Best Body and Lenses

[mark_gordon3]

<p>Returning to the site after some years of absence (both site and of a usable camera)<br /><br />I like to shoot fashion, portraits and landscapes - not for money - just to create beautiful images.<br /><br />Assuming cost isnt so much of an issue D700, D800 or D810. I had a D700 until about 2 years ago but had to sell it to keep solvent - It never got replaced. Now I am able to think about replacing it and get back to the hobby I love.<br /><br />Im put off by comments about Frame rate of the D800/D810 being slow - burst shooting is something I sometimes used to get one shot of fluid movement from a models movement. Is this going to be really an issue.<br /><br />I also had the MB-D10 with the D700 and like the balance of the two - Is this going to be the same with the D800/D810 combination. Also is the D800/D810 as ruggedly built as the D700?<br /><br />The body decided what bang for buck combination of lenses will meet my shooting requirements?<br /><br />At the moment I want <br /><br />Sigma 20mm F/1.8<br />Nikon 50mm F/1.4<br />Nikon 70-200 VRII<br /><br />Does this make sense for what I want to do? Other recommendations?</p>

[lornesunley]

<p>I have both a D700 and a D800. they both seem to be the same build quality.<br>

I would not think the burst rate would make much of a difference with the D810 compared to the D700 (at 5 fps) as the D810 does 5 fps (shooting NEF) I do notice the difference in burst rate on occasion with the D800 at 4 fps (shooting NEF), but then again, I do not have the grip with extra power for the D700 if that made a difference.</p>

 

[Andrew Garrard]

<p>Hi Mark. I upgraded from a D700 to a D800e, then (very) recently traded them both in for a D810, and I'm a hobbyist. I hope that means I can give input.<br />

<br />

Firstly, I kept the D700 when I got the D800e, expecting to make use of its frame rate and low light performance. I didn't. 4fps vs 5fps isn't an enormous deal, you can get a D800 up to 5fps anyway by putting it in 1.2x crop, and - resized to the whole image rather than looking at pixels - the D800 is about a stop better. The low-ISO dynamic range is in a different league, and - since the D700 has quite a strong low-pass filter - so was the per-pixel sharpness. My D700 was largely unused from then on, exacerbated by the +/- buttons being switched - that made swapping bodies a pain. I switched to the D810 partly for slightly more secure autofocus, partly because it's a little faster (5fps at 36MP vs 4fps), partly because the live view behaviour is better, and for a number of other minor reasons that added up.<br />

<br />

Now, while I did (actually, <i>do</i>) have a third-party cheap battery grip for the D700, I don't believe I ever connected it. When I want a high frame rate, I use my V1, which can go substantially faster. The low light performance isn't a substitute, of course. So I can't say I do bursts above 5fps at all often - probably the most is at the occasional sporting event, big animal movement or during dancing at a wedding. What may matter to you is the buffer capacity: roughly the same on the D700 and D800 (picking lossless compressed 14-bit raw, that's 23 images on the D700 and 20 on the D800 - though with a faster card); the D810 raises that to 35 images. I've occasionally run into the limit on a D800, usually over a few bursts, but I'm more confident of the D810.<br />

<br />

The D810 is obviously faster than the D800 - though not much. Full resolution with no grip, the D700 and D810 hit 5fps, and the D800 only gets to 4. Drop the D810 and D800 to 1.2x crop and they'll hit 6 and 5fps respectively, The grip only increases the performance on the D8x0 if you're in DX (1.5x) crop mode - which is 7fps on the D810 and 6fps on the D800. You still can't get to the 8fps of the D700 + grip, but remember the DX crop is still 16MP, and the noise behaviour is similar because of sensor improvements (although the depth of field is obviously changed). This is one reason why there are still complaints about the "lack of D700 successor". The D750 hits 6.5fps at a full-frame 24MP, but obviously handles differently.<br />

<br />

If you do a lot of live view shooting, I'd pick the D810. It doesn't line skip like the D800, and doesn't hang the camera until the image is written. With my D800, I didn't quite trust the autofocus with some lenses - fine tuning seemed hard to get consistent across a range of distances. I've heard people report the D810 is better (I've yet to experiment enough to say), but the motion tracking has certainly improved. This may or may not matter to you depending on how much your models move!<br />

