IBIS is likely coming to the EOS M lineup [CR2]

Michael Clark

Now we see through a glass, darkly...
Apr 5, 2016
2,937
1,689
I'm trying to figure this out. It seems we now have at least two tiers of "enthusiasts."

Tier One would be comprised of people who have developed an interest in photography and are willing to invest somewhere around $1,000 to pursue that interest? Tier Two would be people with serious GAS issues who buy multiple cameras and multiple lenses and spend thousands of dollars on their hobby?

It seems to me that this is more of a continuum rather than a distinction. I don't know where the line is and I'm not sure when I crossed the line, but I'm pretty sure most people who end up in the "spending thousands" category got there through the gateway drug of one body and one lens. True not every recreational user becomes an addict, but a certain percentage do.

So, I'm trying to figure out what all this has to do with the discussion. If I understand correctly @Michael Clark seems to have a pretty narrow definition of the M line and is appalled at the idea that Canon might decide to offer a high-end "enthusiast" camera in the M line, when he believes that only the R line should be reserved for "enthusiasts." Am I close?

I'm squarely in the "I don't know what the heck Canon is doing these days" camp (which might be a camp of one). Canon might create a one-off APS-C body in the R line. Or, it might decide to keep things clean by reserving the R for full frame and the M for APS-C. I think I could make a pretty good case that drug-dealer Canon might get a lot more people addicted if they used the most popular mirrorless line on the planet (M) to entice people with a seductive top of the line M camera that would appeal of all tiers of enthusiasts.

But, heck if I know what their strategy might be.
To me the line is somewhere around the difference between folks who decide to buy a ("a" as in "one") "real" camera to take photos of the things they do anyway and the places they would already go as they live their lives as contrasted with other people who buy cameras and lenses (MANY lenses), and then decide to go certain places and do certain things, which are places and things they probably wouldn't otherwise go to and do, primarily in order to take photos.

Pretty much everyone you describe in your first paragraph falls into the second group in the paragraph immediately preceding this one. But the first group is who are buying the majority of cameras. They're who are buying the vast majority of EOS M cameras, too.

I'm not appalled at anything. I don't think only the R line should be reserved for "enthusiasts". It's Canon's company and they can do with it whatever they wish.

I just think Canon has made it fairly clear, through what they've offered in the EOS M line over the eight-plus years it has been in existence, what Canon wishes the EOS M line to be.

Not me.

Canon.


For the vast majority of those eight years the "enthusiasts" have been begging for Canon to release "a fuller range" of EF-M lenses.
They've been crying for at least a mid-level (or higher), constant aperture, walk-around zoom.
They've been constantly puzzled at the lack of a "real" telephoto lens for EOS M.

Don't you think if Canon were designing and marketing the EOS M system for those "enthusiasts" they would have already done at least some of that over the past eight years?

Instead, Canon has offered a limited but very consistent line of compact, lightweight, and affordable bodies paired with a limited range of compact, lightweight, affordable lenses that are all 61mm in diameter. Every single lens. All of 'em.

That system has quietly become the best selling mirrorless camera system in the world not because "enthusiasts" are buying them in droves but because those who, at least for the foreseeable future, want only a compact, lightweight, affordable camera and a compact, lightweight, and affordable lens or two are buying them in greater numbers than other folks are buying other mirrorless camera system. The enthusiasts and vloggers who are buying EOS M cameras and EF-M lenses, particularly those in North America or western Europe, may be making a lot more noise but they are only a drop in the bucket compared to the legions of EOS M buyers in Japan, the Pacific Rim, and even emerging markets like India.

Canon is still the company that "stays the course" and takes their time to move the rudder of their various ships and point them in different directions. I'd be really surprised if Canon alters the course of the EOS M system at the same time they are pushing their upper tier DSLR buyers into EOS R territory. Could they do that? Sure, there's always a chance. But it seems to me, based on observing Canon's history over the past four decades, that it is highly unlikely they will go that route at this time.

As to the "certain percentage" who start out in the "one body - one lens" camp and go on to be what I call enthusiasts: I'd say it's probably well less than two or three percent of those who at one time or another buy a "real" camera. It's almost certainly less than five percent. And, truth be told, most of us that do later get much more into photography in terms of how much gear we own would have bought more when we started out if we could have afforded more when we started out. I sure would have!

