Do Fuji still make top cameras ?

Crotal Bell

Crotal Bell

Messages
2,561
Name
Keith
Edit My Images
Yes
Almost 20 years ago, I was working at the Fujifilm distribution centre in Bedford. I recall that we shipped a huge range of compact snappers with little fixed telephoto lenses, I think they were the "FinePix" range? We shipped plenty of SLR film too. At the time I think Fuji were a top camera brand? These days people seem to talk mostly about Canon and Nikon.

Do Fuji still make good cameras or have they slipped back a bit in the pecking order?
 
Crotal Bell said:
Almost 20 years ago, I was working at the Fujifilm distribution centre in Bedford. I recall that we shipped a huge range of compact snappers with little fixed telephoto lenses, I think they were the "FinePix" range? We shipped plenty of SLR film too. At the time I think Fuji were a top camera brand? These days people seem to talk mostly about Canon and Nikon.

Do Fuji still make good cameras or have they slipped back a bit in the pecking order?
Click to expand...

Fuji probably make the best cameras they ever have now. Back then the best cameras they made were modified Nikons.
 
Camera technology is amazing, I don’t think you can go wrong with any of the major brands. That said, my out and out favorite camera for slow work where the end goal is a beautiful large print, like studio and landscape, is Fuji GFX. For everything else like sports and events where speed is critical, I reach for Canon.
 
In a word, YES!

Plenty of decent compacts, a good range of assorted mirrorless APS-C interchangeable lens cameras and lenses as well as a well regarded MF range.
 
TimHughes said:
Camera technology is amazing, I don’t think you can go wrong with any of the major brands. That said, my out and out favorite camera for slow work where the end goal is a beautiful large print, like studio and landscape, is Fuji GFX. For everything else like sports and events where speed is critical, I reach for Canon.
Click to expand...

Interesting. What gives the edge to Canon for speed photography?
 
Crotal Bell said:
Do Fuji still make good cameras or have they slipped back a bit in the pecking order?
Click to expand...


There aren't really any bad cameras out there these days.

And Fuji make what I would call tactile cameras. And stand out in their own way because of that.

You have a choice of body styles - and the range includes the retro X-Pro, X100 and X-T ranges which handle more like traditional camera bodies - the smaller X-T30 and its earlier siblings are very close in experience to a 70s and 80s SLR. Most of the lenses feature an aperture control ring. The XE offers a basic non nonsense modern mirrorless and the X-S and X-H are a bit more like DSLRs. The X100 family is almost a cliche as a street and urban travel camera.

The lenses are decent. Even the 'kit' lenses usually have a reasonable number of users who latch on to and trust them. They have some very good lenses. The pricing (apart from the 200mm F2.8) is generally not too bad - particularly if you are patient and wait for deals. The older 35mm F1.4 prime has a following because some like its rendering. .

In some ways Fuji are stuck with the APS-C format in their X-Series family - which in terms of technical fashionability and top trumps cameras makes them a less obvious choice to some.

But I think quite a few of us using the system have come via other routes and switched to Fuji because it's not about megapixels - and it's about being comfortable with the kit and getting results that satisfy you.

Then there are the digital 'medium format' G-Series which is a part of the market that Fuji now dominate as the main player - offering pricing that is not too far from full frame and bodies with stabilisation.

And when people talk about revenue in the photography sector then the succeds of the Instax consumer range of instant print cameras is usually mentioned.

So have they slipped in the pecking order? Well I don't recall them ever being that high up the pecking order for interchangebale lens cameras in the past. I think of them more in terms of compacts and film when I think of their legacy.

They have had about 10 years of the X-Series and it has advanced as a system every year. Their equipment is at times highly satisfying to use (at least for some of us) and while that isn't a tangible performance feature or a scale of image quality - it's a measure of just wanting to get out there and use the kits and make images.

In that sense for some Fuji are a destination that is reached after a journey.
 
Dryce said:
There aren't really any bad cameras out there these days.

And Fuji make what I would call tactile cameras. And stand out in their own way because of that.

You have a choice of body styles - and the range includes the retro X-Pro, X100 and X-T ranges which handle more like traditional camera bodies - the smaller X-T30 and its earlier siblings are very close in experience to a 70s and 80s SLR. Most of the lenses feature an aperture control ring. The XE offers a basic non nonsense modern mirrorless and the X-S and X-H are a bit more like DSLRs. The X100 family is almost a cliche as a street and urban travel camera.

The lenses are decent. Even the 'kit' lenses usually have a reasonable number of users who latch on to and trust them. They have some very good lenses. The pricing (apart from the 200mm F2.8) is generally not too bad - particularly if you are patient and wait for deals. The older 35mm F1.4 prime has a following because some like its rendering. .

In some ways Fuji are stuck with the APS-C format in their X-Series family - which in terms of technical fashionability and top trumps cameras makes them a less obvious choice to some.

But I think quite a few of us using the system have come via other routes and switched to Fuji because it's not about megapixels - and it's about being comfortable with the kit and getting results that satisfy you.

Then there are the digital 'medium format' G-Series which is a part of the market that Fuji now dominate as the main player - offering pricing that is not too far from full frame and bodies with stabilisation.

And when people talk about revenue in the photography sector then the succeds of the Instax consumer range of instant print cameras is usually mentioned.

So have they slipped in the pecking order? Well I don't recall them ever being that high up the pecking order for interchangebale lens cameras in the past. I think of them more in terms of compacts and film when I think of their legacy.

They have had about 10 years of the X-Series and it has advanced as a system every year. Their equipment is at times highly satisfying to use (at least for some of us) and while that isn't a tangible performance feature or a scale of image quality - it's a measure of just wanting to get out there and use the kits and make images.

In that sense for some Fuji are a destination that is reached after a journey.
Click to expand...
Very interesting, thank you.
 
For me, the best handling APSC mirrorless bodies. I bought an X-T1 as a "toy" and fell in love with it, at one point I had a T1 & 2 x X-T2's, then got an X-T3. My son has my old T1 and a couple of my lenses, Their lenses are excellent too. Before investing fully into Fuji, I had a pair of Canon bodies and a stack of L lenses, which all went to fund the shift to Fuji.

Not the greatest camera for things like birds in flight, but they work OK for motorsport as you get more of the target in the frame. I wish I had the money to get into the G-FX range....
 
Crotal Bell said:
Almost 20 years ago, I was working at the Fujifilm distribution centre in Bedford. I recall that we shipped a huge range of compact snappers with little fixed telephoto lenses, I think they were the "FinePix" range? We shipped plenty of SLR film too. At the time I think Fuji were a top camera brand? These days people seem to talk mostly about Canon and Nikon.

Do Fuji still make good cameras or have they slipped back a bit in the pecking order?
Click to expand...
Fuji have always made top quality cameras and lenses. But have mostly aimed at niche markets rather than competed to attain the top spots in the mass market.
they are also makers of some of the worlds top specialist TV and cine lenses.

The mass market for compact cameras and bridge cameras is all but dead in the water, as their reason to be has been usurped by the smart phone.

Fuji have become the top specialist in the APS and medium format mirrorless fields, and with a number of styles of cameras designed to appeal to niche markets.
they have chosen not to enter the ultra competitive area of Full frame cameras.

They also have a range of high quality Instax cameras printers and print materials, that now compliment Mobile phone cameras especially in far East markets.

While they design their own Sensors, they rely like a vast majority of other camera manufacturers, on Sony to manufacture them for them.
Apart from Sony Canon are the only other major camera manufacturer to make their own sensors. However Fuji make their own unique colour filter sensor arrays, for a majority of their cameras.

Fuji now Largely hold the top quality spots in their niche markets.
 
Last edited:
Crotal Bell said:
Almost 20 years ago, I was working at the Fujifilm distribution centre in Bedford. I recall that we shipped a huge range of compact snappers with little fixed telephoto lenses, I think they were the "FinePix" range? We shipped plenty of SLR film too. At the time I think Fuji were a top camera brand? These days people seem to talk mostly about Canon and Nikon.

Do Fuji still make good cameras or have they slipped back a bit in the pecking order?
Click to expand...

I can't agree with the statement in red, above. In days gone by anyone who had a decent camera had either a Canon or a Nikon and other manufacturers were also-rans in the battle for the top quality camera manufacturer's position. These days, while Nikon and Canon are still up there in the pro world, Fuji, Sony, Panasonic, Olympus are names I hear mentioned just as often. Personally, I have a Nikon camera with assorted lenses and I shan't be changing in this lifetime but I also carry a Fuji X100V for convenience and quality in a highly portable package. As has been implied, anyone who makes less-than-good cameras these days would have a short time left in their existence.
 
Terrywoodenpic said:
Fuji have always made top quality cameras and lenses. But have mostly aimed at niche markets rather than competed to attain the top spots in the mass market.
they are also makers of some of the worlds top specialist TV and cine lenses.

The mass market for compact cameras and bridge cameras is all but dead in the water, as their reason to be has been usurped by the smart phone.

Fuji have become the top specialist in the APS and medium format mirrorless fields, and with a number of styles of cameras designed to appeal to niche markets.
they have chosen not to enter the ultra competitive area of Full frame cameras.

They also have a range of high quality Instax cameras printers and print materials, that now compliment Mobile phone cameras especially in far East markets.

While they design their own Sensors, they rely like a vast majority of other camera manufacturers, on Sony to manufacture them for them.
Apart from Sony Canon are the only other major camera manufacturer to make their own sensors. However Fuji make their own unique colour filter sensor arrays, for a majority of their cameras.

Fuji now Largely hold the top quality spots in their niche markets.
Click to expand...
"The mass market for compact cameras and bridge cameras is all but dead in the water, as their reason to be has been usurped by the smart phone."

I still think there's a market for compacts and bridge cameras, for those on a budget who want more zoom range than you get with smartphones. My budget bridge camera cannot compete with a DSLR, but it can capture images I could never get with a smartphone. I'm probably in a small consumer bracket, but I think compact and bridge still have a place.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
I'm sure there are still people who get into photography with their smartphone and then want to move on to something better for photography. People who've joined the forum recently have said as much in their introductions.

I'm not sure that money is a significant factor here as AFAIK a top end smartphone costs a lot more than a 1" sensor compact or bridge camera and I know which I'd rather use, the 1" camera. AFAIK top end smartphones cost more than some DSLR and mirrorless cameras too but with interchangeable lens cameras there's no limit on what you can spend on lenses.
 
Crotal Bell said:
"The mass market for compact cameras and bridge cameras is all but dead in the water, as their reason to be has been usurped by the smart phone."

I still think there's a market for compacts and bridge cameras, for those on a budget who want more zoom range than you get with smartphones. My budget bridge camera cannot compete with a DSLR, but it can capture images I could never get with a smartphone. I'm probably in a small consumer bracket, but I think compact and bridge still have a place.
Click to expand...

Back in the day of vinyl and CD and tapes there were all sorts of concerns about audio quality. Then MP3s and DAB came along and very rapidly convenience took over and people forgot about actual reproduction quality,

The same has happened with phones. In some circumstances they are astoundlingly good. In others poor. People tend to identify them as replacements for compacts based on a limited set of criteria.

And you end up with odd comparisons - SWMBO has a high end iPhone that cost (IMO) way OTT for 'a phone'. She thinks that my camera equipment is expensive - but the reality is that you can get a Fuji X-T30 + kit lens for less than the price of her phone.

However the battle has been won by phones against compacts. The phones win based on being 'good enough',always conveniently available because you always carry your phone and it is charged and it is connected - with image sharing apps mean that it's almost no effort to share images.

In that sense I think we live in a golden age of ubiquitous photography.
 
woof woof said:
I'm sure there are still people who get into photography with their smartphone and then want to move on to something better for photography. People who've joined the forum recently have said as much in their introductions.

I'm not sure that money is a significant factor here as AFAIK a top end smartphone costs a lot more than a 1" sensor compact or bridge camera and I know which I'd rather use, the 1" camera. AFAIK top end smartphones cost more than some DSLR and mirrorless cameras too but with interchangeable lens cameras there's no limit on what you can spend on lenses.
Click to expand...
The thing is, a smartphone is seen by many as an essential tool of life these days, and it does much more than take pictures, people spend a lot of money on these but they go everywhere with them every day. So I think money is still a significant factor, because the Bridge/DSLR camera is a specific tool for one purpose, not a "life choice multi function device".

I daresay you have a good point about people starting with a smartphone, as testified on this forum. The cameras are now very capable, to a point, so people get a realistic feel for photography that can lead into a new passion. The 1st Gen smartphones simply couldn't do that.

Anyway, in regards Fuji, I must say I think they've made some great looking cameras over the years, although I guess looks are always secondary to performance.
 
Terrywoodenpic said:
Fuji have always made top quality cameras and lenses. But have mostly aimed at niche markets rather than competed to attain the top spots in the mass market.
they are also makers of some of the worlds top specialist TV and cine lenses.

The mass market for compact cameras and bridge cameras is all but dead in the water, as their reason to be has been usurped by the smart phone.

Fuji have become the top specialist in the APS and medium format mirrorless fields, and with a number of styles of cameras designed to appeal to niche markets.
they have chosen not to enter the ultra competitive area of Full frame cameras.

They also have a range of high quality Instax cameras printers and print materials, that now compliment Mobile phone cameras especially in far East markets.

While they design their own Sensors, they rely like a vast majority of other camera manufacturers, on Sony to manufacture them for them.
Apart from Sony Canon are the only other major camera manufacturer to make their own sensors. However Fuji make their own unique colour filter sensor arrays, for a majority of their cameras.

Fuji now Largely hold the top quality spots in their niche markets.
Click to expand...

I read recently ( no link :() that in their camera division the majority of the profit comes from the instant cameras!
 
Crotal Bell said:
Anyway, in regards Fuji, I must say I think they've made some great looking cameras over the years, although I guess looks are always secondary to performance.
Click to expand...

'Performance' is an odd thing. How do you measure a camera's performance.

- AF speed? Well most are 'good enough' these days.​
- Megapixels - I think once we passe 16Mp wer're in that 'good enough' area​
- Frames Per Second - well bit like a 0-60 time- how much do you need - again most are 'good enough'.​
- Dynamic range - well how do you measure it - and again unless there is some major advance - it's 'good enough'.​

And lenses? Well I think there has been a general increase in quality over the last 10 years and we're now at 'good enough'.

I think that for most use cases it doesn't matter which mainstream camera you use - unless you have special requirements.

Most of the discussion on camera A being better than camera B is really about - edge cases.

So what's left?

Well looks or handling. And Fuji are quite interesting. For some of us the old fashioned aperture ring is a a real 'nice to have'. So are the dials. And in the case of the X-Pro family there's the dual mode viewfinder.

But it's interesting that Fuji basically offer about 6 different 'handling' options for the X-Series bodies. So the X-E offerrs basic looking camera, X-T30 traditional looking smaller X-T, X-S more like a small DSLR, X-T3 and 4 larger traditional looking, X-H like a DSLR, and X-Pro like a traditional rangefinder.

So for me - I look at the products across the market and figure that performancve wise for my use cases they are all pretty much the same in terms of benefits - so whats left - handling and feel.
 
Last edited:
Crotal Bell said:
The thing is, a smartphone is seen by many as an essential tool of life these days, and it does much more than take pictures, people spend a lot of money on these but they go everywhere with them every day. So I think money is still a significant factor, because the Bridge/DSLR camera is a specific tool for one purpose, not a "life choice multi function device".

I daresay you have a good point about people starting with a smartphone, as testified on this forum. The cameras are now very capable, to a point, so people get a realistic feel for photography that can lead into a new passion. The 1st Gen smartphones simply couldn't do that.

Anyway, in regards Fuji, I must say I think they've made some great looking cameras over the years, although I guess looks are always secondary to performance.
Click to expand...

I suppose I have what must run into a thousand £ or so of photographic gear but I haven't bought a phone for decades. In fact I've only even bought two. I used to do an awful lot of miles and bought the first after a woman went into the back of my car one day and I'd have been stuck there hundreds of miles from home if she hadn't lent me hers, so I thought I better get one. I have a smartphone now but only because someone gave it to me. It's PAYG and I have no interest in it or smartphones in general but I do realise I'm not typical and most people can't even seem to put there's down :D People don't need to spend a lot on phones, they choose to and what people spend on phones just baffles me especially when pleading poverty in other areas.

All that may have nothing to do with this but thanks for reading :D

Other than that. Mrs WW constantly swaps photos and vids with her friends and family and they often look stunning on the phone and tablet but when I look at them on my pc the issues are there to be seen, if I look for them, with motion blur and smeared detail galore. I do accept that they're good enough for most people most of the time it's just that to me they're soulless joyless things and I just don't like anything about them other than there's one in my pocket for emergency use.
 
sphexx said:
I read recently ( no link :() that in their camera division the majority of the profit comes from the instant cameras!
Click to expand...

I'm sure that's true and even more so, I'm sure I read that the instant cameras fund the digital ones.
 
Dryce said:
'Performance' is an odd thing. How do you measure a camera's performance.

- AF speed? Well most are 'good enough' these days.​
- Megapixels - I think once we passe 16Mp wer're in that 'good enough' area​
- Frames Per Second - well bit like a 0-60 time- how much do you need - again most are 'good enough'.​
- Dynamic range - well how do you measure it - and again unless there is some major advance - it's 'good enough'.​

And lenses? Well I think there has been a general increase in quality over the last 10 years and we're now at 'good enough'.
Click to expand...

This is the one thing I don't think is good enough as I often find large areas blown and shooting to protect the highlights often just isn't possible. I don't know what DR is needed for low in the sky sun shooting with shadow areas involved but at the mo the gear I have is nowhere near capable.

One thing I hope could potentially make quite a big difference would be flat lenses. Lets see if it happens in our lifetime :D
 
woof woof said:
This is the one thing I don't think is good enough as I often find large areas blown and shooting to protect the highlights often just isn't possible. I don't know what DR is needed for low in the sky sun shooting with shadow areas involved but at the mo the gear I have is nowhere near capable.

One thing I hope could potentially make quite a big difference would be flat lenses. Lets see if it happens in our lifetime :D
Click to expand...

I'd qualified that on the basis that the 'good enough' is really down to what's available - I don't perceive there to be a camera that is really head and shoulders above any of the others in say the APS-C vs FF market.

DR is the the thing that would tempt me to look at other cameras. (And I'll admit I do allow my gaze to wander towards the Fuji G-Series occasionally !)
 
Dryce said:
I'd qualified that on the basis that the 'good enough' is really down to what's available - I don't perceive there to be a camera that is really head and shoulders above any of the others in say the APS-C vs FF market.

DR is the the thing that would tempt me to look at other cameras. (And I'll admit I do allow my gaze to wander towards the Fuji G-Series occasionally !)
Click to expand...

I think some cameras like the Sony A9 and then the A1 were a real and significant step forward in some areas such as speed, focusing, silent shooting etc and of course eye AF is just wonderful and Voodoo like so for those things some cameras are head and shoulders over others but there doesn't seem to have been a significant improvement in DR in recent years. I think 14 stops of DR is par for the course or there abouts these days, I think my Canon 5D had 12 so that's up by 2. I don't know how far it would need to go up to cope with shadow areas and sun or glare above but at the moment 14 isn't enough and maybe current sensor tech can't get much further.
 
Crotal Bell said:
"The mass market for compact cameras and bridge cameras is all but dead in the water, as their reason to be has been usurped by the smart phone."

I still think there's a market for compacts and bridge cameras, for those on a budget who want more zoom range than you get with smartphones. My budget bridge camera cannot compete with a DSLR, but it can capture images I could never get with a smartphone. I'm probably in a small consumer bracket, but I think compact and bridge still have a place.
Click to expand...
Most manufacturers have virtually withdrawn from this market as it has become uneconomic.
 
sphexx said:
I read recently ( no link :() that in their camera division the majority of the profit comes from the instant cameras!
Click to expand...
probably true but not perhaps here and Europe.. But like inkjet ink the material feed stock is very costly to use
 
I think it depends on what you are looking for. I had the 5DMKIII for fast action music photography but moved to the X100 series camera to have a versatile camera I could carry everywhere. Overtime it morphed into my main camera. I've owned a fair array of the Fuji X-series cameras (I was involved in the launch of the original X-Pro1 and 2 camera so slightly biased perhaps :)

I actually shot the cover of the Malojian album on the X100 a few years back https://www.flixelpix.com/malojian-southlands/

DC
 
Last edited:
Yes they are a good brand these days but they don`t make full frames and the masses go more for canon, nikon and sony these days
 
woof woof said:
I suppose I have what must run into a thousand £ or so of photographic gear but I haven't bought a phone for decades. In fact I've only even bought two. I used to do an awful lot of miles and bought the first after a woman went into the back of my car one day and I'd have been stuck there hundreds of miles from home if she hadn't lent me hers, so I thought I better get one. I have a smartphone now but only because someone gave it to me. It's PAYG and I have no interest in it or smartphones in general but I do realise I'm not typical and most people can't even seem to put there's down :D People don't need to spend a lot on phones, they choose to and what people spend on phones just baffles me especially when pleading poverty in other areas.

All that may have nothing to do with this but thanks for reading :D

Other than that. Mrs WW constantly swaps photos and vids with her friends and family and they often look stunning on the phone and tablet but when I look at them on my pc the issues are there to be seen, if I look for them, with motion blur and smeared detail galore. I do accept that they're good enough for most people most of the time it's just that to me they're soulless joyless things and I just don't like anything about them other than there's one in my pocket for emergency use.
Click to expand...
Yes, your last comment about smartphone pictures on a PC. Basically why I bought the bridge camera.
 
imattersuk said:
If you want to see what a Fujifilm can do in the right hands check out Jeff Carter......

www.flickr.com

Jeff Carter

Explore Jeff Carter’s 3,490 photos on Flickr!
www.flickr.com www.flickr.com
Click to expand...

I think this is very good advice. Whenever I think the kit is limiting me I look at what other people are doing with the same or similar kit. Yes, kit does have limitations but I think it helps to think if any problems we run into are really because of the kit or because of something we could do better.
 
woof woof said:
I think this is very good advice. Whenever I think the kit is limiting me I look at what other people are doing with the same or similar kit. Yes, kit does have limitations but I think it helps to think if any problems we run into are really because of the kit or because of something we could do better.
Click to expand...
Exactly, all the Fujifilm X ambassadors produce work every bit as good as those from the other manufacturers. I listened to a ridiculous conversation in Cameraworld recently, a young sales assistant told a potential customer the Nikon D850 was "miles ahead of anything mirrorless and the best camera in the world" :ROFLMAO:
 
imattersuk said:
Exactly, all the Fujifilm X ambassadors produce work every bit as good as those from the other manufacturers. I listened to a ridiculous conversation in Cameraworld recently, a young sales assistant told a potential customer the Nikon D850 was "miles ahead of anything mirrorless and the best camera in the world" :ROFLMAO:
Click to expand...

Do you think the answer is...
1 - It's true.
2 - I've got a load of these I can't shift.
3 - BONUS!
 
woof woof said:
AFAIK Nikon, Canon, Sony and Panasonic all still make compact and bridge cameras.
Click to expand...
As does Fuji, but they only make a tiny fraction of what they once did. And mostly only higher end models.
The numbers are hardly enough to bother the statisticians.
 
Until they make phones as physically easy to handle as compact cameras then phones will never take over as anything other than a Snapchat, Facebook, et al. device. They could put lenses and processing in them that would rival a Leica or Hasselblad but while most of one's concentration is applied to not dropping the bloody thing on the ground it's all a bit pointless. I have a phone that has a very reasonable camera in it but it is mostly used for taking pictures of the dogs while on a walk, for all other photography I use a 'real' camera, be it a compact or DSLR.. Of course, if they made a phone as easy to handle as a camera it would be a camera that also acted as a phone....now there's an idea, a DLSR on which you could make phone calls!
 
Last edited:
ShinySideUp said:
Until they make phones as physically easy to handle as compact cameras then phones will never take over as anything other than a Snapchat, Facebook, et al. devices. They could put lenses and processing in them that would rival a Leica or Hasselblad but while most of one's concentration is applied to not dropping the bloody thing on the ground it's all a bit pointless. I have a phone that has a very reasonable camera in it but it is mostly used for taking pictures of the dogs while on a walk, for all other photography I use a 'real' camera, be it a compact or DSLR.. Of course, if they made a phone as easy to handle as a camera it would be a camera that also acted as a phone....now there's an idea, a DLSR on which you could make phone calls!
Click to expand...
Totally get this, I always stop on a bridge over the Thames to take shots but feel very uncomfortable using the phone, scared of dropping it, yet i'll wave around £3k of camera and lens over the side without a second thought.
 
Crotal Bell said:
Fantastic photography
Click to expand...
Interesting in that some of his aerial photographs are taken on a Hasselblad. At first I imagined a massive, horrifyingly expensive, medium format camera on a private plane but turns out Hassleblad make tiny cameras for DJI drones! I have a DJI drone, I never imagined I could ever own a Hasselblad.:)
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top