September 16, 2014, 11:56:16 AM

Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.


Messages - Stu_bert

Pages: 1 ... 9 10 [11] 12 13 ... 17
151
Lenses / Re: Ultra Wide Angle with Full Frame
« on: March 21, 2012, 06:44:36 PM »
I own both the Mk I & Mk II versions of the Sigma 12-24 I use them on a 5d2.  I've also tested the Nikon 14-24 with  adapter on my 5D2. I also use the amazing 24 TSE MK II.  The Nikon is a terrific lens but ultimately its cost and the necessary use of adapter turned me off.  My sample of the Sigma 12-24 Mk I is pretty good in the center but not so good (e.i. bad) in the corners.  My Mk II version is also good in the center and much, much better in the corners (e.i. very usable).  The MK II does have more distortion than the Mk I but  PTLens deals with it just fine.  Both lenses are contrasty enough and both have a bit of Sigma color to them which I don't mind.  Build quality is pretty good as well.

As far as the "don't settle for anything other than the 16-35 Mk II" sentiment expressed by some, I dunno, if you want *really* wide, 12mm is *a lot* wider than 16mm.  But if you need f/2.8, well then the Sigma would be out of the running. 

Have you considered the Samyang 14 f/2.8?  That gets generally good reviews, especially for its price to performance ratio.

Cheers!
Oooh, I was looking at the Nikon 12-24mm with adapter.... Could you expand on why you did not like the adapter please? Assume you got the 16:9 website one?

152
Software & Accessories / Re: sRGB vs Adobe RGB
« on: March 18, 2012, 08:16:00 PM »
Lightroom is prophoto color space.  I set my cameras to Adobe RGB because my printer has a wide enough gamut to handle it pretty well, and i prefer to edit in the widest possible color space.
 
However, if you are producing web pages, SRGB is the setting to use.
 
LR4 now finally has soft proofing, which allows you to control your edits to work with your choice of printers.  I have seldom seen any of my images that were out of gamut for my Epson 3880.
 
It is a comples subject, so until you are ready, use SRGB and simplify your life.
 
Highly recommended is the articles about color management at Northlight Images.  Don't forget to calibrate your monitor, or prints will seldom match what you see on the monitor.
+1

153
EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: 1D cameras for walk-around and traveling
« on: March 13, 2012, 09:14:47 PM »
i've used everything from a 10D walkabout to a 20D & 5D and currently a pair of 1Ds with 2 lenses so I don't have to swap.

The simple truth for me it depends on what you're doing, your age, your fitness etc.

I'm currently just coming back from Arizona and Utah, and I was happy walking around with both bodies for the day. Not hard core, walking, walking, photos etc, but still with no problem. And that's with a tripod....

When I did India, I took a single body, and a Lowepro side bag for the shoulder, but most of the time I just had the camera in my hand, lens pointing down and holding it by the grip. For me I can walk around all day like this and not feel tired.

From a security perspective, any dSLR atttracts attention in my experience. I think it depends on where you are. I've done north Cambodia and had no issues, in the south I had a single iffy experience with a couple of guys. I don't think a pro camera makes much difference in terms of attention in comparison to a pro-am camera like the 5x/7x....

154
EOS Bodies / Re: Not a Canon vs. Nikon Thread
« on: February 24, 2012, 05:41:58 PM »
Interesting if you go across to Nikon Rumors that the poll has their readerbase 58:42% in favour of the D800 having the same sensor as the D4 at 16MP. So much for research !?!?!

155
EOS Bodies / Re: The Next 5D on February 27/28, 2012 [CR3]
« on: February 22, 2012, 05:35:14 PM »
Not to fuel the fire, but there has been reports recently that the 5D2 having prices increases over the last few days....  perhaps if this camera gets announced/released at $3500, any takers the retail 5d2 price jumps back up to the original $2699 it debuted at?
companies will price at whatever they think they can get away with ;) I guess it depends on how much distributor stock there is on the MK II, but it would not surprise me.

156
Lenses / Re: How to get / test a good copy of a L lens?
« on: February 22, 2012, 03:55:54 PM »
Marsu42 asked,

...-what is Canon service actually able to do?
* AF adjustment (Do I have to turn in my non-afma body with my lens)?
* sharpness / ca-improvments?
* Do they do it for free on warranty / how bad does a problem have to be to make them do it for free?

