Bloomberg hints at DSLR coffin being nailed

For a name, I like QUINCY:

Quality, Interchangeable-lens, Camera

I can see it already: "My Quincy has more megapixels than yours...."

Bruce wrote:
"Neil Harrington" wrote:

Bruce wrote:
David Dyer-Bennet wrote:

John A. writes:

On Sun, 11 Sep 2011 10:17:12 -0700, Irwell wrote:

On Sun, 11 Sep 2011 08:30:35 -0700, Paul Furman wrote:

Heh: Mirrorless cameras accounted for 40.5 percent of SLR sales"
-mirrorless aren't SLRS! ;-)

"What's in a name, that which we call a rose by any other
name will smell just as sweet"

Let's call them SBPMs - Snappy-Boxy Picture Makers.

Best version I've heard is "EVIL": Electronic Viewfinder
Interchangeable Lens.

Somehow I doubt it'll catch on


Here in the UK, the camera importers and photography magazine
editors seem to have agreed on "Compact System Cameras" or CSCs.

Whether the buying public will adopt it is another matter. ;-)

I don't think it works. "System camera" implies a camera with some
number of dedicated accessories such as lenses, flash units, remote
controls, etc. In those terms, my Coolpix 8700 and 8800 are system
cameras, and I think it is reasonable to call them such.

Lens interchangeability is what sets the ILCs apart. When the Nikon
ILC appears it will probably not be as much of a "compact system
camera" as my old 8700, really.


I accept your point about CSC. However, it is very difficult to find
a precise term that adequately describes mirrorless cameras.

I agree.


The use of ILC is highly confusing because any SLR or rangefinder
camera with interchangeable lenses is also an ILC.

Yep.

Surely the whole
idea is to come up with a term that differentiates mirrorless cameras
from these?

Yes, but the fact that the term "ILC" is a new one is probably enough to do
that. People are not going to start calling SLRs "ILCs" just because the new
term also describes older designs.

You could reasonably argue that the "SL" in "DSLR" is pointless since there
haven't been any twin-lens digital reflex cameras, therefore no need to use
a term only invented to distinguish between those two types of reflex
camera. But "SLR" is such a well-established term I expect it will continue
to be used anyway, maybe forever.

David Dyer-Bennet wrote:
"Neil Harrington" writes:

Bruce wrote:

Here in the UK, the camera importers and photography magazine
editors seem to have agreed on "Compact System Cameras" or CSCs.

Whether the buying public will adopt it is another matter. ;-)

I don't think it works. "System camera" implies a camera with some
number of dedicated accessories such as lenses, flash units, remote
controls, etc. In those terms, my Coolpix 8700 and 8800 are system
cameras, and I think it is reasonable to call them such.

I disagree that "system camera" is a reasonable description for those;
if it lacks interchangeable lenses, then it can't qualify as a system
camera.

Why? The Coolpix 8700 for example has fisheye, wide angle and tele
conversion lenses designed specifically for it, accepts very sophisticated
external flash units, sync cables for off-camera flash, wired remote control
with intervalometer function, separate battery pack, various lens adapter
tubes, hoods, etc. I think that variety of advanced accessories makes it a
system camera.

There's no reason why lens interchangeability should be the one thing that
makes a system camera. There have been many cameras in the past that had
interchangeable lenses (heh, the old Argus C3 did!) that I doubt anyone
would call system cameras.


Lens interchangeability is what sets the ILCs apart. When the Nikon
ILC appears it will probably not be as much of a "compact system
camera" as my old 8700, really.

Just calling the whole category ILCs at least makes sense.

David Dyer-Bennet wrote:
"Neil Harrington" writes:

David Dyer-Bennet wrote:
John A. writes:

On Sun, 11 Sep 2011 10:17:12 -0700, Irwell wrote:

On Sun, 11 Sep 2011 08:30:35 -0700, Paul Furman wrote:

Heh: Mirrorless cameras accounted for 40.5 percent of SLR sales"
-mirrorless aren't SLRS! ;-)

"What's in a name, that which we call a rose by any other
name will smell just as sweet"

Let's call them SBPMs - Snappy-Boxy Picture Makers.

Best version I've heard is "EVIL": Electronic Viewfinder
Interchangeable Lens.

Somehow I doubt it'll catch on;

It won't, for obvious reasons, except among people who don't like
them.

I do have to point out that I like them, own one, and love that
designation.

