Hy6 Users here?

[amsp]

James, well said!

[thsinar]

Edmund,

I just informed about the prices, from the "cheapest" to the most "expensive": there was a price indication suggesting they cost all US$ 4'999 and above.

Best regards,
Thierry

Thierry,

 don't believe the 1'900.- (2.8/80mm AFD) price is going to make your prospective users that happy - that's 4x of the Mamiya price, at least .
http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/1824...8_LENS_for.html

Edmund
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=185017\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

[eronald]

I'm out'a here - don't understand the whole MF market anymore
Anyway, I tested the 1Ds3 this week and was amazed at how small and light this camera is - after MF it felt like a Minox

Edmund

Edmund,

I just informed about the prices fro the "cheapest" to the most "expensive": there was a price indication suggesting they cost all US$ 4'999 and above.

Best regards,
Thierry
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=185102\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

[thsinar]

... or try a Lumix 10 MPx: it is light too!

I can carry mine while holding my daughter.

 

Thierry

I'm out'a here - don't understand the whole MF market anymore
Anyway, I tested the 1Ds3 this week and was amazed at how small and light this camera is - after MF it felt like a Minox

Edmund
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=185103\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

[samuel_js]

Yes. And, to quote bryanyc, I consider myself  "a relatively poor fine art photographer interested in the highest quality for the buck" that cannot consider the adquisition of an outreageously expensive medium format digital back right now. So, I have two options, being option one to take the 1dsMkIII route and being option two to go after a medium format camera, Velvia 50 and drum scan (saving meanwhile some money for the DB). Another option for me could be waiting for the Leica R10 (I'm using the R9/DMR combo along with my Canon and Olympus gear) but, after reading the last interview with mister Kauffman, it's not clear what it's going to happen with the "new" (?) R system.

Then, and after considering what's out there in the medium format arena, the Rollei/Sinar Hy6 seems to be the right choice for me. I don't like the Hasselblad H system: too expensive, too closed, no square film or digital option (no film option at all with the H3DII), and although my first choice was the V system I quickly discarded it...  Of course I like the Zeiss glass and the 503CW is a beautiful camera, but: no AF, no built-in metering, and less than perfect integration with digital. In the long term the V system seems to be a dead end. The Mamiya could be the right value for the money option at this moment but what I've readed about the ZD back doesn't feel very inspiring (and, again, no square fim format) . In any case, the Mamiya/Phase One merging could offer some interesting alternative in the near future.

I'm just waiting for an answer about the final price of the Rollei/Sinar Hy6,  the Schneider Xenotar 80mm f/2.8 and the film back, from my local distributor here in Spain.

This is my first post here so, hi, everybody.

Carlos-
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=185012\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Hola Carlos y bienvenido.
El precio estimado en Europa es más o menos 6500 Euros + tasas:
- Cuerpo de cámara con visor.
- Objetivo autofocus 80mm (de hecho te ahorrarías 1.900 € si compras uno manual usado)
- Adaptador para casette de película.
- Casette de película 645. El de 6x6 no está disponible aún.
Yo he considerado esta cámara también pro sólo ve desventajas comparada a mi 503CW. Precio, accesorios...

Now in english:

The price I've got from the dealers here in Sweden is ~6500 € + taxes (25% here in Sweden).
This includes:
- Camera body with wlf: ~3.200 € (plus taxes)
- 80mm lens: ~2000 € (plus taxes)
- Film mag adapter plate.
- Film mag 645 (6x6 not available yet)


/Salu2

[samuel_js]

For the record I can say that my 503CW with three lenses a H20 and a P20 costed me about 8.000 €, so I supose the difference is there...

[James R Russell]

... or try a Lumix 10 MPx: it is light too!

I can carry mine while holding my daughter.

 

Thierry
[{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

To me this is how you sell a camera, especially a new system.

[a href=\"http://www.red.com/store]http://www.red.com/store[/url]

Listed here is everything you need to buy, know and price to get into 4k film quality cinema.

No astericks of product to come, no call the dealer pricing, no waiting.

