 |
 | 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 / January 2007Is CF a Dying Format?
I just returned from Wal-Mart having perused their newly replenished stock of memory cards. With the exception of one XD and one Memory Stick Pro, the rest were SD. 256k is the smallest and 2gb the largest with a surprisingly low price. There was NO Compact Flash. Is CF "going away"?  Signature:) JR Canon EOS 20D >I just returned from Wal-Mart having perused their newly replenished stock >of > memory cards. With the exception of one XD and one Memory Stick Pro, the > rest > were SD. 256k is the smallest and 2gb the largest with a surprisingly low > price. There was NO Compact Flash. Is CF "going away"? Does WalMart sell any cameras that take CF cards? That could be a hint as to why they don't sell the cards... However, it wouldn't surprise me if CF cards did fade away. Irritate me, yes, surprise me, no. With about 40g of CF cards around the house, and about 2g of SD cards, it would seriously piss me off if my next DSLR didn't take CF cards. But with the new Nikons using SD cards, the 1 series giving the choice of using SD or CF, there are rumblings on the horizon. SignatureSkip Middleton www.shadowcatcherimagery.com www.pbase.com/skipm >>I just returned from Wal-Mart having perused their newly replenished stock >>of [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > series giving the choice of using SD or CF, there are rumblings on the > horizon. Skip, Did ya notice the "smiley" at the end of Jim's post? Methinks he was poking a little fun at the "Death of IS" thread... Fish On...! ;O) Jay Beckman Chandler, AZ www.pbase.com/flyingphotog >>>I just returned from Wal-Mart having perused their newly replenished >>>stock of [quoted text clipped - 26 lines] > Chandler, AZ > www.pbase.com/flyingphotog The smiley looked like it was part of his sig lines, so I didn't think it applied specifically to this post. But, even if it did, it wouldn't change my reply. There was no flame, disagreement or sarcasm in my post that should have been deflected by the use of a smiley by Jim. ;-) SignatureSkip Middleton www.shadowcatcherimagery.com www.pbase.com/skipm >>I just returned from Wal-Mart having perused their newly replenished stock >>of [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] >take CF cards. But with the new Nikons using SD cards, the 1 series giving >the choice of using SD or CF, there are rumblings on the horizon. True. The other reason for regret, for me, would be that CF cards are *much* easier to handle if you are working in a hurry; I have cameras with CF, SD and memory sticks, but can change a CF card in about half the time the others take. In part, this may be due to the fact that I use them more, but ease of handling makes a big contribution. David SignatureDavid Littlewood >>>I just returned from Wal-Mart having perused their newly replenished >>>stock [quoted text clipped - 26 lines] > the others take. In part, this may be due to the fact that I use them > more, but ease of handling makes a big contribution. Hmm. I find it easier for me to change an SD card than a CF. At first, I didn't like the SD format but I've come to prefer it over CF. Not having to worry about a bent pin when using a CF card is a plus although I've never experienced the problem myself. [] > Hmm. I find it easier for me to change an SD card than a CF. At > first, I didn't like the SD format but I've come to prefer it over > CF. Not having to worry about a bent pin when using a CF card is a > plus although I've never experienced the problem myself. SD is my preference as well. Just a little easier to change. Perhaps people with older cameras should start thinking about completing their collection of CF cards within the next few years.... David [ . . . ] >> True. The other reason for regret, for me, would be that CF cards are >> *much* easier to handle if you are working in a hurry; I have cameras [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > to worry about a bent pin when using a CF card is a plus although I've > never experienced the problem myself. Same here. I don't really see how you *can* bend a pin with a CF card since the insertion guidance seems to be foolproof, but there are people who insist it's been done. I find changing SD cards easier also. No separate button to push, and on some of my CF-using cameras the eject button has to be lifted into position before it can be pushed, taking longer. Neil > Same here. I don't really see how you *can* bend a pin with a CF card since > the insertion guidance seems to be foolproof, but there are people who > insist it's been done. People that try putting them in abackwards? Not me :) Signature"As democracy is perfected, the office represents, more and more closely, the inner soul of the people. We move toward a lofty ideal. On some great and glorious day the plain folks of the land will reach their heart's desire at last, and the White House will be adorned by a downright moron." - H. L. Mencken, in the Baltimore Sun, July 26, 1920. Reality-Is finding that perfect picture and never looking back. www.gregblankphoto.com >> Same here. I don't really see how you *can* bend a pin with a CF card >> since >> the insertion guidance seems to be foolproof, but there are people who >> insist it's been done. > > People that try putting them in abackwards? Not me :) I don't see how you *could* put them in backwards. If you could, then yes, that would do it. ;-) Neil >[ . . . ] >>>> [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] >the insertion guidance seems to be foolproof, but there are people who >insist it's been done. I did it on a Canon PowerShot, no idea how. Of course a bent pin renders the camera totally useless. Canon fixed it under warranty. KS >> Hmm. I find it easier for me to change an SD card than a CF. At first, I >> didn't like the SD format but I've come to prefer it over CF. Not having >> to worry about a bent pin when using a CF card is a plus although I've >> never experienced the problem myself. >Same here. I don't really see how you *can* bend a pin with a CF card since >the insertion guidance seems to be foolproof, but there are people who >insist it's been done. I've done it. I ruined a CF card reader. The insertion guidance is plastic and can easily be forced. I've since learned to insert CF cards *very gingerly*. >I find changing SD cards easier also. No separate button to push, and on >some of my CF-using cameras the eject button has to be lifted into position >before it can be pushed, taking longer. There are pros and cons both ways. My Canon 300D uses CF cards, my Canon SD450 uses SD's. So I've used both. My fingers are rather dry and stuff is prone to slip through them. No fun on a cold day. And the SDs are easier to lose. But with the huge recent increases in SD capacity, I suspect that CF's days are numbered. As a result cameras will get even smaller and lighter. I'm not sure I like that. Signature--- Paul J. Gans >>> Hmm. I find it easier for me to change an SD card than a CF. At >>> first, I [quoted text clipped - 27 lines] > CF's days are numbered. As a result cameras will get even smaller > and lighter. I'm not sure I like that. Another thing to consider is the camera design. My Nikon (D70s) is easy to change the CF in (once you get used to the idea it does not go in straight). On the other hand, my wifes new Canon A640 which uses SD is a pain - to change the card, you open the combination battery and SD card door. Change the card, pick the batteries back up out of the snow and close the door again. That is not a CF vs SD card issue but a case of poor design making the SD *less* friendly to the user. mikey > combination battery and SD card door. Change the card, pick the > batteries back up out of the snow and close the door again. ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ LOL! :-) > I've done it. I ruined a CF card reader. The insertion guidance > is plastic and can easily be forced. I've since learned to insert > CF cards *very gingerly*. The general principle is never to force any connector -- electrical, mechanical, etc. > >I find changing SD cards easier also. No separate button to push, and on > >some of my CF-using cameras the eject button has to be lifted into position > >before it can be pushed, taking longer. Piffle. Why even buy a camera with such a CF slot in the first place? Every one I have does it the right way. Really, why not complain about the colour of the card? > There are pros and cons both ways. My Canon 300D uses CF cards, > my Canon SD450 uses SD's. So I've used both. My fingers are rather > dry and stuff is prone to slip through them. No fun on a cold day. > And the SDs are easier to lose. I also prefer the much larger form-factor of CF to SD for this reason. > But with the huge recent increases in SD capacity, I suspect that > CF's days are numbered. As a result cameras will get even smaller > and lighter. I'm not sure I like that. The biggest cards and the fastest cards today are all CF (16GB or more, 40MB/sec, etc), and its likely to remain this way, until capacity alone drives a totally new format altogether (note that both formats are limited by the ~128GB limits of their low-level protocols) . With the SD format's wide adoption in low-end cameras and MP3 players, this has predictably attracted the lowlifes of the electronic world, making SDHC cards that aren't actually SDHC or otherwise incompatible with various readers or other devices. This Brave New World awaits all the suckers. >> I've done it. I ruined a CF card reader. The insertion guidance >> is plastic and can easily be forced. I've since learned to insert [quoted text clipped - 30 lines] > cards that aren't actually SDHC or otherwise incompatible with various > readers or other devices. This Brave New World awaits all the suckers. I heard somewhere that CF cards include an onboard controller where the SD cards don't. If true, this may explain the larger CF size. Signaturejer email reply - I am not a 'ten' [ . . . ] > I heard somewhere that CF cards include an onboard controller where the SD > cards don't. If true, this may explain the larger CF size. That's a difference between CompactFlash and SmartMedia -- CF has the controller in the card, SM does not. As I understand it this gave a big advantage to CF since the camera didn't have to be concerned about memory size limits of future memory cards, at least up to 2 GB, whereas SM memory size was evidently limited by existing cameras. So there never were any SmartMedia cards over 128 MB. I don't think this is why CF cards are larger -- memory and other kinds of electronics have just gotten much smaller in physical size. I don't know whether SD cards have the controller built in or not, but they clearly don't have the memory limits that SmartMedia did. Neil >> >I find changing SD cards easier also. No separate button to push, and on >> >some of my CF-using cameras the eject button has to be lifted into >> >position >> >before it can be pushed, taking longer. > > Piffle. Why even buy a camera with such a CF slot in the first place? Because I buy cameras for reasons other than how easy it is to insert the memory card. > Every one I have does it the right way. Really, why not complain about > the colour of the card? Because I have no objection to the card's color. Neil > Same here. I don't really see how you *can* bend a pin with a CF card > since the insertion guidance seems to be foolproof, but there are people > who insist it's been done. Yep, my mom did it first time she used a card reader. Broke the reader thankfully and not the camera. >> Same here. I don't really see how you *can* bend a pin with a CF card >> since the insertion guidance seems to be foolproof, but there are people >> who insist it's been done. > > Yep, my mom did it first time she used a card reader. Broke the reader > thankfully and not the camera. I'm convinced. Several others have mentioned bending the pins. Neil > True. The other reason for regret, for me, would be that CF cards are > *much* easier to handle if you are working in a hurry; I have cameras > with CF, SD and memory sticks, but can change a CF card in about half > the time the others take. In part, this may be due to the fact that I > use them more, but ease of handling makes a big contribution. I used to think like that too. But after switching from a DSLR with CF to one with SD, I'm no longer pro-CF. I simply became accustomed to the different format. I don't like change for the sake of it, but if necessary it's an easy change to make. >> True. The other reason for regret, for me, would be that CF cards are >> *much* easier to handle if you are working in a hurry; I have cameras [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] >I don't like change for the sake of it, but if necessary it's an easy >change to make. A large part of CF's early popularity was that CF-compatible IBM Microdrives seemed to be a good option for higher memory capacity. But the Microdrive technology has been completely overtaken by the ability to make ever-larger flash memory on ever-smaller cards such as SD. Thank goodness, because Microdrives were troublesome. Without the lure of the Microdrive, and with the ability to make high capacity cards that are physically much smaller, there is no reason to continue with CF in the long term. The ever-reducing cost of memory cards also means that it will not be too expensive to change when the time comes. SD is the new CF. Tony Polson babbles on at odds with the facts: > A large part of CF's early popularity was that CF-compatible IBM > Microdrives seemed to be a good option for higher memory capacity. Let's see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microdrive says that microdrives date from 1999. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CF_card says that CF cards are from 1994. I dismiss the rest of your ignorant twaddle as just that: ignorant twaddle. > Tony Polson babbles on at odds with the facts: > [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > I dismiss the rest of your ignorant twaddle as just that: ignorant > twaddle. He refered to their early popularity--were they popular in 1994? Is there a reason you're being a prick, other than that you are a prick? >> Tony Polson babbles on at odds with the facts: >> [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > > Is there a reason you're being a prick, other than that you are a prick? That probably sums it up nicely. Neil >> Tony Polson babbles on at odds with the facts: >> [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] >> >He refered to their early popularity--were they popular in 1994? CF has a number of nice backward compatibility features. The first is that (from a software point of view) it is just IDE. The second is that at the electrical level it is PCMCIA, which has an IDE mode which makes it also very much like IDE at that level. Note that Kodak used PCMCIA harddisks in their digital SLRs. Of course, from the early 90s, laptops came with PCMCIA slots, so that technology was well understood. So CF had the advantage that is was easy to prototype and easy to interface with laptops. Anyhow, there exist SD to CF adapters... 