Pages: 1 ... 4 5 [6] 7 8 9   Go Down

Author Topic: gfx50s fujifilm or Hasselblad x1D? is one really better?  (Read 31355 times)

fredjeang2

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1376
Re: gfx50s fujifilm or Hasselblad x1D? is one really better?
« Reply #100 on: March 18, 2018, 12:16:55 pm »

Nobody is making you ride the tech train. There are plenty of great films cameras around at attractive prices. You can still buy film, chemicals, and paper. There are many folks using alternative processes who print at least as well, and probably better, than the best printers when the processes were current. Why not you? If you though the old days were great, you can go back there, which is not true of a lot of things.

Jim
I don't think you really read my post but only a part maybe. I don't want nor need to be back in film days. I'm talking about something else completly different here. Digital in itself is not the current problem IMO. Cheers.
« Last Edit: March 18, 2018, 12:23:39 pm by fredjeang2 »
Logged

Jim Kasson

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2370
    • The Last Word
Re: gfx50s fujifilm or Hasselblad x1D? is one really better?
« Reply #101 on: March 18, 2018, 12:28:41 pm »

I don't think you really read my post but only a part maybe. I don't want nor need to be back in film days. I'm talking about something else completely different here. Digital in itself is not the current problem IMO. Cheers.

Do you're saying that digital was good enough years ago?  I use an ancient Betterlight scanning back occasionally. Works great. But for most things, the GFX works a lot better and is much easier to use.

Jim

fredjeang2

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1376
Re: gfx50s fujifilm or Hasselblad x1D? is one really better?
« Reply #102 on: March 18, 2018, 12:42:52 pm »

Do you're saying that digital was good enough years ago?  I use an ancient Betterlight scanning back occasionally. Works great. But for most things, the GFX works a lot better and is much easier to use.

Jim
I'm not saying none of those things Jim. My post has very little to do with cosmetic cases. It has to do with the industry roadmap, the impact and power of marketing depts and the need for standardisation and simplification mostly in motion imagery, as well as new movements within the fashion industry to counterbalance the imagery we have now.
Also that the tech ceses to become dictatorial and mandatory and instead serves
Both the production and the client, where I think it is unbalanced currently.
« Last Edit: March 18, 2018, 12:52:16 pm by fredjeang2 »
Logged

Bo_Dez

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 331
Re: gfx50s fujifilm or Hasselblad x1D? is one really better?
« Reply #103 on: March 18, 2018, 12:44:40 pm »

I can appreciate what Fred is saying.

If you don't upgrade your gear often, you are hardly missing out on anything.
Logged

Jim Kasson

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2370
    • The Last Word
Re: gfx50s fujifilm or Hasselblad x1D? is one really better?
« Reply #104 on: March 18, 2018, 01:39:29 pm »

I'm not saying none of those things Jim.

There's a double negative there, which I'm going to assume was an error. Let me know if I'm wrong about that.

If that's not at least part of what you're saying, what was the point of this:

"This morning I did something for the fun I hate doing and actually never did. I took in imaging ressources the same boring image of a house from an old rusty uncompetitive outdated unapropriate dinausor Nikon D2x 12mpx, and the current micro 4/3 super mega hyper reffined sophisticated 20mpx sensor. I upsampled both to the exact same resolution. I was sure the enormous goodies of today's tech would smatch the old D2 in the face...I was blown away when I saw the results I link here. I was not expecting what I saw but it's real. It makes think...and think big!"

Jim

fredjeang2

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1376
Re: gfx50s fujifilm or Hasselblad x1D? is one really better?
« Reply #105 on: March 18, 2018, 02:01:21 pm »

There's a double negative there, which I'm going to assume was an error. Let me know if I'm wrong about that.

If that's not at least part of what you're saying, what was the point of this:

"This morning I did something for the fun I hate doing and actually never did. I took in imaging ressources the same boring image of a house from an old rusty uncompetitive outdated unapropriate dinausor Nikon D2x 12mpx, and the current micro 4/3 super mega hyper reffined sophisticated 20mpx sensor. I upsampled both to the exact same resolution. I was sure the enormous goodies of today's tech would smatch the old D2 in the face...I was blown away when I saw the results I link here. I was not expecting what I saw but it's real. It makes think...and think big!"

Jim
Very simple Jim. Ps (I personaly love the GX8 so no attack on m4/3 fans).
To make it short, one of the claim I heard most with the advance of tech in m4/3 is that the new sensor
Is supposed to bring a near FF quality as long as isos stay low.
You got the comp upsized. You can compare by yourself cause those images are public.
This claim is uncorrect because a non ff 12 mpx D2x upsized stands still
As you can see in front of a much much newer technology device.
On the contrary, if you push isos, then the GX8 got the advantage of course and this is really where the tech evolved
Most and not that much at based isos. But I would have bet that included at based Isos, a new sensor
With more megapixels would outperform at ease the old tech D2x. It did not at all.
I also remember that the old Leica digiback for the R system delivered much impressive prints than
Just the pixel count and antique tech would tell on the paper.
And this was confirmed also by people in this forum.
The bottom line is that tech makes things better but beware of some rumors and claims of all sort.
It depends in wich situations and for what.

« Last Edit: March 18, 2018, 02:21:30 pm by fredjeang2 »
Logged

fredjeang2

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1376
Re: gfx50s fujifilm or Hasselblad x1D? is one really better?
« Reply #106 on: March 18, 2018, 04:08:28 pm »


I think the Leica M is the only camera I would consider a 10 year camera. If you buy right, you find the lenses go up in value, not down. The bodies of course drop in value as to be expected with digital cameras but the performance difference in sensors between other brands is really very little in the real world use. And the lenses absolutely deliver.
I agree. And I wish we had the same simplicity/minimalism in operation of the M in other brands to be honest.
In short, a S replica design in other brands would not be a luxury.
 
« Last Edit: March 18, 2018, 04:24:56 pm by fredjeang2 »
Logged

Jim Kasson

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2370
    • The Last Word
Re: gfx50s fujifilm or Hasselblad x1D? is one really better?
« Reply #107 on: March 18, 2018, 04:58:11 pm »


The bottom line is that tech makes things better but beware of some rumors and claims of all sort.
It depends in wich situations and for what.

If you're not generalizing the way I thought you were, we have no disagreement wrt those two sentences.

My last such experiment comparing tech a decade apart had an entirely different result. When I got my GFX, I compared it to my H2D-39. There was no area in which the new camera with the new Fuji lenses (as opposed to the H-series Fuji lenses) was not superior, and by a lot in some cases. I sold all my H-series gear. I didn't get much for the bodies, but I got what I thought was an amazing amount for the lenses, so some folks must have seen things differently.

Jim

hubell

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1135
Re: gfx50s fujifilm or Hasselblad x1D? is one really better?
« Reply #108 on: March 18, 2018, 04:59:24 pm »

I agree. And I wish we had the same simplicity/minimalism in operation of the M in other brands to be honest.
In short, a S replica design in other brands would not be a luxury.

I completely understand your point of view. Just don’t expect those who think a camera like the GFX is “easy to operate” to agree. The divide is significant.

Jim Kasson

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2370
    • The Last Word
Re: gfx50s fujifilm or Hasselblad x1D? is one really better?
« Reply #109 on: March 18, 2018, 05:05:01 pm »

I completely understand your point of view. Just don’t expect those who think a camera like the GFX is “easy to operate” to agree. The divide is significant.

Right. After getting the a7RIII and the GFX, I sold my M240, M9, and all my M lenses shorter than 90 mm.

I held on to the WATE for a while, then I did this test:

https://blog.kasson.com/the-last-word/sony-12-24-batis-18-wate-on-a7rii/

Then I sold the WATE, too. Turns out it was worth a lot of money, so some folks must adore Leica lenses.

Jim

hubell

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1135
Re: gfx50s fujifilm or Hasselblad x1D? is one really better?
« Reply #110 on: March 18, 2018, 05:48:21 pm »

Right. After getting the a7RIII and the GFX, I sold my M240, M9, and all my M lenses shorter than 90 mm.

I held on to the WATE for a while, then I did this test:

https://blog.kasson.com/the-last-word/sony-12-24-batis-18-wate-on-a7rii/

Then I sold the WATE, too. Turns out it was worth a lot of money, so some folks must adore Leica lenses.

Jim

Yes, I get it. You are all in on the GFX. However, to me, there is no getting around it that the camera body is a soulless black box with a computer inside running a very bloated operating system. It is surely capable of producing beautiful work, but the joy of using a tool is a very important part of the image making process. I know there are literally hundreds of tutorials on setting up the Fuji and Sony cameras for shooting landscapes or whatever, but that sort of proves my point.

ErikKaffehr

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 11311
    • Echophoto
Re: gfx50s fujifilm or Hasselblad x1D? is one really better?
« Reply #111 on: March 18, 2018, 06:09:44 pm »

Hi,

As long as you don't have large and objects moving across the image at high speed slow FPS will work.

A Formula One car may move across the image in 1/10 s, and you know that the wheels are not elliptic but circular, so that would not work, unless you pan. If you pan it would work, too.

Best regards
Erik



I don't have experience with the X1D, but I since the Phase One backs added ES I have used it exclusively. ES on the IQ3100 takes longer (about 1 second total) so the effect may be different. I would assume the effect on the X1D would be less evident than on the IQ3100.

Below are some images taken at the following shutter speeds:
0.6 sec
0.6 sec
0.6 sec
1.6 sec
1.3 sec
1/5 sec

I am sure the effect is there, but because waves are perceived more random than a person walking I do not think it is obvious. You may feel differently:

0.6 sec


0.6 sec


0.6 sec


1.6 sec


1.3 sec


1/5 sec


Dave
Logged
Erik Kaffehr
 

pschefz

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 586
Re: gfx50s fujifilm or Hasselblad x1D? is one really better?
« Reply #112 on: March 18, 2018, 07:43:34 pm »

Yes, I get it. You are all in on the GFX. However, to me, there is no getting around it that the camera body is a soulless black box with a computer inside running a very bloated operating system. It is surely capable of producing beautiful work, but the joy of using a tool is a very important part of the image making process. I know there are literally hundreds of tutorials on setting up the Fuji and Sony cameras for shooting landscapes or whatever, but that sort of proves my point.
funny you choose to single out the GFX because i pretty much shoot it like i used to shoot my F3....aperture on lens, shutter on top, iso gets changed every now and then....
i don't like the sony menus and think the fuji menus are a lot better but still hate having to dig in.....but i would still much rather have those options then not....and with those modern cameras come a lot of options because they do so much and each generation gets better.....
which brings me to my other point....the idea of a digital body holding up well for 10 years is just ridiculous....neither does any computer....and to mention leica bodies in this discussion is  just strange....their latest bodies (across the board) are a good generation behind....
as for leica glass: i get it there are true believers who see more then others or whose copy of a specific lens is always better then the one tested and found just not so great....and i do believe that glass is subjective and has its own voice which sometimes "sounds" better.....
but sensors? DR, iso, pixel count....yes throw in color science for some personal preference but all in all a better sensor just provides a better file....
Logged
schefz.com
artloch.com

Jim Kasson

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2370
    • The Last Word
Re: gfx50s fujifilm or Hasselblad x1D? is one really better?
« Reply #113 on: March 18, 2018, 11:39:39 pm »

However, to me, there is no getting around it that the camera body is a soulless black box...

You can anthropomorphize cameras, but they don't like it. 

 :)

Jim

Bo_Dez

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 331
Re: gfx50s fujifilm or Hasselblad x1D? is one really better?
« Reply #114 on: March 19, 2018, 05:12:16 am »

which brings me to my other point....the idea of a digital body holding up well for 10 years is just ridiculous....neither does any computer....and to mention leica bodies in this discussion is  just strange....their latest bodies (across the board) are a good generation behind....
as for leica glass: i get it there are true believers who see more then others or whose copy of a specific lens is always better then the one tested and found just not so great....and i do believe that glass is subjective and has its own voice which sometimes "sounds" better.....
but sensors? DR, iso, pixel count....yes throw in color science for some personal preference but all in all a better sensor just provides a better file....

Don't you think that is down to the individual though?

Bodies being a generation behind only matters if it matters to you. I have a Leica M9 and an M10 and I use the M9 a lot. It does everything I need and is really very good. It makes no difference to me that it is CCD, it has good enough ISO up to 640 and I rarely need more. I don't find the Dynamic Range lacking at all, the colour is really very nice, 18MP is OK for what I use it for. The black and white conversions are gorgeous. It works flawlessly. It's 3-4 "generations behind" but is a very good camera and it has no bearing what so ever on my photography. It is fast approaching 10 years since I owned it and I will continue using it just as much until it dies completely. Who knows how many years from now - Leica even just replaced it's sensor last year for free.

The camera really is just a box. If it does what I need of it, then I don't feel the need to constantly upgrade it because doing so rarely has any affect on my photography.

As for lenses, it's really quite simple. You like a lens or you don't. One of the main reasons I buy a system is because I like the way the lenses render. I have bought cameras because of specific lenses many times.
« Last Edit: March 19, 2018, 05:43:13 am by Bo_Dez »
Logged

ErikKaffehr

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 11311
    • Echophoto
Re: gfx50s fujifilm or Hasselblad x1D? is one really better?
« Reply #115 on: March 20, 2018, 02:57:44 am »

Hi,

Try to use live view for accurate focusing on the M9, and you see that CMOS or CCD matters. This is just an example of enabling technology.

Regarding DR, it depends a bit on... things. I would agree that life on earth is possible without 13EV DR. As a matter of fact, I was shooting digitally since 2006 and seldom run into DR issues, and when so resolved to HDR.

The area where CMOS benefits is essentially readout noise in the darks. A modern CMOS sensor uses like 6000 analogue digital converters in parallell, while CCD passes the data trough say two ADCs that are not even on the same chip. So, for dark noise CMOS is a winner.

Weather CMOS or CCD, sensors reflect a lot of light while film was dark and was a diffuse reflector. So, film era lenses did not need to take reflection from film into account. With digital, that has changed.
Luminance range at the sensor is often limited by veiling flare in the lens.

So needs do vary. If a camera has new capabilities that we don't need there is little reason to upgrade.

Best regards
Erik


Don't you think that is down to the individual though?

Bodies being a generation behind only matters if it matters to you. I have a Leica M9 and an M10 and I use the M9 a lot. It does everything I need and is really very good. It makes no difference to me that it is CCD, it has good enough ISO up to 640 and I rarely need more. I don't find the Dynamic Range lacking at all, the colour is really very nice, 18MP is OK for what I use it for. The black and white conversions are gorgeous. It works flawlessly. It's 3-4 "generations behind" but is a very good camera and it has no bearing what so ever on my photography. It is fast approaching 10 years since I owned it and I will continue using it just as much until it dies completely. Who knows how many years from now - Leica even just replaced it's sensor last year for free.

The camera really is just a box. If it does what I need of it, then I don't feel the need to constantly upgrade it because doing so rarely has any affect on my photography.

As for lenses, it's really quite simple. You like a lens or you don't. One of the main reasons I buy a system is because I like the way the lenses render. I have bought cameras because of specific lenses many times.
Logged
Erik Kaffehr
 

fredjeang2

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1376
Re: gfx50s fujifilm or Hasselblad x1D? is one really better?
« Reply #116 on: March 20, 2018, 04:08:44 am »

Hi,

Try to use live view for accurate focusing on the M9, and you see that CMOS or CCD matters. This is just an example of enabling technology.

Regarding DR, it depends a bit on... things. I would agree that life on earth is possible without 13EV DR. As a matter of fact, I was shooting digitally since 2006 and seldom run into DR issues, and when so resolved to HDR.

The area where CMOS benefits is essentially readout noise in the darks. A modern CMOS sensor uses like 6000 analogue digital converters in parallell, while CCD passes the data trough say two ADCs that are not even on the same chip. So, for dark noise CMOS is a winner.

Weather CMOS or CCD, sensors reflect a lot of light while film was dark and was a diffuse reflector. So, film era lenses did not need to take reflection from film into account. With digital, that has changed.
Luminance range at the sensor is often limited by veiling flare in the lens.

So needs do vary. If a camera has new capabilities that we don't need there is little reason to upgrade.

Best regards
Erik
Engineering and engineers are absolutly necessary. I have the highest respect for engineers, reasearchers who build the evolution of mankind technology and I can be amazed by gear, craftmanship, new gadgets usefull or less usefull.
I don't regret the film days at all. Evolution does not have to cese but follow its flow. Then regulations, standardisations appear when the chaos becomes unproductive, and we see that in some areas of this business.

In what imagery is concerned, the progresses made those recent years are simply impressive in both production and post production. It's truly exciting to live and being part of this era.
But at the same time we reached a point IMO where some deontological ruminations are being necessary and starting to araise everywhere because the flow becomes out of control, a bit like a water overflow.

The problem is the roadmap. For example, HD in broadcast is a relative new implementation and no near to have been exploited to its full potential yet. The data stream remains very low. HD in a sensible situation will have to mature, reach the top and then go further. However, now they are pushing 4k. HD is dead before reaching maturity. Then it's not just 4k but HDR is pointing. Nothing is really ready yet but the frenesy is being sold by the brands themselves at an exponential speed. HDR is going to bring enormous chalenges and as a gimmick, it will sink rapidly.
Cameras were shooting HD, now it's completly obsolete and it's 4k. But we did not have solid codec HD yet in the hybrid era, we do not have raw HD a part from the experiments of magic lantern that was a DIY movement, not an industrial one. We had hd on the cheap and now 4k on the cheap. There is no hybrid camera today that proposed to mature the HD concept instead of 4k and bring a rock solid HD imagery. Not one. Even before the concept reached maturity, it's 4k and by the way 4k is already almost obsolete. But the 4k that is bundled in mirrorless/dslr today is an extremely low quality one.
But an extremely high HD capability does not sell. It does not interest marketing deps.
Too slow. The brands that produce our equipment want speed, very high speed. They want to sell the maximum possible number of devices in the shortest possible time. The only way to do that is by creating constant needs even before what is being implemented evolves and reaches the top. What sells is the immediate upgrade, regardless if we need it. So they sell concepts. The stream becomes an overflow. Before a concept even reaches any sort of maturity it's dead already.
That IMO is the issue this industry is facing.

Because for the client, the viewer, the art lover, nothing really changed. I have never heard a friend of mine saying "I'm going to see that movie because the theater is 4k". They don't care, even if they have a brand new 4k hdr tv in their living room.
They go to the cine, to the art gallery for other reasons.
The only ones who really care are idiots like us, caught in the overflow and completly manipulated by marketing depts. So we became like kids. We got a new toy, play with it a few hours, then it's not interesting any more. Dad Panasonic, dad Sony...I need a new toy for christmass, this one is boring. And papa PanaSony says with a big smile "of course my son! It's already prepared for you. Would you like to autofocus brickwalls in complete darkness?

When this touches the average consummer, it's not an issue. If I'm a consummer, a gear reviewer,  that is just fun and legitimaly a game and if I have the cash, I may want to play with toys and experience every single evolution regardless if usefull or not. There is no problem with that. Let's just call a cat a cat.

Those latest years, I witnessed that even with the most tech freakies I know, people who were amazed by the latest and cutting edge and never complained, a significant feeling of fatigue and frustration. I hear more and more phrases like "Ixm fed-up to have to upgrade my workstations every 3 years, I'm done with new learning curves and so on. Even on people who have the cash to pick-up, they start to talk about costs and hidden costs, thing that never happened before.

