Forgot Password
Pentax Camera Forums Home
 

View Poll Results: $2500 basic FF or top spec APS-C - Please read initial post befor voting
Basic FF 11928.61%
Hi-spec APS-C 24057.69%
Don't care! 5713.70%
Voters: 416. You may not vote on this poll

Reply
Show Printable Version Search this Thread
02-11-2008, 04:22 PM   #61
Inactive Account




Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: London
Posts: 1,067
Hi Richard

I'm standing safely behind the fortress ramparts in full body armour as I speak, but:

QuoteQuote:
if you built a 645 (1.3 crop) CMOS sensor
..I fail to see how you could continue to refer to such a 1.3 crop sensor as 645 ? At the risk of stating the bleedin' obvious, to qualify as a true full-frame medium-format camera, the sensor would clearly have to measure 60 x 45mm. Nothing less is acceptable as far as I'm concerned ! Therefore a 1.3 crop sensor must surely be regarded as an entirely different animal altogether and be accurately described as such ? The last thing I'd want would be a half-baked medium-format equivalent re-run of the APS-C/35mm debacle. I love shooting wide-angle landscapes so either give me a genuine digital MF body with 0% crop-factor or please don't bother at all IMHO !

Best regards
Richard

02-11-2008, 05:24 PM   #62
Veteran Member
philmorley's Avatar

Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: in a house in Armidale, Australia
Posts: 472
First to admit that I dont know how much difference 1.3/FF would make (because personally the k20d output is looking pretty good

but there was an article on luminous landscape comparing 1ds to pentax 67

Shootout

the 11mp 1ds isn't exactly 'new' technology now, I wonder how the k20d would compete with the 1ds??? (I have no idea)

anyway to my thinking 1.3 crop of 645 would be better than 1ds therefore better than both pentax 645 and pentax 67 on film ?????????????????????????
02-12-2008, 03:45 AM   #63
Veteran Member
eurostar's Avatar

Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Albareto, Italy
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 817
QuoteOriginally posted by Confused Quote
..I fail to see how you could continue to refer to such a 1.3 crop sensor as 645 ? At the risk of stating the bleedin' obvious, to qualify as a true full-frame medium-format camera, the sensor would clearly have to measure 60 x 45mm. Nothing less is acceptable as far as I'm concerned ! Therefore a 1.3 crop sensor must surely be regarded as an entirely different animal altogether and be accurately described as such ?
While I agree that calling 645D something with a sensor smaller than 6x4,5cm has no sense at all, I wonder how much such a camera could cost when 3,6x4,8cm Hasslleblad sell for 22,000 euro and more...
02-12-2008, 07:30 AM   #64
Forum Member




Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: LA
Posts: 74
I think that the writing is pretty clear on the wall in front of us. There will be no FF35mm pentax camera in the long term (in camera speak, let's assume "long term" to be the next three years). They currently manufacture nearly no FF lenses, and of those that they do, only three are certain to perform exceptionally well on a high-end FF chip. Others may, but only the Limiteds are certain to.

Meanwhile, lookat it from a business perspective... Canon, and now Nikon (and soon Sony) are fighting for this FF market. Sony especially have an uphill battle ahead of them because they have relatively few FF lenses in their stable... though more than Pentax to be sure. Pentax needs to survive, and they can survive by bringing something else to the market? There are two easy solutions for this:

The first is to offer something no one else offers with existing cameras. All four big DSLR manufacturers offer cameras with "cropped" sensors. They have to. This was the deal made with the devil in order to get the ball rolling on DSLRs. Canon used (and uses) the cropped sensor as a stopgap, and they rather quickly developed a full frame DSLR and they have been pursuing that as a sort of endgame, maintaining the cropped bodies as a lower-market alternative that is actually their bread-and-butter. But if you look at their product lineup, you'll find only zoom lenses to support the cropped frame. If you like primes, use any EF mount primes you want, but deal with that smaller sensor by buying the one very expensive prime under 20mm... the 14mm 2.8L. Nikon is perhaps a little better in this regard, as they have a wider selection of "digital only" zooms, and even a fisheye prime, but they too were really just using this as a stopgap. To differentiate themselves rather well, Pentax has embraced their cropped-frame cameras and have introduced not only a number of good zooms (especially the 16-50, offering a 24-70/2.8 replacement for the cropped frame that no one else offers), but also a full lineup of primes. If you have a cropped-frame camera and like to use primes, Pentax alone has affordable options for doing so. And if you look at the roadmap, you'll find more primes... the DA 15mm Limited as a great example of something no one else is offering, sure, but also that DA* lineup starting with a 30mm and 55mm prime... analogous to a 50 and 85mm prime, and presumably in a top-quality, very fast lens. Nothing like this exists in other lineups. Pentax is betting the house on the fact that people want to spend their money on lenses and not cameras, and they're offering a small number of very-well equipped DSLRs that happen to have cropped frames, but with a full line of lenses that are made specifically for that cropped frame, so that it never feels like the smaller sensor is forcing you to miss out on something. Added to that, they innovate with things like the DA Limiteds, bringing to market the smallest lenses in the world to attract customers (like the usually rangefinder-crazy street photography crowd, eager to jump to digital but finding no affordable alternatives in the usual places) by again offering something different. This is how you build a sizeable and healthy "niche" audience... legitimate and measurable product differentiation. And Pentax seems to have this down, with a good vision looking forward.

The second thing that Pentax can do is to recapture a bit of the pro market. And this is why the 645D is still in development (look <a href="http://www.ok1000pentax.com/2008/01/how-close-wasis-pentax-645d.html">here</a> to see that it isn't gone just yet). That camera, unlike a FF35mm camera, has the ability to bring something new to market. A FF35 camera would come to market after any offering from Canon, Nikon, or Sony, and without a solid base of lenses. It would offer things (SR, at least) that Canon and Nikon don't, but would it be a world-changing camera that might bring over new users? Not at all. Pentax's best hope of doing that is to move upmarket to medium format, where, if they can get a 645D with a street date by Summer of 2009 and a price tag of $7000 or less, they can really offer something no one else can. They lost the race to affordable or even reasonably-priced FF35, but the race is still on for medium format. If Pentax intends to make money by developing an expensive camera, the 645D is the one that can do it, and I'm sure that apart from growing their lineup of cropped-frame lenses, that's their number-one R&D priority. The Pentax 645 is, and always has been, a camera that is similarly-sized to the Canon 1 series and Nikon F series, with lenses that compare favorably in terms of price. A well-executed 645D could steal marketshare from the 1Ds MkIII and the D3x and whatever Sony brings to market (A900?), but could also attract new customers by virtue of being an affordable digital medium format camera.

The inbetween option of a FF35mm camera is something that Pentax has very clearly(if you look at their current lens lineup and the roadmap) abandonded, and wisely. Cropped-frame for amateurs and enthusiasts, differentiating itself with a ton of great in-camera features and the best cropped-frame lens lineup out there, and 645D for advanced amateurs and professionals, differentiating itself by merely existing. That's the smart play, and Pentax is (smartly) pursing exactly that.

As for a 645D having a sensor that is actually 56mmx41.5mm (that's the actual frame size, not 60x45, of every film-based 645 camera out there... 56mm is the limit of usable negative area on 120 and 220 film)... that is a pipe dream. I'd say we'll be lucky if Pentax manages to match the 48mmx36mm that Hasselblad, PhaseOne, Mamiya, Leaf, and Sinar can get. But with even PhaseOne seemingly unable to bring a full 56mmx41.5mm chip to market, Pentax won't do it, at least not for the first generation 645D. Their time to strike is the next 18-24 months, and bringing something close to market is alot more important than delaying in the pursuit of something that even the world's best chipmakers haven't been able to do.

That's my $0.02. Well reasoned and researched, but open to critique. Fire away!

Will

02-12-2008, 09:42 AM   #65
Veteran Member




Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 1,299
QuoteOriginally posted by wiyum Quote
And this is why the 645D is still in development
Are people still holding hopes that 645D will ever see the light of the day?
My interpretation of your quoted article is quite different. The fact that Hoya vetoed the launch of 645D when it is production ready should spell the end of 645D.

And the new road map confirmed this. All traces of the 645D lenses have been removed.

