joshua daniels

October 15, 2011

Indeed, old Nikkors can and often do perform exceedingly well on modern bodies. The pre-AI ring can be modified to

couple with aperture input tab on modern bodies and even a CPU can be incorporated to provide meter coupling

without having to use the lens dbase in camera settings (Legacy to Digital and others provide this service). Lower end

Nikons (D5100 and lower) can mount pre-AI optics without difficulty or risk to aperture input tab, but cameras such as

D90, with AF drive shaft (but no aperture tab) cannot.

November 17, 2010

Indeed, Freeman is correct and it's a common misconception going from manual lenses registered using the in-camera database and those that have been CPU converted, such the legacy2digital lenses. It's important to note that the ability to override command-dial aperture control is only available with camera bodies that have the aperture tracking tab (D200, D300, D3, etc), and NOT lower end con- and pro- sumer bodies (D40, D80, D5000, etc.).

March 20, 2010

Folks - I take your point on length. Look, I feel very strongly on this subject. I maintain: no other DSLR allows you to produce work like the Fuji pro cameras. I have no axe to grind, and I'm happy to buy something comparable (better I hope!) from another manufacturer. I own many different cameras, and I'm not hung up on these.

But I think that until you've made comparisons yourselves the Fuji RAW file and those out of Nikon or Canon, you may be undervaluing this issue. The issue of highlight detail is major , and a significant aspect of image quality, particularly tonality in skin and even for convincing (read: film like) black and white.

I rest my case.

March 19, 2010

I am a mostly very satisfied Epson 4880 owner. I have been using it with roll paper for about a year. I recently started having a very serious issue: when I print an image the printer first ejects about 15" or paper, prints the image, then ejects 15" more. I'm not able to use the printer because of the high degree of wasted paper (yes, I suppose I could cut these and run them through as a custom size).

I have looked in the menus on the printer for some way to change settings, though I did not make any changes previous to cause this to occur.

I mostly used the printer on a Windows machine, but recently switched to a Mac with Snow Leopard. I understand there are issues with this OS, but until this problem started it worked just fine.

If you have any insights as to what might be going on, please let me know.

Side note: I notice that only some of the Epson utilities will work (none of the LFP Remote panel ultilities seem to work, nor does the firmware updater). I would be curious to know what experience others have had.

Thanks!

March 8, 2010

Scott - point taken on length! I offered this more as an "argument" than a petition. I feel that users (maybe not Fuji users) need to a) be educated on this issue and b) my first hand experience cannot be briefly incapsulated. But I for a petition, indeed, we'd want a summary and not more than that. However, I am asking folks to read and contribute to this discussion, and also to recognize that the larger issues here are 1) generally lack of innovation on the sensor development front relative to new product introductions and 2) general inattention to what I at least feel is one of THE most pressing issues in digital imaging--d-range.

I don't have evidence that a corporation has responded to a petition. I do know (because I'm in the industry) that companies watch forums and take the pulse regularly. There's fairly wide consensus that Japanese companies (though I think it applies more widely) do not listen to customers, but I don't believe this is an absolute. There are economic reasons for what we're seeing now, but I think that camera companies are extremely interested in the dynamics of the market, and all of the big (and smaller) players are desperately looking for ways to differentiate themselves. All the more surprising, for that reasons, that Fuji has withdrawn.

March 7, 2010

Hi Karim -

I'll definitely put you on the 'subscribers' list'!

I agree: a 4/3 with a Fuji sensor could be a wonderful addition to the current 'tools set.' At this point, 4/3 is about as close as we have to an 'open source' system, and the issue of having Fuji sensor quality available to us might best be answered by a camera of this form factor using its technology. Apart from the issues raised about Fuji's lack of good marketing and, related to that, overall commitment to the professional market after the S3, buying camera bodies from Nikon clearly puts the S pro series cameras in a niche category because of costs. However, I would argue that the virtues of the sensor alone merit a significant premium over the Nikon counterpart (D200 vs. S5--what a diff!) and this would, I believe, extend to a 43 camera as well.

March 6, 2010

For those interested, I have created a petition at http://www.ipetitions.com/petition/fujifilm_dslr_plea/.

Thanks for giving this your attention (apologies to photo.net moderators who feel this subject is off topic).

