Every argument we ever tried to make about m43 - now DPR is a genius

[RS86]

https://www.cambridgeincolour.com/tutorials/diffraction-photography.htm

https://www.photopills.com/calculators/diffraction

Note that PhotoPills has a Macro Diffraction Calculator as well.

Okay, thanks, but I'm more interested in my questions on why it is made to look like a bigger problem for the format, when in my macro photography I don't see it as such. And by the looks of it FF can't even make f/26 DoF in a single shot.

 

[wimg]

Okay, thanks, but I'm more interested in my questions on why it is made to look like a bigger problem for the format, when in my macro photography I don't see it as such. And by the looks of it FF can't even make f/26 DoF in a single shot.

There is a diffence between lens diffraction and sensor diffraction. The first is determined bij lens aperture only, whichever you have chosen, set it to, the second depends on sensor and sensel or site size.

Lens diffraction and sensor diffraction together determine final, or system resolution. Theoretically, sensor diffraction is controlled by the nyquist frequency (half the sampling frequency), lens diffraction by the colour (or frequency) of the light passing through the lens, where for lenses generally an average is chosen based on green light, which is approximately in the middle of the visible spectrum, and happens to be the colour the human eye is most sensitive too as well.

Basically, it is really all about CoC, the circle of confusion - when is a point sharp, IOW. With sensors it gets quite complex quite fast, due to physical contraints and properties and the fact that many people try to explain this with complex physics formulas etc.

The simple explanation is to look at resolution, however, and use the same formulas we used to use back in the days of analog photography and apply that to sensor based systems as well - it is still valid, as you could compare sensor resolution to film resolution, by using the Nyquist frequency as the resolution of the sensor, IOW, by looking at linepairs per mm - lp/mm.

The original definition of a sharp image (area within DoF) dates from the 1930s, namely that a print viewed from 25 cm (10 inch) shows details of 0.01 inch or 0.25 mm. This can be used to calculate the CoC required in order to get a sharp image for any size medium, be it sensors or film for that matter. mOn FF this corresponds to a CoC of 0.030 mm, for MFT this would be slightly more than half that size, around 0.017 mm. BTW, human vision is about 3x better than that original definition, so for sharpness compared to human vision you should really divide these values by three .

Anyway, back to sharpness and diffraction: diffraction used to be indicated for film anyway with a scale based on Rayleigh diffraction limits, which is based on approximately 9% contrast levels. Lens reviews are often based on MTF-50, which is 50% contrast levels (which will therefore give lower results than 9% levels).

If you'd take the current 20 MP sensors of MFT as an example, you can calculate that their Nyquist frequency, or maximum resolution, under ideal circumstances is 149.72 lp/mm (note that for film used for normal photography, the best 135 B&W films got to between 60 and 100 lp/mm) . For a perfect lens this, as mentioned, depends on the aperture. At F/4, as an example, max. lens resolution is 400 lp/mm using Rayleigh, and 181 lp/mm using MTF-50.

However, that is not the whole story. System, or total or final resolution, is not one or th eother, but a combination of the resolution that the different components in the system have, and the relation is an inverse sum as well. Or, 1/(system resolution) = 1/(lens resolution) + 1/(sensor or film resolution). This means that under the most ideal circumstances, with a perfectly corrected lens, an Olympus Pen F with that lens at F/4 can generate 108.94 lp/mm in Rayleigh terms, and 81.94 lp/mm in MTF-50 terms. In the past the best lenses for film managed really only half of their optimum, resulting in 30-40 lp/mm for good amateurs, and about 60 lp/mm for professionals with their specialized labs. With much better lenses these days, and much higher resolutions of sensors compared to film, we have surpassed these results in 2005/2006 or thereabouts.

Now, as to macro, let's assume we are shooting at 1:1. At that magnification, the image circle is 2x wider than at infinity, making the image circle 4 times larger in area and circumference. This is two stops. That is also what you lose lens difraction wise, as the light bends more covering a larger image circle. IOW, lens diffraction is now as if the lens has been closed by 2 more stops than the aperture dial indicates. This therefore has direct consequences for sharpness in terms of image resolution, and therefore on DoF as well. Often, in macro, there is less detail comapred to "infinity" shots, so geenrally this is not a problem, or not a big problem, and stopping down quite far, even in high diffraction territory appears to be less of a problem than with "normal" photography.

As to the F/13 MFT vs F/22 FF DoF and sharpness: that is essentially explained by the aperture difference. F/22 on FF is well within low resolution teritory from a lens diffraction PoV, 73 lp/mm for a perfect lens, where F/13 is still around 120 lp/mm. So, at the same subject magnification (not image size!), the 1:1 macro on MFT will be sharper than the FF one at F/22. IOW, MFT has an advantage here.

Just for fun, here are a few theoretical sample calculations:

Subscribe to see EXIF info for this image (if available)

Subscribe to see EXIF info for this image (if available)

If you'd like to read more on these subjects, check out Norman Koren's website, here:
http://www.normankoren.com/Tutorials/MTF6.html
The formulas I used to calculate all values in the above diagrams originate from this site.

HTH, kind regards, Wim

 

[RichardC]

In other words, MFT is good enough.

 

[wimg]

In other words, MFT is good enough.

Yep. Beter for macro, better if you need more DoF without sacrificing IQ, better weight wise, better for 4:3 format. FF is better for high isos, for thin DoF, and for 3:2 format - not so great for one's back. I should know, I have both .

Kind regards, Wim

 

[RS86]

Yep. Beter for macro, better if you need more DoF without sacrificing IQ, better weight wise, better for 4:3 format. FF is better for high isos, for thin DoF, and for 3:2 format - not so great for one's back. I should know, I have both .

Kind regards, Wim

Thanks for the explanations, not sure I still understood everything, but at least got confirmation on what I thought.

FF for better DR too and base iso. It really struck me that with at least that FF Sony lens the f-number can be 22 at tops and bad quality. While I really like to get f/26 DoF with single shots in macro.

4:3 format is a great point, so much better for my taste, but especially in macro photography it works great. One more plus is the easy cropping to vertical 4:5 ratio for Instagram.

 

[wimg]

Thanks for the explanations, not sure I still understood everything, but at least got confirmation on what I thought.

FF for better DR too and base iso. It really struck me that with at least that FF Sony lens the f-number can be 22 at tops and bad quality. While I really like to get f/26 DoF with single shots in macro.

4:3 format is a great point, so much better for my taste, but especially in macro photography it works great. One more plus is the easy cropping to vertical 4:5 ratio for Instagram.

It's only a pleasure, RS86!

As to better DR, I deliberately did not mention that . With film we had a "DR" of at most 10 stops with B&W film, much less so with colour, and after printing it went down to 6 stops. A non-HDR screen has only 8 stops as well, so I think it is a moot point. I have more DR than I ever need, especially as I expose for the image I have in my head/vision, and approach things in a (modified) Zone System way.

For macro I tend to not go beyond F/8 to avoid too much resolution loss at higher magnifications . At 1:1 that is equivalent to F/16 after all. I did get one of these image stackign devices half a year ago, but I have not had the time to do a lot with it other than checking whether it worked well. I do think that that may be the best way by far to improve DoF with macro, and at the same time increase resolution / sharpness by using the best aperture for the particular lens mounted.

I mentioned the formats because I try to shoot frame filling at all times - dates back to my analog days .

Kind regards, Wim

 

[RichardC]

It's only a pleasure, RS86!

As to better DR, I deliberately did not mention that . With film we had a "DR" of at most 10 stops with B&W film, much less so with colour, and after printing it went down to 6 stops. A non-HDR screen has only 8 stops as well, so I think it is a moot point. I have more DR than I ever need, especially as I expose for the image I have in my head/vision, and approach things in a (modified) Zone System way.

For macro I tend to not go beyond F/8 to avoid too much resolution loss at higher magnifications . At 1:1 that is equivalent to F/16 after all. I did get one of these image stackign devices half a year ago, but I have not had the time to do a lot with it other than checking whether it worked well. I do think that that may be the best way by far to improve DoF with macro, and at the same time increase resolution / sharpness by using the best aperture for the particular lens mounted.

I mentioned the formats because I try to shoot frame filling at all times - dates back to my analog days .

Kind regards, Wim

You could over expose Vericolor 160 by 5 stops. The negs came back like chocolate, but they were printable - it just took a while.

 

[RS86]

It's only a pleasure, RS86!

As to better DR, I deliberately did not mention that . With film we had a "DR" of at most 10 stops with B&W film, much less so with colour, and after printing it went down to 6 stops. A non-HDR screen has only 8 stops as well, so I think it is a moot point. I have more DR than I ever need, especially as I expose for the image I have in my head/vision, and approach things in a (modified) Zone System way.

For macro I tend to not go beyond F/8 to avoid too much resolution loss at higher magnifications . At 1:1 that is equivalent to F/16 after all. I did get one of these image stackign devices half a year ago, but I have not had the time to do a lot with it other than checking whether it worked well. I do think that that may be the best way by far to improve DoF with macro, and at the same time increase resolution / sharpness by using the best aperture for the particular lens mounted.

I mentioned the formats because I try to shoot frame filling at all times - dates back to my analog days .

Kind regards, Wim

Yeah, mostly M43 gives me enough DR. And it's not always necessary to lift the shadows so bright in my opinion to make a good photo.

I go f/14 tops because some photos really demand it. I like to shoot moving insects so no use of stacking mostly.

From the 14 photos I have shared thus far, I have cropped ~2 % of the area on average. Biggest crop has been ~7 %. So I think f/13 gives me enough resolution, and I have printed large and been happy.

 

[Aristophanes]

In other words, MFT is good enough.

Explains the recent 100mm macro lens announcement. It’s an area of competitive advantage. Not a large market, but sometimes chasing crumbs....

 

[BushmanOrig]

There is a diffence between lens diffraction and sensor diffraction. The first is determined bij lens aperture only, whichever you have chosen, set it to, the second depends on sensor and sensel or site size.

Lens diffraction and sensor diffraction together determine final, or system resolution. Theoretically, sensor diffraction is controlled by the nyquist frequency (half the sampling frequency), lens diffraction by the colour (or frequency) of the light passing through the lens, where for lenses generally an average is chosen based on green light, which is approximately in the middle of the visible spectrum, and happens to be the colour the human eye is most sensitive too as well.

Basically, it is really all about CoC, the circle of confusion - when is a point sharp, IOW. With sensors it gets quite complex quite fast, due to physical contraints and properties and the fact that many people try to explain this with complex physics formulas etc.

The simple explanation is to look at resolution, however, and use the same formulas we used to use back in the days of analog photography and apply that to sensor based systems as well - it is still valid, as you could compare sensor resolution to film resolution, by using the Nyquist frequency as the resolution of the sensor, IOW, by looking at linepairs per mm - lp/mm.

The original definition of a sharp image (area within DoF) dates from the 1930s, namely that a print viewed from 25 cm (10 inch) shows details of 0.01 inch or 0.25 mm. This can be used to calculate the CoC required in order to get a sharp image for any size medium, be it sensors or film for that matter. mOn FF this corresponds to a CoC of 0.030 mm, for MFT this would be slightly more than half that size, around 0.017 mm. BTW, human vision is about 3x better than that original definition, so for sharpness compared to human vision you should really divide these values by three .

Anyway, back to sharpness and diffraction: diffraction used to be indicated for film anyway with a scale based on Rayleigh diffraction limits, which is based on approximately 9% contrast levels. Lens reviews are often based on MTF-50, which is 50% contrast levels (which will therefore give lower results than 9% levels).

If you'd take the current 20 MP sensors of MFT as an example, you can calculate that their Nyquist frequency, or maximum resolution, under ideal circumstances is 149.72 lp/mm (note that for film used for normal photography, the best 135 B&W films got to between 60 and 100 lp/mm) . For a perfect lens this, as mentioned, depends on the aperture. At F/4, as an example, max. lens resolution is 400 lp/mm using Rayleigh, and 181 lp/mm using MTF-50.

However, that is not the whole story. System, or total or final resolution, is not one or th eother, but a combination of the resolution that the different components in the system have, and the relation is an inverse sum as well. Or, 1/(system resolution) = 1/(lens resolution) + 1/(sensor or film resolution). This means that under the most ideal circumstances, with a perfectly corrected lens, an Olympus Pen F with that lens at F/4 can generate 108.94 lp/mm in Rayleigh terms, and 81.94 lp/mm in MTF-50 terms. In the past the best lenses for film managed really only half of their optimum, resulting in 30-40 lp/mm for good amateurs, and about 60 lp/mm for professionals with their specialized labs. With much better lenses these days, and much higher resolutions of sensors compared to film, we have surpassed these results in 2005/2006 or thereabouts.

Now, as to macro, let's assume we are shooting at 1:1. At that magnification, the image circle is 2x wider than at infinity, making the image circle 4 times larger in area and circumference. This is two stops. That is also what you lose lens difraction wise, as the light bends more covering a larger image circle. IOW, lens diffraction is now as if the lens has been closed by 2 more stops than the aperture dial indicates. This therefore has direct consequences for sharpness in terms of image resolution, and therefore on DoF as well. Often, in macro, there is less detail comapred to "infinity" shots, so geenrally this is not a problem, or not a big problem, and stopping down quite far, even in high diffraction territory appears to be less of a problem than with "normal" photography.

As to the F/13 MFT vs F/22 FF DoF and sharpness: that is essentially explained by the aperture difference. F/22 on FF is well within low resolution teritory from a lens diffraction PoV, 73 lp/mm for a perfect lens, where F/13 is still around 120 lp/mm. So, at the same subject magnification (not image size!), the 1:1 macro on MFT will be sharper than the FF one at F/22. IOW, MFT has an advantage here.

Just for fun, here are a few theoretical sample calculations:
View attachment 834135 View attachment 834136

If you'd like to read more on these subjects, check out Norman Koren's website, here:
http://www.normankoren.com/Tutorials/MTF6.html
The formulas I used to calculate all values in the above diagrams originate from this site.

HTH, kind regards, Wim

Hello Wim

You providing great info and I really respect your effort presenting it all on the forum, great job!!!

My problem with all this simply is:
- To really spot any of these "theoretical" differences you need to exactly simulate EVERYTHING, the different sensor formats, cameras, lenses, photographic conditions - if you managed that, what will be the visible difference, 0.003%, or 2%?
- In real life with 2 friends in the field doing macro photography - the better and more experienced macro photographer will have on average the better results...
- What I totally object to is all this theoretical "bullying" - and until today nobody quantified the benefits from one sensor size to the next in a %. What percentage visible improvement can M43 photographers expect when changing to a FF sensor? How does that way up to the new financial layout they need to do to get maybe 1% or 1.0006% visible improvement? How does it way up to the size and IBIS benefits they will lose, the exposure & ISO & DOF (landscape or interview) benefits they will lose? (And pls not theoretical benefits - real-life benefits)
- And if its only 1% after evaluating everything or if you going to say, but there are many factors influencing this or it depends on the application - my question is, why on earth talk about the theory in the first place? Like full-frame advocates do, why make people expect improvements and like in my case end up selling the A7 III again because the real-life day to day "improvements were just not worth it...

So again, I really appreciate your great effort but it stays a meaningless theoretical exercise until I receive an accurate expected improvement I can take to a shop and say, this is what I want...?

Siegfried

 

[RichardC]

Explains the recent 100mm macro lens announcement. It’s an area of competitive advantage. Not a large market, but sometimes chasing crumbs....

I have tried my hand at FF macro with a borrowed Canon system. I could deal with the weight, it was just very cumbersome, too big basically. A chore.

I like to practice taking photographs of small insects outdoors, hand held, camera with flash in right hand with the left hand usually steadying the plant on which the insect is situated.

I'm not that bothered about the technical differences - I just know that I can get satisfactory results with MFT. I have much respect for anyone getting good FF macro results hand-held outdoors - my own efforts were really terrible.

 

[BushmanOrig]

Explains the recent 100mm macro lens announcement. It’s an area of competitive advantage. Not a large market, but sometimes chasing crumbs....

Don't you think that's a bit arrogant - "chasing crumbs"? Would you like examples of success stories in segmentation... Or better tell us about the large scale (shotgun approach) all-inclusive bright future Canon will make available to us all soon... can't wait to see that??

 

[wimg]

Hi Siegfried,

I think you misinterpreted what I tried to achieve here. Possibly my fault, for not making it clear enough.

Hello Wim

You providing great info and I really respect your effort presenting it all on the forum, great job!!!

My problem with all this simply is:
- To really spot any of these "theoretical" differences you need to exactly simulate different sensor formats, cameras, lenses, photographic conditions - if you managed that, what will be the visible difference, 0.003%, or 2%?

I said theoretical, because I did not include real values of real lenses here.

The idea is to get the same results, at the same apertures, with lenses which have the same AoV. I think it will be clear from my presentation that that is the case. Some cameras and lenses have an advantage in certain areas, other in another area, and even that is often a personal experience, preference, or way of shooting.

- In real life with 2 friends in the field doing macro photography - the better and more experienced macro photographer will have on average the better results...

Of course, but that is true for every type or field of photography.

