Digital Photography RFD: rec.photo.digital.slr vs rec.photo.digital.slr-systems?

[crossposted to news.groups,rec.photo.digital, followups set to
news.groups only]

Do *you* prefer rec.photo.digital.slr or rec.photo.digital.slr-systems?

I'm still seeing a lot of people expressing a preference for the earlier
name, but with a simpler charter, over the version in the current RFD.
While I feel that the current version of the DSLR group RFD is a pretty
good match between group name & the proponents' preferred charter, &
good enough that I'll vote for it if it's the only choice on the menu, I
personally still prefer the idea of a group that's simply about anything
people want to say about true digital SLRs, *as well as* digital cameras
that broadly fit in the same category, such as the Olympus fixed-lens
DSLR that been mentioned here a few times.
IMO, this would make for a simple, non-controversial charter that'd be
a very good match to the group name, & make it easier for potential
users to find the best group for their interests.
Other than that, I'd keep the charter as Thad & Alan have written it.

"slr-systems" for digital SLRs with a lens system, etc, or:
"slr" for DSLRs, regardless of the technicalities?

--
W
. | ,. w , "Some people are alive only because
\|/ \|/ it is illegal to kill them." Perna condita delenda est
---^----^---------------------------------------------------------------

"Lionel" wrote

[crossposted to news.groups,rec.photo.digital, followups set to
news.groups only]

same here

Do *you* prefer rec.photo.digital.slr or rec.photo.digital.slr-systems?

I'm still seeing a lot of people expressing a preference for the earlier
name, but with a simpler charter, over the version in the current RFD.
While I feel that the current version of the DSLR group RFD is a pretty
good match between group name & the proponents' preferred charter, &
good enough that I'll vote for it if it's the only choice on the menu, I
personally still prefer the idea of a group that's simply about anything
people want to say about true digital SLRs, *as well as* digital cameras
that broadly fit in the same category, such as the Olympus fixed-lens
DSLR that been mentioned here a few times.
IMO, this would make for a simple, non-controversial charter that'd be
a very good match to the group name, & make it easier for potential
users to find the best group for their interests.
Other than that, I'd keep the charter as Thad & Alan have written it.

"slr-systems" for digital SLRs with a lens system, etc, or:
"slr" for DSLRs, regardless of the technicalities?

rec.photo.digital.slr regardless of technicalities

A P&S, compact, or camera, if it's really wanted

And of course new charters for rpd & rpe35, since it's called a re-org.

Steve Young

Lionel wrote:

Do *you* prefer rec.photo.digital.slr or rec.photo.digital.slr-systems?

Yes.

The distinction is pretty superficial. SLR by definition refers
to cameras with mirrors and optical viewfinders through the lens.

Whether the lens is removable or not is a bit of an irrelevancy.
"ZLRs" (which should just remain in rec.photo.digital) are not
SLRs if they have electronic viewfinders.

Pretty simple. If you want to discuss lenses or paraphernalia
in r.p.d.slr, then why should that be a problem? It doesn't
need to be defined as "systems" to include that.

--
Ken Tough

In news.groups Ken Tough wrote:
Lionel wrote:

Do *you* prefer rec.photo.digital.slr or rec.photo.digital.slr-systems?

Yes.

The distinction is pretty superficial. SLR by definition refers
to cameras with mirrors and optical viewfinders through the lens.

Whether the lens is removable or not is a bit of an irrelevancy.
"ZLRs" (which should just remain in rec.photo.digital) are not
SLRs if they have electronic viewfinders.

Isn't there a problem with that, though? The reason for having
single reflex was so that the photographer can see the image from
the film perspective (i.e. as the film would see it). Then whatever
focus and effects of controls the photographer saw could be expected
to be transfered to film, roughly. If that is the only source of
difference between the traditional mirror mechanics and a digital
screen, then I would expect that difference to basically evaporate
with improvements in display technology. At some point, a display
could conceivably have the similar resolution as the particulates
on a matte screen, which would render a mirror pointless. One
would simply put the display where the matte was and get rid of
the mirror. The rest of the form factor could remain unchanged.
In that scenario, all SLRs as we know them would end up being
defined as ZLRs, and RPD.slr* would dry up (and RPD would fill
up again).

