| Moderated by: chrisbet, |
|
|
| What is HIGH ISO? | Rate Topic |
| Author | Post |
|---|
| Posted by Eric: Mon Dec 24th, 2018 10:18 | 1st Post |
| As you may be aware I have been having noise dissatisfactions with my bird photos. The low winter lighting, the need to have good dof and fast shutter speeds pushed the ISO into 4000plus on many occasions. While trying to ascertain whether my D500 was performing to spec I took a look at the on board High ISO Noise Reduction menu option setting. I noticed my setting was on LOW. The default setting for the camera is NORMAL. Not sure when I altered that setting but it may be a significant reason for my current dissatisfaction? Need to do some tests after Christmas. All this raises a question in my mind....what level do Nikon and therefore WE regard as High ISO, sufficient that it warrants noise reduction intervention? Reading a couple of Nikon's bulletins, they talk about using Nikon cameras at “high ISOs of 800, 1600, 3200 or even higherâ€. REALLY? The D500 normal ISO tops out at 51,000...with a H5 option of 1,600,000!! I naively thought, with this potential, that 'high ISO' would be defined and 'start' significantly more than 800, 1600 or 3200? So when does the High ISO Noise Reduction kick in? And with what intensity? I gather? that the application of this damping effect is incremental through the ISO range. But, is it necessary / applied from as low as 800? I suppose this is at the root of my disappointment. Early dslrs we're fine at 100/200 but hit a rapidly increasing noise problem beyond 800. Why so little improvement in LOW/MEDIUM? ISO noise intervention since then? With 51000plus to play with, it would be nice if noise reduction wasn't necessary until (say) 5000.....ie 10% of the sensors full potential?
____________________ Eric |
| Posted by jk: Mon Dec 24th, 2018 11:43 | 2nd Post |
| Does NR happen in RAW shooting even at High ISO?. I need to look it up.
____________________ Still learning after all these years! https://nikondslr.uk/gallery_view.php?user=2&folderid=none |
| Posted by Eric: Mon Dec 24th, 2018 12:29 | 3rd Post |
jk wrote:Does NR happen in RAW shooting even at High ISO?. I need to look it up. The info says YES....but it can be undone with NEFs in ACR, not so with JPEGs
____________________ Eric |
| Posted by blackfox: Wed Dec 26th, 2018 05:44 | 4th Post |
| sorry Eric but I think your problem lies within your own processing regime and your expectations , added to the manufactures own stories about what can be done .. ALL camera makers got carried away about 10 years ago into making cameras that would not only take photos but also take video herein lies the problem it has increased complexity and distracted things . I have used a lot of cameras across the brands and sensor sizes and most of our expectations as far as wildlife are concerned come down to one problem CROPPING , if you use a full frame camera to take a image and a crop factor camera to take the same image to get them both to the size you want you need to crop in . doing this will induce noise in the image , then add that a lot of our photos are taken in low light situations the problem will get worse , correct exposure compensation will help but not cure it . I find that virtually every wildlife photo I take with what ever camera/lens combo suffers from noise . it's really then down to using the available processing tools to cure the problem . I use Lightroom and photoshop the former for cropping and colour sorting the latter for layering the image . I ALWAYS layer every pic and apply noise reduction through a plug in made by imageonic . then sharpen the bird/animal as needed the whole process takes about 3 to 4 minutes . there unfortunately is no way round it at this moment in time , if you allow the camera to do the noise reduction it will simply apply it to the whole image making it softer
|
| Posted by blackfox: Wed Dec 26th, 2018 05:57 | 5th Post |
| just done a quick example taken with the Panasonic g80 and 100-400 lens , the first one is straight O.O.C with no noise reduction just a cropped and Lightroom enhancements taken at 6400iso in deep woodlands Attachment: example 1 .jpg (Downloaded 26 times)
|
| Posted by blackfox: Wed Dec 26th, 2018 05:58 | 6th Post |
| the second shot with imageonic applied, unfortunately the direct up load has taken the richness out of the colours , but the noise is the gone Attachment: example 2 de noise applied .jpg (Downloaded 27 times)
|
| Posted by Eric: Wed Dec 26th, 2018 09:56 | 7th Post |
blackfox wrote:sorry Eric but I think your problem lies within your own processing regime and your expectations , added to the manufactures own stories about what can be done .. Thanks Jeff I confess I had come to that conclusion from your previous posts and examples. I suppose in posting this thread I was just venting my annoyance and frustration that the industry has moved on in so many ways, made cameras that can have miraculous performance 'upper storeys' ( just learnt the D500 can do an H5 iso of 1,600,000  ) but no one seems to have updated the “upper ground floor' .....where most of us spend our time and energy. We still have noise at 4000.... why haven't they lifted THAT threshold to (say) 10000?I realise, in wildlife, I am joining a new genre of photography and it takes time to change my commercial way of working for the last 25years ....where individual shots could take 30mins to arrange, light and expose  I will get there.... with you experienced birding photographers helping and by practising in the field. I've also been reading some interesting articles on exposure, iso etc etc. It's amazing how the blindingly obvious can be overlooked. For example....if the background is darker than the correctly exposed subject..... it will be underexposed...and as such more prone to noise anyway.  But as you say, in the absence of some momentous change in sensors 'upper ground floor' performance, noise management will still be part of the processing workflow 
____________________ Eric |
| Posted by Eric: Wed Dec 26th, 2018 10:13 | 8th Post |
Eric wrote:jk wrote: Having read another article that reply may be incorrect.  But many NEF shooters recommend leaving it OFF entirely in the camera and applying noise reduction in LR, PS or another noise specific programme afterwards. That sort of suggests it WILL carry forward those camera settings ?? Whatever the truth, I have always subscribed to the need to do final adjustments on the computer afterwards. My problem of late is the starting level of noise out of the camera seemed excessive....requiring more computer intervention than I had hoped would be necessary.
____________________ Eric |
| Posted by Robert: Wed Dec 26th, 2018 10:45 | 9th Post |
| Just passing... I have notice with alarm that you keep saying you save as JPEG, "it will be 'good enough'" If I may say so it WON'T be 'good enough', you are complaining about IQ, use the highest quality NEF's you can lay your hands on just for starters, and leave the noise reduction for the computer. The available choice of NR software is far greater and infinitely more controllable than what the camera has to offer. Use layers and masking, you are the expert in that department yet you seem to be missing it. OK you are fed up with using computers but if you want the good results in my view it's the only way. Off to the tip!
____________________ Robert. |
| Posted by blackfox: Wed Dec 26th, 2018 11:46 | 10th Post |
| In reflection Eric wildlife photography is a specialist genre , the very best work is carried out by throwing extreme amounts of money at it in terms of bodies ,lenses and computer p.p ... It can however be done on the cheap if your willing to find the ways around it which I have been forced into doing . But as you say the one thing that has proved a sticking point over the years has been digital noise , and I suppose I'm lucky in a way having chopped and changed bodies and lenses over the years that I can look back at stuff and choose what worked best , hence my D300s purchase , as your finding sometimes the latest and greatest leaves you lacking . The other thing I look at is the actual feel of the photo , my gut feelings is while things may have improved with these new sensors and finer detail can be resolved it's like comparing paintings by different artists a Van Gogh to a MichaelAngelo for instance both are good but in there own way My wildlife style is walkabout and get away from other people where possible . advancing years and deteriating health made me change to MFT gear earlier this year ,it's good as you have seen but still lacking in certain respects . I suppose in reality I'm trying to get back to a point in time where I liked the work I was producing
|
| Posted by jk: Wed Dec 26th, 2018 12:29 | 11th Post |
| With the Nikon cameras it also matters hugely which chipset (EXPEED) is in the camera. I always have High ISO noise reduction set to Off. Jeff, are you using Imagenomic Noiseware on the mouse image? I have a copy of it but never used it as I had NoiseNinja then found that in Bibble there were better plugin available but I use Capture One Pro v12 which has all sorts of goodies built in. I took some daylight images today on the Z7 at 6400ISO but also most at ISO800. I will compare results. The Z7, D850, D500 have EXPEED5 chipset. Earlier cameras D4, D750 have Expeed4 and D800, D600, D3 have Expeed3.
____________________ Still learning after all these years! https://nikondslr.uk/gallery_view.php?user=2&folderid=none |
| Posted by Iain: Wed Dec 26th, 2018 14:25 | 12th Post |
| I must be honest, I was avid raw user except for the press/sport when time or lack of it made it the best option. But the D500 has changed that. I now shot jpeg for wildlife having shot the same image in raw and jpeg adjusted them both and found that there was no difference. As for noise I have my D500 set on normal and you have seen the results.
|
| Posted by jk: Wed Dec 26th, 2018 15:04 | 13th Post |
| I agree that D500 works well. To be honest I only shoot RAW for best results should I want to make a large enlargement which is infrequent these days. I am wondering if Eric has a sub-standard D500. I dont know how to check.
