A Photography forum. PhotoBanter.com

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Go Back   Home » PhotoBanter.com forum » Digital Photography » Digital SLR Cameras
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Are primes brighter and sharper than wide open zooms



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #172  
Old October 5th 05, 10:24 AM
Jan Böhme
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

David Littlewood wrote:
In article .com, Jan
B=F6hme writes


In the days before head protectors and boxes became universal, I think
anyone fielding at silly mid-off, or silly mid-on, or silly point, would
know exactly why the distinction was made.


Hm. Then one wonders why my old fielding position isn't called
"extremely silly slip".

Jan B=F6hme

  #173  
Old October 5th 05, 10:29 AM
Jan Böhme
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


no_name wrote:
Jan B=F6hme wrote:


With "google" there wouldn't be a theoretical chans to confuse the
everyday sense with the technical one. So why would you think
cricketeers would stop using it?


I thought the word in cricket was "googlie".


The noun, yes, which is what one would normally use in most instances.
But at least according to Jeremy's dictionary there is a corresponding
verb, "to google".=20

Jan B=F6hme

  #174  
Old October 5th 05, 09:37 PM
no_name
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Jan Böhme wrote:

no_name wrote:

Jan Böhme wrote:



With "google" there wouldn't be a theoretical chans to confuse the
everyday sense with the technical one. So why would you think
cricketeers would stop using it?


I thought the word in cricket was "googlie".



The noun, yes, which is what one would normally use in most instances.
But at least according to Jeremy's dictionary there is a corresponding
verb, "to google".

Jan Böhme


Ok, I went back through the thread & found the dictionary citation.

Now for something completely different ...

The definition doesn't actually tell what it is. It defines google in
terms of itself; "to have a 'googly' break".

What exactly makes a "break" googly?
  #175  
Old October 5th 05, 10:29 PM
Frank ess
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

no_name wrote:
Jan Böhme wrote:

no_name wrote:

Jan Böhme wrote:



With "google" there wouldn't be a theoretical chans to confuse
the
everyday sense with the technical one. So why would you think
cricketeers would stop using it?

I thought the word in cricket was "googlie".



The noun, yes, which is what one would normally use in most
instances. But at least according to Jeremy's dictionary there is a
corresponding verb, "to google".

Jan Böhme


Ok, I went back through the thread & found the dictionary citation.

Now for something completely different ...

The definition doesn't actually tell what it is. It defines google
in
terms of itself; "to have a 'googly' break".

What exactly makes a "break" googly?


Googly a 'trick' ball bowled by a *leg spin bowler* which spins the
opposite way to the way the batsman is expecting [also *Bosie,
wrong'un*] -- _CRICKET EXPLAINED From Grubbers to Googlies-A
Beginner's Guide to the Great English Pastime_ Robert Eastaway, St,
Martin's Press 1992

It'd be remiss to pass through this thread witout mentioning Barney
Google and his goo- goo- googly eyes.

--
Frank ess

  #176  
Old October 5th 05, 11:42 PM
Jeremy Nixon
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

no_name wrote:

Now for something completely different ...

The definition doesn't actually tell what it is. It defines google in
terms of itself; "to have a 'googly' break".

What exactly makes a "break" googly?


googly, n. Cricket. A ball which breaks from the off, though bowled with
apparent leg-break action.
b. attrib. or as adj., esp. in googly bowler, bowling.

--
Jeremy |
  #177  
Old October 6th 05, 01:55 AM
no_name
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Jeremy Nixon wrote:

no_name wrote:


Now for something completely different ...

The definition doesn't actually tell what it is. It defines google in
terms of itself; "to have a 'googly' break".

What exactly makes a "break" googly?



googly, n. Cricket. A ball which breaks from the off, though bowled with
apparent leg-break action.
b. attrib. or as adj., esp. in googly bowler, bowling.


Oh yeah, that explains everything!

So, apparently, it's a googly if it breaks a leg.
  #178  
Old October 6th 05, 05:12 PM
Jan Böhme
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

no_name wrote:

So, apparently, it's a googly if it breaks a leg.


Not if it breaks _a_ leg. You see, in this particular instance, "leg"
is an adjective, and a synonym to "on".

I'm sure this made it a lot clearer.

Jan B=F6hme

  #179  
Old October 6th 05, 05:28 PM
Jan Böhme
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


Nostrobino wrote:
"Jan B=F6hme" 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 le=

ast
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."


If the need for the original meaning no longer is there, and it
replaces a longer term (and "fix-focus" and its likes certainly are
longer than "prime") it could be considered as an adaptation.

But I agree that it is a bit doubtful. It might be better to think of
"prime" in the sense of "fix-focus" as neutral drift that, at one point
in time, was enabled because there no longer was enough negative
selection against it.

Jan B=F6hme

  #180  
Old March 6th 20, 05:25 PM posted to rec.photo.digital.slr-systems
[email protected]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1
Default Are primes brighter and sharper than wide open zooms

PRIME:

Correct, the meaning of the word "prime" is equivalent to "primary",

.... meaning the primary image forming lens in a photographic imaging system,

.... and can be any type of lens, including a zoom lens,

.... where a secondary or auxiliary lens is a non-image forming lens in the photographic imaging system.

It's all math and science.

Think of the mathematical scientific marker ( ' ) meaning "prime",

.... where if we were to draw out a schematic of our photographic imaging system,

.... the primary image forming lens would be marked with a ( ' ) prime indicator,

.... and supplemental or auxiliary lenses would be marked as such, as non-prime,

.... regardless of any of the lenses or lens assemblies having focal lengths that are fixed or single or multiple or variable or zoom.

__________

FFL:

Fixed Focal Length lens wise, almost no one has ever seen one ( a diopter, perhaps ... but not what we are talking about )?

"fixed focal length" lens assemblies have no focusing mechanism of their own, and depend on camera movement, or attachment to an adjustable bellows between the lens and the camera, in order to focus.

People are thinking of single focal length lenses, which do have internal focusing mechanisms, and can focus from infinity-ish to closer-ish.

So, no, even FFL is an inappropriate reference considering what people are really referring to - their 50mm f/1.4 camera-maker-branded lens assembly or something like that, which they would consider broken if it's focusing mechanism failed and left the lens assembly at any fixed focal length.

__________

JARGON:

I congratulate you on recoiling against alienating inaccurate and inappropriate jargon which confuses oldies and newbies alike.

And I join you in trying to get us all to stop using berserker jargon.

If we're going to invent meaningless jargon, just call things "thingamabob" and "whatsit".

Thanks for exploring this.

____________________

On Wednesday, September 28, 2005
at 11:57:22 AM UTC-4, Nostrobino wrote:
Zoom lenses ARE prime lenses,
notwithstanding the now-popular
misusage of "prime."

A prime lens is the camera lens as
distinct from some other lens or
lenticular device (close-up lens,
tele converter, etc.) used with it.
It has meant that since long before
zoom lenses became commonplace, and
therefore no need to use another
term to mean "non-zoom."

"Prime" is properly used in the
sense of primary, main, chief or
original--all dictionary definitions
for "prime."

There is NO dictionary definition
for "prime" which means fixed focal
length or single focal length, or
fixed or single anything else.

It would be nice if this nonsensical
misusage, which obviously is based on
someone's misunderstanding of the
term some years ago (and then spread
like cancer through the power of the
Internet) could be stamped out.
Surely "FFL" is at least as easy to
type as "prime" anyway, and there
never was any reason other than
shortness to replace "fixed focal
length" with the incorrect term.

N.


____________________
..
 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 08:46 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2020, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2020 PhotoBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.