EOS-1D X Canon Press Release

Bruce writes:

David Dyer-Bennet wrote:
Bruce writes:
David Dyer-Bennet wrote:
Bruce writes:
The Canon EOS 5D was a major game changer. It was the first
reasonably affordable full frame DSLR, and even today its performance
is very, very good indeed. But the D700 made it look ordinary.

Surely no mistake?

I see the D700 and the 5D aimed at different market segments -- the
exact two segments that the differentiation at the top aims at. The 5D
is a high-res camera, not especially tough, fast, or good in low light.
The D700 is superb in low light, fairly tough, and has very good speed
(AF and frame rate).

The people I know with 5Ds (which is, um, all but one of my serious
photographer friends) would never have considered a D700, it didn't meet
their needs.


I think you must have the 5D II in mind, which as you say is a
high-res camera - 21.8 MP. I was talking about the original 5D, which
had 12 MP.

I view them as having, in their day, served the same market segment.
The change just represents evolution of the product over time.

The 5D never matched the D700 in low light, and it doesn't even try in
toughness, frame rate, or AF. That's not what it's about, never was.
And the people who bought it, bought it for different types of
photography than I bought the D700 for.

The 5D was the doyen of cameras for wedding photography. But when the
D700 came out, it had the same resolution but with much lower noise.
Being able to shoot in dim ambient light in churches at ISO 12,800 and
still get clean, low noise images was a revelation. There is still
nothing like it, obviously apart from the D3 and D3s.

So a great many wedding photographers defected from Canon to Nikon
purely because of the D700.

Interesting; I've never seen that (and fancy weddings are held in the
lobby of the building I work in; I get to watch setup and initial
photography out the windows on summer afternoons).

Some waited for the Mark II version of the 5D, but its low light
performance is poor compared to the D700 thanks to sensor noise. It
might have 9.5 million more pixels, but it is difficult to realise
that advantage at ISOs higher than, say, 800.

So there was a second wave of wedding shooters converting from Canon
to Nikon. They were also helped to make that decision by Nikon's
latest wide angle lenses which are even further ahead of Canon's than
the previous crop of Nikkors, excellent though they were.

Nikon is now the automatic first choice for wedding photographers. The
cameras and lenses are outstanding and the after-sales support is now
of a very high standard. If I was still shooting weddings on a
regular basis, I wouldn't consider any other brand.

Very interesting; I haven't seen a wedding shooter using Nikon in years.


Just another major difference between Europe and the USA, then.

Or more local differences possibly, both Europe and the USA are pretty
big places.

Like mirrorless CSCs - they dominate the Japanese market, have taken a
very large chunk of the European market, but have made comparatively
little headway in the USA, though I believe Canada mirrors Europe
rather than the US market.

"CSC", eh? That's somebodies term for what I think of as "EVIL"
cameras? (Electronic Viewfinder Interchangeable Lens).

There may be cultural differences that explain some of these
preferences. In wedding photography, I wonder if US wedding shooters
find it easier to use flash? If so, the Canon 5D II might be a good
choice. In Europe, venues such as old churches - very popular even
with people who are not regular churchgoers - tend to ban flash, so
the ability to shoot low noise images at up to ISO 12,800 is almost
obligatory. Hence the D700, D3 or D3s.

Generally, yes, lots of flash, except for the minor part of the work in
the church (that varies). The place I observe the somewhat random
selection of weddings is outdoors, though.

Perhaps US shooters want a DSLR that also shoots video, in which case
the D700 and D3 are out, and the 5D II is a more obvious choice.

Could well be, though the people I see shooting here are clearly doing
stills, and I sometimes see a separate videographer.

I am not aware of Nikon Europe having made a particularly strong pitch
to wedding shooters for the D700, but that camera's reputation spread
very rapidly by word of mouth, through professional bodies and on
online forums used by pro wedding shooters. Suddenly there were a lot
of used 5D bodies on the market, especially on the same forums. The
same channels were used to register early adopters' disappointment
with the 5D II, and another wave of used 5D bodies ensued.

It also helped that the D700's street price dropped fairly rapidly to
20-15% below its already competitive list price. This encouraged
early sales to the point where there were long waiting lists, but to
their credit, Nikon UK never increased prices to take advantage of
that. I think street prices in mainland Europe stayed closer to the
list price throughout; the UK is a reasonably good place to buy Nikon,
and isn't too much more expensive than the US.

So that's the background. It is on that basis that I rate the D700 as
a game changer. It has been a spectacular sales success for Nikon in
the UK in particular and Europe in general. I cannot express an
opinion about other markets because I don't have any information.

It was certainly a game-changer for me -- and cost me a fortune. I
could barely afford the body (by selling a lens people had put a crazy
premium price onto). But I'd optimized my lens collection somewhat for
DX through two DX DSLRs, so going back to FX was a shock there. I ended
up having to get the 24-70/2.8 (found my Tokina that was okay on film
not cutting the mustard), and needd something longer than 200mm so got a
Sigma 120-400, and my Tokina DX 12-24 wasn't helpful anymore so ended up
with the Sigma 12-24 FX. None of which I'd really planned for.

I keep thinking I'd prefer to be on a DX body, except for this troubling
little issue of low-light performance which is what moved me to the D700
in the first place :-).

I asked the secretary of my professional association what, in his
opinion, was the approximate split of market share in full frame DSLRs
used by wedding shooters, and he thinks it's around ~70-75% Nikon and
~20-25% Canon, with the remaining ~5% using Hasselblad or Sony.

There are still some people using film, too. ;-)

Very strange choice! Although I have to say that flash performance with
film was MUCH better than digital manages, so I can see the point for
that part of a wedding.
--
David Dyer-Bennet, ; http://dd-b.net/
Snapshots: http://dd-b.net/dd-b/SnapshotAlbum/data/
Photos: http://dd-b.net/photography/gallery/
Dragaera: http://dragaera.info

On 2011-11-23 08:11:26 -0800, David Dyer-Bennet said:

Bruce writes:

David Dyer-Bennet wrote:
Bruce writes:
David Dyer-Bennet wrote:
Bruce writes:
The Canon EOS 5D was a major game changer. It was the first
reasonably affordable full frame DSLR, and even today its performance
is very, very good indeed. But the D700 made it look ordinary.

Surely no mistake?

I see the D700 and the 5D aimed at different market segments -- the
exact two segments that the differentiation at the top aims at. The 5D
is a high-res camera, not especially tough, fast, or good in low light.
The D700 is superb in low light, fairly tough, and has very good speed
(AF and frame rate).

The people I know with 5Ds (which is, um, all but one of my serious
photographer friends) would never have considered a D700, it didn't meet
their needs.


I think you must have the 5D II in mind, which as you say is a
high-res camera - 21.8 MP. I was talking about the original 5D, which
had 12 MP.

I view them as having, in their day, served the same market segment.
The change just represents evolution of the product over time.

The 5D never matched the D700 in low light, and it doesn't even try in
toughness, frame rate, or AF. That's not what it's about, never was.
And the people who bought it, bought it for different types of
photography than I bought the D700 for.

The 5D was the doyen of cameras for wedding photography. But when the
D700 came out, it had the same resolution but with much lower noise.
Being able to shoot in dim ambient light in churches at ISO 12,800 and
still get clean, low noise images was a revelation. There is still
nothing like it, obviously apart from the D3 and D3s.

So a great many wedding photographers defected from Canon to Nikon
purely because of the D700.

Interesting; I've never seen that (and fancy weddings are held in the
lobby of the building I work in; I get to watch setup and initial
photography out the windows on summer afternoons).

Some waited for the Mark II version of the 5D, but its low light
performance is poor compared to the D700 thanks to sensor noise. It
might have 9.5 million more pixels, but it is difficult to realise
that advantage at ISOs higher than, say, 800.

So there was a second wave of wedding shooters converting from Canon
to Nikon. They were also helped to make that decision by Nikon's
latest wide angle lenses which are even further ahead of Canon's than
the previous crop of Nikkors, excellent though they were.

Nikon is now the automatic first choice for wedding photographers. The
cameras and lenses are outstanding and the after-sales support is now
of a very high standard. If I was still shooting weddings on a
regular basis, I wouldn't consider any other brand.

Very interesting; I haven't seen a wedding shooter using Nikon in years.


Just another major difference between Europe and the USA, then.

Or more local differences possibly, both Europe and the USA are pretty
big places.

....and then on both sides of the pond I have heard two different
pronunciations for Nikon and Nikkor; "knee-kon" & "n-eye-kon";
"knee-kor" & "n-eye-kor". Any idea how the Japanese might pronounce
them. Perhaps David Littleboy could educate us.

--
Regards,

Savageduck

Savageduck writes:

On 2011-11-23 08:11:26 -0800, David Dyer-Bennet said:

Bruce writes:

David Dyer-Bennet wrote:
Bruce writes:
David Dyer-Bennet wrote:
Bruce writes:
The Canon EOS 5D was a major game changer. It was the first
reasonably affordable full frame DSLR, and even today its performance
is very, very good indeed. But the D700 made it look ordinary.

Surely no mistake?

I see the D700 and the 5D aimed at different market segments -- the
exact two segments that the differentiation at the top aims at. The 5D
is a high-res camera, not especially tough, fast, or good in low light.
The D700 is superb in low light, fairly tough, and has very good speed
(AF and frame rate).

The people I know with 5Ds (which is, um, all but one of my serious
photographer friends) would never have considered a D700, it didn't meet
their needs.


I think you must have the 5D II in mind, which as you say is a
high-res camera - 21.8 MP. I was talking about the original 5D, which
had 12 MP.

I view them as having, in their day, served the same market segment.
The change just represents evolution of the product over time.

The 5D never matched the D700 in low light, and it doesn't even try in
toughness, frame rate, or AF. That's not what it's about, never was.
And the people who bought it, bought it for different types of
photography than I bought the D700 for.

The 5D was the doyen of cameras for wedding photography. But when the
D700 came out, it had the same resolution but with much lower noise.
Being able to shoot in dim ambient light in churches at ISO 12,800 and
still get clean, low noise images was a revelation. There is still
nothing like it, obviously apart from the D3 and D3s.

So a great many wedding photographers defected from Canon to Nikon
purely because of the D700.

Interesting; I've never seen that (and fancy weddings are held in the
lobby of the building I work in; I get to watch setup and initial
photography out the windows on summer afternoons).

Some waited for the Mark II version of the 5D, but its low light
performance is poor compared to the D700 thanks to sensor noise. It
might have 9.5 million more pixels, but it is difficult to realise
that advantage at ISOs higher than, say, 800.

So there was a second wave of wedding shooters converting from Canon
to Nikon. They were also helped to make that decision by Nikon's
latest wide angle lenses which are even further ahead of Canon's than
the previous crop of Nikkors, excellent though they were.

Nikon is now the automatic first choice for wedding photographers. The
cameras and lenses are outstanding and the after-sales support is now
of a very high standard. If I was still shooting weddings on a
regular basis, I wouldn't consider any other brand.

Very interesting; I haven't seen a wedding shooter using Nikon in years.


Just another major difference between Europe and the USA, then.

Or more local differences possibly, both Europe and the USA are pretty
big places.

...and then on both sides of the pond I have heard two different
pronunciations for Nikon and Nikkor; "knee-kon" & "n-eye-kon";
"knee-kor" & "n-eye-kor". Any idea how the Japanese might pronounce
them. Perhaps David Littleboy could educate us.

I've never heard anybody use the "knee" pronunciation.

And the lens brand I'm used to saying as "KNICK-kor".
--
David Dyer-Bennet, ; http://dd-b.net/
Snapshots: http://dd-b.net/dd-b/SnapshotAlbum/data/
Photos: http://dd-b.net/photography/gallery/
Dragaera: http://dragaera.info

On 2011-11-23 19:25:28 +0000, Bruce said:

Savageduck wrote:
On 2011-11-23 08:11:26 -0800, David Dyer-Bennet said:

Or more local differences possibly, both Europe and the USA are pretty
big places.

...and then on both sides of the pond I have heard two different
pronunciations for Nikon and Nikkor; "knee-kon" & "n-eye-kon";
"knee-kor" & "n-eye-kor". Any idea how the Japanese might pronounce
them. Perhaps David Littleboy could educate us.


US English: Nigh-kon
British English: Nickon
Japanese English: Neekon

Agreed. Perhaps the Japanese English should have 1.5 to 1.7 "e" instead
of the full two? :-)

I'll never forget how much ridicule I received for uttering
"Tosh-eee-ba" during my stay in Japan. I was incapable of learning any
Japanese during my visit, however, I got accepted because I learnt to
read and pronounce most things written in katakana (syllabary):

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Katakana

Company names are often written in katakana rather than kanji. It's
easy to look-up the katakana names so there's no excuse for saying
"Nigh-kon".

The South Korean company Hyundai is totally different: unless one
learnt the language as a child it is impossible to pronounce the name
hence there are so many variations of it bandied about.

Bruce writes:

David Dyer-Bennet wrote:
Bruce writes:
David Dyer-Bennet wrote:

Very interesting; I haven't seen a wedding shooter using Nikon in years.


Just another major difference between Europe and the USA, then.

Or more local differences possibly, both Europe and the USA are pretty
big places.

Like mirrorless CSCs - they dominate the Japanese market, have taken a
very large chunk of the European market, but have made comparatively
little headway in the USA, though I believe Canada mirrors Europe
rather than the US market.

"CSC", eh? That's somebodies term for what I think of as "EVIL"
cameras? (Electronic Viewfinder Interchangeable Lens).


EVIL has negative connotations. The UK is now using CSC, usually
prefixed with 'mirrorless'.

Too many people have no sense of humor, is what.

Any idea what "CSC" is supposed to mean?

Could well be, though the people I see shooting here are clearly doing
stills, and I sometimes see a separate videographer.


The separate videographer is the norm here. I don;t know any wedding
shooters who use their DSLRs to shoot video. There must be some, but
I think it is unlikely that there are many. It was something I always
subcontracted because I cannot shoot video well.

I may have shot more moving pictures than still in college (doesn't take
long at 24 frames per second, or 30), and was pretty decent at it for a
while. But haven't done much of anything more recently than 1994, when
I was assistant camera on a 16mm no-budget feature project that never
completed. But I've never done it at a wedding.

I am not aware of Nikon Europe having made a particularly strong pitch
to wedding shooters for the D700, but that camera's reputation spread
very rapidly by word of mouth, through professional bodies and on
online forums used by pro wedding shooters. Suddenly there were a lot
of used 5D bodies on the market, especially on the same forums. The
same channels were used to register early adopters' disappointment
with the 5D II, and another wave of used 5D bodies ensued.

It also helped that the D700's street price dropped fairly rapidly to
20-15% below its already competitive list price. This encouraged
early sales to the point where there were long waiting lists, but to
their credit, Nikon UK never increased prices to take advantage of
that. I think street prices in mainland Europe stayed closer to the
list price throughout; the UK is a reasonably good place to buy Nikon,
and isn't too much more expensive than the US.

So that's the background. It is on that basis that I rate the D700 as
a game changer. It has been a spectacular sales success for Nikon in
the UK in particular and Europe in general. I cannot express an
opinion about other markets because I don't have any information.

It was certainly a game-changer for me -- and cost me a fortune. I
could barely afford the body (by selling a lens people had put a crazy
premium price onto). But I'd optimized my lens collection somewhat for
DX through two DX DSLRs, so going back to FX was a shock there. I ended
up having to get the 24-70/2.8 (found my Tokina that was okay on film
not cutting the mustard), and needd something longer than 200mm so got a
Sigma 120-400, and my Tokina DX 12-24 wasn't helpful anymore so ended up
with the Sigma 12-24 FX. None of which I'd really planned for.


That's a big outlay, but a very nice outfit. It is an expensive step
up to FX if you have mostly DX lenses. I only dabbled with DSLRs
before the 5D. I wanted exactly the same control over depth of field
that 35mm film gave me, so when the Canon EOS 5D arrived, that was the
right time for me to take the plunge.

I had a Fuji S2 and then a Nikon D200 before the D700. For me, DoF is
95% of the time something I wish I had more of (the times I'd like to
blur out the background to avoid distractions, in practice I found even
f/1.2 didn't do it well enough; that was the lens I pretty much traded
for the D700, a 58/1.2 NOCT).

I keep thinking I'd prefer to be on a DX body, except for this troubling
little issue of low-light performance which is what moved me to the D700
in the first place :-).


It's not a little issue at all. The D3, D3s and D700 blow everything
else away. Even medium format sensors cannot match the high ISO
performance of the D700.

Medium-format has never been where serious low-light photography has
happened, so they're not making those design choices in the digital
versions either.

Yeah, the D700 is simply wonderful. Will, years after it came out.

