Go Back   Rangefinderforum.com > Cameras / Gear / Photography > Leicas and other Leica Mount Cameras > Leica Q / T / X Series

Leica Q / T / X Series For the Leica Q, T, X series digital cameras

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes

Old 07-14-2015   #41
Timmyjoe
Registered User
 
Timmyjoe's Avatar
 
Timmyjoe is offline
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Chicago, IL
Posts: 1,992
Quote:
Originally Posted by Brooklynguy View Post
One could also say that for $3,800 (price of a 28 Summicron), you similarly "are stuck" with only one focal length (no zoom, no variety, no nuthin'!), and no camera to boot! Or for $7,000, you only get that boring 50mm FOV and only f/2--ugh! who wants that tripe when CaNikon's Nifty 50 is $100! In fact, this could be argued for ANY lens and any price, since cheap point and shoot cameras can be had for almost nothing, relatively speaking.
The $3800 28 Summicron can be part of a very versatile package. A system that you can build on.

The $4250 Q is stuck with one focal length, nowhere to go to expand the possibilities of its supposedly brilliant sensor.

That 28 Summicron will make beautiful images on a Leica M, Monochrom, M9, M8, Mp, MA, M7, M6TTL, M6, M5, M4, M3, M2, and many other cameras. It is an investment in a system that you can build on.

Best,
-Tim
__________________
http://www.timcarrollphotography.com

New Photo Books
Sturgis Stories & Scenes From Sturgis
now available
  Reply With Quote

Old 07-14-2015   #42
taemo
Registered User
 
taemo is offline
Join Date: Apr 2012
Age: 32
Posts: 915
Quote:
Originally Posted by mlu19 View Post
Sony Rx1 was retailed for close to $3k when it first came out. Leica can easily charge that much more just because.
Q AF is alot faster than the RX1
Q also as OIS
Q has 28mm 1.7 lens versus RX1 35mm 2
Q has a nice big EVF

for ~1300$ more doesnt sound too bad IMO if you dont mind the 28mm focal length

i personally cancelled my Q pre-order because 28mm is just not for me.
Put the money on a used M240 so that i can use my 35mm and 50mm lens which are my favorites
__________________
earldieta.com - flickr
  Reply With Quote

Old 07-14-2015   #43
f16sunshine
Moderator
 
f16sunshine's Avatar
 
f16sunshine is offline
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Seattle
Age: 49
Posts: 5,678
I don't use Leica lenses. The point about the value of the lens is lost on me.
A Zeiss or CV lens does what I need it to do.
Although I have owned several Leica lenses I just don't see the point considering options available.
I'm not a cheapy either. I owned the M8 when it was still new and expensive,...Flirted with the M9 but ultimately decided the M8's I had were fine, ...Adopted the RD1 when it was the only Digital Rangefinder out there.
I love Rangefinders and have used film models since I was a teenager.

The only reason I would pay so called "Leica prices" is for a rangefinder. I would pay $4-$5k for a fixed lens 40mm Rangefinder in a heartbeat!
The Q does not have a rangefinder. I don't see why it needs to set me back $4K without one.
__________________
Andy
  Reply With Quote

Old 07-14-2015   #44
taemo
Registered User
 
taemo is offline
Join Date: Apr 2012
Age: 32
Posts: 915
good point Andy, i also wanted a RF camera hence why i went to the M instead
__________________
earldieta.com - flickr
  Reply With Quote

Old 07-14-2015   #45
Calzone
Gear Whore #1
 
Calzone's Avatar
 
Calzone is offline
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Hell Gate, Madhattan
Age: 59
Posts: 7,652
Quote:
Originally Posted by Timmyjoe View Post
The $3800 28 Summicron can be part of a very versatile package. A system that you can build on.

The $4250 Q is stuck with one focal length, nowhere to go to expand the possibilities of its supposedly brilliant sensor.

That 28 Summicron will make beautiful images on a Leica M, Monochrom, M9, M8, Mp, MA, M7, M6TTL, M6, M5, M4, M3, M2, and many other cameras. It is an investment in a system that you can build on.

