| Sign in: |
| Members log in here with your user name and password to access the your admin page and other special features. |
|
|
|
|
|| SportsShooter.com: Member Message Board
I am dissapointed in my Mark II
Gary Solomons, Photographer
 |
Collierville | TN | USA | Posted: 6:18 PM on 02.05.05 |
| ->> I have read all the posts concerning the soft images on the Mark II but then I see alot of images from them that are tack sharp and beautiful. Are these images processed beyond belief or are some of the camera's just good and some bad? I feel lucky when I get a keeper with mine. I was taking some head shots of my son today...nice sunny day and I bet half of them were soft beyond repair. The tree behind my son looked great though. I double checked the focus point with the EOS viewer and it is right on his eye like it should be. Is anyone still having these issues and has anyone been succesful in getting these issues fixed? |
|
Michael J. Treola, Photographer
 |
Neptune | NJ | USA | Posted: 6:42 PM on 02.05.05 |
->> Gary,
I am having a ton of problems with my camera. Not necessarily with outside photos but almost every strobed basketball game I shoot not a single image is tack sharp but rather they are all a bit "out". I have tried everything short of throwing the camera against the wall. Mine is going back for repair. When it comes back I will be giving that camera back to the office for another old 1D. I'm tired of busting my but for photos that don't reflect the amount of effort I'm giving them.
BTW I'm running the most recent firmware and that didn't help me at all.
Tree
http://www.michaeltreola.com |
|
Robert Meyer, Student/Intern
 |
Lincoln | NE | United States | Posted: 6:48 PM on 02.05.05 |
| ->> I lost my EOS viewer CD, can someone send me the app installer for Mac? |
|
Bob Croslin, Photographer
|
St. Petersburg | FL | USA | Posted: 7:07 PM on 02.05.05 |
->> Gary and Michael,
Have you tried fooling with the dreaded CF #21? I was having issues last night at a game and I dialed it to 1 and the problems went away. I've heard folks say they've had AF issues with on-camera strobe. |
|
Larry W. Smith, Photographer
 |
Valley Center | KS | USA | Posted: 7:21 PM on 02.05.05 |
->> Gary when I first switched from Nikon to Canon one of my Mark II's was doing the same thing you just mentioned I would check the AF point and it would be on a players chest but his back foot or the guy behind him was in focus I had many calls to Canon and many discussions of them wanting me to try things I finally just sent it in with a CD containing images I got it back and seems to be fixed. This problem did not happen all the time so it was very hard to convince anyone it was the camera and not me. I think it can be fixed as mine seems to work good now.
I do get the pause when hitting the shutter button still.
Larry |
|
Gary Solomons, Photographer
|
Collierville | TN | USA | Posted: 7:31 PM on 02.05.05 |
| ->> I can live with the pause....Yes I have that as well. I just went outside to try my 70-200. Had my mom and my son pose together......side by side......my son on the right was tack on while my mom on the left looked like soft motion blur. I like your idea of the CD Larry. I was just going to leave the card in the camera when I send it in to CPS. |
|
Larry W. Smith, Photographer
|
Valley Center | KS | USA | Posted: 8:17 PM on 02.05.05 |
->> Gary when you send a Cd with images make sure they are jpg and straight from the camera so they can read the data from them. Don't resave the images.
Good luck.
Larry |
|
Christer Höglund, Photographer
|
Karlstad | Sweden | Sweden | Posted: 8:30 PM on 02.05.05 |
->> Switch to manual focus and it is sharp!
Christer Höglund
Sweden |
|
Michael J. Treola, Photographer
|
Neptune | NJ | USA | Posted: 8:49 PM on 02.05.05 |
->> CF-21 set to 1 made no difference in my photos. There is something seriously wrong with my camera in my opinion. We'll see what Canon says.
Tree |
|
Tom Leininger, Photographer
|
Lafayette | IN | USA | Posted: 9:57 PM on 02.05.05 |
->> Could the autofocus point setting have something to do with it?
I have mine set to the center of the circle in the middle, just like my first eos 1 did, and I have not had any of these problems.
It may seem a little old fashioned, but this is how I work. 1 square right in the center of the viewfinder.
The camera does pause sometimes, but nothing too noticeable.
There is no way I would ever go back to my old camera--DCS 520.
