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

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

  1. Two items:

    1st) you don't like the name; I think it's the best compromise.

    2nd) If I happen on a recent post that begs another tedious re-hashing
    of the many points and counter points relating to the name, which is a
    settled issue, it seems a "good thing" as Martha use to say, to point
    that out.

    Otherwise, how would one distinguish among the truly annoyed vs. the
    indignantly righteous, vs. trollish behavior, vs. an honest concern?
    John McWilliams, Sep 4, 2004
    1. Advertisements

  2. We may have agree to disagree since I completely sympathize with your
    wish to have a group with your definitions but I think
    rec.photo.digital.arbitrary would be just as descriptive. I can't
    understand why r.p.d.multilens was unacceptable and I'm surprised that
    you can regard the isssue as settled.

    James Silverton, Sep 4, 2004
    1. Advertisements

  3. Thad

    Ron Hunter Guest

    I could go for dividing into P&S and SLR groups.
    Ron Hunter, Sep 4, 2004
  4. I don't disagree with your idea of dividing the group. My main
    objection to the inaccurate use of the name r.p.d.slr is that it
    pre-empts its use in the future if a *real* digital single lens reflex
    ng were to be proposed. I think there will be more arguments of this
    type in the future as the Internet matures. It's a bit like biological
    nomenclature where a species name can only be used once. Even if a
    species has to be renamed, the original name can never be used again.
    James Silverton, Sep 4, 2004
  5. It doesn't offer all the creative controls -- it doesn't offer
    interchangeable lenses, only the built-on zoom; hence pretty badly
    limited range of focal lengths on both ends, no fisheye, etc. Also,
    there's no way to substitute a pinhole, no way to use macro bellows or
    extension tubes. No way to attach to a microscope or telescope.

    A Canon A-60 has "all the creative controls that a DSLR offers" to
    precisely the same degree that an E-10 does -- zoom lens, manual
    exposure control, through-the-lens viewing. However, pretty much
    everybody who's ever used them would recognize that the E-10 is a
    considerably more capable camera than the A-60!

    I don't mean to run down the E-10, which I lusted after myself for a
    while. And it's true that many people don't *use* any capabilities in
    their (D)SLR that aren't in the E-10. But there really *are*
    David Dyer-Bennet, Sep 4, 2004
  6. I think that's in fact the real point, yes. However, IMHO
    "interchangeable" is both too long and too hard to spell to actually
    use in the namespace.
    David Dyer-Bennet, Sep 4, 2004
  7. No, *including* rangefinders. The point of mentioning rangefinders is
    to include the Epson/Cosina digital that takes Leica M-series lenses
    -- and future products in that space. (The specific model is
    important because it's not a *hypothetical* concern, there's a real
    camera that raises the issue.)
    David Dyer-Bennet, Sep 4, 2004
  8. I view it as having already been tried, and failed -- the .technique
    hierarchy, and also the defunct rec.photo.advanced. It seems like
    people *won't* sort themselves out based on what they do, only on what
    they do it with. I don't really like that, but I'm starting to accept
    it as a condition of contest.
    David Dyer-Bennet, Sep 4, 2004
  9. Any split or creation can be pretty easily viewed as "for on group of
    people" -- primarily those who will use it. Any other benefit to
    *any* newsgroup creation is peripheral.
    David Dyer-Bennet, Sep 4, 2004
  10. Yes, but in a *lot* of discussion nobody has yet suggested a *better*
    David Dyer-Bennet, Sep 4, 2004
  11. Lots of people would guess it was about Nimslo and related multi-lens
    David Dyer-Bennet, Sep 4, 2004
  12. Thad

    Jeremy Nixon Guest

    There aren't actually that many such cameras. The Sony 828 is, appearances
    to the contrary, not an SLR by any definition. But that type of camera
    still needs to be mentioned as excluded because a lot of people *think*
    they are SLRs or think they are similar enough to be in the same category.
    Jeremy Nixon, Sep 4, 2004
  13. David Dyer-Bennet wrote:
    I'm not asking about the name - simply asking for clarification if the
    E-10 would be on topic.

    David J Taylor, Sep 4, 2004
  14. Thad

    Alan Browne Guest

    No... the "ZLR" cameras not only do not have interchangeable
    lenses, they don't have a mirror either. They are, as the French
    call them, "bridge cameras", that is to say they have attributes
    of both SLR and P+S but are neitehr SLR nor P+S. For the time
    being they have a nice home in rpd, and who knows if someone will
    float a new NG for them.

    Hashed out in the first round leading to the current state. The
    current state has imperfections in this regard, but they are
    imperfections that most people are willing to live with.
    They are not considered in this RFD and proposed NG. In any
    case, discussions of such are rare in rpd as is, and rpd can
    still collect those discussions.

    Alan Browne, Sep 4, 2004
  15. Thad

    Alan Browne Guest

    Yes it is. It is also the least evil as has been "hashed out" in
    the prior round of discussion. As most concur that the name is
    the best fit (if not perfect), it is a resolved issue for most
    people and does not bear re-examination. Hence the "hashed out"

    Sorry to be blunt, but the proposal is very good, it will relieve
    congestion at rpd and provide the right environment for those who
    limit their discussions to the SLR and rangefinder class of
    digital cameras. It is good, even if the name is imperfect.

    To be even more blunt, those who have said the name is
    inappropriate have been challenged to do better ... but no better
    name has emerged. Nature of the beast.

    You're of course welcome to suggest better alternatives bearing
    in mind that the name should be reasonably recognizable by people
    who are _not_ steeped in photography.

    Alan Browne, Sep 4, 2004
  16. Thad

    Alan Browne Guest

    James Silverton wrote:

    I can't
    "multilens"? does that mean the camera has more than 1 lens on
    it, or in the camera bag?

    It is not a common term and so is not useful for people seeking
    the forum that may interest them.

    See my other post as well, please.

    Alan Browne, Sep 4, 2004
  17. You would have to go quite a ways back to see what I was replying
    too....something like exclusively for DSLR except for rangefinders.
    Gene Palmiter, Sep 4, 2004
    Gene Palmiter, Sep 4, 2004
  19. It would be nearly impossible to name a group like that without hurting
    someone's feelings. ;-)
    Woodchuck Bill, Sep 4, 2004
  20. Thad

    Alan Browne Guest

    James Silverton wrote:

    By removing the x-post to the news.groups page you confined the
    discussion away from the prinipal proponent of the idea. Not
    sure that he would have seen and responded*. Much of the same
    issues you raise have been worked out in the news.groups 1st
    round of the RFD or are presently being discussed and refined in
    the 2nd RFD thread there.

    I respectfully suggest that you join this discussion in news.groups.


    *CC'd to Thad
    Alan Browne, 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.