Re: Slow lens rant

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by David Dyer-Bennet, Jul 24, 2003.

  1. JK <> writes:

    > Why are many new digital cameras being released with lenses that
    > are f4.8 or slower at max telephoto? Do the camera makers think
    > that consumers won't realize how much this limits the existing light
    > abilities of the cameras? Many people want to take photos indoors
    > without using a flash or tripod. It is sad that there are so few digital
    > cameras(especially small small ones) that perform well in low light.


    Consumers don't take available-light pictures, except in direct
    sunlight. So they're happy, and the camera is small and cheap.

    It's useless to us, of course, but there are so few of us that the
    camera makers don't care.
    --
    David Dyer-Bennet, <>, <www.dd-b.net/dd-b/>
    RKBA: <noguns-nomoney.com> <www.dd-b.net/carry/>
    Photos: <dd-b.lighthunters.net> Snapshots: <www.dd-b.net/dd-b/SnapshotAlbum/>
    Dragaera mailing lists: <dragaera.info/>
     
    David Dyer-Bennet, Jul 24, 2003
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. David Dyer-Bennet

    JK Guest

    David Dyer-Bennet wrote:

    > JK <> writes:
    >
    > > Why are many new digital cameras being released with lenses that
    > > are f4.8 or slower at max telephoto? Do the camera makers think
    > > that consumers won't realize how much this limits the existing light
    > > abilities of the cameras? Many people want to take photos indoors
    > > without using a flash or tripod. It is sad that there are so few digital
    > > cameras(especially small small ones) that perform well in low light.

    >
    > Consumers don't take available-light pictures, except in direct
    > sunlight.


    I don't think that's true. I think consumers don't realize the limitations
    of having a slow lens(or even what a slow lens is) until after they own
    the camera for a while. I see many posts about images taken indoors
    beeing to dark(perhaps the lens on the camera is so slow that the
    flash can't reach far enough at a sufficient intensity?), or not being
    sharp(probably due to camera shake from a slow shutter speed?)

    > So they're happy, and the camera is small and cheap.


    Many are not happy later.

    >
    >
    > It's useless to us, of course, but there are so few of us that the
    > camera makers don't care.
    > --
    > David Dyer-Bennet, <>, <www.dd-b.net/dd-b/>
    > RKBA: <noguns-nomoney.com> <www.dd-b.net/carry/>
    > Photos: <dd-b.lighthunters.net> Snapshots: <www.dd-b.net/dd-b/SnapshotAlbum/>
    > Dragaera mailing lists: <dragaera.info/>
     
    JK, Jul 24, 2003
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. In article <>, JK <> wrote:
    >David Dyer-Bennet wrote:
    >> JK <> writes:
    >>
    >> > Why are many new digital cameras being released with lenses that
    >> > are f4.8 or slower at max telephoto? Do the camera makers think
    >> > that consumers won't realize how much this limits the existing light
    >> > abilities of the cameras? Many people want to take photos indoors
    >> > without using a flash or tripod. It is sad that there are so few digital
    >> > cameras(especially small small ones) that perform well in low light.

    >>
    >> Consumers don't take available-light pictures, except in direct
    >> sunlight.

    >
    >I don't think that's true. I think consumers don't realize the limitations
    >of having a slow lens(or even what a slow lens is) until after they own
    >the camera for a while. I see many posts about images taken indoors
    >beeing to dark(perhaps the lens on the camera is so slow that the
    >flash can't reach far enough at a sufficient intensity?), or not being
    >sharp(probably due to camera shake from a slow shutter speed?)


    Many SLR owners use only a single slow zoom. Many SLR owners use the weak,
    built-in flash. Why not build P&S cameras with the same features?



    Philip Homburg
     
    Philip Homburg, Jul 24, 2003
    #3
  4. David Dyer-Bennet

    carl Guest

    Ok, people are happy with mediocre pictures, agreed. But I'm a very
    uninformed amateur who would still like to take decent pictures. I
    loathe using the flash except when I gotta. So what should I buy. I
    currently have a Canon S30, which I think is a very nice camera but
    whose F2.8 is not great for indoor shots. What affordable ($400 to
    $800) camera would people recommend for low-light shots.

    Thanks.

