Go Back   Rangefinderforum.com > Cameras / Gear / Photography > Leicas and other Leica Mount Cameras > Canon Leica Screw Mount Film Rangefinders

Canon Leica Screw Mount Film Rangefinders For classic Leica Screw Mount Canon Rangefinders.

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes

Canon 7 with Jupiter lens
Old 01-30-2020   #1
CarrotRoom
Registered User
 
CarrotRoom's Avatar
 
CarrotRoom is offline
Join Date: Jan 2020
Location: California
Posts: 24
Canon 7 with Jupiter lens

Just putting this out there, I think I know what I am doing but seeing if there are any other thoughts.

I recently got a Canon 7 for a reasonable price and as the only LTM/M39 lens I have is a Russian Jupiter 3 I attached it and happily went and shot the first roll.
I really enjoyed using the camera but was aware that the lens when fitted doesn't sit with the focus markings top centre, they are about 20-30 degrees passed it.
Now I realise I should have thought more deeply about this and done some more vigorous testing before committing to a roll of film but... you know... enthusiasm for a new shiny thing and all that.. so...
When I got the film back I see that the majority of the exposures are slightly soft.

After the fact then, I take the camera and focus on something of a known distance and see whet it reads on the focus ring; there is a discrepancy. Something that is 15 feet away shows as less than 10 on the lens.

So my question is; am I right in thinking that the lens mount is likely the issue here? ...rather than a badly adjusted RF. It seems fairly obvious to me that it should be the fact that the lens goes on just a little too far and so the interconnect with the RF will be off; but wanted to see if anyone had any thoughts or whether anyone else has had issues mounting a Jupiter lens to a Canon.

I think my next step is to put some sort of shim/washer on the lens so that it tightens with the focus marks at top centre and then re-check the focus. I don't have access to (and not sure, right now, I want to invest in) a proper Canon lens to compare so this seems like the easiest/best approach.
__________________
Nigel

"The fascinating moment which you wish to preserve for ever in a photo disappears as quickly as it comes; you must be prepared . It is not enough for you to know what this lever or that knob does, you must learn to handle your camera as instinctively as the pianist find his notes" Voigtländer Manual 1933

Various (too many?) Voigtländer film cameras and other old junk
Olympus Pen-F Digital

https://carrotroom.wordpress.com/
  Reply With Quote

Old 01-30-2020   #2
Ko.Fe.
Kostya Fedot
 
Ko.Fe.'s Avatar
 
Ko.Fe. is offline
Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: MiltON.ONtario
Posts: 8,115
20-30 is too far. I could check my j-3 on Canon and let you know here four hours later today.
  Reply With Quote

Old 01-30-2020   #3
retinax
Registered User
 
retinax is offline
Join Date: Aug 2015
Posts: 1,164
It's common for ltm lenses to sit a bit offset on bodies of different makes, that in itself isn't an issue for focus, only for handling. Often it can be corrected.
Does this J-3 focus correctly on other non-soviet cameras? Then the issue is the camera, could be the rangefinder or the mount needing shimming. The latter would only affect the scale discrepancy, not actual rangefinder focus with a 50.
Does it focus correctly on soviet cameras? Then the lens might need adjustment to focus right on Japanese/Western cameras.
In any case, a piece of ground glass on the film rails and a loupe will tell you more.
  Reply With Quote

Old 01-30-2020   #4
Goody
Registered User
 
Goody is offline
Join Date: Feb 2016
Posts: 61
You have two different issues here.
1) The lenses on Canons, when seated fully are designed to have the mark for setting focus, and for f/stop to the left of dead center when viewed from the top. The reason is that the eyepiece is to the left of center on the camera -- so if you move the camera slightly down from your eye the marking is easier to see from that angle, to reset f/stop, for example. So that's a feature, not a lens issue.
2) The focus issue has to do with the difference between FSU (Russian) LTM lenses and German or Japanese ones -- the FSU lenses have a different back focus, so they often need to be adjusted to work correctly with non FSU bodies. I don't know if unscrewing the lens will help, but I doubt it's a great solution.
BTW the Canon 7 is an excellent camera -- so once focus is sorted you will enjoy it!
  Reply With Quote

