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

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

  1. For the Canon S400 and crowd? I don't think that's at all the right
    name for what you're talking about.
     
    David Dyer-Bennet, Sep 6, 2004
    1. Advertisements

  2. Thad

    edward ohare Guest


    Well, I kinda like the 10x zoom, and I never carried a 380mm with any
    of my 35s, which is what it works out to.


    Y'know... for someone who spent plenty of time with 35s, I never even
    checked to see what the shortest shutter speed was.


    It will do ap and shutter priority.


    Again, kinda strange, I think it does spot metering but I've never
    tried it, which for someone who used to have a full manual 35 and also
    shot a lot of Kodachrome... I guess I figure I'll fix the "problems"
    with Adobe after the fact.


    I don't plan on an Ansel Adams type pics. <G>
     
    edward ohare, Sep 6, 2004
    1. Advertisements

  3. You may so consider it, but you're *wrong*.

    For my 35mm SLRs I've got lenses from 17mm to 500mm. Lenses are
    *available* from something like 6mm to 2000mm. I've got extension
    tubes. I've got bellows. I don't have telescope or microscope
    adapters, but they're standard accessories available in every SLR
    line. I've got various remote controls (air-release with 20 feet of
    tubing, and also an electrical remote for one of the motor-drive
    cameras). I've got a pin-hole setup that replaces the lens.
    My N90 (and Fuji S2) almost certainly auto-focus faster and track
    focus better than your C765. There's also the question of image
    quality -- lens quality, and sensor quality and resolution.

    And I'm sure I'm overlooking many things.

    Certainly something like your C765 (or my old Epson 850Z even) can do
    most of the things one does in most days of photography adequately
    well. Certainly being smaller and lighter is an advantage. But
    trying to call it "as capable" is a gross exaggeration.
     
    David Dyer-Bennet, Sep 6, 2004
  4. Thad

    Alan Browne Guest

    Again, 1) that is NOT an interchangeable lens and;
    2) a role of rpd.slr is to educate, and such a
    misperception would be clarified in rpd.slr or zlr for that matter.

    Indeed the description is "Converter" or as you say "add on".

    [Annecdote: even the other day I witnessed a fellow in a shop
    asking for a camera that had lens attachements to allow it to be
    wide angle. While he seemed somewhat ignorant about photography
    at large, he did know what he was looking for.]

    See above.
    I think you've exagerated the potential confusion beyond a
    reasonable level. Once the charter (more-or-less as is) is
    posted for vote, the minor inconsistencies can handilly be
    explained to those who question it.

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

    edward ohare Guest


    I'm not trying to be fair or unfair to anyone. I'm just observing
    that some people believe this is fact.

    Please note that Lionel and I have locked horns recently on several
    issues, yet we're on the same page on this one. When people who often
    disagree agree on something, well, that's significant.
     
    edward ohare, Sep 6, 2004
  6. Thad

    Alan Browne Guest

    My choice of words regarding an opinion on lenses is not at issue
    wrt the formation of a newsgroup. Further, the word chosen is
    -not- exclusively religious in definition or use. The piece of
    equipment that most affects a photographic image is the lens.
    Anything that seriously degrades the imaging ability of a lens is
    frowned upon... is "frowned" acceptable? Should we add to the
    charter a list of words that is prohibited?
    The proposed charter is an intersection of two robust, healthy,
    active groups that are unmoderated. The new group cannot fail to
    be a success as it appeals to the interests of both groups.

    My conclusion is also the opposite: an r.p.d.* could not survive
    moderated as it would die from lack of dynamic.

    Cheers,
    Alan
     
    Alan Browne, Sep 6, 2004
  7. Your camera is a ZLR..like my Coolpix 5700. They are very different than
    dSLRs in many ways, but they are more capable than simple point and shoot
    cameras, so they warrant their own newsgroup. Stay tuned.
     
    Woodchuck Bill, Sep 6, 2004
  8. Thad

    Alan Browne Guest

    I wouldn't bother. The notion is indefensible. As your other
    post points out, these additional lenses are "add on" or
    "converters" of the lens in place.

