Any wild speculations about the color quality of the D500?

Mark S Abeln · Jan 5, 2016

The Nikon D200, D300, and D700 cameras are well-regarded for having good color, more so than newer cameras such as the D800, D7000, or D4. Every newer generation of cameras, some think, renders colors more poorly than the previous one, most especially with portraiture, with the D800 sometimes being a target of complaint for producing blotchy skin hues.

However, color accuracy should not be confused with color depth, which modern cameras certainly excel at. It's a matter of precision versus accuracy.

Now I happen to think that this isn't just a codgerly reaction against the new, always pining away for the good ol' days, but rather I think it can be objectively proven. Possibly, the reason for this decline is part of an attempt to provide better high ISO performance. See this post:

Loading…

www.dpreview.com

I might add that the same downward trend is found in many Canon cameras.

The decline in color accuracy has lately been bucked by the D7200, which apparently is as good or better than any Nikon digital camera ever made, although I haven't experience with this camera so I can't say for sure. I do know that my old D200, despite its high noise and low dynamic range, does produce luscious color, especially on a colorful autumn day, with great color separation, more so than my tepid D7000.

Does anyone have any wild speculation about the new D500, or even better, have inside knowledge? Will the trend towards cruddy color continue, or will the D500 recover the crown of chromaticity?

If it turns out that the D500 equals the fabled cameras of yore, would you consider this important?

yray · Jan 5, 2016

I just quoted Thom Hogan in another thread for the same reason, but I'll repost here:

"Besides a new Nikon-designed sensor, they’ve tweaked the color filter array to let through more light than previous designs. In particular, Nikon is claiming “unprecedented” image quality in the ISO 3200 to ISO 12,800 range." (http://www.dslrbodies.com/newsviews/nikon-goes-back-to-the.html)

I agree with your overall assessment, and this may very well be the make or break question for me.

Mark S Abeln · Jan 5, 2016

yray said:
I just quoted Thom Hogan in another thread for the same reason, but I'll repost here:

"Besides a new Nikon-designed sensor, they’ve tweaked the color filter array to let through more light than previous designs. In particular, Nikon is claiming “unprecedented” image quality in the ISO 3200 to ISO 12,800 range." (http://www.dslrbodies.com/newsviews/nikon-goes-back-to-the.html)

Well that's interesting. But I'd expect a Dx camera to excel at high ISO for photojournalist work. But this might not be the camera to use for product photography where good color is essential. I guess we will just have to wait and see. I've heard complaints about the quality of color of the D4 compared to the D3 cameras.

[I used a D7000 for a particularly color sensitive client who really objected to the color rendering of that camera. Many hours of color retouching was needed.]

yray said:
I agree with your overall assessment, and this may very well be the make or break question for me.

The D500 has a slightly lower maximum ISO value. Is this due purely due to the sensor size, or might this also be influenced by a different formulation of the color filters?

yray · Jan 5, 2016

Mark Scott Abeln said:
yray said:

I just quoted Thom Hogan in another thread for the same reason, but I'll repost here:

"Besides a new Nikon-designed sensor, they’ve tweaked the color filter array to let through more light than previous designs. In particular, Nikon is claiming “unprecedented” image quality in the ISO 3200 to ISO 12,800 range." (http://www.dslrbodies.com/newsviews/nikon-goes-back-to-the.html)

Click to expand...

Well that's interesting. But I'd expect a Dx camera to excel at high ISO for photojournalist work. But this might not be the camera to use for product photography where good color is essential. I guess we will just have to wait and see. I've heard complaints about the quality of color of the D4 compared to the D3 cameras.

[I used a D7000 for a particularly color sensitive client who really objected to the color rendering of that camera. Many hours of color retouching was needed.]

In my experience D7000 is particularly problematic in this regard, I pretty much stopped using it in large part because of the color.

Mark S Abeln said:
Mark S Abeln said:

I agree with your overall assessment, and this may very well be the make or break question for me.

Click to expand...

The D500 has a slightly lower maximum ISO value. Is this due purely due to the sensor size, or might this also be influenced by a different formulation of the color filters?

The sensor size has to be a factor. I don't think we know anything about the D500 color filters for a fact yet.

