A Photography forum. PhotoBanter.com

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Go Back   Home » PhotoBanter.com forum » Digital Photography » Digital ZLR Cameras
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Rant about the term "ZLR"



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #81  
Old December 7th 05, 03:53 PM posted to rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.digital.zlr
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Rant about the term "ZLR"


Bryan Olson wrote:
We should do away with the term "ZLR".


In language, theory follows practice. Meaning is defined by usage
and understanding, even when logic dictates otherwise.

We express aperture by F-number; unfortunately, as aperture increases,
F-number decreases. Electricity is the flow of electrons; strangely
that flow is from negative charge to positive. "Thoroughbred" is a
breed of horse, not a description of purity of breed. Compulsive
workers are "workaholics", even though there is no such thing as
"workahol".

Lamentable as the above terminology may be, any opportunity to fix it
has passed. The pioneers of optics and particle physics have won
immortal recognition, as they deserved. Those who coined and adopted
the term "workaholic" were not slapped silly -- as they deserved.

The past is fixed, and we are far too few to alter established usage.
The best we can do is to avoid making matters worse. Let's not adopt
terms that are counter-intuitive, technically wrong, and, well, stupid.
That's where "ZLR" comes in.

"ZLR" literally stands for "zoom lens reflex". Despite its literal
meaning, people use it to to mean cameras with electronic viewfinders.
(Sometimes they also assume "ZLR" means a fixed lens. It's not clear
whether they are deliberately considering only current fixed-lens
cameras, or whether they merely lack the wit to think further.)
The term is counter-intuitive, technically wrong, and stupid. It
has not yet entered common usage, so there is still time to correct
this error.

I have bought exactly two digital cameras (for within a few pennies
of the same price): A Sony F-707, and a Canon Digital Rebel with kit
lens. Both fit the "ZL" in "ZLR" by having a zoom lens. The Canon
Digital Rebel had "reflex"; the Sony F-707 did not. Thus the Canon
was a 'zoom lens reflex', while the Sony was not. So utterly stupid
is the proposed meaning of "ZLR" that my Sony F-707 would be a "ZLR",
and my Canon Digital Rebel would not. Why should we fabricate and
adopt terminology that is so contrary to fact?

So let's say what is right. When we mean "through the lens", let's
say so; "TTL" works. If we mean an electronic viewfinder, then "EVF"
is perfectly clear. A fixed lens is a non-interchangeable lens, and
let's say one of those, even if there isn't an established
abbreviation. This term "ZLR" is crap to be flushed.


--
--Bryan


Very interesting! Glad you admitted from the get-go it's a "rant". How
do you feel about the term "anal-retentive"?

  #82  
Old December 11th 05, 04:14 AM posted to rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.digital.zlr
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Rant about the term "ZLR"

Paul Allen wrote:
Matt Ion wrote:

Paul Allen wrote:


[...] It would seem like
you'd get yourself bollixed up if there were semiconductors in the
circuit and you needed to know what was really going on, but that's
what the book says.



Not really... since semiconductor specs, spec sheets, and even
schematic symbols are designed to the convention that current flows
positive-to-negative. Look at the symbol for a diode - current flow
is in the direction of the arrow: (+) --||-- (-).



Frankly, doing DC circuit design, I've always found things work just
fine if you just adhere to convention and assume current flows
positive-to-negative, and don't worry about actual electron flow.



No wonder I pounded my head on transistors and never made sense of
them! You just have to take it by rote that they operate backwards
to the physics! That makes perfect sense. :-)


Well if you look at the symbols for transistors, like diodes, the
"arrows" indicate the direction of current flow according to the
positive-negative convention.


---
avast! Antivirus: Outbound message clean.
Virus Database (VPS): 0550-0, 12/10/2005
Tested on: 12/10/2005 7:14:35 PM
avast! - copyright (c) 1988-2005 ALWIL Software.
http://www.avast.com



  #83  
Old December 11th 05, 08:50 PM posted to rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.digital.zlr
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Rant about the term "ZLR"

Matt Ion wrote:
Paul Allen wrote:


No wonder I pounded my head on transistors and never made sense of
them! You just have to take it by rote that they operate backwards
to the physics! That makes perfect sense. :-)



Well if you look at the symbols for transistors, like diodes, the
"arrows" indicate the direction of current flow according to the
positive-negative convention.


Exactly. You have to take it by rote that the arrow does not correspond
to the physics. It all makes perfect sense once you pound it into your
head that the symbolic layer we put over the physics is all backwards.

Paul Allen
  #84  
Old December 28th 05, 07:13 PM posted to rec.photo.digital.zlr
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Rant about the term "ZLR"

Bryan Olson wrote:

This term "ZLR" is crap to be flushed.


So is your posting.
  #85  
Old December 29th 05, 05:15 AM posted to rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.digital.zlr
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Rant about the term "ZLR"



Lorem Ipsum wrote:

David J Taylor wrote:

I suppose, pedantically, you caould even say that the LCD is mounted
upside-down!


I've been using a view camera for so long that the world outside of the
camera looks up-side-down.



I can share that feeling. Spent a lot of time with Linhof, Speed
Graphics, and other view cameras in the 1960's. One of my favorites was
the Aero Technika...

JT
  #86  
Old December 29th 05, 05:21 AM posted to rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.digital.zlr
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Rant about the term "ZLR"



Philip Homburg wrote:

In article Ewbkf.23151$Gd6.19543@pd7tw3no,
Matt Ion wrote:
If you really wanna get into it, "electric current" IS considered to
"flow" from positive to negative, and it does so at very near the speed
of light.


What kind of experiment proves that current flows from positive to negative
and not the other way around? (Just curious. My understanding is that
what is important are current changes what causes the current change.
Information does not travel faster than the speed of light, so the current
change spreads from the point that caused the current change).





Since an electrons are a negatively charged whouldn't it stand to reason
that an source of excess electrons (Negative source) would flow to a
destination deficient (positive charge) of electrons?

JT
  #87  
Old December 29th 05, 06:07 AM posted to rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.digital.zlr
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Rant about the term "ZLR"

Grumpy AuContraire wrote:

Philip Homburg wrote:

In article Ewbkf.23151$Gd6.19543@pd7tw3no,
Matt Ion wrote:

If you really wanna get into it, "electric current" IS considered to
"flow" from positive to negative, and it does so at very near the speed
of light.


What kind of experiment proves that current flows from positive to negative
and not the other way around? (Just curious. My understanding is that
what is important are current changes what causes the current change.
Information does not travel faster than the speed of light, so the current
change spreads from the point that caused the current change).






Since an electrons are a negatively charged whouldn't it stand to reason
that an source of excess electrons (Negative source) would flow to a
destination deficient (positive charge) of electrons?


Jumping in a little late, aren't we?

Electrons DO flow from negative to positive; however, for the purpose of
electronic design, CURRENT is considered by convention to flow positive
to negative.


---
avast! Antivirus: Outbound message clean.
Virus Database (VPS): 0552-1, 12/28/2005
Tested on: 12/28/2005 9:06:44 PM
avast! - copyright (c) 1988-2005 ALWIL Software.
http://www.avast.com



 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Rant about the term "ZLR" Bryan Olson Digital Photography 101 December 29th 05 06:07 AM
Bokeh - Where did the term come from, and how do you pronounce it? [email protected] Digital Photography 20 March 31st 05 09:59 PM
Term 'raster' versus 'bitmap' Michael A. Covington Digital Photography 26 November 17th 04 12:34 PM
Newbie advice - for food shoot and long term.... fishwrap Medium Format Photography Equipment 12 October 15th 04 03:33 PM
Long term archive of digi-files .. suggestion Bruce Wilson Digital Photography 22 August 24th 04 10:13 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 11:57 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 PhotoBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.