m43 instead of FF

Started Nov 16, 2013 | Discussions
RhysM
Senior MemberPosts: 1,876
Like?
Re: m43 instead of FF
In reply to Jeff Charles, Nov 16, 2013

I think people just need to accept that in terms of photographic image output bigger is better. In terms of portability smaller is better and in terms of best compromise APS-C is best.

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
unknown member
(unknown member)
Like?
Re: m43 instead of FF
In reply to stimpy, Nov 16, 2013

stimpy wrote:

LWS2013 wrote:

Image quality wise a move to m4/3rds would be a real step back, I know that the latest Oly's are great cameras but their image quality is still lacking in most respects.

When you compare image quality from M4/3rds against say the X-E1 and/or say the D800E on places like DPR with their flat test charts the M4/3rds do look pretty good but once you actually use one and stop taking photos of brick walls the image quality is mostly flat and lifeless.

I bought an EM5 and sent it back after half a day.

take a trip over to flickr and compare images from the latest Oly against the X-E1/X-Pro1 and there is a clear difference in image quality.

I know of one or two wedding photographers that use the latest Oly's and although their photographs are great with respect to composition and timing the images themselves are lifeless.

with regards to M4/3rds v APS-C v FF v MF I think it is clearly visible that with each step in sensor size images appear to have more life, they look more natural, more 3D, more depth, that isn't just down to fast lenses but the size of the sensor.

there is a cost/size balance with sensor size, when the X-Pro1 was released the cost/size balance was suited to the use of an APS-C sensor and the same was true for 4/3rds and M4/3rds, time moves on and now Sony have a small system camera with a FF sensor.

Once Fuji add a small APS-C DSLR sharped body with weather sealing and fill the gaps in their lens line up I expect that many will move from M4/3rds and that M4/3rds will face a slow and painful death.

There is only one sensor size direction which Fuji might move and that won't be down.

You're kidding yourself.

The reason you think there is a difference is probably the amount of JPEG processing that goes into the Fuji JPEGS - this has nothing to do with the sensor at all. I'd go so far as to say I doubt you could tell which were shot on m43 and which were shot with Fuji X-Trans if such a test were provided.

Have said this several times, and am yet to have anyone prove me wrong.

PS: if any format will die it's APSC - m43 provides a size benefit with a slight compromise on IQ; FF provides a quality benefit at the slight compromise of size - they both compliment each-other - whereas APSC is neither.

FF is the new APSC, m43 is the new APSC...

You provide me with 3 shots from an M4/3rds and 3 shots from a Fuji x of the same subjects (not a test chart) and I'll accept your challenge.

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
unknown member
(unknown member)
Like?
Re: m43 instead of FF
In reply to RhysM, Nov 16, 2013

RhysM wrote:

I think people just need to accept that in terms of photographic image output bigger is better. In terms of portability smaller is better and in terms of best compromise APS-C is best.

when the X-Pro1 was released your statement was true, if the X-Pro1 was released today it would feature a full frame sensor

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
mr moonlight
Senior MemberPosts: 1,588
Like?
Re: m43 instead of FF
In reply to LWS2013, Nov 16, 2013

What's the advantage of going m43 when you can just crop in?

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
MrGubrz
Contributing MemberPosts: 761Gear list
Like?
Re: m43 instead of FF
In reply to Red5TX, Nov 16, 2013

Red5TX wrote:

There are no situations in which an m43 sensor will outperform APS-C. That's the point people are making.

low light and needing more dof?

 MrGubrz's gear list:MrGubrz's gear list
Sony RX1 Olympus E-30 Olympus E-M1 Sony Alpha 7S Olympus M.Zuiko Digital 17mm 1:2.8 Pancake +9 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Christof21
Senior MemberPosts: 1,198
Like?
Re: m43 instead of FF
In reply to mr moonlight, Nov 16, 2013

mr moonlight wrote:

What's the advantage of going m43 when you can just crop in?

The pixel density is generally higher. For instance the 55-200 mm might not be sufficient for bird photography. I would rather choose a m43 if it has also 16Mp, it will be equivalent to 270mm.

