Miscellany
Camera accessories I highly recommend: air blower. I got this "Rocket" hand-pump thing, and it means I was able to remove some flecks of dust or something which I noticed yesterday had attached themselves to the surface of my 50mm lens before I put the UV filter on - without touching the lens with anything except air. *puff puff puff* Clean! *replace UV filter, sealing against further particles*
The UV filter lives on there because if something hits the front of my camera, somehow, and breaks the glass at the front of the lens? I want it to be hitting the $30 UV filter, not the $785 lens. Ditto if some idiot decides to touch it - rubbing fingerprints off the UV filter with an appropriate cloth is no big deal, but ideally, in my worldview, the optical components of lenses should NEVER BE TOUCHED BY ANYTHING EVER AT ALL. (And, hey, it's not impossible I could get a bit fumbly and clumsy when putting the polarising filter on - again, better I touch the UV filter if my fingers slip.)
It's kind of freaky that I own a "professional grade" lens at all, but the thing was that, just this once in my life, if only this once, buying both guitar and camera, I decided to spend the money necessary to get exactly what I want, so that I can be absolutely satisfied and delighted and not wistful about things I wish I could have but don't. Both the camera and the guitar are things I expect to last me a very long time if I take care of them - which I will - and to bring me much joy and satisfaction in the meantime, including being good for my mental health, because creative endeavour is like that.
This didn't mean I bought the Most Expensive things - my camera is an amateur enthusiast/semi-pro model, mid-range in price, and my guitar is a Gibson Les Paul, yes, but a Studio, not a Standard. The Studio model is less than half the price of the the Standard - which still weirds me out, somewhat.
Because the Studio is a version of the Les Paul Standard in which every acoustic element is retained, but the binding and decorative elements are left off.
In terms of sound quality and performance and whatnot, it is just as good, even, I've seen it argued, marginally better. But without the binding it is, admittedly, less resilient if you bash it on things, and it's single-colour, without spectacular paint jobs or anything like that.
Since my aesthetic preference tends to be towards clean, elegant, minimalistic looks, the perfect unity of form and function (in design terms, I rather believe in the adage that perfection is achieved not when there is nothing more to add, but when there is nothing more to take away), I actually think the Studio is a more beautiful design, and I am careful with my guitar to avoid bashing it on stuff anyway, so I really like that the Studio is thousands of dollars cheaper than the Standard, but I still find it strange that what amounts to decoration makes such a price difference on a musical instrument.
I paid a lot of money for my guitar, but I was paying for acoustic and build quality. I recognise that guitars are also aesthetic objects, chosen for their beauty - I did, after all, reject the first Gibson Les Paul Studio I tried on the grounds that it was black with gold furniture, and I didn't want a plain black guitar and have a vague dislike for gilt, but for all I think my wine-red-and-chrome guitar is one of the most beautiful objects I have ever seen, I wouldn't have bought it if I hadn't loved the sound the moment I touched the strings.
The only real problem I have with all my new gear is that the camera bag and strap are a little too rough for my skin. Tomorrow I plan to buy a cheap, soft black shirt or similar at the charity shop down the road, cut pieces out of it, and sew those pieces as a softening wrap around the chafey straps - and also use bits to make non-ugly covers for my guitar stand.
My first thought was a fabric shop, but then it occurred to me I only really need a few small scrap-ish bits, and I can get that from cutting up something from the thrift shop, which would almost certainly be cheaper and the money I paid would be going to charity. Everybody wins.
The UV filter lives on there because if something hits the front of my camera, somehow, and breaks the glass at the front of the lens? I want it to be hitting the $30 UV filter, not the $785 lens. Ditto if some idiot decides to touch it - rubbing fingerprints off the UV filter with an appropriate cloth is no big deal, but ideally, in my worldview, the optical components of lenses should NEVER BE TOUCHED BY ANYTHING EVER AT ALL. (And, hey, it's not impossible I could get a bit fumbly and clumsy when putting the polarising filter on - again, better I touch the UV filter if my fingers slip.)
It's kind of freaky that I own a "professional grade" lens at all, but the thing was that, just this once in my life, if only this once, buying both guitar and camera, I decided to spend the money necessary to get exactly what I want, so that I can be absolutely satisfied and delighted and not wistful about things I wish I could have but don't. Both the camera and the guitar are things I expect to last me a very long time if I take care of them - which I will - and to bring me much joy and satisfaction in the meantime, including being good for my mental health, because creative endeavour is like that.
This didn't mean I bought the Most Expensive things - my camera is an amateur enthusiast/semi-pro model, mid-range in price, and my guitar is a Gibson Les Paul, yes, but a Studio, not a Standard. The Studio model is less than half the price of the the Standard - which still weirds me out, somewhat.
Because the Studio is a version of the Les Paul Standard in which every acoustic element is retained, but the binding and decorative elements are left off.
In terms of sound quality and performance and whatnot, it is just as good, even, I've seen it argued, marginally better. But without the binding it is, admittedly, less resilient if you bash it on things, and it's single-colour, without spectacular paint jobs or anything like that.
Since my aesthetic preference tends to be towards clean, elegant, minimalistic looks, the perfect unity of form and function (in design terms, I rather believe in the adage that perfection is achieved not when there is nothing more to add, but when there is nothing more to take away), I actually think the Studio is a more beautiful design, and I am careful with my guitar to avoid bashing it on stuff anyway, so I really like that the Studio is thousands of dollars cheaper than the Standard, but I still find it strange that what amounts to decoration makes such a price difference on a musical instrument.
I paid a lot of money for my guitar, but I was paying for acoustic and build quality. I recognise that guitars are also aesthetic objects, chosen for their beauty - I did, after all, reject the first Gibson Les Paul Studio I tried on the grounds that it was black with gold furniture, and I didn't want a plain black guitar and have a vague dislike for gilt, but for all I think my wine-red-and-chrome guitar is one of the most beautiful objects I have ever seen, I wouldn't have bought it if I hadn't loved the sound the moment I touched the strings.
The only real problem I have with all my new gear is that the camera bag and strap are a little too rough for my skin. Tomorrow I plan to buy a cheap, soft black shirt or similar at the charity shop down the road, cut pieces out of it, and sew those pieces as a softening wrap around the chafey straps - and also use bits to make non-ugly covers for my guitar stand.
My first thought was a fabric shop, but then it occurred to me I only really need a few small scrap-ish bits, and I can get that from cutting up something from the thrift shop, which would almost certainly be cheaper and the money I paid would be going to charity. Everybody wins.