Canon 6D Mark II lacks 4K video - What were they thinking?!

[ntblowz]

36 minutes ago, Mattias Burling said:

So no links then?

If you bothered to check their financial report they are still healthy, its on their website, not some third party speculation.

[jonpais]

Forget 4K for a moment. The 80D's got a headphone jack, but none on the 6D Mark II. Oh, I'm sure there was a financial reason for that. It's like a slap in the face to Canon users. But hey, Canon themselves market this shit as a step up from a smartphone camera, so what'd ya expect y'all? The Canon Press Release boasts that the 6D Mark Ii will excel at guiding photographers on their way to capturing more compelling images, such as ones with a shallow depth-of-field or being able to give moving subjects a frozen or flowing look, but not when purchased with the  Canon EF 24-105mm f/4L IS USM II, at $3,099.00, it won't. You'd get more of that 'full frame' bokeh goodness shooting with an 80D rocking a fast Sigma for half the price.

 

 

 

[Mattias Burling]

13 hours ago, ntblowz said:

If you bothered to check their financial report they are still healthy, its on their website, not some third party speculation.

That's awesome, Ive never seen that, could you please link to a report showing the numbers of the camera divisions only?
Not the annual report I've read where for example Sony has lumped it together with other tech like TVs and sensor sales. Just a clean number of the profits made from selling interchangeable lens cameras.

Since you know exactly where it is and where to find it, it shouldn't be any trouble for you to post such a link for everyone to read
The best part is that unlike many, you are not gonna answer with "go find it" or "google".
Nope you know where it is and you will post it, maybe even highlight the numbers you want us to see.

EDIT: I also read through the annual report by Panasonic just for the heck of it. And they also lump their camera division under "other" or one of the other divisions.
But luckily you have bothered to check it out and will provide us with a number showing the profit of their interchangeable lens cameras only.

You know what. Lets make it more interesting. Ad Fuji to the mix. I believe if you strip away the Instax film business they aren't profitable.
So please provide any sort of report, article, evidence, rumor, what ever that shows that Sony, Panasonic or Fuji is making money when I go into a store and buy one of their interchangeable lens cameras.
Because as of today I don't think they make a dime.

I believe their camera business is bleeding money, just like Samsungs did.
The company as a whole are making money (less money). But sooner or later they will reach the end of the road when they have to make a decision.
Do we keep bleeding cash in hopes of taking over, or do we pull out (like Samsung)?

Prove me wrong and I will admit it immediately  
Because unlike many I don't care. I'm not trying to protect a precious camera brand, I'm just observing what I see. A market where there are more cameras and camera brands than there are customers. And that's not how one makes money.
I would LOVE to be wrong

EDIT: 2

Hey I might have found something. Sony isnt even making anual reports anymore. But within the documents they are required by law to turn in I find a little tidbit.
They are actually making money from cameras. But units doesnt = cash.
Not as mmany as they used to sell either but still might be profit and then I was wrong

Buuuut..... Its all cameras. Compact, video, pro video, FS5, action cameras, etc.
So is this evidense that hey make money if I walk into a store and buy an a6500..? not really.
Bu I will take it. Spread the joy!

[Andrew Reid]

So only Canon and Nikon are profitable?

Sony is actually now ahead of Nikon on the US market for all interchangeable lens photography equipment.

They had record sales in 2017 and outgrew a contracting overall market minus-Sony made up of a drifting Canon and Nikon going slowly nowhere.

As for Panasonic, well you only have to look around the streets in most major cities worldwide to see mass-market consumers using their G series mirrorless cameras. Find any tourist hotspot in the world and take a sample. It's not all Canon and Nikon.

I don't know about you, but I would mind having the proceeds from some of those sales in MY bank account

For Sony meanwhile, the sensor business IS part of the camera business, and if you add smartphone photography to the mix then Sony has a larger part to play in worldwide sales of cameras than even Canon.

15 minutes ago, Mattias Burling said:

I believe their camera business is bleeding money, just like Samsungs did.

For most of it's life Samsung's camera division did not bleed money.

It was only in the final 1-2 years that sales saw a dramatic downturn because the bulk of Samsung's market share was in the low-end products that smartphones were killing off.

That's why at the last moment they switched to the high-end with the NX1 and courted us filmmakers and enthusiasts, but in the end they felt it was time to pull the plug because of the continuing low sales and that frankly that a gargantuan company the size of Samsung had bigger fish to fry like military contracts for tank building, ship building and worldwide billion dollar smartphone market. In terms of photography they didn't have the kind of loyal sheep to fall back on as Canon and Nikon do so it was always going to be one of their smaller profit lines, selling NX1s to filmmakers 

[Mattias Burling]

14 minutes ago, Andrew Reid said:

So only Canon and Nikon are profitable?

Who said that?

Quote

Sony is actually now ahead of Nikon on the US market for all interchangeable lens photography equipment.

Read the fine print of your own post, "full frame"  and "jan to Feb", thats 30 days 

Also, notice the dates... and then go back and look. Where there any major releases of Full Frame Sonys just before that?
Where there any realeses by Canikons just before that?
Would you say newly released cameras jump the sales in the beginning?
Dont you think this makes that graph rather, lets say, favorable to Sony?

Also I edited my last post. I found some profit in cameras. But it cant be said it shows that they make money from interchangeable lens camera sales.
They might however  

[Arikhan]

@jonpais

We should try to stay fair (saying this after finally selling almost all my Canon gear):

Mess / imbecilic

• The 6D ii doesn't have a dual card slot (some years ago that was NOT a problem, but NOW IS NOW ) - such a mes...
• The 6D ii doesn't have a headphone jack - such a mess...
• The 6D ii doesn't have a clean 1080p - kind of imbecilic decision

Debatable:

• All available AF points positionned in center - hard pill for off-centered compositions (sure, you can focus and recompose, but same with the "old" 6D, so why buy a new camera?)
• No 4K - Who (gear heads and 4k "enthusiasts" excepted) does really require this? Perception of a loud minority doesn't mean, a vast majority of possible buyers require this

Please don't compare the FF 6D (II) with an APSC device like the 80D. There is no APSC device in Canon's portfolio coming close to the photographic quality of a 6D...It's more than fair to subsume, what the 6D is / was:

• a very affordable and great FF camera, especially for low light photography with nice high ISO-images in the dark - even better than the 5D m3
• very poor AF system, but...with a dead-on center focus point - dead on in the dark,  even better than the 5D m3 --> very reliable (happy event, concert, and wedding shooters)
• poor DR, but hey that doesn't really count in the dark at ISO 6.400 or more
• it never counted as a really good / powerful video device, but footage was (full of moire without mounting an addtional LPF) OK for 2012

The 6D was "the special one" (for photography purposes) - completely underrated by the 5d m3 fanboys and mainstream brigade...I had my 5d m3 min. once a year in service for AF justage (permanent issues with inconsistency and accuracy - and I was ONE of many, working around this issues). Not so the 6D..."The special one" had only ONE (center) point reliable AF point, but this one was dead-on, even in the dark...

That said, it will be interesting to see, if the 6D ii does continue the tradition of the 6D:

• Does the 6D ii focus as good as or better in the dark as its predecessor?
• As the 6D ii has now many more cross points, will that give the photographer more composition freedom, even in low light?
• What about the DR of the new 6D ii compared with the old 6D?

Finally a link to a "6D artist" shooting SPORTS with a camera, pampered wannabes and lazy armchair experts say, it's impossible to do this with a 6D: --> http://gaszynski.pl/ (please scroll down and watch carefully...?

[Andrew Reid]

1 minute ago, Arikhan said:

No 4K - Who (gear heads and 4k "enthusiasts" excepted) does really require this? Perception of a loud minority doesn't mean, a vast majority of possible buyers require this

Anybody that needs good 1080p.

Remember, the 6D Mark II's 1080p mode should really be labeled standard definition "540p", with moire.

They should put Moire as a sludge coloured badge on the side of the box.

1 minute ago, Arikhan said:

Please don't compare the FF 6D (II) with an APSC device like the 80D.

It's practically the same camera. Only difference is sensor size. A Sigma 18-35mm F1.8 will give the 80D a very similar image to the best F2.8 zoom on the 6D Mk II for much less money.

 

6 minutes ago, Mattias Burling said:

Who said that?

You did! You said Sony, Panasonic, Fuji, etc. aren't profitable so that only leaves two that are!

It's just wrong!

If they were not profitable they would not be in the business for 15+ years and bringing out new stuff every few months!

