 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
| PhotoKB HomeDiscussion Groups Digital Photography Digital PhotoDSLR CamerasZLR CamerasPoint & Shoot CamerasFilm Photography 35 mmLarge FormatMedium formatDarkroomFilm and LabsOther EquipmentPhoto Technique Nature PhotographyPeople PhotographyTechnique GeneralGeneral Photo Topics General TopicsAustralian PhotographyUK PhotographyDirectoryPhoto Clubs |
Photo Forum / Digital Photography / DSLR Cameras / March 2006Popular Photography entry-level DSLR rankings
In the March 2006 issue; The categories were: -Image quality (sharpness, colour, noise, resolution) -Ease of use -Control (how adjustable) -System flexibility (Standard "kit" lenses used) Overall: 1 being best 1. Canon Rebel XT 2. Olympus E-500 3. Nikon D50 4. Konica Minolta 5D 5. Pentax (Samsung) *ist DS2 Breakdowns: Image Quality 1. Canon Rebel XT 2. Olympus E-500 3. Nikon D50 4. Konica Minolta 5D 5. Pentax *ist DS2 Control: 1. Olympus E-500 2. Canon Rebel XT 3. Nikon D50 4. Konica Minolta 5D 5. Pentax *ist DS2 Ease of Use: 1. Konica Minolta 5D 2. Canon Rebel XT 3. Pentax *ist DS2 4. Nikon D50 5. Olympus E-500 System Flexibility: 1. Canon Rebel XT/Nikon D50 Tie 3. Konica Minolta 5D 4. Pentax *ist DS2 5. Olympus E-500 Notable Comments (Positive) Rebel XT: Most detailed, best tonality Olympus E-500: Most advanced when it comes to creative control, even has a vignetting eliminator and of course, anti dust sensor cleaner. Nikon D50: Lowest noise level, fastest AF, better than it's D70 brother. Konica Minolta 5D: Easiest to use, anti-shake, fastest AF, and good noise control. Pentax *ist DS2: Low noise, good in low light, cheap. Notable comments (Negative) Rebel XT: No spotmeter, noise at 1600 unacceptable. Olympus E-500: Exposure latitude narrower than other cameras, small optical array, thanks in-part to poor aftermarket support. Nikon D50: Somewhat difficult to use, not as high resolution as the Rebel and E-500 (6 meg versus 8) Konica Minolta 5D: Slightly high contrast and lower shadow detail than the Nikon. Pentax *ist DS2: Worst image quality of group, sharpness and detail lowest. Minimalist control capability. I think the most surprising thing of all was the noise ratings of the Canon Rebel XT versus the Olympus E-500 Rebel XT: 400 ISO: Moderately low 800 ISO: Moderate 1600 ISO: Unacceptable E-500: 400 ISO: Moderately low 800 ISO: Moderately low 1600 ISO: Moderate I have the Pentax *istDS and I would have to agree with most of what the article said about the *istDS2 even though it is a different camera. I bought my pentax because it is tiny but sometimes I can tell it isn't the best camera. I think the N50 results are interesting because it is a lowend camera. Gordon http://www.gordonphoto.net >I have the Pentax *istDS and I would have to agree with most of what >the article said about the *istDS2 even though it is a different >camera. I bought my pentax because it is tiny but sometimes I can tell >it isn't the best camera. I think the N50 results are interesting >because it is a lowend camera. The Pentax *ist DL is a later model than the DS and has improved image quality. You can upgrade your DS's firmware to improve its performance to something approaching that of the DL. The Pentax USA web site has details. The upgrade is free of charge, and is easily done at home. The Nikon D50 (not N50, that's a film SLR) has remarkably good image quality from virtually the same Sony sensor that is used in the Nikon D100, D70 and D70s - also the Pentax *ist D, DS, DS2 and DL and the Konica Minolta 7D and 5D. The later Pentax models come close, as does the Nikon D70s, and the earlier Pentax models with the firmware upgrades, but the Konica Minolta models and the Nikon D100 lag far behind. It is well known that Konica Minolta were very short of cash following their merger and this clearly affected development of the K-M DSLRs, resulting in poor imaging performance and - eventually - the demise of the company as a manufacturer of photo gear. > the Nikon D70s, and the earlier Pentax models with the firmware > upgrades, but the Konica Minolta models and the Nikon D100 lag far > behind. Those of us who actually shoot photos with the 7D, and know what it does, say different. We know who you're trying to bait, we're laughing our a.s off at you Polson. Why don't you put up your Paris Match cover? Or the best 5 photos from your many years of shooting "50 rolls per average *week*"? Anything, in any case, that's better than your recent train photos. ;-)  Signature-- r.p.e.35mm user resource: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm -- r.p.d.slr-systems: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm -- [SI] gallery & rulz: http://www.pbase.com/shootin -- e-meil: Remove FreeLunch. >>I have the Pentax *istDS and I would have to agree with most of what >>the article said about the *istDS2 even though it is a different [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > quality. You can upgrade your DS's firmware to improve its > performance to something approaching that of the DL. I don't know that any of the firmware updates affect image quality except in a few rare isolated cases - bug fixes invovling noise reduction on long exposures, I think. Was there really any change to the default image processing algorithms? However, it is worth noting that the issues Popular Photography had with the DS image quality came down to one thing and one thing only, as I recall: JPEG's produced using the default settings are rather soft compared to the competition. This is a fairly common observation in other reviews of the DS as well. Popular Photography attributes this softness to the DS's attempts to reduce noise even when not specifically using the optional noise reduction that applies only to long exposures. I don't know how much truth there is in that, but most other reviews go on to note that if you capture in RAW mode instead of JPEG on the DS, you get the same sharpness as everyone else (not surprisingly in the case of comparison to Nikon, as they use the same sensor). Some reviews cast a positive spin on these same observations, noting that the DS, in not attempting to apply aggressive sharpening in its JPG's, manages to avoid the somewhat harsh colors and artifacts that one sometimes sees in other consumer-model digital cameras (including, allegedly, other low end DSLR's). It seems most photographers using the DS use the "Natural" mode instead of the default "Bright" mode for in-camera image processing, which results in a somewhat sharper image to my eyes - but also even less of the artificially harsh color one associates with cheap digital cameras. Anyhow, most serious reviews spend long enough with the cameras to address these issues and consider the tradeoffs. Popular Photography apparently did not, hence their blanket statement on low image quality. --------------- Marc Sabatella marc@outsideshore.com Music, art, & educational materials Featuring "A Jazz Improvisation Primer" http://www.outsideshore.com/ >JPEG's Not to sound pedantic, but all of your pluralized acronyms in this post use apostrophes, but those apostrophes don't belong there. Apostrophes are for possession and contraction; not for plurality. When I read your apostrophied plurals, I keep thinking possession, and the sentences are hard to read. These are plurals: DSLRs JPEGs TIFFs JPGs "DSLR's" means "of the DSLR". "DSLRs'" means "of the DSLRs". Signature<>>< ><<> ><<> <>>< ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<> John P Sheehy <JPS@no.komm> ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<> <>>< ><<> ><<> <>>< > Not to sound pedantic, but all of your pluralized acronyms Most of the people here (including me) are sloppy usenet writers. So you have to have to develop on-the-fly edit while reading skills. (And remove the "Not" and ", but" above...) ;-) Signature-- r.p.e.35mm user resource: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm -- r.p.d.slr-systems: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm -- [SI] gallery & rulz: http://www.pbase.com/shootin -- e-meil: Remove FreeLunch. >>JPEG's > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > Apostrophes > are for possession and contraction; not for plurality. Actually, different style guides give different rules on this matter. The style guide we used in school called for apostrophes to be used for plurals of numbers, inidividual letters, abbreviations, and symbols - basically, anything that wasn't a word. I believe this is the Oxford standard, whereas the MLA, Chicago, and other style guides suggest more limited usage of apostrophes (such as advocating it to pluralize single letters only, as in "mind your p's and q's"). To me, JPEGs looks as wrong and confusing to (I wonder what the "s" stands for, since it is apparently partof the acronym?) as JPEG's does to you. --------------- Marc Sabatella marc@outsideshore.com Music, art, & educational materials Featuring "A Jazz Improvisation Primer" http://www.outsideshore.com/ >>>JPEG's >> Not to sound pedantic, but all of your pluralized acronyms in this >> post >> use apostrophes, but those apostrophes don't belong there. >> Apostrophes >> are for possession and contraction; not for plurality. >Actually, different style guides give different rules on this matter. >The style guide we used in school called for apostrophes to be used for [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] >wrong and confusing to (I wonder what the "s" stands for, since it is >apparently partof the acronym?) as JPEG's does to you. I have heard that the one exception often granted is when using capital letter in signs, small esses can be used for plurals because no small esses are available, or for aesthetic pruposes. To me, using apostrophes for plurals is just one way of diluting language into meaninglessness. Somebody in charge must be making a lot of kickback money on miscommunication. >To me, JPEGs looks as >wrong and confusing to (I wonder what the "s" stands for, since it is >apparently partof the acronym?) as JPEG's does to you. Why? The 's' isn't capitalized. Signature<>>< ><<> ><<> <>>< ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<> John P Sheehy <JPS@no.komm> ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<> <>>< ><<> ><<> <>>< >>>>JPEG's > [quoted text clipped - 26 lines] > > Why? The 's' isn't capitalized. Neither's the i in NiMH, but it still stands for something, though, admittedly, it's not specifically an acronym. SignatureRegards, Matt Clara www.mattclara.com -------Cut-------- >>>To me, JPEGs looks as >>>wrong and confusing to (I wonder what the "s" stands for, since it is [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >Neither's the i in NiMH, but it still stands for something, though, >admittedly, it's not specifically an acronym. The 'i' does not stand for anything, it is part of the standard chemical abbreviation for nickel, remember that sodium is Na, potassium s K and tungsten is W, among many others where we use