I have been thinking long and hard after getting upset with the recent thread DB vs Canon .
I originally agreed with the statement that DB users should not participate anymore in the thread and just let it die naturally. It is absolutely obvious that it makes no sense to argue with some of the LL members who have strong opinions and none experience. The same dividing lines are drawn on the net between Canon vs Nikon users or even better Canon/Nikon vs Leica. All these arguments are always ending the same way.
The main reason that I decides to write this post is because so many people have red the Canon vs DB thread and I did not wanted them to walk away with the feeling that digital back users are a bunch of excentric photogs with money to burn.
I for one strongly believe that my Aptus75S was the best business investment that I ever did. The digital back paid for itself easily just with the extra jobs I got in couple of months since I received it.
The high price is always in relation to one's earnings from photography. Thirty thousand dollars may seem like a lot to some but if you recently did or even try to estimate advertising shoot you would realize that nothing now days can be produce with less than six figure budget. 30K is less than top models from DNA are charging for 8 hours of work. All is relative when you need to produce top notch results and when your client money are on a line. I own two DB's and a Canon with prime L lenses. I also have most of Leica glass and an adapter for Canon. I extensively tried all digital backs and DSLR's. At one point or the other I owned all them with all possible camera/lens combination.
For my style of shooting I settle with A75s and Rz67. To me the discussion abut quality difference between BD and Canon is mind bugling. It is one thing to decide to use and love the workflow and results produced from DSLR's and different thing to insist that there is no quality superiority of DB's. Since photography is a visual art I believe that anybody who DO NOT see the difference between the two systems should think twice about a choice of carrier. I by no means do not say that great amazing results can not be achieved with any camera. Photographer better than me will produce more compelling and worthy images with 5d than I will with A75s. Camera choice is a personal preference. Advantages and disadvantages of each system need to be weigh to accommodate your work style but please do not confuse quality of an image with quality of a picture.
Recent poll questioned quality of CMYK prints. The problem is that today you are shooting for A4 print but tomorrow your client decides to print it 30 feet high and display it in Milan Airport. Anyone who ever tried to reshoot a set knows that there is no such a thing as too big of a file if you dealing with commercial clients.
Bellow I post several Jpg's of images produced from A75s to illustrate my points. Web display is very limiting especially when one is watching on not calibrated screen on Firefox but never less it should give you an idea that what I said here are not just words and charts. Detail, drawing, texture, ability to capture whites, DOF are all illustrated here:
Click to view attachmentClick to view attachmentClick to view attachmentClick to view attachmentClick to view attachmentClick to view attachmentClick to view attachmentClick to view attachmentClick to view attachmentClick to view attachmentClick to view attachment[attachment=442
1:attachment]Click to view attachmentClick to view attachment[attachment=
4596:attachment]

I think this is the major point... if not the only

I do not think anyone really believes the canon 1DsmkIII is as good as the newer MF digital backs when it comes to "measuring" all the different parameters that go into establishing the IQ. THe question is how much of a difference is there and will it suffice for the specific needs of the user. I use "measuring" as both a subjective and objective standard of comparison since some specific parameters cannot be clearly measured or quantified.

I think the one key issue that is often overlooked while everyone argues over this point is that both monitors and printers are severe limiting factors!!! Most photographers are looking at sRGB 8-bit versions of everything on both so many of the advantages of mfdb's are lost. I do think that there is no discernible difference between the two formats in print (publication) because of this - for the time being. But with new 16-bit drivers and better LED backlit LCD's - the differences will become more apparent.

I did an interesting experiment a few weeks ago. I bought a new 42" 1080p plasma hdtv and decided to hook up my computer to it (DVI to HDMI). It FLOORED me. ALL of my images looked MUCH better. Rich colors, tons of contrast and many subtle color variances I can't see on my LCD monitor. The most interesting part was that 1ds mark 2 images were suddenly noticeably richer than my 5d images and Aptus 22 images were just about on par with the 1ds II images. Maybe a tad nicer. YMMV of course (and I personally prefer mfdb's btw...).

We all know there are many shooting and IQ advantages for both formats (35mm - high ISO, speed, long exposures, weather proofing etc etc etc vs. MF, better DOF, accurate colors, DR etc etc etc.). It's essentially a pointless comparison IMO. Both formats have their uses. I'd love to see mfdb's come down in price, add a few more features (like better lcd's and multi-shot - yes it makes a difference!) and otherwise improve their usability. Likewise, I'd like to see Canon and Nikon offer fewer bells and whistles and MUCH better warranties.

