Approve the Cookies
This website uses cookies to improve your user experience. By using this site, you agree to our use of cookies. Read More.
OK
Index  •   • New posts  •   • RTAT  •   • 'Best of'  •   • Gallery  •   • Gear  •   • Reviews
New posts  •   • RTAT  •   • 'Best of'  •   • Gallery  •   • Gear  •   • Reviews
Register to forums    Log in

 
FORUMS General Gear Talk Camera Vs. Camera
Thread started 08 May 2017 (Monday) 20:07
Prev/next
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as registered member)

Full Frame or Crop

 
TeamSpeed
01010100 01010011
TeamSpeed's Avatar
31,939 posts
Gallery: 60 photos
Joined May 2002
Northern Indiana
Post has been last edited 2 months ago by TeamSpeed. 10 edits done in total.
Aug 02, 2017 18:07 |  #181

Strange, as there wasn't any photoshop done there except to crop and frame, and perhaps just a bit of USM to overcome the haze. I think my 14 year old daughter took some great photos, she did the boat show a few years back.

ecka wrote in post #18417693 (external link)
:) I'm sorry, but these are excellent examples of what I call "photoshopped to death". I guess sometimes the actual problem is not seeing any problems.

I'm sorry, but those comments are excellent examples of "internet asshattery". I guess sometimes the actual problem is the reflection you see when you look in the mirror. :)

Here is the full image she took and then the crop I did when we saved off the images to our NAS. Straight from the raw, but only ISO 500, the 7D2 has no discernible noise at this ISO, especially during a bright day. We are strictly talking about noise, and not critiques on the photos. Go ahead if you want, but look like a jerk for making fun of an 11 year old's photos. ;) Of course I believe you already established that, given the foot you firmly planted into your mouth on how professionals only use 1D series bodies and would never use lesser bodies, and if you did, you couldn't possibly be a pro.

HOSTED PHOTO
please log in to view hosted photos in full size.

HOSTED PHOTO
please log in to view hosted photos in full size.

Past Equipment | My Gallery (external link)

LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as registered member)
Osa713
Senior Member
Osa713's Avatar
Joined Jun 2011
Houston, TX
Aug 02, 2017 18:40 |  #182

ecka wrote in post #18417693 (external link)
Let's not start a Fuji debate here, please. If all you want is to shoot snapshots with dated looking colors and old man (aka. hipster) style, then Fuji's fine. If you want to be a photographer, then get a real camera instead. That xTrans thing is a disaster. It's nowhere close to FF, plus it produces weird artifacts.

:lol:




LOG IN TO REPLY
EverydayGetaway
Cream of the Crop
EverydayGetaway's Avatar
9,769 posts
Gallery: 1 photo
Joined Oct 2012
Bowie, MD
Aug 02, 2017 18:49 |  #183

DSMS wrote in post #18417641 (external link)
Um, i'm not too sure you're being serious with that first comment...

I cannot even imagine any reason for a moveable rear screen (unless it's for video which I have NO use for), that counters having one more part to break.

I used to shoot video at drag racing events, but used an enormous broadcast quality camera, mounted on the shoulder...but, I have no need for video now.

I also don't use flash...

I believe I have used up to ISO800 a couple of times; unless the resulting images were B&W, the noise is too high for my liking.

I have very little use for high ISO's, I shoot almost exclusively in daylight...

Yep, I was dead serious about that first comment ;)

As for flipping/tilting screens; low to the ground shots, over the crowd shots, waist level shooting... the list could go on.

Your needs don't dictate what is useful for the majority of consumers.

The fact that you "don't use flash" and also "rarely" shoot above ISO100 has me questioning how much photography you actually do (offense genuinely not intended). Most people shoot way more than just one variety of subject, thus flash and high ISO are extremely useful (in fact flash is something just about everyone could/should be using in some respect).

ecka wrote in post #18417693 (external link)
There are plenty of "arguments" that the Earth is flat.
Is it? - No.

No, they are not equal. Maybe they all are more than you need. Which is possible. But I don't really care about anyone's low expectations and high level of tolerance. You are free to buy and use whatever you want, as far as it's legal. But you need some facts to validate your arguments. Is m4/3 as good as FF? - Absolutely not!

