|
|
In rec.photo.digital.slr-systems Eugene wrote:
Isn't that what's refered to as a "standard" lens? Yes. That too. ---- Paul J. Gans I dimly recall the term "prime lens" as being the lens whose focal length was equal (at least roughly) to the diagonal of the film frame. That made a 50mm (or 45mm) lens "prime" for 35mm film. A 135mm lens was then a "telephoto" and a 35mm lens was a "wideangle". Zoom hadn't been invented yet. By the way I find acronyms very hard to remember (VHR). I much prefer a pronoucible name. Most acronym users seem to as well, since they often make the acronym pronouncible. ---- Paul J. Gans |
In rec.photo.digital.slr-systems Peter wrote:
Chris Brown wrote: I know this may give you apoplexy, but my nice shiny EOS 5D which I bought yesterday includes, in the box, an accessories catalogue from Canon, which amongst other things features a complete list of their current EF lens range. They split it up into the following categories (from memory): Zoom Macro Tilt and Shift and, yes, Prime, which lists all of their fixed-focal length lenses (apart from the Macros and T&S). So at least one manufacturer is using the term to mean fixed-focal length. I am willing to bet that some (possibly all) of the "macro" lenses in the brochure are not really macro lenses intended primarily for 1:1 and greater magnification. I would not be even slightly surprised if the word "telephoto" were used more than once in the brochure to describe something that is not actually a telephoto lens. If you get your terminology from advertising literature, you are probably going to get it wrong. Again, that's probably right. But when you walk into a store to buy one of those Canon lenses, would it not help to call it what the manufacturer calls it? ----- Paul J. Gans |
"Floyd Davidson" wrote in message ... "Nostrobino" wrote: I hardly think it can be blamed solely on the internet. You're right there. I first saw it misused in this way on the old Fidonet, some time before I had access to the Internet per se. That was back in my 386 days, so probably 1991 or so. So, along with the correct meaning of words being fixed in time by when you first understood them, the Internet didn't exist until *you* discovered it too, eh? I have no idea how you derive that from what I said. Perhaps you have your monitor upside down. N. |
"Floyd Davidson" wrote in message ... "Nostrobino" wrote: I've been saying the misusage is ignorant. It is. I haven't said that the people misusing the term are ignorant. On the contrary, I presume that most of them are folks of at least ordinary intelligence who have innocently picked the misusage up from Usenet and elsewhere. To be ignorant of some particular state of affairs before one has the facts is hardly a shameful thing. To try to DEFEND that ignorance after being apprised of the facts, however, is stupid. Please note that I am making a careful distinction between ignorance and stupidity. The former is often only temporary; the latter tends to be lasting. Your entire diatribe about language and word usage is then, according to the above, *stupid*. Language *is* dynamic. Again, that is the eternal argument of the semi-literate and those whose grasp of language is feeble. Every error is followed by the excuse, "language is dynamic." Since these people cannot be made to understand their mistakes, they never improve. Dictionaries are *not* an authoritative source of *correct* word usage, and this abjectly silly suggestion that any jargon not found in a dictionary is therefore wrong is a demonstration that you are ignorant about this topic. Dictionaries are a compilation of current usage, and have very little to do with what is or is not "correct". Try to organize your argument such that it supports one side or the other. If dictionaries "are a compilation of current usage," and "language *is* dynamic," then dictionaries must reflect that dynamism according to your own assertion and can hardly be "*not* an authoritative source of *correct* word usage" as you claim in the same paragraph. Make up your mind which side of the argument you're taking. You cannot take both sides simultaneously, unless you're John Kerry. N. |
Nostrobino wrote:
"Chris Brown" wrote in message ... In article , Tony Polson wrote: Since there is no accepted definition of a "prime" lens we should just drop the term, as it serves only to confuse. Feel free to go ahead. The rest of the world will carry on using it. "The rest of the world" is defined as the few dozen people who post in a couple of newsgroups? Well, if you include some of the more common photo magazines. That's where I got it from. |
Nostrobino wrote:
"no_name" wrote in message om... Nostrobino wrote: [ . . . ] Just because "popular usage" may not appear in a particular dictionary does not constitute "misuse". If you speak of a prime lens to photographers, they know what you're talking about. The problem is, they may not. I do sometimes have occasion to mention "prime lens" and I assure you I use it correctly. People who think it means fixed focal length will, therefore, not understand what I am saying. N. Oh-ho, so that's it. Anyone who doesn't instantly understand your feverish babble is an ignorant, "semi-literate ... whose grasp of language is feeble" Thank you for playing. You ARE the weakest link. Goodbye. |
"Nostrobino" wrote:
"Floyd Davidson" wrote: "Nostrobino" wrote: I've been saying the misusage is ignorant. It is. I haven't said that the people misusing the term are ignorant. On the contrary, I presume that most of them are folks of at least ordinary intelligence who have innocently picked the misusage up from Usenet and elsewhere. To be ignorant of some particular state of affairs before one has the facts is hardly a shameful thing. To try to DEFEND that ignorance after being apprised of the facts, however, is stupid. Please note that I am making a careful distinction between ignorance and stupidity. The former is often only temporary; the latter tends to be lasting. Your entire diatribe about language and word usage is then, according to the above, *stupid*. Language *is* dynamic. Again, that is the eternal argument of the semi-literate and those whose grasp of language is feeble. Every error is followed by the excuse, "language is dynamic." Since these people cannot be made to understand their mistakes, they never improve. Hogwash. You are suggesting we should all be speaking Chaucer's English. Patently, and we would hope obviously to anyone with half a thimble full, *stooopid*. And I don't mean ignorant, I mean stupid. Dictionaries are *not* an authoritative source of *correct* word usage, and this abjectly silly suggestion that any jargon not found