I asked the secretary of my professional association what, in his
opinion, was the approximate split of market share in full frame DSLRs
used by wedding shooters, and he thinks it's around ~70-75% Nikon and
~20-25% Canon, with the remaining ~5% using Hasselblad or Sony.

There are still some people using film, too. ;-)

Very strange choice! Although I have to say that flash performance with
film was MUCH better than digital manages, so I can see the point for
that part of a wedding.


There is a small market for weddings shot using retro gear. I know
two photographers who primarily use film for weddings; one uses
Rolleiflex TLRs and the other classic Leicas. There are also some
older photographers who haven't converted to digital, but most have.
Film isn't dead, but it is definitely a niche market.

Yes, the retry market certainly. There were versions of it 20 years ago
or more, even -- people shooting 4x5 Speed Graphic weddings, say.

I still use film for black and white prints.

I moved out of film really remarkably fast. Even the Fuji S2 gave me
better low-light color capabilities than film. Film was never really my
friend -- I was always fighting grain. All the way back to my first
darkroom work around 1968.
--
David Dyer-Bennet, ; http://dd-b.net/
Snapshots: http://dd-b.net/dd-b/SnapshotAlbum/data/
Photos: http://dd-b.net/photography/gallery/
Dragaera: http://dragaera.info

Bruce wrote:
David wrote:
writes:
David wrote:
writes:
The Canon EOS 5D was a major game changer. It was the first
reasonably affordable full frame DSLR, and even today its performance
is very, very good indeed. But the D700 made it look ordinary.

Surely no mistake?

I see the D700 and the 5D aimed at different market segments -- the
exact two segments that the differentiation at the top aims at. The 5D
is a high-res camera, not especially tough, fast, or good in low light.
The D700 is superb in low light, fairly tough, and has very good speed
(AF and frame rate).

The people I know with 5Ds (which is, um, all but one of my serious
photographer friends) would never have considered a D700, it didn't meet
their needs.


I think you must have the 5D II in mind, which as you say is a
high-res camera - 21.8 MP. I was talking about the original 5D, which
had 12 MP.

I view them as having, in their day, served the same market segment.
The change just represents evolution of the product over time.

The 5D never matched the D700 in low light, and it doesn't even try in
toughness, frame rate, or AF. That's not what it's about, never was.
And the people who bought it, bought it for different types of
photography than I bought the D700 for.

The 5D was the doyen of cameras for wedding photography. But when the
D700 came out, it had the same resolution but with much lower noise.
Being able to shoot in dim ambient light in churches at ISO 12,800 and
still get clean, low noise images was a revelation. There is still
nothing like it, obviously apart from the D3 and D3s.

So a great many wedding photographers defected from Canon to Nikon
purely because of the D700.

Interesting; I've never seen that (and fancy weddings are held in the
lobby of the building I work in; I get to watch setup and initial
photography out the windows on summer afternoons).

Some waited for the Mark II version of the 5D, but its low light
performance is poor compared to the D700 thanks to sensor noise. It
might have 9.5 million more pixels, but it is difficult to realise
that advantage at ISOs higher than, say, 800.

So there was a second wave of wedding shooters converting from Canon
to Nikon. They were also helped to make that decision by Nikon's
latest wide angle lenses which are even further ahead of Canon's than
the previous crop of Nikkors, excellent though they were.

Nikon is now the automatic first choice for wedding photographers. The
cameras and lenses are outstanding and the after-sales support is now
of a very high standard. If I was still shooting weddings on a
regular basis, I wouldn't consider any other brand.

Very interesting; I haven't seen a wedding shooter using Nikon in years.


Just another major difference between Europe and the USA, then.

Like mirrorless CSCs - they dominate the Japanese market, have taken a
very large chunk of the European market, but have made comparatively
little headway in the USA, though I believe Canada mirrors Europe
rather than the US market.

There may be cultural differences that explain some of these
preferences. In wedding photography, I wonder if US wedding shooters
find it easier to use flash? If so, the Canon 5D II might be a good
choice. In Europe, venues such as old churches - very popular even
with people who are not regular churchgoers - tend to ban flash, so
the ability to shoot low noise images at up to ISO 12,800 is almost
obligatory. Hence the D700, D3 or D3s.

And now the 18MP Canon 1D X with ISO 204,800 (at H2).

D700 still has price on it's side though.