March 5, 2010

Bob, Shun - thanks for clarifying. I'm fine if you guys want to leave it here. However, it would be greatly appreciated if you could at least provide some linking from Nikon, as I think the potential audience would very likely be under that category. Honestly, in all my years visiting and lurking on photo.net, I have yet to go to the Casual forum!

Thanks,

Joshua

March 5, 2010

Thanks for responses so far--much appreciated. To be clear (most in anticipation): this is most definitely NOT a Fuji vs. Nikon "thing." Note: I take very mild offense to having my post called a 'diatribe' -- indeed, I think I have been balanced, and appreciative if not flattering to in calling specifically for a Fuji that continues to be based on the Nikon platform - I feel it is the best for a variety of reasons. I have a cameraholic's load of Nikon gear and have strong Nikon loyalty and history with the brand. I just don't think they offer the best sensor possible. In the ideal universe, Nikon would adopt (and improve) Fuji's technology. However, for my purposes I stand by my critique of Nikon image quality and my preference for the Fuji "look" for what is most important to me: skin tones, tonal separation, and wide dynamic range.

March 5, 2010

Bob - Thanks for your response. Actually, I'm a long-time photo.net user (since the 90s). Photo.net does not differentiate Nikon from Fuji in its forum categories, whereas dpreview does. No slight intended towards photo.net -- I'm a true fan boy! I visit photo.net daily and consider it one of the very best sites in net land.

I would note that shortly after posting this I received a notification from a PN moderator, below: Thanks for notifying me. I wasn't quite sure WHERE in the Nikon forum to post this, but given that this forum has over the years been THE forum for Fuji DSLR posts, I had hoped you would -- after reading the post-- apppropriately place it somewhere within Nikon. I do not see how you determined it belongs in Casual Photo Conversations, and I'm very disappointed (given the thought and effort I put into the post) to see it land there.

Yours

Joshua Daniels

Photo.net member since the 90s.

On 3/5/10 9:44 AM, "photo.net Forum Alerter" <bboard-alerts@photo.net> wrote:

> Hello Joshua Daniels,

>

> The thread below has been moved or recategorized by a moderator of the forum

> you originally posted to. It is now among the uncategorized postings of the

> Casual Photo Conversations forum. You can find your thread here:

>

> http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=00VvLn

>

> kind regards,

>

> photo.net Moderation Team

March 5, 2010

Note: I had tried posting this originally to the Fuji DSLR forum at dpreview.com. However, their server rejected it because of length. I believe that what I have to say may also be of interested to Nikon users (to be clear: I am also a Nikon user) but the primary audience is users of Fuji professional DSLRs.

I have been a long-time member of this forum (both dpreview and photo.net) and others in which the Fuji DSLRs are discussed. I am an unabashed fan-boy of their digital SLRs. Let me say it: there is nothing on the market today that can actually replace it for--what to me--matters most about image quality: dynamic range, esp. in the highlights, and most particularly for skin tones / portrait photographers (including, of course, wedding photographers).

Yes, we know Nikon and Sony have both pushed the envelope, and the "answer" could be the D3x. Except for obvious reasons: price and size. Perhaps there will be a lower cost body that uses the same sensor. But so far, according to DXO's database, no other camera (apart from a couple of very recent medium format back) approach the Fuji's d-range.

Lest you think I have not tried the other brands, indeed I have -- extensively. I'm a professional photographer and also a photography coach, so I see output from cameras that I myself don't own. I have owned several recent Nikon models. I shoot only RAW (as do my students) and I am adept at image-processing and extracting the best performance from a camera (prior to 'going digital' I scanned film and have been using a digital workflow for more than 10 years).

Clearly, Fuji has missed the product cycle for an S5 replacement and by all 'net accounts appears done with DSLRs. There are rumors they may be looking at a 4/3 camera, which makes sense (these small sensors are even MORE d-range challenged than APS or 'full frame.). While a Fuji 4/3 camera with their sensor technology would be attractive, I think, their history of making competitive also-ran cameras gives me pause. Now, if they could do a digital XPAN or p/s with medium format sensor, as they did in the film category in the 90s, they would have something unique. But a 4/3 camera with the Fuji sensor, still, would be better than nothing from them. While 4/3 has a strong attraction, it is not a replacement for traditional SLR, particularly one that uses Nikon mount lenses, such as the Fuji pro cameras.

