DXO uh-oh?

[Joe M]

Does any subject get people going like DxO scores? I'm sure they are smarter than I when it comes to doing whatever they do but personally I don't pay much attention to it when buying my gear. Are there really people who buy stuff according to their tests? Well, if it works for you I guess that's great. We all like to see our stuff quantified in some way. It's up to the individual in how much faith you put in the tester or reviewer.
Oh, and in response to the original post....I expect DxO will just create a new scale. Just like one of my least favourite lines in movies when they are exaggerating an event..."it's off the scale". Who says they have to stop at 100? Meh

 

[Loswr]

Look, I'll be easy on you and give you the chance to respond to one request at a time.

* Please explain how DxO is accomodating [f]or more clients more important to them.

First, you can explain why you think it would be a good idea for you to take remedial courses in reading comprehension and logical reasoning.

Wow, you are behaving true to form for a politician in evading answering a question with a completely unrelated statement. Is that your real job? Oh, in case you're wondering, I asked first and then you started with the evasion tactics. What are you trying to hide? Why don't you want to explain this?

Let me repeat:

* Please explain how DxO is accomodating [f]or more clients more important to them.

I don't have to wonder, I know what I wrote, what you wrote, and when. You obviously do not. You didn't ask first, you asked after I had already indicated that I don't believe is DxO is in collusion with Nikon (although it certainly is a possiblity, just a remote one).

Let me repeat, you need to learn how to comprehend what you read. I'm done replying to your inane comments in this thread.

 

[3kramd5]

Let me make it simple for you..

DxO is accommodating one or more of the clients more important to them (e.g., they are 'joined at the hip with Nikon', which you have been arguing against), or DxO are makes foolish business decisions?

1) Explain how DxO is accomodating or more clients more important to them
2) Explain your reasoning behind using the phrase "joined at the hip with Nikon."

Let me try to help you read and comprehend what I originally wrote:

EDIT: or perhaps you're suggesting a third possibility that I intentionally dismissed, namely that Canon is a client but DxO chose to not display the logo of the leading manufacturer of dSLRs among their clients. Possible reasons for that could be to placate other clients more important to theme, i.e. Nikon (which would certainly imply some sort of hip-joining) or simply because DxO is foolish. Is that what you're suggesting?

In other words, I was providing plausible explanations for a possibility that I had already indicated I thought to be so unlikely that I didn't even mention it initially.

Of course it is easy to claim anything after the fact but the fact remains that your initial public attempts to explain something were built around alleging misbehavior by DxO.

Seriously, look into some remedial education. Maybe we can have this discussion someday when you've learned how to comprehend what you read. Until then, it's merely a waste of time.

I love how you pick and choose which questions to answer that are put to you! You'd make a great politician in the way that you evade questions and queries that are put to you.

Look, I'll be easy on you and give you the chance to respond to one request at a time.

* Please explain how DxO is accomodating [f]or more clients more important to them.

Why would you want someone to explain how something is true that he has clearly stated above (I am not privy to whatever history you two have) he believes to be untrue?

Playing Devil's Advocate is a useful tool in learning formal debate, but what exactly are you looking for in this discussion? To improve Neuroanatomist's debate prowess?

In case you haven't noticed, the bit you are asking him to explain "how DxO is accomodating..." wasn't an allegation, it was a possible explanation.

"What can you come up with, besides 'Canon didn't permit it' (which I have already suggested as the most likely possibility), DxO is accommodating one or more of the clients more important to them (e.g., they are 'joined at the hip with Nikon', which you have been arguing against), or DxO are makes foolish business decisions?"

Those are one person's ideas to explain the lack of a logo on a website; they are not presented as certain. Further, as stated, he doesn't even think the "joined at the hip" part is the most likely reason. He thinks Canon didn't permit it. I tend to agree. One possible reason for that possible reason is that Canon doesn't like how its products stand up on the scoring metric, and thus aren't willing to imply approval by permitting their logo. I hope you don't ask for evidence of a possible reason for a possible reason.

 

[zlatko]

....
Perhaps DxO is biased. Perhaps Nikon and Sony have decided to "build to the test." Perhaps the differences being tested are so insignificant that the ratings have only academic and no real-world application. Most likely it's a combination of all three.

