Blasphemy

[Bill Pierce]

Here's something sinfully off topic. Supposedly, on the 17th, 4 days from now, Canon will send emails to select friends and family detailing a new version of the 5D. In this age, it's already an old camera ready for a major upgrade, but it is also one of the most popular DSLRs among pro and amateur users. Now I know this is supposed to be a rangefinder forum and we are all rangefinder users. But tools are tools. Most of us who own a hammer also own a saw. And there are a not only DLSR users here, but 5D users. Can we outguess the rumor mill or at least come up with an intelligent wish list of features for this new workhorse?

I'll start. My guess and my wish is for a 14 bit file. I'll take anything that will give me more exposure latitude or tonal range (same thing really), even if it's just 2 bits worth.

Bill

[photogdave]

I think it's a pretty safe bet we'll see higher ISO settings with improved noise reduction, Digic IV processor, larger buffer and faster fps, more durable body and shutter with some degree of weather sealing. Oh yeah, Live View too.

[Harry Lime]

Can we outguess the rumor mill or at least come up with an intelligent wish list of features for this new workhorse?

I'll start. My guess and my wish is for a 14 bit file. I'll take anything that will give me more exposure latitude or tonal range (same thing really), even if it's just 2 bits worth.

Bill


My guess:

14bit A/D
16-21MP
12800 asa max
Weather sealing
8.5 stops range
Video?


I bought a Nikon D700 last week. Used to have a 5d, but sold it because apparently I am allergic to Canon ergonomics. Nice cameras, but we were not meant to be.

The D700 is very nice.
1600 / 3200 asa are amazing.
6400 asa looks like 400asa color neg.
25,400 asa looks like color TMY3200.

But as always it's like shooting slide film. 8.5 stops is just not the same as the 12 you get out of Tri-X or Portra 400.... I really wish the manufacturers will get over the mega-squiggle war and concentrate of increasing dynamic range. I would settle for 12-16MP, if it had a true 12 stops of range and 16bit color...

The guy in the store thought I was nuts when he saw me mount a black and chrome Nikkor H.C 2/50 on it...

[Harry Lime]

I'll start. My guess and my wish is for a 14 bit file. I'll take anything that will give me more exposure latitude or tonal range (same thing really), even if it's just 2 bits worth.

Bill

Hey Bill -

From what I understand dynamic range is the amount of 'zones' that can be captured between black and white. Extra bit depth gives you more steps. between the two. So, 16 will not get you more dynamic range, but tonal resolution. We need to increase both...

Picture this. If you had a sensor that captured 10 stops between black and white, but was only 8bit you would only have 256 shades of gray to describe the image between black and white (Zone 0-10). With 12bit I believe you would have 4096 steps of grayscale etc etc...

[Bill Pierce]

Harry -

I think you're right on bit depth. And, like you, I'm not thrilled at the tonal limits of digital. I spent a lot of time shooting color transparencies for the mags who liked how easy it was to edit the raw film. So exposing for highlight detail before it becomes cellophane or digital cellophane is second nature, but I still love Tri-X and neg above all. That limited range is for me the biggest drawback of digital.

I have a friend who is one of the technical wizards at one of the big camera companies. Next time I see him, I'll ask him about brightness range and also ask him if he knows what the M8 is really doing to its raw files.

Bill

[Ronald_H]

But as always it's like shooting slide film. 8.5 stops is just not the same as the 12 you get out of Tri-X or Portra 400....

Amen!

I really agree with this.

[MichaelW]

Safe bet it'll be a full frame 50D, more or less.
They don't really have to do much with it, just bring it up to date.

[oscroft]

I was talking to a friend who uses a 5D just a few days ago. We were talking about a comparison with the Nikon D700 that has recently been published by Amateur Photographer in the UK, and what was interesting about it was that though the Nikon is much more advanced in lots of technical areas, there really wasn't much to choose between them in low ISO image quality.

Anyway, we tried to guess what the new 5D might include, and came up with the following, short, wish list...

Better bit depth for better tonal gradation.
Better high ISO performance (Nikon wipes the floor with the current 5D).
Faster data I/O.

And that, pretty much, was it. Neither of us cared a hoot how many focus/metering spots it has - one is enough as long as we can see where it is, though three or four might be useful on occasions, but 51 (or whatever the Nikon count is)?!

And we're really not interested in how many different fancy ways there are to organise a vast multitude of menus - we'd much rather see a camera that doesn't need a thicker operating manual than the Space Shuttle.

So my hope, at least, is that they've concentrated on a small number of genuinely valuable improvements and got them right rather than overwhelming us with secondary "features".

[Harry Lime]

Harry -

I think you're right on bit depth. And, like you, I'm not thrilled at the tonal limits of digital. I spent a lot of time shooting color transparencies for the mags who liked how easy it was to edit the raw film. So exposing for highlight detail before it becomes cellophane or digital cellophane is second nature, but I still love Tri-X and neg above all. That limited range is for me the biggest drawback of digital.

I'm in the same boat. I feed my M's with Tri-X and use a divided developer. I'm certain that I am getting something along the lines of 12 stops of range out of it and when the highlights do max out they 'fail' gracefully.

When ever I shoot digital I keep telling myself that I am shooting Kodachrome. The D700 is more forgiving than Kodachrome, but not even in the same ballpark as negative film. I'm finding it really difficult to do street photography with digital, because it can be very unforgiving, when it comes to exposure errors.


I have a friend who is one of the technical wizards at one of the big camera companies. Next time I see him, I'll ask him about brightness range and also ask him if he knows what the M8 is really doing to its raw files.
Bill

That would be great.

The M8 appears to use a variable compression scheme. In simple terms less energy (Photons) is present in the lower zones, so you want to apply less compression in order to retain information. In the upper zones there is more energy present, so it is less likely to show the effects of compression. Basically the compression ratio increases, as you travel up in zones. This is a very clever trick, but I would still like to see the option of simply writing out a straight 16bit file. Apparently the prototypes were able to do this. But this still doesn't solve the problem that like nearly all DSLR cameras the M8 is stuck at around 8 stops.

The Fuji FInepix S5 Pro hit 10 stops using it's SuperCCD, but it was only 6MP.
I would love to see a full frame version of that sensor in a D700 body...

[Gabriel M.A.]

Now I know this is supposed to be a rangefinder forum and we are all rangefinder users. But tools are tools.
We know; the tools always compare the 5D with the M8.

Oh oh oh, you mean working tools. My bad. :o


Most of us who own a hammer also own a saw.

What a waste, Bill. Everybody knows that duct tape is the best tool on the planet. Anybody who says any different is an elitist and can't stand debate.

:angel:


Disclaimer for the Tongue-in-Cheek impaired: I agree with Bill.

[willie_901]

Good point about bits, dynamic range, and tonality depth.

Nikon (Active D-Lighting) and others use a similar compression scheme. These compression methods help, but they are like putting a band-aid on a sucking chest wound. If you look at http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/nikond300/page20.asp, you will see what I mean.

According to DPreviews tests, the M8 has a "usable" dynamic range of 8.4 stops at ISO 160 and the D300 has 8.8 stops at ISO 200. So both cameras have similar and limited (compared to negative film) dynamic ranges. This is empirical evidence that the compression methods will help with shadow recovery, but not with dynamic range.

By the way, different cameras may have similar dynamic ranges but they do not necessarily span the same range of E.V. values. Some are better at low E.V. at the expense of high E.V., and vice-versa (http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/leicam8/page14.asp).


willie

[Bill Pierce]

[QUOTE=Gabriel M.A.;895007Everybody knows that duct tape is the best tool on the planet.[/QUOTE]

I think it's neck and neck with Saran Wrap.

[Harry Lime]

Good point about bits, dynamic range, and tonality depth.
Nikon (Active D-Lighting) and others use a similar compression scheme. These compression methods help, but they are like putting a band-aid on a sucking chest wound. If you look at http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/nikond300/page20.asp, you will see what I mean.
willie

Well, Active-D Lighting is more like an in camera version of the shadow/Highlight recovery feature in Photoshop. The technology evolved from their p&s line to make out of camera jpegs look better (prevent blocked up shadows / clipped highs).
Active-D lifts the shadows and rolls off the highlights as they approach the clipping point. Active -D or the highlight exposure mode in Canon bodies does not extend the physical capability of the hardware. All the software can do is extract the maximum performance from the hardware. But regardless we're still stuck at around 8.5 stops.

[Bill Pierce]

Here's the official answer -

The EOS 5D Mark II camera has finally been announced! Here are its important new characteristics:

21.1 Megapixel full frame CMOS sensor (yep, you read that right!)
Self-cleaning sensor system, enough said!
900,000 pixel LCD screen, same as the 50D.
Video, real HD video output. This is a video camera as well as a still photo camera.
$2,699.00 MAP

Bill

[Harry Lime]

Here's the official answer -

The EOS 5D Mark II camera has finally been announced! Here are its important new characteristics:

21.1 Megapixel full frame CMOS sensor (yep, you read that right!)
Self-cleaning sensor system, enough said!
900,000 pixel LCD screen, same as the 50D.
Video, real HD video output. This is a video camera as well as a still photo camera.
$2,699.00 MAP
Bill

A PJ's dream come true? I'm not a PJ, but it sure sounds like it.

The HD video capture feature sounds amazing. If the image doesn't suffer from severe shearing when you pan or fast objects move through the scene (due to the electronic rolling shutter), this will be a stunning feature for journalists.

That's an awful lot of camera for that amount of money...

[charjohncarter]

Sorry, I don't get it. I have a DSLR (APS sensor) that has 12 bit RAW, whatever. Still, I agree with Mr. Pierce, dynamic range is the biggest problem with Digital. I'm sure the Nikon and Canon just hope that we will get over the dynamic range thing. And they (Nikon-Canon) with excessive marketing will convince us we don't need an increase in dynamic range. I think one company Fuji or someone else had a Fovian (sp) sensor that had two 'layers' of sensors that increased the tonal range and as far as I know it hasn't been a success, so maybe they have already won.

[sonofdanang]

Sorry, I don't get it. I have a DSLR (APS sensor) that has 12 bit RAW, whatever. Still, I agree with Mr. Pierce, dynamic range is the biggest problem with Digital. I'm sure the Nikon and Canon just hope that we will get over the dynamic range thing. And they (Nikon-Canon) with excessive marketing will convince us we don't need an increase in dynamic range. I think one company Fuji or someone else had a Fovian (sp) sensor that had two 'layers' of sensors that increased the tonal range and as far as I know it hasn't been a success, so maybe they have already won.

No, they'll get there, eventually. The progress of technology, according to Ray Kurzweil, is exponential. He has the data to back it up. Next year, R&D will move twice as fast as this year. Look how far the digicam has come in what, 7 years? In the meantime the marketing wonks will do their best to make us forget about dynamic range but it's academic: those of us who are aware of DR will never forget it as it is as apparent as sunlight, and those who aren't don't care.

You are right, Fuji indeed did have a pseudo 12mp dSLR (Pro5S, I think), but it was in reality just a 6mp camera. Didn't matter though - you can do a lot with 6mp. Without photostiching. It's a wedding/portraitist's dream. Very slow data throughput hampers its use in photojournalism. The P&S version, with essentially the same sensor material but in P&S size, the F30, at 6mp or so, puts a lot of APS-C equipped dSLRs to shame in low light. Those that own them don't get rid of them.

Things are just starting to get interesting. In less than 2 years, I'll wager, critical focus with EVFs will be a non-event (interesting to see what the Lumix G1 offers in this regard) and in 3 years dynamic range will be at 12 stops. What will be interesting is when the ISO can be varied across the sensor, much like the human eye.

If you really want IQ, use medium or large format and scan - dynamic range notwithstanding.

Bill, I have a 5D. I have a substantial investment in Nikon glass. I have an adapter. If I were to contemplate another 5D (as I haven't played with the new one yet, obviously), the ergonomics are the issue. I hate looking in a menu for something that should be on a dedicated switch. And that's what we pay for in F6s D3s and 1ds's and so on: direct access to important functions.

As well, I've got dings in all my camera bodies and cracks in the 5D. Nothing major but a tougher body would be nice. The only other Canons I own is a Canonet QL17 GIII and a G9 so I know nothing of the general gestalt of Canon's design in the digital world or the pro 35mm SLR world. It's academic for me.... Nikon FX and DX bodies. Or LF film - when I have the heart....

[charjohncarter]

sono, I hope you are right, but as you say d-cams have been around for many years and as far as I can see nothing has happened on my greatest complaint (dynamic range). We have lots of secondary improvements but not on this issue. If you are right, whoa, a lot of DSLRs will be on Ebay.

[Bill Pierce]

Bill, I have a 5D. I have a substantial investment in Nikon glass. I have an adapter.

Interesting, for a long time folks have used other than Leitz lenses on M's. I even heard Leitz lecturers in the days of the M3 and M2 telling students that they could mount Canon lenses on their Leicas until the could afford the "best." I'd guess half the lenses on my M8 are Cosina.

It didn't take long before folks also started mounting lenses and DSLR's that didn't have the same brand name. I certainly wasn't going to throw away my Leicaflex lenses. 28 to 400 fit on a Canon 5D with adapter. Much of Eric Meola's new India book was shot with Leitz 19 on a 5D. A lot of Nikon 14-24's are mounted on Canons. Folks are raving about Zeiss lenses on all manner of cameras. And with DSLR's, with the focusing screen switched to one recommended for manual focus, it seems human beings can rival autofocus.

Bill

[sonofdanang]

.......folks also started mounting lenses and DSLR's that didn't have the same brand name. I certainly wasn't going to throw away my Leicaflex lenses. .... Folks are raving about Zeiss lenses on all manner of cameras. And with DSLR's, with the focusing screen switched to one recommended for manual focus, it seems human beings can rival autofocus.

Bill

Indeed they can! My father, a PJ, was always looking through his camera and not firing - just pulling focus. Picking something and putting the camera on it with focus. Burning the neural path, he would say.....

I have a Olympus E410 body/adapter/Leica R 50/2 lens (my wife's) combination. I haven't had any real time to play with it - I bought the body to assauge my wife's grief over the demise of that dratted R4 body. It turns it into a 100mm on the Olympus but.... That lens really popped for her, so...Why not?

[BillBingham2]

The silly idea of having lots of menu options on computers is a pain in many applications as you do about 12 things all the time. Key board short cuts rock for tasks you repeat. It's the same thing with cameras. Forgetting focus, we really deal with Sensitivity (ISO/DIN/ASA), Shutter Speed and Aperture (f-stop) when we are looking at exposure. IMHO the vendor that makes a semi-pro camera that handles like an F2, OM-1 or F1 with those controls will clean up a sizable part of the market. Nikon is close from what I can see with their old AI glass on the D300/700 bodies (and the D200 I think) but Canon has gone the way of menus from what I've seen.

I'm not opposed to the bells and whistles, but when I want simple (straight forward) I want simple and those three controls are the core of what I want. I want to be able to change the resolution but it does not have to have the same ease as changing shutter speed. I do not want to have to take my hand off the camera to change shutter speed or f-stop, sensitivity might be OK.

I am impressed by the new Canon, same way I am about the Quad-Core HP servers. I'm happy with my dual-core MacMini.

B2 (;->

[charjohncarter]

I can't believe you guys. I had a Sony Mavica from 1998, it cost $1000. I still see no improvement in dynamic range. Plus, the color isn't very good on any of them unless you use the sterile, plastic approach of PS. I'm not saying that digital is bad. I've had 5 d-cams and still have three. I still use them, but they suck the soul out of my photos.

[sonofdanang]

Key board short cuts rock for tasks you repeat. It's the same thing with cameras. Forgetting focus, we really deal with Sensitivity (ISO/DIN/ASA), Shutter Speed and Aperture (f-stop) when we are looking at exposure. ...
(straight forward) I want simple and those three controls are the core of what I want. I want to be able to change the resolution but it does not have to have the same ease as changing shutter speed. I do not want to have to take my hand off the camera to change shutter speed or f-stop, sensitivity might be OK.

B2 (;->
And there you have it. Direct access...(the equivalent to function keys) No key combos, please. Drives me nuts to have to deal with "page two" functions, as we used to call them back in the day. I agree. Most dslrs will give you direct access to those three things but I will add to that list. Exposure compensation, metering (spot, ctr wtd, matrix etc.), flash curtain sync assignment, LCD on/off, etc. Essentially, the same things you would get on an F6 or the Canon film equivalent. And there is the challenge. Menus are cheap to build and install. Cheap switch panels that last forever talking to firmware talking to the camera. Hate it. Switches that only do one thing are usually bigger, need labelling on the body, and usually require intelligent placement on the camera, both from an ergonomic point of view and a design/cost point of view. Costs more. Menus? Ten little switches all in a row. Cheap!!! Drives me nuts trying to figure out the logic of why somethings are on some menus and why the menu with the most camera-specific stuff on it is indicated by a pencil icon. Mental.

Metering direct access control? On the prism, please. Auto focus mode control (and I mean all modes)? Next to the lens. LCD off? Next to the LCD, please. Sync control? Near the shoe. Maybe. ISO? On a dial and always, always, always, in the finder.

Menus are fine for inputting text into the files or setting up wireless systems (even that really should be simpler).

And bigger finders!!!

Oh yeah, how about a signature pad so that the model can sign the release and I can imbed a release into every image (face recog SW could be integrated here)....... Sorry. :D Just kidding,

But it would be nice... I have been using paper releases and photographing them right at the top of the shoot (I used to scan them) and including them with the photos in any subsequent filing hierarchy. It would be nice to imbed the release in each image. I'm gonna have to think about this one.

[sojournerphoto]

A 5D1 is capable of resolving around 11.5 stops of dynamic range in the right conditions. Obviously getting the best from it requires some careful technique. Getting exposure right is critical to avoid burning highlights beyond recovery. The 1Ds3 is similar and I would expect the 5D2 to be pretty much the same, maybe edging towards 12 stops. How you deal with this in printing is another matter.

Bit depth in raw is directly related to dynamic range as raw capture is linear data (unlike jpgs which have a gamma curve encoded in the colour space so dynamic range is not determined directly by bit depth). However, although 14 bits is capable of covering 14 stops of range, the noise floor limits the useable dynamic range to somewhat less than the bit depth would otherwise allow. But to knock an old tale on the head - raw bit depth does not describe the number/size of steps on a same size staircase - it gives you many smaller stairs and allows you to take several smaller steps in place of the first step on a courser staircase, which is to say it expands the dynamic range (as noted noise floor considerations aside!).

Whatever, nice camera.

Mike

[Harry Lime]

I think one company Fuji or someone else had a Fovian (sp) sensor that had two 'layers' of sensors that increased the tonal range and as far as I know it hasn't been a success, so maybe they have already won.

That was the Fujifilm S5 PRO. It used a custom 6+6MP CCD sensor. The receptors were arranged in a honeycomb pattern. In addition to the main receptor there was an additional smaller one that was dedicated to capturing the upper zones. The camera combined these two data sets in what amounted to an internal HDR merge. The S5 PRO got a solid 10 stops, which is about 2-3 stops more than anyone else. But it was only 6MP, when everyone else had moved on to 8 and 10MP. The AA filter was also pretty aggressive, so it was a little soft, but wedding shooters loved this camera. If you had to shoot a bride and groom in a white dress and tux, it was the only game in town...




Personally I think we need about 12 stops of range and at least 16bit color.

[Harry Lime]

Bill, I have a 5D. I have a substantial investment in Nikon glass. I have an adapter. If I were to contemplate another 5D (as I haven't played with the new one yet, obviously), the ergonomics are the issue. I hate looking in a menu for something that should be on a dedicated switch. And that's what we pay for in F6s D3s and 1ds's and so on: direct access to important functions. .

Ergonomics. That's the exact reason why I switched from Canon to Nikon. The dial on the back of the D-series drove me nuts. I even hated it back when I shot the EOS 1-V.
The D700 feels right to me (as does the M8, but it's too expensive...)

[Harry Lime]

A 5D1 is capable of resolving around 11.5 stops of dynamic range in the right conditions. Obviously getting the best from it requires some careful technique. Getting exposure right is critical to avoid burning highlights beyond recovery. The 1Ds3 is similar and I would expect the 5D2 to be pretty much the same, maybe edging towards 12 stops. How you deal with this in printing is another matter.
Mike

I hear this claim repeated quite often, but I have yet to see it in practice. I know that there are certain testing programs that will calculate the DR to this figure, but it flies in the face of anything I have experienced in real life. Also sites like DPreview do not rate the useable DR of these cameras beyond 8-9 stops. You certainly can expose for the highlights and then dig out the shadows (because of the lack of noise), but there still is something lacking.

I've been involved with digital manipulation for a long time, but I have yet to see a DSLR (except for the S5 PRO) that yields DR that is marginally better than slide film.

