Rangefinderforum.com

Rangefinderforum.com (http://www.rangefinderforum.com/forums/index.php)
-   Bill Pierce - Leica M photog and author (http://www.rangefinderforum.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?f=130)
-   -   Bigger Better??? (http://www.rangefinderforum.com/forums/showthread.php?t=167779)

Bill Pierce 02-28-2019 10:32

Bigger Better???
 
Iím going to be on the road for a week with just a cellphone, not a laptop. But I thought this column that Ming Thein wrote awhile back was worth discussing. We all lust for those super cameras with the big sensors and big price tags, but are they really going to benefit the photography that we do? Iíll be back in touch in a week or so when this question has been discussed and, perhaps, put to rest.

https://blog.mingthein.com/2019/02/2...er/#more-17682

Livesteamer 02-28-2019 11:05

Thanks Bill and Safe Travels.


Discussed, Yes.


Settled, Doubtful.


Joe

ChipMcD 02-28-2019 11:19

Bill,

As usual, Ming Thein makes many good points, and the equivalencies he sites betwee Micro 4/3, Full Frame and Medium Format digital under real world, hand held conditions are enlightening. His advice that bigger is better, if you are willing to lug an appropriately sized tripod or lighting equipment is also sound.

He excluded cost from his analysis and stated that he was doing so. But cost is highly relevant to most of us who are not professionals with a chance of recouping the cost relatively quickly, if we have run the numbers correctly and have made reasonable assumptions. Even if money were no object, realizing the full potential of 36+ MP sensors, be they full frame or MF, is likely quite difficult. There is also the practical consideration that many of us don't print as much as in the old days and don't print as large, so the full capability of the high megapixel sensor may rarely or never be used in the display of one's work.

One point that Ming Thein made is that "big and cheap" these days means medium or large format film (i.e., cheap relative to MF digital). Many of us here are still film people or mostly film people, so this point is salient for us. Personally, for the kind of photography I do, which is landscape or urban landscape or slow moving animate things and mostly black and white, medium format film seems to hit the sweet spot as far as image quality, "look" (due to the lenses), portability and, in this post-film market, cost. Large format was just too much to carry. 35mm is still great for many applications too, but lacks the distinctive look of medium format for the kind of photography I do. Street shooters, sports shooters, etc will almost certainly have other ideas that suit them better.

xayraa33 02-28-2019 11:32

"We all lust for those super cameras with the big sensors and big price tags"

Good topic, Bill

I don't normally follow the usual YT photo gurus, especially these two but they did bring up some interesting predictions, whether they come true is an other matter.


Predictions like a new Canon FF mirrorless camera for 500 USD or the demise of APS C sized sensors and the lenses for them.

They claim the sensor size manufacturing cost gap differences have narrowed going from APS C to Full Frame is only 150 USD more and the streamlining manufacturing to one size only and just making lenses for the full frame format would be more cost effective.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jr5TgN8jAAg

Darthfeeble 02-28-2019 11:40

The one reason I think that there is value in the bigger/better gonna improve my pictures theory is this: I got the bug and bought a so so "prosumer" camera and was taking so so pictures. I had a mentor who could be, errrr rather abrupt in his critiques and I was getting a lot of that abrupt. I decided that if I were to be serious I needed a serious camera and bought a Canon 5 D and dedicated myself to bringing my skill up to the level of that camera. I haven't gotten there yet but I did vastly improve my skills with the challenge.

Mcary 02-28-2019 11:42

Personally I think the camera body regardless of sensor size make up very little of the overall weight considering the size of some lenses these days. Personally I use mainly f/2.0 rather then F 1.4 lenses for both saving in weight as well as the saving in cost. Additionally I'll limit the number of lens I take on a trip to say two or three; example I'm head to NYC this Sat for a 3 day weekend I'm bring my M9, Summicron 28mm and 50mm Summilux, I'm than going to some Island along the Georgia coast for a week in April for which I'll also bring my Voigtlander 21 f/1.8

As far as a laptop goes I'd rather just bring a small tablet like my IPAD or just a cellphone and wait to process images when I get home.

