Call for contributions: Collecting Evidence for Lack of Progress in Sporting Optics (2 Viewers)

Omid · Nov 9, 2014

Holger Merlitz said:
Hello Omid,

Concerning changes in optical performance since the mid 90s, I would offer a summary of the following features:

----

Your post #125 was an excellent contribution Holger! Thank you very much for your informative and well-written summary.

I am the guest speaker at a local Safari Club International dinner later this month. I will put together a presentation on the status of sporting optics products in the past 25 years as part of my speech. I will post my slides here once it's ready so you and other members can review them. I will then evolve this into a more substantial presentation for when I meet my optics friends at the Shot Show in January. If the presentations are received well, maybe I will write an article on this topic too

It is a scientific fact that binoculars are "passive" instruments. The performance indicators for binoculars and telescopes are all in the forms of "errors" (chromatic error, astigmatism, spherical aberration, coma, etc.) or "percentages" (e.g. transmission factor). An error can reach ZERO and a percentage can reach 100% and that's the end. Binoculars can not be improved indefinitely in quality. So one may naturally ask Are we there at the summit now or have we been there already since late 90s? Or maybe we will get to the peak in a few years (when Leica introduces the revolutionary Ultravid Super HD ++)?

In any case, its no reason to be sad that there is no more progress possible. Having arrived at the peak of binoculars' quality mountain calls for celebration! Salute to Ernst Abbe, Karl Schwarzchild, Andreas Perger, Christoph vom Hagen, Adolf Weyrauch, Gerold Dobler, Hermann Theisinger, Holger Merlitz, and many others who have contributed or are contributing to further this beautiful field!

Cheers

WJC · Nov 9, 2014

Omid:

There seems to be an endless stream of opinions and data concerning OPTICS relative to binoculars, but a dearth of info on mechanics. From the standpoint of a tech, this is a fatal flaw in thinking. Not only do mechanics affect the feel, comfort, rigidity, and mechanical performance of an instrument; they also affect the optical performance in certain ways.

Sometimes people "don't know what they don't know," because those who should be telling them, don't know, themselves. Or, as one editor told me, "Nobody cares about that stuff; it's boring." |=o|

Bill

Omid said:
Your post #125 was an excellent contribution Holger! Thank you very much for your informative and well-written summary.

I am invited to speak at a Safari Club International dinner later this month. I will put together a presentation on the status of sporting optics products in the past 25 years as part of my speech. I will post my slides here once it's ready so you and other members can review them. I will then evolve this into a more substantial presentation for when I meet my optics friends at the Shot Show in January. If the presentations are received well, maybe I will write an article on this topic too

It is a scientific fact that binoculars are "passive" instruments. The performance indicators for binoculars and telescopes are all in the forms of "errors" (chromatic error, astigmatism, spherical aberration, coma, etc.) or "percentages" (e.g. transmission factor). An error can reach ZERO and a percentage can reach 100% and that's the end. Binoculars can not be improved indefinitely in quality. So one may naturally ask Are we there at the summit now or have we been there already since late 90s? Or maybe we will get to the peak in a few years (when Leica introduces the revolutionary Ultravid Super HD ++)?

In any case, its no reason to be sad that there is no more progress possible. Having arrived at the peak of binoculars' quality mountain calls for celebration! Salute to Ernst Abbe, Karl Schwarzchild, Andreas Perger, Christoph vom Hagen, Adolf Weyrauch, Gerold Dobler, Hermann Theisinger, Holger Merlitz, and many others who have contributed or are contributing to further this beautiful field!

Cheers

kabsetz · Nov 9, 2014

Omid,

I have of course heard many guess speakers in my life, actually almost daily, but rarely do they announce the fact themselves.

Joking aside, although you seem pretty certain that there has been very little if any progress and that further progress is pretty much impossible, I very much disagree that we are ready to celebrate yet.

All you need in order to see that there is still ways to go before perfection is achieved is to view with an excellent sample of one of the top spotting scopes from Swarovski, Kowa or Leica at their minimum magnification and imagine that view with two eyes, 98% transmission with zero stray light handling problems and 75 degree field of view for both eyes. Even the best of today's binoculars do not reach that level, not even all that close. The good news is that about half of the distance from the best early millennium binoculars to perfection has now been covered, but the other half still waits.

