User talk:Hoary/Archive 01

Fujica medium formats

I like very much your Fujica G690 page. If the other medium format Fuji cameras are already on your todo list, I would be interested to hear something about the Fujica G645. I know very few things about it and it seems that you have the proper documentation to make something interesting. (I'm not giving you instructions, just saying that I'm personally more interested by the G645 than by the later generation of 6×7 and 6×9. You can ignore this post if you don't plan to write about the other Fuji MF cameras.) --Rebollo fr 04:24, 13 June 2006 (EDT)

Thank you for the flattery! There's more to be done on Fujica G690 and its close successors, and then it would be pretty easy to write up their fixed-lens 6x7, 6x8 and 6x9 successors. I'd been vaguely intending to do this, plus more on the Fujipet (of which there are two more models) and also a page about the Super Fujica Six. But I don't have much depth of information on any but the 6x7—6x9 models. Still, what little I have sufficed for Fujica Six, so I suppose that yes, I can do the others as well. Not all that soon, perhaps.

I must get around to providing some (legitimate) photos of some of these, too. I already have my own photos of the Super Fujica Six, and I can easily photograph a Fujica Six and a Fujica G690 BL. -- Hoary 04:51, 13 June 2006 (EDT)

I was seriously meaning it! For example the G690 descending from the Combat Graphic is a funny story. So it's a grandson of the Contax II! It should have been called "Texas Contax" instead of "Texas Leica".

I will try to take pictures for some articles too. Step #1: I stop buying completely unusable cameras (like British 9×12 press cameras, about which I have to write something sooner or later). Step #2: I usefully spend the money buying a good digital camera. But I regularly get lost somewhere between step 1 and step 2, buying other weird things (for example a huge book full of 70-year old ads) and I have to restart the full process again. --Rebollo fr 06:21, 13 June 2006 (EDT)

Welcome Sysop!

Hey, Hoary. Thanks for the heads-up about that "wheels" guy. Pretty lame. He's over at Wikipedia too? Meh. Anyhow, I really appreciate all the time you've been putting in here... adding lots of value... good stuff.

I've just upgraded your account to sysop. w00t! --Lbstone 11:46, 24 June 2006 (EDT)

To display with the Elbow flex and the Lord Martian...

I think you also need a Shinkoh Rabbit! Especially if the rabbit's head logo is prominently engraved somewhere. --Rebollo fr 17:50, 2 August 2006 (EDT)

Aha, yes, that prompts me to launch a best(iary) of Camerapedia (tip of the hat to the Bonzo Dog Band). Hold on a few hours. -- Hoary 19:22, 2 August 2006 (EDT)

Minolta Pro

--Well, I've told you what I know! - Tim

Articles about camera magazines

I noticed that you wrote some articles about camera magazines in Wikipedia (Asahi Camera, Camera Mainichi, Nippon Camera, and maybe others), do you think that an adapted version would have its place here? --Rebollo fr 09:48, 24 October 2006 (EDT)

Funny that you should ask; I'd been wondering about this myself. First, the facts: there are (so far) only those three, and I've no immediate plan to increase the number, nor any reason to think that anyone else there is interested. Also, as you can see, there's next to nothing in them about cameras. Moreover, I can't think of anything more that I'm able to say and want to say about the coverage of cameras in any of them.

So while I'd have no objection to their appearing here as articles, I can't see the point. (Moreover, I don't think there's any precedent. However, derivatives could be useful within Sources: Japanese language. (Or perhaps the latter should be split up into Sources: Japanese-language books, Sources: Japanese-language magazines, and Sources: Japanese-language exhibition catalogues before it gets too big and unwieldy.) -- Hoary 22:58, 24 October 2006 (EDT)

Yes, a shortened version would best fit as some subset or page linked from the Sources: Japanese language. And it's true that the latter could be split up.

By the way, I've already heard you say (in some CP talk page?) that the Japanese magazines were published many months before the cover date. Of course you have first hand experience of this for today's issues, but do you know for sure if this is an old practice? I wonder if there is some source that comments on this (trivial) issue. --Rebollo fr 09:25, 25 October 2006 (EDT)

My opinion

I would say go for it, but only in black and with the motordrive. It's sooo important to keep a low profile and to shoot the 72 exposures fast. --Rebollo fr 18:39, 6 January 2007 (EST)

A stroll to Ginza?

If you are going to Ginza one of these days, why not coming back with pictures of this building, former seat of Hattori Tokei-ten (map here)? Not only it is a rare testimony of the Tokyo of the 30s, but it is also an important place for industrial Japan, from Seiko to Epson and Topcon.

And if the way back home casually leads you through Nihonbashi, maybe you can have a stop at the Mitsukoshi department store (description and map), another nice building from 1935. --Rebollo fr 16:12, 13 January 2007 (EST)

The former (Wako store) is also famous for having housed the most famous "PX"; PXes were military stores where the GIs could buy their "CPO"-marked photographic gear (and much else). And outside the PXes (or anyway outside this very famous one) were the panpan girls, girls of easy virtue who would be particularly friendly to GIs who hadn't blown their paypackets on toys.

OK, shall do. Keep kicking my rear end about my reluctance to supply any photo of anything. -- Hoary 23:52, 13 January 2007 (EST)

Patent search

Google Patents: what a great find! However there is also espacenet from the European Patent Office. I think that it has even more patents than Google, with German patents for example. (I have not made any objective comparison.)

When some patent is available at both places, which one would you choose to link to? For some reason, I would tend to prefer the latter. Google is a great tool, but it's also a company that is beginning to manage a bit too much info for my taste.

Let's not forget the Industrial Property Digital Library (alias 特許電子図書館)!

--Rebollo fr 06:48, 20 January 2007 (EST)

I agree on everything you say in the first two paragraphs; as for the third, I haven't investigated that yet.

Quite aside from the Google URLs, I'm not happy about the way I've referred to the patents. I'll return to this a little later.

I hope you haven't emailed me very recently: dvoi.com seems to be kaput. I'm looking into this. -- Hoary 07:02, 20 January 2007 (EST)

Rebollo fr, I'm too sleepy to organize my thoughts on patent references neatly, but as you're busily adding links to US patents, I'll hazily point out that I think it's better for the link to make explicit that it's a US patent, to make explicit the number, to provide at least the year when the application was made and the year the patent was granted, and to provide the precise title. (It might also be good to put in the name of the person to whom it was granted, and the [wossitcalled?] "assignee".) This might even benefit from a template. Sorry I can't say more but my head's already crashing into the keyboard. -- Hoary 10:56, 20 January 2007 (EST)

I agree and will store my finds in my user page until this is settled. About dvoi.com, did you get my mail about the Viceroy? --Rebollo fr 14:10, 20 January 2007 (EST)

Copyvio

Looks like you shot faster than me on Norita! Notice that the same page was added to en:wikipedia. I added a copyvio banner there but don't know what else to do. --Rebollo fr 04:49, 29 January 2007 (EST)

Thanks. At WP it was slightly more complicated as a poor, stubby but legitimate article was replaced with an illegitimate one. I just reverted the edits, posting as a warning a slightly edited version of the one I was about to post to the editor's page here (but you'd beaten me to it). -- Hoary 04:57, 29 January 2007 (EST)

Dō suffix

I'm wondering how to treat the "Dō" (堂) suffix in company names and would like to hear your opinion: what is best between Kikō-Dō, Kikō-dō and Kikōdō? I just realized that I am inconsistent in my own practice. --Rebollo fr 13:27, 30 January 2007 (EST)

Damn, I didn't notice this question. I suppose I have a slight preference for the second, but I can't get excited about the question. -- Hoary 18:18, 22 February 2007 (EST)

In the meantime I decided for the third, because it is the form that was and is used most often by the companies concerned. --Rebollo fr 18:27, 22 February 2007 (EST)

That's good reasoning. No complaints from me. -- Hoary 03:33, 23 February 2007 (EST)

Umemoto

May I invite you to the Super Flex Baby talk page? There are a few open questions there. --Rebollo fr 16:19, 22 February 2007 (EST)

I'm afraid that this will have to wait till Sunday, but I'll certainly do it when I can. -- Hoary 18:19, 22 February 2007 (EST)

Thank you. I will email the result to Mr Umemoto too. --Rebollo fr 18:27, 22 February 2007 (EST)

Yashica

This Wikipedia page looks pretty much like this Camerapedia page. It is possible that the Wikipedia IP contributor is the same as our user Glenmark. His other Wikipedia edits only look much like edits that Glenmark made here. This is not reprehensible but a bit annoying. Could you please take some Wikipedia action (by putting the appropriate tag or something)? --Rebollo fr 20:40, 24 February 2007 (EST) I'm adding some more: the two pages now look the same as this other wiki page. Again this is not forbidden but yet I am not satisfied. How about rewriting the Yashica page from scratch? --Rebollo fr 20:44, 24 February 2007 (EST)

I've put the tag there. Actually it's a template, one that was a bit of a pain to create but is easy to use. As you'll see, all I added was "{{From Camerapedia|Yashica}}"; and of course anyone is free to add such templates.

Rewrite which Yashica article, and for what purpose? -- Hoary 23:26, 24 February 2007 (EST)

None of them, in fact. You can disregard my above comment about rewriting. Thanks for the wikipedia thing, I'll do it myself if I find other cases. --Rebollo fr 08:57, 25 February 2007 (EST)

Photo of Fujica GW690

The photographer at my son's preschool entrance ceremony used a GW690, and I happened to have snapped a picture of it. If you'd like to use the picture on the GW690 page, feel free.

http://regex.info/i/Fujica-GW690-Professional_sm.jpg
http://regex.info/i/Fujica-GW690-Professional.jpg

The quality is not wonderful, but it's better than nothing.

You can refer to the images as they are, or download them, do what you want, and refer to them wherever you host them. I've placed them into the public domain, and added comments into the Exif stating such.

.... added at 06:33, 12 March 2007 by Jfriedl

Thank you very much! I've commented them out for now; I'll stick one in the page within the next 24 hours. -- Hoary 02:58, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

Kanji reading: help needed

I wrote here and there that 錦彰 reads Kinshō, but I am hardly convinced. The usual tricks don't work (I searched google.co.jp, ja.wikipedia.org, etc.) Do you know the correct reading? Or you have perhaps access to a dictionary of proper names, or to a Japanese speaker who knows how to read this one. --Rebollo fr 20:30, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

I'm looking into this; please stay tuned. -- Hoary 09:27, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

While you're at it, could you please investigate the first name 義三 (for 田嶋義三, son of Tahima Kazuo, founder of Minolta). I think it is Gizō, but couldn't it be Yoshimi as well? --Rebollo fr 07:34, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

It could indeed. And it could also be Yoshizō. Well, at last I got around to looking it up in that sometimes useful (although boring, expensive and slightly mistitled) book 『日本の写真家』 (Nichigai Associates, 2005; ISBN 4-8169-1948-1): although his dad has a lengthy article, none of the sons has one. I imagine that he will be mentioned (at least) in a company history but that the reading of his name won't be provided. -- Hoary 22:28, 27 April 2007 (EDT)

Konica FR

Isn't the Konica prototype called FR, not FP? --Rebollo fr 08:36, 18 September 2007 (EDT)

Damn, you're right. I was so happy to see the (mislabeled) photo that I didn't take the time to check my references.

Let me clear up this particular mess. -- Hoary 08:52, 18 September 2007 (EDT)

Drat, you beat me to it. -- Hoary 08:56, 18 September 2007 (EDT)

The picture comes from the stupidest homepage I've seen! But between the bento and the motorbike parts are wonderful camera prototypes. --Rebollo fr 08:58, 18 September 2007 (EDT)

Yes, he seems simply to have ignored the "No photography" (!) instructions of the little JCII museum. -- Hoary 11:53, 18 September 2007 (EDT)

I've just been shown other pictures of the Konica Minolta exhibition, taken by someone else who ignored the same instructions. Some of them show weird Minolta prototypes: the Sky, the Electro Zoom X and what looks like a medium-format SLR with its set of lenses, perhaps called "Minolta SR66". Do you have more data about this one? There is also an ugly compact design with a large holding grip underneath and a built-in flash on top, again with interchangeable lenses, but I can't read its name. --Rebollo fr 16:23, 18 September 2007 (EDT)

The Sky is pretty famous, I believe.

The last of these cameras is probably the ミノルタオートパック1000X, for 126 film, of 1969. Yes, a Linhof wannabe, or something. -- Hoary 22:36, 18 September 2007 (EDT)

Yes, the Sky and Electro Zoom X are quite well-known and both are in the book by Francesch. I wonder about the black Minolta Sky pictured in the page you found. And I'm disappointed by the Autopak 1000X: I expected a half-frame camera and it turns out being a nasty 126 model. --Rebollo fr 10:10, 19 September 2007 (EDT)

Yes, the (apparent) black Minolta Sky amazed me too. But although I've never seen or heard of a Sky for sale, or a Sky outside a display cabinet, I have read somewhere (probably one or other of the "Leica copies" books) that the Sky is unusually numerous for a camera "never went into production". -- Hoary 19:24, 19 September 2007 (EDT)

Here is an extremely belated update for future reference: the black Minolta Sky was a fake. --rebollo_fr 14:04, 2 June 2009 (EDT)

Misc

Dear Hoary

Please be more careful when correcting articles.

Best regards, Uwe

Altair

May I point you to this talk page on the Altair? --rebollo_fr 14:04, 2 June 2009 (EDT)