Distortion and Glare in the Swarovski 8x32 EL Swarovision (1 Viewer)

typo · Jul 21, 2015

Henry,

After an abortive attempt to use a decent camera I had to resort to using a hand held phone at an angle so apologies for poor alignment and focus. It was all a bit rough and ready. The circles were close to 70mm at about 10m. The first is the Vanguard Endeavour EDII 8x42 which appears to my eyes to have have the merest trace of pincushion, field curvature and edge softening, but as binoculars go, very flat. The circles appear to have retained their symmetry I'd say. The second is the ZenRay Prime 10x42. This has more pincushion and field curvature than the Vanguard but still a lot less than my other binoculars. I'd still categorise this as a flat view, but not a flat as the Vanguard. I think the camera must have been tilted slightly as even the left circle has a little vertical compression but the right circle has obvious horizontal elongation.

David

henry link · Jul 21, 2015

Thanks for going to the trouble, David. I know taking these is a pain in the rear.

The angular magnification distortion in the ZenRay image is reversed from the AMD I photographed in the Swaro (horizontal stretching instead of horizontal compression). That only happens when there is a very large amount of pincushion, so much that the AMD is overcorrected. Some eyepieces, like TeleVue Naglers and Panoptics, have that kind of distortion. I don't see the same thing in the Vanguard photo so I doubt that added pincushion distortion from the camera lens is the cause, but it's a good idea to make sure that the circles are photographed within a distortion free area of the camera field. When you look at a circle at the field periphery through the ZenRay do you see a horizontally stretched oval like the one in the photo?

Henry

brocknroller · Jul 21, 2015

Holger Merlitz said:
Jerry,

These photos tell a lot about the characteristics of binoculars in daily life use. I have identified exactly these reflexes seen on Henry's picture as the origin of the stray light that bothered me when using the 8x32 SV, particularly after sunset. Now, with some additional experience, I am almost able to predict the stray light characteristics of such a binocular without even looking through it, just by inspecting the area that surrounds the exit pupil!

Regarding your remark about the globe effect I have to disagree. At least 30% should be able to see the globe effect in binoculars with close to zero pincushion distortion. If this had been such a non issue you would like us to believe, why then has Zeiss introduced the pincushion distortion in the late 1940s? The globe effect was an issue, and it was regarded sufficiently harmful so that they decided to deliberately add an aberration to their optical design. Most optical designers around the globe followed them.

Cheers,
Holger

Holger,

Thanks for chiming in on this discussion. I've been highly doubtful about the Zeiss study that showed only 5% of people see RB. I think it's more accurate to say that a fair number of people do see RB (almost 1/3 by your estimate), but that only a small minority of people can't eventually adapt it to it.

From reading posts over the past 5 years since the SV EL was introduced, it seems that a fair number of people reported seeing RB initially, particularly in the 8.5x model, but the majority of those people adapted to it after minutes, hours or days of use. Some of those who didn't, tried the 8x32 model and found it more suitable because of it having more pincushion.

My effort has been to let people know exactly what it is they are seeing, and I've often pointed them to the technical reports on your Website for more thorough explanation. I have also let them know that the chances were in their favor that they would adapt to the RB over time, so they don't reject the bin or send it back w/out first giving themselves time to adjust.

Even though I've gotten a lot of grief from the same few people for mentioning RB on BF, I think that educating bin users about RB is a better approach than simply saying that I don't see it, my wife doesn't see it, so it's a non-issue, don't worry about it. That's not helpful to the 30% who see RB but who don't know what it is and so don't buy the bin they otherwise like very much because they don't realize they need time to adapt. The best choice is an informed choice.

What's confusing this, however, is the fact that Swaro has apparently tweaked the amount of pincushion in the 8.5x model such that newer samples may not be as low on your chart as the one you tested, which fell below the k=0.85 line.

Recently, a BF member who had seen RB in the 8.5x model early on, tried a new sample and didn't see it. That's anecdotal, but when combined with what a Swaro rep told you about the company increasing the distortion in later production runs, it seems that Swaro has added more pincushion to the 8.5x model, or perhaps even its entire SV EL line. I wish you could get your hands on an old and new sample 8.5x SV EL to confirm this scientifically.