In fact the whole red site has a full forum with the good and the bad, shows major work that was just completed with the system and once again pricing.

Theirry, go to the Sinar site and find this information abou the HY6.  Do you know how many potential buyers write on these forums the words "I'm waiting on pricing and availability from my dealer".

What I really don't understand is the price model of this vs. most medium format cameras.

How can a full 4k cinema digital body clock in at $17,500 but a still digital back can easily go to 30 grand and it is only the mid range digital backs that go for under 20k?

Is it economy of scale, is it dealer markup, or is the price of medium format, especially for something like the HY6 just because the expecations are to sell less product so the pricing  must be high to recover the costs?

You see it on this forum all the time, people scouring e-bay, KEH and everywhere to find lens deals so they can keep their investment smart.

There is something to be said about knowing how much, when and where.  

I've done the thing of walking into one of the U.S.'s largest camera stores dead set on buying a medium format camera, only to leave because at the time they had nothing to show, nothing that was available at the moment.

Actually, the old Contax site had more information on it than most of the mediuum format maker's sites and since Contax is gone it just took one more click to KEH to find everything I needed.

Your company isn't alone in this as even Phase with their new announced 645 just showed one lens, no comprehensive pricing, no full accessories page, etc. etc.

Also notice one other thing about the Red camera, there is no mention of this deal only good until March 2008.

Why does medium format always offer deals that are time stamped and I guess that would be ok if the moment you wrote the check the product shipped, but that is not always the case.

I don't know any photographer that can tell a client they have to wait to shoot their job because the camera isn't ready to ship.

Personally, I believe the company that wins in the camera wars is the company that offers everything at the best price point that can be purchased immediatly, with full knowledge of what is to come in the future, how much and when.

Medium format has it all backwards.  Why is it that every medium format owner I know owns a Canon as a backup.  Actually, the pricing, availaibity, speed (mostly pricing) have almost insured that anyone owning a digital back must buy a Canon.

The company that can change that premise to the thought of anyone considering a high end dslr, must own a digital back will do well.


JR

[thsinar]

hi James,

I'll try to give my answer just on the below "question/remarks", and leave the rest for meditation at Sinar.

While I honestly have to say that I fully understand all you are saying, I must also add that it isn't that easy as you describe it. In other words, the "way to get there" is absolutely right, but the factors influencing it are much more complicated for MF players. I don't want to pretend that we do it right, but at least we have to "play" carefully: risks do sometimes (if not often) pay, but can be also killing.

I do believe also that if price reductions or lower prices would be possible, then they would be available in the market, from MF players.

A few facts that influence the pricing (currently and in the past), not necessarily in an order of importance:

- Whatever people may thing: this business is high-end technology, with a lot of qualified manpower behind.
- Each company has a structure (and investments, whatever these are) asking for a minimum gross margin to break-even at the very least, for not closing and disappearing from the market, or usually to generate a minimum of profit to make it a reason to pursue this business.
- I have said it before, in earlier posts: when at the beginning of digital the hardware in general and the sensor in particular were representing the highest costs in a digital back, today this is not longer the case. Software development and support has taken over here and do represent a non-neglectful if not the major part of the production costs. Speaking about Sinar, a team of several SW people are working continuously on it.
- Support/warranty issues are to be calculated as well: Sinar "offers" a STANDARD 3-year warranty included in the purchase price, but somehow it has to be paid anyway. When a digital back comes in repair, there is not just an electronic component being changed: in most cases repairs or servicing do involve many tests and controls (before repair to address the problem, and after repair to check) involving a few persons and taking many hours.
- Market potential: although your model of reducing the price to increase market potential makes sense, there is currently a certain potential and we have to count with it.
- Finally, and I believe this is the same with other MF players, a huge amount of money is invested back in R&D, to be able to sustain the rhythm in this field.

I truly believe that MF pricing is at the level it can be, without excessive margins, neither for the manufacturers like Sinar, nor for the distributors (for other reasons). I do also honestly believe, that whenever price reduction is possible, it is done.

Best regards,
Thierry

What I really don't understand is the price model of this vs. most medium format cameras.

