This is Wbeebe4's Typepad Profile.
Join Typepad and start following Wbeebe4's activity
Join Now!
Already a member? Sign In
Recent Activity
I wrote this post back in January where I compared "bokeh" effects between the iPhone 7 Plus and an OM-D E-M5 Mk1 with the PRO 2.8/12-40mm (both items which I'd picked up at different times on heavy discount). I liked, and was quite impressed by, what the iPhone is able to accomplish. I'm curious what you'll eventually accomplish photographically with your iPhone as you grow to know it. Link:
I can only speak to Minolta from the mid-1970s to the very early 1980s. I started with an SRT model and finished with an XD-11. By the time I got around to getting a 135mm, it was the f/2.8 MD version and it was on sale for $99. I got started with Minolta and the SRT kit with 2/50mm MC bundled in. I wound up loving that combination especially that lens. And I came to trust the "low-end"/low-cost Minolta equipment, around the f/2.8 to f/3.5 maximum aperture. I had no choice at the time because I couldn't afford anything else of comparable quality. But I poured time and soul into learning the art and craft of photography, and the Minolta equipment never failed to deliver. Which brings me back around to the Batis. This class of current photographic equipment has pushed me completely out of this end of the market due to its high cost. Inflation doesn't begin to address such exorbitant price increases. These lenses, along with the Sony α7 series, have crossed over into the Veblen marketplace, which I refuse to participate in. I will instead learn how to make the best work I possibly can with my Apple iPhone 7 Plus. That smartphone represents the true future direction of photographic equipment. [This comment applies to BOTH of today's posts! Thanks. --Mike]
Toggle Commented Apr 7, 2017 on No Turkey at The Online Photographer
Been there, done that about two years ago.
Toggle Commented Feb 7, 2013 on Distractions (OT again) at The Online Photographer
As an old goat who'll finally slide into sixtyville later this year, I find it humorous to sit back and read that $25,000 sports cars and $2,000 digital cameras are somehow middle-class and affordable. From my long view they aren't. Cars: Based on my budgetary constraints I've set a hard limit to spend no more than $25K on any new automobile. I'd spend far less if I could, but I can't because it appears from a rough survey conducted last year that a decent car in Florida will set you back a good $20K just to start. Add in non-luxury features that add to driving safety, for example, and the price creeps upwards into the $25,000 range. My 2012 Prius came out at that cost, and that was in August of last year. In spite of that high cost, at 55-60MPG with current $3.50 gas I'm glad I got it. I can't afford any sports car, regardless of manufacturer, because the old "affordable" sports car was predicated on very cheap gas and cheap operating costs. Today's Corvette is far from cheap, from the up-front cost to what it takes to operate one once its out on the street. No contemporary sports car is. Cameras: There is no place in my budget (and many, many others) for a $2,000 camera, body only, from any manufacturer. As a hobbyest who doesn't make a living from their cameras, I can't find any justification for spending that much money for just the body, not even considering lenses and other accessories. That wasn't always the case. In the manly days of just-film, I could afford a far wider range of 35mm cameras and often owned several brands and models simultaneously just because it was fun, especially the smaller rangefinders (Canonets, Yashica Electro 35, Minolta Hi-Matic) along with various regular 35mm SLRs. When I finally switched from film to digital I was shocked by the high cost and features that didn't match film cameras. Unlike film days, I picked one manufacturer (Olympus) and stuck it out with them, for better and for worse. Today I use Pens (E-P2, E-PL1, E-Pl2, and E-M5) and the compact lenses. I own so many bodies not because I'm particularly rich, but because they cut the price so low on the E-PL bodies ($150 for the E-PL1 and $200 for the E-PL2). The price for the E-M5 is pretty much the upper limit for what I'll spend for any camera body these days. The low prices of the E-PL1 and E-PL2 match what I paid for the Canonet, Electro 35, and Hi-Matic. It's a pity we can't get sub-$1,000 so-called "full frame" digital cameras, in particular well south of $1,000, because if we could it just might ignite a new interest in photography to match the interest we had with film in the 1960s and 1970s. The majority of folks who might be interested in so-called "full frame" cameras really can't afford today's pricey offerings, and it's one reason why so many use their cell phones along with the convenience of just one device. I wish someone would wake up and give the market the digital "full frame" equivalent of the old Pentax K1000 (in both low cost and workhorse reliability) but I won't hold my breath. And no, neither the Canon 6D nor the Nikon D600 are that camera.
Wbeebe4 is now following The Typepad Team
Feb 3, 2013