Epson V600 vs V700 vs ? - scan 35mm (mounted) slides

Erik Magnuson · Aug 12, 2011

Wayne Larmon said:
Eh? I was quoting the V700 review on the FilmScanner.info site. He is the one that rated the V700 as only giving about 7 megapixels.

That's 7 MP measured resolution. I do the math above/below to show that the "measured resolution" equivalent of your 60D is only about 10MP -- if you also account for an entire optical & processing system.

Wayne Larmon said:
A 20D is a common digital camera whose resolution is greater than 7 megapixels. Your quarrel is with him, not me.

It would take about a 12mp camera to get 2300+ measured dpi. Still common but 2 generations newer than a 20D.

Wayne Larmon said:
And the layer of glass between the slide and the optics.

That's part of the optical path of the system, so it's included in the measured data from the scanner review.

Wayne Larmon said:
With the XTend-a-Slide my slides are perfectly aligned with the lens. The slides are also as flat when they are mounted in the XTend-a-Slide as they are when mounted in a scanner.

If you'd mentioned the specifics instead of generalities at the start your comments would have been more relevant. You need to have to have a specific setup to get your results and would need to include the setup time to make the total time to scan N images the same. It may not be a lot but if you don't have dedicated space, then it's get our the lights and tripod, setup, and run a test image. A scanner takes dedicated deskspace instead of other space. For me, it's just power on, start the SW, and insert the slide. The total time spent also depends on how much you like to tweak. If you are scanning a lot of different emulsions of different dyes and fading, the scanner may be quicker to tweak. (That's the other part of the OP's issue you glossed over - the problems of old slides.)

Wayne Larmon said:
If you want to derate the DSLR because of AA and demosaicking issues, modern 16-24 megapixel DSLRs (that are all long in the tooth and will be replaced with higher resolution models shortly) will still beat 7 megapixels. I don't think that anybody claims that modern DSLRs have less than 8 actual megapixels.

My point was only the resolution you can actually deliver to a file is a lot closer than your numbers implied (e.g., ~10MP as measured for the 60D vs. 7MP as measured on the 750.). The next generation of cameras will come closer to your promise.

Wayne Larmon said:
Scanners are a dead end. DSLRs are improving by leaps and bounds.

That's true. Of course in the real world, few old 35mm slides actually have that much detail for it to matter (exceptions would be if the photographer typically used only the best lenses and a tripod.)

Wayne Larmon said:
Nailing exposure isn't difficult. It isn't like the slides are running around. The XTend-a-Slide is a sealed chamber between the front of the lens and the face of the slide, so I don't see where reflections would come from.

Presumably the inside of the tube is flocked. But in either case, old slides will have even less DR than the scanner or the camera.

Wayne Larmon said:
This is I will yield on if you can get ICE type auto-dust/scratch removal to work. I tried a bunch of times with my V600 and only got about a 10% success rate.

The Nikon HW + vuescan implementation is much better. I'd need to test if vuescan does better on the Epson than the native SW.

Wayne Larmon said:
??? I quoted a review for the scanner resolution and then listed the manufacturer's megapixel rating for a DSLR.

Exactly my point. If DSLRs typically resolved to the Nyquist limit, then that could be a valid comparison. But since they don't, it would be best to compare measurements to measurements.

Wayne Larmon said:
I have to go out shortly. When I return, I'll post images from a Kodak IT-8 target. Kodak IT-8 targets are readily available and anybody can duplicate the tests.

IT-8 targets don't have resolution scales - you can only measure resolution by going past it to finding the actual limit. I don't dispute that your setup is noticeably higher resolution than the Epson V600 and even the V750. But your estimates were much too high for what a real would test would likely show.

--
Erik

Wayne Larmon · Aug 12, 2011

(This had to be split into two posts.)

Erik Magnuson said:
Wayne Larmon said:

Eh? I was quoting the V700 review on the FilmScanner.info site. He is the one that rated the V700 as only giving about 7 megapixels.

Click to expand...

That's 7 MP measured resolution. I do the math above/below to show that the "measured resolution" equivalent of your 60D is only about 10MP -- if you also account for an entire optical & processing system.

I'm not going to argue this point. We get into Angels-dancing-on-pins territory. I can bring up that Epson scanners don't come with precision height adjusters (for focus) and people have to know enough to buy one from a third party.