I've wondered about that also -- since they took the trouble to remove afma from our 60Ds, can and will they correct a mismatch, and at what cost, post-warranty?

In the UK, when I have my lenses adjusted to the body (started when I had the 5D), Canon do adjustments in the lab which stores it separate to the AFMA data. The technician I spoke to claimed it is more accurate. I can't speak for the lens adjustments as frankly I've only ever asked on one, and it was still rubbish after :-)

157
EOS Bodies / Re: The Next 5D on February 27/28, 2012 [CR3]
« on: February 22, 2012, 03:47:32 PM »
I'm always amused by the fact that as buyers, we often think we're being ripped off by the vendors. And yet probably everyone on this forum works for a company (even their own), which sells something, be it a product or a service. How many of us complain to our company that we might be slightly over-egging our position / price point?

Every year, we expect our companies to pay us a bonus and a pay hike, no doubt Canon employees expect the same. Is Canon any different in terms of it's pricing? It basically prices it's products at whatever it thinks it can get away with. I'm sure the companies we all work for, do similarly....

A combination of market forces and economic recovery may help to reduce the price in time. Early adopters always pay a premium. I just upgraded my PC to Sandy Bridge, having skipped the previous gen, and expecting to skip the next gen in H2. Sure I could have waited for Ivy bridge to knock down pricing further, but it hit my price point, and I bought.

If you want to upgrade when it is first released, you'll have to pay the premium. Those looking at the 1Dx may however be looking at a bargain.... :D interesting times.


158
Lenses / Re: Canon 200-400mm f4 lens - worth waiting for?
« on: February 21, 2012, 06:17:52 PM »
From what I've seen out of the N***n 200-400, it's pretty awesome. I wonder how many pro N***n shooters use this lens? Can anyone shed any light on that?

I suppose if it was that big a deal to Canon, they wouldn't have let N***n have complete share of that market for so long. Same might be said for the 14-24/2.8. I'd sure love to have four lenses to cover 14-200 at f/2.8 and up to 400 at f/4.
Andy Biggs and Andy Rouse (both wildlife Pros) swear by the lens for a lot of their work I believe, based on the quality and range being appropriate for a lot of their work. They also used to both be Canon users.

Having said that Tom Hogan indicates that the Nikon is not without some shortfalls. I believe Tom has one as well.

159
Lenses / Re: How to get / test a good copy of a L lens?
« on: February 21, 2012, 06:11:12 PM »
Well, I still don't get it. I guess it's just a difference in perspective. Not saying your wrong. It's your money and if this is really important to you, then by all means, go for it. You might as well get your money's worth out of something, before it all gets spent propping up the rest of Europe.
Having bought a 100-400mm L as my "joint 1st" L lens for my canon and it being a "lemon" then I well sympathize with the OP wanting to ensure he gets a good copy. Back then, I was completely ignorant about differences between lenses, the chance of a poor copy etc, and only through research on various websites and forums did I start to learn there's a lot more to consider. But the bottom line for me, if you are paying for quality, you expect quality (within tolerances). I've had "that" lens in with Canon 3 times, always with the body I shoot it on, and frankly it's still soft as hell but it's so far out of warranty that it's basically not much better than a doorstop.

Point number 2, and this also goes back to my earliest dSLRs, but I remember comparing my 16-35mm to a friends 17-40mm and being disappointed at how his picture (same body) was sharper than mine. Yes, up to that point, I was happy. Then I found there was better. Granted it was a different lens, but if you don't know what "best" is and I would guess most people on here aren't involved in lens manufacturer or testing & therefore wouldn't, then it's not unreasonable to seek guidance on forums like this.

Finally, returning any lens under warranty is just a right pain in the butt, and costly for insurance, especially if you send back you body as well. In fact, I would have to arrange a special courier as returning just a single body & L lens exceeds most standard insurance. I'm just lucky to be an hours' drive from Canon CPS.

Marsu42 - would be interested on how you get on...


160
EOS Bodies / Re: Announcement Soon [CR3]
« on: February 20, 2012, 05:50:59 PM »
Very valid point and would be forced to agree with you.  I am a mere hobbyist at best so my photography is a money pit.

It certainly wasn't meant to be a criticism in any way. There's just no way I'd put up with the hassle and cost of switching systems unless I was chasing some money at the end of a tunnel. If you're shooting for fun, how much does Brand X's marginal advantage in tech specs really affect how much you enjoy your shooting experience?
If I do a safari by myself, it costs about £3K for 2 weeks including flights. If I nip across the pond to the States it costs me marginally less, maybe £2.5K. I would say most of the trips I do, perhaps 2 or if I am lucky 3 in a year end up costing me the wrong side of £6K.

For me, photography is a great way to see the world, visit new places, experience different cultures and capture as much as I can on camera. A lot of the places I have seen to date, I doubt I will ever get the chance to go back to. Given the investment it requires to get there, when I visit, I want to capture in the best quality I can. I picked up 2nd hand 1Ds MK III as I was not able to "drive" the 500mm f/4 reliably with either the 40D or 5D (although I know others have/do). I've used a 7D with said lens, but always prefer the 1Ds pictures.

The new D800 and D4 both can do AF at F/8.0. And it's a feature I would not like to lose. There are things that I like about both cameras, but the same is true of Canon. And of course I would be stunned if Canon did not release a camera that could do AF at f/8.

Plus, if I am to look on a 5 year view, many of my lenses may not stand up to the "scrutiny" of higher MP bodies, be that Nikon or Canon. I figure that if I change glass, then I want it to last at least 3 future generations of body. Right now, I am looking at adding the 24-70 and 70-200 f/2.8. But in the <24mm range then Nikon has the best lens by far in the 14-24mm. So if the only lens I don't think I would change right now is the 500mm, does it make sense to stick with Canon - especially if I will replace most of my Canon glass over the next 18 months? Right now, I cannot tell. Nor will I consider changing until the end of this year based on what both have released, and even then it would be a gradual change probably running 2 systems in parallel.

That's less than ideal, but if I believe (and I don't yet) Nikon will be a better solution for me longer term, then I will absolutely swap. You're right, I do not need to make a living from it, but I do want to get the best pictures...

Much to research this year, especially around Nikon glass and how well it compares to Canon, from w/a all the way up to the big primes.

Plus the fact that with Nikon's decision to make you send your camera in to one of a small handfull of service centers to get somthing as simple as a battery cover replaced, I wouldn't use Nikon if they were giving them away. Support the company that supports you and your right to get is serviced where you want, Buy Canon!!!
To be honest, never had to deal with Nikon in the UK. My experience with Canon is mixed. Through CPS is largely good. Prior to that, not so good. But either way I have had to pay handsomely each time....

- One of the posts broke on the IS unit - which holds it in place. They have to replace the whole IS unit.
- I dropped an L lens (70-300) from no more than 2 ft onto relatively soft ground, broke the focusing. I'd argue that's not really "build like a tank quality!"
- On the 1Ds, the AA filter cannot be replaced separately from the sensor. So the tiny scratch on it, can't be seen, but if I wanted it replaced then that's a few hundred notes...
- Every lens calibration - £30 - although I think they do both bodies
- Try and fix the softness on a 100-400mm (they've tried 3 times and still won't admit it's a lemon!)

The upside is that the Canon repair centre is an hour by car, as frankly there's no way I would use any courier / postal system, based on costs of insurance and complete distrust in their quality of handling.

I can't tell you about Nikon and how they make their kit, but some of the "design" decisions Canon make are dubious in terms of fairness to the customer. Reminds me somewhat of car manufacturers. Which is kind of appropriate as Honda has just tripled my service bill with the "this needs replacement after 2 years" if you want to keep a full service history >:(

161
EOS Bodies / Re: Announcement Soon [CR3]
« on: February 20, 2012, 05:37:40 PM »
Very valid point and would be forced to agree with you.  I am a mere hobbyist at best so my photography is a money pit.

It certainly wasn't meant to be a criticism in any way. There's just no way I'd put up with the hassle and cost of switching systems unless I was chasing some money at the end of a tunnel. If you're shooting for fun, how much does Brand X's marginal advantage in tech specs really affect how much you enjoy your shooting experience?
If I do a safari by myself, it costs about £3K for 2 weeks including flights. If I nip across the pond to the States it costs me marginally less, maybe £2.5K. I would say most of the trips I do, perhaps 2 or if I am lucky 3 in a year end up costing me the wrong side of £6K.

For me, photography is a great way to see the world, visit new places, experience different cultures and capture as much as I can on camera. A lot of the places I have seen to date, I doubt I will ever get the chance to go back to. Given the investment it requires to get there, when I visit, I want to capture in the best quality I can. I picked up 2nd hand 1Ds MK III as I was not able to "drive" the 500mm f/4 reliably with either the 40D or 5D (although I know others have/do). I've used a 7D with said lens, but always prefer the 1Ds pictures.

The new D800 and D4 both can do AF at F/8.0. And it's a feature I would not like to lose. There are things that I like about both cameras, but the same is true of Canon. And of course I would be stunned if Canon did not release a camera that could do AF at f/8.

Plus, if I am to look on a 5 year view, many of my lenses may not stand up to the "scrutiny" of higher MP bodies, be that Nikon or Canon. I figure that if I change glass, then I want it to last at least 3 future generations of body. Right now, I am looking at adding the 24-70 and 70-200 f/2.8. But in the <24mm range then Nikon has the best lens by far in the 14-24mm. So if the only lens I don't think I would change right now is the 500mm, does it make sense to stick with Canon - especially if I will replace most of my Canon glass over the next 18 months? Right now, I cannot tell. Nor will I consider changing until the end of this year based on what both have released, and even then it would be a gradual change probably running 2 systems in parallel.

That's less than ideal, but if I believe (and I don't yet) Nikon will be a better solution for me longer term, then I will absolutely swap. You're right, I do not need to make a living from it, but I do want to get the best pictures...

Much to research this year, especially around Nikon glass and how well it compares to Canon, from w/a all the way up to the big primes.

+1 - well said that chap. Mauritius and the Maldives are places i will never see again - nor the World Trade center in New York. I will never see a Space Shuttle take lift off nor Concorde in all its glory.
I will never see a child of mine born again, and never get the chance to watch them grow up and witness the dissolving of the innocence as they do.

My pictures portray my life in so many way. So i might as well have the best kit i can afford to record it all.

The 5D2 was the first camera to stop me wanting to go back to Canon A1's with add on grip. Nikon have never really got my attention, even though i may have occasionally 'threatened' to jump ship out of frustration.
You've already seen things that are now part of our history (WTC & Shuttle), so I definitely envy that you were able to capture those events, and as you say, capturing your life's experience, for you and for future generations is just priceless IMHO...

Mauritius & Maldives - bet you have some great stuff from there.

Alas out of your list, I've only done Concord, and on slides  :-[ - so they're more nostalgia than anything aesthetic.

162
EOS Bodies / Re: Announcement Soon [CR3]
« on: February 20, 2012, 05:32:10 PM »
Very valid point and would be forced to agree with you.  I am a mere hobbyist at best so my photography is a money pit.

It certainly wasn't meant to be a criticism in any way. There's just no way I'd put up with the hassle and cost of switching systems unless I was chasing some money at the end of a tunnel. If you're shooting for fun, how much does Brand X's marginal advantage in tech specs really affect how much you enjoy your shooting experience?
If I do a safari by myself, it costs about £3K for 2 weeks including flights. If I nip across the pond to the States it costs me marginally less, maybe £2.5K. I would say most of the trips I do, perhaps 2 or if I am lucky 3 in a year end up costing me the wrong side of £6K.

For me, photography is a great way to see the world, visit new places, experience different cultures and capture as much as I can on camera. A lot of the places I have seen to date, I doubt I will ever get the chance to go back to. Given the investment it requires to get there, when I visit, I want to capture in the best quality I can. I picked up 2nd hand 1Ds MK III as I was not able to "drive" the 500mm f/4 reliably with either the 40D or 5D (although I know others have/do). I've used a 7D with said lens, but always prefer the 1Ds pictures.

The new D800 and D4 both can do AF at F/8.0. And it's a feature I would not like to lose. There are things that I like about both cameras, but the same is true of Canon. And of course I would be stunned if Canon did not release a camera that could do AF at f/8.

Plus, if I am to look on a 5 year view, many of my lenses may not stand up to the "scrutiny" of higher MP bodies, be that Nikon or Canon. I figure that if I change glass, then I want it to last at least 3 future generations of body. Right now, I am looking at adding the 24-70 and 70-200 f/2.8. But in the <24mm range then Nikon has the best lens by far in the 14-24mm. So if the only lens I don't think I would change right now is the 500mm, does it make sense to stick with Canon - especially if I will replace most of my Canon glass over the next 18 months? Right now, I cannot tell. Nor will I consider changing until the end of this year based on what both have released, and even then it would be a gradual change probably running 2 systems in parallel.

That's less than ideal, but if I believe (and I don't yet) Nikon will be a better solution for me longer term, then I will absolutely swap. You're right, I do not need to make a living from it, but I do want to get the best pictures...

Much to research this year, especially around Nikon glass and how well it compares to Canon, from w/a all the way up to the big primes.

You can always put that precious Nikon 14-24 lens on any Canon DSLR, just google for Nikon G to EOS adapter. Manual focusing isn't such a pain for an UWA lens :).
Yup the 16:9 site.... it is tempting, but I'm watching to see a) if the concerns about it on the D800 are true, and b) what Canon does or is rumoured to do having announced a patent iirc. But by the end of the year, if there's no bad news on the Nikon and no positive news from Canon, then adapter +Nikon is fine. The only time I don't use liveview & manual focus is when it's too dark for liveview to work reliably  :D

163
EOS Bodies / Re: Announcement Soon [CR3]
« on: February 19, 2012, 07:02:50 AM »
Very valid point and would be forced to agree with you.  I am a mere hobbyist at best so my photography is a money pit.

It certainly wasn't meant to be a criticism in any way. There's just no way I'd put up with the hassle and cost of switching systems unless I was chasing some money at the end of a tunnel. If you're shooting for fun, how much does Brand X's marginal advantage in tech specs really affect how much you enjoy your shooting experience?
If I do a safari by myself, it costs about £3K for 2 weeks including flights. If I nip across the pond to the States it costs me marginally less, maybe £2.5K. I would say most of the trips I do, perhaps 2 or if I am lucky 3 in a year end up costing me the wrong side of £6K.

For me, photography is a great way to see the world, visit new places, experience different cultures and capture as much as I can on camera. A lot of the places I have seen to date, I doubt I will ever get the chance to go back to. Given the investment it requires to get there, when I visit, I want to capture in the best quality I can. I picked up 2nd hand 1Ds MK III as I was not able to "drive" the 500mm f/4 reliably with either the 40D or 5D (although I know others have/do). I've used a 7D with said lens, but always prefer the 1Ds pictures.

The new D800 and D4 both can do AF at F/8.0. And it's a feature I would not like to lose. There are things that I like about both cameras, but the same is true of Canon. And of course I would be stunned if Canon did not release a camera that could do AF at f/8.

Plus, if I am to look on a 5 year view, many of my lenses may not stand up to the "scrutiny" of higher MP bodies, be that Nikon or Canon. I figure that if I change glass, then I want it to last at least 3 future generations of body. Right now, I am looking at adding the 24-70 and 70-200 f/2.8. But in the <24mm range then Nikon has the best lens by far in the 14-24mm. So if the only lens I don't think I would change right now is the 500mm, does it make sense to stick with Canon - especially if I will replace most of my Canon glass over the next 18 months? Right now, I cannot tell. Nor will I consider changing until the end of this year based on what both have released, and even then it would be a gradual change probably running 2 systems in parallel.

That's less than ideal, but if I believe (and I don't yet) Nikon will be a better solution for me longer term, then I will absolutely swap. You're right, I do not need to make a living from it, but I do want to get the best pictures...

Much to research this year, especially around Nikon glass and how well it compares to Canon, from w/a all the way up to the big primes.

164
Lenses / Re: Canon EF 24-70 f/2.8L II
« on: February 12, 2012, 09:26:34 AM »
" AF we have discussed to death - most 5DII users seem to find it OK - it works happily in most situations and is still the best in class in low light "

Well that is a ringing endorsement, most find it OK! And they are the owners, not the most unbiased of respondents, the 5D was constantly criticized for its AF performance, everybody took a deep breath when the MkII was announced with a slightly improved version, people have just got used to how bad it is when compared to regular use with a much better system. As for best in class, that is a claim that could only be supported by people who don't use the 5D MkII and the D700, it is just not true in real world use. Wait a bit longer? For three full years, over 36 months, prosumers have had a vastly better option for AF than the 5D MkII.

I might be the minority here, I am a stills shooter, I paid $6,000 for a camera that doesn't have video, it is of zero interest to me, I paid that primarily for the AF. The 5D MkII was a groundbreaking camera with an amazing sensor that will not be truly outclassed for years and years. People will be taking amazing images with them until they can no longer be repaired or get batteries for them, but that is despite the AF, and just because it is "good enough most of the time", doesn't mean others solutions are not better, cheaper, more feature rich in whatever area the particular owner needs etc.

 Don't make excuses for Canon, kick them up the butt, don't fawn over new mild upgrades that are vastly over priced. Tell them what we need, sure the 8-15 is a fun lens, but how many circular fisheye images  are published? Yet again it is a small sensor video orientated lens. An improvement of the 15mm prime with USM etc would have been a much better idea for still shooters.

I have downloaded the sample images, in Lightroom they look absolutely fine to me, the detail in the library shots is remarkable, compare the portraits of the D800 to the D1x, don't repeat what "has been reported" look at the stuff and make your own decisions.

Nikon have made a remarkable comeback from tragedy, disaster, and devastation both in Japan and Thailand, Canon had, by comparison, a better time of it, what did they do with that time? A $10,000 video camera, four $40,000 lenses, several lenses that have yet to see the real world and a belated 5D MkIII that might equal, or slightly best, or not, the already announced, and downloadable sample images from their competitor that was two generations behind and knocked to their knees not long ago.


Sure Canon cameras "are good enough", Canon corporate performance for stills shooters is not.
Not true, when a reasonable percentage of sensors used by Nikon are created by Sony. And that is a significant part of how Nikon got back in the game. And absolutely, Canon users are benefiting from it no longer being a 1 horse race. Similarly, anyone who has a computer benefits from AMD still snapping at Intel (albeit at a reasonable distance), and Apple users have benefited from all the economies of scale that PC users gave them...

Whereas I agree that Canon need to be kept on their toes, and they do appear to have got lazy - whether we like it or not, we need to wait for 2012 to expire before we can conclude whether Nikon / Sony has kept their lead over Canon or not at a technology level. For most people, printing A3, then I think any of the current or previous generation(s) still suffice. My friend still shoots with his 5D and still hones his photographic technique irrespective of the underlying tech. People he sells to don't care if he used a pin-hole  ;)

I however, gave up with the 5D MK II, grabbed a couple of second hand 1Ds and am happy with that decision (but not the bank balance). Yes the 1Ds focusing is much better, and yes I am sure the D700 is pretty damned close also - so given the chance then swapping to Nikon may have been better in hindsight. Like many here, it's the investment in glass which makes me pause...

Having said that, I now face the prospect of upgrading all my lenses (over time) if I want to consider then next 2+ generations of camera tech and so I would not rule out a swap to Nikon, leaving my Canon paired with the 500mm until such time as the dollar and yen rates allow me to replace it also. But that's a decision which I will not conclude until the Autumn when I see what Canon have released.

Finally, and of less immediate consideration, but as the camera market continues to get squeezed, it is easy to see why manufacturers look to other revenue streams. Nikon is in someways lucky, as it does not sell camcorders and so can develop that in their camera. Sony and Canon do. However, with the volume-end of the market being aggressively attacked by smartphones and those manufacturers happy to put APS-C or 4/3 sensors in compact bodies, then I would not wish to be in Nikon's shoes, I would want other revenue streams outside their core business. Sony and Canon have this to fall back on. Oh for a crystal ball to see who will be around in a decade....  ;)

165
Lenses / Re: Canon EF 24-70 f/2.8L II
« on: February 12, 2012, 08:55:19 AM »
yeah, the 16-35mm f/2.8 L II was already my largest-common-denominator, so to speak.  other than a Circ Pol, everything for me is Singh-ray glass plates, so 72mm, 77mm, and 82mm are all the same to me.

Just to pick a nit, I believe that while Singh-Ray's screw-in filters are glass, their rectangular filters are all resin, not glass...   AFAIK, the only optical glass rectangular filters (grads, ND grads, etc.) are made by B+W's parent company, Schneider Optics.

Sorry if this is answered elsewhere, but Lee do a couple of all-glass filters, I have their ND-9 which is all glass...

Pages: 1 ... 9 10 [11] 12 13 ... 17