What is the meaning of 'prime' (you may be surprised)

[Klipsen]

Huh?

Who are you talking about?

In this case, I'm not demanding anything. I'm simply observing. See
if you can tell the difference:

There are other people than you, and all my "observations" cannot be about you as an individual.

"In current usage, 'prime' means 'fixed-focal length photographic
lens.'"

That's an observation.

No, it's a definition.

"'Prime' should only be used to refer to the primary lens of a
combination of two or more lenses."

That's a demand.

No, because should is not the same as must/may/can. Should is like saying 'please'.

Read it a couple of times, and I'm sure you'll get the distinction.

Are you telling me I'm slow?

Seriously, though, Klipsen, don't you have anything better to do
with your time?

Not really, and it seems I'm not alone.

 

[Petteri Sulonen]

Klipsen wrote:
[snip]

"In current usage, 'prime' means 'fixed-focal length photographic
lens.'"

That's an observation.

No, it's a definition.

Take a deep breath, and read it again. It is an observation. OTOH, if I omitted the first part of the phrase, ("In current usage...") it would be a definition.

"'Prime' should only be used to refer to the primary lens of a
combination of two or more lenses."

That's a demand.

No, because should is not the same as must/may/can. Should is like
saying 'please'.

In other words, it's a polite demand.

Read it a couple of times, and I'm sure you'll get the distinction.

Are you telling me I'm slow?

On the contrary, I think you're fast -- you rush forward without thinking through the implications, or understanding exactly what you're reading or saying. Obviously I'm right (see above, re observation/definition).

Seriously, though, Klipsen, don't you have anything better to do
with your time?

Not really, and it seems I'm not alone.

Yes, I've gathered that. Seriously, rabid pedantry is always fun to watch. If you do succeed in changing current usage re "prime," I'll be happy to change my usage to follow it.

Until then, buh-bye...

Petteri
--
Me on photography: [ http://www.prime-junta.net/ ]
My RSS feed: [ http://www.prime-junta.net/pont/rss/whatsnew.xml ]
My flickr page: [ http://www.flickr.com/photos/primejunta/ ]

 

[Klipsen]

Since no-one will provide links to manufacturers' sites that contain the word 'prime', here are links to sites that don't.

Canon says fixed focal lenght and zoom lenses:
http://www.canon.co.uk/for_home/product_finder/cameras/ef_lenses/index.asp

Minolta says a lot, but not 'prime':

http://kmpi.konicaminolta.us/eprise/main/kmpi/content/cam/cam_category_pages/CameraAccessories

Nikon says lenses and zoom lenses:
http://www.nikonusa.com/template.php?cat=1&grp=5

Olympus also avoids the term 'prime':
http://www.olympusamerica.com/e1/sys_lens_spec.asp

Pentax - no primes:
http://www.pentaximaging.com/products/cameras/lenses/digital_35mm/index.jsp

Fancy that.

I am fully aware that some marketing people in America have persuaded Zeiss to use the name (repeat: name - registered trademark and all) DigiPrime on a family of lenses, but that's just marketing.

 

[Klipsen]

"In current usage, 'prime' means 'fixed-focal length photographic
lens.'"

That's an observation.

No, it's a definition.

Take a deep breath, and read it again. It is an observation.
OTOH, if I omitted the first part of the phrase, ("In current
usage...") it would be a definition.

So, if you put 'in current usage' in front of a definition, it's no longer a definition? It's still a definition, only with an extra parameter.

"'Prime' should only be used to refer to the primary lens of a
combination of two or more lenses."

That's a demand.

No, because should is not the same as must/may/can. Should is like
saying 'please'.

In other words, it's a polite demand.

I'd call it a polite suggestion.

Read it a couple of times, and I'm sure you'll get the distinction.

Are you telling me I'm slow?

On the contrary, I think you're fast -- you rush forward without
thinking through the implications, or understanding exactly what
you're reading or saying. Obviously I'm right (see above, re
observation/definition).

It didn't take you long to answer, did it? Believe you me, I (usually) consider and reconsider what I write. You toss in some snotty remarks, and when I answer, you persist with your pedantic hair-splitting - yet reprove me for doing the same. Shame on you!

Seriously, though, Klipsen, don't you have anything better to do
with your time?

Not really, and it seems I'm not alone.

Yes, I've gathered that. Seriously, rabid pedantry is always fun to
watch. If you do succeed in changing current usage re "prime," I'll
be happy to change my usage to follow it.

You do more than just watch, and it was you I was referring to, but you knew that already, you're only trying to place yourself above the vulgar crowd ... and doing a lousy job of it, I might add.

 

[Petteri Sulonen]

Klipsen wrote:
[snip]

So, if you put 'in current usage' in front of a definition, it's no
longer a definition? It's still a definition, only with an extra
parameter.

No, it isn't. It's an observation about current usage. Of course, it may be an incorrect observation, but it's nevertheless an observation.

(Hm. Maybe you are slow after all.)

[snip]

On the contrary, I think you're fast -- you rush forward without
thinking through the implications, or understanding exactly what
you're reading or saying. Obviously I'm right (see above, re
observation/definition).

It didn't take you long to answer, did it? Believe you me, I
(usually) consider and reconsider what I write. You toss in some
snotty remarks, and when I answer, you persist with your pedantic
hair-splitting - yet reprove me for doing the same. Shame on you!

Yes, I always try to deliver my message in a way that's familiar to my audience.

[snip]

You do more than just watch, and it was you I was referring to, but
you knew that already, you're only trying to place yourself above
the vulgar crowd ... and doing a lousy job of it, I might add.

Just egging you on a little...

Seriously, drop me a line once you've gotten current usage changed. This is quite interesting...

Petteri
--
Me on photography: [ http://www.prime-junta.net/ ]
My RSS feed: [ http://www.prime-junta.net/pont/rss/whatsnew.xml ]
My flickr page: [ http://www.flickr.com/photos/primejunta/ ]

 

[nickleback]

"In current usage, 'prime' means 'fixed-focal length photographic
lens.'"

That's an observation.

No, it's a definition.

Actually, it's a description, and you (Klipsen) are being prescriptive.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prescriptive

--
Seen in a fortune cookie:
Fear is the darkroom where negatives are developed

 

[Petteri Sulonen]

Now, was that prescriptive or descriptive?

Petteri
--
Me on photography: [ http://www.prime-junta.net/ ]
My RSS feed: [ http://www.prime-junta.net/pont/rss/whatsnew.xml ]
My flickr page: [ http://www.flickr.com/photos/primejunta/ ]

 

[David Mazeau]

Since no-one will provide links to manufacturers' sites that
contain the word 'prime', here are links to sites that don't.

From my experience, "a prime lens", as we know it defined today, is
something new. Not something I saw in 1973.

I learned this new use of the word during the last 3 years, when I
rediscovered an interest in photography, after about a 27 year
hiatus.

Hence it doesn't surprise me that a lot of companies, with the
exception of Zeiss, avoid this newer usage of the word.

But to leap from there, and conclude that this suggests that the
true meaning of "a prime lens" includes both fixed length and
zoom lenses, I don't see the logic there.

 

[Peter Kwok]

Chinese is my native language. I have lived in California for over 30 years and voted for Arnold. I never use the term "prime" to refer to fixed focal length lense.
--
Peter Kwok
http://www.pbase.com/peterkwok

 

[David Mazeau]

I hope Kilpsen will take this in a fun way, because he's been fairly
reasonable so far, and I don't want to change the tone of this
little disagreement, but ... what about the word "chimping" ?

It's starting to be used fairly often to describe the activity of looking
at the images while they are still in the camera, via the LCD.

What if somebody said this was a technical error in the usage of
the word "chimping ?

Couldn't one say that "chimping" clearly means, by the correct
definition of the word, to be acting like a chimp ? You got the word
"chimp" and then the "ing" ending, clealy "chimping" is acting like
a chimp, I'd say.

And what about the Nikon, Canon, and Pentax sites ? Do any of
these sites ever use the word "chimping" to describe the activity
of looking at the images on the LCD ? So there you go, the fact
that these sites don't use the word "chimping", this proves the
real definition is "acting like a chimp". The sites say nothing, so that
proves I'm right.

Sorry Kilpsen ... but you see my point, I hope.

 

[Bob Sal]

http://www.canon.com/bctv/products/fj_prime.html

Then here is a Canon web page without a zoom or variable focal length lens on it. Only primes.

 

[Gary T]

A bit more delving can provide more information. For example, if you go to the Canon site at http://www.canon.co.uk/for_home/product_finder/cameras/slr_accessories/index.asp you can pull down the "Lenses, Speedlites and accessories booklet" PDF file. Within that file, on page 8 & 9, you will find the following statement:

"A non-zoom (often called a ‘prime’ lens) has a fixed focal length – 50mm or 200mm, for example."

Another Canon prime lense reference can be found in this case study at http://www.usa.canon.com/html/industrial_bctv/casestudies_04_digital_cinema.shtml (note the author of the case study).

Using online references at

http://www.camerapedia.org/wiki/Focal_plane#Zoom_and_Prime_Lenses

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/bnh/controller/home?O=nikonComu.jsp&A=getpage&Q=Product_Resources/nomenclature.jsp

you'll see more information on the usage of prime in regards to fixed focal length.

And then if you really are concerned with semantics, I'll point you to this article that discusses what a true lense really is: http://www.photographytips.com/page.cfm/466

So if you want to change the word prime, might as well change the term lense to objective. Course, you'll have to do a Google search on "difference between zoom and prime lense" and contact all those other online references to ensure they're updated. And while you're at it, might as well go to the photography courses being taught to ensure they use the terminology correctly because in the several photography classes I have taken in college, they use the term prime quite often.

Enjoy the crusade.

Gary T
(no disrespect intended, just some light hearted humor at the end)

 

[Klipsen]

http://www.canon.com/bctv/products/fj_prime.html

Then here is a Canon web page without a zoom or variable focal
length lens on it. Only primes.

Thank you. The truth is, I had already found that one, but read this:

Main Features:
Suitable for the HDTV Electronic Cinematography.

I'd like to see it used on something that has been around as long as the common usage of the term for a fixed focal length or longer, not something that was influenced by it.

 

[Mihai Basa]

Wasn't he a philosopher? Yes, he was. And a member of the German **** party as well. It's always too early to quote him, I should think.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin%27s_Law

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia:


Godwin's Law (also Godwin's Rule of **** Analogies) is an adage in Internet culture originated by Mike Godwin on Usenet in 1990 that states:

As an online discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches 1.

There is a tradition in many Usenet newsgroups that once such a comparison is made, the thread is over and whoever mentioned the Nazis has automatically lost whatever argument was in progress.


Sorry Klipsen, I'm actually on your side . I thought it's interesting you brought up this terminology issue, and it is the kind of thing that should be talked about on the forum!

Mihai

 

[DavidMillier]

Petteri is spot on, you are just agitating for no good reason.

I can comfortably predict that people talking to you will enjoy hours of confusion. There really is no point in fighting this one - the use of 'prime' to denote fixed focal length lenses is now a well established convention. Arguing against it is pointless nihilism.

Huh?

Who are you talking about?

In this case, I'm not demanding anything. I'm simply observing. See
if you can tell the difference:

There are other people than you, and all my "observations" cannot
be about you as an individual.

"In current usage, 'prime' means 'fixed-focal length photographic
lens.'"

That's an observation.

No, it's a definition.

"'Prime' should only be used to refer to the primary lens of a
combination of two or more lenses."

That's a demand.

No, because should is not the same as must/may/can. Should is like
saying 'please'.

Read it a couple of times, and I'm sure you'll get the distinction.

Are you telling me I'm slow?

Seriously, though, Klipsen, don't you have anything better to do
with your time?

Not really, and it seems I'm not alone.

--
Galleries and website: http://www.whisperingcat.co.uk/mainindex.htm

 

[Klipsen]

A bit more delving can provide more information. For example, if
you go to the Canon site at

http://www.canon.co.uk/for_home/product_finder/cameras/slr_accessories/index.asp you can pull down the "Lenses, Speedlites and accessories booklet" PDF file. Within that file, on page 8 & 9, you will find the following statement:
"A non-zoom (often called a ‘prime’ lens) has a fixed focal length
– 50mm or 200mm, for example."

Another Canon prime lense reference can be found in this case study
at

http://www.usa.canon.com/html/industrial_bctv/casestudies_04_digital_cinema.shtml (note the author of the case study).

Using online references at

http://www.camerapedia.org/wiki/Focal_plane#Zoom_and_Prime_Lenses

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/bnh/controller/home?O=nikonComu.jsp&A=getpage&Q=Product_Resources/nomenclature.jsp

you'll see more information on the usage of prime in regards to
fixed focal length.

And then if you really are concerned with semantics, I'll point you
to this article that discusses what a true lense really is:
http://www.photographytips.com/page.cfm/466

So if you want to change the word prime, might as well change the
term lense to objective. Course, you'll have to do a Google search
on "difference between zoom and prime lense" and contact all those
other online references to ensure they're updated. And while you're
at it, might as well go to the photography courses being taught to
ensure they use the terminology correctly because in the several
photography classes I have taken in college, they use the term
prime quite often.

Enjoy the crusade.

Gary T
(no disrespect intended, just some light hearted humor at the end)

I'd like to see it used on something that has been around as long as the common usage of the term for a fixed focal length or longer, not something that was influenced by it.

I am enjoying it, but it's not a crusade, just a probing mission. I have seen on at least one occasion how someone was lectured about a prime being a fixed focal length lens because he wrote about a prime zoom (obviously meaning a high quality zoom). Like me, he wasn't a native English speaker, but if I'm being pedantic now, that's nothing against what was written then. I'd have loved to have known then what I know now.

Now that I do know it, it's funny to see how defensive people are. It's like a bad habit they won't quit, so they turn it into a virtue.

I really don't care whether a prime is one or the other, but when people lecture others based on incorrect arguments ... I don't mind rubbing it in.

So far, the only sites people have been able to come up with are either not manufacturers' sites, or they deal with cinematography lenses, namely Zeiss and Canon.

 

[Klipsen]

But to leap from there, and conclude that this suggests that the
true meaning of "a prime lens" includes both fixed length and
zoom lenses, I don't see the logic there.

If the definition of a prime lens is "one that can be used without other lenses etc. being attached to it", then maybe you can see the point. It's not my point, but it's logical.

A teleconverter, a close-up lens, a bellows and an extension ring are all examples of items that can be part of a "lens combo" in which the prime lens is also but a part. In such a system, the lens can be a zoom lens or a fixed focal lenght lens. The only part of such a lens combo that can be used for taking pictures is the prime lens - zoom or not.

 

[Klipsen]

Petteri is spot on, you are just agitating for no good reason.

I can comfortably predict that people talking to you will enjoy
hours of confusion. There really is no point in fighting this one -
the use of 'prime' to denote fixed focal length lenses is now a
well established convention. Arguing against it is pointless
nihilism.

Resistance is futile. Is that it? Don't you like being told that you're using a term incorrectly? The term may be used by you and millions with you to denote whatever you please, but have you given it even one moment of thought why lens manufacturers don't use that term?

You just don't care, do you? No, but that does not mean that you're right. In fact, if you were right, you'd probably care, and you'd let me know. Your predictions are of course both silly and stupid. I don't care if people use that term, or for what. I may even use it incorrectly myself. But I am enjoying myself when I see all the people who insist that it means a fixed focal lenght lens being unable to find anything except HDTV lenses to prove their point. Those lenses are relatively new, so it's more likely they are called primes because of common usage than common usage being based on what they're called. Funny how the cart is before the horse.

 

[David Mazeau]

Actually, I thought a bit about this at work today...

In a way, you have a point. "prime", as an adjective, it does mean,
more or less, "principal".

You can say:

"the prime target of these advertisements"

"the prime candidates in the election"

And so on.

And maybe 35 years ago, "a prime lens" had no other meaning than
"a principal lens".

But like the word "chimping", the words "prime lens" have come to
mean something more than simply the "adjective + noun" combination
meaning of "principal lens".

I wouldn't say there has been any hijacking ... just a new meaning
being added on. To insist that, technically speaking, "a prime lens"
can only really mean "a principal lens" is the same as arguing that,
technically speaking, "chimping" can only mean "acting like a chimp".
No new meaning is permitted, if you look at it that way.

In a way it's an interesting subject, and I see your point, but you
are saying the meanings of words are written in stone forever,
and the new usages of words are errors. That's where the
disagreement is, I think.

 

[Petteri Sulonen]

Evolution of language in action. Interesting, isn't it?

Petteri
--
Me on photography: [ http://www.prime-junta.net/ ]
My RSS feed: [ http://www.prime-junta.net/pont/rss/whatsnew.xml ]
My flickr page: [ http://www.flickr.com/photos/primejunta/ ]