Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5   Go Down

Author Topic: Fuji X-T1 review  (Read 35707 times)

Manoli

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1977
Re: Fuji X-T1 review
« Reply #60 on: March 07, 2014, 08:56:05 am »

James, you really need to try the OM-D E-M1 (did I get that right? Who the F names these things???)
The E-M5 was ok. The M1 is really a step up. Michael loves it for a reason.  If you like the "5" you'll love the "1".

Nick - I hate to break the news to you, but unless I've totally misread - BC does own the M1!
He's been writing the forum equivalent of 'Pride and Prejudice' on it since before December last year ..
Logged

Manoli

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1977
Re: Fuji X-T1 review
« Reply #61 on: March 07, 2014, 08:58:56 am »

My complaint is that, for me,  the 'very electronic' cameras still have this fog of digital controls that descends btw  me and the shooting experience. 

So true.
Logged

Rob C

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 24074
Re: Fuji X-T1 review
« Reply #62 on: March 07, 2014, 09:01:00 am »

On of the first guys I met here 32+ years ago was an expat Scot who ran a tour operator's agency; he represented a variety of different companies and raked in a nice percentage per head of arriving tourists from the companies he represented. A clever man with a good financial perception, villa with pool up on the hills overlooking the beautiful Bay of Palma de Mallorca.

Two things I distinctly remember him saying from so long ago:

a.  if you want to go there, then this isn't a very good place from which to start;

b.  the very best steak in the world has a finite price beyond which you are just being daft if you pay it.

I rather think that his second quip is very relevant to photography.

Rob C

Rob C

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 24074
Re: Fuji X-T1 review
« Reply #63 on: March 07, 2014, 09:18:15 am »


.  You could do brilliant work with an F3 or and M6 or a 500c/m. And people did.  If it's so much easier today, where's the genius art???

- N.



This, I have been saying to the point of nausea.

In my view, the apologists (I do know what that means) for digital have been trying to evade and deny that simple fact from the very start of digital capture and manipulation. Not only has it changed the perception of photography in a downwards direction re. clients and their appreciation of a photographer's value, it has opened the flood gates to a tidal wave of sewage.

If I were able to press a button and change photography back to before the introduction of the pixel, then I would do it without hesitation. It has never been as good as then, as even a brief look at the web sites and galleries hosting pre-digital photographs from the top practitioners will reveal. That it is quicker and open to greater degrees of minute control on a monitor is not necessarily a good thing: I see it generally producing nothing more than the sterility and lack of identity of perfection. And the added work load and responsibility for no more money is a mockery on top of everything else.

Too late.

Rob C

Rob C

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 24074
Re: Fuji X-T1 review
« Reply #64 on: March 07, 2014, 09:19:24 am »

A true Scot ;-)


You mean, because he, too, escaped?

;-)

Rob C

Rob C

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 24074
Re: Fuji X-T1 review
« Reply #65 on: March 07, 2014, 10:50:34 am »

Chances are you're all going to escape soon ;-)


Now that would be a national disaster indeed! I wonder if that northern nation has also reached its menopause? Reminds me very much of the daft things that I sometimes did on emotion, and with little regard to consequence!

However, I think the Conservatives must be secretly hoping that it does go off into the northern lights: remove the influence of Scottish Labour MPs and the English parliament will have a decidedly different colour balance...

One man's loss etc.

;-)

Rob C

jjj

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 4728
    • http://www.futtfuttfuttphotography.com
Re: Fuji X-T1 review
« Reply #66 on: March 07, 2014, 10:58:34 am »

There are 2 distinct points.
A micro 4/3 sensor has to cost less to make than an APS-C one (not that APS-C sensors are even remotely expensive to make - not if we look at the price of budget DSLR's anyway) Point being here..there is a feeling among many that smaller sensor products should cost less than larger ones (you can take that all the way up to FF if you want)

It's not really about body size (though you could argue less materials and simpler construction will be cheaper to manufacture, ie less parts/materials and assembly time)
I don't really care how nice the EM-1 is build wise, it's hard to justify the price tag of £1250 odd.
A couple of things.
You often pay a premium for smaller things, as they can be harder to make.
Raw goods costs is a small part of the cost of placing something on a shelf for sale.
Logged
Tradition is the Backbone of the Spinele

Rob C

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 24074
Re: Fuji X-T1 review
« Reply #67 on: March 07, 2014, 11:01:16 am »

Rob, I agree with much you have said. Trouble is we can’t turn back the clock and to be honest I really wouldn’t want to.

For my own part I compensate by choosing the simplest of digital cameras and a simplistic workflow.

Simple things…



No, of course you're right: we can't revert to times past. My own solution is similar to yours in that I have everything that can be manual as manual. It isn't really denying the moment, it's about finding what's comfortable for me.

And yes, though I never had an M of my own, my last employer did and I remember printing negs from that camera - M3 - and they were really of a different 'look' to what I was getting in the same darkroom from his Nikon F using identical chemistry and films. So from personal experience in the same time scale and conditions, I will never deny Leica glass its particular glamour. Having said which, I wonder if I'm right: he used the M3 for BBCtv room-sets with a 21mm and I can't for the life of me remember if that was the Schneider Super Angulon or Leitz! Had I been the one to buy it, I would sure remember what was what!

;-)

Rob C
« Last Edit: March 07, 2014, 11:02:56 am by Rob C »
Logged

jjj

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 4728
    • http://www.futtfuttfuttphotography.com
Re: Fuji X-T1 review
« Reply #68 on: March 07, 2014, 11:17:35 am »

In my view, the apologists (I do know what that means) for digital have been trying to evade and deny that simple fact from the very start of digital capture and manipulation. Not only has it changed the perception of photography in a downwards direction re. clients and their appreciation of a photographer's value, it has opened the flood gates to a tidal wave of sewage.

If I were able to press a button and change photography back to before the introduction of the pixel, then I would do it without hesitation. It has never been as good as then, as even a brief look at the web sites and galleries hosting pre-digital photographs from the top practitioners will reveal. That it is quicker and open to greater degrees of minute control on a monitor is not necessarily a good thing: I see it generally producing nothing more than the sterility and lack of identity of perfection. And the added work load and responsibility for no more money is a mockery on top of everything else.
I posted this above, but it needs repeating.

The problem with the digital world is there is no curation and everything that gets created can be out there on display. This makes finding the good work harder.
The benefit of the digital world is that the usually arbitrary gateways that prevent talented artists being seen by others have been removed.
Swings. Roundabouts.


Photography was no better in ye good old days even if the business of photography has been devalued. The art and the business are two very different things.

I certainly approve wholeheartedly of the movement away from the darkroom into the computer. I was good at printing and even got asked my art directors when showing my portfolio around who did my printing for me, yet I never went in a darkroom again after the first time I tried Photoshop. Why limit yourself by using an inferior tool?
« Last Edit: March 07, 2014, 11:21:58 am by jjj »
Logged
Tradition is the Backbone of the Spinele

Isaac

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3123
Re: Fuji X-T1 review
« Reply #69 on: March 07, 2014, 12:37:18 pm »

If it's so much easier today, where's the genius art???

This, I have been saying to the point of nausea.

Would yesterdays thing be "genius art" today?


In any case --

Quote
"Cameras capable of making great photographs have become commonplace these days, but photographers have not. While technical innovations have made photography easier in recent decades, the art of producing images that other people will care about has become ever more formidable. This apparent paradox is due to rising expectations in a culture where we are surrounded by a growing number of sophisticated images every day of our lives."

p17, Preface, Galen Rowell's Inner Game of Outdoor Photography, 2001
Logged

bcooter

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1516
Re: Fuji X-T1 review
« Reply #70 on: March 07, 2014, 01:27:45 pm »

James, you really need to try the OM-D E-M1 (did I get that right? Who the F names these things???)

The E-M5 was ok. The M1 is really a step up.
 


I'm not a evangelist on any format and like I said I backed into m43 because of the panasonic gh3 for a smaller form factor for video to compliment our REDs.  I'd tried sony video etc. and nothing was close to the gh3, I can't wait for the gh4's.

The olympus stills were just a plus. Nick I've go the em-1 and 5 (yea who does name these things) but would I have rather had 35mm?  My inner photographer's paranoia told me to, the results compared to the Sony A7 never proved it, in fact it was the opposite.

I'm not against big cameras, but dslrs like my 1dx and d3 have become crazy big, even larger than the leica s2 I just bought.  

The images are so smooth they look like plastic . . . the cameras look like plastic so it kind of puts me off.  

In fact I tried hard to make the A7 work to the point of using a computer to view next to the em-1 shooting this and that in rooms, outside and finally just put them up on screen and to me and everyone that passed by, the em-1 file looked better and I hate this term, but more film like.

The deal is the Sony synced slow on flash didn't have touch screen, didn't have stabilization which I use and don't always use, didn't have near the same build quality, didn't look as nice, (kind of like a mock up of the em-1).

But, why I really wanted to do was replace my Canons.    I  find them uninspiring in a lot of ways.   I also like an evf.   It think it's the future, allows you to really manually focus.  

What really hurts ALL the mirrorless cameras except large cinema cameras, is they leave stuff off to hit price points.  NO TETHERING!   I will continue to yell this because no camera is professional without tethering, even if you never tether.

It's like owning a race car with tiny brakes.  You just have to tether, at times and the wireless I've tried is just too difficult to set up and too flaky to rely on.  If any company stencils professional on the side of the camera, it must tether.

There is no free lunch though.  I don't care about always shooting at f 1.2 but if your going to do that outside your also going to need nd filters so m43 is far from perfect.    

The fuji was actually the perfect size and other than long lenses has a nice lens set.   The only thing with it is there is no professional video with that lens mount and I defeat my purpose adding another camera mount, where m43 covers both stills and video.

Also m43 lenses are more interesting.  There are remounted 8mm wides from video c-mounts to .95 manual lenses.     There are the olympus 43 pro series lenses which are killer, so other than tethering, battery use and less than perfect still image tracking, the m43 is almost there, but not quite.

In video the gh4 will rock nearly all points and allow for professional production.  That's enough to keep me in the system, even if I never pick up an olympus still camera.  

Olympus hit upon something with the em-5.  Though slightly too small, it got us thinking about how 35mm type cameras use to be, in terms of size and use.  The em-1 is better but still misses a few points next to standard dslrs, that would be easy to fix.

Panasonic has made the almost 100% complete video camera with the gh4, it's now up to olympus to do it with stills.

IMO

BC

« Last Edit: March 07, 2014, 01:32:01 pm by bcooter »
Logged

BJL

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 6600
Re: Fuji X-T1 review
« Reply #71 on: March 07, 2014, 02:39:22 pm »

There are 2 distinct points.
A micro 4/3 sensor has to cost less to make than an APS-C one (not that APS-C sensors are even remotely expensive to make - not if we look at the price of budget DSLR's anyway) ...
People should remember that 35mm format film cameras varied in price from about $200 to $2000 (excluding more expensive exotica like the Leica R) with mid-range models like the F100 and EOS-3 at about $1000, and this was nothing to do with sensor cost or performance, because they could be loaded with the same "sensors". The same is true in digital too, with camera in the same format varying in price greatly (as much as a thousand dollars for APS-C and for 4/3" format, and many thousands of dollars in the case of 35mm format.)  The reason is obvious: both the cost and the market value of a high quality ILC depend on far more than the sensor.  So I see a clear market for paying a premium of maybe a $1000 or even more for higher quality in other aspects of the body, and so it does not make sense to expect that the best models in one format must cost less than the lowest spec models in a larger format if that "bigger, cheaper" model is inferior is respects like build quality, water resistance, frame rate, presence and quality of an eye-elvel VF (OV or EVF), AF speed and accuracy, ergonomic advantages like dual control dials, etc.

