Jump to content
Interceptor121

Mirrorless Cameras Opportunity or Necessary Evil?

Recommended Posts

7 hours ago, Interceptor121 said:

Yes is the owner of backscatter

When has me made this statement now or 3 years ago?

 

Last week.

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
11 hours ago, phxazcraig said:

Last week.

 

Wow pretty bad also for his business unless is sitting on stock of DSLR housings

Edited by Interceptor121

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This sounds a lot like the discussions comparing digital to film some 22 years ago.  
 

I wonder how that turned out. 

  • Thanks 1
  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A bit like guitar bands then, eh? Never catch on.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 6/24/2022 at 3:44 PM, ehanauer said:

This sounds a lot like the discussions comparing digital to film some 22 years ago.  

Not really....

We are talking about a small technical evolution rather than a fundamental change in our entire lifestyles...or I guess you could say the change has already happened, since iPhones are mirrorless :)

Surely our goal is to use tools to capture images. When a particular camera/housing/optical/lighting solution offers photographic opportunities that others do not, and you want to capture these images or value these solutions for your creative process...you should absolutely upgrade/change. A great example is the Sony a7s3 in very low light situations...it simply allows photographers to create images that they could not before. If this is what you do, it is a no brainer to change to one...

However, this also defines my current frustration with the whole debate about mirrorless for underwater.

Outside of a few specialist applications/camera models, it really doesn't do anything better than what I have now (and in some instances is worse) and has a limited range of suitable optics, meaning that I can't leverage any of the potential advantages in the mirrorless design. Being able to review images in an EVF is really not a significant enough advantage to persuade me to put up with the other issues and to justify the expense of switching systems. As I have said before, lots of folks seem to have been perfectly capable of creating images that I am still trying to emulate (without success) with optical viewfinders!

However if you think that an EVF's features will enable you to get "those" shots, and it is worth the expense (to you) you definitely should change. 

On 6/24/2022 at 11:28 AM, Interceptor121 said:

Wow pretty bad also for his business unless is sitting on stock of DSLR housings


Of course, change is inevitable, and is driven by a number of factors. Encouraging us to spend money is in every businesses' interests, and I fall prey to this as much as everyone else. I think Berkeley's advice represents much of what is good in our industry. Providing advice based on relevant personal experience and by not allowing the desire for increased profit (or perhaps more commonly in our industry-to remain solvent!) to influence his advice. It is important to stress that camera manufacturers do not consider the needs of the relatively tiny number of underwater image makers as being relevant to their commercial success, technically or financially.

I cannot see any compelling reasons listed in either Massimo's article or more generally, that will persuade me to switch to any mirrorless set-up for the bulk of my photography now. I freely acknowledge that this will change when there are sufficient optical and technical advantages in my doing so, and mirrorless offers the opportunity to capture images I can't with an SLR,  If that makes me an "old-timer" or "being set in my ways," anyone that knows me will also be aware that I am also not a dedicated follower of fashion :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Of course, change is inevitable, and is driven by a number of factors. Encouraging us to spend money is in every businesses' interests, and I fall prey to this as much as everyone else. I think Berkeley's advice represents much of what is good in our industry. Providing advice based on relevant personal experience and by not allowing the desire for increased profit (or perhaps more commonly in our industry-to remain solvent!) to influence his advice. It is important to stress that camera manufacturers do not consider the needs of the relatively tiny number of underwater image makers as being relevant to their commercial success, technically or financially.
I cannot see any compelling reasons listed in either Massimo's article or more generally, that will persuade me to switch to any mirrorless set-up for the bulk of my photography now. I freely acknowledge that this will change when there are sufficient optical and technical advantages in my doing so, and mirrorless offers the opportunity to capture images I can't with an SLR,  If that makes me an "old-timer" or "being set in my ways," anyone that knows me will also be aware that I am also not a dedicated follower of fashion

My article was meant to be thought provoking and it looks like it is working
The industry itself is done with DSLR this is going to be driven by economies of scale not by improved performance
Each person has to make their own choices however I do believe that change cannot be avoided as eventually your camera shutter will wear out and there won’t be spare parts
I give it around 5 years more or less until this becomes a real issue at that point switching will be really painful
Underwater photography like land photography is seeing an increasingly ageing population so if you are at sunset perhaps it makes no sense to learn again
However if you plan to shoot for 10 years from now and you have never used a mirrorless system perhaps it is time to start or your photography may take a serious dip if you wait until the last minute
If someone is starting now in my opinion it would not be good advice to begin with a system that is officially pronounced dead as you would need to adapt again in the future. better to learn how to deal with challenges of mirrorless and grow with it.
I also believe that the transition is harder if you have brand loyalty due to your lenses. Canon change from dslr to mirrorless is an improvement on many accounts as their mirrorless is a step forward. Not so much for nikon where moving has more challenges as the offering is relatively immature. This also influences the opinions on the subject


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Cameras are "just" tools. To claim that you have to re-learn how to shoot when switching between types of camera is ridiculous. Most photographers switch between surface and underwater camera use, and we all use iPhones....many come from a path which has included mirrorless cameras in some form prior to switching to an SLR. 

The controls and some settings are different, but the learning curve isn't actually very steep. In fact, I think it is similar to changing camera brands in terms of complexity. It requires some learning, discussion and forethought, but isn't really that difficult.

I can still get parts (including replacement shutters) for the Nikon D2Xs - which is 16 years old! SLRs have a long service life ahead of them. I also firmly believe that whenever possible, we should all reuse and repair. As a complete aside, I have recently been "Super Resolving" some of the D2Xs images in my back catalog and they look really good at 48MP :)

Canon have some very capable underwater suitable lenses for SLRs (e.g. 8-15mm, 100mm, 16-35mm), that have produced (and continue to produce) excellent underwater images. In fact the argument that using existing lenses with an adapter is a reason for switching to mirrorless as it means that the reduced lens choices has little impact, also means that anyone investing now could buy SLR, and then use their lenses with an adaptor in the future? Given that no manufacturer currently produces a native mirrorless fisheye that is suitable, this means that anyone buying mirrorless now, will have to buy SLR lenses...

The single biggest impediment to people investing in better/more capable underwater camera set-ups in cost. I welcome the fact that the commercial drive towards mirrorless is creating a thriving and relatively inexpensive second hand market. This is an amazing opportunity for those getting started (particularly given the new software options.) Even for those with more resources, reduced equipment prices allows more budget for travel and hence increased opportunities to capture amazing subjects. 

To return to my starting point, cameras are "tools" and in the hand of a skilled user in the right place, almost all are capable of producing amazing imagery. Perhaps we should focus more on the techniques and places that allow us to do so?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, adamhanlon said:

Cameras are "just" tools. To claim that you have to re-learn how to shoot when switching between types of camera is ridiculous. Most photographers switch between surface and underwater camera use, and we all use iPhones....many come from a path which has included mirrorless cameras in some form prior to switching to an SLR. 

The controls and some settings are different, but the learning curve isn't actually very steep. In fact, I think it is similar to changing camera brands in terms of complexity. It requires some learning, discussion and forethought, but isn't really that difficult.

I can still get parts (including replacement shutters) for the Nikon D2Xs - which is 16 years old! SLRs have a long service life ahead of them. I also firmly believe that whenever possible, we should all reuse and repair. As a complete aside, I have recently been "Super Resolving" some of the D2Xs images in my back catalog and they look really good at 48MP :)

Canon have some very capable underwater suitable lenses for SLRs (e.g. 8-15mm, 100mm, 16-35mm), that have produced (and continue to produce) excellent underwater images. In fact the argument that using existing lenses with an adapter is a reason for switching to mirrorless as it means that the reduced lens choices has little impact, also means that anyone investing now could buy SLR, and then use their lenses with an adaptor in the future? Given that no manufacturer currently produces a native mirrorless fisheye that is suitable, this means that anyone buying mirrorless now, will have to buy SLR lenses...

The single biggest impediment to people investing in better/more capable underwater camera set-ups in cost. I welcome the fact that the commercial drive towards mirrorless is creating a thriving and relatively inexpensive second hand market. This is an amazing opportunity for those getting started (particularly given the new software options.) Even for those with more resources, reduced equipment prices allows more budget for travel and hence increased opportunities to capture amazing subjects. 

To return to my starting point, cameras are "tools" and in the hand of a skilled user in the right place, almost all are capable of producing amazing imagery. Perhaps we should focus more on the techniques and places that allow us to do so?

Well you were the one with other making the point that in some situation a mirrorless camera is not working well and I was the one talking about techniques to make it work

Going on the second hand market to find spares for end of life models is not for everyone 

Majority of users just want something that works and is supported 

In general terms the second hand market has always been there it does not depend on which camera you shoot this is normal when items are expensive and nothing specific to this situation what is surprising is that manufacturers keep being obsessed with replacements and none offers to retire used models. I sell all my used kit on ebay or through forum with one exception I have a good return and I hate to hoard on kit that I do not use so as soon as I realise I do not need it I get rid of it

In UK it is uncommon that retailers get involved in second hand but reef photo in US does it, they just stock your items and charge a commission but don't buy the items off you. I do not understand why other shops do not do that. I have bought loads of items from them including a mint WWL-1

In terms of the techniques of course that is essential and say you can do something with something you cannot do with something else is generally incorrect there is always a way what changes is the effort and most people want to do the least

This does not brush off under the rug the actual issue which is DSLR is at sunset and it is time to review your options if you are in this game for longer

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Interceptor121 said:

This does not brush off under the rug the actual issue which is DSLR is at sunset and it is time to review your options if you are in this game for longer

Why? I plan to be "in this game" for as long as I am able to function. I'm not sure why I need to review my options now? Is this set to time expire? In five (or ten) years time, will I no longer be able to use a new camera? 

My existing cameras will continue to function adequately for the foreseeable future. Even if they do wear out (which is something I have never done) 14 year old cameras are still eminently repairable. D2Xs shutter replacement is still available via Nikon UK's approved repairer...no need to buy "second hand" spares for it, just send it to Nikon....

I agree that second hand cameras have always been available, but the change now is that people are selling lenses too. Amazing underwater lenses like the Canon 8-15, Nikon 105mm VR micro, Nikon 60mm micro and the Tokina 10-17mm are now incredible cheap, which is ironic, considering that for at least two of those listed, there is no mirrorless equivalent. 

When mirrorless options are available that offer creative opportunities and allow me to create better images than those I can produce now, I will switch. I will continue to seek the best tool for the job. Currently, my feeling is that for underwater use, they offer no advantage and are in fact not that well suited for underwater use. Their current utility seems to be as an attractive new revenue stream, not as a better tool for underwater photographers. 

For example, until there is an EVF that can cope with the DR between an unlit foreground and a brightly lit ambient background, no amount of clever technique or new skill is going to make it work :) I guess I could compose them separately, but the damn fish keep moving. Perhaps that is the key to using mirrorless underwater? Advanced fish wrangling skills :) Mine are plainly not good enough - is this is an age thing?

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Why? I plan to be "in this game" for as long as I am able to function. I'm not sure why I need to review my options now? Is this set to time expire? In five (or ten) years time, will I no longer be able to use a new camera? 
My existing cameras will continue to function adequately for the foreseeable future. Even if they do wear out (which is something I have never done) 14 year old cameras are still eminently repairable. D2Xs shutter replacement is still available via Nikon UK's approved repairer...no need to buy "second hand" spares for it, just send it to Nikon....

I agree that second hand cameras have always been available, but the change now is that people are selling lenses too. Amazing underwater lenses like the Canon 8-15, Nikon 105mm VR micro, Nikon 60mm micro and the Tokina 10-17mm are now incredible cheap, which is ironic, considering that for at least two of those listed, there is no mirrorless equivalent. 

When mirrorless options are available that offer creative opportunities and allow me to create better images than those I can produce now, I will switch. I will continue to seek the best tool for the job. Currently, my feeling is that for underwater use, they offer no advantage and are in fact not that well suited for underwater use. Their current utility seems to be as an attractive new revenue stream, not as a better tool for underwater photographers. 

For example, until there is an EVF that can cope with the DR between an unlit foreground and a brightly lit ambient background, no amount of clever technique or new skill is going to make it work  I guess I could compose them separately, but the damn fish keep moving. Perhaps that is the key to using mirrorless underwater? Advanced fish wrangling skills  Mine are plainly not good enough - is this is an age thing?

 
 

There will never be an EVF that has enough DR for a backlit shot with the sunball in it
In fact even your eyes can’t manage that if you look at the sunball however as human eye are managed by your brain and only focus on a very small part of the field of view while the brain reconstructs the rest and ignores highlights an ovf works for that purpose
You can do the same with an evf in addition there are cameras where the sunball clips and you can still see the shadows mine works fine in fact

If you are waiting for that requirement (evf to work in backlit scenes with sunball in it) to be reality well it is not going to happen soon
The eye doesn’t work like a camera and a camera that works like your eye doesn’t exist let alone a 0.75” oled screen which is what an evf is


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Strange discussion here… 

If you are satisfied with your camera why in the world should you replace it („never change a running system!“)??? Just for the sake of having something new or impressing fellow photographers with the latest equipment? Come on …

If you upgrade* from a compact camera or if your camera/housing/top lens is broken/flooded/stolen mirrorless may be the smartest option. Unless you want to take the risk of buying second hand and invest in a system that is probably vanishing 

Nikon, Canon, Sony. But no one talks about Panasonic or OM System (ex-Olympus). They probably have the longest experience with mirrorless and for sure phantastic lenses for uw-use. And their top of the line cameras are very fine, IMHO.

Jock

* Re upgrade: I was fascinated (and kind of frustrated at the same time) when I worked on a pic I took with my carry-always-with-me Oly Tough TG5 last week in Antwerp. It was a photo from a decorative marble ball inside the train station in low light. The (raw) file was not too sharp and with lots of noise. Then I processed it with the free test version of DXO PureRaw2 - and could not believe my eyes. No more noise, sharpness like from an expensive „pro“ lens. (I am on holiday now and can‘t upload the pics, they are on my Mac back home.)

So I am not sure if going from a good compact cam to a dslr is really an upgrade for the average photographer in terms of picture quality. But this may be is good for a new thread. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, Interceptor121 said:

There will never be an EVF that has enough DR for a backlit shot with the sunball in it

I didn't mention sunballs?

For what is is worth, with an optical viewfinder, I can shoot and compose sunball shots. 

However, what I actually said was:

16 hours ago, adamhanlon said:

For example, until there is an EVF that can cope with the DR between an unlit foreground and a brightly lit ambient background,

Which you seem to have extrapolated to mean sunballs? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
32 minutes ago, adamhanlon said:

I didn't mention sunballs?

For what is is worth, with an optical viewfinder, I can shoot and compose sunball shots. 

However, what I actually said was:

Which you seem to have extrapolated to mean sunballs? 

The issue with photography in general is that whatever you see in your camera exposure meter,  clipping is a reflection of the camera jpeg. This is because you see an sRGB image of your raw data. The camera uses this for everything including focusing for a mirrorless camera.

sRGB screens are limited to a maximum of 10 stops of dynamic range and generally those on cameras may fall short although they may be very bright they do not necessarily have the required contrast ratio.

Normally a sunset/sunrise without the sunball in the frame can exceed 10 stops DR with the sunball part of the image on the screen will clip. This is a limitation of the screen not necessarily the sensor or anything underlying.

So there will be situations where if the camera tries to protect highlights the shadows are pitch black, if you go multi meter the EVF will clip but may not necessarily clip in real life and you will see more of the shadows. If you spot meter on the shadows you will see the shadows clearly however you need to make sure your RAW does not eventually clip and you will not know just by looking at the screen

When it comes to optical viewfinder the viewfinder is a window it has no dynamic range per se however the eye works very differently from an EVF and is able to focus on the shadows and ignore bright areas after a quick scan of the frame.

So the difference is the eye not the OVF and the way the eye works. In effect the eye works like the camera in spot metering where only a little part is getting attention and focus while the rest is just cached from memory sort of speak

I have that issue when I shoot high dynamic range landscapes which have far more dynamic range than anything in water as water reduces contrast. So I use spot metering on the shadows and then make a call on the clipping point based on zebras. This is very much the same you would do with a DSLR when you compose trust the meter or maybe not and then review there is no real difference.

I do not know exactly which scenes you say have a problem and neither I know which camera you have used and how was set and there is actually some variability however I cannot see how this is a deal breaker for practical use or I would not be able like many others to compose the shots. As a matter of fact we all do just fine

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Adam, this whole thread reads a little like you trying to talk yourself out of expensive upgrade :D

In all seriousness -- the A7SIII doesn't bring any amazing new capabilities -- it's low light performance is pretty much on par with your D850.

And the case for the new generations of mirrorless cameras form Canon, Nikon and Sony is quite straight-forward: video capabilities. Let's face it -- the photography market is imploding. Pretty much everyone buying cameras these days is filming video in addition to or instead of photography. Both professionals and hobbyists.

It's interesting we're not having any discussion about whether mirrorless cameras are a worthwhile upgrade when in comes to video. Probably because the answer is so glaringly obvious. 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Adam, this whole thread reads a little like you trying to talk yourself out of expensive upgrade
In all seriousness -- the A7SIII doesn't bring any amazing new capabilities -- it's low light performance is pretty much on par with your D850.
And the case for the new generations of mirrorless cameras form Canon, Nikon and Sony is quite straight-forward: video capabilities. Let's face it -- the photography market is imploding. Pretty much everyone buying cameras these days is filming video in addition to or instead of photography. Both professionals and hobbyists.
It's interesting we're not having any discussion about whether mirrorless cameras are a worthwhile upgrade when in comes to video. Probably because the answer is so glaringly obvious. 

Majority of old school photographers think that video is easy as you just press a button obviously it isn’t
I have the same discussion with land photographers
It is only the newer generations that do both and those people are almost all mirrorless users


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Video capability is one of the reasons I decided to move to the mirrorless body. It's far superior to what the earlier Nikon bodies are capable of.

Anyone who's planning to try both photography and video is going to lean to the mirrorless bodies. As I mentioned earlier,  for folks who are happy with their current system for photography and who have no interest in video I think that there's little reason to upgrade at the moment given the cost.

 

Jon

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, dreifish said:

In all seriousness -- the A7SIII doesn't bring any amazing new capabilities -- it's low light performance is pretty much on par with your D850.

Hmm....I've shot both back to back and disagree. It is producing out-of-the-camera cleaner images at ISO12800 than my D850 at ISO5000 - so I think it is pretty good! 

I'm not talking myself out of anything - just disagreeing with Massimo's article's conclusion. To repeat...as and when mirrorless cameras offer me capabilities and performance that is better for me, I will upgrade. I do not believe that time is now. 

I agree that video argument for mirrorless is more compelling, but I do not shoot much video. This thread is also about Massimo's article - which doesn't mention video either!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
On 6/28/2022 at 8:58 AM, adamhanlon said:

Hmm....I've shot both back to back and disagree. It is producing out-of-the-camera cleaner images at ISO12800 than my D850 at ISO5000 - so I think it is pretty good! 

I'm not talking myself out of anything - just disagreeing with Massimo's article's conclusion. To repeat...as and when mirrorless cameras offer me capabilities and performance that is better for me, I will upgrade. I do not believe that time is now. 

I agree that video argument for mirrorless is more compelling, but I do not shoot much video. This thread is also about Massimo's article - which doesn't mention video either!

I was about to say Sony denoises RAW files but Nikon does the same after all it is still a sony sensor

 

Edited by Interceptor121

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

For me personally, even with theoretically unlimited money (which isn't the case!) I still am struggling to see the use case for mirrorless underwater yet. The advantages are simply not great enough (for underwater!) to sell all your gear cheaply, and then re-buy everything at a premium (cause no one is selling their mirrorless used). Even if money was no object, for Nikon at least, the lenses just aren't there. I believe even their new macro lens has been touted as optically great, but slow at focusing.

 

So say you're on a good DSLR kit, and you sell that for £x, then you re-buy everything brand new for perhaps double, are you *really* getting your moneys worth then? Lenses and everything have to be bought.

 

From a technical standpoint, I see the advantage of using a digital viewfinder, or even the back of the screen, as it makes shooting from the hip a tonne easier. There may even be some weight and size savings!

 

However, I had my RX100ii, and I wouldn't say I exceeded the camera's capability, but I struggled in a fair few situations, particularly around distance from subjects (skittish ones) and focusing in dark environments. Whereas with my DSLR it doesn't have any of those problems. I'm going to be honest, it was A LOT easier using the RX100ii, small, lightweight, easy to snoot with, easy to handle. Mirrorless unfortunately doesn't seem to offer that in buckets, I think I'd be willing to give mirrorless a go if they could make them small and agile like the RX100, but laws of physics etc.

 

I am 100% going to mirrorless when the time is right, but right now, it's far too expensive to switch from DSLR and does not provide enough advantages. Perhaps someone who wants their first bit of prosumer kit would be the target audience. I have however been seeing a lot more DSLR kits up for sale, so I think it's fair to say people still have an absolute tonne of money to spend on new toys :) 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, sinetwo said:

However, I had my RX100ii, and I wouldn't say I exceeded the camera's capability, but I struggled in a fair few situations, particularly around distance from subjects (skittish ones) and focusing in dark environments.

RX100 II had contrast-detection autofocus. Modern mirrorless cameras (with the exception of Panasonic and some entry-level Olympus models) offer phase-detection autofocus that is similar to, and in some cases exceeds, the capabilities of DSLRs.

19 minutes ago, sinetwo said:

I'm going to be honest, it was A LOT easier using the RX100ii, small, lightweight, easy to snoot with, easy to handle. Mirrorless unfortunately doesn't seem to offer that in buckets, I think I'd be willing to give mirrorless a go if they could make them small and agile like the RX100, but laws of physics etc.

Something like an A7C + 24mm f/2.8 + WWL-C is hardly any bigger than an RX100 rig, while offering you a 24MP full-frame sensor. No DSLR system can match this.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 6/28/2022 at 3:58 AM, adamhanlon said:

Hmm....I've shot both back to back and disagree. It is producing out-of-the-camera cleaner images at ISO12800 than my D850 at ISO5000 - so I think it is pretty good! 
 

Are you viewing the images at equivalent magnification? With 1/4th the pixels, the Sony will of course sook cleaner if you're you're reviewing the same number of pixels from both files. But technical measurements tell a different story. Normalized to the same resolution, the Nikon D850 actually has better signal to noise performance. https://www.dxomark.com/Cameras/Compare/Side-by-side/Sony-A7SIII-versus-Nikon-D850___1357_1177

If we're talking about JPEGs, then a lot comes down to what noise processing each camera is applying. But you should be able to get equally clean images from the two if processing your own raw files.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

I would not use Dxomark when it comes to comapring old tech to new tech. They don't retest old cameras. Hence you don't know if the camera sensor is good today or just was good in the past. 

As I was pointed to, my statement was false. But still:
I would say use https://photonstophotos.net/, there you got the raw data. For example the new generation is better in noise to iso performance but the dynamic range is almost the same. 

Edited by JYk

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I thought Dxomark has a standardised algorythm so it should not change over time?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

Hm, I had the impression that the scoreing system is changing over the years. I could be wrong, in this case ignore my post from before. 

EDIT:
Just take a look at Nikon D850 vs Sony A7IV vs (dxomark.com) But I think you might be right, but it should be better to see the results for yourself because the A7 IV seems to have better low light performance and the D850 has an edge in color depth. 

Edited by JYk

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

FWIW. After 40+ years of professional photography, above and below water, I no longer own a dSLR. Virtually ALL current digital ('system') cameras are so good that the differences are nuances. Some do do certain things better than others but ALL are extraordinarily capable. Just to think, I spent 25 years shooting film .....

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sponsors

Advertisements



×
×
  • Create New...