Best,
-Tim
Tim,

My 28 Cron is almost permanently mounted to a Wetzlar M6 unless it is borrowed to be used on my Monochrom. Since I own so many cameras I kinda dedicated the 28 Cron to the M6 in a manner that it is perhaps 97-98 percent used like a fixed lens camera.

My black paint MP with 0.85 VF'er similarly is dedicated to and optimized for shooting a 50, and I even own a Canadian MD-2 that I use with a 21 Super Elmar that more or less is permanently mounted. I often carry two fully rigged cameras and sometimes three. I'm not a lens changer so most of my cameras get optimized for a specific focal length. An example of this is I had Sherry strip our the 75mm Frames out of my MP for uncluttered 50mm frames.

You are correct that I have versitility if I need it, but call me a lazy slacker because I don't like changing lenses and missing shots. Understand I consider the way I have my kit arrange as a luxury that not everybody can do. No doubt that the Leica "Q's" price makes it a luxury item that is not practical for most. I'm just calling it for what it is: an expensive camera that is a luxury item not built for the masses.

No doubt that my way is not utilizing the versitility and adaptability you mention, but it is a great way for me to do a lot of shooting. Understand that Diane Arbus use to carry three loaded Rollies in a knapsack so when she took her last shot, she just grabbed another loaded camera. My way is practical in a different manner.

Cal
__________________
"Vintage Hipster"
  Reply With Quote

Old 07-14-2015   #46
jsrockit
Moderator
 
jsrockit's Avatar
 
jsrockit is offline
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Santiago, Chile
Age: 44
Posts: 18,321
Quote:
Originally Posted by Timmyjoe View Post
The $3800 28 Summicron can be part of a very versatile package. A system that you can build on.

The $4250 Q is stuck with one focal length, nowhere to go to expand the possibilities of its supposedly brilliant sensor.

That 28 Summicron will make beautiful images on a Leica M, Monochrom, M9, M8, Mp, MA, M7, M6TTL, M6, M5, M4, M3, M2, and many other cameras. It is an investment in a system that you can build on.
True, but at huge price increase comparatively (film cameras shouldn't be part of the comparison) and some of us prefer AF. I don't use many different focal lengths. So, at $4250 and with my other cameras I already own I've got all bases covered. I have no interest in the M anymore.
  Reply With Quote

Old 07-14-2015   #47
jsrockit
Moderator
 
jsrockit's Avatar
 
jsrockit is offline
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Santiago, Chile
Age: 44
Posts: 18,321
Quote:
Originally Posted by Calzone View Post
Understand I consider the way I have my kit arrange as a luxury that not everybody can do. No doubt that the Leica "Q's" price makes it a luxury item that is not practical for most. I'm just calling it for what it is: an expensive camera that is a luxury item not built for the masses.
I guess this is what it comes down to... what do you already own and use and does the Q now fit into that equation because all other bases are covered.

For me, the Q is the type of camera that I like these days (and there aren't many alternatives). RF shaped, fast AF, decent fast lens, high ISO, full frame, great EVF, etc.
  Reply With Quote

Old 07-14-2015   #48
jsrockit
Moderator
 
jsrockit's Avatar
 
jsrockit is offline
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Santiago, Chile
Age: 44
Posts: 18,321
Quote:
Originally Posted by f16sunshine View Post
The Q does not have a rangefinder. I don't see why it needs to set me back $4K without one.
Well, a M is $7000 right (without a lens)? $3000 to remove the RF seems about right and you get a lens too. We will never sell you guys on the value of this camera vs. something else. However, for some of us... it is exactly what we like.
  Reply With Quote

Old 07-14-2015   #49
Ko.Fe.
Me. Write ESL. Ko.
 
Ko.Fe.'s Avatar
 
Ko.Fe. is offline
Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: MiltON.ONtario
Age: 50
Posts: 4,757
Quote:
Originally Posted by jsrockit View Post
I ordered one... while rangefinder focusing is my favorite MF method, I prefer AF to MF. However, the main reason for me is ergonomics. I prefer the M type shaped body to anything with a grip. Additionally, I tend to only use one/two lenses per body anyway. The Q came at the right time for me. I wanted a Leica, I wanted FF, I like 28mm, and I want AF with MF as a secondary option.

What's funny for me is that many assume that if they don't like 28mm, nobody else does.
Respect and congratulations!
  Reply With Quote

Old 07-14-2015   #50
Ronald M
Registered User
 
Ronald M is offline
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 4,127
Q is a test bed for whatever is new in the camera. What works may evolve into something useful.

My first camera was a Waltz with 50 mm Nikkor fixed on. Could not wait until I graduated, had money, and buy an interchangeable lens model. Bought a Pentax Spotmatic,

28,35, 50 , 85, 135, 200 all in one shot. I am sure I made
Altman Camera very happy that day.

No I will not go back.
  Reply With Quote

Old 07-14-2015   #51
BlackXList
Registered User
 
BlackXList is offline
Join Date: May 2012
Posts: 693
It's the only Leica that I've ever had GAS for.

But there's no possible way I can justify it. I have the Ricoh GR for my fixed 28mm needs, and it's spectacular.

it's not full frame, but I can get a 28mm 1.8 AF lens for less than a 10th the cost of the Q for one of my full frame bodies.

It's a great looking piece of equipment, a focal length that I love, and the shots from it look great. It's just not something I can find any way to coming close to justifying.
  Reply With Quote

Old 07-15-2015   #52
jsrockit
Moderator
 
jsrockit's Avatar
 
jsrockit is offline
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Santiago, Chile
Age: 44
Posts: 18,321
Quote:
Originally Posted by BlackXList View Post
But there's no possible way I can justify it. I have the Ricoh GR for my fixed 28mm needs, and it's spectacular.

it's not full frame, but I can get a 28mm 1.8 AF lens for less than a 10th the cost of the Q for one of my full frame bodies.
Well, in all fairness, you can get a pretty decent 28mm 2.8 lens for 1/10th of the price of a GR as well.

As I keep saying, the main gripe with this camera (as always with anything Leica) is the price. You cannot fault much else with it.
  Reply With Quote

Old 07-15-2015   #53
willie_901
Registered User
 
willie_901's Avatar
 
willie_901 is offline
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 4,603
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lss View Post
This is not what all the reviews suggest. It is anyway weak enough to induce moire.
I was mistaken.

The Q does not have an AA filter.

I apologize for my error.
__________________
“To see what is in front of one’s nose needs a constant struggle.” George Orwell

williamchuttonjr.com
  Reply With Quote

Old 07-15-2015   #54
Calzone
Gear Whore #1
 
Calzone's Avatar
 
Calzone is offline
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Hell Gate, Madhattan
Age: 59
Posts: 7,652
Quote:
Originally Posted by willie_901 View Post
I was mistaken.

The Q does not have an AA filter.

I apologize for my error.
Willie,

Thanks for adding to the clarity. For me no AA filter is a bonus for resolution and another reason to like the "Q."

Cal
__________________
"Vintage Hipster"
  Reply With Quote

Old 07-15-2015   #55
gustavoAvila
Registered User
 
gustavoAvila is offline
Join Date: Sep 2012
Posts: 136
Quote:
Originally Posted by Calzone View Post
For me no AA filter is a bonus for resolution and another reason to like the "Q."
All contemporary cameras either have a very weak AA filter or none at all. This particular "specification" has been a non-issue for some years now.
  Reply With Quote

Old 07-15-2015   #56
robert blu
quiet photographer
 
robert blu's Avatar
 
robert blu is offline
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Italy
Age: 68
Posts: 4,702
For sure a special camera. If I only had any digital camera with a short tele lens, 75/90 mm I would buy the Q because 60-70 % of my shooting is made with wide angles . But there is still that 30% where I would like to have a short tele, or at least a 50 (I know, I can crop the Q).
4 K EUR for 60% of my use is in this moment too much. But never say never...

robert
__________________
Remember: today is the Day !
from Ruth Bernhard recipe for a long and happy life


my quiet photographer's blog


My RFF photos and my albums on RFF
  Reply With Quote

Old 07-15-2015   #57
MIkhail
Registered User
 
MIkhail's Avatar
 
MIkhail is offline
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Detroit, Michigan
Posts: 887
Quote:
Originally Posted by jsrockit View Post
I understand Dave. I get it... believe me, I keep wondering if I'm being foolish spending the cash, but oh well... I like it enough to do it and it'll be useful to me.
In my opinion, making photographs is such an emotional, sometimes irrational process (I am not talking about protocol/ wedding/ product/ graduation/ bat mitzvah pictures of course) so, if the camera makes you inspired and you can afford it, then, by all means, go for it. Pain of high cost will go away but camera will stay.

