You answered so many questions about the R5 II, thank you. Have you compared the R3 to the R5C? The R3 seemed to get a bump up in image quality that we see in the R5 II. It looks like the R5 II might have passed the R3 in video quality in the shadows and that increase in contrast or skin lightness. Your test at 20:11 shows that increase and it's very hard to get that pop from the R5C.
As a R5C owner, I would never sell my camera for this. At least to me, it's clear that if I am dowing ANY type of commercial shoot, I'm on a Mini Vmount and I'm shooting raw. I get around 7.5h record time from my SmallRig VB99 Pro and it can be clipped to the top of my monopod, or I can even put it in a side pocket of my backpack (as I'm doing now when I'm moving around NYC, with a power cable routed over my shoulder strap that I can easily attach/detach). It's not quite clear from this video, but shooting in raw you bypass all the 'canon log flavors'. Raw is 12-bit, so you get 4096 bits per channel, instead of 1024 with 10-bit. That is 64x (or 6400%) more color information and you capture your data in 'linear light'. This means you can then use any log profile or conversion you like in post. So, shooting in raw, you also have the Canon Log 2 curve available on the R5C, for instance. Then again, the richness of the raw file isn't clear just by looking at the images. It's understandable that a visual inspection makes people opt for the 10-bit HEVC. I shoot this too, for a lot of personal travel videos and so on. Horses for courses, I guess. While I'm not getting the R5 mkII, I WOULD like to see a 'C' version in a large Canon body, like my old 1Dc. I much prefer the feel of he R3 (R1) body compared to the smaller R5. It would likely help with boosting the internal power situation too.
I’m sorry Canons R5 C CRAW doesn’t capture full C-Log 2 Dynamic Range that you get from the R5 II. The R5 II is not straight better in every place thats what I showed here. But for me personally it is better where it matters most for me. But I can also understand why you would stick with the R5 C. I loved mine still didn’t sell it yet.
@@davision-en Canon Raw doesn't store any log curve at all. It's linear light. It only compresses the data to make the files smaller (compared to uncompressed). It's only once you choose one of the video formats that you 'bake' your gamma curve into the file. Once you shoot raw, the log curves become irrelevant, in a way. You can still use them for conversions, but the data is linear, as mentioned. A gamma curve like Canon Log 2 is a tone mapping function. It takes the linear data captured by the image sensor and encodes it in a way that preserves as much detail as possible, especially in highlights and shadows. Canon Log 2 is optimized to store up to 15-16 stops of dynamic range if the sensor provides that much information. Neither the R5C nor the R5 mkII hits the ceiling of the log 2 curve. What you DON'T want to do is use a 16-stop curve and encode data from an 11-stop sensor into an 8-bit file. That would give you a very wasteful encoding and a brittle file. You can use log 2 conversions on 12-bit raw data just fine. But... just use Resolve Color Managed workflow and you'll get all the juice you want out of the squeeze. When I encode a video signal, I find that Canon Log 3 is an efficient way to do it. If the image comes out too contrasty, I never have a problem manipulating the contrast to my liking (assuming correct exposure). Not trying to convince you, though. Everyone has different workflows.
@@diminishedreturn I'm sad to inform you that thats is not how RAW Video works! RAW Video is NOT Linear. It uses a Log Curve as well. Sorry to destroy your dreams but please get informed about it before spreading wrong information in the Internet.
@@davision-en Hi. Below, I'm offering the following snippet from Canon Europe on the advantages of CRAW. You are probably misunderstanding how .crm works due to the fact that your NLE will OF COURSE not preset the video as linear light to you. There is a default conversion happening, otherwise the images would look pretty jarring. Here is the quote from Canon, that you might believe more than me. If this is new and fascinating information to you, you might want to do a RUclips video about it. Feel free to drop my name as a reference. "Canon Log 2 is designed to deliver up to 16+ stops of dynamic range, minimising the loss of detail in the darkest and brightest parts of the image. It provides a versatile base for grading, but Cinema RAW Light unlocks more options in post-production. Like Cinema RAW Light, Log footage starts out as raw sensor data but then the gamma curve and processing parameters are baked into it at the point of capture. This doesn't happen with a Cinema RAW Light file (.CRM). In fact, it isn't a movie file at all, it's simply a container for all that raw sensor data, and it has to be unpacked, debayered and modified in software before being exported in a choice of formats appropriate for ingestion into popular post-production packages. However, as the processing of a Cinema RAW Light file has to be finished in software rather than in-camera, a number of parameters can be adjusted long after the footage has been recorded. For example, brightness, white balance and sharpness can be fine-tuned in Canon's Cinema RAW Development software. Also, a different colour space and gamma to those set on the camera at the time of shooting can be assigned to the exported file, for example, applying Log 2 (with compatible software) to enable the maximum 16+ stops of dynamic range to be achieved. "Being able to shift between Canon Log 2 and 3 in post-production without any degradation is a big benefit of the Cinema RAW Light format," says Aron. "If you had bright outdoor scenes that were more suitable for Canon Log 3 and other low light or high contrast scenes that were more appropriate for Canon Log 2, you can simply switch those on the fly in post."" You're welcome.
@@davision-en5RCStill a Netflix approved camera tho. I have both cameras & the R5 mkii is a half baked camera, that maybe improves with new firmware updates until then I keep shooting on 5RC is a more mature camera & 5R mkii for stills. Remember there is not a perfect camera and RUclipsrs lives on #FOMO & #GAS (Gear Acquisition Syndrome)
One possible major flaw with this review is that it was done without the Mark II's CF-R20EP Cooling Grip attached. I wonder if they are throttling back the sensor when the fan isn't attached? It would be interesting to see how the camera performs with it's fan attached. Could be a difference.
One Major S cooling grip neither necessary nor part of the camera and no canon already confirmed back in July that the camera is not cut down when not using the fan grip wich is by the way pretty useless for the modes the camera is overheating in.
Great and extensive review. Regarding the read out speed being slower than expected. I presume the main reason is to preserve the DR performance. Slower reading usually means more DR
@@davision-entrue, i Wish companies would disclose more about those things. Someone said a good theory about the DR being the same but readout speed different could be due to a bit rate camera use at certain frame rates, I do not know if reading from 14bit and recording to 12bit could differ in DR much compare to doing 12bit to 12bit.
Thank you for your thorough indepth review for both these cameras. It just simply proved to me that keeping both would make a lot of sense. Especially as someone who loves portability and ability to have two photo cameras at my disposal in case it calls out for it during events and also the fact that R5C still shoot 4k 60fps downsampling and also better low light performance. There will be moments wheres each camera will still shine. Do you only use one camera for all your shoots?
great video. watching it from Essen after spending a month in Germany, I will be heading back to the states next week where my new Mark II is waiting for me.
I always prefer using the best possible bitrate for any framerate but the XF AVC S Codec seems to have more trouble playing back. Unfortunately HEVC Intraframe is for available for 4K.
Thank you so much for the fantastic comparison! Would it be possible for you to share the raw files as well? There are a few nuances in the raw format that I'd love to explore. I’d be happy to host the files if needed! Best wishes from a colorist in Estonia.
The sharper details of the r5c in 8k 60p makes me consider it over the r5 ii but the r5 ii has bird eye af in video and doesn't require an external battery for that mode. Plus I plan to get the 50mm 1.2 and can use the ibis in the r5 ii with that lens lol (ibis isn't that useful for telephoto lenses)
If you can wait a while I will talk in detail about what made me choose R5 II over my R5 C and where is think the biggest weaknesses of the R5 C lay. :)
Hello, dis you try to adjust the sharpening in caméra via the cp file control, it is AT t'en normally but can be increase to 20 or lowered to 0 (there is also here a noise correction applied by default, and some other things, if you never found at)
How would you compare the 4k60 sraw vs the hevc lined skipped? I’m really disappointed there is no over sampling 4k60. In the CVP test the sraw looked pretty bad
Great video, thanks for this amazing work! For the high ISO comparison, did you try comparing the 3 cameras at ISO 8000, and ISO 16000 which might « better » steps for the R5II above the second base ISO of 4000? Just curious if R5II still lags behind on these steps (as opposed to the comparison you did on the traditional 6400, 12800, 25600 increments which make sense and favour a camera with a second base ISO of 3200). Thanks!
Why should it be better at this stops? There is no Tripple Base ISO here. It’s just one Step at 4000 and then it goes constantly downwards and gets more noise with every. I haven’t tested this because I Usually compare hole steps. Not every in between just the ones important for seeing the base ISO switch.
@@kardemummabullar the ISO Ladder starts at 100, I go full stops up from there. But there is reason in thinking hole stopps of 8000 or 16000 away from the second base ISO should be different. It just goes downwards from the second ISO, there is magical step again.
Firmware update needed to bring in down sampled 4k 60 option. Even if it does over heat after some time. No one shoots 4k 60 for long periods. I sold my r5c to get this camera and what a let down from canon.
Not at all, I have seen Geralds Video and don't see anything what contradicts my findings but he just did take a look at the R5 II alone, not comparing with Other Cameras at all.
@davision-en we had a good conversation going. You called me out (with sprinkles of attitude) and I felt I gave you factual information that you and your viewers could benefit from. Did you get a chance to try the Canon Log 2 workflow on your R5C? Let me know if you need help setting it up. And it would be nice if you'd backpaddle one tick on the "learn your stuff and don't spread misinformation". Take care.
Line Skipping is leaving out information’s resulting in worse details and quality. Oversampling is using every information the sensor has to bake it into a lower resolution file with nearly same details as the original 8K.
About your answer. You didn’t understand, nothing to worry about. I explain you again. As I mentioned z9/8 either have same speed or slower sensor readout speed than r5 in video mode. I ask you to dig deeper into this question and if you want to be professional. z9/z8 (data absolutely the same) has same or slower readout speed for video and faster for photo compared to old r5. That’s the data compared with old r5 because video readout speed data for r5m2 is not available now. Readout speed 4k60 z9 14.46ms, r5 9.73 ms, 8k30 z9 14.42ms, r5 15.59, 4k24 z9 14.46ms, r5 15.53. For photos right, z9/z8 is faster. 3.73 ms vs 6.3ms for r5m2, but r5m2 has mechanical shutter up to 12fps where readout speed equal 0ms without any rolling shutter with even better dynamic range. In video canon has 8k60, clog2 and raw. That’s why z9/8 is much worse in photo and video modes. Readout speed for video and photos is completely different for all cameras. So if Nikon z9 faster for photos it doesn’t mean same for video.
First of all be polite! That’s my answer for your question. Because Canon did the miracle with r5 mark 2. Z8/Z9 sacrificed huge dynamic range drop for faster sensor compered to z7/2. But canon did almost same DR sensor but in 6.3ms. The reason you have to mention this is superior R5m2 characteristic not to old r5 but to z8/z9 main competitors.
You answered so many questions about the R5 II, thank you. Have you compared the R3 to the R5C? The R3 seemed to get a bump up in image quality that we see in the R5 II. It looks like the R5 II might have passed the R3 in video quality in the shadows and that increase in contrast or skin lightness. Your test at 20:11 shows that increase and it's very hard to get that pop from the R5C.
WOW. What a great review. Bravo!
Finally the video comparison we've been waiting for!
Most stuff I've seen for these sensors def say ETTR. Helps with the color shift and noise.
As a R5C owner, I would never sell my camera for this. At least to me, it's clear that if I am dowing ANY type of commercial shoot, I'm on a Mini Vmount and I'm shooting raw. I get around 7.5h record time from my SmallRig VB99 Pro and it can be clipped to the top of my monopod, or I can even put it in a side pocket of my backpack (as I'm doing now when I'm moving around NYC, with a power cable routed over my shoulder strap that I can easily attach/detach).
It's not quite clear from this video, but shooting in raw you bypass all the 'canon log flavors'. Raw is 12-bit, so you get 4096 bits per channel, instead of 1024 with 10-bit. That is 64x (or 6400%) more color information and you capture your data in 'linear light'. This means you can then use any log profile or conversion you like in post. So, shooting in raw, you also have the Canon Log 2 curve available on the R5C, for instance.
Then again, the richness of the raw file isn't clear just by looking at the images. It's understandable that a visual inspection makes people opt for the 10-bit HEVC. I shoot this too, for a lot of personal travel videos and so on.
Horses for courses, I guess. While I'm not getting the R5 mkII, I WOULD like to see a 'C' version in a large Canon body, like my old 1Dc. I much prefer the feel of he R3 (R1) body compared to the smaller R5. It would likely help with boosting the internal power situation too.
I’m sorry Canons R5 C CRAW doesn’t capture full C-Log 2 Dynamic Range that you get from the R5 II. The R5 II is not straight better in every place thats what I showed here. But for me personally it is better where it matters most for me. But I can also understand why you would stick with the R5 C. I loved mine still didn’t sell it yet.
@@davision-en Canon Raw doesn't store any log curve at all. It's linear light. It only compresses the data to make the files smaller (compared to uncompressed). It's only once you choose one of the video formats that you 'bake' your gamma curve into the file.
Once you shoot raw, the log curves become irrelevant, in a way. You can still use them for conversions, but the data is linear, as mentioned.
A gamma curve like Canon Log 2 is a tone mapping function. It takes the linear data captured by the image sensor and encodes it in a way that preserves as much detail as possible, especially in highlights and shadows.
Canon Log 2 is optimized to store up to 15-16 stops of dynamic range if the sensor provides that much information. Neither the R5C nor the R5 mkII hits the ceiling of the log 2 curve.
What you DON'T want to do is use a 16-stop curve and encode data from an 11-stop sensor into an 8-bit file. That would give you a very wasteful encoding and a brittle file.
You can use log 2 conversions on 12-bit raw data just fine. But... just use Resolve Color Managed workflow and you'll get all the juice you want out of the squeeze.
When I encode a video signal, I find that Canon Log 3 is an efficient way to do it. If the image comes out too contrasty, I never have a problem manipulating the contrast to my liking (assuming correct exposure).
Not trying to convince you, though. Everyone has different workflows.
@@diminishedreturn I'm sad to inform you that thats is not how RAW Video works! RAW Video is NOT Linear. It uses a Log Curve as well. Sorry to destroy your dreams but please get informed about it before spreading wrong information in the Internet.
@@davision-en Hi. Below, I'm offering the following snippet from Canon Europe on the advantages of CRAW. You are probably misunderstanding how .crm works due to the fact that your NLE will OF COURSE not preset the video as linear light to you. There is a default conversion happening, otherwise the images would look pretty jarring. Here is the quote from Canon, that you might believe more than me.
If this is new and fascinating information to you, you might want to do a RUclips video about it. Feel free to drop my name as a reference.
"Canon Log 2 is designed to deliver up to 16+ stops of dynamic range, minimising the loss of detail in the darkest and brightest parts of the image. It provides a versatile base for grading, but Cinema RAW Light unlocks more options in post-production. Like Cinema RAW Light, Log footage starts out as raw sensor data but then the gamma curve and processing parameters are baked into it at the point of capture. This doesn't happen with a Cinema RAW Light file (.CRM). In fact, it isn't a movie file at all, it's simply a container for all that raw sensor data, and it has to be unpacked, debayered and modified in software before being exported in a choice of formats appropriate for ingestion into popular post-production packages.
However, as the processing of a Cinema RAW Light file has to be finished in software rather than in-camera, a number of parameters can be adjusted long after the footage has been recorded. For example, brightness, white balance and sharpness can be fine-tuned in Canon's Cinema RAW Development software. Also, a different colour space and gamma to those set on the camera at the time of shooting can be assigned to the exported file, for example, applying Log 2 (with compatible software) to enable the maximum 16+ stops of dynamic range to be achieved.
"Being able to shift between Canon Log 2 and 3 in post-production without any degradation is a big benefit of the Cinema RAW Light format," says Aron. "If you had bright outdoor scenes that were more suitable for Canon Log 3 and other low light or high contrast scenes that were more appropriate for Canon Log 2, you can simply switch those on the fly in post.""
You're welcome.
@@davision-en5RCStill a Netflix approved camera tho. I have both cameras & the R5 mkii is a half baked camera, that maybe improves with new firmware updates until then I keep shooting on 5RC is a more mature camera & 5R mkii for stills.
Remember there is not a perfect camera and RUclipsrs lives on #FOMO & #GAS (Gear Acquisition Syndrome)
One possible major flaw with this review is that it was done without the Mark II's CF-R20EP Cooling Grip attached. I wonder if they are throttling back the sensor when the fan isn't attached? It would be interesting to see how the camera performs with it's fan attached. Could be a difference.
One Major S cooling grip neither necessary nor part of the camera and no canon already confirmed back in July that the camera is not cut down when not using the fan grip wich is by the way pretty useless for the modes the camera is overheating in.