Member said:
Member said:

With the XTend-a-Slide my slides are perfectly aligned with the lens. The slides are also as flat when they are mounted in the XTend-a-Slide as they are when mounted in a scanner.

Click to expand...

If you'd mentioned the specifics instead of generalities at the start your comments would have been more relevant.

I already explained and apologized for that post. And have already apologized for being too cryptic with my first post.

Member said:
You need to have to have a specific setup to get your results and would need to include the setup time to make the total time to scan N images the same. It may not be a lot but if you don't have dedicated space, then it's get our the lights and tripod, setup, and run a test image. A scanner takes dedicated deskspace instead of other space. For me, it's just power on, start the SW, and insert the slide.

This is true, but the OP indicated that he had a lot of slides to scan, so I was speaking in this context. That set-up time was negligible compared to the entire job of digitizing a large collection of slides. But scanning time with a V700 set to 6400 PPI decidedly isn't negligible.

Member said:
The total time spent also depends on how much you like to tweak. If you are scanning a lot of different emulsions of different dyes and fading, the scanner may be quicker to tweak. (That's the other part of the OP's issue you glossed over - the problems of old slides.)

I am very well aware of the issues with old slides, because my family is not a family of photographers. Our slides were stored on the cement floor of a damp basement for about 40 years.

When I scan with the V600, I use VueScan Professional. Personally, I find that it is easier to wrangle faded, hue shifted, molded, fungus laden slides with ACR + CS5 than it is with VueScan. More on dust below.

Member said:
Member said:

If you want to derate the DSLR because of AA and demosaicking issues, modern 16-24 megapixel DSLRs (that are all long in the tooth and will be replaced with higher resolution models shortly) will still beat 7 megapixels. I don't think that anybody claims that modern DSLRs have less than 8 actual megapixels.

Click to expand...

My point was only the resolution you can actually deliver to a file is a lot closer than your numbers implied (e.g., ~10MP as measured for the 60D vs. 7MP as measured on the 750.). The next generation of cameras will come closer to your promise.

And the current generation of FF DSLRs already do,

The point of my peevishness in my first post is that it seems (now I'm talking about multiple threads on multiple forums) that people only consider scanners and don't consider DSLRs. Once upon a time, anything SLR related wasn't competitive with a half decent scanner. Open loop phase detect AF is not suited to focusing on flat subjects. Compared to closed loop contrast detect AF. And manual focusing with an optical viewfinder doesn't hold a candle to manual focusing with magnified live view.

Look at these posts by "tokengirl" about digitizing negatives with a 5D II:

http://www.luminous-landscape.com/forum/index.php?topic=49705.msg413520#msg413520

Her 2nd post has an image sample

http://www.luminous-landscape.com/forum/index.php?topic=49705.msg416821#msg416821

---- End of part one. Continued in part two -----

Wayne Larmon · Aug 12, 2011

---- Continued from part one --------------

Erik Magnuson said:
Wayne Larmon said:

Nailing exposure isn't difficult. It isn't like the slides are running around. The XTend-a-Slide is a sealed chamber between the front of the lens and the face of the slide, so I don't see where reflections would come from.

Click to expand...

Presumably the inside of the tube is flocked.

No it isn't and this is a good point. I'll suggest this to the owner of PhotoSolve.

Member said:
But in either case, old slides will have even less DR than the scanner or the camera.

Umm, I end up doing a lot of torturous curve twisting when trying to recover faded, hue shifted, slides that are also grossly underexposed. This is where I really appreciate the 11.5 bits that the 60D gives me and I look longingly at the DSLRs with the new Sony sensor that have a few bits beyond that (at ISO 100), like the Nikon D7000.

Member said:
Member said:

This is I will yield on if you can get ICE type auto-dust/scratch removal to work. I tried a bunch of times with my V600 and only got about a 10% success rate.

Click to expand...

The Nikon HW + vuescan implementation is much better. I'd need to test if vuescan does better on the Epson than the native SW.

I tried both Epson and Vuescan software. I tried all three combinations of IR dust removal that Vuescan has. They caused damage too often to justify the time wasted in rescanning with IR repair turned off. Particularly because I also multi-tasked while waiting for scans. By the time I discovered that ICE had made a hash of things, the scanner was busy scanning the next batch of slides. It was a royal pain to disrupt the workflow to go back and rescan.