an abbreviation of the Greek name but do not use the Greek name in full. SignatureIan G8ILZ > Neither's the i in NiMH, but it still stands for something, though, > admittedly, it's not specifically an acronym. Ni = Nickel M Metal H Hydride NiCd Cd = Cadmium etc. Signature-- r.p.e.35mm user resource: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm -- r.p.d.slr-systems: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm -- [SI] gallery & rulz: http://www.pbase.com/shootin -- e-meil: Remove FreeLunch. > To me, using > apostrophes for plurals is just one way of diluting language into > meaninglessness. You are assuming - incorrectly, as far as I am concerned - that *not* using this way is the original and correct way, and that using them represents a change. I see no evidence that this is true historically. Juts because *you* didn't learn it that way growing up doesn't mean this is some some new-fangled thing that the folks at Oxford just made up out of the blue. And even if it were new, that doesn't prove it is worthless. I think the convention serves a useful function, and I fail to see how it robs anything of meaning whatsoever. Yes, it means the apostrophe has multiple uses. So what? It always has - possession and contraction. Similarly, periods have multiple meaning (abbreviations and end of sentences, as well as decimal points). I fail to see how using apostrophes in the manner recommended by OED "dilutes" anything. >>To me, JPEGs looks as >>wrong and confusing to (I wonder what the "s" stands for, since it is >>apparently partof the acronym?) as JPEG's does to you. > > Why? The 's' isn't capitalized. Not all acronyms are capital letters only. But more than that, it just also makes sense to me as a sort of visual separation. JPEG isn't a word, so I see no reason to assume that the usual "word" pluralization rules should apply to it. Same for numbers. To me, it simply looks awkward to try to turn a number into a word by adding an "s". An apostrophe solves this nicely. --------------- Marc Sabatella marc@outsideshore.com Music, art, & educational materials Featuring "A Jazz Improvisation Primer" http://www.outsideshore.com/ >>> JPEG's >> [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > stands for, since it is apparently partof the acronym?) as JPEG's > does to you. http://www.apostrophe.fsnet.co.uk/ > >>> JPEG's > >> [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > > http://www.apostrophe.fsnet.co.uk/ One man's opinion; no more valid than a Usenet post. Another man's opinion - possibly more respected generally - goes like this: " The ordinary purpose of inserting an apostrophe before a final _s_ is to show that the _s_ is possessive, not plural; it originally indicated the omission of the _e_ from from the possessive inflexion _es_. It may occasionally be used before a plural _s_ as a device for avoiding confusion... ...We may reasonably write _dot your i's and cross your t's_ " Fowler's Modern English Usage 1926 (reprinted 1965) English evolves. Americans drop the letter u and even spell elements such as aluminium as abbreviations. Ever read Shakespeare as he was writ? Or (God forbid) Chaucer? Get used to it. Pedantry cannot win in the fight against common usage, even when defending aesthetic pruposes. 80 years ago Fowler acknowleged _'s_ for plurals *in some cases* - i.e. where confusion is avoided, not for plurals such as cat's and dog's. -- Jeff R. (refromed pednat) >>>>> JPEG's >>>> [quoted text clipped - 48 lines] > i.e. where confusion is avoided, not for plurals such as cat's and > dog's. And the horse's you rode in on... >English evolves. That's what I would call "dissolving", not "evolving". Eveolution would imply increased clarity, not chaos. Signature<>>< ><<> ><<> <>>< ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<> John P Sheehy <JPS@no.komm> ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<> <>>< ><<> ><<> <>>< > >English evolves. > > That's what I would call "dissolving", not "evolving". Eveolution would > imply increased clarity, not chaos. Au contraire! (Good English, oui?) As other posters have suggested, _JPGs_ could easily (capitalisation notwithstanding) be taken for a four letter acronym, yet the context instantly explains the usage of _JPG's_. Having said that, I personally prefer _JPGs_, but I am a cranky old fart - *and* I can see the validity of the opposing case. -- Jeff R. (so whattamI doing on Usenet?) > That's what I would call "dissolving", not "evolving". Eveolution would > imply increased clarity, not chaos. Entropy. If you don't maintain standards then things devolve. In fact the 3rd definition (Webster's) for "devolve" is: << o degenerate through a gradual change or evolution "where order devolves into chaos" >> > Eveolution would > imply increased clarity, not chaos. And to many people, JPEG's and 1920's are both MUCH clearer than JPEGs and 1920. Neither could rationally be described as chaotic in the least. --------------- Marc Sabatella marc@outsideshore.com Music, art, & educational materials Featuring "A Jazz Improvisation Primer" http://www.outsideshore.com/ >> Eveolution would imply increased clarity, not chaos. > > And to many people, JPEG's and 1920's are both MUCH clearer than JPEGs > and 1920. Neither could rationally be described as chaotic in the > least. I'll tell you what -- if people will just stop using "it's" as a possessive, I'll leave the "JPEG's" fight for another day. SignatureJeremy | jeremy@exit109.com >> Eveolution would >> imply increased clarity, not chaos. >And to many people, JPEG's and 1920's are both MUCH clearer than JPEGs >and 1920. Neither could rationally be described as chaotic in the >least. Then why do I read them and think "what property of (the) JPEG" or "what property of 1920"? What possible other meaning could "JPEGs" have than a JPEG multiplicity? Signature<>>< ><<> ><<> <>>< ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<> John P Sheehy <JPS@no.komm> ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<> <>>< ><<> ><<> <>>< >>> Eveolution would >>> imply increased clarity, not chaos. [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > "what > property of 1920"? Because you are not one of the "many people" I referred to. You are not someone who grew up with this system and got used to resolving the occassional ambiguities that might come up. But you could probably count on the fingers of one hand the number of pluralized acronyms or numbers you've seen in your life that would be ambiguous in context. > What possible other meaning could "JPEGs" have than a JPEG > multiplicity? As I said before, it makes it look like part of the acronym. The mere fact that the letter is lower case in no way resolves this ambiguity; plenty of acronyms include lower case letters. You don't see this as confusion you have been writing things this way for years - presumably because your teachers used MLA or Turabian or some style guide that encouraged the type of pluralization you now prefer. But had your experience been with the OED system, that is what would seem natural to you, and the MLA system would seem odd. It's common sense - we are going to like what we are accustomed to, and resist what looks different. --------------- Marc Sabatella marc@outsideshore.com Music, art, & educational materials Featuring "A Jazz Improvisation Primer" http://www.outsideshore.com/ >>>>>JPEG's >>>> [quoted text clipped - 45 lines] > Jeff R. > (refromed pednat) Geez, if the topic of this thread has headed to English grammar, then can everyone who says "then" instead of "than" please stop it :-P Surely you are more educated than that. >if the topic of this thread has headed to English grammar, then can >everyone who says "then" instead of "than" please stop it :-P The big problem with public forums is that we read so many mispellings and grammatical errors, that even if you know the correct way when you first come here, you can start to lose it, after a while, from associating the broken writing with the understanding you have of the sentences. Before the advent of the internet, the only people who read much writing of the populace were teachers; the populace themselves read mostly edited and proof-read material, and generally only saw unconventional things in the dialogues of fictional characters, where it was generally exaggerated to the point that you knew it was "wrong". Signature<>>< ><<> ><<> <>>< ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<> John P Sheehy <JPS@no.komm> ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<> <>>< ><<> ><<> <>>< >> if the topic of this thread has headed to English grammar, then can >> everyone who says "then" instead of "than" please stop it :-P [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > unconventional things in the dialogues of fictional characters, where it > was generally exaggerated to the point that you knew it was "wrong". Wooo, way too many commas in that first sentence. And lose the "that" after the first comma. :-P I just happen to have my manual sitting in front of me. Pictures taken w/350d for DSLR compliance :-) http://www.pbase.com/slack/image/56240400 http://www.pbase.com/slack/image/56240401 _____ Slack > Surely you are more educated than that. There is a huge difference between "more" educated and "better" educated. ;-) Cheers, Alan > http://www.apostrophe.fsnet.co.uk/ Yes, as I said, different style guides give different rules. This one is quite simply wrong when stating that apostrophes are never used for making plurals. Never by the author of the article, perhaps, but quite regularly by people who followed the OED style. --------------- Marc Sabatella marc@outsideshore.com Music, art, & educational materials Featuring "A Jazz Improvisation Primer" http://www.outsideshore.com/ >>>JPEG's >> [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > and confusing to (I wonder what the "s" stands for, since it is apparently > partof the acronym?) as JPEG's does to you. The problem with using an apostrophe for a plural is that it looks like a possessive. JPEGs looks like there's more than one, JPEG's looks like they may have something, JPEGs' looks like more than one of them may have something... ;-) SignatureSkip Middleton http://www.shadowcatcherimagery.com >>>>JPEG's >>> Not to sound pedantic, but all of your pluralized acronyms in this post >>> use apostrophes, but those apostrophes don't belong there. Apostrophes >>> are for possession and contraction; not for plurality. >> Actually, different style guides give different rules on this matter. The >> style guide we used in school called for apostrophes to be used for [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] >> and confusing to (I wonder what the "s" stands for, since it is apparently >> partof the acronym?) as JPEG's does to you. >The problem with using an apostrophe for a plural is that it looks like a >possessive. JPEGs looks like there's more than one, JPEG's looks like they >may have something, JPEGs' looks like more than one of them may have >something... ;-) Signature<>>< ><<> ><<> <>>< ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<> John P Sheehy <JPS@no.komm> ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<> <>>< ><<> ><<> <>>< > The problem with using an apostrophe for a plural is that it looks > like a possessive. It looks like one only if you make the mistake of assuming apostrophes are only used for that purpose. Numbers and acronyms rarely own things, so context serves nicely to differentiate in most cases. --------------- Marc Sabatella marc@outsideshore.com Music, art, & educational materials Featuring "A Jazz Improvisation Primer" http://www.outsideshore.com/ >> The problem with using an apostrophe for a plural is that it looks like a >> possessive. > > It looks like one only if you make the mistake of assuming apostrophes are > only used for that purpose. Numbers and acronyms rarely own things, so > context serves nicely to differentiate in most cases. If you describe a camera as having an ability to do something, then you are using a possessive, note the use of the word "having." So, for instance, if the Nikon D200 has the ability to produce clear images it would be phrased thusly, "The Nikon D200's ability to produce clear images is manifest." Now, if you were talking about the entire range of Nikon Digital cameras, it would be, "The Nikon Ds' ability to produce clear images..." See the problem if you start using an apostrophe to denote a plural? It would devolve to "The Nikon D's' ability..." SignatureSkip Middleton http://www.shadowcatcherimagery.com >>> The problem with using an apostrophe for a plural is that it looks >>> like a possessive. [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > using an apostrophe to denote a plural? It would devolve to "The > Nikon D's' ability..." I think Marc's plan is to invoke contexts. That way we're never wrong. Context's' influence is pervasive and manifold. If your posture doesn't intimidate, shriek, "But in MY contexts's' context, you make a mistake if you don't agree with me ! " Geddit? SignatureFrank ess -- Frank ess "In this universe there are thing's that just don't yield to thinking's' power —plain or fancy—Dude". —J. Spicoli, PolyPartyPerson >>>> The problem with using an apostrophe for a plural is that it looks >>>> like a possessive. [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > intimidate, shriek, "But in MY contexts's' context, you make a mistake > if you don't agree with me ! " Sorta. But I don't get what, Frank, is the purpose of your adding "sh, shh" etc. to troll posts. Clearly no troll is going to read that and actually hush up. Sorry if you answered me before on this, but I didn't see any reply from several weeks ago. Back to punctuation! Wouldn't it be "All the Nikon D's in the world..../and/ The Nikon D's ability to please is enormous." Now, let's hope Nikon and Canon don't put too many lower case designations with upper case..... SignatureJohn McWilliams >>>>> The problem with using an apostrophe for a plural is that it >>>>> looks [quoted text clipped - 27 lines] > actually hush up. Sorry if you answered me before on this, but I > didn't see any reply from several weeks ago. Sorta OT: You must be answering and reading in group's I don't look at. I always trim the one's I'm interested in. Maybe thats enough so you could get it? > Back to punctuation! Wouldn't it be "All the Nikon D's in the > world..../and/ The Nikon D's ability to please is enormous." Now, > let's hope Nikon and Canon don't put too many lower case > designations > with upper case..... I'd say that whatever boat your floating in makes alot of difference. This "Oxford" dude seems to have alot of sway. Of course if your like most of the readers and writers on Usenet your not concerned that you're language use makes you look like an idiot, so in this context, your point is mute. As for Nikon Ds, my attitude is like, lets give a little slack to any rule that lets the idiot trying to do precice communication be precise. Maybe proper names and aykroydnyms are special case's? Eh? SignatureFrank ess > If you describe a camera as having an ability to do something, then > you are using a possessive, note the use of the word "having." So, > for instance, if the Nikon D200 has the ability to produce clear > images it would be phrased thusly, "The Nikon D200's ability to > produce clear images is manifest." Yes, this is an exactly of a situation where ambiguity would happen - ambiguity that is so obviously resolved by the context of the sentence it is difficult to imgine how one could conceive of it as a problem. The ambiguity in "D200's" in the above sentence is no more problematic than the ambiguity in the words "note", "it", or "produce", any of which could potentially mean something different in a different context but so obviosuly mean what they mean in this one, it seems silly to even point out the ambiguity. > See the problem if you start using an apostrophe to denote a plural? Look, I am not proposing anyone "start" doing anything. People have been doing this for centuries, and have written style guide advocating it, and have been teaching it. It's jus one of those cases where there exist two different standards, like "color" versus "colour". I don't understand why some people get so religiously attached t the standard they happened to grow up with that they feel the need to criticze those using a different but equally respect and time tested standard. --------------- Marc