Reading mode: Light Dark

Deceptive marketing

Go to last post
Gidday Tony
TonyinJapan said:
John King said:
Another of my particular specialty interests in psychology is
male/female differences. I have reduced an adult lifetime of study
and contemplation into that one throw-away line, which nonetheless
encapsulates what I have learned.
Click to expand...
But life and humanity is so rich and varied. You can find so many
guys who are very feminine; or many ladies who are strong and
masculine. The characteristics traditionally given to each sex now
crosses over and is even stronger in the other sex in some cases.
TonyinJapan said:
A few facts:

Women are more emotionally and mentally stable than men, even though
given to expressing their emotions more freely. This latter is a
plus, not a minus ...
Click to expand...
In my own life, I would not view this as a fact. A generalization,
maybe.

I would say I am more emotionally and mentally stable than my wife. I
would probably also say I could express my emotions better too.

I do agree males and females are different physically, but when it
comes to emotions and mental faculties, personally, I think it is not
so clearly defined where you can make a statement of facts.

Regards,
Tony
Click to expand...
You are quite right. Of course the problem with all generalisations applies: "All generalisations are wrong, including this one".

However I am speaking of statistical populations, not individual cases. I, of all people, know how much an single individual can differ from the norm, or ±1 standard deviation from the mean; ±2, if you really want to stretch things. Many attributes that have been measured for me indicate more than +3 sd from the mean, and one runs to more than +7 (reaction time delay in vigilance study) - this is really way out on the bell curve (fallen off the end of it, perhaps? lol.). Do I constitute a "normal" person? Yes. Am I a representative sample? No.

I tend to rely on very large sample material (like the Harvard Nurses Study) where there are huge numbers involved, well above the limits calculated for statistical relevance.

Mortality statistics are one such. If one removed childbirth deaths, I would suggest that these figures would favour women even more than they currently do. Not many men die in childbirth ...

Increasing of knowledge is about making hypotheses, testing them, rejecting the ones that do not allow the rejection of the Null Hypothesis, and moving on to the next set of hypotheses. Cronbach's "Essentials of Psychological Testing" is probably the best treatise I have personally read on this subject, having regard both to psychology and epistemology in general. Cronbach stresses the importance of always checking any proposed test back against real life experience and absolute, not relative, measurements.

There will always be exceptions to any rule. Most men are far stronger than most women; but I have known at least two women who were far stronger than most men, and one of them was eventually divorced by her husband as he lived in terror of her beating him up! Which she did frequently. Now how often does that happen? Not very, I would suggest. Most physical abuse in relationships is by the male, perpetrated against the female (about 90%+).

The other was the heart and soul of gentleness and sweetness as a person, and was a good mate, at second remove. She was a scientist, who mixed with a group of scientists among whom I had several very good, close friends.

Regards, john from Melbourne, Australia.
-----

The Camera doth not make the Man (or Woman) ...
Perhaps being kind to cats, dogs & children does ...

http://canopuscomputing.com.au/gallery2/main.php



Bird Control Officers on active service.
 
Gidday again Chris
Chris_in_Osaka said:
John King said:
BTW Chris, I am surprised that you have not sprung for the 7~14. Is
it on your wish list, or is there another reason?
Click to expand...
It has been on my wish list ever since it was announced (around the
time I bought my E-300).
Click to expand...
I understand perfectly, mate. For the last 2.5 years, we have been living on a financial knife-edge because we relied upon representations made to us by the Councillors and CEO of the local council regarding subdivision of a seaside property I own, and acquisition by them of a small part of my land for a public walkway from the road to the foreshore cliff top. No good deed ever goes unpunished ...

The sale of this property was to provide us with our retirement funds. We sold our other house in Melbourne six months after this (written) assurance was given, and bought the current one, making up the difference with bridging finance. Two years later, we are still waiting for the b* s to finalise the matter.; and living off the bank's goodwill ...

I have a wish list of about AUD$8,000 worth of gear when we finally finalise this and sell the bloody place. Heather also gets much the same for discretionary expenditure - I think we both deserve it for the stress and aggravation that we have both suffered at the hands of these mongrels.

Of course, the bank gets first lash at the cherry ...

Regards, john from Melbourne, Australia.
-----

The Camera doth not make the Man (or Woman) ...
Perhaps being kind to cats, dogs & children does ...

http://canopuscomputing.com.au/gallery2/main.php



Bird Control Officers on active service.
 
