Pages: [1] 2   Go Down

Author Topic: Moving to MFDB (Questions)  (Read 7357 times)

Christopher

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1499
    • http://www.hauser-photoart.com
Moving to MFDB (Questions)
« on: August 27, 2008, 05:32:40 pm »

So I am finally in a place for a MFDB and I'm mostly interested in Phase One (something like a p45+ or p65+) or Leaf Afi 10.

I know there is and was a lot discussions about what is better and I really don't want to start a p1 vs leaf here. I just had some questions left after handling both cameras.

First there is the lens question. How do they compare in resolution and quality ? I mean for example the "40mm f/3.5 Super Angulon FLE HFT PQ" and the "Mamiya AF 35mm f/3.5"   or another example the "60-140 mm f/4.6 Schneider AFD Variogon" to the "Mamiya Sekor Zoom AF 75‐150mm f/4.5 D // Mamiya AF 55‐110mm f/4.5"

Then in general how does such a zoom compare to a prime ? I mean is the difference more like a canon 100 to a canon 70-200 or like a Canon 35L to a 24-105 ?

I am especially interested in what you think both systems will be able to deliver with 60Mp or 56Mp.

I'm happy for every input.

Thx for your help.

At last because I already got the questiona few times......., why a MFDB which is so expensive. Don't really know, probably because I need it and I can afford it ....
Logged
Christopher Hauser
[email=chris@hauser-p

Frank Doorhof

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1522
    • http://
Moving to MFDB (Questions)
« Reply #1 on: August 28, 2008, 02:27:54 am »

Hi,
The Leaf AFi10 without a doubt but I can't really comment more on that at the moment.

I will comment on the normal AFi.
I did a review on my blog on www.doorhof.nl/blog under reviews.
The system itself is better than the 645AFD/III based system which would be phase.
Lenses are better (but also more expensive), the whole layout and feel of the camera is great, but most importantly you have the option of using a WLF and prism.
I sometimes love working with the WLF and sometimes the Prism, with the AFD/III setup it's prism only.

And also important the AFi system uses leaf shutter lenses, can be important with flash outside and if you need higher sync speeds then 1/125

Quality wise I always liked the Leaf better than the phase one.
Phase has very nice software but the new Leaf Capture does follow very closely in terms of ease of use in the studio.
I like the detail in the Leaf better and skintones under strobes, for me both very important but for someone else maybe less important.

Hope it helps.

Greetings,
Frank
« Last Edit: August 28, 2008, 02:35:18 am by Frank Doorhof »
Logged

TMARK

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1841
Moving to MFDB (Questions)
« Reply #2 on: August 28, 2008, 12:02:29 pm »

I disagree with Frank's assessment, to a degree.  I've extensively shot the Aptus 22/54 and Phase P30+ backs.  Based on this experience, there is no difference in image quality.  They have slightly different looks, but really, there is no appreciable difference.  They have different looks, but this is all software and can be changed.  Skin detail under strobes?  I'd say no difference at all.

The differences come from the camera systems and the software/workflow.  I like C1 4 very much.  LC 11 is nice too, with the edge going to C1 4 for speed and stability.

Good luck with this.  My suggestion is to rent the systems and decide on feel.
Logged

Jack Flesher

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2592
    • www.getdpi.com
Moving to MFDB (Questions)
« Reply #3 on: August 28, 2008, 12:18:14 pm »

I agree with TMARK.  IMO all of the backs and cameras are best "BEST" at different things, but all pretty excellent in terms of net image quality when you get to the final product -- though how you get there and how easily you get there are not necessarily similar...  FOr the camera system, I think it is more important to look at how you will use the camera; is being able to use a WLF important to you, is a 1/500th flash synch important to you, is a 1/4000th top shutter speed important to you, is the ability to use a multitude of third party lenses important to you, is a closed system a benefit or detriment for you, and how do the ergonomics and UI feel to you?  

