Quote:
|
Originally Posted by jano11
It's like comparing a 50 USD bike made of metallic materials with a 500 USD one made of carbon fiber and kevlar.
Both do the same thing, and the differences in performance depend mainly on the skills of the person using them.
Wouldn't it be far fetched to try comparing them, and how would you compare them objectively?! Each person will see it from his/her POV, both have their strengths and weaknesses, how do you decided which is the more important criteria?!
I think ZoomZoom put it in the right way, and I share his opinion on this matter.
|
It's funny that you share ZoomZoom's opinion, because while he's being far more circumspect, he's making a point not entirely different from mine. Builders like him are in fact at the heart of my premise, and I'll get to that shortly.
Your bike analogy is a reasoned, valiant attempt; here's where it stops short in the MFH context: there's likely very little overlap in the target markets between a metal-content 500USD bike and a carbon-kevlar 5,000USD bike. For the hardcore distance biker, only the carbon frame will do; whereas more casual bikers would have a hard time justifying the price of a decent used car for a bicycle.
Connoisseurs of grain-fed Corinthian leather couches will likely never consider a more pragmatic Swedish sofa, and if your budget encompasses Maranello's finest, there's probably not much point in looking at the new GT-R.
But the overlap between potential consumers for the Fujimi and MFH kits is far greater, and ZoomZoom and I represent each pole of that group. I have just about the minimum skills necessary to pull something presentable out of an MFH or bring the Fujimi kit up to a similar detail level.
Bob, on the other hand - if you've seen any of his work, and considered the speed, efficiency and consistency with which he generates it, you quickly realize that a pretty fine finished MFH is well within his capability, all his modesty and protestations of ADD aside.
ZoomZoom's explained his choices. In my case, I just wanted a kit that really looked like a GTO. I thought an MFH would be inevitable - until the Fujimi kit came along (s'alright; I crave a DB4 Zagato beyond all reason, and there's only one place to get one of those).
Now it's all speculative till we wind up with the Fujimi kit in our hands, but the sense that the photos give you is that this is far and away the best plastic 250GTO ever. Its overall look is just as dead-on as the MFH, and here's the kicker: if you have the skills to finish the MFH to a high standard, you also likely have the skills to bring the Fujimi kit up to the same standard. There's NOTHING subjective about that observation, and if you're among the modelers who would consider the choice, WHY WOULDN'T you compare them?
The exigencies of producing kits in resin and metal are of pretty limited consequence in this end-user analysis. You can consider what the MFH kit offers for its price, you can consider what Fujimi offers for its price, and you can do it pretty damned objectively.
MFH offers the heft of white metal, breathtaking detail, a rigorous challenge, and everything in one box. Fujimi offers history's first viable plastic alternative, with far less precision but nearly equal accuracy in a package one-tenth the price; and photoetch for this kit, either from the aftermarket or from Fujimi itself, is practically a foregone conclusion.
The subjectivity comes in how closely each matches your individual preference, but the list of features and advantages for each is absolutely concrete and objective, as is a comparison of those features.
Hell, I've just about talked myself into getting both.