Rant about the term "ZLR"

We should do away with the term "ZLR".


In language, theory follows practice. Meaning is defined by usage
and understanding, even when logic dictates otherwise.

We express aperture by F-number; unfortunately, as aperture increases,
F-number decreases. Electricity is the flow of electrons; strangely
that flow is from negative charge to positive. "Thoroughbred" is a
breed of horse, not a description of purity of breed. Compulsive
workers are "workaholics", even though there is no such thing as
"workahol".

Lamentable as the above terminology may be, any opportunity to fix it
has passed. The pioneers of optics and particle physics have won
immortal recognition, as they deserved. Those who coined and adopted
the term "workaholic" were not slapped silly -- as they deserved.

The past is fixed, and we are far too few to alter established usage.
The best we can do is to avoid making matters worse. Let's not adopt
terms that are counter-intuitive, technically wrong, and, well, stupid.
That's where "ZLR" comes in.

"ZLR" literally stands for "zoom lens reflex". Despite its literal
meaning, people use it to to mean cameras with electronic viewfinders.
(Sometimes they also assume "ZLR" means a fixed lens. It's not clear
whether they are deliberately considering only current fixed-lens
cameras, or whether they merely lack the wit to think further.)
The term is counter-intuitive, technically wrong, and stupid. It
has not yet entered common usage, so there is still time to correct
this error.

I have bought exactly two digital cameras (for within a few pennies
of the same price): A Sony F-707, and a Canon Digital Rebel with kit
lens. Both fit the "ZL" in "ZLR" by having a zoom lens. The Canon
Digital Rebel had "reflex"; the Sony F-707 did not. Thus the Canon
was a 'zoom lens reflex', while the Sony was not. So utterly stupid
is the proposed meaning of "ZLR" that my Sony F-707 would be a "ZLR",
and my Canon Digital Rebel would not. Why should we fabricate and
adopt terminology that is so contrary to fact?

So let's say what is right. When we mean "through the lens", let's
say so; "TTL" works. If we mean an electronic viewfinder, then "EVF"
is perfectly clear. A fixed lens is a non-interchangeable lens, and
let's say one of those, even if there isn't an established
abbreviation. This term "ZLR" is crap to be flushed.


--
--Bryan

"Bryan Olson" wrote in message
. net...
We should do away with the term "ZLR".


In language, theory follows practice. Meaning is defined by usage
and understanding, even when logic dictates otherwise.

We express aperture by F-number; unfortunately, as aperture increases,
F-number decreases.

Because the "F-number" is the denominator of the fraction that describes the
aperture size in relation to the focal length. It makes perfect sense that
the bigger the number, the smaller the aperture. Like gauge of shotgun or
wire. A 12 gauge shotgun has a bigger chamber and barrel than a 20 gauge.
Why does logic dictate otherwise?

Electricity is the flow of electrons; strangely
that flow is from negative charge to positive.

Why does logic dictate that electrons move in the opposite direction? All
other thing being equal, wouldn't there be fewer electrons in the place from
which the electrons are coming than in the place to which they are going?
An East wind blows to the West, is that also problematic?

"Thoroughbred" is a
breed of horse, not a description of purity of breed.

Right. "Purebred" is a description of purity of breed.

Compulsive
workers are "workaholics", even though there is no such thing as
"workahol".

OK, you got me on that one.


Lamentable as the above terminology may be, any opportunity to fix it
has passed. The pioneers of optics and particle physics have won
immortal recognition, as they deserved. Those who coined and adopted
the term "workaholic" were not slapped silly -- as they deserved.


The English language changes. It is very flexible and adaptive and that is
one reason IMHO that it is such a great language. Usage is just a form of
continuous democratic reform of the language. Words are invented and used if
the practitioners of the language find them useful. When words are no longer
useful, they are retired. You might not like the term "workaholic" (I really
don't either) but it is very descriptive and when used, most instantly
recognize what it means. Anyone could toss out a made up term like
"photograpoholic" and if used in an analogous fashion to "workaholic" there
would be little question as to what the writer or speaker means. Some words
are ugly but are good communication tools nonetheless.

The past is fixed, and we are far too few to alter established usage.
The best we can do is to avoid making matters worse. Let's not adopt
terms that are counter-intuitive, technically wrong, and, well, stupid.

