Leica lens on Panasonic subcompact - any good?

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by Sammy, Jun 12, 2007.

  1. Sammy

    Sammy Guest

    On 12 Jun 2007, Yoshi <> wrote:

    > You are clueless. There are no "Nikkormat lenses" At the time the
    > Nikkormats were produced, Nikon marketed Nikkor lenses for them.
    > The Series E lenses marketed as "Nikon" weren't rebranded, and were
    > made to sell with the EM and FG series cameras. Don't spread
    > misinformation. If you don't know what you are talking about, STFU.
    >
    > "Sammy" <> wrote in message
    > news:Xns994DBDA653782451E7A@127.0.0.1...
    >> Many years ago we saw Nikon rebrand Nikkormat lenses as Nikkor.
    >> It diluted some of the brand value of Nikon but in the end all was
    >> ok.
    >>
    >> Now some Panasonic subcompact digital cameras have Leica lenses.
    >> (I've only just noticed but maybe they have done it for a long
    >> time.)
    >>
    >> http://panasonic.co.jp/pavc/global/lumix/fx12_10/leica.html
    >> http://panasonic.co.jp/pavc/global/lumix/fx12_10/index.html
    >>
    >> I can't think Leitz would want to have its name on something which
    >> was very average. Is this baby a Leica lens generally better than
    >> the lenses on similar cameras?
    >>

    >
    > You are clueless. There are no "Nikkormat lenses" At the time the
    > Nikkormats were produced, Nikon marketed Nikkor lenses for them.
    > The Series E lenses marketed as "Nikon" weren't rebranded, and were
    > made to sell with the EM and FG series cameras. Don't spread
    > misinformation. If you don't know what you are talking about, STFU.
    >
    > Yoshi
    >


    "Nikkormat lenses" can mean lenses which are for a Nikkormat. Is
    English your first language?
     
    Sammy, Jun 13, 2007
    #21
    1. Advertising

  2. Sammy

    =\(8\) Guest

    "Akiralx" <> wrote in message
    news:f4oghk$245g$...
    >
    > "Sammy" <> wrote in message
    > news:Xns994DBDA653782451E7A@127.0.0.1...
    >> Many years ago we saw Nikon rebrand Nikkormat lenses as Nikkor. It
    >> diluted some of the brand value of Nikon but in the end all was ok.
    >>
    >> Now some Panasonic subcompact digital cameras have Leica lenses. (I've
    >> only just noticed but maybe they have done it for a long time.)
    >>
    >> http://panasonic.co.jp/pavc/global/lumix/fx12_10/leica.html
    >> http://panasonic.co.jp/pavc/global/lumix/fx12_10/index.html
    >>
    >> I can't think Leitz would want to have its name on something which was
    >> very average. Is this baby a Leica lens generally better than the
    >> lenses on similar cameras?

    >
    > I have the Panasonic LX2 and FX01, both with Leica lenses. Most reviewers
    > seem to find the lenses excellent, though neither camera performs well in
    > low light/high ISO.
    >


    That has nothing to do with the lens and more to do with the tiny sensors
    that are in most of these cameras. That is why most people that want to do
    low light/existing light photography go with a dSLR, the larger sensor makes
    all of the difference. But, even then your camera is only as good as your
    lens. Leica are excellent the FZ20 being a bit better than the 30, not in
    quality but in capability. The 20 is capable much closer focusing and is a
    bit faster.

    =(8)
     
    =\(8\), Jun 13, 2007
    #22
    1. Advertising

  3. Sammy

    Rich Guest

    On Jun 12, 6:55 pm, "=\(8\)" <> wrote:
    > "if" <> wrote in message
    >
    > news:Xns994DC74FE77BA3D9@212.23.3.119...
    >
    >
    >
    > > "=\(8\)" <> wrote:

    >
    > >> "Sammy" <> wrote in message
    > >>news:Xns994DBDA653782451E7A@127.0.0.1...

    >
    > >>> I can't think Leitz would want to have its name on something which
    > >>> was very average. Is this baby a Leica lens generally better than
    > >>> the lenses on similar cameras?

    >
    > >> Leica sets the specifications that Panasonic must follow in order to
    > >> claim it is a Leica lens. However, Leica does not make the lens
    > >> Panasonic does.