Perhaps US shooters want a DSLR that also shoots video, in which case
the D700 and D3 are out, and the 5D II is a more obvious choice.

I am not aware of Nikon Europe having made a particularly strong pitch
to wedding shooters for the D700, but that camera's reputation spread
very rapidly by word of mouth, through professional bodies and on
online forums used by pro wedding shooters. Suddenly there were a lot
of used 5D bodies on the market, especially on the same forums. The
same channels were used to register early adopters' disappointment
with the 5D II, and another wave of used 5D bodies ensued.

It also helped that the D700's street price dropped fairly rapidly to
20-15% below its already competitive list price. This encouraged
early sales to the point where there were long waiting lists, but to
their credit, Nikon UK never increased prices to take advantage of
that. I think street prices in mainland Europe stayed closer to the
list price throughout; the UK is a reasonably good place to buy Nikon,
and isn't too much more expensive than the US.

So that's the background. It is on that basis that I rate the D700 as
a game changer. It has been a spectacular sales success for Nikon in
the UK in particular and Europe in general. I cannot express an
opinion about other markets because I don't have any information.

I asked the secretary of my professional association what, in his
opinion, was the approximate split of market share in full frame DSLRs
used by wedding shooters, and he thinks it's around ~70-75% Nikon and
~20-25% Canon, with the remaining ~5% using Hasselblad or Sony.

There are still some people using film, too. ;-)

On Wed, 23 Nov 2011 11:15:16 -0800, Savageduck
wrote:
: ...and then on both sides of the pond I have heard two different
: pronunciations for Nikon and Nikkor; "knee-kon" & "n-eye-kon";

You could write the second one as "NIGH-con".

: "knee-kor" & "n-eye-kor".

I think I usually hear "NICK-oar".

: Any idea how the Japanese might pronounce them.
: Perhaps David Littleboy could educate us.

I could come closer with a somewhat richer font, but approximately:
knee-KONG
nick-core-oo

Subject to correction by David, of course. ;^)

Bob

On Wed, 23 Nov 2011 21:08:22 +0000, Pete A
wrote:
: The South Korean company Hyundai is totally different: unless one
: learnt the language as a child it is impossible to pronounce the name
: hence there are so many variations of it bandied about.

I don't know a word of Korean, but I do cringe every time I hear a U.S. TV
commercial call it "HUN-day".

Bob

On 2011-11-30 04:42:52 +0000, Robert Coe said:

On Wed, 23 Nov 2011 21:08:22 +0000, Pete A
wrote:
: The South Korean company Hyundai is totally different: unless one
: learnt the language as a child it is impossible to pronounce the name
: hence there are so many variations of it bandied about.

I don't know a word of Korean, but I do cringe every time I hear a U.S. TV
commercial call it "HUN-day".

Same here.

More info on pronunciation:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hyundai#cite_note-0

On 2011-11-30 04:20:23 -0800, Pete A said:

On 2011-11-30 04:42:52 +0000, Robert Coe said:

On Wed, 23 Nov 2011 21:08:22 +0000, Pete A
wrote:
: The South Korean company Hyundai is totally different: unless one
: learnt the language as a child it is impossible to pronounce the name
: hence there are so many variations of it bandied about.

I don't know a word of Korean, but I do cringe every time I hear a U.S. TV
commercial call it "HUN-day".

Same here.

More info on pronunciation:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hyundai#cite_note-0

Hyundai is a great example of the Western ear not being able to wrap
its tongue around an oriental pronunciation. I have to agree that the
nation with the least consistent pronunciation of almost anything, is
the U.S.A. and I believe much of that can be attributed to the global
"melting pot" nature of the American population.
Then if you add in regional accents within many countries and
continental regions all bets are off. Here the two most obvious
culprits are North America, and the entire British Isles.

Getting back to automotive name manglings, two others that the top the
list are Por-Sha/Porsh and Nissan/NeesHan/Nissen. Those together with
the GM habit of adding model names based on an historic past, intended
to add an implied air of pseudo elegance, for example, the much
butchered "Brougham", "Cabriolet", "LeSabre", "LaCrosse", etc.

....and when it comes to cringe-worthy name, and any word he chooses
mangling, nobody does it better, more often, with unique results, and
with more conviction than the entertaining Jeremy Clarkson on any of
his shows.

--
Regards,

Savageduck