Rant about the term "ZLR"

writes:

On Sat, 03 Dec 2005 05:25:31 -0600, Ron Hunter
wrote:



Brian,
Well, drive on 'parkways', and park on 'driveways'. Why should we
get excited about 'ZLR'? Grin.

_A_ bra, but a _pair_ of pants.

The all-knowing Internet Oracle may be of some help he

----8----
The Internet Oracle has pondered your question deeply.
Your question was:

Why do women wear a *pair* of panties but only *one* bra?

(At least usually.)

And in response, thus spake the Oracle:

} Ah, I think I see your confusion. The one bra covers a pair of items,
} so you think it should be a pair itself. Grasshopper, you miss the
} reason for a bra: to create the (single) cleavage. The pair of panties
} serves to cover two distinct things (front and back, if you get my
} meaning).
}
} You owe the Oracle many pictures illustrating -- Oh, hello Lisa, no,
} no, nothing you can help me with -- why don't you make that pictures of
} kids with balloons or something.
----8----

--
Måns Rullgård

Matt Ion writes:

John A. Stovall wrote:
On Sat, 03 Dec 2005 01:41:42 GMT, Bryan Olson
wrote:

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".
Before ranting about terms, I suggest you learn how to correctly
express the f-number. It is a lower case, "f" .

f-word?

The f-word is the memory location in a digital camera processor that
stores the f-number while the image is processed.

--
Måns Rullgård

On Sun, 04 Dec 2005 13:22:48 +0000, Måns Rullgård wrote:

Hey! You did get it!!! But "photograpoholic"? No way. Way
too long. Snapaholoc, maybe.

Photoholic, obviously.

There's a difference. The snapaholic takes excessively large
numbers of pictures. Photoholics might rather be addicted to looking
at the photos. They could be hoarding large numbers of Life, Look,
National Geographic, any number of the old Hollywood scandal
magazines, or any other source making heavy use of paparazzi.

ASAAR writes:

On Sun, 04 Dec 2005 13:22:48 +0000, Måns Rullgård wrote:

Hey! You did get it!!! But "photograpoholic"? No way. Way
too long. Snapaholoc, maybe.

Photoholic, obviously.

There's a difference. The snapaholic takes excessively large
numbers of pictures.

There's already a word for that: Japanese.

--
Måns Rullgård

ASAAR writes:

On Sun, 04 Dec 2005 13:22:48 +0000, Måns Rullgård wrote:

Come to think of it, fixed focus, or non-focusing cameras were
followed by "rangefinders". Not the most apt term, but I guess most
people knew what it meant from associations with gunners dialing in
the range or elevation before firing the shot. But the SLRs that
followed didn't exactly do away with focusing, so why weren't they
called SLR Rangefinders?

A rangefinder is a device used to measure the distance to a target.
Older models use a split image system that when lined up will give a
readout of the distance on a scale (modern devices use a laser or
radar). Someone came up with idea to combine one of these with the
focusing system on a camera. The result became known as a rangefinder
camera. An SLR camera doesn't use such a system, and calling them
rangefinders would be incorrect.

After using borrowed rangefinder cameras for a year or two (there
was no distance readout that I can recall),

The readout is not strictly needed when the system is directly linked
with the focusing of the lens.

I got a Nikon F. It also had a split image rangefinder, but with
differences. The split image was only seen in a small central spot,
and rather than each image superimposing the other, each was
separate, with a small top image shifting above the one below it.
Others may not call it a rangefinder, but that was my point.

That's a split prism focusing screen, which is an entirely different
thing. It is a completely passive pair of prisms in the focusing
screen.

In function if not design it was similar to the "rangefinder" used
in rangefinder cameras. Other, later SLRs that used plain matte
glass screens wouldn't need to be called SLR rangefinders.

Many SLRs have interchangeable focusing screens. Screens are
available with a number of features, such as split prisms,
microprisms, grid lines, etc.

--
Måns Rullgård

Paul Allen wrote:
Matt Ion wrote:

Philip Homburg wrote:

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?


There isn't one that I'm aware of... I just said that it's CONSIDERED
to flow that way. For the purpose of diagramming electronics,
positive-to-negative flow is generally the accepted norm.


Ummm... I was about to ask if you were sure about that. But then I
checked my old copy of Horowitz and Hill, and found this: "By
convention, current in a circuit is considered to flow from a more
positive point to a more negative point, even though the actual
electron flow is in the opposite direction." It would seem like
you'd get yourself bollixed up if there were semiconductors in the
circuit and you needed to know what was really going on, but that's
what the book says.

Not really... since semiconductor specs, spec sheets, and even schematic
symbols are designed to the convention that current flows
positive-to-negative. Look at the symbol for a diode - current flow is
in the direction of the arrow: (+) --||-- (-).

Frankly, doing DC circuit design, I've always found things work just
fine if you just adhere to convention and assume current flows
positive-to-negative, and don't worry about actual electron flow.


---
avast! Antivirus: Outbound message clean.
Virus Database (VPS): 0548-2, 12/03/2005
Tested on: 12/4/2005 9:30:03 AM
avast! - copyright (c) 1988-2005 ALWIL Software.
http://www.avast.com

Philip Homburg wrote:
In article ,
Paul Allen "paul dot l dot allen at comcast dot net" wrote:

Matt Ion wrote:

Philip Homburg wrote:

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

Not necessarily. I've seen some pretty fancy, expensive P&S cameras
that don't have an EVF... and some really cheap ones that do.

Right. It's the long zoom SLR-like manual control that distinquishes
the so-called "ZLR" from the point-n-shoots, not the EVF.


Hmm, my SLR doesn't have a zoom (well, I have a couple of zooms, but I hardly
ever use them).

So, an SLR feature that my SLR doesn't have is used to determine whether a
camera is to be called a P&S or a ZLR.

Is SLR-like manual control of a zoom that you touch the lens to zoom?
With video cameras, I want manual focus to be by rotating a mechanically
coupled focusing ring in the lens. Zoom works fine if it is electronic.

It strikes me as odd that mechanical control of zoom would be a
distinguishing factor for a line of cameras.

As noted elsewhere in this thread, the term "ZLR" was coined by (IIRC)
Olympus's marketing people, and has since come to be applied (by some)
to any non-SLR-type digital camera.

Those who spend too much time trying to refine the definition need a
life... I agree that it's a term that should just disappear, because
it's meaningless.



---
avast! Antivirus: Outbound message clean.
Virus Database (VPS): 0548-2, 12/03/2005
Tested on: 12/4/2005 9:32:21 AM
avast! - copyright (c) 1988-2005 ALWIL Software.
http://www.avast.com

On Sun, 04 Dec 2005 16:38:49 +0000, Måns Rullgård wrote:

Many SLRs have interchangeable focusing screens. Screens are
available with a number of features, such as split prisms,
microprisms, grid lines, etc.

Just in case you missed it, I haven't been seriously advocating
using the terms "SLR rangefinders" or "ZSLR"s. Besides, any
historian or well informed individual knows that Zilog owns the use
of the letter "Z", so anyone using the term "ZLR" should be hunted
down and prosecuted. Now the OP has more fuel to feed his rant!

Tony wrote:
Is Olympus even still making those turkeys? I think your rant may be about
5 years late.

It would be, if the acronym wasn't still in use... and spreading.



---
avast! Antivirus: Outbound message clean.
Virus Database (VPS): 0548-2, 12/03/2005
Tested on: 12/4/2005 10:02:32 AM
avast! - copyright (c) 1988-2005 ALWIL Software.
http://www.avast.com

Måns Rullgård wrote:
ASAAR writes:


Hey! You did get it!!! But "photograpoholic"? No way. Way
too long. Snapaholoc, maybe.


Photoholic, obviously.


Come to think of it, fixed focus, or non-focusing cameras were
followed by "rangefinders". Not the most apt term, but I guess most
people knew what it meant from associations with gunners dialing in
the range or elevation before firing the shot. But the SLRs that
followed didn't exactly do away with focusing, so why weren't they
called SLR Rangefinders?


A rangefinder is a device used to measure the distance to a target.
Older models use a split image system that when lined up will give a
readout of the distance on a scale (modern devices use a laser or
radar). Someone came up with idea to combine one of these with the
focusing system on a camera. The result became known as a rangefinder
camera. An SLR camera doesn't use such a system, and calling them
rangefinders would be incorrect.

Not to confuse things, but some SLRs (at least my old Minolta X-700)
have a little rangefinder-style split-image circle in the middle of the
focusing sceen to assist focus (manual only on that camera)...

My '53-vintage Argus C-3 is a rangefinder type. It has a second opening
beside the viewfinder that you look through - one half goes stright
through, the other half has a mirror and a second matching mirror a
couple inches across the front of the camera. Adjusting the focus tilts
the mirrors until they line up, thereby, as you say, giving the range to
the subject.

There's been a lot of discussion over the term "SLR" as well... remember
that "SINGLE LENS reflex" means that there is only the one lens for
viewfinder and image taking. Other designs use a separate lens for the
optical viewfinder... INCLUDING P&S and most "ZLR" cameras, regardless
of whether or not they have an EVF. "Reflex" refers to the
mirror-shutter-mirror action; a camera that doesn't have it doesn't
qualify for the term "reflex" at all.



---
avast! Antivirus: Outbound message clean.
Virus Database (VPS): 0548-2, 12/03/2005
Tested on: 12/4/2005 10:09:59 AM
avast! - copyright (c) 1988-2005 ALWIL Software.
http://www.avast.com