"Ack!" The hater of Olympus and 4/3rds joins Dpreview!

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by RichA, Dec 12, 2009.

  1. RichA

    RichA Guest

    1. Advertising

  2. RichA

    Bruce Guest

    Bruce, Dec 12, 2009
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. RichA

    RichA Guest

    On Dec 12, 6:02 pm, Bruce <> wrote:
    > On Fri, 11 Dec 2009 21:05:38 -0800 (PST), RichA <>
    > wrote:
    >
    > >http://www.dpreview.com/news/0912/09121103nikond3000review.asp

    >
    > Barney Britton wrote some good and very fair reviews while at "Amateur
    > Photographer".  He was not a particularly entertaining read but I
    > don't recall any hint of bias.


    You obviously didn't read any of his Olympus reviews.
     
    RichA, Dec 13, 2009
    #3
  4. RichA

    Bruce Guest

    On Sat, 12 Dec 2009 22:38:46 -0800 (PST), RichA <>
    wrote:
    >On Dec 12, 6:02 pm, Bruce <> wrote:
    >> On Fri, 11 Dec 2009 21:05:38 -0800 (PST), RichA <>
    >> wrote:
    >>
    >> >http://www.dpreview.com/news/0912/09121103nikond3000review.asp

    >>
    >> Barney Britton wrote some good and very fair reviews while at "Amateur
    >> Photographer".  He was not a particularly entertaining read but I
    >> don't recall any hint of bias.

    >
    >You obviously didn't read any of his Olympus reviews.



    I think I read more than one, and there was no hint of bias.

    The problem is that Olympus DSLRs are now a long way behind Canon and
    Nikon DSLRs in several important areas. Pointing that out in a review
    is being objective, not showing bias.
     
    Bruce, Dec 13, 2009
    #4
  5. RichA

    mith Guest

    On 2009-12-13 18:37:04 +0000, Bruce said:

    > On Sat, 12 Dec 2009 22:38:46 -0800 (PST), RichA <>
    > wrote:
    >> On Dec 12, 6:02 pm, Bruce <> wrote:
    >>> On Fri, 11 Dec 2009 21:05:38 -0800 (PST), RichA <>
    >>> wrote:
    >>>
    >>>> http://www.dpreview.com/news/0912/09121103nikond3000review.asp
    >>>
    >>> Barney Britton wrote some good and very fair reviews while at "Amateur
    >>> Photographer".  He was not a particularly entertaining read but I
    >>> don't recall any hint of bias.

    >>
    >> You obviously didn't read any of his Olympus reviews.

    >
    >
    > I think I read more than one, and there was no hint of bias.
    >
    > The problem is that Olympus DSLRs are now a long way behind Canon and
    > Nikon DSLRs in several important areas. Pointing that out in a review
    > is being objective, not showing bias.



    Are they? in which areas?
     
    mith, Jan 22, 2010
    #5
  6. RichA

    Bruce Guest

    On Fri, 22 Jan 2010 17:41:59 +0000, mith wrote:
    >On 2009-12-13 18:37:04 +0000, Bruce said:
    >>
    >> The problem is that Olympus DSLRs are now a long way behind Canon and
    >> Nikon DSLRs in several important areas. Pointing that out in a review
    >> is being objective, not showing bias.

    >
    >
    >Are they? in which areas?



    You really don't know?

    Then I'm sure you will be happy with an Olympus. ;-)
     
    Bruce, Jan 22, 2010
    #6
  7. RichA

    mith Guest

    On 2010-01-22 21:00:02 +0000, Bruce said:

    > On Fri, 22 Jan 2010 17:41:59 +0000, mith wrote:
    >> On 2009-12-13 18:37:04 +0000, Bruce said:
    >>>
    >>> The problem is that Olympus DSLRs are now a long way behind Canon and
    >>> Nikon DSLRs in several important areas. Pointing that out in a review
    >>> is being objective, not showing bias.

    >>
    >>
    >> Are they? in which areas?

    >
    >
    > You really don't know?
    >
    > Then I'm sure you will be happy with an Olympus. ;-)


    Did you lately use an Olympus E-30 or even an E-3? of corse you can't
    compare them to a Canon or Nikon full frame, but they are not expensive
    as one. E-3 still has one of the fastest auto focus you can find. The
    system 4/3 has pretty great lenses (and its a system that was
    completely designed to be used by digital cameras), and when you buy
    4/3 lenses you pay less then the correspondent lenses to a Canon or
    Nikon camera.

    I know Canon has better cameras and all, but we are not talking about
    full frame, so i would like to know in which areas is Canon better. All
    the kit lenses that Canon puts on any camera on the same price range of
    an Olympus is usually worst, you usually on Olympus have more buttons
    to directly access things like ISO, WB, Autofocus mode, image
    stabilization mode and so on (i used Nikon for some time d40, d60 and a
    d90).

    When talking about the same price range as an Olympus E-30, what can
    you get better from Canon or Nikon?

    And please talk about what you know, not about you heard. I didn't use
    Canon for a long time but i used Nikon, and i must say that Olympus 4/3
    systems and it's cameras are quite good and again when talking about
    lenses you get lenses of great quality at a very affordable price.
     
    mith, Jan 23, 2010
    #7
  8. "mith" wrote in message news:00c2061e$0$10743$...
    > On 2010-01-22 21:00:02 +0000, Bruce said:

    []
    > Did you lately use an Olympus E-30 or even an E-3? of corse you can't
    > compare them to a Canon or Nikon full frame, but they are not expensive
    > as one. E-3 still has one of the fastest auto focus you can find. The
    > system 4/3 has pretty great lenses (and its a system that was completely
    > designed to be used by digital cameras), and when you buy 4/3 lenses you
    > pay less then the correspondent lenses to a Canon or Nikon camera.


    Except that you can't get the equivalent lenses. Leaving aside that the
    superior in-lens image stabilisation is not available from Olympus,
    consider my two favourite lenses - the lightweight and compact 16-85mm and
    70-300mm Nikon VR for DX cameras. Where are the Olympus 12.2-65mm and
    53-228mm lenses? Not available.

    The nearest lightweight lenses seem to be 14-42mm and a 40-150mm, so a
    much reduced total zoom range of 10.7:1 versus Nikon's 18.7:1. If you
    accept the reduced zoom range, Nikon (and Canon) would offer 18-55mm and
    55-200mm - an 11.1:1 range (including image stabilisation).

    Warehouse Express prices:

    Olympus:
    14-42mm GBP 219
    40-150mm GBP 244

    Nikon:
    18-55mm GBP 147 (127 without VR)
    55-200mm GBP 239 (181 without VR)

    so you pay quite a lot more for Olympus, and lose in-lens image
    stabilisation as well.

    David
     
    David J Taylor, Jan 23, 2010
    #8
  9. RichA

    Bruce Guest

    On Sat, 23 Jan 2010 16:44:58 GMT, "David J Taylor"
    <-this-bit.and-this-part.co.uk.invalid>
    wrote:
    >"mith" wrote in message news:00c2061e$0$10743$...
    >> Did you lately use an Olympus E-30 or even an E-3? of corse you can't
    >> compare them to a Canon or Nikon full frame, but they are not expensive
    >> as one. E-3 still has one of the fastest auto focus you can find. The
    >> system 4/3 has pretty great lenses (and its a system that was completely
    >> designed to be used by digital cameras), and when you buy 4/3 lenses you
    >> pay less then the correspondent lenses to a Canon or Nikon camera.

    >
    >Except that you can't get the equivalent lenses. Leaving aside that the
    >superior in-lens image stabilisation is not available from Olympus,
    >consider my two favourite lenses - the lightweight and compact 16-85mm and
    >70-300mm Nikon VR for DX cameras. Where are the Olympus 12.2-65mm and
    >53-228mm lenses? Not available.



    Try searching for:

    Olympus 12-60mm f2.8-4.0 SWD Zuiko Digital ED Lens
    Olympus 50-200mm f2.8-3.5 SWD Zuiko Digital ED Lens

    Outstanding, top quality glass.
     
    Bruce, Jan 23, 2010
    #9
  10. "Bruce" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    []
    > Try searching for:
    >
    > Olympus 12-60mm f2.8-4.0 SWD Zuiko Digital ED Lens
    > Olympus 50-200mm f2.8-3.5 SWD Zuiko Digital ED Lens
    >
    > Outstanding, top quality glass.