Once those questions are settled, the camera choice comes into perspective then you can focus on which back to get.  Obviously total pixel count and sensor size will drive this decision to a large degree, but here, one thing that I think gets regularly overlooked is convenience of software and workflow.  Some manufacturers still have obvious beta versions of software and make you stand on your head and chant to get a usable form of a file out of their back and into an image processor while others get you there easily and conveniently with a few mouse clicks...  

Without wanting to start wars, I will say that for me -- IMO only -- C1 is a *VERY* convenient, powerful and easy to use software.

Cheers,
Logged
Jack
[url=http://forum.getdpi.com/forum/

tho_mas

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1799
Moving to MFDB (Questions)
« Reply #4 on: August 28, 2008, 01:02:35 pm »

Quote
I am especially interested in what you think both systems will be able to deliver with 60Mp or 56Mp.[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=217650\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
The most obvious difference here is the image format 4:3 vs. 3:2 (14:9). If you shoot in portrait mode frequently you should consider the Sinar or the upcoming Rollei Hy6 as well.
I agree to Jack Flesher. And if you tend - for example - to Phaseone but want to have a waistlevel finder there is Contax or Hasselblad...
Logged

Frank Doorhof

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1522
    • http://
Moving to MFDB (Questions)
« Reply #5 on: August 28, 2008, 02:45:05 pm »

Let me explain more.

He asked specificly about the AFi system and the Phase system.

Meaning you are comparing the AFi CAMERA to the Mamiya 645AFD/III.
I have shot several weeks now with the AFi, the 645AFD/III and the RZ67 Pro II.

When comparing the systems with equal lenses on the system.
I did the test with a 180mm on ALL systems, with the same back.
I prefered the RZ67ProII very very closely followed by the Leaf AFi, after that with a wider margin the 645AFD/III.

Main difference was that with the RZ67ProII the picture had more detail in the blacks of the eyelashes that the AFi, which had again more detail than the 645AFD/III

What I have to admit is that I tested the 645AFD/III with the 105-210 AF zoom which is not a bad lens, one of my favorites.

I have the sample from the AFi vs the RZ67ProII if someone would like to compare.

But as a SYSTEM the AFi is in my opinion superior to the 645AFD/III system.
Logged

Lust4Life

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 820
    • Shadows Dancing
Moving to MFDB (Questions)
« Reply #6 on: August 28, 2008, 04:27:54 pm »

Frank,
I would like to hear more detail about what you did NOT like about the Phase/Mamiya camera, as I'm pondering the purchase of one.

Also, what digital back did you use for the tests?
I understand the Leaf AFi has the 33MP back, but what did you use on the Mamiya 645SFD/III?

Thanks,
Jack


Quote
Let me explain more.

He asked specificly about the AFi system and the Phase system.

Meaning you are comparing the AFi CAMERA to the Mamiya 645AFD/III.
I have shot several weeks now with the AFi, the 645AFD/III and the RZ67 Pro II.

When comparing the systems with equal lenses on the system.
I did the test with a 180mm on ALL systems, with the same back.
I prefered the RZ67ProII very very closely followed by the Leaf AFi, after that with a wider margin the 645AFD/III.

Main difference was that with the RZ67ProII the picture had more detail in the blacks of the eyelashes that the AFi, which had again more detail than the 645AFD/III

What I have to admit is that I tested the 645AFD/III with the 105-210 AF zoom which is not a bad lens, one of my favorites.

I have the sample from the AFi vs the RZ67ProII if someone would like to compare.

But as a SYSTEM the AFi is in my opinion superior to the 645AFD/III system.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=217898\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
« Last Edit: August 28, 2008, 04:37:42 pm by Lust4Life »
Logged

Frank Doorhof

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1522
    • http://
Moving to MFDB (Questions)
« Reply #7 on: August 28, 2008, 05:08:45 pm »

Hi,
I can only comment on the AFi7 online, the base of the AFi10 is known by me but I can't yet comment except that's it's VERY VERY nice

I did not NOT like the Mamiya 645AFD/III to be honest I bought one myself and love it for outside.
However when we are talking here it's all in the very very fine details.

I tested the 33MP back and compared it to the Aptus 22 and used both on the :
RZ67ProII, 645AFD/III and the AFi system.

If you have the money the AFi system is amazing, it combines the image quality of the RZ system (although PERSONALLY I like the RZ quality a bit better) but the usability of the 645AFD/III system.

Remember these are no differences like a 1DsIII vs een 300D.

It's all very fine.

For ME PERSONALLY.
The Leaf 22 combined with the RZ67ProII is my choice.
I loved the 33MP back and LOVED the option to go to ISO800 however I would miss the 25ISO which I use alot outside with flash.

But because I tested the 33MP back most let's go with that.

As mentioned in my previous post there is a difference but it's not earth shattering.

The RZ67ProII has slightly better detail in the darker areas, I think this is due to the quality of the glass and the bellows focus but I think real experts can confirm or debunk that.
However when I compared the RZ with the AFi it's was on all shots that the dark areas were a bit more nice on the RZ.

The 645AFD/III being a wonderful system, it shoots like a DSLR with slower *but accurate AF it is a bit less defined in the blacks compared to the AFi and the RZ.

I tested a phase one back some time ago when I was in the market for a new back and at that time I choose the Leaf for the skintone and detail under strobes.
But again this is very personal.

I think Phase one and Leaf are both at the top of their game, I just prefer Leaf.

The original TS however asked for the AFi10 and I strongly believe that it beats the 645AFD/III with either a leaf or phase one back.
The difference however is something you have to decide for yourself.
What I like in the AFi system (and RZ) is the leaf shutterlenses and in the AFi the f2.8 glass you can get, a 180mm f2.8 is sweet on a MF system, especially with a large sensor like the AFi 10 of course.

When comparing a phase one or leaf on a 645AFD/III I think I would have not responded this long but because it's the AFi system vs the 645AFD/III I did because I just finished an extensive period in which I shot them side to side for a few weeks on an almost daily basis.

Both AFi and 645AFD/III systems are shot handheld without a problem, the RZ67ProII can be shot handheld but I prefer a good studio stand for that monster.
« Last Edit: August 28, 2008, 05:11:10 pm by Frank Doorhof »
Logged

Jack Flesher

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2592
    • www.getdpi.com
Moving to MFDB (Questions)
« Reply #8 on: August 28, 2008, 05:27:14 pm »

Quote
What I have to admit is that I tested the 645AFD/III with the 105-210 AF zoom which is not a bad lens, one of my favorites.

[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=217898\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

as good as the 105-210 zoom is, it is not really in the same league as the primes.  Moreover, the primes on the AFD actually hold up to the 39MP of the Phase back, FWIW...
Logged
Jack
[url=http://forum.getdpi.com/forum/

Frank Doorhof

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1522
    • http://
Moving to MFDB (Questions)
« Reply #9 on: August 28, 2008, 06:40:32 pm »

This test was done with the back on all three cameras.

I know the 645AFD/III and RZ system very well at the moment (shooting with the 645 for about a year and the RZ the last few months), and although I love the 120mm macro the best on the AFD/III I like the 180mm and 110mm f2.8 more on the RZ.

It's very hard to explain, even when using the exact same back (aptus 22 or Afi7) the RZ just gives me a slightly better picture, more then enough to let me shoot from a studio stand instead of handheld...... it's again that 3D effect that I always look for

The AFi system however has stolen my heart over the last few weeks.
WHEN I upgrade one day it will be to the AFi, or what's available then that's better.
« Last Edit: August 28, 2008, 06:41:38 pm by Frank Doorhof »
Logged

Christopher

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1499
    • http://www.hauser-photoart.com
Moving to MFDB (Questions)
« Reply #10 on: August 29, 2008, 01:59:41 am »

Thanks for all the input.
Logged
Christopher Hauser
[email=chris@hauser-p

Graham Mitchell

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2281
Moving to MFDB (Questions)
« Reply #11 on: August 29, 2008, 05:46:41 am »

Quote
If you shoot in portrait mode frequently you should consider the Sinar or the upcoming Rollei Hy6 as well.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=217859\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Yes, I see the Sinar Hy6 as having some advantages over the Leaf AFi so it's worth your while to look into this option. There are plenty of threads about this already so search and you should find lots of useful info.
Logged

Frank Doorhof

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1522
    • http://
Moving to MFDB (Questions)
« Reply #12 on: August 29, 2008, 06:04:18 am »

Which advantages do you mean ?