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
unknown member
(unknown member)
Like?
Re: m43 instead of FF
In reply to LWS2013, Nov 16, 2013

stimpy wrote:

LWS2013 wrote:

Image quality wise a move to m4/3rds would be a real step back, I know that the latest Oly's are great cameras but their image quality is still lacking in most respects.

When you compare image quality from M4/3rds against say the X-E1 and/or say the D800E on places like DPR with their flat test charts the M4/3rds do look pretty good but once you actually use one and stop taking photos of brick walls the image quality is mostly flat and lifeless.

I bought an EM5 and sent it back after half a day.

take a trip over to flickr and compare images from the latest Oly against the X-E1/X-Pro1 and there is a clear difference in image quality.

I know of one or two wedding photographers that use the latest Oly's and although their photographs are great with respect to composition and timing the images themselves are lifeless.

with regards to M4/3rds v APS-C v FF v MF I think it is clearly visible that with each step in sensor size images appear to have more life, they look more natural, more 3D, more depth, that isn't just down to fast lenses but the size of the sensor.

there is a cost/size balance with sensor size, when the X-Pro1 was released the cost/size balance was suited to the use of an APS-C sensor and the same was true for 4/3rds and M4/3rds, time moves on and now Sony have a small system camera with a FF sensor.

Once Fuji add a small APS-C DSLR sharped body with weather sealing and fill the gaps in their lens line up I expect that many will move from M4/3rds and that M4/3rds will face a slow and painful death.

There is only one sensor size direction which Fuji might move and that won't be down.

You're kidding yourself.

The reason you think there is a difference is probably the amount of JPEG processing that goes into the Fuji JPEGS - this has nothing to do with the sensor at all. I'd go so far as to say I doubt you could tell which were shot on m43 and which were shot with Fuji X-Trans if such a test were provided.

Have said this several times, and am yet to have anyone prove me wrong.

PS: if any format will die it's APSC - m43 provides a size benefit with a slight compromise on IQ; FF provides a quality benefit at the slight compromise of size - they both compliment each-other - whereas APSC is neither.

FF is the new APSC, m43 is the new APSC...

You provide me with 3 shots from an M4/3rds and 3 shots from a Fuji x of the same subjects (not a test chart) and I'll accept your challenge.

Yeah you have to specify same subjects, just proves my point. If it's so obvious you shouldn't need a point of reference.

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
mr moonlight
Senior MemberPosts: 1,588
Like?
Re: m43 instead of FF
In reply to Christof21, Nov 16, 2013

mr moonlight wrote:

What's the advantage of going m43 when you can just crop in?

The pixel density is generally higher. For instance the 55-200 mm might not be sufficient for bird photography. I would rather choose a m43 if it has also 16Mp, it will be equivalent to 270mm.

Wouldn't a better option be to just offer a higher Rez APSC or ff sensor for bird shooters?

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
TThorne
Senior MemberPosts: 2,641Gear list
Like?
Re: m43 instead of FF
In reply to RhysM, Nov 16, 2013

RhysM wrote:

I think people just need to accept that in terms of photographic image output bigger is better. In terms of portability smaller is better and in terms of best compromise APS-C is best.

Yeah right! You better take that logic and reasoning elsewhere, lest you get flogged. Here is the way it works in this forum. Bigger is better when it comes to APSC vs anything smaller. However, when it comes to APSC vs FF, the rule doesn't apply, because the thought of it is offensive.

Now get with the program and stop being all intelligent like. That is not acceptable behavior here.

-- hide signature --

A lie gets halfway around the world before the truth has a chance to get its pants on. - Sir Winston Churchill

 TThorne's gear list:TThorne's gear list
Leica M Typ 240 Sony Alpha 7S Leica M-Monochrom Leica Summilux-M 21mm f/1.4 Asph Leica Summilux-M 35mm f/1.4 ASPH +5 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
unknown member
(unknown member)
Like?
Re: m43 instead of FF
In reply to TThorne, Nov 16, 2013

RhysM wrote:

I think people just need to accept that in terms of photographic image output bigger is better. In terms of portability smaller is better and in terms of best compromise APS-C is best.

Yeah right! You better take that logic and reasoning elsewhere, lest you get flogged. Here is the way it works in this forum. Bigger is better when it comes to APSC vs anything smaller. However, when it comes to APSC vs FF, the rule doesn't apply, because the thought of it is offensive.

