What the future is going to bring

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by RichA, Jun 12, 2010.

  1. RichA

    RichA Guest

    Contrast focusing mostly. Electronic shutters. Back lit sensors.
    Mirror-less systems. Smaller systems, to a point. Possibly, electron-
    multiplying sensors.
    RichA, Jun 12, 2010
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. RichA

    Ray Fischer Guest

    RichA <> wrote:
    >Contrast focusing mostly. Electronic shutters. Back lit sensors.
    >Mirror-less systems. Smaller systems, to a point. Possibly, electron-
    >multiplying sensors.


    Since that is already the present it seems that you're just a tad late
    in your (ahem) "predictions".

    --
    Ray Fischer
    Ray Fischer, Jun 12, 2010
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. RichA

    SMS Guest

    On 11/06/10 8:38 PM, RichA wrote:
    > Contrast focusing mostly. Electronic shutters. Back lit sensors.
    > Mirror-less systems. Smaller systems, to a point. Possibly, electron-
    > multiplying sensors.


    Uh, isn't nearly all of that already here? The problem is that contrast
    focusing, smaller systems, and mirror-less systems give demonstrably
    much poorer results than the phase focusing, larger systems, and
    mirrored systems. Maybe you mean that the future is going to bring
    systems where all those things work as well as the current alternatives.

    You might think that it's a conspiracy--Canon and Nikon have a vested
    interest in keeping P&S cameras significantly worse than D-SLRs, but
    even the manufacturers with no D-SLR product line have been unable to
    overcome the inherent limitations of contrast focusing, smaller bodies,
    electronic shutters, and lack of mirrors. It's rather amusing to see how
    they try to overcome these limitations, often by selling add-on
    accessories. Great marketing since now they get to charge extra to naive
    buyers.

    Even CHDK, the freeware software for Canon P&S cameras that adds many
    useful features of D-SLRs to P&S cameras is an attempt to overcome many
    of the limitations of P&S cameras, which are caused by the items in your
    list. CHDK is very useful, but it can't fix the problems with contrast
    focusing, small sensors, etc.. I use it a lot when I don't want to carry
    along my D-SLR and since I helped write the documentation for it, I like
    to promote it, but I don't want anyone to think that is somehow turns
    the P&S into a D-SLR in terms of capability.
    SMS, Jun 12, 2010
    #3
  4. RichA

    Robert Coe Guest

    On Fri, 11 Jun 2010 20:38:35 -0700 (PDT), RichA <> wrote:
    : Contrast focusing mostly. Electronic shutters. Back lit sensors.
    : Mirror-less systems. Smaller systems, to a point. Possibly, electron-
    : multiplying sensors.

    Better batteries. More use of plastic. Tighter integration with computers
    (like cell phones have). More feature-rich photo editors from manufacturers.

    Somewhat less likely: More comprehensive and accessible Exif data. Greater
    commonality of RAW formats.

    Bob
    Robert Coe, Jun 12, 2010
    #4
  5. RichA

    Robert Coe Guest

    On Sat, 12 Jun 2010 00:24:20 -0500, LOL! <> wrote:
    : On Fri, 11 Jun 2010 20:38:35 -0700 (PDT), RichA <>
    : wrote:
    :
    : >Contrast focusing mostly. Electronic shutters. Back lit sensors.
    : >Mirror-less systems. Smaller systems, to a point. Possibly, electron-
    : >multiplying sensors.
    :
    : Damn. Except for the backlit sensor or electron-multiplying sensors (WTF?,
    : hey fuckwad, they ALL do that!) it sounds like you're exactly describing
    : all the P&S cameras that I've bought for over a decade now. What do you
    : mean "What the future is going to bring"? Are you trying to tell the world
    : that you're not even caught up to what's been available for over a decade
    : and in even better quality today? Some now having those, at-one-time
    : ultra-expensive, backlit sensors. Yeah, well, DSLR proponents and newsgroup
    : TROLLS (always one in the same) have always been that far behind with their
    : heads stuck up their asses. Then they wonder why I laugh at them so much.

    Since you bring it up, exactly what P&S cameras HAVE you bought over the past
    decade? (That would be, I guess, since you were about four years old.) And
    what, if anything, have you produced with them?

