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

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

  1. Thad

    Mueez Sheikh Guest

     
    Mueez Sheikh, Sep 6, 2004
    1. Advertisements

  2. Thad

    edward ohare Guest


    Hmmmm... I recently purchased an Olympus C765 Ultra Zoom. I consider
    it to be overall as capable as the three 35mm SLRs I've had, and a lot
    more convenient due to its smaller size and no need to haul multiple
    lenses around.
     
    edward ohare, Sep 6, 2004
    1. Advertisements

  3. Thad

    edward ohare Guest


    Certainly. First of all, Thad has done a wonderful job of dealing
    with criticism and has been responsive to that criticism voiced by
    enough people that it should be considered. However, it is my
    conclusion that what the proposal is about is a group for what Thad
    considers to be **real** digital cameras. The problem is defining
    what is a **real** digital camera.
     
    edward ohare, Sep 6, 2004
  4. Thad

    Lionel Guest

    No, but you can attach various lenses to one, & many people will see
    that as being 'interchangable', & IMO, it's just a another example of
    how the fuzziness of the scope in the charter will cause confusion &
    friction.
    Nobody involved in writing the RFD has yet explained why they think it
    would be a bad thing to just make the scope of the proposed group
    *exactly* equivalent to the name of the group, thereby eliminating these
    sorts of problems.
     
    Lionel, Sep 6, 2004
  5. Thad

    Lionel Guest

    Sounds to me like it'd fit just fine in rec.photo.digital, just as it
    does now. Does anyone really think that Usenet needs a special newsgroup
    for *every* type of camera?
    Quite seriously, I think it's really silly to turn the discussion of
    this RFD to the taxonomy of cameras. It seems to me that there is a
    clear, well-documented case for a group specifically for DSLRs, & all
    this stuff about other camera types is irrelevant to *this particular*
    RFD. Please understand that I'm not trying to insult, or minimise the
    importance of other cameras, & I'll be happy to contribute to any RFD
    for other camera types, but I just don't see the point of wrangling over
    this stuff in news.groups.
     
    Lionel, Sep 6, 2004
  6. Personally, I think that is a telling argument against the current
    name. I admit that I am still trying to come up with a short but
    accurate name to describe what is intended, tho' I do have a sneaky
    suspicion that "real cameras" is what is actually iimplied, as has
    been suggested. :)
     
    James Silverton, Sep 6, 2004
  7. wrote in
    I meant.. Where does the charter block view cameras. It don't see a block
    on electronic viewfinders either.
     
    Woodchuck Bill, Sep 6, 2004
  8. Thad

    Lionel Guest

    Kibo informs me that stated that:
    I wouldn't put it as strongly as that, but I agree with you that the
    fuzzy definition of what cameras are considered to be on-topic is a
    significant problem for group. Not only in terms of the vote passing,
    but also in terms of future confusion & conflict in the group.
    I'm waiting for one of the proponents to come up with a persuasive
    argument for why the charter shouldn't just be simplified to match the
    proposed name & just focus on digital SLRs. (And preferably, that
    argument should be something simple & convincing enough to pacify
    newbies to the group who're annoyed that *their* camera is considered
    off-topic.) Failing that, I think they should change the charter to
    match the group name.
     
    Lionel, Sep 6, 2004
  9. That is not fair to the proponent. Thad stated that he also owns digital
    cameras that are not dSLRs and he loves them too.
     
    Woodchuck Bill, Sep 6, 2004
  10. That is how it may be seen to some people. I will not try to start
    conversations about my coolpix in the dSLR group..first of all, I would not
    want to breach the charter. And then, I don't want to hear the.."why did
    you waste your money on that piece of crap..you should've bought a 300d for
    slightly more money".. from dSLR owners. Not all of them say things like
    that, but it is fairly common enough to point out.
     
    Woodchuck Bill, Sep 6, 2004
  11. Thad

    Lionel Guest

    Kibo informs me that edward ohare
    Yep. IMO, the solution is not to try to do that. Firstly; it's not
    possible, secondly; attempting to do so just pisses people off.
    Make the group purely about DSLRs & you solve both problems.
    The only real problem I see with this RFD is that it keeps on coming
    across as an attempt to create some sort of 'elite' newsgroup for
    'serious photographers'. If anything will sink this proposal, that
    perception is what will do it. IMO, the problem is trivially soluble by
    dropping the stuff about rangefinders & interchangable lenses.
     