Member said:
Member said:

I have to go out shortly. When I return, I'll post images from a Kodak IT-8 target. Kodak IT-8 targets are readily available and anybody can duplicate the tests.

Click to expand...

IT-8 targets don't have resolution scales - you can only measure resolution by going past it to finding the actual limit. I don't dispute that your setup is noticeably higher resolution than the Epson V600 and even the V750. But your estimates were much too high for what a real would test would likely show.

They don't have resolution scales, but they do have grain. My 60D shows the grain in detail. The V600 only resolves mush. I was referring to an IT-8 target because they are relatively cheap and are easy to get

Kodak IT8 35mm Transparency Target $39.95
http://www.adorama.com/IKKIT835.html

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/172321-REG/Kodak_8752222_Q_60E3_Target_35mm_Ektachrome.html

(Temporarily out of stock at B&H, but this is where I got mine a few months ago.)

I was trying to find something that was easy to get and didn't cost an arm and a leg. Can you suggest a better target? I would really like to see comparisons between scanners and DSLRs using a standard target.

This is the problem: that the sites that test scanners don't also test against modern DSLRs, so it is difficult to make comparisons (as you have pointed out.)

Wayne

Erik Magnuson · Aug 12, 2011

Wayne Larmon said:
I can bring up that Epson scanners don't come with precision height adjusters (for focus) and people have to know enough to buy one from a third party.

Since the reviewer did not use one of these adapters either, that's also accounted for in the stated figure.=

Wayne Larmon said:
This is true, but the OP indicated that he had a lot of slides to scan, so I was speaking in this context. That set-up time was negligible compared to the entire job of digitizing a large collection of slides.

It doesn't sound like he intended on doing it all in one day or even one week.

Wayne Larmon said:
But scanning time with a V700 set to 6400 PPI decidedly isn't negligible.

This review left out the measured resolution at other scanning resolutions (e.g. 3200 dpi and 4800dpi) but you could trade some speed for some resolution. The scanning time is unattended time - you can walk away or do something else on the computer.

Wayne Larmon said:
When I scan with the V600, I use VueScan Professional. Personally, I find that it is easier to wrangle faded, hue shifted, molded, fungus laden slides with ACR + CS5 than it is with VueScan.

You can do that with the scanner if you prefer.

Wayne Larmon said:
And the current generation of FF DSLRs already do,

Those DLSRs cost more than even a Coolscan V.

Wayne Larmon said:
The point of my peevishness in my first post is that it seems (now I'm talking about multiple threads on multiple forums) that people only consider scanners and don't consider DSLRs.

Yes, times have changed and that's worth pointing out - just don't oversell it. BTW, one area where scanners really fall down is with underexposed slides - they just do not have the sensitivity and exposure control of a camera sensor and keeping noise out is a problem - multipass really increases the scan times.

--
Erik

Erik Magnuson · Aug 12, 2011

Wayne Larmon said:
Umm, I end up doing a lot of torturous curve twisting when trying to recover faded, hue shifted, slides that are also grossly underexposed.

Yes, grossly underexposed slides really favor the camera solution.

Wayne Larmon said:
They don't have resolution scales, but they do have grain. My 60D shows the grain in detail. The V600 only resolves mush. I was referring to an IT-8 target because they are relatively cheap and are easy to get

That only shows that the camera out resolved the scanner but not by how much.

Wayne Larmon said:
I was trying to find something that was easy to get and didn't cost an arm and a leg. Can you suggest a better target? I would really like to see comparisons between scanners and DSLRs using a standard target.

No. I've though about imaging a ISO-type test target on 35mm microfilm using a few different cameras/lenses. I have the microfilm but not enough round 'tuits saved up to do the test. While this would not measure the scanner or camera duplicator alone, it probably would show real world limits of what will make it into the final file.

--
Erik

Kenneth Sloan · Aug 13, 2011

Wayne Larmon said:
They don't have resolution scales, but they do have grain.

Your color slides have grain? Oh dear...

--
-Kenneth Sloan

Wayne Larmon · Aug 13, 2011

Erik Magnuson said:
Wayne Larmon said:

The point of my peevishness in my first post is that it seems (now I'm talking about multiple threads on multiple forums) that people only consider scanners and don't consider DSLRs.

Click to expand...

Yes, times have changed and that's worth pointing out - just don't oversell it.