<br />

The D700 was forgiving of choices of aperture, being quite a low-density sensor. The D800e and D810 are the reverse. You may well see more softness at f/11 than f/5.6, and lenses that look "good" on the D700 show issues on the 36MP bodies (but you get more real image detail too, of course). This makes the autofocus a bit more important.<br />

<br />

The D800 and D810 are a bit lighter than the D700, but I've not noticed any reduction in robustness. There are rumours of the D800 cracking when dropped onto a hard surface (as if the frame is a little brittle), but I'm not sure that's a rigorous analysis. Thom Hogan has discussed this. I don't know whether the D810 is thought to be better, yet. I didn't really notice any weight change, partly because I tend to leave an L bracket on my D8x0 bodies. I'm sure the difference between a D700 + grip and a D8x0 + grip is very fractional in balance terms.<br />

<br />

So. If you're sure you don't want the dynamic range or resolution, the D700 is still a perfectly good body, and half the price of a used D800 when I last looked. A D800 is a serious step up in everything but frame-rate-with-grip. The D810 is a pretty universal upgrade over the D800 (except a slight dynamic range loss over some of the ISOs), but you pay a lot more for it, so I'd check how much of the changes you might care about. I'd try a D750 in a store before ruling one out (but mind the 1/4000s shutter).<br />

<br />

On the lenses...<br />

<br />

The 70-200 f/2.8 VR II is a fine lens, and will do you well, although you'll see more softness wide open on a D8x0 than you probably would on a D700.<br />

<br />

Which Nikkor 50mm f/1.4? The 50mm f/1.4 AF-D is somewhat soft at larger apertures off-centre. The AF-S is better, though arguably Bokeh suffers as a consequence. The AF-D is probably fine if you keep your subjects fairly central (or stop down!) - if you're looking to aim higher (and an Otus is out) then I can recommend the new Sigma 50mm f/1.4 Art lens. The older 50mm Sigma is also good, but since the corners fall apart at wide apertures I think of it as a DX lens - the Art isn't. It's big (for a 50mm) and moderately expensive, though. It's the first 50mm f/1.4 I've deigned to own. The 50 f/1.8 AF-S is pretty good, too, and behaves better than the AF-D version at larger apertures. My conclusion was that the Nikkor f/1.4 50mm lenses behave badly enough that I wasn't prepared to pay for them; I got an f/1.8 because I'd put up with some naughtiness on a budget, and the Sigma is the first f/1.4 I found worth the money. YMMV. (I think the same about 85mm lenses!)<br />

<br />

The 20mm Sigma... ah. Keep your subject in the middle, and I'm sure you're fine. It's not bad at f/5.6, but - having tried one in a shop - f/1.8 gives you an interesting definition of "corners". Unfortunately, the good alternatives aren't cheap - the 21mm Zeiss is epic (but manual focus, big and expensive); the 14-24 is great, but mind the field curvature, size and cost. There are zooms that are decent in that range. With all of them, you're stuck at f/2.8, though - or worse if you want affordability. The older Nikkor primes are much smaller and cheaper, though typically not as good as the latest zooms.<br />

<br />

My primary kit for range is a 14-24, a 70-200, a 50mm (historically f/1.8 - now the Sigma) and/or 35mm (the current Sigma 35 f/1.4 is very good), possibly an 85 f/1.8 AF-S. If I feel like carrying more, the 150mm Sigma macro often comes along. I obviously don't mind giving myself some exercise.<br />

<br />

If you don't need to blur the background (if you're shooting in controlled conditions or landscapes), do you need aperture? You could save quite a lot by going for the 70-200 f/4, which is very good. The 24-120 f/4 (not the variable-aperture one!) is pretty decent, although any 5x zoom is borderline when it comes to D8x0 image quality. Either would be nicer to carry on a landscape hike than the 70-200 f/2.8. It might be worth looking at the 16-35 and 70-200 f/4 combination for pretty good mid-budget performance (not that I own either), then a 50 (f/1.8 AF-S?) if you want to plug the gap. You'd get the unused lenses in a jacket pocket. Not up to the f/2.8 lenses for sports, but that doesn't sound like your thing. I'm sure there are many other valid suggestions.<br />

<br />

I hope that's some help. Good luck. (Now to see how many people have replied while I was writing this essay...)</p>

[paul_k1664875007]