How can a full 4k cinema digital body clock in at $17,500 but a still digital back can easily go to 30 grand and it is only the mid range digital backs that go for under 20k?

Is it economy of scale, is it dealer markup, or is the price of medium format, especially for something like the HY6 just because the expecations are to sell less product so the pricing  must be high to recover the costs?

You see it on this forum all the time, people scouring e-bay, KEH and everywhere to find lens deals so they can keep their investment smart.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=185208\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

[amsp]

I for one bought my entire kit second hand.. 2x Mamiya 645AFD, 4 lenses, P25, Profoto Pro6 and 3 heads. In total I probably saved at least 35000$. Manufacturers who think full-time working photographers in todays financially eroding market, who don't have a trust fund and has to take a loan to invest, can buy their equipment at the retail prices we are seeing are IMHO out of touch with reality. The days of huge budgets and "quality first" are sadly gone for the most part, but somehow we photographers are still expected to pay an incredible amount of money to keep up with the latest in technology.

Sorry for the rant, I guess you get slightly jaded having to deal with clients never wanting to pay on one end, and being treated like an endless money-tree by the equipment manufacturers on the other end.  

[Sean Reginald Knight]

hi James,

I'll try to give my answer just on the below "question/remarks", and leave the rest for meditation at Sinar.

While I honestly have to say that I fully understand all you are saying, I must also add that it isn't that easy as you describe it. In other words, the "way to get there" is absolutely right, but the factors influencing it are much more complicated for MF players. I don't want to pretend that we do it right, but at least we have to "play" carefully: risks do sometimes (if not often) pay, but can be also killing.

I do believe also that if price reductions or lower prices would be possible, then they would be available in the market, from MF players.

A few facts that influence the pricing (currently and in the past), not necessarily in an order of importance:

- Whatever people may thing: this business is high-end technology, with a lot of qualified manpower behind.
- Each company has a structure (and investments, whatever these are) asking for a minimum gross margin to break-even at the very least, for not closing and disappearing from the market, or usually to generate a minimum of profit to make it a reason to pursue this business.
- I have said it before, in earlier posts: when at the beginning of digital the hardware in general and the sensor in particular were representing the highest costs in a digital back, today this is not longer the case. Software development and support has taken over here and do represent a non-neglectful if not the major part of the production costs. Speaking about Sinar, a team of several SW people are working continuously on it.
- Support/warranty issues are to be calculated as well: Sinar "offers" a STANDARD 3-year warranty included in the purchase price, but somehow it has to be paid anyway. When a digital back comes in repair, there is not just an electronic component being changed: in most cases repairs or servicing do involve many tests and controls (before repair to address the problem, and after repair to check) involving a few persons and taking many hours.
- Market potential: although your model of reducing the price to increase market potential makes sense, there is currently a certain potential and we have to count with it.
- Finally, and I believe this is the same with other MF players, a huge amount of money is invested back in R&D, to be able to sustain the rhythm in this field.

I truly believe that MF pricing is at the level it can be, without excessive margins, neither for the manufacturers like Sinar, nor for the distributors (for other reasons). I do also honestly believe, that whenever price reduction is possible, it is done.

Best regards,
Thierry
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=185219\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Don't all these digital imaging companies face and consider the same issues, RED, for instance?

I gather, in short, that what you are trying to say is that you're charging as much as you think the market can bear. Please correct me if I have misread you.

As an aside, I know a few fellows in a similar industry: boutique companies manufacturing high-end audio electronics in small production runs. There is a rule of thumb when it comes to pricing: take the total cost of all the components and mutiply it by 5. That is your manufacturer's suggested list price. Depending on the clout of your distributor and the quantity ordered, he gets 40 to 50 points. The distributor would usually offer his dealers 20 to 25 points. Hence, if audio product A has a total components' cost of $5000.00, product A carries a suggested retail of $25000.00. The distributor pays $12500.00. His dealer pays $18750.00. And you the end user, pay anything from $18750.00 to $25000.00, depending on how badly you want it or how badly the dealer needs you to want it. Every dealer will tell you that the margin is really small but ask him how small it really is in terms of numbers, and you will never get a straight answer. Numbers don't lie. That is how the high-end audio industry works.

Looking at how the digital back industry works, I am pretty sure something similar is at play here.

As for what defines excessive margins, it depends on whether you are talking from the viewpoint of a seller or a buyer.  

Would anybody step forward and provide proof that I am wrong? Then I will clam up. Let's see the numbers.

[James R Russell]

Don't all these digital imaging companies face and consider the same issues, RED, for instance?

I gather, in short, that what you are trying to say is that you're charging as much as you think the market can bear.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=185234\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

I didn't want to make this only about price though price matters.

I did want to draw a comparision between the red and digital backs because the red is the medium format digital back of the digital video world.

It has a professional tool aimed at serious professionals, but the difference between the red and most of the digital back makers is in just a few short years of zero to now, they already have more real comprensive information on thier site than you find on any of the medium format back's sites.

Prices, functionality, open lens designs and look at the amount of accessories, from mounts to drive space.

But since the conversation turned to price, don't think for a minute the people at Red couldn't have priced this camera body at $30,000, though $17,500 vs. $30,000 is a big leap and once you start serious production, your going to need a backup.

at seventeen five a lot of people can buy an extra body, but just like the medium format world at 30k, the backup becomes something else, in video probably a Canon or a Panasonic.

The parallels here are real and I think websites that seriously mention price and full useability are important.

Medium format may or may not address their market the way Red has, at least publlically, but they should.

Red is doing it right.

JR

[Sean Reginald Knight]

I didn't want to make this only about price though price matters.
...
Red is doing it right.

JR
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=185240\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

I was editing my previous reply when James wrote this. I concur with him completely.

What is needed is transparency in pricing and being totally upfront and on the level with your end users. Like RED. No guessing games. Of course, RED sells direct and does not appoint dealers, somebody is going to mention that.

As it stands right now, buying anything MFDB is like opening a box of chocolates: you never quite know what you're going to get.

[thsinar]

You HAVE misread me: where did I say that MF manufacturers price what the market can bear.
There must be a language problem, I guess.

If I wanted or did try to say "We do charge as much as the market can bear", than I would have written "We do charge as much as the market can bear"!

In the contrary: I did say and write in clear words and as my very first sentence to this issue:

"I do believe also that if price reductions or lower prices would be possible, then they would be available in the market ..."

Then further and after the reasons why and the listing of some important factors:

"I truly believe that MF pricing is at the level it can be ..." (read as low it could be)

and:

"I do also honestly believe, that whenever price reduction is possible, it is done."

Is there honestly any word in my explanation suggesting what you translated from it?

Please be so kind and don't misquote my words in the future.

And about your numbers: you must be right with your example, and I cannot argue with you for this particular situation.

But I do argue you with you when you extrapolate and transfer these numbers to the company I do represent: please be a "100% sure", not only "pretty sure", when speaking for somebody else  or explaining how a company's margins are set.

I can assure you that we are a little more serious than simply making a "5 times" multiplication for our pricing, and that prices are not calculated like this in our company, not even in the whole Swiss industry.

Beside these, I am honestly asking myself why Sinar and I become your scapegoat each time you are intervening: what agenda do you have here?

On a side note: I have made it very clear that I am not here to speak a double language, to inform wrongly or to give false facts, details or whatsoever, but to speak frankly and with openness. If I cannot answer, don't know or don't want, I do say it as it is. If I do a mistake or if I am proven wrong, then I do recognize it.

For this particular issue I do stand by my words.

May I quote your own words in one of your very first posts in this forum, if not the first:

"Some live to complain. How about giving them a chance, ...? No point going on like an old scold unless you are an old scold".

What about applying this recommendation to yourself?

Thierry

Don't all these digital imaging companies face and consider the same issues, RED, for instance?

I gather, in short, that what you are trying to say is that you're charging as much as you think the market can bear. Please correct me if I have misread you.

As an aside, I know a few fellows in a similar industry: boutique companies manufacturing high-end audio electronics in small production runs. There is a rule of thumb when it comes to pricing: take the total cost of all the components and mutiply it by 5. That is your manufacturer's suggested list price. Depending on the clout of your distributor and the quantity ordered, he gets 40 to 50 points. The distributor would usually offer his dealers 20 to 25 points. Hence, if audio product A has a total components' cost of $5000.00, product A carries a suggested retail of $25000.00. The distributor pays $12500.00. His dealer pays $18750.00. And you the end user, pay anything from $18750.00 to $25000.00, depending on how badly you want it or how badly the dealer needs you to want it. Every dealer will tell you that the margin is really small but ask him how small it really is in terms of numbers, and you will never get a straight answer. Numbers don't lie. That is how the high-end audio industry works.

Looking at how the digital back industry works, I am pretty sure something similar is at play here.

As for what defines excessive margins, it depends on whether you are talking from the viewpoint of a seller or a buyer. 

Would anybody step forward and provide proof that I am wrong? Then I will clam up. Let's see the numbers.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=185234\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

[thsinar]

I can only agree with you, James, no point I do not adhere a 100%.

I do not know "RED Digital Camera" in details and how they are organized concerning distribution worldwide and such issues as servicing or support, but as mentioned by Sean, "Red sells direct" when we do function with "exclusive distributors" in most countries, and in some others like in the US with additional "dealers". I do admit that information gets lost that way, and even sometimes is not available. This has certainly to be improved.

Best regards,
Thierry

I didn't want to make this only about price though price matters.

I did want to draw a comparision between the red and digital backs because the red is the medium format digital back of the digital video world.

It has a professional tool aimed at serious professionals, but the difference between the red and most of the digital back makers is in just a few short years of zero to now, they already have more real comprensive information on thier site than you find on any of the medium format back's sites.

Prices, functionality, open lens designs and look at the amount of accessories, from mounts to drive space.

But since the conversation turned to price, don't think for a minute the people at Red couldn't have priced this camera body at $30,000, though $17,500 vs. $30,000 is a big leap and once you start serious production, your going to need a backup.

at seventeen five a lot of people can buy an extra body, but just like the medium format world at 30k, the backup becomes something else, in video probably a Canon or a Panasonic.

The parallels here are real and I think websites that seriously mention price and full useability are important.

Medium format may or may not address their market the way Red has, at least publlically, but they should.

Red is doing it right.

JR
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=185240\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

[Graham Mitchell]

What I don't understand of this particular matter is why backmakers simply do not follow industry standards (like DNG) and leave software support to specialized software houses with huge experience and sales numbers in imaging software.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=185310\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

That would be great but for one thing: tethered shooting would not be possible with existing 3rd party software. I mainly use the software to capture the image and export to Photoshop. I can not understand why people want so many features built into the back maker's software which already exist (and much more) in Photoshop.

All I need from the software is:
- support for tethering
- histogram
- focus check
- highlight recovery
- white balance/calibration controls
- TIFF export

If the RAW images were saved as DNGs then you could exclude the last three items, making it a pretty simple package, and cheaper. Then Photoshop can handle curves/levels adjustment, sharpening, cropping, rotation, distortion correction, JPEG conversion, white balance, and all the retouching.

[thsinar]

What I don't understand of this particular matter is why backmakers simply do not follow industry standards (like DNG) and leave software support to specialized software houses with huge experience and sales numbers in imaging software. Take a Sinar back and deduct the price of Photoshop and Lightroom from it. It still is a very expensive device. But if Thierry is to be believed it should at least save half of the price... So a lot of price reducing potential is left unused there.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=185310\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

EPd, you are right, IMO. I would love it to be this way and am a strong advocate of what you are saying.

