Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

what is ZLR?

Last response: in Digital Camera
Share
Anonymous
January 10, 2005 10:19:13 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.zlr (More info?)

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.

More about : zlr

Anonymous
January 10, 2005 10:19:14 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.zlr (More info?)

"WD me" <dpauer@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:RyAEd.3236$C52.1571@newsread2.news.atl.earthlink.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.
Anonymous
January 10, 2005 10:56:13 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.zlr (More info?)

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
Related resources
Can't find your answer ? Ask !
Anonymous
January 11, 2005 7:19:20 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.zlr (More info?)

> [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.
Anonymous
January 11, 2005 7:19:21 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.zlr (More info?)

"J.S.Pitanga" <jspitanga@fastimap.com> wrote in message
news:o pskgaiipalw3qwu@jsp-zynclw9smfc.ajato.com.br...
>> [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!
Anonymous
January 11, 2005 8:05:26 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.zlr (More info?)

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.
Anonymous
January 11, 2005 10:57:30 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.zlr (More info?)

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
Anonymous
January 11, 2005 10:57:31 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.zlr (More info?)

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.
Anonymous
January 11, 2005 10:57:32 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.zlr (More info?)

> [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.
Anonymous
January 11, 2005 11:19:42 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.zlr (More info?)

Hi Charles,

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

I think that the IS-20 and the IS-200 are just two similarly specified
Olympus ZLRs. Also, I understand that ZLR is just a subcategory of SLR,
characterized by a non-interchangeable zoom lens. Therefore, it is natural
that they are listed as SLRs.

Whatever is a single lens reflex is aptly named a SLR, and so are ZLRs.
Meanwhile, whatever is not a reflex camera is mistakenly and misleadingly
named a ZLR, and this is the case with all these EVFs which are the
subject of the present group, whence your accurate conclusion:

> This newsgroup has a fundamental flaw and should be renamed.

The best,

Julio.
Anonymous
January 11, 2005 11:19:43 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.zlr (More info?)

"J.S.Pitanga" <jspitanga@fastimap.com> wrote in message
news:o pskglm4gvlw3qwu@jsp-zynclw9smfc.ajato.com.br...
> Hi Charles,
>
>
> Whatever is a single lens reflex is aptly named a SLR, and so are
> ZLRs. Meanwhile, whatever is not a reflex camera is mistakenly and
> misleadingly named a ZLR, and this is the case with all these EVFs
> which are the subject of the present group, whence your accurate
> conclusion:
>
>> This newsgroup has a fundamental flaw and should be renamed.
>

What one might call the Humpty Dumpty effect is often in play
especially here:

"When I use a word," Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone,
"it means just
what I choose it to mean-neither more nor less." Lewis Carrol.

Technically, "reflex" presumably should refer to a reflection process
and thus only cameras that use a mirror are reflexes. A so-called ZLR
is rightly called an "electronic viewfinder camera" and, IMHO, they
are the wave of the future but not the present day. A great deal of
fighting and discussion produced the present additions to
rec.photo.digital and I suspect their acceptance may have been caused
by battle fatigue! The original proponents wanted to include
non-reflex digital cameras like Leicas in a "digital single lens
reflex" discussion group. OK, if you accept Humpty Dumpty's
definition!


--
James V. Silverton
Potomac, Maryland, USA
Anonymous
January 11, 2005 11:50:03 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.zlr (More info?)

Hi Greg,

> I mean really - is all this hair-splitting, chop logic,
> and fussy quibbling truly useful in the long run?

If one does not know what this group is about, it can hardly be useful
even in the short, let alone 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?

The answer needed here is what is a "ZLR" to start with. But maybe you
just need to show that your lack of answer is better than someone else's.

Julio.
Anonymous
January 12, 2005 2:34:50 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.zlr (More info?)

J.S.Pitanga <jspitanga@fastimap.com> wrote:
> 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!
>

Are you bored with trolling this group yet?

pete
--
pete@fenelon.com "there's no room for enigmas in built-up areas"
Anonymous
January 12, 2005 2:34:51 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.zlr (More info?)

>> [Julio:]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!

> [Pete:]
> Are you bored with trolling this group yet?

The mark of an imbecile is to feel trolled by any comment.

Julio.
Anonymous
January 12, 2005 12:30:20 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.zlr (More info?)

J.S.Pitanga wrote:

> The answer needed here is what is a "ZLR" to start with.

I'm far less certain than some people that it is truly "needed". Did
it help the followers of the Christian religion for medieval scholars
to try to figure out how many angels could dance on the point of a
needle?

Granted, some knowledge of the available cameras can help neophytes
figure out what they want, but beyond that the whole ZLR debate
quickly gets to be good brainpower put to a pointless end. Which is
what this thread has become, and I shall respond no more.
Anonymous
January 12, 2005 12:37:37 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.zlr (More info?)

Charles Schuler wrote:

> This "digital ZSR" issue is so darned confusing that it can
> only lead to more chaos. How many more posts like the one submitted
> by the OP do you see coming? I see enough to make this forum always
> on the defensive and to continuously compel supporters/founders to
> contrive justifications. Not a great scenerio!

Which is why I see little point in fragmenting the rec.photo.digital
group in the first place; it seems to have served a small group of
fussy pigeonholing gearheads rather than the photographic community in
general. Unfortunately I wasn't around to cast my vote at the time.
But I've had my say now, so I'll just ignore the "what is a ZLR?"
threads, with all their silly haranguing, backbiting, and nitpicking,
and get on with learning how to use whatever this contraption is I'm
holding to artistic effect....
Anonymous
January 12, 2005 6:40:42 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.zlr (More info?)

Hi Greg,

>> [J.S.Pitanga:]
>> The answer needed here is what is a "ZLR" to start with.

> [Greg:]
> I'm far less certain than some people that it is truly
> "needed".

In other words, you don't feel the need to know what you are discussing
about. But proponents of the designation "ZLR" don't know either. Such
people are like theologians who enjoy discussing an imagined entity they
cannot define. Meaningful discussion starts with defining the discussed
subject, period.

> Did it help the followers of the Christian religion
> for medieval scholars to try to figure out how many angels
> could dance on the point of a needle?

These fools were like you and some proponents of the ZLR designation,
wishing to discuss entities they could not define or know what they are.

> Granted, some knowledge of the available cameras can help
> neophytes figure out what they want, but beyond that the whole
> ZLR debate quickly gets to be good brainpower put to a
> pointless end.

As above, pointless indeed is to discuss an entity one cannot define.
Defining the subject of a discussion before engaging in it is always
meaninful, and does not even require outstanding brainpower.

> Which is what this thread has become,

Rather, this thread has become extremely meaningful, insofar as it showed
beyond any doubt that "ZLR" is just a stolen, unauthentic, wrong and
misleading misnaming for EVFs, and that no one is able to define otherwise
what is "ZLR" - the question of the original poster and of many posters
and newcomers to this group.

> and I shall respond no more.

This you have already promised, but did not stand by your word. Anyway, I
don't care.

The best,

Julio.
Anonymous
January 12, 2005 6:40:43 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.zlr (More info?)

J.S.Pitanga wrote:

>> and I shall respond no more.
>
> This you have already promised, but did not stand by your word.
> Anyway, I don't care.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Fair's fair - I broke my promise, and you're obviously lying!
:-)
Anonymous
January 12, 2005 10:43:39 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.zlr (More info?)

Excuse me for a potentially stupid question. I'm well aware of the terms 'SLR' and 'ZLR', but what
does 'EVF' stand for?

Regards,

Per Nordenberg
Anonymous
January 12, 2005 10:43:40 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.zlr (More info?)

Hi Per, you say

> Excuse me for a potentially stupid question.
> I'm well aware of the terms 'SLR' and 'ZLR',
> but what does 'EVF' stand for?

Far from stupid, this is the single most essential question one could ask
in a group dedicated to EVF cameras (sometimes mistakenly called "ZLRs")
since an EVF is their defining characteristic.

"EVF" stands for "Electronic View Finder", which is a small LCD used in
some digital compact cameras that "simulates in an electronic way the
effect of the (superior) optical TTL viewfinders found on digital SLRs".

Some further information about EVFs, LCDs and optical viewfinders can be
found in the article at
http://www.dpreview.com/learn/?/Glossary/Camera_System/...,
wherefrom comes the above quoted sentence. See also
http://www.digicamhelp.com/digital-camera-features/digi....

Such digital cameras use an EVF instead of a TTL (through the lens)
optical viewfinder, and thus are not reflex cameras; they are thus neither
SLRs nor consequently the subset of SLRs called ZLRs.

The best,

Julio.
Anonymous
January 12, 2005 11:55:56 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.zlr (More info?)

Per Nordenberg wrote:
> Excuse me for a potentially stupid question. I'm well aware of the
> terms 'SLR' and 'ZLR', but what does 'EVF' stand for?

Per - it means Electronic ViewFinder.

It has nothing to do with the defintion of a ZLR - please see the group's
charter.

Cheers,
David
Anonymous
January 12, 2005 11:55:57 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.zlr (More info?)

> [David:]
> Per - it means Electronic ViewFinder.
> It has nothing to do with the defintion of a ZLR
> - please see the group's charter.

The charter describes as "ZLR" those cameras which are "frequently
[although mistakenly] referred to as digital ZLR (zoom lens reflex)
cameras or SLR-like digital cameras".

Funny enough, such cameras are precisely the EVFs, or cameras with an EVF.

Therefore, I request you please to stick to the terms of the charter and
from now on always think of an EVF even if you mistakenly call it a "ZLR".

Julio.
Anonymous
January 13, 2005 12:18:08 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.zlr (More info?)

