2nd RFD: rec.photo.digital.slr (was: rec.photo.dslr)

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by Thad, Sep 3, 2004.

  1. Thad

    Thad Guest

    REQUEST FOR DISCUSSION (RFD)
    unmoderated group rec.photo.digital.slr

    This is a formal Request For Discussion (RFD) for the creation of a
    worldwide unmoderated Usenet newsgroup rec.photo.digital.slr. This is
    not a Call for Votes (CFV); you cannot vote at this time. Procedural
    details are below. All followup discussion should be posted to
    news.groups.

    Newsgroup line:
    rec.photo.digital.slr Digital SLR (single lens reflex) camera systems.

    Significant CHANGES from previous RFD:

    -Change of name from rec.photo.dslr to rec.photo.digital.slr
    -Changes in "rationale" section
    -Removed previous operative definition of digital SLR
    -Added additional proponent: Alan Browne

    RATIONALE: rec.photo.digital.slr

    The proposed newsgroup should be created because it will provide an open
    forum for the discussion of digital SLR (single lens reflex) camera
    systems, separate from film cameras and non-SLR digital cameras.

    Digital SLR photography is growing at an amazing rate. It is generally
    more technically oriented than compact digital photography. It is time
    to create a Big-8 newsgroup for digital SLR enthusiasts.

    Rec.photo.digital was created before the digital photography revolution
    peaked. At that time, digital SLR camera systems were not easily
    obtainable by the average person, due to high cost and limited
    availability. Due to advances in the past year alone by some of the
    major camera manufacturers, a person can find digital SLR camera
    equipment for sale at almost every shopping mall, strip mall, or
    electronics store on earth, at very reasonable prices. RPD was created
    to discuss all general aspects of digital photography - including
    cameras, scanners, printers, software, and other related topics. If
    passed, rec.photo.digital.slr will limit its scope of inclusion to DSLR
    (digital SLR) systems and DSLR photography. The majority of digital
    camera owners use compact or "point and shoot" digital cameras, and RPD
    is an excellent newsgroup for discussion of these cameras.

    Many of the current crop of DSLR camera systems share lenses and
    accessories with their 35mm film counterparts made by the same
    manufacturers. This has generated an substantial volume of crossposted
    threads between rec.photo.equipment.35mm and RPD. Digital cameras are
    off-topic in RPE35mm, and film cameras are off-topic in RPD. These
    crossposted threads are off-topic in both newsgroups, and they eat up a
    considerable amount of bandwidth. With the creation of
    rec.photo.digital.slr, these crossposted threads would be substantially
    reduced. The 35mm crowd can get back to pure 35mm equipment/photography
    discussion, and RPD can be free of film talk.

    CHARTER: rec.photo.digital.slr

    An open forum for the discussion of digital SLR (single lens reflex)
    camera systems.

    These systems consist of:

    -Digital SLR camera bodies with mounts for detachable lenses
    -Lenses for those cameras
    -Any relevant accessories for those camera systems, including but not
    limited to: external flash units, memory cards, microdrives, lens
    filters/hoods, camera bags/cases, DSLR camera/lens/accessory
    maintenance, tripods and monopods.

    All postings made to this group should conform to existing Usenet
    guidelines (see news.announce.newusers for guideline documents).

    Additional On-Topic Discussion:

    -Photography techniques, as long as the discussion remains within the
    context of DSLR photography
    -Image post-processing, as long as the discussion remains within the
    context of DSLR photography
    -Posting links to personal photo galleries or images, as long as the
    discussion remains within the context of DSLR photography
    -Discussion of digital rangefinder camera systems (technically not SLR
    systems, but they are on-topic if they offer lens interchangeability)

    What Is Considered Off-Topic:

    -Discussion of pure film cameras (hybrid film-digital permitted)
    -Discussion of "point and shoot" or any other non-SLR digital cameras
    (digital rangefinders are the only permitted exception)
    -Discussion cameras with non-detachable lenses, such as ZLR (zoom lens
    reflex) cameras
    -Discussion of scanners
    -Discussion of printers
    -Posting of personal or commercial photo links/galleries not in the
    context of digital SLR systems

    What Is Considered Inappropriate:

    -Crossposting to any other newsgroup except where there is good reason
    to do so (even then, crossposting should be limited to within the
    rec.photo.* hierarchy)

    What Is Not Permitted:

    -Discussions debating digital photography vs. film photography
    -Posts from mail2news gateways and/or anonymous remailers
    -Flame wars (brand comparison threads will tolerated as long as they do
    not degenerate into personal flames)
    -Exchange and/or discussion of illegal software
    -Personal attacks
    -Binary postings (i.e. non text postings)
    -Commercial advertisements:

    This group explicitly prohibits the posting of advertisements of any
    kind, whether personal, private or commercial, as well as all other
    promotional material, whether or not it is in any way related to
    photography.

    Auction announcements (e-bay and others) are prohibited. Use
    rec.photo.marketplace.digital instead.

    END CHARTER.

    PROCEDURE:

    This is a request for discussion, not a call for votes. In this phase
    of the process, any potential problems with the proposed newsgroup
    should be raised and resolved. The discussion period will continue for
    a minimum of 21 days (starting from when the first RFD for this proposal
    is posted to news.announce.newgroups), after which a Call For Votes
    (CFV) may be posted by a neutral vote taker if the discussion warrants
    it. Please do not attempt to vote until this happens.

    All discussion of this proposal should be posted to news.groups.

    This RFD attempts to comply fully with the Usenet newsgroup creation
    guidelines outlined in "How to Create a New Usenet Newsgroup" and "How
    to Format and Submit a New Group Proposal". Please refer to these
    documents (available in news.announce.newgroups) if you have any
    questions about the process.

    DISTRIBUTION:

    This RFD has been posted to the following newsgroups:

    news.groups
    news.announce.newgroups
    rec.photo.equipment.35mm
    rec.photo.digital

    Proponent: Thaddeus Lipshitz <>
    Proponent: Alan Browne <>
     
    Thad, Sep 3, 2004
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. "Thad" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > > CHARTER: rec.photo.digital.slr

    >
    > An open forum for the discussion of digital SLR (single lens reflex)
    > camera systems.
    >
    > These systems consist of:
    >
    > -Digital SLR camera bodies with mounts for detachable lenses
    > -Lenses for those cameras
    > -Any relevant accessories for those camera systems, including but

    not
    > limited to: external flash units, memory cards, microdrives, lens
    > filters/hoods, camera bags/cases, DSLR camera/lens/accessory
    > maintenance, tripods and monopods.
    >
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

    > -Photography techniques, as long as the discussion remains within

    the
    > context of DSLR photography
    > -Image post-processing, as long as the discussion remains within the
    > context of DSLR photography
    > -Posting links to personal photo galleries or images, as long as the
    > discussion remains within the context of DSLR photography
    > -Discussion of digital rangefinder camera systems (technically not

    SLR
    > systems, but they are on-topic if they offer lens

    interchangeability)
    > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

    > What Is Considered Off-Topic:
    >
    > -Discussion of pure film cameras (hybrid film-digital permitted)
    > -Discussion of "point and shoot" or any other non-SLR digital

    cameras
    > (digital rangefinders are the only permitted exception)
    > -Discussion cameras with non-detachable lenses, such as ZLR (zoom

    lens
    > reflex) cameras


    This last seems to make the purpose of the group more restrictive than
    its name. IMHO, a correct name like
    rec.photo.digital.interchangeable.lens or rec.photo.digital.multilens
    should be used.
    ..
    I wonder why discussion of electronic viewfinder cameras is apparently
    excluded and, anyway, what's so sacred about using a mirror instead of
    more
    modern electronics?


    --
    James V. Silverton
    Potomac, Maryland, USA
     
    James Silverton, Sep 3, 2004
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. James Silverton wrote:
    > "Thad" <> wrote in message
    > news:...
    >
    > This last seems to make the purpose of the group more restrictive than
    > its name. IMHO, a correct name like
    > rec.photo.digital.interchangeable.lens or rec.photo.digital.multilens
    > should be used.


    The name was *extensively* hashed over in news.groups as well as your
    point, and many others. It's not as simple as choosing any name that
    seems direct; it has to fit in the hierarchy of the Big 8 groups, as well.

    Anyone truly interested will find every plausible - and some
    implausible- name variation and suggestion posted in the last vew dasys
    in news.groups.

    --
    John McWilliams
     
    John McWilliams, Sep 3, 2004
    #3
  4. Thad

    Alan Browne Guest

    James Silverton wrote:
    > This last seems to make the purpose of the group more
    > restrictive than its name. IMHO, a correct name like
    > rec.photo.digital.interchangeable.lens or
    > rec.photo.digital.multilens
    > should be used.


    The rpd.slr intent is to gather those discussions that revolve
    around interchangeable lens cameras. SLR is not the perfect
    thing to call it, but by consensus the best thing to call it.
    As John says, this has been thrashed out over the past few days
    at news.groups , and that is the best place to get the answers.

    > I wonder why discussion of electronic viewfinder cameras is
    > apparently excluded and, anyway, what's so sacred about using a
    > mirror instead of more modern electronics?


    Not so much that they are 'excluded' as not 'included'.

    The naming also allows a future breakout of a group for such
    cameras (say as a part of rpd.p+s, or rpd.zlr or some such) but
    that is not part of the current effort.

    Not that it is relevant at this point, but you cannot critically
    focus and see the detail neccesary with an EVF for many subjects
    including macro and wide aperture portraiture. Yes you can zoom
    and pan the EVF image, but that is not a practical way to work.
    Optical viewfinders offer superb resolution and clarity v. EVF's.

    Cheers,
    Alan

    --
    -- rec.photo.equipment.35mm user resource:
    -- http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm
    -- e-meil: there's no such thing as a FreeLunch.--
     
    Alan Browne, Sep 3, 2004
    #4
  5. "James Silverton" <> wrote in message
    news:4138b119$0$19714$...
    > I wonder why discussion of electronic viewfinder cameras is apparently
    > excluded and, anyway, what's so sacred about using a mirror instead of
    > more
    > modern electronics?


    See any DSLRs on the market with EVFs?

    Well when there is, i'm sure r.p.d.slr will discuss them. Until then the
    point is moot, no?

    --
    Martin Francis http://www.sixbysix.co.uk
    "Go not to Usenet for counsel, for it will say both no, and yes, and
    no, and yes...."
     
    Martin Francis, Sep 3, 2004
    #5
  6. "John McWilliams" <> wrote in message
    news:4M3_c.365969$%_6.317572@attbi_s01...
    > James Silverton wrote:
    > > "Thad" <> wrote in message
    > > news:...
    > >
    > > This last seems to make the purpose of the group more restrictive

    than
    > > its name. IMHO, a correct name like
    > > rec.photo.digital.interchangeable.lens or

    rec.photo.digital.multilens
    > > should be used.

    >
    > The name was *extensively* hashed over in news.groups as well as

    your
    > point, and many others. It's not as simple as choosing any name that
    > seems direct; it has to fit in the hierarchy of the Big 8 groups, as

    well.
    >
    > Anyone truly interested will find every plausible - and some
    > implausible- name variation and suggestion posted in the last vew

    dasys
    > in news.groups.
    >
    > --
    > John McWilliams


    Thanks for the explanation! I'm afraid I did not follow the
    news.groups postings but "slr" strikes me as an inaccurate and
    misleading name that might have been dreamed up by politicians (g).

    Jim.
     
    James Silverton, Sep 3, 2004
    #6
  7. You are right....but its not a big deal. I shoot an Oly E-10. Technically
    its not a DSLR....but that is not going to make me stay away. The users will
    define the real purpose of the group. My guess is that it will evolve as a
    place for Pros and advanced users. What will stay behind is the armatures
    who want to know how big a pixel is and what camera has the best digital
    zoom.


    "James Silverton" <> wrote in message
    news:4138e247$0$19727$...
    >
    > "John McWilliams" <> wrote in message
    > news:4M3_c.365969$%_6.317572@attbi_s01...
    > > James Silverton wrote:
    > > > "Thad" <> wrote in message
    > > > news:...
    > > >
    > > > This last seems to make the purpose of the group more restrictive

    > than
    > > > its name. IMHO, a correct name like
    > > > rec.photo.digital.interchangeable.lens or

    > rec.photo.digital.multilens
    > > > should be used.

    > >
    > > The name was *extensively* hashed over in news.groups as well as

    > your
    > > point, and many others. It's not as simple as choosing any name that
    > > seems direct; it has to fit in the hierarchy of the Big 8 groups, as

    > well.
    > >
    > > Anyone truly interested will find every plausible - and some
    > > implausible- name variation and suggestion posted in the last vew

    > dasys
    > > in news.groups.
    > >
    > > --
    > > John McWilliams

    >
    > Thanks for the explanation! I'm afraid I did not follow the
    > news.groups postings but "slr" strikes me as an inaccurate and
    > misleading name that might have been dreamed up by politicians (g).
    >
    > Jim.
    >
     
    Gene Palmiter, Sep 4, 2004
    #7
  8. "Gene Palmiter" <> wrote in
    news:F98_c.96$%N6.2@trndny01:

    > I shoot an Oly E-10. Technically
    > its not a DSLR


    Not even close.

    --
    "We are twice armed if we fight with faith." (Plato)

    -Richard Cockburn
     
    Richard Cockburn, Sep 4, 2004
    #8
  9. Martin Francis wrote:

    > "James Silverton" <> wrote in message
    > news:4138b119$0$19714$...
    >
    >>I wonder why discussion of electronic viewfinder cameras is apparently
    >>excluded and, anyway, what's so sacred about using a mirror instead of
    >>more
    >>modern electronics?

    >
    >
    > See any DSLRs on the market with EVFs?
    >
    > Well when there is, i'm sure r.p.d.slr will discuss them. Until then the
    > point is moot, no?
    >

    It appears to me to be so. I am holding out for a dSLR that has a blue
    tooth 5x8" lcd for preview and review that weighs two ounces and I can
    strap onto my sleeve.....
    That'll be rec.photo.digital.slr.cool-bluetooth.acc

    And I have staked my claim to

    Rec.photo.digital.better-than-point-and-shoot-but-not-way-high-end-non-SLR-totally-digital
    thing.....for my Canon G3.

    --
    John McWilliams
     
    John McWilliams, Sep 4, 2004
    #9
  10. Thad

    Leonard Guest

    On Sat, 04 Sep 2004 00:40:05 +0000, Gene Palmiter wrote:

    > You are right....but its not a big deal. I shoot an Oly E-10. Technically
    > its not a DSLR....


    Technically it is a DSLR. However the proposal specifically excludes
    dslrs with fixed lenses and includes rangefinders, which technically
    or otherwise are not dslrs.

    - Len
     
    Leonard, Sep 4, 2004
    #10
  11. The E-10 has a Single-Lens but not the Reflex....so how can it be a DSLR?
    However...It does have all the creative controls that a DSLR offers....and
    at the time it was created to have excluded it would have limited the
    discussion to perhaps 4 cameras. It was such a success that other makers
    came out with cams like it...enough to make a category of their own. The
    topics in a DSLR forum of no interest to an E-10 shooter might be limited to
    cleaning of sensors and what types of lenses will fit.

    "Leonard" <> wrote in message
    news:p...
    > On Sat, 04 Sep 2004 00:40:05 +0000, Gene Palmiter wrote:
    >
    > > You are right....but its not a big deal. I shoot an Oly E-10.

    Technically
    > > its not a DSLR....

    >
    > Technically it is a DSLR. However the proposal specifically excludes
    > dslrs with fixed lenses and includes rangefinders, which technically
    > or otherwise are not dslrs.
    >
    > - Len
    >
     
    Gene Palmiter, Sep 4, 2004
    #11
  12. Thad

    Chris Brown Guest

    In article <a6g_c.519$sS4.282@trndny03>,
    Gene Palmiter <> wrote:
    >The E-10 has a Single-Lens but not the Reflex....so how can it be a DSLR?


    Actually it does have the reflex - it uses a split prism to direct half the
    light to the optical viewfinder.
     
    Chris Brown, Sep 4, 2004
    #12
  13. Chris Brown wrote:
    > In article <a6g_c.519$sS4.282@trndny03>,
    > Gene Palmiter <> wrote:
    >> The E-10 has a Single-Lens but not the Reflex....so how can it be a
    >> DSLR?

    >
    > Actually it does have the reflex - it uses a split prism to direct
    > half the light to the optical viewfinder.


    Is it interchangeable lens? That woudl appear to be the main criterion
    for it to be in the proposed group.

    Cheers,
    David
     
    David J Taylor, Sep 4, 2004
    #13
  14. Except for rangefinders? Really it looks like someone is playing to their
    prejudices. It all doesn't matter....the users will decide and I doubt that
    there will be too many rude readers that run people out. I don't see the
    need for a new group...but I will subscribe. I don't think that the clueless
    beginner will know the difference and might end up in either group.


    "David J Taylor" <-this-bit.nor-this-part.uk>
    wrote in message news:NOh_c.288$...
    > Chris Brown wrote:
    > > In article <a6g_c.519$sS4.282@trndny03>,
    > > Gene Palmiter <> wrote:
    > >> The E-10 has a Single-Lens but not the Reflex....so how can it be a
    > >> DSLR?

    > >
    > > Actually it does have the reflex - it uses a split prism to direct
    > > half the light to the optical viewfinder.

    >
    > Is it interchangeable lens? That woudl appear to be the main criterion
    > for it to be in the proposed group.
    >
    > Cheers,
    > David
    >
    >
     
    Gene Palmiter, Sep 4, 2004
    #14
  15. Thad

    Guest

    Re: 2nd RFD: rec.photo.digital.slr

    In rec.photo.digital Thad <> wrote:

    > -Digital SLR camera bodies with mounts for detachable lenses


    > What Is Considered Off-Topic:


    > -Discussion of "point and shoot" or any other non-SLR digital cameras
    > (digital rangefinders are the only permitted exception)
    > -Discussion cameras with non-detachable lenses, such as ZLR (zoom lens
    > reflex) cameras


    This is a bizarre and unreasonable restriction. To have a group that
    is called "SLR", but disqualify some SLRs on the wholly prejudiced
    grounds that they don't have exchangable lenses and then allow
    rangefinder cameras is foolish and confusing.

    Besides, what about other kinds of digital cameras? Digital view
    cameras, for example?

    Andrew.
     
    , Sep 4, 2004
    #15
  16. Gene Palmiter wrote:
    > Except for rangefinders? Really it looks like someone is playing to
    > their prejudices. It all doesn't matter....the users will decide and
    > I doubt that there will be too many rude readers that run people out.
    > I don't see the need for a new group...but I will subscribe. I don't
    > think that the clueless beginner will kno
    > wthedifferenceandmightendupineithergroup.


    Yes, I have a number of issues which I have raised in the news.groups
    discussions.

    I do see a need for breaking up this group into more manageable chunks (to
    get the postings down to a reasonable number per day), but my own
    suggestions of having .scanners and .printers were rejected as groups for
    those items already exist. I would have hoped to see a .advanced group
    for digital SLRs and high-end pont and shoots, but that suggestion wasn't
    liked either....

    Cheers,
    David
     
    David J Taylor, Sep 4, 2004
    #16
  17. David J Taylor wrote:
    > Gene Palmiter wrote:
    >
    >>Except for rangefinders? Really it looks like someone is playing to
    >>their prejudices. It all doesn't matter....the users will decide and
    >>I doubt that there will be too many rude readers that run people out.
    >>I don't see the need for a new group...but I will subscribe. I don't
    >>think that the clueless beginner will kno
    >>wthedifferenceandmightendupineithergroup.

    >
    >
    > Yes, I have a number of issues which I have raised in the news.groups
    > discussions.
    >
    > I do see a need for breaking up this group into more manageable chunks (to
    > get the postings down to a reasonable number per day), but my own
    > suggestions of having .scanners and .printers were rejected as groups for
    > those items already exist. I would have hoped to see a .advanced group
    > for digital SLRs and high-end pont and shoots, but that suggestion wasn't
    > liked either....


    David-

    I don't think it's necessarily that your suggestions and some of those
    of the others weren't liked, or that they didn't have a lot of merit;
    there are just several more criteria that a name and charter have to
    meet. Like so much on Usenet, there are compromises, some good, some bad.

    And Gene's prognistication seems right on, too. But over all the group
    makes a lot of sense to me, and Messrs. Lipschitz and Browne have put a
    lot of good work into it.

    --
    John McWilliams

    "My wife said, 'It's either me or the ham radio. There's not enough room
    for both of us.' Over."
     
    John McWilliams, Sep 4, 2004
    #17
  18. Re: 2nd RFD: rec.photo.digital.slr

    lid wrote:

    > In rec.photo.digital Thad <> wrote:
    >
    >
    >>-Digital SLR camera bodies with mounts for detachable lenses

    >
    >
    >>What Is Considered Off-Topic:

    >
    >
    >>-Discussion of "point and shoot" or any other non-SLR digital cameras
    >>(digital rangefinders are the only permitted exception)
    >>-Discussion cameras with non-detachable lenses, such as ZLR (zoom lens
    >>reflex) cameras

    >
    >
    > This is a bizarre and unreasonable restriction. To have a group that
    > is called "SLR", but disqualify some SLRs on the wholly prejudiced
    > grounds that they don't have exchangable lenses and then allow
    > rangefinder cameras is foolish and confusing.
    >
    > Besides, what about other kinds of digital cameras? Digital view
    > cameras, for example?
    >

    Andrew-

    I think if you read most of the postings in news.groups (not rpd) you
    will find that this point has been hashed out thoroughly.

    --
    John McWilliams
     
    John McWilliams, Sep 4, 2004
    #18
  19. Re: 2nd RFD: rec.photo.digital.slr

    "John McWilliams" <> wrote in message
    news:Mbk_c.27668$3l3.1531@attbi_s03...
    > lid wrote:
    >
    > > In rec.photo.digital Thad <> wrote:
    > >
    > >
    > >>-Digital SLR camera bodies with mounts for detachable lenses

    > >
    > >
    > >>What Is Considered Off-Topic:

    > >
    > >
    > >>-Discussion of "point and shoot" or any other non-SLR digital

    cameras
    > >>(digital rangefinders are the only permitted exception)
    > >>-Discussion cameras with non-detachable lenses, such as ZLR (zoom

    lens
    > >>reflex) cameras

    > >
    > >
    > > This is a bizarre and unreasonable restriction. To have a group

    that
    > > is called "SLR", but disqualify some SLRs on the wholly prejudiced
    > > grounds that they don't have exchangable lenses and then allow
    > > rangefinder cameras is foolish and confusing.
    > >
    > > Besides, what about other kinds of digital cameras? Digital view
    > > cameras, for example?
    > >

    > Andrew-
    >
    > I think if you read most of the postings in news.groups (not rpd)

    you
    > will find that this point has been hashed out thoroughly.
    >
    > --
    > John McWilliams


    Sorry to re-enter this discussion but I don't think saying the same
    thing time and time again ("hashing out") makes it any more true than
    when you started. The name *is* inaccurate.


    --
    James V. Silverton
    Potomac, Maryland, USA
     
    James Silverton, Sep 4, 2004
    #19
  20. John McWilliams wrote:
    []
    > David-
    >
    > I don't think it's necessarily that your suggestions and some of those
    > of the others weren't liked, or that they didn't have a lot of merit;
    > there are just several more criteria that a name and charter have to
    > meet. Like so much on Usenet, there are compromises, some good, some
    > bad.
    > And Gene's prognistication seems right on, too. But over all the group
    > makes a lot of sense to me, and Messrs. Lipschitz and Browne have put
    > a lot of good work into it.


    As I see it, it is a quick fix to meet the needs of one group of people.
    As it /may/ help others (by moving their traffic off r.p.d), it does have
    merit, but as you will know I have reservations that I have already
    expressed.

    Cheers,
    David
     
    David J Taylor, Sep 4, 2004
    #20
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. Thad

    3rd RFD: rec.photo.digital.slr

    Thad, Sep 7, 2004, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    37
    Views:
    699
    Mark M
    Sep 8, 2004
  2. Steve Young

    Re: 3rd RFD: rec.photo.digital.slr

    Steve Young, Sep 8, 2004, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    2
    Views:
    304
    Steve Young
    Sep 8, 2004
  3. Lionel
    Replies:
    16
    Views:
    789
    Ken Tough
    Sep 17, 2004
  4. Woodchuck Bill
    Replies:
    15
    Views:
    585
  5. Sarah Molly

    2nd RFD: rec.photo.equipment.sigma

    Sarah Molly, Jun 13, 2005, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    10
    Views:
    495
    Bill Aten
    Sep 16, 2005
Loading...

Share This Page