    But these are not the lightweight lenses I have from Nikon. Let's check
    the cost, though, for interest:

    Nikon:
    16-85mm VR - GBP 440
    70-300mm VR - GBP 492

    Olympus:
    12-60mm - GBP 843
    50-200mm - GBP 1000

    As I said, the equivalent lenses are not available from Olympus, and you
    have to buy heavier and much more expensive lenses.

    Cheers,
    David
     
    David J Taylor, Jan 23, 2010
    #10
  11. RichA

    J. Clarke Guest

    David J Taylor wrote:
    > "Bruce" <> wrote in message
    > news:...
    > []
    >> Try searching for:
    >>
    >> Olympus 12-60mm f2.8-4.0 SWD Zuiko Digital ED Lens
    >> Olympus 50-200mm f2.8-3.5 SWD Zuiko Digital ED Lens
    >>
    >> Outstanding, top quality glass.

    >
    > But these are not the lightweight lenses I have from Nikon. Let's
    > check the cost, though, for interest:
    >
    > Nikon:
    > 16-85mm VR - GBP 440
    > 70-300mm VR - GBP 492
    >
    > Olympus:
    > 12-60mm - GBP 843
    > 50-200mm - GBP 1000
    >
    > As I said, the equivalent lenses are not available from Olympus, and
    > you have to buy heavier and much more expensive lenses.


    Olympus may be outsmarting themselves. While there's certainly room in the
    market for an f/2.0 35-100 on 4/3, it seems like a strange place to start
    out on a system one of whose major benefits is supposed to be its
    compactness.
     
    J. Clarke, Jan 23, 2010
    #11
  12. RichA

    mith Guest

    On 2010-01-23 17:35:28 +0000, David J Taylor said:

    > "Bruce" <> wrote in message
    > news:...
    > []
    >> Try searching for:
    >>
    >> Olympus 12-60mm f2.8-4.0 SWD Zuiko Digital ED Lens
    >> Olympus 50-200mm f2.8-3.5 SWD Zuiko Digital ED Lens
    >>
    >> Outstanding, top quality glass.

    >
    > But these are not the lightweight lenses I have from Nikon. Let's
    > check the cost, though, for interest:
    >
    > Nikon:
    > 16-85mm VR - GBP 440
    > 70-300mm VR - GBP 492
    >
    > Olympus:
    > 12-60mm - GBP 843
    > 50-200mm - GBP 1000
    >
    > As I said, the equivalent lenses are not available from Olympus, and
    > you have to buy heavier and much more expensive lenses.
    >
    > Cheers,
    > David


    You are indeed right about that. On this case to get equivalent lenses
    i pay more, but there is a catch, as you can see now:

    Nikon 16-85mm f/3.5-5.6G ED VR -
    http://www.amazon.com/Nikon-16-85mm-3-5-5-6G-Telephoto-Cameras/dp/B0013A1XDE
    Olympus

    Zuiko 12-60mm f/2.8-4 ED SWD -
    http://www.amazon.com/Olympus-12-60mm-2-8-4-0-Digital-Cameras/dp/B000X1N56W

    Nikon

    70-300mm f/4.5-5.6 ED VR -
    http://www.amazon.com/Nikon-70-300mm-4-5-5-6G-Digital-Cameras/dp/B000HJPK2C
    Olympus

    Zuiko 50-200mm f/2.8-3.5 ED SWD -
    http://www.amazon.com/Olympus-50-200mm-2-8-3-5-Digital-Cameras/dp/B000X1P5RE

    So

    my question is: if i want a 16-85mm f2.8-4 (or something similar) how
    much you would pay? same question for the other lense?

    So, although we are comparing lenses with almost the same focal lenght,
    the ones from Olympus have larger apertures so i dont think its a fair
    comparison.

    Sorry for my bad english.
     
    mith, Jan 23, 2010
    #12
  13. RichA

    mith Guest

    On 2010-01-23 17:35:28 +0000, David J Taylor said:

    > As I said, the equivalent lenses are not available from Olympus, and
    > you have to buy heavier and much more expensive lenses.


    When i had read your message i didn't read that phrase properly, but i
    still think they are worth the difference you pay :)
     
    mith, Jan 23, 2010
    #13
  14. RichA

    J. Clarke Guest

    > On 2010-01-23 17:35:28 +0000, David J Taylor said:
    >
    >> "Bruce" <> wrote in message
    >> news:...
    >> []
    >>> Try searching for:
    >>>
    >>> Olympus 12-60mm f2.8-4.0 SWD Zuiko Digital ED Lens
    >>> Olympus 50-200mm f2.8-3.5 SWD Zuiko Digital ED Lens
    >>>
    >>> Outstanding, top quality glass.

    >>
    >> But these are not the lightweight lenses I have from Nikon. Let's
    >> check the cost, though, for interest:
    >>
    >> Nikon:
    >> 16-85mm VR - GBP 440
    >> 70-300mm VR - GBP 492
    >>
    >> Olympus:
    >> 12-60mm - GBP 843
    >> 50-200mm - GBP 1000
    >>
    >> As I said, the equivalent lenses are not available from Olympus, and
    >> you have to buy heavier and much more expensive lenses.
    >>
    >> Cheers,
    >> David

    >
    > You are indeed right about that. On this case to get equivalent lenses
    > i pay more, but there is a catch, as you can see now:
    >
    > Nikon 16-85mm f/3.5-5.6G ED VR -
    > http://www.amazon.com/Nikon-16-85mm-3-5-5-6G-Telephoto-Cameras/dp/B0013A1XDE
    > Olympus
    >
    > Zuiko 12-60mm f/2.8-4 ED SWD -
    > http://www.amazon.com/Olympus-12-60mm-2-8-4-0-Digital-Cameras/dp/B000X1N56W
    >
    > Nikon
    >
    > 70-300mm f/4.5-5.6 ED VR -
    > http://www.amazon.com/Nikon-70-300mm-4-5-5-6G-Digital-Cameras/dp/B000HJPK2C
    > Olympus
    >
    > Zuiko 50-200mm f/2.8-3.5 ED SWD -
    > http://www.amazon.com/Olympus-50-200mm-2-8-3-5-Digital-Cameras/dp/B000X1P5RE
    >
    > So
    >
    > my question is: if i want a 16-85mm f2.8-4 (or something similar) how
    > much you would pay? same question for the other lense?
    >
    > So, although we are comparing lenses with almost the same focal
    > lenght, the ones from Olympus have larger apertures so i dont think
    > its a fair comparison.
    >
    > Sorry for my bad english.


    The point you are missing is that the Nikon lenses are physically smaller
    and less obtrusive.
     
    J. Clarke, Jan 24, 2010
    #14
  15. RichA

    mith Guest

    >>
    >
    > The point you are missing is that the Nikon lenses are physically smaller
    > and less obtrusive.


    So it's 0,3x0,5 on the 1st lense and 0,3x0,5 inches more on the other a
    really big burden for a lense with a much better aperture?

    Anyway, this is just nickpicking... these differences are not big in
    terms of size or weight and in both cases the Olympus lenses have
    better performance compared to the Nikon ones.

    Once again we are comparing apples and oranges. I would like to hear
    about the comparable lenses you can get from Nikon: are they lighter,
    smaller and cheaper? :)
     
    mith, Jan 24, 2010
    #15
  16. "mith" wrote in message news:0192941e$0$11138$...
    > On 2010-01-23 17:35:28 +0000, David J Taylor said:

    []
    > So
    > my question is: if i want a 16-85mm f2.8-4 (or something similar) how
    > much you would pay? same question for the other lense?
    >
    > So, although we are comparing lenses with almost the same focal lenght,
    > the ones from Olympus have larger apertures so i dont think its a fair
    > comparison.
    >
    > Sorry for my bad english.


    Whilst I am very interested in and very keen on photography, I am very
    unlikely to pay GBP 1000 for an Olympus lens, particularly when that lens
    is heavier and bigger than then the Nikon equivalent. Being heavier and
    bulkier means it is more likely to be left at home than be used on a trip
    or holiday. Having bigger and heavier lenses offsets any size or weight
    advantages of the 4/3 camera in the first place.

    I do appreciate that other people will have different views, and may have
    the cash and not mind the extra size and weight. BTW: when I first got a
    DSLR I had disposed of all my previous cameras and lenses, so I was brand
    neutral, and looked at Canon, Nikon and Olympus. The Nikon felt better in
    my hands than the Canon, and the Olympus was simply too expensive (and of
    not such good image quality).

