 |
 | 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 2007sony alpha a100 for a beginner? What lens?
First, I'm a beginner moving from a point and shoot who wants to get a digital slr for fast action sporting events like soccer and gymnastics. I've been reading about and checked out the Sony Alpha A100 dslr. I like the feel of the camera and at a price of about $550-600 for the body, it has a load of features that make it seem like a bargain. Now the question, what lens do people here recommend? After reading a few review, I've been looking at the Konica-Minolta 28-75 f/2.8 lens. At about $400-500 new, it appears to be a good lens for fast action sport shots in low light condition. However, I would also like to get a lens with more zoom. Sony currently only offers a 75-300 zoom lens, which has gotten mixed reviews. Anybody out there try one? Thoughts? A friend pointed me to a review of the Sigma 70-200 f/2.8 lens, but being discontinued it cost in the $800-1000 range and appears to be hard to find. Minolta "G" lens are highly sought after and very expensive, so those are out. Any other suggestions? Thanks! If you are new to SLR photography of any kind I would suggest that you get the kit 18-70 lens before you buy any more specialized glass. Familiarize yourself with the camera and lens and, if you want the best results, software for post camera image processing, e.g. Photoshop Elements. Although many posters here may dis the Sony alpha I think it is a an excellent camera at a reasonable price. I used it briefly once and could find nothing that was any worse than I could say about my Nikons. The alpha has built in image stabilization, a definite plus. I also believe that most, certainly not all, Sigma lenses deliver very good performance for the price. As a lifetime Nikon user I can attest that not all Nikon lenses deliver performance that comes anywhere near to the prices they command. > First, I'm a beginner moving from a point and shoot who wants to get a > digital slr for fast action sporting events like soccer and gymnastics. I've [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > Minolta "G" lens are highly sought after and very expensive, so those are > out. Any other suggestions? Thanks! I use a Minolta 100-300mm Apo D lens, which is about as sharp as you get in that range for the price and very small, but extremely hard to find now. Contrary to some reports, the kit 75-300mm is equal or faster in focusing, and at shorter focal lengths (75-200mm) is very hard to tell from the Apo in terms of sharpness. It falls down from 200 to 300mm, where the no-longer-made Apo wins. The best lens for sharpness, focusing and price is probably the Sigma 100-300mm f4. It's between half and one and half stops faster than the KM/Sony alternatives (and much bigger). I do not recommend the KM 28-75mm. I have one, and after just a few weeks of use, the zoom mechanism becomes loose enough to drift to 75mm all the time because it has no zoom lock. The Tamron 28-75mm f2.8 is optically identical, though the zoom and focus controls are different, and unlike the old KM it comes with a warranty which works. It also has a zoom lock, allowing you to lock it as 28mm for walking/running without the zoom self-extending, which is the bane of the old KM design and also of the 18-200mm in both Sony and KM variants - the Tamron 'original', once again, has the zoom lock and it really is essential. Tamron is set to launch a 70-200mm f2.8 in Alpha mount, and a pair of the 28-75 and 75-200 would be good. Despite running the UK Minolta Club and using the Sony Alpha 100 myself, I do not recommend it for indoor sports or low light action. It is a very accurate camera with higher achieved resolution from the 10 megapixel sensor than its rivals using the same sensor, but it's not fast in focusing on moving subjects (it is extremely fast locking on to static ones even in low light), and it does not perform especially well at high ISO settings which are often used for school sports indoors. Buying DSLRs is a bit like buying film - the Alpha 100 is the Kodachrome 25 of 10 megapixel consumer DSLRs, but you probably need the Fuji Superia 800 instead. My current best tip would be the Nikon D40X. Love to have another A100 user, but until Sony introduce more bodies or improve performance at high ISOs I can only recommend the system for macro, landscape, still life, portrait, commercial, stock, architectural, travel and similar ISO 100 raw-shooting fields where pixel-level quality is the objective. David > I use a Minolta 100-300mm Apo D lens, which is about as sharp as you get > in that range for the price and very small, but extremely hard to find [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > 100-300mm f4. It's between half and one and half stops faster than the > KM/Sony alternatives (and much bigger). Thanks, I'll look into that lens! > I do not recommend the KM 28-75mm. I have one, and after just a few > weeks of use, the zoom mechanism becomes loose enough to drift to 75mm [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > of the 18-200mm in both Sony and KM variants - the Tamron 'original', > once again, has the zoom lock and it really is essential. That's interesting. As the person who runs the UK Minolta Club, that sounds impressive, have you seen this problem with the KM zoom mechanism coming loose on other KM 28-75? Or could this be a problem specific to the one you have? > Tamron is set to launch a 70-200mm f2.8 in Alpha mount, and a pair of > the 28-75 and 75-200 would be good. I like that combo. > Despite running the UK Minolta Club and using the Sony Alpha 100 myself, > I do not recommend it for indoor sports or low light action. It is a [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > architectural, travel and similar ISO 100 raw-shooting fields where > pixel-level quality is the objective. OK, are you saying that if I'm taking indoor pictures at a gymnastic meets, which are usually pretty well lighted, that the camera is slow and will need to use the higher ISO settings to be fast enough? Supposedly, one of the main weaknesses with the Sony Alpha a100 is that at high ISO, i.e., ISO 800 or higher, the resolution becomes very grainy and poor. I've tired a Nikon D40 and didn't really like the way it felt. For whatever reason, the Sony felt alot more alot. I presume the D40X is the same? Maybe I need to check out a D40X? > That's interesting. As the person who runs the UK Minolta Club, that > sounds impressive, have you seen this problem with the KM zoom > mechanism coming loose on other KM 28-75? Or could this be a problem > specific to the one you have? It's common to all the KM/Sony variants of the Tamron 28-75mm and 18-200mm, which have zoom tubes capable of extending under their own weight when carried normally on a neckstrap (the lens tends to aim down, the lens ends up at max focal length after a few yards of walking). It would probably happen with the Tamron models too, but they fit a zoom lock, and the first time it happens you remember to lock the lens. Sigma also fit a zoom lock to similar lenses. Minolta fitted one to the Dimage 7-A200 series lens. It's a kind of security thing too, no risk of damage to extended (vulnerable) zoom barrel. I have no idea why KM and Sony did not get the zoom lock fitted to their Tamron-sourced lenses, but they didn't. > OK, are you saying that if I'm taking indoor pictures at a gymnastic > meets, which are usually pretty well lighted, that the camera is slow [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > whatever reason, the Sony felt alot more alot. I presume the D40X is > the same? Maybe I need to check out a D40X? Check out other people's shots of indoor sport, and you will find that ISO 1600 is very common. The Sony is fine at ISO 800, and since I know that typical Sony exposure times at 800 are similar to Nikon at 1600, I would not be worried myself - I would just never use 1600. Have a look at my sample images from the A100: http://www.pbase.com/davidkilpatrick/sony_alpha_100 This includes many ISO/noise related tests. Generally I show results as small sections of what would be four foot long prints if you could see the entire picture, so bear that in mind - a lot of people post shots reduced to 20 inch screen size or something like that, and of course, they all look perfect regardless of the camera when downsampled to fit a regular monitor view. Even a 1.5 megapixel camera looks great that way. David  SignatureIcon Publications Ltd, Maxwell Place, Maxwell Lane, Kelso TD5 7BB Company Registered in England No 2122711. Registered Office 12 Exchange St, Retford, Notts DN22 6BL VAT Reg No GB458101463 Trading as Icon Publications Ltd, Photoworld Club and Troubadour.uk.com www.iconpublications.com - www.troubadour.uk.com - www.f2photo.co.uk - www.photoclubalpha.com - www.minoltaclub.co.uk Tel +44 1573 226032 To help directly with what Sony A100 at 1600 ISO is about, see this and its caption: http://www.pbase.com/davidkilpatrick/image/61532373 Maybe I do my own chosen system no favours by saying that it does not perform as well at 1600 as Canon or Nikon equivalents, but I'm judging by very rigorous standards. In absolute terms it does not, and this extends to raw images as well as JPEGs. In practical terms, I have to admit that the average user is going to see perfect looking prints and web page pix from any current DSLR at 1600. David > To help directly with what Sony A100 at 1600 ISO is about, see this and > its caption: [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > > David But because it doesn't implement NR like the others, it also has the highest resolution of any of the 10 meg cameras. You can use NR later in software, but at least (unlike the Nikon or Canon) it offers you the option of preserving the best resolution. >>To help directly with what Sony A100 at 1600 ISO is about, see this and >>its caption: [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > (unlike the Nikon or Canon) it offers you > the option of preserving the best resolution. That's why I wouldn't swap my A100 for any other camera despite the limitations at high ISO. David SignatureIcon Publications Ltd, Maxwell Place, Maxwell Lane, Kelso TD5 7BB Company Registered in England No 2122711. Registered Office 12 Exchange St, Retford, Notts DN22 6BL VAT Reg No GB458101463 Trading as Icon Publications Ltd, Photoworld Club and Troubadour.uk.com www.iconpublications.com - www.troubadour.uk.com - www.f2photo.co.uk - www.photoclubalpha.com - www.minoltaclub.co.uk Tel +44 1573 226032 >>> To help directly with what Sony A100 at 1600 ISO is about, see this >>> and its caption: [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > That's why I wouldn't swap my A100 for any other camera despite the > limitations at high ISO. ???? What Nikon and Canon DSLR models force you to use NR? All of them that I am aware of allow NR to be set from "none" to "way excess" and several points in between and have RAW mode besides. Signature-- --John to email, dial "usenet" and validate (was jclarke at eye bee em dot net) >>>But because it doesn't implement NR like the others, it also has the >>>highest resolution of any of the [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > that I am aware of allow NR to be set from "none" to "way excess" and > several points in between and have RAW mode besides. They all have their own methods. I can assure you that if Nikon had issued the D80 sensor with the lack of NR displayed by Sony, they would have lost a good many regulars to Canon. Even the minimum level of NR, and the NR implemented in signal processing to write the raw file, go way beyond the claimed effective NR (= barely anything) of the Sony BIONZ. The upside is that the A100 at low ISOs outresolves the other 10 megapixel models using the same sensor, though I can't yet say if this applies to the D40X. I've tested the Canon 400D (different sensor, but we own one and use it regularly), D200, D80 and K10D and whether it's down to differences in AA lo-pass filter strategy, A-to-D and signal processing, or fixed minimum levels of NR, the Sony wins on fine detail resolution and actually retains this at high ISOs, though the image may be unpleasant enough to be barely usable. All DSLRs use NR at all ISO settings. Nikon allows you to lock out high ISO NR, or control it, and not all Nikon models (or all Canon models) allow finer degrees of variation than on/off, hi/lo. Sony does not provide any means to modify high ISO NR and their menu item for NR refers only to dark-frame subtration for exposures longer than 1 second. However, users testing the camera critically, including me, observe that other settings including this NR on/off do have visible effects on high ISO noise in the raw file as well as JPEGs. The general feeling is that some firmware processes can get orphaned when an option is disabled by changing a file format, leaving part of the process intact (example, Dynamic Range Expansion in Sony which does not work with RAW, but if you leave it turned on then switch to RAW, the resulting raw file has higher noise levels than with DRO turned off). I usually have two or three cameras on review at any time - this week it's been the Fuji S5, and the Sigma SD14 arrived a couple of days ago. I could switch to using a different camera but for my normal purposes - ISO 100 shots under controlled or ideal conditions - the A100 consistently has an edge. I guess a Canon 5D or other full-frame Canon would take precedence. We have a Mamiya ZD outfit on test but in the end the restrictions of lens range, the bulk, the slow response etc mean that even that doesn't get preference for daily shooting. I would add that I do not like bulk or weight in cameras and I don't normally use either a flash or tripod; before digital arrived, my preferred kit (despite having an extensive Minolta SLR system) was a very portable combo using the CLE/CL with 20 to 135mm lens plus a couple of Contax T2s and a Minolta TC-1. And for medium format stock, I travelled with the Plaubel 67W, a basic Hasselblad SWC-M, a Brooks Veriwide, and a pair of Fuji 645 wide and wider models at different times. If something light and compact will deliver the optical/resolution