The market value of an ILC body is also affected by extrinsic "system" factors like the quality of suitable lenses available for the body: Nikon and Canon have stopped offering any new lenses beyond slow zooms (f/5.6 at the long end) for DX and EF-S format bodies (perhaps deliberately "starving" those systems to push enthusiasts towards 35mm format) whereas Olympus, Panasonic and Fujifilm continue to expand their higher level lens offerings (f/4 and f/2.8 zooms, various primes) for their smaller-than-35mm format bodies, adding value to those bodies.
Logged

bcooter

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1516
Re: Fuji X-T1 review
« Reply #72 on: March 07, 2014, 03:13:32 pm »

........... it has opened the flood gates to a tidal wave of sewage.

If I were able to press a button and change photography back to before the introduction of the pixel, then I would do it without hesitation. .............
Too late.

Rob C


Digital is just another tool.  Kind of like a lens.  If used right it's great, if used wrong it's not.

The web is a different animal.  At first it was great having all that knowledge at your fingertips, but now it's just become the world's greatest stealing machine.

But . . .

Commercial art (not counting editorial) usually is usually weak next to personal photography.

Not essentially fine art photography, just personal.

Maybe because commerce comes with too many lists of what can't be done and honestly anything close to unique is hard to pull off.

Then again advertising isn't an art installation, it's to sell something.  I've seen great concepts go flat in metrics, really boring concepts go off the wall.  

I think too many photographer's think it's a client's responsibility to build their portfolio.  


I've had client's rip budgets out of projects and then turn and say it doesn't look like your portfolio.  I don't know how to answer other than say I wouldn't have shot this on black and tried to make it look like a location by using a fog machine, at least not for my portfolio.    Not that anyone gives up trying, but a fog machine doesn't replace a night club.

Also great work comes from inspiration.    I have some client's that are positive and inspiring, have worked with a few that weren't and what's strange the more difficult the client/ad, the harder you work to try to fix all the issues.

I shot a sports star and knew exactly what I was going to do.  Luckily the agency team came in an hour late so I did the shot I wanted and then they came in, the world changed and when they saw what I'd shot before they said "don't send us that we'll never run it".

That image won two pages in CA's annual and of course they called and said can you make sure you give us a credit and spell our name right?  How the hell they found out it won I'll never know.

Then again, my view is (and this isn't a sales pitch) that my goal should be whoever hires me to make THEM look good.   If it doesn't pass the first layer it will never be shown.

It's far too easy for a commercial artist to assume the client is wrong.  Most of it is just the attitude of the room.  Positive breeds success negative becomes damage control.

So shooting digital or film has nothing to do with what is good or bad.  Good photographers are good, period, but only as good as what they put in front of the lens.  

Inspirational photography comes from being fearless about what you can do and also being brave and never being negative.

I've seen a set go to hell because someone said something silly, or negative.   That turns a walk up a steep hill, into climbing a mountain.

If your working for others, it takes everyone pulling the same way.  They don't have to agree but they have to be positive about being very good and saying I'll fix it in post isn't the way.  If you plan on using post for the concept that can work, but fixing bad isn't really possible.

Digital can't fix something that is uninspiring.  It can just hide some flaws.

As far as the amount of sewage out there, it's always been there, you just couldn't see it.  Now you can.


IMO

BC
« Last Edit: March 07, 2014, 03:41:46 pm by bcooter »
Logged

Telecaster

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3686
Re: Fuji X-T1 review
« Reply #73 on: March 07, 2014, 03:50:19 pm »

And yes, though I never had an M of my own, my last employer did and I remember printing negs from that camera - M3 - and they were really of a different 'look' to what I was getting in the same darkroom from his Nikon F using identical chemistry and films. So from personal experience in the same time scale and conditions, I will never deny Leica glass its particular glamour. Having said which, I wonder if I'm right: he used the M3 for BBCtv room-sets with a 21mm and I can't for the life of me remember if that was the Schneider Super Angulon or Leitz! Had I been the one to buy it, I would sure remember what was what!

Leitz licensed the SA design from Schneider but made the lens themselves. It's a real cracker with film, like the Zeiss 21mm Biogon of the same era, but not so hot in front of sensors.   :-[

-Dave-
Logged

Rob C

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 24074
Re: Fuji X-T1 review
« Reply #74 on: March 07, 2014, 04:15:48 pm »





I shot a sports star and knew exactly what I was going to do.  Luckily the agency team came in an hour late so I did the shot I wanted and then they came in, the world changed and when they saw what I'd shot before they said "don't send us that we'll never run it".

That image won two pages in CA's annual and of course they called and said can you make sure you give us a credit and spell our name right?  How the hell they found out it won I'll never know.

So shooting digital or film has nothing to do with what is good or bad.  Good photographers are good, period, but only as good as what they put in front of the lens.  

As far as the amount of sewage out there, it's always been there, you just couldn't see it.  Now you can.

IMO

BC



I almost wept reading your sports star story.

On my second shoot for a brewery calendar the client decided he wanted to go to Florida. Because he wanted to go to Florida.

Fortunately, after the first shoot for him in Spain, he decided to leave me to work alone on that second trip and just go enjoy the adventure. When we were back in Britain, I had some colour prints made of some of the Kodachromes I'd thought best. They were spread across his officer desk (he was the Marketing Director) and one shot was a tight head of the girl wearing a baseball cap. The brim was pulled down hiding most of the face except for the red lips, and her hair was flying out in the wind.

I thought it was really cool for the time. He had just told me it wasn't any good because too much of her face was hidden, when in walked the Managing Director who picked up the print and said wow! The shot made it into the calendar. These dumb things happened on and off much of my life.

On your point about what's in front of the camera. On my sixth or seventh calendar for them, shortly after booking me the Marketing chap decided to hand the job downwards to the PR Manager. This guy, to mark his personal contribution to the assignment, decided not to allow me to choose models from London, and made me pick them in Glasgow, I suppose to keep his local territory sweet. No! That's wrong: I had nothing to do with the casting of that lot - it was his choice. Fortunately, by the time he was given the responsibility, I'd already booked a lovely girl from London and she was the only non-Glasgow one in the shoot - he was too late to screw that leg of the job. The rest of the 'talent' (joke) screwed me. It turned out to be my last calendar shoot for them, which cost me a bloody fortune in lost work. The irony? It was a round-the-word gig. It was an opportunity to hire six of the best models in Britain - the budget was huge. The talented chick is in my Singapore shots in the website. She's Suzi G, who was in Patrick Lichfield's Sicily calendar for Unipart. We also did some shots on a keelong out there, but not a one of those made the calendar. They were beautiful even if I did cheat and rip off a single Sam Haskins concept with the fish over the shoulder! But as everybody just had to do that, I figured he no longer cared and laughed at it all for the homage it truly was.

Why didn't anything from that segment make it to print? The fishing boat taking us there wouldn't accept any more people than the model, the translator, my working wife and myself. The 'client' was left sitting in the hotel, one very pissed off cat. It had nothing to do with me. But the rules had been changed, and I no longer got to take part in the final cut: I handed over the best of the stuff and went back to Spain. I never got a single transparency back from him; I was off the design and production rôle, and as I had nothing to do with the printing that time, I couldn't even get the printers to send me back my trannies, leaving me zero for the portfolio beyond a couple of very close doubles of two of the used images. Love that mother.

All in all, I'm glad I'm out. I think working like that again would have done for me.

Rob C
« Last Edit: March 07, 2014, 04:25:54 pm by Rob C »
Logged

Rob C

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 24074
Re: Fuji X-T1 review
« Reply #75 on: March 07, 2014, 04:18:07 pm »

Leitz licensed the SA design from Schneider but made the lens themselves. It's a real cracker with film, like the Zeiss 21mm Biogon of the same era, but not so hot in front of sensors.   :-[

-Dave-


Thanks for that - nice to get the facts! Do you remember the name of the 21mm one that used one of the traditional Leitz names?

Rob C

Telecaster

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3686
Re: Fuji X-T1 review
« Reply #76 on: March 07, 2014, 10:21:20 pm »

Thanks for that - nice to get the facts! Do you remember the name of the 21mm one that used one of the traditional Leitz names?