With the constant moving goal posts, you need yet more time and money for development if you want to resurrect the project. 31MP sensor was fine last year, but may not be enough by next year. Unless Pentax APS-C cameras are a runaway huge success (something almost impossible nowadays with the competitive environment), I just can't see Hoya throwing more money into the 645D.
02-13-2008, 03:51 AM   #66
Senior Member




Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Salt Lake City UT
Photos: Albums
Posts: 116
QuoteOriginally posted by 24X36NOW Quote
This is a silly poll; if a FF dSLR is introduced, it will be a high spec camera. It would be somewhat ludicrous to put a top-line sensor (which it will be when Pentax is introducing their first FF dSLR) into a low-spec body. Sort of like Honda introducing its first V-8 in a subcompact 2 door hatchback with skinny little tires.
But in a way, Canon did the same thing with the 5D when it came out. It shot slower FPS and had a slower flash sync even compared to its own closest APS sensor competition, the 20D. If they had taken the 20D and added a FF sensor, the cost would have been even higher than it was at release. From what I have read, the 5D hasnt been a super hot seller either. Most people cant justify the massive increase in cost for a FF sensor bagged with the features of a Rebel.
02-13-2008, 09:51 PM   #67
Senior Member
button's Avatar

Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Nashville, TN
Posts: 241
Sometimes I wonder if people realize what they are giving up with a 35mm "full frame" size sensor, when compared to APS-C:

1) Less DOF at any given aperture- How much subject isolation does one really need? For a typical portrait type shot at around 5 feet or so, I find that a human head fits in the DOF provided by an aperture rating of between 2.5-2.8 with a 50mm lens on my k10d. I suppose if one wants to isolate a single blade of grass using a 50mm lens at f1.4, then they'd have better luck with a 5d or D3. For landscape shots, you have to crank things up to f16 or so to get it all, with a decrease in shutter speed (or increase in ISO)

2) Less reach with telephoto lenses on a per pixel basis (the corollary, more width with wide angle lenses, also holds, however)- longer, heavier lenses required to get close.

3) High ISO gains negated by DOF limitations (see #1)- OK, so at ISO 6400 on a 35mm size sensor, we can now freeze motion in dimly lit rooms at f2.0. Unfortunately, everything is bokeh except for the eye of the subject. Which leads to...

4) More demands placed upon AF systems- this becomes very apparent with large aperture lenses (again, see #1). Since the DOF is razor thin at large apertures such as 1.4, so becomes the systems' margin for photographically acceptable error.

I think the choice is obvious, especially given the manufacturing costs- APS-C all the way. We know these things are just going to get better, so why cling to the past? Feel free to disagree.

John
02-14-2008, 08:47 PM   #68
Site Supporter
Duplo's Avatar

Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Copenhagen
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 924
I really do not care...

Now there is an obvious answer to that, well actually two...

1) if/when they decide to go FF, then they might as well go all the way and produce a fully "pro" (whatever that means) body, no I am not talking FPS per se, but the rugged build and the size... perfect for outdoor work where I live.
Those with a need for FF will pay for it (quite possibly quite a few without the need too)

I personally think that being realistic about the price is important... I just do not see a FF camera in a decent body, and the latter is improtant to me, selling cheap... at least judging by how the current FF market looks.

A 645D would be a nice addition to the Pentax lineup I think... I do however not see a digital MF as a replacement for an FF camera. those two formats are about as comparable as FF and APS-C and those two are already very different.
I would however expect a 645D to be priced around the 1DsIII... and yes I would probably be in line toto buy one at that price point...

That said, the K20D looks to be a nice upgrade to my K10D...

02-15-2008, 09:24 PM   #69
Veteran Member




Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: CT, USA
Posts: 499
QuoteOriginally posted by button Quote
Sometimes I wonder if people realize what they are giving up with a 35mm "full frame" size sensor, when compared to APS-C:

1) Less DOF at any given aperture- How much subject isolation does one really need? For a typical portrait type shot at around 5 feet or so, I find that a human head fits in the DOF provided by an aperture rating of between 2.5-2.8 with a 50mm lens on my k10d. I suppose if one wants to isolate a single blade of grass using a 50mm lens at f1.4, then they'd have better luck with a 5d or D3. For landscape shots, you have to crank things up to f16 or so to get it all, with a decrease in shutter speed (or increase in ISO)

2) Less reach with telephoto lenses on a per pixel basis (the corollary, more width with wide angle lenses, also holds, however)- longer, heavier lenses required to get close.

3) High ISO gains negated by DOF limitations (see #1)- OK, so at ISO 6400 on a 35mm size sensor, we can now freeze motion in dimly lit rooms at f2.0. Unfortunately, everything is bokeh except for the eye of the subject. Which leads to...

4) More demands placed upon AF systems- this becomes very apparent with large aperture lenses (again, see #1). Since the DOF is razor thin at large apertures such as 1.4, so becomes the systems' margin for photographically acceptable error.

I think the choice is obvious, especially given the manufacturing costs- APS-C all the way. We know these things are just going to get better, so why cling to the past? Feel free to disagree.

John
IQ gains due to inherent advantage of larger sensors requiring less lens resolution than smaller sensors to render sharp detail - see the full particulars (including image comparisons on FF compared with APS-C) here: The Full-Frame Advantage

The end result being, even fairly pedestrian pre "made for digital" glass on FF blows away the top-notch "made for digital" glass on an APS-C sensor. Use the latest/greatest lenses on both, and the difference favors FF even more. If you're happy with APS-C and don't think you need or want something better, leave it at that, but stop the rationalizing about APS-C being better or even as good; it isn't and never will be.
02-16-2008, 02:53 AM   #70
Veteran Member




Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 1,299
QuoteOriginally posted by 24X36NOW Quote
IQ gains due to inherent advantage of larger sensors requiring less lens resolution than smaller sensors to render sharp detail - see the full particulars (including image comparisons on FF compared with APS-C) here: The Full-Frame Advantage
Arghh, reference to a Ken Rockwell rambling? No, thanks.

QuoteQuote:
If you're happy with APS-C and don't think you need or want something better, leave it at that, but stop the rationalizing about APS-C being better or even as good; it isn't and never will be.
If you are not happy with APS-C and crave for FF, that's fine. But stop telling everyone that FF is the future, or Pentax would be doomed without FF. FF will not be the main stream market; it isn't and never will be.
02-16-2008, 04:59 AM   #71
Veteran Member
eurostar's Avatar

Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Albareto, Italy
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 817
Any advantage of a FF over APS-C, is exactly the same advantage a MF sensor has over a FF.

And Pentax produces MF lenses, not FF ones.

I understand that a person with old FF Pentax lenses would like to have a FF camera, but I don't understand why Pentax, that doesn't sell FF lenses, should provide one.
02-16-2008, 04:59 AM   #72
Veteran Member




Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Copenhagen
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 1,845
QuoteOriginally posted by anomaly Quote
Think of it in terms of the video game market. Most console manufacturers like Microsoft and Nintendo manufacture their consoles at a loss which they make back in game sales.

Lenses are much more profitable than bodies.
Thanks, I had heard about this regarding the Eos 5D before.

Amazing how fast it goes. 2 years ago Eos 5D was the hip thing, now high Iso has been met by other models, resolution is met, colour rendering is exceeded, etc.

I was still happy about my film SLR 6-8 years down the road.
I'm also still satisfied with my K10, but sure wouldn't mind if it was the K20 instead
02-16-2008, 08:12 AM   #73
Veteran Member
benjikan's Avatar

Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Paris, France
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 4,312
QuoteOriginally posted by wiyum Quote
I think that the writing is pretty clear on the wall in front of us. There will be no FF35mm pentax camera in the long term (in camera speak, let's assume "long term" to be the next three years). They currently manufacture nearly no FF lenses, and of those that they do, only three are certain to perform exceptionally well on a high-end FF chip. Others may, but only the Limiteds are certain to.

Meanwhile, lookat it from a business perspective... Canon, and now Nikon (and soon Sony) are fighting for this FF market. Sony especially have an uphill battle ahead of them because they have relatively few FF lenses in their stable... though more than Pentax to be sure. Pentax needs to survive, and they can survive by bringing something else to the market? There are two easy solutions for this:

The first is to offer something no one else offers with existing cameras. All four big DSLR manufacturers offer cameras with "cropped" sensors. They have to. This was the deal made with the devil in order to get the ball rolling on DSLRs. Canon used (and uses) the cropped sensor as a stopgap, and they rather quickly developed a full frame DSLR and they have been pursuing that as a sort of endgame, maintaining the cropped bodies as a lower-market alternative that is actually their bread-and-butter. But if you look at their product lineup, you'll find only zoom lenses to support the cropped frame. If you like primes, use any EF mount primes you want, but deal with that smaller sensor by buying the one very expensive prime under 20mm... the 14mm 2.8L. Nikon is perhaps a little better in this regard, as they have a wider selection of "digital only" zooms, and even a fisheye prime, but they too were really just using this as a stopgap. To differentiate themselves rather well, Pentax has embraced their cropped-frame cameras and have introduced not only a number of good zooms (especially the 16-50, offering a 24-70/2.8 replacement for the cropped frame that no one else offers), but also a full lineup of primes. If you have a cropped-frame camera and like to use primes, Pentax alone has affordable options for doing so. And if you look at the roadmap, you'll find more primes... the DA 15mm Limited as a great example of something no one else is offering, sure, but also that DA* lineup starting with a 30mm and 55mm prime... analogous to a 50 and 85mm prime, and presumably in a top-quality, very fast lens. Nothing like this exists in other lineups. Pentax is betting the house on the fact that people want to spend their money on lenses and not cameras, and they're offering a small number of very-well equipped DSLRs that happen to have cropped frames, but with a full line of lenses that are made specifically for that cropped frame, so that it never feels like the smaller sensor is forcing you to miss out on something. Added to that, they innovate with things like the DA Limiteds, bringing to market the smallest lenses in the world to attract customers (like the usually rangefinder-crazy street photography crowd, eager to jump to digital but finding no affordable alternatives in the usual places) by again offering something different. This is how you build a sizeable and healthy "niche" audience... legitimate and measurable product differentiation. And Pentax seems to have this down, with a good vision looking forward.

The second thing that Pentax can do is to recapture a bit of the pro market. And this is why the 645D is still in development (look <a href="http://www.ok1000pentax.com/2008/01/how-close-wasis-pentax-645d.html">here</a> to see that it isn't gone just yet). That camera, unlike a FF35mm camera, has the ability to bring something new to market. A FF35 camera would come to market after any offering from Canon, Nikon, or Sony, and without a solid base of lenses. It would offer things (SR, at least) that Canon and Nikon don't, but would it be a world-changing camera that might bring over new users? Not at all. Pentax's best hope of doing that is to move upmarket to medium format, where, if they can get a 645D with a street date by Summer of 2009 and a price tag of $7000 or less, they can really offer something no one else can. They lost the race to affordable or even reasonably-priced FF35, but the race is still on for medium format. If Pentax intends to make money by developing an expensive camera, the 645D is the one that can do it, and I'm sure that apart from growing their lineup of cropped-frame lenses, that's their number-one R&D priority. The Pentax 645 is, and always has been, a camera that is similarly-sized to the Canon 1 series and Nikon F series, with lenses that compare favorably in terms of price. A well-executed 645D could steal marketshare from the 1Ds MkIII and the D3x and whatever Sony brings to market (A900?), but could also attract new customers by virtue of being an affordable digital medium format camera.

The inbetween option of a FF35mm camera is something that Pentax has very clearly(if you look at their current lens lineup and the roadmap) abandonded, and wisely. Cropped-frame for amateurs and enthusiasts, differentiating itself with a ton of great in-camera features and the best cropped-frame lens lineup out there, and 645D for advanced amateurs and professionals, differentiating itself by merely existing. That's the smart play, and Pentax is (smartly) pursing exactly that.

As for a 645D having a sensor that is actually 56mmx41.5mm (that's the actual frame size, not 60x45, of every film-based 645 camera out there... 56mm is the limit of usable negative area on 120 and 220 film)... that is a pipe dream. I'd say we'll be lucky if Pentax manages to match the 48mmx36mm that Hasselblad, PhaseOne, Mamiya, Leaf, and Sinar can get. But with even PhaseOne seemingly unable to bring a full 56mmx41.5mm chip to market, Pentax won't do it, at least not for the first generation 645D. Their time to strike is the next 18-24 months, and bringing something close to market is alot more important than delaying in the pursuit of something that even the world's best chipmakers haven't been able to do.

That's my $0.02. Well reasoned and researched, but open to critique. Fire away!

Will
The only problem Will, is you commence your argument with a false premise...

Ben
02-16-2008, 09:28 AM   #74
Senior Member




Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Barbados
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 270
I suspect that if they go ahead with the 645D they would use a 60x45 version of the K20D sensor. How many megapixels do you think they could squeeze out of there? 40+?

The issue is however that the sensor would have to be reworked because they would want larger photosites to allow for increased dynamic range. Samsung is not going to make a full frame camera so they are going to charge more to manufacture this sensor, etc etc.

These problems don't seem insurmountable to me though, perhaps some time in the future we will get a 8000 dollar 40 megapixel Pentax 645D.
02-17-2008, 03:48 AM   #75
Inactive Account




Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Gloucester UK
Posts: 441
Original Poster
QuoteOriginally posted by 24X36NOW Quote
This is a silly poll; if a FF dSLR is introduced, it will be a high spec camera. It would be somewhat ludicrous to put a top-line sensor (which it will be when Pentax is introducing their first FF dSLR) into a low-spec body. Sort of like Honda introducing its first V-8 in a subcompact 2 door hatchback with skinny little tires.
Maybe you didn't read the original question carefully?

The Poll was NOT intended to ask about a high cost FF body, that had virtually been eliminated in an earlier poll by Phil Morley which showed that very few (11%) would spend more than $2500 on a FF camera and hardly any above $3500 (1%). https://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/pentax-news-rumors/19977-how-much-would-you-pay-ff.html

In fact I would say that your postings are "silly", not the poll.

Canon did exactly what you say is ludicrous, they placed a FF sensor in a low cost body and increased their sales and share of the FF market (which they finally dominated when Kodak and Contax pulled out), but it is still very small in real terms.

Of course they introduced a high end model first, but that end of the market is already well defined and demands a very high level of professional dealer and manufacturer repair and support facilities, something which Pentax doesn't currently have outside of Japan and will take at least a few years to establish in the main market areas around the world. The Pentax Pro Centres and Pro Service currently in formation in the USA and main European countries is obviously the start of the establishment of the neccessary infrastructure.

I actually believe that this was the major reason behind the cancellation of the launch of the 645D.

Please, sell your Pentax gear and buy yourself a FF high end camera, both Nikon and Canon make excellent solutions for you, and stop annoying most of us with this "silly" campaign of yours, it's become both tiresome and tedious.

I'm not interested in your reply or further posts, I have you blocked from now on.
Reply

Bookmarks
  • Submit Thread to Facebook Facebook
  • Submit Thread to Twitter Twitter
  • Submit Thread to Digg Digg
Tags - Make this thread easier to find by adding keywords to it!
aps-c, cost, dof, ff, fov, i.e, pentax news, pentax rumors, pixel, sensor, size
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Low noise benefit of FF vs APS-C equals ... zero Haakan Pentax DSLR Discussion 240 01-29-2010 09:18 PM
Theme clarification in monthly voting poll seacapt Site Suggestions and Help 4 07-06-2009 04:43 PM
Dream Assignment/Photo Shoot of a Lifetime: please read and consider voting! Marc Langille Photographic Technique 100 04-04-2009 08:43 AM
Pentax low end pricing. nixcamic Photographic Technique 10 08-20-2008 02:20 PM
Poll - Basic but high end ME or LX-D Limited Kiss Pentax DSLR Discussion 33 02-16-2008 11:06 AM



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 07:15 AM. | See also: NikonForums.com, CanonForums.com part of our network of photo forums!
  • Red (Default)
  • Green
  • Gray
  • Dark
  • Dark Yellow
  • Dark Blue
  • Old Red
  • Old Green
  • Old Gray
  • Dial-Up Style
Hello! It's great to see you back on the forum! Have you considered joining the community?
register
Creating a FREE ACCOUNT takes under a minute, removes ads, and lets you post! [Dismiss]
Top