6 minutes ago, Mattias Burling said:

Read the fine print of your own post, "full frame"

Yes Sony outselling Nikon full frame cameras...

That's not what I call "in the red"!

6 minutes ago, Mattias Burling said:

Also I edited my last post. I found some profit in cameras. But it cant be said it shows that they make money from interchangeable lens camera sales.
They might however  

C'mooooooooon.

[Mattias Burling]

10 minutes ago, Andrew Reid said:

You did! You said Sony, Panasonic, Fuji, etc. aren't profitable so that only leaves two that are!

No it doesn't mean that at all. Thats coming from you. I dont think Nikon is making money at all nor Ricoh.
All I said was that I dont believe Panasonic, Sony and Fuji makes money when I buy one of their interchangeable lens cameras

Also you are cherry picking my posts. I have clearly written that the companies are doing well and are profitable.
All Im saying is that they are not making money from interchangeable lens cameras. If they did, they would let us know.

 

Quote

Yes Sony outselling Nikon full frame cameras...
That's not what I call "in the red"!

But would you say selling more UNITS (units does not = profit) for ONE MONTH right after a NEW RELEASE is the same as being "in the greens" ?  

The market isnt big enough. One of the big brands will fall. But it probably wont be Canon.
Not that I care either way, just my observation.

[Andrew Reid]

You point to a reputable link that shows Sony and Panasonic's camera divisions are loss making non-profitable entitles then!

[jonpais]

4 hours ago, Arikhan said:

@jonpais

We should try to stay fair (saying this after finally selling almost all my Canon gear):

Mess / imbecilic

• The 6D ii doesn't have a dual card slot (some years ago that was NOT a problem, but NOW IS NOW ) - such a mes...
• The 6D ii doesn't have a headphone jack - such a mess...
• The 6D ii doesn't have a clean 1080p - kind of imbecilic decision

Debatable:

• All available AF points positionned in center - hard pill for off-centered compositions (sure, you can focus and recompose, but same with the "old" 6D, so why buy a new camera?)
• No 4K - Who (gear heads and 4k "enthusiasts" excepted) does really require this? Perception of a loud minority doesn't mean, a vast majority of possible buyers require this

Please don't compare the FF 6D (II) with an APSC device like the 80D. There is no APSC device in Canon's portfolio coming close to the photographic quality of a 6D...It's more than fair to subsume, what the 6D is / was:

• a very affordable and great FF camera, especially for low light photography with nice high ISO-images in the dark - even better than the 5D m3
• very poor AF system, but...with a dead-on center focus point - dead on in the dark,  even better than the 5D m3 --> very reliable (happy event, concert, and wedding shooters)
• poor DR, but hey that doesn't really count in the dark at ISO 6.400 or more
• it never counted as a really good / powerful video device, but footage was (full of moire without mounting an addtional LPF) OK for 2012

The 6D was "the special one" (for photography purposes) - completely underrated by the 5d m3 fanboys and mainstream brigade...I had my 5d m3 min. once a year in service for AF justage (permanent issues with inconsistency and accuracy - and I was ONE of many, working around this issues). Not so the 6D..."The special one" had only ONE (center) point reliable AF point, but this one was dead-on, even in the dark...

That said, it will be interesting to see, if the 6D ii does continue the tradition of the 6D:

• Does the 6D ii focus as good as or better in the dark as its predecessor?
• As the 6D ii has now many more cross points, will that give the photographer more composition freedom, even in low light?
• What about the DR of the new 6D ii compared with the old 6D?

Finally a link to a "6D artist" shooting SPORTS with a camera, pampered wannabes and lazy armchair experts say, it's impossible to do this with a 6D: --> http://gaszynski.pl/ (please scroll down and watch carefully...?

