what is ZLR?

I''ve had a number of digital cameras since the earlier days. I Loved my
Ricoh RDC2c if only the resolution were better. and the kodak Dc-120 the
kodak Dc-260 Some casio, I now have a Minolta 7hi with all of the
acoutrements that I'd like to sell, and a Canon 20D
I've never come across the term Zlr..is that a new way of referring to the
Electronic View finders, as found in the Minolta? I thought the Electronic
display was really tricky at first but Lord, you just can't feed it enough
batteries quickly enough, to keep them happy. I love the 20D focuses quickly
shoots quickly more pics per memory card even in raw mode, you can use
standard lenses that will fit any canon eos at a 1.6 conversion factor co
more bang for your buck. eg a 300mm lens x 1.6 = 480mm etc. 3200 iso at the
high outside. it's pretty much a 35mm slr in most ways . only had it a few
days, if any hateful characteristics emerge, and anyone is interested, i'll
pass them along.

A ZLR is, broadly-speaking, an SLR-like camera without an interchangeable
lens. You might think of it as a high-end point and shoot camera,
offering full manual control of zoom, aperture, shutter speed and focus,
and having a hot-shoe for flash. It would look like an SLR camera (that's
vague, isn't it!).

David

"WD me" wrote in message
ink.net...
I''ve had a number of digital cameras since the earlier days. I Loved my
Ricoh RDC2c if only the resolution were better. and the kodak Dc-120 the
kodak Dc-260 Some casio, I now have a Minolta 7hi with all of the
acoutrements that I'd like to sell, and a Canon 20D
I've never come across the term Zlr..is that a new way of referring to the
Electronic View finders, as found in the Minolta? I thought the Electronic
display was really tricky at first but Lord, you just can't feed it enough
batteries quickly enough, to keep them happy. I love the 20D focuses
quickly
shoots quickly more pics per memory card even in raw mode, you can use
standard lenses that will fit any canon eos at a 1.6 conversion factor co
more bang for your buck. eg a 300mm lens x 1.6 = 480mm etc. 3200 iso at
the
high outside. it's pretty much a 35mm slr in most ways . only had it a few
days, if any hateful characteristics emerge, and anyone is interested,
i'll
pass them along.

I have Googled and can't really come up with an agreed upon definition for
this term. It's rather vague and some opinions conflict with other
opinions. Methinks it originated in the sweaty marketing shops.

[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.

Some people improperly wished to apply this same designation to EVFs,
which are digital cameras with an EVF. However, EVFs are simply not reflex
cameras, and thus calling them a "ZLR" is just inadequate. And the stolen
usage is also equivocal, as this term traditionally refers to other kind
of cameras.

Proponents of the term "ZLR" instead of the appropriate designation "EVF"
are always unable to define what is supposed to be a ZLR. They usually say
vague things such as "broadly speaking...", "you might think of it as...",
"it would look like a SLR-camera...", and so forth. They want to define an
EVF without reference to its definig characteristic, the EVF.

In contrast, if you want a definition of an EVF, it is simple: it is a
digital camera with a EVF, period. And this includes everything those
people wanted to designate with the term "ZLR", and nothing beyond just
that.

The only likely explanation for the misnaming is a commercial trick trying
to induce the naïve to believe that they are buying something which is
"almost a SLR" or some special type of SLR. And it is just funny that some
EVF users happily feed this kind of marketing deception!

Julio.

Hi David, you say,

A ZLR is, broadly-speaking, an SLR-like camera without an
interchangeable lens.

This is funny! How could a camera be SLR-like? For instance, a rangefinder
is much more like a SLR than a EVF, because it has an optical viewfinder,
and thus according to your criteria it should be a "ZLR".

You might think of it as a high-end point and shoot camera,

Since many EVFs have full manual controls they could hardly be called
"point and shoot". And since many digital rangefinders and even advanced
DSLRs do offer point-and-shoot auto settings, they should definitely be
included in what you call a "ZLR".

offering full manual control of zoom,

Have you ever heard of a zoom without manual control?

aperture, shutter speed and focus,

Several so-called "ZLRs" lack one or more of such controls. HP850 and
Kodak DX6490 are instances.

and having a hot-shoe for flash.

Most so-called "ZLRs" have no hot-shoe for flash. Panasonic FZ-15 for one.
Also Canon S1 IS, Panasonic FZ3, Kodaks, several Olympus, Fujis, and so
forth. Actually having a hot shoe is an exception among so-called "ZLRs".

It would look like an SLR camera (that's vague, isn't it!).

The new Olympus E-300 Evolt does not like like a SLR at all. Neither do
the HPs 850 & 945 or the Olympus UZ-750, 765, 770 etc.

Not only vague or impressionistic, it is wrong, a misleading misnaming, a
seller talk, unworthy naming a group of at least tentatively
discriminating users.

The best!

Julio.

J.S.Pitanga wrote:
Hi David, you say,

A ZLR is, broadly-speaking, an SLR-like camera without an
interchangeable lens.

This is funny! How could a camera be SLR-like? For instance, a
rangefinder is much more like a SLR than a EVF, because it has an
optical viewfinder, and thus according to your criteria it should be
a "ZLR".

SLR-like in appearance an form factor.

You might think of it as a high-end point and shoot camera,

Since many EVFs have full manual controls they could hardly be called
"point and shoot". And since many digital rangefinders and even
advanced DSLRs do offer point-and-shoot auto settings, they should
definitely be included in what you call a "ZLR".

Rangefinder cameras have their own newsgroup.

offering full manual control of zoom,

Have you ever heard of a zoom without manual control?

e.g. zooms with only two settings.

aperture, shutter speed and focus,

Several so-called "ZLRs" lack one or more of such controls. HP850 and
Kodak DX6490 are instances.

If they lack such controls, they do not qualify for this newsgroup.

and having a hot-shoe for flash.

Most so-called "ZLRs" have no hot-shoe for flash. Panasonic FZ-15 for
one. Also Canon S1 IS, Panasonic FZ3, Kodaks, several Olympus, Fujis,
and so forth. Actually having a hot shoe is an exception among
so-called "ZLRs".
It would look like an SLR camera (that's vague, isn't it!).

The new Olympus E-300 Evolt does not like like a SLR at all. Neither
do the HPs 850 & 945 or the Olympus UZ-750, 765, 770 etc.

The E-300 has interchangeable lenses, and therefore belongs in the
SLR-systems group. I can't comment on the others.

Not only vague or impressionistic, it is wrong, a misleading
misnaming, a seller talk, unworthy naming a group of at least
tentatively discriminating users.

The best!

Julio.

Julio, we had this discussion when naming the newsgroup - ZLR was the best
option that anyone came up with. I don't think that anyone was completely
happy with the name. The group does not deal with low-end point and
shoot, digital rangefinders or slr-systems.

Let's put our effort into helping people with their ZLR questions and
answers.

David

"J.S.Pitanga" wrote in message
news
[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.

Funny thing is, this camera is often listed as an SLR (I assume you are
referring to the IS-20).

Some people improperly wished to apply this same designation to EVFs,
which are digital cameras with an EVF. However, EVFs are simply not reflex
cameras, and thus calling them a "ZLR" is just inadequate. And the stolen
usage is also equivocal, as this term traditionally refers to other kind
of cameras.

This seems to be accurate.

Proponents of the term "ZLR" instead of the appropriate designation "EVF"
are always unable to define what is supposed to be a ZLR. They usually say
vague things such as "broadly speaking...", "you might think of it as...",
"it would look like a SLR-camera...", and so forth. They want to define an
EVF without reference to its definig characteristic, the EVF.

Also accurate.

In contrast, if you want a definition of an EVF, it is simple: it is a
digital camera with a EVF, period. And this includes everything those
people wanted to designate with the term "ZLR", and nothing beyond just
that.

Call a bear a "bear."

The only likely explanation for the misnaming is a commercial trick trying
to induce the naïve to believe that they are buying something which is
"almost a SLR" or some special type of SLR. And it is just funny that some
EVF users happily feed this kind of marketing deception!

That's what I thought. This newsgroup has a fundamental flaw and should be
renamed. Just my two cents!

Hi David, you say,

SLR-like in appearance an form factor.

Many fake and toy cameras look like a SLR. The Nikon CP8400, which you
discuss all the time in this group (and thus is supposedly a ZLR for you)
lacks a SLR appearance.

Rangefinder cameras have their own newsgroup.

But according to your own criteria they could be discussed in this group,
because they thoroughly fit your description of a "ZLR" (and even look
like a SLR such as the Olympus EVolt).

[Julio:]
Have you ever heard of a zoom without manual control?

[David:]
e.g. zooms with only two settings.

Do you mean that this control is not manual?

If they lack such controls, they do not qualify for this newsgroup.

Rather than discussing what qualifies for this newsgroup (which is a
subject newly introduced by you), I simply discussing how and why EVFs are
misnamed "ZLRs", this being the subject of the present thread: "What is
ZLR".

Anyway, usually a group is created to fit a category of cameras, but this
is the first time I see a category of cameras being created to fit a group!

Besides, many cameras lacking SLR appearance, or lacking hot shoe, or
lacking full aperture, shutter or focus controls are, although commonly
named ZLRs, but if they cannot be discussed in this group, this group
itself is misnamed.

So weird is your criteria that a Panasonic FZ-15 or a Canon S1-IS and most
so-called ZLRs could not be discussed in this group, just because they
lack a hot-shoe, and neither could some Olympus UZ and even the Nikon
Coolpix 8400 (which you discuss here all the time), just because they lack
a SLR appearance.

The E-300 has interchangeable lenses, and therefore
belongs in the SLR-systems group.

If so, according to your criteria, rangefinders which look like the SLR
E-300 should be called ZLRs (and thus belong in this group, if this is
what you want to discuss).

The group does not deal with low-end point and
shoot, digital rangefinders or slr-systems.

This group is supposed to deal with "ZLRs". However, not only "ZLR" is
itself an unfortunate misnaming for EVFs (which is the subject of the
present discussion), but also you want to redefine what is already
misnamed as ZLRs to fit a newly invented vague, impressionistic and
self-contradictory category.

Let's put our effort into helping people with their
ZLR questions and answers.

This you can hardly do, for as long as you cannot even tell what you think
is a ZLR without so many self-contradictions, and even without
contradicting what is ordinarily conceived as a ZLR. The result is that
rather than dealing with a category of cameras, this group is bound to
deal with the perplexities of such a misleading misnaming!

The best!

Julio.

[Julio:]
Besides, many cameras lacking SLR appearance, or lacking hot shoe, or
lacking full aperture, shutter or focus controls are, although commonly
named ZLRs, but if they cannot be discussed in this group, this group
itself is misnamed.

Just correcting:

Besides, many cameras lacking SLR appearance, or lacking hot shoe, or
lacking full aperture, shutter or focus controls are, although
*mistakenly,*
named ZLRs, but if they cannot be discussed in this group, this group
itself is misnamed.

Julio.

J.S.Pitanga wrote:

Besides, many cameras lacking SLR appearance, or lacking hot shoe,
or
lacking full aperture, shutter or focus controls are, although
*mistakenly,* named ZLRs, but if they cannot be discussed in this
group, this group itself is misnamed.

Yeah, it should have been called "rec.photo.digital" and be done with
it. :-P

Pretty soon the laments of "rpd was full of spammers and trolls" will
be replaced by "all these subgroups are full of spammers, trolls,
nit-pickers, and off-topic posts!" I mean really - is all this
hair-splitting, chop logic, and fussy quibbling truly useful in the
long run? Does it help people who need answers, or just people who
need to show that their answers are better than someone else's?

Of course, I know that my words are the merest puff of methane in a
windstorm, so now that I've released a little pressure (and no doubt
someone will be happy to light a match in the vicinity and fan the
flames), I'll shut up again.