Reading mode: Light Dark

Sony A7III Posterization and Colored Banding

Go to last post
I've seen this on Samsung NX series and cell phone cams when saving DNG RAW without any baked-in corrections. The original conclusions supposed that it was a form of lens or vignetting correction.

Based on my pointing this out several years ago with Samsung hardware, I believe you can replicate the effect with other models than Sony. It's not simply a 'Sony Problem' and as others are pointing out, only appears under extreme post processing adjustments that are already well past the point of ruining the image for any practical application.
 
billzilla said:
I've seen this on Samsung NX series and cell phone cams when saving DNG RAW without any baked-in corrections.
Click to expand...
True. Huawei P20Pro does that.
billzilla said:
The original conclusions supposed that it was a form of lens or vignetting correction.

Based on my pointing this out several years ago with Samsung hardware, I believe you can replicate the effect with other models than Sony. It's not simply a 'Sony Problem' and as others are pointing out, only appears under extreme post processing adjustments that are already well past the point of ruining the image for any practical application.
Click to expand...
Look at some of the images from he wedding that I posted. Most have been edited within acceptable limits.
 
mcslsk said:
billzilla said:
I've seen this on Samsung NX series and cell phone cams when saving DNG RAW without any baked-in corrections.
Click to expand...
True. Huawei P20Pro does that.
Member said:
The original conclusions supposed that it was a form of lens or vignetting correction.

Based on my pointing this out several years ago with Samsung hardware, I believe you can replicate the effect with other models than Sony. It's not simply a 'Sony Problem' and as others are pointing out, only appears under extreme post processing adjustments that are already well past the point of ruining the image for any practical application.
Click to expand...
Look at some of the images from he wedding that I posted. Most have been edited within acceptable limits.
Click to expand...
as several people have already told you, what you shot was underexposed, so it had to be pushed harder than it should have been, if you shot it correctly.

here is a related thread about this banding: https://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/1545500/0
 
MILC man said:
mcslsk said:
billzilla said:
I've seen this on Samsung NX series and cell phone cams when saving DNG RAW without any baked-in corrections.
Click to expand...
True. Huawei P20Pro does that.
MILC man said:
The original conclusions supposed that it was a form of lens or vignetting correction.

Based on my pointing this out several years ago with Samsung hardware, I believe you can replicate the effect with other models than Sony. It's not simply a 'Sony Problem' and as others are pointing out, only appears under extreme post processing adjustments that are already well past the point of ruining the image for any practical application.
Click to expand...
Look at some of the images from he wedding that I posted. Most have been edited within acceptable limits.
Click to expand...
as several people have already told you, what you shot was underexposed, so it had to be pushed harder than it should have been, if you shot it correctly.
Click to expand...
Some more, some less, some not at all. It shows in all of them. After reading through this disucssion, do you still think that this is about correct exposure? Do you believe that underexposing with a Sony by 2-stops should result in posterization?
MILC man said:
here is a related thread about this banding: https://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/1545500/0
Click to expand...
 
MILC man said:
mcslsk said:
Look at some of the images from he wedding that I posted. Most have been edited within acceptable limits.
Click to expand...
as several people have already told you, what you shot was underexposed, so it had to be pushed harder than it should have been, if you shot it correctly.

here is a related thread about this banding: https://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/1545500/0
Click to expand...
I agree that the shots were underexposed. But the 12 sided polygon coloured bands were quite obvious when pushed by 1.5 stops or less. That's not a lot of pushing.

Sony makes fantastic sensors and with an otherwise identical lens on the camera (a lens unsupported by the firmware) it would be possible to push the exposures by a few more stops with none of these artifacts.

On this very forum, ISO-invariant shooting strategies have been discussed. The sensor itself is very capable of supporting such strategies. However the firmware "support" of certain lenses makes this impossible.

Why on earth should an expensive camera produce similar artifacts to a cell-phone?

Mark

--
Takahashi Epsilon 180ED
H-alpha modified Sony A7S
http://www.markshelley.co.uk/Astronomy/
 
Last edited:
mcslsk said:
MILC man said:
mcslsk said:
billzilla said:
I've seen this on Samsung NX series and cell phone cams when saving DNG RAW without any baked-in corrections.
Click to expand...
True. Huawei P20Pro does that.
Member said:
The original conclusions supposed that it was a form of lens or vignetting correction.

Based on my pointing this out several years ago with Samsung hardware, I believe you can replicate the effect with other models than Sony. It's not simply a 'Sony Problem' and as others are pointing out, only appears under extreme post processing adjustments that are already well past the point of ruining the image for any practical application.
Click to expand...
Look at some of the images from he wedding that I posted. Most have been edited within acceptable limits.
Click to expand...
as several people have already told you, what you shot was underexposed, so it had to be pushed harder than it should have been, if you shot it correctly.
Click to expand...
Some more, some less, some not at all. It shows in all of them. After reading through this disucssion,
Click to expand...
despite your rabid postings in three threads about this issue, you are still in denial about the role that your underexposure played in this issue.
Member said:
do you still think that this is about correct exposure? Do you believe that underexposing with a Sony by 2-stops should result in posterization?
Click to expand...
you underexposed by over 2 stops in general, which means far more than two stops in the problem areas.

read the thread below.
Member said:
Member said:
here is a related thread about this banding: https://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/1545500/0
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
 
sharkmelley said:
MILC man said:
mcslsk said:
billzilla said:
I've seen this on Samsung NX series and cell phone cams when saving DNG RAW without any baked-in corrections.
Click to expand...
True. Huawei P20Pro does that.
sharkmelley said:
The original conclusions supposed that it was a form of lens or vignetting correction.

Based on my pointing this out several years ago with Samsung hardware, I believe you can replicate the effect with other models than Sony. It's not simply a 'Sony Problem' and as others are pointing out, only appears under extreme post processing adjustments that are already well past the point of ruining the image for any practical application.
Click to expand...
Look at some of the images from he wedding that I posted. Most have been edited within acceptable limits.
Click to expand...
as several people have already told you, what you shot was underexposed, so it had to be pushed harder than it should have been, if you shot it correctly.

here is a related thread about this banding: https://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/1545500/0
Click to expand...
I agree that the shots were underexposed. But the 12 sided polygon coloured bands were quite obvious when pushed by 1.5 stops or less. That's not a lot of pushing.
Click to expand...
I posted a horribly underexposed a7r pic, with extreme vignetting, that didn't have any banding whatsoever, and it was pushed a whole lot harder than 1.5 stops in post.

maybe I should try that with the a9.
sharkmelley said:
Sony makes fantastic sensors and with an otherwise identical lens on the camera (a lens unsupported by the firmware) it would be possible to push the exposures by a few more stops with none of these artifacts.
Click to expand...
if you read the snapsy post in the thread link, it looks like turning off lens corrections did disable the vignetting correction in the raw file, in that test case.

but that's apparently not the end of it.
sharkmelley said:
On this very forum, ISO-invariant shooting strategies have been discussed. The sensor itself is very capable of supporting such strategies. However the firmware "support" of certain lenses makes this impossible.
Click to expand...
why do you call it "impossible".
 
MILC man said:
mcslsk said:
MILC man said:
mcslsk said:
billzilla said:
I've seen this on Samsung NX series and cell phone cams when saving DNG RAW without any baked-in corrections.
Click to expand...
True. Huawei P20Pro does that.
MILC man said:
The original conclusions supposed that it was a form of lens or vignetting correction.

Based on my pointing this out several years ago with Samsung hardware, I believe you can replicate the effect with other models than Sony. It's not simply a 'Sony Problem' and as others are pointing out, only appears under extreme post processing adjustments that are already well past the point of ruining the image for any practical application.
Click to expand...
Look at some of the images from he wedding that I posted. Most have been edited within acceptable limits.
Click to expand...
as several people have already told you, what you shot was underexposed, so it had to be pushed harder than it should have been, if you shot it correctly.
Click to expand...
Some more, some less, some not at all. It shows in all of them. After reading through this disucssion,
Click to expand...
despite your rabid postings in three threads about this issue, you are still in denial about the role that your underexposure played in this issue.
Click to expand...
Underexposing and lifting in post makes it more visible. That doesn't change the fact it is there. But underexposure is not the root cause. Please read this whole thread.
MILC man said:
MILC man said:
do you still think that this is about correct exposure? Do you believe that underexposing with a Sony by 2-stops should result in posterization?
Click to expand...
you underexposed by over 2 stops in general, which means far more than two stops in the problem areas.
Click to expand...
What's your answer to my first question? I take it that the answer to the second one is "yes".
MILC man said:
read the thread below.
MILC man said:
MILC man said:
here is a related thread about this banding: https://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/1545500/0
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
 