Let's not start a Fuji debate here, please. If all you want is to shoot snapshots with dated looking colors and old man (aka. hipster) style, then Fuji's fine. If you want to be a photographer, then get a real camera instead. That xTrans thing is a disaster. It's nowhere close to FF, plus it produces weird artifacts. And the A7S is made for videos rather than stills, you shouldn't compare with it. The absence of noise itself doesn't produce information.
OMG, why is everyone saying that the only FF advantage is the DoF. That's such a stupid thing to say. FF gathers over twice more light than the APS-C. How is that people can easily justify paying extra for a stop faster lens or each of them, but they do not understand that a FF sensors gets over one stop more light from all the lenses you put on it? Fast and expensive optics on APS-C are pretty much pointless. Because you can use a stop slower optics on FF and still get a better picture.

I have yet to see how adding noise to the image makes it better or great :).
Technically, all images in their original form contain more noise than information. Doesn't mean we shouldn't seek perfection :)

:) I'm sorry, but these are excellent examples of what I call "photoshopped to death". I guess sometimes the actual problem is not seeing any problems.

P.S. Touchy Flippy screens are the best ;)

Please don't start throwing straw man arguments at me.

Here's some links to people who have actually tested this instead of just speculating;
-http://www.stevehuffph​oto.com ...3-vs-aps-c-vs-full-frame/ (external link)
-https://www.youtube.co​m/watch?v=aVT7C6FdDC8 (external link)
-http://www.thewanderin​glensman.com ...ference-between-full.html (external link)
-https://tysonrobichaud​photography.wordpress.​com ...pissing-contest-commence/ (external link)

I could honestly find more if I cared to keep looking, but I don't think anything I could say would ever convince you, so I'll leave it to the future readers of this thread to sift through.

I owned the a7R too, it was worse than my a7S for everything but shots at ISO100-400, which is why I sold it. As for all your Fuji comments... really? Come on guy, it doesn't need to devolve into petty attacks. I also never intended to imply that a 1 stop DOF difference was the only advantage, just highlighting that it's the most noticeable/relevant advantage and even it is overstated in my opinion/experience.

Mods; please note that my intention here was never to boast Fuji over another brand, just to be real about the actual differences between them in real world use from my experience (per the OP question). It doesn't matter if we're talking Fuji, Sony, Nikon, etc... merely observing APS-C vs. FF (or even M4/3) the differences aren't as drastic as most suggest.


Fuji X-Pro2 // Fuji X-T1 // Fuji X-100T // XF 18mm f2 // Rokinon 12mm f2 // XF 35mm f1.4 // Rokinon 21mm f1.4 // XF 18-55mm f/2.8-4 // XF 55-200mm f3.5-4.8 // Rokinon 85mm f1.4 // Zhonghi Lensturbo ii // Various adapted MF lenses
flickr (external link) // Instagram (external link)

LOG IN TO REPLY
DreDaze
happy with myself for not saying anything stupid
DreDaze's Avatar
17,690 posts
Gallery: 19 photos
Joined Mar 2006
S.F. Bay Area
Aug 02, 2017 19:24 |  #184

DSMS wrote in post #18417641 (external link)
I cannot even imagine any reason for a moveable rear screen (unless it's for video which I have NO use for), that counters having one more part to break.

It's good if you think outside the box...but you could also use wifi for some of the situations where a flip out screen is needed...but that's probably more difficult than it needs to be

I'm looking forward to a flip out screen on the next 7D


Andre or Dre
gear list
Instagram (external link)
flickr (external link)
my 366 for 2016 (external link)

LOG IN TO REPLY
Two ­ Hot ­ Shoes
Goldmember
Two Hot Shoes's Avatar
Joined Apr 2014
Ireland
Aug 02, 2017 19:40 |  #185

ecka wrote in post #18417693 (external link)
Let's not start a Fuji debate here, please. If all you want is to shoot snapshots with dated looking colors and old man (aka. hipster) style, then Fuji's fine. If you want to be a photographer, then get a real camera instead...
...FF gathers over twice more light than the APS-C... ...FF sensors gets over one stop more light from all the lenses you put on it.

Sorry late back to the party I saw a crack in the pavement had just had to go unpack my Fuji and shoot it...