Mark S Abeln said:
--
http://therefractedlight.blogspot.com

Batdude · Jan 5, 2016

Mark Scott Abeln said:
The Nikon D200, D300, and D700 cameras are well-regarded for having good color, more so than newer cameras such as the D800, D7000, or D4. Every newer generation of cameras, some think, renders colors more poorly than the previous one, most especially with portraiture, with the D800 sometimes being a target of complaint for producing blotchy skin hues.

For portraiture, the D7000 was THE worse camera I have ever used. The skin tones are just horrible. I can't speak for the other models you mentioned because I haven't used them.

Mark S Abeln said:
However, color accuracy should not be confused with color depth, which modern cameras certainly excel at. It's a matter ofprecision versus accuracy.

Now I happen to think that this isn't just a codgerly reaction against the new, always pining away for the good ol' days, but rather I think it can be objectively proven. Possibly, the reason for this decline is part of an attempt to provide better high ISO performance. See this post:

http://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/57020455

I might add that the same downward trend is found in many Canon cameras.

The decline in color accuracy has lately been bucked by the D7200, which apparently is as good or better than any Nikon digital camera ever made, although I haven't experience with this camera so I can't say for sure. I do know that my old D200, despite its high noise and low dynamic range, does produce luscious color, especially on a colorful autumn day, with great color separation, more so than my tepid D7000.

I haven't used a D7200, but I still see some very unpleasant flat looking skin tones from it mainly tan looking skin tones, not much better than the D7000 I will tell ya.

Mark S Abeln said:
Does anyone have any wild speculation about the new D500, or even better, have inside knowledge? Will the trend towards cruddy color continue, or will the D500 recover the crown of chromaticity?

I cannot speculate how the color output of the D500 will be like, all camera manufacturers create their own sauce, similar but very different, even among nikon bodies. But you are 100% correct, nikon image quality for portraits changed after the D200/300/700. I am very interested to see what the D500 will be like.

What I can tell you is that it is NOT impossible to get very very pleasant skin tones out of new cameras. When I purchased my very first sony camera ever I didn't really know what to expect from the A77II, I didn't think I was going to like this camera, and honestly, I kind of purchased it as an experiment to try something new. Well, the skin tones out of the A77II are EXCELLENT! Very pleasant colors for portraits, even the jpegs blow away the D7000 for portraits.

We will just have to wait and see the results of the D500 for that type of shooting. Maybe the output will look different.

.

Mark S Abeln said:
If it turns out that the D500 equals the fabled cameras of yore, would you consider this important?

--
http://therefractedlight.blogspot.com

Mark S Abeln · Jan 5, 2016

Batdude said:
I haven't used a D7200, but I still see some very unpleasant flat looking skin tones from it mainly tan looking skin tones, not much better than the D7000 I will tell ya.

Hmmmm that's too bad.

Batdude said:
What I can tell you is that it is NOT impossible to get very very pleasant skin tones out of new cameras. When I purchased my very first sony camera ever I didn't really know what to expect from the A77II, I didn't think I was going to like this camera, and honestly, I kind of purchased it as an experiment to try something new. Well, the skin tones out of the A77II are EXCELLENT! Very pleasant colors for portraits, even the jpegs blow away the D7000 for portraits.

Actually, from what I can tell, Sony didn't follow the Nikon, Canon, and Pentax trend towards worse color over time. From what I've been told, the greatest color of them all came from the Sony alpha 900, and the a77II is very good too.

noflashplease · Jan 5, 2016

yray said:
Mark Scott Abeln said:

yray said:

I just quoted Thom Hogan in another thread for the same reason, but I'll repost here:

"Besides a new Nikon-designed sensor, they’ve tweaked the color filter array to let through more light than previous designs. In particular, Nikon is claiming “unprecedented” image quality in the ISO 3200 to ISO 12,800 range." (http://www.dslrbodies.com/newsviews/nikon-goes-back-to-the.html)

Click to expand...

Well that's interesting. But I'd expect a Dx camera to excel at high ISO for photojournalist work. But this might not be the camera to use for product photography where good color is essential. I guess we will just have to wait and see. I've heard complaints about the quality of color of the D4 compared to the D3 cameras.

[I used a D7000 for a particularly color sensitive client who really objected to the color rendering of that camera. Many hours of color retouching was needed.]

Click to expand...

In my experience D7000 is particularly problematic in this regard, I pretty much stopped using it in large part because of the color.

yray said:

yray said:

I agree with your overall assessment, and this may very well be the make or break question for me.

Click to expand...

The D500 has a slightly lower maximum ISO value. Is this due purely due to the sensor size, or might this also be influenced by a different formulation of the color filters?

Click to expand...

The sensor size has to be a factor. I don't think we know anything about the D500 color filters for a fact yet.

Mark S Abeln · Jan 5, 2016

noflashplease said:
I've found that the D7000 does quite well for skin tones, almost as well as Canons of recent memory and better than the D7100 for people photography in general. The 16MP Sony sensor is something of a modern classic.

Do you use out-of-camera JPEGs with a particular Nikon profile or do you use special raw processing?

noflashplease · Jan 5, 2016

Mark Scott Abeln said:
noflashplease said:

I've found that the D7000 does quite well for skin tones, almost as well as Canons of recent memory and better than the D7100 for people photography in general. The 16MP Sony sensor is something of a modern classic.

Click to expand...

Do you use out-of-camera JPEGs with a particular Nikon profile or do you use special raw processing?

--
http://therefractedlight.blogspot.com

JPEG + 14-bit RAW. Nikons always render a bit more blue and neutral than some other brands. JPEGs are fairly accurate for all ethnic groups and the RAW files aren't exactly hideous out of the camera. It really depends on your subjects, I suppose. Skin tones could be a problem if you are photographing extremely pale subjects. It's flattering to people who are well into middle age with sun damaged skin or with subjects with more normal skin tones.

In any case, I really didn't like the color rendering or the noise performance of the D7100. The D7200 looks absolutely perfect and if the D500 simply has a lower resolution version of the same sensor with the same sort of in-camera processing, it probably won't have any issues with color rendition either.

Tharaphita · Jan 6, 2016

Seems so weird, have you guys tried different color profiles in Lightroom, also the custom ones?

For example i use "canon like" color profile for D750 and im very happy for it at some portrait cases.

The false tan/powder like looking skin tones are gone. Also there was way too much yellow and green on Camera Standard profile both in Lightroom and Nikon Software.

PS im talking about RAW.

ImageAmateur · Jan 6, 2016

Mark Scott Abeln said:
The Nikon D200, D300, and D700 cameras are well-regarded for having good color, more so than newer cameras such as the D800, D7000, or D4. Every newer generation of cameras, some think, renders colors more poorly than the previous one, most especially with portraiture, with the D800 sometimes being a target of complaint for producing blotchy skin hues.

However, color accuracy should not be confused with color depth, which modern cameras certainly excel at. It's a matter ofprecision versus accuracy.

Now I happen to think that this isn't just a codgerly reaction against the new, always pining away for the good ol' days, but rather I think it can be objectively proven. Possibly, the reason for this decline is part of an attempt to provide better high ISO performance. See this post:

http://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/57020455

I might add that the same downward trend is found in many Canon cameras.

The decline in color accuracy has lately been bucked by the D7200, which apparently is as good or better than any Nikon digital camera ever made, although I haven't experience with this camera so I can't say for sure. I do know that my old D200, despite its high noise and low dynamic range, does produce luscious color, especially on a colorful autumn day, with great color separation, more so than my tepid D7000.

Does anyone have any wild speculation about the new D500, or even better, have inside knowledge? Will the trend towards cruddy color continue, or will the D500 recover the crown of chromaticity?

If it turns out that the D500 equals the fabled cameras of yore, would you consider this important?

rhlpetrus · Jan 6, 2016

ImageAmateur said:
Mark Scott Abeln said:

The Nikon D200, D300, and D700 cameras are well-regarded for having good color, more so than newer cameras such as the D800, D7000, or D4. Every newer generation of cameras, some think, renders colors more poorly than the previous one, most especially with portraiture, with the D800 sometimes being a target of complaint for producing blotchy skin hues.

However, color accuracy should not be confused with color depth, which modern cameras certainly excel at. It's a matter ofprecision versus accuracy.

Now I happen to think that this isn't just a codgerly reaction against the new, always pining away for the good ol' days, but rather I think it can be objectively proven. Possibly, the reason for this decline is part of an attempt to provide better high ISO performance. See this post:

http://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/57020455

I might add that the same downward trend is found in many Canon cameras.