- What I totally object to is all this theoretical "bullying" - and until today nobody quantified the benefits from one sensor size to the next in a %. What percentage visible improvement can M43 photographers expect when changing to a FF sensor? How does that way up to the new financial layout they need to do to get maybe 1% or 1.0006% visible improvement? How does it way up to the size and IBIS benefits they will lose, the exposure & ISO benefits they will lose? (And pls not theoretical benefits - real-life benefits)

I don't know what you are trying to say here. I hope it is not that I am "bullying". Essentially I am trying to say it si all much of a muchnes, just that different camera systems have different strengths. I don't care about small differences, not even about larger differences. As long as I can take the shots I want to taken, and make them as I want to make them, I am happy.
As to changes going to FF, I do not care. I have both a FF setup, and an MFT setup, and I will use what suits me best at any given time, and what is most convenient at that time.
Basically, I tried to explain that all the discussions about sensor diffraction etc. are a moot point, and in a way that similar discussions about analog vs digital is also moot, and that other things are much more important.

I have had too many arguments with people about these types of subjects where I had to prove it theoretically, so I do nopt plan on doing that anymore at all. You may take it for what it is, for my intentions, I will not get into this any deeper, especially not with the comments above I do not entirely understand.

Financial layout is up to the individual person. You can make excellent photographs with any camera, you do not need FF, or MFT, or even MF to do so. I am lucky, that I had a break 15 years ago that still pays for the cameras and lenses I have today, but i do not expect peopel to buy the best and the latest just to get a minor increase in (perceived) IQ. I personally shoot what I shot because of the interest I have and the equipment I own provides, for me, within my budget, the results I really like, rendering and IQ-wise.

- And if its only 1% after evaluating everything or if you going to say, but there are many factors influencing this - my question is, why on earth talk about the theory in the first place? Like full-frame advocates do, why make people expect improvements and like in my case end up selling the A7 III again because the real-life day to day "improvements were just not worth it...

So again, I really appreciate your great effort but it stays a theoretical exercise until I receive an accurate expected improvement I can expect...?

Siegfried

Funnily enough there are quite a few "Equivalence" experts flaming me in another forum, because I have a different, more real life oriented viewpoint.

IMO, the only real life improvement one can expect is by improving one's skills in the first place. Better tools just make that a bit easier, once one controls them and knows how to handle them.

Other than that, there was a question regarding macro, DoF, and apertures using MFT and FF, following something I mentioned on equivalence, which is why I bothered to try and explain the differences, based on theoretical values. Regardless, diffraction is not just theoretical, it actually does have an effect on sharpness and DoF, and not a small effect either, even providing just the theoretical values.

A real life example: some of the best lenses back in the 1980s managed 250 lp/mm at F/5.6, and that is pure optical resolution, tested on an optical bench. Does that make a difference with lenses which "only" manage 150 lp/mm? Yes, and visibly too, even if you would maybe not say so based on resulting system resolution (with 100 lp/mm sensor or film resulting in 70 lp/mm and 60 lp/mm respectively). That is because the first lens is likely many times sharper in the cormers, and much better corrected for optical errors.

And when it comes to aperture: that is the only characteristic affecting lens diffraction. So if can shoot at F/11 vs F/22 for macro, regardless of the system used, you will have a much better end result, as in, much sharper and more detailed, at F/11 vs F/22. And if you can do this because MFT gives you the same DoF at F/11 as FF gives you at F/22, with double the potential linear lens resolution in MFT, that is absolutely marvelous in my opinion.

Kind regards, Wim

 

[BushmanOrig]

Hi Siegfried,

I think you misinterpreted what I tried to achieve here. Possibly my fault, for not making it clear enough.



I said theoretical, because I did not include real values of real lenses here.

The idea is to get the same results, at the same apertures, with lenses which have the same AoV. I think it will be clear from my presentation that that is the case. Soem cameras and lenses have an advantage in certain areas, other in another area, and even that is often a personal experience, preference, or way of shooting.



Of course, but that is true for every type or field of photography.


I don't know what you are trying to say here. I hope it is not that I am "bullying". Essentially I am trying to say it si all much of a muchnes, just that different camera systems have different strengths. I don't care about small differences, not even about larger differences. As long as I can take the shots I want to taken, and make them as I want to make them, I am happy.
As to changes going to FF, I do not care. I have both a FF setup, and an MFT setup, and I will use what suits me best at any given time, and what is most convenient at that time.
Basically, I tried to explain that all the discussions about sensor diffraction etc. are a moot point, and in a way that similar discussions about analog vs digital is also moot, and that other things are much more important.

I have had too many arguments with people about these types of subjects where I had to prove it theoretically, so I do nopt plan on doing that anymore at all. You may take it for what it is, for my intentions, I will not get into this any deeper, especially not with the comments above I do not entirely understand.

Financial layout is up to the individual person. You can make excellent photographs with any camera, you do not need FF, or MFT, or even MF to do so. I am lucky, that I had a break 15 years ago that still pays for the cameras and lenses I have today, but i do not expect peopel to buy the best and the latest just to get a minor increase in (perceived) IQ. I personally shoot what I shot because of the interest I have and the equipment I own provides, for me, within my budget, the results I really like, rendering and IQ-wise.



Funnily enough there are quite a few "Equivalence" experts flaming me in another forum, because I have a different, more real life oriented viewpoint.

IMO, the only real life improvement one can expect is by improving one's skills in the first place. Better tools just make that a bit easier, once one controls them and knows how to handle them.

Other than that, there was a question regarding macro, DoF, and apertures using MFT and FF, following something I mentioned on equivalence, which is why I bothered to try and explain the differences, based on theoretical values. Regardless, diffraction is not just theoretical, it actually does have an effect on sharpness and DoF, and not a small effect either, even providing just the theoretical values.

A real life example: some of the best lenses back in the 1980s managed 250 lp/mm at F/5.6, and that is pure optical resolution, tested on an optical bench. Does that make a difference with lenses which "only" manage 150 lp/mm? Yes, and visibly too, even if you would maybe not say so based on resulting system resolution (with 100 lp/mm sensor or film resulting in 70 lp/mm and 60 lp/mm respectively). That is because the first lens is likely many times sharper in the cormers, and much better corrected for optical errors.

And when it comes to aperture: that is the only characteristic affecting lens diffraction. So if can shoot at F/11 vs F/22 for macro, regardless of the system used, you will have a much better end result, as in, much sharper and more detailed, at F/11 vs F/22. And if you can do this because MFT gives you the same DoF at F/11 as FF gives you at F/22, with double the potential linear lens resolution in MFT, that is absolutely marvelous in my opinion.

Kind regards, Wim

Hello Wim

I did read you incorrectly, my apology. It seems we on the same page. Next time you could make the point in one line?

Personally I am totally allergic to all the full-frame grandiose statements of larger pixels, full wells, and half-full wells, all the reasoning about equivalence, diffraction, and bla bla bla

The simple reason is - so what? What does it help me? Does it help me improve my photography?

That's why I suggested, leave it to one line and let's share info and techniques that will improve our photography and results...

For example, why would some so eagerly defend and promote full-frame or APC cameras on this forum? Does anyone really care?

All the best and nice talking to you

Siegfried

 

[wimg]

Hello Wim

I did read you incorrectly, my apology. It seems we on the same page. Next time you could make the point in one line?

Personally I am totally allergic to all the full-frame grandiose statements of larger pixels, full wells, and half-full wells, all the reasoning about equivalence, diffraction, and bla bla bla

The simple reason is - so what? What does it help me? Does it help me improve my photography?

That's why I suggested, leave it to one line and let's share info and techniques that will improve our photography and results...

For example, why would some so eagerly defend and promote full-frame or APC cameras on this forum? Does anyone really care?

All the best and nice talking to you

Siegfried

<ROFL>

I am not know for short replies, unfortunately, and I find it very hard not to give long(ish) answers - I blame (Dutch) high school for that .
BTW, you are not known for very short posts either, the way I remember it .

Regardless, thank you for your reply, much appreciated, as I got rather confused. Nice talking to you too, BTW.

Kindest regards, Wim

 

[BushmanOrig]

<ROFL>

I am not know for short replies, unfortunately, and I find it very hard not to give long(ish) answers - I blame (Dutch) high school for that .
BTW, you are not known for very short posts either, the way I remeber it .

Regardless, thank you for your reply, much appreciated, as I got rather confused. Nice talking to you too, BTW.

Kindest regards, Wim

Next time I will make a cup coffee first before studying your report. Groetjes Siegfried

 

[wimg]

Next time I will make a cup coffee first before studying your report. Groetjes Siegfried

That's what I do . Or a glass of Pellegrina sparkling water .
Grüße, Wim

 

[Sleepy Capybara]

Next time I will make a cup coffee first before studying your report. Groetjes Siegfried

That's what I do . Or a glass of Pellegrina sparkling water .
Grüße, Wim

Then they lived happily ever after.