For some I think I can say wait for photokina ?
« Last Edit: August 29, 2008, 06:04:49 am by Frank Doorhof »
Logged

Graham Mitchell

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2281
Moving to MFDB (Questions)
« Reply #13 on: August 29, 2008, 06:12:14 am »

Quote
Which advantages do you mean ?
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=218042\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

For example the Sinar back can be used on many MF platforms whereas the Leaf back will only fit the AFi. I don't know if Leaf has a rotating adapter yet but the Sinar back can just be clicked into place between portrait and landscape. Also the 45 degree finder from Sinar will not get in the way of the rotating back. Sinar uses DNG as the raw format now - making importing a bath into a program like Lightroom or Photoshop a breeze.
« Last Edit: August 29, 2008, 06:12:40 am by foto-z »
Logged

Frank Doorhof

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1522
    • http://
Moving to MFDB (Questions)
« Reply #14 on: August 29, 2008, 06:32:09 am »

Quote
For example the Sinar back can be used on many MF platforms whereas the Leaf back will only fit the AFi. I don't know if Leaf has a rotating adapter yet but the Sinar back can just be clicked into place between portrait and landscape. Also the 45 degree finder from Sinar will not get in the way of the rotating back. Sinar uses DNG as the raw format now - making importing a bath into a program like Lightroom or Photoshop a breeze.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=218045\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
i could use the afi back also on the rz and 645 its very simple to switch
On the portrait/landscape issue i can't yet comment except wait for photokina
Logged

Anders_HK

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1010
    • andersloof.com
Moving to MFDB (Questions)
« Reply #15 on: August 29, 2008, 08:37:05 am »

Quote
So I am finally in a place for a MFDB and I'm mostly interested in Phase One (something like a p45+ or p65+) or Leaf Afi 10.

I know there is and was a lot discussions about what is better and I really don't want to start a p1 vs leaf here. I just had some questions left after handling both cameras.

First there is the lens question. How do they compare in resolution and quality ? I mean for example the "40mm f/3.5 Super Angulon FLE HFT PQ" and the "Mamiya AF 35mm f/3.5"   or another example the "60-140 mm f/4.6 Schneider AFD Variogon" to the "Mamiya Sekor Zoom AF 75‐150mm f/4.5 D // Mamiya AF 55‐110mm f/4.5"

Then in general how does such a zoom compare to a prime ? I mean is the difference more like a canon 100 to a canon 70-200 or like a Canon 35L to a 24-105 ?

I am especially interested in what you think both systems will be able to deliver with 60Mp or 56Mp.

I'm happy for every input.

Thx for your help.

At last because I already got the questiona few times......., why a MFDB which is so expensive. Don't really know, probably because I need it and I can afford it ....
[{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Christopher,

Some that I think has been left out in above are following;

1. Leaf vs. Phase One. Both are excellent but provide different ways of working. I went for the Leaf, one reason being I liked the large display and its excellent ways of judging an image with its histogram options etc, another being that I preferred how colors are rendered. This is personal and I know others prefer Phase in that regards. I compared P30 and Aptus 65. The P30 appeared slight plastic in colors, or when looking at computer display as viewing a slide. The Leaf was more film like in appearance. Also... the Aptus 65 appeared like newer technology...

2. Trying. You should try both systems, perhaps several times to make sure you make right choice. There should not be a need to rent, since the agents will let you demo, and at the price these backs cost, they should rightfully do so. If not, simply go for the one that does and seem right.

3. Price. Price was a determining factor for me. I got the Aptus 65 cheaper new than what I would have gotten a P30 refurbished, but... prices vary in different regions and from different agents. Phase pricing was strange... and turns out agent in HK first qouted me non discounted because I did not live in HK... and I went Leaf   (now I do live in HK and meeting them other week they showed a slight long face   )

My post when researching was following [a href=\"http://luminous-landscape.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=22701&hl=]http://luminous-landscape.com/forum/index....topic=22701&hl=[/url]. Although you look at different backs perhaps it can be of some use.

When it comes to formats... gee wiz... Leaf, why did you go with such a very odd one for the new one????

Regards
Anders
« Last Edit: August 29, 2008, 08:39:10 am by Anders_HK »
Logged

Jack Flesher

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2592
    • www.getdpi.com
Moving to MFDB (Questions)
« Reply #16 on: August 29, 2008, 10:52:48 am »

Just one other comment on rear LCD's...  For most of us, size is important.  However, net resolution might be  important for you too.  Ironically, it is here that the Phase + back has a very high resolution, but unfortunately smaller LCD; a tradeoff.  What I notice for me, is that if I zoom in to 100% on Phase I can accurately judge focus -- I found it not easy on the lower resolution Leaf or Hassy rear LCDs...

FWIW only,
Logged
Jack
[url=http://forum.getdpi.com/forum/

thsinar

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2066
    • http://www.sinarcameras.com
Moving to MFDB (Questions)
« Reply #17 on: August 29, 2008, 11:00:32 am »

You should have a look at the improved eMotion 75 display: bigger, bright and sharp to check focus accurately.

As for the new 3" high-res display of the just annouced "Sinar Hy6 - 65": I would suggest everyone to have a look at it. It is my opinion that it will please all.

Best regards,
Thierry

Quote
Just one other comment on rear LCD's...  For most of us, size is important.  However, net resolution might be  important for you too.  Ironically, it is here that the Phase + back has a very high resolution, but unfortunately smaller LCD; a tradeoff.  What I notice for me, is that if I zoom in to 100% on Phase I can accurately judge focus -- I found it not easy on the lower resolution Leaf or Hassy rear LCDs...

FWIW only,
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=218091\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Logged
Thierry Hagenauer
thasia_cn@yahoo.com

James R Russell

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 992
    • http://www.russellrutherford.com/
Moving to MFDB (Questions)
« Reply #18 on: August 29, 2008, 11:54:54 am »

Quote
As for the new 3" high-res display of the just annouced "Sinar Hy6 - 65": I would suggest everyone to have a look at it. It is my opinion that it will please all.

Thierry
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=218093\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]


Thierry,

This really isn't directed at you, or Sinar, or any one company in particular, but for all medium format (actually all professional digital capture).

For my use, shooting people in various situations from high lighting production studio work, location, to available light lifestyle what I need is;

1.   Higher iso.  A real clean 800.  Not blochy, or noisy in the shadows but an 800 that at least equals the 1ds3.  The instances where this is important means the difference from either not getting the shot or pulling out a dslr.

I would think the last thing any medium format camera company would want is for their system to lack a feature that would guarantee that their customers have to purchase a different system.

2.  Stable software and a open source file.  The software, must be completely 100% stable.  One crash, one lost file and the mood in the room changes 100%.  When tethering the software must be adjustable.  No crunchy or hard previews but the ability to present on screen a very close representation of what the final image will look like.  If the first frame on the screen produces a "wow" then the battle is half over.  If the response is "is that moire, or is the image going to look like that?"  then time, energy and mood is lost in conversation, rather than shooting.

With the Phase backs I and others have tethered to Lightroom  even as far as running a processing script in photoshop on files so the client can see exactly where the image is going.  The ability to achieve this close to final look in the tethering software has obvious benifits.

For high volume work the ability to rename, sort and move files quickly is a must. Flipping from one software to the next, just cause complexity and increases the chance to get it wrong, rather than insure that it is right.