Wait, two stops more light... So if I get a shutter speed of 1/125 with and aperture of f/2 the ISO on a crop would be more than two stops higher than the full frame, like 1600 ISO on FF will give me more than 6400 ISO on a crop.....
I'm going rush out now and try that one out. And how will an XF100Mp work out will it give me four stops less ISO? Hang on you are saying only one stop more light if you put a lens on it :-( now I'm really confused. I thought this photoing thing was about composure and lighting, about timing and anticipation, about waiting for the moment, being ready for that moment. Full frame or crop doesn't matter, until you have a real need for one over the other. Sensor size won't make a camera better for everybody, for landscape and portraits perhaps, for sports probably not, although JR brought a 5x4 to LeMans, along with a load of hipster cameras - just saying.


Fuji: X-PRO2, X-T1, X-E2 | 16/1.4, 18/2, 23/1.4, 35/1.4, 56/1.2, 90/2, 16-55/2.8, 10-24/4. AD600BM, TT865F, AL-H198, ThinkTank AS2, Peli1514, Ona Bowery, Matthews Grip
flickr (external link)Instagram (external link)Blog (external link)

LOG IN TO REPLY
TeamSpeed
01010100 01010011
TeamSpeed's Avatar
31,939 posts
Gallery: 60 photos
Joined May 2002
Northern Indiana
Aug 02, 2017 20:15 |  #186

TeamSpeed wrote in post #18417437 (external link)
This was the tree 6 years ago, it grew larger since. I will have to get a current pic later. It's the red one to the right.

Nice tree, we didn't want to lose it.


QUOTED IMAGE
[IMAGE'S LINK: https://photos.smugmug​.com .../IMG_5962-X2.jpg&lb=1&s=A] (external link) on Smugmug

This is what it looked like this spring after the crew cut we gave it last fall.

HOSTED PHOTO
please log in to view hosted photos in full size.

Past Equipment | My Gallery (external link)

LOG IN TO REPLY
DSMS
Member
DSMS's Avatar
Joined Mar 2017
NZ
Post has been last edited 2 months ago by DSMS. 2 edits done in total.
Aug 02, 2017 23:57 |  #187

EverydayGetaway wrote in post #18417767 (external link)
Yep, I was dead serious about that first comment ;)

As for flipping/tilting screens; low to the ground shots, over the crowd shots, waist level shooting... the list could go on.

Your needs don't dictate what is useful for the majority of consumers.

The fact that you "don't use flash" and also "rarely" shoot above ISO100 has me questioning how much photography you actually do (offense genuinely not intended). Most people shoot way more than just one variety of subject, thus flash and high ISO are extremely useful (in fact flash is something just about everyone could/should be using in some respect).

I have been shooting (film SLR originally, digital from 2001) as a hobby since the late 80's, as a motorsport and automotive feature photographer since 2002, for the local paper since 2010, but now, mostly back to a hobby.

I have no need of a flash, it doesn't interest me at all. I hated the flip screen on the Sony, and just prefer a flat, built in screen for viewing images on.

Again, as I never shoot video, I do not need to have a screen at an angle to view on.

If I need to get the camera down low, or on an angle, I get there behind the camera myself (yes, you find yourself in some weird positions shooting car features, but that's what I do).

Seeing as I spent a lot of time as an automotive photographer (shooting a lot of Drift and Circuit racing), I got used to using slow shutter speeds and a steady hand, and just don't really have a need for high ISO (and, keep in mind here, to me, anything above ISO800 is high, it's a holdover from the film days).

I notice that Teamspeed's race boat shots appear to be a little soft; I do a fair bit of sharpening in photoshop, and I always shoot in RAW and edit these, as I like my images crisp. (I use the same set up for motorsport, 7DII and 100-400L).

Another surprise, maybe....I don't have a facebook page......i'm funny like that...I do things my own way....;-)a

Another shocker for you...I use just 1 focus point...at all times.... :p




LOG IN TO REPLY
Wilt
Reader's Digest Condensed version of War and Peace [POTN Vol 1]
Wilt's Avatar
39,054 posts
Gallery: 1 photo
Joined Aug 2005
Belmont, CA
Post has been last edited 2 months ago by Wilt. 3 edits done in total.
Aug 03, 2017 08:31 |  #188

DSMS wrote in post #18418013 (external link)
I have been shooting (film SLR originally, digital from 2001) as a hobby since the late 80's, as a motorsport and automotive feature photographer since 2002, for the local paper since 2010, but now, mostly back to a hobby.

I have no need of a flash, it doesn't interest me at all. I hated the flip screen on the Sony, and just prefer a flat, built in screen for viewing images on.

Again, as I never shoot video, I do not need to have a screen at an angle to view on.

If I need to get the camera down low, or on an angle, I get there behind the camera myself (yes, you find yourself in some weird positions shooting car features, but that's what I do).

Seeing as I spent a lot of time as an automotive photographer (shooting a lot of Drift and Circuit racing), I got used to using slow shutter speeds and a steady hand, and just don't really have a need for high ISO (and, keep in mind here, to me, anything above ISO800 is high, it's a holdover from the film days).

I notice that Teamspeed's race boat shots appear to be a little soft; I do a fair bit of sharpening in photoshop, and I always shoot in RAW and edit these, as I like my images crisp. (I use the same set up for motorsport, 7DII and 100-400L).

Another surprise, maybe....I don't have a facebook page......i'm funny like that...I do things my own way....;-)a

Another shocker for you...I use just 1 focus point...at all times.... :p

We are of kindred spirit...

  • I do have occasional need for flash, but not often...it lets me get a shot with low ambient light when even high ISO is not adequate to the the shot (perhaps because of subject motion)
  • I do not 'hate' a flip screen, but I have not had one on any camera since shooting 15 years ago with a Canon G2! I have a right angle finder for when the camera needs to be really low and I do not want to lay in the mud.
  • I virtually never shoot video with my dSLR; I've done it only once with that!
  • I, too, feel anything over ISO800 is 'high' (during my photojournalism days, ISO1250 Royal-X Pan in a sheet film camera (for less apparent grain due to smaller enlargement was the highest you could get), and while I have shot 'experimentally' at ISO 12800 to see how my camera shoots at that setting, ordinarily about ISO 3200 is about the highest I would shoot. Shooting Tri-X I got used to shooting sometimes at 1/15 f/2 with a steady hand. Heck, when you need ISO 12800 to shoot at 0.5 sec with f/2.8 you can scarcely see what is framed bacause the ambient is so dim!
  • I also shoot RAW, almost never store JPG...even in a point & shoot camera!
  • I don't have a Facebook page either...I had a login for some years, but never bothered with it, it was too "Hey look at ME!" for my tastes so I simply closed the account.
  • And I almost always use 1 focus point...very very rarely have zone focus.

You need to give me OK to edit your image and repost! Keep POTN alive and well with member support http://photography-on-the.net/forum/donate.p​hp
Canon dSLR system, Olympus OM 35mm system, Bronica ETRSi 645 system, Horseman LS 4x5 system, Metz flashes, Dynalite studio lighting, and too many accessories to mention

LOG IN TO REPLY
BigAl007
Cream of the Crop
Joined Dec 2010
Repps cum Bastwick, Gt Yarmouth, Norfolk, UK.
Aug 03, 2017 08:52 |  #189

DSMS wrote in post #18418013 (external link)
I have been shooting (film SLR originally, digital from 2001) as a hobby since the late 80's, as a motorsport and automotive feature photographer since 2002, for the local paper since 2010, but now, mostly back to a hobby.

I have no need of a flash, it doesn't interest me at all. I hated the flip screen on the Sony, and just prefer a flat, built in screen for viewing images on.

Again, as I never shoot video, I do not need to have a screen at an angle to view on.

If I need to get the camera down low, or on an angle, I get there behind the camera myself (yes, you find yourself in some weird positions shooting car features, but that's what I do).

Seeing as I spent a lot of time as an automotive photographer (shooting a lot of Drift and Circuit racing), I got used to using slow shutter speeds and a steady hand, and just don't really have a need for high ISO (and, keep in mind here, to me, anything above ISO800 is high, it's a holdover from the film days).

I notice that Teamspeed's race boat shots appear to be a little soft; I do a fair bit of sharpening in photoshop, and I always shoot in RAW and edit these, as I like my images crisp. (I use the same set up for motorsport, 7DII and 100-400L).

Another surprise, maybe....I don't have a facebook page......i'm funny like that...I do things my own way....;-)a

Another shocker for you...I use just 1 focus point...at all times.... :p


I sincerely hope you never find yourself in this position, but just try to take those low angle shots, or even the high angle ones while using a wheelchair. You will very quickly be very thankful for a liveview screen that you can rotate to any angle you might need. I never really saw the advantage of LV, let alone a flippy screen, but since being stuck in a chair whenever I go out I have come to the conclusion that one would be a great help. My injury actually prevents me from adopting the prone position, so getting out of the chair and lying on the floor is no longer an option.

