Forgot Password
Pentax Camera Forums Home
 

Showing results 1 to 25 of 300 Search:
Forum: Pentax DSLR Discussion 10-11-2016, 04:38 PM  
Pentax/Ricoh: De-cripple the K-mount! PETITION
Posted By froeschle
Replies: 497
Views: 54,051
I ordered and bought one of the very first K-1 s in Europe ;) . Support of K/M*/A*/F*/FA* lenses still is imho appropriate. APS-C lenses, however, are out of date :p. Who still knows what f-stops are?
Forum: Pentax News and Rumors 08-21-2014, 09:51 AM  
Pentax K-S1!
Posted By froeschle
Replies: 1,867
Views: 151,099
Pentax K-L1 - It's what's inside that counts!
Forum: Pentax SLR Lens Discussion 04-04-2014, 07:07 AM  
Fewer Sigma Lenses for Pentax – an explanation
Posted By froeschle
Replies: 60
Views: 4,675
I do not see a reason why an "un-crippled" mount would effect anything here. According to Sigma technicians the aperture mechanism is not really a problem. Nikon handels it the same way. The corresponding mechanism there is even more fiddly. The motor and control within Canon units is neither cheaper nor less bulky (however, you gain possible Err99 messages and defects). E.g. Samyang or other "cheap" manufacturers also do not have a problem with the mount.
Sigma + Pentax





QuoteQuote:

Den Blendenhebel als Problem zu benennen ist laut Sigma quatsch,Nikon machts genauso und ist sogar noch etwas fummelliger,alle Optiken der neuen Serie sind mechanisch und elektronisch sofort für Pentax ausführbar,laut Sigma D und EU.
Japanmann war auch den Tag da und hat es nicht verneint,es geht einzig um die Stückzahlen damit es sich lohnt.
Die mechanische Blendenansteuerung bei Pentax ist relativ simpel und benötigt auch nicht mehr Platz als der Stellmptor samt Steuerung bei Canon,hab das an einem kaputten 17-70 mal genauer betrachtet.
Sigma wartet auf eine zu erwartende Menge um einen Produktionslauf zu starten,das wurde mir nicht von der Hotline so gesagt,sondern von denen mit denen ich schon seit vielen Jahren zu tun habe und auch noch nie eine Fehlinfo erhalten habe.




The true reason is:





QuoteQuote:

KY: Yes. So, we'd like to make as many lenses for Pentax as possible, but with very small demand we cannot make them frequently. For such a lens, the long back-order times are a big problem for us. So we cannot make too wide a product line for Pentax. For example, a 300mm f/2.8 -- maybe we can produce this for Pentax once every few months; but some people may need a 300mm f/2.8 now. We cannot make it so often.
DE: Ah -- you can't afford to carry a large inventory given the small sales volume, but you also have a minimum production run that's economically viable. So you end up having long lead times, sometimes. I see, that makes sense, very interesting.



Small sales volume. Solution: Buy more [Sigma] lenses!

Forum: Pentax News and Rumors 03-26-2014, 01:58 AM  
Image of HD Pentax 1.4x Teleconverter
Posted By froeschle
Replies: 279
Views: 39,026
Plastic
http://www.jrcompton.com/photos/d7000pix/mild_CU_of_D7000_lens_mount-P1430092.jpg
http://image2.xitek.com/forum/200606/331/33151/33151_1149783012.jpg

vs.

Metal
http://www.iphotonews.com/images/blog/1dm2_damage_002.JPG

What is probably more expensive to repair?
Maybe the mount sometimes is even planned as a predetermined breaking point.
Forum: Pentax News and Rumors 03-24-2014, 02:39 PM  
Image of HD Pentax 1.4x Teleconverter
Posted By froeschle
Replies: 279
Views: 39,026
I tried to pull out one of my cameras with the teleconverter and a heavy and expensive lens.
The sound revealed that this was not really a good idea.
One half of the converter stayed attached to the lens, the other one to the camera.
The corresponding bayonet only was fixed by three tiny screws in a plastic counterpart.
Fortunately, this seems to be the only damage caused - a blessing in disguise!
Forum: Pentax News and Rumors 03-21-2014, 04:50 PM  
Image of HD Pentax 1.4x Teleconverter
Posted By froeschle
Replies: 279
Views: 39,026
My Soligor 1.7x AF just broke apart :( - no electronics inside, reduction seems to be realized by the white gear wheels. The new Pentax converter is probably more complex.
Forum: Pentax News and Rumors 03-19-2014, 02:30 PM  
CP+ 2014 Interview Posted
Posted By froeschle
Replies: 331
Views: 22,250
Irrespective of the year (1977?), the effort taken by Nikon today is still more "serious", imho.

Nikon F-mount - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Forum: Pentax News and Rumors 03-19-2014, 05:53 AM  
HD Teleconverter Officially Announced
Posted By froeschle
Replies: 461
Views: 53,407
The converter also seems to be FF compatible (as also dpreview states: "Max Format size 35mm FF") and "converts" an APS-C lens into a FF lens (both tested with a PK-EOS adapter and a Canon 5DIII):
DA 15 (works, despite the incompatibility claimed by Pentax; hood may cause a problem).

Similar test (using another converter) from "noodlelow" ;)
Forum: Pentax News and Rumors 03-19-2014, 04:18 AM  
HD Teleconverter Officially Announced
Posted By froeschle
Replies: 461
Views: 53,407
Forum: Pentax News and Rumors 03-19-2014, 04:08 AM  
CP+ 2014 Interview Posted
Posted By froeschle
Replies: 331
Views: 22,250
IIRC, Nikon AI lenses without CPU "communicate" only "mechanically" (like the K/M lenses + all lenses with aperture ring not set to the "A" position) and not "electronically" (like the A lenses + all lenses with aperture ring set to the "A" position). Thus, for this functionality, something similar as an aperture coupler had to be integrated.
http://www.throughthefmount.com/articles-back-olderlenses-dslr-8.jpg
However, several things are bit more complicated regarding the Nikon mount, as e.g. some coupling takes place "outside" the mount.
Forum: Pentax News and Rumors 03-17-2014, 04:08 AM  
CP+ 2014 Interview Posted
Posted By froeschle
Replies: 331
Views: 22,250





QuoteQuote:

[...] Your assessment of the situation is extremely biased [...]



Perception always is biased by personal opinions and experience.
But there should be some facts to agree on.
Conclusions, however, also may differ widely [#].





QuoteQuote:

[...] cultural misunderstanding [...]



Yes, one has to be aware of that, see e.g. also there.
Additionally, there are fine and subtle nuances.
I agree that the last answer is very close to a "no".





QuoteQuote:

[...] I think they have far more important things to spend their time on. [...]



That again is an assessment ;) .
OK, maybe that upcoming FF is more important :) - "looking for a good time to launch full-frame."





QuoteQuote:

[...] And you might say that Nikon has managed to do it, but the Df is almost comically expensive for what it is. [...]



Nikon managed to do it also e.g. in the D7000/7100 ;) .
Forum: Pentax News and Rumors 03-14-2014, 02:30 PM  
CP+ 2014 Interview Posted
Posted By froeschle
Replies: 331
Views: 22,250
!

But it is making it worse (by how much depends e.g. on personal preferences).

How would you call that then? Disabling? Limitation?

They are forcing me to set the aperture ring to the "A" position - as otherwise full functionality is not guaranteed ;) .

Open aperture metering (aperture coupler) vs. step-down metering (green button) and flash control are achievements. Better backwards compatibility (better and more functionality) would be a step forward - at least for me.

I agree that Ricoh is neither Hoya nor Pentax. But they bought the company together with their commitments. Why did Ricoh buy Pentax after all? Is the joint history not part of the story? Ricoh and Pentax shared the same mount for their SLRs. However, reintroducing the Ricoh pin really would be a step backwards :fedup: . Imho, with the acquisition of Pentax, Ricoh also adopted responsibility for the products and the promises. So, there is at least some obligation ;) .

Ricoh representatives raised the hope that de-crippling of the mount finally indeed would be an option. The (my) frustration is a reaction to their response. First - after submission of the petition - there was no comment at all. Then, lame and wrong arguments were cited. Affected lenses are and will still be the majority - by a huge and overwhelming amount. Metering with the aperture coupler also always will be more reliable than the "green button".
Forum: Pentax News and Rumors 03-14-2014, 08:40 AM  
CP+ 2014 Interview Posted
Posted By froeschle
Replies: 331
Views: 22,250





QuoteQuote:

I cannot call it "fundamental" [...]



