Ad
Ad
Ad
Pages: « 1 [2] 3 4 ... 9 »   Bottom of Page
Print
Author Topic: MFDB vs 35mm DSLR quick samples  (Read 23733 times)
teddillard
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 664


WWW
« Reply #20 on: February 16, 2010, 11:48:55 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: fredjeang
I could ask the same question to you.

'cept I told you.  I'm in Boston.    

Seriously, though, I find that fascinating...  I heard from a guy shooting in Japan, saying they will NOT accept digital files at all.  I haven't heard that corroborated anywhere.  So you work in all of Europe, or just a specific region?

edit: duh, looked at your tag- change that to "...just Madrid".  
« Last Edit: February 16, 2010, 12:07:04 PM by teddillard » Logged

Ted Dillard
uaiomex
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 999


WWW
« Reply #21 on: February 16, 2010, 11:49:55 AM »
ReplyReply

In my city no client can afford better than FF. However it works for them. The same magazines  that used to pay photographers for MF trans now happily pay for FF digital files. Same quality (+/-) plus they all save the scanning expenses.
Eduardo

 
Quote from: teddillard
Fred, seriously?

What market are you working in?  Around Boston there aren't any designers left that even know what film is...  much less 4x5. I'd LOVE to find a client who has creatives old enough to miss film...  
Logged
fredjeang
Guest
« Reply #22 on: February 16, 2010, 12:29:59 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: teddillard
'cept I told you.  I'm in Boston.    

Seriously, though, I find that fascinating...  I heard from a guy shooting in Japan, saying they will NOT accept digital files at all.  I haven't heard that corroborated anywhere.  So you work in all of Europe, or just a specific region?

edit: duh, looked at your tag- change that to "...just Madrid".  
I have works in France too.
It is true that youngest generation don't even know what a drumscan is. There has been a lot of people, with the recent crisis  who have been fired. Advertising agencies have reduced a lot their staff. The oldest and most experimented ones has stayed ( because of their experience and also because in Europe it cost much more to fire a long-time worker.)
We are seeing that FF is implementing step by step, but for costs reasons, not because of the quality.
Now, there are many niches (like fashion) where there is no way you gonna have FF if the brand is minimally important. It is 100% MFD.
For your information, in Paris there is still a huge demand and a lot more LF photographers than here in Madrid. Highly regarded. A new generation of very young LF users as well.
"...just Madrid" maybe not be the case, or "Boston only?"  

Ps: nice city Boston by the way.

Cheers,

Fred.
Logged
Ray
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 8883


« Reply #23 on: February 17, 2010, 05:41:31 AM »
ReplyReply

Surely it must be obvious to everyone on this forum that the larger sensor (as was the case with the larger film format) has a qualitative advantage over the smaller format.

You don't even have to hire an MFDB to check this out. All you need to do is compare a Canon APS-C format with full frame 35mm.

The camera with which I've taken more photos than any other, is the Canon 5D. I've been considering getting the 18mp 7D because of its advanced features such as fast frame rate, good autofocussing, higher resolution, Live View etc, not to mention the video capability.

However, from the perspective of sheer quality of image with regard to tonal range, color sensitivity and SNR, this latest offering from Canon, the 7D, 5 years after the 5D was released, is still not on a par with the 5D, except with regard to dynamic range at ISOs below 800.

Surprisingly, the technological developments of the past 5 years has enabled an APS-C sensor to have slightly greater DR than an older full frame. But perhaps not so surprising because we should all know by now that the Nikon D3X has slightly higher DR than most MFDBs.

Here's the link to the 'DXO Mark' comparisons of the 5D, 7D and 5D2. http://www.dxomark.com/index.php/eng/Image.../(brand3)/Canon

The questions that people who are thinking about getting an MFDB should be asking themselves is; How much better is the MFDB? In what respects is it better? At what print sizes are the improvements obvious? Do the improvements justify the significantly increased costs of the MFDB, especially in view of the disadvantages such as extra weight, slower frame rates and significantly worse high-ISO performance?

Another important consideration is the availability of high quality lenses for the format. It doesn't matter how good the camera is if the lenses you want are not available.
Logged
teddillard
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 664


WWW
« Reply #24 on: February 17, 2010, 05:42:00 AM »
ReplyReply

Thanks!  Boston has changed a lot in the last decade...  we're very proud of the city, it has not always been the case.  Madrid is a city I long to visit, but travel isn't really in the plan right now.  In France, do you work the Paris market?  

I'm VERY interested in the specific qualities that these people prefer from drum scanned LF.  I hesitate to ask the question, I've seen discussions go bad in a flash at the slightest hint of "film vs. digital", but what parts of the process do they say they like better?  Is it simply getting a good quality product from a drum scan facility, standardization, resolution, color depth, familiarity?  

Interesting...  here, the reaction to cutting staff is to cut the older, more expensive ones and hire kids out of school.  But don't get me going on THAT one...  

Also interesting, and predictable- the resurgence of LF in young photographers- I called that back in 2000, I almost started collecting and storing enlargers and darkrooms.    I read somewhere that TriX film sales in 2009 were back on the rise, and a dramatic rise at that.

Ted

Quote from: fredjeang
I have works in France too.
It is true that youngest generation don't even know what a drumscan is. There has been a lot of people, with the recent crisis  who have been fired. Advertising agencies have reduced a lot their staff. The oldest and most experimented ones has stayed ( because of their experience and also because in Europe it cost much more to fire a long-time worker.)
We are seeing that FF is implementing step by step, but for costs reasons, not because of the quality.
Now, there are many niches (like fashion) where there is no way you gonna have FF if the brand is minimally important. It is 100% MFD.
For your information, in Paris there is still a huge demand and a lot more LF photographers than here in Madrid. Highly regarded. A new generation of very young LF users as well.
"...just Madrid" maybe not be the case, or "Boston only?"  

Ps: nice city Boston by the way.

Cheers,

Fred.
« Last Edit: February 17, 2010, 05:44:03 AM by teddillard » Logged

Ted Dillard
teddillard
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 664


WWW
« Reply #25 on: February 17, 2010, 05:50:31 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: Ray
Surely it must be obvious to everyone on this forum that the larger sensor (as was the case with the larger film format) has a qualitative advantage over the smaller format.

The questions that people who are thinking about getting an MFDB should be asking themselves is; How much better is the MFDB? In what respects is it better? At what print sizes are the improvements obvious? Do the improvements justify the significantly increased costs of the MFDB, especially in view of the disadvantages such as extra weight, slower frame rates and significantly worse high-ISO performance?

The first part, not in every case.  See my issues with aliasing, file size, etc.  The second point... exactly the point of my review.  They are significantly different tools, use the right tool for the job, but to do that, understand what each tool does best, as well as the disadvantages.  

It seems like these comparisons get this kind of reaction fairly often- but it's not about "better", and there is no "best".  It's about "best for the use".  

...and great point on the lenses as well.  Don't forget the weight of the things.  I've shot some pretty big systems, but I can't remember a lens as big and heavy as that Hassey zoom!
« Last Edit: February 17, 2010, 05:53:45 AM by teddillard » Logged

Ted Dillard
Ray
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 8883


« Reply #26 on: February 17, 2010, 06:08:29 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: teddillard
It seems like these comparisons get this kind of reaction fairly often- but it's not about "better", and there is no "best".  It's about "best for the use".


Best for the use? Are you referring to factors such as faster flash sync and better tethering? Please itemise the features, other than higher resolution and qualitative features in general, which make the MFDB easier to use or better for a specific job.

As regards ease of use and flexibility, I would have thought the 35mm wins hands down.
Logged
fredjeang
Guest
« Reply #27 on: February 17, 2010, 06:22:01 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: teddillard
Thanks!  Boston has changed a lot in the last decade...  we're very proud of the city, it has not always been the case.  Madrid is a city I long to visit, but travel isn't really in the plan right now.  In France, do you work the Paris market?  

I'm VERY interested in the specific qualities that these people prefer from drum scanned LF.  I hesitate to ask the question, I've seen discussions go bad in a flash at the slightest hint of "film vs. digital", but what parts of the process do they say they like better?  Is it simply getting a good quality product from a drum scan facility, standardization, resolution, color depth, familiarity?  

