Have we reached ‘peak’ image quality?

OP
Brazo
Messages
3,501
Name
Mark
Edit My Images
Yes
I don't think the D600 is a particularly good benchmark to compare more recent high-end cameras against? It's contemporary, the Canon 6D, tiddled all over it at the time, both for low light performance and colour rendition, so I'd be very surprised if your Z6 didn't have a significantly better sensor, processor/processing software than the D600 did. Correct me if I'm wrong, but from what I've heard/read, I believe even dyed in the wool Nikon fans seem to agree the D600 wasn't one of Nikon's finest cameras?
D600 is way ahead of 6D. It’s not even close.

https://www.dxomark.com/Cameras/Compare/Side-by-side/Canon-EOS-6D-versus-Nikon-D600___836_834

You couldn’t tell a Z6 and a D600 apart at base iso and would struggle at higher ISO’s but tbh they are close enough that it doesn’t matter which one looks worse at intergalactic iso. It’s not that the Z6 is bad just that the D600 was very good and advancements have been incremental.
 
Messages
6,303
Edit My Images
Yes
D600 is way ahead of 6D. It’s not even close.

https://www.dxomark.com/Cameras/Compare/Side-by-side/Canon-EOS-6D-versus-Nikon-D600___836_834

You couldn’t tell a Z6 and a D600 apart at base iso and would struggle at higher ISO’s but tbh they are close enough that it doesn’t matter which one looks worse at intergalactic iso. It’s not that the Z6 is bad just that the D600 was very good and advancements have been incremental.
We're talking real life results rather than a lab based test here. Apparently, even the later D610 wasn't a 'real world results' match for the Canon 6D (ref Digital Camera magazine ' Nikon vs Canon' test - August 2014). And what of the reported oil spatter and dust on the sensor issues on the D600? No mention of that in the DXO test, is there?
 
Last edited:
OP
Brazo
Messages
3,501
Name
Mark
Edit My Images
Yes
We're talking real life results rather than a lab based test here. Apparently, even the later D610 wasn't a 'real world results' match for the Canon 6D (ref Digital Camera magazine ' Nikon vs Canon' test - August 2014). And what of the reported oil and dust issues on the D600? No mention of that in the DXO test, is there?
Your changing the parameters of your argument now and you don’t know enough about the cameras you mention. A D610 is almost identical to a D600 other than resolving the oil spot issue, adding 0.5fps through firmware and of course the biggest change by far was adding the ‘10’ lettering to the front of the camera!
 
Last edited:
Messages
6,303
Edit My Images
Yes
Your changing the parameters of your argument now and you don’t know enough about the cameras you mention. A D610 is identical to a D600 other than resolving the oil spot issue, adding 0.5fps through firmware and of course the biggest change by far was adding the ‘10’ lettering to the front of the camera!
No I'm not! So, by your statement above, you'd have to agree that the findings of the Digital Camera magazine test would probably apply to the D600 as well as the D610 they tested then?

The Nikon D610 finished in 4th place in that 'Canon vs Nikon' test, behind the Nikon D5300 and Canon 70D, with the Canon 6D in first place. Why not buy a back copy of the magazine (if it's not available on line) and read the test and look at the results (August 2014 edition)? Then get back to me and we'll discuss. In particular, look at colour rendition and ISO range. Oh, and what about that oil spatter issue?
 
Last edited:

RWDW

Brotha from Anotha Brotha?
Messages
383
Name
Robert
Edit My Images
Yes
We're talking real life results rather than a lab based test here. Apparently, even the later D610 wasn't a 'real world results' match for the Canon 6D (ref Digital Camera magazine ' Nikon vs Canon' test - August 2014). And what of the reported oil spatter and dust on the sensor issues on the D600? No mention of that in the DXO test, is there?

I'm not saying it is but isn't there a possibility that the magazine test results were biased or a poor example of the camera?
I haven't read the article so do apologise but why does a camera work better in a lab than another but not so good in the real world?
 
Messages
3,029
Edit My Images
No
Oh, and what about that oil spatter issue?
Could you clarify what you found wrong with your own D600? I can't find much to complain of in my own specimen.

Nikon D600 on bed TZ70 P1030612.JPG
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: AZ6

AZ6

Suspended / Banned
Messages
1,051
Edit My Images
No
Could you clarify what you found wrong with your own D600? I can't find much to complain of in my own specimen.
Bugger; I bought a crap camera. :( I mean, I always thought it was fantastic, but apparently, it's not. Because someone on the internet said it isn't. Sob.

[Goes ands sits in a corner and cries]
 

AZ6

Suspended / Banned
Messages
1,051
Edit My Images
No
I don't think the D600 is a particularly good benchmark to compare more recent high-end cameras against? It's contemporary, the Canon 6D, tiddled all over it at the time, both for low light performance and colour rendition, so I'd be very surprised if your Z6 didn't have a significantly better sensor, processor/processing software than the D600 did. Correct me if I'm wrong, but from what I've heard/read, I believe even dyed in the wool Nikon fans seem to agree the D600 wasn't one of Nikon's finest cameras?

As I said, the Z6 is noticeably better in low light; I reckon at least 2 stops better. At low ISOs in more general conditions, I'm damned if I can see any real difference tbh. I shot a gig recently with both cameras, and the results were indistinguishable in terms of IQ (24-70 on the Z6, with the 70-200 on the D600).

Correct me if I'm wrong
You're wrong. Consider yourself corrected.
 
Messages
6,303
Edit My Images
Yes
As I said, the Z6 is noticeably better in low light; I reckon at least 2 stops better..
So was the 6D, the standard ISO range on the 6D was the extended range on the D610! It was two stops better, and that was over 6 years ago now!

You're wrong. Consider yourself corrected.
No, I'm not, the facts speak for themselves. Consider yourself incorrect!

Facts aside, if you like your D600 then fine, that's all that matters (to you anyway), now dry your eyes; it's not like I've run over your kitten or something! ;)
 
Messages
6,303
Edit My Images
Yes
I'm not saying it is but isn't there a possibility that the magazine test results were biased or a poor example of the camera?
I haven't read the article so do apologise but why does a camera work better in a lab than another but not so good in the real world?
A sensible question. Conversely, isn't there also a possibility that the lab test results were based on a poor example of an individual camera? As for the lab v real world question. You tell me! How many times have you used what you consider to be a very nice lens, only to read a lab test report that says it's mediocre at best? Unless you're using a camera in a lab, then I'd take a real world 'how does it look, handle and perform' comparison test review every time. To be honest, at the time, I found it quite refreshing to read a magazine review that didn't sit on the fence and come out with the 'all the cameras were as good as each other but for different reasons' cop out.
 
Last edited:
Messages
8,659
Name
wayne clarke
Edit My Images
Yes
Canon/nikon etc will keep on improving as long as it generates sales, always trying to be one step better. Iso has improved a lot in recent years and not that long ago 30mp would have a large format trype camera with a big sensor, now your getting that with really small sensors.
There has to be a finite limit to things like resolution, it'll be more likely limited by the lens rather than sensor though. Iso has a way to go IMHO, theres been rumours of fitting some sort of image intensifiers to boost low light to another level, and you can get a phone now with thermal imaging as standard built in.
I suspect we've got a way to go before they run out of improvments. Do we need better cameras.... Heck yes, I want that 3.000 mp canon thats amazing at 4 million iso..... I'll get my coat. ;)
 
Messages
3,029
Edit My Images
No
To be honest, at the time, I found it quite refreshing to read a magazine review that didn't sit on the fence and come out with the 'all the cameras were as good as each other but for different reasons' cop out.
You don't seem to have answered me yet. Am I to take it that you haven't answered my question because you don't actually have any experience of the Nikon D600?
 
  • Like
Reactions: AZ6
Messages
6,303
Edit My Images
Yes
You don't seem to have answered me yet. Am I to take it that you haven't answered my question because you don't actually have any experience of the Nikon D600?
I've not answered your question because it's entirely irrelevant to my original post (#40).
 
Last edited:

AZ6

Suspended / Banned
Messages
1,051
Edit My Images
No
I've not answered your question because it's entirely irrelevant to my original post (#40).
But it IS relevant to your belief that the Canon 6D is significantly better than the Nikon D600. Have you used both? Do you have any 'evidence' that this is the case? Beyond reading internet reviews (funny to see how my post with the link to the Dxo comparison sailed right over your head)? Why not just answer a simple question? Or are you Michael Howard?