<p>The D700 is a great body, but (relatively) older technology.<br /> Of the three bodies you mention, the D810 is, based on the opinion as stated by many users on the internet, the best pick. For me though the improvements over its predecessor were not enough to justify the financial loss that would come with an upgrade, so I have held on to my D800.<br /> <br />I got the D800 shortly after the introduction as my back up D3 was kind of redundant since my main D3 would not break down, and I also wanted a body with more megapixels (although 36 is a bit much, would have preferred 24) since I also shoot fashion.<br /> Found the high ISO and the AF on par with the D3 (which in itself is faster then the D700), even if the AF of the D800 isn't as snappy as the D3. Never had any issues with the notorious (in particular on the internet) left sensor AF issue.</p>

<p>Used the D800 for a.o.<br /> sports (surf) http://www.pbase.com/paul_k/20130420_surffrenzy (with grip in DX mode)<br /> and runway shows http://www.pbase.com/paul_k/20120902_pc_catwalk_5th_anniversary (with a 2/200VR + TC14EII)<br /> and in my experience both fps and AF have no problems with fast moving subjects even when shooting under less the ideal light http://www.pbase.com/paul_k/201411122_5_hrs_fame<br /> <br />IQ and overkill in pixels make it IMO ideal for landscape, and the pixels can also be an extra when shooting fashion for reproduction of fabrics and details (never had any issues with possible moire or banding).<br /> On the other hand that same detailed reproduction may be a problem when shooting portraits, with a very sharp lens like the 70-200VRII (which I also have) the ultra sharp reproduction of pores and wrinkles may not be appreciated by the models.<br /> <br />The other lenses you consider aside from the 70-200 seem to fit the intended subjects you want to photograph, although I would consider to get a 85mm as well as as a short tele lens alternative e.g. when shooting fashion in the studio.</p>

[User_6502147]

<p>If your computer is not up to par, you might want to go for the D750....I hear lots of good stuff about it. The lens pick would have to do with what you shoot. You might consider adding 85/1.8 to your kit. I might be repeating...</p>

<p>Les</p>

[mark_gordon3]

<p>Andrew - great detailed response. The Otus is out. Just cant justify that. <br /><br />The 70-200 is for fashion.<br /><br />What about the Nikkor 105 with Defocus control? If I remember it correctly?</p>

[rick_m.]

<p>I am going to be excoriated for this but let me offer an odd idea. You said:</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>Im put off by comments about Frame rate of the D800/D810 being slow - burst shooting is something I sometimes used to get one shot of fluid movement from a models movement. Is this going to be really an issue.</p>

<p>and</p>

<p>I like to shoot fashion, portraits and landscapes - not for money - just to create beautiful images.</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>Why don't you consider a refurbished D3. It is lightning fast. The file sizes are easy to manage and in the hand it is a work of art. No it won't outperform the d800. Yes it is old technology. But you use it for fun and it is a joy to use.</p>

<p>Snag the old 28-70 AFS f/2.8, a 70-200 F/2.8 Vr1, and a 50mm F/1.4 and you can have a ton of fun. If you want to have a bazillion pixels get a D7100 as a backup camera and Bob's your Uncle.</p>

<p>Just being a contrarian. </p>

<blockquote>

<p> </p>

</blockquote>

[mark_gordon3]

<p>Rick - yes I was also thinking about the D3 or even the D3X - no need to buy extra grip for these either.</p>

[Rick Helmke]

<p>I have to agree with most of what Rick M said. Nikon top of the line pro cameras have always worked better for me than any level below that even though the others are excellent. My only disagreement is his choice of the 70-200/2.8 V1. I thought it was awful. I got much better images from on older 80-200/2.8 push/pull.</p>

<p>Rick H.</p>

[Andrew Garrard]

<p>Glad to help, Mark. I'm with the second Rick on the VR1 70-200 - the corners on FX at 200mm are a mess. If you never need them because you always centre your subjects (or just shoot DX!), fine. If you use them, get the VR2 - or the 80-200 AF-S (and risk the lack of repairs), or the AF-D (but, in my experience before I got the 70-200 VR2, not if you shoot close, because that lens is visibly softer at close range even on a D700, and the AF fine-tuning is very distance-dependent).<br />

<br />

A D3s is still moderately competitive - but still not cheap. A D3 is a perfectly decent body, but bear in mind you're about the same image quality at high ISO as a D3300, and at low ISO, much worse. The D3x (if you have the light for it) price dropped through the floor with the D800 being out, unsurprisingly, but it was so high to start with that I'd want to be really convinced I wanted the handling - you're paying quite a premium and giving up some stuff too. I'm not saying these aren't fun to use (hey, I have an F5), but they're not what I would call competitive for the stated subjects. And I consider even the D3x to be a last resort for landscapes - the 5D2 was a popular landscape camera because it combined resolution with being light enough to cart up a mountain, and that's the D800's strength too.<br />

<br />

On the defocus control lenses... the DC lenses were one reason I switched from Canon to Nikon (the other lens that tempted me was the 14-24). I got the 135 f/2 DC, which blurs the background even more (obviously) - and has the most <i>horrendous</i> axial chromatic aberration. The background is beautifully smooth, but the slightly-out-of-focus bits of the subject turn into traffic lights. And getting it to focus accurately was a pain. Others seem to have had somewhat less trouble (a couple of days fixing up the coloured edges on a friend's wedding first dance made me never want to again; others seem to do better) - but <a href="http://www.nikkor.com/story/0032/">as far as I can tell</a>, the colour fringes are part of the design to improve the bokeh, not just a problem with my lens - it's not like the Sony/Minolta STF lenses or the Fuji APD f/1.2. And the 105 might be a bit better behaved than the 135mm. My frustration was enough that I bought a 200 f/2 mostly so that I could lose backgrounds without having weird colour issues ever again, and I've been paying it off ever since. (The 150mm f/2.8 Sigma macro does the same job, but less so - though the 70-200 is pretty good too.) Because of the background magnification, you'll probably blur things as much with the 70-200 at the long end at f/2.8 as you would with the 105mm f/2.<br />

<br />

But. If you're doing candid portraiture and you have an ugly background to blur away, the defocus control lenses do it nicely. Just peer at the pixels in a shop first, and make sure you're happy. They're appreciably sharper by about f/5.6, too - but they're awfully big and heavy for f/5.6 lenses, and a smoothly-blurred background doesn't help that much when it's not that blurred in the first place. I found a 135 f/2.8 AI-S was a tiny fraction of the price and weight, and most of the performance, especially if I didn't trust the autofocus anyway. Of course, there's the Zeiss 135 f/2 if you're after a nice manual focus lens at that length!</p>

[Two23]

<p>>>At the moment I want <br /><br />Sigma 20mm F/1.8<br />Nikon 50mm F/1.4<br />>>Nikon 70-200 VRII</p>

<p>I see this as a poor selection of lenses for what you want. The Sigma 20mm in particular is a very weak performer. The Nikon 70-200mm is the only really great one. My suggestion is to not worry about cameras, as they are least important. You need to think this through a bit more. It's the LENSES that determine what & how you can shoot to a FAR greater degree than a camera. Forget the camera for now, concentrate on the lenses that will do what you want. Best value would be a Tamron 24-70mm f2.8, Nikon or Tamron 70-200mm f2.8, and for landscapes without a doubt the Nikon 24mm PC-E. I honestly don't see how you could shoot fashion with just a 20mm and a 50mm (especially a lens as weak as the Sigma 20mm.) </p>

<p>And really, a used D7100 with excellent lenses will do everything you would want for far less $$. I used a pair of them for weddings with 100% satisfactory results, and I was charging some serious money.</p>

<p>Kent in SD</p>

[lornesunley]

<p>"What about the Nikkor 105 with Defocus control? If I remember it correctly?"</p>

<p>Great lens - I love it on my D800 for portraits :-)</p>

[mark_gordon3]

<p>Kent my lens list was incomplete and I wont go back to DX. Ive had the Tamron 2.8 and it was excellent but wondering if the Nikkor equivalent would be better.</p>

[photo_galleries]

<p>I had an D700 and upgraded to the D800e. I haven't seen the need for me to upgrade a D810, but I were to get one today (even if the D800e were still available), I would get the D810.</p>

<p>Lenses: I used to be incredibly frustrated with the quality inconsistencies of Sigma lenses; that is, until the ART series came out. I have the 35/1.4. I may get the 50/1.4 and when it comes out, I will likely pick up the 24/1.4. I use a 20/1.8 AFS for ultra WA, and would recommend it if you like the near-far perspective in your landscapes (and sometimes blur out the background), but if you stop down for landscapes, the Nikon f2.8 zooms should do the trick.<br>

For a longer FL, nothing beats the Zeiss ZF.2 100mm f/2.0 makro planar. I had borrowed one from a friend, and I did not want to return it.<br>

</p>

<p> </p>

[Two23]

<p>I mostly shoot landscape type shots at night, portraits (for pay), and a few weddings. I bought a used D800E for $1,500, they might even cheaper now. Even at $1,500 it was a no-brainer. IMO people FAR too much money into cameras, and they just don't make that much difference. Since I always use a tripod, I went for the sharpest lenses I could get. I've ended up with Nikons 24mm PC-E, 85mm f1.8G, 70-200mm f2.8 VR, 80-400mm AFS, and Sigma 30mm f1.4 ART & 50mm ART. The Sigma ART lenses are absolutely outstanding, but if you aren't using a tripod you'll never get the maximum from them. If I were to head out the door to do landscapes and only brought ONE lens for that, it would be the 24mm PC-E. Before I bought a Nikon digital I was using 4x5, not 35mm. Few photographers seem to understand what lens movements can do for you. I still regularly shoot 4x5.</p>

<p>I will add that NOT ONE of my wedding or portrait customers can tell if I used my D800E and super sharp lenses or my D7100 with Nikon 17-55mm f2.8. NOT ONE can tell any difference.</p>

<p>Kent in SD</p>

[joseph_smith3]

<p>Hi Mark, I second what Kent has said about lenses over camera bodies. I was at a wedding last year and the wedding photographer was using three nikon bodies with the best Nikon glass made. He saw that I was using my D 800e. He said he has a D 800 but never used it for weddings (with his excellent lenses) because it was too much sensor for wedding shots. He said his favorite nikon body for weddings was the Nikon Df! It produced super images with prime lenses indoor and usually without flash and outdoor too. And it was small and light and easy to carry around his neck with a prime lens attached and ready for use. He had a DX body too but I have forgotten which one. One of my favorite lenses for portraits/fashion is the Nikon 85mm f 1.8G. <br>

Joe Smith</p>

[mark_gordon3]

<p>Joe, Kent<br /><br />I know what you are saying about lenses being more important than bodies. The point I had hoped I had made in my OP is that I am not a newbie - therefore I know this important point.<br /><br />That said I can tell the difference between DX and FX myself even if the few paying clients (weddings) I have had cant.<br /><br />Looking back at the fashion stuff I did before I see that most shots were shot bewteen 50 and 70mm and 150mm and 200mm on the Tamron 25-75 and Nikon 80-200.<br /><br />My OP was perhaps a double post - Which camera and which lens set? - given what I want to shoot. I like Kents last lens suggestion and frankly Im finding the lens list easier to square than the body choice.<br /><br />I think it comes down to - am I going to notice a quality difference between D700 and D8XX - everything else being the same? One point I forgot to mention is that I like to shoot live bands in small dark pubs.</p>

 

[ShunCheung]

<blockquote>

<p>I will add that NOT ONE of my wedding or portrait customers can tell if I used my D800E and super sharp lenses or my D7100 with Nikon 17-55mm f2.8. NOT ONE can tell any difference.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Kent, you have made that point over and over. No offense, but I think that merely reveals how much your customers know about the details in photography.</p>

<p>If you only post a small JPEG to the web or make small prints, perhaps it is indeed hard to tell the difference. However, under demanding conditions, advanced photographers, photo editors ... should be able to tell the difference between DX and FX. Each format has its advantages and that is why I use both.</p>

<p>BTW, personally, I wouldn't hire a wedding photographer who uses a Df to capture weddings. Having only one memory card for an important event is a no no in today's standards, and the Df only has a second-tier AF system. If one wants a small FX DSLR, the D750 is a far superior choice at a lower price.</p>

[craig_shearman1]

