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

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

  1. Thad

    Alan Browne Guest

    David Dyer-Bennet wrote:


    This thread was de-x-posted from the original thread. The
    discussion here in r.p.d is disconnected from the whole
    discussion in news.groups and just as importantly are masked from
    the principal proponent who is best placed to take
    reccomendations for changes into the proposal and charter.

    These issues are presently being discussed in the news.groups NG,
    and I suggest that all of you pick it up there in the thread by
    the same name.

    Alan Browne, Sep 4, 2004
    1. Advertisements

  2. Thad

    Alan Browne Guest

    Fortunately not our problem. Wanna be a hero? ;-)
    Alan Browne, Sep 4, 2004
    1. Advertisements

  3. Joking aside, maybe it would help the dSLR group proposal if someone were
    to propose the ZLR-Bridge-Prosumer-NonP&S-NonSLR newsgroup. I'm being
    serious. I would even consider proposing it myself if it would help to
    reduce the tension that has been building up around here. The only problems
    would be naming the group, and defining the parameters of these cameras.
    That discussion would get even uglier than this one has gotten.
    Woodchuck Bill, Sep 4, 2004
  4. Thad

    Alan Browne Guest

    The group you propose above will "default" to r.p.d upon the
    propagation of the new newsgroup and the DSLR discussions moving

    I think that is a reasonable state for the time being and the
    resulting traffic in r.p.d after that point will indicate if a
    further structure is needed.

    What tension? Most participants in this discussion have been
    very polite and reasonable in their discourse.

    Alan Browne, Sep 4, 2004
  5. Woodchuck Bill wrote:
    I would support such a group - even perhaps with the ugly name. I will
    wait until I see the 3rd RFD before making further judgements about

    David J Taylor, Sep 4, 2004
  6. Most have been adequately civil (with a few exceptions). The majority of
    the technical problems in the proposal have been resolved, but the very
    fact that dSLRs are being isolated from other high-end digital cameras
    seems to be offending some people. I also read a bit of the discussion in
    RPD where an Olympus E-10 owner stated that he intends to subscribe to the
    dSLR group and post about his camera whether or not is is allowed.

    I only fear "no" votes might come from this type of camera owners..they may
    perceive the proposal as other have put it, "elitist", especially if they
    did not follow the entire RFD process.
    Woodchuck Bill, Sep 4, 2004
  7. Alan Browne wrote:

    Why doesn't Thad post here (r.p.d), or have I simply missed his posts?
    His name came as a surprise to me.

    David J Taylor, Sep 4, 2004
  8. I was joking about the name. I didn't mean to sound rude. I own a Coolpix
    5700, which appears to fall under that category too. I seriously would be
    willing to propose the group myself if an appropriate name could be agreed
    upon. If you like, I can draw up a basic RFD. You can look it over and fill
    in the blanks. Does the e-mail address in your header work? Mine does.

    RPD would still remain very busy as a group for point & shooters, scanners,
    software, and printers. I don't think a point & shoot group would ever be
    Woodchuck Bill, Sep 4, 2004
  9. Thad

    Alan Browne Guest

    It would be sad if that were the case. The point is that by
    'splitting' rpd into two groups (now, more later?), it enhances
    everyone's experience in the newsgroups.

    Elitist is a false flag. There are a lot of advanced
    photographers in these NG's who use the more advanced equipment,
    and there area lot of rank amateurs who use the more advanced
    equipment. Yet they post in the same NG as all the p+s users and
    there is no great amount of friction for it.

    The new newsgroup is not about exclusion... I'm sure a lot of p+s
    and ZLR users read about the DSLR's and enjoy those topics and
    I'm sure the same folks will visit the new NG even if they don't
    have first hand contributions to make.

    If the E-10 user you cite does as he says (I haven't seen the
    post ... oh, hang on... tap tick tick tick ...okay I'm back) then
    he will be ignored by some, berated by others and tolerated by a
    few more. That's my forecast.

    Alan Browne, Sep 4, 2004
  10. To add..I myself do not think a dSLR group is an elitist idea..I was only
    pointing out that others are going to feel that way. I own a Coolpix 5700,
    which is not a dSLR. It does have a point & shoot mode, but I wouldn't call
    it a point & shoot camera.
    Woodchuck Bill, Sep 4, 2004
  11. Add..and followed by many other ZLR users. It may become a "de facto"
    SLR+ZLR newsgroup, by the will of the community.
    Woodchuck Bill, Sep 4, 2004
  12. I know that. You know that. Thad knows that. Mosts of the contributors to
    this RFD know that. Unfortunately, there is nothing to prevent "no" votes
    from the uninformed. The ballot will have only "yes" and "no" options, and
    voters tend to vote with their hearts. "Yes" is supposed to mean "I will
    read the proposed newsgroup, if passed". "No" is supposed to mean "There
    are still technical issues in the proposal that have not been resolved" ie
    bad name.
    Woodchuck Bill, Sep 4, 2004
  13. Thad

    Alan Browne Guest

    He has been keeping his campaign at news.groups. I think it's
    the right thing to do. This splintered off thread here has been
    signalled to Thad by e-mail and elsewhere in this splinter I've
    requested people to post in that group or retain the
    x-post to it. It would be unfair to these commenters and to Thad
    as well if all comments are not read, replied to and used in the
    betterment of the end product.

    Thad has shown great initiative, impressive tolerance, balance
    and patience through the process. I didn't agree with his 1st
    draft in several areas and pointed those out (as did others) and
    Thad defended his draft or made adjstments where it was the right
    thing to do.

    Alan Browne, Sep 4, 2004
  14. Thad

    Alan Browne Guest

    By the current proposed charter, it would not.

    The E-1 would be.

    (even though its mount is very different than, for instance, the
    Canon and Nikon DSLR's)

    Leakers will happen. eg: "The Maxxum 7D draws its anti-shake
    from the Dimage A1 and A2 SLR-like cameras..."

    Alan Browne, Sep 4, 2004
  15. Thad

    Alan Browne Guest

    Your suggestions were liked!!! However they didn't carry. ;-)

    The rec.photo hierarchy is pretty spread out and some groups have
    near 0 traffic. Others, like this one, are traffic heavy. One
    of the 'heavy' areas here is the DLSR side ... and that is the
    only thing at issue at this point.

    The way Thad has set up the rpd.slr is to capture both equipment
    and technique for digital slr's under one banner.

    The p+s and zlr traffic will remain in rpd and who knows if that
    will split at some point in the future...

    Alan Browne, Sep 4, 2004
  16. Thad

    Alan Browne Guest

    David Dyer-Bennet wrote:

    Sucks, eh? I think that with the best of intentions, the major
    reorg of rec.photo.* years ago overdid it.

    I also think Thad has hit the head of the nail perfectly with
    this new group which mixes equipment and the use of the damned
    equipment together.

    Alan Browne, Sep 4, 2004
  17. Thad

    Alan Browne Guest

    Gene, it would be a benefit to you and all of us if you would
    post your concerns in news.groups. This thread got de-x-posted.
    Your concerns have been addressed in the first round of
    discussion which you will find at news.groups.

    Alan Browne, Sep 4, 2004
  18. Thad

    Alan Browne Guest

    Woodchuck Bill wrote:

    We hope that our reasoning to date has been acceptable: It is
    *not* about exclusion of anything, it is about an area in usenet
    space dedicated to cameras which have the major characteristic of
    removeable lenses. We can all communicate that idea.
    Alan Browne, Sep 4, 2004
  19. The reasoning has been great. However, the majority of the voters will not
    understand every detail of that reasoning. Most of them will only read the
    ballot..not every post in all three (or more?) of the RFDs. I don't mean to
    sound negative. I really want this group to pass. I do not currently own a
    dSLR, but my next camera will be one. I intend to read the dSLR group if it
    passes, so I will be voting "yes". Out of respect for the charter, I will
    not post about my Coolpix in the dSLR group. The more I think about it,
    however, I would love to see a specialty group for the "ZLR" cameras.
    Woodchuck Bill, Sep 4, 2004
  20. Thad

    Alan Browne Guest

    Once the proposal and charter are ironed out, I believe there
    will be a website clearly explaining the purpose and the charter
    in a more user friendly format. Easier to say, "please read
    this" and link to it than go through a Q&A process as we are now.
    Go fer it. (Suggest you wait until this one is resolved).
    Seriously, if you do, I will play good uncle to it as I have for
    the rpd.slr.

    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.