Canon to Make a Big Splash at Photokina? [CR2]

[Chuck Alaimo]

Canon made revolution few years ago. Currently it is a stagnant company, which still focuses significant aattention to dying P&S market. Product cycle for semi-pro and pro products is very long and shows that Canon does not sufficiently invest in R&D as other companies. Canon started loosing in the following areas:

1) Mirrorless market - they loose to Fuji, Olympus, Sony;
2) Sensor technology - loosing to Sony;
3) Lenses - starting to loose to Sigma and Tamron as these 2 companies started producing high quality lenses, which match or in some cases exceed qulity of Canon lenses (e.g. Sigma 50 mm 1.4 Art, Tamron 24-70 2.8 VC) for affordable price.

Losing is a tough way to put it. Being #1 means you have many mouths to feed -- not just enthusiasts and pros in a forum. I'm truly curious to see what chunk of Canon's business folks like us in this forum (and like-minded shooters not in this forum) actually represent to them.

Also, advances in one small segment of the photography world does not make Fuji, Olympus, Sony, Sigma and Tamron the 'team to beat'. It means that they have had success in one small segment of the photography world. That's all.

And lest we forget, the company arguably most revered for its innovation and 'firsts in the industry' -- Sony -- can't seem to understand photographers well enough to produce a top-to-bottom well thought out camera that is free of non-trivial flaws. They seem predisposed to come up with something cool and useful (that I might want!), shoot it out to the market half-cocked, and under-deliver. What's worse is that they don't seem to learn from this, and they just shoot out another version in record time with similarly iffy results.

So it's more than who is on a roll or has the best team or most innovative pipeline -- I want the company that most consistently satisfies its customers. Bleeding edge innovation isn't my driver. I want a camera/system that does exactly what I want it to do. Canon may be slow, but they have never let me down with what they have delivered.

- A

When I jumped ship from Olympus to Canon, the choice was Canon or Nikon. Canon had the lenses that I liked and when it came to the user interface, there was no comparison...Canon let me do what I wanted easily, Nikon had me diving into menus... I went Canon

As things stand today, for my purposes everything about the Canons is superior to the Nikon and Sony offerings except for the sensors and I expect the gap to narrow drastically or even disappear soon.

Look at the clues...

Clue #1: Canon sensors are inferior to Nikon/Sony. Everyone knows that. You can bet that the people at Canon know that too.
Clue #2: Canon executives have hinted that something big or revolutionary is coming.
Clue #3: The 7D2 has been delayed for "production reasons".. We know it isn't just making another copy of the 70D sensor with a few more or less pixels.. it has to be something else.
Clue #4: The delay is NOT DPAF. It is here and in production in the 70D. Being a lower cost camera and stocked and sold in general consumer stores, it is a safe bet that 70D sales will exceed that of the 7D2 AND the entire FF lineup. A bit more for a 7D2 will not matter.
Clue #5: Canon has sensor fabrication facilities that work on much finer lithography than the APS-C and FF sensors of today. Pick up a Canon P/S camera for proof....
Clue #6: P/S sales are declining and this means extra capacity is opening up on those finer lithography production lines...
Clue #7: We know that by going to row or column A/D on the sensor that they could drastically drop noise and increase the DR of their sensors. You can bet that Canon knows this too.

My bet is that the delays in 7D2 production are due to moving the A/D onto sensors with finer lithography. This has to happen at some point and now is the logical time. I would expect a rapid refresh of the FF lineup after this.

Correct me here if I am wrong with this conclusion --- but in all the posts i have read here regarding the internals of a camera body --- heat is a factor in the quantity of noise, which would harm sharpness and overall IQ.

Correct me if I am wrong yet again, but, is it conceivable that canon bodies could improve IQ by finding more ways to reduce heat inside the camera body? Just tossing ideas out there...

 

[Marauder]

Just wondering, how do you find Servo AF accuracy (and speed) with the Tamron?

I may be a bit slower. There were some AI Servo problems with early samples (achieving focus, not maintaining focus) that have apparently been addressed by firmware updates in later samples. Compared to the 100-400 I do not see any evidence of decreased accuracy. The 100-400 is no gem in that regard, in my experience.

Quite right. I use the 100-400 and the 7D and AF is generally good, but not always. I'm glad to hear they've addressed the AF accuracy issue as it's the one thing that worried me regarding the Tamron as a possible addition to my kit. Thanks for taking the time to answer!

The bad press that the 100-400 gets puzzles me a bit. I've had one for years First I used it on a 30D now its on a 1Dx. While I'd be the last to say its one of the best, I do own a 300 F2.8, I still find I can get good images with it and use it a fair bit. The top images was taken years 8(?) ago with the 30D the lower one last weekend with the 1Dx. The lens has been used and abused including being dropped on occasion and sometimes got quite wet.

I will be quite happy to consider a 100-400 MK2 if it should appear. Until then the Mk1 will be in use.

I'm certainly not intending to give the 100-400 bad press. I love it and use it more than any other long lens in my kit. It's also the most expensive lens I've ever bought, as I'm on a budget.

My interest in the Tamron is for an alternative with a longer reach--not as a replacement. I just want to ensure that the AF is comparable to the 100-400 first. I already know the IQ is similar, at least up to 500--and up to 600 even, if stopped down to F8 or so.

I'm interested in the 100-400 II, but we'll have to see on price. I'm even more interested in the 7D II, and I can't afford both, at least not at the same time.

Regarding the 7D II, although I'd enjoy seeing IQ improvements and the new information that there is new sensor tech in it makes that more plausible than before, it was NEVER the driving consideration for me. The features that most interest me are an improved AF (especially with Server accuracy and speed) and improved speed. Although the current 7D's 8fps is nothing to sneeze at, getting 10 (or the sometimes hinted 12) per second would be a bonus. But it's a killer AF that is what MOST intrigues me--something like the superb 61 point system derived from the 1DX/5D III.

 

[jrista]

Canon made revolution few years ago. Currently it is a stagnant company, which still focuses significant aattention to dying P&S market. Product cycle for semi-pro and pro products is very long and shows that Canon does not sufficiently invest in R&D as other companies. Canon started loosing in the following areas:

1) Mirrorless market - they loose to Fuji, Olympus, Sony;
2) Sensor technology - loosing to Sony;
3) Lenses - starting to loose to Sigma and Tamron as these 2 companies started producing high quality lenses, which match or in some cases exceed qulity of Canon lenses (e.g. Sigma 50 mm 1.4 Art, Tamron 24-70 2.8 VC) for affordable price.

Losing is a tough way to put it. Being #1 means you have many mouths to feed -- not just enthusiasts and pros in a forum. I'm truly curious to see what chunk of Canon's business folks like us in this forum (and like-minded shooters not in this forum) actually represent to them.

Also, advances in one small segment of the photography world does not make Fuji, Olympus, Sony, Sigma and Tamron the 'team to beat'. It means that they have had success in one small segment of the photography world. That's all.

And lest we forget, the company arguably most revered for its innovation and 'firsts in the industry' -- Sony -- can't seem to understand photographers well enough to produce a top-to-bottom well thought out camera that is free of non-trivial flaws. They seem predisposed to come up with something cool and useful (that I might want!), shoot it out to the market half-cocked, and under-deliver. What's worse is that they don't seem to learn from this, and they just shoot out another version in record time with similarly iffy results.

So it's more than who is on a roll or has the best team or most innovative pipeline -- I want the company that most consistently satisfies its customers. Bleeding edge innovation isn't my driver. I want a camera/system that does exactly what I want it to do. Canon may be slow, but they have never let me down with what they have delivered.

- A

When I jumped ship from Olympus to Canon, the choice was Canon or Nikon. Canon had the lenses that I liked and when it came to the user interface, there was no comparison...Canon let me do what I wanted easily, Nikon had me diving into menus... I went Canon

As things stand today, for my purposes everything about the Canons is superior to the Nikon and Sony offerings except for the sensors and I expect the gap to narrow drastically or even disappear soon.

Look at the clues...

Clue #1: Canon sensors are inferior to Nikon/Sony. Everyone knows that. You can bet that the people at Canon know that too.
Clue #2: Canon executives have hinted that something big or revolutionary is coming.
Clue #3: The 7D2 has been delayed for "production reasons".. We know it isn't just making another copy of the 70D sensor with a few more or less pixels.. it has to be something else.
Clue #4: The delay is NOT DPAF. It is here and in production in the 70D. Being a lower cost camera and stocked and sold in general consumer stores, it is a safe bet that 70D sales will exceed that of the 7D2 AND the entire FF lineup. A bit more for a 7D2 will not matter.
Clue #5: Canon has sensor fabrication facilities that work on much finer lithography than the APS-C and FF sensors of today. Pick up a Canon P/S camera for proof....
Clue #6: P/S sales are declining and this means extra capacity is opening up on those finer lithography production lines...
Clue #7: We know that by going to row or column A/D on the sensor that they could drastically drop noise and increase the DR of their sensors. You can bet that Canon knows this too.

My bet is that the delays in 7D2 production are due to moving the A/D onto sensors with finer lithography. This has to happen at some point and now is the logical time. I would expect a rapid refresh of the FF lineup after this.

Correct me here if I am wrong with this conclusion --- but in all the posts i have read here regarding the internals of a camera body --- heat is a factor in the quantity of noise, which would harm sharpness and overall IQ.

Correct me if I am wrong yet again, but, is it conceivable that canon bodies could improve IQ by finding more ways to reduce heat inside the camera body? Just tossing ideas out there...

Heat can cause two forms of noise: "Amplifier glow", which is really just IR radiation increasing temperature, and dark current noise. Dark current is always flowing through the circuitry of a sensor, and it sometimes causes the release of an electron into a potential well (i.e. a photodiode). The rate at which dark current causes the release of free electrons is dependent on temperature, it effectively doubles every 5.8°C.

Neither of these forms of thermally-affected forms of noise are really a problem for most still photography. The exposure times are usually too short for enough dark current or incident IR radiation to affect the release of additional free electrons. In the case of dark current, CDS units on each column (or possibly each pixel) are reset along with the pixels, and accumulate charge for the same duration as the pixels are exposed. When each column is read out, the CDS unit charge accumulation is subtracted from all the pixels in the given column. For shorter exposures, this can effectively eliminate dark current noise. CDS units usually have a limited capacity, and for longer exposures, or exposures long enough at very high ISO, they may not be able to entirely subtract the dark current noise from the image signal. This is usually only a problem for things like astrophotography, where exposures might be many minutes long.

The use of per-column CDS units (which is usually the case...I believe even Sony Exmor sensors use a per-column digital CDS unit, since it's actually part of their CP-ADC) can actually cause vertical banding. A better approach would be per-pixel CDS units, that are reset along with each of their paired pixels, and accumulate dark current specifically for each pixel. That would eliminate the possibility that CDS units introduce vertical banding (per-column banding, really), but it does increase the complexity of the sensor. I've seen one or two patents that cover per-pixel CDS...it's been a while, but I want to say one of them was a Canon patent. I honestly can't remember.

Anyway, there are sources of thermal noise. On very hot days, your camera will absorb more ambient heat, and that can increase noise a bit, especially at higher ISO. However for the most part, I don't think that significant investment in reducing sensor temperature is going to improve most still photography IQ. The current levels of read noise at lower ISO settings completely swamp any amount of dark current. At higher ISO settings, Canon sensors are already competitive, as they are limited by physics, although a small improvement might be made buy increasing Q.E. from the ~49% average to say ~60%.

 

[Skulker]

Regarding the 7D II, although I'd enjoy seeing IQ improvements and the new information that there is new sensor tech in it makes that more plausible than before, it was NEVER the driving consideration for me. The features that most interest me are an improved AF (especially with Server accuracy and speed) and improved speed. Although the current 7D's 8fps is nothing to sneeze at, getting 10 (or the sometimes hinted 12) per second would be a bonus. But it's a killer AF that is what MOST intrigues me--something like the superb 61 point system derived from the 1DX/5D III.

If I was in the market for a 7D Mk2 (and I'm not) an improved AF with improved higher ISO performance would be of interest.

It will be interesting to see if there is something new about the sensor tech that comes out, if that's what is going to happen. Lets hope its not just a loads of mega pixies video camera. ;D

 

[pknight]

The bad press that the 100-400 gets puzzles me a bit. I've had one for years First I used it on a 30D now its on a 1Dx. While I'd be the last to say its one of the best, I do own a 300 F2.8, I still find I can get good images with it and use it a fair bit. The top images was taken years 8(?) ago with the 30D the lower one last weekend with the 1Dx. The lens has been used and abused including being dropped on occasion and sometimes got quite wet.

I will be quite happy to consider a 100-400 MK2 if it should appear. Until then the Mk1 will be in use.

Neither was I trying to knock the 100-400. I have used it more than any lens I have owned, and have frequently sung its praises. I have many excellent photos from four different bodies using this lens. I was just saying that it misses focus on occasion, and that the Tamron is no worse in this regard.

 

[LetTheRightLensIn]

According to Thom Hogan, the sensor is unlikely to all that revolutionary, but merely a reworking of dual pixel technology with improvements mainly in autofocus. Not so much in IQ. :
http://www.dslrbodies.com/newsviews/the-photokina-prognosis.html
"I think that’s likely more dual-pixel focus ability, only better integrated into the calculation engines this time. In other words, I expect the sensor change is mostly about focus performance, especially with video and Live View".

That would be SOOOO disappointing.

Agreed. Sadly a totally different source was also claiming that the big sensor news for the 7D2 is some sort of revolutionary ultra crazy fast no hunt PDAF AF. Certainly nice, but man it's been years since they bothered to improve low ISO quality. I'd be more excited about 4k top quality and 1080p RAW for video and much improved low ISO DR for stills (and further tweaking at high ISO).

 

[Lee Jay]

... I'd really like to see lossy and reduced DNG as a raw option in Canon cameras. While they are still de-Bayer'd, they are much, much better than Canon's mraw and sraw, for multiple reasons.

I'd like to hear more!

http://www.dpreview.com/articles/0520987423/adobe-expands-dng-format-with-inclusion-of-smaller-lossy-dng-option

 

[Orangutan]

According to Thom Hogan, the sensor is unlikely to all that revolutionary, but merely a reworking of dual pixel technology with improvements mainly in autofocus. Not so much in IQ. :
http://www.dslrbodies.com/newsviews/the-photokina-prognosis.html
"I think that’s likely more dual-pixel focus ability, only better integrated into the calculation engines this time. In other words, I expect the sensor change is mostly about focus performance, especially with video and Live View".

That would be SOOOO disappointing.

Agreed. Sadly a totally different source was also claiming that the big sensor news for the 7D2 is some sort of revolutionary ultra crazy fast no hunt PDAF AF. Certainly nice, but man it's been years since they bothered to improve low ISO quality. I'd be more excited about 4k top quality and 1080p RAW for video and much improved low ISO DR for stills (and further tweaking at high ISO).

The 7D is a sports/wildlife body, not a maximum IQ body. I'd love a big IQ boost in the 7D2, and might buy one if it had it in addition to the expected performance improvements. At this point I'm contemplating a refurb 6D.

 

[Ale]

One camera store here in Finland seems to be pretty confident that the 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6L IS II will be annouced at Photokina (or maybe even before that) as they already have the lens availabe for pre-order (1995 euros):

http://www.digitarvike.fi/canon_ef_100-400mm_f45-56l_is_ii_ennakovaraus

The spec list seems to be almost direct copypaste of the same list that Canonrumors had in one post considering the lens some time ago.

 

[mrsfotografie]

One camera store here in Finland seems to be pretty confident that the 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6L IS II will be annouced at Photokina (or maybe even before that) as they already have the lens availabe for pre-order (1995 euros):

http://www.digitarvike.fi/canon_ef_100-400mm_f45-56l_is_ii_ennakovaraus

The spec list seems to be almost direct copypaste of the same list that Canonrumors had in one post considering the lens some time ago.

I'm saving my pennies...

 

[Omni Images]

Nooooooooo ... that may spell the end of any hope of a new 400F5.6 prime ... I maybe will begrudgingly buy it though.
About the only thing it had over the 400 prime is the shorter focusing distance .... and of course IS
Still a big heavy dog to lug around, and not really needing a zoom for what I want.
Pls Canon after 20 years a new version 400 F5.6 is a MUST, it's your oldest lens ... make it with a shorter close focus distance, 1.5 would be nice like the 300f4, 3.5m is a joke and IS of course.

 

[mrsfotografie]

If the composition isn't right without cropping, the whole photo gets binned.

Wow really? A lot of scenes don't look best at 3:2 or 2:3 though and what if it does look best at those ratios but you just didn't or were not able to frame tight enough, even the most amazing shot is junked?

It's one of the limitations I've set myself, and it's a risk I'm willing to live with. On the subject of limitations, I think it's good to have some - it improves my photography (one reason why I'm increasingly preferring prime lenses).

I must note that I almost never crop, and if I do that on occasion it will be only minor edge crops to remove a disturbing feature on the edge. If the composition isn't right without cropping, the whole photo gets binned.

You must shoot a lot of very slow or stationary subjects. It's simply impossible to reliably and accurately frame many of the subjects I shoot, which are often moving as fast as 60 degrees per second relative to me. Shooting those with a 3 degree total field of view, it's hard enough just to keep them in the frame much less to make sure they are perfectly framed.

Essentially, I crop every image I shoot, at least a little.

I do a lot of motorsports. Almost none of these are cropped:

http://www.mrsfotografie.nl/auto-motorsport/

A case in point. I took this shot yesterday. Equipment used: Sony NEX-6, Metabones NEX-FD Speed booster, Sigma FDn 70-210mm 3.5-4.5 APO. Manual everything (save the white balance). And no cropping.

Note that I had to go to this event straight from work and had no room for my DSLR + 70-200L so for portability sake I decided to take the NEX and a couple vintage lenses instead.

 

[pknight]

One camera store here in Finland seems to be pretty confident that the 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6L IS II will be annouced at Photokina (or maybe even before that) as they already have the lens availabe for pre-order (1995 euros):

http://www.digitarvike.fi/canon_ef_100-400mm_f45-56l_is_ii_ennakovaraus

The spec list seems to be almost direct copypaste of the same list that Canonrumors had in one post considering the lens some time ago.

That is US$2671 as of this morning's exchange rates. About what I expected. We'll see.

 

[Lightmaster]

http://www.dpreview.com/articles/5505614787/canons-something-big-is-a-photography-competition-oh-well

 

[mackguyver]

http://www.dpreview.com/articles/5505614787/canons-something-big-is-a-photography-competition-oh-well

LOL, but Photokina is a mere 6 weeks away at least!

 

[Steve]

A case in point. I took this shot yesterday. Equipment used: Sony NEX-6, Metabones NEX-FD Speed booster, Sigma FDn 70-210mm 3.5-4.5 APO. Manual everything (save the white balance). And no cropping.

That is a good example - you clipped the front of the car. If you had shot wider you could have got all of the car and then cropped for better composition in post.

I can understand how you could shoot motorsports with the "no cropping" limitation, I just don't understand why you would. Cropping is one of the major tools of photography. Not using it is like a finish carpenter not using a chisel or planer and justifying it by saying he gets his cuts right the first time (but throws away a lot of good wood).

There's this weird trend in online photography discussion groups where mediocre photographers embrace some sort of artificial limitation regime like "no cropping" or "primes only" because of the belief that it's purer photography or something. Like, I get that sometimes it might be a good idea to set a temporary artificial limit in order to break a bad habit but making those limits SOP is nonsense, imo. Knowing how to appropriately use all of the tools available to you is what makes you a better photographer, not arbitrarily throwing out some of the tools from the bag. See also "I don't use photoshop/shoot RAW, I get it right in camera" or "I don't need a flash, I prefer natural light"

 

[mrsfotografie]

There's this weird trend in online photography discussion groups where mediocre photographers embrace some sort of artificial limitation regime like "no cropping" or "primes only" because of the belief that it's purer photography or something. Like, I get that sometimes it might be a good idea to set a temporary artificial limit in order to break a bad habit but making those limits SOP is nonsense, imo. Knowing how to appropriately use all of the tools available to you is what makes you a better photographer, not arbitrarily throwing out some of the tools from the bag. See also "I don't use photoshop/shoot RAW, I get it right in camera" or "I don't need a flash, I prefer natural light"

Due to the rate at which I generate photo's, I'm trying to streamline my workflow - trying to frame the shot right first time is part of that, and accepting that parts of the subject may be cut off is a part of that too. Yes sometimes that leads to 'imperfect framing' but sometimes it also leads to interesting shots that I would not have framed that way if I weren't limited to a specific FOV.

So yes I agree the framing here is not 'perfect'. But 'perfect' can sometimes also be 'boring'. However, given the limitations I set on this instance I assure you that my technique is improving every time - I challenge you to get the same or better results with the same kit, only then you may imply I'm a 'mediocre' photographer. What I'm saying is that everyone has their own style, and if setting limitations is part of that, all the better. I sometimes like to use difficult equipment to steepen my learning curve.

FWIW with this setup you really don't want to crop too much (if at all) because the high iso's, mediocre optics and motion blur + imperfect alignment of the focal plane due to having to pre-focus manually, all lead to less effective resolution. So cropping to get the framing right means you may have to ditch the photo entirely due to poor residual resolution. A lot of these shots are framed rather tightly. For those that allow it, I will apply a little edge cropping if required. Like I said, this photo (and the entire series of that day) were shot using manual: iso, aperture, shutter speed, focus. No IS, no AF. Oh and FWIW the NEX-6 has an electronic viewfinder, so no OVF without time delay to help frame the shot either. Fortunately there's little shutter lag to speak of so at least that's a help.

Edit: for the attached shot, zooming was also out of the equation: Equipment used: Sony NEX-6, Metabones NEX-FD Speed booster, Canon FL 135mm f/2.5. Manual everything (save the white balance). And no cropping

 

[ahsanford]

A case in point. I took this shot yesterday. Equipment used: Sony NEX-6, Metabones NEX-FD Speed booster, Sigma FDn 70-210mm 3.5-4.5 APO. Manual everything (save the white balance). And no cropping.

That is a good example - you clipped the front of the car. If you had shot wider you could have got all of the car and then cropped for better composition in post.

I can understand how you could shoot motorsports with the "no cropping" limitation, I just don't understand why you would. Cropping is one of the major tools of photography. Not using it is like a finish carpenter not using a chisel or planer and justifying it by saying he gets his cuts right the first time (but throws away a lot of good wood).

There's this weird trend in online photography discussion groups where mediocre photographers embrace some sort of artificial limitation regime like "no cropping" or "primes only" because of the belief that it's purer photography or something. Like, I get that sometimes it might be a good idea to set a temporary artificial limit in order to break a bad habit but making those limits SOP is nonsense, imo. Knowing how to appropriately use all of the tools available to you is what makes you a better photographer, not arbitrarily throwing out some of the tools from the bag. See also "I don't use photoshop/shoot RAW, I get it right in camera" or "I don't need a flash, I prefer natural light"

This is a tangled knuckleball of sensibilities and issues you are throwing to us. (But it's a fun pitch to swing at, I admit. )

For me, natural light vs. flash is about (a) how much effort and how many variables do I want to control, (b) how much gear I want to carry, and (c) how deliberate vs. spontaneous I want the shot to be. My answers to those three questions are (a) little effort / keep it simple, (b) less gear, and (c) usually spontaneous. So natural light shooting is what I strongly prefer.

For getting it right in-camera vs. cropping, that's a question of whether you enjoy working within the limitations of your gear (the guy who brings one lens and moves his feet) or if you see limitations as unacceptable constraints that will be eliminated with more lenses, more post-processing, etc. Crudely, and likely unfairly, I think the first group wants to puff up their chest and show how competent they are at thinking on their feet and netting difficult shots under tough constraints, and the second group giggles at that and either changes lenses or just crops the shot. One viewpoint is proud and determined and the other is pragmatic and efficient. Neither are right and neither are wrong.

As for post-processing, I think it strongly depends on what you shoot and how much time you want to spend shining up your work rather than collecting more images. With controlled lighting, consistent sort of subjects, etc. getting it right in-camera is a small matter of dialing it in. But I don't go to 'shoots' where my environment is scripted. I happen to shoot my life around me, and my subjects are moving, impatient, and inconsistently lit. So I shoot JPEG + RAW, and I screen with JPEGs and process the 3-5% best RAW shots individually. That lets my photographic reality be tamed to the point where I get the most out of my shots at a fraction of the work needed to process them all.

- A

 

[ahsanford]

There's this weird trend in online photography discussion groups where mediocre photographers embrace some sort of artificial limitation regime like "no cropping" or "primes only" because of the belief that it's purer photography or something.

Ouch, I missed the word in red above. Your point is well made (and I welcome the discussion that follows your comment re: purists vs. pragmatists), but there's no need for that kind of tone or implication. This is a respectful place. People who don't have the same sensibilities as you are not sub-par human beings -- they are just people with different sensibilities.

Further, I think if you went to that person's website (www.mrsfotografie.nl), you'd see far from mediocre work on display.

- A

 

[mrsfotografie]

Further, I think if you went to that person's website (www.mrsfotografie.nl), you'd see far from mediocre work on display.

Cool! Thank you ahsanford!

- M