Mis-information on the Forum

Discussion in 'Large Format' started by jeffrey_scott, Dec 2, 2002.

  1. Is it just me or do others on this forum find the wrong information
    being given out in response to members inquiries? Recently somebody
    posted a thread about tele lenses and one repsonse to it was in
    regard to Nikkor Tele lenses saying that beyond the 500T which is in
    a #1 shutter the longer focal lengths use a #3 shutter. NOT true, go
    directly to jail and hand in your sopt meter for 10 days! In fact
    the Nikkor 720T is in the very same #1 shutter as the 500T; the
    lenses share the same front cell and shutter, only the rear cell is
    exchanged to change focal lengths. As a matter of fact even the 360T
    shares the same front cell and shutter. This also applies to the
    600/800/1200T combination , but in this case the same front cell is
    in a # 3 shutter and you change the rear cell again to change focal
    lengths.

    Please folks, get your fact straight. This only creates confusion,
    especially for the newbies. If you aren't sure of an answer say so,
    perhaps by saying "as far as I know", "correct me if I am wrong",
    etc. This forum is a great means of helping our fellow LFers out
    there but the wrong info doesn't really help. If you think I am
    wrong about this please say so, I just feel this is a rather
    important point about any forum that gathers and disseminates
    knowledge for the betterment of it's members. Thanks for your eyes.
     
  2. I haven't noticed a large amount of mis-information. I'm sure it's bound to turn up now and then. I try to keep my comments to things I feel sure about or state it as "from what I understand or from what I hear" or something to that affect. Something to clue the reader into the fact that this statement isn't written in stone. I think most folks around hear try and do the same.
     
  3. yes,

    i no longer offer info on lenses i used to own. seems hindsight goes the way of eyesight.

    hand my my walkin' stick there sonny,

    me
     
  4. As a general rule of thumb, I take the data presented in this forum as a starting point to be independently verified. Determining which shutter a lens is in is a hard number. So is a filter size for a particular lens - no problem.

    However, when one wants to extract "soft" number from a contributor such as experienced coverage for a lens over a format or other personal reference points, you need to carefully look at the person providing the information and their working reputation and take it for the accuracy for which it is presented. Certain people have been considerably helpful in this venue to me and others and hopefully will continue to do so. Folks like Kerry Thalman, Brian Ellis, Robert Zeicher, Dan Smith, Tillman Crane, Michael Smith, Nathan Congdon and Sandy King among many others have been very gracious in sharing their immense knowledge even though the same basket of questions continue to be asked by many that are coming to this forum for the first time.

    Use the information resented here as a starting point to kick you up the learning curve a bit, nothing more and you will be more than pleased at the process. Don't take a bad post as the end of it. Make the correction and move on. Hell, Even a daily newspaper needs to be put through a content filter to normalize the bias to the right or to the left. Have a Good One!
     
  5. You are now the official, anointed LF forum proofreader, Jeffrey. Please keep us straight.
     
  6. I very much doubt that people give advice that they know to be false. People's memory fails them (I know mine does - far too often for comfort!). I, like many, many others, have found this forum to be a hugely informative resourse (despite all the bad mannered responses and pointless insults that some posts seem to have engendered in recent months - but that is a thread of a different colour).

    The good point about the forum is that if one person makes an error, someone with a better memory (or access to better information) can pop up and set the record straight - as you have just done re' the Nikkor Tele's (tho' if Nikon had the data on their website, that would be best... but that is a thread of a VERY different colour :) ).

    Cheers, Bob.
     
  7. Jeffrey, this is a discussion forum. It is not designed to be a source of scientific statistical data. When someone asks for specific data, they are usually referred to a website, or a publication. There are language and cultural differences among the contributors here. It is difficult to put thoughts and ideas down in writing. Typos and inadvertant statements are sometimes made. Nobody is trying to mis-lead or mis-inform you. It's your responsibility to read the entire thread (sometimes, more than once). Then, follow up with your own research on the subject.
     
  8. Misinformation? On the INTERNET?!
     
  9. Several times both posters are correct; because there are two variants or models of a lenes; and each poster only has knowledge of the one he has used before..........

    We used expired Tri-X sheet film as kids that was donated by a government agency.Its expiration date was in the late 1940's...........On this board; and another new film group board; it is mentioned that tri-X was introduced in 1954 or 1956; and link this to a Kodak history website. My 1946 Kodak Data book has several pages on the characterisics of Kodak Tri-x in sheet film; with development data with DK-60.......The asa is 200 daylight; and 160 tungsten.........So here we have two internet photo boards; and a kodak website giving a mid 1950's TRI-X introduction; which disagrees with KODAK's own paper copy databook of 1946; and my free film we used as kids

    Kodak had sheet film TRI-X in 1946; and that is a fact........The 1950's date is probably a date for amateur TRI-x in roll film; and this fact has gotten TWISTED to include all tri-x..............
     
  10. Mea culpa, mea culpa! (if it's not me you're talking about I'll take the blame anyway, good enough?) There are a great many things I do not know, and I'm pretty good about being clear about that, but this was not one of them -- I spaced out on this one. Moral: don't engage mouth before thinking 3ce. Observation: that's not the last time it's going to happen to me! Observation 2: by implication you never have lapses -- glad to hear SOMEONE doesn't, cuz I sure do! I second Alec Jones on this.
     
  11. Jeff; I have noted that the word "tele" gets used both ways on this board; and sometimes adds to confusion of a reasonable dialog.<BR><BR>

    "tele" in optical design is a shorter mechanical length lens; than a standard lens design. Also "tele" may mean a focal length longer than the normal focal length for a film format. <BR><BR>

    Also the term "tele"-"LensBrandIown-ar" is engraved on some 35mm camera format and others; when the lens is not a "telephoto compact lens formula". <BR><BR>In Marketing of lenses; several slightly different variants may exist; each were sold to different specialized industries..........I have seen several statements that a lens was never made in shutter; when I used the same lens with a built in factory leaf shutter on a graphics arts camera for a decade...<BR><BR>Spec sheets many times have errors. <BR><BR>Sometimes one will read the statement that "all Kodak Ektars have 4 elements" ; Here the "all" should be replaced with "alot"....Ektar is the quality lens line of Kodak; and has nothing to do with the number of elements the lens has...........
     
  12. Jeffrey

    As lawyers and doctors say, free advice is worth exactly wat you pay for it.

    On the Internet it is user beware!!!

    If you make a critical decision based solely on what you read on a public forum, be prepared to take sole responsibility for the consequences. There are few garantees in life: only options.

    BTW. I have some special film - ISO 25 000, same grain as Tech Pan
    with a 20 stop range- $50 a roll special today for you only.

    Cheers
     
  13. I'll take a 100 rolls Richard...COD
    Thanks
     
  14. I have a 35-450/f4.5-128 zoom lens that is mounted in a Copalurpronilex #1-5 shutter that requires a Sears Diehard battery to run the fully mechanical shutter speeds if any body is interested. It's image circle is 123mm but guaranteed to fully cover 12x20 when stopped down to f9 with very generous room for movement. It comes complete with an underwater housing for a Cirkut camera. Any takers?????????????? :)
     

Share This Page