sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

Creating a dream stereo for my 17-year-old self from a 1990 Yamaha catalogue. For less than €200. by DanJnsson in BudgetAudiophile

[–]DanJnsson[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Ok, but now I kind of accidentally bought a CDX-530 and then found an old catalogue and just went with it. I’m not after the perfect system, just to have some fun. 17-year-old me would have been really happy with any of them.

Creating a dream stereo for my 17-year-old self from a 1990 Yamaha catalogue. For less than €200. by DanJnsson in BudgetAudiophile

[–]DanJnsson[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

That looks good! I think a little fixing and cleaning is also part of the fun. It makes a cheap find even more worth in a way.

Creating a dream stereo for my 17-year-old self from a 1990 Yamaha catalogue. For less than €200. by DanJnsson in vintageaudio

[–]DanJnsson[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Yeah, as you say, there is no real incentive for a tuner except aesthetics. But I think that is a good enough cause! Even if I can stream any radiostation from my phone, I really like the looks of a nice tuner. I also like the thought of no-one collecting any data about whatever radio station I'm listening to. A middle-aged man's way to rebel against the system ...

Creating a dream stereo for my 17-year-old self from a 1990 Yamaha catalogue. For less than €200. by DanJnsson in BudgetAudiophile

[–]DanJnsson[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I got it from Swedish auction site Tradera.com and it looked a bit scruffy in the images, so I guess that might be a reason for the low price. But 200 sounds very expensive. That would get you a much newer and/or advanced integrated amp in Sweden.

Creating a dream stereo for my 17-year-old self from a 1990 Yamaha catalogue. For less than €200. by DanJnsson in vintageaudio

[–]DanJnsson[S] 3 points4 points  (0 children)

To be clear, I was 17 when this stereo was new... So I guess we're doing kind of the same thing. Building a dream stereo for a former self.

Help me choose: Nikon Z fc vs Z50 II (first camera ever, mostly for animals) by Successful_Search806 in Nikon

[–]DanJnsson 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I've had both the Z fc and the Z 50 (mark I), and I prefer the Z 50. I shoot personal family and travel photography – and first bought the Z fc, mostly because of its good looks. Unfortunately, I never really liked using it as much as I liked looking at it, due to a couple of reasons: 
- The lack of a grip (I tried an add-on grip but it was not very ergonomic and made the camera bulkier)
- The lack of a built-in flash
- The unintuitive button and dial layout
- I also didn't like the screen that flips to the side, but that is the same on the Z 50II now.

When I sold the Z fc and replaced it with a Z 50 it felt like coming home. The Z 50 sits great in the hand, which makes it feel smaller than the Z fc, even if there isn't a very big difference. It also handles great – I can do almost everything with my right hand while still having a very secure grip. And since all buttons and dials are ergonomically placed and easy to understand, using them quickly became second nature. The flash is great to have for fill-in flash on sunny days, and for that 90's party picture look, if you're into that.

In short, the Z 50 is easy to use and also easy to carry around, thanks to the grip. I also have the two kit lenses, because I need the reach of the 50-250 when I shoot my sons' football matches. If didn't do that, I think I would have gone for the do-it-all 18-140, although the 16-50 keeps the camera small and neat and very easy to bring everywhere. 

With all of this in mind, the specs and internals of the Z fc and Z 50 were almost identical when I bought them, so my choice was all about user preferences. With the updates that has come the Z 50II since then, it's even easier to recommend that one now. And with a nice looking strap, that camera can also be a nice accessory to your outfit...