____________________ Still learning after all these years! https://nikondslr.uk/gallery_view.php?user=2&folderid=none |
| Posted by blackfox: Wed Dec 26th, 2018 15:05 | 14th Post |
| Yes Jonathon I tend to use imageonic n/r on all shots , but lightrooms own de.noise isn't to bad either tbh
|
| Posted by jk: Wed Dec 26th, 2018 15:06 | 15th Post |
| Interesting. I will need to investigate Noiseware.
____________________ Still learning after all these years! https://nikondslr.uk/gallery_view.php?user=2&folderid=none |
| Posted by Robert: Wed Dec 26th, 2018 16:32 | 16th Post |
jk wrote:Interesting. I will need to investigate Noiseware. Take a look at the previous iteration of NIK filters via Lightroom. I understand the current 'paid for' filters have been dumbed down or messed with. The previous version are good.
____________________ Robert. |
| Posted by jk: Thu Dec 27th, 2018 08:29 | 17th Post |
| Gardens of Heligan, Cornwall. Light show. No noise reduction on these images.  Attachment: Z7-1-0933.jpg (Downloaded 18 times)
____________________ Still learning after all these years! https://nikondslr.uk/gallery_view.php?user=2&folderid=none |
| Posted by jk: Thu Dec 27th, 2018 08:30 | 18th Post |
| Another one. Attachment: Z7-1-0961.jpg (Downloaded 18 times)
____________________ Still learning after all these years! https://nikondslr.uk/gallery_view.php?user=2&folderid=none |
| Posted by jk: Thu Dec 27th, 2018 08:31 | 19th Post |
| All shot on Z7 at ISO6400, 1/60th or there abouts f4. Attachment: Z7-1-0971.jpg (Downloaded 18 times)
____________________ Still learning after all these years! https://nikondslr.uk/gallery_view.php?user=2&folderid=none |
| Posted by Eric: Thu Dec 27th, 2018 09:52 | 20th Post |
Robert wrote:Just passing... Not sure if that remark was addressed to me or Jeff? I HAVE been shooting raw on recent images and there's no difference in the outputted image quality to computer. There is nothing wrong with saving files as JPEGs. The whole publishing industry demands the supply of images in JPEGs format. Send a NEF file to a magazine and they will reject it. In fact these days they frequently want png files. The whole point about raw files is they enable YOU to make whatever corrections you think need doing ....corrections that you or the camera didn't do at the time of the exposure. My point is ...the captured images are not good enough irrespective of file format. The risk with compressed files is the degree and repeated application of this compression by repeated resaving. In my early years of supplying digital artwork I did repeated and exhaustive test on the effect on quality of the degree of jpeg compression and multiple circles thereof. I fear the jpeg is not the bogeyman many would have us believe. Of course it's not good practise to save part processed WIP images in any compressed format. But there's nothing wrong in saving finished files in jpeg. Arguably thts what the camera assumes you require...a finished jpeg. Just my experience
____________________ Eric |
| Posted by Eric: Thu Dec 27th, 2018 09:58 | 21st Post |
jk wrote:I agree that D500 works well. To be honest I only shoot RAW for best results should I want to make a large enlargement which is infrequent these days. I've had an offer of another D500 to try in the new year.  But I am also planning to pop along to WEX again and compare their demo model with mine.
____________________ Eric |
| Posted by Eric: Thu Dec 27th, 2018 10:19 | 22nd Post |
jk wrote:All shot on Z7 at ISO6400, 1/60th or there abouts f4. Those Z7 shots are remarkably clean. I am assuming from your comments that you haven't used any noise reduction you meant neither in the camera or in computer?
____________________ Eric |
| Posted by Iain: Thu Dec 27th, 2018 10:24 | 23rd Post |
Eric wrote:Robert wrote:
|
| Posted by Iain: Thu Dec 27th, 2018 10:26 | 24th Post |
| One from today D500 auto ISO5600 jpeg camera set to normal noise reduction, pic cropped but nothing else done to it.1/320 F6.3@600mm on bean bag. Attachment: DSC_2539-Edit.jpg (Downloaded 34 times)
|
| Posted by Iain: Thu Dec 27th, 2018 10:28 | 25th Post |
| Is your D500 still in warranty Eric?
|
| Posted by Eric: Thu Dec 27th, 2018 15:50 | 26th Post |
Iain wrote:Is your D500 still in warranty Eric? We must have had that thought at the same time. Yes ...bought in March. Will speak to Nikon on Monday. In the meantime I will take some more photos on Normal NR setting and return to WEX over weekend to get some samples off their demo model alongside mine. Because it's a chaff in the same soett of situation but with LOW NR setting and at just 3000 iso..... Attachment: AB87F8DB-46E3-43BF-983E-F0EE260A84E0.jpeg (Downloaded 33 times)
____________________ Eric |
| Posted by jk: Thu Dec 27th, 2018 16:14 | 27th Post |
| I will need to take a look at how my D500 performs here in UK as it was only used in Spain. Ultra bright conditions.
____________________ Still learning after all these years! https://nikondslr.uk/gallery_view.php?user=2&folderid=none |
| Posted by Robert: Fri Dec 28th, 2018 04:08 | 28th Post |
Eric wrote:Robert wrote: Sorry about the delayed response, yesterday was a non event. By "save as JPEG" I meant saving in camera, not on computer, or elsewhere. Comparing an NEF with a JPEG WILL show EXACTLY the same image. No surprise, the NEF contains a basic JPEG for viewing purposes, that is what you are viewing and comparing when you open an NEF. (Which, to me, rather negates the process of saving JPEG and NEF in camera.) The advantage of saving as NEF is the entire data set provided by the sensor is available for processing. That means you have far more latitude in the processing, better highlight and shadow adjustment, more range to adjust noise and a greater freedom to adjust colour or any other image parameter, because the required data is in the NEF, having adjusted the image you are free to save as a TIFF, JPEG or DNG or any other image file format you wish EXCEPT NEF, only the camera can save as NEF. If data storage space is an issue, the NEF's can be thrown away once processed, although I bet you kept negatives even after you printed them to paper, which seems to me analogous to creating JPEGs. A JPEG image file does not contain sufficient data to make the range of adjustment available from an NEF, fact. To get the most from an exposure, especially one which contains bright background or fine detail it is better achieved from an NEF. If I want a good image I use a tripod or monopod and save as NEF, if I just want a snapshot I use the D3300 handheld on auto and save as JPEG, good enough. Having spent a small fortune on a good lens and camera to obtain high quality images, a zero cost methodology of using tripod and NEF's seems to me worth the effort. I carry my tripod or monopod to the tops of mountains, around large gardens, race circuits and across boggy moors. I use NEF file format to allow me to get that extra ounce (gram?) of image quality which I would otherwise throw away but can just make the difference between a good exposure and an outstanding exposure. I feel it's worth the effort and it keeps me fit, the NEF's don't weigh anything and don't cost anything except initial disk space, which is cheap enough nowadays, especially compared with the cost of cameras and lenses, your ideas may be different, I'm just trying to help improve final IQ?
____________________ Robert. |
| Posted by Eric: Fri Dec 28th, 2018 06:41 | 29th Post |
Robert wrote:Eric wrote: I THINK we are talking at crossed purposes...slightly. There is no doubt using a tripod will give you sharper images especially at slower shutter speeds. There is no doubt that saving a file in raw format will enable the computer operator to make finer adjustments. There is no doubt using the wrong settings (when on a tripod or not) will lead to the need for a raw file in the hope the fine detail can be recovered. Having been in this situation MANY MANY times with awkward interior lighting I am fully aware of the potential of raw processing...but also it's limits. No disrespect to anyone but I've seen lots of images over the years on this forum that have been taken in NEF for better processing...only to see glaring exposure, composition, cropping, distraction errors that, to me, destroy the whole notion that processing a raw file was worth it. I hasten to add I myself have also posted images that fail similarly. The point I am making is that if your intention is to produce large exhibition/sale prints as opposed to merely viewing them on screens (be that 55" plasma, 32"Eizo, MacBook or IPad) then you need to squeeze out best practise at every corner. But if the final resting place is Flickr, Instagram, Forums or just Photos on an iPad, then I don't believe the extra contortions of processing nefs on computers have any more merit than using the jpeg out of the camera...even if that needs a few tweaks. It's all about being 'fit for purpose†to my mind.
____________________ Eric |
| Posted by Eric: Fri Dec 28th, 2018 07:08 | 30th Post |
| Just returning to my original post for a moment....and the question of my D500s noise output. I've today taken some interior shots with incandescent lighting (worse case scenario) at different levels of ISO and in camera noise reduction settings. I have yet to compare another D500 ( will try the WEX demo model in next few days) but my conclusion is that by setting the camera at LOW NR since I got the camera, I have been unwittingly fallen between two stools. With no sound assessment to back up my logic, I had assumed that using low rather than normal setting would be beneficial (bearing in mind my foolish perception that 3000-4000 iso isn't HIGH anymore) thus eeking out a little more in camera sharpness. I understood that having NO NR setting would run the risk of HAVING to do something in the computer later but thought (we all know what thought did) I would be ok with LOW. WRONG. Looking on desktop screen at the series of shots I can categorically say the following.... NO NR..... noise becomes evident above 800 iso LOW NR..... noise becomes evident above 2000 iso NORM NR..... noise becomes evident above 4000 iso HIGH NR..... noise becomes evident above 6400 iso Which in part explains why my 4000 bird shots at LOW setting were too noisy for my taste. I've now set it to NORM for next outing. But will also see if the WEX demo model behaves similarly. My model may still be a bit below par. I also took some shots at 1,600,000 iso. Now that IS noisy...even with HIGH NR setting. Will post some examples when I get a moment .....have pulled tendons in my ankle, so hobbling to office desktop computer is even more of a pain. 
____________________ Eric |
| Posted by jk: Fri Dec 28th, 2018 08:08 | 31st Post |
| Hope your ankle gets better soon. Feet up and keep testing! You need a laptop that is as good as your desktop.
____________________ Still learning after all these years! https://nikondslr.uk/gallery_view.php?user=2&folderid=none |
| Posted by Eric: Fri Dec 28th, 2018 14:48 | 32nd Post |
jk wrote:Hope your ankle gets better soon. Feet up and keep testing! You need a laptop that is as good as your desktop.that's in the office too.
____________________ Eric |
| Posted by jk: Fri Dec 28th, 2018 15:48 | 33rd Post |
I am sure that Jan can bring it to you! 
____________________ Still learning after all these years! https://nikondslr.uk/gallery_view.php?user=2&folderid=none |
| Posted by Eric: Fri Dec 28th, 2018 22:55 | 34th Post |
jk wrote:I am sure that Jan can bring it to you! Afraid not ...it's 3:50...been up 1hour, Jan in severe back pain, suspect kidney stone.
____________________ Eric |
| Posted by Robert: Sat Dec 29th, 2018 01:31 | 35th Post |
| Sorry to hear that, I had one once, really painful. The doctor touched the affected area and I almost hit the ceiling. Gave me a pill and I must have passed the stone. The pill seemed to dilate my system, I went warm all over, then the pain eased. I believe they can be broken down with ultrasonics now. Hoping Jan can get some quick relief.
____________________ Robert. |
| Posted by jk: Sat Dec 29th, 2018 03:28 | 36th Post |
| Eric, I hope that they can sort her problem out. Sorry to hear both ofyou are not in best of health.
____________________ Still learning after all these years! https://nikondslr.uk/gallery_view.php?user=2&folderid=none |
| Posted by Graham Whistler: Sun Dec 30th, 2018 09:47 | 37th Post |
| Eric I keep noise reduction on normal and agree that 4000 ISO is the point of no return. I try with D500 and D850 not to use anything above 2500 ISO. As stated several times I think D850 copes slightly better with noise than to D500 but not a lot in it. D850 copes much better with noise in deep shadow. Hope this dull weather goes away I'm in the Kingfisher hide on Wed the 2nd with D850 and the new 500mm lens.
____________________ Graham Whistler |
| Posted by Eric: Tue Jan 1st, 2019 09:00 | 38th Post |
| Well I have at last conceded that if I wish to photograph birds in the typical UK weather I will have to use ISO levels that camera manufacturers consider HIGH. ( despite those being only 1/10th of the iso range on offer) And that at those 'high' iso's ( 2000-5000) I will need to use some form of noise reduction. Setting the camera at Normal when shooting jpeg maybe all that's needed on some occasions. But as it applies the NR universally across the image it may cause some loss of subject detail. The only alternative to this is to shoot in raw and using selective masking, to remove the noise from around the subject. Apart from my annoyance that we are being shortchanged by the sensor manufacturers, the need for this post processing creates a dilemma as to choice of method. I had been hoping to switch to using my iPad Pro for this processing, but in the absence of a full fat Photoshop programme for the iPad (supposedly coming in 2019) I have been familiarising myself with Affinity Photo. It's very good! Layers, lots of familiar functions and even raw converter....except it won't open the D500 raw files. I am therefore reluctantly leaning towards powering up the desktop and signing up for the Photoshop subscription. I have got Nikon NX that opens my raw files but compared to Camera Raw it is woeful for masked editing. I realise there are other desktop alternatives to Photoshop but its the devil I know and in the absence of a full workflow capability on the iPad I don't see any point In looking for something new ...just for the desktop. If Adobe DO release a full iPad version Photoshop (with raw converter for their latest cameras!!) later this year I will consider a switch. But for the moment I am either going to muddle through with JPEGs ....or lock myself away in the now depressing office  for the foreseeable future.
____________________ Eric |
| Posted by jk: Tue Jan 1st, 2019 15:03 | 39th Post |
| Eric, I am sure Affinity Photo supports Nikon D500 RAW files. If you want to continue using Photoshop CS6 AND have latest RAW support then you need to use MetaRAW. https://thepluginsite.com/products/metaraw/index.htm I works just like ACR.
____________________ Still learning after all these years! https://nikondslr.uk/gallery_view.php?user=2&folderid=none |
| Posted by Eric: Tue Jan 1st, 2019 18:52 | 40th Post |
jk wrote:Eric, I am sure Affinity Photo supports Nikon D500 RAW files. THANKS JONTHAN  I revisited my workflow and found that it was me importing nefs into iPad (photos) and trying to bring them into Affinity from Photos didn't work. But when I import them straight from my passport drive (WiFi) into Affinity it works  Here's one from the nef... Attachment: B7E52484-D9C9-4A41-92CA-D61F86E268E8.jpeg (Downloaded 14 times)
____________________ Eric |
| Posted by Eric: Mon Jan 14th, 2019 12:21 | 41st Post |
| Update. Since turning the in camera High ISO noise reduction back to the default NORM setting I have seen reduced noise in the out of camera images. Quelle suprise. I've also confirmed that at least one other D500 performs the same as mine. So I suspect I was being too ambitious thinking a LOW camera setting would suffice at, what I perceive to be, low ISO of 3000-4000. I've since seen similar noise generation on a D850...so it maybe over expectation. However, I've also noticed on some occasions noise not being significant on ISOs as high as 11000. So I am struggling to understand why sometimes it is evident at 2000 but on others it's ok at 5000 or even 11000? Is it purely the relative size of the subject in the frame...ie less cropping? Or are there subtle camera differences (eg exp comp) that play a much bigger part than we might imagine? I've deliberately avoided computer noise reduction techniques at this stage to try and understand what else influences noise generation at the time of exposure. (Apart from the obvious need to correct if they are underexposed images)
____________________ Eric |
| Posted by jk: Mon Jan 14th, 2019 19:42 | 42nd Post |
| Eric, remember we did an experiment on the D7000 when somebody claimed there was no noise. What we showed was that different colour and quality of light made a huge difference with noise/grain.
____________________ Still learning after all these years! https://nikondslr.uk/gallery_view.php?user=2&folderid=none |
| Posted by Eric: Tue Jan 15th, 2019 04:35 | 43rd Post |
jk wrote:Eric, remember we did an experiment on the D7000 when somebody claimed there was no noise. What we showed was that different colour and quality of light made a huge difference with noise/grain. That's true., forgotten that....but I have slept since then.
____________________ Eric |
| This is topic ID = 1625 | ||
| Nikon DSLR Forums > Photography > Photography > What is HIGH ISO? | Top | |
Users viewing this topic |
||
Current theme is Blue
| A small amount of member data is captured and held in an attempt to reduce spammers and to manage users. This site also uses cookies to ensure ease of use. In order to comply with new DPR regulations you are required to agree/disagree with this process. If you do not agree then please email the Admins using info@nikondsl.uk Thank you. |
Hosted by Octarine Services
UltraBB 1.173 Copyright © 2008-2024 Data 1 Systems
Page processed in 0.2675 seconds (84% database + 16% PHP). 266 queries executed.
UltraBB 1.173 Copyright © 2008-2024 Data 1 Systems
Page processed in 0.2675 seconds (84% database + 16% PHP). 266 queries executed.