MILC man said:
sharkmelley said:
MILC man said:
as several people have already told you, what you shot was underexposed, so it had to be pushed harder than it should have been, if you shot it correctly.

here is a related thread about this banding: https://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/1545500/0
Click to expand...
I agree that the shots were underexposed. But the 12 sided polygon coloured bands were quite obvious when pushed by 1.5 stops or less. That's not a lot of pushing.
Click to expand...
I posted a horribly underexposed a7r pic, with extreme vignetting, that didn't have any banding whatsoever, and it was pushed a whole lot harder than 1.5 stops in post.

maybe I should try that with the a9.
MILC man said:
Sony makes fantastic sensors and with an otherwise identical lens on the camera (a lens unsupported by the firmware) it would be possible to push the exposures by a few more stops with none of these artifacts.
Click to expand...
if you read the snapsy post in the thread link, it looks like turning off lens corrections did disable the vignetting correction in the raw file, in that test case.

but that's apparently not the end of it.
MILC man said:
On this very forum, ISO-invariant shooting strategies have been discussed. The sensor itself is very capable of supporting such strategies. However the firmware "support" of certain lenses makes this impossible.
Click to expand...
why do you call it "impossible".
Click to expand...
What I mean is that it the coloured banding becomes obtrusive when pushed in post-processing.

From the evidence we are accumulating, it would appear that all lenses that are supported by the camera firmware (i.e. a table of corrections exists in the EXIF) will produce some kind of large geometrical artifact (applied to the pixel values in the raw data) whether or not the in-camera vignetting correction is switched on.

It might be the case that this happens only in V2.0 of the A7III firmware. This awaits confirmation one way or the other.

Mark

--
Takahashi Epsilon 180ED
H-alpha modified Sony A7S
http://www.markshelley.co.uk/Astronomy/
 
Last edited:
MILC man said:
mcslsk said:
MILC man said:
mcslsk said:
billzilla said:
I've seen this on Samsung NX series and cell phone cams when saving DNG RAW without any baked-in corrections.
Click to expand...
True. Huawei P20Pro does that.
MILC man said:
The original conclusions supposed that it was a form of lens or vignetting correction.

Based on my pointing this out several years ago with Samsung hardware, I believe you can replicate the effect with other models than Sony. It's not simply a 'Sony Problem' and as others are pointing out, only appears under extreme post processing adjustments that are already well past the point of ruining the image for any practical application.
Click to expand...
Look at some of the images from he wedding that I posted. Most have been edited within acceptable limits.
Click to expand...
as several people have already told you, what you shot was underexposed, so it had to be pushed harder than it should have been, if you shot it correctly.
Click to expand...
Some more, some less, some not at all. It shows in all of them. After reading through this disucssion,
Click to expand...
despite your rabid postings in three threads about this issue, you are still in denial about the role that your underexposure played in this issue.
MILC man said:
do you still think that this is about correct exposure? Do you believe that underexposing with a Sony by 2-stops should result in posterization?
Click to expand...
you underexposed by over 2 stops in general, which means far more than two stops in the problem areas.

read the thread below.
MILC man said:
MILC man said:
here is a related thread about this banding: https://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/1545500/0
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
So over at Fred Miranda they discuss the same issue. And they discuss reduction in bit depth from 14bits as a possible cause? They seem to agree that exposure doesn't play a role. And it is not limited to the a7M3.
 
mcslsk said:
So over at Fred Miranda they discuss the same issue. And they discuss reduction in bit depth from 14bits as a possible cause? They seem to agree that exposure doesn't play a role. And it is not limited to the a7M3.
Click to expand...
I disagree that reduction in bit depth is a possible cause. The quantization is adequately dithered by the noise even with the reduced bit depth. so reducing the bit depth should not introduce artifacts. In any case, in this thread we are seeing the issue in 14bit uncompressed data.

