A none digital post

Discussion in '35mm Cameras' started by Scott W, Sep 8, 2008.

  1. Scott W

    Scott W Guest

    Ok, this post really is not about film, but it is not about digital
    either.

    How come every thing in the 35mm world is metric, except the threads
    on the bottom of the camera?

    Everthing else on the camera is in metric measurement, the film/senor
    size, the lens focal length.

    In fifty years are we still going to find 1/4 20 theard on the bottom
    of camera?

    Ok, so this is not a big deal, but I was running out of film topics,
    and at least this one is not digital.

    Scott
     
    Scott W, Sep 8, 2008
    #1
    1. Advertisements

  2. backwards compatibility with the millions of tripods out there I would
    suspect, best to keep and arcane size than piss of a few million
    photographers out there, and potentially hurt sales of your product.
     
    Atheist Chaplain, Sep 8, 2008
    #2
    1. Advertisements

  3. Scott W

    Doug Jewell Guest

    I'm guessing that the 1/4" 20TPI thread is a standard that
    became a standard from the very early days of photography,
    and those metricated 35mm cameras implemented it so they
    could be the same as whatever imperial cameras were already
    using it.
    What i want to know is - why is it that standard frame/print
    sizes are always in imperial sizes. 8x10, 6x4, 5x7 etc.
    You'll occasionally encounter a lab that refers to it's
    prints as 10cm x 15cm etc, but a closer measurement reveals
    they are actually 10.1 x 15.2.
     
    Doug Jewell, Sep 8, 2008
    #3
  4. Scott W

    Noons Guest

    Scott W wrote,on my timestamp of 8/09/2008 5:09 PM:
    and Pentacon and others will *still* do a 3/8", forcing me
    to find the Hama 1/4-3/8 adapters!
    ):
     
    Noons, Sep 8, 2008
    #4
  5. Ackshooly, earlier cameras used a larger (3/8") tripod mount thread,
    which is why they make those 3/8 to 1/4" adapters. I've got a bunch of
    old cameras (mostly folding plate cameras) that have the big holes.

    But as to why 3/8" when everything else on the camera was metric, no
    idea. (Except that some old cameras had focus scales in feet--even
    Yurpeen ones--while others were in meters.)
     
    David Nebenzahl, Sep 8, 2008
    #5
  6. Scott W

    Doug Payne Guest

    And this relates to 35mm films cameras how, exactly?
     
    Doug Payne, Sep 8, 2008
    #6
  7. Scott W

    Doug Payne Guest

    It's you that's perpetually unhappy. I was just asking the relevance of
    your off-topic post. Just as I figgered, only Net Kopz get to "break the
    rules". You're a joke. Tell your Mom she can have her computer back.
     
    Doug Payne, Sep 8, 2008
    #7
  8. I also have some 35mm film cameras that also have the big holes. Happy now?
     
    David Nebenzahl, Sep 8, 2008
    #8
  9. You don't seem to grasp the difference between normal Usenet topic drift
    (to which I refer you to *any* functioning newsgroup), which is quite
    acceptable to most folks, and egregiously off-topic material that
    shouldn't be posted in a group the first place.
     
    David Nebenzahl, Sep 8, 2008
    #9
  10. Scott W

    Pete D Guest

    You dont seem to grasp the concept that the charter for this group contains
    no reference to film and yet many times you have demanded that this group is
    about film so there you go. I also remember one of your quotes when it
    suited you "charter shmarter", so there you go again.
     
    Pete D, Sep 9, 2008
    #10
  11. And as I've pointed out numerous times, the charter doesn't mention film
    because it didn't feel the need to, since 35mm cameras at the time it
    was written were understood, implicitly, to refer to cameras that use
    35mm film.
     
    David Nebenzahl, Sep 9, 2008
    #11
  12. Scott W

    Scott W Guest

    Weak, very weak logic.

    Scott
     
    Scott W, Sep 10, 2008
    #12
  13. How about the blindingly obvious fact that there exists a newsgroup
    which is clearly designed for these cameras--r.p.d.slr? How much more
    suitable could you expect a newsgroup to be? These posts belong there,
    not here.
     
    David Nebenzahl, Sep 10, 2008
    #13
  14. Scott W

    Paul Furman Guest

    Just that this group would be dead without DSLR users.

    --
    Paul Furman
    www.edgehill.net
    www.baynatives.com

    all google groups messages filtered due to spam
     
    Paul Furman, Sep 11, 2008
    #14
  15. Even if true, why would that be a problem? Is there some rule that says
    that all Usenet groups must have a certain level of traffic?

    The volume would be greatly reduced, but there are still a pretty good
    number of 35mm film shooters, as a quick read of this group will show.
     
    David Nebenzahl, Sep 11, 2008
    #15
  16. Scott W

    Rol_Lei Nut Guest

    One of the reasons that there are so few films users left in this NG is
    that certain DSLR users drove them away years ago with their constant
    "Film is dead" and "Luddite" posts...

    It's the same DSLR users that make this NG such a "great" place (well,
    if you're into chrachter assasination, low-end DSLRs and hummingbirds,
    it might be o.k.)
     
    Rol_Lei Nut, Sep 11, 2008
    #16
  17. Scott W

    Noons Guest

    Paul Furman wrote,on my timestamp of 11/09/2008 2:32 PM:

    and therefore "it'd be OK" to use it as a
    pbase scam group?
     
    Noons, Sep 11, 2008
    #17
  18. Scott W

    Scott W Guest

    Interesting idea, but tell my why the darkroom group have very few
    active people left in it?

    Just who chased them away?

    Scott
     
    Scott W, Sep 11, 2008
    #18
  19. Scott W

    Rol_Lei Nut Guest

    1) Darkroom users are (and always have been) a much smaller subset of
    35mm film users.
    Some shoot slides.
    Others scan everything.
    Some just send the negatives to be printed
    Even darkroom users (such as myself) find little need to post questions
    to a NG (see point 2)

    2) Information on items/technologies that have been around a while is
    often easier and faster to find by Googling than by posting to a newsgroup.
    If I want to develop Lucky 100 B&W film in any developer (including
    Coffee), I know where to look and don't need to post a question somewhere.

    3) Of course you know that you are one of the main anti-film posters
    here, therefore partly responsible for the current direction and
    "content" of this group.
    Is a few ego-maniacs constantly exhibiting themselves and bashing each
    other your idea of a good NG?
    But then it is almost enitrely film-free, so you should be happy.... ;-)
     
    Rol_Lei Nut, Sep 11, 2008
    #19
  20. Scott W

    Bruce Guest


    Because the moderated forums at APUG and elsewhere are incredibly
    popular?

    It isn't just this newsgroup that is dying; the whole of Usenet is in
    decline, and the ease of setting up and operating discussion groups
    with free or inexpensive (but very powerful) software such as
    vBulletin has a lot to do with it. To participate in those groups,
    you only need web access, whereas for newsgroups you need a news feed,
    which is no longer offered by an increasing number of ISPs.
     
    Bruce, Sep 11, 2008
    #20
    1. Advertisements

Ask a Question

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments (here). After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.