Nikon Z7 II sample gallery (DPReview TV)

Really? I was thinking the thing is incredible wide open. Nearly as good as the prime. There is a photo of a little girl taken at F4, ISO around 400, I think perhaps at the longer end. Wow.
But looking at the MTF of this lens it seems it is sharpest from wide open to F5.6. It seems most of these images are taken at F11 to F16.
Of course there is always the F2.8 24-70 but that comes with a big price. Prime quality though.

Jan 13, 2021permalink

roblumba

Yeah, longer end on the 24-70 looks good. But wider is not very impressive IMHO.

Jan 14, 2021permalink

In fact the lens is best at the 24mm end and at f4-f5.6. But all the wide images in this gallery are taken at small apertures long after where diffraction has set in.

Jan 14, 2021permalink

turvyT

Galleries in dpr are more times than desired just snapshots worth of a phone camera in style. They lack method and consistency. It's a bit surprising that many times professional or serious equipment is tested that way. I mean, anybody is entitled to use their equipment the way they want, but for a test camera magazine is not very coherent, to say something. It's not the case with this gallery, which has a combination of shots (protraits, lanscapes, etc), and light conditions that makes it informative. And the Z7II iq shows excellent in them. I also would like to see a more variety of lenses in these galleries, as well as certain certitude that children and relatives are somehow rewarded, given the tendency to use them as public models. Thanks.

Jan 11, 2021permalink

Adam Sharp

Nice gallery . Colours and sharpness looks great . Definitely my next camera .

Jan 11, 2021permalink

papajohnny

Love Nikon raw files, so easy to work with them.

Jan 9, 2021permalink

justmeMN

No dog photos, no sale! :-)

Jan 9, 2021permalink

ovatab

hopeless gallery

Jan 10, 2021permalink

Dmitry Novak

Alas, still no color science detected...

Jan 9, 2021permalink

Because it's a myth.

Jan 9, 2021permalink

If colour science was a myth, every photo would be identical other than WB.

What a weird thing to claim doesnt exist.

Every cameras standard jpg is that brands colour science. Or, if you believe they just allow whatever colours be to be you could say colour voodoo.

Jan 9, 2021permalink

It's exactly the opposite. If it was science, then it would be perfectly (identically) reproducible on all cameras. And the fact that every camera makes a different color "mess" proves that no science was involved in camera calibration. It was made to look nice to someone at the "factory". Nothing more, no science. It's just a preset. If you want science, you calibrate it yourself.

Jan 9, 2021permalink

I dont mind the term science magic as long as it is accepted that engineers are deliberately generating the hues they want. Which is, kind of "sciency".

Jan 9, 2021permalink

It's kind of absurd really.

Jan 9, 2021permalink

What exactly is absurd?

Your problem is that you need to be last and feel like youve won the thread maybe?

What did I say that could be considered absurd? Again, odd reaction by you.

Jan 10, 2021permalink

I need you to realize that there's truth and there's nonsense and you can't have and preach your special personal truth. The actual truth is universal. It is in perfect harmony with reality, physics, common sense and logic. And believing all sorts of BS that make you feel better is actually bad for you and everyone you preach it to. It's poison for the intellect.
OK, let's say you have a different definition of "science" (you meant "magic" or something) and be done with this topic. These ignorant mantras come and go anyways. Let's hope that the "micro contrast" myth dies together with 'micro four thirds'. And don't be mad. I'm just trying to make photography more scientific, easy and clear to everyone. Because there's too many superstitiously ignorant folks who invent all sorts of esoteric BS nonsense and preach it as some valuable knowledge. I went through most of it and it doesn't hold water when you put it to the test. Camera companies are just exploiting human stupidity to prosper.

Jan 10, 2021permalink

Engineering colour to the Standard ooc off the sensor and CFA is science. Demosaicing. Sorry to you to not understand that.

The colours do not have to match perfectly to be science.

You cant even comprehend the simple math from the other thread. Dont preach what science is to me.

Although i do understand what you are saying also.

Jan 10, 2021*permalink

@D Novak. Serious question: I do not know what a color science looks like. Can you please post a link to a photo wherein you have detected a color science.

Jan 10, 2021permalink

It’s subjective science. Like alternative facts.

Jan 10, 2021permalink

gameshoes3003

Eh, there is science behind it. There are many tests ran to come up with the colors that companies believe to be the best for their customers, and keeping it consistent within their product lineup. For us end users, there is no science. It's just subjective feelings and we choose the camera that best aligns with our views.

Jan 10, 2021*permalink

Color science is about reproducing natural colors, realistically. Not whatever looks nicer.

Jan 10, 2021permalink

While I do agree that color science is a pretty pretentious term that invokes something that's not clearly defined (ie that someone is gonna get the "best" colors thru sheer scientific process, etc), you can't at the same time dismiss it as a completely baseless endeavor and then declare it's all about *the* most realistic colors...

The problem is photography isn't about photorealism for everyone. Some people will indeed prefer a warmer, colder, redder, or bluer processing for any given shot, just like some people like to fiddle with EQ regardless of what the sound engineer mastered or the audio manufacturer built.

Still, color science is a misnomer that's been stretched pretty thin, much like micro contrast. Having "JPEG processing that a subset of our buyers prefer and others can't tell apart from X, Y, or Z" doesn't quite have the same marketing ring tho. :P

Jan 10, 2021*permalink

It's important to realize (pun intended) that photography has very little to do with reality. Since it is an art form, it is a very subjective medium. Add to that subjective interpretation of viewers and delivery, and you soon realize that what may look real/good to you, is very different to others. Yes, that's a short dip into the philosophic mindset.

As a form of art, the question you might want to ponder over is whether the images you create with this tool or another does evoke the emotional response for you and your audience. Is this how you want to deliver an image? Some camera manufacturers fit one's anticipation of a scene better than others; you may call this a sales approach, marketing or R&D prowess, but scientific it most certainly is not.

Of course, this conversation becomes highly academic if we focus on scientific applications. Wavelengths have nothing to do with color- that's just one's brain interpretation.

Jan 10, 2021*permalink

The other (perhaps pessimistic) view on color science is that it's a shortcut, if you're willing to put in the time you can achieve any 'color science' you want in post, it may not always be simple and some people would rather do as little as possible in post... No right/wrong there, just subjective choices, sometimes entirely practical choices even.

And then there's lenses, if you're gonna ignore that while putting a lot of stock on color science you might end up a little frustrated, specially if mixing different brands/lines/vintages of lenses... Unless you're using matched cine lenses, in which case you're probably laughing at or dismissing the whole thing (while color grading).

Jan 10, 2021*permalink

Many of you have all gone too far in many directions than necessary.

Brands dont bring in some bass guitarist to set the colours.

It is a highly technical endevour from the sensor, CFA, demosaicing, to our viewing device.

Engineers do this work. It is not left up to chance. They define every single hues response. It isnt WB. There is a lot going on.

Jan 10, 2021permalink

For the record, I never said there isn't science behind it or a technical base, but the problem is that ultimately the consumer's preference over one or the other isn't necessarily gonna be governed by science or an objective perception... Heck, how many people are even looking at any of it on well calibrated displays?

Jan 10, 2021permalink

Impulses, no of course. I mean I agree.

As well, how many of us, especially men, think they are seeing hues correctly even with a calibrated display?

I make sure ive taken a couple hue eye tests before arguing about colour. Fortunately I can still correctly determine between hues.

Mostly that is for arguing skin tonality. Where hue changes are quite fine.

Jan 10, 2021permalink

@D Novak, where are you? Please show the photo with the color science. We are waiting.

Jan 11, 2021permalink

@Impulses - Then why not just call it 'Color Presets'?

@Relaxed - Photography is not art, it's a tool. And you can capture art with it, if that's your thing. And it has everything to do with reality, for me at least.
Are you suggesting that all those weird color presets are someone's brain failures? :)

@SteveAnderson - Yes, there's a lot going on. And then they offer you some reality denying presets :), because they failed to do it perfectly right, becasue it's not possible to do with a 14 or 16 bit camera and quite primitive color guessing tech and weak AI. That's why we have to perform "science" with each shot individually in post.

Jan 11, 2021permalink

I beg to differ. For me, Photography is a form of art. Cameras and lenses are tools, just as brushes or hammers. You can of course, look the term up. Here- I’ll make it easier for you: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Photography

For you, photography might only amount to gear acquisition.

There is no brain failure, only different presets. Some tools may fit your preference more than others, but there is no absolute perfection, nor absolute failure. Color is subjective.

Jan 11, 2021*permalink

No ecka84.

Each hue could be set to its 0.0de state. Brands choose not to. Nothing to do with 12 or 14 bit.
Nothing to do with colour guessing or AI either.

Engineers place each value where they want it. It is not simple or trivial.

Jan 11, 2021permalink

Im not not on your side in some cases though.

I really wish each camera had a 0.0de mode.

And why are Neutral and Faithful so wildly different and inaccurate? Each word sounds like it should mean accurate.

I have calibrated IPS displays, and my eyes pass hue tests 100%.

I dont know how much youve tested cameras. I have pain-stakingly tested multiple brands and models. With known lighting, locations and persons.

Sensor and CFA are hardware, they vary massively in colour. Engineers need to wrangle colour. Canon CFA are stronger/thicker, different.

It is so stupidly hard to match colours from different brands in an identical shot scene. Especially skin. No matter what software we use. Even macbeth charts cant match every hue.

Jan 11, 2021*permalink

@SteveAnderson
Exactly right (the second part). That's why "color science" is a myth :). It's just a marketing slogan.

Jan 11, 2021permalink

@Relaxed
Well, respectfully, I disagree.
There are many more use cases for photography as a tool, than just art.

Jan 11, 2021permalink

Definitely.
One may also sculpt for research reasons.

Jan 11, 2021permalink

Why not?

Jan 11, 2021permalink

Ahh, the time honored DPR pursuit of arguing with Ecka84 in the forums..

If color science is a myth, then how come Fuji keeps paying all those engineers from their film days to painstakingly recreate, using science, the colors from their films into their digital camera film sims? Fuji made their own custom CFA in part to help them capture those proverbial greens of summer..

<lights fuse, walks away>...

Jan 11, 2021permalink

Mr Bolton, Thank you for confirming my suspicion. Its like knocking my head against concrete.

Bass guitarists, AI, Children, do not painstakingly massage 1000s of hues from complex hardware sensors and CFA to a brand Standard ooc profile.

Engineers do this. It makes no difference that the result is not a 0.0de profile.

Jan 11, 2021*permalink

When I get my teeth worked on, I like to find some hobo YouTube scrub to do it, because those career dental men can't be trusted.

Jan 11, 2021permalink

" Then why not just call it 'Color Presets'? "

Isn't that what they're called in most cameras? I've never seen a camera that advertised 'color science' in the interface, not that it'd bother me but I know little things like that would make using a simple tool quite insufferable for you... I did have one with 'art filters' which were separate from the color presets, those were fun for a minute. At some point you're just arguing over semantics...

Jan 12, 2021*permalink

Why are you telling me this? "Color science" is a myth :). They call it color profiles in cameras and apps. Only the true "natural/lifelike color" profiles do not exist, therefore "color science" is bogus and no camera can reproduce reality realistically by default, with same exact colors. You may argue all you want about how different people can see colors differently, but when the same person is seeing different colors in reality and on a calibrated screen, there's no excuse, no "color science", only BS and naive foolishness.

Jan 12, 2021permalink

When I go out and take pictures with my Fuji, then come home and put 'em up on my monitor, the colors look like how they looked when I took the picture.

I'm sure there was no actual science involved there regarding colors or how I perceive them/Fuji (those lying liars who won't admit the truth and go 'full frame') designs them to be perceived :-D I think they look like how they looked in real life, but I'm obviously deluding myself..

It's all a myth.

Jan 12, 2021permalink

You have forced me to call you dense in 2 threads now ecka.

Art students do not create the profiles. Scientists do. How focking dense are you?

The act of managing hues from the sensor and CFA is science, done by engineers.

If it was trivial, Sony would never have created such awful skin tones on every camera a6300 and prior. Only a7III has decent skin tonality but still tends yellow to green unfortunately.
This colour stuff isnt hue sliders. It is hardware based.

If you want to get ridiculous, Psychology is also science. You lose no matter how you look at this.

There is no myth about anything.

Jan 12, 2021*permalink

Eventually you get to software. Sliding hue channels. To profiles. But before we can do that, they must contend with the sensor and CFA.

Jan 12, 2021permalink

Except magenta. Magenta is, in fact, a myth invented by the human mind :-D

Jan 12, 2021permalink

Guys ... you are so naive. Using your brains is actually a good thing. Stop resisting. No need for being angry. You can blame me for breaking your fantasy bubbles, but it is the right thing to do. Because ignorant people spitting BS nonsense on every corner leads to global disaster. You might elect someone even worse than Trump next time :). Calm down.

OK, now, let's do a little thought experiment. Let's say that there is a "color science" in your cameras. But think back a little, was there a "color science" in older cameras, like 15 years ago, when the color was way worse? No? Well, what happens to your current camera "color science" when the future cameras will wipe the floor with it? It won't be science anymore? 2+2 won't be =4 anymore? You call that science?

"the colors look like how they looked when I took the picture" - BS! Liar! :) How do I know that? - We have met before :)

Jan 12, 2021permalink

The original post was nonsense. Even the original poster immediately abandoned it. Any discussion of it can only follow the same nonsensical pattern (which it has).

Jan 13, 2021permalink

@A Owens
And here you are :) ... posting your own patterns :). Welcome! :)

Jan 13, 2021*permalink

No ecka84 - I have gone too. Its only you.

Jan 13, 2021permalink

ecka your logic is flawed. Moronically.

Of course there was colour science 15yrs ago.

Are you 13yrs old? Its like talking to someone with no real sense of intelligence or wisdom. Just a fixation.

Better colour or old worse colour does not equal what colour science is. It is a scientific endeavor to manipulate colour from sensors and CFA.

Seriously, grow up.

Jan 13, 2021permalink

Intelligence is not a sense. Wisdom is not a sense. You are not born with it. And it doesn't just come to you when you get older. In fact, the brain function degrades over time, specially when you get over 40. The brain starts shrinking. So, if you didn't use your brain much while you were young, you might be doomed (on wisdom and intelligence part). But don't worry, you are not alone, most people end up like that. Then they come online and pretend to be geniuses while preaching BS nonsense.

Jan 13, 2021permalink

40 messages ago you could have just admitted your only purpose here is to be an insecure brat needing to have the last post.

No matter how stupid it is or how wrong you are.

You are a troll. Nothing more or less. Enjoy talking to a mirror now.

Jan 13, 2021*permalink

You just don't get it. The point of this game is to stay in the game. Nobody ever wins.

Jan 13, 2021permalink

Marcelobtp

I'm quite picky about color science, and your comments seems a little bit strange, when color science is always present no matter what, i really liked this one, although i generally prefer Canon color's science.

Jan 14, 2021permalink

Wow. I thought I'd read it all.. now color science doesn't exist because older cameras didn't take as good of pictures as new ones :-D Talk about that feeling when the short bus was full today and Ecka had to stay home..

Jan 15, 2021permalink

Why are there not tracking focus photographs in this and most other sample galleries? Just wondering, since this is an important factor for many when buying a new camera.

Jan 9, 2021*permalink

Photo_AK

Because the gallery is about IMAGE QUALITY, which has nothing to do with AF.

Jan 9, 2021permalink

It is about showing camera performance, or what? And sharpness when tracking is a very important aspect of image quality!

All cameras can do static shots, but tracking autofocus takes a bit more.

Jan 9, 2021*permalink

The purpose of dpr galleries, other than to just keep people visiting the site, is to demonstrate:

Sensor quality (sharpness, noise control, dynamic range, moire)

Lens characteristics (vignetting, onion-rings, cat's-eye, sunstars, CA, barrel/pincushion distortion, curvature).

They also serve as a reminder to gearheads that cameras as to be used and enjoyed for taking *photographs*.

Jan 9, 2021permalink

Photo_AK

Magnar W: "It is about showing camera performance, or what?"

No, it's not. Like I said, the gallery is about image quality. It's not about battery life, build qualitry, AF performance, handling, etc ...

Jan 9, 2021permalink

@ Photo_AK: So sharpness when tracking fast moving subjects is NOT about image quality?

I don't know how you can tie aspects like battery life to image quality, though.

I think my request for action photos is highly relevant for a test gallery.

Jan 9, 2021*permalink

https://www.dpreview.com/reviews/nikon-z6-ii-review

Magnar - There would be absolutely no point in including an AF tracking test within a normal dpr gallery, as it would tell you nothing about how the performed in *comparison* to other models. And it would tell you nothing about the *keeper rate*.

dpr already has AF tracking tests in most reviews, so why not just check them out?

There is an AF tracking test right here in the review of the Z6ii, which has an identical AF system to the Z7ii:

Jan 9, 2021*permalink

Photo_AK

Magnar W: "So sharpness when tracking fast moving subjects is NOT about image quality?"

No, it's not. It's about AF performance. The image quality on successfully focused shot is IDENTICAL to image quality on an unsuccessfully focused image. The quality of a shot, a photograph is of course different.

Just stop being silly, OK?

Jan 9, 2021*permalink

@ Photo_AK: So asking for action shots is silly? LOL!

Personally I find unsharp action photos useless, no matter other aspect of image quality. Actually, these galleries can't be used to compare cameras anyway, since the scenes are unique for all of them.

You don't need to compare to other cameras to find if tracking fous is up to the task or not. Just make a pretty standarised test precedure, and shoot. At least this will reveal if tracking is bad or good. Mission completed.

Jan 9, 2021*permalink

Magnar - Why don't you just check the Z6ii review link that I posted, and stop being silly?

Jan 9, 2021permalink

@ entoman: Well, their "Nikon says ... " isn't tht helpful. I prefer real world reports. Or do you think that is silly too?

Jan 9, 2021*permalink

Magnar - What I think is silly, is ignoring a review that I posted a link to, which perfectly demonstrates the AF tracking abilities of the Z6ii (and therefore the a7ii).

And I also think it's silly to expect dpr to include totally unnecessary images, that no one else sees any value in, in a gallery that serves an entirely different purpose.

Jan 9, 2021*permalink

@ entoman: So a variety of pictures in a camera gallery is a waste? It is silly, and should be avoided? LOL!

Jan 9, 2021permalink

Magnar - I give up on you, sorry.

Jan 9, 2021permalink

They'd have to label an action sequence pretty carefully and either include the whole 12+ shot sequence, or make notes of keeper rate and other relevant data, as already noted. They'd also have to state whether they used tracking or kept the AF point over the target, there's just a whole bunch of variables...

Frankly that would balloon the gallery size and I don't think anyone really wants to flip thru a sequence like that within the gallery format, the numbered tab/shot format they use for displaying C-AF and/or tracking results within the reviews seems a lot more informative and like a more concise way of relaying that info.

Jan 9, 2021permalink

(continued)

I'm all for more standardized/in depth AF testing (beyond the classic bike example they use in many reviews), and DPR has been saying "we're working on it" for a bit too long, but to be fair it's not a super easy thing to set up and I don't see any other site doing a better job of it. With the computationally trained systems some brands are using, the potential for cheating in any standardized test is high IMO.

And no, I don't think it's beneath one of the big players to train their system on a target that a site could decide to use consistently, seen far worse with synthetic tests on PC hardware.

Jan 9, 2021permalink

@Magnar - The accompanying review provides detailed coverage of the performance of the focus tracking in this camera. It clearly lags Canon and Sony in this regard. But you new that when you posted this, you simply cannot help yourself.

Jan 10, 2021permalink

A Owens - "you simply cannot help yourself". Yes, unfortunately that appears to be the issue here.

Jan 10, 2021permalink

@ entoman: Well, such resistance from some against action photos in camera galleries in general ... weird.

Jan 10, 2021permalink

Keep taking the tablets, Magnar 🙄

Jan 10, 2021*permalink

@ entoman: The resistance is from two or three posters, telling it all.

And one is for sure totally out of pills, I mean, arguments ,,,

Jan 10, 2021*permalink

No Magnar -what "tells all" is the *single* poster who just seems incapable of letting go of a worthless argument.

Jan 10, 2021permalink

sirhawkeye64

Subject tracking is hard to show in a static gallery. A video review would be more beneficial for subject tracking because we can then see (live) how the camera is tracking.

I mean in a gallery (static gallery) like this you may see shots that might not be tack sharp or otherwise are out of focus but we wouldn't necessarily be able to tell for sure if that was from the camera not tracking fast enough or user error.

You really need a video example to show the tracking more than a single frame / shot.

Jan 11, 2021*permalink

Nice gallery! We have a very beautiful snowy day in Europe today too :)

Jan 9, 2021permalink

io_bg

Speak for yourself, here in Southeastern Europe we had rain all day. -.-

Jan 9, 2021permalink

Rainy weather can be very beautiful too :)

Jan 9, 2021permalink

Please send some snow to southern England, I'm looking forwad to snowy landscapes if/when it happens!

