3rd RFD: rec.photo.digital.slr

Lionel wrote:

Does the E20 have a mirror that routes the image from the lens between
the image plane & the viewfinder? - If so, all it's an SLR, according to
all the photography textbooks on my bookshelf, & having a digital
imaging sensor makes it a DSLR, & on-topic in RPDS by any rational
measure, IMO.

Okay, but can you explain why you think it's a good idea to divide
discussion based on this trivial technical point that is essentially
never a topic of discussion? Or, why an E20 user would want to use
the proposed group instead of one where people will be more likely
to share his concerns and have answers to his questions other than
"get yourself a real camera, son"?

--
Jeremy |

Lionel wrote:

Does the E20 have a mirror that routes the image from the lens between
the image plane & the viewfinder? - If so, all it's an SLR, according to
all the photography textbooks on my bookshelf, & having a digital
imaging sensor makes it a DSLR, & on-topic in RPDS by any rational
measure, IMO.

Okay, but can you explain why you think it's a good idea to divide
discussion based on this trivial technical point that is essentially
never a topic of discussion? Or, why an E20 user would want to use
the proposed group instead of one where people will be more likely
to share his concerns and have answers to his questions other than
"get yourself a real camera, son"?

--
Jeremy |

Lionel wrote:

Kibo informs me that Alan Browne
stated that:


Lionel wrote:


Does the E20 have a mirror that routes the image from the lens between
the image plane & the viewfinder? - If so, all it's an SLR, according to
all the photography textbooks on my bookshelf, & having a digital
imaging sensor makes it a DSLR, & on-topic in RPDS by any rational
measure, IMO.

Your opinion is wrong.

...interchangeable lenses: NO

You can't twist and turn your words to make it something it is not.


Hello? - You're the one twisting words. Here's a *standard definition*
of the term 'SLR':

"The Manual of Photography - Eighth Edition", Jacobson, Ray & Attridge,
ISBN 0240-512268-5, page 87:
--------------
Single-lens reflex cameras.
[...]
The principle of the camera is illustrated in Figure 8.6. A plane
front-surface mirror at 45 degrees to the optical axis is used to form
the image from the camera lens on a screen where it may be focused and
composed.For exposure, the mirror is lifted out of the way before the
camera shutter operates. Immediately the the exposure is completed, the
mirror the mirror returns to the viewing position.

And so what? It is still not an SLR by the way SLR is usually
interpretd to mean by people who actually use SLR's daily. the
E20 doesn't come even close to the description above. (it uses a
prism, the only film SLR I know of that does that is a special
version of the EOS-1 for sports shooters which had a non moving
pellicle mirror).

At most, I'd say it is more SLR-like than most SLR-like cameras
.... but SLR-like it remains.

--------------
The rest of the section goes on to describe the mechanisms in more
detail, & the history of SLRs. *Nowhere in the chapter* does it say that
an SLR requires an interchangable lens mount. All my other photography
text books describe SLRs in much the same way, & not one of them
includes anything about a requirement for interchangeable lenses in
their description, despite the fact that most of them /do/ mention that
one of the advantages of SLRs is that they generally have a wide variety
of different lens types available for them.

and "generally" is the word that should guide us in a group that
has reasnonable boundaries:
-digital
-SLR (implying viewfinder and interchangeable lenses)

Books? Do you have EVERY book?
National Geographic: "Any SLR includes a broad range of lenses,
flash units [...]" p. 42 of the Nat Geo Photography Field Guide.
That "general" description is every bit as valid as your books
general description.

And please tell me about any film "SLR" that doesn't have
interchangeable lenses that has been released in the past 20
years that is in general use by amateur and pro photogs? That is
the audience as well in the digital version for SLR, and that is
part of the broadly accepted definition of SLR cameras ... they
implicitly use a wide range of lenses.

http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/spec...us/oly_e20.asp
states it as: "SLR-like", not an SLR. And I accept that up to
date definition for that camera.


