Reasons for wanting higher mega pixel count

Started 5 months ago | Discussions
hjs_koeln Regular Member • Posts: 134
Aesthetic reasons
3

Not sure how others feel about it, but to me it´s not only more resolution, from a  certain increase on it´s "more resolution plus X". Going from full HD in video to 4k introduces another quality alltogether, and in still photography it is similar.

There´s something fascinating about a tool which allows to exceed the capabilities of the human eye, and resolution is an area where this has become possible (bearing in mind of course that visual physiology is a totally different process than photography).

Digital imagery is immaterial, intangible and therefore elusive, which is kind of a mental stumbling block. There is no original, no ultimate source, b/c copy = original. This sense of digital images being unreal can be compensated by introducing qualities into the digital medium which would not be available otherwise. Again, resolution is one such way, and through it digital photography becomes a tool to reach or create this quality of reality, unobtainable otherwise.

If the immateriality of an image is the price I have to pay to reach this "other" dimension of reality, and if a particular camera is the suitable tool to take me there, I´m willing to go that way.

In this sense, for my taste anyways it can never be enough. A 100mp A7r V, and a 150mp A7r VI? Yes, please!

Cudacke Dees Regular Member • Posts: 192
Re: My only reason
3

JimKasson wrote:

dv312 wrote:

Cropping, cropping, and more cropping

Ultra necessary for birding

Everything else is just icing on the cake

I'm not a birder, but if I crop by more than a little bit in both directions, I consider the exposure imperfectly designed.

"the exposure imperfectly designed"??

design what?

what are you trying to say?

which bird language do you use to talk to the bird on how they should be fly or pose for your perfectly designed exposure?

you need to start a class for all of the photographers that don't talk bird on how you do it. especially the one on the other side of the lake that are getting the bird's butt.  There were also there like me for at least two months every weekends.

Cudacke Dees Regular Member • Posts: 192
Re: Reasons for wanting higher mega pixel count
2

There are people saying 12mp is enough 10 years ago..........  which is correct.  It is enough.  But we can have better and better is better.

Jacques Cornell
Jacques Cornell Forum Pro • Posts: 11,746
Re: Reasons for wanting higher mega pixel count
2

Cudacke Dees wrote:

There are people saying 12mp is enough 10 years ago.......... which is correct. It is enough. But we can have better and better is better.

But, if you're printing 12"x18" or smaller, "better" is invisible. If you can't see it, why bother?

-- hide signature --

"I learned long ago, never to wrestle with a pig. You get dirty, and besides, the pig likes it." - George Bernard Shaw
http://jacquescornell.photography
http://happening.photos

 Jacques Cornell's gear list:Jacques Cornell's gear list
Sony a7R II Panasonic Lumix DMC-GX8 Panasonic Lumix DMC-GX85 Sony a7R III Panasonic Lumix DC-GX9 +42 more
dv312
dv312 Veteran Member • Posts: 8,651
Re: My only reason
5

I'm not a birder, but if I crop by more than a little bit in both directions, I consider the exposure imperfectly designed.

"the exposure imperfectly designed"??

design what?

what are you trying to say?

which bird language do you use to talk to the bird on how they should be fly or pose for your perfectly designed exposure?

you need to start a class for all of the photographers that don't talk bird on how you do it. especially the one on the other side of the lake that are getting the bird's butt. There were also there like me for at least two months every weekends.

Notice he prefaced by saying 'he's not a birder' so give him the benefit of a doubt

Birders know what they need, no need to argue

Give and forgive

Cheers,

 dv312's gear list:dv312's gear list
Sony a9 Sony a6400 Sony E 16-50mm F3.5-5.6 PZ OSS Sony 1.4x Teleconverter Sony FE 200-600 F5.6-6.3
nebulla Senior Member • Posts: 1,485
Re: My only reason. Not a very good reason IMO

dv312 wrote:

Cropping, cropping, and more cropping

Ultra necessary for birding

Everything else is just icing on the cake

I shoot birds, and the megapixels on my camera has nothing to do with it. If you can't get a sharp picture with a camera that has 12-16 or 24 million pixel, you are not going to do it with 100,000 pixels, no matter how much you crop. I won't go into any detail as to what is needed for shooting birds because this is something you first learn to do. My A7iii is enough camera for any situation quite frankly, and the pixel war is a selling tool rather than a benefit.

 nebulla's gear list:nebulla's gear list
Sony a7 III Canon EF 50mm F1.8 II Canon EF 85mm f/1.8 USM Canon EF 400mm f/5.6L USM Tamron SP AF 90mm F/2.8 Di Macro +4 more
Davi7d777
Davi7d777 Regular Member • Posts: 321
Re: Reasons for wanting higher mega pixel count
3

Some photographers won't be asking that question when they begin looking at their work on large immersive 8k with HDR displays.

My background was from 4x5 large format color film in order to make large sharp prints. In this era one often sees similar sized large prints from single shot captures of high end DSLRs, however viewed critically up close they are relatively soft at frame edges. Medium format digital backs with more resolution are comparable and that is what more megapixels offer. More importantly, when 8k displays with HDR become common, I have been predicting they can take the place of prints when exhibiting large images because as a transmission medium, they are considerably more impressive than any reflective prints. A single USB memory stick plugged into such a display will allow large bodies of work to be shown. Up to this point that has been logistically impossible because large framed work is weighty, bulky, fragile, difficult to package for shipping, difficult to ship in anything less than a moving van, liable to heat damage during shipment, storage, takes up considerable space on gallery walls, and all this is expensive.

Accordingly when photographers start noticing what those like this person begin doing exhibiting, they will look at their own work on such displays and notice their single shot images display relatively soft. That is why when I went digital from film in early 2014, I immediately began multi row column stitch blending from focus stacked blended shots using prime lenses with best frame edge to edge sharpness at optimal tested apertures that with my lenses is f5.6.

-- hide signature --

David

 Davi7d777's gear list:Davi7d777's gear list
Canon PowerShot G10 Canon PowerShot ELPH 190 IS Sony a6000 Sony E 55-210mm F4.5-6.3 OSS Sigma 19mm F2.8 EX DN +9 more
SilvanBromide Senior Member • Posts: 3,956
Re: Reasons for wanting higher mega pixel count
2

Jacques Cornell wrote:

Cudacke Dees wrote:

There are people saying 12mp is enough 10 years ago.......... which is correct. It is enough. But we can have better and better is better.

But, if you're printing 12"x18" or smaller, "better" is invisible. ...

Not true. If you apply processing (to reduce noise, lift shadows, enhance detail etc.) prior to downscaling for print, the difference will be palpable, even at 12"x18" or smaller.

Ergo "better" is not invisible.

Maybe if you print the RAW files with absolutely no adjustment (although, TBH, even a RAW converter is applying some pre-processing during conversion), then the difference might be close to moot. But if that were all you planned to do, you might be as well off just using a phone camera...

-- hide signature --

Former Canon, Nikon and Pentax user.
Online Gallery: https://500px.com/raycologon

 SilvanBromide's gear list:SilvanBromide's gear list
Sony a7R III Sony FE 35mm F1.4 Sony FE 85mm F1.4 GM Sony a6500 Sony FE 35mm F2.8 +25 more
JimKasson
JimKasson Forum Pro • Posts: 26,960
Re: Reasons for wanting higher mega pixel count
5

SilvanBromide wrote:

Jacques Cornell wrote:

Cudacke Dees wrote:

There are people saying 12mp is enough 10 years ago.......... which is correct. It is enough. But we can have better and better is better.

But, if you're printing 12"x18" or smaller, "better" is invisible. ...

Not true. If you apply processing (to reduce noise, lift shadows, enhance detail etc.) prior to downscaling for print, the difference will be palpable, even at 12"x18" or smaller.

It's not a processing issue.

The difference will be visible no matter what the shadow lifting. It take 6500 pixels for an 18 inch wide print at 360 ppi ( a few more than you can get with a 24 MP 3:2 camera). A 12 MP camera will get you about 240 ppi. That's good enough for most things, but not for all uses. If you print on matte paper, there's probably no visible difference.

Some folks will do just fine with 12 MP. Others will want more.

Jim

-- hide signature --
 JimKasson's gear list:JimKasson's gear list
Nikon D5 Sony a7 III Nikon Z7 Fujifilm GFX 100 Sony a7R IV +4 more
Jacques Cornell
Jacques Cornell Forum Pro • Posts: 11,746
Re: Reasons for wanting higher mega pixel count
1

SilvanBromide wrote:

Jacques Cornell wrote:

Cudacke Dees wrote:

There are people saying 12mp is enough 10 years ago.......... which is correct. It is enough. But we can have better and better is better.

