FastFreddy2 Posted September 27, 2017 Author Report Share Posted September 27, 2017 14 hours ago, Puffer said: If you must, but don't frighten the horses. They wouldn't notice the difference ... (boom boom) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FastFreddy2 Posted October 16, 2017 Author Report Share Posted October 16, 2017 (edited) Saw today, some landscape photo's taken with digital. Quality was really rather good. Here is one: Photograph by Kenneth Rennie. Some more by him here: https://www.ephotozine.com/user/kmrennie-123151/gallery/photo/fiji-sunset-2-35296853/ Looking into his equipment, I find time has moved on and newer cameras are even more expensive than the one he used on the linked album. In fact looking at a camera that ticked every box I might want to see ticked (full frame no low pass filter blah blah blah) I looked at a body circa £2500. And a decent lens at £600, or any (upward) figure you care to think of ... I may be sticking to the Lumix G5 for a while, though the Lumix G80 has some advantages.... New lens pencilled in for Xmas, maybe a replacement camera next year. I may need to look into selling some pictures first. Which may mean updating my portfolio .... Any volunteers for some modelling work? Edited October 16, 2017 by FastFreddy2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shyheels Posted October 17, 2017 Report Share Posted October 17, 2017 (edited) I am looking at the Canon 5DS-R myself, which is a bit over £3100 for the body. Not cheap, but then I have a couple of assignments coming up that call for that kind of blow-up-large resolution. Or the 5D IV. The inner debate continues. No need for any lenses, though... Edited October 17, 2017 by Shyheels Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FastFreddy2 Posted October 17, 2017 Author Report Share Posted October 17, 2017 There is of course a big difference between your needs (working pro) and mine (VERY part time enthusiast). The handicap I have, is 'spare' cash lying around doing nothing. I get to do a lot of window shopping. And even when I buy, I tend to avoid using because I get so much pleasure looking at my purchase. I should become an art dealer .... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shyheels Posted October 17, 2017 Report Share Posted October 17, 2017 My handicap is cash too! I know what you mean about the pleasure of ownership. Unlike some of my fellow pros, who seem happy to use their camera bodies to pound tent pegs, I take it easy on my gear as far as possible. Rrsearching more this morning - leaning towards the 5D IV now. Seems less of a one-trick pony... 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FastFreddy2 Posted October 17, 2017 Author Report Share Posted October 17, 2017 (edited) 3 hours ago, Shyheels said: Researching more this morning - leaning towards the 5D IV now. Seems less of a one-trick pony... I suppose handling them both will be an indicator as to which you will like long term. When I first held the Lumix G3, it was incredibly difficult to handle because holding it nearly always opened up a menu.... It went back as John Lewis was still in the throes of their "happy" campaign with no declared limit on returns. I only had it for a short while but it went back and JL were happy to take it back. (Nuts.) Keeping that camera would have been a big mistake. I completely understand the 5DR S option, if image detail is the main criteria. Large starting image size, and since Canon have intentionally clipped where the ISO rating can be pushed, I would think this camera is tilted toward the best quality image possible, with no compromise. The faintly ironic thing for me ..... I've helped run multi-million pound businesses (planning) on computers with hard drives less than a fifth of the image size created by one photograph the camera produces. And I used to sell (used) 20mb hard drives circa 1997, to home PC builders at computer fairs. Not that you are sure whether to buy, but this popped up earlier. Looks like a pukka company too. Or .... Since they don't have a retail outlet, maybe not so pukka. Edited October 17, 2017 by FastFreddy2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shyheels Posted October 17, 2017 Report Share Posted October 17, 2017 (edited) Thanks - I saw that firm too, noted the nice prices, but I tend to shy away from grey market electronics which is what that surely must be. Yes, image size. We really are reaching a state of overkill on file/image sizes which are far in excess of what even most pros need, unless they are shooting advertising (billboards) or doing fine art photography and making huge prints. Frankly a 6MP image is more than enough for the vast majority of magazine work, even double page spreads. Canon's top of the range 1DX has 'only' 20.2MP. It is blindingly fast, though, at 14fps - and so best suited for sports and wildlife photographers and I've not heard any of them that I know complain about lack of resolution. The 5DS-R - with 50.6MP - is a fabulous landscape camera (or for studio work or weddings) It is the landscape potential that tempts since I do a lot of that. It would be almost like having digital medium format camera but at a vastly lower cost. On the other hand I also do a lot of work on the street, on the go (without time or opportunity for tripods) and often in low light. The 5D IV has all that versatility covered, especially low light. Both camera bodies have petty much the same ergonomics - and both are nearly identical to the 5D3 which I have been using since it came out five years ago. I'd love to buy both, but that ain't happening! Edited October 17, 2017 by Shyheels Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Puffer Posted October 17, 2017 Report Share Posted October 17, 2017 8 hours ago, FastFreddy2 said: There is of course a big difference between your needs (working pro) and mine (VERY part time enthusiast). The handicap I have, is 'spare' cash lying around doing nothing. I get to do a lot of window shopping. And even when I buy, I tend to avoid using because I get so much pleasure looking at my purchase. I should become an art dealer .... I assume you mean: 'The handicap I have is no 'spare' cash lying around doing nothing.'? (And, if you think about it, that is a double tautology: spare cash = cash lying around = cash doing nothing! I once met a man who told me that he 'imported foreign goods from other countries abroad', i.e. he was 'an importer'.) It is a truism that money can't buy happiness - but then again it can make being miserable a lot more comfortable! As to merely admiring (gloating over?) prized purchases, the extreme must surely be those who pay a huge sum for a bottle of vintage wine, which sits undrunk gathering dust in a cellar for years and is just occasionally looked at. Hardly an object of beauty or even erotica. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FastFreddy2 Posted October 17, 2017 Author Report Share Posted October 17, 2017 (edited) 1 hour ago, Puffer said: I assume you mean: 'The handicap I have is no 'spare' cash lying around doing nothing.'? (And, if you think about it, that is a double tautology: spare cash = cash lying around = cash doing nothing! I once met a man who told me that he 'imported foreign goods from other countries abroad', i.e. he was 'an importer'.) "Spare cash" need not be lying around, it might be invested. It's still 'spare', (ie ISA) as indeed might liquid assets sat in a bank account. Conversely, cash lying around, could be lying there waiting to be used to pay a bill/debt. (And for most people usually is.) The condition of the money I mentioned, is both. It is money with no requirement or need to be spent, save what I choose to use it for. And it is literally lying there. £460 on my bedroom floor, £100 on the kitchen table and a four figure sum in a cupboard. There is a five figure sum, "spare" but not lying there, languishing in a bank account. I wasn't talking about spare liquid assets sat in a bank account. The nuance in my original prose was made using inverted commas, indicating cash lying around is; 'spare': as in having no debt, or bill, or likely imminent need demanding its use. If I chose to, I could quite literally walk into a camera shop tomorrow and buy any of the 2-3k cameras mentioned without making a dent or ripple in any financial plan I might or might not have. Quote As to merely admiring (gloating over?) prized purchases, the extreme must surely be those who pay a huge sum for a bottle of vintage wine, which sits undrunk gathering dust in a cellar for years and is just occasionally looked at. Hardly an object of beauty or even erotica. I don't know that I've ever gloated over anything, much less an object. I thought many of those buying mega-expensive wines were treating them as investments? My problem is the reluctance to spoil something that looks perfect. (Brand new.) I even bought a used bicycle in the hope it would get me out on a bike more. So far, it hasn't worked. I am working on resolving that though. (My resolution might be slightly thwarted by my having listed the bike on an auction site, that produced more interest than I was expecting .... Ho-hum.) Edited October 17, 2017 by FastFreddy2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FastFreddy2 Posted October 17, 2017 Author Report Share Posted October 17, 2017 6 hours ago, Shyheels said: Thanks - I saw that firm too, noted the nice prices, but I tend to shy away from grey market electronics which is what that surely must be. They did claim "UK stock", which I guess can be checked with serial numbers, prior to purchase? I too would steer clear of grey imports. With branded names, you are paying for warranty and backup. That's of little use in the UK if the camera has to be shipped to China for repairs. My heating engineer mate came very unstuck with a phone bought in that way. Returned for repair, never saw it again. PayPal (180 day guarantee) was not interested. 6 hours ago, Shyheels said: The 5DS-R - with 50.6MP - is a fabulous landscape camera (or for studio work or weddings) It is the landscape potential that tempts since I do a lot of that. It would be almost like having digital medium format camera but at a vastly lower cost. I've a real thing for detail. I'm hoping the lens I plan to buy over Xmas (assuming I don't change direction go for the G80 and 12-60 lens kit) will greatly improve the image quality of my pictures. At the moment I use a 20mm lens (40mm x 35mm film equiv) which is fine for the bulk of the pictures I take, but I want to get a portfolio of digital work going. Primarily in B+W portraits, which I love. (Old romantic.) Even some landscapes look more dramatic in B+W I think. (Nod to Mr Adams.) 6 hours ago, Shyheels said: On the other hand I also do a lot of work on the street, on the go (without time or opportunity for tripods) and often in low light. The 5D IV has all that versatility covered, especially low light. Both camera bodies have petty much the same ergonomics - and both are nearly identical to the 5D3 which I have been using since it came out five years ago. I'd love to buy both, but that ain't happening! The Sony is off the option list for you as you've a compliment of Canon lenses, but one of the things that attracted me, was it's abilities at low light levels, beating many of those already well known for their low light capability. Low light/low noise I should say. Much of my 'alternative' interest is in scenes involving the darker side of life. Not necessarily as a self-satisfying voyeur (though this is not excluded), but more as a social history reporter or recorder. This might not be wholly necessary, with the advent of good quality camera phones, but I have always had a creative urge from as long as I can remember. (Suppressed childhood?) Fortunately the Sony has all the aesthetic appeal of a house brick, which is making a purchasing decision very easy to make. (Or not make, in my case.) The Alpha 7R II camera, looks to have been styled by an ex-Praktica employee. Function over form .... As you well know, pushing ISO upward often allows an image that otherwise wouldn't be possible. Not just because of low light levels, but small aperture lenses. I'm pretty sure I've never owned a lens with a wider aperture than f1.4 despite me liking to use differential focusing for isolating an aspect of an image. I'm pretty sure this can now be done in post with the right software? Which leaves me able to use slower (cheaper) lenses, even with the Alpha - if it ever has a face lift! But with an f4.0 lens I'd be pushing it to capture most candids with the G5, which is why I bought the f1.7 20mm to get me going. Reading this is might seem unlikely I would spend £600 on the Sigma lens, but it (the lens) tied to something like the Alpha has (as you've said several times) the ability to match medium format film, and that being the case, I would spend that money. Perhaps I should take a closer look at a Nikon 610? Or just buy the lens I plan to, and see what I can do... So once again, models? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shyheels Posted October 17, 2017 Report Share Posted October 17, 2017 Sony make some excellent cameras and frankly have been more innovative than Canon in recent years. If one didn’t have so much money invested in Canon lenses, or rather Zeiss lenses with Canon mounts, some of the Sony cameras would be really tempting. Their sensors are brilliant. Black and white is a lovely medium. I don’t know if you have used this or not, but Silver Efex Pro is a brilliant bit of conversion software. Best I have come across by far. The 50mm lens is very “unglamorous” and unsung lens that ought to be better appreciated. I love it. That or the 35mm would be my standard, go-to lens. You’re quite right - with the high ISO that is available these days, and the advances in noise reduction, the heavy, expensive superfast lenses - the f2-8 and lower - are much less attractive these days. A sharp f4 lenses will do the trick nearly always. My Canon 5D3 will shoot very, very useable images at 3200 (although the camera is capable of much higher speeds) and I really don’t ever find myself needing to go higher. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shyheels Posted October 18, 2017 Report Share Posted October 18, 2017 (edited) 3 hours ago, Puffer said: I assume you mean: 'The handicap I have is no 'spare' cash lying around doing nothing.'? (And, if you think about it, that is a double tautology: spare cash = cash lying around = cash doing nothing! I once met a man who told me that he 'imported foreign goods from other countries abroad', i.e. he was 'an importer'.) It is a truism that money can't buy happiness - but then again it can make being miserable a lot more comfortable! As to merely admiring (gloating over?) prized purchases, the extreme must surely be those who pay a huge sum for a bottle of vintage wine, which sits undrunk gathering dust in a cellar for years and is just occasionally looked at. Hardly an object of beauty or even erotica. I like Arnold Schwarzneggers’s quote about money not buying happiness: I know money does not buy happiness. I am no happier now with $80 million than I was when I had only $40 million... And yes, most of those rare bottles of wine are bought at investment or as collectibles, not to be drunk - any more than you’d buy a rare Silver dollar to spend it. Edited October 18, 2017 by Shyheels Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Puffer Posted October 18, 2017 Report Share Posted October 18, 2017 9 hours ago, FastFreddy2 said: "Spare cash" need not be lying around, it might be invested. It's still 'spare', (ie ISA) as indeed might liquid assets sat in a bank account. Conversely, cash lying around, could be lying there waiting to be used to pay a bill/debt. (And for most people usually is.) The condition of the money I mentioned, is both. It is money with no requirement or need to be spent, save what I choose to use it for. And it is literally lying there. £460 on my bedroom floor, £100 on the kitchen table and a four figure sum in a cupboard. There is a five figure sum, "spare" but not lying there, languishing in a bank account. I wasn't talking about spare liquid assets sat in a bank account. The nuance in my original prose was made using inverted commas, indicating cash lying around is; 'spare': as in having no debt, or bill, or likely imminent need demanding its use. If I chose to, I could quite literally walk into a camera shop tomorrow and buy any of the 2-3k cameras mentioned without making a dent or ripple in any financial plan I might or might not have. ... I don't know that I've ever gloated over anything, much less an object. I thought many of those buying mega-expensive wines were treating them as investments? My problem is the reluctance to spoil something that looks perfect. (Brand new.) I even bought a used bicycle in the hope it would get me out on a bike more. So far, it hasn't worked. I am working on resolving that though. (My resolution might be slightly thwarted by my having listed the bike on an auction site, that produced more interest than I was expecting .... Ho-hum.) I won't comment further on the distinctions you drew about cash resources and have now somewhat clarified. But I am concerned to hear that you have such a large amount of cash 'lying around' at home (and not, apparently, just overnight) which is neither secure nor working for you. The best instant-access online account pays 1.3% at present and, whilst still very low compared with historic rates, is better than nothing and removes the risk element. I hope at least the further funds in your bank account are earning interest. As to admiring rather than gloating, the distinction is likely to be a fine one - but I didn't suggest that you 'gloated', although many others might. I agree that (so-called) 'fine wine' is generally bought as an investment. My point was that wine is a costly purchase which (unlike a painting, a state-of-the-art camera or a pair of designer shoes) has almost zero intrinsive visual appeal and cannot be 'enjoyed' in any meaningful sense without being destroyed - leaving little to do apart from gloating. I wonder how often such collections are ever sold-on (at a profit, after storage costs etc) or indeed drunk with real pleasure? It seems to me that the value and its growth are almost entirely illusory, and that can be true of many antiques and jewellery items too, but at least they are usually nice to look at, if not locked away in a vault. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shyheels Posted October 18, 2017 Report Share Posted October 18, 2017 Actually, if you know what you are doing, rare and fine wine is not a bad investment. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FastFreddy2 Posted October 18, 2017 Author Report Share Posted October 18, 2017 (edited) 2 hours ago, Puffer said: I won't comment further on the distinctions you drew about cash resources and have now somewhat clarified. But I am concerned to hear that you have such a large amount of cash 'lying around' at home (and not, apparently, just overnight) which is neither secure nor working for you. The best instant-access online account pays 1.3% at present and, whilst still very low compared with historic rates, is better than nothing and removes the risk element. I hope at least the further funds in your bank account are earning interest. I'm not overly happy about it either, but there is no "risk" of imminent loss, if you can remember what one of my past/current interests might be. I won't remind you here, since I choose to be as discreet as possible about it. I would much rather the money was invested in 'bricks and mortar', but as I've mentioned before, I don't have enough to have a second home to use for investment purposes. There is a long term plan to resolve that .... But I get distracted. Quote My point was that wine is a costly purchase which (unlike a painting, a state-of-the-art camera or a pair of designer shoes) has almost zero intrinsive visual appeal and cannot be 'enjoyed' in any meaningful sense without being destroyed - leaving little to do apart from gloating. I wonder how often such collections are ever sold-on (at a profit, after storage costs etc) or indeed drunk with real pleasure? It seems to me that the value and its growth are almost entirely illusory, and that can be true of many antiques and jewellery items too, but at least they are usually nice to look at, if not locked away in a vault. 1 hour ago, Shyheels said: Actually, if you know what you are doing, rare and fine wine is not a bad investment. In my youth (a very distant memory) I was taught why old stuff becomes more valuable: value being in the amount of demand, and bearing no relation to original cost. In this example, a bottle of wine made by anyone anywhere in the world, is unlikely to cost more than £4. My lesson involved something like a Mini Cooper, or might have been a Lotus Elan. I could not understand why cars getting older, could sell for increasingly higher values? As was explained to me: They were made in a finite number. Crashes, and general dilapidation meant their numbers decreased. Fewer vehicles with (over time) increasing demand (through reputation or legend) meant demand increases. If demand increases in a dwindling supply, prices rocket until demand begins to fall off. A fellow welder I worked with circa 1978/79/80 once told me, if he had stored all the Austin 7's he'd buried in his gardens over the years, he'd be a millionaire. Only today I read how a McClaren F1 stored for 20 years, will likely fetch a record sum when it goes to auction. I too can't understand why wine would become more expensive over time, but I understand the mechanics of it. A coupe of years ago, I sold a bike frame that I knew as soon as it was delivered, was never get used by me. I owned it for over 15 years, and only Mrs F complaining that our wedding photo's weren't on a wall anywhere, stopped me mounting that frame on a wall. I see beauty in some odd things I suppose, but sometimes I just like to look rather than use. Edited October 18, 2017 by FastFreddy2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shyheels Posted October 18, 2017 Report Share Posted October 18, 2017 As for wine - it's good old supply and demand. A rare and costly wine becomes even rarer and more costly as the number of bottles diminish over the years and collectors who wish to have a complete run of a certain label bid up prices. If you bought a bottle of Penfold's Grange - Australia's finest and costliest and most collectible wine - every year since the first (experimental) vintages appeared in 1951 (66 bottles of wine) your collection would be worth well in excess of $150,000. The '51 alone would fetch $50,000. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FastFreddy2 Posted October 18, 2017 Author Report Share Posted October 18, 2017 19 minutes ago, Shyheels said: The '51 alone would fetch $50,000. Google suggests the wine that old would not be pleasant to drink. I would guess the "value" is the unopened bottle? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shyheels Posted October 18, 2017 Report Share Posted October 18, 2017 The value is in the completeness of the collection. Someone who is bidding on a bottle of '51 Grange Hermitage isn't after a nice red to have with their Christmas dinner - it'll be a collector who wants the whole set. That's the hardest one to get. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Puffer Posted October 18, 2017 Report Share Posted October 18, 2017 Yes, I understand why old wine can appreciate in value and why a collector will regard that missing vintage as a 'must have', regardless of price. (The concept is of course not unique to wine as many antiques, stamps, coins, books etc will also fall into that category.) But, potential investment appreciation aside, my central point remains: WHY sink money into something that cannot be enjoyed in any tangible sense, which is how this discussion started? I can understand the perceived beauty of some object that is not, perhaps, a conventional one for display and admiration (or indeed gloating). Freddy's bicycle frame is a case in point - it is attractive in its way (and doesn't need a 'frame' to display it!). After all, people like Tracey Emin have made fame and fortune from turning mundane and even rubbish items into so-called art. (In Herne Bay, as I write, there is an abandoned shop full of junk and jumble, plainly visible in the window and behind. Some wag has added a sticker inside which proclaims 'Window display by Tracey Emin'!) 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shyheels Posted October 18, 2017 Report Share Posted October 18, 2017 The St Gaudens twenty dollar gold piece is widely considered to be one of the most beautiful coins ever designed. They were made from 1907 to 1933.Beautiful as they are, why own or try to own, the full set of 26? The point is to complete a set, the goal of nearly any collector or anything. And there are collectors of everything. That would be the “why” Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FastFreddy2 Posted October 18, 2017 Author Report Share Posted October 18, 2017 I'm pretty sure the 'collector' gene is almost always the territory of men. There are exceptions, and Imelda Marcos stands out as one. Her shoe collection (amongst other collections) reputedly ran to 1000 pairs. Even I would see that as unrealistic. (Waste of good money.) And as for the gold coin ... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shyheels Posted October 19, 2017 Report Share Posted October 19, 2017 Indeed mainly men. you could ‘spend’ a couple of mint state 1907 St Gaudens double eagles and buy a bottle of ‘51 Grange! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FastFreddy2 Posted October 19, 2017 Author Report Share Posted October 19, 2017 I sold one of my bikes today. I've probably got enough (spare) cash to buy a Lumix G80 that would come with a 12-60mm lens. I tried out the GH5 with the same lens too, while I was at JL Brent Cross last night, out in heels. The weight difference was enormous. As was the price..... (Double.) While the collector gene wants the G80 (or an Alpha that looks like a Lumix), I don't know if I actually need more than the G5 I already own. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shyheels Posted October 20, 2017 Report Share Posted October 20, 2017 The G80 would be a nice camera... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FastFreddy2 Posted October 20, 2017 Author Report Share Posted October 20, 2017 8 hours ago, Shyheels said: The G80 would be a nice camera... Yes..... I think it has a few more dials/levers, and fewer "menu's" to access to do some of the simple things I like to do. Changing between auto and manual focus is a bit like a treasure hunt on the G5, as is changing the metering mode. I did once alter a couple of the 'Fn' buttons away from the factory defaults, but having to reset all the camera settings one day meant all that extra work was lost. I can't fully remember the need for the reset, but I do remember I'd done something that I couldn't (easily) undo, and time/frustration got the better of me. I had to do the same thing with the G80 at JL when I had a play the other evening. The focus position was fixed off to one side of the frame. In my camera, opening up the articulated screen on the G5 immediately provides an option for re-centering the focusing area, not so with the G80. A reset put it back where I wanted for testing. If Panasonic do some Christmas discount/specials, I might bite, otherwise .... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Please sign in to comment
You will be able to leave a comment after signing in
Sign In Now