RFD: rec.photo.dslr

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by Thad, Aug 27, 2004.

  1. Thad

    Thad Guest

    unmoderated group rec.photo.dslr

    This is a formal Request For Discussion (RFD) for the creation of a
    worldwide unmoderated Usenet newsgroup rec.photo.dslr. This is not a
    Call for Votes (CFV); you cannot vote at this time. Procedural details
    are below. All followup discussion should be crossposted to news.groups.

    Newsgroup line:
    rec.photo.dslr Discussion of DSLR camera systems and DSLR photography.

    RATIONALE: rec.photo.dslr

    The proposed newsgroup should be created because it will provide an open
    forum for the exclusive discussion of DSLR camera systems and DSLR

    (For the purposes of this newsgroup, DSLR will be defined as: any
    digital camera that offers an interchangeable lens system)

    DSLR photography is growing at an amazing rate. It is generally more
    technically oriented than compact digital photography. It is time to
    create a Big 8 newsgroup for DSLR enthusiasts. A Google web search on
    "DSLR" brings up nearly half a million results.

    Rec.photo.digital was created before the digital photography revolution
    peaked. At that time, DSLR camera systems were not easily obtainable by
    the average person. Due to advances in the past year alone by some of
    the major camera manufacturers, a person can find DSLR camera equipment
    for sale at almost every shopping mall, strip mall, or electronics store
    on earth, at very reasonable prices. RPD was created to discuss all
    general aspects of digital photography, including cameras, scanners,
    printers, software, and other related topics. If passed, RPDSLR will
    limit its discussion to DSLR (digital SLR) systems and DSLR photography.
    The majority of digital camera owners use compact or "point and shoot"
    digital cameras, and RPD is an excellent group for discussion of these

    Most of the current crop of DSLR camera systems share lenses and
    accessories with their 35mm film counterparts made by the same
    manufacturers. This has generated an enormous volume of crossposted
    threads between rec.photo.equipment.35mm and RPD. Digital cameras are
    off-topic in RPE35mm, and film cameras are off-topic in RPD. These
    crossposted threads are off-topic in both newsgroups, and they eat up
    lots of bandwidth. With the creation of rec.photo.dslr, these
    crossposted threads would be greatly reduced. The 35mm crowd can get
    back to pure 35mm equipment/photography discussion, and RPD can free of
    film talk. These crossposted threads also perpetuate the never-ending
    film vs. digital debate/flame-wars between these two newsgroups.

    CHARTER: rec.photo.dslr

    An open forum for the discussion of digital SLR camera systems. These
    systems consist of:

    -Digital SLR camera bodies
    -Lenses for those cameras
    -Any relevant accessories for those camera systems, including but not
    limited to: external flash units, memory cards, microdrives, lens
    filters/hoods, camera bags/cases, and DSLR camera/lens/accessory

    For the purposes of this newsgroup, DSLR will be defined as: any digital
    camera that offers an interchangeable lens system

    Additional On-Topic Discussion:

    -Photography techniques, as long as the discussion remains within the
    context of DSLR photography
    -Image post-processing, as long as the discussion remains within the
    context of DSLR photography (usually RAW conversion issues)
    -Discussion of digital rangefinder camera systems (technically not SLR
    systems, but they meet our operative definition of DSLR if they offer
    lens interchangeability)
    -Posting of personal photo links/galleries, as long as the discussion
    remains within the context of DSLR photography

    What Is Considered Off-Topic:

    -Discussion of film cameras
    -Discussion of "point and shoot" or any other non-SLR digital cameras
    including ZLR cameras
    -Discussion of hybrid film/digital cameras
    -Discussion of scanners
    -Discussion of printers
    -Posting of personal or commercial photo links/galleries not in the
    context of digital SLR systems

    What Is Considered Inappropriate:

    -Crossposting to any other newsgroup

    What Is Not Permitted:

    -Discussions debating digital photography vs. film photography
    -Flame wars (brand comparison threads will tolerated as long as they do
    not degenerate into personal flames)
    -Personal attacks
    -Commercial advertisements
    -Sale offerings (use rec.photo.marketplace.digital instead)
    -Trade offerings (use rec.photo.marketplace.digital instead)
    -Auction notices (use rec.photo.marketplace.digital instead)
    -Posts from mail2news gateways and/or anonymous remailers
    -Exchange and/or discussion of illegal software
    -Binary file postings



    This is a request for discussion, not a call for votes. In this phase
    of the process, any potential problems with the proposed newsgroup
    should be raised and resolved. The discussion period will continue for
    a minimum of 21 days (starting from when the first RFD for this proposal
    is posted to news.announce.newgroups), after which a Call For Votes
    (CFV) may be posted by a neutral vote taker if the discussion warrants
    it. Please do not attempt to vote until this happens.

    All discussion of this proposal should be posted to news.groups.

    This RFD attempts to comply fully with the Usenet newsgroup creation
    guidelines outlined in "How to Create a New Usenet Newsgroup" and "How
    to Format and Submit a New Group Proposal". Please refer to these
    documents (available in news.announce.newgroups) if you have any
    questions about the process.


    This RFD has been posted to the following newsgroups:


    Proponent: Thaddeus Lipshitz <>
    Thad, Aug 27, 2004
    1. Advertisements

  2. Thad

    ed Guest

    Looks good to me guys, although I think discussions of Sigmas should be
    banned. They aren't real digital SLR cameras.
    ed, Aug 27, 2004
    1. Advertisements

  3. Huh? Which part is wrong - the digital or the SLR?

    Gary Eickmeier
    Gary Eickmeier, Aug 28, 2004
  4. Neither. It's the "camera" part that's problematic.

    David J. Littleboy

    Tokyo, Japan
    David J. Littleboy, Aug 28, 2004
  5. Thad

    Alan Meyer Guest

    My first thought about this proposal was about some possible
    negative consequences. Specifically:

    1. It might fragment the digital photo usenet
    population, requiring a person to follow multiple
    groups in order to keep up.

    2. It might take most of the photographic experts
    and professionals out of rec.photo.digital. As a
    result, the amateur photographers and enthusiasts
    in rec.photo.digital might be getting less knowledgeable
    advice than they are getting now.

    However there are also significant advantages:

    1. The existing rec.photo.digital has grown very
    large and it's getting difficult to keep up with it.
    Given the increasing popularity of both usenet
    and digital photography, that problem is likely to
    get worse over time. So more specialized groups
    can keep the traffic in each to more manageable

    2. The more sophisticated photographers may
    benefit from a group with more technical emphasis.
    It may be easier for them to ask and answer
    complicated questions without getting them lost
    in the soup of other stuff.

    Usenet group success is a social phenomenon.
    You just can't tell from a group's charter what will
    actually appeal to people. rec.photo.digital and
    rec.photo.equipment.35mm are huge. And on
    the other hand, rec.photo.equipment and
    rec.photo.advanced are virtually ignored.

    On balance, I see no reason not to start the group.
    People will vote with their feet, (or their keyboards)
    one way or another.
    Alan Meyer, Aug 28, 2004
  6. Thad

    ru.igarashi Guest

    [note to Alan Meyer: you made two mistakes in setting up the crosspost
    list. 1) you tried to post to news.announce.newgroups, which would
    have been rejected and your message would never have been seen.
    2) Happily, you misspelled news.announce.newgroups (not newSgroups).
    Nice cancellation of mistakes. :) Crossposts modified accordingly...
    I hope.]

    It will fragment it to some degree. But the general RPD group will
    still have it's purposes, which should be well enough delineated
    that any queries that don't belong to the specialized group will
    still be posted and read there. The general group should still
    end up being the "base of operations".
    That could happen. But it would be mitigated by the fact that
    there are still topics not allowed for discussion in the
    specialized groups and allowed in the general group. Better
    yet, the split-off groups (and expect more to come if
    the volume is so high) are often just a way to make the reading
    everything easier, not necessarily to isolate readers. The
    volume would be the same (more, actually), but it's easier to
    follow threads and topics this way. At least, that's the

    ru.igarashi, Aug 28, 2004
  7. Thad

    Lionel Guest

    Kibo informs me that stated that:
    [Possible exodus of experts from RPD]
    I think that many people (myself included), would 'move house' to the
    DSLR group, but would continue to read RPD for non-DSLR topics.
    Lionel, Aug 28, 2004
  8. Thad

    Geoff Berrow Guest

    It seems to me(having given it further thought) that a group to discuss

    The main problem here is that rec.photo.digital should have been

    The question is, does one correct the mistake or make it worse?
    Geoff Berrow, Aug 28, 2004
  9. Now you are resorting to sensorship to help yourself feel good about
    bluryy interpolated pictures. Here are some samples...

    This Canon image was cited right here by a Canon user as
    representative of the best his camera can do...

    Compare to a Foveon sample...

    Or this one...

    Or this one...

    Chuckle chuckle.
    Georgette Preddy, Aug 28, 2004
  10. OK, crappy pictures can be taken with any brand of camera. I've said
    many times that there's no magic in the box.
    Randall Ainsworth, Aug 28, 2004
  11. Thad

    kashe Guest

    File sizes, respectively:

    48.5 KB
    2.5 MB
    2.9 MB
    1.8 MB

    Are we to assume the first number was all that camera could
    provide or simply a file size acceptable for downloading from that
    site without a fast connection?
    kashe, Aug 28, 2004
  12. Thad

    Alan Meyer Guest

    Note taken.


    Alan Meyer, Aug 29, 2004
  13. Thad

    Marli Guest

    Have you not worked out how to reduce an images size yet...
    Ask your dad how to do it...
    Marli, Aug 29, 2004
  14. Good suggestion and good charter.
    rec.photo.digital has grown too big to follow, and it would be
    nice to have a place for the more technical oriented dslr users.

    But I think that a more appropriate placement in the Usenet hierarchy
    is: rec.photo.equipment.dslr .
    Gisle Hannemyr, Sep 2, 2004
  15. Gisle, and others-

    This has been hashed through *extensively* in news.groups. Please take a
    look see. I believe a second RFD is emminent.
    John McWilliams, Sep 2, 2004
  16. Thad

    Thad Guest

    The second RFD has already been posted - awaiting approval of the NAN
    moderation team. Expect it to appear in the following groups, within a
    day or two-

    Thad, Sep 2, 2004
  17. Thad

    Summitar Guest

    Shut up, Preddy.
    Summitar, Sep 5, 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.