August 01, 2014, 03:51:48 AM

Author Topic: Long shot - Anyone tried using FD lenses on an EOS body?  (Read 4639 times)

Chaitanya

  • PowerShot G1 X II
  • ***
  • Posts: 55
    • View Profile
Re: Long shot - Anyone tried using FD lenses on an EOS body?
« Reply #15 on: June 24, 2014, 03:02:50 PM »
I use the EdMika adaptor on a FD 800mm lens with my 5Diii and my 60D and I am very happy with the results.  I have had better luck on the full frame 5Diii, but this may be due to having more experience with the lens by the time I bought the 5Diii :








that photo of Toro Rosso and moon is awesome.

canon rumors FORUM

Re: Long shot - Anyone tried using FD lenses on an EOS body?
« Reply #15 on: June 24, 2014, 03:02:50 PM »

TexPhoto

  • 1D Mark IV
  • ******
  • Posts: 874
    • View Profile
Re: Long shot - Anyone tried using FD lenses on an EOS body?
« Reply #16 on: June 24, 2014, 06:05:42 PM »
When I switched from Nikon to Canon 5 years ago, a lens adapter helped me use a few of my lenses with the new 5DII body.  I hated it.  I had a fotoix adapter then even gave me focus confirmation (in theory).  I just hated it.  Like turning a philips screw with a small enough to fit standard driver, it just felt like a kludge. 

A few months ago I saw a 50s era Nikon 28mm f2.8 in a store window and thought it looked so cool and vintage I have to have it. I still had the adapter anyway.  Hated it. 

wickidwombat

  • Canon EF 400mm f/2.8L IS II
  • *******
  • Posts: 4434
    • View Profile
Re: Long shot - Anyone tried using FD lenses on an EOS body?
« Reply #17 on: June 24, 2014, 08:59:18 PM »
"Tested" some FD lenses with the EOS M via FD->EF-M Adapter
FD 4.0 17 / FD 2.8 28 / FD 3.5 50 Macro / FD 1.4 50 S.S.C. (chrome ring) / FD 1.8 85 / FD 3.5 135 / FD 2.5 135 / FD 4.0 200

Only the FD 1.4 50 S.S.C. showed very good quality and is interesting for me because it has a higher aperture than all my other lenses. This one might be in the photo bag you mentioned.
In the tele range the EF 4.0 70-200 is far superior to the above mentioned lenses. The EF-S 60 Macro is crisper than the FD 3.5 50 Macro.
FD 4.0 17 never was a very sharp lens but is interesting for video because it has very low distortion.

The major drawback of the EOS M is the fact, that you cannot find the right focus setting via the display easily. A electronic viewfinder of a future EOS M would be very helpful for that.
But if you use more or less static objects/subjects using the FD lenses via EOS M might be a good way to experiment with these older lenses.

If you want use the lens on your 5D, this link might be helpful:
  http://www.thelensdoctor.co.uk/page5.html
There you can convert one or two of the most promising FD lenses into an EF mount version - for me I am thinking about the FD 1.4 50 S.S.C. ... but still waiting what Canon will do in the 50mm range ...


actually on the M if you install magic lantern and enable focus peaking it lets you use manual focus lenses incredibly accurately
APS-H Fanboy

mrsfotografie

  • 1D X
  • *******
  • Posts: 1246
  • M.R.S. = my initials! www.mrsfotografie.nl
    • View Profile
    • MRS fotografie
Re: Long shot - Anyone tried using FD lenses on an EOS body?
« Reply #18 on: June 25, 2014, 01:43:09 AM »
With a Sony NEX camera, you can use a lens turbo to give you the same look that you'd get with a film/FF camera.  The Sony's also have good focus peaking options to make manual focusing easier.

I'm considering getting one of these; I assume you mean the Mitakon Canon FD - Sony E-mount Lens Turbo? Is it any good? I have a bunch of consumer level FL and FD(n) primes that I may use with it, and I'm thinking of picking up a Sigma 21-35 zoom.

Stuff that I tried on the NEX with good results (no optical adapter used):

Canon FL 50mm f/3.5 Macro: Sharp, good macro for butterflies.
Canon FL 135mm f/2.5: Sharp, exceptional bokeh
Canon FD 200mm f/4 S.S.C. Sufficiently sharp. some longtitudinal CA but this improves when stopped down and is easily corrected in post.

Attached shot was taken with the NEX-6 and Canon FD 200mm f/4 S.S.C. at f/5.6 or f/6.3. No optical adapter used so this then becomes a 300 mm lens. The photo is cropped to square from vertical but preserves maximum width.


« Last Edit: June 25, 2014, 01:47:58 AM by mrsfotografie »
5D3, 5D2, NEX-6 | SY14mm f/2.8, Ʃ20mm f/1.8, 24mm f/2.8, 35mm f/2, Ʃ35mm f/1.4A, 50mm f/1.8 I, Ʃ50mm f/1.4 EX, 100mm f/2.8L Macro, 17-40L, 24-105L, 70-200 f/2.8L IS II, 1.4x II, 70-300L, 100-400L | E-mount: SY12mm f/2, Ʃ19mm & 30mm f/2.8 EX DN, 16-50 & 55-210 OSS | 2x FT-QL, AE-1P, FD(n) & FL primes

eyeland

  • Rebel T5i
  • ****
  • Posts: 142
  • Daybreak broke me loose and brought me back...
    • View Profile
    • Creative Consulting & Multimedia artistry ;)
Re: Long shot - Anyone tried using FD lenses on an EOS body?
« Reply #19 on: June 25, 2014, 02:40:56 AM »
I inherited an old FD 50mm 1.8 in good condition. Paired with a glass-less adapter and dirt-cheap extension tubes it can be quite fun. Tried the same with an FD 135mm 3.5. Was waay to soft to be worth it imo.
Which lenses are in the bag? :)
5DIII+ML // 24-105L - 70-200 2.8L/2.8 IS II - 35/2 IS //\  AF/non-AF film bodies and lenses. (and half a darkroom in boxes:))

Hillsilly

  • 5D Mark III
  • ******
  • Posts: 724
    • View Profile
Re: Long shot - Anyone tried using FD lenses on an EOS body?
« Reply #20 on: June 25, 2014, 06:02:59 AM »
I'm considering getting one of these; I assume you mean the Mitakon Canon FD - Sony E-mount Lens Turbo? Is it any good? I have a bunch of consumer level FL and FD(n) primes that I may use with it, and I'm thinking of picking up a Sigma 21-35 zoom.

That's what I meant.  I've never tried one myself, but I use a few old Minolta lenses on a Fuji X-E1 and often think about picking one up.  (For those curious, there is also the original Metabones Speed Booster, too).

I'm surprised that Canon haven't released anything similar for the EOS-M for both FD and EF lenses. 
1000FN | 7E | 3000 | 3 | LS-100TS

Max ☢

  • PowerShot G1 X II
  • ***
  • Posts: 60
    • View Profile
Re: Long shot - Anyone tried using FD lenses on an EOS body?
« Reply #21 on: June 29, 2014, 11:31:21 AM »

I'm considering getting one of these; I assume you mean the Mitakon Canon FD - Sony E-mount Lens Turbo? Is it any good? I have a bunch of consumer level FL and FD(n) primes that I may use with it, and I'm thinking of picking up a Sigma 21-35 zoom.


If you want to get the best image quality possible, I would then advise you to consider the Metabones Speedbooster over the LensTurbo. Of course, the last option is much cheaper but in optical design like in anything else in life there is no such a thing as a free lunch: http://admiringlight.com/blog/review-metabones-speed-booster-canon-fd-to-fuji-x/2/
I just got myself a FD-to-X speedbooster adapter for my fuji X-T1 and a FD 135/2 is underway. I'll certainly be back in this thread to share my experience, but from what I have already seen from various discussions on mirorrless forums and sites, there is little risk that the results will be disappointing.

canon rumors FORUM

Re: Long shot - Anyone tried using FD lenses on an EOS body?
« Reply #21 on: June 29, 2014, 11:31:21 AM »

mrsfotografie

  • 1D X
  • *******
  • Posts: 1246
  • M.R.S. = my initials! www.mrsfotografie.nl
    • View Profile
    • MRS fotografie
Re: Long shot - Anyone tried using FD lenses on an EOS body?
« Reply #22 on: June 29, 2014, 12:53:57 PM »

I'm considering getting one of these; I assume you mean the Mitakon Canon FD - Sony E-mount Lens Turbo? Is it any good? I have a bunch of consumer level FL and FD(n) primes that I may use with it, and I'm thinking of picking up a Sigma 21-35 zoom.


If you want to get the best image quality possible, I would then advise you to consider the Metabones Speedbooster over the LensTurbo. Of course, the last option is much cheaper but in optical design like in anything else in life there is no such a thing as a free lunch: http://admiringlight.com/blog/review-metabones-speed-booster-canon-fd-to-fuji-x/2/
I just got myself a FD-to-X speedbooster adapter for my fuji X-T1 and a FD 135/2 is underway. I'll certainly be back in this thread to share my experience, but from what I have already seen from various discussions on mirorrless forums and sites, there is little risk that the results will be disappointing.


Thanks, I have coincidentally found that review a few days ago and I came to the same conclusion. I intend to order the Metabones adapter, also because I want to expand my FD(n) set with a 35mm f/2 when I can find one and from what I've read that lens is a poor combination with the Lens Turbo. The only other alternative tot the Metabones adapter is a Sony Alpha 7 but that's a bridge too far I'm affraid.
5D3, 5D2, NEX-6 | SY14mm f/2.8, Ʃ20mm f/1.8, 24mm f/2.8, 35mm f/2, Ʃ35mm f/1.4A, 50mm f/1.8 I, Ʃ50mm f/1.4 EX, 100mm f/2.8L Macro, 17-40L, 24-105L, 70-200 f/2.8L IS II, 1.4x II, 70-300L, 100-400L | E-mount: SY12mm f/2, Ʃ19mm & 30mm f/2.8 EX DN, 16-50 & 55-210 OSS | 2x FT-QL, AE-1P, FD(n) & FL primes

Max ☢

  • PowerShot G1 X II
  • ***
  • Posts: 60
    • View Profile
Re: Long shot - Anyone tried using FD lenses on an EOS body?
« Reply #23 on: June 29, 2014, 02:38:32 PM »
Using the Alpha 7 would surely save you the cost of the speedbooster, but that's a system you'd have to commit to, so I understand its a bit too much.

There is also another aspect which I have not seen being commented on with regard to the benefit of the FF lens + Speedbooster combination: handhold-ability. If I use the 135/2 on a full frame camera, normally I should apply the 1/focallength rule for the minimum shutter time (thus 1/135s) in order to prevent image blur when I hand-hold the camera. Adapting the Speedbooster to this lens reduces its effective focal length to 96mm, while at the same time I gain 1 stop of light-gathering capability (f/1.4). This means that I can decrease the ISO setting on my APS-C camera and increase the minimum shutter time to 1/100s (+35%!) and I'll still get sharp images (i.e. free of hand-induced blur that is).
If this is indeed correct, then that's a very interesting advantage! You get nearly the same DoF as with a FF camera body, you can use a lower ISO setting and slower shutter time, and you get all that in a smaller and lighter package...

mrsfotografie

  • 1D X
  • *******
  • Posts: 1246
  • M.R.S. = my initials! www.mrsfotografie.nl
    • View Profile
    • MRS fotografie
Re: Long shot - Anyone tried using FD lenses on an EOS body?
« Reply #24 on: June 29, 2014, 03:09:22 PM »
Using the Alpha 7 would surely save you the cost of the speedbooster, but that's a system you'd have to commit to, so I understand its a bit too much.

There is also another aspect which I have not seen being commented on with regard to the benefit of the FF lens + Speedbooster combination: handhold-ability. If I use the 135/2 on a full frame camera, normally I should apply the 1/focallength rule for the minimum shutter time (thus 1/135s) in order to prevent image blur when I hand-hold the camera. Adapting the Speedbooster to this lens reduces its effective focal length to 96mm, while at the same time I gain 1 stop of light-gathering capability (f/1.4). This means that I can decrease the ISO setting on my APS-C camera and increase the minimum shutter time to 1/100s (+35%!) and I'll still get sharp images (i.e. free of hand-induced blur that is).
If this is indeed correct, then that's a very interesting advantage! You get nearly the same DoF as with a FF camera body, you can use a lower ISO setting and slower shutter time, and you get all that in a smaller and lighter package...


The main problem with the A7 is that it'll show the flaws in any lens as surely as the full frame Canon camera's which means it is likely to draw me into buying better glass for the mirrorless system (the FD lenses are only so good), or adapting my EF lenses which means I would be back to square one (I might as well use them on a 5D series body!).

