A conundrum. Stay with Fuji or give in to Full Frame.....

Messages
2,811
Name
Greg
Edit My Images
Yes
I’ve shot many systems over the years and all have had their pluses and minuses.

Currently shooting Fuji (XT2) and its a great camera with output that I love. Any time I’ve shot APSC though I’ve always missed Full Frame and have moved back in the past. The likes of the Sigma 35 1.4 which was my favourite FF lens just can’t be easily replicated on APSC, and I find that a 2.8 zoom on FF gives much better separation that a 2.8 zoom on FF.

I primarily shoot Urbex, landscapes, and portraits.

I did have a brief dalliance with Canon FF last year but quickly returned to Fuji. I think that had more to do with dissatisfaction from returning to a DSLR from mirrorless than anything. I really have found that I prefer a mirrorless camera and I don’t think I’d want to go back to a DSLR.

Sony was never really an option before simply because it was out of budget, I really disliked their colour output, and there wasn’t a camera that really matched the XT2 in terms of AF and output.

However now I am sitting at a crossroads.

I currently have the XT2, 10-24, 56 1.2. I have enough money to either upgrade to the XT3 and get a 16-55 2.8, or by selling the remaining Fuji gear I could afford an A7iii with a 28-70 kit lens, used 16-35, used 85 1.8. The kit zoom would be to tide me over for a few months until I could afford the likes of a Tamron 28-75 2.8.

I am contemplating the A7iii for a couple of reasons. Obviously I would love to get back to FF, the colour output while still not ‘Fuji’ is dramatically better than previous Sony’s, IBIS really appeals, and it seems like a great overall package. Access to a wider range of lenses, especially as 3rd party lenses are available is also appealing.

However it’s a more expensive system overall and it would mean a fairly slow mid range zoom for a while. Most of my shooting is done wide or long though which would mean that my ‘main’ lengths will be covered with decent glass.

I’m under no illusions that part of this is motivated by GAS. I know the Fuji is a great system and that the XT3 is a great camera, but essentially this is the first time FF mirrorless has been within my reach and it’s a very tempting proposition.

So I’d appreciate any input from anyone with experience of both cameras, or anyone who’s switched either way!
 
I’ve shot many systems over the years and all have had their pluses and minuses.

Currently shooting Fuji (XT2) and its a great camera with output that I love. Any time I’ve shot APSC though I’ve always missed Full Frame and have moved back in the past. The likes of the Sigma 35 1.4 which was my favourite FF lens just can’t be easily replicated on APSC, and I find that a 2.8 zoom on FF gives much better separation that a 2.8 zoom on FF.

I primarily shoot Urbex, landscapes, and portraits.

I did have a brief dalliance with Canon FF last year but quickly returned to Fuji. I think that had more to do with dissatisfaction from returning to a DSLR from mirrorless than anything. I really have found that I prefer a mirrorless camera and I don’t think I’d want to go back to a DSLR.

Sony was never really an option before simply because it was out of budget, I really disliked their colour output, and there wasn’t a camera that really matched the XT2 in terms of AF and output.

However now I am sitting at a crossroads.

I currently have the XT2, 10-24, 56 1.2. I have enough money to either upgrade to the XT3 and get a 16-55 2.8, or by selling the remaining Fuji gear I could afford an A7iii with a 28-70 kit lens, used 16-35, used 85 1.8. The kit zoom would be to tide me over for a few months until I could afford the likes of a Tamron 28-75 2.8.

I am contemplating the A7iii for a couple of reasons. Obviously I would love to get back to FF, the colour output while still not ‘Fuji’ is dramatically better than previous Sony’s, IBIS really appeals, and it seems like a great overall package. Access to a wider range of lenses, especially as 3rd party lenses are available is also appealing.

However it’s a more expensive system overall and it would mean a fairly slow mid range zoom for a while. Most of my shooting is done wide or long though which would mean that my ‘main’ lengths will be covered with decent glass.

I’m under no illusions that part of this is motivated by GAS. I know the Fuji is a great system and that the XT3 is a great camera, but essentially this is the first time FF mirrorless has been within my reach and it’s a very tempting proposition.

So I’d appreciate any input from anyone with experience of both cameras, or anyone who’s switched either way!

I have had a couple of Fuji cameras and shoot Sony for work.

If you shoot for a living get the Sony, the a.f is a game changer and nothing else competes, dynamic range is also superb and ideal for shooting in difficult lighting conditions.

If you shoot for yourself harder one to call, although Fuji just simply isn't as good the process and ergonomics etc. are probably more enjoyable. So yeah if you are shooting just for yourself stick with Fuji.
 
I have had a couple of Fuji cameras and shoot Sony for work.

If you shoot for a living get the Sony, the a.f is a game changer and nothing else competes, dynamic range is also superb and ideal for shooting in difficult lighting conditions.

If you shoot for yourself harder one to call, although Fuji just simply isn't as good the process and ergonomics etc. are probably more enjoyable. So yeah if you are shooting just for yourself stick with Fuji.

Currently I’m just shooting for myself, but at some point I do hope to dabble again in weddings/ portraits, but it would only be in a ‘weekend warrior’ capacity, not full time.
 
I shoot for myself and have both. A Sony A9 for everything and a Fuji X100F for when I want to travel light without a camera bag. It’s an extravagance when consider all the lenses but I enjoy it so why not.
 
I am in a similar position, however, I have an XT1 and a Nikon D750...so I am debating whether an XT3 is a good upgrade. I have kept my D750 only because I too like the FF and lenses like the Sigma 35mm f1.4, and I do like subject/background separation, but is it worth selling for an XT3?
I am less hung up on AF and pixel peeping. And some of my best images came from the XT1.
Too many decisions, not enough money to just go and get something.
 
Hard choice - I am the other end, been thinking about ditching FF (D750) and going with an XT3. For me its partly the size/weight and also as a X100F owner, I love the Fuji images. However, FF for me give me better DoF, better ISO, more options (and possibly more affordable) glass wise, and there are times when a DSLR is really useful. But for me Fuji is the only system I would contemplate going to.

Is it worth hiring a Sony for a few days (if possible) to see how you get on?
 
I am in a similar position, however, I have an XT1 and a Nikon D750...so I am debating whether an XT3 is a good upgrade. I have kept my D750 only because I too like the FF and lenses like the Sigma 35mm f1.4, and I do like subject/background separation, but is it worth selling for an XT3?
I am less hung up on AF and pixel peeping. And some of my best images came from the XT1.
Too many decisions, not enough money to just go and get something.

Snap!
 
I am in a similar position, however, I have an XT1 and a Nikon D750...so I am debating whether an XT3 is a good upgrade. I have kept my D750 only because I too like the FF and lenses like the Sigma 35mm f1.4, and I do like subject/background separation, but is it worth selling for an XT3?
I am less hung up on AF and pixel peeping. And some of my best images came from the XT1.
Too many decisions, not enough money to just go and get something.

I had thought about a D750 (I’ve shot them before and know what a great camera they are) I just think I’d find it hard going back to a DSLR.

The XT2 was a considerable upgrade over the XT1 so I’m sure the XT3 would blow you away! But as you’ve rightfully mentioned the likes of the Sigma are hard to give up!
 
Currently I’m just shooting for myself, but at some point I do hope to dabble again in weddings/ portraits, but it would only be in a ‘weekend warrior’ capacity, not full time.

Tough call then, the Sony ergonomics aren't great but you soon get used to it, that's the only major draw back, well that and the additional cost, as you said it is a more expensive system.

The Sony 85mm 1.8 is a very nice lens btw, exceptional for the price really. None of the other manufacturers have anything as good in an 85mm 1.8.

I would still say if you only plan on doing a few weddings and portraits that you would probably be more happy with an X-T3 as the majority of the stuff you shoot would be for yourself. It's no slouch either in terms of a.f and would be plenty good enough for the odd wedding etc.
 
XT-3 closes the AF gap to Sony massively and you might be very disappointed with the Sony colours from JPEG's, if you always shoot RAW it's a different matter. In my opinion if Sony can get decent JPEG output it would kill off most of the competition but for now I wouldn't be comfortable living with one, plus the cost of glass is an issue.
 
XT-3 closes the AF gap to Sony massively and you might be very disappointed with the Sony colours from JPEG's, if you always shoot RAW it's a different matter. In my opinion if Sony can get decent JPEG output it would kill off most of the competition but for now I wouldn't be comfortable living with one, plus the cost of glass is an issue.

Yeah. Cost of glass is certainly a factor with Sony. Fuji isn’t exactly cheap but I with the 16-55 I’d have all my lengths covered already with decent glass.
 
I went form a Canon 5D Mkiii to a Fuji XT-3, I also had an X100F but sold this once I got the XT-3 as I found I just didn't bother with it when I could use the 18-55 hit lens and found it more flexible. I love the Fuji images, but still found the 5D to be better in some AF situations. I find the high ISO on the XT-3 at least as good if not better, but I can't compare with a FF Mirrorless Sony. I guess it comes down to the oft asked question, what do you feel you are missing out on, and looking at your list, I think you are going to always want to try it. Hiring seems like a good option as suggested.
 
I went form a Canon 5D Mkiii to a Fuji XT-3, I also had an X100F but sold this once I got the XT-3 as I found I just didn't bother with it when I could use the 18-55 hit lens and found it more flexible. I love the Fuji images, but still found the 5D to be better in some AF situations. I find the high ISO on the XT-3 at least as good if not better, but I can't compare with a FF Mirrorless Sony. I guess it comes down to the oft asked question, what do you feel you are missing out on, and looking at your list, I think you are going to always want to try it. Hiring seems like a good option as suggested.

How do you find the AF on the XT3?
 
Dont forget most of sigmas high end stuff is available in native Sony mount, there are also other cheap AF offerings from samyang and tamron. The 35 art and 50 art perform better on my a7iii than they did on my d750.

If you can afford the sony, go for it, better sensor performance, no PP issues, better AF. Not a compromise camera ime.
 
Last edited:
I went from the Fuji X-H1 (after having most Fujis) to the Nikon Z6. Somewhat reluctantly as I was delighted with the ergonomics of the Fuji system but lured by test images from the Nikon. Had the Fuji X-T3 had IBIS it might have been another story, but it doesn't, so I jumped. Not regretting it a bit, although the rage of native lenses is somewhat restricted at the moment. Can't comment on the jpegs, only ever shoot raw.
 
Dont forget most of sigmas high end stuff is available in native Sony mount, there are also other cheap AF offerings from samyang and tamron. The 35 art and 50 art perform better on my a7iii than they did on my d750.

If you can afford the sony, go for it, better sensor performance, no PP issues, better AF. Not a compromise camera ime.

Listen to this guy.

The Sigma 35 art becomes even better on a Sony A7iii. Imagine that sharpness but with much greater focus reliability. Your keeper rate will be much greater. Although I guess you’re used to this as you use mirrorless at the moment.
 
I’ve shot many systems over the years and all have had their pluses and minuses.

Currently shooting Fuji (XT2) and its a great camera with output that I love. Any time I’ve shot APSC though I’ve always missed Full Frame and have moved back in the past. The likes of the Sigma 35 1.4 which was my favourite FF lens just can’t be easily replicated on APSC, and I find that a 2.8 zoom on FF gives much better separation that a 2.8 zoom on FF.

I primarily shoot Urbex, landscapes, and portraits.

I did have a brief dalliance with Canon FF last year but quickly returned to Fuji. I think that had more to do with dissatisfaction from returning to a DSLR from mirrorless than anything. I really have found that I prefer a mirrorless camera and I don’t think I’d want to go back to a DSLR.

Sony was never really an option before simply because it was out of budget, I really disliked their colour output, and there wasn’t a camera that really matched the XT2 in terms of AF and output.

However now I am sitting at a crossroads.

I currently have the XT2, 10-24, 56 1.2. I have enough money to either upgrade to the XT3 and get a 16-55 2.8, or by selling the remaining Fuji gear I could afford an A7iii with a 28-70 kit lens, used 16-35, used 85 1.8. The kit zoom would be to tide me over for a few months until I could afford the likes of a Tamron 28-75 2.8.

I am contemplating the A7iii for a couple of reasons. Obviously I would love to get back to FF, the colour output while still not ‘Fuji’ is dramatically better than previous Sony’s, IBIS really appeals, and it seems like a great overall package. Access to a wider range of lenses, especially as 3rd party lenses are available is also appealing.

However it’s a more expensive system overall and it would mean a fairly slow mid range zoom for a while. Most of my shooting is done wide or long though which would mean that my ‘main’ lengths will be covered with decent glass.

I’m under no illusions that part of this is motivated by GAS. I know the Fuji is a great system and that the XT3 is a great camera, but essentially this is the first time FF mirrorless has been within my reach and it’s a very tempting proposition.

So I’d appreciate any input from anyone with experience of both cameras, or anyone who’s switched either way!
I've not read all the posts so apologies if I'm repeating others.

If I'm being honest it sounds like GAS and you're finding a reason to justify swapping to FF. There's nothing wrong with that BTW, I do it all the time ;)

I'm gradually making the switch to M4/3 more and more, and whilst I do generally prefer the output from FF and especially the subject separation, some of this is down to the lenses as well. For example the Panny Leica 42.5mm f1.2 seems to give more subject isolation than the Olympus 45mmf f1.2.

I'd say if you have an itch to scratch then scratch it, life's too short to wonder what if. I'm personally looking at the Nikon Z's at the moment as I prefer the ergonomics and output from them over the Sonys, maybe a consideration for you too? You can use all of Nikon's lenses with it so you're not limited. Overall the specs, frame rate etc etc aren't as good as the gen 3 Sonys, but some prefer the output.
 
I wanted to love Fuji, but just couldn't get on with it after FF. Just bought a Z6 and love it. Can't beat F1.8 or less on FF for portraits etc.
 
I'd say if you have an itch to scratch then scratch it, life's too short to wonder what if. .

I'm all about this. People often asked me why when I completely switched systems, and I say - why not? or 'because I wanted to' - either works just fine

You're the one who will be using the gear, not your peers online telling you what's the best choice, as it is a personal one. I say go with your gut, what's the worst that can happen? You change your mind a few months in? possible ... but so is a switch back. So long as you don't lose much money in the process.
 
I've not read all the posts so apologies if I'm repeating others.

If I'm being honest it sounds like GAS and you're finding a reason to justify swapping to FF. There's nothing wrong with that BTW, I do it all the time ;)

I'm gradually making the switch to M4/3 more and more, and whilst I do generally prefer the output from FF and especially the subject separation, some of this is down to the lenses as well. For example the Panny Leica 42.5mm f1.2 seems to give more subject isolation than the Olympus 45mmf f1.2.

I'd say if you have an itch to scratch then scratch it, life's too short to wonder what if. I'm personally looking at the Nikon Z's at the moment as I prefer the ergonomics and output from them over the Sonys, maybe a consideration for you too? You can use all of Nikon's lenses with it so you're not limited. Overall the specs, frame rate etc etc aren't as good as the gen 3 Sonys, but some prefer the output.

But he'd have to buy into f mount and that will be buying into an adapted dead system (obviously it won't happen immediately)... And there aren't that many Z lenses out.
 
But he'd have to buy into f mount and that will be buying into an adapted dead system (obviously it won't happen immediately)... And there aren't that many Z lenses out.
True, but isn’t a lot of Nikon AF-S stuff iquite a bit cheaper than Sony FE mount? Don’t get me started on the price of Nikon Z lenses though :eek:
 
True, but isn’t a lot of Nikon AF-S stuff iquite a bit cheaper than Sony FE mount? Don’t get me started on the price of Nikon Z lenses though :eek:

Is it? Not the last time I checked.... And again, e mount is more future proof than f mount so it won't devalue as much.
 
I’ve shot many systems over the years and all have had their pluses and minuses.

Currently shooting Fuji (XT2) and its a great camera with output that I love. Any time I’ve shot APSC though I’ve always missed Full Frame and have moved back in the past. The likes of the Sigma 35 1.4 which was my favourite FF lens just can’t be easily replicated on APSC, and I find that a 2.8 zoom on FF gives much better separation that a 2.8 zoom on FF.

I primarily shoot Urbex, landscapes, and portraits.

I did have a brief dalliance with Canon FF last year but quickly returned to Fuji. I think that had more to do with dissatisfaction from returning to a DSLR from mirrorless than anything. I really have found that I prefer a mirrorless camera and I don’t think I’d want to go back to a DSLR.

Sony was never really an option before simply because it was out of budget, I really disliked their colour output, and there wasn’t a camera that really matched the XT2 in terms of AF and output.

However now I am sitting at a crossroads.

I currently have the XT2, 10-24, 56 1.2. I have enough money to either upgrade to the XT3 and get a 16-55 2.8, or by selling the remaining Fuji gear I could afford an A7iii with a 28-70 kit lens, used 16-35, used 85 1.8. The kit zoom would be to tide me over for a few months until I could afford the likes of a Tamron 28-75 2.8.

I am contemplating the A7iii for a couple of reasons. Obviously I would love to get back to FF, the colour output while still not ‘Fuji’ is dramatically better than previous Sony’s, IBIS really appeals, and it seems like a great overall package. Access to a wider range of lenses, especially as 3rd party lenses are available is also appealing.

However it’s a more expensive system overall and it would mean a fairly slow mid range zoom for a while. Most of my shooting is done wide or long though which would mean that my ‘main’ lengths will be covered with decent glass.

I’m under no illusions that part of this is motivated by GAS. I know the Fuji is a great system and that the XT3 is a great camera, but essentially this is the first time FF mirrorless has been within my reach and it’s a very tempting proposition.

So I’d appreciate any input from anyone with experience of both cameras, or anyone who’s switched either way!


I went from Fuji to Sony and back to Fuji in the space of the last year.

At the time I was shooting 90% landscapes and although I really liked the Fuji I convinced myself I needed FF. After using the Sony (A7R3) for 4 or 5 months I realised I wasn't enjoying it as much as I did when I was using the Fuji.
Went through all my previous images and found that the images I preferred where from the Fuji, the Sony is defiantly a better in the IQ but since I print to a max of A2
I couldn't see any difference in real life. The only time I could was pixel peeping at 100%.
In the end its all down to personal choice and I know with me when I get an idea it need scratching :)
 
Sony was never really an option before simply because it was out of budget, I really disliked their colour output, and there wasn’t a camera that really matched the XT2 in terms of AF and output.

You may be aware of the recent discussions on colour output and the blind tests in which Sony colours came out rather well against other brands in contrast to how people feel when they know what brand of camera was used.

We're all different (thank God) but a cameras colour output would be pretty low on my list of things to worry about unless there was something seriously wrong and I don't think there is with todays cameras. IMO lenses have more effect than bodies. But hey-ho.
 
As someone who shoots RAW always, I don't get the whole 'colour science' thing. You can make them all look very similar in post when you shoot RAW.
 
As someone who shoots RAW always, I don't get the whole 'colour science' thing. You can make them all look very similar in post when you shoot RAW.

This is true to a point, however it’s the time and process that it takes to get a file to where I want it to be where Color science does matter.

I know that Fuji’s RAW colours are a lot closer to where I want them to be than any other camera I’ve shot (Canon does come close though) which in turn means a lot less processing for me.

Of course this is purely subjective but it’s certainly a consideration for me.

Having had a good think since posting this thread (and crunching some numbers) it probably does make more (financial) sense to stay on the Fuji side at present. If I source a 16-55 and upgrade to the X-T3 I’ll have a more than capable system for a fairly minimal cost.

I also think that part of the reason that this has all come to mind is that I’ve had very little time to actually shoot lately. And that means more time pouring over Internet forums and the like which does nothing to help GAS.....

I’m also going to take the X-T2 out tomorrow morning to get reacquainted with it and I think that’s something that’s long overdue!
 
True, but isn’t a lot of Nikon AF-S stuff iquite a bit cheaper than Sony FE mount? Don’t get me started on the price of Nikon Z lenses though :eek:
It's a new system with entirely new optics and design. Not to mention no 3rd party support i.e. there is a 1st party monopoly. I don't understand why people expected prices to be cheaper.
 
For me personally, "colour science" would be last deciding factor when choosing a system. I think the most important thing for me is if I can afford to invest in a particular system, or to rephrase, if I want to invest in a particular system. Sony is expensive for sure - would you be happy with a Sony body and good budget-friendly glass or would you be happier with a Fuji body and excellent glass for the same overall cost?

I get a lot of GAS, but I kinda enjoy it as much as the photography itself. I like trying out different systems and have no issue with jumping from one to another. Over the years I've probably had a taste of all the main manufacturers, some more than once I might add, and I still do it. It's all fun, right?
 
For me personally, "colour science" would be last deciding factor when choosing a system. I think the most important thing for me is if I can afford to invest in a particular system, or to rephrase, if I want to invest in a particular system. Sony is expensive for sure - would you be happy with a Sony body and good budget-friendly glass or would you be happier with a Fuji body and excellent glass for the same overall cost?

I get a lot of GAS, but I kinda enjoy it as much as the photography itself. I like trying out different systems and have no issue with jumping from one to another. Over the years I've probably had a taste of all the main manufacturers, some more than once I might add, and I still do it. It's all fun, right?

I read this a lot but maybe if you compare like with like Sony isn't really that far off all that often? I'm pretty sure that Sony are even on occasion cheaper than the competition.
 
It's a new system with entirely new optics and design. Not to mention no 3rd party support i.e. there is a 1st party monopoly. I don't understand why people expected prices to be cheaper.
£500+ for a 50mm f1.8 is steep imo whether it’s a new system or not.
 
£500+ for a 50mm f1.8 is steep imo whether it’s a new system or not.

You have to consider quality too. I don't know how good that lens is but I do know that the Sony 55mm f1.8 isn't cheap but is excellent. Yup, you can get cheap 50mm's but how good are they compared to good modern expensive ones?

PS.
I think there's maybe a perception problem. In the past 50mm f1.8's have more often been the budget option with prices rising as the aperture widens. These days however we have at least some very high quality 50mm-ish f1.8's. I don't remember seeing really good but more moderate aperture more expensive lenses outside of the more high cost marques before...
 
Last edited:
For me personally, "colour science" would be last deciding factor when choosing a system. I think the most important thing for me is if I can afford to invest in a particular system, or to rephrase, if I want to invest in a particular system. Sony is expensive for sure - would you be happy with a Sony body and good budget-friendly glass or would you be happier with a Fuji body and excellent glass for the same overall cost?

I get a lot of GAS, but I kinda enjoy it as much as the photography itself. I like trying out different systems and have no issue with jumping from one to another. Over the years I've probably had a taste of all the main manufacturers, some more than once I might add, and I still do it. It's all fun, right?

Very similar here. I'm having a bout of GAS myself atm, so many things I want to try out but I'm restricted by budget so having to do a lot of research, watch tonnes of reviews etc in the hopes something will click and I can just go with. But it's never that simple. I've switched systems and formats multiple times over the past few years but when I did I rarely ever lost much value in the process. I think it's much harder now because our gear is worth buttons toward what we paid for it when we try to sell on used. There's so much choice that people just won't pay full value, they'll just get it cheaper elsewhere.

£500+ for a 50mm f1.8 is steep imo whether it’s a new system or not.

Best not look at the Panasonic S Pro 50mm 1.4 :D
 
I read this a lot but maybe if you compare like with like Sony isn't really that far off all that often? I'm pretty sure that Sony are even on occasion cheaper than the competition.

You might be right, but as an example I had the X-H1 with the 16-55/2.8 and it was way cheaper than my A7III and 24-70/2.8. 3rd party glass will bridge the gap closer but this is comparing native glass with same/similar FL. But one of the reasons I moved to Sony is the 3rd party glass available. Owning a Sony body doesn't necessarily have to be that expensive.
 
Yes, that's a good example but that is a move from APS-C to FF, you have to remember that and maybe dropping down to the Sony 28-70mm f3.5-5.6 could be acceptable, f2.8 translating to f4.2 v the Sony kit lens f5.6 at the longer end. The Sony kit lens takes a lot of bashing but I think it's rather good. I'm more of a prime guy though so I was thinking more of the 50mm f1.2 v Sony 85mm f1.8.
 
Yes, that's a good example but that is a move from APS-C to FF, you have to remember that and maybe dropping down to the Sony 28-70mm f3.5-5.6 could be acceptable, f2.8 translating to f4.2 v the Sony kit lens f5.6 at the longer end. The Sony kit lens takes a lot of bashing but I think it's rather good. I'm more of a prime guy though so I was thinking more of the 50mm f1.2 v Sony 85mm f1.8.

The kit lens does seem to get a slating. Would you say it’s acceptable on the A7iii? It’s really my least shot length but I would have to have it as my ‘zoom’ for a good while before I could afford to upgrade it if I did switch.

I know it’s not going to stand up to the 16-55 but given that it’s only about £80 when purchased with the A7iii I’d not expect it too.

I do forget sometimes that 3.5 -5.6 on FF is totally different than on APSC.

I know that (as I said) technically staying with Fuji makes sense but the itch is still there!
 
Back
Top