If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#81
|
|||
|
|||
Rant about the term "ZLR"
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". 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 Very interesting! Glad you admitted from the get-go it's a "rant". How do you feel about the term "anal-retentive"? |
#82
|
|||
|
|||
Rant about the term "ZLR"
Paul Allen wrote:
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. :-) Well if you look at the symbols for transistors, like diodes, the "arrows" indicate the direction of current flow according to the positive-negative convention. --- avast! Antivirus: Outbound message clean. Virus Database (VPS): 0550-0, 12/10/2005 Tested on: 12/10/2005 7:14:35 PM avast! - copyright (c) 1988-2005 ALWIL Software. http://www.avast.com |
#83
|
|||
|
|||
Rant about the term "ZLR"
Matt Ion wrote:
Paul Allen wrote: 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. :-) Well if you look at the symbols for transistors, like diodes, the "arrows" indicate the direction of current flow according to the positive-negative convention. Exactly. You have to take it by rote that the arrow does not correspond to the physics. It all makes perfect sense once you pound it into your head that the symbolic layer we put over the physics is all backwards. Paul Allen |
#84
|
|||
|
|||
Rant about the term "ZLR"
Bryan Olson wrote:
This term "ZLR" is crap to be flushed. So is your posting. |
#85
|
|||
|
|||
Rant about the term "ZLR"
Lorem Ipsum wrote: David J Taylor wrote: I suppose, pedantically, you caould even say that the LCD is mounted upside-down! I've been using a view camera for so long that the world outside of the camera looks up-side-down. I can share that feeling. Spent a lot of time with Linhof, Speed Graphics, and other view cameras in the 1960's. One of my favorites was the Aero Technika... JT |
#86
|
|||
|
|||
Rant about the term "ZLR"
Philip Homburg wrote: In article Ewbkf.23151$Gd6.19543@pd7tw3no, Matt Ion wrote: If you really wanna get into it, "electric current" IS considered to "flow" from positive to negative, and it does so at very near the speed of light. What kind of experiment proves that current flows from positive to negative and not the other way around? (Just curious. My understanding is that what is important are current changes what causes the current change. Information does not travel faster than the speed of light, so the current change spreads from the point that caused the current change). Since an electrons are a negatively charged whouldn't it stand to reason that an source of excess electrons (Negative source) would flow to a destination deficient (positive charge) of electrons? JT |
#87
|
|||
|
|||
Rant about the term "ZLR"
Grumpy AuContraire wrote:
Philip Homburg wrote: In article Ewbkf.23151$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? (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). Since an electrons are a negatively charged whouldn't it stand to reason that an source of excess electrons (Negative source) would flow to a destination deficient (positive charge) of electrons? Jumping in a little late, aren't we? Electrons DO flow from negative to positive; however, for the purpose of electronic design, CURRENT is considered by convention to flow positive to negative. --- avast! Antivirus: Outbound message clean. Virus Database (VPS): 0552-1, 12/28/2005 Tested on: 12/28/2005 9:06:44 PM avast! - copyright (c) 1988-2005 ALWIL Software. http://www.avast.com |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Rant about the term "ZLR" | Bryan Olson | Digital Photography | 101 | December 29th 05 05:07 AM |
Bokeh - Where did the term come from, and how do you pronounce it? | [email protected] | Digital Photography | 20 | March 31st 05 09:59 PM |
Term 'raster' versus 'bitmap' | Michael A. Covington | Digital Photography | 26 | November 17th 04 11:34 AM |
Newbie advice - for food shoot and long term.... | fishwrap | Medium Format Photography Equipment | 12 | October 15th 04 03:33 PM |
Long term archive of digi-files .. suggestion | Bruce Wilson | Digital Photography | 22 | August 24th 04 10:13 PM |