If I consider my FD lenses as something to just play around with for interest and creativity (and compacteness!) sake, then the Speed Booster makes sense, at least that's how I look at it.

I'm not sure if your focal length comparison works in the way you say, because after all that 135 mm is reduced from an effective 203mm to 135 in the first place, not 96mm. I agree that you will gain extra light but it depends on the aperture of the lens to begin with and that f/2 is pretty bright to begin with, so you may run into the 'pixel shading' limit, see: http://admiringlight.com/blog/review-metabones-speed-booster-canon-fd-to-fuji-x/2/

Whatever the way one looks at it, the Speed Booster does give a lot of creative leverage. On a side note: I just rebuilt a Sigma 21-35 f/3.5-4 due to a stuck aperture, but the first test results at 1.5x crop aren't all that exciting. Maybe the Speed Booster will help to increase the MTF, because after all it's a reversed magnifying glass!
5D3, 5D2, NEX-6 | SY14mm f/2.8, Ʃ20mm f/1.8, 24mm f/2.8, 35mm f/2, Ʃ35mm f/1.4A, 50mm f/1.8 I, Ʃ50mm f/1.4 EX, 100mm f/2.8L Macro, 17-40L, 24-105L, 70-200 f/2.8L IS II, 1.4x II, 70-300L, 100-400L | E-mount: SY12mm f/2, Ʃ19mm & 30mm f/2.8 EX DN, 16-50 & 55-210 OSS | 2x FT-QL, AE-1P, FD(n) & FL primes

Max ☢

  • PowerShot G1 X II
  • ***
  • Posts: 60
    • View Profile
Re: Long shot - Anyone tried using FD lenses on an EOS body?
« Reply #25 on: July 01, 2014, 05:34:58 AM »
You raise some good points indeed. For an equal number of pixels the FD+Spedbooster combination should deliver about the same (or very slightly worse) image quality as if the FD lenses were used on a FF body. The only advantages I can see of using the Speedbooster with an APS-C body are 1/ compactness (any FD lens is also smaller and ligher than its equivalent EF lens) and 2/ one stop gain in shutter time. If you consider that any APS-C sensor signal-to-noise ratio vs. ISO specs is shifted by 1 stop compared to the performance of FF sensors, then the latter point is cancelled (from the point of view of image noise that is) and only point 1/ remains. In my opinion this is still a very interesting value proposition given the much lower cost price of FD lenses compared to their EF equivalent while the image quality is only slightly lower with the older generation of canon prime glass.

As for the question of the 1/focallength rule with regard to handhold-ability of FF vs. APS-C cameras, it is true that this is only a guideline and that the crop factor may play a role in the risk of image blur at a given shutter speed and focal length.
As I could not find any clear cut answer to this question, I did some tests to compare the results with my Canon 6D and some EF (L and non L) primes and my Fuji X-T1 and some XF lenses. I stood in the upright position, properly hand-helding the cameras using no support whatsoever. The subject had a properly strong contrast and was positioned at a fixed distance of 4 meters. For each case I took ten shots after refocusing the lens using the in-camera AF system (center point, servo mode for the 6D and single, non high-performance mode for the Fuji). In all cases I used the camera OVF or EVF for maximum stability and I used my usual techniques to ensure a high stability (elbows close together against the chest and breathing control). Finally, in all cases I disabled the IS function on lenses provided with this feature. Below the results are given in terms of number of clean shots (i.e. tack sharp subject at the point of focus) out of the total number of shots:

¤ case 1 - same equivalent FoV but different DoF
- Fuji X-T1+XF10-24 at 24mm (36mm equivalent in 135 format), f/4, 1/24s = 9/10 clean shots
- Canon 6D + EF35IS at 35mm, f/4, 1/40s = 7/10 clean shots
→ advantage: APS-C. I applied the 1/focallength rule for the actual focal length of each lenses and I got more keepers with the Fuji

¤ case 2 - same focal length and apperture of lens (different FoV and DoF)
- Fuji X-T1+XF56 at 56mm (84mm equivalent in 135 format), f/1.2, 1/50s = 8/10 clean shots
- Canon 6D + EF50L at 50mm, f/1.2, 1/50s = 6/10 clean shots
→ advantage: APS-C. Although I applied a slower shutter time with the XF 56mm than required by the 1/focallength rule, I got slightly more keepers than with the 6D+50L. The images were also a lot sharper and contained far less spherochromatic aberrations...

¤ case 3 - same FoV but different DoF
- Fuji X-T1+XF56 at 56mm (84mm equivalent in 135 format), f/1.2, 1/50s = 8/10 clean shots
- Canon 6D + EF85LII at 85mm, f/1.2, 1/80s = 6/10 clean shots
→ advantage: APS-C. I got the same keeper rate with the 6D+85LII than with 50L, which is still lower than the keeper rate with the Fuji. Also, as for the 50L, the shots looked cleaner (sharper and less aberrations) with the XF56 than with the EF85LII (while the 85LII clearly outperforms the 50L).

¤ case 4 - same FoV and same DoF
- Fuji X-T1+XF56 at 56mm (84mm equivalent in 135 format), f/1.2, 1/50s = 8/10 clean shots
- Canon 6D + EF85LII at 85mm, f/1.8, 1/80s = 6/10 clean shots
→ advantage: APS-C. Same case as before, the keeper rate with the canon 6D+85LII remains the same at the smaller apperture.

I found that in all cases I got more hand-held keepers using the APS-C system from Fuji than with the Full-Frame Canon while applying the 1/focallength rule to the shutter time and using the actual focal length value of the attached lens. Thus, the crop factor of the APS-C system does not appear to affect the 1/focallength rule, and the actual focal length of the lens matters in this case while the dimensions of the sensor has not impact. This means that using the metabones Speedbooster with the FD 135mm will not only give nearly the same FoV and DoF on the APS-C camera as if the lens was used on a FF body, but this will in principle enable its use at 1/100s (+35% gain) while maintaining a high keeper rate. I'll definitely test this when I receive the FD, and if I can confirm that, then I'll get the FD50/1.2L and FD85/1.2L much sooner that I planned.

Now, the question remains as to why I consistently got a lower keeper rate with the 6D and EF lenses. The reason might be in the fact that the FF camera+lens combo is much heaver and bulkier, and thus more difficult to stabilize while taking hand-held shots.
« Last Edit: July 01, 2014, 06:06:48 AM by Max ☢ »

wickidwombat

  • Canon EF 400mm f/2.8L IS II
  • *******
  • Posts: 4434
    • View Profile
Re: Long shot - Anyone tried using FD lenses on an EOS body?
« Reply #26 on: July 01, 2014, 07:52:49 AM »
The FD mount has a shorter flange distance than EF - 42mm vs 44mm - so by the time you've added physical mount adapter to the 44mm, you end up with a total lens flange to sensor distance much greater than 42mm. Either you lose infinity focus, or there are optical elements (much like a mild TC) which further degrade the image quality of these old lenses.

In short, nothing works, bar one ingenious solution made by Ed Mika (who is also a member on this forum)

http://www.edmika.com/
http://www.canonrumors.com/tech-articles/fd-fl-lenses-on-your-ef-body/

His solution is custom made for each lens. Not all lenses can be adapted, and the cost makes it pointless on a cheap lens. Good L FD lenses are worth converting.

ditto this

I have his adapter on my 600 f4.5 FD lens and its pretty damn good but heavy!
APS-H Fanboy

mrsfotografie

  • 1D X
  • *******
  • Posts: 1246
  • M.R.S. = my initials! www.mrsfotografie.nl
    • View Profile
    • MRS fotografie
Re: Long shot - Anyone tried using FD lenses on an EOS body?
« Reply #27 on: July 01, 2014, 01:49:25 PM »
Now, the question remains as to why I consistently got a lower keeper rate with the 6D and EF lenses. The reason might be in the fact that the FF camera+lens combo is much heaver and bulkier, and thus more difficult to stabilize while taking hand-held shots.

I love your extensive analysis, and think you have made some valuable observations. However, that heavier and bigger body should aid stability. What you haven't taken into account, scientifically speaking, is the effect that mirror slap will have on the sharpness of the images at the shutter speeds you mentioned. That, and the overall ergonomics (shutter response/sensitivity, button placement, relative length of lenses, camera comfort), may affect your results. Not to say you should re-test. (!!!)

