Nikon lets 24.4mp D3x out of the bag

Discussion in 'Nikon' started by frederick, Apr 16, 2008.

  1. frederick

    frederick Guest

    How come Sigma puts "OS" (image stabilisation) on all the lenses I don't
    want, but not in the lenses they should put it in? Someone in their
    marketing dept needs to be shot - probably the same fellow who designs
    their lens caps.
     
    frederick, Apr 16, 2008
    #21
    1. Advertisements

  2. frederick

    Alienjones Guest

    -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
    Hash: SHA1

    C J Campbell wrote:
    | On 2008-04-16 02:39:29 -0700, Steve <> said:
    |
    |>
    |> On Wed, 16 Apr 2008 16:38:19 +1000, Alienjones
    |>
    |>> Sorry to let the cat out of the bag but Nikon has it all over Canon as
    |>> far as professional users go. The whole idea is that you can get the job
    |>> done with the least amount of drama. The prima-donna's who want 30 Mp
    |>> images and everyone noticing their glaring white lenses will probably
    |>> never know what they are missing.
    |>
    |> I've been to a *lot* of wedding, maybe 30/year, and I take note of
    |> what the photographers are using. I don't ever remember seeing the
    |> white lenes. Yes, I've seen plenty of Canon cameras doing weddings,
    |> but no white lenses.
    |
    | I saw an awful lot of 70-200mm f/2.8 lenses at WPPI. Among Canon
    | shooters, this has to be one of the most popular wedding lenses of all
    | time. It appeared that wedding and portrait photography was about evenly
    | split between Canon and Nikon. The funny thing was that the Nikon users
    | tended to sit on the left hand side of the room, while the Canon
    | shooters sat on the right! I was one of the first to notice this, and by
    | the end of the convention it had almost become satire.
    |
    | Come to think of it, I spend most of my time with the 70-200mm f/2.8
    | Nikkor, so it isn't just Canon.
    |
    | The Nikon cropped sensor crowd also like the 17-55mm f/2.8 DX. I like
    | this lens, although I wish it had slightly more reach, so I am replacing
    | it with the FX mid-range zoom.
    |
    | I was surprised at the number of people who use fish eyes for wedding
    | photography. I had thought I was one of the only people to do this.
    |
    | I don't think the color of the lens matters much to most subjects.
    |
    | Famed wedding photographer Dennis Orchards was a Nikon guy for years; in
    | fact, he was one of the oldest members of Nikon Professional Services.
    | But he had a camera break down somewhere and he had to dash into a
    | camera shop for a replacement. The only thing they had was Canon, so he
    | grabbed a 1D Mark III. He never went back to Nikon, so we have lost him
    | to the dark side. The funny thing was, the week after he switched, Nikon
    | called him asking for an endorsement, and he had to tell them he was now
    | using Canon. <Click>
    |
    | Well, Nikon might have hung up on him and he says he will never switch
    | back, but he spent a lot of time looking at D3s and D300s in the
    | classroom. Not that it matters to me, as long as Dennis keeps churning
    | out the great stuff he does. He is amazing.
    |

    I used a Canon 24-105mm f/4L IS lens as a standard for weddings with a
    spare body using the Sigma 70 -200 F/2.8. The issue with a lens using
    70mm as it's starting point is space. But it also allows a better visual
    perspective to a photo if you want to pick out people in a crowd.

    My all time favorite Canon lens was actually a Sigma lens! Curiously...
    I thought the thing the Sigma lacked was Image stabilization but
    discovered after buying a VR Nikon, that is was really shutter shudder
    causing the slightly OOF pics at less than 1/125th.

    Canon and Nikon can both take exemplary quality pictures the "usability"
    factor I discovered between brands is too much difference to be ignored.
    Other people may have found that factor in reverse and support Canon as
    the most usable.

    For me, opening 800 or so images from 2 shooters in Lightroom and
    finding all the photos looking nearly identical ...technically speaking,
    is a huge time and cost saver for me.

    The difference between the Dmax of a D60 image and a D3 image is
    marginal. The different in Dmax between a 20D image and a 5D image is
    huge. I could pull 2 stops under images from 5D files fairly easily
    although it needed this less than 20D images which had about 1 stop of
    latitude in the shadows at best before horrible noise started to show
    the ugly side of EOS.

