Sony has three different new FF prototypes in the works …

  • Thread starter Thread starter JohnBee
  • Start date Start date
Read my posts properly.

All I want is for Sony to make me a 36Mp, FF, reflex mirror, OVF camera. An A900 with 36Mp sensor. Now, is that really too much to ask for?

Whatever arguments are raised to say Sony won't do it, if enough people ask for it, why shouldn't they?
 
cyainparadise wrote:
Michaels7 wrote:
cyainparadise wrote:
Michaels7 wrote:
Piginho wrote:
cyainparadise wrote:
Nordstjernen wrote:
Piginho wrote:

Sony, if you're listening, please make one of the three a full frame 36Mp with OVF (straight from A900 if you like) optimized for stills photography. Don't care if it has video or not.
Then you don't need 36 Mp since mirror vibration will destroy fine detail in a wide range of shutter speeds, or you need to work in MLU mode to benefit from the very high resolution sensor. Not my choise.
Is that what Nikon users are doing with their 36 MP DSLRs? Wouldn't they just need to use a shutter speed that is higher than the reciprocity of the focal length to stop the vibration?
Yeah!!

I stand by my original comment and judging from other posts on here, quite a few would like a stills oriented, 36Mp camera with an OVF.

Is it worth starting a new thread, asking all who feel this way to add their name, effectively to a petition to Sony, along with comments?
It would be a step backwards for Sony. If the success of the evf was bad with their first slt, then yes, I'd agree and Sony would stop producing th Sony is a big enough company to make products for different segments of the market.ese cameras. The slt market is doing good for them. From a financial perspective, it's a step backwards.
Some of us have no use for video, or don't want them. Why can't Sony make a camera for people like us? If Sony came out with an OVF camera it doesn't mean that Sony is saying that the SLT is bad, just that they want to give people what they want.

Why does it have to be either or? Sony is big enough to make different products for different segments of a market.
Where in my reply did I state that people are saying that it's bad? Some actually do think that it's bad. But my point was a simple and clear one, minus the typos. Sony has decided to take a direction that most dslr are already doing. And that is video. Hell, I've read the upset posters that were against video on dslr, period. But now it's the norm and expected. That being said, Sony's approach to the evf direction imo is the best direction because it gives you better control of your video, while at the same time, gives you excellent control of your still images.
You've seem to think that Sony can only have one option in viewfinders. Sony has many different models of TVs, because not one size/price/technology fits everyone's needs or desire. Why can't Sony use that same philosophy in the ILC business? Why does Sony only have to be the EVF DSLT camera company?

You seem to be very threatened by the thought of Sony coming out with an OVF camera.
And you seem to over analyze things. Sony doing an ovf camera is not threaten me at all. It's not taking any money out of my pocket. With that being said, let's not go way in left field here. My reply is solely related to the direction that Sony is going in and nothing to do with how it's effecting me. We can both be dead and Sony will do what Sony wants to do. I'm looking at it from an economics point of view and not about me.

The television analogy. Televisions is much wider market than cameras. Well actually it's pretty close. They know that the market's there for those multiple televisions, just like there is a market for cameras. Just like the t.v. there are all types of markets. But like their t.v., Sony look at which ones are going to work and which ones aren't. In most cases, the consumer lower end cameras sell more.
 
Piginho wrote:

Read my posts properly.

All I want is for Sony to make me a 36Mp, FF, reflex mirror, OVF camera. An A900 with 36Mp sensor. Now, is that really too much to ask for?

Whatever arguments are raised to say Sony won't do it, if enough people ask for it, why shouldn't they?
I read your post both properly and replied to it properly. The problem is, we just don't agree. Like I'd stated already, if the masses are there, then Sony would see the justification in making an ovf. Change is a reality. And we'll see what those new full frame cameras will have. And I bet you that none of them will have an ovf.
 
Piginho wrote:

Read my posts properly.

All I want is for Sony to make me a 36Mp, FF, reflex mirror, OVF camera. An A900 with 36Mp sensor. Now, is that really too much to ask for?



Yup me too, but they won't do it. At least it is clear the OVF route is dead for Sony. Personally, I really do think Sony should have kept both routes (EVF and OVF) open, and let the customers decide.


Whatever arguments are raised to say Sony won't do it, if enough people ask for it, why shouldn't they?



