A900 PRICE REDUCTION (U.S.)

[samn]

<p>Hi Rick, I hope you are right about that site, but search "Casual Photo Conv. Forum" first. I personally would not try it.</p>

<p>I still shoot the 7000 on and off. Although it has many limitations, especially slow focus and I can never remember how to use those buttons on the left, I get great family portraits with it in conjunction with the 2800 a/f flash in sunlight and the beercan. I like a heavy camera and it fits the bill. A great from Minolta. I would love to have a good Hi-Matic. Someday I'll find one reasonably priced. I can't believe what the good models bring on e-bay.</p>

<p> </p>

[rickeselgroth]

<p>Sam. I called them and they said that it carries the 1yr warrenty and the reason they can keep the price down is they have no real store just a web based bizz . Less overhead ? I don't know though, did you see some of the prices on the other cameras they had. canon 50d for 299.99 nikon d3 2299.99, nikon d700 1349.99, carzy prices, and a sony a700 for 799.99 canon 5d mk II for 1399.99</p>

[rickeselgroth]

<p>Forget it don't go to Pro Photo Nation it is a SCAM, I googled it and all that cameup was complaints about the Bait and Switch. Glad I didn't fall for that one.</p>

[samn]

<p>Can't remember which site it was, offering deals like you saw Rick. Someone on the casual conversations forum photographed the address in New York City the site advertised. It was a second story brownstone in Brooklyn located over a strip club. Not even a sign.</p>

<p>Now can we go back to bickering over Minolta names and Sony bloat?</p>

[rickeselgroth]

<p>OKAY. Bring it on my friend.</p>

[robert_paul1]

<p>The drop in the price for the Sony A900 has been offset by the rise in the prices of the Sony lenses. In my eyes, this indicates one of two possibilities.</p>

<p>1) Sony is using the 'razor and blade marketing' technique, where the razorblade holder is sold at a low profit margin, and the blades are sold at a high profit margin. This is the same approach used by the inkjet/laser printer makers. Only Kodak has bucked this approach and made the printer a little more expensive and the replacement ink cartridges lower in price. Afterall, most people might buy one body, but 2-3 lenses, and these might include the 'G' series or Zeiss lenses.</p>

<p>2) Sony might be getting ready to come out with new models that will replace the current line-up. In another photo forum, someonw had posted late last year, that Sony would be replacing their <strong>entire</strong> DSLR line-up, including the A900. It is known that Sony has developed new sensor technology, the Exmor-R, that is a backlite CMOS. If the post is correct, then now would be a good time to start cleaning house.</p>

[peterblaise]

<p>.</p>

<p>Steve, Minolta put different nameplates on gear destined for different markets to assist local distributors in controlling their areas of responsibility (see <a href="http://ca.konicaminolta.com/products/consumer/camera/index.html">http://ca.konicaminolta.com/products/consumer/camera/index.html</a> for recent non-Alpha distribution). Sony is big enough to police that without using different names, so the <em>Sony</em> Alpha is the first world-wide distribution of Alpha-mount cameras under <em>one name</em> -- ALPHA. In fact, Sony calls it the AMC Alpha Mount Camera division * that is responsible within the Sony organization. Regardless, all Minolta gear nameplates were available "across borders" all the time, especially graymarket and used, and when markets expanded and collapsed, and travelers were free to buy and transport anything they wanted from anywhere. Yes, I've photographed in the UK and Europe where the Dynax name once was Minolta's (now it's IT consulting at http://www.dynax.co.uk/ ), but, statistically, most "well known" would really be the Maxxum moniker, sales wise, in the US where most were sold, home also of photo.net where most members are also from the US.</p>

<p>----------</p>

<p>Sam, I don't invent the names Minolta cameras were marketed under, I only report on 'em. Minolta made something for almost every film and film maker and for other camera makers, including building entire factories for Leitz/Leica. Minolta cameras were made for Kodak, Polaroid, Ansco (who were into photography longer than Kodak, by the way, and first took the Minolta name to outer space), and hooked up with Konica (who were also into photography before Kodak). Minolta even released non-Minolta cameras with the Minolta nameplate -- the early Konica G digitals, for example. My point in the extended nomenclature was for those who do not know that the Alpha Mount Cameras have been distributed under 4 different maker names and 4 different model names, for those who want to insure they are inclusive when saying "<em>Alpha cameras this ...</em> " or "<em>Alpha cameras that ...</em> " For instance, the first Alpha digitals had a 1/2x cop factor (effectively similar to modern four-thirds cameras somewhat) AND a loss of f/stop (tunnel teleconversion). The second wave of Alpha digitals has 1/1.5x crop and no loss of light. The third, the A900 in this thread, is the first Alpha digital with full frame digital capture (well, almost full frame at 35.9 x 24mm). Minolta Capios/Freedom/Riva anyone?</p>

<p>----------</p>

<p>Richard, when I ask people to "<em>tell us more, and share some pictures</em> " I'm encouraging us all to connect our discussions of our photographic gear and processes with the resulting images. I'm trying to be supportive and inclusive. I share alike. When RP recently started a line of cross examination over gear nomenclature, it was an attempt to invalidate and exclude. Anyway, this is <em>photo</em> .net, not <em>camera</em> .net. Photography enthusiasts are welcome regardless of even having ANY camera at all. I do not support that kind of energy in any way. I encourage us all to drop such negativity. "<em>Why can't we all just get along?</em> " -- Rodney King</p>

<p>.</p>

<p>* PS - for references to <em><strong>Sony AMC</strong> </em> , see many web resources, such as:</p>

<blockquote>

<p><strong>Sony's Alpha Strike: Designing the A700</strong><br>

<a href="http://www.hardwarezone.com/articles/view.php?cid=30&id=2394">http://www.hardwarezone.com/articles/view.php?cid=30&id=2394</a><br>

"<em>... We were privileged to have been able to catch-up with Mr. <strong>Keiichi Ishizuka</strong> who is Deputy Senior General Manager - AMC (<strong>Alpha Mount Camera</strong> ) Division, Digital Imaging Business Group of Sony Corporation. Previously from Konica Minolta, he has been with Sony since May 2006 and has been working with cameras since 1978. Over the last 10 years, he has specialized in designing interchangeable lenses. In fact, he was one of the few <strong>involved in developing the Dynax </strong> </em> [sic: Alpha]<em><strong> 7000 for Minolta, the world's first autofocus camera</strong> </em> [sic: 35mm]<em>. A man of vast experience in this field, we were most interested in getting his thoughts about Sony's Alpha lineup and finding out more about the new A700 DSLR ...</em> "</p>

</blockquote>

<p>We're in deep poo when our cameras come from a group of photographic engineers fighting for position in a hierarchy as (count with me) <em><strong>1</strong> - Deputy <strong>2 </strong> - Senior <strong>3 </strong> - General <strong>4 </strong> - Manager.</em> No wonder our cameras also have <strong>4 </strong> maker names and <strong>4 </strong> model names! When my father went to Japan, he was simply called <em>Designer One</em> . So it goes, so it goes. I suppose it would be too much to ask for a switchable panorama mask in the Alpha viewfinder, as I now have in ALL my Minolta autofocus film cameras, and find to be a significantly pleasing compositional aid for the 3:1 panorama format I so enjoy ...</p>

<p>.</p>

[robert_paul1]

<p>Peter, please share a picture of your <strong>ALPHA</strong> slr. I'd love to see a picture of your <strong>Alpha</strong> . If not, then please post the name of your <strong>Alpha</strong> .</p>

<p>As for your request for a "switchable mask in the Alpha viewfinder", I hope you realize that we are now living in the age of <strong>digital</strong> imaging and to include a panoramic mask is just dumb! When we lived in the 'film' age, you couldn't easily make a panoramic from several differnt shots, so you would have to crop from one negative to make your 3:1 panoramic. Today you just use PhotoShop, or some other stitching program. By stitching together sevral shots, you'll have an image with a higher pixel count than you would if you cropped a single shot. I mean why would you buy a 12MP dslr if you're going to crop out 8MPs? Just stitch three to four 12MP shots and you'll end up a final image of over 30 MPs. I have a 5MP P&S camera and regularly stitch together 6-7 individual shots.</p>

<p>Why don't you just use the old trick of forming an 'L' shape with your thumb and forefinger, then connect the forefinger of your left hand to the thumb of your right hand, and the forefinger of your right hand to your thumb of your left hand. This will form a rectangle and by adjusting the size of the opening and by moving your hands closer or further away from your eye, you can see what a good idea of what your panoramic will look like. Or, if you don't like that, then get a piece of stiff paper and cut out a 3:1 rectangle from the middle. Use this mask to give yourself an idea what the panoramic will look like.</p>

