Well. I just realised the difference a good lense can make. This picture was taken with a Konica FS-1, which is a camera from I believe 1978. The pictures I took from Venice were by my Nikon FM-10, manufactured in 2005. You'd think the pictures with the newer camera would be better? Wrong. I mean, these cameras may have a huge age difference, but neither of them really have features that would make one better than another. Except for the lens. I read reviews online about the FM-10 before I bought it, and many people complained about the lense, saying it was a piece of shit. When I got it, I didn't really think anything of it, and when my pictures got developed, I wondered why people were saying this. My pictures are great, I thought. Fuck what they say. Only now when I attempt to scan a picture taken with a quality lense vs. the lense from my camera, I notice the difference, which is why this picture is a lot better-looking than the other ones I have posted (and will most likely continue to post).

I guess the moral of this story is that lenses are as important as bodies if not more important. Kinda obvious, but I didn't really think of this before.

Anyhow, this is from the 2006 New England Grand Prix- ALMS at Lime Rock. We got lucky in the morning and I was able to get this pic of the Porsche RS Spyder on the scales.