    David Dyer-Bennet <> wrote in message news:<-b.net>...
    > JK <> writes:
    >
    > > Why are many new digital cameras being released with lenses that
    > > are f4.8 or slower at max telephoto? Do the camera makers think
    > > that consumers won't realize how much this limits the existing light
    > > abilities of the cameras? Many people want to take photos indoors
    > > without using a flash or tripod. It is sad that there are so few digital
    > > cameras(especially small small ones) that perform well in low light.

    >
    > Consumers don't take available-light pictures, except in direct
    > sunlight. So they're happy, and the camera is small and cheap.
    >
    > It's useless to us, of course, but there are so few of us that the
    > camera makers don't care.
     
    carl, Jul 25, 2003
    #4
  5. David Dyer-Bennet

    Mxsmanic Guest

    JK writes:

    > I think consumers don't realize the limitations
    > of having a slow lens(or even what a slow lens is)
    > until after they own the camera for a while.


    Even after they've owned it for years, they still won't know about the
    lens limitation. They'll just know from experience that they need lots
    of light to take nice pictures.

    > Many are not happy later.


    When they find out how much it costs to get around the problem, they
    learn to live with it.

    --
    Transpose hotmail and mxsmanic in my e-mail address to reach me directly.
     
    Mxsmanic, Jul 25, 2003
    #5
  6. David Dyer-Bennet

    Guest

    In message <>,
    (carl) wrote:

    >Ok, people are happy with mediocre pictures, agreed. But I'm a very
    >uninformed amateur who would still like to take decent pictures. I
    >loathe using the flash except when I gotta. So what should I buy. I
    >currently have a Canon S30, which I think is a very nice camera but
    >whose F2.8 is not great for indoor shots. What affordable ($400 to
    >$800) camera would people recommend for low-light shots.


    f2.8 is not *that* slow. Zooms for 35mm cameras that open up to 2.8 are
    generally 1500 and above, and they have very little depth of field at
    2.8.

    The biggest weakness of the consumer digital in low light is the small,
    noisy sensors they use.

    For indoors, you might want to stick to the wide-angle end of your
    range; you should be able to hand-hold the camera at speeds of 1/25 or
    possibly longer, if you're steady.
    --

    <>>< ><<> ><<> <>>< ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<>
    John P Sheehy <>
    ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<> <>>< ><<> ><<> <>><
     
    , Jul 25, 2003
    #6
  7. (Philip Homburg) writes:

    > In article <>, JK <> wrote:
    > >David Dyer-Bennet wrote:
    > >> JK <> writes:
    > >>
    > >> > Why are many new digital cameras being released with lenses that
    > >> > are f4.8 or slower at max telephoto? Do the camera makers think
    > >> > that consumers won't realize how much this limits the existing light
    > >> > abilities of the cameras? Many people want to take photos indoors
    > >> > without using a flash or tripod. It is sad that there are so few digital
    > >> > cameras(especially small small ones) that perform well in low light.
    > >>
    > >> Consumers don't take available-light pictures, except in direct
    > >> sunlight.

    > >
    > >I don't think that's true. I think consumers don't realize the limitations
    > >of having a slow lens(or even what a slow lens is) until after they own
    > >the camera for a while. I see many posts about images taken indoors
    > >beeing to dark(perhaps the lens on the camera is so slow that the
    > >flash can't reach far enough at a sufficient intensity?), or not being
    > >sharp(probably due to camera shake from a slow shutter speed?)

    >
    > Many SLR owners use only a single slow zoom. Many SLR owners use the weak,
    > built-in flash. Why not build P&S cameras with the same features?


    Actually, they were bulding P&S cameras like that before there were
    many SLRs with a built-in flash. That's relatively new, whereas slow
    lenses go back a long ways.
    --
    David Dyer-Bennet, <>, <www.dd-b.net/dd-b/>
    RKBA: <noguns-nomoney.com> <www.dd-b.net/carry/>
    Photos: <dd-b.lighthunters.net> Snapshots: <www.dd-b.net/dd-b/SnapshotAlbum/>
    Dragaera mailing lists: <dragaera.info/>
     
    David Dyer-Bennet, Jul 25, 2003
    #7
  8. writes:

    > In message <>,
    > (carl) wrote:
    >
    > >Ok, people are happy with mediocre pictures, agreed. But I'm a very
    > >uninformed amateur who would still like to take decent pictures. I
    > >loathe using the flash except when I gotta. So what should I buy. I
    > >currently have a Canon S30, which I think is a very nice camera but
    > >whose F2.8 is not great for indoor shots. What affordable ($400 to
    > >$800) camera would people recommend for low-light shots.

    >
    > f2.8 is not *that* slow. Zooms for 35mm cameras that open up to 2.8 are
    > generally 1500 and above, and they have very little depth of field at
    > 2.8.


    None of mine is over $1000 even. Some are under $400 I think.

    > The biggest weakness of the consumer digital in low light is the small,
    > noisy sensors they use.
    >
    > For indoors, you might want to stick to the wide-angle end of your
    > range; you should be able to hand-hold the camera at speeds of 1/25 or
    > possibly longer, if you're steady.


    Or 1/10, or even longer. After all, you can afford 10 or 20 tries to
    get one sharp picture of something, if it's not a one-shot event.
    --
    David Dyer-Bennet, <>, <www.dd-b.net/dd-b/>
    RKBA: <noguns-nomoney.com> <www.dd-b.net/carry/>
    Photos: <dd-b.lighthunters.net> Snapshots: <www.dd-b.net/dd-b/SnapshotAlbum/>
    Dragaera mailing lists: <dragaera.info/>
     
    David Dyer-Bennet, Jul 25, 2003
    #8
  9. David Dyer-Bennet

    JK Guest

    The lens on the S30 is f2.8-f4.9. That means it is f2.8 at its widest
    angle setting, and f4.9 at max telephoto. F2.8 is not so slow, but
    f4.9 is quite slow. f4.9 is roughly one and a half stops slower than
    f2.8. A stop slower would mean that the lens lets in half the light.
    While using a higher ISO setting can compensate for the slower
    lens and give the same exposure(for example, the shutter
    speed to be used would be the same for f2.8 100 ISO as
    the same subject at f4 200 ISO), with higher ISO settings
    comes noisier images. On this page, you can click on sample
    images for the S30 at 50, 400, and 800 ISO for the S30.

    http://www.steves-digicams.com/2001_reviews/canon_s30_samples.html

    For low light shooting, the Olympus C5050 is quite nice. It has a lens
    that is f1.8-2.6 . The lens is 35mm-105mm equivalent. The camera
    is somewhat compact(jacket pocket size?). It is under $600. It
    uses AA nimh rechargeables(spare sets are under $10). It
    uses Compact Flash, Smart Media and XD cards.
    The Sony f717 has a zoom with a longer reach 38-190mm equivalent
    (f2-f2.4) . The f717 is much bulkier than the C5050, and uses expensive
    proprietary rechargeable batteries, and expensive memory sticks.
    The Canon G5 also has a fast lens, but uses a proprietary battery
    and Compact Flash. The G5 has a nice display that rotates.
    The cameras I mentioned are all 5 megapixel.


    carl wrote:

    > Ok, people are happy with mediocre pictures, agreed. But I'm a very
    > uninformed amateur who would still like to take decent pictures. I
    > loathe using the flash except when I gotta. So what should I buy. I
    > currently have a Canon S30, which I think is a very nice camera but
    > whose F2.8 is not great for indoor shots. What affordable ($400 to
    > $800) camera would people recommend for low-light shots.
    >
    > Thanks.
    >
    > David Dyer-Bennet <> wrote in message news:<-b.net>...
    > > JK <> writes:
    > >
    > > > Why are many new digital cameras being released with lenses that
    > > > are f4.8 or slower at max telephoto? Do the camera makers think
    > > > that consumers won't realize how much this limits the existing light
    > > > abilities of the cameras? Many people want to take photos indoors
    > > > without using a flash or tripod. It is sad that there are so few digital
    > > > cameras(especially small small ones) that perform well in low light.

    > >
    > > Consumers don't take available-light pictures, except in direct
    > > sunlight. So they're happy, and the camera is small and cheap.
    > >
    > > It's useless to us, of course, but there are so few of us that the
    > > camera makers don't care.
     
    JK, Jul 25, 2003
    #9
  10. David Dyer-Bennet

    Mxsmanic Guest

    David Dyer-Bennet writes:

    > None of mine is over $1000 even. Some are under $400 I think.