<p>Peter, there are any number of good used DSLRs on the market, as well as photo editing software. You should move into the digital world instead of using a film scanner like you've been doing. Or, when you go to have your film processed, have the lab put your negatives on a CD. I found this was very useful, rather than trying to scan individual strips of negatives myself.</p>

[wayne_naughton]

<p>One thing from a non northern hemisphere person...... when i bought my A900 the camera, with flash and grip was about $1200 cheaper to buy in Aus after taking exchange rates to account! Methinks you yankees were being ripped off.....</p>

<p>Sony jacked their lens prices up something fierce last month, a very strange thing to do given the current economic environment</p>

[robert_paul1]

<p>Wayne, the pricing structure for the lenses is due to the strength of the Yen versus the different currencies. I think the US Dollar lose some 15% from a couple of years ago. Sony is not the only Japanese company that has been forced to do so. The realm of international finance is very complicated.</p>

[wayne_naughton]

<p>Yeah, that was their excuse....but a 10% plus increase in their already overpriced lens catalogue? The 70-400G costs over 3K now.....not for me thankyou.....</p>

<p>wayne</p>

[rickeselgroth]

<a href="http://www.sonystyle.com/webapp/wcs/stores/servlet/ProductDisplay?catalogId=10551&storeId=10151&langId=-1&productId=8198552921665529564"> <img src="http://www.sonystyle.com/wcsstore/SonyStyleStorefrontAssetStore/img/195x128/SAL70400G.jpg" alt="SAL-70400G" width="195" height="128" /> </a>

<!-- End Image --> <!-- Start Product Info -->

 

 

<h3 ><strong>NEW!</strong> </h3>

 

<h3><a href="http://www.sonystyle.com/webapp/wcs/stores/servlet/ProductDisplay?catalogId=10551&storeId=10151&langId=-1&productId=8198552921665529564"><strong></strong> </a></h3>

<h2><a href="http://www.sonystyle.com/webapp/wcs/stores/servlet/ProductDisplay?catalogId=10551&storeId=10151&langId=-1&productId=8198552921665529564">70-400mm f/4-5.6 G-Series Telephoto Zoom Lens</a></h2>

 

<p > $1,599.99</p>

<p >What are yu talking about Wayne ?<br /> </p>

[samn]

<p>Drool, maybe rather than a A700 and if it is really G series quality glass. I gotta spend money, just can't make up my mind on what.</p>

[rickeselgroth]

<p>I've got the 70-300G SSM and it's a great lens and I've heard nothing but good about the 70-400G SSM.<br /> Why wouldn't it be G quality glass, the other one is.<br>

<a href="http://www.sonystyle.com/webapp/wcs/stores/servlet/ProductDisplay?catalogId=10&storeId=10151&langId=-1&productId=8198552921665345645"> <img src="http://www.sonystyle.com/wcsstore/SonyStyleStorefrontAssetStore/img/195x128/SAL70300G.jpg" alt="SAL-70300G" width="195" height="128" /> </a></p>

<!-- End Image --> <!-- Start Product Info -->

<h3><strong></strong></h3>

<p><strong> </strong></p>

<h3>Model Number: <a href="http://www.sonystyle.com/webapp/wcs/stores/servlet/ProductDisplay?catalogId=10&storeId=10151&langId=-1&productId=8198552921665345645"> <strong>SAL-70300G</strong> </a></h3>

<h2><a href="http://www.sonystyle.com/webapp/wcs/stores/servlet/ProductDisplay?catalogId=10&storeId=10151&langId=-1&productId=8198552921665345645">70-300mm f4.5-5.6 G-Series Telephoto Zoom Lens</a></h2>

<p>Recreate the moment with precision and clarity when you attach this G-Series 70-300mm f4.5-5.6 telephoto zoom lens to your powerful α(alpha) DSLR camera. <br /> <br /> <img src="http://www.sonystyle.com/wcsstore/SonyStyleStorefrontAssetStore/img/global/G_series_logo.gif" alt="" /></p>

[wayne_naughton]

<p>I priced it in Aus. dollars Rick. prices ranged from a very dubious 2.7k to 3.4k. It was available at Michaels in Melbourne for 3k. It would be a huge saving for me to buy wherever you're quoting from.... </p>

[rickeselgroth]

<p>Wayne, both at <a href="http://www.sonystyle.com/webapp/wcs/stores/servlet/CategoryDisplay?catalogId=10551&storeId=10151&langId=-1&categoryId=3768&N=4294966274">α (alpha) Digital SLR Cameras | Sony | SonyStyle USA </a> <br /> Sorry Wayne this is in US dollars. But our price didn't change on the 70-400. The 70-300 went from 799.99 up to 849.99</p>

[wayne_naughton]

<p>It appears Sony don't have much time for their Australian retailers......</p>

[jiun_der_chung]

<p>RP, in defense of PBM, whilst I can't generally be bothered reading his over-long posts, why is it not valid for him to shoot whatever he wants and achieve his results his way. After all, it is the results that count ultimately. I've got no idea which film "Alpha" he uses and frankly I don't particularly care.<br>

Take me for example, I have a A700 but I also have 2 Maxxum 7s and guess what, I use both! I scan all my film shots and I've stitched both digital files and film scans. Yes, scanning can sometimes be a pain but I've found the best balance between quality and cost is for me to have my film processed only and then scan only the images that I want. But I've also found stitching to be somewhat tedious and not always giving me the results I want and so I've recently bought an xpan to try out.<br>

Each to his own I say.</p>

[robert_paul1]

<p>Jiun, I really don't care what camera Peter uses, I just object to him calling his Minolta an Alpha, when it wasn't sold as such, when he bought it. His attempt to fool the readers, may fool some, but he's mainly fooling himself, and in the end looks foolish himself.</p>

<p>As for the comment about panoramic, my comment to Peter, was in regards to his call for Sony to include a switchable panorama mask in their DSLRs. The mask might have been useful in a film world, but doesn't make sense in the digital world. From looking at Peter's info, it appears that the only digital camera Peter has is a Minolta Dimage. I'm not sure how many pixels this camera has, but I'm sure it has less than 8. If he is taking an 8mp file and turning a single image into a final crop of 3:1. he'll end up with an image of less than 3mp. Therefore, most people don't make a panorama shot this way with a digital camera. With stitching software, he could take 3-4 8mp shot and stitch them into a much larger file, one that has plenty of detail.</p>

<p>His call for putting a switchable panorama mask is a digital camera is akin to calling for a hole in the grill of a modern car, so one could insert a hand crank to start the engine.</p>

<p>And Jiun, I'm curious as to what stitching software you're using? I use Adobe PhotoShop Elements 7, and I find it very easy to use, even if I'm merging shot from a digital P&S camera that doesn't allow me to manually control the exposure. I have taken shots that may have a wide variety of exposure as I swing the camera from one shot to the next, and then had to compensate for the different exposures. And even if I don't use a tripod/monopod to minimize changes in the angle the camera was held, and the fact that the shots had my head as the middle of the axis.</p>

[jiun_der_chung]

<p>RP, from what I understand from other posters, the line of Minolta film camera was marketed in Japan as Alpha. So I guess that would mean that PBM is technically correct but once again, doesn't really matter does it?<br>

The stitching software I use is Autopano Pro. I have used Photoshop Photomerge but have found that it doesn't cope that well with complicated subjects. Autopano has a pretty sophisticated way of stitching that copes very well with exposure differences, distortion and complicated subjects. It works well when the subject matter is totally static. However, what it doesn't cope with (and neither does ANY stiching software) is movement in your subject matter during the duration of the different shots. This can be anything from clouds to people to wind blown vegetation. So yes stitching is one way of getting a pano but it has it's inherent disadvantages.</p>

[robert_paul1]

<p>Jiun, normally it wouldn't matter, however, Peter uses the word, Alpha, to obscure the fact that he is not talking about a Sony digital Alpha. Since Minolta only used the Alpha name in the Japan market, the majority of readers of this forum associate the name with the Sony line of DSLRs. Even your post indicates that you were unaware of this until you read it here. The purpose of this forum is to help one another learn about photography.And, if we are to discuss equipment matters, it should be clear to all, what type of equipment we are talking about, so that we can offer insightful information to help others.</p>

<p>If we were talking a wide angle lenses for your A900, and someone said that he liked his 50mm wide angle lens, wouldn't you be confused? Of course the post is techncally correct, as he could be using a medium-format film camera and 50mm would be a wide angle lens when used in that format. Or, someone else using a APS-C format DSLR would say that the 50mm is a good short tele lens, which would be correct for that format. So, when Peter says he uses an 'Alpha', most readers would think he is talking about a Sony DSLR, not a Minolta film SLR.</p>

<p>But, enough about Peter. The problem you have with movement with clouds and such when stitching, can be hard to deal with. However, using a camera like the 'Xpan', would also have problems with object moving either in the direction of the shutter or against it. You can't complete avoid such problems. In my case, if I have clouds that don't match up, it's easy enough to clone a 'cloud', or if there the skies aren't all the same color, it is easy to blend everything together.</p>

[jiun_der_chung]

<p>The xpan is not a swing lens panoramic camera. I believe it has a focal plane shutter so whilst the curtain will need to travel a longer distance due to the pano format, the speed is still pretty damn fast, certainly fast enough to cope with any "normal" subject movement.<br>

Cloning in or out stuff is easy if the sky is uniform. A lot of my shots tends towards more a graduated colour or intensity in the sky from sunrises/sunsets and my experience (perhaps that should be my lack of skill) in photoshop is that I find it pretty much impossible to blend things in realistically. Perhaps you have some photoshop tips for me? But also in principle, I would still prefer to get the shot right in the camera rather than have to stuff around to fix it afterwards.</p>

[peterblaise]

<p>.</p>

<p>Thanks, JDC. I truly appreciate someone speaking up and encouraging RP to get along. It's a big group of photography lovers -- the more the merrier. I'm always surprised when any member of a group thinks their job is to identify "other" and exclude members from the group for one reason or another. </p>

<p>I love inclusiveness, and hope many Canon and Nikon and Olympus and Panasonic and so on photographers see how much their own gear has followed on, and has in common with, Minolta-derived gear, and thereby have no fear in joining us and learning and sharing as much as we all can. </p>

<p>----------</p>

<p>PS -- Almost everything RP writes about me personally is ignorable, inaccurate, not based on the slightest research, which anyone can do in moments on the web since I have been incredibly public with all my photography. </p>

<p>However, that being said, I find RP's contributions positively provocative, and I have learned much as a result, and I treasure RP's participation here.</p>

<p>.</p>

[peterblaise]

<p>.</p>

<p><em>Re: subject movement during discontinuously-captured panoramas versus one-shot panorama</em><br>

The Fuji/Hasselblad TX/XPan has a vertical travel focal plane shutter, offering speeds up to 1/1,000 second, and it's offering of 65mm width is not very challenging, so subject movement is hardly a concern much different that with other cameras with 65mm wide capture, though I'm not sure what the width of a capture has to do with <em>uniquely</em> capturing subject movement during vertical shutter movement. Also, it's 2.7:1 panorama, but that is 90% close to the 3:1 I "feel" when I scan any scene even without a camera.</p>

<p>----------</p>

<p><em>Re: panorama composition versus masked capture</em><br>

I never wrote that I diminished capture, though capture qualities can always be considered miscible considering output target, so who cares? I just saw a photo book on panoramas that was 6 inches wide with 1 inch margins, meaning that even at 300 dpi, that requires only 0.44 million pixel capture -- does anyone have a camera that can supply such photos for a profit-making publication? ;-) Oh, <em>every</em> camera can do that! </p>

<p>I said the 3:1 in-viewfinder mask as a great <em>compositional aid</em> , not a <em>capture</em> aid, though it is that too, especially when appropriate. After-capture cropping is not so much a pre-visualization technique, but rather, a post-visualization technique, as I find stitching to be. Nothing wrong with either technique, except confusing one for the other, I suppose.</p>

<p>----------</p>

<p><em>Re: Asking Sony for Minolta legacy features</em><br>

I wrote that I've given up expecting future cameras to offer panorama masks, among other things, including on-lens aperture controls (gone since 1985 -- and I blame <em>Minolta</em> themselves for that). There is a whole raft of Minolta camera features who's benefits I value that I never expect to see on a new camera ever again. </p>

<p>A900 wise, full frame capture without in-camera flash was truly a surprise to me considering the unique and well-executed qualities of the Minolta 9 AND all Minolta SLRs "beneath" it in the line.</p>

<p>I also use in-camera flash a great deal, finding it's convenience irreplaceable, and it's potential for assisting me in making pleasing and revealing images a boon. Not all photographers like to control the light by bringing their own light, and truly Alpical DRO Dynamic Range Optimization has the ability to pull up the midrange and shadow exposure in smooth balance with not blowing out highlights, as can sometimes be done post-capture, so the need for in-camera daylight fill flash is diminishing as digital sensors and post-processing algorithms get more sophisticated. However, Apical is not supplemental subject scene lighting, can't do much in the dark, and is not present in Raw -- but it does work in museums, so that's a plus! I do believe, however, that Sony is trying to get <em>in-camera JPGs</em> to be stock-photo-submission-ready, so Raw is less important to Sony ... and Zeiss (another thread, along with both abandoning color accuracy -- "field day" alert).</p>

<p>----------</p>

<p><em>Re: Only From The Mind Of Minolta ... and attempted partners</em><br>

Speculation wise, heck, if Sony hadn't stepped in and quashed Minolta's budding relationship with Foveon, maybe we'd have a Minolta Foveon four-thirds DSLR range today (Vectis II?), with Olympus and Panasonic and Leica and Sigma following Minolta <em>in public</em> rather than <em>behind the scenes</em> . (Did I just declare yet another "field day"?)</p>

<p>----------</p>

<p><em>Re: Alpha logo'd SLRs</em><br>

Thanks, Rick, for confirming <em>in-thread</em> for almost everyone that Minolta marketed Alpha-logo'd cameras since 1985. Of course all cameras using the Alpha lens mount have been considered Alphas or Alpha Mount Cameras or A-mount for short, regardless of the Alpha logo. Who else among us has an in-camera panorama mask? ;-)</p>

<p>----------</p>

<p><em>Re: on-line research</em><br>

We all can use Google in new and clever ways to look for and find everything inaccurate in RP's speculations. Won't that educational and fun? Works for me!</p>

<p>For instance, what's the "crop" factor of the FIRST Alpha DSLRs? I've noted 1/2 (1995), and 1/1.5 (2004). Hint: "<em>Sherman, set the way-back machine for 1987 ...</em> "</p>

<p>----------</p>

<p>I just re-read the entire thread and I am lost to understand the source of misunderstandings -- certainly nothing INSIDE this thread is unclear to me.</p>

<p>.</p>

[robert_paul1]

<p>Peter, I'm not trying to exclude you, just trying to make sure that you clarify what you mean when you use the word 'Alpha', as the rest of the posters here accept it to mean <strong>SONY</strong> DSLR products. If you can't accept this, then it is you who is not trying to get along with others.</p>

<p>As for my comments about you being "ignorable, inaccurate, not based on the slightest research", this is not true. You mentioned that you don't like the A900 because it doesn't have a built-in flash on more than one occasion. And you had earlier posted that one of the things you don't like about the A900 was that it was 'too expensive', yet in another post, you said you could afford it, which would mean that it isn't too expensive. So which is it?</p>

<p>I may not have 'researched' you, but I have read (some) of your posts, and have gleaned these bits of information that you, yourself, have posted about yourself. So, if my posts regarding you are 'ignorable' and 'inaccurate', then it is because you have posted 'ignorable' and 'inaccurate' information about yourself. Don't blame me when I use your words against you. You always ask others to post pictures and to give more information, yet when you are asked to do likewise, you take umbrage.</p>

<p>You don't like it when the posts become a 'Peter' post, yet they become so, because you have a propensity to turn the conversation away from the original topic with you posting of information that has no direct connection to the topic on hand. Look at the original post on this topic about the price decrease on the A900. Your first post on the topic. You begin your post with- "Well, here's an opportunity to discuss that <strong><em>the Sony Alpha DSLR-A900 is more than a sensor</em> </strong> -- full frame and 24 million pixels -- but <strong>it is a <em>total system</em> </strong> including ergonomics, viewfinder, and a whole raft of <em>features and benefits</em> ." What does that have to do with the original topic? Have you even tried to discuss the oringinal topic in any of your postings on this subject? And this is not the only time you have hijacked the topic.</p>

<p>Peter if you wish to discuss other topics, why don't you start your own topic, rather than hijacking someone else's?</p>