mitchall wrote:
The GX100 has the same lens as the GX200 and there is no comparison, as you would expect, between this zoom lens and the GRD3 prime lens. The files of the latter camera are also much more robust and can be manipulated with much heavier contrast moves in post-processing, which is what I find compelling. Also, at the 72mm end of the range, the GX100/200 lens is quite soft.
I find it to be quite acceptable, I only stopped down for DoF, F4.5 is plenty sharp enough, although possibly not plenty wide enough for Roger's needs.
I wouldn't consider the GX200 a 'shirt pocket' camera, simply because of the flash and lens bumps (and attraction for lint
). Any GRD would feel much happier there, but possibly a Y-strap could be better for convenience and safety.
http://figitalrevolution.com/y-strap/
Never tried one, but looks nifty.
On forum/fora and datum/data: if course that is the correct Latin, but in English colloquial, and even official, usage, "forums" for the plural instead "fora" and "data" instead of "datum" for the singular, are now accepted. It's like answering the question "who it is" when knocking on a door: you wouldn't say the gramatically correct "it is I"; you would say "it's me".
I do believe in language evolving, not that it matters what I believe, it DOES evolve, and since recognising this I have learned it is less stressful and anti-social to 'go with the flow'. Language is simply a tool for communication and expression. So while 'fora' may be correct, one will probably be less understood by the 'hoi polloi' (another bastardisation, since 'hoi' is a greek definite article -> "the the people") than if one had used 'forums', which causes no confusion.
Still, 'fora' is common enough too, and you clearly understood Roger. If anyone is a grammar pedant (myself excluded of course!) I would say it is you for picking up Roger and saying he wrote something 'wrong', not Roger for choosing a word for accuracy and effect. Use of language can define personality, and to me, by use of the word 'fora', Roger has expressed himself as someone with an observative eye for detail and care in presentation; valuable tools for any photographer. (Not saying you do not possess equal or greater skills, only that you may express them photographically and not linguistically,...
stop digging Ben! )
Working as a scientist and having a classical education (Latin and Ancient Greek) I value the use of 'datum', when referring to a reference position or single data point. However, just there, 'data point' explained 'datum' just fine, but language is more eloquent with fewer words, enabled by having more to work with.
I don't expect others to value the distinction, even though they may recognise it, but half of my job writing technical failure investigation reports revolves around a linguistic expectation for technical terms, aimed more at peer review and accurate record of findings rather than actually explaining what happened in plain english (e.g. someone f*cked up and broke it)!
I disagree with what you wrote above when you said that 'data' could be used instead of 'datum' for the singular. They are very different in usage and I have never come across anyone using 'data' to describe a 'single' piece of information. Typically 'number' suffices.
'Data' is indeed commonly used as a singular noun, but that does not mean it refers to a singular thing. Instead, as we are all familiar with, 'data' has come to imply a 'set of data', which then becomes singular for grammatical purposes. I always treat data as plural, "these data show that...", because it does nothing to impair understanding and everything to make someone question their own use of language and reflect upon it, as we are doing here. Never a bad thing in my book.
As for 'me' or 'I' usage, you are quite correct. However, what I find amusing (and shouldn't) is when people 'try to talk proper' and put 'I' in places where they should have used 'me', if they wanted to be 'correct', as recent grammarians may define such a thing. If anyone is still reading this and wants to know why, here it is, because I only recently clarified things in my head when these easy examples were shown to me. For any non-native english speakers grappling with the idiosyncracies of this language it may also be useful.
Which sentences are correct?
1. "Mitch and I went to the launch party of the new Ricoh camera"
2. "Mitch and me went to the launch party of the new Ricoh camera"
3. "A pre-production camera was given to Mitch and I to play with"
4. "A pre-production camera was given to Mitch and me to play with"
Answer?
Clearly none of them are correct as I've never met Mitch and Ricoh haven't thrown a secret party for us! (Just trying to lift the grammatical gloom
)
If you answered 1. and 3. you are 'wrong', it is 1. and 4. that are 'correct'.
Why? It's easy when you take Mitch out of the equation (sorry about that my friend, but thanks for taking part).
2. "Me went to the launch party..."
3. "A pre-production camera was given to I..."
Taking the other person out of the equation makes it easy, unless you are Borat, in which case carry on doing it and making us laugh!
In 50 years or less the 'rules' will change and this 'young fart' will be an 'old fart'. I don't mind change in grammar at all, and freely chastise anyone clinging to the Tower of Babel still.
But, good language skills are about
effective communication, so if someone doesn't know enough about words, grammar and punctuation to make themselves understood without ambiguity, then 'right' or 'wrong' they are not helping themselves and it could be in their interests to do something about it.
Next week: Apostrophe usage!:
"Did you get you're 80's CD's from Virgins' sale?"
And yeah, I should be shooting pictures!
Ben.
