what is ZLR?

"J.S.Pitanga" writes:

[Bruce Murphy:]I thought the zlr group was a ridiculous idea,
but I now see the benefits in confining the users
of them to this little ghetto. Even the point and
shoot people are probably glad to see the
point-and-shoot-with-pretensions (ie ZLR) people
gone.

Many dSLR users also have one or more EVFs for those occasions
requiring more portability and less performance.

What do you base this on? Fond hope? Recall that I'm speaking of the
people who demand the term ZLR, not people who happen to use a digital
camera that doesn't fit into the SLR category (whatever that is)

Many point-and-shoot
photographers also use EVFs because of their usually longer
zooms. The belief that people are classified according to the gear
they have is the mark of the gear imbecile.

As I've pointed out, the so-called ZLRs and digital point and shoots
are indistinguishable. What distinguishes the users is whether they're
insecure enough to need to invent terms like ZLR so they can pretend
to be better than other people using point and shoot digital cameras.

Everyone wins.

Even you have just won an adequate description.

I wonder what this is supposed to mean.

B

Per Nordenberg wrote:
[]
Ok.
If I have understood you correctly then my Olympus C-2100 UZ (fixed
zoom lens, electronic view finder) can be discussed here in this
group, but not the more sophisticated Olympus E-10 and E-20 (in spite
of the fact that they have a fixed zoom lens and a true TTL
viewfinder and thus should be referred to as 'ZLR')?? In which group
should the last-mentioned cameras be discussed then?

Per, as they do not have interchangeable lenses, they belong in this
group.

Cheers,
David

[David, referring to Olympus E-10 and E-20:]
Per, as they do not have interchangeable
lenses, they belong in this group.

Those Olympus are SLRs and thus could not belong in a newsgroup dealing
with "SLR-like" cameras, as stated in the charter.

A SLR is not "SLR-like", it is SLR, period.

The best,

Julio.

"J.S.Pitanga" wrote in message
news

What he writes is a whole lot of meaningless crap.....

If all you people stopped responding to his infantile rantings he just might
get bored and go and annoy somebody else.

I like perhaps most of the posters here don't really care what the group is
called as long as it is where I can come to discuss the sort of camera I
have and sometimes get (or give) some help.
Kind regards
Leo

[J.S.Pitanga:]


[Leo R.:]
What he writes is a whole lot of
meaningless crap.....

Funny enough, you cannot help reading and answering to what you call
"crap" - the definite mark of the cyber-imbecile.

If all you people stopped responding
to his infantile rantings he just might get bored and go and annoy
somebody
else.

Don't worry: since like you there are many cyber-imbeciles such as Larry
and Bill Again annoying themselves on this newsgroup, it is virtually
impossible than anyone intelligent gets bored here.

I like perhaps most of the posters here
don't really care what the group is called
as long as it is where I can come to discuss
the sort of camera I have and sometimes get
(or give) some help.

Rather, here is a place where you can come and show how much of a
cyber-imbecile you are, answering to posts you say should be ignored.

Besides, since no one till now could ever define the "sort of camera"
supposedly to be discussed on this group, only an idiot like you would
ever consider discussing a subject he cannot define.

The best,

Julio.

J.S.Pitanga wrote:
[WD me:]
I've never come across the term Zlr.

This term (standing for "Zoom Lens Reflex") is how a film SLR with a
not-interchangeable zoom lens are traditionally called. An example is the
Olympus IS-200.


BTW, the olympus IS-3 had a 5x Zoom (35-180mm ED), and by the
availability of 12x zoom digitals, 5x seems only moderatly telephoto. If
only olympus made a digital version of the IS-3.. the 'form factor' and
design (although not compact) would make it an excellent digital. It's
auxillary lenses are also usable on many digital cameras with a filter
thread.

People also tend to call these cameras 'hybrid' cameras.. what
would the digital hybrid be?

jose writes:

J.S.Pitanga wrote:
[WD me:]
I've never come across the term Zlr.

This term (standing for "Zoom Lens Reflex") is how a film SLR with a
not-interchangeable zoom lens are traditionally called. An example is the
Olympus IS-200.


BTW, the olympus IS-3 had a 5x Zoom (35-180mm ED), and by the
availability of 12x zoom digitals, 5x seems only moderatly telephoto. If
only olympus made a digital version of the IS-3.. the 'form factor' and
design (although not compact) would make it an excellent digital. It's
auxillary lenses are also usable on many digital cameras with a filter
thread.

From the IS-3 I once saw forlorn in a Target, it pretty much was the same form
factor as my C-2100UZ. The aux. lenses if memory serves were the B-macro, B28,
and B300. Certainly, the B300 and B-macro were classic lenses.

--
Michael Meissner
email:
http://www.the-meissners.org

"jose" skrev i meddelandet ...

BTW, the olympus IS-3 had a 5x Zoom (35-180mm ED), and by the
availability of 12x zoom digitals, 5x seems only moderatly telephoto. If
only olympus made a digital version of the IS-3.. the 'form factor' and
design (although not compact) would make it an excellent digital. It's
auxillary lenses are also usable on many digital cameras with a filter
thread.


Usable? If you're talking about the B-300 1.7X auxiliary lens it's the best there is.
I would also very much want to see a digital version of the iS-3000. Olympus doesn't want to talk
about connections between their iS series and their digital cameras, but they exist. The big FL-40
digital accessory flash for instance is nothing but a modified G-40 flash from the iS series. Super
FP flash function, continuous AF and predictive AF were all first introduced on the iS series.

Regards,

Per Nordenberg


--
One of the problems at Russian airshows is that the world and his wife
wants to be photographed in front of the exhibits, so you have to be very patient !
-unknown

"Leo R." wrote in
:

What he writes is a whole lot of meaningless crap.....

No - it is actually true.

He is not the most diplomatic person. But he is right.

If all you people stopped responding to his infantile rantings he just
might get bored and go and annoy somebody else.

Soooo .... why did you respond?

I like perhaps most of the posters here don't really care what the
group is called as long as it is where I can come to discuss the sort
of camera I have and sometimes get (or give) some help.

OK - so lets call the group rec.cycling.cross-country.
The name does not matter - so - why not?

BTW - you can discuss your camera in rec.photo.digital.


/Roland