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

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

  1. Thad

    Jeremy Nixon Guest

    Someone with a G3 and a collection of add-on lenses is going to find exactly
    one useful piece of advice in the proposed group: the suggestion of what
    group he might find useful. Nothing else there will be of interest to him.
    Why would he *want* to use this group?
     
    Jeremy Nixon, Sep 6, 2004
    1. Advertisements

  2. Thad

    Jeremy Nixon Guest

    Yes, and it can also apply to users of compact cameras, or medium format
    cameras, or view cameras, but that's not actually the intent of the
    proposal. An E20 user can be just as serious about photography as a
    Digital Rebel user, but the two aren't likely to find the same discussions
    equally useful, any more than a view camera user (digital or not) will
    find the discussions in the proposed group useful, or any more than a
    compact camera user (however serious) will find them useful. They're
    just not used and talked about in the same way. Users of a hypothetical
    digital Leica M8, however, will probably find themselves right at home
    in the proposed group -- that kind of camera is used by the same sort
    of people in the same ways and presents the same kind of topics.

    How do you think your E20 user is going to feel after the tenth time
    he's told he can solve his problem by getting a different camera, one
    he probably doesn't even want? Don't you think he might rather get
    advice from similar users that he might find actually useful? How
    much of that is there going to be in the proposed group?

    On the other hand, a Leica rangefinder user is going to be in the same
    place, discussion-wise, as the rest of the folks in the proposed group,
    so it makes no sense to exclude him just because we don't happen to have
    a simple word that covers both technical types of cameras. Creating an
    arbitrary division of discussion based on something that has nothing to
    do with the way people discuss things is a bad idea.
     
    Jeremy Nixon, Sep 6, 2004
    1. Advertisements

  3. Thad

    Alan Browne Guest

    Woodchuck Bill wrote:

    The way you post that link, I can't get at it. Can you post a
    link to the site or to the article in Google.
     
    Alan Browne, Sep 6, 2004
  4. Thad

    Jeremy Nixon Guest

    Does it make sense to draft the rules around the availability of a simple
    name? Wouldn't it be better to draft the rules around the viability of
    discussion? Especially given that the rules cannot be enforced anyway,
    they're much more likely to be observed if they actually make sense,
    rather than being based on an arbitrary technical division no one really
    cares all that much about.
     
    Jeremy Nixon, Sep 6, 2004
  5. Thad

    Alan Browne Guest

    Where do I send the flowers?
     
    Alan Browne, Sep 6, 2004
  6. Thad

    Alan Browne Guest


    Well put (again).
     
    Alan Browne, Sep 6, 2004
  7. Thad

    Steve Young Guest

    I don't think there's any doubt the current charters need a face lift.

    I'm thinking it would make a whole lot of sense to include them here, as a
    conformed set. These threads pretty well hammered through the issues
    which are common to them. Too, the current participants will be needed to
    achieve the required voting numbers for the new group (groups;). It would
    give them a positive reason to vote :)

    If rpd and rpe35mm could end up with new charters, it would swing my vote
    and support to the 'yes' column. Others may well vote yes, just to get a
    new updated charter for their current group.

    Could there be any strong objections?

    Steve Young
     
    Steve Young, Sep 6, 2004
  8. There's always Tony Stromboli!
     
    Woodchuck Bill, Sep 6, 2004
  9. Thad

    Steve Young Guest

    *yep*, I like Tony and his family :)))

    makes me think of the community Usenet should be
     
    Steve Young, Sep 7, 2004
  10. Thad

    Steve Young Guest

    Alan, Google.com | groups | advanced search | enter full ID in the
    message ID field, click search.
     
    Steve Young, Sep 7, 2004
  11. Thad

    Lionel Guest

    Kibo informs me that edward ohare
    Yep, exactly.
    Despite the fact that I'm *strongly* in favour of a new group for DSLRs,
    I feel that the charter in the current RFD is going to cause topicality
    flame wars that will never go away. While I have the greatest of respect
    for Alan, saying that he can prevent that by explaining the clash
    between the name & charter to every new person who arrives in the group
    just doesn't cut it, IMO. And all the arguments about how some
    hypothetical .zlr group will fix the topicality/name clash just don't
    make any sense to me, nor do I think that they'll make sense to people
    trying to figure out which newsgroup their camera 'belongs' in.
    Alan: My advice to you & Thad is to ditch the stuff about
    interchangable lenses & rangefinders, make the definition of DSLR
    inclusive, rather than exclusive, & get used to the fact that there's
    going to be discussion of SLR-like cameras in the group, regardless of
    whether you feel that they're 'true' DSLRs or not. As for the debate
    about what the term 'SLR' officially means, my suggestion would be to
    simply include a short passage describing the various definitions, &
    state that they're all welcome on the group.
    No matter how much I want this group myself, I currently feel that the
    charter in its *current form* will result in an unworkable group, & that
    I have no choice but to vote against it on technical grounds. I think
    it's very likely that many other potential users of the group will feel
    the same way.
     
    Lionel, Sep 7, 2004
  12. Thad

    Lionel Guest

    You're missing my point completely, Alan. I'm well aware of what you &
    Thad mean by 'interchangeable lenses', but my point is that many
    potential users of the group *won't* be aware of that unless someone
    explains it to them. And that's not even considering the potential for
    trolls like Steve Young to use this kind of nit-picking to stir up
    trouble within the group.
    That's debatable. The viewfinder uses the same lens as the imaging
    surface, & displays the same image as appears on the sensor. The only
    difference is that the reflex action is achieved electronically, rather
    than with a movable mirror.
    Not in mine.
     
    Lionel, Sep 7, 2004
  13. Thad

    andrew29 Guest

    The only discussions that will be _totally_ useless to a user of an
    SLR like the E20 are those discussing choice of lens. Maybe these
    will be the majority of postings. I doubt it: it's more likely to be
    Canon vs. Nikon. (sigh)
    I don't know that is true. But even if it were true, is that
    sufficient reason a priori to exclude such discussion?

    Many buyers of SLRs like the Digital Rebel will leave the kit lens on
    the camera for the whole of its life, and use it in exactly the same
    way and think of it in exactly the same way.
    Well, that depends. Is the advice good?
    It seems to me that you're assuming a lot here.

    I do not believe that an assumption that people with Digital Rebels
    have fundamentally different kinds of discussions from people with
    E20s is justifiable.

    Andrew.
     
    andrew29, Sep 7, 2004
  14. Thad

    andrew29 Guest

    Accusing your opponent of "failing to understand" is rather pathetic.
    I understand quite well, as do you. However, we do not agree.

    Andrew.
     
    andrew29, Sep 7, 2004
  15. Thad

    andrew29 Guest

    Plenty, I suspect. But a single example is sufficient.
    I can find a much more recent example. :)
    You're saying that this previously well-defined technical term no
    longer means what it used to mean.

    That's an interesting contention. Certainly, some people consider
    cameras like the E20 to be SLRs and some do not. I could point to the
    history of the term and its definition to show that it is, in fact, an
    SLR.

    Your argument seems to be based on the notion that "SLR" has acquired
    a new meaning through common use. I do not accept this, but clearly
    there is nothing to be gained by arguing such a point. However, you
    should perhaps consider that basing a charter on a rather contentious
    definition is not the ideal starting point for a newsgroup.

    Andrew.
     
    andrew29, Sep 7, 2004
  16. On the other hand, excluding things which are actually
    SLRs because they are not commonly thought to be SLRs
    is equally futile. IMHO, the current proposal suffers
    from both of these defects.
     
    Arthur L. Rubin, Sep 7, 2004
  17. Thad

    Alan Browne Guest


    1- there will be a resource page where this will be clearly
    explained in plain english along with direction on where to go.
    2- For the fellow who really doesn't get, a link thereto, rather
    than a detailed explanation by posters every time is more than
    enough reply when it occurs, which won't be that often.
    3- If we attempt to design an NG to be perfectly troll proof, we
    won't get anything done, period. Trolls are best dealt with in
    the usual way.


    Right. It's not a reflex. So it fails to meet the charter def.
    on at least two major points. Clear enough to me.
    You've given no thought at all to the ancestry of the group and
    how it came to be. It takes the SLR portion from rpd and it
    takes the system camera aspect from rpe35mm. That includes, as a
    minor part, the rangefinders ... and this is clearly stated in
    the proposal and charter.

    Cheers,
    Alan
     
    Alan Browne, Sep 7, 2004
  18. Thad

    Alan Browne Guest

    Such as? "SLR-like" is not an SLR.
     
    Alan Browne, Sep 7, 2004
  19. Thad

    Alan Browne Guest

    There will always be an overlap in the kinds of people who select
    one system over another. Either user could have done as well
    with one camera as with the other for his intent. That does not
    mean that we can't draw the right line in the right place.

    I know people with the best equipment imaginable who cannot
    consistently make great photos and people with Rebels and Drebels
    who turn in fantastic work... it is the photographer, not the
    equipment.

    The SLR-like digital are different enough as to not be classified
    with SLR's for the reasons stated, and that is the dividing line,
    not the exceptional cases of people who made arbitrary decisions
    over their camera.

    Finally, everyone is welcome in the group.

    Regards,
    Alan Browne.
     
    Alan Browne, Sep 7, 2004
  20. Thad

    Guy Macon Guest

    "rec.photo.digital.slr" is not "rec.photo.digital.slr-like".

    DEFINITION OF SLR

    http://www.wordiq.com/definition/Single-lens_reflex_camera

    The single-lens reflex camera, more commonly known by the
    abbreviation SLR, uses a mirror placed between the lens and
    the film to project the image seen through the lens to a
    matte focusing screen. Most SLRs use a pentaprism to observe
    the image via an eyepiece, but there are also other finder
    arrangements, such as the waist-level finder.
     
    Guy Macon, Sep 7, 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.