qualities I want, I'll take it in preference to the usual heavier choices. David >>>> But because it doesn't implement NR like the others, it also has >>>> the highest resolution of any of the [quoted text clipped - 62 lines] > and compact will deliver the optical/resolution qualities I want, I'll > take it in preference to the usual heavier choices. You've made a lot of assertions about noise reduction. Do you have the images or measurements to back them up? Signature-- --John to email, dial "usenet" and validate (was jclarke at eye bee em dot net) > You've made a lot of assertions about noise reduction. Do you have the > images or measurements to back them up? I have some images which have been widely enough seen. I don't make measurements, but Anders Uschold's measurements are good enough and I find that nearly every observation I can make from examining actual files ends up supported by Uschold's published results. See: http://www.pbase.com/davidkilpatrick/digital_photo_samples&page=2 This includes some comparisons of Dynax 7D, Sony A100, Nikon D80 and Canon 400D. I have subsequently tested the K10D but not repeated the exercise. My Sony A100 pages on pbase also include many different noise, dynamic range and related comparisons: http://www.pbase.com/davidkilpatrick/sony_alpha_100 Many of these are images which were described in dpreview threads and don't have captions, sorry; also there's almost 500MB of images on the pages now and I must weed them soon. I have had enough discussions with engineers responsible for image processing systems (face to face) and enough long discussions via various groups to know that I'm not talking through my hat. Others here who know more about the inside workings of these systems will confirm that noise reduction and sharpening processes which are not connected with the controllable NR or sharpness settings of user menu screens take place in all digital cameras. This is one reason why there is so much variation in performance between cameras using the same basic sensor - Sony A100, Pentax K10D, Nikon D80 (the D200 is not identical, just nearly so). David >> You've made a lot of assertions about noise reduction. Do you have >> the images or measurements to back them up? [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > don't have captions, sorry; also there's almost 500MB of images on the > pages now and I must weed them soon. To make a convincing case you really need to organize those and describe your methodology. > I have had enough discussions with engineers responsible for image > processing systems (face to face) and enough long discussions via [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > connected with the controllable NR or sharpness settings of user menu > screens take place in all digital cameras. So what specific "noise reduction and sharpening processes" are different in the Sony? I've been an engineer long enough to have a very healthy respect for the ability of a non-engineer to listen to a bunch of engineers talking for a week and then regurgitate what he learned and get it all wrong. > This is one reason why there is so much variation in performance > between cameras using the same basic sensor - Sony A100, Pentax K10D, > Nikon D80 (the D200 is not identical, just nearly so). > > David Signature-- --John to email, dial "usenet" and validate (was jclarke at eye bee em dot net) > >>> To help directly with what Sony A100 at 1600 ISO is about, see this > >>> and its caption: [quoted text clipped - 23 lines] > that I am aware of allow NR to be set from "none" to "way excess" and > several points in between and have RAW mode besides. Take a look at the resolution figures. The Sony is comparable to other mfgs 12 meg models. http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/sonydslra100/page29.asp I've read at least three reviews that said the same thing. You pay for this with increased noise, but it should be an option anyway. >> ???? What Nikon and Canon DSLR models force you to use NR? All of them >> that I am aware of allow NR to be set from "none" to "way excess" and [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > I've read at least three reviews that said the same thing. You pay > for this with increased noise, but it should be an option anyway. Rich, do you actually read and look at these things before you make statements, or do you just make it up as you go along? "Here also we're seeing more of an advantage from ten megapixels over the eight megapixels of the Canon EOS 30D, however these numbers mean fractional improvements and as we have already seen don't always equate to a visibly more detailed 'real life' image." Or maybe this, "Excellent resolution, plenty of detail although no leap over