3rd RFD: rec.photo.digital.slr

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by Thad, Sep 7, 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.

    CHANGES from the previous RFD have been made to the syntax and wording
    of previously unclear elements in this proposal.

    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 a 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

    This newsgroup, rec.photo.digital.slr, is an open forum for the
    discussion of digital SLR (single lens reflex) camera systems.

    These systems consist of:

    -Digital SLR (DSLR) 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 hybrid film-digital cameras and digital backs

    Digital rangefinder camera systems are technically not SLR systems, but
    they are on-topic if they offer lens interchangeability. Inclusion of
    digital rangefinders with mounts for detachable lenses is provisional;
    should a separate Big-8 newsgroup for digital rangefinders ever come
    into existence, these camera systems will become off-topic in
    rec.photo.digital.slr upon passage of the new group.

    What Is Considered Off-Topic:

    -Discussion of pure film cameras
    -Discussion of "point and shoot" or any other non-SLR digital cameras
    (digital rangefinders with mounts for detachable lenses are the only
    provisional exception)
    -Discussion of any cameras with non-detachable lenses
    -Discussion of scanners
    -Discussion of printers
    -Posting links to personal photo galleries or images, not in the context
    of DSLR photography

    Posting off-topic should be kept to a minimum. All off-topic posts
    should be prefixed with [OT] or another easily-identifiable prefix in
    the subject line. If a segment of any on-topic thread ever becomes
    clearly off-topic, it is the duty of those individuals posting to change
    the subject line to reflect the off-topic change.

    Debating the pros and cons of digital photography vs. film photography
    is off-topic. Please be polite and try to not steer any conversations in
    that direction. In the event that any segment of any on-topic thread
    ever becomes clearly off-topic by debating the pros and cons of digital
    photography vs. film photography, it is the duty of those individuals
    posting to change the subject line to reflect the off-topic change.

    What Is Considered Inappropriate:

    - Crossposting to any other newsgroup except where the post is of direct
    relevance to each group in the crosspost

    What Is Not Permitted:

    -Posts from mail2news gateways and/or anonymous remailers
    -Flame wars (comparisons between different digital SLR brands or systems
    are permitted as long as they do not degenerate into personal flames)
    -Signatures with more than 4 lines
    -Exchange and/or discussion of illegal software
    -Personal attacks
    -Binary postings (i.e. non text postings) other than PGP and small
    binary signatures
    -Commercial advertisements:

    This newsgroup 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 (Ebay.com and others) are prohibited.

    Posting links to commercial websites with the sole intention of
    promoting those sites is not permitted; links to commercial websites may
    be posted in the context of answering a specific question.

    When posting on rec.photo.digital.slr, please use standard Usenet
    netiquette. Treat other posters with courtesy and follow standard
    conventions when replying to posts. Please trim the posts you reply to,
    retaining only the significant portions in your follow up. Preserve
    attributions (the bits that specify who wrote what in each post) and
    limit your signature to 4 lines or less. To ensure readability, do not
    use HTML in your posts and limit your line lengths to the Usenet
    standard of 80 characters.

    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 7, 2004
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. Thad

    Steve Young Guest

    [added groups with vested interest]

    "Alan Browne" <> wrote

    >> What Is Considered Off-Topic:


    >> Discussion of any cameras with non-detachable lenses.


    >> As my DSLR fits the above,(Oly E20),I won't support this new group.


    > [...] ... another group is in the works that addresses SLR-like cameras.


    Will this be addressing new charters for the 2 original groups (rpd &
    rpe35mm) which are impacted by the new group(s)?

    Steve Young

    --
    One thing you can guarantee, though: if you don't try, you'll never
    have to find out it might have succeeded, and you can be very smug
    about your species' extinction as it is happening: "I _told_ them
    there was no way to bring peace to this planet!"
    - xanthian
     
    Steve Young, Sep 7, 2004
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. Thad

    Alan Browne Guest

    Steve Young wrote:
    > Will this be addressing new charters for the 2 original groups (rpd &
    > rpe35mm) which are impacted by the new group(s)?


    no.


    --
    -- 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 7, 2004
    #3
  4. Thad

    Lionel Guest

    Kibo informs me that John McWilliams <> stated that:

    >Bruce Murphy wrote:
    >> I could have sworn that we've already established that the E20 wasn't
    >> cool enough to be a newspeak SLR.

