April 19, 2014, 03:28:03 AM

Author Topic: Are there 39mp & 50mp+ Test Bodies in the Wild? [CR1]  (Read 14103 times)

LetTheRightLensIn

  • 1D X
  • *******
  • Posts: 2987
    • View Profile
Re: Are there 39mp & 50mp+ Test Bodies in the Wild? [CR1]
« Reply #30 on: October 22, 2012, 02:21:42 PM »
My question, as I'm not an optics expert, is once you get into that realm of 30+ (if not before), how many current EF lenses are going to be able to leverage that sensor fully?

keep in mind that the latest Rebel is like 48MP FF equivalent

canon rumors FORUM

Re: Are there 39mp & 50mp+ Test Bodies in the Wild? [CR1]
« Reply #30 on: October 22, 2012, 02:21:42 PM »

el bouv

  • PowerShot G16
  • **
  • Posts: 14
    • View Profile
Re: Are there 39mp & 50mp+ Test Bodies in the Wild? [CR1]
« Reply #31 on: October 22, 2012, 02:35:46 PM »
Counting pixels versus photosites could be confusing.
On an Foveon sensor  you could count every pixel site a 3 effective pixels due to the stacked sensors.
So the mighty D800 with 36 MP could probably be a 12 MP Foveon sensor. Nikon has long had a use for 12 MP semsors.
In the same way Canon is stuck at 18 MP sensors so look out for a 54 MP Foveon type sensor from them.

K-amps

  • 1D X
  • *******
  • Posts: 1478
  • Whatever looks great !
    • View Profile
Re: Are there 39mp & 50mp+ Test Bodies in the Wild? [CR1]
« Reply #32 on: October 22, 2012, 02:38:14 PM »
Counting pixels versus photosites could be confusing.
On an Foveon sensor  you could count every pixel site a 3 effective pixels due to the stacked sensors.
So the mighty D800 with 36 MP could probably be a 12 MP Foveon sensor. Nikon has long had a use for 12 MP semsors.
In the same way Canon is stuck at 18 MP sensors so look out for a 54 MP Foveon type sensor from them.

It would seem that Bayer sensors have more spatial resolution than the stacked ones in Foveon (assuming you are X3'ing the foveon) .... I just like the rendition of the foveon colors has less artifacts and thus seems more pleasing... but in raw detail they are still a bit lacking than bayers...
EOS-5D Mk.iii 
Sigma 24-105mm F4 ART; EF 70-200 F/2.8L Mk.II; EF 100mm L F/2.8 IS Macro, 50mm F/1.8ii;  TC's 2x Mk.iii; 1.4x Mk.iii

dlleno

  • 6D
  • *****
  • Posts: 565
    • View Profile
Re: Are there 39mp & 50mp+ Test Bodies in the Wild? [CR1]
« Reply #33 on: October 22, 2012, 02:38:50 PM »
My question, as I'm not an optics expert, is once you get into that realm of 30+ (if not before), how many current EF lenses are going to be able to leverage that sensor fully?

keep in mind that the latest Rebel is like 48MP FF equivalent

I don't have the answer either, but the pixel density of the all the latest 18mp crop bodies will probably eclipse some EF lenses, not to mention field techniques and less-than-optimum support.  Jrista has pointed out that with optically the best (arguably) lens known to man (the 300mm f/2.8) and a tripod he can extract all of that resolving power.  Someone with a deep knowledge of optical resolving power will have to chime in on this topic, but  PerfectSavage you are raising a good point which needs a more precise answer. 
« Last Edit: October 22, 2012, 02:48:41 PM by dlleno »

K-amps

  • 1D X
  • *******
  • Posts: 1478
  • Whatever looks great !
    • View Profile
Re: Are there 39mp & 50mp+ Test Bodies in the Wild? [CR1]
« Reply #34 on: October 22, 2012, 02:41:11 PM »
Forget 50mp... just let me swap out my 5d3 sensor for something with NO AA filter... 

While Canon is at it... please play nice with Sony and Sigma and get us a 16DR with Foveon type non-bayerless 22mp sensor with 5d3 type high ISO performance. 


Wake up...   what a wet dream that was...


5D3 without AA filter would be pretty moire and aliased though no? it's only 20D photosite density

:-)  True, if I was into shooting fabrics.
EOS-5D Mk.iii 
Sigma 24-105mm F4 ART; EF 70-200 F/2.8L Mk.II; EF 100mm L F/2.8 IS Macro, 50mm F/1.8ii;  TC's 2x Mk.iii; 1.4x Mk.iii

K-amps

  • 1D X
  • *******
  • Posts: 1478
  • Whatever looks great !
    • View Profile
Re: Are there 39mp & 50mp+ Test Bodies in the Wild? [CR1]
« Reply #35 on: October 22, 2012, 02:43:10 PM »
"Foveon type non-bayerless"??

And, wouldn't it be playing dirty and competitive, rather than nice and friendly (which they effectively are now) with Sony and Sigma if they integrated 16-bit ADC with a layered sensor?

How the Folks far east;  make love ; is no concern of mine  :P

You are one weird dude.  ???

Saving this Quote:

The next time you go accusing others of making personal attacks.  :P

« Last Edit: October 22, 2012, 02:45:07 PM by K-amps »
EOS-5D Mk.iii 
Sigma 24-105mm F4 ART; EF 70-200 F/2.8L Mk.II; EF 100mm L F/2.8 IS Macro, 50mm F/1.8ii;  TC's 2x Mk.iii; 1.4x Mk.iii

dlleno

  • 6D
  • *****
  • Posts: 565
    • View Profile
Re: Are there 39mp & 50mp+ Test Bodies in the Wild? [CR1]
« Reply #36 on: October 22, 2012, 02:47:14 PM »
for additional techical discussion on the topic of line pairs per mm and sensor resolving power, see this thread

http://www.canonrumors.com/forum/index.php?topic=3393.0

in which Jrista reports that for the 116 lp/mm resolving power of the 18mp sensor itself,  "The extremely high resolution of the 7D also means that outside of the best of the most recent Canon L-series lenses, namely Mark II's and new designs like the 8-15mm L Fisheye, the 7D is very likely outresolving most lenses except for their very centers"  Sorry Jrista I yanked that out of the above thread without quoting properly. 

so -- to me this means if you show Jrista a lens with less than 116 lp/mm resolving power in the center, at apertures that are abberation limited**, then he will show you a lens that is not capable of taking advantage of the 18mp sensor resolving power. 

** means a limitation of the glass itself, i.e. not due to small apertures which introduce diffraction and futher loss of resolving power.
« Last Edit: October 22, 2012, 03:01:07 PM by dlleno »

canon rumors FORUM

Re: Are there 39mp & 50mp+ Test Bodies in the Wild? [CR1]
« Reply #36 on: October 22, 2012, 02:47:14 PM »

jrista

  • 1D X
  • *******
  • Posts: 3239
  • POTATO
    • View Profile
    • Nature Photography
Re: Are there 39mp & 50mp+ Test Bodies in the Wild? [CR1]
« Reply #37 on: October 22, 2012, 03:41:33 PM »
"Foveon type non-bayerless"??

And, wouldn't it be playing dirty and competitive, rather than nice and friendly (which they effectively are now) with Sony and Sigma if they integrated 16-bit ADC with a layered sensor?

How the Folks far east;  make love ; is no concern of mine  :P

You are one weird dude.  ???

Saving this Quote:

The next time you go accusing others of making personal attacks.  :P

Oh, I wasn't verbally mauling you or anything like that (I've been on the receiving end of that numerous times recently.) I was just making an observation, as I couldn't make heads or tails of your previous two posts. :P

Besides, weird ain't bad, its just weird. I'm ultra weird myself.  ???
My Photography
Current Gear: Canon 7D | Canon EF 600mm f/4 L IS II | EF 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6 L IS | EF 16-35mm f/2.8 L | EF 100mm f/2.8 Macro | 50mm f/1.4
New Gear List: Canon 5D III/7D II | Canon EF 300mm f/2.8 L II

K-amps

  • 1D X
  • *******
  • Posts: 1478
  • Whatever looks great !
    • View Profile
Re: Are there 39mp & 50mp+ Test Bodies in the Wild? [CR1]
« Reply #38 on: October 22, 2012, 03:51:37 PM »
"Foveon type non-bayerless"??

And, wouldn't it be playing dirty and competitive, rather than nice and friendly (which they effectively are now) with Sony and Sigma if they integrated 16-bit ADC with a layered sensor?