I don't think there are many companies which actually listen what we have to say. They make it first, and then you buy or don't buy, but they don't listen, they dictate. That's how the world works ;)
 
Michaels7 wrote:
Piginho wrote:

Read my posts properly.

All I want is for Sony to make me a 36Mp, FF, reflex mirror, OVF camera. An A900 with 36Mp sensor. Now, is that really too much to ask for?

Whatever arguments are raised to say Sony won't do it, if enough people ask for it, why shouldn't they?
I read your post both properly and replied to it properly. The problem is, we just don't agree. Like I'd stated already, if the masses are there, then Sony would see the justification in making an ovf. Change is a reality. And we'll see what those new full frame cameras will have. And I bet you that none of them will have an ovf.



That's actually untrue. Ask most manufacturers, they are still using massively the OVF route.




It is likely than more and more cameras will have EVF, but until they deliver crappy dynamic range , that will not do, at least for me.
 
Michaels7 wrote:
Piginho wrote:

Read my posts properly.

All I want is for Sony to make me a 36Mp, FF, reflex mirror, OVF camera. An A900 with 36Mp sensor. Now, is that really too much to ask for?

Whatever arguments are raised to say Sony won't do it, if enough people ask for it, why shouldn't they?
I read your post both properly and replied to it properly. The problem is, we just don't agree. Like I'd stated already, if the masses are there, then Sony would see the justification in making an ovf. Change is a reality. And we'll see what those new full frame cameras will have. And I bet you that none of them will have an ovf.
How will they know if the masses are there or not, unless we tell them. My point is to s establish the level of support for a camera as I describe and if it seems to be large enough, to approach Sony's marketing team and present a case, cracked up by comments and numbers of people all wanting it.

Now, you might think that that's a pie in the sky idea, but if enough people shout loud enough, who knows?

I think that you'd be surprised just how many would like such a camera.
 
cyainparadise wrote:
Sam_Oslo wrote:
johnbee wrote:

One of which is a high MP system due for a 2013 release that is currently being tested it on the field at this time.
Probably a 36MP Alpha will be among the early spring camera shoot out, lets hope it has a 4k video capability too sine the 4k is fast becoming the new standard on Sony TVs.
Have you looked at the prices of Sony's 4K UHDTV? UHDTV is only going to be used for very large screens, as people have been putting in TVs in their homes, and then watching at a distance that they could see the pixels on a 1080P screen.

While Sony will be dropping the prices, UHDTV doesn't make sense for smaller screen sizes.
We should all hope you are wrong...although you make a good case.

Consumer 1080P IPS TV technology had bled over into monitors. I just bought a pair of nice 23” Dell 1920x1080 (1080P) IPS VERY inexpensively. As a matter of fact this PAIR of Dells is over $1000 cheaper than my first decent 21” CRT and together as a dual monitor configuration is infinitely more functional and has a better image. If you look at 27” monitors, typically the small incremental jump up in resolution from ‘1080P’ is double the price. That might be justifiable but that ‘1080P’ price point is there because of consumer TVs. Or at least I’m betting it is.

I have to tell you that I would love to have a single 44” 4K monitor with the same pixel density as my dual monitor setup sitting in front of me… at a reasonable price of course. But its not going to happen unless 4K TVs of that size become common place. I’m hoping 4K in cameras, starting with consumer Sony cameras, will drive that market. And for sure, that is coming.

Wouldn't one $400 monitor this wide and twice as high be nice? Never say never:

original.jpg


Bruce

--
http://www.pbase.com/misterpixel
 
Last edited:
Michaels7 wrote:
Just because someone prefers an OVF, doesn't mean that they're 'afraid' of an EVF. Why are you AFRAID of Sony coming out with another OVF camera? If Sony were to come out with an OVF DSLR, it doesn't mean that they're abandoning the EVF. Sony should want to draw as many people to the A-mount camera, as long as it doesn't mean that they're going to spend huge amount of money to do so.
Point went over your head(s). I just basically reverse the assumption that was thrown at me regarding, "afraid" from that particular poster. I'm not afraid of anything. My cameras that I use in my example shows that. Like I'd already stated, I use more than one format. Some of those formats is large format film cameras. My sole point to him is that Sony's not going to do it because I don't see the masses for it that would economically benefit them. It's like the Big 3 having all of these additional car companies that weren't making them any money, that they got rid of.

The poster used the Nikon f6 to try make his point. Film is still big, but it's big among the hobbyist and fine arts photographers. Sony will stay consistent with the direction that they're going in. And that's the bottom line.
And, the point that I made went over your head. Sony is a big enough company that they can have both an EVF and OVF option.
 
There is a market for FF Canon and Nikon OVF cameras. Apparently there wasn't for the A900 and A850. If Sony had see these great cameras as commercially successful, they would still be selling OVF cameras. Sony obviously feels that to break into the market, they need to offer something different.
 
Michaels7 wrote:
cyainparadise wrote:
Michaels7 wrote:
cyainparadise wrote:
Michaels7 wrote:
Piginho wrote:
cyainparadise wrote:
Nordstjernen wrote:
Piginho wrote:

Sony, if you're listening, please make one of the three a full frame 36Mp with OVF (straight from A900 if you like) optimized for stills photography. Don't care if it has video or not.
Then you don't need 36 Mp since mirror vibration will destroy fine detail in a wide range of shutter speeds, or you need to work in MLU mode to benefit from the very high resolution sensor. Not my choise.
Is that what Nikon users are doing with their 36 MP DSLRs? Wouldn't they just need to use a shutter speed that is higher than the reciprocity of the focal length to stop the vibration?
Yeah!!

I stand by my original comment and judging from other posts on here, quite a few would like a stills oriented, 36Mp camera with an OVF.

Is it worth starting a new thread, asking all who feel this way to add their name, effectively to a petition to Sony, along with comments?
It would be a step backwards for Sony. If the success of the evf was bad with their first slt, then yes, I'd agree and Sony would stop producing th Sony is a big enough company to make products for different segments of the market.ese cameras. The slt market is doing good for them. From a financial perspective, it's a step backwards.
Some of us have no use for video, or don't want them. Why can't Sony make a camera for people like us? If Sony came out with an OVF camera it doesn't mean that Sony is saying that the SLT is bad, just that they want to give people what they want.

Why does it have to be either or? Sony is big enough to make different products for different segments of a market.
Where in my reply did I state that people are saying that it's bad? Some actually do think that it's bad. But my point was a simple and clear one, minus the typos. Sony has decided to take a direction that most dslr are already doing. And that is video. Hell, I've read the upset posters that were against video on dslr, period. But now it's the norm and expected. That being said, Sony's approach to the evf direction imo is the best direction because it gives you better control of your video, while at the same time, gives you excellent control of your still images.
You've seem to think that Sony can only have one option in viewfinders. Sony has many different models of TVs, because not one size/price/technology fits everyone's needs or desire. Why can't Sony use that same philosophy in the ILC business? Why does Sony only have to be the EVF DSLT camera company?

You seem to be very threatened by the thought of Sony coming out with an OVF camera.
And you seem to over analyze things. Sony doing an ovf camera is not threaten me at all. It's not taking any money out of my pocket. With that being said, let's not go way in left field here. My reply is solely related to the direction that Sony is going in and nothing to do with how it's effecting me. We can both be dead and Sony will do what Sony wants to do. I'm looking at it from an economics point of view and not about me.

The television analogy. Televisions is much wider market than cameras. Well actually it's pretty close. They know that the market's there for those multiple televisions, just like there is a market for cameras. Just like the t.v. there are all types of markets. But like their t.v., Sony look at which ones are going to work and which ones aren't. In most cases, the consumer lower end cameras sell more.
Tell me, what do you do for a living? Are you sales/marketing? You have no idea what a company looks for when they come out with a product. It's not always about selling vast quantities of an item. Sony could be happy with selling a small quantity of an item, and make a little profit on it, if it gives them a foothold in a segment of a market that they want to penetrate.

Don't act like your POV is the only one that others have to follow.
 
Evildogofdoom wrote:

There is a market for FF Canon and Nikon OVF cameras. Apparently there wasn't for the A900 and A850. If Sony had see these great cameras as commercially successful, they would still be selling OVF cameras. Sony obviously feels that to break into the market, they need to offer something different.
Part of the reason is because Sony didn't really put any effort in marketing them, nor supporting them with the proper accessories.
 
moimoi wrote:
Michaels7 wrote:
Piginho wrote:

Read my posts properly.