This I agree with this. Some made up words and phrases are just silly. Like
"chicken fried chicken."

[snipped]

So let's say what is right. When we mean "through the lens", let's
say so; "TTL" works. If we mean an electronic viewfinder, then "EVF"
is perfectly clear. A fixed lens is a non-interchangeable lens, and
let's say one of those, even if there isn't an established
abbreviation. This term "ZLR" is crap to be flushed.


Amen.

Eric Miller

millereric wrote:

"Bryan Olson" wrote in message
snip

Electricity is the flow of electrons; strangely
that flow is from negative charge to positive.

Why does logic dictate that electrons move in the opposite direction? All
other thing being equal, wouldn't there be fewer electrons in the place from
which the electrons are coming than in the place to which they are going?
An East wind blows to the West, is that also problematic?

Logic doesn't dictate electron movement. Electrons do flow from
negative to positive, i.e. the negative terminal of a power source
supplies electrons that flow around the circuitry and return to the
positive terminal.

There are a number of ways to prove this; the easiest is to consider a
vacuum tube. The heated cathode is the supplier of electrons, and the
charge on the anode draws them across the vacuum (controlled by
intermediate electrodes called grids and/or screens). The cathode is
connected to the negative side of the power supply, and the anode to the
positive, so electrons flow from negative to positive.

Colin D.

Colin D wrote:

millereric wrote:

"Bryan Olson" wrote in message
snip

Electricity is the flow of electrons; strangely
that flow is from negative charge to positive.

Why does logic dictate that electrons move in the opposite direction? All
other thing being equal, wouldn't there be fewer electrons in the place from
which the electrons are coming than in the place to which they are going?
An East wind blows to the West, is that also problematic?

Logic doesn't dictate electron movement. Electrons do flow from
negative to positive, i.e. the negative terminal of a power source
supplies electrons that flow around the circuitry and return to the
positive terminal.

The reason that electrons flow from the negative to the positive around
an electrical circuit is because the natural philosophers (later known
as physicists) that were studying a few hundreds of years ago thought
electricty was a movement of positively charged "things" that flowed to
make current.
They were wrong, as it was electrons (negatively charged) and not
positively charge "corpulses" carrying the electrical energy around a
circuit and unfortunately, the convention of positive and negative has
forever been set incorrectly, but as a convention it is useful for most
applications (except maybe electroplating or vacuum tube design).

The term "ZLR" is one that I had not heard until a couple of years ago
and seems pretty stupid to my way of thinking.
Aparrently the cameras that are being described by ZLR shouldn't even
have the "R" part, because they do not have a mirror to reflect the
image onto a viewing screen (usually ground/etched glass).
A more accurate description would be "ZLEVF camera".
Alternatively, just use the term "prosumer digicam", as most of the
fixed lens EVF digicam are in the upper price range and have most of
the features of a DSLR, but have a fixed lens and rely on a EVF for
composition and (attempted) manual focus.

Just my 2c.

wrote:
[]
Aparrently the cameras that are being described by ZLR shouldn't even
have the "R" part, because they do not have a mirror to reflect the
image onto a viewing screen (usually ground/etched glass).
[]

The reflex is electronic - not optical.

David

David J Taylor wrote:

wrote:
[]

Aparrently the cameras that are being described by ZLR shouldn't even
have the "R" part, because they do not have a mirror to reflect the
image onto a viewing screen (usually ground/etched glass).

[]

The reflex is electronic - not optical.

Surely it's the ground-glass that's replaced by electronics. There
is no reflex in an EVF camera.

I'd say that the way EVF operates is more like what you get with a
view camera. The electronic nature of it means that you don't have
to swap the viewing plate for a film holder when you want to take -
because viewing and taking now use the same component.

- Len

Colin D wrote:

millereric wrote:

"Bryan Olson" wrote in message

snip

Electricity is the flow of electrons; strangely
that flow is from negative charge to positive.

Why does logic dictate that electrons move in the opposite direction? All
other thing being equal, wouldn't there be fewer electrons in the place from
which the electrons are coming than in the place to which they are going?
An East wind blows to the West, is that also problematic?


Logic doesn't dictate electron movement. Electrons do flow from
negative to positive, i.e. the negative terminal of a power source
supplies electrons that flow around the circuitry and return to the
positive terminal.

There are a number of ways to prove this; the easiest is to consider a
vacuum tube. The heated cathode is the supplier of electrons, and the
charge on the anode draws them across the vacuum (controlled by
intermediate electrodes called grids and/or screens). The cathode is
connected to the negative side of the power supply, and the anode to the
positive, so electrons flow from negative to positive.

What fun! All you guys explaining physics are missing the point.
Of course, physicists know that the charge on an electron is negative
and electrons flow from the negative to positive terminals of a
power source. But, any dufus can tell you that things naturally flow
from where there's more (+) to where there's less (-). And there are
a lot more dufuses than physicists in the world.

Think Bill Cosby asking, "Why is there air?", while holding a volleyball
in his hand. He understands what air is. The point of the question is
to draw attention to what's funny. (Without air, volleyballs would be
flat!) It's funny (as in strange) that electricity flows from negative
to positive. People who start explaining about cathodes and anodes
aren't getting the joke. Language is full of oddities that have
perfectly reasonable explanations and are still strange when you stop
and think about them.

Sometimes, a little right-brain playfulness is good even for a
hard-core, left-brain physicist, right? :-)

To get back on subject, I could do without the term "ZLR". It doesn't
bother me, but it does bother a lot of people. How 'bout "fixed zoom",
"fun zoom", "almost a dSLR", or insert your idea here.

Paul Allen

Paul Allen wrote:

What fun! All you guys explaining physics are missing the point.
Of course, physicists know that the charge on an electron is negative
and electrons flow from the negative to positive terminals of a
power source. But, any dufus can tell you that things naturally flow
from where there's more (+) to where there's less (-).

If you really wanna get into it, "electric current" IS considered to
"flow" from positive to negative, and it does so at very near the speed
of light. However, the electrons themselves, being negatively charged,
do move toward the positive terminal, but much more slowly. It's a bit
of a paradox to wrap your mind around if you don't have at least
high-school physics...

Think Bill Cosby asking, "Why is there air?", while holding a volleyball
in his hand. He understands what air is. The point of the question is
to draw attention to what's funny. (Without air, volleyballs would be
flat!)

Yeah... I invented instant water, but I can't figure out what to add to it.

Sometimes, a little right-brain playfulness is good even for a
hard-core, left-brain physicist, right? :-)

It's a joke only a physicist could love

To get back on subject, I could do without the term "ZLR". It doesn't
bother me, but it does bother a lot of people. How 'bout "fixed zoom",
"fun zoom", "almost a dSLR", or insert your idea here.

I still think "point & shoot" covers it nicely.


---
avast! Antivirus: Outbound message clean.
Virus Database (VPS): 0548-1, 12/01/2005
Tested on: 12/2/2005 11:09:09 PM
avast! - copyright (c) 1988-2005 ALWIL Software.
http://www.avast.com

In article Ewbkf.23151$Gd6.19543@pd7tw3no,
Matt Ion wrote:
If you really wanna get into it, "electric current" IS considered to
"flow" from positive to negative, and it does so at very near the speed
of light.

What kind of experiment proves that current flows from positive to negative
and not the other way around? (Just curious. My understanding is that
what is important are current changes what causes the current change.
Information does not travel faster than the speed of light, so the current
change spreads from the point that caused the current change).

To get back on subject, I could do without the term "ZLR". It doesn't
bother me, but it does bother a lot of people. How 'bout "fixed zoom",
"fun zoom", "almost a dSLR", or insert your idea here.

I still think "point & shoot" covers it nicely.

It is 'high-end' point & shoot because they have an EVF.


--
That was it. Done. The faulty Monk was turned out into the desert where it
could believe what it liked, including the idea that it had been hard done
by. It was allowed to keep its horse, since horses were so cheap to make.
-- Douglas Adams in Dirk Gently's Holistic Detective Agency

What fun! All you guys explaining physics are missing the point.
Of course, physicists know that the charge on an electron is negative
and electrons flow from the negative to positive terminals of a
power source. But, any dufus can tell you that things naturally flow
from where there's more (+) to where there's less (-). And there are
a lot more dufuses than physicists in the world.

Okay, I'm not going to get into name calling, but does this mean that
dufus's think that rivers flow from the ocean onto land where there is less
(-) water?


Eric Miller