"meters or feet?" survey

Meter - frequently.

What's a meter?

2) meters, absolutely! It's fun how even in the internet age different systems survive, regardless of all efforts to set a common standard :o) BTW, I'm lost with distances in feet or temperature in fahrenheit. I remember when filling up a car in the US, I was (and still am) totallly clueless how many gasoline I poured in it. Gallons, hummmmm.. Sometimes inconvenient, but also part of the fun when visiting other countries.

Hi Lutz, If this new 'goody' is going to close focus, then I prefer feet, so #3, I guess. Using fractions or decimals is more difficult to do quickly, I think.

 

Al, refering to the U.S.' aborted attempt to adopt the metric system back in the 70's, I've met more than one Canadian who believed that once they adopted it, we abandoned it on purpose just to 'trick' them!

Meters!

Lutz. I use hyperfocal distiance settings for certain wide angle photographs (mostly with my 21/3.4 Super-Angulon for M), and I need the distance scale to gauge DOF, but either feet or meters would be OK, so I guess the answer would be #4. Meters have been around long enough so that if the USA switched to the metric system I don't think people would go into culture shock. :-)

 

However, I'm not sure why you are asking this. You know the history of Leica is that since the early 1930s they have made lenses with either M or ft scales, but not both, until 1958 or so, when all subsequent lenses had both scales. It was just easier for Leica not to have to prepare separately engraved barrels for different countries. The dual scale policy will not change any time soon, unless and until the metric system is accepted universally by every country in the world.

Vier

I prefer having both. So count me in as #1.

I'd vote for having both, as well - it is often a huge convenience.

3) Feet. The only way I can deal with meters is to convert them to feet. I'd have no conception of how far 3 meters are until I convert it and realize it's just a shade under 10 feet. I would expect this would apply to a great majority of us who grew up in the USA.

I'm with Dale.

I need a distance scale on my lenses. I can work comfortably in

either, but prefer metric. I am American, and grew up here, but

having been in grade school on the 70's and 80's, I got enough

of Carter-backed metric schooling to want to join the rest of the

world. It's time to ditch the Imperial System- it makes no sense.

Proof? How many feet in a mile? And why 12 inches in a foot- it

makes no sense, if you think about it.

 

Lutz, since you posted results, loads of folks have chimed in to

support the metric system. I suspect that the early numbers had

to do with the time- it's been afternoon and evening everywhere

in the US, and that may skew the numbers. Wait 24 hours and

then tally- of course by then the post may be far enough down

that many will miss it- but anyway, let's ditch the imperial system,

go metric, and get with the rest of the world. Someone kick away

my soap box.

If I have a choice, I invariably select metric camera, but feet

is ok too, not first choice.

I'd go with #1. I prefer both, but can live with either. Most my landscape shots are done using hyperfocal infinity settings, so whether it's feet or metres doesn't really matter. Most of us in the USA, I think, are much more comfortable with traditional measurements, buit it's not hard to relate to metric if you think in terms of what you already know. We all know what a 39mm filter looks like and that the negative size of 24 x 36mm closely corresponds to l x l 1/2 inches, and so on. If the measurements are crucial, make sure you're consistent. NASA routinely uses both systems, e.g. distance and altitude are expressed in terms of nautical miles (1 naumi. = 6,072.12 ft. = 1852 metres), speed in feet per second, but then they use metres when referring to topographic features on another planet, etc. Everyone remember when one of NASA's planetary probes crashed on Mars because the technicians programmed the guidance in metric units when it should have been in traditional units? A multi-million-dollar screw-up. Anyhow, what does Lutz need this info for anyway? Hope he'll fill us in.

Real metric (meters), not feet or "translated" feet. E.G 0.25, 0.50 etc m. instead of 0.33, 0.66, 0.99 etc m. You know what I mean, I hope.

 

Hans B.

First choice, cubits.

 

First alternate, #4 followed by #2.

I prefer both (1), which I think is best if practically possible for whatever gizmo you're developing. I think John Fulton made a good statement, which I agree with.... Next I would prefer feet, however I could use either feet or meters.

It's 9 degrees Fahrenheit here (Rhode Island), that's minus 14 degrees Celsius for the Meter folk. Too cold for taking a camera out long enough to see either scale!

bitte meter (please)

I will say number2.But number 1 is allrigh also because in Canada it was feet in my parent day and when i was little.

Meter (2). Can you imagine if our monetary system did not follow the decimal system?

Number 3--which I suppose shows I'm odd man out. I, like most of my generation of Americans, think in feet. Of course I can convert from meters, but why add a mental step to the process when there are other things to think about?

 

Number 1 is OK, however.