Talk:Konica C35

Part removed

I've just now removed:

The first C35 was also available in black, but I have not seen the later model - presumably because the Auto S3 was avilable solely in this colour and they were trying to differentiate between the cheaper and dearer models.

There are two problems. First, "I" is meaningless in Camerapedia. Secondly, even if "I" were rewritten as "no editor of Camerapedia" -- which I don't recommend at all, but which would make a little more sense in itself -- I regret to say that I wouldn't understand what the resulting sentence meant. -- Hoary 10:58, 2 September 2006 (EDT)

Could you please not re-edit until I have finished - I now appear to have lost half the article.

I was trying to put the whole series in KOnica perspective and I appear to have lost 50% of my work!

I suggest in future awaiting at least an hour before editing something that you think is in process.

Minor revisions are not really that important!

Paul

It is a problem when two people are working on an article at the same time. To avoid this, I sometimes add Work in Progress at the top of the page when I am heavily editing a long article. However, even when an editing conflict occurs, you don't lose your article completely: two windows appear, one with the text newly edited by the other contributor and another one (that appears only if you scroll down) with your text. You can cut and paste your text (second window) into the page (first window) and click "Apply". --Rebollo fr 13:16, 2 September 2006 (EDT)

Yes I saw that, but somehow my last two sections seemed to have gone! So I did them again.

I actually did what you suggested the second time and put "editing in progress as a heading!

He disgreed with a lot of my comments and on the whole I agree with him and have amended my text. However he was not totally right about everything and I think a reasoned discussion here is better than a public disagreement on the page!

Oh yes, thanks for that titling help - have used that code ever since.

Do you agree about discontinuing the individual Konica C35 model pages and having a collective one. As the site is so sparse, I think a bit of "concentration" would help make it a better place to browse - long lists of models are just not something that captivate an audience!

Paul

Yes, please merge all of them into a single page, see my comments in Talk:Konica C35 Series. I suggest "Konica C35" as a title.

I'm not sure that leaving a post on the talk page is very different from directly editing and leaving comments in the page itself. A comment on the talk page is visible "forever", and leaves a public record of the disagreement, while an SGML comment inserted in the page itself is invisible except to the editors of the page and disappears sooner.

--Rebollo fr 13:37, 2 September 2006 (EDT)

URGENT MESSAGE for Rebello - posted on both Konica C35 pages!

Some confusion here - in the editing conflict situation something funny happened to this page. So I started again, called it Konica C35 series and linked to it on the index page.

http://www.camerapedia.org/wiki/Konica_C35_Series This is the correct one.

http://www.camerapedia.org/wiki/Konica_C35 This one now is obsolete and I have deleted the contents. The C35v was a stub anyway and had no content, bar one line!

Can you sort the mess I have created please?

Sorry to burst in here and wreck the joint!

Paul

Comments moved from the talk page of "Konica C35 Series"

I have added this page and replaced the C35V and C35 E & L page

It seems to make sense to have an overview.

As the Automatic is only a perforation variety (a badge & Flashmatic control), it probably makes no sense to have a separate page for it.

The Auto S3/ RD was built on the same chassis as the simpler models. The only difference was a a new shutter/lens assembly. A separate page is in existance for this camera, so probably best to leave it "as is" I have added the spec & photo to show viewers that it is simply a member of the same family. A glance at the illustrations here will demonstrate how close it actually was: http://homepage1.nifty.com/fukucame/c35fd.htm It obviously started life with an identical top, but bearing in mind the huge price differential over the f2.8 C35, importers obviously requested a colour & name change so they could market it as an "upmarket" version.

This page has given rise to an editing conflict with Hoary and I lost half my work as he was editing it at the same time! I suggest respectfully, that in future we do not edit each other's pages until a reasonable period has elapsed - 1 day? I take Hoary's comments as being correct about Cosina not making the C35 - on reflection it was the Auto S3/Revue 400/Minolta Hi Matic Series ll that were identical "under the bonnet"

However my comments were based on some evidence of this - an article claiming this is true here:http://www.mattdentonphoto.com/cameras/gaf_memo35.html

The problem with the Wiki system is that it can so easily degenerate into a series of conflicting edits. With so few contributors to this project, it seems best that we each "get on with it" and make helpful comments on the discussion pages for each article.

Paul

See my comment in Talk:Konica C35 about editing conflicts. --Rebollo fr 13:25, 2 September 2006 (EDT)

Title of the page

I suggest Konica C35 as a title, with redirects from Konica C35 V and others. We can have all the models listed in the Konica page, all of them linked to Konica C35. --Rebollo fr 13:25, 2 September 2006 (EDT)

I also think that this page absolutely needs to be merged with Konica C35 Automatic. --Rebollo fr 13:28, 2 September 2006 (EDT)

URGENT MESSAGE for Rebollo - posted on both Konica C35 pages!

Some confusion here - in the editing conflict situation something funny happened to this page. So I started again, called it Konica C35 series and linked to it from the main index page.

http://www.camerapedia.org/wiki/Konica_C35_Series This is the correct one.

http://www.camerapedia.org/wiki/Konica_C35 This one now is obsolete and I have deleted the contents. The C35v was a stub anyway and had no content, bar one line!

Can you sort the mess I have created please?

Sorry to burst in here and wreck the joint!

