Pages: 1 ... 5 6 [7] 8 9 ... 12   Go Down

Author Topic: Quality vs Value  (Read 68319 times)

aaykay

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 359
Quality vs Value
« Reply #120 on: February 03, 2009, 05:57:34 pm »

Quote from: inissila
He assumes the lenses that Nikon and Canon have, and Sony does not, have zero value. Any half-competent landscape and macro photographer will see the extremely high value in the PC-E/TS-E lenses, which makes a far greater difference to image quality in many contexts than 24 vs. 12 MP.  Any wildlife/sports photographer would see the value in high-performance supertelephoto lenses - which Sony does not have. For available light portraiture I prefer to work with lenses that are easy to manual focus. I could go on and on - there are just so many things that a serious photographer would need that just aren't there in the Sony system.

Agreed that the Sony system is building up but is not *yet* as extensive as the Canon/Nikon lens lineups, even though the quality of the glass in the Sony range, is definitely exemplary, like the Zeiss 135mm f/1.8 ZA Sonnar or the Zeiss 85mm f/1.4 ZA Planar or the Zeiss 24-70 f/2.8 ZA Vario-Sonnar or the Zeiss 16-35 f/2.8 ZA Vario-sonnar  SSM or the 70-200 f/2.8 G SSM or the 70-400 f/4-5.6 G SSM or the 70-300 G SSM or the 50mm and 100 mm Macros or the upcoming Zeiss 200mm f/3.5 Macro SSM or the 50mm f/1.4 or the 35mm f/1.4G or the 16mm f/2.8 Fisheye  etc....not listing the APS-C-only lenses.

The key here is that most/several of the above are ultra-modern ultra-high-end designs. And unlike the Canon/Nikon systems, the 35mm f/1.4, the 50mm f/1.4, the 85mm f/1.4, the 135mm f/1.8, the 16-35 f/2.8, the 24-70 f/2.8, the Macros etc are ALL stabilized.  

Some might argue that they are superhuman and don't need stabilization on  85mm and 135mm primes or on say a 100mm or 200mm macro, but I am talking about common folks who can take advantage of this feature on such primes.

Sure, for T/S lenses, one may have to rely on aftermarket alternatives including super-expensive ones like the Schneider.

For super-telephotos, until the ones Sony displayed on their roadmap, appears over the next year or so, you may need to rely on either legacy Minolta glass like the 400mm f/4.5 APO G or the 600mm f/4 APO G, or the currently available Sigma 500mm f/4.5 EX APO or the Sigma 800mm f/5.6 EX DG APO or the  Sigma 150-500 DG APO HSM or the Tamron 200-500 Di LD IF etc.

The key here is that for several types of professional applications, the Sony system is FULLY capable.  While strategically, the holes in their lineup are being rapidly filled with ultra-modern and high-end designs.  Having Zeiss on-board as an in-house high-end optics designer is not a bad thing.   I personally would not rely a switch to the Sony system, solely on the presence of the A900 but on the larger view of how Sony is leveraging high-end optics, with top-notch camera products.

When a giant like Sony, picks up a traditional camera company like Minolta, they don't intend to play second fiddle for perpetuity. The push onto the top will simply not be far behind.  Initially, Sony had intentions of "partnering" with Nikon but Nikon obviously realized that they would become a division of Sony, sooner rather than later and shied away.

PS:  Note that when you find the letter "G" against a Sony/Minolta lens, it is the same designation as the Canon "L" - primarily premium glass.  The ZA designation is for the Zeiss glass.
« Last Edit: February 03, 2009, 06:14:08 pm by aaykay »
Logged

JohnKoerner

  • Guest
Quality vs Value
« Reply #121 on: February 03, 2009, 06:06:31 pm »

Quote from: douglasf13
Wrong on nearly all points. A700 is much cheaper than $1500, Metz has a ring flash for Sony and Sony has a ring LED. As far as a "better" lens and camera, I would disagree, but that's another topic.

1. You're right on the A700--it is $100 cheaper than the 50D (the price I originally looked at was a kit);
2. We have already established that Sony in fact does have a ringlight ... that is $15 more expensive than Canon's;
3. The Sony Macro lens is likewise more than $200 more expensive than Canon's equivalent, making Sony the more expensive system overall.
4. The Sony has no answer to a 5:1 macro like Canon offers;
5. The Sony has no answer to the numerous super-telephoto lenses offered by Canon;
6. On the comparable lenses, Sony's are invariably more expensive.


If "BETTER VALUE" is defined as "the most options for the least money" ... and if "POORER VALUE" is defined as "less available options for more money" ... then the Canon system offers a better value as a whole system overall than Sony ... or you can say Sony offers a poorer value as a whole system overall than Canon ... however a person wishes to phrase it.

Jack



.
« Last Edit: February 03, 2009, 06:11:36 pm by JohnKoerner »
Logged

OldRoy

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 470
    • http://
Quality vs Value
« Reply #122 on: February 03, 2009, 06:10:36 pm »

Phew...
What is it about human discourse that almost every discussion like this, particularly on the web, rapidly degenerates into polarised argument (I'm leaving Sony out of this for, er, argument's sake)? Take a look at the PPRUNE (Professional Pilots' Rumour Network) where people who are relied upon to fly us safely to our destinations frequently fall to yelling at each other about whether Boeing or Airbus is actually a pile of dangerous cr@p.
Nikon! BLAH! Canon! BLAH.
In the end, to anyone not actually obsessed by photographic technology, unlike most of us here,  these squabbles must surely look quite insane.
Logged

JohnKoerner

  • Guest
Quality vs Value
« Reply #123 on: February 03, 2009, 06:18:03 pm »

Quote from: aaykay
Agreed that the Sony system is building up but is not *yet* as extensive as the Canon/Nikon lens lineups, even though the quality of the glass in the Sony range, is definitely exemplary, like the Zeiss 135mm f/1.8 ZA Sonnar or the Zeiss 85mm f/1.4 ZA Planar or the Zeiss 24-70 f/2.8 ZA Vario-Sonnar or the Zeiss 16-35 f/2.8 ZA Vario-sonnar  SSM or the 70-200 f/2.8 G SSM or the 70-400 f/4-5.6 G SSM or the 70-300 G SSM or the 50mm and 100 mm Macros or the upcoming Zeiss 200mm f/3.5 Macro SSM or the 50mm f/1.4 or the 35mm f/1.4G or the 16mm f/2.8 Fisheye  etc....not listing the APS-C-only lenses.

Zeiss isn't Sony, however, and they are more expensive lenses.

Further, owners of Nikons & Canons can buy these lenses also, if they want. I myself might diverge from the "most for the least money" model and splurge on a Zeiss 200 mm macro, if it offers true 1:1 or better  

Jack



.
Logged

douglasf13

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 547
Quality vs Value
« Reply #124 on: February 03, 2009, 06:24:50 pm »

Quote from: JohnKoerner
Zeiss isn't Sony, however, and they are more expensive lenses.

Further, owners of Nikons & Canons can buy these lenses also, if they want. I myself might diverge from the "most for the least money" model and splurge on a Zeiss 200 mm macro, if it offers true 1:1 or better  

Jack



.

  Not all true.  Zeiss ZA lenses are a collaboration between Sony and Zeiss, and are newer designs compared to their other 35mm, manual focus counterparts.  The ZA lenses are considered part of the Sony line, whereas the ZF/ZE Zeiss lenses are true 3rd party lenses that are reversed engineered for the mount.

  What we all need to remember is that the value of a system only extends out to what each of us need in a system.  So, for Jack, the 50D and macro lens makes the perfect system, but this doesn't mean it's the perfect system for every shooter...or even most shooters.
« Last Edit: February 03, 2009, 06:25:19 pm by douglasf13 »
Logged

Slough

  • Guest
Quality vs Value
« Reply #125 on: February 03, 2009, 06:27:19 pm »

The is like a play pen of toddlers each insisting that his toy is the best.

I think the Sony and Canon advocates are talking nonsense as Nikon is clearly best. For my needs. I couldn't give two hoots for the rest of you. Isn't that really what you mean? There is no objective conclusion as to which is best. Just as giving a camera body a score out of 10 is totally pointless. If you need MLU, and it ain't got it, then for you it's a zero. The Sony is rubbish for me. But for some it's the bees knees, or the gnat's nadgers.