Hello John,
John King said:
Brian G. said:
John King said:
A male is a Rolls Royce cut down to a
work utility with an angle grinder and no rust-proofing. Women are
superior to men in almost every physical and psychological aspect;
but men are stronger - for about ten minutes.
Click to expand...
Well that's among the most ridiculous and meaningless things I've
ever read in these forums...
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
John King said:
Perhaps to you. Sorry to tread on your corns.
Click to expand...
Not at all- I found it rather amusing.
John King said:
However, I could, given sufficient time, and space, prove every
assertion made therein, or that flows from my statement.
Click to expand...
No you couldn't. While we both share an interest in psychology, another interest of mine is actual science. You cannot "prove" your claims of women's superiority "in almost every physical and psychological aspect" for a number of reasons, the most important of which is that "superiority" can be defined in many ways.
John King said:
Another of my particular specialty interests in psychology is
male/female differences. I have reduced an adult lifetime of study
and contemplation into that one throw-away line, which nonetheless
encapsulates what I have learned.
Click to expand...
Yes, you most certainly have. You know, my wife happened to be in the room when I read your post. She has graduate degrees in psychology, among other things, and also happens to specialize in gender theory and sex/gender differences. She agreed with me that your assessment was both superficial and incorrect.
John King said:
A few facts:

Women are more emotionally and mentally stable than men, even though
given to expressing their emotions more freely...
Click to expand...
This is not a fact at all. It's armchair psychology and "common knowledge", but it is hardly a fact.
John King said:
Women use energy at about half the rate of men up until an exertion
level of cross-country skiing, or timber felling. At extreme levels
of physical activity men use less energy per unit work than women.
For most of us, in most circumstances, women can survive where men
would die (and do ... ).
Click to expand...
First of all, your statements do not imply superiority of one sex over the other. Second of all, the last sentence of yours in the paragraph above is another generalization that holds no real meaning.
John King said:
Women have two copies of many crucial genes, where men only have one
copy. If that copy is bad, we are in strife (e.g. haemophilia,
fragile X syndrome, etc etc etc). That is one significance of XX for
females versus XY for males ...
Click to expand...
I think I have a fair understanding of X-linked diseases (as well as X chromosome inactivation and genomic imprinting, which are also relevant here). Having XX chromosomes cannot be called "superior" to having XY, unless you specifically define superiority that way. Let's look at a different genetic example. Are you familiar with mitochondrial inheritance? Mitochondria lack the error-checking mechanisms found in nuclear DNA, and as a result, can accumulate many disease-causing mutations. While those affected can be of either sex, only women can pass these problems on to their children since mitochonrdria in a developing human embryo come only from the maternal line. Men can't transmit these diseases; women do. Are men now superior in that respect? Or are women superior in their disease-transmitting ability?
John King said:
Women are better insulated than men...

Many aspects of human anatomy are designed specifically so that women
can give birth easily...

All these things...make for a significantly

longer life expectancy for women than for men... On average, approximately ten percent longer, and often
have better health throughout that life.
Click to expand...
Again, we get to the fundamental problem with your "arguments"; the definition of "superiority" is not agreed upon. If you think that a longer life expectancy denotes superiority, and women live longer then men, then fine - by your definition women are superior. But how about we again look at a different definition of superiority just for the heck of it? You mention evolution below, so why don't we again define superiority in some evolutionarily adaptive terms; let's call the superior sex the one that is best able to pass its genes on to the next generation. I'll give you one guess as to which sex this is. And once reproduction happens, from an evolutionary standpoint, you can argue that there is no benefit to living a longer life if you are not reproductively active, so from this standpoint there is no superiority inherent in a female's longer lifespan. There are more subtleties to this argument but the point here is that we can choose to define superiority in any number of ways, and the definition affects the outcome.
John King said:
Men are better than women in some things, and vice versa. The two
sexes are complementary to one another, not equal. Neither one is
"better" than the other, as people.
Click to expand...
I'm not arguing with you there; In fact, I fully agree with you on that. Instead, I'm stating that the idea of superiority is ridiculous unless you very clearly define what you mean by the term in the context in which you're using it.
John King said:
All of the above are medically proven facts.
Click to expand...
No, all of the above are not "medically proven facts" at all. I'm guessing you have not actually done any science or else you would not be so quick to toss the word "proven" into the conversation.
John King said:
Now what were you saying again?
Click to expand...
Essentially, that your argument is amusing, but incorrect (or at best, grossly incomplete).
John King said:
Just BTW, I use the words "design" and "designed" to connote the
result of evolution, not the presence of a "Grand Designer" - some
sort of God or other, in many religious beliefs. However, one's
belief or otherwise in such a being makes no difference at all to the
thrust of my point above.
Click to expand...
You're certainly correct about that.