    >
    > > According to the blurb on the box, "Leica DC lenses are manufactured
    > > using measurement instruments and quality assurance systems that have
    > > been certified by Leica Camera AG based on the company's quality
    > > standards". I would have thought the lenses were also designed by Leica,
    > > though it doesn't actually state this so I don't know for sure.

    >
    > > I've certainly no complaints about the lens quality, it's just a shame
    > > they chose to team up with a second-tier sensor manufacturer.

    >
    > Panasonic has said that they build the lenses but have to mean Leica's
    > standards to use their name. Makes sense Leica wouldn't want their name
    > tarnished with crap lenses. They leave that to Kodak.
    >
    > =(8)


    Sure. Kodak, who uses the Schneider lens name on THEIR cameras. It is
    all big con.
     
    Rich, Jun 13, 2007
    #23
  4. Sammy

    Rich Guest

    On Jun 13, 12:12 am, "=\(8\)" <> wrote:
    > "Rich" <> wrote in message
    >
    > news:...
    >
    >
    >
    > > On Jun 12, 1:38 pm, Sammy <> wrote:
    > >> Many years ago we saw Nikon rebrand Nikkormat lenses as Nikkor. It
    > >> diluted some of the brand value of Nikon but in the end all was ok.

    >
    > >> Now some Panasonic subcompact digital cameras have Leica lenses. (I've
    > >> only just noticed but maybe they have done it for a long time.)

    >
    > >>http://panasonic.co.jp/pavc/global/lumix/fx12_10/leica.htmlhttp://pan...

    >
    > >> I can't think Leitz would want to have its name on something which was
    > >> very average. Is this baby a Leica lens generally better than the
    > >> lenses on similar cameras?

    >
    > > Those Leica lenses are as "Leica" as the lens in an old Kodak.
    > > The biggest con in cheap cameras is namedropping German lens design
    > > companies, that have next to ZERO to do with the lens their name is
    > > stamped on.

    >
    > You are so full of it Rich. I submit that any company that allows there
    > names to be slapped on another's products and has no say in the quality of
    > the products or the quality of the technology said company is responsible
    > for is not a company that makes a good product. Leica is simply not going to
    > let Panasonic of anyone else simply slap their name on a product unless it
    > meets or exceeds their quality and design requirements.


    Sure, which is why we see the same chromatic aberration from their P&S
    camera lenses(Panasonics) as everyone else's. Leica with Panasonic,
    Schneider on Kodaks, Zeiss on Sony's. It's the use of names for names
    sake, and has nothing to do with the actual quality or design of the
    lenses on those cheap cameras.
     
    Rich, Jun 13, 2007
    #24
  5. Sammy

    notbob Guest

    On 2007-06-13, Rich <> wrote:

    > Schneider on Kodaks, Zeiss on Sony's. It's the use of names for names
    > sake, and has nothing to do with the actual quality or design of the
    > lenses on those cheap cameras.


    ....and of course you have irrefutable proof of all these accusations
    and are going to share them with us, right?

    nb
     
    notbob, Jun 13, 2007
    #25
  6. Sammy

    Morton Guest

    Sammy wrote:
    > On 12 Jun 2007, Frank Arthur <> wrote:
    >
    >> "Sammy" <> wrote in message
    >> news:Xns994DBDA653782451E7A@127.0.0.1...
    >>> Many years ago we saw Nikon rebrand Nikkormat lenses as >
    >>> Nikkor.

    >> Please provide EVIDENCE that Nikon ever "rebranded" Nikkormat
    >> lenses. I think you are full of crap and fabricate as you write.
    >>
    >>
    >>
    >>> It diluted some of the brand value of Nikon but in the end all was
    >>> ok.
    >>>
    >>> Now some Panasonic subcompact digital cameras have Leica lenses.
    >>> (I've only just noticed but maybe they have done it for a long
    >>> time.)
    >>>
    >>> http://panasonic.co.jp/pavc/global/lumix/fx12_10/leica.html
    >>> http://panasonic.co.jp/pavc/global/lumix/fx12_10/index.html
    >>>
    >>> I can't think Leitz would want to have its name on something which
    >>> was very average. Is this baby a Leica lens generally better than
    >>> the lenses on similar cameras?