Interesting...  here, the reaction to cutting staff is to cut the older, more expensive ones and hire kids out of school.  But don't get me going on THAT one...  

Also interesting, and predictable- the resurgence of LF in young photographers- I called that back in 2000, I almost started collecting and storing enlargers and darkrooms.    I read somewhere that TriX film sales in 2009 were back on the rise, and a dramatic rise at that.

Ted
Ted,
I think you point something interesting.
What really happens, according to me (but I do not have a huge technical qualification so it is more of observing and speaking with the pros involved), is that it is not specially about real IQ performance.
Let's say you are in Paris and you are a good fashion photographer. Why would you shoot MFD?  Why not FF Nikon for example? Because there is a pressure, because there is a "standard" that defines some "minimums".
Remember that just recently 35mm FF has made some progress, but the pros had invested years ago in MFD, so that is the common standard. Also, there is a evidence that if you are contracted by Chanel for a campaign that you are supposed to shoot with the best tools availables. That is just the way it is. Maybe you could acheive icual or closed result with your 35mm FF, but Chanel (for example) is wanting you to work with Hasselblad.
Same happens in architecture and steel objects: you shoot with LF and digital back, because of perspective corrections etc...
It is all about the best tools possible.

My works in Paris are not reaching that point because it is a small agency where campaigns are much more modest, but having relations with bigger ones, it is just the way it works.
The top-class photographers in advertising, arquitecture, fashion etc... are all working with MDF or LF in team, and I'm not sure is going to change soon.
Is it for IQ reasons or elite mentality? I think a little bit of both.

Cheers,

Fred.





Logged
teddillard
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 664


WWW
« Reply #28 on: February 17, 2010, 06:33:35 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: Ray
Best for the use? Are you referring to factors such as faster flash sync and better tethering? Please itemise the features, other than higher resolution and qualitative features in general, which make the MFDB easier to use or better for a specific job.

As regards ease of use and flexibility, I would have thought the 35mm wins hands down.

...that would be exactly what the review is about.  

Ease of use and flexibility for example, are pretty vague ideas, by themselves.  I remember shooting with the Kodak 645 ProBack, for example, for the first time on the street.  It was the first camera I could shoot with a MF sensor that shot to CF cards, and the ease of use and flexibility, for a MFDB, was simply unheard of at the time.  But that is in the context of the other advantages of the format...  if I don't need the resolution, for example, the ease of the camera operation becomes immaterial.  

Much as it makes everyone more comfortable to come out and make definitive statements, it just isn't that clear.  We do very disciplined and data-based testing on everything we review, but the fundamental point of these hands-on "shoot diary" stories is to show that it's not all about metrics.

But, to give you a very straightforward answer, the camera handling of the Hasselblad H system I find without equal.  I love it.  It's balanced, it fits my hand and shooting style like a glove.  The autofocus, again, for my shooting style, works better than any DSLR I've shot with.  Period.  ...and the richness and depth of the files is something that you see even at small final image sizes- almost an intangible quality, but something I've seen repeatedly.  So, for uses where these aspects are required, I'd pick the MFDB.
Logged

Ted Dillard
teddillard
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 664


WWW
« Reply #29 on: February 17, 2010, 06:41:13 AM »
ReplyReply

I agree, and I think you do a much better job stating the case than the common thread I've seen- implying that you need to shoot a particular format to lend yourself credibility.  ...something I just hate to see people say.  It's a slippery slope indeed, but I've always believed that your images should speak for you, not your equipment.  

FWIW, although many of the photographs in my 4 books were shot with MFDB, a great many weren't.  One entire book was shot with the Canon G9.  There are several shots, reproduced at almost a double page spread, that were even shot with an Olympus E10...  but, and here's the point, I didn't have a client hanging over my shoulder when I was shooting.  The production people were consistently happy with the files I gave them, regardless of the source.  (Nobody has yet been able to identify the cameras the photographs were shot with...   )

 
Quote from: fredjeang
Ted,
I think you point something interesting.
What really happens, according to me (but I do not have a huge technical qualification so it is more of observing and speaking with the pros involved), is that it is not specially about real IQ performance.
Let's say you are in Paris and you are a good fashion photographer. Why would you shoot MFD?  Why not FF Nikon for example? Because there is a pressure, because there is a "standard" that defines some "minimums".
Remember that just recently 35mm FF has made some progress, but the pros had invested years ago in MFD, so that is the common standard. Also, there is a evidence that if you are contracted by Chanel for a campaign that you are supposed to shoot with the best tools availables. That is just the way it is. Maybe you could acheive icual or closed result with your 35mm FF, but Chanel (for example) is wanting you to work with Hasselblad.
Same happens in architecture and steel objects: you shoot with LF and digital back, because of perspective corrections etc...
It is all about the best tools possible.

My works in Paris are not reaching that point because it is a small agency where campaigns are much more modest, but having relations with bigger ones, it is just the way it works.
The top-class photographers in advertising, arquitecture, fashion etc... are all working with MDF or LF in team, and I'm not sure is going to change soon.
Is it for IQ reasons or elite mentality? I think a little bit of both.

Cheers,

Fred.
« Last Edit: February 17, 2010, 06:42:13 AM by teddillard » Logged

Ted Dillard
Ray
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 8883


« Reply #30 on: February 17, 2010, 06:58:46 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: teddillard
Ease of use and flexibility for example, are pretty vague ideas, by themselves.  I remember shooting with the Kodak 645 ProBack, for example, for the first time on the street.  It was the first camera I could shoot with a MF sensor that shot to CF cards, and the ease of use and flexibility, for a MFDB, was simply unheard of at the time.


This is the key phrase,
Quote
It was the first camera I could shoot with a MF sensor that shot to CF cards, and the ease of use and flexibility, for a MFDB, was simply unheard of at the time.

On balance, the 35mm format is far more flexible than MFDB. If you want to make an issue of 'the best camera for the job', then you should specify the features (other than general image quality) in which the MFDB excels. Flash sync speed and ease of tethering are the only features that spring to mind.

Can you mention a few others?
« Last Edit: February 17, 2010, 06:59:57 AM by Ray » Logged
fredjeang
Guest
« Reply #31 on: February 17, 2010, 07:14:36 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: Ray
This is the key phrase,

On balance, the 35mm format is far more flexible than MFDB. If you want to make an issue of 'the best camera for the job', then you should specify the features (other than general image quality) in which the MFDB excels. Flash sync speed and ease of tethering are the only features that spring to mind.

Can you mention a few others?
Format aspect flexibility.
Prestige.
Owner service-attention.
« Last Edit: February 17, 2010, 07:22:31 AM by fredjeang » Logged
teddillard
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 664


WWW
« Reply #32 on: February 17, 2010, 07:17:05 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: Ray
This is the key phrase,

On balance, the 35mm format is far more flexible than MFDB. If you want to make an issue of 'the best camera for the job', then you should specify the features (other than general image quality) in which the MFDB excels. Flash sync speed and ease of tethering are the only features that spring to mind.

Can you mention a few others?

Sorry, thought I did, both above and in detail in the story...  I guess I'm not understanding your question.
Logged

Ted Dillard
Ray
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 8883


« Reply #33 on: February 17, 2010, 07:37:30 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: fredjeang
Format aspect flexibility.
Prestige.
Owner service-attention.


Format aspect flexibility? Nonsense. That applies to all cameras without exception.

Prestige? Yes. The number one feature of any camera that costs as much as a luxury car.

Owner service-attention? Sounds like gobbledegook. Can you rephrase that?
« Last Edit: February 17, 2010, 07:42:06 AM by Ray » Logged
fredjeang
Guest
« Reply #34 on: February 17, 2010, 07:52:26 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: Ray
Format aspect flexibility? Nonsense. That applies to all cameras without exception.

Prestige? Yes. The number one feature of any camera that costs as much as a luxury car.

Owner service-attention? Sounds like gobbledegook. Can you rephrase that?
I'm fine with gobbledegook but can write it in french if you like.  

