Are primes brighter and sharper than wide open zooms

Discussion in 'Digital SLR' started by Siddhartha Jain, Sep 28, 2005.

  1. Siddhartha Jain

    Paul J Gans Guest

    Yes. I know you are correct. But I don't think
    that was the popular usage back then.

    The general public was not very sophisticated
    in such matters. Still isn't.

    ---- Paul J. Gans
     
    Paul J Gans, Sep 30, 2005
    #81
    1. Advertisements

  2. Siddhartha Jain

    Paul J Gans Guest

    Yes. That too.

    ---- Paul J. Gans
     
    Paul J Gans, Sep 30, 2005
    #82
    1. Advertisements

  3. Siddhartha Jain

    Paul J Gans Guest

    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
     
    Paul J Gans, Sep 30, 2005
    #83
  4. Siddhartha Jain

    Nostrobino Guest

    I have no idea how you derive that from what I said. Perhaps you have your
    monitor upside down.

    N.
     
    Nostrobino, Sep 30, 2005
    #84
  5. Siddhartha Jain

    Nostrobino Guest

    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.

    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, Sep 30, 2005
    #85
  6. Siddhartha Jain

    Peter Guest

    Of course you do. I think you may somehow be confounding me with
    Neil H. I ain't him. I've got nothing against using slang, or
    whatever you want to call improper terminology if it gets the
    job done. I do think it is important to make a distinction between
    proper technical terminology and slang so that when you have
    a technical discussion you can communicate efficiently and with
    precision.

    For instance, the statement:

    "In macro work the depth of focus is as large or larger than the
    depth of field."

    is a rather concise statement of an important fact. If we did not
    have precise technical language, it would take considerably longer
    to say the same thing and it still might not be as clear.

    Another example:

    "When doing closeups with a telephoto lens you need to include
    pupil magnification in your bellows-factor calculations"

    This is something worth knowing. If you have ever used a
    retrofocus lens reverse mounted on a bellows on a camera
    without a built-in light meter (I have) you might think
    it a vital piece of information.

    Try to say the same thing without using technical terms with
    well defined meanings. There is good reason why telephoto
    is not a synonym for long-focus lens, macro starts when the
    image size is at least equal to object size, and close-up
    photography starts at 1/10th life size when bellows factor
    starts to be significant. 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.

    Peter.
     
    Peter, Sep 30, 2005
    #86
  7. Siddhartha Jain

    no_name Guest

    Well, if you include some of the more common photo magazines. That's
    where I got it from.
     
    no_name, Oct 1, 2005
    #87
  8. Siddhartha Jain

    no_name Guest

    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.
     
    no_name, Oct 1, 2005
    #88
  9. 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.
    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.
    Learn to read the English language. You'll do a *lot* better
    yourself.
     
    Floyd Davidson, Oct 1, 2005
    #89
  10. 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...
     
    Floyd Davidson, Oct 1, 2005
    #90
  11. Siddhartha Jain

    Jeff R Guest

    Yo da man bro! wassamatta dat gay mofo huh?
     
    Jeff R, Oct 1, 2005
    #91
  12. Siddhartha Jain

    Jeremy Nixon Guest

    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 Nixon, Oct 1, 2005
    #92
  13. Siddhartha Jain

    Chris Brown Guest

    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
     
    Chris Brown, Oct 1, 2005
    #93
  14. Siddhartha Jain

    Skip M Guest

    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 M, Oct 1, 2005
    #94
  15. Siddhartha Jain

    Nostrobino Guest

    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.
     
    Nostrobino, Oct 1, 2005
    #95
  16. Siddhartha Jain

    Jeff R Guest

    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?
     
    Jeff R, Oct 1, 2005
    #96
  17. Siddhartha Jain

    Nostrobino Guest

    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.
     
    Nostrobino, Oct 1, 2005
    #97
  18. Siddhartha Jain

    Nostrobino Guest

    <GUFFAW!>

    Your taste in TV shows explains a lot!

    N.
     
    Nostrobino, Oct 1, 2005
    #98
  19. Siddhartha Jain

    Nostrobino Guest

    Hi David!

    N.
     
    Nostrobino, Oct 1, 2005
    #99
  20. Siddhartha Jain

    Nostrobino Guest

    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.
     
    Nostrobino, Oct 1, 2005
    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.