    And they remain at f/2.8 at all focal lengths?

    --
    Transpose hotmail and mxsmanic in my e-mail address to reach me directly.
     
    Mxsmanic, Jul 25, 2003
    #10
  11. David Dyer-Bennet

    JK Guest

    wrote:

    > In message <>,
    > (carl) wrote:
    >
    > >Ok, people are happy with mediocre pictures, agreed. But I'm a very
    > >uninformed amateur who would still like to take decent pictures. I
    > >loathe using the flash except when I gotta. So what should I buy. I
    > >currently have a Canon S30, which I think is a very nice camera but
    > >whose F2.8 is not great for indoor shots. What affordable ($400 to
    > >$800) camera would people recommend for low-light shots.

    >
    > f2.8 is not *that* slow. Zooms for 35mm cameras that open up to 2.8 are
    > generally 1500 and above


    What? Some used ones, like a 70-210 f2.8 or 80-200 f2.8 might be as
    little as $150 or so.

    > , and they have very little depth of field at
    > 2.8.


    That is true at the telephoto end in particular.

    >
    >
    > The biggest weakness of the consumer digital in low light is the small,
    > noisy sensors they use.
    >
    > For indoors, you might want to stick to the wide-angle end of your
    > range; you should be able to hand-hold the camera at speeds of 1/25 or
    > possibly longer, if you're steady.


    For low light shooting with the S30, try to stay at the wider angle (lower
    focal lengths) of the lens. Set the camera at ISO 400(use ISO 800 if
    you must, but it seems particularly noisy). Now you may be able
    to shoot indoors without the flash at a reasonable shutter speed(1/30th
    of a second or faster) if the room is well lit. Getting good results while
    handholding the camera at 1/30th of a second takes some experience.
    Some very experienced people manage to get good results handholding
    larger cameras even at 1/15th or 1/8th of a second. For those not so
    experienced, one should try for a shutter speed of 1/60th of a second
    or faster. Another trick for low light shooting without a tripod. If you must
    use a slow shutter speed like 1/15th or 1/8th of a second, you might get
    acceptable results if you brace your arm against a wall or table when
    taking the shot, and hold your breath while pressing the shutter release
    very slowly.

    >
    > --
    >
    > <>>< ><<> ><<> <>>< ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<>
    > John P Sheehy <>
    > ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<> <>>< ><<> ><<> <>><
     
    JK, Jul 25, 2003
    #11
  12. In article <-b.net>,
    David Dyer-Bennet <> wrote:

    > > f2.8 is not *that* slow. Zooms for 35mm cameras that open up to 2.8 are
    > > generally 1500 and above, and they have very little depth of field at
    > > 2.8.

    >
    > None of mine is over $1000 even. Some are under $400 I think.


    You're a Nikonian, right? According to quick searches at photo.net and
    B&H, the Nikon 2.8 zooms are:

    17-35 $1450 photo.net, $1500 B&H, $1340 B&H gray market
    20-35 $950 photo.net
    28-70 $1400 photo.net, $1430 B&H, $1370 B&H gray market
    28-70 (white) $1470 B&H, $1440 B&H gray market
    35-70 $550 photo.net, $685 B&H, $585 B&H gray market
    80-200 $775 photo.net, $920 B&H, $800 B&H gray market
    80-200 AF-S $1440 photo.net, $1500 B&H, $1430 B&H gray market
    80-200 VR $1800 B&H, $1650 B&H gray market

    So when you say you have one for under $400, can you explain in a little
    more detail what you mean?

    --
    David Eppstein http://www.ics.uci.edu/~eppstein/
    Univ. of California, Irvine, School of Information & Computer Science
     
    David Eppstein, Jul 25, 2003
    #12
  13. Mxsmanic <> writes:

    > David Dyer-Bennet writes:
    >
    > > None of mine is over $1000 even. Some are under $400 I think.

    >
    > And they remain at f/2.8 at all focal lengths?


    Three do. The cheapest couple don't, they drop to 4 at the end of a
    3:1 zoom ratio.

    But then, I consider f2.8 the *slowest* lens worth owning, except for
    extreme situations (I've got a 500mm f8 mirror lens, for example).
    I've got the 58mm f1.2 NOCT, a 135mm F2, and a 300mm F2.8 in the
    collection, in addition to more normal primes and the "fast" zooms.
    --
    David Dyer-Bennet, <>, <www.dd-b.net/dd-b/>
    RKBA: <noguns-nomoney.com> <www.dd-b.net/carry/>
    Photos: <dd-b.lighthunters.net> Snapshots: <www.dd-b.net/dd-b/SnapshotAlbum/>
    Dragaera mailing lists: <dragaera.info/>
     
    David Dyer-Bennet, Jul 25, 2003
    #13
  14. David Eppstein <> writes:

    > In article <-b.net>,
    > David Dyer-Bennet <> wrote:
    >
    > > > f2.8 is not *that* slow. Zooms for 35mm cameras that open up to 2.8 are
    > > > generally 1500 and above, and they have very little depth of field at
    > > > 2.8.

    > >
    > > None of mine is over $1000 even. Some are under $400 I think.

    >
    > You're a Nikonian, right? According to quick searches at photo.net and
    > B&H, the Nikon 2.8 zooms are:
    >
    > 17-35 $1450 photo.net, $1500 B&H, $1340 B&H gray market
    > 20-35 $950 photo.net
    > 28-70 $1400 photo.net, $1430 B&H, $1370 B&H gray market
    > 28-70 (white) $1470 B&H, $1440 B&H gray market
    > 35-70 $550 photo.net, $685 B&H, $585 B&H gray market
    > 80-200 $775 photo.net, $920 B&H, $800 B&H gray market
    > 80-200 AF-S $1440 photo.net, $1500 B&H, $1430 B&H gray market
    > 80-200 VR $1800 B&H, $1650 B&H gray market
    >
    > So when you say you have one for under $400, can you explain in a little
    > more detail what you mean?


    Old Vivitar Series 1, 28-90 f2.8-4 and 70-210 f2.8-4.

    The straight f2.8s are two Tokinas and a Tamron for Nikon AF, and they
    each cost less than $1000 each new. I think about $600, $450, and
    $800.

    I don't think I've ever owned a zoom lens made by the body
    manufacturer.
    --
    David Dyer-Bennet, <>, <www.dd-b.net/dd-b/>
    RKBA: <noguns-nomoney.com> <www.dd-b.net/carry/>
    Photos: <dd-b.lighthunters.net> Snapshots: <www.dd-b.net/dd-b/SnapshotAlbum/>
    Dragaera mailing lists: <dragaera.info/>
     
    David Dyer-Bennet, Jul 25, 2003
    #14
  15. David Dyer-Bennet

    Lionel Guest

    On 24 Jul 2003 17:20:19 -0700, in
    <>,
    (carl) said:

    >Ok, people are happy with mediocre pictures, agreed. But I'm a very
    >uninformed amateur who would still like to take decent pictures. I
    >loathe using the flash except when I gotta. So what should I buy. I
    >currently have a Canon S30, which I think is a very nice camera but
    >whose F2.8 is not great for indoor shots.


    Eh? I own an S30, & it takes great indoor pictures.
    Try turning up the ISO setting. (And read the fine manual!)

    --
    W
    . | ,. w , "Some people are alive only because
    \|/ \|/ it is illegal to kill them." Perna condita delenda est
    ---^----^---------------------------------------------------------------
     
    Lionel, Jul 25, 2003
    #15
  16. David Dyer-Bennet

    Mxsmanic Guest

    David Dyer-Bennet writes:

    > But then, I consider f2.8 the *slowest* lens worth
    > owning, except for extreme situations (I've got a
    > 500mm f8 mirror lens, for example).


    I'd rather see faster films with less grain. Fast lenses have such
    limited DOF at large apertures that it severely limits their usefulness.

    --
    Transpose hotmail and mxsmanic in my e-mail address to reach me directly.
     
    Mxsmanic, Jul 25, 2003
    #16
  17. In article <-b.net>,
    David Dyer-Bennet <> wrote:
    > (Philip Homburg) writes:
    >> In article <>, JK <> wrote:
    >> >David Dyer-Bennet wrote:

    >> Many SLR owners use only a single slow zoom. Many SLR owners use the weak,
    >> built-in flash. Why not build P&S cameras with the same features?

    >
    >Actually, they were bulding P&S cameras like that before there were
    >many SLRs with a built-in flash. That's relatively new, whereas slow
    >lenses go back a long ways.


    Yes, I was wrong to suggest a causal relationship. One problem with
    using fast lenses wide open is the limited depth of field. Even a
    28mm at f/2.0 is quite tricky in this respect. Lots of light (or a tripod)
    is still required in many cases.

    Of course, a fast lens makes composing and (manual) focussing much easier,
    but that is a separate issue.




    Philip Homburg
     
    Philip Homburg, Jul 25, 2003
    #17
  18. David Dyer-Bennet

    JK Guest

    There may be a number with Canon mounts. If one has a Canon body,
    they don't have to use lenses made by Canon. The less expensive
    fast lenses I was referring to are used lenses made by third party lens
    makers for manual focus slrs

    Mark M wrote:

    > >> f2.8 is not *that* slow. Zooms for 35mm cameras that open up to 2.8
    > >> are generally 1500 and above

    > >
    > > What? Some used ones, like a 70-210 f2.8 or 80-200 f2.8 might be as
    > > little as $150 or so.

    >
    > Canon???
    > Show me one.
    > Oops! You can't.
     
    JK, Jul 25, 2003
    #18
  19. David Dyer-Bennet

    carl Guest

    Lionel <> wrote in message news:<bfqg6q$vos$>...
    > On 24 Jul 2003 17:20:19 -0700, in
    > <>,
    > (carl) said:
    >
    > >Ok, people are happy with mediocre pictures, agreed. But I'm a very
    > >uninformed amateur who would still like to take decent pictures. I
    > >loathe using the flash except when I gotta. So what should I buy. I
    > >currently have a Canon S30, which I think is a very nice camera but
    > >whose F2.8 is not great for indoor shots.

    >
    > Eh? I own an S30, & it takes great indoor pictures.
    > Try turning up the ISO setting. (And read the fine manual!)


    I have read the fine manual. It does nothing to improve the F stops.
    ISO 400 is just too grainy for my taste. I'll use it if I have to but
    I don't love it. (Although I've gotten some fun mood shots even at
    ISO 800).

    Thanks to all the suggestions from various folks. I actually do most
    of that stuff (careful breathing, bracing myself) and get some good
    shots sometimes, I'm just hankering for a better low-light camera.
     
    carl, Jul 25, 2003
    #19
  20. Mxsmanic <> writes:

    > David Dyer-Bennet writes:
    >
    > > But then, I consider f2.8 the *slowest* lens worth
    > > owning, except for extreme situations (I've got a
    > > 500mm f8 mirror lens, for example).

    >
    > I'd rather see faster films with less grain. Fast lenses have such
    > limited DOF at large apertures that it severely limits their usefulness.


    A considerable portion of the time, that's the *purpose* of using the
    fast lens. Especially the 300 f2.8; it's often used to extract a
    figure from a cluttered background through limiting DOF.
    --
    David Dyer-Bennet, <>, <www.dd-b.net/dd-b/>
    RKBA: <noguns-nomoney.com> <www.dd-b.net/carry/>
    Photos: <dd-b.lighthunters.net> Snapshots: <www.dd-b.net/dd-b/SnapshotAlbum/>
    Dragaera mailing lists: <dragaera.info/>
     
    David Dyer-Bennet, Jul 25, 2003
    #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. George Kerby

    Re: Slow lens rant

    George Kerby, Jul 24, 2003, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    7
    Views:
    328
    Mxsmanic
    Jul 26, 2003
  2. Andrew McDonald

    Re: Slow lens rant

    Andrew McDonald, Jul 24, 2003, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    5
    Views:
    322
    George Kerby
    Jul 26, 2003
  3. Lionel

    Re: Slow lens rant

    Lionel, Jul 25, 2003, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    3
    Views:
    322
  4. T.N.O.

    spam increasing? <rant></rant>

    T.N.O., Nov 19, 2003, in forum: NZ Computing
    Replies:
    9
    Views:
    488
    T.N.O.
    Nov 21, 2003
  5. XPD

    /rant CRAP ADSL /rant

    XPD, Apr 25, 2007, in forum: NZ Computing
    Replies:
    17
    Views:
    606
    Enkidu
    Apr 27, 2007
Loading...

Share This Page