What bugs me most about this is that when these highly paid high-tech engineers really did the job that they were supposed to do, we, the photographers, would not have to pay all those expensive warranty repairs. The backs simply wouldn't break down that much. There seems to be little incentive in making a digital back that is rock solid when the users pay for the repair work anyway. It's even worse: it seems from Thierry's words that these warranty repairs are making up a great deal of the selling price of the backs. Fulfilling the warranty becomes a source of revenue for a backmaker then. I am definately not amused by this style of "offering service".
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=185310\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

I did not say that warranty, support and servicing is a big part, but that it is a factor in pricing, as well for a manufacturer like Sinar as for the distributors spending hours and sometimes days with some (many) customers to give them the digital knowledge.
Some manufacturers do charge warranty periods over 1 year: look at those warranty extension prices to have an idea. Warranties are certainly not a source of revenue, in the contrary. And yes, we do pursue the goal of having products as rock-solid as possible.

Best regards,
Thierry

[thsinar]

That's exactly the way I see and would like to have it, Graham.

Best regards,
Thierry

That would be great but for one thing: tethered shooting would not be possible with existing 3rd party software. I mainly use the software to capture the image and export to Photoshop. I can not understand why people want so many features built into the back maker's software which already exist (and much more) in Photoshop.

All I need from the software is:
- support for tethering
- histogram
- focus check
- highlight recovery
- white balance/calibration controls
- TIFF export

If the RAW images were saved as DNGs then you could exclude the last three items, making it a pretty simple package, and cheaper. Then Photoshop can handle curves/levels adjustment, sharpening, cropping, rotation, distortion correction, JPEG conversion, white balance, and all the retouching.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=185313\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

[Kumar]

As an example of great software, look at ViewFinder from Betterlight. Small footprint, does exactly what it is supposed to do. Even if you don't have a Betterlight, the software and sample images can be downloaded for you to play with.

Cheers,
Kumar

That would be great but for one thing: tethered shooting would not be possible with existing 3rd party software. I mainly use the software to capture the image and export to Photoshop. I can not understand why people want so many features built into the back maker's software which already exist (and much more) in Photoshop.

All I need from the software is:
- support for tethering
- histogram
- focus check
- highlight recovery
- white balance/calibration controls
- TIFF export

If the RAW images were saved as DNGs then you could exclude the last three items, making it a pretty simple package, and cheaper. Then Photoshop can handle curves/levels adjustment, sharpening, cropping, rotation, distortion correction, JPEG conversion, white balance, and all the retouching.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=185313\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

[thsinar]

amsp,

The days of huge budgets and "quality first" are sadly gone for the most part, ...
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=185230\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

I can assure you that this is the same for the manufacturers:

Don't believe that reduced budgets do not affect the whole chain.

Margins as they used to be with film/analog cameras do not longer apply since a very long time. And product life-cycles  have shortened from may be 10 years to at maximum 2 years.

Sorry for the rant, I guess you get slightly jaded having to deal with clients never wanting to pay on one end, and being treated like an endless money-tree by the equipment manufacturers on the other end. 
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=185230\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

No rant, it's simply a discussion and explanation, but also here, be assured that we do not see or even try to treat customers like "money-trees"

Best regards,
Thierry

[thsinar]

Why should we not agree on certain issues?

 

Frankly, I am not here to disagree with you, just exposing our case how I see it.

To your question "Why Sinar is not making this choice ...":

That is or may just be my opinion, and I am certainly not an influential person nor an opinion leader to be able to push through my opinions and views. Sometimes I can convince, sometimes not. I can give my opinion, I can argue and defend it fully, but as to be the "weather-maker" and decider there is a long way from it.
I also don't think that it is alone a "Jenoptik's decision" issue, but rather mentalities to be changed and evolve.

Best regards,
Thierry

So for once we fully agree on at least one thing, Thierry. That being great in itself (hooray!), it also calls for further comment from your side: why is Sinar not making this choice, since it is so obviously the way to go if you want to bring down the price of your backs by a good chunk and serve the needs of your customers at the same time? (I have asked this question before when I spoke with Sinar reps, but I never got a logical answer other than: "it's Jenoptik's decision". As we have learned from one of your recent posts Sinar has a great deal of influence in developing decisions from Jenoptik, so what is the big factor hindering to communicate this effectively? The last time I looked a new, comprehensive piece of software called Exposure was announced, instead of a cooperation with Adobe or Apple.)

EPd
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=185318\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]