Sabatella marc@outsideshore.com Music, art, & educational materials Featuring "A Jazz Improvisation Primer" http://www.outsideshore.com/ > Look, I am not proposing anyone "start" doing anything. People have > been doing this for centuries, and have written style guide advocating [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > they happened to grow up with that they feel the need to criticze those > using a different but equally respect and time tested standard. Out of academic curiosity, what are you looking at that shows it to be equally respected? The Oxford Dictionary of English Grammar goes so far as to say "It is usually acceptable with the less usual plurals of letters and dates, e.g. Mind your p's and q's, That is what people did in the 1960's/1960s", which doesn't sound like equal respect, but is about the strongest support I can find, not actually mentioning acronyms or initialisms among the acceptable usages, but not necessarily ruling them out. The Oxford Dictionary of American Usage and Style seems to have about equal support, but notes that it is not normally used now -- and in its own text, outside examples, you can see the form "1990s" for plural rather than "1990's". Pocket Fowler's Modern English Usage says, "The apostrophe is no longer normally used in the plural of abbreviated forms (e.g. Several MPs were standing around), although it is of course used in the possessive (e.g. The BBC's decision to go ahead with the broadcast). It is used in plurals when clarity calls for it, e.g. Dot your i's and cross your t's." The non-apostrophe form is used in the non-example text here, also. So, I'm not finding the equal respect, and I'm wondering where it might be coming from? SignatureJeremy | jeremy@exit109.com >It is used in plurals >when clarity calls for it, e.g. Dot your i's and cross your t's." The >non-apostrophe form is used in the non-example text here, also. Personally, I would prefer 'i's and 't's. That's because you would put them in single quotes anyway, if they were singular. Signature<>>< ><<> ><<> <>>< ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<> John P Sheehy <JPS@no.komm> ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<> <>>< ><<> ><<> <>>< > Out of academic curiosity, what are you looking at that shows it to be > equally respected? askoxford.com, an official Oxford Univeristy Press site (see quoted text below). You are correct that it actually shows multiple opinions, but that in itselfs suggests at least one respected authority finds either usage acceptable. It is also the way it was taught in the schools I attended, although I have no recollection of what text we might have used. I probably did mispeak is saying it is "equally" respected - I'm sure it is true that more people are accusomted to style guides that do not advocate this usage, and that more such style guides exist. It's a minority opinion, I'd agree. But not an inconsequential one. The relevant section of askoxford.com: An apostrophe is used in plurals in the following very special cases: 1.. in the plurals of single letters: There are only three s's in `Christmases'. Mind your p's and q's. (Even here, the capital letter would not need the apostrophe.) 2.. in the plurals of abbreviations: We have several pg's [paying guests]. We have received four cheques and two IOU's. (But IOUs is common and accepted, and the usual plural of CD is CDs). Most symbols for units such as lb (pounds) and cm (centimetres) do not strictly have plural forms. 3.. in the plurals of numerals: This house was built in the 1930's. (But 1930s is preferable). >> Out of academic curiosity, what are you looking at that shows it to >> be equally respected? [quoted text clipped - 33 lines] > This house was built in the 1930's. > (But 1930s is preferable). In the vernacular of the day: " Exactly ! " > I probably did mispeak is saying it is "equally" respected - I'm sure it > is true that more people are accusomted to style guides that do not > advocate this usage, and that more such style guides exist. It's a > minority opinion, I'd agree. But not an inconsequential one. > > The relevant section of askoxford.com: Even that site is clear in its preference for the modern form. The section you cite is indeed the strongest support I've seen for using the apostrophe, though other areas of the site definitely do not support it. SignatureJeremy | jeremy@exit109.com > Even that site is clear in its preference for the modern form. I agree to some extent, especially if you look at different places within the site. Still, it is relevant to note that the site is indeed implying that omitting the apostrophe is the more modern usage. Whereas folks here have been implying it is the use of apostrophes that is some new-fangled nonsense mucking up centuries of tradition. The truth is more likely the other way around. So if you want to criticize those of us using apostrophes, you'll have to find some basis for it than saying we are watering down the language or any such nonsense. What's interesting as a side note - and why I found this worth following up on at all - is that just days before I was called on my use of apostrophes here, I was also called on it in a paper I'm writing for a graduate-level class in school. That got me curious, because I was sure I had learned in grade school to use apostrophes the way I did, but started wondering if I had simply been misinformed. I hadn't bothered to look it up until the second time it came up, here on this