Where the heck are Nikon's cheap 18Mpixels cameras?

breogan_gomez · February 8, 2010

I think cameras should be regarded as tools. And, in that sense, MP is only one of the infinite variables. I just recently moved from a D40x to a D200. Many people doesn't consider that as an "upgrade" but for me totally is: Better mettering, DOF preview, switches to important settings, mettering with AIS, AF with AF lenses, 0.4 shutter lag, bigger and more durable, better viewfinder, better autofocus system, more FPS... and keep on.

The issue here is that many people identify the sensor with the quality and is only a part of the whole picture. It is true that 18MP would be nice for Landscape photografers on a budget, but, as stated here a good technique is much more important. Do much of the potential buyers will care about if this camera has DOF preview? A 0.4 shutter or mirrow lock-up? Spot mettering? From what we wrote in the topic it may have all that features but, simply, we are not talking about it. Because it is not the point. Only how many megapixels it has.

mikemason · February 8, 2010

Canon has not only made an affordable 18 megapixel camera, they've expanded the base ISO to 6400. Regardless whether resolution or low light performance is important to you, Nikon does appear to be falling behind. If neither of those things is that important, Nikon's 12MP/3200 ISO cameras should be fine.

I'm still using a D80. I'd like better high-ISO performance and a meter that doesn't blow out people's faces in contrasty scenes, but even at 10 megapixels it's more resolution than I need. Unfortunately I'd only just bought the D80 when the D90 was announced, so I'm waiting on a D90 replacement before I upgrade. If Canon's apparent market lead causes Nikon to push out a 12 - 15 MP, ISO 6400 DX format body, I'd love it and be thankful to Canon.

Someone mentioned they were hoping for a Nikon LX3/S90 competitor. Why wait? Just buy the non-Nikon brand. I have an S90 and am very happy with it. The controls are fine (better on the Canon than any other compact, in my opinion) and the lens is fixed, so brand is unimportant.

dan park · February 8, 2010

Who the heck wants an 18mp APS-C camera? This is just the standard point and shoot thinking where more MP's equates to better image quality. Most people know this to be a false statement. I personally think Nikon hit the sweet spot for full frame (as far as resolution and controlling noise) @12 MP and so did Canon with the 5D Mark I. For cropped sensors I think nikon's 6MP D40/D50 and Canon's 30/40D @8-10 MP's sensors gave the best performance . Only a certain group of photographer needs resolution greater than 12mp for everybody else its just wasted information taking up space on the hard drive.

orcama60 · February 8, 2010

I am not a pro but I do agree with Holger Wahl and many others in this thread regarding that I do prefer a camera with very high ISO capability that allow me to shoot crisp and sharp pictures in low light ( of course in combination with a prime lens ) rather than having more pixels capability. Perhaps what I am going to say is not related to this thread but I do not really care about video in my camera. For me that is waste. I would prefer instead that, more ISO capability. I do have a D300 and if my D300 would have the ISO capability of the D3, D700 or the newest D300x, without their video, that will be my camera for the rest of my life. We all want to be able to take pictures and very good pictures in low light not how many pixels you have printed on that picture and we also want more efficient AF like the D3 or perhaps the newest cameras that I hope Nikon will build in the near future.

arthuryeo · February 8, 2010

Looks like there's a lots of emotion around pixels. :) Ease up, guys ... it's just pixels. I tend to think that most of us are pixel-challenged.

Yes, it's the person behind the camera. And, yes, if you can't get good pictures with 12Mpix, you probably can't either with 18Mpix or 24Mpix or ... 50Mpix. But, what makes us think the OP can't get good pictures with 12 Mpix? Why so hostile?

I always said this when someone tells me it has nothing to do with the equipment: Try making a living as a sports photographer or a wildlife photographer (i.e. 100% of living comes from photography) without a decent long lens. If you can do it within 3 years, I will give me applause. Better still, if you make a living in those 2 fields with a Holga or a Diana, I would you shake your hands and congratulate you. Hey, if you are a highly skilled photographer, you might be the first person in the Guiness Book to make a living as a full-time sports photographer using a pin-hole camera, for crying out loud. Show me ... talk is cheap! Equipment are tools and tools are needed for certain applications. Don't sweep that need aside with senseless statements. Take a deep breath and dissipate your envy, if someone else has the $$$ and are looking for better equipment.

eric_arnold · February 8, 2010

For advertising shots with studio lighting or for landscape photography, who wouldn't prefer 24 MP @ ISO 100 over 12 MP @ ISO 3200?

