14 to 14nx still available ?

I was looking for info but at some sites they say its not available more ( the upgrade of the 14n to 14nx ) and other say its available.

Could contact Kodak Professional Portugal ( since I'm currently working in Brasil for some months now ) so I ask you guys,

Is the upgrade 14n to 14nx still available ? If so, until when ?

I see some 14n at some good prices and I was wondering in picking in one and then after a few months upgrading it. I know that the SLRn have a different logic board that makes batterys much more efficient but I'd like to consider all options.

Thanks again,

--
Goncalo Proenca - Lisbon,Portugal, Europe
=========================================
Fuji S2 Pro / Will shoot for AF-S lens
=========================================

Should be available direct from Kodak.

GoncaloProenca said:

I was looking for info but at some sites they say its not available
more ( the upgrade of the 14n to 14nx ) and other say its available.

Could contact Kodak Professional Portugal ( since I'm currently
working in Brasil for some months now ) so I ask you guys,

Is the upgrade 14n to 14nx still available ? If so, until when ?

I see some 14n at some good prices and I was wondering in picking
in one and then after a few months upgrading it. I know that the
SLRn have a different logic board that makes batterys much more
efficient but I'd like to consider all options.

Thanks again,

--
Goncalo Proenca - Lisbon,Portugal, Europe
=========================================
Fuji S2 Pro / Will shoot for AF-S lens
=========================================

Click to expand...

The upgrade is still available.

GoncaloProenca said:

I was looking for info but at some sites they say its not available
more ( the upgrade of the 14n to 14nx ) and other say its available.

Could contact Kodak Professional Portugal ( since I'm currently
working in Brasil for some months now ) so I ask you guys,

Is the upgrade 14n to 14nx still available ? If so, until when ?

I see some 14n at some good prices and I was wondering in picking
in one and then after a few months upgrading it. I know that the
SLRn have a different logic board that makes batterys much more
efficient but I'd like to consider all options.

Thanks again,

--
Goncalo Proenca - Lisbon,Portugal, Europe
=========================================
Fuji S2 Pro / Will shoot for AF-S lens
=========================================

Click to expand...

--
John Oliveira

Yesterday I was preparing for the upgrade from 14n to nx. So I went to my photo store and shot my 14n next to the SLR/c in similar conditions. I was flabbergasted to see that noisewise and saturationwise there was hardly any improvement to be gained. The noise was only a bit sharper for the 14n, easily handled by Neat image. But for both, noise at iso 400 was pretty bad. 200 was better, but the same for both cameras. So, apart from the red blobs and ghosting that shows up occasionally, the 14n is all I'll ever need, if I stay with Kodak. So, do a side by side comparison yourself before you fork out the 1500 dollars for the upgrade.
Kind regards,
Bart

GoncaloProenca said:

I was looking for info but at some sites they say its not available
more ( the upgrade of the 14n to 14nx ) and other say its available.

Could contact Kodak Professional Portugal ( since I'm currently
working in Brasil for some months now ) so I ask you guys,

Is the upgrade 14n to 14nx still available ? If so, until when ?

I see some 14n at some good prices and I was wondering in picking
in one and then after a few months upgrading it. I know that the
SLRn have a different logic board that makes batterys much more
efficient but I'd like to consider all options.

Thanks again,

--
Goncalo Proenca - Lisbon,Portugal, Europe
=========================================
Fuji S2 Pro / Will shoot for AF-S lens
=========================================

Click to expand...

Notice that I didnt say a word about that part!

The wrath of loyal (blind) Kodak SLR/n/c users will be coming down upon you soon! Just sit back and watch!

bartP said:

bartP wrote:
Yesterday I was preparing for the upgrade from 14n to nx. So I went
to my photo store and shot my 14n next to the SLR/c in similar
conditions. I was flabbergasted to see that noisewise and
saturationwise there was hardly any improvement to be gained. The
noise was only a bit sharper for the 14n, easily handled by Neat
image. But for both, noise at iso 400 was pretty bad. 200 was
better, but the same for both cameras. So, apart from the red blobs
and ghosting that shows up occasionally, the 14n is all I'll ever
need, if I stay with Kodak. So, do a side by side comparison
yourself before you fork out the 1500 dollars for the upgrade.
Kind regards,
Bart

Click to expand...

Oh come on the SLR/n has to be much better! (just kidding had to for GP's sake )

I think you should take that advice and try them out side by side to make sure you are getting something thaty ou need for 1500. If it doesn't do anything really appreciable to your eye, then save the 1500 for osmething like the wizard upgrade or more glass

Chad N.

g r e e n p i x e l said:

The wrath of loyal (blind) Kodak SLR/n/c users will be coming down
upon you soon! Just sit back and watch!

g r e e n p i x e l said:

bartP wrote:
Yesterday I was preparing for the upgrade from 14n to nx. So I went
to my photo store and shot my 14n next to the SLR/c in similar
conditions. I was flabbergasted to see that noisewise and
saturationwise there was hardly any improvement to be gained. The
noise was only a bit sharper for the 14n, easily handled by Neat
image. But for both, noise at iso 400 was pretty bad. 200 was
better, but the same for both cameras. So, apart from the red blobs
and ghosting that shows up occasionally, the 14n is all I'll ever
need, if I stay with Kodak. So, do a side by side comparison
yourself before you fork out the 1500 dollars for the upgrade.
Kind regards,
Bart

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

I really think there must be quite a variation between samples of the SLRn. I can honestly, honestly say that my 14n to nx upgrade has been worth it a hundred times over. My camera was unusable above ISO 80 most of the time, if I'm honest, but i use much higher ISO now. I certainly agonised about the decision, but I'm so glad I went for it. Trying to use the 14n as an everyday camera was depressing, but as a 14nx it's fine....not as good in low light as an S2, but fine, and more so for high ISO if you drop it to 6MP RAW. I wouldn't give up on the idea of the upgrade until you've tried more than one camera body.

bartP said:

Yesterday I was preparing for the upgrade from 14n to nx. So I went
to my photo store and shot my 14n next to the SLR/c in similar
conditions. I was flabbergasted to see that noisewise and
saturationwise there was hardly any improvement to be gained. The
noise was only a bit sharper for the 14n, easily handled by Neat
image. But for both, noise at iso 400 was pretty bad. 200 was
better, but the same for both cameras. So, apart from the red blobs
and ghosting that shows up occasionally, the 14n is all I'll ever
need, if I stay with Kodak. So, do a side by side comparison
yourself before you fork out the 1500 dollars for the upgrade.
Kind regards,
Bart

Click to expand...

We've had a lot of reports that the 14nx is a big improvement over the 14n, and we've had several reports that there is little difference other than less ghosting and blobbing, and couple reports than the 14nx has more noise and is less sharp than the 14n. I think the variety of reports is probably caused by actual variation in the sensor quality, rather than by hallucinating users and reviewers. So the upgrade looks like a gamble to me, but at least the odds are improving along with the firmware.

It is interesting now that I have my D100 fixed and running again to compare it to the 14n...

The 14n images are obviously a lot more detailed and there appears to be significantly more dynamic range but the D100 has this amazing freedom from magneta flare and ghosts, colour aliasing and other nasties - in other words it actually works.

I know I flip flop a lot on this one but I still think the Kodak 'upgrade' constitutes a repair. If my D100 exhibited bright pink ghosts on specular highlights like my 14n does, I would have taken it straight back to the shop and demanded my money back.

In my case I knew what to expect and bought it anyway but if I'd paid full price....

I don't know how kodak have got away with shipping a camera with so many 'charactersitics' that they say are 'in spec' when any other brand would have just been regarded as faulty....

I also don't understand how not one reviewer picked up on these sensor faults - all they wanted to talk about was the noise...

Warren Sarle said:

We've had a lot of reports that the 14nx is a big improvement over
the 14n, and we've had several reports that there is little
difference other than less ghosting and blobbing, and couple
reports than the 14nx has more noise and is less sharp than the
14n. I think the variety of reports is probably caused by actual
variation in the sensor quality, rather than by hallucinating users
and reviewers. So the upgrade looks like a gamble to me, but at
least the odds are improving along with the firmware.

Click to expand...

Hi Dave

I do understand what you're saying, but for me, before the upgrade, the number of times I actually used it in a situation which would bring up the horros was, very small. I like the extra ISO, but I'm not sure that given my time again I'd bother with the upgrade - I always shoot at base ISO (well, nearly always) and I practically never shoot in low light with artificial lighting.

As for noise - it really never was a problem (as long as you stuck to base ISO).

fundamentally I agree that the camera has flaws, but I still use it much more than my 'toy' E1, which is unquestionably the best 'sorted' camera I've ever owned - the only thing I can criticise it for is the resolution.

My mate Neil has a definition for 'new technology' which is "it doesn't work yet" - maybe this is really the issue with the Kodak?

Like most of us, I have a love/hate relationship with mine, but in the end, it almost always seems to come up with the goods.

kind regards
jono slack

DMillier said:

The 14n images are obviously a lot more detailed and there appears
to be significantly more dynamic range but the D100 has this
amazing freedom from magneta flare and ghosts, colour aliasing and
other nasties - in other words it actually works.

I know I flip flop a lot on this one but I still think the Kodak
'upgrade' constitutes a repair. If my D100 exhibited bright pink
ghosts on specular highlights like my 14n does, I would have taken
it straight back to the shop and demanded my money back.

In my case I knew what to expect and bought it anyway but if I'd
paid full price....

I don't know how kodak have got away with shipping a camera with so
many 'charactersitics' that they say are 'in spec' when any other
brand would have just been regarded as faulty....

I also don't understand how not one reviewer picked up on these
sensor faults - all they wanted to talk about was the noise...

Warren Sarle said:

We've had a lot of reports that the 14nx is a big improvement over
the 14n, and we've had several reports that there is little
difference other than less ghosting and blobbing, and couple
reports than the 14nx has more noise and is less sharp than the
14n. I think the variety of reports is probably caused by actual
variation in the sensor quality, rather than by hallucinating users
and reviewers. So the upgrade looks like a gamble to me, but at
least the odds are improving along with the firmware.

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

--
Jono Slack
http://www.slack.co.uk

Well of course, I now have first hand experience of quality control variations, my "old" 14nx chip having been replaced with a new one today, with considerable improvements in the line noise banding I had in longer mode, plus it seems more subtle noise improvements elsewhere.

Quentin

Flick said:

bartP said:

Yesterday I was preparing for the upgrade from 14n to nx. So I went
to my photo store and shot my 14n next to the SLR/c in similar
conditions. I was flabbergasted to see that noisewise and
saturationwise there was hardly any improvement to be gained. The
noise was only a bit sharper for the 14n, easily handled by Neat
image. But for both, noise at iso 400 was pretty bad. 200 was
better, but the same for both cameras. So, apart from the red blobs
and ghosting that shows up occasionally, the 14n is all I'll ever
need, if I stay with Kodak. So, do a side by side comparison
yourself before you fork out the 1500 dollars for the upgrade.
Kind regards,
Bart

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

--
Quentin
http://www.barleigh.com

Hi Flick,

Note that I was testing the SLR/c against the 14n. I've seen Kodak's own sample of the couple with noise at iso 160 in a well exposed image. I've never seen that noise at my base iso. I suspect the SLR/c is worse with noise than the SLR/n, so I will indeed test my 14n against a SLR/n to see if there are differences. But I don't have my hopes high. Personally I think it's a disgrace the SLR/c performs that bad. Maybe I'm spoiled with my D100, that performs really well at high iso. But I just can't stand the fact that an upgraded sensor performs just fine at high iso. I'm willing to pay the cash, but then I want quality. I don't even expect it to perform well at iso 800 as the D100 does. Iso400 flawlessly would be good enough, but I'm sorry that I haven't seen any acceptable iso400 shots in situations where one would want to use iso400. Your flower looked fine, but that's taken outside in medium bright lighting conditions. In several threads and forums I've asked upgraded sensor users for samples full size, but exept your sample I've never received or seen any. To be fair, most noise will never be seen even until SuperA3, but I'm a pro and now and then I'll have to upsize until noise really becomes visible. After my own test, I reviewed Phil's samples of the SLR/c and they looked pretty bad too in shadowareas even in pretty bright lighting at iso400. Don't get me wrong, I'm not complaining. I knew what I was buying at the discounted price, I just was shocked to see my own findings.
Kind regards,
Bart

Flick said:

bartP said:

