Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5 6   Go Down

Author Topic: would you ever buy a Sony?  (Read 34907 times)

urbanpicasso

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 70
    • davidbogdan/urbanpicassostudios
Re: would you ever buy a Sony?
« Reply #60 on: February 07, 2011, 06:43:14 pm »

Wow, what a read ... "horse-fly" comes to mind.
db
« Last Edit: February 07, 2011, 06:55:56 pm by davidbogdan »
Logged

JohnKoerner

  • Guest
Re: would you ever buy a Sony?
« Reply #61 on: February 07, 2011, 07:44:55 pm »

Wow, what a read ... "horse-fly" comes to mind.
db

Did you think up that one-liner response all on your own, or did you need to get outside help with the presentation?

I notice you made several "edits" to your complex post, so I am curious to know how many "revisions" you had to do before you felt in your heart that you worded it all perfectly

Thanks for any insight,

Jack



.
Logged

Farmer

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2848
Re: would you ever buy a Sony?
« Reply #62 on: February 07, 2011, 08:07:57 pm »

Well, I am certainly glad you have no problem with me making my own choices

Ironic :-)
Logged
Phil Brown

urbanpicasso

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 70
    • davidbogdan/urbanpicassostudios
Re: would you ever buy a Sony?
« Reply #63 on: February 07, 2011, 08:38:33 pm »

It was a simple edit. I added a hyphen to eliminate confusion.. I guess it didn't help.
Logged

Tony Beach

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 452
    • http://imageevent.com/tonybeach/twelveimages
Re: would you ever buy a Sony?
« Reply #64 on: February 07, 2011, 10:24:01 pm »

The 100mm f/2.8L has outstanding resolution by any yardstick. Perhaps not as high on the Imatest as the Zeiss 135, but high enough to qualify as "excellent." Further, the 100mm f/2.8L bests the Zeiss in several areas: lack of barrel distortion, bokeh, speed of AF, weather sealing, as well as the best IS in the business, all for less money.

Shifting your arguments I see, you wrote that the 100/2.8 L has "as good or better resolving power as the Zeiss," and now you have to obviously abandon that argument.  Now you want to argue that .15% barrel distortion is an issue on the 135/1.8?  Perhaps you should be worried about the .98% barrel distortion on the 85/1.2 L.  Bokeh on the 135/1.8 is outstanding and there is nothing to complain about there, and I never had a problem with AF using it either.  Want to pay less?  Sure, we all do, I've got a Sony 85/2.8 that is featherlight in my bag and works great on my A850 and it cost me $250.  As for the weathersealing, I agree that's something Sony should address, but it's not a deal killer for me.

Quote
Well, I wonder what experience you have with the bokeh on the Canon 100mm f/2.8L? Since you like to quote Photozone so much, here is what your own reference point states of the Canon: " the Canon lens does truly shine here (bokeh). Out-of-focus highlights are very uniform and perfectly circular till f/5.6. The critical focus transition zones are very smooth at max. aperture. It's one of the best lenses in this respect that we've seen so far," as well as "The AF performance is ... vastly better than third party alternatives." So you're the one who's talking nonsense here.

Funny that you would say I "like to quote Photozone so much," since I only mentioned it once and you have proceeded to base almost your entire response to me on it.  OTOH, since you seem to be the one fixated on Photozone and are now citing it extensively, I'll play along.  To wit, Photozone says of the 135/1.8 bokeh that its qualities are "outstanding" and that its "blur is exceptionally smooth and uniform."

Quote
You're right in a sense about the apples to oranges, but I am not deluding myself in overall perspective. You are deluding yourself into trying to elevate a limited system to the same playing field as Canon over one lens. As I said in the beginning, if I were only doing wedding/portraits, then maybe ... but for someone looking to build a full system, the Sony doesn't make much sense.

It's not about one lens, it's about whether the system has the lenses to meet my needs or not.  I mostly do landscapes with a lot of other stuff thrown in for good measure.  I would be happy with Canon, Nikon, or Sony as all three meet my needs; you feel otherwise and that's your prerogative, but that is not a license to distort facts.  For me Sony has been missing the T/S lenses, but some have been working around that with the Mirex adapter. I am currently getting outstanding results using my Nikkor 85/2.8 PC-micro with a non-optical adapter for close-ups and my Schneider 28/2.8 PC for architectural and landscapes, and I'm looking ahead to using the Schneider 50mm and 90mm T/S lenses when they become available and when I have the money to spend on them.

Quote
I wrote:
"The Zeiss 85/1.4 beats all comers, especially at the edges of its image circle."

Speaking of self-delusion, Tony, this is flat-out balderdash you're spewing. The Canon EF 85mm f/1.2L is pretty much peerless.

Once again, since you like Photozone so much, here is a direct refutation of your position by your own reference point: Of the Zeiss 85mm f/1.4 Photozone says, "The rather long min. focus distance of 1m is a bit disappointing compared to other lenses in this class ... the Canon EF 85mm f/1.2 USM L II is still a tad better (with bokeh) especially with respect to the foreground blur ..."

Meanwhile, of the Canon 85mm f/1.2L II, Photozone says, "The Canon EF 85mm f/1.2 USM L II is a lens where Canon "shows off" - it's ... a marvel within the lens lineup ... you're getting quite some glass for your bucks here ... The (bokeh) potential is more than extreme! If required this lens will smoothen even the most difficult back- and foregrounds ... Out-of-focus highlights are rendered perfectly and the blur is very smooth ... The center (resolution" performance is nothing short of breathtaking and the borders are only slightly weaker ... All-in-all an exceptional lens!"

So your own reference material rates the Canon 85mm better than the Zeiss, pretty much across the board.

Since you are so enamored of relying on Photozone, perhaps some screenshots are in order here.

http://photos.imageevent.com/tonybeach/mypicturesfolder/sharing/Photozone%2085mm%20Reviews.jpg

It is also worth noting that the ZA 85/1.4 costs $720 less than the Canon 85/1.2 L, and I will have more on that below.

Quote
The Canon offers better super-telephoto lenses, for less money, and has more of them to choose from. And, by all accounts, the Schneider cannot in any way compare to the Canon T/S lenses. Thus, in buying the Sony, you commit yourself to having less choices, in many cases inferior choices, and in virtually all cases you're stuck having to pay more money for them. So whatever short money you saved buying the Sony body ... costs you more in the end ... both in terms of versatility as well as overall lens prices.

Well, I've already written that Canon is the better choice for fast telephoto lenses, hardly the kind of thing a fanboy of another system would say.

Regarding Schneider not comparing in any way to Canon's T/S lenses, there are no accounts of that and you are fabricating that to bolster your argument that Canon is the best and greatest system ever.

As for the price of Sony lenses being too high relative to Canon (or Nikon for that matter), lets add it up:

Fast primes:
Sony 24/2 $1250 v. Canon 24/1.4 $1661 My verdict:  I can live with f/2 and pocket the $400.
Sony 50/1.4 $369 v. Canon 50/1.4 $379 My verdict:  No difference.
Sony 85/1.4 $1369 v. Canon 85/1.2 $2089 My verdict:  I'll definitely pocket the $720 here, and that's a total savings of $1130 for these three primes using the Sony system.

f/2.8 zooms:
16-35 Sony $1900 v. Canon $1614 My verdict:  I'm not sure, Canon has a bad reputation in this category, if pressed I would look for other options for both brands and Nikon kicks butt here with their 14-24/2.8
24-70 Sony $1600 v. Canon $1329 My verdict:  Canon saves you $271 here, but I am not a fan of this zoom range anyway even though many are.
70-200 Sony $1800 v. Canon $2374 My verdict:  A lot of photographers use all three of these zooms in their kit, adding it up it's a dead heat in terms of overall price with both systems costing about $5300 for these three lenses.

100mm f/2.8 macros:
Sony $679 v. Canon $996 My verdict:  I've seen the bokeh of the Minolta 100mm macro, and I regret somewhat not spending the extra $200 I saved buying the Sigma 105/2.8, but I solved that by buying the Sony 85/2.8, so in the end whatever works for you here.  Personally, I prefer T/S for close-up photography (I'm not a macro shooter anyway), and Canon has that whereas I have solved this by using my Nikkor [see above in this reply], so given that the Schneider isn't here yet and is going to cost a lot, I would give this one to Canon or Nikon, but if you just want a good 100mm macro then there's nothing wrong with the Sony option.

Quote
Tony used to cheerlead Nikon a few years back, now he is cheerleading Sony.

Well, I see good things in all three systems being discussed here and am willing to say as much.  I've opted for the A850 because it meets my needs better than any other option out there right now, and I am not feeling limited by lens options right now (finances due to the Great Recession are a different matter though).  OTOH, you have been a die-hard Canon fanboy for years now, and that along with your abrasiveness just makes your posts loathsome to read.

I just realized it's time to update my profile here, the page where I show my photos disappeared due to some re-organizing of the site where I keep my online photos, so I'm addressing that now (in case anyone is interested, I would be).  I'll let my photographs speak for themselves; in the end the system we choose is rarely the thing that prevents or enables us to get photographs, and as I said in my first post in this thread, I'm content with Sony for now.
Logged

ErikKaffehr

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 11311
    • Echophoto
Re: would you ever buy a Sony?
« Reply #65 on: February 08, 2011, 12:44:51 am »


Hi,

Here in Sweden the Sonya Alpha 300/2.8 is 91890 SEK that is about 14000 USD

The Nikon 300/2.8 VRII is 49900 SEK -> 7600 USD

The Canon 300/2.8 is       72950 SEK -> 11200 USD

It's nice to be able to use old Minolta lenses if you can find any. I have the 300/4G APO and the 400/4.5G APO.

Best regards
Erik

At $6300 the Sony 300/2.8 is the most expensive choice, but the $5800 Nikon choice is only $500 cheaper; clearly the better choice would be Canon's option which costs $4635.  Indeed, you could buy the Canon 300mm lens and a 7D for just $300 more than the Sony 300/2.8, so that might justify having two systems (ouch, neither of them would necessarily be Nikon, especially if cost is a primary consideration).  What's more, Sony doesn't even have a decent APS-C/DX format DSLR to use on their 300/2.8, and we're still waiting for the 500/4; so if wildlife is what you want to shoot then Sony isn't a good choice at this time.
Logged
Erik Kaffehr
 

pegelli

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1664
    • http://pegelli.smugmug.com/
Re: would you ever buy a Sony?
« Reply #66 on: February 08, 2011, 01:07:34 am »

Why do you fellas (who take the losing argument) always like to resort to the word "fanboy," when you run out of rebuttal material to stand on?

Like Tony, take a look at your own pom-poms and realize you are likewise doing nothing but cheerleading your own preference "team" here. You just happen to be on the losing team. At least right now.

I see you ran out of arguments Jack, just too many unstabilised lenses in the Canon line up and that's what we were discussing here. And who talks about "winning" or "losing", we're just trying to show that the Sony system isn't as bad or small as you want people to believe. If Canon is better for you because it has advantages over other systems that's cool and I see you take some wonderful shots with it. However it's typical fanboy behaviour to bash the other brand with crazy and exagerated arguments just to bolster your own ego. Fine with me if you believe yourself, but I don't buy it.



Hope you enjoyed my responses then.
Yes I did, thanks for the laugh  ;)
« Last Edit: February 08, 2011, 01:28:42 am by pegelli »
Logged
pieter, aka pegelli

Plekto

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 551
Re: would you ever buy a Sony?
« Reply #67 on: February 08, 2011, 01:37:11 pm »

To me, it's like comparing Lexus and Mercedes.  But you can't really bag on either one since they are a major step up from the cheap rental and commuter car fodder.  Nikon is a bit like Porsche - excellent and better than both by far, but unreasonably expensive.  Still, some people spend the money on one, and that's their choice.

Would I buy a Sony?  Sure, because at this level all I'm really concerned with is price.  Any of these three brands will do a more than adequate job for any photo shoot or project that I have in mind (large format black and white is another thing, though - heh).  What I do like about Sony is that the majority of Sony branded lenses are identical to lenses sold under the Minolta brand - only the label is different.  This means very attractive NOS and used prices for harder to find lenses.  Often people are literally giving away Minolta lenses without realizing that it's not a dead and worthless product.

Ebay search right now -
Canon 85mm 1.2 $1400 used (best I could find in good shape)
Sony 85mm 1.4 $1200 used
About a wash, IMO.  Not a terribly large difference versus new, as you'd expect.

"Minolta" 85mm 1.4 version - $950 used. 
That's a lot of money for a different logo stuck on the side.

Sony has a huge advantage here, IMO, in that if you are a cheapskate and penny-pincher, you can build a system using used lenses for far less than Canon or Nikon.  I consistently recommend it to people as a first serious DSLR or to students and the like as they can build a complete system for well under $4K and possibly $3000 if they look really hard and limit it to a few good lenses.  This is impossible with Nikon and difficult for Canon.

New, it's kind of a wash between Canon and Sony.  Buy whatever makes you happy.  But I'm not one bit afraid of used lenses, either.   ;D
« Last Edit: February 08, 2011, 01:51:34 pm by Plekto »
Logged

AlastairMoore

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 46
    • http://serialphotography.com
Re: would you ever buy a Sony?
« Reply #68 on: February 08, 2011, 06:27:43 pm »

Nikon still can't match the A850 with anything less than the very expensive D3x.

Rubbish.

The D700 and D3 quite easily matches and betters the A850 for shooting in low light and for sports, for example. And the autofocus system on the D700/D3/D3S is clearly superior to the A850. It's not as clear cut as saying X camera is better than Y camera. If you want huge, high resolution images, then you wouldn't be looking at the D700 or D3. If you want clean high ISO images or want to be shooting high frame rate images, you wouldn't pick the A850.

AlastairMoore

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 46
    • http://serialphotography.com
Re: would you ever buy a Sony?
« Reply #69 on: February 08, 2011, 06:59:37 pm »

Ebay search right now -
Canon 85mm 1.2 $1400 used (best I could find in good shape)
Sony 85mm 1.4 $1200 used
About a wash, IMO.  Not a terribly large difference versus new, as you'd expect.

"Minolta" 85mm 1.4 version - $950 used. 
That's a lot of money for a different logo stuck on the side.

Sony has a huge advantage here, IMO, in that if you are a cheapskate and penny-pincher, you can build a system using used lenses for far less than Canon or Nikon.  I consistently recommend it to people as a first serious DSLR or to students and the like as they can build a complete system for well under $4K and possibly $3000 if they look really hard and limit it to a few good lenses.  This is impossible with Nikon and difficult for Canon.

New, it's kind of a wash between Canon and Sony.  Buy whatever makes you happy.  But I'm not one bit afraid of used lenses, either.   ;D

It certainly is not impossible with Nikon! What's your definition of a complete system? You can easily build a "complete system" with Nikon for less than $4000. My complete system (for me) cost me less than this and comprises of 20, 24, 28, 35 and 50mm lenses and a D700. Oh and an Ebay search shows Nikkor 85mm f1.4 for as little as $1000 new, albeit on grey import but in my experience good camera equipment insurance negates the lack of Nikon support for grey import. Even used, Ebay shows completed listings for 85mm f1.4 lenses at under $1000.

http://cgi.ebay.com/Nikon-AF-85mm-f-1-4D-IF-Lens-f1-4-d-/180619483679?pt=Camera_Lenses&hash=item2a0dc29a1f#ht_4444wt_1141

Another Ebay completed listing search shows Nikon D700s going for as little as $1800. That gives you $2200 for the rest of your system. If you went for a cropped sensor camera, you'd have oodles of spare dollars for a complete serious DSLR system.

Tony Beach

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 452
    • http://imageevent.com/tonybeach/twelveimages
Re: would you ever buy a Sony?
« Reply #70 on: February 08, 2011, 10:51:20 pm »

Rubbish.

The D700 and D3 quite easily matches and betters the A850 for shooting in low light and for sports, for example. And the autofocus system on the D700/D3/D3S is clearly superior to the A850. It's not as clear cut as saying X camera is better than Y camera. If you want huge, high resolution images, then you wouldn't be looking at the D700 or D3. If you want clean high ISO images or want to be shooting high frame rate images, you wouldn't pick the A850.

It's not rubbish for me and don't quote me out of context and then try to distort what I said based on that.  I wrote that, "I could have bought a D700.  I had plenty of lenses for it and the money in my pocket, but I went with the A850 instead.  After over a year I have no regrets with that decision and would do it again.  For me the A850 is a better fit than the D700, and Nikon still can't match the A850 with anything less than the very expensive D3x."

As far as I'm concerned, the A850 files are not huge, and since the most often proposed solution to getting more resolution with 12 MP DSLRs is to stitch, it ends up being easier for me to handle fewer 24 MP files than more 12 MP files.  I rarely shoot above ISO 1600, and the A850 does just fine up to that level.  I have a D300 with its CAM3500DX and while I do like how configurable it is, my A850 AF matches it in lowlight acquisition.  Since I mostly shoot landscapes, the exquisite detail I get from my A850 fits me perfectly whereas I would be practically no happier with a D700 than I was when all I had was my D300 (also a very good camera BTW).

My next camera will likely be an A900 (which was what the OP was specifically asking about).  I never felt limited by the 5 fps I got from my D200, so in that regard I think I will be back to having everything I want in a camera when I have that and use my A850 as a back-up to it.
Logged

pegelli

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1664
    • http://pegelli.smugmug.com/
Re: would you ever buy a Sony?
« Reply #71 on: February 09, 2011, 01:25:46 am »

Rubbish.

The D700 and D3 quite easily matches and betters the A850 for shooting in low light and for sports, for example. And the autofocus system on the D700/D3/D3S is clearly superior to the A850. It's not as clear cut as saying X camera is better than Y camera. If you want huge, high resolution images, then you wouldn't be looking at the D700 or D3. If you want clean high ISO images or want to be shooting high frame rate images, you wouldn't pick the A850.

Fully agree, better is in the eye of the beholder. There is no camera or system simply "better" than another, one camera or system might meet one individuals' needs "better" but I think that's all. I think they call it "horses for courses"
Logged
pieter, aka pegelli

Enchanter

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 30
Re: would you ever buy a Sony?
« Reply #72 on: February 09, 2011, 03:04:56 am »

I've been using Nikon since Jan 1980 and have by and large been very happy with the system. No system is perfect though; all have their strengths and weaknesses. Trying to convince the other guy that your system is better by rubbishing his choice or trying to play the pseudo intellectual on this or any other forum doesn't help anyone as far as I can ascertain.

Personally, I wouldn't purchase Sony as a work system because it hasn't the range of lenses, accessories and back-up that I need. If I were using a camera strictly for pleasure, I would probably be perfectly happy with Sony as there's certainly nothing wrong with the images that I've seen from that brand.

As for Zeiss, recently, I have purchased a Zeiss 35/2 ZF.2, a Zeiss Makro Planar 100/2 ZF.2, Zeiss Makro Planar 50/2 ZF.2 and lust after a Zeiss 21/2.8 ZF.2 (a friend has one and I'm truly impressed by it's IQ). I would encourage any Nikon diehard out there to try one of these Zeiss lenses I mentioned. Build quality aside, which is in a different league to most Nikon lenses, (I own many Nikkors, old and new) you'll be impressed by the colour, sharpness and overall pleasant quality of the images that are somehow different to what Nikon glass produces. Very hard to put a finger on it, nevertheless, it's apparent. All manual focus, of course, which isn't for everyone. Very, very smooth with perfect feel though. The new Nikon primes are not superior to Zeiss in my experience, except for being faster.


Logged
Wellington, New Zealand

Erick Boileau

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 251
    • http://
Re: would you ever buy a Sony?
« Reply #73 on: February 09, 2011, 03:52:10 pm »

no :-)
Logged

Plekto

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 551
Re: would you ever buy a Sony?
« Reply #74 on: February 09, 2011, 05:14:50 pm »

It certainly is not impossible with Nikon! What's your definition of a complete system? You can easily build a "complete system" with Nikon for less than $4000. My complete system (for me) cost me less than this and comprises of 20, 24, 28, 35 and 50mm lenses and a D700. Oh and an Ebay search shows Nikkor 85mm f1.4 for as little as $1000 new, albeit on grey import but in my experience good camera equipment insurance negates the lack of Nikon support for grey import. Even used, Ebay shows completed listings for 85mm f1.4 lenses at under $1000.

I was excluding obvious gray market and "like new"(can see the scuffs in the picture) and pawn shop stuff.  In any case, the Minolta label lenses are almost always less expensive used, just because people don't realize that they still are useful on current cameras.

But to address your main point, I wasn't talking about "a bunch of lenses" - A "system" in my mind is 3-5 high-grade or pro level IS lenses, plus the body of course.  A $150 lens is almost certainly not worth spending the money on, new, and while you can make a system for cheap that way, it's really not worth it. Besides a D700 is going to not compete with the Canon and Sony 20+MP full frame cameras.  Even a D700 will run you 2K+ for the body - Nikon has a serious problem with its price structure.

Logged

ronkruger

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 88
  • Outdoor writer/photographer for over 30 years.
Re: would you ever buy a Sony?
« Reply #75 on: February 09, 2011, 10:41:36 pm »

The marrage of Sony and Zeiss is relatively new. Does anyone know if the Zeiss lenses will work the same on models made before the marrage?
Logged
In the end, the only things that matter are the people we help and the people we hurt. Google Ron Kruger and click on any link to Photoshelter

pegelli

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1664
    • http://pegelli.smugmug.com/
Re: would you ever buy a Sony?
« Reply #76 on: February 09, 2011, 11:30:55 pm »

The marrage of Sony and Zeiss is relatively new. Does anyone know if the Zeiss lenses will work the same on models made before the marrage?

All the CZ AF screw drive lenses (85 & 135) will work on even the oldest AF film bodies.
The CZ SSM (AF ringmotor) lenses (16-35, 24-70, 24) will only work on all DSLR's and on later film bodies that support this technology. This is a good reference to see which film bodies take SSM lenses.
« Last Edit: February 10, 2011, 06:23:22 am by pegelli »
Logged
pieter, aka pegelli

Enchanter

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 30
Re: would you ever buy a Sony?
« Reply #77 on: February 10, 2011, 05:54:59 am »

Nikon has a serious problem with its price structure.

That's because they're better made. :D No, just kidding.

I do think the Nikon bodies like the D300, D700 feel a lot more solid than the Canon bodies such as the very good 5D Mk11.
Logged
Wellington, New Zealand

Plekto

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 551
Re: would you ever buy a Sony?
« Reply #78 on: February 10, 2011, 10:24:03 am »

True, they are built a little bit better.  But, the difference between the levels of markup is worse every year.  Canon makes an entry level  12MP camera (the Xsi) that I can buy the body for $499 or so.  In terms of the pictures, there's not a huge difference between the D700 and the Xsi.  Yes, there is some, but $1500 worth?  I'm not so sure.

Then again, if you have money to burn, like Leica, they do make very good cameras.  Just that working Joes like myself just want something inexpensive that gets the job done most of the time.  There's simply no need to buy an Aston Martin to commute to work in when a Lexus or similar luxury car will suffice. (but yes, I do dream of some day owning an Aston Martin... :) )
Logged

Slobodan Blagojevic

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 18090
  • When everyone thinks the same, nobody thinks
    • My website
Re: would you ever buy a Sony?
« Reply #79 on: February 10, 2011, 10:39:19 am »

... There's simply no need to buy an Aston Martin to commute to work in when a Lexus or similar luxury car will suffice. (but yes, I do dream of some day owning an Aston Martin... :) )

Heck, I dream about a Lexus, but would settle for an Avalon :(

P.S. If the guy above, in charge of my dreams, is extremely preoccupied, a new Camry model would suffice. ;)
Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5 6   Go Up