Old 01-30-2020   #5
Beemermark
Registered User
 
Beemermark's Avatar
 
Beemermark is offline
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Wilmington, NC
Posts: 1,867
Are the pictures you took, using the rangefinder, in focus? If so stop obsessing about the lens distance indicators accuracy.
  Reply With Quote

Old 01-30-2020   #6
retinax
Registered User
 
retinax is offline
Join Date: Aug 2015
Posts: 1,164
Quote:
Originally Posted by Beemermark View Post
Are the pictures you took, using the rangefinder, in focus? If so stop obsessing about the lens distance indicators accuracy.
1. He wrote he got soft pictures.
2. Even if rf focus was accurate, there are hard stops at both ends of the range indicated by the distance scale. Such a large discrepancy with the scale would mean the lens can't be focused all the way to both ends, close focus or infinity would be unavailable.
3.Scale focus wouldn't be possible.
  Reply With Quote

Old 01-30-2020   #7
Ko.Fe.
Kostya Fedot
 
Ko.Fe.'s Avatar
 
Ko.Fe. is offline
Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: MiltON.ONtario
Posts: 8,115
I checked my J-3 on LTM Canon. It is very close to 12 O'clock. Even closer than 50 1.8.
  Reply With Quote

Old 01-31-2020   #8
AndersG
Registered User
 
AndersG's Avatar
 
AndersG is offline
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Göteborg, Sweden
Age: 42
Posts: 275
My Jupiter-8 stops slightly left of the 12 O'clock on my Canon 7. Closer to the top than my Canon 50mm/1.4 and Canon 85mm/1.9.

In my own experience (small as it is) my Soviet lenses (J-8. J-11, J-12 and possibly I-61) focus reasonably well on my Canon 7 - but I have seldom used them fully open.
__________________
My Gallery
  Reply With Quote

Old 01-31-2020   #9
xayraa33
rangefinder user and fancier
 
xayraa33's Avatar
 
xayraa33 is offline
Join Date: Feb 2004
Posts: 5,953
"Something that is 15 feet away shows as less than 10 on the lens."

With that much of a discrepancy I suspect someone in the past did a kitchen table disassembly of the lens and re-assembled the multi-start thread focus helical in the wrong start of the thread...easy enough to do and a very common mistake.

On other common problems with the J-3 : As others have stated there is also the Leica standard back focus vs the Contax based back focus of FSU lenses...most examples need to be shimmed (but not all of them need it outright).

And some of the very late made black finish LTM J-3 lenses are very soft at full bore, and nothing can be done about that other than stopping down the lens when you use it... and they are next to impossible to fine adjust properly (besides shimming) if needed...because unlike the older ones, the back optic element block is cemented and not threaded as in the past.
__________________
My Gallery
  Reply With Quote

Old 01-31-2020   #10
CarrotRoom
Registered User
 
CarrotRoom's Avatar
 
CarrotRoom is offline
Join Date: Jan 2020
Location: California
Posts: 24
Thanks all for the responses.

I did have this lens on a Fed-3 and I don't remember any discrepancies with the focus then, although that camera did have a light leak and I didn't have it very long.

The only other camera i have used this lens on is my MFT and it was fine but that was through the lens focusing and that would always have worked so not much of a guide; I don't remember comparing the distance with the markings but probably will tonight.

The markings being slightly left doesn't seem to be the issue then as that is expected. From what Goody and xayraa33 are saying this is either a discrepancy between FSU LTM lenses and the Japanese body OR someone tinkered with the lens.

Maybe I need to invest in a Canon lens after all and keep this for my Olympus
__________________
Nigel

"The fascinating moment which you wish to preserve for ever in a photo disappears as quickly as it comes; you must be prepared . It is not enough for you to know what this lever or that knob does, you must learn to handle your camera as instinctively as the pianist find his notes" Voigtländer Manual 1933

Various (too many?) Voigtländer film cameras and other old junk
Olympus Pen-F Digital

https://carrotroom.wordpress.com/
  Reply With Quote

Old 01-31-2020   #11
Ko.Fe.
Kostya Fedot
 
Ko.Fe.'s Avatar
 
Ko.Fe. is offline
Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: MiltON.ONtario
Posts: 8,115
Or do some DIY:
http://lens-club.ru/public/files/pdf...f9a95d48d3.pdf
  Reply With Quote