It's not like the scores have the tiniest bit of impact on the market. So really, who cares?

jrista and neuro obviously care a lot because they go to great lengths to shout down DxO's results.

Do you agree with DxOMark lens scoring, which currently ranks the EF 35/2 IS and the EF 100/2 above all other lenses made by Canon? If so, why? If not, why not? Either way, how is DxO's scoring of these two lenses as the highest among all Canon EF lenses relevant to photographers? Do these two lenses truly deserve higher scores than any L lens or any other Canon EF lens?

On the 1DsIII, DxOMark scores for these lenses are:
100/2 = 30
35/2 IS = 29
85/1.2L II = 28
24/1.4L II = 28
300/2.8 II = 28
400/2.8 II = 27
35/1.4L = 27
85/1.8 = 26
100/2.8L = 26
200/2.8L II = 24
180/3.5L = 19

 

[Sporgon]

....
Perhaps DxO is biased. Perhaps Nikon and Sony have decided to "build to the test." Perhaps the differences being tested are so insignificant that the ratings have only academic and no real-world application. Most likely it's a combination of all three.

It's not like the scores have the tiniest bit of impact on the market. So really, who cares?

jrista and neuro obviously care a lot because they go to great lengths to shout down DxO's results.

Do you agree with DxOMark lens scoring, which currently ranks the EF 35/2 IS and the EF 100/2 above all other lenses made by Canon? If so, why? If not, why not? Either way, how is DxO's scoring of these two lenses as the highest among all Canon EF lenses relevant to photographers? Do these two lenses truly deserve higher scores than any L lens or any other Canon EF lens?

On the 1DsIII, DxOMark scores for these lenses are:
100/2 = 30
35/2 IS = 29
85/1.2L II = 28
24/1.4L II = 28
300/2.8 II = 28
400/2.8 II = 27
35/1.4L = 27
85/1.8 = 26
100/2.8L = 26
200/2.8L II = 24
180/3.5L = 19

If anyone can pull out historical web pages from DxO mark you will find that at one time they had the 85/1.8 as the highest rated Canon lens.

Now I am an 85/1.8 fan, but really ......

???

 

[msm]

Seeing how much energy people here spend on DXO, it seems their ratings serves their purpose very well

 

[Sporgon]

Seeing how much energy people here spend on DXO, it seems their ratings serves their purpose very well

I think that in many cases it is generated by frustration from those who find DxO's software really excellent, and it's hard to believe the same organisation can produce such drivel in it's performance 'scores'.

 

[3kramd5]

...
Those are one person's ideas to explain the lack of a logo on a website; they are not presented as certain.

When something is presented without a qualifier such as "I think that .." or "In my opinion ..." then it is as if someone is stating a fact.

"What can you come up with other than...?" doesn't serve as a sufficient qualifier? You honestly read one of several possibilities presented in the context of a question as a statement of fact?

 

[Keith_Reeder]

jrista and neuro obviously care a lot because they go to great lengths to shout down DxO's results.

No they don't - they go to great lengths to shout down your obsession with the scores as "proof" that nothing else matters.

 

[Don Haines]

I'm a long time reader, first time poster, but I have to address Neuro here.

I had the Canon D60, the D400, the 5D Mk1, 2, and the 3 for about 2 months till I decided that it was a huge disappointment after waiting 3 years for the successor to the wonderful Mk2.

I went to the D800 and spent 12 grand switching, and I never looked back. Crop modes, clean shadows and highlights and DR were the main attractions.

Images from my D800 look like drum scans from MF/LF film, and that's the first time I'd seen a digital camera hit that goal.

Neuro is a god here, and he's an intelligent guy, of that there is no mistake, but when it comes to the reality between Canon and everyone else, he abandons his normally cogent posts and reverts to fan boy mode.

I loved my Canon gear, and up until 2012 it was the best gear I could buy for my business without going MF.

The D800 killed anything Canon had as far as pure IQ went with the D800.

Is that even up for debate now as I await my D810 to arrive? Only here it seems.

I've found in 2 years of D800 use that DXO scores for the sensors are pretty much on the money from what I've observed by taking tens of thousand of Canon and Nikon photos.

The Mk2 sensor, that is maybe half my folio (www.deanagar.com.au) is scored accurately. It was great for 2008, no question. I loved that camera.

The DXO score for the D800 I'd have to agree with, as i would with the Mk3 which I had for a depressing 2 months when it was released. Soft video and the same old read noise that Canon can’t get rid of.

Ergonomically it was the best camera I'd ever owned, but IQ is what I'm after and I can take the loss of a rate button and, camera setting memories and nice menus to get the elusive film level IQ of the D800.

It makes the Mk2 and Mk3 look very average, and sometimes downright poor. Read noise, lack of recoverable highlights and shadows, and poor 100ISO performance are lacking in the Canon sensors.

Is there anyone on the planet that doesn't accept that as fact, except many people on here?

The reality of the camera industry has changed and Canon isn't even 2nd best when it comes to sensors anymore.

The best sensors are Sony, the 2nd best are Nikon designed/Sony made sensors, and I'm not sure Canon even come third anymore.

I'm sad about that, it cost me a lot of money to jump ship, but I deal with reality, not what I want reality to be.

I wanted Canon to release a sensor that could match the D800, and 28 months after I got the D800, that still hasn't happened.

I will say, I'm not a high ISO shooter, so limitations of the D800 don't worry me, but then if I had to shoot 3200-12800 for my pro work, I'd get a D4s, so Canon still don't get a look in for a Canon fan like myself.

Neuro is a very smart guy, his knowledge is amazing, but he has a blind spot and it's the kind of a blind spot a 16 year old fan boy has.

Canon are a great company, and have advanced digital photography more than any other company in the scheme of things, but they have lost their way, and in 2014, that hasn't changed yet.

Focus on product delineation by hobbling their stills cams to sell more of their video cams, and insisting on releasing the same old sensors in new bodies over and over and over has taken a lot of industry respect away from them, that’s for sure.

The 70D focus system? Stunning. That’s the canon of old. Shame it was added to the same old sensors with read noise and low DR. I’d love that on My Gh4 and D810, that’s for sure.

My professional photographer friends are jealous of the D800 and they haven't made the leap to Sony or Nikon because they have faith that Canon will deliver something that has 14-15 stops of DR, and no read noise, but so far, they are frustrated, and I have two years of photos with both while they lament the lack of sensor development at Canon.

So back to the good guy Neuro and DXO.

I don't give a flying toss how DXO arrive at their scores, they seem to back up my personal experience with Canon and Nikon, and everyone else i know using Canon and Nikon, which amounts to a lot of pro, APPA winners.

On my FB buddy list are the Australian Fashion Photographer of the Year, the Australian Commercial Photographer of the Year, and the Australian Nature and Science Photographer of the Year, so I’m in decent company, although I’m still only an APPA winner and not a category winner.

Yet

I see people here ask what shots couldn’t be taken on a Canon. Well, I took a few shots in New Zealand that were handheld on my honeymoon that are good examples. I won Loupe awards and other awards and they couldn't have been taken on a 5D Mk3 without going to HDR techniques.

They were single frames on a D800.

http://www.deanagar.com.au/tag/landscape-photography-brisbane-gold-coast-new-zealand/

With over 14 stops at 100 ISO (14.8 at 32ISO on the D810 it would appear) that is the same as a 3 shot 1 stop bracketed 5D Mk3 shot. That’s a big difference for landscape photographer to get something in one shot that would take a Canon 3 bracketed shots.

I’m not even a pro landscape photographer. I’m a people photographer, and occasional commercial photographer, but all the advantages of the D800 apply to any photography really.

What am i trying to say in this long rambling post

Neuro, you’re a smart guy and I read your insights with enthusiasm, except when it comes to Nikon/Canon.

A bit of an open, or even neutral, mind would benefit your standing when it comes to those types of posts.

I’ve shot with both, for around 7 years professionally, and I wouldn’t touch a Canon if I had the choice of a D800.

I can’t give up clean shadows and over 14 stops at 100 ISO, even if my heart is really with Canon due to my history with them.

I want them to blow everyone out of the water and deliver a killer high MP, hi DR sensor and give me my well missed rate button back.

But life goes on, and Canon have a following that means they are still the number one as far as sales go due to their reputation from prior to 2012, and I guess that won’t change for 2-3 years yet, so they have time to get it right.

But lets not deny reality.

If they don’t catch up, a good brand name is not going to last forever.

Well said!
Welcome to Canon Rumours.