I would then argue that the physical mirror is also irrelevant for
the definition of "SLR". The only thing that really matters for
an SLR must then be the reason for the "reflex" label. It isn't
because of the mirror, it is because there has to be a switch
between viewing and exposing. I then argue that IF a camera
changes it's readout mode (e.g. fast but higher noise floor for
viewing, and whatever is demanded for an exposure), then the
camera has "reflexed". That is, it has executed the electronic
equivalent of popping a mirror. The problem is that most digital
cameras behave this way.

Ok, so now go back one more relational step from the need for
the reflex. Why is it necessary to see what the film sees?
The lens setup changes the outcome of the exposure (e.g. DoF).
For that reason, fixed lens cameras can fall under "SLR". Also,
if you change the lens, you automatically change the lens setup.
If one argues SLRs are cameras that allow the manipulation of
the lens, either by changing it or by specifically varying the
aperture (not by the aperture varying with zoom) and allow you
to preview the image in real time, it seems to me one could go
back to RPD.slr. The aperture isn't controlable on most P&S,
so that knocks those out. Post processing and non-camera stuff,
etc are knocked out.

What about ZLRs? Yeah, they have this capability. But what
the heck, if they can used in manual mode with stuff like DoF
preview, there's not a lot conceptually separating them. If
traffic becomes an issue, split the group again, to
RPD.slr.fixed-lens etc and leave RPD for general SLR
discussions.

Wouldn't that make RPD.slr a very high volume group? Possibly,
but at least it would be lower and a little easier to follow.
It might actually be a good idea to actually go with a single
large (slr+zlr) split off to see where traffic settles and where
the actual problems are (you may find that a zlr-slr split is
intractable and have to look for something else), and then do
another split when the problems have been broken down just a bit.

ru

--
My standard proposals rant:
Quality, usefulness, merit, or non-newsgroups popularity of a topic
is more or less irrelevant in creating a new Big-8 newsgroup.
Usenet popularity is the primary consideration.

wrote:

What about ZLRs? Yeah, they have this capability. But what
the heck, if they can used in manual mode with stuff like DoF
preview, there's not a lot conceptually separating them.

Question from a non-ZLR-user: do they have DOF preview? Could that
really be useful in an electronic viewfinder?

It might actually be a good idea to actually go with a single
large (slr+zlr) split off to see where traffic settles and where
the actual problems are

At that point you might as well just stick with rec.photo.digital.

--
Jeremy |

wrote in message
...
In news.groups Ken Tough wrote:
Lionel wrote:

Do *you* prefer rec.photo.digital.slr or rec.photo.digital.slr-systems?

Yes.

The distinction is pretty superficial. SLR by definition refers
to cameras with mirrors and optical viewfinders through the lens.

Whether the lens is removable or not is a bit of an irrelevancy.
"ZLRs" (which should just remain in rec.photo.digital) are not
SLRs if they have electronic viewfinders.

Isn't there a problem with that, though? The reason for having
single reflex was so that the photographer can see the image from
the film perspective (i.e. as the film would see it). Then whatever
focus and effects of controls the photographer saw could be expected
to be transfered to film, roughly. If that is the only source of
difference between the traditional mirror mechanics and a digital
screen, then I would expect that difference to basically evaporate
with improvements in display technology. At some point, a display
could conceivably have the similar resolution as the particulates
on a matte screen, which would render a mirror pointless. One
would simply put the display where the matte was and get rid of
the mirror. The rest of the form factor could remain unchanged.
In that scenario, all SLRs as we know them would end up being
defined as ZLRs, and RPD.slr* would dry up (and RPD would fill
up again).

I would then argue that the physical mirror is also irrelevant for
the definition of "SLR". The only thing that really matters for
an SLR must then be the reason for the "reflex" label. It isn't
because of the mirror, it is because there has to be a switch
between viewing and exposing. I then argue that IF a camera
changes it's readout mode (e.g. fast but higher noise floor for
viewing, and whatever is demanded for an exposure), then the
camera has "reflexed". That is, it has executed the electronic
equivalent of popping a mirror. The problem is that most digital
cameras behave this way.

Ok, so now go back one more relational step from the need for
the reflex. Why is it necessary to see what the film sees?
The lens setup changes the outcome of the exposure (e.g. DoF).
For that reason, fixed lens cameras can fall under "SLR". Also,
if you change the lens, you automatically change the lens setup.
If one argues SLRs are cameras that allow the manipulation of
the lens, either by changing it or by specifically varying the
aperture (not by the aperture varying with zoom) and allow you
to preview the image in real time, it seems to me one could go
back to RPD.slr. The aperture isn't controlable on most P&S,
so that knocks those out. Post processing and non-camera stuff,
etc are knocked out.

What about ZLRs? Yeah, they have this capability. But what
the heck, if they can used in manual mode with stuff like DoF
preview, there's not a lot conceptually separating them. If
traffic becomes an issue, split the group again, to
RPD.slr.fixed-lens etc and leave RPD for general SLR
discussions.

Wouldn't that make RPD.slr a very high volume group? Possibly,
but at least it would be lower and a little easier to follow.
It might actually be a good idea to actually go with a single
large (slr+zlr) split off to see where traffic settles and where
the actual problems are (you may find that a zlr-slr split is
intractable and have to look for something else), and then do
another split when the problems have been broken down just a bit.

"... it seems to me one could go back to RPD.slr."

Amen This one new group would help a lot.

And forget the idea of calling it a reorg, cause it ain't

wrote:

....
If that is the only source of
difference between the traditional mirror mechanics and a digital
screen, then I would expect that difference to basically evaporate
with improvements in display technology. At some point, a display
could conceivably have the similar resolution as the particulates
on a matte screen, which would render a mirror pointless.

True, also provided you can get the same shutter-lag response,
given that the sensor must be operating to give you the EVF
image etc. Seems that's part of the problem for lag in the
compacts right now. Perhaps a splitting prism would work,
with part of the light going to a cheap/fast sensor for the EVF,
but then you have the problem that the EVF isn't as good quality
as the optical viewfinder for many things.

That doesn't just include 'silly people who want manual focus'
(as has been referred). If you want to get a good idea of what
the DOF looks like in the final image, you have to have the
resolution to see what's really in focus and what isn't etc.

But, if they were identical, then yes, the EVF camera gets
harder to distinguish from the SLR in characteristics. How
do you distinguish these in the name of a group, then? RPD.pro/sumer?

Wouldn't that make RPD.slr a very high volume group? Possibly,
but at least it would be lower and a little easier to follow.
It might actually be a good idea to actually go with a single
large (slr+zlr) split off to see where traffic settles and where
the actual problems are (you may find that a zlr-slr split is
intractable and have to look for something else), and then do
another split when the problems have been broken down just a bit.

Yes, probably it's not worth putting too fine a point on the
distinction of what's an SLR and what isn't. The point is it's
a more advanced digital camera than basic ones, which are discussed
in RPD. Doesn't stop people discussing advanced ones in RPD.

Was there an RPD.advanced suggestion?

--
Ken Tough

wrote:

What about ZLRs? Yeah, they have this capability. But what
the heck, if they can used in manual mode with stuff like DoF
preview, there's not a lot conceptually separating them.

Question from a non-ZLR-user: do they have DOF preview? Could that
really be useful in an electronic viewfinder?

It might actually be a good idea to actually go with a single
large (slr+zlr) split off to see where traffic settles and where
the actual problems are

At that point you might as well just stick with rec.photo.digital.

--
Jeremy |

wrote:

....
If that is the only source of
difference between the traditional mirror mechanics and a digital
screen, then I would expect that difference to basically evaporate
with improvements in display technology. At some point, a display
could conceivably have the similar resolution as the particulates
on a matte screen, which would render a mirror pointless.

True, also provided you can get the same shutter-lag response,
given that the sensor must be operating to give you the EVF
image etc. Seems that's part of the problem for lag in the
compacts right now. Perhaps a splitting prism would work,
with part of the light going to a cheap/fast sensor for the EVF,
but then you have the problem that the EVF isn't as good quality
as the optical viewfinder for many things.

That doesn't just include 'silly people who want manual focus'
(as has been referred). If you want to get a good idea of what
the DOF looks like in the final image, you have to have the
resolution to see what's really in focus and what isn't etc.

But, if they were identical, then yes, the EVF camera gets
harder to distinguish from the SLR in characteristics. How
do you distinguish these in the name of a group, then? RPD.pro/sumer?

Wouldn't that make RPD.slr a very high volume group? Possibly,
but at least it would be lower and a little easier to follow.
It might actually be a good idea to actually go with a single
large (slr+zlr) split off to see where traffic settles and where
the actual problems are (you may find that a zlr-slr split is
intractable and have to look for something else), and then do
another split when the problems have been broken down just a bit.

Yes, probably it's not worth putting too fine a point on the
distinction of what's an SLR and what isn't. The point is it's
a more advanced digital camera than basic ones, which are discussed
in RPD. Doesn't stop people discussing advanced ones in RPD.

Was there an RPD.advanced suggestion?

--
Ken Tough

In news.groups Ken Tough wrote:
Lionel wrote:

Do *you* prefer rec.photo.digital.slr or rec.photo.digital.slr-systems?

Yes.

The distinction is pretty superficial. SLR by definition refers
to cameras with mirrors and optical viewfinders through the lens.

Whether the lens is removable or not is a bit of an irrelevancy.
"ZLRs" (which should just remain in rec.photo.digital) are not
SLRs if they have electronic viewfinders.

Isn't there a problem with that, though? The reason for having
single reflex was so that the photographer can see the image from
the film perspective (i.e. as the film would see it). Then whatever
focus and effects of controls the photographer saw could be expected
to be transfered to film, roughly. If that is the only source of
difference between the traditional mirror mechanics and a digital
screen, then I would expect that difference to basically evaporate
with improvements in display technology. At some point, a display
could conceivably have the similar resolution as the particulates
on a matte screen, which would render a mirror pointless. One
would simply put the display where the matte was and get rid of
the mirror. The rest of the form factor could remain unchanged.
In that scenario, all SLRs as we know them would end up being
defined as ZLRs, and RPD.slr* would dry up (and RPD would fill
up again).

I would then argue that the physical mirror is also irrelevant for
the definition of "SLR". The only thing that really matters for
an SLR must then be the reason for the "reflex" label. It isn't
because of the mirror, it is because there has to be a switch
between viewing and exposing. I then argue that IF a camera
changes it's readout mode (e.g. fast but higher noise floor for
viewing, and whatever is demanded for an exposure), then the
camera has "reflexed". That is, it has executed the electronic
equivalent of popping a mirror. The problem is that most digital
cameras behave this way.

Ok, so now go back one more relational step from the need for
the reflex. Why is it necessary to see what the film sees?
The lens setup changes the outcome of the exposure (e.g. DoF).
For that reason, fixed lens cameras can fall under "SLR". Also,
if you change the lens, you automatically change the lens setup.
If one argues SLRs are cameras that allow the manipulation of
the lens, either by changing it or by specifically varying the
aperture (not by the aperture varying with zoom) and allow you
to preview the image in real time, it seems to me one could go
back to RPD.slr. The aperture isn't controlable on most P&S,
so that knocks those out. Post processing and non-camera stuff,
etc are knocked out.

What about ZLRs? Yeah, they have this capability. But what
the heck, if they can used in manual mode with stuff like DoF
preview, there's not a lot conceptually separating them. If
traffic becomes an issue, split the group again, to
RPD.slr.fixed-lens etc and leave RPD for general SLR
discussions.

Wouldn't that make RPD.slr a very high volume group? Possibly,
but at least it would be lower and a little easier to follow.
It might actually be a good idea to actually go with a single
large (slr+zlr) split off to see where traffic settles and where
the actual problems are (you may find that a zlr-slr split is
intractable and have to look for something else), and then do
another split when the problems have been broken down just a bit.

ru

--
My standard proposals rant:
Quality, usefulness, merit, or non-newsgroups popularity of a topic
is more or less irrelevant in creating a new Big-8 newsgroup.
Usenet popularity is the primary consideration.