Forums > Photography Talk > D600, D700, or D800

Photographer

Enmerkar Zedek

Posts: 186

Manila, National Capital Region, Philippines

Hi,

I own a bit of gear for my D7000, but mostly it is MF lenses. I also own a pro 35mm film, Basset Rangerfinder and a medium format RZ67. I would like to add a digital full frame for my studio and event photography. I am considering the three above mentioned Nikon. I read all the pro's and con's of each as far as AF, construction, and shutter limitations. I can't rent or test them here, so I have to decide based on spec sheet reading and other photog comments.

My current goal is to get a D800, but part of me is still unsure. I am still debating what would be a better investment for the money spent. Sorry to sound indecisive, but 3k is a lot to spend on a D800 unless you are 100% it is what will serve you best. I am debating whether it would be better spent on a D700/D600 and then other studio equipment like additional strobes, etc. On the other hand, I see cameras as good investment for a few years to come. Getting a higher 36MP may add more 'quality' to my landscape and portrait work.

Ideas?

Jul 11 13 10:30 pm Link

guide forum

Photographer

-JAY-

Posts: 6689

Las Vegas, Nevada, US

I chose the D600 over the D800 because it didn't give me anything "more" aside from megapixels, and 24 is plenty.

Jul 11 13 10:56 pm Link

Photographer

Derek Bennett

Posts: 5

San Francisco, California, US

I'm definitely happy with my D600 and had the same conclusions as Jay.  It's surprisingly lightweight and easy to handle for as good of a camera as it is.  The user programmable modes U1/U2 might be handy for you if you're doing both landscape/outdoor and studio work.

Jul 11 13 11:05 pm Link

Photographer

Tulack

Posts: 627

Albuquerque, New Mexico, US

It's mostly about megapixels. If you think your every landscape photo would be a masterpiece, than D800 or D800e even better. It would pay of in no time. Othervice D600. Cameras don't take pictures, people do. How good are you to return your money?

Jul 11 13 11:11 pm Link

Photographer

Zack Zoll

Posts: 2617

Glens Falls, New York, US

I actually prefer the D800.  Aside from megapixels, the colour is better (the D600 is a little bit green), and I find tonal range to be slightly longer.  Not a lot, mind you ... but enough that I would consider the D800 an adequate replacement for 645 or 6x6 colour film, and I would not consider the D600 to be so.

Unless you want to save a few bucks, or you're going to beat the hell out of it, I'd pass on the D700.  It's built better that the D600 and has better AF ... but the prints aren't as good, there's no video, the live view isn't nearly as responsive, the shutter is noisy as hell ... really all small complaints, but there are a lot of them.

Full disclosure:  I don't own any of these cameras.  My conclusions are based on testing the models when they first come out(I work at a store that sells them), and preparing and printing a number of wide-format prints from several different photographers using these cameras.

For what it's worth, I know a whole bunch of guys that make huge prints(like, 40x60s) and switched from Canon to Nikon as soon as the D800 came out.  The prints DO look much better than what they were doing with their 5DIIs.  I can't say there's much difference at smaller sizes, other than slightly different colour, but the massive ones look different.

Jul 11 13 11:15 pm Link

Photographer

Zack Zoll

Posts: 2617

Glens Falls, New York, US

Also, Happy First Post, Derek.  Welcome smile

Jul 11 13 11:17 pm Link

Photographer

DougBPhoto

Posts: 38534

Portland, Oregon, US

Enmerkar Zedek wrote:
Hi,

I own a bit of gear for my D7000, but mostly it is MF lenses. I also own a pro 35mm film, Basset Rangerfinder and a medium format RZ67. I would like to add a digital full frame for my studio and event photography. I am considering the three above mentioned Nikon. I read all the pro's and con's of each as far as AF, construction, and shutter limitations. I can't rent or test them here, so I have to decide based on spec sheet reading and other photog comments.

My current goal is to get a D800, but part of me is still unsure. I am still debating what would be a better investment for the money spent. Sorry to sound indecisive, but 3k is a lot to spend on a D800 unless you are 100% it is what will serve you best. I am debating whether it would be better spent on a D700/D600 and then other studio equipment like additional strobes, etc. On the other hand, I see cameras as good investment for a few years to come. Getting a higher 36MP may add more 'quality' to my landscape and portrait work.

Ideas?

They are quite different cameras, so it depends on what your priorities are.

The D700 is a pretty wonderful body, but it is quite old in terms of technology... that said, you're also likely to only find one used, so some of the depreciation will have already taken place.

The D800 is a nice camera too, but the high resolution will more clearly show any issues in technique, the slightest motion or shake will show up when you may not have seen it in a 16mp or smaller resolution body.

I can't really speak to the D600, it really isn't for me personally as I understand it is more similar to the D7000/D7100 in ergonomics, but if that does not bother you, go for it.

If price is a concern, the D700 is very good, in some ways I wish it had been updated to create the D600, instead of such a redesign.

Jul 11 13 11:19 pm Link

Photographer

Mortonovich II

Posts: 716

San Diego, California, US

Something else to keep in mind with the D800 is how fast is your computer? Those are some BIG files that will choke an older or slower system.

Jul 11 13 11:23 pm Link

Photographer

Enmerkar Zedek

Posts: 186

Manila, National Capital Region, Philippines

Derek Bennett wrote:
I'm definitely happy with my D600 and had the same conclusions as Jay.  It's surprisingly lightweight and easy to handle for as good of a camera as it is.  The user programmable modes U1/U2 might be handy for you if you're doing both landscape/outdoor and studio work.

I have medium format cameras for that, but obviously having digital in D800 is a plus.

Jul 11 13 11:23 pm Link

Photographer

Doug Jantz

Posts: 4025

Tulsa, Oklahoma, US

Tulack wrote:
It's mostly about megapixels. If you think your every landscape photo would be a masterpiece, than D800 or D800e even better. It would pay of in no time. Othervice D600. Cameras don't take pictures, people do. How good are you to return your money?

This used to be true but now is BS.  Cameras ARE a major factor now.  If it was true none of would be buying new cameras.  I can guarantee you I cannot get the some results with my D70 as my D700.  And I bet the Polaroid cameras from the 70s sitting on my shelf cannot get what my D700 can no matter how good I am.

Jul 11 13 11:40 pm Link

Photographer

Enmerkar Zedek

Posts: 186

Manila, National Capital Region, Philippines

Doug Jantz wrote:

This used to be true but now is BS.  Cameras ARE a major factor now.  If it was true none of would be buying new cameras.  I can guarantee you I cannot get the some results with my D70 as my D700.  And I bet the Polaroid cameras from the 70s sitting on my shelf cannot get what my D700 can no matter how good I am.

Well there is a local photographer here charging $100 for a day's workshop teaching HDR photography using cell phone camera.

Jul 11 13 11:50 pm Link

Photographer

Enmerkar Zedek

Posts: 186

Manila, National Capital Region, Philippines

ChiMo II wrote:
Something else to keep in mind with the D800 is how fast is your computer? Those are some BIG files that will choke an older or slower system.

i3-2100 @3100 Ghz with 8 Gig Ram

Jul 11 13 11:51 pm Link

Photographer

Tulack

Posts: 627

Albuquerque, New Mexico, US

Doug Jantz wrote:
If it was true none of would be buying new cameras.

Yeah, like people buying new phones, because they can hear each other better.

Jul 11 13 11:53 pm Link

Photographer

Enmerkar Zedek

Posts: 186

Manila, National Capital Region, Philippines

DougBPhoto wrote:
They are quite different cameras, so it depends on what your priorities are.

The D700 is a pretty wonderful body, but it is quite old in terms of technology... that said, you're also likely to only find one used, so some of the depreciation will have already taken place.

The D800 is a nice camera too, but the high resolution will more clearly show any issues in technique, the slightest motion or shake will show up when you may not have seen it in a 16mp or smaller resolution body.

I can't really speak to the D600, it really isn't for me personally as I understand it is more similar to the D7000/D7100 in ergonomics, but if that does not bother you, go for it.

If price is a concern, the D700 is very good, in some ways I wish it had been updated to create the D600, instead of such a redesign.

I am worried about the D800 and technique as I shoot mostly handheld and on the go. I am one of those zing-zang-zoom photographers. I have to focus to make sure my hand shake don't blur the photo and most of my lenses are old manual glass. \

My concern is the D600 is the D7000 ergonomics, but not because I don'tl ike them, but because I am worried that psychologicaly I wouldn't consider it an upgrade to a pro camera, because it has a consumer body.

