Some Firsthand Observations with RX-1 and X100S Side by Side...

Started Apr 1, 2013 | Discussions
Tony Bonanno
Contributing MemberPosts: 700Gear list
Like?
Some Firsthand Observations with RX-1 and X100S Side by Side...
Apr 1, 2013

Hi Group,

One of my colleagues brought his Sony RX-1 over to the studio and we did several hours of testing / comparisons between the X100S and the RX-1.  We focused on lens performance, noise levels, AF speed, ergonomics, etc.  Not a scientific comparison with numbers and charts, but rather just a side by side pixel peeping exercise on a calibrated EIZO display and some real world AF testing, handling exercises, etc.  Test images all made on tripods with same subject, both with their fixed 35mm lenses.  All files were RAW and viewed in LR 4.4 RC.  Bottom line:

- Fuji DEFINITELY faster Autofocus and better AF accuracy.

- We all preferred the Fuji's ergonomics and handling over the Sony.  Sony's optional ($350) EVF is an essential accessory and ridiculously expensive.  I had been under the impression it was basically the same EVF module as in the new X100S, but the Sony's view is noticeably brighter and sharper than the EVF in the X100s.  Of course, it is an ugly add-on and we all preferred the Fuji viewfinder overall, especially the OVF option.

- Sony's Zeiss lens clearly better optically than the Fuji, even considering difference in resolving power between the 24MP Sony sensor and the 16MP Fuji Sensor.  Sony displayed better contrast, was sharper overall, and performed much better wide open.  Of course, considering the RX-1's price, we expected to see the Zeiss lens to be the prize.. and it was.

- Noise levels at ISO 800, 1600, 3200, and 6400.  Using default LR 4.4 RC values with Sony NR off and Fuji NR at "0" (actually it didn't make any difference as the RAW files are not affected by the NR settings in the camera).  X100S had lowest noise on our test subjects at ISO 800 and 1600.  Sony and Fuji were very similar at 3200, possibly just a hair better in the Fuji files.  At 6400, however, the Sony was a bit better.  Overall, we were very impressed by the low noise performance of the Fuji sensor.

- Other observations..  The Sony seemed to be underexposing about 1/3 to 1/2 stop compared to the Fuji.  This was determined by comparing histograms as well as visual screen observation (the EIZO display we used is "right on" as far as brightness / contrast/ color calibration).  When we set both cameras manually to obtain similar histograms / exposures, we found the values to be within approximately a half stop.  We concluded that the reported Fuji ISO inflation is not very dramatic, at least on our X100s sample.  LR 4.4 RC still reveals some detail smearing on certain subject matter (primarily vegetation) in the Fuji files, regardless of how much we tried to tweak the processing parameters.  We did, just for the fun of it, process a couple of Fuji RAW files in the latest final version of Accuraw, and found the detail rendering to be much better; on a par with the RX-1 files.  Perhaps Adobe should hire the guy that did Accuraw ;-).

Overall, as most of the folks on this forum would expect, the IQ is superior with the RX-1 with it's larger, higher resolution sensor, and perhaps more importantly, with the excellent Zeiss lens.  However, the Fuji was very close, and we were all impressed with its overall performance, especially the ergonomics, AF, and OVF/EVF.  Considering the price difference, the X100s really is a pretty special package.

Cheers,

Tony

-- hide signature --

Tony Bonanno Photography, Santa Fe, New Mexico
ASMP General member
www.bonannophoto.com

 Tony Bonanno's gear list:Tony Bonanno's gear list
Nikon D800E Fujifilm X-E2 Nikon D810 Fujifilm XF 10-24mm F4 R OIS
Fujifilm X100S
If you believe there are incorrect tags, please send us this post using our feedback form.
shonxiaohe
Forum MemberPosts: 60Gear list
Like?
Re: Some Firsthand Observations with RX-1 and X100S Side by Side...
In reply to Tony Bonanno, Apr 1, 2013

Thanks for sharing. regarding this point:

- Sony's Zeiss lens clearly better optically than the Fuji, even considering difference in resolving power between the 24MP Sony sensor and the 16MP Fuji Sensor.  Sony displayed better contrast, was sharper overall, and performed much better wide open.  Of course, considering the RX-1's price, we expected to see the Zeiss lens to be the prize.. and it was.

is the comparison done with LR 4.4 or Accuraw? from below looks X100s's potential is not fully released by LR.

process a couple of Fuji RAW files in the latest final version of Accuraw, and found the detail rendering to be much better; on a par with the RX-1 files.  Perhaps Adobe should hire the guy that did Accuraw ;-).

