Go Back   Rangefinderforum.com > Cameras / Gear / Photography > Rangefinder Forum > RFF Polls

View Poll Results: Is the Sony RX1R II a Leica Q killer ?
No Way - the cameras are substantially different 84 62.69%
Definitely - why buy the more expensive Q now? 50 37.31%
Voters: 134. You may not vote on this poll

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes

Is the Sony RX1R II a Leica Q killer ?
Old 10-14-2015   #1
CameraQuest
Head Bartender
 
CameraQuest is offline
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: over the hills from Malibu
Posts: 5,695
Is the Sony RX1R II a Leica Q killer ?

Will the newly announced Sony RX1R kill Leica Q sales?
  Reply With Quote

Old 10-14-2015   #2
aizan
Registered User
 
aizan's Avatar
 
aizan is offline
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Torrance, CA
Age: 37
Posts: 4,573
it's a pretty simple no. despite having the right lens, it doesn't have the right evf or manual focusing tab.
__________________
Ugly Cameras
  Reply With Quote

Old 10-14-2015   #3
Huss
Registered User
 
Huss is offline
Join Date: Sep 2014
Location: Venice, CA
Posts: 7,496
Depends on how it feels in the hand. The previous RX1 I tried felt disappointingly cheap given its price tag. The controls felt disconnected. The images are incredible, but the user experience, for me, was the opposite.
The Leica Q's user experience is phenomenal. It feels great, and is lovely to use. If the Sony can match that, then the Q will have problems. Yeah the Q has the 'better' sensor etc but at this point all these cameras are at the overkill point. The weak link is not the camera.
  Reply With Quote

Old 10-14-2015   #4
Lss
Registered User
 
Lss is offline
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 1,799
Quote:
Originally Posted by CameraQuest View Post
Will the newly announced Sony RX1R kill Leica Q sales?
No, but it will likely steal some. The question would be more relevant if Sony had a 28 and Leica Q a 35. As is, even the imaging side is rather different.

I have used the RX1R for about two years, and I'm not too happy with the camera. (The image quality is obviously fantastic.) The new version addresses at least some of the issues.
__________________
Lasse
  Reply With Quote

Old 10-15-2015   #5
uhoh7
Registered User
 
uhoh7 is offline
Join Date: Jan 2011
Posts: 2,810
I think the reverse is more likely.

The Q will take hard bite out of the RX 1 r II sales
  Reply With Quote

Old 10-15-2015   #6
ktmrider
Registered User
 
ktmrider is offline
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: el paso, texas
Age: 66
Posts: 1,153
For me it comes down to the preferred focal length. I prefer 35mm and the Zeiss is a great optic. I would probably go Sony as I do not think the price difference between Leica and Sony is worth the price.

Do not get me wrong as I love my M9 and M2's but the only 28 I own is for a R6.2 and probably have not used it in a couple years.
  Reply With Quote

Old 10-15-2015   #7
Ko.Fe.
Kostya Fedot
 
Ko.Fe.'s Avatar
 
Ko.Fe. is offline
Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: MiltON.ONtario
Posts: 7,189
Dead can't kill dead. Both at the price level and segment where market is staying dead still.
  Reply With Quote

Old 10-15-2015   #8
jkjod
Registered User
 
jkjod's Avatar
 
jkjod is offline
Join Date: May 2013
Age: 34
Posts: 236
I have a RX1r, I have zero issues with it. I bought it used a few years after it was released. It's a camera I can take basically anywhere and come back with images I really like. It is SO much better than the A7 I had. If I were looking to upgrade, there would be no hesitation on which I'd pick. I prefer 35mm to 28, so it makes that decision easy for me. Maybe in a few years I'll pick up a used one, the remote shutter options and tilt screen (possibly EVF depending on what it's like) would be the biggest reasons for me to change. The AF and MP aren't really that big of a concern to me personally. I don't really think you can go wrong with either camera, it's nice to be able to even have debates like this with all the extremely good options.
  Reply With Quote

Old 10-15-2015   #9
jsrockit
Moderator
 
jsrockit's Avatar
 
jsrockit is offline
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Santiago, Chile
Age: 46
Posts: 19,819
I don't think they compete against each other ... one is 28mm and one is 35mm. One is classic in its design (e.g. classic controls, etc.), one is new school in its design. One is sold in many stores, one is sold in only a few stores. One is a larger body camera, the other is, arguably, too small. One has a state of the art EVF, the other has a small pop up EVF that won't lock in place good enough to rest your eye against.
  Reply With Quote

Old 10-15-2015   #10
rbelyell
Registered User
 
rbelyell is offline
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 1,340
i dont think the pro ranks who will use these as reportage cams want that seemingly flimsy pop up evf, nor will they want to wait the time necessary to download 42mp images. i think both of these issues are also very real concerns for the enthusiast user as well. i am a 35mm fov lover, but those two things, esp the download time, will severely limit my enjoyment of this camera.

of course there will be a segment of consumers who must have the highest number of mps possible, just like there are those who must have a .90 aperture. most dont know why or how to use them, but theyve gotta have 'em!
  Reply With Quote

Old 10-15-2015   #11
jemuelb
Registered User
 
jemuelb is offline
Join Date: Jan 2013
Posts: 3
I think for some people that were lusting over the Leica Q, the RX1R II would definitely shift their focus, especially with the built in EVF, I know it has for me. But the two cameras are so expensive that it's hard for me to justify buying a fixed lens camera over $3k, I think at that point I'd rather buy a interchangeable lens camera.
  Reply With Quote

Old 10-15-2015   #12
Hsg
who dares wins
 
Hsg is offline
Join Date: Dec 2013
Location: Toronto, Canada
Posts: 641
Anyone who buys a Leica Q over Sony RX1R II must have a good reason to pay a $1000 more for almost half the resolution.
  Reply With Quote

Old 10-15-2015   #13
jsrockit
Moderator
 
jsrockit's Avatar
 
jsrockit is offline
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Santiago, Chile
Age: 46
Posts: 19,819
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hsg View Post
Anyone who buys a Leica Q over Sony RX1R II must have a good reason to pay a $1000 more for almost half the resolution.
28mm lens, proper manual focus, traditional controls, a larger camera with superior ergonomics, minimized menus, etc. 24 mp is good enough for most tasks that almost anyone would want to do.
  Reply With Quote

Old 10-15-2015   #14
DavidKKHansen
Registered User
 
DavidKKHansen is offline
Join Date: Nov 2012
Posts: 201
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hsg View Post
Anyone who buys a Leica Q over Sony RX1R II must have a good reason to pay a $1000 more for almost half the resolution.
What if I want a 28mm fixed full frame camera? Can I pay Sony $1000 to get that?
  Reply With Quote

Old 10-15-2015   #15
Hsg
who dares wins
 
Hsg is offline
Join Date: Dec 2013
Location: Toronto, Canada
Posts: 641
Quote:
Originally Posted by jsrockit View Post
28mm lens, proper manual focus, traditional controls, a larger camera with superior ergonomics, minimized menus, etc. 24 mp is good enough for most tasks that almost anyone would want to do.
In that case it makes sense to buy Leica Q.
  Reply With Quote

Old 10-15-2015   #16
Hsg
who dares wins
 
Hsg is offline
Join Date: Dec 2013
Location: Toronto, Canada
Posts: 641
Quote:
Originally Posted by DavidKKHansen View Post
What if I want a 28mm fixed full frame camera? Can I pay Sony $1000 to get that?
Do you want a 28mm fixed lens camera, or do you want a Leica 28mm fixed lens camera?

Those are two different 'wants'.


I'm not a Sony fanboy, I just like it when a company releases a camera that makes me smile - even though I'm not in the market to buy it.
  Reply With Quote

Old 10-15-2015   #17
kbg32
neo-romanticist
 
kbg32's Avatar
 
kbg32 is offline
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: New York, New York
Posts: 5,586
Ya got to have a pretty powerful computer and lots of storage to push around 42 megapixels of imagery. Images half that size are more then enough. More megapixels does not equate to better images. I don't know of anyone other then Michael Reichman of Luminous-Landscape, who likes to crop that much.
__________________
Keith

http://keithgoldstein.me/
Keith’s Gallery
  Reply With Quote

Old 10-15-2015   #18
SaveKodak
Registered User
 
SaveKodak is offline
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: New York City
Posts: 573
I have 2 observations. I would imagine that there are many people who got excited and bought a Q (and will now justify that out of hand no-matter-what), even though they may have preferred the RX1etc... Secondly there is the market that kept Leica going in the bad-old-days and will buy anything that is more expensive because it is more expensive.

The Sony is the more traditional camera with it's 35/2, but Sony's design ethos is steeped in 'gadgetry'. You're either going to get along with that or not. I tend to adapt myself to the tools I want to use, rather than wait Plato's camera, or whatever.

I'll also offer the example of the X1 and the X100. The X100 was absolutely an X1 killer. It did everything the X1 could do, only better, and was a better representation of a Leica camera than Leica would or could make themselves, for the modern age. However you had then and still have now people who will swear by the Leica X cameras no matter their faults and see them only as a parent can.

So, in conclusion I think that the Q and RX1etc will safely live together as neighbors. They are both very expensive, and both (probably) excellent. I mostly look forward to the work done with both. I myself, and getting the Sony. Zeiss 35/2 and money in my pocket for the win.
  Reply With Quote

Old 10-15-2015   #19
serrada36
Registered User
 
serrada36's Avatar
 
serrada36 is offline
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: Boston, Ma
Posts: 38
I think each camera caters to a different portion of the same market. On paper, the Sony seems far superior. No offence to Sony fans, but In real life, I'm not a fan. I obviously haven't used the RX1R II yet but I have used the RX1R. Standard faire for Sony. IQ is great but UI is a mess. For me, user experience is very important and Sony just doesn't have what I'm looking for. I also am not a fan of Sony as a company. Denial of real issues like overheating (NEX7 and rumors of the same with the A7RII), ongoing requests to revamp the UI being ignored, expensive product being outdated on a 6 month +/- product rotation (I know it's the nature of the beast) etc. have made Sony a "no buy" for me.

While the Leica Q is not perfect, nor is Leica as a company, I think the user experience is far better. Leica, you get it, or you don't. Jewelry or a precision photographic instrument? One could also say buying a Leica could be more of an "emotional" purchase. Not to say that the Q isn't technically advanced...It is. It really is a very different experience from the Sony.

So, is the Sony a Q killer? I don't think so. I don't think that those who really are really intrigued by (and can afford) the Leica will move to the Sony. For some, the Q just doesn't make sense.

There is definitely room for both.

Just my opinion...

P.S. Picking up my Q today...
__________________
Highlights; Leica Q, Bronica Zenza S2, Contax G1 & G2, Minox ML, Nikon L35AF and many more...
Reviews and such on my youtube blog
  Reply With Quote

Old 10-15-2015   #20
f16sunshine
Moderator
 
f16sunshine's Avatar
 
f16sunshine is offline
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Seattle
Age: 51
Posts: 6,258
The Q is an elegant artist tool compared to the Sonys scientist field instrument.

I would choose the Sony simple because I could crop an in camera 50mm (equiv)jpeg better from that lens and sensor.
I want a 50mm lens version from Leica but it seems not to be.

I'm sure we'll see great results from both. Both will fail. Both will be heralded.
Hopefully with some luck.... Both will lead to future fixed lens full frame models with more modest price points.
__________________
Andy
  Reply With Quote

Old 10-15-2015   #21
Darthfeeble
But you can call me Steve
 
Darthfeeble's Avatar
 
Darthfeeble is offline
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Logtown, California, USA
Age: 73
Posts: 1,474
I voted no, just because of the Leica "mystique". There's just something about holding a Leica that can't be denied.
  Reply With Quote

Old 10-15-2015   #22
mjc
Registered User
 
mjc is offline
Join Date: Feb 2013
Posts: 244
I've not seen these poppy-up view finders (EVFs) in person. I'm asking as I'm wondering how robust this type of design is over the longer term (a consideration given the price of the new RX1R version 2). Are they spring-loaded affairs, or motor-driven? The smaller RX100 IV has one, do other cameras?
  Reply With Quote

Old 10-15-2015   #23
f16sunshine
Moderator
 
f16sunshine's Avatar
 
f16sunshine is offline
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Seattle
Age: 51
Posts: 6,258
Quote:
Originally Posted by conyon View Post
I've not seen these poppy-up view finders (EVFs) in person. I'm asking as I'm wondering how robust this type of design is over the longer term (a consideration given the price of the new RX1R version 2). Are they spring-loaded affairs, or motor-driven? The smaller RX100 IV has one, do other cameras?
The one in the rx100iii I tried was lousy. By appearences Sony has improved it for this new model. We'll find out.
It's definetly a more gadgety and less elegant design. I say clunky even.
__________________
Andy
  Reply With Quote

Old 10-15-2015   #24
jsrockit
Moderator
 
jsrockit's Avatar
 
jsrockit is offline
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Santiago, Chile
Age: 46
Posts: 19,819
Agreed F16.
  Reply With Quote

Old 10-15-2015   #25
serrada36
Registered User
 
serrada36's Avatar
 
serrada36 is offline
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: Boston, Ma
Posts: 38
This is off the Sony technical page for the RX1R II in regards to digital zoom

Digital Zoom

[Still Image] 42M approx. 4x/18M approx. 6.2x/11M approx. 8x, [Movie] Approx. 4x

Looks like the "crop mode" to me. No so far off from the Q as far as I can tell.

Q= 35mm @ 15M, 50mm @ 8M

Again, if I am reading all of this correctly.
__________________
Highlights; Leica Q, Bronica Zenza S2, Contax G1 & G2, Minox ML, Nikon L35AF and many more...
Reviews and such on my youtube blog
  Reply With Quote

Old 10-15-2015   #26
giganova
Registered User
 
giganova is offline
Join Date: May 2015
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 1,388
Quote:
Originally Posted by Darthfeeble View Post
There's just something about holding a Leica that can't be denied.
Denied.
  Reply With Quote

Old 10-15-2015   #27
jsrockit
Moderator
 
jsrockit's Avatar
 
jsrockit is offline
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Santiago, Chile
Age: 46
Posts: 19,819
I'm just happy that neither camera is one that works for me...and that means cash saved. Now if Leica makes a 50mm Q... I'm doomed.
  Reply With Quote

Old 10-15-2015   #28
JoeV
Thin Air, Bright Sun
 
JoeV's Avatar
 
JoeV is offline
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Albuquerque, NM, USA
Posts: 1,703
They're both out of my price range, so I'll sit on the sidelines and enjoy the spectacle.

~Joe
__________________
"If your eye is clear, your whole body will be full of light"

Inventor of the Light Pipe Array
My Blog
My latest book
  Reply With Quote

Old 10-15-2015   #29
Monochrom
Registered User
 
Monochrom's Avatar
 
Monochrom is offline
Join Date: May 2012
Posts: 1,039
I think the Q is only an essay for an improved new system.

Leica never gives you the whole thing when it comes to P&S, they always keep something in the sleeve for not making problems to their M line.
I hope they move forward and make finally a camera system with competitive AF, interchangeable lens and FF sensor.
There are some rumours about a new SL system will it be horrendous like the sony a7? or will it be beautiful like the Q?

Sony on the other hand can make this appealing and popular decisions with out any risk.

For the time being i´m still happy with my m9 and redscale elmar, i see no reason to change it.

__________________
M9 Vc 28/3.5 Ltm 5/3.5
Leica IIIF Black Paint
Fuji Gf670
  Reply With Quote

Old 10-15-2015   #30
photomoof
Fischli & Weiss Sculpture
 
photomoof's Avatar
 
photomoof is offline
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 786
Will it be an iPhone killer?
  Reply With Quote

Old 10-15-2015   #31
Matthew Runkel
Registered User
 
Matthew Runkel's Avatar
 
Matthew Runkel is offline
Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 238
Both are niche cameras, and in my opinion the RX1R II occupies some of the Q's original niche, crowding it into a smaller niche. The Q was released at a time when it seemed that long-rumored updates of the RX1 would not be happening. If the two cameras had been released at the same time, I suspect most in the market for such a camera would have chosen the Sony.

For me, the Sony just seems closer to the "digital Contax T3" I have long wanted, a (jacket) pocketable digital that gives up nothing to system cameras and can also be a point-and-shoot. Carrying a T3 loaded with fine-grained film, I always feel I am "covered" and will be able to do a lot with any worthwhile resulting images. I think the Sony will make me feel more that way than the Q, partly due to the file size (which I typically don't need). And I strongly suspect the AF and high-ISO edges are very much in Sony's favor. I believe the Q has a very fast and refined contrast-detection AF system only, not PDAF on the sensor. Sony's latest cameras supposedly have object-tracking and eye-focus that work really well, which would be nice. The Q's EVF is better, but the Sony's is likely as good as or better than other EVFs I find totally usable, with a faster clock speed / refresh rate.

I do think my current take on the two cameras is highly idiosyncratic. As an M9 shooter, I look at the Q and think "wouldn't selling my M9 toward a used M240 or M-P make more sense?" I look at the Sony and think "That could be the only digital/AF camera I need to carry, so I'll have room in the bag for a medium-format film camera."
  Reply With Quote

Old 10-15-2015   #32
rbelyell
Registered User
 
rbelyell is offline
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 1,340
i think what you say makes sense, but is not always that simple. if you are really into the 'style' of result you get from the m9, i would be willing to bet you will not ultimately be pleased with the 'style' result you get from the sony. ive done both. nothing beats the rx1 resolution (til now). but thats not the end of the story, at least for me. i love looking at the kind of results i get from ccd, so while it blew me away for awhile, ultimately the surgical sony resolution left me cold and i sold it. i thought it would be as you said, the last digital i'd buy. instead it just unexpectedly turned me off sony's look and told me in very stark terms what was important to me.
  Reply With Quote

Old 10-15-2015   #33
irq506
just curious
 
irq506's Avatar
 
irq506 is offline
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 330
Ive argued for and against this argument of handling, but I will say now, that my experience with the Leica Q is that it really is such a joy to behold, and joy to use and in many ways is a digital M body that the digital M's just are not (to qualify; all of the digital M bodies are physically larger than the film M's and though this might seem picky, it matters to me). The Q on the other hand seems refined and possibly where id jump off the Leica M film train and into Leica Digital. Its a logical step as far as Im concerned.
As far as the Sony is concerned, well I think that most of the established master photographers out there go, they have pretty much either expanded out into other 35mm equipment or abandoned Leica completely, so Sony will probably pique interest for them.
I could well imagine, that whats been delivered here (if the IQ is solid, obviously), this camera will be picked up on by a lot of serious photographers, especially in the fields of journalism and documentary work), I wouldnt be surprised is in 5 years time a handful of interviews with masters will reference this camera as being a part of, or indeed the only camera they are/were using at the time. Similar to how the Fuji X100 series has done in the last 3-5 years or whatever.
I see this is, logically, a strengthening of an already existing milestone with lots of refinements and lots of innovation without much risk for either Sony or the user.
I think its going to be a big hit. If I had the money to buy either a Q or this, I would have to have them both for a week to find out.
__________________
the journey is the destination
http://www.flickr.com/photos/devtank
http://www.devtank.com

I have only good gear.
  Reply With Quote

Old 10-15-2015   #34
Matthew Runkel
Registered User
 
Matthew Runkel's Avatar
 
Matthew Runkel is offline
Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 238
Quote:
Originally Posted by rbelyell View Post
i think what you say makes sense, but is not always that simple. if you are really into the 'style' of result you get from the m9, i would be willing to bet you will not ultimately be pleased with the 'style' result you get from the sony. ive done both. nothing beats the rx1 resolution (til now). but thats not the end of the story, at least for me. i love looking at the kind of results i get from ccd, so while it blew me away for awhile, ultimately the surgical sony resolution left me cold and i sold it. i thought it would be as you said, the last digital i'd buy. instead it just unexpectedly turned me off sony's look and told me in very stark terms what was important to me.
It is definitely possible I will like the Sony results less than those from the M9, but I do also shoot the A99 (often with Leitaxed R lenses) and like those images, so there is some hope. I think where I am more likely to be dissatisfied is with the user interface of the new Sony. At one time I thought some of the same AF wizardry would sell me on the RX100 Mk IV, but the handling left me cold when playing around with it in the shop. I would give the RX1R II more of a chance to grow on me, however.

The larger size and extra $1000 for the Q makes me think of it and the M240 / M-P somewhat as substitute goods: if I'm going to pay that much for something that size, why not go a little further in both directions and get a camera that takes all my M lenses. The Sony strikes me more as a supplemental camera. If I were to get one, I would still want to keep my other systems.
  Reply With Quote

Old 10-15-2015   #35
aizan
Registered User
 
aizan's Avatar
 
aizan is offline
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Torrance, CA
Age: 37
Posts: 4,573
the eyepiece of the popup evf on the rx100iv is easily bumped out of place. it's annoying...
__________________
Ugly Cameras
  Reply With Quote

Old 10-15-2015   #36
uhoh7
Registered User
 
uhoh7 is offline
Join Date: Jan 2011
Posts: 2,810
Looks like they have improved the camera.

But is the manual focus still so funky? I'd bet so.

Maybe the AF is OK now.

It's a nice camera no doubt with big numbers. As with all Sonys the question arises: is it more fun than a colostomy to shoot?
  Reply With Quote

Old 10-15-2015   #37
BlackXList
Registered User
 
BlackXList is offline
Join Date: May 2012
Posts: 756
I really love 28mm, so personally I'd prefer the Q.

Removing the consideration of focal length, I'd look at the specs, and the Sony towers above.

I suspect I'd even be tempted to go for the Sony in place of the Q if I was in the market, simply because you get a lot more for a lot less. I'm quite sure that when the Q was announced the Sony engineers had a little chuckle to themselves knowing what they were about to release

However I think the pricing on both is hilarious and won't be buying either.
  Reply With Quote

Old 10-15-2015   #38
CameraQuest
Head Bartender
 
CameraQuest is offline
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: over the hills from Malibu
Posts: 5,695
The Sony FF mirrorless cameras are hilarious in a way.

Sales wise they are extremely successful so the Sony execs imagine they are doing great.

Still, imagine how they well the FF Sonys would be doing if Sony corporate just knew how to properly design cameras and how to market them - KINGS OF THE CAMERA WORLD.
  Reply With Quote

Old 10-15-2015   #39
uhoh7
Registered User
 
uhoh7 is offline
Join Date: Jan 2011
Posts: 2,810
Quote:
Originally Posted by CameraQuest View Post
The Sony FF mirrorless cameras are hilarious in a way.

Sales wise they are extremely successful so the Sony execs imagine they are doing great.

Still, imagine how they well the FF Sonys would be doing if Sony corporate just knew how to properly design cameras and how to market them - KINGS OF THE CAMERA WORLD.
Way too true, sir

They wouldn't even need to change them all, just one nice variant with film lens friendly sensor and Q-like ergos.

I expected much more hollering at the Q EVF, but people seem fine with it. But it's the very best on any camera to date, including any sony, if I'm not mistaken.

The basic A7 EVF really wears on you after awhile. Not everywhere. Not always. But it gives me headaches fairly often.
  Reply With Quote

Old 10-16-2015   #40
jsrockit
Moderator
 
jsrockit's Avatar
 
jsrockit is offline
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Santiago, Chile
Age: 46
Posts: 19,819
Quote:
Originally Posted by CameraQuest View Post
The Sony FF mirrorless cameras are hilarious in a way.

Sales wise they are extremely successful so the Sony execs imagine they are doing great.

Still, imagine how they well the FF Sonys would be doing if Sony corporate just knew how to properly design cameras and how to market them - KINGS OF THE CAMERA WORLD.
That's the truth...
  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 Off
HTML code is Off



All times are GMT -8. The time now is 00:09.


vBulletin skin developed by: eXtremepixels
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.8
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, 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.