How the Folks far east;  make love ; is no concern of mine  :P

You are one weird dude.  ???

Saving this Quote:

The next time you go accusing others of making personal attacks.  :P

Oh, I wasn't verbally mauling you or anything like that (I've been on the receiving end of that numerous times recently.) I was just making an observation, as I couldn't make heads or tails of your previous two posts. :P

Besides, weird ain't bad, its just weird. I'm ultra weird myself.  ???

It's cool, I was just having some fun myself. 

When you said "Playing Dirty....." my mind wandered over to the Adult Anime section of the VHS rentals.... hence the quip I made. about love making in the east... now why I would expect anyone to make "that " connection   :P
EOS-5D Mk.iii 
Sigma 24-105mm F4 ART; EF 70-200 F/2.8L Mk.II; EF 100mm L F/2.8 IS Macro, 50mm F/1.8ii;  TC's 2x Mk.iii; 1.4x Mk.iii

jrista

  • 1D X
  • *******
  • Posts: 3239
  • POTATO
    • View Profile
    • Nature Photography
Re: Are there 39mp & 50mp+ Test Bodies in the Wild? [CR1]
« Reply #39 on: October 22, 2012, 04:03:10 PM »
"Foveon type non-bayerless"??

And, wouldn't it be playing dirty and competitive, rather than nice and friendly (which they effectively are now) with Sony and Sigma if they integrated 16-bit ADC with a layered sensor?

How the Folks far east;  make love ; is no concern of mine  :P

You are one weird dude.  ???

Saving this Quote:

The next time you go accusing others of making personal attacks.  :P

Oh, I wasn't verbally mauling you or anything like that (I've been on the receiving end of that numerous times recently.) I was just making an observation, as I couldn't make heads or tails of your previous two posts. :P

Besides, weird ain't bad, its just weird. I'm ultra weird myself.  ???

It's cool, I was just having some fun myself. 

When you said "Playing Dirty....." my mind wandered over to the Adult Anime section of the VHS rentals.... hence the quip I made. about love making in the east... now why I would expect anyone to make "that " connection   :P

Bad images....baaad images......
My Photography
Current Gear: Canon 7D | Canon EF 600mm f/4 L IS II | EF 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6 L IS | EF 16-35mm f/2.8 L | EF 100mm f/2.8 Macro | 50mm f/1.4
New Gear List: Canon 5D III/7D II | Canon EF 300mm f/2.8 L II

Lee Jay

  • 6D
  • *****
  • Posts: 503
    • View Profile
Re: Are there 39mp & 50mp+ Test Bodies in the Wild? [CR1]
« Reply #40 on: October 22, 2012, 04:21:01 PM »
for additional techical discussion on the topic of line pairs per mm and sensor resolving power, see this thread

http://www.canonrumors.com/forum/index.php?topic=3393.0

in which Jrista reports that for the 116 lp/mm resolving power of the 18mp sensor itself,  "The extremely high resolution of the 7D also means that outside of the best of the most recent Canon L-series lenses, namely Mark II's and new designs like the 8-15mm L Fisheye, the 7D is very likely outresolving most lenses except for their very centers"  Sorry Jrista I yanked that out of the above thread without quoting properly. 


It's baloney, though.  I use TCs on lenses on those 18MP 1.6-crop sensors, and the TCs greatly enhance detail retained compared to the bare lens.  I've used 1.4x and 2x stacked on a T2i with a 70-200/2.8L IS II - that's the equivalent of a (18MP)*(1.6^2)*(2^2)*(1.4^2) = 369MP full-frame camera shooting through the bare lens.  Even a 100-400L will retain more detail using a 2x versus a 1.4x on that sensor.  That's like a 184MP full-frame sensor.

Secondly, adding pixels will always retain more detail through the same optics than having fewer.  The function is asymptotic.  There's no "the sensor is out-resolving and so there's no point" type limit beyond which you can't cross.

jrista

  • 1D X
  • *******
  • Posts: 3239
  • POTATO
    • View Profile
    • Nature Photography
Re: Are there 39mp & 50mp+ Test Bodies in the Wild? [CR1]
« Reply #41 on: October 22, 2012, 04:29:41 PM »
for additional techical discussion on the topic of line pairs per mm and sensor resolving power, see this thread

http://www.canonrumors.com/forum/index.php?topic=3393.0

in which Jrista reports that for the 116 lp/mm resolving power of the 18mp sensor itself,  "The extremely high resolution of the 7D also means that outside of the best of the most recent Canon L-series lenses, namely Mark II's and new designs like the 8-15mm L Fisheye, the 7D is very likely outresolving most lenses except for their very centers"  Sorry Jrista I yanked that out of the above thread without quoting properly. 


It's baloney, though.  I use TCs on lenses on those 18MP 1.6-crop sensors, and the TCs greatly enhance detail retained compared to the bare lens.  I've used 1.4x and 2x stacked on a T2i with a 70-200/2.8L IS II - that's the equivalent of a (18MP)*(1.6^2)*(2^2)*(1.4^2) = 369MP full-frame camera shooting through the bare lens.  Even a 100-400L will retain more detail using a 2x versus a 1.4x on that sensor.  That's like a 184MP full-frame sensor.

Secondly, adding pixels will always retain more detail through the same optics than having fewer.  The function is asymptotic.  There's no "the sensor is out-resolving and so there's no point" type limit beyond which you can't cross.


You still have a very skewed idea, or simply bad terminology, in describing what you are actually experiencing with a TC, though, Lee Jay. Your previous argument in that other thread, that the virtual image of the sensor shrinks when it is observed by looking through the lens into the camera is not indicative of what is really occurring. A teleconverter does not change how many megapixels you have, nor does it change the resolution of the lens. The physical spatial resolution of the sensor is fixed. You are simply magnifying your subject more, and projecting a smaller area of your subject at a larger magnification on the sensor.

As we discussed in our last debate, the spatial resolution of whatever is projected by the lens, as well as the spatial resolution of the sensor, are pretty limited. If you use a TC or multiple TC's that reduce your aperture to f/8, then according to the laws of physics spatial resolution becomes limited (specifically to around 86lp/mm), which is WELL below the fixed luminance spatial resolution of pretty much any APS-C sensor these days. Spatial resolution is not increasing, magnification is increasing. Disjoint concepts that can work together to produce a more detailed image without actually changing spatial resolution of the real image at the sensor.

I think what you are doing is accounting for the "entire" size of your subject. If you magnify a part of the moon such that only that one part fits on an 18mp sensor, the "effective size of the whole moon if it were to be measured in megapixels would require a 184mp FF sensor to image in it's entirety." You could look at it that way, but it is extremely confusing, and running about stating "It's like having a 369MP FF sensor" is not really true, and I WILL argue that point whenever you bring it up. ;P In short:

Magnification != Increase in Spatial Resolution

Explicitly:

Magnification == Increase in Subject Size with Same Spatial Resolution

The equating of magnification with an increase in spatial resolution is a misnomer. Technically speaking, you can either increase subject size by optically magnifying it to record more detail of a smaller area of your subject, OR you could increase the spatial resolution of your recording device (image sensor) to gather more detail of the SAME area, which would concurrently have the effect of allowing you to crop a smaller area with the same amount of detail as if you had optically magnified. The two achieve similar results, but they are not the same thing, and magnification should not be equated directly to an increase in sensor spatial resolution.
« Last Edit: October 22, 2012, 04:46:04 PM by jrista »
My Photography
Current Gear: Canon 7D | Canon EF 600mm f/4 L IS II | EF 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6 L IS | EF 16-35mm f/2.8 L | EF 100mm f/2.8 Macro | 50mm f/1.4
New Gear List: Canon 5D III/7D II | Canon EF 300mm f/2.8 L II

Lee Jay

  • 6D
  • *****
  • Posts: 503
    • View Profile
Re: Are there 39mp & 50mp+ Test Bodies in the Wild? [CR1]
« Reply #42 on: October 22, 2012, 04:59:01 PM »
You still have a very skewed idea, or simply bad terminology, in describing what you are actually experiencing with a TC, though, Lee Jay. Your previous argument in that other thread, that the virtual image of the sensor shrinks when it is observed by looking through the lens into the camera is not indicative of what is really occurring. A teleconverter does not change how many megapixels you have, nor does it change the resolution of the lens.


No, but it has the same effect as doing either one.

