CSB 5858
Member
I could use some help on making sense of DSLRs, as well as best guesses for the future, which would help protect my investment.
1) Which make DSLR are the most popular for serious amateurs?
Is any brand really an obvious choice?
2) I like metal lens barrels, but most DSLR lenses seem to be plastic. Are they worth the extra $$ ?
3) Are features like lens stabilization, macro, and internal focus just hype or really useful?
4) What about focal lengths? Would I be better off with prime lenses or zooms?
5) I am more interested in image quality than bells and whistles. I am thinking fast primes will be a better choice than zooms, even if they are manual focus instead of AF. Comments?
6) I keep wondering if lenses for the smaller APC format would offer advantages like smaller size and higher performance, but then I wonder about the long term market for APC vs full format. Comments?
7) Does any lens lineup really offer real advantages? Reading all the hype from the lens makers just makes my head swim.
Thanks,
Alex
1) Which make DSLR are the most popular for serious amateurs?
Is any brand really an obvious choice?
2) I like metal lens barrels, but most DSLR lenses seem to be plastic. Are they worth the extra $$ ?
3) Are features like lens stabilization, macro, and internal focus just hype or really useful?
4) What about focal lengths? Would I be better off with prime lenses or zooms?
5) I am more interested in image quality than bells and whistles. I am thinking fast primes will be a better choice than zooms, even if they are manual focus instead of AF. Comments?
6) I keep wondering if lenses for the smaller APC format would offer advantages like smaller size and higher performance, but then I wonder about the long term market for APC vs full format. Comments?
7) Does any lens lineup really offer real advantages? Reading all the hype from the lens makers just makes my head swim.
Thanks,
Alex
amateriat
We're all light!
A lot of this is somewhat subjective. Let's take it from the top.
1) It's truly a case of six-of-one-half-dozen-of-t'other.
2) Yes, I hate plastic lens barrels as much as the next guy. Not all plastic-barrel lenses are horrible, but you do have to sift through a lot to find the good stuff.
3) If these features are combined in one lens, yeah, I'd be leery. Image-stabilization is useful in teles or tele-zooms of moderate aperture, for obvious reasons. Macro is nice to have, but it depends on the lens type (hint: if you want to do serious macro work, you want a dedicated macro lens, period). My principal rule-of-thumb with SLR lenses (film or digital), is to avoid do-it-all lenses, which, more often than not, are jacks-of-all-trades, masters-of-none.
4) My bias is toward primes: start with a solid wide-angle (true 28-35mm equivalent in the digital realm), and "normal" to mild tele (50-75mm equivalent). Zooms seem cool in concept, but you might find yourself fiddling more with the zoom function than getting down with the fundamentals of composition, and might actually find yourself being slowed down by zooms. Yep, sounds crazy, but it's happened to me in the past. A pair of well-chosen primes are great for concentrating the mind. But, remember, this is simply my opinion.
5) See above.
6) People (regular Joes like you and me, as well as critics) are all over the place about this. IMO, full-frame (35mm dimension) sensors will ultimately win out over smaller sensors for dSLRs because (1) packing more pixels within a smaller sensor size is pretty much a dead end for a few technical reasons, and (2) in the case of the biggest of the usual suspects (Nikon and Canon), there's too big an inventory of "legacy" glass designed around the 35mm format that they paid designers too much money to knock themselves out to design real well, and too many photographers who would be seriously PO'd not to be able to use on at least one or dSLR du jour. Remember when Nikon swore up and down that they were in absolutely no hurry to produce a full-frame model, because they felt the crop'factor models in their line-up were more than good enough? Did you really buy that? Neither did I. And now we have the lovely D3. And as much as I love Olympus for what they've done in the past, I fear they have absolutely no future with their 4/3 formula. Either they pull some amazing rabbit out of their hat in the next year or two, or they're history. Seriously.
7) My head swims, too. Part of the reason I've stuck to film and RFs
But, to side with Pitxu, I have a warm spot for Pentax and their approach to dSLRs, the big thing being fairly easy backward-compatibility with several decades' worth of Pentax glass. (Yes, I know, more-or-less the same story with Nikon.) A Pentax dSLR with a few choice Pentax primes? Very, very nice. You could do a hell of a lot worse.
- Barrett
1) It's truly a case of six-of-one-half-dozen-of-t'other.
2) Yes, I hate plastic lens barrels as much as the next guy. Not all plastic-barrel lenses are horrible, but you do have to sift through a lot to find the good stuff.
3) If these features are combined in one lens, yeah, I'd be leery. Image-stabilization is useful in teles or tele-zooms of moderate aperture, for obvious reasons. Macro is nice to have, but it depends on the lens type (hint: if you want to do serious macro work, you want a dedicated macro lens, period). My principal rule-of-thumb with SLR lenses (film or digital), is to avoid do-it-all lenses, which, more often than not, are jacks-of-all-trades, masters-of-none.
4) My bias is toward primes: start with a solid wide-angle (true 28-35mm equivalent in the digital realm), and "normal" to mild tele (50-75mm equivalent). Zooms seem cool in concept, but you might find yourself fiddling more with the zoom function than getting down with the fundamentals of composition, and might actually find yourself being slowed down by zooms. Yep, sounds crazy, but it's happened to me in the past. A pair of well-chosen primes are great for concentrating the mind. But, remember, this is simply my opinion.
5) See above.
6) People (regular Joes like you and me, as well as critics) are all over the place about this. IMO, full-frame (35mm dimension) sensors will ultimately win out over smaller sensors for dSLRs because (1) packing more pixels within a smaller sensor size is pretty much a dead end for a few technical reasons, and (2) in the case of the biggest of the usual suspects (Nikon and Canon), there's too big an inventory of "legacy" glass designed around the 35mm format that they paid designers too much money to knock themselves out to design real well, and too many photographers who would be seriously PO'd not to be able to use on at least one or dSLR du jour. Remember when Nikon swore up and down that they were in absolutely no hurry to produce a full-frame model, because they felt the crop'factor models in their line-up were more than good enough? Did you really buy that? Neither did I. And now we have the lovely D3. And as much as I love Olympus for what they've done in the past, I fear they have absolutely no future with their 4/3 formula. Either they pull some amazing rabbit out of their hat in the next year or two, or they're history. Seriously.
7) My head swims, too. Part of the reason I've stuck to film and RFs
But, to side with Pitxu, I have a warm spot for Pentax and their approach to dSLRs, the big thing being fairly easy backward-compatibility with several decades' worth of Pentax glass. (Yes, I know, more-or-less the same story with Nikon.) A Pentax dSLR with a few choice Pentax primes? Very, very nice. You could do a hell of a lot worse.
- Barrett
Last edited:
lZr
L&M
Probably my opinion will change very soon about purchase of new DSLR and lenses, but 5 years ago it was clear that sizing the sensor will take into account the old 35 SLR lenses, so I bought Minolta Maxxum 7 with 4 or 5 lenses including the kit lenses. Some time after, I bought KM Maxxum, 7D and I was not dissapointed. Today, if I want the Sony toys, my lenses are the very same situation. Not small size like the new APS, but useful and great. If I want my SLR, I can use them as usual. Comming to FF sensor and I am also in the frame.
Plastic or metal, I like them and keep them.
Plastic or metal, I like them and keep them.
Chriscrawfordphoto
Real Men Shoot Film.
Plastic lens barrels started 20 yrs ago with the first autofocus 35mm SLRs from Minolta, Canon, and Nikon. Its not a D-SLR thing, this started way back in the film only days. I have a couple of Nikon AF-Nikkors (50mm f1.4, 24mm f2.8, and 85mm f1.8) that I bought 15 yrs ago that have the plastic barrels (but metal lens mounts) and they still function perfectly and still look nice despite being carried all over the country and used heavily all those years. I have a 28mm f2.8D AF-Nikkor that I dropped on a wooden floor a couple yrs ago and it BOUNCED. I was scared to death...but it wasn't hurt. I still use it today with no problems, mechanical or optical, from the fall. Its got a plastic barrel and metal mount like my older ones.
mcgrattan
Well-known
The Pentax/Samsung dSLRs -- K10D, GX-10 -- feel closer to a traditional film SLR to me than many of the others.
There's no 'scene' modes, and the cameras make life easy for the user who knows what they are doing. There's proper depth-of-field preview, spot-metering, etc and the new Pentax lenses allow you to manual focus and autofocus without changing any settings. For example, you can autofocus on something and then tweak the manual focus ring without having to reset the lens or the camera body to 'manual'.
The cameras are also fully compatible with almost all 'legacy' Pentax lenses. I use M42 screw-mount lenses on my GX-10 with an adapter and the camera meters with them fine. Any K-mount lenses with the A aperture setting will work in all metering modes including program modes.
I mostly use K-mount 28mm and 50mm primes on mine and the results are stellar.
The only downside I find with my GX-10, and this is probably not really huge issue, is that it's fairly large and heavy. It's larger than my Pentax film SLR and larger than the equivalent offerings from Nikon and Canon. Upside, it's properly weather sealed and feels much more robust.
There's no 'scene' modes, and the cameras make life easy for the user who knows what they are doing. There's proper depth-of-field preview, spot-metering, etc and the new Pentax lenses allow you to manual focus and autofocus without changing any settings. For example, you can autofocus on something and then tweak the manual focus ring without having to reset the lens or the camera body to 'manual'.
The cameras are also fully compatible with almost all 'legacy' Pentax lenses. I use M42 screw-mount lenses on my GX-10 with an adapter and the camera meters with them fine. Any K-mount lenses with the A aperture setting will work in all metering modes including program modes.
I mostly use K-mount 28mm and 50mm primes on mine and the results are stellar.
The only downside I find with my GX-10, and this is probably not really huge issue, is that it's fairly large and heavy. It's larger than my Pentax film SLR and larger than the equivalent offerings from Nikon and Canon. Upside, it's properly weather sealed and feels much more robust.
breathstealer
Established
1) Which make DSLR are the most popular for serious amateurs?
Is any brand really an obvious choice?
All the brands are quite competent these days. It's just down to which feels best in your hands.
2) I like metal lens barrels, but most DSLR lenses seem to be plastic. Are they worth the extra $$ ?
Metal barreled modern lenses tend to be the good ones you'd want anyways, but even the crappiest plastic lenses are still quite usable both in terms of image and build quality.
3) Are features like lens stabilization, macro, and internal focus just hype or really useful?
I've found IS to actually be useful, though I haven't tried sensor shift systems. Macro is just as it is with a film SLR - buy a macro lens to take pictures up close, some lenses are better than others. IF is nice, but it's a side convenience most of the time and shouldn't really sway a lens purchase. Think about it in practical terms - can you imagine yourself taking pictures close up? Do you need the extra 10 cm of close focus? Would an extending lens barrel disturb your subject? These are certainly considerations for many, but if they don't matter to you then that's totally okay too.
4) What about focal lengths? Would I be better off with prime lenses or zooms?
Doesn't matter. What're you using now?
5) I am more interested in image quality than bells and whistles. I am thinking fast primes will be a better choice than zooms, even if they are manual focus instead of AF. Comments?
I like manual focusing too, but it's often not practical on the dark and small viewfinders of DSLRs, and a focusing screen change to a split screen (essential for MF) is very expensive. Currently Pentax has the best selection of fast AF primes. A good zoom has great image quality anyway, and it'll have the good build quality you're looking for too.
6) I keep wondering if lenses for the smaller APC format would offer advantages like smaller size and higher performance, but then I wonder about the long term market for APC vs full format. Comments?
The smaller APS lenses (Nikon DX, Canon EF-s, etc.) tend to be cheap kit lenses unbeaten in their price range (though of course nowhere near the higher end stuff), superzooms that some swear by and some hate (Nikkor 18-200, Tamron and Sigma's offerings in the same range), or ultrawides that are the only option for their range (Canon EF-s 10-22). There's no difference in terms of performance, and little size advantage - just get them if you need that range.
In the long term, most people don't really predict full frame to be hitting the mainstream for years, and I think the consensus is that someone will always be around to buy secondhand small sensor lenses. But then if they were good enough for you to buy them, surely they take good enough pictures for you to keep.
7) Does any lens lineup really offer real advantages? Reading all the hype from the lens makers just makes my head swim.
They're all equally good, don't worry.
Speaking of Nikon, a few of their marketing execs and engineers need to be shot for propagating the myth that all Nikon DSLRs are perfectly backward compatible. For no good reason, old Nikkors mount on the D40/50/60/70/80, but the meter turns itself off. In fact, if you have a large F mount collection, you're better off going Canon, as their entry level DSLRs meter stopped down with the use of a cheap adapter.
Is any brand really an obvious choice?
All the brands are quite competent these days. It's just down to which feels best in your hands.
2) I like metal lens barrels, but most DSLR lenses seem to be plastic. Are they worth the extra $$ ?
Metal barreled modern lenses tend to be the good ones you'd want anyways, but even the crappiest plastic lenses are still quite usable both in terms of image and build quality.
3) Are features like lens stabilization, macro, and internal focus just hype or really useful?
I've found IS to actually be useful, though I haven't tried sensor shift systems. Macro is just as it is with a film SLR - buy a macro lens to take pictures up close, some lenses are better than others. IF is nice, but it's a side convenience most of the time and shouldn't really sway a lens purchase. Think about it in practical terms - can you imagine yourself taking pictures close up? Do you need the extra 10 cm of close focus? Would an extending lens barrel disturb your subject? These are certainly considerations for many, but if they don't matter to you then that's totally okay too.
4) What about focal lengths? Would I be better off with prime lenses or zooms?
Doesn't matter. What're you using now?
5) I am more interested in image quality than bells and whistles. I am thinking fast primes will be a better choice than zooms, even if they are manual focus instead of AF. Comments?
I like manual focusing too, but it's often not practical on the dark and small viewfinders of DSLRs, and a focusing screen change to a split screen (essential for MF) is very expensive. Currently Pentax has the best selection of fast AF primes. A good zoom has great image quality anyway, and it'll have the good build quality you're looking for too.
6) I keep wondering if lenses for the smaller APC format would offer advantages like smaller size and higher performance, but then I wonder about the long term market for APC vs full format. Comments?
The smaller APS lenses (Nikon DX, Canon EF-s, etc.) tend to be cheap kit lenses unbeaten in their price range (though of course nowhere near the higher end stuff), superzooms that some swear by and some hate (Nikkor 18-200, Tamron and Sigma's offerings in the same range), or ultrawides that are the only option for their range (Canon EF-s 10-22). There's no difference in terms of performance, and little size advantage - just get them if you need that range.
In the long term, most people don't really predict full frame to be hitting the mainstream for years, and I think the consensus is that someone will always be around to buy secondhand small sensor lenses. But then if they were good enough for you to buy them, surely they take good enough pictures for you to keep.
7) Does any lens lineup really offer real advantages? Reading all the hype from the lens makers just makes my head swim.
They're all equally good, don't worry.
Speaking of Nikon, a few of their marketing execs and engineers need to be shot for propagating the myth that all Nikon DSLRs are perfectly backward compatible. For no good reason, old Nikkors mount on the D40/50/60/70/80, but the meter turns itself off. In fact, if you have a large F mount collection, you're better off going Canon, as their entry level DSLRs meter stopped down with the use of a cheap adapter.
pvdhaar
Peter
Canon,Nikon,Olympus,Pentax,Sony
Depends..
If you decide to get one that needs to survive frequent and prolonged switching of lenses, then yes. On the other hand, if you get one as cheap as possible and ditch it in two years time.. then why care.
Depends..
stabilisation doesn't work for stopping action, it's a (somewhat) replacement for a tripod. That said.. yes it works, and it works well.
macro is an indication of how large you can get small subjects in the frame. A dedicated macro lens makes 1:1 size imaging possible. A macro label on a generic zoom is merely a marketing gimmick.
internal focus is a description of the way a lens focusses. It means the lens doesn't get longer when you focus closer (good), but it also means that the focal length changes when you focus closer (bad).
Basically you get what you pay for..
Yes, a $250 prime is better than a $250 zoom of the same vintage. But once you get into constant f2.8 aperture zoom territory, you'll find these zooms are every bit a match for primes. Unfortunately, these zooms aren't $250..
Depends..
My 35-70/2.8 is sharper wide open than my 50mm closed down even to f5.6. Go figure..
If you're concerned, then buy a cheap APS body that you can afford to replace, buy a wide APS lens, and buy Full Frame teles.
Unless you identify a lens that you need and that's unique to one manufacturer, each brand offers similar quality for similar money.
But the one thing you've not hit is what I think is most important in choosing a DSLR.. Handling. Fondle a number of cameras, look through the finders and decide which handles best for you. No matter how great a camera is, if it's too large/small for your hands, if it's to heavy/light, if the finder isn't to your liking, you'll get worse pictures with a top of the line model than with a cheapy you feel comfortable with..
CSB 5858
Member
Thanks to all for the feedback!
What do you guys think of the future of the smaller APX sized sensors? While they improved with time, full frame sensors become less expensive. Will they both continue, or is the smaller sensor on its last legs?
Alex
What do you guys think of the future of the smaller APX sized sensors? While they improved with time, full frame sensors become less expensive. Will they both continue, or is the smaller sensor on its last legs?
Alex
colyn
ישו משיח
My personal favorite DSLR is Nikon.
I use the D200 which lets me use my older Nikkor AI and AIs glass. When using these older lens the camera has a setting which lets the camera know what focal length lens and max aperture of the lens mounted.
I use the D200 which lets me use my older Nikkor AI and AIs glass. When using these older lens the camera has a setting which lets the camera know what focal length lens and max aperture of the lens mounted.
vrgard
Well-known
Not to directly answer the OP's questions directly but more to simply throw my $.02 worth into the discussion, I just picked up a used Pentax K100D Super from a fellow RFF member. Came with the amazing low-cost yet surprisingly good 18-55 kit lens. I added a pancake 40/2.8 autofocus lens to reduce the form factor even more (oh, and it's all metal construction, too). And I had a bunch of Pentax screwmount lenses from the 1960's. Amazingly, just like mcgrattan described above, I can use every one of those old lenses with this new digital wonder and because the Pentax image stabilization (called "Shake Reduction" in the Pentax vernacular) is built into the camera body rather than into their lenses, I get the benefit with all my old Pentax lenses as well. As much as I'm still a rangefinder fan, I'm having loads of fun playing with this dSLR.
-Randy
-Randy
Last edited:
Ronald M
Veteran
Why did Olympus call it 4/3? The proper name would have been 1/4 size, but who would buy a 12x13mm sensor in a serious camera.
Bigger is better, sensors, car engines, film. But like everything there is a cost you need to pay and it starts getting steep expodentially.
Nikor plastic AF primes are fine. The consumer stuff is ok, but do not abuse it. Run from the 18/55 kit lenses for $100.
My Nikon D200 takes all the AF glass and the primes back to 1970, AI or newer. I have lots of them. Also takes the Visoflex Leica lenses. 8 free lenses with Leica quality. WOW.
D40 and D60 are crippled and only take the newest lenses with the AF motor in the lens. Run if you expect to buy up old lenses and use them.
Your savings will be lost double and triple really fast
Bigger is better, sensors, car engines, film. But like everything there is a cost you need to pay and it starts getting steep expodentially.
Nikor plastic AF primes are fine. The consumer stuff is ok, but do not abuse it. Run from the 18/55 kit lenses for $100.
My Nikon D200 takes all the AF glass and the primes back to 1970, AI or newer. I have lots of them. Also takes the Visoflex Leica lenses. 8 free lenses with Leica quality. WOW.
D40 and D60 are crippled and only take the newest lenses with the AF motor in the lens. Run if you expect to buy up old lenses and use them.
Your savings will be lost double and triple really fast
nobbylon
Veteran
CSB, you are trying to apply "the Leica mindset" to DSLR's.
Leica mindset? I didn't get mine for investment, I got them because they where the right tools for the purpose they're intended. Like most Rff'ers with Leica, I'd call mine tools.
nobbylon
Veteran
sorry to correct but you can still use older Nikkors without motors on these but only for manual focus. I use both a 50 and 24mm prime on my daughters D40x.
ampguy
Veteran
I monitor some Pentax forums, and their plan for FF is unknown and/or unannounced. It is likely that they will enter it at some point and some enthusiasts estimate that date in late 2009 when they will have new FF glass available as well. This is all speculation, but I can say without a doubt that the 6MP DSLRs with their APS sensors and decent glass can really provide IQ of that of an RD1 or M8 with expensive RF glass, especially those LTD lenses.
BTW, the LTD lenses are FF, only the "DA" family are for APS only.
BTW, the LTD lenses are FF, only the "DA" family are for APS only.
akptc
Shoot first, think later
I have been a devoted Pentax user for a while now (K10D, K100D most recently, many film bodies) but yesterday I got to handle the Canon 40D with a 28-135mm lens attached to it and holy cow, that is one camera body I want! The handling was so incredibly fantastic that despite it being larger than the K10D (I think), picture taking was ergonomically and practically speaking a real pleasure, I just didn't want to put the camera down. The 40D surprised the heck out of me! I am simply in love with that camera and will get it v. soon. I don't have much Canon glass so this will be expensive but...
shadowfox
Darkroom printing lives
Be careful with sweeping statements like this. Have you ever use an Olympus 4/3rd system? Are you talking from your personal experience?
Can you show me tens or hundreds of images from the 4/3rd system that are clearly, visibly, without any doubt, inferior compared to the other brands' "serious cameras"?
Ade-oh
Well-known
Canon and Nikon are clearly the market leaders but there are plenty of other good DSLRs out there. I went for Nikon because I already had a good range of lenses (though I think the Nikon flash system is the best by a country mile).
Metal lens barrels feel nice but they don't necessarily mean increased durability. I have a mixture of the two types and can't say I've noticed any significant differences.
Lens stabilisation is very useful: it allows handholding at much slower shutter speeds. Macro is useful if you want to take macro shots. I'm not sure about the 'utility' of internal focus.
It's 'horses for courses'. Zoom lens distortion can be easily corrected in Photoshop, if it bothers you, and lens 'speed' is less of an issue with newer DSLRs which have extremely good low-light performance. Personally, I rarely use anything other than the 18-200mm zoom on my Nikon DSLR.
For practical purposes, top of the range zooms by Canon and Nikon will produce results indistinguishable from fast primes in normal use. If you're thinking about buying the Zeiss (Cosina-made) Nikon-fit MF lenses, I wouldn't bother. They're nice but no better than the Nikon equivalents which do autofocus.
Nobody can really predict where digital photography will be in five years. My own view is that it is foolish for anyone other than pros to sink too much money into 'digital only' gear just yet because change happens so quickly.
Canon and Nikon have the biggest ranges, that's the 'real advantage' they offer.
BillBingham2
Registered User
My vote is for the D200 or D300. They both take older AI glass and work fine. I think you get what you pay for in glass and think you are much better served by getting an old Nikkor 24/2.8 and a new CV 58/1.4 set of primes and a recent Nikkor 180/2.8 ED/IF/AF lens and you are set.
If you like metal lenses, watch CV as I think (read hope and pray) the lineup of SLII glass will be expanding to include some great stuff in the next year. 70's and newer Nikkors are wonderful glass that still holds it's own against new stuff. The only place you have an issue with older glass is wider than 20mm your pickings are slim at reasonable prices. I think CV will address some of this in the future (read I hope).
Do not get stuck on the format/sensor wars. Each has advantages. If you like metal lenses, find the system that takes the glass you want and get it. Like with rangefinders, it's the glass!
B2 (;->
If you like metal lenses, watch CV as I think (read hope and pray) the lineup of SLII glass will be expanding to include some great stuff in the next year. 70's and newer Nikkors are wonderful glass that still holds it's own against new stuff. The only place you have an issue with older glass is wider than 20mm your pickings are slim at reasonable prices. I think CV will address some of this in the future (read I hope).
Do not get stuck on the format/sensor wars. Each has advantages. If you like metal lenses, find the system that takes the glass you want and get it. Like with rangefinders, it's the glass!
B2 (;->
JoeV
Thin Air, Bright Sun
I don't own a dSLR, so I can't help you with the remainder of your questions. But just to clarify, purchasing a consumer electronics device, such as a dSLR, is technically not an investment. The consumer electronics industry is predicated on the phenomenon known as the 'technology treadmill', which employs as its chief strategy the use of planned obsolescence. The system you purchase today will be outdated, and resell at a fraction of its original price, a year from now.
So you buy such gear with the idea that, like purchasing a new car, it's either something you need or you want. But it's not an investment, unless you want to call it a bad investment.
~Joe
PS: Good luck on your dSLR search. Whatever system you end up with I hope will reward you with many fine images.
BillBingham2
Registered User
Joe has an interesting point about the DSLR being a consumer device. If you are looking at something like a D40X in the Nikon line I would agree, but the D3 is pro all the way. The D300 I am hoping is somewhat of both, I'm hoping kind of like an old Nikkormat. I doubt the D300 will last as long as my old Nikkormat will, but if I can get 10 years out of her I will be very happy.
B2 (;->
B2 (;->