On Sat, 31 Dec 2005 16:25:25 -0500, " JimH" wrote:


"Harry Krause" wrote in message
...
wrote:
wrote:
We all occasionally wish for a larger boat but would we really buy one
if we were able? I have decided "No", my 28' S2 is ideal for me. A
larger boat would have more to go wrong and require more expense. My
28 is ideal for me as she is large enough to do a lot of things but
small enough for me to easily single-hand which I do a lot. The older
I get, the happier I am to not have a larger boat. This past 6 months
is the first time I have ever had her in a marina ( I kept her at pvt
docks for years) and I have noticed what I have heard about for years,
"A boats use is inversely proportional to her length". Do others here
have a simialr experience of realizing they do not want a bigger boat?


Sort of going through that at the moment.

We love our boat, but there are a few "isms" we'd change if we could
and we think that a 40-footer would be just a bit bigger than our 36
while still retaining a manageable size.
Our boating budget is adequate, but not extravagant. It was our good
luck to realize a professional windfall recently, and we have
considered using a portion to upgrade the boat. We thought that adding
$100k to what our current boat should bring would keep our total
investment down to a reasonable total, so a new 40-footer ($350k and
up) is definitely out of consideration.

Our next problem is that our boat is reasonably unique, and we wouldn't
find the same characteristics in most available boats.

Looks like we'll spend a good chunk to repaint and refurbish
"Indulgence" and keep her at least a while longer. I've got one bid for
stripping the bottom, repainting the hull and the house, taking all the
teak down to bare wood and refinishing with a first "soak" coat, and
replacing some water-stained interior veneer that seems pretty
reasonable in the mid-30's.
With the 2-year old engine and a face lift, we'd be able to be as proud
as if we found a near bristol used boat- and just the sales commission
to sell "Indulgence" and tax on the difference for a $100k upgrade
would run about half of our cost to make the boat we like so well look
fairly new again.

I crawl through at least one larger boat, 55-70 feet, every month. Nice
to dream about, but
I think that the smallest boat one can safely enjoy in local conditions
is at least as good a choice as the largest boat one can (supposedly)
afford. :-)



If I sell my current boats, I'm looking at a couple of 30-32 footers, one
a "name brand," and the other built over on the Eastern Shore. After many
years, I've decided that is the optimum size for what I want to do on the
water, especially since I'm usually the only person aboard with
boat-handling skills, and larger boats typically require at least one
additional crew member willing to learn line-handling. Most of my fishing
buddies feel at the top of their form if they can get into the boat
without falling off the dock.

We know what you are looking to get for the Parker.

How much for the 36 footer? What is she equipped with?


Check your email.

--
John H.

"Divide each difficulty into as many parts as is feasible and necessary to resolve it."
Rene Descartes

"JohnH" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 31 Dec 2005 16:25:25 -0500, " JimH" wrote:


"Harry Krause" wrote in message
...
wrote:
wrote:
We all occasionally wish for a larger boat but would we really buy one
if we were able? I have decided "No", my 28' S2 is ideal for me. A
larger boat would have more to go wrong and require more expense. My
28 is ideal for me as she is large enough to do a lot of things but
small enough for me to easily single-hand which I do a lot. The older
I get, the happier I am to not have a larger boat. This past 6 months
is the first time I have ever had her in a marina ( I kept her at pvt
docks for years) and I have noticed what I have heard about for years,
"A boats use is inversely proportional to her length". Do others here
have a simialr experience of realizing they do not want a bigger boat?


Sort of going through that at the moment.

We love our boat, but there are a few "isms" we'd change if we could
and we think that a 40-footer would be just a bit bigger than our 36
while still retaining a manageable size.
Our boating budget is adequate, but not extravagant. It was our good
luck to realize a professional windfall recently, and we have
considered using a portion to upgrade the boat. We thought that adding
$100k to what our current boat should bring would keep our total
investment down to a reasonable total, so a new 40-footer ($350k and
up) is definitely out of consideration.

Our next problem is that our boat is reasonably unique, and we wouldn't
find the same characteristics in most available boats.

Looks like we'll spend a good chunk to repaint and refurbish
"Indulgence" and keep her at least a while longer. I've got one bid for
stripping the bottom, repainting the hull and the house, taking all the
teak down to bare wood and refinishing with a first "soak" coat, and
replacing some water-stained interior veneer that seems pretty
reasonable in the mid-30's.
With the 2-year old engine and a face lift, we'd be able to be as proud
as if we found a near bristol used boat- and just the sales commission
to sell "Indulgence" and tax on the difference for a $100k upgrade
would run about half of our cost to make the boat we like so well look
fairly new again.

I crawl through at least one larger boat, 55-70 feet, every month. Nice
to dream about, but
I think that the smallest boat one can safely enjoy in local conditions
is at least as good a choice as the largest boat one can (supposedly)
afford. :-)



If I sell my current boats, I'm looking at a couple of 30-32 footers,
one
a "name brand," and the other built over on the Eastern Shore. After
many
years, I've decided that is the optimum size for what I want to do on
the
water, especially since I'm usually the only person aboard with
boat-handling skills, and larger boats typically require at least one
additional crew member willing to learn line-handling. Most of my
fishing
buddies feel at the top of their form if they can get into the boat
without falling off the dock.

We know what you are looking to get for the Parker.

How much for the 36 footer? What is she equipped with?


Check your email.

--
John H.

"Divide each difficulty into as many parts as is feasible and necessary to
resolve it."
Rene Descartes


That is not a true email address. I just sent you one John and you can
reply to that.

On Sat, 31 Dec 2005 16:34:37 -0500, " JimH" wrote:


"JohnH" wrote in message
.. .
On Sat, 31 Dec 2005 16:25:25 -0500, " JimH" wrote:


"Harry Krause" wrote in message
...
wrote:
wrote:
We all occasionally wish for a larger boat but would we really buy one
if we were able? I have decided "No", my 28' S2 is ideal for me. A
larger boat would have more to go wrong and require more expense. My
28 is ideal for me as she is large enough to do a lot of things but
small enough for me to easily single-hand which I do a lot. The older
I get, the happier I am to not have a larger boat. This past 6 months
is the first time I have ever had her in a marina ( I kept her at pvt
docks for years) and I have noticed what I have heard about for years,
"A boats use is inversely proportional to her length". Do others here
have a simialr experience of realizing they do not want a bigger boat?


Sort of going through that at the moment.

We love our boat, but there are a few "isms" we'd change if we could
and we think that a 40-footer would be just a bit bigger than our 36
while still retaining a manageable size.
Our boating budget is adequate, but not extravagant. It was our good
luck to realize a professional windfall recently, and we have
considered using a portion to upgrade the boat. We thought that adding
$100k to what our current boat should bring would keep our total
investment down to a reasonable total, so a new 40-footer ($350k and
up) is definitely out of consideration.

Our next problem is that our boat is reasonably unique, and we wouldn't
find the same characteristics in most available boats.

Looks like we'll spend a good chunk to repaint and refurbish
"Indulgence" and keep her at least a while longer. I've got one bid for
stripping the bottom, repainting the hull and the house, taking all the
teak down to bare wood and refinishing with a first "soak" coat, and
replacing some water-stained interior veneer that seems pretty
reasonable in the mid-30's.
With the 2-year old engine and a face lift, we'd be able to be as proud
as if we found a near bristol used boat- and just the sales commission
to sell "Indulgence" and tax on the difference for a $100k upgrade
would run about half of our cost to make the boat we like so well look
fairly new again.

I crawl through at least one larger boat, 55-70 feet, every month. Nice
to dream about, but
I think that the smallest boat one can safely enjoy in local conditions
is at least as good a choice as the largest boat one can (supposedly)
afford. :-)



If I sell my current boats, I'm looking at a couple of 30-32 footers,
one
a "name brand," and the other built over on the Eastern Shore. After
many
years, I've decided that is the optimum size for what I want to do on
the
water, especially since I'm usually the only person aboard with
boat-handling skills, and larger boats typically require at least one
additional crew member willing to learn line-handling. Most of my
fishing
buddies feel at the top of their form if they can get into the boat
without falling off the dock.

