Sony A350 Review @ DPreview.com

[punchkin]

Originally posted by: Aharami
are there any cameras that didnt get a "recommended" or "highly recommended" from dpreview? I dont think Ive ever seen any

Very, very few. "Recommended" basically equals "blows donkey b*lls".

 

[ElFenix]

Originally posted by: Aharami
are there any cameras that didnt get a "recommended" or "highly recommended" from dpreview? I dont think Ive ever seen any

DP1

 

[Zenmervolt]

Originally posted by: punchkin

Originally posted by: Zenmervolt

Originally posted by: punchkin
I just think it's a shame that a lot of people will upgrade for improved image quality, which they will certainly get over a P&S but basically be shorted on by the Sony design ethic.

God forbid someone make his own decision based on reasons that are different from yours. I guess it's not possible for someone to want an effective LiveView implementation and performance that is indeed better than their P&S cameras (worlds better) over a camera that is less convenient (for them) but offers a slight edge in image quality.

How dare Sony "shortchange" them by supplying what they want.

ZV

Not a slight edge, a massive advantage. I understand you're out to tout the A350 and have probably had your ego pricked, but let's get real here.

Nope, not out to tout it. It is what it is. A "bridge camera" is exactly what it is. Only it has better image quality than previous bridge cameras that used smaller CCDs, massively faster autofocus, superior metering abilities, and the ability to change lenses. Just because it can't compete with a 1DsMk IV (or even an A700) doesn't mean it's a piece of sh*t.

You say the other cameras have a "massive advantage". True enough if you're into pixel peeping. For all real-world uses of the A350's target market the image quality is adequate. You're not the target market. You may as well complain about a Ferrari not being able to tow a horse trailer or complain that an F350 diesel pickup cannot run a 10-second 1/4 mile.

ZV

 

[Zenmervolt]

Originally posted by: punchkin
You didn't say the A350 is a perfect camera, but rather that it was "about perfect".

Reading comprehension for the MF-ing loss.

"For a camera designed to be used by people who want a DSLR but want to use it as a point-and-shoot, it's about perfect."

You missed an awfully big qualifier there. A Volvo station wagon is "about perfect" for an errand-running family car. That doesn't mean I think it's the best car in the world.

Look, the A350 isn't perfect in an overall sense. It's not even close to perfect in every way. Just like a 1Ds isn't even remotely close to perfect in every way. However, for their specific target markets, both cameras are incredibly well-aligned.

Look, you're welcome not to like it. There are plenty of reasons not to like it. But there are also legitimate reasons for its target market to like it. Not everyone examines photos at immense magnification, some people actually print them at 4x6 size or they resize them to no larger than 1024x768 and post them on the web for their family and friends.

And no, my ego's no pricked. Though that term has come to mind during this conversation.

ZV

 

[punchkin]

Originally posted by: Zenmervolt

Originally posted by: punchkin
You didn't say the A350 is a perfect camera, but rather that it was "about perfect".

Reading comprehension for the MF-ing loss.

"For a camera designed to be used by people who want a DSLR but want to use it as a point-and-shoot, it's about perfect."

You missed an awfully big qualifier there. A Volvo station wagon is "about perfect" for an errand-running family car. That doesn't mean I think it's the best car in the world.

Look, the A350 isn't perfect in an overall sense. It's not even close to perfect in every way. Just like a 1Ds isn't even remotely close to perfect in every way. However, for their specific target markets, both cameras are incredibly well-aligned.

Look, you're welcome not to like it. There are plenty of reasons not to like it. But there are also legitimate reasons for its target market to like it. Not everyone examines photos at immense magnification, some people actually print them at 4x6 size or they resize them to no larger than 1024x768 and post them on the web for their family and friends.

And no, my ego's no pricked. Though that term has come to mind during this conversation.

ZV

No, your own writing and later half-ass retraction for the MF-ing loss. A camera designed to be used by people who want a DSLR must offer great image quality, or there's not much reason to buy. The image quality on the A350 is so low that no one can possibly honestly call it "about perfect".

To sum up: a DSLR cannot be (about) perfect if it sucks ass in the image quality category. The A350 sucks ass. Hence it is not "about perfect". There's no reading comprehension problem. I am amazed that you can claim such a thing, as a moderator.


-----------------------------------------------------
ZV was not acting as a moderator plus he is not a moderator of this forum.

You had no justification for calling him out as such.
Please take a week to understand the rules

Senior Anandtech Moderator
Common Courtesy

 

[punchkin]

Originally posted by: Zenmervolt

Originally posted by: punchkin

Originally posted by: Zenmervolt

Originally posted by: punchkin
I just think it's a shame that a lot of people will upgrade for improved image quality, which they will certainly get over a P&S but basically be shorted on by the Sony design ethic.

God forbid someone make his own decision based on reasons that are different from yours. I guess it's not possible for someone to want an effective LiveView implementation and performance that is indeed better than their P&S cameras (worlds better) over a camera that is less convenient (for them) but offers a slight edge in image quality.

How dare Sony "shortchange" them by supplying what they want.

ZV

Not a slight edge, a massive advantage. I understand you're out to tout the A350 and have probably had your ego pricked, but let's get real here.

Nope, not out to tout it.

All righty then... unfortunately, there's the small matter of your posts in this thread.

A "bridge camera" is exactly what it is. Only it has better image quality than previous bridge cameras that used smaller CCDs, massively faster autofocus, superior metering abilities, and the ability to change lenses.

No, it's a DSLR with bridge-camera performance. That's why it sucks. At $800, there are far, far better choices for anyone buying a DSLR, including people upgrading from a point and shoot. Hence the low rating at DPReview. They're not unaware of the target market of the camera. Yet you, anonymous poster on the internet, believe it is "about perfect" and vociferously defend this when called on it. Let's just say it's a good thing you don't do camera reviews.

Just because it can't compete with a 1DsMk IV (or even an A700) doesn't mean it's a piece of sh*t.

No, the fact that it offers class-trailing image quality in its category means it's a piece of sh*t.

You say the other cameras have a "massive advantage". True enough if you're into pixel peeping.

... and true enough if you're into printing or viewing or using images. You don't spend $800 on a camera to print at 4 X 6 exclusively. Or maybe you do. Heck, the image quality is probably absolutely superb at thumbnail sizes. This would make a great $800 thumbnail camera for someone upgrading from a point and shoot. :thumbsup: Just about perfect!

 

[soydios]

For Pete's sake, punchkin, give it a rest. We can obviously tell that you are not the target market for this camera. We can also tell that you don't think very highly of the people in this camera's target market. But it is an open market, so Sony will do what it wants to make a profit.

 

[punchkin]

Originally posted by: soydios
For Pete's sake, punchkin, give it a rest. We can obviously tell that you are not the target market for this camera. We can also tell that you don't think very highly of the people in this camera's target market. But it is an open market, so Sony will do what it wants to make a profit.

If someone posts incorrect information, I can respond. Where did I post anything indicating I think poorly of the people in the camera's target market? Don't try to shut others up if you can't take the time to read.

 

[Zenmervolt]

Originally posted by: punchkin

Originally posted by: Zenmervolt
You say the other cameras have a "massive advantage". True enough if you're into pixel peeping.

... and true enough if you're into printing or viewing or using images. You don't spend $800 on a camera to print at 4 X 6 exclusively. Or maybe you do.

Again, I don't. Which would be exactly why I said of the A350, "it's not what I would choose. But not everyone is me." However, the latter part of my quote shows the difference between you and I. I recognize that there are people whose needs and preferences differ from my own.

I tend to print at 11x14 or above when I print. (Still, I've managed to get excellent large prints from an A100, which has even poorer noise characteristics than the A350, go figure.) But the A350's target market will essentially never print anything larger than an 8x10, and will probably never even print an 8x10. Again, this is simply recognizing the fact that I do not represent the entire photographic market and that there are other people who prioritize things differently than I do for their own reasons. The A350 will be an excellent camera for those people, though, again, not for me.

ZV

 

[Zenmervolt]

Originally posted by: punchkin
At $800, there are far, far better choices for anyone buying a DSLR, including people upgrading from a point and shoot. Hence the low rating at DPReview. They're not unaware of the target market of the camera. Yet you, anonymous poster on the internet, believe it is "about perfect" and vociferously defend this when called on it. Let's just say it's a good thing you don't do camera reviews.