It is certainly not limited to the A7M3 because it is also well documented in the A7R2. But does it affect all firmware versions?

Mark
 
mcslsk said:
MILC man said:
mcslsk said:
MILC man said:
mcslsk said:
billzilla said:
I've seen this on Samsung NX series and cell phone cams when saving DNG RAW without any baked-in corrections.
Click to expand...
True. Huawei P20Pro does that.
Member said:
The original conclusions supposed that it was a form of lens or vignetting correction.

Based on my pointing this out several years ago with Samsung hardware, I believe you can replicate the effect with other models than Sony. It's not simply a 'Sony Problem' and as others are pointing out, only appears under extreme post processing adjustments that are already well past the point of ruining the image for any practical application.
Click to expand...
Look at some of the images from he wedding that I posted. Most have been edited within acceptable limits.
Click to expand...
as several people have already told you, what you shot was underexposed, so it had to be pushed harder than it should have been, if you shot it correctly.
Click to expand...
Some more, some less, some not at all. It shows in all of them. After reading through this disucssion,
Click to expand...
despite your rabid postings in three threads about this issue, you are still in denial about the role that your underexposure played in this issue.
Member said:
do you still think that this is about correct exposure? Do you believe that underexposing with a Sony by 2-stops should result in posterization?
Click to expand...
you underexposed by over 2 stops in general, which means far more than two stops in the problem areas.

read the thread below.
Member said:
Member said:
here is a related thread about this banding: https://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/1545500/0
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
So over at Fred Miranda they discuss the same issue. And they discuss reduction in bit depth from 14bits as a possible cause? They seem to agree that exposure doesn't play a role.
Click to expand...
I don't recall seeing that claim, and yes, the photo was severely underexposed:

"The file is about a stop and a half underexposed, even if you want to retain in the very bright highlight area. See the histogram attached.

If we look at the upper left corner stats, we can see the blue channel average is about 900. The black point is 512, so the net blue average is about 400. That's more than five stops down from full scale."
Member said:
And it is not limited to the a7M3.
Click to expand...
I didn't see that claim, and I don't see banding with my a9/fe90, per the pic i'm posting below.
 
sharkmelley said:
What I mean is that it the coloured banding becomes obtrusive when pushed in post-processing.
Click to expand...
what is the root cause of that tho? is control data in the raw file responsible for it?
sharkmelley said:
From the evidence we are accumulating, it would appear that all lenses that are supported by the camera firmware (i.e. a table of corrections exists in the EXIF) will produce some kind of large geometrical artifact (applied to the pixel values in the raw data) whether or not the in-camera vignetting correction is switched on.

It might be the case that this happens only in V2.0 of the A7III firmware. This awaits confirmation one way or the other.
Click to expand...
it might be triggered by other things as well... here is the a9/fe90, with all lens corrections turned off, I don't see any banding, and it's severely underexposed, and pushed hard in post.

although i'd like to know why I can't get the color balanced to white, which is what I shot on the screen, using awb... I shot this with the electronic shutter:

30cd8221957344ba9c608b2dda9b6b0f.jpg

32cc0b968fc54ee8bff96fee5911a758.jpg
 
Last edited:
MILC man said:
mcslsk said:
So over at Fred Miranda they discuss the same issue. And they discuss reduction in bit depth from 14bits as a possible cause? They seem to agree that exposure doesn't play a role.
Click to expand...
I don't recall seeing that claim, and yes, the photo was severely underexposed:

"The file is about a stop and a half underexposed, even if you want to retain in the very bright highlight area. See the histogram attached.

If we look at the upper left corner stats, we can see the blue channel average is about 900. The black point is 512, so the net blue average is about 400. That's more than five stops down from full scale."
MILC man said:
And it is not limited to the a7M3.
Click to expand...
I didn't see that claim, and I don't see banding with my a9/fe90, per the pic i'm posting below.
Click to expand...
I just downloaded the raw file provided by the OP in that Fred Miranda thread. I can't believe I'm saying this but there is nothing wrong with his image! I pushed the data really hard and it certainly doesn't display the geometric 12-sided artifact that we are discussing in this thread. In any case he was shooting at F/10 so it wouldn't need much of a vignetting correction in the first place. Instead, we typically see the problem when the lens is used wide open.

Mark
 
MILC man said:
sharkmelley said:
What I mean is that it the coloured banding becomes obtrusive when pushed in post-processing.
Click to expand...
what is the root cause of that tho? is control data in the raw file responsible for it?
Click to expand...
That's the interesting question. We don't know for sure. All we know is that the camera firmware is applying a crude correction to the actual image data before it writes the raw file.

We also see information in the EXIF, for example:

Vignetting Corr Params : 0 32 96 224 384 576 864 1248 1728 2368 3200 4256 5472 6816 8224 9632

Maybe that is telling us what correction parameters were applied to the data. If we knew how to interpret those numbers it might give us a very big clue.
MILC man said:
MILC man said:
From the evidence we are accumulating, it would appear that all lenses that are supported by the camera firmware (i.e. a table of corrections exists in the EXIF) will produce some kind of large geometrical artifact (applied to the pixel values in the raw data) whether or not the in-camera vignetting correction is switched on.

It might be the case that this happens only in V2.0 of the A7III firmware. This awaits confirmation one way or the other.
Click to expand...
it might be triggered by other things as well... here is the a9/fe90, with all lens corrections turned off, I don't see any banding, and it's severely underexposed, and pushed hard in post.
Click to expand...
I haven't seen any A9 examples. Not yet, at least.

Mark

--
Takahashi Epsilon 180ED
H-alpha modified Sony A7S
http://www.markshelley.co.uk/Astronomy/
 
Last edited:
In the image EXIF when using an affected lens, we find an entry similar to this:

Vignetting Corr Params : 0 32 96 224 384 576 864 1248 1728 2368 3200 4256 5472 6816 8224 9632

It's a table of 16 numbers. This is what it looks like when plotted:

582cfb2e7b7445b0a005792542dee9a1.jpg.png

It's possible that it represents the light intensity fall-off as we move away from the image centre



Here's a lens that was unrecognised by the camera:

Vignetting Corr Params : 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0



Here's a lens that was recognised, but there is not a full table:

Vignetting Corr Params : 11 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

I wonder what "11" means?

Mark

--
Takahashi Epsilon 180ED
H-alpha modified Sony A7S
http://www.markshelley.co.uk/Astronomy/
 
Last edited:
sharkmelley said:
MILC man said:
sharkmelley said:
What I mean is that it the coloured banding becomes obtrusive when pushed in post-processing.
Click to expand...
what is the root cause of that tho? is control data in the raw file responsible for it?
Click to expand...
That's the interesting question. We don't know for sure. All we know is that the camera firmware is applying a crude correction to the actual image data before it writes the raw file.

We also see information in the EXIF, for example:

Vignetting Corr Params : 0 32 96 224 384 576 864 1248 1728 2368 3200 4256 5472 6816 8224 9632
Click to expand...
Would you expect to see a difference in these parameters with lens correction "on" or "off"? Could it be that these parameters are sensor shading corrections for the particular lens? My understanding was that lens shading correction and other lens corrections are stored in the lens, not the camera.
sharkmelley said:
Maybe that is telling us what correction parameters were applied to the data. If we knew how to interpret those numbers it might give us a very big clue.
sharkmelley said:
sharkmelley said:
From the evidence we are accumulating, it would appear that all lenses that are supported by the camera firmware (i.e. a table of corrections exists in the EXIF) will produce some kind of large geometrical artifact (applied to the pixel values in the raw data) whether or not the in-camera vignetting correction is switched on.