Jul 11 13 11:55 pm Link

Photographer

Enmerkar Zedek

Posts: 186

Manila, National Capital Region, Philippines

Zack Zoll wrote:
I actually prefer the D800.  Aside from megapixels, the colour is better (the D600 is a little bit green), and I find tonal range to be slightly longer.  Not a lot, mind you ... but enough that I would consider the D800 an adequate replacement for 645 or 6x6 colour film, and I would not consider the D600 to be so.

I already own the RZ67, so I am not certain if I "need" an adequate replacement. However, the fact that colours are better come to it, but is it worth 1k more unless you are selling large gallery prints?

Jul 11 13 11:58 pm Link

Photographer

Charlie-CNP

Posts: 2644

New York, New York, US

I would chime in and say none of the above honestly. Lately I have been stuck on the D3s. It is hands down my go to for most everything unless I am shooting for a book in which I use the D800. The only trouble with the D800 that I have seen is that you will get movement easier, and the file sizes are huge (respectably so). The D3s is a work horse though, and works for just about anything that you don't need huge files for.

Jul 12 13 12:00 am Link

Photographer

Select Models

Posts: 36178

Upland, California, US

Sold my D700 to a fellow photographer to get the D600... happy with that decision and agreeing with some of the other D600 users above... it's a great camera for the money.  Been using it for almost one year with some fabulous images already in my MM port taken with it... here's one.  Amazing dynamic range and 2nd only to the D3s in low light performance.  Definitely Nikon's 'best bang for the buck' camera in my opinion... wink

http://photos.modelmayhem.com/photos/130710/14/51ddd6f4ac697.jpg

Jul 12 13 12:10 am Link

Photographer

DBIphotography Toronto

Posts: 3226

Toronto, Ontario, Canada

D3s

The D600 is an entry-level FF body, don't be fooled by the megashnitzel-count and it being a FF body. You'll likely regret it, if you're considering the other two.

The D800 is gonna be a hog on resources (computing), it ain't cheap, and it's kinda overkill for your needs IMHO (NOT to tell you what your "needs" are!).

As-mentioned, the D700 is a rock....but is old-technology to be buying right now. I own one. I'm not selling it tongue

For the $2500+ a D3s will run you, you're shooting the cleanest images possible right now. You're shooting them with one of the fastest cameras in the world, which serves your event-shooting needs where the D600 & D800 are a whisper of a shadow to the D3s. Both the D600 & D800 have shutter-lives far inferior to the one in the D3s, so you're buying a tool that'll last you. I have a D3 and a D700, and I won't be buying until 2014 possibly?

Those are my initial thoughts, anyhoo. It's your call at the end of the day/week/whatever, of course! Best wishes with the new FF Nikon big_smile

IMHO alone;

Ðaniel A Betts
DBIphotography Toronto (Blog On Site) 
DBImagery Toronto (Website)

“The critic has to educate the public; the artist has to educate the critic.”
~Oscar Wilde

D700:

http://photos.modelmayhem.com/photos/130711/09/51ded8b2804e2_m.jpg

D3:

http://photos.modelmayhem.com/photos/121119/01/50a9f6d09d8c5_m.jpg

Jul 12 13 02:38 am Link

guide forum

Photographer

Robb Mann

Posts: 10651

Baltimore, Maryland, US

Unless you own or are willing to invest in all pro glass don't worry about the D800. Its an amazing camera, but it needs really good lenses to make it shine.

Jul 12 13 03:02 am Link

Photographer

James Bluck

Posts: 833

Westfield, New Jersey, US

I have the D700 and the D800.  I passed on the D600 to get the D800 only because of the focusing system.  The problem for me was that the focus points in the D600 only covered a small portion of the viewfinder, and I needed greater coverage.  The problems for me with the D800 are that with so many pixels crammed onto the sensor the pictures can get pretty noisy at higher ISOs and the massive file size.  If most of your work is in the studio, you won't be shooting at the high ISOs so the noise won't be an issue.  For landscapes, the extra detail in the D800 images would be useful.  If you shoot a lot of low light work, you'll probably prefer the D600.

Jul 12 13 06:41 am Link

Photographer

Christopher Hartman

Posts: 54149

Buena Park, California, US

If you want professional features (settings, AF, buttons, blah blah blah) and you don't want to spend $3k, then consider the D700.  Otherwise, go all the way and get the D800.

Jul 12 13 07:48 am Link

Photographer

DRImages

Posts: 1651

San Diego, California, US

I got a D800 a little over a month ago. Finally upgraded from a D300. I'm lovin' it!

Jul 12 13 07:56 am Link

Photographer

Jhono Bashian

Posts: 2432

Cleveland, Ohio, US

ChiMo II wrote:
Something else to keep in mind with the D800 is how fast is your computer? Those are some BIG files that will choke an older or slower system.

Don't forget if you want to tether the camera to a computer you better have a lot of free space and lots of RAM

Jul 12 13 07:59 am Link

Photographer

Photeus Photography

Posts: 82

Saint Charles, Missouri, US

I have an 800 and 800e, and a close friend let me shoot his 600.  Your question about requirements is a good one.  Your real question should probably be 800e or 600.  The sharpness difference with one less filter in the 800e has made it my go to choice.  The 600 is a little small for my big hands, look at your personal requirements, but the 800e and 24-70 2.8 is my standard kit for studio work now.

You are right to look at your own needs, and if ultra crisp exposures are important, there is indeed a difference in the 800 and 800e.

Cheers!

Jul 12 13 08:02 am Link

Photographer

Light and Lens Studio

Posts: 1431

Sisters, Oregon, US

Have had the D800 for about 8 months now.  It's great for low light and sports and just generally an all around fine camera body.  I shoot with a friend who has a D600 and the IQ seems to be equal on comparable lenses.  For me, the deciding factor was the 1/8000 shutter on the D800 (I shoot some sports).  However, for shooting video, I believe that the D600 may be better.  If you don't need 1/8000 and don't intend to shoot a lot of video, save yourself $1000 and go for the D600

Jul 12 13 08:08 am Link

Photographer

Fotografica Gregor

Posts: 4122

Alexandria, Virginia, US

Pros and Cons -


D700 -  solid performer but outdated technology at this point -  not available new,  costs too much used in terms of value against the D600 in my view

D600 - 

very nice image quality and high ISO performance 
not a professional body build - less resistant to moisture and grit than the D800
focusing system is very mediocre - poor performer in low light
    the D7100 runs rings around it as does the D800
no PC socket, no provision to lock the aperture and shutter speed settings in
    manual mode
shutter rated for fewer actuations than D800
decent video if that is of interest

D800 -
the best image quality - just slightly better than D600 though
not as good a high ISO performance as D600
professional body build and control layout, pc socket, able to  lock aperture and shutter speeds in manual mode, higher shutter rating
superb focusing - fast and accurate even in the lowest light
best dynamic range
higher flash shutter speed available
uses both CF and SD cards
better video capabilities

in my view the D800 is worth the premium -

FWIW  I shoot with the D800 when shooting for publication or commercial print and with the D600 when shooting personal projects and I like them both.

Jul 12 13 08:13 am Link

Photographer

Timothy Bell

Posts: 402

North Richland Hills, Texas, US

I personally love my D800 and chose it over the D600 in part because of the Pro controls and layout. It's easier to use than the D600 by far in my opinion. I'm also a bit of a MP whore.

Jul 12 13 08:17 am Link

Photographer

ChanStudio - OtherSide

Posts: 5339

Alpharetta, Georgia, US

You also have to look at long term investment.  I believe in buying something and keep it for a long time (if you could) instead of upgrading every release.

36MP seems a lot to many people today but in few years, 36MP is the norm. 

Remember when people were saying that 12MP was enough?  Now it seems 24MP is enough..


For me, the more MP, the better.  If there is a 54MP DLSR that has the same DR or better and has same noise ratio as the D800/e, I would buy it in a heart beat.

  The D800/e is also more rugged and has longer shutter life rating as compared to the D600.

However, keep in mind that the D800/e do require sharper lenses.

Jul 12 13 08:33 am Link

Photographer

Fat Kitty Graphics

Posts: 18

Fullerton, California, US

your naked girl shots and travel shots will look the same on either camera.
I own a d600 and could have bought either that or the d800.
Dont buy the d700, out of date and still too expensive.
d600 has controls like the d7000 and d7100 which I liked better then the d800.
I didnt need 36 mega pixels and I think in practical terms for me the d600 was perfect fit.
It performs great in low light
I love the weight feel and controls on the d600
I also boiught mine with th 24-85mm lens aorund xmas for $2000 complete for the kit, the d800 was $2900 without a lens. It was enough ddifference for me to decide to go with the d600. no regrets.
you can get some of them refurbished now for even less then $2000
The d600 has two sd card slots, the d80 has the split slots.
Personally I have had both sd and cf card cameras and prefer the small size of the sd cards. I dont notice any difference in which one breaks faster. I have had more bad cf cards, maybe cuz they were older and more used.
The point is buy the best that you can afford and need, and then work on technique without any problems.

Jul 12 13 08:34 am Link

Photographer

Fat Kitty Graphics

Posts: 18

Fullerton, California, US

also 36 mp IS a lot if you dont need it. In reality you will either be resing down your photos or shooting at a lower mp anyway for anything that is not trade show mural sized

Jul 12 13 08:36 am Link

Photographer

Don Olson Imagery

Posts: 291

Eugene, Oregon, US

Don't be put off by the D800 naysayers. It is probably the most versatile body out there. I did look at a D600 but it didn't have the controls I wanted but that aside I couldn't be happier with the D800. File size? yes, bigger than typical small sensor size but you are used to working with MF. Lenses, I use many "D"" and older glass with great results. Technique? come on, if you can't shoot a D800 you can't shoot anything. More internet parroting from those that don't know.
I shoot sprint boat races and just had a race with close to 1900 images using the D800, 70/200 vr1 and 1.7 extender. Tossers were just compositional in nature. If I missed a tracking or focus lock it was me and not the hardware. Locks on and tracks a 12' boat coming directly at me at over 100mph and cutting across pulling 5-6 gees is no problem at all and yes hand held and yes you can count the hairs in the driver's and navigator's beards and the weave pattern in their firesuits.

It's also wonderful in the studio, events and on location and low light.
Do yourself a favor and just get the D800. I have the 800 but the E would be Okay as well, but I don't have "E" envy.

Jul 12 13 08:44 am Link

Photographer

Gary Melton

Posts: 6394

Dallas, Texas, US

DougBPhoto wrote:
...I can't really speak to the D600, it really isn't for me personally as I understand it is more similar to the D7000/D7100 in ergonomics, but if that does not bother you, go for it...

Before the D600 was released, people were guessing that it was going to be a FF version of the D7000...but IT ISN'T!!

Look at the specs and actually handle the camera, and you will find that the D600 is MUCH closer to being the size of a D800 than it is to the D7000/D7100.

I'm amazed that anyone would continue to compare the D600 to the D7000!

Jul 12 13 08:58 am Link

Photographer

Gary Shepard

Posts: 8

Portland, Oregon, US

I own both the D600 and the D800. I upgraded from a pair of D700s. I use the D800 as my primary camera and the D600 as a backup. I have used both cameras for studio work as well as for architectural work. I prefer the D800 pro body layout and the 36Mpixel sensor.  I once believed that low light performance would be a major drawback of the 36mp sensor compared to the 12mp sensor of the D700. I frequently use the D800 in low light situations and I am amazed at how well it performs. I love, love, love my D800 camera. The D600 is nice as well but, I prefer the D800.

Jul 12 13 09:04 am Link

Photographer

Image Works Photography

Posts: 2890

Orlando, Florida, US

By now your options for new cameras will be D600 or D800.  I personally own a D700. I could never own a D600. Its a step back. The focus points are cluster closer to the center, it goes up to 1/4oooth shutter, and lack of external controls. The only thing it has going for it is the sensor.

Jul 12 13 09:48 am Link

Photographer

Enmerkar Zedek

Posts: 186

Manila, National Capital Region, Philippines

Thanks all. I opted to buy mint d800 for 2k. D700 and D600 are about 1.5k on ebay used. D3s around 3k+. I found the comments very informative and helped me narrow it down. I liked the quality prints on d800 and d600. The sample I saw from d700 and d3 didn't seem to be much of an upgrade from d7000. I appreciate the double shutter life of d3s but with 3500+ price tag it irons itself out vs 2 d600 or 1 d800 and 1 d600 backup body

It is true either d600 or d800 can match my current work quality
These are my first pics from rebel t2i with kit lqens. Not much of a challenge. I am constantly growing as photo and want a body that last me a few years.


I would like to do more landscape and high quality portrait. Theadvice seems to be get cheaper cam now to much current tools and level. I like a tool that I can grow into as my practice and lens collection improves. 500 extra for d800 isn't a big enough burden over the 1.5 d600. If it means upgrade in lens and  if computer that is ok ... it too is an investment.

Jul 12 13 10:32 am Link

Photographer

Yingwah Productions

Posts: 1341

New York, New York, US

Gary Melton wrote:

Before the D600 was released, people were guessing that it was going to be a FF version of the D7000...but IT ISN'T!!

Look at the specs and actually handle the camera, and you will find that the D600 is MUCH closer to being the size of a D800 than it is to the D7000/D7100.

I'm amazed that anyone would continue to compare the D600 to the D7000!

I'm not sure if people are really concerned with the size, personally I'd prefer the D800 if it was bigger.

But seeing as the D600 and D7000 has like 90% same control layout/button placement, its an obvious and easy comparison to make. The only major difference is the location of the video record button, and they moved it to the same place with the 7100. Anyone used to the pro bodies would have more trouble with the D600 than a D7000 user

Jul 12 13 01:45 pm Link

Photographer

Jerry Nemeth

Posts: 27932

Dearborn, Michigan, US

Tulack wrote:

Yeah, like people buying new phones, because they can hear each other better.

My old phone was 3G.  My current phone is 4G.  4G works better.

Jul 12 13 01:59 pm Link

Photographer

Zack Zoll

Posts: 2617

Glens Falls, New York, US

Enmerkar Zedek wrote:
Thanks all. I opted to buy mint d800 for 2k. D700 and D600 are about 1.5k on ebay used. D3s around 3k+. I found the comments very informative and helped me narrow it down. I liked the quality prints on d800 and d600. The sample I saw from d700 and d3 didn't seem to be much of an upgrade from d7000. I appreciate the double shutter life of d3s but with 3500+ price tag it irons itself out vs 2 d600 or 1 d800 and 1 d600 backup body

It is true either d600 or d800 can match my current work quality
These are my first pics from rebel t2i with kit lqens. Not much of a challenge. I am constantly growing as photo and want a body that last me a few years.


I would like to do more landscape and high quality portrait. Theadvice seems to be get cheaper cam now to much current tools and level. I like a tool that I can grow into as my practice and lens collection improves. 500 extra for d800 isn't a big enough burden over the 1.5 d600. If it means upgrade in lens and  if computer that is ok ... it too is an investment.

That seems like pretty sound logic for the D800.  Earlier you asked if the difference is small prints between the D800 and D600 was that big, and I would say that under 16x20, it's only a difference of slightly better colour and tonal range on the D800.  But that's my eyes, and the images that I was working with - your mileage may vary.

Also, I really don't believe most of the people that said you need better technique.  As an RZ shooter, you're already capable of operating a more demanding camera than the D800.  It has been my experience(again, from the people that I spoke to personally - not online posters) that most of the complainers were coming from other DSLRs, and had little or no experience with larger, tripod-based cameras.  None of the guys I knew who had been shooting Hassys, Mamiyas, or view cameras complained about 'how much technique the D800 requires.'  Even the guys I knew that dropped their Fuji and Mamiya rangefinders are pretty happy with the operation of the D800.

You may find that some lenses may not appear as sharp on your new D800 as they were on your previous cameras, especially wide open.  But with your background, the technique thing is unlikely to be a problem for you.

Jul 12 13 05:03 pm Link

Photographer

Tulack

Posts: 627

Albuquerque, New Mexico, US

Doug Jantz wrote:
This used to be true but now is BS.  Cameras ARE a major factor now.  If it was true none of would be buying new cameras.  I can guarantee you I cannot get the some results with my D70 as my D700.  And I bet the Polaroid cameras from the 70s sitting on my shelf cannot get what my D700 can no matter how good I am.

Jerry Nemeth wrote:
My old phone was 3G.  My current phone is 4G.  4G works better.

This two pictures done with the same camera. Need to be really dumb to say that camera taking pictures, not person.

http://www.whatjeanlikesphotography.com/Portfolio/People/Children-and-family/i-FvSCFkS/3/X2/untitled-3050-X2.jpg
http://pcdn.500px.net/33290971/d3ce27ea26fb49cfa1fac4c14fd2210600e5d48f/4.jpg

Jul 12 13 06:01 pm Link

Makeup Artist

ArtistryImage

Posts: 2832

Washington, District of Columbia, US

Enmerkar Zedek wrote:
...I see cameras as good investment for a few years to come...

Really?  Glass maybe... but capture devices? 

Need an example?

My airbrush and compressor combo is still listing used for near the initial retail price...
And has paid for itself many, many fold...

all the best on your journey...

Jul 12 13 06:34 pm Link