eight megapixels." Or this, "The A100's sensor is at its best between ISO 100 and 400, delivering fairly noise free and sharp images with plenty of detail (especially if you shoot RAW). Above this and the A100 loses out in comparisons to Canon's excellent CMOS sensor which maintains more detail and exhibits less noise." No mention anywhere of a comparison to any other mfr's 12 mp sensor, Nikon or Canon. Although I am curious why Phil didn't compare the 10mp Sony to the 10mp Canon 400D/Rebel XTi. SignatureSkip Middleton www.shadowcatcherimagery.com www.pbase.com/skipm > Although I am curious why Phil didn't compare the 10mp Sony to the > 10mp Canon 400D/Rebel XTi. the canon 400d/xti was not out at the time phil did the a100 review (july 2007). however, in the 400d/xti review, he did compare it with the a100: <http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/canoneos400d/page23.asp> <http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/canoneos400d/page26.asp> > In article <VjpSh.25436$0c2.21...@newsfe07.phx>, Skip > [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > <http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/canoneos400d/page23.asp> > <http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/canoneos400d/page26.asp> Sony still wins: http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/canoneos400d/page28.asp The 30D scored lower on resolution compared to either 10 meg models: Canon EOS 30D Horizontal LPH 1850 2100 Vertical LPH 1650 2100 > Sony still wins: > > http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/canoneos400d/page28.asp phil claims 2900 lines, but look at the chart - 2900 is well past where it began aliasing. he made a similar error with the sigma, citing 1550 lines when there's only 1512 pixels - that's impossible. > In article <1176139900.399044.138...@o5g2000hsb.googlegroups.com>, > [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > phil claims 2900 lines, but look at the chart - 2900 is well past where > it began aliasing. Not horizontally. You can clearly see delineation right to the end of the scale. The others are mush by 22-24. > he made a similar error with the sigma, citing 1550 lines when there's > only 1512 pixels - that's impossible. > > In article <1176139900.399044.138...@o5g2000hsb.googlegroups.com>, > > [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > the scale. > The others are mush by 22-24. there is clearly visible aliasing before that. it is not resolving correctly. > In article <1176142615.528194.253...@y66g2000hsf.googlegroups.com>, > [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > there is clearly visible aliasing before that. it is not resolving > correctly. Aliasing is not an indication of lack of resolution. Kodak DSLRs still hold their own in the resolution dept. despite having that problem. If you can see the detail, it is resolved. >> Although I am curious why Phil didn't compare the 10mp Sony to the >> 10mp Canon 400D/Rebel XTi. > > the canon 400d/xti was not out at the time phil did the a100 review > (july 2007). however, in the 400d/xti review, he did compare it with > the a100: Thanks, I had my timeline skewed. SignatureSkip Middleton www.shadowcatcherimagery.com www.pbase.com/skipm > >> ???? What Nikon and Canon DSLR models force you to use NR? All of them > >> that I am aware of allow NR to be set from "none" to "way excess" and [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > RAW). Above this and the A100 loses out in comparisons to Canon's excellent > CMOS sensor which maintains more detail and exhibits less noise." I didn't make up the 2900 lines of resolution. Compare that with the high end: Not many in that league match it either: http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/canoneos5d/page31.asp Again, Canon does have excellent in-camera processing, which helps them with an edge at higher ISOs, but if you are shooting at normal ISOs for normal scenes where resolution of the sensor can be maximized, the Sony has a decided edge. No > mention anywhere of a comparison to any other mfr's 12 mp sensor, Nikon or > Canon. Although I am curious why Phil didn't compare the 10mp Sony to the > 10mp Canon 400D/Rebel XTi. I actually brought up the same question when that review came out. >> 10:01 am, "J. Clarke" <jclarke.use...@cox.net> wrote: >> [quoted text clipped - 34 lines] > if you are shooting at normal ISOs for normal scenes where resolution > of the sensor can be maximized, the Sony has a decided edge. According to the text, it does not, so it is hard to reconcile the numbers, which are similar to the Canon 1Ds mkII, a 16mp camera, to that. I wonder how the 2900 line figure was reached. SignatureSkip Middleton www.shadowcatcherimagery.com www.pbase.com/skipm > >> "RichA" <rander3...@gmail.com> wrote in message > [quoted text clipped - 41 lines] > which are similar to the Canon 1Ds mkII, a 16mp camera, to that. > I wonder how the 2900 line figure was reached. Look at this chart full sized. Look at the right side horizontal resolution target. You can see it resolves just beyond 2800. http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/samples/rescharts/sony_dslra100.JPG > First, I'm a beginner moving from a point and shoot who wants to get a > digital slr for fast action sporting events like soccer and gymnastics. I've > been reading about and checked out the Sony Alpha A100 dslr. I like the > feel of the camera and at a price of about $550-600 for the body, it has a > load of features that make it seem like a bargain. I don't know how well the A100 does for shutter lag, but a few action shots will definitely tell. I caution you on this as the Maxxum 7D (which I own) is a poor camera for sports. Somehow Konica-Minolta went from a relatively crisp 50msec (±) on the Maxxum 9 to a laggard 100 - 150 msec on the 7D. For sports shooting this is near fatal. I shot volleyball with both the Maxxum 9 (great) and the 7D and it took over 30 frames to "calibrate" myself to depress the shutter early enough to catch the "decisive" moment with the 7D. Even then, my 'hit' ratio was quite low. The other problem with the A100 is that it does not have two control wheels (front and back) for shutter speed and aperture (respectively). Instead it has a single wheel which controls per the A or S setting, which is fine if you shoot A, M or P; but if you shoot manual then you need to hold a button down to control shutter speed with the single wheel (which is normally aperture control in "M" mode). Sony will, by the end of the year, come out with new "low" and "advanced amateur" bodies. You may want to wait for that "advanced amateur" body. > Now the question, what lens do people here recommend? After reading a few > review, I've been looking at the Konica-Minolta 28-75 f/2.8 lens. At about > $400-500 new, it appears to be a good lens for fast action sport shots in > low light condition. The formula sounds right. Hopefully an improvement on the Minolta 28-70 f/2.8 (which I own). A very good lens with the minor nit that the filter thread turns with the focus so using circ-pol and tiffen kits is a bit of a pain. The lens (28-70) has significant distortion wide (but so do most 28-70/80's). It is, oddly enough, a reasonably good portrait lens in the 50 - 70mm range, esp. on a cropped sensor like the 7D or A100. The other issue is crop factor. With the current 1.5 crop factor of the Sony's the 28-70/75 is not "good fit" range. Rumours abound whether Sony will go to a 1.3, 1.2 or FF for the new "Pro" body due out late this year or early 08. Sony do have a new lens, the 18-70 f/3.5-5.6 which is a more useful focal length range for a cropped sensor, if a little slow at the long end. > However, I would also like to get a lens with more zoom. Sony currently only > offers a 75-300 zoom lens, which has gotten mixed reviews. Anybody out there > try one? Thoughts? This lens is sharp from 75 to 200mm with a slightly warm cast. It softens noticably from 200 - 300mm while also getting slower. It is light, and for the price, well made. I sold mine (a Minolta) several years ago. Got good bucks for it too. The real problem is if you're not shooting from a tripod, then this lens is not useful except in broad daylight and/or higher ISO. Further, on a cropped sensor, the 300 is effectively a "450" so the softness of the lens at that end will really show. A "really good" 70-210 is the f/4 version which also had some macro capability. A very sharp lens for the price. It is only available on the used market. It's also referred to as the "beercan" in some circles. > A friend pointed me to a review of the Sigma 70-200 f/2.8 lens, but being > discontinued it cost in the $800-1000 range and appears to be hard to find. Don't go there. There are few Sigma lenses worth owning and this is not one of them. > Minolta "G" lens are highly sought after and very expensive, so those are > out. Any other suggestions? Thanks! There is a good reason for that. The 80-200 f/2.8 (Minolta "G") is the sharpest of that class, slightly edging out the Nikon and Canon of the same range. It is a superb lens and worth every penny. People who own them tend not to want to sell them... Cheers, Alan Signature-- r.p.e.35mm user resource: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm -- r.p.d.slr-systems: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm -- [SI] gallery & rulz: http://www.pbase.com/shootin -- e-meil: Remove FreeLunch. |
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.