DPReview relocates - from London, England, to Seattle, WA, USA!

On Thu, 21 Oct 2010 08:14:53 -0700 (PDT), Whisky-dave
wrote:

On 21 Oct, 12:12, Bruce wrote:
Well, that came as a surprise, but it does explain the recent lull in
the production of new articles on dpreview.com:

"Last, and by no means least, we've also moved out of our London
office and relocated to our new office and studio in Seattle,
Washington, which has obviously caused a little disruption. But have
no fear, we've worked very hard to ensure the delay in publishing
reviews is kept to a bare minimum (some of the team is still working
in the UK during this staggered relocation). This is an exciting move
for dpreview.com, and will give us access to considerably better
resources and allow us to expand our content and add features, tools
and improvements to sections of the site that we know our users will
love."

You won;t be measuring camera weights in pounds and/or ounces will
you.....
I mean the states seems to be one of the very few places in the world
that still uses
ye olde imperial units, I do hope focal lengths won;t be expressed in
inches ;-)

But I've often wondered whether exposure times would be better
expressed in ms
rather than fractions of a second.......




http://www.dpreview.com/news/1010/10102021sitenews.asp

I shall miss the images of London in the equipment reviews. *;-)

Units should be expressed in the terms the readership is most familiar
with and not determined by where the magazine is published.

The best way to express measurements is: 6"/152mm.
--
Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida

On 10-10-21 12:07 , tony cooper wrote:

The best way to express measurements is: 6"/152mm.

.... well if you have to come up short, I suppose.

--
gmail originated posts filtered due to spam.

On 2010-10-21 09:07:17 -0700, tony cooper said:

On Thu, 21 Oct 2010 08:14:53 -0700 (PDT), Whisky-dave
wrote:

On 21 Oct, 12:12, Bruce wrote:
Well, that came as a surprise, but it does explain the recent lull in
the production of new articles on dpreview.com:

"Last, and by no means least, we've also moved out of our London
office and relocated to our new office and studio in Seattle,
Washington, which has obviously caused a little disruption. But have
no fear, we've worked very hard to ensure the delay in publishing
reviews is kept to a bare minimum (some of the team is still working
in the UK during this staggered relocation). This is an exciting move
for dpreview.com, and will give us access to considerably better
resources and allow us to expand our content and add features, tools
and improvements to sections of the site that we know our users will
love."

You won;t be measuring camera weights in pounds and/or ounces will
you.....
I mean the states seems to be one of the very few places in the world
that still uses
ye olde imperial units, I do hope focal lengths won;t be expressed in
inches ;-)

But I've often wondered whether exposure times would be better
expressed in ms
rather than fractions of a second.......




http://www.dpreview.com/news/1010/10102021sitenews.asp

I shall miss the images of London in the equipment reviews. *;-)

Units should be expressed in the terms the readership is most familiar
with and not determined by where the magazine is published.

The best way to express measurements is: 6"/152mm.

....and here I was thinking cubits.

I guess them "furners" will need to bookmark this URL;
http://www.unc.edu/~rowlett/units/


--
Regards,

Savageduck