in a dictionary is therefore wrong is a demonstration that you are ignorant about this topic. Dictionaries are a compilation of current usage, and have very little to do with what is or is not "correct". Try to organize your argument such that it supports one side or the other. If dictionaries "are a compilation of current usage," and "language *is* dynamic," then dictionaries must reflect that dynamism according to your own assertion and can hardly be "*not* an authoritative source of *correct* word usage" as you claim in the same paragraph. You have real difficulty with understanding English, don't you? Dictionaries are a *history* of past usage that has become common enough to be recorded as such. But you cannot 1) find a current dictionary that includes correct usage *as* *it* *exists* *today*, or 2) find one that predicts what will be correct tomorrow, or 3) find one that lists the jargon for all fields. Which says, simply put, that a dictionary is *not* the authority on "correct" word usage. Make up your mind which side of the argument you're taking. You cannot take both sides simultaneously, unless you're John Kerry. Learn to read the English language. You'll do a *lot* better yourself. -- FloydL. Davidson http://www.apaflo.com/floyd_davidson Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska) |
no_name wrote:
Nostrobino wrote: "no_name" wrote: Nostrobino wrote: Just because "popular usage" may not appear in a particular dictionary does not constitute "misuse". If you speak of a prime lens to photographers, they know what you're talking about. The problem is, they may not. I do sometimes have occasion to mention "prime lens" and I assure you I use it correctly. People who think it means fixed focal length will, therefore, not understand what I am saying. N. Oh-ho, so that's it. Anyone who doesn't instantly understand your feverish babble is an ignorant, "semi-literate ... whose grasp of language is feeble" Thank you for playing. You ARE the weakest link. Goodbye. Isn't that a fascinating demonstration of how asinine humans can be? The purpose of language is to communicate, but what Nostrobino communicates is not what he thinks, but rather *how* he thinks... people don't walk off with knowledge of what he meant to say, only with an understanding that he won't say it. Strange... -- FloydL. Davidson http://www.apaflo.com/floyd_davidson Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska) |
"Floyd Davidson" wrote in message ... Hogwash. You are suggesting we should all be speaking Chaucer's English. Patently, and we would hope obviously to anyone with half a thimble full, *stooopid*. And I don't mean ignorant, I mean stupid. Yo da man bro! wassamatta dat gay mofo huh? |
Nostrobino wrote:
Your sources are in error. Anyone can set up a web page which says anything, and in this case you have pages repeating misinformation the authors presumably obtained from other sources on the Internet, such as the newsgroups where this misusage occurs. Doubtless there are web pages about kidnappings by flying saucer which are about as reliable as the ones you list. Indeed, you can find a large number of supposedly-authoritative sources about photography repeating the tale about light meters being calibrated to 18% gray -- the fact that they aren't and never have been doesn't seem to stop people from believing it. -- Jeremy | |
In article ,
Jeff R wrote: "Floyd Davidson" wrote in message ... Hogwash. You are suggesting we should all be speaking Chaucer's English. Patently, and we would hope obviously to anyone with half a thimble full, *stooopid*. And I don't mean ignorant, I mean stupid. Yo da man bro! wassamatta dat gay mofo huh? And he answerde and seyde thus, "Madame, I pray yow that ye take it nat agrief. By God, me thoughte I was in swich meschief Right now, that yet myn herte is soore afright. Now God," quod he, "my swevene recche aright, And kepe my body out of foul prisoun. Me mette how that I romed up and doun Withinne our yeerd, wheer as I saugh a beest Was lyk an hound, and wolde han maad areest Upon my body, and han had me deed. His colour was bitwixe yelow and reed |
"Eugene" wrote in message
... OK, I stand corrected. This does make sense. Actually now that I think about it I don't tend to use the terms "prime" and "zoom" much anyway. I'd nearly always just refer to the specific lens type. Like I'd just say 50mm f1.4 rather than 50mm prime. Adding "prime" is kind of redundant. If only one focal length lens is given then it's obvious I'm not talking about variable focal length. When I was a kid, my dad and his photographer friends referred to a 50mm lens as the "prime" lens. It was the lens around which they all built their systems, if they were working in 35mm. For medium format, the prime would be in the neighborhood of 80mm. The use of the work "prime" for any fixed focal length lens I find more than a little jarring. On the other hand, these were guys who made the distinction between a "zoom" lens, which held focus as focal length was changed, and "varifocal," which did not. Most of the zoom lenses we have now are varifocal. -- Skip Middleton http://www.shadowcatcherimagery.com |
"no_name" wrote in message om... Nostrobino wrote: "Chris Brown" wrote in message ... In article , Tony Polson wrote: Since there is no accepted definition of a "prime" lens we should just drop the term, as it serves only to confuse. Feel free to go ahead. The rest of the world will carry on using it. "The rest of the world" is defined as the few dozen people who post in a couple of newsgroups? Well, if you include some of the more common photo magazines. That's where I got it from. I'm genuinely sorry to hear that. As I mentioned recently in this thread, Pop Photo has on two or three occasions misused "prime" in this way in their captions, including at least once on a cover caption. As far as I know, they have never called fixed focal length lenses "primes" in any of the articles or columns themselves, so I presume those occurrences were the work of some less punctilious caption writer. N. |
"Chris Brown" wrote in message ... In article , Jeff R wrote: "Floyd Davidson" wrote in message ... Hogwash. You are suggesting we should all be speaking Chaucer's English. Patently, and we would hope obviously to anyone with half a thimble full, *stooopid*. And I don't mean ignorant, I mean stupid. Yo da man bro! wassamatta dat gay mofo huh? And he answerde and seyde thus, "Madame, I pray yow that ye take it nat agrief. By God, me thoughte I was in swich meschief Right now, that yet myn herte is soore afright. Now God," quod he, "my swevene recche aright, And kepe my body out of foul prisoun. Me mette how that I romed up and doun Withinne our yeerd, wheer as I saugh a beest Was lyk an hound, and wolde han maad areest Upon my body, and han had me deed. His colour was bitwixe yelow and reed But first I make a protestacioun That I am dronke, I knowe it by my soun; And therfore, if that I mysspeke or seye, Wyte it the ale of Southwerk I you preye, Wottthefork's goin' down here todeye? |
"Floyd Davidson" wrote in message ... "Nostrobino" wrote: "Floyd Davidson" wrote: "Nostrobino" wrote: I've been saying the misusage is ignorant. It is. I haven't said that the people misusing the term are ignorant. On the contrary, I presume that most of them are folks of at least ordinary intelligence who have innocently picked the misusage up from Usenet and elsewhere. To be ignorant of some particular state of affairs before one has the facts is hardly a shameful thing. To try to DEFEND that ignorance after being apprised of the facts, however, is stupid. Please note that I am making a careful distinction between ignorance and stupidity. The former is often only temporary; the latter tends to be lasting. Your entire diatribe about language and word usage is then, according to the above, *stupid*. Language *is* dynamic. Again, that is the eternal argument of the semi-literate and those whose grasp of language is feeble. Every error is followed by the excuse, "language is dynamic." Since these people cannot be made to understand their mistakes, they never improve. Hogwash. You are suggesting we should all be speaking Chaucer's English. No. We speak Modern English. Chaucer wrote, and presumably spoke, Middle English. Even Modern English has changed since Shakespeare's time, but that's over a period of 400 years. Evolution of language is inevitable and natural up to a point, but it's not evolution when a perfectly sensible technical term is, through misunderstanding and/or ignorance, redefined in a nonsensical manner. Evolution implies improvement, not deterioration. N. |
"no_name" wrote in message om... Nostrobino wrote: "no_name" wrote in message om... Nostrobino wrote: [ . . . ] Just because "popular usage" may not appear in a particular dictionary does not constitute "misuse". If you speak of a prime lens to photographers, they know what you're talking about. The problem is, they may not. I do sometimes have occasion to mention "prime lens" and I assure you I use it correctly. People who think it means fixed focal length will, therefore, not understand what I am saying. N. Oh-ho, so that's it. Anyone who doesn't instantly understand your feverish babble is an ignorant, "semi-literate ... whose grasp of language is feeble" Thank you for playing. You ARE the weakest link. Goodbye. GUFFAW! Your taste in TV shows explains a lot! N. |
"David Littlewood" wrote in message ... In article , Nostrobino writes "David Littlewood" wrote in message ... I agree with the first part of the above. The only point in which my understanding differs is that the traditional use of the term "prime" was in the sense of "primary" as opposed to secondary or auxiliary optical components such as tele-converters, wide angle attachments, close up lenses and the like. Thus prime as in the Latin "primus", first or primary. This is the interpretation given in the more rigorous works on photography I consulted on this issue when the point was debated here (ad nauseam) several years ago. (Anyone remember Neil Harrington?) I do! I see him every time I shave. :-) N. Oh, Hi Neil! David -- David Littlewood Hi David! N. |
"Jeremy Nixon" wrote in message ... Nostrobino wrote: Your sources are in error. Anyone can set up a web page which says anything, and in this case you have pages repeating misinformation the authors presumably obtained from other sources on the Internet, such as the newsgroups where this misusage occurs. Doubtless there are web pages about kidnappings by flying saucer which are about as reliable as the ones you list. Indeed, you can find a large number of supposedly-authoritative sources about photography repeating the tale about light meters being calibrated to 18% gray -- the fact that they aren't and never have been doesn't seem to stop people from believing it. Really? That's something I've always just accepted as true myself. Now you've piqued my curiosity: how is the 18% tale wrong? Isn't an 18% gray card really 18% gray? (I have one around here somewhere but never thought to test its eighteen-percentness. :-) ) N. |
"Peter" wrote in message ups.com... [ . . . ] The reason is that the terms are defined as they are for the convenience of people discussing photography in a technical way. The idea that the meanings should change with fashion makes nonsense of the reasons for having technical vocabulary in the first place. Well and truly said. N. |
Nostrobino skrev:
Evolution of language is inevitable and natural up to a point, but it's not evolution when a perfectly sensible technical term is, through misunderstanding and/or ignorance, redefined i= n a nonsensical manner. Evolution implies improvement, not deterioration. This is a misconception, both with respect to Darwinian evoloution of species, and with respect to the evolution of language. Evolution does _not_ ipmly "improvement", which is a pretty subjective term. Evolution, both biological and, linguistic, is a combination of stochastic change - what evolutionary biologists call "neutral drift" - and adaptation. And adaptation isn't the same thing as "improvement". One can easily see the new meaning of "prime lens" as an adaptation to the fact that today's photogs know less about the history of photography than photographers uesd to. Jan B=F6hme |
Nostrobino wrote:
You're right there. I first saw it misused in this way on the old Fidonet, some time before I had access to the Internet per se. That was back in my 386 days, so probably 1991 or so. Google has a pretty long memory on this sort of thing. Here's what I could find: Eric Thomas, Sep 12 1990, 9:21 am "I have used it once on a Sigma 400/5.6 to make pictures of the moon, but the results were disappointing; to get good results, you need a prime or perhaps a "first class" zoom like the 80-200/2.8ED (I don't own one so I've never tried)." Eric Thomas, Sep 25 1990, 9:14 pm "I have a Leitz Colorplan 90, which is supposed to be one of the best, and I fine-tune the focus for the area of the slide I'm looking at, but I still can't tell the difference between some of the shots with the sharpest lenses. However, I can very definitely tell a zoom from a prime and a bad f-stop from a good one. But be careful, using the lens that came with the slide projector I can't see much of a difference between the various slides... " Wilson Heydt, Jun 26 1991, 2:22 am "I won't argue the merits of autofocus, but I have found that in low-light, a fast prime lens will beat a zoom every time." |