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 >Tony Polson babbles on at odds with the facts: > [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] >I dismiss the rest of your ignorant twaddle as just that: ignorant >twaddle. But I remember that Microdrive's advantage was that it offered more capacity than CF at a lower price when it was introduced. Tony didn't say the Microdrive pre-dated CF. SignatureSenate Democrats proposed ethics reform legislation on Tuesday. It calls for lawmakers to pay the real cost of corporate jet flights and the full cost of skybox tickets for sporting events. If you want to know ahead of time what's going to happen to this bill, you simply need to watch the last five minutes of Old Yeller. >> Is CF "going away"? > Does WalMart sell any cameras that take CF cards? They sell the DigiReb (400D). Does that model use CF? (The smiley WAS part of my auto-sig. The question was serious.) > with the new Nikons using SD cards, the 1 series giving > the choice of using SD or CF, there are rumblings on the horizon. Well, I plan to keep/use my 20D for a few more years. I now have two, 1gb and one 2gb Ultra II cards. I probably should acquire one or two more before the format goes away. As for bent pins: I am a friend to a techdroid for Omaha Public Schools and he claims he is regularly presented with a CF-using camera for repair - with bent pins. I suspect that the difference here would be ownership: One that OWNS the camera is more likely to be INFORMED and also CAREFULLY insert a card than one that is clueless and using a taxpayer-purchased camera. Signature:) JR Canon EOS 20D > >> Is CF "going away"? > [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > one 2gb Ultra II cards. I probably should acquire one or two more before the > format goes away. I don't think you have to rush out and buy more, the format will be around for a couple of more years at least. With the way prices are falling it is best to wait untill you really need the memory before stocking up on more. Scott > Well, I plan to keep/use my 20D for a few more years. I now have two, 1gb > and > one 2gb Ultra II cards. I probably should acquire one or two more before > the > format goes away. I don't think it's going away any time soon. There are too many high-end CompactFlash-using cameras out there now, that will still be technologically adequate for years to come, for the memory card makers to stop supplying them. And the card prices are still coming down while sizes increase, you still see sales and rebates on CF cards -- not as many as on SD cards of course, but enough to indicate they're still producing CF in a big way. Of course, SmartMedia has mostly disappeared from the marketplace, but this is different. SM *never* had anything remotely like the high-end support that CF has enjoyed, as far as I'm aware. Neil >> Well, I plan to keep/use my 20D for a few more years. I now have two, >> 1gb and [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > SD cards of course, but enough to indicate they're still producing CF in a > big way. I do see the number of CF cards for sale (and especially cardreaders taking them) dropping dramatically though. In fact I might stock up on them while they last. > Of course, SmartMedia has mostly disappeared from the marketplace, but > this is different. SM *never* had anything remotely like the high-end > support that CF has enjoyed, as far as I'm aware. SM though was replaced by another card with the same formfactor. CF is being silently phased out in favour of SD because SD is "more convenient" for entry level cameras and their users (who never remove the card) because it's smaller and lighter. >SM though was replaced by another card with the same formfactor. CF is being >silently phased out in favour of SD because SD is "more convenient" for >entry level cameras and their users (who never remove the card) because it's >smaller and lighter. If such users do indeed "never remove the card" it would not exactly support a vast after-market in SD cards. David SignatureDavid Littlewood >>> Well, I plan to keep/use my 20D for a few more years. I now have two, >>> 1gb and [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > them) dropping dramatically though. > In fact I might stock up on them while they last. Just get an SD-CF adapter. >> Of course, SmartMedia has mostly disappeared from the marketplace, but >> this is different. SM *never* had anything remotely like the high-end [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > entry level cameras and their users (who never remove the card) because it's > smaller and lighter. Also because just about anything that can take a CF can take an SD with an adapter but not vice versa. Signature--John to email, dial "usenet" and validate (was jclarke at eye bee em dot net) > SM though was replaced by another card with the same formfactor. CF is being > silently phased out in favour of SD because SD is "more convenient" for > entry level cameras and their users (who never remove the card) because it's > smaller and lighter. If they never remove the card, why is convenience even an issue? Answer? That's not it. I suspect the SD form is more appropriate for the smallness so prevalent in P&S cameras. Signaturejer email reply - I am not a 'ten' >> SM though was replaced by another card with the same formfactor. CF >> is being silently phased out in favour of SD because SD is "more [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > Answer? That's not it. I suspect the SD form is more appropriate for > the smallness so prevalent in P&S cameras. Sure, though even the MAMMOTH Canon 1Ds Mark II has both CF and SD simultaneously. SignatureImages (Plus Snaps & Grabs) by Mark² at: www.pbase.com/markuson >>> SM though was replaced by another card with the same formfactor. CF >>> is being silently phased out in favour of SD because SD is "more [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > Sure, though even the MAMMOTH Canon 1Ds Mark II has both CF and SD > simultaneously. Perhaps the dinky SD was an afterthought when a second cavernous CF cavity wouldn't fit. :) Signaturejer email reply - I am not a 'ten' > In article <TOEph.7413$xj6.5757@newsfe13.phx>, "Skip" > <shadowcatcher@cox.net> [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > They sell the DigiReb (400D). Does that model use CF? Yes it does, as far as I know. I was really asking that question, not confronting you on it. > (The smiley WAS part of my auto-sig. The question was serious.) So was my answer. And I'm not a fan of SD cards, either. >> with the new Nikons using SD cards, the 1 series giving >> the choice of using SD or CF, there are rumblings on the horizon. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > the > format goes away. I don't need to acquire any, I have probably 15 of them now. I just don't relish the idea of having to replace all that memory if the next Canon DSLR uses SD cards, only. > As for bent pins: I am a friend to a techdroid for Omaha Public Schools > and [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > one > that is clueless and using a taxpayer-purchased camera. I've used CF cards in cameras for about 4 years now, and never bent a pin. I change cards regularly, so it's not just that I leave a card in for a long time. Really, not much care needs to be taken, just a little common sense. SignatureSkip Middleton www.shadowcatcherimagery.com www.pbase.com/skipm > I've used CF cards in cameras for about 4 years now, and never bent a > pin. I change cards regularly, so it's not just that I leave a card > in for a long time. Really, not much care needs to be taken, just a > little common sense. I've been using them in cameras since 1999 and never a problem. Bent pins are a common problem with people that are clueless and predictably slide into the realm of irresponsibility when they blame the manufacturer for their own carelessness. Simply put, it's sheer stupidity to bend a CF pin. Rita >> I've used CF cards in cameras for about 4 years now, and never bent a >> pin. I change cards regularly, so it's not just that I leave a card [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > their own carelessness. Simply put, it's sheer stupidity to bend a CF > pin. I can't find a way to disagree with this. ;-) I've seen customers come into Calumet and rant because they know, absolutely know, that it had to be a fault in the camera, card reader or whatever, that it could not be the customer's fault. SignatureSkip Middleton www.shadowcatcherimagery.com www.pbase.com/skipm >> They sell the DigiReb (400D). Does that model use CF? > Yes it does, as far as I know. I was really asking that question, > not confronting you on it. I knew that, Skip. You're words are always worth reading and rarely contentious. > I've used CF cards in cameras for about 4 years now, and never bent a pin. > I change cards regularly, so it's not just that I leave a card in for a long > time. Really, not much care needs to be taken, just a little common sense. Those last, two words are what is the most important consideration to mass producers. They must manufacture stuff to resist the "use a bigger hammer" buyer - and there are a lot of them out there. My mother-in-law received a digital photo frame for Christmas. My sister-in-law and her husband gave it to her, then advised her to seek MY assistance in using it!! I demonstrated to the almost-80-year-old woman how to swap cards, although I doubt she ever will. I reminded her to NEVER force something into a slot. I felt the reminder was necessary. <sigh> Signature:) JR >> I've used CF cards in cameras for about 4 years now, and never bent a pin. >> I change cards regularly, so it's not just that I leave a card in for a long [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > producers. They must manufacture stuff to resist the "use a bigger hammer" > buyer - and there are a lot of them out there. I have two cameras that use CF and one that uses SD cards, I frankly prefer the much more resilient CF cards. Many times when inserting the SD card the Read/Write protect slider moves itself into the "locked" position, necessitating removing and reinserting the card until it decides to behave. It gets irritating. There are also many stories off people accidentally sending CF cards through the washer and finding their images intact after allowing the card to dry. I would wager an SD would be trash after a trip through the washer. For these reasons I don't see SD as more "idiot proof" than CF. I've been using CF for about four years and switch cards all the time and never had a problem yet...Knock on wood :D [ . . . ] > There are also many stories off people accidentally sending CF cards > through the washer and finding their images intact after allowing the card > to dry. I would wager an SD would be trash after a trip through the > washer. Nope. I hate to admit doing such a stupid thing, but I did send an SD card through the washer *and dryer*. I thought for sure it would be ruined, but all the images were still there and the card still works fine. Neil > I have two cameras that use CF and one that uses SD cards, I frankly > prefer the much more resilient CF cards. Many times when inserting the SD [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > I've been using CF for about four years and switch cards all the time and > never had a problem yet...Knock on wood :D SD cards survive being washed. I have CF and SD and SM. There is nothing to choose between CF and SD as far as usability goes IMO. CF is larger so you can get bigger capacities using the same sized chips (just more of them). > I have two cameras that use CF and one that uses SD cards, I frankly > prefer the much more resilient CF cards. Many times when inserting the SD [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > to dry. I would wager an SD would be trash after a trip through the > washer. For these reasons I don't see SD as more "idiot proof" than CF. Depends on the idiot, doesn't it? Heheheh... ;-) SignatureSkip Middleton www.shadowcatcherimagery.com www.pbase.com/skipm >I just returned from Wal-Mart having perused their newly replenished stock of >memory cards. With the exception of one XD and one Memory Stick Pro, the rest >were SD. 256k is the smallest and 2gb the largest with a surprisingly low >price. There was NO Compact Flash. Is CF "going away"? I should hope not! I have four 512's and a 1 gig for my Digital Rebel. I like the CF cards BECAUSE they are bigger and thus easier to handle and harder to loose than some of these miniscule little fingernail size cards!! >>I just returned from Wal-Mart having perused their newly replenished stock >>of [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > and harder to loose than some of these miniscule little fingernail > size cards!! How can you get them loose? They seem pretty tight to me. >I just returned from Wal-Mart having perused their newly replenished stock >of > memory cards. With the exception of one XD and one Memory Stick Pro, the > rest > were SD. 256k is the smallest and 2gb the largest with a surprisingly low > price. There was NO Compact Flash. Is CF "going away"? I strongly suspect it is. Nikon has switched to SD in its newest dSLRs and I think you can take that as the handwriting on the wall. CF really doesn't seem to have any advantage over the smaller (and increasingly cheaper) SD cards, so there you are. With sales and rebates they're practically giving SD cards away, and it's hard to compete against that. Fuji and Olympus will probably continue with the silly xD card (current winner of the Best Solution for a Non-existent Problem Award) for a while, chiefly in an attempt to save face, but it's an SD world out there now. CompactFlash, R.I.P. Neil > >I just returned from Wal-Mart having perused their newly replenished stock > >of [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > > Neil I would rather see SD on a FF sensor from Nikon than stick with CF cards and only have APSC into the distant future. Not that that is a direct equation. Signature"As democracy is perfected, the office represents, more and more closely, the inner soul of the people. We move toward a lofty ideal. On some great and glorious day the plain folks of the land will reach their heart's desire at last, and the White House will be adorned by a downright moron." - H. L. Mencken, in the Baltimore Sun, July 26, 1920. Reality-Is finding that perfect picture and never looking back. www.gregblankphoto.com >> >I just returned from Wal-Mart having perused their newly replenished >> >stock [quoted text clipped - 26 lines] > and only have APSC into the distant future. Not that that is a direct > equation. APS-C is fine with me and SD is fine with me too, so I'm content already. :-) I couldn't care less about full frame. Neil > APS-C is fine with me and SD is fine with me too, so I'm content already. > :-) > > I couldn't care less about full frame. > > Neil I 'm just using FF as the describer. & Well if your going to be limited by a digital sensor, why not the larger "FF" at 16mp? Signature"As democracy is perfected, the office represents, more and more closely, the inner soul of the people. We move toward a lofty ideal. On some great and glorious day the plain folks of the land will reach their heart's desire at last, and the White House will be adorned by a downright moron." - H. L. Mencken, in the Baltimore Sun, July 26, 1920. Reality-Is finding that perfect picture and never looking back. www.gregblankphoto.com >> APS-C is fine with me and SD is fine with me too, so I'm content already. >> :-) [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > & Well if your going to be limited by a digital sensor, why not the > larger "FF" at 16mp? I just don't see any need for it, for my own purposes. It was the same way with medium format. I owned a few medium-format cameras many years ago, but I rather quickly lost interest in anything larger than 35mm, for reasons of cost, variety of available equipment, etc. And I think the APS-C vs. FF question is analogous to that. My guess is that for most users, dSLRs in the APS-C format are going to continue to offer much the more cost-effective solutions. I realize there are many people looking forward eagerly to FF, especially those with expensive ultrawide lenses from their 35mm days which have become relatively pointless with APS-C. I can understand that. But at the same time there must be many people like myself, now building collections of mostly DX lenses, who are perfectly happy to lock themselves into the smaller format. Time will tell, but I'm inclined to put my money on APS-C to become the standard just as 35mm was for so many decades. Neil >> APS-C is fine with me and SD is fine with me too, so I'm content already. >> :-) [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > & Well if your going to be limited by a digital sensor, why not the > larger "FF" at 16mp? I think a 6x6 DSLR from Nikon would be great too, but I don't think you're going to see it (6x6 is the only thing that can reasonably be called "FF" as there's no larger format available that's not custom built for each user to their requirements). Nikon sticks with DX because they consider the distortion, abberations, etc. etc. at the edge of the frame of larger format sensors when used with F-mount lenses to be too much to want to put their name on such a camera. At least that's what Nikon reps told me a few years ago, and I've not heard anything out of Nikon that contradicts it. Of course with the new course Nikon is sailing ("everything for a quick buck, quantity over quality, sales volume over customer satisfaction, if Canon does it so should we") I think we can expect them to forget about that and bring a 345 sized sensor in an F-mount camera soon. But I won't buy it, DX yields superior results than that camera ever will (Eos 5D users complain a lot about having to heavily crop their images to get rid of the edges which are often useless, so Nikon was right). But SD cards are a real pain. Fragile (the exposed chip is readily damaged), very hard to get into and out of the camera, and you constantly loose them. Fine maybe for people who put a single card in their equipment and never take it out (which is the average P&S user and maybe even the entry level DSLR user) but for the serious shooter they're useless. [] > But SD cards are a real pain. Fragile (the exposed chip is readily > damaged), very hard to get into and out of the camera, and you > constantly loose them. Fine maybe for people who put a single card in > their equipment and never take it out (which is the average P&S user > and maybe even the entry level DSLR user) but for the serious shooter > they're useless. I'm sorry to hear of your experience, Jeroen. Mine differs. I see no exposed chip on my SD cards. I regularly change SD cards in my camera and find if much easier than CF cards, which take rather more force to insert, and therefore more judgement as to whether the force you are using is "reasonable" or not. If you find yourself loosing SD cards, why not put them in a small plastic case? That's what I use when the card itself is not in the camera - I would not leave one around loose in my camera bag. Nor would I leave a CF card lying loose. David >Nikon sticks with DX because they consider the distortion, abberations, etc. >etc. at the edge of the frame of larger format sensors when used with >F-mount lenses to be too much to want to put their name on such a camera. Nikon sticks with DX because Sony does not make a larger sensor. Yet. >> Nikon sticks with DX because they consider the distortion, >> abberations, etc. etc. at the edge of the frame of larger format >> sensors when used with F-mount lenses to be too much to want to put >> their name on such a camera. > > Nikon sticks with DX because Sony does not make a larger sensor. Yet. Fortunately that will change. Then you will see a mass exodus from the Canon camp back to Nikon. Rita >>> Nikon sticks with DX because they consider the distortion, >>> abberations, etc. etc. at the edge of the frame of larger format [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] >Fortunately that will change. Then you will see a mass exodus from the >Canon camp back to Nikon. No; you will see a few Nikon users who had to move (reluctantly) to Canon when Nikon briefly dropped behind in the race, but kept the Nikon lenses. Hardly anyone else will notice, except for the daft claims they read in newsgroups. David SignatureDavid Littlewood >> Fortunately that will change. Then you will see a mass exodus from >> the Canon camp back to Nikon. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > Nikon lenses. Hardly anyone else will notice, except for the daft > claims they read in newsgroups. You would be surprised at how many people are using Nikkors on the 5D. It's foolish for a Nikon shooter to not have a 5D to get maximum performance out of their legendary WA lenses. The 5D is a dirt cheap band-aid to hold them over till Nikon introduces a FF dSLR or a decent WA lens for DX format. I suspect we will see an FF before the lens is offered. Rita >>> Nikon sticks with DX because they consider the distortion, >>> abberations, etc. etc. at the edge of the frame of larger format [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > Fortunately that will change. Then you will see a mass exodus from the > Canon camp back to Nikon. Actually I wouldn't be surprised to see Nikon either start making their own sensors, or switch to a non camera producing supplier. It doesn't make sense to continue to depend on one of your main competitors for such a critical element of your designs. If, in fact, Sony continues to avoid a 35mm sized sensor, that would add impetus to Nikon designing and making their own. But it won't result in a mass exodus from Canon to Nikon, it will only stem the current exodus from Nikon to Canon. SignatureSkip Middleton www.shadowcatcherimagery.com www.pbase.com/skipm > Actually I wouldn't be surprised to see Nikon either start making > their own sensors, or switch to a non camera producing supplier. It > doesn't make sense to continue to depend on one of your main > competitors for such a critical element of your designs. If, in > fact, Sony continues to avoid a 35mm sized sensor, that would add > impetus to Nikon designing and making their own. It would be nice to see Nikon do it all in-house, but I don't think it really makes that much of a difference. I don't feel Nikon looks at Sony as their competition. in fact, I feel Sony jumps to Nikon's command since it's in their financial best interest. > But it won't result in a mass exodus from Canon to Nikon, it will > only stem the current exodus from Nikon to Canon. Yep! Anything is possible since market trends can change at the drop of the hat. The biggest complaint Nikon shooters have right now is there are no decent WA offerings other than the 17-35, which isn't WA on APS-C. Again, the 12-24/4 "DX" Nikkor totally sucks and isn't even taken seriously as an acceptable stopgap. Again, it all comes down to buying and using the right tools to get the job done. Fortunately there's nothing wrong with mixing and matching between the two platforms. Rita > The biggest complaint Nikon shooters have right now is there are no > decent WA offerings other than the 17-35, which isn't WA on APS-C. No decent *reasonably priced* wide-angle offerings for DX, that's true. > Again, > the 12-24/4 "DX" Nikkor totally sucks and isn't even taken seriously as an > acceptable stopgap. I have never seen anything indicating the Nikon 12-24 "totally sucks" or is anything other than an excellent lens, and would buy one in an instant if they could knock off $400 or so. It's just too pricey. If Canon can make a 10-22 that's reportedly superb and much less expensive than the Nikon 12-24 besides, Nikon ought to be able to do something similar. Neil >> Again, >> the 12-24/4 "DX" Nikkor totally sucks and isn't even taken seriously [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > or is anything other than an excellent lens, and would buy one in an > instant if they could knock off $400 or so. It's just too pricey. Ah, now you're catching on. To you the Nikon 12-24 is $400 overpriced while delivering, we'll say, average performance. There's always the world famous Tokina 12-24 that blows the Nikkor away in both performance and value. > If Canon can make a 10-22 that's reportedly superb and much less > expensive than the Nikon 12-24 besides, Nikon ought to be able to do > something similar. Actually, the Tokina kills the 10-22 as well. I agree that Nikon ought to be able to build and market a decent WA lens or offer an FF body that would eliminate the need to redesign a lens system. I guess Nikon makes more money reinventing and reselling lenses? Rita >>> Again, >>> the 12-24/4 "DX" Nikkor totally sucks and isn't even taken seriously [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > famous > Tokina 12-24 that blows the Nikkor away in both performance and value. It sure seems to blow it away in value, anyway. I'd still rather have the Nikkor, just not at its price. >> If Canon can make a 10-22 that's reportedly superb and much less >> expensive than the Nikon 12-24 besides, Nikon ought to be able to do [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > eliminate the need to redesign a lens system. I guess Nikon makes more > money reinventing and reselling lenses? I am still not one of you people who are pining for a full-frame Nikon digital, so what Nikon is doing makes perfect sense to me. I just wish they'd hurry up (but not doing anything in *haste* of course) and bring out a good WA zoom at a more appealing price. If they don't, I probably will settle for the Tokina, though the idea of buying something other than a Nikkor for my Nikons doesn't really sit well with me. I do have a Tokina 20-35 in the Minolta mount though, and that's a very nicely made lens. Neil >> Ah, now you're catching on. To you the Nikon 12-24 is $400 >> overpriced while [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > It sure seems to blow it away in value, anyway. I'd still rather have > the Nikkor, just not at its price. Keep checking eBay, there's no reason you can't get a new in the box USA model 12-24 Nikkor for under $700, though still a bit steep for that lens. >> Actually, the Tokina kills the 10-22 as well. I agree that Nikon >> ought to be able to build and market a decent WA lens or offer an FF [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > with me. I do have a Tokina 20-35 in the Minolta mount though, and > that's a very nicely made lens. I would love to see Nikon get off their butt and offer something exciting. I'm with you; it's tough putting a third party lens on the old Nikon. Rita >>> Ah, now you're catching on. To you the Nikon 12-24 is $400 >>> overpriced while [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > Keep checking eBay, there's no reason you can't get a new in the box USA > model 12-24 Nikkor for under $700, though still a bit steep for that lens. What I've been hoping for is a nice fat Nikon rebate on the 12-24. That is among the items they have on their present rebate list, but at $25 the rebate is sort of stingy. I do check eBay from time to time. >>> Actually, the Tokina kills the 10-22 as well. I agree that Nikon >>> ought to be able to build and market a decent WA lens or offer an FF [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > I would love to see Nikon get off their butt and offer something exciting. > I'm with you; it's tough putting a third party lens on the old Nikon. Yes. I've used plenty of third-party lenses with Minoltas and other brands, but my Nikons I really prefer to keep pure Nikon. Neil >>>> Nikon sticks with DX because they consider the distortion, >>>> abberations, etc. etc. at the edge of the frame of larger format [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > But it won't result in a mass exodus from Canon to Nikon, it will only > stem the current exodus from Nikon to Canon. A Foveon in a Nikon camera would be nice. >>>>> Nikon sticks with DX because they consider the distortion, >>>>> abberations, etc. etc. at the edge of the frame of larger format [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] > > A Foveon in a Nikon camera would be nice. Sure it would...IF you want Nikon to die a quick DEATH, that is...(which I don't). SignatureImages (Plus Snaps & Grabs) by Mark² at: www.pbase.com/markuson >A Foveon in a Nikon camera would be nice. Except that such a camera would have 14 *completely interpolated* megapixels instead of just color-interpolated (which seems to be done rather well, BTW). Foveon's concept is pretty good. The fact that Sigma needs to make it out to be more than it is, is disturbing, though. When Foveon comes up with an actual 14mp sensor (or even a 10mp sensor), Sigma won't need to interpolate entire pixels to compete. Until then, the Foveon concept will be, for most, a work-in-progress. I look forward to seeing what Foveon can do with it. SignatureSenate Democrats proposed ethics reform legislation on Tuesday. It calls for lawmakers to pay the real cost of corporate jet flights and the full cost of skybox tickets for sporting events. If you want to know ahead of time what's going to happen to this bill, you simply need to watch the last five minutes of Old Yeller. > I think a 6x6 DSLR from Nikon would be great too, but I don't think you're > going to see it (6x6 is the only thing that can reasonably be called "FF" [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > At least that's what Nikon reps told me a few years ago, and I've not > heard anything out of Nikon that contradicts it. Except that the DX lenses, since they cover a smaller image circle than the old film lenses, have the same problems at the edge of a DX sensor that full 35mm frame lenses do on 35mm sized sensors, whether film or digital. SignatureSkip Middleton www.shadowcatcherimagery.com www.pbase.com/skipm >> Nikon sticks with DX because they consider the distortion, >> abberations, etc. etc. at the edge of the frame of larger format [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > sensor that full 35mm frame lenses do on 35mm sized sensors, whether > film or digital. Nobody is disputing DX lenses are total crap, but to say that "full 35mm frame lenses do on 35mm sized sensors, whether film or digital" is not *totally* true. If you are using the Canon 16-35 as a comparison on film than you are correct since this was a terrible lens then as it is now. Nikon never had this problem with the 17-35 on film. In fact, it was so perfect it reached legendary status that other zooms in that range were fighting to occupy second and third place. Admit it, a crappy lens is a crappy lens and no amount of side stepping to justify hiding this fact is going to help. Rita >> I think a 6x6 DSLR from Nikon would be great too, but I don't think >> you're going to see it (6x6 is the only thing that can reasonably be [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > that full 35mm frame lenses do on 35mm sized sensors, whether film or > digital. I don't think so. It's not just that the small sensor gets the sweetest part of the image of the 35-sized lenses, but also that their corners receive the rays at significantly less angularity than a full-frame sensor would. And that doesn't change with DX lenses, since obviously the flange to film plane distance remains the same. Furthermore, the lens makers repeatedly tell us that their lenses for digital are designed to keep the rays as nearly perpendicular to the sensor (and its microlenses, etc.) as possible, this being much more important for digital than it ever was for film. That may be partly hype, but there must be some truth in it. Neil >>> I think a 6x6 DSLR from Nikon would be great too, but I don't think >>> you're going to see it (6x6 is the only thing that can reasonably be [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > would. And that doesn't change with DX lenses, since obviously the flange > to film plane distance remains the same. Take a look at this: http://www.photozone.de/8Reviews/lenses/nikkor_1755_28/index.htm And there are other examples, not only of Nikkors, but other "digital only" lenses. > Furthermore, the lens makers repeatedly tell us that their lenses for > digital are designed to keep the rays as nearly perpendicular to the [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > Neil It may have some truth, but the reality is that the light fall off is not good on these "digital only" lenses. SignatureSkip Middleton www.shadowcatcherimagery.com www.pbase.com/skipm > But I won't buy it, DX yields superior > results than that camera ever will (Eos 5D users complain a lot about > having to heavily crop their images to get rid of the edges which are > often useless, so Nikon was right). The problem with Nikon is they found a cash cow with the DX line of lenses and is milking it at their customer's expense. These lenses are a step up from utter garbage. This is why I refuse to buy a DX lens for personal use since their classics work so much better. As for 5D users complaining about heavily cropping, this is pure nonsense. They simply use the 17-35/28 Nikkor with an adapter to get the best possible image or they use Canon's 16-35/2.8 or 17-40/4 and keep their mouths shut and try to hide these glaring deficiencies by cropping or using abnormally large amounts of post processing. Either way, a Canon user isn't going to tell you they are unhappy with these poor performing lens. Rita >Nikon sticks with DX because they consider the distortion, abberations, etc. >etc. at the edge of the frame of larger format sensors when used with [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] >(Eos 5D users complain a lot about having to heavily crop their images to >get rid of the edges which are often useless, so Nikon was right). No; I have not heard any serious 5D users (including myself) making these endless droning complaints; I *have* heard a lot of non-5D users complaining very vociferously on their behalf, but AFAIK this is ignored by the real users, who seem quite delighted, and just get on with it. >But SD cards are a real pain. Fragile (the exposed chip is readily damaged), >very hard to get into and out of the camera, and you constantly loose them. >Fine maybe for people who put a single card in their equipment and never >take it out (which is the average P&S user and maybe even the entry level >DSLR user) but for the serious shooter they're useless. Mostly agree; bit of an exaggeration to say SD cards are "useless", but if I was told that every future camera I was interested in would use CF, I would be content. David SignatureDavid Littlewood >> Nikon sticks with DX because they consider the distortion, >> abberations, etc. [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > complaining very vociferously on their behalf, but AFAIK this is ignored > by the real users, who seem quite delighted, and just get on with it. I don't have a 5D and due to recent events, may not want one. At the local camera store there are customer contributed display shots taken with the 5D, using conventional lenses with no filters, that show heavy vignetting at wide angles, tapering off in vignetting intensity at 28mm and eliminated above 28mm. Is there something wrong here? Have any 5D or 1Ds users experienced vignetting using conventional film type wide angle lenses? >> But SD cards are a real pain. Fragile (the exposed chip is readily >> damaged), [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > > David >> No; I have not heard any serious 5D users (including myself) making >>these endless droning complaints; I *have* heard a lot of non-5D users [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] >Have any 5D or 1Ds users experienced vignetting using conventional film >type wide angle lenses? Yes, but I also experienced it on every other camera I have used. Pretty well every wide angle lens vignettes to some extent; you either decide it suits the image (a bit of darker sky in the corners often looks right, and was often done deliberately on B&W prints) or reduce the effect in PS (takes about 10 seconds). David SignatureDavid Littlewood >>> No; I have not heard any serious 5D users (including myself) making >>> these endless droning complaints; I *have* heard a lot of non-5D [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > > David I agree. There are times when burning in (or gradually burning in) the corners of a shot is useful in getting the viewer to focus upon the main subject of a picture. Info. only: I have not normally experienced vignetting with my 30D when using Canon's 10-22mm lens or when using my 1DMKII with Canon's 16-35mm lens. However, I did experience sever vignetting with the 10-22 lens when used with thick conventional polarized filters and graduated filters. That vignetting problem was solved by using a thin polarize filter and Coken set-ups when a graduated filter would be best used. My memory may be faulty here, but I don't think I ran into vignetting problems when I used Nikon's 18mm lenticular lens (without filters) on my F5 camera. (I'm one of those who dumped all the Nikon film gear (tons of it) and converted to using Canon digital gear.) > I don't have a 5D and due to recent events, may not want one. At the > local camera store there are customer contributed display shots taken > with the 5D, using conventional lenses with no filters, that show > heavy vignetting at wide angles, tapering off in vignetting intensity > at 28mm and eliminated above 28mm. Is there something wrong here? This is perfectly normal when using a crappy lens. > Have any 5D or 1Ds users experienced vignetting using conventional > film type wide angle lenses? Nope! Then again, I use the legendary 17-35/2.8 Nikkor on the old 5D. Rita >> I don't have a 5D and due to recent events, may not want one. At the >> local camera store there are customer contributed display shots taken [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > This is perfectly normal when using a crappy lens. I was informed crappy lenses were not used. >> Have any 5D or 1Ds users experienced vignetting using conventional >> film type wide angle lenses? > > Nope! Then again, I use the legendary 17-35/2.8 Nikkor on the old 5D. I had the 17-35mm f-2.8 lens when I had my Nikon film gear. It was a good lens; not spectacular, but a good, above average lens. Now I use Canon's 16-35mm f-2.8 lens and when comparing 10x8 prints from using either lens, I don't see differences. > Rita >>> I don't have a 5D and due to recent events, may not want one. At the >>> local camera store there are customer contributed display shots [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > Canon's 16-35mm f-2.8 lens and when comparing 10x8 prints from using > either lens, I don't see differences. 10x8 is a small...cropped print, so that doesn't surprise me. How about 12 x 18 or larger full frame prints (10x8 isn't full frame)? SignatureImages (Plus Snaps & Grabs) by Mark² at: www.pbase.com/markuson >>>> I don't have a 5D and due to recent events, may not want one. At the >>>> local camera store there are customer contributed display shots [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > 10x8 is a small...cropped print, so that doesn't surprise me. > How about 12 x 18 or larger full frame prints (10x8 isn't full frame)? 10x8 was the only size prints I could find that were made using both type lenses. >>>>> I don't have a 5D and due to recent events, may not want one. At >>>>> the local camera store there are customer contributed display [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] > 10x8 was the only size prints I could find that were made using both > type lenses. OK. It's just that an 8x10 means that it CAN'T be including the corners...or at least not all of them. I don't think 8x10 is really large enough to separate the "men from the boys" which is why for most people, high-end optics aren't necessarily worth the price. For those of us who do make very large prints, it becomes a real consideration. SignatureImages (Plus Snaps & Grabs) by Mark² at: www.pbase.com/markuson >>>>>> I don't have a 5D and due to recent events, may not want one. At >>>>>> the local camera store there are customer contributed display [quoted text clipped - 26 lines] > the price. For those of us who do make very large prints, it becomes a real > consideration. (Grinning) Mark, I used to favor making large prints but no one in my family likes large prints and for a long time, I couldn't give a large print away to anyone. I don't know anyone who would want a 12x18 or larger print. The largest print I now occasionally make is 8x12 and that's a print made for me. I chose that size print 'cause it gives me a moderately panoramic feel without being a stitched panoramic shot. >>>>>>> I don't have a 5D and due to recent events, may not want one. At >>>>>>> the local camera store there are customer contributed display [quoted text clipped - 34 lines] > me a moderately panoramic feel without being a stitched panoramic > shot. Perhaps you should reconsider your lens expenditures... ;) It seems your equipment is "overqualified" for your output size... :) One thing I've found people really DO enjoy is large prints in a book-type album, like these: http://www.jerrysartarama.com/art-supply/catalogs/0072259000000 The reaction to a high-quality LARGE print is amazing, in comparison to wimpy little prints. I've sold large, framed prints by doing just that... Letting people actually SEE what they look likd BIG. The details become important and appreciated at that point. Try it some time! :) SignatureImages (Plus Snaps & Grabs) by Mark² at: www.pbase.com/markuson >>>>>>>> I don't have a 5D and due to recent events, may not want one. At >>>>>>>> the local camera store there are customer contributed display [quoted text clipped - 47 lines] > appreciated at that point. > Try it some time! :) I love those. I think I buy mine for less than $62, though. Maybe not the same brand/quality. > One thing I've found people really DO enjoy is large prints in a book-type > album, like these: [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > appreciated at that point. > Try it some time! :) Here is the ones I've bought. Perhaps not as nice cover? http://www.samys.com/product_detail.php?item=5240 >> One thing I've found people really DO enjoy is large prints in a >> book-type album, like these: [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > > http://www.samys.com/product_detail.php?item=5240 To be honest, there is really no comparison between these two seemingly-similar items. I have both, and the ones I pointed to are SOO much nicer--in two ways: First, the cover is thick and padded. It looks like leather, and is soft. Second, and most important, the sleeves themselves are crystal clear...like glass. The cheaper version has sleeves that are murky and grey by comparison. You really should check out the nicer line. I bought several of them a few months ago when they were on sale for about $40. Worth every penny. Anyway... We both like these books. I would just encourage you to get your hands on one of these: http://www.jerrysartarama.com/art-supply/catalogs/0072259000000 and see if you agree. -Mark² SignatureImages (Plus Snaps & Grabs) by Mark² at: www.pbase.com/markuson |
Enable EMail Alerts
Start New Thread
Reply to this Message