3rd RFD: rec.photo.digital.slr

In news.groups Alan Browne wrote:

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?

I don't think there have been any since Mamiya made them in the
sixties. One of the interesting -- and perhaps surprising -- things
about the digital revolution has been the rebirth of this kind of
camera.

Andrew.

In news.groups Alan Browne wrote:

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?

I don't think there have been any since Mamiya made them in the
sixties. One of the interesting -- and perhaps surprising -- things
about the digital revolution has been the rebirth of this kind of
camera.

Andrew.

Lionel wrote:

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.

Do you think dividing the discussion like that is a good idea, or that it
should be divided like that because of the name?

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.

Well, I was one of the first to put forth that claim; but I'm now satisfied
with the proposal.

I don't think including cameras like the E20 would "harm" the group; it
doesn't "harm" rec.photo.digital that it's in there along with the SLRs,
either. I just don't think it fits in with the topic from the standpoint
of the discussion, and I think "bundling" the discussion like that will
cause the kind of friction that we currently see in rec.photo.digital,
the kind of friction that this proposal is (partly) intended to address.

--
Jeremy |

Lionel wrote:

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.

Do you think dividing the discussion like that is a good idea, or that it
should be divided like that because of the name?

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.

Well, I was one of the first to put forth that claim; but I'm now satisfied
with the proposal.

I don't think including cameras like the E20 would "harm" the group; it
doesn't "harm" rec.photo.digital that it's in there along with the SLRs,
either. I just don't think it fits in with the topic from the standpoint
of the discussion, and I think "bundling" the discussion like that will
cause the kind of friction that we currently see in rec.photo.digital,
the kind of friction that this proposal is (partly) intended to address.

--
Jeremy |

In news.groups Alan Browne wrote:
Steve Young wrote:
Will this be addressing new charters for the 2 original groups (rpd &
rpe35mm) which are impacted by the new group(s)?

no.

I highly doubt there is a way to address those charters with the
existing process that won't be majorly disruptive on those groups
(e.g. renaming the existing groups which is actually performed
by removing the old group and creating a new one with the new name
- all postings in the existing queue are removed and the "renamed"
group begins anew). It would be unfair to demand proponents even
consider the idea unless the readers of the affected groups are
willing to accept such disruptions.

There is an unrelated issue, though. Russ or Todd will have to rule
on this, but keep the following in mind. This proposal involves an
established and fairly specialized hierarchy, postings are expected
to come from at least one parent or parent-like group, it seeks to
resolve problems in at least one group in the hierarchy, it expects
to have other posting impacts in other groups in the hierarchy, and
it is highly probable the same is true of this other proposal. In
similar situations, one of two things are supposed to happen: both
proposal merge (a two group proposal), or the later of the two
proposals is deferred until the first has completed the process.

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.

In news.groups Alan Browne wrote:
Steve Young wrote:
Will this be addressing new charters for the 2 original groups (rpd &
rpe35mm) which are impacted by the new group(s)?

no.

I highly doubt there is a way to address those charters with the
existing process that won't be majorly disruptive on those groups
(e.g. renaming the existing groups which is actually performed
by removing the old group and creating a new one with the new name
- all postings in the existing queue are removed and the "renamed"
group begins anew). It would be unfair to demand proponents even
consider the idea unless the readers of the affected groups are
willing to accept such disruptions.

There is an unrelated issue, though. Russ or Todd will have to rule
on this, but keep the following in mind. This proposal involves an
established and fairly specialized hierarchy, postings are expected
to come from at least one parent or parent-like group, it seeks to
resolve problems in at least one group in the hierarchy, it expects
to have other posting impacts in other groups in the hierarchy, and
it is highly probable the same is true of this other proposal. In
similar situations, one of two things are supposed to happen: both
proposal merge (a two group proposal), or the later of the two
proposals is deferred until the first has completed the process.

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.

In news.groups Alan Browne wrote:
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 [...]"

Ok, then, how about RPD.slr-systems?

I am also uneasy about the seemingly arbitrary exclusions and inclusions
in this proposal with respect to the group name, from the group creation
perspective.

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.

In news.groups Alan Browne wrote:
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 [...]"

Ok, then, how about RPD.slr-systems?

I am also uneasy about the seemingly arbitrary exclusions and inclusions
in this proposal with respect to the group name, from the group creation
perspective.

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:

I am also uneasy about the seemingly arbitrary exclusions and inclusions
in this proposal with respect to the group name, from the group creation
perspective.

A line has to be drawn somewhere. That line is based on what is
common about rpe35mm and rpd with respect to DSLR cameras.

The SLR-like cameras in some cases come very close to the line...
but if we move the line to include them, then even more cameras
come close to it ... so let's move the line again... oh MORE
cameras... never ends.

which is what rpd is right now, all cameras.

The proposal as it stands is right on IMO.

Cheers,
Alan

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

wrote:

I am also uneasy about the seemingly arbitrary exclusions and inclusions
in this proposal with respect to the group name, from the group creation
perspective.

A line has to be drawn somewhere. That line is based on what is
common about rpe35mm and rpd with respect to DSLR cameras.

The SLR-like cameras in some cases come very close to the line...
but if we move the line to include them, then even more cameras
come close to it ... so let's move the line again... oh MORE
cameras... never ends.

which is what rpd is right now, all cameras.

The proposal as it stands is right on IMO.

Cheers,
Alan

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