Gitzo tripod CF Vibration Damping

Moderated by: guardian

Visit the FM Store · Image Upload · Buy & Sell
FM Forum Rules

FM Forums | General Gear-talk | Join Image Upload

2 end

shinew7911
Offline
Buy and Sell: On

p.1 #1 · Gitzo tripod CF Vibration Damping

I have a Gitzo G2220 , which is the aluminum version of the g2227(2530ex for current model?). I'm wondering if it's a good idea to go CF in my case.
I love the flexibility of the explorer series's design, so I'm not moving away from this series for sure unless Gitzo comes up with something similar & better.

So I think there are only 3 reasons for anyone switching to CF(descending order in importance): weight, vibration damping & not too cold to touch in the winter. For the explorer series there really isn't much weight saved by switching to CF(only half a pound), so I'm not going to switch to the CF version just because this and easier on the hands in the winter since I wear gloves anyway.

My question is that has anyone ever done a comparison between the aluminum & CF's vibration damping on Gitzo tripod? I have no idea how this is supposed to be done but I guess I'm just looking for some kind of real world proof of its benefit before spending more than twice as much just for some overhyped feature.

Any thought or link about this?

Edited on Nov 16, 2007 at 08:39 PM

Nov 08, 2007 at 05:31 AM

sjms
Offline
Buy and Sell: On

p.1 #2 · Gitzo tripod CF Vibration Damping

you mentioned that the weight savings isn't much. try putting it in perspective. that is roughly a 20% weight reduction or half a pound less you are carrying around. in the case of the GT2530EX you get a pretty nifty capacity increase too. about 26 lbs vs 19 lbs about a 20% capacity increase over the current G2220.
featherweight tripods no matter what they are made from become victims of their own light weight. neither CF or AL can stop winds from affecting you setup depending on it config. putting a 400/2.8 in a good stiff breeze is going to be an issue not so much because of the materials used in the tripod but from the massive cross section it has in the wind.

Edited on Nov 16, 2007 at 08:39 PM

Nov 08, 2007 at 06:08 AM

milmoejoe
Offline
Buy and Sell: On

p.1 #3 · Gitzo tripod CF Vibration Damping

I am curious to learn more on this issue.

Has the G2220 been revamped? I notice it now costs about $125 more than when I bought it the first time, and I think the load capacity is higher.

Everyone makes great claims about the stability of the G2220, but I had a horrible time with it. It was my first tripod a number of years ago, and the 70's hand-me-down tripod was significantly better.

I've been using a feisol for some time now, but am starting to miss the rapid column.

It's obvious Gitzo is price gouging!

Edited on Nov 16, 2007 at 08:39 PM

Nov 08, 2007 at 07:41 PM

jhom
Online
Buy and Sell: On

p.1 #4 · Gitzo tripod CF Vibration Damping

shinew7911 wrote:

My question is that has anyone ever done a comparison between the aluminum & CF's vibration damping on Gitzo tripod? I have no idea how this is supposed to be done but I guess I'm just looking for some kind of real world proof of its benefit before spending more than twice as much just for some overhyped feature.

Any thought or link about this?

The only article I have come across that has done a direct comparison of similar models of tripod in AL and CF versions is an article that appeared in Leica Fotografie International at the beginning of 2006. Among several tripod comparisons, they tested the Manfrotto 055 aluminum and carbon fiber. My interpretation from the comparison of the two as well as for all of the tripods is that weight of the tripod played a major role in vibration damping. Further, the wood tripods faired the best. Markins also posted an article related to vibration and their testing. It is informative, however it was a bit flawed in its experimental design (too many uncontrolled manipulations of the independent variables). Finally, johnj80 has done some of his own testing. You might want to ask him to post some of his insights.

Jim

Edited on Nov 16, 2007 at 08:39 PM

Nov 08, 2007 at 08:37 PM

sjms
Offline
Buy and Sell: On

p.1 #5 · Gitzo tripod CF Vibration Damping

milmoejoe wrote:
I am curious to learn more on this issue.

Has the G2220 been revamped? I notice it now costs about $125 more than when I bought it the first time, and I think the load capacity is higher.

Everyone makes great claims about the stability of the G2220, but I had a horrible time with it. It was my first tripod a number of years ago, and the 70's hand-me-down tripod was significantly better.

I've been using a feisol for some time now, but am starting to miss the rapid column.

It's obvious Gitzo is price gouging!

they have added ALR and G Lock to the legs. in addition they improved the infinite angle leg locks. now the Euro to Dollar exchanges has changed ever so slightly as of late thus making for an exchange rate disaster.

i take it you haven't been out of the country lately. its rather painful

Edited by sjms on Nov 08, 2007 at 04:04 PM GMT

Edited on Nov 16, 2007 at 08:39 PM

Nov 08, 2007 at 08:58 PM

sjms
Offline
Buy and Sell: On

p.1 #6 · Gitzo tripod CF Vibration Damping

milmoejoe wrote:
I am curious to learn more on this issue.

Has the G2220 been revamped? I notice it now costs about $125 more than when I bought it the first time, and I think the load capacity is higher.

Everyone makes great claims about the stability of the G2220, but I had a horrible time with it. It was my first tripod a number of years ago, and the 70's hand-me-down tripod was significantly better.

I've been using a feisol for some time now, but am starting to miss the rapid column.

It's obvious Gitzo is price gouging!

in the case of the feisol just go order up a rapid column and put it on

Edited on Nov 16, 2007 at 08:39 PM

Nov 08, 2007 at 09:03 PM

shinew7911
Offline
Buy and Sell: On

p.1 #7 · Gitzo tripod CF Vibration Damping

Jim, thanks for the info. I'll look into this. So if weight plays a major role in vibration damping, the CF version should be at disatavantage in this aspect. But I guess the overall vibration damping effects is the materals used & weight combined(among other design issues, but in the case of G2220, it's the same design). From your reading, what impression did you get comparing CF & AL in terms of vibration damping? Any noticeable improvement at all? wooden tripod is out of the question for me.

milmoejoe, I'm not aware that the G2220 was ever that cheap(currently it's $250 from B&H), i got mine for $199 at the same place few years ago, the sales person told me that it was because of the recent year inflation of USD value. I'm satisfied with my G2220, although I've never used the more stable series of those systematic tripod because my heaviest setup is only around 6bls or so. So to me the versatilities of the explorer series outweights all other factors.

Edited on Nov 16, 2007 at 08:39 PM

Nov 08, 2007 at 09:11 PM

shinew7911
Offline
Buy and Sell: On

p.1 #8 · Gitzo tripod CF Vibration Damping

sjms, i held the new CF version at B&H side by side with the AL one. CF version does feel slightly lighter & nicer to touch, I liked it. Which is why I'm considering upgrading. But the might weight improvment & feel alone do not justify the upgrade for me.

Edited on Nov 16, 2007 at 08:39 PM

Nov 08, 2007 at 09:17 PM

JohnJ80
Offline
Image Upload: Off

p.1 #9 · Gitzo tripod CF Vibration Damping

sjms wrote:
you mentioned that the weight savings isn't much. try putting it in perspective. that is roughly a 20% weight reduction or half a pound less you are carrying around. in the case of the GT2530EX you get a pretty nifty capacity increase too. about 26 lbs vs 19 lbs about a 20% capacity increase over the current G2220.
featherweight tripods no matter what they are made from become victims of their own light weight. neither CF or AL can stop winds from affecting you setup depending on it config. putting a 400/2.8 in a good stiff breeze is going to be an issue not so much because of the materials used in the tripod but from the massive cross section it has in the wind.

Almost but not quite, at least not in my experience.

The effects of wind are more noticeable on lighter tripods than that of vibration. That said, when I was doing tripod testing, even if I jumped up and down (I'm not a little guy) next to the tripod under test (both Gitzo CF), neither showed the slightest wobble from that. No measurable impact that I could tell.

Unless the wind is so strong that it causes the tripod to physically move, you won't have much problem with a lighter tripod provided it is properly sized for the lens focal length (Gitzo specs tripods this way and so should others, but don't), the feet are in good contact with a solid surface, and the legs and spider are rigid. What is important for tripods in windy conditions is rigidity of the legs and the casting at the top far more than the weight. If these allow twist, it will allow vibration to ruin the image.

I was not able to reproduce the effects of the Leica test article when putting a tripod on a wood floor (on floor joists). Leica, IIRC, put the tripods on a layer of cardboard 2 pieces thick. I'm not sure what that comes even close to simulating, but it considerably more bouncy that a wood floor or a reasonable surface would be.

