </a>

I have been burned once with my Contax 645 when Contax went out of the camera business. So I have no interest in buying into a system that might not be around in another couple of years, and that includes mirrorless from Nikon. I am sure mirrorless cameras will be around, but I am not knowledgeable enough to predict who will or will not be around in 3-5 years.

For example, a decade ago some people were excited by Olympus 4/3 DSLRs (not micro 4/3). That product line is now officially dead and your only option for upgrade is mirrorless micro 4/3 and use an adapter for your old lenses. If you prefer a DSLR or you don't like adapters, you are out of luck.

Sign In

Nikon Introduces D3300, 35mm/f1.8 AF-S FX Lens and the Development of D4S

Recommended Posts

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

Create an account

Sign in