 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
| PhotoKB HomeDiscussion Groups Digital Photography Digital PhotoDSLR CamerasZLR CamerasPoint & Shoot CamerasFilm Photography 35 mmLarge FormatMedium formatDarkroomFilm and LabsOther EquipmentPhoto Technique Nature PhotographyPeople PhotographyTechnique GeneralGeneral Photo Topics General TopicsAustralian PhotographyUK PhotographyDirectoryPhoto Clubs |
Photo Forum / Digital Photography / DSLR Cameras / April 2006old lenses
Been away from SLR for 20 years so please bear with me. If I bought a new Canon DSLR like say the EOS 350D would I be able to use my old lenses from my AE1? No, an adapter was made but only for specific telephoto lenses, long discontinued. Adorama has an adapter (with compensating lens). But I wouldn't use it, at $49 it will just degrade your optics. I had 2 F1s and several lenses that are now in a case. The latest F1 is only fetching $200 on Ebay. So I bought a Nikon D200, nice camera, solid like the F1s. I've bought two lenses on Ebay, a 24 f2 and a 70-210 f4, for less than $500. It is depressing, but the 350D seems like a good camera, but you need small hands. I'd also check out new 20Ds, the price has probably dropped. Tom Only Nikon managed to preserve compatibility with non-autofocus lenses. They don't meter with the autowunder cameras but they otherwise work. > Only Nikon managed to preserve compatibility with non-autofocus lenses. > They don't meter with the autowunder cameras but they otherwise work. Not to put too fine of a point on it, but what the hell are "autowunder cameras"? The Nikon Pro F4, F5, F6, D2 series all meter with the "non-autofocus" AI-S lenses. And they also "otherwise work". Bob >Only Nikon managed to preserve compatibility with non-autofocus lenses. They >don't meter with the autowunder cameras but they otherwise work. You forgot about Pentax. Virtually every lens Pentax ever made is compatible with the *ist D, DS and DL models (and variants). You can even use M42 screw mount Takumars with an inexpensive adapter. >>Only Nikon managed to preserve compatibility with non-autofocus lenses. >>They [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > DS and DL models (and variants). You can even use M42 screw mount > Takumars with an inexpensive adapter. And they all meter perfectly! >>Only Nikon managed to preserve compatibility with non-autofocus lenses. >>They [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > DS and DL models (and variants). You can even use M42 screw mount > Takumars with an inexpensive adapter. That also includes Pentax 645 and 67 lenses. I enjoy my *ist D... Darrell Larose http://DarrellLarose.ca > Only Nikon managed to preserve compatibility with non-autofocus lenses. They > don't meter with the autowunder cameras but they otherwise work. Depends on the cameras; the "not metering" is a marketing (or cost) decision, not a basic incompatibility. The old MF lenses (AI and AIS) meter on the D1, D1h, D1x, D2h, D2x, and D200. They do not meter on the D100, D70, or D50. See the pattern? For that matter, the old lenses meter on the F5 and the F100 but not the N80 or some of the other consumer film bodies (now discontinued). As you say, not metering isn't a severe drawback in many situations on a digital camera; I've used various MF lenses without metering on my Fuji S2 for the last few years and found it not that limiting.  SignatureDavid Dyer-Bennet, <mailto:dd-b@dd-b.net>, <http://www.dd-b.net/dd-b/> RKBA: <http://www.dd-b.net/carry/> Pics: <http://dd-b.lighthunters.net/> <http://www.dd-b.net/dd-b/SnapshotAlbum/> Dragaera/Steven Brust: <http://dragaera.info/> > Been away from SLR for 20 years so please bear with me. > If I bought a new Canon DSLR like say the EOS 350D would I be able to > use my old lenses from my AE1? Sad to say, those great FD lenses do not work with any Canon cameras made in the past several years ... film or digital. Say what you will about Canon versus Nikon, but at least Nikon didn't screw their longtime customers that particular way. Althought I'm a Pentax user, it's clear that Canon did need a new lens mount. The FD mount wouldn't accomodate AF, unlike Pentax and Nikon. We must honestly state the Pentax K/M-class lenses do require an extra button push. On the "D" it's a green button. On the DS, etc., press the AE button, IIRC. Not a hassle @ all. I use my old K30/2.8 and other oldies with ease. For those not in the know, K- & M-class lenses are the manual focus lense which have no "A" setting. The "A" setting allows the camera electronics to take over the aperture, allowing program and shutter-preferred metering. Pressing the button tells the camera to stop down the lens and meter. It's because the camera has half of the hardware in place for operating the lens. Using screw mount lenses is actually easier because one does not need to press any button. But one must use stop-down metering. Can one even do this with Nikon & the older lenses? Collin > We must honestly state the Pentax K/M-class lenses do require an extra > button push. > On the "D" it's a green button. On the DS, etc., press the AE button, > IIRC. As you said, that's to get them to meter correctly when not set wide open - the button push stops down the lens long enough to take a meter reading at the chosen aperture. Note that doing a DOF preview accomplishes much the same thing, except that AE also actually sets the shutter speed accordingly whereas DOF does not - it merely reports how far (in EV) from proper exposure you are. On the other hand, if you are using the lens wide open, it already *is* metering at the chosen aperture, so the additional button press is not needed. In aperture priority mode, the camera will actually leave the lens wide open (regardless of the setting of the aperture ring) and set the proper shutter speed for you without an additional button push. I'm lazy enough that I only put on a prime when I need the wide aperture, so this is actually a useful feature for me. --------------- Marc Sabatella marc@outsideshore.com Music, art, & educational materials Featuring "A Jazz Improvisation Primer" http://www.outsideshore.com/ > But one must use stop-down metering. Can one even > do this with Nikon & the older lenses? Not on a D70/D50 but I think so on a D200. >> Been away from SLR for 20 years so please bear with me. >> If I bought a new Canon DSLR like say the EOS 350D would I be able to [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > Say what you will about Canon versus Nikon, but at least Nikon didn't > screw their longtime customers that particular way. Nikon backwards compatibility is a myth. They may physically fit on the front and the shutter will fire but they are a long long way from being fully functional. Canon on the other hand started off with a fresh format and designed it from scratch. All eos cameras will accept all eos lenses. > Nikon backwards compatibility is a myth. They may physically fit on the > front and the shutter will fire but they are a long long way from being > fully functional. The only thing I can't do with an AI-S lens that the lens is technically capable of is controlling the aperture from the camera body, a feature I care nothing about. That's a long long way from being a long long way from being fully functional. That's actually most of the way to being fully functional. SignatureJeremy | jeremy@exit109.com >> Nikon backwards compatibility is a myth. They may physically fit on the >> front and the shutter will fire but they are a long long way from being [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > care nothing about. That's a long long way from being a long long way > from being fully functional. That is one lense. Distance info will be missing from non chipped lenses. flash metering will be off. honeycombe metering will be out. as i said. physically fit on the camera and enable the shutter to fire is all you get with some. So saying that all lenses in the last 30 years work on all cameras is a long way from true. Why you thought picking out the ability of one lens as relevant is beyond me. > That is one lense. Er, no. That's all of them since AI, as well as pre-AI lenses that have been converted to mount. > Distance info will be missing from non chipped lenses. It'll be missing from non-D autofocus lenses, too. And it really doesn't do a whole lot. > flash metering will be off. Because of the lack of distance info? It helps a little, but in practice, it doesn't matter. And it's not a limit of manual lenses, it's a limit of non-D lenses, including many autofocus ones. Having a matrix chip doesn't enable focus distance information. > honeycombe metering will be out. If you mean matrix metering, no, it won't be out. Matrix metering works. > as i said. physically fit on the camera and enable the shutter to fire > is all you get with some. So saying that all lenses in the last 30 years > work on all cameras is a long way from true. They work on the cameras that support them. > Why you thought picking out the ability of > one lens as relevant is beyond me. AI and AI-S is a lot more than one lens. I only said AI-S because of the thing about controlling the aperture from the camera body, which could be done with an AI-S lens but can't be with current cameras. With AI lenses that shouldn't be done anyway, so the limit really doesn't apply there. SignatureJeremy | jeremy@exit109.com >> Why you thought picking out the ability of >> one lens as relevant is beyond me. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >done with an AI-S lens but can't be with current cameras. With AI lenses >that shouldn't be done anyway, so the limit really doesn't apply there. There is no difference between Ai and Ais in this respect: cameras that can do shutter priority and program mode with Ais lenses (such as the FA) can do that with Ai lenses as well. I don't understand how somebody can be so mind bogglingly stupid to claim that the lack of distance information is somehow important. Next time, he will probably claim that old Nikkors are of limited use because they don't auto-focus. SignatureThat was it. Done. The faulty Monk was turned out into the desert where it could believe what it liked, including the idea that it had been hard done by. It was allowed to keep its horse, since horses were so cheap to make. -- Douglas Adams in Dirk Gently's Holistic Detective Agency > There is no difference between Ai and Ais in this respect: cameras that > can do shutter priority and program mode with Ais lenses (such as the FA) > can do that with Ai lenses as well. They can do it, but you shouldn't. The different travel of the aperture lever can result in inaccurate aperture settings with AI lenses. SignatureJeremy | jeremy@exit109.com >> There is no difference between Ai and Ais in this respect: cameras that >> can do shutter priority and program mode with Ais lenses (such as the FA) >> can do that with Ai lenses as well. > >They can do it, but you shouldn't. The different travel of the aperture >lever can result in inaccurate aperture settings with AI lenses. The FA is supposed to evaluate the light while stopping down the aperture. It is supposed to work even with Ai lenses. SignatureThat was it. Done. The faulty Monk was turned out into the desert where it could believe what it liked, including the idea that it had been hard done by. It was allowed to keep its horse, since horses were so cheap to make. -- Douglas Adams in Dirk Gently's Holistic Detective Agency >> They can do it, but you shouldn't. The different travel of the aperture >> lever can result in inaccurate aperture settings with AI lenses. > > The FA is supposed to evaluate the light while stopping down the aperture. > It is supposed to work even with Ai lenses. Right, but the non-linear aperture lever travel with AI can make it less than entirely accurate. AI-S made it linear travel so it would be better. SignatureJeremy | jeremy@exit109.com >Right, but the non-linear aperture lever travel with AI can make it less >than entirely accurate. AI-S made it linear travel so it would be better. So? I don't know what kind of feedback loop is used in the FA. And I don't care either. 'Less than entirely accurate' is a rather empty statement. Unless you have data to back it up. SignatureThat was it. Done. The faulty Monk was turned out into the desert where it could believe what it liked, including the idea that it had been hard done by. It was allowed to keep its horse, since horses were so cheap to make. -- Douglas Adams in Dirk Gently's Holistic Detective Agency >> Been away from SLR for 20 years so please bear with me. >> If I bought a new Canon DSLR like say the EOS 350D would I be able to [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > Say what you will about Canon versus Nikon, but at least Nikon didn't > screw their longtime customers that particular way. 19 years ago, Canon introduced the EF lens mount, and people are still bitching about it. That mount has now been in production longer than the FD mount was (1971-1987.) So, an EF mount user may have been at it longer than any "longtime customer" who used FD mount cameras. As a former FD mount camera owner and user, who currently used EF mount equipment, I'm feeling decidedly less than screwed. Get over it. SignatureSkip Middleton http://www.shadowcatcherimagery.com > >> Been away from SLR for 20 years so please bear with me. > >> If I bought a new Canon DSLR like say the EOS 350D would I be able to [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > camera owner and user, who currently used EF mount equipment, I'm feeling > decidedly less than screwed. Get over it. Not sure whether I should put a flame proof suit on before saying this but I felt that Canon made the change was a good thing. Rather than trying to retrofit more and more onto an old design that wasn't built to take it [1]. Canon took the gamble, designed a new mount from built for all the AF and AE contants, and beefed up the mount. When I moved to digital I also moved up from MF so I've just switched from Pentax to Canon as well to help make me upgrade my kit rather than hanging onto some of the old junk [2] I'd got just as it would still work on my new camera. Most of the accessories wouldn't worth either (flash, cable releases etc etc) so they'd all want upgrading regardless. [1] I really don't like for eg the idea of the fragile AF motor being built into the body such as on the Pentax. [2] There were some nice lenses in there but some was getting on for 20yrs old+ and age does take its effects on some kit. SignatureJon B Above email address IS valid. <http://www.bramley-computers.co.uk/> Apple Laptop Repairs. As a Pentax user, I do understand to a great degree. Canon's system is an improvement over the old FD mount. They *needed* to change. But Nikon and Pentax didn't require the change -- both were able to build competent AF systems into the current mount. Pentax' weak af motor really only exists in the ZX/MZ series. All the others, it would appear, have better motors. But that last AF body series had its problems with under-engineering, probably for the sake of profit while gearing up toward digital. Older lenses, as long as they're clean is no issue here. I use K, A, and FA lenses as well as some 3rd-party lenses. Tokina RMC 17/3.5, K30/2.8, A35/2, FA50/1.4 A85/1.4, Tokina 80-200/2.8, & K85-210/3.5, Tokina SD 400/5.6. All produce excellent results with digital. I've culled out those which were excellent with film but not so excellent with digital. With any of Canon, Pentax, and Nikon, or any other brand it's necessary to select the better lenses for getting the better results. Personally, if I were to leave Pentax, my direction would be toward Nikon. They tend to build a better body, though a bit on the hefty side. Even with Canon's obviously superior sensor manufacturing, for what I shoot it would be no big deal. Collin KC8TKA > As a Pentax user, I do understand to a great degree. > Canon's system is an improvement over the old FD mount. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > build > competent AF systems into the current mount. But honestly how much of it is a kludge? I'm not trying to flame, just not fully familiar with the history, and also know all too often how companies will use any workaround they can whether it is for the best or not. If you spoke to the engineers rather than the beancounters at Nikon/Pentax what would they say is the best way forward? Could Canon have done exactly the same as Pentax to build AF into their lenses, but instead chose to scrap what had gone before and build a new system from scratch? I know Canon did do a FD mount AF, but again from the pics it looks as if the motor was built into the outer of the lens and did look an awful kludge. Ultimately it is all past history, so I may be dragging up old crap covered time and time before. > Pentax' weak af motor really only exists in the ZX/MZ series. All the > others, [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > gearing > up toward digital. Well I'd only really had access to the MZ-5N, I personally don't like the idea that knacker your AF and you've afaik knackered your body, which can be done if you aren't careful by turning the MF ring with AF turned on. On the Canon knacker the AF and you've just broken that lens. The other benefit being you start with the cheaper lenses and motors, and add better later, so just because you were a tight git and bought the bottom of the range 350D doesn't mean you can't have the faster more technically advanced focusing system. > Older lenses, as long as they're clean is no issue here. I use K, A, > and FA lenses [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > to > select the better lenses for getting the better results. Well yes, always the case. I didn't have that many to cull, I'd started up with 35mm slr when still at school, so I didn't have the funds to splurge on kit. Several years later by the time I was working, photography was on a bit of a back burner, so I never caught up with AF nor added any 'killer' lenses to hold me to a platform. > Personally, if I were to leave Pentax, my direction would be toward > Nikon. They tend > to build a better body, though a bit on the hefty side. Even with > Canon's obviously > superior sensor manufacturing, for what I shoot it would be no big > deal. This is why I didn't go with the 300/350, ok I've picked up a used D30 built like a brick sh.t hse compared to the 300/350D, in fact even compared to my old Ricoh XR-X which made the MZ-5N feel flimsy. I'd had Nikon Coolpixs 775/995 and been really impressed, but then I got my hands on a Canon PS G2 and that just blew the Coolpixs into the water, and not just by a little bit, so I swayed Canon. As a double bonus my batteries etc from the G2 fit the D30, and will fit a D60 or 10D too if (or should I say when...) I upgrade. Having paid big money for the pleasures of the coolpix's decided to let everyone else pay big bucks for the DSLRs and pick up them up used instead after the brunt of the depreciation has hit. SignatureJon B Above email address IS valid. <http://www.bramley-computers.co.uk/> Apple Laptop Repairs. > Not sure whether I should put a flame proof suit on before saying this > but I felt that Canon made the change was a good thing. For Canon, it probably was a good thing. I don't think there's any argument that the new mount isn't much better than the old, and they didn't have the same quantity of really good lenses that Nikon had already available. It would have been much worse for Nikon to make that move; even in retrospect, people are still using some of the old lenses and buying them on the used market. Even though Nikon could almost certainly make a better lens mount now starting from scratch, it would be a disaster if they tried it. Canon made the right move at the right time. Nikon needs to keep their mount. SignatureJeremy | jeremy@exit109.com >Even though Nikon >could almost certainly make a better lens mount now starting from >scratch, What would they have to change? Make the lens mount wider to support f/1.0 lenses (does Canon still make f/1.0 lenses?). Reduce the back focus distance (to be able to use Leica lenses)? The only issue I see is that backward compatibility with Ai lenses is at odds with good environmental sealing. But that is not a property of the lens mount. SignatureThat was it. Done. The faulty Monk was turned out into the desert where it could believe what it liked, including the idea that it had been hard done by. It was allowed to keep its horse, since horses were so cheap to make. -- Douglas Adams in Dirk Gently's Holistic Detective Agency >> Even though Nikon could almost certainly make a better lens mount now >> starting from scratch, > > What would they have to change? I don't know of anything that would have to change. I assume they could make a better mount now -- starting from scratch with all the requirements is, in my experience, typically much better than what you got by adding one thing after another over time -- but I'm not saying they *should*, or that there's any particular reason they need to. The thing works just fine as it is, and the backwards compatibility is important to me. > Make the lens mount wider to support f/1.0 lenses Well, that would certainly be cool. Give me my dream of a 50mm f/0.7. :) But they still haven't even made an f/1.2 lens in autofocus. Make me a 50mm f/1.2 with VR and I'll be quite happy with that. (Autofocus itself isn't even that important, but I'd love to have VR in that, as well as an f/1.2 that's better wide open than the existing 50/1.2.) > (does Canon still make f/1.0 lenses?). No; and the one they made was not very good. And for the dozen or so people who would buy one, it's certainly not worth changing the mount. SignatureJeremy | jeremy@exit109.com >> What would they have to change? > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >one thing after another over time -- but I'm not saying they *should*, or >that there's any particular reason they need to. In my opinion, starting from scratch is not a good idea, unless you really need a radical change of direction. The limitations of the old design are usually well understood, but things that accidentally went right are usually not documented. So there is a serious risk that a completely new design will fail in completely unexpected ways. SignatureThat was it. Done. The faulty Monk was turned out into the desert where it could believe what it liked, including the idea that it had been hard done by. It was allowed to keep its horse, since horses were so cheap to make. -- Douglas Adams in Dirk Gently's Holistic Detective Agency > >> What would they have to change? > > [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > serious risk that a completely new design will fail in completely unexpected > ways. Well you aren't exactly starting from scratch, the mounts still follow the design principles of the old lenses (bayonet etc), but Nikons/Pentax way mean that something is no longer in the best position as they have to drop a contact or motor in a certain place that doesn't get in the way of the old aperture control or something... Canon say right we're going to do a new mount, still bayonet, just 10% bigger and the notches in a new place so people can't wedge the wrong lens in and break things, things that were wrong before can be 'fixed' without worrying about backwards compatibiity as you've just broken it. The motors for AF/AE can all go in the optimal positions without worrying about the old manual AE controls etc.., well that is how I look at it. Like I said in an earlier post some manufacturers no matter how big (and often because they are the biggest) will say they've done 'X' to improve when it is fact a cost cut, or for marketing, or both. Canons could have been, if we don't have to allow for all the old stuff, we haven't got to cost it into the lenses for the next 100yrs, the longer we hold on, the longer we've got to keep it all. SignatureJon B Above email address IS valid. <http://www.bramley-computers.co.uk/> Apple Laptop Repairs. >Well you aren't exactly starting from scratch, the mounts still follow >the design principles of the old lenses (bayonet etc), but Nikons/Pentax >way mean that something is no longer in the best position as they have >to drop a contact or motor in a certain place that doesn't get in the >way of the old aperture control or something... But there is nothing in the Nikon mount that needs to be moved. All recent innovations use motors in lenses. You just need some electrical contacts for communication between the camera and the lens (and to power the lens). If, for some reason it would be a good idea to put a shutter in some lenses, then the shutter would probably be electrical. And no changes to the lens mount would be required. (Zoom control from the camera is an obvious innovation which again uses just a bit of electrical power). SignatureThat was it. Done. The faulty Monk was turned out into the desert where it could believe what it liked, including the idea that it had been hard done by. It was allowed to keep its horse, since horses were so cheap to make. -- Douglas Adams in Dirk Gently's Holistic Detective Agency > >Well you aren't exactly starting from scratch, the mounts still follow > >the design principles of the old lenses (bayonet etc), but Nikons/Pentax [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > contacts for communication between the camera and the lens (and to power > the lens). You can the contacts, but what about some of the old mechanisms? The Pentax lenses still have the dirty great stop down lever of old, you could probably replace that with some micromotor now but they can't as historically its all in the way, or that could be where some big AF motor could be hidden. While ever you've got to work around the old stuff, there has alwaysgot to be a compromise somewhere. Yes they've got it to work, but I still say if you could ditch some of the old manual mechanisms, you could make it better. SignatureJon B Above email address IS valid. <http://www.bramley-computers.co.uk/> Apple Laptop Repairs. >> 19 years ago, Canon introduced the EF lens mount, and people are still >> bitching about it. That mount has now been in production longer than the [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > take it [1]. Canon took the gamble, designed a new mount from built for > all the AF and AE contants, and beefed up the mount. And why doesn't anybody beat up on Minolta for doing the same thing that Canon did? SignatureSkip Middleton http://www.shadowcatcherimagery.com > >> 19 years ago, Canon introduced the EF lens mount, and people are still > >> bitching about it. That mount has now been in production longer than the [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > And why doesn't anybody beat up on Minolta for doing the same thing that > Canon did? Maybe they did, but over the noise of the 10x more Canon owners, you couldn't hear them ;) SignatureJon B Above email address IS valid. <http://www.bramley-computers.co.uk/> Apple Laptop Repairs. >> And why doesn't anybody beat up on Minolta for doing the same thing that >> Canon did? > > Maybe they did, but over the noise of the 10x more Canon owners, you > couldn't hear them ;) It's funny, but I only remember a few Canon owners grumping about it, it seemed/seems to be mostly Nikon and Pentax owners crowing about it, instead. SignatureSkip Middleton http://www.shadowcatcherimagery.com Don't confuse better marketing with a better product. Canon has had, and probably still has, the best AF system. Nikon, from what I see, is being more innovative, with what I understand is a wireless network login available on the camera. Awsome. And a body that's also probably more solid. But Pentax' optical quality is still up there with the best of them. I only wish they had a marketing department as good as Asahi Optical. : ( Collin > Don't confuse better marketing with a better product. > [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > > Collin Who said anything about quality? We were discussing obsolete lens mounts... SignatureSkip Middleton http://www.shadowcatcherimagery.com > > Canon has had, and probably still has, the best AF system. What makes their AF better than the others? >> > Canon has had, and probably still has, the best AF system. > > What makes their AF better than the others? You're asking the wrong guy; in your editing, you edited out the author of that sentiment, it isn't mine. For what it's worth, Canon's AF tends to be faster, and since the motors are in the lenses, rather than in the bodies, less prone to problems due to mechanical gremlins. But Nikon has several lenses that also have the motors in the lens barrel, so that's not a Canon exclusive. And, frankly, no one has shown me, categorically, that motors in the lenses produces better results. Canon's system of "zone focus," or approximating the focus and letting the depth of field take care of the rest does, or at least can, occasionally, result in misfocus. SignatureSkip Middleton http://www.shadowcatcherimagery.com > Canon's system of "zone focus," or approximating the focus and > letting the depth of field take care of the rest does, or at least can, > occasionally, result in misfocus. Under what situation will the camera use this "zone focus"? How to avoid it? http://digitcamera.tripod.com/#slr We used to. But since they're out of the game, it really doesn't matter any more. I'd rather make fun of Canon's poor color correction on some of their cheaper lenses in the kits. :) Collin |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2009 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.