
Smartphones versus DSLRs versus film: A look at how far we've come - nkurz
http://connect.dpreview.com/post/5533410947/smartphones-versus-dslr-versus-film/
======
rdb
One primary issue that we've seen with using smartphones as a primary camera
is that you're forced to always shoot with a large depth of field, which means
that you miss out on achieving that sought after bokeh for your close up or
portrait shots.

I've actually been working with a team of former post-doc researchers who've
been using SIFT flow techniques to estimate depth information in an image and
apply filters to emulate different depths of field - effectively allowing for
an image captured with a smartphone to look like it was shot with a different
lens (see
[https://www.dropbox.com/s/7qhfgnwl08vtk63/compare.png?dl=0](https://www.dropbox.com/s/7qhfgnwl08vtk63/compare.png?dl=0)).
We've got some pretty cool demos if anyone's interested.

~~~
danielbln
Is that related to Google's lens blur that's now in most modern Android
phones? [http://googleresearch.blogspot.de/2014/04/lens-blur-in-
new-g...](http://googleresearch.blogspot.de/2014/04/lens-blur-in-new-google-
camera-app.html)

~~~
rdb
Google's approach requires multiple images to be captured of the same subject
from different angles in order to triangulate depth - our SIFT flow based
approach can achieve similar performance using only a single image. This makes
it as simple as capturing a normal image to capture one with an editable depth
of field.

~~~
jacquesm
I assume that only goes for those situations where you are reducing depth of
field. As in, sharper backgrounds or foregrounds can become blurry but not the
other way around.

~~~
rdb
We've only looked at reducing the depth of field as the narrow aperture on
smartphone cameras leads to an extended depth of field (meaning that
everything is usually in focus within the frame).

------
vanderZwan
There's two things I care about in a digital camera: low light performance,
and dynamic range. I don't care about how much megapixels you can cram in
there - if your lens is pixel-perfect, 6 is enough for most purposes anyway.
The only reason I might want to upgrade from my Canon 40D is a drastically
improved dynamic range, a compacter size and the ability to shoot movies. So
far it's all not quite there yet to be worth it, from my point of view.

Plus, I'm having more fun developing my pictures taken with my Nikon FM2
anyway.

Ironically, recenty the Nokia approach with supersampling seems to have paid
off most regarding low-light and dynamic range performance of phone cameras
(especially dynamic range, which this article didn't address). I hope the
others will catch up.

~~~
ars
And shutter lag. There is nothing worse than missing every single shot (or
having them all blurry) because the shutter took too long.

~~~
CalRobert
Is this still an issue? I can't recall using a camera made in the last 6 years
that didn't take the picture near-instantly so long as you did the normal
half-press prefocus, or used manual focus.

~~~
lordbusiness
"Is this still an issue? I can't recall using a camera made in the last 6
years that didn't take the picture near-instantly so long as you did the
normal half-press prefocus, or used manual focus."

This is absolutely still an issue. Go to your local camera store and play
around with even a low-end 'fast' camera such as the Canon 7D and you'll see
in no uncertain terms just how fast good SLRs are. Even Micro 4/3 cameras are
catching up now.

Shutter latency is the single thing keeping point and shoot cameras, or
smartphone cameras, from truly dominating.

~~~
CalRobert
I use SLR's pretty commonly, and I'm not sure how a 4/3's camera would be
different given that as far as I'm aware they use a contrast-detection system
that uses separate AF sensors, and not the imaging sensor. That's probably
different for EVIL cameras, though.

Maybe we mean different things, though. There is a time between the half-press
of the shutter and obtaining focus, and that can be half a second to several
seconds depending on conditions. I don't consider that shutter lag, though -
is this what you're referring to? I mean the time it takes to go from that
half-press to a full press and capture the image.

On a 5 year old cheap Panasonic pocket camera I find that this time, half-
press to full-press, is nearly imperceptible. Maybe I'm just fortunate, or not
as discerning, though.

~~~
potatolicious
I disagree with lordbusiness - disregarding focusing time (as previous poster
said, "half-press" the shutter first), EVIL/mirrorless cameras are going to be
faster than SLRs unless incompetently engineered.

There are outliers like the NEX-5 which had a shutter lag of over 100ms, even
when pre-focused, but the modern mirrorless equivalents of the 7D achieve less
shutter lag.

A DSLR has the intrinsic problem of having to wait for the mirror to move out
of the way before the image can be captured. The mirror mechanism's speed is
limited by the strength and flexibility of its materials (too fast and it'll
break), and the power level of the actuator moving it. Not to mention the
faster you move the mirror the more slap you will get, causing vibrations in
the camera that affect image quality. There is a "limit of physics and
material science" problem inherent in SLRs.

A mirrorless camera has none of these disadvantages - and it shows, even the
vaunted Canon 1D has a shutter lag between 40-50ms depending on model, while
the Sony NEX-5N has a shutter lag of 22ms.

The Canon 7D lordbusiness brings up clocks in at ~70ms. In fact none of
Canon's DSLRs can get below 40ms.

The Olympus E-M1 comes in at 50ms, as is the Fuji X-T1. Mirrorlesses already
outperform even high-end DSLRs when it comes to shutter lag. And they will
continue to get faster as more mirrorlesses move to electronic instead of
mechanical shutters.

------
casca
TL;DR: "[T]he iPhone 5S currently sits 8-9 years behind the DLSRs in bright
light, while the Nokia [Lumia 1020] trails by less than 6 years — probably
nearer to 3."

"Step into candlelight, [...] the iPhone trails the DSLRs by about 10 years,
and the Nokia about 8. "

------
bsenftner
For anyone working with or on computer vision applications, the difference is
startling obvious: anything with a lens larger than the typical mobile
phone/tablet slightly-larger-than-a-pinhole produces useful images, whereas
mobile camera images are impressionistic blotchy messes. The reason they have
such high megapixels is to hide that their pixel quality is piss-poor. I
retain a consumer Canon A40 purchased in '98 for use with computer vision
purposes; the highest resolution image it produces is 1024x768 - BUT EVERY
SINGLE PIXEL IS STABLE AND CORRECTLY COLOR TONED. There is no blotchy pixel
clumps revealed with a zoom. I also have access to a Nikon D7100, and my old
Canon A40 produces more stable pixels and is better for computer vision.

~~~
ajross
Indeed. It's almost like the intended use case of a phone in your pocket,
piggy-backing on the same device you use to call your friends or tell the
time, is something other than computer vision.

I mean, I'm all for well-applied snobbery and picking the correct tools for
the job. But, come on. A 30-second perusal of cute family photos on Facebook
and a comparison to the photo album you used 15 years ago will tell you
_exactly_ what these devices are good for.

~~~
knodi123
I'm just sad that I've still never had a cell phone conversation as quick and
crisp as I had over a landline in the early 80s.

~~~
sosborn
I'm happy to accept the minor degradation in quality for the massive increase
in convenience.

~~~
aidenn0
In my experience it's not "minor" it's more like "You need to just send me a
text with that 10 digit number because we've tried 3 times and I've yet to
copy 2 of the digits."

------
alkonaut
Sure the tiny sensors of gadgets have come a long way, but looking at it from
the other perspective: what are the trends in enthusiast "big" cameras?
Basically it's sensor _growing_. This is of course mainly driven by shrinking
costs of manufacturing sensors, but there is still a huge cost in terms of
bulk and weight to carry a camera with a 35mm sensor. Yet this is still
something people want to do.

Sadly photography is still very much a physics game, and while there is some
room for improvement in sensor tech, and cheating e.g with multiple exposures,
even a ten-fold increase in dynamic range and sensitivity wouldn't make large
sensors obsolete.

~~~
easytiger
Surely its more about the fact that lenses have to be a certain size.

~~~
custardcream
This. to quote my father (who is actually a professional photographer): Pissy
lens; pissy photo.

You need chunks of glass at the moment regardless of sensor size. I carry a
basic DSLR around with me (D3100) and a decent but cheap lens (AF-S DX 18-55)
and a shit smartphone. They cost less than a good smartphone and the results
are amazing.

~~~
danieltillett
I was under the impression that there are basically not enough photons at the
sizes that most smart phones sensors are. Once you get to low light levels a
tiny sensor just can't be fed enough photons to give a good picture.

~~~
custardcream
That's basically it but the amount of light reaching that sensor is improved
by a somewhat larger lens than you usually get on a smartphone.