Corran 02-28-2019 11:56

Well last week on a work trip I travelled with my 8x20 ulf camera, as well as 4x5 and 35mm too. Exposed 6 sheets of 8x20, 10 sheets of 4x5, and a couple rolls. People need to stop obsessing over their format or camera and instead focus on the end product and what works for them.

jsrockit 02-28-2019 12:07

This is why I think APSC is still relavent even though FF is coming down in price... it is the best combination between price, size, image quality, and weight. Mirrorless FF bodies are decently sized, but 99% of the lenses are bigger than one would expect vs body size. Hopefully that will change in the future.

Ko.Fe. 02-28-2019 12:49

Have a nice trip!

Mft will smudge fine details more often than anything with larger sensor.
Flash and tripod for what? BiF and wildlife?
Photography for what? Poster prints or post cards?

Personally, for me larger is no way better. But every time I need best quality guaranteed, it is DSLR with large or small lens on it and sometimes flash.
I would change my Canon 5DMII to RP. At some point
5DMKII is the largest camera body in my possession.

Mcary 02-28-2019 13:21

Quote:

Originally Posted by jsrockit (Post 2872419)
This is why I think APSC is still relavent even though FF is coming down in price... it is the best combination between price, size, image quality, and weight. Mirrorless FF bodies are decently sized, but 99% of the lenses are bigger than one would expect vs body size. Hopefully that will change in the future.


Agree!



For example while I think the Leica TL 18mm F2.8 at 80 grams and the 23mm F2.0 TL at 153 grams would be great compact lenses to use on the Leica CL the TL 35mm F1.4 at 428 grams seems huge.


CL+18mm F2.8=approx 483grams
CL +23mm F2= approx 553 grams
CL+ 35mm F1.4=approx 831 grams

Doug 02-28-2019 15:08

Thein makes some good points, and I've observed the effects and done the balancing act he describes. I appreciate the look of medium format, both film and digital. But MF is not always what I choose to take out shooting!


When out shooting with "lesser" gear, you may not expect as high image quality and thus be less careful in the process. And then of course the resulting image quality isn't so good.


Several decades ago, living within walking distance of a state university, I took some classes for the fun of it mostly in the Art Dept, including photography. I would often shoot Minolta CLE or Pentax 35mm and 6x7. I also had Pentax Auto 110 gear and set out to see how good it could be. I was careful in shooting, meticulous in developing and printing in my home darkroom. I wanted to see if the prof and fellow students would ask anything about the film format, but none ever did. So my 8x10 prints from 110 were "good enough" for purpose!


An interesting exercise, but there was less flexibility and versatility in this particular balancing act.

jsrockit 02-28-2019 15:15

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mcary (Post 2872442)
Agree!



For example while I think the Leica TL 18mm F2.8 at 80 grams and the 23mm F2.0 TL at 153 grams would be great compact lenses to use on the Leica CL the TL 35mm F1.4 at 428 grams seems huge.


CL+18mm F2.8=approx 483grams
CL +23mm F2= approx 553 grams
CL+ 35mm F1.4=approx 831 grams

Iím hoping Leica makes a 35mm f2 for the CL one day.

giganova 02-28-2019 15:55

I think mirrorless APS-C cameras will drive FF DSLR out of business soon. I recently purchased an APS-C camera and the image quality exceeds that of the bulky & heavy Nikon D810 that I owned, in a much smaller body with smaller lenses. If shallow DOF is a concern, just shoot wide open and you won't see a difference. Plus, with every sensor generation being more sensitive, the previous advantage of larger sensors collecting more light is no longer an argument either. With these mirrorless APS-C cameras you have burst rates of up to 11 fps, equaling Nikon's flagship D3, which should be enough for every professional sports photographer.

michaelwj 02-28-2019 16:48

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bill Pierce (Post 2872380)
Iíll be back in touch in a week or so when this question has been discussed and, perhaps, put to rest.

That'll never happen. We'll get sidetracked, start talking about HCB and what is "art", before talking about Fujifilm putting up prices and another Leica special edition... what was the question again?

michaelwj 02-28-2019 17:20

Larger format (D)LSRs used to always have the advantage of a bigger viewfinder, which was great. I still remember the peephole of my first DX Nikon DSLR after coming from a Minolta film body. It was horrible, but limited by the size of the mirror are of less. Electronic viewfinders are no longer tied to the sensor (or mirror) size, so that advantage is gone.

The other advantage of "full frame" over APSC size is familiarity (SLRs) and legacy lenses (mirrorless). The later will diminish over time as people don't have legacy lenses (I don't). However, while all specs are quoted (somewhat arbitrarily) as 35mm equivalents, people will always think it is the standard size and it will be both familiar and something to aim for.

But, while I think APSC is a great compromise like most others, Fuji is the last company to take it seriously, possibly the only company to ever take it seriously. Canon, Nikon, and Sony all put out tentative APSC cameras with weak lens lineups and have since shown their hands, deciding that full frame is where it is. Pentax has continues to put out APSC lenses but also have their "professional" full frame camera. Panasonic has made the same move: full frame is professional.

So, we essentially have Olympus and Fuji as the only companies putting out a range from amateur to professional in a sensor size smaller than full frame. Is that healthy? On one hand they have a monopoly in their fields, on the other they are trying to be competitive with cameras using larger sensors. I hope their will to be competitive with larger formats leads them to highlight the advantages of smaller formats. Olympus does this very will with IBIS - a smaller sensor is easier to move than a bigger one. Olympus and Fuji both both do this with a full range of appropriate size and weight lenses, which are proportionally smaller that their full frame equivalents.

michaelwj 02-28-2019 17:57

One thing that always bugs me about "equivalency" is depth of field. /rant on/

Larger format users correctly point to the thinner depth of field at a specific aperture. You need a brighter (and therefore bigger and more expensive) lens in a smaller format to achieve the same shallow depth of field. A full frame f/1.4 lens would need an f/1.0 APSC, and an f/0.7 m43 lens. That's fine, the advantage is in the larger format (up to full frame anyway).

But, the counter argument doesn't fly unless you are hitting your minimum aperture. You don't get more depth of field with a smaller format because you can just stop down another stop with no cost/size/weight penalty. For cameras with the same pixel count, diffraction will set in at m43 one stop earlier than APSC, and two stops earlier than full frame. For example, a m43 landscape shot at f/8 will show the same level of diffraction as an APSC shot at f/11 and full frame shot at f/16. The only limiting factor is if we shoot m43 at f/11 and our full frame lens doesn't go to f/22. Diffraction from an f/16 aperture is greater than at f/8, with the diffraction is being spread over twice the angular range. But the bigger sensor has twice the angular range to compensate (for the same number of pixels the pixels will be twice the width, the diffraction will be the same at a per pixel level). It makes no difference. Increasing the resolution in the larger sensor means you'll see diffraction at a pixel level earlier, but the final print will look be sharper.

/rant over/ for now...

giganova 02-28-2019 18:32

Quote:

Originally Posted by michaelwj (Post 2872516)
That'll never happen. We'll get sidetracked, start talking about HCB and what is "art", before talking about Fujifilm putting up prices and another Leica special edition... what was the question again?

The real question is: is Leica alienating photographers? :D

charjohncarter 02-28-2019 21:12

I wonder in the days before digital if this same argument was ever made about the difference between 4x5 and medium format. I have tough time justifying that difference.

I know tonality and the zone system (and as above depth of field) are important but with digital editing is it still important.

jsrockit 03-01-2019 06:49

Quote:

Originally Posted by charjohncarter (Post 2872560)
I wonder in the days before digital if this same argument was ever made about the difference between 4x5 and medium format. I have tough time justifying that difference.

Of course they were...and how large you could print was directly related to the size of the negative... much more so than now.

Mcary 03-01-2019 07:16

Quote:

Originally Posted by jsrockit (Post 2872635)
Of course they were...and how large you could print was directly related to the size of the negative... much more so than now.


Not only that but if size/weight is an issue due to having to carry equipment over a long distance or multiple days think about how many rolls of 120/220 fit in the same space as one or two 4x5 film holders. If we're taking about color film that could be something like 100-200 shots of 6x7 (6-10rolls of 220) if not more verses 4 shoot of 4x5 when comparing say a Mamiya 7II and 4x5 field camera.

Dogman 03-01-2019 07:21

Before digital, arguments were based on large format vs medium format, Speed Graphic vs Rolleiflex, medium format vs 35mm, SLR vs RF, Leica vs Contax, Nikon vs Canon, AF vs manual focus, etc. Photographers seem to love the minutiae involved in every aspect of the pursuit. And we love to argue about it all. It sold photo magazine in the past and it keeps bloggers/vloggers in business today.

willie_901 03-01-2019 07:21

A combination of high sensor surface area and high lens element surface area represents a significant advantage. Maximizing the total signal level (sensor illuminance) while using longer shutter times and, or wider apertures is often an advantage. More signal also means less relative photon noise levels.