    Further, the G3 fails in that it is not a reflex and not a
    rangefinder (rangefinder has specific meaning with respect to how
    focus is achieved).
    It *is* as close as practical IMO.

    Cheers,
    Alan
     
    Alan Browne, Sep 6, 2004
  9. I agree. Just tell the party "Wrong NG..try r.p.d.zlr".
     
    Woodchuck Bill, Sep 6, 2004
  10. The fact is that there are different types of "real cameras". My Coolpix is
    a real camera, and so is your Camedia. But they are not dSLRs. I would
    rather see a group for my camera than see it in a group where it clearly
    doesn't belong.
     
    Woodchuck Bill, Sep 6, 2004
  11. NO!
     
    Woodchuck Bill, Sep 6, 2004
  12. Thad

    Alan Browne Guest

    What, specifically, is elite about the current proposal that does
    not embody what DSLR's are?

    DSLR's already cover a wide range of bodies from the, ahem, low
    end 300D and D70 to the 1D Mk2 and even (as we've discussed) the H1.

    Well if I were a happy D70 owner, I'd still feel in good comapny
    with all the cameras "above it".

    If I were a D1 Mk II owner, I'd still appreciate the digi-rebel
    participants and help where I could.

    But we do need a line, and that line SLR and rfs. It is not
    about being Elite.

    As a long time rpe35mm member I have never felt that the m-f and
    l-f groups were "elite", although of course there is a higher
    concentration of expertise... and as such a resource, not
    competitors for status.

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

    Alan Browne Guest

    edward ohare wrote:

    Neither do I. And respecting the errors above vice your camera,
    however, the limitations of your camera are far too restrictive
    for the photography I do and for the photography most
    more-than-occasional SLR photogs need.

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

    Alan Browne Guest

    Apparently they are, alas, as there are a couple minor tune ups
    people would love to make to the rpe35mm, but there appears to be
    no amendment process.
     
    Alan Browne, Sep 6, 2004
  15. You can't officially amend the original charter, but..

    See.. Message-ID: <cgo8p4$2fv$>
     
    Woodchuck Bill, Sep 6, 2004
  16. Thad

    Alan Browne Guest

    I was referring to the opposite case of satisfying the demand for
    the rangefinder crew ... such an NG (rpd.rf) would be moribund,
    was my intended message. (I screwed up in my presentation of this
    point, for which I'm sorry... you're not the only one who saw the
    way tou did).
    Andrew, you do not seem to understand why an SLR-like camera is
    not an SLR. I can't help you beyond the commonly used definition
    and that which is in the proposal.
    That referred to the name .slr and the inclusion of rf's which do
    not have a reflex component (actually they do in the focusing
    mechanism).

    This is not logical if the name has to be all defining (by
    limitation). But it is, given the community, wise.

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

    Alan Browne Guest

    Andrew was making a point about the lens issue and SLR. He had
    to dig deep though!
     
    Alan Browne, Sep 6, 2004
  18. Thad

    edward ohare Guest


    Correct. Attempting to include things not part of what would be
    commonly thought of not to be an slr is futile. People will skip over
    the group without reading the Charter. Trying to exclude things
    commonly thought to be slrs is equally futile.
     
    edward ohare, Sep 6, 2004
  19. Thad

    Jeremy Nixon Guest

    Why would someone be either hurt or confused, being told a better place
    to get advice? What kind of advice or comments are they going to get in
    this proposed group? Why would they *want* to participate? Why should
    they be expected to use the group, just because their camera happens to
    fit the strict technical definition of SLR, even though most of the
    group's content is not likely to be useful or interesting to them --
    unless they happen to be looking to buy a new camera?

    Why divide discussion according to a strict technical definition, when
    that definition has no real relation to the way people discuss the
    topic?
     
    Jeremy Nixon, Sep 6, 2004
  20. Those are some excellent points.
     
    Woodchuck Bill, 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.