Leica lens on Panasonic subcompact - any good?

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by Sammy, Jun 12, 2007.

  1. Sammy

    Rob Morley Guest

    In article <>, Irwin
    Peckinloomer
    says...

    > Your dictionary citation says "their" is plural, so it should not be
    > used the singular "person"
    >

    It shouldn't be, but it is commonly used. A dictionary has to reflect
    how language /is/ used, as well as how it /should/ be used (for some
    value of 'should'). Living languages evolve, most users are ignorant or
    dismissive of grammatical 'rules', sometimes changes enrich or add
    convenience but sometimes they reduce the precision of communication.
    In this case I think the use of 'their' as a third person singular
    pronoun is ugly, but as the English language lacks anything to use in
    its place (the old convention of using 'his' having fallen out of
    favour, "his or her (or its)" being cumbersome) it's an obvious
    convenience and will doubtless gain greater acceptance.
     
    Rob Morley, Jun 17, 2007
    #81
    1. Advertisements

  2. Sammy

    Alan Browne Guest

    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"
     
    Alan Browne, Jun 17, 2007
    #82
    1. Advertisements

  3. Sammy

    Frank ess Guest

    Alan Browne wrote:
    > 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"


    Just as I feel no need to apologize for wishing "lense" out of
    existence while understanding it in its use, nor for asserting
    "person - their" is not correct while acknowledging its widespread
    use.

    My point was: if Mr Pretentious Allen had a point beyond
    self-aggrandizement—which I don't doubt—dragging spelling quirks and
    their influence on reader attitude into the arena of Usenet
    discussions on the subject of—I forget what—leaves one vulnerable to
    the same slings and arrows.

    I regard use of "lense" and "person - their" as indicative of a
    certain character trait or ignorance. My history includes experience
    that validates that regard. With or without conscious consideration,
    it is an influence on my attitude toward the producer of the document.
    Really grates on my nerves, like "differnt than". Ick.

    Some more liberal or flexible folks may not respond like that. If you
    don't match my standards, so what? I don't match yours, so what? No
    big deal. Other than the occasional whinge about it, not much we can
    do, ne?

    Boy Allen started it. I hope this finishes it.

    Resp'y,

    --
    Frank ess
     
    Frank ess, Jun 17, 2007
    #83
  4. Sammy

    Les Guest

    On Tue, 12 Jun 2007 11:20:08 -0700, "=\(8\)" <>
    wrote:

    >Leica sets the specifications that Panasonic must follow in order to claim
    >it is a Leica lens. However, Leica does not make the lens Panasonic does.
    >Having owned both a FZ20 and I still own an FZ30 the lenses are very
    >impressive. The same is true for the FZ50, however for it the higher
    >resolution, small sensor and totally crappy noise reduction makes that
    >camera total junk. However, the Leica lenses are fantastic.

    As the owner of a Panasonic Lumix DMC-FZ5, I disagree. I have been
    taking photos for 65 years on this camera has produced some of the
    best photos I have ever taken. It's not perfect and I hate the zoom
    control - but I have never owned a perfect camera. The lens is superb
    and having experienced the lens stabilisation, I will never buy a
    camera without it from now on.

    Have a look at the reviews rather than believe everything in this
    thread. This is a good starting point:
    www.dpreview.com/reviews/specs/Panasonic/

    Les
     
    Les, Jun 18, 2007
    #84
  5. In rec.photo.digital Irwin Peckinloomer <> wrote:
    > In article <>,
    > says...
    >> On Sat, 16 Jun 2007 10:08:59 GMT, Irwin Peckinloomer
    >> <> wrote:
    >>
    >> >Because "a person" is singular, and "their" is plural, so can't be used
    >> >together in the same statement. The correct usage is "a person ... his
    >> >(or her, or his or her) postings. Or "several persons ... their
    >> >postings"

    >>
    >> Merriam-Webster disagrees with you.
    >>
    >> http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?va=their
    >>
    >> >Trying to be politically correct does not trump being grammatically
    >> >correct.

    >>
    >> It was gramatically correct usage according to a
    >> well-respected dictionary.
    >>

    > Your dictionary citation says "their" is plural, so it should not be
    > used the singular "person"


    Child abuse by ignorant grammar teachers is one of the major
    unrecognised scandals of our time.

    --
    Chris Malcolm DoD #205
    IPAB, Informatics, JCMB, King's Buildings, Edinburgh, EH9 3JZ, UK
    [http://www.dai.ed.ac.uk/homes/cam/]
     
    Chris Malcolm, Jun 18, 2007
    #85
  6. Sammy

    Bill Funk Guest

    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 A SIG LINE; NOT TO BE TAKEN SERIOUSLY!

    United Nations chief nuclear weapons inspector
    Mohamed ElBaradei tried to cool tensions between
    the U.S. and Iran Thursday. He said it would be
    an act of sheer madness to attack Iran over its
    refusal to freeze their nuclear program.
    So it's a go.
     
    Bill Funk, Jun 18, 2007
    #86
  7. Sammy

    Koekje Guest

    ["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
     
    Koekje, Jun 18, 2007
    #87
  8. Sammy

    dj_nme Guest

    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, Jun 19, 2007
    #88
  9. 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.
     
    Arthur Seltzer, Jun 19, 2007
    #89
  10. Sammy

    Guest

    Arguments on the internet. Lol.

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

    Adam.
     
    , Jun 19, 2007
    #90
  11. 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
     
    John McWilliams, Jun 19, 2007
    #91
  12. Sammy

    Rob Morley Guest

    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, Jun 19, 2007
    #92
  13. 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?
     
    John McWilliams, Jun 19, 2007
    #93
  14. Sammy

    John Bean Guest

    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
     
    John Bean, Jun 19, 2007
    #94
  15. Sammy

    Unspam Guest


    > 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.
     
    Unspam, Jun 20, 2007
    #95
  16. Sammy

    Rob Morley Guest

    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.
     
    Rob Morley, Jun 20, 2007
    #96
  17. Sammy

    Rob Morley Guest

    In article <>, John Bean
    says...
    > 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... ;-)
    >

    Because 'bu' and 'bo' end in vowels, but 'len' ends with a consonant -
    didn't they teach you anything in school? :)
     
    Rob Morley, Jun 20, 2007
    #97
  18. Sammy

    Rob Morley Guest

    In article <C29EC943.85D6%>, Unspam
    says...
    >
    >
    > > 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.
    >

    That's the sort of rigid thinking that discourages originality and
    creativity in kids these days - they should be encouraged to communicate
    their ideas however it suits them (even if people can't figure out what
    they mean because the spelling and grammar are 'original' and
    'creative').
     
    Rob Morley, Jun 20, 2007
    #98
  19. Sammy

    Roger Guest

    "Rob Morley" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > In article <C29EC943.85D6%>, Unspam
    > says...
    >>
    >>
    >> > 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.
    >>

    > That's the sort of rigid thinking that discourages originality and
    > creativity in kids these days - they should be encouraged to communicate
    > their ideas however it suits them (even if people can't figure out what
    > they mean because the spelling and grammar are 'original' and
    > 'creative').

    However, lense is a word that has a meaning already, thus:

    a. trans. To make lean; to macerate. b. intr. To become lean.

    a1000 in Napier OE. Glosses 32/1156 Macero..ic hlænsie. c1175 Lamb. Hom. 147
    Mon lense his fleis hwenne he him efe lutel to etene and lesse to drinke.
    c1200 Trin. Coll. Hom. 207 Mannes lichame ihalsne [Lamb. MS. lense] iwis,
    enne me hine pined mid hunger and mid urste.

    Hence lensing vbl. n., macerating.

    c1175 Lamb. Hom. 147 Ac he munege us an oer rode to berene et is inemned
    Carnis maceratio fleises lensing. c1200 Trin. Coll. Hom. 207 An oer
    [rode]..at is cleped Carnis maceracio at is lichames hlensing.
     
    Roger, Jun 20, 2007
    #99
  20. Sammy

    Rob Morley Guest

    In article <>, Roger
    says...

    > However, lense is a word that has a meaning already, thus:
    >
    > a. trans. To make lean; to macerate. b. intr. To become lean.
    >
    > a1000 in Napier OE. Glosses 32/1156 Macero..ic hlænsie. c1175 Lamb. Hom.. 147
    > Mon lense his fleis hwenne he him efe lutel to etene and lesse to drinke.
    > c1200 Trin. Coll. Hom. 207 Mannes lichame ihalsne [Lamb. MS. lense] iwis,
    > enne me hine pined mid hunger and mid urste.
    >
    > Hence lensing vbl. n., macerating.
    >
    > c1175 Lamb. Hom. 147 Ac he munege us an oer rode to berene et is inemned
    > Carnis maceratio fleises lensing. c1200 Trin. Coll. Hom. 207 An oer
    > [rode]..at is cleped Carnis maceracio at is lichames hlensing.
    >

    I can just about handle Gawain or the Canterbury Tales, but that stuff's
    a bit too obscure. :)
     
    Rob Morley, Jun 20, 2007
    1. Advertisements

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments (here). After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.
Similar Threads
  1. Peter Larsson
    Replies:
    5
    Views:
    2,240
    Frank ess
    Feb 16, 2004
  2. Networking Student
    Replies:
    4
    Views:
    2,441
    vreyesii
    Nov 16, 2006
  3. Barry Bean

    compact/subcompact digi recomendations

    Barry Bean, Apr 24, 2005, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    4
    Views:
    409
    Dave Martindale
    Apr 30, 2005
  4. mike

    subcompact cameras

    mike, May 16, 2005, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    4
    Views:
    451
    Stewy
    May 16, 2005
  5. cadmon

    ultracompact or subcompact?

    cadmon, Dec 27, 2005, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    1
    Views:
    399
    bmoag
    Dec 27, 2005
  6. John Navas

    Is Lumix Leica real Leica?

    John Navas, Nov 17, 2007, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    1
    Views:
    999
    Dennis Pogson
    Nov 18, 2007
  7. TJ
    Replies:
    13
    Views:
    2,262
    Tony Polson
    Dec 23, 2007
Loading...