Wiki Author Disses Film Cameras...

ic-racer · Jul 4, 2011

I suspect this uninformed, editorialism goes on all the time on the Wiki...

From the "Cosina" Wiki with reference to 35mm cameras:

As all these cameras use the defunct film technology, most of these will be bought as collector's items rather than for actual use

E76 · Jul 4, 2011

I suggest you edit the article and remove that line. I doubt there is anyway to prove that the cameras will merely be collected as opposed to used.

semi-ambivalent · Jul 4, 2011

ic-racer said:
I suspect this uninformed, editorialism goes on all the time on the Wiki...

From the "Cosina" Wiki with reference to 35mm cameras:

Ooohhh, a wiki. Look at the shiny DSLR...

Matthew Rusbarsky · Jul 4, 2011

It would be difficult to name a camera company more dedicated to film than Cosina. The Voigtlander line seems to be a labor of love for Mr. Hirofumi.

fstop · Jul 4, 2011

E76 said:
I suggest you edit the article and remove that line. I doubt there is anyway to prove that the cameras will merely be collected as opposed to used.

They said Most not all, I'd say thats a fair assement.I don't need both black and chrome versions of 12 different models, some are just to look at.But I disagree with the term "defunct", film is still alive and being used every day.

dreamingartemis · Jul 4, 2011

ic-racer said:
I suspect this uninformed, editorialism goes on all the time on the Wiki...

From the "Cosina" Wiki with reference to 35mm cameras:

I wouldn't actually look at wiki as a great source of information. Look at how extensive it's article is for imaginary cartoon characters like say Optimus Prime?

perkeleellinen · Jul 4, 2011

I'm a recovering wikipedia editor. I used to write quite a few articles there and maintain many more (all around skateboarding).

It was hell and I now avoid wikipedia at all costs so I don't get dragged back in. Most of my time was spent reverting vandalism (which interestingly always seemed to come from US schools) and battling other users who resented anyone trying to improve 'their' articles.

This sums up the wikipedia editing experience perfectly:
http://www.informationisbeautiful.net/visualizations/wikipedia-lamest-edit-wars/

Ian Grant · Jul 4, 2011

polyglot · Jul 4, 2011

Street preacher announces end of world, film at 11!

Jesper · Jul 4, 2011

I'm not even sure that I agree with the "most of these will be bought as collector's items rather than for actual use" part (and I most certainly don't agree with the "defunct" part).
Whenever I buy another camera I always do it with the intent of using it and not as a collectible. Maybe I don't use it very much but that doesn't mean that it is part of a collection.

How about the rest of you?
Don't you buy cameras with the intention of using them rather than something for your collection?

Ian Grant · Jul 4, 2011

As all these cameras use the defunct film technology, most of these will be bought as collector's items rather than for actual use. Conversely, the market gap for DSLR or EVIL bodies to handle SLR lenses with classical mounts such as M42 seems as yet not to have gained the attention of Cosina.

All these cameras use film showing Cosina's unique position in the market filling the gap in demand for high quality film cameras and support a technology that is still evolving.

ic-racer · Jul 4, 2011

I don't know how to edit it. I'm not sure I want to get involved with making and correcting wikis at this point. Rather share info on this forum.

This does bring up a 'lounge topic' in that I think we are heading for a new Dark Ages. Since info will be obtained from the 'net' and the main search engine is corrupt and the wikipedia is not formally peer-reviewed, society will keep geting farther and farther from the truth on many topics. Hip culture gurus favor connectivity over knowledge and truth. The Evolution Wiki will dispose with that 'obsolete' theory and the Creation Wiki will be resplendent with digitally-created, documentary style news 'photographs' detailing all 7 days of the process...

polyglot · Jul 4, 2011

I occasionally get grumpy about a new dark ages, what with how obvious it is becoming how much disinformation there is out there, and the easy access we have to it. However, while disinformation and stupidity is all too readily accessible, access to good information is easy and reliable in a way that humanity has never had. If you go back even a couple of decades, people had only two or three trusted sources of information (radio, TV, newspapers) and if you go back a century that becomes only one. We know how much malign editorial influence newspaper/media owners (Hearst, Murdoch, etc) wield and yet for most of the western population, broadcast media has been their only real source of information, and that was considered fine.

In other words, one needs to be media-savvy. At least one now actually has the opportunity to be media-savvy, consider one's sources and find alternatives.

Paul VanAudenhove · Jul 4, 2011

I think the issue is really about how we have become accustomed to finding and using information. If we are content to just look up an answer vs learning how to arrive at an answer, that opens the door to blindly accepting any answer as 'the truth.' Gone are the days of verifying information - we now value speed over accuracy.

Polyglot has it right - we need to be media/information savvy. For me that means three basic questions: What's the source; Is the source reliable and Is it independently verifiable?

Ian Grant · Jul 4, 2011

Same anonymous contributor writes on Seagull cameras "As of 2011, there seems to be no effort in moving into the field of comparable digital cameras."

Ian

benjiboy · Jul 4, 2011

Much as I hate the fact to be realistic about it as far as the photographic manufacturing industry is concerned in terms of market share, and making a profit in the middle of a World recession making film cameras when there are so many on the second hand market that can be bought so cheaply is a dead duck.

ic-racer · Jul 4, 2011

benjiboy said:
Much as I hate the fact to be realistic about it as far as the photographic manufacturing industry is concerned in terms of market share, and making a profit in the middle of a World recession making film cameras when there are so many on the second hand market that can be bought so cheaply is a dead duck.

I'm not sure I agree because the current film cameras in production are NOT bought cheaply on the used market. Used M7? Used RolleiFW? Used Cosina R4M? Used F6? They are not bought so cheaply, otherwise I'd have one of each!

benjiboy · Jul 4, 2011

ic-racer said:
I'm not sure I agree because the current film cameras in production are NOT bought cheaply on the used market. Used M7? Used RolleiFW? Used Cosina R4M? Used F6? They are not bought so cheaply, otherwise I'd have one of each!

They are cheap relative to the cost of new top of the range digital cameras.

fstop · Jul 4, 2011

Jesper said:
I'm not even sure that I agree with the "most of these will be bought as collector's items rather than for actual use" part (and I most certainly don't agree with the "defunct" part).
Whenever I buy another camera I always do it with the intent of using it and not as a collectible. Maybe I don't use it very much but that doesn't mean that it is part of a collection.

How about the rest of you?
Don't you buy cameras with the intention of using them rather than something for your collection?

I buy to use, collect and for parts.
Out of the 20+ SLRs I own there are 4 or 5 that I use regularly, others occasionally, some are just to have, a couple are awaiting repair so they can be used, a couple are for parts.
I see nothing wrong with collecting cameras just for the purpose of having them.There are literally millions of SLRs out there that need a home,if it is in working condition I probably would pull it out and shoot it occasionally.

Monito · Jul 4, 2011

ic-racer said:
I suspect this uninformed, editorialism goes on all the time on the Wiki... From the "Cosina" Wiki with reference to 35mm cameras:

It's not "the Wiki", it's Wikipedia. It's not the Cosina Wiki, it's the Cosina article.

Ian Grant said:
As all these cameras use the defunct film technology, most of these will be bought as collector's items rather than for actual use. Conversely, the market gap for DSLR or EVIL bodies to handle SLR lenses with classical mounts such as M42 seems as yet not to have gained the attention of Cosina.

All these cameras use film showing Cosina's unique position in the market filling the gap in demand for high quality film cameras and support a technology that is still evolving.

Nicely written. Saves me the effort of making a very similar change. Thanks.

Ian Grant · Jul 4, 2011

The contributor has only made 2 anonymous posts both anti film. Says a lot really

Ian

ic-racer · Jul 4, 2011

Monito said:
It's not "the Wiki", it's Wikipedia. It's not the Cosina Wiki, it's the Cosina article.

??
Cosina Wiki [article] is implied... what else would it be.
Quote from Wikipedia:

A wiki is a website that allows the creation and editing of any number of interlinked web pages via a web browser using a simplified markup language or a

fstop · Jul 4, 2011

Monito said:
It's not "the Wiki", it's Wikipedia. It's not the Cosina Wiki, it's the Cosina article.

Nicely written. Saves me the effort of making a very similar change. Thanks.

heres a good wiki

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anal_retentive

Pumalite · Jul 4, 2011

As far as I know; I use all my cameras. They are all in working order and have a pretty good sense that most in Apug do the same. I have no problems finding film.

Monito · Jul 4, 2011

Folks, relax. Last I looked, photography, and perhaps especially analogue photography, is a detail-oriented discipline.

There are many Wikis. Based on the OP's post, I didn't know whether to look at the Camerapedia Wiki or the Wikipedia Wiki, or the alternate to Camerapedia. There are others (I didn't feel a need to check the Leica wiki, for example). It turned out to be on Wikipedia. Wikis are composed of articles, just as websites are composed of pages and forums have threads which have posts. A page is not a site. Similarly an article is not a wiki.

So specifying "Wikipedia" was useful, hopefully, for some. For others, it seems that Wikipedia is the only Wiki they are aware of. Which is ok. Perhaps learning that there are others is ok too. Perhaps even letting people know that there are others is ok too.

I used all neutral words (please reread my post). Gosh. I didn't know that Wikis were such an emotionally charged topic on APUG. I did not use any pejorative terms, but I can now that a poster has set the tone. So, please, unclench your obsessive focus on sphincters and realize that if a person provides details, it may or may not be a criticism, and if it is a criticism it is probably constructive, in which case perhaps relaxed people are willing and able to accept a little constructive criticism.

So, did I do wrong to post neutral information in an APUG forum?

Wiki Author Disses Film Cameras...

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency