my camera: the anti-HD650
Mar 4, 2006 at 7:18 AM Thread Starter Post #1 of 21

granodemostasa

Headphoneus Supremus
Joined
Nov 19, 2005
Posts
3,760
Likes
12
I don't get it, why the two things i do so different.
1. With headphones i am constantly upgrading/wanting to upgrade, always want something new. with photogrpahy, i don't care-so long as i can capture that image it's all good.
2. with headphones i'm always reading up on head-fi to figure out my path- but photogrpahy(for me) is anti social, i dont' read forums on it, although i know they exist, i read the manual once and whenever i need to look something up but i do as little reading as possible-all my time with the camera is outside.
3. with headphones i want the best out there, in cameras i dont' want expensive stuff!
4. with headphones i stay in one place and let the music take me places, with the camera i take it all over the place.
they are similar:
1. both take up money, the headphones mostly in upgrade cost while the camera cost in developing of pictures.
2. i dont' want to share the pictures that i take just as i don't care to share the music.
I almost dont' want to call it a hobby, they are too different from each other to both be hobbies!
Edit: i may have made it sound like a criticism on headphones, which it partly is. due to it's nature one is always trying to achieve that concert. while in photography i'm just trying to have fun.
 
Mar 4, 2006 at 8:47 AM Post #2 of 21

Illah

1000+ Head-Fier
Joined
Sep 9, 2004
Posts
1,332
Likes
12
I used to hype on computers, then headphones, then AV equipment, now it's my bike (sorta). I find that not wondering if something is better on the other side of the fence makes my life much more content.

I notice that as I start to un-hype I actually slowly downgrade my gear! My computer has steadily gotten slower over time as I remove unecessarily complex cooling systems and back down my overclocks. My new computer at work doesn't allow for an aftermarket sound card, but the onboard is sounding pretty decent...not going to get a USB DAC or anything like that.

--Illah
 
Mar 4, 2006 at 10:51 PM Post #3 of 21

AdamP88

500+ Head-Fier
Joined
Sep 13, 2001
Posts
833
Likes
20
My propensity to spend money is far greater with photography than it ever has been with headphones. I have over $3k in photo gear (current value, not original), and right now I'm very close to dropping >$1k on a lens. Yes, that's right. Not a camera. Just a (one, single) lens.




It's a really, really sweet lens, though.
biggrin.gif
 
Mar 4, 2006 at 11:03 PM Post #4 of 21

granodemostasa

Headphoneus Supremus
Joined
Nov 19, 2005
Posts
3,760
Likes
12
for a while today i considered that instead of getting the VDA-2 i should get the 70-300 telephoto image stabalizing lense from canon. not that i read it was good or anything but that my telephoto pics keep comming up blurry and this might be the only way to correct it... sadly. but i do spend money on correcting things that i just can't fix...
 
Mar 5, 2006 at 5:05 AM Post #5 of 21

strogg

100+ Head-Fier
Joined
Dec 31, 2003
Posts
424
Likes
10
Quote:

Originally Posted by Illah
I used to hype on computers, then headphones, then AV equipment, now it's my bike (sorta). I find that not wondering if something is better on the other side of the fence makes my life much more content.

I notice that as I start to un-hype I actually slowly downgrade my gear! My computer has steadily gotten slower over time as I remove unecessarily complex cooling systems and back down my overclocks. My new computer at work doesn't allow for an aftermarket sound card, but the onboard is sounding pretty decent...not going to get a USB DAC or anything like that.

--Illah



my computer has gotten "slower" as well, but that's to let me drop more money on headphone stuff... but now i'm planning on one last stint with the head-fi world before dropping off. the k701's are very decent, and my cd player satisfies me well. all i need now is a dac/amp/spk-amp unit. then i'm DONE with on-head audio.

my camera, though... well, i don't got much. only 2 cheap lenses, a D50, and the sb-600 flash unit. i was going to get deep into photography by getting some more fun stuff for my camera, but my savage .30-06 won (with me buying an RCBS reloading kit for it). regardless, though, i am very content with what i got. in photography, one doesn't necessarily need the bestest expensivest gear, because how the photograph comes out is contingent on the photographer, nore does target shooting (my savage is capable of .25 MOA, but it's hard for me to keep the gun steady enough for that) to a point. on the other hand, no matter how much i tell myself my system is one of the best and sounds extroardinarily awesome (well... it is, i guess), i know there's more, and i'm yearning for that much "more". that's why i'm having one last head-fi project before leaving the industry for good.

^
sorry of that last paragraph doesn't seem to have one central idea...

i don't know how that sounds for the rest of you (headphones = expensive, photography != expensive, computers = expensive, firearms != expensive), but that's just how it is for me. although the "!=" portions have an extremely steep initial investment ($1000+), it will always be cheaper than head-fi or computers. that's just how it is
rolleyes.gif
oh well.
 
Mar 6, 2006 at 12:47 AM Post #6 of 21

AdamP88

500+ Head-Fier
Joined
Sep 13, 2001
Posts
833
Likes
20
Quote:

Originally Posted by granodemostasa
for a while today i considered that instead of getting the VDA-2 i should get the 70-300 telephoto image stabalizing lense from canon. not that i read it was good or anything but that my telephoto pics keep comming up blurry and this might be the only way to correct it... sadly. but i do spend money on correcting things that i just can't fix...


A good rule of thumb for getting more consistent sharp shots is to keep the shutter speed at 1/(focal length) or higher. Or use a tripod.
smily_headphones1.gif
 
Mar 6, 2006 at 12:57 AM Post #7 of 21

AdamP88

500+ Head-Fier
Joined
Sep 13, 2001
Posts
833
Likes
20
Quote:

Originally Posted by strogg
although the "!=" portions have an extremely steep initial investment ($1000+), it will always be cheaper than head-fi or computers. that's just how it is
rolleyes.gif
oh well.



I disagree. If you were as equally into photography as you were head-fi, I can guarantee you that photography would be more expensive. Especially if you have a taste for the high end stuff.
 
Mar 6, 2006 at 3:55 PM Post #9 of 21

JeffS

500+ Head-Fier
Joined
Apr 1, 2003
Posts
725
Likes
0
To the original poster, I'm not suprised....

Headphones, computers, TVs, etc, are all a constant upgrade path from one technology to the next. Photography, while expensive if you let it, doesn't have to break the bank. At least it doesn't have to break the bank after a good initial investment.

Camera technology hasn't changed that much over the years. Ok, before I get accused of being retarted, or starting a flame war, let me clarify that. The method of exposing film to light through a lens is still very much the same now, as it was back when Ansel Adams did it. Yes, we have new technology to automatically focus, through the lense light metering, on board computers to calculate the optimum f-stop, and pre-programmed "shooting modes" in some cameras. You hit a button for portrait, and the rest is done for you.

Guess what, if you know how to take a good picture, and you can capture what you see, how you see it, you don't need the extra doo-dads. Art, is in the artist, not in the brush. I was always a fan of doing my own developing as well. You can really bring out what you saw, just the right way when you're in full control. I now have a film scanner and photoshop on my home computer. It's nice, there is no mess (which keeps me on good terms with the wife.), and no chemical smell, but it's just not the same. Ok, I actually kinda liked the chemical smell
basshead.gif


Seriously, aside from buying a good quality camera, and a few good lenses, there really isn't anything else to add to a setup. Yes, you can spend some serious coin on lenses, but you don't have to keep upgrading looking for the next best thing.

Enjoy it for what it is, and blow the money on headphones.

-Jeff
 
Mar 6, 2006 at 7:42 PM Post #10 of 21

strogg

100+ Head-Fier
Joined
Dec 31, 2003
Posts
424
Likes
10
Quote:

Originally Posted by JeffS
To the original poster, I'm not suprised....

Headphones, computers, TVs, etc, are all a constant upgrade path from one technology to the next. Photography, while expensive if you let it, doesn't have to break the bank. At least it doesn't have to break the bank after a good initial investment.

Camera technology hasn't changed that much over the years. Ok, before I get accused of being retarted, or starting a flame war, let me clarify that. The method of exposing film to light through a lens is still very much the same now, as it was back when Ansel Adams did it. Yes, we have new technology to automatically focus, through the lense light metering, on board computers to calculate the optimum f-stop, and pre-programmed "shooting modes" in some cameras. You hit a button for portrait, and the rest is done for you.

Guess what, if you know how to take a good picture, and you can capture what you see, how you see it, you don't need the extra doo-dads. Art, is in the artist, not in the brush. I was always a fan of doing my own developing as well. You can really bring out what you saw, just the right way when you're in full control. I now have a film scanner and photoshop on my home computer. It's nice, there is no mess (which keeps me on good terms with the wife.), and no chemical smell, but it's just not the same. Ok, I actually kinda liked the chemical smell
basshead.gif


Seriously, aside from buying a good quality camera, and a few good lenses, there really isn't anything else to add to a setup. Yes, you can spend some serious coin on lenses, but you don't have to keep upgrading looking for the next best thing.

Enjoy it for what it is, and blow the money on headphones.

-Jeff



exactly.
 
Mar 6, 2006 at 8:41 PM Post #11 of 21

mikeliao

100+ Head-Fier
Joined
Nov 19, 2003
Posts
447
Likes
13
Location
San Francisco
JeffS said it best, so...umm...ditto.

Another question you might want to ask yourself, do you (looks behind back for moderators) frequent photo gear forums? Because, it might be you're totally satisfied with your headphone gear, until someone comes along to hype another phone/amp/source/tweak.
 
Mar 6, 2006 at 9:01 PM Post #12 of 21

JahJahBinks

Headphoneus Supremus
Joined
Nov 22, 2002
Posts
3,306
Likes
10
Zoom lense that have the same focal length across a wide zoom range tend to be very expensive.

Or you buy those telescope type of lense that has amazing zoom range, but it tends to get confused with rocket laucher when news reporters carry them to Iraq.
 
Mar 6, 2006 at 9:35 PM Post #13 of 21

granodemostasa

Headphoneus Supremus
Joined
Nov 19, 2005
Posts
3,760
Likes
12
well, i'm waiting for digital SLR prices to stabalize before i invest in a digital SLR, for now i think film does a great job.
 
Mar 7, 2006 at 4:57 AM Post #14 of 21

moj0

100+ Head-Fier
Joined
Sep 29, 2005
Posts
125
Likes
11
Quote:

Originally Posted by granodemostasa
...With headphones i am constantly upgrading/wanting to upgrade, always want something new. with photogrpahy, i don't care-so long as i can capture that image it's all good ...


so which camera are you.. FOCUSING on these days?
 
Mar 7, 2006 at 5:32 AM Post #15 of 21

granodemostasa

Headphoneus Supremus
Joined
Nov 19, 2005
Posts
3,760
Likes
12
currently i'm happy with my T2 from canon, may need a new tele lense in the future, but not really thinking about it since there is so much i can do right now as it is.... not until i've exhausted all the possibilities of my current set up... as i said, digital slrs are right now 4 times more expensive than their film counterparts (in canon at least), so i'm going to wait. i'm not focusing on any camera right now except the one i've got.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Top