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

    Adding a lens element is NOT interchangeable. Degrading a lens by
    such artifice is anathema to the whole point of interchangeable
    See my other posts today on that subject. The name doesn't have
    to be perfectly logical ... the use of the group should be wise,

    Alan Browne, Sep 6, 2004
    1. Advertisements

  2. Thad

    andrew29 Guest

    You're the one who is asserting that the issue has been resolved.
    Pointing to a long argument that goes back and forth and reaches no
    conclusion does not tend to support that assertion.
    I don't have a personal definition of reflex. However, I do know that
    it doesn't require exchangeable lenses. SLR is a very old term --
    consider the Noviflex 6x6, one of the very first SLRs. And it
    originally had a fixed lens.
    Okay, done that. :-( I have not seen any point where this issue has
    been resolved.

    The challenge made to critics of the current proposal has been "You
    think of a better name that matches these rules. If you can't, the
    name stays." But the problem is that the rules are so complicated
    that there is no simple name that can describe them. If you make the
    rules simple an appropriate name can also be simple.
    I've already said. The Olympus E20, for example.
    I have no opinion about "bridge cameras", I am only arguing about

    andrew29, Sep 6, 2004
    1. Advertisements

  3. Thad

    Alan Browne Guest

    It really doesn't matter. There are very few digital view
    cameras and those who use them would probably care less about rpd
    and rpd.slr. ... and those viewcamera users who do participate
    would be welcome ... but I doubt they would stick around very much.

    This is similar to the notion that H1 users would participate...
    indeed a few may ... but they likely would prefer the company at

    Again, it is not solely about logic. Sagacity needs to be
    included in this.

    See my other reply, today, to you.

    Alan Browne, Sep 6, 2004
  4. Thad

    andrew29 Guest

    For avoidance of doubt, I must point out that I didn't propose a
    ".rangefinder" group.

    andrew29, Sep 6, 2004
  5. Thad

    Lionel Guest

    Kibo informs me that Alan Browne <>
    stated that:
    But that model has add-on lenses. Take a look at:
    Where it lists the Wide Converter WC-DC58N, Tele-converter TC-DC58N &
    the Close-up Lens 250D. Many people would consider them 'interchangable'
    - *especially* people inexperienced with SLRs.
    But that's exactly the point I'm trying to make about the problem with
    the description in the proposed charter - you've just *said* that the
    group: "is about digital cameras that have interchangeable lenses". By
    that very definition, many people would have every reason to believe
    that the G3 is on-topic there, as it is indeed a "digital camera with
    interchangable lenses".
    No problem, someone can simply propose an RFD for ..digital.zlr whne
    they feel that there's sufficient demand for such a group. But it has no
    bearing on the current RFD, & it'll do nothing to prevent the confusion
    & arguments that I think will result from the current 'intent'.
    No need. I've replied in detail to that post.
    Lionel, Sep 6, 2004
  6. Thad

    Lionel Guest

    And you're happy to spend the rest of your life explaining that to
    random newbies who feel that their G3 & collection of add-on lenses
    *are* on-topic, according to the charter?
    No, but it should be as close as is practical, & it should definitely
    describe the *intent* of the newsgroup.
    Lionel, Sep 6, 2004
  7. Thad

    andrew29 Guest

    Well, a photo NG that is based on the logical name for this NG would
    be about digital SLR cameras. I don't see why that would be moribund.

    I'm not arguing against the inclusion of digital rangefinders, BTW. I
    understand why you want to include them, even if it is a bit odd given
    the name of the group. But omitting a class of digital SLR cameras in
    a group called "dslr" is, to say the least, illogical. At worst, it
    is snobbish.
    I'm surprised you think it can be wise but not logical.

    andrew29, Sep 6, 2004
  8. OK, at this point -- I'm leaning toward a NO vote. Your
    use of the word "anathema" suggests a religious tone which
    would make this group unusable unless moderated.

    I acknowledge that the views of the proponent as to the
    topics covered by a group are completely irrelevant unless
    encapsulated in the charter, but this leads me to the
    conclusion that no r.p.d.* group could survive unmoderated.
    Arthur L. Rubin, Sep 6, 2004
  9. Thad

    Lionel Guest

    You might be surprised. I've seen quite a few interesting threads on
    astrophotography in relation to DSLRs in a couple of the photography
    newsgroups. Topics like lossless noise reduction techniques such as
    image stacking, image enhancement, are relevent to both astrophotography
    & other uses of DSLRs.
    Lionel, Sep 6, 2004
  10. Thad

    andrew29 Guest

    I agree with you.

    However, the purpose of probing the extreme cases is to see if the
    proposal, as it stands, makes sense. By throwing in a few weird
    examples it's possible to forese problems that might arise in the

    It's better to argue now about such things before the charter is

    andrew29, Sep 6, 2004
  11. wrote in
    Charters are never frozen.
    Woodchuck Bill, Sep 6, 2004
  12. Thad

    Lionel Guest

    This is why I think that the charter needs to be scrubbed clean of
    anything that could be interpreted as elitism. IMO, Failng to do so will
    result in a flamepit.
    Fortunately, the hierarchy isn't /that/ bad. (Although it does have its
    moments wher you could be forgiven for thinking it.) Making sure that
    the name & charter are crystal clear to potential users will prevent
    most religious wars.
    Lionel, Sep 6, 2004
  13. Thad

    Lionel Guest

    Are you kidding? If you're not, I'd like to refer you to any of the
    umpty-kazillion flame wars in RPE3 over E-Bay auction ads, "vote for my
    photo!" ads, or the anti-Shoot-In nutters.
    Lionel, Sep 6, 2004
  14. But, as googling will easily show you, many people have argued over
    whether those bridge cameras are actually what we mean when we say
    "DSLR". And I'd say the overwhelming opinion is that they're *not*
    what we mean.

    Etymology is not destiny; a word does not necessarily mean what an
    analysis of its components would seem to suggest it would mean.
    David Dyer-Bennet, Sep 6, 2004
  15. Thad

    Alan Browne Guest

    I was answering the suggestion that rangefinders find their own
    home. Rangefinder users will certainly not be happy in P+s or
    "zlr" and they'll never garner the mass to make rpd.rf .. that's
    what I was getting at...

    Nothing in what I wrote above indicates an elitist position.
    Simply that there is a pop of photogs who will use a certain
    range of equipment. Repeatedly calling this elistist does not
    make it so.

    There is nothing so major about the one exception that cannot be
    _reasonably_ accepted.

    Nothing really, however if their discussions revolve around the
    use of their camera with the digital back, then they will
    certainly be "less at home" in a 'film' group and more at home in
    a digital one that has many similarities to rangefinder cameras
    (v. P+S, ZLR) in terms of lenses and practice.
    Nothing. But I believe a one-stop shop is the goal for the
    rpd.slr, and such convenience can be offered to the rangefinder
    user without any inconvenience to the DSLR dedicated individuals.
    I'm not afraid that you disagree with me.

    I believe you're taking a purely logical stance that in my
    opinion is not wise in the context of the history at rpe35mm
    (where I have been paticipating longer than you have), and the
    history of rpd and its rapid DLSR growth over the past couple years.
    I believe that is because you believe all that is logical is
    wise, whereas I believe that all that is simply logical is not
    always the "right" or wise thing to do, but always needs

    In the present case, I defend the notion that rpd.slr can be
    inclusive of exchangeable lens rangefinders without harm and that
    it provides an appropriate haven for those folks when they get
    around to showing up one day... and yes the name will be
    questioned, and yes we'll have an answer, and yes some people
    will bitch, but most people will see that it is a reasonable
    compromise ... for a rpd.rf will likely not see the light of day
    and those digital users will not find sollace in rpd as is,
    rpd.zlr or rpd.p+s if that ever comes in to being.

    1) Rangefinders use optics that at least equal to, and more often
    than not within their limitations, supperior to the optics used
    on SLR's...

    2) There will likely not be a rpd.RF

    3) There are no other orphans of this kind that we are inclined
    to include... one exception is not the end of the world.

    Alan Browne, Sep 6, 2004
  16. Thad

    Alan Browne Guest

    See the 2nd RFD proposal: it is the result of that exhcange.
    A fine exception. I'm sure you can find others. Not exactly up
    to date. See the proposed charter and its definition of SLR.
    That is the commonly accepted definition of SLR... it need not
    encompass every exception back to the first slr.
    2nd RFD.

    "SLR-like" is the description ...eg: ZLR. Does not have
    interchangeable lenses...

    even if it has a TTL viewfinder, it would need also the
    interchangeable lens (as the E-1) to be an SLR.
    The E-20 is not an SLR. (A fine camera, but NOT SLR).

    Alan Browne, Sep 6, 2004
  17. Thad

    Alan Browne Guest

    Sure. The stated extreme case, while possible, is both unlikely
    and low-risk should it occur ... meaning if it does occur it will
    not be that much pain for anyone, and more likely will add a
    little variety from (rare) time to time...

    Alan Browne, Sep 6, 2004
  18. That sounds like a film camera to me.
    Woodchuck Bill, Sep 6, 2004
  19. I think this is completely unfair.

    *I* will certainly go on record as saying that a Nikon Coolpix 2100 is
    a "real" camera. So is a Holga. Neither of them (in somewhat
    different ways) is as powerful or flexible a camera as an Olympus
    E-20. And an Olympus E-20 isn't as powerful or flexible a camera as a
    Nikon D70, which in turn isn't as powerful or flexible a camera as a
    Canon 1Ds. And then MF and LF gear is off at more of an angle away
    from this stuff -- it's *worse* at a lot of things, but better at
    others, whereas the previous sequence is largely one of increasing
    capabilities (the only downside being price, weight, and learning

    It seems to be a given (which I don't like, but which seems to be
    "given" by the way people use newsgroups rather than by any arbitrary
    rules made by people, so there isn't anything I can do about it) that
    discussion will be divided based at least notionally on the equipment

    There's already an MF group and a 35mm group and a digital group.
    There's some tension in the digital group between people buying P&S
    cameras and people using DSLRs. There's a fair amount of
    cross-posting between digital and 35mm, and there's some discussion of
    digital work in the 35mm group (the DSLRs are all currently closely
    based on 35mm designs, and all but the Olympus E-1 share lenses
    heavily with 35mm cameras). The P&S traffic *used to* end up in the
    35mm group, and there's still some of that (but much reduced, as
    interest in film-based P&S cameras has declined).

    And I don't think anybody really wants to get off into a full reorg of
    the hierarchy; that's a *huge* project and fairly likely to fail.
    *AND* the facts on the ground are changing so fast at the moment that
    many decisions made in a complete reorg might be wrong next year.

    Of the things we can do *today*, taking the biggest group in the
    rec.photo hierarchy and cutting it kind-of in half looks like one of
    the few things we can do now that will be relatively useful in making
    the groups more useful now.

    So the question before us (and the question posed by this RFD) is,
    where to draw the line?

    It's true that people are buying cameras like the Canon Digital Rebel
    and making exactly the same sort of use of them as people make of the
    Olympus E-20 -- not exploiting the additional power and capabilities.
    And many people are using consumer digital cameras to their full
    abilities and beyond, doing professional work with them and such. As
    I said above, people and uses don't actually map perfectly accurately
    to equipment.

    I don't think it's a life-or-death issue *either way* whether ZLR
    cameras are explicitly in, or explicitly out. However, my personal
    preference is to draw the line based on lens interchangeability; that
    seems to me to most define a significant *change* as you move up the
    hierarchy. That's a spot where the learning curve is steepest, if you
    like. And, while doing so, I'd still name the group "dslr", and
    explain in the charter that from history most people understand SLR
    cameras to mean those with interchangeable lenses, although that's
    *not* what the term means by etymology. And that
    "interchangeable-lens" is both too long (for convenience; it does fit
    in the 20-character limit we were recently told was the current
    standard) and too hard to spell.

    (A charter done my way would include the Hasselblad with the digital
    back and such. I suspect that those photographers would actually find
    a more congenial crowd in the MF group, but I wouldn't try to make
    that decision for them in the new charter.)
    David Dyer-Bennet, Sep 6, 2004
  20. Thad

    Alan Browne Guest

    I didn't mean to imply that you did except in the way of seeing
    the issue from another perspective. Indeed, you've helped me
    restate the defence for inclusion of the rangefinders in the
    rpd.slr group... the defence is not as "logically" based as some
    would prefer, but I'm stating that pure logic is not in the
    interest of the whole community.

    Alan Browne, 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.