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 |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
2nd RFD: rec.photo.digital.slr (was: rec.photo.dslr)
REQUEST FOR DISCUSSION (RFD)
unmoderated group rec.photo.digital.slr This is a formal Request For Discussion (RFD) for the creation of a worldwide unmoderated Usenet newsgroup rec.photo.digital.slr. This is not a Call for Votes (CFV); you cannot vote at this time. Procedural details are below. All followup discussion should be posted to news.groups. Newsgroup line: rec.photo.digital.slr Digital SLR (single lens reflex) camera systems. Significant CHANGES from previous RFD: -Change of name from rec.photo.dslr to rec.photo.digital.slr -Changes in "rationale" section -Removed previous operative definition of digital SLR -Added additional proponent: Alan Browne RATIONALE: rec.photo.digital.slr The proposed newsgroup should be created because it will provide an open forum for the discussion of digital SLR (single lens reflex) camera systems, separate from film cameras and non-SLR digital cameras. Digital SLR 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 digital SLR enthusiasts. Rec.photo.digital was created before the digital photography revolution peaked. At that time, digital SLR camera systems were not easily obtainable by the average person, due to high cost and limited availability. Due to advances in the past year alone by some of the major camera manufacturers, a person can find digital SLR 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, rec.photo.digital.slr will limit its scope of inclusion 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 newsgroup for discussion of these cameras. Many 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 substantial 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 a considerable amount of bandwidth. With the creation of rec.photo.digital.slr, these crossposted threads would be substantially reduced. The 35mm crowd can get back to pure 35mm equipment/photography discussion, and RPD can be free of film talk. CHARTER: rec.photo.digital.slr An open forum for the discussion of digital SLR (single lens reflex) camera systems. These systems consist of: -Digital SLR camera bodies with mounts for detachable lenses -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, DSLR camera/lens/accessory maintenance, tripods and monopods. All postings made to this group should conform to existing Usenet guidelines (see news.announce.newusers for guideline documents). 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 -Posting links to personal photo galleries or images, as long as the discussion remains within the context of DSLR photography -Discussion of digital rangefinder camera systems (technically not SLR systems, but they are on-topic if they offer lens interchangeability) What Is Considered Off-Topic: -Discussion of pure film cameras (hybrid film-digital permitted) -Discussion of "point and shoot" or any other non-SLR digital cameras (digital rangefinders are the only permitted exception) -Discussion cameras with non-detachable lenses, such as ZLR (zoom lens reflex) 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 except where there is good reason to do so (even then, crossposting should be limited to within the rec.photo.* hierarchy) What Is Not Permitted: -Discussions debating digital photography vs. film photography -Posts from mail2news gateways and/or anonymous remailers -Flame wars (brand comparison threads will tolerated as long as they do not degenerate into personal flames) -Exchange and/or discussion of illegal software -Personal attacks -Binary postings (i.e. non text postings) -Commercial advertisements: This group explicitly prohibits the posting of advertisements of any kind, whether personal, private or commercial, as well as all other promotional material, whether or not it is in any way related to photography. Auction announcements (e-bay and others) are prohibited. Use rec.photo.marketplace.digital instead. END CHARTER. PROCEDU 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. DISTRIBUTION: This RFD has been posted to the following newsgroups: news.groups news.announce.newgroups rec.photo.equipment.35mm rec.photo.digital Proponent: Thaddeus Lip****z Proponent: Alan Browne |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
"Thad" wrote in message ... CHARTER: rec.photo.digital.slr An open forum for the discussion of digital SLR (single lens reflex) camera systems. These systems consist of: -Digital SLR camera bodies with mounts for detachable lenses -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, DSLR camera/lens/accessory maintenance, tripods and monopods. -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 -Posting links to personal photo galleries or images, as long as the discussion remains within the context of DSLR photography -Discussion of digital rangefinder camera systems (technically not SLR systems, but they are on-topic if they offer lens interchangeability) What Is Considered Off-Topic: -Discussion of pure film cameras (hybrid film-digital permitted) -Discussion of "point and shoot" or any other non-SLR digital cameras (digital rangefinders are the only permitted exception) -Discussion cameras with non-detachable lenses, such as ZLR (zoom lens reflex) cameras This last seems to make the purpose of the group more restrictive than its name. IMHO, a correct name like rec.photo.digital.interchangeable.lens or rec.photo.digital.multilens should be used. .. I wonder why discussion of electronic viewfinder cameras is apparently excluded and, anyway, what's so sacred about using a mirror instead of more modern electronics? -- James V. Silverton Potomac, Maryland, USA |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
James Silverton wrote:
"Thad" wrote in message ... This last seems to make the purpose of the group more restrictive than its name. IMHO, a correct name like rec.photo.digital.interchangeable.lens or rec.photo.digital.multilens should be used. The name was *extensively* hashed over in news.groups as well as your point, and many others. It's not as simple as choosing any name that seems direct; it has to fit in the hierarchy of the Big 8 groups, as well. Anyone truly interested will find every plausible - and some implausible- name variation and suggestion posted in the last vew dasys in news.groups. -- John McWilliams |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
James Silverton wrote:
This last seems to make the purpose of the group more restrictive than its name. IMHO, a correct name like rec.photo.digital.interchangeable.lens or rec.photo.digital.multilens should be used. The rpd.slr intent is to gather those discussions that revolve around interchangeable lens cameras. SLR is not the perfect thing to call it, but by consensus the best thing to call it. As John says, this has been thrashed out over the past few days at news.groups , and that is the best place to get the answers. I wonder why discussion of electronic viewfinder cameras is apparently excluded and, anyway, what's so sacred about using a mirror instead of more modern electronics? Not so much that they are 'excluded' as not 'included'. The naming also allows a future breakout of a group for such cameras (say as a part of rpd.p+s, or rpd.zlr or some such) but that is not part of the current effort. Not that it is relevant at this point, but you cannot critically focus and see the detail neccesary with an EVF for many subjects including macro and wide aperture portraiture. Yes you can zoom and pan the EVF image, but that is not a practical way to work. Optical viewfinders offer superb resolution and clarity v. EVF's. Cheers, Alan -- -- rec.photo.equipment.35mm user resource: -- http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm -- e-meil: there's no such thing as a FreeLunch.-- |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
James Silverton wrote:
This last seems to make the purpose of the group more restrictive than its name. IMHO, a correct name like rec.photo.digital.interchangeable.lens or rec.photo.digital.multilens should be used. The rpd.slr intent is to gather those discussions that revolve around interchangeable lens cameras. SLR is not the perfect thing to call it, but by consensus the best thing to call it. As John says, this has been thrashed out over the past few days at news.groups , and that is the best place to get the answers. I wonder why discussion of electronic viewfinder cameras is apparently excluded and, anyway, what's so sacred about using a mirror instead of more modern electronics? Not so much that they are 'excluded' as not 'included'. The naming also allows a future breakout of a group for such cameras (say as a part of rpd.p+s, or rpd.zlr or some such) but that is not part of the current effort. Not that it is relevant at this point, but you cannot critically focus and see the detail neccesary with an EVF for many subjects including macro and wide aperture portraiture. Yes you can zoom and pan the EVF image, but that is not a practical way to work. Optical viewfinders offer superb resolution and clarity v. EVF's. Cheers, Alan -- -- rec.photo.equipment.35mm user resource: -- http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm -- e-meil: there's no such thing as a FreeLunch.-- |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
"James Silverton" wrote in message
... I wonder why discussion of electronic viewfinder cameras is apparently excluded and, anyway, what's so sacred about using a mirror instead of more modern electronics? See any DSLRs on the market with EVFs? Well when there is, i'm sure r.p.d.slr will discuss them. Until then the point is moot, no? -- Martin Francis http://www.sixbysix.co.uk "Go not to Usenet for counsel, for it will say both no, and yes, and no, and yes...." |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
"James Silverton" wrote in message
... I wonder why discussion of electronic viewfinder cameras is apparently excluded and, anyway, what's so sacred about using a mirror instead of more modern electronics? See any DSLRs on the market with EVFs? Well when there is, i'm sure r.p.d.slr will discuss them. Until then the point is moot, no? -- Martin Francis http://www.sixbysix.co.uk "Go not to Usenet for counsel, for it will say both no, and yes, and no, and yes...." |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
"John McWilliams" wrote in message news:4M3_c.365969$%_6.317572@attbi_s01... James Silverton wrote: "Thad" wrote in message ... This last seems to make the purpose of the group more restrictive than its name. IMHO, a correct name like rec.photo.digital.interchangeable.lens or rec.photo.digital.multilens should be used. The name was *extensively* hashed over in news.groups as well as your point, and many others. It's not as simple as choosing any name that seems direct; it has to fit in the hierarchy of the Big 8 groups, as well. Anyone truly interested will find every plausible - and some implausible- name variation and suggestion posted in the last vew dasys in news.groups. -- John McWilliams Thanks for the explanation! I'm afraid I did not follow the news.groups postings but "slr" strikes me as an inaccurate and misleading name that might have been dreamed up by politicians (g). Jim. |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
"John McWilliams" wrote in message news:4M3_c.365969$%_6.317572@attbi_s01... James Silverton wrote: "Thad" wrote in message ... This last seems to make the purpose of the group more restrictive than its name. IMHO, a correct name like rec.photo.digital.interchangeable.lens or rec.photo.digital.multilens should be used. The name was *extensively* hashed over in news.groups as well as your point, and many others. It's not as simple as choosing any name that seems direct; it has to fit in the hierarchy of the Big 8 groups, as well. Anyone truly interested will find every plausible - and some implausible- name variation and suggestion posted in the last vew dasys in news.groups. -- John McWilliams Thanks for the explanation! I'm afraid I did not follow the news.groups postings but "slr" strikes me as an inaccurate and misleading name that might have been dreamed up by politicians (g). Jim. |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
You are right....but its not a big deal. I shoot an Oly E-10. Technically
its not a DSLR....but that is not going to make me stay away. The users will define the real purpose of the group. My guess is that it will evolve as a place for Pros and advanced users. What will stay behind is the armatures who want to know how big a pixel is and what camera has the best digital zoom. "James Silverton" wrote in message ... "John McWilliams" wrote in message news:4M3_c.365969$%_6.317572@attbi_s01... James Silverton wrote: "Thad" wrote in message ... This last seems to make the purpose of the group more restrictive than its name. IMHO, a correct name like rec.photo.digital.interchangeable.lens or rec.photo.digital.multilens should be used. The name was *extensively* hashed over in news.groups as well as your point, and many others. It's not as simple as choosing any name that seems direct; it has to fit in the hierarchy of the Big 8 groups, as well. Anyone truly interested will find every plausible - and some implausible- name variation and suggestion posted in the last vew dasys in news.groups. -- John McWilliams Thanks for the explanation! I'm afraid I did not follow the news.groups postings but "slr" strikes me as an inaccurate and misleading name that might have been dreamed up by politicians (g). Jim. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
RFD: rec.photo.dslr | Thad | Digital Photography | 21 | September 5th 04 02:22 AM |
RFD: rec.photo.dslr | Thad | 35mm Photo Equipment | 12 | September 5th 04 02:22 AM |
New newsgroup: REC.PHOTO.DSLR ? | ittsy | 35mm Photo Equipment | 49 | August 28th 04 01:00 PM |