So yes I would like to see Canon provide a flippy screen on a camera that also uses CF cards, has a PC socket, and still uses the joystick/wheel control system. Having a 35mm sized sensor would be nice too, but it would need to be 60 MP in resolution since I often need to crop down so that I am using only around 15×10mm of the sensor, with a 600mm lens. There is no way to get closer to the subject either, and often even if you could get closer, the perspective would not always work out so well.

I have to say that although high ISO ability is nice to have, it would be good if we could have a sensor with a native base ISO of 50, and preferably 25. That way I wouldn't have to use a big ND filter on my telephoto lenses, and then have to shoot at higher than necessary ISO values, where I might need to change from slow to high shutter speeds quickly. I just want to be able to shoot as low as 1/60 at f/8 in sunny 16 Conditions, without the need for filters, or the restrictions of DR that you get when using the L setting on some Canon cameras.

Alan


My Flickr (external link)
My new Aviation images blog site (external link)

LOG IN TO REPLY
TeamSpeed
01010100 01010011
TeamSpeed's Avatar
31,939 posts
Gallery: 60 photos
Joined May 2002
Northern Indiana
Post has been last edited 2 months ago by TeamSpeed. 2 edits done in total.
Aug 03, 2017 09:23 |  #190

Have kids with their events at school and church, and you will want a DSLR that can shoot stills and video... :) Stills are great, videos are what make memories come alive. I know many wedding shooters that love video with their DSLR as well. It gives them more revenue opportunities.


Past Equipment | My Gallery (external link)

LOG IN TO REPLY
TeamSpeed
01010100 01010011
TeamSpeed's Avatar
31,939 posts
Gallery: 60 photos
Joined May 2002
Northern Indiana
Post has been last edited 2 months ago by TeamSpeed. 9 edits done in total.
Aug 03, 2017 09:39 as a reply to DSMS's post |  #191

The boats were a bit soft due to atmospheric haze, the fact we were using the original 55-250 IS (non STM), and that the boat is traveling fast in an arc. The center of the boat seems to be quite in focus and sharp enough from that kind of distance and conditions though to the point I can make out the GoPro and water droplets on the windshield. A bit of USM can definitely enhance that a bit. But that would be considered "photoshopped to death" and we wouldn't want to do that. ;)

I almost never shoot ANYTHING above ISO100 (I don't see the point, the resulting images are full of noise, no matter what you do to them (and, the more aggressive you get with noise reduction, the softer the images get).

Again though we were talking about how much noise there is above ISO 100 on the 7D2. ;)

Also, I would suspect you are not shooting motorsports (fast action) using just ISO 100 and stopping motion in all areas of the sport at all times of the day. If you choose action at an apex of a turn, or the action is below 100mph, or the sun is directly overhead, perhaps, but at higher speeds on a curvy section of road where it is more difficult to track and pan in the AM or PM before/after dusk/dawn, ISO 100 and 1/1250th wouldn't be enough. I shoot NBA action and 1/2000th is the recipe for stopping human motion on the court, otherwise you get motion blur.

It is nice you have such a controlled set of things you shoot allowing you the luxury of shooting at ISO 100 and shutter speeds that still allow good exposure, but unfortunately that doesn't project onto many, if not, most of the rest of us. I do think you would love the 5D4, I use that more than my 7D2. The 7D2 is a wildlife and sunny day event camera for me, the 5D4 is the indoor drama, sports, portraiture, and family events camera, with gobs of resolution and sharpness!


Past Equipment | My Gallery (external link)

LOG IN TO REPLY
John ­ Sheehy
Goldmember
2,199 posts
Joined Jan 2010
Aug 03, 2017 11:19 |  #192

ksbal wrote in post #18349940 (external link)
Reasons to buy full frame:

1. shallower dof
2. better high iso performance

Why are those separate?

Larger sensors only collect more light through shallower DOF, for the same FOV and shutter speed!

I don't know why people are so resistant to adopt the fact that normalized for DOF, FOV, diffraction spot size (relative to the full image), and with the same shutter speed, sensor size is totally irrelevant to total light collection.

From any given subject, with the same illumination, the number of photons you collect per millisecond from the subject depends on just two things: the area of your aperture (adjusted for transmission factor and vignetting, of course, if applicable), and your distance from the subject. Nothing about the size of your sensor, or even the size of your pixels, affects how many photons you get from the subject, or any given part of the scene. Sensor size only affects how wide your recording canvas is, in that paradigm.