thread. I'm glad I've now looked into the matter some and have some apreciation for the differences exist - even if I still can't understand why some treat this as religious issue. --------------- Marc Sabatella marc@outsideshore.com Music, art, & educational materials Featuring "A Jazz Improvisation Primer" http://www.outsideshore.com/ > Whereas folks here have been implying it is the use of apostrophes that > is some new-fangled nonsense mucking up centuries of tradition. The truth > is more likely the other way around. So if you want to criticize those of > us using apostrophes, you'll have to find some basis for it than saying > we are watering down the language or any such nonsense. The thing is that the misuse of apostrophes is one of the (many) current manifestations of the perceived decline in peoples' communication skills. We see the language butchered beyond belief on the internet and it starts to become distressing. How long do you suppose it will be before someone first argues that "loose" is a proper form of "lose", due to the horrendous number of times people use it that way? (I call it a "perceived" decline because I'm not sure there actually is a decline; it's just that we didn't used to see peoples' written communication so commonly before.) Some changes in language are evolutionary, and some aren't. Not using an apostrophe for plurals is, in my view, as it decreases ambiguity. You could go back not all that far and find that spelling was a matter of opinion; I would hope you agree that moving away from that was a good thing, and that one shouldn't use "but people used to do it that way" as an argument in favor of spelling words any way you feel like. So you have people who actually care about the state of the language, and people like that will tend to react the way you've seen here to what they see as epidemic problems. The rules of language are always a matter of opinion; if you break them, you need to be prepared to defend your usage. Most people aren't at a point in their writing anywhere near where they can do that. SignatureJeremy | jeremy@exit109.com >> Whereas folks here have been implying it is the use of apostrophes that >> is some new-fangled nonsense mucking up centuries of tradition. The [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > communication > so commonly before.) I think the decline is more real than imagined, I see more signs on businesses that have misplaced apostrophes than I can remember seeing before. SignatureSkip Middleton http://www.shadowcatcherimagery.com > I think the decline is more real than imagined, I see more signs on > businesses that have misplaced apostrophes than I can remember seeing > before. Back in the day, if you wanted a sign (or a menu, or a brochure, or whatever), you went to a person who did that. Now, you type it into your computer yourself. So, you're actually seeing written communication from people you weren't seeing it from before. SignatureJeremy | jeremy@exit109.com >> I think the decline is more real than imagined, I see more signs on >> businesses that have misplaced apostrophes than I can remember seeing [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > your computer yourself. So, you're actually seeing written communication > from people you weren't seeing it from before. Ah, yes, I hadn't thought of it that way. Even if you do get it from an outside supplier, you set it up, it goes straight to the supplier's computer, which spits out the finished sign, just as you requested, errors and all... SignatureSkip Middleton http://www.shadowcatcherimagery.com > Ah, yes, I hadn't thought of it that way. Even if you do get it from an > outside supplier, you set it up, it goes straight to the supplier's > computer, which spits out the finished sign, just as you requested, errors > and all... Oh yeah...apostophes where they don't belong, backwards Ns on readerboards, misspelled words...I suppose it's relates to the poor state of public education these days. > Ah, yes, I hadn't thought of it that way. Even if you do get it from an > outside supplier, you set it up, it goes straight to the supplier's > computer, which spits out the finished sign, just as you requested, errors > and all... Yep. That's why I tend to think that it's simply revealing the horrible truth -- peoples' communication skills were *always* that bad. SignatureJeremy | jeremy@exit109.com > The thing is that the misuse of apostrophes is one of the (many) > current > manifestations of the perceived decline in peoples' communication > skills. True enough. But hopefully people are seeing there is a difference between someone writing "JPEG's" because they learned grammar from a legitimate style guide approve that usage, versus people writing "apple's" because. > Some changes in language are evolutionary, and some aren't. Not using > an > apostrophe for plurals is, in my view, as it decreases ambiguity. Eliminates one potential but easily resolved type of ambuity and replaces it with another. Six of one, a half dozen of the other. --------------- Marc Sabatella marc@outsideshore.com Music, art, & educational materials Featuring "A Jazz Improvisation Primer" http://www.outsideshore.com/ > True enough. But hopefully people are seeing there is a difference > between someone writing "JPEG's" because they learned grammar from a > legitimate style guide approve that usage, versus people writing > "apple's" because. All of the style guides that I deal with would use JPEGs, no apostrophe. > All