    Bob
    Robert Coe, Jun 12, 2010
    #5
  6. RichA

    RichA Guest

    On Jun 12, 9:12 am, SMS <> wrote:
    > On 11/06/10 8:38 PM, RichA wrote:
    >
    > > Contrast focusing mostly.  Electronic shutters.  Back lit sensors.
    > > Mirror-less systems.  Smaller systems, to a point.  Possibly, electron-
    > > multiplying sensors.

    >
    > Uh, isn't nearly all of that already here? The problem is that contrast
    > focusing, smaller systems, and mirror-less systems give demonstrably
    > much poorer results than the phase focusing, larger systems, and
    > mirrored systems. Maybe you mean that the future is going to bring
    > systems where all those things work as well as the current alternatives.
    >
    > You might think that it's a conspiracy--Canon and Nikon have a vested
    > interest in keeping P&S cameras significantly worse than D-SLRs, but
    > even the manufacturers with no D-SLR product line have been unable to
    > overcome the inherent limitations of contrast focusing, smaller bodies,
    > electronic shutters, and lack of mirrors. It's rather amusing to see how
    > they try to overcome these limitations, often by selling add-on
    > accessories. Great marketing since now they get to charge extra to naive
    > buyers.


    The same reason a Covette ZR1 clobbers most Ferraris on the straights
    is the one that will prevent P&S's from ever matching DSLRs, you can't
    beat size (cu in in their case, sensors for the camera). What some,
    like the LOL idiot don't realize is that sensor technology has not
    fundamentally changed in 20 years, hence the limitations and the
    reasons P&S's still suffer, even at low ISO with image quality
    issues...Plus, as we've seen with the Sony NEX, there are inherent
    cost-related limitations to close proximity lens- large sensor
    compatibility that can only be overcome by spending money and charging
    more money. A whole new means of lens design will be needed (and I
    hope Nikon at least meets the challenge with larger sensors, the micro
    4/3rds people did with theirs) when they stuff a FF sensor into a tiny
    body (Leica did it) and it won't be cheap if people want the quality.
    But, size reductions, even I believe in the pro end are inevitable.
    Otherwise, video cameras threaten to fully displace still cameras for
    professional use.
    RichA, Jun 12, 2010
    #6
  7. RichA

    RichA Guest

    On Jun 12, 9:23 am, Robert Coe <> wrote:
    > On Fri, 11 Jun 2010 20:38:35 -0700 (PDT), RichA <> wrote:
    >
    > : Contrast focusing mostly.  Electronic shutters.  Back lit sensors.
    > : Mirror-less systems.  Smaller systems, to a point.  Possibly, electron-
    > : multiplying sensors.
    >
    > Better batteries. More use of plastic. Tighter integration with computers
    > (like cell phones have). More feature-rich photo editors from manufacturers.
    >
    > Somewhat less likely: More comprehensive and accessible Exif data. Greater
    > commonality of RAW formats.
    >
    > Bob


    Plastic limits size reduction capabilities.
    RichA, Jun 12, 2010
    #7
  8. RichA

    Bruce Guest

    On Sat, 12 Jun 2010 07:31:31 -0700 (PDT), RichA <>
    wrote:
    >
    >The same reason a Covette ZR1 clobbers most Ferraris on the straights
    >is the one that will prevent P&S's from ever matching DSLRs, you can't
    >beat size (cu in in their case, sensors for the camera).



    The reverse analogy is that of the Mini Cooper S team which took three
    out of the stop four places in the 1966 Monte Carlo Rally well ahead
    of the field with much larger engines. That changed rallying forever.
    In film photography, the equivalent would be a Leica M camera and lens
    giving better results than larger and heavier 35mm SLRs.

    So it doesn't always follow that bigger is better.


    >What some, like the LOL idiot don't realize is that sensor technology has not
    >fundamentally changed in 20 years, hence the limitations and the
    >reasons P&S's still suffer, even at low ISO with image quality
    >issues...



    However, they have the great benefits of being able to fit in your
    pocket, of producing results that are better than any P&S film camera
    using consumer-grade film, and hardly ever producing out of focus
    results. Plus, there is the huge benefit for macro work of a greatly
    enhanced depth of field compared to Four Thirds, APS-C and full frame
    "Micro" camera and SLRs. For the average camera buyer, they are a far
    superior option than buying a DSLR or Micro camera.