    Cheers,
    David
     
    David J Taylor, Jan 24, 2010
    #16
  17. "mith" wrote in message news:00c28350$0$10719$...
    >>>

    >>
    >> The point you are missing is that the Nikon lenses are physically
    >> smaller
    >> and less obtrusive.

    >
    > So it's 0,3x0,5 on the 1st lense and 0,3x0,5 inches more on the other a
    > really big burden for a lense with a much better aperture?
    >
    > Anyway, this is just nickpicking... these differences are not big in
    > terms of size or weight and in both cases the Olympus lenses have better
    > performance compared to the Nikon ones.

    []

    It's not just nit-picking, at least for me. I have found that one secret
    to travelling light (and I am no expert) is to save small amounts
    /everywhere/, as well as making any major savings. The larger aperture
    Olympus lenses total 52.8oz, versus the Nikon ones at 43.4oz. Making
    similar savings throughout your kit makes quite a difference if your
    carrying it round all day, on foot, without the benefit of a car for
    transport.

    Cheers,
    David
     
    David J Taylor, Jan 24, 2010
    #17
  18. RichA

    Bruce Guest

    On Sun, 24 Jan 2010 09:40:28 GMT, "David J Taylor"
    <-this-bit.and-this-part.co.uk.invalid>
    wrote:

    >I do appreciate that other people will have different views, and may have
    >the cash and not mind the extra size and weight. BTW: when I first got a
    >DSLR I had disposed of all my previous cameras and lenses, so I was brand
    >neutral, and looked at Canon, Nikon and Olympus. The Nikon felt better in
    >my hands than the Canon, and the Olympus was simply too expensive (and of
    >not such good image quality).



    At ISO 100, there is little or no practical difference in image
    quality between Olympus and Nikon sensors.

    But there is a difference in the optical quality of the lenses. And
    that difference favours the Olympus products. The optical quality of
    Nikon consumer-grade glass has never been anything to write home
    about, whereas even the cheaper Olympus lenses have excellent optics
    thanks to their near-telecentric design.

    The pro grade Digital Zuiko lenses have outstanding optics.

    Overall image quality is a combination of optical performance and
    sensor performance (plus accurate focusing and a stable platform). At
    ISO 100, all other things being equal, the Olympus DSLR will shine
    thanks to its superior optics. At much higher ISOs, the Nikon will
    shine thanks to its lower noise sensor.

    So the result of the comparison is nowhere near as conclusive in
    favour of the Nikon as you would like (us) to think.
     
    Bruce, Jan 24, 2010
    #18
  19. "Bruce" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    []
    > At ISO 100, there is little or no practical difference in image
    > quality between Olympus and Nikon sensors.
    >
    > But there is a difference in the optical quality of the lenses. And
    > that difference favours the Olympus products. The optical quality of
    > Nikon consumer-grade glass has never been anything to write home
    > about, whereas even the cheaper Olympus lenses have excellent optics
    > thanks to their near-telecentric design.
    >
    > The pro grade Digital Zuiko lenses have outstanding optics.
    >
    > Overall image quality is a combination of optical performance and
    > sensor performance (plus accurate focusing and a stable platform). At
    > ISO 100, all other things being equal, the Olympus DSLR will shine
    > thanks to its superior optics. At much higher ISOs, the Nikon will
    > shine thanks to its lower noise sensor.
    >
    > So the result of the comparison is nowhere near as conclusive in
    > favour of the Nikon as you would like (us) to think.


    At ISO 100, almost any sensor (including the ones in some compact cameras)
    may give adequate image quality. As someone who likes smaller aperture
    lenses, the high ISO performance is what matters more to me. I can quite
    happily use ISO 3200. And the point is /not/ about image quality, but the
    lack of comparable compact and lightweight Olympus lenses to the Nikon
    range, which has been adequately demonstrated.

    If you insist on a Nikon/Olympus comparison, for me the lack of in-lens
    image stabilisation would be a major factor. You sound as if you keep
    your camera set to ISO 100 on a tripod, I don't, so it's not surprising
    that we will have different best-buys.

    Cheers,
    David
     
    David J Taylor, Jan 24, 2010
    #19
  20. RichA

    Bruce Guest

    On Sun, 24 Jan 2010 13:31:20 GMT, "David J Taylor"
    <-this-bit.and-this-part.co.uk.invalid>
    wrote:

    >"Bruce" <> wrote in message
    >news:...
    >[]
    >> At ISO 100, there is little or no practical difference in image
    >> quality between Olympus and Nikon sensors.
    >>
    >> But there is a difference in the optical quality of the lenses. And
    >> that difference favours the Olympus products. The optical quality of
    >> Nikon consumer-grade glass has never been anything to write home
    >> about, whereas even the cheaper Olympus lenses have excellent optics
    >> thanks to their near-telecentric design.
    >>
    >> The pro grade Digital Zuiko lenses have outstanding optics.
    >>
    >> Overall image quality is a combination of optical performance and
    >> sensor performance (plus accurate focusing and a stable platform). At
    >> ISO 100, all other things being equal, the Olympus DSLR will shine
    >> thanks to its superior optics. At much higher ISOs, the Nikon will
    >> shine thanks to its lower noise sensor.
    >>
    >> So the result of the comparison is nowhere near as conclusive in
    >> favour of the Nikon as you would like (us) to think.

    >
    >At ISO 100, almost any sensor (including the ones in some compact cameras)
    >may give adequate image quality. As someone who likes smaller aperture
    >lenses, the high ISO performance is what matters more to me. I can quite
    >happily use ISO 3200. And the point is /not/ about image quality, but the
    >lack of comparable compact and lightweight Olympus lenses to the Nikon
    >range, which has been adequately demonstrated.



    On the contrary, there is a good selection of Olympus lenses that
    offer not only compact size and light weight but optical performance
    that is demonstrably superior to the Nikon's consumer grade lenses.

    You are quite clearly in denial about that.

    I agree that there are not exact equivalents to the focal lengths of
    your Nikkors. However, there is a more than adequate selection of
    ranges of focal length for Olympus users.


    >If you insist on a Nikon/Olympus comparison, for me the lack of in-lens
    >image stabilisation would be a major factor. You sound as if you keep
    >your camera set to ISO 100 on a tripod, I don't, so it's not surprising
    >that we will have different best-buys.



    My best-buy DSLR is my Nikon D700 which I use at ISOs up to 12,800. I
    also use my Canon EOS 5D at high ISOs. It performs well, though not
    quite as well as the D700. Most of my lenses are Nikkors, including
    14-24mm, 24-70mm and 70-200mm zooms and a selection of very high
    quality fixed focal length lenses.

    So I don't need any lectures from you, or your snide comments. The
    difference between us is that I am prepared to recognise that DSLR
    systems other than the one I use also have their strengths.

    You appear quite unwilling to recognise that, and I can only conclude
    that your fears of buyers' remorse (having spent a lot of money on
    products of one particular brand) have clouded your objectivity. You
    appear to have a need to dismiss rival products, regardless of their
    merits, which would seem to indicate a deep-seated insecurity about
    your own choice of equipment.

    This insecurity is not uncommon when people spend relatively large
    amounts of money on a consumer item. It means that they need to
    convince themselves that all the other available choices would have
    been wrong.

    In conclusion, I note that, throughout the discussion, you have
    consistently refused to address the fact that all the Olympus Zuiko
    lenses for Four Thirds DSLRs - even the cheapest - are optically
    superior to consumer-grade Nikkors.
     
    Bruce, Jan 24, 2010
    #20
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. kenny

    Hater museum!

    kenny, Jun 15, 2005, in forum: Computer Support
    Replies:
    2
    Views:
    548
  2. R2D2

    Olympus joins the 8 MEGAPIXEL race.

    R2D2, Feb 11, 2004, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    9
    Views:
    365
    Pegleg
    Feb 12, 2004
  3. sammy

    quicktime hater here

    sammy, Dec 13, 2006, in forum: Computer Support
    Replies:
    3
    Views:
    439
    Rick Merrill
    Dec 13, 2006
  4. RichA
    Replies:
    1
    Views:
    289
    Ray Fischer
    Feb 15, 2010
  5. RichA
    Replies:
    19
    Views:
    860
Loading...

Share This Page