It might be the case that this happens only in V2.0 of the A7III firmware. This awaits confirmation one way or the other.
Click to expand...
it might be triggered by other things as well... here is the a9/fe90, with all lens corrections turned off, I don't see any banding, and it's severely underexposed, and pushed hard in post.
Click to expand...
I haven't seen any A9 examples. Not yet, at least.

Mark
Click to expand...
 
Christian Unger said:
I observed the same thing with my NEX-5N and A6000 . It's an "old", well-known issue.

This circular banding shows up when pushing shadows and using native E-mount lenses with vignetting correction turned on.

Samsung are using the same approach (the effect looks 100% the same there). With Samsung cameras it was always applied, and not just when corrections where turned on.

Up to the A7II turning off the vignetting correction would remove this artifact.

It would be rather stupid move from Sony if the A7III applies it all the time.
Click to expand...
One question, though: It is actually baked into the RAW data or is the post-processing software doing auto-corrections already? I barely see anything else mentioned than LR, which is putting all the arguing on very thin ice. It is well known that LR does some auto-corrections based on their camera profiles already, and I'm not even sure if that is part of the actual camera profiles or is something happening beside that.

Also, noone can actually tell you how LR processes data internally. There are all kinds of ways how to make things worse or better just by how the "analog" data is processed within the digital realm.
 
Slaginfected said:
Christian Unger said:
I observed the same thing with my NEX-5N and A6000 . It's an "old", well-known issue.

This circular banding shows up when pushing shadows and using native E-mount lenses with vignetting correction turned on.

Samsung are using the same approach (the effect looks 100% the same there). With Samsung cameras it was always applied, and not just when corrections where turned on.

Up to the A7II turning off the vignetting correction would remove this artifact.

It would be rather stupid move from Sony if the A7III applies it all the time.
Click to expand...
One question, though: It is actually baked into the RAW data or is the post-processing software doing auto-corrections already? I barely see anything else mentioned than LR, which is putting all the arguing on very thin ice. It is well known that LR does some auto-corrections based on their camera profiles already, and I'm not even sure if that is part of the actual camera profiles or is something happening beside that.

Also, noone can actually tell you how LR processes data internally. There are all kinds of ways how to make things worse or better just by how the "analog" data is processed within the digital realm.
Click to expand...
It shows in all editors that I use (LR 6.14, C1 (11&12), Imaging Edge, PSE 2019).
 
sharkmelley said:
In the image EXIF when using an affected lens, we find an entry similar to this:

Vignetting Corr Params : 0 32 96 224 384 576 864 1248 1728 2368 3200 4256 5472 6816 8224 9632

It's a table of 16 numbers. This is what it looks like when plotted:

582cfb2e7b7445b0a005792542dee9a1.jpg.png

It's possible that it represents the light intensity fall-off as we move away from the image centre

Here's a lens that was unrecognised by the camera:

Vignetting Corr Params : 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Here's a lens that was recognised, but there is not a full table:

Vignetting Corr Params : 11 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

I wonder what "11" means?

Mark
Click to expand...
Mark, do you think the shading corrections data with a lens that is recognized is "lens shading" information? Or could it be sensor shading correction data for that particular lens. If a lens is not recognized (dump adapter), the camera doesn't correct for at all. If it is recognized (EF lenses) but the camera has no shading correction data for it, "11" applies like a generic sensor shading correction? Your example with the "11", was that with the Samyang 24 or the Canon FE40?

Just checked with RAW Digger:

Vignetting Corr Params FE28
0 288 832 1568 2464 3520 4672 5856 7008 8128 9216 10240 11168 12032 12800 13600

Vignetting Corr Params EF2470/2.8
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Vignetting Corr Params Minolta Legacy Lens in Novoflex
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0



The numbers for the FE28 are teh same regardless of in-camera correction setting.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

sharkmelley
Sony A7xxx Posterization and Colored Banding (Part 2)
6 7 8
Replies
149
Views
7K
sharkmelley
sharkmelley
sharkmelley
Sony A7S Concentric Banding and Histogram Gaps
2
Replies
33
Views
1K
sharkmelley
sharkmelley
J
On Banding
2 3
Replies
43
Views
501
Jack Hogan
J

Keyboard shortcuts

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