DPReview exists to point out minute details that are, in non-professional everyday snapshot use, invisible to most users. For most non-professionals, the image quality of a Fuji Finepix 2650 (a 2.0 MP P&S from 2002) is quite good enough for 95+% of their use. Upgrades to DSLR-class cameras are not made for image quality so much as for handling and flexibility from things like faster focusing systems (I have heard almost no complaints about image quality from non-geek digicam users, but every P&S user I know complains about focus lag). DPReview's distinctions are finer because they target an audience of internet gearheads who have no problem viewing images at full resolution on a computer screen (equivalent to viewing a printed image that is blown up to several feet across).

DPReview is a site for gear-geeks and what Ken Rockwell calls "Equipment Measurebators". If someone is actually interested in photography, Ken Rockwell's site or The Luminous Landscape are infinitely superior resources to DPReview.

ZV

 

[foghorn67]

Originally posted by: soydios
For Pete's sake, punchkin, give it a rest. We can obviously tell that you are not the target market for this camera. We can also tell that you don't think very highly of the people in this camera's target market. But it is an open market, so Sony will do what it wants to make a profit.

i'm not getting where punchkin isn't thinking to highly of the target market.

 

[Zenmervolt]

Originally posted by: foghorn67

Originally posted by: soydios
For Pete's sake, punchkin, give it a rest. We can obviously tell that you are not the target market for this camera. We can also tell that you don't think very highly of the people in this camera's target market. But it is an open market, so Sony will do what it wants to make a profit.

i'm not getting where punchkin isn't thinking to highly of the target market.

He hasn't said anything directly, but I can see a case being made either way. I think that soydios' impression stems from punchkin's unwillingness to admit that his way is not the only way. Personally, I don't think punchkin is denigrating the target market intentionally, but I do think that he doesn't fully understand the motivations and preferences of that target market.

ZV

 

[Deadtrees]

Originally posted by: Zenmervolt

Originally posted by: punchkin
At $800, there are far, far better choices for anyone buying a DSLR, including people upgrading from a point and shoot. Hence the low rating at DPReview. They're not unaware of the target market of the camera. Yet you, anonymous poster on the internet, believe it is "about perfect" and vociferously defend this when called on it. Let's just say it's a good thing you don't do camera reviews.

DPReview exists to point out minute details that are, in non-professional everyday snapshot use, invisible to most users. For most non-professionals, the image quality of a Fuji Finepix 2650 (a 2.0 MP P&S from 2002) is quite good enough for 95+% of their use. Upgrades to DSLR-class cameras are not made for image quality so much as for handling and flexibility from things like faster focusing systems (I have heard almost no complaints about image quality from non-geek digicam users, but every P&S user I know complains about focus lag). DPReview's distinctions are finer because they target an audience of internet gearheads who have no problem viewing images at full resolution on a computer screen (equivalent to viewing a printed image that is blown up to several feet across).

DPReview is a site for gear-geeks and what Ken Rockwell calls "Equipment Measurebators". If someone is actually interested in photography, Ken Rockwell's site or The Luminous Landscape are infinitely superior resources to DPReview.

ZV

Umm.....Ken Rockwell's site is a joke.

 

[Zenmervolt]

Originally posted by: Deadtrees

Originally posted by: Zenmervolt

Originally posted by: punchkin
At $800, there are far, far better choices for anyone buying a DSLR, including people upgrading from a point and shoot. Hence the low rating at DPReview. They're not unaware of the target market of the camera. Yet you, anonymous poster on the internet, believe it is "about perfect" and vociferously defend this when called on it. Let's just say it's a good thing you don't do camera reviews.

DPReview exists to point out minute details that are, in non-professional everyday snapshot use, invisible to most users. For most non-professionals, the image quality of a Fuji Finepix 2650 (a 2.0 MP P&S from 2002) is quite good enough for 95+% of their use. Upgrades to DSLR-class cameras are not made for image quality so much as for handling and flexibility from things like faster focusing systems (I have heard almost no complaints about image quality from non-geek digicam users, but every P&S user I know complains about focus lag). DPReview's distinctions are finer because they target an audience of internet gearheads who have no problem viewing images at full resolution on a computer screen (equivalent to viewing a printed image that is blown up to several feet across).

DPReview is a site for gear-geeks and what Ken Rockwell calls "Equipment Measurebators". If someone is actually interested in photography, Ken Rockwell's site or The Luminous Landscape are infinitely superior resources to DPReview.

ZV

Umm.....Ken Rockwell's site is a joke.