A file that works direct in almost any 3rd party processor has obvious benifits.  I believe digital is a much more intimate process than film, just given the fact that I can take one "roll" and process it over and over in many different labs to achieve a different look.  The workflow advantages of an open source file that works in anything just can't be overstated when you are working with thousands of images and a tight deadline.

3.  In camera processing.  Obviously Sinar has addressed this and for quick previews, web galleries etc. if the jpeg is good, the colors close to correct then this can save many hours in workflow.  With the Canons I use the small jpegs and do some batch corrections in 3rd party software like lightroom.  This makes for very fast previews and processing and keeps the raw files untouched. Working on a 24" I-mac and lightroom I can reprocess out a thousand jpegs for web galleries in just a few minutes.

4.  LCD.  It seems Sinar has addressed this also, though the proof is in the looking.  I've owned Phase, Aptus, Canons (all of them) Leica and Nikon and if you shoot a non tethered image on any camera and compare it to the Nikon LCD, the client will look at the nikon image and say, "yea, use the big camera".   Obviously Nikon has raised the bar on what a 3" lcd can do.

As Billy said, the lcd to run in parallel with the computer when tethered is a must.  For locations where the monitor is 30 feet away it's almost impossible to run over every 10 frames to see if the changes and framing are correct.  Even for studio, it takes the attention away from the process for the photographer to have to move over to the monitor to check a lighting change.

Having both the camera and the computer with close to the same look and tone really keeps the energy where it needs to be, which is on set.

5.  Cameras.  I like the thought of the AFI and HY6 (especially now that it's black and not appliance blue).  I would like the thought of the camera a lot better if it worked on any digital back.  Not that one back is better than the rest, (these forums are full of those comparisions), but to invest in an expensive system, I would to think that at least the camera is a 10 year buy and will not be viable only if the digital back is vialbe.  As we all know things change fast in the digital world.

I also think this and other systems must have a series of wide lenses and more important, (at least for my work) a 110 F2 lens.  That is the magic mm and closely matches the Canon 85 1.2.

I can't even count the number of times my 80mm contax is too wide and too distorted for fashion work and the 140mm and 1.26 crop of he p30 puts me too far back for anytype of full length shot on location.  For the Contax my only alternative is to use a stop down hasselblad or Pentax lens and working fast under pressure that is just another element I don't need to address.

6.  Rentals.  All of these systems must be in the major market for rentals.  With the Contax and it's pricing almost anyone can afford to own two complete systems, but few people will do that with a camera like the AFI and HY6.  The lenses, at least the lenses, should be in every major rental house in every major market.  What do you do if the 150mm goes down in studio?  

7.  Price.  I know every maker wants to get the news of their new equipment out, but the first thing I look at is price.  Not just the buy in for the new equipment, but what I presently have invested.  I'm careful in the way I purchase but right now, even with Contax and the smaller P30+ and P21+ backs I have close to $50,000 invested in those systems.  For me to scrap that and go to any new back or camera, I have to know exactly what it is going to cost me.  

8.  Clairty.  Maybe I'm reading this wrong but the new HY6 camera annoucement somewhat confuses me.  You do have it where it rotates on the camera and you don't have it where it rotates on the camera.  Why not just one back that fits the HY6 that rotates?  Is this a cost measure or an engineering problem, actually that doesn't matter to me, but what does matter is the usability.  You mention you might go to 800 iso or might go to 1600 iso.  No offense meant but medium format is notorious for making a "suggestion" and then not following up for long time.  

Once again I know you want to get your message out, but I don't understand partial messages because at this price range you can't make a decision based on partial information.

Take this with a grain of salt as this is just what I need from a system and I don't know if it is what others would necessarily ask for.

I wish you all the best with your new camera.

JR
Logged

thsinar

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2066
    • http://www.sinarcameras.com
Moving to MFDB (Questions)
« Reply #19 on: August 29, 2008, 12:41:31 pm »

Edited: Deleted  - Double posting
« Last Edit: August 29, 2008, 02:13:41 pm by thsinar »
Logged
Thierry Hagenauer
thasia_cn@yahoo.com
Pages: [1] 2   Go Up