Have we all been Gaslighted?

nickthetasmaniac said:
I remember the fuss that Olympus made about their ‘telecentric’ Zuikos back in the days of ‘classic’ Four Thirds. Certainly those lenses were enormous (considering the sensor size), and without exception absolutely stellar performers.
Click to expand...


Yes! And f/2 on more than one or two...


Regards, David
 
I certainly understand that their priority (Nikon in particular) is to sell the high-end, high profit lenses that showcase the optical advantages of their new mount.

But yeah, it does feel like gaslighting to sell these reasonably compact bodies with only monster-sized lenses to put on them. (Or at least very few compact lenses)

I presume they'll broaden the product line soon ... but the speed they can do so might make a big difference in terms of market uptake. The competition has a lot of compatible lenses, to meet every need.

Personally, I won't likely switch to Nikon's Z-mount until there are some more reasonably priced and compact lenses. I would be interested in using my manual lenses, but it's hardly compelling to switch unless there are some small, compact autofocus lenses to use, too.

This is a case where Nikon's closed system may really limit market acceptance.
 
I feel Sigma at least is making an effort to design more compact AF lenses. Their new I-Series of 4 lenses is smallish and well made, unambitious maximum aperture and reputedly of high resolution.

So in an effort to go smallest full-frame AF, I bought the Sigma FP and all 4 I-Series lenses. It's still a large outfit compared to an M or to Fuji's APS-C cameras and lenses, and there's no viewfinder, but so far it's been great to use.
 
Pedantic correction - gaslit, not gaslighted...

Onwards.
Larry Cloetta said:
... an iphone is the new full frame, and has been for years:)
Click to expand...

This sums it all up. Most of the rest is just playing the age-old insecure game of 'mine is bigger than yours'.

Nikon made its best lenses when it released its D range - to my mind the Z range is mostly overkill at inflated prices with (maybe) some minor improvements but being marketed by Nikon with a new mount to rope in the spenders who absolutely must have the latest.

This from a self-proclaimed Nikon 'dinosaur' who fervently clings to the belief that anyone who cannot produce a technically satisfactory image from Nikon's 10-12 MB cameras, does not merit calling themselves a photographer in the first place.

As a disclaimer, the above is entirely my personal opinion and I will be pleased to respond to intelligent rebutals. Awaiting...
 
ozmoose said:
Pedantic correction - gaslit, not gaslighted......
Click to expand...

Actually, there’s a reason “gaslighted” is correct (or, at the very least, perfectly acceptable).

The reason is we are really not using a form or variant of the verb “to light” in this case. What’s happened is the name of the movie, Gaslight, itself has become the verb and it’s independent of to light. That being the case, we don’t use the past tense of to light, rather we use the past tense of this new verb, to gaslight. Then, as with most new verbs, they take the weak -ed morpheme to indicate past tense, past participles, etc., rather than the strong (irregular) forms that existed from Old English.

A somewhat similar process was brought up decades ago when talking about “Walkmans” instead of “Walkmen”, but then we’d have to get into headless nouns and such.
 
GasLIGHT - gas that is light
GasLIT - literature ABOUT gas, like chickLIT is about poultry.
Actually, around here GAS stands for Gear Acquisition Syndrome, so GASlit, it really about folks who get lit while on gas.

Pass the Beano.
 
Thanks for the explanation, Marty.

I guess I have been seduced by the big lenses, at least in some cases. I got the idea that I had to try Carl Zeiss lenses, so now I have the 35mm F/2 and 25mm F/2 for my Nikon. And I have fallen for the Nikkor 17/35mm f/2.8 AF-D. I have taken up lifting 15 pound dumbbells on account of that one. Really. But it's now an indispensable lens! I'll have to see about the 25/2 Zeiss. My 24/2.8 Nikkors, AIs and AF, are very good and much lighter.
 
Pál_K said:
Actually, there’s a reason “gaslighted” is correct (or, at the very least, perfectly acceptable).

The reason is we are really not using a form or variant of the verb “to light” in this case. What’s happened is the name of the movie, Gaslight, itself has become the verb and it’s independent of to light. That being the case, we don’t use the past tense of to light, rather we use the past tense of this new verb, to gaslight. Then, as with most new verbs, they take the weak -ed morpheme to indicate past tense, past participles, etc., rather than the strong (irregular) forms that existed from Old English.

A somewhat similar process was brought up decades ago when talking about “Walkmans” instead of “Walkmen”, but then we’d have to get into headless nouns and such.
Click to expand...

Thanks for that. Great movie by the way, though no man in his right mind would have wanted to rid himself of Ingrid Bergman after seeing her in that dress she wore to the theater. Plot flaw. :)
 
Pál_K said:
Actually, there’s a reason “gaslighted” is correct (or, at the very least, perfectly acceptable).

The reason is we are really not using a form or variant of the verb “to light” in this case. What’s happened is the name of the movie, Gaslight, itself has become the verb and it’s independent of to light. That being the case, we don’t use the past tense of to light, rather we use the past tense of this new verb, to gaslight. Then, as with most new verbs, they take the weak -ed morpheme to indicate past tense, past participles, etc., rather than the strong (irregular) forms that existed from Old English.

A somewhat similar process was brought up decades ago when talking about “Walkmans” instead of “Walkmen”, but then we’d have to get into headless nouns and such.
Click to expand...

Thanks, I've been worried about this for some time. I didn't know language was that technical! Weak-ed morpheme? Wow. Actually I've never really understood what a participle is. Not too sure about plu-perfect, either.
 
pyeh said:
I feel Sigma at least is making an effort to design more compact AF lenses. Their new I-Series of 4 lenses is smallish and well made, unambitious maximum aperture and reputedly of high resolution.

So in an effort to go smallest full-frame AF, I bought the Sigma FP and all 4 I-Series lenses. It's still a large outfit compared to an M or to Fuji's APS-C cameras and lenses, and there's no viewfinder, but so far it's been great to use.
Click to expand...

Pyeh, I have the 35mm and the 65mm I series - I'm very pleased with them both. I had the 45mm but sold it to buy something else. I am very interested in the 24mm f3.5. Can you share any of your thoughts on the 24mm? Much appreciated if you can.

All the best,
Mike
 
YM, I just picked up my 24/3.5 last Thursday, just in time for Lunar NY. It had been back ordered for the past 4 weeks. I haven't taken many photos with it yet but I can say it's a delight to use - small like the 45, well built like the other I Series lenses, sharp and responsive. Recommend.
 
Beemermark said:
I've made this complaint on this forum before. With everyone rushing to built the fastest 24mm, 28mm, and 50mm lenses for Leica M which are simply gigantic, why can't someone make a modern lens like the 50 Elmar, 35mm Elmar or 28mm Summaron in LTM with an M adapter for that matter? 7Artisians pricing.
Click to expand...

I am certainly happy to have my 24 3.8, 90 4.0 micro, 75 2.0 APO. 50 2.8 elmar M. I will not be buying the giants. Too expensive and too big and heavy to carry around. The whole idea of Leica was small camera, big pictures according to Oscar Barnack and I really do not like pics at 1.4 anyway.
 
I noticed over the years that the new generation of Leica M users tolerate bigger lenses w/o issues. Noctilux, no problem! I suspect they come from big SLR's. A relative thing. Ha, ha, a plain prism Nikon F seems big to me now.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top