Ok, so I get off my duff ...

[DonSchap]

during my lunch hour and I head over to my local Camera Retail Store. I have them break out a D40 ... for a side by side with the α100. Now, considering the α100 was pretty much a prototype 10.2MP CCD sensor, 18-months old and is a discontinued model ... and that the D40X is using the currently-designed 10.2 MP CCD sensor ... I figure what the heck ... it'll be eye-opening.

First thing we noticed, right out of the box, was that while the α100 got the exposure "dead nuts", the D40 was over-exposing every shot. We finally adjusted the exposure into the given parameters ... but the D40, in Ap-mode was still giving us a 1/40 sec shutter speed and the α100 was doing it at 1/50 sec. - or for you photgrapher's out there (you know who you are) ... a "third of a stop" faster.

Whatever ... I went right for the jugular, to let the chips fall where they may at ISO-1600 ... and after pretty close scrutiny ... the D40 Sensor WON! Hey, yay for you guys! It was close, though, I can assure you. I had three people judging the shots. ISO-1600 sucks on just about anything. Green and purple flercks in thshadows. Smudgy looking, detailess shadows. The third of a stop difference didn't help, either. I would have preferred all things being equal and all, but it was over lunch and hey, it's my dime.

So yeah ... everyone now run out and buy the Nikon D40 ... at least until the SONY α200 is released, at the end of February, and then you can stabilize everything you throw on the front of it.

You probably cannot get an α100 anyway ... except as "B" stock, so what the heck? :D Although, mark downs might be terrific ... it did do the job. :rolleyes:

[coldrain]

No, Duff... I mean Don... you have to break out a Canon XTi with 18-55 IS, remember. You just want to sabotage stuff again?

[DonSchap]

Maybe I'll pair it up, next week. Given a little more time ... it's kind of gearheaded-mania. It's interesting to be able to shoot them one against the other, to see the differences, in real life ... fresh, out of the box.

Don't remember if they had an XTi with the "new" stabilized kit, but I'll look. I know that first kit lens (the Cracker Jack-prize - one in every box) I had went straight to hell ... via the "circular file." :rolleyes:

[VTEC_EATER]

First thing we noticed, right out of the box, was that while the α100 got the exposure "dead nuts", the D40 was over exposing every shot. We finally adjusted the exposure into the given parameters ... but the D40, in Ap mode was still giving us a 1/40 sec shutter speed and the α100 was doing it at 1/50 sec. - or for you photgrapher's out there (you know who you are) ... a "third of a stop" faster.

How would you define this "overexposure"? Was the D40 clipping highlights? How did the histogram look?

Everyone has their own interpretation of exposure, whether over- or under-, but if the histogram is not clipping highlights, can you really say the camera overexposes? I think not. This is where my gripe with early D300 users comes in. The camera exposes just fine based on the histogram. It just exposes slightly more to the right than previous Nikon bodies. Its not overexposure, its better exposure.


Whatever ... I went right for the jugular, to let the chips fall where they may at ISO-1600 ... and after pretty close scrutiny ... the D40 Sensor WON! Hey, yay for you guys! It was close, though, I can assure you. I had three people judging the shots. ISO-1600 sucks on just about anything. Green and purple flercks in thshadows. Smudgy looking, detailess shadows. The third of a stop difference didn't help, either. I would have preferred all things being equal and all, but it was over lunch and hey, it's my dime.

The D40 does do a good job at keeping the noise to a minimum. I believe the 10.2 MP sensor is the same as the D80 as well, and both cameras have nice software working in its favor. As with any other Nikon, the Chrominance noise is kept low and Luminance noise is what is left. I do not believe the Sony software in the A100 was up to par with Nikon's when they developed the two cameras.


So yeah ... everyone now run out and buy the Nikon D40 ... at least until the SONY α200 is released, at the end of February, and then you can stabilize everything you throw on the front of it.

Rumor has it, the D40x will be eliminated and some sort of intermediate camera will be developed. D60 or something. The d80 will probably get a revamp as well and turn into a D90 or something. So, rush out and get your D40x while you can!

[DonSchap]

One of the things I have wanted since I got my twin strobes was a "snoot". I know it doesn't sound like much, but the darn things aren't cheap. Nothing in custom lighting is. The device fits precisely on the mounting ring and won't catch fire with the modeling light left on.

For those who may not know, a snoot basically limits the strobe's light into a narrow circle and instead of flooding the room with light, it effectively "points" the flash.

32261

It's a slow process working up your lighting ... you could easily spend $3000 putting a small studio together.

Next month ... soft light box.

[Rooz]

what a complete load of horseshit. :rolleyes: make up all the BS stories you like but we have real people here, (not captain america), posting REAL photos, (not dragon swords), at hi iso's 1600 included and they look fine for what they need to be.

as i said to you before. here's the challenge for YOU Don. post a few photos that could make it up to the high standard in the d40 pic of the day thread. oh...i forgot...you sony guys don't post any photos. :eek:

and i may add that while sparkie, (the only sony user who bothers actually using his camera), was after some tips on photography in the sony forum...where was Don ? NOWHERE to be seen. you have 10 posts in every other thread with swords and cameras and lighting equipment. but ONE guy says..."hey i need a hand and some feedback on photos." and where's Don ? hmmm what does that say....

[DonSchap]

Rooz ... thanks for your contribution and critique ... that was real helpful. I forgot just what fun it is trying to be everything to all people. You know, some of us have a life outside of photography. As miniscule as it may be.

I'll review the postings ... as time allows.

As always, "thanks for ridin' shotgun and covering my six." :D

BTW: Story is not made up and it's kind of silly and trivial for you to suggest such. I invite you to call Alpine Camera (http://www.alpinecamerausa.com/), just to validate and order some equipment, while you're at this story-chase. Ispend my lunch hour checkin' this stuff, and you bust my chops for it. Just great. I mean, why lie ... when the truth is far too much fun? Yes, they carry your highly touted Nikon D300, too. Why not buy a back-up, while you're at it, and cover your six?

[coldrain]

Again you do not respond for real Don. Your post does not go into anything Rooz brings up.

Same as always. BEFORE you went to some shop, I already suggested to compare an XTi with 18-55 IS to your A100. You just can NOT stand any criticism.

But you are just a big kid anyway (all those toys and silly role playing crap on the walls), it is just that you are so "vocal" with factual wrongies and obvious trolling that it is hard to just ignore most of it.

[Nickcanada]

Before you put down the cash on that snoot check out post #8 here (http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=251549)

[swpars]

ISO 1600 does not "suck" on any DSLR from Nikon or Canon introduced after the start of 2005.

Yes, the D50 & Rebel XT do fine at that ISO.

[DonSchap]

but thanks.

The thread material is very substantive, well-written and quite excellent. Wish I had a big studio area to play with it. I'm not in the college's ART department this year, so that's a problem. Looks like another Calumet 750W might be required ... to avoid mixing and matching lighting powers among the strobes. I kind of suspected it was heading that way, after experimenting with the elex. flashes and the studio strobe mixes. Very complicated measurements using different light sources. It gets kind of messy, as Scott Smith clearly points out.

School open my eyes, but failed to warn me just how much cost this represented. Hot lights are a bargain, by comparison ... and they concentrate on using them quite a bit, because of low cost and the fact that a studio-strobe is extremely susceptibe to being damaged by clumsy students. Unfortunately, there is significant heat and other aspects that make them "unfriendly" to handle and deal with. Everything has a price of operation, I suppose.

With the α700 ... I'm going to try and use the customized-settings for the modeling lights and then throw it to the second customized-settings for when I go with the strobes. It should render images that look relatively close. I figure it'll be fun to at least experiment with.

Guess we shall see. :rolleyes:

Hey, thanks for the belated warning, though. I've worked with the snoot during lighting classes ... I do feel it'll do what I plan on, for now. :)

And no ... I'm not shooting 1600 ... sorry. Get better glass.

[cwphoto]

So Don, you just went in there with no intention of buying anything - just to waste their time?

[cdifoto]

ISO1600 looks good on my 10D and great on my 1D II. Might be because I know what I'm doing though. As they say, YMMV.

[DonSchap]

So Don, you just went in there with no intention of buying anything - just to waste their time?

I have purchased plenty in their shop ... so a waste of their time, for a knowledge investment ... hardly. Hell, it was my lunch hour, too. I consider it a side-effect of brick & mortar deal. They provide a valuable service by opening the door to the public ... and, of course, the buying public provides them money.

Some aspects are important to realize. The "ISO-1600 shot" is so important in sales these days, that seems to be all the "buzz."

Personally ... it's not that big a thing, if you really do use better glass. Pushing to that high an ISO is ... well, just pushing it. It may be fun to try it out, but it's still nothing to brag about ... prime time.

Go ahead, CW ... shoot a wedding at ISO-1600, indoors/outdoors ... using f/4+ glass and just see how much more work you create for yourself in Photoshop. LOL ... not the way to go, in my book. :o

[cdifoto]

Some aspects are important to realize. The "ISO-1600 shot" is so important in sales these days, that seems to be all the "buzz."

Personally ... it's not that big a thing, if you really do use better glass. Pushing to that high an ISO is ... well, just pushing it. It may be fun to try it out, but it's still nothing to brag about ... prime time.

Go ahead, CW ... shoot a wedding at ISO-1600, indoors/outdoors ... using f/4+ glass and just see how much more work you create for yourself in Photoshop. LOL ... not the way to go, in my book. :o

You are clearly clueless.

[DonSchap]

Yes ... some folks upgraded from the XT for reasons unexplained ... (they know who they are).

I don't appreciate purple and green flecks all over my large prints ... in the shadows and elsewhere. Uh, where's the problem? Is this now the new trend in modern photography. Well, picture that! :p

[Nickcanada]

I had no problems with ISO 1600 on my XT, it was the lack of ISO 3200 that pushed me over the edge, well that and the focusing issues. "bring on the noise" is what I always say... though with Canon I some times have add a little noise to get it looking right. ;)


http://i91.photobucket.com/albums/k320/livelifelivepics/Clock%20Strike%20Music/_MG_0819-Editcopy.jpg

[DonSchap]

My bigggest protest with ISO-1600 was that it tended to wash out the color ... nothing had any vibrance and required post-processing to try and recover it. I could post dozens of throw-away shots where ISO-1600 was just a desperate attempt to compensate for a limited aperture lens. Like taking f/4 indoors ... it's just not a good idea. Pop the flash ... it's a better idea.

The whole reason I expanded to f/2.8 zooms was to be able to just to be able to get indoors. Yeah, they cost more ... what doesn't? Just try buying f/2-glass! :eek:

Using ISO-800 was a far cry better, in that regard ... but, still, the noise issue at ISO-1600 is a per image kind of thing. It's hard to cough up a cardinal rule, especially in light (pardon the pun) of the current crop of able-bodied sensors.

What ... now I personally have ISO-6400 available to my shooting repetroir ... am I going to use it? Yeah, experimentally. I would not suggest committing production photography to such a gamble. It's all in the lighting ... not lack thereof. :eek:

When you consider what this is really all about ... it boils down to lack of a tripod, motion of the subject, and a lack of proper illumination. ISO simply forces the camera's sensor to work harder at collecting light. You know your images are going to suffer if you push them. It just stands to reason. You are fighting "proper exposure" vs "sensor-capability."

In AUTO-mode, does your camera EVER automatically select ISO-1600?

What does that tell you?

Yeah, it's a crap shoot. ;)

[coldrain]

My bigggest protest with ISO-1600 was that it tended to wash out the color ... nothing had any vibrance and required post-processing to try and recover it. I could post dozens of throw-away shots where ISO-1600 was just a desperate attempt to compensate for a limited aperture lens.
Wash out the colour? Like you see with an A100 at ISO 400 you mean? ;)

[cdifoto]

In AUTO-mode, does your camera EVER automatically select ISO-1600?

I dunno I don't let my camera think for me.

[Rooz]

In AUTO-mode, does your camera EVER automatically select ISO-1600?

What does that tell you?

Yeah, it's a crap shoot. ;)

i agree with you generally abiout hi iso although in CW's case, there isn't alot of choice sometimes and besides, on FF cams like the 1D and D3 1600 is more like 400 on apsc so not quite the same issues.

but to use the auto modes as a justification of the argument is pretty lame considering some of the bizarre outputs full auto uses on occasion.

[cwphoto]

Go ahead, CW ... shoot a wedding at ISO-1600, indoors/outdoors ... using f/4+ glass and just see how much more work you create for yourself in Photoshop. LOL ... not the way to go, in my book. :o

I do every time. The only extra work I need to do is flag the image for some NR in DPP (which can be batch-flagged). They clean up well.

I think I agree with CDI (again). ;)

[DonSchap]

Wash out the colour? Like you see with an A100 at ISO 400 you mean? ;)

Yes ... exactly like that, you sharp-eyed-noticer, you. Man, your experience with an α100 is ... just ... well, unbelievable. How do you come by all this experienced knowledge, Coldrain. I would have thought you'd have your hands FULL with the XT ... oops :rolleyes: ... that's right, the XT does not quite fill a human adult-hand, does it? My mistake. :p

Anyway ... since you have all this capable knowledge of α100 performance and capability, perhaps you could mind the SONY DSLR forums. How handy ... a second reference on the now defunct α100. What next? :cool:

[great_guns]

... that's right, the XT does not quite fill a human adult-hand, does it? My mistake. :p

:DI suppose the XT is only large enough to fill a "normal" human adult's hand. Freaks of nature might consider using a lot of insulation tape to beef up the volume to fit their hand.

I LOVE the gung-ho nature of this discussion though. Easily one of the most entertaining threads on the forum currently.

[DonSchap]

Oh, c'mon ... if you are under 5'8" and male ... or a sub-5'6" female, okay. But if you stand erect and the tape measure says ... "big", then the XT is ... small and hard to grip with any kind of substantial lens on it.

Actually, this was a hell of a fun conversation about two years ago, in the this very website. It was the battle of the XT versus the EOS 20D. Oh, everyone had an opinion and is usually wound up with someone buying a BG-E3 battery grip to try to fill the gap ... between half of your right-hand hangin' in the air and having better control of the camera body.

What's changed? LOL :confused:

BTW: Glad to color your day!

[cdifoto]

I do every time. The only extra work I need to do is flag the image for some NR in DPP (which can be batch-flagged). They clean up well.

I think I agree with CDI (again). ;)

Same here (shooting high ISO). Lightroom automagically by default removes 25% chroma (aka color) noise from all images at import, and that actually kills it to the point where noise is pleasant (even on the 10D @ 1600). I don't use DPP so much anymore since Adobe finally made LR fast enough to use.

[great_guns]

But if you stand erect and the tape measure says ... "big", then the XT is ... small and hard to grip with any kind of substantial lens on it.

LOL, yeah that's what I meant. Majority of the world's male population wears size M or size L shirts and stands between 5'5" and 5'10" tall. ;)


Oh, everyone had an opinion and is usually wound up with someone buying a BG-E3 battery grip to try to fill the gap ...

ROTFL, you ARE kidding, right? Why not just use the black insulation tape like I said? It wouldn't show up from more than 8 feet away and you could get it in exchange for a bag of peanuts. :DYou just tell people that the minimum focussing distance for the camera is 8 feet and they should hence not stand closer than that.;)

[DonSchap]

You have to know that the Japanese are not notorious for having big mitts ... so I would submit that the XTi's size would be the rage in these ... uh, well ... grasp-challenged countries. Oh, to be "PC", huh? :rolleyes:

Here in mid-America, folks ... our ham-handed sons are looking for a bit more to wrap their deinty digits around ... know what I mean? They want a bit more plastic in their rig. We drive trucks ... flip hay bales ... and wrestle cattle out yonder. If we wanted a teeny, tiny camera body ... well, we'd be buying us a P&S-type rig ... not a DSLR.


I don't know, what do you think?

32574

This is meant to be a dramtization and for humor purposes ONLY. :eek:

All I can say is ... thank goodness for that vertical grip! ;)

[Nickcanada]

Damn so that's where Jack went when he planted those magic beans.... Illinois! :D:eek:

[Rooz]

lol thats awesome.

[TenD]

You have to know that the Japanese are not notorious for having big mitts ... so I would submit that the XTi's size would be the rage in these ... uh, well ... grasp-challenged countries. Oh, to be "PC", huh? :rolleyes:

Here in mid-America, folks ... our ham-handed sons are looking for a bit more to wrap their deinty digits around ... know what I mean? They want a bit more plastic in their rig. We drive trucks ... flip hay bales ... and wrestle cattle out yonder. If we wanted a teeny, tiny camera body ... well, we'd be buying us a P&S-type rig ... not a DSLR.

All I can say is ... thank goodness for that vertical grip! ;)

Don if you were to state this in a different manner it wouldn't create animosity. Yes the grip is small on the XT and XTi we get it. But to blanket state that we as Americans want a bigger grip is hubris. Yes that's your opinion, "I think the grip is too small on XT/XTi" thank you for your opinion.

The proof is in the pudding sir, there have been a lot of XTs and XTis sold right here in the ham handed USA. The XTi is still the most looked at camera on DPreview, the Sony doesn't even make the top 10 chart.

I have shot with a 10D for nearly 4 years now and recently picked up and XT because the price was more than right and I liked the size because I get an SLR with excellent IQ that fits in the small confines of my workspace. If I have the teeny XT out, I don't even notice the small size of the grip, I place it to my face support my 80-200 f/2.8 with my left hand and shoot photos, and do you know what? The quality of those photographs are as good and any other DSLR out there...isn't that what we're all after? Great photos? Why should I or anyone else give a rip about the grip? It should be mentioned, but that's it, no reason to summarily reject the camera. Ergonomics come with use, and the little grip is something that a lot of Americans apparently thought they could and do live with.

[DonSchap]

Okay ... you've convinced me that my right-hand is completely wrong and out-of-bounds about this. I'll sit down and give it a stern talking to, when I'm done typing. Geez, you can't take this hand anywhere without it cmplaining about something or another. Everytime I sit down at the keyboard, off it goes ... on some tirade or rant.


"NOW, YOU JUST LISTEN HERE, YOU..."

32585
"Look Ma! I shot this with ... no hands!"


I suppose "it" will eventually come to grips concerning this ... but I'm not HOLDING out much hope. ;)

Seriously, though ... I figure these forums can be fun with the discussions, too. I mean if all this anger can be vented for the stupidest of reasons, why not occasional levity, without all the four-letter words that seem to currently accompany it.

[coldrain]

I would love to see don's hand filling big cellphone :rolleyes::cool:

[cdifoto]

I would love to see don's hand filling big cellphone :rolleyes::cool:

He probably bolted the pistol grip from a bronica to the back of his razr. :eek: :D

[TenD]

Okay ... you've convinced me that my right-hand is completely wrong and out-of-bounds about this. I'll sit down and give it a stern talking to, when I'm done typing. Geez, you can't take this hand anywhere without it cmplaining about something or another. Everytime I sit down at the keyboard, off it goes ... on some tirade or rant.

Seriously, though ... I figure these forums can be fun with the discussions, too. I mean if all this anger can be vented for the stupidest of reasons, why not occasional levity, without all the four-letter words that seem to currently accompany it.

Yes they certainly can be fun, and that photo of the mini XT is funny. Point made, again, and again, and again, and again, and again.... Have you ever noticed that you are the only one who keeps bringing up this point? My main reason(and I suspect most camera users, be it P&S or DSLR)for owning a camera is to take decent photos. We all work within the positive and negative aspects of our equipment. Small grip, but excellent photos at an excellent price, perfect for a lot of people. Proven by sales and click throughs. What have you got to back your opinion?...Just your opinion. Yep, Don thinks the grip on the XT/XTi is too small...who cares?!

The mini SLR still blows away most of the output I have seen from your big gripped machines, it's a good thing your right hand was comfortable while taking Captain America's portrait. I engage you in solid debate without angry or vulgar words and you continue in your usual style to ignore the debate and spout rhetoric on a tangent that has little to nothing to do with the debate. I'm not at all angry, you don't want to see me angry, I merely provide a counterpoint to your silly rantings and biases that really have little to do with photography. I thank you for stopping your trolling posts in the Canon forums. I again challenge you to come up with a photo situation that you can get with your big gripped Sony that I can't get with my mini SLR. You have yet to answer that challenge.

Let people choose their equipment without sophomoric, sarcastic posts that have nothing at all to do with the capability of the equipment and everything do do with your shallow personal opinion. The only reason I even bother answering these silly posts is some newbie will come here and see you as some kind of expert and take your opinion for fact. Everyone has a goal of taking decent photos, a Canon, Sony, Nikon, Pentax, Olympus, etc. are all perfectly capable of doing this. Each has merits and pitfalls, as consumers we have to decide which of these we can live with or without...and yes I get it, you think the grip on the Rebel series is too small...

[DonSchap]

TenD, you are taking this far too personally ... and if my opinion of the XT is not one that is shared ... it's okay. Really. You have your rights to take whatever with ... whatever. I, for one, am not in any position to prevent such decisions and only suggest that having a better-sized grip on your camera body is a "good thing." How you acheive that is you own affair ... through miniaturization of your appendages or slapping on a BG-E3.

Olympus, for years, prided itself on having the smallest film-SLR in the industry. I guess it caught on with Canon's XT DSLR. I have owned neither for just that reason. I chose Minolta ... and had, for thirty years. I have been pretty confident in the results and while Canon & Nikon may currently dominate the market ... things change. :cool:

Okay ... given that many people are not affected at the same level that I may be ... and given that, there are alternatives ... I have picked my own route to go, starting with SKIPPING COMPLETELY OVER the highly-touted Rebel-series and starting with something a bit more "grippable", the EOS 20D. The differences between these two cameras has been the subject of many a discussion ... but, still ... the EOS 20D offers a bigger shell. I have witnessed actual distress from others whose hands were larger and had inadvertantly chosen the cheaper XT as their choice, only to come back a month or two later, complaining of the ergonomics. Do you dismiss their complaints, also? Do they need to chime in to make you understand that this is a formidable issue for some?

It is hardly a dead issue. unless, of course, the XTi somehow grew larger overnight? It suddenly began accommodating those who find it ... a challenge to hold comfortably? Sure, mounted on a tripod, who gives a hoot what size the camera body is? But, when you have to manage a 200-500mm f/5-6.3 telephoto lens, handheld ... you're going to care.

I didn't mean to go off on this tagent, to be honest. In this thread, I was simply trying out ISO-1600 images on the Nikon D40 and the SONY α100. Canon was not even involved in this exercise. I apologize if anyone's feeling got hurt because Canon didn't make a bigger grip on their XT camera body ... and most people didn't want to pop the extra $400 buck to get the EOS 20D (which has a larger grip), when it came out. I understand being stingy and cheap. Money doesn't grow on trees ... or, atleast, I haven't found one producing ink. You buy what you can afford ... or effectively get away with. That's kind of why we all don't own full-frame sensor bodies. Nope, APS-C for me ... I'm ... uh, cheap. This is notoriously a pretty expensive hobby. It's not on the order of parachuting, yacht-sailing or shooting a 50-BMG rifle, but still ... it's usually more than the change in your pocket. I know, somewhere in this discussion, it must have been my opinion that made all the difference. :rolleyes:

Being magnanimous, I also concede that I have a devil of a time expressing myself on this medium. The words get all dis-com-bobbulated and don't make a lot of sense ... and resorting to mild sarcasm makes for a troublesome read, but I am "challenged" in that way. I ask only for your indulgence and assistance, when I slip and fall from the task at ... hand.

BTW: Sorry, that was my right-hand talkin', again ... * slap! *

[TenD]

I didn't even own an XT until mid 2007. I bought an XT despite all of the ranting by you about the "non man sized camera"(emasculating), the "ladies grip"(emasculating), the "Japanese person's grip"(prejudicial), etc. etc. Your suggestions that the camera is somehow less of a camera and bad choice for an American or a real man is personal. Personal to anyone who may be thinking about that body, and personal to anyone who owns that body. Maybe try something like this: "The grip on the XT/XTi a little on the small side which may hinder one handed operation or make the camera difficult to hold for those with large hands."

Obviously people do share your opinion about the grip on the XT, actually me included(it does have a small grip). But you somehow feel the need to attack people who have an XT with cute anecdotes that suggest they are less of a man, or photographer, or American if they buy one or own one. You are the one who's made it personal. I merely look at the XT as a tool, something to take photos with. It's cheap, fits in small spaces, takes all of Canon's excellent lenses, and takes photos that are every bit as good as any DSLR out there and IMO better than some.

The XT/XTi has it's flaws, every camera does, but that doesn't change the fact that it is fully capable of taking any photo any other DSLR is capable of taking and it does this for a very good price. The Rebel series was revolutionary in it's introduction, it made DSLR technology affordable to a large segment of the public. The XT/XTi body design is definitely a refinement of the original Rebel and as a body does its job just fine: houses a shutter and a sensor, that's all anyone needs it to do anything beyond that is gravy.

[DonSchap]

Truth be told, I think we are pushing the log in the same direction, TenD ... with the exception of ergonomics. Oh sure, these are a little different today, vesus a couple years ago ... and who knows what the future holds. Well, wait two-weeks and I guess we both will ... well, at least in the short run.

I have said this before, if you can get away with using the XT ... more power to you. You just saved yourself $500 to put down on a nice new and excellent Canon lens (or any lens, for that matter). If you need a bigger grip ... there are alternatives ... but they're going to cost you ... and you just may like them. :D :eek: :D Really!

Go PMA 08 (http://www.pmai.org/index.cfm/ci_id/1198/la_id/1.htm)

[erichlund]

Canon & Nikon may currently dominate the market ... things change. :cool:


Really? When in your photographic experience have Canon and Nikon not dominated the industry? There may have been a bit of turmoil during the switch from film to digital, but they were still selling lots of cameras and lenses.

The only way I see some company breaking the Nikon/Canon grip on the industry is if there is a sudden change in the technology that Nikon and Canon don't react to properly.

This happened in the computer industry. There was a time when people actually said, "You can never go wrong by buying IBM". Well, they are pretty much out of the PC business. They still build some big machines, and they have the consulting business. But I don't think you can even buy a new IBM desk or laptop. They misunderstood the technology, and got burned.

Canon and Nikon understand cameras. Clearly, they are giving the consumer what they want, and have as long as I have paid attention.

[Rooz]

The only way I see some company breaking the Nikon/Canon grip on the industry is if there is a sudden change in the technology that Nikon and Canon don't react to properly.

i think sony, (and Don), were hoping that this would be in-body IS. but both canon and nikon answered the call by expanding their range of IS lens' and making sure that the consumer grade lens' had the IS that alot of people were looking for.

i can;t see too many future lens' NOT having IS where its necessary at mid-long focal lengths. and thats a good thing sony brought to the industry.

[DonSchap]

... I can't see too many future lens' NOT having IS where it's necessary at mid-long focal lengths and thats a good thing SONY brought to the industry.

True, competition is totally healthy for the market. In a few more weeks, SONY will have a line of 30 lenses to go with its APS-C and new Full-Frame cameras. That definitely makes it competative ... and hopefully Nikon and Canon will continue to improve their lines to keep up. Maybe I haven't noticed, but it seems to me that their have not been that many lenses coming out of Canon these days.

Of course, PMA 08 will be telling, as usual. That's half the fun of having it. :D

Let the games begin ... :cool:

[Rooz]

17-55 IS, 55-250IS, 200 f2 IS, 85 f1.2
theres 4 pretty special and/ or marketable lens' just off the top of my head in the past 12-18mnths.

[coldrain]

True, competition is totally healthy for the market. In a few more weeks, SONY will have a line of 30 lenses to go with its APS-C and new Full-Frame cameras. That definitely makes it competative ... and hopefully Nikon and Canon will continue to improve their lines to keep up. Maybe I haven't noticed, but it seems to me that their have not been that many lenses coming out of Canon these days.

Of course, PMA 08 will be telling, as usual. That's half the fun of having it. :D

Let the games begin ... :cool:
Enjoy your Sony 70-200 f2.8, mr. with failing memory ;).

(70-200 f4 L IS USM. 85 f1.2 L USM II, 16-35 f2.8 L USM II, 18-55 f3.5-5.6 IS, 55-250 f4-5.6 IS, 14mm f2.8 L USM, 200mm f2 L IS USM among others.. which lenses has Sony introduced this last year? ;) :rolleyes:)

[DonSchap]

Coldrain ... aren't many of the lenses you listed just reworks of the original? Is that really ... ahem, new? Or is it just covering up shortfalls in the original design? :confused:

Just curious ... as ever. :D

Here's some advanced looks at the upcoming SONY releases:

32633

32634

32635

32636

32637
70-300mm f/4.5-5.6 G SSM

32638
70-200mm f/2.8 SSM

32639
300mm f/4 G SSM

32641
500mm f/2.8 G SSM ???

Just a start ... on the additions

32643

[cdifoto]

Coldrain ... aren't many of the lenses you listed just reworks of the original? Is that really ... ahem, new? Or is it just covering up shortfalls in the original design? :confused:

Just curious ... as ever. :D

OK what has Sony re-worked?

[coldrain]

They are all new, of course. Not the Sony style "new" where they relabel old Minolta and Tamron designs, but "new" as in new optic design, new electronics, new housing new.

You know... new as in... new.

So what lenses did Sony introduce this past year? (No answer?)

And I do remember you calling the Sony A700 "NEW" and not "REWORK OF THE ORIGINAL".... (7D).

[DonSchap]

They are all new, of course. Not the Sony style "new" where they relabel old Minolta and Tamron designs, but "new" as in new optic design, new electronics, new housing new.

You know... new as in... new.

So what lenses did Sony introduce this past year?

And I do remember you calling the Sony A700 "NEW" and not "REWORK OF THE ORIGINAL".... (7D).

Aw, C'mon ... I'm showing you ... what, you want me to sell them to you, too?

Stuff so new, it doesn't even have the silk-screen labeling done, yet.

Do some darn homework, pal. Enough of the big bad Canon attack. I submit to you that SONY is introducing more for their camera line, this year, than ANY other manufacturer. That's a strength and commitment to the product. Like they say: "actions over words."

Remeber all the "fly-by-night" talk, not too long ago? Looks like all the flying might be a red-eye to a new dawn.

Go to PMA for once. :cool: Talk about an eye-opening experience :eek:

[coldrain]

Are you really saying... Sony did not introduce ANY new lens last year?

[DonSchap]

Well, with the exception of the CZ 16-80mm f/3.5-4.5, CZ 16-105mm f/3.5-5.6, CZ 85mm f/1.8 & CZ 135mm f/1.8 ... nah, nothing much. :cool:

Look ... get a SONY and rearrange your glass-drawer, Coldrain. Catch the wave! LOL

[TenD]

Sony's got some catching up to do. Sony's current 30 lens lineup(after PMA according to Don)still pales in comparison to Canon's current over 60 lens line up. I can't make heads or tails of Nikon's line up because it's pretty complicated figuring out which lenses work where, but Nikon also has quite a lens line up. So of course if Sony wants to be a major player they'd have to introduce some new lenses to catch up.

Canon's commitment to their EOS auto-focus system is actually incredible. ALL of their EF lenses are still compatible with all of their EOS bodies from the very first EOS SLR. Canon made a tough call switching from and abandoning the FD mount leaving a lot of current customers without a choice, but made up for it by heavily supporting the new format, they are just light years ahead of Sony as far as lens selection so the need to introduce something new isn't as pressing.

[D Thompson]

Sony's got some catching up to do. Sony's current 30 lens lineup(after PMA according to Don)still pales in comparison to Canon's current over 60 lens line up.

Actually, if I counted correctly - Canon has 96 lenses pretty much covering all ranges, needs, and wants.

Don - take a look here http://www.usa.canon.com/app/pdf/lens/Lens_Extender_chart_new.pdf for some real glass. I also believe they've been around long enough to have labels on them!

[DonSchap]

Now, hey ... direct your inquisition to Coldrain ... I was perfectly content using quite a selection of Minolta & TAMRON-glass to accomplish my needs. Obviously, there are some improvements on the horizon, as camera sales improve and the Canon and Nikon marketshares are chopped and hacked away at.

I sense your mutual support and interest is at the heart of this drive forward, unlike watching Pentax and Olympus playing on the fringe.

Everyone stand up and cheer as SONY is taking a "big swing" a bat with their introduction of a Full-Frame, anti-shake-enabled DSLR. This a phenominal step forward, despite the protests of many Canon-supporters that it "can't be done."

The HDDI direct compatibility allows the camera to directly interface with the newest technology, yet the cameras maintain their legacy capability to use low-cost and great lenses from 23-years ago.

Nah, if anything, this a great time to have a SONY DSLR ... because it is just getting better and better, every year, so far. The variety of glass is expanding at an impressive rate and other aspects are about to improve in short order. Every mounted lens receives image-stability and that simply cannot be ignored.

Hey ... I know what I like. So shoot me. :cool:

One other thing ... is this a glass contest? At the rate SONY is cranking them out ... in three years ... nah, just kidding. Still, I would like a great wide-angle tilt-shift lens. Maybe next Christmas, huh?

[TenD]

Actually, if I counted correctly - Canon has 96 lenses pretty much covering all ranges, needs, and wants.

Don - take a look here http://www.usa.canon.com/app/pdf/lens/Lens_Extender_chart_new.pdf for some real glass. I also believe they've been around long enough to have labels on them!

I went with the current line up chart, the chart you linked to I think carries all of the EF lenses, and I didn't count the TC's as lenses although I guess they technically are lenses.

[Rooz]

the more lens' sony makes and the better their quality and the cheaper they may be and the better they perform and the more market share sony gets is alright by me.

more competition is the key gentlemen, whatever your weapon of choice. live view and IS were not put into dslr by nikon/ canon. they are catching up and theres nothing wrong with that.

[TenD]

more competition is the key gentlemen, whatever your weapon of choice. live view and IS were not put into dslr by nikon/ canon. they are catching up and theres nothing wrong with that.
I agree competition is good for everyone. The reason live view and IS weren't put in the body by Nikon/Canon is because they never felt they needed P&S gimmicks on DSLR. They both had an anti shake system that worked, something they never dreamed someone would demand for a short lens, where it becomes suspect in its usefulness. Tripods worked just fine for low light photography and for the most part for long lenses. 35mm photographers were always satisfied with the image through their viewfinder, The clamor for live view came from people upgrading from their point and shoot cameras to a DSLR. I would bet most 40D users didn't buy their new rigs for live view. I know if I had a 40D I doubt I would ever turn the silly thing on.

[Rooz]

agree on all those points TenD. but really, it was canon and nikon telling the consumer what they needed and what was a priority. when oly went for LV and sony went for in body IS. the big 2 had to respond and they did just as they would be expected to do. its debatable if either canon and nikon would have had entry level kit lens' and zooms with IS at very cheap prices right now if sony hadn;t pushed the envelope a little. thats the good thing.

i'm with you and far prefer the VF, but in saying that, LV has its uses, macro especially which is where i use it alot. but also for portrait work where you have the cam mounted on a tripod for a long time. its not about doing something you CAN'T do now, but doing it easier and giving people the options. no dslr has got it perfect yet. for LV to be truly effective it needs LV with AF, (no mirror flap down), it needs the AF to be fast and it needs a flip screen.

[TenD]

agree on all those points TenD. but really, it was canon and nikon telling the consumer what they needed and what was a priority. when oly went for LV and sony went for in body IS. the big 2 had to respond and they did just as they would be expected to do. its debatable if either canon and nikon would have had entry level kit lens' and zooms with IS at very cheap prices right now if sony hadn;t pushed the envelope a little. thats the good thing.


Agreed, but Oly and Minolta only did what they did out of desperation looking for a way to get their foot in the door. It wasn't because they necessarily thought it was better or good, but because they needed something different to set themselves apart. Would we have an A100, or D40 if it weren't for Canon introducing the 300D? Competition breeds innovation and experimentation and that benefits everyone.

It's weird, most of this stuff I could care less about, I am happy with my stuff and get about taking photos with it within the parameters of the equipment. I just can't stand by seeing biased statements made in huge, unsolicited, flowery, posts designed to advertise "my" camera gear. It drives me nuts. I wouldn't even think of coming into a general photography chat and saying: "Everyone should take a look at the system I bought, it's clearly the best". Or "Look what my system is doing at PMA...boy isn't my system wonderful". Or "I tested my system today at the local store vs the competition and boy did it ever come out on top". I can see answering a question for a poster, but to just come out and aver "my camera is the greatest" drive me nuts.

I guess it's a matter presentation. I think Tamron makes some fine products and will suggest them if I feel the situation is right. I think Sony makes some fine products too, and will suggest a Sony camera if the situation is right. The competition is tough and that can be nothing but good for everyone.

[cwphoto]

TenD, you write very well. :)

Oh, and is Sony really coming out with a 500/2.8? Or did Don just make up his own label?

[DonSchap]

Greetings, CW ... I got that information off a Dutch site (http://www.dslr.nl/?cat=nieuws&id=975) (<= Click here)

"Na een klein beetje smeken mochten wij ook het nieuwe objectief van Sony nog even bekijken waarvan overigens nog niet officieel bekend is wat voor soort objectief het gaat worden. Tot nog toe vonden we geen bevestiging in de geruchten dat het hier zou gaan om een 500mm f/2.8 objectief, en qua gewicht konden we er ook niks over zeggen omdat het objectief geen glasdelen bevatte en dus bijna niks woog."

... and I suppose it maybe iffy ... that is, until offcially confirmed. I'll add a question mark ... until it is stamped. Wouldn't want you having to change your shorts ... too soon. :eek: I know how you long for the long stuff. LOL

That would be a thrilling lens, though. :D Much smaller than the SIGMA's counterpart.

[TenD]

Now that's exciting. Is it going to be a FF or crop lens?

[coldrain]

First of all, that is not German.

2nd, that lens is not an f2.8 lens. That is clear from the thickness of the tube.

3rdly, they said that they had NO idea what lens it would be, it was just a guess. The "lens" was not even a lens, since it did not contain any glass elements yet (the thing that the people from that post saw). So what we are looking at is just some prototype housing from Sony, just like we were looking at prototype moldings of cameras.

When you put the lens next to some Canon lenses, you can see it is not an F2.8 lens, and most likely it is a 500mm f4 with very odd placing of the tripod support (and that it has an integrated lens hood). Maybe a 600mm f4, but not an f2.8 lens.

[Nickcanada]

What is with the white lens body thing?! :rolleyes:

Looking at the bodies it could still be a F2.8 400mm or some such thing but guessing is kinda useless... so what language is that?

[coldrain]

What is with the white lens body thing?! :rolleyes:

Looking at the bodies it could still be a F2.8 400mm or some such thing but guessing is kinda useless... so what language is that?
It can't be a 400mm f2.8, it is not wide enough (you need to look at the width of the right side for that).

[DonSchap]

Sorry about the "German" reference (it's been corrected) ... after closer inspection, it appears to be Dutch.

None the less, I'm not making this up ... it's right there. And at PMA 08 (http://www.pma08blog.com/) (<= Click here for PMA08 Blog) ... it should be ... yeah, RIGHT THERE! :)

The anxiety builds ... the excitement continues ... T-10 days and counting! :eek:

It's kind of weird how this has gone from an ad hoc "ISO-1600 comparison test" to the opening of PMA and a splendiforous array of new SONY lenses, huh? :confused:

[Nickcanada]

It can't be a 400mm f2.8, it is not wide enough (you need to look at the width of the right side for that).

I'm not a lens designer and I've never used a 300mm + F2.8 lens but I would assume that different manufacturers might be able to design lenses with different barrel diameters and still have the same F#. Also the picture of the Sony lens might not be to scale with the Canon lenses. Still like I said we are all still just guessing and it's useless to argue over a lens that hasn't even been announced yet.

[coldrain]

Sorry about the "German" reference (it's been corrected) ... after closer inspection, it appears to be Dutch.

None the less, I'm not making this up ... it's right there. And at PMA 08 (http://www.pma08blog.com/) (<= Click here for PMA08 Blog) ... it should be ... yeah, RIGHT THERE! :)

The anxiety builds ... the excitement continues ... :eek:
It is not "right there".

"Na een klein beetje smeken mochten wij ook het nieuwe objectief van Sony nog even bekijken waarvan overigens nog niet officieel bekend is wat voor soort objectief het gaat worden. Tot nog toe vonden we geen bevestiging in de geruchten dat het hier zou gaan om een 500mm f/2.8 objectief, en qua gewicht konden we er ook niks over zeggen omdat het objectief geen glasdelen bevatte en dus bijna niks woog."

"After a little bit of begging we also were allowed to look at the newest lens from Sony from which by the way is not officially said what kind of lens it is going to be. Till now we did not find any confirmation in the rumors that this would be a 500mm f2.8 lens, and weight wise we could also not make any conclusions because the lens did not contain any glass elements and so almost weighed nothing".

If you actually look at the sizes, you can see it is probably not an F2.8 anything. Not unless Sony has different physics than what Canon and Nikon face, or unless Sony does not mind to build in huge distortion to bend light at entry a lot to be able to cram f2.8 though a very narrow tube (and to have the aperture in front of the lens, rather than further back).

For a 500mm f2.8 lens you do need an aperture of... :
f 1/2.8 <-> X / 500
X = 500 / 2.8 = 179mm

For a 500m f4 lens:
f 1/4 <-> X / 500
X = 500 / 4 = 125mm

As you can see... that is a huge difference in how big the aperture mechanism should be. For f2.8 one would need a 20cm wide lens (at the point of where the aperture mechanism has to be placed, not at the lens opening)...!

Just to make the "story" complete:
A 400mm f2.8 will need a max. aperture of
f 1/4 <-> X / 400
X = 400 / 2.8 = 143mm

You can see why the 400mm f2.8 is so "fat".

[coldrain]

the more lens' sony makes and the better their quality and the cheaper they may be and the better they perform and the more market share sony gets is alright by me.

more competition is the key gentlemen, whatever your weapon of choice. live view and IS were not put into dslr by nikon/ canon. they are catching up and theres nothing wrong with that.
Minor correction:
Canon was the first manufacturer to offer live view in a DSLR (Canon EOS 20Da).
;)

[DonSchap]

Minolta was getting a heck of a lot out of its Ø49mm lenses (the 28mm, 50mm, 35-70mm) ... and I often think the only reason they widened them, later on, was simply to accomodate the stacking of filters. I know the math supports these sizes, so it really isn't at issue.

28mm/f2.8 = Ø10mm
50mm/f1.4 = Ø35mm
70mm/f4 = Ø17.5mm

SO, regardless of the actual size we are talking about, the proof will be when you slap this long lens on the front of a camera and pop the shot. If it is, indeed, an f/2.8 lens ... man oh man, someone is re-evaluating their mathematical analysis.

I won't get ahead of this, though ... it's merely speculation based on a foreign-posting and other subtle conversations I've been privy to, of late. Everybody loves a good secret ... especially when it can cause a monster wave. I mean look at all the hype "Cloverfield" has ... and it is steam-rolling the box office. Does it deliver? Guess we're waiting ... 10 days more.

[coldrain]

Minolta was getting a heck of a lot out of its Ø49mm lenses (the 28mm, 50mm, 35-70mm) ... and I often think the only reason they widened them, later on, was simply to accomodate the stacking of filters.

SO, regardless of the actual size we are talking about, the proof will be when you slap this long lens on the front of a camera and pop the shot. It is is, indeed, an f/2.8 lens ... man oh man, someone is re-evaluating their mathematical analysis.

I won't get ahead of this, though ... it's merely speculation based on a foreign-posting and other subtle conversations I've been privy to, of late. Everybody loves a good secret ... especially when it can cause a monster wave. I mean look at all the hype "Cloverfield" has ... and it is steam-rolling the box office. Does it deliver? Guess we're waiting ... 10 days more.
You seem to ignore my translation of your "foreign posting", where, when you read it, you will notice they did NOT say it was a 500mm f2.8.

And further more, what problem do you have with understanding the f-value in relation to lens focal length? The longer you go, the bigger you have to go with the aperture mechanism to get higher f-values. Simple fact.

And anyway... there has been serious talk (not silly rumor stuff) about Sony working on a 600mm f4 lens, so that is a lot more likely (also in comparison to the 600mm f4 lens from Canon).

[coldrain]

Also, what Don says would be a 70-200 f2.8 SSM is in face (and much more likely) a 80-400 lens like Tokina has, and a replacemnet of the old 100-400mm f4.5-6.3 from Minolta.
http://www.dcresource.com/forums/attachment.php?attachmentid=32638&d=1200867874


And this may be a bit short for a 300mm, so it may be a 200mm f2.8?
http://www.dcresource.com/forums/attachment.php?attachmentid=32639&d=1200867882

[coldrain]

When you put the Minolta 600mm f4 next to it it gets even more clear. The width of the tube is the same, the placing of the tripod collar is at the exact same position.

If we follow Don's idea of what is actually a "new" lens, I guess this would not even reconstitute a new Sony lens, merely a revamp of the Minolta 600mm f4...

[DonSchap]

Well, whatever they do ... it's a mixed bag of additions, Coldrain. Enjoy thumbing your nose as you goes :D :


32653
Use the scroll-slider and scope these puppies out! :eek:

That FF-body with "anti-shake" looks really cool, huh? Top display window and all! ;)
Mmm-baby, toss me a lens! Kind of makes a gearhead's head spin, doesn't it?

So quit bustin' my chumps before they really get mean! LOL :D

[coldrain]

I guess that is your way of saying "Yeah, I guess that lens probably will be a 600mm f4 follow up of that Minolta 600mm f4 lens".:rolleyes::p

[DonSchap]

Hey, I'm not saying anything ... I can wait a little while longer.
My billfold isn't quite that big ... yet. ;)

But, hey, I appreciate your research. Honestly ... these are fun times to be doing this.
It was really quite boring back in the early 90's, as I recall.
These next three years promise some excellent advances in glassware. :)

The collective users against the manufacturing collaborators ...

Still, I really would like that Tilt-Shift Wide-Angle.

Minolta had one, long ago (no tilt, just shift) ... back when I was in high school,
so I don't think they'll be reanimating that one, Coldrain: :rolleyes:

32655

32654

Oh yeah ... toss in AF just for fun.
Don't need anti-shake ... already got that. ;)

[cwphoto]

When you put the Minolta 600mm f4 next to it it gets even more clear. The width of the tube is the same, the placing of the tripod collar is at the exact same position.

If we follow Don's idea of what is actually a "new" lens, I guess this would not even reconstitute a new Sony lens, merely a revamp of the Minolta 600mm f4...

Hmmmm, looks like a 400/2.8 to me.

Too short to be a 600/4, too fat to be a 500/4.

[coldrain]

Well sorry, but it is just not fat enough for a f2.8 lens. Where exactly is the aperture located on these long lenses?

It is almost certain to be the long rumored and long awaited 600mm f4, just notice how the tripod collar and the width of the middle part exactly match that.
How can it be too short for a 600mm f4 if the Minolta 600mm with its hood is shorter, and the Canon is shorter too?
Do not think that entire front structure is just only a hood, that would place the tripod collar on the outer edge of the lens.

f2.8 would just have to make the middle of the lens barrel much wider. And if the aperture actually would be fitted on the wide (left in the pics) part of the lens, there would be quite some vigneting wide open.

[cwphoto]

Everything left of the thin black line near the tripod mount looks like hood to me. If so, that would make the lens too short IMO to be a 600/4.

To my eyes the lens doesn't look too thin to accomodate f/2.8 at 400mm - it looks very similar to the Canon.

I could be wrong but to me it looks more like a 400/2.8 than anything else.

[great_guns]

Guys, this surely is the funnest thread that I've come across in this forum. Don obviously loves his Sony as we all do our own gear (after all, we've spent a sizeable chunk of our time and earnings into it).

For me as an amateur, its good to see newer players entering the market and making it more competitive. In some cases, the newer players can be as good as or better than the classic old timers .The Panny super-zooms are an example.

The difference though here is what most other senior members here agree on - buying into an entire camera system instead of just one camera so when I bought my Panasonic Lumix FZ20, I did not need to worry about buying too many other accessories for it whereas when I decide to buy a D-SLR, there are these factors to worry about. So IMO, the newer manufacturers will need to work very hard to build an entire camera system before thinking of making a serious dent in the classic old timers' business. Sony are on their way and hopefully Panasonic will be too with their L series D-SLRs though they are almost on a different market due to their price.

Slyly sliding back to the discussion of camera sizes, I suppose only the Scandinavian countries and a handful others have an average male population height > 6'. It is somewhat like making clothes. No manufacturer would make 80% of his stock in XXL just because his family is all XXL. It makes more sense to make a smaller sized camera because I suppose a smaller Rebel-sized camera would fit more hands in the world than a larger one. I am glad the manufacturers finally realised that instead of tom-tomming to the world that a seriously good camera needs to be fiendishly humongous, they used the latest technology that has allowed them to make smaller yet superb quality cameras. Yes and it would help if people on forums were a little respectable to other normal people who are not taller than 5'10".

[DonSchap]

If want to know a big guy dealing with the Canon XTi/XSi grip ... check out the Canon-dude marketing the XSi, at PMA 08 ... his hands and head are sizeably bigger than the guy assisting. It's amazing.

Here's the link (http://www.imaging-resource.com/EVENTS/PMAS08/PMAS08VIDEO.HTML#vid03)

Enjoy ... :eek:

[great_guns]

Couldn't view the videos but THREE of the thumbnails to show one big guy and one small guy in each. LOL, wonder whether they are having the same discussion as we are!:p

[DonSchap]

You made need to update your "viewer software" ... they should work. It's the standard YouTube-type video.

[great_guns]

:DYeah, I know. I meant I "couldnt" watch the videos because I was at work.