We know what you are looking to get for the Parker.

How much for the 36 footer? What is she equipped with?


Check your email.

--
John H.

"Divide each difficulty into as many parts as is feasible and necessary to
resolve it."
Rene Descartes


That is not a true email address. I just sent you one John and you can
reply to that.


Done.

--
John H.

"Divide each difficulty into as many parts as is feasible and necessary to resolve it."
Rene Descartes

That's a fine lens. I very briefly considered it over the much less
expensive 70-300 ED. I wouldn't have missed very much the last 100mm
that the 70-300 offers, and would have loved to have the VR and the
speed of that bad boy. But ultimately, I wasn't willing to schlep
around a lens with that much bulk to it and wasn't in the mood to lay
down that much dinero either. But this new 18-200 hits a sweet spot
for me. Perfect walkaround range, high quality, reasonably compact,
and a reasonable price point between the budget-priced 70-300 ED and
the $1,000+ higher end lenses. It's not blazing fast, but with VR and
the D70's ability to shoot well at higher ISO ratings, it's fast
enough. Nikon's gonna sell a boatload of them.

"RG" wrote in message
oups.com...
That's a fine lens. I very briefly considered it over the much less
expensive 70-300 ED. I wouldn't have missed very much the last 100mm
that the 70-300 offers, and would have loved to have the VR and the
speed of that bad boy. But ultimately, I wasn't willing to schlep
around a lens with that much bulk to it and wasn't in the mood to lay
down that much dinero either. But this new 18-200 hits a sweet spot
for me. Perfect walkaround range, high quality, reasonably compact,
and a reasonable price point between the budget-priced 70-300 ED and
the $1,000+ higher end lenses. It's not blazing fast, but with VR and
the D70's ability to shoot well at higher ISO ratings, it's fast
enough. Nikon's gonna sell a boatload of them.


I am happy with the compact high quality point and shoot digitals these
days. I remember years ago, when I had long lens, heavy camera's and did my
own development. Maybe age has something to do with it. If I was a
professional photog, making money with the camera, then I would be inclined
to go for the bigger, heavier units, but for self satisfaction and memory
refreshers, I love the digitals. And a carrying a 6 oz. camera though a
jungle or on a long day touring a city, sure beats a 20# bag and camera

It's quite amazing how good of a digital camera $200 will buy these
days. I started shooting 35mm film in high school, and progressed
through various 35mm camera systems over the years. I was a fairly
early adopter to digital. I bought one of the very first Olympus
C3030's to hit my town in the spring of 2000. $1000 for a 3mp point
and shoot. Holy crap. But that little camera completely renewed a
waning interest in photography for me. The key for me is what can be
done with modest skills and inexpensive software in digital post
processing. It's just so easy to make a marginal photograph decent and
a good photograph outstanding.

But I never liked handling the point and shoot. I missed the feel,
intuitive controls, and responsiveness of my 35mm film cameras. So
earlier this year I bought two new cameras. I bought another Olympus
point and shoot and a Nikon D70 DSLR. The Oly is a 4mp water resistant
model I purchased at Costco for $200. I bought it simply to always
have in the boat bag. It's small, lightweight, water resistant, and
takes amazingly good pictures. But I hate shooting with it. It just
doesn't act, feel, or respond like a real camera to me. The controls
are diminuitive and the menus are illogical to me. The Nikon on the
other hand, felt like an old friend the first time I held it in my
hands. Completely intuitive and instantly responsive. Therefore, I've
shot thousands of shots with the Nikon compared to maybe several
hundred with the Oly this year. But there's been times I've gotten
great shots simply because the Oly was in proximity while the Nikon was
at home, so having both seems to work well for me.

On Sat, 31 Dec 2005 22:38:44 GMT, "Bill McKee" wrote:


"RG" wrote in message
roups.com...
That's a fine lens. I very briefly considered it over the much less
expensive 70-300 ED. I wouldn't have missed very much the last 100mm
that the 70-300 offers, and would have loved to have the VR and the
speed of that bad boy. But ultimately, I wasn't willing to schlep
around a lens with that much bulk to it and wasn't in the mood to lay
down that much dinero either. But this new 18-200 hits a sweet spot
for me. Perfect walkaround range, high quality, reasonably compact,
and a reasonable price point between the budget-priced 70-300 ED and
the $1,000+ higher end lenses. It's not blazing fast, but with VR and
the D70's ability to shoot well at higher ISO ratings, it's fast
enough. Nikon's gonna sell a boatload of them.


I am happy with the compact high quality point and shoot digitals these
days. I remember years ago, when I had long lens, heavy camera's and did my
own development. Maybe age has something to do with it. If I was a
professional photog, making money with the camera, then I would be inclined
to go for the bigger, heavier units, but for self satisfaction and memory
refreshers, I love the digitals. And a carrying a 6 oz. camera though a
jungle or on a long day touring a city, sure beats a 20# bag and camera


I had the Nikon 5700, a good little point and shoot. What drove me up the wall,
continuously, was the shutter lag. With the DSLRs, it's virtually nonexistent. There
are other advantages as well, but that one was all it took for me.

--
John H.

"Divide each difficulty into as many parts as is feasible and necessary to resolve it."
Rene Descartes

On Sat, 31 Dec 2005 12:11:42 -0500, "John Gaquin"
wrote:


wrote in message

We all occasionally wish for a larger boat but would we really buy one

Lots of folk go at a boat the same way they go at a house. They get the
largest they think they can afford. The proper attitude (in my view) with
both houses and boats is to get the smallest that will meet your
requirements. This assumes, of course, in both cases, that you are able to
remove ego from the equation. :-)


I would argue that to be an incorrect statement when it comes to
making a house purchase. Houses generally appreciate in value, so
therefore buying a more expensive house can provide an overall greater
return than a less expensive one. Therefore there is some logic to
buying a bigger house just because. I think people make the mistake
of buying too much house though and then become house poor.

I'd love to have a bigger boat, but...... I'll need a bigger income to go
with it. I downsized from a 24 SeaRay Sundancer to a 16 Whaler and am very
happy with the change. The Whaler is on a trailer in my back yard. I can
launch and retrieve it by myself under some pretty foul conditions. It
burns so little fuel with a 115 FICHT that it's hardly noticable. It's a
great little fishing boat and with the bimini mounted it makes a nice little
cruiser for the wife and I and another couple if we wish. I can wash and
wax the hull in a couple of hours.

Would I like a larger boat? Absolutely. I'd like to live aboard for a few
weeks at a stretch. I'd like something around 50 feet or less that will not
require a crew. But then comes slip rent, maintenance, etc. Doubt that I'd
do it even if I had the income to support it. If I did, I'd keep the
Whaler anyway just for the fun it provides.

Butch
wrote in message
oups.com...
We all occasionally wish for a larger boat but would we really buy one
if we were able? I have decided "No", my 28' S2 is ideal for me. A
larger boat would have more to go wrong and require more expense. My
28 is ideal for me as she is large enough to do a lot of things but
small enough for me to easily single-hand which I do a lot. The older
I get, the happier I am to not have a larger boat. This past 6 months
is the first time I have ever had her in a marina ( I kept her at pvt
docks for years) and I have noticed what I have heard about for years,
"A boats use is inversely proportional to her length". Do others here
have a simialr experience of realizing they do not want a bigger boat?

Yeah, shutter lag was a big issue, and part of what I lump into my
catch-all that I call responsiveness. In addition to shutter lag, I
missed a direct mechanical zoom ring on the lens with the point and
shoot and I never liked the rangefinder viewing mechanism for
composition, or using the LCD preview for composition for that matter.
All these things I refer to as the responsiveness of the camera, and
the point and shoots just don't get it done for me like an SLR body
does. The only annoyance I've discovered with a DSLR over a point and
shoot is the ever present issue of crud on the sensor. It took a
while, but I've finally gotten fairly competent at cleaning the sensor.
It was never an issue with 35mm film cameras or the point and shoots,
and I was taken by surprise at how much of an issue it is with DSLR's.
Have you found it to be much of an issue?