    Probably the most significant factor in my changeover was ignoring the
    local firm I had previously done business with and buying from Hong
    Kong. Not just the $15,000 I saved doing this either. The Aussie dealer
    had no delivery dates for the D3 I ordered 3 months before I went to
    China. They took a week before *ALL* the goods arrived!
    - --

    from Douglas,
    If my PGP key is missing, the
    post is a forgery. Ignore it.
    -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
    Version: GnuPG v1.4.7 (MingW32)

    iD8DBQFIBnduhuxzk5D6V14RAjtpAJ4ufioupSF46ctGYauxgh9cQb/0kACePqkk
    a8fuR55H3j1NSEA6MjpJW6c=
    =szil
    -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
     
    Alienjones, Apr 16, 2008
    #22
    1. Advertisements

  3. frederick

    Alienjones Guest

    -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
    Hash: SHA1

    nospam wrote:
    | In article <fu46o0$1ei$>, Alienjones
    |
    |> Given that *any* Nikon DSLR image is infinitely more recoverable from
    |> under exposure than *any* Canon DSLR image
    |
    | really? infinitely more recoverable?? on what do you base this crazy
    | idea?

    It's not an idea and certainly not a crazy one.

    Canon cameras cannot expose correctly using ETTL II with their own
    speedlites. The problem gets worse when you try to diffuse the flash.
    Even dialing in 2 stops of compensation to the flash will result in the
    brightest object in the scene deciding the exposure. Almost the same
    when you use Area Average metering.

    Pulling the resulting underexposed image into correct exposure can
    require more than 2 stops of "lift" from the murky shadows... About the
    same as cranking up ISO to 1600 or 3200 which produces unacceptable
    noise and artifacts in the images.

    Nikon images have much more "recoverability" in this area alone. Anyone
    ~ in opportunistic photography (like journalists and wedding
    photographers) will know exactly what I mean.

    For you, you'll just have to play along and look smart instead of trying
    to bait people because you haven't got a clue yourself.

    - --

    from Douglas,
    If my PGP key is missing, the
    post is a forgery. Ignore it.
    -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
    Version: GnuPG v1.4.7 (MingW32)

    iD4DBQFIBnqahuxzk5D6V14RAtV+AJjSuOougDZ1aCZqfjkvu7wNjzN6AKCG6RfA
    ve0JL0AYuaYpYCWIolXbzA==
    =LTp/
    -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
     
    Alienjones, Apr 16, 2008
    #23
  4. And I'm sure they couldn't tell the difference or even care of a frame rate
    of 9fps-11fps in a double-blind test. The 9fps kick some serious butt!




    Rita
     
    Rita Berkowitz, Apr 17, 2008
    #24
  5. Well, the 18-month rule takes into consideration peak selling season for
    dSLRs. The 18-month inteval allows for maximum use while recouping maximum
    returns on you sale.
    I'm sure it will be the most lusted after dSLR out there, but that is what
    they said about the 1Ds Mk III. The truth is Canon could hardly give them
    away.
    Now you're catching on, you see the pattern? Nikon makes a killing selling
    great lenses. Kinda like Xerox giving you a free $3,000 color printer just
    as long as you sign a contract to buy "X" amount of ink in the next three
    years. Nikon realizes it's foolish to follow Canon's model of gouging on a
    crappy $8k body when most photographers will hold on to it for 18-months or
    less. Nikon makes up the difference in lens sales and the consumer flipping
    the dSLR body every 18-months. So, no, Nikon will not price a 20+MP D3x
    over $5,000 USD.

    As for the 200-400/4, I lusted after that lens for a long time, almost had
    one for $4K, but the bastard didn't want to sell at the last minute.
    Looking back, it was probably a good thing since I got the 500/4 Nikkor and
    my 400/2.8 is on its way.
    See above: And repeat after me, "Nikon will never sell a pro series dSLR for
    more than $5,000 USD MSRP since it goes against their business model."





    Rita
     
    Rita Berkowitz, Apr 17, 2008
    #25
  6. frederick

    C J Campbell Guest

    And you can't get Canons? What a stupid argument. If availability means
    it is a crappy camera, then Canons must be among the worst cameras ever
    made. And Kodak DSLRs the best.
     