    >
    >I hear what you are saying, Bruce, but I don't see this as an attempt to
    >be cool or cool enough. The camera above is not an SLR as the term has
    >become widely accepted throughout the industry and by hobbyist and Pro
    >photographers.


    I think this distinction is silly, & pedantic in all the wrong ways. The
    number of DSLRs that don't have interchangeable lenses is so miniscule
    that excluding them is totally unnecessary, & worse; is insulting to the
    owners of those cameras. The argument that people with
    non-interchangeable-lens SLRs won't have anything to talk about in the
    proposed group is incredibly lame. If they are going to find it boring,
    they'll drift over to RPD (or wherever) by themselves - deeming their
    cameras to be off-topic in the charter is just a gratuitous slap in the
    face. Including rangefinders makes the '.slr' name even more confusing &
    divisive. IMO, this will result in a group that will be prone to ongoing
    internal flamewars, & will develop a culture hostile to newbies.

    Given that the proponents refuse to consider fixing this problem, I am
    opposing it under the current name, & will vote 'No' on the ballot, as I
    believe that it will be harmful to discussion on photography on Usenet.

    I recommend that others also vote against this proposal, if it remains
    in its current form.

    I will change this stance under one of the following circumstances:
    (a) The proponents come up with a reasonable group name that accurately
    reflects the topicality described in their charter,
    *OR:*
    (b) The proponents adopt a more inclusive charter that reflects both the
    texbook & commonly used meanings of the term 'SLR'.

    Either of these solutions will regain my enthusiastic support for this
    proposal. (And maybe someone will come up with some other solution for
    these issues.)

    --
    W
    . | ,. w , "Some people are alive only because
    \|/ \|/ it is illegal to kill them." Perna condita delenda est
    ---^----^---------------------------------------------------------------
     
    Lionel, Sep 7, 2004
    #4
  5. Thad

    Thad Guest

    Lionel wrote:

    > I am
    > opposing it under the current name, & will vote 'No' on the ballot


    Thanks a lot, Lionel.

    --

    Thaddeus Lipshitz
     
    Thad, Sep 7, 2004
    #5
  6. Thad

    Thad Guest

    Steve Young wrote:

    > Will this be addressing new charters for the 2 original groups (rpd &
    > rpe35mm) which are impacted by the new group(s)?


    No
    --

    Thaddeus Lipshitz
     
    Thad, Sep 7, 2004
    #6
  7. Thad

    Steve Young Guest

    > Steve Young wrote:
    >> Will this be addressing new charters for the 2 original groups (rpd &
    >> rpe35mm) which are impacted by the new group(s)?


    "Alan Browne" <> wrote

    > no.


    why? you have no problem pillaging the groups? no new charters as your
    gratitude?
     
    Steve Young, Sep 7, 2004
    #7
  8. Thad

    Thad Guest

    Lionel wrote:

    >The number of DSLRs that don't have interchangeable lenses is so miniscule



    That may technically true, but due to misleading marketing by
    manufacturers, some some people with ZLRs actually think they own an
    SLR.


    For example-

    http://www.adorama.com/IFJS20.html

    Fuji markets this camera as an SLR. Alan agrees with me that this is a
    ZLR, and I'm sure most photographers would also agree. To avoid future
    abiguity, the need to defone the range of included cameras in advance is
    necessary. The above cmaera is high-end, and it will be at home in Bill
    and David's proposed ZLR group - if passed. The same applies to the Oly
    E20.

    --

    Thaddeus Lipshitz
     
    Thad, Sep 7, 2004
    #8
  9. Thad

    Lionel Guest

    Kibo informs me that Thad <> stated that:

    >Lionel wrote:
    >
    >> I am
    >> opposing it under the current name, & will vote 'No' on the ballot

    >
    >Thanks a lot, Lionel.


    Sorry Thad, it's nothing personal, & I wish I didn't feel it neccessary
    to take this stance. I'm doing it because I believe that the problems
    that I & others have raised about the charter are so serious that
    they'll severely impact the usability of the group, & related
    newsgroups.
    I've clearly stated changes to the charter that I believe will fix the
    problems, & restore my support for the proposal.
    If you & Alan are correct in believing that my objections are in the
    minority, then you'll presumably get enough votes to create the group, &
    hopefully it'll turn out that my concerns were unfounded.
    If I am correct, the vote will go against the proposal, & perhaps
    you'll reconsider my suggestions for a second attempt at creating the
    group.
    Either way, I'm hopeful that we will, eventually, end up with a
    thriving DLSR group.

