A Photography forum. PhotoBanter.com

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.

Go Back   Home » PhotoBanter.com forum » Digital Photography » Digital Photography
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Digital Photography RFD: rec.photo.digital.slr vs rec.photo.digital.slr-systems?



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old September 14th 04, 04:50 PM
Lionel
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Digital Photography RFD: rec.photo.digital.slr vs rec.photo.digital.slr-systems?

[crossposted to news.groups,rec.photo.digital, followups set to
news.groups only]

Do *you* prefer rec.photo.digital.slr or rec.photo.digital.slr-systems?

I'm still seeing a lot of people expressing a preference for the earlier
name, but with a simpler charter, over the version in the current RFD.
While I feel that the current version of the DSLR group RFD is a pretty
good match between group name & the proponents' preferred charter, &
good enough that I'll vote for it if it's the only choice on the menu, I
personally still prefer the idea of a group that's simply about anything
people want to say about true digital SLRs, *as well as* digital cameras
that broadly fit in the same category, such as the Olympus fixed-lens
DSLR that been mentioned here a few times.
IMO, this would make for a simple, non-controversial charter that'd be
a very good match to the group name, & make it easier for potential
users to find the best group for their interests.
Other than that, I'd keep the charter as Thad & Alan have written it.

"slr-systems" for digital SLRs with a lens system, etc, or:
"slr" for DSLRs, regardless of the technicalities?

--
W
. | ,. w , "Some people are alive only because
\|/ \|/ it is illegal to kill them." Perna condita delenda est
---^----^---------------------------------------------------------------
  #2  
Old September 14th 04, 05:29 PM
Steve Young
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

"Lionel" wrote

[crossposted to news.groups,rec.photo.digital, followups set to
news.groups only]


same here

Do *you* prefer rec.photo.digital.slr or rec.photo.digital.slr-systems?


I'm still seeing a lot of people expressing a preference for the earlier
name, but with a simpler charter, over the version in the current RFD.
While I feel that the current version of the DSLR group RFD is a pretty
good match between group name & the proponents' preferred charter, &
good enough that I'll vote for it if it's the only choice on the menu, I
personally still prefer the idea of a group that's simply about anything
people want to say about true digital SLRs, *as well as* digital cameras
that broadly fit in the same category, such as the Olympus fixed-lens
DSLR that been mentioned here a few times.
IMO, this would make for a simple, non-controversial charter that'd be
a very good match to the group name, & make it easier for potential
users to find the best group for their interests.
Other than that, I'd keep the charter as Thad & Alan have written it.

"slr-systems" for digital SLRs with a lens system, etc, or:
"slr" for DSLRs, regardless of the technicalities?


rec.photo.digital.slr regardless of technicalities

A P&S, compact, or camera, if it's really wanted

And of course new charters for rpd & rpe35, since it's called a re-org.

Steve Young


  #3  
Old September 15th 04, 07:55 AM
Ken Tough
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Lionel wrote:

Do *you* prefer rec.photo.digital.slr or rec.photo.digital.slr-systems?


Yes.

The distinction is pretty superficial. SLR by definition refers
to cameras with mirrors and optical viewfinders through the lens.

Whether the lens is removable or not is a bit of an irrelevancy.
"ZLRs" (which should just remain in rec.photo.digital) are not
SLRs if they have electronic viewfinders.

Pretty simple. If you want to discuss lenses or paraphernalia
in r.p.d.slr, then why should that be a problem? It doesn't
need to be defined as "systems" to include that.

--
Ken Tough
  #4  
Old September 15th 04, 07:55 AM
Ken Tough
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Lionel wrote:

Do *you* prefer rec.photo.digital.slr or rec.photo.digital.slr-systems?


Yes.

The distinction is pretty superficial. SLR by definition refers
to cameras with mirrors and optical viewfinders through the lens.

Whether the lens is removable or not is a bit of an irrelevancy.
"ZLRs" (which should just remain in rec.photo.digital) are not
SLRs if they have electronic viewfinders.

Pretty simple. If you want to discuss lenses or paraphernalia
in r.p.d.slr, then why should that be a problem? It doesn't
need to be defined as "systems" to include that.

--
Ken Tough
  #5  
Old September 15th 04, 02:10 PM
Ken Tough
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

schuetzen - RKBA! wrote:

Ken Tough wrote:
Whether the lens is removable or not is a bit of an irrelevancy.
"ZLRs" (which should just remain in rec.photo.digital) are not
SLRs if they have electronic viewfinders.


if the image in the viewfinder is obtained thru the lens (TTL heard of that??)


yes, TTL is a common acronym. It doesn't mean the same as SLR.
"Reflex" refers to the fact that the viewfinder image is reflected.

then it is a SLR. fixed or changeable is totally irrelevant.


No, just because it is TTL does not make it SLR. If you wanted
rec.photo.digital.ttl, I think that would be particularly bad.

this is so much crap that I am ready for a CFV so that we can vote against
anything NOT moderated and get back to business.


SLR would encompass much of the Canon and Nikon discussion I see.
rec.photo.digital.storage-media would take a good chunk away too.

The CFV only comes a set time after the RFD.
--
Ken Tough
  #6  
Old September 15th 04, 02:10 PM
Ken Tough
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

schuetzen - RKBA! wrote:

Ken Tough wrote:
Whether the lens is removable or not is a bit of an irrelevancy.
"ZLRs" (which should just remain in rec.photo.digital) are not
SLRs if they have electronic viewfinders.


if the image in the viewfinder is obtained thru the lens (TTL heard of that??)


yes, TTL is a common acronym. It doesn't mean the same as SLR.
"Reflex" refers to the fact that the viewfinder image is reflected.

then it is a SLR. fixed or changeable is totally irrelevant.


No, just because it is TTL does not make it SLR. If you wanted
rec.photo.digital.ttl, I think that would be particularly bad.

this is so much crap that I am ready for a CFV so that we can vote against
anything NOT moderated and get back to business.


SLR would encompass much of the Canon and Nikon discussion I see.
rec.photo.digital.storage-media would take a good chunk away too.

The CFV only comes a set time after the RFD.
--
Ken Tough
  #7  
Old September 15th 04, 03:57 PM
John McWilliams
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

schuetzen - RKBA! wrote:

if the image in the viewfinder is obtained thru the lens (TTL heard of that??)
then it is a SLR.


No, it is not an SLR if it's electronically transmitted.

fixed or changeable is totally irrelevant.

A few have argued to the death on that, but the majority don't think so.


if you are going with systems then just create a Canon group which will probably
take up about 40% of the RPD reader base, and then in descending readership a
NIKON and so on.

this is so much crap that I am ready for a CFV so that we can vote against
anything NOT moderated and get back to business.

For one who is promoting a web based forum, I'd fall over backwards if
you voted yes; it'd take a very big man to vote counter his interests.

--
John McWilliams
  #8  
Old September 15th 04, 03:57 PM
John McWilliams
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

schuetzen - RKBA! wrote:

if the image in the viewfinder is obtained thru the lens (TTL heard of that??)
then it is a SLR.


No, it is not an SLR if it's electronically transmitted.

fixed or changeable is totally irrelevant.

A few have argued to the death on that, but the majority don't think so.


if you are going with systems then just create a Canon group which will probably
take up about 40% of the RPD reader base, and then in descending readership a
NIKON and so on.

this is so much crap that I am ready for a CFV so that we can vote against
anything NOT moderated and get back to business.

For one who is promoting a web based forum, I'd fall over backwards if
you voted yes; it'd take a very big man to vote counter his interests.

--
John McWilliams
  #9  
Old September 15th 04, 05:07 PM
David J Taylor
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

schuetzen - RKBA! wrote:
[]
if the image in the viewfinder is obtained thru the lens (TTL heard
of that??) then it is a SLR. fixed or changeable is totally
irrelevant.


That applies to virtually all point-and-shoot cameras!

David


  #10  
Old September 15th 04, 05:07 PM
David J Taylor
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

schuetzen - RKBA! wrote:
[]
if the image in the viewfinder is obtained thru the lens (TTL heard
of that??) then it is a SLR. fixed or changeable is totally
irrelevant.


That applies to virtually all point-and-shoot cameras!

David


 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Outdoor photography resources - articles, newsletter, forum, digital editing PT Digital Photography 0 September 13th 04 07:54 PM
RFD: rec.photo.dslr Thad Digital Photography 21 September 5th 04 02:22 AM
New Leica digital back info.... Barney 35mm Photo Equipment 19 June 30th 04 12:45 AM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 06:07 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 PhotoBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.