Join for FREE
It only takes a minute!
Zeiss - Always on the lookout for something special – Shop now

Welcome to BirdForum.
BirdForum is the net's largest birding community, dedicated to wild birds and birding, and is absolutely FREE! You are most welcome to register for an account, which allows you to take part in lively discussions in the forum, post your pictures in the gallery and more.

Canon 10x42 IS L cutaway view

Reply
 
Thread Tools Rating: Thread Rating: 3 votes, 5.00 average.
Old Monday 10th November 2014, 20:35   #1
kabsetz
Registered User

 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Finland
Posts: 1,480
Canon 10x42 IS L cutaway view

Here, so folks can compare the optical configuration with that of other alphas.

http://cweb.canon.jp/binoculars/10x4...s_n/index.html

This takes you to a "special site" for the binocular. To get the cutaway, 1) skip the annoying animation by clicking "skip," 2) click 3rd from top red rectangle, 3) click the bottom left red rectangle, 4) click the 3rd from top red rectangle.

Sorry that this is so involved. If someone finds a more direct way to get to it, please post the link.

Kimmo

Last edited by kabsetz : Monday 10th November 2014 at 20:41.
kabsetz is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Tuesday 11th November 2014, 02:07   #2
etudiant
Registered User
BF Supporter 2019

 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: New York
Posts: 4,136
Thank you for finding this.
The schematics are excellent and very informative. The structure of the glass seems surprisingly involved to my layman's eyes. Packaging the IS and the battery pack clearly took some serious effort.
etudiant is offline  
Reply With Quote

BF Supporter 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 Support BirdForum With A Donation

Old Tuesday 11th November 2014, 11:14   #3
kabsetz
Registered User

 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Finland
Posts: 1,480
Here's another rather impressive picture.

http://i.ytimg.com/vi/T9zNtA4j3Eo/maxresdefault.jpg

Not a simple instrument, this.

Kimmo
kabsetz is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Tuesday 11th November 2014, 13:45   #4
henry link
Registered User

 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: north carolina
Posts: 4,265
I've never been able to figure out a way to download these cutaways, so I made some screen grabs for protection against the day when the website disappears. It's certainly a very impressive looking optical design even without the IS.
Attached Thumbnails
Click image for larger version

Name:	DSC_0238.JPG
Views:	341
Size:	156.5 KB
ID:	521438  Click image for larger version

Name:	DSC_1027.JPG
Views:	385
Size:	238.8 KB
ID:	521439  Click image for larger version

Name:	DSC_1028.JPG
Views:	349
Size:	216.3 KB
ID:	521440  
henry link is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Tuesday 11th November 2014, 15:24   #5
Binastro
Registered User

 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: S.England
Posts: 4,059
I have used Canon image stabilised binoculars for about 15 years.

Does anybody know if the variable prism element loses transparency over the years?

The 1850 seems more or less the same after 10 years with Jupiter's moons, but I don't know if my eyes have lost a bit of transparency or the binocular or both or may be neither. It might just be the increase in light pollution.

An old Zeiss 1560 gives much brighter images but it might just be the larger exit pupil.

The Canon 1850 is about as good as you can get for finding moons very close to Jupiters limb. At least with a binocular not heavier or much more expensive than the Canon.
Binastro is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Thursday 13th November 2014, 17:26   #6
james holdsworth
Consulting Biologist
 
james holdsworth's Avatar

 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: ontario
Posts: 3,201
So, as the optics seem excellent, is there any reason why Canon has not just produced a purely mechanical binocular based on the L, without the complex stabilization?

This unit doesn't sell, for whatever reason, but why not just go mainstream and compete with the mid to upper tier binoculars? Without the stabilization, they should be smaller, lighter, cheaper and far less complex.
james holdsworth is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Thursday 13th November 2014, 19:46   #7
kabsetz
Registered User

 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Finland
Posts: 1,480
James,

This is a good question. I honestly have no idea what the folks at Canon are thinking when it comes to binoculars, but I can engage in some pointless, uninformed speculation.

