«

["Followup-To:" header set to alt.photography.]
Richard Polhill enlightened us with:
> The words "colour", "color" are perfectly acceptable spellings.

Only if you think American is a perfectly acceptable mangling of
English

Koekje

Bill Funk wrote:
> On Fri, 15 Jun 2007 13:30:12 +0100, Richard Polhill
> <> wrote:
>
>
>>The words "colour", "color" are perfectly acceptable spellings. "Lense" is not.
>
>
> Why not?
> I can use any of a number of current dictionaries, and find "lense" in
> them.
> Here's just one:
> http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/lense

This is all widely OT for the subject line, but here are my thoughts on
the matter:

The difference between using colour/color as a reason why both "lens" &
"lense" are correct is what's known as a "false arguement".
The spelling "colour" is used by every native English speaking country,
except for the USA, which uses the spelling "color".
No native English speaking country uses the spelling "lense", it may be
an attempt to make "cute" or "chibi" variation of the English spelling.
It just isn't correct in any of the dictionaries which I own.
Webster, Oxford and Macquarie all disagree with "lense".

Strangely enough, none of the other European langauages use the spelling
"lense" either.
So, it makes me really wonder where that weird spelling variation came from.

Back to the subject of Leica "lens on Panasonic subcompact - any good?":

The "Leica" lenses on the Panasonic compacts are manufactured in Japan
(unless some-one has a Lumix with "Made in X" stamped on the bottom to
prove me wrong) by Panasonic under licence from Leica.
Assuming that you feel that you can trust Panasonic to stick closely to
the designs licenced to them, then the lenses should be just as good as
anything that could be produced in the Solms factory.

dj_nme wrote:
> Bill Funk wrote:
>> On Fri, 15 Jun 2007 13:30:12 +0100, Richard Polhill
>> <> wrote:
>>
>>
>>> The words "colour", "color" are perfectly acceptable spellings.
>>> "Lense" is not.
>>
>>
>> Why not?
>> I can use any of a number of current dictionaries, and find "lense" in
>> them.
>> Here's just one:
>> http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/lense
>
> This is all widely OT for the subject line, but here are my thoughts on
> the matter:
>
> The difference between using colour/color as a reason why both "lens" &
> "lense" are correct is what's known as a "false arguement".
> The spelling "colour" is used by every native English speaking country,
> except for the USA, which uses the spelling "color".
> No native English speaking country uses the spelling "lense", it may be
> an attempt to make "cute" or "chibi" variation of the English spelling.
> It just isn't correct in any of the dictionaries which I own.
> Webster, Oxford and Macquarie all disagree with "lense".
>
> Strangely enough, none of the other European langauages use the spelling
> "lense" either.
> So, it makes me really wonder where that weird spelling variation came
> from.
>
> Back to the subject of Leica "lens on Panasonic subcompact - any good?":
>
> The "Leica" lenses on the Panasonic compacts are manufactured in Japan
> (unless some-one has a Lumix with "Made in X" stamped on the bottom to
> prove me wrong) by Panasonic under licence from Leica.
> Assuming that you feel that you can trust Panasonic to stick closely to
> the designs licenced to them, then the lenses should be just as good as
> anything that could be produced in the Solms factory.

Whether the lens is truly made by Leica, made to Leica's specs by
Panasonic, or simply a Panasonic lens with Leica's licensed name is
something not worth spending too much concern on. Panasonic makes some
very respectable optics and is well regarded in the professional
broadcast market for their video cameras. At the other extreme, I own
one of the most basic Panasonic camcorders with a Panasonic lens and the
optical quality exceeds expectation. Finally, on a fixed lens camera
with a small format lens, the difference between a Panasonic lens and a
Leica lens is quite likely immeasurable. If you want more control over
lens quality, move up to a true SLR and choose from a wide selection of
lenses. If the Lumix style camera is what you are looking for, know that
it has been well reviewed, buy, and enjoy.

Arguments on the internet. Lol.

Sad to see this becomes less and less about photography every day. Go
out and take some pictures.

Adam.

wrote:
> Arguments on the internet. Lol.
>
> Sad to see this becomes less and less about photography every day. Go
> out and take some pictures.

Interesting you chose to interject in a real discussion about.......

photography.

--
lsmft

In article <46772db9$0$22425$5a62ac22@per-qv1-newsreader-
01.iinet.net.au>, dj_nme
says...

> So, it makes me really wonder where that weird spelling variation came from.
>
Nouns that ends in 's' are plural, but the plural of 'lens' is 'lenses',
so the singular of 'lenses' must be 'lense'. Obvious really.

Rob Morley wrote:
> In article <46772db9$0$22425$5a62ac22@per-qv1-newsreader-
> 01.iinet.net.au>, dj_nme
> says...
>
>> So, it makes me really wonder where that weird spelling variation came from.
>>
> Nouns that ends in 's' are plural, but the plural of 'lens' is 'lenses',
> so the singular of 'lenses' must be 'lense'. Obvious really.


BBBB But you forgot the apostrophe! It's one "lens'e", several "lens'es'".

--
john mcwilliams

Even if one learned to speak English perfectly, whom would you speak it to?

On Tue, 19 Jun 2007 20:56:27 +0100, Rob Morley
<> wrote:

>In article <46772db9$0$22425$5a62ac22@per-qv1-newsreader-
>01.iinet.net.au>, dj_nme
> says...
>
>> So, it makes me really wonder where that weird spelling variation came from.
>>
>Nouns that ends in 's' are plural, but the plural of 'lens' is 'lenses',
>so the singular of 'lenses' must be 'lense'. Obvious really.

I wonder why nobody calls a bus a "buse" then, or a boss a
bosse, or a...

--
John Bean

> Richard Polhill wrote:
>
>> No need for my regular diatribe on the subject of the use of the
>> non-existent word "lense" in place of "lens".
>
> You're not even involved in this thread but had to post this usual crap?
>
> Who cares if some spell it wrong?
>
> You had it right when you said "No need"

We must have standards.

In article <>, John
McWilliams
says...
> Rob Morley wrote:
> > In article <46772db9$0$22425$5a62ac22@per-qv1-newsreader-
> > 01.iinet.net.au>, dj_nme
> > says...
> >
> >> So, it makes me really wonder where that weird spelling variation came from.
> >>
> > Nouns that ends in 's' are plural, but the plural of 'lens' is 'lenses',
> > so the singular of 'lenses' must be 'lense'. Obvious really.
>
>
> BBBB But you forgot the apostrophe! It's one "lens'e", several "lens'es'".
>
Don't be silly - apostrophe's are only needed for some plurals.