On Sat, 23 Dec 2000, Andrew Fildes wrote:
>I'm wearing a 1962 Omega Seamaster which I love despite its idiosyncracies
>- automatic but otherwise utterly traditional. My point is that a ten
>dollar digital watch is more accurate than the most expensive mechanical
>watch (analogue - ugh!) ever made. But accuracy was not enough. Nowadays,
>around me, children wear flashy, throwaway digitals and serious people buy
>'name' mechanicals. Very noticeable in a school.
>Andrew
good taste! myself am partial to the speedy (far from being to afford one
but that's another story for another time)
>>Yes, but how many of you wearing quartz watch with analogue display
>>and how many wear the automatic one? If digital can give film quality
>>will you go back to shoot film?
it's much more than just the result (for me anyway, and i suspect for
also some of the listies)...but also the path taken. there's the
aesthetics of holding something made with solid metal, chromed or nickled,
with real leather, hearing and feeling the gears whirr and each clickstop
snap crisply. similar analogy to the wet darkroom (b/w)...i shunned it
till i got in there myself and saw the image "appear" slowly out of a
blank piece of paper. ditto classic cars, classic audio gear, classic
watches, etc etc.
/Acer V
--
dum spiro, spero
http://student.ucr.edu/~siddim01
< This message was delivered via the Olympus Mailing List >
< For questions, mailto:owner-olympus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx >
< Web Page: http://Zuiko.sls.bc.ca/swright/olympuslist.html >
|