All I want is for Sony to make me a 36Mp, FF, reflex mirror, OVF camera. An A900 with 36Mp sensor. Now, is that really too much to ask for?

Whatever arguments are raised to say Sony won't do it, if enough people ask for it, why shouldn't they?
I read your post both properly and replied to it properly. The problem is, we just don't agree. Like I'd stated already, if the masses are there, then Sony would see the justification in making an ovf. Change is a reality. And we'll see what those new full frame cameras will have. And I bet you that none of them will have an ovf.
That's actually untrue. Ask most manufacturers, they are still using massively the OVF route.

It is likely than more and more cameras will have EVF, but until they deliver crappy dynamic range , that will not do, at least for me.
 
cyainparadise wrote:
Michaels7 wrote:
Just because someone prefers an OVF, doesn't mean that they're 'afraid' of an EVF. Why are you AFRAID of Sony coming out with another OVF camera? If Sony were to come out with an OVF DSLR, it doesn't mean that they're abandoning the EVF. Sony should want to draw as many people to the A-mount camera, as long as it doesn't mean that they're going to spend huge amount of money to do so.
Point went over your head(s). I just basically reverse the assumption that was thrown at me regarding, "afraid" from that particular poster. I'm not afraid of anything. My cameras that I use in my example shows that. Like I'd already stated, I use more than one format. Some of those formats is large format film cameras. My sole point to him is that Sony's not going to do it because I don't see the masses for it that would economically benefit them. It's like the Big 3 having all of these additional car companies that weren't making them any money, that they got rid of.

The poster used the Nikon f6 to try make his point. Film is still big, but it's big among the hobbyist and fine arts photographers. Sony will stay consistent with the direction that they're going in. And that's the bottom line.
And, the point that I made went over your head. Sony is a big enough company that they can have both an EVF and OVF option.
No your point didn't go over my head. Hence the point of the detailed replies from me. If anything, there's denial. Sony's a big company that can do a lot of things. But like a small business, big businesses too will look at the bigger picture. You're not the only one that's part of that big picture. The big picture consist of, competition, consumers, future, constant change and much, much. much more. When you add all of those elements to the mix, you have to be a step ahead of the competition. Example, someone pointed out the A900 and A850 weren't making good sales in the ovf department. The person that replied to that stated that they didn't add other accessories to it. That's true. BUT, remember Sony stated, "When we do add video etc. we want to do it right." If Sony decided to go the ovf route with video, it probably would be just another ovf camera. Like Apple, Sony had to think outside the box and do something different in order to compete vs just being another dslr camera with video.
 
[No message]
 
cyainparadise wrote:
Michaels7 wrote:
cyainparadise wrote:
Michaels7 wrote:
cyainparadise wrote:
Michaels7 wrote:
Piginho wrote:
cyainparadise wrote:
Nordstjernen wrote:
Piginho wrote:

Sony, if you're listening, please make one of the three a full frame 36Mp with OVF (straight from A900 if you like) optimized for stills photography. Don't care if it has video or not.
Then you don't need 36 Mp since mirror vibration will destroy fine detail in a wide range of shutter speeds, or you need to work in MLU mode to benefit from the very high resolution sensor. Not my choise.
Is that what Nikon users are doing with their 36 MP DSLRs? Wouldn't they just need to use a shutter speed that is higher than the reciprocity of the focal length to stop the vibration?
Yeah!!

I stand by my original comment and judging from other posts on here, quite a few would like a stills oriented, 36Mp camera with an OVF.

Is it worth starting a new thread, asking all who feel this way to add their name, effectively to a petition to Sony, along with comments?
It would be a step backwards for Sony. If the success of the evf was bad with their first slt, then yes, I'd agree and Sony would stop producing th Sony is a big enough company to make products for different segments of the market.ese cameras. The slt market is doing good for them. From a financial perspective, it's a step backwards.
Some of us have no use for video, or don't want them. Why can't Sony make a camera for people like us? If Sony came out with an OVF camera it doesn't mean that Sony is saying that the SLT is bad, just that they want to give people what they want.

