Ad
Ad
Ad
Pages: [1] 2 3 4 »   Bottom of Page
Print
Author Topic: PhaseOne or Hasselblad/Imacon?  (Read 16588 times)
Dinarius
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 699


« on: January 12, 2007, 11:52:25 AM »
ReplyReply

I am seriously thinking of taking the plunge and buying a 39Mp back.

I have never owned Hasselblad cameras, so I have no bias towards their products. I have always used Mamiya RBs, but if I have to sell them, I will.

Issues of cost aside, why might I consider opting for the PhaseOne back, when the Hasselblad back will give me the same straight 39Mp capture, in addition to Hasselblad/Imacon's patented multishot capture?

Most of my work is fine art documentation for catalogue. Currently, 4x5 tranny is my staple. I have also looked at the BetterLight backs and, while they are much cheaper, they do seem a tad unwieldly and slow.

Research seems to indicate that high end medium format backs are now replacing 4x5 in the museum/gallery world. That's good enough for me.

Any suggestions?

Thanks.

D.
Logged
Morgan_Moore
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2196


WWW
« Reply #1 on: January 12, 2007, 12:12:17 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
Issues of cost aside, why might I consider opting for the PhaseOne back
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=95298\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]


I cant see one.

Historically phase were first to the scene with thier untehered 22mp back - creating a rush down that road

So now many people are phase rigged - so there is lots of rental and lots of techs who know the phase score - that could be a reason

Phase may still be ahead with capture rates and ISO

I dont have experience of the software or workflow of either - but it is worth checking out the diffeerences

FYI Sinar also make a tethered multishot back Evolution which could be worth checking out and tethered Eyelike 22 (second hand) still makes amazing files

Obviously the choice of camera system will affect your choice - for example phase seem unclear on the HY6 camera system and also on the H3 system and who knows how long H2s will be araound - maybe a long time - but hassy arent clear on this point either

Sinar/Eyelike backs are made differently with adapters that mean thay will work on most MF systems with the correct adapter - the adpters are not easy to change though and not suited for change in the field - but at leat a back doesnt have to go back to the factory for XX months


Good Luck

SMM
Logged

Sam Morgan Moore Cornwall
www.sammorganmoore.com -photography
mtomalty
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 534


WWW
« Reply #2 on: January 12, 2007, 12:41:44 PM »
ReplyReply

I also don't believe you'll find any appreciable quality advantages between the two products.

Slightly different bells and whistle and workflows with each but that you won't know untill
you see,firsthand,what fits best with your taste.

The multishot option might offer you some advantage,though,since you say your primary
focus would be fine art reproduction.

I have no firsthand experience,but have read fairly regularly,in some public and private
forums that color fidelity with respect to reproducing accurate color in artwork,for example,
is facilitated by the multishot option.
These claims have been made by photographers with a similar specialty to yours and were
relating experiences when comparing single and 4 shot captures taken with the same
Imacon/Hasselblad back. These comparisons were not being made between different brands.

Mark
Logged
TorbenEskerod
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 76


« Reply #3 on: January 12, 2007, 02:00:31 PM »
ReplyReply

xx
« Last Edit: January 20, 2008, 06:14:10 AM by TorbenEskerod » Logged
SeanBK
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 484


« Reply #4 on: January 12, 2007, 02:20:29 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
I was truly amazed on how much difference there were between two backs (different 39mp brands) with the same chip. The test (cityscape) was done with the same camera Hasselblad and the same lens. I asked the reps (who knows the software) to develop the raw files and give me the best result they could.

[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=95314\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Torben, Do I understand correctly that the results were better with H3D-39, hence the purchase or was it because of 28mm lens, you bought H3D-39??
Logged
narikin
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 854


« Reply #5 on: January 12, 2007, 03:21:52 PM »
ReplyReply

I think nearly everyone agrees that Phase set the gold standard for their software - which doesn't mean it cant be improved, but it really works and all others fail to measure up in quality of results or usability.
that is not to be overlooked. it's a serious consideration for working pros.

the new + series backs look like they will answer a lot of the 'cons' against phase - good screen, live focus, and still lower noise levels at every speed.

the Hasselblad is a great product though, and its a tidy package.

a P45 should cost you about $27,000 US give or take a bit.
so a H2D + P45 is about the same as an H3D.

