I'm feeling a bit philosophical today about cameras. I'm a gear head and I think, with my logical brain, that I should just be able to go over to the DXOmark site and scroll through the list of cameras that ranks them from "best" sensor to "worst" sensor, grab one of the cameras with the highest ranking (Nikon D810, Sony A7R2) and call it a day. If all that mattered to anyone was image quality (as everyone constantly says) then those two cameras would be selling like gang busters. The Nikon D610 and D750 would rake in some good cash among the less well-heeled, but no less fastidious, while the rest of the market would shrivel and die. But that doesn't seem to be what the irrational camera buying market is doing right now.
Of course, if we look at the big picture of all buyers; moms and dads with young soccer players, retirees on the trip of a lifetime, eager eyed students getting a first camera, etc. We can see that the majority of camera buyers don't subscribe to the idea that ultimate image quality is the overriding consideration for ownership. But, then, I am speaking directly to us. To me. To the ardent hobbyists. To the people who can tell you the number of custom setting channels on the Nikon D5300 even though they currently shoot with a Fuji XT-1. You know, the hard core. The real camera users.
Everyone I know who falls into our camp seems to be relentlessly trading or selling off gear with the intention of moving to some sort of mirrorless camera. When Panasonic and Olympus were really the only two pioneers, howling in the wilderness, and being snickered at by the bourgeoisie on DP Review, it was tougher to rationalize a smaller sensor, 12 megapixels in the face of 24, and a mess of noise at any of the higher ISO settings. Owners of professional DSLR cameras smirked about the different in continuous auto focus capabilities as well as buffer depth. And don't get me started about the hordes of people who bitched about the "primitive" state of electronic viewfinders.
Now these same critics are shifting in droves to mirrorless cameras. Not necessarily the models offered by the two pioneers but certainly mirrorless cameras as a subset. What the hell happened? Probably exactly what I predicted back in 2012----some company had the brains and the balls to switch their entire full frame product line to mirrorless cameras and, consequently, they are taking the market by storm and doing it without a hint of competition from any other full frame camera maker.
Yeah. It's those crazy people over at Sony. The Sony A7 series is changing everything when it comes to high end camera buying. We who fear change can point out to anyone who will listen about how crappy the Sony batteries are while our Nikon and Canon batteries are capable of lasting weeks or months between charges. The giant-handed among us can moan about the tiny, "ungrippable" camera bodies. The casual reader of sports photography blogs and websites can regale a younger generation with comparisons in focusing speed and the ever elusive, "lock-on" powers of traditional cameras. And some whiny Wallys will continue to talk about "the crystal-like clarity of the optical finder." Like a picture window into the world.....
None of that matters to the people who've used a great EVF finder and had the now mainstream (and revolutionary) experience of being about to look through the little peephole on the back of the camera and see EXACTLY what they will get when they push the shutter button. It's a method of viewing that takes the STUPID out picture taking, along with the mystery. And it's the removal of mystery, and secret insider handshakes that steams some of us to no end. You see, we want everything to stay as it is. We've had to master things like metering and white balance just as computer geeks mastered SCSI connections in the 1990's, and we feel as though that should be part of the initiation, part of the hazing, in order to become a "real" photographer.
As more and more people (camera buying "unwashed" public at large) get chances to look through the new, magic peephole into ever better EVFs there's no way, even with hundreds of thousands of pounds per square inch of resistance to change, that we'll ever get this particular Pandora's Box closed again.
It's only a matter of time before Canon (the Chrysler LeBaron of cameras makers) and Nikon (the self-proclaimed smartest guys in the room) come to grips with the accelerating shift in taste and the adaptation of superior (and cheaper to make) technology in cameras and start introducing EVFs in their regular lines. Not some bullshit line of cameras meant to be marketed into a niche in a half-assed sort of way.
Here's how it will happen: The next generation of entry level DSLRs from Nikon and Canon will both "feature" a new EVF viewing "experience." They'll keep their lens mounts the same and just eliminate the mirrors. Sony will help Nikon, at least, with PD-AF elements on the sensors and rank and file consumers will notice no perceivable hits on AF performance. But they will love the ability to pre-chimp. You already see it everywhere. Half the people with entry level cameras use them all the time in live view. They don't like to look into the finders because they can never predict how that image in the OVF will look after the cameras do their mysterious work.
Once the "feature" is rolled out to the base consumer a new marketing tactic will be to tout ever improving EVFs as market differentiators. "our EVF has 3 million dots." "our newest EVF has five million dots so you can count the silk threads in your ascot." "Our EVF responds to change at the speed of light." "With our EVF, combined with our 13th generation wi-fi, you can now watch all of your favorite TV shows through the finder, or click instantly to capture images.."
The problem for everyone in the camera business is that Sony is just about to own the entire serious camera EVF market. Right now, today, they make three different full frame cameras, each with a great EVF, two with state of the art, 4K video performance. And they own a large part of what's left of the point and shoot marketing (RX100IV) and the bridge camera market (RX10ii) and the current highest end, high res advertising cameras, the A7R2.
If Nikon and Canon don't move now: today: immediately, to buy into what is a profound and seismic change in the way we all use our cameras then, in a few years, we won't even have the burden of having to choose between brands. At that point, if you are looking for a full frame camera it will be a Sony.
I have resisted so far. I don't like the sound of the shutter in the one body that seems cost effective and interesting to a portrait photographer (the A7II). I don't like the battery situation in the one camera definitely aimed at those who want to produce video (the A7S2) and I'm not interested in spending the extra cash for the high res model in the line up. Not when what I have still works. I am, after all, in that cohort of users who did have to learn the hard way.
Interesting data points for me were: the observation of so many Sony A7 series users at SXSW when the years before they were almost non-existent. Also interesting to me that my local camera store contact tells me that people (with money and expertise) are switching to the mirrorless Sony product from their traditional tools at an ever increasing rate. 2 to 1 or 3 to 1 over the traditionals...
I'm not (yet) a Sony fanboy. I felt a bit burned by their defecto abandonment of the translucent mirror series of cameras (a77, a99). They keep that system lingering on life support. I am sure they intend to pull a "Samsung" on the line but they seem to be doing it through a long campaign of attrition and the hopes that the market in general is so camera ADHD that everyone will have switched away to other cameras before they have to actively pull the plug and deal with the marketing fall out. I'm pretty sure Samsung has contaminated their camera marketing topsoil for at least a generation....Not an event lost on Sony's marketers.
I'm writing this more or less to strongly suggest to Nikon (and Canon) that the EVF will be the make it or break it feature for them going forward and that the time for reckless caution is past. I'd like that next D8X0 to have a beautiful and enormous EVF. Hell, if it makes focusing and exposure assessment that much better which user in their right mind would resist?
edited later. Here's what I wrote back in 2012 for TheOnlinePhotographer: http://theonlinephotographer.typepad.com/the_online_photographer/2012/05/kirks-take-electronic-viewfinders.html
42 comments:
Yes. That's why a traded my Leica M240 for the new SL.
Keep up the good work, Goff
...and let's not forget that Sony has probably the worst customer support of any major camera maker. Meh. They have some things down pat, but unless they get their pro support up to snuff, Canikon will live forever...
I dipped my toe into the mirrorless pond with an Olympus EP-L2 for my daughter. That convinced me to get the Panasonic GX-7 when it came out. I loved the EVF and the silent shutter. What I did not like was that the mechanical shutter sounded like rusty scissors.
When the FZ-1000 was introduced I bought one to use for my jobs when silence and discretion were important. Not only was it a splendid performer but it made my job so pleasant that I shot way too much.
Not chimping made my changes of composition and location a breeze. I could just watch for great images.
Now the problem is curbing my enthusiasm for pushing the shutter for that delicate click of the mechanical (LEAF!)shutter. I came home from the most recent job with 2600 images as opposed to the usual 300 or so. Thus I spent way too much time trying to cull to the selects. None were excluded for poor exposure, just crap expressions.
John, I only wish that service counted for anything anymore. Most of my peers are not members of NPS or CPS, see cameras as mostly one year to eighteen month expendables, etc. I will tell you that if you are not shooting pro cameras in a maker's line all the service seems pretty much the same.
And, in the case of Nikon, just about everything is considered "terminal drop damage" by Nikon anyway, nearly always resulting in the need to ..... buy a new camera.
Nikon and Canon are still trying to sell "Your Father's Buick."