Some extraordinary shots in the link you shared, Ari. But I'm primarily interested in the video capabilities of the 6D II, as this is after all a website dedicated to filmmaking. Every week, I see dozens of young people and professionals shooting video with their Canon cameras, often with an operator holding a microphone for interviews. So evidently, there is an interest in the video capabilities of the camera. Panasonic saw the consumer interest in video, what, six or seven years ago, and ran with it: consulting with professionals in the industry, continually innovating and adding features those in the online community were clamoring for. Their products were reliable; they didn't overheat; files didn't require exorbitant amounts of storage space and most of all, they were reasonably priced. We didn't see them intentionally crippling cameras to protect their flagship models, apart from some small annoyances, like the occasional lack of a headphone jack. When they created something new, whether it was 4K Photo, focus peaking, highlight/shadow curves or IBIS, they generally equipped all of their mid- to high end cameras with those features. They even added anamorphic, a feature that in no way could be considered essential to the majority of buyers. They partnered with the legendary German lens maker Leica to produce optics that rival those of any system. Metabones, Voigtlander, Zacuto, Blackmagic, Veydra, SLR Magic, DJI and dozens of other companies followed suit, by which I mean, that not only did Panasonic encourage innovation, they also created jobs. Now, let's take a look at Canon, the number one or number three patent holder in the world, the largest seller of cameras... The 5D created a stir in the filmmaking community around seven or eight years ago, so what did Canon do? Did they add even more videocentric features to the 5D year after year; did that technology trickle down to their lower priced models; were they encouraged like Panasonic was when their cameras were hacked by Vitaly and others to offer higher bit rates? Or did they react by creating a new lineup of cinema cameras out of reach for the average consumer and continue to produce cameras whose 1080p looks like 720p mush?

[Arikhan]

@jonpais

Full ACK...I've just done some mentions on the photographic capabilities of the 6D / 6D ii - because I gave up to expect even a minimum of video performance from a Canon APSC or FF DSLR under 2.000 EURO. Personally I stopped to require all i need for photography AND filming from one single camera/manufacturer. For photos it's Nikon at the moment.

My needs: for video there is Panasonic HC-X1 I own and - after taking a in deep look at the new C200 - probably the C200 as soon as it will be available.

Portable solutions I own: D750 & D810 (nice 1080p, but I don't use both very often for filming), D500 (great video imaging but a quite ugly crop in 4K)...And then the NX1 and my mom's A6500 for daily, portable shooting and when needing reliable video AF. And furthermore, the FZ1000 for quick&dirty B/C-Roll footage

As you see, more than enough cameras for nearly all needs...So I don't expect NOTHING from the Canon ultras...Their attitude simply disgusts me. 

Nevertheless Canon has enough merits within the photographing and filming community with some very nice devices during the past. And it seems, the upcoming C200 will perfectly fit my filmic needs, though I will have to take a deep look at it before buying. BUT I would never spend 3.700 EUR for an 5d m4 or even 2.000 Eur for a 6D ii. They decided to cripple & overprize  their DSLR line, OK...I'll spend my money otherwise. Nikon didn't refuse explecetely to take my money...

I don't care about brands, I care only about performance, ergonomics, reliability and fun when shooting...Never forget fun and personal satisfaction!

[Andrew Reid]

If you have given up expecting a minimum of video performance from Canon DSLRs, why do you keep defending them?

Isn't it a big disgrace that even a loyal customer like you after spending thousands feels disappointed?

5D Mk IV should be your dream camera, a must-buy, and you are saying you would never spend 3700 euros on it.

[Arikhan]

@Andrew Reid

Quote

If you have given up expecting a minimum of video performance from Canon DSLRs, why do you keep defending them?

I don't defend them. I just try to be fair. I can NOT abnegate years and decades of shooting Canon, when particurarly beeing very happy with ergonomics, built quality and an excellent after sales and repair service. But then I started beeing very unhappy with inconsistency and accuracy of their AF...And Canon startet kidding me, telling me, I don't see good, respectively my requirements would not be realistic...

But my demands were realistic - their cameras were not...The D750 showed me first how AF consistency and accuracy works, even I was not perfectly familiar with all AF possibilities at that time. No more misfocused bullshit, no more Canon excuses for problems they knew about...But OK, now it's over...To be honest, I have to admit, when selling the lenses (as eg 400mm 2.8 and some more spectacular lenses of our collection) we got by far more money for them, as we paid years ago when buying new...So, most Canon lenses we owned were not expenses, but a substancial investment over time - as it turned out when selling...To remain fair to the morons...

Quote

5D Mk IV should be your dream camera, a must-buy, and you are saying you would never spend 3700 euros on it.

Nope...For me, it's only 2.000 worth. Not one cent more. So, in reality vastly overprized. But, as I said, I consider the 1DX II to be very expensive - but not overprized. I don't like feeding fat cats even more, especially when they try to kid me....