    Lionel, Sep 6, 2004
  12. Thad

    Lionel Guest

    *shrug*
    So do I, (not to mention several 35mm film bodies), but the fact is that
    regardless of Thad's own personal preferences, the proposed charter
    *looks* the way Edward described it, & many people have reacted badly to
    that.
     
    Lionel, Sep 6, 2004
  13. Thad

    Lionel Guest

    Kibo informs me that "David J Taylor"
    <grin> No problem. Once there's a group for DSLR & another for compacts,
    RPD will be so quiet that you guys will have plenty of room to discuss
    ZLRs (& everything else), in there. ;)
     
    Lionel, Sep 6, 2004
  14. Thad

    andrew29 Guest

    Hey, I don't know! One of the proponents seems to think that digital
    view cameras aren't allowed.

    Andrew.
     
    andrew29, Sep 6, 2004
  15. Thad

    Alan Browne Guest

    I can't do your homework and replay the blow by blow. If you're
    really interested, go read it. Otherwise accept the notion that
    a good number of people have been over the issue and resolved it
    to general satisfaction.
    Otherwise of course, if you have the perfect answer to the
    imperfect situation, then please share it.
    And so be it. There are actually a large number of very
    affordable film SLR's and the digi's will indeed come... in
    rpe35mm we have a wide range of expertise and ongoing interest in
    the group... this should be no differnet with rpd.slr.
    Depends on your definition of reflex.
    Yes they have been resolved. There are some who don't agree with
    them, but haven't presented a better resolution to every little
    problem. Go read the discussion.
    It has been done. See link provided. I don't believe a
    recreation of events is in order.
    Which ones are not included? The "bridge cameras" ... well, they
    are NOT SLR's. Period.
    This has all been hashed out, I for one will not recreate it.

    Cheers,
    Alan
     
    Alan Browne, Sep 6, 2004
  16. Thad

    Alan Browne Guest


    Logic? If one is to attempt a photo NG that is based solely on
    the logical name for the group, then I guarantee a moribund
    little group in this case.

    Further the group is being created for the use of photographers
    who use a certain range of equipment. To truncate the group to
    short, or to make its mandate to wide would be wrong. The
    proposal for the group has the right flavour.

    The 'logic' that applies is the past history of groups such as
    rep35mm and the DSLR population of RPD. This new group is a
    cross section of those flavours. One part of the rpe35mm that
    belongs for this 'cultural' reason is digital rangefinders, as
    "illogical" as that may seem. Rangefinder users are typically
    among the more expert, colorful and controversial participants in
    rpe35mm, and not having them would be a shame...

    One could make an NG for digital rangefinders, but that would be
    a tiny constituency indeed ... and those photographers who use
    rangefinders would find little in common with the P+S and ZLR
    groups. Rangefinder and SLR users are often debating the merits
    of each system over the other and it is always educational and
    valuable to both worlds (indeed, many photogs use both).

    Perhaps the propossal makes sense to those of us with a lot of
    experience with the rpe35mm group... the proposed group takes a
    lot from there, leaves a lot of it behind and picks up what's
    appropriate from rpd.

    It doesn't have to be logical, it has to be wise.

    Cheers,
    Alan
     
    Alan Browne, Sep 6, 2004
  17. Thad

    Alan Browne Guest

    Considering what they are capable of (ZLR's) they are remarkably
    compact! (I don't subscribe to that name...)

    Cheers,
    Alan
     
    Alan Browne, Sep 6, 2004
  18. Thad

    Alan Browne Guest

    That really proves the point about the logic of the name. There
    is -no- compact or p+s that comes remotely close to either of my
    SLR's even when I have only a simple prime lens installed.

    1/12,000 - 30 + B in 1/3 stops
    (1/1,000 for the Oly 765)
    Aperture priority, speed priority, manual
    exp comp, flash comp
    aperture, 1/3 stops
    wide range of filters (pols esp.)
    DOF preview
    spot metering, wtd, matrix
    Lenses up to 600mm, plus 1.4 / 2x TC's to go further.
    1200 for Canon and Nikon, plus TC's.
    ISO as wide as the film range (or latest DSLR's) allow.
    (your 765 is quite limited)
    FAST non-var-aperture lenses .. your little zoom is not bad at
    f/2.8- f/3.7 but for under $70 I can get a f/1.7 50mm ... oops I
    do have that lens ... and it closes down to f/22 ... etc.

    etc.

