Mounts: why isn't the photography industry more like the consumer electronics industry?

starbase218 · Jan 10, 2018

I was just looking at this Youtube video about Betamax and VHS and I started to wonder: Sony eventually started to produce VHS machines, just like Philips gave up on V2000 and did the same thing. Later, HD-DVD and Blu-ray fought a similar battle with the latter coming out on top and companies like Toshiba jumping from the dead HD-DVD format onto the Blu-ray bandwagon.

We have so many different mounts, and all but one - at least that I can think of - are owned by one company that produces both bodies and lenses for that system. The sole exception is micro 4/3 (I know M42 was popular as well but I'm talking about current systems) for which both Panasonic and Olympus make bodies and lenses. And it seems like a very wise decision to do that: as a company, you don't have support the mount all by yourself, a good lens has a much wider target audience to sell to, and a good body can be used with a lot of existing lenses. So why isn't the photography industry more like the consumer electronics industry in that regard? I mean, basically what we have now is all manufacturers trying to do the exact same thing in slightly different ways. Of course with mirrorless you get a shorter flange distance, so ok, I get that. But the flange distances of the K-mount, EF-mount and F-mount are all very similar. The EF-mount has all-electronic contacts but that's really the only major difference I see, and the newest Pentax and Nikon lenses have electronic diaphragms too. So even that is no longer a real difference.

Dutch Newchurch · Jan 10, 2018

I suspect that there is a better mark up on lenses than bodies (particularly at the less expensive end of the market).

It suits camera manufacturers to lock their customers into buying their lenses. Of course third-party lenses are available, which helps keep things competitive.

dwalby · Jan 10, 2018

when Canon designs a system, they design it the way they want to, for whatever reason they want to. Their only goal is to make their lenses work on their bodies, so the mount doesn't have to be universal.

If any other lenses happen to be compatible with the Canon mount, that takes business away from Canon's lens sales, so they have no incentive to make the mount support other brands of lenses.

If you design a DVD, Blu-ray, whatever player, it will need to support whatever format the media content is produced with, and the company producing the media isn't the same company that is producing the player. If your player doesn't support an entire segment of the media, you will lose sales because nobody wants a player that supports some of the formats, but not all of them. Its a totally different market.

Leonard Migliore · Jan 10, 2018

dwalby said:
when Canon designs a system, they design it the way they want to, for whatever reason they want to. Their only goal is to make their lenses work on their bodies, so the mount doesn't have to be universal.

If any other lenses happen to be compatible with the Canon mount, that takes business away from Canon's lens sales, so they have no incentive to make the mount support other brands of lenses.

If you design a DVD, Blu-ray, whatever player, it will need to support whatever format the media content is produced with, and the company producing the media isn't the same company that is producing the player. If your player doesn't support an entire segment of the media, you will lose sales because nobody wants a player that supports some of the formats, but not all of them. Its a totally different market.

Exactly right. And, in a photographic example, you could put the same film in any 35mm camera because it would have been economic suicide to make a camera that needed special film.

TacticDesigns · Jan 10, 2018

starbase218 said:
I was just looking at this Youtube video about Betamax and VHS and I started to wonder: Sony eventually started to produce VHS machines, just like Philips gave up on V2000 and did the same thing. Later, HD-DVD and Blu-ray fought a similar battle with the latter coming out on top and companies like Toshiba jumping from the dead HD-DVD format onto the Blu-ray bandwagon.

We have so many different mounts, and all but one - at least that I can think of - are owned by one company that produces both bodies and lenses for that system. The sole exception is micro 4/3 (I know M42 was popular as well but I'm talking about current systems) for which both Panasonic and Olympus make bodies and lenses. And it seems like a very wise decision to do that: as a company, you don't have support the mount all by yourself, a good lens has a much wider target audience to sell to, and a good body can be used with a lot of existing lenses. So why isn't the photography industry more like the consumer electronics industry in that regard? I mean, basically what we have now is all manufacturers trying to do the exact same thing in slightly different ways. Of course with mirrorless you get a shorter flange distance, so ok, I get that. But the flange distances of the K-mount, EF-mount and F-mount are all very similar. The EF-mount has all-electronic contacts but that's really the only major difference I see, and the newest Pentax and Nikon lenses have electronic diaphragms too. So even that is no longer a real difference.

Things happen . . .

Like when Pentax and Zeiss designed the K-mount to "be a common lens mount".

"Originally designed by Zeiss for an alliance with Pentax[citation needed], it was intended to be a common lens mount for a proposed series of cameras and lenses. However, the plan failed to work out and the two firms parted company amicably, but Pentax retained the lens mount and at least one Zeiss lens design for its own use.[citation needed]"

Loading…

en.wikipedia.org

Zeiss went on to be part of the Contax / Yashica lens mount?

Loading…

camerapedia.wikia.com

Also, in the old days, there was a lens line-up that you could change the mount on the lens yourself. So you bought the lens, and if you wanted to use it on a different mount, you'd get the adapter and change it yourself.

Loading…

camera-wiki.org

Then again . . . if there are adapters for the likes of using a Canon EF lens on a Sony mirrorless FF body or Sigma body, then who needs consortiums.

Just get the mirrorless body that has the most adapters to use other people's lenses.

Take care & Happy Shooting!

DenWil · Jan 10, 2018

starbase218 said:
I was just looking at this Youtube video about Betamax and VHS and I started to wonder: Sony eventually started to produce VHS machines, just like Philips gave up on V2000 and did the same thing. Later, HD-DVD and Blu-ray fought a similar battle with the latter coming out on top and companies like Toshiba jumping from the dead HD-DVD format onto the Blu-ray bandwagon.

Two words pretty much explain the outcomes of both VHS vs Betamax and Blu-Ray vs HD-DVD. Porn and licensing.

In the case of high definition discs, as I learned it, the world had been paying Toshiba billions in licensing (and still is) for standard DVD technology and they did not want to give them the high definition market as well. The porn industry preferred Blu-Ray because it could hold more per disc. That killed HD-DVD, even though both picture and audio were, at least at the beginning, in my opinion, superior.

starbase218 said:
We have so many different mounts, and all but one - at least that I can think of - are owned by one company that produces both bodies and lenses for that system. The sole exception is micro 4/3 (I know M42 was popular as well but I'm talking about current systems) for which both Panasonic and Olympus make bodies and lenses. And it seems like a very wise decision to do that: as a company, you don't have support the mount all by yourself, a good lens has a much wider target audience to sell to, and a good body can be used with a lot of existing lenses. So why isn't the photography industry more like the consumer electronics industry in that regard? I mean, basically what we have now is all manufacturers trying to do the exact same thing in slightly different ways. Of course with mirrorless you get a shorter flange distance, so ok, I get that. But the flange distances of the K-mount, EF-mount and F-mount are all very similar. The EF-mount has all-electronic contacts but that's really the only major difference I see, and the newest Pentax and Nikon lenses have electronic diaphragms too. So even that is no longer a real difference.

AFAIK the Micro 4/3 folks planned their builds together to some degree and I would guess shared any relevant patents.

For everyone else they don't use a single mount because it doesn't pay.

davidedric · Jan 10, 2018

starbase218 said:
I was just looking at this Youtube video about Betamax and VHS and I started to wonder: Sony eventually started to produce VHS machines, just like Philips gave up on V2000 and did the same thing. Later, HD-DVD and Blu-ray fought a similar battle with the latter coming out on top and companies like Toshiba jumping from the dead HD-DVD format onto the Blu-ray bandwagon.

We have so many different mounts, and all but one - at least that I can think of - are owned by one company that produces both bodies and lenses for that system. The sole exception is micro 4/3 (I know M42 was popular as well but I'm talking about current systems) for which both Panasonic and Olympus make bodies and lenses. And it seems like a very wise decision to do that: as a company, you don't have support the mount all by yourself, a good lens has a much wider target audience to sell to, and a good body can be used with a lot of existing lenses. So why isn't the photography industry more like the consumer electronics industry in that regard? I mean, basically what we have now is all manufacturers trying to do the exact same thing in slightly different ways. Of course with mirrorless you get a shorter flange distance, so ok, I get that. But the flange distances of the K-mount, EF-mount and F-mount are all very similar. The EF-mount has all-electronic contacts but that's really the only major difference I see, and the newest Pentax and Nikon lenses have electronic diaphragms too. So even that is no longer a real difference.

The mount, if I read you correctly, is basically a mechanical coupling.

Yes, there are electrical contacts which mate, but what signals pass along them, and what results, are going to be proprietary.

Modern lenses and camera bodies are two part computer systems, and as each manufacturer seeks to optimise their offerings they are not going to converge on any standard. Nowadays, modern lenses get firmware updates to improve their performance - they are not some glass elements encased in a tube.

Dave

FrancoD · Jan 10, 2018

Why ?

Many reasons but let's just take your M43 example.

Why would Canon or Nikon adopt a mount designed for a sensor 1/4 the size of their full frame lenses coverage ?

or should Olympus give up their small footprint and go bigger ?

And why would Canon adapt their lenses to work with a Nikon mount and vice versa ?

IR1234 · Jan 10, 2018

Why would you make your proprietary technology open?

To some extent, what rescued Canon back in the 80s was the EF mount, so why would you make it an open standard. At the time they took a huge risk by dumping the FD mount so that they could develop a larger mount that was all electronic.

We forget today that Canon took a huge risk and annoyed a lot of their customers whi had invested in FD. But today, arguably, Canon is reaping those benefits.

So why would you give people a piece of that pie?

bullet1 · Jan 10, 2018

starbase218 said:
I was just looking at this Youtube video about Betamax and VHS and I started to wonder: Sony eventually started to produce VHS machines, just like Philips gave up on V2000 and did the same thing. Later, HD-DVD and Blu-ray fought a similar battle with the latter coming out on top and companies like Toshiba jumping from the dead HD-DVD format onto the Blu-ray bandwagon.

We have so many different mounts, and all but one - at least that I can think of - are owned by one company that produces both bodies and lenses for that system. The sole exception is micro 4/3 (I know M42 was popular as well but I'm talking about current systems) for which both Panasonic and Olympus make bodies and lenses. And it seems like a very wise decision to do that: as a company, you don't have support the mount all by yourself, a good lens has a much wider target audience to sell to, and a good body can be used with a lot of existing lenses. So why isn't the photography industry more like the consumer electronics industry in that regard? I mean, basically what we have now is all manufacturers trying to do the exact same thing in slightly different ways. Of course with mirrorless you get a shorter flange distance, so ok, I get that. But the flange distances of the K-mount, EF-mount and F-mount are all very similar. The EF-mount has all-electronic contacts but that's really the only major difference I see, and the newest Pentax and Nikon lenses have electronic diaphragms too. So even that is no longer a real difference.

it would be the death for camera companies. Can one imagine a universal mount for all mirrorless cameras when anyone can make a lens that would fit on any camera bodies?

It would be nice for us consumers when that day comes.

Beachcomber Joe · Jan 10, 2018

starbase218 said:
We have so many different mounts, and all but one - at least that I can think of - are owned by one company that produces both bodies and lenses for that system. The sole exception is micro 4/3 (I know M42 was popular as well but I'm talking about current systems) for which both Panasonic and Olympus make bodies and lenses. And it seems like a very wise decision to do that: as a company, you don't have support the mount all by yourself, a good lens has a much wider target audience to sell to, and a good body can be used with a lot of existing lenses. So why isn't the photography industry more like the consumer electronics industry in that regard? I mean, basically what we have now is all manufacturers trying to do the exact same thing in slightly different ways.

The consumer electronic industry doesn't control the media it uses. The camera industry, in the film days was much the same. All the makers made their SLRs to fit the standard 35mm film made by Kodak and others. Other than the media, the consumer electronics makers all go their separate ways. My Sony TV, Samsung Blu-Ray player, Onkyo CD changer, and Onkyo receiver for example all need their own remote controls.

bullet1 · Jan 10, 2018

Beachcomber Joe said:
... My Sony TV, Samsung Blu-Ray player, Onkyo CD changer, and Onkyo receiver for example all need their own remote controls.

You are right. But they all publish remote codes so a universal remote can be used to control them.

All of those A/V gear is inter-operable. The connectors are more or less standardized, RCA for analog audio, HDMI for digital AV signal, Toslink for optical output and Ethernet or WiFi for network. One can mix different brands when picking up A/V components and know the final system will work.

Back to cameras, they have nothing in common, different batteries, different lenses, and different flashes. Thank goodness they use same types of memory cards and produce same JPEG files. Remember those Sony memory sticks in the past?