Of all of the people I know through non-photography related connections, such as family (including extended family like cousins, aunts, uncles, nieces, nephews, and such), grade school, high school, college, various non-photography related jobs, church, local social circles, friends of family members, family members of friends, etc. there are dozens upon dozens who at one time or another bought either a single SLR and one or two lenses during the film era or a single entry level digital body and the kit zoom that came with it and maybe one or two other lenses (a nifty fifty and/or a 55-250 or practically "free" 75-300?). Among those hundreds of people in my life who bought cameras, there's only two that I know of who have bought more than one interchangeable lens camera body in, say, any ten year period - and I'm one of those two folks.

Just look at the difference between the number of Rebels sold over the years versus the number of 1D, 5D, 7D, and even x0D cameras sold. Just look at the number of compact "point and shoot" cameras sold in relation to the number of DSLRs sold between around 2000 and 2010 when no one could make digital cameras fast enough to sell what the market wanted. It's a very wide pyramid, with the base being much larger than the peak.

Phone cameras have all but replaced compact point and shoots. That was at least 75-80% of the digital camera market during the digital photography explosion.

Micro Four-Thirds, EOS M, Fuji APS-C, and Sony APS-C has replaced a LOT of the Rebel/D3x00/"other" (Pentax, etc.) APS-C DSLR market, especially outside of North America where entry level APS-C DSLRs still sell in significant, though greatly reduced, numbers. Even with the huge drop in sales for those types of cameras, those types of ILCs still outsell all FF ILCs. That was another 15-20% of the digital camera market during the heyday of digital camera sales.

Sony α, Nikon Z, and Canon R are transitioning many mid to upper level DSLR users to FF mirrorless. But those were only about 5% of the total market at the peak in around 2010.

We are not the typical buyer, even today, of interchangeable lens cameras! Stop thinking that everyone that ever buys a single ILC will eventually get GAS and want to "transition" to higher tier cameras like we did! Very few actually do.
 
Last edited:

Michael Clark

Now we see through a glass, darkly...
Apr 5, 2016
2,937
1,689
I'm just going to point out that it's really a continuum between casual photographer to pro. I don't think there is a single bright line and people can wander back and forth from one space into the other depending on their skill level, where they are in life and what their priorities are.
Yes, of course it is. But that doesn't mean at any one time, one group does not vastly outnumber the other. The group who's lives revolve around photography and who buy multiple bodies and many, MANY lenses are not the larger end of the spectrum.

If I was good enough to get paid, sure I'd be happy to get paid to get a nicer setup and go to beautiful locations to shoot beautiful people. Until then I'm happy to learn to take interesting shots around town and on trips.
Then you're not the typical EOS M buyer to whom any aspiration of "gearing up" rarely occupies a second thought. If you're willing to actually put in the time and hard work to become that good, at the expense of devoting more time to other areas of your life, you're certainly not among the larger group.
 
Apr 28, 2020
3
6
I never said, or implied that Canon is soley aiming the M system at enthusiasts. I was merely saying that I am an enthusiast and that I like the M system. A number of enthusiasts really like the platform too.
 
  • Like
Reactions: ReflexVE

ReflexVE

EOS M50
May 5, 2020
58
67
Renton, WA
Yes, of course it is. But that doesn't mean at any one time, one group does not vastly outnumber the other. The group who's lives revolve around photography and who buy multiple bodies and many, MANY lenses are not the larger end of the spectrum.



Then you're not the typical EOS M buyer to whom any aspiration of "gearing up" rarely occupies a second thought. If you're willing to actually put in the time and hard work to become that good, at the expense of devoting more time to other areas of your life, you're certainly not among the larger group.
I've noticed you seem to delineate travel for photographs as part of what makes someone more than a base level buyer. I have some issues with that definition, as you write it it basically implies people with substantial means who can spare the time and money to travel to, say, Europe expressly for the purpose of taking photographs. I don't really feel that defines the mindset of someone doing more than 'normal stuff but a nicer camera' however. Lots of people get very good at photographing thier environment, whether it's local events or street shots around town or documenting people they find interesting. Travel photography is its own class and I don't really think it can be part of the dividing line.