Why does it have to be either or? Sony is big enough to make different products for different segments of a market.
Where in my reply did I state that people are saying that it's bad? Some actually do think that it's bad. But my point was a simple and clear one, minus the typos. Sony has decided to take a direction that most dslr are already doing. And that is video. Hell, I've read the upset posters that were against video on dslr, period. But now it's the norm and expected. That being said, Sony's approach to the evf direction imo is the best direction because it gives you better control of your video, while at the same time, gives you excellent control of your still images.
You've seem to think that Sony can only have one option in viewfinders. Sony has many different models of TVs, because not one size/price/technology fits everyone's needs or desire. Why can't Sony use that same philosophy in the ILC business? Why does Sony only have to be the EVF DSLT camera company?

You seem to be very threatened by the thought of Sony coming out with an OVF camera.
And you seem to over analyze things. Sony doing an ovf camera is not threaten me at all. It's not taking any money out of my pocket. With that being said, let's not go way in left field here. My reply is solely related to the direction that Sony is going in and nothing to do with how it's effecting me. We can both be dead and Sony will do what Sony wants to do. I'm looking at it from an economics point of view and not about me.

The television analogy. Televisions is much wider market than cameras. Well actually it's pretty close. They know that the market's there for those multiple televisions, just like there is a market for cameras. Just like the t.v. there are all types of markets. But like their t.v., Sony look at which ones are going to work and which ones aren't. In most cases, the consumer lower end cameras sell more.
Tell me, what do you do for a living? Are you sales/marketing? You have no idea what a company looks for when they come out with a product. It's not always about selling vast quantities of an item. Sony could be happy with selling a small quantity of an item, and make a little profit on it, if it gives them a foothold in a segment of a market that they want to penetrate.

Don't act like your POV is the only one that others have to follow.
Wow. Talk about going on the defense here. You shouldn't be so sensitive here. Don't worry, Sony's not going to take ovf camera away from you. Lol.

What do I do for a living. Hmmmmmm. Let's see. I'm fashion and commercial shooter. Marketing and sales. I have a background in that too. I have no idea on what a company looks for? What a company looks for is common sense if you understand the market that they're.
 
cyainparadise wrote:
Sam_Oslo wrote:
johnbee wrote:

One of which is a high MP system due for a 2013 release that is currently being tested it on the field at this time.
Probably a 36MP Alpha will be among the early spring camera shoot out, lets hope it has a 4k video capability too sine the 4k is fast becoming the new standard on Sony TVs.
Have you looked at the prices of Sony's 4K UHDTV? UHDTV is only going to be used for very large screens, as people have been putting in TVs in their homes, and then watching at a distance that they could see the pixels on a 1080P screen.

While Sony will be dropping the prices, UHDTV doesn't make sense for smaller screen sizes.
They said 1080p wouldn't be on anything smaller than a 40" TV also...now look. HTC Droid DNA is a 5" screen with 1080p HD screen. It's only a matter of time.
 
Michaels7 wrote:
cyainparadise wrote:
Michaels7 wrote:
Just because someone prefers an OVF, doesn't mean that they're 'afraid' of an EVF. Why are you AFRAID of Sony coming out with another OVF camera? If Sony were to come out with an OVF DSLR, it doesn't mean that they're abandoning the EVF. Sony should want to draw as many people to the A-mount camera, as long as it doesn't mean that they're going to spend huge amount of money to do so.
Point went over your head(s). I just basically reverse the assumption that was thrown at me regarding, "afraid" from that particular poster. I'm not afraid of anything. My cameras that I use in my example shows that. Like I'd already stated, I use more than one format. Some of those formats is large format film cameras. My sole point to him is that Sony's not going to do it because I don't see the masses for it that would economically benefit them. It's like the Big 3 having all of these additional car companies that weren't making them any money, that they got rid of.

The poster used the Nikon f6 to try make his point. Film is still big, but it's big among the hobbyist and fine arts photographers. Sony will stay consistent with the direction that they're going in. And that's the bottom line.
And, the point that I made went over your head. Sony is a big enough company that they can have both an EVF and OVF option.
No your point didn't go over my head. Hence the point of the detailed replies from me. If anything, there's denial. Sony's a big company that can do a lot of things. But like a small business, big businesses too will look at the bigger picture. You're not the only one that's part of that big picture. The big picture consist of, competition, consumers, future, constant change and much, much. much more. When you add all of those elements to the mix, you have to be a step ahead of the competition. Example, someone pointed out the A900 and A850 weren't making good sales in the ovf department. The person that replied to that stated that they didn't add other accessories to it. That's true. BUT, remember Sony stated, "When we do add video etc. we want to do it right." If Sony decided to go the ovf route with video, it probably would be just another ovf camera. Like Apple, Sony had to think outside the box and do something different in order to compete vs just being another dslr camera with video.
Not everyone wants video in their cameras. I have a smartphone and a P&S camera if I want to shoot video.