~~~
danieltillett
Sure. The more glass you have the more photons you can gather. I have a f1.2
50mm lense and the amount of photons it can pull in is amazing. There is no
way any phone is going to be able to replicate this.

~~~
jacquesm
For a given exposure duration.

~~~
gjm11
Unfortunately, things move.

------
ghshephard
The quality of your shot on a DSLR is, in many ways, a function of the glass
you put on it. Do you have a stock 70-200 that you paid $500, or a fast-prime
that you paid $2000 for? 99.99% of people don't put an external lens on their
smartphone, so, that pretty much ends the conversation right there.

And there are entire arenas of photography that aren't even possible on a
smartphone - wildlife photography is pretty much the zone of the 800mm+
lenses.

Really - so much of photography is about the lens, and honestly, except for
low-light photography, the average $2k digital body from 2005 will get the job
done today.

~~~
cookiecaper
I've found that a lot of DSLR owners end up just sticking with the stock lens.
Lenses are really expensive and stock lenses are usually pretty adaptable. For
this reason, I've begun to prefer high-end point-and-shoots like the Powershot
G16; it has many more features and much better processing abilities than my
old Digital Rebel, and since realistically I'm not going to lug around the
DSLR and 5+ lenses for any situation that may arise, I've found P&S cameras to
be much more convenient and very versatile.

I would only use my DSLR if I knew I would need to photograph some
circumstance that my P&S couldn't handle. I know this makes me a black sheep
within the photography community and there are lots of people who like to make
fun of me for it, but the reality is that unless you're trying to get a
specific shot, a versatile, general-purpose lens is all you take with you on
your DSLR anyway, and you're better off using the lighter, smaller, cheaper
P&S.

~~~
MrScruff
For the vast majority of low end DSLR shooters, buying a fast prime lense (eg.
35mm 1.8 for 1.5x smaller sensor) will have the biggest single impact on their
photography. It gives them much more headroom in low light and much shallower
DoF for portraits.

It's also much smaller and lighter than the chunky 18-55 the camera probably
comes with.

~~~
foldr
Who are these people who regularly take photos at f1.8? At least with a full-
frame sensor you'd almost always want more depth of field that that. Having a
super-wide aperture may be an indicator of lens quality but it's not all that
much use in itself.

~~~
ghshephard
I _loved_ the pictures I could take with my f1.4 - particularly macro
photography, insects, flowers, etc.. but also low-light portrait photography.
The f1.4 lets in a _ton_ of light, and shoots really fast, so you can get a
low-light portrait with great bokeh. The second best lens I ever purchased for
my camera was the Canon EF 50mm f1.4 USM.

~~~
foldr
Bokeh is kind of subjective, so I won't argue that. If you're not using full
frame then maybe having some wider apertures is useful for that, but I would
think you'd almost always want more depth of field than f1.4 would give you.

Apart from that, you're only letting in around three more stops of light than
a kit lens and half a stop more than a cheap 50mm prime. You can almost always
work around that with some combination of (i) underexposing, (ii) using a
slower shutter speed and (iii) bumping up the ISO.

People used to say the same things about f1.4 lenses before digital, but the
fact is that shooting at ISO 800 you can get the same overall
sensitivity/quality balance at f4 with a digital camera that you could at f1.4
with a film camera.

If you spend all your time trying to shoot fast moving completely-flat things
in the dark -- and you can somehow focus fast enough at f1.4 -- then maybe
f1.4 is useful, but that isn't representative of most photography.

------
higherpurpose
Despite major hardware drawbacks such as much smaller sensors and cheap
lenses, I think computational photography will play a big role in shrinking
the gap with current gen DSLR's too, over the next decade. We are _slowly_
managing to put bigger and bigger sensor sizes in phones, too, without any
compromises in design, as Sony has shown with its 1/2.3" sensors in the Xperia
Z series [1].

Maybe in 2-3 years a 2/3" sensor will fit just as well, too. Again, I'm
talking about _no compromises_ in design. I know there are already 1" sensors
in some smartphones such as the Panasonic Lumix DMC-CM1 [2], but despite
myself being fine with buying such a phone, I assume most OEMs or smartphone
customers have no interest in those.

[1] - [http://www.sonymobile.com/global-
en/products/phones/xperia-z...](http://www.sonymobile.com/global-
en/products/phones/xperia-z3/)

[2] - [http://www.panasonic.com/de/consumer/foto-video/lumix-
kompak...](http://www.panasonic.com/de/consumer/foto-video/lumix-
kompaktkameras/dmc-cm1.html)

~~~
CalRobert
Not sure if it's what you meant by computational, but some pocket cameras
already apply software correction to known lens distortions. The Sony RX100,
for instance, which is presumably how they can have a 1" sensor and very
bright lens in a really small camera.

