M9, M9-P new sensors
Old 07-31-2017   #1
froyd
Registered User
 
froyd's Avatar
 
froyd is offline
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 2,088
M9, M9-P new sensors

How can one tell if an M9 has had the sensore repalced to the newr "corrosion-proof" version? I see ads on Ebay for M9 that say, vaguely, that "the sensor has been replaced". Well, replaced with what? I assume at some point, early M9s with sensor issues might have had their sensors replaced with similar corrosion-prone assemblies.
  Reply With Quote

Old 07-31-2017   #2
Gregm61
Registered User
 
Gregm61 is offline
Join Date: Jan 2015
Posts: 416
If the firmware number is 1.204, Leica loaded that when they installed the replacement sensor in my M9-P. The newest firmware is 1.210.
  Reply With Quote

Old 07-31-2017   #3
Rob-F
Likes Leicas
 
Rob-F's Avatar
 
Rob-F is offline
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: The Show Me state
Age: 78
Posts: 5,897
I'm not taking chances. I bought mine from Photo Village. It came with a note that the sensor had been replaced. But, as you say, replaced with what? So I had our local store send it in for sensor clean and check. Better safe than sorry. In your case, since you have not bought yet, you should probably buy only from a store that can tell you for sure.
__________________
May the light be with you.
  Reply With Quote

Old 08-01-2017   #4
willie_901
Registered User
 
willie_901's Avatar
 
willie_901 is offline
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 5,293
Can a camera with the original sensor function with firmware 1.210 installed?

If so, you are at the mercy of the sellers' honesty. Then, I think legitimate paper work from Leica is indisputable.

Otherwise, the firmware version would tell the tale.
__________________
Basically, I mean, ah—well, let’s say that for me anyway when a photograph is interesting, it’s interesting because of the kind of photographic problem it states—which has to do with the . . . contest between content and form.
Garry Winogrand
williamchuttonjr.com
  Reply With Quote

Old 08-01-2017   #5
Ko.Fe.
Kostya Fedot
 
Ko.Fe.'s Avatar
 
Ko.Fe. is offline
Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: MiltON.ONtario
Posts: 7,111
We have RFF members who needs second round for replacement.

https://www.l-camera-forum.com/topic...nt-starts-now/
Leica only started to replace corrosive parts with non-corrosive after September of 2015.
So, if sensor was replaced in 2016 or later it is safe to buy, if papers are provided.
  Reply With Quote

Old 08-01-2017   #6
Ko.Fe.
Kostya Fedot
 
Ko.Fe.'s Avatar
 
Ko.Fe. is offline
Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: MiltON.ONtario
Posts: 7,111
Quote:
Originally Posted by willie_901 View Post
Can a camera with the original sensor function with firmware 1.210 installed?

If so, you are at the mercy of the sellers' honesty. Then, I think legitimate paper work from Leica is indisputable.

Otherwise, the firmware version would tell the tale.
1.210 is openly available for install. I went from 1.202 to 1.210 by myself after purchasing 2015 made M-E in October of 2016.
  Reply With Quote

Old 08-01-2017   #7
froyd
Registered User
 
froyd's Avatar
 
froyd is offline
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 2,088
Thanks, very helpful and interesting.
  Reply With Quote

Old 08-01-2017   #8
rscheffler
Registered User
 
rscheffler is offline
Join Date: Jun 2013
Posts: 483
Probably the only way to be sure is to request supporting paperwork from the seller. This might be more tricky if done through a store, but if it's a private sale, the previous owner should have it. If they bought it from someone who had it done, should have asked for the supporting paperwork.

That said, the paperwork I received back with my camera after its sensor replacement was somewhat vague and didn't outright state 'sensor replacement' but test photos indicate no more white spots with black halos around them.

Another option might be to contact Leica with the serial number and ask for confirmation. Not sure they will share service history details, but maybe they can provide a simple yes or no.