    --
    W
    . | ,. w , "Some people are alive only because
    \|/ \|/ it is illegal to kill them." Perna condita delenda est
    ---^----^---------------------------------------------------------------
     
    Lionel, Sep 7, 2004
    #9
  10. Thad

    Alan Browne Guest

    Steve Young wrote:

    >>Steve Young wrote:
    >>
    >>>Will this be addressing new charters for the 2 original groups (rpd &
    >>>rpe35mm) which are impacted by the new group(s)?

    >
    >
    > "Alan Browne" <> wrote
    >
    >
    >>no.

    >
    >
    > why? you have no problem pillaging the groups? no new charters as your
    > gratitude?




    You're the one who wants this done, you lead it.





    --
    -- 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 7, 2004
    #10
  11. Thad

    Lionel Guest

    Kibo informs me that Thad <> stated that:

    >Lionel wrote:
    >
    >>The number of DSLRs that don't have interchangeable lenses is so miniscule

    >
    >
    >That may technically true, but due to misleading marketing by
    >manufacturers, some some people with ZLRs actually think they own an
    >SLR.
    >For example-
    >http://www.adorama.com/IFJS20.html
    >
    >Fuji markets this camera as an SLR.


    So what? - They also describe it as a 'Pro' camera, which is as
    laughable as The Preddiot's claim that the SD9 is a pro camera.

    > Alan agrees with me that this is a
    >ZLR, and I'm sure most photographers would also agree. To avoid future
    >abiguity, the need to defone the range of included cameras in advance is
    >necessary. The above cmaera is high-end, and it will be at home in Bill
    >and David's proposed ZLR group - if passed. The same applies to the Oly
    >E20.


    Does the E20 have a mirror that routes the image from the lens between
    the image plane & the viewfinder? - If so, all it's an SLR, according to
    all the photography textbooks on my bookshelf, & having a digital
    imaging sensor makes it a DSLR, & on-topic in RPDS by any rational
    measure, IMO.

    --
    W
    . | ,. w , "Some people are alive only because
    \|/ \|/ it is illegal to kill them." Perna condita delenda est
    ---^----^---------------------------------------------------------------
     
    Lionel, Sep 7, 2004
    #11
  12. Thad

    Steve Young Guest

    "Lionel" <> wrote

    > Kibo informs me that Thad <> stated
    >>Lionel wrote:


    >>> I am
    >>> opposing it under the current name, & will vote 'No' on the ballot


    >>Thanks a lot, Lionel.


    > Sorry Thad, it's nothing personal, & I wish I didn't feel it neccessary
    > to take this stance. I'm doing it because I believe that the problems
    > that I & others have raised about the charter are so serious that
    > they'll severely impact the usability of the group, & related
    > newsgroups. I've clearly stated changes to the charter that I believe
    > will fix the problems, & restore my support for the proposal.
    > If you & Alan are correct in believing that my objections are in the
    > minority, then you'll presumably get enough votes to create the group, &
    > hopefully it'll turn out that my concerns were unfounded.
    > If I am correct, the vote will go against the proposal, & perhaps
    > you'll reconsider my suggestions for a second attempt at creating the
    > group. Either way, I'm hopeful that we will, eventually, end up with a
    > thriving DLSR group.


    Dittos! My wish too, but I won't compromise on conforming the affected
    groups charters. The only reply I will have for this apparent 'hit and
    run' pillage is my resolve to vote 'no'.

    Steve Young
     
    Steve Young, Sep 7, 2004
    #12
  13. Thad

    Alan Browne Guest

    Lionel wrote:

    > Does the E20 have a mirror that routes the image from the lens between
    > the image plane & the viewfinder? - If so, all it's an SLR, according to
    > all the photography textbooks on my bookshelf, & having a digital
    > imaging sensor makes it a DSLR, & on-topic in RPDS by any rational
    > measure, IMO.


    Your opinion is wrong.

    ....interchangeable lenses: NO

    You can't twist and turn your words to make it something it is not.


    --
    -- 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 7, 2004
    #13
  14. Thad

    Thad Guest

    Steve Young wrote:

    > Dittos! My wish too, but I won't compromise on conforming the affected
    > groups charters. The only reply I will have for this apparent 'hit and
    > run' pillage is my resolve to vote 'no'.


    You are being very unreasonable. You are asking for something for which
    there is no process.

    --

    Thaddeus Lipshitz
     
    Thad, Sep 7, 2004
    #14
  15. Thad

    Steve Young Guest

    "Alan Browne" <> wrote

    > Steve Young wrote:


    >> "Alan Browne" <> wrote


    >>>Steve Young wrote:


    >>>>Will this be addressing new charters for the 2 original groups (rpd
    >>>> >>>>& rpe35mm) which are impacted by the new group(s)?


    >>>no.


    >> why? you have no problem pillaging the groups? no new charters as
    >> your gratitude?


    > You're the one who wants this done, you lead it.


    It takes unity to make it work.
    I now view your new group as the elitist power grab others have
    called you on. You might as well petition for a moderated group.

    Steve Young
     
    Steve Young, Sep 7, 2004
    #15
  16. Thad

    Steve Young Guest

    "Thad" <> wrote

    > Steve Young wrote:
    >
    >> Dittos! My wish too, but I won't compromise on conforming the affected
    >> groups charters. The only reply I will have for this apparent 'hit and
    >> run' pillage is my resolve to vote 'no'.

    >
    > You are being very unreasonable. You are asking for something for which
    > there is no process.


    In spite of the hundreds of posts, and even Alan saying it was needed,
    neither of you have been apparently willing to ask (and accommodate), if
    it could be included with your proposal. It sure makes a lot of sense,
    especially when you're going to be asking the 2 affected groups to 'vote
    in' your new group.

    :)x
     
    Steve Young, Sep 7, 2004
    #16
  17. Thad

    Lionel Guest

    Kibo informs me that Alan Browne <>
    stated that:

    >Lionel wrote:
    >
    >> Does the E20 have a mirror that routes the image from the lens between
    >> the image plane & the viewfinder? - If so, all it's an SLR, according to
    >> all the photography textbooks on my bookshelf, & having a digital
    >> imaging sensor makes it a DSLR, & on-topic in RPDS by any rational
    >> measure, IMO.

    >
    >Your opinion is wrong.
    >
    >...interchangeable lenses: NO
    >
    >You can't twist and turn your words to make it something it is not.


    Hello? - You're the one twisting words. Here's a *standard definition*
    of the term 'SLR':

    "The Manual of Photography - Eighth Edition", Jacobson, Ray & Attridge,
    ISBN 0240-512268-5, page 87:
    --------------
    Single-lens reflex cameras.
    [...]
    The principle of the camera is illustrated in Figure 8.6. A plane
    front-surface mirror at 45 degrees to the optical axis is used to form
    the image from the camera lens on a screen where it may be focused and
    composed.For exposure, the mirror is lifted out of the way before the
    camera shutter operates. Immediately the the exposure is completed, the
    mirror the mirror returns to the viewing position.
    --------------
    The rest of the section goes on to describe the mechanisms in more
    detail, & the history of SLRs. *Nowhere in the chapter* does it say that
    an SLR requires an interchangable lens mount. All my other photography
    text books describe SLRs in much the same way, & not one of them
    includes anything about a requirement for interchangeable lenses in
    their description, despite the fact that most of them /do/ mention that
    one of the advantages of SLRs is that they generally have a wide variety
    of different lens types available for them.

    --
    W
    . | ,. w , "Some people are alive only because
    \|/ \|/ it is illegal to kill them." Perna condita delenda est
    ---^----^---------------------------------------------------------------
     
    Lionel, Sep 7, 2004
    #17
  18. Thad

    Jeremy Nixon Guest

    Lionel <> wrote:

    > Does the E20 have a mirror that routes the image from the lens between
    > the image plane & the viewfinder? - If so, all it's an SLR, according to
    > all the photography textbooks on my bookshelf, & having a digital
    > imaging sensor makes it a DSLR, & on-topic in RPDS by any rational
    > measure, IMO.


    Okay, but can you explain why you think it's a good idea to divide
    discussion based on this trivial technical point that is essentially
    never a topic of discussion? Or, why an E20 user would want to use
    the proposed group instead of one where people will be more likely
    to share his concerns and have answers to his questions other than
    "get yourself a real camera, son"?

    --
    Jeremy |
     
    Jeremy Nixon, Sep 7, 2004
    #18
  19. Thad

    Alan Browne Guest

    Lionel wrote:

    > Kibo informs me that Alan Browne <>
    > stated that:
    >
    >
    >>Lionel wrote:
    >>
    >>
    >>>Does the E20 have a mirror that routes the image from the lens between
    >>>the image plane & the viewfinder? - If so, all it's an SLR, according to
    >>>all the photography textbooks on my bookshelf, & having a digital
    >>>imaging sensor makes it a DSLR, & on-topic in RPDS by any rational
    >>>measure, IMO.

    >>
    >>Your opinion is wrong.
    >>
    >>...interchangeable lenses: NO
    >>
    >>You can't twist and turn your words to make it something it is not.

    >
    >
    > Hello? - You're the one twisting words. Here's a *standard definition*
    > of the term 'SLR':
    >
    > "The Manual of Photography - Eighth Edition", Jacobson, Ray & Attridge,
    > ISBN 0240-512268-5, page 87:
    > --------------
    > Single-lens reflex cameras.
    > [...]
    > The principle of the camera is illustrated in Figure 8.6. A plane
    > front-surface mirror at 45 degrees to the optical axis is used to form
    > the image from the camera lens on a screen where it may be focused and
    > composed.For exposure, the mirror is lifted out of the way before the
    > camera shutter operates. Immediately the the exposure is completed, the
    > mirror the mirror returns to the viewing position.


    And so what? It is still not an SLR by the way SLR is usually
    interpretd to mean by people who actually use SLR's daily. the
    E20 doesn't come even close to the description above. (it uses a
    prism, the only film SLR I know of that does that is a special
    version of the EOS-1 for sports shooters which had a non moving
    pellicle mirror).

    At most, I'd say it is more SLR-like than most SLR-like cameras
    .... but SLR-like it remains.

    > --------------
    > The rest of the section goes on to describe the mechanisms in more
    > detail, & the history of SLRs. *Nowhere in the chapter* does it say that
    > an SLR requires an interchangable lens mount. All my other photography
    > text books describe SLRs in much the same way, & not one of them
    > includes anything about a requirement for interchangeable lenses in
    > their description, despite the fact that most of them /do/ mention that
    > one of the advantages of SLRs is that they generally have a wide variety
    > of different lens types available for them.


    and "generally" is the word that should guide us in a group that
    has reasnonable boundaries:
    -digital
    -SLR (implying viewfinder and interchangeable lenses)

    Books? Do you have EVERY book?
    National Geographic: "Any SLR includes a broad range of lenses,
    flash units [...]" p. 42 of the Nat Geo Photography Field Guide.
    That "general" description is every bit as valid as your books
    general description.

    And please tell me about any film "SLR" that doesn't have
    interchangeable lenses that has been released in the past 20
    years that is in general use by amateur and pro photogs? That is
    the audience as well in the digital version for SLR, and that is
    part of the broadly accepted definition of SLR cameras ... they
    implicitly use a wide range of lenses.

    http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/specs/Olympus/oly_e20.asp
    states it as: "SLR-like", not an SLR. And I accept that up to
    date definition for that camera.


    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 7, 2004
    #19
  20. Alan Browne <> wrote in
    news:Mqm%c.13182$:

    > http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/specs/Olympus/oly_e20.asp
    > states it as: "SLR-like", not an SLR. And I accept that up to
    > date definition for that camera.
    >


    Thanks for the quote! I was also reading the review..trying to see how Phil
    classified the camera.

    --
    Bill
     
    Woodchuck Bill, Sep 7, 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
    Replies:
    217
    Views:
    2,828
    David Dyer-Bennet
    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:
    311
    Steve Young
    Sep 8, 2004
  3. Lionel
    Replies:
    16
    Views:
    804
    Ken Tough
    Sep 17, 2004
  4. Woodchuck Bill
    Replies:
    15
    Views:
    602
  5. Woodchuck Bill
    Replies:
    36
    Views:
    849
Loading...

Share This Page