Honorable men can differ. *shrug*

Rockwell is clearly not an equipment reviewer, but a lot of what he has to say about photography is valid and needs to be said. If you want to know tech specs about cameras, go to DPReview. If you want to actually take photographs, I stand by my opinion that Ken Rockwell or Luminous Landscape offer infinitely superior advice.

ZV

 

[foghorn67]

Originally posted by: Zenmervolt

Originally posted by: foghorn67

Originally posted by: soydios
For Pete's sake, punchkin, give it a rest. We can obviously tell that you are not the target market for this camera. We can also tell that you don't think very highly of the people in this camera's target market. But it is an open market, so Sony will do what it wants to make a profit.

i'm not getting where punchkin isn't thinking to highly of the target market.

He hasn't said anything directly, but I can see a case being made either way. I think that soydios' impression stems from punchkin's unwillingness to admit that his way is not the only way. Personally, I don't think punchkin is denigrating the target market intentionally, but I do think that he doesn't fully understand the motivations and preferences of that target market.

ZV

You guys crack me up. You want to read too much into crap just to defend your whatever banner you pledge allegience too.

 

[Zenmervolt]

Originally posted by: foghorn67

Originally posted by: Zenmervolt

Originally posted by: foghorn67

Originally posted by: soydios
For Pete's sake, punchkin, give it a rest. We can obviously tell that you are not the target market for this camera. We can also tell that you don't think very highly of the people in this camera's target market. But it is an open market, so Sony will do what it wants to make a profit.

i'm not getting where punchkin isn't thinking to highly of the target market.

He hasn't said anything directly, but I can see a case being made either way. I think that soydios' impression stems from punchkin's unwillingness to admit that his way is not the only way. Personally, I don't think punchkin is denigrating the target market intentionally, but I do think that he doesn't fully understand the motivations and preferences of that target market.

ZV

You guys crack me up. You want to read too much into crap just to defend your whatever banner you pledge allegience too.

Did you miss the part where I said that I don't think punchkin was denigrating the target market or just intentionally ignore it?

Look, a camera is a tool. I have no more brand allegiance to cameras than I do to a particular brand of framing nails. Well, maybe a little more since it's difficult to just chuck an investment in lenses to switch systems, but you get the point. The English have a saying, "horses for courses", that applies well here. I wouldn't recommend the A350 to someone who wanted to really get into photography (I'd probably recommend either an XSi or a D60 as a beginning photographer's camera, with the A200 running third but an overall reminder that whichever one felt best to them would be the "best"). I would, however, strongly recommend it to someone like my mother who is perfectly happy with her current P&S camera except that she is very frustrated with the shutter lag. She doesn't want to look through a viewfinder and she only rarely prints, even then no larger than 5x7. It all depends on what the intended use is.

As the Luminous Landscape once put it, "A camera that produces great images but that has the user interface of an ox cart is almost useless, and a superbly designed instrument that produces images that look like they came from a $15 Holga isn't what most people would settle for either." The A350 produces images that are useful given the requirements of its target market (which simply doesn't generally print any larger than 8x10) while providing the superior handling and focus abilities of a DSLR. It has its own shortcomings, but the ultimate weighting of the pros and cons needs to be done by actual users.

ZV

 

[tdawg]

Originally posted by: Deadtrees

Originally posted by: Zenmervolt

Originally posted by: punchkin
At $800, there are far, far better choices for anyone buying a DSLR, including people upgrading from a point and shoot. Hence the low rating at DPReview. They're not unaware of the target market of the camera. Yet you, anonymous poster on the internet, believe it is "about perfect" and vociferously defend this when called on it. Let's just say it's a good thing you don't do camera reviews.

DPReview exists to point out minute details that are, in non-professional everyday snapshot use, invisible to most users. For most non-professionals, the image quality of a Fuji Finepix 2650 (a 2.0 MP P&S from 2002) is quite good enough for 95+% of their use. Upgrades to DSLR-class cameras are not made for image quality so much as for handling and flexibility from things like faster focusing systems (I have heard almost no complaints about image quality from non-geek digicam users, but every P&S user I know complains about focus lag). DPReview's distinctions are finer because they target an audience of internet gearheads who have no problem viewing images at full resolution on a computer screen (equivalent to viewing a printed image that is blown up to several feet across).