------
jff
I have a Pentax K-50 DSLR and a Pentax ME Super 35mm SLR. I love the pictures
from the DSLR, but the size and feel of the film camera cannot be beat. It's
about half the size of the K-50 and all the controls are quite simple.

Developing film is fun too, kind of nerve-wracking because you're pouring in
chemicals blind but then you open it up and pull out this lovely strip of
negatives and you can see it all came out OK.

------
quarterto
It would be interesting to see this article today with the iPhone 6/6+'s
improved camera: [http://petapixel.com/2014/09/24/side-side-
comparison-8-iphon...](http://petapixel.com/2014/09/24/side-side-
comparison-8-iphone-cameras-shows-6-dxomarks-new-king/)

------
Brian-Puccio
I'm curious why they didn't include any medium format cameras (let alone large
format cameras with movements ... how much does a 4x5 digital back cost?).

For under $2000, you can get a new 6x7 rangefinder with fixed lens and you'll
pull tons more detail out of a slide or negative that large than you would out
of a 35mm slide/neg.

If you're willing to buy used (and why wouldn't you considering they're using
digital cameras from 2003 in this review) you can get an awesome medium format
or large format system for under $1000.

~~~
foldr
I basically agree with you, but the price is a bit misleading if you don't
include the cost of the scanner. I love shooting medium format, but on my $250
Epson the results are barely better (in terms of resolution) than I get from
my iPhone 4S. Getting all the detail out of a negative usually works out
pretty expensive. (Wet printing is cheap way to do it but it's really time
consuming.)

~~~
Brian-Puccio
I agree, scanning can be expensive (I've got a Coolscan for 35mm and I'm
eyeing a v700 for 4x5).

But if prints are the desired end result, it's still less than $10 to develop
and print a roll of 35mm film. What's the price and cost of an inkjet, paper
and ink carts?

Then again, if all you're doing is taking quick snapshots to upload to
instagram, just use whatever smartphone you have and don't bother buying an
actual camera.

~~~
foldr
Yes, if you want prints then film is still an economical option. I think 120
film is kind of awkward for scanning because there are no affordable dedicated
film scanners which handle it but it's still not quite big enough to get
really good results from a flatbad. (It's tough to get more than 1200dpi of
real resolution out of a flatbed and that only gives you 8MP for 6x6
negatives.)

------
foldr
I don't understand why these sorts of comparisons always contain wild
exaggerations regarding differences in lens quality. For example, the author
claims that the following pair of corner crops (which differ only in the lens
used) illustrate a "dramatic" difference in sharpness:

[http://1.static.img-
dpreview.com/files/p/TS250x0~cms_posts%2...](http://1.static.img-
dpreview.com/files/p/TS250x0~cms_posts%2F5533410947%2FCanon-
EOS-40D-1855-EV15jpeg.jpg?v=3009)

[http://4.static.img-
dpreview.com/files/p/TS250x0~cms_posts%2...](http://4.static.img-
dpreview.com/files/p/TS250x0~cms_posts%2F5533410947%2FCanonEOS40D-1635-edgeEV15raw.jpg?v=3009)

In fact there is no actual detail that is visible in the one image but not the
other (especially given the "smudging" from the noise reduction). The small
difference in contrast (if this isn't just due to a change in lighting
conditions) is easily fixed in Photoshop. All of this is to be expected given
that both lenses are being used at f8 here, and any half-decent lens will give
good sharpness across the whole image at that aperture.

------
aruggirello
One of the things that worry me, as I still enjoy shooting and am perfectly
satisfied with my 6 megapixel DSLR camera, is _programmed obsolescence_. My
camera, bought in 2006, is perfectly fine, the shutter still has a long way to
go before hitting the 100 thousand actuations (it's just about halfway - and
it may be repaired in the event it breaks), and I don't see the point why it
may just stop functioning in a couple years. I also have a fancy new 24mp
D5200, but I still find the old one useful - this thing is irritating.

I noticed the infamous symbol (two arrows surrounding a friendly "10") on the
bottom of most of the DSLR camera models currently on sale from major
manufacturers (Nikon, Canon, Sony) - with the possible exception of Pentax.

~~~
nkurz
I hadn't known about this symbol before. It turns out to be the "China RoHS"
(Restriction of Hazardous Substances) required by Chinese law. It estimates
the shortest EFUP (Environmentally Friendly Use Period) of any component
within the item. The reason that it's not on your 2006 camera is that the law
came into effect in 2007.

From what I can tell, it's an estimate of the time after manufacture that the
item can be safely recycled, and is independent of the useful lifespan of the
item. And it seems that for legal compliance the manufacturers usually use a
standard number suggested for the product category rather than actually
calculating the specifics for the item:
[http://www.electronicsweekly.com/directive-decoder/china-
roh...](http://www.electronicsweekly.com/directive-decoder/china-rohs/china-
rohs-new-efup-guidance-2007-03/)

If Pentax doesn't have the symbol, it's probably because they are not
manufacturing or selling in China, rather than a difference in the
construction. If the construction was different (and if they were adhering to
the protocol) they'd have an 'e' inside the arrows rather than a number.

~~~
aruggirello
Thank you for the information. From your link: "the EFUP is the period of time
before any of the RoHS substances are likely to leak out, causing possible
harm to health and the environment - See more at:
[http://www.electronicsweekly.com/directive-decoder/china-
roh...](http://www.electronicsweekly.com/directive-decoder/china-rohs/china-
rohs-new-efup-guidance-2007-03/#sthash.4CrCDjN0.dpuf) "

------
thisjepisje
The Sigma DP3M has a foveon sensor instead of a regular sensor with bayer
filter array. It's based on different wavelengths of light penetrating silicon
to different depths, which means that all 3 colours are stacked on top of each
other, so you don't have to throw away 3/4 of your photons just because they
happen to be a different colour than the dot they fall on.

At low ISO the image quality is amazing, at high ISO it's very noisy. Also,
the red channel is much noisier than the blue one.

[http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/a/ab/Absorptio...](http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/a/ab/Absorption-X3.png)

------
barrkel
This is the second time I've read this article.

Or, gotten sucked into this article, more like.

 _In bright light outside, I expected a fair fight between the phones and
DSLRs. In dim light, I expected the DSLRs to eat the phones for breakfast._

 _So, how do they compare? I thought I knew. It turned out that I was
completely wrong. Read on to find the answers._

In what way was he completely wrong? DSLRs eat the phones for breakfast in dim
light, while they have a narrowish margin (against Lumia 1020) in bright
light. The first page sets you up for a surprise, but it never comes.

Of course, the lens you put on the DSLR makes as big a difference as you're
willing to invest. That's why they'll never really be comparable.

~~~
mod
> Of course, the lens you put on the DSLR makes as big a difference as you're
> willing to invest. That's why they'll never really be comparable.

For a layperson, I don't think this is true. It takes a professional to
extract the extra difference between say, a 50mm f/1.8 (~$100) and 50mm f/1.2
(~$1500). In fact, if I handed them both to a newbie, I'd expect them to do
better with the 1.8. Myself included.

That said, the f/1.8 is a bit exceptional, especially for its price.

~~~
chrisduesing
50mm is an aberration, it is the only glass you can get <f/1.8 affordably
(35mm are ok in this regard as well). Go check out the price of a <=f/2 100m+,
which is much more suited to portrait, macro, etc. Then go look at <f/4 for
200m+ for wildlife and sports. Now you see why it is so damn expensive to be a
professional photographer, and why the average person isnt posting stunning
wildlife or safari shots to their facebook wall.

------
annnnd
> The graph is misleading at first glance because the phones and the cameras
> sit on different scales...

> Note that the scales for the DSLRs and the phones are different and not
> directly comparable...

It looks like graph is misleading at second glance too. :) Author is comparing
the steepness of the curves, which is closely related to scale. If you change
the scale for phones you can make their progress much slower.

Not saying the phones won't reach DSLRs in terms of image quality, just that
this graph should not be interpreted in this way.

------
xyzzy123
While there is clearly a sensor gap, this actually sounds like a huge and
valuable application problem. DSLRs are not conventionally software
extensible, while phones are...

~~~
alkonaut
The processing of dslr photos usually takes place outside the camera (raw
conversion etc.), so my requirements for in-camera processing are quite small
for a dslr. For my smartphone on the other hand I need pictures usable
directly (typically).

~~~
antihero
That said, it would be really nice if you could take RAW in Android/iOS. Is
there even possibly a way with the current APIs/drivers?

~~~
vibrolax
The camera2 api in the just-release Android 5.0 contains support for RAW
images. The current Nexus camera app doesn't use it yet.

[https://developer.android.com/reference/android/hardware/cam...](https://developer.android.com/reference/android/hardware/camera2/package-
summary.html)

------
pingec
So where do cheaper (100-200$), non-DSLR compact digital cameras stand?

Do they have any advantages left over those integrated in mobile phones or
have they become obsolete?

~~~
higherpurpose
If you're comparing a $200 compact to a $200 phone, then chances are high that
the compact is still better, keeping in mind that you're paying $200 for
_only_ the camera that you still have to take with you.

If you're comparing a phone that has high-end specs in every way, plus a good
camera, and costs $600, that camera should be better than most $200 compacts
at this point.

I think the game is over for compacts, even if all you can afford is a
$200-$300 subsidized phone, and not a high-end one. My new Moto G 2014 takes
quite good pictures with very little noise.

Not only is the game over for compacts, but _many_ people who perhaps before
would've bought a sub-$1,000 DSLR to take vacation pictures, now don't feel
the need to do tat anymore if they have a current-generation high-end phone
that costs $600-$700, even if that $1,000 DSLR would be _significantly_
better.

The $600 phone cameras have become "good enough" for many people, except for
those perhaps that have no trouble buying a $600 phone _and_ a $1,000, or
$2,000 or $3,000 DSLR to take with them in vacations.

If I were the CEO of a camera company, I would've started focusing on the
smartphone market 3+ years ago, from multiple angles: making my own
"cameraphone" (such as Lumix CM1), selling "low-end" lenses for smartphones
(that should still be significantly better than the ones others make for
smartphones right now, that don't have experience in high-end cameras), and
through other type of know-how/technology licensing that would help smartphone
companies accelerate how good their phone cameras become - with my company
cashing in on _all_ of that.

Out of Sony, Nikon, Canon, Panasonic, Samsung and so on, Sony is perhaps the
_best suited_ to do that. Not only are its smartphone sensors already highly
popular, but it's also one of the top high-end camera makers. They also have
their own smartphone company, so they have smartphone know-how, while others
like Nikon or Panasonic don't. They could have so much synergy from that.

Unfortunately, Sony's strategy in this is complete crap. The fact that their
smartphone sensors are the most popular is probably mostly a coincidence, or
inertia from bygone times, because none of the other strategies match it.

Instead of making its own ultra-high-end cameraphone, Sony makes dumb camera
accessories that nobody wants to use. Nokia received a lot of praise for its
big bold 1020 camera, which had a halo effect on all of its other smartphones,
too. Instead of trying to be recognized as having the _best_ cameras, at least
in the Android world, Sony rarely reaches top 3, because of bad software. And
things are somewhat okay at the high-end, but all of their other phones have
terrible cameras (both software and hardware).

Sony is in a unique smartphone/camera intersection and they aren't anywhere
near close to taking full advantage of it. Apple continuously beats them, even
though Apple uses Sony's own sensors that are one or even _two_ generations
behind Sony's current smartphone sensors. To be honest, that's a complete
disgrace. If I were Sony's CEO and I'd be in charge of such a disgrace for a
few years already, I'd probably quit myself in shame - especially if I was
Japanese (who, I think still care about honor and such things?) - and let
someone better take charge.

~~~
leoc
The inability of electronics companies to get to grips with software has to be
one of the biggest, and saddest, stories of the past thirty years of
industrial history.

------
aphrax
I shot using Velvia 50 for many years (as mentioned in this article) and still
yearn for that combination of grain/saturation - at least I think that's it,
it's quite hard to put my finger on what was/is so fantastic about that
particular film.

------
qznc
Will Android 5's ability to shot in RAW format change that even more?

------
mod
Why is the most recent Canon in the examples from 2007?