And then, there is something more...I encountered many Canon shooters with quite the same, poor attitude towards their own work and customers...These are mostly photographic ignorants on one side and know-it-alls on the other side...No need for then to learn something new, never thinking about evolving and further development...A vast majority believes, "no need for wireless HSS", most of them shoot stopped down to F5.6-8, no risks, nothing...No need for a great DR....Post WW 2, like their manufacturer...And nearly all of them complaining about customers attitide and low rates they get - but none of them reflecting on the own attitude, lack of modern offerings and poor delivery....No need for learning post production...No need for using a second card in the 5d m3 ("I never had a card failure")...Bla, bla, bla...People treating their customers as enemies are provincial, narrow-minded morons filled with bitterness. And very soon - bankrupt...

To be honest: Sometimes I believe, Canon customers should do a rebellion against a retro-minded manufacturer. BUT, for a rebellion, people should have noticed, how Canon is kidding them. But they don't notice anything...Canonistas love pains - because they don't even notice them...

[Mattias Burling]

5 hours ago, Andrew Reid said:

You point to a reputable link that shows Sony and Panasonic's camera divisions are loss making non-profitable entitles then!

Name one company that doesn't communicate profit? Both Panasonic and Sony sure do. Heat pumps and PlayStations that is. If the camera divisions where profitable they would brag about it. They sure took the first opportunity with the units sold during the 4 weeks after a release...

You cant deny that can you? That companies try to raise stocks by positive reporting... you know Apple etc..

That the camera divisions are baked in to "other" and such is enough for me to ask you for proof. Not the other way around.

But again, I honestly dont care. And talking about business is even more boring than pure specs. As long as the camera makes good images I couldn't care less how their bonus program is doing

I know I've said it before but I will try again to stay out of this discussion. Its just so hard when some thinks their preferences and opinions is law and then talk down on others who just want a discussion

[BasiliskFilm]

Seems to me that all companies have trade offs...
Panasonic settled on a relatively small sensor, but have done their best to extract the maximum from that, with fast lenses and ever improving image quality. 
Sony, with their philosophy of a consumer electronics company, have pushed compactness to possibly perverse extents. If their products are defective, it is mainly for this reason. Within a small form factor, overheating will be an issue, and there is never enough room for controls and buttons, so UI will be compromised. But within that restraint they consistently push the envelope. (A9 picture profiles is perhaps the obvious exception)
Nikon have made a virtue of backward compatibility, I love the fact I can use old Nikkors on a new body as they were meant to be used, but it was always a bit of a kludge. And they don't make their own sensors, so always seem to be playing catch up with Sony on getting the best video peformance. The Df was a deliberately "non-video" retro camera, but the D4 was available for those who wanted the same innards with extra features.

None of the above have routinely worked to deprive customers of features that could have been included at little extra cost, to protect other, more expensive, models in their lineup, knowing that their customer base is so heavily invested in quality lenses they cannot easily switch.

[noone]

12 minutes ago, BasiliskFilm said:

Seems to me that all companies have trade offs...
Panasonic settled on a relatively small sensor, but have done their best to extract the maximum from that, with fast lenses and ever improving image quality. 
Sony, with their philosophy of a consumer electronics company, have pushed compactness to possibly perverse extents. If their products are defective, it is mainly for this reason. Within a small form factor, overheating will be an issue, and there is never enough room for controls and buttons, so UI will be compromised. But within that restraint they consistently push the envelope. (A9 picture profiles is perhaps the obvious exception)
Nikon have made a virtue of backward compatibility, I love the fact I can use old Nikkors on a new body as they were meant to be used, but it was always a bit of a kludge. And they don't make their own sensors, so always seem to be playing catch up with Sony on getting the best video peformance. The Df was a deliberately "non-video" retro camera, but the D4 was available for those who wanted the same innards with extra features.

None of the above have routinely worked to deprive customers of features that could have been included at little extra cost, to protect other, more expensive, models in their lineup, knowing that their customer base is so heavily invested in quality lenses they cannot easily switch.

I agree that there are trade offs for everything but not so much with you examples.

I like the Sony UI of the A7s and the level of controls is excellent with access to so many things without having to go into a menu.

As for Nikon's backward compatibility, well that is getting worse by the day.

