Go Back   Rangefinderforum.com > Cameras / Gear / Photography > Digital Cameras > CSC : Digital Compact System Cameras -

CSC : Digital Compact System Cameras - This new category of digital Compact System Cameras with interchangeable lenses was mislabeled for a time as "Mirrorless Cameras" by those forgetting about "Mirrorless" Rangefinder cameras.  Such confusion is easily understandable, since interchangeable rangefinder cameras were only recently introduced in 1932.  hmm.    CSC or Compact System Camera is probably the best category description to date, although I am fond of the old RFF desigation of  CEVIL  indicating Compact Electronic Viewfidner Interchangeable Lens.   This forum is here at RFF because via adapters these cameras offer an inexpensive way to use rangefinder lenses on digital cameras -- in addition of just about every 35mm SLR lens you can think of.  All  offer the photo enthusiast an incredible array of adopted lenses which was not possible before these new digital formats.   This group continues to grow in popularity and new camera models! 

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes

samsung NX10 thread - what happened?
Old 02-15-2010   #1
Paul T.
Registered User
 
Paul T.'s Avatar
 
Paul T. is offline
Join Date: Mar 2005
Posts: 1,799
samsung NX10 thread - what happened?

THis was an interesting thread, some shallow people complaining the camera was ugly (me), others commenting on whether it was compatible with M mount lenses, and various other discussions.

Now it seems to have vanished; can't even find trace of it on Google Advanced search.

Did someone nuke it? If so, why? Or did I just imagine that this camera exists?
  Reply With Quote

Old 02-15-2010   #2
Paul T.
Registered User
 
Paul T.'s Avatar
 
Paul T. is offline
Join Date: Mar 2005
Posts: 1,799
Ah, I realise. The originator has taken his toys and gone home. Looks like he's nuked all his own threads.
  Reply With Quote

Old 02-15-2010   #3
nikku
Registered User
 
nikku is offline
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 333
Quote:
Originally Posted by Paul T. View Post
Ah, I realise. The originator has taken his toys and gone home. Looks like he's nuked all his own threads.
WTF? Why? Was it a Samsung rep who got insulted?
  Reply With Quote

Old 02-15-2010   #4
Paul T.
Registered User
 
Paul T.'s Avatar
 
Paul T. is offline
Join Date: Mar 2005
Posts: 1,799
Quote:
Originally Posted by nikku View Post
WTF? Why? Was it a Samsung rep who got insulted?

No. THe thread originator was billmattocks. He has gone back and deleted all of his own threads.

Knowing him he will pop up in a few weeks and claim they were all censored by Al Gore.
  Reply With Quote

Old 02-15-2010   #5
jarski
Registered User
 
jarski is offline
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 2,175
if it was deleted, lets have a new one ?! am interested if Angenieux 25/f0.95 can be adapted to NX10 ?
  Reply With Quote

Old 02-15-2010   #6
Paul T.
Registered User
 
Paul T.'s Avatar
 
Paul T. is offline
Join Date: Mar 2005
Posts: 1,799
Preview is here:

http://www.dpreview.com/previews/samsungnx10/

Unfortunately, I can't remember the name of the gentleman who estimated the throat dimensions, and theorised that it won't be possible to use an M mount adapter on the Samsung. Isn't retail around $600? If one could use LTM lenses it would certainly be a budget R-D1 rival...
  Reply With Quote

Old 02-15-2010   #7
nikku
Registered User
 
nikku is offline
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 333
Oh, okay. Things did get pretty nasty when he suggested that people shouldn't have more than two children over the weekend.

Personally, I find the NX10 interesting, but not as interesting as the Ricoh GXR! The GXR opens up a lot of possibilities, it will be interesting to see what Ricoh does with it.
  Reply With Quote

Old 02-15-2010   #8
jarski
Registered User
 
jarski is offline
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 2,175
I remember also comments LTM/M mounts to be impossible to adapt, but what about C-mount ?
  Reply With Quote

Old 02-15-2010   #9
Ernst Dinkla
Registered User
 
Ernst Dinkla is offline
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 296
Quote:
Originally Posted by jarski View Post
I remember also comments LTM/M mounts to be impossible to adapt, but what about C-mount ?
Flange<>sensor distance is larger than C-mount lenses like. And very few C-mount lenses will fall within an adapter tube that in itself has to fit within the 36-38 mm throat. Not to mention control of the distance and stop scales.

8mm Flange<>sensor distance difference. The one and only C-mount I have here, Schneider Xenon 1.2 50mm measures 41mm diameter 8mm from the flange.

A removal of the mount and a special C-Mount replacing it could do it but not for all lenses I think.


Ernst Dinkla
  Reply With Quote

Old 02-15-2010   #10
semilog
curmudgeonly optimist
 
semilog's Avatar
 
semilog is offline
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 3,734
For those who might have missed it before the previous thread was nuked, Lenstip just posted a review of the Samsung 30mm f/2. They think it's a winner.
__________________
There are two kinds of photographers:
those who are interested in what a particular camera can't do,
and those who are interested in what it can do.

semilog.smugmug.com | flickr.com/photos/semilog/

Last edited by semilog : 02-15-2010 at 14:17.
  Reply With Quote

Old 02-15-2010   #11
kdemas
ʎlʇuǝɹǝɟɟıp sƃuıɥʇ ǝǝS
 
kdemas's Avatar
 
kdemas is offline
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 3,702
I must say that the "Im deleting my threads as I leave" phenomenon seems to be common here at RFF. Kinda funny. Personally, when I tire of a forum I just fade away onto another site.

To each their own but it's kind of sad that valuable threads disappear as users come and go.

Kent
__________________
------------------------------------------------------------
Open Iris. Life, Captured.
  Reply With Quote

Old 02-15-2010   #12
Paul T.
Registered User
 
Paul T.'s Avatar
 
Paul T. is offline
Join Date: Mar 2005
Posts: 1,799
Yes. It seems all the more petty when you think it must have taken a fair amount of time - and of course lots of innocent people's contributions suffer from collateral damage.

And I have one child, but don't care if people moan about them.

woul have been more convinced by the lenstip review if it had featued any half-decent photos. And what's with this one-second focusing time being acceptable? Do we have to accept performance worse than the outmoded Olympus Mju, or Hexar?
  Reply With Quote

Old 02-15-2010   #13
semilog
curmudgeonly optimist
 
semilog's Avatar
 
semilog is offline
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 3,734
Quote:
Originally Posted by Paul T. View Post
woul have been more convinced by the lenstip review if it had featued any half-decent photos.
I agree that more samples would have been nice, but in general the Lenstip reviews are quite critical and track extremely well with my own experience.
__________________
There are two kinds of photographers:
those who are interested in what a particular camera can't do,
and those who are interested in what it can do.

semilog.smugmug.com | flickr.com/photos/semilog/
  Reply With Quote

Old 02-15-2010   #14
NickTrop
Registered User
 
NickTrop's Avatar
 
NickTrop is offline
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 2,671
I didn't see Bill's thread (before he deleted it) but I did post quite a bit about this camera on RFF to the point of being criticized for working for Samsung (lol). To me, this is "the one". I've started the process of selling many of my film cameras and lenses to fund its purchase. In fact, selling everything except the one RF I absolutely love and will never part with - the Fujica Compact Deluxe. So, look for my stuff on the for sale board in the next couple weeks! (Sorry for the plug...) Slap that Samsung 30mm (46mm equiv) f2 pancake on her and you essentially have the 2010 version of a classic rangefinder except it uses electronics instead of mirrors. Finally a "from the ground up" electronic camera that gets rid of many of the digital vices. Sorry 4/3's peeps, a full sized sensor has it all over 4/3's imo. And you can keep the "cute" profile of the smaller cameras if it means I have to sacrifice the EVF. And this also has a grip. I appreciate Samsung's purely functional approach over "let's make something retro and cool lookin..." which I kinda despise. Judging from the size specs, it's not bigger that the 4/3'rds enough to matter anyway. Whodda thunk it would have been "Samsung" to create such a camera? Actually it makes perfect sense. I'm also glad it's Samsung. I'm sure the build quality will be fine (early reviews say it has VG build quality) and I don't have to pay more for silly names that are not really all that relevant anymore, so this camera is verrry competitively priced. Cameras are no longer precision electro-mechanical devices. They're pure electronics except for the lens.
  Reply With Quote