</blockquote>

huh? what? who shoots landscape at ISO 3200? and who shoots with studio lighting at 3200? dont advertising pros use pro-level cameras? and wouldn't landscaping pros benefit more from some really good glass than a MP-stuffed body with a kit lens?

I would be willing to bet that under the right circumstances (ISO 800 or less, both cameras fitted with comparable pro lenses, not a hurricane) the new Rebel could produce a better image than a D3s.

</blockquote>

well, gee, isn't the D3s optimized for sports/wedding/concert/PJ shooters who need high ISO performance? and if you fit a new rebel with a pro lens, its no longer "cheap," is it?

Crop-sensor cameras aside, the Canon sells a whole lot more 5D2's than Nikon sells D3X's.

</blockquote>

maybe, but those two cameras only compete in terms of MPs. it's worth pointing out that MPs alone do not make a camera. for instance, the 5d2 doesnt have the frame rate or AF system of the D3x. also, the 5d2 isnt exactly cheap, either.

the people who are disparaging Canon's latest offerings as "cheap plastic" are missing the point.

</blockquote>

actually, people were referring to the kit lens the new Rebel comes with, which is cheap plastic. speaking of missing the point, several people, including myself, have noted that the resolution bump seems marketing-driven, rather than performance driven, since you have to double the MPs to really see much of a difference. this isnt opinion, but physics.

no offense dan, but if you have to construct scenarios which are illogical just to make your points, chances are those points defy logic.

the one valid takeaway is that nikon doesnt have a high-MP camera currently except for the D3x, but expecting one to come down the pipe instantaneously and in the $1000 range to boot just isn't realistic. if you're so impatient you need to switch to Canon right now to jump on the new Rebel, go for it. I'm not stopping you.

Someone mentioned they were hoping for a Nikon LX3/S90 competitor. Why wait? Just buy the non-Nikon brand. I have an S90 and am very happy with it.

</blockquote>

being able to use my nikon speedlights would be a huge plus. also, for me, the S90 doesn't quite cut it--the build quality, poor ergonomics, lack of grip, and too easily-jostled rear dial are deal-breakers. i am considering a G11, but i'd rather have a P7000 with a bigger sensor, 10mp, 5x zoom, and usable ISO 800 performance.

breogan_gomez · February 8, 2010

6 months ago I bought a National Geographic magazine. There was an article taking about some new theories related with whales migration. Of couse there were, as ussual amazing pictures of whales. The write clearly stated that the fotographer used a Nikon D200 for the photografic sesion of. Usually you never know the equipment but it was just part of the novelated style of the publication.

So, somebody, a pro photographer, was able to take photos from some whales with a camera that has a "not very good autofocus", with a sensor "that is considered a mistake", with just 10Mp. This guy publish in National Geographic with the same camera that I have. Now I take my camera, take a picture and look at the result. Hey, ussually doesn't look like a National Geographic picture.

If you don't get good results blame yourself, not the brand, the megapixels or whatsever.

eric_arnold · February 8, 2010

(warning: snark alert ) those whale pics would certainly have been "better" had they been shot with Canon's new Rebel, wouldn't they?

michael_bradtke · February 8, 2010

I shoot sports for a living. I have a couple of very nice long lenses and two D300's I also keep a D2h as a backup. To me for what I do a 5DMKII is useless. Frame rate is way to slow and the AF is to slow for sports. I work with a bunch of Canon shooters (Yes they pick on me about shooting with the dark side) But they are also envious of the Nikon CLS and the fact that my D300 cost less then there 1DsMKIII. They have no interest in the 7D right now they are all waiting to see how the 1Ds MK IV works out. Is it the high MP count that they are interested in? NO!. They are looking for better high ISO and better AF.

For us shooting 2000 shots in a day is not unheard of. I carry 50 GB of CF cards and I am considered conservative. Good god if I had a 24 MP camera that could handle the frame rates we need I would have to double the CF cards I carry and probably triple the storage space on my computers(Plus backups and all that entails).

There are times when I wish I had a D3s only for the high ISO ability. I would not like the loss of the cropped FOV. So for me give me a D400 with 12 MP and 11FPS plus the high ISO of the D3s.

john_a5 · February 8, 2010

I think there is a point to the fact that 18mp on a digital Rebel might be overkill! There might be a lot of wasted pixels sitting on the hard drive with nothing to do! But on the other hand, there are probably those who want to create a certain kind of image--landscape, large prints etc that might be able to use more pixels and can't afford the big guns. We can focus all we want on what is important or what glass or whatever, but if you don't have an option it is sort of moot now isn't it!

I said way up above, that the only people I have ever heard say pixels don't matter are those who don't have them. It would be interesting to see how many of you who say it doesn't matter shoot Nikon. It would also be interesting to know how many of you who say pixels don't matter have actually worked with 60mb(8bit) files or larger(raw or scanned negatives). There is a difference.

I am not saying that a digital Rebel should have 18MP, but I think saying that 12MP and 18MP are not different bears a little soul searching--and actual practical use of the files! Honestly, since I was invested in Nikon film gear and loved my lenses, I would be shooting Nikon if they had had a larger MP option when I got my DSLR, but they didn't--and still don't except for the top end. So, be honest with your motives for your position, is it that you know more pixels don't matter or that you just do fine with what you have. I really feel like the thread has the stink of a Canon vs Nikon debate rather than an objective view of the fact that Nikon has not kept pace in the MP area--for some reason and it is not that Pixels don't matter or there wouldn't be a 24mp camera at the top!

eric_arnold · February 8, 2010

john, pixels dont matter if you dont need them. not sure if you read michael's comment before posting but he makes some key points.

as for a 24mp camera at the top, well, that's only the top of the pricing structure. for sports/action shooters, the d3s is at the top, for the reasons michael mentioned. diff'rent strokes for diff'rent folks.

when i heard last year that Canon was coming out with the 7d, what struck me about that camera being positioned well in the prosumer field wasnt the MP but the better AF and frame rate, which were things missing on the 5dmkII. so that made sense.

but i dont think one can easily ignore the fact that more pixels = more marketing hype at an entry-level price point. maybe the new Rebel will attract some cash-challenged Serious Landscapers who can't plunk down the cash for a 5d2. but then Serious Landscapers who shoot canon would also be into L glass, wouldnt they? so that price point is a bit of a red herring, because you'd still have to sink a few grand into glass to get optimal results with that body.

besides the SL cheapies, that leaves punters who will pony up for a new Rebel and be forced to get more HD space and those new 64g cards, especially if they shoot video. and in the end, their pictures wont look much better if at all than the results from a 12mp camera, and will actually be worse if they attempt to shoot low-light at high ISOs.

so i think nikon has it right by not offering an APS-C camera with more than 12 mp. noise is noise, after all. an 18 mp FF camera? that might be intriguing. but nikon wouldnt introduce that in a prosumer camera at the d90 price point before introducing it in a single-digit D offering. they're certainly not going to alter their philosophy because of this thread. and that philosophy is: high-end tech eventually trickles down to prosumer level. so it's much more likely we'll see a 24mp FF body at a lower price point than the d3x before we see anything like the Rebel t2i from nikon.

john_a5 · February 8, 2010

Eric, I certainly agree that for many the MP doesn't matter and they will never use more (or process an image where they will see a difference it can make); that there are certain cameras that will do certain things better than others and that 12MP probably works fine for those applications. I don't argue the fact that much of what is going on in the 35mm market as well as the huge MP in the MF market is more marketing that practical or even useful stuff.

The point I am making, and was frustrated with Nikon about, was that I didn't have an option with them and as I watch what has gone on for the last several years am still baffled by their reluctance to have more options in the larger MP arena. I think that is the gist of what this thread is about. We all have different critieria for a camera, but Nikon isn't really giving us choices and Canon is! I would have liked to stay with Nikon, but couldn't because they didn't offer any option that fit my criteria at the time whereas Canon had two available in FF, which was also a criteria--not sure Nikon had any FF cameras when I got my 1dsmkIII either!?! But certainly not the MP I was after.

dan_south · February 8, 2010

who shoots landscape at ISO 3200? and who shoots with studio lighting at 3200?