Jan 9, 2021permalink

Be careful what you wish for :)

Jan 9, 2021*permalink

fotogrofur

With most everyone's post work these days,

you're over-doing the shadows.

Jan 9, 2021permalink

Joel Benford

Yep. Just because you can lift the shadows, doesn't mean you should. Looks flat and boring at best, or broken like bad HDR at the worst.

However, in a camera review done to show what the sensor can cope with, I guess it's of some use.

Jan 9, 2021permalink

Just enjoy the RAWs :)

Jan 9, 2021permalink

JordanDrake

When demonstrating DR, we often push the shadows excessively to show what the camera is capable of.

Jan 9, 2021permalink

CTMRIGuy

There are before and after shots so you get the best of both worlds.

Jan 9, 2021permalink

99tollap

I didn't think they were overdone. I quite like the shadows boosted more. Each to their own.

Jan 9, 2021permalink

Joel Benford

Seems very nice, as did the Z7, ad maybe a tiny bit better than the A7RII on some shots and a tiny bit worse on others.

Mostly, and not for the first time, I'm thinking that I really like that 85/1.8. I think that might be my favourite "portrait-length" blur, except maybe the ones with some sort of defocus smoothing.

Jan 9, 2021permalink

zakaria

Cute little kids. DPR should pay for them.

Jan 9, 2021permalink

ovatab

like ransom?

Jan 10, 2021permalink

wjan

You are making a disservice for the camera shooting it an anything above f/5.6 as you are effectively crippling its high resolution capabilities with diffraction. See more here: https://www.pointsinfocus.com/tools/diffraction-limited-effective-resolutions/
Nikon itself pointed to this issue long ago after D800 introduction.
And you often do not even need to go to f/8-f/16 for landscapes if you are shooting landscapes, as with a wide angle an f/5.6 or even an f/4 is enough to get everything in DoF.

Jan 9, 2021permalink

panther fan

That is indeed true for high-resolution lenses in the plane of focus.

But most of the images are shot with the kit 24-70 F4, which does indeed benefit from stopping down to F8.

And some shots call for high DOF, where you have to balance CoC from diffraction and simply from stuff not in the plane of focus. The calculations for that are not trivial, I can give you my calculations for that if you want them. Jim Kasson also developed some code based on the same formulas. Long story short it is often beneficial to shoot well past the diffraction limit or to use focus stacking

Jan 9, 2021permalink

Reilly Diefenbach

Nonsense.

Jan 9, 2021permalink

Reilly, Not sure if its your first day on the internet but we can not tell which post you are pointing or looking at above which you think is nonsense.

Jan 9, 2021permalink

The kit lens (24-70 F4) does not benefit from being stopped down to f8. It is sharp wide open and peaks in the centre at f5.6 and suffers from diffraction at the small apertures most of these images are shot at. @wjan is correct.

Jan 14, 2021permalink

Elliot H

hard to see the improvement between these examples and pro dslrs 10-15 years past,
in fact if you can look back on this site far enough you can see for yourself; and at these prices, yikes,

Jan 9, 2021*permalink

Ivan-san

Are you saying that we can take a RAW image from a 15 year old DSLR and push the shadows as much as we can in a Z7II RAW file? Or that we can take a heavy crop of that DSLR's RAW image and still get a decent printable photo at A4+? Or that...

P.S. The $3K body-only price is equivalent to $2.2K in 2005 when adjusted for inflation.

Jan 9, 2021*permalink

wjan

The first DSLR which sensor capabilities are somehow comparable with Z 7II would be the Nikon D800 introduced in 2012, so 8 years ago, not 10-15.

Jan 9, 2021permalink

fotogrofur

Elliot H
No

Jan 9, 2021permalink

The very best DSLR 15 years ago were still at 16MP tops, the 21MP 5D II came out 12 years ago. The Nikon D3S of 10-11 years ago (circa 2009) had 12MP, as did the D700 from a year before that. The D800, as already mentioned, jumped to 36MP in 2012.

Never mind improvements in DR, usable ISO, AF systems, etc. The D700 launched at $3,000 btw, so like a few hundred more in today's money. I think we're getting pretty decent value today, the only thing that's gotten progressively worse is the quality & SNR of comments around here, yikes indeed.

Jan 9, 2021*permalink