Really curious how these two compared with best-to-best, eg., JPEG of X100s vs. RAW of RX1.

-- hide signature --

oldcamel

 shonxiaohe's gear list:shonxiaohe's gear list
Fujifilm X100S
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Tony Bonanno
Contributing MemberPosts: 700Gear list
Like?
Re: Some Firsthand Observations with RX-1 and X100S Side by Side...
In reply to shonxiaohe, Apr 1, 2013

We used LR 4.4 RC for the files from both the RX1 and the X100S.  Agree that LR 4.4 is not quite there yet in handling the X100S files.  Accuraw seemed to render the Fuji RAW files better.  We didn't do any comparisons with JPEG's.  LR 4.4 seemed to handle the Sony RAW files very well with good detail retention.

-- hide signature --

Tony Bonanno Photography, Santa Fe, New Mexico
ASMP General member
www.bonannophoto.com

 Tony Bonanno's gear list:Tony Bonanno's gear list
Nikon D800E Fujifilm X-E2 Nikon D810 Fujifilm XF 10-24mm F4 R OIS
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
shonxiaohe
Forum MemberPosts: 60Gear list
Like?
Re: Some Firsthand Observations with RX-1 and X100S Side by Side...
In reply to Tony Bonanno, Apr 1, 2013

Tony Bonanno wrote:

We used LR 4.4 RC for the files from both the RX1 and the X100S.  Agree that LR 4.4 is not quite there yet in handling the X100S files.  Accuraw seemed to render the Fuji RAW files better.  We didn't do any comparisons with JPEG's.  LR 4.4 seemed to handle the Sony RAW files very well with good detail retention.

-- hide signature --

Tony Bonanno Photography, Santa Fe, New Mexico
ASMP General member
www.bonannophoto.com

thanks for the reply. I also heard LR 4.4 -- though better than before -- is not fully there yet. e.g., the result, especially in terms of sharpness, is still worse than the Out-Of-Camera JPEG. That is why I am curious how X100S OOC JPEG vs. RX1 RAW processed by LR (I believe RX1 OOC JPEG is worse than being processed by LR).

Since X100/X100s provide rich in-camera RAW processing and many X00/X100s users may just use OOC JPEG, your information would be highly appreciated, Thanks.

-- hide signature --

oldcamel

 shonxiaohe's gear list:shonxiaohe's gear list
Fujifilm X100S
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Ray Sachs
Senior MemberPosts: 8,881Gear list
Like?
ISO question...
In reply to Tony Bonanno, Apr 1, 2013

Tony Bonanno wrote:

- Noise levels at ISO 800, 1600, 3200, and 6400.  Using default LR 4.4 RC values with Sony NR off and Fuji NR at "0" (actually it didn't make any difference as the RAW files are not affected by the NR settings in the camera).  X100S had lowest noise on our test subjects at ISO 800 and 1600.  Sony and Fuji were very similar at 3200, possibly just a hair better in the Fuji files.  At 6400, however, the Sony was a bit better.  Overall, we were very impressed by the low noise performance of the Fuji sensor.

I assume you were downsampling the Sony 24mp files? I haven't gotten ahold of an X100s yet, but I've done some very low light comparisons between the RX1 and my X-Pro (which seems to do better with raw in LR 4.4 than the X100s is reported to so far) and I'm finding a pretty clear advantage for the Sony at 6400 and above and possibly even a bit at 3200 (although both are very good at 3200). I'm shooting western skies at night over a lighted courtyard so there's an illuminated area and a very dark area (appears black to the naked eye, but both cameras pull some blue out of it). I'm viewing each at full size on a 27" Mac monitor so there's some down sampling of both but more on the Sony which starts with half again more pixels. I don't tend to print much larger than 12x18 or 16x20 and if something looks good full screen it looks fine at those print sizes. Of course at 100%, the Sony shows quite a bit of fine noise, but at comparable resolution to the Fuji, it looks very clean.  In the dark skies that both cameras are pulling some color out of, the Sony is actually quite workable at 12,800 while the Fuji is a bit of a noisy mess even at 6400. The well lit courtyard looked pretty good with both, but that's not really asking much of high ISO.  Of course, the Fuji only shoots raw up to 6400 and the Sony does up to 25,600 (a step too far except for grainy B&W), and the focal lengths aren't matched, but I found the low light usefulness of the RX1 quite a bit better. I should get an X100s later this week, so I look forward to shooting that back to back with the RX1 quite a bit. I'm enjoying the RX1 a lot more than I'd expected to. As a Fuji user from the X100 forward, I know I'll like the OVF of the X100s better than the EVF on the Sony, but other than that the Sony is handling everything I've thrown at it.

I'm not the most technical mind out there, so I very well may not have been accounting for something, but I'm finding the Sony quite a bit better in low light shooting. Not that the Fuji isn't excellent, but the RX1 is kind of astounding.

-Ray
-------------------------
http://www.flickr.com/photos/20889767@N05/collections/72157626204295198/

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Oger
Junior MemberPosts: 43
Like?
Re: ISO question...
In reply to Ray Sachs, Apr 1, 2013

Ray,

thanks for your input.

I am expecting the X100s to be about half a stop better at high ISO than the X pro1.

But let us know what you find out when you do your comparison.

Very interesting!

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Gary H
Senior MemberPosts: 1,702Gear list
Like?
Re: Some Firsthand Observations with RX-1 and X100S Side by Side...
In reply to Tony Bonanno, Apr 1, 2013

Thanks for the comparison.

I think that you have correctly identified the X100s' lens as an aspect of this series of cameras that might need updating in the next round.  I compared the X100, X100s and NEX-6/Zeiss 24mm.  I knew that the Zeiss/NEX-7 would best the X100s at low ISO, but was surprised that the NEX-6, with the same sensor in Bayer form and mild AA filter, could match and maybe even surpass the X100s at lower ISO.  I only shot at F/4.0 given that we know that the Fuji is a bit soft wide open.  I could only assume that the Fuji lens was a limiting factor.  Of course, better optics could come at a price, such as larger form factor.  The NEX/Zeiss combination feels more like a Contax Aria with a 50mm Sonnar.

 Gary H's gear list:Gary H's gear list
Fujifilm FinePix X100 Fujifilm X100S Canon EOS-1D Mark III Sony Alpha NEX-7 Sony Alpha NEX-6 +10 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Asylum Photo
Senior MemberPosts: 1,277Gear list
Like?
Re: Some Firsthand Observations with RX-1 and X100S Side by Side...
In reply to Tony Bonanno, Apr 1, 2013

For those who are complaining about the lens quality in the X100S.

Keep in mind, the relative compact size of the 23mm Fuji lens:

http://camerasize.com/compact/#395,376,ha,t

-- hide signature --
 Asylum Photo's gear list:Asylum Photo's gear list
Fujifilm X-E2 Fujifilm XF 35mm F1.4 R Fujifilm XF 60mm F2.4 R Macro Fujifilm XF 14mm F2.8 R Fujifilm XF 23mm F1.4 R +2 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Al Valentino
Senior MemberPosts: 4,351Gear list
Like?
Re: Some Firsthand Observations with RX-1 and X100S Side by Side...
In reply to Tony Bonanno, Apr 1, 2013

Good review of important features and benefits.

If I was to buy one of these I would strongly incline towards the Fuji for a few reasons. But the biggest reason is that although I see the value in investing big bucks in great glass, I do not see the value in investing several grand on a camera since despite a great built-in lens the value camera itself depreciates rapidly. My Nikon 70-200 f/1.8 VR I lens, purchased in 2005, is worth close to what I paid for it despite the new and improved model. But the Nikon D70 I purchased in 2004 is worth about $150 now. So interchangable lens cameras are my preference. However, I do fully understand the appeal of the X100 and X100s system and the size, quality and convenience is good investment. I do not feel the same about the RX-1 unless I had deep pockets and loved new things but even then, the size of the fuji is preferred.

 Al Valentino's gear list:Al Valentino's gear list
Fujifilm X-E1 Fujifilm XF 35mm F1.4 R Fujifilm XF 14mm F2.8 R Fujifilm XF 18-55mm F2.8-4 R LM OIS Fujifilm XF 55-200mm F3.5-4.8 R LM OIS +8 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Tony Bonanno
Contributing MemberPosts: 700Gear list
Like?
Re: ISO question...
In reply to Ray Sachs, Apr 1, 2013

Hi Ray,

Sounds like your observations are quite consistent with ours.  The Sony clearly takes the lead at 6400.  3200 reasonably close though.  My colleague did some testing last night with the RX-1 at 12,800 and with some careful noise reduction in LR 4.4, obtained pretty good results.

Let us know your impressions when you get your X100S also.

Cheers,

Tony

-- hide signature --

Tony Bonanno Photography, Santa Fe, New Mexico
ASMP General member
www.bonannophoto.com

 Tony Bonanno's gear list:Tony Bonanno's gear list
Nikon D800E Fujifilm X-E2 Nikon D810 Fujifilm XF 10-24mm F4 R OIS
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Tony Bonanno
Contributing MemberPosts: 700Gear list
Like?
Re: Some Firsthand Observations with RX-1 and X100S Side by Side...
In reply to Asylum Photo, Apr 1, 2013

Asylum Photo wrote:

For those who are complaining about the lens quality in the X100S.

Keep in mind, the relative compact size of the 23mm Fuji lens:

http://camerasize.com/compact/#395,376,ha,t

-- hide signature --

Very good point ... I really do feel the X100s, overall, is a wonderfully balanced piece of gear.

-- hide signature --

Tony Bonanno Photography, Santa Fe, New Mexico
ASMP General member
www.bonannophoto.com

 Tony Bonanno's gear list:Tony Bonanno's gear list
Nikon D800E Fujifilm X-E2 Nikon D810 Fujifilm XF 10-24mm F4 R OIS
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Tony Bonanno
Contributing MemberPosts: 700Gear list
Like?
Re: Some Firsthand Observations with RX-1 and X100S Side by Side...
In reply to Al Valentino, Apr 1, 2013

Hi Al,

I agree.  That's why I bought the X100S.  My colleague went with the RX-1.  I still prefer the X100S overall.  It will be a better tool for the use I have in mind.  I couldn't see the big bucks for the RX-1, especially in light of the Fuji's better AF performance, better ergonomics, and OVF - all of which will suit my particular applications very well.

Tony

-- hide signature --

Tony Bonanno Photography, Santa Fe, New Mexico
ASMP General member
www.bonannophoto.com

 Tony Bonanno's gear list:Tony Bonanno's gear list
Nikon D800E Fujifilm X-E2 Nikon D810 Fujifilm XF 10-24mm F4 R OIS
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Ray Sachs
Senior MemberPosts: 8,881Gear list
Like?
Re: Some Firsthand Observations with RX-1 and X100S Side by Side...
In reply to Asylum Photo, Apr 1, 2013

Asylum Photo wrote:

For those who are complaining about the lens quality in the X100S.

Keep in mind, the relative compact size of the 23mm Fuji lens:

http://camerasize.com/compact/#395,376,ha,t

Of course, if you want to continue that line of argument,

http://j.mp/YNyJMT

Its all tradeoffs  The X100s, RX1, and Nikon Coolpix A are all pretty wonderful pieces of gear. Just comes down to which tradeoffs work for your needs.

-Ray
-------------------------
http://www.flickr.com/photos/20889767@N05/collections/72157626204295198/

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Tony Bonanno
Contributing MemberPosts: 700Gear list
Like?
Re: Some Firsthand Observations with RX-1 and X100S Side by Side...
In reply to shonxiaohe, Apr 1, 2013

Good question.  I haven't tried the OOC JPEG's on the X100s.  I'll try to do some comparisons with both  the X100S RAW and the RX-1 RAW.

shonxiaohe wrote:

Tony Bonanno wrote:

We used LR 4.4 RC for the files from both the RX1 and the X100S.  Agree that LR 4.4 is not quite there yet in handling the X100S files.  Accuraw seemed to render the Fuji RAW files better.  We didn't do any comparisons with JPEG's.  LR 4.4 seemed to handle the Sony RAW files very well with good detail retention.

-- hide signature --

Tony Bonanno Photography, Santa Fe, New Mexico
ASMP General member
www.bonannophoto.com

thanks for the reply. I also heard LR 4.4 -- though better than before -- is not fully there yet. e.g., the result, especially in terms of sharpness, is still worse than the Out-Of-Camera JPEG. That is why I am curious how X100S OOC JPEG vs. RX1 RAW processed by LR (I believe RX1 OOC JPEG is worse than being processed by LR).

Since X100/X100s provide rich in-camera RAW processing and many X00/X100s users may just use OOC JPEG, your information would be highly appreciated, Thanks.

-- hide signature --

oldcamel

-- hide signature --

Tony Bonanno Photography, Santa Fe, New Mexico
ASMP General member
www.bonannophoto.com

 Tony Bonanno's gear list:Tony Bonanno's gear list
Nikon D800E Fujifilm X-E2 Nikon D810 Fujifilm XF 10-24mm F4 R OIS
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
itairom
Regular MemberPosts: 430
Like?
Re: Some Firsthand Observations with RX-1 and X100S Side by Side...
In reply to Tony Bonanno, Apr 1, 2013

I also noticed the RX1 tended to underexpose when I had one. That, combined with the external EVF, drove me a bit crazy. I couldn't carry it on my sling strap without constantly checking if the EVF was still attached. It is a very special camera, though, and bodes well for what we might see in the future from Sony. The Zeiss lens is excellent, even close up and wide open, where to me it clearly outclasses the X100s' lens. In the meantime, I think the X100s is overall the better handling camera and the better value for me.

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Sebit
Regular MemberPosts: 216Gear list
Like?
Re: Some Firsthand Observations with RX-1 and X100S Side by Side...
In reply to Ray Sachs, Apr 1, 2013

Ray Sachs wrote:

Asylum Photo wrote:

For those who are complaining about the lens quality in the X100S.

Keep in mind, the relative compact size of the 23mm Fuji lens:

http://camerasize.com/compact/#395,376,ha,t

Of course, if you want to continue that line of argument,

http://j.mp/YNyJMT

He was referring to the lens size. And on Coolpix A it extends when powered on, so they seem about the same size.

Coolpix is like X100s minus the hybrid viewfinder. RX1 is a marvel of miniaturization but Sony was always good at it. And it comes at a cost - ergonomics and lens vignetting for example, not mentioning the retail price.

Added a Nex-6 with Zeiss for a comparison: http://j.mp/YObpTC

Its all tradeoffs  The X100s, RX1, and Nikon Coolpix A are all pretty wonderful pieces of gear. Just comes down to which tradeoffs work for your needs.

You're absolutely right. What a great times we have, so many possibilities. Something for everyone, it seems, and yet we still want more

-- hide signature --

seb

 Sebit's gear list:Sebit's gear list
Fujifilm X100S
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Tony Bonanno
Contributing MemberPosts: 700Gear list
Like?
Re: Some Firsthand Observations with RX-1 and X100S Side by Side...
In reply to shonxiaohe, Apr 1, 2013

I did do a comparison with X-E1 files and found that I could get slightly better detail rendering with the RAW file when compared to the same OOC jpeg file (after lengthy experimentation), although I have not made the same comparison with the X100s files.  I would expect IQ of the RX-1 files to still be sharper and more detailed than any of the X files, Jpeg or RAW.  Just can't dismiss the physics of the larger sensor, higher resolution, and Zeiss optics on the RX-1.  However, sensors and optics are not all that makes a good photographic tool.  For my use, the X100s is a much better balanced camera.  I think it really is pretty special.   I'll keep you posted.

-- hide signature --

Tony Bonanno Photography, Santa Fe, New Mexico
ASMP General member
www.bonannophoto.com

 Tony Bonanno's gear list:Tony Bonanno's gear list
Nikon D800E Fujifilm X-E2 Nikon D810 Fujifilm XF 10-24mm F4 R OIS
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Ray Sachs
Senior MemberPosts: 8,881Gear list
Like?
Re: Some Firsthand Observations with RX-1 and X100S Side by Side...
In reply to Sebit, Apr 1, 2013

Sebit wrote:

Ray Sachs wrote:

Of course, if you want to continue that line of argument,

http://j.mp/YNyJMT

He was referring to the lens size. And on Coolpix A it extends when powered on, so they seem about the same size.

Yes, when powered on, but I think those who are drawn to a smaller camera like the Coolpix A are mostly considering the carry size, not the extension when shooting. Which is still very small, BTW.

Coolpix is like X100s minus the hybrid viewfinder.

And with a wider lens. Which doesn't seem to matter to some people, but I find 28mm and 35mm to be significantly different shooting experiences.

RX1 is a marvel of miniaturization but Sony was always good at it. And it comes at a cost - ergonomics and lens vignetting for example, not mentioning the retail price.

I find the ergonomics od the RX1 to be excellent (unlike the RX100, which I couldn't stand). But the cost, yeah, that's a BIG tradeoff!

You're absolutely right. What a great times we have, so many possibilities. Something for everyone, it seems, and yet we still want more

Yup, indeed!

-Ray
-------------------------
http://www.flickr.com/photos/20889767@N05/collections/72157626204295198/

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Rod McD
Senior MemberPosts: 2,168Gear list
Like?
Re: Some Firsthand Observations with RX-1 and X100S Side by Side...
In reply to Al Valentino, Apr 2, 2013

What is it with manufacturers and add-on hot shoe VFs?  The Sony RX1 and the Coolpix A both have very expensive add-on VFs.  (And they're not the first to do so).  I can only conclude that they select that design to be able to pare the core dimensions down to as small as possible for the record, and then potentially make more profit because the mark up on the separate VF amplifies the profit on the whole deal. Then you have to carry this extra 'thing' in the kit and they're potentially easily knocked off, left at home, lost, etc.  And many block the flash shoe in use - a very poor idea from the outset.  The Fuji X series and Sony (with the NEX6&7) got it right.  I really thought that we might have seen the last of add on VFs, but apparently not.

I have a strong interest in small body/ large sensor cameras, but I won't be buying any camera without a built in VF, and if it's an EVF, it needs to be state of the art. A camera should be complete.  Fuji and Sony have both indicated that they are considering an FF ILC - perhaps they're another opportunity for them to get it right.  I'm looking forward to some interesting models in the next year or two.

Rod

 Rod McD's gear list:Rod McD's gear list
Canon PowerShot G12 Canon PowerShot G1 X Pentax K-5 Fujifilm X-T1
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Ray Sachs
Senior MemberPosts: 8,881Gear list
Like?
Re: Some Firsthand Observations with RX-1 and X100S Side by Side...
In reply to Rod McD, Apr 2, 2013

Rod McD wrote:

What is it with manufacturers and add-on hot shoe VFs?  The Sony RX1 and the Coolpix A both have very expensive add-on VFs.  (And they're not the first to do so).  I can only conclude that they select that design to be able to pare the core dimensions down to as small as possible for the record, and then potentially make more profit because the mark up on the separate VF amplifies the profit on the whole deal. Then you have to carry this extra 'thing' in the kit and they're potentially easily knocked off, left at home, lost, etc.  And many block the flash shoe in use - a very poor idea from the outset.  The Fuji X series and Sony (with the NEX6&7) got it right.  I really thought that we might have seen the last of add on VFs, but apparently not.

Olympus has done quite well with this approach with the Pen line (although the EVFs were a good deal less expensive) and rear LCDs and OLEDs are far better in bright light than they were even 2-3 years ago. While some are like you and would never buy a camera without a viewfinder, many of us will. I'm personally fine shooting without a VF for smaller cameras with wider lenses where I always want one at longer focal lengths. For some of us, the smaller size sells a lot more cameras and a built in VF would detract from that. With the RX1 I'd buy the EVF and would use it some of the time, but far from all. With the Coolpix A I'd never use it and wouldn't buy it. I prefer the choice. You don't. They may get my sale because the offer it that way even as they're losing yours. Fair enough - it's all personal preference and there are plenty of options to go around... I'm glad plenty of cameras offer what you prefer and plenty offer what I prefer too.

-Ray

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum MMy threads