Ko.Fe.'s point is also very relevant. Only recently with the latest cover glass type is the replacement considered a 'permanent' one.
  Reply With Quote

Old 08-01-2017   #9
jsrockit
Moderator
 
jsrockit's Avatar
 
jsrockit is offline
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Santiago, Chile
Age: 45
Posts: 19,743
Anyone who has had their sensor replaced should surely have paperwork to prove it from Leica no?
  Reply With Quote

Old 08-01-2017   #10
Luke_Miller
Registered User
 
Luke_Miller's Avatar
 
Luke_Miller is offline
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Rural Virginia
Posts: 127
The paperwork I received from Leica NJ with the returned camera was also very vague, but it referenced the service P.O.number. That document specified all the work that was performed. So in my case both documents are necessary to verify that the sensor was replaced.
__________________
http://lukemiller.photos
  Reply With Quote

Old 08-01-2017   #11
f16sunshine
Moderator
 
f16sunshine's Avatar
 
f16sunshine is offline
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Seattle
Age: 51
Posts: 6,258
It seems like Leica could confirm this question with a serial number.
SHOULD Be very simple right ?
__________________
Andy
  Reply With Quote

Old 08-01-2017   #12
Doug
Moderator
 
Doug's Avatar
 
Doug is offline
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Pacific NW, USA
Posts: 12,933
Unfortunately, Leica is very vague about the specifics of the service, I've found. Hard to "prove" much of anything...
__________________
Doug’s Gallery
RFF on Facebook
  Reply With Quote

Old 08-01-2017   #13
Huss
Registered User
 
Huss is offline
Join Date: Sep 2014
Location: Venice, CA
Posts: 7,230
And herein lies the crux of Leica going back on their word re. sensor replacement. You may have a new sensor, but it may be a new one of the old defective design.
  Reply With Quote

Old 08-01-2017   #14
Rayt
Registered User
 
Rayt's Avatar
 
Rayt is offline
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 1,836
Quote:
Originally Posted by Doug View Post
Unfortunately, Leica is very vague about the specifics of the service, I've found. Hard to "prove" much of anything...
Not sure about NJ but my friend got his sensor replacement from Wetzler recently and the paperwork detailed everything that was done and he said Leica replaced an array of parts. I sent my MM to Wetzler yesterday.
  Reply With Quote

Old 08-01-2017   #15
Gregm61
Registered User
 
Gregm61 is offline
Join Date: Jan 2015
Posts: 416
If the camera's firmware is 1.204, it was installed by Leica when the new sensor was installed. I've left mine at that version since it came back from the factory with the new sensor in May, 2016.
  Reply With Quote

Old 08-02-2017   #16
jaapv
RFF Sponsoring Member.
 
jaapv's Avatar
 
jaapv is offline
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Hellevoetsluis, Netherlands
Posts: 8,384
Quote:
Originally Posted by Doug View Post
Unfortunately, Leica is very vague about the specifics of the service, I've found. Hard to "prove" much of anything...
I would be extremely surprised if Leica (Wetzlar) could not confirm which sensor was built in. Just ask.
__________________
Jaap

jaapvphotography
  Reply With Quote

Old 08-02-2017   #17
willie_901
Registered User
 
willie_901's Avatar
 
willie_901 is offline
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 5,293
Quote:
Originally Posted by Huss View Post
And herein lies the crux of Leica going back on their word re. sensor replacement. You may have a new sensor, but it may be a new one of the old defective design.
Well, that would be profoundly self-defeating – to the point of absurdity.

In the past, Leica made mistakes dealing with digital M issues. This started with the M8 IR contamination surprise. I am not aware of an example where Leica didn't eventually do the right thing.

Leica handled the recent TL2 Visoflex problem much differently. Leica was transparent and effective. Leica announced there was an issue and quickly released a firmware update to solve the problem. Perhaps this indicates Leica learned a lesson from the M9 sensor episode?

Rectifying the M9 IR filter layer problem was expensive, but it was also a wise investment. First, it avoided a class action law suit. Second, it generated good will and strengthed the Leica brand. This is a win-win solution.

Consider this. Sooner or later the IR filter film of every single old-style sensor will fail. Detection of the fraud you suggest is inevitable. The resulting negative publicity would be viral and toxic.