--
Brian
 
Gidday again Brian
Brian G. said:
Brian G. said:
Perhaps to you. Sorry to tread on your corns.
Click to expand...
Not at all- I found it rather amusing.
Brian G. said:
However, I could, given sufficient time, and space, prove every
assertion made therein, or that flows from my statement.
Click to expand...
No you couldn't. While we both share an interest in psychology,
another interest of mine is actual science. You cannot "prove" your
claims of women's superiority "in almost every physical and
psychological aspect" for a number of reasons, the most important of
which is that "superiority" can be defined in many ways.
Click to expand...
Quite right.

1) Accumulate the facts as best they can be ascertained.

2) Define the problem using the facts so obtained in defining the parameters of the problem.
3) Postulate solutions to the problem in terms of the facts.

4) Assess the solutions against reality - Is/are the solution/s socially acceptable? Is it affordable? Is it achievable? Usually one solution will now tend to stand out from the crowd.
5) Implement the solution.

6)Audit the results - has the solution actually led to an improvement in the problem previously defined?

This system of analysis can be applied to anything, anytime. It works. Mostly humans leave out steps 1, 2, 4, and 6; or some combination of them. Mostly (IME) it goes thusly: 1) Define problem (loosely) without ascertaining the facts; 2) Implement A solution without further analysis; and 3) NEVER check to see if it has solved anything at all ...

BTW, I have used the term "superior" in both the legal (ordinary dictionary definition, unless otherwise provided by law) and the medical science sense (is it demonstrable that the first situation has better outcomes than the second situation postulated?). No. I have not defined "superior", as we all know heuristically what it means, within tolerances and limits of the exigencies and vicissitudes of life and the latitudes that this necessarily imposes. This general and widespread (universal?) understanding of the meaning of this word in and of itself destroys pretty much all your convoluted thinking that seeks to prove that black is white and day is really night. Sorry, not buying that today.

Actually, Brian, I have done just the odd bit of science. My degree in psychology is classed as an applied science degree. I also studied "pure" science at Uni.

Psychology may well be taught differently where you live, as it is in many Aussie universities. Where I studied the subject, it required three years of statistics. No second year subjects until first year statistics satisfactorily completed etc. This was a hard-core science degree, not a social science/social worker degree. My two majors were in developmental/personality psychology and physiological psychology (lots of biology, medicine and biochemistry/neurochemistry). No credit was given for stats/research methods; one just had to pass them, or one did not graduate ...

My specific talent is at problem-solving, bringing information together from disparate sources and disciplines to apply to the problem at hand. Functional decomposition applied to every aspect of my life, about 2~3 milliseconds at a time (I do know that the time-slice for humans has a mean of around 25 ms with a sd of about 0.6ms. I am just a little different in this regard ... )

I also have an interest in mitochondrial DNA, and have discussed this with the dozen or so medical specialists within my circle of friends and acquaintances. It is my belief (just that, a belief) that sexual mating of any description would be disastrous at first generation stage using "just" nuclear DNA. Watson's calculations in "The Molecular Biology of the Gene" would appear to bear this opinion out. It also appears that much of the cellular processes would therefore need to be mediated by mitochondrial DNA which mutates at the background rate of mutation for proteins, about one per 30,000 years. This is the only way that one could get a successful mating more often than about 1:1,000,000 (or any other figure one can, or cares to, think of ... ).

So, I do not make the original statement lightly, and stand by what I said. Some of the US plane wrecks have shown women to survive for over a month, when the men died within a week. This trend is repeated time and time again. Yet you say it is not so.