of the style guides that I deal with would use JPEGs, no > apostrophe. That's nice. But it still behooves you to acknowledge that others, such as the OED, exist, and are also legitimate. The only thing worse than someone who, out of ignorance, uses an apostrophoe incorrectly - eg, to pluralize "apple" - is someone who has been made aware that multiple legitimate standards exist and yet continues to criticize others for following one of these standards. --------------- Marc Sabatella marc@outsideshore.com Music, art, & educational materials Featuring "A Jazz Improvisation Primer" http://www.outsideshore.com/ > > All of the style guides that I deal with would use JPEGs, no > > apostrophe. [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > legitimate standards exist and yet continues to criticize others for > following one of these standards. The OED, however, is descriptive, not prescriptive. SignatureDavid Dyer-Bennet, <mailto:dd-b@dd-b.net>, <http://www.dd-b.net/dd-b/> RKBA: <http://noguns-nomoney.com/> <http://www.dd-b.net/carry/> Pics: <http://dd-b.lighthunters.net/> <http://www.dd-b.net/dd-b/SnapshotAlbum/> Dragaera/Steven Brust: <http://dragaera.info/> > I think the most surprising thing of all was the noise ratings of >the Canon Rebel XT versus the Olympus E-500 [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] >800 ISO: Moderately low >1600 ISO: Moderate Why is that surprising? How many reviewers are capable of distinguishing lack of noise from aggressive noise (and image) reduction? Signature<>>< ><<> ><<> <>>< ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<> John P Sheehy <JPS@no.komm> ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<> <>>< ><<> ><<> <>>< What you should realize about PopPhoto is that it never reviewed a product from an advertiser in a negative fashion. Why would it bite the hand that feeds it? That is why there is a high rating for some aspect of every camera in this "round-up." Something for everybody. PopPhoto, any enthusiast magazine, also would not want to offend readers who have plunked down significant chunks of their income on less than stellar gear. I have been reading this magazine for decades and at this point the only part of the magazine that I really enjoy is the Time Capsule. If you were to look up issues from 25 years ago you would find favorable reviews for cameras and lenses that are now recognized as paragons of poor design and manufacture. The most recent example of this would be the PP review of the Nikon 55-200. If this is a worthwhile lens then I guess I have been looking through the wrong end of the camera all these years. > I have been reading this magazine for decades... Why? SignatureStacey >> I have been reading this magazine for decades... > >Why? Perhaps he's a fan of Herbert Keppler. > > I have been reading this magazine for decades... > > Why? Come on Stacey.... You know we all need SOME comedy in our lives.... I read it regularly..its good for as many laughs as theo old "MAD" magazine used to be. Larry Lynch Mystic, CT > In the March 2006 issue; Why do you read this drivel? More to the point -- after reading it, why do you insist on coming here and posting about it? Most of the people in this group know more about photography than anyone at that crappy magazine ever will, and most of us know how seriously their "reviews" deserve to be taken. SignatureJeremy | jeremy@exit109.com >> In the March 2006 issue; > [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >than anyone at that crappy magazine ever will, and most of us know how >seriously their "reviews" deserve to be taken. I'm curious. Do you think the reviews are incompetent or intentionally written to mislead? -Rich > I'm curious. Do you think the reviews are incompetent or > intentionally written to mislead? Both. But more the former. SignatureJeremy | jeremy@exit109.com >> I'm curious. Do you think the reviews are incompetent or >> intentionally written to mislead? > >Both. But more the former. I'm not sure I agree with that. Sometimes I think the more competent they are the *more* they write to mislead... SignatureFloyd L. Davidson http://www.apaflo.com/floyd_davidson Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska) floyd@apaflo.com rebel xt is $750 at B&H: http://www.bhphotovideo.com/bnh/controller/home?O=productlist&A=details&Q=&sku=3 71188&is=REG&addedTroughType=search D50 is $550: http://www.bhphotovideo.com/bnh/controller/home?O=productlist&A=details&Q=&sku=3 81586&is=REG&addedTroughType=search So you can buy D50 and 50mm 1.8 lens (a real charm!) and still be $100 under the price of the xt. Then save for the Nikon 80-200 (or 70-200) lens and you are really in business. I think this is worth considering. Am I wrong? >rebel xt is $750 at B&H: >http://www.bhphotovideo.com/bnh/controller/home?O=productlist&A=details&Q=&sku=3 71188&is=REG&addedTroughType=search [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] >the price of the xt. Then save for the Nikon 80-200 (or 70-200) lens and >you are really in business. I think this is worth considering. Am I wrong? Canon's offering is higher priced than the other cameras. That probably means Canon is pocket a much larger profit per camera than the other companies. No wonder KM bailed, Olympus is in financial hot water, Pentax is....probably going down and Nikon has just started to become financially viable. -Rich |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2009 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.