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

    What other "best name" is available?

    I don't concur ... it is about digital cameras that have
    interchangeable lenses.
    I hope folks see the benefit of the structure without feeling
    they are being left out. For that matter, there is a another NG
    being considered... (mystery!)
    I don't concur. Changing the charter so it will pass at the
    expense of a charter that doesn't reflect the intent is not in
    the best interest of the future of the NG.

    That appears to be happening as we 'speak' (mystery!).

    Cheers,
    Alan
     
    Alan Browne, Sep 5, 2004
    1. Advertisements

  2. Thad

    Alan Browne Guest

    Woodchuck Bill wrote:

    Agree.
     
    Alan Browne, Sep 5, 2004
    1. Advertisements

  3. Thad

    Alan Browne Guest

    There is an exception for rangefinder cameras, which otherwise
    are system cameras with interchangeable lenses.
    Well, not sure I'm doing you a favour where you would feel
    grateful.... ;-) but here's a start http://tinyurl.com/4pk8b

    That's one place. The discussion actually broke out in several
    places at once ... so no definitive origin. You could slog
    through the entire first round ... I respctfully request,
    however, that you do not reopen those discussions in this thread,
    but simply use it as background info. This does not mean not
    discussing issues if you feel the need, but let't avoid reruns if
    possible. I hope you understand my intent is not to squelch
    debate but rather to avoid returning to a road already travelled.
    If you ask a question or propose a change that has already been
    answered|debated and resolved, then you'll merely get the same
    outcome ... unless you have a truly new perception that would
    change the outcome.

    They are not SLR's. They are of limited interest and application
    to the rpd world (it is not discussed much in rpd currently).

    You can find out more about them by going to the existing
    medium-format and large-format groups (which are film dominated,
    but digital is definitely in their collective problem set).

    NG creation is mostly about "what it is" and some definition
    about "what it is not". In creating a new NG, we're not
    responsible for creating a home for "what it is not".

    Cheers,
    Alan
     
    Alan Browne, Sep 5, 2004
  4. Thad

    Alan Browne Guest

    There is nothing wrong with it except a better solution in SLR.
    You snipped out other complelling reasons such as:

    "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."

    AND

    "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."

    It formed a major volume of the discussion of the prior round as
    discussed mainly in news.groups . Elsewhere it was not a major
    (or even minor) discussion.

    Cheers,
    Alan
     
    Alan Browne, Sep 5, 2004
  5. Thad

    Jeremy Nixon Guest

    Well, it's one of the cameras that people keep bringing up as falling into
    the "in-between" category.
    Yes; it's also one of the only examples. The others that have been named
    are, for the most part, not SLRs at all.
     
    Jeremy Nixon, Sep 5, 2004
  6. Thad

    Kathy Morgan Guest

    David J Taylor

    [Proposed RFD for a r.p.d.zlr group]
    I don't believe such an RFD would be allowed to go forward at this time
    unless it were combined with the current rpd.slr proposal. As I
    understand the rules, you would have to wait 3 months if rpd.slr passes
    or possibly 6 months if it fails. (This is to allow traffic to settle in
    the affected groups, and I may have the 3 and 6 months switched.) You
    could check the guidelines and/or check with Russ Alberry on that.
     
    Kathy Morgan, Sep 6, 2004
  7. Thad

    andrew29 Guest

    I don't think the "in-between" category is really relevant to any of
    this.
    I know -- that's what is so bizarre about this rule. What can
    possibly be gained by disallowing this very small group of cameras?
    That's also true, but mentioning those cameras was, I suspect, a
    deliberate attempt to muddy the water.

    My point is really simple: if we have a group called .dslr, then we
    should allow all digital SLRs. It won't hurt, and it will at least be
    consistent.

    Andrew.
     
    andrew29, Sep 6, 2004
  8. Thad

    andrew29 Guest

    I suppose I'm expected to find an argument buried somewhere in that
    long flame war. Sigh.

    I do find comments like "The real point is not the pro or not pro
    aspect of the equipment but the seriousness of the photographers..."
    But there will eventually be cheap point-n-shoot DSLRs with
    exchangeable lenses. Perhaps that time has already come.

    If there is some explanantion as to why allowing every digital camera
    with a reflex viewfinder whold not make sense, I haven't seen it.
    Sounds good.
    Well, it doesn't seem to me that there has been an outcome. Differing
    points have been made, but the issues have not been resolved. It
    could be, of course, that someone threw their hands up and said "I
    give in!" :)
    Of course. However, some sane criteria about what is and is not to be
    discussed are required.

    Consider this particular proposal. It's called DSLR, but not all
    digital SLRs are to be included. Okay, so what is the criterion,
    then? Rangefinders are included, but only if they have
    interchangeable lenses. Oh, right, so it's interchangeabilty that's
    the issue! Oops, no it isn't, because view cameras aren't included.
    This isn't a good way to start a newsgroup.

    Andrew.
     
    andrew29, Sep 6, 2004
  9. Thad

    Jeremy Nixon Guest

    The point isn't to develop a naming system for types of cameras; the point
    is the develop a naming system for discussions. While those cameras may
    technically be SLRs, it seems like *discussion* of them isn't going to
    be in the same category. Which is not to say there is nothing to discuss,
    but rather that the discussion won't have much in common with the rest,
    and therefore belongs in a different category.

    It's rather like the point I made earlier about the Hasselblad H1 with a
    digital back. It's a digital SLR by any definition, and it has lenses
    that come off, but its users are likely to find what they're looking
    for in the medium format group rather than this proposed one. So you
    have a camera system that technically fits the requirements and is at
    least technically on-topic, but which in reality won't fit very well
    into the proposed group. The reason is that you can't divide discussion
    on neat, technical lines like "SLR", or even "interchangeable lenses".