Tom |
|
John Berry, Photographer
 |
Madison | VA | USA | Posted: 10:29 PM on 02.05.05 |
->> Interestingly enough, I've found that my MkII focuses somewhat better with the 45 pt AF rather than the center point. (My 1D is much better using just the center point.) And this is all under high school gym lighting, ISO 1600, 1/250, f2.0. Outdoors is a different story, there the MkII seems a bit better with the center point.
I have my MkII set so that the * button uses 45pt AF and the X button uses the registered point (when the X button is held down), which is the center one.
BUT...I have also found that this varies with lenses. Using my 300mm, f2.8, the center point is MUCH better with the MkII. Using my 100mm, f2 or 135mm, f2, the 45pt AF is MUCH better. With the 70-200, f2.8 (non IS), center point is generally better.
So, by having my thumb jump back and forth, I'm finally getting a higher percentage of in-focus keepers with the MkII than I was with the 1D.
I haven't found a way around that hesitation though...grrrrr!! |
|
Chris Doane, Photographer
 |
Saginaw | MI | USA | Posted: 10:38 PM on 02.05.05 |
| ->> Just wondering if everyone had these problems previous to installing the latest firmware update? |
|
Gary Solomons, Photographer
|
Collierville | TN | USA | Posted: 10:48 PM on 02.05.05 |
->> John......Dag man...when did you find time to figure all of that out?
Chris....Loaded like a charm for me. |
|
Thomas E. Witte, Photographer
 |
Cincinnati | OH | USA | Posted: 10:59 PM on 02.05.05 |
->> Gary... Just for giggles, try shooting with that lens at f/22. Shoot something about a foot away, then shoot something at the max focus and see if the stuff on the horizon is sharp or not.
I was getting a little peeved at my Mark II as well but it turned out that my 14mm was out of alignment. Under studio lights at f/16 my subjects were soft if they were more than 6 feet away.
Also, I think Chris was asking what firmware you are using. The latest 1.1.0 version is widely rumored to have caused a few focusing burps compared to 1.0.3. |
|
Gary Solomons, Photographer
|
Collierville | TN | USA | Posted: 11:11 PM on 02.05.05 |
| ->> Thomas..I will try that tomorow. Good idea. The lens that I was using today was my 24-70L that JUST came back from Canon. I was thinking the lens was the issue so I sent it off and it came back on Friday so I dont THINK the lens will be the issue. It happens on my 70-200 as well just not as often. I am using 1.1.0.....maybe it is also a good idea to go back to 1.0.3 |
|
John H. Reid III, Photographer
 |
University Heights | OH | USA | Posted: 11:15 PM on 02.05.05 |
->> I have heard from others the same as Thomas says, That the 1.1.0 firmware has wreaked havoc with their focusing.
See this previous thread;
http://www.sportsshooter.com/message_display.html?tid=14116
I have the 1.0.3 firmware, and have had no problems. Also, I had tremendous problems with my EOS 1D and 400 f/2.8, only to find out that it was the lens, not the camera. Lens worked fine with EOS 1 and 1N film cameras. Turns out the 1D focus was just too fast for my older (Series 1) lens. |
|
Jay Lee, Photographer
|
Nashville | TN | USA | Posted: 11:26 PM on 02.05.05 |
->> I've got my Mark II last week... And I shot the AFL Kats game at the arena here in Nashville yesterday... I've used it with a old 70-200/2.8 L lens (not IS) with the exposure of 500 2.8 at ISO 800 and I was also disappointed about the result...
1) Focusing is so slow - Al Servo tracking has been set to 4. Mo. Fast... When I had 1D, I had no problem... 2) When I shot the basketball game with lights, photos seem to be soft... 3) Even though I updated the firmware from version 1.0.1 to 1.1.0, still it doesn't help like Thomas said...
The funny thing is that when I use it with other lenses, a 400/2.8 L and a 17-35/2.8 L, it works fine... NO problem... Is that because of the 70-200?
Please let us know how you guys fixed these problems!!!!
Thanks, |
|
Gary Solomons, Photographer
|
Collierville | TN | USA | Posted: 11:39 PM on 02.05.05 |
| ->> I just reloaded the 1.0.3 and will try it tomorow and report back. Thanks again guys. |
|
David M. Russell, Photographer
 |
New York | NY | USA | Posted: 12:24 AM on 02.06.05 |
->> I hate to say it, but as a Nikon user it's reassuring to hear that the grass isn't always greener.
I know that when Nikons have similar focus and backfocusing issues, they've got to make very minute adjustments to the alignment (of the prism?) and the issue goes away.
I'd say if you're having consistent problems, sending it back may be the only real option.
-D |
|
Jeff Stanton, Photographer
 |
Tucson | AZ | USA | Posted: 12:36 AM on 02.06.05 |
| ->> And as a 1D user, I'm happy I didn't plunk down $4,500 for this kind of grief described here. |
|
Clark Brooks, Photo Editor, Photographer
 |
Urbana | IL | USA | Posted: 1:12 AM on 02.06.05 |
->> I've had some problems with my older 70-200 L. When I upgraded to the latest firmware the problem went away for the most part. Before the latest version I my camera was destined for an office wall like tree.
Now, what I am finding is if I shoot RAW my images as slightly soft like others describe. Even with an item on the same plane of focus part will be sharp and part will be soft. I thought I might have a bad sensor, but when I shoot in jpeg mode everything is sharp as it should be. I'm perplexed to say the least. Any one else notice the difference?
Yes, I know RAW files are soft, but after the conversion they are soft in spots and not in others. Again in Jpeg mode everything looks peachy. |
|
Ron Scheffler, Photographer
 |
Hamilton (Toronto area) | Ontario | Canada | Posted: 2:26 AM on 02.06.05 |
->> Not to absolve Canon of the Mark II issues, but I believe some of these focusing problems are not new to the Mark II or digital cameras specifcially. I can remember having similar problems with my Canon EOS film cameras.
Part of the problem seems to be that a given camera will seem to work well with certain lenses but not others, yet take another body, and suddenly it will work fine with those "bad" lenses. I have experienced this very thing... my Mark II works really well with my 600, but whenever I used that lens on my 1D, the camera would seem to produce too many soft images.
On the flip side, the last few months the Mark II and my 400 series II just couldn't seem to get it quite right - frustrating. Now it seems that my 70-200 IS is backfocusing slightly... and an 85 1.2 I recently borrowed was front focusing... at least now with the preview zoom on the Mark II, you can quickly figure out if there is a serious focusing issue while shooting.
A solution for some will probably be to send the camera(s) and lenses all together as a set to Canon for calibration with each other. Or if you have the luxury of owning several bodies, to pair them with certain lenses.
Clark: regarding the soft spots and raw files... I could almost swear I see the same thing in some of my images.... I also recall reading a while back that lenses are not often consistently sharp from one side to the other, resulting in softer spots.. or the plane of focus isn't consistently flat... but that wouldn't explain the problem if the soft spots are random or move around the frame. |
|
Omar Vega, Student/Intern, Photographer
 |
San Francisco | CA | USA | Posted: 2:58 AM on 02.06.05 |
->> Does anyone want to sell his or her Mark II?
I'll take those problems off your hands. It's helping a student in dire need for photo 2.
Adios,
Omar ;) |
|
Brian Light, Photographer
 |
Pennsville | NJ | USA | Posted: 7:30 AM on 02.06.05 |
->> I'm just disappointed that I don't have the coin handy to pick up one or two of these beasts. I'm surprised that so many are seeing issues with this one. In my opinion you should all send it in to CPS because this is just too good a camera to be having these kinds of problems that it should be an easy fix and return.
It seems that demand and increased sales has taken away from the inspection, testing and calibration of each body before leaving the factory and this one is now seeing some issues like the 10D saw due to it's popularity. |
|
Kevin P. Tucker, Photographer
|
Rockland | DE | USA | Posted: 9:50 AM on 02.06.05 |
->> To piggyback on Ron's comment about certain lenses working better on different bodies; The two Mark IIs that I use are marked as #1 and #2.
Body #1 works best with my 600, 70-200, & 24-70.
Body #2 works best with my 400, 300 & 16-35.
Should it be this way? No. I have already sent back camera #1 to can because the focusing system just quit. It would read the lense and register the f-stop but wouldn't focus. CPS turned it around pronto but was kind of vague in exactly what the problem was. Body #1 is running the 1.0.3 firmware. Body #2 is running the new 1.1.0 firmware. I know that body #1 is working MUCH better after it has been to CPS. The jury is still out on body #2. I might change it back to 1.0.3 if I am not happy with the new firmware. I won't know that until I start my field sports this spring...
The Mark II makes more good images than bad but I feel the way that Tree feels. You are busting your butt to make good images. You are very confident in your abilities as a photographer but, you feel like your equipment is letting you down.
