Ad
Ad
Ad
Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 6 »   Bottom of Page
Print
Author Topic: PMA round up  (Read 35084 times)
woof75
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 581


« on: February 06, 2008, 09:45:14 AM »
ReplyReply

Michael, I strongly disagree with your assessment that lower pixel count digital backs are becoming irrelevant because the pixel count increases of digital SLR's. As you say earlier in your article, it's about time people stop worrying about pixel counts and start thinking about quality and in that regard digital backs give a very different look than a DSLR. A 22 MP DSLR is about as different from a 22MP digital back as a 16MP DSLR is from a back, it's not the pixel count that you get a back for (though it can be useful) it's the different look. I'd be surprised if you didn't agree.
Logged
CatOne
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 391


WWW
« Reply #1 on: February 06, 2008, 02:39:06 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
Michael, I strongly disagree with your assessment that lower pixel count digital backs are becoming irrelevant because the pixel count increases of digital SLR's. As you say earlier in your article, it's about time people stop worrying about pixel counts and start thinking about quality and in that regard digital backs give a very different look than a DSLR. A 22 MP DSLR is about as different from a 22MP digital back as a 16MP DSLR is from a back, it's not the pixel count that you get a back for (though it can be useful) it's the different look. I'd be surprised if you didn't agree.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=172727\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

What's different about the "look" other than the digital back is sharper due to the lack of an AA filter?

With digital, images are extremely malleable, so other than resolving power I can't see how you can't adjust the tone curves and other settings to get them to match.
Logged

woof75
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 581


« Reply #2 on: February 06, 2008, 02:56:33 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
What's different about the "look" other than the digital back is sharper due to the lack of an AA filter?

With digital, images are extremely malleable, so other than resolving power I can't see how you can't adjust the tone curves and other settings to get them to match.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=172785\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Try, everything's different. Color, tonality, gradations, dynamic range, noise, sharpness, amount you can push colors, contrast, tones etc.
Logged
bob mccarthy
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 372


WWW
« Reply #3 on: February 06, 2008, 03:00:36 PM »
ReplyReply

I thought his point was the advancement of IQ in 35mm full frame sensors, namely narrowing of the quality gap to the point where economics take over.

Bob
Logged
woof75
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 581


« Reply #4 on: February 06, 2008, 04:06:12 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
I thought his point was the advancement of IQ in 35mm full frame sensors, namely narrowing of the quality gap to the point where economics take over.

Bob
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=172791\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

yes, they may be getting better but my point is that Michael was suggesting that the lower pixel count backs are becoming irrelevant because the number of pixels in the DSLR's were catching up which misses the point of backs, it's not the pixel count that counts it's the quality. He went on to admit this himself.
Logged
astanley
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 38


« Reply #5 on: February 06, 2008, 04:23:49 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
I thought his point was the advancement of IQ in 35mm full frame sensors, namely narrowing of the quality gap to the point where economics take over.

Bob
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=172791\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Bob, that's how I interpreted it as well.  The MF edge has been, IMO, in glass.  Contax / Zeiss / Mamiya have been (again, my opinion) consistently better than any 35mm glass.  In fact, that's exactly why I invested in a MF system for film a few years back.

Overall, right now for critical quality, MF lenses and high-end backs still possess an edge.  The dSLR's are approaching it but, without strong innovations (like the new Nikon WA zoom), sensors will out-perform the lens, leading to quality issues.  Reading between the lines, if Moore's law takes hold on sensors, will the manufacturers return to lens innovation?  Nikon has shown this; the new Sony could drive some new Zeiss glass... what about Canon?

At some point the resolution curve will catch up with MF and we may very well see backs that can outresolve the kings of MF.  Then... who knows?  And, at some point, at all but the most obtuse (read, rare) enlargements, we'll reach a point at which mere mortals (normal humans) and semi-immortals (us photographers) can perceive difference.  This doesn't even take into account gamut, inkheads, droplet size, pigment types, papers, coatings, and the like...

I'll say this, it is an exciting time to be a photographer.  Once I got over my film zealotry, I realized that I have creative control like I never, ever had with chem based work.  

Cheers,

-Andrew
Logged
astanley
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 38


« Reply #6 on: February 06, 2008, 04:39:55 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
yes, they may be getting better but my point is that Michael was suggesting that the lower pixel count backs are becoming irrelevant because the number of pixels in the DSLR's were catching up which misses the point of backs, it's not the pixel count that counts it's the quality. He went on to admit this himself.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=172810\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

I think he's saying with the appropriate glass on the 1Ds Mk III, it's a wash comparing a 21mp back with a 21mp SLR, given the post processing tools.  However, go like-for-like (Canon L Glass / 1 Ds versus H1 with Zeiss), and MF has a slight edge, only due to glass, not the sensor itself.

Cheers,

-Andrew
Logged
woof75
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 581


« Reply #7 on: February 07, 2008, 07:13:33 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote
I think he's saying with the appropriate glass on the 1Ds Mk III, it's a wash comparing a 21mp back with a 21mp SLR, given the post processing tools.  However, go like-for-like (Canon L Glass / 1 Ds versus H1 with Zeiss), and MF has a slight edge, only due to glass, not the sensor itself.

Cheers,

-Andrew
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=172820\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

I have owned both and your absolutely incorrect. It's not about sheer resolution, there 2 completely different looks. Have you shot with both extensively?
Logged
astanley
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 38


« Reply #8 on: February 07, 2008, 08:04:16 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote
I have owned both and your absolutely incorrect. It's not about sheer resolution, there 2 completely different looks. Have you shot with both extensively?
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=172975\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

I'm (currently) a Contax 645 film guy converting to Canon dSLR -- I've never "done" the digital workflow, and I'm not going to spend $30+ on a Phase One back until I have the workflow down.  However, I'm not selling one drop of my Contax gear.

Cheers,

-Andrew
Logged
woof75
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 581


« Reply #9 on: February 07, 2008, 11:35:50 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote
I'm (currently) a Contax 645 film guy converting to Canon dSLR -- I've never "done" the digital workflow, and I'm not going to spend $30+ on a Phase One back until I have the workflow down.  However, I'm not selling one drop of my Contax gear.

Cheers,

-Andrew
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=172984\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

To be honest one of the big things that film is so great at is that "sparkle" that comes from it's granuality and it's this that is totally missing with the slightly soft DSLR look from the anti alias filter, you can sharpen edges up but you can't put that sparkle back. Backs are much better in this regard. Also you can get a great second hand P25 for 12 grand ish.
Logged
Christopher
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 944


WWW
« Reply #10 on: February 07, 2008, 02:19:13 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
To be honest one of the big things that film is so great at is that "sparkle" that comes from it's granuality and it's this that is totally missing with the slightly soft DSLR look from the anti alias filter, you can sharpen edges up but you can't put that sparkle back. Backs are much better in this regard. Also you can get a great second hand P25 for 12 grand ish.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=173040\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Well some prefer one tool other another. If you spend so much money on something it must be special or good ^^. I really don't care when finalle printed most of the time you don't see the difference. A very important aspact is the digital workflow. Spending 12k on a second hand P25 ? If I can get a new 1DsMk3 for 7? sorry but not gonna happen. I don't say you don't need MFDB, ( I use them from time to time) but I also don't believe in that MFDP with 16-22MP is so much more better than a Canon 1DsMk2 or 3. That is just not really the case. Put the right glass in front of a Mark 3 and you will love what you get.

Oh and on your film notice, yes film has a sparkle, but sorry I haven't seen a lot of digital photographs which really can show that. ( No canon and no P45... )
« Last Edit: February 07, 2008, 02:27:00 PM by Christopher » Logged

woof75
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 581


« Reply #11 on: February 08, 2008, 07:17:18 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote
Well some prefer one tool other another. If you spend so much money on something it must be special or good ^^. I really don't care when finalle printed most of the time you don't see the difference. A very important aspact is the digital workflow. Spending 12k on a second hand P25 ? If I can get a new 1DsMk3 for 7? sorry but not gonna happen. I don't say you don't need MFDB, ( I use them from time to time) but I also don't believe in that MFDP with 16-22MP is so much more better than a Canon 1DsMk2 or 3. That is just not really the case. Put the right glass in front of a Mark 3 and you will love what you get.

Oh and on your film notice, yes film has a sparkle, but sorry I haven't seen a lot of digital photographs which really can show that. ( No canon and no P45... )
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=173081\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Hey, I've used a 1ds mark 2 with a 50mm 1.4 shot at 5.6 is some pretty good glass but it's still a canon. Some people see the difference and some people don't some people see it but dont mind the difference or even prefer the canon, it's all fine.  The other aspect to consider is how much you want to change color and tonality after the fact, the ability to do this is markedly different between the 2 systems. I would also prefer if you didn't accuse me of justifying my choice because I spent a lot of money on it. The difference between the cost of MF and a DSLR is about 5 grand and in my world that isn't even enough to even come into the decision making process. Though I understand that for some it may be an issue.
Logged
pss
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 960


WWW
« Reply #12 on: February 09, 2008, 01:41:34 AM »
ReplyReply

i have owned and used digital systems for 15 years, every brand and format....i mostly agree with michael's assessment of the future of MF....i also agree with a lot that has been said here....i know that there is a difference between a 16bit DMF back and a DSLR and resolution is the least important factor or difference....
i think the problem wit MF is that instead of pulling ahead with quality, the manufacturers tried to compete with DSLRs...hey now they are even called full frame DSLRs (H3D)....the survivors have the smallest image capture area that MF has ever seen, provide a difference in quality that most people either don't see or most importantly don't care about becuase on a 11x14 a lot looks great.....but they suck when it comes to portablity, AF, handling, speed,....which is exactly why 99.9% of all people want DSLR and could not care less about MF....
DSLRs provide MF resolution but MF does not provide DSLR handling and probably even worse, does not provide a real step up....why no 4x5 sensor (no scanning backs please)? because the sales would not justify the R&D....kodak is working on tiny chips that produce better results so we can use them in our cell phones....where is the future? look at your cell phone.....
the development of the new sony sensor goes in the same direction....24mpix, 12bit....yawn...numbers for marketing purposes....a good retoucher/printer can blow up a good 16bit 10mpix to almost any size (i know, i know, landscapes need more detail, but ansel adams never printed 20x30)....
i think it is interesting that nikon chose to make the D3 "only" 12mpix....and it still goes head to head with the 1dsmkIII...both are 14bit, a step in the right direction....
the question is :who will make hasselblads(phase, leaf, sinar) next sensor? everybody pretty much agrees that the DSLR has hit the ceiling in resolution...now it will get faster, better, cleaner....where will MF go? no company has even been able to come up with a decend AF system? F&H, rollei, sinar seems to be the only company even contemplating a larger sensor in the future and even 6x6 will not provide the separation when the new canon (nikon, sony,...) shoots a clean 22mpix at 16bit file at 1600iso 3 times per second.....
i hope that there will be enough people who are passionate about photography, enough gearheads and geeks, because it will get harder and harder to justify spending the extra money and TIME (when it comes to processing, storing,....) and the differences getting smaller and smaller.....
with film it was easy to just make the sheet larger and charge more money....sensors are a different thing entirely.....
Logged

ErikKaffehr
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 8031


WWW
« Reply #13 on: February 09, 2008, 03:11:04 AM »
ReplyReply

Hi,

To judge from history I would say it's pretty certain that we will have a Nikon 3DX based on the the Sony 24.6 MPix sensor. Nikon wanted a camera for high iso and sports, essentially a match for Canon D1III. Nikon used to have a high res studio/landscape version of their cameras, and they cooperate with Sony. So I think the writing is on the wall.  I actually think there is a lot to high res:

- Obviously more resolution as far as the lens can keep up
- Much less risk for moiré, can have weaker AA-filter

I can actually dream up some advantages, but they are less obvious.

One area where DSLRs and MF-backs differ are the lenses. On a DSLR you would essentially put either:

A high aperture zoom (16-35/2.8, 24-70/2.8. 70-200/2.Cool
A high aperture fixed focal like 300/2.8
A medium aperture superzoom like 24-105/4
Possibly a macro lens
Possibly a fixed aperture ultra wide angle

On medium format most of these lenses simply do not exist. A typical medium format lens is:

- Fixed focal
- Medium aperture
- Not extreme wide angle

These lenses can be optimized for a narrower task so they should give better quality, not least because they can use less glass. They can also have conservative designs, like double gauss, which may help in achieving good bookeh. I am aware that there are some very good zoom lenses for MF but they are still very limited compared to their DSLR counterparts.

In addition you can put an MFDB on any camera, monorail or wide angle. For "large format type of cameras" there are special "digital lenses" with extremely high specifications.

As I said I'm pretty confident that we are going to see a Nikon 3DX in the autumn. You can combine this new Nikon 3DX with the Carl-Zeiss ZF lenses which are this far quite conservative signge focals. That camera, or class of cameras will be a valid competition for MF-backs on MF-cameras.

Finally, I'm pretty sure that from a manufacturing perspective surface is expensive while pixels are essentially free. A 39 MPixel chip is probably no more expensive to make than a 25 MPixel chip, the market situation is that you can get more paid for a 39 MPixel chip. Which one would you sell?

