Discussion in 'General Equipment Chat & Advice' started by bek, Sep 6, 2005.
You are really original.
I am with you there, my E-300 produces fantastic quality, a lot better than the snaps deserve in many cases. There are so many settings that I an still trying to get to grips with the basics, most things are set to automatic most of the time. I posted elsewhere the 'cock up' about leaving white balance on in a studio.
I just hope I can grow into it.
Quite. So to summarize what you are saying Brian is that you can have the most expensive hi-fi in the world but Daniel O'Donnell will stll sound sh*te on it?
Quad 22s eh, good stuff, probably better than my 99/909 sst-up. Since I started playing with live sound I have realised that much of the HiFi hype is just that hype. The same is true of cameras, you can take perfectly good photographs with a Nikon FM and equally good ones with an F5 what you get with the F5 the metering system but at a cost. With Digital, most DSLRs are pretty good but you can get several D70s for the cost of a D2X. Whether it is worth the extra is a personal decision.
Whether you are capable of getting the best out of a D70 or a D2X is an entirely different matter. Likewise, getting the best out of his Quad 22s is a skill Brian probably has but not everyone gets the best out of their HiFi despite what it cost.
I would NEVER recommend or dismiss a camera that I hadn't handled over an extended period. I would, and regularly do, recommend hands on comparison. I can't tell you what is best for you Robert, and you can't tell anyone else what is best for them, all you can do is point out what is available.
I think that the whole point of building a better audio hi-fi system is to increase one's enjoyment in listening to music.
One of the experts in the field, Russ Andrews, says... Whether you're a newcomer or an old hand, whether your system is worth £500 or £50,000, let us help you reach the goal of truly enjoyable music and pictures. ... and, as you know, audio hi-fi is defined as audio reproduction that closely approximates the sound of the original ... an ideal audio hi-fi would be audio reproduction that its indistinguishable from the sound of the original. ... that is the maximum one can desire.
In photography, I think, we are far away from hi-fi as colour photographs emit only a discrete approximation of the spectrum of the original (a very rough approximation of continuum spectrum)... but as our visual receptor is incapable of detecting the continuum spectrum in its fullness hi-fi photography might be defined as... light reproduction that closely approximates the visual sensation in the observer which would be induced by the original.
As I said before Robert, you do talk a load of twaddle. It is a fact that only 12 year old girls with perfect eyesight see colour correctly. In Hi-Fi terms the same probably applies with reference to hearing. For those of us who are not covered by this description as I suggested earlier, a syringe might be better than a £850 inter connect cable.
And by the way Robert. In the building industry an expert is defined as someone who travels more than 25 miles to work. Seriously though. Just stop reading up on all this garbage, lay back and enjoy, as Jeri said to Will. Life is far too short and at your current rate you are not going to last the distance.
Reference the Hi-Fi thing. I have heard that the Quad 22/202 combination is really collectable especially in Japan. I got rid of mine, Oh it must be thirty years ago. I eventually got up to the Krell Monoblocks with Krell pre Amp/ Linn/ Koatso(Sp) and big and I mean the exact size of a door, Magna Planar electrostatics. Then I realised that listening was too much trouble and replaced the whole lot with a Bose little one wire jobbie. I stopped worrying that Vinyl was better than C.Ds. bit like film v digital. Do you know? The difference now is the thing plays all day long. I think many people have the same problem with cameras. They spend all their time trying to decide on what arsenal to venture forth with, in the end they take eveything including the kitchen sink. All their effort is then expended in carrying the stuff that in the end they are too exhausted to actually take any piccies. Mind you it does a power of good for their biceps.....nearly makes up for the knackered back.
You know how some people have titles under their names, like Journeyman, Enthusiast etc.
I think you and a couple of others should have Sage below yours.
With regard to music, I cant hear the difference betweem MP3 and CD let alone Vinyl. (worked with helicopters for 10 years)
Neil, the first time I read your post I was sure you wrote SAGA which would have been more appropriate.
I like your sense of humour, but I could not be so cheeky to such a venerated member of this fine forum.
Excuse my ignorance, but what do you mean by syringe (related to mains?)? Thanks.
This audio hi-fi thing was in fact my experience, we have a modest audio hi-fi system and I was more referring to the process of improving it rather than having the hi-end.
Oh my God! Right, looks like in your life you could afford hi-end stuff and then couldn't stand the fact that you do not see how the world looks from the perspective of ordinary, I may say, poor (lacking money) people, felt empty and got rid of the evil material possessions which you did blame for your state.... as how can one otherwise explain someone replacing Krell, etc. with Bose and stating that Hasselblad is the worst photographic camera he ever owned. Just kidding, of course, I think I understand your feelings, like an obligation to race, to be informed, to know, to follow, to upgrade, to research, to experiment, to be better, etc.
A friend of mine has similar hi-fi system as you had. For him CD and radio is only a second source and when he listens to music he is in fact playing records (vinyl). He made on his own his preamplifier and his mono blocks, he has modified his Apogee flat panel electromagnetic speakers, etc. If I would score his audio hi-fi knowledge, experience, practice, etc. as a 100 mine score would be about 6, I think, but then he is better in almost anything else than me except perhaps in mathematics as he dislikes the matter.
Our hi-fi system also plays all day long, perhaps that is because it is not nowhere near good as yours was.
I think you are right on this one. If I ever save money for the second lens for our E-1 I would be jumping up and down.
I hope if bek ever comes back to read this tread he will know that our suggestion is that he takes Samsung Digimax V4 and if he whishes Bose The Wave Music System.
If I would score your photographic knowledge, experience, practice, etc. as a 100 mine score would be about 2, but then you are better in almost anything else, in particular driving (I can picture you and Lucy in Ferrari 360 speeding on a motorway)...
Anyway, old Sago features is right. As a student, I lusted after top-end Hi-Fi kit. But then as a student, I spent an awful lot of time properly listening to music - it was something to do between pints. These days, I have a 15 year-old Aiwa system that I would've scoffed at, never mind a real buff - and I have no intention of changing it. It provides me with perfectly adequate sound (I did change the awful speakers for some half-decent Mission ones) given that these days I don't actively listen to music as much - it tends to be more a background to other activities (oo-er Missus!). And I balance the sound to how I want it, rather than how it was recorded, because that's how I want to listen to it.
Photography is exactly the same - I mostly use my dSLR, which provides me with perfectly adequate results, even though I know I can get better quality at the end of it. But as I'm a useless photographer, who cares? It only really matters if I want to make a giant print.
But I do get an awful lot of enjoyment from using a variety of stuff. Does it make me a better photographer? No way. Does it make me happier? Yes, so that's justification enough for me. As regards amount of kit carried, 90% of the time it's camera and one lens, or at most two lenses - the rest of the time it's Hernia Central. In general, my best photos are taken with my Rolleiflex (any of them!) with obviously just the one lens, but it's not suitable for everything, and generally I know full well if I'm going to need more than 1 or 2 lenses before I leave home.
And as for colour, well I'm not fussed in the slightest if the colours aren't the same as the originals - for a start, no two people have the same perceptions of colours, and then I want the colours the way I want them - be it oversaturated, undersaturated, B&W - it's an area of artistic input into the tripe that passes for my photography. And sometimes, just sometimes, it results in a pic I'm happy with.
It's related to ears, rather than mains!
A good camera is one you feel comfortable with and can use happily, NOT the most expensive, or even the one that produces the best results. It's why I sometimes say that for me, the Nikon F is a bad camera - I just don't feel comfortable using it. Others have different views. Same with the E-300, for instance - when I've played with one, I've found it revolting, but that doesn't mean other people will, and doesn't mean it's not capable of decent results.
Why, are you left-handed ? or is there some particular feature that causes such an extreme reaction.
I find it easy and comfortable to use, both with and without the battery pack.
But if a camera is uncomfortable to handle and you do not get on with it, I would expect it would be very difficult to decent results. I think handling is very important and should be a major factor in choosing your camera.
Just the general handling - it feels all wrong to me. Some cameras do, both big and small. As I'm both right-eyed and right handed, I agree that logically, I shouldn't have such a violent reaction to this particular camera, but logic doesn't really play a part in it.
... actually, a good idea Nevertheless, I should add that, in my opinion, even a person who does not have 'perfect' hearing (not damaged but not 'perfect') will benefit from good hi-fi sound, he or she will be able to tell the difference, but that is only my opinion. Similar thing should hold for vision.
When I referred to colours in one of my previous posts in this tread I meant to say that the definition of video hi-fi should be weaker then the definition of audio hi-fi, but in a sense the two definitions should be on the same level as our only 'direct' contact with reality is through our senses, and we will never be able to sense the reality itself, as Bertrand Russell said, the only thing that we can have in our heads is sense data. In that respect it does not matter if light bouncing off a colour photograph has a significantly different spectrum from that of the light which was failing on the sensor (remember, the sensor approximates a continuous light spectrum with the spectrum with three discreet peeks in R, G a B frequencies), as after all we get the same (well the same in the case of perfect camera, sensor, lens, print, etc.) or approximately the same sense data in both cases.
I believe that audio perception is 'better' than visual perception, if one can talk about 'goodness' of perception. But in simple terms, in my view, a perception is as 'better' as the copy (a reproduced sound or colour image) has to be closer to the original (original sound, or original scene being photographed) in order to induce the same sense data in us. The reason why I believe audio perception is 'better' is that air vibrations (what is in fact sound) are transformed to fluid vibrations (fluid is situated in the cochlea), which are then picked up by some receptors and converted to nerve messages (impulses). Of course, one can argue and ask why would this be any better than what retina in your eye does with the light? This may well be true, but if above definition of reception 'goodness' is accepted then at least loudspeaker should reproduce almost the same vibrations of the air (which is sound) as the original instrument or voice did, while a light coming from one dot of a printed photograph can have much more rudimentary spectrum in comparison with original dot, still for the retina and the rest of our visual receptor to be happy to interpret it almost as it was original.
In the technical specs, logic does play a part.
But I agree feel is something different. And very important, if a camera dosn't feel right, it dosn't matter how good the spec is, it is probably not the camera for you.
With regards to the E-300, I find the offset vewfinder great as it keeps my noze of the TFT, that is why I asked if you were left handed, because that would wipe out that advantage of the design.
It would be a sad old world if we all liked the same things though.
Very true, Neill. And as I said, just 'cos I don't like it doesn't make it a bad camera. It's not the first camera whose handling I don't like, nor will it be the last..in fact I can't think of a single manufacturer with a perfect record on this front.
Robert, I read somewhere many years ago that the human brain cannot remember the details of how something sounds for very long. That is why we do A B comparisons of HiFi components. On the other hand we have a much better ability to remember visual details.
Girls generally have better volour vision then boys but I understand that colour vision doe NOT deteriorate with age. So some one who had perfect colour vision at 16 would still have perfect colour vision at 50. Perfect colour vision being a requirement for Avionic apprentices when I was 16, and yes I did qualify!
Interesting, I spent 14 years in the REME as a Greenie and I am CP2 !
Separate names with a comma.