This is the first time I have felt like this about my equipment in over 15 years... |
|
Gary Solomons, Photographer
|
Collierville | TN | USA | Posted: 10:40 AM on 02.06.05 |
| ->> Well I just shot 12 images with the old 1.0.3 firmwear and saw no fifferance but here is what I did figure out. I tested with 2 lenses. 24-70 and 70-200is. Both new lenses under 30 days old. When I shot vertical around 80% of the shots were soft. When I shot horitontal 90% were good. So I guess that tells me there is an alignment issue somewhere. Swapping the lenses made little differance. |
|
Jeff Stanton, Photographer
|
Tucson | AZ | USA | Posted: 12:52 PM on 02.06.05 |
| ->> Omar ... You seem to have some incredible financial resources for a young man of your age. First a trip overseas and not to Europe, but to the other side of the world. Now you are looking to buy a Mark II. Interesting. |
|
Pablo Galvez, Photographer
|
Calgary | AB | CANADA | Posted: 2:18 PM on 02.06.05 |
->> Jeff,
People's financial situations are their own business. That comment was uncalled for.
Omar,
Check the classifieds - there are a couple in there.
To those having issues with their MII's, that's pretty rotten. It's a great camera from what I've heard and it's too bad that people like Michael Treola are putting in a hard day's work making images that come back soft because of a camera (as opposed to the photographer).
I hope you all get your MII's fixed asap.
-Pablo |
|
Dan Crawley, Photographer
|
Cumberland | RI | USA | Posted: 2:25 PM on 02.06.05 |
->> Jeff- what possible business is it of yours what Omar's (or anyone else's for that matter) financial situation is? Does your response have anything to do with photography or even the topic of this post? You've been a member of this group for a long time and post with great frequency, but rarely, it seems, anything positive. The troubles on this board recently have been well documented, and I admit that I chose to become much less active here rather than sift through all of the garbage being left behind by those who didn't appreciate what they were destroying. I feel for those who put their heart and soul into creating something special, only to have it torn into by others who don't have the brains or the class to know (or care) the damage they were inflicting on it. Enough already.
Omar has made some choices I think were unwise. He has also handled himself on this board with far more maturity and class than most of his detractors- that includes you Jeff. I've looked at Omar's work several times recently and been very impressed. I've looked at your work numerous times as well Jeff and to be quite honest, despite your advantage of age and experience, if I were going to hire a photographer and had the two of you to choose from, I'd feel much better giving my money to Omar. Perhaps we need look no further into Omar's financial resources than that.
Jeff- your post was a cheap shot and I found it offensive and in poor taste. I marked it "inappropriate".
-Dan Crawley |
|
Gary Solomons, Photographer
|
Collierville | TN | USA | Posted: 3:25 PM on 02.06.05 |
| ->> and with that said....Can we get this back on topic. Obviously there a lot of us with the same basic problems and we need to talk about them and what fixes we have found. Who has sent there Mark II off and had it come back 100% fixed? Has anyone sent it back to Canon with no real improvement? |
|
Jeff Stanton, Photographer
|
Tucson | AZ | USA | Posted: 4:56 PM on 02.06.05 |
| ->> Hey, hey guys. It wasn't meant as a cheap shot at all. It's unfortunaqte you perceived it that way and indeed, are entitled to your opinions. |
|
Jay Lee, Photographer
|
Nashville | TN | USA | Posted: 6:37 PM on 02.06.05 |
| ->> I agree with Gary... Anybody has sent yours and back to you with improvement or just same old? Thanks, Jay |
|
Chris Hires, Student/Intern, Photographer
|
Bay City | MI | USA | Posted: 7:24 PM on 02.06.05 |
| ->> I bought my MKII from SS member Steve Puppe, and he told me when I bought it that it was a bit soft. But he said that setting up a basic sharpen action in PS did the trick easily. I have an unsharp mask action set up, with 200%, a radius of 3 pixels and a threshold of 2. Occaisionally it's a bit of overkill, but 9 times out of 10 it clears my images up nicely and makes them sharp like a Ginsu knife. |
|
Pete Lorence, Photographer, Student/Intern
|
Loughborough | Leicestershire | UK | Posted: 9:04 PM on 02.06.05 |
->> Hm....was considering a MkII in the near future, might wait a while till these problems iron themselves out!