"David J Taylor" <david-taylor@invalid.com> skrev i meddelandet
news:34lh6tF4d6aguU1@individual.net...
> Per Nordenberg wrote:
> > Excuse me for a potentially stupid question. I'm well aware of the
> > terms 'SLR' and 'ZLR', but what does 'EVF' stand for?
>
> Per - it means Electronic ViewFinder.
>
> It has nothing to do with the defintion of a ZLR - please see the group's
> charter.
>
> Cheers,
> David

Thanks David!


Best regards,

Per Nordenberg
Anonymous
January 13, 2005 2:02:53 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.zlr (More info?)

"J.S.Pitanga" <jspitanga@fastimap.com> skrev i meddelandet
news:o pskihaddmlw3qwu@jsp-zynclw9smfc.ajato.com.br...
> > [David:]
> > Per - it means Electronic ViewFinder.
> > It has nothing to do with the defintion of a ZLR
> > - please see the group's charter.
>
> The charter describes as "ZLR" those cameras which are "frequently
> [although mistakenly] referred to as digital ZLR (zoom lens reflex)
> cameras or SLR-like digital cameras".
>
> Funny enough, such cameras are precisely the EVFs, or cameras with an EVF.
>
> Therefore, I request you please to stick to the terms of the charter and
> from now on always think of an EVF even if you mistakenly call it a "ZLR".
>
> Julio.


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?


Regards,

Per Nordenberg
Anonymous
January 13, 2005 2:02:54 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.zlr (More info?)

Hi Per, you say

> 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')??

Indeed. The E-10 and E-20 are SLRs, or single-lens-reflex cameras, because
they have an optical viewfinder allowing one to see the subject through
the lens (TTL). Since they have a non-interchangeable zoom lens, it is
acceptable that they are also called ZLRs, which are a subset of SLRs, in
keeping with the traditionally established usage of the term.

Your example highlights even more the utter inadequacy and ineptitude of
calling EVF cameras "ZLRs". EVF cameras are not reflex cameras, and thus
neither SLRs nor ZLRs. Besides, there is another category of digital
cameras, including those you have just pointed out, which are legitimately
called ZLRs.

To sum up, calling an EVF camera a "ZLR", or even a "SLR-like camera" is a
stolen, illegitimate, deceptive, misleading, and confusing designation -
with the absurd result that actual ZLR cameras such the E-10 and E-20 are
not subjects of discussion in this so-called "ZLR" group - just because
they are SLRs.

Emphasizing the "SLR-like" appearance of EVFs, and misnaming them "ZLRs",
whle neglecting their defining characteristic, the EVF, which essentially
sets them apart from SLRs and true ZLRs, is at best a deceptive marketing
trick targeting the gullible, non-discriminating user - a trick
disgracefully and stubbornly nourished by the writers of the charter of
this group.

> In which group should the last-mentioned cameras be discussed
> then?

Since they are SLRs, in a SLR group.

The best,

Julio.
Anonymous
January 13, 2005 11:43:03 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.zlr (More info?)

"Greg Evans" <misterx@larkbooks.com> writes:

> Charles Schuler wrote:
>
> > This "digital ZSR" issue is so darned confusing that it can
> > only lead to more chaos. How many more posts like the one submitted
> > by the OP do you see coming? I see enough to make this forum always
> > on the defensive and to continuously compel supporters/founders to
> > contrive justifications. Not a great scenerio!
>
> Which is why I see little point in fragmenting the rec.photo.digital
> group in the first place; it seems to have served a small group of
> fussy pigeonholing gearheads rather than the photographic community in
> general. Unfortunately I wasn't around to cast my vote at the time.
> But I've had my say now, so I'll just ignore the "what is a ZLR?"
> threads, with all their silly haranguing, backbiting, and nitpicking,
> and get on with learning how to use whatever this contraption is I'm
> holding to artistic effect....

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.

Everyone wins.

B>
Anonymous
January 13, 2005 11:43:04 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.zlr (More info?)

> [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. 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.

> Everyone wins.

Even you have just won an adequate description.

The best,

Julio.
Anonymous
January 13, 2005 11:57:31 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.zlr (More info?)

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
Anonymous
January 13, 2005 6:28:25 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.zlr (More info?)

"J.S.Pitanga" <jspitanga@fastimap.com> 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>
Anonymous
February 2, 2005 10:12:39 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.zlr (More info?)

> [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.
February 10, 2005 1:34:47 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.zlr (More info?)

J.S.Pitanga <jspitanga@fastimap.com> 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?
Anonymous
February 10, 2005 1:34:48 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.zlr (More info?)

jose <un_nospam@gehennom.net> writes:

> J.S.Pitanga <jspitanga@fastimap.com> 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: mrmnews@the-meissners.org
http://www.the-meissners.org
Anonymous
February 10, 2005 10:28:41 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.zlr (More info?)

"jose" <un_nospam@gehennom.net> skrev i meddelandet news:cufdc5$3au$1@news-int2.gatech.edu...
>
> 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
!