Paul

I am now in the process of adding the C35 Automatic to the contents of this page, so that will be another one to delete shortly!

You can quietly work on the Konica C35 Series page to finish your edits. I will sort out the things later, moving everything to Konica C35 and making the corresponding redirects. --Rebollo fr 13:48, 2 September 2006 (EDT)

I have now finished and await retribution for my statements from Hoary!

I have added the picture and some points from the C35 automatic page.

I leave it in your cabable hands to sort the links from the main page and to get rid of the now surplus C35v and C35 Automatic pages.

I know its created a bit of turmoil for you to sort out, but are you OK with the two pages I have had a go at? If you are, I'll come back in about a month with a couple of fresh articles.

Thanks for your help. I'll try and behave better in future!

Paul

Not retribution, just regret and puzzlement. I'm sorry if (or so far as) you didn't like my edits. Any or all of these were (are) reversible, of course. But I'm puzzled when I tentatively infer that you think that, deliberately or accidentally, I wiped out a substantial percentage of the article. Here are my changes; I don't think I destroyed anything significant. (I did move a sentence or two to the talk page, but I noted this in an edit summary.) -- Hoary 18:29, 2 September 2006 (EDT)

Hoary,

You didn't wipe it out - I had a "unable to update - other update in progress note" "Odd I thought" Then I pressed "save page" again and from that point I honestly don't know what happened, but when it was all over I had half a page - your modifications had vanished and so had the second half of my text. I was not best pleased! I was really sounding off about you modifying it before I finished. In the end I posted a "Do not disturb" notice! I think that's what I will do in future because I try and shape the material then do the detailed edits afterwards. Just being a bit "Grumpy" as a result of loss of my work - sorry. It happens when Man & machine are not not in "perfect harmony!" (Can't remember the make of car that advertised!)

Paul

Ah, I'm with you now. Not being able to save because somebody else has edited the page is something that has happened to me, and it certainly is irritating. If I've made minor changes, I just prepare to make them again: I go back to the original article, refresh the page, and re-edit if appropriate. If on the other hand I've put more time into it than I want to spend a second time, I go through the following rigmarole:

1. Hit the browser's "back" button to return to my editing page.
2. Open a second window, showing the new page (which I refresh if needed).
3. Open a third window, duplicating the second window.
4. In one of these two new windows, click "history" and then look at the difference between (a) the last edit before my attempted edit and (b) the most recent version.
5. In the other new window, choose to edit the page.
6. Select the entire content of the latest version of the page, and delete it. Select the entire content of my attempted rewrite of the page, copy it to the clipboard, and paste it to the newly opened edit page. (Don't save yet; doing so is very likely to cause offense to at least one other editor.)
7. Examine the "diff" display. Consider the merits of the edits put in by the other editor(s), and adjust the draft accordingly. Preview, make any necessary changes, and only now save.
8. Close the other two windows (or of course use them for quite different purposes) before one or other of them confuses me. -- Hoary 20:24, 2 September 2006 (EDT)

Merge with Konica Auto S3

There is already a standalone Konica Auto S3 page, that is largely a duplicate of Vivitar 35ES, Revue 400SE and Minolta Hi-Matic 7sII. I don't like this awful number of duplicates, and I don't like either the idea to have various Minolta Hi-Matic pages, especially when they look like Minolta Hi-Matic 9. We'll have to clear that mess. --Rebollo fr 09:22, 3 September 2006 (EDT)

Well, the Konica Auto S3 (export name) is the same as the Konica C35FD (domestic name), so some rearrangement is certainly necessary. -- Hoary 09:52, 3 September 2006 (EDT)

What was new, and what appealed?

We read:

It could be said that Konishiroku was a follower of fashion and that it merely "took up the baton" of the earlier 60's Minoltina and Olympus Trip 35. If you look at the competitors, the importance and influence of the Konica C35 is clear to see - they have coupled rangefinders, a programmed shutter, and a CdS cell mounted in the lens housing, and they measure around 115mm wide by 80mm wide.

I'm puzzled. Was Konishiroku following fashion, setting fashion, or doing a bit of both? Is it that the C35 was innovative in some ways and conformist in others, or that it accelerated trends that had already started? I don't know enough about this period to say, and right I lack the stamina to do the reading to find out (I have a lot of things to do before crossing Asia three days from now). Still, I can see that some things are odd: for example, the implication that the Konica C35 influenced other cameras via its coupled rangefinder (for over a decade, a very large percentage of leaf-shutter 35mm cameras had had rangefinders, and all of these were coupled) or its through-any-filter CdS cell (which came in with the Minolta Hi-Matic 7 in 1963).

However, its appeal was obvious from its 1968 launch - it was compact, light and a simple to use camera that took good photographs because it could be focused accurately and had an excellent lens.

Well, yes. (As long as you don't ask the dumbed-down population of today about the "ease of use" of a camera that [gasp] requires you to focus its lens. That's de-evolution!) But many cameras of 1968 were simple to use (with respect to the higher intelligence of that era) and accurately focusable and had excellent lenses. My guess is that it was the combination of these, plus compactness, plus the wide-angle lens: of course 35mm lenses had appeared on other leaf-shutter and even rangefinder cameras, but these were unusual. -- Hoary 09:52, 3 September 2006 (EDT)