What seems to matter torsionally in the tripod is the rigidity of the legs which is a function of the leg locks, the rigidity of casting of the spider, the tubing diameter and the lay up and composition of the CF. Weight didn't seem to be as big of a difference (like very little impact) in the testing that I did.

With a light tripod, it is easy to make it heavier - just hand your camera bag on it somehow. Making a heavy tripod light is usually not possible. It also doesn't seem to matter much if the legs are of a good dampening material.

J.

Edited on Nov 16, 2007 at 08:39 PM

Nov 08, 2007 at 11:23 PM

henryng
Offline
Image Upload: Off

p.1 #10 · Gitzo tripod CF Vibration Damping

This pdf is a good read about tripods, ballheads and vibration.
http://www.nikonians.org/html/resources/non-nikon_articles/markins_guides/DrKimReport_v4_2006.pdf

Edited on Nov 16, 2007 at 08:39 PM

Nov 08, 2007 at 11:36 PM

sjms
Offline
Buy and Sell: On

p.1 #11 · Gitzo tripod CF Vibration Damping

then i would say your experience is sort of limited

i don't care if you have a mass of concrete as a base if the wind blows across an object it has an affect. of course it would need to be a breeze proportional to the object it hits. the cross section of a 300 or 400mm lens with it required hood wiil be affected from the various reasons like
1- cross section/volumetric size
2- shape
3- wind speed and direction
4 the hood (scoop)
5 the mount (aka head)

they are not aerodynamic in the least.

you all base everything on the legset and forget whats sitting on it and it affect on the entire setup

Edited on Nov 16, 2007 at 08:39 PM

Nov 08, 2007 at 11:37 PM

jhom
Online
Buy and Sell: On

p.1 #12 · Gitzo tripod CF Vibration Damping

shinew7911 wrote:
Jim, thanks for the info. I'll look into this. So if weight plays a major role in vibration damping, the CF version should be at disatavantage in this aspect. But I guess the overall vibration damping effects is the materals used & weight combined(among other design issues, but in the case of G2220, it's the same design). From your reading, what impression did you get comparing CF & AL in terms of vibration damping? Any noticeable improvement at all? wooden tripod is out of the question for me.

.

For the 055, the aluminum model faired slightly better than the CF model. As you realize, the aluminum model is heavier. Essentially, everthing else is the same between the two models. Based on the Leica article, I bought a Berlebach Reporter 8023. This is a wood tripod and it is a tank. There is no question that the Berlebach is sturdier and dampens vibration better compared to my 055MF3 CF. However, you pay for this by its weight. I knew this when I bought it. I used it in my studio. It clearly was not my carry/travel tripod. The 055MF3 serves this purpose. It is all about tradeoffs and your willingness to accept compromise.

Jim

Edited on Nov 16, 2007 at 08:39 PM

Nov 08, 2007 at 11:57 PM

JohnJ80
Offline
Image Upload: Off

p.1 #13 · Gitzo tripod CF Vibration Damping

sjms wrote:
then i would say your experience is sort of limited

i don't care if you have a mass of concrete as a base if the wind blows across an object it has an affect. of course it would need to be a breeze proportional to the object it hits. the cross section of a 300 or 400mm lens with it required hood wiil be affected from the various reasons like
1- cross section/volumetric size
2- shape
3- wind speed and direction
4 the hood (scoop)
5 the mount (aka head)

they are not aerodynamic in the least.

you all base everything on the legset and forget whats sitting on it and it affect on the entire setup

If you will notice, I said it is a function of the rigidity of the legs, the spider and presuming it is properly loaded. If the leg feet are well coupled to the surface, and the rigidity of the components are high, the tripod is properly loaded, the effects will be small.

I completely understand what you are saying and am not disagreeing. Wind, if these parts are done properly will have a minimal effect. Importantly, what you are paying for in better tripods is exactly that - rigidity with damping. So besides rigid components, the materials are excellent at damping and that is impacted by the layup, the percentage of CF vs epoxy (epoxy is not as good at damping) and tube diameter.

I've spent many hours testing this stuff and working on correlation withe the Leica study, which I now find flawed especially in their testing of vibration up from the feet. The main problem they have is that the surface they used (two sheets of cardboard) doesn't duplicate anything that I would want to shoot from.