In principle, simply increase lens surface area can compensate for reduced sensor areas. In practice, this is impractical because with current optical technologies those lens would be very large and expensive.

I think we are about 5 years away from a new generation medium format digital sensors (larger than the current 44 x 33mm sensors) becoming the standard for the highest level of sensor performance and APS-C and m4/3 becoming the preferred platforms for people who value the advantages of smaller and lighter gear.

retinax 03-01-2019 08:08

Quote:

Originally Posted by michaelwj (Post 2872531)
One thing that always bugs me about "equivalency" is depth of field. /rant on/

Larger format users correctly point to the thinner depth of field at a specific aperture. You need a brighter (and therefore bigger and more expensive) lens in a smaller format to achieve the same shallow depth of field. A full frame f/1.4 lens would need an f/1.0 APSC, and an f/0.7 m43 lens. That's fine, the advantage is in the larger format (up to full frame anyway).

But, the counter argument doesn't fly unless you are hitting your minimum aperture. You don't get more depth of field with a smaller format because you can just stop down another stop with no cost/size/weight penalty. For cameras with the same pixel count, diffraction will set in at m43 one stop earlier than APSC, and two stops earlier than full frame. For example, a m43 landscape shot at f/8 will show the same level of diffraction as an APSC shot at f/11 and full frame shot at f/16. The only limiting factor is if we shoot m43 at f/11 and our full frame lens doesn't go to f/22. Diffraction from an f/16 aperture is greater than at f/8, with the diffraction is being spread over twice the angular range. But the bigger sensor has twice the angular range to compensate (for the same number of pixels the pixels will be twice the width, the diffraction will be the same at a per pixel level). It makes no difference. Increasing the resolution in the larger sensor means you'll see diffraction at a pixel level earlier, but the final print will look be sharper.

/rant over/ for now...

No-one disputes that one can stop down. However Ming Thein talks about hand held photography, so the price to pay for stopping down beyond a certain point is higher ISO, as he points out. Which may still be better, or not.
For tripod photography your point stands. Even more, I doubt that diffraction actually doubles per f/stop down that is needed to get the same dof for FF compared to APS-C, because the length of the edge of the diaphragm (which is responsible for diffraction) doesn't change in a linear way with the size of the aperture. Or does it? Maybe because we need to consider the different aperture size needed for the different focal length to get the same fov. Ok I'm in over my head.

ptpdprinter 03-01-2019 08:28

Quote:

Originally Posted by charjohncarter (Post 2872560)
I wonder in the days before digital if this same argument was ever made about the difference between 4x5 and medium format. I have tough time justifying that difference.

At least you acknowledge the difference. A lot depends on print size.

michaelwj 03-01-2019 12:40

Quote:

Originally Posted by retinax (Post 2872653)
No-one disputes that one can stop down. However Ming Thein talks about hand held photography, so the price to pay for stopping down beyond a certain point is higher ISO, as he points out. Which may still be better, or not.
For tripod photography your point stands. Even more, I doubt that diffraction actually doubles per f/stop down that is needed to get the same dof for FF compared to APS-C, because the length of the edge of the diaphragm (which is responsible for diffraction) doesn't change in a linear way with the size of the aperture. Or does it? Maybe because we need to consider the different aperture size needed for the different focal length to get the same fov. Ok I'm in over my head.

This was a seperate rant unrelated to Ming’s article...

:D

It doesn’t exactly double, but it’s close enough (there’s a small angle approximation in there). Regarding the different linear changes when focal length changes, the f in f-stop is normalising for focal length. We need to un normalise it for depth of field. So, stopping down to f/8 on a full frame lens is the same linear aperture size as stopping down to f/4 on m43 for the same angle of view. Depth of field is related to the actual aperture size.

ptpdprinter 03-01-2019 13:06

As if any of this makes much difference in the real world. You never heard any of these concerns about comparative diffraction between FF and MF film shooters. Perhaps someone can post some images illustrating this problem.

retinax 03-01-2019 13:30

Quote:

Originally Posted by ptpdprinter (Post 2872716)
As if any of this makes much difference in the real world. You never heard any of these concerns about comparative diffraction between FF and MF film shooters. Perhaps someone can post some images illustrating this problem.

It certainly is of no practical concern for me, it's just interesting to think about. And could be useful when one gets to the extremes, w.r.t. diffraction that's probably macro photography. BTW I'm purely a film shooter at this time.

Rob-F 03-01-2019 16:15

It all comes down to the same old truism: With a bigger fancier camera you might get a technically better photo; but whether it's a better picture depends on the photographer.

michaelwj 03-01-2019 17:03

Quote:

Originally Posted by michaelwj (Post 2872711)
This was a seperate rant unrelated to Mingís article...

:D

It doesnít exactly double, but itís close enough (thereís a small angle approximation in there). Regarding the different linear changes when focal length changes, the f in f-stop is normalising for focal length. We need to un normalise it for depth of field. So, stopping down to f/8 on a full frame lens is the same linear aperture size as stopping down to f/4 on m43 for the same angle of view. Depth of field is related to the actual aperture size.

If I can try to express myself more clearly after a few coffees on a Saturday morning...

For a given field of view and depth of field (f/4 12mm m43; f/8 24mm FF) the airy disc covers the same % of the recording medium. If we have the same number of pixels then diffraction becomes visible at the same depth of field and angle of view regardless of the format. The argument that a smaller format allows for greater depth of field is false (except when you run out of stops at the largest f number, which is a lens problem, not a format problem)

Adding more pixels however allows you to sample the airy disc at a higher spatial frequency, and in the end looks better.

Saul 03-01-2019 17:25

Quote:

Originally Posted by ptpdprinter (Post 2872716)
As if any of this makes much difference in the real world. You never heard any of these concerns about comparative diffraction between FF and MF film shooters. Perhaps someone can post some images illustrating this problem.

thank you thank you thank you

Tim Murphy 03-01-2019 18:42

DING, DING, DING, We have a winner!
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Rob-F (Post 2872745)
It all comes down to the same old truism: With a bigger fancier camera you might get a technically better photo; but whether it's a better picture depends on the photographer.

Dear Rob,

Trudat

Regards,

Tim Murphy

Harrisburg, PA :)

willie_901 03-02-2019 07:32

Quote:

Originally Posted by ptpdprinter (Post 2872716)
...You never heard any of these concerns about comparative diffraction between FF and MF film shooters. ...

I don't have any images. But, the reason for less concern is because film shooters evaluated perceived image sharpness from prints while digital image sharpness is typically evaluated by viewing high-resolution monitors.

The system spatial resolution Ė MTF50 Ė depends on the lens, film resolution, development technique, enlarger optics and paper resolution. For small to medium sized prints, diffraction broadening could be less obvious going from small to large film surface areas. Before digital, film work that required large prints was usually done using large film formats. If 135 format film was printed to the same large size, and the negatives had a high system MTF50, diffraction broadening would be a concern.

Details

Digital imaging system spatial resolution (MTF50) is often superior than film because image comparisons are typically made by visual inspection using high MTF50 monitors.[1] Viewing prints alone, the system MTF50 will be lower and the diffraction broadening will become less obvious. Another difference from film involves pixel pitch. As pixel pitch increases the effective diffraction broadening deceases. Sensors with both large pixel pitches and large surface areas are susceptible to diffraction broadening.

For all images, when the airy disk diameter becomes larger than the circle of confusion (CoC), diffraction broadening becomes relevant.

Diffraction broadening is caused interference between light rays passing through an aperture. Circular apertures in 2D imaging produce a diffraction pattern Ė the airy disk. The airy disk primary peak diameter quantifies how much broadening occurs.

Diffraction depends on the film area because the CoC is a function of film area. For 135, 645 and 4X5 formats the CoCs are 0.029, 0.047 and 0.11 mm respectively.

The CoC depends the ratio of the viewing distance divided by the desired final-image resolution in lp/mm for a 25 cm viewing distance. This value is then divided by the enlargement factor (for a direct contact print the enlargement factor = 1). Larger media surface areas require less enlargement and this means the CoC is larger.