I think that most of the people here are able to make a decision for themselves on the cost vs performance price ratio, it's not like we all want to throw all the money we have.
Just for perspective, a Leaf 75S is renting at $700 a day here in NYC. Factor in a few jobs and depreciation and then reselling the back and it becomes less of a eyeboggling amount to spend.

Go look at the photographers who shoot for the New York Times magazine every week and look at the equipment they use.
maybe new york photographers are crazy but a lot of us can tell the difference between a 645 shot, a 6x7 shot, a 4x5 shot, an 8x10 shot, even in CMYK print.
It goes beyond a 100% crop, it's about perspective, framing, angle, depth, tonality.

There's a reason why the RZ67 is still a tool of choice for editorial in terms of quality (a balance of convenience and quality)

the people who are arguing that just "good enough" is "good enough" obviously have different standards of perfection with regards to their art.
When you get an amazing shot there you would be wishing that you had a camera with better IQ at the end result.
I think if you took away the money factor then all this bitching would end. But oh wait. Probably it'll still continue. There's been a tradition of 35mm only shooters not caring to try anything like a medium format camera or GASP a 4x5 camera with no autofocus!
It boggles my mind why people would want to gripe so much about items they could easily try out in real life....

I don't care so much about all the limiting factors all I know is that at the end of the day I pictures that I feel are the maximum quality I can get with the right feeling that I want.

it is irritating to have to deal with all the pixel peeping of people who don't seem to have experience with cameras other than a bunch of 35mm cameras...
obviously not appreciating the physical nature of photography ranging from polaroid cameras (oh I love my minolta pro with spectra film), RZ67, 8x10, etc

Basically if you've been eating Olive Garden all your life you wouldn't know the standards a great Italian meal even if an italian housewife came and hit you over the head with a frying pan....especially if it's a web-based jpeg image of an italian meal.
ha ha.

It's all about what works for you. There's far too many clowns with no clue of what they're talking about on these boards.

I've spent a total of $26k on medium format digital backs and decided to go back to shooting Canons because I've found the MF digitals to be too glitchy and unpredictable. The files from the Aptus 22 are amazing but having the back lock up for no apparent reason in the middle of a shoot is a deal breaker. That's my main issue with the discussion on these boards - there's lots of people who like to play photographer here but very few that have actually had an Aptus or Phase in their hands lock up with an art director standing over their shoulder while the talent get's annoyed on a paying gig. Who cares what the files look like if you can't make a picture?!

My 1Ds MKIII arrived yesterday and I couldn't be happier. Is the file as nice as the Aptus 22 - in a word: NO. Is it close? So far from what I'm seeing it is. I spent several hours testing it today and I really like what I'm seeing. Best of all I know it works without any glitches. The color looks great, tethering is easy and fast and fine tuning the focus specific to each lens in my bag is incredible.

Bottom line: stop worrying about what other people are doing and just get on with your life! If a Nikon D1h gets the job done who really gives a shit! Terry Richardson is out there laughing his way to bank with a crappy little point and shoot. Dan Winters is making art with an 8x10 camera. Do you think they're posting meaningless polls on the internet? Do you think they're checking resolution charts? Do you really think they stop and think about what other photogs are shooting with?

Get real.

Bob,
I had lots of lock ups with Hassy H and Aptus75/P25. Since I have switched to Rz67 ProII a year ago there has not been one instance of the back mulfunctioning. Yes occasionaly FireWire gets disconected but it is even worst with Canon when shooting thethered to Mac. I think that the problem with lock up lays with camera software and not with the backs.
Andre

Andre,

Thank you for posting. Your experience and images (especially the cropped details) are the clearest examples of the many virtues of MFDBs that I have seen on the forum in a long time.

I have used RZ67 years ago with film and loved it. Currently, there seems to be a stronger lean
towards the AFDII as the prevailing opinion holds that Mamiya will likely emphasize its development over the RZ.

Having read your previous posts about the RZ67 Pro II D with 110 mm lens, and in view of other
available options, I wonder if you would still choose this same system for your type of work?

Appreciate your consideration.

Richard

@Mike,
Remember that plasmas are out of the box very bad performers with cartoon like colors and more often than not a way oversaturated green and red.

I'm an ISF calibrator and I have been calibrating plasmas every since they appeared on the market, they are much better than MOST LCD TV's.
However when judging a photo please use a calibrated monitor fit for the job.

André,

Your pictures make a compelling argument, thank you for posting them.

I'm a color consultant. My experience is that photographers in general do not see color especially well. Except for the very top fashion and portrait guys and some repro specialists. Many photographers are *males* who are good at concept, working the models well, being organized and reliable, have contacts, are good at getting clients and doing the business etc but not necessarily at *seeing the colors in files*.

So I guess, you should say "Do a test, ask the people around you which files they prefer" - the photographers themselves cannot see the difference between Canon and MF anymore, although their clients certainly can. The clients are *female*, often, they are retouchers or art directors, and have a very good sense of color. If I may tell this story, when my Phase back was broken, my dealer couldn't see the problem with the files on his Eizo screen - his female employee spotted the issue immediately.

Edmund

That's funny, it's the same thing I experience

And 100% correct.
When I do the calibrations the wife usually sits totally without interest and claims she will never see the difference.
After the calibration the client (male) often sees a huge difference but is shocked when his wife points out differences he did NOT see

I'm trained in calibration, color and can say that I have a very good visual "eye".

When I teach workshops alot of photographers/students haven't got the faintest clue about colorworkflow and the only thing they notice what's wrong is when the blacks are fogging or when the blacks are muddy.

when I show them on 2 setups a photo so they can compare side by side the differences jump out by a few.

But than again, look at how many photographers post pictures with a wrong colorprofile attached, let alone the portfolios I see that are printed that way....
When I point it out to them most react as if they hear something that is totally new to them.

So yes in short, you are right due to the bad settings in todays monitors, projectors, TV's etc. people have forgotten how a picture SHOULD look, instead they are looking at way too much blue and often oversaturated greens and reds.

Andre,
I've never come across any threads on LL in which it is generally claimed that 35mm systems are equal to DBs.

Your Aptus 75S is a 33mp DB is it not? Has anyone tried to convince you that a Canon 35mm is just as good? Where? When? Point me to the thread.

As far as I'm concerned, the only really meaningful and useful comparisons that might challenge the superiority of certain DBs are those between the 21mp Canon 1Ds3 and DBs of similar pixel count such as the P21.

in my experience it's not that simple. if you work in advertising (at least in europe) you DO NOT have a choice. the production company, who is in contact with the client and the agency, and who has to make a cost estimate for composing and everything else up to printing, will specify from he beginning that he wants (needs) the largest, highest quality file possible. they've all got their horror stories of photographers that shot close ups of 30k swiss watches with a canon and they had to explain to the client why the proofs looked like total crapola.
an art director on the set in a bad mood when a camera goes down is nothing compared to an unhappy client who just spent 100k + on the production and thinks his watch, car, perfume or whatever looks like oat meal.

there's a difference in file quality and it is being seen by agencies, art directors, producers and the clients that are paying the photographer - and yes, although most of them have never even held a mf cam with a digi back, they all consider themselves experts too.

What were the explanations? Err! I forget I was using a smaller format than usual and used f22 .

Well said.

Now let's all move on...

Really? I've been doing this a VERY long time and I can't even remember one instance where an art director or agency demanded a certain format for any shoot, film or digital. Maybe things are different here in the boondocks, where they trust the photographer to bring the right tool for the job.

So true!

i don't know where you're located but i'm in germany and nobody here (i'm talking big budget commercial jobs (mercedes, german telekom, wella, etc.) not editorial work where you're not getting paid jack regardless what you use...) leaves anything to chance.
one of the questions i always hear at pre production meetings is "film or digital? and what file size?". it's not a one time thing and i can't imagine anybody here shooting withot having been asked what they'll be delivering.

I have been doing this a very short time, and I have had several shoots where a 39mpix back has been specified as the only acceptable option from the technician on the Creative team, as the client wants to use parts of images along with the whole image (for instance zooming in and out of images in TV commercials using stop-motion techniques.)

Highly specialized with a specific end use, but then again, many MFDB users are highly skilled as well as highly specialized within their chosen field(s).

For me Andres statement from the first post (quoted below) holds true, the budgets and client base increased in a matter of months after getting my MFDB, and that is despite huge initial setbacks and technical problems on set.

