User Tag List

Thanks useful information Thanks useful information:  8
Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast
Results 1 to 20 of 48

Thread: Full Frame Nikon Recommendations?

  1. #1
    Member LittleSparrow's Avatar
    Join Date
    06 Jan 2015
    Location
    Adelaide
    Posts
    79
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Full Frame Nikon Recommendations?

    Howdy,

    I am a Beginner/ Intermediate photographer. I got my first SLR 2 yrs ago and have gone from shooting auto mode to shooting full time manual mode. At the moment, I shoot for hobby only although since my photos have improved I have been asked by friends and family for a photo session. I most photograph my children outdoor and indoor (candid or with studio lighting).
    I currently have a Nikon D3100 and use a 35mm 1.8 lens 99% of the time. It has been great to learn on and I love it. But as I improve my skills and start to find my style I'm noticing that the cropped sensor is not working for me. It's great for up close portraits, but I hate having to back up a lot to get more in the frame. I also find i lose a lot of bokeh too. So i'm wanting to upgrade my camera body to a full frame model.
    As i said, im beginner/intermediate so all of the nook and crannies of a camera are still quite new to me and i'm still learning, so i'm hoping for some recommendations. I'd like to stick with Nikon, my budget is around $1500 - $2000. Something that is good in low light situations. Can anyone help?

  2. #2
    Arch-Σigmoid Ausphotography Regular ameerat42's Avatar
    Join Date
    18 Sep 2009
    Location
    Nthn Sydney
    Posts
    16,811
    Mentioned
    21 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Hi and welcome.
    The first Q that comes to mind is: Why do you use that lens 99% of the time?

    To consider a full frame system on the basis of how you use a lens is an unusual approach.
    I would have expected it to be based on perhaps any dissatisfaction with image quality of your present camera.

    Presumably, you have other lenses. If so, are they of wider angle. Have you tried them to overcome the limitations you
    have mentioned? What other benefits - apart from overcoming the use of that lens problem - do you expect to gain with
    a full frame system?

    Am.
    CC, Image editing OK.

  3. #3
    Administrator ricktas's Avatar
    Join Date
    24 Jun 2007
    Location
    Hobart
    Posts
    15,643
    Mentioned
    10 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)
    based on what you have written above, you are not a beginner. You are using manual, you understand bokeh, you have studio ligjhts, you have been asked to do photo sessions, so we have upgraded you to intermediate level. Congrats.

    My suggestion for a camera body. Keep saving, and get a D800 or D810.
    Last edited by ricktas; 06-01-2015 at 1:29pm.
    "It is one thing to make a picture of what a person looks like, it is another thing to make a portrait of who they are" - Paul Caponigro

    Constructive Critique of my photographs is always appreciated
    Nikon, etc!

    RICK
    My Photography

  4. #4
    Ausphotography Regular MissionMan's Avatar
    Join Date
    28 Feb 2012
    Location
    Melbourne
    Posts
    1,824
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Actually, having recently purchased a D750, I'd take the D750 over the D810 and put the extra $1000 towards glass. I don't think the D810 will add anything over the D810 at your current level.

    On the issue of your current problems, I would say you may be better off investing in glass as a starting point and then moving to full frame after that.

    From a bokeh perspective, it depends on what you mean by losing bokeh. Do you mean the lens isn't wide enough to get the bokeh you want in the frame, or do you mean that the bokeh isn't that nice on the photos. I'd also clarify whether what you are referring to is DOF or bokeh as a lot of users mistake the two when they start. DOF is background blur, Bokeh is the out of focus light blobs you get in the background.

    Given the cost of a full frame DSLR body, I would say that you would be better off investing in a Tamron 24-70 f/2.8 and a Tamron 70-200 f/2.8 as a starting point. The 24-70 will give you the wider frame options to look at and the lens is optically good the whole way through the range. The 70-200 has incredible bokeh and is considered to be one of the best portrait lenses. It's not as good as a 85 1.4 but its pretty close and offers more flexibility at your skill level. That will set you back $2,000 if you buy Tamron for both which is pretty close to the Nikon optically. Make sure you get the VR versions because indoor photos may require stopping down the camera if you are not using studio lights.

    Once you have those two lenses, I would wait until the budget allows and buy a D750 (although the full frames may be upgraded by then). As mentioned above, I don't think the D810 will really add much over the D750 at this point and the D750 is better for low light focussing and ISO quality. If you're female, the D750 is also smaller which will help it fit a little better in your hands. Top wedding photographers like Ryan Brenizer have picked the D750 over the D810 so if they think it's good enough, chances are it's good enough for you as well.
    Fuji XT-2, Fuji X-E3, Fuji X100T, Fuji VPB-XT2, Fujinon 16-55 f/2.8, Fujinon 50-140 f/2.8, Fujinon 35 f2, Fujinon 90 f/2, Fujinon 60 f/2.4 Macro, Yongnuo YN560 IV, Yongnuo YN560 TX, Benro C3580T, Mefoto Q00
    https://www.flickr.com/photos/atholhill
    http://www.theoverratedphotographer.com
    https://www.instagram.com/theoverratedphotographer/


  5. #5
    Member
    Threadstarter
    LittleSparrow's Avatar
    Join Date
    06 Jan 2015
    Location
    Adelaide
    Posts
    79
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Thank you! I've only got the kit lens and the 35mm. I don't like the kit lens because I don't like the quality of photos I get from it in comparison to the 35mm (i mostly only use the kit lens if I need to zoom in on something far away). I guess im talking about background blur over all not just little bokeh blobs I want to be able to take a photo of my subject and get more of the background in. When I try to do it with my D3100 and 35mm I have to back way way up to get that to happen. So with the full frame i'm hoping to be closer to my subject while fitting in extra background into the frame. I would also like my images to be sharper and of a higher quality than they are now.

    Thank you very much for the body recommendations and also the lenses! I am off to do some googling and research

  6. #6
    Ausphotography Regular MissionMan's Avatar
    Join Date
    28 Feb 2012
    Location
    Melbourne
    Posts
    1,824
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    A 24-70 will give you virtually the same photo outcome on a d3100 as a 35mm on a full frame. I.e. 35mm vs 36mm equivalent. The difference being that you now have the flexibility and the range of two amazing lenses and lenses are what make the difference as you would have realised comparing to your kit lens. With the 70-200, you'll find you produce incredible shots. Do some searches on Google for portraits taken with the 70-200.

  7. #7
    Member
    Join Date
    16 Aug 2013
    Location
    Mildura
    Posts
    53
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Not sure why you feel the need to go Full Frame yet LittleSparrow? There are some great used DX camera's available these days for less than $600. D7000. You'll need to consider the additional costs of FX lenses too if you upgrade. If you really must, you might want to enter FX cheaply with the D700 (12mpx but still no slouch when it comes to IQ). You can pick these up for around $900 for a low shutter count model. As MissionMan says above, you'll find more benefit in investing in some nice lenses which hold their value and offer you some complimentary choices to your existing 35mm.

  8. #8
    Ausphotography Regular J.davis's Avatar
    Join Date
    17 Dec 2008
    Location
    Willowbank
    Posts
    1,152
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    JB Hifi sell at $2060 (on Sale) for the D750 body, hang around for a bargain. If that is what you want, They also do interest free finance on specials.
    Regards
    John
    Nikon D750, Sigma 105mm OS Macro, Tokina 16-28 F2.8, Sigma 24-105 Art, Sigma 150-600C,
    Benro Tripod and Monopod with Arca plates

  9. #9
    Ausphotography Regular MissionMan's Avatar
    Join Date
    28 Feb 2012
    Location
    Melbourne
    Posts
    1,824
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    The other thing I just realised us that I assume you probably have the 35mm DX prime which will be automatically cropped back to DX on a full frame so you won't actually gain anything

  10. #10
    A royal pain in the bum! arthurking83's Avatar
    Join Date
    04 Jun 2006
    Location
    the worst house, in the best street
    Posts
    8,185
    Mentioned
    2 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    From what I can make of the OP's dilemma, the switch to Fx is about the best way forward .. even tho it's only one way in which the process could be achieved.

    LS seems to want a wider FOV, either of which are achieved by using a shorter focal length(ie. new lens) or a larger sensor.

    Image quality dissatisfaction shouldn't be a primary reason for choosing a larger sensor format any longer.

    Going with a wider lens type(eg. 24mm type lens) for shooting portraits has it's drawbacks. Distortion! .. shorter focal length also limits the ability for subject separation.
    A 35mm lens of a set aperture value(eg. f/1.8) will always render a more blurred background if the framing is kept similarly with that of a 24mm lens of equal aperture value(again, at f/1.8).
    The 24mm lens needs to be faster to render as much bokeh as the longer lens. This comes at a cost.
    The other aspect to consider too tho is that as focal length shortens, bokeh is rendered less smooth. Not blurrier as in shallower DOF .. but it's a common phenonmenon with wider angle lenses that the bokeh is rendered less nicely.

    So the obvious choice for LS's purposes is to update the camera to a larger sensor type.

    D610 seems to be a good deal. Shop around for them too tho. I've noticed some retailers(web based) have them for the low $1600's which is about the maximum price this camera should be selling for.(I've always held the belief that Nikon's pricing has been selfserving for far too long .. and .. ah well never mind).

    D750 would be nice, but would you really use the really obvious features such as wifi and tilting screen? D750 will focus better, more accurately and with the group focusing feature it has, more consistently than the D610 .. but again would it really make all that much difference?
    One way to determine this is to work out if focusing with the current gear has caused many problems. If only a few, then I'd say the D610 would work well enough for you.
    If you've been plagued with consistent focusing issues with what you currently use .. then maybe the D750 would be the wiser overall option*

    (wiser overall option = get the gear with the greater ability now! .. rather than something that may not work as well, requiring another purchase in the short term future).

    MissionMan mentions the fact that the 35/1.8 Dx lens automatically sets an Fx camera to crop mode. This is true, but from what I've seen with this lens, you can turn auto crop mode in camera to off(easily done, and should be done too!) .. and the lens is still very usable in a portrait shooting environment(ie. close range).
    At infinity or longer focused distances, it shows obvious vignetting but this is a very small amount, and in some situations could be an advantage anyhow!
    But if you had to crop out any vignetting, it's a minimal few millimeters at the very edge.
    I'd recommend that the 35/1.8 would be fine to use until you can allocate more money towards another lens in the future.

    Personally I'd recommend the D750 for it's better focusing(ie. longer term usage before any gear related issues surface)
    But, based on the price allowance, and my understanding of what you already have and have used .. I'd say the D610 would be more than OK for now .. even a refurbished D600(much cheaper initial outlay!) and this still gives you some headroom to also consider another lens as well.

    I wouldn't pay too much more than about $1600 for a D610, and not more than $1K for a refurb D600. This gives you plenty of room for more lenses.
    Nikon D800E, D300, D70s
    {Nikon} -> 50/1.2 : 500/8(CPU'd) : 105/2.8VR Micro : 180/2.8ais : 105mm f/1.8ais : 24mm/2ais
    {Sigma}; ->10-20/4-5.6 : 50/1.4 : 12-24/4.5-5.6II : 150-600mm|S
    {Tamron}; -> 17-50/2.8 : 28-75/2.8 : 70-200/2.8 : 300/2.8 SP MF : 24-70/2.8VC


  11. #11
    Ausphotography Regular MissionMan's Avatar
    Join Date
    28 Feb 2012
    Location
    Melbourne
    Posts
    1,824
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by arthurking83 View Post
    From what I can make of the OP's dilemma, the switch to Fx is about the best way forward .. even tho it's only one way in which the process could be achieved.

    LS seems to want a wider FOV, either of which are achieved by using a shorter focal length(ie. new lens) or a larger sensor.

    Image quality dissatisfaction shouldn't be a primary reason for choosing a larger sensor format any longer.

