Pages: 1 ... 14 15 [16] 17 18   Go Down

Author Topic: Nikon Z 6 & Z 7 Comments and Issues  (Read 28065 times)

BernardLanguillier

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 13542
    • http://www.flickr.com/photos/bernardlanguillier/sets/
Re: Nikon Z 6 & Z 7 Comments and Issues
« Reply #300 on: December 25, 2019, 06:28:47 pm »

You don't think the Z9 will be a 60+mp top-end pro shooter?

No, I think thatís either a Z8 or a Z7 II. But frankly I use that sensor in the a7rIV and donít finf it that impressive.

Besides 45 and 60 arenít that different really.

Cheers,
Bernard

Martin Kristiansen

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1465
    • Martin Kristiansen
Re: Nikon Z 6 & Z 7 Comments and Issues
« Reply #301 on: December 26, 2019, 01:07:40 am »

You don't think the Z9 will be a 60+mp top-end pro shooter?

Top end pro cameras, as in Canon 1DX, Sony A9 and Nikon D5, are all around 24MP.

I think, but Iím not certain, that Bernard is expecting the Z6 to be sort of aligned with Sony A7 series while Z7 is more like the Sony A7r and that Nikon will introduce a mirrorless version of the D5, kind of Nikons version of an A9, a Z9 perhaps. That would make sense.
« Last Edit: December 26, 2019, 03:37:36 am by Martin Kristiansen »
Logged
Commercial photography is 10% inspiration and 90% moving furniture around.

Rob C

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 24074
Re: Nikon Z 6 & Z 7 Comments and Issues
« Reply #302 on: December 26, 2019, 12:39:12 pm »

Maybe Nikon may take heed of these reasonably sane-sounding suggestions?

http://www.dslrbodies.com/newsviews/nikon-2019-news/november-2019-nikon-canon/my-proposal-for-nikons.html

Cars seem to be facing much the same situation, with too many models around causing confusion. Ford seems to be doing the right thing - perhaps - concentrating on fewer bands of vehicles.

Unlike cameras, though, they face governmental laws that will eventually dictate what's allowed a place on the road. Maybe the fight there is going to be even more painful in a few years time.

Rob

BernardLanguillier

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 13542
    • http://www.flickr.com/photos/bernardlanguillier/sets/
Re: Nikon Z 6 & Z 7 Comments and Issues
« Reply #303 on: December 28, 2019, 02:24:13 am »

Yes, that would make sense.

Nikon has already taken the right strategic decision, like Sony, in terms of having a single mirrorless mount for both APS-C and FF, furthermore backward compatible with the single F mount.

This means that a Z50 user can use pretty much any Nikon lens ever designed, be it Z or F mount, be it APS-C or full frame.

This is to be compared to a Canon M with very limited compatibility and zero upward path towards the R mount. What was Canon thinking?

Cheers,
Bernard

BJL

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 6600
Re: Nikon Z 6 & Z 7 Comments and Issues
« Reply #304 on: December 28, 2019, 06:14:36 pm »

Top end pro cameras, as in Canon 1DX, Sony A9 and Nikon D5, are all around 24MP.
In the digital era, there are two categories of top end pro cameras in 35mm format, depending on which sector of professional photography the camera is for: high speed (in the senses of both frame rate and usable exposure index) vs high resolution, as with D5 vs D850. The former tend to be the more expensive, perhaps because their reportage uses require extreme physical robustness, but I am sure that for many (particularly in this forum) the more desirable model is the higher resolution one.
Logged

Martin Kristiansen

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1465
    • Martin Kristiansen
Re: Nikon Z 6 & Z 7 Comments and Issues
« Reply #305 on: December 29, 2019, 02:43:59 am »

In the digital era, there are two categories of top end pro cameras in 35mm format, depending on which sector of professional photography the camera is for: high speed (in the senses of both frame rate and usable exposure index) vs high resolution, as with D5 vs D850. The former tend to be the more expensive, perhaps because their reportage uses require extreme physical robustness, but I am sure that for many (particularly in this forum) the more desirable model is the higher resolution one.

All irrelevant for the sake of this particular discussion around the possible future of Nikonís mirrorless rollout. One top end body and next tier down in price and all features other than pixel count the territory currently occupied by the Z7 and what I would call a prosumer body, the most attractive to members of this forum.
Logged
Commercial photography is 10% inspiration and 90% moving furniture around.

Rob C

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 24074
Re: Nikon Z 6 & Z 7 Comments and Issues
« Reply #306 on: December 29, 2019, 05:10:26 am »

All irrelevant for the sake of this particular discussion around the possible future of Nikonís mirrorless rollout. One top end body and next tier down in price and all features other than pixel count the territory currently occupied by the Z7 and what I would call a prosumer body, the most attractive to members of this forum.

I'm not sure what you are saying here about the Z7, whether you are referring to the Z6, or to an alternative to the Z6 as being "next tier down in price", or whether you meant that the Z6 is irrelevant and that a different form of cheaper Z7 should be introduced, in which case it would be what?

I think there are too many different models on the market, meant mostly, I'd guess, to catch buyers in all wallet segments. Again, I see a parallel with the American car industry of old, where Ford, Chrysler and GM each offered wide ranges of similar car sub-brands - many on the same common company chassis, that reflected buyer ability to spend, but at the price of keeping alive too many product lines that cost a lot of money. Eventually, many of those sub-brands were discontinued because they split the market and kept alive heavy manufacturing costs that cutting the number of sub-brands eased and simplified on all levels. I think cameras are no different if you are the company making them: you have to rationalize.

To be blunt about it, photographers buying on price have to come to a decision: either they want quality or they do not. And on their part, the camera builders have to understand that their market has changed because of the invention of the smart 'phone. Speaking as somebody who earned his living with cameras, were I not still burning up with love for the medium (depite struggling with an equally powerful frustration with it), I think that suddenly stripped of the knowledge of what different focal lengths can offer my work, a smart 'phone would probably be all I'd have today. It makes photography easy, casual, and devoid of the need to think about it before leaving home, and deciding whether carting along a heavy, vulnerable and crime-attracting piece of cumbersome gear that may not even be used in anger on that specific day makes sense. Of course, that leaves showing off as a non-starter.

One essential thing I would do: remove the video function from stills cameras: let them be what they always were: stills cameras. If I had an interest in motion photography, I'd get a video camera. I neither want to buy such a feature in my stills bodies nor do I want to pay for it to live there unused. It's an unwanted complication, a further point of possible failure and a silly distraction; dump it.

The advances in sensor ability have brought digital and film cameras very close in one respect: both are sitting on a plateau, where if the status quo fails to please, the only different ways to go are off the edge or, perhaps, to develop another artificially constructed hill up which to force the troops to climb. Perhaps falling sales reveal that the troops have mutinied: they have had enough, thanks very much, the plateau is very comfortable, just as it is.

To conclude, I think each camera company needs to do several things: limit the number of competing models it manufactures and accept that the lowest rung has vanished; spend more on final inspection (have a final inspection department?) to ensure that no customer ever has to go through the frustration, anger and disappointment of having to return a faulty product. I never, once, bought a film Nikon or Hasselblad that had to be returned because it was not working properly on delivery, and I bought several of each. (I exclude the F4s which never self-loaded properly first time, but that was the beginning of silly, pointless features.) Reading today of people who are on their third or fourth new, faulty body seems incredible. Make fewer models, but make them well.
« Last Edit: December 29, 2019, 05:17:24 am by Rob C »
Logged

KLaban

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2262
Re: Nikon Z 6 & Z 7 Comments and Issues
« Reply #307 on: December 29, 2019, 05:33:44 am »

I believe that various manufacturers make various superb cameras and offer them for sale to us, their customers.

Long may it be so.

KLaban
Armchair CEO and photographer.

;-)
Logged

Alan Goldhammer

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 4174
    • A Goldhammer Photography
Re: Nikon Z 6 & Z 7 Comments and Issues
« Reply #308 on: December 31, 2019, 05:07:56 pm »


One essential thing I would do: remove the video function from stills cameras: let them be what they always were: stills cameras. If I had an interest in motion photography, I'd get a video camera. I neither want to buy such a feature in my stills bodies nor do I want to pay for it to live there unused. It's an unwanted complication, a further point of possible failure and a silly distraction; dump it.
I've had three cameras with video capability and never used it.  I'm not sure how much of a complication it is from a hardware perspective; isn't it more of a software issue? 
Logged

BJL

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 6600
Nikon Z 6 & Z 7, and why "photography" has been replaced by "imaging"
« Reply #309 on: January 02, 2020, 03:45:01 pm »

I think there are too many different models on the market, meant mostly, I'd guess, to catch buyers in all wallet segments.
...
the camera builders have to understand that their market has changed because of the invention of the smart 'phone.
...
To conclude, I think each camera company needs to do several things: limit the number of competing models it manufactures ... Make fewer models, but make them well.

All good points, and why I have to explain (yet again) why the following idea is doomed:

One essential thing I would do: remove the video function from stills cameras ...
If the failure of either Nikon or any other camera maker to repeat the "Df experiment" of six years ago does not make it clear, here is why I expect that digital cameras from now on will almost always have both stills and motion capability.

In short: the marginal cost of video capability is minuscule, greatly outweighed by the market value that it adds to the product, so that any such cameras for stills-only photographic puritans would have to be _additional_ models (like the never imitated Nikon Df), increasing the complexity and overhead costs of the product range.

At more length: the hardware cost would be negligibly higher because the sensors already do video and indeed live view is a kind of video requiring some other hardware and software video support too. The video software is also essentially free, since it will be written anyway for the models that clearly benefit from video (like any aimed at photojournalism or sports coverage these days). So the unit cost savings might be just from one less button and a few cents-worth less flash memory thanks to the space-saving of omitting video software. And whatever we stills-only curmudgeons want, many people clearly like to take the occasional video, and prefer not to buy and carry a second tool just for that. Look at the 'phones that you mention, and how modern "imaging" with them so includes motion along with stills. Nikon going still-only would just accelerate its decline relative to video-savvy Sony and Canon. Even the old-old-guard of Leica and Hasselblad offer video!

Let us accept that in most of the camera market-place, "photography" has been been replaced by "imaging", which is a blend of stills capture, motion capture, and in-camera or post-processing manipulation.


I say this as someone who has reprogrammed the video record button on my camera to activate AF while in manual focus mode.
Logged

kers

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3292
    • Pieter Kers
Re: Nikon Z 6 & Z 7 Comments and Issues
« Reply #310 on: January 02, 2020, 04:35:06 pm »

+1
The mirrorless camera needs some of the same qualities that are needed in video: a fast readout of the whole sensor..
The electronic shutter speed for a full readout is now about 1/15 to 1/40 sec.
At the moment there are problems photographing objects and lights that have low frequencies such as projector images and cheap (dimmed) led lights.
It also causes moving objects to be distorted.
Logged

Rob C

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 24074
Re: Nikon Z 6 & Z 7, and why "photography" has been replaced by "imaging"
« Reply #311 on: January 02, 2020, 05:44:05 pm »

All good points, and why I have to explain (yet again) why the following idea is doomed:
If the failure of either Nikon or any other camera maker to repeat the "Df experiment" of six years ago does not make it clear, here is why I expect that digital cameras from now on will almost always have both stills and motion capability.

In short: the marginal cost of video capability is minuscule, greatly outweighed by the market value that it adds to the product, so that any such cameras for stills-only photographic puritans would have to be _additional_ models (like the never imitated Nikon Df), increasing the complexity and overhead costs of the product range.

At more length: the hardware cost would be negligibly higher because the sensors already do video and indeed live view is a kind of video requiring some other hardware and software video support too. The video software is also essentially free, since it will be written anyway for the models that clearly benefit from video (like any aimed at photojournalism or sports coverage these days). So the unit cost savings might be just from one less button and a few cents-worth less flash memory thanks to the space-saving of omitting video software. And whatever we stills-only curmudgeons want, many people clearly like to take the occasional video, and prefer not to buy and carry a second tool just for that. Look at the 'phones that you mention, and how modern "imaging" with them so includes motion along with stills. Nikon going still-only would just accelerate its decline relative to video-savvy Sony and Canon. Even the old-old-guard of Leica and Hasselblad offer video!

Let us accept that in most of the camera market-place, "photography" has been been replaced by "imaging", which is a blend of stills capture, motion capture, and in-camera or post-processing manipulation.


I say this as someone who has reprogrammed the video record button on my camera to activate AF while in manual focus mode.

I think the problem with the Df is that they didn't do it right. Worse, it looks cheap, much like the FM series did, but at least that had the benefit of a higher flash synch. than the F and F2.

They should have just made an F2 with a sensor. And interchangeable prism screens, or at the very least, a split-image one. A split-image was normal for the generation that might have felt attracted to a Df. We knew how to use it.

Thinking about it, cost isn't perhaps the point: Leica made or makes a version of the M without a rear screen... that's getting the point for some people, even if I think it was even more expensive than other Ms when it was introduced.

kers

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3292
    • Pieter Kers
Re: Nikon Z 6 & Z 7 Comments and Issues
« Reply #312 on: January 03, 2020, 06:19:28 am »

I thought the spilt screen and some other types were interfering with the AF.
The half translucent mirror also made the OVF less bright. So they only could have made that into a non AF DSLR.
Logged

Martin Kristiansen

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1465
    • Martin Kristiansen
Re: Nikon Z 6 & Z 7 Comments and Issues
« Reply #313 on: January 03, 2020, 07:29:00 am »

Any camera manufacturer that designs a camera to suit the dozen or two people on this forum that still actually spend time taking actual photographs wonít stay in business very long.

I think current cameras are amazing. I would be happy to shoot With just about any of them.
Logged
Commercial photography is 10% inspiration and 90% moving furniture around.

KLaban

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2262
Re: Nikon Z 6 & Z 7 Comments and Issues
« Reply #314 on: January 03, 2020, 07:58:55 am »

Martin is right, building what are essentially small run cameras to meet my own needs and preferences or those of anyone else is a recipe for disaster. I've recently switched - with much trepidation - from one of  the most simplistic digital cameras to one of the most complex feature laden cameras on the market. There are features that I never realised existed, features that I'll never use, features that I never thought I'd have a use for until I had them as well as features I would have killed for.

These feature laden cameras could be seen as bespoke cameras for all, being relatively easy to set up to suit the individual. They are also relatively inexpensive when compared to the simplistic small run cameras I was using and the lenses are a mere fraction of the cost.

Feature laden cameras sell and sell well, they are particularly suited to the volume producers.

As far as viewfinders are concerned, well, I've shot with what are arguably the best optical viewfinders on the market - Hasselblad H - but now I'm using electronic viewfinders and I'd never go back. Mirrorless is very much the present and certainly the future.
Logged

BernardLanguillier

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 13542
    • http://www.flickr.com/photos/bernardlanguillier/sets/
Re: Nikon Z 6 & Z 7 Comments and Issues
« Reply #315 on: January 03, 2020, 09:02:49 am »

I had the chance to shoot some indoor karting this weekend with the Z7 on firmware 2.20 with the 24-70mm f2.8 S.

Near perfect results using AF-C. Definitely more consistent than what I would have gotten with my D850.

I had positioned my self at the point of highest speed on the track with a front to side movement as they were entering a top speed curve.

I am impressed.

Cheers,
Bernard

Rob C

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 24074
Re: Nikon Z 6 & Z 7 Comments and Issues
« Reply #316 on: January 03, 2020, 09:10:22 am »

Martin is right, building what are essentially small run cameras to meet my own needs and preferences or those of anyone else is a recipe for disaster. I've recently switched - with much trepidation - from one of  the most simplistic digital cameras to one of the most complex feature laden cameras on the market. There are features that I never realised existed, features that I'll never use, features that I never thought I'd have a use for until I had them as well as features I would have killed for.

These feature laden cameras could be seen as bespoke cameras for all, being relatively easy to set up to suit the individual. They are also relatively inexpensive when compared to the simplistic small run cameras I was using and the lenses are a mere fraction of the cost.

Feature laden cameras sell and sell well, they are particularly suited to the volume producers.

1. As far as viewfinders are concerned, well, I've shot with what are arguably the best optical viewfinders on the market - Hasselblad H - but now I'm using electronic viewfinders and I'd never go back. 2. Mirrorless is very much the present and certainly the future.

1.  I don't know what all your current photographic interests include, but going by your website, I don't think those are of a type that's particularly ŗ la sauvette, in which case I am happy to agree with your choices, which could well be mine too, in similar circumstances. We were both adoring fans of the Hasselblad 500 Series, and for very good reasons, and in my case, a system perfectly suited to some aspects of my genre, which of itself perhaps explains why, in a wider sense, genre is not as limited as some think it to be. For other aspects of the same field, Nikons were the most perfect solution of which I knew.

2.  Again, I agree with you, but perhaps for a different reason: the market has to take what the manufacturers hope to be the more profitable decisions. This isn't as simple as it may seem on the surface: popular opinion is also much affected by the image that the manufacturers present to the world, so in a sense, they are contaminating their own research. In a weird sort of way, I see a parallel in cars: the manufacturers have abandoned functional design for visual glory: gone are the days when you could just turn in your seat and see your two rear corners. Today, you reverse your Mars bar blind: by the "aid" of mirrors that present an unreal perspective of distance, and/or by aid of bleepers which, by their very invention, shout loudly and clearly that design no longer follows function. I once searched the Internet for rear after-market cameras for cars as a possible solution... I tormented my Ford agent, and he couldn't offer anything beyond some third-party Internet links. He gave me a price for fitting a set, and I found one that worked without having to have a wired connection between the reversing lights and the screen, thus avoiding messing with the car's interior furnishings. I was there, finger poised to buy, when I noticed that the warranty was only for a year: they explained that the cameras themselves are rotted by sunlight and deteriorate rapidly. At least they were honest enough to say so. I didn't buy, preferring to find large parking spaces or walk, both better options than the creation of new, eventually pointless holes in the bodywork.

KLaban

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2262
Re: Nikon Z 6 & Z 7 Comments and Issues
« Reply #317 on: January 03, 2020, 09:51:49 am »

1.  I don't know what all your current photographic interests include, but going by your website, I don't think those are of a type that's particularly ŗ la sauvette, in which case I am happy to agree with your choices, which could well be mine too, in similar circumstances. We were both adoring fans of the Hasselblad 500 Series, and for very good reasons, and in my case, a system perfectly suited to some aspects of my genre, which of itself perhaps explains why, in a wider sense, genre is not as limited as some think it to be. For other aspects of the same field, Nikons were the most perfect solution of which I knew.

2.  Again, I agree with you, but perhaps for a different reason: the market has to take what the manufacturers hope to be the more profitable decisions. This isn't as simple as it may seem on the surface: popular opinion is also much affected by the image that the manufacturers present to the world, so in a sense, they are contaminating their own research. In a weird sort of way, I see a parallel in cars: the manufacturers have abandoned functional design for visual glory: gone are the days when you could just turn in your seat and see your two rear corners. Today, you reverse your Mars bar blind: by the "aid" of mirrors that present an unreal perspective of distance, and/or by aid of bleepers which, by their very invention, shout loudly and clearly that design no longer follows function. I once searched the Internet for rear after-market cameras for cars as a possible solution... I tormented my Ford agent, and he couldn't offer anything beyond some third-party Internet links. He gave me a price for fitting a set, and I found one that worked without having to have a wired connection between the reversing lights and the screen, thus avoiding messing with the car's interior furnishings. I was there, finger poised to buy, when I noticed that the warranty was only for a year: they explained that the cameras themselves are rotted by sunlight and deteriorate rapidly. At least they were honest enough to say so. I didn't buy, preferring to find large parking spaces or walk, both better options than the creation of new, eventually pointless holes in the bodywork.

You should try sitting in an E-Type!
Logged

KLaban

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2262
Re: Nikon Z 6 & Z 7 Comments and Issues
« Reply #318 on: January 03, 2020, 01:53:36 pm »

1.  I don't know what all your current photographic interests include, but going by your website, I don't think those are of a type that's particularly ŗ la sauvette, in which case I am happy to agree with your choices, which could well be mine too, in similar circumstances. We were both adoring fans of the Hasselblad 500 Series, and for very good reasons, and in my case, a system perfectly suited to some aspects of my genre, which of itself perhaps explains why, in a wider sense, genre is not as limited as some think it to be. For other aspects of the same field, Nikons were the most perfect solution of which I knew.

2.  Again, I agree with you, but perhaps for a different reason: the market has to take what the manufacturers hope to be the more profitable decisions. This isn't as simple as it may seem on the surface: popular opinion is also much affected by the image that the manufacturers present to the world, so in a sense, they are contaminating their own research. In a weird sort of way, I see a parallel in cars: the manufacturers have abandoned functional design for visual glory: gone are the days when you could just turn in your seat and see your two rear corners. Today, you reverse your Mars bar blind: by the "aid" of mirrors that present an unreal perspective of distance, and/or by aid of bleepers which, by their very invention, shout loudly and clearly that design no longer follows function. I once searched the Internet for rear after-market cameras for cars as a possible solution... I tormented my Ford agent, and he couldn't offer anything beyond some third-party Internet links. He gave me a price for fitting a set, and I found one that worked without having to have a wired connection between the reversing lights and the screen, thus avoiding messing with the car's interior furnishings. I was there, finger poised to buy, when I noticed that the warranty was only for a year: they explained that the cameras themselves are rotted by sunlight and deteriorate rapidly. At least they were honest enough to say so. I didn't buy, preferring to find large parking spaces or walk, both better options than the creation of new, eventually pointless holes in the bodywork.

Strange you should say that, Rob, my current camera is the only one I've ever felt truly comfortable using on-the-fly.
Logged

Martin Kristiansen

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1465
    • Martin Kristiansen
Re: Nikon Z 6 & Z 7 Comments and Issues
« Reply #319 on: January 03, 2020, 02:22:52 pm »

1.  I don't know what all your current photographic interests include, but going by your website, I don't think those are of a type that's particularly ŗ la sauvette, in which case I am happy to agree with your choices, which could well be mine too, in similar circumstances. We were both adoring fans of the Hasselblad 500 Series, and for very good reasons, and in my case, a system perfectly suited to some aspects of my genre, which of itself perhaps explains why, in a wider sense, genre is not as limited as some think it to be. For other aspects of the same field, Nikons were the most perfect solution of which I knew.

2.  Again, I agree with you, but perhaps for a different reason: the market has to take what the manufacturers hope to be the more profitable decisions. This isn't as simple as it may seem on the surface: popular opinion is also much affected by the image that the manufacturers present to the world, so in a sense, they are contaminating their own research. In a weird sort of way, I see a parallel in cars: the manufacturers have abandoned functional design for visual glory: gone are the days when you could just turn in your seat and see your two rear corners. Today, you reverse your Mars bar blind: by the "aid" of mirrors that present an unreal perspective of distance, and/or by aid of bleepers which, by their very invention, shout loudly and clearly that design no longer follows function. I once searched the Internet for rear after-market cameras for cars as a possible solution... I tormented my Ford agent, and he couldn't offer anything beyond some third-party Internet links. He gave me a price for fitting a set, and I found one that worked without having to have a wired connection between the reversing lights and the screen, thus avoiding messing with the car's interior furnishings. I was there, finger poised to buy, when I noticed that the warranty was only for a year: they explained that the cameras themselves are rotted by sunlight and deteriorate rapidly. At least they were honest enough to say so. I didn't buy, preferring to find large parking spaces or walk, both better options than the creation of new, eventually pointless holes in the bodywork.

I have a reverse camera on my vehicle. Been working without trouble for 8 years. I actually transferred it from a previous vehicle. Itís 10 years old. Works perfectly.
Logged
Commercial photography is 10% inspiration and 90% moving furniture around.
Pages: 1 ... 14 15 [16] 17 18   Go Up