But, if you're printing 12"x18" or smaller, "better" is invisible. ...

Not true. If you apply processing (to reduce noise, lift shadows, enhance detail etc.) prior to downscaling for print, the difference will be palpable, even at 12"x18" or smaller.

We are talking about resolution here, not dynamic range, color, or anything else. In a 12"x18" print, the naked human eye simply cannot resolve more than 12MP or so, even up-close.

Ergo "better" is not invisible.

In my experience, it is. I've been shooting digital since Canon's 6MP D60 and making prints up to 16"x24" for public exhibition and sale.

Maybe if you print the RAW files with absolutely no adjustment (although, TBH, even a RAW converter is applying some pre-processing during conversion), then the difference might be close to moot. But if that were all you planned to do, you might be as well off just using a phone camera...

Actually, applying appropriate output sharpening minimizes the visual differences between file sizes where even the smallest one is at least 200ppi on paper. This has been my experience over the past 15 years as a working pro. Have you compared 12MP and 24MP+ images at 12"x18", applying appropriate output sharpening to each? I've done the empirical testing. Have you?

-- hide signature --

"I learned long ago, never to wrestle with a pig. You get dirty, and besides, the pig likes it." - George Bernard Shaw
http://jacquescornell.photography
http://happening.photos

 Jacques Cornell's gear list:Jacques Cornell's gear list
Sony a7R II Panasonic Lumix DMC-GX8 Panasonic Lumix DMC-GX85 Sony a7R III Panasonic Lumix DC-GX9 +42 more
LoneTree1 Senior Member • Posts: 1,636
Re: Reasons for wanting higher mega pixel count
1

Jacques Cornell wrote:

SilvanBromide wrote:

Jacques Cornell wrote:

Cudacke Dees wrote:

There are people saying 12mp is enough 10 years ago.......... which is correct. It is enough. But we can have better and better is better.

But, if you're printing 12"x18" or smaller, "better" is invisible. ...

Not true. If you apply processing (to reduce noise, lift shadows, enhance detail etc.) prior to downscaling for print, the difference will be palpable, even at 12"x18" or smaller.

We are talking about resolution here, not dynamic range, color, or anything else. In a 12"x18" print, the naked human eye simply cannot resolve more than 12MP or so, even up-close.

That squares with what I've seen.  Even a 16x20 print, it's not easy telling 16 from 24mp.  And who stands 12" away from a print like that when it's displayed?

Jacques Cornell
Jacques Cornell Forum Pro • Posts: 11,746
Re: Reasons for wanting higher mega pixel count
1

JimKasson wrote:

SilvanBromide wrote:

Jacques Cornell wrote:

Cudacke Dees wrote:

There are people saying 12mp is enough 10 years ago.......... which is correct. It is enough. But we can have better and better is better.

But, if you're printing 12"x18" or smaller, "better" is invisible. ...

Not true. If you apply processing (to reduce noise, lift shadows, enhance detail etc.) prior to downscaling for print, the difference will be palpable, even at 12"x18" or smaller.

It's not a processing issue.

The difference will be visible no matter what the shadow lifting. It take 6500 pixels for an 18 inch wide print at 360 ppi

Yes, but your eyes likely cannot resolve 360ppi. That 360ppi number is widely cited, but it is randomly selected and bears little relation to the average person's eyesight. Furthermore, it assumes that you view prints with your nose on the paper, which nobody but pixel-peeping photo tech enthusiasts does.

I find almost no visible difference, even at a viewing distance of 12", between 200dpi and 300ppi in a print that's been appropriately sharpened for the specific media and output size. Try it. You may first have to learn how to appropriately sharpen for print. You can start by trying Pixel Genius' now-free PhotoKit Sharpener.

( a few more than you can get with a 24 MP 3:2 camera). A 12 MP camera will get you about 240 ppi. That's good enough for most things, but not for all uses. If you print on matte paper, there's probably no visible difference.

Some folks will do just fine with 12 MP. Others

who examine prints with a 4x loupe

will want more.