Pontoneer · Jan 10, 2018

TacticDesigns said:
starbase218 said:

I was just looking at this Youtube video about Betamax and VHS and I started to wonder: Sony eventually started to produce VHS machines, just like Philips gave up on V2000 and did the same thing. Later, HD-DVD and Blu-ray fought a similar battle with the latter coming out on top and companies like Toshiba jumping from the dead HD-DVD format onto the Blu-ray bandwagon.

We have so many different mounts, and all but one - at least that I can think of - are owned by one company that produces both bodies and lenses for that system. The sole exception is micro 4/3 (I know M42 was popular as well but I'm talking about current systems) for which both Panasonic and Olympus make bodies and lenses. And it seems like a very wise decision to do that: as a company, you don't have support the mount all by yourself, a good lens has a much wider target audience to sell to, and a good body can be used with a lot of existing lenses. So why isn't the photography industry more like the consumer electronics industry in that regard? I mean, basically what we have now is all manufacturers trying to do the exact same thing in slightly different ways. Of course with mirrorless you get a shorter flange distance, so ok, I get that. But the flange distances of the K-mount, EF-mount and F-mount are all very similar. The EF-mount has all-electronic contacts but that's really the only major difference I see, and the newest Pentax and Nikon lenses have electronic diaphragms too. So even that is no longer a real difference.

Click to expand...

Things happen . . .

Like when Pentax and Zeiss designed the K-mount to "be a common lens mount".

"Originally designed by Zeiss for an alliance with Pentax[citation needed], it was intended to be a common lens mount for a proposed series of cameras and lenses. However, the plan failed to work out and the two firms parted company amicably, but Pentax retained the lens mount and at least one Zeiss lens design for its own use.[citation needed]"

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pentax_K-mount

Zeiss went on to be part of the Contax / Yashica lens mount?

http://camerapedia.wikia.com/wiki/Yashica_/_Contax_lenses

Also, in the old days, there was a lens line-up that you could change the mount on the lens yourself. So you bought the lens, and if you wanted to use it on a different mount, you'd get the adapter and change it yourself.

http://camera-wiki.org/wiki/Tamron

Then again . . . if there are adapters for the likes of using a Canon EF lens on a Sony mirrorless FF body or Sigma body, then who needs consortiums.

Just get the mirrorless body that has the most adapters to use other people's lenses.

Take care & Happy Shooting!

Pontoneer · Jan 10, 2018

bullet1 said:
starbase218 said:

I was just looking at this Youtube video about Betamax and VHS and I started to wonder: Sony eventually started to produce VHS machines, just like Philips gave up on V2000 and did the same thing. Later, HD-DVD and Blu-ray fought a similar battle with the latter coming out on top and companies like Toshiba jumping from the dead HD-DVD format onto the Blu-ray bandwagon.

We have so many different mounts, and all but one - at least that I can think of - are owned by one company that produces both bodies and lenses for that system. The sole exception is micro 4/3 (I know M42 was popular as well but I'm talking about current systems) for which both Panasonic and Olympus make bodies and lenses. And it seems like a very wise decision to do that: as a company, you don't have support the mount all by yourself, a good lens has a much wider target audience to sell to, and a good body can be used with a lot of existing lenses. So why isn't the photography industry more like the consumer electronics industry in that regard? I mean, basically what we have now is all manufacturers trying to do the exact same thing in slightly different ways. Of course with mirrorless you get a shorter flange distance, so ok, I get that. But the flange distances of the K-mount, EF-mount and F-mount are all very similar. The EF-mount has all-electronic contacts but that's really the only major difference I see, and the newest Pentax and Nikon lenses have electronic diaphragms too. So even that is no longer a real difference.

Click to expand...

it would be the death for camera companies. Can one imagine a universal mount for all mirrorless cameras when anyone can make a lens that would fit on any camera bodies?

It would be nice for us consumers when that day comes.

FrancoD · Jan 11, 2018

bullet1 said:
Back to cameras, they have nothing in common, different batteries, different lenses, and different flashes. Thank goodness they use same types of memory cards and produce same JPEG files. Remember those Sony memory sticks in the past?

How about PCMCIA, MMC, Smart Media , RS-MMC, XD ?

Greg Edwards · Jan 11, 2018

Because...

Money!

Manufacturers want to lock you into an ecosystem that makes them more money than their competitors. Canon, for example, wouldn't make as much money if you could stick any lens, from any manufacturer on one of their bodies easily, without any adapters. They want you to only look within their own range.

You could also argue that they can guarantee compatibility and performance.

You only have to look at the computer world to see that this does still happen in the consumer electronics industry. Particularly Apple. They use ports and cables that are different to most of their competitors to as well as a relatively closed software ecosystem to force users not to stray too far and their hardware is difficult or sometimes impossible to upgrade and gets made redundant after a number of years. But, as Apple's would say 'it just works'. But once you start bringing third party elements into the ecosystem, that's where the problems start. iTunes doesn't work with Alexa for example. Dodgy third party chargers and cables that fail quickly, or in some cases, explode. But, this is the price of compatibility. I've spent many years messing around with PCs and fighting compatibility issues to appreciate the lack of stress that Apple offers.

Then there are the battles between the software giants. Amazon has only started to sell Apple TV's recently after a couple of year over a sales spat with apple. And now they're at it again with Google - resulting in Google pulling youtube from Amazon's fire stick. End result? Consumer loses.

Your DVD/VHS/Blu-ray analogy doesn't quite work for me though. Camera/lenses are about hardware, discs and tapes are about content. Sure, a few people would argue over the technical merits between HDDVD and Bluray, but most people just want to watch a movie and know that their player isn't going to be obsolete in a few months time - they certainly couldn't care less about which one is better.

Although, that said, many would argue that Betamax was superior to VHS and continued to be used within the television industry. But VHS became the consumer standard. Just because something becomes ubiquitous, doesn't mean it's the best. Just look at the bloated mess MS Word has become. Heck, if this were true, Lightroom competitors wouldn't exist!

Competition breeds innovation.

Tom_N · Jan 11, 2018

DenWil said:
In the case of high definition discs, as I learned it, the world had been paying Toshiba billions in licensing (and still is) for standard DVD technology and they did not want to give them the high definition market as well. The porn industry preferred Blu-Ray because it could hold more per disc. That killed HD-DVD, even though both picture and audio were, at least at the beginning, in my opinion, superior.

HD-DVD and Blu-Ray are essentially identical in terms of coding of audio and video on the disc. The main differences once you get above the physical layer are that Blu-Ray discs have more capacity and more DRM.

From a business angle, there was the royalties fight. Also, a lot of support for HD-DVD came from companies that didn't want to spend money on blue lasers, or on retooling prerecorded disc factories to be able to produce Blu-Ray discs.

caterpillar · Jan 11, 2018

starbase218 said:
I was just looking at this Youtube video about Betamax and VHS and I started to wonder: Sony eventually started to produce VHS machines, just like Philips gave up on V2000 and did the same thing. Later, HD-DVD and Blu-ray fought a similar battle with the latter coming out on top and companies like Toshiba jumping from the dead HD-DVD format onto the Blu-ray bandwagon.

We have so many different mounts, and all but one - at least that I can think of - are owned by one company that produces both bodies and lenses for that system. The sole exception is micro 4/3 (I know M42 was popular as well but I'm talking about current systems) for which both Panasonic and Olympus make bodies and lenses. And it seems like a very wise decision to do that: as a company, you don't have support the mount all by yourself, a good lens has a much wider target audience to sell to, and a good body can be used with a lot of existing lenses. So why isn't the photography industry more like the consumer electronics industry in that regard? I mean, basically what we have now is all manufacturers trying to do the exact same thing in slightly different ways. Of course with mirrorless you get a shorter flange distance, so ok, I get that. But the flange distances of the K-mount, EF-mount and F-mount are all very similar. The EF-mount has all-electronic contacts but that's really the only major difference I see, and the newest Pentax and Nikon lenses have electronic diaphragms too. So even that is no longer a real difference.

It's not a good idea. You will regret that if it happens.

The reason why we have variety and innovation is because we didn't standardize. Think if Canon followed the Nikon route and mindset (if Nikon allowed their mount to be licensed. We would not have EOS. Look at the mess Nikon by steadfastly sticking with their mount and later on their electronics. There would also be no 4/3 and MFT. There would be no E-mount.

