It might be tempting to say that if something cannot be defined, then it does not exist. Better, perhaps, that the absence of this something from what people say or write means its non-existence, or its non-relevance to daily life.
Engineering is relevant to the daily life of everybody: everyday we use some Engineering product. The fact is so obvious that no examples are necessary here.
On the other hand, is Engineering something we are aware of, we discuss, we write of? Is it consciously present? Is it immanent between us?
“Engineering”: try and see if there is such headline in any news site. No, there is not. “World”, “Politics”, “Sport”, “Entertainment”, “Technology”, “Science” are the most common news sections. One would think that Technology, or Science, or both should encompass Engineering: well, one should think again. The News, the Web, nowadays, say that technology is personal computers, phones, tablets, telecoms, even search engines and algorithms. Science, on the other hand, implies and supposes “natural sciences”: astronomy, environment, biology, medicine. Where is Engineering? Engineering is absent from the web that normal people read.
The news world is not everything nor everybody. A substantial slice of the web is, democratically, filled by common people describing their interests: blog, photo-blogs, tweets, and so on. You will easily find your favourite blog written about (or by) your favourite graphic designer. The weirdest hobby will find its space between the most common, and uncommon, professions. You may choose to be up to date with any topic ranging from style to politics, from geography to food, from tourism to aviation. Do not dare, however, to go and look for Engineers. It seems that Engineers do not exist, or if they exist they do not write, or if they write, they write of something else. They hide, they fake, they are silent.
I am not an exception. I am an Engineer but I write not of it. I am a photographer too, and I write of it, of course. “Cogito ergo sum” or, rather, “Scribo ergo sum”. Engineers do not write, nor anybody write about them. Engineers do not exist.
, so I just placed them on a white chair, not too wide, and played with the perspective using a Nikkor UD 20/3.5 on my Fuji S3.
, spotted it very well.
in particular the one to use Contax/Yashica lenses. The Tessar 45/2.8 pancake, silver edition, looks as if it had been designed for the NEX itself. The Sonnar 135/2.8 is long, very long, but falls in the hand beautifully. The Tamron SP 90/2.5 Adaptall is a great lens, supersharp, however not fully optimised for digital, in such in some light conditions and at medium and small apertures, a purple image of the diaphragm is projected in the centre of the sensor.
Short review of Sony NEX-5
The first picture I took with my new NEX-5
First thing first: I prefer a Contax 139, or a Nikon FM2, to the Sony NEX-5
. But this comparison would be too much heterogeneous: the NEX is a digital camera. As such, the NEX is a great camera, and I think that disparaging it mostly comes from a psychological embarrassment of the kind “too small, not big enough”.
The camera has many features that only a few years ago were only present in some very fine cameras, if not professional, and even today are rare:
For street photography, the NEX is even better of Leica Ms, being absolutely non-obtrusive.
I like my NEX!