Nikon full frame sensor

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by kombi45@yahoo.com, Oct 22, 2005.

  1. Guest

    Your thoughts on if it will ever happen, please! Part two: If no, why
    not?

    Ben
    , Oct 22, 2005
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. sid derra Guest

    <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > Your thoughts on if it will ever happen, please! Part two: If no, why
    > not?
    >
    > Ben


    yes
    sid derra, Oct 22, 2005
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. Bill Hilton Guest

    > Ben writes ...
    >
    >Your thoughts on if it will ever happen, please!


    A couple of Nikon spokesmen are on record as saying Nikon will not make
    a full-sized sensor dSLR. A couple of other Nikon spokesmen are on
    record as saying Nikon *might* make a full-sized sensor dSLR "if the
    professional market warrants it". So they are not very clear in their
    statements to date.

    >If no, why not?


    One reason is that Nikon does not design and manufacture its own
    sensors (unlike Canon) so unless Sony or Kodak (been there, failed at
    that with the 14n) or someone else makes these sensors Nikon won't have
    access to them. A second reason is that the buying public may decide
    that 1.5x sensors offer enough resolution and there isn't a big demand
    for full sized sensors, but if the price keeps dropping it's hard to
    see this holding true at the higher end.

    But if Canon can keep driving down the costs of full frame sensors at
    the same rate as the past few years you'd think Nikon will have little
    choice but to try to come up with a competitive solution, one way or
    another.

    Bill
    Bill Hilton, Oct 22, 2005
    #3
  4. Bill Hilton wrote:

    > One reason is that Nikon does not design and manufacture its own
    > sensors (unlike Canon) so unless Sony or Kodak (been there, failed at
    > that with the 14n) or someone else makes these sensors Nikon won't
    > have access to them. A second reason is that the buying public may
    > decide that 1.5x sensors offer enough resolution and there isn't a
    > big demand for full sized sensors, but if the price keeps dropping
    > it's hard to see this holding true at the higher end.


    I'm not really sure I really would want a FF at this point since I'm so used
    to the 1.5x factor. I really don't use WA enough to want to throw away that
    bonus on the long end. Then again, if I had a FF to try I might change my
    mind. I just find it interesting that the Canon crowd now has to worry
    about the edges being soft with FF. I'm not sure I'm ready for that worry
    with my Nikon lenses.






    Rita
    Rita Ä Berkowitz, Oct 22, 2005
    #4
  5. In article <>, Bill
    Hilton <> wrote:

    > A couple of Nikon spokesmen are on record as saying Nikon will not make
    > a full-sized sensor dSLR. A couple of other Nikon spokesmen are on
    > record as saying Nikon *might* make a full-sized sensor dSLR "if the
    > professional market warrants it". So they are not very clear in their
    > statements to date.


    They don't *WANT* to. My gut feeling is that they'll try and tough it
    out, hoping people will buy enough DX lenses that they'll forget about
    full frame. If that doesn't work and Canon starts to eat too much of
    their lunch, they'll cave and introduce it.
    Scott Schuckert, Oct 22, 2005
    #5
  6. JR Guest


    > One reason is that Nikon does not design and manufacture its own
    > sensors (unlike Canon) so unless Sony or Kodak (been there, failed at
    > that with the 14n) or someone else makes these sensors Nikon won't have
    > access to them.


    Not true at all.. The LBCAST and LBCAST II in the D2H and D2HS cameras
    are manufactured by Nikon. This sensor is one of the best sensors made
    for noise, color, and resolution. At 4.1 megapixels, this cameras
    output rivals 6-8 megapixel cameras. They are developing, in house a
    higher resolution LBCAST based sensor which if it has the same qualities
    as the 4.1 MP sensor, then it will be a VERY nice sensor. Will they
    make it a FF? I say no...there is no need to. WHy do you want a FF
    sensor? For wide angle lenses? Nikon has an EXCELLENT 12-24mm
    zoom...The D2X high speed crop mode is a great mode for sports
    shooters....

    JR
    JR, Oct 22, 2005
    #6
  7. GTO Guest

    Yes. - In 2008 (or later), what would your rather buy? An FF sensor with
    32MPixels or a DX format sensor with 32MPixels?

    Gregor

    <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > Your thoughts on if it will ever happen, please! Part two: If no, why
    > not?
    >
    > Ben
    >
    GTO, Oct 22, 2005
    #7
  8. GTO Guest

    The mount of pixels will continue to increase for the next couple of years.
    That's marketing strategy and has not much to do with reasoning. Nikon's
    LBCAST project is delayed that's why the D2X ships with a CMOS image sensor.
    Is Nikon capable of producing a 12MPixel (or at least 10MPixel) LBCAST
    sensor? Maybe. (Personally, I would like to see a 10MPixel LBCAST CCD image
    sensor in the next D100 upgrade.)

    Regarding FF, again, more pixels require more real estate, otherwise your
    pixels get too small and hence to noise images will result from this. If
    people prefer DX, Nikon could introduce an FF mode and a DX mode on their
    future DSLRs and leave it up to us what we want. Remember, with Nikon's SLR
    cameras, we were able to choose the film. At least, I would like to choose
    the cropping factor ;-)

    Gregor


    "JR" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    >
    >> One reason is that Nikon does not design and manufacture its own
    >> sensors (unlike Canon) so unless Sony or Kodak (been there, failed at
    >> that with the 14n) or someone else makes these sensors Nikon won't have
    >> access to them.

    >
    > Not true at all.. The LBCAST and LBCAST II in the D2H and D2HS cameras
    > are manufactured by Nikon. This sensor is one of the best sensors made
    > for noise, color, and resolution. At 4.1 megapixels, this cameras
    > output rivals 6-8 megapixel cameras. They are developing, in house a
    > higher resolution LBCAST based sensor which if it has the same qualities
    > as the 4.1 MP sensor, then it will be a VERY nice sensor. Will they
    > make it a FF? I say no...there is no need to. WHy do you want a FF
    > sensor? For wide angle lenses? Nikon has an EXCELLENT 12-24mm
    > zoom...The D2X high speed crop mode is a great mode for sports
    > shooters....
    >
    > JR
    GTO, Oct 22, 2005
    #8
  9. Guest

    JR wrote:
    >WHy do you want a FF
    > sensor? For wide angle lenses?


    I would like a wider field of view for my zoom lens so I can capture a
    full subject at closer ranges as the situation warrants...so as to not
    _have_ to change the lens constantly.
    , Oct 22, 2005
    #9
  10. wrote:
    > JR wrote:
    >> WHy do you want a FF
    >> sensor? For wide angle lenses?

    >
    > I would like a wider field of view for my zoom lens so I can capture a
    > full subject at closer ranges as the situation warrants...so as to not
    > _have_ to change the lens constantly.


    What lenses do you have now that you can't do this? I have a 17-35mm and a
    28-70mm f/2.8 that do what I need to do quit well. And I really don't want
    to give up that 1.5x factor on my 70-200mm f/2.8 VR.





    Rita
    Rita Ä Berkowitz, Oct 22, 2005
    #10
  11. GTO Guest

    If they stick too long to DX and don't move to FF, Nikon's camera business
    will suffer. Canon is already eating half "their" lunch. Keep an eye on
    their sales number. Today, they're looking good for the DX system. But that
    might change very rapidly. More and more good companies that produced SRL
    and DSRL cameras are going out of business or merge with other companies to
    survive the heat of battle in this market segment. I cannot believe that
    customers will just continue to eat Nikon's hype of "smaller is better"
    regarding the image sensor. Unless, of course, Nikon will sell their D3X for
    under $1000 and reduce its weight and size by a factor four compared to the
    heavy D2X.

    Gregor

    "Scott Schuckert" <> wrote in message
    news:221020051632052051%...
    > In article <>, Bill
    > Hilton <> wrote:
    >
    >> A couple of Nikon spokesmen are on record as saying Nikon will not make
    >> a full-sized sensor dSLR. A couple of other Nikon spokesmen are on
    >> record as saying Nikon *might* make a full-sized sensor dSLR "if the
    >> professional market warrants it". So they are not very clear in their
    >> statements to date.

    >
    > They don't *WANT* to. My gut feeling is that they'll try and tough it
    > out, hoping people will buy enough DX lenses that they'll forget about
    > full frame. If that doesn't work and Canon starts to eat too much of
    > their lunch, they'll cave and introduce it.
    GTO, Oct 22, 2005
    #11
  12. GTO wrote:

    > If they stick too long to DX and don't move to FF, Nikon's camera
    > business will suffer. Canon is already eating half "their" lunch.
    > Keep an eye on their sales number. Today, they're looking good for
    > the DX system. But that might change very rapidly. More and more good
    > companies that produced SRL and DSRL cameras are going out of
    > business or merge with other companies to survive the heat of battle
    > in this market segment. I cannot believe that customers will just
    > continue to eat Nikon's hype of "smaller is better" regarding the
    > image sensor. Unless, of course, Nikon will sell their D3X for under
    > $1000 and reduce its weight and size by a factor four compared to the
    > heavy D2X.


    Another way of looking at this is the small sensor will be the *standard*
    size for our future generation of photographers since most would probably
    have never seen a 35mm camera. Realistically, do you really believe
    technology in the future won't be able to pack more in such a small space
    with an acceptable noise figure? I won't put money on saying FF will be the
    norm in the near future.






    Rita
    Rita Ä Berkowitz, Oct 22, 2005
    #12
  13. Guest

    Rita Ä Berkowitz wrote:
    > wrote:
    > > JR wrote:
    > >> WHy do you want a FF
    > >> sensor? For wide angle lenses?

    > >
    > > I would like a wider field of view for my zoom lens so I can capture a
    > > full subject at closer ranges as the situation warrants...so as to not
    > > _have_ to change the lens constantly.

    >
    > What lenses do you have now that you can't do this? I have a 17-35mm and a
    > 28-70mm f/2.8 that do what I need to do quit well. And I really don't want
    > to give up that 1.5x factor on my 70-200mm f/2.8 VR.


    I wouldn't mind sacrificing the extra 100mm for full frame on my
    80-200mm f/2.8. I've been toying with a 400mm lens, anyhow...
    , Oct 22, 2005
    #13
  14. GTO Guest

    Yes, I really believe that large pixels will give a better S/N than a
    smaller pixel if the technology used is identical.

    But I also agree with you that there is nothing magical with FF. DX may be
    fine. But not for a standard SLR camera body for which we already have an
    entire industry geared up to support the 35mm format. As long as the 35mm
    business is an important contributor of this technology, Nikon has not much
    chance to stick just to the DX format. Especially, since their number-one
    competition (Canon) is already moving towards FF.

    It's mostly marketing. Not reasoning. If DX is all we can get in 2010, some
    people may just use a digital back for a Hasselblad. But I cannot believe in
    a future where Canon offers FF format DSLR's and Nikon sticks to DX.

    Gregor

    "Rita Ä Berkowitz" <ritaberk2O04 @aol.com> wrote in message
    news:...
    > GTO wrote:
    >
    >> If they stick too long to DX and don't move to FF, Nikon's camera
    >> business will suffer. Canon is already eating half "their" lunch.
    >> Keep an eye on their sales number. Today, they're looking good for
    >> the DX system. But that might change very rapidly. More and more good
    >> companies that produced SRL and DSRL cameras are going out of
    >> business or merge with other companies to survive the heat of battle
    >> in this market segment. I cannot believe that customers will just
    >> continue to eat Nikon's hype of "smaller is better" regarding the
    >> image sensor. Unless, of course, Nikon will sell their D3X for under
    >> $1000 and reduce its weight and size by a factor four compared to the
    >> heavy D2X.

    >
    > Another way of looking at this is the small sensor will be the *standard*
    > size for our future generation of photographers since most would probably
    > have never seen a 35mm camera. Realistically, do you really believe
    > technology in the future won't be able to pack more in such a small space
    > with an acceptable noise figure? I won't put money on saying FF will be
    > the
    > norm in the near future.
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    > Rita
    >
    >
    >
    GTO, Oct 23, 2005
    #14
  15. Sheldon Guest

    "Rita Ä Berkowitz" <ritaberk2O04 @aol.com> wrote in message
    news:...
    > GTO wrote:
    >
    >> If they stick too long to DX and don't move to FF, Nikon's camera
    >> business will suffer. Canon is already eating half "their" lunch.
    >> Keep an eye on their sales number. Today, they're looking good for
    >> the DX system. But that might change very rapidly. More and more good
    >> companies that produced SRL and DSRL cameras are going out of
    >> business or merge with other companies to survive the heat of battle
    >> in this market segment. I cannot believe that customers will just
    >> continue to eat Nikon's hype of "smaller is better" regarding the
    >> image sensor. Unless, of course, Nikon will sell their D3X for under
    >> $1000 and reduce its weight and size by a factor four compared to the
    >> heavy D2X.

    >
    > Another way of looking at this is the small sensor will be the *standard*
    > size for our future generation of photographers since most would probably
    > have never seen a 35mm camera. Realistically, do you really believe
    > technology in the future won't be able to pack more in such a small space
    > with an acceptable noise figure? I won't put money on saying FF will be
    > the
    > norm in the near future.
    >

    I have to agree. While I can't rule out seeing a FF sensor, I think we are
    well into the age of a new standard (read: a smaller sensor). Most digital
    cameras will use the smaller sensor and manufacturers will turn towards
    designing lenses tweaked to that smaller sensor. We are fortunate that
    companies like Nikon have designed their new DSLR's to use most of the older
    lenses (same mount), and that a 35mm lens will cover the new sensors with no
    problem, thus making the transition to digital SLR's easy.
    Sheldon, Oct 23, 2005
    #15
  16. JR Guest

    In article <ezx6f.7137$>,
    "GTO" <> wrote:

    > Yes. - In 2008 (or later), what would your rather buy? An FF sensor with
    > 32MPixels or a DX format sensor with 32MPixels?
    >


    Why does it matter? What does the image look like....thats whats
    important. If the image quality is similar, I'll take the
    DX....smaller, lighter lenses, and they give me more length on the
    telephoto. Can it be done...Well at ISO 100, my D2X has been compared
    favorably to the 1DS Mark II which is a FF and 16mp. Some have said the
    D2X gives you the same image quality, more versatility, and is cheaper.
    At a car race at Laguna Seca, I saw more Nikon D2X's than anything. It
    seems this camera is doing very well. Think about it...if you NEED a
    600mm lens, do you buy a 1DS II and then spend 10 grand on a 600/4 lens
    (Almost 20K)? Or do you buy a D2X with the 2X HSC mode, and then get a
    300/4, which will do the equivalent of 600/4. This will cost you more
    like $6K....So for the pro action shooter, a FF sensor is out of the
    question, it'll just cost you more money, lots more money for the same
    image quality.

    JR
    JR, Oct 23, 2005
    #16
  17. GTO Guest

    You will have no choice. Nikon will add more and more pixels just to
    continue to compete in the Megapixel war. Your next D3X will have more
    megapixels than your current D2X. Already today, Nikon runs serious noise
    reduction algorithms on their D2X to keep the noise comparable to the Canon.
    Turn that noise fudging off and the Canon looks much cleaner. There are
    limitations. And one of the limitations is the size of your pixels. If Canon
    continuous to push FF and Nikon stick to DX, Nikon will lose, because Nikon
    reaches the brick wall of physical limitations sooner than Canon. Remember,
    if their is a breakthrough technology that saves the day for Nikon, a very
    similar technology will be available for Canon, which uses bigger sensors. -
    You do not need more pixels? Fine. "Nobody needs more pixels." But why? Why
    do you think the digitalback for the Hasselblad is offering 24MPixels and
    more? Who is going to tell me that 12MPixels is all I ever get while the
    great quality lenses offer a lpi performance that could easily satisfy
    24MPixels? Who is going to tell me that I should not compose my images from
    a crop out of a larger shot? Oh yes, make use of all your pixels otherwise
    you are a lousy photographer. I don't buy this argument since I did
    enlargements with cropping already 20 years ago using film. It's done very
    often. Nikon's fastmode crop is even a technical implementation in their D2X
    that is exactly doing the same. But what if I want 12MPixels when using this
    fastmode crop and more when shooting with the full frame? Buy a Canon?