Mortality statistics are a perfect set of facts in support of the position I posited, yet you are dismissive of them for no other reason than that a female is not reproductively active during that longer life. Are you aware of the research that shows that it takes at least two generations of humans to raise a third generation? From your statements and categorical position, I would guess that you are not. I would also respectfully suggest that it is you, not I, who is bogged down in a quagmire of pseudo-science, based not on science and research, but on socially and politically correct dogmas, which you (apparently) cannot tolerate being challenged, even in a light-hearted manner.

I have already agreed that one could easily write several thousand pages on this subject, so cannot disagree that my "argument" is " ... (or at best, grossly incomplete)".

However, your statement that "Essentially, that your argument is amusing, but incorrect (or at best, grossly incomplete)". Is merely illuminating your own prejudices of male supremacy, not the incorrectness of any position that I have taken.

I will studiously avoid getting into the argumentum ad hominem remarks that liberally sprinkle your "argument".

To quote from a completely different field: "Madam, I am sorry that you have taken seriously something poked at you in jest" ...

Enough (more than enough?) said.

Regards, john from Melbourne, Australia.
-----

The Camera doth not make the Man (or Woman) ...
Perhaps being kind to cats, dogs & children does ...
 
Well if this is the case then Olympus needs to do more to attract us women folk. I think Alex O'Loughlin, television and movie actor from Australia but now living in the US would do just fine, maybe Orlando Bloom or some would even go for Brad Pitt. I would say the first ad is in good taste, but the second ad is not and really is an indicative statement about discrimination in Asian countries and of course it exists elsewhere not saying it is only Asian countries. I am certain that if I didn't buy into Olympus because of my past experiences, and saw that ad, I certainly wouldn't buy into Olympus just because of the ad.

Oh btw, and I know you said you found the opposite, but all of my female friends buy their own "toys" and let their significant other know after the fact, sometimes never telling them, lol. If it were left to my hubby, I would still be shooting with a 2 megapixel point and shoot.

--

Olympus E510, E-330, 14-54mm, 50mm Macro, Sigma 55-200, Oly14-42, Oly 40-150, Sunpak 383,
 
He seems to forget that it was from his mother why he was even born, or maybe that is his problem, he blames his mother for his existence. Men can only spread the gene pool around, I have yet to see a man give birth.

--

Olympus E510, E-330, 14-54mm, 50mm Macro, Sigma 55-200, Oly14-42, Oly 40-150, Sunpak 383,
 
tdoney said:
but the second ad is not and really is an
indicative statement about discrimination in Asian countries and of
course it exists elsewhere not saying it is only Asian countries.
Click to expand...
I don’t understand how the ad is an ‘indicative statement about discrimination in Asian countries’? A beautiful, sexy lady in a public area and nearby males have a quick peek. It is just a natural (genetic?) reaction whatever part of the world you are in.

Discrimination means someone is being discriminated against and put at a disadvantage. Are the guys in the ad who are attracted to the lady (probably in a sexual way or maybe just admiring her beauty) discriminating her? The lady could equally be using her sexual attractiveness in a proactive (but covert way) to allure the most successful and richest guy in the scene to discriminate them. It works both ways.

You could exchange the lady with brad-pit wearing a unbuttoned work-shirt while there are four ladies giving the subtle eye-focus instead. The ad concept would work equally well. Would we be saying he is being discriminated against?

It is just human nature: male is attracted to beautiful female; female is attracted to successful, prosperous male.
tdoney said:
I am certain that if I didn't buy into Olympus because of my past
experiences, and saw that ad, I certainly wouldn't buy into Olympus
just because of the ad.
Click to expand...
Not many would I guess. But if you were on the lookout for a very fast auto-focus DSLR and accidentally saw that ad... you would probably at least move onto the next stage and do your research to find out more... which could potentially lead to a purchase.

Regards,
Tony
 
Gidday again Chris
Chris_in_Osaka said:
John King said:
BTW Chris, I am surprised that you have not sprung for the 7~14. Is
it on your wish list, or is there another reason?
Click to expand...
It has been on my wish list ever since it was announced (around the
time I bought my E-300).
Click to expand...
Further to my last post to you, I just received the email. Matter now finalised. Certification of the subdivision can now proceed, and we can finally sell the property. Thank goodness.

It has only taken sixteen years of unbelievable stress and financial hardship ... more than one quarter of my life ...

Regards, john from Melbourne, Australia.
-----

The Camera doth not make the Man (or Woman) ...
Perhaps being kind to cats, dogs & children does ...

http://canopuscomputing.com.au/gallery2/main.php



Bird Control Officers on active service.
 
