Jump to content

Sony A7S specs announced - S for sensitivity. 4K via HDMI to "third party recorder"


Andrew Reid

Recommended Posts

regarding the size of the A7S, once the battery grip is fitted the system is the perfect size - even for my meat pie hands.

 

>

 

 

remember you have the option of small Leica mount lenses like the voigtlanders, and the sony native lenses if you need compact lenses.  as well as decent vintage slr lenses - my 50mm f1.4 zeiss is half the size of the canon alternative and outperforms it in every aspect.

 

 Lenses only become large when they need to include af motors and image stabilisation.  Both of which are things no one should be using within a cinematic/large sensor type setting - if they are, their priorities are confused.

 

 

overheating is not an issue for the A7 series. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 111
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

I can guarantee that the internal XAVC-S 1080p from the A7S will not look as good as getting 1080p from the 4K output and doing your scaling in post with all that processing power available on your de

Many in same boat as you, simply edit in 4K and deliver as 2K. Many benefits to it.   Difference is a click of a button and that is it.

Crossing my fingers someone announces a cheaper 4k recorder for the a7s.   $2k for the Shogun is too rich for my blood. I'd rather put that kind of money to the gh4 is this is the only alternative.

In a way... price is actually decided by the consumer (how much you are willing too pay). ...

 

No, its a strategic decision, which is done by marketing. 

 

Essentially, there are two ways to market: a differentiated strategy, typically with higher unit profit margins; a low cost basis, with more sales and lower profit margins. 

 

The issue with a camera, is that much profit can come from its lenses. In the old days, Kodak sold its cameras in order to sell paper. Kodak was a paper manufacturing company. Its camera sales were likely low cost, high volume. With digital, there's no film profits; but lenses do make lots of money. Which is why Canikon are afraid to be serious about mirrorless. 

 

You can also add the 5 "P"s of marketing (some use 7): Product, Price. Promotion, Place (Distribution) and People. 

 

There are also lots of reasons why Sony might want to get volume out of the A7 range. A few years ago, I thought Sony had stopped developing cameras. But over the last few years, they've tried lots of different concepts. Notably, mirrorless cameras that are space efficient.

 

But while Asia has adapted mirrorless, North America hasn't. And Nikon have only used a small sensor for their mirrorless line of cameras, which currently appear to be doing poorly.

 

If one looks at the components of a 5DMkIII, there's a lot of cost in its manufacture. Notably, the expensive prism stands out as something costly, as does the shutter and its reflex design. Over time the mechanical side of the camera is being challenged. If one looks at the A7 range, perhaps the sensor is the most expensive part of the camera's components, rather than the shutter or the prism. One of Sony's key camera missions must be to popularise mirrorless in North America. With mirrorless, the sensor becomes a larger part of the camera's value. Which suits Sony perfectly.

 

Perhaps the A7 is the most important mirror less camera so far - because North American like big things, and while the A7 is small, its sensor(s)  are large. If Sony market the A7 so that it is not bought by consumers, then Sony have blown their opportunity top popularise mirror less in North America. What better reason to sell the A7 at a lower price. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hopefully that price is wrong. same price as gh4 and you appeal to much more people. If i could i'll buy both, a7s and gh4, with lens adaptability being the greatest thing these 2 have in common, just think all you can do with a 35mm lens and fullframe, apsc, m43 2x and 2.3x crop factor: In ff 35 is slightly wide and very usable for steadycam shots, in apsc it becomes "normal" angle view and great for many compositions, then you go 2x and you have good close ups (not in 4k and talent will like you for less face detail) and then 2.3 4k macro in an hypothetical 35mm lens that can focus up to 1 feet. Then you are mostly set with one good lens, for argument lets say a zeiss 35mm f1.4 ze, zf or cy and two cameras for an easy camera department day :)

Link to post
Share on other sites

In a way... price is actually decided by the consumer (how much you are willing too pay). The marketing department's task is actually trying to find out how much is that, how much an average potential target buyer would consider reasonable or appealing. .... Consumer feedback is a must...

 

 


Sony have lots of experience at pricing technology. They'd have asked Pros how much they'd pay ... but outside of such issues, things become strategic.

 

I'll give you an example: if Sony sell this A7"S" camera at $3,500, that action would cause less sales, bad PR, and much worse, it would invite Nikon to use the very same sensor in a Full Frame Nikon "2". Keep the Nikon "1" the same. And Nikon might sell it for $1,899. And make money. Meanwhile, Olympus would be even more tempted: bring out a larger camera, call it their E-7, with IBIS FF, clever cooling, phase focus, full video capabilities,  and the same mFT bayonet, and sell it for $1,999. Worse still, it would invite Canon to innovate (at last) and bring in a video stills hybrid for $2k, that would make Canon the reference point for quality FF mirrorless. Does Sony want Canon to capture this market?

 

 

The sensor division will want high prices for the A7S. Because the sensor division will want Nikon and Olympus to place orders for their new sensor. But Sony's sensor division should not want Canon to become serious about mirrorless. 

 

The strategic marketing question is: does Sony want to own this market? If they do, the best way to own it, is to discourage the competition, by having a great price, and simply by taking over from DSLRs with better, more affordable, more clever products. That actually cost less to manufacture.

 

 

The question from a cost of manufacturing point of view is: how expensive was the new sensor to develop, secondly how expensive is it to manufacture, and thirdly, how expensive are the differences from the A7? The differences from the A7 not that many. For instance, the camera could have had much faster shutter actuations - but its still 5 fps maximum. The differences are the sensor, the bayonet (its stainless), the software and perhaps the CPU (although since the camera doesn't do 4K internally, perhaps the CPU is a lot cheaper than the 4 thread CPU that the GH-4 uses.

 

When Mazda introduced the Miata MX-5, it was sold at a good price (if you were prepared to wait). Honda congratulated Mazda, and they then put their open sports car they were developing on the back burner. It was game over for Honda, because Mazda priced an excellent product at a good value price. Mazda owned that market, and the Mazda Miata MX-5 still rules.

 

So high prices would be a huge mistake. 

 

I could quote the 5 "P"s of marketing (some use 7): Product, Price. Promotion, Place (Distribution) and People. 

 

One of those "P" issues must be what surely would be a Sony key camera mission: to popularise mirrorless in North America. Mirrorless has failed in North America. North Americans like big things. They have shown that they do not value smaller size, when there are other downsides. Plus perhaps, they think if its small, its a toy. Its not serious.

 

The A7S doesn't need to be expensive. Because its mostly electronic. Its not like a 5D MIV ... with an expensive prism, and complicated mirror mechanisms. Its only moving parts are the buttons and dials, the shutter (which is pretty lethargic) and the screen and doors. Its much much cheaper to make than a 5D. Its cheaper to manufacture than a 5300 or an Evolt DSLR, except for the weather sealing, and the sensor, although how much extra the sensor really costs to manufacture, is an interesting question. But I include the sensor there in same cost to make as a 5300  - but not its R&D costs. With computers, the old rules for valuing them - was to weigh them. The same applies for cameras, as far as the manufuctering goes, and excluding R&D costs. The fact that the A7S weighs under 500 grams, tells me a lot. Its not costly to manufacture. And the way to get back R&D, is by owning this whole FF mirrorless market. 

 

There's nothing small though about the A7 sensor, and the "S" also provides low light capabities for the average photographer. If Sony sells the camera for close to A7 prices, they keep out the competition, they'll popularise North American thoughts about mirror less, they'll make Sony the reference point for light weight powerful cameras, they'll pay for the R&D for the sensor in a brief time, they'll make more money, they'll not only own the market, they may win North Americans away from their love of bulky heavy DSLRs that typically use only half size sensors.  Sir: if you raise the bonnet, just have a look now at that sensor. Its not hidden away either - we're proud of it! Just like Nikon and Canon own the DSLR market, Sony has an opportunity here, and the key reason, is that they have a big sensor. Won't North Amercans love that.

 

I don't expect a high price for the A7S. Sony won't be that dumb.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The Sony A7s is definitely an impressive camera, but to actually record 4K is going to cost you plenty, considering, if the rumors are close, the Atomos Shogun @$2000, the CFast card it takes @$650 for 64GB, of course you'll need two of those. You're right at five grand for all that, and we haven't got a lens on this baby yet. EXPENSIVE.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I intended to let it go but since you decided to answer to my post twice in two different days, and given that show little knowledege about economy, I'll let you know a few things

 

No, its a strategic decision, which is done by marketing. 

 

Marketing does not set the price nor the strategy. Strategy starts long before, with product development. Strategy decides which cameras you are going to develop (F55 or A6000) and therefore the crowd they are aimed at and the mandatory price bracket (set by the consumer). Marketing analyses market behavior, trends and notions to make the most educated guess at what such crowd would be pleased by and how much they are willing to pay for it, not the other way around. Trying to decide the price on your own based on "strategy" to force feed it to consumers, completely unaware of their reaction, is a recipe for disaster.

 

"I'll give you an example: if Sony sell this A7"S" camera at $3,500, that action would cause less sales, bad PR, and much worse, it would invite Nikon to use the very same sensor in a Full Frame Nikon "2". Keep the Nikon "1" the same. And Nikon might sell it for $1,899. "

Bad PR?? Let me remind you that it was the price point of the 5D MKIII, which sold a gazillion units. Some people complained that it was merely an incremental upgrade to the MKII and that it was overpriced, but seeing how succesful it's been, maybe they were not so wrong after all. A good product won't produce bad PR, even if priced incorrectly. And who's to say every Sony sensor will be sold to competitors? They may decide to use this one exclusively...

 

"The question from a cost of manufacturing point of view is: how expensive was the new sensor to develop, secondly how expensive is it to manufacture, and thirdly, how expensive are the differences from the A7? The differences from the A7 not that many."

Cost of manufacture has NOTHING to do with price. It simply determines if a product is viable or not. Price is based on consumer notions -right and wrong- of how much I should pay. One of those "wrong" notions is that production expenses condition the final price. Levi's jeans cost +100 € in Europe and 30$ in the US, and in both cases manufacture price is below 5$. Now you pay 12$ for a 12 track album on iTunes, pretty much what you paid for a CD, or even a cassette or a vinyl 15 years before. The "acceptable" selling price simply puts a cap on how much you can spend in manufacture, not the other way around. If Sony managed to produce the A7s for 100$, they wouldn't sell it for 500$. They would keep the selling price in tune with what their studies show the target audience believes is the "right" price.

 

"So high prices would be a huge mistake. "

And low prices even more... That's why they look for a "right" price. Following your logic, if ARRI priced the Amira below 5.000$ they would take over the ENG market and drive many competitors out of the business -you don't think the Amira's or F55's production costs are 10 times higher than the A7's, right?-. Kodak started a silly price war in the 80's regarding Kodak Color film that ended with them selling the same 24 photo roll for 1.99 instead of 6.99, changing people's notion of the standard price for the product and hurting the whole industry's business for good. The GH4 is aimed at the GH3 crowd, hence the similar price point and the separate sale of the interface unit. A 3.700$ tag for their target audience would have been considered excessive -meaning they would not buy it-. Assuming the A7S is aimed at the same crowd, the GH4 reference has changed our notion of how much is fair to pay for a hybrid mirrorless 4K camera, and Sony would have to take this into account, regardless of production costs. 

 

"The fact that the A7S weighs under 500 grams, tells me a lot. Its not costly to manufacture."

Give me a break. Low weight means its cheaper to make? Like fruit? I guess that is your "notion". Others believe miniaturization makes technology more expensive since it requires R&D and precision machinery... Still won't matter since production costs (probably below 1.000$, since the Axiom guys without resources put together a 4K global shutter camera for 2.000$) will not decide the selling price. Nor weight...

 

"I don't expect a high price for the A7S. Sony won't be that dumb." 

I will not pretend to know what the final price will be. I'm pretty sure they have plenty of information and studies. If you think the final price is way too high, either you are not the target audience or Sony made a mistake. Whatever the price tag, it won't be dumb and it will be based on lots of information and analysis. Canon was widely criticised for the C300 and its price vs. features, but the truth is many of those critical voices were not the target crowd and wouldn't have bought it for half the price. In the end, despite its shortcomings and criticism the camera has been a huge success, meaning that in that particular moment and market when it was released, the price was right -even though everyone would have obviously loved a lower price!!-.

 

Allow me to apologise in advance if anything I said sounded offensive or condescendent. It was never my intention, just to have an adult argument.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I intended to let it go but since you decided to answer to my post twice in two different days, and given that show little knowledege about economy, I'll let you know a few things

...

 

Allow me to apologise in advance if anything I said sounded offensive or condescendent. It was never my intention, just to have an adult argument.

 

Not at all. I enjoyed your post. 

 

I'll reply when I have more time.

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Firstly, I am unsure about answering because I think there was some emotion going on in your reply. So I'll just answer back directly. The problem is that this is barely on topic. 

 

Let me say I am not a Pro photographer, and that my interest is in buying one of two products: the A7S, or the GH-4. Hence I am reading these threads. 

 

 

 

Marketing does not set the price nor the strategy. Strategy starts long before, with product development. ly unaware of their reaction, is a recipe for disaster.

 

No: in companies I've worked and consulted for, price is a marketing decision. Strategy depends on whether its corporate, or tactical. Tactical will change a strategic plan, but marketing will be fully involved. However - I was a corporate strategist for a multi-billion profit per year company. But not a Japanese one. The Japanese operate differently. While we can put typical structure arguments forward, I do not factually know ... a good friend is the Australian distributor for what was Pentax ... most world wide are not privately owned - he knows more about Japanese camera company practices. They are different to western businesses though

 

 

Let me remind you that it was the price point of the 5D MKIII, which sold a gazillion units. ... And who's to say every Sony sensor will be sold to competitors? They may decide to use this one exclusively...

 

Its complex isn't it? Experts have predicted that only three companies will survive in the camera business: Canon, Nikon and Sony. Sony make Nikon's sensors. If Sony restrict supply, then Nikon will go elsewhere. Do you really think that Sony can afford to loose Nikon? Because that is what you are suggesting. 

 

 

Cost of manufacture has NOTHING to do with price. It simply determines if a product is viable or not. Price is based on consumer notions -right and wrong- of how much I should pay.

 

 

I’ll stop you right there. Have you heard of the Learning Curve? Here are popular Canon cameras:

 

 

2003 - 300D 6MP - $1,000

2005 - 400D 8MP - $900

2006 - 450D 10MP - $800 (by now, bigger LCDs, better viewfinders etc etc)

2009 - 550D 15MP -$800

2011 - 600D 18 MP - $800

2013 - 700D 18 MP - $600

 

Notice the trend? These changes are not driven by Consumer notions. 

 

 

Also Cross Selling means even your viability notion is meaningless. Strategic tactical decisions also mean companies will sell at losses, in order to drive out competition (quite possibly the tactic which Canikon are currently using against mirror less). And that is what the paper manufacturer Kodak tried. They did not dominate the market as they'd wished too, probably because they did not anticipate or comprehend  the Tiger economies they were competing with.

 

But Consumer Notion IS the very point I am making about Sony. Because consumer notions are greatly effected by marketing. Business strategy 101 says though that if the price of the A7S is a high one – then Sony will be inviting in the competition. Get it? 

 

 

 

And low prices even more... That's why they look for a "right" price. ... The GH4 is aimed at the GH3 crowd, hence the similar price point and the separate sale of the interface unit. A 3.700$ tag for their target audience would have been considered excessive -meaning they would not buy it-. Assuming the A7S is aimed at the same crowd, the GH4 reference has changed our notion of how much is fair to pay for a hybrid mirrorless 4K camera, and Sony would have to take this into account, regardless of production costs. 

 

I don't know what you are saying there. For most of us here though, it seems to me not you, the A7S and the GH-4 are in the same market place. And I am considering both, and I have not owned any GH camera. I guess I must be unique? IMO, Panasonic want more than GH users. 

 

 

 

Give me a break. Low weight means its cheaper to make? Like fruit? I guess that is your "notion".

Not my notion - comes from McKinsey. I would remind you, that manufacturing is a different sector to agriculture. I have extensive manufacturing experience, and this hypothesis came from the computer industry. Back in 1993. Then, a Digital brand notebook cost $14k. Notebooks used to cost 10 times as much as desktop PCs. Now they are cheaper, and sell twice as many units. Guess why?? And if you put a premium on light weight then you're a victim of marketing. They've managed to convince you that light weight costs more!! Just consider the manufacturing costs of extra weight – power, materials, unit production speed, logistics – all are less and faster with light weight, outside of exotic materials, of which the only exotic in cameras are IMO the carbon fibre shutters in a few top DSLRs.  Such shutters are getting pretty old tech these days. 

 

 

I will not pretend to know what the final price will be. I'm pretty sure they have plenty of information and studies. ... Whatever the price tag, it won't be dumb and it will be based on lots of information and analysis. 

 

 

You seem to think Sony marketing are very smart. Then please explain the marketing strategy behind this brand name:

“NEXâ€.

 

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Let me say I am not a Pro photographer, and that my interest is in buying one of two products: the A7S, or the GH-4. Hence I am reading these threads. 

 

You are COMPLETELY missing the cost of making a sensor. An m4/3 sensor will always be considerably, considerably cheaper than a fullframe one because you can get a magnitude more of them out of one wafer.

 

The cost of making sensors has also come down quite a lot during the years but one thing that won't change is the price difference between bigger sensors and smaller ones. So an m4/3 WILL ALWAYS cost less than a fullframe sensor. Or a 1/3" sensor WILL ALWAYS cost less than an m4/3.

 

And I thought the NEX-name was great. The new alpha branding is worse and diluted.

Link to post
Share on other sites

You are COMPLETELY missing the cost of making a sensor. An m4/3 sensor will always be considerably, considerably cheaper than a fullframe one because you can get a magnitude more of them out of one wafer.

 

The cost of making sensors has also come down quite a lot during the years but one thing that won't change is the price difference between bigger sensors and smaller ones. So an m4/3 WILL ALWAYS cost less than a fullframe sensor. Or a 1/3" sensor WILL ALWAYS cost less than an m4/3.

 

And I thought the NEX-name was great. The new alpha branding is worse and diluted.

 

About the Nex branding - I thought that Samsung hurt the name - their mirrorless being called NX. I was surprised that was legal actually. Who knows - but Sony have certainly wasted many many millions on their branding the Nex line. Which surely points to Sony making mistakes - which was my point to pablogrollan.

 

As far as the sensor cost issue goes - I agree that smaller sensor would cost less to produce. I suspect though that R&D costs dominate sensor costing. I note too that the bottom of the micro four thirds cameras, sell for quite low prices. My presumption with such price divergency using similar sized sensors, is that the R&D has been paid for with cheap cameras that use sensors that are not the very latest. Also, Learning Curve issues do lower production costs. Lets not forget though that the A7 sells for $1,700. 

 

Certainly, I think that a mFT sensor might cost one quarter of the raw materials to make (864mm^2 v 225mm^2 surface area = 3.84 greater area for FF sensor). I assume that higher pixel density would increase the cost though on smaller sensors? IMO I would guesstimate the price difference between mFT and FF as being a factor of three times. The main issue though would be R&D. Followed by where the sensor lies on the "Learning Curve". The Learning Curve means that as time progresses, things get cheaper to produce. 

 

So, there are two main costs - your simple production volume cost (which will go down over time as production skill improves) and the R&D cost. 

 

I suspect that there is a great desire to pay back the R&D as quickly as possible from the R&D sector of the company. Hence if Sony sell the light sensitive sensor to Nikon, its R&D will be paid back much more quickly, and hence the cost of the sensor will go down a lot. Similarly, if the sensor is sold into a cheaper camera, the volume of sales will increase, and hence the R&D will be paid back much more quickly, If I was pricing the R&D pay back, the choice for Sony (ignoring Nikon sales) would that if the camera using the sensor was sold for a low very competitive price, then the sales volume would be much greater.

 

Hence I would ask a much lower R&D contribution for a low price A7S. But if the A7S is sold for $3,000, then I'd ask a higher R&D payback, because the sales for a $3,000 A7S would be much lower than if the camera was sold for $2,000.

 

We do know however, that the A7 sells for $1,700 now. IMO the difference between the A7 sensor and the A7S sensor, would just be R&D. There should not be a big difference in price between the cameras from a sensor point of view IMO. And if the price is set high, then the camera may not sell nearly as well as it will if sold for a keen price. I assume too that because the A7S body is cheaper than the A7R body, that the A7S was not targetted as the premium A7 product. 

 

Unfortunately, I do not know the cost of manufacture of a sensor, or its R&D cost. Let's guess though ... lets say a team of 20 people working for $100,000 spent a year on the A7S sensor. That's $2 million. If 100 people, then $10 million. If the pay back for the R&D was $200 per sensor, then if 20 people, the volume required would be 100,000 cameras.

 

This article says mirrorless - SCS sales - were about 4.2 million. http://pmanewsline.com/2013/12/02/mirrorless-camera-sales-growth-slows-amidst-lower-priced-slrs/#.U0261xbOnbw Another article says that already in Japan, the A7 & A7R had achieved 0.5% of the market http://bcnranking.jp/news/1312/131227_27056.html. So, 0.5% of 4.2 million, is 210,000. That is two times my previous pay back figure. And that is in just one year. R&D pay back would be for several years. Hence, I think a $200 premium for the A7S sensor's R&D, is an OK estimate. It could easily be just $50. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Certainly, I think that a mFT sensor might cost one quarter of the raw materials to make (864mm^2 v 225mm^2 surface area = 3.84 greater area for FF sensor). I assume that higher pixel density would increase the cost though on smaller sensors? IMO I would guesstimate the price difference between mFT and FF as being a factor of three times. The main issue though would be R&D. Followed by where the sensor lies on the "Learning Curve". The Learning Curve means that as time progresses, things get cheaper to produce.

 

The cost of producing big sensors rises exponentially. It doesn't have anything to do with pixel density. Smartphone sensors are dirt cheap and have very tiny pixels/high density.

 

Sensors are made out of round 200mm (8 inch) silicon wafers. The bigger the sensor, the more (expensive) material you loose. This image explains it well:

 

sensorss.png

 

But more important is the yield. When producing sensors, you probably never have a 100% yield. I have no idea what the failure rates are, but the tiniest piece of dust or whatever can ruin a sensor. So if one fullframe sensor is affected, a big part of the wafer is lost.

 

I have no idea what the cost is of a wafer. Tried looking it up and found this, that gives a 'typical processed wafer value' of $11,000.

 

11,000/24 would be ~$458 per fullframe sensor IF the yield is 100%. Lets say there are two faults on the wafer, two sensors fail, now the cost is already 10% higher per fullframe sensor.

 

Compare the Nikon 1 sensors to this (I'm not going to calculate the rates for M43... be my guest :)). 11,000/244 = ~$45 per sensor. If this wafer has the same amount of faults you can still get 242 sensors out of it. The price increase will be less then 1% per sensor.

 

Kinda off topic, but I felt like giving some insight in the cost of a fullframe sensor. I do agree that the A7S doesn't have to be more expensive than the A7 seen from the 'cost of sensor' perspective.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Very interesting.

 

I wonder why they insist on making the wafers circular.

 

36% of the area wasted on the full frame sensor yield is pretty wasteful.

 

It's not really a matter of insisting. It has to do with the process of making the Silicon wafers and there are numerous other reasons for it, apparently. Some interesting answers here.

 

For example:

 


Nathan Zeldes

A key process step that uses the round form of the wafer is photoresist application – this is done by spinning the wafer rapidly and dripping the liquid resist at the center; centrifugal force takes care of spreading it evenly.

 

 

Another issue is the size of the wafer. They have been using 200mm for ages now I think. There is some switching going on to 300mm and 450mm is in development I think, but it probably will take a decade or more before it is standard, because all the machines have to be replaced and remade for the bigger wafers.

 

Btw... imagine the cost of that new 50MP Sony medium format sensor :) The price of the Pentax 645Z is incredible if you take that into consideration.

 

/Edit:

Interesting stuff on wafer sizes here.

57.8% of chip production (not only image sensors!) is already done on 300mm wafers. This will be 70% by 2017, but 200mm wafers are still being used for image sensors...

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...