I want to be like Ansel Adams, not Federico Fellini. I consider myself to be a photographer, not a videographer. Why can't you accept that. Why are you trying to stuff video down the throats of people who don't want it?
 
Michaels7 wrote:
cyainparadise wrote:
Michaels7 wrote:
cyainparadise wrote:
Michaels7 wrote:
cyainparadise wrote:
Michaels7 wrote:
Piginho wrote:
cyainparadise wrote:
Nordstjernen wrote:
Piginho wrote:

Sony, if you're listening, please make one of the three a full frame 36Mp with OVF (straight from A900 if you like) optimized for stills photography. Don't care if it has video or not.
Then you don't need 36 Mp since mirror vibration will destroy fine detail in a wide range of shutter speeds, or you need to work in MLU mode to benefit from the very high resolution sensor. Not my choise.
Is that what Nikon users are doing with their 36 MP DSLRs? Wouldn't they just need to use a shutter speed that is higher than the reciprocity of the focal length to stop the vibration?
Yeah!!

I stand by my original comment and judging from other posts on here, quite a few would like a stills oriented, 36Mp camera with an OVF.

Is it worth starting a new thread, asking all who feel this way to add their name, effectively to a petition to Sony, along with comments?
It would be a step backwards for Sony. If the success of the evf was bad with their first slt, then yes, I'd agree and Sony would stop producing th Sony is a big enough company to make products for different segments of the market.ese cameras. The slt market is doing good for them. From a financial perspective, it's a step backwards.
Some of us have no use for video, or don't want them. Why can't Sony make a camera for people like us? If Sony came out with an OVF camera it doesn't mean that Sony is saying that the SLT is bad, just that they want to give people what they want.

Why does it have to be either or? Sony is big enough to make different products for different segments of a market.
Where in my reply did I state that people are saying that it's bad? Some actually do think that it's bad. But my point was a simple and clear one, minus the typos. Sony has decided to take a direction that most dslr are already doing. And that is video. Hell, I've read the upset posters that were against video on dslr, period. But now it's the norm and expected. That being said, Sony's approach to the evf direction imo is the best direction because it gives you better control of your video, while at the same time, gives you excellent control of your still images.
You've seem to think that Sony can only have one option in viewfinders. Sony has many different models of TVs, because not one size/price/technology fits everyone's needs or desire. Why can't Sony use that same philosophy in the ILC business? Why does Sony only have to be the EVF DSLT camera company?

You seem to be very threatened by the thought of Sony coming out with an OVF camera.
And you seem to over analyze things. Sony doing an ovf camera is not threaten me at all. It's not taking any money out of my pocket. With that being said, let's not go way in left field here. My reply is solely related to the direction that Sony is going in and nothing to do with how it's effecting me. We can both be dead and Sony will do what Sony wants to do. I'm looking at it from an economics point of view and not about me.

The television analogy. Televisions is much wider market than cameras. Well actually it's pretty close. They know that the market's there for those multiple televisions, just like there is a market for cameras. Just like the t.v. there are all types of markets. But like their t.v., Sony look at which ones are going to work and which ones aren't. In most cases, the consumer lower end cameras sell more.
Tell me, what do you do for a living? Are you sales/marketing? You have no idea what a company looks for when they come out with a product. It's not always about selling vast quantities of an item. Sony could be happy with selling a small quantity of an item, and make a little profit on it, if it gives them a foothold in a segment of a market that they want to penetrate.

Don't act like your POV is the only one that others have to follow.
Wow. Talk about going on the defense here. You shouldn't be so sensitive here. Don't worry, Sony's not going to take ovf camera away from you. Lol.

What do I do for a living. Hmmmmmm. Let's see. I'm fashion and commercial shooter. Marketing and sales. I have a background in that too. I have no idea on what a company looks for? What a company looks for is common sense if you understand the market that they're.
If anyone's being defensive, it's you. You can't seem to accept that not everyone wants or shoots video.
 

Keyboard shortcuts

Back
Top