    >Plus, as we've seen with the Sony NEX, there are inherent
    >cost-related limitations to close proximity lens- large sensor
    >compatibility that can only be overcome by spending money and charging
    >more money.



    Olympus and Panasonic have had great success in designing
    near-telecentric lenses specially for (Micro) Four Thirds. I agree
    that Sony has made a huge error in basing the design of their kit lens
    on mediocre optics for DSLRs.


    >But, size reductions, even I believe in the pro end are inevitable.



    Pros don't want smaller cameras, they want something that is sturdy
    and stable that can be gripped firmly.


    >Otherwise, video cameras threaten to fully displace still cameras for
    >professional use.



    It is more likely that DSLRs will evolve to displace video cameras.
    Bruce, Jun 12, 2010
    #8
  9. RichA

    Bruce Guest

    On Sat, 12 Jun 2010 07:31:55 -0700 (PDT), RichA <>
    wrote:
    >
    >Plastic limits size reduction capabilities.



    So that's why the Sony NEX-3 is so much bigger than the NEX-5!

    (Clue: it isn't.)
    Bruce, Jun 12, 2010
    #9
  10. RichA

    Robert Coe Guest

    On Sat, 12 Jun 2010 07:31:55 -0700 (PDT), RichA <> wrote:
    : On Jun 12, 9:23 am, Robert Coe <> wrote:
    : > On Fri, 11 Jun 2010 20:38:35 -0700 (PDT), RichA <> wrote:
    : >
    : > : Contrast focusing mostly.  Electronic shutters.  Back lit sensors.
    : > : Mirror-less systems.  Smaller systems, to a point.  Possibly, electron-
    : > : multiplying sensors.
    : >
    : > Better batteries. More use of plastic. Tighter integration with computers
    : > (like cell phones have). More feature-rich photo editors from manufacturers.
    : >
    : > Somewhat less likely: More comprehensive and accessible Exif data. Greater
    : > commonality of RAW formats.
    :
    : Plastic limits size reduction capabilities.

    Perhaps it does. But then I never said I agreed with all your predictions.

    Some photographers in these newsgroups, and even some reviewers, have already
    complained that some cameras, notably Canon's Rebel series and some of the
    smaller Nikons, are so small that they're uncomfortable to hold. (I'm not one
    of them, but I have small hands.) Maybe serious cameras are already as small
    as they need to be. Note that Ansel Adams and Arthur ("Weegee") Fellig would
    have considered them tiny.

    Bob
    Robert Coe, Jun 12, 2010
    #10
  11. RichA

    LOL! Guest

    On Sat, 12 Jun 2010 06:12:41 -0700, SMS <> wrote:

    >The problem is that ....


    > phase focusing,


    With their front and back focusing problems. What's better? Faster
    inaccurate focusing so that none of your images are useful? Or slower
    accurate focusing so that all of your images are useful? (What's better?
    Someone with your pitiful IQ? Or someone with an IQ above 80?)

    > larger systems,


    Requiring heavy and expensive optics that cannot be figured to
    diffraction-limited precision, extreme shallow DOF at useful wide-apertures
    (any not affected by diffraction artifacts) so that none of your subject is
    all in focus at the same time, ungainly weight that you have to haul around
    for miles, requiring the use of tripods for any focal-length lenses over
    200mm, requiring interchangeable lenses that cause dust crud and
    condensation on your loudly slapping mirror shutter-curtains and sensor, on
    ad-infinauseum...

    >mirrored systems.


    Causing painful delays in shutter-speeds, no high-speed flash sync, noisy
    and image jarring mirror-slap so that none of your optics can resolve
    details down to the pixel level, not being allowed into most public events
    due to the noise that slapping mirror makes, crud and condensation on your
    mirror which destroys your exposure metering and focusing accuracy, on
    ad-infinauseum...

    LOL!
    LOL!, Jun 12, 2010
    #11
  12. RichA

    Dudley Hanks Guest

    Haven't been following this thread since the beginning, so this might
    already have been mentioned...

    Given that in-lense stabilization has been around for a while and seems to
    work quite well, I'm wondering if we might see in-lens perspective
    correction in the future. Or, maybe it's already in use but I haven't come
    across it...

    It seems that the ability to do tilt-and-shift could be tied in with the
    lens stabilization mechanism (considerably beefed up, of course), and the
    lens could compensate (within certain limited parameters) to provide a nice
    straight image...