Yes, the MOUNT is compatible but what works varies greatly from lens to lens and camera to camera.      The oldest manual focus Nikons work as well (at least) on mirrorless as on any Nikon camera and some I would argue are better (with IBIS on many for instance or can even be auto focused on Sony in a pinch via the Sigma adapter).      Nikon screwdrive AF lenses don't AF on lower Nikon cameras and the G lenses don't work so well on older cameras and now the newest lenses can not be fully used on some even fairly recent cameras.

Nikon could easily make their lower cameras be able to use a wider variety of their own lenses.

I shudder to think what they are going to do with mirrorless!

 

[BasiliskFilm]

2 hours ago, noone said:

I agree that there are trade offs for everything but not so much with you examples.

I like the Sony UI of the A7s and the level of controls is excellent with access to so many things without having to go into a menu.

As for Nikon's backward compatibility, well that is getting worse by the day.

Yes, the MOUNT is compatible but what works varies greatly from lens to lens and camera to camera.      The oldest manual focus Nikons work as well (at least) on mirrorless as on any Nikon camera and some I would argue are better (with IBIS on many for instance or can even be auto focused on Sony in a pinch via the Sigma adapter).      Nikon screwdrive AF lenses don't AF on lower Nikon cameras and the G lenses don't work so well on older cameras and now the newest lenses can not be fully used on some even fairly recent cameras.

Nikon could easily make their lower cameras be able to use a wider variety of their own lenses.

I shudder to think what they are going to do with mirrorless!

 

My point wasn't necessarily clear - Nikon prioritised keeping the mount mostly compatible at each stage rather than replacing it, like Canon did when they scrapped FD, but ultimately the problem is that you get more and more design compromises. While I like that I can use 40 year old lenses natively, a fully electronic connection makes more sense in the modern world going forward.
My screwdriven lenses work on my old D40, but it made no sense to put a body-motor into cheap consumer DSLRs when most users only have one or two lenses.
Sony UIs may have improved, but the A6000 series are a bit more cramped, and they have massive levels of control, but also lots of deep menus to get lost in. A bigger body might not hurt on such a capable camera.

[noone]

55 minutes ago, BasiliskFilm said:

My point wasn't necessarily clear - Nikon prioritised keeping the mount mostly compatible at each stage rather than replacing it, like Canon did when they scrapped FD, but ultimately the problem is that you get more and more design compromises. While I like that I can use 40 year old lenses natively, a fully electronic connection makes more sense in the modern world going forward.
My screwdriven lenses work on my old D40, but it made no sense to put a body-motor into cheap consumer DSLRs when most users only have one or two lenses.
Sony UIs may have improved, but the A6000 series are a bit more cramped, and they have massive levels of control, but also lots of deep menus to get lost in. A bigger body might not hurt on such a capable camera.

My old retired D50 works great for AF with my AF 50 1.8 but your D40 would not work as well with it as my Sony A7s or Panasonic GX7 as far as I am concerned.

The latest Nikon AF-P lenses can not even focus on cameras as recent as a D800, D7000, D5100 or D3200 which are cameras many still use as their current camera.

As for the A6000 UI, that is one camera and you could pick and choose a camera from Nikon that is more menu driven against a higher end camera that isn't.

Ergonomics is subjective. 

Personally, I prefer a camera that has lots of control and deep menus as that means it has more in it.

My old D50 menus are not very big but then there is not a lot too the camera but it still needs menu diving more than most recent cameras.

I have owned and used cameras from just about every one of the major makers and it is simply getting used to them but I have not had any I didn't particularly like and have come to prefer the FF Sony way (A7s and A7 previously).

My last Canon  DSLR (7D) wasn't all that great as far as the menu was concerned but not bad either.

This new Canon isn't for me but that is mainly because it has a mirror and doesn't do much I need or want.    If it had been mirrorless , the it would be something for me to consider when my current camera dies (though I would like better HD video at least).

As for 4k cameras, I went and checked an electronics shop with a reasonable range yesterday and the brand that had the most models with 4k was actually Nikon (including the action cams) which was very surprising.

 

[ntblowz]

Back to Topic:

If 6D2 have good 1080P video we might br interested on getting it to replace our 5D as photo and last resort camera for video, but mixing 5d and c100 is a bit difficult since 5D is soft and C100 is really sharp, and 6D II video look even worse.