Rant about the term "ZLR"

Matt Ion writes:

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)...

Strictly speaking, a "rangefinder" is any device that allows one to
determine the distance of an object. When applied to cameras,
"rangefinder" refers to a focusing system resembling the workings of
rangefinder devices in use at the time these cameras were introduced.
In the technical sense, it may be correct to use the term rangefinder
of any camera equipped with a focusing aid of some sort. Liberal use
of this word will probably only result in confusion, though.

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.

Now construct an SLR with one of these devices for focusing. Then
you'll have an SLR Rangefinder.

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...

True. Many people seem to believe that SLR means a camera with
interchangeable lenses. The reason most cameras with interchangeable
lenses are SLRs is probably that being able to view the image through
the attached lens make composition easier. The reason most fixed lens
cameras are not SLR is probably that a separate view finder and
associated (rangefinder) focusing systems are much cheaper to produce.

--
Måns Rullgård

Matt Ion wrote:
[]
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.
[]

ZLR cameras cannot use a separate lens for the viewfinder; the viewing
/must/ be through the taking lens. To fit the SLR form-factor implies an
EVF as well.

In digital cameras lacking an optical finder, including both ZLR and P&S,
the "reflex" is electronic, providing an upright, non-inverted display of
the image on the sensor, as made by the taking lens.

David

Matt Ion wrote:
Paul Allen wrote:


[...] 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.

No wonder I pounded my head on transistors and never made sense of
them! You just have to take it by rote that they operate backwards
to the physics! That makes perfect sense. :-)

Paul Allen

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).

Ummm.... I said "SLR-like manual control", not "SLR-like zoom". The
lack of a TTL optical viewfinder distinquishes the class from SLR's.

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.

Nope.

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.

Interesting. I didn't say "manual control of a zoom" either. Perhaps
you need to get more sleep? :-)

Paul Allen

On Sun, 4 Dec 2005 05:50:40 -0500, Larry Lynch
wrote:

In article ,
says...
_A_ bra, but a _pair_ of pants.



This one I can cover!!!

Pants, derived (some where in western Europe, I forget where, maybe
Spain)from the word "Pantaloon" which were made of leather (like
"Chapppes" (later shortened to "Chaps")) and put on one per leg, and
only sometimes laced together (like chaps) at the top.

So if you had 2 legs, you needed a PAIR of "pantaloons".

In Early American lexicon "pantaloons" usually referred to something
worn by women, so we kinda' lost the refference point.

All this was told me by a History teacher back in High school in the
early 60's, who could have been making it up, but why would he bother.
It was in response to a question about language used in Early American
history.. The question was "Why are pants reffered to as a PAIR?"

Larry Lynch
Mystic, CT


OK.

Q -- What do you get if you cut fifty bras in half?

A -- A hundred beanies with chin straps.

On Sun, 04 Dec 2005 13:30:20 +0000, Måns Rullgård
wrote:

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----

The oracle has reading comprehension problems. I said "pants".
The oracle chose to discuss "panties". Naughty oracle. :-)

On Sun, 4 Dec 2005 13:29:20 +0100, (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.

Quoting Mr. Gumby (the one from Monty Python, not the rubber
toy), "My brain hurts."


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.

Now it _really_ hurts.

On Sun, 04 Dec 2005 17:30:23 GMT, Matt Ion
wrote:

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.

However, from the first reference on semiconductors that I
ever read, they made it clear they were speaking in terms of "hole
flow", not electron flow.

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

On Sun, 04 Dec 2005 10:48:36 -0500, ASAAR wrote:


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

Actually I've owned both types.

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. 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. Maybe the lack of a rangefinder
could allow the use of the letter "Z" (as in Zero rangefinders), and
then they could have been called ZSLRs to distinguish them from the
original SLRs that used the split images to help in focusing.

In article ,
says...
OK.

Q -- What do you get if you cut fifty bras in half?

A -- A hundred beanies with chin straps.



Actually you get a hundred beanies with a strap on ONE side...and noting
to hook it to.

I find this discussion MUCH more rewarding than caring what someone
calls their camera!

I call Mine Bob (Canon 300-d) Joe (Evolt - 300) and Manny (Sony F 828).

No Zs, No Rs, no Ss no Ls

Larry Lynch
Mystic, CT