I got lost trying to figure out how to reply to the three posts that the two of us currently have open. How about we leave it with your last thought?

Yes, I did oversell the DSLR approach somewhat, for the reasons you pointed out. I cast the DSLR approach in the best light and didn't mention issues where the scanner approach is superior.

Unfortunately, there isn't any single site that compares the scanners that are currently on the market with SOTA DSLR digitizing. There are many issues to be considered, such that any single forum post can't cover all the issues. I couldn't have discussed all the issues that you brought up in a single 6,000 character forum post.

One reason why a lot of forum discussions are futile is because of the lack of reproducity of a lot of the claims. If there isn't an affordable, uniform standard target, then it is impossible to reproduce any test results. And we are left grasping at straws attempting to extrapolate from whatever published test results exists.

But "times have changed" and (for 35mm film/slides only) the DSLR/macro lens approach (with a precision slide mount and with live view/contrast detection focus) has now achieved parity with the SOTA of scanners. In August of 2011. Crop cameras can equal or beat any flatbed scanner and FF cameras can (maybe?) equal or beat the (long discontinued) Nikon/Minolta film scanners. (Not sure about the Plustek 7600i scanner, but that has severe workflow issues because it only scans a single image at a time.)

It is too bad that none of the existing testing sites have compared digitizing slides with current DSLRs and with the scanners that are currently on the market. There are a lot of people that have collections of 35mm slides that need digitizing and they would be better served if there was a single site that examined all the issues.

Wayne

Wayne Larmon · Aug 13, 2011

Kenneth Sloan said:
Wayne Larmon said:

They don't have resolution scales, but they do have grain.

Click to expand...

Your color slides have grain? Oh dear...

I thought that all film has grain, does it not? But I was specifically referring to a

Kodak IT8 35mm Transparency Target $39.95
http://www.adorama.com/IKKIT835.html
Kodak #Q-60E3 Color Calibration Target- 35mm Ektachrome Film (IT-8)

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/172321-REG/Kodak_8752222_Q_60E3_Target_35mm_Ektachrome.html

My 60D resolves the grain. My V600 doesn't. You can get one of these targets and see if your V700 can resolve the grain.

And you can use it to profile your scanner for Ektachrome. There is also one for Kodachrome

Kodak #Q-60K3 Color Calibration Target- 35mm Kodachrome Slide (IT-8)

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/276295-REG/Kodak_1575141_Q_60K3_Target_35mm_Kodachrome.html

Vuescan Professional and some versions of Silverfast support profiling with IT-8 targets. I don't think the Epson software does.

And before Erik jumps in to point out that I am leaving something out, I should also mention that I can't profile my DSLR with any of these targets. At least not with any software that I have. My DSLR profiling software only works with XRite ColorChecker charts and I don't think there are any 35mm slide ColorChecker targets. So profiling is advantage scanner.

Wayne

Erik Magnuson · Aug 14, 2011

Wayne Larmon said:
(Not sure about the Plustek 7600i scanner, but that has severe workflow issues because it only scans a single image at a time.)

3250dpi according to http://www.filmscanner.info/en/PlustekOpticFilm7600i.html , so not up the older standard.

The issue with lower cast scanners is they are typically optically limited rather than sensor limited. This means that even when the measured dpi is similar, the scans have low accutance and don't look as sharp or detailed. You can apply more sharpening but that has its own issues. The old Nikon scanners are sensor limited - they have very high edge sharpness right down to the sensor limit.

--
Erik

Wayne Larmon · Aug 14, 2011

JulesJ said:
Wayne Larmon said:

Kenneth Sloan said:

If you had read the original posting, you would not have made such a silly reply.

Click to expand...

I read it. You mentioned that you had a lot of slides to scan. And you were concerned about DMax.

Scanning with the V700 is very slow compared to shooting slides with a camera, as you are finding out. As far as DMax, the V700 only has 8 bits of dynamic range, at best. See
http://www.photo-i.co.uk/Reviews/interactive/Epson%20V700/page_7.htm

Click to expand...

What's the point of comparing the DR of your flashy ne digital camera with his negs/slides? It's completely irrelevant to this discussion.

Hi Jules. Sorry I missed this when you posted this.

It is relevant because I'm comparing two methods of digitizing a slide.

1. with an Epson V700 scanner, that apparently only delivers 8 bits of real data even if you scan in 16 bit mode (according to the review I linked to, above.)

2. by shooting a slide with a DSLR, a 60D in my case. I quoted the number of bits of valid data that DxOMark said that a 60D RAW file has.

More bits is better. DMax and density are film parameters. Once an image has been digitized, regardless if it was digitized with a scanner or was digitized with a DSLR, it is a digital image. Number-of-bits-of-valid-data is a digital parameter and is directly comparable when comparing the performence of a scanner vs. the performence of a DSLR.

In general, needing more than 8 bits is only an issue if you need to do radical tonal or color corrections. If you do your corrections and see posterization, you didn't have enough bits of valid data. If you don't see posterization after doing your corrections, then you had enough bits.

Example: my computer is four years old and is sluggish when processing 18 megabyte 60D RAW files at 16 buts, so I have ACR normally set to deliver 8 bit files. The first thing I do after RAW conversion is do the tonal and color corrections I feel the image needs. If the image looks OK, then good--=I go with the 8 bit version. But if I see posterization, then I go back to ACR and configure it to convert 16 bit images. Then when I do my tonal and color conversions, I see less (or no) posterization, because the 16 bit image has more bits of valid data.

As Erik has pointed out elsewhere in the thread, the comparison has many issues and the number of bits of valid data that a digitizing device is capable of delivering is only one parameter.

Wayne

Kenneth Sloan · Aug 19, 2011

Kenneth Sloan said:
Besides the difference in DMax, the V700 will do 12 at a time, while the V600 will only do 4 at a time. Will that really help if I am picky about framing? (that is - is there an auto-crop "feature" that I will be fighting with). If I am tweaking at the keyboard while the next batch are scanning - am I likely to be limited by my tweaking or the scanning (and is it different for 4 vs 12?) [I know - it depends on how picky I am - but if you have done this please try to estimate]. I prefer to be in "scan only" mode for awhile - and then tweak the entire batch later. I will have no trouble finding other tasks to work on while the scanner is grinding away (although...is is possible to purchase an extra "carrier" so that I can keep the scanner busy?)

This has turned out to be the big win for the V700. I'm scanning ancient Kodachromes from 1976 right now - all stored in plastic slide pages. The most time consuming activity (for ME) is taking the slides out fo the slide page, and inserting them in the slide carrier. A quick blast from some compressed air and they go on the scanner. It then takes about 1 minute to pre-scan, tweak the exposure level, type in the name of the folder where the .jpgs are going, and hit "scan".

then - I have 40 minutes to actually get real work done.

I rarely have to adjust the auto-framing - the V700 appears to very slightly overscan the image area for a typical cardboard mounted slide.

With the V600, I would have only about 10 minutes before it was time to do it all again (or, more likely, I would get only 1/3 as many slides scanned each day).

I'm very happy with the workflow, and very happy with the results I'm getting. 98% of these slides will be acceptable "as-is" - the others look like they have more than enough bits to play with when I finally get around to tweaking them.

2 notebooks down.....10 linear feet of shelf space to go...

and then...when I hit the era where I switched to color negative film, I'll have to figure out how to get that done as smoothly.

--
-Kenneth Sloan

Phototechnics · Jun 12, 2015

just a note to all

I have used a V600 for years and decided to upgrade to the 700 because I still have many more negatives and slides from the past to scan.

When I purchased the V700 I thought just for kicks to scan the same negative on both machines at the same exact settings to compare

to my amazement the 600 produced a better image..

I have worked with Epson to tray and see what was the case.. they have been great however after replacing the machine I bought, trying different settings, the holders for the 700 have different height settings, we even switched out the holders and tried the V800 holders.

the V700 result is just not sharp see below

Conclusion Epson took a great V600 and the so called improvements did not work

the V600

the V700

D Cox · Jun 13, 2015

Phototechnics said:
just a note to all

I have used a V600 for years and decided to upgrade to the 700 because I still have many more negatives and slides from the past to scan.

When I purchased the V700 I thought just for kicks to scan the same negative on both machines at the same exact settings to compare

to my amazement the 600 produced a better image..

I have worked with Epson to tray and see what was the case.. they have been great however after replacing the machine I bought, trying different settings, the holders for the 700 have different height settings, we even switched out the holders and tried the V800 holders.

the V700 result is just not sharp see below

Conclusion Epson took a great V600 and the so called improvements did not work.