Hello again John,

John, you’ve written quite a bit here. I will be selective in responding to what I consider the more important parts of your post.
John King said:
Brian G. said:
No you couldn't. While we both share an interest in psychology,
another interest of mine is actual science. You cannot "prove" your
claims of women's superiority "in almost every physical and
psychological aspect" for a number of reasons, the most important of
which is that "superiority" can be defined in many ways.
Click to expand...
Quite right.
Click to expand...
You’ve agreed with me here.

You then go on to list specific steps toward problem-solving/learning, and mention that most “humans” don’t do it so systematically (presumably non-humans do? Your word choice there comes across as condescending), but this is not relevant here.

You then define your use of “superior”. Of particular importance is that you mention your use in a “medical science sense” to mean having better outcomes than alternative options. You appear to miss that defining “better outcomes” is no different from defining superiority itself, that it can be done many ways, and that the definition changes the outcome assessment. You then go so far as to write:
John King said:
This general and widespread (universal?) understanding of the meaning of this
word in and of itself destroys pretty much all your convoluted thinking that
seeks to prove that black is white and day is really night.
Click to expand...
Actually, unlike you, I am not out to “prove” anything. I will again simply write that you cannot make the statement that women are superior "in almost every physical and psychological aspect". It’s absurd, and it’s indefensible.

You then inform me of your science background, your talent for problem solving and your interest in mitochondrial DNA (which I mentioned only as an example of the difficulties in assigning “superiority” to anything), in the process dropping Watson’s name and making reference to his most famous textbook. Now, I purposefully left out the following information from my first post, because I didn’t think credentials were necessary for this discussion, but since you thought it was worth including, I will mention that I also have a science background. It includes two PhDs in biological sciences, one of which happens to be in molecular genetics. It also includes lots of graduate and post-doc studies of the molecular genetics of fertilization and sperm-egg interactions, some published papers and review articles, and a soon-to-be-published book chapter on using molecular genetic techniques to study fertilization. Again, although it shouldn't be necessary, since you state below that you think I am "bogged down in a quagmire of pseudo-science, based not on science and research", I guess it is worth mentioning.

While I will readily admit that I do not know everything, I do have a bit more than a passing familiarity with science and its methods. Despite what you’ve written, you do not appear to approach this topic scientifically at all.
John King said:
So, I do not make the original statement lightly, and stand by what I
said. Some of the US plane wrecks have shown women to survive for
over a month, when the men died within a week. This trend is repeated
time and time again. Yet you say it is not so.
Click to expand...
No, I did not say it wasn’t so at all. If plane crash survivability is your measure of superiority, and women typically survive longer than men, so be it. This is hardly the same as your statement "women are superior in almost every physical and psychological aspect."
John King said:
Mortality statistics are a perfect set of facts in support of the
position I posited, yet you are dismissive of them for no other
reason than that a female is not reproductively active during that
longer life.
Click to expand...
Again, longer lifespan is not inherently “superior” unless you choice to define it that way. A more modern way of thinking about longevity is to consider healthspan (the period of youthful vigor that precedes age-related decline), which is much more important to most. And no, the reason you gave is not the only reason for my dismissal.
John King said:
Are you aware of the research that shows that it takes
at least two generations of humans to raise a third generation? From
your statements and categorical position, I would guess that you are
not.
Click to expand...
You would be wrong. I mentioned there were subtleties not discussed, but they were not relevant to the point I was trying to make.
John King said:
I would also respectfully suggest that it is you, not I, who is
bogged down in a quagmire of pseudo-science, based not on science and
research, but on socially and politically correct dogmas, which you
(apparently) cannot tolerate being challenged, even in a
light-hearted manner.
Click to expand...
You cannot possibly know how wrong you are here, but nevertheless, you are wrong.
John King said:
I have already agreed that one could easily write several thousand
pages on this subject, so cannot disagree that my "argument" is " ...
(or at best, grossly incomplete)".