Not even with that definition ;) :

Fundamental
* being or involving basic facts or principles
* at a deep and basic level

OK, so at least I can use "crippled" again :lol: .

Could we agree that leaving out a feature or a choice is generally not an improvement?
The K-50 features sealings and illuminated focus points, the K-500 not.
Would "crippling" describe this procedure correctly?

I mostly do, because Pentax/Ricoh forces me to do so.
You know why, because the mount is ... [insert proper wording here] :D .




Ok, first I was accused that problems only arise for lenses older than 30 years. I have then shown that there are issues with much younger lenses and even currently available products. Now, the rules of the game should change again to "products currently in production"? This is unfair :( :D. Furthermore, I must confess that I do not really know, which products are currently in production. Most of them seem to be produced in (small) batches. There are indications that the FA limiteds and even some A lenses have been put together in Japan until quite recently. If you order - say the extension rings - and they are not in the "inventory", they might be "produced" even today - like the FA* 600/4 was available on demand for a long time. Compatibility is not in antagonism with modernization here. I want just more functionality and not less. They shall not move the K-mount backward but forward (which includes better backwards compatibility).
Forum: Pentax News and Rumors 03-14-2014, 05:58 AM  
CP+ 2014 Interview Posted
Posted By froeschle
Replies: 331
Views: 22,250
Wet plates neither fit my SLRs nor my DSLRs - and nobody claimed that they would :) .

People using words like "anachronic" are not trying to provoke an emotional reaction ;) ? As a proposal: I will use "by-the aperture-coupler-bereft" instead of "crippled" in the future and you will use "fundamental" instead of "anachronic" :D . It is not about three decades in the past, it is about today. The mount is currently not perfectly/fully working. Three simple examples:

If I use

* my FA 85/2.8 Soft (in production until 2004, FA 85/2.8 Soft),

* one of the FA limiteds or the DFA 50 in non-"A"-position (available new from Ricoh, see www.ricoh-imaging.co.jp/japan/support/catalog/pdf/lenses_accessories.pdf, pages 13-16 - or any of the millions of "niche" ;) lenses with an aperture ring),

* my Pentax extension rings (available new from Ricoh, see www.ricoh-imaging.co.jp/japan/support/catalog/pdf/lenses_accessories.pdf, page 14) with any lens,

I loose e.g. flash control and correct metering due to the "by-the aperture-coupler-bereft" ;) mount. Is this "full" and "unmatched" compatibility?

I agree that most of the users won't see this problem. Especially the majority that only buys a body with the kit lens(es) and shoots in "green mode". However, cameras only identified as "uncrippled" for the majority will not necessarily satisfy the needs of enthusiasts.


BTW: I never had serious troubles with any of my Pentax DSLRs due to design or production issues (apart from e.g. the missing aperture coupler :p ). However, I would not deduce from that that this is also true for all users. Neither would I downplay their problems. Especially if these critically affect image taking. The solution would be to identify and resolve the issue. Ignoring or not caring about it does not help.
Forum: Pentax News and Rumors 03-14-2014, 02:20 AM  
CP+ 2014 Interview Posted
Posted By froeschle
Replies: 331
Views: 22,250
"Anachronic" is imho just the wrong wording, I would prefer "fundamental".
"Old" lenses are still being used on many cameras, so the demand is not "out of date".
If you look at the attempts to mount lenses on mirrorless cameras, it is just the other way around - it is highly topical.
So, this is not really an argument.

Backwards compatibility is a major reason to choose a camera brand.
Both Nikon and Pentax agree on that point.
Pentax tried to guarantee it with the green button metering - but did not really succeed.
Under the control of Ricoh, it would now at last be the time to resolve this issue.
Because "we" suppose the new cameras should finally work as advertised.

I am also amazed - how emotional, provocative, and awkward a simple discussion on photographic gear [!] can develop.
Isn't personal offense beyond common sense?






PS:

Wrt cripple: This verb probably was (first) used by Bojidar Dimitrov to describe this mount variation: Summary of the K-Mount Evolution, Names, and Features. Normally, more and more functionality was added to the mount. However, by taking away the stop-down coupler, this tradition was broken. The full functionality of the previous mount was no longer guaranteed - it was less effective. I am not a native speaker but that seems to describe it correctly.