Jim

-- hide signature --

"I learned long ago, never to wrestle with a pig. You get dirty, and besides, the pig likes it." - George Bernard Shaw
http://jacquescornell.photography
http://happening.photos

 Jacques Cornell's gear list:Jacques Cornell's gear list
Sony a7R II Panasonic Lumix DMC-GX8 Panasonic Lumix DMC-GX85 Sony a7R III Panasonic Lumix DC-GX9 +42 more
JimKasson
JimKasson Forum Pro • Posts: 26,960
Re: Reasons for wanting higher mega pixel count

Jacques Cornell wrote:

JimKasson wrote:

SilvanBromide wrote:

Jacques Cornell wrote:

Cudacke Dees wrote:

There are people saying 12mp is enough 10 years ago.......... which is correct. It is enough. But we can have better and better is better.

But, if you're printing 12"x18" or smaller, "better" is invisible. ...

Not true. If you apply processing (to reduce noise, lift shadows, enhance detail etc.) prior to downscaling for print, the difference will be palpable, even at 12"x18" or smaller.

It's not a processing issue.

The difference will be visible no matter what the shadow lifting. It take 6500 pixels for an 18 inch wide print at 360 ppi

Yes, but your eyes likely cannot resolve 360ppi. That 360ppi number is widely cited, but it is randomly selected and bears little relation to the average person's eyesight. Furthermore, it assumes that you view prints with your nose on the paper, which nobody but pixel-peeping photo tech enthusiasts does.

I find almost no visible difference, even at a viewing distance of 12", between 200dpi and 300ppi in a print that's been appropriately sharpened for the specific media and output size. Try it. You may first have to learn how to appropriately sharpen for print. You can start by trying Pixel Genius' now-free PhotoKit Sharpener.

( a few more than you can get with a 24 MP 3:2 camera). A 12 MP camera will get you about 240 ppi. That's good enough for most things, but not for all uses. If you print on matte paper, there's probably no visible difference.

Some folks will do just fine with 12 MP. Others

who examine prints with a 4x loupe

will want more.

Actually, IMO, 360 ppi isn't enough.

Print out a B&W image on a 360 ppi/2880 dpi inkjet printer. Take that print and an 8x10 B&W contact print, hold them in your hands, and take a good look. You'll see that even the 360 ppi print is visibly unsharp compared to the 8x10 contact print.

And, if you really want to drive the point home, print out a 360 ppi color print and compare it to an 8x10 Ektachrome original -- not a copy, but the film that was in the camera at the moment of exposure.

If you suffer from presbyopia, you'll need your reading glasses for this experiment.

I am sorry that Cymbolic Sciences is gone.

Jim

-- hide signature --
 JimKasson's gear list:JimKasson's gear list
Nikon D5 Sony a7 III Nikon Z7 Fujifilm GFX 100 Sony a7R IV +4 more
JimKasson
JimKasson Forum Pro • Posts: 26,960
Re: Reasons for wanting higher mega pixel count
5

LoneTree1 wrote:

That squares with what I've seen. Even a 16x20 print, it's not easy telling 16 from 24mp. And who stands 12" away from a print like that when it's displayed?

I find when I exhibit prints in a gallery, the viewers look at them from a distance, then from up close, and again from a distance.

-- hide signature --
 JimKasson's gear list:JimKasson's gear list
Nikon D5 Sony a7 III Nikon Z7 Fujifilm GFX 100 Sony a7R IV +4 more
DejayRezme Regular Member • Posts: 132
Re: Aesthetic reasons
1

If you think about the bayer filtering basically the color gets interpolated but you still loose some resolution in the color.

So basically you need 40mp sensor to fully resolve on a 4k screen with full color resolution and oversampling (avoiding moire / aliasing or filtering).

That has got to make in impact for certain images? So even if you "just" want the perfect picture on a 4k 8.2MP monitor you need at least 40mp in 3:2. 62mp is the first that allows some zooming and cropping while maintaining the highest quality.

Sony acknowledges this with their "bayer cancelling" multishot mode.

I'm a newbie and I'm not saying it's needed, but to me there seem to be technical reasons for wanting to have that resolution.

SilvanBromide Senior Member • Posts: 3,956
Re: Reasons for wanting higher mega pixel count

Jacques Cornell wrote:

SilvanBromide wrote:

Jacques Cornell wrote:

Cudacke Dees wrote:

There are people saying 12mp is enough 10 years ago.......... which is correct. It is enough. But we can have better and better is better.

