Tag Archives: ugly

Timex Has A New GPS Smartwatch With 25-Day Battery-Life For $120 — But It Is Butt Ugly!

by Anura Guruge


Click to access the Timex product page.


Wow. I have not looked at Timex watches since my youth and I have kind of lost track how long ago my youth was!

Timex watches are UGLY. Wow. Real ugly.

This Ironman RS300 GPS, for the price (i.e., $120), has decent specs and the battery life is quite compelling.

But, look at it. It is butt ugly.

I would NOT wear it if I was paid to wear it. Yes, I am very fussy as to what I will wear on my wrist. SMILE.

At the $120 range you are in Fitbit Versa 2 territory and while the Fitbit may lack GPS it looks nice.

So, that is my take. Butt ugly.


Related Posts:
Search ‘Garmin’.


by Anura Guruge

Sri Lanka’s Supposed World’s Tallest Christmas Tree Looks Pretty Ugly — Yikes.

by Anura Guruge


>> >> Previous post re. this tree. << <<


Click to ENLARGE.


Unlit it does NOT look good. Awkward shape. Very phallic!

Now could it be that the Sri Lankan Buddhists who actually built it are TAKING THE MICKEY.

I am not sure what to think.

Mexico City's tree, at 110 meters -- looks quite decorative.

Mexico City’s tree, at 110 meters — looks quite decorative.

Sure does NOT look right. If anything it is an eyesore in what is a very scenic, seaside setting.

Maybe it has to come down. Soon …

The one in Mexico City, at 110 meters, was conical, and looked quite nice — even during the day. 

Not sure what to say.

I just can’t see something as ugly as this lasting too long in 70% Buddhist Sri Lanka irrespective of who built it.


Related Posts:
++++ Search ‘Christmas tree‘ for at least 3 other posts >>>>
**** Check Category ‘Sri Lanka’ >>>>


by Anura Guruge


Sony DSC RX10 II: Taking Another Look At The Understated Zoom & EVF.

.Anura Guruge December 2014 thumbnail
.

.
.
.
.
by Anura Guruge


Other Related posts:
++
Why is Canon G3X so ugly?
++
Canon G3X:
80% my next camera.
** ‘Camera Labs’
review of Canon G3X.
** Sony RX10 II vs Canon PowerShot G3X.
**
I bought Sony stock, rather than RX10 II.
** Sony’s
2 new cameras: A7 RII & RX10 II.

>> Search ‘camera’, ‘Panasonic’, ‘Canon’ & ‘Samsung’ for other related posts >>>>


sonyrx10IIlens


I am still, in between trying get my 24th book done, struggling mightily as to what I should about getting my next camera. Given that the goal is to get it for my birthday, as my treat to myself, I have about 3 weeks before I have to pull the trigger.

I thought I had managed to convince myself that I will get the Canon G3X. But, the more I think about it the more I come to the conclusion that I really despise the look of that camera and will really hate owning it. Seems beyond masochistic to spend $1,240 on a camera that I am really going to dislike. Plus masochism has never had that much appeal to me, my life full of pain without me having to resort to self-infliction.

By far the MAIN reason I was trying to convince myself to get the G3X was the 25x optical zoom. That would be nice.

But what about the new, as yet STILL NOT AVAILABLE, Sony RX10 II?

I have found out that the 200mm, 8.3 x optical zoom, is a bit of a misnomer. Sure. If you want to be technical and pedantic, that is all you get, 8.3x, in terms of genuine, bona fide optical zoom. BUT, the Sony offers a ‘Clear Image Zoom‘ and a ‘Digital Zoom‘. With the ‘Clear Image Zoom’ you get 16x, albeit with a reduced pixel count. And with ‘Digital Zoom’ you can get up to 33x. Yes, the G3x also has ‘Digital Zoom’ and that will get you 100x. I could live with 16x. That around a 400mm equivalent. That is more than I have ever had in anything other than a ‘point-and-shoot’.

But the G3X is ugly and you have that god-awful external Electronic Viewfinder (EVF).

That is something else with the Sony RX10 II. It has a 2,359,296 dot resolution EVF. By far one of the highest in the market. That is a HUGE consideration.

So …

Sony RX10 II vs. Canon G3X?

I have noticed one thing. Sony’s documentation is beyond scanty and shabby! Yikes.


Why Oh Why Did They Make The Canon PowerShot G3X So Ugly?

.Anura Guruge December 2014 thumbnail
.

.
.
.
.
by Anura Guruge


Other Related posts:
++
Canon G3X: 80% my next camera.
** ‘Camera Labs’
review of Canon G3X.
** Sony RX10 II vs Canon PowerShot G3X.
**
I bought Sony stock, rather than RX10 II.
** Sony’s
2 new cameras: A7 RII & RX10 II.
** BuyDig
offering Sony RX10 II.

>> Search ‘camera’, ‘Panasonic’, ‘Canon’ & ‘Samsung’ for other related posts >>>>


canong3x


That 20% uncertainty on my part as to getting a Canon G3X, that I talked about 2 days ago, is in my world a pretty BIG margin of latitude. I am still struggling mightily, within that 20% wiggle-room, as to whether I will be happy with the Canon G3X.

If nobody else will say it I will say it. I struggle with the fact that it is not an attractive camera. Actually it is a pretty ugly looking beast, made worse when you stick on the external, viewfinder. It then looks like something that was really badly cobbled together. It sure does NOT look like a $1,240 top-end camera.

Yes, I readily admit that I like attractive things — hence my Jaguars, my watches, my dogs! I don’t have to go further.

John Keats, the poet, in 1818, said in the opening line of one of his poems: “A thing of beauty is a joy forever”. Fifty years ago, as a boy growing up in Ceylon, that was one of the first English ‘sayings’ I had to learn. It resonated with me, and it often comes to mind. “A thing of beauty is a joy forever”. Well you will be hard pressed to call the Canon G3X a thing of beauty.

Don’t kid yourself. People notice the camera you use. Since I have been using the Canon T3i I can’t tell you the number of people who have asked me whether I was a photographer or commented on the camera. The G3x looks like a 1980s, $12 Kodak box camera. It sure does NOT look like a $1,240 top-end camera. Did I already say that.


beautything111