Canon and Nikon - Past Their Prime? by Kai Wong

[Chuck Alaimo]

How about we take the sensor from the Sony A7R and slap it into an SLR body?

At the end of the day, its all about ending up with the best picture possible but many of us are so comfortable with the SLR form factor that any other form, makes us uncomfortable. We also "look" less than professional if we show up with a "smallish" camera that looks like the same camera everyone else has

isn't that the d610 and d800????---

I firmly believe that once this whole, make it smaller thing is dropped then canon and nikon can do what i bet they actually want to do ---make a mirrorless option that fits with their current ecosystems of lenses ---.

It's funny that many say slr's are dying, but what i see is a mirrorless market that has no identity. Oh we want to be smaller, but not really small, we want to be user friendly for all, but not really, we want to be as good as an slr but need 10 more years to make appropriate lenses, but dang it to do that we're making something the size of an A7, which isn't all that much smaller than an slr, snor does it really weigh significantly less than an slr, and once you toss the adaptor on there and use standard lenses, it's the same size and barely and less weight.

Even for travel, if i still have to have a camera bag and multiple lenses and batteries then how does that size factor really help? Eventually the market will figure this out and either drop the whole idea of mirrorless or, integrate into the existing ecosystem.

I partly agree with you, except for I've what I've marked in Red font ... to me those comments suggest that you have not used an a7 or the a7R with or without an adapter. I have been using a7+metabones adapter+EF primes for over a month now and I can tell you that there is a significant weight and size difference between my 5D MK III and the a7 with the adapter. One of the best things about the a7/a7R is how quick and accurately it focuses even with manual lenses, using focus peaking. I prefer Canon eco-system and the Sony a7/a7R only compliments it ... people who travel a lot and still like to carry some of their good lenses will understand and appreciate the size/weight advantage the Sony a7/a7R provides.

No, i have not used either of the new sony's yet as no one that I know of in my area has one! That and, i don't have 2k in disposable funds to try it out.

My travel analogy is still valid. Yes, your bag may be lighter, but, 1 body and 2 lenses is still going to take the bulk of your carry on luggage space (A7 plus batteries plus adaptor plus a 24-70 and a 70-200 for instance) That's the bottleneck if you ask me. In terms of space in my carry on, you can easily swap out the A7 for my 6d (while the 5d3 may be larger than the a7, the 6d is a lot closer!) and it leaves pretty close to the same footprint.

My point is you still have 1 full bag dedicated to photography. that's the problem as i see it with mirrorless. for some that little bit of size and weight makes a difference, but to the masses - a compact camera with no interchangeable lens is always going to be smaller. A camera you can fit in your pocket and need nothing extra is waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay smaller than anything that requires a bag to store extra stuff like lenses in.

the only way i can relate this is if i consider my farily recent honeymoon and what gear I brought. I went pretty minimal - 6d, 24mm, 50mm, 85mm, and a flash, charger, batteries. Would the A& have really changed what I could fit in my bag? Not really.

 

[neuroanatomist]

the only way i can relate this is if i consider my farily recent honeymoon and what gear I brought. I went pretty minimal - 6d, 24mm, 50mm, 85mm, and a flash, charger, batteries. Would the A7 have really changed what I could fit in my bag? Not really.

That, and after getting the camera and adapter, you'd have needed to buy a new flash for this 'compatible with Canon lenses' body. Oh, and you'd have needed to buy the Sony charger, too, because it's an optional accessory.

 

[Dylan777]

[/color]

I partly agree with you, except for I've what I've marked in Red font ... to me those comments suggest that you have not used an a7 or the a7R with or without an adapter. I have been using a7+metabones adapter+EF primes for over a month now and I can tell you that there is a significant weight and size difference between my 5D MK III and the a7 with the adapter. One of the best things about the a7/a7R is how quick and accurately it focuses even with manual lenses, using focus peaking. I prefer Canon eco-system and the Sony a7/a7R only compliments it ... people who travel a lot and still like to carry some of their good lenses will understand and appreciate the size/weight advantage the Sony a7/a7R provides.

Specs readers will not understand the weight & size of A7 series and Fuji mirrorless. I have stopped discussing/debating with specs readers. It doesn't do any good for both parties.

It's true that A7 series is not a pocketable camera, but it's SO MUCH smaller and lighter to walk around with. The BEST part being much smaller size camera is we don't look like a "photographer" on the street. Especially when you in another country.

For oversea travel, I'm good with just A7r + Zeiss FE 55mm + Zeiss FE 24-70 IS.

I understand you brother ....did I mention stay with native Zeiss FE lenses ;D

Photos below show Zeiss FE 55mm size Vs some of Canon popular primes and zoom. From left to right - 50L, zeiss 55mm, Canon 85L II and Canon 24-70 II. The weight is HUGE diff.

 

[Dylan777]

the only way i can relate this is if i consider my farily recent honeymoon and what gear I brought. I went pretty minimal - 6d, 24mm, 50mm, 85mm, and a flash, charger, batteries. Would the A7 have really changed what I could fit in my bag? Not really.

That, and after getting the camera and adapter, you'd have needed to buy a new flash for this 'compatible with Canon lenses' body. Oh, and you'd have needed to buy the Sony charger, too, because it's an optional accessory.

I have plenty more space for that ;D ;D ;D

I'm following your footstep John. I'm working on my walk-in camera closet.
Spot lights are installed, just waiting for glass door guys to install frameless doors. I will post some pictures when it done.

 

[Rienzphotoz]

How about we take the sensor from the Sony A7R and slap it into an SLR body?

At the end of the day, its all about ending up with the best picture possible but many of us are so comfortable with the SLR form factor that any other form, makes us uncomfortable. We also "look" less than professional if we show up with a "smallish" camera that looks like the same camera everyone else has

isn't that the d610 and d800????---

I firmly believe that once this whole, make it smaller thing is dropped then canon and nikon can do what i bet they actually want to do ---make a mirrorless option that fits with their current ecosystems of lenses ---.

It's funny that many say slr's are dying, but what i see is a mirrorless market that has no identity. Oh we want to be smaller, but not really small, we want to be user friendly for all, but not really, we want to be as good as an slr but need 10 more years to make appropriate lenses, but dang it to do that we're making something the size of an A7, which isn't all that much smaller than an slr, snor does it really weigh significantly less than an slr, and once you toss the adaptor on there and use standard lenses, it's the same size and barely and less weight.

Even for travel, if i still have to have a camera bag and multiple lenses and batteries then how does that size factor really help? Eventually the market will figure this out and either drop the whole idea of mirrorless or, integrate into the existing ecosystem.

I partly agree with you, except for I've what I've marked in Red font ... to me those comments suggest that you have not used an a7 or the a7R with or without an adapter. I have been using a7+metabones adapter+EF primes for over a month now and I can tell you that there is a significant weight and size difference between my 5D MK III and the a7 with the adapter. One of the best things about the a7/a7R is how quick and accurately it focuses even with manual lenses, using focus peaking. I prefer Canon eco-system and the Sony a7/a7R only compliments it ... people who travel a lot and still like to carry some of their good lenses will understand and appreciate the size/weight advantage the Sony a7/a7R provides.

No, i have not used either of the new sony's yet as no one that I know of in my area has one! That and, i don't have 2k in disposable funds to try it out.

My travel analogy is still valid. Yes, your bag may be lighter, but, 1 body and 2 lenses is still going to take the bulk of your carry on luggage space (A7 plus batteries plus adaptor plus a 24-70 and a 70-200 for instance) That's the bottleneck if you ask me. In terms of space in my carry on, you can easily swap out the A7 for my 6d (while the 5d3 may be larger than the a7, the 6d is a lot closer!) and it leaves pretty close to the same footprint.

My point is you still have 1 full bag dedicated to photography. that's the problem as i see it with mirrorless. for some that little bit of size and weight makes a difference, but to the masses - a compact camera with no interchangeable lens is always going to be smaller. A camera you can fit in your pocket and need nothing extra is waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay smaller than anything that requires a bag to store extra stuff like lenses in.

the only way i can relate this is if i consider my farily recent honeymoon and what gear I brought. I went pretty minimal - 6d, 24mm, 50mm, 85mm, and a flash, charger, batteries. Would the A& have really changed what I could fit in my bag? Not really.

Congratulations on your recent honeymoon. 8)
Obviously, whatever "travel analogy" you feel "valid" is valid for your personal circumstances ... but it may or may not hold true for others. Also I was not talking about "compact cameras with no interchangeable lens" or the "masses", I am referring to a Full Frame mirror less camera with interchangeable lenses that makes a significant difference in weight, and occupies less space, for people like me who travel but still want to carry a camera that delivers the IQ equal to or better than a full frame DSLR in a light package.
Here are two images of how I carry the Sony a7 with Metabones adapter+EF 50 or EF 85 lens (or the native ZEISS FE 24-70 f/4 or Sony FE 28-70 lens) and a Sony flash+additional batteries, in a LowePro Rezo TLZ 10 bag hooked up to my waist, (without the flash of course) while I check-in at airports and no ones stopped me (did this twice already) ... my 5D MK III and a 50 or 85mm lens would NEVER fit in the same space and it would also weigh more. Is the a7 camera as versatile as my 5D MK III, obviously not ... but it has a specific purpose and it fulfills that specific purpose for people like me better than my 5D MK III.

 

[Rienzphotoz]

the only way i can relate this is if i consider my farily recent honeymoon and what gear I brought. I went pretty minimal - 6d, 24mm, 50mm, 85mm, and a flash, charger, batteries. Would the A7 have really changed what I could fit in my bag? Not really.

That, and after getting the camera and adapter, you'd have needed to buy a new flash for this 'compatible with Canon lenses' body. Oh, and you'd have needed to buy the Sony charger, too, because it's an optional accessory.

Ofcourse you have to buy a new flash if you want to use one, I don't know of any other full frame mirror less camera that can take Canon flash with full TTL (or equivalent) function. Yes, one has to buy the "Sony charger, too, because it's an optional accessory". But if I go with my 5D MK III (or even a 6D) + 24mm or 50mm or 85mm, I still need to carry a Canon flash (if I want to use one) + the battery charger ... so its not like the issue of space/weight (of flash+charger) suddenly appears for the a7/a7R and disappears for 6D or 5D cameras.
The space/wight advantage is still with Sony a7/a7R (yet providing great image IQ) for those of us who travel with their camera gear as hand luggage on business or short trips and still want the full frame goodness. I fly very often on scheduled airlines for business trips and on choppers to our offshore rigs ... for people like me every inch of space saved is a great help ... when I fly on scheduled airlines I can hook up my Sony a7+metabones adapter+an EF prime lens (or the native ZEISS FE 24-70 f/4 lens) + 2 extra batteries to my waist (in a LowePro REZO TLZ 10) and no one at the airport stops me for carrying it (and I still get to carry my 5D MK III+16-35 f/2.8 L II+70-200 f/2.8 L IS II+2X extender+MBP+ chargers+HDD+2 trousers + 2 shirts in the hand luggage (which are used to wrap my camera gear ... essentially giving me 2 full frame camera bodies and the coverage from 16mm to 400mm zoom rage (with an additional prime lens like an EF 20/24/28/35/40/50/85 etc in the LowePro pouch) ... I recently did this twice in the last 10 days ... to Bahrain and Abu Dhabi, but without the 2x extender) ... but I cannot have the same luxury with my 5D MK III (or even a 6D), due to the bigger bulge (as one has to carry it in a bigger bag). Once again, can the a7/a7R do everything a 5D MK III can, of course not! and its not meant to.

 

[moreorless]

How about we take the sensor from the Sony A7R and slap it into an SLR body?

At the end of the day, its all about ending up with the best picture possible but many of us are so comfortable with the SLR form factor that any other form, makes us uncomfortable. We also "look" less than professional if we show up with a "smallish" camera that looks like the same camera everyone else has

isn't that the d610 and d800????---

I firmly believe that once this whole, make it smaller thing is dropped then canon and nikon can do what i bet they actually want to do ---make a mirrorless option that fits with their current ecosystems of lenses ---.

It's funny that many say slr's are dying, but what i see is a mirrorless market that has no identity. Oh we want to be smaller, but not really small, we want to be user friendly for all, but not really, we want to be as good as an slr but need 10 more years to make appropriate lenses, but dang it to do that we're making something the size of an A7, which isn't all that much smaller than an slr, snor does it really weigh significantly less than an slr, and once you toss the adaptor on there and use standard lenses, it's the same size and barely and less weight.

Even for travel, if i still have to have a camera bag and multiple lenses and batteries then how does that size factor really help? Eventually the market will figure this out and either drop the whole idea of mirrorless or, integrate into the existing ecosystem.

The logical fallacy at the centre of a lot of this argument from the mirrorless size tends to be....

Mirrorless performance may one day equal DSLR performance = Everyone wants a small camera

The idea that mirrorless tech could be used for anything but size saving seems to have passed many people by.

What I think you need to consider as well is which format sizes are actually going to benefit more from a smaller flange distance. In this reguard ASPC seems much more obvious than FF to me, the overall smaller size of the lenses is the most obvious point but your also dealing with a format where DSLR's use a legacy flange distance that's longer than needed for ASPC mirrors and a smaller sensor that causes fewer problems with light angles.

I look at the Sony FE system relative to say the Fuji X system and specs wise it looks like Sony have had to trade away low light/dof performance in order to get lens size down and even then your generally looking at larger lenses. The 35mm F/2.8 is the only lens that makes the A7 really small and your actually losing performance relative to the Fuji 23mm 1.4 there.

Besides larger format lenses generally being larger I think the other problem for Sony is that digital has been shown to be far less forgiving than film when it comes to smaller flange distances on larger formats. Extreme light angles hitting digital sensors cause problems and the larger the sensor the more extreme the light angles become. Leica already had this problem with many lens designs and their flange distance is 10mm longer than Sony's. I look at the FE lens lineup and to me its notable how long they look relative to similar DSLR designs, I'm guessing the product of having to correct light angles. In seems to me that you could effectively just be trading shorter flange distance for longer lenses.

 

[Rienzphotoz]

When I check-in at the airports this is how I carry my Sony a7+Metabones adapter+50 f/1.4mm (or 85 f/1.8) lens (or native 24-70)+2 extra batteries in the LowePro Rezo TLZ 10 ... I've done this in two round trips (i.e. 4 check-ins) without anyone stopping me.
Excuse the image composition/quality ... they are made with a mobile phone and in the first image I had to bend forwards to see what I was shooting (due to that angle, the LowePro pouch looks much bigger in this image) ... my first "selfie" posted on the internet :-[

 

[Sella174]

I firmly believe that once this whole, make it smaller thing is dropped then canon and nikon can do what i bet they actually want to do ---make a mirrorless option that fits with their current ecosystems of lenses ---.

Isn't that exactly what I've been saying all along, huh?

That, and after getting the camera and adapter, you'd have needed to buy a new flash for this 'compatible with Canon lenses' body. Oh, and you'd have needed to buy the Sony charger, too, because it's an optional accessory.

It's called upselling; and is also exactly what I've been saying all along.

 

[Rienzphotoz]

I firmly believe that once this whole, make it smaller thing is dropped then canon and nikon can do what i bet they actually want to do ---make a mirrorless option that fits with their current ecosystems of lenses ---.

Isn't that exactly what I've been saying all along, huh?

I would much rather buy a Canon/Nikon full frame mirror less that is equal or better than the Sony ... but until that day arrives, I'll play with the Sony a7 instead of waiting for CanNikon to come up with one. Meanwhile my EOS-M+2 lenses+adapter+flash and the Tamron 24-70 f/2.8 VC have gone up on sale (hopefully, they will be sold before the end of this month) to make way for a Sony a7R to be used exclusively with the EF 16-35 f/2.8 L II.

 

[Sella174]

...

I see that the Metabones adapter is nearly the same length as the 50mm lens! Wow, that really indicates how much thinner the A7 is against EOS cameras. IMO, this also illustrates the wrong perception created by only comparing the front view of the various cameras.

 

[Rienzphotoz]

...

I see that the Metabones adapter is nearly the same length as the 50mm lens! Wow, that really indicates how much thinner the A7 is against EOS cameras. IMO, this also illustrates the wrong perception created by only comparing the front view of the various cameras.

The Metabones adapter is half the length of the EF 50mm f/1.4 lens ... here this will give you a better view:

 

[Sella174]

The Metabones adapter is half the length of the EF 50mm f/1.4 lens ...

Wow, that is a lot of camera that's not there anymore!

 

[Ruined]

[/color]

I partly agree with you, except for I've what I've marked in Red font ... to me those comments suggest that you have not used an a7 or the a7R with or without an adapter. I have been using a7+metabones adapter+EF primes for over a month now and I can tell you that there is a significant weight and size difference between my 5D MK III and the a7 with the adapter. One of the best things about the a7/a7R is how quick and accurately it focuses even with manual lenses, using focus peaking. I prefer Canon eco-system and the Sony a7/a7R only compliments it ... people who travel a lot and still like to carry some of their good lenses will understand and appreciate the size/weight advantage the Sony a7/a7R provides.

Specs readers will not understand the weight & size of A7 series and Fuji mirrorless. I have stopped discussing/debating with specs readers. It doesn't do any good for both parties.

It's true that A7 series is not a pocketable camera, but it's SO MUCH smaller and lighter to walk around with. The BEST part being much smaller size camera is we don't look like a "photographer" on the street. Especially when you in another country.

For oversea travel, I'm good with just A7r + Zeiss FE 55mm + Zeiss FE 24-70 IS.

I understand you brother ....did I mention stay with native Zeiss FE lenses ;D

Photos below show Zeiss FE 55mm size Vs some of Canon popular primes and zoom. From left to right - 50L, zeiss 55mm, Canon 85L II and Canon 24-70 II. The weight is HUGE diff.

Why are you comparing the Zeiss FE 55mm f/1.8 to the much faster Canon 50mm f/1.2L? If anything, you should compare it to the Canon f/1.8 which is actually significantly smaller than the Zeiss f/1.8.

 

[AvTvM]

I would much rather buy a Canon/Nikon full frame mirror less that is equal or better than the Sony ... but until that day arrives, I'll play with the Sony a7 instead of waiting for CanNikon to come up with one.

Really like your pictures that show nicely, "why and how SMALL SIZE does matter" and sharing your purchasing decisions and your reasons behind them. Plus real-life experience using the gear. Thanks! 8)

Personally, I'll probably sit on the fence somehwat longer until "MY really right" FF-MILC comes along. If that happens to be too far out ... well, then I might just wait until the A7R PLUS SonyZeiss 24-70 becomes available where I live. ;D

 

[AvTvM]

The logical fallacy at the centre of a lot of this argument from the mirrorless size tends to be....
Mirrorless performance may one day equal DSLR performance = Everyone wants a small camera
The idea that mirrorless tech could be used for anything but size saving seems to have passed many people by.

What I think you need to consider as well is which format sizes are actually going to benefit more from a smaller flange distance. In this reguard ASPC seems much more obvious than FF to me, the overall smaller size of the lenses is the most obvious point but your also dealing with a format where DSLR's use a legacy flange distance that's longer than needed for ASPC mirrors and a smaller sensor that causes fewer problems with light angles.
...
I look at the FE lens lineup and to me its notable how long they look relative to similar DSLR designs, I'm guessing the product of having to correct light angles. In seems to me that you could effectively just be trading shorter flange distance for longer lenses.

* angle of incident light (short flange distanze, lage sensor) - yes it is a problem. Yes, it can be solved, as Leica has demonstrated. Can it be solved for 10mm less flange distance, at far lower cost (than Leica) and still giving excellent image quality - I believe(!) yes, and I believe (!) it will be proven soon enough

* Once Mirrorless cameras will finally be "really right", i.e. "solid state" with no moving parts whatsoever inside [=no mechanical, but global electronic shutter] will have a LOT of advantages over (D)SLRs beyond bulk and weight. Here are the ones I am interested in:

• 100% vibration-free operation = benefits to image quality, especially "when it counts" = in challenging capture situations
  
• 100% silent operation possible = ability to get any images or the images you really want in many capture situations e.g. concerts, churches, theaters, candids
• flash X-sync down to 1/8000s ... or whatever shortest exposure time will be = images possible, that are currently totally unthinkable
• higher image quality - no misalignment of optical axis and sensor/focus plane possible - provided lens mount is solid and precise
• lmore bang for the buck - significantly fewer parts, no moving parts = significantly lower cost to makers, due to easier assembly, precision-alignment, quality control = lower prices for cameras possible (!)
• higher reliability = no more mechanical defects possible, only electronic issues = significantly less failure in use, significantly shorter repair-turnarounds ... just swap out a circuit board, finished. No re-alignment of components required
• much faster cameras possible ... fps as high as we want them possible - only limited by procssing power and bandwidth - and those follow Moore's law, so we'll have plenty, very soon
• better information at time of image capture - thanks to EVFs - which will continue to fast-evolve from "just acceptable in early 2014" to "absolutely mind-boggling" in the near future

And I am sure, we are still missing a few.


* Relative lens size
does NOT scale 1:1 linear with sensor format! Not on SLRs. Not on MILCs.
Yes, 1" < mFT < APS-C < FF lenses. But with "really right" designs, the difference is rather small (ceteris paribus).
And beyond approx. 135mm physical focal length there is NO difference, since only the size of the entry pupil dictates size of the lens at the the end of the day. As evidenced by existing tele-lenses (mFT, FT, APS-C) and by the fact, that longer tele-lenses are not made for smaller than 135 ("FF") image circle.

That's why I expect some APS-C mirrorless systems to be around for a few more years, until everything gives way to FF. Anybody "really into" photography - whether professionally or as an enthusist/amateur - will get FF MILCs [sized very compact or as large and heavy as a current pro-DSLR for those who prefer "large and heavy"], everybody else only interested in "snapping a few" will use their mobile devices ... which will get better and better IQ in extremely small form factors [think Google glass ]. The middle-ground will disappear. But again, thats only my expectation, no fact (yet).

 

[Rienzphotoz]

Really like your pictures that show nicely, "why and how SMALL SIZE does matter" and sharing your purchasing decisions and your reasons behind them. Plus real-life experience using the gear. Thanks! 8)

Personally, I'll probably sit on the fence somehwat longer until "MY really right" FF-MILC comes along. If that happens to be too far out ... well, then I might just wait until the A7R PLUS SonyZeiss 24-70 becomes available where I live. ;D

Thanks for the kinds words AvTvM ... personally, I trust Canon more than any other company for my camera gear and would really like to buy a FF mirror less if and when they do release one.
Anyway, in my earlier image I noticed that the 50mm f/1.4 lens's barrel was slightly extended, also the lens cap and the B+W Xs-Pro filter was on it ... so here are two images one with the barrel fully retracted (when lens focuses at infinity) and one with the barrel fully extended (when the lens focuses at its minimum distance) ... also the lens cap and the filter are removed ... I think this gives a better picture of the Metabones adapter's length in comparison to the EF 50mm f/1.4.
You will also notice that my composition/arrangement skills are vastly improved from my previous image ;D
Peace

 

[Sella174]

... personally, I trust Canon more than any other company for my camera gear and would really like to buy a FF mirror less if and when they do release one.

Exactly! Which is the reason why we keep moaning about mirrorless on a dedicated Canon forum.

Anyhow, so the 50mm f/1.4 performs adequately on the A7 with the adapter? This is very significant, because it provides a nice stepping-stone until one purchases the Zeiss 55mm lens ... semi-painless transition to another brand, depending on how much Sony has built their line-up of lenses by the time Canon releases an A7R equivalent camera.

Mmmmm ... I cannot but wonder if Sony hasn't been "funding" the Metabones adapter for just this purpose.

 

[Dylan777]

[/color]

Specs readers will not understand the weight & size of A7 series and Fuji mirrorless. I have stopped discussing/debating with specs readers. It doesn't do any good for both parties.

It's true that A7 series is not a pocketable camera, but it's SO MUCH smaller and lighter to walk around with. The BEST part being much smaller size camera is we don't look like a "photographer" on the street. Especially when you in another country.

For oversea travel, I'm good with just A7r + Zeiss FE 55mm + Zeiss FE 24-70 IS.

I understand you brother ....did I mention stay with native Zeiss FE lenses ;D

Photos below show Zeiss FE 55mm size Vs some of Canon popular primes and zoom. From left to right - 50L, zeiss 55mm, Canon 85L II and Canon 24-70 II. The weight is HUGE diff.

Why are you comparing the Zeiss FE 55mm f/1.8 to the much faster Canon 50mm f/1.2L? If anything, you should compare it to the Canon f/1.8 which is actually significantly smaller than the Zeiss f/1.8.

I wasn't comparing, just to show Zeiss FE 55mm real life size for those interested.

PS. those are the only small lenses I have in my Canon bag, unless you want to see Zeiss FE 55mm stands next to Canon 70-200 f2.8 IS II and Canon 400mm f2.8 IS II ;D

 

[MLfan3]

I hate him but I have to admit in this case he is right , spot on nailed it extremely well.