However, your statement that "Essentially, that your argument is
amusing, but incorrect (or at best, grossly incomplete)". Is merely
illuminating your own prejudices of male supremacy, not the
incorrectness of any position that I have taken.
Click to expand...
I have no prejudices of male supremacy. You have misunderstood my position completely.
John King said:
I will studiously avoid getting into the argumentum ad hominem
remarks that liberally sprinkle your "argument".
Click to expand...
If you go back and read my post, you will see that I comment on your “arguments”, your “assessment” some of your “sentences”, etc., but nowhere in that post is an ad hominem remark.
John King said:
To quote from a completely different field: "Madam, I am sorry that
you have taken seriously something poked at you in jest" ...
Click to expand...
Again, you appear to have missed the point. I do not take your assertion seriously. It is absurd and indefensible.

--
Brian
 
TonyinJapan said:
John King said:
Another of my particular specialty interests in psychology is
male/female differences. I have reduced an adult lifetime of study
and contemplation into that one throw-away line, which nonetheless
encapsulates what I have learned.
Click to expand...
But life and humanity is so rich and varied. You can find so many
guys who are very feminine; or many ladies who are strong and
masculine. The characteristics traditionally given to each sex now
crosses over and is even stronger in the other sex in some cases.
Click to expand...
Hi,

Have you ever thought that men and women are two different species? With males and females to each? That would explain things...

Regards, David
 
John King said:
Further to my last post to you, I just received the email. Matter now
finalised. Certification of the subdivision can now proceed, and we
can finally sell the property. Thank goodness.

It has only taken sixteen years of unbelievable stress and financial
hardship ... more than one quarter of my life ...
Click to expand...
Congratulations and I hope you get a good price. Just don't use the funds to buy the 14-35mm, the 150 f2, the 35-100mm, the...........

--
Olympus E-3 and E-420, Panasonic DMC-L1

Leica 25mm and 14-50mm. Zuiko 25mm pancake, 50mm, 14-42mm, 12-60mm, 50-200mm, and 8mm fisheye. FL-36 Flash.
Canon PowerShot TX1
Ricoh GR-D
Sony DSC-V3
 
are very nice but so not aimed at women. THis has been a very entertaining thread. Reminds me of being at work when all the men drool over a certain entertainment reporter when the ET Canada update runs. I work for a tv station.

I have taken many photography classes in the past 1.5 years and trust me, no woman that looks like that has ever walked through the door of any classroom. I so far have been the only person shooting with Olympus in any of those classes. I like the look of the Oly ads, the girl is pretty. I especially found humor in the E3 ad. But speaking for myself only, not any other woman, the ad that was on the billboard in Canada was way more entertaining. I laughed every time I drove by it in my city. Oly is not advertising for women consumers, sex sells and this thread has more than proven it. Oly should be very proud.
 
...that someone who has studied human nature and who so eloquently argues the strengths of one sex over the other (again, not saying one is superior - they both have their strengths, as you pointed out), and who compares the human animal to man-made objects (Rolls-Royce, grinder etc) believes that this vastly complex creature - the human being - arrived on this planet by chance, ie evolution, rather than by the design of an intelligent creator.

Interesting...
John King said:
Just BTW, I use the words "design" and "designed" to connote the
result of evolution, not the presence of a "Grand Designer" - some
sort of God or other, in many religious beliefs. However, one's
belief or otherwise in such a being makes no difference at all to the
thrust of my point above.

Regards, john from Melbourne, Australia.
Click to expand...
--
Neil MacDonald
NB Canada
http://nrmdisk.smugmug.com/
Olympus E-330, 14-42mm, 40-150mm
Olympus E-510, 70-300mm

Feel free to comment, critique or PP for educational purposes.

 
Agreed, in particular with the E-420 brochure, and the E-410 campaign before it.

Note well that in the E-420 brochure, the woman is actually using the E-420 every time she appears, not just posing for it as is the case in the E-520 brochure. It was the same with the E-410 campaign, with maybe the same actress shown using the E-410 on a vacation trip.

Cynically, could this also be targeted to wives and SO's of potential male DLSR buyers, to mitigate their objections to "him" buying a bulky SLR instead of a compact digicam?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Keyboard shortcuts

f
Forum
m
My threads
Mobile site
About
Editorial content
Cameras & Lenses
Community
All content, design, and layout are Copyright © 1998–2025 Digital Photography Review All Rights Reserved.
Reproduction in whole or part in any form or medium without specific written permission is prohibited.
When you use DPReview links to buy products, the site may earn a commission.
©GPS Media - Guides, Products, Services.
Back
Top