The Leica Elmarit-M 28mm f/2.8 ASPH. ($2,195 list) is an impressively small wide-angle lens with a modest f/2.8 maximum aperture. It's compatible with Leica rangefinder cameras, although it's easy enough to use with Sony NEX and Micro Four Thirds cameras using an inexpensive adapter. It's an impressive performer, delivering sharp images at its maximum aperture, but you don't get the edge-to-edge performance that Leica shooters adore until f/4. That's still pretty reasonable for a wide-angle design, and it's even more impressive when you consider just how compact and light the lens is.
The Elmarit measures just 1.2 by 2 inches (HD) and weighs in at 6.3 ounces. The included clip-on plastic hood adds a bit of height, but not much, and its weight is impressive when you consider its all-metal construction. It can focus as close as 0.7 meter and accepts 39mm filters, the standard for smaller Leica lenses. Its aperture ranges from f/2.8 down to f/22 in half-stop clicks, and there's a tab on the focusing ring to make adjusting focus a more pleasant experience. There's no such thing as an autofocus M camera, so be prepared to focus this one yourself.
I used Imatest to check the performance of the Elmarit when paired with the full-frame Leica M. The lens was released and designed for use on the older digital M8 camera, which featured a smaller-than-full-frame image sensor. Imatest shows that average sharpness, calculated using a center-weighted methodology, is 2,311 lines per picture height. This is in excess of the 1,800 lines that we require to call a photo sharp, but there is some softness at the extreme edges of the frame. Performance there is limited to a mere 1,347 lines, which is noticeably fuzzy upon careful examination.
Stopping down to f/4 fixes everything. The overall resolution jumps to 2,736 lines, and edges are quite impressive at 1,879 lines. At f/5.6 the overall sharpness is 3,104 lines, with edges that cross 2,700 lines, and things are just about the same at f/8. This is a wide-angle design, and it doesn't focus as close as some 28mm SLR lenses, so you won't be missing out on much bokeh by narrowing the aperture when corner-to-corner sharpness is a requirement for a shot.
There is a modest amount of barrel distortion, about 0.9 percent, which is a bit much compared to some Leica glass, but is barely relevant in field conditions. If you do notice some curvature in your images, a quick slider adjustment in Lightroom will straighten them out.
The Elmarit-M 28mm f/2.8 ASPH. is a good choice for Leica shooters who want to buy a wide-angle lens, but can't afford the Summicron-M 28mm f/2 ASPH. ($4,295). Its aperture isn't as ambitious, but its price tag is significantly lower and it's compact to boot. The lens is the widest you can use on a full-frame M without resorting to an accessory viewfinder for framing. Leica shooters who value performance over size often seek out the older, larger 28mm Elmarit on the used market, as it is said to produce sharper corners at its maximum aperture. But if you prefer the more modern look that an aspherical lens produces, and don't want to have the need for an f/2 wide-angle or the budget for the Summicron, the Elmarit-M is a solid choice. Just remember to stop it down a bit when you're going for edge-to-edge sharpness in a shot.
LOS ANGELES (Reuters) - A California man has been arrested on suspicion of murder after a driver plowed his car into pedestrians on the popular Venice Beach boardwalk, killing an Italian woman on her honeymoon and injuring 11 other people, police said on Sunday.
Los Angeles police said Nathan Campbell, 38, was taken into custody late on Saturday after the car involved was found in nearby Santa Monica where they say Campbell lives, and where he later turned himself in.
Witnesses said it appeared the car's driver had been aiming for pedestrians on Saturday while driving down the popular Oceanside walkway at speeds up to 20 miles per hour while people screamed and scrambled to get out of the way.
Security video footage aired on ABC News showed the driver parking the car - a dark-colored Dodge Avenger - across the boardwalk from a cafe and getting out, apparently to look at the crowd. The driver then got back in the car and drove it into the crowd before backing up and apparently steering toward another group of people, the footage showed.
A police spokeswoman said Campbell was arrested on suspicion of murder after questioning, but could not give further details on what charges he faces, a possible motive, or whether he was under the influence of drugs of alcohol at the time. Bail was set at $1 million, police said.
Ten of the 12 people injured were taken to hospitals on Saturday - two in critical condition, one of whom died - and two in serious condition. Injuries included broken bones and head trauma, according to the Los Angeles Fire Department.
Police identified the deceased pedestrian on Sunday as a 32-year-old Italian woman who had been on her honeymoon, without giving further details.
The Venice Beach boardwalk is a major tourist attraction known for its eclectic patchwork of shops, restaurants and sporting areas.
In 2003, an elderly man drove his car through a crowded farmers' market in nearby Santa Monica, killing 10 people and injuring 69.
(Writing by Jonathan Allen; Editing by Cynthia Johnston and Eric Walsh)
In this image take from a security camera, pedestrians scatter as a car drives through a packed afternoon crowd along the Venice Beach boardwalk in Los Angeles, Saturday, Aug. 3, 2013. At least a dozen people were injured, two of them critically, according to police. (AP Photo/Snapchat)
In this image take from a security camera, pedestrians scatter as a car drives through a packed afternoon crowd along the Venice Beach boardwalk in Los Angeles, Saturday, Aug. 3, 2013. At least a dozen people were injured, two of them critically, according to police. (AP Photo/Snapchat)
In this image take from a security camera, pedestrians scatter as a car drives through a packed afternoon crowd along the Venice Beach boardwalk in Los Angeles, Saturday, Aug. 3, 2013. At least a dozen people were injured, two of them critically, according to police. (AP Photo/Snapchat)
Pedestrians gather as police and fire officials respond after a car drove through a packed afternoon crowd along the Venice Beach boardwalk in Los Angeles, Saturday, Aug. 3, 2013. At least a dozen people were injured, two of them critically, according to police. (AP Photo/Maarten Smitskamp)
Pedestrians gather as police and fire officials respond after a car drove through a packed afternoon crowd along the Venice Beach boardwalk in Los Angeles, Saturday, Aug. 3, 2013. At least a dozen people were injured, two of them critically, according to police. (AP Photo/Maarten Smitskamp)
Map locates Venice Beach, in Los Angeles; 1c x 3 inches; 46.5 mm x 76 mm;
LOS ANGELES (AP) ? The driver parked outside a hotel and surveyed the leisurely summer scene at the Venice Beach boardwalk: Hundreds of people were sitting at cafes, walking along the seashore or shopping at vendors selling jewelry or art.
Then, according to surveillance video, the man got into a large black car, steered around a vehicle barrier and accelerated mercilessly through the crowd, hitting one person after another as bystanders tried desperately to get out of the way.
Saturday's hit-and-run killed an Italian woman on her honeymoon and hurt 11 others who only a moment earlier had been enjoying an afternoon near the beach at the height of vacation season.
A couple of hours later, authorities arrested a man on suspicion of murder after he walked into a police station in neighboring Santa Monica and said he was involved.
Nathan Louis Campbell, 38, of Los Angeles, remained jailed Sunday on $1 million bail.
Police declined to discuss a motive but Deputy Chief Kirk Albanese said there was no indication that the attack was a terrorist act or that anyone else was involved.
By the time it was over, the driver had covered about a quarter of a mile along the boardwalk before fleeing. The entire incident was over in minutes.
Witnesses reported a horrifying aftermath.
People were " stumbling around, blood dripping down their legs, looking confused not knowing what had happened, people screaming," said Louisa Hodge, who described "blocks and blocks of people just strewn across the sidewalk."
The Italian woman was identified as Alice Gruppioni, 32. Her family in Bologna told the Italian news agency LaPresse that she had been on her honeymoon after a July 20 wedding.
Gruppioni worked as a manager for the family business Sira group, which makes radiators. Her father, Valerio Gruppioni, runs the company and was formerly president of the Bologna soccer team, according to LaPresse.
The family declined to speak to The Associated Press on Sunday.
Another person was critically injured. Two others were taken to hospitals in serious condition. Eight suffered less serious injuries, police said.
According to security video and witness accounts, the driver parked next to the Cadillac Hotel and twice walked out to the boardwalk before getting into the Dodge Avenger. He carefully maneuvered between a storefront and metal poles that had been erected to prevent anyone from driving onto the boardwalk.
Then he stepped on the accelerator and plunged into the crowd.
"I heard a big 'boom, boom,' like the sound of someone going up and down the curb, it was super loud," said Alex Hagan, who was working the desk at the hotel.
The driver knocked over two mannequins and an ATM and started hitting people, swerving from side to side and often running straight into victims. Video showed the car struck at least three vendors ? a fortune teller, a couple selling jewelry and a woman who does tattooing.
Two women who appeared to be in their 60s were also hit. Many people ran after the car, screaming and cursing as it sped away, Hagan said.
Golestan Alipour was bartending at Candle Cafe & Grill when the menacing vehicle drew near.
"The restaurant was full. Everybody ran," Alipour said.
It was not immediately clear how fast the car was going.
The driver eventually turned up a side street and headed away from the ocean. The car was later found abandoned less than two miles away, police said.
At the scene, detectives searched for evidence across the boardwalk, which is in a part of Los Angeles known for eccentricities. The 1.5-mile ribbon of asphalt ? which runs along the sand a few hundred yards from the ocean ? is home to galleries, restaurants, tattoo shops, skateboard parks and the famous outdoor weight room known as Muscle Beach. It can draw as many as 150,000 people on summer weekends.
Hodge said she and her friend, Ashley Taylor, had noted the large number of people walking along the seaside.
"It was a really nice day. There were tons of people out. In fact, we were talking about how packed it was, because we were having a hard time getting through all the people," Hodge said.
The two women stopped to buy ice cream and a couple of hats, which may have saved their lives. They stepped out of a store as emergency crews arrived.
Hodge saw a man and woman lying next to each other, wearing head braces, barely able to move but grasping hands.
Los Angeles Councilman Mike Bonin said there have been previous problems with motorists accidentally driving onto the boardwalk, especially during the evening, because many entrances aren't blocked and there are no signs warning them about entering a pedestrian area.
However, four yellow metal poles blocked the roadway used by the hit-and-run driver, who squeezed past the barrier by driving onto a sidewalk, authorities said.
"The frightening part," Bonin said, was that this part of the boardwalk was "one of the more protected streets."
The crash was not far from where an elderly driver sped through an open-air farmer's market in Santa Monica in 2003, killing 10 people and injuring more than 70 others.
Investigators said George Weller, who was 86 at the time, mistakenly stepped on the gas instead of the brake and then panicked. He was doing up to 60 mph when he plowed through the market. Weller was convicted of 10 counts of vehicular manslaughter with gross negligence and was sentenced to probation.
___
Associated Press Writer Colleen Barry in Milan contributed to this report.
A clerk in the county of San Diego who had moved against the resumption of the issue of same-sex marriage licences in California, has withdrawn a legal bid to stop them from taking place.
Ernest Dronenburg Jr said in a statement yesterday that he had withdrawn his request for the California Supreme Court to stop same-sex weddings, because the sponsors of a 2008 ballot measure have also filed a similar petition.
The high court had rejected the clerk?s request for a stay to temporarily stop same-sex weddings in the state while they considered his petition, reports the Associated Press.
Dronenburg had argued in his petition that county clerks should be allowed to decide whether they want to issue licences to couples.
?County clerks carry out their duties, including the issuances of marriage licenses, without supervision or control of the governor or attorney general,? he wrote. ?Indeed, no statute requires county clerks to report to the governor or attorney general.?
He also went on to argue that equal marriage should only have resumed in Alameda and Los Angeles counties, which is where the Proposition 8 cases originated.
The supporters of California?s now defunct Proposition 8 ban on equal marriage, in July began legal proceedings to challenge the resumption of issuing marriage licenses to gay couples, accusing the courts of interpreting a Supreme Court ruling in the wrong way.
The first same-sex wedding took place between the plaintiffs who brought the case against Prop 8 at the end of June, following the Supreme Court declining to take up the case, and as the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals since gave the green light for same-sex weddings to resume.
The US 9th Circuit Court of Appeals previously lifted its stay on an injunction, which had ordered state officials to stop enforcing Prop 8, meaning marriage licenses could immediately be issued to same-sex couples.
ProtectMarriage, the group that sponsored Proposition 8, and its ban on equal marriage back in 2008, has launched a doubled-edged legal attack on state officials? interpretation of what the Supreme Court ruling means.
?
?
?
?
Discuss this ?
Enjoyed this article?
Add Pink News to your Twitter timeline
Adding logos to all your slides is easy if you work with the Slide Master.
On the View tab, in the Master Views group, click Slide Master. You will likely want to position the logo differently on the Title Slide than on the remaining layouts. Insert the picture on the first layout, then copy and paste it to the second layout. Resize and/or reposition as needed. You can copy and paste that to the remaining layouts where you would like the logo. Leave some layouts without a logo in case you have a large graphic that might chop it off.
Like what you've read? ...Republish it and share great business tips!
Attention: Readers, Publishers, Editors, Bloggers, Media, Webmasters and more...
We believe great content should be read and passed around. After all, knowledge IS power. And good business can become great with the right information at their fingertips. If you'd like to share any of the insightful articles on BusinessManagementDaily.com, you may republish or syndicate it without charge.
The only thing we ask is that you keep the article exactly as it was written and formatted. You also need to include an attribution statement and link to the article.
" This information is proudly provided by Business Management Daily.com: http://www.businessmanagementdaily.com/35964/adding-logos-to-all-your-slides-is-easy-with-the-slide-master "
Added benefit of lixisenatide is not provenPublic release date: 2-Aug-2013 [ | E-mail | Share ]
Contact: Press Office presse@iqwig.de 49-022-135-6850 Institute for Quality and Efficiency in Health Care
Drug manufacturer's dossier did not contain suitable data for any therapeutic indication
Lixisenatide (trade name: Lyxumia) has been approved in Germany since February 2013 for the treatment of type 2 diabetes mellitus in combination with oral blood-glucose lowering drugs or basal insulin when these, together with diet and exercise, do not provide adequate glycaemic control. In an early benefit assessment pursuant to the Act on the Reform of the Market for Medicinal Products (AMNOG), the German Institute for Quality and Efficiency in Health Care (IQWiG) examined whether this new drug offers an added benefit over the current standard therapy. No such added benefit can be derived from the dossier, however, because the drug manufacturer did not present any suitable data for any of the possible therapeutic indications of lixisenatide.
G-BA specified appropriate comparator therapy
Lixisenatide is approved in combination with other blood-glucose lowering drugs, including basal insulin. Depending on the type of prior treatment, there are different subindications within the therapeutic indication for the use of lixisenatide, for which the Federal Joint Committee (G-BA) specified different comparator therapies. For the combination of lixisenatide with metformin, sulfonylurea (glibenclamide or glimepiride) plus metformin is the appropriate comparator therapy.
Two subpopulations are differentiated for the subindication "lixisenatide plus sulfonylurea" regarding the appropriate comparator therapy: For patients for whom metformin is suitable, the comparison is made with the combination of metformin and sulfonylurea. For patients who do not tolerate metformin, the comparison is made with human insulin. A sulfonylurea may be given in addition to human insulin if this is necessary for the individual patient.
The triple combination of lixisenatide with metformin and sulfonylurea is to be compared with human insulin (if applicable, plus metformin). If lixisenatide is combined with basal insulin with or without metformin, the appropriate comparator therapy specified is also human insulin (if applicable, plus metformin).
Manufacturer deviated from appropriate comparator therapy
In the subindication "lixisenatide plus metformin", the manufacturer additionally defined two specific patient groups, for which it specified comparator therapies deviating from the G-BA. In both cases, the manufacturer did not give sufficient reasons for deviating from the comparator therapy defined by the G-BA.
The manufacturer confined itself to a certain part of the specified comparator therapy in the subindications "lixisenatide plus sulfonylurea" when metformin is unsuitable, and "lixisenatide plus basal insulin (if applicable, plus metformin)": It only made a comparison with basal insulin or with intensified conventional insulin treatment instead of considering all treatment options with human insulin. It therefore also only presented data for this comparison.
The manufacturer compared the triple combination "lixisenatide plus metformin plus sulfonylurea" with basal insulin plus metformin plus sulfonylurea. IQWiG did not accept the reasons given by the manufacturer for the deviation, either, because this treatment option is not advisable from a medical point of view because of more frequent side effects, among other things.
Indirect comparisons unsuitable
The manufacturer did not present a direct comparative study between lixisenatide and the appropriate comparator therapy for any of the four subindications mentioned.
For two subindications, it conducted adjusted indirect comparisons based on several studies. In principle, such indirect comparisons can be suitable to prove an added benefit. The three studies it used for the combination of lixisenatide with metformin were unsuitable, however: In two cases, sulfonylureas were not used according to their approval status, and in one case, the study participants differed considerably from the patients in the lixisenatide study, including with regards to baseline blood glucose levels, age, and BMI. Hence treatment effects from the indirect comparison could not be interpreted.
As to the combination of lixisenatide and basal insulin (if applicable, plus metformin), the pharmaceutical company also drew on an adjusted indirect comparison. But the four studies with intermediate comparators were also unsuitable for this comparison because of different patient populations, deviating aims of treatment, and heterogeneous comparator therapies, among other things. Hence the treatment effects could also not be interpreted.
The manufacturer itself did not identify any relevant studies for lixisenatide in dual combination with sulfonylurea versus the appropriate comparator therapy. In the triple combination with metformin plus sulfonylurea, it deviated from the appropriate comparator therapy and did not present any relevant studies.
Hence the dossier did not contain any study results for any of the four therapeutic indications that would be suitable to prove an added benefit.
G-BA decides on the extent of added benefit
The dossier assessment is part of the overall procedure for early benefit assessments supervised by the G-BA. After publication of the manufacturer's dossier and IQWiG's assessment, the G-BA conducts a commenting procedure, which may provide further information and result in a change to the benefit assessment. The G-BA then decides on the extent of the added benefit, thus completing the early benefit assessment.
###
An overview of the results of IQWiG's benefit assessment is given by a German-language executive summary. In addition, the website gesundheitsinformation.de, published by IQWiG, provides easily understandable and brief German-language information on lixisenatide.
The G-BA website contains both general English-language information on benefit assessments pursuant to 35a Social Code Book V and specific German-language information on the assessment of lixisenatide.
[ | E-mail | Share ]
?
AAAS and EurekAlert! are not responsible for the accuracy of news releases posted to EurekAlert! by contributing institutions or for the use of any information through the EurekAlert! system.
Added benefit of lixisenatide is not provenPublic release date: 2-Aug-2013 [ | E-mail | Share ]
Contact: Press Office presse@iqwig.de 49-022-135-6850 Institute for Quality and Efficiency in Health Care
Drug manufacturer's dossier did not contain suitable data for any therapeutic indication
Lixisenatide (trade name: Lyxumia) has been approved in Germany since February 2013 for the treatment of type 2 diabetes mellitus in combination with oral blood-glucose lowering drugs or basal insulin when these, together with diet and exercise, do not provide adequate glycaemic control. In an early benefit assessment pursuant to the Act on the Reform of the Market for Medicinal Products (AMNOG), the German Institute for Quality and Efficiency in Health Care (IQWiG) examined whether this new drug offers an added benefit over the current standard therapy. No such added benefit can be derived from the dossier, however, because the drug manufacturer did not present any suitable data for any of the possible therapeutic indications of lixisenatide.
G-BA specified appropriate comparator therapy
Lixisenatide is approved in combination with other blood-glucose lowering drugs, including basal insulin. Depending on the type of prior treatment, there are different subindications within the therapeutic indication for the use of lixisenatide, for which the Federal Joint Committee (G-BA) specified different comparator therapies. For the combination of lixisenatide with metformin, sulfonylurea (glibenclamide or glimepiride) plus metformin is the appropriate comparator therapy.
Two subpopulations are differentiated for the subindication "lixisenatide plus sulfonylurea" regarding the appropriate comparator therapy: For patients for whom metformin is suitable, the comparison is made with the combination of metformin and sulfonylurea. For patients who do not tolerate metformin, the comparison is made with human insulin. A sulfonylurea may be given in addition to human insulin if this is necessary for the individual patient.
The triple combination of lixisenatide with metformin and sulfonylurea is to be compared with human insulin (if applicable, plus metformin). If lixisenatide is combined with basal insulin with or without metformin, the appropriate comparator therapy specified is also human insulin (if applicable, plus metformin).
Manufacturer deviated from appropriate comparator therapy
In the subindication "lixisenatide plus metformin", the manufacturer additionally defined two specific patient groups, for which it specified comparator therapies deviating from the G-BA. In both cases, the manufacturer did not give sufficient reasons for deviating from the comparator therapy defined by the G-BA.
The manufacturer confined itself to a certain part of the specified comparator therapy in the subindications "lixisenatide plus sulfonylurea" when metformin is unsuitable, and "lixisenatide plus basal insulin (if applicable, plus metformin)": It only made a comparison with basal insulin or with intensified conventional insulin treatment instead of considering all treatment options with human insulin. It therefore also only presented data for this comparison.
The manufacturer compared the triple combination "lixisenatide plus metformin plus sulfonylurea" with basal insulin plus metformin plus sulfonylurea. IQWiG did not accept the reasons given by the manufacturer for the deviation, either, because this treatment option is not advisable from a medical point of view because of more frequent side effects, among other things.
Indirect comparisons unsuitable
The manufacturer did not present a direct comparative study between lixisenatide and the appropriate comparator therapy for any of the four subindications mentioned.
For two subindications, it conducted adjusted indirect comparisons based on several studies. In principle, such indirect comparisons can be suitable to prove an added benefit. The three studies it used for the combination of lixisenatide with metformin were unsuitable, however: In two cases, sulfonylureas were not used according to their approval status, and in one case, the study participants differed considerably from the patients in the lixisenatide study, including with regards to baseline blood glucose levels, age, and BMI. Hence treatment effects from the indirect comparison could not be interpreted.
As to the combination of lixisenatide and basal insulin (if applicable, plus metformin), the pharmaceutical company also drew on an adjusted indirect comparison. But the four studies with intermediate comparators were also unsuitable for this comparison because of different patient populations, deviating aims of treatment, and heterogeneous comparator therapies, among other things. Hence the treatment effects could also not be interpreted.
The manufacturer itself did not identify any relevant studies for lixisenatide in dual combination with sulfonylurea versus the appropriate comparator therapy. In the triple combination with metformin plus sulfonylurea, it deviated from the appropriate comparator therapy and did not present any relevant studies.
Hence the dossier did not contain any study results for any of the four therapeutic indications that would be suitable to prove an added benefit.
G-BA decides on the extent of added benefit
The dossier assessment is part of the overall procedure for early benefit assessments supervised by the G-BA. After publication of the manufacturer's dossier and IQWiG's assessment, the G-BA conducts a commenting procedure, which may provide further information and result in a change to the benefit assessment. The G-BA then decides on the extent of the added benefit, thus completing the early benefit assessment.
###
An overview of the results of IQWiG's benefit assessment is given by a German-language executive summary. In addition, the website gesundheitsinformation.de, published by IQWiG, provides easily understandable and brief German-language information on lixisenatide.
The G-BA website contains both general English-language information on benefit assessments pursuant to 35a Social Code Book V and specific German-language information on the assessment of lixisenatide.
[ | E-mail | Share ]
?
AAAS and EurekAlert! are not responsible for the accuracy of news releases posted to EurekAlert! by contributing institutions or for the use of any information through the EurekAlert! system.
![[ Back to EurekAlert! ]](http://www.eurekalert.org/images/back2e.gif){kind=small}
Public release date: 2-Aug-2013
Share ]