Regards,
Fred
Logged
Ray
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 8883


« Reply #35 on: February 17, 2010, 07:58:45 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: fredjeang
I'm fine with gobbledegook but can write it in french if you like.  

Regards,
Fred

I'm requesting real attributes, not variations on the same theme. Greater format flexibility equates to greater pixel count. We know that larger formats tend to have greater pixel count and therefore tend to exhibit greater resolution on large prints.

The 18mp 7D has greater format flexibility than the 12.7mp 5D because it has greater pixel count.

So we're left with prestige. That's what it's all about. I'd agree with that.
Logged
tho_mas
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1696


« Reply #36 on: February 17, 2010, 08:39:28 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: Ray
On balance, the 35mm format is far more flexible than MFDB. If you want to make an issue of 'the best camera for the job', then you should specify the features (other than general image quality) in which the MFDB excels. Flash sync speed and ease of tethering are the only features that spring to mind.

Can you mention a few others?
depends on what you call "flexible".
With MFDB you can...
- exchange finders fast and easy
- exchange screens fast and easy
- work with a format that works both in landscape and portrait mode
- use different sensors (DBs) with different resolution and/or sensor size on the same camera
- use the same sensor (DB) on different cameras
...
Logged
Guy Mancuso
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1110


WWW
« Reply #37 on: February 17, 2010, 08:56:21 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: Ray
I'm requesting real attributes, not variations on the same theme. Greater format flexibility equates to greater pixel count. We know that larger formats tend to have greater pixel count and therefore tend to exhibit greater resolution on large prints.

The 18mp 7D has greater format flexibility than the 12.7mp 5D because it has greater pixel count.

So we're left with prestige. That's what it's all about. I'd agree with that.


Not sure why i am even replying to this nonsense.

I can take my P40+ back today put it on a DF body( AFD, AFDII, AFDIII) from 28mm to 300mm plus shift( Plus a hundred old Mamiya manual lenses). Than within 5 seconds have it on a Horseman , Cambo, Silvestri, Arca or almost any full tilt and shift solution. Than take that same back hand it to a friend grab a leaf back in any flavor or a Phase back in any flavor and run it through all the same cams that I want and have options that I could never get with a 35mm because i have a sensor that can move around you can't do that with a 35mm. Not to mention I can take any V lens, Zeiss lens , Rodenstock, Schnieder and move them around to different systems maybe not all but some at least. I can go from a 22mpx , 31, 39 mpx, 40 mpx and 60 mpx sensor between all of them also if they are handy or on a workshop with all these things in place. You have a Canon your stuck with a Canon but you can adapt Zeiss and leica glass . I know i was the grandfather of that trick but you are stuck with a sensor that cannot move around to different systems like a back can. I need prestige of system as much as I need a sex change so drop that one for sure. I need gear that works and can adapt to different shooting environments . Plus all that and shift,tilt and stitch to almost anything needed until the cows come home. But Ray you already knew that so why continue down this path that never ever freaking ends. All systems have there place . I own MF because I like to shoot it and my clients love the files why do we MF shooters need to defend it past anything but that is beyond logic. It is a system we chose to work with or not. As a working Pro we are after tools that gets a check in our hands, end of story. For some 35mm is it and for others we use MF or other systems that work for the photographer. Why all this arm chair quarterbacking is beyond any logic at all. Did I mention beyond any logic at all. Just wanted to make sure because it is the same bullshit everyday day in day out about this versus that . End of day Ray no one gives a rats ass that works in this profession. It's all about our business and what makes it profitable or not.  I almost deleted this all but it just had to be said . THIS IS STUPID CONVERSATION
« Last Edit: February 17, 2010, 09:01:22 AM by Guy Mancuso » Logged

teddillard
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 664


WWW
« Reply #38 on: February 17, 2010, 09:06:33 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: Ray
I'm requesting real attributes, not variations on the same theme. Greater format flexibility equates to greater pixel count. We know that larger formats tend to have greater pixel count and therefore tend to exhibit greater resolution on large prints.

The 18mp 7D has greater format flexibility than the 12.7mp 5D because it has greater pixel count.

