Ad
Ad
Ad
Pages: [1] 2 3 4 »   Bottom of Page
Print
Author Topic: Telephoto "reach"  (Read 10001 times)
Richowens
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 842



« on: August 23, 2005, 06:46:58 PM »
ReplyReply

Jani,
Please explain your math for this, I don't follow your formula.
According to my "wetware"  calculations, Pom is correct.
The 1.6 is simply a factor, not a measurement.

I could be wrong on this, the "wetware" is a little dry from age.
 ::

Rich
Logged

jcarlin
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 31


« Reply #1 on: August 24, 2005, 01:27:18 AM »
ReplyReply

The cropped resolution is the same as aperture stops.  Your taking a linear measure and extending it in two dimensions to get area.  It's just that now we've got 1.6 instead of 1.4.


John
Logged
jani
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1604



WWW
« Reply #2 on: August 26, 2005, 11:12:07 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote
I'm still confused about the original subject.  

Isn't the extra "reach" on a 1.5x sensor one of their biggest advantages (in certain situations)?
The extra "reach" on APS-C sized sensors comes from the desire to enlarge pictures taken with those sensors to the same sizes as that of 135-sized sensors.

Basically, you're changing the enlargement factor.

And yes, you're often helped along by a greater pixel density.
Logged

Jan
Ray
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 8883


« Reply #3 on: August 30, 2005, 08:52:32 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
Quote
For another, it seems that few 35mm format lenses have enough resolution to exploit the potential resolution of a 30MP sensor; at least, probably not many zooms.

And even fewer lenses that can exploit the potential of a 30MP sensor in that part of the image greater than 14mm from the centre of the lens' image circle. However, as technology progresses, it is reasonable to presume that better lenses will eventually become available at an affordable price. (Maybe when the Chinese start making such lenses  ). We know that Canon already makes such lenses. The expensive 200/1.8 has an impressively flat MTF response right out to the edges, at f4 as well.

Quote
Fields like low light and high speed action photography are likely to be best handled by DSLR's with somewhat smaller sensors, smaller pixels, and shorter lenses. Canon clearly thinks so: its two high frame rate DSLRs are 1.3x and 1.6x.

The introduction of the 5D could lead one to think that this is the beginning of the end for the cropped 35mm format. Whilst it's true there's a significant weight saving by using EF-S lenses on such cameras, there's no advantage in telephoto reach with standard EF lenses once the pixel density of the full frame reaches that of the cropped frame, as it's already done comparing the D60 with the 1Ds2, and comparing a future 25-30MP FF with the 20D.

There's a terrible dilemma here for both Canon and the consumer in view of the fact that the first film based APS format never caught on. Most people I know who are photography enthusiasts lust after cameras with the higher potential image quality. If they settle for something less, it's usually because they can't afford it, or justify the price, or because the equipment really is too bulky, too heavy and difficult to operate.

This has traditionally been the dichotomy between 35mm and Medium Format. The former has always been very attractive precisely because of everything that MF lacked; affordability, compactness, lightness, versatility, ease of use and an extraordinary degree of automation and choice of lenses.

MF essentially had just one advantage; superior image quality. (Not quite true I know. Being able to compose the image using both eyes and seeing outside the frame was also an advantage.)

It looked as though this dichotomy might have been preserved as film processes were gradually replaced, the APS-C format DSLR taking the place of 35mm film and FF 35mm taking the place of MF. It all sounds very plausible and reasonable and I believe Michael R also reinforced this view with earlier comments to the effect that FF 35mm DSLRs would always remain an expensive item aimed at the professional and well-heeled amateur.

Well, it's not plausible and reasonable to me. We're heading for exactly the same scenario that existed with film based APS and 35mm. The two formats are too close to be separate species.
Logged
Ray
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 8883


« Reply #4 on: September 01, 2005, 11:32:19 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
What lenses do you think are missing for EF-S mount that are relevant to more than a small fraction of SLR users?
BJL,
Sorry! You've just shot yourself in the foot.  Cheesy

For the APS-C format to survive it needs more than a small minority of adherents. It has to be a full-system alternative to full frame 35mm with a range of high quality zooms and primes. We could start off with a standard EF-S 28mm F1.4 prime of better quality than the Canon 50/1.4, or a 20mm F1.4 of better quality than the Canon 35/1.4, or an EF-S 400/2.8 of better quality than the EF 600/4.

