There are other people than you, and all my "observations" cannot be about you as an individual.
No, it's a definition.
No, because should is not the same as must/may/can. Should is like saying 'please'.
Are you telling me I'm slow?
Not really, and it seems I'm not alone.
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.
In other words, it's a polite demand.
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).
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.
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.
I'd call it a polite suggestion.In other words, it's a polite demand.
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!
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.
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.
Yes, I always try to deliver my message in a way that's familiar to my audience.
Just egging you on a little...
Actually, it's a description, and you (Klipsen) are being prescriptive.
From my experience, "a prime lens", as we know it defined today, is
Thank you. The truth is, I had already found that one, but read this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin%27s_Law
. 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!
--
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.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)
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.
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?