PS. You guys really do take things too seriously, hardly a cause to lambast Jeff! This board does make me laugh sometimes! |
|
Jeff Stanton, Photographer
|
Tucson | AZ | USA | Posted: 9:56 PM on 02.06.05 |
| ->> Pete ... I couldn't have said it better. Thanks |
|
Cameron Davidson, Photographer
 |
Arlington | VA | USA | Posted: 8:15 AM on 02.07.05 |
->> Gary -
Canon just published a pdf that addresses how and why to sharpen images from the new cameras - it is full of problem solving tips - everything from back-focus issues, to sharpening, to lens calibrations.
A buddy of mine sent it to me and it truthfully answers ninety-percent of all on-line forum questions about the 1D series cameras.
Write me off list and I'll send you a copy of the pdf.
The 1D Mark II only looks soft at first due to the strength of the filter. With sharpening the files look pretty amazing. |
|
Gary Solomons, Photographer
|
Collierville | TN | USA | Posted: 8:59 AM on 02.07.05 |
| ->> I hate to think I need to process everyimage that I take just to make it usable. |
|
Cameron Davidson, Photographer
|
Arlington | VA | USA | Posted: 9:06 AM on 02.07.05 |
->> Canon has given suggestions for jpeg settings that will, most likely, decrease your PhotoShop time.
This document is pretty damn good. It goes a long way toward explaining what works best in certain type of situations and how to use the Custom Function settings to get consistent results. |
|
Michael Sperling, Student/Intern, Photographer
|
Rochester | NY | USA | Posted: 9:10 AM on 02.07.05 |
->> I have a mark 2 and I have been very happy with it compared to a number of other digital cameras that I have used. We have all the digital cameras for people to try here at RIT and it is my favorite. Soft images upon capture is a fact of life when dealing with any digital camera and unsharp mask is something you have to do to get the image to get it to where it is supposed to be. I use 200% at .6 and 0 threshold to get my images ready. It is very easy to set up an action button to process any image you choose to off the camera.
If you want to avoid the step of having to do this in photoshop then you can turn on your in camera sharpening but it won't do as good a job as photoshop will. |
|
Todd Bissonette, Photographer
 |
Lake Placid | NY | USA | Posted: 9:36 AM on 02.07.05 |
->> Cameron, is there a link or a spot on CANON's site to get the document. Sounds like it might help a lot of people if they knew where to get it, otherwise you will probably be flooded with e-mail requests for it.
I am just ordering my MKII today, and as with any new piece of equipment I don't expect it will act the same as my other bodies. I am sure that after I spend some time in the learning curve that it will perform as well as my other canons, different but still good. |
|
Marvin Gentry, Photographer
 |
Birmingham/Pelham | AL | USA | Posted: 9:38 AM on 02.07.05 |
| ->> Cameron, where can we find the PDF file . post it if possible. Also if SI and the other larger Sports Magazine and AP are shooting with the Mark II are they having the same problems and what has Canon told them . |
|
Allen Lester, Photographer
 |
Norfolk | VA | USA | Posted: 12:02 PM on 02.07.05 |
->> All,
For what its worth, I am extremely happy with Fred Miranda’s Canon 1D Mark II CSpro Plugin. Even on its lowest setting it snaps soft MKII images into crisp sharpness.
Allen |
|
Kevin M. Cox, Photographer, Assistant
 |
Round Rock (Austin) | TX | US | Posted: 12:22 PM on 02.07.05 |
->> Now I know this doesn't offer a solution, but just to balance things out....
I haven't had any trouble with my Mark II since I got it last summer (Kevin KNOCKS ON WOOD). Yes images are a little softer out of the camera then my original 1D but not a big deal. I've also noticed an improvement in AF performance since upgrading the firmware to 1.1.0. Granted I've only shot two soccer games so far this year (field sports are where I'm expecting the most improvement based on the update description) but I have more keepers from basketball since updating. |
|
Gary Solomons, Photographer
|
Collierville | TN | USA | Posted: 12:42 PM on 02.07.05 |
| ->> I dont think these problems we are having is any reason to stay away from the camera, but it may take some leg work from us that we should not have to do to get them right. Mine is off to CPS today and with any luck they will fix it and life will go on. I will update this message board when I get it back. Wish me luck...LoL |
|
Kat Woronowicz, Photographer
 |
Oceanside | CA | USA | Posted: 2:15 PM on 02.07.05 |
->> Saturady night I shot a basketball game with a friend's Canon Ds (I'm a Nikon gal) since my 80-200 has been behaving badly lately - and i have to say that my Nikon with a slow focusing 80-200 was better than the Canon... Slow focusing and the shutter didn't release when I wanted it to, making me miss alot of good action shots. Thank God I brought along the Nikon gear as a backup.