gbuchana(a)rogers(dot)com wrote: Google has a pretty long memory on this sort of thing. Here's what I could find: Eric Thomas, Sep 12 1990, 9:21 am "I have used it once on a Sigma 400/5.6 to make pictures of the moon, but the results were disappointing; to get good results, you need a prime or perhaps a "first class" zoom like the 80-200/2.8ED (I don't own one so I've never tried)." There were also people using the term the "correct" way: Andrew Davidhazy, (Imaging and Photo Technology, RIT) Apr 13 1991, 11:34 pm "I believe close up lenses can be very good. They are convenient that is for sure. The weaker they are the less they affect the performance of the prime lens. Typically they affect performance most when prime lens is used at large apertures. They do not cause light loss." In this case "prime" is clearly used to ditinguish the main lens from the supplementary lens. Peter. -- |
Nostrobino wrote:
Really? That's something I've always just accepted as true myself. Well, now you know how things like "prime lens" happen, then. :) Now you've piqued my curiosity: how is the 18% tale wrong? It's just wrong; light meters are not, nor have they ever been, calibrated to 18% gray as a standard. What they really read can vary slightly from one manufacturer's opinion to another, but it's closer to 12.5%. ISO sensitivity is of course not based on middle gray at all, which accounts for the variation. The 18% myth seems to be based on what Ansel Adams wanted rather than what actually came to be. Adams lobbied for 18% gray to be the standard. He was not successful. Isn't an 18% gray card really 18% gray? (I have one around here somewhere but never thought to test its eighteen-percentness. :-) ) It really is, yes. Unfortunately, 18% gray is about a half-stop up from middle gray, and if you meter reflected light from it without somehow accounting for that (by angling the card, for example) you will be underexposing by a half stop from what you thought, more or less. With a Nikon it will be a half stop, but I'm given to understand that Canons meter a bit higher, so it may be less than that (I have no Canon, so this is secondhand information). But the 18% gray myth is so pervasive that even Kodak makes 18% gray cards, when they most certainly know better. By now, of course, lots of photographers have over the years been consciously or unconsciously working around the error in their workflows, to the point that "18% gray plus workarounds" can actually work. If someone came out with a 12.5% gray card right now, people wouldn't know what to do with it! -- Jeremy | |
"Peter" wrote in message oups.com... gbuchana(a)rogers(dot)com wrote: Google has a pretty long memory on this sort of thing. Here's what I could find: Eric Thomas, Sep 12 1990, 9:21 am "I have used it once on a Sigma 400/5.6 to make pictures of the moon, but the results were disappointing; to get good results, you need a prime or perhaps a "first class" zoom like the 80-200/2.8ED (I don't own one so I've never tried)." There were also people using the term the "correct" way: Andrew Davidhazy, (Imaging and Photo Technology, RIT) Apr 13 1991, 11:34 pm "I believe close up lenses can be very good. They are convenient that is for sure. The weaker they are the less they affect the performance of the prime lens. Typically they affect performance most when prime lens is used at large apertures. They do not cause light loss." In this case "prime" is clearly used to ditinguish the main lens from the supplementary lens. Thanks to both of you. These tend to support my recollection that this misuse of "prime" first appeared c. 1990, and also that the term was still in correct use at the same time. I would be very interested to see if anyone can produce a substantially earlier example of "prime" being used to mean fixed focal length. N. |
"Nostrobino" wrote:
In this case "prime" is clearly used to ditinguish the main lens from the supplementary lens. Thanks to both of you. These tend to support my recollection that this misuse of "prime" first appeared c. 1990, and also that the term was still in correct use at the same time. I would be very interested to see if anyone can produce a substantially earlier example of "prime" being used to mean fixed focal length. What difference does that make? As long as you want to claim it means "the term was still in correct use", you are simply wrong no matter what. The "correct" use has evolved. Get used to it because it won't regress. On the other hand, it you rid yourself of this insistance that whatever the use was at some specific point in time is "correct" as opposed to all evolution that happened at a later date being "incorrect", then yes it is interesting to catalog the evolutionary process to see when it changed and to compare that to the external factors that guided that evolutionary process (such as the appearance of higher quality zoom lenses at prices that made the distinction between fixed focal length lenses and zoom lenses so important that jargon had to be developed to easily mark the distinction). -- FloydL. Davidson http://www.apaflo.com/floyd_davidson Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska) |
"Jan Böhme" wrote in message oups.com... Nostrobino skrev: Evolution of language is inevitable and natural up to a point, but it's not evolution when a perfectly sensible technical term is, through misunderstanding and/or ignorance, redefined in a nonsensical manner. Evolution implies improvement, not deterioration. This is a misconception, both with respect to Darwinian evoloution of species, and with respect to the evolution of language. Evolution does _not_ ipmly "improvement", which is a pretty subjective term. Evolution, both biological and, linguistic, is a combination of stochastic change - what evolutionary biologists call "neutral drift" - and adaptation. And adaptation isn't the same thing as "improvement". One can easily see the new meaning of "prime lens" as an adaptation to the fact that today's photogs know less about the history of photography than photographers uesd to. I acknowledge the correction, but adaptation does imply improvement at least with respect to the situation being adapted to. (Why else adapt?) I don't see that using a term incorrectly, out of ignorance of that term's actual meaning, can reasonably be described as "adaptation." Shortening a term because it no longer needs to be full length to be understood is a natural form of such adaptation. For example, submarine boats quickly became "submarines," and automatic pistols became "automatics." In both cases the adjective became the (and replaced) the noun. That's evolution. To take "prime lens," a term that already had a specific technical meaning, and give it an entirely different and unrelated meaning, is not evolution in any way that I can see. N. |
