Pages: 1 2 [3] 4   Go Down

Author Topic: E-M5 iii  (Read 2634 times)

chez

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1868
Re: E-M5 iii
« Reply #40 on: October 22, 2019, 09:29:46 am »

Another thing about weight: often what matters most to me is the weight of the one camera that I have in hand or hanging from my neck. Changing to the E-M5 with 12-50 hanging was a joy when walking with that in hand for hours. Maybe my case is unusual; I prefer to walk with a hand always at least partly supporting the camera though it is always on a strap, to avoid it bouncing around as I walk.

Exactly...the weight of camera lens in hand is what I look at. During travel, I always carry my camera with wrist strap in hand...so a few hundred grams makes a huge difference by the end of the day. A few hundred grams on my back is no big deal...but carrying in hand...makes a difference.
Logged

armand

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 4527
    • Photos
Re: E-M5 iii
« Reply #41 on: October 22, 2019, 09:53:36 am »

So Armand, I have a question.  First, I own a Sony RX100iv which I use on vacation and "here and there".  I've been thinking of getting an m43.  Since you use both, when do you use one over the other?  What advantage to me would the m43 be?  What disadvantages?

See the reply in your other thread.

BJL

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 6600
Re: E-M5 iii
« Reply #42 on: October 23, 2019, 07:29:59 am »

Bernard,
I certainly agree that it is a viable option for someone to carry a Z7 kit when hiking, if the weight/cost/image quality trade-offs make sense to the particular photographer and situation—after all I used to hike with a “full frame” camera as heavy as the Z7, my Pentax K-1000, sometimes with a bulky 28-200mm lens.

On the other hand, I hope we have answered your question as to why many other hikers choose smaller format systems like MFT for hiking—even some who also have 35mm format gear. I’ll just add one more factor besides weight in-hand or on neck and price: depending on the photographic activities and objectives of an outing, a “better” kit can often in practice produce no perceptible improvement in the final image display, because the scenes and print/display sizes fall within the gamut that the smaller kit handles perfectly well. Then the claims about “better” are as irrelevant as asking why I don’t choose a bigger, more powerful, more expensive vehicle on the basis of its ability to tow a ten ton load, or to go 200kph on the autobahn, or other things that are simply not in my plans.
Logged

John Camp

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1807
Re: E-M5 iii
« Reply #43 on: October 23, 2019, 01:34:38 pm »

<snip>
I’ll just add one more factor besides weight in-hand or on neck and price: depending on the photographic activities and objectives of an outing, a “better” kit can often in practice produce no perceptible improvement in the final image display, because the scenes and print/display sizes fall within the gamut that the smaller kit handles perfectly well. Then the claims about “better” are as irrelevant as asking why I don’t choose a bigger, more powerful, more expensive vehicle on the basis of its ability to tow a ten ton load, or to go 200kph on the autobahn, or other things that are simply not in my plans.

Printing is becoming less and less common, IMHO, as most photos are now viewed on video screens of one kind or another. A Z7 will produce more pixels than can be used by an 8K screen (assuming you use the full frame) and there are reasons to believe that TVs won't go much past 8k any time in the near future. However, Tom Hogan suggests in a chart at the bottom of this page:
 
http://www.dslrbodies.com/cameras/camera-articles/image-quality/how-big-can-i-print.html

that you can get a "good+" 24x36 inch print at 60mp, and an "excellent" print at 100mp. In other words, a m4/3 would have a hard time handling a print of that size. He suggests that m4/3 sort of tops out on "excellent" prints at about 13x19. If he is correct, and the experts are correct in suggesting that we will soon see a raft of 60+mp cameras from the big makers, then, as they say, the End is Near. Anyone who prints larger than 24x36 (model photos for Victoria Secret stores, which need to be ten feet tall and have smooth skin tones) will need a specialty camera.