Ooops sorry, I forgot I am supposed to push the Nikon brand, point out lenses it has, and the others don't, explain why Nikon lenses are superior ... zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz.  
Logged

ziocan

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 426
Quality vs Value
« Reply #126 on: February 03, 2009, 06:42:54 pm »

Sometimes, the difference in prices between Sony and the others is worth a round of drinks at the lounge.

Logged

lattiboy

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 41
Quality vs Value
« Reply #127 on: February 03, 2009, 07:31:53 pm »

Quote from: JohnKoerner
Well, the very fact you name yourself "lattiboy" indicates you're well aware of your own maturity. And what I find clinical is for you to pipe-up at all, accusing me of fanboyism, and then to spit out an admission that I was right all along.....


.....You are the punk who calls your own self "boy" and who yet has tried to accuse "me" of being childish. If you want to continue to describe yourself as a "boy," go right ahead as it clearly fits. But leave your own childish and personal comments to yourself....


........how does a man present these facts, crunch the numbers, and come out with a "Canon offers the best value" statement without you manly men accusing "fanboyism?" Who is being open and honest, with hard numbers, and who is crying like a bitch-boy over these numbers? Lattiboy, I think the truth is in your very name.

Jack

Okaaay, so I'm just gonna go ahead an PLONK your messages from now on (google it), but I just thought I'd throw up three quick points.

1) Your wonderfully obvious insecurity as a man just hangs in the air like a thick fog.

2) All psychotic photog posters are the same (He was wrong too; didn't take into account the large buffer)

3) You = Exhibit #154,124,546,489 of this theroy.
« Last Edit: February 03, 2009, 07:32:52 pm by lattiboy »
Logged

BernardLanguillier

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 13983
    • http://www.flickr.com/photos/bernardlanguillier/sets/
Quality vs Value
« Reply #128 on: February 03, 2009, 07:40:45 pm »

Quote from: OldRoy
What is it about human discourse that almost every discussion like this, particularly on the web, rapidly degenerates into polarised argument (I'm leaving Sony out of this for, er, argument's sake)? Take a look at the PPRUNE (Professional Pilots' Rumour Network) where people who are relied upon to fly us safely to our destinations frequently fall to yelling at each other about whether Boeing or Airbus is actually a pile of dangerous cr@p.

I think that has a lot to do with how poor plain text with smileys is as a communication medium but there is more to it. Sherry Turkle from the MIT has written very interesting stuff on this topic nearly 15 years ago...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sherry_Turkle

Besides, a lot of these discussions are triggered by provocative articles clipping some of the facts and are in fact meant to be.

Cheers,
Bernard

JohnKoerner

  • Guest
Quality vs Value
« Reply #129 on: February 03, 2009, 08:06:54 pm »

Quote from: douglasf13
What we all need to remember is that the value of a system only extends out to what each of us need in a system.

This is very true. The value of a system for you is what is most important. I think that discussions like these (while some idiots like to trivialize them) are actually important for some to clarify what their values in fact are, and choose the system whose strengths (in both purchase price and options) lie with their needs. For instance, if I were a landscape photographer looking to upgrade right now, I would probably go with the Nikon D3x and 14 mm.




Quote from: douglasf13
So, for Jack, the 50D and macro lens makes the perfect system, but this doesn't mean it's the perfect system for every shooter...or even most shooters.

Well, very true again. I would say for any shooter looking for reach, in either macro or (really, most especially) super telephoto the Canon system is by far the better value with by far the greater options. As an overall system it has to be viewed as the same. For the dedicated landscape photographer doing very large prints, none of this matters, and the Nikon D3x and 14-24 mm and 24-70 mm would be the best value for even money.




>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>




Quote from: lattiboy
Okaaay, so I'm just gonna go ahead an PLONK your messages from now on (google it), but I just thought I'd throw up three quick points.

You are once again guilty of your own accusation, making this personal while saying not one single thing relevant to the actual topic.