1. Neither film nor digital prints are have an inherent MTF50 advantage. The system MTF50s for film and digital prints both depend on more than just the sensors' and films' resolution limits.

emraphoto 03-02-2019 09:31

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rob-F (Post 2872745)
It all comes down to the same old truism: With a bigger fancier camera you might get a technically better photo; but whether it's a better picture depends on the photographer.

Indeed. All of these conversations rely on narrowing 'photograohy' down to a singular whereas the reality is, photography can be a lot of things. Similar to judgment of the end result, be it a physical print or online.

markbakovic 03-02-2019 15:31

Quote:

Originally Posted by ptpdprinter (Post 2872716)
As if any of this makes much difference in the real world. You never heard any of these concerns about comparative diffraction between FF and MF film shooters. Perhaps someone can post some images illustrating this problem.

You did but the language was usually different.

First bit of this might help:
http://spiff.rit.edu/classes/phys312...elescopes.html

Fast lenses are less likely to achieve the diffraction limit. The theoretical resolution of a large format and kleinbild lens may be the same, but for the same field of view and manufacturing tolerances a longer lens is more likely to achieve that (or some % of that) performance.

Also: since f# determines resolution at the detector independent of focal length imaging a scene with a 50mm f.8 lens and a 150mm f.8 lens produce spots the same size (if they're both perfect). However, the aperture of one lens is ~6mm, while the other's is ~18mm, so each spot covers and area of the scene one third as big from the LF "normal" 150. If your grain/pixels are small enough to sample the spots correctly you get 3x the detail in the big format "at the same field of view". Another way of looking at it is you could stop down further and lose no detail in the scene, while making smaller spots on your detector (to take advantage of fine grain emulsion, say).
It might just be easier to think that at the same grain/pixel size, more of them across the frame translates to more of them across a given detail in the scene (think similar triangles with a given angle).

It's all muddied somewhat in digital land because 5 micron pixels have been around for ages, yet resolution has gone up... but when you think about Bayer masks and microlenses you realise quoted pixel sizes tell you the relative light gathering power, not how big a spot they can sample.

Ronald M 03-02-2019 20:12

Like houses and cars, bigger is better and costs more. Add in taxes and repairs and insurance and you know the drill.

1200 sq feet is an adequate home. Chevrolet will get you there as fast as Ferrari and it does not need a visit to Tony every month for work. I almost bought one but management said no. So I drive my Buick & Chevy. They do not need engine removal tune up every few years for $15,000.

So it comes down to purpose of photo, wall mural you can sell or something that lives in your I Mac or family album. Bigger is better but consider your end use.

Bill Clark 03-02-2019 21:08

Pretty nice photographs can be made with a cell phone.

Bigger isn’t necessarily better. I look in the mirror and think, “I need to go on a diet.” Just like my cameras! Smaller is the place to be.

markbakovic 03-02-2019 21:19

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bill Clark (Post 2872973)
Smaller is the place to be.


The camera that takes the best photo is the camera that's there when the photo is taken. If a small camera is where the moment is and Ansel's 8x10 is at home in the cabinet...

farlymac 03-02-2019 21:54

This is just another one of those imponderables that will never get settled. That is, until the ultimate do-everything camera is designed, and it only weighs a few ounces, and costs less than $500.


But for now, I believe the size of the sensor and camera needs to be matched to the task at hand. On a trip where you aren't going to have time for any serious photography, then snap away on the phone or cheap compact. It will be good reference material for later adventures, especially if one gets the chance to return to the area.


PF

michaelwj 03-02-2019 23:36

Quote:

Originally Posted by farlymac (Post 2872981)
This is just another one of those imponderables that will never get settled. That is, until the ultimate do-everything camera is designed, and it only weighs a few ounces, and costs less than $500.

I disagree :D
I think it is settled. Bigger is better providing your technique (and back) is up to it, but smaller will often suffice, especially with modern digital.

jsrockit 03-03-2019 06:18

Quote:

Originally Posted by markbakovic (Post 2872974)
The camera that takes the best photo is the camera that's there when the photo is taken. If a small camera is where the moment is and Ansel's 8x10 is at home in the cabinet...

This is true as long as it doesn't lead to laziness and using the wrong tool always just for convenience's sake.


All times are GMT -8. The time now is 13:12.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.8
Copyright ©2000 - 2020, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

All content on this site is Copyright Protected and owned by its respective owner. You may link to content on this site but you may not reproduce any of it in whole or part without written consent from its owner.