Originally posted by monochrome Looks like a good idea. Certainly a lot of work to rebuild your Index (which I can help with, if you want).
no thanks, look at the work in process in the normal archive thread. No big deal it is pretty close now, just need to fix a few things, and move some comments into the comments field.
Quote:
One issue will always be Image posts in a single Lens thread taken with mixed format cameras. When that happens someone has to link individual posts into a {format} Index thread rather than just linking a distinct {format} thread into an Index thread. Following the logic, you would add a column for APSc and build a separate Lens thread for those linked individual APSc image posts.
in hind sight yes, but since the initial archive is any format, including Q, the rule for the normal archive still follows, if it is NOT a Pentax Full Frame, it gets posted in the existing thread under an existing lens, only pentax FF cameras get a new thread for any lens
Quote:
IMO, format is a higher sort order than lens. The key point is, they are different formats. Just as there is a separate Q Index from APSc Index for each lens there is a need for a distinct FF Index for each lens. There have already been
requests for a FF-specific sample archive, which is addressed by the FF Index (and the Search Engine, for automatic lenses).
perhaps as i noted above yes if it was considered in the onset, but considering that at this time, there is everything from the q, through 4/3 through FF digital, and also film in the regular archive, it is far too late now to scrap it. Also note that the Q index started independently in the mirrorless forum, and what i tried to do was to make it a little more presentable, based upon the way i thought it should be structured. it is a bear to manage however, as it has the need to link single posts into the table, therefore there is not a thread for each lens, there is only individual posts
Quote:
Do you propose to eliminate the FF Index or add additional links in the lens-specific table? I think there's room for both.
once i get the table sorted, and tided up a little, i propose to eliminate the FF index.
i have maintained all along that there should really be only one index.