#305 on Ebay

[hls30.com]

Yes. Please be patient. I still use film and the roll isn't finished.

Chris,

Sorry if I seemed impatient, just like with Carls project, I just wanted to get on the list...if there was one....

On the camera Advice, wouldn't a new car have essentially the same advantages automotively speaking....Arne? If your camera advice still holds water to you, I'd be willing to take your series 1 off your hands at the same discount you sold your camera...:stupid::stupid:

Chris,

You drive what ever shutter makes you happy!

Will

[hls30.com]

Is there a link or description of the "club CD project". First I've heard of it.

http://www.classiczcars.com/forums/showthread.php?t=24966&highlight=club+dvd

Will

[Arne]

On the camera Advice, wouldn't a new car have essentially the same advantages automotively speaking....Arne? If your camera advice still holds water to you, I'd be willing to take your series 1 off your hands at the same discount you sold your camera...:stupid::stupid:

I suppose it depends a bit on how you view photography. I don't treat it as seriously as I did when I was younger, and the ability to download immediately, and also to edit digitally far out-weighs -- to me -- any possible artistic advantages that film offers. I take pictures these days for record keeping, and memories. I'm not trying to be artistic.

On the other hand, I take my cars far more seriously. Older cars have far more character and personality than modern cars do. I drove my '96 328i to the coast today. Four adults in the car, and it is more comfortable, faster, handles better and is more economical than the Datsun. But it doesn't have the character or personality that the Z has. Which is why I still drive older cars.

Now I'll concede that film also has some of those types of advantages over digital. But I don't value them in photography, so digital is better for me. Not everyone will agree with me, some will stick with film and that's OK too.

[bigoak]

I suppose it depends a bit on how you view photography. I don't treat it as seriously as I did when I was younger, and the ability to download immediately, and also to edit digitally far out-weighs -- to me -- any possible artistic advantages that film offers. I take pictures these days for record keeping, and memories. I'm not trying to be artistic.

On the other hand, I take my cars far more seriously. Older cars have far more character and personality than modern cars do. I drove my '96 328i to the coast today. Four adults in the car, and it is more comfortable, faster, handles better and is more economical than the Datsun. But it doesn't have the character or personality that the Z has. Which is why I still drive older cars.

Now I'll concede that film also has some of those types of advantages over digital. But I don't value them in photography, so digital is better for me. Not everyone will agree with me, some will stick with film and that's OK too.

Actually a timely note. Had two of my professional photographer friends (one does rock bands, the other product shots for magazines) up to the house today and their industry has gone totally digital. The functionality of digital and the elimination of the time spent developing simply outweighs any possible appeal of film. Mind you the camera the one brought was worth $7,500...could have bought a Z....

[Carl Beck]

Everything is a trade-off isn't it.

If you shoot 35mm film with a good camera, you have the original negative to store. That negative will have a resolution of about 20 million pixels, at 36 to 42 bit depth. 20 years from now, you will still be able to pull the negative out of storage and have super high resolution prints made, or you will be able to scan the negative to recreate a super high resolution digital copy.

On the other hand, if you shoot the picture with todays digital camera's - even the medium priced ones in the $5K to $10K range - you will have an image with 10 to 12 million pixels at 14 bit depth. Once you have that lower resolution digital image - you will have to always bring it along, constantly re-saving it in the newer formats and on the newer hardware. In 20 years, you won't have a CD drive, nor a DVD drive...anyone have an 8" floppy drive at this point? - how about 4" floppy drive?

Wish I could get my Jaz Drive hooked up, and then get the software drivers updated to run on todays PC's... I had some really neat digital images from 1996.... just neglected to constantly read them into and then re-save them in the current formats, on the current hardware using the new software...

If you want or require a long term archive - better stick with film. If you have digital images, don't leave them on older storage technology... Drum Memory Anyone?

FWIW,

Carl B.

[MikeW]

20 years from now, you will still be able to pull the negative out of storage and have super high resolution prints made, or you will be able to scan the negative to recreate a super high resolution digital copy.

Except that the negative will have degraded a bit after 20 years. How about 50 or 100 years? I've got 50+ year old Kodachrome slides that are all washed out. Digital does not degrade. Yes, you have to make sure you've got reliable backups.

[26th-Z]

Pictures, as promised, from Wednesday, June 27, 2007 at Constant Perfection's in New Port Richey, Florida

[hls30.com]

Thanks Chris,

Will

[Mckrack]

Geezer,

Thanks for the advice I appreciate it but at this time I am not on a 69 car hunt. About 3 months ago I completed a year long restoration of my 71 series one car and it's complete. I found everything I needed for the car and I mean everything. It took a lot of days and nights searching all over the Country and Japan for parts. I didn't need any sheet metal so I guess I was lucky but that is some of the easirer stuff to get. It's the little things:

Original carpets and underpadding.

Perfect and original radio

Original and correct choke knob with screw

Every emblem inside and out.

And the list goes on and on and the three items above are a very small sampling of all the items I needed and I am sure every one here what I am talking about. Now that it's done it is just gorgeous and I am very proud of all the effort I put in to the car.

One of the reasons I didn't purchase or try to find a 69 car is that I knew that invariably it would need floor pans etc and I just didn't want to go there. A series one car is everything I ever wanted in a Z car.

You see I never felt the need to be in the " Low VIN Club" LOLOLOL But I don't diss any one that is.

Thanks again I appreciate your advice.

[Mckrack]

Oh yes and one other thing. After all the time and all the effort and all the reading and all the talking to people about 240z cars I still painted the timing chain cover the color of the block and not the correct color and I realized this after the engine compartment was completely refinished and the engine and tranny and everything else was reinstalled and back in the car. lolol So as hard as I worked on the car with the help of a lot of people to get to as close to the original condition I could, I still screwed up and now if I want to paint the cover I have additional work to do that I think quite frankly I am not going to do and I am going to " call it a day ". Unless some one wants to do it for me . I'm tired!

[hls30.com]

Geezer,

...

One of the reasons I didn't purchase or try to find a 69 car is that I knew that invariably it would need floor pans etc and I just didn't want to go there. ...

I thought your car had new floor pans installed that flexed and made noise under foot? I don't remember, but maybe they were put in by the PO, and that was the issue...

Will

[Mckrack]

Hey Will,

You have a very good memory. Yes there were new floor pans installed but not Charlie's or OEM. Yes and there was some flex in the drivers side that was fixed by the shop by the process someone recommended here . No more flex. So what I meant was if I was interested in a 69 car and it needed pans then invariably it would have needed other sheet metal and I wasn't interested in doing that kind of resto project.