The real problem with Canon sensor technology?

[arthurbikemad]

Canon seem to get a lot of stick, stood side by side with a A7RII owner shooting bikes he seemed a little dissapointed in the super fast AF and IQ of my 5D3 today! I was happy that my old clunker still gets the shots, bring on the Mk4 and the 1DXII and lets get shooting of another X years, Canon seem to be doing OK in my book.. I could not give a toss for specs on paper or blasted all over the net, it's how it does the job that matters to me

 

[Aglet]

Canon. Nuthin' special. Good enough for the masses. (The K-cars of the camera world?)
/mild_rant

Good enough for the masses? So, by implication, Canon's pro gear is only good enough for the masses too?
Having used some of the best that Nikon can offer (no others make comparable gear) I thought they were quite good for non serious use. Unfortunately the owners of the Nikon Superteles and "PRO?" bodies I was trying were using my Canon gear in the meantime, oh dear they were FAR from happy! What use is the wonderful sensor of the D810 if it can't focus until the subject has moved? What use is the better high ISO of the D4/D4S when you have clunky AF tracking and sub Canon lenses?
The mid range Nikon bodies definitely have advantages over some Canons, but when you hit the 7D2/5D3 level or higher then things start to alter quite a bit. As to Nikon long lenses? Well I hope the, just released 500 & 600 lenses, are comparable to Canon equivalents as their predecessors were mediocre at best. Having used Nikon gear I feel for their customers who shoot anything other than fairly static subjects with short lenses.
Just my experience - but what do I know? I have only used the gear.

You've nicely argued your choice of compromise.
Many others have chosen differently and are happy with their choice.

The point of the OP is the problem with Canon's sensors which I answered by stating that they're good enough for those who chose them.. so why should Canon bother to invest the capital and effort to improve that aspect?
Your post just justified my post.. In short, you're content with the IQ of your chosen system for various reasons as you explained. So why would Canon improve the sensor if you're happy with the results?

 

[brianftpc]

The A7r2 isnt the camera canon needs to be worrying about. The camera they need to worry about is the one that Nikon puts that sensor in.

 

[jrista]

The A7r2 isnt the camera canon needs to be worrying about. The camera they need to worry about is the one that Nikon puts that sensor in.

I agree with this. Nikon has demonstrated they can push the Sony technology farther than Sony themselves can. The A7r II shadow detail surprised me. Add in all the other Canon-grade features, like weather sealing and AF and metering and such...should be a hearty competitor. I am looking forward to see what the next D800 series camera is (there are rumors of a D810s, not sure what that might be, before a D850.)

 

[jd7]

This article on Fstoppers seems apposite in the context of this thread:
https://fstoppers.com/camerashootout2

People talk about Exmor sensors providing "better IQ", but as I understand it, the only objective measure in which Canon is behind is DR at low ISO. In my view that is not synonymous with IQ, eg other characteristics, such as ability to render skin tones, are important too (although query how you tease out what is due to the sensor, what is due to processing within the camera, etc).

Anyway, more DR is good, all else being equal, but inevitably all else is not equal so you have to choose the set of trade-offs which best suits you and what you want to shoot. Not everyone is going to give the same weight/significance to more DR at low ISO.

 

[Aglet]

The A7r2 isnt the camera canon needs to be worrying about. The camera they need to worry about is the one that Nikon puts that sensor in.

I agree with this. Nikon has demonstrated they can push the Sony technology farther than Sony themselves can. The A7r II shadow detail surprised me. Add in all the other Canon-grade features, like weather sealing and AF and metering and such...should be a hearty competitor. I am looking forward to see what the next D800 series camera is (there are rumors of a D810s, not sure what that might be, before a D850.)

+1 but...
I doubt Canon will worry much if such a body arrives since they know they can still sell their same old schtick with minor improvements and still keep shareholders happy and customers content.
I've given up (yrs ago) on thinking they're going to compete on sensor tech and I'm glad I didn't wait.

(better than?) Canon-quality, available now, in smaller, lighter, cheap micro-four-thirds bodies vs. most of Canon's APSC range.

http://www.canonrumors.com/forum/index.php?topic=19270.msg553097#msg553097

 

[3kramd5]

The A7r2 isnt the camera canon needs to be worrying about. The camera they need to worry about is the one that Nikon puts that sensor in.