I'm shooting with a Nikon D700 right now and have developed the RAW files in everything from Lightroom and Aperture to Adobe Camera RAW. There is no way that these files have 10 or more stops of range. I see about 3-4 stops above gray and maybe 4-5 below (I tend to reverse the balance when I shoot). The images are very low in noise and the color is extremely accurate, if you WB properly, but in terms of DR film negative blows them away.

[kshapero]

I can't believe you guys. I had a Sony Mavica from 1998, it cost $1000. I still see no improvement in dynamic range. Plus, the color isn't very good on any of them unless you use the sterile, plastic approach of PS. I'm not saying that digital is bad. I've had 5 d-cams and still have three. I still use them, but they suck the soul out of my photos.
With you on that.

[pphuang]

That was the Fujifilm S5 PRO. It used a custom 6+6MP CCD sensor. The receptors were arranged in a honeycomb pattern. In addition to the main receptor there was an additional smaller one that was dedicated to capturing the upper zones. The camera combined these two data sets in what amounted to an internal HDR merge. The S5 PRO got a solid 10 stops, which is about 2-3 stops more than anyone else.

Actually, 11.8 at iso 100-200. http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/fujifilms5pro/page18.asp

But it was only 6MP, when everyone else had moved on to 8 and 10MP. The AA filter was also pretty aggressive, so it was a little soft, but wedding shooters loved this camera. If you had to shoot a bride and groom in a white dress and tux, it was the only game in town...


The camera has an interpolation algorithm that uses the info from all the pixels to give a resolution comparable to 10 MP. And the AA filter can be removed... http://www.maxmax.com/hot_rod_visible.htm

Which gives you a pretty amazing camera, despite its limitations. I've spent time with many other DSLRs, including the D3, but the DR of the S5 keeps me coming back. Unfortunately, this just never caught on, and the S5 may be the last pro DSLR for Fuji. They are now very cheap, and I've been tempted to pick up another body for back-up.

I just hope that this concept is incorporated by one of the "big boys" in the future...

[sonofdanang]

Bill, tools are tools, as you say, and to this several posters have used the word 'practical' and its derivatives. I think that this is what is wanted by people who work with their cameras doing something that they feel is important: practical tools. I've never honestly been distracted by some aesthetic aspect of a piece of equipment. I could care less about how the camera feels in my hands - one adapts, or if the aperture rings moves with silky-smooth - one becomes aware of changes which require servicing... you get my point. In fact, I've been laughed at by some because of the gear that I've pulled out of the bag while working. But it was always what I had to work with for various reasons - intent (choice) or constraint - economic, logistic, or on silly days, simple bloody-mindedness - whatever. I have, however, been grateful for a design characteristic - geared rise and fall comes to mind - or robust construction. I have even occasionally discovered something that I could do with a camera and incorporated it into work. An example of this would be flash sync/curtain control. I used to do time exposures with moving subjects and hand-trigger low power strobes to arrest motion to a degree along a time-line of subject positions. It was a hunt and peck method and now I can do it with more control. My control. Because someone in design thought to give me that control. And, to switch from verb to noun, I should be able, at a glance, without page-two functions, determine how the controls have been set. The tool should be able to render something close to its specs outside the laboratory.

Though I don't shoot film very much anymore, film is an elegant solution to image capture. There is nothing intrinsically 'better' about analog technology, but in the camera the application is sensible. Once out of the camera the medium itself is frail though, subject to damage from a multitude of agents. The workflow is tedious in many of its stages with access to the emerging created work available only at intervals during its life. The same could be said, to a degree, of electronic imagery. Or pottery, for that matter. I've never intrinsically enjoyed working in post - either in analog or digital. I enjoy the resulting image. I don't take direct pleasure in twiddling knobs, setting timers, using tongs, or typing at a keyboard. It's invisible to me, actually. It is just something that has to be done to produce the image. I enjoy what it does to and the final result itself. What it comes down to is what the mind behind the eye behind the camera is seeing and doing.

Having said all that, I find that I mostly accept the limitations of the equipment as simply being part of the equipment and either mitigate or incorporate them. More often, I incorporate. I replace equipment when it is no longer repairable.

Perhaps a cue from Epictetus could be taken: "By all means a new camera. If you get a good one you'll be happy. If you don't you'll become a philosopher." My apologies to the stoic and for the length of the post.