Old 01-31-2020   #12
julio1fer
Registered User
 
julio1fer's Avatar
 
julio1fer is offline
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Uruguay
Posts: 481
Did you check the camera RF for accuracy? For instance, at infinite with the moon or a very distant object.
  Reply With Quote

Old 01-31-2020   #13
CarrotRoom
Registered User
 
CarrotRoom's Avatar
 
CarrotRoom is offline
Join Date: Jan 2020
Location: California
Posts: 24
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ko.Fe. View Post
Ha ha... maybe... I have a long list of projects so it will be a while before I'd get to this kind of thing; another lens would be a shorter path to shooting happiness
__________________
Nigel

"The fascinating moment which you wish to preserve for ever in a photo disappears as quickly as it comes; you must be prepared . It is not enough for you to know what this lever or that knob does, you must learn to handle your camera as instinctively as the pianist find his notes" Voigtländer Manual 1933

Various (too many?) Voigtländer film cameras and other old junk
Olympus Pen-F Digital

https://carrotroom.wordpress.com/
  Reply With Quote

Old 01-31-2020   #14
rfaspen
Registered User
 
rfaspen's Avatar
 
rfaspen is offline
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Corvallis, OR
Posts: 1,723
Personally, I suspect the RF in the body is off more than an issue with the lens. You need a known good ltm lens to sort everything out..... determine what and where problems lie.
  Reply With Quote

Old 01-31-2020   #15
CarrotRoom
Registered User
 
CarrotRoom's Avatar
 
CarrotRoom is offline
Join Date: Jan 2020
Location: California
Posts: 24
Quote:
Originally Posted by rfaspen View Post
Personally, I suspect the RF in the body is off more than an issue with the lens. You need a known good ltm lens to sort everything out..... determine what and where problems lie.
You may be right, I don't have another lens available to prove that so looks like I am shopping.

Quote:
Originally Posted by julio1fer View Post
Did you check the camera RF for accuracy? For instance, at infinite with the moon or a very distant object.
Not sure how I do that with a potentially suspect lens; just turn the lens all the way and see what it looks like through the VF?
__________________
Nigel

"The fascinating moment which you wish to preserve for ever in a photo disappears as quickly as it comes; you must be prepared . It is not enough for you to know what this lever or that knob does, you must learn to handle your camera as instinctively as the pianist find his notes" Voigtländer Manual 1933

Various (too many?) Voigtländer film cameras and other old junk
Olympus Pen-F Digital

https://carrotroom.wordpress.com/
  Reply With Quote

Old 01-31-2020   #16
retinax
Registered User
 
retinax is offline
Join Date: Aug 2015
Posts: 1,164
Quote:
Originally Posted by CarrotRoom View Post
You may be right, I don't have another lens available to prove that so looks like I am shopping.



Not sure how I do that with a potentially suspect lens; just turn the lens all the way and see what it looks like through the VF?
If you have calipers, you just need to know the distance of rf-cam to flange or better, film plane, at infinity or another specific distance. I can't help, don't have calipers...
  Reply With Quote

Old 01-31-2020   #17
xayraa33
rangefinder user and fancier
 
xayraa33's Avatar
 
xayraa33 is offline
Join Date: Feb 2004
Posts: 5,953
You should confirm if the RF in the Canon 7 is or is not corresponding to the lens being in focus at these medium distances.

I had to do this on my Canon 7 with a newish late made black finish 85mm Jupiter 9 lens.

Placed the camera on a tripod and RF focused on a lit light bulb...then confirmed it at the film plane and lens at full bore... with the shutter open and a piece of ground glass at the film plane using a lupe for magnified viewing.

In this case the lens was way off from the factory....fixed it by proper shimming.

You can use parchment paper if a piece of ground glass is hard to get.