Notice also that I am not taking any digs at your experience. How about backing it down a bit?

J.

Edited on Nov 16, 2007 at 08:39 PM

Nov 09, 2007 at 12:20 AM

sjms
Offline
Buy and Sell: On

p.1 #14 · Gitzo tripod CF Vibration Damping

but they ain't. thats a fact you must consider. this is the real world. i cannot afford to deal in perfect world scenarios. it not the way it works. it just has to do the job when i need it to. that job is to hopefully hold my camera rig as i need it when i need it with the flexibility of operation i want. and of course as steady as it can under the circumstances

flawed is an understatement.

the mere mention or reference of it makes me cringe and laugh at the same time.

look we agree and disagree on many things. i apologize for the minor verbal jab.
do as i do. use the thing. take pictures with it. it is superbly made but overall you will not prove that it is technically superior because there are to many factors in the real world to work out on ones own. there are times where it will work better then one model and not as good as another. get around the pseudo technical BS they advert and entice us with. see it for what it is a well made high tech tripod. just enjoy it. please don't get lost in the gear get lost in what your shooting.

Edited on Nov 16, 2007 at 08:39 PM

Nov 09, 2007 at 02:15 AM

spdntrxi
Offline
Image Upload: Off

p.1 #15 · Gitzo tripod CF Vibration Damping

I've never used the Al version.. but I do enjoy my GT2540EX w/ RRS BH-55 LRII

Edited on Nov 16, 2007 at 08:39 PM

Nov 09, 2007 at 03:09 AM

shinew7911
Offline
Buy and Sell: On

p.1 #16 · Gitzo tripod CF Vibration Damping

henryng, thanks for the link. Interesting article. I'm really surprised by how much it affects the result from that small fan. The effect of MLU is also more than I expected. Too bad he didn't do any test with a pair of AL&CF Gitzo tripods.

Edited on Nov 16, 2007 at 08:39 PM

Nov 09, 2007 at 05:29 AM

shinew7911
Offline
Buy and Sell: On

p.1 #17 · Gitzo tripod CF Vibration Damping

OK, here is a thread I found on photo.net discussing similar matter. User "Rob. F" re-posted an article from FLI, i'm going to re-post his. It seems like weight is really the biggest factor in vibration damping. However, given all weight the same, CF is more stable. Here goes:

Okay. Here comes the summary of an article in LFI that addresses the question very well. It will take some typing, but I think it will contribute enough to the thread to make it worth it.

LFI tested eight tripods: two each by four manufacturers. They mounted on the tripod under test a digital camera with a lens having a 1700mm equivalent, in 35mm terms. I guess that means it was about a 1200mm in actual focal length. The camera lens, and tripod head weighed about 4Kg. The lens was focused on a laser dot projected on the wall about 6.5 meters from the camera. The idea was that any vibration during the exposure would spread the laser dot into a measurable pattern on the film.

They tested each tripod in three ways. First, they took a 15 second exposure to check for any movement during the exposure time. Next, they suspended a weight from the tripod head and set in into circular motion, which they felt would simulate the effect of wind perturbing the tripod and camera. Finally, they dropped a sack containing 2Kg. of metal right next to the tripod.

I'll post this much now to make sure I don't lose it by hitting the wrong key again.

Here are the tripods and the results of the first test, the 15 second exposure. They are listed as much as possible in the order of performance, with the lowest vibration first. And the first one is the Berlebach Report 2022, made of Ash wood. It weighs 2.9 Kg. The horizontal angular deviation of the laser, on the film, was 260 seconds of arc. The vertical measure was 330" (" for seconds of arc) Next was a Giottos MT 8170; Carbon fiber; 2.6Kg; 280" horizontal and 320" vertical. A Berlebach Report 8023, Ash wood, 2.7Kg; 270" horizontal and 320" vertical. Giottos MT 9160, aluminum, 2.7Kg.; 320" horizontal, 380" vertical. Manfrotto 055ProB, Aluminum, 2.6Kg.; 370" horizontal, 360" vertical. Manfrotto 055MF3 Mag Fiber: Carbon fiber, 1.9Kg.; 290" horizontal, 230" vertical. Gitzo G1257LVL: Carbon fiber, 1.6Kg.; 330" horizontal, 320" vertical. Gitzo G1198: Basalt fiber, 1.1Kg.; 460" horizontal, 420" vertical.

Now for the pendulum test. Berlebach Report 2022: H 270"/V 300". Giottos MT 8170: H 390"/V310". Berlebach Report 8023: H 310"/V 320". Giottos MT 9160: H 400"/V 340". Manfrotto 055ProB: H400"/V 340". Manfrotto 055MF3 Mag Fiber: H 330"/V 350". Gitzo G1257LVL: H330"/V 310". Gitzo G1198: H 770"/V 440".

The drop test: Berlebach Report 2022: H 290"/V 310". Giottos MT 8170: H 310"/V 300". Berlebach Report 8023: H 430"/V 380". Giottos MT 9160: H 340"/V 350". Manfrotto 055ProB: H 450"/V 370". Manfrotto 055MF3 Mag Fiber: H 700"/V 650". Gitzo G1257LVL: H 910"/V 880". Gitzo G1198: H 870"/V 860".

Not surpisingly, lightweight tripods bounce higher than heavier ones. I'm not sure this much of a factor in outdoor use. It probably means more in indoor studio use.

LFI chose to add up the numbers to get a total score for each tripod--sort of like Consumer's Reports would do. The total angle for the Berlebach Report 2022 (2.9Kg, wood) is 1760". For the Giottos MT 8170 (carbon fiber, 2.6Kg.): 1910". Berlebach Report 8023 (wood, 2.7Kg): 2020". Giottos MT 9160 (aluminum, 2.7Kg): 2050". Manfrotto 055ProB (aluminum, 2.6Kg): 2290". Manfrotto 055MF3 Mag Fiber (carbon fiber, 1.9Kg): 2550". Gitzo G1257LVL ( carbon fiber, 1.6Kg): 3080". And the Gitzo G1198 (Basalt Fiber, 1.1Kg) brought up the rear at 3820".
The original thread can be found here -> http://photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=00IfVN

Edited on Nov 16, 2007 at 08:39 PM

Nov 09, 2007 at 10:13 AM

sjms
Offline
Buy and Sell: On

p.1 #18 · Gitzo tripod CF Vibration Damping

thank you
after reading the thread the best term used was "obtuse subject"

you are chasing a ghost

Edited on Nov 16, 2007 at 08:39 PM

Nov 09, 2007 at 02:04 PM

JohnJ80
Offline
Image Upload: Off

p.1 #19 · Gitzo tripod CF Vibration Damping

I have the article on the Leica test. As sjms has said, and I agree, the test is deeply flawed. The reason that the vibration (up from the ground) test showed the heavier tripods to be better was that they positioned the tripods on two layers of cardboard. If you look at cardboard, it is a veritable trampoline. Because of this, any additional weight would be beneficial in stabilizing the cardboard. IMO, the results from the vibration up through the feet testing are completely ridiculous. You could have achieved the same results by attaching a camera to different masses - it didn't have to be a tripod even.

I do think that the method to measure resistance to torsional was reasonable.

I took a similar set up, put 672mm of effective focal length on a tripod and then aimed it at a laser pointer dot 30' away. I took a timed exposure. You can see the relative difference that tubing and other design pieces make. For example, the rough difference in torsional stability between a Gitzo 1258 and a 3540LS is about 2X. Here is a blog entry I wrote on this:

http://www.prophotohome.com/forum/blogs/viewblog.php?userid=34252&entry=55

I then tried to see how important and how sensitive these same tripods are to vibration up through the feet - the weight thing. I tested this without the useless cardboard but put the tripod on a hardwood floor (floor joists over a basement) and on a concrete floor. In either case, if jumped up and down right next to the tripod, I dropped piles of books etc... and trying as hard as I could to cause a problem, I could not get it to show up in the test at all. that tells me that with these two tripods, the issue of weight in controlling vibration up through the feet is really not an issue.

So, if you are going to mount your tripod on unstable surfaces (like cardboard), then add weight. If you can couple your tripod's feet well to the surface (spikes, good flat surface etc...) you really don't have much to worry about it you have a good tripod built from quality materials that have good vibration damping properties. This is where the engineering is and it is not something you can tell by hefting the tripod in your hand or by inspection. It is driven by the material selection, the tubing characteristics and construction, and the composition of the CF.

Supposing you want to have a heavier tripod, it is easy to do - just hang your camera bag on the tripod. You've probably almost tripled the weight instantaneously.

J.

Edited on Nov 16, 2007 at 08:39 PM

Nov 09, 2007 at 03:39 PM

sjms
Offline
Buy and Sell: On

p.1 #20 · Gitzo tripod CF Vibration Damping

excellent and reasonable as any good tripod should be and not necessarily commanded by only one manufacturer.
and the most logical answer to the age old question: what do i do with my heavy camera bag while shooting with my ultralight super tech tripod (and yes i have one to so i'm allowed)?

Edited on Nov 16, 2007 at 08:39 PM

Nov 09, 2007 at 04:36 PM

milmoejoe
Offline
Buy and Sell: On

p.1 #21 · Gitzo tripod CF Vibration Damping

so the consensus is ??

Edited on Nov 16, 2007 at 08:39 PM

Nov 09, 2007 at 05:47 PM

JohnJ80
Offline
Image Upload: Off

p.1 #22 · Gitzo tripod CF Vibration Damping

CF is better at damping than Al and lighter by a fair amount in both categories. that is also born out by the Leica test if you look at the torsional vibration data (the one that matters). The CF lightweight tripods did almost the same as their big heavy brothers in Al.

I can see a distinct difference even between my 1258 and my 3540LS in terms of IQ in critically sharp shots. From the Leica tests that I have mentioned, I think that one would have better results with an equivalently rated CF Gitzo tripod against the Al one listed.

To be sure, what I would do is to go up to the 3540 size and then put a light weight ballhead on it. My 3540LS with Markins M20 weighs in at 5lbs even. That is amazingly light for 2X the performance over my 1258 with BH40 (weights about 4.1lbs).

J.

Edited on Nov 16, 2007 at 08:39 PM

Nov 09, 2007 at 05:57 PM

sjms
Offline
Buy and Sell: On

p.1 #23 · Gitzo tripod CF Vibration Damping

in my opinion there is none and never will be. this will be an ongoing debate without a real resolution for some.
when it comes to construction and materials and pulling all the stops out for the most part there is Gitzo. then there are others that will perform the functions as well, nearly as well, or not at all well at all. you need to balance you wants needs and in the long run $.

myself i have a gitzo GT2540EX and a Feisol CT3371 (which has been improved since i got it). so far both have served me well.

it has been said the only good tripod is the one you go out and use. well it works with both ends of the spectrum. the junk that is closet clutter. or the one you paid so much for that you baby it and care for it but for fear of putting it in harms way never use it.

Edited on Nov 16, 2007 at 08:39 PM

Nov 09, 2007 at 06:01 PM

sjms
Offline
Buy and Sell: On

p.1 #24 · Gitzo tripod CF Vibration Damping

JohnJ80 wrote:
CF is better at damping than Al and lighter by a fair amount in both categories. that is also born out by the Leica test if you look at the torsional vibration data (the one that matters). The CF lightweight tripods did almost the same as their big heavy brothers in Al.

I can see a distinct difference even between my 1258 and my 3540LS in terms of IQ in critically sharp shots. From the Leica tests that I have mentioned, I think that one would have better results with an equivalently rated CF Gitzo tripod against the Al one listed.

To be sure, what I would do is to go up to the 3540 size and then put a light weight ballhead on it. My 3540LS with Markins M20 weighs in at 5lbs even. That is amazingly light for 2X the performance over my 1258 with BH40 (weights about 4.1lbs).

J.

but then that is in a closed controlled environment too.

Edited on Nov 16, 2007 at 08:39 PM

Nov 09, 2007 at 06:08 PM

JohnJ80
Offline
Image Upload: Off

p.1 #25 · Gitzo tripod CF Vibration Damping

True, but CF is better and lighter than AL in all environments. The challenge is if the user can capitalize on the benefit.

What I'm saying is that I see the difference in images I shoot in actual practice of the 3504LS over the 1258. In other words, the actual usage parallels the controlled environment testing.

The rules of thumb hold.

1. Pick any two of cheap, light, stable - you can't have all three.
2. Use the heaviest and largest tripod that you are willing to carry.

J.

Edited on Nov 16, 2007 at 08:39 PM

Nov 09, 2007 at 09:32 PM


FM Forums \| General Gear-talk \| Join Image Upload 1 2 end