Great and extensive review. Regarding the read out speed being slower than expected. I presume the main reason is to preserve the DR performance. Slower reading usually means more DR
Could be, but the DR is same for 8K 60 RAW what reads out faster.
@@davision-entrue, i Wish companies would disclose more about those things. Someone said a good theory about the DR being the same but readout speed different could be due to a bit rate camera use at certain frame rates, I do not know if reading from 14bit and recording to 12bit could differ in DR much compare to doing 12bit to 12bit.
Thank you for your thorough indepth review for both these cameras. It just simply proved to me that keeping both would make a lot of sense. Especially as someone who loves portability and ability to have two photo cameras at my disposal in case it calls out for it during events and also the fact that R5C still shoot 4k 60fps downsampling and also better low light performance. There will be moments wheres each camera will still shine. Do you only use one camera for all your shoots?
My unscientific testing shows little difference between the 60p 4k non-fine and the 2k 60p fine when blown up to the same 4k timeline.
Yes that could be possible but I havn't checked that, I was just a little bit dissappointed by the comparison of R5 Cs 2K to R5 IIs.
great video. watching it from Essen after spending a month in Germany, I will be heading back to the states next week where my new Mark II is waiting for me.
Amazing content. Thank you for sharing. In your opinion which compression and format would you use for recording in 24 and 60 fps on the R5ii?
I always prefer using the best possible bitrate for any framerate but the XF AVC S Codec seems to have more trouble playing back. Unfortunately HEVC Intraframe is for available for 4K.
Great video. I loved the detailed comparisons. Thanks!
That color shift from underexposed 8K RAW🤯
Amazing video! Thanks for all the info.
great video comparison
Incredible video Davision. I love your comparison of the 3.
Thank you 🙏
@@davision-en What camera did you use to film this video?
@@Maxiixam20 the R5 Mark II
R5C battery life in video mode is significantly improved (it runs at least 50 % longer) with the new LP-E6P battery
Oh nice to know :) but the other downside still be the same. My bigges was AF when not in a predictable Studio Scene.
Great video ... hats off to you for putting this all together..
Thank you so much for the fantastic comparison! Would it be possible for you to share the raw files as well? There are a few nuances in the raw format that I'd love to explore. I’d be happy to host the files if needed!
Best wishes from a colorist in Estonia.
Since my Upload is not that fast I think that would be not possible. Sorry.
The sharper details of the r5c in 8k 60p makes me consider it over the r5 ii but the r5 ii has bird eye af in video and doesn't require an external battery for that mode. Plus I plan to get the 50mm 1.2 and can use the ibis in the r5 ii with that lens lol (ibis isn't that useful for telephoto lenses)
If you can wait a while I will talk in detail about what made me choose R5 II over my R5 C and where is think the biggest weaknesses of the R5 C lay. :)
@@davision-en Sounds awesome lol
What an amazing video. This had to be a ton of work. Super useful. Thank you
Does the Mark ii downsample 8K to 4K in 60fps raw?
No it doesn't like I said in the Video loud and clear.
Do you recommend standby mode off or on? Which works better for the R5II?
What do you mean with that?
Hello, dis you try to adjust the sharpening in caméra via the cp file control, it is AT t'en normally but can be increase to 20 or lowered to 0 (there is also here a noise correction applied by default, and some other things, if you never found at)
Yes but I test default settings
How would you compare the 4k60 sraw vs the hevc lined skipped? I’m really disappointed there is no over sampling 4k60. In the CVP test the sraw looked pretty bad
I have compared this in this Video, did you even watch?
@@davision-enI did I was just looking for more analysis, sorry.
Great work! But also do you recall the tune playing in the background around the @5:05 min mark!
It is called Aves - Going Somewhere :)
Great video, thanks for this amazing work! For the high ISO comparison, did you try comparing the 3 cameras at ISO 8000, and ISO 16000 which might « better » steps for the R5II above the second base ISO of 4000? Just curious if R5II still lags behind on these steps (as opposed to the comparison you did on the traditional 6400, 12800, 25600 increments which make sense and favour a camera with a second base ISO of 3200). Thanks!
Why should it be better at this stops? There is no Tripple Base ISO here. It’s just one Step at 4000 and then it goes constantly downwards and gets more noise with every.
I haven’t tested this because I Usually compare hole steps. Not every in between just the ones important for seeing the base ISO switch.
@@davision-en Precisely, a whole stop above 4000 is 8000, and then 16000.
@@kardemummabullar the ISO Ladder starts at 100, I go full stops up from there. But there is reason in thinking hole stopps of 8000 or 16000 away from the second base ISO should be different. It just goes downwards from the second ISO, there is magical step again.
Thanks really helped clear things up!
Is it true the 4k60 quality is not sharp as older models?
Did you even bother to watch the Video?!
Thank you for such a comprehensive review!
Firmware update needed to bring in down sampled 4k 60 option. Even if it does over heat after some time. No one shoots 4k 60 for long periods.
I sold my r5c to get this camera and what a let down from canon.
Interesting findings, many of them contradict Gerald's.
Not at all, I have seen Geralds Video and don't see anything what contradicts my findings but he just did take a look at the R5 II alone, not comparing with Other Cameras at all.
@davision-en we had a good conversation going. You called me out (with sprinkles of attitude) and I felt I gave you factual information that you and your viewers could benefit from. Did you get a chance to try the Canon Log 2 workflow on your R5C? Let me know if you need help setting it up. And it would be nice if you'd backpaddle one tick on the "learn your stuff and don't spread misinformation". Take care.
I‘m not shooting RAW since I never felt the need for more then C-Log 3 is giving me personally and shoot C-Log 2 with my R5 II. Sold my R5 C today.
@@davision-en ok, then. Hope you enjoy the new camera.
Thanks for your work!
Great video! Currently working on a video as well for the r5 ii
There’s a difference between line skipping and oversampling right?
Line Skipping is leaving out information’s resulting in worse details and quality.
Oversampling is using every information the sensor has to bake it into a lower resolution file with nearly same details as the original 8K.
I thought the R52 line skips does it over sample from the 8k sensor?
@@JosephRossPhotography in 4K Fine is oversamples, in 4K 60 doesn't.
5RC = “C” Stands for CINEMA LINE
It's R5 C nicht 5R C...
Very informative. Thanks
Thx David!
Thank you
Excellent 👍 👍👍
Buy a video camera if you want to shoot video. Us still photographers would really appreciate it.
If you don't go with the time, you go with the time.
What did he say?
Hearing Problems? You should activate subtitles.
About your answer. You didn’t understand, nothing to worry about. I explain you again.
As I mentioned z9/8 either have same speed or slower sensor readout speed than r5 in video mode. I ask you to dig deeper into this question and if you want to be professional.
z9/z8 (data absolutely the same) has same or slower readout speed for video and faster for photo compared to old r5. That’s the data compared with old r5 because video readout speed data for r5m2 is not available now. Readout speed 4k60 z9 14.46ms, r5 9.73 ms, 8k30 z9 14.42ms, r5 15.59, 4k24 z9 14.46ms, r5 15.53. For photos right, z9/z8 is faster. 3.73 ms vs 6.3ms for r5m2, but r5m2 has mechanical shutter up to 12fps where readout speed equal 0ms without any rolling shutter with even better dynamic range. In video canon has 8k60, clog2 and raw. That’s why z9/8 is much worse in photo and video modes.
Readout speed for video and photos is completely different for all cameras. So if Nikon z9 faster for photos it doesn’t mean same for video.
You seem to haven’t Even Watched the Video dude.
we want to see more 4k 60 footage ,.. that girl on the best I want see the details in whites ,........ ahah
All good but I can't tell exactly from which part of England you're from.
I‘m not from England…
@@davision-en I was being sarcastic, mate 🤣
@@skymind4738 Are you fine speaking your non native language in front of a camera fluid and without any Accent? Fine great for you.
How about your model?
What about my Models?
😂
Whats so funny? 🤔
Z8/z9 have much worse dynamic range than r5 mark 2. Why you forget about it?
I forgot about what? This is not a comparison with any Nikon and I praised the R5 Mark II for it’s good Dynamic range. What is wrong with you?
😂
First of all be polite!
That’s my answer for your question. Because Canon did the miracle with r5 mark 2. Z8/Z9 sacrificed huge dynamic range drop for faster sensor compered to z7/2. But canon did almost same DR sensor but in 6.3ms.
The reason you have to mention this is superior R5m2 characteristic not to old r5 but to z8/z9 main competitors.
@goldenstasgs you provoked the guy, and you expect him to be polite?
Nikon is 🗑️🗑️🗑️