I would never use the 28mm, so its not a factor either way.

alternatively you could wait for the MF Canon that is rumored to be on the way later this year. and wait.
Logged
TorbenEskerod
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 76


« Reply #6 on: January 12, 2007, 03:32:28 PM »
ReplyReply

xx
« Last Edit: January 20, 2008, 06:14:23 AM by TorbenEskerod » Logged
ngophotographer
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 50


« Reply #7 on: January 12, 2007, 03:36:58 PM »
ReplyReply

Hi Dinarius:

I highly recommend you go to a dealer that specializes in high-end digital photography and try the systems: Hassy/Imacon, Phase One and Better Light.

Picking the camera, H-system, V-system, Mamiya would be a personal choice depending on what lenses you need/like.  More than likely, you would create custom profiles for whatever camera/back system you're using in order to color match for catalogs anyways.

I own and use a P45 with Hasselblad V for fine art landscape.  I came from 4x5 and still use it--I'm in the learning and transition phase.  One of my photographer comrades has been using the P45 with the Mamiya 645 system since it came out.  The P-backs are great for untethered shooting.  They have a small LCD display for checking the histogram and composition that is great for backcountry shooting.  The workflow software (Capture One) is fabulous and works not only with digital backs, but DSLRs too.  

As you’re aware, the Better Light back is like a Quickload holder  and shoots tethered.  However, tethered doesn't work well for me in the backcountry.

Moving to Medium Format (standard camera systems) you will LOSE the control you have with the 4x5.  No tilts, shifts and swings or “built-in macro”.  The reason I am in the transition phase is that for many of my landscapes, I need lots of depth of field.  Having f/45 w/minimal diffraction and tilt is important.  I also use front rise a lot to prevent convergence.  I’m still seeing how the P45 works with the 38mm Biogon and 50mm Distagon compared to my LF lenses on Velvia 100.

I would call Mike Collete at Better Light and walk him through what you're trying to do.  He will give you a good idea of what the scanning times, etc. will be.  In addition, he can give the advantages of a scanning back over a “one shot”.

Make sure you get the right product for your shooting and business.  You’ll be a lot happier.  Hope this helps.

All the best,

Rich
NGOphotographer
Logged
BobDavid
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 995


« Reply #8 on: January 12, 2007, 03:45:47 PM »
ReplyReply

I've been using an Imacon 384C on a Mamiya 645 AFD for fine art reproduction. The 384C is a 4-Shot back. I'd recommend a 4-shot over a single shot back any day of the week. Color is more accurate and you'll never have to deal with moire. My only complaint about the 384C is that it is a square chip. I'd much rather have a rectangle chip for fine art repro. The Sinar 54H is a good 22MP 4-shot option, as is the Imacon 528C 4-shot 22MP chip. I still think that a 4-shot 22 MP chip is better for fine art reproduction than a 39 MP single shot.

I am amazed by the quality -- sharpness (center and corners), color, contrast, lack of pin cussion or barrel distortion, of the Mamiya 645 80MM macro and the 120MM Macro.

As far as fine art repro goes, excellent strobe lights, cross polarization, and  a decent copy stand are crucial too.

I'd much rather use a medium format DB than a 4" X 5" and a Better Light back. The Better Light backs are very accurate and produce exquisite files, but to really make it work, you need highly stable continuous light sources. Using a scanning back is more time and labor intensive too.
Logged
mkravit
Guest
« Reply #9 on: January 12, 2007, 07:15:36 PM »
ReplyReply

After buying an Aptus 75 and dealing with the frustration of issue after issue month after month I finally returned the back to Leaf for a full refund. I then tested Phase and Hasselblad. I opted for the H3D for a number of reasons and I am 100% pleased with my decision.

The H3D is a solid, stable platform. After nearly 3,000 exposures I have yet to suffer a singe error message, centerline, or software lockup.  I also use the H3D on my Alpa as SWA with 24, 35 and 47mm lenses.