    So sorry, while the Oly 765UZ might meet your needs, it would
    only meet my needs in a very narrow range of situations.

    And further, while to a lesser differential, I can make the same
    comparisons to the best ZLR...

    SLR's are system cameras that cover a lot more ground.

    Cheers,
    Alan
     
    Alan Browne, Sep 6, 2004
  19. Thad

    Alan Browne Guest

    I don't think so, Lionel,
    http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/specs/Canon/canon_g3.asp
    If the lens were interchangeable, then it would still fail to be
    and SLR.

    Judging from the other posts, many people seem to accept the
    "zlr" notion (whatever name is best), and a few reject the
    rangefinder notion. On the range finders, I'll repeat here what
    I replied to andrew29:

    /QUOTE/

    "Logic? If one is to attempt a photo NG that is based solely on
    the logical name for the group, then I guarantee a moribund
    little group in this case. [ed: that referred to a 'rangefinder'
    group, not DLSR, in the post]

    Further the group is being created for the use of photographers
    who use a certain range of equipment. To truncate the group too
    short, or to make its mandate too wide would be wrong. The
    proposal for the group has the right flavour.

    The 'logic' that applies is the past history of groups such as
    rep35mm and the DSLR population of RPD. This new group is a
    cross section of those flavours. One part of the rpe35mm that
    belongs for this 'cultural' reason is digital rangefinders, as
    "illogical" as that may seem. Rangefinder users are typically
    among the more expert, colorful and controversial participants in
    rpe35mm, and not having them would be a shame...

    One could make an NG for digital rangefinders, but that would be
    a tiny constituency indeed ... and those photographers who use
    rangefinders would find little in common with the P+S and ZLR
    groups. Rangefinder and SLR users are often debating the merits
    of each system over the other and it is always educational and
    valuable to both worlds (indeed, many photogs use both).

    Perhaps the propossal makes sense to those of us with a lot of
    experience with the rpe35mm group... the proposed group takes a
    lot from there, leaves a lot of it behind and picks up what's
    appropriate from rpd.

    It doesn't have to be logical, it has to be wise. "

    /UNQUOTE/


    I really don't understand that statement. What I menat above was
    that there are a couple folks working on the formation of an ZLR
    group (whatever it ends up being called).

    Cheers,
    Alan
     
    Alan Browne, Sep 6, 2004
  20. Thad

    Lionel Guest

    There's so much DSLR traffic in RPD that a dedicated DSRL couldn't help
    but thrive.
    Um. That sort of comment is the precise reason why many people feel that
    the proposed group is intended to be elitist. Despite being a member of
    that 'elite' myself, I strongly object to creating that sort of group -
    at least under this name. I *like* helping DSLR newbies get started with
    their shiny new 300D, or helping digicam or film-body owners figure out
    how to decide whether or not they should move up to a DSLR in the first
    place. As well as being personally satisfying, I feel that it helps
    builds a sense of community in a group, & prevents the kind of stagnant
    group-think where newbies get flamed for owning the 'wrong' sort of
    camera.
    If you want an 'elite' or 'professional' digital photography newsgroup,
    I think that the answer is to propose rec.photo.digital.professional,
    rather than trying to sneak it in in the guise of being a DSLR
    newsgroup.
    Right flavour for what? Is the group about DSLRs or isn't it? If it is,
    the name is fine, if it isn't, then it needs a name that accurately
    reflects that desire, rather than having a name that says one thing, & a
    charter that says something different.
    What's so terrible about digital rangefinder users (who don't even
    *exists yet!), using RPD, as would be appropriate now? Or if they're
    using digital backs on conventional rangefinder bodies, usinf RPE3?
    Zero, in fact. Unless you count the R&D staff.
    Then what's stopping them from reading both RPD & RPE3, as those of us
    shooting with DSLRs do *now*?
    Speaking as someone who /does/ have quite a lot of experience with RPE3,
    I'm afraid that I disagree with you on this one, Alan.
    On this topic, your opinion of what's wise seems to be quite different
    from my opinion.
     
    Lionel, 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.