    Gregor

    "JR" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > In article <ezx6f.7137$>,
    > "GTO" <> wrote:
    >
    >> Yes. - In 2008 (or later), what would your rather buy? An FF sensor with
    >> 32MPixels or a DX format sensor with 32MPixels?
    >>

    >
    > Why does it matter? What does the image look like....thats whats
    > important. If the image quality is similar, I'll take the
    > DX....smaller, lighter lenses, and they give me more length on the
    > telephoto. Can it be done...Well at ISO 100, my D2X has been compared
    > favorably to the 1DS Mark II which is a FF and 16mp. Some have said the
    > D2X gives you the same image quality, more versatility, and is cheaper.
    > At a car race at Laguna Seca, I saw more Nikon D2X's than anything. It
    > seems this camera is doing very well. Think about it...if you NEED a
    > 600mm lens, do you buy a 1DS II and then spend 10 grand on a 600/4 lens
    > (Almost 20K)? Or do you buy a D2X with the 2X HSC mode, and then get a
    > 300/4, which will do the equivalent of 600/4. This will cost you more
    > like $6K....So for the pro action shooter, a FF sensor is out of the
    > question, it'll just cost you more money, lots more money for the same
    > image quality.
    >
    > JR
    GTO, Oct 23, 2005
    #17
  18. JR Guest

    Here is my point. A FF sensor is marketing at this point because the
    output of the 1DS II and the D2X are almost indistinguishable. BUT, the
    D2X has a few advantages to some, and very few limitations because of
    the DX sized sensor. The down side is noise, and wide angle lenses.
    Well there is the 12-24 lens. A VERY good lens, very sharp and crisp
    lens with excellent color. This lens on the D2X is better than any 18mm
    lens on a 1DSmII....thats a fact, so the wide angles are not sacrificed.
    Oh the noise....look at the out put of the 1DSmII ad the D2X, both at
    ISO 100. There will be no difference in noise, sharpness, color...the
    output is virtually identical, even though the Canon has 16mp while the
    Nikon has 12.4. You also get the 1.5x crop so if you need long lenses,
    you can buy less expensive and lighter awhile getting the same effictive
    focal length. Like I said, if you need a 300mm lens, with a DX sensor
    you can use a 200mm lens and get the same FOV. The difference between a
    300/2.8 and a 200/2.8....THOUSANDS. Ever carry a 300/2.8 around a
    racetrack for 8 hours? Its a killer. The down side to the FF sensor,
    edge sharpness, color fringing and chromatic aberrations. Also the
    glass has to be better on the edges than the DX glass. So a FF sensor
    may be good, but your lenses need to be better and bigger. The only
    place that a FF sensor currently has an advantage over the DX sized
    sensor is high ISO. 800 or above and the noise levels on the DX sensors
    will be higher than the FF sensor, but if I want to shoot high ISO, I'll
    shoot film. I almost NEVER shoot over ISO 100. So that is not an
    advantage for me. In the future, no one will know what technologies
    will bring. If the LBCAST comes out, it may have even lower noise than
    a FF CMOS sensor, and if it does, then why would we need a FF? So
    currently I'll enjoy my D2X and the amazing quality it has.

    JR
    JR, Oct 24, 2005
    #18
  19. Skip M Guest

    "JR" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > Here is my point. A FF sensor is marketing at this point because the
    > output of the 1DS II and the D2X are almost indistinguishable. BUT, the
    > D2X has a few advantages to some, and very few limitations because of
    > the DX sized sensor. The down side is noise, and wide angle lenses.
    > Well there is the 12-24 lens. A VERY good lens, very sharp and crisp
    > lens with excellent color. This lens on the D2X is better than any 18mm
    > lens on a 1DSmII....thats a fact, so the wide angles are not sacrificed.
    > Oh the noise....look at the out put of the 1DSmII ad the D2X, both at
    > ISO 100. There will be no difference in noise, sharpness, color...the
    > output is virtually identical, even though the Canon has 16mp while the
    > Nikon has 12.4. You also get the 1.5x crop so if you need long lenses,
    > you can buy less expensive and lighter awhile getting the same effictive
    > focal length. Like I said, if you need a 300mm lens, with a DX sensor
    > you can use a 200mm lens and get the same FOV. The difference between a
    > 300/2.8 and a 200/2.8....THOUSANDS. Ever carry a 300/2.8 around a
    > racetrack for 8 hours? Its a killer. The down side to the FF sensor,
    > edge sharpness, color fringing and chromatic aberrations. Also the
    > glass has to be better on the edges than the DX glass. So a FF sensor
    > may be good, but your lenses need to be better and bigger. The only
    > place that a FF sensor currently has an advantage over the DX sized
    > sensor is high ISO. 800 or above and the noise levels on the DX sensors
    > will be higher than the FF sensor, but if I want to shoot high ISO, I'll
    > shoot film. I almost NEVER shoot over ISO 100. So that is not an
    > advantage for me. In the future, no one will know what technologies
    > will bring. If the LBCAST comes out, it may have even lower noise than
    > a FF CMOS sensor, and if it does, then why would we need a FF? So
    > currently I'll enjoy my D2X and the amazing quality it has.
    >
    > JR


    The other place it has an advantage is wide fast glass. The 12-24 is not as
    fast as the 16-35 f2.8L, nor as wide. The only choice is the 10mm f2.8
    fisheye.
    And here's a discussion and comparison of the 5D and the D2X:
    http://www.outbackphoto.com/reviews/equipment/5D_and_d2x/Canon_5D_Nikon_D2x_intro.html

    --
    Skip Middleton
    http://www.shadowcatcherimagery.com
    Skip M, Oct 24, 2005
    #19
  20. Dimitris M Guest

    > You will have no choice. Nikon will add more and more pixels just to
    > continue to compete in the Megapixel war. Your next D3X will have more
    > megapixels than your current D2X. Already today, Nikon runs serious noise
    > reduction algorithms on their D2X to keep the noise comparable to the

    Canon.
    > Turn that noise fudging off and the Canon looks much cleaner.


    Canon uses heavy noise reduction algorithms, at least in 20D. Nikon uses
    not, at least in D70. I don't know if Nikon have change this in D2X.



    Some months ago, I had decided to switch from D70 to 20D, mostly cause of
    the better noise handling of 20D. Before sell my 70D, I have borrow a 20D
    from a friend for a couple of days just to take some comparable photos for
    direct comparison with my D70.



    The result in the noise field surprises me. At the first look, the Canon's
    shoots was much more noiseless than Nikon's at ISO 400 and 800. BUT, after
    post processing with the "Noiseware Pro" plug-in in PS, the results changed
    in a way that the Nikon shoots was equal or better in noise, but more vivid
    and natural. This happens cause Canon has already applied noise reduction
    algorithms. And the post noise process in the computer is more efficient
    than the in-camera.



    After that, I have searched the web for literature about that and I have
    found that I had found it is very well known.



    OK. I know that this conversation is for FF Canon and DX Nikon of 12 Mpix
    and not the small of 20D. But I have write this, just to beat the myth about
    the superiority of Canon dSLRs in the noise field.



    In fact for CCDs of similar technology age, the noise depends mostly from
    the surface of the pixel. More surface, less the noise. For the same
    resolution, a bigger CCD will produce less noise. How much less? A FF CCD
    have 2,25x the surface of a DX. This means in electronics a little more that
    3 db less noise. This should be visible, not much in low ISO, more in higher
    ISO. I could say, to make it more understandable, that it could be
    comparable to 1 EV gain. This is not a small thing.



    For that, FF will be difficult to overcome in pro photo, at least for the
    next years or before a revolution in technology changes it.
    --
    Dimitris M
    Dimitris M, Oct 24, 2005
    #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. J. Sm
    Replies:
    9
    Views:
    1,159
    Mark Roberts
    Oct 8, 2003
  2. Siddhartha Jain

    Nikon shying from full-frame sensor

    Siddhartha Jain, Jan 12, 2005, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    47
    Views:
    759
    lucaspaciolu
    Jan 20, 2005
  3. Darrell

    nikon full frame sensor SRL

    Darrell, Feb 15, 2005, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    11
    Views:
    528
    Scharf-DCA
    Feb 17, 2005
  4. Steven M. Scharf
    Replies:
    8
    Views:
    4,425
    Crownfield
    Apr 3, 2005
  5. massimo

    Nikon full frame sensor SRL

    massimo, Oct 3, 2005, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    63
    Views:
    2,054
    Skip M
    Oct 14, 2005
Loading...

Share This Page