*Note...some lenses had the distance scale not match with the RF...but in a minority of the cases the distant scale was separate from the main body of the lens and was held tight by 3 tiny screws and had moved and gave me a false (visual) distance scale reading.
__________________
My Gallery
  Reply With Quote

Old 01-31-2020   #18
retinax
Registered User
 
retinax is offline
Join Date: Aug 2015
Posts: 1,164
Quote:
Originally Posted by xayraa33 View Post
You should confirm if the RF in the Canon 7 is or is not corresponding to the lens being in focus at these medium distances.

I had to do this on my Canon 7 with a newish late made black finish 85mm Jupiter 9 lens.

Placed the camera on a tripod and RF focused on a lit light bulb...then confirmed it at the film plane and lens at full bore... with the shutter open and a piece of ground glass at the film plane using a lupe for magnified viewing.

In this case the lens was way off from the factory....fixed it by proper shimming.

You can use parchment paper if a piece of ground glass is hard to get.
Did you get the J-9 to focus right over the whole range?
Re. the ground glass, it's literally ground glass. Take a shard, break it to the right size with pliers, grind one side on sandpaper or whetstone (with some water, you don't want that hard dust around lenses). Much flatter than parchmentpaper or similar.
  Reply With Quote

Old 01-31-2020   #19
Ko.Fe.
Kostya Fedot
 
Ko.Fe.'s Avatar
 
Ko.Fe. is offline
Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: MiltON.ONtario
Posts: 8,115
Quote:
Originally Posted by retinax View Post
Did you get the J-9 to focus right over the whole range?
Re. the ground glass, it's literally ground glass. Take a shard, break it to the right size with pliers, grind one side on sandpaper or whetstone (with some water, you don't want that hard dust around lenses). Much flatter than parchmentpaper or similar.
Any "frosted", "milked" plastic will do.
  Reply With Quote

Old 01-31-2020   #20
xayraa33
rangefinder user and fancier
 
xayraa33's Avatar
 
xayraa33 is offline
Join Date: Feb 2004
Posts: 5,953
I got the J-9 on the Canon 7 to focus fine, maybe a little off at infinity but that would be covered by depth of field, as far away shots will not be shot at f2.


Same thing when lens hack expert Brian Sweeney shimmed J-3 lenses, he rarely got infinity 100% at f1.5 unless he shortened the back lens elements to reduce the J-3 focal length to the Leica standard on the aluminium finish J-3 lenses....the black finish late made J-3 don't allow you to do that because the rear lens elements don't unscrew but are cemented in place.

The J-9 is an excellent portrait lens...so I made sure it corresponds well with the RF on the Canon 7 at typical portrait shooting distances, and test rolls of film proved the shimming of the J-9 worked good.

You can cut a length of 35mm film width strip of parchment papers and place it in a cassette and feed it taut in the camera like film, it lays good and flat and thinner than glass and can be more accurate to judge good focus with a lupe.
__________________
My Gallery
  Reply With Quote

Old 01-31-2020   #21
retinax
Registered User
 
retinax is offline
Join Date: Aug 2015
Posts: 1,164
Hmm I've been thinking about the J-9. But then again the SLR version would be less trouble.
The ground glass thickness does not matter, the image is formed on the matte surface only, which needs to be against the film rails of course. Anyway maybe precision of other methods is enough for 35mm, but I found making a piece of ground glass no trouble at all. And then for MF, flatness with paper etc. would definitely become difficult.
  Reply With Quote

Old 01-31-2020   #22
xayraa33
rangefinder user and fancier
 
xayraa33's Avatar
 
xayraa33 is offline
Join Date: Feb 2004
Posts: 5,953
I have a J-9 lens in M42 for SLRS, easier to use either way for portrait work, l also got the Canon 85mm f1.9 and the Nikkor 85 f2 both in LTM and no issues on the Leica Standard cameras but the J-9 in M42 is still easier to use despite its manual aperture stop-down.

I have a piece of ground glass...still a thinner piece of taut parchment paper is good if ground glass is not available and you do not want to make a piece of ground glass.

Since the image at the film plane is on the inside of the camera and you are viewing it with a lupe on the outside rear.. then glass thickness or parchment paper thickness or opaque plastic thickness does matter as a bit of parallax can affect the view with lupe and it will give you a false in focus reading . Just my 2 cents from real working experience doing this on several different occasions of adjusting and shimming mostly FSU LTM lenses.
__________________
My Gallery
  Reply With Quote

Old 01-31-2020   #23
rfaspen
Registered User
 
rfaspen's Avatar
 
rfaspen is offline
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Corvallis, OR
Posts: 1,723
I've tried cloudy cellophane tape AKA Scotch tape taped
taught across the film gate. Worked, but I can't remember how well.
  Reply With Quote

Old 01-31-2020   #24
farlymac
PF McFarland
 
farlymac's Avatar
 
farlymac is offline
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Roanoke, VA
Posts: 6,415
I make a test ground glass out of plastic salvaged from something like a CD case, cut it to fit on the inner film rails (not the outer ones which are out of the focal plane), then use Scotch tape on the lens side of the plastic to create the ground effect. That way the tape is pretty darn close to the actual focal plane, but a little thinner than the film is. I haven't tried using enough tape layers to replicate the film thickness though as it might be too much for light transmission.

Remember to set the aperture wide open, and do the focus check on a sunny day for plenty of light and contrast.

PF
__________________
Waiting for the light
  Reply With Quote

Old 02-01-2020   #25
CarrotRoom
Registered User
 
CarrotRoom's Avatar
 
CarrotRoom is offline
Join Date: Jan 2020
Location: California
Posts: 24
So I am pretty sure the lens is at fault here, when putting it onto my Olympus MFT and then getting good focus on something a known distance away, the scale is way off on the lens. I suspect it is slightly exaggerated by the adapter too so it's worse than previous tests.
I think I need a good Canon lens to move forward with this camera.

Thanks all for the advice.
__________________
Nigel

"The fascinating moment which you wish to preserve for ever in a photo disappears as quickly as it comes; you must be prepared . It is not enough for you to know what this lever or that knob does, you must learn to handle your camera as instinctively as the pianist find his notes" Voigtländer Manual 1933

Various (too many?) Voigtländer film cameras and other old junk
Olympus Pen-F Digital

https://carrotroom.wordpress.com/
  Reply With Quote

Old 02-01-2020   #26
maartenmoerman
Registered User
 
maartenmoerman is offline
Join Date: Aug 2019
Posts: 20
canon 50mm 1.4 ltm, affordable (relatively), and very nice
  Reply With Quote

Old 02-02-2020   #27
indridi
Registered User
 
indridi's Avatar
 
indridi is offline
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Berlin, Germany
Posts: 27
I have the same combo - J3 on a canon 7.

I remember the first ca 5 times I attached the J3, the last quarter rotation or so was very stiff, so I first thought the lens stopped at ca 30 degrees from the top. It was as if the threads on the J3 were protruding deeper, thus meeting threads on the camera mount that had never gotten contact. A slight grinding feeling. After attaching/removing a few times, forcing the last 30° slightly, this went away, and now the lens sits correctly on the camera with the focus mark on top.

Regarding focus, it was off by a significant amount. Indoor shots at f1.5 were more than "soft". I didn't want to rip the lens apart as I would probably mess it up. So I corrected this by aligning lens focus to the rangefinder view by adding 2 layers of aluminum tape to the rangefinder cam on the lens. Camera mounted on a tripod, I focused to a target at a fixed distance (8m ca) using the rf, verifying focus using a ground glass and a loupe. If unsharp, add layer of tape, repeat until image on ground glass is sharp.
It was surprisingly easy, once you have the ground glass and the loupe, and no risk of irreparable damage. The lens now makes sharp photos on the Canon 7, but at the cost that the distance scale on the lens is probably off. I think it is difficult to get correct focus and correct distance scale.

Regarding ground glass, a framebuilder in the neighbourhood cut a piece of glass for me for a few dollars, then I taped a matte tape on one side.

Greetings,
Indriði
__________________
---
  Reply With Quote

Old 02-02-2020   #28
farlymac
PF McFarland
 
farlymac's Avatar
 
farlymac is offline
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Roanoke, VA
Posts: 6,415
Quote:
Originally Posted by CarrotRoom View Post
So I am pretty sure the lens is at fault here, when putting it onto my Olympus MFT and then getting good focus on something a known distance away, the scale is way off on the lens. I suspect it is slightly exaggerated by the adapter too so it's worse than previous tests.
I think I need a good Canon lens to move forward with this camera.

Thanks all for the advice.
Go for the chrome bodied lenses, the Serenars, and the ones before the black bodies came out. You'll have less chance of them having a haze issue.

The problems you describe with your Jupiter lens are indicative of it having been "repaired", then reassembled incorrectly.

PF
__________________
Waiting for the light
  Reply With Quote

Old 02-03-2020   #29
davhill
Canon P
 
davhill's Avatar
 
davhill is offline
Join Date: Mar 2017
Location: Boston
Posts: 131
Quote:
Originally Posted by maartenmoerman View Post
canon 50mm 1.4 ltm, affordable (relatively), and very nice
True, but the man is flying in from Jupiter.

Canon 50mm/1.8 LTM, more affordable than the 50/1.4, and still a very very nice lens.
__________________
Blinded by the Light...
* Film: Canon P (LTM)~Zeiss Ikon Ikonta35~Nikkormat FTN~Nikon FM~Olympus OM~
* Digital: Fuji X100~Olympus E-PL3 (m4/3)~

Last edited by davhill : 02-03-2020 at 08:00. Reason: Guy has a J3, not a J8
  Reply With Quote

Old 02-03-2020   #30
CarrotRoom
Registered User
 
CarrotRoom's Avatar
 
CarrotRoom is offline
Join Date: Jan 2020
Location: California
Posts: 24
Quote:
Originally Posted by davhill View Post
True, but the man is flying in from Jupiter.

Canon 50mm/1.8 LTM, more affordable than the 50/1.4, and still a very very nice lens.
Thanks, That is a good appreciation of my budget
__________________
Nigel

"The fascinating moment which you wish to preserve for ever in a photo disappears as quickly as it comes; you must be prepared . It is not enough for you to know what this lever or that knob does, you must learn to handle your camera as instinctively as the pianist find his notes" Voigtländer Manual 1933

Various (too many?) Voigtländer film cameras and other old junk
Olympus Pen-F Digital

https://carrotroom.wordpress.com/
  Reply With Quote

Old 02-03-2020   #31
CarrotRoom
Registered User
 
CarrotRoom's Avatar
 
CarrotRoom is offline
Join Date: Jan 2020
Location: California
Posts: 24
Quote:
Originally Posted by farlymac View Post
Go for the chrome bodied lenses, the Serenars, and the ones before the black bodies came out. You'll have less chance of them having a haze issue.

The problems you describe with your Jupiter lens are indicative of it having been "repaired", then reassembled incorrectly.

PF
I will bear that in mind
__________________
Nigel

"The fascinating moment which you wish to preserve for ever in a photo disappears as quickly as it comes; you must be prepared . It is not enough for you to know what this lever or that knob does, you must learn to handle your camera as instinctively as the pianist find his notes" Voigtländer Manual 1933

Various (too many?) Voigtländer film cameras and other old junk
Olympus Pen-F Digital

https://carrotroom.wordpress.com/
  Reply With Quote

Old 02-03-2020   #32
davhill
Canon P
 
davhill's Avatar
 
davhill is offline
Join Date: Mar 2017
Location: Boston
Posts: 131
Quote:
Originally Posted by CarrotRoom View Post
Thanks, That is a good appreciation of my budget
You’re not the only one on a tight budget

There are several other ‘more economical’ Canon 50’s. The serenar 50/1.9 is the predecessor to the 1.8, is not as well corrected, and other 50s are better in my opinion. The 50/2.8 and 50/3.5 are economy lenses, Tessar designs, much surpassed by others. The 50/2.2 was another ‘economy’ design but proved to be rather fine despite itself (and the current market reflects that—it’s price has risen considerably). For me, for my price/performance equation, the 50/1.8 seems to fit the bill. And I’m consistently delighted by it.
__________________
Blinded by the Light...
* Film: Canon P (LTM)~Zeiss Ikon Ikonta35~Nikkormat FTN~Nikon FM~Olympus OM~
* Digital: Fuji X100~Olympus E-PL3 (m4/3)~
  Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off



All times are GMT -8. The time now is 23:00.


vBulletin skin developed by: eXtremepixels
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.