The other thing that made me doubt the 5% figure in the Zeiss study was the statement by Zeiss (not sure if it was part of their SF advertising or if Mike Jensen posted it here), but the gist was that Zeiss purposely put in enough pincushion so that users would not experience RB with the SF (some still do as we have recently found out).

So if only 5% of the population (or at least 5% of Zeiss's study group) see RB, then why would Zeiss purposely introduce enough pincushion to overcome the AMD? Seems like a lot of bother to cater to such a small group!

Ditto for Swaro adding more pincushion to its SV ELs. Either that or I have such a BIG mouth that they would do anything to shut me up.

Brock

brocknroller · Jul 22, 2015

Holger,

One more item. We recently heard of three examples of users seeing RB in the 8x42 SF who do not see it in the 8.5x SV EL! This could be because Swaro tweaked the SV EL (though I would imagine that it still has less pincushion than the SF, given where Swaro started with the 8.5 SV EL).

Dale Forbes suggested an alternative reason though I didn't bookmark his post so I'm not sure if this was his idea or if he was citing a study. He said that the reason these users see RB in the 8x42 SF and not the 8.5 SV EL is not due to their different k level, but rather due to the difference in their patterns of distortion. The SV EL has a "mustache pattern," which is apparently different than whatever kind of PC/AMD pattern the SF has (no-one so far has detailed that).

I was wondering what you thought of this idea of people being more sensitive to one or another pattern of distortion and this being the reason they do or do not see RB with a particular bin?

Brock

sako · Jul 22, 2015

I have clearly observed RB in an older pair of 8.5x42 SV and a two year old 10x32 SV but can't detect a trace of it in the 8x32 SV I bought September 2014.

NDhunter · Jul 22, 2015

Henry, Holger and Brock:

It is good that 95% of the population will adapt and will really enjoy the great
flat field optics that are on the market today.

That is why I have a problem with the large emphasis with the rolling ball thing.
Henry, you used the words, "hurl their cookies". That is why I criticized your post
above.

I do acknowledge that some may have issues with the globe effect.

Nikon, Swarovski and Zeiss know and understand optics and binoculars.

Do you think out of that 30% mentioned above, which is doubtful, that any of those may see any
issues worth bothering them so much, that there is any kind of large return rate, with those purchasing flat field optics ?

I suppose you can ask the companies. I do not see this as any problem or issue at all.

Jerry

denco@comcast.n · Jul 22, 2015

Swarovski knows about all the things Henry discusses and more, much more. It is old news. It doesn't change anything.There has to design compromises in any binocular. The SV 8x32 is still the best 8x32 birding binocular on the market today. If you want compact and light it is still the best game in town. If you don't buy it because of Henry's criticism of a few of it's weaknesses you are missing out on the best 8x32 birding binocular made.

denco@comcast.n · Jul 22, 2015

Vespobuteo said:
interesting comparison,
flare is definitely a distraction to take into consideration,
the 8x32 SV have been on my wish-list for a while but I'm hesitating,
here is another guy that seems to be a bit ambivalent on the 8x32 SV:
http://www.greatestbinoculars.com/allpages/reviews/swarovski/swaroel8x32sv/swarovision8x32.html

Yes. But at the end he concluded that the SV 8x32 is still the best 8x32 binocular you can buy today.

typo · Jul 22, 2015

henry link said:
Thanks for going to the trouble, David. I know taking these is a pain in the rear.

The angular magnification distortion in the ZenRay image is reversed from the AMD I photographed in the Swaro (horizontal stretching instead of horizontal compression). That only happens when there is a very large amount of pincushion, so much that the AMD is overcorrected. Some eyepieces, like TeleVue Naglers and Panoptics, have that kind of distortion. I don't see the same thing in the Vanguard photo so I doubt that added pincushion distortion from the camera lens is the cause, but it's a good idea to make sure that the circles are photographed within a distortion free area of the camera field. When you look at a circle at the field periphery through the ZenRay do you see a horizontally stretched oval like the one in the photo?

Henry

Henry,

I think the camera tilt has exaggerated the distortion in that previous Prime photo but with careful examination there is some visible stretching right at the edge. As a proportion of the field it seems to be in the last 5-7%. Overall the Prime pincushion I would describe as low, but what there is appears to be mostly in that last few percent.

David

Vespobuteo · Jul 22, 2015

[email protected] said:
Swarovski knows about all the things Henry discusses and more, much more. It is old news. It doesn't change anything.There has to design compromises in any binocular. The SV 8x32 is still the best 8x32 birding binocular on the market today. If you want compact and light it is still the best game in town. If you don't buy it because of Henry's criticism of a few of it's weaknesses you are missing out on the best 8x32 birding binocular made.

knowledge before buying could never be bad,
what I'm thinking about is if that tiny little green 8x32 swaro SV really could replace my 7x42 FL for most of the time, without driving me crazy with glare, flare and rolling balls,

Holger Merlitz · Jul 22, 2015

brocknroller said:
Holger,

Thanks for chiming in on this discussion. I've been highly doubtful about the Zeiss study that showed only 5% of people see RB. I think it's more accurate to say that a fair number of people do see RB (almost 1/3 by your estimate), but that only a small minority of people can't eventually adapt it to it.

From reading posts over the past 5 years since the SV EL was introduced, it seems that a fair number of people reported seeing RB initially, particularly in the 8.5x model, but the majority of those people adapted to it after minutes, hours or days of use. Some of those who didn't, tried the 8x32 model and found it more suitable because of it having more pincushion.

My effort has been to let people know exactly what it is they are seeing, and I've often pointed them to the technical reports on your Website for more thorough explanation. I have also let them know that the chances were in their favor that they would adapt to the RB over time, so they don't reject the bin or send it back w/out first giving themselves time to adjust.

Even though I've gotten a lot of grief from the same few people for mentioning RB on BF, I think that educating bin users about RB is a better approach than simply saying that I don't see it, my wife doesn't see it, so it's a non-issue, don't worry about it. That's not helpful to the 30% who see RB but who don't know what it is and so don't buy the bin they otherwise like very much because they don't realize they need time to adapt. The best choice is an informed choice.

What's confusing this, however, is the fact that Swaro has apparently tweaked the amount of pincushion in the 8.5x model such that newer samples may not be as low on your chart as the one you tested, which fell below the k=0.85 line.

Recently, a BF member who had seen RB in the 8.5x model early on, tried a new sample and didn't see it. That's anecdotal, but when combined with what a Swaro rep told you about the company increasing the distortion in later production runs, it seems that Swaro has added more pincushion to the 8.5x model, or perhaps even its entire SV EL line. I wish you could get your hands on an old and new sample 8.5x SV EL to confirm this scientifically.

The other thing that made me doubt the 5% figure in the Zeiss study was the statement by Zeiss (not sure if it was part of their SF advertising or if Mike Jensen posted it here), but the gist was that Zeiss purposely put in enough pincushion so that users would not experience RB with the SF (some still do as we have recently found out).

So if only 5% of the population (or at least 5% of Zeiss's study group) see RB, then why would Zeiss purposely introduce enough pincushion to overcome the AMD? Seems like a lot of bother to cater to such a small group!

Ditto for Swaro adding more pincushion to its SV ELs. Either that or I have such a BIG mouth that they would do anything to shut me up.

Brock

Hello Brock,

Definitely this is an issue that would bother more than 5% of the population. In fact, the manufacturers have already reacted to early complaints and have either added a bit of pincushion or tweaked the distortion curves so that those do no longer drop off as dramatically as before near the edge of field.

The early 8.5x42 SV definitely had a very obvious globe effect. It was milder with the 10x42 and then further reduced in the models introduced later, e.g. the 8x32. Whether or not Swaro has in fact modified the original formula of the 8.5x42, I don't know for sure. Some reports of users seem to indicate that. When I used such a binocular again last year, the globe effect didn't seem that obvious any more. Perhaps I am also getting used to it, or perhaps they have changed it quietly.

The SF 10x42 has almost no globe effect. With the 8x42, that effect it is far more obvious. I think it is precisely that distortion curve that drops off in the outer fields which is causing the trouble. Little is known about how exactly different individuals are perceiving distorted motions. I regard it important to know more about that, because this knowledge will eventually lead to the development of even better binoculars. Though I can see the globe effect, I can surely live with it. The 8x42 SF is a great binocular and I definitely would like to own one. If its panning behaviour could be further improved, all the better

Cheers,
Holger

henry link · Jul 22, 2015

typo said:
Henry,

I think the camera tilt has exaggerated the distortion in that previous Prime photo but with careful examination there is some visible stretching right at the edge. As a proportion of the field it seems to be in the last 5-7%. Overall the Prime pincushion I would describe as low, but what there is appears to be mostly in that last few percent.

David

David,

Very interesting. This image of the circles indicates a compound distortion of exactly the opposite kind from the Swaro. The three left circles show very slight positive AMD. I measure the ratio of vertical to horizontal of those circles as 1.03, 1.04, and 1.02. Then the last circle switches to negative AMD with a ratio of .94. Just as you say this indicates slightly less pincushion than required to fully correct AMD until an abrupt increase in pincushion at the periphery results in overcorrection of AMD near the edge.

I hate to ask you to do more, but just as a check of the phone camera's distortion you might try making a couple of photos of a circle centered in both the binocular and the camera fields where there should be no distortion of the shape. Make one photo with the camera axis parallel to the binocular and the other with the camera tilted the same way it's tilted for these photos. That should tell us whether tilting the camera affects distortion.

Henry

Pileatus · Jul 22, 2015

brocknroller said:
Holger,

Thanks for chiming in on this discussion. I've been highly doubtful about the Zeiss study that showed only 5% of people see RB. I think it's more accurate to say that a fair number of people do see RB (almost 1/3 by your estimate), but that only a small minority of people can't eventually adapt it to it.

From reading posts over the past 5 years since the SV EL was introduced, it seems that a fair number of people reported seeing RB initially, particularly in the 8.5x model, but the majority of those people adapted to it after minutes, hours or days of use. Some of those who didn't, tried the 8x32 model and found it more suitable because of it having more pincushion.

My effort has been to let people know exactly what it is they are seeing, and I've often pointed them to the technical reports on your Website for more thorough explanation. I have also let them know that the chances were in their favor that they would adapt to the RB over time, so they don't reject the bin or send it back w/out first giving themselves time to adjust.

Even though I've gotten a lot of grief from the same few people for mentioning RB on BF, I think that educating bin users about RB is a better approach than simply saying that I don't see it, my wife doesn't see it, so it's a non-issue, don't worry about it. That's not helpful to the 30% who see RB but who don't know what it is and so don't buy the bin they otherwise like very much because they don't realize they need time to adapt. The best choice is an informed choice.

What's confusing this, however, is the fact that Swaro has apparently tweaked the amount of pincushion in the 8.5x model such that newer samples may not be as low on your chart as the one you tested, which fell below the k=0.85 line.

Recently, a BF member who had seen RB in the 8.5x model early on, tried a new sample and didn't see it. That's anecdotal, but when combined with what a Swaro rep told you about the company increasing the distortion in later production runs, it seems that Swaro has added more pincushion to the 8.5x model, or perhaps even its entire SV EL line. I wish you could get your hands on an old and new sample 8.5x SV EL to confirm this scientifically.

The other thing that made me doubt the 5% figure in the Zeiss study was the statement by Zeiss (not sure if it was part of their SF advertising or if Mike Jensen posted it here), but the gist was that Zeiss purposely put in enough pincushion so that users would not experience RB with the SF (some still do as we have recently found out).

So if only 5% of the population (or at least 5% of Zeiss's study group) see RB, then why would Zeiss purposely introduce enough pincushion to overcome the AMD? Seems like a lot of bother to cater to such a small group!

Ditto for Swaro adding more pincushion to its SV ELs. Either that or I have such a BIG mouth that they would do anything to shut me up.

Brock

The problem with your "effort to inform" is that each user MUST use a binocular to determine their personal level of satisfaction...with all the instrument's artifacts. This process usually requires a purchase, something your posts rarely, if ever, encourage. Valid customer satisfaction (or dissatisfaction) is based on ownership, not second-hand off-the-cuff diatribes.

BTW...where's your evidence for Swarovski changing anything in the line. For a professional business writer you sure make up a lot of unsubstantiated "facts" you then proffer as information. :scribe:

Hermann · Jul 22, 2015

[email protected] said:
Swarovski knows about all the things Henry discusses and more, much more. It is old news. It doesn't change anything.There has to design compromises in any binocular.

Sure, there have to be design compromises. Nobody doubts that. However, whether the design choice Swarowski made with the 8x32 was a good one or not is open to discussion. I for one don't think designing a modern binocular with that much glare was a good design choice.

[email protected] said:
The SV 8x32 is still the best 8x32 birding binocular on the market today. If you want compact and light it is still the best game in town. If you don't buy it because of Henry's criticism of a few of it's weaknesses you are missing out on the best 8x32 birding binocular made.

The Swarovswki Habicht 8x30 has better transmission, better central resolution and better contrast. It also looks way cooler than a run-of-the-mill roof. I therefore declare it's officially the best birding binocular in the world ... 3

Hermann

denco@comcast.n · Jul 22, 2015

Vespobuteo said:
knowledge before buying could never be bad,
what I'm thinking about is if that tiny little green 8x32 swaro SV really could replace my 7x42 FL for most of the time, without driving me crazy with glare, flare and rolling balls,

Yes,it could. After using the SV for awhile you would say to yourself. Why did I ever carry that big 7x42 around. I have had 7x42's and 7x50's and although they are nice a good 8x32 will work as well 99% of the time and you don't have all that darn weight.

denco@comcast.n · Jul 22, 2015

Hermann said:
Sure, there have to be design compromises. Nobody doubts that. However, whether the design choice Swarowski made with the 8x32 was a good one or not is open to discussion. I for one don't think designing a modern binocular with that much glare was a good design choice.

The Swarovswki Habicht 8x30 has better transmission, better central resolution and better contrast. It also looks way cooler than a run-of-the-mill roof. I therefore declare it's officially the best birding binocular in the world ... 3

Hermann

"The Swarovswki Habicht 8x30 has better transmission, better central resolution and better contrast. It also looks way cooler than a run-of-the-mill roof. I therefore declare it's officially the best birding binocular in the world ... "

The Habicht is nice to look at but like a supermodel it is hard to live with. The optics will knock your socks off but the focus is way too tight, the eye cups are too hard and the eye relief is too short. I would agree if you can live with those problems it could be the best birding binocular in the world but most people including me can't tolerate it. As far as resolution and contrast I would say it is equal to the SV. It does beat the SV in transmission. Sharper on-axis? I don't think so.

denco@comcast.n · Jul 22, 2015

henry link said:
This post is not a complete review. I borrowed a friend’s Swarivski 8x32 EL SV for the narrow purpose of objectively testing two characteristics that have been much discussed here: distortion and glare resistance.

To evaluate distortion I photographed a series of five circles through three binoculars with different distortion profiles. The circles represent about half of the right side of the fields with the dark field edge visible at the right. If angular magnification distortion (the stuff that causes the “globe effect” or “rolling ball”) is present it causes the circles to compress as they near the field edge, turning them into ovals, which resemble foreshortened circles rounding the side of a globe or ball.

As you can see the Swarovski 8x32 EL SV at the top shows much higher angular magnification distortion than the other two near the field edge, in fact at the very edge it’s higher than any other binocular I’ve seen except for other Swarovision models (I haven’t seen the Zeiss SF). In the middle is a Nikon 8x32 SE, another so called “flat field” design, which displays much milder AMD. The bottom binocular is a Zeiss 8x56 FL, which has enough pincushion distortion to essentially correct AMD so that circles remain circles all the way to the field edge. Sorry about the fuzzy circles in the Zeiss image. That’s astigmatism that can’t be focused out.

Pincushion distortion may be absent at the edge of the Swaro field, but it’s not completely absent in the overall distortion profile. Notice that the first three circles coming from the left side show no compression in the Swarovski compared to the Zeiss and actually a little less than the Nikon. That’s because the Swarovski follows the Zeiss approach in applying enough pincushion to avoid AMD over a large part of the field, then quite abruptly in the last 6-8º of apparent field the AMD comes on very strongly. The effect is less like rounding a globe and more like falling off the edge of a flat earth. This kind of compound distortion is sometimes called “moustache” distortion because it results in straight lines turning into wavy handlebar curves instead of the simple arcs produced by ordinary pincushion or barrel distortions.

Whether this kind of distortion is disturbing seems to be highly personal. It doesn’t bother me a bit, but a few here have reported that it made them hurl their cookies.

A couple of other things are visible in this image. One is the way apparent FOV is compressed in binoculars with high AMD. The five circles represent the very same size true FOV in all three of these 8x binoculars, but the compression of shapes toward the field edge in the Swaro and to a lesser extent the Nikon causes their apparent fields to shrink compared to a binocular with little or no AMD like the Zeiss. You can also see the relative differences in color bias among the three.

To evaluate glare resistance in the Swarovski I photographed the interior (middle image below) under two conditions designed to show internal reflections of the sort that cause visible glare. I also photographed the interior of a Zeiss 8x56 FL under the same conditions as a reference (far right image below).

The left photo in the Swarovski image is similar to the interior photos that appear in Allbinos reviews. A very bright entrance pupil (viewed through the eyepiece as the exit pupil) floods the interior with light, revealing most of the reflections that glance back toward the eyepiece, although sometimes the really bad ones right next the exit pupil may be lost in the bright light bleeding out from the overexposed exit pupil. Some of these reflections are quite harmless, either disappearing behind the field stop when the eye is at the correct eye relief distance or so far removed from the exit pupil that they never enter the eye even when the eye is dilated in low light. The potentially damaging ones here are the thin rings of reflection at the very edge of the exit pupil and the spots of reflection from prism edges just outside the rings. The three bright rings near the exit pupil come from the objective lens cell, the focusing lens cell and the first prism aperture.

In the right photo of the Swarovski image I placed a small dark object several feet in front of the binocular to darken the exit pupil while still allowing off-axis glare producing light to enter. This causes one of the lighting conditions where veiling glare is most troublesome: for instance, when the eye is open to perhaps 5mm or more while looking into a darkly shadowed area underneath a bright sky at sunset. As you see the internal reflections are actually much brighter than the dark “subject” being viewed. Looking through the binocular under these difficult lighting conditions produces severe veiling glare, but even while using the binocular normally in daylight I noticed occasional flickers of veiling glare under lighting conditions I would not usually consider very challenging. The Zeiss FL photos, made under the very same test conditions, show just how much better internal reflections can be controlled.

Henry Link

This stuff is all great. Henry should get a consulting job with Swarovski so he can tell them how to fix their binoculars. They would probably have a big old Austrian belly laugh over that that could be heard over the highest Alps. Swarovski knows all this stuff and they know what it takes to actually BUILD a binocular. There are trade offs on all these design parameters. If you put more baffling in it it might have a negative effect on something else. Leica's may be better baffled and a Zeiss 8x56 FL may have better glare control but at the end of the day the Swarovski 8x32 SV is probably still the best 8x32 binocular you can buy.

henry link · Jul 22, 2015

I see this thread is about to take a downward spiral, for the usual reasons and coming from the usual source.

It just occurred to me that it might be good if OPs were authorized to delete offensive messages and ad hominem attacks from the threads they start. That might force even Dennis to finally clean up his act.

brocknroller · Jul 22, 2015

UPDATE: I found the quote from Dobler about Zeiss purposely designing the SF with enough pincushion to avoid RB, and also his statement that only 5% see RB (he actually said 5-10%), but you'll note that he doesn't mention about where he gleaned those numbers or that any "Drs" were involved in the study or even that it was a study. I've requested more information about where he got those numbers, so I can forward it to Holger to evaluate.

It sorta sounds like the people Zeiss contacted were users who couldn't adapt to RB (and hence, who might buy an SF with more pincushion), rather than those who merely saw RB but adapted, but the wording isn't quite clear. If he did mean that, it might reconcile the difference between Holger's numbers and Dobler's. I hope he will clarify that, too.

The comments were from Lee's interview with Dobler, excepted below:

Now for our final question. With SF you have tried to achieve a balance between a flat field, large field of view, sharpness up to the edge of the view and minimising the well-known effect called ‘rolling ball’. How successful have you been with these four desirable attributes?

We found a good balance between these different things and especially in the control of the so-called rolling ball or globus effect that affects between 5 and 10% of people. We contacted some of these people and asked them to try different binoculars having different levels of field-flattening and we came up with a value that gave the best balance between field flatness and control of the globus effect. This means SF is not quite so flat-field at the very edge but it is nearly so, and from what those people told us almost everybody should be able to enjoy SF without noticing any globus effect.

Torview · Jul 22, 2015

If you want a Swaro but can`t adapt to RB buy an SLC.

If you want a Swaro but can`t accept flare buy an SLC.

Distortion and Glare in the Swarovski 8x32 EL Swarovision (1 Viewer)

Well-known member

Attachments

Well-known member

porromaniac

porromaniac

Well-known member

Experienced observer

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Attachments

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

"Experientia Docet”

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

porromaniac

Well-known member

Similar threads

Users who are viewing this thread