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

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

  1. Thad

    Lionel Guest

    Yes, exactly. Note the complete lack of comment on a requirement for an
    interchangable lens system, a lack also reflected in the photography
    textbooks on my shelf.
    Lionel, Sep 7, 2004
    1. Advertisements

  2. Thad

    Paul H. Guest

    Andrew, you are exactly right: other than the question of lens
    interchangeability, there is absolutely no functional difference between the
    Canon Digital Rebel, say, and the Olympus E-20. Well, there is _one_
    difference, I suppose: with the E-20, the photographer doesn't have to
    worry about sensor contamination due to dust, etc.

    It's not that you are "failing to understand" something--the problem is that
    some people don't appeciate the meaning of the phrase "a distinction without
    a difference."
    Paul H., Sep 7, 2004
    1. Advertisements

  3. Thad

    Lionel Guest

    Yes, I'm with you guys on this. The whole 'interchangeable lens'
    distinction is wishful thinking on Alan's part. Not wanting to make a
    fool out of myself in this debate, I went & checked my photography
    textbooks to make sure that I was remembering correctly, & I was: An SLR
    does not require an interchangeable lens mount to be a true SLR.
    Personally, I think he's only insisting on it out of stubbornness. If
    he really wanted the group to pass, he'd drop that distinction.
    Lionel, Sep 7, 2004
  4. Thad

    Jeremy Nixon Guest

    It makes about as much sense to me as "excluding" discussion about choosing
    the proper feed for your horse. That is to say, why would someone want to
    discuss it there?

    A camera like the E20, despite being technically an SLR, has more in common
    with the "ZLR" type of camera; it's going to be used in the same way, and
    talked about in the same way.
    That same advice could be applied to most of the questions from p&s
    camera users in rec.photo.digital. Is it good advice then?
    I have *never* seen an E20 discussed as an SLR. I had to go to dpreview
    just to verify my recollection that it was one at all.
    Jeremy Nixon, Sep 7, 2004
  5. Thad

    Alan Browne Guest

    Lionel wrote:

    "Any SLR system includes a broad range of lenses, flash units
    [...]" p. 42 of the Nat Geo Photography Field Guide.

    I don't believe we're here to battle on what various books say
    .... but you should acknowledge the fact that when *most* people
    discuss SLR's, *most* people think in terms of cameras with a
    range of lenses, among other things.

    Alan Browne, Sep 7, 2004
  6. Thad

    Lionel Guest

    *snort* Please don't insult my intelligence, Alan. We both know that an
    SLR *system* is not the same thing as an SLR *camera*. If that quote
    were talking about SLR *cameras* it would hardly include 'flash units',
    would it? If anything, your quote backs up /my/ position, because it
    says nothing about reflex mirrors or other vital components, but merely
    mentions interchangeable lenses in the same category as accessories like
    Just as well, because I think you'd lose. I had no trouble finding
    references to back up my position, but you obviously couldn't find any
    to back up your claim that interchangeable lense mounts are inherent to
    every true SLR.
    /Most/ people think of SLRs as being big, scary-looking black cameras
    with a big lens in front & probably a big flashgun on top, & have never
    seen someone changing a lens on a camera - much less actually done it

    You need to consider the fact that rec.photo.* is not just for
    professional photographers who're familiar with the technical &
    historical minutia of the field, but also for beginners & casual users
    who're trying to figure out which newsgroup they should subscribe to.

    If what you /actually want/ is a group for 'serious' or 'professional'
    photographers, why on earth don't you just write up a proposal for one,
    instead of doing all this screwing around with a general-purpose DSLR
    group? For example; you could propose a group called
    'rec.photo.digital.slr.pro', in which the kind of distinctions you're
    cureently proposing would make a lot more sense. Do that, & I would
    support your proposal 100%. Hell, I'd even be in favour of something
    like 'rec.photo.pro' as a combined film/digital group for pro shooters
    in general.
    Lionel, Sep 7, 2004
  7. You can quote definitions all you want, but that's simply not how the
    term is used among photographers. Going back at least to the Olympus
    IS-1, an all-in-one fixed lens zoom camera with reflex viewing, people
    were saying "Sure, it has reflex viewing, but it's not what we really
    mean when we talk about an SLR".
    David Dyer-Bennet, Sep 7, 2004
  8. Thad

    edward ohare Guest

    But it provides the same advantage as a reflex concerning the viewing
    of the image for composition. It seems to me its the feature and the
    benefit it provides that matters, not how its done.

