Welcome Guest.   Make a donation to an author on the site October 21, 2014, 01:24:10 PM  *

Please login or register.
Or did you miss your validation email?


Login with username and password (forgot your password?)
Why not become a lifetime supporting member of the site with a one-time donation of any amount? Your donation entitles you to a ton of additional benefits, including access to exclusive discounts and downloads, the ability to enter monthly free software drawings, and a single non-expiring license key for all of our programs.


You must sign up here before you can post and access some areas of the site. Registration is totally free and confidential.
 
The N.A.N.Y. Challenge 2011! Download 30+ custom programs!
   
   Forum Home   Thread Marks Chat! Downloads Search Login Register  
Pages: [1] 2 Next   Go Down
  Reply  |  New Topic  |  Print  
Author Topic: Looking at Cameras  (Read 7287 times)
tomos
Charter Member
***
Posts: 8,605



see users location on a map View Profile WWW Give some DonationCredits to this forum member
« on: July 01, 2011, 04:23:08 AM »

Been looking at cameras, my old trusty 5MP Olympus C5060 died a death lately.

Thought I'd share :-) based on my notes:
PS I'm a total amateur so feel free to correct or advise Wink
All links are from http://www.imaging-resource.com

First, I wanted a small camera with a good lens -
  • reasonably sharp into the corners of image
  • preferably with low chromatic abberation (the colour fringes you often get, especially in high contrast areas towards edge of image)

I wanted to be able to photograph in low light, so either
  • a "fast" lens (i.e. with low aperature number, e.g. 2.0) or
  • a camera that makes good quality images at high iso

Of the compact cameras I only found the Olympus XZ-1 has a good sharp lens. I considered it, but it's around €400 and I saw that I could get a compact system camera from Sony for the same price. (Compact system cameras have larger sensors and exchangable lenses, but have no mirror in the camera so are a lot smaller than SLRs.)

The Sony NEX-3 seems to have the best image quality/ high iso performance of any non-SLR camera, matching some SLRs which have much bigger sensors. (There is a newer version, NEX-C3.) It's very small; lenses are not as small as some other makes. Problem is the kit-lens is not so good. Also there's not much choice in lenses till next year. I guess that's why it's selling so cheaply..

Then comes my favourite, the Olympus PEN E-PL2. Good kit-lens (14-42 = 28-84mm equivalent) which is collapsable, so especially small when not in use. Costs under €500 new here, but you can get it with two lenses for €582.



I really wanted to try it out but havent yet had a chance to go to an actual shop. Anyways I was thrown by the announcement yesterday of three new cameras in the same line:

All are supposed to have super-fast auto-focus.
Hum-di-dum.
Think I'll wait a bit and see what the first two are priced at (not yet announced).

There are other compact system cameras but image quality didnt get good reviews.

Finally, have a look at the Pentax Q - will be available in September - definitely the smallest compact system camera around, but also with a very small sensor so image quality will suffer.
But, (with apologies) it's soooo cute . . .

« Last Edit: July 01, 2011, 04:41:00 AM by tomos; Reason: resized images » Logged

Tom
tomos
Charter Member
***
Posts: 8,605



see users location on a map View Profile WWW Give some DonationCredits to this forum member
« Reply #1 on: July 01, 2011, 04:33:08 AM »

Forgot to comment about video - the Sony NEX cameras are also aimed at making good videos - but there is also a video camera that uses the same lenses as the NEX cameras:



the Sony NEX-VG10
Looks groovy tongue
Logged

Tom
Dormouse
Supporting Member
**
Posts: 996

View Profile Give some DonationCredits to this forum member
« Reply #2 on: July 01, 2011, 06:24:02 AM »

The Sony NEX-3 seems to have the best image quality/ high iso performance of any non-SLR camera, matching some SLRs which have much bigger sensors ... Also there's not much choice in lenses till next year. I guess that's why it's selling so cheaply..

You can get an adapter to allow you to use any A Mount lens. You get AF, but most A mount lenses don't have image stabilisation (A mount DSLRs have it in camera). Of course, the adapter itself isn't cheap. Sad
Logged
tomos
Charter Member
***
Posts: 8,605



see users location on a map View Profile WWW Give some DonationCredits to this forum member
« Reply #3 on: July 01, 2011, 06:48:38 AM »

The Sony NEX-3 seems to have the best image quality/ high iso performance of any non-SLR camera, matching some SLRs which have much bigger sensors ... Also there's not much choice in lenses till next year. I guess that's why it's selling so cheaply..

You can get an adapter to allow you to use any A Mount lens. You get AF, but most A mount lenses don't have image stabilisation (A mount DSLRs have it in camera). Of course, the adapter itself isn't cheap. Sad

I mainly just looked at kit lenses cause I dont want to spend a fortune either...
Another advantage of the Olypmus models though, is that they use the same lens system as Panasonic compact system cameras -so the lenses are interchangeable- so there's more choice there too...
Logged

Tom
IainB
Supporting Member
**
Posts: 4,789


Slartibartfarst

see users location on a map View Profile Give some DonationCredits to this forum member
« Reply #4 on: July 01, 2011, 07:36:43 AM »

@tomos: I too have been looking at cameras lately, and ended up buying a couple a few months back:

1 x Sony DSC-H55 Cyber-Shot camera: NZ$286 - refer Sony DSC-H55 Cyber-Shot camera - handbook (GB).pdf

1 x Sony HDR-CX110 camcorder: NZ$408 - refer Sony HDR-CX110 camcorder - handbook.pdf

I had also looked at the Panasonic Lumix DMC-ZS3, and that was very good, but I have been unable to get it or a more recent model at a significant discount, let alone at ½ price.

I already had:
2 x Samsung L100: (got these great little cameras a couple of years ago for myself and my wife, and they are due to be put up for sale on an online auction site) - Samsung L100 camera - user manual (English).pdf

The two Sony items were as new refurbished and priced at half normal retail price at the time I bought them.
The cyber-shot camera has some great features - e.g., 10x optical zoom, anti-shake, panoramic view capture (not stitched in memory, but taken by panning the camera in panoramic mode).

The handycam is small enough to fit in my hand and has tons of incredible features - e.g., 25x optical zoom, 300x digital zoom, face-tracking (no shake). It was priced retail at NZ$850 in Dick Smith at the time, but is now NZ$700.
My daughter - who has just got her Hons. in multimedia and graphics design studies - wants to borrow the handycam for its slow-motion feature alone as she reckons it is better than the cameras in her labs.
« Last Edit: July 01, 2011, 08:05:37 AM by IainB; Reason: Additional info re Panasonic Lumix DMC-ZS3. » Logged
tomos
Charter Member
***
Posts: 8,605



see users location on a map View Profile WWW Give some DonationCredits to this forum member
« Reply #5 on: July 01, 2011, 08:30:21 AM »

1 x Sony DSC-H55 Cyber-Shot camera:[/b] NZ$286 - refer Sony DSC-H55 Cyber-Shot camera - handbook (GB).pdf
[...]
The cyber-shot camera has some great features - e.g., 10x optical zoom, anti-shake, panoramic view capture (not stitched in memory, but taken by panning the camera in panoramic mode).

that's a good tip - it and the next one up the line (Sony Cyber-shot DSC-H70) both get good reviews for the lenses
Logged

Tom
cmpm
Charter Member
***
Posts: 2,025

View Profile Give some DonationCredits to this forum member
« Reply #6 on: July 01, 2011, 08:54:20 AM »

Battery life and reliance would be a factor I think.
I'd get two if it doesn't come with two, so you always have one ready.
My 2 cents.
Logged
Renegade
Charter Member
***
Posts: 11,617



Tell me something you don't know...

see users location on a map View Profile WWW Give some DonationCredits to this forum member
« Reply #7 on: July 01, 2011, 09:28:00 AM »

I don't know if you're willing to go the DSLR route, but I've been extremely happy with my Nikon D5000.

You can see some pictures with it here:

http://www.flickr.com/photos/ryansmyth/

Now, keep in mind that if the picture was taken previous to July 2010, then it's not the Nikon.

These don't have dates, but MOST are with the Nikon:

http://www.facebook.com/p...92&type=1&theater

All pictures are reduced in size, so just FYI there. It shoots at 4,288x2848. (12 MP)

The vast majority were taken very quickly, as in having only a couple seconds to point, frame and shoot. They're NOT super-awesome-took-10-hours-to-take-the-worlds-best-picture photos. And, I'm certainly not a photographer -- I'm only learning.

A lot are in low light as well, with only the built-in flash.

Here are some Dead Kennedys concert pics. Taken in low light. I was probably 20 m from the stage, so not great, but for the built in flash, at that distance, and a super-amateur, not too bad.

A few more - Rob Zombie - Dimmu Borghir - and Slayer - However, the Slayer and Rob Zombie pics are with an Ixus 200 IS at the front row of the mosh pit... For all of them I had to hold the camera and shoot blind. The Ixus is a cheap camera, but does a pretty good job all things considered. Still, I'd only call it a backup.

With a quick search, I found this:

Nikon D5000 twin kit w/ Nikon 18-55mm & 55-200mm VR Lenses Digital SLR Camera

For AUD$724.

With prices here being stupidly high, you can probably get a better deal (unless prices in the UK are stupidly high, which for software I know they are quite often).

The Nikon lens I have (my only 1) is an 18~105 mm.

But, with a DSLR you get options galore, and an excuse to sink sick amounts of money into it, because you always really Really REALLY NEED that other lens... smiley

I've been drooling over buying a few lenses for a while, and always manage to fail to get anything on eBay. (Holding out for a bit... but not sure how long I can last...)

However, DSLR is a very different route than point and click. Not sure if it's something you'd be interested in. The prices are down to very nice levels now.
Logged

Slow Down Music - Where I commit thought crimes...

Freedom is the right to be wrong, not the right to do wrong. - John Diefenbaker
tomos
Charter Member
***
Posts: 8,605



see users location on a map View Profile WWW Give some DonationCredits to this forum member
« Reply #8 on: July 01, 2011, 01:05:44 PM »

I don't know if you're willing to go the DSLR route, but I've been extremely happy with my Nikon D5000.

the pics look great and I've seen samples from it before - they're nikon fans at that review site that I like (www.imaging-resource.com)

But an SLR would definitely be too big for me - I reckon I'd never rarely use it. I'm afraid even the Olympus above with the kit zoom would be too big for me - I like the idea of having a tiny 35mm equivalent lens on it (like this one), but then I might be wishing for a compact with 10x zoom. That's why I've definitely got to try it out first.

but for the moment I've ordered the Sony Cyber-shot DSC-H70 and will see how I like it.

The reason I started getting so fussy about lenses was I had tried out the Canon SX120 and got results like this (and towards the middle of the picture too)
Was also getting visible purple fringes on white flowers, smack in the middle of the pic...

Logged

Tom
Renegade
Charter Member
***
Posts: 11,617



Tell me something you don't know...

see users location on a map View Profile WWW Give some DonationCredits to this forum member
« Reply #9 on: July 01, 2011, 01:28:22 PM »

Ouch. That's pretty bad. I had a Casio Exilim Z-40 and it had 1 dead pixel (not worth worrying about), and the pictures weren't all that great, but better than that Purple Haze.
Logged

Slow Down Music - Where I commit thought crimes...

Freedom is the right to be wrong, not the right to do wrong. - John Diefenbaker
IainB
Supporting Member
**
Posts: 4,789


Slartibartfarst

see users location on a map View Profile Give some DonationCredits to this forum member
« Reply #10 on: July 02, 2011, 05:18:17 AM »

@Renegade: After your suggestion (above) about the SLR route, I thought of recommending the Olympus E-620, but then I did a comparison with your Nikon D5000:
Comparison: Nikon D5000 vs Olympus E-620

The Nikon D5000 seems to win hands down with a score of 54:22.
I had bought my daughter (per above) the Olympus E-410 in 2007, and she said it was superb and that the clarity of its pictures seemed to be far superior to some  higher spec cameras. This is apparently attributable to Olympus employing the newer "four-thirds" technology and lenses, which ensures less diffracted light "noise" falling onto the sensor array.

The Olympus is just an SLR and does not do video though, unlike your Nikon, it seems.
Logged
Renegade
Charter Member
***
Posts: 11,617



Tell me something you don't know...

see users location on a map View Profile WWW Give some DonationCredits to this forum member
« Reply #11 on: July 02, 2011, 05:41:13 AM »

I've never used the Nikon for video. I suppose I could try, but... well, I'm not sure if it's worth it. It's a camera, so it's fixed focal length... my card is only 16 GB, which would fill pretty fast.