    Unfortunately, photography has no other terms with which to divide
    this kind of discussion, and tends instead to overload the technical
    terms with slightly different meanings for the purpose. How many
    people who own an SLR camera do you think actually know what the
    technical meaning of that term is, as a percentage? How many would
    you guess think that it means "camera that you can use different
    lenses on"? That misunderstanding isn't their fault, it's ours;
    we're the ones who started using the term improperly when we should
    instead have invented a new term for what we were talking about.
    But will it make sense from a topical standpoint?

    The use of the term "SLR" is, in the case of this proposal, in the
    informal, layman's sense of the term, rather than the strict technical
    one. That's not necessarily a bad thing, since the field of photography
    has not invented a name for the thing that is the topic in question,
    despite acknowledging that it exists, and there is therefore not a
    better name to be used.
     
    Jeremy Nixon, Sep 6, 2004
  10. Thad

    andrew29 Guest

    I find that rather unlikely. But who knows?
    I don't know, really. I do know that the more these terms are used
    incorrectly, the worse the situation becomes.

    In everything we we write, we have a choice between clarity and
    obfuscation. How much simpler would this newsgroup proposal be if it
    were for the discussion of

    * single lens digital cameras with reflex viewfinders.

    No omissions, no additions. No need to read the charter to find out
    what the newsgroup is about.
    Well, yeah. But I'm not sure about the "we" here. :)
    Consider the alternative. People don't generally read newsgroup
    charters and someone coming into the group and posting about an E20
    will be told that their camera isn't a fit subject for discussion.
    And they will be hurt and confused. And the argument will go around,
    again and again.
    This is a weird argument. It's tantamount to saying that in, say, a
    physics newsgroup title, a word like "inertia" should have the common
    meaning rather than the the technically correct meaning as used in
    physics.
    We've already determined that this newsgroup doesn't even apply to all
    "cameras that you can use different lenses on". Instead, it applies
    to an arbitrary group of cameras that have been determined as suitable
    for a particular group of "serious photographers".

    Andrew.
     
    andrew29, Sep 6, 2004
  11. Thad

    Guy Macon Guest

    My telesope fits the above description (it has a CCD and a reflex mirror)
    but discuusions about it would not fit in this group very well.
     
    Guy Macon, Sep 6, 2004
  12. Thad

    Lionel Guest

    If you want a /concise/ name that means "digital SLRs with
    interchangeable lenses & digital rangefinders with interchangeable
    lenses, but nothing else", then no, there is no better name. OTOH, if
    you make the *description* match the proposed *name* instead, it's my
    opinion that you'll avoid a whole bunch of issues that people currently
    have with the current proposal, & greatly improve the likelihood of the
    group passing the vote.
    What, like the Canon G3, for example? That's a digital camera with
    interchangeable lenses, but I don't think too many people would describe
    it as a digital SLR.
    Why not? Why would it be bad to change the 'intent' expressed in the
    charter to match the exact name of the proposed group? Everyone seems to
    agree that a new group specifically for DSLRs is a worthy goal, but the
    seemingly arbitrary addition of digital rangefinders & the rejection of
    non-interchangeable lens digital SLRs is causing a hell of a lot of
    confusion. And I have to say that I haven't yet heard a rationale for
    those criteria that makes sense to me, either. If you guys stick with
    the confusing topicality you currently with to enforce, I predict that
    in the group, we'll see exactly same arguments over which cameras are
    on/off-topic that we're seeing in this thread.
    Then why do we need to make any of them 'honorary' DLSRs in /this/
    group? That just seems dumb to me.
     
    Lionel, Sep 6, 2004
  13. Thad

    Lionel Guest

    Kibo informs me that "David J Taylor"
    How about something really simple like: 'rec.photo.digital.compact'?
     
    Lionel, Sep 6, 2004
  14. These cameras (ZLR) are only compact in comparison with their SLR cousins.
    Compared to other digital cameras they are the opposite of "compact".

    Cheers,
    David
     
    David J Taylor, Sep 6, 2004
  15. Thad

    andrew29 Guest

    We seem to have determined that is not, in fact, the case!
    I think the problem that Lionel and I have is that it's not clear what
    the intent actually is. Serious photographers, yes -- meaning those
    who don't just want a point-n-shoot to send photographs of the kids to
    grandma. But I would expect that applies to E20 users just as much as
    Digital Rebel.

    Andrew.
     
    andrew29, Sep 6, 2004
  16. wrote in
    Did you see anything blocking view cameras? I didn't.
     
    Woodchuck Bill, Sep 6, 2004
  17. wrote in
    People shouldn't be so sensitive about their cameras. I own a Coolpix 5700.
    I am not "hurt" over this proposal.
     
    Woodchuck Bill, Sep 6, 2004
  18. The lens does not come off on a G3.
     
    Woodchuck Bill, Sep 6, 2004
  19. Then which group would my camera fit in..Coolpix 5700? It is not an SLR.
    It's too big to be called compact.
     
    Woodchuck Bill, Sep 6, 2004
  20. Thad

    andrew29 Guest

    Yes, I did. I have no idea as to whether or not this is the true
    intent of the proposal. Here it is:

    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
    http://www.google.co.uk/groups?selm=YPI_c.497$
    They are not Salary's. They are of limited interest and application
    to the RP world (it is not discussed much in news.com: currently).
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------

    This is doubly strange when you consider that the final paragraph in
    this snippet can also be applied to digital rangefinders. That's what
    I'm trying to get at: the sheer lack of logic in this proposal.

    Andrew.
     
    andrew29, Sep 6, 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.