| T O P I C R E V I E W |
| Vlad |
Posted - Dec 27 2009 : 2:43:52 PM
Okynek,
thanks for addition, I've moved it to Lenses and Optics -> Movie camera lens |
| 15 L A T E S T R E P L I E S (Newest First) |
| Vlad |
Posted - Dec 30 2009 : 09:28:59 AM
sure. I'll try to do this today. Thanks! |
| okynek |
Posted - Dec 30 2009 : 09:24:16 AM
I like this. Only ZM need to be added too.
Any objections?
|
| Vlad |
Posted - Dec 29 2009 : 11:11:36 PM
Maybe make "Mirror lenses (MTO / Rubinar)" category?  .
Vlad. |
| okynek |
Posted - Dec 29 2009 : 10:08:04 PM
Also I believe that MTO, ZM, and Rubinar have to much in common. It's hard to separate them in different categories. But to keep them together would not be right too. Dilemma... |
| okynek |
Posted - Dec 29 2009 : 10:04:44 PM
Unfortunately I'm not expert in lenses as well. 
So far we have 3 entries for Russar in Wiki. Could it be more? Are all of them the same? I do not know.... |
| Vlad |
Posted - Dec 29 2009 : 4:09:47 PM
I think there's only one Russar right? if there is just one or two of such lenses they can be in "Other" but if there are 3 or more, we'll need a category for them.. so which ones do you think we need to add (keeping in mind future additions?) Sorry I am not a lens expert as Zoom already found out , so I'm relying on you guys to give me a list of categories to make... |
| okynek |
Posted - Dec 29 2009 : 4:01:14 PM
Yes, with lenses it's a tuff call. Whatever way to go it always some objections.
If go by brand name then MTO, ZM, and Rubinar will be in different places. If go by manufactory then we’ll get many entries for, let say, Jupiter 11. If you go by focal length then problems with formats: what is normal for medium format is tele for 35mm cameras. And in any case it will be problems with search.
And a lot of lenses were made for special use. Where to put them?
So I guess we can live it as is, maybe just need to add few more categories for Rubinar, MTO, ZM, Russar?.
Any other ideas?
|
| Vlad |
Posted - Dec 29 2009 : 09:51:05 AM
LOL that shows you how much I know about lenses  . I will rely on other members here to help me come up with logical divisions..
Nathan, makes sense.. maybe what we had then by name like "jupiter" "Mir" etc made sense after all.. we just need to refine it a little? Okynek what do you think? Doing it my length maybe hard to navigate.. If I for example am looking for Jupiter 12 I am unsure what length it may be to I would not know where to go unless I use search... it's a pickle... |
| Zoom |
Posted - Dec 29 2009 : 09:29:03 AM
quote:
Originally posted by Vlad
for example Rubinar should probably be in KMZ -> MTO.
KMZ didn't produce Rubinars... |
| nathandayton |
Posted - Dec 28 2009 : 6:54:34 PM
We have a problem here if we try to list lenses by manufacturer. Many were produced by more than one manufacturer. In fact most were produced initially by KMZ and then manufacture was transfered to another plant. |
| okynek |
Posted - Dec 28 2009 : 11:09:51 AM
Let try by manufactories.
It’s just much more lens manufactories then camera factories.
Also Vlad how is work "Create a relationship with another entry in catalog" fixture?
It seems that some links disappearing overtime. Can one item be linked to many? Can many items link to one? Or it has to be one-to-one relationship?
|
| Vlad |
Posted - Dec 28 2009 : 09:33:49 AM
Well, with lenses, we should stick to the same type of categorization I think as the cameras. By manufacturer and name. Or just name as it is now.. if we're gonna go manufacturer route, we should probably do KMZ -> Helios, KMZ -> Mir etc... I'd prefer not to do length because that's not how cameras are categorized (talking about format).
for example Rubinar should probably be in KMZ -> MTO. Also Still camera and Movie camera lenses should be in different sections completely, just like cameras...
I agree if there is too many lenses in "Other" section it's time to create some more specific categories...
Vlad. |
| okynek |
Posted - Dec 28 2009 : 09:19:16 AM
I was looking on Lenses category in Wiki and it seems to me that "Other" category has as much entries as the rest of the categories combined.
May be we needed to rethink how to sort the lenses?
Some ideas are sort them by focal length: wide, normal, portrait, tele; or sort them by film what they are made for: 16mm, 35mm, 60mm, plates? Other ideas?
Also question how better call lenses to be able to find them in Wiki easier? For example in manuals lens called "MS Rubinar 8/500 Macro", but more understandable name of this entry would be "Rubinar 500mm".
Should we stick with official name from manuals, or use more common-"street" name of the lens?
Why is this important, because it affect the order in which lenses shown in catalog, and consequentially how easy will it be to use it.
|
| Vlad |
Posted - Dec 27 2009 : 4:59:41 PM
I'm all for it, I'll be creating some new categories soon, so give me a list of ones you think should be added. That kind of goes for everyone, let me know please.
Vlad |
| okynek |
Posted - Dec 27 2009 : 3:00:36 PM
Thank you Vlad, I had hard time to find right place where to put this set.
Also I think we need to make more categories for the lenses. We have a lot of mirror lenses like MTO, Rubinar, and others. May be we can put them all together? |