I really think the big camera makers need to focus on other parameters of photo goodness, rather than resolution -- stuff basically out of reach of iPhones and compacts. Better low-light response, better color response, a wider range of affordable specialty lenses, much better batteries, etc. I went to a Ryan Bingham concert Sunday night and took some iPhone photos, in which you can sort of tell what is going on, although you really can't make out facial features. A 12-year-old D3 would have blown it away. That's where the strengths of enthusiast/pro cameras lie, I think -- the hard stuff.
Logged

Slobodan Blagojevic

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 16728
  • When everyone thinks the same, nobody thinks
    • My website
Re: E-M5 iii
« Reply #44 on: October 23, 2019, 01:48:42 pm »

... that you can get a "good+" 24x36 inch print at 60mp...

I did that size with an 8 Mpx camera.

BernardLanguillier

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 13484
    • http://www.flickr.com/photos/bernardlanguillier/sets/
Re: E-M5 iii
« Reply #45 on: October 23, 2019, 07:08:55 pm »

I really think the big camera makers need to focus on other parameters of photo goodness, rather than resolution -- stuff basically out of reach of iPhones and compacts. Better low-light response, better color response, a wider range of affordable specialty lenses, much better batteries, etc. I went to a Ryan Bingham concert Sunday night and took some iPhone photos, in which you can sort of tell what is going on, although you really can't make out facial features. A 12-year-old D3 would have blown it away. That's where the strengths of enthusiast/pro cameras lie, I think -- the hard stuff.

Well, I agree that resolution is overdone, although having the GFX100 helped capture the details of the beautiful fabric models were wearing this Tuesday.

But, although I also agree that camera manufacturers should rather concentrate on strengths other than resolution, odds are that they will soon be overwhelmed by the attempts to... catch up with essential things phones are already doing better today thanks to computational photography.

Look at what the pixel 4 does for night photography... look at the quality of AWB achieved by an iphone... look at the DR easily achieved by phones by automatically HDring 2 frames...

Many photographers will soon prefer their phones for generic shootings because they are going to get good results much more easily with the phone.

It’s already the case with the majority of cheap APS-C DSLRs with which a majority of users get worse photos that those they would have gotten with recent phones for typical web posting.

You bring your cheap DSLR, struggle with the settings, you 15 old nephew shows up with his iphone 11 pro and nails the shot in 2s...

IMHO Canon is going to commit suicide trying to beat Google and Apple to save their mass market share made up essentially of cameras already ridiculed by phones for generic shooting.

Cheers,
Bernard

BJL

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 6600

Printing is becoming less and less common, IMHO, as most photos are now viewed on video screens of one kind or another.... Tom Hogan suggests in a chart at the bottom of this page:
 
http://www.dslrbodies.com/cameras/camera-articles/image-quality/how-big-can-i-print.html

... He suggests that m4/3 sort of tops out on "excellent" prints at about 13x19. ...

I really think the big camera makers need to focus on other parameters of photo goodness, rather than resolution -- stuff basically out of reach of iPhones and compacts. Better low-light response, better color response, a wider range of affordable specialty lenses ... I went to a Ryan Bingham concert Sunday night and took some iPhone photos, in which you can sort of tell what is going on, although you really can't make out facial features. A 12-year-old D3 would have blown it away. That's where the strengths of enthusiast/pro cameras lie, I think -- the hard stuff.

That all makes a lot of sense to me. I would love to see real data, but my guess is that a great majority of (us) users of mainstream format ILC's (up to APS-C) are doing little or no printing, and what printing they (we!) do is almost always no bigger than 13" x 19" or A3 (which is 11.7" x 16.5"). I fit that profile anyway, so I'll say "we" from now on.

If so, probably the most detailed display we see is what we see on modern 4K or 5K monitors. For example the 21.5" 4K and 27" 5K iMac displays are both about 218ppi, about matching the 200PPI of dye sub prints that were reckoned to match traditional photographic prints for detail. So for detail, those displays about match traditional photographic prints of dimensions 19'" x 11" for the 21.5" 4K model and 24" x 13" for the 27" 5K model — bigger than we are likely to print, and with far greater dynamic than any traditional print.

I am not saying that the pixel count of those screens is enough for such viewing: Bayer CFA pixels arguably have less detail than the full three color pixels of a screen can display, so it could make sense to use about 300PPI camera data on those 218PPI displays. Let's say 288PPI, to fit Thom Hogan's magic number for "excellent" quality! That would come to about 20MP to fill the height (but not the width) of that 16:9 5K screen.

And some of us like to zoom in on parts of a scene occasionally, so there's some value to even more pixels.


BTW, I continue to be skeptical that our eyes can make use of 8K, at least under video viewing conditions of significantly greater than one picture height from the screen, even in the best seats in a cinema. It might be that there is some visible improvement from 4K to 5K and maybe even from 5K to 6K, and the way the video technology and standards go, the route is to just double at each step, so that "more than 4K video" is got by jumping straight to 8K — and then massively compressing for transmission, and even for initial recording.

There will be no 16K video!
Logged

BJL

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 6600
Re: E-M5 iii: when one needs faster lenses than phones can have
« Reply #47 on: October 23, 2019, 08:22:47 pm »


I really think the big camera makers need to focus on other parameters of photo goodness, rather than resolution -- stuff basically out of reach of iPhones and compacts. Better low-light response, better color response, a wider range of affordable specialty lenses, much better batteries, etc. I went to a Ryan Bingham concert Sunday night and took some iPhone photos, in which you can sort of tell what is going on, although you really can't make out facial features. A 12-year-old D3 would have blown it away. That's where the strengths of enthusiast/pro cameras lie, I think -- the hard stuff.
I forgot to comment of this. At least two of those points — low-light response and telephoto lenses — come down to the simple physics of needing a large enough effective aperture size (entrance pupil size) to gather enough light, fast enough, and there are plenty of cases where a big enough aperture will never be available with a pocketable camera, whether or not it also makes phone calls.

For example if a shot requires f=80mm f/4 in 35mm format (effective aperture 80mm/4 = 20mm) the same speed and equally shallow DOF would require about f=40mm, f/2 in MFT (again 20mm diameter) or 30mm f/1.5 in a 1" format compact, and dropping to a biggish phone sensor of 1/2", it pushes optical extremes at f=15mm, f/0.75. And anyway, any of those lenses needs a front element at least 20mm across, which I predict that phones will never have.

Push that to f=80mm, f/2 so 40mm effective aperture diameter, and already MFT is at its limits and 1" format cannot handle it, let alone any phone. And so on.
Logged

NigelC

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 583
Re: E-M5 iii
« Reply #48 on: October 24, 2019, 12:58:23 pm »

E-M5 iii

Practically a baby E-M1 ii with a little less weight and a little less money. More compact too but the second generation was already quite compact to the point of impairing the handling.
Problem is E-M1 ii already has plenty of years behind. It could make sense if you have to have a compact mirroless m43 but I don't see enough reasons to upgrade. I don't think it's that competitive with the current APS-C, not at that price. I already thought that for my shooting the E-M1 ii was overpriced, this should be the current price for it.

Anybody interested in buying it?

I replaced my EM5 II with a grey market EM1 II some months ago for less money than I would have to have paid if i had waited for the EM5 III. Main reason was struggling with the pad and buttons on the rear of the camera (not the top plate 2x2 which is even better on the 1 than the5) which is still true of the EM5 III based on the report by Imaging Resource, and some lagginess which I imagine the III has cured. I have lost the ability to stuff it in a pocket with a pancake type lens but increasingly I use my iphone for that.
Logged

BJL

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 6600
E-M5 III: smaller is not always better
« Reply #49 on: October 24, 2019, 08:37:27 pm »

I replaced my EM5 II with a grey market EM1 II some months ago for less money than I would have to have paid if i had waited for the EM5 III. Main reason was struggling with the pad and buttons on the rear of the camera (not the top plate 2x2 which is even better on the 1 than the5) which is still true of the EM5 III based on the report by Imaging Resource...
I have a similar quandary: I love the E-M5 size and weight for some usage, with a smaller lens, but with my bigger lenses like an adaptor-mounted 50-200/2.8-3.5, that is irrelevant and more spacious controls and a deeper hand grip appeal more. Maybe my ideal would be a small-big body pair to match with a small-big lens pair.

But as an aside: comparing gray market price on an older model to list price on a new one is a bit misleading; I expect the E-M5 Mk III to be available at about US$1000 with a bit of patience.
Logged

NigelC

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 583
Re: E-M5 III: smaller is not always better
« Reply #50 on: October 25, 2019, 04:43:38 am »



But as an aside: comparing gray market price on an older model to list price on a new one is a bit misleading; I expect the E-M5 Mk III to be available at about US$1000 with a bit of patience.

Indeed it is but what matters to me is what I actually have to pay - I don't care if an Olympus distributor in Po...d deliberately over ordered and surplus stock found it's way to UK. In UK pre-order price on EM5 III is £1099 (remember our prices include 20%^ VAT) whereas EM1 II widely available through "official" channels for about £1200- £1300. I paid £899 with 3 year guarantee.

My approach to size and weight is different - lenses are the differentiator - I will trade the greater solidity and IMV better ergonomics of the EM1 for a few extra mm and gm because I won't wave around indiscrete machine gun lenses even at the cost of reduced capability. So I woudn't consider the Oly 40-150 2.8 even though its significantly smaller than FF equivalents (don't think there are any). By comparison, my silver 75/1.8 is sort of cute and non-threatening, and pairs well with the 12-40; the 60 mm macro and 9-18 fit in pockets. (I rarely need more than 75 but I again the 100-300 with a tripod bracket is still pocketable if I really need reach.
Logged

mecrox

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 178
    • My Online Portfolio
Re: E-M5 iii
« Reply #51 on: October 26, 2019, 03:59:02 pm »

I’m not the target market for this new one...I much prefer their pro body and use the em1x daily.  However....
-excellent stabilization
-feather weight and small space footprint depending on lens choices
-excellent video
-PB based usb charging
-ipx1 weather rating
-excellent focus system
-dozens of useful features for actually making images in the field like focus stacking, live bulb, high res, fisheye correction, etc, in body keystone and shift correction, give some interesting options
-a quick and decent means of editing in camera and getting images to a phone
-a fully customizable camera that allows for configurations that no other camera manufacturer on the market offers

Yes, lots of people know it has these features.  These things add up in use to create a totally different image making experience though.  People would be good to try living with one for a week.  I shoot high end commercial work and no client has ever questioned files from the 20mp sensor.  Quality is great, especially if you expose well and understand how to maximize the sensors strengths. If you think you need more, that’s great...there are plenty of options.  However, for a lot of people the Olympus cameras are extremely liberating while allowing a much more robust shooting experience. 

And not everyone wants more than 20-24mp. Everyone’s needs are different.  This is an excellent redefining of the middle ground camera for Olympus.  It’s the size and handling of an em10 with the punch and features of the em1.2.  I’m fairly sure the next em1 will further differentiate upwards in terms of specialty features like the em1x.

Well said. My feeling too. You really have to add together all the capabilities of these cameras and look at the overall shooting experience in the light of that. I would move on from Oly and my EM1X if I needed to but the reasons would have to be incredibly compelling and they haven’t cropped up yet. In the meantime the Oly kit is perfect for my needs and far more capable than just considering the sensor alone would suggest.
Logged
Mark @ Flickr

DP

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 661

There will be no 16K video!
as soon as we will get 200mp cameras there will be 16K video...
Logged

BJL

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 6600

as soon as we will get 200mp cameras there will be 16K video...

Yes; as soon as we get 200MP cameras that can read the sensor at 24fps, there will be 16K video. We are at 150MP, 1.4fps. Of course one can almost never prove a "never", but I'll stick my neck out again:

There will be no 200MP, 24fps cameras!
Logged

chez

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1868
Re: E-M5 iii
« Reply #54 on: October 26, 2019, 05:54:29 pm »

Well, I agree that resolution is overdone, although having the GFX100 helped capture the details of the beautiful fabric models were wearing this Tuesday.

But, although I also agree that camera manufacturers should rather concentrate on strengths other than resolution, odds are that they will soon be overwhelmed by the attempts to... catch up with essential things phones are already doing better today thanks to computational photography.