Then I stand corrected, at least in your case.


But I accepted long ago that I'm weird :-) .

but it's my favorite and I'm going to
keep pushing it whenever I can. Miracles are possible! After all,
"SCSI" is pronounced "scuzzy" :-).

Yes, but "scuzzy" is not such a commonly understood word as "evil."

Yeah, probably.

A problem with "EVIL" is that everyone who uses it in connection
with ILCs seems to be doing so with a smirk. Good luck with your
dedication to the project, but it will never catch on. :-)

On Tue, 13 Sep 2011 03:28:27 -0400, Neil Harrington wrote:

David Dyer-Bennet wrote:
"Neil Harrington" writes:

David Dyer-Bennet wrote:
John A. writes:

On Sun, 11 Sep 2011 10:17:12 -0700, Irwell wrote:

On Sun, 11 Sep 2011 08:30:35 -0700, Paul Furman wrote:

Heh: Mirrorless cameras accounted for 40.5 percent of SLR sales"
-mirrorless aren't SLRS! ;-)

"What's in a name, that which we call a rose by any other
name will smell just as sweet"

Let's call them SBPMs - Snappy-Boxy Picture Makers.

Best version I've heard is "EVIL": Electronic Viewfinder
Interchangeable Lens.

Somehow I doubt it'll catch on;

It won't, for obvious reasons, except among people who don't like
them.

I do have to point out that I like them, own one, and love that
designation.

Then I stand corrected, at least in your case.


But I accepted long ago that I'm weird :-) .

but it's my favorite and I'm going to
keep pushing it whenever I can. Miracles are possible! After all,
"SCSI" is pronounced "scuzzy" :-).

Yes, but "scuzzy" is not such a commonly understood word as "evil."

Yeah, probably.

A problem with "EVIL" is that everyone who uses it in connection
with ILCs seems to be doing so with a smirk. Good luck with your
dedication to the project, but it will never catch on. :-)

Like Reagan and the Soviet regime.

"Neil Harrington" writes:

Bruce wrote:

Surely the whole
idea is to come up with a term that differentiates mirrorless cameras
from these?

Yes, but the fact that the term "ILC" is a new one is probably enough to do
that. People are not going to start calling SLRs "ILCs" just because the new
term also describes older designs.

Oh, dear. No, I'd use ILC to include DSLRs without a second thought;
it's a more general (and more useful) category that they're clearly part
of.

You could reasonably argue that the "SL" in "DSLR" is pointless since there
haven't been any twin-lens digital reflex cameras, therefore no need to use
a term only invented to distinguish between those two types of reflex
camera. But "SLR" is such a well-established term I expect it will continue
to be used anyway, maybe forever.

The distinction between a TLR and a rangefinder camera was pretty
subtle, especially when they're fixed-lens. In fact, I think it's a
matter of style, or else that TLRs used roll-film of at least 127 size
:-) .

"Neil Harrington" writes:

David Dyer-Bennet wrote:
"Neil Harrington" writes:

Bruce wrote:

Here in the UK, the camera importers and photography magazine
editors seem to have agreed on "Compact System Cameras" or CSCs.

Whether the buying public will adopt it is another matter. ;-)

I don't think it works. "System camera" implies a camera with some
number of dedicated accessories such as lenses, flash units, remote
controls, etc. In those terms, my Coolpix 8700 and 8800 are system
cameras, and I think it is reasonable to call them such.

I disagree that "system camera" is a reasonable description for those;
if it lacks interchangeable lenses, then it can't qualify as a system
camera.

Why? The Coolpix 8700 for example has fisheye, wide angle and tele
conversion lenses designed specifically for it, accepts very sophisticated
external flash units, sync cables for off-camera flash, wired remote control
with intervalometer function, separate battery pack, various lens adapter
tubes, hoods, etc. I think that variety of advanced accessories makes it a
system camera.

Conversion lenses don't count, they're dependent on whatever the
original lens is.

There's no reason why lens interchangeability should be the one thing that
makes a system camera. There have been many cameras in the past that had
interchangeable lenses (heh, the old Argus C3 did!) that I doubt anyone
would call system cameras.

I can't agree; lens interchangeability is the foundation that makes all
the rest of any interest.

In article , says...

"Neil Harrington" writes:

David Dyer-Bennet wrote:
"Neil Harrington" writes:

Bruce wrote:

Here in the UK, the camera importers and photography magazine
editors seem to have agreed on "Compact System Cameras" or CSCs.

Whether the buying public will adopt it is another matter. ;-)

I don't think it works. "System camera" implies a camera with some
number of dedicated accessories such as lenses, flash units, remote
controls, etc. In those terms, my Coolpix 8700 and 8800 are system
cameras, and I think it is reasonable to call them such.

I disagree that "system camera" is a reasonable description for those;
if it lacks interchangeable lenses, then it can't qualify as a system
camera.

Why? The Coolpix 8700 for example has fisheye, wide angle and tele
conversion lenses designed specifically for it, accepts very sophisticated
external flash units, sync cables for off-camera flash, wired remote control
with intervalometer function, separate battery pack, various lens adapter
tubes, hoods, etc. I think that variety of advanced accessories makes it a
system camera.

Conversion lenses don't count, they're dependent on whatever the
original lens is.

There's no reason why lens interchangeability should be the one thing that
makes a system camera. There have been many cameras in the past that had
interchangeable lenses (heh, the old Argus C3 did!) that I doubt anyone
would call system cameras.

I can't agree; lens interchangeability is the foundation that makes all
the rest of any interest.

I've had an Argus C3 available to me for going on 60 years (it's the one
my Dad carried through WWII, he left it to me when he died) and never
knew that it had interchangeable lenses. Cool. The old beastie has
outlived some much fancier equipment.

On Tue, 13 Sep 2011 15:21:10 -0500, David Dyer-Bennet wrote:

"Neil Harrington" writes:

Bruce wrote:

Surely the whole idea is to come up with a term that differentiates
mirrorless cameras from these?

Yes, but the fact that the term "ILC" is a new one is probably enough
to do that. People are not going to start calling SLRs "ILCs" just
because the new term also describes older designs.

Oh, dear. No, I'd use ILC to include DSLRs without a second thought;
it's a more general (and more useful) category that they're clearly part
of.

You could reasonably argue that the "SL" in "DSLR" is pointless since
there haven't been any twin-lens digital reflex cameras, therefore no
need to use a term only invented to distinguish between those two types
of reflex camera. But "SLR" is such a well-established term I expect it
will continue to be used anyway, maybe forever.

The distinction between a TLR and a rangefinder camera was pretty
subtle, especially when they're fixed-lens. In fact, I think it's a
matter of style, or else that TLRs used roll-film of at least 127 size
:-) .

There was a 35mm one made by(or for) Agfa. Around 1960/61.



--
Neil
Linux counter 335851
delete ‘l’ and reverse ‘r’ and’a’

Irwell wrote:
On Tue, 13 Sep 2011 03:28:27 -0400, Neil Harrington wrote:

David Dyer-Bennet wrote:
"Neil Harrington" writes:

David Dyer-Bennet wrote:
John A. writes:

On Sun, 11 Sep 2011 10:17:12 -0700, Irwell
wrote:

On Sun, 11 Sep 2011 08:30:35 -0700, Paul Furman wrote:

Heh: Mirrorless cameras accounted for 40.5 percent of SLR
sales" -mirrorless aren't SLRS! ;-)

"What's in a name, that which we call a rose by any other
name will smell just as sweet"

Let's call them SBPMs - Snappy-Boxy Picture Makers.

Best version I've heard is "EVIL": Electronic Viewfinder
Interchangeable Lens.

Somehow I doubt it'll catch on;

It won't, for obvious reasons, except among people who don't like
them.

I do have to point out that I like them, own one, and love that
designation.

Then I stand corrected, at least in your case.


But I accepted long ago that I'm weird :-) .

but it's my favorite and I'm going to
keep pushing it whenever I can. Miracles are possible! After
all, "SCSI" is pronounced "scuzzy" :-).

Yes, but "scuzzy" is not such a commonly understood word as "evil."

Yeah, probably.

A problem with "EVIL" is that everyone who uses it in connection
with ILCs seems to be doing so with a smirk. Good luck with your
dedication to the project, but it will never catch on. :-)

Like Reagan and the Soviet regime.

Well, that caught on a little, and was resurrected as "axis of evil" by GWB
for other nations as you know.

Actually, combining EV and IL does nicely describe the sort of camera
discussed, it's just that the resulting acronym is unfortunate. Maybe ILEV
would be better, even if less easy to remember.