I also hear in my surrounding that as things become more and more complicated and messy, people spend more and more time in fixing sins, in looking into the forums for some help and they spend less and less time with the family and friends. They are being absorbed by the stream and the time/money they have to invest increased exponentialy. They feel overloaded by datas and informations to process and the exciting point of it became now a burden. This complain is real and serious for the professionals. The amateur has more freedom to stop at any time.
IMO we reached a limit in which this industry will have to rethink itself very soon.
« Last Edit: March 20, 2018, 05:10:18 am by fredjeang2 »
Logged

ErikKaffehr

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 11311
    • Echophoto
Re: gfx50s fujifilm or Hasselblad x1D? is one really better?
« Reply #117 on: March 20, 2018, 09:32:44 am »

Hi,

I am 62 years old and have doing photograhy, stills not motion, since 1970. I am pretty much an observer. I don't arrange things.

My experience is with film 24x36 and 120 (6x7). I have been shooting digital since 2006, starting with APS-C and moving on to larger formats, include a Hasselblad 555/ELD with a P45+ back but that has seen little use since I got my Sony A7rII.

What I discovered, sort of, that shooting P45+ was not beneficial for my photography. Looking at the images like 3-4 years later I can see that I was not using the Hassy kit in really interesting places.

The way I present my pictures is either as on line galleries or 4K slide shows, projected. I do also print, normally A2-size. At that size I did not see any advantage with the Hassy/P45+. Going to A1 I think the P45+ was beneficial, but I did not have a lot of good images from the Hassy. So just a few large prints from four years of shooting. I occasionally print larger, like 70x100 cm. Larger than that it was either panoramas or on canvas, that is not very demanding.

I can always go back, and see why I bought some gear. In 2008 I wanted full frame at 24MP. Going from 12 MP APS-C to 24MP on full frame was a noticable improvement at A2-size.

The next reason to upgrade was live view. I never trusted AF-systems and I felt I needed magnified live view. My vendor, Sony, botched that. So when Sony made cameras with real live view I bought three of them, starting with entry level and than moving up when better models have been available. Ended up with the A99, have been very happy with that camera.

The Hassy/P45+, I bought mostly because of curiosity. I was a medium format skeptic when I bought it and I am no less MFD skeptic now. Yes, I made some nice images with it and even enjoyed shooting with it: https://echophoto.smugmug.com/Technical/P45-Samples/

My plan was to go on to a technical camera, a Hartblei HCam B1 but I felt it was not worth the costs.

So, the next upgrade was the Sony A7rII. I did not really consider the A7r. It felt like a bit a hasty design. The had all the features I felt I needed:

  • First Electronic Shutter Curtain
  • On sensor Phase Detecting AF
  • Short flange, allowing Canon lenses with Adapters

Later I completed it with a HCam Master TSII. I can say that I am extremely happy with that kit. I did not do a lot of direct comparisons with the Hasselblad, the few cases I did the Sony did a better job.

All this is of course totally irrelevant to the original topic, but it may explain the way I have arrived to my conclusions. Regarding the original topic. I think both cameras make sense.

Best regards
Erik

 

« Last Edit: March 20, 2018, 10:04:10 am by ErikKaffehr »
Logged
Erik Kaffehr
 

hubell

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1135
Re: gfx50s fujifilm or Hasselblad x1D? is one really better?
« Reply #118 on: March 20, 2018, 11:57:39 am »

Hi,
Regarding the original topic. I think both cameras make sense.

Best regards
Erik

You would think your ultimate conclusion would be obvious. However, for reasons that are not readily apparent and about which we can only surmise, there are many here and at other websites who are unwilling to agree to that.  All you have to do is look at the so-called Medium Format Talk forum at DP Review where owners/potential owners of the X1D and the X1D itself are regularly ridiculed. It's the GFX or the Highway.

fredjeang2

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1376
Re: gfx50s fujifilm or Hasselblad x1D? is one really better?
« Reply #119 on: March 20, 2018, 12:56:34 pm »

It's the GFX or the Highway.
Hey, I'm learning new english jargon.
In french we would say "la rue" (means the street)
It:s the GFX or the street
But the highway in french would have been used in the sense of easy/no brainer.
If I had wrote that in english with my french mind you would have
Understood exactly the opposite.
Logged
Pages: 1 ... 4 5 [6] 7 8 9   Go Up