Quote from: lattiboy
1) Your wonderfully obvious insecurity as a man just hangs in the air like a thick fog.

No, actually, if we were in the same room as men, you would quickly find how very secure I am of myself and you would likewise quickly find yourself living up to your own self-chosen epithet "boy" by comparison.




Quote from: lattiboy
2) All psychotic photog posters are the same (He was wrong too; didn't take into account the large buffer)
3) You = Exhibit #154,124,546,489 of this theroy.

Again, you live up to your own accusations. I have the confidence to sign my real name, and I honestly try to stick to the topic: value in a camera system. You talk trash from behind a fake name, because you are a cowardly bitch by nature, and your infantile personal attacks are what de-rail this thread topic.

Do you have anything of real use to say here (other than admitting I was right, as before), or can you only prove how cowardly you are? In what way do you feel attacking me from the shadows, under a fake name, proves your own self-confidence? In what way do you believe being guilty of your own accusations proves any sort of point here, other than the shape of your head?

If you can show me another system profile of either macrophotography, or super telephotography, that provides better quality than the Canon system for equal-to or less cost, then you would be making a valuable contribution to this thread topic. It has been shown that Nikon can provide marginally better quality than Canon at equal cost in super-wide photography. I believe these kinds of discussion can be valuable to hash-out.

Do you have something valuable to contribute? Because, as it is, you are just a bozo sticking his tongue out, which is pretty lame by any standard.

Jack
« Last Edit: February 03, 2009, 08:11:04 pm by JohnKoerner »
Logged

VinceB

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 12
    • Frozen Light Photo
Quality vs Value
« Reply #130 on: February 03, 2009, 08:45:46 pm »

Quote from: Dan Wells
Hi Vince -
    If it helps at all, I consider my D3x to be more than merely "OK"  at 24x36 inches - the D3x and iPF6100 are producing some stunners together at that size - not only resolution, but dynamic range and lovely tonality as well. The Alpha may do this too - I'm no Alpha expert (there are some on here, and they can speak to their tool as I can speak only to mine). The Alpha samples I have seen at 24x36 inches were no better than OK, but all that I know of their provenance is that they were at ISO 200 and converted from RAW. They were from Sony, so I assume that Sony's own RAW converter was used, which I know is NOT the choice of the Alpha cogniscenti on here (I think Aperture and Capture One are the preferred choices), and I know neither the printer nor the profile used (the paper seemed to be some RC gloss, but I don't know which one) - hardly fair against the D3x with Capture One converting the 14-bit NEFs, working carefully in Photoshop with the PixelGenius sharpening tools and printing to an iPF6100 working on Hahnemuhle Photo Rag Baryta, profiled with Bill Atkinson's 5202 patch target! All I can say is that the D3x with this workflow CAN and DOES produce stunning 24x36 inch prints, not that anything else cannot - ask an Alpha owner with a good Alpha workflow (I'm sure Michael has a superb one) what they think of their camera at 24x36.
    If you don't want to go bigger than 24x36, you'll be happy with the D3x, so I wouldn't consider the Phase, especially given the bike.


                                                                                                               -Dan
I sometimes want to go larger but I can't justify the medium format back and the bigger printer for the 1% of the time that I'd go larger.  Another Value/Quality issue I just made recently is about printing -  I've been using Imageprint but I'm fed up with their upgrade policy so rather than pay $870 to them to keep my 9600 running (or replacing my brokend down PC - or trying to mess with Parallels on my mac -  I'm opting to put that money into a 7900 and do my own profiles with my i1 pro.  Just not sure what profiling software to use - i'll start with the eye-one but I've seen to many recommendations for other packages to think eye-one is the best bet.  I might convert the 9600 to Cone Inks and use QTR with it for B&W or I may just sell it.  

I wish Nikon had a better selection of lenses in the 70-400 range.  I find the 70-200f/2.8G soft in the corners on full frame, the older 80-200 is better but no VR.  The 180 prime looks like a good lens - but I suspect it might be getting a dated.  The 200 f/2.0 is just too big.  A 70-300 f/4 designed for a 5 micron full frame sensor would be nice - or even a new 135 f/2.8, and 200f/4, to go with the 300f/4

Everything is trade-offs I keep wondering when one of manufacturers is going to decide to just do it right (that would be my right  ) Maybe Leica is going to ... remains to be seen I suspect they'll be priced too high for most of us.   I'd be happier about the Nikon purchase if they'd just done a few things differently.
1. - Live view with the option of keeping the aperture wide open for critical focus rather than automatically stopping down.  A 2 second self timer that locks up the mirror - do away with the need for a cable release.   The ability to shoot a full bracket set with a single shutter press and with the option of locking up the mirror one time.  Built in bluetooth so you can link to a blue-tooth GPS (no cables please). as well as provide a bluetooth wireless remote (a class 3 bt transciever would range upto 100 meters) and you could control aperture,shutter speed, iso and a few other things with the remote.
Logged

Ray

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 10365
Quality vs Value
« Reply #131 on: February 03, 2009, 08:58:17 pm »

Quote from: springtide
I did know the 14-24 didn't take any form of filters on the front as it's pretty well known fact.  Same goes for the Sigma 12-24 and 15-30.  I was playing devils advocate after someone pushed a pile of MTF figures in my face as if it was some kind of 'second coming'.



Not quite true. The Sigma 15-30 has a slot for a filter on the other end of the lens where the lens fits to the camera. It accepts specialised rectangular filters a bit smaller than 24x36mm. The Sigma 15-30 also has a holder that slides over the lens hood, much like the Nikkor 14-24. However, the Sigma slide-on cover is threaded and accepts conventional filters. Unfortunately, there's too much vignetting with full frame, so this is only a viable option with the cropped format DSLR.

Quote
I was playing devils advocate after someone pushed a pile of MTF figures in my face as if it was some kind of 'second coming'.

Yes, I suppose I do consider the scientific method as equivalent to the second coming. In fact, much better and a cause for greater hope. I consider the prosperity and well-being of the civilised world to be founded upon that same scientific method and scientific attitude that produced those MTF charts.




Logged

Misirlou

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 711
    • http://
Quality vs Value
« Reply #132 on: February 03, 2009, 09:05:09 pm »

Sweet! Now we've got personal attack and religion in one thread. All we need now is sex and politics.

Does anyone have any idea which camera system is best for taking nude photos of interns?
Logged

RafalA

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 17
    • http://www.rafalandronowski.com
Quality vs Value
« Reply #133 on: February 03, 2009, 09:37:05 pm »

Quote from: Misirlou
Sweet! Now we've got personal attack and religion in one thread. All we need now is sex and politics.

Does anyone have any idea which camera system is best for taking nude photos of interns?

Well, just to humour your argument, although this is very politically incorrect, it really depends on the 'look' you're going for.

If you want to impress the intern with your machismo, perhaps Canons are best. Whip one of those big white things out and I'm sure the intern will be impressed!

However, if you prefer the stealthy approach, perhaps the flat black of Nikon is the way to go. You can always claim it shoots the same but is less conspicuous!

Or, come out of nowhere, with in-body IS, using a Sony.

Of course, if you're insecure about the size of your pixel, you could always bring a Phase One 65+. We all know size matters.

Or not, and show up with a G10. Sometimes it's not what you shoot, it's how you shoot it.

Logged

Misirlou

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 711
    • http://
Quality vs Value
« Reply #134 on: February 03, 2009, 11:51:47 pm »

Quote from: RafalA
Well, just to humour your argument, although this is very politically incorrect, it really depends on the 'look' you're going for.

If you want to impress the intern with your machismo, perhaps Canons are best. Whip one of those big white things out and I'm sure the intern will be impressed!

However, if you prefer the stealthy approach, perhaps the flat black of Nikon is the way to go. You can always claim it shoots the same but is less conspicuous!

Or, come out of nowhere, with in-body IS, using a Sony.

Of course, if you're insecure about the size of your pixel, you could always bring a Phase One 65+. We all know size matters.

Or not, and show up with a G10. Sometimes it's not what you shoot, it's how you shoot it.


Well, I wasn't making an argument, per se. I was trying to indirectly nudge a few of our combatants back into a more civil tone of discourse with each other. I can't think of any way to respond to your reply without digging myself into a rhetorical hole, so I'll leave it at that.

Perhaps it's difficult to discuss "value" these days without getting into a flame fest.
Logged

ErikKaffehr

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 11311
    • Echophoto
Quality vs Value
« Reply #135 on: February 04, 2009, 12:38:05 am »

Well MTF is the measure used when designing lenses. It's like mothers milk for optical designers.

That said, there are some issues with MTF:

1) We never see full set of MTF curves

Normally MTF curves are presented across the frame for sagittal and tagential structures at 10/20/40 lp/mm. Canon normally displays 10/30 lp/mm.

Another way to present MTF is lp/mm yielding a certain percentage of MTF.

2) Full set of MTF curves would need to cover higher lp/mm and cover different amount of defocus

3) In order of MTF beeing comparable the conditions must be known. For instance, white light would give other MTF than green light. The spectral composition of the light may also matter.

4) MTF is highly sensitive to sharpening when measured in a digital camera. This is really OK, as sharpening is part of the digital work flow, but it makes comparison difficult. Different sensor/lens combinations need different sharpening, there is no one size fits all setting.

The attitude of some people on this forum to regard any information they don't understand or don't like to be garbage is not very constructive.

Best regards
Erik  


Quote from: Ray
Yes, I suppose I do consider the scientific method as equivalent to the second coming. In fact, much better and a cause for greater hope. I consider the prosperity and well-being of the civilised world to be founded upon that same scientific method and scientific attitude that produced those MTF charts.
« Last Edit: February 04, 2009, 12:39:08 am by ErikKaffehr »
Logged
Erik Kaffehr
 

Slough

  • Guest
Quality vs Value
« Reply #136 on: February 04, 2009, 03:20:40 am »

Quote from: ErikKaffehr
Well MTF is the measure used when designing lenses. It's like mothers milk for optical designers.

I once read an interview with some Leica lens designers, and they said that MTF plots were useful, but not an accurate measure of quality, as given two lenses, the one with an inferior MTF could produce the superior results.
Logged

01af

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 296
Quality vs Value
« Reply #137 on: February 04, 2009, 04:42:13 am »

Quote from: ErikKaffehr
The attitude of some people on this forum to regard any information they don't understand or don't like to be garbage is not very constructive.
Erik, the problem is not people disregarding information they don't understand. It's just to the contrary. In fact, people build smattering opinions and cheerfully take buying decisions based on information they don't understand.


Quote from: Slough
[...] MTF plots were useful, but not an accurate measure of quality, as given two lenses, the one with an inferior MTF could produce the superior results.
Exactly. People don't understand them but still are studying them religiously. And by the way, it's just the same with DxOMark rankings.

-- Olaf
Logged

inissila

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 36
Quality vs Value
« Reply #138 on: February 04, 2009, 04:44:06 am »

Quote from: BernardLanguillier
Besides, a lot of these discussions are triggered by provocative articles clipping some of the facts and are in fact meant to be.

Precisely.

Logged

Rob C

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 24074
Quality vs Value
« Reply #139 on: February 04, 2009, 05:02:44 am »

Well, as an adventure in self-chastisement, much needed after neglecting numerous pressing household chores that scream silently for my attention, I decided to read the entire thread from start to finish (for me, that´s here).

And what did I learn? Simply, that given the invective, time and passion spent by some on this topic, there can be no way that a normal, non-obsessed person will ever buy the correct equipment. He might be happy in his own ignorance, just as I have been over the years buyng silly Hasselblads and ludicrous Nikons, he might be able to produce great photography with that stuff, but ultimately, someone will pop down from the stratosphere and point out where he has gone wrong, where he has overspent by twenty bucks or cherished the wrong bokeh.

Circular thread? Not quite. Linear, then? Can´t say that either, probaly leans more towards the circular but let´s consider that it might bend even more so in the direction of the loopy?

Holy Batman! Is this what the adults do? Thank God for my second childhood.

Rob C
Pages: 1 ... 5 6 [7] 8 9 ... 12   Go Up