Old 02-16-2010   #15
nikku
Registered User
 
nikku is offline
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 333
Quote:
Originally Posted by NickTrop View Post
I didn't see Bill's thread (before he deleted it) but I did post quite a bit about this camera on RFF to the point of being criticized for working for Samsung (lol). To me, this is "the one". I've started the process of selling many of my film cameras and lenses to fund its purchase. In fact, selling everything except the one RF I absolutely love and will never part with - the Fujica Compact Deluxe. So, look for my stuff on the for sale board in the next couple weeks! (Sorry for the plug...) Slap that Samsung 30mm (46mm equiv) f2 pancake on her and you essentially have the 2010 version of a classic rangefinder except it uses electronics instead of mirrors. Finally a "from the ground up" electronic camera that gets rid of many of the digital vices. Sorry 4/3's peeps, a full sized sensor has it all over 4/3's imo. And you can keep the "cute" profile of the smaller cameras if it means I have to sacrifice the EVF. And this also has a grip. I appreciate Samsung's purely functional approach over "let's make something retro and cool lookin..." which I kinda despise. Judging from the size specs, it's not bigger that the 4/3'rds enough to matter anyway. Whodda thunk it would have been "Samsung" to create such a camera? Actually it makes perfect sense. I'm also glad it's Samsung. I'm sure the build quality will be fine (early reviews say it has VG build quality) and I don't have to pay more for silly names that are not really all that relevant anymore, so this camera is verrry competitively priced. Cameras are no longer precision electro-mechanical devices. They're pure electronics except for the lens.
Good points. How does it compare size-wise to the GF1/EP series? Size and weight are important considerations for me, which is why I sold my DSLR, intent on replacing it with a m4/3rds camera sometime this year. But if the NX10 is not much bigger or about the same size, then maybe I'll go with Samsung. You're right though about silly "retro" styling. Forget the M8/M9, if I want to shoot with a manual focus camera I'll use my old film cameras.

What I don't want is a bunch of consumer oriented zoom lenses. Panasonic and Oly have at least shown a passing interest in making prime lenses, but they have been slow to get them out on the market. I'm still waiting for the 14/2.8 prime to be released, which would give m4/3rds a standard WA lens, a fast normal lens (20/1.7) and a nice short telephoto/macro/portrait lens (Leica 45/2.8) which would cover 99% of my needs. (Yeah yeah, I can get that with one zoom lens, but I just prefer primes.) If Samsung beats them to the punch and realeases some nice fast primes, and keeps the camera size reasonable (about the size of a Leica M/Olympus OM) then yeah, I think I'll go with the NX10 also.
  Reply With Quote

Old 02-16-2010   #16
Al Patterson
Ferroequinologist
 
Al Patterson is offline
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Columbus GA USA
Age: 60
Posts: 2,727
Quote:
Originally Posted by kdemas View Post
I must say that the "Im deleting my threads as I leave" phenomenon seems to be common here at RFF. Kinda funny. Personally, when I tire of a forum I just fade away onto another site.

To each their own but it's kind of sad that valuable threads disappear as users come and go.

Kent
I agree. A lot of good threads go along with a few the deserve being deleted.

On topic, the NX10 is an interesting camera. I'll probably go Micro Four Thirds though. But, I'm of the opinion that the SLR concept of mirrors doesn't make sense in the digital era.
__________________
Al Patterson

Canon QL17 GIII
Leica CL 40mm Summicron-C 50mm Hexanon
Yashica Electro 35 GSN
  Reply With Quote

Old 02-16-2010   #17
Al Patterson
Ferroequinologist
 
Al Patterson is offline
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Columbus GA USA
Age: 60
Posts: 2,727
Quote:
Originally Posted by nikku View Post
Good points. How does it compare size-wise to the GF1/EP series? Size and weight are important considerations for me, which is why I sold my DSLR, intent on replacing it with a m4/3rds camera sometime this year. But if the NX10 is not much bigger or about the same size, then maybe I'll go with Samsung. You're right though about silly "retro" styling. Forget the M8/M9, if I want to shoot with a manual focus camera I'll use my old film cameras.

What I don't want is a bunch of consumer oriented zoom lenses. Panasonic and Oly have at least shown a passing interest in making prime lenses, but they have been slow to get them out on the market. I'm still waiting for the 14/2.8 prime to be released, which would give m4/3rds a standard WA lens, a fast normal lens (20/1.7) and a nice short telephoto/macro/portrait lens (Leica 45/2.8) which would cover 99% of my needs. (Yeah yeah, I can get that with one zoom lens, but I just prefer primes.) If Samsung beats them to the punch and realeases some nice fast primes, and keeps the camera size reasonable (about the size of a Leica M/Olympus OM) then yeah, I think I'll go with the NX10 also.
It will be interesting to see the NX10 side by side with either an Olympus e-620 or one of the cameras in the poll above. As I said in my prior post, I'm currently leaning towards the EPL-1 due to cost, but in any event the NX10 deserves consideration.
__________________
Al Patterson

Canon QL17 GIII
Leica CL 40mm Summicron-C 50mm Hexanon
Yashica Electro 35 GSN
  Reply With Quote

Old 02-16-2010   #18
NickTrop
Registered User
 
NickTrop's Avatar
 
NickTrop is offline
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 2,671
Quote:
Originally Posted by nikku View Post
Good points. How does it compare size-wise to the GF1/EP series?
Here's one I found on-line that has a picture of it compared to the Oly 4/3'rds. It's bigger - but not by a lot. A concession I'll gladly make for a full sized sensor and the inclusion of a built-in EVF makes it taller - unavoidable. An EVF is a must-have to me, and not as a kluge and pricey after market add-on. I also think that DigitalReview has actual size specs. I doubt anyone will be able to engineer anything with a full sized sensor that's meaningfully more compact than this.
http://fourthirdsnews.com/news/43rum...omparison-e-p1
  Reply With Quote

Old 02-16-2010   #19
Paul T.
Registered User
 
Paul T.'s Avatar
 
Paul T. is offline
Join Date: Mar 2005
Posts: 1,799
THanks for posting, Nick, very interesting. As far as one can tell from the translation, they seem to conclude that the pancake does not focus as quickly as the kit zoom, and autofocus in dim light is poorer than that of the EP2 and GF1. But obviously we can't draw too many conclusions until the production version of the firmware is tested.

They do deserve credit for supplying a fast pancake lens; I can't help but think that Olympus have not tried too hard, compared either to Samsung or Panasonic.
  Reply With Quote

Old 02-16-2010   #20
nikku
Registered User
 
nikku is offline
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 333
Thanks for the link, Nick. The size of the NX10 really isn't too bad considering the sensor size and the built in viewfinder. Gives me something to think about.
  Reply With Quote

Old 02-16-2010   #21
Roger Hicks
Registered User
 
Roger Hicks is offline
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Aquitaine
Posts: 21,636
Quote:
Originally Posted by nikku View Post
Oh, okay. Things did get pretty nasty when he suggested that people shouldn't have more than two children over the weekend.

Personally, I find the NX10 interesting, but not as interesting as the Ricoh GXR! The GXR opens up a lot of possibilities, it will be interesting to see what Ricoh does with it.
Kind of hard to argue. Many people regard three or more children over one lifetime as a bit demanding. Three or more over one weekend...

Sorry. Couldn't resist. But I agree about deleting threads. I'm with Kent: just fade away.

Cheers,

R.
__________________
Go to www.rogerandfrances.eu for a whole new website
  Reply With Quote

Old 02-16-2010   #22
semilog
curmudgeonly optimist
 
semilog's Avatar
 
semilog is offline
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 3,734
The Hungarian review is informative. It's really between the size of a G1 or EP1 and an Oly E-620, which I already own. The Samsung's not small enough that I see a huge advantage to it, especially once you factor in the considerably faster focusing of the Oly vs. any of the mirrorless cameras. Someone coming from a D90 or D700 might see things a bit differently, though.
__________________
There are two kinds of photographers:
those who are interested in what a particular camera can't do,
and those who are interested in what it can do.

semilog.smugmug.com | flickr.com/photos/semilog/
  Reply With Quote

Old 02-16-2010   #23
nikku
Registered User
 
nikku is offline
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 333
Quote:
Originally Posted by Roger Hicks View Post
Kind of hard to argue. Many people regard three or more children over one lifetime as a bit demanding. Three or more over one weekend...

Sorry. Couldn't resist. But I agree about deleting threads. I'm with Kent: just fade away.

Cheers,

R.
D'OH! So much for that English degree!
  Reply With Quote

Old 02-16-2010   #24
charjohncarter
Registered User
 
charjohncarter's Avatar
 
charjohncarter is offline
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Danville, CA, USA
Posts: 7,007
Quote:
Originally Posted by Paul T. View Post
THis was an interesting thread, some shallow people complaining the camera was ugly (me), others commenting on whether it was compatible with M mount lenses, and various other discussions.

Now it seems to have vanished; can't even find trace of it on Google Advanced search.

Did someone nuke it? If so, why? Or did I just imagine that this camera exists?
Ugly or not, it is an innovative camera (EVF, no shutter, no pentaprism, no mirror, and in their configuration no AF motor), even if I have zero use for one. Can you image if some company comes out (which they will) with a FF small camera that will use M mount and key adapters into SLR lenses in the auto mode?
  Reply With Quote

Old 02-16-2010   #25
charjohncarter
Registered User
 
charjohncarter's Avatar
 
charjohncarter is offline
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Danville, CA, USA
Posts: 7,007
Quote:
Originally Posted by semilog View Post
The Hungarian review is informative. It's really between the size of a G1 or EP1 and an Oly E-620, which I already own. The Samsung's not small enough that I see a huge advantage to it, especially once you factor in the considerably faster focusing of the Oly vs. any of the mirrorless cameras. Someone coming from a D90 or D700 might see things a bit differently, though.
I agree, if you used a Canon MK III or IV or whatever it is, the size would matter. And if you could slap your monster Canon Zooms on it (which I think you can), I'm sure you would think it small.

Last edited by charjohncarter : 02-16-2010 at 17:14.
  Reply With Quote

Old 02-16-2010   #26
apconan
-
 
apconan is offline
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 61
why did bill leave?
  Reply With Quote

Old 02-16-2010   #27
NickTrop
Registered User
 
NickTrop's Avatar
 
NickTrop is offline
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 2,671
Quote:
Originally Posted by semilog View Post
The Hungarian review is informative. It's really between the size of a G1 or EP1 and an Oly E-620, which I already own. The Samsung's not small enough that I see a huge advantage to it, especially once you factor in the considerably faster focusing of the Oly vs. any of the mirrorless cameras. Someone coming from a D90 or D700 might see things a bit differently, though.
Yeah - it's definitely a subjective, "YMMV" kinda thing along the philosophical lines of how many grains of rice makes a "pile" of rice. To me, the Oly in particular, makes too many concessions to keep the camera small. I'm okay with using the LCD at arm's length to frame on a point-n-shoot but not for a more serious camera. Others may not have a problem with it but it's a deal breaker to me. I also view the 4/3's format as a concession on sensor size that you're already making a concession on with DSLRs over a "full frame" film camera. Another feature I like, frankly, is its pricing to be honest. $699 at B&H with kit lens. To me, even the Oly DSLRs are small enough to be in compliance with the Barnack philosophy that drew me to RFs in the 1st place but this camera is more in line with a RF style of shooting - fast fixed descreet prime. DSLRs, apart from the mirror, seem to be more designed around zooms. The Yashica CC I just sold was considered a small camera - great for street shooting, and it is/was. However, the Konica Auto S3 I'm going to put up here for sale soon is considerable smaller next to the CC. Both were great for street shooting, both fall into the "compact rangefinders" category. The smaller size of the Auto S3 wasn't advantageous from a practical standpoint over the CC. It's not a "who can make the tiniest interchangeable lens digital" competition. It's who can give me the features I want, ditch the mirror, and make the digital equivalent of a "compact rangefinder". The Oly/4/3 is the Konica - smaller, a fine camera, but offering no practical advantage from a size stand point over the Samsung/Yashica CC. Both are in the category of "compact". It's just that Oly and the other 4/3's made too many concessions that are "must haves" to me to get there. This is how I view the size difference between the 4/3's and the Samsung.

Last edited by NickTrop : 02-16-2010 at 18:47.
  Reply With Quote

Old 02-16-2010   #28
Al Patterson
Ferroequinologist
 
Al Patterson is offline
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Columbus GA USA
Age: 60
Posts: 2,727
Quote:
Originally Posted by NickTrop View Post
Yeah - it's definitely a subjective, "YMMV" kinda thing along the philosophical lines of how many grains of rice makes a "pile" of rice. To me, the Oly in particular, makes too many concessions to keep the camera small. I'm okay with using the LCD at arm's length to frame on a point-n-shoot but not for a more serious camera. Others may not have a problem with it but it's a deal breaker to me. I also view the 4/3's format as a concession on sensor size that you're already making a concession on with DSLRs over a "full frame" film camera. Another feature I like, frankly, is its pricing to be honest. $699 at B&H with kit lens. To me, even the Oly DSLRs are small enough to be in compliance with the Barnack philosophy that drew me to RFs in the 1st place but this camera is more in line with a RF style of shooting - fast fixed descreet prime. DSLRs, apart from the mirror, seem to be more designed around zooms. The Yashica CC I just sold was considered a small camera - great for street shooting, and it is/was. However, the Konica Auto S3 I'm going to put up here for sale soon is considerable smaller next to the CC. Both were great for street shooting, both fall into the "compact rangefinders" category. The smaller size of the Auto S3 wasn't advantageous from a practical standpoint over the CC. It's not a "who can make the tiniest interchangeable lens digital" competition. It's who can give me the features I want, ditch the mirror, and make the digital equivalent of a "compact rangefinder". The Oly/4/3 is the Konica - smaller, a fine camera, but offering no practical advantage from a size stand point over the Samsung/Yashica CC. Both are in the category of "compact". It's just that Oly and the other 4/3's made too many concessions that are "must haves" to me to get there. This is how I view the size difference between the 4/3's and the Samsung.
I certainly hope you acquire one before the next Philly gathering. While I do work at a well-known internet based retailer, we don't ever get to see the boxed stuff, and this is one I'd like to see. I think the EP-1/2 and GF-1 et. al. have the look I want, but your reasoning here does lead me to think Samsung has a decent thing going. besides, ugly cameras are like ugly cars. When one is using it properly, one doesn't see that it is ugly.
__________________
Al Patterson

Canon QL17 GIII
Leica CL 40mm Summicron-C 50mm Hexanon
Yashica Electro 35 GSN
  Reply With Quote

Old 02-18-2010   #29
Ernst Dinkla
Registered User
 
Ernst Dinkla is offline
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 296
Samsung marketing made at least two mistakes, they should have given it image stabilisation on the sensor and an M mount. It wouldn't have compromised the size of the camera. It is still possible that a camera like that appears with another brand name but the impact on the market would have been huge if Samsung had done it right away.
They still could have sold the body with a lens. That it would create a big secondhand lens swopping market is another thing.
The sensor will be quite capable I guess if compared to the 4/3 ones. DxO has put the Samsung GX20 way above the 4/3 sensor rankings. It doesn't go as high as some Canon-Nikon APS sized ones but gets close.


met vriendelijke groeten, Ernst Dinkla

Dinkla Gallery Canvas Wrap Actions for Photoshop
http://www.pigment-print.com/dinklac...aps/index.html
  Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off



All times are GMT -8. The time now is 10:14.


vBulletin skin developed by: eXtremepixels
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.8
Copyright ©2000 - 2016, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

All content on this site is Copyright Protected and owned by its respective owner. You may link to content on this site but you may not reproduce any of it in whole or part without written consent from its owner.