<p>As for the camera bodies, I doubt that it makes much if any difference which one you pick. I manage to make money shooting with a D200 and D7000 and before that F2 and FM film bodies. Any current DSLR is going to outperform (from a technical standpoint) cameras that were top of the line only a couple of years ago. Whether one has a couple of extra megapixels or can shoot 1 fps faster that the other is going to have a lot less impact on your pictures that what you do with it. As for fps, unless you're shooting sports and taking the spray-and-pray approach, that's pretty irrelevant.<br /><br />For for lenses, you are on the right track with the 70-200 but I would not bother with the others. Go to the Travel section and read the posts from myself and others on the 14-24/24-70/70-200 combo. I find that those three with cover 90 percent of what I shoot, and they're the more or less standard outfit (along with a couple of things kept in the car) for news photographers I work with who need to be prepared for anything, anywhere, anytime.</p>

[eric_arnold]

<p>re: lenses. for fashion and portraits, a fast 85mm lens plus a standard zoom would be ideal. the 70-200 is pretty great and both versions have stellar bokeh, but even a used copy of version I costs 3x the nikon 85/1.8 G. if you're not shooting events, you might be just as happy. for the standard zoom, the tamron 28-75 is just $500 new and only loses a little sharpness wide open from the much more expensive nikon 24-70. not sure i would even consider a 20mm for this kind of work, unless you plan on doing environmental portraits. i realy like the Sigma 35/1.4 ART, which is amazing, and i could probably get most of what you're trying to do done with a 35 and an 85. if i was going to go wider, i would get the Nikon 20/1.8 G over the Sigma, but maybe even wait for the new Sigma 24/1.4 which is a litle more people-friendly focal length. </p>

<p>also, if you're shooting live bands in dimly-lit bars, an 800 or 810 is overkill and a D3s, Df, d4, or D750 would be best, paired with fast primes. so, again, consider the Sigma 35 ART and the nikon 85/1.8 G. a minimalist kit to be sure, but perhaps all you really need. </p>

[eric_arnold]

<blockquote>

<p>The Sigma ART lenses are absolutely outstanding, but if you aren't using a tripod you'll never get the maximum from them. </p>

</blockquote>

<p>kind of a confusing statement. i mean, who buys 1.4 lenses to use them on a tripod? in practice, i use the Sigma 35 to shoot flamenco in lighting too dim for 2.8 zooms, as well as general concert photography. the sharpness at open apertures is the reason why i got that lens, and i rarely stop it down. i never use a tripod for it because shooting action is not a tripod situation. IMO if you're shooting landscape, you're probably stopping down and maybe using a tripod then, but i dont see how a tripod is required to use ANY lens. i could see how using a d800 or 810, a tripod would exact best performance, but only because the 36mp sensor is more susceptible to camera shake. not an issue so much with the 12mp sensor of my d3s, and i doubt that would be an issue with a d3, d4, d4s, df, or even d610 or d750. </p>

[mark_gordon3]

<p>Perhaps HDR in post?</p>

[Two23]

<p><< IMO if you're shooting landscape, you're probably stopping down and maybe using a tripod then, but i dont see how a tripod is required to use ANY lens>></p>

<p>No, I"m not always stopping down for landscapes. I often shoot at night and will shoot wide open. I often want the very shallow DoF in a landscape type shot. Really though, any lens is going to be at its absolute best when used on a tripod. That's what I'm after--the absolute best so I can make maximum enlargements. </p>

<p>Kent in SD</p>

[mark_gordon3]

<p>With confirmed NAS minimalist is not a relevant thing :)</p>

 

[Two23]

<p><<Kent, you have made that point over and over. No offense, but I think that merely reveals how much your customers know about the details in photography.>></p>

<p>No offense taken, and I agree with you actually. My wedding customers are almost all highly educated medical professionals --doctors, pharmacists, physical therapists, etc., so they do have some "general" sophistication. Few are really into photography though, which means they are like about 95% of the population. I bought the D800E to make large portraits, but haven't been using it nearly as much for that as I thought. Most seem to want the portraits done with my ancient lenses used on my 4x5. That's a niche I have an exclusive on! Anyway, I 100% agree that if you do weddings, or really any paid work involving people, a camera with dual cards is essential. You just never know what's going to happen. If your only card gets zapped the day after a wedding, you are in deep doo-doo! The whole deal with this kind of photography is back up gear for everything. You can't go back and reshoot if you screw up, and they won't hold everything if something breaks and you have to go to the store and buy a replacement. If you're getting paid, you are expected to deliver no matter what.</p>

<p>Kent in SD</p>