I think we have to admit that Fuji is a very strange company on the PR front. They seem only to communicate through new product releases; they seem to have exactly zero sense of audience, and (from what I can tell) no interest in the professional market--though one does not know until the next camera appears. Why they would choose this strategy is anyone's guess, but mine is that cameras simply are not of great interest to this giant company. Also, in their home market they still sell a lot of film (as they do world-wide). Nevertheless, the wall of stone is thick.

OK - so what is a photographer accustomed to the wonderful Fuji image quality to do? Obviously, the Nikon D700 / D300s are alternatives. But are they really?

Speaking for myself, I wasn't persuaded to go digital until I bought and started using a Fuji S2. I took a long time to get even my toes in the way, because nearly every digital image I look at just screamed out 'digital' - usually because of the tonal roll off from mid to highlights.

I'm a people and event photographer. Canon, Nikon, et al, digital cameras have greatly affected the average 'look' of portraits because of their limited dynamic range. I realize this is a bold, sweep statement, and I acknowledge the many exceptions. More importantly, I acknowledge that mine is a very narrow and somewhat technically grounded quibble, and that whether one uses Canon, Nikon, Fuji, Sony, or some other brand has no bearing on the quality of one's photographs as photographs--that is, their strength and communication as images.

But for those who have experience working with film, particularly color negative and black and white, or have spent hours working in the darkroom to make a fine print, the issues of tonal scale cannot be ignored.

Much has been made of the "extra" headroom of the Fuji RAW file, as though 'if you really need it, you have it' (read: if you're technique is sloppy or you want to recover badly overexposed images you can'). What's missed here is that without the extra headroom, the tonal scale from mid to highlight, to the point of blow out, is significantly different. This difference affects the "look" of skin by causing slightly exaggerated highlights below the level of true highlight and a subtle but clear shift in color. Because the Fuji holds detail and retains color above the threshold of almost all other sensors, skin tones appear natural both in the mid and upper tones. I have tested this extensively, and I'm certain many of you on this forum have seen this phenomena. Look at any number of examples of commercial portrait work (they're everywhere if you have your limited d-range glassed on) and you can see the effects I'm talking about.

I've used several Nikon cameras -- which, I should add, perform much better than the corresponding Fuji model, in terms of speed -- and from my forum readings have been encouraged that my 'obsession' with Fuji image quality is just that: an exaggeration on my part of the importance of the Fuji d-range capability, and that with more careful technique I could do just as well with the Nikon.

Indeed, there are things to recommend the Nikon, and I like the image quality of the D300 / D700, even consumer cameras have good color--in my opinion. But the extent to which they (easily) lose highly detail, and more importantly, show the kinds of tonal limitations with skin tones, makes them mostly unacceptable, to me at least. I realize I may be thoroughly flamed for this statement, but that's my belief. Nikon has dealt with the upper tonal range limitations of its cameras through a combination of clever work-arounds, such as improved signal processing (reducing noise to make the sensors more underexposure tolerant), bending the tonal scale (so that clipping appears to be more gradual), and improving response in the upper mid-tones. Nikon image quality, truly is excellent for many subjects, but the highlight limitations are still quite evident--though one can work around these to a degree by using the old bw technique of exposing for the shadows (to get detail) and developing (processing) for the highlights (in essence, applying a reverse "S" in processing).

So, here's how I see it: at one point in time, Fuji assessed the market and concluded they had enough customers to justify developing a pro camera. They wanted to be players in the newly emerging DSLR marketplace, and while others had a bigger footprint in the camera market, generally, it was a new day because of the paradigm shift from film.

Over the next several models, Fuji's place in the market held steady or shrunk. I would argue that while the new cameras (S3, S5) were good they weren't compelling enough to customers who did not appreciate the unique imaging potential of their technology. On this forum and elsewhere those who come late to Fuji find these cameras a discovery if not a revelation, but Fuji itself has not done enough to make the cameras competitive in other areas (esp. speed). More importantly, they have done a miserable job marketing the product.

In truth, we (Fujistas) would be in a much better place if some other company had the technology and was genuinely interested in the camera market; Fuji simply appears not to be.

Here is my thought: what if we could present Fuji with a special kind of petition from the customer base? I have in mind a unique proposition:

Members of this forum who are interested in the next generation Fuji DSLR consider whether you would be willing to buy sight unseen, the next Fuji pro camera. To be clear: this is NOT a blank check to Fuji to make anything, at any price. Not all.

However, it is an earnest and realistic proposition, as follows (full list of specs TBD by interested parties): build us a camera similar to the S5 in build quality and features, but with a 24x36 sensor and performance characteristics at least 25% better than the S5 (this is still a FAR cry from Nikon's pro camera performance). Price it within 25-35% (higher) than the equivalent Nikon MSRP (so, we're talking $3500-4000), and we, the undersigned will buy it upon release. Oh, and don't forget about the AA filter -- ease up!

I think it is important to give Fuji both a sense of the interest and size of its customer and would-be customer base as well as a modest technical target. Clearly, the Dxxx platform has been out long enough for Nikon to reached economies of scale and thus to make this shell cost-effective for Fuji to purchase (no, we DON'T want them going their own way with a DSLR design). So, it's in everyone's interest to help Fuji think in terms of a modest upgrade to the S5, not a wish-list camera.

Speaking for myself, a full frame S5 with reduced AA filter sharpening and current Nikon AF would be a 'dream' camera. I would be fine with 12-18 MP, it doesn't really matter. Icing is welcome but not required.

To me, the need for a new Fuji pro camera is a critical element in my work as a digital practitioner. Would I care if some other company met or surpassed Fuji's handling of highlights and d-range? Not at all! But I don't see much true development occurring in this area, and I worry that in the current economy manufacturers are trying to get maximum longevity out of existing technology. Indeed, I would like nothing more than to see some newer sensor technology developed along the Foveon line of thinking with Fuji's d-range and Nikon's low noise, maybe packaged both in SLR and rangefinder form factors. But unfortunately, the dynamics of the industry will probably not allow that to happen.

In the meantime, the best alternative is from Fuji, and I believe 'the base' needs to take an aggressive stance with the mother ship: let's create a petition and write them on open letter. I think if we can bring them thousands of ready-to-buy prospects, they will consider (come, and they will build it).

Thanks for giving this your consideration.

Joshua Daniels

February 8, 2010

I was very pleased to see this discussion, as I'm having a very similar problem with my MBP: I open the same image in Photoshop and Lightroom, move the open image to my external HP 2475 monitor, and there is a distinct difference in color and saturation between LR (2.5 and 3.0) and PS (CS4). I have spoken with Apple and they are clueless. The local Apple store tech suggested disabling OPen GL in PS, but said this would have to be done each time the program is opened. I have calibrated both the internal and external monitors and controlled color settings PS is set to ProRGB just like LR's default.

November 4, 2009

Hello! I'm an experienced digital darkroom tech and have recently acquired an HP 2475 monitor. Overall, I'm pleased with the monitor, but I find it difficult to calibrate properly.

I have it set up side-by-side with a Lacie Electron Blue IV, an old state-of-the-art CRT. I have GM Eye One Display 2 and ColorMatch 3 software.

I have run calibration half a dozen times, and I get very close. But the HP looks a bit greenish and slightly washed out compared with the Lacie. I have tried different color temp settings and settled on a custom 6000K to come closest to the 6500 K Lacie (5000-5500 is way to warm for the Lacie). I have tried the EyeOne recommended 120 cd/m brightness setting as well as lower settings in the 90-100 range. While it is possible to turn down brightness, one end up with a very dim screen that is somehow still overall lighter (less saturated, perhaps) than the Lacie. Turning brightness all the way down makes it hard to judge exposure, though personally I find most monitors for photo editing relatively dim, but this is necessary to get decent screen-to-print matching.

I downloaded and tried the IC ColorEyes Display Pro with the EyeOne D2. ColorEyes allows you to calibrate to a lower brightness level, however, I don't see much of a difference in end result.

In terms of color accuracy, I have read various threads that have users setting the RGB channels independently, sometimes visually - not using a color spectrometer. To me, this makes no sense. Another methodology is to set the channels at default and have the calibration software adjust them. This makes the most sense, however, I believe it may be necessary to reduce RGB channel intensity in order to obtain a lower and color balanced cd/m - I'm not sure.

The overall brightness of the image, esp. towards the highlights, makes it difficult to accurately adjust exposure. Compared with the Lacie, the roll off from upper mid tones to highlights is much more abrupt.

Finally, I notice that outside of the color managed Adobe apps. colors looks oversaturated with this monitor -- sometimes comically so. I have read various explanations for this, but they do not make sense to me as whatever is displayed on my screen is using the system-wide settings from the ICC / ICM (I have both Mac and Windows - Vista and 7).

I would love to hear other folks' experience with what appears to be an excellent but difficult to calibrate monitor, or a workflow adapted to it. I print to an Epson 4880 but also outsource printing.

October 2, 2008

I, too, was very excited about the D700--though WHY Nikon waited so long to introduce this camera has been a long-

standing question.

I spent some quality time with one recently, and was impressed overall. However, I'm not buying one. Why?

First, I'm a long time Fuji shooter and, frankly, do not feel Nikon has made enough strides in the d-range area (not

that Canon is far ahead). I had a D200 briefly and was horrified by the narrow d-range and noise above ISO 800 (I

don't understand why people regarded this camera so highly). The D300 - based on the images I've seen - is an

improvement but not a huge one, and the D3 and D700 are not very different from it, with the exception of high ISO

capability (which is stunning). Overall, the latest Nikons strike me as fantastically engineered and improved in almost

all areas over their earlier cameras (NOT including the D2 and D200 series, which really are 8/10ths of the latest

models) but apart from noise not so greatly improved in the areas that matter most to me - color rendition and

dynamic range.

Equally important is size and weight, and while the FX cameras justify their heft more than the DX bodies (which are

rediculously large and heavy for the sensor real estate they offer) they are a step backward from the ideal prosumer /

enthusiast SLR of the 70s, 80s, and 90s (cameras like the Nikon FE, Contax Aria, Olympus OM series, or even the

compact AF cameras such as the N80). The pro camera justifies its size and weight on the basis of build quality,

durability, and weather sealing, but a true enthusiast camera, like the D700, has no business being as heavy as (and

larger than!) the pro camera when a vertical grip is added. The new Sony A900 is lighter than the D700 and has twice

the pixel count (50% better resolution), and it is too heavy as well! These are SUV cameras!

I'm waiting for a D600 (or whatever model it will be) possibly based on the D90 body (though with ability to mount,

meter, and AF manual lenses). I do hope Nikon does more than add features (video--gimme a break!) and rather

takes a good hard look at design, form factor, weight, and some of the excellent SLRs that have preceded the

latest / greatest DSLRs. The perfect Nikon DSLR? A D40 body with D700 features.

July 16, 2008

I'm trying to figure out how to efficiently use the metadata keyword field as a searchable field in Bridge CS3. I have

experimented by putting keyword into a number of files and then pointing the "find" command at the terms. I cannot

get Bridge to find the files with the keywords unless I search within the directory that contains the files. If I point it at

a drive containing folders, among which is the one containing the files with the designated keywords, it cannot find

them. I have enabled "search non-indexed" files, but the results are the same (only it takes much longer to yield

nothing!). Any comments / advice? Anyone using this method with success?

July 16, 2008

I beg to differ on the D200 as back up vs. Fuji. I have been using Fuji for the past 4-5 years and after awaiting a camera that would surpass the S2 I purchased a D200 - simply because I believed the differences had narrowed. How wrong I was! The D200 dynamic range is extremely limited compared to the Fuji--to the extent that highlight detail is often unrecoverable (and I shoot only RAW). I finally purchased an S5, and what a difference! Talk of the camera's slowness is mostly irrelevant unless you're shooting sports or fast-moving action. It has plenty of speed for what most of us do with a camera. The only complaint I have is that some of these cameras have focusing issues and require a return trip to Fuji. It is a great pity that Fuji has done such a poor job marketing these cameras and staying ahead of the curve, as nothing on the market can touch them for overall IQ.

May 21, 2008

Hello!

I'm currently dealing with an infinity focus issue with my S5 and I wondered

whether any of PN members have a sample of a well exposed, low ISO infinity (or

distance) shot from the S5 that I could use to show to Fuji repair. I have sent

samples showing the focusing problem with my S5 at infinity, but I would like to

show an example of the S5's infinity focus on a camera that is NOT having this

problem. I'm looking for an unsharpened JPEG from a RAW file.

Thanks!

