Is this accurate?Edit
The article currently says:
- The Vito B existed in two versions, the first one had a small viewfinder and low profile top plate. The later version brought out in 1959 had a larger viewfinder and a faster lens (f/2.8 as opposed to f/3.5).
Is this accurate? I own a Vito B with the small viewfinder and the f/2.8 lens... LC 00:22, 14 December 2007 (EST)
- You are right, there is a mistake. I amended the article. Feel free to add more information if you have. --Rebollo fr 09:30, 14 December 2007 (EST)
- Hey again, here's a massively delayed response. :) A couple of things. First, there's a ton more information I can add (and sourced, at that) about common problems with the camera, operation of it, etc etc but I'm not sure this sort of thing is appropriate for the article; being a long-time editor of the English Wikipedia, I'm aware that it's very easy for a newcomer to violate accepted (written and unwritten) community standards for articles, so I'm very cautious about editing and adding information.
- Secondly, I took this photo of my Vito B; this article doesn't have a picture of an early one with a small viewfinder so I wondered if it would be useful to you. I'm not sure if the photo is of good enough quality for your purposes, though, or if this would overload the article with pictures. Also, I don't have a Flickr account, so someone would have to upload it for me. LC 08:28, 12 January 2008 (EST)
- Hello. Any information about the operation quirks of the camera is welcome, provided that it's formulated in a reasonably neutral style, and provided you don't make excessively subjective comments on the perceived quality. I think it is important to keep a historical perspective, showing how the camera was generally perceived and used, rather than how the particular author of the article fancies using it today.
- The current state of the article, with such words as "attractive" or "nice features" is perhaps not the best example to follow. In any case, feel free to write what you find useful: from the mere fact that you are asking the question and are an experienced Wikipedia editor, I am confident that you will apply good sense.
- Your picture is useful and informative, thank you. Any picture of a variant which is not already shown is welcome. I will host your image on my own Flickr account. --Rebollo fr 12:00, 12 January 2008 (EST)
- K, sweet. :) I'll start assembling my notes into something coherent. BTW, I'd prefer it if you would take off the "used with permission" and license it as Creative Commons attribution (or public domain if Flickr allows it; the name's Lewis Collard, BTW). Cheers. :) LC 06:29, 13 January 2008 (EST)
- Done. Flickr says not to license under Creative Commons any picture that I have not taken myself, but I think the notice in the picture's description is clear enough.
Community content is available under GFDL unless otherwise noted.