At least those old Buicks had great air conditioning. The first thought from someone living in Texas.
you are absolutely correct about EVF. Compared to the dslr mirror box design.... the EVF's are alive. I have two Olympus cameras and 7 lenses - a complete system. My preferred gear is MFT. I only use my FF cams when I must have more info/detail in an image and it's not that often. I'll hang onto my big gear (with 16mm through 400mm converage) but the EVF and articulated lcd's made life much more functional and enjoyable.
I am with Ed. I do mainly travel photography and still like great lenses. I use Olympus cameras, E-M1 and E- M5 ii. I do stills 100% since I like to print and don't like to edit movies. Had I started with Panasonic, I would be fine, but I started with the old E20.
The killer for Nikon and Canon will be building the system around their FF lenses, so everything is still very big and heavy even in their crop cameras.
If I were forced to leave MFT, I would probably have a tough choice between Fuji and Sony. For my work I really don't need FF, so Fuji might win. I would not go back to OVF. I am definitely a fan of EVF.
Phil
We live in interesting times with lots of great choices.
Personally, Nikon is selling the Toyotas from the recall list. Burned twice from Nikon's stellar QA and repair service. I'd take a Buick GNX or even '63 Riviera any day of the week.
The perfect camera has Olympus and Pano size, Olympus and Fuji EVF, Nikon and Canon image quality, and Fuji customer awareness and service., sensor technology of Sony. As smart as camera guys are you would think one of them would put it all together. I am not sure Sony will be the one. They are missing the customer focus.
Well, I am one of those who bought into Nikon's "bullshit line of cameras meant to be marketed into a niche in a half-assed sort of way". It is a line that certainly had potential. My two V1s have been my primary video cameras for the past three or so years. They are pretty good stills cameras too. A number of us who bought these cameras have been hoping that Nikon will add to the lens line, as well as finally produce a decent advanced Vx camera that isn't ridiculously overpriced. Sadly, it appears Nikon will abandon this line, before it is properly fleshed out and has a chance to truly succeed. This comes at a time when you and others have been praising 1-inch-sensor cameras.
I think you are correct about Nikon creating mirrorless cameras that use the same F-mount that graces their DSLRs. A couple of their newer kit lenses supposedly have AF motors that work well for both CD and PD AF.
I'm not sold on EVFs. I've used the EVF on the GH3 and find the colors are off. Rather than pre-chimping, I evaluate the scene in my mind and estimate where I need to peg the exposure. I expect the GH4 EVF is improved over the GH3, but I can't get excited upgrading for something I don't find to be a huge benefit in the first place.
I remember the first time I edited a photo on a laptop (around 2005) and realised the world had changed forever. It had been 35 years since I'd had a darkroom, and now I could do in 15 minutes what used to take me all day. That was an expensive discovery.
I had the same sort of experience on borrowing a friend's mirrorless in 2013. I got it straight away, sold all the full frame gear and went APS-C mirrorless.
Didn't seem right that a 16 mp camera could do A1 size prints as good as a 21 mp full frame from a few years before, but I'm not complaining. Nor are my arms and back.
Tom, You know those colors in the EVFs can be calibrated, right?
I'm not sold on Sony locking up the FF EVF market or the FF market as whole. As a former NEX and a850 user, the problem remains the lenses. Here's an interesting exercise: go to B&H and look for lenses in FE mount, select only Sony and Zeiss, and switch to the grid view.
There are 18 lenses listed. Of those 18, only 6 are under $1K (and remember this is USD in the USA, about the lowest I imagine you would pay for these lenses...don't even look at them in CDN with CDN taxes). Of those 6, 2 are $998 and 1 is $950. One could reasonably say there are only 3 lenses in the lineup under $1K.
Those 3 sub-$1k lenses are the forgettable 28/2 ($450), the good but not overwhelming (and not competitively priced at all) Zeiss 35 2.8 ($798) and the standard kit zoom ($498).
Now I realize there are many people with significantly more disposable income than me. But for me, now that I've sold my Sony gear, Canon looks great. I'm going to buy a 6D and few affordable, very good Canon lenses. One thing I've come to learn about Canon is that it knows how to make really good lenses and, like Nikon, can offer options at multiple price points.
Perhaps I've missed the main point of your post, but I have a feeling that at any point Canon or Nikon could jump into the market with an FF mirrorless with EVF that would use the existing mount and Sony would go right back to third place. Sony's mount will always give them a slight size advantage but, overall, this advantage is not meaningful as the lenses cannot be made smaller and Sony is unwilling to produce things like affordable pancakes.
"I will tell you that if you are not shooting pro cameras in a maker's line all the service seems pretty much the same"
I do not agree Kirk.
What you say perhaps is true for USA but unfortunately not all over the world.
I currently use Sony while in the past mostly Nikon and Canon and I can tell that you there is a very big difference in service.
And I live in Rome, that is not a small city.
Last time I had to make some serious maintenance on my Sony equipment I had to send everything to Verona (north of Italy) because in Rome we have no qualified service, only dealers that charge you some more money to send your machinery to ... Verona
I have no problem with FF Canon and Nikon going mirrorless, but I think they should keep their EF/F mounts and should not need adapters. So we will have Canon and Nikon DSLR sized mirrorless bodies. I suspect they will go with this. The FF mirrorless gain some size advantage, but small size in cameras is not necessarily a plus - Olympus never became the leading pro camera in the 1970s despite its size. Comfort in the hand is a big feature. Small size means smaller batteries with less shots/charge. I guess what I do not understand is the excitement over mirrorless. If you want smaller then go for APS or MFT. Frankly I couldn't care less how I look at the scene and how is having an EVF a "revolution"? The real revolution is digital and we already have that. The removal of a mirror is an improvement only in the sense that it removes a mirror. I really don't need to see overlaid histograms and every single camera function cluttering up my viewfinder. When was the last time your mirror mechanism needed repair? I am sure they will go mirrorless but I am afraid I don't find it something that excites or dismays me one way or the other. As it stands I would much rather be able to shoot 600-900 shots on a single charge than have to recharge after only 200. There is no free lunch: if you want full frame and fast lenses and a wide range of lenses then the cameras and lenses will be the size they need to be whether EVF or mirrorless as Sony A7 users are finding out.
Dakar, the last time I needed Nikon service my camera had to be shipped to the service center in California. As I understand it there are only two service centers in all of the U.S.A. If I want Nikon service it goes into the Fedex or to the dealer who then sends it out. No magic candy here.
In the past I think Nikon and Canon did support more pros more effectively but as the pro market shrinks and pros use cameras not actually designated as pro bodies the service has changed. Just my perception.
Chris, Please don't misunderstand me. I am not in the camp that loves small cameras or endless reductions in size. Full frame lenses have to be a certain size to work well. The camera bodies should match. I want Nikon to continue with the F mount. I don't mind the big lenses. But unlike you I much prefer to use EVFs. If the small Sony batteries can power A7s for 360 images certainly the bigger batteries in the Nikons and Canons should be able to manage 800-1000 shots.
As to cluttering up your finder... most EVF enabled cameras allow you to turn off as much stuff as you might want to turn off in the finder. Sometimes nothing is good. Sometimes information is important; especially when your subject matter is fast breaking and can't be re-shot.
Canon Pro Service (CPS) in the UK - always 48 hour turnaround for me, and a reasonable cost - and I'm not an important customer.
I have no dog in this fight. I have an Olympus OMD system and a Canon 6D system and like them both for different reasons. But I'm basically a retro kind of guy, so I'm buying up Olympus OM primes to use with an adapter on 6D bodies. (And maybe sometimes on the OMDs.)
Kirk,
Yes absolutely I realize you can adjust what functions you see in the vf. I guess I just can't get worked up about how I see an image in the vf - electronic or direct from the lens is all the same to me. I do generally prefer the view in an optical viewfinder when "machine gunning" at a sports event though. I agree that battery life will improve for bigger EVF cameras (how is the Leica SL's I wonder?), but of course an optical finder camera will always be better in this regard.
As I've gotten older the desire to carry lots of heavy gear moved me to the MFT line of Panasonic. I have since upgraded to the GH4 and have no regrets. Teaching at ACC gives me access to the all the latest Nikon and Canon gear but except for the occasional use of a Metabones adapter for some testing I leave it all alone.
According to this poster over on dpreview, an optical viewfinder plus phase detection sensor must better because they are different parts and can therefore be optimized for their separate tasks. How about that... You heard it first on dpreview :^O
http://www.dpreview.com/forums/thread/3980513?page=4#forum-post-57479263
Bill W. The GH4 is a remarkably good m4:3 camera. It's almost like cheating...
It's pretty much an inviolable law that a mirrorless camera will always use more power (until they can get the power consumption of the EVF chain down into the same range as the energy requirements to move the mirror, which, I dunno, is that even theoretically possible? It's a ways off..)
This means that you're either going to deal with reduced battery life, or bigger batteries. That's not an issue for everyone, but on the other hand nobody anywhere ever can't make use of more battery life. This isn't megapixels or FPS here, this is like air. More is better, for everyone.
They're chipping away at it, both in terms of making the life longer, and the market more accepting of the limits.
Is there space for an umambiguously Big mirrorless, that uses the extra space for a really gigantic battery? At this point you're selling the actual advantages of the EVF and the mirrorless approach (WYSWG viewfinder, perfect focus, blah blah blah) rather than the ultimately less interesting "ooo, it's really small, and you can use antique lenses from Bazookistan"
i keep looking at the d750 or 5d3, but as soon as i look thru the ovf i feel as tho ive been teleported back 5 years!
I completely agree with you Kirk on all points, in fact I find it crazy Canikon have not yet gone down the EVF route, maybe they hope against hope that EVFs will somehow go away and all will remain peaceful....fat chance!
Here is a great reason why they should change, for pros at the very least......time. Yesterday I had to shoot 250 products on a DSLR, (no I didn't want to, it was just the specific lens I needed to use does not work on my mirrorless Sony, I need to get another adapter and didn't have time to do so...) Anyways, I can say for sure that all that post chimping easily cost me an hour and half, one and half hours I will never get back, and until I get to editing them tomorrow I am still not 100% sure I nailed the focus in just the right spot on each one. I would happily have changed the batteries a couple of times to compensate for that time/angst issue. Lets see extra 30 secs to change battery/1.5 hrs to chimp.....no competition there.
And to all those who wish to argue the contrary, the viewfinder is just that, a viewfinder, to help you frame, compose and expose your photo. It is not meant to be "the photo", spare me the oh but it is so nice to look through arguments, I have eyes which I can use to look at scenes, I need viewfinders that actually tell me something about the shot I am about to take.
Kirk, you must be mystified by what Ricoh just did with their latest Pentax-badged Ricoh camera.
I am. And I'll be surprised if they sell more than a few thousand... Who would need to switch? Why? Besides the fact that it's the first full frame from Pentax what exactly is its unique value proposition?
Good piece, with a lot of good comments.
I pretty much agree with you. I think Sony is on the right track, but they are a year or two away from a system that would cause me to pull out the credit card. That is, if they stay on track. The cameras are very close, probably close enough, but the lens selection is not there -- at least not for me.
Here's my big question: Say it's two years, maybe three, before full frame mirrorless is really ready. By then will I even want full frame? I have used 4/3 chips for years and recently added the 1-inch FZ1000. The images were great when I started and have just gotten better with each new generation. I have a D800 in the safe, and that is pretty much where it stays. Sure, the big, high MP files look great on the screen, but by the time they translate to a print on the wall the difference is utterly tiny. And on a screen it is even less. It would take a very sophisticated eye to consistently see the difference in the finished product. The only way I see for FF to maintain an advantage is with better lenses -- which means bigger, more expensive lenses. Will the tiny advantage be worth the price? How many of us will pay up?
And other thoughts:
I agree Canon and Nikon need to continue support for their lens mounts, but I think the way to go is to copy Sony. Design a new mount with a fully-functional adapter for the existing mount. Sell the adapter very cheap, maybe include it with the body for the first year or so. That should keep the existing users happy enough while opening up some additional possibilities for the lens designers. And it would let users adapt more lenses, maybe making for more sales in the long run.
Battery life is rarely an issue for me, more an occasional nuisance than a real problem. Longer life would be nice -- and for that matter a bit larger camera body would be more comfortable in the hand. But I could be happy enough with an accessory battery grip.
I bought into m4/3 for the EVF and the seamless transition between EVF and LCD viewing, not the size. I didn't realize how small the camera would be until I got it in my hands (no dealers in my part of the world so had to order online). I like the size when I'm grabbing a camera to toss in the car, but not so much when I'm on a job holding it for hours at a time. The larger FZ1000 is more comfortable for me when I'm really working.
Service is not a big issue any more, at least as I see it. It is all spotty, at best. If a camera goes down I have to assume it will be gone for some time. I buy mid-range and/or last generation bodies so I can afford to keep backups on hand.
In the end, I may dream of a solid full-frame mirrorless system, but in reality I expect the FZ1000 is closer to where I'll be three years from now.
"I can say for sure that all that post chimping easily cost me an hour and half, one and half hours I will never get back, and until I get to editing them tomorrow I am still not 100% sure I nailed the focus in just the right spot on each one."
Newsflash: DSLRs have Live View.
Reverse newsflash: Live view on DSLRs uniformly sucks hard and it eats batteries so fast you'll want to tether your DSLR to a Sears Diehard car battery. Let's not even talk about DSLR AF speed in live view, life is too short.
"I can say for sure that all that post chimping easily cost me an hour and half, one and half hours I will never get back"
Says someone who likely doesn't shoot wildlife or sports as their primary interest! (Not trying to be critical of anyone else's choices - just noting that there are photographers with different interests and needs, and it is nice to have the varied choices as long as possible. Me, I'd love an OMD EM 1 or 5 based on its size, but I shoot wildlife and I get dizzy staring at EVFs. The day the last OVF camera is out of my reach, I will hang up (or sell) all my camera gear and take up another hobby.
Cheers,
Ken
Yes Chris, modern DSLRs have live view, but my old and now rarely used studio Sony A900 doesn't! In any case I have had a DSLR with live view and it was useless in bright sunlight, had rubbish AF in LV and in no way was able to compete with the EVF options I have used, but certainly Live View suits many peoples needs, just not mine. I just can't think of a compelling reason for me to ever buy another DSLR, though I am sure other photographers can, which is just as well for Canikon.
Ken you are right of course, I never shoot wildlife, but I can imagine that an OVF may well be better for that, I have never considered that there may be some optical/visual issue with continuous viewing of an EVF, it would be interesting to hear if others have found this to be an issue too. Anyhow I agree, choice is great!
Given my association with Sony I will abstain from annoying fanboyism or biased comments about how tremendous their tech is ;) but I will agree with you Kirk about the influx of Sony users at SXSW. As a stills photographer, I am seeing my colleagues in the music photography community begin to embrace Sony but the real drive is coming from the video guys. Every, and I mean every, video rig I spotted at SXSW was a Sony. Amazing how fast that happened.
Hey Chad, Congratulations on your recent write up! Nice to see you posting here. And I will concur, every video production company in town that I know of has added A7S-2s to their inventory in the last few months. All of them.
EVF keep getting better every year.
some technical aspects that affect the EVF experience
1. refresh rate. High refresh rate = no flicker. Flicker is a real problem with early EVFs. Refresh rates will continue to increase. eventually, a sweet spot will be reached
2. number of dots. at this time more is better. again, a sweet spot will be reach in the EVF megapixel race
3. Image stabilization. either in camera or in lens or both. this removes the jitter in the EVF for handheld shots
4. ability to pick and choose the look of the EVF (what to display, adjust color balance, magnify, etc).
EVFs will continue to get better and do more while OVFs are about as good as they will ever get.
I got a reasonably unsolicited opinion on Nikon versus Sony a couple of days ago. I talked with a former full time, now part time pro photographer who is now a nuclear med tech full time. He was a long time Nikon user, most recently with a D300 (I believe). He said he was never really happy with the results he got from any of his Nikon digital cameras. He now has an A7R-2 and is very pleased with his results. He really likes the sensor. I believe he prints fairly large, 16 x 24 or maybe bigger. He also likes the image stabilization, the EVF and the quietness of the shutter (electronic mode?). I hope I am not misrepresenting his opinions.
All the pros I know are either switching to the Sony A7R2 or the A72, or they are adding them to a current inventory of Canon and Nikon gear. The writing is on the wall.
I tried adjusting the EVF on my GH3. It still doesn't look right. DP Review had the same problem. They couldn't get it adjusted properly either.
I owned two of them and found the EVFs to be pretty darn good for checking exposure, evaluating focus and fine tuning composition. The EVF doesn't need to be a perfect match for reality, just a very close match. I could never see color temperature changes or the effects of filters or settings in any of my OVF cameras. Still can't. And I must say that the EVF on the Sony RX10ii is wonderful to look at.
Post a Comment