    Going with a wider lens type(eg. 24mm type lens) for shooting portraits has it's drawbacks. Distortion! .. shorter focal length also limits the ability for subject separation.
    A 35mm lens of a set aperture value(eg. f/1.8) will always render a more blurred background if the framing is kept similarly with that of a 24mm lens of equal aperture value(again, at f/1.8).
    The 24mm lens needs to be faster to render as much bokeh as the longer lens. This comes at a cost.
    The other aspect to consider too tho is that as focal length shortens, bokeh is rendered less smooth. Not blurrier as in shallower DOF .. but it's a common phenonmenon with wider angle lenses that the bokeh is rendered less nicely.

    So the obvious choice for LS's purposes is to update the camera to a larger sensor type.

    D610 seems to be a good deal. Shop around for them too tho. I've noticed some retailers(web based) have them for the low $1600's which is about the maximum price this camera should be selling for.(I've always held the belief that Nikon's pricing has been selfserving for far too long .. and .. ah well never mind).

    D750 would be nice, but would you really use the really obvious features such as wifi and tilting screen? D750 will focus better, more accurately and with the group focusing feature it has, more consistently than the D610 .. but again would it really make all that much difference?
    One way to determine this is to work out if focusing with the current gear has caused many problems. If only a few, then I'd say the D610 would work well enough for you.
    If you've been plagued with consistent focusing issues with what you currently use .. then maybe the D750 would be the wiser overall option*

    (wiser overall option = get the gear with the greater ability now! .. rather than something that may not work as well, requiring another purchase in the short term future).

    MissionMan mentions the fact that the 35/1.8 Dx lens automatically sets an Fx camera to crop mode. This is true, but from what I've seen with this lens, you can turn auto crop mode in camera to off(easily done, and should be done too!) .. and the lens is still very usable in a portrait shooting environment(ie. close range).
    At infinity or longer focused distances, it shows obvious vignetting but this is a very small amount, and in some situations could be an advantage anyhow!
    But if you had to crop out any vignetting, it's a minimal few millimeters at the very edge.
    I'd recommend that the 35/1.8 would be fine to use until you can allocate more money towards another lens in the future.

    Personally I'd recommend the D750 for it's better focusing(ie. longer term usage before any gear related issues surface)
    But, based on the price allowance, and my understanding of what you already have and have used .. I'd say the D610 would be more than OK for now .. even a refurbished D600(much cheaper initial outlay!) and this still gives you some headroom to also consider another lens as well.

    I wouldn't pay too much more than about $1600 for a D610, and not more than $1K for a refurb D600. This gives you plenty of room for more lenses.
    Not sure I would agree.

    A D3300 with 24-70 f/2.8 and 70-200 f/2.8 would give the person far more flexibility than a D750 with a 35mm DX lens. At 24mm, the 24-70 has some distortion but on pro glass this is normally fairly limited and would be easily fixed in lightroom. The flexibility of having both lenses would however give them far more opportunity with glass which is far better quality than the 35mm DX lens and they would have one of the best portrait lenses (70-200 f/2.8) to expand their options. They also specify outdoor photography and this is really where the 70-200 really excels because you can afford to stay back and let kids be kids while still having the benefit of really nice candid photos with far better DOF and Bokeh than you would ever get on a 35mm DX lens.

    The focus speed on the 24-70 and 70-200 would also be well ahead of the 35mm DX lens, plus they still have the option to use the 35mm DX indoors if they need the f/1.4.

    If I look at how much time I spend on each lens with my kids, the 70-200 is about 70%, the 24-70 is about 20% and the 50mm f/1.4 (same as the 35mm on a DX camera) is about 10% because the largest limitation with the shorter focal length is kids don't let you get close enough for extended periods to really take advantage of it.

    The D3300 was only released at the beginning of last year, so it's no slouch from a camera perspective.

  12. #12
    Member Arcom's Avatar
    Join Date
    28 Oct 2014
    Location
    Melbourne, AUS
    Posts
    6
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    If your budget is under $2000 and you want full frame maybe the D610 is worth a look. I picked one up for $1800 new a few months ago. Just recently paired it with a Tamron 70-200 f/2.8 and I've found it to give outstanding results for portraits.
    Andrew

  13. #13
    Moderately Underexposed I @ M's Avatar
    Join Date
    04 May 2007
    Location
    Marlo, Far East Gippsland
    Posts
    4,911
    Mentioned
    3 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by LittleSparrow View Post
    I'd like to stick with Nikon, my budget is around $1500 - $2000. Something that is good in low light situations. Can anyone help?
    Stick with the body you have until you have totally mastered it, spend $1500.00 on lenses that will give you real benefits and then in a year or so think about a new body.
    Andrew
    Nikon, Fuji, Nikkor, Sigma, Tamron, Tokina and too many other bits and pieces to list.



  14. #14
    A royal pain in the bum! arthurking83's Avatar
    Join Date
    04 Jun 2006
    Location
    the worst house, in the best street
    Posts
    8,185
    Mentioned
    2 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by LittleSparrow View Post
    ...... It's great for up close portraits, but I hate having to back up a lot to get more in the frame. .....
    Quote Originally Posted by MissionMan View Post
    Not sure I would agree.

    A D3300 with 24-70 f/2.8 and 70-200 f/2.8 would give the person far more flexibility than a D750 with a 35mm DX lens. At 24mm, the 24-70 has some distortion but on pro glass this is normally fairly limited and would be easily fixed in lightroom. ......
    Normally I'm in agreement with both yourself MM and Andrew(I@M).
    But based on the OP's stated issue .. of using the 35/1.8 99% of the time and hating the need to back up more .. plus the rendering quality of a fast wide angle and fast aperture .. I'm not sure the 24mm at f/2.8 is as obvious choice as it may initially seem.
    Remember, irrespective of format size, bokeh rendering is going to be the same for a given point of view .. with the smaller format you just see less of it in the final image.

    Whereas, going to 24mm (to begin with) instantly changes the background blur, and being limited(relatively speaking) to f/2.8(where f/1.8 was previously an option!) .. final analysis is that the rendering won't quite be the same as previously.

    If this member's predicament were mine, and funds were limited, my choice would be a cheapish newish Fx body and a 50/1.8, whilst still using the 35/1.8 Dx for now too.

    side note: I've been thinking of acquiring a 35/1.8 Dx lens to use as a pseudo wide angle for a bit, to see if it's something I'd use .. for my D800!

    If funds were available, personally, I'd be opting for a D750 + Tammy 24-70/2.8 VC for sure in this instance.


    PS: the use of the term distortion, I actually meant perspective distortion, not barrel. Barrel can be 'fixed' in PP .. perspective is harder to do, if not impossible to do with respect to extension re-rendering.

    PPS: You may notice over time that as your kids get older(and hence you do as well), that shooting from a distance in a more candid manner doesn't work. The kids seem to have eyes all round their heads, and notice any attempt to photograph them at any time. The problem with being at candid distances, is that they have a head start over you for when they run off into the bushes to get away from the crazy haired camera mad parent! Staying closer therefore allows one to chain themselves to the children in question until the parent's need for more images has been satisfied!

  15. #15
    Arch-Σigmoid Ausphotography Regular ameerat42's Avatar
    Join Date
    18 Sep 2009
    Location
    Nthn Sydney
    Posts
    16,811
    Mentioned
    21 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Well, back to it: I still think the move to FF is not the solution. Closest to my opinion is I @ M's advice above.
    All that people have said about what/why FF solution is OK, just that I don't think it's relevant to (my perception of)
    the OP's predicament.

    Note to gunners: take aim, and I'll duck and weave
    Last edited by ameerat42; 07-01-2015 at 7:45pm.

  16. #16
    Ausphotography Regular MissionMan's Avatar
    Join Date
    28 Feb 2012
    Location
    Melbourne
    Posts
    1,824
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Full Frame Nikon Recommendations?

    Quote Originally Posted by arthurking83 View Post
    Normally I'm in agreement with both yourself MM and Andrew(I@M).
    But based on the OP's stated issue .. of using the 35/1.8 99% of the time and hating the need to back up more .. plus the rendering quality of a fast wide angle and fast aperture .. I'm not sure the 24mm at f/2.8 is as obvious choice as it may initially seem.
    Remember, irrespective of format size, bokeh rendering is going to be the same for a given point of view .. with the smaller format you just see less of it in the final image.

    Whereas, going to 24mm (to begin with) instantly changes the background blur, and being limited(relatively speaking) to f/2.8(where f/1.8 was previously an option!) .. final analysis is that the rendering won't quite be the same as previously.

    If this member's predicament were mine, and funds were limited, my choice would be a cheapish newish Fx body and a 50/1.8, whilst still using the 35/1.8 Dx for now too.

    side note: I've been thinking of acquiring a 35/1.8 Dx lens to use as a pseudo wide angle for a bit, to see if it's something I'd use .. for my D800!

    If funds were available, personally, I'd be opting for a D750 + Tammy 24-70/2.8 VC for sure in this instance.


    PS: the use of the term distortion, I actually meant perspective distortion, not barrel. Barrel can be 'fixed' in PP .. perspective is harder to do, if not impossible to do with respect to extension re-rendering.

    PPS: You may notice over time that as your kids get older(and hence you do as well), that shooting from a distance in a more candid manner doesn't work. The kids seem to have eyes all round their heads, and notice any attempt to photograph them at any time. The problem with being at candid distances, is that they have a head start over you for when they run off into the bushes to get away from the crazy haired camera mad parent! Staying closer therefore allows one to chain themselves to the children in question until the parent's need for more images has been satisfied!
    The reason she is shooting at 35mm is because it's the best quality lens she has. If there was more flexibility without losing quality, she may be inclined to use other focal lenses but my guess is she is doing the best she can given the constraints. If I had what she had, the majority of my photos would also be at 35mm.

    If it was me for example, and I hard a hard budget of $1500, I'd be looking at a 24-70 / 85 1.8 combo which would give the best combination of dreamy bokeh and focal length options. If the hard stop was $2k, I'd be getting a 24-70/70-200 (non VR) and if I could raise a tad over $2k, I'd swap the 70-200 for the VR version.

    Quote Originally Posted by ameerat42 View Post
    Well, back to it: I still think the move to FF is not the solution. Closest to my opinion is I @ M's advice above.
    All that people have said about what/why FF solution is OK, just that I don't think it's relevant to (my perception of)
    the OP's predicament.

    Note to gunners: take aim, and I'll duck and weave
    Hey, I said buy glass as well! Don't steal my thunder! I worked hard for it
    Last edited by MissionMan; 07-01-2015 at 8:18pm.

  17. #17
    Arch-Σigmoid Ausphotography Regular ameerat42's Avatar
    Join Date
    18 Sep 2009
    Location
    Nthn Sydney
    Posts
    16,811
    Mentioned
    21 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    No, I wasn't. Sorry I didn't specify, MM.

  18. #18
    Way Down Yonder in the Paw Paw Patch jim's Avatar
    Join Date
    27 Jun 2007
    Location
    Sydney
    Posts
    2,341
    Mentioned
    2 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by arthurking83 View Post

    If this member's predicament were mine, and funds were limited, my choice would be a cheapish newish Fx body and a 50/1.8, whilst still using the 35/1.8 Dx for now too.
    Have we established that LittleSparrow's 35 f1.8 is indeed the DX version? (I admit it seems like a reasonable guess.)

  19. #19
    Moderately Underexposed I @ M's Avatar
    Join Date
    04 May 2007
    Location
    Marlo, Far East Gippsland
    Posts
    4,911
    Mentioned
    3 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by jim View Post
    Have we established that LittleSparrow's 35 f1.8 is indeed the DX version? (I admit it seems like a reasonable guess.)
    Almost a shoe in seeing that Nikon have really only ever made one 35mm F/1.8 that will mount and operate on digital bodies -----

  20. #20
    Way Down Yonder in the Paw Paw Patch jim's Avatar
    Join Date
    27 Jun 2007
    Location
    Sydney
    Posts
    2,341
    Mentioned
    2 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •