S2 under pricing pressure

[AlanG]

Originally Posted by wildlightphoto

Thank you for the PM and the opportunity to see your work. While the technical quality of the photos are quite good by popular standards the fine detail drops out well before the sensor's limits are reached - whether this is because of the AA filter, the properties of the lens, or DxO's work fixing the lens' weakesses, I don't know, but the fine detail is missing.

You know your market better than anyone else but it would be a mistake to assume the equipment and workflow you're using are as good as it gets in small format.

I sent these privately because I felt funny putting links to Canon files on the Leica forum. They really are to demonstrate why photographers may be happy with 35mm and thus reluctant to move to MF. As for the AA filter, I'm getting all of the detail I want, and moire is a big problem with architectural interiors and interiors, so I'm glad it has one. Plus 35mm is much more convenient to shoot than using an MF technical camera. (Which also had a more limited lens range.)

Well, if you are going to comment on them publicly, maybe others will like a look. I'm not sure how much more fine detail you can expect or need to see when you magnify an image as much as I have here. The exterior was shot with a 24-105 hand held at f11 1/160 60mm focal length. The interior was made with a 16-35 series 1 at f8 19mm setting. All at ISO 100 on a 5DII. Perhaps there would be a tiny bit more detail if I used prime lenses, but my point was that this is all of the detail I need, so I prefer having the tight cropping and convenience of using zooms at times. I have several prime lenses too including 6 shift or TS-E lenses but I specifically chose examples from zooms to show that they're not as bad as people think - especially when they have no distortion and other corrections from DXO or other software.

You can download the files from the link below to see the images at 100%. (They are much smaller than 100% as shown on the Photoshelter site. So simply viewing them there won't tell you anything. Remember when viewing these at 100% that you are looking at a small section of a fairly large file so consider the area that is being cropped and reasonable reproduction sizes that would be used. A 100% crop of a 6 megapixel file will look similar but show less area of course.

Gallery Password Required | PhotoShelter
Password: Alan (case sensitive.)

[ptomsu]

Originally Posted by artur5

Yes, I bet will be exactly XY.999

Problem is, Canon 5DII/Sony A900 are now 2200-2500 Euro, Maybe less after the summer..
AlanG has made a good point on his post: DSLR 35mm.high end vs Digital MF.
I have no doubt that the S2 will be better than "Canikony" but, it's worth the extra cost ?. How many clients will need/demand the extra resolution ?. How many pros will justify investing so much money ?.
The law of diminishing returns is pushed at it's limits here, not only for the S2 but for Hassy and Co. too.

Problem for S2 is that current top range 35mm cameras (like 1DsMk3, 5D2, D3X etc) can produce already extraordinary results and are very fast, have a great lens lineup from extreme WA to extreme telephoto and cost a fraction of a MF camera or the expected S2.

On the other side you have all the established MF systems, Hasselblad, Phase/Mamiya, Leaf/Hy6 etc, which not only cover also the lower resolution MF ranges like 20-20MP with exceptional quality and prices not much higher than the current high end 35mm DSLRs, but also go up till 60MP already today with exceptional IQ in all different areas like color, tonality, dynamic range and so on and of course for high end process.

Now where does the S2 come in? Technically in the area between high end DSLRs and low end MF systems but definitely and clearly far below the 50-60MP MF systems.

There is actually a resulting price range from that which is very narrow and Leica has to be very careful not to overprice, otherwise not too many users will see any sense in buying into this system.

I would even go as far as positioning the S2 in a price range between 9 - 11 k€, more than that will be the clear end for this system. And a lens typically in the range from 2 - 4k€, as all the other MF vendors do.

My 5c

[carstenw]

Originally Posted by ptomsu

Now where does the S2 come in? Technically in the area between high end DSLRs and low end MF systems but definitely and clearly far below the 50-60MP MF systems.

On the other hand, the S2 comes in definitely and clearly above the 16-22MP backs, which probably comprise at least 50% of all backs in use today. If you then add in the 31MP backs, which are very popular, and the 39MP backs (the latter of which will be very similar in resolution performance to the S2), you probably have over 98% of the backs on the market, having less than or equal resolution to the S2. I think the placement of the S2 is exceedingly well thought out, in that you get the ease of handling and use of the DSLRs, with the resolution and DR of the MF backs. Only the 50-60MP backs will outperform the S2, but as you know, the step from 22-39MP is not that great for most uses, and the step from 39-60MP even smaller. More or less only the landscape guys can really put that much resolution to use, and a couple of very high-end architects and fashion photographers. For the vast majority of the MF-using pro photographers, there isn't a strong reason for a 645 camera vs. the S2 (neglecting price here, and keeping tech cameras in mind).

I would even go as far as positioning the S2 in a price range between 9 - 11 k€, more than that will be the clear end for this system. And a lens typically in the range from 2 - 4k€, as all the other MF vendors do.

That price dramatically undervalues the S2's specs, to be honest. The price should be on the level of a 645 camera with a 39MP back. Keep in mind that the S2's sensor is newer and will have better ISO than the 39MP sensors, and that the Leica lenses are almost certainly the match of anything else out there, and significantly better than some.

[guy_mancuso]

On the other hand, the S2 comes in definitely and clearly above the 16-22MP backs

I would not bet any money on this one. Need to remember the 22mpx backs are much bigger sensors to start and they are 9 micron. I have done more testing against my 22mpx against the 39 and 60 mpx ( 6.8 and 6 micron) backs than I can shake a stick at and trust me there is NOT that much difference. I think you guys need to remember there are folks that actually own and shoot these things. The S2 will be good but until that sensor is in practice and up against a 22mpx I would be real careful of calling anything better. I believe NOTHING until it is in my hands or for that matter on the streets. Way to much hype on this S2 than meets reality. I don't believe for a second it will be superior to anything in MF. It will be equal to a 22mpx back but MPX numbers don't mean much. Size and micron size are a much better judge of a back. This is basically a P65 sensor cut to size with a 6 micron back. Think about that for a second when a 22mpx back is just a print size short of a P65. Lot of theory here but not a lot of practice with these backs. I have shot almost all of them in the market. I did NOT pick the P25+ because of lack of money either. I'm ONLY selling my back for one thing to get a extra stop in ISO speed. It has nothing to do with the quality of the file.

[John66]

Originally Posted by carstenw

That price dramatically undervalues the S2's specs, to be honest. The price should be on the level of a 645 camera with a 39MP back. Keep in mind that the S2's sensor is newer and will have better ISO than the 39MP sensors, and that the Leica lenses are almost certainly the match of anything else out there, and significantly better than some.

It's interesting how we've all had our perception of "Value" skewed in these digital times, not just for Leica, but all pro equipment.

£10,000 is still a lot of money for a camera, regardless of what you can earn from it, particularly as it has such a short shelf life.

Even if the S2 is "only" £10,000 the real cost will be near double that by the time all the other essential items have been purchased to use it in its basic form. And if you're looking for a complete system it'll be in the region of £50,000.

Problem is, we'll struggle to give it away in a few years time - Leica or not.

However, one thing that needs to be factored into the equation is the growing confidence as to what is actually required over what is possible. It's quite refreshing to read what AlanG has to say on the subject. Yeah, he could deliver higher quality files if he wanted to, but experience tells him it is not necessary in most cases.

Guy too has made a very good point.

[AlanG]

Originally Posted by John66

However, one thing that needs to be factored into the equation is the growing confidence as to what is actually required over what is possible. It's quite refreshing to read what AlanG has to say on the subject. Yeah, he could deliver higher quality files if he wanted to, but experience tells him it is not necessary in most cases.

Guy too has made a very good point.

Thank you. Since I started using the 5DII in place of a 5D about two months ago, not a single client has said anything about the slightly better detail or the fact that the files are nearly twice as large. So I really wonder how carefully anybody actually looks at these pictures. Many times my clients have downloaded my lower res proof images and never asked for final files. When I questioned them, they said they were in a hurry and the images were fine.

When I started out about thirty years ago, I stressed image quality. My portfolio was 20x24 Cibachrome prints that I made myself. Everything was shot on 4x5. Some of my clients received b/w contact sheets from 4x5 negs and never ordered prints. It turned out they went to press from my contact sheets. Then of course some cared - especially architects and interior designers who made large prints for their offices. But they were not my highest paying clients and were often a pain to work with as they sometimes had little co-operation from the building owners. And a lot of magazines required 4x5 transparencies for submissions. 4x5 and the fact that color balancing and lighting was difficult limited the field.

In the early 90s we started scanning almost everything for delivery. It turned out that many clients only needed and only wanted to pay for 30-40 meg scans from 4x5. At that point I started shooting 6x9 on the 4x5 and 6x6 whenever possible because 4x5 was overkill if we weren't scanning to 200+megs. (By the way MF was often shot for the convenience of the Polaroids when 35mm would have been ok.)

So then I bought a 35mm FF digital not thinking I'd do much architecture with it. But when I looked at the files I saw they were comparable or better than the 30-40 meg scans I was providing from the 6x9 film. I showed my clients large prints and they all signed off on me shooting their jobs with the 1Ds.

So where is this long story going? Since switching to 35mm digital I have had way more work and made way more money than I used to make from 4x5. And I feel it is much easier to do a good job and provide my clients with a greater variety of images to choose from. It has been so pleasant to work with the lighter and smaller gear. I can shoot interiors at f8 instead of 16-22 thus I can use lightweight compact mono-lights. I am sure that MF has more resolution, but you reach a point where there is only so much detail you need to see in some things. (In one of the images on my link you can clearly see the poor job of wallpapering that the home owner did in the kitchen.) Now when I retouch an image it is hard to patch grass or insert some bushes because any defect shows. I may need to charge different fees for retouching depending on the size of the intended use as higher res retouching takes much more time.

And since I have clients that are happy with the way I am working, why should I buy some expensive MF gear that would require me to find new clients that require MF digital and are willing to pay enough more for it to justify my purchase plus a higher profit for me? If some high paying clients show up who require it, I'll get it. But without any real incentive to go to MF digital, I haven't done it yet.

[jaapv]

Originally Posted by guy_mancuso

On the other hand, the S2 comes in definitely and clearly above the 16-22MP backs

I would not bet any money on this one. Need to remember the 22mpx backs are much bigger sensors to start and they are 9 micron. I have done more testing against my 22mpx against the 39 and 60 mpx ( 6.8 and 6 micron) backs than I can shake a stick at and trust me there is NOT that much difference. I think you guys need to remember there are folks that actually own and shoot these things. The S2 will be good but until that sensor is in practice and up against a 22mpx I would be real careful of calling anything better. I believe NOTHING until it is in my hands or for that matter on the streets. Way to much hype on this S2 than meets reality. I don't believe for a second it will be superior to anything in MF. It will be equal to a 22mpx back but MPX numbers don't mean much. Size and micron size are a much better judge of a back. This is basically a P65 sensor cut to size with a 6 micron back. Think about that for a second when a 22mpx back is just a print size short of a P65. Lot of theory here but not a lot of practice with these backs. I have shot almost all of them in the market. I did NOT pick the P25+ because of lack of money either. I'm ONLY selling my back for one thing to get a extra stop in ISO speed. It has nothing to do with the quality of the file.

I guess we just have to wait until you get your hands on an S2, Guy In the meantime I still remember your position on the DMR, which was underspecified even as it came to the market and still outperforms most cameras in its class. Leica usually delivers in the field of image quality....

[AlanG]

Originally Posted by John66

It's interesting how we've all had our perception of "Value" skewed in these digital times, not just for Leica, but all pro equipment.

£10,000 is still a lot of money for a camera, regardless of what you can earn from it, particularly as it has such a short shelf life.

This is an important statement. Consider that the latest Nikon and Canon 12 and 15 megapixel $700 consumer DSLRs would do the job for a lot of photographers. And if they don't hold up, so? Get a new and better one instead of having your high end gear drop by thousands.

I have a shot that was made 4 years ago with a lowly Konica Minolta A2 "bridge" camera. It's a photo that I'm pretty proud of and also was very heavily published as it was used by a builder almost as a signature identity piece for several years.

[wildlightphoto]

Originally Posted by AlanG

And since I have clients that are happy with the way I am working, why should I buy some expensive MF gear ...

No reason to but since you keep droning on and on about how your 5D and 5DII are adequate for the task, I have to wonder why you're participating in a Leica forum?

[AlanG]

Originally Posted by wildlightphoto

No reason to but since you keep droning on and on about how your 5D and 5DII are adequate for the task, I have to wonder why you're participating in a Leica forum?

The chief reason I post on this forum is just so that you'll have someone that's easy for you to comment about.

Maybe Leica and others would like to have some feedback to see why so few working photographers have been choosing their gear over the past few decades. Rather than reading posts that say they make miracle cameras and magic lenses that are worth owning even if it takes months to get your lenses and rangefinder to work together. And another 5 weeks to replace a sensor that has a high ISO line in it.

Resolution is a bigger part of the equation for some shooters than it is for others. I don't think chasing more resolution has ever been a big priority for many other than those whose work demands more. Just because we can examine every image at 100% on a huge screen doesn't mean we should use that as a criteria for judging all photographs. It's OK for Leica to be obsessive to make the best lenses to meet those who look at things this way. But heck, Leica and its users didn't seem to realize that the lenses and rangefinders had calibration issues back in the film days. So they probably weren't looking at the resolution of their photos very closely back then. Now that's the first thing almost everyone does. Under that criteria, few photos in history would measure up. Even Ansel could have done better with some modern lenses and modern film.

But there always comes a limit to the cost vs. benefit to the user. And that fact - very high prices for the lenses, poor customer service, possible inefficiency across the board, lack of a state of the art competitive DSLR system, and a host of other possible reasons has left Leica in need of a savior. If Dr. K. knows what he's doing and has deep enough pockets, he might get this thing turned around. The S2 looks promising, but there's no price, it's not available, and we have no idea how well it will sell. So without facts, I'll just keep droning on... like almost everyone else here. It's just a bad habit we can't break.

Why do you post here?

[guy_mancuso]

Originally Posted by jaapv

I guess we just have to wait until you get your hands on an S2, Guy In the meantime I still remember your position on the DMR, which was underspecified even as it came to the market and still outperforms most cameras in its class. Leica usually delivers in the field of image quality....

True but your missing a key point in all that it beat the crap out a 16 mpx camera and being only 10 mpx. Like I said MPX is a bunch of BS it matters very little in MF as well. I am not saying the S2 will not deliver. What I am saying is it already is limited to the sensor size and that is not helping it much. The DMR has no AA filter but neither does the S2 and any other MF back so that equation is out, but size does matter and it keeps being pushed off to the back burner and in MF as the sensor size goes up so does the output. What I am really tried of hearing is all this hype and it is not even out yet. You can take the marketing and stick it in the sand box, it is meaningless to anyone that is already shooting MF. It is less than half the size of a P65 size sensor and all I hear is it will perform as well as one. Sorry that does not compute at all and it won't against a 39 mpx back either. People are having very unrealistic expectations here just because it has a leica name on it, if it was Nikon you would not hear almost any of this. The other point is and no one get's this either lens quality is not as paramount as 35mm is actually not even freaking close. I can bolt a 200 dollar lens on my back and it will still produce a outstanding image. I will get out of this because it truly is a waste of energy until it is actually on the streets but folks do yourself a favor, don't assume anything.

[dfarkas]

Originally Posted by guy_mancuso

True but your missing a key point in all that it beat the crap out a 16 mpx camera and being only 10 mpx. Like I said MPX is a bunch of BS it matters very little in MF as well. I am not saying the S2 will not deliver. What I am saying is it already is limited to the sensor size and that is not helping it much. The DMR has no AA filter but neither does the S2 and any other MF back so that equation is out, but size does matter and it keeps being pushed off to the back burner and in MF as the sensor size goes up so does the output. What I am really tried of hearing is all this hype and it is not even out yet. You can take the marketing and stick it in the sand box, it is meaningless to anyone that is already shooting MF. It is less than half the size of a P65 size sensor and all I hear is it will perform as well as one. Sorry that does not compute at all and it won't against a 39 mpx back either. People are having very unrealistic expectations here just because it has a leica name on it, if it was Nikon you would not hear almost any of this. The other point is and no one get's this either lens quality is not as paramount as 35mm is actually not even freaking close. I can bolt a 200 dollar lens on my back and it will still produce a outstanding image. I will get out of this because it truly is a waste of energy until it is actually on the streets but folks do yourself a favor, don't assume anything.

Guy,

I stood right next to you as you handled the camera yourself at PMA just a few weeks ago and spoke directly to the product mangers. Frankly, I can't believe you would say that the S2 is all marketing hype. You know I think the world of you Guy (heck, we survived each others' driving on the Autobahn, after all), but I have to respectfully disagree with you here.

If you recall, the DMR sensor (17x26) was smaller than the 1DsII sensor (24x36) in addition to being at a 67% pixel disadvantage. The full frame Canon's sensor was actually 95% larger in area or 2x the size. I agree that the AA filter on the Canon was/is strong and degrades a lot of the resolving power and I know this played a large role. Even still, the DMR's superior IQ was plain as day.

The P30+ sensor is only 7% larger than the S2, and depending on how you crop the image the S2 might actually result in a larger image capture area. Alternately, if you crop the S2's file to 3:4 the size difference will increase slightly in favor of the P30+. But, we are really splitting hairs here. The P45+ sensor is 30% larger than the S2, but the Leica is not at a pixel disadvantage like the DMR was to the 1DsII. The 39MPX sensor is also 5+ years old at this point. The S2 sensor is of the same current generation as the P65+ and promises much higher ISO performance and greater DR.

I do think that when you get down to the 6um pixel size (or even 6.8um), lenses start to make a much larger difference than they do with the 9um pixels you have on your P25+. The "fat" pixels are more forgiving, just as they are on a Nikon D3. But, as pixel density increases, so do demands on the optics. Why do so many Canon shooters use Leica R lenses on their 1DsIII bodies? There is a very real difference.

As for all the other "hype," what is to doubt? That it is smaller, more ergonomic, (much) faster, and totally weather sealed? Or that it offers both focal plane shutter and leaf shutter? Or that the LCD screen is actually as good as what is on modern DLSRs? Even if image quality is a total wash, there are a lot of other factors that make the S2 very competitive. See, I didn't once mention all that fast f/2.5 Leica glass that can be used wide-open at any focus distance.

I totally agree that a lot of this will be put to rest once the camera comes out in a few months. After hands-on reports and real images (maybe even some head-to-head shootouts), we'll look back and see how accurate the "hype" really was.

David

[ptomsu]

I fully agree with Guy and some others here who are fed up with all the hype around Leica!

Sure - the concept of the S2 is great and it is very promising, but - it is not there, nor do we know any price of the system, nor do we know how Leica will perform in support , nor do we know anything if the S System will also be abandoned in 2 or 3 years as it became popular with Leica (DMR, D System, R System) lately.

Just one more comparison here WRT sensor size: think about the FT system, Olympus made so much hype about and still tries - the biggest struggle with that system is now the sensor size, it is limited and so is the future evolution - not in terms of MP but in terms of sheer IQ!

Same thing is true if you compare the S2 and any of the state of the art MF back solutions. Simply the sensor size is larger and it will always be, so it will be much easier and cheaper to get better IQ out of a FF MF back compared to the S System. This is just physical reality! As is the reality with MF lenses, which Guy mentioned. So the big Leica hype about their stellar quality of glass is just meaningless in MF.

I dare to predict the following: based on given and available MF systems today many will just watch and see how the S2 performs, and only some will buy after time, once Leica has built up reputation again. If these numbers will be all right to make the S System a commercial success? Depens on the price, but once the price is up nobody will buy either. So this is the actual problem Leica will face.

No longer for me as I will choose either Phase or Hasselblad and just live happily with bad lenses, bad IQ and low prices and still be able to achieve what I need - high res landscape photos with outstanding IQ

[stunsworth]

Hold on Guy, wasn't it only a few weeks ago that you were telling us that it was the best thing since sliced bread? What happened? Did Leica turn down your request for a camera?

[stevelap]

I'll also admit to being a trifle puzzled by your last post Guy. I've not been one of your detractors, and have even sided with you before now, but as David hinted you do seem to have backtracked a little here.

Everyone is entitled to change their mind of course, but "late summer" isn't too far off now so it shouldn't be too long before we can make a more considered judgement.

[R10dreamer]

I agree. I think Leica didn't kiss up to Guy and it pissed him off. I don't know you Guy but I have been reading your posts in here for a couple of years. You seem to need a lot of attention and if you don't get that attention it hurts your feelings. You have done a great service in here with all of your "testing". Just try to enjoy the effort and don't worry so much about the acknowledgment. Have a great day.


http://www.garydwhalen.com

[georg]

"I would not bet any money on this one. Need to remember the 22mpx backs are much bigger sensors to start and they are 9 micron. I have done more testing against my 22mpx against the 39 and 60 mpx ( 6.8 and 6 micron) backs than I can shake a stick at and trust me there is NOT that much difference"

That's part of the phenomenon. All that matters resolution/IQ-wise is the system-MTF, contrast at given frequencies from lens+sensor/film. A 12MP-4/3-sensor + lens can deliver the same effective resolution-performance as a 35mm-FF-12MP-system when the lens delivers the same contrast at twice the frequency. The only difference will be sensitivity (4 times smaller sensor/photosites = 2 stops less sensitive).
But the three important CCD-generations from Kodak all have more or less the same size of photosites! Only the fill-rate was increased, the gaps between the photosites became smaller. The 22MP-sensors deliver a unique "look" because the lenses deliver higher contrast at the necessary frequencies.

22 vs. 39MP is "NOT that much difference" because of the limiting lenses (given a good shooting technique), "limiting" doesn't mean you hit a wall performance-wise, but as the aberrations are enlarged and the contrast fells more and more performance is lost - at a certain point you will end up with a high-res sensor which basically oversamples (happening also with many +20MP 35mm-systems) and therefore creating a "sharper"/"better" looking IQ than older low-res-systems - but that has very little to do with effective resolution or efficency!

What I've seen from the S2 looks very much like a 39MP-back + technical lenses or like DMR&M8 3.5x image size, That's hart to beat with regular MF-lenses and any back available (I'm sure longer lenses stopped down with the 40k$-P65+ will deliver superior resolution) and it will propably not be needed for every client. I see that some "professional" work for magazines is done with C/N and quite often that's noticeable in IQ - not in a good way. But I hope that enough people will find it interesting to use a 35mm-size-system with "only" 37.5MP very good looking pixels...

It's time for a new system, a new, different choice. Canon and Nikon use quite similar systems with the same strengths and weaknesses and the last two MF-systems from Phase and Hasselblad/Fuji are also very similar in many ways. 645-"cubes", similar materials, sensors, electronics, handling, lenses... Is this really all what demanding photographers wish for?

[ptomsu]

Originally Posted by R10dreamer

I agree. I think Leica didn't kiss up to Guy and it pissed him off. I don't know you Guy but I have been reading your posts in here for a couple of years. You seem to need a lot of attention and if you don't get that attention it hurts your feelings. You have done a great service in here with all of your "testing". Just try to enjoy the effort and don't worry so much about the acknowledgment. Have a great day.


GD Whalen Photography

Not wanting to speak here for Guy - he can and will do this for himself...

BUT I must say, every Leica customer, who did not get the right attention for such a high priced product like DMR, R System or M8 is pissed. Or at least frustrated and stepping back and waiting to see how all this will evolve.

I count myself into the area of frustrated customers!

And sorry, there are NO excuses.

[guy_mancuso]

Originally Posted by stunsworth

Hold on Guy, wasn't it only a few weeks ago that you were telling us that it was the best thing since sliced bread? What happened? Did Leica turn down your request for a camera?

I never said it was the best thing since sliced bread and never will first off so you can take that comment and put that back in your sandbox Steve you know full well that is BS. I did say it is extremely nice in handling , features and speed. I also said it has great potential. The leaf and focal plane shutter is a nice combination to have and very DSLR like. What your all missing the point is all I hear and David sorry you are the biggest offender of this is how great it will be and essentially kick all MF ass out of the water. Sorry that will not happen, It is not out and I never seen real files and no one else has either. At PMA only two lenses. There is no real talk of Pro support or it's features no commitment to real date of release, no pricing except to say it will be comparable to a Hassy. Is this a Leica or a Hassy sorry that is lame. It has a smaller sensor and integrated sensor which helps no one on tech camera's . It is a fashion ,wedding camera with a sensor slightly bigger sensor than a FF DSLR . That is what it is and all I hear is it will beat the snot out of a 39 mpx back and let's price it as such, sorry that does not compute.

David love ya too but you are constantly overhyping this thing and your a dealer how much Kool aid have you been drinking my friend. I love Leica gear but this is a oversized 35mm and nothing more with some nice features and hopefully some nice lenses. It is not a true MF but it is a true DSLR only bigger. It's a tweener and leave it at that because that is exactly what it is nothing more. Sorry Leica's track record has been piss poor and I have yet to hear a plan or decision on how that all will go away and be what Pro's expect. Seriously you want to sell this thing you need to sell the whole enchilada and all I am seeing are parts and not a system.

[stunsworth]

Originally Posted by guy_mancuso

...your a dealer how much Kool aid have you been drinking my friend.

Gramatical error aside, I think you ought to appologise to David for saying that.

You are ranting. Probably best to think before you post.