The perfect vacation camera?

Discussion in 'Digital Cameras' started by Sandman, Mar 11, 2014.

  1. It's because it has an ultra fast lens and is a quarter the size and a
    sixth the weight of an SLR with 24mm f/2 lens. It's also made of real
    actual metal. Resolution-wise the lens is excellent, probably better
    than an SLR lens due to the rear element being so close to the film
    plane. Vignetting can be easily cured when prints are made, and there
    is little to none when the lens is stopped down so it's not a big deal
    in the end. As far as distortion goes, I have not seen any evidence of
    this but many people mistake a wide field of view to be distorted so it
    is not surprising that Camerapedia points this out. I'm assuming you
    got your information from that site and not from first-hand use of the
    camera. My first-hand experience shows that distortion is not a
    problem, and the camera has excellent coma correction as well, even
    wide open.

    My wife wouldn't ever let me sell it, as there is nothing on the market
    that combines its size, the angle of view, and speed of the lens. I
    don't really see a smaller / faster / wider film camera coming out in
    the future, either, so I expect the price of a used one will continue
    to climb.
    Oregonian Haruspex, Mar 12, 2014
    1. Advertisements

  2. Sandman

    PeterN Guest

    Haven't done that for many years. I get too much enjoyment from just
    being outdoors, watching trees grow and waves crashing. .
    PeterN, Mar 12, 2014
    1. Advertisements

  3. Sandman

    Sandman Guest

    I still don't think that justifies the price.
    I haven't used it myself, no. But I've seen plenty of photographs from it.
    I hadn't seen anything from camerapedia (a site I didn't even know existed
    until you mentioned it now, oops)
    I wouldn't say it's a problem, it's just harder to compansate for when
    shooting analog :)
    Well, I always thought 24mm was a bit too wide for my taste. I usually
    shoot 50mm on my SLR's, and my Sony RX1 has a fixed 35mm which really is
    the sweet spot, and it's full frame and f2. It's a bit larger than the
    Fuji, but not by much. It's also a bit more expensive :)
    Sandman, Mar 12, 2014
  4. Sandman

    PeterN Guest

    We had dinner at the Olde Pink House in Savannah, which is said to be
    haunted. Just as a goof I asked about what type of mechanical device
    they had that caused a woman in portrait to keep winking at me. The
    hostess said there was no mechanism, and other patrons had noticed the
    same thing.
    PeterN, Mar 12, 2014
  5. Sandman

    PeterN Guest

    Sorry to hear that.
    PeterN, Mar 12, 2014
  6. It's a cult film camera, with the fastest and widest rectilinear lens
    ever put into such a thing. Clearly some people are willing to pay the
    price, but they must be dedicated film shooters also looking for
    something really small.
    I've yet to see any photographs, either from the camera my wife owns or
    on the internet, that show any distortion that one wouldn't get from an
    SLR lens of the same width. As I said above, lots of people might
    claim that the rendering such a wide lens gives is distorted, but this
    isn't actually distortion but just a product of a wide field of view.
    I don't know about harder, it depends on your workflow. Typically I
    will scan negatives or transparencies so the amount of work that I must
    endure to cure vignetting is quite minimal. Unless you are
    photographing something like a broad expanse of sky it is hard to
    notice anyway, especially since this kind of photo will typically be
    made with the lens stopped down.
    I don't think that the price of the RX1 can be justified ;-), but as I
    said above, people are willing to pay the price for a camera if they
    really want it!
    Oregonian Haruspex, Mar 12, 2014
  7. Sandman

    PeterN Guest

    It is the definition you are advocating.
    Therefore, for discussion purposes, it is your definition. i.e the one
    you are using.

    I must also say that most well educated people I know regard the Celts
    as a a civilized society.
    Recommended reading:

    You might also find that the Cherokee had a written language prior to
    the Nordic tribes. Though That theory has yet to be proven, it is a
    subject of scholarly discussion.

    Until you can dispassionately discuss a subject, all you can do is state
    your beliefs, rather than facts. Do you really think I picked the Navajo
    and Cherokees as random examples. Isn't it just possible that these two
    nations, met each and every one of the criteria you set forth.
    PeterN, Mar 12, 2014
  8. Sandman

    Eric Stevens Guest

    The term 'celt' describes a very wide range of people inhabiting land
    from Anatolia (Turkey) to Spain and France.

    They are known to have used writing, in various alphabets. says:

    "The earliest records of a Celtic language are the Lepontic
    inscriptions of Cisalpine Gaul, the oldest of which still predate
    the La Tène period. Other early inscriptions are Gaulish, appearing
    from the early La Tène period in inscriptions in the area of
    Massilia, in the Greek alphabet. Celtiberian inscriptions appear
    comparatively late, after about 200 BC. Evidence of Insular Celtic
    is available only from about 400 AD, in the form of Primitive Irish
    Ogham inscriptions."

    At one stage their priests were believed to communicate amongst
    themselves using letters written in Greek.
    Eric Stevens, Mar 13, 2014
  9. Sandman

    PeterN Guest

    Yes there were some Celtic dialects that appeared in writing. There have
    been parts in a primitive form of Irish, and some remnant manuscripts
    have been found in Northern Italy. However, as far as we know there was
    no one written language that was universally accepted by the Celts.
    There have also been some scholarly references to writings restricted to
    the priests.

    BTW There are references in the Cambridge Encyclopedia of Language to
    the Celts extending to parts of India.
    PeterN, Mar 13, 2014
  10. Sandman

    Eric Stevens Guest

    You are no doubt referring to Ogham. This gets us back to early
    contact with the Americas. There are inscriptions to be found in
    America which some believe to be written in a form of Ogham, in some
    cases what may be a vowelless Ogham.
    Eric Stevens, Mar 13, 2014
  11. Sandman

    Sandman Guest

    I didn't say an SLR lens wouldn't give the same distortion, but with modern
    SLR's, distortions are easily manageable in post, on an analog camera it's
    harder to "fix", is all I am saying.
    Well, consider the Nikon 13mm super wideangle lens and it's almost total
    lack of distortion. Hardly comparable in either price and size to the Fuji,
    of course, but there certainly exists wide angle lenses for SLR with less
    distortion, but with a price and size premium.
    Indeed! And I agree - the RX1 is a tad too expensive, especially now that
    Sony has released the A7, which is pretty much the same camera but with
    interchangeable lenses... and it's cheaper than the RX1. WTF?

    But, price aside, the RX1 is one amazing little camera. It just blows my
    mind how such a small camera can create D800-rivaling images so
    Sandman, Mar 13, 2014
  12. Sandman

    Sandman Guest

    I'm not "advocating" anything. I am telling you what the definition is.
    It's not like there are many to choose from and I prefer one and want you
    to do so as well.
    No, it isn't my defintion.
    Again with the "civilized", Peter? I am talking about "civilization", not
    "civilized" which is NOT the same thing. You even ignored this explanation
    from me below so you can continue saying "civilized":
    For what reason, Peter?
    When did I claim the Cherokee didn't have a written language, Peter?
    Yes, I do. You picked the "Cherokee Nation", which isn't ancient, isn't
    pre-Columbian and isn't a civiliazation. It is a very modern government
    within Cherokee tribes that are part of *OUR* civilization. It's not like
    they have (or had) their own seperate civilization.
    I am not talking about "nations", I'm talking about civilizations. A nation
    is just a large group of people that share the same ethnicity, language and
    culture amongst other things. You needn't be a civilizaton or even
    civilized to be a nation of people. Usually a nation is described as having
    its own government as well. All of this fits the Cherokee Nation.

    Cat got your tounge? No more "examples"? :-D
    Sandman, Mar 13, 2014
  13. Sandman

    PeterN Guest

    If that's what you want to believe, so be it. I am not about to give you
    an extensive lesson in linguistics.
    One example:

    Wrong in all respects.

    SO you can cause further confusion. Work with what you have. I repeat,
    you have displayed a high degree of arrogance. Do you also believe in
    the "white mans burden?"
    PeterN, Mar 13, 2014
  14. Sandman

    PeterN Guest

    To gain knowledge, perhaps?
    Why were they not included in your definition of a civilization. They
    certainly meet all the criteria you set forth.
    PeterN, Mar 13, 2014
  15. Sandman

    Savageduck Guest

    On 2014-03-13 10:07:23 +0000, PeterN <> said:

    I thought that was liability insurance.
    Savageduck, Mar 13, 2014
  16. Sandman

    Sandman Guest

    But the book you linked to was unrelated to the "Cherokee Nation". On top
    of that, the Cherokee alphabet is very modern (much more modern than the
    latin script you're using when typing on usenet). It has nothing to do with
    any supposed pre-Columbian Cherokee "civilization".
    They meet none of the criteria of civilization. The Cherokee alphabet was
    invented in early 19th century, so a far cry from something pre-Columbian.
    Cherokees also didn't have cities, nor did they have a class system or even
    agriculture in any extent. They were a tribal system of hunter gatherers.

    Not that there's anything wrong with that. I have no idea why you're having
    so much pride invested in this? Why insist that Cherokee's were a
    civilization when they clearly wasn't? Why does it matter to you?

    I'm assuming that you've retracted all your views that I explained in my
    earlier post that you ignored in this.
    Sandman, Mar 13, 2014
  17. Sandman

    Sandman Guest

    Haha, that would be hilarious - to see you try to teach someone
    One example of what, exactly? That link agrees with everything I've said
    Peter just can't use words to explain just what supposedly is "wrong" with
    anything I said above. Ironic.

    Let's go through it.

    1. Ancient
    The discussion was about American history being so short since it was
    colonized late by europeans and there weren't any civilization before it.
    The Cherokee Nation was founded in the late 18th century. That's old - yes
    - but hardly "ancient" and by no means pre-columbian.

    2. Civilization
    The Cherokee Nation is not a civilization of its own. Not back then, not
    now. The nation consists of a tribal government but they were part of the
    same civilization as everyone else in America. Just as everyone in America
    is part of what is called the Western Civilization. It's not like USA has a
    civilization of its own.

    Civilizations span countries, nations and continents and the civilization
    you're currently part of is the same I am part of. It's the same
    Quite the contrary - if you're confused (as you clearly are) I am willing
    and able to help you with that, if you're receptive.
    Arrogance about *what* specifically?
    Huh? I had to google that, and it appears to be a poen... from 1899... that
    most seem to interprete as advocating colonization. Not sure what to
    "believe" here. I'm not getting ready to colonize anything presently
    really, nor do I think I'll ever get the urge. Colonization was how
    civilization spread back in those days, but not any longer. I don't
    particularly like the negative side effects of people and culture being
    wiped off the plant in the process, but back then, people thought
    Sandman, Mar 13, 2014
  18. Peter should note that "the criteria you set forth" are not

    No respectable anthropologist today would be caught dead using
    or defending that definition! It is Euro-centric, based on a
    value judgment that European civilization is the highest form
    and defines the term with respect to characteristic, history and

    A second gross error is the idea that all of the listed
    characteristics must be included.
    In fact the Cherokee people clearly met any valid definition of
    They had a significant civilization made up of tribal systems at
    the lowest level and nations at a higher level. It is absurd to
    claim either no class system or no agriculture (neither of which
    are required anyway).
    Why do you invest so much pride in a very crude, poorly
    organized, deficient civilization? You basically claim that
    only a civilization with the exact same characteristics, both
    good and bad, and worse yet the exact same temporal history of
    development, can even be called a civilization.

    I'll tell you a short story that Peter will probably appreciate
    a bit more that you... about a Yup'ik Eskimo lady who went to
    Law School (and was the first female Yup'ik to become an
    attorney). In her first year at Law School she took a course in
    Property Law, and she described it in what might be called a fit
    of emotion: "You don't know what it's all based on! It's
    DISGUSTING! You can't believe why they do these things!" That
    was her reaction to learning about your "civilization", which
    she (somewhat correctly) evaluated as virtually lacking in
    sophistication. (She didn't, however, say it wasn't even a
    civilization. Just a rather primitive and unsophisticated one,
    with a history of extreme violence as an innate part of

    Another great example is that Europeans explored Alaska (plus
    Canada and Greenland) for roughly 250 years without detecting
    any form of government among Eskimo people. Every European
    observer said they simply did not have any form of government.

    In the 1960's, both in Canada and in Alaska, separate and
    unrelated groups (one Inuit and one Yupik) decided that
    government boarding schools need to teach their form of
    governance, and for the first time ever they each sat an
    anthropologist down and described their government in detail.
    The astounding part is how similar the two descriptions were;
    but the point here is that it is so different in outwardly
    noticeable characteristics from European government that
    Europeans had literally watched it in operation and were never
    able to realize that it was organized government.

    That is because European observers all expect heat, sound,
    light, and in particular violence to be part of government.

    (In essence, if it doesn't work more or less the same as
    the Legislature in Texas, it isn't a government.)

    An interesting fact today is that you cannot find any
    observations published prior to about 1965 that claim
    Eskimo people had any form of government, and there are
    none published after about 1970 that say they don't!

    Anthropology has come a long ways, but Sandman hasn't
    kept up.
    Floyd L. Davidson, Mar 13, 2014
  19. Sandman

    Sandman Guest

    100% incorrct.
    Also incorrect.
    A tribal system is not a civilization, Floyd.
    What civilization is that?
    No, I'm saying that the word civilization has a meaning.
    Sandman, Mar 13, 2014
  20. Not that you can demonstrate!
    It's a fact. Talk to virtually any anthropologist educated in the
    last 20 or 30 years.

    In fact Jared Diamond in 1987 first published an opinion that
    some of your requirements, specifically relating to agriculture
    vs hunter gatherer cultures, were the "worst mistake" in human
    cultural evolution!

    Which can be described more clearly for you by noting that
    agriculture isn't a step towards civilization, but a step
    towards ineffective, unsophisticated, and detrimental
    characteristics in civilization. There has been a huge amount
    of research done on that in recent decades, and mountain of
    evidence supports it.

    For example, both in America and in Europe there have been studies
    that directly relate the advent of agriculture to shorter humans
    as a result of poor nutrition and other negative environmental
    effects of the cultures that developed.
    Show us any source that suggests the list is necessarily inclusive.

    No anthropologist would make that claim for any such list of

    Here is the type of statement we might actually expect to read:

    "any given civilization need not have all the characteristics
    on a list" -- Cynthia Stokes Brown
    But the fact that they were is well documented, so protesting without
    anything other than "Incorrect" is incorrect.
    Nobody said it was, Jonas. Ask Peter for that lesson in
    linguistics. It might help.

    The point was that tribal systems are a lower level of
    government, much as are municipal governments and state
    governments here in the US. Having a municipal government
    system does not exclude inclusion in a civilization, nor does a
    tribal government system.

    The fact is that there were nations and confederations of
    nations on the North American continent long before Europeans

    Is it true that Sweden still has a King?

    Does such a decadent form of government disqualify Sweden from
    consideration as part of a civilization? :)
    We realize that. And that you don't have a clue what the meaning
    Floyd L. Davidson, Mar 13, 2014
    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.