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. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#21
|
|||
|
|||
Excuse me for a potentially stupid question. I'm well aware of the terms 'SLR' and 'ZLR', but what
does 'EVF' stand for? Regards, Per Nordenberg |
#22
|
|||
|
|||
Per Nordenberg wrote:
Excuse me for a potentially stupid question. I'm well aware of the terms 'SLR' and 'ZLR', but what does 'EVF' stand for? Per - it means Electronic ViewFinder. It has nothing to do with the defintion of a ZLR - please see the group's charter. Cheers, David |
#23
|
|||
|
|||
"David J Taylor" skrev i meddelandet ... Per Nordenberg wrote: Excuse me for a potentially stupid question. I'm well aware of the terms 'SLR' and 'ZLR', but what does 'EVF' stand for? Per - it means Electronic ViewFinder. It has nothing to do with the defintion of a ZLR - please see the group's charter. Cheers, David Thanks David! Best regards, Per Nordenberg |
#24
|
|||
|
|||
Hi Per, you say
Excuse me for a potentially stupid question. I'm well aware of the terms 'SLR' and 'ZLR', but what does 'EVF' stand for? Far from stupid, this is the single most essential question one could ask in a group dedicated to EVF cameras (sometimes mistakenly called "ZLRs") since an EVF is their defining characteristic. "EVF" stands for "Electronic View Finder", which is a small LCD used in some digital compact cameras that "simulates in an electronic way the effect of the (superior) optical TTL viewfinders found on digital SLRs". Some further information about EVFs, LCDs and optical viewfinders can be found in the article at http://www.dpreview.com/learn/?/Glos...wfinder_01.htm, wherefrom comes the above quoted sentence. See also http://www.digicamhelp.com/digital-c...iewfinders.htm. Such digital cameras use an EVF instead of a TTL (through the lens) optical viewfinder, and thus are not reflex cameras; they are thus neither SLRs nor consequently the subset of SLRs called ZLRs. The best, Julio. |
#25
|
|||
|
|||
[Greg:]
Of course, I know that my words are the merest puff of methane in a windstorm, so now that I've released a little pressure (and no doubt someone will be happy to light a match in the vicinity and fan the flames), I'll shut up again. [Greg, later on:] and I shall respond no more. [Julio:] This you have already promised, but did not stand by your word. Anyway, I don't care. [Greg, now:] Fair's fair - I broke my promise, and you're obviously lying! Fart is fart. This is how you see (or smell) and (dis)honor your own words! Julio. |
#26
|
|||
|
|||
[David:]
Per - it means Electronic ViewFinder. It has nothing to do with the defintion of a ZLR - please see the group's charter. The charter describes as "ZLR" those cameras which are "frequently [although mistakenly] referred to as digital ZLR (zoom lens reflex) cameras or SLR-like digital cameras". Funny enough, such cameras are precisely the EVFs, or cameras with an EVF. Therefore, I request you please to stick to the terms of the charter and from now on always think of an EVF even if you mistakenly call it a "ZLR". Julio. |
#27
|
|||
|
|||
"J.S.Pitanga" skrev i meddelandet news [David:] Per - it means Electronic ViewFinder. It has nothing to do with the defintion of a ZLR - please see the group's charter. The charter describes as "ZLR" those cameras which are "frequently [although mistakenly] referred to as digital ZLR (zoom lens reflex) cameras or SLR-like digital cameras". Funny enough, such cameras are precisely the EVFs, or cameras with an EVF. Therefore, I request you please to stick to the terms of the charter and from now on always think of an EVF even if you mistakenly call it a "ZLR". Julio. Ok. If I have understood you correctly then my Olympus C-2100 UZ (fixed zoom lens, electronic view finder) can be discussed here in this group, but not the more sophisticated Olympus E-10 and E-20 (in spite of the fact that they have a fixed zoom lens and a true TTL viewfinder and thus should be referred to as 'ZLR')?? In which group should the last-mentioned cameras be discussed then? Regards, Per Nordenberg |
#28
|
|||
|
|||
Hi Per, you say
Ok. If I have understood you correctly then my Olympus C-2100 UZ (fixed zoom lens, electronic view finder) can be discussed here in this group, but not the more sophisticated Olympus E-10 and E-20 (in spite of the fact that they have a fixed zoom lens and a true TTL viewfinder and thus should be referred to as 'ZLR')?? Indeed. The E-10 and E-20 are SLRs, or single-lens-reflex cameras, because they have an optical viewfinder allowing one to see the subject through the lens (TTL). Since they have a non-interchangeable zoom lens, it is acceptable that they are also called ZLRs, which are a subset of SLRs, in keeping with the traditionally established usage of the term. Your example highlights even more the utter inadequacy and ineptitude of calling EVF cameras "ZLRs". EVF cameras are not reflex cameras, and thus neither SLRs nor ZLRs. Besides, there is another category of digital cameras, including those you have just pointed out, which are legitimately called ZLRs. To sum up, calling an EVF camera a "ZLR", or even a "SLR-like camera" is a stolen, illegitimate, deceptive, misleading, and confusing designation - with the absurd result that actual ZLR cameras such the E-10 and E-20 are not subjects of discussion in this so-called "ZLR" group - just because they are SLRs. Emphasizing the "SLR-like" appearance of EVFs, and misnaming them "ZLRs", whle neglecting their defining characteristic, the EVF, which essentially sets them apart from SLRs and true ZLRs, is at best a deceptive marketing trick targeting the gullible, non-discriminating user - a trick disgracefully and stubbornly nourished by the writers of the charter of this group. In which group should the last-mentioned cameras be discussed then? Since they are SLRs, in a SLR group. The best, Julio. |
#29
|
|||
|
|||
"Greg Evans" writes:
Charles Schuler wrote: This "digital ZSR" issue is so darned confusing that it can only lead to more chaos. How many more posts like the one submitted by the OP do you see coming? I see enough to make this forum always on the defensive and to continuously compel supporters/founders to contrive justifications. Not a great scenerio! Which is why I see little point in fragmenting the rec.photo.digital group in the first place; it seems to have served a small group of fussy pigeonholing gearheads rather than the photographic community in general. Unfortunately I wasn't around to cast my vote at the time. But I've had my say now, so I'll just ignore the "what is a ZLR?" threads, with all their silly haranguing, backbiting, and nitpicking, and get on with learning how to use whatever this contraption is I'm holding to artistic effect.... I thought the zlr group was a ridiculous idea, but I now see the benefits in confining the users of them to this little ghetto. Even the point and shoot people are probably glad to see the point-and-shoot-with-pretensions (ie ZLR) people gone. Everyone wins. B |
#30
|
|||
|
|||
[Bruce Murphy:]I thought the zlr group was a ridiculous idea,
but I now see the benefits in confining the users of them to this little ghetto. Even the point and shoot people are probably glad to see the point-and-shoot-with-pretensions (ie ZLR) people gone. Many dSLR users also have one or more EVFs for those occasions requiring more portability and less performance. Many point-and-shoot photographers also use EVFs because of their usually longer zooms. The belief that people are classified according to the gear they have is the mark of the gear imbecile. Everyone wins. Even you have just won an adequate description. The best, Julio. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|