Streetshooter
Subscriber Member
Nah....Chevy and Ford....oh and Harley's.....
The GetDPI Photography Forum
Great to see you here. Join our insightful photographic forum today and start tapping into a huge wealth of photographic knowledge. Completing our simple registration process will allow you to gain access to exclusive content, add your own topics and posts, share your work and connect with other members through your own private inbox! And don’t forget to say hi!
V
Vivek
Guest
Carsten, It was a major achievement when "Sulfur" was accepted as the standard spelling. :ROTFL:Vivek appears to favour the American spelling, even though properly-spelling Canadians liberated Holland.
I wish that when the Americans took on the task of cleaning up the English language, they had actually finished the job, instead of just poking at it. I mean, who changes "rumour" to "rumor", but leaves the spelling of "laugh"???
GrahamWelland
Subscriber & Workshop Member
Since we're off topic here ... I'll add some more. :salute:Vivek appears to favour the American spelling, even though properly-spelling Canadians liberated Holland.
I wish that when the Americans took on the task of cleaning up the English language, they had actually finished the job, instead of just poking at it. I mean, who changes "rumour" to "rumor", but leaves the spelling of "laugh"???
I recommend all folks interested in the American/English discussion take a read of "Mother Tongue' by Bill Bryson. The state of the language will make sense from that ...
Btw, we British often seem to get all worked up over american spelling but the reality is that many of the American spellings reflect ENGLISH spelling as of the 17th century where the languages started to diverge somewhat. Those extra 'u's are relatively recent, as is the trend to 'sch' as soft vs 'sk' etc. I conscientiously refuse to consider the bastardization of the language with words like 'nite' though - again a manufactured spelling (you can blame a Chicago newspaper zealot & US Simplified Spelling Board for that one) that is now popular.
All said though, non-English speakers learning the language have my sympathies because we do seem to have made it tremendously difficult and obscure at times.
Folks might enjoy this site ...
Last edited:
V
Vivek
Guest
Graham, G.B.Shaw pointed out (a while ago) that fish can be spelled as GHOTI.
(GH from enough, O from Women, TI from Nation)
"Nite" (however horrible it may be to many) is least of the problem.
(GH from enough, O from Women, TI from Nation)
"Nite" (however horrible it may be to many) is least of the problem.
Will
New member
Some of the English spellings date from the time of the first printing presses. The German speakers who brought them here used to add extra letters in order to justify the paragraphs, the spelling would change depending on whether they need to make the sentence longer. Besides it is all Ben Johnson's fault for writing the first dictionary, before that there were many ways to spell words.
I volunteered for awhile helping non-reading (older) Americans learn to read, at least minimally. 'Twasn't easy to explain some of those 'sounds the same, spelled quite differently--with different meanings'.
I think the net has confused some of us also. As example, I find myself spelling gray--'grey' sometimes-- and sometimes the US way--and then the phrases like 'horses for courses'. I find a number of Brit sayings infiltrating my speech--without my permission, BTW LOL.
Diane
I think the net has confused some of us also. As example, I find myself spelling gray--'grey' sometimes-- and sometimes the US way--and then the phrases like 'horses for courses'. I find a number of Brit sayings infiltrating my speech--without my permission, BTW LOL.
Diane
Guy Mancuso
Administrator, Instructor
Besides it is all Ben Johnson's fault for writing the first dictionary, before that there were many ways to spell words.
Yea he screwed me up royally.:ROTFL::ROTFL::ROTFL::ROTFL::ROTFL::ROTFL::ROTFL:
Yea he screwed me up royally.:ROTFL::ROTFL::ROTFL::ROTFL::ROTFL::ROTFL::ROTFL:
That in itself is a bastardisation!
otumay
New member
I remember reading in that delightful book about words whose meanings were reversed over time. A Shakespearean-era letter was quoted to start as: "You wrote me a nice and scolding letter", where 'scolding' evidently had a positive meaning.
Osman
kevinparis
Member
disgraced 100m runner from Canada wrote a dictionary?
... must be a quick read
K
... must be a quick read
K
jonoslack
Active member
All becomes clear - you were all sorted before.
Mind you Guy, I didn't have you as quite that old
Robert Campbell
Well-known member
jonoslack
Active member
Actually, it's only £1.3K (quite enough I hear you say). Bokeh is tough though. I've seen something quite as nasty from the mythical version IV 35 'cron.
More evidence required (well, I think so anyway!).
Robert Campbell
Well-known member
Cheap at twice the price...NOT.
i've seen something that nasty from just about every lens i own at one time or another, so, yeah, it happens... (btw, the v.1 is the king for me!)
but it gets my goat that i can get something much more pleasing in a similar situation from the original Ricoh GRD.
for the price ($2K, £1.3K, whatever), i expected better from Leica. my bad. i don't want something i have to stop down all the time, no matter how good the high ISO is.
i looked at the images and started thinking, hmmmm, i wonder if Alien Skin Bokeh is any good. and that's funny because i never think that when using a small sensor. the X1 just seems to be half-arsed, both in sensor and lens speed (which is the real crux of the problem).
and i'm saying this as somebody who actually really wanted to like this camera, despite the obscene price, because it seemingly had so much of what i was looking for (lens speed aside).
'll be waiting to see Ricoh's announcement this week and praying that it doesn't disappoint. believe it or not, i actually have been looking for a fixed lens...
i can't believe i'm saying this, but the samples from the X1 almost make me want to take a more serious look at the DP2
and i hate hate hate Sigma's interface! or just stick with the smaller sensor of a GRDIII... either way, money is saved. the red dot alone does not seduce me.
carstenw
Active member
So, based on two dozen images on a single test site, you have found the truth about this little camera and its Emperor's clothes. That is quite an amazing talent when most people, including pros, generally judge that they need to work with a lens for weeks, if not months, to really find something out about the character of a lens. Perhaps you can teach everyone else here to be so clever too.
Last edited:
Carsten -- i am speaking of my needs only. and, yes, for 2K i can tell.
it takes quite a long time to test the true character of a lens, true. but i can tell in a very short time whether a lens is worth the bother to learn. perhaps i am more clever as you so snarkily say, or perhaps i just know what i want.
it takes quite a long time to test the true character of a lens, true. but i can tell in a very short time whether a lens is worth the bother to learn. perhaps i am more clever as you so snarkily say, or perhaps i just know what i want.
carstenw
Active member
I can show you photos of 35 Cron IV boke which would make you cringe, but this does not contradict the fact that it is capable of some very nice boke, and has been labelled the "King of Bokeh" by Mike Johnston. If you extrapolate this situation to the 24 Elmarit on the X1, you will see that trying to make conclusions from 20 shots or so is a fool's errand. If you want to know what it can do, wait until you have seen many more shots, your needs notwithstanding.
Jim Radcliffe
Member
Carsten..
What is even more bothersome is that Leica allowed DPReview to post the first images from an X1 production model. What's wrong with that picture? (Pardon the pun)... Why did Leica not have a talented, or at least mediocre, photographer (surely they know a few) create an impressive image gallery on Leica's own X1 site instead of those random snapshots on DPReview?? :wtf:
From what I have seen thus far, the X1 photos could have been taken by just about any sub $800 point and shoot.. and this is making the GF1 look better and better all the time.. on performance, versatility and price.
I've not ruled out the X1 but I really expected the production model to produce amazing images and thus far I am far from amazed by anything I have seen... and I have to wonder about the camera's potential.
I think more than a few here have the "talent" and ability to look at a group of images and realize there are a few issues with them. I was not impressed by those images either, yet you can find people gushing over them in this and other forums. Different strokes I suppose.
What is even more bothersome is that Leica allowed DPReview to post the first images from an X1 production model. What's wrong with that picture? (Pardon the pun)... Why did Leica not have a talented, or at least mediocre, photographer (surely they know a few) create an impressive image gallery on Leica's own X1 site instead of those random snapshots on DPReview?? :wtf:
From what I have seen thus far, the X1 photos could have been taken by just about any sub $800 point and shoot.. and this is making the GF1 look better and better all the time.. on performance, versatility and price.
I've not ruled out the X1 but I really expected the production model to produce amazing images and thus far I am far from amazed by anything I have seen... and I have to wonder about the camera's potential.
Last edited:
