CCD Cameras.. What should I be looking for?

AweSIM · June 20, 2019

Hi,

I have a SkyWatcher P-DS 200 telescope and an NEQ6 Pro SynScan mount to go with it. I've done plenty of astrophotography over the past year or so using my Nikon D90. My D90 recently suffered hardware failure and is no longer usable for imaging. So I'm trying to build up my knowledge of what to look for to replace and improve my setup as far as astrophotography is concerned. I've tried using my google skills to gather knowledge but it hasn't proved very fruitful so far. Thus I am turning to you guys to share your wisdom. I love doing photography of deep sky objects and planets equally.

1. I understand I need to invest in a CCD imaging camera, but there are so many options in so many different price ranges. I've read about using web cameras for imaging. But from what I've read, web cameras usually have a resolution of just 640x480. Isn't this too low in order to get a good quality astrophoto? Also, I believe web cameras are not capable of taking long exposures (say, over a few seconds). Instead they take video which is processed in registax or iris or a similar software to work with individual images. On the other hand, I've seen really expensive CCD cameras like those from Altair that are not even color. Should I invest in a web camera capable of taking poor resolution video or invest in a decent camera from (say Altair), or I should abandon this route completely and have my D90 repaired? I would love to be able to image in color. How should I decide which of the 3 routes should I go? And what should I look for in choosing a camera? Sensor size? Megapixels? Brand? Color or black and white?

2. I don't have an auto guider, and don't know much about its limitations. Till now, I've constrained my exposure to less than 30 seconds. Should I save my money by not getting a CCD for primary imaging and repair my D90 instead, and instead invest in an auto guider scope and camera instead? If I don't invest in an autoguider, will a CCD camera (like Altair) not be an improvement over my existing D90 at all?

I am aware that most of us here have taken small steps in this hobby: incrementally updating our kits. I don't have that luxury partly because I live in a country where astronomy equipment is of nobody's interest. So I have to have a friend bring it back from a trip abroad, which isn't very frequently. Also, there is no second-hand market here that I can sell my old gear to before upgrading incrementally. So I would prefer to future-proof my investment by getting gear that I will not have to replace/upgrade anytime soon. Even my SkyWatch PDS 200 and NEQ6 were brought many many years ago and are still serving me well.

I know these are very subjective questions and there might not be a definitive answer. But I would love to hear your thoughts as to how you would solve this conundrum if you were in my place.

Thanks everyone!

Asim

-------------------------------------

Edit: After going through all the responses posted to this topic, I have realized that guiding is a must if you're using narrow-band filters since they let in so little light that very long exposures are required. On the other hand, I have some follow-up questions:

Why is it that mono cameras are more expensive than color cameras? Technically, color camera is giving you three channels worth of data whereas mono is giving you three times as long an exposure. But I fail to understand why is there such a cost difference.
It's possible to use a color camera without any filters. But is it possible to use a mono camera without filters too? Would it see all visible wavelengths and render them as a greyscale image? If so, technically, I can get a mono or color camera first, and then get a filter wheel + filter set. Am I correct in assuming this?
Carole, you mentioned in her blog that filter wheel caused a headache for you due to light leakage. Which is why I thought a better way might be to simply use individual filters when needed. But the lovely people in this thread seem to believe that this is not a big issue. Should I try to save more and get a camera with built-in filter wheel, or should a separate filter wheel be just fine too?
I understand that for planetary astrophtography, I would benefit from the camera having a smaller pixel size since planets appear so small on the sensor in the first place. On the other hand, DSO photography might not benefit as much from small pixel size. Is my understanding correct?
Where does pixel count become relevant? I've seen cameras having 2 million pixels cost more than ones having 20 million pixels. Why would this be? I believe that small pixel count (sensor size) cameras are more suitable as guide cameras while larger pixel count cameras are suitable as main cameras. Is my understanding correct?

Finally, consider the following cooled cameras:

Should I aim for [Altair 183M Mono] camera from this list? It's the cheapest out of this lot, is mono, has very small pixels, and has a high pixel count.

Thanks,

Asim

Edited June 24, 2019 by AweSIM
Updated question with follow-up queries

carastro · June 20, 2019

This is my take on your question.

I started with a DSLR, and wanted to get better detail/reduce noise so decided back in 2012 to buy a CCD camera. Many people advised me to get a Mono camera and filters because mono gives more detail due to the lack of a bayer matrix. This is more expensive because of the need to purchase a filterwheel and filters. But I took their advice and bought a mono camera and filters.

My DSLR was still usable and on my first weekend at Kelling armed with both my DSLR and my new Mono CCD camera I took images of the same target with each on alternate nights, more as a test than anything. I was completely blown away at the results of the Mono CCD camera compared to what I could get with the DSLR.

It took me a little while to learn how to combine the different colour filters, but since then I have never looked back, and very rarely now use the DSLR for imaging,

About a year after I started mono imaging, I got an idea to buy a OSC (colour) CCD camera and take simultanous images with the Mono camera so I could get data more quickly. That OSC camera caused me a lot of hassle, and the results were not as good as those I could get from my mono camera, so I dispensed with the colour camera and just stuck to mono imaging.

As an added bonus you can take narrowband images with a mono camera (OK, I know some say you can take narrowband with a colour camera too, but is it the same quality and does it take much much longer? )

There are many targets that really show up best in narrowband.

Personally I would not waste time and money mending your DSLR.

HTH

Carole

Edited June 20, 2019 by carastro

alacant · June 20, 2019

Hi

How about one of these for the planets? Then use it in a guide scope for your deepsky frames. Either get your d90 fixed or a cheap eBay canon?

Cheers and HTH

RolandKol · June 20, 2019

I will second Carole and will offer the same,

If you have got funds, jump into mono without wasting time on DSLR or color astro-camera. Mono cost a lot as you will need to buy filter wheel and filters in addition, - but it worth it by all means.

I was in your shoes one year and a bit ago, and I simply could not justify the Price of Mono, but the more topics I read on this matter, the more advise Topics I created myself, - the advise was just one, - "Go Mono".

There are 2 main options for Mono: CCD (like Altair) and CMOS (as ZWO Asi for example). CMOS is a bit cheaper option with it's challenges, advantages and disadvantages over CCD.

As per "fix Nikon" + Guider... it depends on the area you are in... I cannot do longer subs than 30sec from my back-garden in London as they get overexposed even with ISO100, and I can easily do 30sec without a guider.

P.S.

For guider cam, if you will decide to get one, go for something like ASI 224MC, it is a nice guider CAM and plus, - quite a good camera for Planetary imaging, plus it has quite a small pixel size which has some impact on a better guiding.

Edited June 20, 2019 by RolandKol

ollypenrice · June 20, 2019

At some point it really is worth getting to the fundamentals with a clear head and that's what your post is about. So...

- 'But from what I've read, web cameras usually have a resolution of just 640x480. Isn't this too low in order to get a good quality astrophoto?' OK, the numbers 640x480 do not specify a resolution, they specify only a pixel count, but how big are these pixels? In what follows I'm going to assume that we are talking about one scope of a given focal length. (Changing focal length also changes resolution.)

- Resolution is properly defined by the term 'arcseconds per pixel.' In other words, How many arcseconds of sky land on each pixel? The smaller the pixels the less sky lands on each one and the higher the resolution of detail. So pixel size determines resolution while pixel count determines the size of the chip and, therefore, the field of view the chip can image.

- However, the turbulence of the sky in deep sky imaging blurs out detail at some point which may vary between a bit less than 1 arcsec and a bit more than 2. This means that there is no point in having pixels which are too small because the 'seeing' won't let them work to capacity, though with mono you can bin them 2x2 (read 4 pixels as one.) And the errors in the mount's tracking blur out detail as well. Your EQ6 is a good mount and can, with an autoguider, keep your tracking errors down to as little as half an arcsecond. Without an autoguider it will probably run at an error in the order of 20 to 30 arcseconds, which is an enormous difference. It is clearly worth autoguiding! No single addition can bring an equivalent improvement to your results. (Beware of using round stars as a test of tracking accuracy. If you have large tracking errors that are about equal in RA and Dec you will get round stars - big blurred ones.)

- Telescopes vary considerably in the size of the 'corrected circle' they produce. That means stars will only be sharp over a certain size of chip. If the chip is too big the scope won't 'cover it' as we say.

With all this in mind you need to choose a camera which gives a resolution in your scope which the tracking accuracy and the seeing will allow. FLO have a scope-camera calculator and there is another one here: http://www.12dstring.me.uk/fovcalc.php Unless you autoguide there really is little point in going for a high resolution system at all. And don't buy a camera with a chip which is bigger than your corrected circle. Chip real estate is very, very expensive!

There is an important new possibilty for you as well: the astro- dedicated CMOS camera brings you cooling (as in CCD) and the advantages of mono (another story) at a far lower price than CCD.

Olly

tomato · June 20, 2019

Imaging a wide range of DSOs and planets with a single camera is not a practical option, but for small DSOs and planets, take a look at the latest smaller sensor astro CMOS cameras, their sensitivity and low read noise means that much shorter exposure times can be used compared to CCDs, meaning that guiding is less critical. You will however, have lots more sub exposures to stack so you it will challenge your PC processing power.

They also have the advantage of being significantly cheaper than their CCD counterparts, and if later you move onto a larger sensor camera, it will make a fine guide camera.

I would support the view to go mono from the off, you can start imaging in mono and buy the filters and wheel later on.

AweSIM · June 20, 2019

15 hours ago, carastro said:

This is my take on your question.

I started with a DSLR, and wanted to get better detail/reduce noise so decided back in 2012 to buy a CCD camera. Many people advised me to get a Mono camera and filters because mono gives more detail due to the lack of a bayer matrix. This is more expensive because of the need to purchase a filterwheel and filters. But I took their advice and bought a mono camera and filters.

My DSLR was still usable and on my first weekend at Kelling armed with both my DSLR and my new Mono CCD camera I took images of the same target with each on alternate nights, more as a test than anything. I was completely blown away at the results of the Mono CCD camera compared to what I could get with the DSLR.

It took me a little while to learn how to combine the different colour filters, but since then I have never looked back, and very rarely now use the DSLR for imaging,

About a year after I started mono imaging, I got an idea to buy a OSC (colour) CCD camera and take simultanous images with the Mono camera so I could get data more quickly. That OSC camera caused me a lot of hassle, and the results were not as good as those I could get from my mono camera, so I dispensed with the colour camera and just stuck to mono imaging.

As an added bonus you can take narrowband images with a mono camera (OK, I know some say you can take narrowband with a colour camera too, but is it the same quality and does it take much much longer? )

There are many targets that really show up best in narrowband.

Personally I would not waste time and money mending your DSLR.

HTH

Carole

Hi Carole. Thanks a ton for your valuable advice. I had a look at your site as well and have bookmarked it to go thru it all. I found an in-depth blogpost you shared there too titled "Why change from DSLR imaging to CCD camera". I will be taking a closer look at your equipment to refine my selection of cameras. Thank you for sharing your views. And thank you for taking time out to explain all this in-depth to a novice like myself. 😃

ollypenrice · June 21, 2019

I hadn't noticed that you're in Lahore, which I'll assume to be very hot. In that case a cooled camera will make an enormous difference.

Olly

AweSIM · June 24, 2019

On 20/06/2019 at 13:20, alacant said:

Hi

How about one of these for the planets? Then use it in a guide scope for your deepsky frames. Either get your d90 fixed or a cheap eBay canon?

Cheers and HTH

Hi. Thanks for your take. Your suggestion will definitely help me make an informed decision. 😃

AweSIM · June 24, 2019

On 20/06/2019 at 13:22, RolandKol said:

I will second Carole and will offer the same,

If you have got funds, jump into mono without wasting time on DSLR or color astro-camera. Mono cost a lot as you will need to buy filter wheel and filters in addition, - but it worth it by all means.

I was in your shoes one year and a bit ago, and I simply could not justify the Price of Mono, but the more topics I read on this matter, the more advise Topics I created myself, - the advise was just one, - "Go Mono".

There are 2 main options for Mono: CCD (like Altair) and CMOS (as ZWO Asi for example). CMOS is a bit cheaper option with it's challenges, advantages and disadvantages over CCD.

As per "fix Nikon" + Guider... it depends on the area you are in... I cannot do longer subs than 30sec from my back-garden in London as they get overexposed even with ISO100, and I can easily do 30sec without a guider.

P.S.

For guider cam, if you will decide to get one, go for something like ASI 224MC, it is a nice guider CAM and plus, - quite a good camera for Planetary imaging, plus it has quite a small pixel size which has some impact on a better guiding.

Hi Roland. i appreciate that you do seem to understand my confusion and thought process. Thank you for your valuable suggestion. I do believe that I should save for a mono cam and filter wheel. If I have some more funds, I would even try to save for a guidescope and a guide camera as well. From what I've read on Carole's blog, a mono camera and filter should work quite well even in light polluted areas due to the fact that they let in such a narrowband. Thank you once again. 😃

AweSIM · June 24, 2019

On 20/06/2019 at 14:17, ollypenrice said:

At some point it really is worth getting to the fundamentals with a clear head and that's what your post is about. So...

- 'But from what I've read, web cameras usually have a resolution of just 640x480. Isn't this too low in order to get a good quality astrophoto?' OK, the numbers 640x480 do not specify a resolution, they specify only a pixel count, but how big are these pixels? In what follows I'm going to assume that we are talking about one scope of a given focal length. (Changing focal length also changes resolution.)

- Resolution is properly defined by the term 'arcseconds per pixel.' In other words, How many arcseconds of sky land on each pixel? The smaller the pixels the less sky lands on each one and the higher the resolution of detail. So pixel size determines resolution while pixel count determines the size of the chip and, therefore, the field of view the chip can image.

- However, the turbulence of the sky in deep sky imaging blurs out detail at some point which may vary between a bit less than 1 arcsec and a bit more than 2. This means that there is no point in having pixels which are too small because the 'seeing' won't let them work to capacity, though with mono you can bin them 2x2 (read 4 pixels as one.) And the errors in the mount's tracking blur out detail as well. Your EQ6 is a good mount and can, with an autoguider, keep your tracking errors down to as little as half an arcsecond. Without an autoguider it will probably run at an error in the order of 20 to 30 arcseconds, which is an enormous difference. It is clearly worth autoguiding! No single addition can bring an equivalent improvement to your results. (Beware of using round stars as a test of tracking accuracy. If you have large tracking errors that are about equal in RA and Dec you will get round stars - big blurred ones.)

- Telescopes vary considerably in the size of the 'corrected circle' they produce. That means stars will only be sharp over a certain size of chip. If the chip is too big the scope won't 'cover it' as we say.

With all this in mind you need to choose a camera which gives a resolution in your scope which the tracking accuracy and the seeing will allow. FLO have a scope-camera calculator and there is another one here: http://www.12dstring.me.uk/fovcalc.php Unless you autoguide there really is little point in going for a high resolution system at all. And don't buy a camera with a chip which is bigger than your corrected circle. Chip real estate is very, very expensive!

There is an important new possibilty for you as well: the astro- dedicated CMOS camera brings you cooling (as in CCD) and the advantages of mono (another story) at a far lower price than CCD.

Olly

Hi Olly. Thank you for that in-depth explanation. I clearly have to learn and understand a lot more than I currently do. As per your advice and Carole's and Roland's, I think I will settle for now on a Mono camera with fixed filters, then upgrade to having a guidescope and guide camera, and finally get a filter wheel. Does this sound like a logical order? Also, would you mind if I pm you some follow-up questions?

Thanks a lot. 😃

ollypenrice · June 24, 2019

3 minutes ago, AweSIM said:

Hi Olly. Thank you for that in-depth explanation. I clearly have to learn and understand a lot more than I currently do. As per your advice and Carole's and Roland's, I think I will settle for now on a Mono camera with fixed filters, then upgrade to having a guidescope and guide camera, and finally get a filter wheel. Does this sound like a logical order? Also, would you mind if I pm you some follow-up questions?

Thanks a lot. 😃

PM away as you wish. I warn you that you'll soon get fed up with fixed filters, though. Consider an inexpensive manual filter wheel. There is nothing wrong with them and they save one or sometimes two cables and one potential USB connection bug.

Olly

RolandKol · June 24, 2019

1 hour ago, AweSIM said:

Hi Roland. i appreciate that you do seem to understand my confusion and thought process. Thank you for your valuable suggestion. I do believe that I should save for a mono cam and filter wheel. If I have some more funds, I would even try to save for a guidescope and a guide camera as well. From what I've read on Carole's blog, a mono camera and filter should work quite well even in light polluted areas due to the fact that they let in such a narrowband. Thank you once again. 😃

No problem,

Just keep in mind, - while imaging in Mono + Narrow Band filters, you will need guiding 100%, as due to the nature of the narrow band imaging, your exposures will be minimum 3min ( with CMOS astrocam) or even longer around 10mins (with CCD).
There are LRGB filters also, - which do not remove Light pollution at all, but it is the main set for Galaxies and brighter nebulas like Orion and etc and with CMOS you can get away with 30sec exposures.

As per Mono without the filter-wheel... I do not see myself enjoying it at all... As filters will have to be moved around quite often and at the end, - Flats will not match each session (dust and etc), which will make your post processing quite difficult and time consuming.

or, - you will have to restrict yourself to "one night per one target" only... no fun...

While choosing astrocam for imaging, as previously mentioned, - look at the cooled versions only. Cooling will reduce a lot of noise, plus, you will be able to control temperature of the Dark subs, - in other words, you will be able to create the library of darks with the different exposures/settings in advance and do not waste imaging time during the night.
If £££ amounts becoming too heavy for your wallet (and probably will, as Mono + Filters + Wheel + Guider Set Up will most likely be around £2k+), - I would suggest to go guiding way initially, as it is quite challenging task at the start and needs experience to perform properly, plus if you choose fast colour guider camera, you can do planetary imaging or even hunt some galaxies like M51 or smaller ones while saving funds for mono setup

Edited June 24, 2019 by RolandKol

AweSIM · June 24, 2019

4 hours ago, RolandKol said:

No problem,

Just keep in mind, - while imaging in Mono + Narrow Band filters, you will need guiding 100%, as due to the nature of the narrow band imaging, your exposures will be minimum 3min ( with CMOS astrocam) or even longer around 10mins (with CCD).
There are LRGB filters also, - which do not remove Light pollution at all, but it is the main set for Galaxies and brighter nebulas like Orion and etc and with CMOS you can get away with 30sec exposures.

As per Mono without the filter-wheel... I do not see myself enjoying it at all... As filters will have to be moved around quite often and at the end, - Flats will not match each session (dust and etc), which will make your post processing quite difficult and time consuming.

or, - you will have to restrict yourself to "one night per one target" only... no fun...

While choosing astrocam for imaging, as previously mentioned, - look at the cooled versions only. Cooling will reduce a lot of noise, plus, you will be able to control temperature of the Dark subs, - in other words, you will be able to create the library of darks with the different exposures/settings in advance and do not waste imaging time during the night.
If £££ amounts becoming too heavy for your wallet (and probably will, as Mono + Filters + Wheel + Guider Set Up will most likely be around £2k+), - I would suggest to go guiding way initially, as it is quite challenging task at the start and needs experience to perform properly, plus if you choose fast colour guider camera, you can do planetary imaging or even hunt some galaxies like M51 or smaller ones while saving funds for mono setup

Thank you for responding Roland. I have gained new insight and knowledge from your reply. Thank you.

AweSIM · June 24, 2019

Thank you everyone for responding to my query and sharing your thoughts on this issue. You guys have given me a lot more to think about, and well as raised more questions in my mind. I have updated the topic question in the first post to list these questions, as I didn't want to start a new thread for follow-up questions. If you have time to spare, please go through the edit I made to the question and share your thoughts.

Thank you for your invaluable advice.

Asim

RolandKol · June 24, 2019

Some answers, as I understand them:

Not sure why Mono is more expensive, - maybe marketing... You always pay more for the better option... Statement: "Technically, color camera is giving you three channels worth of data whereas mono is giving you three times as long an exposure" is incorrect, as technically Colour cam (if the same sensor used) is LESS sensitive, good explanation is here https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lD0ZH2doSlk
Theoretically, yes, you can use MONO camera without any filters, but... it will be too sensitive to Infra Red waves and image will be a bit blurry... Further more, - later you will not be able to process it to color. Not useful option, waste of time and money
Filterwheel light leak is not often. you will not have it 99%.
Cameras for Planets and DSO are very different, - thats why I suggested to get a Fast Guider Camera, which you will be able to use as a Planetary. Planetary cameras a very fast (with USB 3 connection) and they do not need to be cooled, so you can get away with quite a cheep option like ASI224MC or similar.
Where does pixel count become relevant? I've seen cameras having 2 million pixels cost more than ones having 20 million pixels. Why would this be? I believe that small pixel count (sensor size) cameras are more suitable as guide cameras while larger pixel count cameras are suitable as main cameras. Is my understanding correct? - Old School CCD cameras usually are with smaller amounts of pixels which are also quite large in comparison to CMOS, it has it's benefits and cons also. Smaller or Larger amount of pixels will determine the Field Of View and the size of file you will have per Sub-exposure. Small sensor will behave like a small eyepiece with "larger magnification", - good for galaxies or small nebulas, but not so good for large objects. So it mostly depends on targets you want to image.

P.S. there is much more... need to run back home! I am sure someone will add.

Edited June 24, 2019 by RolandKol

RolandKol · June 25, 2019

As per cameras in the list you provided,

it is quite difficult to advise, - most of them will perform well except ZWO ASI1600MM, which may have problems with the frost, thats why ZWO released Pro version, - which has Frost problem solved (or lets say, reduced to minimum, - as Once you push camera to freeze to -20C in a very humid area, you can get some Frost on any camera).

Choosing Astro camera is a real challenge, as even the best spec camera May (or May Not) fit your expectations on the field of view, So always check FOV on the websites like this one http://astronomy.tools/calculators/field_of_view/ - just choose "imaging mode" on the top

in your case, with 183M and 200PDS, the FOV will look like that https://tinyurl.com/y6s6t6jr

(200P and 200PDS have the same Focal Length and ZWO ASI 183M has the same sensor as Altair 183M, both items of yours are not present on the data base of the website, so I used analogies).

Also, always try to check google, astrobin and flickr websites for the images done with the set up you going to have and see the results. Of course, sometimes it is impossible to find the same scope+the same camera, - the main things to look at is Focal Length and Sensor.
Alrair 183M uses the same sensor as ZWO ASI 183M and QHY 183M and etc. Your PDS has Focal length 1000mm, - so all results online with similar specs will show you probable Image you can get.

Just keep in mind, No One, No One enjoys to share images which they failed. So Most of the time, you will see the examples of the Best possible results from the darkest places of the world

I did not want to touch this field, but I think you should read a bit and make your self familiar with terms "Undersampling" and "Oversampling", - it is a real can of worms.

But to be honest, with such small pixels and high resolutions we have on our current sensors, I do not think it causes much problems, but there are a lot of people who want to Match their Camera to their scope as good as possible.

Flo even has http://astronomy.tools/calculators/ccd_suitability calculator for that.

Mono is expensive way to go, - so read a bit more before you push the trigger...

And finally:

if you will decide to go a cheaper way, which is CMOS, look few steps further, - Filters....

Filter price goes Up by brand and specs, but the main price driving factor is the Size... Keep it in mind all the time, - just try to pick up full Final setup on any website and see how the Final price jumps once you Press OK on the narrow band Filters.
Some narrow band filter sets are more expensive than any camera in your list.

To save money, you will be made too look at 31mm Filters, which are smallest, but...

Each camera has it's specific back focus distance and the longer the back focus it has, the Larger Filter you will need. The Clear winner in the Price battle here is ASI183M or ASI1600MM-Pro, as they have the 6.5mm - the smallest backfocus from all the astrocams on the Market, It enables to use the smallest 31mm filters almost or completely without Vignetting (you do not loose data due to dark corners and etc). In comparison, Altair has backfocus - 17.5mm.

I do have ASI cam, and I can be a bit Bias, so look at my comments carefully and double-check and even triple-check before you take it for granted! I never had Altair, - maybe it performs OK with 17.5mm backfocus and 31mm Filters, - but I am in doubt about it.

Look at this comment as the directions for your personal investigations and... decisions.

Edited June 25, 2019 by RolandKol

Sign In

CCD Cameras.. What should I be looking for?

Recommended Posts

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

Create an account

Sign in

Recently Browsing 0 members

Important Information