Now get with the program and stop being all intelligent like. That is not acceptable behavior here.

-- hide signature --

A lie gets halfway around the world before the truth has a chance to get its pants on. - Sir Winston Churchill

Post of the year!

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
The Davinator
Forum ProPosts: 13,354Gear list
Like?
Re: m43 instead of FF
In reply to TThorne, Nov 16, 2013

TThorne wrote:

RhysM wrote:

I think people just need to accept that in terms of photographic image output bigger is better. In terms of portability smaller is better and in terms of best compromise APS-C is best.

Yeah right! You better take that logic and reasoning elsewhere, lest you get flogged. Here is the way it works in this forum. Bigger is better when it comes to APSC vs anything smaller. However, when it comes to APSC vs FF, the rule doesn't apply, because the thought of it is offensive.

Now get with the program and stop being all intelligent like. That is not acceptable behavior here.

-- hide signature --

A lie gets halfway around the world before the truth has a chance to get its pants on. - Sir Winston Churchill

No...it is a case of diminishing returns.  Your A, B and C logic is the poster boy for failure. Sorry.

 The Davinator's gear list:The Davinator's gear list
Canon PowerShot G3 Canon PowerShot SX150 IS Canon EOS 10D Canon EOS D30 Nikon D2X +18 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
The Davinator
Forum ProPosts: 13,354Gear list
Like?
Re: m43 instead of FF
In reply to stimpy, Nov 16, 2013

stimpy wrote:

stimpy wrote:

LWS2013 wrote:

Image quality wise a move to m4/3rds would be a real step back, I know that the latest Oly's are great cameras but their image quality is still lacking in most respects.

When you compare image quality from M4/3rds against say the X-E1 and/or say the D800E on places like DPR with their flat test charts the M4/3rds do look pretty good but once you actually use one and stop taking photos of brick walls the image quality is mostly flat and lifeless.

I bought an EM5 and sent it back after half a day.

take a trip over to flickr and compare images from the latest Oly against the X-E1/X-Pro1 and there is a clear difference in image quality.

I know of one or two wedding photographers that use the latest Oly's and although their photographs are great with respect to composition and timing the images themselves are lifeless.

with regards to M4/3rds v APS-C v FF v MF I think it is clearly visible that with each step in sensor size images appear to have more life, they look more natural, more 3D, more depth, that isn't just down to fast lenses but the size of the sensor.

there is a cost/size balance with sensor size, when the X-Pro1 was released the cost/size balance was suited to the use of an APS-C sensor and the same was true for 4/3rds and M4/3rds, time moves on and now Sony have a small system camera with a FF sensor.

Once Fuji add a small APS-C DSLR sharped body with weather sealing and fill the gaps in their lens line up I expect that many will move from M4/3rds and that M4/3rds will face a slow and painful death.

There is only one sensor size direction which Fuji might move and that won't be down.

You're kidding yourself.

The reason you think there is a difference is probably the amount of JPEG processing that goes into the Fuji JPEGS - this has nothing to do with the sensor at all. I'd go so far as to say I doubt you could tell which were shot on m43 and which were shot with Fuji X-Trans if such a test were provided.

Have said this several times, and am yet to have anyone prove me wrong.

PS: if any format will die it's APSC - m43 provides a size benefit with a slight compromise on IQ; FF provides a quality benefit at the slight compromise of size - they both compliment each-other - whereas APSC is neither.

FF is the new APSC, m43 is the new APSC...

You provide me with 3 shots from an M4/3rds and 3 shots from a Fuji x of the same subjects (not a test chart) and I'll accept your challenge.

Yeah you have to specify same subjects, just proves my point. If it's so obvious you shouldn't need a point of reference.

Something is missing in this post....oh ya, it's your comparison images.

 The Davinator's gear list:The Davinator's gear list
Canon PowerShot G3 Canon PowerShot SX150 IS Canon EOS 10D Canon EOS D30 Nikon D2X +18 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Christof21
Senior MemberPosts: 1,198
Like?
Re: m43 instead of FF
In reply to mr moonlight, Nov 16, 2013

mr moonlight wrote:

mr moonlight wrote:

What's the advantage of going m43 when you can just crop in?

The pixel density is generally higher. For instance the 55-200 mm might not be sufficient for bird photography. I would rather choose a m43 if it has also 16Mp, it will be equivalent to 270mm.

Wouldn't a better option be to just offer a higher Rez APSC or ff sensor for bird shooters?

More expensive...

Do you know any FF camera which has the same density as 1/2.3" sensors which has let's say 12mp ? The croping advantage of smaller sensors is a reality.

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Limburger
Senior MemberPosts: 4,200Gear list
Like?
Fuji pls keep making good aps-c's (nt)
In reply to Christof21, Nov 16, 2013
-- hide signature --

Cheers Mike

 Limburger's gear list:Limburger's gear list
Fujifilm FinePix X100
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Cailean Gallimore
Senior MemberPosts: 6,082
Like?
Re: m43 instead of FF
In reply to Joachim Gerstl, Nov 16, 2013

Joachim Gerstl wrote:

Bigger is better in photography. It was true in the past and it is true today. If Olympus would have the chance to start again they clearly would do so with a bigger sensor. They are stuck now because they would upset their users invested in their lenses.

I'm not talking about high ISO and dynamic range only. I'm talking about the option to create images with a shallow depth of field.

Full frame will always be ahead of APS-C and APS-C will always be ahead of m43. m43 will be always better than 1 inch, ...

I'm happy when Fuji finally brings out the lenses that are on the roadmap and eventually update the XP1.

-- hide signature --

I walked away from m3 for four reasons:

1. Relatively poor dynamic range - blown highlights were unavoidable in many situations. This has been improved quite a bit, but can still problematic.

2. Poor high iso performance. Greatly improved, but still lags behind APS-C.

3. A less useful range of DOF flexibility. Will never change.

4. The very inconvenient 2X crop factor. Will never change.

I loved the cameras and loved the lenses, but the overall experience was one of major compromises that became irksome to me.

But hey, each to their own.

FF is not a magic format either. In many cases APS-C is the most convenient option, even if the FF format is ultimately the best re IQ and resolution.

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
TThorne
Senior MemberPosts: 2,641Gear list
Like?
Re: m43 instead of FF
In reply to The Davinator, Nov 16, 2013

Dave Luttmann wrote:

TThorne wrote:

RhysM wrote:

I think people just need to accept that in terms of photographic image output bigger is better. In terms of portability smaller is better and in terms of best compromise APS-C is best.

Yeah right! You better take that logic and reasoning elsewhere, lest you get flogged. Here is the way it works in this forum. Bigger is better when it comes to APSC vs anything smaller. However, when it comes to APSC vs FF, the rule doesn't apply, because the thought of it is offensive.

Now get with the program and stop being all intelligent like. That is not acceptable behavior here.

-- hide signature --

A lie gets halfway around the world before the truth has a chance to get its pants on. - Sir Winston Churchill

No...it is a case of diminishing returns. Your A, B and C logic is the poster boy for failure. Sorry.

Such a comment is totally useless without any sort of back up, Dave. It just comes off as you flaming my post because it hit a nerve. No need for that.

Thanks for proving my point though.

-- hide signature --

A lie gets halfway around the world before the truth has a chance to get its pants on. - Sir Winston Churchill

 TThorne's gear list:TThorne's gear list
Leica M Typ 240 Sony Alpha 7S Leica M-Monochrom Leica Summilux-M 21mm f/1.4 Asph Leica Summilux-M 35mm f/1.4 ASPH +5 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
TThorne
Senior MemberPosts: 2,641Gear list
Like?
Re: m43 instead of FF
In reply to stimpy, Nov 16, 2013

stimpy wrote:

RhysM wrote:

I think people just need to accept that in terms of photographic image output bigger is better. In terms of portability smaller is better and in terms of best compromise APS-C is best.

Yeah right! You better take that logic and reasoning elsewhere, lest you get flogged. Here is the way it works in this forum. Bigger is better when it comes to APSC vs anything smaller. However, when it comes to APSC vs FF, the rule doesn't apply, because the thought of it is offensive.

Now get with the program and stop being all intelligent like. That is not acceptable behavior here.

-- hide signature --

A lie gets halfway around the world before the truth has a chance to get its pants on. - Sir Winston Churchill

Post of the year!

Thank you sir. I am here all week.

-- hide signature --

A lie gets halfway around the world before the truth has a chance to get its pants on. - Sir Winston Churchill

 TThorne's gear list:TThorne's gear list
Leica M Typ 240 Sony Alpha 7S Leica M-Monochrom Leica Summilux-M 21mm f/1.4 Asph Leica Summilux-M 35mm f/1.4 ASPH +5 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
unknown member
(unknown member)
Like?
Re: m43 instead of FF
In reply to stimpy, Nov 16, 2013

stimpy wrote:

stimpy wrote:

LWS2013 wrote:

Image quality wise a move to m4/3rds would be a real step back, I know that the latest Oly's are great cameras but their image quality is still lacking in most respects.

When you compare image quality from M4/3rds against say the X-E1 and/or say the D800E on places like DPR with their flat test charts the M4/3rds do look pretty good but once you actually use one and stop taking photos of brick walls the image quality is mostly flat and lifeless.

I bought an EM5 and sent it back after half a day.

take a trip over to flickr and compare images from the latest Oly against the X-E1/X-Pro1 and there is a clear difference in image quality.

I know of one or two wedding photographers that use the latest Oly's and although their photographs are great with respect to composition and timing the images themselves are lifeless.

with regards to M4/3rds v APS-C v FF v MF I think it is clearly visible that with each step in sensor size images appear to have more life, they look more natural, more 3D, more depth, that isn't just down to fast lenses but the size of the sensor.

there is a cost/size balance with sensor size, when the X-Pro1 was released the cost/size balance was suited to the use of an APS-C sensor and the same was true for 4/3rds and M4/3rds, time moves on and now Sony have a small system camera with a FF sensor.

Once Fuji add a small APS-C DSLR sharped body with weather sealing and fill the gaps in their lens line up I expect that many will move from M4/3rds and that M4/3rds will face a slow and painful death.

There is only one sensor size direction which Fuji might move and that won't be down.

You're kidding yourself.

The reason you think there is a difference is probably the amount of JPEG processing that goes into the Fuji JPEGS - this has nothing to do with the sensor at all. I'd go so far as to say I doubt you could tell which were shot on m43 and which were shot with Fuji X-Trans if such a test were provided.

Have said this several times, and am yet to have anyone prove me wrong.

PS: if any format will die it's APSC - m43 provides a size benefit with a slight compromise on IQ; FF provides a quality benefit at the slight compromise of size - they both compliment each-other - whereas APSC is neither.

FF is the new APSC, m43 is the new APSC...

You provide me with 3 shots from an M4/3rds and 3 shots from a Fuji x of the same subjects (not a test chart) and I'll accept your challenge.

Yeah you have to specify same subjects, just proves my point. If it's so obvious you shouldn't need a point of reference.

I don't see how asking for the same subjects proves your point, the same subject could only further validate your point since there would be no chance of you submitting 3 of the best M4/3rds images you could find and 3 of the poorest Fuji X ones.

come on just do it you know you want to

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
unknown member
(unknown member)
Like?
Re: m43 instead of FF
In reply to LWS2013, Nov 16, 2013

stimpy wrote:

stimpy wrote:

LWS2013 wrote:

Image quality wise a move to m4/3rds would be a real step back, I know that the latest Oly's are great cameras but their image quality is still lacking in most respects.

When you compare image quality from M4/3rds against say the X-E1 and/or say the D800E on places like DPR with their flat test charts the M4/3rds do look pretty good but once you actually use one and stop taking photos of brick walls the image quality is mostly flat and lifeless.

I bought an EM5 and sent it back after half a day.

take a trip over to flickr and compare images from the latest Oly against the X-E1/X-Pro1 and there is a clear difference in image quality.

I know of one or two wedding photographers that use the latest Oly's and although their photographs are great with respect to composition and timing the images themselves are lifeless.

with regards to M4/3rds v APS-C v FF v MF I think it is clearly visible that with each step in sensor size images appear to have more life, they look more natural, more 3D, more depth, that isn't just down to fast lenses but the size of the sensor.

there is a cost/size balance with sensor size, when the X-Pro1 was released the cost/size balance was suited to the use of an APS-C sensor and the same was true for 4/3rds and M4/3rds, time moves on and now Sony have a small system camera with a FF sensor.

Once Fuji add a small APS-C DSLR sharped body with weather sealing and fill the gaps in their lens line up I expect that many will move from M4/3rds and that M4/3rds will face a slow and painful death.

There is only one sensor size direction which Fuji might move and that won't be down.

You're kidding yourself.

The reason you think there is a difference is probably the amount of JPEG processing that goes into the Fuji JPEGS - this has nothing to do with the sensor at all. I'd go so far as to say I doubt you could tell which were shot on m43 and which were shot with Fuji X-Trans if such a test were provided.

Have said this several times, and am yet to have anyone prove me wrong.

PS: if any format will die it's APSC - m43 provides a size benefit with a slight compromise on IQ; FF provides a quality benefit at the slight compromise of size - they both compliment each-other - whereas APSC is neither.

FF is the new APSC, m43 is the new APSC...

You provide me with 3 shots from an M4/3rds and 3 shots from a Fuji x of the same subjects (not a test chart) and I'll accept your challenge.

Yeah you have to specify same subjects, just proves my point. If it's so obvious you shouldn't need a point of reference.

I don't see how asking for the same subjects proves your point, the same subject could only further validate your point since there would be no chance of you submitting 3 of the best M4/3rds images you could find and 3 of the poorest Fuji X ones.

come on just do it you know you want to

So you're saying a good image will be better than a bad image irrespective of format. That's good!

I'll try get some comps sorted tomorrow if I can. No pixel peeping though.

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
unknown member
(unknown member)
Like?
Re: m43 instead of FF
In reply to The Davinator, Nov 16, 2013

stimpy wrote:

stimpy wrote:

LWS2013 wrote:

Image quality wise a move to m4/3rds would be a real step back, I know that the latest Oly's are great cameras but their image quality is still lacking in most respects.

When you compare image quality from M4/3rds against say the X-E1 and/or say the D800E on places like DPR with their flat test charts the M4/3rds do look pretty good but once you actually use one and stop taking photos of brick walls the image quality is mostly flat and lifeless.

I bought an EM5 and sent it back after half a day.

take a trip over to flickr and compare images from the latest Oly against the X-E1/X-Pro1 and there is a clear difference in image quality.

I know of one or two wedding photographers that use the latest Oly's and although their photographs are great with respect to composition and timing the images themselves are lifeless.

with regards to M4/3rds v APS-C v FF v MF I think it is clearly visible that with each step in sensor size images appear to have more life, they look more natural, more 3D, more depth, that isn't just down to fast lenses but the size of the sensor.

there is a cost/size balance with sensor size, when the X-Pro1 was released the cost/size balance was suited to the use of an APS-C sensor and the same was true for 4/3rds and M4/3rds, time moves on and now Sony have a small system camera with a FF sensor.

Once Fuji add a small APS-C DSLR sharped body with weather sealing and fill the gaps in their lens line up I expect that many will move from M4/3rds and that M4/3rds will face a slow and painful death.

There is only one sensor size direction which Fuji might move and that won't be down.

You're kidding yourself.

The reason you think there is a difference is probably the amount of JPEG processing that goes into the Fuji JPEGS - this has nothing to do with the sensor at all. I'd go so far as to say I doubt you could tell which were shot on m43 and which were shot with Fuji X-Trans if such a test were provided.

Have said this several times, and am yet to have anyone prove me wrong.

PS: if any format will die it's APSC - m43 provides a size benefit with a slight compromise on IQ; FF provides a quality benefit at the slight compromise of size - they both compliment each-other - whereas APSC is neither.

FF is the new APSC, m43 is the new APSC...

You provide me with 3 shots from an M4/3rds and 3 shots from a Fuji x of the same subjects (not a test chart) and I'll accept your challenge.

Yeah you have to specify same subjects, just proves my point. If it's so obvious you shouldn't need a point of reference.

Something is missing in this post....oh ya, it's your comparison images.

In good time.

Likewise, if you can provide anything to the contrary that'd be good....

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum MMy threads