As we discussed in our last debate, the spatial resolution of whatever is projected by the lens, as well as the spatial resolution of the sensor, are pretty limited. If you use a TC or multiple TC's that reduce your aperture to f/8, then according to the laws of physics spatial resolution becomes limited (specifically to around 86lp/mm), which is WELL below the fixed luminance spatial resolution of pretty much any APS-C sensor these days.[/quote]

f=1/lambda*f#

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spatial_cutoff_frequency

f=1/(0.00055*8) = 227lp/mm at MTF = 0.  Using MTF=50, as you did above, is arbitrary and of little value in this context.

Quote
Spatial resolution is not increasing, magnification is increasing.


Same thing, since the optics (the lens) didn't change.

Quote
I think what you are doing is accounting for the "entire" size of your subject. If you magnify a part of the moon such that only that one part fits on an 18mp sensor, the "effective size of the whole moon if it were to be measured in megapixels would require a 184mp FF sensor to image in it's entirety." You could look at it that way, but it is extremely confusing, and running about stating "It's like having a 369MP FF sensor" is not really true, and I WILL argue that point whenever you bring it up.


That's fine, and you'll be wrong each time.  This is the way people do it in astrophotography, where resolution is what you are after.  "Image scale" is determined by arc-second per pixel, and the lens is measured by aperture diameter.  TCs leave the aperture unchanged and decrease arc-seconds per pixel.  More pixels leave the aperture unchanged and decrease arc-seconds per pixel.  Same thing.

canon rumors FORUM

Re: Are there 39mp & 50mp+ Test Bodies in the Wild? [CR1]
« Reply #42 on: October 22, 2012, 04:59:01 PM »

jrista

  • 1D X
  • *******
  • Posts: 3239
  • POTATO
    • View Profile
    • Nature Photography
Re: Are there 39mp & 50mp+ Test Bodies in the Wild? [CR1]
« Reply #43 on: October 22, 2012, 05:16:35 PM »
You still have a very skewed idea, or simply bad terminology, in describing what you are actually experiencing with a TC, though, Lee Jay. Your previous argument in that other thread, that the virtual image of the sensor shrinks when it is observed by looking through the lens into the camera is not indicative of what is really occurring. A teleconverter does not change how many megapixels you have, nor does it change the resolution of the lens.


No, but it has the same effect as doing either one.


The effects are different. If you have an 18mp sensor and a 36mp sensor, and use the same lens on both. The effect of switching from the 18mp sensor to the 36mp sensor has the effect of potentially doubling spatial resolution for the entire area of the object being photographed. (Let's assume for a moment that you have a perfect lens at a very wide aperture, so diffraction is not a problem.) On the other hand, adding a 2x teleconverter has the effect of enlarging the subject, such that a smaller area of that subject is being photographed at the same spatial resolution.

In the first case, you increase the resolution of a much larger subject equally. As such, a sensor with a higher resolution is a hell of a lot better than a teleconverter, since the teleconverter is cropping, for all intents and purposes. It is enforcing that a certain amount of your subject will fall outside of the bounds of the sensor, since it has been enlarged.

Using a teleconverter changes what your resolving by reducing field of view, where as changing the sensor increases your resolving power for the same field of view. A teleconverter can make a smaller FOV better, but a higher resolution can make the same FOV better. Definitely not the same thing, and it is misleading to assume or discuss them as if they are the same thing.

Quote
As we discussed in our last debate, the spatial resolution of whatever is projected by the lens, as well as the spatial resolution of the sensor, are pretty limited. If you use a TC or multiple TC's that reduce your aperture to f/8, then according to the laws of physics spatial resolution becomes limited (specifically to around 86lp/mm), which is WELL below the fixed luminance spatial resolution of pretty much any APS-C sensor these days.


f=1/lambda*f#

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spatial_cutoff_frequency

f=1/(0.00055*8) = 227lp/mm at MTF = 0.  Using MTF=50, as you did above, is arbitrary and of little value in this context.


The notion that a consumer-grade camera can resolve anything at MTF ZERO is ludicrous. The notion that a camera can usefully resolve anything at MTF 9% (Reighley) is also pretty ridiculous. MTF 50% is of specific value because MTF 50% IS STILL and WILL CONTINUE to be used today as the standard benchmark for image resolution of meaningful sharpness, either by a lens or a sensor. Low MTF image analysis, such as at just above (but not actually at) MTF 0% is used by specialized software to analyze patterns of point light sources (stars) against a black background, in an effort to try and determine if the stars are binary or tertiary. MTF 0% photography is only used in extreme scientific scenarios, it has never held any value in real-world photography. There is little data to indicate that a modern image sensor, even one with microlenses, can really produce any kind of useful output at MTF 9% due to Poisson distribution of photons (photon shot noise)...you could never really know whether two adjacent pixels were different because of meaningful image detail, or simply because of noise.

So I'm sorry, but I beg to differ. MTF 50% is the only valid level of contrast to meaningfully and consistently discuss spatial resolution in the context of consumer-grade lenses and sensors.

Quote
Spatial resolution is not increasing, magnification is increasing.


Same thing, since the optics (the lens) didn't change.


That is 100% factually incorrect. The optics DID change...you added a teleconverter. A teleconverter is optics.  (Are you sure you are not confusing extension tubes for a teleconverter? If you add extension tubes, then the optics themselves do not change, but they DO move farther from the sensor, which might require a change in focus, which in turn does change the optical configuration and potentially magnification.)

Quote
I think what you are doing is accounting for the "entire" size of your subject. If you magnify a part of the moon such that only that one part fits on an 18mp sensor, the "effective size of the whole moon if it were to be measured in megapixels would require a 184mp FF sensor to image in it's entirety." You could look at it that way, but it is extremely confusing, and running about stating "It's like having a 369MP FF sensor" is not really true, and I WILL argue that point whenever you bring it up.


That's fine, and you'll be wrong each time.  This is the way people do it in astrophotography, where resolution is what you are after.  "Image scale" is determined by arc-second per pixel, and the lens is measured by aperture diameter.  TCs leave the aperture unchanged and decrease arc-seconds per pixel.  More pixels leave the aperture unchanged and decrease arc-seconds per pixel.  Same thing.


The arc seconds per pixel remain the same, but the result is not the same. In one case, arc seconds per pixel decrease for the same number of pixels. In the other case, arc seconds per pixel decrease for MORE PIXELS. They are definitely different things. The only case where they would be the same is if you always and explicitly included the notion that you were CROPPING the larger sensor's image to the same area and dimensions of the smaller sensor. In which case, and only in which case, would the results be exactly the same thing.

In every case, using an better sensor that actually has more resolution will always be better than using a teleconverter, because you can resolve more detail of the same subject. Using a teleconverter on the same lower resolution sensor, you are changing your subject. It doesn't matter if the arc seconds per pixel are the same, the resulting output image from the two systems is very different.
« Last Edit: October 22, 2012, 05:20:23 PM by jrista »
My Photography
Current Gear: Canon 7D | Canon EF 600mm f/4 L IS II | EF 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6 L IS | EF 16-35mm f/2.8 L | EF 100mm f/2.8 Macro | 50mm f/1.4
New Gear List: Canon 5D III/7D II | Canon EF 300mm f/2.8 L II

dlleno

  • 6D
  • *****
  • Posts: 565
    • View Profile
Re: Are there 39mp & 50mp+ Test Bodies in the Wild? [CR1]
« Reply #44 on: October 22, 2012, 05:17:24 PM »

nicely articulated Jrista.   a clarification pls on a related topic:

... A teleconverter does not change ... the resolution of the lens. 

but it can change the optical resolution of the optical system
Quote

...If you use a TC or multiple TC's that reduce your aperture to f/8, then according to the laws of physics spatial resolution becomes limited (specifically to around 86lp/mm)

You're refering to diffraction artifacts here, but for example a bad 1.4TC on an f/2.8 lens introduces new optical elements and hence the potential for a reduction in resolution of the optical system, still avoiding any diffraction related side effects caused by a narrow aperture. 

As for the question posed by PerfectSage, there does appear to be a real and practical answer, or at least rule of thumb, which would guide one towards the goal of advantaging all of that 116 lp/mm resolving power of the 7D sensor, and that is to choose optics that will present an image to the sensor with enough inherent detail.   if the source image truly does not contain the detail, the sensor will not find any that isn't there.  Whether or not that goal is a good one or not can be debated of course

canon rumors FORUM

Re: Are there 39mp & 50mp+ Test Bodies in the Wild? [CR1]
« Reply #44 on: October 22, 2012, 05:17:24 PM »