Any person who thinks that they are going to get more light from a subject or composition just by having a larger sensor is sadly mistaken (unless they are shooting in Av mode at ISO 100, and doesn't care about exposure length). Nevertheless, many people fall prey to the illusion that the subject gets more light in the higher ISO ranges, because larger sensors almost always have larger pixels, and larger pixels means that the default limit to the magnification, 100%, presents sensor surface area less magnified, yielding a sharper and less noisy view "at the same ISO". The fact is, unless you are shooting that Av mode at ISO 100, "the same ISO" does not do "the same photographic thing".

If shooting above 6400 iso, and doing the 'in thing' with shallow dof portraits is your primary concern, then absolutely a FF is a serious consideration.

Yes. Shallow DOF is where FF shines best. Some reasons are that shallow DOF is often more obtainable with realistic lens choices for FF. You won't find an f/0.75 lens to do the same APS-C1.6 DOF job as an f/1.2 lens of 1.6x the focal length with the same aperture. On top of that, current microlens designs for DSLRs tend to lose light progressively at f-numbers below 2.8 for larger pixels and 2.0 for smaller pixels, so at f/1.2, a 20MP FF is losing about 1/2 stop less light than a 20MP APS-C. That lost light, I believe, is mostly light that makes the DOF shallower, so I think that along with this light loss, there is loss of blur outside the plane of focus, as well, but I have not verified this. It would be very interesting to compare the DOF with the same f/0.9 lens on a current 12MP FF and a 50MP FF.




LOG IN TO REPLY
TeamSpeed
01010100 01010011
TeamSpeed's Avatar
31,939 posts
Gallery: 60 photos
Joined May 2002
Northern Indiana
Post has been edited 2 months ago by TeamSpeed.
Aug 03, 2017 11:21 as a reply to John Sheehy's post |  #193

I think the understanding of "FF sensors pull in more light" comes from the old analogy of a field with big buckets and little buckets collecting rain.

https://digital-photography-school.com ...rsus-crop-sensor-cameras/ (external link)


Past Equipment | My Gallery (external link)

LOG IN TO REPLY
Bassat
"I am still in my underwear."
Bassat's Avatar
6,353 posts
Joined Oct 2015
Bourbon, Indiana - USA
Aug 03, 2017 11:26 |  #194

My entire property is 30 acres. My yard is two acres. More light falls on the entire property than falls on the yard. Size does matter.

If rain is falling at 1 acre inch per hour, my yard will get 2 acre inches in an hour. The entire property will get 30 acre inches in an hour. Size matters.


Tom

LOG IN TO REPLY
John ­ Sheehy
Goldmember
2,199 posts
Joined Jan 2010
Aug 03, 2017 11:29 |  #195

Archibald wrote in post #18350114 (external link)
Strange advice. You can shoot 10 mm to 800 mm on crop or on FF.

10mm on APS-C1.6 gives the FOV of 16mm on a FF. APS-C also crops the image circle of fish-eye lenses, losing the rounding edges, unless there are APS-C-designed fish-eyes that I am not aware of.

While I see no intrinsic value to a crop for putting more pixels on subject (pixel density is what matters there), the wide end of the FOV spectrum is substantially served by a larger sensor, until the day when all FF wide lenses are replicated for APS-C.




LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as registered member)

17,383 views & 192 likes for this thread
Full Frame or Crop
FORUMS General Gear Talk Camera Vs. Camera


Not a member yet? Click here to register to the forums.
Registered members get all the features: search, following threads, own gear list and ratings, likes, more forums, private messaging, thread follow, notifications, own gallery, settings, view hosted photos, own reviews and more...


AAA

Send feedback to staff    •   Jump to forum...    •   Rules    •   Index    •   New posts    •   RTAT    •   'Best of'    •   Gallery    •   Gear    •   Reviews    •   Polls

COOKIES DISCLAIMER: This website uses cookies to improve your user experience. By using this site, you agree to our use of cookies. Privacy policy and cookie usage info.

POWERED BY AMASS 1.4version 1.4
made in Finland
by Pekka Saarinen
for photography-on-the.net
Spent 0.00308 for 6 database queries.
PAGE COMPLETED IN 0.07s
Latest registered member is lookingglassphoto
960 guests, 443 members online
Simultaneous users record so far is 6106, that happened on Jun 09, 2016