Yesterday I was preparing for the upgrade from 14n to nx. So I went
to my photo store and shot my 14n next to the SLR/c in similar
conditions. I was flabbergasted to see that noisewise and
saturationwise there was hardly any improvement to be gained. The
noise was only a bit sharper for the 14n, easily handled by Neat
image. But for both, noise at iso 400 was pretty bad. 200 was
better, but the same for both cameras. So, apart from the red blobs
and ghosting that shows up occasionally, the 14n is all I'll ever
need, if I stay with Kodak. So, do a side by side comparison
yourself before you fork out the 1500 dollars for the upgrade.
Kind regards,
Bart

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

Hi Jono

I hear that magenta flare is gone with the upgrade as is the Italian flag problem which renders my 35mm f2 useless and my 70-300 almost useless.

I certainly won't be getting the upgrade as it costs the price of a couple of budget DSLRs and fixes faults rather than provides improvements. The 14n works fine in a lot of situations but I've got so used to expecting its foibles that I said to Jeannette as our train went over the Thames this morning "Hey look, there's something wrong with the river - it's not got pink sparkles all over it.." ;-)

I'm having fun with the D100 again now because I got the 18-125 Sigma lens. This a remarkable lens - very small and light with a x7 zoom. And it's quite sharp! It's a different world when you don't have to change lenses.

Great for my new lunchtime interest - leaving my desk and going outside for a walk. Haven't done that much in the last 10 years. My colleagues are wondering what's wrong with me...

Jono Slack said:

As for noise - it really never was a problem (as long as you stuck
to base ISO).

fundamentally I agree that the camera has flaws, but I still use it
much more than my 'toy' E1, which is unquestionably the best
'sorted' camera I've ever owned - the only thing I can criticise it
for is the resolution.

My mate Neil has a definition for 'new technology' which is "it
doesn't work yet" - maybe this is really the issue with the Kodak?

Like most of us, I have a love/hate relationship with mine, but in
the end, it almost always seems to come up with the goods.

kind regards
jono slack

DMillier said:

The 14n images are obviously a lot more detailed and there appears
to be significantly more dynamic range but the D100 has this
amazing freedom from magneta flare and ghosts, colour aliasing and
other nasties - in other words it actually works.

I know I flip flop a lot on this one but I still think the Kodak
'upgrade' constitutes a repair. If my D100 exhibited bright pink
ghosts on specular highlights like my 14n does, I would have taken
it straight back to the shop and demanded my money back.

In my case I knew what to expect and bought it anyway but if I'd
paid full price....

I don't know how kodak have got away with shipping a camera with so
many 'charactersitics' that they say are 'in spec' when any other
brand would have just been regarded as faulty....

I also don't understand how not one reviewer picked up on these
sensor faults - all they wanted to talk about was the noise...

Warren Sarle said:

We've had a lot of reports that the 14nx is a big improvement over
the 14n, and we've had several reports that there is little
difference other than less ghosting and blobbing, and couple
reports than the 14nx has more noise and is less sharp than the
14n. I think the variety of reports is probably caused by actual
variation in the sensor quality, rather than by hallucinating users
and reviewers. So the upgrade looks like a gamble to me, but at
least the odds are improving along with the firmware.

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

--
Jono Slack
http://www.slack.co.uk

Click to expand...

Don't forget your D100 is a 6mp camera. if you drop the in camera RAW files to 6 from 13.whatever it is, you'll see comparable results i think.

bartP said:

Flick said:

bartP said:

Yesterday I was preparing for the upgrade from 14n to nx. So I went
to my photo store and shot my 14n next to the SLR/c in similar
conditions. I was flabbergasted to see that noisewise and
saturationwise there was hardly any improvement to be gained. The
noise was only a bit sharper for the 14n, easily handled by Neat
image. But for both, noise at iso 400 was pretty bad. 200 was
better, but the same for both cameras. So, apart from the red blobs
and ghosting that shows up occasionally, the 14n is all I'll ever
need, if I stay with Kodak. So, do a side by side comparison
yourself before you fork out the 1500 dollars for the upgrade.
Kind regards,
Bart

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

No, I won't Flick, but sometimes I think it is more than 6mp. A D100 with a prime is still pretty amazing and comes pretty close to a 14n with a zoom.

But my point was, that economically I can't justify the upgrade. The noise won't really disappear by the upgrade from what I have seen and I was not going to shoot iso400 and 800 at 6mp, I can do that with my 14n already. But even at 6mp D100 still wins.