Actually not interested anyway. You're wrong and that's that. You asked to be corrected, and that's exactly what's happened. You might not like it, but that's how it is I'm afraid. Soz.
 
Messages
6,303
Edit My Images
Yes
But it IS relevant to your belief that the Canon 6D is significantly better than the Nikon D600. Have you used both? Do you have any 'evidence' that this is the case? Beyond reading internet reviews (funny to see how my post with the link to the Dxo comparison sailed right over your head)? Why not just answer a simple question? Or are you Michael Howard?

Actually not interested anyway. You're wrong and that's that. You asked to be corrected, and that's exactly what's happened. You might not like it, but that's how it is I'm afraid. Soz.
Evidence? The 6D was renowned for it's low light performance and was at least two stops better than the D610 which, as you know, superseded the D600. Then there was the widely talked about 'oil spatter on the sensor' issue with the D600, wasn't there? I know the oil spatter is something of a side issue, but I notice neither you nor @AndrewFlannigan have responded to my comments about that, have you?

I wanted a full frame DSLR in 2014, so I did some considerable research before choosing and buying a make and model of camera. By that time the D600 had been replaced by the D610. In comparison, the ISO range of the 6D was two stops better, the colour rendition from the 6D was more to my taste (it didn't seem to have something of a bias towards green like the D610) and it didn't suffer from any known oil spatter problems. So I went for the 6D. I'm glad I did, as I've found it to be a very good camera. If choosing from scratch from today's current FF DSLR cameras, I'd most likely go down the Nikon route as I believe they currently have the edge. If going mirrorless then I'd be having a good look at Sony. So no 'fanboy' stuff from me!

Now, to get back to my original post - my point was, all things considered, I didn't think the D600 was one of Nikon's best cameras. In all honesty (and not just to try and win some silly argument/banter) would you and Andrew, hand on heart, say the D600 was one of the best cameras Nikon ever made? If not, then don't you think my comment about not using it as a benchmark against which to compare the best modern cameras might be valid? I'm not in a rush for an answer, so do have a good think before you reply. (y)
 
Messages
3,752
Name
Richard King
Edit My Images
No
When people say "Better" or "Way ahead"
They ought to qualify in what way

Example, I shoot with D5, D850 and d500. I have d7000 in my car as my throw about camera

Most of the time I'm pushed to see a difference between them

I get to very awkward shots, like shooting a party on a dark roof terrace in the night, and the D5 springs into life as the camera that focuses on anything anywhere

Occasionally, the extra dynamic range of the D850, and its extremely elastic files in Capture One have saved an impossible otherwise shot

I only use the d500 because it is a crop, and once in editing, I rarely notice which of the three cameras I shot with

Shooters notice AF, noise floor and qualities when a file is pushed. They care little for shooting charts in basements and worrying about ultimate resolution
 
OP
Brazo
Messages
3,501
Name
Mark
Edit My Images
Yes
Dear oh dear Canon sensors have been quite poor for a long time, DR of their full frame cameras less than a Sony compact. It’s laughable to even include a 6D in the same sentence as a D600.
 
Messages
7,290
Edit My Images
Yes
Dear oh dear Canon sensors have been quite poor for a long time, DR of their full frame cameras less than a Sony compact. It’s laughable to even include a 6D in the same sentence as a D600.
I’ve managed to take some nice pictures using my various Canon cameras over the years some of which are hanging on the wall at home
 
OP
Brazo
Messages
3,501
Name
Mark
Edit My Images
Yes
I’ve managed to take some nice pictures using my various Canon cameras over the years some of which are hanging on the wall at home
Good for you. I’ve managed to take some nice pics with an RX100 too. I didn’t say you couldn’t take nice pics just that Canons full frame dynamic range can’t compete with a Sony compact camera. That doesn’t make it bad, just that the Sony is very good.
 
Messages
7,290
Edit My Images
Yes
Good for you. I’ve managed to take some nice pics with an RX100 too. I didn’t say you couldn’t take nice pics just that Canons full frame dynamic range can’t compete with a Sony compact camera. That doesn’t make it bad, just that the Sony is very good.
I’m sure you’re right I’m just trying to say that for what I do at least I’ve never found that I’m limited by my cameras capability
For me it’s the total package the Canon top of the range lenses are amazing , the Canon support and service is top notch
My gear has never let me down even though I sometimes go out in rain and cold to shoot
And by the way I do have an RX100 and agree it’s excellent
 
Messages
3,029
Edit My Images
No
Andrew, hand on heart, say the D600 was one of the best cameras Nikon ever made?
I have owned and used several Nikkormats plus the F, F3, F4, D200 and D5300 as well as my D600. I've also owned and used several Canon cameras such as the P, FT-QL, AE-1, F1, F1n, Eos 620, Eos 5, 10D, 40D, 5D and the 1Ds II.

However, I can't answer your question for the simplest of all reasons: I haven't used every camera Nikon ever made (nor have I used every camera Canon ever made). My partial answer is that the D600 has so far been as suitable for my needs as any other camera I have used.

Your assertions appear to be based on no knowledge of the camera and so I can't understand why you made them.
 
Messages
25,012
Name
Alan
Edit My Images
No
I’m sure you’re right I’m just trying to say that for what I do at least I’ve never found that I’m limited by my cameras capability
For me it’s the total package the Canon top of the range lenses are amazing , the Canon support and service is top notch
My gear has never let me down even though I sometimes go out in rain and cold to shoot
And by the way I do have an RX100 and agree it’s excellent
There's the key.
 

AZ6

Suspended / Banned
Messages
1,051
Edit My Images
No
Evidence? The 6D was renowned for it's low light performance and was at least two stops better than the D610 which, as you know, superseded the D600. Then there was the widely talked about 'oil spatter on the sensor' issue with the D600, wasn't there? I know the oil spatter is something of a side issue, but I notice neither you nor @AndrewFlannigan have responded to my comments about that, have you?

I wanted a full frame DSLR in 2014, so I did some considerable research before choosing and buying a make and model of camera. By that time the D600 had been replaced by the D610. In comparison, the ISO range of the 6D was two stops better, the colour rendition from the 6D was more to my taste (it didn't seem to have something of a bias towards green like the D610) and it didn't suffer from any known oil spatter problems. So I went for the 6D. I'm glad I did, as I've found it to be a very good camera. If choosing from scratch from today's current FF DSLR cameras, I'd most likely go down the Nikon route as I believe they currently have the edge. If going mirrorless then I'd be having a good look at Sony. So no 'fanboy' stuff from me!

Now, to get back to my original post - my point was, all things considered, I didn't think the D600 was one of Nikon's best cameras. In all honesty (and not just to try and win some silly argument/banter) would you and Andrew, hand on heart, say the D600 was one of the best cameras Nikon ever made? If not, then don't you think my comment about not using it as a benchmark against which to compare the best modern cameras might be valid? I'm not in a rush for an answer, so do have a good think before you reply. (y)
You're quite funny really. 'My choices are better than yours; I'm better than you our car's better than yours my dad's bigger than yours!'

Whatever, girlfriend. As for the sensor oil issue; never affected me. Next.

I didn't think the D600 was one of Nikon's best cameras
You're entitled to your opinion.


In all honesty (and not just to try and win some silly argument/banter)
No but it really is to try and win some silly argument though, isn't it? Otherwise you wouldn't have started this nonsense.

Ultimately; the D600 performed better in test such as DxO's. It gets a score of 94 vs 82 for the 6D. Whilst the 6D may have better high ISO performance, the D600 apparently has better RAW performance, higher resolution, higher colour bit depth, and higher dynamic range. According to that test I posted up. But you know what? I don't really care about such tests. Whilst they can be useful, they are only part of my buying decision making process. When I bought my D600, it was the best camera for MY needs. I did look at the 6D on the sales bod's insistence, but I didn't like the handling or the more 'plasticky' feel of it. The D600 would also work with my existing Nikon lenses. Very important.

Bottom line is; neither of us made a 'bad' decision. Both are excellent cameras. If you want to 'win', fine; you go ahead and claim a victory. My camera has a built in flash so ner. :mooning:
 

TheBigYin

Staff member
Messages
23,521
Name
Mark
Edit My Images
Yes
Well, i'll be honest, I probably reached my "peak image quality" around March 2015... just before I stopped having the time to spend a week or more in getting the composition of the image in my head into a real life set, and then another 3-4 days of playing around with lighting the shot, photographing it and PP'ing it afterwards. In all honesty, I don't think that it ever really crossed my mind that my images were limited in quality by the technical aspects of my camera - perhaps by the lack of "movements" in the lenses I was using - I was shooting in digital, doing still life work, and sorely missing the "movements" afforded by a proper "technical camera" - even T/S lenses weren't really going to be quite what I wanted, so I compromised.

But yes, looking back on it, I know i'll probably never have the combination of time and good enough eyesight to get images as good as I did in 2015.

I'll leave you all to your technical arguments again now - just pointing out that for some of us, there's more to image quality than lack of noise from the sensor...
 
Messages
6,303
Edit My Images
Yes
Dear oh dear Canon sensors have been quite poor for a long time, DR of their full frame cameras less than a Sony compact. It’s laughable to even include a 6D in the same sentence as a D600.
Here we go, a Nikon fan relying on DR in his game of 'top trumps' again. ;) I've been looking at the test figures and the D610 has a slight raw DR advantage on the 6D, but only to around 400 ISO, after that, both cameras are level pegging to around 800 ISO, then a considerable drop off occurs on the D610, with the 6D over two stops better at 64,000 ISO. Comparing raw signal to noise ratio, the 6D is better at every stage, with a large gap between the two cameras by 6,400 ISO. So how is a D610 better than a 6D there? It's not, by 800 ISO it's something of a busted flush, below that, they're quite evenly matched. There's nothing laughable about the truth and facts speak for themselves. Even the D610 (a model later than the D600) was looking a bit dated when it was launched, with its Expeed 3 image processor, when other Nikon DSLRs of that time were using Expeed 4.

Snip:
Your assertions appear to be based on no knowledge of the camera and so I can't understand why you made them.
Your comments appear to be based on no detailed knowledge of the Canon 6D at all, let alone you doing any apparent comparison research on how the 6D and D600/610 compare in the real world. I did quite a lot of comparison research at the time, so to say I have no knowledge of how the D600/610 performed image quality wise in general use is not true.

This said, in general use, below around 400 ISO both cameras would probably give very similar results, apart from the Canon giving warmer, brighter colours and the Nikon's images looking slightly on the cool side, with more of an emphasis on green hues. Which you prefer is down to personal taste. So don't get me wrong, Nikon v Canon banter (and the issue of oil spatter aside) I'm not saying the 600/610 was a bad camera, but I still don't think it was one of Nikon's all time greats. Now the D850, that's an easy choice for 'great' status.

Back to my original comment, I believe one of the main improvements in FF DSLR technology in recent years has been reduced noise in low light/high ISO situations. So, as a benchmark, when comparing how image quality has actually improved in the last 5 or 6 years, surely it would make sense to choose a camera with one of the best ISO performances at the time as a benchmark against which to compare the current latest and greatest? Rather than one that was fairly mediocre?
 

AZ6

Suspended / Banned
Messages
1,051
Edit My Images
No
Here we go, a Nikon fan relying on DR in his game of 'top trumps' again. ;) I've been looking at the test figures and the D610 has a slight raw DR advantage on the 6D, but only to around 400 ISO, after that, both cameras are level pegging to around 800 ISO, then a considerable drop off occurs on the D610, with the 6D over two stops better at 64,000 ISO. Comparing raw signal to noise ratio, the 6D is better at every stage, with a large gap between the two cameras by 6,400 ISO. So how is a D610 better than a 6D there? It's not, by 800 ISO it's something of a busted flush, below that, they're quite evenly matched. There's nothing laughable about the truth and facts speak for themselves. Even the D610 (a model later than the D600) was looking a bit dated when it was launched, with its Expeed 3 image processor, when other Nikon DSLRs of that time were using Expeed 4.
So what are you 'winning', here? What are you trying to prove? Do you really think us D600/610 owners really lose sleep over the details? Or do you think we just get on with taking photos with our fantastic cameras? I mean, seriously. This is just silly. My camera's got a built in flash bruv. MY CAMERA'S GOT A BUILT IN FLASH BRUV!!!!


I did quite a lot of comparison research at the time, so to say I have no knowledge of how the D600/610 performed image quality wise in general use is not true.
But have you owned and used one yourself?

But have you doh?
Back to my original comment, I believe one of the main improvements in FF DSLR technology in recent years has been reduced noise in low light/high ISO situations. So, as a benchmark, when comparing how image quality has actually improved in the last 5 or 6 years, surely it would make sense to choose a camera with one of the best ISO performances at the time as a benchmark against which to compare the current latest and greatest? Rather than one that was fairly mediocre?
Yes. Well done. You chose the BEST camera evah. You're so clevah. Give yourself a medal. :jaffa:
 
Messages
6,303
Edit My Images
Yes
So what are you 'winning', here? What are you trying to prove? Do you really think us D600/610 owners really lose sleep over the details? Or do you think we just get on with taking photos with our fantastic cameras? I mean, seriously. This is just silly. My camera's got a built in flash bruv. MY CAMERA'S GOT A BUILT IN FLASH BRUV!!!!




But have you owned and used one yourself?

But have you doh?


Yes. Well done. You chose the BEST camera evah. You're so clevah. Give yourself a medal. :jaffa:
For goodness sake! Put your toys back in the pram and let's get back on topic.. even I'm bored now! :LOL: ;)
 

AZ6

Suspended / Banned
Messages
1,051
Edit My Images
No
For goodness sake! Put your toys back in the pram and let's get back on topic.. even I'm bored now! :LOL: ;)
No come on; YOU were demanding that myself and Andrew Flanigan answered your question regarding the oil issue, so come on; have you owned and used a Nikon D600/610 yourself? It's a really simple, easy to answer question.

You threw the toys out; I'm just picking them up and putting them back in.

Oh yeah; MY CAMERA'S GOT A BUILT IN FLASH BRUV!!!!

So ner. :dummy:
 
Messages
3,029
Edit My Images
No
Your comments appear to be based on no detailed knowledge of the Canon 6D at all,
I have made NO comments about the 6D at all. All I have done is to point out that I am pleased with my D600 and probe your knowledge of the Nikon camera; about which you wrote...
I don't think the D600 is a particularly good benchmark to compare more recent high-end cameras against? It's contemporary, the Canon 6D, tiddled all over it at the time, both for low light performance and colour rendition
Yet you have admitted, so far as I can tell, that you have never used the Nikon camera. As there is no point in discussion with someone who appears to argue from a position of ignorance I shall ignore you in future.
 

AZ6

Suspended / Banned
Messages
1,051
Edit My Images
No
Yet you have admitted, so far as I can tell, that you have never used the Nikon camera. As there is no point in discussion with someone who appears to argue from a position of ignorance I shall ignore you in future.
Yeah but Andrew;

OUR CAMERAS HAVE GOT A BUILT IN FLASH BRUV!!!!

Which is all that matters, really.
 
Messages
6,303
Edit My Images
Yes
I have made NO comments about the 6D at all. All I have done is to point out that I am pleased with my D600 and probe your knowledge of the Nikon camera; about which you wrote...
Yet you have admitted, so far as I can tell, that you have never used the Nikon camera. As there is no point in discussion with someone who appears to argue from a position of ignorance I shall ignore you in future.
If that's the best you can come up with then please do ignore me from now on, I'd very much appreciate it!

As I said, I did plenty of comparison research into the D610 when deciding which camera to buy. It's already been stated above that the D610 is a very similar camera to the D600 (apart from an improved shutter [presumably to address the oil spatter issue?], a faster burst rate and what Nikon claimed was improved white balance). So to imply that I have no knowledge of those two cameras is simply not true. I also stated that the 6D had better high ISO performance, so if we're comparing cameras of that era to ones with the 'peak' image quality today to assess how things have progressed, I suggested that the 6D would make a better benchmark than the D600/610. My comment in that respect still stands.
 
Last edited:

AZ6

Suspended / Banned
Messages
1,051
Edit My Images
No
As I said, I did plenty of comparison research into the D610 blah blah blah...
But have you owned and used one?

It's a really, really simple question.
 
Messages
6,303
Edit My Images
Yes
But have you owned and used one?

It's a really, really simple question.
No, because the research I did told me the 6D produced better looking results, especially in low light. I also had concerns about the oil spatter issue. Note that I haven't asked you if you've had any hands-on experience with the 6D, as it's actually immaterial to what I was discussing. Ironically you did go on to mention that you picked a 6D up at the recommendation of the salesperson in the camera shop but didn't like the way it felt... hardly a sound comparison of image quality there, was it?! Which, in case you missed it, is what I was discussing, and what this thread is supposed to be about. So forget the childish obfuscation and get back on topic.
 
Top