    It is most curious you're attacking this on a design issue while the
    feature/benefit remains the same, while including rangefinders which
    do not have the benefit of the SLR design that the G3 has.
    edward ohare, Sep 7, 2004
  9. Thad

    edward ohare Guest

    Great. Then the fourth RFD will exclude rangefinders, I presume.
    edward ohare, Sep 7, 2004
  10. Thad

    Alan Browne Guest

    Keep your "*snorts*" to yourself ... they do nothing to indicate
    The entire SLR paragraph includes "Thanks to the internal mirror
    and prism..." in the sentence immediately prior to the quoted
    text regarding lenses. Following that it indicates all of the
    usualy internals (exposure related, etc.)

    I didn't look in any books, there is no need to. I know what the
    hell an SLR is in todays context. The only book I have handy
    that looks at various camera systems and their general
    description is that which I quoted.

    Here's another quote, however:

    "The pros of SLR camera are:

    * Absence of parallax
    * Exact focusing, esp. important for macro and telephoto
    * Ability to check the depth of field
    * Vast range of interchangeable lenses (this feature is
    generally available also on high end rangefinder cameras, but the
    SLR concept is perfect for it)"
    http://encyclopedia.thefreedictionary.com/Single-lens reflex camera
    Most SLR's that I see in public are somewhat small on the scale
    of the Nikon F65, Rebel or Maxxum 5... However, when I go to
    scenic areas then the larger kits come out ... and people carry
    several lenses... eg: there is a good variety of SLR types, but
    all of them that you see can change lenses.

    A good number of the participants in both rpd and rpe35mm are
    often talking about various lenses for their (D)SLRs. I for one,
    and most of the rpe35mm/rpd SLR users I've noticed in the group
    do talk about their multiple lenses in multiple uses and/or are
    asking questions and discussing which lens they should look for
    for particular needs.
    Never claimed or implied the intent was only for pros.

    If somebody is unsure after reading the charter and whatever
    "welcome mat" page is made, then he can ask in the group. This
    is not something that will happen very often. If he hasn't read
    the charter/welcome mat page, then he will be directed to it.
    Although rare now, at rpe35mm we would occasionally get APS
    questions ... we'd answer them and that was it, the general two
    answers in that case being: "go to rpe.aps" and "regret to inform
    you that APS is dead." (The third form being some discusssion
    over the merits and dismerits of the aps format)

    If somebody without the whole picture is having a doubt over
    whether a camera is or is not an SLR he will receive in great
    detail a polite description about what makes it like an SLR, and
    what is considered a shortcoming v. SLR's, no matter how few or
    narrow those differences are... but the line has to be drawn

    Futher, an E20 owner who discusses his SLR in the group, won't be
    shouted out, but he may be reminded that his camera lacks an
    essential SLR feature.

    Olympus categorize ONLY THE E-1 as being an SLR. It has
    interchangeable lenses.

    Another note here is that Olympus, AFAICT have discontinued the
    E20. It does not appear on Oly's websites. There appears to be
    no other camera at present that is like it in respect to the
    viewfinder. (it is also on special sale in the "advanced digital
    cameras" category (not SLR) at B&H.)