I personally cannot see myself buying it, simply for the reason that this digital camera does not inspire me enough, to want it badly enough.
The Leica prices in general piss me of just as much as next guy, but so is the high Snap-on price of a good automotive tool, high Trek price of bycicle or high Porsche price of a sporty car...
Photo-people are conditioned already to think that $4000 for a lens (few pieces of precision glass in metal barrel) is a good price in general, so... Leica can charge much and get away with it, good for them.
  Reply With Quote

Old 07-15-2015   #58
BlackXList
Registered User
 
BlackXList is offline
Join Date: May 2012
Posts: 693
Quote:
Originally Posted by jsrockit View Post
Well, in all fairness, you can get a pretty decent 28mm 2.8 lens for 1/10th of the price of a GR as well.

As I keep saying, the main gripe with this camera (as always with anything Leica) is the price. You cannot fault much else with it.
I think I need to be shopping the same places you are haha.

The GR is a niche camera, very much like the Q (I don't think their similarity is a coincidence), but it ticked the boxes for me, and at that price I could justify it.
For me any consideration of the Q would have to take into account that I already own the GR, which pushes it even further out of the picture.

(Plus I'm getting quite attached to my GR) haha
  Reply With Quote

Old 07-16-2015   #59
willie_901
Registered User
 
willie_901's Avatar
 
willie_901 is offline
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 4,603
I really don't care about the prices.

I care about the cost-to-benfit ratio.
__________________
“To see what is in front of one’s nose needs a constant struggle.” George Orwell

williamchuttonjr.com
  Reply With Quote

Old 07-16-2015   #60
Calzone
Gear Whore #1
 
Calzone's Avatar
 
Calzone is offline
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Hell Gate, Madhattan
Age: 59
Posts: 7,652
Quote:
Originally Posted by willie_901 View Post
I really don't care about the prices.

I care about the cost-to-benfit ratio.
I'm with Willie. Whenever I spent money on luxury I never regretted it, but when I cheaped out I often had remorse. Why would I want to cheat myself, and over the long term I remain satisfied.

Cal
__________________
"Vintage Hipster"
  Reply With Quote

Old 07-16-2015   #61
mabelsound
Registered User
 
mabelsound's Avatar
 
mabelsound is offline
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Upstate NY
Age: 47
Posts: 6,182
For my own uses, I think I'm going to pick up an X100T, as I prefer the focal length and optical VF, and it's vastly cheaper.

BUT, I messed around with a Q for ten minutes the other day, and holy moses, it's really nice. Super fast and quiet, feels like an M in the hand. If you are accustomed to shooting a Leica with a fast 28 for street and want to move to digital, this thing is for you. It's marvelous. I can totally see the appeal.

Some people only really shoot with a 28, and this is for them.

The guy at the Leica store in SoHo responded to my request with "Yeah, I know. Everybody who walks through that door is here to try the Q."
__________________
flickr insta twitter
  Reply With Quote

Old 07-17-2015   #62
jsrockit
Moderator
 
jsrockit's Avatar
 
jsrockit is offline
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Santiago, Chile
Age: 44
Posts: 18,321
Quote:
Originally Posted by BlackXList View Post
I think I need to be shopping the same places you are haha.

The GR is a niche camera, very much like the Q (I don't think their similarity is a coincidence), but it ticked the boxes for me, and at that price I could justify it.
For me any consideration of the Q would have to take into account that I already own the GR, which pushes it even further out of the picture.

(Plus I'm getting quite attached to my GR) haha
I understand... I use the GR as well. It is the reason why the Q appeals to me. With the GR, I have learned to love the 28mm focal length. The Q should be a step up and should be closer to my FF cameras I'm used to these days. Plus, I was disappointed with the updated GR. That said, the GR will remain my jacket pocket camera.
  Reply With Quote

Old 07-17-2015   #63
f16sunshine
Moderator
 
f16sunshine's Avatar
 
f16sunshine is offline
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Seattle
Age: 49
Posts: 5,678
Quote:
Originally Posted by jsrockit View Post
I understand... I use the GR as well. It is the reason why the Q appeals to me. With the GR, I have learned to love the 28mm focal length. The Q should be a step up and should be closer to my FF cameras I'm used to these days. Plus, I was disappointed with the updated GR. That said, the GR will remain my jacket pocket camera.
The GR has definitely changes how I use a wide angle and that 28mm pov in particular.
I never thought composing in an lcd would be so useful.
I think it's the size too .... So compact and lightweight.
Balancing and steadying the camera away from ones eye is easy and comfortable.
Trying to use a fuji x camera with an 18mm and lcd is not the same.
Since you've used the GR, I'm curious to read your thoughts on comparing it to the Q when you get it.
__________________
Andy
  Reply With Quote

Old 07-17-2015   #64
jsrockit
Moderator
 
jsrockit's Avatar
 
jsrockit is offline
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Santiago, Chile
Age: 44
Posts: 18,321
Quote:
Originally Posted by f16sunshine View Post
The GR has definitely changes how I use a wide angle and that 28mm pov in particular. I never thought composing in an lcd would be so useful.
I feel I only like composing with an LCD with lenses that are 28mm and wider... and I think the one handed operation of the GR helps you feel comfortable with it away from your eye.
  Reply With Quote

Old 07-17-2015   #65
Calzone
Gear Whore #1
 
Calzone's Avatar
 
Calzone is offline
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Hell Gate, Madhattan
Age: 59
Posts: 7,652
Quote:
Originally Posted by jsrockit View Post
I feel I only like composing with an LCD with lenses that are 28mm and wider... and I think the one handed operation of the GR helps you feel comfortable with it away from your eye.
John,

This makes sense to me. At 28mm FOV you start to get that all at once view.

Cal
__________________
"Vintage Hipster"
  Reply With Quote

Old 07-18-2015   #66
giellaleafapmu
Registered User
 
giellaleafapmu is offline
Join Date: Apr 2005
Posts: 887
I rather do not understand why Leica products seem to attract this kind of comment so often. It is a professional camera with quite unique characteristics and high but not impossible price, if someone can make money with it, likes it, feels inspired by it or is a dentist then why not buy (joking, the people who are both dentist AND great photorapher need not feel offended)? To me there are so many other products which makes little or no sense but don't get much comments for not being Leica. For instance, is it really worth spending almost 6,000 US$ to get a Nikon D4s and have few MPX more and one frame/sec more than a D3? Still, the product is there, used by many. The more is produces the more choice we have.

GLF
__________________
<a href='http://www.rangefinderforum.com/photopost/showgallery.php?cat=500&ppuser=1808'>My Gallery</a>
  Reply With Quote

Old 07-19-2015   #67
willie_901
Registered User
 
willie_901's Avatar
 
willie_901 is offline
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 4,603
Quote:
Originally Posted by giellaleafapmu View Post
...

For instance, is it really worth spending almost 6,000 US$ to get a Nikon D4s and have few MPX more and one frame/sec more than a D3? Still, the product is there, used by many. The more is produces the more choice we have.

GLF
If you are a professional, or even an enthusiastic amateur, sport photographer it does. The D4s has approximately a one-stop signal-to-noise ratio and dynamic range advantage over the D3. This alone makes life easier and in the right hands produces superior images.

Disclaimer: I don't do sports/action photography and sold all my Nikon DSLR equipment in 2014.
__________________
“To see what is in front of one’s nose needs a constant struggle.” George Orwell

williamchuttonjr.com
  Reply With Quote

Old 07-19-2015   #68
giellaleafapmu
Registered User
 
giellaleafapmu is offline
Join Date: Apr 2005
Posts: 887
Quote:
Originally Posted by willie_901 View Post
If you are a professional, or even an enthusiastic amateur, sport photographer it does. The D4s has approximately a one-stop signal-to-noise ratio and dynamic range advantage over the D3. This alone makes life easier and in the right hands produces superior images.