So we're left with prestige. That's what it's all about. I'd agree with that.

Although it kind of feels like I'm being baited, I think it's a fair question, and maybe is a good one to put into the context of actual shooting.  Here's a very brief set of examples of scenarios that I'd use particular cameras for- it's about as specific as I can get, and it's very, very subjective, but it's based on the specific characteristics of the various cameras.  

A couple of caveats.  First, the premise is that the cost of the equipment is immaterial.  Before you howl, this is more of a business plan issue than an equipment issue, and it's a result of the cost of digital cameras.  As of around the mid-90s I do not own the equipment I shoot with, period.  I rent everything.  The rental cost is billed to the client, and is a line item.  Thus, I don't carry the overhead of the gear, and I use gear that's appropriate for the assignment.  (I do the same with the car- every location job has a car rental- it's the best way to expense travel, IMO, and to date, I've not had a single client even ask about it.  Again- this is a different subject, but the core issue is it frees me to use the right tool for the job.)  

Second, not for a long time have I identified any part of my work with the camera I shoot with.  I am not a Nikon, Canon, Hasselblad or Sinar "shooter".  I know many cameras pretty well, and thus I'm pretty comfortable shooting with almost anything in a work environment.  That said, I read the manual.  

Let's go through some stuff that's on my table right now...  

I have a 2-day shoot for a furniture designer.  (REALLY nice stuff.)  I want to shoot with the Hasselblad HD40D, simply because it's in the studio, on a tripod, we shoot a fair amount but narrow it down to a few takes and delete the rest.  We then have to do a fair amount of post to straighten perspective and fix up the obvious prototype issues.  We deliver images typically sized to a double page spread, but mostly they're used for a web site.  This is a case of trying to cover any possible usage, so if we were to shoot it with anything less than a Canon 5DM2 for example (which we use as B/U) it may create problems down the road.  Keep in mind his investment for these shoots is huge- he only wants to shoot this stuff once.  

We have had problems with aliasing on these products- but the bit depth and resolution of the files, plus the small number of finals makes it a good tradeoff.  

I have a model shoot, for the girl's headshots and card.  I probably will shoot that with a full-frame camera, just to allow for a little more than I really need.  I really like shooting that work with an APS sensor, just because of the crop factor- I can use shorter, faster lenses for the same "tele" effect that I like on models.  (My fave all-time lens/camera for that stuff is my old Nikon F2AS and the  105 f2.8 Nikkor...)  I wouldn't use MFDB for that for a few reasons- first, the files are just too big.  Second, I like to be able to shoot faster if I need to.  Third, the camera itself is just massive, and I'm getting old.  

That said, I recently had a model shoot that may be, at some future point, used for big repro, double page spreads or even signage.  Not as a CYA, but as a "cover your future use revenue", I shot that with MFDB.  The client got the files prepped for exactly what they wanted, but if they come back to me for something they didn't anticipate but I did, then I'm covered (and they WILL be billed...).  

I shoot stuff for website sales constantly.  I use the Nikon D5000, the only camera I actually own.  It's cheap, it paid for itself in one job.  It's a permanent setup, so its truly drop-and-pop, and it tethers to my laptop.  That stuff gets ripped down to 600px immediately.  

I could go on, but maybe this helps.  In a sense I get your point- most of this just gets back to the essential facets of MFDB, but the devil is in the details- how those basic characteristics of the tools change how you use it, and what it's good at, is where it gets interesting.
« Last Edit: February 17, 2010, 09:10:50 AM by teddillard » Logged

Ted Dillard
Guy Mancuso
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1110


WWW
« Reply #39 on: February 17, 2010, 09:08:28 AM »
ReplyReply

Ray don't take my comments personal really not meant to be but these topics are boring as hell and make absolutely no sense unless someone is trying to justify there expensive systems in there head. Which 9 times out of 10 is the reason. I gave up on all that buy reasonable than forget about it WHY you bought it , just go shoot with it.
Logged

Pages: « 1 [2] 3 4 ... 9 »   Top of Page
Print
Jump to:  

Ad
Ad
Ad