what is ZLR?

Hi Charles,

Funny thing is, this camera is often listed as an SLR
(I assume you are referring to the IS-20).

I think that the IS-20 and the IS-200 are just two similarly specified
Olympus ZLRs. Also, I understand that ZLR is just a subcategory of SLR,
characterized by a non-interchangeable zoom lens. Therefore, it is natural
that they are listed as SLRs.

Whatever is a single lens reflex is aptly named a SLR, and so are ZLRs.
Meanwhile, whatever is not a reflex camera is mistakenly and misleadingly
named a ZLR, and this is the case with all these EVFs which are the
subject of the present group, whence your accurate conclusion:

This newsgroup has a fundamental flaw and should be renamed.

The best,

Julio.

"J.S.Pitanga" wrote in message
news
Hi Charles,


Whatever is a single lens reflex is aptly named a SLR, and so are
ZLRs. Meanwhile, whatever is not a reflex camera is mistakenly and
misleadingly named a ZLR, and this is the case with all these EVFs
which are the subject of the present group, whence your accurate
conclusion:

This newsgroup has a fundamental flaw and should be renamed.


What one might call the Humpty Dumpty effect is often in play
especially he

"When I use a word," Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone,
"it means just
what I choose it to mean-neither more nor less." Lewis Carrol.

Technically, "reflex" presumably should refer to a reflection process
and thus only cameras that use a mirror are reflexes. A so-called ZLR
is rightly called an "electronic viewfinder camera" and, IMHO, they
are the wave of the future but not the present day. A great deal of
fighting and discussion produced the present additions to
rec.photo.digital and I suspect their acceptance may have been caused
by battle fatigue! The original proponents wanted to include
non-reflex digital cameras like Leicas in a "digital single lens
reflex" discussion group. OK, if you accept Humpty Dumpty's
definition!


--
James V. Silverton
Potomac, Maryland, USA

Hi Greg,

I mean really - is all this hair-splitting, chop logic,
and fussy quibbling truly useful in the long run?

If one does not know what this group is about, it can hardly be useful
even in the short, let alone in the long run.

Does it help people who need answers, or just people who need
to show that their answers are better than someone else's?

The answer needed here is what is a "ZLR" to start with. But maybe you
just need to show that your lack of answer is better than someone else's.

Julio.

Pretty soon the laments of "rpd was full of spammers and trolls" will be
replaced by "all these subgroups are full of spammers, trolls,
nit-pickers, and off-topic posts!" I mean really - is all this
hair-splitting, chop logic, and fussy quibbling truly useful in the long
run? Does it help people who need answers, or just people who need to
show that their answers are better than someone else's?

I hear you loud and clear but simply ask if folks don't understand, CLEARLY,
what the forum is all about, then what is its ultimate purpose? 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!

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.

My words are no better than yours, but thought that I'd share them.

J.S.Pitanga wrote:
Anyway, usually a group is created to fit a category of cameras, but this
is the first time I see a category of cameras being created to fit a group!


Are you bored with trolling this group yet?

pete
--
"there's no room for enigmas in built-up areas"

[Julio:]Anyway, usually a group is created to fit a category
of cameras, but this is the first time I see a category
of cameras being created to fit a group!

[Pete:]
Are you bored with trolling this group yet?

The mark of an imbecile is to feel trolled by any comment.

Julio.

J.S.Pitanga wrote:

The answer needed here is what is a "ZLR" to start with.

I'm far less certain than some people that it is truly "needed". Did
it help the followers of the Christian religion for medieval scholars
to try to figure out how many angels could dance on the point of a
needle?

Granted, some knowledge of the available cameras can help neophytes
figure out what they want, but beyond that the whole ZLR debate
quickly gets to be good brainpower put to a pointless end. Which is
what this thread has become, and I shall respond no more.

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....

Hi Greg,

[J.S.Pitanga:]
The answer needed here is what is a "ZLR" to start with.

[Greg:]
I'm far less certain than some people that it is truly
"needed".

In other words, you don't feel the need to know what you are discussing
about. But proponents of the designation "ZLR" don't know either. Such
people are like theologians who enjoy discussing an imagined entity they
cannot define. Meaningful discussion starts with defining the discussed
subject, period.

Did it help the followers of the Christian religion
for medieval scholars to try to figure out how many angels
could dance on the point of a needle?

These fools were like you and some proponents of the ZLR designation,
wishing to discuss entities they could not define or know what they are.

Granted, some knowledge of the available cameras can help
neophytes figure out what they want, but beyond that the whole
ZLR debate quickly gets to be good brainpower put to a
pointless end.

As above, pointless indeed is to discuss an entity one cannot define.
Defining the subject of a discussion before engaging in it is always
meaninful, and does not even require outstanding brainpower.

Which is what this thread has become,

Rather, this thread has become extremely meaningful, insofar as it showed
beyond any doubt that "ZLR" is just a stolen, unauthentic, wrong and
misleading misnaming for EVFs, and that no one is able to define otherwise
what is "ZLR" - the question of the original poster and of many posters
and newcomers to this group.

and I shall respond no more.

This you have already promised, but did not stand by your word. Anyway, I
don't care.

The best,

Julio.

J.S.Pitanga wrote:

and I shall respond no more.

This you have already promised, but did not stand by your word.
Anyway, I don't care.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Fair's fair - I broke my promise, and you're obviously lying!
:-)