May 7, 2008

If you like the look of film, esp. the way it handles highlights, I would steer you to a Fuji S2, S3, or S5 over a Nikon. These cameras have a wider dynamic range than the Nikons, and unless you need a fast framing rate and generally better response after the image is captured, I would stick with Fuji. The files are much more forgiving, esp. if you capture RAW. I had a D200 briefly and found the high ISO unacceptable unless exposure was absolutely dead on, and then highlights would tend to blow out. The S5 is a huge improvement. Don't worry about the difference in pixels - you have to have four times the number to double the effective resolution. Used S2s are a good deal right now--under $400.

April 18, 2008

You need to tag the JPEG with sRGB. Many times, people leave the file tagged with Adobe 1998, which looks washed out on the web.

April 8, 2008

I have tested the S5 with a 35/2 AF-D, 28/2 AI-S, 80-200/2.8 AF-S. The results are the same: with infinity focus (confirmed in the viewfinder by green AF light and AF lock-on), critical sharpness occurs somewhere around 15-30 feet with the wide lenses, and more like 100-150 feet with the 80-200. All test were conducted at relatively high shutter speeds with lens a few stops down.

April 5, 2008

I'm a professional shooting with an S2 and S5. I very much like these cameras

in most respects, and prefer them to the equivalent Nikons for image quality.

However, I'm finding that my S5 has a distant focus issue and wondered whether

other posters have experience the same problems.

Images shot under about 15-20 feet away are generally sharply focus (not quite

as crisp as I'd like, but still quite good, and lack of sharpness I don't

believe is focus-related). But beyond that distance, focus becomes progressive,

though subtly, less exact. At infinity, the subject is decidedly out of focus.

If you've experienced this symptom, please let me know--and what you've found

to be the solution.

Thanks!

February 1, 2008

Hello - I'm wondering whether any one is using a Fuji S5 with a 16 GB flash

card. I have just ordered one cannot seem to determine whether this will

actually work in the S5. Fuji's site says only which formats work. Thanks!

October 30, 2007

Take a look at www.zoerk.com for adapters for Leica R, Nikon F, and Contax AE / MM lenses to EOS.

August 4, 2007

I made the original post here re seller Christian Lewis. Related to my complaint about him is the siding of Paypal with the seller, despite documentation that he had defrauded me and several other sellers. A related issue is eBay's mechanism of feedback, which requires that the person posting feedback be party to a transaction with the seller. Moreover, there is no line of communication (I'm told by Paypal) between Paypal and eBay in regards to fraudulent transactions. So while Christian Lewis has defrauded several members of photo.net (five, at most recent count) he continues to have a stellar reputation as a seller on eBay. I would appreciate it if we could keep comments narrowed to these specific topics and not go into making generalizations (positive or negative) about buying or selling on eBay.

In regards to the question of identity theft. Of course, this changes the situation, since we don't know who we're really dealing with and the possibility exists for endless new IDs to surface with the same person behind them. In this case, I'm fairly sure that Christian Lewis (whether that is his real name or not) is the person who has posted numerous times on Nikonians, a few times on photo.net, and sold fairly extensively on eBay. I also think this is the photographer at www.christianlewis.com. Who knows what his motives may be, but this person gave every outward indication of being a member of the photographic community, in terms of typical activities and "presence" on-line. Was it an elaborate ruse in preparation for what he's doing now? Who knows. But the ability of the various web communities and services to confront this kind of problem is sorely lacking. On top that, law enforcement takes little interest in this kinds of crimes because they regard all of the players as "high risk." Law enforcement also considers Paypal and eBay the final arbiters of problems that may arise (my local police said that Paypal could do more than they could to help resolve this, and they were disinterested in hearing my experience Paypal).

August 3, 2007

This is a notice to Nikon users who may be interested in purchasing gear

offered for sale by seller Christian Lewis. I, and now several other

photographers, have collectively lost thousands of dollars that we sent to this

seller for equipment purchases.

He sounds completely legit, posts regularly on Nikonians, and has stellar eBay

ratings. You will receive prompt, reasonably sounding communications along

photos of the gear - but in the end you will receive no equipment or further

communications once you've sent funds.

No, Paypal will not refund your money. They regard our complaints simply a

dispute between buyer and seller!

Please see the "Controversies" page from the "Classifieds" page of photo.net.

There are two entries: a) Seller Christian Lewis and b) Nikon D2x.

We are working with law enforcement to stop this seller's activities.

Sign In

Profiles

Forums

Blogs

Events

Downloads

Gallery

Store

Posts posted by joshua daniels