Never again will I pick up a Canon! |
|
Robert Smith, Photographer
 |
Brandon | MS | USA | Posted: 5:03 PM on 02.07.05 |
| ->> My MKII was a fast, accurate focusing machine until I updated my firmware from 1.01 to 1.1.0. I think it is ironic that this upgrade was supposed to fix low light focusing issues and now that is what I am having trouble with. I have instances where, as it has been noted above, I have had the center focus locked firmly onto an motionless player standing in a group and get a focus point somewhere else. Not really any one consistent place either. I am going back to 1.03 and see if this helps. |
|
Kurtis Kunoth, Photographer
|
Oceanside | CA | United States | Posted: 10:39 PM on 02.07.05 |
->> I love how many of these post turn into a witch hunt. The Mark 2 is a fine camera. I'll bet many of your problems are with your lenses. Send them to Canon to have them calibrated/focused checked (if your body is under warranty its no charge). I own 2 of them and my images are as sharp as I need them for excellent results. 1D Mark 2 along with the 1DS Mark 2 is designed to be slightly, and I mean "slightly," out of focus for post processing work for todays Professional photographers. Canon realizes that todays professional photographer is going to do alot of work in photoshop or some other sort of digital photo editing device, and having it a tad unsharp, you can do more to the image, as in it won't effect the constract, or color as much. Just correctly using the "Unsharp Mask Filter" it corrects alot of these "focus" issues. Its a known issue within Canon, trust me.
And comparing the 1D to the 1D Mark 2, Please! Try shooting above 800 ISO with both cameras. |
|
Gary Solomons, Photographer
|
Collierville | TN | USA | Posted: 11:25 PM on 02.07.05 |
| ->> Kurtis....I dont see a witch hunt as much as some owners having problems and discussing them. I cant speak for others guys issues but mine is way beyond Photoshop help.....and yes.....I have already sent my lenses in to Canon and it made no differance. Also....Had Canon advertised the 1D as " a profesional camera for the profesional who wants a camera that shoots soft so he can spend time in Photoshop" I probably would not have bought one. My Mark body is on a UPS truck to CPS as I type this...so please cross your fingers for me |
|
Ron Scheffler, Photographer
|
Hamilton (Toronto area) | Ontario | Canada | Posted: 11:44 PM on 02.07.05 |
->> Well, there is a difference between using USM to sharpen up an already in focus image (but slightly soft due to the AA filter) and trying to use USM to sharpen an image that is badly back focused, front focused... whatever... I'll take a look at the pdf, but I suspect that while improved technique will solve some people's problems, it won't address the hardware related problems.
Obviously there are some issues with some cameras some of the time for some people, but I would never go back to the 1D (as Kurtis points out with the > ISO 800 issues) or even back to film.. the files from the Mark II are just so nice to work with.
Kat: Just like to reply to your comment that if you were using the Ds, as in 1Ds 11MP camera (not Mark II), then your results are not surprising. It's well documented (over at robgalbraith.com) that the 1Ds does not perform so well in action situations on AI Servo, especially in lower light situations. Maybe you meant 1D in the plural...? If so, sorry for the misunderstanding. The 1D Mark II is a completely different camera than either of these anyway. And, reading about all the problems over in the Nikon camp, it looks like we are all in potentially similar situations. Let's hope these two manufacturers can get things sorted out. It sucks to have to weed out the problems during critical shoots (when these kind of problems tend to happen, of course). |
|
This thread has reached the maximum number of posts
If you would like to continue it, please create a new thread.
[ Create new thread? ]
|| Sponsor Special Deals
SB-900 TTL AF Shoe Mount Speedlight
|
Available from:
Samy's Camera
|
Price: $499.95 |
Notes:
The SB-900 i-TTL Speedlight leads the Nikon Creative Lighting System delivering the portability, power and versatility to support any photographer's creative lighting imagination. SportsShooter.com users should call 866-726-9463 to get the special SportsShooter price.
|
|
-- More Info -- |
|
Return to --> Message Board Main Index
|