A considerable part of the distance still to be covered involves improving production tolerance levels to the point where points of light would be actual points of light through both binocular tubes in at least the center 50% of the field for a viewer with sharp eyes (visus 1.8). This very much relates to the point Bill makes in his post above.

Image stabilization is the major part of what is still missing. Not because it is actually missing, since the best Canon 10x42 IS L samples I have used are already very close to what is needed, but because the other alpha players don't offer them, and therefore birders don't use them. A little bit of competition would also help nudge Canon into fine-tuning their concept further still.

Kimmo

elkcub · Nov 9, 2014

Omid said:
Your post #125 was an excellent contribution Holger! Thank you very much for your informative and well-written summary.

I am the guest speaker at a local Safari Club International dinner later this month. I will put together a presentation on the status of sporting optics products in the past 25 years as part of my speech. I will post my slides here once it's ready so you and other members can review them. I will then evolve this into a more substantial presentation for when I meet my optics friends at the Shot Show in January. If the presentations are received well, maybe I will write an article on this topic too

It is a scientific fact that binoculars are "passive" instruments. The performance indicators for binoculars and telescopes are all in the forms of "errors" (chromatic error, astigmatism, spherical aberration, coma, etc.) or "percentages" (e.g. transmission factor). An error can reach ZERO and a percentage can reach 100% and that's the end. Binoculars can not be improved indefinitely in quality. So one may naturally ask Are we there at the summit now or have we been there already since late 90s? Or maybe we will get to the peak in a few years (when Leica introduces the revolutionary Ultravid Super HD ++)?

In any case, its no reason to be sad that there is no more progress possible. Having arrived at the peak of binoculars' quality mountain calls for celebration! Salute to Ernst Abbe, Karl Schwarzchild, Andreas Perger, Christoph vom Hagen, Adolf Weyrauch, Gerold Dobler, Hermann Theisinger, Holger Merlitz, and many others who have contributed or are contributing to further this beautiful field!

Cheers

Hi Omid,

Congratulations on motivating an excellent discussion; however, what I find sad is the poor use that's been made of it. You are incorrect suggesting that improvements can only be made by reducing aberrations to zero, or that "no more progress is possible." This reminds me of the story my father told me, tongue in cheek, about the head of the US patent office resigning after Edison invented the light bulb. He felt that his job was pointless since no more inventions were possible.

The performance indicators of binoculars and telescopes are ultimately based on the image quality produced on the observer's retinas. Conventional telescopes and binoculars are designed to be coherently coupled systems in which the total wavefront aberration arriving at the retina is the sum of the aberrations of the instrument and the eye over the common area of the XP and the eye's pupil. The over-simplified notion that a perfect instrument only involves reducing its aberrations to zero, on the one hand posits the impossible (since all aberrations can not be simultaneously reduced to zero), and, on the other, that the manner of coupling with the observer's eye has nothing to do with progress. Indeed, at a more macro level of performance, if you re-read Holger's post #125 you will find that progress is also defined, in the case of distortion, by introducing the right amount as opposed to eliminating it entirely. The visual science literature further suggests the same can be said about moderate curvature of field, contrary to current flat-field advocates.

Taking inflation into account, we're not paying a great deal more today for these improvements, which curiously have routinely been introduced by "Alpha" companies, and then predictably mimicked (more or less successfully) by lower cost competition that did not invest in progress but can make money from it.

Just my opinion, of course.

Regards,
Ed

Holger Merlitz · Nov 10, 2014

Omid said:
Your post #125 was an excellent contribution Holger! Thank you very much for your informative and well-written summary.

I am the guest speaker at a local Safari Club International dinner later this month. I will put together a presentation on the status of sporting optics products in the past 25 years as part of my speech. I will post my slides here once it's ready so you and other members can review them. I will then evolve this into a more substantial presentation for when I meet my optics friends at the Shot Show in January. If the presentations are received well, maybe I will write an article on this topic too

It is a scientific fact that binoculars are "passive" instruments. The performance indicators for binoculars and telescopes are all in the forms of "errors" (chromatic error, astigmatism, spherical aberration, coma, etc.) or "percentages" (e.g. transmission factor). An error can reach ZERO and a percentage can reach 100% and that's the end. Binoculars can not be improved indefinitely in quality. So one may naturally ask Are we there at the summit now or have we been there already since late 90s? Or maybe we will get to the peak in a few years (when Leica introduces the revolutionary Ultravid Super HD ++)?

In any case, its no reason to be sad that there is no more progress possible. Having arrived at the peak of binoculars' quality mountain calls for celebration! Salute to Ernst Abbe, Karl Schwarzchild, Andreas Perger, Christoph vom Hagen, Adolf Weyrauch, Gerold Dobler, Hermann Theisinger, Holger Merlitz, and many others who have contributed or are contributing to further this beautiful field!

Cheers

Omid,

I would agree with many others here on the forum that we have almost reached the top regarding some parameters, but not all of them. As mentioned above, there are quite significant improvements still possible (and I also count the angle of view among them, since I don't think that 65 degs. would be the largest reasonable value). Ed is absolutely right about the lack of understanding about visual perception: There is still much to be learned, and this research will have a future impact on the optimization of visual instruments. And Bill mentioned it: Mechanics is as important as optics, and along with the continuing efforts toward weight reduction and closer, faster focus mechanisms, the mechanical engineering is facing considerable challenges.

In any case, never forget: The dinner is far more important than the presentation, so you better keep it short and concise

Cheers,
Holger

WJC · Nov 10, 2014

Holger Merlitz said:
Omid,

I would agree with many others here on the forum that we have almost reached the top regarding some parameters, but not all of them. As mentioned above, there are quite significant improvements still possible (and I also count the angle of view among them, since I don't think that 65 degs. would be the largest reasonable value). Ed is absolutely right about the lack of understanding about visual perception: There is still much to be learned, and this research will have a future impact on the optimization of visual instruments. And Bill mentioned it: Mechanics is as important as optics, and along with the continuing efforts toward weight reduction and closer, faster focus mechanisms, the mechanical engineering is facing considerable challenges.

In any case, never forget: The dinner is far more important than the presentation, so you better keep it short and concise

Cheers,
Holger

succinctificatiousnessousicity. :eek!:

Some people think the PERFECT bino (which exists only in the dreams of the inexperienced) is all that is needed to enjoy the PERFECT image. One brilliant compilation of realities was proffered by Dick Suiter, PhD, in his “Star Testing Astronomical Instruments,” first edition, 1994, Willmann-Bell. In it, he introduced the “wobbly stack.” This image (attached) gives the untutored observer a taste of what really stands between him or her and the image sought. While geared to the astronomical audience, much of Dick’s lesson deals equally well with birding optics.

Over all, much better optics are known to be possible than the consumer has yet to see. AND, as long as we have newbies running around, bragging about the “GREAT” binocular they just bought for $39.95, it will remain that way. More CAN be done than we have heretofore seen. However, that performance costs money, and manufacturers can’t produce instruments (if they want to stay in business) that only a handful of people in the world can afford to buy.

And, what if they did? These threads would still be full of people demanding more, more, more, even though most wouldn’t know what that “more” might entail, or that the difference in performance would be below their threshold of recognition. "Better optics" constitutes a pretty tall order. I think people wanting better optics should specify WHAT particular aspect they're talking about. Better lateral color control, better edge sharpness, better grazing glare control, better out-of-the-box collimation, truer color rendition, better gas-tight integrity, and the like.

Bill

Holger Merlitz · Nov 10, 2014

A good find, Bill! In particular my "mental processing errors" are turning rampant at times

Cheers,
Holger

WJC · Nov 10, 2014

Holger Merlitz said:
A good find, Bill! In particular my "mental processing errors" are turning rampant at times

Cheers,
Holger

Thanks; I got junk all over the house I will never use again. As stated, I'm not growing old, gracefully! Even all my scopes are gone. I have a 4-inch Apo left, but have no time for that. I'm too busy trying to earn a dollar. Tell me . . . if the affordable care act makes insurance so "affordable," how come I have to be forced outta retirement just to eat? In the last few years, our health insurance has gone up $8,500!

Bill

PS Were the Xiamen from Marvel or DC? :-O

WJC · Nov 11, 2014

While culling through ~32,000 photos on my computer, I came across a couple that might show I’m not as hard as some think I am.

Several years ago, the window over my front door became the nesting area for a couple of swallows. Violet-Green? No. Purple Martins? Nope? I had to get . . . a couple of mud-loving BARN SWALLOWS. Of course, I know everyone would like barn swallows nesting over their front door. But, I guess we were just lucky. After all, when it’s time, it’s time.

That first year, we lost a child. It was a 10–foot drop to the concrete below. So, when they returned the following year, I wanted to do my part to help keep the family safe. Consequently, I built the platform in the photo below. I believe they returned 4 years in a row. But, no other lives were lost. There was just a lot of mud on our entry way.

Bill

perterra · Nov 11, 2014

WJC said:
While culling through ~32,000 photos on my computer, I came across a couple that might show I’m not as hard as some think I am.

Several years ago, the window over my front door became the nesting area for a couple of swallows. Violet-Green? No. Purple Martins? Nope? I had to get . . . a couple of mud-loving BARN SWALLOWS. Of course, I know everyone would like barn swallows nesting over their front door. But, I guess we were just lucky. After all, when it’s time, it’s time.

That first year, we lost a child. It was a 10–foot drop to the concrete below. So, when they returned the following year, I wanted to do my part to help keep the family safe. Consequently, I built the platform in the photo below. I believe they returned 4 years in a row. But, no other lives were lost. There was just a lot of mud on our entry way.

Bill

Advice should the chance ever arrive, never come home late at night all souped up from too many margaritas and see all the little bird butts hanging over the edge of the nest and wonder, gee what would happen if I goosed one? They will come out of the nest spraying crap like a fertilizer spreader.

WJC · Nov 11, 2014

perterra said:
Advice should the chance ever arrive, never come home late at night all souped up from too many margaritas and see all the little bird butts hanging over the edge of the nest and wonder, gee what would happen if I goosed one? They will come out of the nest spraying crap like a fertilizer spreader.

Should I ever take up drinking, I must remember that!

Bill

Omid · Nov 11, 2014

elkcub said:
[/b]
The performance indicators of binoculars and telescopes are ultimately based on the image quality produced on the observer's retinas. Conventional telescopes and binoculars are designed to be coherently coupled systems in which the total wavefront aberration arriving at the retina is the sum of the aberrations of the instrument and the eye over the common area of the XP and the eye's pupil.

Regards,
Ed

Holger Merlitz said:
Omid,

there are quite significant improvements still possible (and I also count the angle of view among them, since I don't think that 65 degs. would be the largest reasonable value). Ed is absolutely right about the lack of understanding about visual perception: There is still much to be learned, and this research will have a future impact on the optimization of visual instruments.
Cheers,
Holger

WJC said:
Omid:

There seems to be an endless stream of opinions and data concerning OPTICS relative to binoculars, but a dearth of info on mechanics. From the standpoint of a tech, this is a fatal flaw in thinking. Not only do mechanics affect the feel, comfort, rigidity, and mechanical performance of an instrument; they also affect the optical performance in certain ways.

Bill

Summarizing: Areas that binoculars might progress in the future include:

a- Mechanical improvements: focus mechanism, body shape, weight reduction, etc.
b- Holistic design: Considering both the human eye and the optical instrument as one system when optimizing for image quality
c -Wider field of view: 70 degrees or more AFOV
d- Image stabilization
e- Radically new ideas: Exit pupil expansion, etc.

Among the items mentioned above, I think the most promising are items (c) and (d).

Manufacturers could make binoculars with fast focus mechanisms 40 or 50 years ago too. I don't think any body cared for this feature then. Binoculars were used in military, marine and hunting fields. They were not being used much for watching butterflies in one's backyard. So, what some of us regard as "progress" are simply "changes". In any case, binoculars made of solid mechanical parts and good engineering are always welcome (and Swarovski should be punished for starting using plastic parts on its classical Habicht models

)

Regarding (b), I think we should think a little bit more before building up our expectations that a combined eye/instrument design can lead to a much better binoculars that we have now. In theory this sounds like a great idea but I think there are some logical errors in it. To understand why, consider the following simpler project:

Please describe an optical instrument with unit magnification (e.g. a 1X42 binoculars) that can improve the visual acuity of a human being with normal healthy eyesight during daylight.

If this theory were correct, all of us would be wearing some kind of glasses that by providing a better image on our retina would allow us see better!

Regarding field of view, I agree with Holger and others who like wide field. I love the view of my Nikon 8X32 HGs

elkcub · Nov 11, 2014

Omid said:
Summarizing: Areas that binoculars might progress in the future include:

a- Mechanical improvements: focus mechanism, body shape, weight reduction, etc.
b- Holistic design: Considering both the human eye and the optical instrument as one system when optimizing for image quality
c -Wider field of view: 70 degrees or more AFOV
d- Image stabilization
e- Radically new ideas: Exit pupil expansion, etc.

Among the items mentioned above, I think the most promising are items (c) and (d).

Manufacturers could make binoculars with fast focus mechanisms 40 or 50 years ago too. I don't think any body cared for this feature then. Binoculars were used in military, marine and hunting fields. They were not being used much for watching butterflies in one's backyard. So, what some of us regard as "progress" are simply "changes". In any case, binoculars made of solid mechanical parts and good engineering are always welcome (and Swarovski should be punished for starting using plastic parts on its classical Habicht models )

Regarding (b), I think we should think a little bit more before building up our expectations that a combined eye/instrument design can lead to a much better binoculars that we have now. In theory this sounds like a great idea but I think there are some logical errors in it. To understand why, consider the following simpler project:

Please describe an optical instrument with unit magnification (e.g. a 1X42 binoculars) that can improve the visual acuity of a human being with normal healthy eyesight during daylight.

If this theory were correct, all of us would be wearing some kind of glasses that by providing a better image on our retina would allow us see better!

Regarding field of view, I agree with Holger and others who like wide field. I love the view of my Nikon 8X32 HGs

Omid,

Nice summary of the comments. I was feeling somewhat guilty about coming on too strong, but your earlier statements were somewhat extreme.

Okay, you're pushing back against (b), with a challenge as well. Let me put it to you this way. Logically, how can binoculars, which are visual instruments, ever be "optimized" independent of the user's visual requirements? What criteria would you use?

As for the challenge question, a binocular/telescope ultimately has only one function: to enlarge the retinal image so as to bring the observer perceptually closer to a distant object. So, a 1x binocular, per se, serves no purpose. Sunglasses seem to be accepted, though, and under the right conditions they can be shown to improve acuity performance.

By the way, (b) is not a theory. Progress in telescope making has always been based on improving the observer's retinal image. Over time what has been learned from visual science (optically, biologically, psychologically, and behaviorally) eventually crosses over and serves to improve visual instruments.

An additional thought to consider for future progress might be to include some provision to incorporate personal lens corrections, so as to minimize dependence on eyeglasses. At least two of the four Alpha manufacturer's are world-class eyeglass manufacturers.

With regard to enlarging the field of view, I certainly agree with (c) that an apparent field of 65˚, or even 70˚, isn't necessarily the ideal design. Note, however, that the apparent field is a parameter of the retinal image. I'd also like to see controlled research done on the subject and visual performance criteria developed to guide future design.

Finally, image stabilization (d) is obviously another way to improve the retinal image. I don't know the particulars but I'm sure that improvements will involve tuning the mechanism to the dynamics of the eye.

Exit pupil expansion (e) would be a major change from conventional telescopes/binoculars, since it involves viewing a projected image that isn't coupled to the eye. Why not expand the notion into helmet mounted displays with data transmitted from drones, or telepresence in your living room viewing remote stations placed at birding locations around the globe?

Just kidding. Have a good time.

Ed

WJC · Nov 11, 2014

elkcub said:
Omid,

Nice summary of the comments. I was feeling somewhat guilty about coming on too strong, but your earlier statements were somewhat extreme.

Okay, you're pushing back against (b), with a challenge as well. Let me put it to you this way. Logically, how can binoculars, which are visual instruments, ever be "optimized" independent of the user's visual requirements? What criteria would you use?

As for the challenge question, a binocular/telescope ultimately has only one function: to enlarge the retinal image so as to bring the observer perceptually closer to a distant object. So, a 1x binocular, per se, serves no purpose. Sunglasses seem to be accepted, though, and under the right conditions they can be shown to improve acuity performance.

By the way, (b) is not a theory. Progress in telescope making has always been based on improving the observer's retinal image. Over time what has been learned from visual science (optically, biologically, psychologically, and behaviorally) eventually crosses over and serves to improve visual instruments.

An additional thought to consider for future progress might be to include some provision to incorporate personal lens corrections, so as to minimize dependence on eyeglasses. At least two of the four Alpha manufacturer's are world-class eyeglass manufacturers.