I agree with this. Nikon has demonstrated they can push the Sony technology farther than Sony themselves can. The A7r II shadow detail surprised me. Add in all the other Canon-grade features, like weather sealing and AF and metering and such...should be a hearty competitor. I am looking forward to see what the next D800 series camera is (there are rumors of a D810s, not sure what that might be, before a D850.)

Shrug. Unless the usability of whatever comes after the D810 is significantly better than my D7000, I'll be happy sticking with my A7R2 and my 5D3 (or 4 if it tickles my fancy). The cheaper native-mount Zeiss glass for E-mount is really compelling. The 25 is on my short list, I just can't find one, but I'd never even legitimately consider an Otus, for F or for EF. For long lens use, I'm sticking with Canon. For everything else, short of something unexpected (i.e. not just putting the 42MP BSI sensor in a DLSR and running it at ISO50 or whatever), the nikon will be trivia. I look forward to the competition, but don't have any expectation of buying.

 

[3kramd5]

The A7r2 isnt the camera canon needs to be worrying about. The camera they need to worry about is the one that Nikon puts that sensor in.

I agree with this. Nikon has demonstrated they can push the Sony technology farther than Sony themselves can. The A7r II shadow detail surprised me. Add in all the other Canon-grade features, like weather sealing and AF and metering and such...should be a hearty competitor. I am looking forward to see what the next D800 series camera is (there are rumors of a D810s, not sure what that might be, before a D850.)

+1 but...
I doubt Canon will worry much if such a body arrives since they know they can still sell their same old schtick with minor improvements and still keep shareholders happy and customers content.

Perhaps that means what they are selling is not, in fact, schtick, but rather that the advantages their competition wields is not of significant weight to most buyers.

 

[jrista]

The A7r2 isnt the camera canon needs to be worrying about. The camera they need to worry about is the one that Nikon puts that sensor in.

I agree with this. Nikon has demonstrated they can push the Sony technology farther than Sony themselves can. The A7r II shadow detail surprised me. Add in all the other Canon-grade features, like weather sealing and AF and metering and such...should be a hearty competitor. I am looking forward to see what the next D800 series camera is (there are rumors of a D810s, not sure what that might be, before a D850.)

Shrug. Unless the usability of whatever comes after the D810 is significantly better than my D7000, I'll be happy sticking with my A7R2 and my 5D3 (or 4 if it tickles my fancy). The cheaper native-mount Zeiss glass for E-mount is really compelling. The 25 is on my short list, I just can't find one, but I'd never even legitimately consider an Otus, for F or for EF. For long lens use, I'm sticking with Canon. For everything else, short of something unexpected (i.e. not just putting the 42MP BSI sensor in a DLSR and running it at ISO50 or whatever), the nikon will be trivia. I look forward to the competition, but don't have any expectation of buying.

Personally, I have no intention of buying into Nikon. Too expensive, as it cannot be adapted to other lenses as easily. That is one of the big appeals of the Sony system.

I am just interested in seeing what Nikon is capable of doing with the 42mp sensor. They have done some pretty impressive things with the 36mp sensor.

 

[jrista]

The A7r2 isnt the camera canon needs to be worrying about. The camera they need to worry about is the one that Nikon puts that sensor in.

I agree with this. Nikon has demonstrated they can push the Sony technology farther than Sony themselves can. The A7r II shadow detail surprised me. Add in all the other Canon-grade features, like weather sealing and AF and metering and such...should be a hearty competitor. I am looking forward to see what the next D800 series camera is (there are rumors of a D810s, not sure what that might be, before a D850.)

+1 but...
I doubt Canon will worry much if such a body arrives since they know they can still sell their same old schtick with minor improvements and still keep shareholders happy and customers content.

Perhaps that means what they are selling is not, in fact, schtick, but rather that the advantages their competition wields is not of significant weight to most buyers.

Canon has a fanatical following. That doesn't die easily. That said, Sony has gathered quite the following these days as well. There are some key limitations of the Sony system that I think a lot of existing Canon and Nikon who might be interested in switching are waiting to be resolved. A high quality native flash system with radio control capabilities seems to be one of them. Higher quality weather sealing another. I'm curious to see if the landscape changes when those things are resolved.

 

[Loswr]

People talk about Exmor sensors providing "better IQ", but as I understand it, the only objective measure in which Canon is behind is DR at low ISO. In my view that is not synonymous with IQ, eg other characteristics, such as ability to render skin tones, are important too (although query how you tease out what is due to the sensor, what is due to processing within the camera, etc).

Anyway, more DR is good, all else being equal, but inevitably all else is not equal so you have to choose the set of trade-offs which best suits you and what you want to shoot. Not everyone is going to give the same weight/significance to more DR at low ISO.

ONLY LOW ISO DR MATTERS!!! That, and the ability to push your shadows 5+ stops. The lack thereof has led some people (e.g. jrista) to state that Canon delivers poor/unacceptable IQ. When are otherwise logical and sensible people like you (and me) going to get it?!? </sarcasm>

The real problem with Canon's sensors is that some people want more low ISO DR then they provide...which means the real problem isn't with Canon's sensors at all.

 

[Stu_bert]

The real problem is that people want to convince other people that their view is correct, and anyone who doesn't concur is foolish...

Doesn't anyone else here get tired of defending their choice? Do you think you're going to convert people? Every company has it's fanatics, but maybe for some of them it's the fact that the kit they have matches or exceeds their abilities, and swapping wont change that, which means they have not swapped brands.

I am real curious - do you all analyze engine performance, or electrical efficiency of your household goods to the same amount that you analze sensor performance? And do you swap brands every year to be with the "best" according of course to your criteria ?

Honestly, whereas I enjoy discussing merits to a point, when it comes to threads where people want to enforce that current users are clearly wrong, the only people who benefit are those that run the site. More advertising = Good for them!

Everyone has their criteria on what they want from a camera. Can't we just accept that and go spend more time understanding our chosen tools and using them out in the field, improving our photography by using our tools, not slating others. Pentax, Olympus, Nikon, Sony, Canon - they make kit which if used correctly produces stunning pictures.

Go take a look at the Widlife photograher of the year, and when you look at the pictures, if you first thought is "I wonder what sensor was used" or indeed anything about the tech other than the techniques used to take the shot then wow, you need to seek help.

/rant off.

 

[3kramd5]

I am real curious - do you all analyze engine performance, or electrical efficiency of your household goods to the same amount that you analze sensor performance? And do you swap brands every year to be with the "best" according of course to your criteria ?

I guess it depends on your passion. For most people, changing household infrastructure is likely too much of a pain in the rear to even consider. Ed Begley Jr may, however.

For many people, changing cameras is more like changing phones (especially given that most cameras come with a lens), or laptops, or tablets. I'll think you'll find as much silly analysis on iOS vs android threads and OS X vs Windows threads and Galaxy vs iPad vs surface vs whatever threads as you do on Sony vs canon threads.

 

[Stu_bert]

I am real curious - do you all analyze engine performance, or electrical efficiency of your household goods to the same amount that you analze sensor performance? And do you swap brands every year to be with the "best" according of course to your criteria ?

I guess it depends on your passion. For most people, changing household infrastructure is likely too much of a pain in the rear to even consider. Ed Begley Jr may, however.

For many people, changing cameras is more like changing phones (especially given that most cameras come with a lens), or laptops, or tablets. I'll think you'll find as much silly analysis on iOS vs android threads and OS X vs Windows threads and Galaxy vs iPad vs surface vs whatever threads as you do on Sony vs canon threads.

I think a lot of people here have more invested in their cameras than that (smartphone or laptop). When I go to Canon repair just for a lens calibration, my camera & lens is worth more than my car. Which tells you a lot about my relative priorities, lol.

But yes, I agree, some people seem to go to the nth degree to justify their decision, no matter the tech. I was curious if it overspilt into cars & white goods, and if it doesnt it just peaked my curiousity as to why.

Like I said, I understand discussing diferences. It's educational, and I've learnt a lot here, and elsewhere. I would not have known that BSI can help alleviate vignetting for instance. But I think you can just state that (as was done), without having to infer that one's choices (already made) are flawed.

Maybe it's just me, but it just becomes irrelevant noise (pun intended)... ;D

 

[Don Haines]

I am real curious - do you all analyze engine performance, or electrical efficiency of your household goods to the same amount that you analze sensor performance? And do you swap brands every year to be with the "best" according of course to your criteria ?

I guess it depends on your passion. For most people, changing household infrastructure is likely too much of a pain in the rear to even consider. Ed Begley Jr may, however.

For many people, changing cameras is more like changing phones (especially given that most cameras come with a lens), or laptops, or tablets. I'll think you'll find as much silly analysis on iOS vs android threads and OS X vs Windows threads and Galaxy vs iPad vs surface vs whatever threads as you do on Sony vs canon threads.

I think a lot of people here have more invested in their cameras than that (smartphone or laptop). When I go to Canon repair just for a lens calibration, my camera & lens is worth more than my car. Which tells you a lot about my relative priorities, lol.

But yes, I agree, some people seem to go to the nth degree to justify their decision, no matter the tech. I was curious if it overspilt into cars & white goods, and if it doesnt it just peaked my curiousity as to why.

Like I said, I understand discussing diferences. It's educational, and I've learnt a lot here, and elsewhere. I would not have known that BSI can help alleviate vignetting for instance. But I think you can just state that (as was done), without having to infer that one's choices (already made) are flawed.

Maybe it's just me, but it just becomes irrelevant noise (pun intended)... ;D

My car has 240,000K on it. I bought it because I would "do the job".... In the eight years since, tech has improved and there are all kinds of new features, but it still does its basic task well. I keep up on what would be a suitable replacement, and if it were to die today I know the dealer and model I would call and I would be going again by the end of the day....

I treat cameras the same way...my old camera lasted me 5 years.... I doubt that my new one will be any different.... It is a tool to be used. If my needs change, I change tools.... But I don't change for the sake of getting the latest doodad or feature.

People seem to fixate on sensors, but I find that a great piece of glass has more impact on my photography than any sensor does. To me, it's a lot like getting a car with a powerful engine, but without the suspension and tires to keep it on the road..... One needs balance.....

 

[meywd]

I am real curious - do you all analyze engine performance, or electrical efficiency of your household goods to the same amount that you analze sensor performance? And do you swap brands every year to be with the "best" according of course to your criteria ?

I guess it depends on your passion. For most people, changing household infrastructure is likely too much of a pain in the rear to even consider. Ed Begley Jr may, however.

For many people, changing cameras is more like changing phones (especially given that most cameras come with a lens), or laptops, or tablets. I'll think you'll find as much silly analysis on iOS vs android threads and OS X vs Windows threads and Galaxy vs iPad vs surface vs whatever threads as you do on Sony vs canon threads.

I think a lot of people here have more invested in their cameras than that (smartphone or laptop). When I go to Canon repair just for a lens calibration, my camera & lens is worth more than my car. Which tells you a lot about my relative priorities, lol.

But yes, I agree, some people seem to go to the nth degree to justify their decision, no matter the tech. I was curious if it overspilt into cars & white goods, and if it doesnt it just peaked my curiousity as to why.

Like I said, I understand discussing diferences. It's educational, and I've learnt a lot here, and elsewhere. I would not have known that BSI can help alleviate vignetting for instance. But I think you can just state that (as was done), without having to infer that one's choices (already made) are flawed.

Maybe it's just me, but it just becomes irrelevant noise (pun intended)... ;D

Its about passion, is your hobby racing or drifting? then you will care about cars/engines/gear box/wheels/air and oil filters/brake and clutch disks/....etc.

Are you a gamer or a programmer? then graphic cards ATI vs nVidia, Asus vs EVGA vs Gigabyte vs MSI/sound cards/PCI, 8 channels vs 16/dual triple and quad channels memory/CPUs Intel vs AMD/Power Supplies/keyboards mechanical vs gaming vs curve/Mice/Windows vs Mac/open source vs Microsoft/.... and so much more, and it also depends on your level of passion, some programmers don't know how to troubleshoot windows, some build their own computers, when I bought my last PC I spent 6 months reading on the current technology and the current products to get the most for the money.

The same for photography, before I bought my first DSLR I spent 5-6 months readying about photography, light, and composition though it was all articles and Wikipedia, reading about Canon vs Nikon, Which lenses to get, third party lenses, and while waiting for it I used my friend's DSLR to practice.

 

[AlanF]

I am real curious - do you all analyze engine performance, or electrical efficiency of your household goods to the same amount that you analze sensor performance? And do you swap brands every year to be with the "best" according of course to your criteria ?

I guess it depends on your passion. For most people, changing household infrastructure is likely too much of a pain in the rear to even consider. Ed Begley Jr may, however.

For many people, changing cameras is more like changing phones (especially given that most cameras come with a lens), or laptops, or tablets. I'll think you'll find as much silly analysis on iOS vs android threads and OS X vs Windows threads and Galaxy vs iPad vs surface vs whatever threads as you do on Sony vs canon threads.

I think a lot of people here have more invested in their cameras than that (smartphone or laptop). When I go to Canon repair just for a lens calibration, my camera & lens is worth more than my car. Which tells you a lot about my relative priorities, lol.

But yes, I agree, some people seem to go to the nth degree to justify their decision, no matter the tech. I was curious if it overspilt into cars & white goods, and if it doesnt it just peaked my curiousity as to why.

Like I said, I understand discussing diferences. It's educational, and I've learnt a lot here, and elsewhere. I would not have known that BSI can help alleviate vignetting for instance. But I think you can just state that (as was done), without having to infer that one's choices (already made) are flawed.

Maybe it's just me, but it just becomes irrelevant noise (pun intended)... ;D

My car has 240,000K on it. I bought it because I would "do the job".... In the eight years since, tech has improved and there are all kinds of new features, but it still does its basic task well. I keep up on what would be a suitable replacement, and if it were to die today I know the dealer and model I would call and I would be going again by the end of the day....

I treat cameras the same way...my old camera lasted me 5 years.... I doubt that my new one will be any different.... It is a tool to be used. If my needs change, I change tools.... But I don't change for the sake of getting the latest doodad or feature.

People seem to fixate on sensors, but I find that a great piece of glass has more impact on my photography than any sensor does. To me, it's a lot like getting a car with a powerful engine, but without the suspension and tires to keep it on the road..... One needs balance.....

I have had my car since new in 1999. But, it wouldn't be much good for you as it is a cabriolet and you couldn't put your canoe on top.

 

[KeithBreazeal]

People talk about Exmor sensors providing "better IQ", but as I understand it, the only objective measure in which Canon is behind is DR at low ISO. In my view that is not synonymous with IQ, eg other characteristics, such as ability to render skin tones, are important too (although query how you tease out what is due to the sensor, what is due to processing within the camera, etc).

Anyway, more DR is good, all else being equal, but inevitably all else is not equal so you have to choose the set of trade-offs which best suits you and what you want to shoot. Not everyone is going to give the same weight/significance to more DR at low ISO.

ONLY LOW ISO DR MATTERS!!! That, and the ability to push your shadows 5+ stops. The lack thereof has led some people (e.g. jrista) to state that Canon delivers poor/unacceptable IQ. When are otherwise logical and sensible people like you (and me) going to get it?!? </sarcasm>

The real problem with Canon's sensors is that some people want more low ISO DR then they provide...which means the real problem isn't with Canon's sensors at all.

Yes, it's all a trade-off. I would rather have true colors across the entire visual spectrum than super high DR. Since my film days,(1960) correct exposure and lighting was the rule. With today's cameras and software, that is getting to be less relevant. Getting everything right the first time is my goal. I have no problem with Canon's DR to lift a shadow area and bring it to the point of how my eyes saw the subject. When I see the subject and know the DR will not be sufficient, I shoot a 3 to 5 shot HDR.
Canon has backlit sensor technology, but I'm thinking they held back to insure the overall image quality meets with their philosophy. With Canon's user friendly designs and wide assortment of focal lengths, they are in doing it right. Canon is getting some stiff completion from some lens makers now, so that is a concern. Competition is a good thing and will hold prices down.

 

[unfocused]

The real problem is that people want to convince other people that their view is correct, and anyone who doesn't concur is foolish...

Doesn't anyone else here get tired of defending their choice? Do you think you're going to convert people? Every company has it's fanatics, but maybe for some of them it's the fact that the kit they have matches or exceeds their abilities, and swapping wont change that, which means they have not swapped brands.

I am real curious - do you all analyze engine performance, or electrical efficiency of your household goods to the same amount that you analze sensor performance? And do you swap brands every year to be with the "best" according of course to your criteria ?

Honestly, whereas I enjoy discussing merits to a point, when it comes to threads where people want to enforce that current users are clearly wrong, the only people who benefit are those that run the site. More advertising = Good for them!

Everyone has their criteria on what they want from a camera. Can't we just accept that and go spend more time understanding our chosen tools and using them out in the field, improving our photography by using our tools, not slating others. Pentax, Olympus, Nikon, Sony, Canon - they make kit which if used correctly produces stunning pictures.

Go take a look at the Widlife photograher of the year, and when you look at the pictures, if you first thought is "I wonder what sensor was used" or indeed anything about the tech other than the techniques used to take the shot then wow, you need to seek help.

/rant off.

This is one of the more rational posts I've read in a long time.

My view: Photography is by nature both very easy and very hard. Almost anyone can take a decent picture and as technology has improved it has made it easier to do so.

Unfortunately, this technical ease is deceptive and leaves many people with the false impression that they only need better technology to get better.

But, once you've got the basics down, the real challenge begins. And, this is where problems arise. At some point, the left side of the brain will only carry you so far and unless you have real talent and vision, you are going to hit a wall.

Photography is very much like music in that respect. You can master all the technical aspects of music, but that won't make you a great musician.

So, there will always be a certain segment of the population who blames their tools and believes that if they just had the right tool, they would be great. As the tools improve, and they still don't achieve greatness, then people have to focus on smaller and smaller aspects of their tools and infuse those small aspects with an importance far beyond the reality.

Cameras and photo processing software have advanced so far in the past dozen years that the differences which exist between equipment has become insignificant. The lowest cost interchangeable lens camera, whether it be Nikon, Canon or Sony is so good that 99% of photographers in 99% of situations don't need anything else.

But, we have to justify our purchases and desire for more. We also have to justify why we can't get the perfect picture. Blaming equipment is easier to accept than looking in a mirror.

So, what we end up with is a lot of technologically-minded individuals who believe that the right technology will make them talented. But, it's not going to happen.

 

[scyrene]

The real problem is that people want to convince other people that their view is correct, and anyone who doesn't concur is foolish...

Doesn't anyone else here get tired of defending their choice? Do you think you're going to convert people? Every company has it's fanatics, but maybe for some of them it's the fact that the kit they have matches or exceeds their abilities, and swapping wont change that, which means they have not swapped brands.

I am real curious - do you all analyze engine performance, or electrical efficiency of your household goods to the same amount that you analze sensor performance? And do you swap brands every year to be with the "best" according of course to your criteria ?

Honestly, whereas I enjoy discussing merits to a point, when it comes to threads where people want to enforce that current users are clearly wrong, the only people who benefit are those that run the site. More advertising = Good for them!

Everyone has their criteria on what they want from a camera. Can't we just accept that and go spend more time understanding our chosen tools and using them out in the field, improving our photography by using our tools, not slating others. Pentax, Olympus, Nikon, Sony, Canon - they make kit which if used correctly produces stunning pictures.

Go take a look at the Widlife photograher of the year, and when you look at the pictures, if you first thought is "I wonder what sensor was used" or indeed anything about the tech other than the techniques used to take the shot then wow, you need to seek help.

/rant off.

This is one of the more rational posts I've read in a long time.

My view: Photography is by nature both very easy and very hard. Almost anyone can take a decent picture and as technology has improved it has made it easier to do so.

Unfortunately, this technical ease is deceptive and leaves many people with the false impression that they only need better technology to get better.

But, once you've got the basics down, the real challenge begins. And, this is where problems arise. At some point, the left side of the brain will only carry you so far and unless you have real talent and vision, you are going to hit a wall.

Photography is very much like music in that respect. You can master all the technical aspects of music, but that won't make you a great musician.

So, there will always be a certain segment of the population who blames their tools and believes that if they just had the right tool, they would be great. As the tools improve, and they still don't achieve greatness, then people have to focus on smaller and smaller aspects of their tools and infuse those small aspects with an importance far beyond the reality.

Cameras and photo processing software have advanced so far in the past dozen years that the differences which exist between equipment has become insignificant. The lowest cost interchangeable lens camera, whether it be Nikon, Canon or Sony is so good that 99% of photographers in 99% of situations don't need anything else.

But, we have to justify our purchases and desire for more. We also have to justify why we can't get the perfect picture. Blaming equipment is easier to accept than looking in a mirror.

So, what we end up with is a lot of technologically-minded individuals who believe that the right technology will make them talented. But, it's not going to happen.

Nicely put.