Best regards
Erik

Quote
i have owned and used digital systems for 15 years, every brand and format....i mostly agree with michael's assessment of the future of MF....i also agree with a lot that has been said here....i know that there is a difference between a 16bit DMF back and a DSLR and resolution is the least important factor or difference....
i think the problem wit MF is that instead of pulling ahead with quality, the manufacturers tried to compete with DSLRs...hey now they are even called full frame DSLRs (H3D)....the survivors have the smallest image capture area that MF has ever seen, provide a difference in quality that most people either don't see or most importantly don't care about becuase on a 11x14 a lot looks great.....but they suck when it comes to portablity, AF, handling, speed,....which is exactly why 99.9% of all people want DSLR and could not care less about MF....
DSLRs provide MF resolution but MF does not provide DSLR handling and probably even worse, does not provide a real step up....why no 4x5 sensor (no scanning backs please)? because the sales would not justify the R&D....kodak is working on tiny chips that produce better results so we can use them in our cell phones....where is the future? look at your cell phone.....
the development of the new sony sensor goes in the same direction....24mpix, 12bit....yawn...numbers for marketing purposes....a good retoucher/printer can blow up a good 16bit 10mpix to almost any size (i know, i know, landscapes need more detail, but ansel adams never printed 20x30)....
i think it is interesting that nikon chose to make the D3 "only" 12mpix....and it still goes head to head with the 1dsmkIII...both are 14bit, a step in the right direction....
the question is :who will make hasselblads(phase, leaf, sinar) next sensor? everybody pretty much agrees that the DSLR has hit the ceiling in resolution...now it will get faster, better, cleaner....where will MF go? no company has even been able to come up with a decend AF system? F&H, rollei, sinar seems to be the only company even contemplating a larger sensor in the future and even 6x6 will not provide the separation when the new canon (nikon, sony,...) shoots a clean 22mpix at 16bit file at 1600iso 3 times per second.....
i hope that there will be enough people who are passionate about photography, enough gearheads and geeks, because it will get harder and harder to justify spending the extra money and TIME (when it comes to processing, storing,....) and the differences getting smaller and smaller.....
with film it was easy to just make the sheet larger and charge more money....sensors are a different thing entirely.....
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=173488\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
« Last Edit: February 09, 2008, 10:53:20 AM by ErikKaffehr » Logged

Ray
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 8948


« Reply #14 on: February 09, 2008, 10:02:19 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
Try, everything's different. Color, tonality, gradations, dynamic range, noise, sharpness, amount you can push colors, contrast, tones etc.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=172790\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Aren't you perhaps mixing up the differences in the way different converters handle RAW images here, such as the differences between C1 and ACR?

The only fundamental differences that theoretically should exist between a larger format and a smaller format are dynamic range and potential shallowness of DoF. All else being equal, the larger sensor can accept a greater exposure for the same scene, lighting conditions and FoV. The dynamic range is therefore (potentially) greater.

All the other differences you refer to are peculiariities of design which are not directly dependent upon sensor size; such as choice of CCD instead of CMOS; lack of an AA filter and microlenses; differences in the quality of lenses (some of those MF lenses are terribly expensive. They should be good.); differences in RAW converters etc etc.

Many fans of the Olympus 4/3rds format like to claim that the new E-3 produces better images (read sharper, more colorful, more 3-dimensional, more 'pop') than the 5D FF 35mm which sensor has 4x the area. But even such ardent admirers of this miniature format concede that dynamic range is a bit lacking compared with FF 35mm.
« Last Edit: February 09, 2008, 10:04:07 PM by Ray » Logged
woof75
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 581


« Reply #15 on: February 10, 2008, 07:03:11 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote
Aren't you perhaps mixing up the differences in the way different converters handle RAW images here, such as the differences between C1 and ACR?

The only fundamental differences that theoretically should exist between a larger format and a smaller format are dynamic range and potential shallowness of DoF. All else being equal, the larger sensor can accept a greater exposure for the same scene, lighting conditions and FoV. The dynamic range is therefore (potentially) greater.

All the other differences you refer to are peculiariities of design which are not directly dependent upon sensor size; such as choice of CCD instead of CMOS; lack of an AA filter and microlenses; differences in the quality of lenses (some of those MF lenses are terribly expensive. They should be good.); differences in RAW converters etc etc.

Many fans of the Olympus 4/3rds format like to claim that the new E-3 produces better images (read sharper, more colorful, more 3-dimensional, more 'pop') than the 5D FF 35mm which sensor has 4x the area. But even such ardent admirers of this miniature format concede that dynamic range is a bit lacking compared with FF 35mm.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=173644\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

No, it's not different converters, try opening a phase file and a canon file in Lightroom, very different. With regard to sensor size, I didn't mention anything about any theoretical differences. On a practical level the differences to me are big enough to justify the added pain, I don't need to talk about the technologies such as AA filters because it doesnt matter, what matters is image quality and it doesnt matter whats improving it, I dont care how big a sensor is whether it has an aa filter etc, it's the quality that results that matters. And for me that means Medium format backs.
Logged
Ray
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 8948


« Reply #16 on: February 10, 2008, 08:45:56 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote
try opening a phase file and a canon file in Lightroom, very different. [a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=173690\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

I don't use Lightroom but I have tried opening a P30 file in ACR 4.3 and comparing the same scene with a 5D shot. (There's a thread here somewhere comparing the P30, 5D and G9. I'll see if I can locate it)

After adjusting the WB of both files (same temperature and tint) and adjusting EC, both images look very similar to me, the main difference simply being one of resolution. You'd expect a 30MP P30 image to have significantly greater resolution than a 12MP image, and so it does. At a pixel level, the dynamic range is very similar but the P30 image shows less shadow noise when downsampled to the same size as the 5D image.

It is true, however, that both images look different when first opening in ACR at the default ACR settings using WB 'as shot'. I don't think MFDBs are any different from other cameras in this respect. WB, ISO sensitivity and color accuracy vary amongst all models of cameras, but I would have thought that the whole idea of having such sophisticated editing software as Photoshop is to enable you to get whatever effect you want.
« Last Edit: February 10, 2008, 08:49:02 AM by Ray » Logged
woof75
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 581


« Reply #17 on: February 10, 2008, 08:59:23 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote
I don't use Lightroom but I have tried opening a P30 file in ACR 4.3 and comparing the same scene with a 5D shot. (There's a thread here somewhere comparing the P30, 5D and G9. I'll see if I can locate it)

After adjusting the WB of both files (same temperature and tint) and adjusting EC, both images look very similar to me, the main difference simply being one of resolution. You'd expect a 30MP P30 image to have significantly greater resolution than a 12MP image, and so it does. At a pixel level, the dynamic range is very similar but the P30 image shows less shadow noise when downsampled to the same size as the 5D image.

It is true, however, that both images look different when first opening in ACR at the default ACR settings using WB 'as shot'. I don't think MFDBs are any different from other cameras in this respect. WB, ISO sensitivity and color accuracy vary amongst all models of cameras, but I would have thought that the whole idea of having such sophisticated editing software as Photoshop is to enable you to get whatever effect you want.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=173706\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]


You say both images look very similar therefore you are admitting they are different, in my eyes this difference counts for a lot, simple as that. I actually use a P21 which is very similar resolution to my old 1ds mark 2 and the difference is still there.
Logged
Ray
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 8948


« Reply #18 on: February 10, 2008, 09:54:56 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote
You say both images look very similar therefore you are admitting they are different, in my eyes this difference counts for a lot, simple as that. I actually use a P21 which is very similar resolution to my old 1ds mark 2 and the difference is still there.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=173709\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

I'm saying the main difference between the images is one of resolution. All images from different cameras can look different 'out of the box' or at the default settings of one particular converter as opposed to another. Some people claim that Canon's own converter, DPP, produces better results than ACR. Others say that whatever the 'look' that DPP produces, you can get the same effect in ACR. It just takes more time and a bit of practice.

I myself used to prefer RAW Shooter Premium (RSP) to ACR. I felt it somehow produced more solid colors with a very slight painterly effect that I found hard to mimic in ACR. I imagine that Phase One's own software also produces an effect that is perhaps hard to emulate in ACR or at least takes a bit of practice.

I sympathise with that. If one particular converter produces results you like, why make things difficult for yourself and try to get the same results with other software.
Logged
woof75
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 581


« Reply #19 on: February 10, 2008, 01:24:04 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
I'm saying the main difference between the images is one of resolution. All images from different cameras can look different 'out of the box' or at the default settings of one particular converter as opposed to another. Some people claim that Canon's own converter, DPP, produces better results than ACR. Others say that whatever the 'look' that DPP produces, you can get the same effect in ACR. It just takes more time and a bit of practice.

I myself used to prefer RAW Shooter Premium (RSP) to ACR. I felt it somehow produced more solid colors with a very slight painterly effect that I found hard to mimic in ACR. I imagine that Phase One's own software also produces an effect that is perhaps hard to emulate in ACR or at least takes a bit of practice.

I sympathise with that. If one particular converter produces results you like, why make things difficult for yourself and try to get the same results with other software.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=173720\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Please re-read my post, you haven't addressed my points at all.
Logged
Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 6 »   Top of Page
Print
Jump to:  

Ad
Ad
Ad