The range and quality of lenses available for any format is a major part of that format's success. The APS-C DSLR format is at present riding piggy back  on the lenses of a larger format.
Logged
BJL
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5129


« Reply #5 on: September 02, 2005, 12:49:46 PM »
ReplyReply

Ray,

of course sensor prices will come down a bit more, but what I seriously doubt is the dream of price reductions comparable to what is generally seen in electronics, because, as has been said many times, they depend to a large extent on reducing the size of electronic components: that size reduction is most of what drives "Moore's law", and is of course irrelevant when chip size is fixed at 24x36mm. Experience from the semiconductor industry is that prives for chips of a certain size plateau once production volume reaches a high enough level to produce good economies of scale, they do not keep getting sgnificantly lower.

That leaves mainly economies of scale, with a major thresholfd being making and selling enough of a chip to run a large, efficient chip fabrication line full time producing that one chip. This is not the case with low volume products like the 1D and 1Ds models, but it seems like that Canon is aiming at this sort of volume with the 5D.

If indeed the 5D reaches this production level, it has more or less reached the plateau; if you wish to predict differently, tell me what you know about the ecomomics of producing chips of a given large size.
Logged
Ray
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 8883


« Reply #6 on: September 04, 2005, 03:17:05 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote
Quote
- most photographers have price or weight limits which mean that where 200/2.8 is affordable/carryable with APS-C format, 35mm format will be limited to 300/4.

Not quite true. If we imagine a time when pixel density for both formats have reached a plateau and are at a level that makes the AA filter redundant, then a FF 200/f4 will do everything a DX or EF-S 200/2.8 can do and more, except it will be one stop slower. In situations where the FF 200/f4 is not long enough and the image has to be cropped to the same size as the APS-C image using the 200/2.8 lens, then resolution will be the same but the smaller format has that  one stop advantage.

Both lenses will be about the same weight, but the FF 200/f4 will provide significantly better image quality if the image is not cropped. And of course (sorry for the dig  Cheesy ), if we are comparing an Olympus 4/3rds format to FF 35mm, then that 1 stop speed advantage will be completely eroded by the need to use a lower ISO setting to reduce noise on the Olympus.

Quote
Finally, diffraction is of no practical relevance to DSLR lens speed needs (it might be with the far higher sensor resolution needs of compact digicams.)

I wasn't making a distinction here between any particular format, rather just making an observation about the shift in the larger number f stops towards smaller f stops as the format decreases in size, with typically a smallest aperture of f90 for 8x10" format lenses, f32 for 35mm and f8 for the better quality P&S cameras. These f stops are smaller, the smaller the format, and the lenses are faster at these f stops for a given FOV and DoF as a result of diffraction limitations on image quality.
Logged
BernardLanguillier
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 7991



WWW
« Reply #7 on: September 07, 2005, 12:51:15 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote
As a reality check, who has seen D2X prints, or even 1Ds prints, that reveal the resolution limits of their sensors?  How large were those prints, and how close did you have to go to see the problems? (No test pattern viewing please!)
I might have in some A2 images, but that is far from obvious.

Although some images feel like it could have additional detail when compared to an Imacon scanned 4*5 slide, most of them feel very solid when viewed alone, even from closer than should reasonnably be done.

Then you have cylindrical or flat stitching to come to the rescue...

Regards,
Bernard
Logged

A few images online here!
AJSJones
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 353



« Reply #8 on: August 22, 2005, 05:37:48 PM »
ReplyReply

This is from Michael's comments about the 5D and natterers and naysayers and such.
Quote
"They'll also carry on about how 1.5X and 1.6X cameras give you greater reach with telephoto lenses  (ya, right) ."
The comment in parens and italics sound dismissive, at least to me, of either the concept or the people expressing it.

I may well end up with the 5D for a variety of reasons, but I will surely continue to use the 20D for birding for a while longer.  It has nothing to do with the size of the sensor and everything to do with the number of pixels per FoV, and the 20D remains at the top of that Canon foodchain.  It is not "magical thinking" (or even wishful thinking) to say that the 20D has the highest linear resolution of the Canon chips - so Yes, it DOES outresolve the 1Ds2 in that regard   ).  In many situations, the bird is far enough away that it doesn't fill the frame even with my "longest" glass, so I'll be cropping and the more MP/FoV I can get, the better image I end up with - and I print quite a few.  That long glass is heavy (500/4 + monopod or tripod/Sidekick) for hiking and a 1 series would add even more load.  Sure, I'd love better AF and a brighter VF, but not at the expense of image size and backache! When the 1Ds2 was imminent, I had decided that if it were 22MP (i.e. a scaled up 20D chip at the same density) I'd have everything I wanted in one camera and a portable gym to boot.  Maybe the 1Ds3 will be that camera. However, I'm quite good at the combo of AF and MF with the 20D VF so that the 45pt wouldn't improve my picture quality or keeper ratio much.  (The 22MP also started to sound good enough (with a 4 shot stitch) to compete with my 4x5, but that's another story)

So, Michael , what exactly does  (ya, right) mean?  I know there are a lot of birders/wildlifers who like the MP/FoV of the 20D and who live with its limitations.  Are we stupid or misguided or just have different priorities/goals - or am I really missing something?Huh  

Thanks
Andy
Logged
jani
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1604



WWW
« Reply #9 on: August 23, 2005, 05:41:02 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
If you crop the picture from the 5D by 1.6 (like the 20D sensor) then you get exactly 8 megapixels. In other words you can have the best of both worlds.
No, you didn't do your math right.

While 12.8 Mpx divided by 1.6 is 8 Mpx, that's not how it works.

If you use the crop factor correctly, you should divide by 1.6*1.6, or 2.56.

That yields 5 Mpx.
Logged

Jan
Richowens
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 842



« Reply #10 on: August 23, 2005, 07:05:36 PM »
ReplyReply

Hi all,
Disregard the last post. The "wetware" is getting a little dry.
Thanks, Jdemott. I just went into PS and opened one of my 6 megapixel files, changed the width from 2000 to 3000 and guess what, 13.5 megapixels. Sometimes I'm just a little dense.
Thanks

 ::

Rich
Logged

Ray
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 8883


« Reply #11 on: August 23, 2005, 08:02:06 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
The image is not cropped in the same way that you crop an image in an image editor by literally throwing away pixels.
Yes it is, if you are comparing two different formats with the same pixel density, such as the Canon D60 and 1Ds2.

Shoot the same scene with both cameras, from the same position using the same lens. The D60 image should be identical to the 1Ds2 image cropped in an image editor to the same size as the D60 image, ie. by literally throwing pixels away.

Note: I don't mean identical with regard to every characteristic, such as color hue and balance, and noise at high ISO etc., but identical with respect to resolution at base ISO.
Logged
Lin Evans
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 269


WWW
« Reply #12 on: August 26, 2005, 12:11:53 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
I'm still confused about the original subject.  

Isn't the extra "reach" on a 1.5x sensor one of their biggest advantages (in certain situations)?
Yes, essentially it is. There have always been technical arguments about whether or not there are "real" advantages to the crop factor vis a vis cropping to the same frame from a full frame sensor capture, but the bottom line is that with today's equipment there are indeed "real" advantages.

You will hear all types of technical discussions concerning pixel pitch, optical losses through using only part of the image circle and a host of optical physics discussions, but when you wade through it all and get to the kernel inside the nutshell you are left with greater enlargeability because in the end you are sampling with the full complement of sampling sites within a reduced (compared to 35mm frame size) field of view.

With present and soon to be released full frame sensors you must use longer focal length lenses to get the same enlargeability for that portion of the frame captured by the 1.5x/1.6x crop factor sensors. As an example, this means that the user who wishes to get similar telephoto results to what they might get with a Canon 20D (8 megaixel, 1.6x crop factor) by using a 16.7 megapixel 1DS Mark II must use a longer focal length lens which makes up the difference between about 6.68 megapixels and 8 megapixels or about 20 percent longer focal length. To put this into common perspective what you get with a 400mm frame with the 20D would take a 480mm lens to achieve with a 1DS Mark II.

The differences are much more revealing when you consider cameras like the 12 megapixel Nikon D2X and 16.7 megapixel Canon 1DS Mark II. Since the Nikon has a 1.5x crop, the Canon must make up about a 3.6 megapixel loss at the same field of view frame which is about a 45 percent difference. So what you would get with a 400mm lens in terms of the number of pixels on the subject with the Nikon would take 580mm with the 1DS Mark II, essentially requiring carrying a heavy 600mm lens with tripod, head, etc., versus a much lighter and smaller 400mm lens which could be hand held.

As someone who uses both full frame and crop factor sensors, I would never give up my crop factor sensors for full frame for wildlife use unless or until a full frame is available which has sufficient resolution to provide equal pixel count as my crop factor at the same crop percentage. I'm not holding my breath until this happens.....

Lin
Logged

Lin
BJL
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5129


« Reply #13 on: August 30, 2005, 06:21:02 PM »
ReplyReply

Thanks Ray for moving this away from the marketing jargon of pixel counts to more traditional measures of sensor resolution, lp/mm, which can be roughly measured by pixel spacing. Quite simply, the relatively large pixel spacing of the 5D (over 8 microns) means that it can be expected to have lower resolution (lp/mm) than just about any other current DSLR other than the 1DMkII. Thus, to get an image of a given subject at a given distance with a given amount of detail (roughly, a given pixel count after cropping) the 5D and 1DMkII need to use longer focal lengths, while the D2X and E-300 need the shortest amongst DSLRs, and compact digicams are way ahead on "telephoto reach per mm of focal length", so long as you do not need a lot of speed.

Perhaps Michael was thinking of the fact that pixel size is not strictly tied to sensor size, so that in principle Canon could match the sensor resolution (lp/mm) of the D2X or E-300 in a 35mm format sensor of about 30MP. In practice, such a sensor is a long way off, if it ever comes. For one thing, digital signal processing speeds cannot yet handle 30MP at a reasonable frame rate: the 5D is already down to 3fps compared to the 20D's 5fps, probaly due to using the same DSP chip. For another, it seems that few 35mm format lenses have enough resolution to exploit the potential resolution of a 30MP sensor; at least, probably not many zooms.

The strengths and weaknesses of the 5D seem likely to reinforce the trend that larger-than-mainsteam digital SLR formats having a similar role to larger-than-35mm film SLR formats: mostly, better imaqe quality (dynamic range, resolution etc.) when used at low ISO speeds, while being close to parity with smaller formats when used with higher ISO settings and telephoto focal lengths.

Fields like low light and high speed action photography are likely to be best handled by DSLR's with somewhat smaller sensors, smaller pixels, and shorter lenses. Canon clearly thinks so: its two high frame rate DSLRs are 1.3x and 1.6x.
Logged
Ray
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 8883


« Reply #14 on: August 31, 2005, 09:40:50 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
I am puzzled why some people ignore all trends in order to cling to the the belief that larger DSLR formats will someday offer something for nothing: sensors of more than twice the area, with the same pixel pitch and so more than twice as many photosites, and lenses with more than twice the image circle area yet with the same resolution (lp/mm), all at no significant price increase.
JBL,
No. That's not what I'm saying. There will always be a price difference between the larger format and the smaller format for equal pixel density.

I'm saying that the reason I don't currently own a full frame DSLR is the same reason that 10 million other photographic enthusiasts don't own one. It's not because my D60 and 20D are better tools for my purposes, although, if I were a keen bird photographer, that would be a reason, it's principally because the 1Ds2 costs as much as a small motor car.

Drop the price to something reasonable and I'll buy one for the sake of the higher over all picture quality. If I have a choice between a $500 future cropped format and a $1500 future 25MP FF 35mm, I'll definitely choose the latter, and I bet I'll not be the only one.

Notice that the price differential  ($500 as opposed to $1500) in my example, is actually greater than the current price difference between the 20D and the 5D, although the resolution of the 20D is greater in terms of lp/mm. However, at some point, little purpose will be served by increasing pixel density. The cropped format will likely reach that useful limit before FF and then will have nowhere to go with regard pixel count.

If the cropped format is to survive, Canon will have to provide a full range of high quality EF-S lenses. I'm not convinced the public at large will want to commit themselves to investing in a range of lenses that cannot be used on a FF body when there's an expectation and a clear trend that's already in place, for full frame 35mm to become affordable.
Logged
Ray
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 8883


« Reply #15 on: September 01, 2005, 11:08:09 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
Quote
- the price difference between the 20D and 5D is about US$1800, well over the $1000 in your $500 vs $1500 comparison. Sensor price difference seems to be the main factor in this US$1800 difference.

BJL,
You're old enough to remember the production costs of the first audio CDs and the quality control problems that, at the time, were beyond the manufacturing capabilities of Philips.

There should be no doubt that whatever the costs and difficulties that are currently associated with 35mm sensor production, they will prove to be a temporary state of affairs. That's the nature of technological progress.

You seem to be premising your arguments on the current situation rather than current trends.

I used the term 'price differential' to indicate a percentage difference in price rather than an absolute difference. In any case, the 'value' of items is generally perceived in terms of the price of alternative 'desired' items. Automobiles and houses are major and necessary purchases in life. The price of luxury items (for the non-professional) such as cameras have to be brought into perspective. If I need a new car, then I can't afford a 1Ds2.

Those who are not photography enthusiasts are amply served with a plethora of P&S digicams. Those who are photography enthusiasts will gravitate towards the camera that produces the higher image quality. It's really quite simple.

Quote
Compare a 200/2.8 to a 300/2.8 for price (and weight), for example.

There's a weight advantage in this example that is offset by an image quality disadvantage. The smaller format generally has poorer performance at higher ISOs. The lenses need to be faster, not only to overcome higher noise but also diffraction. There's no ultimate advantage here except weight and there's an unavoidable, ultimate image quality disadvantage. Image quality usually takes precedence over weight, provided the wieght difference is not very significant, and sometimes even if it is significant.

The weight difference between my Sony DSC T1 and my 20D is actually very significant. I bought this extremely compact camera because I could carry it around everywhere. But I don't use it nearly as often as I anticipated because the ultimate image quality and noise factor is significantly worse than my 20D.

Quote
Presumably your prediction about the smaller DSLR formats (please, can we avoid the inaccurate and derogatory term "cropped format"?) needing "a full range of high quality EF-S lenses" only refers to Canon's EF-S mount DSLRs; the survivial of DX format, Four Thirds, etc. do not rely on EF-S lenses!

The term 'cropped format' is not derogatory but precisely meaningful and provides an indication as to why it will probably not survive. A 20D with an EF-S lens is an APS-C format. No cropping involved. However, a 20D with an EF lens is indisputably a cropped format.

Will the Nikon D2x continue the line? Probably not. 12MP on that size sensor is getting close to the useful limit. When the limit is reached and higher pixel count full frame cameras offering greater over all picture quality become available at a similar price, even though slightly higher price, Nikon will be forced to go full frame.

Economics is about adapability and versatility. Rigid policies don't work.
Logged
Ray
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 8883


« Reply #16 on: September 02, 2005, 10:35:22 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote
Your assumption has at least one fundamental flaw.

The same advances that will make 35mm sensor production easier/cheaper will also benefit smaller sensors.
Jani,
Maybe my assumption has at least one major flaw, but you haven't explained it to me yet.

I don't buy a camera because it is cheap but because I want what it can do, because I intend to use it and because I consider what it can do to be relatively good value at a certain price point. I'm image quality orientated, as are many others on forums such as this. Present me with a choice of a 20D at $1500 or a 1Ds2 at $8000 and I'll reject the 1Ds2 because of its insane price and choose the 20D. Cut the price of both cameras by 2/3rds, $500 for the 20D and $2600 for the 1Ds2, then I'll choose the 1Ds2. Where's the flaw in that?
Logged
LesGirrior
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 26


« Reply #17 on: September 02, 2005, 12:52:38 PM »
ReplyReply

Ray, your post (see jani's quote) seemed to imply that you believe the prices of Full Frame will come to be close, perhaps not the same, but close to the same price for Reduced frame.

I believe that this is what jani is responding to.

----

My 2 cents on ISO performance: compared to film, digital is already pretty amazing.  How great does it even need to be? :)

Great thread, good reading.
Logged
BJL
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5129


« Reply #18 on: September 02, 2005, 01:42:30 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
Quote
Compare a 200/2.8 to a 300/2.8 for price (and weight), for example.

There's a weight advantage in this example that is offset by an image quality disadvantage. The smaller format generally has poorer performance at higher ISOs. The lenses need to be faster, not only to overcome higher noise but also diffraction.
Ray,

   firstly, given that smaller format SLR sensors will always be somewhat less expensive, it is the larger format which needs to establish a compensating advantage; it is enough for the lenses used with a smaller format to have rough parity in size/weight/cost/speed/DOF trade-offs.


Secondly, why did you ignore my mention of the 200/2 DX shortly afterwards? The scenario is this:

- most photographers have price or weight limits which mean that where 200/2.8 is affordable/carryable with APS-C format, 35mm format will be limited to 300/4. Conversely, for the tiny minority who can afford and carry a 300/2.8 for 35mm format, they can equally afford a 200/2 for DX. Either way, similar budgets get similar usable shuter speed and DOF, just with different combinations of f-stop and ISO speed.

This is because, as I think I have said before, it is the effective aperture diameter that determines light gathering speed (and thus high speed/low light image quality), DOF and diffraction, when photographing a given scene (same FOV, illumination, etc.). Effective aperture diameter is also a rough guide to front element size, and thus to lens size, weight and construction cost. I see little advantage to either larger or smaller formats in this respect; at least, not enough to cancel the smaller sensor's price advantage.


Finally, diffraction is of no practical relevance to DSLR lens speed needs (it might be with the far higher sensor resolution needs of compact digicams.) Surely you know that diffraction limitation only comes into play at f-stops around f/11 and smaller, and maybe from f/8 with the smaller pixels of the current DSLR sensor resolution leaders, the D2X and E-300. Even lenses limited to f/4 or f/5.6 (which covers almost every recent Canon lens) have no diffraction problems when used at their larger apertures.
Logged
Ray
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 8883


« Reply #19 on: September 04, 2005, 02:30:09 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote
Quote
The obvious reality is instead that this middle ground is now the most profitable sector of the digital camera market, serving the many photography enthusiasts who want a DLSR with interchangable lenses, greater speed that small digicam sensors can provide, and so on, and are looking for bodies at under $1000, or at most about $1,500 and use lenses not costing thousands of dollars, and so are far away from the 35mm format DLSR market sector.

The key word is 'now'. The middle ground is now the most profitable sector of the digital camera market. Have you noticed that situations have a habit of changing. As the Lord Buddha is reputed to have said, "Nothing is permanent in this world".

As prices of FF 35mm come down (no doubt gradually) and as peoples' desires and expectations shift ground, then FF 35mm is likely to become that profitable middle ground.

I've just been reading a review of the Olympus 8MP E-300 on dpreview. What seems quite amazing is that the image from the P&S Olympus C-8080 WZ, which has a tiny sensor just 8.8x6.6mm compared with the E-300's 17.3x13mm sensor which is almost exactly 4x the size, is actually slightly sharper. However, the C8080 is much noisier than the E-300 as one would expect. But interestingly, the E-300 is also much noisier than the 20D which is also slightly sharper than the E-300.

I would think that a P&S such as the C8080 with improved speed, bigger buffer to handle a number of RAW images without the usual long delays, and reduced noise, would be ample camera for the non-enthusiast, the vast majority of happy snappers and as a second camera for the enthusiast.
Logged
Pages: [1] 2 3 4 »   Top of Page
Print
Jump to:  

Ad
Ad
Ad