Cripple:
* to reduce the soundness, effectiveness, or perfection
* to render powerless, ineffective, or unable to move

Antonyms:
* perfect
* recondition
* repair
* restore
* revamp
* working
Forum: Pentax News and Rumors 03-13-2014, 10:03 AM  
CP+ 2014 Interview Posted
Posted By froeschle
Replies: 331
Views: 22,250
It was not meant as a choice but as a comparative example. The additional headphone terminal is a feature, for which one has to pay, although most users probably neither need nor want it. However, the majority - as you state - does not care or accepts it and moves forward. There is no whining that this could be the end of the world or that Pentax is doomed. But the small addition makes at least a few users (very) happy. Additionally, it is a plus in the feature list and a commitment. So, following this example, why not increase happiness again :) - by a de-crippling of the mount ;) ?
Forum: Pentax News and Rumors 03-13-2014, 07:46 AM  
CP+ 2014 Interview Posted
Posted By froeschle
Replies: 331
Views: 22,250
@Tanzer


I already had mixed feelings, when the MZ 50 was introduced. That this crippling was first realized in this entry body and the low-budget FAJs (see my PS above) supports the assumption: Cut costs (and decrease functionality) in this segment. This was also told me, when I bought a SLR at that time (I think it was a MZ 5N).

This statement is questionable:



@Kunzite

OK, thanks. The construction of the mechanical aperture lever coupled to a resistor/sensor to determine its position is present in every non-digital SLR. The resistor/sensor signals had to be encoded to digital signals and added to the software at least in the MZ/Z/ZX camera series. So, at least for the three first points, there is knowledge, how to do it. I am not sure, whether the FF DSLR prototype also still had an aperture coupler or not (at least it was based on the MZ-S). So, there is not the necessity to reinvent the wheel here. Additionally, the corresponding mechanisms in the 645(D) are imho even complexer. Maybe the chassis has to be a bit bigger. I agree on testing, documentation, and production.

So, let me come to a comparison: The K-3 features an additional headphone terminal compared to the K-5(II). A microphone or headphones can be used there. For this, a mini stereo plug had to be added and connected by wire. Software had to be written. Also the body had to be changed a bit. Would this be roughly equally complex and costly to implement than an aperture coupler? At least when we add the second card slot, this should be the case. By how much did that increase the price of the body? How important are these two additions for imaging?
Forum: Pentax News and Rumors 03-13-2014, 06:05 AM  
CP+ 2014 Interview Posted
Posted By froeschle
Replies: 331
Views: 22,250
@Uluru

I only see a rant here against opinions and wishes, which are in contrast to your perception ;) .

And yes, my lenses work as specified on my ME super, LX, MZ-5N, MZ-3, and Z-1P bodies.
"Full" and "unmatched" compatibility is guaranteed and not only promised - I do not even have to wear a suit or a special haircut for that :D .

A car from 1967 really is an anachronism - maybe you should replace the engine by a flux capacitor :) ?
Do the streets still support such an old vehicle :rolleyes: ?

@monochrome

Maybe I miss something, this would be the task: A lever reads out the position of the stop down indicator of the lens (even present in current DA lenses [!] - set there to full/A aperture). This is translated into f stops. The open aperture metering then is corrected by this value. Neither cost nor complexity were mentioned as an argument from the Ricoh representatives at CP+ 2014.
Forum: Pentax News and Rumors 03-13-2014, 03:53 AM  
CP+ 2014 Interview Posted
Posted By froeschle
Replies: 331
Views: 22,250





QuoteQuote:

I'm a bit peeved that in 2014 people still complain [...]



The wish for an uncrippled mount was expressed since the introduction of the *istD. It was also communicated to Pentax Japan (via e.g. Pentax Europe/Germany) several times - but ignored. In the CP+ interview 2013, Ricoh told us that the "transfer and pray" policy now is over. Feedback from enthusiast users will not be ignored anymore. Also the question was posed: Will "the Pentax K-mount ever be de-crippled". The answer was yes, if such user feelings would be expressed. There are users (me included), who would buy a(nother) DSLR just because of this single feature. I want to use the aperture ring of my K, M, A, A*, FA, FA* lenses. In macrophotography and using flash, the current severe restrictions are a nuisance. Full functionality should be allowed - if not in all, then at least in certain models. Some users paid a 250€ premium for the K5IIs over the K5II for probable minor improvements in image quality. Why should owners of high quality and expensive "old" glass not pay for better handling and functionality? The cost for parts for the manufacturer is very probably below 1$. Even if the majority is not willing to pay say additional 10$ for a >1000$ product, an alternative could be offered, e.g. a K-3 d(ecrippled).

How fast does the number of 25 million Pentax lenses decrease? If you add K lenses from other producers, then Pentax even claimed in 2007 that the "PENTAX K bayonet is the world's most widely used lens mount today". Are lenses without an aperture ring not the clear minority? What Pentax tells us:



The advertising is a bit in contrast to the answer at CP+ 2014, isn't it? The compatibility argument was valid before and after the Hoya regime. But "unmatched" and "full" compatibility is still not guaranteed in 2014.




PS:
The aperture coupler was first killed in the entry-body MZ-50/ZX-50. The low-budget FAJ (sometimes taunted as J-unk) lenses did no longer feature an aperture ring. So, this trend really started at the lower quality end. Not many users did complain, as the better models did not suffer from these restrictions.

Unfortunately, both restrictions now apply to all DSLRs and nearly all lenses. However, there is another reason for the missing aperture ring in WR lenses. According to hearsay, it already was contemplated to add weathersealing to the FA* lenses. This was cancelled due to e.g. problems of sealing the aperture ring. I would have preferred an aperture ring over WR, however.

PPS:

The DA 50/1.8 is a variation of the FA 50/1.7: DA 50/1.8
The DA 35/2.4 is even closer to the FA 35/2: DA 35/2.4
The DA 200/2.8 is a new edition of the FA 200/2.8.
Etc.
The denomination DA does not exclude FF compatibility.
Forum: Pentax News and Rumors 03-12-2014, 10:33 AM  
CP+ 2014 Interview Posted
Posted By froeschle
Replies: 331
Views: 22,250
It does affect a lot e.g. if you want to use the aperture ring or in macro photography (see above).

Most users do just fine in "green mode", so get rid of M, TV, AV, etc. :) ?

The mechanical aperture ring adds value but also cost.
Nowadays, it is more common to control aperture through the camera (with exceptions, e.g. Fuji, Leica).
It is just less expensive.
E.g. for video purposes, it is a desired feature - again.

But the petition was not about the reintroduction of the aperture ring but only of the aperture coupler.
Nikon at least thought that there were enough customers for which this is really important.

A 6 digit number multiplied by a small amount (as an example :D )
100000 * 1¢ = 1000$ - peanuts ;)
Forum: Pentax News and Rumors 03-12-2014, 08:10 AM  
CP+ 2014 Interview Posted
Posted By froeschle
Replies: 331
Views: 22,250
This statement was about the (proud) "history". Nevertheless, the crippled mount of the body negatively affects the usage of all lenses with aperture ring. It disables the choice of using the latter (without negative impact). For better handling, one e.g. could set the aperture at the lens, shutter and ISO values with the two e-dials. It also would simplify the usage of bellows and extension rings (without A contacts but with provided stop down information). These are accessories, which still are sold by Ricoh/Pentax! Additionally, one could use P-TTL in this combination. There are no negative aspects of a de-crippled mount for the user - besides a small and probably rather negligible price increase, if at all. Just a simple mechanical lever, a "readout" and minor software variations are required.

EDIT:
The effort to de-cripple the mount should be very limited. The problem might be of different nature. Pentax would admit that crippling the mount was a mistake. They sacrificed one of the strongest advantages - the unrivaled K mount compatibility.
Forum: Pentax News and Rumors 03-12-2014, 06:15 AM  
CP+ 2014 Interview Posted
Posted By froeschle
Replies: 331
Views: 22,250
Wrt "I don't care", see #236 and #232 ;) . One could also use the aperture ring of e.g. the FA limiteds.

Current DSLRs are optimized for open aperture metering, stop down metering is less reliable, see e.g. here.

De-crippling the mount is not rocket science ;) . The metering would then be performed at open aperture. The value would be corrected by the stop difference (set by the aperture ring) provided by the lens and read via the (now non-existent) aperture coupler (in more detail with an example). The "system in place" is flawed by definition and only a workaround.
Forum: Pentax DSLR Discussion 03-12-2014, 05:48 AM  
Pentax/Ricoh: De-cripple the K-mount! PETITION
Posted By froeschle
Replies: 497
Views: 54,051
Unfortunately, Ricoh/Pentax is "not prioritizing to reintroduce this function" according to the CP+ 2014 interview :( - badly disappointing.
Forum: Pentax News and Rumors 03-12-2014, 05:14 AM  
CP+ 2014 Interview Posted
Posted By froeschle
Replies: 331
Views: 22,250
I beg to differ:

Enable that and the future of the K mount will be secured. It would be a strong commitment into the sustainment of the mount and the long-term value of the lenses. Thus, also any investment into new lenses would be ensured. Compatibility will be protected - a strong statement. Such a covenant would ensure the future of the brand and it would show the proudness on their history. The legendary K, M, A* and FA* lenses are part of the latter. Owners of old glass would buy a new DSLR solely for this reason. These users obviously care for the past and the future of the mount. Additionally, this would also increase the interest in "modern" lenses. Pentax e.g. advertised in their German accessory catalogue (March 2007):

Translation:





QuoteQuote:

K - like in know-how, in c[k ;) ]ompetence, and in c[k ;) ]ompatibility [OK, there is some kind of misspelling in English here :) "lost in translation"]

The legendary PENTAX K bayonet.

High-quality precision lenses do not necessarily belong to the things that you buy frequently - and that not only because of economical reasons. Every photographer knows that you get to know a first-class lens, like you become acquainted with a premium tool. Those who are familiar with the handling of a lens, will have the understandable desire to use it also on other bodies.

When PENTAX developed the K-mount in 1975, it included the intent to ensure the long-term usability of PENTAX lenses. The result is known: The PENTAX K bayonet is the world's most widely used lens mount today.



So, Pentax did officially promote the K mount and its compatibility and continuity as the number one argument for their camera system.

K - like in "keep your promise".
Forum: Pentax News and Rumors 03-12-2014, 02:53 AM  
CP+ 2014 Interview Posted
Posted By froeschle
Replies: 331
Views: 22,250





QuoteQuote:

If that's the best you can do as an argument for an "uncrippled mount", then I want a beer dispenser in my camera. [...] What is it an uncrippled mount does again? Is that the thing that makes your viewfinder so dark you can't see?



I just wanted to show that the "I/we don't need it" argumentation is not a good one. As a final consequence, photography as a hobby would e.g. not exist or we would all be limited to pictures from mobile phones. The advantages of an uncrippled mount are e.g. discussed in the corresponding thread. And no, "the thing" does not influence the brightness of the viewfinder. The aperture coupler mechanically tells the body, by which amount the lens is stopped down. This information unfortunately is ignored by current Pentax DSLRs. Thus, you have to meter via the green button (which in contrast then darkens your viewfinder) if a lens is not set at the "A" position. See also: Features and operation of the crippled mount.

The green button provides a "stop down metering", which is not accurate:
Test procedure: An image of a white area was taken with an A-lens and a K-5 at several f-stops (x-axis), the grey scale value of the image then was determined with Photoshop (y-axis).
Blue curve: Lens set to A, aperture value set in camera (which would be similar to the usage of an uncrippled mount).
Red curve: Aperture value set at lens, usage of green button (note the deviation from the blue curve and/or a constant value: the fluctuations correspond to about two [!] f-stops)
Test of the reliability of the "green button" metering

De-crippling the K-mount will lead to an increased and/or more reliable functionality with all lenses possessing an aperture ring.
One could use the aperture ring and just shoot away. This would work with any K, M, A, F, FA lens.
Automated metering, more exposure modes, and flash capability (currently fires at full power) would be possible even with K/M lenses (or lenses not set at the "A" position).
The usage of bellows and extension rings would be simplified.
One would have a "three wheel camera": Set aperture at lens, time and ISO with the two e-dials.
The green button is a less-than-ideal solution, where a better, more accurate and simple alternative is available at low cost.
Using a good tool is better than using a flawed one, even if both do their job.
Search took 0.02 seconds | Showing results 1 to 25 of 300

 
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 03:30 PM. | 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