    Take Care,
    Dudley
    Dudley Hanks, Jun 13, 2010
    #12
  13. RichA

    LOL! Guest

    On Sat, 12 Jun 2010 20:15:04 -0700, Paul Furman <>
    wrote:

    >Bruce wrote:
    >> Plus, there is the huge benefit for macro work of a greatly
    >> enhanced depth of field.

    >
    >This 'advantage' doesn't exist. A larger camera can always stop down &
    >crank up the ISO for the same thumbnail sized results.
    >


    While destroying any image quality with diffraction artifacts or noise.

    You're SUCH a fuckingly useless and ignorant idiot.

    Keep trying to justify those ignorant choices and that extra expense of
    yours. It's hilarious!

    LOL!
    LOL!, Jun 13, 2010
    #13
  14. RichA

    Ben Dover Guest

    On Sun, 13 Jun 2010 03:30:46 GMT, "Dudley Hanks"
    <> wrote:

    >Haven't been following this thread since the beginning, so this might
    >already have been mentioned...
    >
    >Given that in-lense stabilization has been around for a while and seems to
    >work quite well, I'm wondering if we might see in-lens perspective
    >correction in the future. Or, maybe it's already in use but I haven't come
    >across it...
    >
    >It seems that the ability to do tilt-and-shift could be tied in with the
    >lens stabilization mechanism (considerably beefed up, of course), and the
    >lens could compensate (within certain limited parameters) to provide a nice
    >straight image...
    >
    >Take Care,
    >Dudley
    >


    What's the matter Dudley? Aren't your cameras automatic enough yet? Maybe
    you'd like to see one with robotic tripod legs and a built-in composition
    mode too where it only automatically trips the trigger when it detects a
    preset definition of a pleasing composition. Then you can just crank it up
    at the beginning of the day and send it outside, coming back at the end of
    the day with better images than anything you can produce now. Then your
    only claim for having any part in the photography process is owning the
    camera. Oh wait. That's the only claim that you can make now. Nevermind.
    Ben Dover, Jun 13, 2010
    #14
  15. RichA

    Dudley Hanks Guest

    "Ben Dover" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > On Sun, 13 Jun 2010 03:30:46 GMT, "Dudley Hanks"
    > <> wrote:
    >
    >>Haven't been following this thread since the beginning, so this might
    >>already have been mentioned...
    >>
    >>Given that in-lense stabilization has been around for a while and seems to
    >>work quite well, I'm wondering if we might see in-lens perspective
    >>correction in the future. Or, maybe it's already in use but I haven't
    >>come
    >>across it...
    >>
    >>It seems that the ability to do tilt-and-shift could be tied in with the
    >>lens stabilization mechanism (considerably beefed up, of course), and the
    >>lens could compensate (within certain limited parameters) to provide a
    >>nice
    >>straight image...
    >>
    >>Take Care,
    >>Dudley
    >>

    >
    > What's the matter Dudley? Aren't your cameras automatic enough yet? Maybe
    > you'd like to see one with robotic tripod legs and a built-in composition
    > mode too where it only automatically trips the trigger when it detects a
    > preset definition of a pleasing composition. Then you can just crank it up
    > at the beginning of the day and send it outside, coming back at the end of
    > the day with better images than anything you can produce now. Then your
    > only claim for having any part in the photography process is owning the
    > camera. Oh wait. That's the only claim that you can make now. Nevermind.
    >
    >
    >


    Sorry, didn't catch the "for sighted photogs only" qualifier on the subject
    of this thread...

    And, I guess only sighted photogs can expect to use auto focus,
    auto-exposure, etc ... Us blind guys have to do it the hard way just to
    prove we can?

    The whole human race's trek towards an easier existance is just for
    able-bodied people? Anybody with a disability should be trying to go back
    in time and chop their own wood to heat their homes, plant their own gardens
    to grow their own food, milk their own cows to just prove they can handle
    the daily drudgery of life?

    What's the matter? Can't beat me in a logical argument so you just try to
    look like a smart ass and throw out semi-wise cracks?

    I've told you before, and I'll tell you again, don't involve yourself in a
    battle of wits when you're completely unarmed...

    Take Care,
    Dudley
    Dudley Hanks, Jun 13, 2010
    #15
  16. RichA

    Ben Dover Guest

    On Sun, 13 Jun 2010 03:30:46 GMT, "Dudley Hanks"
    <> wrote:

    >Haven't been following this thread since the beginning, so this might
    >already have been mentioned...
    >
    >Given that in-lense stabilization has been around for a while and seems to
    >work quite well, I'm wondering if we might see in-lens perspective
    >correction in the future. Or, maybe it's already in use but I haven't come
    >across it...
    >
    >It seems that the ability to do tilt-and-shift could be tied in with the
    >lens stabilization mechanism (considerably beefed up, of course), and the
    >lens could compensate (within certain limited parameters) to provide a nice
    >straight image...
    >
    >Take Care,
    >Dudley
    >


    What's the matter Dudley? Aren't your cameras automatic enough yet? Maybe
    you'd like to see one with robotic tripod legs and a built-in composition
    mode too where it only automatically trips the trigger when it detects a
    preset definition of a pleasing composition. Then you can just crank it up
    at the beginning of the day and send it outside, coming back at the end of
    the day with better images than anything you can produce now. Then your
    only claim for having any part in the photography process is owning the
    camera. Oh wait. That's the only claim that you can make now. Nevermind.

    p.s. For the record, when I asked locals what unusual odd green colored
    wading birds were (Green Herons in breeding plumage, which I never saw that
    brightly colored before) they told me they called them "Steak Birds",
    because they taste just like steak.
    Ben Dover, Jun 13, 2010
    #16
  17. RichA

    Ben Dover Guest

    On Sun, 13 Jun 2010 03:30:46 GMT, "Dudley Hanks"
    <> wrote:

    >Haven't been following this thread since the beginning, so this might
    >already have been mentioned...
    >
    >Given that in-lense stabilization has been around for a while and seems to
    >work quite well, I'm wondering if we might see in-lens perspective
    >correction in the future. Or, maybe it's already in use but I haven't come
    >across it...
    >
    >It seems that the ability to do tilt-and-shift could be tied in with the
    >lens stabilization mechanism (considerably beefed up, of course), and the
    >lens could compensate (within certain limited parameters) to provide a nice
    >straight image...
    >
    >Take Care,
    >Dudley
    >


    What's the matter Dudley? Aren't your cameras automatic enough yet? Maybe
    you'd like to see one with robotic tripod legs and a built-in composition
    mode too where it only automatically trips the trigger when it detects a
    preset definition of a pleasing composition. Then you can just crank it up
    at the beginning of the day and send it outside, coming back at the end of
    the day with better images than anything you can produce now. Then your
    only claim for having any part in the photography process is owning the
    camera. Oh wait. That's the only claim that you can make now. Nevermind.

    p.s. For the record, when I asked locals what unusual odd green colored
    wading birds were (Green Herons in breeding plumage, which I never saw that
    brightly colored before) they told me they called them "Steak Birds",
    because they taste just like steak.

    Ooops, I PS'ed to the wrong post.
    Ben Dover, Jun 13, 2010
    #17
  18. RichA

    Dudley Hanks Guest

    "Ben Dover" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > On Sun, 13 Jun 2010 03:30:46 GMT, "Dudley Hanks"
    > <> wrote:
    >
    >>Haven't been following this thread since the beginning, so this might
    >>already have been mentioned...
    >>
    >>Given that in-lense stabilization has been around for a while and seems to
    >>work quite well, I'm wondering if we might see in-lens perspective
    >>correction in the future. Or, maybe it's already in use but I haven't
    >>come
    >>across it...
    >>
    >>It seems that the ability to do tilt-and-shift could be tied in with the
    >>lens stabilization mechanism (considerably beefed up, of course), and the
    >>lens could compensate (within certain limited parameters) to provide a
    >>nice
    >>straight image...
    >>
    >>Take Care,
    >>Dudley
    >>

    >
    > What's the matter Dudley? Aren't your cameras automatic enough yet? Maybe
    > you'd like to see one with robotic tripod legs and a built-in composition
    > mode too where it only automatically trips the trigger when it detects a
    > preset definition of a pleasing composition. Then you can just crank it up
    > at the beginning of the day and send it outside, coming back at the end of
    > the day with better images than anything you can produce now. Then your
    > only claim for having any part in the photography process is owning the
    > camera. Oh wait. That's the only claim that you can make now. Nevermind.
    >
    > p.s. For the record, when I asked locals what unusual odd green colored
    > wading birds were (Green Herons in breeding plumage, which I never saw
    > that
    > brightly colored before) they told me they called them "Steak Birds",
    > because they taste just like steak.
    >
    > Ooops, I PS'ed to the wrong post.
    >


    Like I said, "completely unarmed" ... :)

    Take Care,
    Dudley
    Dudley Hanks, Jun 13, 2010
    #18
  19. RichA

    ROFLMAO! Guest

    On Sun, 13 Jun 2010 04:06:08 GMT, "Dudley Hanks"
    <> wrote:

    >
    >What's the matter? Can't beat me in a logical argument so you just try to
    >look like a smart ass and throw out semi-wise cracks?


    "Logical argument"?!?

    LOL!

    Does the wholly illogical oxymoronic phrase of "blind photographer" mean
    anything at all to you? How about "Quadriplegic ballet dancer"? Or maybe
    there's a job for a "tongueless and noseless taste-tester"? Perhaps there's
    a job you can find in designing a comb for bald people. Wait! I know! Maybe
    when you become deaf you can become a speech therapist too!

    ROFLMAO!

    Logic? You don't even know the meaning of that word.

    Your blindness goes FAR beyond your eyesight.

    ROFLMAO!
    ROFLMAO!, Jun 13, 2010
    #19
  20. RichA

    Dudley Hanks Guest

    "ROFLMAO!" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > On Sun, 13 Jun 2010 04:06:08 GMT, "Dudley Hanks"
    > <> wrote:
    >
    >>
    >>What's the matter? Can't beat me in a logical argument so you just try to
    >>look like a smart ass and throw out semi-wise cracks?

    >
    > "Logical argument"?!?
    >
    > LOL!
    >
    > Does the wholly illogical oxymoronic phrase of "blind photographer" mean
    > anything at all to you? How about "Quadriplegic ballet dancer"? Or maybe
    > there's a job for a "tongueless and noseless taste-tester"? Perhaps
    > there's
    > a job you can find in designing a comb for bald people. Wait! I know!
    > Maybe
    > when you become deaf you can become a speech therapist too!
    >
    > ROFLMAO!
    >
    > Logic? You don't even know the meaning of that word.
    >
    > Your blindness goes FAR beyond your eyesight.
    >
    > ROFLMAO!
    >
    >


    http://www.blind-apertures.ca/LatestPics/CouncillorAndersonSmall.jpg

    http://www.blind-apertures.ca/LatestPics/Flower1Small.jpg

    Photograph taken by photographer, me who has less than 10% normal vision
    (definition of legal blindness), so I guess there is some meaning to the
    term "blind photographer."

    So, maybe I'm the one with real vision...

    What intrigues me is why it annoys you so much ...

    I mean, there's the attention thing, but that would mean that you're just a
    petty, immature goof who has to insult a blind guy in order to get
    attention, even though it means you prove to the whole world you're not all
    that bright...

    I've invited you to email me and discuss this in private, but you're a no
    show, so that reinforces the attention angle...

    I still like the Nazi thing, that you're just so pissed that a disabled
    person can do something you think he should be shot for, just so others
    don't get any ideas and try to think they actually have a reason to live...

    That explains a lot, but says even less about you than the stupid idiot who
    likes attention theory...

    Which is it? Nazi or idiot?

    Take Care,
    Dudley
    Dudley Hanks, Jun 13, 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. PLP
    Replies:
    1
    Views:
    5,184
  2. Weylon Bulloch

    floppy drive just keeps on going and going and ...

    Weylon Bulloch, Sep 7, 2003, in forum: Computer Support
    Replies:
    1
    Views:
    448
    °Mike°
    Sep 7, 2003
  3. fotoobscura
    Replies:
    8
    Views:
    684
    fotoobscura
    Jan 12, 2008
  4. OTHMAN
    Replies:
    2
    Views:
    374
  5. Lawrence D'Oliveiro

    XP Going ... Going ... Not Gone

    Lawrence D'Oliveiro, Jun 11, 2010, in forum: NZ Computing
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    299
    Lawrence D'Oliveiro
    Jun 11, 2010
Loading...

Share This Page