You forget that a mount is not just a mount. It has the electronics, software/logic in those contacts that move the AF, focusing, aperture, etc. So, standardizing those is not a good idea. Each one has it's own logic and vision and it will curtail that if you standardize. The best recourse is competition. Let those who innovate and create better products show their wares. And let the public/consumer decide on which is better.

starbase218 · Jan 11, 2018

Beachcomber Joe said:
starbase218 said:

We have so many different mounts, and all but one - at least that I can think of - are owned by one company that produces both bodies and lenses for that system. The sole exception is micro 4/3 (I know M42 was popular as well but I'm talking about current systems) for which both Panasonic and Olympus make bodies and lenses. And it seems like a very wise decision to do that: as a company, you don't have support the mount all by yourself, a good lens has a much wider target audience to sell to, and a good body can be used with a lot of existing lenses. So why isn't the photography industry more like the consumer electronics industry in that regard? I mean, basically what we have now is all manufacturers trying to do the exact same thing in slightly different ways.

Click to expand...

The consumer electronic industry doesn't control the media it uses. The camera industry, in the film days was much the same. All the makers made their SLRs to fit the standard 35mm film made by Kodak and others. Other than the media, the consumer electronics makers all go their separate ways. My Sony TV, Samsung Blu-Ray player, Onkyo CD changer, and Onkyo receiver for example all need their own remote controls.

That’s true, but even there there is standardisation. A lot of remotely controlled devices “speak” Philips RC-5, even though that was invented by Philips. A lot of other manufacturers use NEC. This would explain the simpler universal remote controls. But of course, you wouldn’t want any CD player in range to respond to any remote so the protocols have to take that into account (and they do).

TacticDesigns · Jan 11, 2018

Pontoneer said:
TacticDesigns said:

starbase218 said:

I was just looking at this Youtube video about Betamax and VHS and I started to wonder: Sony eventually started to produce VHS machines, just like Philips gave up on V2000 and did the same thing. Later, HD-DVD and Blu-ray fought a similar battle with the latter coming out on top and companies like Toshiba jumping from the dead HD-DVD format onto the Blu-ray bandwagon.

We have so many different mounts, and all but one - at least that I can think of - are owned by one company that produces both bodies and lenses for that system. The sole exception is micro 4/3 (I know M42 was popular as well but I'm talking about current systems) for which both Panasonic and Olympus make bodies and lenses. And it seems like a very wise decision to do that: as a company, you don't have support the mount all by yourself, a good lens has a much wider target audience to sell to, and a good body can be used with a lot of existing lenses. So why isn't the photography industry more like the consumer electronics industry in that regard? I mean, basically what we have now is all manufacturers trying to do the exact same thing in slightly different ways. Of course with mirrorless you get a shorter flange distance, so ok, I get that. But the flange distances of the K-mount, EF-mount and F-mount are all very similar. The EF-mount has all-electronic contacts but that's really the only major difference I see, and the newest Pentax and Nikon lenses have electronic diaphragms too. So even that is no longer a real difference.

Click to expand...

Things happen . . .

Like when Pentax and Zeiss designed the K-mount to "be a common lens mount".

"Originally designed by Zeiss for an alliance with Pentax[citation needed], it was intended to be a common lens mount for a proposed series of cameras and lenses. However, the plan failed to work out and the two firms parted company amicably, but Pentax retained the lens mount and at least one Zeiss lens design for its own use.[citation needed]"

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pentax_K-mount

Zeiss went on to be part of the Contax / Yashica lens mount?

http://camerapedia.wikia.com/wiki/Yashica_/_Contax_lenses

Also, in the old days, there was a lens line-up that you could change the mount on the lens yourself. So you bought the lens, and if you wanted to use it on a different mount, you'd get the adapter and change it yourself.

http://camera-wiki.org/wiki/Tamron

Then again . . . if there are adapters for the likes of using a Canon EF lens on a Sony mirrorless FF body or Sigma body, then who needs consortiums.

Just get the mirrorless body that has the most adapters to use other people's lenses.

Take care & Happy Shooting!

Click to expand...

Mounts: why isn't the photography industry more like the consumer electronics industry?

Senior Member

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

Forum Pro

Veteran Member

Senior Member

Veteran Member

Forum Pro

Senior Member

Veteran Member

Senior Member

Veteran Member

Senior Member

Senior Member

Forum Pro

Leading Member

Forum Pro

Veteran Member

Senior Member

Veteran Member

Similar threads

Keyboard shortcuts