DPReview is a site for gear-geeks and what Ken Rockwell calls "Equipment Measurebators". If someone is actually interested in photography, Ken Rockwell's site or The Luminous Landscape are infinitely superior resources to DPReview.

ZV

Umm.....Ken Rockwell's site is a joke.

QFT! My favorite piece of "advice" of his has to be that you can throw away your tripod because you have image stabilization (in camera or in lens).

 

[soydios]

Originally posted by: tdawg

Originally posted by: Deadtrees

Originally posted by: Zenmervolt

Originally posted by: punchkin
At $800, there are far, far better choices for anyone buying a DSLR, including people upgrading from a point and shoot. Hence the low rating at DPReview. They're not unaware of the target market of the camera. Yet you, anonymous poster on the internet, believe it is "about perfect" and vociferously defend this when called on it. Let's just say it's a good thing you don't do camera reviews.

DPReview exists to point out minute details that are, in non-professional everyday snapshot use, invisible to most users. For most non-professionals, the image quality of a Fuji Finepix 2650 (a 2.0 MP P&S from 2002) is quite good enough for 95+% of their use. Upgrades to DSLR-class cameras are not made for image quality so much as for handling and flexibility from things like faster focusing systems (I have heard almost no complaints about image quality from non-geek digicam users, but every P&S user I know complains about focus lag). DPReview's distinctions are finer because they target an audience of internet gearheads who have no problem viewing images at full resolution on a computer screen (equivalent to viewing a printed image that is blown up to several feet across).

DPReview is a site for gear-geeks and what Ken Rockwell calls "Equipment Measurebators". If someone is actually interested in photography, Ken Rockwell's site or The Luminous Landscape are infinitely superior resources to DPReview.

ZV

Umm.....Ken Rockwell's site is a joke.

QFT! My favorite piece of "advice" of his has to be that you can throw away your tripod because you have image stabilization (in camera or in lens).

DPReview has its place in the internet to provide detailed (almost obsessively so) information to discerning buyers, and those who can only lust after the cameras that they review.

Ken Rockwell has a few good bits of advice, but they are hidden in so many boneheaded "tips" that he expects his readers to take as gospel. Case in point are his comments on VR and tripods. I would not point someone new to photography towards Ken Rockwell's site, only those who are experienced enough to know better than what he puts on the web.

 

[Zenmervolt]

Originally posted by: soydios
Ken Rockwell has a few good bits of advice, but they are hidden in so many boneheaded "tips" that he expects his readers to take as gospel. Case in point are his comments on VR and tripods. I would not point someone new to photography towards Ken Rockwell's site, only those who are experienced enough to know better than what he puts on the web.

I guess I'm just going to have to agree to differ in opinion.

I actually largely agree with Ken's stance on tripods. He admits that for very slow shutter speeds (under about 1/60 second according to him, in practice for me I'd say under about 1/20 second) or for night photography a tripod is still necessary. All he's saying is that if you're a tourist taking snapshots in Yellowstone at 1:00 in the afternoon, you probably don't need a tripod. I would add dedicated wildlife photography to his list of tripod uses though, since that can involve pointing the camera at a single spot and waiting for something to poke its head out. Much better, IMO, to set up the camera on a tripod with a remote release and free yourself from having to stare through the viewfinder for 4 hours.

Essentially though, what Ken is saying is that unless you know exactly why you need a tripod, you probably don't.

There are some areas where I disagree with him (his position on RAW vs JPG, for example), but overall I find that his positions are well-argued even if I don't agree. Now, if someone were to take everything he said as gospel, that wouldn't be good, but that's true of any site anywhere.

The overall philosophy behind Ken's site seems to be, "figure out what works for you and do that. And for god's sake, stop worrying about the camera too much and actually take pictures." I like that.

ZV

 

[foghorn67]

Originally posted by: Zenmervolt

Originally posted by: soydios
Ken Rockwell has a few good bits of advice, but they are hidden in so many boneheaded "tips" that he expects his readers to take as gospel. Case in point are his comments on VR and tripods. I would not point someone new to photography towards Ken Rockwell's site, only those who are experienced enough to know better than what he puts on the web.

I guess I'm just going to have to agree to differ in opinion.