"Jeremy Nixon" wrote in message ... Nostrobino wrote: Really? That's something I've always just accepted as true myself. Well, now you know how things like "prime lens" happen, then. :) Oh yes! I've always been convinced that people only misused that innocently, in the way they had seen it used by others whom they presumed to be knowledgeable. Now you've piqued my curiosity: how is the 18% tale wrong? It's just wrong; light meters are not, nor have they ever been, calibrated to 18% gray as a standard. What they really read can vary slightly from one manufacturer's opinion to another, but it's closer to 12.5%. ISO sensitivity is of course not based on middle gray at all, which accounts for the variation. The 18% myth seems to be based on what Ansel Adams wanted rather than what actually came to be. Adams lobbied for 18% gray to be the standard. He was not successful. Isn't an 18% gray card really 18% gray? (I have one around here somewhere but never thought to test its eighteen-percentness. :-) ) It really is, yes. Unfortunately, 18% gray is about a half-stop up from middle gray, and if you meter reflected light from it without somehow accounting for that (by angling the card, for example) you will be underexposing by a half stop from what you thought, more or less. With a Nikon it will be a half stop, but I'm given to understand that Canons meter a bit higher, so it may be less than that (I have no Canon, so this is secondhand information). But the 18% gray myth is so pervasive that even Kodak makes 18% gray cards, when they most certainly know better. By now, of course, lots of photographers have over the years been consciously or unconsciously working around the error in their workflows, to the point that "18% gray plus workarounds" can actually work. If someone came out with a 12.5% gray card right now, people wouldn't know what to do with it! Very interesting. Thanks! N. |
Floyd Davidson wrote:
The "correct" use has evolved. Get used to it because it won't regress. The word "evolved" suggests that one use of the term grew out of the other. This does not appear to be the case. Both uses of "prime lens" appear to be current and I believe that they are almost totally unrelated to each other. For instance in: http://www.zeiss.de/de/photo/home_e.nsf/1e142195de4e09fac12566fe003b2618/49143eeb494bfa7bc12569770054c1a7/$FILE/ATTBESGB/CLN8.pdf I read: "With the Zeiss Mutagon 0.6x there is now a wide-angle converter available which matches the optical performance level of the Zeiss Vario-Sonnar 1,7-2,2/3,3-33 lenses used in high quality digital camcorders from Sony. . . . The Mutagon is threaded to the front of the prime lens, as distinguished from the well-known Zeiss Mutar which is inserted between the lens and the camera." This clearly shows that the term "prime lens" has been in recent use to describe a zoom lens when used with a supplementary lens. Peter. -- |
"Peter" wrote:
Floyd Davidson wrote: The "correct" use has evolved. Get used to it because it won't regress. The word "evolved" suggests that one use of the term grew out of the other. This does not appear to be the case. Both uses of "prime lens" appear to be current and I believe that they are almost totally unrelated to each other. It does not necessarily have to be that one grew out of the other. However, I *don't* see them as totally unrelated. Rather, it is a logical progression. And the newer meaning does not necessarily negate correctness of the older meaning any more than and older meaning makes a new one incorrect. For instance in: http://www.zeiss.de/de/photo/home_e.nsf/1e142195de4e09fac12566fe003b2618/49143eeb494bfa7bc12569770054c1a7/$FILE/ATTBESGB/CLN8.pdf I read: "With the Zeiss Mutagon 0.6x there is now a wide-angle converter available which matches the optical performance level of the Zeiss Vario-Sonnar 1,7-2,2/3,3-33 lenses used in high quality digital camcorders from Sony. . . . The Mutagon is threaded to the front of the prime lens, as distinguished from the well-known Zeiss Mutar which is inserted between the lens and the camera." This clearly shows that the term "prime lens" has been in recent use to describe a zoom lens when used with a supplementary lens. So? I could probably come up with a single paragraph that used at least 4 or 5 different meanings for the word "prime". Does that make the more recently evolved meanings incorrect just because there is also an older meaning? Language just doesn't work that way. As the late Steve Allen used to say on TV about timing being everything in comedy, context is everything in word usage. -- FloydL. Davidson http://www.apaflo.com/floyd_davidson Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska) |
Floyd Davidson wrote:
It does not necessarily have to be that one grew out of the other. However, I *don't* see them as totally unrelated. Rather, it is a logical progression. When you have two terms that mean different things, and you change one of them to mean the same thing as the other, that's not progression, it's regression. It's entropy. It's loss of meaning and precision for absolutely no good reason -- there was no need to change the meaning of the term, since another perfectly good one already existed. And now you have what used to be a perfectly good term, "prime lens", that, having become ambiguous, is now *useless* for *either* of the meanings we are talking about here. It is a dead term. It can't be used to mean "fixed focal length" because that's stupid and it doesn't mean that; and it can't be used with its original meaning because everyone thinks it means something else. Not every change in language is "evolution", or anything approaching a good thing. The changes made by marketing people, for example, are always bad. Marketing is responsible for more abuses of our language than anything else. Evolution adds something; all this does is remove. -- Jeremy | |
Jeremy Nixon wrote:
Floyd Davidson wrote: It does not necessarily have to be that one grew out of the other. However, I *don't* see them as totally unrelated. Rather, it is a logical progression. When you have two terms that mean different things, and you change one of them to mean the same thing as the other, that's not progression, it's regression. It's entropy. It's loss of meaning and precision for absolutely no good reason -- there was no need to change the meaning of the term, since another perfectly good one already existed. Right, but since that is *not* what happened, what's the point? And now you have what used to be a perfectly good term, "prime lens", that, having become ambiguous, is now *useless* for *either* of the meanings we are talking about here. It is a dead term. It can't be used to mean Why would you say that? Prime had several meanings long before this happened, and yet you say it was not ambiguous then but is now???? That's not logical. "fixed focal length" because that's stupid and it doesn't mean that; and Clearly it *does* mean that and *is* being commonly used with that meaning more often than not. it can't be used with its original meaning because everyone thinks it means something else. And just as clearly it *is* still sometimes being used with the previous meaning (which is *not* "its original meaning"). As with the other various meanings, context is everything... Not every change in language is "evolution", or anything approaching a good thing. You need to look up the word "evolution" and find out what it means. And as to whether change is "a good thing", that is subjective and your opinion that it is not really isn't worth a plugged nickel. (Neither is mine, so don't be upset that the world continues to turn even if we don't like it.) The changes made by marketing people, for example, are always bad. As a guy who worked my whole life in Operations (and never stopped making fun of Marketing), even I have to tell you that you've over stated the case there. Marketing is responsible for more abuses of our language than anything else. We can probably agree on that one! But that doesn't mean I'm not going to accept that those changes are *fact*. Evolution adds something; all this does is remove. You can try to justify your bias with false statements like that one all you like, but the world still turns, and language evolution continues... -- FloydL. Davidson http://www.apaflo.com/floyd_davidson Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska) |
"Floyd Davidson" wrote in message ... "Nostrobino" wrote: In this case "prime" is clearly used to ditinguish the main lens from the supplementary lens. Thanks to both of you. These tend to support my recollection that this misuse of "prime" first appeared c. 1990, and also that the term was still in correct use at the same time. I would be very interested to see if anyone can produce a substantially earlier example of "prime" being used to mean fixed focal length. What difference does that make? As long as you want to claim it means "the term was still in correct use", you are simply wrong no matter what. The "correct" use has evolved. No, it has not. As shown repeatedly, it is still in current use and means the same thing it always meant. Nor is there any obvious way that "fixed focal length" could evolve into "prime." You might as well expect a horse to evolve into a cabbage. On the other hand, it you rid yourself of this insistance that whatever the use was at some specific point in time is "correct" as opposed to all evolution that happened at a later date being "incorrect", then yes it is interesting to catalog the evolutionary process to see when it changed and to compare that to the external factors that guided that evolutionary process Go ahead, outline "that evolutionary process" for me. I'd sure like to see how you get "fixed focal length" to evolve into "prime." What might the intermediate steps look like, I wonder? N. |
"Nostrobino" wrote:
I acknowledge the correction, but adaptation does imply improvement at least with respect to the situation being adapted to. (Why else adapt?) I don't see that using a term incorrectly, out of ignorance of that term's actual meaning, can reasonably be described as "adaptation." Your definition of "improvement" is highly suspect then. Likewise, your use of "adaption" is not correct either, because evolution is a *change*, and that is not necessarily either an adaption or an improvement. It is just different, and that's all. Here's a quote for you: "From Moby Thesaurus II by Grady Ward, 1.0[moby-thes]: 41 Moby Thesaurus words for "evolution": addition, advance, approximation, beautification, change, developing, development, differentiation, division, elaboration, embellishment, equation, evolvement, evolving, extrapolation, flowering, formation, growing, growth, integration, interpolation, inversion, involution, maturation, multiplication, notation, perfection, phylogeny, practice, production, progress, progression, proportion, reduction, refinement, ripening, seasoning, subtraction, transformation, unfolding, upgrowth Do you see any indication that either "adaption" or "improvement" could be correctly inferred from "evolution"? Shortening a term because it no longer needs to be full length to be understood is a natural form of such adaptation. For example, submarine Fine. What has this or the rest of your discussion got to do with the entirely different case of the use of "prime" to mean a fixed focal length lens vs a zoom lens? boats quickly became "submarines," and automatic pistols became "automatics." In both cases the adjective became the (and replaced) the noun. That's evolution. Yes, that is evolution, but that is *not* the only type of evolution possible. Just because that paradigm is evolution does not exclude something different from also being evolution. That's not valid logic. To take "prime lens," a term that already had a specific technical meaning, and give it an entirely different and unrelated meaning, is not evolution in any way that I can see. Well, lets apply logic to your statement then, and see what we get: you can't see. There is no other logically valid conclusion which your statement can lead to. -- FloydL. Davidson http://www.apaflo.com/floyd_davidson Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska) |
"Nostrobino" wrote:
"Floyd Davidson" wrote in message ... "Nostrobino" wrote: In this case "prime" is clearly used to ditinguish the main lens from the supplementary lens. Thanks to both of you. These tend to support my recollection that this misuse of "prime" first appeared c. 1990, and also that the term was still in correct use at the same time. I would be very interested to see if anyone can produce a substantially earlier example of "prime" being used to mean fixed focal length. What difference does that make? As long as you want to claim it means "the term was still in correct use", you are simply wrong no matter what. The "correct" use has evolved. No, it has not. As shown repeatedly, it is still in current use and means the same thing it always meant. You continue to make logically invalid statements that are patently absurd. There is no *one single meaning* for the word "prime". The fact that there are half a dozen or more previously used and still commonly used meanings does not even begin to negate the simple *fact* that you continue to try denying: it has evolved a *new* meaning, which is now in relatively common use. Common use makes it "correct", and indicates the language has evolved. The opposite of that is *your* use of unique definitions for "adaption" and "evolution", which are incorrect simply because nobody other than you understands them to have the meanings you have indicated (in a previous article to which I have just posted a response). Nor is there any obvious way that "fixed focal length" could evolve into "prime." You might as well expect a horse to evolve into a cabbage. Look, it *exists*, so you can't say that it is impossible. It's there, and being used. Take you ear plugs out, throw away the blinders, and get your hands away from your eyes. You are *not* changing reality by refused to admit it exists. On the other hand, it you rid yourself of this insistance that whatever the use was at some specific point in time is "correct" as opposed to all evolution that happened at a later date being "incorrect", then yes it is interesting to catalog the evolutionary process to see when it changed and to compare that to the external factors that guided that evolutionary process Go ahead, outline "that evolutionary process" for me. I'd sure like to see how you get "fixed focal length" to evolve into "prime." What might the intermediate steps look like, I wonder? I could care less whether you wonder about it or not. And I'm not going to catalog it for you. The *fact* that it exists is undeniable, and therefore it *did* evolve. Even if you *are* blind. -- FloydL. Davidson http://www.apaflo.com/floyd_davidson Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska) |
"Floyd Davidson" wrote in message ... "Peter" wrote: Floyd Davidson wrote: The "correct" use has evolved. Get used to it because it won't regress. The word "evolved" suggests that one use of the term grew out of the other. This does not appear to be the case. Both uses of "prime lens" appear to be current and I believe that they are almost totally unrelated to each other. It does not necessarily have to be that one grew out of the other. It sure does, if it evolved. However, I *don't* see them as totally unrelated. Rather, it is a logical progression. That's what I want to see: that logical progression from "fixed focal length" to "prime." And the newer meaning does not necessarily negate correctness of the older meaning any more than and older meaning makes a new one incorrect. For instance in: http://www.zeiss.de/de/photo/home_e.nsf/1e142195de4e09fac12566fe003b2618/49143eeb494bfa7bc12569770054c1a7/$FILE/ATTBESGB/CLN8.pdf I read: "With the Zeiss Mutagon 0.6x there is now a wide-angle converter available which matches the optical performance level of the Zeiss Vario-Sonnar 1,7-2,2/3,3-33 lenses used in high quality digital camcorders from Sony. . . . The Mutagon is threaded to the front of the prime lens, as distinguished from the well-known Zeiss Mutar which is inserted between the lens and the camera." This clearly shows that the term "prime lens" has been in recent use to describe a zoom lens when used with a supplementary lens. So? I could probably come up with a single paragraph that used at least 4 or 5 different meanings for the word "prime". Does that make the more recently evolved meanings incorrect just because there is also an older meaning? Like most words in the English language, "prime" has many different meanings. But not an *infinite* number of meanings; you cannot legitimately just add new meanings willy-nilly because you happen to like them, or because you support someone else's usage based on his misunderstanding of the term in the first place. Some people misuse words because they misunderstand them, and apparently think such misuse is perfectly legitimate and the actual meaning is unimportant. This is a somewhat annoying thing, and many years ago I coined the term "Humpty-Dumptyism" to describe it. (I must admit I'm somewhat disappointed that Humpty-Dumptyism has not, after all this time, really caught on as an expression. :-) ) For those not very familiar with Lewis Carroll, I should explain (much abridged): Humpty Dumpty, sitting on his wall, had a conversation with Alice in which he used a certain word in an incomprehensible way. Alice told him she didn't understand his use of that word. Humpty then gave her a quite lengthy, and thoroughly wrong, definition for the word. "But the word doesn't mean that at all," Alice protested. "The word means," Humpty replied, "what I choose it to mean." N. |
"Floyd Davidson" wrote in message ... "Nostrobino" wrote: "Floyd Davidson" wrote in message ... "Nostrobino" wrote: In this case "prime" is clearly used to ditinguish the main lens from the supplementary lens. Thanks to both of you. These tend to support my recollection that this misuse of "prime" first appeared c. 1990, and also that the term was still in correct use at the same time. I would be very interested to see if anyone can produce a substantially earlier example of "prime" being used to mean fixed focal length. What difference does that make? As long as you want to claim it means "the term was still in correct use", you are simply wrong no matter what. The "correct" use has evolved. No, it has not. As shown repeatedly, it is still in current use and means the same thing it always meant. You continue to make logically invalid statements that are patently absurd. There is no *one single meaning* for the word "prime". The fact that there are half a dozen or more previously used and still commonly used meanings does not even begin to negate the simple *fact* that you continue to try denying: it has evolved a *new* meaning, which is now in relatively common use. That's not evolution. That's a misunderstanding which through repetition (mostly thanks to Usenet) has unfortunately become fairly common. There have been many other terms which through misunderstanding and repetition became frequently misused. In fact, several *lists* of misused words have been compiled over the years. Common use makes it "correct", and indicates the language has evolved. No. The popularity of some misusage does not automatically make it correct, as you seem to believe. Look in any authoritative dictionary that has usage notes, and you will find misusages that have enjoyed great popularity for many, many years and are just still as wrong as they ever were. N. |
Floyd Davidson wrote:
It does not necessarily have to be that one grew out of the other. However, I *don't* see them as totally unrelated. Ok, I'll bite. What relationship do you see between the term "prime lens" used to mean the main lens as opposed to a supplementary lens or attachment, and the term "prime lens" used to mean a fixed focal length lens? Rather, it is a logical progression. Again, what is the logical connection between the two? And the newer meaning does not necessarily negate correctness of the older meaning any more than and older meaning makes a new one incorrect. Of course. Though having a word with multiple meanings or an unclear meaning within a technical lexicon could create problems. That's part of why I think "prime lens" in the sense of "fixed focal length" while a useful bit of slang until someone comes up with something better, shouldn't be regarded as a part of the proper technical vocabulary of photography. So? I could probably come up with a single paragraph that used at least 4 or 5 different meanings for the word "prime". It would be interesting to see such a paragraph in which at least four out of the five uses had no obvious connection to the concept of "first" indicated by the word "prime." I would like to see you try. Does that make the more recently evolved meanings incorrect just because there is also an older meaning? No, but creating additional meanings for an existing technical term could be a problem. It makes a lot of sense to deprecate the use of a new meaning for a technical term if it is seen as beginning to erode the usefulness of the established technical use of the term. Language just doesn't work that way. As the late Steve Allen used to say on TV about timing being everything in comedy, context is everything in word usage. Right, if context is not actually everything, it is a lot of it. I've got no strong objection to "prime lens" as a handy bit of slang to refer to fixed focal length lenses, but if it starts to look as if some people are treating it as if it were a proper part of the technical lexicon then it may be time to object. Peter. -- |
"Nostrobino" wrote:
"Floyd Davidson" wrote: The "correct" use has evolved. No, it has not. As shown repeatedly, it is still in current use and means the same thing it always meant. You continue to make logically invalid statements that are patently absurd. There is no *one single meaning* for the word "prime". The fact that there are half a dozen or more previously used and still commonly used meanings does not even begin to negate the simple *fact* that you continue to try denying: it has evolved a *new* meaning, which is now in relatively common use. That's not evolution. That's a misunderstanding which through repetition (mostly thanks to Usenet) has unfortunately become fairly common. Well, you can say it isn't evolution from now until the sun freezes over, but just as you have misused other words, you are misusing that one too. *It is evolution.* There have been many other terms which through misunderstanding and repetition became frequently misused. In fact, several *lists* of misused words have been compiled over the years. When the new usage becomes common enough that virtually everyone understands what the meaning is, and people use it because it is understood... that *is* evolution whether you like it or not. Common use makes it "correct", and indicates the language has evolved. No. The popularity of some misusage does not automatically make it correct, as you seem to believe. Look in any authoritative dictionary that has usage notes, and you will find misusages that have enjoyed great popularity for many, many years and are just still as wrong as they ever were. So just show us examples... ;-) In fact the dictionary is chock full of examples of words that now have different meanings than they originally did. Dang near every word in an English dictionary fits that description! Some have even come to mean exactly the opposite of what they once did. -- FloydL. Davidson http://www.apaflo.com/floyd_davidson Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska) |
"Nostrobino" wrote:
"Floyd Davidson" wrote: So? I could probably come up with a single paragraph that used at least 4 or 5 different meanings for the word "prime". Does that make the more recently evolved meanings incorrect just because there is also an older meaning? Like most words in the English language, "prime" has many different meanings. But not an *infinite* number of meanings; you cannot legitimately just add new meanings willy-nilly because you happen to like them, or because you support someone else's usage based on his misunderstanding of the term in the first place. You are again abusing facts. *I* have not somehow willy-nilly added a new meaning. You are just willy-nilly claiming that common usage doesn't equate to correctness, and that is an absurd statement on its face when applied to language. Some people misuse words because they misunderstand them, and apparently think such misuse is perfectly legitimate and the actual meaning is unimportant. Yes. You have misused "adaption", "improvement", and "evolution" in previous articles. That certainly doesn't make your usage correct, nor will it make your logic valid. But in the case of "prime", it is being *widely* used with the meaning you claim is incorrect. Hence we just add it to the list of words *you* cannot define correctly. This is a somewhat annoying thing, and many years ago I coined the term "Humpty-Dumptyism" to describe it. (I must admit I'm somewhat disappointed that Humpty-Dumptyism has not, after all this time, really caught on as an expression. :-) ) So we'll add another... For those not very familiar with Lewis Carroll, I should explain (much abridged): Humpty Dumpty, sitting on his wall, had a conversation with Alice in which he used a certain word in an incomprehensible way. Alice told him she didn't understand his use of that word. Humpty then gave her a quite lengthy, and thoroughly wrong, definition for the word. "But the word doesn't mean that at all," Alice protested. "The word means," Humpty replied, "what I choose it to mean." And there we see exactly what is wrong with your approach to language. When the premises for your "logic" are based on words that mean exactly what you want them to mean, but have a different meaning to everyone else, your "logic" is invalid. And I think we've seen enough of this thread to have drawn some very well defined lines. Hence I see no point in further discussion at this time. If you do come up with somethingr rational, I'll respond though. -- FloydL. Davidson http://www.apaflo.com/floyd_davidson Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska) |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 05:08 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
PhotoBanter.com