Firstly, the stabilization is such an excellent improvement on binocular viewing that when you have the know-how to incorporate it into your binoculars, making a premium model without it may seem nonsensical to them. Kind of like offering a telescope without a tripod foot.

Secondly, these big Japanese companies seem to give very little weight to customer preferences in the west, and binoculars are a very marginal product line for Canon.

Thirdly, they may just have been thinking that in due course, the birders and other binocular users would start to see the benefits and gravitate towards their IS models. Obviously, this has not been happening very fast at all.

The funny thing is that if they would package these optics into a sleek more conventional-looking housing, they would have a binocular which would weigh about the same as the various SV's, HD's, SF's or Ultravids. Optically, it would be the equal of the very best, and ought to cost significantly less since the current IS model already costs less on most markets than the European "alphas" do.

My guess is that such a model would both take sales away from N+Z+L+S, and would also bring more customers to try the IS L.

Kimmo

Last edited by kabsetz : Thursday 13th November 2014 at 19:50.
kabsetz is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Friday 14th November 2014, 03:04   #8
etudiant
Registered User
BF Supporter 2019

 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: New York
Posts: 4,136
Quote:
Originally Posted by kabsetz View Post
The funny thing is that if they would package these optics into a sleek more conventional-looking housing, they would have a binocular which would weigh about the same as the various SV's, HD's, SF's or Ultravids. Optically, it would be the equal of the very best, and ought to cost significantly less since the current IS model already costs less on most markets than the European "alphas" do.

My guess is that such a model would both take sales away from N+Z+L+S, and would also bring more customers to try the IS L.

Kimmo
Would not such a glass be simply a modern porro?
As such, it should cost less because the prisms are easier to make, although the complex eye pieces offset some of those savings.
etudiant is offline  
Reply With Quote

BF Supporter 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 Support BirdForum With A Donation

Old Friday 14th November 2014, 03:39   #9
james holdsworth
Consulting Biologist
 
james holdsworth's Avatar

 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: ontario
Posts: 3,201
Why either or? Produce the IS and mechanical version - the best of both worlds......
james holdsworth is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Friday 14th November 2014, 10:39   #10
kabsetz
Registered User

 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Finland
Posts: 1,480
James,

"Both and" is what I was talking about. It would be a downgrade of all times if they would terminate the IS and only sell the binocular, as good as it would be.

Etudiant,

Taking the pointless speculation even further, there would be two main options. Change the prism assembly to a conventional Schmidt-Pechan, for which there would be space once the IS bellows were no longer hogging their share. Then they would need all the dielectric & phase coatings, and image quality might suffer ever so slightly.

Secondly, they could just keep the formula as it is, with compact and non-problematic Porro II prisms. This would result in a more unconventional form-factor, but one that may be better in use as long as customers were willing to accept it. With IP-distance being adjusted by twisting eyepiece assemblies and the optical axes of the objectives situated below those of the eyepieces, with my 65 mm inter pupillary distance the main body lies about an inch lower than it would if the axes were not offset. Small as this sounds, it makes a difference in viewing comfort when your arms don't have to be quite as high up. Another benefit would be the possibility to retain the excellent tripod adapter thread under the one-piece main body. Not needing an adaptor of any kind between the Finnstick and the binocular saves weight and expense. The Swarovski binocular tripod adapter weighs about 160 g (we weighed it yesterday), almost three quarters of the weight difference between the IS L and a 10x42 SV.

Kimmo
kabsetz is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Friday 14th November 2014, 16:03   #11
james holdsworth
Consulting Biologist
 
james holdsworth's Avatar

 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: ontario
Posts: 3,201
Well, Canon would be wise to at least address the ergonomic shortcomings of the L-IS. Besides the bulk, the eye cups are horrid, the focus tiny and hopeless with gloves on and the shape just doesn't fit my hands.

