 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Car Forum / BMW Cars / December 2004What does BMW stand for?
I know what they letters BMW stand for colloquially but could some body tell me the actual meaning of the letters. Is it Bremen Motorwerken or something similar please? pete > I know what they letters BMW stand for colloquially but could some > body tell me the actual meaning of the letters. Is it Bremen > Motorwerken or something similar please? > pete Bayerische Motoren Werk. Bavarian Motor Works, in English. -Russ. > > I know what they letters BMW stand for colloquially but could some > > body tell me the actual meaning of the letters. Is it Bremen [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > Bavarian Motor Works, in English. Whew, that's a relief. I've owned my BMW for 9 years now (its a 90 535i, 5spd, 97K miles) and I always thought it meant "Bring Money Willingly"... > > > I know what they letters BMW stand for colloquially but could some > > > body tell me the actual meaning of the letters. Is it Bremen [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > 535i, 5spd, 97K miles) and I always thought it meant > "Bring Money Willingly"... Bring My Wallet ... > Bring My Wallet ... Break My Window... Matt O. BMW= Break My Wallet ! >> Bring My Wallet ... > > Break My Window... > > Matt O. There was a whole stack of suggestions in a thread a while back. I think it was in this NG. DAS  SignatureFor direct contact replace nospam with schmetterling --- > BMW= Break My Wallet ! > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >> >> Matt O. Lets not forget Bob Marley and the Wailers This man once owned a 2002 I understand he use to park his Bimmer anywhere he chose and never lock the Bimmer and when he came back it was just as he had left it. > There was a whole stack of suggestions in a thread a while back. I think > it was in this NG. [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] >>> >>> Matt O. > Lets not forget Bob Marley and the Wailers This man once owned a 2002 I > understand he use to park his Bimmer Anyone here get BMW's quarterly mag "BMW Magazine". If so, look at the article on Julie Foudy...in it they are talking about the two BMW's she owns and BMW's own corporate mag refers to the cars as "Beemers". I've always, like most others I suppose, call the cars Bimmers and the bikes Beemers. Apparently BMW Group disagrees with my usage :^) >>Lets not forget Bob Marley and the Wailers This man once owned a 2002 I >>understand he use to park his Bimmer [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > I've always, like most others I suppose, call the cars Bimmers and the bikes > Beemers. Apparently BMW Group disagrees with my usage :^) Probably a problem in translation... ;-) -Fred W > BMW's own corporate mag refers to the cars as "Beemers". > > I've always, like most others I suppose, call the cars Bimmers and the bikes > Beemers. Apparently BMW Group disagrees with my usage :^) Recall that these are the same morons who put cupholders into the M3 ... -- C.R. Krieger (Still disgusted) To all: As an owner of both a BMW auto and a REAL BMW, a bike, it does NOT MATTER what you call them: Bimmer vs. Beemer. We riders call our bikes Beemers. We auto drivers call our cars ......Beemers. To make a differentiation on one small word is just another attempt for one group to feel "superior" or "different" from other groups, IMHO. Matt. >> BMW's own corporate mag refers to the cars as "Beemers". >> [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > C.R. Krieger > (Still disgusted) "mjc" <candc@cal.net> haute in die Tasten: > To all: As an owner of both a BMW auto and a REAL BMW, a bike, it > does NOT MATTER what you call them: Bimmer vs. Beemer. We > riders call our bikes Beemers. We auto drivers call our cars > ......Beemers. To all: This is entirely an english speaking customer issue. Both the words Bimmer and Beemer are completely unknown in Germany. There it usually is sufficient to mention the series, not the manufacturer. If I tell somebody "I drive a 3er (in German: "Dreier") Cabrio", everybody knows that I drive a BMW convertible. AFAIK the motorbikers also only mention the motorcycle type, but not the brand. Something called "1150 GS" is widely recognized as a fat BMW enduro type motorcycle. However: the old 60's and 70's BMW motorcycles do have a nick name used very often: "Gummikuh" (Rubber Cow). I am not an expert in motorcycling, but AFAIK the bikes got this nick because they used to become instable in curves when you close the throttle surprisingly. Frank Signatureplease replace spam-muelleimer with fk-newsgroups for e-mail contact Citroen - Made in Trance In Britain the cars is also sometimes known as Bee-Em. It makes me think of "Merc", too, a name not used in Germany. Equally, a Daimler in Britain is not a Merc... DAS SignatureFor direct contact replace nospam with schmetterling --- > "mjc" <candc@cal.net> haute in die Tasten: > [quoted text clipped - 23 lines] > > Frank "Dori A Schmetterling" <ng@nospam.co.uk> haute in die Tasten: > It makes me think of "Merc", too, a name not used in Germany. > Equally, a Daimler in Britain is not a Merc... In Germany the Nicks "Daimler" and "Benz" are used to a similar degree - and almost nobody is aware of Daimler Vanden Plas and such. But the Mercedes classes are so popular, that it is sufficient to say "I drive a C-class", so that the other one knows that you own a little Mercedes. I suppose, that in the UK it is sufficient to say "I drive an X-type", when you own a little Jaguar. Frank Signatureplease replace spam-muelleimer with fk-newsgroups for e-mail contact Citroen - Made in Trance >"Dori A Schmetterling" <ng@nospam.co.uk> haute in die Tasten: > [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] >that you own a little Mercedes. I suppose, that in the UK it is sufficient to say "I >drive an X-type", when you own a little Jaguar. I've also heard that in the German pronounciation of Daimler-Chrysler the "Chrysler" is silent :) Signature/"\ Jan Kalin (male, preferred languages: Slovene, English) \ / http://charm.zag.si/eng/, email: "name dot surname AT zag dot si" X ASCII ribbon campaign against HTML in mail and postings. / \ I'm a .signature virus. Copy me to help me spread. > To all: As an owner of both a BMW auto and a REAL BMW, a bike, it does NOT > MATTER what you call them: Bimmer vs. Beemer. We riders call our bikes > Beemers. We auto drivers call our cars ......Beemers. > To make a differentiation on one small word is just another attempt for one > group to feel "superior" or "different" from other groups, IMHO. > Matt. I do indeed feel superior to you, because I know the difference between a beemer and a bimmer. -Russ. < snip > >> > Bayerische Motoren Werk. >> > [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > Bring My Wallet ... My father always said "Bavarian Made Waste"! Shows how much he knew about cars! (Well, he did work for British Leyland at the time!!!) ;-) Badger. > > Whew, that's a relief. I've owned my BMW for 9 years now (its a 90 > > 535i, 5spd, 97K miles) and I always thought it meant > > "Bring Money Willingly"... > Bring My Wallet ... Or by some, with more than a tad of jealousy, Black Man's Wheels. Signature*Why is it that to stop Windows 95, you have to click on "Start"? Dave Plowman dave@davenoise.co.uk London SW To e-mail, change noise into sound. >> I know what they letters BMW stand for colloquially but could some >> body tell me the actual meaning of the letters. Is it Bremen [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > >Bavarian Motor Works, in English. Many thanks Russ. pete >> I know what they letters BMW stand for colloquially but could some >> body tell me the actual meaning of the letters. Is it Bremen [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > Bavarian Motor Works, in English. Yup, it started as an aircraft motor company. The logo is actually a stylized propeller. Matt O. > >> I know what they letters BMW stand for colloquially but could some > >> body tell me the actual meaning of the letters. Is it Bremen [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > Yup, it started as an aircraft motor company. The logo is actually a stylized > propeller. OK, what does EMW stand for and what was their logo? I'll bet Burns knows without looking :^) >>>>I know what they letters BMW stand for colloquially but could some >>>>body tell me the actual meaning of the letters. Is it Bremen [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > > I'll bet Burns knows without looking :^) Hmmmm.... you must be referrring to Eisenacher Motoren Werk? Logo was a compass rose (the 4 pointed star used on maps to indicate N/S/E/W) -Fred W > Hmmmm.... > > you must be referrring to Eisenacher Motoren Werk? Logo was a compass > rose (the 4 pointed star used on maps to indicate N/S/E/W) Yeah, some BMW mag, don't recall the name of it right now, recently did a 2 or 3 issue story on the history of BMW. I had never known before reading that, that after the war the BMW plant at Eisencher (lost because it was in old East Germany), now under Soviet control, continued building cars under the EMW name and a modified BMW propeller (for a while they actually used the BMW name and logo, until lawsuits put an end that). Rather interesting part of BMW's history I had zero idea of.. Eisenach...(not Eisencher) You might not know that many German companies, well-known or otherwise, fled the Soviet-occupied east after 1945, often leaving behind their physical assets. A couple that spring to mind are - Agfa (photographic equipment and film), whose old site continued under the name Orwo, - and Zeiss (optical products), which became Zeiss-Ikon in West Germany and in East Germany Carl Zeiss Jena (Jena being the town in which it was based). In my field I deal with a small engineering company that was founded in Dresden in 1902. The family left after WW2 and restarted in Coburg, West Germany. DAS SignatureFor direct contact replace nospam with schmetterling --- >> Hmmmm.... >> [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > the BMW name and logo, until lawsuits put an end that). Rather interesting > part of BMW's history I had zero idea of.. "Dori A Schmetterling" <ng@nospam.co.uk> wrote in message news:41af61e6$0$19155$cc9e4d1f@news- > You might not know that many German companies, well-known or otherwise, fled > the Soviet-occupied east after 1945, often leaving behind their physical [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > - and Zeiss (optical products), which became Zeiss-Ikon in West Germany and > in East Germany Carl Zeiss Jena (Jena being the town in which it was based). Dori, you a photographer too? Richard Was...still have a steam-driven Canon SLR but also, as of August, a shirt-pocket digital Minolta Xt with an internal zoom lens (nothing sticks out, which appealed to me). DAS SignatureFor direct contact replace nospam with schmetterling --- [...]> > Dori, you a photographer too? > Richard Ah no, people who are into photography and go digital get dSLR's. Think about the dynamic range, the picture noise, the cool factor of lugging 5lbs around your neck! What canon SLR doesn't use batteries btw? I've been thinking about getting a totally manual SLR to compliment my digital gear...I guess it wouldn't use EF mount, but whatever. Richard > Was...still have a steam-driven Canon SLR but also, as of August, a > shirt-pocket digital Minolta Xt with an internal zoom lens (nothing sticks [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > Dori, you a photographer too? > > Richard Richard, mine's an EOS 100 (at least that was the name in Europe), a great camera of the time, and still pretty good. Has a small battery, of course. EF USM 35 - 135 mm lens, dead quiet. I used to lug around a bag with extra lenses, flash etc, but found it a drag, so to speak... A modern dSLR body would take the lens, but I have become a snap-shotter, both of family and the machines I come across in my work (hence the carry-anywhere-anytime Minolta). Canon probably produce the best digital rangefinder cameras but the Xt just tickled my fancy from a technological point of view. Plus Minolta already had SD cards (compatible with my Palm and my notebook) whereas Canon was still on Compact Flash. Was close to buying a Canon. Last year an aquaintance of mine bought a regular-film Canon SLR. Very sleek, very compact and very reasonable in price. I think he got it while travelling in the US. Still have the Leica inherited from my dad, which he had bought at my birth (1951), though haven't used it for years. Produces pin-sharp pics, of course. When I did use it and wanted to add lenses, I could not afford originals and found I could get very cheap components from the Russian Zenit, who were making cameras based on Leica dimensions/standards, threads and diameters in particular. Not bad for the money. What have you got? Dori SignatureFor direct contact replace nospam with schmetterling --- > Ah no, people who are into photography and go digital get dSLR's. Think > about the dynamic range, the picture noise, the cool factor of lugging [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] >> > Dori, you a photographer too? >> > Richard > Richard, mine's an EOS 100 (at least that was the name in Europe), a great > camera of the time, and still pretty good. Has a small battery, of course. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > the machines I come across in my work (hence the carry-anywhere-anytime > Minolta). Dori and Richard, my hobby is underwater photography and I am currently considering migrating to Canon (I am a Nikon user) because of the superb EOS-1DsMkII. I am biding my time a bit because Nik should be releasing the D2X soon, and given the cost of each would like to compare bodies. Of course I'd like to stay with Nikon because of my legacy glass, but if I migrate to Canon there is a good market for Nikon lenses. I continue to shoot emulsion in my Nikons---- topside I shoot an F5, underwater I shoot a F100 in a Seacam (Austrian) housing. I not moving to digital because I feel the image quality is any better, but because underwater you are limited to 36 exposures (few housings accept bulk film backs) I'd like the latitude that digital allows, at lease in terms of functionality and capability. Plus, digital works better in low light conditions that we have to deal with in general. I have waited a while for digital to meet true high limits of quality and capability and with the DsMkII Canon finally has, and I suspect Nikon will with the D2X. It's amazing how quickly the dynamics of photography have changed in just a few years. > Dori and Richard, my hobby is underwater photography and I am currently > considering migrating to Canon (I am a Nikon user) because of the superb > EOS-1DsMkII. I am biding my time a bit because Nik should be releasing the > D2X soon, and given the cost of each would like to compare bodies. I think for what you do, the 1Ds MkII has one HUGE benefit: full frame instead of 1.5x crop. Also, I think you will find the image quality is better. People on the net have put up some comparison stuff and the 1Ds MkII is closer to the quality of medium format than 35mm. Not to mention ISO 800 on a 1Ds MkII has less gain than any film ISO 400. Richard > > Dori and Richard, my hobby is underwater photography and I am currently > > considering migrating to Canon (I am a Nikon user) because of the superb [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > I think for what you do, the 1Ds MkII has one HUGE benefit: full frame > instead of 1.5x crop. Actually that is a downside for underwater photography. When we shoot wide angle we not only have to have superb lenses but also superb domes (on the housing) as well as the appropriate extension rings to make the dome work with the lens. *One* of the good things about the crop in Nikon digitals is the the edges are removed so the corners of the image are also cut, which removes the bad corners created by the dome port. Unless the photographer uses nothing but a flat port, the crop in the Nik bodies actually makes some sense. So if shooting a Nik 14 behind a 9' dome the resulting angle of acceptance is11 degrees. From that the camera will cut the corners and you end up with a completely perfect 15 degree shot, with no stretch or breakdown in the corners. There is no full frame body that can match that, without post production crop. I know it sounds screwy, but when shooting behind a second piece of glass, dome glass, everything changes. > Also, I think you will find the image quality is > better. People on the net have put up some comparison stuff and the 1Ds MkII > is closer to the quality of medium format than 35mm. Well, I haven't seen the D2X (Late Januaru release I believe) yet so I will withhold opinion as to wherther or not the Canon ie better, and I long ago realized pixel count is about as important to quailty images as horsepower count is to driving enjoyment. Which is to say they are almost meaningless unless one has all other components in place. So far Nikon bodies handle digital data better than Canon bodies, which is one reason Canon goes for sheer quantity. The 1Ds is a remarkable body, but it is not clear to me it is the body that will still be king after a couple other units hit the streets, the Nik D2X being one of them. Another factor that makes me wait is that I like Nikon short glass (whether macro or WA) more than I do Canon. though conversly I believe Canon the king of long stuff. > Not to mention ISO 800 > on a 1Ds MkII has less gain than any film ISO 400. > > Richard > Actually that is a downside for underwater photography. When we shoot wide > angle we not only have to have superb lenses but also superb domes (on the > housing) as well as the appropriate extension rings to make the dome work > with the lens. I was thinking though that also your wide angle wouldn't have to be as wide. To get the same a a 24mm on the canon you would need a 16 on the nikon. Admittedly, I know nothing about underwater photography equipment though. > > Also, I think you will find the image quality is > > better. People on the net have put up some comparison stuff and the 1Ds [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > Well, I haven't seen the D2X (Late Januaru release I believe) yet so I will > withhold opinion as to wherther or not the Canon ie better I meant I think you will find the image quality is better than 35mm film. >. So far Nikon bodies handle > digital data better than Canon bodies, which is one reason Canon goes for > sheer quantity. That is something I totally disagree with. > Another factor that makes me wait is that I like Nikon short glass (whether > macro or WA) more than I do Canon. though conversly I believe Canon the king > of long stuff. I agree with you on that. There is no good Canon option, even third paty, wider than 35 except for the 24mm L and the 14mm L. Richard > > > Also, I think you will find the image quality is > > > better. People on the net have put up some comparison stuff and the 1Ds [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > I meant I think you will find the image quality is better than 35mm film. There are some things digital doesn't do well. Rendering the fluctuating gradients of water is one of them. For instance, I would not do an over/under in digital. For some reason pixelization in water is more apparent. I have never had anyone adequately explain this to me though I have spoken to engineers at both canon and nikon. I am not yet convinced overall image quality is better with either, though I am convinced in most cases it is so close as to no longer being an issue of importance. Underwater i think digital lends itself to closeup and macro, while film is better for wide angle and infinity. My opinion only. > >. So far Nikon bodies handle > > digital data better than Canon bodies, which is one reason Canon goes for > > sheer quantity. > > That is something I totally disagree with. I expected that................you're a Canon guy :^) > > Another factor that makes me wait is that I like Nikon short glass > (whether > > macro or WA) more than I do Canon. though conversly I believe Canon the > king > > of long stuff. > I agree with you on that. There is no good Canon option, even third paty, > wider than 35 except for the 24mm L and the 14mm L. > Richard > There are some things digital doesn't do well. Rendering the fluctuating > gradients of water is one of them. For instance, I would not do an > over/under in digital. For some reason pixelization in water is more > apparent. I have never had anyone adequately explain this to me though I > have spoken to engineers at both canon and nikon. Though I think you may find less pixelization with canon because they let you select ISO 100, but then again Nikon has now also brought ISO 100 on the D2X. > > That is something I totally disagree with. > > I expected that................you're a Canon guy :^) No, not at all. It's not like my handle on two photo forums is Canonfan or anything, or that a non canon camera has never been bought in my household (the last non canon bought in my family was a Nikon point and shoot from the mid-late 1970's, other than that was a post war Zeiss Contina III). Richard > > There are some things digital doesn't do well. Rendering the fluctuating > > gradients of water is one of them. For instance, I would not do an [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > you select ISO 100, but then again Nikon has now also brought ISO 100 on the > D2X. No, I've shot the Canon EOS-DMkII (I somehow don't know that the Ds would be any better on this issue). It isn't anything to do with the cameras, it has something to do with the info rendered from the pixels. It happens with every digital camera. No one escapes it. Digital results in other anomalies that haven't been remedied yet as well. > > > That is something I totally disagree with. > > [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > (the last non canon bought in my family was a Nikon point and shoot from the > mid-late 1970's, other than that was a post war Zeiss Contina III). Yes....but you are a Canon guy...right :^) It's OK...I'm not one who gets into those Nikon vs. Canon arguments. I find both platforms wanting in some areas, and both platforms excelling in others. I'm giving Nikon a chance to release the D2X before deciding for no other reason than the money invested in my legacy glass. If it wasn't for that I would likely go Canon right now, get the housing on order, and move happily down the line. The Canon is good enough, I am basically waiting to see if the D2X will offer something equal or better and save me the expense of buying a lens array all over again. > No, I've shot the Canon EOS-DMkII (I somehow don't know that the Ds would be > any better on this issue). It isn't anything to do with the cameras, it has > something to do with the info rendered from the pixels. It happens with > every digital camera. No one escapes it. Digital results in other anomalies > that haven't been remedied yet as well. Have you tried a foveon sensored camera like the Sigmas? They aren't good for much, but they tend not to suffer from the color cannel issues of other cameras. Richard > Have you tried a foveon sensored camera like the Sigmas? They aren't good > for much, but they tend not to suffer from the color cannel issues of other > cameras. One of the criteria we must use in deciding on a camera is that somebody..somewhere in the world makes a housing for it. Good housings with ports, rings, handles, viewfinders, alarms etc usually cost more than the camera body, so they are not something that is made for most cameras. Niks and Canons are covered pretty good, at least in the pro platforms, but otherwise most lesser bodies only have plastic housings available, and they are extremely limited. No one makes housings for Sigma that I am aware of. I think Canon and Nikon currently make the best dslr's so you can find quality housings from Seacam, Subal, Nexus, Jonah and others...but only for: in the case of Canon 1ds, dmkII and dsmkII, and in the case of nik D100 and D1X. No one makes housings for Sigma that I am aware of. Yes, I agree, we have come to that stage, which is why I was happy to stick with 3.2 MB for my snapshots. I haven't yet printed out (or had printed out) anything bigger than 6 x 4" and then only a couple on one of these small DIY machines in a drugstore. My business shots are really only for e-mailing, so I have to accumulate enough other pics. Which reminds me to ask (sorry it's on a car NG but I don't want to subscribe to another addictive NG): My camera allows me several options in recording pic sizes, i.e. file sizes. In my setting I am above default, getting file sizes around 1 MB. In short, I read it is better to photograph at lower resolution and then compress less, than the other way round. What do you guys think? DAS SignatureFor direct contact replace nospam with schmetterling --- [...] > withhold opinion as to wherther or not the Canon ie better, and I long ago > realized pixel count is about as important to quailty images as horsepower > count is to driving enjoyment. Which is to say they are almost meaningless > unless one has all other components in place. [...] > Yes, I agree, we have come to that stage, which is why I was happy to stick > with 3.2 MB for my snapshots. I haven't yet printed out (or had printed > out) anything bigger than 6 x 4" and then only a couple on one of these > small DIY machines in a drugstore. My business shots are really only for > e-mailing, so I have to accumulate enough other pics. I've sold a 24x36 and many 8x10's, so for me, MP is an issue (even the 6.3MP that I have isn't really good enough for good 24 x 36's, but the developer is pretty good at upsampling so I'm ok. Really 20-34MP would be what you'd want). > In short, I read it is better to photograph at lower resolution and then > compress less, than the other way round. It's the opposite I believe. I rather shoot full res and normal quality than medium res and high quality. JPEG compression is better than people give it credit. Now, if you will be downsizing your images to a lower resolution, you may as well shoot in that lower resolution to begin with. Richard Yes, that exactly my question. Maybe I am also muddling up actual resolution and picture size, both being in MP, of course. (Same applies to computer screens.) My (somewhat vague) understanding was that the loss of data was greater on high compression than on shooting at lower res, if you see what I mean. I shall do some proper experimentation, though I am hoping to save time and ink by getting advice from you more experienced digital users. I have mostly been using Adobe Photoshop Elements (freebie with scanner I bought last year) for compression. (BTW, just saw rave review for Adobe PE 3.0 -- do you agree?) What I also have to train myself to do is to remember to change settings between different types of picture, i.e. small file sizes for pics that are mainly viewing on-screen, and better quality for those to be printed out. This is, of course, not an issue on film cameras... DAS SignatureFor direct contact replace nospam with schmetterling --- [...] > Now, if you will be downsizing your images to a lower resolution, > you may as well shoot in that lower resolution to begin with. > Richard "Dori A Schmetterling" <ng@nospam.co.uk> wrote in message news:41b5ef9b$0$19155$cc9e4d1f@news- > Yes, that exactly my question. Maybe I am also muddling up actual > resolution and picture size, both being in MP, of course. (Same applies to > computer screens.) Resolution is in MP, size is in MB, or is there a crossing of words here? Either way. Lets say your camera has 1MP 2MP and 3MP modes, and Superfine, Fine, and Normal compression. If you are going to make an 8 x 10, but need to save space, you would want 3MP normal over 2MP superfine. If you were going to just view it on your monitor that has a resolution of 1280 x 960, you would want to go with 1MP superfine. Basically, more MP is better, but if you aren't going to use those MP, you're better off not compressing the image. And if it helps, you would want at lease 1600 x 1200 (2MP) for a good 4x6 > My (somewhat vague) understanding was that the loss of data was greater on > high compression than on shooting at lower res, if you see what I mean. I do, but it's not really. JPEG compression, especially if you do it only once (i.e. you don't keep recompressnig the image) is pretty good. > I shall do some proper experimentation, though I am hoping to save time and > ink by getting advice from you more experienced digital users. I have > mostly been using Adobe Photoshop Elements (freebie with scanner I bought > last year) for compression. (BTW, just saw rave review for Adobe PE 3.0 -- > do you agree?) PS Elements 3 is pretty good if you shoot RAW because it's a decent RAW conversion tool and it's WAY cheaperthan PS CS, but if you don't shoot RAW, I don't know how much better than PS E 2 it is. > What I also have to train myself to do is to remember to change settings > between different types of picture, i.e. small file sizes for pics that are > mainly viewing on-screen, and better quality for those to be printed out. > This is, of course, not an issue on film cameras... But if you don't mind carrying film, you could just buy some more 256mb cards and use highest quality highest resolution. Memory is pretty cheap these days (I can find 1gb CF cards for $60 after mail in rebate. Richard Thanks, Richard. I have saved this exchange for studying at leisure. At one stage I erroneously said MB when I meant MP. My camera does, indeed, have the modes and compression you have listed. The quality settings are, in fact: - TIFF - Fine - Standard (the default) - Economy. I have been going with Fine (image size 2048 x 1536), which gives a file size of approx 1 MB before further processing. IIRC Standard gives file sizes of approx half that. Haven't tried TIFF yet. (Just shows you how little time I have devoted to this.) For biz pics I have compressed down to about 200 kB, which still gives a good pic on my screen. Of course I don't know what monitors my correspondents have, but I am sure most of those in western Europe will have fairly decent ones. My own is a 12" (approx) screen on a notebook set to 1024 x 768 pixels, the max. The family snaps I left at 1 MB for printing. DAS SignatureFor direct contact replace nospam with schmetterling --- > "Dori A Schmetterling" <ng@nospam.co.uk> wrote in message > news:41b5ef9b$0$19155$cc9e4d1f@news- [quoted text clipped - 45 lines] > these days (I can find 1gb CF cards for $60 after mail in rebate. > Richard "Dori A Schmetterling" <ng@nospam.co.uk> wrote in message news:41b717c6$1$19158$cc9e4d1f@news-> > Haven't tried TIFF yet. (Just shows you how little time I have devoted to > this.) Don't bother. TIFFs are HUGE and they have no benefits over JPEGS other than being not compressed, but I'll give $10 (ok, $1) to the person who can see a difference between a TIFF and the best quality JPEG. OTOH, RAW is where it's at. Richard > "Dori A Schmetterling" <ng@nospam.co.uk> wrote in message > news:41b717c6$1$19158$cc9e4d1f@news-> [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > at. > Richard A jpeg is lossy though, if it gets saved and resaved it breaks down noticably as defects in the compression get amplified. TIFF, GIF, BMP, and some other are not lossy. Most times jpg is appropriate, but not always. -Russ. > A jpeg is lossy though, if it gets saved and resaved it breaks down > noticably as defects in the compression get amplified. TIFF, GIF, BMP, and > some other are not lossy. Most times jpg is appropriate, but not always. Set your camera at the highest quality JPEG, then open it with photoshop or something similar. Resave it at the highest quality 6 times. See if you can find a difference between that and a TIFF. Richard Your EOS 100 was called the EOS Elan in the states. Was sorta a big leap in cameras, and the current Elan 7n is the choice of wedding photographers (the elan's thing is being quiet). That Leica I'm guessing is a IIIf or maybe a IIIc? Leica glass is always the most expensive and the best, though the Russian knock off were ok since they were using literally the same designs as the leicas. As far as the SD cards, I find it interesting that you find that a buying plus, whereas I greatly prefer CF because then I can stick a microdrie in there, and that's the cheapest way to get 4gb (which is important if you shoot RAW and sports). That and I find SD cards so small I can lose them. If your friend's canon was sleek and compact, I'm guess it's one of the Rebels (300 in Europe). My main camera is a digital Rebel (300D in Europe) and I'm not going to lie, buying it was a huge compromise. If I had a little more money, I would have got the 10D, and if I had substantially more, I would have got the 20D. Outside of that, I've messed around with some of my dad's cameras (a minox B, zeiss ikon contina III, and a pre-war Zeiss medium format camera), but none of those are in good working condition (lens scratch, stuck shutter - unfixable because of no parts available, and a sticky shutter - just haven't got around to fixing). I have a Kiev 4 (russian knock off of a contax IIIa) with a Jupiter 8 (50mm f/2) lens on the way. As far as lenses for the Canon I have an ef-s 18-55 kit lens that comes with the rebel (another compromis, I bought it just because I needed a wide angle), and i had a ef 75-300 IS USM that I replaced with a Sigma 70-200 f/2.8. When I had the 75-300 I would go down to the college's sports games, take pictures ,and sell the prints to parents and players (and one player's girlfriend) from my website (davidson.smugmug.com...though the sports galleries are password protected. I would feel comfortable giving you the password but not the entire internet, so if you care to have it, e-mail me at address given in the greeting of the website). Business was good, so I upgraded to the Sigma (the 75-300 wasn't fast enough to get good pictures at night games and it wasn't nearly as sharp as this sigma is), the only problem is I haven't been able to use the Sigma since a month ago when I bought it. It misfocuses and Sigma can't get it to work. I'd say I'm out over $400 in print sale proftis because of that :-( You mentioned that you would have been able to use your old lens on a dSLR. If you did, I think you would find it inadequate. Why? Because when you shoot film you normally get 4 x 6 prints, right? When you shoot digital, the first thing you do is view it at 100%, so now you see all thebad aspects of the lens. Richard > Richard, mine's an EOS 100 (at least that was the name in Europe), a great > camera of the time, and still pretty good. Has a small battery, of course. [quoted text clipped - 22 lines] > > Dori I think you are right about the Elan name; seems to ring a bell. In turn I find your comments about the SD card interesting. I do find it to be about as small as I'd like to go. I am not keen on the later Fuji xD card because it appears to be even smaller. At this stage I only work with one card of 256 MB, which is enough -- so far -- to handle my needs including short movies. IIRC, the camera cannot recognise above that capacity, which would, indeed, be a bothersome limit if you need a couple of GB or more. You also reminded me that the additional lenses (and matching range finder) were Jupiter. I take your warning about using the existing lens on a digital lens. The thing taht has always appealed to me about Canons is their user-friendliness, with that big thumb wheel, but other brands have trodden similar routes now. Of course I also have an ancient (i.e. battery free), light-driven light meter... :-) BTW, a usable e-mail address is referred to in my signature. Nice pics on your website. DAS SignatureFor direct contact replace nospam with schmetterling --- > Your EOS 100 was called the EOS Elan in the states. Was sorta a big leap > in [quoted text clipped - 93 lines] >> >> Dori "..about using the existing lens on a digital BODY." duuhhhh (sorry). DAS SignatureFor direct contact replace nospam with schmetterling --- >I think you are right about the Elan name; seems to ring a bell. > [quoted text clipped - 124 lines] >>> >>> Dori "Dori A Schmetterling" <ng@nospam.co.uk> haute in die Tasten: > Still have the Leica inherited from my dad, which he had bought at my > birth (1951), though haven't used it for years. Take the Leica and use it (just for moving the parts, no need to take film into it). A Leica will die sooner or later when it is not used for a long time. I once had a Leica M3 from 1963, which I did not use anymore. Before it died, I sold it on ebay and earned almost 3000 Euros for the camera and three lenses. I still miss it, OTOH it is just a piece of dead material, so let's stay serious;-) Frank Signatureplease replace spam-muelleimer with fk-newsgroups for e-mail contact Citroen - Made in Trance Like a car, keep it moving... Actually the Leica is purely mechanical without built-in light meter and is, as Richard (marlinspike) said, a IIIc or IIIf (I can never remember). I have had it valued at a couple of shops in Germany and it is, unfortunately, not a classic. IIRC, the best I was offered was about DEM 300 (now EUR 150 approx). Even if I got double that on eBay I would rather keep it as a family heirloom. It does also represent among the best of camera engineering of the time. The Russian Jupiter lenses are certainly usable but not worth much. I could even find a good home for it with my brother-in-law, as he collects old cameras and displays them round the house. DAS SignatureFor direct contact replace nospam with schmetterling --- [...] > Take the Leica and use it (just for moving the parts, no need to take film > into it). A Leica will die sooner or later when it is not used for a long [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > Frank > Like a car, keep it moving... Which is how my dad's Zeisses went...well one went the other just needs a service. > Actually the Leica is purely mechanical without built-in light meter and is, > as Richard (marlinspike) said, a IIIc or IIIf (I can never remember). I > have had it valued at a couple of shops in Germany and it is, unfortunately, > not a classic. IIRC, the best I was offered was about DEM 300 (now EUR 150 > approx). If it's in good shape it's worth more than that, but none of the non-M's are worth all that much. > Even if I got double that on eBay I would rather keep it as a > family heirloom. It does also represent among the best of camera > engineering of the time. Depends who you ask. There are Leica Contax wars just like Nikon Canon wars. I'm a Contax man myself because they have the built in selium meters...and old zeiss glass is cheaper than old Leica glass. > The Russian Jupiter lenses are certainly usable > but not worth much. I could even find a good home for it with my > brother-in-law, as he collects old cameras and displays them round the > house. Or you could mail it to me. I could, I dunno, send you a picture of it every now and then. Trust me, this is what you want to do with it :-p Richard See below. DAS SignatureFor direct contact replace nospam with schmetterling --- >> Like a car, keep it moving... > [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > are > worth all that much. FROM DAS: Optimist! >> Even if I got double that on eBay I would rather keep it as a >> family heirloom. It does also represent among the best of camera [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > I'm a Contax man myself because they have the built in selium meters...and > old zeiss glass is cheaper than old Leica glass. FROM DAS: I very carefully said "among the best"... :-) >> The Russian Jupiter lenses are certainly usable >> but not worth much. I could even find a good home for it with my [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > Richard > Eisenach...(not Eisencher) That's not what it said on their logo: <http://home.clara.net/peterfrost/emw.html> -Fred W Eisenach is the town and Eisenacher means 'of Eisenach' or similar. My correction referred to "the BMW plant at Eisencher". Sorry, I should have trimmed the post or quoted the phrase. DAS SignatureFor direct contact replace nospam with schmetterling --- >> Eisenach...(not Eisencher) > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > -Fred W Big Money Waster > Eisenach is the town and Eisenacher means 'of Eisenach' or similar. > [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] >> >> -Fred W Bought My Wife > Big > Money [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > >> > >> -Fred W BMW bayishe motor werks or bavarian motor works for real, BMW stands for bayerische motor werke or in english - bavarian motor works. and how to call a bmw - I am from Croatia. in croatia, it's enough to say that you own a 7-er or 5-er to know that you drive a bmw 7-series, or in our language - "sedmica; petica" also, for mercedes cars - it's enough to say just the letter and class. like - c-class, or s-class. >I know what they letters BMW stand for colloquially but could some >body tell me the actual meaning of the letters. Is it Bremen >Motorwerken or something similar please? Only if you think Bremen is in Bavaria. 8;) Bayerischen Motoren Werke GmbH -- Larry >>I know what they letters BMW stand for colloquially but could some >>body tell me the actual meaning of the letters. Is it Bremen [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > >-- Larry Many thanks Larry. pete pltrgyst <pltrgyst@spamlessxhost.org> haute in die Tasten: > Bayerischen Motoren Werke GmbH Sorry Guys, but this question seems to be too hard to answer for those of you who do not happen to live in Munich;-) To be exact, BMW stands for Bayerische Motorenwerke (this means "Bavarian Motor Works" or "Bavarian Engine Factories"). To make the origin of BMW clearer, BMW names itself "Bayerische Motoren Werke", although this is gramattically incorrect. The suffix GmhH is not accurate. GmbH stands for "Gesellschaft mit begrenzter Haftung" which means "Company with limited liability." This seems to be about the same as the abbreviation "Ltd." behind many company names. However, BMW is no limited company, it is a stock corporation (German: Aktiengesellschft, abbreviation: AG). BMW stocks are traded at almost all stock exchanges in Germany. I am not an economy professor, but I think that BMW simply is too big to be a "Ltd." All major car manufacturers in Germany are stock corporations. Sub-companies often are GmbH, for example the "BMW Motorsport GmbH" (responsible for racing), the former "M-Technik GmbH" (responsible for the M-cars) or the "BMW Technik GmbH" (think-tank which develops new products). Frank Signatureplease replace spam-muelleimer with fk-newsgroups for e-mail contact Citroen - Made in Trance > The suffix GmhH is not accurate. GmbH stands for > "Gesellschaft mit begrenzter Haftung" which means "Company with limited > liability." This seems to be about the same as the abbreviation "Ltd." > behind many company names. I allways thought GmbH meant Gesellshaft mit betrügerischen Hintergedanken. Randolph <trash@junkmail.com> haute in die Tasten: > I allways thought GmbH meant Gesellshaft mit betrügerischen > Hintergedanken. Of course this is true in most cases, although the heads of german economy try to keep it as a secret;-) Frank Signatureplease replace spam-muelleimer with fk-newsgroups for e-mail contact Citroen - Made in Trance > However, BMW is no limited company, it is a stock corporation (German: > Aktiengesellschft, abbreviation: AG). BMW stocks are traded at almost > all stock exchanges in Germany. This is true, but for all practical purposes, BMW is a semi-private company. I believe the Quandt family still owns a majority of the shares, with the rest of the shares held mostly by a few others. I believe this is what allows BMW to build the unique cars that they do. If they were more widely held, the executives would be expected to follow the mainstream more closely. They're becoming less unique as it is. Matt O. Oh DEAR. Something is either unique or it isn't. There are no degrees of uniqueness, not in our dimension anyway. DAS SignatureFor direct contact replace nospam with schmetterling --- {...] They're becoming less unique as it is. > Matt O. > Oh DEAR. > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > DAS Sure. It's called "the uniqueitude factor". ;-) -Fred W "Matt O'Toole" <matt@deltanet.com> haute in die Tasten: > This is true, but for all practical purposes, BMW is a semi-private > company. I believe the Quandt family still owns a majority of the > shares, with the rest of the shares held mostly by a few others. Yes, but the Quandt family is not necessarily a bunch of car fanatics. They hold the majority of BMW shares mainly for one purpose: increase their wealth. The Quandt family is known as being quite loyal to BMW, but if times are rough and offers are promising, it is always possible that they simply sell BMW. The best way for BMW to prevent this is: success. Frank Signatureplease replace spam-muelleimer with fk-newsgroups for e-mail contact Citroen - Made in Trance > Sorry Guys, but this question seems to be too hard to answer for those of > you who do not happen to live in Munich;-) [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > (responsible for the M-cars) or the "BMW Technik GmbH" (think-tank which > develops new products). Thanks. I always wondered what the GmbH and AG stood for. -Fred W As far as I can tell the direct equivalents in the UK are: GmbH = Limited (Ltd) AG (Aktiengesellschaft, share company) = Public limited company (Plc) Some years ago there was no separate designation for GmbH and AG under English law, all limited companies being Limited (Ltd). AFAIK, the difference between the two is normally how widely the shares are held, both types of entity being 'limited' in that the assets of the company are separate from those of the shareholders. I am not sure to what extent size has anything to do with it. Merk KGaA is a large, international pharmaceutical and chemical group and is still only a KG (limited partnership), a form seen mainly among smaller companies. (I don't know what the direct English equivalent is.) Tuppence worth. DAS SignatureFor direct contact replace nospam with schmetterling --- [...] >> gramattically incorrect. The suffix GmhH is not accurate. GmbH stands for >> "Gesellschaft mit begrenzter Haftung" which means "Company with limited >> liability." This seems to be about the same as the abbreviation "Ltd." >> behind many company names. [...]> > Thanks. I always wondered what the GmbH and AG stood for. > > -Fred W "Dori A Schmetterling" <ng@nospam.co.uk> haute in die Tasten: > I am not sure to what extent size has anything to do with it. Merk > KGaA is a large, international pharmaceutical and chemical group and > is still only a KG (limited partnership), a form seen mainly among > smaller companies. (I don't know what the direct English equivalent > is.) KGaA means "Kommanditgesellschaft auf Aktienbasis" (Translation: Limited Partnership based on shares). I have seen this abbreviation only with large companies such as Merck. IMHO being a company based on shares requires frequent reporting on your economical situation. So you can get rated by investor banks, which makes it easier for you to get money from investors and banks. Maybe BMW started as a limited company, but they are based on shares since decades by now. Frank Signatureplease replace spam-muelleimer with fk-newsgroups for e-mail contact Citroen - Made in Trance <xnip> > KGaA means "Kommanditgesellschaft auf Aktienbasis" (Translation: Limited > Partnership based on shares). Translating it as "Limited partnership ..." is somewhat misleading. A KGaA must have one partner with unlimited liability (the "complimentary") and can have any number of share holders with limited liability. In practice, the Complimentary is usually an entity with limited liability (like a GmbH or an AG) thus effectively limiting liability. Of course you meant "complemEntary", (KomplEmentaer). However, the German meaning is something like general partner. In English "complementary" is only a non-business adjective. As regards Merck, the Merck family holds c. 74% of the shares. http://www.merck.de/servlet/PB/menu/1014760/index.html And they own the business through another non-Plc entity, an oHG (a type of partnership). DAS SignatureFor direct contact replace nospam with schmetterling --- > <xnip> > [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > limited liability (like a GmbH or an AG) thus effectively limiting > liability. > Of course you meant "complemEntary", (KomplEmentaer). However, the German > meaning is something like general partner. In English "complementary" is > only a non-business adjective. Good catch. My German isn't as good as I though it was. >> Sorry Guys, but this question seems to be too hard to answer for those of >> you who do not happen to live in Munich;-) [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > > -Fred W That's wrong. Here are the definitions from my international business compendium: Gesellschaft mit beschr?nkter Haftung. Translates to "Company with limited liability." In Germany, a GmbH means that the company is incorporated, but it is not publicly traded (as public companies must be AG's). GmbH's are essentially partnerships without a legal name, and there must be at least two partners. There must be nominal capital of at least DM 50,000. Subsidiaries of AG's can be GmbH's. Aktiengesellschaft. Translates to "stock corporation." In Germany, all publicly traded companies are AG's, but not all AG's are publicly traded. AG's have two sets of boards -- the Vorstand, which usually consists of the CEO, CFO and other top management, and an Aufsichtsrat, which translates to "supervisory board," which has the function of overseeing management and representing the shareholders. German law prohibits individuals from being members of both boards. AG's in Germany require a minimum of DM 100,000 share capital and at least five shareholders at incorporation. Minimum par value for shares is DM 50. "tech27" <tech27@mail.anonymizer.com> haute in die Tasten: > That's wrong. Here are the definitions from my international > business compendium: Thank you for your quote, but where were is the contradiction to mine? Fact is: BMW is not a GmbH, but an AG (like almost every other reasonable car manufacturer). And you can buy shares, if you like;-) Frank Signatureplease replace spam-muelleimer with fk-newsgroups for e-mail contact Citroen - Made in Trance Well, you did say (which you may not have meant to say) "Gesellschaft mit begrenzter..." The difference in meaning with "beschraenkter" may not be much practically speaking, but we are talking exactness here... :-) (Tcherman exactness...) DAS SignatureFor direct contact replace nospam with schmetterling --- > "tech27" <tech27@mail.anonymizer.com> haute in die Tasten: > [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > Frank "Dori A Schmetterling" <ng@nospam.co.uk> haute in die Tasten: > "Gesellschaft mit begrenzter..." Oh! That is really wrong. But economy is not really my favourite issue nevertheless;-) Frank Signatureplease replace spam-muelleimer with fk-newsgroups for e-mail contact Citroen - Made in Trance > That's wrong. Here are the definitions from my international business > compendium: [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > share capital and at least five shareholders at incorporation. Minimum par > value for shares is DM 50. Hey tech27, thanks for a great answer to a question I had always sort of had. Not burning enough to actually go research it myself ;-) But your complete explanation was appreciated all the same. -Russ. BMW is Bayarische Motoren Werke which is Bavarian Motor Works in English. > BMW is Bayarische Motoren Werke which is Bavarian Motor Works in ^^^^^^^^^^ > English. From: Somebody <somebody@nospam.russdoucet.com> Subject: Re: What does BMW stand for? Date: Tue, 30 Nov 2004 14:40 Newsgroups: alt.autos.bmw > Bayerische Motoren Werk. ^^^^^^^^^^ From: pltrgyst <pltrgyst@spamlessxhost.org> Subject: Re: What does BMW stand for? Date: Tue, 30 Nov 2004 14:40 Newsgroups: alt.autos.bmw > Bayerischen Motoren Werke Gmb ^^^^^^^^^^^ Someone somewhere must be right.... Signature*Never miss a good chance to shut up * Dave Plowman dave@davenoise.co.uk London SW To e-mail, change noise into sound. Bayerischen Motoren Werke GmbH is the correct name. It started out as Bayerischen Flugzeug-Werke and thus the airplane propeller in the logo. In English, BMW is Bavarian Motor Works. Bavaria being the southern part of Germany with beautiful alps which borders Austria, Switzerland and Italy. Here is the definitive source: http://www.bmwgroup.com/e/nav/index.html?http://www.bmwgroup.com/e/0_0_www_bmwgr oup_com/1_unternehmen/1_7_historie/1_7_1_meilensteine/1_7_1_meilensteine.shtml >>BMW is Bayarische Motoren Werke which is Bavarian Motor Works in > [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] > > Someone somewhere must be right.... No 'n' at end of first word, as lods of posters have already stated. More interesting to me was the note on the BMW website given about the Otto-Werke. Although the surname Otto is not unique it is quite rare. I am wondering if that company has any connection with a descendant of Nicolaus August Otto, the inventor of the four-stroke internal combustion engine. A quick search on Google did not reveal anything. However, it did reveal that both Gottlieb Daimler and Wilhelm Maybach (both of Mercedes fame, of course) were in N A Otto's company 1872 - 1882. I bet "not a lot of people know that", to quote Michael Caine. http://www.loreley.de/otto-museum/ DAS SignatureFor direct contact replace nospam with schmetterling --- > Bayerischen Motoren Werke GmbH is the correct name. It started out as > Bayerischen Flugzeug-Werke [...]and Italy. > Here is the definitive source: > http://www.bmwgroup.com/e/nav/index.html?http://www.bmwgroup.com/e/0_0_www_bmwgr oup_com/1_unternehmen/1_7_historie/1_7_1_meilensteine/1_7_1_meilensteine.shtml > Bayerischen Motoren Werke GmbH is the correct name. It started out as The source you give (BMW itself) says Bayerische Richard "Dave Plowman (News)" <dave@davenoise.co.uk> haute in die Tasten: > Someone somewhere must be right.... I think BMW itself knows best how their name is: Bayerische Motoren Werke Aktiengesellschaft (as quoted from their german website) Frank Signatureplease replace spam-muelleimer with fk-newsgroups for e-mail contact Citroen - Made in Trance Nope. The dedicated band of fans knows better, just as it predicts accurately the success of the current car designs. DAS SignatureFor direct contact replace nospam with schmetterling --- [...] > I think BMW itself knows best how their name is: > > Bayerische Motoren Werke Aktiengesellschaft (as quoted from their german > website) > > Frank ... Bloody Money Waster > I know what they letters BMW stand for colloquially but could some > body tell me the actual meaning of the letters. Is it Bremen > Motorwerken or something similar please? > pete Fred schrieb: > Bloody Money Waster > >>I know what they letters BMW stand for colloquially but could some >>body tell me the actual meaning of the letters. Is it Bremen >>Motorwerken or something similar please? >>pete Hi Fred When do you get back your Brain? > I know what they letters BMW stand for colloquially but could some > body tell me the actual meaning of the letters. Is it Bremen > Motorwerken or something similar please? > pete This from the FIA: Button Must Wait. Blew My Wad Wanted Mercedes Benz (backwards...) Etc. DAS SignatureFor direct contact replace nospam with schmetterling --- >> I know what they letters BMW stand for colloquially but could some >> body tell me the actual meaning of the letters. Is it Bremen [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > Button Must Wait. pete schrieb: > I know what they letters BMW stand for colloquially but could some > body tell me the actual meaning of the letters. Is it Bremen > Motorwerken or something similar please? > pete Bayerische Motoren Werke And they come from here - old Europe |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
<