Look at what the pixel 4 does for night photography... look at the quality of AWB achieved by an iphone... look at the DR easily achieved by phones by automatically HDring 2 frames...

Many photographers will soon prefer their phones for generic shootings because they are going to get good results much more easily with the phone.

It’s already the case with the majority of cheap APS-C DSLRs with which a majority of users get worse photos that those they would have gotten with recent phones for typical web posting.

You bring your cheap DSLR, struggle with the settings, you 15 old nephew shows up with his iphone 11 pro and nails the shot in 2s...

IMHO Canon is going to commit suicide trying to beat Google and Apple to save their mass market share made up essentially of cameras already ridiculed by phones for generic shooting.

Cheers,
Bernard

Well with lenses like the 28-70 f2 and the 50 and 85 1.2...it seems like Canon is large enough to tackle both the consumer market as well as the advanced market. What makes you think Canon will commit suicide when Nikon will thrive. Given the directions of their market shares...I see it opposite from you.
Logged

BJL

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 6600
Re: E-M5 iii
« Reply #55 on: October 26, 2019, 06:52:08 pm »

... You bring your cheap DSLR, struggle with the settings, you 15 old nephew shows up with his iphone 11 pro and nails the shot in 2s...
Bernard I think that you are:
1) Vastly overestimating the difficulty that even a new ILC owner has in handling their camera with the fully automated "green rectangle" mode, which is the fair comparison to using the standard camera app on an iPhone.

2) Overlooking that many young people buy inexpensive ILCs for cost reasons, not indifference to quality, and are enthusiastic about learning how to get good results with such a camera. I see them on and around the university where I work; they are like me and many others of my generation with cameras like the Pentax K1000 back in the day.

3) Ignoring zoom ability with even a basic kit lens. Please compare a kit lens(*) at 55mm, f/5.6 ("88mm equivalent") to the iPhone 11's roughly 5mm, f/1.8 ("26mm equivalent") main lens. Cropped to the FOV of that 55mm lens, the iPhone 11 is giving (26/88)^2 * 12 MP or about 1MP, and from a sensor region matching about 1/7" format. Are you really thinking that the IQ difference from the 24MP APS-C format image, using a sensor area about 70 times larger and entrance pupil area eight times larger will not be noticed?
 

(*) I am thinking of the Canon 18-55/4-5.6 STM that comes in an entry-level kit with the new Rebel SL3 (EOS Kiss X10 in Japan).


P. S. On the other hand, I am enjoying the iPhone 11 and its ultra-wide lens option, when it is the right tool for the job.
Logged

Alan Klein

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 8486
    • Flicker photos
Re: E-M5 iii
« Reply #56 on: October 26, 2019, 07:58:07 pm »

as soon as we will get 200mp cameras there will be 16K video...
I have a 75" 4k UHDTV.  I sit 14 feet away from it.  It's extremely hard to see the differences in video I shot when comparing 2K against 4K.  If you move in closer, you can see more details.  But just watching regularly, you don;t notice except that the picture looks "richer".  Not sure what causes that.  Would it seem even "richer" at 8K or higher, I don;t know.

BJL

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 6600
Re: E-M5 iii — and 4K vs 8K (vs 16K)
« Reply #57 on: October 26, 2019, 09:22:28 pm »

I have a 75" 4k UHDTV.  I sit 14 feet away from it.  It's extremely hard to see the differences in video I shot when comparing 2K against 4K.  If you move in closer, you can see more details.  But just watching regularly, you don;t notice except that the picture looks "richer".  Not sure what causes that.  Would it seem even "richer" at 8K or higher, I don;t know.
Sony put out a document a few years ago arguing why cinemas should upgrade from the then standard 2K projectors to Sony's new 4K models, so if anything biased in favor of overestimating the advantages of higher resolution. The core claim was that 2K looked fine at a distance of 3 picture heights [PH] or more but closer than that 4K looked better; fine down to 1.5 PH. A 75" diagonal screen is about 36" high, so 14 feet is almost 5 PH away.

How close is anyone likely to view movies, either in the cinema or the jumbotron-equipped man-cave? Even with an imagined floor-to-ceiling 8 foot high screen—about 190" diagonal and over 14 feet wide—I doubt that anyone would sit as close as 8 feet away (1 PH) and be able to track the action side-to-side without risking neck injury. So I doubt it will ever serve to be as close as 1 PH, which scales to some visible improvement up to 6K, though more reasonably, 5K. As I have suggested before, the doubling to 8K might just be the technologically most convenient (and most marketable) way to move beyond 4K, planning on heavy compression to avoid quadrupling bandwidth and storage requirements.  At 8K, all would be fine down to 3/4 PH, viewing that roughly 8 foot by 14 foot screen from 6 feet away, and 16K would only help if you sit closer than that ...
Logged

Alan Klein

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 8486
    • Flicker photos
Re: E-M5 iii
« Reply #58 on: October 26, 2019, 09:49:10 pm »

Sony put out a document a few years ago arguing why cinemas should upgrade from the then standard 2K projectors to Sony's new 4K models, so if anything biased in favor of overestimating the advantages of higher resolution. The core claim was that 2K looked fine at a distance of 3 picture heights [PH] or more but closer than that 4K looked better; fine down to 1.5 PH. A 75" diagonal screen is about 36" high, so 14 feet is almost 5 PH away.

How close is anyone likely to view movies, either in the cinema or the jumbotron-equipped man-cave? Even with an imagined floor-to-ceiling 8 foot high screen—about 190" diagonal and over 14 feet wide—I doubt that anyone would sit as close as 8 feet away (1 PH) and be able to track the action side-to-side without risking neck injury. So I doubt it will ever serve to be as close as 1 PH, which scales to some visible improvement up to 6K, though more reasonably, 5K. As I have suggested before, the doubling to 8K might just be the technologically most convenient (and most marketable) way to move beyond 4K, planning on heavy compression to avoid quadrupling bandwidth and storage requirements.  At 8K, all would be fine down to 3/4 PH, viewing that roughly 8 foot by 14 foot screen from 6 feet away, and 16K would only help if you sit closer than that ...
I experimented a little with those once I got a camera that would shoot 4K videos. (Sony RX100iv)  I processed the same caught 4K video to create both 4k 3840x2160 and HD 1920x1080.  Alternating both on the 75" 4K TV, you really couldn't tell one from the other unless you got really close.  First off, the TV uprezs the 2k to 4k.  So the resolution is the same.  The only difference is that you can see artifacts in the 2k when you get closer to the screen.  With the 4k, when really close, you can actually see the there's a one for one pixel display for each pixel caught in the 4K video, which is pretty neat.  But at 14 feet, you really can;t tell.

The other issue I found, is that with 4K, you can't create menus with the video software program I use (Adobe Photoshop Premiere Elements)>  I'm not sure if you can create 4K menus with other programs?  You can only make menus using HD 1920x1080. 


Also, I am able to create DVD's with Blu Ray formats.  But the speed of DVD's is limited.  That means that if you record 4k at 100bps let's say, the Blu Ray disc player cannot output at that rate without falling behind.  You can decrease the bps, but then that just adds pixelation defeating the purpose of 4K.  So everything goes on a memory card to be attached to the TV's USB jack which handles the higher speed adequately.  I bring up this point for this reason.  When you go to higher displays like 8K and up, the ancillary equipment and technology has to be able to handle it.  Bandwidth effects transmission over the internet, playback through memory cards, USB's, playback units, etc. Everything has to be made faster.

I'm curious if 5G will be able to handle the bandwidth of 8k and 16K?

BJL

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 6600
Re: E-M5 iii
« Reply #59 on: October 26, 2019, 10:05:37 pm »

I experimented a little with those once I got a camera that would shoot 4K videos. (Sony RX100iv)  I processed the same caught 4K video to create both 4k 3840x2160 and HD 1920x1080.  Alternating both on the 75" 4K TV, you really couldn't tell one from the other unless you got really close.
Thanks for the experiments! Can you quantify "really close"? About how close to see the difference?
Logged
Pages: 1 2 [3] 4   Go Up