Therefore, the stupidity level required to risk the benefits of a huge investment just to save a very small amount of money installing some old-style sensors is unimaginable.
__________________
Basically, I mean, ah—well, let’s say that for me anyway when a photograph is interesting, it’s interesting because of the kind of photographic problem it states—which has to do with the . . . contest between content and form.
Garry Winogrand
williamchuttonjr.com
  Reply With Quote

Old 08-02-2017   #18
jaapv
RFF Sponsoring Member.
 
jaapv's Avatar
 
jaapv is offline
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Hellevoetsluis, Netherlands
Posts: 8,384
Quote:
Sooner or later the IR filter film of every single old-style sensor will fail
Where does this assertion come from? There is no evidence to support it.


The old style sensors that were installed was in the time that no new style sensor was available yet. Should Leica have left the users out in the cold until the new-style sensor was developed? I think not.
As soon as the new sensor came into production that was the only one used.
__________________
Jaap

jaapvphotography
  Reply With Quote

Old 08-02-2017   #19
sojournerphoto
Registered User
 
sojournerphoto is offline
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 1,637
Quote:
Originally Posted by jsrockit View Post
Anyone who has had their sensor replaced should surely have paperwork to prove it from Leica no?
No. When Mike me was replaced it was just returned with a short note that I didn't even think to keep. No one would have viewed that as evidence in any case. On the other hand, if you've bought one and register it on their user website, they are very helpful and would probably tell you what you need to know.

Mike
  Reply With Quote

Old 08-02-2017   #20
Huss
Registered User
 
Huss is offline
Join Date: Sep 2014
Location: Venice, CA
Posts: 7,230
Quote:
Originally Posted by willie_901 View Post

Therefore, the stupidity level required to risk the benefits of a huge investment just to save a very small amount of money installing some old-style sensors is unimaginable.
Leica already reneged on their promise of life time sensor replacement...
  Reply With Quote

Old 08-02-2017   #21
rscheffler
Registered User
 
rscheffler is offline
Join Date: Jun 2013
Posts: 483
Quote:
Originally Posted by Huss View Post
Leica already reneged on their promise of life time sensor replacement...
Leica did not state sensor replacement will no longer be possible. Rather, free sensor replacement for all M9s and variants will no longer be provided beyond a certain purchase date (5 years - much longer than typical warranties).

It's still a reversal of the original offer of free replacement for anyone, anytime and finally was motivation for me to send in mine.
  Reply With Quote

Old 08-03-2017   #22
willie_901
Registered User
 
willie_901's Avatar
 
willie_901 is offline
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 5,293
Quote:
Originally Posted by jaapv View Post
Where does this assertion come from? There is no evidence to support it.
It comes from a knowledge of chemistry and common sense.
  • Organic chemistry stipulates organic molecules in the IR film readily react with water. The reaction products cause optical defects. This is indisputable.
  • The atmosphere contains water vapor. Even in arid climates, water vapor exists at very low levels. In these climates, humans emit water vapor indoors. A very low water vapor level is not a zero level. However, the chemical reactions are low because one of the reactants has a low concentration. This is why the word "later" applies.
  • Then there's physical chemistry. Water molecule clusters in vapor readily disassociate to produce individual water molecules. Water vapor can diffuse through unimaginably small spaces. Any defect larger than a water molecule means water can reach the IR filter film. Diffusion is relentless. At temperatures that sustain life, the energy to drive molecular diffusion is abundant. The paths for diffusion are obvious. Even an otherwise perfect factory cleaning could render the sensor cover glass susceptible to water-vapor diffusion. The same goes for minuscule defects caused by repeated sensor assembly expansion and contraction. The possibility of manufacturing defects exists. The optical properties of the cover glass are not be affected by these minuscule defects. All digital cameras have these defects. But very few sensor assembly cover glass designs use water labile materials.

Some amount of water is always present. Water molecules can reach the IR film embedded in the sensor glass. The IR filter film contains an organic chemical that readily reacts with water. The reaction products produce defects large enough to create optical artifacts.
__________________
Basically, I mean, ah—well, let’s say that for me anyway when a photograph is interesting, it’s interesting because of the kind of photographic problem it states—which has to do with the . . . contest between content and form.
Garry Winogrand
williamchuttonjr.com
  Reply With Quote

Old 08-03-2017   #23
willie_901
Registered User
 
willie_901's Avatar
 
willie_901 is offline
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 5,293
Quote:
Originally Posted by Huss View Post
Leica already reneged on their promise of life time sensor replacement...
This is a fact.

But it is not related in any way to your statement "You may have a new sensor, but it may be a new one of the old defective design".
__________________
Basically, I mean, ah—well, let’s say that for me anyway when a photograph is interesting, it’s interesting because of the kind of photographic problem it states—which has to do with the . . . contest between content and form.
Garry Winogrand
williamchuttonjr.com
  Reply With Quote

Old 08-03-2017   #24
froyd
Registered User
 
froyd's Avatar
 
froyd is offline
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 2,088
I thake that to mean, that when you see a used M9 advertised as having had the sensor replaced, you should not assume it should be one of the newer corrosion-resistant designs unless the replacement was performed after Leica's annoncement of the improved sensor's availability (2014?).
  Reply With Quote

Old 08-03-2017   #25
Lss
Registered User
 
Lss is offline
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 1,799
Since October 2015, Leica has installed the new sensors only.
__________________
Lasse
  Reply With Quote

Old 08-03-2017   #26
Paul T.
Registered User
 
Paul T.'s Avatar
 
Paul T. is offline
Join Date: Mar 2005
Posts: 1,989
Quote:
Originally Posted by willie_901 View Post
It comes from a knowledge of chemistry and common sense.
  • Organic chemistry stipulates organic molecules in the IR film readily react with water. The reaction products cause optical defects. This is indisputable.
  • The atmosphere contains water vapor. Even in arid climates, water vapor exists at very low levels. In these climates, humans emit water vapor indoors. A very low water vapor level is not a zero level. However, the chemical reactions are low because one of the reactants has a low concentration. This is why the word "later" applies.
  • Then there's physical chemistry. Water molecule clusters in vapor readily disassociate to produce individual water molecules. Water vapor can diffuse through unimaginably small spaces. Any defect larger than a water molecule means water can reach the IR filter film. Diffusion is relentless. At temperatures that sustain life, the energy to drive molecular diffusion is abundant. The paths for diffusion are obvious. Even an otherwise perfect factory cleaning could render the sensor cover glass susceptible to water-vapor diffusion. The same goes for minuscule defects caused by repeated sensor assembly expansion and contraction. The possibility of manufacturing defects exists. The optical properties of the cover glass are not be affected by these minuscule defects. All digital cameras have these defects. But very few sensor assembly cover glass designs use water labile materials.

Some amount of water is always present. Water molecules can reach the IR film embedded in the sensor glass. The IR filter film contains an organic chemical that readily reacts with water. The reaction products produce defects large enough to create optical artifacts.
I am interested - but confused - by this. Especally the statement "Organic chemistry stipulates organic molecules in the IR film readily react with water." Because that's demonstrably not the case.

All Organic molecules by all means do not readily react with water. Many do; but do oil or other heavy hydrocarbons react with water for instance? In which case, why have they survived in water-rich environments for the last few hundred million years?

Chemisty is complicated and perhaps you're talking about specific organic molecules. In which case please cite your sources.
  Reply With Quote

Old 08-04-2017   #27
willie_901
Registered User
 
willie_901's Avatar
 
willie_901 is offline
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 5,293
I apologize for the confusion.

I should have written: Organic chemistry stipulates the organic molecules in the original M9 IR film readily react with water.

Unfortunately, the organic chemicals embedded the original M9 IR filter film designed to absorb IR spontaneously react with water. This reactivity is clearly stated in the manufacturers' technical data sheet. The reaction products occupy more volume than the original molecule. This disrupts the film structure. Eventually, the disrupted regions are large enough to create artifacts.