I know for me, I'm happy to have this camera when I travel, but most of my photos are around town, often at protests, sometimes for purposes that aren't 'art' but instead documentation (police violence, fascist assaults, political campaigns, etc). I still consider myself a complete amateur, but I also don't know that I fall into a category that is just people wanting to do a bit better than a cell phone. I'd actually argue that a cell phone would serve those people better, one thing I noticed is that by default photos with these cameras will be worse than what a cell phone produces for a typical person who has no clue how to use one.

I'm not comfortable tying enthusiast and above to someone's means or the type of photography they are doing. Citizen journalists use this gear a lot for example and they may not be pros but they also aren't just regular people looking for a slightly better shot than their phone.
 
  • Like
Reactions: BryanS

bbb34

5D mk V
Jul 24, 2012
146
154
Amsterdam
There are photography enthusiast that take great pictures with mobile phones in their backyards. There are professional photographers earning money with rebels. There are collectors, soccer moms as well as complete ignorants with Leicas, 5Ds, 1DXs, and they will also run around with the R5.

One can draw any arbitrary line to create groups and put them in arbitrary self made drawers, but one cannot expect that other people agree.

Anyway, it is pointless.

Canon loves all of them.
 
  • Like
Reactions: BryanS and ReflexVE

ReflexVE

EOS M50
May 5, 2020
58
67
Renton, WA
There are photography enthusiast that take great pictures with mobile phones in their backyards. There are professional photographers earning money with rebels. There are collectors, soccer moms as well as complete ignorants with Leicas, 5Ds, 1DXs, and they will also run around with the R5.

One can draw any arbitrary line to create groups and put them in arbitrary self made drawers, but one cannot expect that other people agree.

Anyway, it is pointless.

Canon loves all of them.
There are also a lot of people who make good money but don't take photography seriously, however they still spend on an expensive FF system just because they percieve it as 'better'. When I got my M50 my boss had to go on about his FF Sony and how much better FF was. So far as I can tell he uses it to take family photos and some night sky shots. And that's about it. I doubt he could even tell me why it's better or what the tradeoffs are. He just had to have what he percieved as 'the best'.

Meanwhile the guy who prompted me to get a real camera is a buddy of mine who was in Lisbon with me a couple years ago. He shot the city with his Rebel T3i and a couple cheap EF-S zoom lenses and his shots made the city look amazing. By far beat the heck out of the other friends with us, even the ones with substantially newer/better equipment. He hasn't really seen a reason to upgrade, but he definitely knows what he's doing.

I don't really think the equipment tells us much about the photographer.
 

Michael Clark

Now we see through a glass, darkly...
Apr 5, 2016
2,937
1,689
I've noticed you seem to delineate travel for photographs as part of what makes someone more than a base level buyer. I have some issues with that definition, as you write it it basically implies people with substantial means who can spare the time and money to travel to, say, Europe expressly for the purpose of taking photographs. I don't really feel that defines the mindset of someone doing more than 'normal stuff but a nicer camera' however. Lots of people get very good at photographing thier environment, whether it's local events or street shots around town or documenting people they find interesting. Travel photography is its own class and I don't really think it can be part of the dividing line.

I know for me, I'm happy to have this camera when I travel, but most of my photos are around town, often at protests, sometimes for purposes that aren't 'art' but instead documentation (police violence, fascist assaults, political campaigns, etc). I still consider myself a complete amateur, but I also don't know that I fall into a category that is just people wanting to do a bit better than a cell phone. I'd actually argue that a cell phone would serve those people better, one thing I noticed is that by default photos with these cameras will be worse than what a cell phone produces for a typical person who has no clue how to use one.
Which is why I usually say something like "do certain things (e.g. in their own area) and/or go certain places (that may or may not be located in areas other than their own)."

You're putting words in my mouth if you claim I'm saying one has to take travel trips planned for the purpose of photography to be an enthusiast. But there are many who do plan such trips. There are also many who might go to places or events within their own communities in order to take photos that they might otherwise not attend. For example, I shoot a lot of youth and high school sports and attend many such events in my own community. I rarely, if ever, attend such events or go to the youth league ballparks if I am not there to shoot in a somewhat official capacity.

Thus, I go places (the youth ball field a few miles from my home - not necessarily somewhere halfway around the world) only because I'm planning to take photos of the games being played there, rather than someone who would decide to take their camera along because they'd be at those games anyway, with or without a camera.
 
Last edited:

Michael Clark

Now we see through a glass, darkly...
Apr 5, 2016
2,937
1,689
I'm not comfortable tying enthusiast and above to someone's means or the type of photography they are doing. Citizen journalists use this gear a lot for example and they may not be pros but they also aren't just regular people looking for a slightly better shot than their phone.
You're free to hold that opinion. I'm free to disagree.

In my mind, folks who would be at the protest anyway because they intensely care about whatever cause is being protested, or intensely care about how protesters for any cause are treated by the authorities, are exactly who I'm talking about. They want a camera that can provide better images in order to prove something happened.

They're not going to the protest as a means to taking artistically creative photos, they're taking photos as a means to another end - e.g. documenting perceived police brutality.

That, in my mind, is what separates the "photographic enthusiasts" from the "non-photographic enthusiasts."

For one, the photograph itself is the end and the event is a means to that end.

For the other, the photograph is merely a means to a different end: proving what happened at a protest.

It doesn't mean the "enthusiasts" are somehow superior to the "non-enthusiasts", it just means each group is different from the other in how they approach photography.

From the viewpoint of camera makers, it also means successfully designing and marketing products to one group will require a different approach than successfully designing and marketing products to the other.

Can someone be both at the same time? Certainly. But they are few and far between.
 
Last edited:

Michael Clark

Now we see through a glass, darkly...
Apr 5, 2016
2,937
1,689
There are photography enthusiast that take great pictures with mobile phones in their backyards. There are professional photographers earning money with rebels. There are collectors, soccer moms as well as complete ignorants with Leicas, 5Ds, 1DXs, and they will also run around with the R5.

One can draw any arbitrary line to create groups and put them in arbitrary self made drawers, but one cannot expect that other people agree.

Anyway, it is pointless.

Canon loves all of them.

You can't get gear level out of your head to save your life.

I'm not talking primarily about gear level. I'm talking about why people buy cameras and how they use them, which leads to how Canon markets different product lines to various types of folks who buy cameras for different reasons and use them for different purposes.
 

Michael Clark

Now we see through a glass, darkly...
Apr 5, 2016
2,937
1,689
There are also a lot of people who make good money but don't take photography seriously, however they still spend on an expensive FF system just because they percieve it as 'better'. When I got my M50 my boss had to go on about his FF Sony and how much better FF was. So far as I can tell he uses it to take family photos and some night sky shots. And that's about it. I doubt he could even tell me why it's better or what the tradeoffs are. He just had to have what he percieved as 'the best'.

Meanwhile the guy who prompted me to get a real camera is a buddy of mine who was in Lisbon with me a couple years ago. He shot the city with his Rebel T3i and a couple cheap EF-S zoom lenses and his shots made the city look amazing. By far beat the heck out of the other friends with us, even the ones with substantially newer/better equipment. He hasn't really seen a reason to upgrade, but he definitely knows what he's doing.

I don't really think the equipment tells us much about the photographer.
Again, you're putting words in my mouth. I'm not saying equipment defines a photographer.

Not to mention, you're looking down your own nose at someone else for "only" using an expensive camera for family portraits and astrophotography. Astro can contain some of the most obsessive photo enthusiasts anywhere! Just because astro or family portraits (which happens to be one of the few commercial categories left that is still paying a lot of photographers' bills) are not your thing does not make them any less of a "photographer" (e.g. "enthusiast") than you.

Please stop letting your own insecurities affect how you define those different from yourself!

I'm not saying those who aren't "photo enthusiasts" are any less as persons than those who are "photo enthusiasts", I'm just saying those folks who take photos as a means to another end are usually not "photo enthusiasts" in the same way that those whose end for engaging in any activity is the photograph itself are "photo enthusiasts".

What I'm saying is that Canon (and other camera manufacturers) design different camera systems that will appeal to different groups of buyers. There are always exceptions to the rule when marketing departments start identifying large numbers of potential buyers that share common traits. Not everyone will fit neatly into one or the other of various categories. But most people will fall into one of those categories.

Sure, stereotypes can misrepresent some folks, and some stereotypes may even misrepresent most of the folks to which they refer, but many stereotypes are actually based on reality for a large percentage of the people they identify as this or that type of buyer. That's why marketing is effective and why it works for the companies that do it well. They identify a certain type of potential buyer that exists in large enough numbers and they design a product or product line and then market it in such a way that it appears to meet the perceived needs (or wants) of those buyers. Does that mean everyone who buys that product falls into the "stereotypical" buyer profile of that product? Absolutely not. But it does mean that almost all of the folks who buy that successful product do fit the stereotype. Those folks who do fit the stereotype are the folks who make the company who created and marketed that product to meet those folks' specific perceived need/want profitable.
 