Note that the speed booster advantage of compactness is relative because it is also available for use with EF lenses! However, FD lenses are more compact, lighter and cheaper as you mentioned so therein lies the real advantage - keeping that mirrorless system 'compact' and being able to expand your usable lens collection at a fair price.

Now where's that 35mm FDn? I can't seem to find one (let alone an FD 'L' lens which I don't think is worth it from a size/cost point of view).

Edit: The Speed Booster may be (almost) the perfect sensor protector; change lenses without exposing the sensor! ;)
« Last Edit: July 01, 2014, 02:31:55 PM by mrsfotografie »
5D3, 5D2, NEX-6 | SY14mm f/2.8, Ʃ20mm f/1.8, 24mm f/2.8, 35mm f/2, Ʃ35mm f/1.4A, 50mm f/1.8 I, Ʃ50mm f/1.4 EX, 100mm f/2.8L Macro, 17-40L, 24-105L, 70-200 f/2.8L IS II, 1.4x II, 70-300L, 100-400L | E-mount: SY12mm f/2, Ʃ19mm & 30mm f/2.8 EX DN, 16-50 & 55-210 OSS | 2x FT-QL, AE-1P, FD(n) & FL primes

canon rumors FORUM

Re: Long shot - Anyone tried using FD lenses on an EOS body?
« Reply #27 on: July 01, 2014, 01:49:25 PM »

mrsfotografie

  • 1D X
  • *******
  • Posts: 1246
  • M.R.S. = my initials! www.mrsfotografie.nl
    • View Profile
    • MRS fotografie
Re: Long shot - Anyone tried using FD lenses on an EOS body?
« Reply #28 on: July 01, 2014, 03:12:41 PM »
Ok I just mail ordered the Metabones Speedbooster (Sony Nex body - Canon FD). A new photography adventure in the making?...
5D3, 5D2, NEX-6 | SY14mm f/2.8, Ʃ20mm f/1.8, 24mm f/2.8, 35mm f/2, Ʃ35mm f/1.4A, 50mm f/1.8 I, Ʃ50mm f/1.4 EX, 100mm f/2.8L Macro, 17-40L, 24-105L, 70-200 f/2.8L IS II, 1.4x II, 70-300L, 100-400L | E-mount: SY12mm f/2, Ʃ19mm & 30mm f/2.8 EX DN, 16-50 & 55-210 OSS | 2x FT-QL, AE-1P, FD(n) & FL primes

Max ☢

  • PowerShot G1 X II
  • ***
  • Posts: 60
    • View Profile
Re: Long shot - Anyone tried using FD lenses on an EOS body?
« Reply #29 on: July 04, 2014, 04:49:34 AM »
Hi - I'm not entirely convinced that a heavier camera set-up intrinsically leads to a more stable hand-held situation, there's the problem of muscle fatique which at the end of the day will certainly result in more shaking. As for the ergonomy, I think the Canon DSLR is better than the smaller mirrorless system, so it should have affected the test outcome in favor of the 6D. What's left is indeed the vibrations induced by the slapping mirror; I think you are right, this has certainly played strongly against the hand-held performance of the DSLR!

Quote from: mrsphotografie
Ok I just mail ordered the Metabones Speedbooster (Sony Nex body - Canon FD). A new photography adventure in the making?...

I don't think you will regred this purchase. I already got mine and I'm very pleased with its built quality, I'm just waiting for my FDns to arrive. In the mean time I bought a FD 50/1.2 L and I'm really looking forward to see how the 36mm f/0.9 combination will perform on the X-T1.

I agree with you that the Speedbooster has the further advantage of providing a protection barrier between the sensor and the outside world. Seeing the sensor being exposed to the elements makes me nervous everytime I change the lens on my CSC, the mirror box in the DSLR camera provides at least some sort of protection. I have an EF 8-15/4 fisheye lens which I want to use on my X-T1 with an adapter, but until now I have refrained from doing this adaptation because I fear that this zoom lens will "breath" some air (and particles that go with it) directly onto the sensor. I plan to adapt a transparent filter (with AR coating of course) inside an EF-to-X mount adapter in order to provide a physical barrier between the lens and the sensor but I'm afraid this will degrade the MTF properties of the lens...

canon rumors FORUM

Re: Long shot - Anyone tried using FD lenses on an EOS body?
« Reply #29 on: July 04, 2014, 04:49:34 AM »