But the pictures it *can* take (not necessarily with me behind it) are spectacular. Seems like an excellent entry DSLR to me. It has room to grow into, and lots of room to move up from once I eventually begin to learn some limits (like with lenses -- I need more there).
Logged

Slow Down Music - Where I commit thought crimes...

Freedom is the right to be wrong, not the right to do wrong. - John Diefenbaker
tomos
Charter Member
***
Posts: 8,605



see users location on a map View Profile WWW Give some DonationCredits to this forum member
« Reply #12 on: July 02, 2011, 04:19:39 PM »

@Renegade: After your suggestion (above) about the SLR route, I thought of recommending the Olympus E-620, but then I did a comparison with your Nikon D5000:
Comparison: Nikon D5000 vs Olympus E-620

The Nikon D5000 seems to win hands down with a score of 54:22.

Olypmus used have poorer high iso performance than the other brands but they have tended to make up for that with much better kit-lenses - actually I have no idea how nikon fares there - I just wasnt looking at SLRs when looking lately...
The 4:3 system has a smaller sensor - advantage is smaller camera and smaller lenses: disadvantage is poorer quality than something like the Nikon SLR.
But they seem to be improving their low-light performance so their cameras are getting more attractive all the time for those looking for a smaller camera...
Logged

Tom
tomos
Charter Member
***
Posts: 8,605



see users location on a map View Profile WWW Give some DonationCredits to this forum member
« Reply #13 on: July 11, 2011, 02:01:36 PM »

Well, I'm on camera #4 and I better like it cause I've got no return option embarassed (private ebay sale, used camera)
And thankfully, I do like it - yeah, I got the Olympus E-PL2 cheesy

What I've noticed about (digital) cameras, is that no matter what ISO you use, photos will be noisy in low light situations. But the noise in the Olympus is actually almost likeable (naturally that does depend on the extremeness of it) - I mean it can have a nice fine grain to it when it's not too extreme/not too high ISO.

I also tested the Sony Cyber-shot DSC-H70 and while it's a lovely little camera - with a good lens (which was very important to me) I'm just too much of a fussy beggar and wanted a bigger sensor camera with better noise handling. Ideally I'd like both but cant afford both.

(PS anyone in Germany interested in buying a Sony DSC-H70 with about 10 photos taken on it Grin - I screwed up on the return, and will be selling it on ebay - but trying to sell it locally first. Completely off-topic, ebay really take their cut, dont they tellme, at a very quick look I estimated €20 for a €160 non-auction sale...)

Logged

Tom
CWuestefeld
Supporting Member
**
Posts: 934



see users location on a map View Profile WWW Give some DonationCredits to this forum member
« Reply #14 on: July 12, 2011, 12:09:02 PM »

tomos, you didn't mention what you're most interested in taking pictures of. Portraits vs landscapes vs kid's soccer games vs macro all have different needs, and would benefit from different feature sets.

I wouldn't necessarily go the DSLR route unless there are specific kinds of pictures you'd like to take, that other cameras can't do. Remember, the biggest difference between cameras. The best camera is the one you have with you. And if the camera's not convenient to have with you, you'll miss a lot of pictures.

You mentioned sensor size, and there's more to that than just image quality (noise, sensitivity, etc.). A smaller sensor has a greater depth of field. If you're taking pictures of the soccer game, that's probably a good thing. But if you're doing portraits, you want a short DoF to give emphasis to your subject.

I'm a Pentax person myself. I made that decision in part because I can use any Pentax lens ever made -- and still get the benefit of the on-board image stabilization. But in retrospect, I'm not certain that this was the best decision. With Canon and Nikon being the two big boys, economies of scale seem to cause the cost of image stabilization to have only a small impact on price for their lenses. And on the other hand, it's harder to find Pentax-compatible equipment.

This may not be relevant to you, but mine is a non-Sony household. From their rootkit debacle to their treatment of IP to their recent security problems, I don't like how they do business, and don't want to be associated with them.
Logged



tomos
Charter Member
***
Posts: 8,605



see users location on a map View Profile WWW Give some DonationCredits to this forum member
« Reply #15 on: July 12, 2011, 04:33:17 PM »

tomos, you didn't mention what you're most interested in taking pictures of. Portraits vs landscapes vs kid's soccer games vs macro all have different needs, and would benefit from different feature sets.

good point, I mostly take pictures out there in 'nature' - so landscapes yeah, but close up stuff too. Took some pics today outside with the Olympus E-PL2, just uploading them now.

It seems to be a good balance for what I want, quality image but small package (Pentax make very small DSLR's dont they?). The only thing that bothers me about it is if you let it hang in your hand, it does not feel secure - it's too small to have a decent relaxed grip on. But while I'm taking photos it's fine so I'll buy a hand-strap (dont like shoulder straps - have them on the camera bag already!).

I'm struggling a bit with the tech - the resolution - the amount you can enlarge the image on the LCD (14 times I think) - landscapes just look out of focus at that size...
I think the IS doesnt make up for the lightness of the camera at times - I had a couple with camera shake at 1/60.

Here's a couple of samples - just took screenshots rather than resize







the Cornflower is cropped (otherwise images not touched), could do with more blur in the back, which this lens cant offer. Not sure how much blur you can get with this sensor size, but there's a panasonic lens that's supposed to be very good that goes down to something like F/1.7 (this lens only goes to F/3.5).
I dont see myself getting lots of lenses, although this reviewer's passion for lenses is contagious (see the first portrait for a nice blurred background).
Logged

Tom
tomos
Charter Member
***
Posts: 8,605



see users location on a map View Profile WWW Give some DonationCredits to this forum member
« Reply #16 on: July 12, 2011, 04:43:04 PM »


it's nice to have a camera again cheesy
Logged

Tom
CWuestefeld
Supporting Member
**
Posts: 934



see users location on a map View Profile WWW Give some DonationCredits to this forum member
« Reply #17 on: July 12, 2011, 04:43:51 PM »

Nice work, tomos.

For doing landscape stuff, one advantage of a real SLR lens is the ability to stick a circular polarizer onto it. This really helps manage the sky color, as well as bring out other colors more vividly. However, I'm not aware of any non-SLR polarizing filter.

Really bright lenses are themselves a big problem, because of their price tag. But I don't think that's what you need to get that shallow DoF for your cornflower picture. I may be wrong here, I'm nothing like a pro, but here's how I understand it. The F number of the lens tells you how much light it lets through. And the more like coming through, the higher an f-stop you can shoot at. And f-stop is proportional to DoF. So a lower F number thus allows for a deeper DoF, which isn't what you're looking for in this case. (having written that, I'm now off into Google land to see if I can verify my understanding...)
Logged



tomos
Charter Member
***
Posts: 8,605



see users location on a map View Profile WWW Give some DonationCredits to this forum member
« Reply #18 on: July 12, 2011, 05:20:03 PM »

Thanks CW

I never could get my head around the terminology - DOF means how much (depth) is in focus, but no - this reduces with the F number. So lower aperature is the first step, but I googled and found out that the distance between the subject and the background is important too:
http://mansurovs.com/how-to-obtain-maximum-bokeh
http://www.thephotoforum....146826-how-get-bokeh.html
Logged

Tom
CWuestefeld
Supporting Member
**
Posts: 934



see users location on a map View Profile WWW Give some DonationCredits to this forum member
« Reply #19 on: July 12, 2011, 05:59:22 PM »

There are way too many "f"s in photography. It means, variously:

  • The focal length of the lens (this isn't what we're talking about at all)
  • The minimum aperture that can be used for a lens (I think this is what you're talking about)
  • The aperture setting for a given shot (this is what I'm talking about)

The smaller an f-stop number you choose to shoot at, the smaller your DoF; larger f-stops yield deeper DoF. But it requires greater light to capture an image at a higher f-stop (because the f-stop is actually the denominator of a fraction that describes the size of the opening thorough which light comes).

So a lens that can do a smaller f-stop gives you the ability to capture shallow DoF, as well as giving you the ability to capture a given shot in darker light.
Logged



IainB
Supporting Member
**
Posts: 4,789


Slartibartfarst

see users location on a map View Profile Give some DonationCredits to this forum member
« Reply #20 on: July 13, 2011, 01:38:29 AM »

@tomos: I did a comparison between your Olympus E-PL2 and my Sony DSC H-55, and thought it's probably comparing apples and eggs, the E-PL2 looks rather nice.
Logged
tomos
Charter Member
***
Posts: 8,605



see users location on a map View Profile WWW Give some DonationCredits to this forum member
« Reply #21 on: July 13, 2011, 03:32:37 AM »

There are way too many "f"s in photography. It means, variously:

I know what you mean! I used a film SLR years ago, so understood how it worked but couldn't explain it (articulately) to anyone. The aperature f number getting smaller as the aperature gets bigger is where it all starts to go pear shaped for me...
Logged

Tom
tomos
Charter Member
***
Posts: 8,605



see users location on a map View Profile WWW Give some DonationCredits to this forum member
« Reply #22 on: July 13, 2011, 04:36:56 AM »

@tomos: I did a comparison between your Olympus E-PL2 and my Sony DSC H-55, and thought it's probably comparing apples and eggs, the E-PL2 looks rather nice.

that's an interesting site, good for getting the technical side of things - although they dont seem to cover very important things like how true the colour is.
The E-PL2 comes in at #15 in their list of 27 mirrorless cameras tested. But if you read in-depth reviews, you'll see things like colour being off, ergonomics not so good, etc, etc on some of those much higher up that list. It also ignores lenses...
Logged

Tom
jpfx
Charter Member
***
Posts: 147


View Profile Give some DonationCredits to this forum member
« Reply #23 on: July 18, 2011, 05:08:02 PM »

I bought a new compact recently because I needed a waterproof one to take on a sailboat.
I ended up with an Olympus 'tough' TG-810 (probably named differently in EU).

I can say 'without doubt this takes the worst pictures I've seen since 1 megapixel cameras'
It's supposed to be 14Meg (I think) but the snapshot output has no clarity and barrel distortion is horrendous. I really can't believe how bad the pics are out of this camera. Wasn't cheap either. Ho Hum. This is one case where my phone camera does better.

Anywho, if you're looking for a waterproof, avoid olympus TG-810 unless you can test it out, (mine might just be a dud).
Logged

       |\      _,,,---,,_         
ZZZzzz /,`.-'`'    -.  ;-;;, 
      |,4-  ) )-,_. ,\ (  `'-'    
     '---''(_/--'  `-'\_)
kunkel321
Supporting Member
**
Posts: 391


see users location on a map View Profile Give some DonationCredits to this forum member
« Reply #24 on: July 19, 2011, 02:31:53 PM »

I'll give my $0.02 (USD)  Wink  even though I can tell from the posts that most of you are more advanced in the subject than I am....  I'm a Fujifilm fan.  I got my first digital camera 6 or 7 years ago.  I chose the FinePix s5000 mostly because of its feature set.  10x Optical, 3 megapixels.  I got it for about $350, which was an okay deal.  I've been real happy with it over the years, but recently the autofocus-assist green light thingy doesn't work and also there seems to be more distortions in the photos.  (Maybe because my helpful nephew took a bunch of pictures of the summer sun for me a while back.)   A year or two ago, my father-in-law gave me a little Olympus T-100 compact.  The pics are not as good as the s5000.  Also, the T-100's power button seems to have broken after a couple months of light use.  Basically, when turned off, the lens doesn’t detract and therefore you can’t put it in your pocket.  I have to take the battery out, and put it back in for it to close.  Anyway…  I’d been looking around for what my replacement will be.  One of the ones I’d had my eye on is the FinePix s4000.  The s4000 came on sale at Costco for $200, so I got it.  It’s pretty nice.  Still trying out the different features…  It is similar to my old s5000.  Has a 30x optical zoom which is nice, even though you practically have to have a tripod to use the full zoom.  14 MP, image stabilization, blink and smile detection.  Macro mode. 
I do have to say, I gave serious thought to investing in a good pocket camera, simply for the reason given by CWuestefeld that a camera isn’t much use if you don’t have it with you…  Ended up with the full-size s4000 because the sale price was pretty good.  I am curious if anyone can comment on the picture quality of a full-size versus a compact of the same price-range.  I noticed some comments above that really small compacts might not be as great.  But for instance what about a $300 full-size verses a $300 compact, of the same mega pixels by the same company???  I do have to say that not having to deal with a lenscap is nice…  Then again, being able to use standard AA batteries is nice too  smiley
Logged
Pages: [1] 2 Next   Go Up
  Reply  |  New Topic  |  Print  
 
Jump to:  
   Forum Home   Thread Marks Chat! Downloads Search Login Register  

DonationCoder.com | About Us
DonationCoder.com Forum | Powered by SMF
[ Page time: 0.056s | Server load: 0.16 ]