Dear Andre,

Your post is excellent. I most humbly admire your work.


Dear All,

Allow me to throw in some points from an advanced amateur's point of view;

1. It has been said elsewhere that stepping up to medium format results in an immediate improvement in ones photography. Indeed it is like a new way to see for me; it slows me down and I believe leads me to also view and visualize better. It is not only the pixels or double size of sensor, but a whole different format, larger viewfinder and indeed pleasure of less automation, perhaps more of traditional photography!

2. Although for a professional the cost of medium format digital can be justified, for an amateur it means larger step from DSLR to medium format, than what from 35mm film to mediumformat film ever was. In other words it means a step that is clear LARGE $$$. In fact... considering $$, going with medium format film instead seem rather economical as an amateur (lets bear in mind that as amateurs we shoot considerably less frames per year). The large step in $$$ over DSLR feels sad and unfortunate. My guess is that it also closes out many people from trying medium format. Many people seem frank sold on a belief of comparing MPs alone (why when total volume of light collected is about twice??).

3. Let me add; One of the greatest pleasures of this medium format forum is that we amateurs also get privilage to interact and communicate with high level professionals that are very much respected for their work. Thank you most kindly .

Regards
Anders

I'm located in the midwest USA, and in almost 30 years of doing this there has never been a demand for a specfic format...period. Maybe its because we all know each other well, and have produced sucessful project after project. I've been asked my opinion many times but the final decision has always been mine.

And we are talking about big budget projects and small as well, projects done each and every model year for products that cost up to a half a million dollars.

Maybe they just don't trust you guys?

Ray
I am truly not here to argue. I stated many times before that I am not an expert on technical aspect of photography. From experience point of view I know however than 22mp Aptus54 produces identically looking files than 33mp A75s and that both of them are far different from files from Canon.
It is not the pixels count that separate the systems. If it was just pixels than file from 35mm film, drum scanned at 4000 dpi would produce better results than file from 6x7 film drum scanned at 1500 dpi. I did not do the math but if we assumed that both scans produced the same file size and we did not exceeded film , lens whatever max resolution I think we both agree that even 8x10 print from 6x7 would we visibly superior to 35mm.
http://andrenapier.com

Thanks for posting, Andre.

The plasma was professionally calibrated and I have contrast and saturation turned down with sharpness off. It wasn't better in that things looked more contrasty or more colorful - it was that there were many more subtle variances between, say, leaves on a tree or gradations of subtle color in a cloud. These sorts of things simply disappear on my lcd. At any rate, people seem to miss the point that they're not actually seeing a digital file but a representation of it.

I also think that all of these cameras excel under certain conditions. MFDB's KILL 35 digital in a studio - still life or fashion. But you can just do so much more with the 35 cameras.

Yes, it will still be my camera of choice. I do not care much for AFD mainly because I am a WLF guy.
When I look through WLF I have a feeling that I am connected with the objects and subject of my set up. With a prism finder I find myself more of a observer and recorder. It is very personal and by no way applies to others. Additionally Rz lenses draw much different from AFD. I am looking forward to test AFI with Rollei Zeiss 110/2.0 as it also is a gorgeous drawing lens despite what charts and trials are saying.
I believe that Rz is often overlooked option for cost concerned photographers. A75 with Rz and full set of lenses on Ebay will be still cheaper than Canon MKIII with full set of L primes.
http://AndreNapier.com

@Mike,
Was it ISF calibrated ?
If so than it should be indeed represent a good picture, however still not better than a high-end PC monitor (not the cheap TFT's).

I have calibrated many displays over the years and the new Panasonic and Pioneers are actually the only ones that are really good, all the rest is just nice but not good to judge anything to be honest.

On PC monitors I use a NEC 2190 since recently which replaced my CRT
For a LCD it's very very good, it gave me back my confidence in LCDs
I'm now looking at the Adobe RGB versions.

Long story short, on an ISF calibrated plasma from Panasonic/Pioneer the pictures will look great, mainly due to the large colorgamout, believe it or not but even NTSC is larger than sRGB what most monitors are
The new plasmas all measure in the HDTV range which is even wider, so there will be much more detail in the color.
HOWEVER most displays lack bitdepth so they take away quality again which is a shame

When I'm really in doubt I print I know my printer is profiled 100% correct, this is untill I learn to trust my monitor again
(which is happening as we speak).

It was. Only cost a few hundred but it's piece of mind. I let it burn-in for 100 hours first. BTW, it is a Panny and it rocks!!!

Once again, Andre raises the standard for the most 3D picture online. (attachment 4418)

G-O-O-O-O-R-G-E-O-U-S !!!


Eduardo

Have a look at the Samsung AdobeRGB monitors. They're neat and fairly cheap;

If you want Eizo, the CG210 and 211 are very good for sRGB gamut. The new Adobe RGB high-end Eizo (CG-221) is good, although the CG220 should be avoided. The CG241W should also be avoided. There are some large-sized Eizos in the pipeline; I don't know how good they are colorwise, but they might be useful for studio and/or client.

Edmund

But it's not just color gamut. It's also contrast ratio and LCD backlights are always on. Until LED backlights improve LCD's won't offer the best in contrast.

The Eizo's were already into the picture, especially the 24" version so I was surprised with your advise, could you explain ?
I did not yet see the unit by the way

Contrast ratio is always a problem, especially with the new trend into higher.
When we measure ansicontrast most displays are SHOCKING low.

But Panasonic and Pioneer are indeed best in their class, I love the Panasonics for their price/quality.

Good posting, Andre.

There will always be the dreaded discussions about higher vs. lower cost equipment; back in the anlogue days people would try and prove how their Leicas can perform as well as an RZ or a Blad.

I'm not sure what people's motivations are to question the superiority of a bigger format, which to me still is as obvious as it was with film after switching to an Aptus 75 from 4x5, as far as quality is concerned.

My back was paid for after some months, and is making money since, that's mostly advertising and some editorial thrown in.
I understand that different assignments ask for different tools, and some people can't charge their clients enough to cover the costs of an MFDB.

But in my line of work it is expected that I use the best tools available, ad agencies are ready to pay for it, so that's what they get.
Apart from that, I'd never settle for anything but top-tier equipment for my personal work as well, nor do I know pro photographers who would.

I'm also not buying the argument of displays and printers limiting the quality of the output; I used to make my own prints from 4x5 negatives, still have my darkroom, yet my Aptus, Mac + Photoshop and cheepish Epson printer blow any analogue print out of the water, no contest.

As for monitors, even an Apple ACD, properly calibrated, gives you all the information you need to judge and adjust a file, imho, if one has experience working with chromes and negatives a lot.

Alls I'm sayin' is that the files themselves are alot richer and just generally better-looking than what we're all seeing. That's it.

Frank -
It's subjective. The CG241W shouldn't have a CG label in my opinion, it's a bit directional and I simply don't like what it looks like. Which is all to be expected, since it costs something like half of the same company's rather better CG221 while being the same size -remember that bit about getting what you pay for ? NEC also have a high-end Adobe RGB display, equally good and pricey, I think Quato also have something interesting - but I'd try and look at Samsung if I were you, I've seen one and it was really nice. Do report back, so I can update my knowledge, I haven't been following the trends as much as I should have.

Mike-
As retouching monitors the Apples are perfectly ok. Frank is one of the few people who are really, really into color (he does cosmetics), so he would profit form a color-management-grade display which would be expensive overkill for most photographers.

Edmund

i am always amazed at the passion that camera gear discussions tend to evoke. for many who partake in these discussions there is a tendency to be on one side or the other. a lot of the discussion gets blurred, because there are people with varying backgrounds, from professonal photographers to rank amateurs expressing their opinions. sometimes those opinions are based on experience and sometimes they are driven by pure emotion.
i've been shooting with a leaf aptus back for 7 months now and the 1ds3 for a month. as wonderful as the 1ds3 files are, the files from the 22mp aptus back, have more detail. this came to me as no surprise, and this does not diminish the 1ds3 in any way: it is a wonderful machine.
there have been occasions over the past few weeks where the ds3 has been the tool of choice over the back. the bottom line is that you need to choose the appropriate tool to get the job done. sometimes it is a mfdb and other times it may be a dslr.

If it doesn't diminish the 1Ds3 in any way, then it must diminish the Canon lenses you are using. However, if the greater detail you see in the 22mp Aptus back is subtle and of pixel-peeping proportions, then it could simply be due its lack of an AA filter.

I'm a rational person. I have no need to give emotional support or allegiance to any particular brand or format of camera. I'm just really curious as to why in one situation a sensor that's double the area of another with the same pixel count produces a more detailed image with a greater sense of reality and 3-dimensionality (MFDBs compared with 35mm) and yet in another situation where a sensor is 4x the area (35mm compared with the Olympus 4/3rds system) no-one seems to mention such attributes of the larger sensor.

It is however sometimes admitted by owners of the Olympus 4/3rds system that dynamic range is not quite as great as in the larger 35mm format.

The other problem I have with this idea that the larger sensor itself results in this greater detail and sense of reality etc., is that no-one seems to be able to demonstrate it with properly conducted tests where FoV and DoF are matched and the best lenses are used with both formats.

It all seems mighty strange to me.

Ray, you blame us for not being able to do a proper comparison or test for you? You seem to know how to do this kind of test very well so rent a DB and look at the prints with your own eyes. And do it for you, not for us.

not at all. it does not diminish the 1ds3 or the lenses i use because it is a very fine camera and i am happy with my lenses: both formats have a place in my bag.
i would not expect a 12 mp point and shoot to perform the same way a 12 mp dslr with a larger sensor does and i have never expected my dslrs to perform the same way a digital back does.
as for a sense of dimensionality, it is how people perceive the image: some people may see it and other won't. interestingly enough several of the people who have moved to the d3 and even new adopters of canon ff's, often comment about the increased sense of dimension that they see in the ff images that was not present to the same extent in the cropped image cameras. i guess the old saying is true: "perception becomes reality" and perhaps that's why people have different realities.
just sharing my opinion with no desire to take this any further.

Just curious, how do you know for sure that you wouldn't have gotten those extra jobs without the Aptus ?

duplicate

Ray,
I have no time to do the test but I can assure you that despite of what you hear from other guys, the girls on late night TV are always right when they say that size DOES MATTER.
There is the magic that only large or at leat medium size provides that can not be duplicated with small format regardless of one's skills ( I meant PShop skills).
Here are my three kids practicing with the right size camera. It still shoots and takes great pictures.
Lancaster 12"x15" serial numer#2, AD1882
Click to view attachmentClick to view attachment

Great shot of the kids, Andre! Can you ask your first born if he would teach me how to profile my AFi? In the meantime, and while I'm waiting for an AFi, your crew should start their own rock-n-roll band!

David

I only got one thing to say about the whole DB and Canon debate:

WHEN YOUR PICTURE SUCKS WITH A DB.......NOT EVEN 100K IN EQUIPMENT WILL SAVE YOUR IMAGE!!

So the whole tread is worthless!!!

It sure does matter. It allows for a greater number of pixels. A bigger sensor with more pixels! Wow! How can the smaller sensor compete?

Lovely shot of the kids. Looks like you were practising ETTR with this one. Canon shot?

@Errold,
Thanks for the headsup, saves me missbuy

It can take some time before I buy, I'm now getting used to the whole TFT thing with the 2190.

Some things are different but not in a bad way, just getting used to, before I switch to a aRGB monitor prices HAVE to come down.
If the monitor I eyeballed is not in the picture anymore prices have to come down ALOT.
Most of my print work is delivered in sRGB (brrrr) because most printers can't do the conversion well themself so I get by perfectly with a standard gaumout monitor, however I want more for my free work.
My workflow is almost 100% ProphotoRGB so a ARGB monitor would be a good update.
I'm still bugged however with the dE accounted for by the calculations of the videocard which send out the data in 8 bits which is not enough for aRGB.

So I will sit and wait untill they are out there and properly tested by people I trust, or when I can get a demo unit from one of our suppliers.

Bob,
After getting real we are all happy that you are here with us on LL making your 200+ post and not following the foot steps of Terry or Dan. At least this way your post does not sound so harsh.
Andre

Nicolas,
it is 3AM Friday night. Have a drink - I am serving your choice of fine liquer. Who cares if a picture sucks at 3AM? As long as your camera looks cool, you are cool. BTW Canon zoom is a chick magnet.
Andre

Especially the white ones.

Like the white knight on the white horse.

Wait... I've got those lenses and it hasn't worked...

....must need a bigger sensor.

Hey Andre, Here's to the mother of your children..

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RxT5NwQUtVM...=related&search