    C J Campbell, Apr 17, 2008
    #26
  7. frederick

    Dave Busch Guest

    Only if the D3x costs $5000, shoots 9 fps, and can be used routinely
    at ISO 6400 with good results.

    Dave
     
    Dave Busch, Apr 17, 2008
    #27
  8. frederick

    Robert Coe Guest

    : C J Campbell wrote:
    :
    : >> Cool. Another few months and I can get a D3 for under 2 grand.
    : >
    : > Not likely. The D3X will probably run $8,000.
    :
    : Wrong! Nikon doesn't and never will price a pro dSLR above the traditional
    : $5,000 USD MSRP. Nikon strictly adheres to family oriented traditions and
    : business practices and isn't interested in gouging. They see the folly of
    : Canon's white elephant, the overpriced and severely crippled 1Ds Mk III and
    : refuse to subject their customers to that.

    We'll quote you on that after the D3x is announced.

    Bob
     
    Robert Coe, Apr 17, 2008
    #28
  9. frederick

    Robert Coe Guest

    : -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
    : Hash: SHA1
    :
    : nospam wrote:
    : | In article <fu46o0$1ei$>, Alienjones
    : |
    : |> Given that *any* Nikon DSLR image is infinitely more recoverable from
    : |> under exposure than *any* Canon DSLR image
    : |
    : | really? infinitely more recoverable?? on what do you base this crazy
    : | idea?
    :
    : It's not an idea and certainly not a crazy one.
    :
    : Canon cameras cannot expose correctly using ETTL II with their own
    : speedlites. The problem gets worse when you try to diffuse the flash.
    : Even dialing in 2 stops of compensation to the flash will result in the
    : brightest object in the scene deciding the exposure. Almost the same
    : when you use Area Average metering.
    :
    : Pulling the resulting underexposed image into correct exposure can
    : require more than 2 stops of "lift" from the murky shadows... About the
    : same as cranking up ISO to 1600 or 3200 which produces unacceptable
    : noise and artifacts in the images.
    :
    : Nikon images have much more "recoverability" in this area alone. Anyone
    : ~ in opportunistic photography (like journalists and wedding
    : photographers) will know exactly what I mean.
    :
    : For you, you'll just have to play along and look smart instead of trying
    : to bait people because you haven't got a clue yourself.

    Tut, tut, Doug. We were just starting to get used to your new, less paranoid
    self, so don't go and spoil it. Or has some "sock puppet" cracked your PGP
    key?

    Bob
     
    Robert Coe, Apr 17, 2008
    #29
  10. frederick

    Alienjones Guest

    -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
    Hash: SHA1

    Robert Coe wrote:
    | On Thu, 17 Apr 2008 08:15:54 +1000, Alienjones
    <>
    | wrote:
    | : -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
    | : Hash: SHA1
    | :
    | : nospam wrote:
    | : | In article <fu46o0$1ei$>, Alienjones
    | : |
    | : |> Given that *any* Nikon DSLR image is infinitely more recoverable from
    | : |> under exposure than *any* Canon DSLR image
    | : |
    | : | really? infinitely more recoverable?? on what do you base this crazy
    | : | idea?
    | :
    | : It's not an idea and certainly not a crazy one.
    | :
    | : Canon cameras cannot expose correctly using ETTL II with their own
    | : speedlites. The problem gets worse when you try to diffuse the flash.
    | : Even dialing in 2 stops of compensation to the flash will result in the
    | : brightest object in the scene deciding the exposure. Almost the same
    | : when you use Area Average metering.
    | :
    | : Pulling the resulting underexposed image into correct exposure can
    | : require more than 2 stops of "lift" from the murky shadows... About the
    | : same as cranking up ISO to 1600 or 3200 which produces unacceptable
    | : noise and artifacts in the images.
    | :
    | : Nikon images have much more "recoverability" in this area alone. Anyone
    | : ~ in opportunistic photography (like journalists and wedding
    | : photographers) will know exactly what I mean.
    | :
    | : For you, you'll just have to play along and look smart instead of trying
    | : to bait people because you haven't got a clue yourself.
    |
    | Tut, tut, Doug. We were just starting to get used to your new, less
    paranoid
    | self, so don't go and spoil it. Or has some "sock puppet" cracked your PGP
    | key?
    |
    | Bob

    There you go Bob...

    The world was a fine place for the children of Hiroshima... Right up
    until some bastard came along and dropped a nuke on 'em! Now the
    bastards who did it are in danger of losing the whole US motor industry
    to 'em.

    Odd isn't it? That those you bash up have a way of coming back with more
    strength than they had in the beginning. Life's lesson there if you care
    to learn from it.

    Almost like some joker trying to be a smart ass in a news group when
    they have nothing sensible to say and no clue about a subject they join
    in on with an "Oh, really"? Question as if they thought what I said was
    all bullshit.

    Well Bob, as long as my bum points to the ground, I'll come back at
    these childish fools with both evidence, facts and their own flavor of
    response. If you want to pick me out of all the idiots posting here for
    a bit of fun, expect it. You don't have to enjoy it.

    Of course you could stand up and be counted as one who objects to those
    who poke the animal... But that would be expecting you to adhere to some
    rules of common decency and be prepared to speak out about wrong doers
    wouldn't it?

    Rule #1. It's OK to have a different opinion and it's OK to state that
    opinion. It's not OK to try to engage someone in an argument about their
    opinion or try to beat someone else into accepting yours.

    So what's you opinion "Bob"?

    - --

    from Douglas,
    If my PGP key is missing, the
    post is a forgery. Ignore it.
    -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
    Version: GnuPG v1.4.7 (MingW32)

    iD8DBQFIB7Jxhuxzk5D6V14RAtXdAKCa5WE30qdV/ZzRUV9m2fMeqvAPUQCfUOAz
    w8qbRhuhrmC++ZabtUsZjkE=
    =ulmN
    -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
     
    Alienjones, Apr 17, 2008
    #30
  11. Please do. Nikon is even willing to take a loss by not adjusting the D3's
    $5,000 MRSP for inflation and the shitty dollar.




    Rita
     
    Rita Berkowitz, Apr 18, 2008
    #31
  12. frederick

    Robert Coe Guest

    : -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
    : Hash: SHA1
    :
    : Robert Coe wrote:
    : | On Thu, 17 Apr 2008 08:15:54 +1000, Alienjones
    : <>
    : | wrote:
    : | : -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
    : | : Hash: SHA1
    : | :
    : | : nospam wrote:
    : | : | In article <fu46o0$1ei$>, Alienjones
    : | : |
    : | : |> Given that *any* Nikon DSLR image is infinitely more recoverable from
    : | : |> under exposure than *any* Canon DSLR image
    : | : |
    : | : | really? infinitely more recoverable?? on what do you base this crazy
    : | : | idea?
    : | :
    : | : It's not an idea and certainly not a crazy one.
    : | :
    : | : Canon cameras cannot expose correctly using ETTL II with their own
    : | : speedlites. The problem gets worse when you try to diffuse the flash.
    : | : Even dialing in 2 stops of compensation to the flash will result in the
    : | : brightest object in the scene deciding the exposure. Almost the same
    : | : when you use Area Average metering.
    : | :
    : | : Pulling the resulting underexposed image into correct exposure can
    : | : require more than 2 stops of "lift" from the murky shadows... About the
    : | : same as cranking up ISO to 1600 or 3200 which produces unacceptable
    : | : noise and artifacts in the images.
    : | :
    : | : Nikon images have much more "recoverability" in this area alone. Anyone
    : | : ~ in opportunistic photography (like journalists and wedding
    : | : photographers) will know exactly what I mean.
    : | :
    : | : For you, you'll just have to play along and look smart instead of trying
    : | : to bait people because you haven't got a clue yourself.
    : |
    : | Tut, tut, Doug. We were just starting to get used to your new, less
    : paranoid
    : | self, so don't go and spoil it. Or has some "sock puppet" cracked your PGP
    : | key?
    : |
    : | Bob
    :
    : There you go Bob...
    :
    : The world was a fine place for the children of Hiroshima... Right up
    : until some bastard came along and dropped a nuke on 'em! Now the
    : bastards who did it are in danger of losing the whole US motor industry
    : to 'em.
    :
    : Odd isn't it? That those you bash up have a way of coming back with more
    : strength than they had in the beginning. Life's lesson there if you care
    : to learn from it.
    :
    : Almost like some joker trying to be a smart ass in a news group when
    : they have nothing sensible to say and no clue about a subject they join
    : in on with an "Oh, really"? Question as if they thought what I said was
    : all bullshit.
    :
    : Well Bob, as long as my bum points to the ground, I'll come back at
    : these childish fools with both evidence, facts and their own flavor of
    : response. If you want to pick me out of all the idiots posting here for
    : a bit of fun, expect it. You don't have to enjoy it.
    :
    : Of course you could stand up and be counted as one who objects to those
    : who poke the animal... But that would be expecting you to adhere to some
    : rules of common decency and be prepared to speak out about wrong doers
    : wouldn't it?
    :
    : Rule #1. It's OK to have a different opinion and it's OK to state that
    : opinion. It's not OK to try to engage someone in an argument about their
    : opinion or try to beat someone else into accepting yours.
    :
    : So what's you opinion "Bob"?

    My opinion?? If pressed, I guess it's that you forgot to take your meds this
    morning.

    In fact, I have no idea why my post set you off. I was actually trying to
    throw you a humorous compliment for your recent posts, which have seemed to me
    to be more topical and less defensive than before. You don't have to enjoy
    that either, but the last thing I intended to do was throw you into
    regression. If I've done so, I apologize.

    I'm done; have the last word if it will make you feel better.

    Bob
     
    Robert Coe, Apr 18, 2008
    #32
  13. frederick

    frederick Guest

    You should post this on DPReview's D1/2/3 forum.

    There's more D3 fanboyism, denial of reality, defensiveness, and other
    symptoms of insecurity being expressed than I've seen for a long time.
    It was easier when Nikon faux-pro forum lurking users just had the D2
    series - any realistic owner knew that Nikon were whupped by Canon but
    most were generally happy nonetheless - or just moved to the dark side
    and got on with it. Now - potentially being whupped so soon by their
    beloved Nikon seems to be more than many can take - they're trying hard
    to bash the D3x to death on forums before any of them have seen the
    specs - let alone how well it works.
     
    frederick, Apr 18, 2008
    #33
  14. Well, it is just your typical internet noise. A lot of these forums are
    infested with idiots with penis envy that don't know what they want or would
    know how to be happy should they get what they thought they wanted. I'm not
    sure if I would agree with you that Nikon got whooped by Canon, itself, or
    anyone else. Nikon has a clear strategy of giving the photographer a top
    quality lens/camera system and leaving the option of selecting the right
    equipment combination up to the individual.

    Think about it, if you put a brand new D3 and D3x in front of the customer
    with a $5,000 price tag on each the D3x would be the first choice because
    the typical idiot will base their decision on MPs alone without considering
    other features. Nikon knows this and counts on this happening to level out
    the overall costs when that very same customer uses the D3x for a few months
    and decides it might not be what they wanted and goes back to the D3.
    That's why you'll never see a D3x for more than $5,000 USD MSRP. And
    really, Nikon isn't foolish enough to look at short term profits and follow
    Canon's failed business model of overcharging for a faulty and crippled
    $8,000 paperweight.

    Canon's biggest mistake was selling their lenses at K-Mart prices and
    overpricing their bodies. Had Canon priced the 1D Mk III and 1Ds Mk III at
    $5,000 they wouldn't be feeling the pain of Nikon trashing them in every
    conceivable category. Not being able to get good glass from my Mk III was
    what ruined it for me.

    As for the D3x, I'm not sure I would even want one based on the thoughts of
    having 24MPs. All things being equal, the D3 is more camera than most
    working pros need. The cost of ownership of the D3x would create more
    problems than it is worth by forcing the user to upgrade their computer
    systems to something newer and not necessarily better. This is even proven
    by the dismal sales numbers of the 1Ds Mk III.





    Rita
     
    Rita Berkowitz, Apr 18, 2008
    #34
  15. frederick

    frederick Guest

    You're trying to rationalise your viewpoint by extrapolating what you
    consider "good enough" to say what other people should want or desire.
    For me, the D300 is "good enough" for now under that basis. But I don't
    delude myself that it's better even for my purposes than a 1DsIII, D3,
    or "D3x" would be. The diminishing returns of value for $ spent for
    those cameras is the same as it ever was. In the end, money is the
    deciding factor for most of us.
     
    frederick, Apr 19, 2008
    #35
  16. Not at all, I'm just stating one of many avenues that can be taken when a
    photographer has a full understanding of the tool(s) they use. They can buy
    and use what they want for whatever reasons. The issue is Nikon doesn't
    care just as long as they buy cameras. Nikon has an understanding of this
    as well as human nature and will exploit it gracefully by offering the best
    cutting edge technology at rock bottom prices. That's why Nikon will never
    price a dSLR over $5,000 and preclude a large segment of buyers like Canon
    did with the 1Ds Mk III. After all, the majority of buyers in this segment
    are made up of wannabe's, posers, and clueless nonprofessionals that don't
    know what they need or why they need it.
    While I find the D300 a superior camera in its class, for me, it doesn't
    offer the IQ and high-ISO performance I need. Actually, no matter the
    price, the point of diminishing returns is reached when the camera doesn't
    pay for itself in the first 90-days of ownership. Then you have to factor
    in the "fun factor" for the hobbyist shooter. This ultimately means that
    all equipment has to be immediately paid in full and no longer has the
    ability to eat resources. Paying interest on photography equipment quickly
    diminishes the fun factor. Generally, the 18-month rule protects the buyer
    and user of dSLRs from these pitfalls.





    Rita
     
    Rita Berkowitz, Apr 19, 2008
    #36
  17. Did you get that information at a board meeting?

    Steve
     
    Steve Sherman, Apr 20, 2008
    #37

  18. Nikon, like other companies, is a business and wants your money. One easy
    way to do that is put in more pixels, which requires a very small
    development
    cost.

    But, but, but look the pixels are even smaller. Well, so much for the people
    that say the 4/3 system is crap because the pixels are to small. Nikon and
    others will continue make them smaller. Now just wait for the 2X increase
    in time to store the picture. Let's count. A fast Compact Flash is about
    10-12MB a second. We have a 24.4MP, which is a lot more than 24.4MB, so
    we have about 2.5 seconds per picture.

    Nikon is making lots of new lens for the current CCD size. Thus they
    will not work on a full 35mm format CCD. But, soon, very soon Nikon
    will be forced to a larger CCD format. Then all your new Nikon lens will
    be worth
    crap... Canon is doing the same.
    So either, CCD camera sensor size is going to be made with smaller and
    smaller pixels
    and the larger and larger file size or a larger format CCD is coming
    very soon.


    Steve





    Steve
     
    Steve Sherman, Apr 20, 2008
    #38
  19. frederick

    Guest Guest

    even if it's a 'very small development cost,' the camera's image
    processing engine needs to handle all the extra pixels, so there's a
    development cost there too. otherwise it will be pig slow and nobody
    will buy it.
    actually, the fastest compact flash cards are about 40mb/sec, plus the
    raw file can be compressed. furthermore, the camera can buffer several
    images. write time isn't a huge issue.
    except the nikon dx lenses fit on a full frame body and the camera
    switches to dx mode (which can be overriden if desired). canon ef-s
    lenses physically cannot mount on a full frame canon camera.

    also, there's still millions of dx cameras out there and good lenses
    hold their value.
     
    Guest, Apr 20, 2008
    #39
  20. Just FYI, I am using the Sandisk Extreme III SDHC card, 4 gigabytes
    20MB/second=133x
    on my Nikon D80, and I can say from my experience, that the slow
    feature is only waiting for the flash unit to recharge ;-) after
    taking a series of indoor photos. It isn't the SD card's problem, as
    I can see the green light (writing to media) on the back of the camera
    go out LONG before the autoflash READY icon reappears in the
    viewfinder.

    Now if you have a D3 and are doing fast sequence shots, _maybe_ you
    need faster than 20 megabytes/second write time, but I'm not certain
    about that. My limitation is the time it takes for the strobe light
    to recharge. Just a note.

    Compact Flash is different, but this camera doesn't use Compact Flash.
    I don't know if that is a good thing or a bad thing.

    Lg
     
    Lawrence Glickman, Apr 20, 2008
    #40
    1. Advertisements

Ask a Question

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments (here). After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.