CollBaxter
Forum Pro
Any thing made small is now called micro concentrated washing powder. 
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Now you made me look it up. alt-m doesn't do that on my Windows 7 computer. I have to type alt+0181 to get a µ symbol and I'm going to forget that in about 10 minutes.Barry Stewart wrote:
If you can do Shift-m for a capital M, you can do a alt(option)-m for a µtkbslc wrote:
And I am too lazy (and frankly just don't care enough) to pull up character map or memorize ascii hotkeys to satisfy the more pedantic members of our forum!
Sometimes I also forget to capitalize canon and nikon, too.
Well, that is because 'mm' is a metric thing. Just as you would never see 2.0in, you would never see 2.0 " because 2.0" is prettier. I agree 35mm is good. Sometimes there is a '.' after 'in' for 'in.'. Haven't ever seen 'mm.'.Tim A2 wrote:
I have seen it as 2.0 in or even 2 in , but never 2.0in or 2.0inches or even 2.0 inches for that matter.
And this depends on how far you want to throw the lens. If it is going to be thrown to a receiver on a 12 yard down and out, then 1/100 of a degree doesn't matter. If the lens is launched toward the sun, then greater precision might be good.... besides what difference once you get past 1.97 in or should that be 1.97in?
Tim A2 wrote:
Well there you go. I did not know the mm was an adjetive. I concede. You winJoel Halbert wrote:
...recommended practice to hyphenate two adjectives when they act together to modify the noun. So, if one were to insist on separating "50 mm" with a space, then one would also be obligated to write "50-mm lens", ...
I use a circle with a punct in the middle for 'around'. Depending on context, it may also mean 'about' but I mostly use ~ for 'about'.SterlingBjorndahl wrote:
...I've got pages of college notes where I used μ as a general abbreviation for 'micro', not meaning "millionths". I know I'm not the only one.
Note I mentioned "when they act together to modify the noun". Big and red are independent adjectives, thus no hyphen. "Big-toothed dog" should get the hyphen.Tan68 wrote:
It gets messier still. Hyphenated words are used for things like Fresnell-type lens. Maybe...
Commas are sometimes used for multiple adjectives describing a thing. 'Big, red dog' is different from 'Big Red dog'. 'Big-red dog' is just wrong.
--So, would we follow the 'big,red' paradigm for have '50,mm lens' or the hyphen thing. I admit I have seen 50-mm...
Tim A2 wrote:
Well there you go. I did not know the mm was an adjetive. I concede. You winJoel Halbert wrote:
...recommended practice to hyphenate two adjectives when they act together to modify the noun. So, if one were to insist on separating "50 mm" with a space, then one would also be obligated to write "50-mm lens", ...
I see and do use hyphens that way as well.Joel Halbert wrote:
Note I mentioned "when they act together to modify the noun". Big and red are independent adjectives, thus no hyphen. "Big-toothed dog" should get the hyphen.Tan68 wrote:
...
I am just happy to see something worthwhile discussed in this thread. I never had to think about it, because the style guides said add a space between the number and the unit, so that was that. I have seen style guides in non-technical areasthat said to omit the space.Tan68 wrote:
I see and do use hyphens that way as well.Joel Halbert wrote:
Note I mentioned "when they act together to modify the noun". Big and red are independent adjectives, thus no hyphen. "Big-toothed dog" should get the hyphen.Tan68 wrote:
...
'big-toothed' is very different from 'big, toothed'
Big-red could mean over saturated...
I'll bet those good Leica lenses are made with such precision that you need all those digits to be accurate. A 50 mm Canon, Nikon, etc, you could probably get by with "about 50 mm or so". But if I had to pick one to throw or launch it probably wouldn''t be the Leica.Tan68 wrote:
Well, that is because 'mm' is a metric thing. Just as you would never see 2.0in, you would never see 2.0 " because 2.0" is prettier. I agree 35mm is good. Sometimes there is a '.' after 'in' for 'in.'. Haven't ever seen 'mm.'.Tim A2 wrote:
I have seen it as 2.0 in or even 2 in , but never 2.0in or 2.0inches or even 2.0 inches for that matter.
And this depends on how far you want to throw the lens. If it is going to be thrown to a receiver on a 12 yard down and out, then 1/100 of a degree doesn't matter. If the lens is launched toward the sun, then greater precision might be good.... besides what difference once you get past 1.97 in or should that be 1.97in?
However, if you aim for the receiver with a measured resolution of 1.97 degrees, simply dubbing it 1.968503937007874 degrees for the trip to the sun introduces as much uncertainty as accuracy.
Yeah, one is a measurement of length and the other arc. Just trying to make a point... Mixed metaphors got nothing on me :^|
Quite.Joel Halbert wrote:
Therefore, the whole notion that "µ" is more correct than "M" is based on the incorrect premise that we are discussing some engineering unit of measure.Marty4650 wrote:
The "Micro" in Micro Four Thirds just means a "smaller camera based on a 4/3 sensor.'
So, what do people say this in the rest of the world?xpatUSA wrote:
While realizing it's too late for μ4/3" or even u43 to be generally acceptable, one can but dream . . . ;-)
That, I absolutely agree. Olympus has the worse model names. If you look at the thread titles here, people already spelled E-M1 in many different ways.Alexis D wrote:
Because we are sick of awkward to type names like OM-D, E-M5, Micro Four Thirds, E-PL5, E-P5 ... ...
What, that's the ONLY thing the word 'micro' means, is an SI prefix?SDPharm wrote:
I'm a scientist, µ means 10^-6, as in 1µL is 1/1000 of a mL which is 1/1000 of a liter. µ43 does not make any sense to me. 10^-6 of what?
That gives me an idea for a book! I call dibs on the copyright!Tan68 wrote:
- - - - Speaking of Dan, I wonder what Dr./DR/Dr Langdon could make of this thread...
MAubrey wrote:
Quite.Joel Halbert wrote:
Therefore, the whole notion that "µ" is more correct than "M" is based on the incorrect premise that we are discussing some engineering unit of measure.Marty4650 wrote:
The "Micro" in Micro Four Thirds just means a "smaller camera based on a 4/3 sensor.'
Maybe someone should start a post arguing that we should really be calling the system:
μίκρος τέτταρες τρεῖς
You need to read his post again, this time carefully - before responding.SterlingBjorndahl wrote:
What, that's the ONLY thing the word 'micro' means, is an SI prefix?SDPharm wrote:
I'm a scientist, µ means 10^-6, as in 1µL is 1/1000 of a mL which is 1/1000 of a liter. µ43 does not make any sense to me. 10^-6 of what?
We're not talking about refereed publication here. We're talking about vernacular abbreviations. I've used the letter µ to abbreviate a lot of instances of the word (or prefex) "micro", when writing informally.
To say that µ "means" 10^6 is an oversimplification. It's shorthand for the word/prefix "micro" too.
I suspect it would be a pain on a smart phone or Pad, with limited keys.Mike_PEAT wrote:
I don't know how to generate a "μ"...I only got that one and the one in the subject by copying and pasting from your post!