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

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

  1. Thad

    Thad Guest

    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

    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

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



    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.


    This RFD has been posted to the following newsgroups:


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

  2. 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
    modern electronics?
    James Silverton, Sep 3, 2004
    1. Advertisements

  3. 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, Sep 3, 2004
  4. Thad

    Alan Browne Guest

    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.
    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.

    Alan Browne, Sep 3, 2004
  5. 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, Sep 3, 2004
  6. 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).

    James Silverton, Sep 3, 2004
  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
    Gene Palmiter, Sep 4, 2004
  8. Not even close.
    Richard Cockburn, Sep 4, 2004
  9. 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

    thing.....for my Canon G3.
    John McWilliams, Sep 4, 2004
  10. Thad

    Leonard Guest

    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
  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.
    Gene Palmiter, Sep 4, 2004
  12. Thad

    Chris Brown Guest

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

    David J Taylor, Sep 4, 2004
  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.
    Gene Palmiter, Sep 4, 2004
  15. Thad

    andrew29 Guest

    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?

    andrew29, Sep 4, 2004
  16. Yes, I have a number of issues which I have raised in the news.groups

    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 J Taylor, Sep 4, 2004
  17. 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, Sep 4, 2004
  18. 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, Sep 4, 2004
  19. 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 Silverton, Sep 4, 2004
  20. John McWilliams wrote:
    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

    David J Taylor, Sep 4, 2004
    1. Advertisements

Ask a Question

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

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments (here). After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.