DSLR vs P&S a replay of Film vs Digital?

"Serge Desplanques" wrote in message
news:2007111804543575249%desplanques@volumeen...
On 2007-11-17 19:47:47 -0700, "Neil Harrington"
said:

"Prime lens" means the camera lens as opposed to some other lens or
optical device used with it, such as a close-up lens, tele converter,
etc. When used with such a device, the camera lens itself is the prime
lens -- whether it's fixed focal length or zoom makes no difference.

There are variable focal length prime lenses made by Schneider, Zeiss and
others which are catalogued just that way: "variable primes."
http://schneiderkreuznach.com/pdf/ki...le_prime_e.pdf
http://www.cinequip.com/Category_det...ategory=Lenses
http://rentacam.ru/eng/index.php?area=article&id_art=58
http://www.oscars.org/scitech/1998/winners.html (scroll down)

Nikon, for example, has NEVER used "prime" to mean fixed focal length in
any of its lens literature. Neither have most other camera and lens
manufacturers.

this site
http://home.zonnet.nl/famwakker/niko...bylens01.ht m
...which
...which is one I consult often, uses 'prime' to mean 'fixed FL' as do
many thousands of folks today...terminology changes with usage

That's the familiar excuse one always hears from people who uncritically
substitute popular but improper jargon for correct terminology. Misuse
resulting from someone's misunderstanding is not a legitimate change in
language, no matter how popular it becomes.


and I for one know what someone means if the say 'prime lens'

You think you do, but if you see it used correctly you will probably
misunderstand what is being said. That's the problem.

Neil

On 2007-11-18 19:25:40 -0700, "Neil Harrington" said:


"Serge Desplanques" wrote in message
news:2007111804543575249%desplanques@volumeen...
On 2007-11-17 19:47:47 -0700, "Neil Harrington" said:

"Prime lens" means the camera lens as opposed to some other lens or
optical device used with it, such as a close-up lens, tele converter,
etc. When used with such a device, the camera lens itself is the prime
lens -- whether it's fixed focal length or zoom makes no difference.

There are variable focal length prime lenses made by Schneider, Zeiss
and others which are catalogued just that way: "variable primes."
http://schneiderkreuznach.com/pdf/ki...le_prime_e.pdf
http://www.cinequip.com/Category_det...ategory=Lenses
http://rentacam.ru/eng/index.php?area=article&id_art=58
http://www.oscars.org/scitech/1998/winners.html (scroll down)

Nikon, for example, has NEVER used "prime" to mean fixed focal length
in any of its lens literature. Neither have most other camera and lens
manufacturers.

this site
http://home.zonnet.nl/famwakker/niko...bylens01.ht m
....which
....which

...which
...which is one I consult often, uses 'prime' to mean 'fixed FL' as do
many thousands of folks today...terminology changes with usage

That's the familiar excuse one always hears from people who
uncritically substitute popular but improper jargon for correct
terminology. Misuse resulting from someone's misunderstanding is not a
legitimate change in language, no matter how popular it becomes.

what is legitimate to you, matters to you...what is common usage, and
facilitates informal communication (which is all that interests most
people), will not be affected in the slightest by your disdain


and I for one know what someone means if the say 'prime lens'

You think you do, but if you see it used correctly you will probably
misunderstand what is being said. That's the problem.

since I am able to adjust my thinking to allow for the differences
among technical writing, informal writing, and writing from different
eras, I think I'm flexible enough to muddle through

Neil


--
"Our ignorance is not so vast as our failure to use what we know."

"Serge Desplanques" wrote in message
news:2007111819024416807%desplanques@volumeen...
On 2007-11-18 17:52:47 -0700, John Navas
said:

On Sun, 18 Nov 2007 04:54:35 -0700, Serge Desplanques
wrote in
2007111804543575249%desplanques@volumeen:

On 2007-11-17 19:47:47 -0700, "Neil Harrington"
said:

Nikon, for example, has NEVER used "prime" to mean fixed focal length
in any of its lens literature. Neither have most other camera and lens
manufacturers.

this site
http://home.zonnet.nl/famwakker/niko...bylens01.ht m
...which
...which

...which
...which is one I consult often, uses 'prime' to mean 'fixed FL' ...

That site isn't Nikon.

well, the rest of what I said:

"...which is one I consult often, uses 'prime' to mean 'fixed FL' as do
many thousands of folks today...terminology changes with usage and I for
one know what someone means if the say 'prime lens'"

...makes it pretty clear that I was not in the least confused about that
site being Nikon, but thanks for trying to invalidate my remarks anyway,
douche bag

The fact remains that neither Nikon nor any other major camera manufacturer
whose products I've used and whose literature I've read for decades, EVER
used or now uses "prime" to mean fixed focal length. If that were a
legitimate usage, they would. It is not and they do not.

See for yourself. There's plenty of Nikon lens catalogs and literature
online, and it covers many fixed focal length lenses -- not one of them
referred to as a "prime."

Neil

On 2007-11-18 19:34:38 -0700, "Neil Harrington" said:


"Serge Desplanques" wrote in message
news:2007111819024416807%desplanques@volumeen...
On 2007-11-18 17:52:47 -0700, John Navas said:

On Sun, 18 Nov 2007 04:54:35 -0700, Serge Desplanques
wrote in
2007111804543575249%desplanques@volumeen:

On 2007-11-17 19:47:47 -0700, "Neil Harrington" said:

Nikon, for example, has NEVER used "prime" to mean fixed focal length
in any of its lens literature. Neither have most other camera and lens
manufacturers.

this site
http://home.zonnet.nl/famwakker/niko...bylens01.ht m
....which
....which

....which
....which

...which
...which

...which
...which is one I consult often, uses 'prime' to mean 'fixed FL' ...

That site isn't Nikon.

well, the rest of what I said:

"...which is one I consult often, uses 'prime' to mean 'fixed FL' as do
many thousands of folks today...terminology changes with usage and I
for one know what someone means if the say 'prime lens'"

...makes it pretty clear that I was not in the least confused about
that site being Nikon, but thanks for trying to invalidate my remarks
anyway, douche bag

The fact remains that neither Nikon nor any other major camera
manufacturer whose products I've used and whose literature I've read
for decades, EVER used or now uses "prime" to mean fixed focal length.
If that were a legitimate usage, they would. It is not and they do not.

See for yourself. There's plenty of Nikon lens catalogs and literature
online, and it covers many fixed focal length lenses -- not one of them
referred to as a "prime."

Neil

I'll stipulate the accuracy of that assertion...my comment did not
argue with the statement above ("Nikon, for example, has NEVER used
"prime" to mean fixed focal length in any of its lens literature.
Neither have most other camera and lens manufacturers."), as I was only
pointing out the difference between what is the strict definition of a
term and the current usage...language is a living thing

--
"Our ignorance is not so vast as our failure to use what we know."

"SMS ???. ?" wrote in message
...
Neil Harrington wrote:

Easier than entering all that stuff into a killfile, which obviously will
only grow and grow (and I assume he never bothers re-using his old ones
anyway), henceforth I'll just assume any unknown poster supporting that
jerk is the jerk himself, and ignore it. Likewise I'll just assume any
other idiotic post is from the same jerk, regardless of the subject or
name used. It's easy enough to pick him out from his headers, but why
waste the time.

Sometimes I get to the point of kill-filing not only anyone that supports
him, but anyone that even replies to him, because he feeds on the
attention they provide.

A newsgroup reader that could filter on text in the body of the message
would work best, since he uses the same key words no matter how often he
changes the "from" address in the header.

Also there are several obvious similarities in all his message headers (for
just one example, his newsreader is Forte Agent 4.1/32.1088), which he
clearly doesn't know how to change. He can only do the easy stuff that most
ten-year-olds can do.

Neil

On Sun, 18 Nov 2007 21:44:48 -0500, "Neil Harrington"
wrote:


"SMS ???. ?" wrote in message
.. .
Neil Harrington wrote:

Easier than entering all that stuff into a killfile, which obviously will
only grow and grow (and I assume he never bothers re-using his old ones
anyway), henceforth I'll just assume any unknown poster supporting that
jerk is the jerk himself, and ignore it. Likewise I'll just assume any
other idiotic post is from the same jerk, regardless of the subject or
name used. It's easy enough to pick him out from his headers, but why
waste the time.

Sometimes I get to the point of kill-filing not only anyone that supports
him, but anyone that even replies to him, because he feeds on the
attention they provide.

A newsgroup reader that could filter on text in the body of the message
would work best, since he uses the same key words no matter how often he
changes the "from" address in the header.

Also there are several obvious similarities in all his message headers (for
just one example, his newsreader is Forte Agent 4.1/32.1088), which he
clearly doesn't know how to change. He can only do the easy stuff that most
ten-year-olds can do.

Neil


Oh look, the RESIDENT TROLLS are still whining that their trolling tactics can't
be so easily defeated (nor so easily exposed). I can use ANY nntp server on the
planet with ANY headers if I wanted to. (You don't know how to do that? Awww..
boo hoo.) You're not worth the effort nor the time. I only expend as much energy
as needed to reveal who the real trolls are.

Now, do you care to talk about something photography related? If not, get the
hell out of here, you useless ****ing RESIDENT trolls.

On Sun, 18 Nov 2007 17:49:08 -1000, Scott W wrote:

John Navas wrote:
On Sun, 18 Nov 2007 14:50:09 -1000, Scott W wrote
in :

John Navas wrote:

Well said. Good photographers did just fine without auto-focus for
decades. Auto-focus is mainly a convenience, especially for not-so-good
photographers, and can be wrong, which is why many good photographers
don't depend on it. I'll often use manual focus, and check it from time
to time with (auto) focus confirmation, much as I'll often use manual
exposure, and check it with (auto) metering and live histogram.
I did without auto-focus for a long time, with a Nikon SLR, but then it
had a nice focus ring and a fast f/1.4 lens and a really nice focus
screen. I can do manual focus with my DSLR fairly well but the focus
screen is no where near as good as my old Nikon. A point and shoot, I
have not seen one yet that is worth anything in manual focus, not if you
need to focus in less then a second.

My FZ8 has manual focus image magnification that beats the hell out of
manual focusing with any optical viewfinder.


But if you are pushing buttons to zoom then it is a pain anyway. great
if you are focusing on a static object but not so good if it is moving
towards or away from you.

Scott

Then I use the manual zoom-ring on some of my P&S cameras, but often I find that
the electronic zoom on my other P&S cameras as just as good for this. Mostly
learned by using the zoom-toggle buttons on my camera that has the manual-zoom
ring plus toggle-switch zoom. So much depends on how quickly and how well the
photographer can learn to use new tools to their best advantages. Clearly some
of them are still stuck in the last-century and can't get past that bump in
their learning curve that will take them into this century.

On Sun, 18 Nov 2007 14:50:09 -1000, Scott W wrote:

John Navas wrote:
On Sun, 18 Nov 2007 05:44:26 GMT, arnold ziffendorfer
wrote in
:

On Sun, 18 Nov 2007 04:59:25 GMT, Grumpy AuContraire
wrote:

This is an important consideration with moving media.

A cinematographer should plan his shot by focusing on the longest focal
length to be used and take advantage of the larger depth of field to
compensate for any error when going, (or leaving), a wide shot.

One of the oldest tricks in the book...

Exactly. This is why I see no huge compelling argument to the "my camera focuses
faster than your camera" childishness. I only use the auto-focus on my camera to
quickly find either a nice average to put the subject(s) within the DOF needed
or when I use a hyperfocal setting so nothing is missed. The same as I've done
for the last 40 years in all my cameras, manual or otherwise. Once that is done
I lock it into manual focus so it stays there. Occasionally using the manual
adjustment to touch up on what the camera ADVISED for a starting point. No
different than the advice you get from the exposure readings. How often that is
wrong too. Auto-focus may get me there quicker in most situations but is by no
means the answer to worthwhile photography. I do just as well without it if I
need to. I'll turn it off completely depending on the shooting scenario.
Particularly with macro-photography where it is more of a huge hindrance than
any kind of a help.

Well said. Good photographers did just fine without auto-focus for
decades. Auto-focus is mainly a convenience, especially for not-so-good
photographers, and can be wrong, which is why many good photographers
don't depend on it. I'll often use manual focus, and check it from time
to time with (auto) focus confirmation, much as I'll often use manual
exposure, and check it with (auto) metering and live histogram.

I did without auto-focus for a long time, with a Nikon SLR, but then it
had a nice focus ring and a fast f/1.4 lens and a really nice focus
screen. I can do manual focus with my DSLR fairly well but the focus
screen is no where near as good as my old Nikon. A point and shoot, I
have not seen one yet that is worth anything in manual focus, not if you
need to focus in less then a second.

Scott

It sounds like you need more practice and experience with focusing on any camera
than with typing.

John Navas wrote:
Annika1980

Calling a Crapasonic Lumix lens a "Leica" is kinda like calling a VW
bug a Porsche.

I'm not talking about Lumix lenses, I'm talking about Leica lenses.

Panasonic is actually a world class manufacturer.

Of TV sets.

--
Ray Fischer

"Ray Fischer" wrote in message
...
John Navas wrote:
Annika1980

Calling a Crapasonic Lumix lens a "Leica" is kinda like calling a VW
bug a Porsche.

I'm not talking about Lumix lenses, I'm talking about Leica lenses.

Panasonic is actually a world class manufacturer.

Of TV sets.


Their TVs are not that good.