Of course "All Organic molecules by all means do not readily react with water". This is particularly true at normal temperatures and pressures. In fact, there are millions of digital cameras with IR filter layers that do not spontaneously react with water. Many of these have slightly thicker IR filter layers than the original M9 sensor assembly.

The replacement M9 sensor assembly cover glass IR filter layer does not react with water.
__________________
Basically, I mean, ah—well, let’s say that for me anyway when a photograph is interesting, it’s interesting because of the kind of photographic problem it states—which has to do with the . . . contest between content and form.
Garry Winogrand
williamchuttonjr.com
  Reply With Quote

Old 08-04-2017   #28
Rob-F
Likes Leicas
 
Rob-F's Avatar
 
Rob-F is offline
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: The Show Me state
Age: 78
Posts: 5,897
Amazing Leica can be so advanced in some ways, yet make such mistakes as this. We have members here on this forum who should be working for Leica--in place of some who do work there. Looks like Willie 901 is one of them.
__________________
May the light be with you.
  Reply With Quote

Old 08-04-2017   #29
Paul T.
Registered User
 
Paul T.'s Avatar
 
Paul T. is offline
Join Date: Mar 2005
Posts: 1,989
thanks for the extra info, willie.
  Reply With Quote

Old 08-05-2017   #30
willie_901
Registered User
 
willie_901's Avatar
 
willie_901 is offline
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 5,293
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rob-F View Post
Looks like Willie 901 is one of them.
If your comment is authentic, – hindsight is always 20-20. Anyone can be a Monday-morning quarterback.

In my view, there is no reason to believe Leica knew the M9 IR filter layer would be problematic. Product managers are constantly balancing manufacturing costs, speed to market and engineering perfection.

In any case, I am completely unqualified to work for Leica or any other camera company. I worked with chemists and state-of-the art digital scientific instrumentation for about three decades. This experience is somewhat relevant to digital-imaging physics and technologies. Often I was involved in diagnosing unexpected experimental and technical issues. Apparently, I still enjoy the hunt.

I think we overlook the technical and manufacturing excellence required for Leica to manufacture a digital M camera.

As far as I'm concerned Leica's only errors involve the strategies used to manage digital M problems after they became obvious. Today, successful brands must embrace an open proactive approach. The internet means reactive strategies based on concealment are not productive.

The recent issue with the new Leica TL2 and the Visoflex EVF shows Leica has a completely new approach. First, they announced there was a problem before the internet community could discover it. Within two weeks they announced a firmware update that eliminated the problem.
__________________
Basically, I mean, ah—well, let’s say that for me anyway when a photograph is interesting, it’s interesting because of the kind of photographic problem it states—which has to do with the . . . contest between content and form.
Garry Winogrand
williamchuttonjr.com
  Reply With Quote

Old 08-25-2017   #31
Rob-F
Likes Leicas
 
Rob-F's Avatar
 
Rob-F is offline
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: The Show Me state
Age: 78
Posts: 5,897
My comment was sincere, yes. If you had been told what kind of glue they were using; if Leica had checked with you, we wouldn't be going through this agony.
__________________
May the light be with you.
  Reply With Quote

Old 08-26-2017   #32
peterm1
Registered User
 
peterm1's Avatar
 
peterm1 is online now
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 5,379
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rob-F View Post
My comment was sincere, yes. If you had been told what kind of glue they were using; if Leica had checked with you, we wouldn't be going through this agony.


This is all kind of like the issue with old Leica lenses that keep fogging up over and over due to the lube used by Leica - although this tends to happen well down the track, not a mere few years out of the box. And it's also reminiscent of Leica somehow not noticing that failure to include an IR filter leads to color change in some images produced by the M8. Or that outgassing from some glue used in top housing of M4P cameras fogs the rangefinder after some years of use.

I recently had an issue with a badly designed water pump in my Audi A5 convertible - near new but predictably out of warranty. A "known issue" to Audi but not one covered by them when it inevitably fails. As is the known issue where a non user serviceable drain (it must be attended to, with some disassembly of parts to get at the guts, at each service) below the windscreen can clog up and cause flooding of water into the car's highly expensive electronics - usually writing the car off.

I wonder what it is with highly clever German engineers who can still fritz up very simple things ruining the user experience for their clients who usually are not bottomless pits of money. At least Leica has tried to stand by their customers I guess.
  Reply With Quote

Old 08-26-2017   #33
jarski
Registered User
 
jarski's Avatar
 
jarski is offline
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 2,538
Is it correct to think that the issue with original sensor appear more easily in humid places?
  Reply With Quote

Old 08-26-2017   #34
willie_901
Registered User
 
willie_901's Avatar
 
willie_901 is offline
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 5,293
Quote:
Originally Posted by jarski View Post
Is it correct to think that the issue with original sensor appear more easily in humid places?
Yes.

Water vapor reacts with the IR filter layer film. Water vapor concentration matters if water vapor can reach the IR filter layer.
__________________
Basically, I mean, ah—well, let’s say that for me anyway when a photograph is interesting, it’s interesting because of the kind of photographic problem it states—which has to do with the . . . contest between content and form.
Garry Winogrand
williamchuttonjr.com
  Reply With Quote

Old 08-26-2017   #35
raid
Dad Photographer
 
raid's Avatar
 
raid is offline
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Florida
Posts: 30,360
Is the new sensor also sensitive to hot and humid weather?
__________________
- Raid

________________
Top 12 Images;

http://www.rangefinderforum.com/rffg...n.php?cid=7007

http://raid.smugmug.com/
  Reply With Quote

Old 08-26-2017   #36
jaapv
RFF Sponsoring Member.
 
jaapv's Avatar
 
jaapv is offline
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Hellevoetsluis, Netherlands
Posts: 8,384
No Raid, it is designed not to corrode.
__________________
Jaap

jaapvphotography
  Reply With Quote

Old 08-26-2017   #37
raid
Dad Photographer
 
raid's Avatar
 
raid is offline
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Florida
Posts: 30,360
Unless something else will break down in the M9, it should last for a few additional years without problems.
__________________
- Raid

________________
Top 12 Images;

http://www.rangefinderforum.com/rffg...n.php?cid=7007

http://raid.smugmug.com/
  Reply With Quote

Old 08-27-2017   #38
willie_901
Registered User
 
willie_901's Avatar
 
willie_901 is offline
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 5,293
Quote:
Originally Posted by raid View Post
Is the new sensor also sensitive to hot and humid weather?
The new sensor's IR filter film vulnerability to "hot and humid weather" is similar to other brands'. That is: it is not extraordinarily vulnerable.
__________________
Basically, I mean, ah—well, let’s say that for me anyway when a photograph is interesting, it’s interesting because of the kind of photographic problem it states—which has to do with the . . . contest between content and form.
Garry Winogrand
williamchuttonjr.com
  Reply With Quote

Old 08-27-2017   #39
willie_901
Registered User
 
willie_901's Avatar
 
willie_901 is offline
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 5,293
Quote:
Originally Posted by raid View Post
Unless something else will break down in the M9, it should last for a few additional years without problems.
I would wager it will last much longer than a "few additional years".
__________________
Basically, I mean, ah—well, let’s say that for me anyway when a photograph is interesting, it’s interesting because of the kind of photographic problem it states—which has to do with the . . . contest between content and form.
Garry Winogrand
williamchuttonjr.com
  Reply With Quote

Old 08-27-2017   #40
raid
Dad Photographer
 
raid's Avatar
 
raid is offline
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Florida
Posts: 30,360
Quote:
Originally Posted by willie_901 View Post
The new sensor's IR filter film vulnerability to "hot and humid weather" is similar to other brands'. That is: it is not extraordinarily vulnerable.
This is why I make sure to recharge my canister of silica gel to extract excess humidity away from my cameras and lenses.
__________________
- Raid

________________
Top 12 Images;

http://www.rangefinderforum.com/rffg...n.php?cid=7007

http://raid.smugmug.com/
  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 21:46.


vBulletin skin developed by: eXtremepixels
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.8
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, 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.