    So in the end, we're talking about a camera that not many people
    have and that is unlike most SLR-like cameras... if someone
    visits and discusses that camera, I certainly won't get excited
    about it.
    It's not needed, at lest with repsect for the intent. Like rpd
    and rpe35mm, the group will attract short term visitors who want
    clarification before buying a camera or in figuring out some
    aspect of the camera they have; longer term newbie-amateurs who
    are learning; longer-term amateurs who want to learn and discuss
    more (me, you) and a smattering of pros who are often experts in
    some areas and most of them will admit that they have something
    to learn in one area or another.

    I really resent the "elite" tag that some are trying to attach to
    this effort. Just becasue there should be a line somewhere does
    not make it elite in any way.

    Alan Browne, Sep 7, 2004
  11. Thad

    Jeremy Nixon Guest

    Matters to what? Technical classification, or discussion? Do you really
    think any Canon G3 owners are going to find anything useful in the proposed
    group just because their electronic viewfinder works through the lens?
    Jeremy Nixon, Sep 7, 2004
  12. Sorry Alan, that sounds like the classical line, "I can't define
    pornography but I know it when I see it" :)

    James Silverton, Sep 7, 2004
  13. Thad

    edward ohare Guest

    Why, I think you've missed an indication of whether a product is real
    or not, the one provided by the manufacturer. "Cute" names mean the
    manufacturer doesn't consider the product real.

    For example, Chevy Chevette. A cute name, and it was always referred
    to as "Chevy" not the formal "Chevrolet" in the advertising. But, no,
    the Chevette was not a real car, and Chevrolet saw it that way. Kraft
    Miracle Whip. Its not real mayonaise, so they came up with a cute
    name that implied supernatural intervention. Less cute but entirely
    practical is Big K Cola. No doubt its not The Real Thing (tm).

    Then there's the deal about overstating the situation, which means the
    product isn't even average. An example here is the Estate line by
    Whirlpool. No one with an estate is going to buy an Estate. They're
    relatively cheap. Or Oldsmobile Cutlass Supreme. The best? Nope,
    not even in the size class. You had to buy a Supreme Brougham or
    Supreme International, depending on the year.

    So, obviously, the manufacturers don't consider our cameras real.
    Yours could easily have followed the Kraft example and been called the
    MiraclePix. My could been called the Supreme Zoom. It makes no
    difference, as long as the coding is there for the perceptive: This
    Is Not A Real Camera.

    So I think what Thad needs to do here is forget the futile attempts to
    dodge the issue that he wants a group for real cameras by trying to
    define the technical aspects of a real camera while denying that's
    what he's trying to do. Discussion of techical features is
    irrelevant. Hey, Thad, just do it this way. "This group is for real
    cameras. If your camera has a cute name, then its not a real camera."

    Now, Thad, see how simple that would be?
    edward ohare, Sep 8, 2004
  14. Thad

    Alan Browne Guest

    We've stomped all over these issues already. The G3 as wonderful
    as it is, cannot cover what can be covered with a DSLR.
    Alan Browne, Sep 8, 2004
  15. Thad

    edward ohare Guest

    Years ago, the 35mm SLR crowd hauled around mutiple non-zoom lenses
    because zooms weren't very good. Zooms got better. Oh, but they were
    variable aperature, and that wasn't good enough. Finally, years
    later, guess what? SLR people are hauling around multiple zooms.
    Often with variable aperature. And now the argument is anything with
    single zoom isn't good enough. Since the community has eventually
    adopted what it once claimed was intolerable, wouldn't it be expected
    to eventually figure a single zoom was OK? (Well, no, of course not,
    history is no predictor of the future, eh?)

    Occasionally man will stumble over the truth. Usually, he will pick
    himself up and carry on. -- Winston Churchill
    edward ohare, Sep 8, 2004
  16. Thad

    Alan Browne Guest

    Hmm. There is some truth there, but certainly not the whole
    truth. I would never use my zooms for portraits, macro, most
    sport and landscape work. I use primes (or: fixed focal length
    lenses if you prefer). I do use my two high quality,
    non-variable-aperture zooms for some sports, for hiking, fairs,
    parties and other less structured work. There's no hard line
    here, but usually the right lenses for the job.

    Having said that, when Minolta come out with their D7D, I will
    consider ordering it with the 28-105 (var aperture) lens as it is
    very good as zooms go, and very appropriate to the camera.
    However, there are another lenses with higher priorities on my
    list, inlcuding at least 2 primes and one (non-var aperture) zoom.

    There remain in the SLR world people who swear by fixed-focal and
    those who accept the quality limitations of zooms. One point is
    that as the optics have improved for the zooms, they have
    likewise improved for the better primes as well... so the primes
    always come out ahead if that is important to the photog.

    The "high quality" zooms rarely have a zoom ratio of more than
    about 2.8:1 at that, most exhibit some quality limitations at
    wide angle, fully open.

    17-35 f/2.8, 28-80 f/2.8 and 70-200 f/2.8 are the three
    "professional" zooms you are likely to see carted around by pj's
    and other folks with narrow time constraints on their work.
    There is no "super zoom" that is regarded as having sufficient
    optical quality for most professional work.

    Could a pj use a super zoom? Probably, except for the limitation
    in aperture (although the realtively noiseless high ISO help),
    the mtf quality he's expected to deliver for a newspaper is not
    exceedingly high... but I've seen no pj's to date with less than
    the top end glass ... as recently as a few weeks ago at a sports

    Will there one day be a 28-300 f/2.8? Or better? I don't know.
    One way is to make the sensor even smaller than on cameras like
    the G3, but with higher res ---and--- lower noise. Quite an
    objective <g>. In fact this is part of Olympus' approach with
    the E-1... smaller sensor means smaller lens systems, and fast
    apertures for the same FOV as a larger sensor... lower costs for
    the best lenses. But are they breaking the zoom ratio wider?
    Well so far ...almost, but all are var-aperture (ref: Oly site).

    Back to the G3 (or other SLR-like cameras) ... are they any good?
    Certainly. Do they meet the needs of people who are trying to
    achieve specific results? Only if the specific results are
    within the capability of the camera. Hence the G3 is limited.

    "It is a good thing for an uneducated man to read a book of
    --Winston Churchill
    Alan Browne, Sep 8, 2004
  17. Thad

    edward ohare Guest

    Well, yes, I'm just saying that zooms have gotten better and are more
    and more accepted as reasonable choices for more situations. For many
    years, I had a job which required me to take photos, and a 28mm lived
    on my camera. Well, almost. Sometimes, there was a possiblity that
    some photos would end up in court, and if perspective could become an
    issue, then then 50mm came out of the bag. I didn't expect, though,
    that my opposition would be likely to understand perspective, but I
    prepared anyway.

    I recall years ago really looking down at a person who bought one of
    the first auto exposure 35s and with a 35-70 zoom as his only lens.

    Which is probably a rare situation with most pictures taken with the
    cameras we're discussing.

    LMAO. Cute slam.

    "I like a man who grins when he fights." -- Winston Churchill
    edward ohare, Sep 8, 2004
  18. I've got 17mm through 500mm lenses for my 35mm cameras (film and
    digital). I've got a 300mm f2.8. I've got a 135mm f2.
    Better-financed photographers than me have 600 f4 lenses and things,
    and 6mm fisheyes, and on and on.

    In theory, I have no objection to a "single zoom". In practice, no
    such lens is available that covers what I have and use frequently.
    And if there were such a lens, it would weigh about a ton. The laws
    of optics seem pretty firm on that last point.

    The early objection to zooms was largely practical -- they weren't, in
    fact, good enough. Some people objected to variable aperture, but it
    never bothered me (my first zoom was from shortly before that era, but
    after that I happily bought variable aperture zooms if they fit my
    needs). And, if you're using studio flash say, a variable aperture
    zoom *is* a problem -- the exposure isn't being controlled by
    through-the-lens measurements.

    So I think your examples aren't a good analogy to the concept of using
    one lens for everything.
    David Dyer-Bennet, Sep 8, 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.