Poor man's watch thread

Originally Posted by cioni2k

Click to expand...

Pretty sure the fact that it's too big is making it look too big

+1

Originally Posted by cioni2k

Click to expand...

Pretty sure the fact that it's too big is making it look too big
Actually, because people usually take pics of their watches from close up using a wide angle, it tends to exaggerate the size of watches. For instance, here's a bad pic of my Citizen I took a few months ago. The watch is only 36mm in diameter, and for what it's worth, my wrist is 6.5" around. Obviously it doesn't look nearly as big as 7_rockets watch, but you'd probably guess it was >40mm were you to base your estimate on this picture alone. It's the fisheye effect at work. I can confirm this, as the EXIF data on his photo indicates it was taken at a focal length of 6mm. That's likely as wide as his camera goes. Here's a good example of how focal length can affect the proportions of a photograph: http://www.stepheneastwood.com/tutor...erspective.htm

No, I wouldn't guess it was >40mm from that picture. And it's not too big for your wrist, clearly.

Originally Posted by venessian

Click to expand...

That doesn't surprise me, unfortunately. Parnis gets a lot of love here, but your story is one I have read often enough on various watch fora that I have never really wanted to buy one.

The problem is that Parnis is not really a brand with a stable component spec. It is a name placed on various assemblies of different cases, movements, etc., sourced from a variety of manufacturers. One never really knows what one is getting. The quality is definitely not consistent.

That sound is just the rotor. It's loud on a lot of those watches, that's all.

Originally Posted by TheWraith

Click to expand...

No, I wouldn't guess it was >40mm from that picture. And it's not too big for your wrist, clearly.

Wasn't saying it was too big, I was saying it's not as big as it looks, and that's due to the focal length.

His watch is likely a bit too big for his wrist, but not nearly as comically large as it appears.

I disagree, Edgar. Yours looks fine, his doesn't (size wise). I don't think there's any such distortion on either photos. Not for me anyway.

Originally Posted by SirGrotius

Click to expand...

Since I'm poor and only own an Omega, I figure I better have the right one!

I have the opportunity to trade my SMP for a PO. If I do this I'd need to add some money (don't know about 1K) to sweeten the deal. What do you think of these two beasts?

Right now I have the Seamaster Pro:

I could have the Planet Ocean instead (would need to add 1K):

Which would you recommend? (For the watch snobs, they're both the same co-axial movement, although the PO is 42mm and the SMP 41mm.)

My attire is fancy, slim fit dress shirts and pants. I wear a suit every few weeks but not every day. I'm early thirties going on 17, and on weekends am more likely to be found wearing a nice polo and diesel jeans.

Thanks in advance my esteemed SF members!

Some nice ones for the price
http://www.herringtoncatalog.com/watches.html

Bought this one secondhand off of TimeZone. Only reason it fits here is because it's Quartz (shh...don't tell anyone) and I got it for well under $1k in 98%.

Even if it's the quartz variety, Omega is NOT a poor man's watch! How many more times must I say this in this thread?!?!

Originally Posted by TheWraith

Click to expand...

I disagree, Edgar. Yours looks fine, his doesn't (size wise). I don't think there's any such distortion on either photos. Not for me anyway.
I hate to press the subject, but there is absolutely distortion in both photographs. That's simply the nature of the camera. At wide angles objects closer to the camera appear larger than they actually are. The severity of this distortion is directly proportional to the focal length. This is clear from the photos in the link I sent you. To illustrate my point, I took a photo from much farther away and then cropped it to match the proportions of the original photo. Cropping a photograph effectively reduces the focal length, although at a severe loss of quality. First, the original shot that the crop was taken from: Now, the side--by-side: Same watch, same wrist, same camera. The black and white lines were copied and pasted. They are pixel-perfect identical. As you can see, my wrist is actually still slightly smaller in the second photo. The black line doesn't quite reach the edge of my wrist as it does in the first photo. Yet the white line goes WELL beyond the inner edge of the chrome sections above and below the dial. These lines are present to quantify what I'm saying, but even without them, I think it's pretty clear the watch simply looks bigger in the first photo.

Nice lot of photos. One photo is shot in closeup, the other less so (hence the differing size of the lines in relation to the watch in each photo). However, no matter which photo I look at, your watch appears fine for your size wrist. This is what I mean by no distortion. The watch looks fine no matter the angle, no matter the distance. No matter which way you picture it, the watch looks fine. To my eyes, his (7_rocket) will look too big for his wrist no matter if the photo is a long shot or a closeup, no matter the angle. See what I mean now?

Originally Posted by TheWraith

Click to expand...

Even if it's the quartz variety, Omega is NOT a poor man's watch! How many more times must I say this in this thread?!?!

I agree...a bit tongue-in-cheek when referencing my quartz as it's highly frowned upon by traditionalists and is comparatively the Boxster of Porsches. And I don't care.

The Seikos, Invictas (ugh, gross), etc. are the poor man's watches. I like Seiko but not some of the ripoff Rolex designs.

Neither do I care. I own a quartz Omega Seamaster myself. It's my favourite watch, in fact. But, even tongue in cheek, it's not a poor man's watch.

Originally Posted by TheWraith

Click to expand...

Neither do I care. I own a quartz Omega Seamaster myself. It's my favourite watch, in fact. But, even tongue in cheek, it's not a poor man's watch.

It's all relative. The fact that a quartz Seamaster will be nearly zero-maintenance is icing on the cake, as "poor men" don't tend to have the money to send it to Omega for an overhaul every few years.

If $800 or so is too much then I'd find a good Hamilton or Seiko. Those are nice poor man's watches.

Originally Posted by Edgar Allan Pwn

Click to expand...

I hate to press the subject, but there is absolutely distortion in both photographs. That's simply the nature of the camera. At wide angles objects closer to the camera appear larger than they actually are. The severity of this distortion is directly proportional to the focal length. This is clear from the photos in the link I sent you.

To illustrate my point, I took a photo from much farther away and then cropped it to match the proportions of the original photo. Cropping a photograph effectively reduces the focal length, although at a severe loss of quality.

First, the original shot that the crop was taken from:

http://i.imgur.com/Ogl6K.jpg

Now, the side--by-side:

http://i.imgur.com/tbdNN.jpg

Same watch, same wrist, same camera. The black and white lines were copied and pasted. They are pixel-perfect identical. As you can see, my wrist is actually still slightly smaller in the second photo. The black line doesn't quite reach the edge of my wrist as it does in the first photo. Yet the white line goes WELL beyond the inner edge of the chrome sections above and below the dial.

These lines are present to quantify what I'm saying, but even without them, I think it's pretty clear the watch simply looks bigger in the first photo.

Lug-to-lug, your watch is still smaller than your wrist. His is much bigger.

Relative size would still matter, the angle of the photograph notwithstanding -- a big watch on a tiny wrist would look awkward, no matter what. And I believe that is the point TheWraith is trying to make.