Last edited:

ReflexVE

EOS M50
May 5, 2020
58
67
Renton, WA
Look, I agree with a lot of what you say, but you tend to be pretty definitive on things that are not your place to be definitive on. You told us what Canon supposedly aims the M line at. And I agree it covers that. It also covers other definitions. You tell us what an enthusiast vs a professional is, but your definition is not universal or even agreed upon here. Claiming that those who use a camera as a tool are somehow not also serious about their photos is silly, there is literally no difference between photographing a rally or protest, and photographing a wedding. You are just as professional in either scenario even if some of the logistics change. But the former you would classify as lesser than the latter (honestly, the former is a lot harder to pull off just due to an inability to control the space).

You also project. You say I put words in your mouth, but you also do so when you say things like I am looking down my nose at someone. I am not looking down my nose. I am stating factually that having had discussions with the guy he literally does not know even the most basic things about his camera. I am an admitted amateur, but at least I know what an aperture is, he shoots stuff in nearly full auto almost all the time. He literally equates how much he spends with how professional he is and how high quality his photos are. You can say I'm looking down my nose, but in reality I'm just recognizing that he's someone who were he a bit wealthier would have bought a fixed lens Leica and assumed it was better because it cost more.

You type a lot of words, but you are juuuuust vague enough to claim you aren't saying the things people are calling you out for saying. The issue here is you: If you don't mean the things people read from you, then practice being more clear so others don't 'misunderstand' you so much.

I still agree with a lot of your posts and insights, but man, at a certain point it feels very much like you just believe nobody is as nuanced as you are and thus you must shift every discussion into the viewpoint you are personally most comfortable with.
 

Michael Clark

Now we see through a glass, darkly...
Apr 5, 2016
2,937
1,689
Look, I agree with a lot of what you say, but you tend to be pretty definitive on things that are not your place to be definitive on. You told us what Canon supposedly aims the M line at. And I agree it covers that. It also covers other definitions. You tell us what an enthusiast vs a professional is, but your definition is not universal or even agreed upon here. Claiming that those who use a camera as a tool are somehow not also serious about their photos is silly, there is literally no difference between photographing a rally or protest, and photographing a wedding. You are just as professional in either scenario even if some of the logistics change. But the former you would classify as lesser than the latter (honestly, the former is a lot harder to pull off just due to an inability to control the space).

You also project. You say I put words in your mouth, but you also do so when you say things like I am looking down my nose at someone. I am not looking down my nose. I am stating factually that having had discussions with the guy he literally does not know even the most basic things about his camera. I am an admitted amateur, but at least I know what an aperture is, he shoots stuff in nearly full auto almost all the time. He literally equates how much he spends with how professional he is and how high quality his photos are. You can say I'm looking down my nose, but in reality I'm just recognizing that he's someone who were he a bit wealthier would have bought a fixed lens Leica and assumed it was better because it cost more.

You type a lot of words, but you are juuuuust vague enough to claim you aren't saying the things people are calling you out for saying. The issue here is you: If you don't mean the things people read from you, then practice being more clear so others don't 'misunderstand' you so much.

I still agree with a lot of your posts and insights, but man, at a certain point it feels very much like you just believe nobody is as nuanced as you are and thus you must shift every discussion into the viewpoint you are personally most comfortable with.
(Red) Nope. There are plenty of pros shooting weddings in order to get a paycheck and nothing more. I don't consider such folks "enthusiasts".

(Green) You claim you don't look down upon your boss. Then you go on to tell us in detail after detail how (you think) you are a better photographer than he is because you do things differently than him.

I'm not sure I've remotely implied that "enthusiasts" are better photographers than anyone else. I've said their primary reason for doing photography is for the sake of photography.

My apologies if I'm not able to express the ideas I'm trying to communicate well enough for others to understand what I'm trying to convey. I do the best I can. Maybe practicing at being more clear is what I'm trying to do here?
 
Apr 28, 2020
3
6
Look, I agree with a lot of what you say, but you tend to be pretty definitive on things that are not your place to be definitive on. You told us what Canon supposedly aims the M line at. And I agree it covers that. It also covers other definitions. You tell us what an enthusiast vs a professional is, but your definition is not universal or even agreed upon here. Claiming that those who use a camera as a tool are somehow not also serious about their photos is silly, there is literally no difference between photographing a rally or protest, and photographing a wedding. You are just as professional in either scenario even if some of the logistics change. But the former you would classify as lesser than the latter (honestly, the former is a lot harder to pull off just due to an inability to control the space).

You also project. You say I put words in your mouth, but you also do so when you say things like I am looking down my nose at someone. I am not looking down my nose. I am stating factually that having had discussions with the guy he literally does not know even the most basic things about his camera. I am an admitted amateur, but at least I know what an aperture is, he shoots stuff in nearly full auto almost all the time. He literally equates how much he spends with how professional he is and how high quality his photos are. You can say I'm looking down my nose, but in reality I'm just recognizing that he's someone who were he a bit wealthier would have bought a fixed lens Leica and assumed it was better because it cost more.

You type a lot of words, but you are juuuuust vague enough to claim you aren't saying the things people are calling you out for saying. The issue here is you: If you don't mean the things people read from you, then practice being more clear so others don't 'misunderstand' you so much.

I still agree with a lot of your posts and insights, but man, at a certain point it feels very much like you just believe nobody is as nuanced as you are and thus you must shift every discussion into the viewpoint you are personally most comfortable with.
Well said.
 
  • Like
Reactions: ReflexVE and bbb34

ReflexVE

EOS M50
May 5, 2020
58
67
Renton, WA
(Red) Nope. There are plenty of pros shooting weddings in order to get a paycheck and nothing more. I don't consider such folks "enthusiasts".
You are welcome to your opinion.

(Green) You claim you don't look down upon your boss. Then you go on to tell us in detail after detail how (you think) you are a better photographer than he is because you do things differently than him.
You are the one putting the moral statement on this. I don't look down on him. I am describing him. There is a difference. I didn't make a value judgement, that was you. I also didn't say I was a better photographer, only that I understood the equipment better.

That said, yes I am also a better photographer.
 

nads

EOS M50
May 3, 2014
34
0
The physics does not change: lens based stabilization is always superior for longer focal lengths.
But product development strategies may change, due to having more in-camera processing power and further exploration of consumer video market. There is nothing wrong with that.
This one always gets me. Lens based stabilization is also superior for the edges of WIDE ANGLE. When shooting wide angle, any movement of the lens causes the image projection at the edge of the frame to shift a much greater distance than the projection of image at the center of the frame. You can't compensate for shifting perspective at the edges in the same way as in the center by shifting the frame. If you keep the center stabilized you allow a perspective distortion blur to occur and create softness at the edges.

Would I still be happy to have IBIS? Sure. Will I gladly keep the 11-22 IS? Absolutely. Give me both. But if edge to edge sharpness is your need better grab a tripod if you can't get the shutterspeed you need.
 

pj1974

80D, M5, 7D, & lots of glass and accessories!
Oct 18, 2011
666
168
Adelaide, Australia
This one always gets me. Lens based stabilization is also superior for the edges of WIDE ANGLE. When shooting wide angle, any movement of the lens causes the image projection at the edge of the frame to shift a much greater distance than the projection of image at the center of the frame. You can't compensate for shifting perspective at the edges in the same way as in the center by shifting the frame. If you keep the center stabilized you allow a perspective distortion blur to occur and create softness at the edges.

Would I still be happy to have IBIS? Sure. Will I gladly keep the 11-22 IS? Absolutely. Give me both. But if edge to edge sharpness is your need better grab a tripod if you can't get the shutterspeed you need.
This is very interesting for me. Just the other day I watched a video discussing 'wide angle edge/corner wobble' - and how IBIS influences how that occurs. I didn't know about this phenomenon before. Thanks for explaining this above, makes sense..

I was aware that ILIS is more effective for longer focal lengths. The photography genres I enjoy taking photos of mainly are landscape, wildlife and macro - hence image stabilisation (in either and both lens and body) - cover both (ultra) wide and tele.

At this stage I intend to buy the R5, to cover the above genres.

PJ
 
  • Like
Reactions: usern4cr