Disclaimer: I don't do sports/action photography and sold all my Nikon DSLR equipment in 2014.
Well, ok, I cannot be sure as I just tried the camera once at a shop and probably most of the people using the camera did not buy the camera themselves anyway but I know people who spent their own money for it without particular reasons I can see (not claiming they don't exist) and this was actually my point: there is always someone who appreciate things we don't so there is little to "get" about the Q (I am answering the original question not your message), if someone likes and can afford it then there no reason not to buy it.

GLF
__________________
<a href='http://www.rangefinderforum.com/photopost/showgallery.php?cat=500&ppuser=1808'>My Gallery</a>
  Reply With Quote

Old 07-20-2015   #69
willie_901
Registered User
 
willie_901's Avatar
 
willie_901 is offline
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 4,603
Quote:
Originally Posted by giellaleafapmu View Post
...this was actually my point: there is always someone who appreciate things we don't so there is little to "get" about the Q (I am answering the original question not your message), if someone likes and can afford it then there no reason not to buy it.

GLF
I agree in full.

I guess I don't associate the "get" with appreciation. I decided the Q is redundant for my needs. At the same time I have used fixed-lens cameras and my daily carry (which happens to have a non-RF optical finder) will have the same lens attached to it for months. I appreciate the Q, but I don't "get' the cost:benefit value.
__________________
“To see what is in front of one’s nose needs a constant struggle.” George Orwell

williamchuttonjr.com
  Reply With Quote

Old 07-20-2015   #70
Mcary
Registered User
 
Mcary is offline
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Virginia USA
Age: 55
Posts: 1,439
I get and can appreciate it, but its just not for me.
__________________
M. Cary
Trying to see something new whither I'm visiting someplace new or a place that I've been a dozens of times before.
Tumblr http://www.tumblr.com/blog/mcaryartnude
Not work safe

  Reply With Quote

Old 07-20-2015   #71
Michael Markey
Registered User
 
Michael Markey's Avatar
 
Michael Markey is offline
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Blackpool ,England
Age: 66
Posts: 3,454
One sold on the used market in the UK for approx $3813.
  Reply With Quote

Old 07-21-2015   #72
jsrockit
Moderator
 
jsrockit's Avatar
 
jsrockit is offline
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Santiago, Chile
Age: 44
Posts: 18,321
Quote:
Originally Posted by Michael Markey View Post
One sold on the used market in the UK for approx $3813.
Great price for a hot camera... I can't seem to find any for a normal price ($4250).
  Reply With Quote

Old 07-21-2015   #73
Michael Markey
Registered User
 
Michael Markey's Avatar
 
Michael Markey is offline
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Blackpool ,England
Age: 66
Posts: 3,454
Yep. It doesn't seem to have hung around. Sold quickly.
  Reply With Quote

Old 07-30-2016   #74
richard_l
Registered User
 
richard_l's Avatar
 
richard_l is offline
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: NC
Posts: 1,522
People talk a lot about the 35mm mode of the Q, which is perfectly feasible, but how many actually use it? The large majority of online photos I've seen really look as if they are 28mm. There's nothing wrong with that, and it can be spectacular, but it isn't me. I think there may be a psychological barrier to using only a portion of the full sensor on such an expensive camera, and if I owned a Q, I too might be tempted to succumb to the lure of using the full sensor, in spite of my aesthetic aversion to being stuck at that focal length.
  Reply With Quote

Old 07-30-2016   #75
KismetSky
Registered User
 
KismetSky is offline
Join Date: Apr 2013
Posts: 102
I've used the 35mm "crop" mode on the Q plenty and it serves as a great guide. The best part is the raw file retains the full 28mm frame so you can recrop to your liking after the fact. Lightroom imports it as shot and hitting the crop button reveals the rest of the DNG. The EVF superimposes the framelines over the whole view so it very much mimics a rangefinder's framelines. I've shot with the 50mm framelines and recropped to an approximate 40mm with great success.
  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 16:33.


vBulletin skin developed by: eXtremepixels
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.8
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, 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.