Sigma on the ILC market

WT21

Super Moderator
Joined
Feb 19, 2010
Messages
7,105
Location
Boston
https://www.mirrorlessrumors.com/si...o-when-we-will-release-the-new-foveon-camera/

Pretty much says it all

"Last year, the quantity of interchangeable-lens system cameras sold in the market was 8.5 million units. But actually, the peak time was 17 million units. So last year was about half. But before digital cameras, film SLR sold about four million to five million units. So it was originally a very small market. So I think it was kind of a boom economy starting from mid-2000 to the beginning of 2010, and then it’s going down to the normal level. I think probably five to six million is a good number to be stable...

But now my feeling is we’re coming back to more like a five-year cycle maybe, for people getting cameras."
 
Joined
Aug 9, 2017
Messages
1,222
Location
Rankin Inlet, Nunavut
https://www.mirrorlessrumors.com/si...o-when-we-will-release-the-new-foveon-camera/

Pretty much says it all

"Last year, the quantity of interchangeable-lens system cameras sold in the market was 8.5 million units. But actually, the peak time was 17 million units. So last year was about half. But before digital cameras, film SLR sold about four million to five million units. So it was originally a very small market. So I think it was kind of a boom economy starting from mid-2000 to the beginning of 2010, and then it’s going down to the normal level. I think probably five to six million is a good number to be stable...

But now my feeling is we’re coming back to more like a five-year cycle maybe, for people getting cameras."
That‘s the exact same 5-6 million Canon’s last financial statements predict as the dedicated camera floor.

Olympus/JIP would sell about 150-168k units (camera bodies) per year of ILCs.
 
Joined
Apr 20, 2020
Messages
1,251
Location
Beaumaris, Melbourne, Australia
I've been saying that very thing for at least the last 5 years.

The market for Instamatics and the like has been taken over by Smartphones, and their IQ is generally far better too.

A well taken, 5 MPx phone photo will print beautifully at A4 size. Nobody but us photography aficionados wants or needs anything better than this 99.9% of the time. e.g. taken with my 5 MPx Blackberry:

Subscribe to see EXIF info for this image (if available)
 

speedy

Mu-43 Hall of Famer
Joined
Nov 27, 2015
Messages
2,264
I've been saying that very thing for at least the last 5 years.

The market for Instamatics and the like has been taken over by Smartphones, and their IQ is generally far better too.

A well taken, 5 MPx phone photo will print beautifully at A4 size. Nobody but us photography aficionados wants or needs anything better than this 99.9% of the time. e.g. taken with my 5 MPx Blackberry:

View attachment 847604
At the moment, phones are pretty much stuck with a very narrow field of view range though. And, I honestly don't think people are buying them for a camera. They just happen to use it, because it's already there, in their hand.
The other thing that helps them, is that there's any number of phones you can buy, on the drip feed, for 50 bucks a month or whatever. That's where the convenience factor comes from I think, you don't have to shell out 2K in one hit, for a single purpose product. Even if you never used the camera in the phone, it's still getting usage
 
Joined
Apr 20, 2020
Messages
1,251
Location
Beaumaris, Melbourne, Australia
At the moment, phones are pretty much stuck with a very narrow field of view range though. And, I honestly don't think people are buying them for a camera. They just happen to use it, because it's already there, in their hand.
The other thing that helps them, is that there's any number of phones you can buy, on the drip feed, for 50 bucks a month or whatever. That's where the convenience factor comes from I think, you don't have to shell out 2K in one hit, for a single purpose product. Even if you never used the camera in the phone, it's still getting usage
While I agree, my sister in law's latest iPhone cost her AUD$ 2,500 ...

The replacement I bought for my 5.5 y.o. phone cost me AUD$ 500 if I had had to pay for it.

It runs for about 9-10 12 hour days on a charge, is almost indestructible, is IP68 rated and most importantly has excellent reception ...

The camera in it takes reasonable photos, if I can hold it steady enough ...
 

speedy

Mu-43 Hall of Famer
Joined
Nov 27, 2015
Messages
2,264
While I agree, my sister in law's latest iPhone cost her AUD$ 2,500 ...

The replacement I bought for my 5.5 y.o. phone cost me AUD$ 500 if I had had to pay for it.

It runs for about 9-10 12 hour days on a charge, is almost indestructible, is IP68 rated and most importantly has excellent reception ...

The camera in it takes reasonable photos, if I can hold it steady enough ...
Yeah. And that right there, is the Elephant in the room. Terrible ergonomics, in actual use. Which makes me wonder how people can say that they enjoy phone photography. Beyond me. Each to their own I guess :)
 
Joined
Apr 20, 2020
Messages
1,251
Location
Beaumaris, Melbourne, Australia
I can't speak for others, but I agree with you.

The ergonomics required for a phone are completely and utterly different from those required for a camera, and vice versa.

I will use my phone out of desperation. However, I would never choose to use it in preference to any kind of camera type camera. Even my Rolleiflex 6x6 TLR has far better ergonomics than any phone.
 

BDR-529

Mu-43 Veteran
Joined
Jun 27, 2020
Messages
324
"Last year, the quantity of interchangeable-lens system cameras sold in the market was 8.5 million units. But actually, the peak time was 17 million units. So last year was about half. But before digital cameras, film SLR sold about four million to five million units. So it was originally a very small market. So I think it was kind of a boom economy starting from mid-2000 to the beginning of 2010, and then it’s going down to the normal level. I think probably five to six million is a good number to be stable...
I just don't buy the argument that ILC camera sales during the analog film era were some kind of "normal" level.

With the same logic he should claim that vinyl record sales were representing the "normal" level of music consumption and even in the digital era, we are inevitably shrinking back to those numbers.

Fact is that people, especially the young ones, are exposed to 1000x more images, video and music every day in the digital era and pretty much everyone is also producing and sharing at least images and video.

People also forget how expensive and time consuming it was to take pictures, let alone video during the film era and it was also rather pointless to invest huge amounts to cameras because there were no good channels to share your photos let alone film. Hands up, who did regularly take 1000 shots with 35mm film or a couple of hours of 8mm home movies every week? Once you buy ILC there's pratically no cost of actually using them and you can also share your shots/videos instantly to everyone for free thanks to smartphones. There's a huge insentive to invest in higher IQ compared to bygone era where all you could do was to show a deck of 8*13cm prints.

ILC:s have also taken over the role of even professional camcorders and the amount of shared video has literally exploded so there's absolutely no reason to claim that ILC demand should shrink back to 35mm film levels after it already started rapid growth towards 20M sales levels.

IMHO the whole camera industry is shooting themselves in the foot with the mirrorless FF hype. They are just creating a huge entry barrier by allocating 100% of their R&D and marketing budgets for FF systems where even a basic kit will set you back by 3000 eurodollars. Nobody outside the existing and shrinking ILC owner base is goind to invest that kind of money.

MFT would have been a perfect entry point into ILC world because you can get started with one grand and instantly see a huge improvement in IQ compared to even best smartphones when shooting something bit more challenging than a stationary Happy Meal on a tray. At the moment all camera manufacturers are almost using marketing budget to actively kill these inexpensive ILC options (MFT and APS-C) regardless of the fact that smartphones can't catch up with the IQ achieved with interchangeable real lenses and MFT sized sensors as long as same technology is used on both.
 
Last edited:

threeOh

Mu-43 Regular
Joined
Aug 22, 2019
Messages
141
At the moment, phones are pretty much stuck with a very narrow field of view range though. And, I honestly don't think people are buying them for a camera. They just happen to use it, because it's already there, in their hand.
The other thing that helps them, is that there's any number of phones you can buy, on the drip feed, for 50 bucks a month or whatever. That's where the convenience factor comes from I think, you don't have to shell out 2K in one hit, for a single purpose product. Even if you never used the camera in the phone, it's still getting usage
They’re stuck in a very narrow field of view range (wide) for a reason. They take selfies and shots across tables. When it’s time to travel I hear a litany of complaints they need a real camera. Which they never buy as they’re overwhelmed by the tech they already have.
 
Joined
Aug 9, 2017
Messages
1,222
Location
Rankin Inlet, Nunavut
I just don't buy the argument that ILC camera sales during the analog film era were some kind of "normal" level.

With the same logic he should claim that vinyl record sales were representing the "normal" level of music consumption and even in the digital era, we are inevitably shrinking back to those numbers.

Fact is that people, especially the young ones, are exposed to 1000x more images, video and music every day in the digital era and pretty much everyone is also producing and sharing at least images and video.

People also forget how expensive and time consuming it was to take pictures, let alone video during the film era and it was also rather pointless to invest huge amounts to cameras because there were no good channels to share your photos let alone film. Hands up, who did regularly take 1000 shots with 35mm film or a couple of hours of 8mm home movies every week? Once you buy ILC there's pratically no cost of actually using them and you can also share your shots/videos instantly to everyone for free thanks to smartphones. There's a huge insentive to invest in higher IQ compared to bygone era where all you could do was to show a deck of 8*13cm prints.

ILC:s have also taken over the role of even professional camcorders and the amount of shared video has literally exploded so there's absolutely no reason to claim that ILC demand should shrink back to 35mm film levels after it already started rapid growth towards 20M sales levels.

IMHO the whole camera industry is shooting themselves in the foot with the mirrorless FF hype. They are just creating a huge entry barrier by allocating 100% of their R&D and marketing budgets for FF systems where even a basic kit will set you back by 3000 eurodollars. Nobody outside the existing and shrinking ILC owner base is goind to invest that kind of money.

MFT would have been a perfect entry point into ILC world because you can get started with one grand and instantly see a huge improvement in IQ compared to even best smartphones when shooting something bit more challenging than a stationary Happy Meal on a tray. At the moment all camera manufacturers are almost using marketing budget to actively kill these inexpensive ILC options (MFT and APS-C) regardless of the fact that smartphones can't catch up with the IQ achieved with interchangeable real lenses and MFT sized sensors as long as same technology is used on both.
All the dedicated camera makers dramatically cut their lower end product lines, MILC and DSLR, as smartphones have eaten into their ILC sales below US$1500. APS-C and m43 and 1”. Nikon 1 ended. The Olympus JIP Memo spoke to smartphones being the culprit behind the Imaging transfer, in the context of OMD and Zuiko, their ILC brands, not their pretty much gone P&S. Consensus is smartphones have disrupted and crashed sales of ILCs. Given the pricing, the $500-$1500 smartphone was going to hammer the ILC low to middle products.

Current ILCs are probably too challenging to use because they assume better IQ is to change lenses, a mechanical operation that obviously many will never undertake being too cumbersome and relying on too many physical, costly lenses. ILC networking is awful compared to a smartphone. There is no standardized OS and the Ux and internal software is far behind in positive user experience compared to smartphones. It adds up to a very large barrier of lack of convenience, steep learning curve, and additive cost (lenses). So even within that $500-$1500 spectrum ILCs are failing to compete.

You mentioned the friction getting film developed. ILCs have a similar issue. They rely on home PCs for much image processing, especially if better IQ from RAW is desired. That adds cost and takes away convenience. The smartphone in a few presses and swipes and capture, edit, share, and view all on the same device, with the last 3 aspects being superior usability to ILC attempts (PEN-F) to do similar on the low-res back LCDs. Most ILCs still play poorly with mobileOSs for editing and networking and even firmware updates. We live in a world dominated by mobileOSs and ILCs rely on home PCs. That “home darkroom” model is closer to film era than smartphone imaging.

Obviously the market would much rather dumb their images down to meet the convenience and networking envelope, or use video, than move to ILC. The remaining market is more IQ focused, so tends towards the other end of the usability and functional spectrum looking for more lenses, more direct analogue controls, and larger sensors, more megapixels. From 1” to m43 to APS-C it’s a perfect example of being caught in no-man’s land because the $$ are clearly flowing to either end of the spectrum, gutting the middle market, and with it the lower end, too. This apparently takes ILC product lines into volumes too low to survive, so no more GM or EPM lines. No amount of pricing can overcome the lack of convenience compared to smartphones and loss of IQ compared to flagship ILCs.

The sweet spot is video, where the smaller sensors thrive and where we observe lots of marketing focus and activity, like Panasonic’s and JIP’s recent statements about video features at the forefront of m43. Video scales well with sensor size (unlike the R5) and was always less networking friendly due to file size and always needed a PC for editing. ILCs and more DOF control even with m43 are very desirable in video for even a slight increase in IQ and production values. Video was always going to require of the consumer a greater step up, so that’s baked into market awareness unlike the snapshot convenience of stills photography.
 

WT21

Super Moderator
Joined
Feb 19, 2010
Messages
7,105
Location
Boston
  • Thread Starter Thread Starter
  • #15
From https://photorumors.com/2020/09/17/...s-and-mirrorless-cameras-in-2019/#more-125833

Nikkei reports on 2019 camera shipments
Shipments of interchangeable lens cameras in 2019:
  1. Canon: 4.16 million
  2. Nikon: 1.73 million
  3. Sony: 1.66 million
  4. Fujifilm: 500,000
  5. Olympus: 330,000
  6. Others: 280,000
Mirrorless camera shipments in 2019:
  1. Sony: 1.65 million
  2. Canon: 940,000
  3. Fujifilm: 500,000
  4. Olympus: 330,000
  5. Nikon: 280,000
  6. Others: 240,000
Who's in "others" at any volume? - Panasonic, ricoh/pentax, and Leica (Hasselblad, PhaseOne)? It has to be mostly Panasonic I would think??

other note - there were several thousand SLT/SLR Sony bodies sold in 2019???
 

BDR-529

Mu-43 Veteran
Joined
Jun 27, 2020
Messages
324
All the dedicated camera makers dramatically cut their lower end product lines, MILC and DSLR, as smartphones have eaten into their ILC sales below US$1500. APS-C and m43 and 1”. Nikon 1 ended.
I disagree here. Not about the fact that ILC manufacturers have all but abandoned APS-C, MFT and everything SLR but that was not because smartphones have eaten sales of ILC:s below $1500€. It happened because camera companies intentionally made a decision to allocate their entire marketing and R&D budget for $2000€ plus mirrorless FF systems.

Those inexpensive (below $1500 ILC:s) don't sell because manufacturers don't even want customers to know about their existence, let alone spend marketing dollars on them. Manufacturers actively steer their customers towards mirrorless FF from other systems. That's why sales of other formats drop.

In reality there's no way a smartphone could compete against even 900€ Panasonic G9 in any foreseeable future so it is IMHO extremely shortsighted for manufacturers to create ridiculously high entry barriers into "real" camera world by marketing only mirrorless FF systems where even a basic kit is priced north of $3000€

With up to date sensor technology and latest FW/algorithms MFT cameras and lenses would be able to provide again an IQ that is for most (new) ILC users virtually equal to FF but at half the price which is absolutely mandatory for ILC market to grow instead of imploding back to 35mm film era levels.

Even more serious self-delusion is to think that since 5 million 35mm ILC cameras were able to support N manufacturers in the analog film world, that would be the case today too. In reality profits were supported by 15-35 million other (pocket) film cameras which were sold annually during 1980's and 1990's but these camera types were killed by smartphones. Also R&D costs were pretty low because back in the day cameras were still about mechanics and somewhat electronics.

Now the bulk of R&D investment goes to FW/SW and costs have skyrocketed at the same time when manufacturers get revenue from ILC:s only. The same thing happened in the mobile phone world when efficiency in HW design and manufacturing became almost irrelevant after high end turned into smartphones where the cost of SW and applications exploded and companies who once ruled the market like Nokia ended up in "others" category almost overnight.

Same AI and computational photography algorithms which are currently developed for smartphones will dictate the survivors of ILC market as well but not all current manufacturers will be around to see that day. ILC manufacturers are IMHO going into entirely wrong direction if they believe that they could compete against the power of SW/AI with just physically larger sensor instead of maximizing the IQ that they could get out of those less expensive and compact formats.
 
Last edited:
Joined
Aug 9, 2017
Messages
1,222
Location
Rankin Inlet, Nunavut
I disagree here. Not about the fact that ILC manufacturers have all but abandoned APS-C, MFT and everything SLR but that was not because smartphones have eaten sales of ILC:s below $1500€. It happened because camera companies intentionally made a decision to allocate their entire marketing and R&D budget for $2000€ plus mirrorless FF systems.

Those inexpensive (below $1500 ILC:s) don't sell because manufacturers don't even want customers to know about their existence, let alone spend marketing dollars on them. Manufacturers actively steer their customers towards mirrorless FF from other systems. That's why sales of other formats drop.

In reality there's no way a smartphone could compete against even 900€ Panasonic G9 in any foreseeable future so it is IMHO extremely shortsighted for manufacturers to create ridiculously high entry barriers into "real" camera world by marketing only mirrorless FF systems where even a basic kit is priced north of $3000€

With up to date sensor technology and latest FW/algorithms MFT cameras and lenses would be able to provide again an IQ that is for most (new) ILC users virtually equal to FF but at half the price which is absolutely mandatory for ILC market to grow instead of imploding back to 35mm film era levels.

Even more serious self-delusion is to think that since 5 million 35mm ILC cameras were able to support N manufacturers in the analog film world, that would be the case today too. In reality profits were supported by 15-35 million other (pocket) film cameras which were sold annually during 1980's and 1990's but these camera types were killed by smartphones. Also R&D costs were pretty low because back in the day cameras were still about mechanics and somewhat electronics.

Now the bulk of R&D investment goes to FW/SW and costs have skyrocketed at the same time when manufacturers get revenue from ILC:s only. The same thing happened in the mobile phone world when efficiency in HW design and manufacturing became almost irrelevant after high end turned into smartphones where the cost of SW and applications exploded and companies who once ruled the market like Nokia ended up in "others" category almost overnight.

Same AI and computational photography algorithms which are currently developed for smartphones will dictate the survivors of ILC market as well but not all current manufacturers will be around to see that day. ILC manufacturers are IMHO going into entirely wrong direction if they believe that they could compete against the power of SW/AI with just physically larger sensor instead of maximizing the IQ that they could get out of those less expensive and compact formats.
Of course Panasonic and Canikony went to FF and Fuji to MF for the bulk of their R&D and marketing. The sales data over a decade showed smartphones eating into ILC sales relentlessly from the low-end. Nikon even marketed the Nikon 1 having a dedicated button on the camera for near instant wi-fi transfer to smartphones.

Didn’t work.

People were simply not going to spend $$ on *both* a smartphone and an ILC. The latter still didn’t have good enough connectivity, still required additional, bulky lenses, still needed organized home PC processing, and still used idiosyncratic control systems and software. Any marketing effort competing against smartphones ran straight into those difficulties and Japan Inc. couldn't overcome the combined steep learning curve and convenience barriers. They focused (literally) on the markets that needed no marketing: big glass and big sensors. They all did so despite fierce competition between themselves because the dedicated camera industry is a dinosaur of proprietary little interfaces and software and connectivity, each brand a world unto itself. An industry that organized JPEG still cannot organize a standard chipset and camera OS.

Olympus has had dedicated YouTube Olympus PEN and OM-D channels for years in multiple languages driving home the better IQ than smartphone message, to only tens of thousands of views:


By contrast, a single smartphone camera ad will generate millions of views:


The dedicated camera companies have no ammunition to fight back against the smartphones. Their in-board processors don’t have the system-on-a-chip like Pixel Visual Core to compete given Google and  poured billions of $ into their development. Smartphone chipsets run circles around anything Japan Inc. can produce or code and put into dedicated cameras.

m43 doesn’t have any cost advantage over FF given its small market share for silicon economies of scale. There is zero capacity for the smaller sensor to have any tech advantage save for buffer/heat/bandwidth and some IBIS. The industry is coalescing around FF because it delivers volume silicon that always corrals higher margins. The saving grace is the $1999 MSRP for the new Sony, as this gives breathing space to smaller sensors. If we start seeing the $1000 FF price wars....

There is simply no way to compete with the smartphone onslaught by R&D and marketing if budgets are 0.01% of Silicon Valley. Every camera manufacturer, like Sigma, speaks the same tune of retreating to higher-end, optically driven, systems of a core, dedicated camera market. They really don’t have a choice.

A decade ago I could stand by my kids’ soccer games and 1 in 5 parents used a DSLR, usually an APS-C D5xxx or similar. After a game we would all share photos and some video. 5 years later it was all smartphones and all video or the after game still photo. They could process and post clips while on the sidelines whereas the dedicated camera crowd had so many extra steps to get to the image consumption phase it wasn’t worth the extra effort and cost. If dedicated cameras cannot remove those barriers, they won’t sell, not to that crowd, the soccer parent.

The inherent design of ILCs limits their market reach in a smartphone camera world. It’s not a marketing or tech problem: it goes back to the scalar issue where the cost to increase IQ and creative opportunities through optics and analogue controls adds complexity and cost beyond what the average consumer will pay for what are effectively day-to-day snapshots. That’s why the market is contracting back to film era volumes.
 

demiro

Mu-43 Hall of Famer
Joined
Nov 7, 2010
Messages
3,088
Location
northeast US
8.5 million ILCs sold, compared to over 1 billion smart phones, most of which are used for photography to some extent. If I had to market cameras I'd be trying to convert half a percent of those folks to ILCs for some of their photography, thereby adding 5 million units to the sales tally. Is there an ad campaign saying "here's your iphone pic, now look at what you could've done with our old-fashioned camera and crappy kit lens..."? Need to pay a few TikTok influencers to sing that song.

I'd also be diverting a bunch of R&D dollars to the camera/phone interface, to get a 2 or 3MB phone sensor-sized shot automatically and easily kicked over to phone for quick editing, adding a weird filter, and sharing.

Also need to capitalize on retro chic thing. Vinyl sales are up more than 7X in a decade. Cameras aren't apples-to-apples, but I think there's an angle to play there.
 

WT21

Super Moderator
Joined
Feb 19, 2010
Messages
7,105
Location
Boston
  • Thread Starter Thread Starter
  • #19
I'd also be diverting a bunch of R&D dollars to the camera/phone interface, to get a 2 or 3MB phone sensor-sized shot automatically and easily kicked over to phone for quick editing, adding a weird filter, and sharing.
^^this
 
Joined
Aug 9, 2017
Messages
1,222
Location
Rankin Inlet, Nunavut
8.5 million ILCs sold, compared to over 1 billion smart phones, most of which are used for photography to some extent. If I had to market cameras I'd be trying to convert half a percent of those folks to ILCs for some of their photography, thereby adding 5 million units to the sales tally. Is there an ad campaign saying "here's your iphone pic, now look at what you could've done with our old-fashioned camera and crappy kit lens..."? Need to pay a few TikTok influencers to sing that song.
Olympus already does that:


Note this video is near-identical to an Apple video, so premised on an iPhone marketing g and user experience.

The Break Free advertising and tutorial campaign has the “things can be better slogan, right at the video intro, a direct reference to smartphone images:


I'd also be diverting a bunch of R&D dollars to the camera/phone interface, to get a 2 or 3MB phone sensor-sized shot automatically and easily kicked over to phone for quick editing, adding a weird filter, and sharing.
E-PL10 does just that, with instructional videos:




E-M10.3 with a strong emphasis on doing better than your smartphone while still connecting to your smartphone:

https://youtu.be/1j4dw-jIQDw

PEN-F:

https://youtu.be/lIKY2tzd6a8

Olympus marketing even created a new retro Gothic “old world” typeface for the PEN-F logo and box.

From a pure interface design standpoint they went all retro with the PEN-F, but then bizarrely made the control wheel and other controls JPEG-centric, just as the moneyed consumer base at this price point was going substantially RAW. The PEN-F was a naked attempt to position the internal JPEG engine and filters as superior than mobileOS apps. For end results maybe, but far too cumbersome to enact with image transfers, and far too buttoned down on the physical design. Superb camera design marred by a JPEG mandate and pricing against consumer sentiment. Opportunity lost. The PEN-F was Olympus trying to say IQ from a MILC is superior in shooting experience to output than a smartphone camera. But the concept that on-the-fly JPEG edits was going to take market from after-shot smartphone app editing fell flat. If they’d made the PEN-F a more flexible product and priced it better, it might still be viable. It is exactly the type of 2nd system camera Olympus was famous for. But you’re not going to get a bunch of FF shooters slumming it with JPEG, not at that price point, not even for a vacation, urban walkaround camera.

Also need to capitalize on retro chic thing. Vinyl sales are up more than 7X in a decade. Cameras aren't apples-to-apples, but I think there's an angle to play there.
The PEN and OMD lines are retro designs. Panasonic doesn’t do retro.

Unless people on this forum didn’t notice, Olympus has also seeded brand users who specialize in Instagram and vlogs using Olympus:

https://youtu.be/tVlDZZ8DOx0

Olympus has actually been the brand trying hardest to woo the smartphone crowd.
 

Latest posts

Links on this page may be to our affiliates. Sales through affiliate links may benefit this site.
Mu-43 is a fan site and not associated with Olympus, Panasonic, or other manufacturers mentioned on this site.
Forum post reactions by Twemoji: https://github.com/twitter/twemoji
Copyright © 2009-2019 Amin Forums, LLC
Top Bottom