They might think about a better warranty too, as the current one seems to dissuade more potential buyers than anything else, as the short warranty and high cost of repair are really out of step with the rest of the bino. world.
james holdsworth is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Saturday 15th November 2014, 00:58   #12
etudiant
Registered User
BF Supporter 2019

 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: New York
Posts: 4,136
Quote:
Originally Posted by james holdsworth View Post
Well, Canon would be wise to at least address the ergonomic shortcomings of the L-IS. Besides the bulk, the eye cups are horrid, the focus tiny and hopeless with gloves on and the shape just doesn't fit my hands.

They might think about a better warranty too, as the current one seems to dissuade more potential buyers than anything else, as the short warranty and high cost of repair are really out of step with the rest of the bino. world.
The Canon 10x42ISL is a superior product with lots of flaws that could be easily addressed in a Mark 2 version. James Holdsworth highlights some of the more pressing, although the shape is probably fundamental and hard to change.
The warranty issue is a non starter imho for an electronics producer such as Canon. Their consumer optics, mostly cameras, usually have only 2-3 years of production life, so long warranties make no sense. In fact, just finding spare parts becomes problematic in a hurry. Binoculars are too small a business to justify changing the corporate warranty policy. To compensate, Canon does offer the consumer a superior product in this space at a 50% discount from the other alphas.
Kimmo is entirely right that removing the IS from their glass would be self defeating. Canon is not attuned to fighting on the same terrain as the other alphas, offering 'peace of mind' and 'lifetime warranties'. Rather they will succeed or fail on the strength of their innovations. My only concern here is that although Canon has greatly expanded their IS binocular product line, they have been slow to add improvements or new models at the leading edge. There is no 12x50ISL or even a 10x30ISL to complement the increasingly venerable 10x42ISL.
etudiant is offline  
Reply With Quote

BF Supporter 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 Support BirdForum With A Donation

Old Monday 17th November 2014, 01:43   #13
elkcub
Registered User
 
elkcub's Avatar

 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Northern California
Posts: 4,362
Quote:
Originally Posted by kabsetz View Post
James,

This is a good question. I honestly have no idea what the folks at Canon are thinking when it comes to binoculars, but I can engage in some pointless, uninformed speculation.

Firstly, the stabilization is such an excellent improvement on binocular viewing that when you have the know-how to incorporate it into your binoculars, making a premium model without it may seem nonsensical to them. Kind of like offering a telescope without a tripod foot.

Secondly, these big Japanese companies seem to give very little weight to customer preferences in the west, and binoculars are a very marginal product line for Canon.

Thirdly, they may just have been thinking that in due course, the birders and other binocular users would start to see the benefits and gravitate towards their IS models. Obviously, this has not been happening very fast at all.

The funny thing is that if they would package these optics into a sleek more conventional-looking housing, they would have a binocular which would weigh about the same as the various SV's, HD's, SF's or Ultravids. Optically, it would be the equal of the very best, and ought to cost significantly less since the current IS model already costs less on most markets than the European "alphas" do.

My guess is that such a model would both take sales away from N+Z+L+S, and would also bring more customers to try the IS L.

Kimmo
But, before going much further they'd be wise to acknowledge the population's eye relief needs.

Ed
__________________
Understanding optics is child's play compared to understanding child's play.
"Science is the belief in the ignorance of the experts." Richard Feynman
elkcub is offline  
Reply With Quote

BF Supporter 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 Support BirdForum With A Donation

Old Tuesday 18th November 2014, 03:36   #14
etudiant
Registered User
BF Supporter 2019

 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: New York
Posts: 4,136
Quote:
Originally Posted by elkcub View Post
But, before going much further they'd be wise to acknowledge the population's eye relief needs.

Ed
A modest redesign of the oculars to slim them down half a centimeter would be helpful, as it would allow the glass to be placed closer to the eye than the present design permits.
In fairness though, the current glass has enough eye relief for me even though my glasses correct 300/400 vision.
etudiant is offline  
Reply With Quote

BF Supporter 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 Support BirdForum With A Donation

Old Tuesday 18th November 2014, 05:44   #15
elkcub
Registered User
 
elkcub's Avatar

 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Northern California
Posts: 4,362
Quote:
Originally Posted by etudiant View Post
A modest redesign of the oculars to slim them down half a centimeter would be helpful, as it would allow the glass to be placed closer to the eye than the present design permits.
In fairness though, the current glass has enough eye relief for me even though my glasses correct 300/400 vision.
Hi etudiant,

As I mentioned on another post today:

"For whatever reason, the idea hasn't caught on that your eyeglass prescription plays a major role in determining your eye relief needs. In general, near sighted folks can get away with shorter eye relief than far sighted people. The optical explanation has to do with how the prescription lenses move the effective location and size of your eyes' entry pupils."

Depending on the prescription involved, we're talking about 3-5mm.

Being 3.5D far-sighted, usability for me begins with ER ≥ 18mm.

They are in the optics business and peddle expensive products. It's only fair that they provide what the population needs.

Ed
__________________
Understanding optics is child's play compared to understanding child's play.
"Science is the belief in the ignorance of the experts." Richard Feynman
elkcub is offline  
Reply With Quote

BF Supporter 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 Support BirdForum With A Donation

Old Tuesday 18th November 2014, 13:38   #16
etudiant
Registered User
BF Supporter 2019

 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: New York
Posts: 4,136
Quote:
Originally Posted by elkcub View Post
Hi etudiant,

As I mentioned on another post today:

"For whatever reason, the idea hasn't caught on that your eyeglass prescription plays a major role in determining your eye relief needs. In general, near sighted folks can get away with shorter eye relief than far sighted people. The optical explanation has to do with how the prescription lenses move the effective location and size of your eyes' entry pupils."

Depending on the prescription involved, we're talking about 3-5mm.

Being 3.5D far-sighted, usability for me begins with ER ≥ 18mm.

They are in the optics business and peddle expensive products. It's only fair that they provide what the population needs.

Ed
Thank you very much 'elkcub' for that extra detail, very informative.
So being very near sighted works to my advantage here. The Canon's 16mm eye relief is quite adequate, something I did not really understand until you provided the answer.
etudiant is offline  
Reply With Quote

BF Supporter 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 Support BirdForum With A Donation

Old Tuesday 18th November 2014, 19:10   #17
elkcub
Registered User
 
elkcub's Avatar

 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Northern California
Posts: 4,362
Quote:
Originally Posted by etudiant View Post
Thank you very much 'elkcub' for that extra detail, very informative.
So being very near sighted works to my advantage here. The Canon's 16mm eye relief is quite adequate, something I did not really understand until you provided the answer.
Yes, and for what it's worth you also have slightly larger "effective" entrance pupils, experience somewhat smaller retinal images, and have a larger apparent field than your far-sighted counterparts. Light per unit area on the retina (i.e., brightness) remains constant, however, because the larger pupil size is balanced by the larger retinal field.

This may be the most well kept secret in all of Binoculardom.

Ed
__________________
Understanding optics is child's play compared to understanding child's play.
"Science is the belief in the ignorance of the experts." Richard Feynman

Last edited by elkcub : Tuesday 18th November 2014 at 19:28.
elkcub is offline  
Reply With Quote

BF Supporter 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 Support BirdForum With A Donation

Old Tuesday 18th November 2014, 20:15   #18
kabsetz
Registered User

 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Finland
Posts: 1,480
Ed,

Some measurements that pertain to the eyepieces and eyeglass (un)friendliness of the Canon 10x42. My eye-relief measurements come from the eyecup rim, not the lens surface, since you cannot push your glasses beyond the rim anyway.

ER Canon = 13 mm, ER Swaro 8x42 SLC HD = 16 mm, ER Swaro 10x50 SV = 16 mm.
ER Canon with eyecup rubber removed = 15 mm. You can achieve this if you remove the rubbers and put rings of thin adhesive felt around the eye lens.

Diameter of eye lens (gives an idea of subjective FOV/ER): Canon = 23 mm, SLC HD 8x42 = 23 mm, ELSV 10x50 = 24 mm.

Diameter of eyecup: Canon 44 mm, SLC HD 8x42 38 mm, ELSV 10x50 40 mm. The diameter of the Canon cup is truly huge, and since the very edge of the rim is the most elevated, some curved eyeglass lenses will sink in them a bit.

Eyecup extension/ click stops: Canon 6, 9, 11 mm out from fully in, SLC HD 8x42 = 8, 12 mm, ELSV 10x50 = 3, 9, 13 mm.

Closest focusing distance, with my far-sighted eyes: Canon 2.6 m, SLC HD 8x42 1,9 m, ELSV 10x50 2,8 m.

I'm thinking of doing a thorough test of the 10x42 IS L that I just bought, since the original test I've written was on one from the first year of production. Thus far, resolution measurements show the new one to essentially equal the 10x50 ELSV both in centerfield sharpness, sweet spot size and off axis resolution all the way to the edge.

Kimmo

Last edited by kabsetz : Tuesday 18th November 2014 at 20:18.
kabsetz is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Wednesday 19th November 2014, 20:07   #19
elkcub
Registered User
 
elkcub's Avatar

 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Northern California
Posts: 4,362
Quote:
Originally Posted by kabsetz View Post
Ed,

Some measurements that pertain to the eyepieces and eyeglass (un)friendliness of the Canon 10x42. My eye-relief measurements come from the eyecup rim, not the lens surface, since you cannot push your glasses beyond the rim anyway.

ER Canon = 13 mm, ER Swaro 8x42 SLC HD = 16 mm, ER Swaro 10x50 SV = 16 mm.
ER Canon with eyecup rubber removed = 15 mm. You can achieve this if you remove the rubbers and put rings of thin adhesive felt around the eye lens.

Diameter of eye lens (gives an idea of subjective FOV/ER): Canon = 23 mm, SLC HD 8x42 = 23 mm, ELSV 10x50 = 24 mm.

Diameter of eyecup: Canon 44 mm, SLC HD 8x42 38 mm, ELSV 10x50 40 mm. The diameter of the Canon cup is truly huge, and since the very edge of the rim is the most elevated, some curved eyeglass lenses will sink in them a bit.

Eyecup extension/ click stops: Canon 6, 9, 11 mm out from fully in, SLC HD 8x42 = 8, 12 mm, ELSV 10x50 = 3, 9, 13 mm.

Closest focusing distance, with my far-sighted eyes: Canon 2.6 m, SLC HD 8x42 1,9 m, ELSV 10x50 2,8 m.

I'm thinking of doing a thorough test of the 10x42 IS L that I just bought, since the original test I've written was on one from the first year of production. Thus far, resolution measurements show the new one to essentially equal the 10x50 ELSV both in centerfield sharpness, sweet spot size and off axis resolution all the way to the edge.

Kimmo
Hi Kimmo,

Actually, the 10x42 IS L is the first Canon that's even approachable to me. Every time I picked one up in the past the 14.5mm eye relief made me put it down. Your measurements of the 8x42 SLC-HD are spot on, although my preference would be to measure the inside of the eyecup to get an idea of how much spectacle lens sag fits it. For the SLC-HD the inner diameter is 30mm, and my guesstimate is that sag accounts for about 1.5mm of the 2.5mm drop from the inner edge to the eye lens. Since the Canon's eye lens is also 23mm, the situation might be very similar. The outside measurement of the eyecup is very important relative to the person's anatomy, as shown in the last attachment. This is a problem I had with the Nikon 8x E2, although, of course, it might not be true for everyone.

I'll try to evaluate the Canon 10x42 IS when I'm in Palo Alto next time.

PS. The effect of one's eyeglass prescription is still very significant and largely not understood. But then, what can we expect if an operation like Allbinos doesn't even include ER in their rating formula? It boggles the mind.

Ed
Attached Thumbnails
Click image for larger version

Name:	Eyeglass-Eyecup.jpg
Views:	91
Size:	18.9 KB
ID:	522588  Click image for larger version

Name:	Eyecup:Glasses Interface-2.jpg
Views:	149
Size:	221.7 KB
ID:	522591  Click image for larger version

Name:	Eye Anthropometry .jpg
Views:	139
Size:	132.2 KB
ID:	522592  
__________________
Understanding optics is child's play compared to understanding child's play.
"Science is the belief in the ignorance of the experts." Richard Feynman
elkcub is offline  
Reply With Quote

BF Supporter 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 Support BirdForum With A Donation

Old Wednesday 19th November 2014, 23:24   #20
etudiant
Registered User
BF Supporter 2019

 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: New York
Posts: 4,136
Quote:
Originally Posted by elkcub View Post

PS. The effect of one's eyeglass prescription is still very significant and largely not understood. But then, what can we expect if an operation like Allbinos doesn't even include ER in their rating formula? It boggles the mind.

Ed
Thank you again, 'elkcub', for highlighting a really substantial ergonomic/optical issue.
Most birders wear glasses, at least based on my limited sample, yet the practical consequences are almost always ignored by the evaluators.
I do know that the oversized oculars fitted to the Canon 10x42ISL would be too big for my face, but my wearing glasses allows the Canon to fit, while my myopia prescription helps make the Canon eye relief adequate. These are tangible changes which transform the usability of the product much more than would an extra 2 percent transmission, yet that is the focus of reviewers.
Steve Ingraham used to appraise binoculars in a column entitled 'Better View Desired', maybe we need a 'Better Reviews Desired' supplement.
etudiant is offline  
Reply With Quote

BF Supporter 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 Support BirdForum With A Donation

Old Thursday 20th November 2014, 15:16   #21
OPTIC_NUT
Registered User

 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Location: Wilmington Mass
Posts: 1,898
Quote:
Originally Posted by elkcub View Post
Hi etudiant,

As I mentioned on another post today:

"For whatever reason, the idea hasn't caught on that your eyeglass prescription plays a major role in determining your eye relief needs. In general, near sighted folks can get away with shorter eye relief than far sighted people. The optical explanation has to do with how the prescription lenses move the effective location and size of your eyes' entry pupils."

Depending on the prescription involved, we're talking about 3-5mm.

Being 3.5D far-sighted, usability for me begins with ER ≥ 18mm.

They are in the optics business and peddle expensive products. It's only fair that they provide what the population needs.

Ed

Thanks for that insight.
Explains why 13-15mm is fine for me at -4D but no good for some others.
Seems obvious now that you point out why, the image of the eye,
but I blamed it on glasses frame size only before.

Last edited by OPTIC_NUT : Thursday 20th November 2014 at 15:18.
OPTIC_NUT is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Thursday 20th November 2014, 22:03   #22
elkcub
Registered User
 
elkcub's Avatar

 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Northern California
Posts: 4,362
Thank you guys for providing anecdotal support for what book research alone can't verify.

Ed
__________________
Understanding optics is child's play compared to understanding child's play.
"Science is the belief in the ignorance of the experts." Richard Feynman
elkcub is offline  
Reply With Quote

BF Supporter 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 Support BirdForum With A Donation

Advertisement
Reply


Thread Tools
Rate This Thread
Rate This Thread:

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Canon Live view remote Eos9 Canon 2 Tuesday 9th October 2012 10:11
Canon IS 10x30 v. Canon IS 10x42 L Sancho Canon 44 Wednesday 19th January 2011 04:17
Binoculars Habicht 10x40 and Zeiss Fl 10x42 vs. Nikon SE 10x42 and HGL 10x42 PHA Binoculars 8 Thursday 9th September 2010 23:00

{googleads}

Fatbirder's Top 1000 Birding Websites

Help support BirdForum

Page generated in 0.25454712 seconds with 32 queries
All times are GMT. The time now is 10:29.