You're probably thinking of the f/2.8 Elmarit. It seems to have been discontinued now in both the 21 & 24mm focal lengths in favor of both faster & slower versions. I have the first version of that 21, which works quite okay with sensors (really well with APS-C), and previously owned a Super Angulon (traded for the 1950s Biogon I currently have).

One Leitz lens I recommend for any mirrorless camera is the 1970s era 90/2.8 Tele-Elmarit. It's a simple four-element design, is small & lightweight and performs superbly at all apertures.

-Dave-
Logged

bcooter

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1516
Re: Fuji X-T1 review
« Reply #77 on: March 08, 2014, 12:59:49 am »


I almost wept reading your sports star story.

.................Why didn't anything from that segment make it to print? The fishing boat taking us there wouldn't accept any more people than the model, the translator, my working wife and myself. The 'client' was left sitting in the hotel, one very pissed off cat. It had nothing to do with me. But the rules had been changed, and I no longer got to take part in the final cut: I handed over the best of the stuff and went back to Spain. I never got a single transparency back from him; I was off the design and production rôle, and as I had nothing to do with the printing that time, I couldn't even get the printers to send me back my trannies, leaving me zero for the portfolio beyond a couple of very close doubles of two of the used images. Love that mother...................

Rob C


Nothing to weep about, just the way the biz is.

In fact it's not limited to photography or the arts.  Everybody on this forum has a story where a boss rolled on them or took credit for something.  You can get mad, get even, or blow it off.

I guess it depends on what it's worth to you at the time.

Just like your story about the guy getting pissed about a boat ride.

You know we're suppose to be adults and if that's all it takes to lose a gig, it probably was going away no matter what.

Sounds like a 12 step program, but I never try to worry about what I can't control and in my case I got paid, keep working for the client and won an award.  That's not bad, but the whole situation bordered on being silly.

Today, things are different than the past, but in a lot of ways just the same, because we all have to work with others.   I wish it was easy, but I've never done an easy gig that looked good.

I do know that the idea is to work each gig like that's the last one your ever going to do and let everything shake out the way it's going to.

I know a few years ago Rolling Stone magazine named a Bob Dylan song the best song ever, (don't remember which one it was).  Turned out his publisher rejected it so Dylan gave the master to a nightclub DJ in NY that played it, a radio station  jock heard it, (remember radio?) played it until it wore out and it was picked up and went #1 on the charts, so as many close misses as we have, sometimes we also have some good luck.

Actually I feel blessed to have made a living doing the job I wanted to do.   A lot of people don't get that chance, so a few bumps in the road aren't bad.

IMO

BC

P.S.   remind me on Friday I said that.
Logged

dseelig

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 586
Re: Fuji X-T1 review
« Reply #78 on: March 08, 2014, 01:20:20 am »

Bob Dylan never had a number 1 hit Rainy Day Women went to number 2 best he ever did on the charts. I just saw the xt1 today and was amazed at the viewfinder. As far as the review well to each his own and I have never gotten into custom settings oh well. Nice to know maybe one day I will set up custom settings am I missing something great here. Maybe I am being too old school here. But I loved the xt1 want to get one with the 18 and the 23 someday.
Logged

bcooter

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1516
Re: Fuji X-T1 review
« Reply #79 on: March 08, 2014, 03:27:38 am »

Bob Dylan never had a number 1 hit Rainy Day Women went to number 2 best he ever did on the charts. I just saw the xt1 today and was amazed at the viewfinder. As far as the review well to each his own and I have never gotten into custom settings oh well. Nice to know maybe one day I will set up custom settings am I missing something great here. Maybe I am being too old school here. But I loved the xt1 want to get one with the 18 and the 23 someday.

Uh, sorry, I'm just repeating what I heard on NPR one day.

Anyway, my point could be covered by Michael's nobody knows anything article.

I do know this, Fuji, Olympus, Sony, if they want mirrorless to stick with professionals they gotta hard wire tether.  Period.  I'll repeat this for google, the olympus em-1, the fuji xti and the sony A7 must hard wire tether reliably to be considered professional.

Thanks,

BC
Logged
Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5   Go Up