    >>

    >
    > Frank, by rebrand I mean that Nikon changed the brand bame of their
    > entry level cameras and lenses. The old brand name in the 1970s of
    > Nikkormat was replaced by the Nikon brand.
    >
    > The Nikkormat EL2 became the Nikon FE.
    >
    > Check it out.
    >
    > Apologies accepted.
    >


    In fact, some of those entry level "Nikons" weren't even made by Nikon.
    That started after Mitsubishi bought the Nikon firm.

    Morton
     
    Morton, Jun 13, 2007
    #26
  7. Sammy

    Garrot Guest

    On Tue, 12 Jun 2007 16:00:41 -0700, "=\(8\)" <>
    wrote:


    >
    >Actually she isn't full of shit. The Leica lens are among the best made. The
    >fact that Leica doesn't actually assemble them for Panasonic has nothing to
    >do with it. The fact that in order for Panasonic to use the Leica name the
    >lenses have to made to exactly specifications laid out by Leica is what's
    >important. Besides if you think that Leica has people sitting around all day
    >assembling lenses by hand your the one full of shit. Like everything else
    >these days the lenses are made in some Asian or other 3rd world country, but
    >to Leica's specifications meeting Leica's standards.
    >
    >=(8)


    And you're FOS because I bet the lense is no better than what most
    other DC manufacturer's use. Putting the name Leica on the lense is
    just to scam gullible dumb fucks like yourself. Either that or you are
    an emplioyee form Panasonic that has come here to try and do some
    damage control and spread BS.
     
    Garrot, Jun 13, 2007
    #27
  8. Sammy

    Garrot Guest

    On Tue, 12 Jun 2007 21:09:40 -0700, "=\(8\)" <>
    wrote:


    >What's the difference between a crack in the plastic and a dent in the
    >metal. In the end the result is the same. You case is damaged and the guts
    >maybe as well. People that think plastic cased cameras are cheap are just
    >idiots. I can you are unaware of it we have plastic now that can stop
    >bullets. Besides you drop just about any camera and you have most likely
    >trashed it. Of course there are some rare miracles but not many.
    >
    >=(8)


    Yep, definitely an employee of Panasonic.
     
    Garrot, Jun 13, 2007
    #28
  9. Sammy

    Garrot Guest

    On Wed, 13 Jun 2007 11:07:07 -0700, Rich <> wrote:


    >> Panasonic has said that they build the lenses but have to mean Leica's
    >> standards to use their name. Makes sense Leica wouldn't want their name
    >> tarnished with crap lenses. They leave that to Kodak.
    >>
    >> =(8)

    >
    >Sure. Kodak, who uses the Schneider lens name on THEIR cameras. It is
    >all big con.


    Yea, all other lenses besides Leica are crap. ;) I'm pretty certain
    now that our little friend is a Panasonic employee who has come here
    to do damage control by trying to sell us his bullshit.
     
    Garrot, Jun 13, 2007
    #29
  10. Sammy

    Garrot Guest

    On Wed, 13 Jun 2007 11:09:32 -0700, Rich <> wrote:


    >Sure, which is why we see the same chromatic aberration from their P&S
    >camera lenses(Panasonics) as everyone else's. Leica with Panasonic,
    >Schneider on Kodaks, Zeiss on Sony's. It's the use of names for names
    >sake, and has nothing to do with the actual quality or design of the
    >lenses on those cheap cameras.
    >


    Agree 100%. Most DC cameras come with shite lenses.
     
    Garrot, Jun 13, 2007
    #30
  11. Sammy

    Rich Guest

    On Jun 13, 2:43 pm, notbob <> wrote:
    > On 2007-06-13, Rich <> wrote:
    >
    > > Schneider on Kodaks, Zeiss on Sony's. It's the use of names for names
    > > sake, and has nothing to do with the actual quality or design of the
    > > lenses on those cheap cameras.

    >
    > ...and of course you have irrefutable proof of all these accusations
    > and are going to share them with us, right?
    >
    > nb


    The proof is in the results you see. Leica sells a real West German
    made 50mm lens for around $3,000. Do you honestly think anything
    remotely related to that kind of engineering and production ends up in
    a Chinese made Panasonic?
     
    Rich, Jun 13, 2007
    #31
  12. Sammy

    Stan Beck Guest

    You are paying $3000 for the red dot, not the camera. It's not how much
    something is worth, but rather how much you can get for it.

    --
    The smaller the fine print, the less you will like what it says.

    Stan Beck > From New Orleans to Brandon MS
    To reply, remove 101 from address.
    ***

    "Rich" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > On Jun 13, 2:43 pm, notbob <> wrote:
    >> On 2007-06-13, Rich <> wrote:
    >>
    >> > Schneider on Kodaks, Zeiss on Sony's. It's the use of names for names
    >> > sake, and has nothing to do with the actual quality or design of the
    >> > lenses on those cheap cameras.

    >>
    >> ...and of course you have irrefutable proof of all these accusations
    >> and are going to share them with us, right?
    >>
    >> nb

    >
    > The proof is in the results you see. Leica sells a real West German
    > made 50mm lens for around $3,000. Do you honestly think anything
    > remotely related to that kind of engineering and production ends up in
    > a Chinese made Panasonic?
    >
     
    Stan Beck, Jun 13, 2007
    #32
  13. Sammy

    Yoshi Guest

    "Sammy" <> wrote in message
    news:Xns994E9644AA0C0451E7A@127.0.0.1...
    > On 12 Jun 2007, Yoshi <> wrote:
    >
    >> You are clueless. There are no "Nikkormat lenses" At the time the
    >> Nikkormats were produced, Nikon marketed Nikkor lenses for them.
    >> The Series E lenses marketed as "Nikon" weren't rebranded, and were
    >> made to sell with the EM and FG series cameras. Don't spread
    >> misinformation. If you don't know what you are talking about, STFU.
    >>
    >> "Sammy" <> wrote in message
    >> news:Xns994DBDA653782451E7A@127.0.0.1...
    >>> Many years ago we saw Nikon rebrand Nikkormat lenses as Nikkor.
    >>> It diluted some of the brand value of Nikon but in the end all was
    >>> ok.
    >>>
    >>> Now some Panasonic subcompact digital cameras have Leica lenses.
    >>> (I've only just noticed but maybe they have done it for a long
    >>> time.)
    >>>
    >>> http://panasonic.co.jp/pavc/global/lumix/fx12_10/leica.html
    >>> http://panasonic.co.jp/pavc/global/lumix/fx12_10/index.html
    >>>
    >>> I can't think Leitz would want to have its name on something which
    >>> was very average. Is this baby a Leica lens generally better than
    >>> the lenses on similar cameras?
    >>>

    >>
    >> You are clueless. There are no "Nikkormat lenses" At the time the
    >> Nikkormats were produced, Nikon marketed Nikkor lenses for them.
    >> The Series E lenses marketed as "Nikon" weren't rebranded, and were
    >> made to sell with the EM and FG series cameras. Don't spread
    >> misinformation. If you don't know what you are talking about, STFU.
    >>
    >> Yoshi
    >>

    >
    > "Nikkormat lenses" can mean lenses which are for a Nikkormat. Is
    > English your first language?



    You apparently didn't even read the original post... or else you are the one
    who English comprehension is impaired. The OP specifically mentions
    rebranding Nikkormat lenses as Nikkor. This precludes your interpretation.
     
    Yoshi, Jun 13, 2007
    #33
  14. "=(8)" <> wrote in message
    news:466ee3e8$0$14083$...
    > "Sammy" <> wrote in message
    > news:Xns994DBDA653782451E7A@127.0.0.1...
    >> Many years ago we saw Nikon rebrand Nikkormat lenses as Nikkor. It
    >> diluted some of the brand value of Nikon but in the end all was ok.
    >>
    >> Now some Panasonic subcompact digital cameras have Leica lenses. (I've
    >> only just noticed but maybe they have done it for a long time.)
    >>
    >> http://panasonic.co.jp/pavc/global/lumix/fx12_10/leica.html
    >> http://panasonic.co.jp/pavc/global/lumix/fx12_10/index.html
    >>
    >> I can't think Leitz would want to have its name on something which was
    >> very average. Is this baby a Leica lens generally better than the
    >> lenses on similar cameras?

    >
    >
    > Leica sets the specifications that Panasonic must follow in order to claim
    > it is a Leica lens. However, Leica does not make the lens Panasonic does.
    > Having owned both a FZ20 and I still own an FZ30 the lenses are very
    > impressive. The same is true for the FZ50, however for it the higher
    > resolution, small sensor and totally crappy noise reduction makes that
    > camera total junk. However, the Leica lenses are fantastic.
    >
    > =(8)

    Question: I also own the FZ30, but was thinking about getting the FZ50.
    Based upon your comments regarding the FZ50, I guess you are saying the FZ30
    is a better camera overall. Is that correct?

    Thanks,

    Robert A. Cunningham
     
    Robert A. Cunningham, Jun 13, 2007
    #34
  15. Sammy

    Rich Guest

    On Jun 13, 6:17 pm, "Stan Beck" <>
    wrote:
    > You are paying $3000 for the red dot, not the camera. It's not how much
    > something is worth, but rather how much you can get for it.
    >
    > --


    True, you do pay a premium. Which is why the Leica Digilux 3
    (Panasonic L1) costs 50% more than the L1.
    But, Leica boosters will tell you...it's got different internal
    software....
     
    Rich, Jun 14, 2007
    #35
  16. Sammy

    Rich Guest

    On Jun 13, 6:44 pm, "Robert A. Cunningham" <>
    wrote:
    > "=(8)" <> wrote in message
    >
    > news:466ee3e8$0$14083$...
    >
    > > "Sammy" <> wrote in message
    > >news:Xns994DBDA653782451E7A@127.0.0.1...
    > >> Many years ago we saw Nikon rebrand Nikkormat lenses as Nikkor. It
    > >> diluted some of the brand value of Nikon but in the end all was ok.

    >
    > >> Now some Panasonic subcompact digital cameras have Leica lenses. (I've
    > >> only just noticed but maybe they have done it for a long time.)

    >
    > >>http://panasonic.co.jp/pavc/global/lumix/fx12_10/leica.html
    > >>http://panasonic.co.jp/pavc/global/lumix/fx12_10/index.html

    >
    > >> I can't think Leitz would want to have its name on something which was
    > >> very average. Is this baby a Leica lens generally better than the
    > >> lenses on similar cameras?

    >
    > > Leica sets the specifications that Panasonic must follow in order to claim
    > > it is a Leica lens. However, Leica does not make the lens Panasonic does.
    > > Having owned both a FZ20 and I still own an FZ30 the lenses are very
    > > impressive. The same is true for the FZ50, however for it the higher
    > > resolution, small sensor and totally crappy noise reduction makes that
    > > camera total junk. However, the Leica lenses are fantastic.

    >
    > > =(8)

    >
    > Question: I also own the FZ30, but was thinking about getting the FZ50.
    >


    Big mistake. The FZ50 is where Panasonic caved in to the masses and
    ladelled on the NR in-camera. Result?
    A 10 meg camera with LESS resolution than the old 8 meg!!
     
    Rich, Jun 14, 2007
    #36
  17. Sammy

    notbob Guest

    On 2007-06-13, Rich <> wrote:


    > made 50mm lens for around $3,000. Do you honestly think anything
    > remotely related to that kind of engineering and production ends up in
    > a Chinese made Panasonic?


    Sure. China is not Germany and nobody claimed to be selling $3k 50mm
    German Leica lenses of Chinese manufacture. What? Leica can't produce a low end
    line and sub it out like everyone else?

    nb
     
    notbob, Jun 14, 2007
    #37
  18. Sammy

    Rich Guest

    On Jun 13, 7:58 pm, notbob <> wrote:
    > On 2007-06-13, Rich <> wrote:
    >
    > > made 50mm lens for around $3,000. Do you honestly think anything
    > > remotely related to that kind of engineering and production ends up in
    > > a Chinese made Panasonic?

    >
    > Sure. China is not Germany and nobody claimed to be selling $3k 50mm
    > German Leica lenses of Chinese manufacture. What? Leica can't produce a low end
    > line and sub it out like everyone else?
    >
    > nb


    Sure they can, and they have. But lets not toss around the Leica name
    as if their participation amounted to anything more than a badge.
    Personally, I would like to see Leica put resources into a good P&S
    long zoom lens, just to see what they could come up with, but would
    anyone pay the $5000 the resultant camera would cost? And why would
    ANYONE pay that for another P&S POS with a 1/2.5" sensor, unless they
    were brain-dead?
     
    Rich, Jun 14, 2007
    #38
  19. Sammy

    =\(8\) Guest

    "Garrot" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > On Wed, 13 Jun 2007 11:07:07 -0700, Rich <> wrote:
    >
    >
    >>> Panasonic has said that they build the lenses but have to mean Leica's
    >>> standards to use their name. Makes sense Leica wouldn't want their name
    >>> tarnished with crap lenses. They leave that to Kodak.
    >>>
    >>> =(8)

    >>
    >>Sure. Kodak, who uses the Schneider lens name on THEIR cameras. It is
    >>all big con.

    >
    > Yea, all other lenses besides Leica are crap. ;) I'm pretty certain
    > now that our little friend is a Panasonic employee who has come here
    > to do damage control by trying to sell us his bullshit.


    Until you can show a statement from Kodak or anyone else using a well
    respected name that in order for them to put that name on their products
    that the lenses have to meet or exceed their quality specifications then
    they are questionable. Panasonic and Leica have both stated that in order
    for Panasonic to use the Leica name the lenses have to meet Leica
    specifications. That is proof. Kodak and others have never made such a
    statement. So for all we know they bought the company for the name and just
    put it on any old thing. Add to that that for a very long time Kodak used
    plastic lenses in their cameras that also adds doubts. I want proof and a
    statement saying they have to meet specifications before they can use the
    name is that proof.

    =(8)
     
    =\(8\), Jun 14, 2007
    #39
  20. Sammy

    =\(8\) Guest

    "Rich" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > On Jun 13, 12:12 am, "=\(8\)" <> wrote:
    >> "Rich" <> wrote in message
    >>
    >> news:...
    >>
    >>
    >>
    >> > On Jun 12, 1:38 pm, Sammy <> wrote:
    >> >> Many years ago we saw Nikon rebrand Nikkormat lenses as Nikkor. It
    >> >> diluted some of the brand value of Nikon but in the end all was ok.

    >>
    >> >> Now some Panasonic subcompact digital cameras have Leica lenses.
    >> >> (I've
    >> >> only just noticed but maybe they have done it for a long time.)

    >>
    >> >>http://panasonic.co.jp/pavc/global/lumix/fx12_10/leica.htmlhttp://pan...

    >>
    >> >> I can't think Leitz would want to have its name on something which was
    >> >> very average. Is this baby a Leica lens generally better than the
    >> >> lenses on similar cameras?

    >>
    >> > Those Leica lenses are as "Leica" as the lens in an old Kodak.
    >> > The biggest con in cheap cameras is namedropping German lens design
    >> > companies, that have next to ZERO to do with the lens their name is
    >> > stamped on.

    >>
    >> You are so full of it Rich. I submit that any company that allows there
    >> names to be slapped on another's products and has no say in the quality
    >> of
    >> the products or the quality of the technology said company is responsible
    >> for is not a company that makes a good product. Leica is simply not going
    >> to
    >> let Panasonic of anyone else simply slap their name on a product unless
    >> it
    >> meets or exceeds their quality and design requirements.

    >
    > Sure, which is why we see the same chromatic aberration from their P&S
    > camera lenses(Panasonics) as everyone else's. Leica with Panasonic,
    > Schneider on Kodaks, Zeiss on Sony's. It's the use of names for names
    > sake, and has nothing to do with the actual quality or design of the
    > lenses on those cheap cameras.
    >
    >


    Chromatic aberration means nothing. All lenses are capable of that given the
    right circumstances. To use that as your proof just makes you more an ass
    and a dumb one too boot!

    =(8)
     
    =\(8\), Jun 14, 2007
    #40
    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. Peter Larsson
    Replies:
    5
    Views:
    1,920
    Frank ess
    Feb 16, 2004
  2. Eric
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    479
  3. John Navas

    Is Lumix Leica real Leica?

    John Navas, Nov 17, 2007, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    1
    Views:
    645
    Dennis Pogson
    Nov 18, 2007
  4. TJ
    Replies:
    13
    Views:
    1,765
    Tony Polson
    Dec 23, 2007
  5. RichA
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    303
    RichA
    Feb 2, 2011
Loading...

Share This Page