</blockquote>

My point exactly! If you were to choose the optimum tool for either of these applications, would you choose a high resolution camera that works best at Low ISO values, or would you choose a camera that performs well at High ISO values? As you have correctly stated, the High ISO capability is probably not going to be used here, so the hi res camera is more desirable.

dont advertising pros use pro-level cameras?

</blockquote>

Yes, they use Medium Format digital systems (for the higher resolution).

and wouldn't landscaping pros benefit more from some really good glass than a MP-stuffed body with a kit lens?

</blockquote>

If the MP-stuffed body costs less than a D3X, they can dedicate more of their budget to "good glass."

and if you fit a new rebel with a pro lens, its no longer "cheap," is it?

</blockquote>

It's still a lot less expensive than a D3X body alone.

for instance, the 5d2 doesnt have the frame rate or AF system of the D3x. also, the 5d2 isnt exactly cheap, either.

</blockquote>

5DmkII: 3.9 fps, $2500

D3X: 1.8 fps (14-bit FX), $7500

That said, the D3X has plenty of advantages over the 5D2 and I would never claim otherwise.

actually, people were referring to the kit lens the new Rebel comes with, which is cheap plastic.

</blockquote>

Really? See quote below.

But cramming 18 MP into a plastic phantastic consumer body: hey, wake up! This is called MARKETING, nothing else!

</blockquote>

speaking of missing the point, several people, including myself, have noted that the resolution bump seems marketing-driven, rather than performance driven, since you have to double the MPs to really see much of a difference. this isnt opinion, but physics.

</blockquote>

I saw a BIG difference between my 10MP D200 and my 12MP D700. Your mileage may vary.

no offense dan, but if you have to construct scenarios which are illogical just to make your points, chances are those points defy logic.

</blockquote>

No offense taken! I have full confidence in my logic.

expecting one to come down the pipe

</blockquote>

FYI, it's "to come down the PIKE," not the "PIPE."

eric_arnold · February 8, 2010

ok john, so for you, your solution was to switch to Canon, which made sense because they had the tools which fit your specific needs. i get that. but now that you've switched, doesnt that make your ongoing frustration with Nikon a moot point?

if nikon had an 18mp APS-C camera at a $1000 price point, would you sell your Canon gear, possibly incurring a loss, just to return to yellow logo-land?

in any event, you say you're baffled by nikon's lack of high-MP options. yet the company has obviously made high-iso performance more of a priority, as evidenced by the D3s. maybe that's due to the feedback they got from pros. maybe they wanted back into the sports/PJ market they had all but ceded to Canon before the d3/d700. maybe they didnt have the R&D resources to do that and put out a high-MP camera under 8k within an acceptable time frame for you.

however, they did release the D3x just last year. so it stands to reason they'll release a less-expensive body with that sensor sometime soon, probably at around the 5d mkII price point.

my point is this: if you want to stick with nikon, and you want more MP for under 8k, you just have to be patient. if Canon and Sony have what you want now and you just can't wait, then go ahead and get the tools you need.

not to disparage your specific needs, but the DSLR market is being fueled by entry-level and mid-level buyers. it's interesting that canon is still trying to play the MP game at the mid-level price point, but remember, nikon sold a whole lot more d40s than d3s. and the average d3000 user probably doesnt need 18mp just to take snapshots of family gatherings.

i personally am pretty satisfied with my d300, except for the low-light performance, which is still a lot better than my previous d80. i dont really need FF right now and i dont need more MP. i dont want to have to sink a few grand into a new body and new lenses just to get one stop of ISO.

dan_south · February 8, 2010

Until someone creates a camera than can do everything well, the ideal would be to carry one body for superior resolution and a second body for high-ISO performance. If Nikon offered a reasonably-priced high-resolution FX alternative to the D3X (with the bonus of a smaller body), that ideal would be affordable by far more customers.

To those who recognize that they don't need the extra resolution, more power to you! But for those of us who desire it, the wait is becoming tedious.

eric_arnold · February 8, 2010

I saw a BIG difference between my 10MP D200 and my 12MP D700. Your mileage may vary.

</blockquote>

ok, but you went from CCD APS-C to FF CMOS. those are two different sensor formats. i'm not sure how big you're printing but any difference is due to larger pixels, not more of them. 2mp in and of itself isnt a huge jump in resolution. and, as we've seen with canon's decreasing its MP count in its g11 from the previous model, sometimes less is more (as in less noise).

FWIW, i dont see that much of a difference, IQ wise, between my 10mp d80 and my 12mp d300. in fact, sometimes i prefer the CCD "look."

michael_bradtke · February 8, 2010

When I need or want more resolution for my non sports work I shoot MF or 4x5. I have the film drum scanned and have all of the resolution that I could ever need. A well shot and well scanned 4X5 negative out performs any DSLR on the market today. At a much lower price point to boot.

mikemason · February 8, 2010

Whilst "cramming more pixels" into a particular sized sensor will make noise and IQ worse, everyone seems to be assuming that the pixels are the same pixels. But they're not. Canon has moved to "gapless micro lenses" (whatever the heck that means) with this particular camera. So in some cases in order to get better high ISO performance you also have to upgrade to however many pixels they're cramming onto the sensor. Could they put less pixels on the sensor and get even better performance? Sure, absolutely, but the assertion "more pixels on the sensor means worse pixels" is not always true.

Eric, if you're looking to use your Nikon speedlights with a portable then you're looking at a different use case to me. I wanted a go-everywhere camera with quality that didn't totally suck and I'm willing to put up with a couple of (quite minor actually) foibles to achieve that.

eric_arnold · February 8, 2010

If Nikon offered a reasonably-priced high-resolution FX alternative to the D3X (with the bonus of a smaller body), that ideal would be affordable by far more customers.

</blockquote>

hmm, you're describing the d700x , which KR already has a page on and expects sometime in 2010. he actually predicts February 20. so the wait may not be as tedious as you think.

or maybe not. KR has been wrong before, but i'm fairly sure we'll see that camera, or one close to it, sometime this year.

also, for everyone who lusts after more MPs in a nikon body, there's probably an equal or higher amount of folks who would prefer the D3s' stupid-high ISO performance.

eric_arnold · February 8, 2010

Eric, if you're looking to use your Nikon speedlights with a portable then you're looking at a different use case to me. I wanted a go-everywhere camera with quality that didn't totally suck and I'm willing to put up with a couple of (quite minor actually) foibles to achieve that.

</blockquote>

well, all i said was, it would be a plus to be able to use my speedlights in a compact P&S, since i already have an sb-400 and 600. i almost bought a refurb p6000 when it was on sale at adorama a while back for that reason, even though that camera has worse reviews than the Canon G 10/11, the s90, and the LX3. being able to use CLS in a P&S wouldnt be the only reason i would want one, but if i'm going to spend that much on a compact, it would be nice not to have to also buy another external flash.

my thoughts on the high-end compact market are, this is an area i'm seriously disappointed in nikon in. i have to agree with thom hogan that the coolpixes lack much of the panache of other manufacturers' current offerings. however, nikon could make me happy with a well-spec'd p7000 with a 1 2/3" (or larger) sensor or even APS-C, 10mp, 5x zoom, clean iso 800. they can leave off the GPS and the ethernet.

john_a5 · February 8, 2010

Eric, the thread was about why Nikon wasn't coming up with cheaper, higher MP cameras, a lot of the rest of what you mention is not really the point. There also quickly became an undercurrent that MP weren't important.

But beyond that, I didn't wait. And, for the record, I don't know any pro who doesn't change systems from time to time. I went through 5 MF systems in my first 15 years as a pro, holding onto at least 3 different ones at most times--not including my 15 Holgas, Mamiya 330 and Mamiya 7! I also have 6 LF cameras, 8 if you include the 8x10 I rarely use and the old graflex 4x5 slr. You have cameras that fit needs!

Obviously, for some reason Nikon has not moved in the MP arena, but I don't see them as superior in the high ISO field either. The 5DII I have is extremely good at high ISO, so maybe the sports field is their market?

mjferron · February 8, 2010

Do you think painters fight over brushes or writers over word processing programs? I'd rather see folks fighting over what makes a good photograph. A pro sports photographer taught me the most valuable lesson ever. At a high level college baseball game he said. "Forget about speed and how fast you are going to move your camera from here to there. Get in tune with the game and pick your spot for the next action. Man on third? Focus on home plate and wait for the runner to slide in." Several games later I landed the most excellent shot of a runner sliding into third with the catcher, ball in hand trying to tag him out. Dust flying, the whole bit. My point? all the equipment in the world can't make up for knowledge.

lex_jenkins · February 8, 2010

<a href="../photodb/user?user_id=5245443">John A</a> <a href="../member-status-icons"><img title="Frequent poster" src="http://static.photo.net/v3graphics/member-status-icons/3rolls.gif" alt="" title="Frequent poster" /> </a> , Feb 08, 2010; 07:50 p.m. (<a onclick="if (confirm('Are you really want to mark this message as spam and make it hidden from the thread?')) return true; else return false;" href="../bboard/report-msg-uni?on_what=forum&id=00ViuJ&return_url=/nikon-camera-forum/00VidQ?">report spam</a> ) (<a href="../bboard/admin-edit-msg?msg_id=00ViuJ">edit</a> | <a href="../bboard/admin-delete-msg?msg_id=00ViuJ">delete</a> )

"...I also have 6 LF cameras, 8 if you include the 8x10 I rarely use and the old graflex 4x5 slr. You have cameras that fit needs!"

</blockquote>

John, just curious... your posts here bring to mind a question I've had for awhile. As a film photographer who used many formats up to large format, are you wanting a dSLR to serve as a sort of be-all, end-all device to emulate the maximum possible resolution of large format?

In some cases most of these "I want more megapickles" threads seem pointless. Canon offers an incremental improvement; Nikonistas become neurotic and demand the same incremental improvement; then Nikon comes out with something Canon doesn't have and Canonites suffer through the very same hand wringing. Nothing new there.

But I'm getting the impression that some folks are looking for a Nikon or Canon camera, still shaped like the 35mm SLR paradigm, to substitute for not only medium format film but large format as well. In other words, something like the dSLR equivalent to the Pentax 67 or 67II behemoth, or the various specialty large format cameras that weren't built on the flexible bellows paradigm.

lex_jenkins · February 8, 2010

"Do you think painters fight over brushes or writers over word processing programs?"

</blockquote>

Unfortunately, yes. I quit participating on artists sites years ago for that very reason. Too much blah-blah over equipment, not enough on technique. There were a few exceptions, but the nature of the internet is that forum warriors will eventually dominate any discussion forum and turn it into an equipment obsession forum. If it's not Kolinsky sable vs. anything "lesser", it's whether one particular obscure ancient oil medium was superior to another equally arcane recipe.

And I well remember many snarky editorial wars between magazine writers about their favorite word processing programs. These were standard features in computer oriented magazines in the 1990s. I also stopped reading that sort of distracting nonsense. What finally relieved me of the burden of worrying about how much computer power was enough and which software was best was learning that Tom Clancy had written some of his blockbusters on the very same Mac I'd bought for $5 at a thrift store, which happened to include a full complement of software including Word.

I still haven't written my blockbuster novel.

john_a5 · February 8, 2010

Lex, I don't use the DSLR for the same things I use the film cameras or what I use an MF digital for. There are different applications for different cameras. But the sports I shoot is not "event" oriented but advertising work, so I don't need the "sports" camera, most of it I have shot with MF cameras.

I just finished 30 days on the road on a personal project, I did it all with the DSLR, mostly people and places whereas the first part of the project, as a commission, was mostly shot LF film and certain things MF film. I had the LF film camera with me and only pulled it out once--wasn't pertinent to what I was doing. I am using all LF film on another personal project and combine both MF film and DSLR on another. So, I just use what fits the need and makes sense for the work I am doing.

But I also print very large and although I have printed 40x50's with the original 5D, the quality is much better with the 5dII and 1dsmkIII. Also, files work better with more pixels, an early lesson! I actually prefer film scans to digital raw, but we can discuss that some other time.

Sign In

Where the heck are Nikon's cheap 18Mpixels cameras?

Recommended Posts

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

Create an account

Sign in