BTW, as a user of multiple brands, I have been telling people for years when they ask about cameras to think of how/what/where they will use the camera before they look at specific brands or models... and to look at the whole package of camera/lens/flash/accessories. For me, the general rule of thumb for cameras is if you shoot action, go for Canon..... if you shoot studio or landscape, go for Nikon.... and if portability counts above all else, go Panasonic/Olympus/Sony... I think that Nikon has the best sensors and that Canon has the best AF.... People have to choose the camera that best meets their needs and to take other people's opinions with a grain of salt.

If there was such a thing as "the best camera", the maker would have the market cornered....

 

[candyman]

...........
http://www.deanagar.com.au/tag/landscape-photography-brisbane-gold-coast-new-zealand/
............

You made some magnificent photos. Just wonderful!

 

[Keith_Reeder]

But lets not deny reality.

Nice pics - but I bet that I'm not alone in thinking: "Hmmm... And he couldn't do that with a Canon camera?" And I mean in one shot, without multiple exposure HDR, or multiple Raw conversions.

There's nothing about those images that's beyond the ability of Canon: and that's the issue with all of this. Yeah, I imagine that it might be a little bit easier to get there with a current Nikon, but if you're honestly trying to persuade anyone that only Nikon cameras can do this, I'm going to tell you you're just plain wrong.

As has been said a million times already: despite the obsessive ranting of some about it on here and elsewhere, in reality the Nikony low ISO DR advantage is a marginal, somewhat niche advantage, and one which can - for the most part - easily be worked around.

 

[Sunnystate]

Very well said!

Being so articulate (that I never could, due to my language barrier), open about identity and professional credits, it really makes me sad that you have to be so apologetic just for trying to issue honest and polite critique of someone, is like you trying to critique a sensitive boss or teacher.
How many times did you said how smart Neuro is?
All that only shows the state of the affairs here on this site.
I was warned so many times for trying to say something that is just not with the current of this site that I have lost count, and I have just eighty something posts so far (few were deleted).
I think that anybody able to think clearly will agree with me that so called blind brand loyalty is in the end rather proof of poor ability to experience and perceive the world.
Anyway maybe it is better to obsessed about sensors superiority, and trying to figure out how to discredit "enemies" like DXO, than to do other things, like obsessing about people in personal life or coworkers.
Thank you for voicing your opinions!

I'm a long time reader, first time poster, but I have to address Neuro here.

I had the Canon D60, the D400, the 5D Mk1, 2, and the 3 for about 2 months till I decided that it was a huge disappointment after waiting 3 years for the successor to the wonderful Mk2.

I went to the D800 and spent 12 grand switching, and I never looked back. Crop modes, clean shadows and highlights and DR were the main attractions.

Images from my D800 look like drum scans from MF/LF film, and that's the first time I'd seen a digital camera hit that goal.

Neuro is a god here, and he's an intelligent guy, of that there is no mistake, but when it comes to the reality between Canon and everyone else, he abandons his normally cogent posts and reverts to fan boy mode.

I loved my Canon gear, and up until 2012 it was the best gear I could buy for my business without going MF.

The D800 killed anything Canon had as far as pure IQ went with the D800.

Is that even up for debate now as I await my D810 to arrive? Only here it seems.

I've found in 2 years of D800 use that DXO scores for the sensors are pretty much on the money from what I've observed by taking tens of thousand of Canon and Nikon photos.

The Mk2 sensor, that is maybe half my folio (www.deanagar.com.au) is scored accurately. It was great for 2008, no question. I loved that camera.

The DXO score for the D800 I'd have to agree with, as i would with the Mk3 which I had for a depressing 2 months when it was released. Soft video and the same old read noise that Canon can’t get rid of.

Ergonomically it was the best camera I'd ever owned, but IQ is what I'm after and I can take the loss of a rate button and, camera setting memories and nice menus to get the elusive film level IQ of the D800.

It makes the Mk2 and Mk3 look very average, and sometimes downright poor. Read noise, lack of recoverable highlights and shadows, and poor 100ISO performance are lacking in the Canon sensors.

Is there anyone on the planet that doesn't accept that as fact, except many people on here?

The reality of the camera industry has changed and Canon isn't even 2nd best when it comes to sensors anymore.

The best sensors are Sony, the 2nd best are Nikon designed/Sony made sensors, and I'm not sure Canon even come third anymore.

I'm sad about that, it cost me a lot of money to jump ship, but I deal with reality, not what I want reality to be.

I wanted Canon to release a sensor that could match the D800, and 28 months after I got the D800, that still hasn't happened.

I will say, I'm not a high ISO shooter, so limitations of the D800 don't worry me, but then if I had to shoot 3200-12800 for my pro work, I'd get a D4s, so Canon still don't get a look in for a Canon fan like myself.

Neuro is a very smart guy, his knowledge is amazing, but he has a blind spot and it's the kind of a blind spot a 16 year old fan boy has.

Canon are a great company, and have advanced digital photography more than any other company in the scheme of things, but they have lost their way, and in 2014, that hasn't changed yet.

Focus on product delineation by hobbling their stills cams to sell more of their video cams, and insisting on releasing the same old sensors in new bodies over and over and over has taken a lot of industry respect away from them, that’s for sure.

The 70D focus system? Stunning. That’s the canon of old. Shame it was added to the same old sensors with read noise and low DR. I’d love that on My Gh4 and D810, that’s for sure.

My professional photographer friends are jealous of the D800 and they haven't made the leap to Sony or Nikon because they have faith that Canon will deliver something that has 14-15 stops of DR, and no read noise, but so far, they are frustrated, and I have two years of photos with both while they lament the lack of sensor development at Canon.

So back to the good guy Neuro and DXO.

I don't give a flying toss how DXO arrive at their scores, they seem to back up my personal experience with Canon and Nikon, and everyone else i know using Canon and Nikon, which amounts to a lot of pro, APPA winners.

On my FB buddy list are the Australian Fashion Photographer of the Year, the Australian Commercial Photographer of the Year, and the Australian Nature and Science Photographer of the Year, so I’m in decent company, although I’m still only an APPA winner and not a category winner.

Yet

I see people here ask what shots couldn’t be taken on a Canon. Well, I took a few shots in New Zealand that were handheld on my honeymoon that are good examples. I won Loupe awards and other awards and they couldn't have been taken on a 5D Mk3 without going to HDR techniques.

They were single frames on a D800.

http://www.deanagar.com.au/tag/landscape-photography-brisbane-gold-coast-new-zealand/

With over 14 stops at 100 ISO (14.8 at 32ISO on the D810 it would appear) that is the same as a 3 shot 1 stop bracketed 5D Mk3 shot. That’s a big difference for landscape photographer to get something in one shot that would take a Canon 3 bracketed shots.

I’m not even a pro landscape photographer. I’m a people photographer, and occasional commercial photographer, but all the advantages of the D800 apply to any photography really.

What am i trying to say in this long rambling post

Neuro, you’re a smart guy and I read your insights with enthusiasm, except when it comes to Nikon/Canon.

A bit of an open, or even neutral, mind would benefit your standing when it comes to those types of posts.

I’ve shot with both, for around 7 years professionally, and I wouldn’t touch a Canon if I had the choice of a D800.

I can’t give up clean shadows and over 14 stops at 100 ISO, even if my heart is really with Canon due to my history with them.

I want them to blow everyone out of the water and deliver a killer high MP, hi DR sensor and give me my well missed rate button back.

But life goes on, and Canon have a following that means they are still the number one as far as sales go due to their reputation from prior to 2012, and I guess that won’t change for 2-3 years yet, so they have time to get it right.

But lets not deny reality.

If they don’t catch up, a good brand name is not going to last forever.

 

[Sporgon]

Nice pics - but I bet that I'm not alone in thinking: "Hmmm... And he couldn't do that with a Canon camera?" And I mean in one shot, without multiple exposure HDR, or multiple Raw conversions.

Sorry to spoil your party but multiple exposure HDR or multiple raw conversions does not deliver the same result as a single shot with wide DR.

No it doesn't. When done competently it delivers much better results.

zigzagzoe's landscape pictures are flat as a result of under exposing and then lifting the majority of the data. In my opinion the lift has been over done anyway as they do have a cartoon 'HDR' look to them, but that is just personal taste, and he may want them like that. Indeed if this is your 'look' you are better of with Exmor as it requires unrealistic lifting of shadow areas.

However in my opinion the landscape pictures are technically wholly inferior to the social photography that he has on his website which is highly competent.

I agree with Keith_Reeder; Canon is quite capable of shooting that scene in one frame. In fact even the 2005 5D could do it, never mind the likes of the 5DIII and 6D.

 

[msm]

The darkest area of the RAW is 36, 36, 33. There is no shadow under 7% in the RAW.

Agree with much of what you say, but your landscapes are not high DR scenes which Canon would have any problem with shooting in a single exposure and this quote just confirms that. It is when pushing deep shadows Canon would struggle and your landscapes don't have them. You have increased contrasts dramatically, which like you say some like others don't, but Canon raws handle that just as well.

 

[Orangutan]

I went to the D800 and spent 12 grand switching, and I never looked back. Crop modes, clean shadows and highlights and DR were the main attractions.

Images from my D800 look like drum scans from MF/LF film, and that's the first time I'd seen a digital camera hit that goal.

I'll let Neuro defend himself, he's usually pretty good at that, but I have a few comments.

I don't think anyone disputes that the D800 sensor is better at base ISO. That advantage disappears at the higher ISOs. If you only need base ISO then the D800 might help you.

Your entire post is from personal experience: religious wars have been fought over personal experience, with each side being certain it was right. As the saying goes "a pile of anecdotes do not constitute data." Personal experiences may make you feel good about your purchase, but do not provide objective evidence.

How many photos have you missed due to poor focus?

Depending on time of day, I believe my 60D could have made those photos you linked. (but that's just opinion, not proven fact)

I'm glad you're happy with your Nikon kit: in the end, that's all that matters. I doesn't prove anything objectively.

Keep making images you enjoy.

 

[Don Haines]

You realize this argument will be pointless when the 7D2 comes out with the 120Mpixel sensor, ISO 204,800, and 18 stops of dynamic range....

 

[Orangutan]

"That advantage disappears at the higher ISOs"

That's a myth, and I'm not sure where it started.

Can you cite sources, or is this your personal opinion?

The Mk3 to me always had this 'painterly' look at 800 and beyond. That's the best word I can think of.

Again, not objective. Personal impressions are not authoritative.

Web tests expose both cams the same, and that's stupid. If one cam holds on to it's shadows so much better, you can expose differently in the real world.

How would one objectively determine the proper exposure for each sensor?

It's not something you can be told, it's something you have to see for yourself.

This is 100% unpersuasive to me, as are nearly all appeals to personal experience. If it can't be demonstrated in double-blind experiments, there's no reason to be believe it's real.

After all, there is nothing that replaces using two types of tools yourself and pushing them to the limit.

Except reproducible double-blind experiments.

As an example of how "experts" can be fooled: http://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2011/10/you-are-not-so-smart-why-we-cant-tell-good-wine-from-bad/247240/

These types of experiments have been replicated many times, and the summary is that you can't trust your own perceptions. Show me objective tests, or you've shown me nothing.

 

[Joe M]

Quote from Orangutan.....
(Except reproducible double-blind experiments.

As an example of how "experts" can be fooled: http://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2011/10/you-are-not-so-smart-why-we-cant-tell-good-wine-from-bad/247240/

These types of experiments have been replicated many times, and the summary is that you can't trust your own perceptions. Show me objective tests, or you've shown me nothing.)

------
Exactly. Sometimes people believe what they want to believe. Your expectations shape reality. Hence the quest to find some definitive source that can tell them what really is good and what's junk. The problem then lies in whether or not you truly trust the source of this information.

 

[3kramd5]

You realize this argument will be pointless when the 7D2 comes out with the 120Mpixel sensor, ISO 204,800, and 18 stops of dynamic range....

Imagine how cool 18 stops would be!

As the Alexa, Red Dragon, D810, A7s etc all seem to top out at 14.5 to 15, I do fear that barring some new tech, that is the limit.

When Canon, Panasonic, Toshiba, Samsung etc all hit it, it will be great, and we can all talk about photos again, and not dynamic range

24 bit ADCs and RAW files .

The D800 is nice. That would be difficult to deny. If i felt like incurring the expense of a system change, I'd likely look towards the d600 first, until Nikon's lens infrastructure catches up with the sensors. Granted, any increase in detail is a good thing, but when on average across the lens lineup (per DXO) the 23MP 5D outresolves the 36MP d800, it makes me wonder about the efficacy of changing systems at this point.