When I planned to buy the 14n part of the plan was to get rid of the D100 as soon as the 14n had proven to be able to shoot at 6mp with the same quality as the D100. Well I still have the D100 and am not going to get rid of it. The combo works great together also as a backup and lightweigth alternative when I don't need all the 14mp and right now I can about get rid of any noise with PS and Neat image. But I would have preferred to have the camera take care of it.
Thanks and kind regards,
Bart

Flick said:

bartP said:

Hi Flick,
Note that I was testing the SLR/c against the 14n. I've seen
Kodak's own sample of the couple with noise at iso 160 in a well
exposed image. I've never seen that noise at my base iso. I suspect
the SLR/c is worse with noise than the SLR/n, so I will indeed test
my 14n against a SLR/n to see if there are differences. But I don't
have my hopes high. Personally I think it's a disgrace the SLR/c
performs that bad. Maybe I'm spoiled with my D100, that performs
really well at high iso. But I just can't stand the fact that an
upgraded sensor performs just fine at high iso. I'm willing to pay
the cash, but then I want quality. I don't even expect it to
perform well at iso 800 as the D100 does. Iso400 flawlessly would
be good enough, but I'm sorry that I haven't seen any acceptable
iso400 shots in situations where one would want to use iso400. Your
flower looked fine, but that's taken outside in medium bright
lighting conditions. In several threads and forums I've asked
upgraded sensor users for samples full size, but exept your sample
I've never received or seen any. To be fair, most noise will never
be seen even until SuperA3, but I'm a pro and now and then I'll
have to upsize until noise really becomes visible. After my own
test, I reviewed Phil's samples of the SLR/c and they looked pretty
bad too in shadowareas even in pretty bright lighting at iso400.
Don't get me wrong, I'm not complaining. I knew what I was buying
at the discounted price, I just was shocked to see my own findings.
Kind regards,
Bart

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

I completely understand your position, and the last thing i would want to do is try to persuade you otherwise. I've kept my S2 for the same reason - though I haven't used it once since i got the Kodak. If you can get what you want from your two cameras, then why bother with an expensive upgrade

bartP said:

Flick said:

bartP said:

Hi Flick,
Note that I was testing the SLR/c against the 14n. I've seen
Kodak's own sample of the couple with noise at iso 160 in a well
exposed image. I've never seen that noise at my base iso. I suspect
the SLR/c is worse with noise than the SLR/n, so I will indeed test
my 14n against a SLR/n to see if there are differences. But I don't
have my hopes high. Personally I think it's a disgrace the SLR/c
performs that bad. Maybe I'm spoiled with my D100, that performs
really well at high iso. But I just can't stand the fact that an
upgraded sensor performs just fine at high iso. I'm willing to pay
the cash, but then I want quality. I don't even expect it to
perform well at iso 800 as the D100 does. Iso400 flawlessly would
be good enough, but I'm sorry that I haven't seen any acceptable
iso400 shots in situations where one would want to use iso400. Your
flower looked fine, but that's taken outside in medium bright
lighting conditions. In several threads and forums I've asked
upgraded sensor users for samples full size, but exept your sample
I've never received or seen any. To be fair, most noise will never
be seen even until SuperA3, but I'm a pro and now and then I'll
have to upsize until noise really becomes visible. After my own
test, I reviewed Phil's samples of the SLR/c and they looked pretty
bad too in shadowareas even in pretty bright lighting at iso400.
Don't get me wrong, I'm not complaining. I knew what I was buying
at the discounted price, I just was shocked to see my own findings.
Kind regards,
Bart

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

Yeah Flick,

That's the great thing about the Kodak forum. Good advice is given and well appreciated and resulting conclusions are respected.