But, if you're printing 12"x18" or smaller, "better" is invisible. ...

Not true. If you apply processing (to reduce noise, lift shadows, enhance detail etc.) prior to downscaling for print, the difference will be palpable, even at 12"x18" or smaller.

We are talking about resolution here, not dynamic range, color, or anything else. In a 12"x18" print, the naked human eye simply cannot resolve more than 12MP or so, even up-close.

Ergo "better" is not invisible.

In my experience, it is. I've been shooting digital since Canon's 6MP D60 and making prints up to 16"x24" for public exhibition and sale.

Maybe if you print the RAW files with absolutely no adjustment (although, TBH, even a RAW converter is applying some pre-processing during conversion), then the difference might be close to moot. But if that were all you planned to do, you might be as well off just using a phone camera...

Actually, applying appropriate output sharpening minimizes the visual differences between file sizes where even the smallest one is at least 200ppi on paper. This has been my experience over the past 15 years as a working pro. Have you compared 12MP and 24MP+ images at 12"x18", applying appropriate output sharpening to each? I've done the empirical testing. Have you?

Thanks for asking, Jacques. Yes, I have. Extensively.

For several years I owned and shot the a7Sii (12 MP sensor) and the a7Rii (42.4 MP sensor) side by side. I took pains to compare the results (including when scaled to the same resolution, with and without processing).

As a result, I eventually sold the a7Sii (and have since updated from the a7Rii to the a7Riii). Not only could I see the benefits of greater resolution in ≤18" prints, but I satisfied myself that others could see it also.

-- hide signature --

Former Canon, Nikon and Pentax user.
Online Gallery: https://500px.com/raycologon

 SilvanBromide's gear list:SilvanBromide's gear list
Sony a7R III Sony FE 35mm F1.4 Sony FE 85mm F1.4 GM Sony a6500 Sony FE 35mm F2.8 +25 more
Jacques Cornell
Jacques Cornell Forum Pro • Posts: 11,746
Re: Reasons for wanting higher mega pixel count
1

JimKasson wrote:

Jacques Cornell wrote:

JimKasson wrote:

SilvanBromide wrote:

Jacques Cornell wrote:

Cudacke Dees wrote:

There are people saying 12mp is enough 10 years ago.......... which is correct. It is enough. But we can have better and better is better.

But, if you're printing 12"x18" or smaller, "better" is invisible. ...

Not true. If you apply processing (to reduce noise, lift shadows, enhance detail etc.) prior to downscaling for print, the difference will be palpable, even at 12"x18" or smaller.

It's not a processing issue.

The difference will be visible no matter what the shadow lifting. It take 6500 pixels for an 18 inch wide print at 360 ppi

Yes, but your eyes likely cannot resolve 360ppi. That 360ppi number is widely cited, but it is randomly selected and bears little relation to the average person's eyesight. Furthermore, it assumes that you view prints with your nose on the paper, which nobody but pixel-peeping photo tech enthusiasts does.

I find almost no visible difference, even at a viewing distance of 12", between 200dpi and 300ppi in a print that's been appropriately sharpened for the specific media and output size. Try it. You may first have to learn how to appropriately sharpen for print. You can start by trying Pixel Genius' now-free PhotoKit Sharpener.

( a few more than you can get with a 24 MP 3:2 camera). A 12 MP camera will get you about 240 ppi. That's good enough for most things, but not for all uses. If you print on matte paper, there's probably no visible difference.

Some folks will do just fine with 12 MP. Others

who examine prints with a 4x loupe

will want more.

Actually, IMO, 360 ppi isn't enough.

Print out a B&W image on a 360 ppi/2880 dpi inkjet printer. Take that print and an 8x10 B&W contact print, hold them in your hands, and take a good look. You'll see that even the 360 ppi print is visibly unsharp compared to the 8x10 contact print.

Then take a 200ppi/2880dpi inkjet print and see if there's any difference.

What you're describing is a difference between digital inkjet and conventional photo materials. It's got nothing to do with the difference between 200ppi and 300ppi in an inkjet or continuous tone digital print, which is the topic of this thread.

And, if you really want to drive the point home, print out a 360 ppi color print and compare it to an 8x10 Ektachrome original -- not a copy, but the film that was in the camera at the moment of exposure.

If you suffer from presbyopia, you'll need your reading glasses for this experiment.

I am sorry that Cymbolic Sciences is gone.

Jim

You're moving the goalposts. The comparison I suggested was between 200ppi and 300ppi digital prints.

The topic is megapixel counts. No MP count, no matter how high, is going to produce an 8x10 silver halide contact print or an 8x10 Ektachrome without digitally printing the image onto film, which is likely to have the same resolution limitations as printing onto paper.

I learned photography with film, developed my own B&W, shot small, medium and large formats, and made my own darkroom prints for years before working digitally. I know what you're talking about, I know the differences, and I also know from experience in making my own inkjet digital prints and getting contone digital prints from pro labs that 200ppi is largely indistinguishable from 300ppi and that, therefore, at a given print size capturing more than 200ppi yields little to no benefit other than cropping. Hence, getting back to the original point, the benefit of 61MP over, say, 42MP is realized only a really huge print sizes that very few people ever make. 20MP is plenty for a salable poster-size print.

-- hide signature --

"I learned long ago, never to wrestle with a pig. You get dirty, and besides, the pig likes it." - George Bernard Shaw
http://jacquescornell.photography
http://happening.photos

 Jacques Cornell's gear list:Jacques Cornell's gear list
Sony a7R II Panasonic Lumix DMC-GX8 Panasonic Lumix DMC-GX85 Sony a7R III Panasonic Lumix DC-GX9 +42 more
Steve W Veteran Member • Posts: 4,737
Re: My only reason
1

ClementPhotos wrote:

dv312 wrote:

Cropping, cropping, and more cropping

Ultra necessary for birding

This is about the only reason I need to put a7R IV on my shopping list.

a7R IV + 200-600! You can't get away from me now, birds! (well, in the near future lol)

Don't kid yourself. They will still get away from you  They are smarter than we think.

-- hide signature --

Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity; and I’m not sure about the universe! - Words to live by. Albert Einstein

 Steve W's gear list:Steve W's gear list
Sony a9 Sony a7R III Fujifilm X-T3 Sony a7R IV Canon EF 15mm f/2.8 Fisheye +28 more
Paul Barnard
Paul Barnard Veteran Member • Posts: 3,206
Re: My only reason
7

Steve W wrote:

ClementPhotos wrote:

dv312 wrote:

Cropping, cropping, and more cropping

Ultra necessary for birding

This is about the only reason I need to put a7R IV on my shopping list.

a7R IV + 200-600! You can't get away from me now, birds! (well, in the near future lol)

Don't kid yourself. They will still get away from you They are smarter than we think.

so very true.  Last week I sat for three hours near a creek waiting for an egret to make an appearance.  100-400 and TC on camera, batteries charged and lots of enthusiasm.  Didn’t see one at all, not even flying by.  Next day I didn’t take the 100-400 just the 25.  I went to the creek to get some landscape shots and 4 egret decided to hang around all day.  They obviously can tell the difference between wide angle and telephoto

 Paul Barnard's gear list:Paul Barnard's gear list
Sony a7R III Sony FE 55mm F1.8 Sony FE 70-200 F4 Zeiss Batis 25mm F2 Sony 1.4x Teleconverter (2016) +4 more
Jacques Cornell
Jacques Cornell Forum Pro • Posts: 11,746
Re: Reasons for wanting higher mega pixel count
1

JimKasson wrote:

LoneTree1 wrote:

That squares with what I've seen. Even a 16x20 print, it's not easy telling 16 from 24mp. And who stands 12" away from a print like that when it's displayed?

I find when I exhibit prints in a gallery, the viewers look at them from a distance, then from up close, and again from a distance.

This is my experience and also how I view prints in a gallery. However, "up close" is typically 1-2 feet, not 3 inches, and I've never seen a visitor bring a 4x loupe.

-- hide signature --

"I learned long ago, never to wrestle with a pig. You get dirty, and besides, the pig likes it." - George Bernard Shaw
http://jacquescornell.photography
http://happening.photos

 Jacques Cornell's gear list:Jacques Cornell's gear list
Sony a7R II Panasonic Lumix DMC-GX8 Panasonic Lumix DMC-GX85 Sony a7R III Panasonic Lumix DC-GX9 +42 more
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum MMy threads