With regard to enlarging the field of view, I certainly agree with (c) that an apparent field of 65˚, or even 70˚, isn't necessarily the ideal design. Note, however, that the apparent field is a parameter of the retinal image. I'd also like to see controlled research done on the subject and visual performance criteria developed to guide future design.

Finally, image stabilization (d) is obviously another way to improve the retinal image. I don't know the particulars but I'm sure that improvements will involve tuning the mechanism to the dynamics of the eye.

Exit pupil expansion (d) would be a major change from conventional telescopes/binoculars, since it involves viewing a projected image that isn't coupled to the eye. Why not expand the notion into helmet mounted displays with data transmitted from drones, or telepresence in your living room viewing remote stations placed at birding locations around the globe?

Just kidding. Have a good time.

Ed

Photons that fall BETWEEN rods or cones are not going to be seen (i.e. registered / perceived). Considering what is ALREADY on the market, I feel the "A" type observers would be better out in nature observing and taking joy in what's all around them.

We could use better lateral color control, better off-axis performance, better baffling of stray light, and the like. But, the REAL beast to be killed is two fold. First, is the amount of time spent in these ludicrous conversations by those who refuse to spend time gaining the clinical knowledge that would make them really meaningful, and not just so much idle chatter. Sure it's fun, but so is watching the fish tank in your doctor's office--and equally productive, too.

Secondly, would be promoting ways to get the big 3 to lower their prices, substantially, without lowering quality. This could be superseded by understanding that, like it or not, many non-"alpha" companies are producing "alpha" quality instruments. I despise the idea of the big 3 being hurt. However, the financial outlay they have made scratching their way to the top is now killing them. But what do you think would happen if the power at Zeiss walked down to the production area and said, "Okay guys, you're going to have to take a 30% pay cut, or we're gonna hafta fold?

I remember an interview with the president of Smith-Corona. Paraphrasing, he said: "Let computers come. We make the best typewriters in the world and were going to continue to do so."

Six months later . . . they were gone! |

|

Bill

elkcub · Nov 12, 2014

WJC said:
Photons that fall BETWEEN rods or cones are not going to be seen (i.e. registered / perceived). Considering what is ALREADY on the market, I feel the "A" type observers would be better out in nature observing and taking joy in what's all around them.
...
Bill

I used to feel the same way until learning about photosensitive retinal ganglion cells, which apparently make use of some of those wasted photons that fall between rods and cones. Surely this pesky science stuff is gonna have to peak out one of these days, — or did I mean peek out? o

Ed

WJC · Nov 12, 2014

elkcub said:
I used to feel the same way until learning about photosensitive retinal ganglion cells, which apparently make use of some of those wasted photons that fall between rods and cones. Surely this pesky science stuff is gonna have to peak out one of these days, — or did I mean peek out? o

Ed

Now, there's some data I can use. Thank you, thank you, thank you! I will need to change my analogy. The concept, however, is still valid.

The amateur telescope maker can control virtually EVERYTHING about his telescope. The bino user can control . . . NOTHING! If they don't like the view, they need to buy another bino. Whining about it will not change things. In saying this, some people will undoubtedly think I'm showing off or being arrogant; I am not. I'm just pointing out realities that seem to be forever overlooked.

Bill

jan van daalen · Nov 12, 2014

Omid,

Concerning your post 152, regarding the fact that Swarovski, according to you, now puts plastic parts in their Habichts. Which parts are these/do you mean?

Jan

Omid · Nov 12, 2014

jan van daalen said:
Omid,

Concerning your post 152, regarding the fact that Swarovski, according to you, now puts plastic parts in their Habichts. Which parts are these/do you mean?

Jan

See here.

jan van daalen · Nov 12, 2014

Omid said:
See here.

Thanks for that interesting site!!
I have the latest models of all the Habichts and put a magnet on them.
The prism plates are made of alloy and are NOT made of plastic, since the magnet sticks on them.

Jan

elkcub · Nov 12, 2014

Omid said:
See here.

Nice reference site, Omid. :t:
Thanks,
Ed

Call for contributions: Collecting Evidence for Lack of Progress in Sporting Optics (2 Viewers)

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Silicon Valley, California

Well-known member

Well-known member

Attachments

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Attachments

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Silicon Valley, California

Well-known member

Silicon Valley, California

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Silicon Valley, California

Similar threads

Users who are viewing this thread