October 31, 2014, 06:29:04 PM

Author Topic: Are These The EOS 7D Mark II Specifications?  (Read 72734 times)

unfocused

  • Canon EF 300mm f/2.8L IS II
  • *******
  • Posts: 2193
    • View Profile
    • Unfocused: A photo website
Re: Are These The EOS 7D Mark II Specifications?
« Reply #405 on: August 24, 2014, 05:30:10 PM »
What do you think if everyone here started emailing Canon, started hitting up their booths at conventions, and started loudly demanding better sensor IQ?

Of all the things that I have read of yours on CR that is the most extraordinary to date.

Demanding better IQ. Have you actually used a camera with the Sony Exmor sensor ? I know nothing about astrophotography, or whatever it's called; perhaps there is a benefit there, but to 'demand better IQ' with the exceptional sensors we now have........

Ha! This is extraordinary. There are a grand total of 8,132 members of this forum. This particular thread has drawn a total of just under 18,000 view and 402 replies.

That's good for an internet forum, but hardly significant in terms of customers. And, don't assume that a significant percentage of these forum participants agree with the premise. Please, let's have a little perspective here.

There are maybe what? – a dozen persons on this forum who consistently comment on and claim dissatisfaction with dynamic range from Canon sensors.

Would I mind having improvements in sensors? No, of course, not. Do I think the differences between brands of sensors has any real impact on the quality of my photographs, absolutely not.

Would I want Canon to divert research and development dollars away from other improvements to focus exclusively on sensor improvement? No way!

In fact, in thinking about features that would make be consider buying a new camera, an extra stop of dynamic range wouldn't even make it into the top 20.

The current sensors are not holding me back from anything I want to produce... To a certain extent photography as an art form is defined by its limitations.

Exactly. The joy and art of photography is in trying to make a machine conform to an individual's vision. To take the basic elements of a photograph and wrestle a compelling image from a mechanical box. 

Stephen Shore described the basic elements of all photographs: flatness, frame, time and focus. John Szarkowski talked about: the thing itself, the detail, the frame, time and vantage point.

Both essentially are describing the same things. These are what make photographs photographs and until I master each of these, I'm really not going to worry about minute differences in sensors. I expect it will take me the rest of my life.

So, if others want to start a new grassroots movement to demand more dynamic range in Canon sensors, go ahead, knock yourselves out.
pictures sharp. life not so much. www.unfocusedmg.com

canon rumors FORUM

Re: Are These The EOS 7D Mark II Specifications?
« Reply #405 on: August 24, 2014, 05:30:10 PM »

Lee Jay

  • 1D X
  • *******
  • Posts: 1164
    • View Profile
Re: Are These The EOS 7D Mark II Specifications?
« Reply #406 on: August 24, 2014, 05:36:39 PM »
Exactly. The joy and art of photography is in trying to make a machine conform to an individual's vision.

That machine's job is to make ME the limitation, not it.

jrista

  • Canon EF 400mm f/2.8L IS II
  • *******
  • Posts: 4492
  • EOL
    • View Profile
    • Nature Photography
Re: Are These The EOS 7D Mark II Specifications?
« Reply #407 on: August 24, 2014, 05:39:45 PM »
It's a simple question. Do you NOT want to have better IQ across the board? Truly? I mean, technology PROGRESSES. So, if you are honestly telling me that you do NOT want better top to bottom sensor IQ....

The current sensors are not holding me back from anything I want to produce. I would like to see improvements in gradient of clipping to white and black, significantly more DR would speed up my processing.

But to be quite honest, do I want sensor technology to progress to the point where anyone, never mind how unskilled, can press the shutter and produce a perfectly post processed picture irrespective of the mistakes they make in exposure ? No I don't.

Despite all the advancement in digital imaging, photographic skill still plays a major role; I'm sure that that challenge to improve and advance is what many enjoy. However it is gradually being whittled down by technology. I just hope it doesn't go altogether.

To a certain extent photography as an art form is defined by its limitations.

So, if I understand what your saying...you purposely want to keep photography "elite" and inaccessible to novices or those you consider "not photographers"? Even if it means the same technology that makes photography more accessible could also give you the means to improve your own photography?

That is honestly not the reason I expected...  :o Not even remotely.

I completely disagree that photography is being "whittled down by technology." Technology does not make someone a photographer. Technology enables real photographers, gives them more and better tools to create amazing works. We could have technology ten times better than we do today, and putting such a camera in the hands of someone who is not a photographer will NEVER result in a photo where the user "can press the shutter and produce a perfectly post processed picture irrespective of the mistakes they make in exposure." It has nothing to do with mistakes when it's an actual photographer who understands how to choose the right exposure.

Photography will still always be about the photographer. You will still always have to post process, and you will have to know how, to have the skill to fully extract the most quality. You will always have to pay attention to lighting, you will always have to choose the right exposure, you will always have to pick the right subject. Improvements in technology benefit the real photographer far more than they will ever benefit the non-photographer.

To wish technology would stop progressing so a novice cannot create a good photo is...quite frankly...incredibly selfish and egotistical. I'm honestly surprised by that answer.  :-\

jrista

  • Canon EF 400mm f/2.8L IS II
  • *******
  • Posts: 4492
  • EOL
    • View Profile
    • Nature Photography
Re: Are These The EOS 7D Mark II Specifications?
« Reply #408 on: August 24, 2014, 05:44:10 PM »
Exactly. The joy and art of photography is in trying to make a machine conform to an individual's vision.

That machine's job is to make ME the limitation, not it.

Totally agree. I don't want to be limited by technology.

Old Sarge

  • Rebel T5i
  • ****
  • Posts: 145
    • View Profile
Re: Are These The EOS 7D Mark II Specifications?
« Reply #409 on: August 24, 2014, 05:54:48 PM »
New Battery – LP-E6N

I haven't kept up with the battery changes.  Are the current varients interchangeable and just have different capacities or are they genuinely different?  Is Canon just trying to keep people buying their batteries and away from third parties?

I have, and intend to continue to have, both full frame (5D) and crop bodies but will absolutely demand that they use the same batteries and chargers like my current two do.

This one bugs me.  I am hoping that the E6N designations means that it is interchangeable with the E6, otherwise I will have to carry BP-511 (for 40D...wife's 30D will be given to my son), LP-E6 for 7D, and LP-E6N for the 7DII/X  if I decide to purchase it.  Not a deal breaker....but annoying.
The Old Sarge

Famateur

  • Canon 70D
  • ****
  • Posts: 281
    • View Profile
Re: Are These The EOS 7D Mark II Specifications?
« Reply #410 on: August 24, 2014, 06:00:36 PM »
To a certain extent photography as an art form is defined by its limitations.

I like the spirit of this observation. Knowing that the average shmoe isn't going to bracket/blend a high dynamic range scene means there's still something special when one does it, and does it well.

Thankfully, the soul of a photograph is its composition, lighting, feel -- things that technology will likely never replace...



While digesting all these pages of discussion on dynamic range, I've decided to share my own two cents (if even worth that much):

I recently returned from a short family vacation to Arches National Park. Being a vacation first and photo-op second, I wasn't able to be at Landscape Arch for the light I wanted, but since I was there, I still wanted to get some decent photos with my 70D.

The sky was mostly full of heavy black rain clouds and some sprinkling, but there was a hole in those clouds nearly over the sun, so despite the cloud cover, it was bright -- right behind the arch. I quickly set my camera to a three-shot bracket and fired away, planning to blend them in post. I used the same strategy the night before as the sun set behind us up at Delicate Arch.

Back home with the RAW files in Lightroom, I started to do a little touching-up of the three shots before blending them, starting with the under-exposed shot first. Just for the hay of it, I decided to fiddle with the file as if I didn't have two other exposures to blend. The result? I actually skipped the other two exposures! Sure I might go ahead and take the time to blend them to see if I can get a better result, but I was amazed at what I was able to pull out of the one dark file with only modest noise reduction (Luminance NR at 26).

Here's a before and after (keep in mind I'm not a pro -- just a family guy with a 70D):


Landscape Arch Before-And-After (from underexposed file of three-shot bracket)

Anyway, for this non-pro, I was pleasantly surprised with what I could do, even if Canon is "behind" in dynamic range, latitude, whatever... Had I only shot JPEG, yeah, it would have been a throw-away, but isn't this why we shoot RAW to begin with?

PS: What looks like a halo along the top of the arch is some chromatic aberration (nearly silhouetted arch against bright clouds) "removed" by Lightroom. The color is gone, but I'm not sure how to eliminate the halo effect without resorting to some tedious Photoshopping.

jrista

  • Canon EF 400mm f/2.8L IS II
  • *******
  • Posts: 4492
  • EOL
    • View Profile
    • Nature Photography
Re: Are These The EOS 7D Mark II Specifications?
« Reply #411 on: August 24, 2014, 06:10:13 PM »
@Famateur: Because of the fact that the sky was overcast, that dispersed a lot of the light, resulting a higher diffuse ambient level. The dynamic range of the scene was within the dynamic range of the sensor. A scene that was directly lit by the sun would actually have had higher dynamic range, and actually posed a greater problem for lifting the shadows.

Given the unprocessed version of your image, I would offer that you could have underexposed slightly more, and avoided the pinkish/purple toning that occurred when you recovered the highlights in the clouds. You might have had slightly more noise in the foreground, but I think that would ultimately be preferable to the color grading issues in the clouds.

canon rumors FORUM

Re: Are These The EOS 7D Mark II Specifications?
« Reply #411 on: August 24, 2014, 06:10:13 PM »

Famateur

  • Canon 70D
  • ****
  • Posts: 281
    • View Profile
Re: Are These The EOS 7D Mark II Specifications?
« Reply #412 on: August 24, 2014, 06:18:28 PM »
@Famateur: Because of the fact that the sky was overcast, that dispersed a lot of the light, resulting a higher diffuse ambient level. The dynamic range of the scene was within the dynamic range of the sensor. A scene that was directly lit by the sun would actually have had higher dynamic range, and actually posed a greater problem for lifting the shadows.

Given the unprocessed version of your image, I would offer that you could have underexposed slightly more, and avoided the pinkish/purple toning that occurred when you recovered the highlights in the clouds. You might have had slightly more noise in the foreground, but I think that would ultimately be preferable to the color grading issues in the clouds.

Agreed on both points. :)

The first thing I noticed when I opened the file was that, despite the underexposure, I still managed to burn some of the sky. Hard to see on an LCD outside, but what can you do. With wife and kids anxious to move on, no time to fiddle with enabling highlight alert. I'll see if I can desaturate that patch of pinkish clouds with a local brush...

jrista

  • Canon EF 400mm f/2.8L IS II
  • *******
  • Posts: 4492
  • EOL
    • View Profile
    • Nature Photography
Re: Are These The EOS 7D Mark II Specifications?
« Reply #413 on: August 24, 2014, 06:24:56 PM »
@Famateur: Because of the fact that the sky was overcast, that dispersed a lot of the light, resulting a higher diffuse ambient level. The dynamic range of the scene was within the dynamic range of the sensor. A scene that was directly lit by the sun would actually have had higher dynamic range, and actually posed a greater problem for lifting the shadows.

Given the unprocessed version of your image, I would offer that you could have underexposed slightly more, and avoided the pinkish/purple toning that occurred when you recovered the highlights in the clouds. You might have had slightly more noise in the foreground, but I think that would ultimately be preferable to the color grading issues in the clouds.

Agreed on both points. :)

The first thing I noticed when I opened the file was that, despite the underexposure, I still managed to burn some of the sky. Hard to see on an LCD outside, but what can you do. With wife and kids anxious to move on, no time to fiddle with enabling highlight alert. I'll see if I can desaturate that patch of pinkish clouds with a local brush...

Aye, I understand. That is one of the areas where having more DR can be very useful. It has nothing to do with being a novice or not, knowing how to choose exposure or not. Sometimes the tools in our hands don't tell us everything. For example, JPEG thumbnails are usually used to generate the histogram shown on the camera, and to determine when to show "blinkies" that indicate blown highlights when previewing images. Use of JPEG results in highly inaccurate feedback. However, sometimes, when your on the run, with the family, wouldn't it be really nice to be able to dial in a darker exposure than you think you could probably get away with...and just not have to worry that doing so will affect your IQ?

Two additional stops of editing latitude would allow that. It's just one of the things it can allow for. I don't think it's an invalid reason because it helps you continue to create better photography when your in a rush. There can't really be any bad reasons for having better technology. At the same time, having an additional two stops of editing latitude means if that arch WAS directly and brightly lit by the sun...you could have still gotten a photo and been able to extract whatever amount of detail you wanted to from the shadows, without running into nasty color noise, banding, etc.



Based on the tone around here, I can only assume the following:

Just because you used a camera with a better sensor to get either shot, one with diffuse lighting vs. one with direct lighting, and were able to lift the shadows more, would likely get you labeled either as a total noob who doesn't know how to expose, or a poser who isn't a "real" photographer who takes on the challenge of creating a real work of art with limited equipment...

Seriously...  ::)

that1guyy

  • EOS M2
  • ****
  • Posts: 168
    • View Profile
Re: Are These The EOS 7D Mark II Specifications?
« Reply #414 on: August 24, 2014, 06:52:54 PM »
I just think it's embarrassing how Canon's top of the line crop cameras are so far behind technologically to Sony's.

Can you please list the features that make a camera like the Sony A5100 so technologically superior to a top of the line Canon crop camera.  Feel free to discuss advantages in areas like native lens selection, AF speed, frame rate, focus tracking of moving subjects, integration with a radio-controlled off-camera flash system, etc. 

If you mean sensor and not camera, please say so.  As I've said repeatedly, people don't buy bare silicon sensors to take pictures, they buy cameras.

Let me compare the 70D to the A6000.

I know I specifically mentioned the A5100 when talking about the sensor, but I was speaking generally of Sony's crop cameras compared to Canon's in terms of overall camera capability so I'll use the a6000 as my example.

The a6000 is much cheaper at $800 (actually $648 now on Amazon).
The a6000 is full metal compared to 70D being plastic.
The a6000 shoots up to 11fps compared to the 7fps on the 70D
The a6000 has a 179 focus points compared to 19 on the 70D
The a6000 shoots 60p video at full hd (note: also with better quality)
The a6000 has 100% viewfinder coverage compared to 98% on the 70D

On top of that, it has a superior sensor with more dynamic range, color sensitivity, and tonal range.

Sure Canon sells more, but it's probably due to the fact that Canon has better brand awareness with consumers.

Edit: Let me also add, I'm not saying Canon's cameras are terrible. In fact, they're quite capable of getting good results. It's just that Canon no longer seems to care about having the best image quality (at least sub $6k) and being on the cutting edge in terms of features and sensor, and to me it's disappointing, regardless of sales figures, that other companies can offer overall better sensors AND better cameras, at a cheaper price.

If you want to measure "better" by sales figures, go ahead but I'm just talking about my subjective views of "better."
« Last Edit: August 24, 2014, 07:01:31 PM by that1guyy »

dgatwood

  • 1D Mark IV
  • ******
  • Posts: 771
  • 300D, 400D, 6D
    • View Profile
Re: Are These The EOS 7D Mark II Specifications?
« Reply #415 on: August 24, 2014, 07:05:00 PM »

These specs just keep getting more and more bizarre.  If correct, Canon is including GPS, which requires multiple really sensitive antennas near the outside of the body, but not GPS, which can be done with two cheap strip antennas taped to the back of the screen bezel.  They did the hard engineering, and skipped the easy stuff.  And that would mean that the 70D has one consumer-oriented feature, and the 7D has the other.  Really weird.

 :o : ???

If correct, my only questions would be what they're smoking and where I can get some....

Zv

  • 1D X
  • *******
  • Posts: 1287
    • View Profile
    • Zeeography (flickr)
Re: Are These The EOS 7D Mark II Specifications?
« Reply #416 on: August 24, 2014, 07:26:33 PM »
I just think it's embarrassing how Canon's top of the line crop cameras are so far behind technologically to Sony's.

Can you please list the features that make a camera like the Sony A5100 so technologically superior to a top of the line Canon crop camera.  Feel free to discuss advantages in areas like native lens selection, AF speed, frame rate, focus tracking of moving subjects, integration with a radio-controlled off-camera flash system, etc. 

If you mean sensor and not camera, please say so.  As I've said repeatedly, people don't buy bare silicon sensors to take pictures, they buy cameras.

Let me compare the 70D to the A6000.

I know I specifically mentioned the A5100 when talking about the sensor, but I was speaking generally of Sony's crop cameras compared to Canon's in terms of overall camera capability so I'll use the a6000 as my example.

The a6000 is much cheaper at $800 (actually $648 now on Amazon).
The a6000 is full metal compared to 70D being plastic.
The a6000 shoots up to 11fps compared to the 7fps on the 70D
The a6000 has a 179 focus points compared to 19 on the 70D
The a6000 shoots 60p video at full hd (note: also with better quality)
The a6000 has 100% viewfinder coverage compared to 98% on the 70D

On top of that, it has a superior sensor with more dynamic range, color sensitivity, and tonal range.

Sure Canon sells more, but it's probably due to the fact that Canon has better brand awareness with consumers.

Edit: Let me also add, I'm not saying Canon's cameras are terrible. In fact, they're quite capable of getting good results. It's just that Canon no longer seems to care about having the best image quality (at least sub $6k) and being on the cutting edge in terms of features and sensor, and to me it's disappointing, regardless of sales figures, that other companies can offer overall better sensors AND better cameras, at a cheaper price.

If you want to measure "better" by sales figures, go ahead but I'm just talking about my subjective views of "better."

The a6000 is a mirrorless interchangeable lens camera while the 70D is a DSLR. You're comparing between two different types of camera.

11fps is easier when there's no mirror to move out the way.

179 AF points but how many are phase detect? Heck even the EOS M has 31 AF points but you wouldn't say it's better than the 70D now would you?

And that viewfinder is electronic vs an optical one on the 70D.

Cheaper? Of course it's cheaper it's a whole different class of camera. My point and shoot is cheaper than my 5D2, does that make it better? (Yeah, only in one category!  :P )
« Last Edit: August 24, 2014, 07:34:15 PM by Zv »
6D | 17-40L | 24-105L | 70-200 f4L IS | 135L | SY 14 2.8 | Sigma 50 1.4

EOS M | 11-22 IS STM | 22 STM | FD 50 1.4

vscd

  • EOS M2
  • ****
  • Posts: 184
  • 5DC
    • View Profile
Re: Are These The EOS 7D Mark II Specifications?
« Reply #417 on: August 24, 2014, 07:28:25 PM »
Quote
Edit: Let me also add, I'm not saying Canon's cameras are terrible. In fact, they're quite capable of getting good results. It's just that Canon no longer seems to care about having the best image quality (at least sub $6k) and being on the cutting edge in terms of features and sensor, and to me it's disappointing, regardless of sales figures, that other companies can offer overall better sensors AND better cameras, at a cheaper price.

Sony may have some advances in sensortechnology... but try to find a serious lens-package for an A7, for example.

Maybe Canon has different priorities or is trying to invent/test something in the background. We don't know. There is always someone better until a new technology hits the market. Always take the whole package into account, a sensor is just a part of it.

5DC, 24-85, 85 1.2L II, 80-200 2.8L, 100 2.8L IS, 14 2.8, 35 1.4, 75-300 IS, 40STM

canon rumors FORUM

Re: Are These The EOS 7D Mark II Specifications?
« Reply #417 on: August 24, 2014, 07:28:25 PM »

unfocused

  • Canon EF 300mm f/2.8L IS II
  • *******
  • Posts: 2193
    • View Profile
    • Unfocused: A photo website
Re: Are These The EOS 7D Mark II Specifications?
« Reply #418 on: August 24, 2014, 07:30:01 PM »
The current sensors are not holding me back from anything I want to produce... To a certain extent photography as an art form is defined by its limitations.

Exactly. The joy and art of photography is in trying to make a machine conform to an individual's vision. To take the basic elements of a photograph and wrestle a compelling image from a mechanical box. 



That machine's job is to make ME the limitation, not it.

Totally agree. I don't want to be limited by technology.

Clearly you don't get it. A camera is nothing more than a mechanical box. It will always be limited. To be a photographer is to understand those limitations, which can never be separated from the medium. And, to use those limitations to produce works of distinct, personal vision.

In its highest form, those images will speak to people and convey a message than transcends the image itself.

Sure, technology marches on and it's nice to be able to take advantage of those advancements to make images that are technically improved. But, never equate technical perfection with quality.

Time marches on, but Robert Frank's grainy, unsharp, less than perfect images don't prevent him from remaining the most influential photographer of the second half of the 20th century. A photographer who accomplishment remains unmatched today.

Any photographer who can't produce a great image because of the limitations of his or her equipment was never much of a photographer in the first place.
pictures sharp. life not so much. www.unfocusedmg.com

Stu_bert

  • EOS M2
  • ****
  • Posts: 247
    • View Profile
Re: Are These The EOS 7D Mark II Specifications?
« Reply #419 on: August 24, 2014, 07:33:57 PM »
@Famateur: Because of the fact that the sky was overcast, that dispersed a lot of the light, resulting a higher diffuse ambient level. The dynamic range of the scene was within the dynamic range of the sensor. A scene that was directly lit by the sun would actually have had higher dynamic range, and actually posed a greater problem for lifting the shadows.

Given the unprocessed version of your image, I would offer that you could have underexposed slightly more, and avoided the pinkish/purple toning that occurred when you recovered the highlights in the clouds. You might have had slightly more noise in the foreground, but I think that would ultimately be preferable to the color grading issues in the clouds.

Agreed on both points. :)

The first thing I noticed when I opened the file was that, despite the underexposure, I still managed to burn some of the sky. Hard to see on an LCD outside, but what can you do. With wife and kids anxious to move on, no time to fiddle with enabling highlight alert. I'll see if I can desaturate that patch of pinkish clouds with a local brush...

Aye, I understand. That is one of the areas where having more DR can be very useful. It has nothing to do with being a novice or not, knowing how to choose exposure or not. Sometimes the tools in our hands don't tell us everything. For example, JPEG thumbnails are usually used to generate the histogram shown on the camera, and to determine when to show "blinkies" that indicate blown highlights when previewing images. Use of JPEG results in highly inaccurate feedback. However, sometimes, when your on the run, with the family, wouldn't it be really nice to be able to dial in a darker exposure than you think you could probably get away with...and just not have to worry that doing so will affect your IQ?

Two additional stops of editing latitude would allow that. It's just one of the things it can allow for. I don't think it's an invalid reason because it helps you continue to create better photography when your in a rush. There can't really be any bad reasons for having better technology. At the same time, having an additional two stops of editing latitude means if that arch WAS directly and brightly lit by the sun...you could have still gotten a photo and been able to extract whatever amount of detail you wanted to from the shadows, without running into nasty color noise, banding, etc.



Based on the tone around here, I can only assume the following:

Just because you used a camera with a better sensor to get either shot, one with diffuse lighting vs. one with direct lighting, and were able to lift the shadows more, would likely get you labeled either as a total noob who doesn't know how to expose, or a poser who isn't a "real" photographer who takes on the challenge of creating a real work of art with limited equipment...

Seriously...  ::)

Having better tech is useful, but is it always required?

Canon has to balance their investment and return across multiple lines within their camera business, and to be successful they're not always going to change at the pace we want. That they have the tech via patents but chose not yet to implement it means the business case does not stack up in terms of the cost of producing it vs the extra revenue it will bring.

Where I think you have to be careful Jrista is that you have stated that other than for astro photography, most of your shots are at higher ISO where Canon is not lagging behind. Your shots demonstrate that you can take good pictures. Yet you seem to have completely lost your rag with Canon (not anyone here) because they chose still not to implement their better tech.

Being passionate, voicing the need for change is fine. Appearing to suggest that Canon needs to adapt their ways or they will be the next dinosaur is somewhat out of character for you.

Will Canon be here in 10 years time? Not sure. The photography market is under threat because there is a high percentage of the population who are happy with the quality from their smartphones. That's hit revenues quite a bit, couple with a global recession. Many companies, including Canon, are being more cautious.

Smaller companies are always less risk adverse... They have less to lose, and everything to gain. Nikon chose to side with another company who had nothing to lose, Sony. And the competition is great as a result. Ditto mirror less. More choice is good. Will Nikon survive their decision better than Canon? I suspect Sony will buy them in a few years time as they struggle to adapt.

I'm just not convinced personally that there is sufficient gain by moving to Nikon or Sony. Your mileage may differ. A friend of mine sold his 5d mk iii and probably about 10k euros of lenses, retaining his 600mm and 7d. He swapped to Fuji, so it can be done....

Like I said, your contribution to explaining a lot of the tech here has been welcome. I would welcome improvements in Canon sensor, sure would.
If life is all about what you do in the time that you have, then photography is about the pictures you take not the kit that took it. Still it's fun to talk about the kit, present or future :)

canon rumors FORUM

Re: Are These The EOS 7D Mark II Specifications?
« Reply #419 on: August 24, 2014, 07:33:57 PM »