A lot depends on shooting styles. I need pics I can shoot with the D100 or a 1Ds maybe beter than with the 14n and I need pics that can only be shot with the 14n/x. Feel totally comfortable with that. Your style is obviously far more targeted to the 14n/x image. No doubt about this: if money was no problem at all, I would do the upgrade instantly, but you know, I'm Dutch and want obsceen value for money ha ha .
Kind regards,
Bart

Flick said:

bartP said:

Flick said:

bartP said:

Hi Flick,
Note that I was testing the SLR/c against the 14n. I've seen
Kodak's own sample of the couple with noise at iso 160 in a well
exposed image. I've never seen that noise at my base iso. I suspect
the SLR/c is worse with noise than the SLR/n, so I will indeed test
my 14n against a SLR/n to see if there are differences. But I don't
have my hopes high. Personally I think it's a disgrace the SLR/c
performs that bad. Maybe I'm spoiled with my D100, that performs
really well at high iso. But I just can't stand the fact that an
upgraded sensor performs just fine at high iso. I'm willing to pay
the cash, but then I want quality. I don't even expect it to
perform well at iso 800 as the D100 does. Iso400 flawlessly would
be good enough, but I'm sorry that I haven't seen any acceptable
iso400 shots in situations where one would want to use iso400. Your
flower looked fine, but that's taken outside in medium bright
lighting conditions. In several threads and forums I've asked
upgraded sensor users for samples full size, but exept your sample
I've never received or seen any. To be fair, most noise will never
be seen even until SuperA3, but I'm a pro and now and then I'll
have to upsize until noise really becomes visible. After my own
test, I reviewed Phil's samples of the SLR/c and they looked pretty
bad too in shadowareas even in pretty bright lighting at iso400.
Don't get me wrong, I'm not complaining. I knew what I was buying
at the discounted price, I just was shocked to see my own findings.
Kind regards,
Bart

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

I have seen several times where the D100 is compared to the 14n. This is a highly flawed comparison. The D100 has capabilities in low light that the 14n is not designed or intended for. The 14n has resolution that the D100 can only dream about. Each camera is designed and intended for different qualities. We own and use both on a daily basis and I would not say one is "better" than the other. I cannot use the 14n for low light photos at wedddings but it's resolution in the studio makes the D100 look like a toy. I wouldn't dream of getting rid of either camera - they are both excellent but at different things.

Regards,
W Fenn
http://www.fennfoto.com

I wouldn't dream of disagreeing with your comments but they don't really address the fact that the 14n sensor cannot properly deal with some situations that a £75 2MP point & shoot can handle with ease.

I'm actually happy with my 14n for three reasons: I had a good idea of its weaknesses in advance, I got it cheap and with heroic software processing most of the faults can be reduced if not eliminated. But from a simple "owning up to the truth" point of view the 14n is a broken camera.

Point a 14n at a lightbulb, fountain, a river, the sea or even a puddle that has a reflection of a bright light source and what do you get? Bright purple/pink/magenta flare and ghost images where any other camera would give you white flare or just a clean burnt out area.

Likewise, snap a gloss painted curved surface (even dark paint) and the specular reflection is a purple blob not a white one like every other camera.

This is not an issue about the strengths of the 14n or its suitability for certain work but the fact that the nx upgrade was necessary because the original sensor is simply defective in taking perfectly normal shots in perfectly average conditions. Tell me of one other camera sold in the last 2 or 3 years that demonstates these fundamental image problems?

The upgradeable sensor is a great idea but it bugs me a little that Kodak have the cheek to market what should have been a warranty repair as an expensive 'upgrade'. I certainly shall not be availing myself of the service unless they bring out a genuine upgrade.

The D100 doesn't hold a candle to the 14n in resolution or dynamic range but the D100 image quality is consistent and reliable and doesn't freak when it sees a highlight!

W Fenn said:

I have seen several times where the D100 is compared to the 14n.
This is a highly flawed comparison. The D100 has capabilities in
low light that the 14n is not designed or intended for. The 14n has
resolution that the D100 can only dream about. Each camera is
designed and intended for different qualities. We own and use both
on a daily basis and I would not say one is "better" than the
other. I cannot use the 14n for low light photos at wedddings but
it's resolution in the studio makes the D100 look like a toy. I
wouldn't dream of getting rid of either camera - they are both
excellent but at different things.

Regards,
W Fenn
http://www.fennfoto.com

Click to expand...

I was lucky, I'd taken out a loan to buy the SLRn but found the 14n for half price new. I used the loan to buy it, do the upgrade then buy an extra battery and a 4GB microdrive, and still saved some money.

, I'm Dutch and want obsceen value

bartP said:

for money ha ha .
Kind regards,
Bart

Click to expand...