I have a V750. It is OK for medium and large format, but not good enough for 35mm. Also it is very slow.

The best way to digitize 35mm film is with a camera. For colour, many mirrorless or DSLR camera will do, provided you use a suitable macro lens. 16 Megapixels is enough for most colour films, but Kodachrome needs more -- perhaps 24 Mpix.

Black-and-white negs require very high resolution if you want crisp grain (such as you would get in a good print made in the wet darkroom). Two cameras to consider for this are the Olympus E-M5 II, with its special high resolution mode, and the newly announced Sony A7rII (which is very expensive).

A camera can be critically focussed and is ten times as fast as a scanner.

christom · Jun 13, 2015

D Cox said:
Phototechnics said:

just a note to all

I have used a V600 for years and decided to upgrade to the 700 because I still have many more negatives and slides from the past to scan.

When I purchased the V700 I thought just for kicks to scan the same negative on both machines at the same exact settings to compare

to my amazement the 600 produced a better image..

I have worked with Epson to tray and see what was the case.. they have been great however after replacing the machine I bought, trying different settings, the holders for the 700 have different height settings, we even switched out the holders and tried the V800 holders.

the V700 result is just not sharp see below

Conclusion Epson took a great V600 and the so called improvements did not work.

Click to expand...

I have a V750. It is OK for medium and large format, but not good enough for 35mm. Also it is very slow.

The best way to digitize 35mm film is with a camera. For colour, many mirrorless or DSLR camera will do, provided you use a suitable macro lens. 16 Megapixels is enough for most colour films, but Kodachrome needs more -- perhaps 24 Mpix.

Black-and-white negs require very high resolution if you want crisp grain (such as you would get in a good print made in the wet darkroom). Two cameras to consider for this are the Olympus E-M5 II, with its special high resolution mode, and the newly announced Sony A7rII (which is very expensive).

A camera can be critically focussed and is ten times as fast as a scanner.

If you are dealing with slides and just black and white negatives. For color negative film you Also have to also consider the time it will take to color correct each image and for spotting. My old Canon FS4000 film scanner takes around five minutes to scan just one frame at 4000dpi with infrared dust correction. But, in most cases, once the scan is done there is little to nothing else that needs to be done with the image. You could spend far more time with a camera "scan" trying to get something useful out of it, not to mention the huge amount of time it could take to spot each frame.

To the OP, the HP S20 was my first film scanner. If you are OK with its quality, which was actually quite good, then why not buy a used one? It was a nifty little slide scanner that didn't require a film holder and that did a good job of keep film flat, unlike most film holders.

stefpix · Aug 17, 2016

D Cox said:
I have a V750. It is OK for medium and large format, but not good enough for 35mm. Also it is very slow.

The best way to digitize 35mm film is with a camera. For colour, many mirrorless or DSLR camera will do, provided you use a suitable macro lens. 16 Megapixels is enough for most colour films, but Kodachrome needs more -- perhaps 24 Mpix.

Black-and-white negs require very high resolution if you want crisp grain (such as you would get in a good print made in the wet darkroom). Two cameras to consider for this are the Olympus E-M5 II, with its special high resolution mode, and the newly announced Sony A7rII (which is very expensive).

A camera can be critically focussed and is ten times as fast as a scanner.

I'd like to go down that road.

2 issues:

- most of the adapters seem to be made to house slides but not neg strips (Nikon ES-1 which otherwise would be perfect)

- how to deal with the orange mask of color negatives in LR. Scanners seem to deal wth inverting and correcting the orange mask more readily.

I am considering the Epson V550 or some Plustek, but I believe with a Sony A7 and a Minolta 50 macro or a Micro Nikkor 55mm I could be better off.

thank you

stefano

Search

Epson V600 vs V700 vs ? - scan 35mm (mounted) slides

Erik Magnuson

Guest

Wayne Larmon

Forum Pro

Wayne Larmon

Forum Pro

Erik Magnuson

Guest

Erik Magnuson

Guest

Kenneth Sloan

Forum Enthusiast

Wayne Larmon

Forum Pro

Wayne Larmon

Forum Pro

Erik Magnuson

Guest

Wayne Larmon

Forum Pro

Kenneth Sloan

Forum Enthusiast

Phototechnics

New member

D Cox

Forum Pro

christom

Senior Member

stefpix

Well-known member

Similar threads

Keyboard shortcuts