Talk:Mine Six

Earlier article history

For the earlier history of this article, please see the history of "Takane Mine Six". -- Hoary 11:02, 14 May 2006 (EDT)

Link to a picture

I think that links pointing directly to a picture are too deep, even if the original page is credited. I have rearranged it a little. --Rebollo fr 13:21, 14 May 2006 (EDT)

I wouldn't argue with that. However, we now read for both: you can click on the picture to enlarge it; for one, this is only true if you ask your browser to display the photo. This is typically achieved by right-clicking the photo and choosing the relevant option -- of course impossible with a regular Apple mouse. In other words the article now expects the reader to have at least an elementary ability to use their own browser. In Wikipedia, such an expectation might be decried as "elitist" (groan) or similar. -- Hoary 22:38, 14 May 2006 (EDT)

In both cases my browser (Firefox) opens the image in full size in a separate window, so I did not pay special attention. If you think that the behaviour can differ with other browsers, you can precise it in the link description. Maybe we can exceptionally insert a deep link if the picture is really hard to access for some users, in that case I would tend to put the link to the picture after the main URL, and explain why it is there (I'm leaving it to you because I do not know which one is concerned). --Rebollo fr 05:33, 15 May 2006 (EDT)

Different IIF for export?

We read (well, I wrote): "The Mine Six IIF, introduced in mid-1955, with an S-Kominar lens, was the first to have a coupled rangefinder.."

And that's what the book said.

Today I personally examined something calling itself a Mine Six IIF. It had a coupled rangefinder and a unit-focussing "Deep-C" lens. It came with an English-language manual -- incidentally, from Takane Kōgaku (yes, complete with macron) -- that referred to the Deep-C lens.

This doesn't correspond to the IIF as described here, or to anything else. -- Hoary 23:37, 1 June 2006 (EDT)

Here is a link to a Japanese dealer who sold a Mine Six IIF, with pictures. I have seen a similar camera for sale at a Yahoo Japan auction, with 1/200 top speed instead of 1/300. --Rebollo fr 08:31, 2 June 2006 (EDT)

Yes, that photo shows what I would have expected to see this morning. Another, minor difference: the camera this morning (check your email) has a very decorative sort of metal plate on the outside of the, um, the, what's it called? ... the door that opens so that the lens can pop out. -- Hoary 08:44, 2 June 2006 (EDT)

Bibliography

Maybe we could make only one entry with the book ズノーカメラ誕生, and the two chapters listed in a sub-list. Also, isn't it No 56 of Classic Camera Senka? --Rebollo fr 16:51, 7 June 2006 (EDT)

On the latter: yes, you're right. Sorry about the mistake. And armed with this knowledge, I was able to buy a copy just today. On the former: yes, if you like. I really don't care about it either way, but if you'd like to do it I shan't object.

It's an interesting idea: it reminds me of something I'd been thinking. Rather than either (a) endlessly repeating this bibliographical info about the Asahi Camera ad anthology or (b) endlessly citing a never-explained "McKeown", I wonder if it could be a good idea to have one or more pages for a descriptive, useful bibliography. Thus the entry fore the former might read

*''[[Sources:Japanese#Showa10|Shōwa 10–40nen]]'' Items 912–3, 1619–21.

And in [[Sources:Japanese#Showa10]], something like:

=="Shōwa 10–40nen"==

Asahi Camera (アサヒカメラ) editorial staff. Shōwa 10–40nen kōkoku ni miru kokusan kamera no rekishi (昭和10〜40年広告にみる国産カメラの歴史, Japanese camera history as seen in advertisements, 1935–1965). Tokyo: Asahi Shinbunsha, 1994. ISBN 4-02-330312-7

This large book, now (2006) out of print, blah blah blah. . . .

What do you think? Hoary 07:07, 9 June 2006 (EDT)

It is a good idea. You mention "Sources:Japanese" as a possible title, do you mean 'in Japanese language' or 'about Japanese cameras'? --Rebollo fr 08:22, 9 June 2006 (EDT)

I hadn't thought about it.

I do think it would be a good idea to give bibliographical and other helpful details about a particular source in just one place, if that source is cited very often. (I haven't thought about what "very often" means.) I also think that at the one extreme it's not necessary to have one article per (often-cited) source, and at the other it's not a good idea to have them all in a single page. If a compromise between those two extremes is indeed a better idea, I haven't decided what that compromise might be. If there were one or more pages, I don't know what namespace they should go in -- indeed, I don't even know what namespaces are available. (There's "Camerapedia.org:", of course.) Rather, I was just throwing out an idea in its early stage, to see if there was any interest. -- Hoary 11:02, 9 June 2006 (EDT)