I actually largely agree with Ken's stance on tripods. He admits that for very slow shutter speeds (under about 1/60 second according to him, in practice for me I'd say under about 1/20 second) or for night photography a tripod is still necessary. All he's saying is that if you're a tourist taking snapshots in Yellowstone at 1:00 in the afternoon, you probably don't need a tripod. I would add dedicated wildlife photography to his list of tripod uses though, since that can involve pointing the camera at a single spot and waiting for something to poke its head out. Much better, IMO, to set up the camera on a tripod with a remote release and free yourself from having to stare through the viewfinder for 4 hours.

Essentially though, what Ken is saying is that unless you know exactly why you need a tripod, you probably don't.

There are some areas where I disagree with him (his position on RAW vs JPG, for example), but overall I find that his positions are well-argued even if I don't agree. Now, if someone were to take everything he said as gospel, that wouldn't be good, but that's true of any site anywhere.

The overall philosophy behind Ken's site seems to be, "figure out what works for you and do that. And for god's sake, stop worrying about the camera too much and actually take pictures." I like that.

ZV

If it takes a couple of paragraphs to rationalize Ken Rockwell's statements...

 

[Zenmervolt]

Originally posted by: foghorn67
If it takes a couple of paragraphs to rationalize Ken Rockwell's statements...

...then according to the rules of pure logic their validity is in no way negated.

It takes a lot more than a couple paragraphs to rationalize quantum mechanics, but that doesn't make it BS.

ZV

 

[spikespiegal]

If it takes a couple of paragraphs to rationalize Ken Rockwell's statements...

A bigger question is who listens to Rockwell and why. I've yet to see this guy take a single digital image I'd put on my wall.

 

[Deadtrees]

Originally posted by: Zenmervolt

Originally posted by: Deadtrees

Originally posted by: Zenmervolt

Originally posted by: punchkin
At $800, there are far, far better choices for anyone buying a DSLR, including people upgrading from a point and shoot. Hence the low rating at DPReview. They're not unaware of the target market of the camera. Yet you, anonymous poster on the internet, believe it is "about perfect" and vociferously defend this when called on it. Let's just say it's a good thing you don't do camera reviews.

DPReview exists to point out minute details that are, in non-professional everyday snapshot use, invisible to most users. For most non-professionals, the image quality of a Fuji Finepix 2650 (a 2.0 MP P&S from 2002) is quite good enough for 95+% of their use. Upgrades to DSLR-class cameras are not made for image quality so much as for handling and flexibility from things like faster focusing systems (I have heard almost no complaints about image quality from non-geek digicam users, but every P&S user I know complains about focus lag). DPReview's distinctions are finer because they target an audience of internet gearheads who have no problem viewing images at full resolution on a computer screen (equivalent to viewing a printed image that is blown up to several feet across).

DPReview is a site for gear-geeks and what Ken Rockwell calls "Equipment Measurebators". If someone is actually interested in photography, Ken Rockwell's site or The Luminous Landscape are infinitely superior resources to DPReview.

ZV

Umm.....Ken Rockwell's site is a joke.

Honorable men can differ. *shrug*

Rockwell is clearly not an equipment reviewer, but a lot of what he has to say about photography is valid and needs to be said. If you want to know tech specs about cameras, go to DPReview. If you want to actually take photographs, I stand by my opinion that Ken Rockwell or Luminous Landscape offer infinitely superior advice.

ZV

I do stand by Lumunious Landscape and regard it as one of the best photography sites......but Ken Rockwell??? His site is all about his ultra ego not photography.

 

[Zenmervolt]

Originally posted by: Deadtrees
I do stand by Lumunious Landscape and regard it as one of the best photography sites......but Ken Rockwell??? His site is all about his ultra ego not photography.

To each his own. Cheers! :beer:

 

[foghorn67]

Originally posted by: Zenmervolt

Originally posted by: foghorn67
If it takes a couple of paragraphs to rationalize Ken Rockwell's statements...

...then according to the rules of pure logic their validity is in no way negated.

It takes a lot more than a couple paragraphs to rationalize quantum mechanics, but that doesn't make it BS.

ZV

You know what I am talking about. Ken Rockwell is a moron, we don't have to worry about him talking about quantum mechanics. You spent a couple of paragraphs that just spun wheels and does nothing re-inforce his intent. Ken and you are missing some key elements.
--edit--I am not trying to insult you. I think of you as normal or smart. Ken is a moron.
This is why I can't understand why you would defend him.