Luigi
Pooh-Bah
Reged: 07/03/07
Posts: 1415
Loc: Massachusetts
|
|
Just received a brand new pair of Canon 15x50IS bins. I find the views to be excellent. Bright, very good contrast, flat, and very sharp nearly to the edges. They're kind of bulky and heavy and I find this help me hold them more steady than I expected for 15x. Pushing the stabilize button settles the image down quite nicely, but it also introduces a slight fuzziness that comes and goes, but is there most of the time. It's worse panning up rather than down, and left rather than right. If I had to guess, I'd say the stabilization is done with digital circuitry and the update rate is such that rather than producing smooth corrections, it produces corrections with tiny steps. Bottom line: These are excellent 15x50 bins, but the IS compromizes their performance. 
--------------------
17.5" f/5 Discovery Truss
IM715 7" f/15 MCT (due July!)
Eon-120ED refractor
CG5A coffee grinder, Orion Skyview Alt-AZ
35,19,15 Pans.9 Nag. Meade 24.5 4kSWA, 4.7 5kUWA.
BO-TMB 7mm planetary.
Zeiss Diascope 85
Zeiss, Leica, Canon IS, Fujinon, Nikon binos
|
Joe Ogiba
Pooh-Bah
Reged: 02/14/02
Posts: 2695
Loc: NJ USA
|
|
Lately my 15x50 IS are my first choice for viewing birds in my backyard. You must have a bad pair.
--------------------
Pentax PF-80ED
Meade 102ED APO
Orion 120ST
Apex 127
CR150
C9.25
XT10
Zeiss 7x42 FL
Canon 10x42L IS WP
15x50 IS
12x36 IS II
Garrett Optical 28x110 HD-WP Signature Series
Oberwerk BT-80 45
Apogee RA-88-SA
Denk II Power x Switch binoviewer
|
Rich N
Post Laureate
Reged: 09/22/04
Posts: 4993
Loc: San Francisco Bay Area, Calif...
|
|
I'd return it for another one.
I've had a Canon 15x50 IS for a few years. I've seen the fuzzing effect, but only a couple of times.
And then it was only a very slight fuzzing.
|
CESDewar
GorillAstronomer
Reged: 01/16/05
Posts: 1584
Loc: Morganton, GA, USA
|
|
The stabilization is optical, not digital.
But it works best if you don't leave it engaged all the time. The best way to use Canon IS's is to frame the view, focus and then engage the IS - that will result in the fewest artifacts appearing in the view. Pointing the binoculars at the horizon and engaging the IS, then focussing, then pointing at the Zenith is probably the "best" way to show up the IS artifacts.
The IS system does introduce some degradation, but it should be minimal when compared with the degradation introduced by normal handshaking when holding the binoculars. If you don't see a dramatic improvement in visibility when engaging the IS, then I agree with other posters who suggest you may just have a bad pair.
The 18x50's I have are superb - not only are they optically among the best binoculars I've ever used (and I have a pair of TAK Astronomers and Leica UltraVids), but the IS system is just a pleasure to use. At 18x, handheld, a wealth of DSO's become available for viewing. There are few objects visible in my smaller scopes that I can't see and enjoy in these binoculars as well and the relatively wide FOV and flat field is a big plus.
--------------------
|
DJB
Pooh-Bah
Reged: 02/23/05
Posts: 1142
|
|
Hi there,
I agree with everything CESD stated. This is my prefered method of operation. I am using the 15x, not the 18x.
The advantage of IS overcomes any of its potetial shortcomings, in my opinion. Of couse, a bad copy is not out of consideration.
Best regards,
Dave.
|
pedro
super member
Reged: 09/28/04
Posts: 185
|
|
Hi
I just got a pair of these 15x50's last days (not a brand new - but a 6 months one used very rare) and I found the same impression as Luigi, nothing really bad or suggesting some real failure on it electronic parts but the image (when IS engaged) drops a bit in sharpness and that fast softening is there coming and gone depending on how steady it's holded...the more steady the less noticiable is that effect.
The collimation is spot on with no one kind of eye strain but I could notice also some color fringing under the daytime mainly on some black objects skylined.
