Pika is a real animal?
Gen 1 pokemon really are just funny colored real animals.
“Ekans” is just “Snake” spelled backwards.
“Muk” is just…oh, oh god
Pika is pronounced “pie-kuh” generally. Pikachu comes from pika pika (japanese onomatopoeia for “sparking/sparkling” usually with the connotation of clean) + chuu (sound a mouse makes/squeak).
Actually it comes from pika(-tto), the onomatopoeia for a lightning strike.
Not according to an interview by the creator of Pikachu, Atsuko Nishida:
“Since it was an Electric-type Pokémon, I thought ‘pika‘ [the expression of light flashing in Japanese].
That’s… what I said?
Its light in general, not lightning
“pika” on its own is a sudden flash of light. This onomatopeia is very old (edo era old). What kind of light flashes do you think you’d find 400 years ago? There was pretty much just lightning. Not to be confused with the repeated “pika pika” which like the other commenter said indicates more of a glimmer or shiny and is way more common today.
Actually, name of many Pokemon are multi layered
So there is no wrong, but both right
It is the beauty of Pokemon names and even concepts
Watch some lockstin and gnoggin if interested in this topic 😇
Yeah I just think it’s kind of neat how the names of English pokemon are formed in a similar way to how they are in Japanese.
I think these are the same root? Pika pika is used to mean clean but it’s onomatopoeia for sparkling. That double word onomatopoeia construction in japanese doesn’t really have a direct analogue in English I don’t think.
They’re the same. The “pika” is from “hika”, which refers to light.
Voltorb, Muk, Magnemite, and Mr Mime would all like a word with you. Jynx, however, doesn’t mind.
brotlov?
Oh they brought a lot of love alright
Bigger lens is better for wildlife photography and long distance shot. Animals scurry away when you try to get close, so it’s best to take a picture from the distance.
Wtf is a Glumanda?
Confusingly, there is the animal in the post that is commonly called pika (Ochotona daurica). What I had to think of first was Pica pica though (the Eurasian magpie)
When you stare into pica, pica stares into you. Also sprach Zarathustra.
You mean Pica pica?
Zarathustra sprach only once.
Zarathustra kann mich mal :P
Shit. My ADHD brain doesn’t need another expensive hobby to hyperfixate on.
Wanna buy my setup? My hyperfixation ended.
Edit: but for real, we should introduce a ADHD-sharing network. My old fixation could be yours and vice versa. And I could tell you everything I learned, which is a lot!
I’m super into this idea. It’s got stuff! It’s got sharing! It’s got socializing! Seriously, what a rad idea
Let’s get hyper fixated on this idea and make it a … oh, I could start another hobby?
Can we get someone who can focus for longer than a week for project lead?
it’s craigslist ;)
That’s a great idea for a store front. And great for buying for those people that are hard to buy for, cause they have to figure out how the whole collection works lol
Look for a creative reuse store for the art and craft version of this! I’ve got so much art shit on the cheap. So at least it’s less expensive for it to sit in the drawer 🥲
I mean, I can whip up a web if enough people were interested.
Haha, i think, I recognise you from another adhd post 😄
Was it my lovely stare? It was, right?
Hmm, more the adhs hobby sharing Platform idea😄
But your starry love definitely helped 😆😏
slides over What’s your setup?
Oh shit nevermind, my wife is coming!
Did she see anything?
i agree with you. a friend found an alto sax at an auction, got it for a song. when he heard i was dusting my tenor off he just gave it to me. i will have to give it back eventually, but we’re just glad it’s being played.
I wanted to get a guitar for a while, but then I forgot about it and now I don’t care enough anymore.
I suck at music, my inner metronome doesn’t know timing and I’m too lazy to get up after work. I’m so glad I didn’t buy one.
Genuinely, what do you have and what would you possibly be looking to get for it if you were interested in selling it? I’ve got a EF mount Tamron 150-600 contemporary but it’s a little slow.
EF … I think sigma 120-400, but sluggish as well.
I wasn’t able to convince myself to get on the proper Canon one.
That’s fair, yeah, it’s still a good bit of glass but definitely not L glass for the snappy AF and monstrous front element that just eats light for breakfast.
And I’m not trying to capture a cheetah chasing a motorcycle so I don’t think I need the extreme fast AF.
Can you afford to not get into photography, though?
Dont spend money on fancy new cameras, chances are the camera in your phone is already better than 90% of all cameras in history. Don’t drop a dime on equipment until you’ve hit the limits of the hardware you already have.
The picture above isn’t a picture of what an expensive camera can do - it’s a picture of what a good photographer can do, enhanced by specialty equipment. In the hands of a novice the equipment cannot produce pictures like this.
Phone cameras are great. Their compatibility with telephoto lenses is what sets them back.
They make telephoto lenses for phone case now
Sucky ones.
I get the point but there is no way my phone camera can capture the mountains reflected on the eyes of any animal even on full daylight
Wildlife photography really is mostly about the equipment though. And waiting/being in the right place obviously. But I can tell you from experience, a novice can absolutely produce pictures like this with the right equipment.
depends on your definition of novice.
a novice that is incredibly passionate and has been absorbing knowledge and experience at a fast pace? sure
a novice that just got a camera who’s shooting in .jpeg and has yet to hear of lightroom? (or alternative photo editing software) no
don’t forget novice who stumbled into a great location during what they later learned was golden hour
Phone cameras are good, yes, but their lenses are not. Even a cheap, used camera is better.
I did the math for another post and if I remember right the best telephoto lens built into a very recent phone camera has equivalency to around 120mm (anything else is just digital zoom and sometimes AI enhance).
It’s a relatively new gimmick, and it can do wildlife photography from afar (I got some good full body shots of deer recently), but it’s not quite as good as 600mm or the 1000mm from the other post.
Yes, but there’s so much more to compositing a good shot than just focal length. I’m recommending to a new hobbyist to walk before they run. Framing, lighting, perspective - a cheap phone from 2019 off eBay is still better than what your grandparents had, and is better than cameras from 99% of human history.
Cheap phone from 2019 is better than medium format film wat?! Better than 35mm film?! I dont see it.
Well, went and did research (gasp!) and found I had been lied to! Or at least to say it’s complicated. My statement does have merit in that yes! The most popular cameras from 2019 average 25 megapixels, and that puts it neck and neck to several uses of film (frequently animated uses).
I still think my primary argument is unchanged, but the precise details of my statement are somewhat hyperbolic. In my defence, “better than film” has been the marketing for at least a decade and there are things that digital photography shine at.
Still, thank you for keeping me in check.
https://www.learnfilm.photography/the-resolution-of-film-negatives/
i think your argument stays. photography is a mix of lot more things and attributes than just resolution.
a cheap phone today is better than a digital camera from 15-20 years ago. but neither can stand up to analogue cameras that use film. we can extract 4k video from footage shot on film in the 80’s (any film footage really, but i mention 80’s because the music video for Last Christmas available on youtube in 4k is a wonderful example)
dammit i just got whammed
how is it physically possible to fit a 120mm lens into a phone?
Like a periscope. It’s actually pretty cool.
SourceThe primary factor is that 120mm is not the actual focal length of the lens in the phone, that will be a considerably smaller focal length that happens to give the same field of view as a 120mm lens on a full frame camera (i.e. the same sensor size as a 35mm film frame). The phone uses a much smaller sensor than this hence the smaller focal length for the same FoV.
Another thing that helps is using a telephoto lens design - including this lets you create a lens noticeably shorter than its focal length.
When the lens would still make an overly wide phone despite all this that’s where the periscope lens design as others have already mentioned comes in.
I said equivalency, so I don’t think that’s quite literal. That said, it does stick out a bit and is sunken into the phone itself by about a cm.
I’m not really sure how they get the rest of the way.
deleted by creator
No way I’m carrying that on a hike.
Not with that attitude you won’t. Where’s that “can do” sipirit, buckaroo?
That’s what the harness is for.
deleted by creator
Eventually it will.
Casually using an amazing photo for a meme 👍
A top-shelf flex.
I like the content, but seriously I’m baffled as to how this is a science meme?
I would assume because it’s related to educating someone about why optical lenses can give an incredible amount of detail that digital just can’t compete with. But that’s just a guess and that might not even be enough for this forum
What’s a digital lens exactly?.. The only thing I can think of are in some point& shoot cameras and phones they have fake factorial zooms that are just cropping into the resolution.
i’m guessing it was a brain shortcut for a “digital zoom lens”
Absolutely correct
Also, because posts like this drive really informative comment sections like this thread. I promise there’s a method to the madness.
you people do understand it is fake, and if you zoom on the top right eye, it is not the same as bottom right, right?ok, so to my surprise, it seems to be possible. the difference in the eye may be result of multiple layers of shitty jpeg compression.
the author has more pictures on his web - https://www.pjvphotography.com/Fauna/Pikas
it is though
☺️compression did nothing wrong
You are not supposed to zoom into a compressed photo 🤭
Enhance!
What does it say, when it sneezes?
Tap for spoiler
Pi
Ka
Chuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuu!
I’ve seen things you people wouldn’t believe. Mountains in the eye of a trailside pika, …
Eating seeds as a pastime activity
moments lost, like tears in rain
good bye
now I gotta watch blade runner again dammit! RIP Rutger Olsen Hauer for that performance god DAMN!
deleted by creator
beautiful 🤌
Today’s risky click is presented by GreatTitEnthusiast 👀
Hey, I’m just hear because I heard climate change is threatening Great Tits
Why 600mm? Because sometimes you need really good photos of squirrels.
You can also see them directly, with your own eyes
but the pika is cute >.<
Big, if true
Follow for more life hacks
It’s not even that much of a sacrifice. There are some modern 600s that weigh less than what a typical 70-200/2.8 does. Granted, they’re on the darker side, but if you have the light (supposedly you will during a hike), you don’t always need an f/4.
Laughs in micro fourthirds.
Listen buddy, I spent a lot of money on my full frame, and a lot of muscle lugging it around, so I’d appreciate it if you could keep your superior sensor to yourself.
…could just have shot the mountains.