The decline in color accuracy has lately been bucked by the D7200, which apparently is as good or better than any Nikon digital camera ever made, although I haven't experience with this camera so I can't say for sure. I do know that my old D200, despite its high noise and low dynamic range, does produce luscious color, especially on a colorful autumn day, with great color separation, more so than my tepid D7000.

Does anyone have any wild speculation about the new D500, or even better, have inside knowledge? Will the trend towards cruddy color continue, or will the D500 recover the crown of chromaticity?

If it turns out that the D500 equals the fabled cameras of yore, would you consider this important?

Click to expand...

fishy wishy · Jan 7, 2016

From what I've seen, users find Canon easier to work with in the sense it'll turn out a nicer jpeg, but Nikon D810 v 5D III will turn out Nikon colours that have better discrimination than the Canon.

Of course, people should have realised by now that D810 has such a wide DR that they will probably need to tweak many pictures in raw to get something natural.

If Nikon is tweaking the filter array to 'let more colour in' that only means they are broadeing the spectrum through each colour filter which will mean less discrimination but better high iso. High iso being very much the trend.

Seems to me people are not availing themselves of all the control in the raw sliders to tweak colour anyway. I have the feeling most people only change colour temperature and the simple tint control and that's all they know. Whereas to approach the colours and pop of Canon indoors I might need to lower yellow/green and red/magenta tints, and up vibrancy and 'clarity' for example. I have the feeling some of the complainers don't even know these settings exist yet they will still expend 1000 words on the forum about these cameras and their 'deficiencies'.

I didn't have the D7000 for long enough to worry about the colours. Was it a problem across the whole iso range?

Schnapshot · Apr 27, 2016

Hello,

I am a long term Nikon shooter (even in film days). I spend quite some time and money on colormanagement (see Disclaimer below). You should read the blog of Ming Thein.

In short: The modern Nikon CMOS cameras have some serious trouble with color rendition of skin tones.

Here my observation regarding color rendering of Nikon and other brands.

- Nikon D70 (CCD Sensor): color rendition for portraits is very nice. I love the images. I regred giving it to my brother ;-) Almost no post processing in LR required

- Nikon D60

CCD Sensor) color rendition for portraits is very nice. I love the images

Almost no post processing in LR required

- Nikon D5100

CMOS Sensor) color rendition for portraits is terrible. I sold it imidediately

- Nikon 600 (CMOS) : color rendition for portraits is better than D5100, but not really good. I sold it imidediately

- Nikon D800 (CMOS) : color rendition for portraits is horrible. Tonality is horrible. I hate the images. I must get rid of this body as soon as possible

- Nikon 750 (CMOS) : color rendition for portraits is better than D800. But still acceptable at best. Tonality is okay. NX-D is better than LR. But still color rendition suck. I will sell at after getting better alternative from a different brand

Nikon has completely lost the color mojo after the switch from CCD to CMOS. Nikon is getting better but is still worse than the competiton IMHO. The Nikon RAW files are a mess: tonality is wrong. HUE shifts. It requires to much post processing to fix the flaws of the modern Nikon cameras.

The Nikon CCD cameras where perfect and spot on.... Really bad development.

Other brands I own:

Fuji X-T10 (CMOS): Very nice colors out of the camera. Almost now post processing. Punchy modern look, but pleasing.

I will by an Fuji X-T2 and than decide on my Nikon gear. If the colors of the X-T2 are better than Nikon D750 I will get rid of all my Nikon gear

Leica M9 (CCD): I unique and strange rendering. Some times it is very pleasing. Some time it seems of.

My impression of canon (I do not own a canon): Canon has a special recipe regarding color rendition. If you look at the comparission of Canon and Nikon, the Canon images are mostly more pleasing. the tonality is always better in nikon.

My advice:

- Stick with your old Nikon CCD camera (like Nikon D200, D70, D60)

- My cheap old Nikon D60 or my cheap Fuji X-T10 takes nicer images out of the camera than my D800 or D750

- Get Fuji X-systms for travelling with best all around rendering.

- There is a reason why most professional portrait photographs in the DSLR prefer Canon 5D over Nikon: Skin rendering is better out of the camera. Get a Canon FF camera for best skin rendering

- Avoid Nikon CMOS cameras regarding color rendition. I own D800 and D750 (and owned D600 and D5100). And all these cameras have a horrible color rendtion.

I will get of the Nikon system in the long term, because the color rendition of the newer Nikon cameras sucks compared to the D60 or D70.

Just my opition on the topic

Alex

Disclaimer regarding my color management

- I use a hardware calibrated monitor (EIZO CS 240).

- Monitor is calibrated with X-Rite i1display (for D65, CD 120).

- I use EIZO ColorNavigator 6 as calibration software

- I use X-Rite color checker passport as calibation target

- I check RAW Exporsure with RawDiggerSoftware

- I make custom LR profiles with X-Rite Software and X-Rite color checker passport.

- I make custom LR profile with Adobe DNG Editor

- I use Nikon NX-D as raw converter

- I use Lightroom 6.5 as raw converter

I shoot the exact same still life scene (including a X-Rite color checker passport) with different camera bodys

- Even after generation custom LR profile (with Adobe DNG Editor and or X-Rite software) shooting the X-Rite color checker the images look different.

- There is no way consistent and easy way to get the same tonality and color rendition from different camera bodys

Ed Agter · Apr 27, 2016

Approximately 80% of men have a color deviation in their eyes from 20% of women. Have you ever checked your eye on color deviation? Virtually no man knows of his color problem.

seahawk · Apr 27, 2016

And I wonder what can not be fixed with the picture control settings?

Mark S Abeln · Apr 27, 2016

seahawk said:
And I wonder what can not be fixed with the picture control settings?

One thing that definitely cannot be changed in post processing is the spectral sensitivity of the color filter array: if that isn't right, there is no correcting for it.

Lance B · Apr 27, 2016

Mark Scott Abeln said:
The Nikon D200, D300, and D700 cameras are well-regarded for having good color, more so than newer cameras such as the D800, D7000, or D4. Every newer generation of cameras, some think, renders colors more poorly than the previous one, most especially with portraiture, with the D800 sometimes being a target of complaint for producing blotchy skin hues.

Really? I have never heard this. I have had the D700 and I'd take my D810 over the D700 for colour accuracy any day of the week.

Mark S Abeln said:
However, color accuracy should not be confused with color depth, which modern cameras certainly excel at. It's a matter ofprecision versus accuracy.

Now I happen to think that this isn't just a codgerly reaction against the new, always pining away for the good ol' days, but rather I think it can be objectively proven. Possibly, the reason for this decline is part of an attempt to provide better high ISO performance. See this post:

http://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/57020455

I might add that the same downward trend is found in many Canon cameras.

The decline in color accuracy has lately been bucked by the D7200, which apparently is as good or better than any Nikon digital camera ever made, although I haven't experience with this camera so I can't say for sure. I do know that my old D200, despite its high noise and low dynamic range, does produce luscious color, especially on a colorful autumn day, with great color separation, more so than my tepid D7000.

Does anyone have any wild speculation about the new D500, or even better, have inside knowledge? Will the trend towards cruddy color continue, or will the D500 recover the crown of chromaticity?

If it turns out that the D500 equals the fabled cameras of yore, would you consider this important?

billorg · Apr 27, 2016

I don't do a lot of fleshtone shooting, but I have always been a Canon FF person and never could understand how people could use Nikons because the color was so bad. The only way I could describe it was kind of a bronze cast to things that obviously cannot be corrected for. But I did buy a D5500 and now a D500 and while I have not done a lot of faces with these cameras so far, the color accuracy seems to be much improved over the older cameras. What sold me on the Nikon was the lack of the antialiasing filter. I just cannot get that sharp of a look at high iso's out of any of my full frame Canon cameras so there is definitely a place for Nikon in my bag .

Batdude · Apr 27, 2016

Schnapshot said:
Hello,

I am a long term Nikon shooter (even in film days). I spend quite some time and money on colormanagement (see Disclaimer below). You should read the blog of Ming Thein.

In short: The modern Nikon CMOS cameras have some serious trouble with color rendition of skin tones.

Here my observation regarding color rendering of Nikon and other brands.

- Nikon D70 (CCD Sensor): color rendition for portraits is very nice. I love the images. I regred giving it to my brother ;-) Almost no post processing in LR required

- Nikon D60CCD Sensor) color rendition for portraits is very nice. I love the images

Almost no post processing in LR required

- Nikon D5100CMOS Sensor) color rendition for portraits is terrible. I sold it imidediately

- Nikon 600 (CMOS) : color rendition for portraits is better than D5100, but not really good. I sold it imidediately

- Nikon D800 (CMOS) : color rendition for portraits is horrible. Tonality is horrible. I hate the images. I must get rid of this body as soon as possible

- Nikon 750 (CMOS) : color rendition for portraits is better than D800. But still acceptable at best. Tonality is okay. NX-D is better than LR. But still color rendition suck. I will sell at after getting better alternative from a different brand

Nikon has completely lost the color mojo after the switch from CCD to CMOS. Nikon is getting better but is still worse than the competiton IMHO. The Nikon RAW files are a mess: tonality is wrong. HUE shifts. It requires to much post processing to fix the flaws of the modern Nikon cameras.

The Nikon CCD cameras where perfect and spot on.... Really bad development.

Other brands I own:

Fuji X-T10 (CMOS): Very nice colors out of the camera. Almost now post processing. Punchy modern look, but pleasing.

I will by an Fuji X-T2 and than decide on my Nikon gear. If the colors of the X-T2 are better than Nikon D750 I will get rid of all my Nikon gear

Leica M9 (CCD): I unique and strange rendering. Some times it is very pleasing. Some time it seems of.

My impression of canon (I do not own a canon): Canon has a special recipe regarding color rendition. If you look at the comparission of Canon and Nikon, the Canon images are mostly more pleasing. the tonality is always better in nikon.

My advice:

- Stick with your old Nikon CCD camera (like Nikon D200, D70, D60)

- My cheap old Nikon D60 or my cheap Fuji X-T10 takes nicer images out of the camera than my D800 or D750

- Get Fuji X-systms for travelling with best all around rendering.

- There is a reason why most professional portrait photographs in the DSLR prefer Canon 5D over Nikon: Skin rendering is better out of the camera. Get a Canon FF camera for best skin rendering

- Avoid Nikon CMOS cameras regarding color rendition. I own D800 and D750 (and owned D600 and D5100). And all these cameras have a horrible color rendtion.

I will get of the Nikon system in the long term, because the color rendition of the newer Nikon cameras sucks compared to the D60 or D70.

Just my opition on the topic

Alex

Disclaimer regarding my color management

- I use a hardware calibrated monitor (EIZO CS 240).

- Monitor is calibrated with X-Rite i1display (for D65, CD 120).

- I use EIZO ColorNavigator 6 as calibration software

- I use X-Rite color checker passport as calibation target

- I check RAW Exporsure with RawDiggerSoftware

- I make custom LR profiles with X-Rite Software and X-Rite color checker passport.

- I make custom LR profile with Adobe DNG Editor

- I use Nikon NX-D as raw converter

- I use Lightroom 6.5 as raw converter

I shoot the exact same still life scene (including a X-Rite color checker passport) with different camera bodys

- Even after generation custom LR profile (with Adobe DNG Editor and or X-Rite software) shooting the X-Rite color checker the images look different.

- There is no way consistent and easy way to get the same tonality and color rendition from different camera bodys

AMEN!

I'm still waiting to see what the skin tones out of the D500 look like, I have only seen one or two pictures, but would like to see more. Maybe with this new sensor the skin tones are different. I'm only "suspecting" they are not since this body is built for sports, so who knows.

Nikon has TWO lenses that I really like, the new 16-80 and the 70-200 F4. But I'm not coming back to nikon until they get back to the skin tones. I don't know what happened to those people. All of the sudden they just concentrated on high iso, AF speed, and higher MP, but completely forgot about the darn skin tones starting with the nasty D7000.

Obviously I'm not going to buy a D500 to take portraits. I don't shoot fast action so a D500 plus it's weight is just not for me, but at least we would get an idea of what the D7300 could be like.

Side note: If anybody wants a back up camera to their existing nikon gear and don't like nikon's skin tones, but need a FASTER camera with top notch skin tones, get the sony A77II. The skin tones are bloody excellent, and I use Lightroom.

Any wild speculations about the color quality of the D500?

Forum Pro

Senior Member

Forum Pro

Senior Member

Veteran Member

Forum Pro

Senior Member

Forum Pro

Senior Member

Senior Member

Veteran Member

Forum Pro

Veteran Member

Forum Enthusiast

Forum Enthusiast

Senior Member

Forum Pro

Forum Pro

Senior Member

Veteran Member

Similar threads

Keyboard shortcuts