I thought the Canon IS system should work a bit steady - I owned in the past a Russian Newcon 16x40 Gyro stabilized and in these the stabilization really is very steady with no one kind of image degradation or softening, in fact I could see (believe or not) the Saturn's ring in some very good nights...the drawbacks are their heavy weight (2,10kgs) and they are terrible for panning and also their optics show a strong yeloowish cast -I believe the Fujinon 14x40 IS and the Nikon 14x40 IS use the same Gyroscopes technology.
Backing to Canons - it's clear that than more steady they are holded the better the IS works - with the gyroscope system however don't matter how steady (when not panning) or not they are holded the image don't loss quality...the Canon needs some hands help to be really work steady (this is just my opinion), I noticed if braced the IS works better...it's very difficult in fact to know if we have here several Lemmons around or if this is a owner to owner particular impressions...
Luigi you can find anyway some comments about this matter just reading a recently post here (I hope).
http://www.cloudynights.com/ubbthreads/showflat.php/Cat/0/Number/2314821/page/0/view/collapsed/sb/5/o/all/fpart/1/vc/1
regards Pedro
|
Luigi
Pooh-Bah
Reged: 07/03/07
Posts: 1415
Loc: Massachusetts
|
|
Quote:
The stabilization is optical, not digital.
Yes. Optical liquid wedges, driven by electronics, most likely sensing angular deviation via piezo gyros. I was suggesting the electronics controlling the wedges might be digital with an insufficient update rate so as to cause perceptible artifacts. 
--------------------
17.5" f/5 Discovery Truss
IM715 7" f/15 MCT (due July!)
Eon-120ED refractor
CG5A coffee grinder, Orion Skyview Alt-AZ
35,19,15 Pans.9 Nag. Meade 24.5 4kSWA, 4.7 5kUWA.
BO-TMB 7mm planetary.
Zeiss Diascope 85
Zeiss, Leica, Canon IS, Fujinon, Nikon binos
|
pedro
super member
Reged: 09/28/04
Posts: 185
|
|
Hi there
I just replaced today a pair of rechargeable Energizer batteries for a pair of regular Alkaline Duracell 1,5 volts - I was a few minutes ago out watching the night sky (on a chair) and there is no more some fuzzy or strange effect on the image - the stars (even some brights) were sharp and tight...the quality image is very good, really sharp across the entire field of view I Got some very wonderful visions of some nice star clusters.
I don't know now if what I noticed under the daytime should be just some kind of atmospheric heat waves (blurryng the image times to times) or some rechargeable bettery effect due their low voltage than the regular Alkaline Duracell or maybe both togheter... anyway I am impressed now by their quality image under the night sky!
I improved today also their eyecups since I found the original very uncomfortable, I posted some pictures here:
http://www.cloudynights.com/ubbthreads/showflat.php/Cat/0/Number/2383691/page/0/view/collapsed/sb/5/o/all/fpart/1
regards Pedro
|
Rich N
Post Laureate
Reged: 09/22/04
Posts: 4993
Loc: San Francisco Bay Area, Calif...
|
|
Hi Pedro,
I'm glad your Canon 15x50IS is working well now!
All the best,
Rich
|
pedro
super member
Reged: 09/28/04
Posts: 185
|
|
Hi Rick thanks
I am very impressed with the Canon optical quality - even if these were a non stabilized instrument their optical quality will worth their price in my opinion.
I am now (after that battery change despite I am not sure if they made some real difference on the stabilization performance but I felt yes...) learning how to keep my eyes just centered with the optical axis because I notice that this is a very important thing to do to get from them the best performance.
For a 15X binoculars they work very well and their ''best stabilization performance'' is just a thing to learn how to do ''OK'' using and using...
last night I was scanning the sky again using them and the stabilization helps really a lot to change a crazy fast confuded moving picture in a calm and quiet black velvet decorated by thousand of tight diamonds...amazing!
regards Pedro
|
Luigi
Pooh-Bah
Reged: 07/03/07
Posts: 1415
Loc: Massachusetts
|
|
I've been doing more viewing with them and concur with Pedro, the perturbations look kinda like thermal atmoshperic disturbances. I was observing some birds in the back yard with a friend who, with no real experience or interest in binoculars or telescopes, commented on how the image got slightly fuzzy with the stab on. He loved the view thru my Zeiss 8x32 Victories, calling extremely sharp and 3D. Hand held, I find I can see more detail with the stab on then with it off despite the fluctuating fuzziness. On a tripod with the stab off, the they are really excellent.
--------------------
17.5" f/5 Discovery Truss
IM715 7" f/15 MCT (due July!)
Eon-120ED refractor
CG5A coffee grinder, Orion Skyview Alt-AZ
35,19,15 Pans.9 Nag. Meade 24.5 4kSWA, 4.7 5kUWA.
BO-TMB 7mm planetary.
Zeiss Diascope 85
Zeiss, Leica, Canon IS, Fujinon, Nikon binos
|
mooreorless
Pooh-Bah
Reged: 07/05/05
Posts: 1422
Loc: Cornpropst Mills,Huntingdon,Pa
|
|
Hi Pedro, I am glad that you might of found a higher power binocular that you have been searching for that you can live with. I had a short view through the one of these once and liked what I saw.
--------------------
Regards,Steve M
"the eights are better" Jim Carmichel of Outdoor Life magazine
|
pedro
super member
Reged: 09/28/04
Posts: 185
|
|
Hi Steve
Yes, I am now only a ''bit worried'' about their electronic parts (the time life, etc) but I need to confess that these are very interesting against any 15X non stabilized I tried before.
Today I tried it on a distant helicopter with the stabilization in ''off and on'' - man, you get really two quite different situation...when in ''off'' I could see some ''fast'' details like it window but just barely...when the button is pressed in some few seconds all the things changes a lot...was possible to see even some little ''rivet lines'' on the fuselage...it's very nice!
regards Pedro
|
Glassthrower
Vendor - Galactic Stone & Ironworks
Reged: 04/07/05
Posts: 13635
Loc: Omicron Persei 8
|
|
Does anyone bother to mount these 15x50 and 18x50IS binoculars? I know this is counter to their intended purpose, but it seems to me that when available, a mount should be used. I would imagine, that the 18x50, if mounted on a smooth parallelogram mount, with the IS engaged, would be a dream to use. The view would be mostly-steady to begin with, because of the mounting, and any shaking introduced by moving the parallelogram arm would be effectively cleaned up by the IS. The result should be a rock-steady, flat, sharp view.
Of course, this is impossible for the majority of birdwatching, especially out on the trails. But I have used a p-mount in my backyard to watch birds, and it's actually easier to follow a fast bird in flight than one might think - a good p-mount has very fluid movements and will allow this. The only downside is the obvious weight/bulk and setup/takedown.
--------------------
Michael Gilmer - Member of the Meteoritical Society & Collector of Falling Stars.
Galactic Stone & Ironworks - Buy/Sell/Trade Meteorites, Moon Rocks, Mars Rocks, & Celestial Irons.
Currently throwing glass with : Astro-Tech 66ED
|
CESDewar
GorillAstronomer
Reged: 01/16/05
Posts: 1584
Loc: Morganton, GA, USA
|
|
I have used my 18x50 Canons on a p-mount, but under those conditions, I rarely use the IS system. The reason for that is that the IS system does introduce some artifacts that reduce the acuity of the view. Now those artifacts are so minor compared with the artifacts caused by hand-holding, that it's a non-issue. But when mounted, that issue goes away, and under those conditions, I prefer to take advantage of the best optical views through these binoculars.
I also have a p-mount rated for 10lb. binoculars, so the light Canons allow me to use a very short counter-balance arm which reduces the shake-time considerably. It often works well with p-mounts to put more weight on the counter-balance arm - I prefer to put 10lbs close in on a short arm rather than have a 5lb weight out at full extension.
As others have noted, these binoculars would probably hold their own without the IS system - the optics are superb and in particular, they have the sharpest edges of any binoculars I own. The other night I had no difficulty seeing 3 stars in the Trapezium when tripod-mounted with the IS off, in spite of a very low altitude (it was still twilight, so the faintest D component was a no-show). I have on rare occasions managed to see the three components handheld with the IS engaged, but usually I can only tell that it's a multiple star system without enough convincing detail to be sure just how many stars are present.
--------------------
|
milt
sage
Reged: 09/13/04
Posts: 386
Loc: Arizona
|
|
Quote:
I had no difficulty seeing 3 stars in the Trapezium when tripod-mounted with the IS off....I have on rare occasions managed to see the three components handheld with the IS engaged, but usually I can only tell that it's a multiple star system
CES uses a real world example to get to the heart of the matter. Those that have been on the forum for awhile know that I had a longterm love/hate relationship with my 18x50. The Canon optics are very good, but to full exploit that optical quality they must be mounted.
I ended up selling mine to a police officer who wanted to read license plates and such. 
Milt
|
DJB
Pooh-Bah
Reged: 02/23/05
Posts: 1142
|
|
Hi all,
I concure that the edge sharpness of the Canon IS binoculars is simply one of the best--no matter how they are used!
Best regards,
Dave.
|
Joe Ogiba
Pooh-Bah
Reged: 02/14/02
Posts: 2695
Loc: NJ USA
|
|
Quote:
I have used my 18x50 Canons on a p-mount, but under those conditions, I rarely use the IS system.
Why would you need IS on a p-mount ?
--------------------
Pentax PF-80ED
Meade 102ED APO
Orion 120ST
Apex 127
CR150
C9.25
XT10
Zeiss 7x42 FL
Canon 10x42L IS WP
15x50 IS
12x36 IS II
Garrett Optical 28x110 HD-WP Signature Series
Oberwerk BT-80 45
Apogee RA-88-SA
Denk II Power x Switch binoviewer
|
EdZ
Professor EdZ
Reged: 02/15/02
Posts: 11848
Loc: Cumberland, R I , USA42N71.4W
|
|
Quote:
Quote:
I have used my 18x50 Canons on a p-mount, but under those conditions, I rarely use the IS system.
Why would you need IS on a p-mount ?
You wouldn't. Don't miss the point he is trying to make. More can be seen with this binocular when it is used on a mount without the IS engaged.
edz
--------------------
Teach a kid something today. The feeling you'll get is one of life's greatest rewards.
member#21
|
rick rian
Seeker of Truth
Reged: 08/03/04
Posts: 11325
Loc: SE Minnesota
|
|
I love mine. The optics are superb, the 'IS' system works as advertised and the sharpness to the edge is right on the money. I also use a parallelogram binocular mount for the times I don't feel like holding anything.
I highly recommend the 15x50is ... that's my 
--------------------
Rickster
NexStar 8i, TV85, Canon 15x50is
Time is precious, waste it wisely.
|
Tad S.
super member
Reged: 08/28/06
Posts: 124
Loc: SW Virginia
|
|
Quote:
Does anyone bother to mount these 15x50 and 18x50IS binoculars? I know this is counter to their intended purpose, but it seems to me that when available, a mount should be used. I would imagine, that the 18x50, if mounted on a smooth parallelogram mount, with the IS engaged, would be a dream to use. The view would be mostly-steady to begin with, because of the mounting, and any shaking introduced by moving the parallelogram arm would be effectively cleaned up by the IS. The result should be a rock-steady, flat, sharp view.
Michael, I am glad you asked this. I have been wondering the same. I have been eyeing the 15x50IS and comparing with the Chinese series-8 15x70 and the Fujinon 16x70. I know comparing these is a hot-button issue based on the reviews. But I have been wondering about the relative qualities of the non-IS aspects of these three.
I have a super monopod system (bogen 322RC2 head/3245 leg) that I have been very happy using with my 12x50s and 20x80s, but would like something with a little more reach than the 12x, less physical length than the 20x80*, and better edge correction than either. I nearly ruled out the non-IS candidates above due to short ER, but reports from EdZ and others have indicated that eyeglasses are marginally doable with those. Anyway, I am interested to hear comments on how these IS models fare mounted, particularly in comparison to the other premiums in that range. I would bet that the IS would have some utility on a monopod, perhaps being an additive stabilization effect with the one supportive leg.
--Tad
*This monopod/head system holds the 20x80s very well, but the length of the barrels and higher weight are less amenable to a monopod, in general.
--------------------
Orion XT8i, Vixen ED80Sf, Oberwerk BT-80/45
20x80 Oberwerk Std., 12x50 Nikon AE,
10x42 Celestron Regal LX, 8x40 Pentax PCF WP
|
KennyJ
Reged: 04/27/03
Posts: 9647
Loc: Lancashire UK
|
|
From what I've read ( and I've read a LOT ! ) it would seem to me that it would do no harm to look upon Canon 15 x 50 binoculars as simply WORLD - CLASS 15 x 50 binoculars - -
- - period - -
- with the stabilisation feature a BONUS , which works perfectly for some - very well for others and with reservations by other users .
Is this true ?
Kenny
--------------------
GRAND PRIZE for NON - INTELLECTUAL CONTRIBUTIONS
Troll Doll of the month ( June 2008 )
2 eyes and a preference to use both
|
pedro
super member
Reged: 09/28/04
Posts: 185
|
|
Quote:
I have been eyeing the 15x50IS and comparing with the Chinese series-8 15x70 and the Fujinon 16x70. I know comparing these is a hot-button issue based on the reviews. But I have been wondering about the relative qualities of the non-IS aspects of these three.
--Tad
Hi Tad
I owned (and still own some) several good ''high powered'' binos already - Fujinon 16x70, Zeiss 15x60 (Older classic) Takahashi 22x60mm - Nikon 18x70mm- and now I got a 15x50 IS - I can tell you (forgiven here the IS feature I am talking just about their optical quality) these 15x50's from Canon really rock...the optical quality regarding sharpness and border performance it's just incredible - stars remain sharp almost at the very very extreme edge also the color correction(CA or color fringing) is very good-you need to look for it to find some... very very minimal - these are the best among those you asked for (it's lighter, deliver a very good AFOV of 65º, a good eye-relief, excellent optical correction, and many things more) so I can tell you these binoculars are optically awesome and you get as a bonus their IS system…
If you are thinking about the optical quality (IS or Non IS) these are very good - for me a truly premium.
regards Pedro
|
rick rian
Seeker of Truth
Reged: 08/03/04
Posts: 11325
Loc: SE Minnesota
|
|
Quote:
From what I've read ( and I've read a LOT ! ) it would seem to me that it would do no harm to look upon Canon 15 x 50 binoculars as simply WORLD - CLASS 15 x 50 binoculars - -
- - period - -
- with the stabilisation feature a BONUS , which works perfectly for some - very well for others and with reservations by other users .
Is this true ?
Kenny
I agree Kenny, World Class is the perfect description, IMHO ... 
--------------------
Rickster
NexStar 8i, TV85, Canon 15x50is
Time is precious, waste it wisely.
|
Luigi
Pooh-Bah
Reged: 07/03/07
Posts: 1415
Loc: Massachusetts
|
|
The optics really are excellent. But as for using them on a mount, I already have 16x70 Fujinons that are also excellent. For me, the point of IS is to obviate the need for a mount. It does that, but at the expense of wavering sharpness. I'm not sure if these fit into my bino lineup.
--------------------
17.5" f/5 Discovery Truss
IM715 7" f/15 MCT (due July!)
Eon-120ED refractor
CG5A coffee grinder, Orion Skyview Alt-AZ
35,19,15 Pans.9 Nag. Meade 24.5 4kSWA, 4.7 5kUWA.
BO-TMB 7mm planetary.
Zeiss Diascope 85
Zeiss, Leica, Canon IS, Fujinon, Nikon binos
|
Joe Ogiba
Pooh-Bah
Reged: 02/14/02
Posts: 2695
Loc: NJ USA
|
|
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
I have used my 18x50 Canons on a p-mount, but under those conditions, I rarely use the IS system.
Why would you need IS on a p-mount ?
You wouldn't. Don't miss the point he is trying to make. More can be seen with this binocular when it is used on a mount without the IS engaged.
edz
I know that, but he said "but under those conditions, I rarely use the IS system." Why use the IS at all when mounted. BTW I use my low buck 15x70's on my Unimount and have never mounted my 15x50's.
--------------------
Pentax PF-80ED
Meade 102ED APO
Orion 120ST
Apex 127
CR150
C9.25
XT10
Zeiss 7x42 FL
Canon 10x42L IS WP
15x50 IS
12x36 IS II
Garrett Optical 28x110 HD-WP Signature Series
Oberwerk BT-80 45
Apogee RA-88-SA
Denk II Power x Switch binoviewer
|
Tad S.
super member
Reged: 08/28/06
Posts: 124
Loc: SW Virginia
|
|
Quote:
Quote:
From what I've read ( and I've read a LOT ! ) it would seem to me that it would do no harm to look upon Canon 15 x 50 binoculars as simply WORLD - CLASS 15 x 50 binoculars - -
- - period - -
- with the stabilisation feature a BONUS , which works perfectly for some - very well for others and with reservations by other users .
Is this true ?
Kenny
I agree Kenny, World Class is the perfect description, IMHO ...
and
Quote:
I concure that the edge sharpness of the Canon IS binoculars is simply one of the best--no matter how they are used!
Best regards,
Dave.
and
Quote:
I love mine. The optics are superb, the 'IS' system works as advertised and the sharpness to the edge is right on the money. ...
Rickster
and
Quote:
I owned (and still own some) several good ''high powered'' binos already - Fujinon 16x70, Zeiss 15x60 (Older classic) Takahashi 22x60mm - Nikon 18x70mm- and now I got a 15x50 IS - I can tell you (forgiven here the IS feature I am talking just about their optical quality) these 15x50's from Canon really rock...the optical quality regarding sharpness and border performance it's just incredible - stars remain sharp almost at the very very extreme edge also the color correction(CA or color fringing) is very good-you need to look for it to find some... very very minimal - these are the best among those you asked for (it's lighter, deliver a very good AFOV of 65º, a good eye-relief, excellent optical correction, and many things more) so I can tell you these binoculars are optically awesome and you get as a bonus their IS system…
If you are thinking about the optical quality (IS or Non IS) these are very good - for me a truly premium.
regards Pedro
Okay, thanks guys. I'm starting to get the impression that the 15x50IS optics are on par with that of the Fujinon 16x70s. If one were to compare the two, would this be a fair summary?
Sharpness--pretty close
Contrast--pretty close?
Edge performance--pretty close
TFOV--edge to the canon (4.5* vs 4.0)
Limiting magnitude reach--I am guessing the fujis win (70mm vs 50mm objectives)
Weight--canons are much lighter
Eye relief--canons are more amenable to eyeglass wearers
Daytime use--canons win due to center focus
Hand-held Stability--duh, the canons
Price--fujinons win, being about $250-300 less ($600-700 vs $850-1000)
I know that these factors have different weights for different people, but since it is not possible for me to try each to compare before deciding, I am just trying to weigh the pros and cons of each. Are there other considerable differences? I had originally thought these were closer in price; if I go for the canons, I'll need to keep saving.
Sorry if I am hijacking this thread. I guess it was originally about problems with the IS degrading the view. At least it is still related to qualities of the 15x50IS.
--Tad
--------------------
Orion XT8i, Vixen ED80Sf, Oberwerk BT-80/45
20x80 Oberwerk Std., 12x50 Nikon AE,
10x42 Celestron Regal LX, 8x40 Pentax PCF WP
|
KennyJ
Reged: 04/27/03
Posts: 9647
Loc: Lancashire UK
|
|
Tad ,
I recall Todd Gross reporting at least 8 years ago that in his ( has to respected ) opinion , the Canon 15 x 50 IS had superior " edge performance " to almost every other binoculars he'd tried , and that it was a very close call between the Canon 15 x 50 sample he had and a sample of a Fujinon 16 x 70 FMTSX which he also had at the same time , with the Fujinon still " just " managing to " pull a little more detail " fom the sky , due mainly to the extra aperture ( from memory ).
Kenny
--------------------
GRAND PRIZE for NON - INTELLECTUAL CONTRIBUTIONS
Troll Doll of the month ( June 2008 )
2 eyes and a preference to use both
|
pedro
super member
Reged: 09/28/04
Posts: 185
|
|
Hi Tad I don't know if I could really help but...there is my opinion.
I used to own a Fujinon 16x70mm and now I own a Canon 15x50 IS - let me explain that I am a guy who likes to use binoculars under the daytime (to watch some airplanes, landscapes, etc) as also under the night sky (to some casual stargazing, looking for some details on the Moon, etc) – I am talking here FORGIVEN the IS feature, just optical quality, weight, etc…
For ME the Canon IS is much better than the Fuji 16x70mm ''TO USE'' mainly because I don't like to use binoculars tripod mounted...WEIGHT - the Fuji is very hard to hold still without a tripod for even a short time due to its 2,10kgs...FOCUSER – the Fuji’s individual focuser it’s a pain (when hand held), Canon do a very easy and nice job with their central focuser – CA (Chromatic aberration) Under the day time the Fuji show a very apparent |
Previous
Index
Next
Threaded
Edit
Reply
Quote
[Re: