DX Month, Week Four

What You Said You Wanted
Oct 28, 2012 (commentary)--
Early in DX month I asked you take a survey. About 10,000 of you took the time to do so. You probably want to know what you said (collectively, I hope you know what you said individually), so here's the survey results.

The Future of DX
Oct 28, 2012 (commentary)--
A lot of you are speculating on various Nikon DX futures. Let's deal with the out-lier first.

Some of you think DX just goes away and Nikon concentrates on CX and FX. Not. Going. To. Happen. Let me show you why. In Nikon's last complete year (ended March 2012) they sold 4.7m interchangeable lens cameras, of which probably more than three-quarters were DX DSLRs. For their current year (end March 2013), they are forecasting 7m units. You cannot get rid of DX and grow that much. Moreover Nikon's forecast is for the back end (the period we just entered) to have more sales than the front end (the period already in the books, and for which we'll get financial results next week). Sorry, but that's not going to be FX and CX bodies taking up the slack left by vacating DX.

Moreover, the problem compounds moving forward. Even if all the "new" sales (7m - 4.7m = 2.3m new sales) are CX and FX--and they won't be--you still can't get rid of the DX sales in the following year because that will still make your results go backwards. This has actually been part of my point: Nikon is not planning on downsizing to a smaller company. They have the pedal to the metal and are trying to eclipse Canon as the number one seller of cameras at all levels. Given Canon's just reported results, if Nikon is still on pace for 7m units, they would be closing in on that goal.

Enough people understand that so they come up with "alternative" DX futures. That usually involves reducing the lineup. For example:

Current Future 1 Future 2 Future 3 Future 4
D3200 24mp D3200 24mp


X D5200 16mp D5200
X D7200
X D400

In Future 1 through 3, one of the DX cameras goes away. Of these possible futures, only Future 2 would have any chance of happening, as Nikon would not get rid of the lower-priced, better-selling cameras, for exactly the reasons I noted above. Remember, Nikon gives one year forward estimates and is a public company. They would have considerable trouble suddenly saying "oh, we actually decided to go a different direction." Thus, until a Nikon executive gets up and states that they are estimating far lower future volumes, I doubt that they can drop any camera from the lineup. Thus, I still say Future 4 is the likely scenario moving forward for the current generation of DX.

How about the next generation, then? The lowest model iterates on one year intervals, the next lowest on 18 month intervals, the next to highest at two year intervals, and the last on longer intervals (perhaps with modest interim changes, ala the D300 to D300s).

That actually takes us out through 2015 at least. Given that the D3200 has to iterate three more times in that time period, I'll bet that we see a DX mirrorless variant of it appear, much like we now have the EOS M, which is a mirrorless variant of a Canon Rebel. In other words, exactly the opposite will happen compared to what a lot of people are predicting.

Most people predict the demise of the D400, but the way I see it is that mirrorless will cannibalize the low-end of DSLRs. First, mirrorless "performance", particularly with focus, will be able to attain D3200 standards long before it would be able to attain D400 standards (the Sony Alpha 77 notwithstanding; Sony has essentially proven with that camera that there's no great surge of photographers waiting to jump from fast optical DSLR to fast EVF DSLR). Thus, I see a future much more like this:

Current 2013 2014 2015 2016
D3400 DSLR +
D2000 DX M
D2100 DX M


D5200 DSLR D5200
D5200 DSLR +
D4000 DX M
D4000 DX M


D7400 DSLR D7400 DSLR
D300s DSLR D400 DSLR D400 DSLR D400 DSLR D400s DSLR

I've shaded the cells that show mirrorless taking over from DSLR.

Trying to predict further out is near impossible, as there are multiple factors that are going to disrupt the camera industry as we move farther forward in time.

I called DX the "value product" earlier in the month. By the time the next generation pro camera arrives (for the 2016 Olympics) I think that we'll have seen a transition of what "value" means: more and more it will be a higher-end mirrorless camera.

One final thought before I wrap up: Nikon currently has nine active designs (J2, V2, D3200, D5100, D7000, D300s, D600, D800, D4) and a total of at least twelve cameras actively being sold (J1, J2, V1, V2, D3100, D3200, D5100, D7000, D300s, D600, D800, and D4; there are also a few D3x lingering). The real question is whether Nikon has the marketing ability to fully distinguish those from one another.

Any transition of DX to a DX mirrorless is going to compound Nikon's problem of making it clear who should buy what product, a problem they're starting to struggle with today given the price overlap of CX and DX. Any reduction of DX models (as I predict a few years forward) makes it more difficult to tell people why they should buy into DX.

Here we are back in 2012 and DX users are already starting to wonder if DX is dead, and we still have a full lineup that's being iterated as usual (with some unavoidable delay due to the quake and flood). What happens if there really are only two DX models available in the future, and they're high end?

The answer has been and will be lenses. This is why Nikon's lack of a full lens lineup for DX is shameful: they're slowly boxing themselves into a corner because users are interpreting that as a lack of DX carrying forward.


More About DX Death
Oct 25, 2012 (commentary)--
It seems that a lot of my email this week is centered on the notion of whether DX is dead or not. A lot of you are having troubles coming to grips with some of my statements, sensing some conflict in them. I've tried to be clear, but it seems I need to elaborate.

Before we get into this, I apologize to anyone going through medical issues themselves or with loved ones. Discussing product "deaths" can set off strong emotions if you're going through something in your own life. But the medical analogy is important here, and the best one we have for this topic, so I will use it.

We all die someday. People, products, product lines, and companies. In product management we actually use the term product life cycle in our internal documents about how we manage the conception, production, sale, and eventual discontinuation of a product. In those documents you'll find another specific term term: end of life. This refers to the stage where a company begins to transition that product (or product line) out of the marketplace.

So what does end of life mean for a product? Often, customers don't recognize when a company has transitioned a product to end of life. There's enough discounting going on through a product's entire life cycle that just seeing sudden discounts doesn't necessarily mean that a product is in the process of being wound down by a company. Huge discounts--the Nikon V1 comes to mind recently--are a big clue, though.

Yet, even though a company transitions a product to end of life doesn't mean a customer agrees. Today's DSLRs don't just fall apart the minute a company stops selling them. Like many consumer goods--cars and appliances come to mind--a customer may buy a product and use it well past the manufacturer's end of life point.

A critical juncture to watch for customers is how the company treats products they've discontinued. In terms of warranty, there are legal obligations a manufacturer has to perform, even after they stop selling a product. But eventually you see whether a company is supporting that product. Nikon's recent discontinuation of support for a number of older DSLRs in Camera Control Pro is a good example. (Update: one reader pointed out something important: you can't keep the old version on your computer for an older camera and have the new version on your computer for a newer camera. Yet another example of Nikon not paying attention to sometimes subtle but important customer needs.)

But what we're talking about here is whether a product line is dying or not. While individual DX models come and go, is there any evidence that Nikon is moving away from DX?

The answer to that is no. It does not appear that DX is currently on end of life. We're certainly deep into DX's life cycle: it's the oldest extant DSLR format, after all. But us 60 year olds get mighty upset when you 20 year olds think we're no longer capable of anything useful. Not true at all for humans, and it's not true at all for the DX product line.

My point in one of the articles earlier this week was this: we currently have a DX product line of four cameras. At the end of this year we'll have a DX product line of four cameras. Throughout 2013 we'll have a DX product line of four cameras. Trying to project further than the end of 2013 is a little difficult because that's trying to project two or more generations of cameras forward, and the further out you try to predict, the more difficult it gets.

But we have some evidence so far that Canon and Nikon would certainly be looking at in trying to determine how aggressively to push possible future generations of cameras: the recent Sony Alpha switch from traditional DSLR to EVF DSLRs. The fact that this switch didn't help Sony gain any market share in DSLRs from Canon and Nikon indicates that a quick move to a non-optical future isn't necessary. Thus, I'll bet that while Canon and Nikon will continue to explore both the mirrorless and even possibly some EVF-type DSLRs, they're not going to move fast to try to discontinue their current offerings here.

In other words, the DX format is certainly not on the way out. There's no sign that product cycles slowed for any other reason than the quake and floods, and there's no signal that it isn't business as usual in this format. Thus my wording of "DX is not dead."

Now, it may be dead to you. You may have decided that you may want to move on. As I noted, there are three groups of folk out there: those that stick with DX, those that move to FX, and those that leak to other formats like m4/3. Five years ago when FX was introduced, the first group stayed the largest, by far, the second group was a mere trickle (partly due to the price of the D3), and the third group didn't really exist.