Cheers,
Alan
--
-- rec.photo.equipment.35mm user resource:
-- http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm
-- e-meil: there's no such thing as a FreeLunch.--

Lionel wrote:

Kibo informs me that Alan Browne
stated that:


Lionel wrote:


Does the E20 have a mirror that routes the image from the lens between
the image plane & the viewfinder? - If so, all it's an SLR, according to
all the photography textbooks on my bookshelf, & having a digital
imaging sensor makes it a DSLR, & on-topic in RPDS by any rational
measure, IMO.

Your opinion is wrong.

...interchangeable lenses: NO

You can't twist and turn your words to make it something it is not.


Hello? - You're the one twisting words. Here's a *standard definition*
of the term 'SLR':

"The Manual of Photography - Eighth Edition", Jacobson, Ray & Attridge,
ISBN 0240-512268-5, page 87:
--------------
Single-lens reflex cameras.
[...]
The principle of the camera is illustrated in Figure 8.6. A plane
front-surface mirror at 45 degrees to the optical axis is used to form
the image from the camera lens on a screen where it may be focused and
composed.For exposure, the mirror is lifted out of the way before the
camera shutter operates. Immediately the the exposure is completed, the
mirror the mirror returns to the viewing position.

And so what? It is still not an SLR by the way SLR is usually
interpretd to mean by people who actually use SLR's daily. the
E20 doesn't come even close to the description above. (it uses a
prism, the only film SLR I know of that does that is a special
version of the EOS-1 for sports shooters which had a non moving
pellicle mirror).

At most, I'd say it is more SLR-like than most SLR-like cameras
.... but SLR-like it remains.

--------------
The rest of the section goes on to describe the mechanisms in more
detail, & the history of SLRs. *Nowhere in the chapter* does it say that
an SLR requires an interchangable lens mount. All my other photography
text books describe SLRs in much the same way, & not one of them
includes anything about a requirement for interchangeable lenses in
their description, despite the fact that most of them /do/ mention that
one of the advantages of SLRs is that they generally have a wide variety
of different lens types available for them.

and "generally" is the word that should guide us in a group that
has reasnonable boundaries:
-digital
-SLR (implying viewfinder and interchangeable lenses)

Books? Do you have EVERY book?
National Geographic: "Any SLR includes a broad range of lenses,
flash units [...]" p. 42 of the Nat Geo Photography Field Guide.
That "general" description is every bit as valid as your books
general description.

And please tell me about any film "SLR" that doesn't have
interchangeable lenses that has been released in the past 20
years that is in general use by amateur and pro photogs? That is
the audience as well in the digital version for SLR, and that is
part of the broadly accepted definition of SLR cameras ... they
implicitly use a wide range of lenses.

http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/spec...us/oly_e20.asp
states it as: "SLR-like", not an SLR. And I accept that up to
date definition for that camera.


Cheers,
Alan
--
-- rec.photo.equipment.35mm user resource:
-- http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm
-- e-meil: there's no such thing as a FreeLunch.--

Alan Browne wrote in
:

http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/spec...us/oly_e20.asp
states it as: "SLR-like", not an SLR. And I accept that up to
date definition for that camera.


Thanks for the quote! I was also reading the review..trying to see how Phil
classified the camera.

--
Bill

Alan Browne wrote in
:

http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/spec...us/oly_e20.asp
states it as: "SLR-like", not an SLR. And I accept that up to
date definition for that camera.


Thanks for the quote! I was also reading the review..trying to see how Phil
classified the camera.

--
Bill

Kibo informs me that Jeremy Nixon stated that:

Lionel wrote:

Does the E20 have a mirror that routes the image from the lens between
the image plane & the viewfinder? - If so, all it's an SLR, according to
all the photography textbooks on my bookshelf, & having a digital
imaging sensor makes it a DSLR, & on-topic in RPDS by any rational
measure, IMO.

Okay, but can you explain why you think it's a good idea to divide
discussion based on this trivial technical point that is essentially
never a topic of discussion?