The lens distortion correction is simply amazing and worth the price of admission. Flexcolor is stable, full featured and get's better with every release.

Not many users on the forums yet, but as people see the files the H3D produce and the new Flexcolor slated to be released in March or April I am sure this will change. I am told that Hasselblad is to release ISO 800 & 1600, as well as longer exposure times.
« Last Edit: January 12, 2007, 07:16:44 PM by mkravit » Logged
Mark_Tucker
Guest
« Reply #10 on: January 13, 2007, 08:45:56 AM »
ReplyReply

I have settled on the Phase P45 and Contax 645 and love it. It was a bit rocky in the beginning; I found the canned Phase input profiles were not at all good for skin tones. If you go the Phase route, expect that you should learn the built-in Color Editor inside of Phase One, where you can generate your own custom ICC input profiles, for your own taste and style. Once I reached that point, it was a major improvement overall. Now, I am loving the P45; the resolution and color continues to amaze me, and the workflow with CaptureOne is very nice, for volume work. Yes, the LCD is still bad, but I've learned to chill out about it; that is still its Achilles Heel, if working with strobe, when shooting untethered. But when you open the files, all that is forgotten; it feels like you're looking at 4x5 Ektachrome. I shoot IIQSmall, to keep the file sizes down; no compromise in quality if you shoot at low ASAs.

Whatever you choose, I strongly suggest to test all the backs, to make sure you find the one that fits your own style of shooting. But make sure you shoot the test in volume, and come home and actually process out the test, just like it was a job. It's easy to forget about the software portion; that's where CaptureOne shines.
Logged
pprdigital
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 422


WWW
« Reply #11 on: January 13, 2007, 10:02:25 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote
I am seriously thinking of taking the plunge and buying a 39Mp back.

I have never owned Hasselblad cameras, so I have no bias towards their products. I have always used Mamiya RBs, but if I have to sell them, I will.

Issues of cost aside, why might I consider opting for the PhaseOne back, when the Hasselblad back will give me the same straight 39Mp capture, in addition to Hasselblad/Imacon's patented multishot capture?

Most of my work is fine art documentation for catalogue. Currently, 4x5 tranny is my staple. I have also looked at the BetterLight backs and, while they are much cheaper, they do seem a tad unwieldly and slow.

Research seems to indicate that high end medium format backs are now replacing 4x5 in the museum/gallery world. That's good enough for me.

Any suggestions?

Thanks.

D.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=95298\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Dinarius:

Your post seems to indicate that you'll be in a studio capturing paintings, etc. If this is the case, a multi-shot back will deliver the best results in terms of color and detail. As you mentioned, a scanning back is tempting, but the workflow and technology pose some challenges.

Cost can be a factor as well - single shot captures certainly are in play in some archival environments. But a multi-shot back will exceed the quality of a single shot back - that is without question. But it will generally cost as much or more.

You also mentioned "for catalogue". If the output size is not great, the advantages of multi-shot are reduced. To make life easier, you'll probably also want to look into investing in a new camera system, one that allows for capture and control from a computer, if desired.

As always, you'll want to test the systems out before making a choice. Another piece of advice: When testing equipment, listen to what the representative is saying that is positive about their product. Verify any of this that is critical to your work. And also listen to anything the representative says that is negative about their competition. Confirm this also.

It's a very competitive playing field out there right now, and some sale reps have a habit of tossing out misleading innuendo about their competitors products. Don't accept it as fact - check any negative claims with the actual product's manufacturer, as well as some of that product's users - and I emphasize USERS, not people who have tried it out or rented occasionally. Once you buy it, YOU have to live with it, not them.

Good luck.

Steve Hendrix
Logged

Steve Hendrix
tom_l
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 214


WWW
« Reply #12 on: January 13, 2007, 12:03:39 PM »
ReplyReply

I'm primary doing museum photography, and went for a P25 with a V-Mount (flexbody).

The quality is somewhere between 6x9cm and 4x5inch, I think.

I decided against a multishot or Scanback because i often have to visit private collectors and I am on location. I only work with Flashheads, no hot-light.