Today, the first group (those sticking with DX) is still the largest. The second group (those moving to FX) has grown as the options have grown and prices have moderated into a more reasonable realm. The third group is the most dangerous, though, as I use the term "leak" because they move out of the Nikon world into one controlled by another company. And that last group is growing daily.

From a product management standpoint, the answer to the problem in the last sentence of the previous paragraph is that you have to take action. Sometimes you can just use pricing to slow or stop the leak. Sometimes you have to do more. My conclusion after spending a lot of time studying this, is that Nikon needs to do more. More DX lenses, a stronger showing and statement that DX is an ongoing format for them, and more overall support.

No doubt DX won't be around some day. Whether that's in 2014, 2015, 2020, 2030, 2050, or some time in the next century is unknown. I'm comfortable in saying that DX as we know it isn't going anywhere for a couple of years, and even then may transition slowly.

Now That the Shock Has Worn Off
Oct 23, 2012 (commentary)--
Yesterday I wrote that I'm FX and m4/3 these days, and I put strike-through on my DX Kit (right column, bottom) to emphasize that. Some people are reading this incorrectly and believing that I am saying DX is doomed and people should avoid it.

The article was titled "Where I Stand" not "Where Everyone Stands." Just to be clear (again), DX is not dead. But one point that became clear in preparing for this month and starting to craft the articles and points I wanted to make was this: Nikon has hurt themselves by not filling out the DX line. Some of us are finding that DX doesn't do what we're looking for. The good news for Nikon is that some of those find what they want in FX, which brings them more dollars. The bad news is that others find what they want in mirrorless or another system, which brings them less dollars. As I termed it earlier this month: that latter group is "leakage," and if you're trying to be #1 in the market, you don't want leakage.

I have one advantage Nikon doesn't: I can write about "optimal strategy" versus "practical strategy." Short of some management changes and personnel/resource shuffling, Nikon is going to continue to do what it's been doing. Since DX has proven to be successful and growing for them, the current management and organization just points to that and says "we should just continue to do what we're doing." That's "practical strategy."

Great organizations don't just sit on their accomplishments (something I personally need to take heart, because great individuals don't, either; but that's another story for another day, and we'll get there, too). They mold, tweak, and optimize. What I see in Nikon is the same thing I saw in a lot of "successful" personal computer companies in the early 90's: the bean counters are more in charge than the idealists. What I fear is that Nikon will eventually meet similar fates to those "successful" companies if they don't fix their many product gaps, their quality control, and customer issues.

But that, too, is something for another article.

Today I want to talk about you. DX is indeed the right system for some of you. You may remember earlier in the month when I wrote that DX was a "value system." It's not the highest end, it's not the lowest end. DX lives in a place that most people can afford, and it has very good bang for the buck. Performance that's "good enough" for the majority of photographers. Price that's "affordable" for the majority of photographers. At the low end, more orientation on price than features, at the high end more features and better performance.

A third group of people exist besides those that are moving to FX and those who are leaving Nikon: those that are sticking with DX.

In terms of image quality, DX very nicely matches the largest prints you can get out of a desktop inkjet printer (even at ISO 1600 or 3200). Even on a 30" display images need to be scaled down to be seen in total. Realistically, how many of you need more than that?

DX also gives better continuous shooting performance than m4/3, which many of you need. It offers an optical viewfinder, which is still better than the best EVF, in my opinion, though the gap is narrowing. At the long end, there are many more lens options (because of the FX lenses).

So there are three choices: stay DX, go FX, or leave Nikon.

You have to make the right decision for you, not just take my decision and apply it to you. Remember, I have FX gear to bring home the bacon when the m4/3 gear doesn't cut it. Many of you can't afford to have multiple systems, which is why you and others keep coming back to DX: it's the value proposition, and it's why you stay DX.

Not as much "value" as it would be with a full set of lenses, but nevertheless, still practical enough. The DX kit that I struck through over there on the right is a very competent kit. Supplement it with a couple of the right primes for your needs and it's capable of some remarkable imagery. And look at what the price of that kit would be: US$4400, and you could chop US$1300 off of that by substituting the Sigma 50-150mm f/2.8 OS for the expensive FX Nikkor at the telephoto end, so US$3100 for a full three-lens kit that performs quite well. (Nikon also has another option for you to be announced later tonight, the 70-200mm f/4G AF-S ED VR, but it's more expensive than the Sigma.)

But notice what happened with this kit. We used a Nikon body and no Nikon lenses. Doesn't Nikon think that's a problem? Apparently not, as I see no signs that they intend to fix the DX lens lineup any time soon.

That's why I keep coming back to the "incomplete" label for DX, and why I personally ultimately got hampered by it and had to go another way.

The good news is that Nikon will almost certainly continue iterating the bodies. As much as the updates are late, they are inevitable. We're talking about millions of Nikon's key sales units; there's no way Nikon is going to give up that volume, and there's nothing they can replace it with in the short term. Even in Japan the D3200 tends to outsell all mirrorless cameras, so there's no need to stop making DX DSLR bodies in the foreseeable future. The priorities in terms of boost to Nikon's current sales go: #1 D5200, #2 D400, #3 D7200, though we may see them in a different order. It's easiest to iterate in this order: D5200, D7200, D400, due to the sensor output needs the D400 will enforce (8 fps at 24mp is a lot of data moving through the system).

So why is Nikon iterating FX lenses but not DX? One possibility is this: Nikon sells 1.5x lenses for every body. Let's consider one of the hypothetical folk reading this site: they bought a D70 (which came with an 18-70mm kit lens). A few years later they upgraded to a D90 (which came with an 18-105mm VR lens). Their third lens? Likely a 70-300mm. I'm going to round up here (this site's readers are slightly more invested in lenses than the average), so I'm also going to give this person a 35mm f/1.8G (and they sold the 18-70mm). Three lens DX kit with one FX lens.

Now you're starting to see the sneaky part of Nikon's thinking. That user is currently thinking about another body upgrade. There haven't been two generations of DX bodies yet at their level, so the D7000 doesn't look all that intriguing compared to the D90, but the D600 does. This user already has one FX lens, so they buy the D600 with the 24-85mm VR and they're down to a two-lens kit (and they've bought 5 lenses and 3 bodies, just a bit more than the average; I told you we were going to round up).

Thus, Nikon themselves is encouraging the migration up to FX. Okay, I have no problem with that. But what about the other two groups? You know, the one that's sticking with DX and the one that's leaving Nikon entirely? What's Nikon's plan for those people?

Well, the "sticking with DX" group will get another round of bodies, as I've already noted. They'll get another mid-range zoom option that's a little better than the previous generation. And they'll get a weak wide angle prime. Doesn't seem like enough, does it?

The "leaving Nikon" group gets a few things too: the ability to complain about customer service, a perceived lowering of quality control, and the Nikon 1 to laugh at as they pick something other than the 90-pound weakling in mirrorless.

Where I Stand
Oct 22, 2012 (commentary)--
As one of the first pros shooting Nikon digital, I was obviously all DX in the beginning. The question is this: where do I stand today?

Before answering that, let me restate what kind of photography I perform: I'm primarily a nature photographer. That means landscapes, macro work, and wildlife. I sometimes still do sports and event photography, but not nearly as much of that as nature.

So let's break it out.

  • Landscapes: With no usable PC-E and only zooms to give me wide angle coverage, I have little choice in DX, lots of it in FX. For that reason, FX is my choice here. But of course, 36mp versus 16mp is another factor.
  • Macro: Both DX and FX have lots of choices, though at the long end Nikon has never given us outdoor macro shooters quite what we wanted for a long time (no updated 200mm, no 70-180mm replacement).
  • Wildlife: It used to be that DX had 1.5x more reach potential (pixel density) than FX. With the D800 that is no longer true. While some stick to the 8 fps of the D300, I've never been a fast frame rate shooter, so there's been no reason for me to stick with the D300.
  • Sports: Low-light and high speed (little mirror blackout, etc.) are the name of the game here. The D300s doesn't do both well, nor does the rest of the DX lineup. It's the D4 for me here.
  • Events: Low-light and flexibility are what I seek. Hard to beat the f/2.8 lens and f/1.4 lens trilogies on FX.

I think you know where I'm going here. FX began changing the game for me (and many other pros) with the D3 in 2007, and I was using a D3s/D3x combo for most of my work starting in 2009. Here in 2012 the lineup is even more compelling to just go FX. Which, for my most serious work, is exactly where I'm at. At the moment, my D800E replaces my D7000 for wildlife work, plus it does the landscape and macro chores just fine. The D4 fills in the sports and events needs, and supplements the D800E on other things.

Of course, big FX DSLRs and lenses add up fast in size and weight. There's no way I want to carry 30 pounds of gear on a 12-mile hike now that I'm over 60 years of age. Excess weight reduces my performance and recovery. So the question I've had to answer is: what's my small/light kit? Since 2010 I've been experimenting with the D7000 and m4/3 for that. With the appearance of the OM-D and lots of interesting m4/3 lenses, I'd have to say that the scale has tipped strongly away from DX. Indeed, when I look at the NEX, NX, and XF (Fujifilm) offerings in mirrorless, I see that I have lots of more and more interesting choices for a solid small/light kit. Just as this is DX week, I'm in the midst of a two-week field testing phase on mirrorless that will produce a great deal of reviews on my mirrorless site, sansmirror.com, in the near future.

So if I go m4/3 (or NEX, NX, or XF), what do I lose? Lots of weight and size, even over DX. I lose good continuous autofocus, which has some impact on wildlife and sports, maybe on event photography (not really true with my style of event photography). I lose some macro flexibility, at least at the moment. I might lose almost a stop of high ISO capability with m4/3 (none with NEX, NX, or XF).

What do I gain? With m4/3 (and increasingly with NEX) a lot of interesting, small, highly competent lenses, for one. Many exactly what I want (still no tilt/shift, though ;~). A kit that I can easily carry on the longest hikes in the toughest terrain that I can contemplate. Strangely, more precise focus, obtained more easily (though not always as fast as my DSLRs). Real-time histograms, in the viewfinder, plus lots of other small things.

So consider the following kits:

  • m4/3: OM-D bodies, 7-14mm, 12mm, 12-50mm, 45mm, 100-300mm lenses.
  • DX: D7000 bodies, 10-24mm, no 24mm equivalent, 16-85mm, 85mm, 70-300mm lenses.
  • FX: D4/D800E bodies, 14-24mm, 24mm f/1.4, 24-120mm, 85mm f/1.4, 200-400mm lenses.

The FX kit clearly delivers a lot, but at a big price, and at a very large size and weight. The question is whether going all the way down to the m4/3 kit loses me much over the DX option. As I write this today: no. If anything, the DX lens choices hamper me. While the D7000 body delivers perhaps a stop difference in image quality (DxOmark says more like two-thirds of a stop), my lens choices sometimes grab that back. On DX the best I can shoot at 24mm equivalent is f/2.8 (and with the Tokina 11-16mm); on m4/3 at f/2, for example.

This is one of the reasons why so much about DX Month has been about (the lack of) lens choices. Nikon (and Canon, too, with their APS line) has not defended their territory well. Even with the third-party lenses added in, we still don't really get the gaps filled in well. For lots of good lens choice, I can go to FX or m4/3. Which is exactly what I've done.

The casual or entry DSLR user hasn't noticed. The D3200 sells because of the appearance of features (24mp!) at a good price point. m4/3 doesn't match that. Heck, at US$650 (the D3200+kit lens price at the moment), the best I can do in m4/3 at the moment is probably the GX1 with lens, so we're talking 16mp versus 24mp, DSLR versus compact style, better known name brand versus lesser (sorry Panasonic users, but that's how it rolls in cameras at the moment), strong US presence versus almost none, and so on. So of course the D3200 continues to sell well here. To the casual purchaser, it looks like the better bargain.

Serious users look deeper, though. And that's where Nikon's DX comes up wanting. Compare the OM-D versus the D7000 and the things change. Same US$1000 body price, both 16mp, both DSLR style, but one has more lens choice and is smaller/lighter, the other has to dip into FX lenses to contemplate a complete system and is bigger/heavier. And again, less than a stop difference. That starts to be one trade-off (stop difference) against another (lens choice + small size/weight).

All of which brings us to a natural segue: what's next for DX?

The Likely DX Future
Oct 22, 2012 (commentary)--
If we go solely by known information, we can come up with the likely Nikon DX future. What do I mean by "known information"? Well, there are two primary sources we can extrapolate from.

First, there's history. Nikon has been incrementing the low-end consumer DX body on (mostly) one-year intervals, the next higher body on 18-month intervals, the next higher on two-year intervals, and the highest DX body still extant (no pro integrated vertical grip since the D2x; only the D300) on two to four year intervals, depending upon how you look at it.

Even adjusting for the quake and floods, that means that the D5100, D7000, and D300s are all due for updates soon. It's easy enough to see the D5100 update gets the D3200's sensor and an otherwise minor update. The question is what sensor goes in the D7000 and D300s replacements? The last time Nikon had all the consumer DX models on the same sensor was the D50/D70s/D100 era. We also had a 10/12mp lineup (though it was three different sensors) in the D60/D5000/D90/D300s era.

Is it possible that we'll get four 24mp DX DSLRs? Yes, it is. There are multiple logical reasons for that: parts consolidation, diffraction, and more. But there are also arguments against it: it makes the down sell more easily than the up sell ("you can get the same megapixel count at a lower price" versus "the higher priced model offers some additional features"). I suspect, therefore, that one of the reasons why the D400 seems so late to the game is that it will stretch some more at the sensor. If it's 24mp, the sensor will be faster at off-loading data (8 fps+). Or it may just be more than 24mp. Both things are pushing current state of the art (remember, the more pixels you want to off-load at 8 fps, the faster the rest of the internal bandwidth has to be: faster memory, faster ASIC, etc.).

The second piece of known information is patents. Rarely have we ever seen something out of Nikon where we haven't also seen patents pointing to it. The lack of DX lens patents is a bit disconcerting, as it predicts the future will be like the past. In terms of DX lens patents, we only have a few: 16-85mm f/4, 18mm f/2.8, and 24mm f/2 or f/2.8. That does little to fill the the holes in the DX lens lineup (though all would be welcome additions). But it also doesn't point to much attempt to build higher quality lenses that can cope well with more megapixels in resolution.

The other disturbing patent trend is that Nikon has begun patenting what looks like a DX mirrorless system (akin to Canon's EOS M from what we've seen so far). This is where things get really tricky. First, such a system needs yet another set of lenses (that would make four in CX, DX, DX M, and FX, and only FX could be said to be reasonably complete). Second, such a system essentially offers the same image quality (sensor) in a different package, which would tend to cannibalize DX itself. Now, I'm all for cannibalizing your own product before someone else does it, but I'm also for completing what you start.

So my first take on DX future is this: we'll continue to see DSLR body updates roll for this generation as most expect, but there's a strong chance that in the generations after that we will begin a transition to DX mirrorless (e.g. the D3200 replacement or the replacement to its replacement).

This makes Nikon's neglect of DX lenses even more reckless, in my opinion. On the one hand, you might argue from Nikon's view that "why invest in more DX lenses when we know we'll start transitioning away from that?" But that's Nikon's view. The user's view is different: you didn't provide a full DX lens set in 13 years, so why will DX mirrorless be any different? That last bit is really dangerous when you consider a key competitor (m4/3) is near filling out a full lineup of lenses.

The Nikon apologists will retort: but Nikon's smaller than the other companies and has fewer resources, so how could they fill out multiple product lines? Nonsense. That's the old Mythical Man Month argument in a different form. Resources do not equal capability. Lean, limber, efficient, focused, and smart more often than not beats out "more resources." I can't say that Nikon is any of those things at the moment in product management (they are efficient in manufacturing and smart in parts management, however).

So, to put it all together: within the next nine months we'll get D5200, D7200, and D400 DX bodies, the straight mostly-sensor upgrades to existing cameras. All will likely have wireless options ala the D3200, and the top two will as usual have vertical grip options. We will not get any additional DX bodies (the line will remain at four choices, from US$700 to US$1500). We should get an upscale replacement for the current 16-85mm soon, and we'll also likely get a moderate wide angle DX lens that's not particularly fast in aperture. I suspect that the kit lenses will get another iteration, as well, probably partly to drive costs out, but hopefully also to drive performance up to better match expectations out of 24mp sensors.

With that out of the way, we can next turn to whether that's enough to keep DX users happy and whether you stick with DX or not. Stay tuned.

Latest DX Review
Oct 20, 2012 (reviews)--
The Nikkor 85mm f/3.5G Micro-Nikkor DX VR. (Full list of new DX reviews in DX Week Three article.) Also, I've updated my concise DX lens summary page.

DX Month, Week One as linkable article
DX Month, Week Two as linkable article
DX Month, Week Three as a linkable article




bythom.com | Nikon | Gadgets | Writing | imho | Travel | Privacy statement | contact Thom at thom_hogan@msn.com

All material on www.bythom.com is Copyright 2012 Thom Hogan. All rights reserved.
Unauthorized use of writing or photos published on this site is illegal, not to mention a bit of an ethical lapse. Please respect my rights.