Because if the group is named rec.photo.digital.slr, then it should be
be inclusive of any kind of digital SLR. I don't have a problem with the
*inclusion* of digital rangefinders, but *excluding* one tiny
subcategory of genuine digital SLRs is politically stupid, & I believe
that it'll result in lots of recurring flamage. Given that nobody has
shown any reason to believe that including cameras like the E20 would in
any way harm the group, I think that that exclusion is strong evidence
in favour of the claims that the group is intended to be elitist. IMO,
one of the biggest problems with RPE3 is that too many people treat it
as being a group only for the elite, resulting in huge amounts of
unneccessary conflict (eg; the poor woman who was flamed to bits for
asking for advice on buying lenses for her Sigma film SLR). I don't want
that sort of culture in the new group, & I will regretfully vote against
it on that basis.

Or, why an E20 user would want to use
the proposed group instead of one where people will be more likely
to share his concerns and have answers to his questions other than
"get yourself a real camera, son"?

The "get yourself a real camera" attitude is *exactly* why I'm worried
about the current charter. I want a charter that *doesn't* imply that
that is an acceptable response to somebody who merely wants to discuss a
camera that, according to any reasonable interpretation of the group
name, is a legitimate topic of discussion in that group. Sure, there
will inevitably be people who behave snobbishly, but the last thing we
need is to encourage them - particularly not with a little hidden
booby-trap buried in the charter. It merely provides ammunition to
group regulars who want to bully newbies, who aren't going to be
familiar with the charter until somebody slaps them across the face with
it.

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

Kibo informs me that Jeremy Nixon stated that:

Lionel wrote:

Does the E20 have a mirror that routes the image from the lens between
the image plane & the viewfinder? - If so, all it's an SLR, according to
all the photography textbooks on my bookshelf, & having a digital
imaging sensor makes it a DSLR, & on-topic in RPDS by any rational
measure, IMO.

Okay, but can you explain why you think it's a good idea to divide
discussion based on this trivial technical point that is essentially
never a topic of discussion?

Because if the group is named rec.photo.digital.slr, then it should be
be inclusive of any kind of digital SLR. I don't have a problem with the
*inclusion* of digital rangefinders, but *excluding* one tiny
subcategory of genuine digital SLRs is politically stupid, & I believe
that it'll result in lots of recurring flamage. Given that nobody has
shown any reason to believe that including cameras like the E20 would in
any way harm the group, I think that that exclusion is strong evidence
in favour of the claims that the group is intended to be elitist. IMO,
one of the biggest problems with RPE3 is that too many people treat it
as being a group only for the elite, resulting in huge amounts of
unneccessary conflict (eg; the poor woman who was flamed to bits for
asking for advice on buying lenses for her Sigma film SLR). I don't want
that sort of culture in the new group, & I will regretfully vote against
it on that basis.

Or, why an E20 user would want to use
the proposed group instead of one where people will be more likely
to share his concerns and have answers to his questions other than
"get yourself a real camera, son"?

The "get yourself a real camera" attitude is *exactly* why I'm worried
about the current charter. I want a charter that *doesn't* imply that
that is an acceptable response to somebody who merely wants to discuss a
camera that, according to any reasonable interpretation of the group
name, is a legitimate topic of discussion in that group. Sure, there
will inevitably be people who behave snobbishly, but the last thing we
need is to encourage them - particularly not with a little hidden
booby-trap buried in the charter. It merely provides ammunition to
group regulars who want to bully newbies, who aren't going to be
familiar with the charter until somebody slaps them across the face with
it.

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

Alan Browne wrote:

National Geographic: "Any SLR includes a broad range of lenses, flash
units [...]" p. 42 of the Nat Geo Photography Field Guide. That
"general" description is every bit as valid as your books general
description.

In the quote above, I had left out the word system. The
corrext quotation is:
"Any SLR system includes a broad range of lenses, flash units [...]"


--
-- rec.photo.equipment.35mm user resource:
-- http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm
-- e-meil: there's no such thing as a FreeLunch.--

Alan Browne wrote:

National Geographic: "Any SLR includes a broad range of lenses, flash
units [...]" p. 42 of the Nat Geo Photography Field Guide. That
"general" description is every bit as valid as your books general
description.

In the quote above, I had left out the word system. The
corrext quotation is:
"Any SLR system includes a broad range of lenses, flash units [...]"


--
-- rec.photo.equipment.35mm user resource:
-- http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm
-- e-meil: there's no such thing as a FreeLunch.--