I tested the P45 too, the results were great, I really mean great. It was a money decision to go for the P25. The file is easier to handle too and perfect for coffee table books size.
A collegue works with an older Sinarback 54 and 4 shot.(16 shot is a PITA).Results are great too.
I never had Moiré problems with flat paintings (oil, aquarelle, drawings, old and new).


tom-
Logged
yaya
Guest
« Reply #13 on: January 13, 2007, 03:14:08 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
I am seriously thinking of taking the plunge and buying a 39Mp back.

I have never owned Hasselblad cameras, so I have no bias towards their products. I have always used Mamiya RBs, but if I have to sell them, I will.

Issues of cost aside, why might I consider opting for the PhaseOne back, when the Hasselblad back will give me the same straight 39Mp capture, in addition to Hasselblad/Imacon's patented multishot capture?

Most of my work is fine art documentation for catalogue. Currently, 4x5 tranny is my staple. I have also looked at the BetterLight backs and, while they are much cheaper, they do seem a tad unwieldly and slow.

Research seems to indicate that high end medium format backs are now replacing 4x5 in the museum/gallery world. That's good enough for me.

Any suggestions?

Thanks.

D.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=95298\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Dinarius,

All the advice given here is dead on, I'd just like to throw my ¢2 worth in.

You mention that your staple is 4X5 tranny so I assume you use a view camera not only for the size but also for the movements. If I'm wrong and you use the RB only that's fine as well.

Going into a museum at 7am to get a few frames before the galleries open, use flash heads because the glass roof doesn't really bring any daylight in at that time, shooting a 10' X 10' old masters with a 3' tripod etc.
You need to be able to get the framing/ composition right (Ground glass or Live View), focusing, DOF and exposure.
So you either use a laptop or a reliable LCD that allows 100% zoom.

Colour reproduction is a lot more critical in this environment then with shooting people. You need a package that offers a good starting point and a facility to create your own profiles, with the available lighting to work with the materials and pigments used.

The way to go forward, as a first step, is to call the dealers in your area and get their reps to meet you outside the museum at 06:45 on a rainy day, with their backs and whatever adapters needed for your RB camera/ lenses (for the RB ask for a rotating adapter), get in, shoot and make the best tiff they can for you to open in Photoshop in a size of your choice.
They should also then leave you the raw files and a copy of their software and if they are serious, they should also spend the time with you to go through the software with any tips and tricks that they mey have.
If any issues occure (diffraction at f32, moire, chromatic aberration, blotchy shadows, missfiring, smearing, blooming...) they should be able to advise on possible solutions/ alternatives and also explain the cause of the problem.

This first step will provide an idea on which system is capable of produces the best result in this environment.

I also suggest that you try talking to photographers who work in museums about the systems they choose. These people invest a lot of time and effort in testing and evaluating these system before purchasing.
They also have vast experience in working in a closed workflow; from capture to print and work closely with the in-house repro department.
Another option is to talk to auction houses. At least the two big ones produce large volumes of catalogue size prints in demanding conditions in terms of time-frames, colour accuracy etc.

The dealers/ reps should be able to provide these references.

If at all possible, try to borrow/ rent a system for a few days to get a more personal "feeling" about the handling, the software and the results. The dealers should have this facility and should offer to take some of the rental money off in case you buy their system.

I hope this helps and good luck with your process. I think you will be amazed at how easily you will forget film once you've settled into the digital domain.

Yair

[span style=\'font-size:7pt;line-height:100%\']Yair Shahar | Regional Manager | Leaf EMEA |  
mob:  +44 77 8992 8199 | yair.shahar@kodak.com |   www.leaf-photography.com
Leaf, part of Kodak's Graphic Communications Group
[/span]
« Last Edit: January 13, 2007, 03:40:32 PM by yaya » Logged
Dinarius
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 699


« Reply #14 on: January 13, 2007, 05:42:04 PM »
ReplyReply

Phew! Really lots of excellent food for thought. Many, many thanks.

A few observations.........

1. I hadn't really considered the digital Sinar route (I use an old P. Has paid for itself a thousand times over.) If they make an adaptor that would allow me to use their back on my Mamiyas, that would be a strong plus in their favour, in addition to the multishot facility. But, can it be used untethered when on a medium format camera? i.e. Does it have a screen?

2. Mark, yes I too have heard mention of better colour in relation to multishot. I am a slave to my Gretag CC and find that when I correct it so that the bottom two rows are exactly as they should be (via ACR, Curves and Hue/Sat) the painting/sculpture looks pretty much bang on too. I usually only have problems with contrast. i.e. lack of.

3. narikin,

"I think nearly everyone agrees that Phase set the gold standard for their software - which doesn't mean it cant be improved, but it really works and all others fail to measure up in quality of results or usability.
that is not to be overlooked. it's a serious consideration for working pros."

I must admit I have never used C1 Pro, only LE. I use ACR's nine point colour sampler facility religiously when correcting my Gretag CC, in combination with the Adjust and Calibrate tabs, so I'm stuck with it. Perhaps C1 Pro has similar features, but I like ACR.

4. Rich, as it happens there are no BetterLight agents in my part of the world. Based on what I've read, I can't imagine the speed of workflow being helpful. I am frequently expected to make a lot of captures in a day and I don't think that the BetterLight could keep up! Seriously, I imagine they are most suited for the in-house pro rather than the freelancer, if that makes sense.

5. Bob, your post pretty much sums up my entire attitude to this connundrum! Everything you write is what I have already been lead to believe (your comment about preferring 4-shot 22Mp to 39Mp single shot prompted one fellow pro to suggest that I try and pick up a second hand Imacon 22Mp) or what I was already tending towards myself. The 'belt and braces' approach of having the option of multishot, while also having the same single capture as others are offering is very, very appealing. It's very much a case of me thinking, 'What are the reasons for NOT choosing multishot?'

6. Tom, my understanding is that the Imacon multishot technology is patented. How come Sinar offer a similar product? Is it licensed to them?

7. Yair, if I decide to go multishot, I'll have to replace the RB since it doesn't work with it. At least not with the Imacon offering. On the point of speaking to others in the trade. Yes, the one I spoke to has gone the Hassie/Imacon route - 39Mp MS.

Thanks to all

One other question.........what's the HY6?

Many thanks.

ps....Would have replied to you all much earlier, but I couldn't load this site. Kept timing out. Annoying! ;-)
Logged
rainer_v
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1120


WWW
« Reply #15 on: January 13, 2007, 09:02:43 PM »
ReplyReply

to1.   no, the sinar 54h cant be used untethered. it has no screen and no own energy supply. it is    
         powered by the firewire connection. i think there are mamiya adapters. i use it with the                    
         contax645 , which works fine. use contax and hasselblad lnses on it.

on disadvantage has the contax for multishot use,- it can not freeze its mirror in the up position,- after every shot it slaps back again. i taped the mirror up, which works.
also it works fine if you damp the mirror little bit more where it hits the body. i use 4 layers of fabric- matte isolation tape. it makes the mirror slap smooth enough to use it in 16 shot mode without any vibration !! ,- ( also you gain one stop if you use the contax handheld...).



i posted some days ago  comparision crops from a sinar 16shot back to 33mp e75 back.
i wouldnt say 16shot is a PITA as stated above, although you have to work some hours or days with it to become familiar to its shortcomings.... .
but if you are able to get it the quality is only comparable with hiend scanbacks.
you also can use this back ( sinar 54h ) in single shot mode with 22mp resolution.
if i would do more studio or reproduction work for sure would go that multishot way.
at the moment  i am still very busy with a book publication of Quilts for a known german museum.
here i use this sinar 54h back in 16 shot mode. it allows perfectly sharp prints up to 100x100cm and acceptable and still impressive prints up to the original ( maximum ) size of the Quilts around 220x220 cm. you can see at this size every detail of the fabrics without any of the typical upsize degradations for the complete lack of bayer interpolation artefacts.
« Last Edit: January 13, 2007, 09:19:38 PM by rehnniar » Logged

rainer viertlböck
architecture photographer
munich / germany

www.tangential.de
tom_l
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 214


WWW
« Reply #16 on: January 14, 2007, 03:45:26 AM »
ReplyReply

I think a few Sinar backs do multishot, there's a new one too, but don't know if it has a screen.

Multishot works best with a view camera, or a camera where you can lock the mirror.

I still have a RB, but never bought the adaptor and so, nver tried with my back. Rumors said that the lenses wouldn't give their best with a digital back. Maybe nobody ever tried.

I wasn't very sure if a MF camera could be used for my kind a work. Working with a non geared view camera for reproductions was so easy (except for recocking these old lenses), with a back i thing a geared view camera (with digital lenses) is the way to go if you work in your studio. When i go to collectors, galleries a MF camera works just fine.

Profiles, well, i didn't create any. With cross polarising, the only problem that occurs, is that you loose early detail in the blacks than in the high tones. With C+ software i shoot linear, and work with this file. Not very professionnel maybe but i rarely do more than 30 paintings a day.
Problems were the same with film these last year when it became more and more difficult to find a neutral film.

The best thing is really to test all the backs that are available in your area.


tom
Logged
Dinarius
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 699


« Reply #17 on: January 14, 2007, 04:40:40 AM »
ReplyReply

Ninety nine per cent of what I do is location since the work I shoot is too fragile/valuable/awkward to bring to me.

Therefore, shooting tethered, which I have never done, fills me with dread. While I would like to use my Sinar for digital, particularly given the ease with which it could be used for multishot, I have been lead to believe that Hasselblad have come up with a successful solution to this problem with their H(?) System.

That said, even if I choose a system which could be used on both my Sinar and medium format (Mamiya RB or AN Other), it would have to have a screen. I am a slave to the histogram! ;-) So, I guess that reduces my choice.

D.

ps...slightly off topic......Tom, I rarely use polarizing filters for the reasons you describe. Dark areas can fade to black very easily. The only reason for using them, IMHO, is to help with lighting oil paintings with heavy finishing varnish - to avoid flare. But, I usually find that this problem can be circumvented by rearranging the lighting.
Logged
yaya
Guest
« Reply #18 on: January 14, 2007, 04:47:06 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote
That said, even if I choose a system which could be used on both my Sinar and medium format (Mamiya RB or AN Other), it would have to have a screen. I am a slave to the histogram! ;-) So, I guess that reduces my choice.

D.

[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=95646\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

If you insist on using the back's screen on location, this rules out the muti-shot option.
You may have not been made aware of that, but this option, on all these backs, is only available in tethered mode.

BTW the original patent for multi-shot bayer patterned chips belongs to Eyelike, which of course made it available to Sinar and licenced to Imacon.

Yair
« Last Edit: January 14, 2007, 04:48:10 AM by yaya » Logged
Dinarius
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 699


« Reply #19 on: January 14, 2007, 05:10:50 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote
If you insist on using the back's screen on location, this rules out the muti-shot option.
You may have not been made aware of that, but this option, on all these backs, is only available in tethered mode.

BTW the original patent for multi-shot bayer patterned chips belongs to Eyelike, which of course made it available to Sinar and licenced to Imacon.

Yair, many thanks for pointing that out. No, I hadn't been made aware of it. So, I guess I'll just have to bite the bullet on that score.

Nevertheless, for my other work, I would like the option of a screen when I'm not shooting multishot, assuming I go the multishot route, which is looking more likely now! ;-)

So, what are my choices for multishot systems with screens apart from Hasselblad/Imacon?

One other point......mention has been made of the next generation of chips being fully 6x6cm. Given that it only involves making an existing technology bigger, the cynic in me says that this is nothing short of including built in obsolescence in the manufacturer's existing offerings. It reminds me of a conversation I had with an Intel employee some years ago. He said that they had the capability at that time to offer twice the processing speed then available. Given that my 25 year old Sinar P is all I need, I suspect that the manufacturers realize that a digital camera with a 6x6 chip (or even better a 6 x 8 chip) would fulfil the same role. Cynic? Moi? Never! ;-)

D.
Logged
Pages: [1] 2 3 4 »   Top of Page
Print
Jump to:  

Ad
Ad
Ad