Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

CHARTER: rec.photo.digital.zlr

Last response: in Digital Camera
Share
Anonymous
January 12, 2005 12:34:22 PM

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

In view of the recent discussions, it may be helpful to have a reminder of
the group's charter.

Cheers,
David
---------------------------------------------

CHARTER: rec.photo.digital.zlr

This newsgroup, rec.photo.digital.zlr, is an open forum for the discussion
of
high-end digital cameras with fixed zoom lenses and full manual controls,
and
using those cameras. These cameras are frequently referred to as digital
ZLR
(zoom lens reflex) cameras or SLR-like digital cameras, and typically have
an
SLR-like appearance due to the bulk of the lens rather than the relatively
more
compact shape of most point-and-shoot digital cameras.

Additional On-Topic Discussion:

- Any relevant accessories for digital ZLR cameras, such as: external
flash
units, add-on lens elements, memory cards, microdrives, lens
filters/hoods,
camera bags/cases, digital ZLR maintenance, tripods and monopods.
- Photography techniques, as long as the discussion remains within the
context
of digital ZLR photography
- Image post-processing, as long as the discussion remains within the
context
of digital ZLR photography
- Posting links to personal photo galleries or images, as long as the
discussion remains within the context of digital ZLR photography.

What Is Considered Off-Topic:

- Discussion of "point and shoot" digital cameras with no manual controls
- Discussion of any film cameras
- Discussion of cameras with mounts for detachable lenses
- Discussion of scanners
- Discussion of printers
- Posting links to personal photo galleries or images, not in the context
of
digital ZLR photography

Posting off-topic should be kept to a minimum. All off-topic posts should
be
prefixed with [OT] or another easily-identifiable prefix in the subject
line.
If a segment of any on topic thread ever becomes clearly off-topic, it is
the
duty of those individuals posting to change the subject line to reflect
the
off-topic change.

Debating the pros and cons of digital photography vs. film photography is
off-topic. Please be polite and try to not steer any conversations in that
direction. In the event that any segment of any on-topic thread ever
becomes
clearly off-topic by debating the pros and cons of digital photography vs.
film
photography, it is the duty of those individuals posting to change the
subject
line to reflect the off-topic change.

What Is Considered Inappropriate:

- Crossposting to any other newsgroup except where the post is of direct
relevance to each group in the crosspost

What Is Not Permitted:

- Posts from mail2news gateways and/or anonymous remailers
- Flame wars (comparisons between different digital camera brands or
models are
permitted as long as they do not degenerate into personal flames)
- Signatures with more than 4 lines
- Exchange and/or discussion of illegal software
- Personal attacks
- Binary postings (i.e. non text postings) other than PGP and small binary
signatures
- Commercial advertisements:

This newsgroup explicitly prohibits the posting of advertisements of any
kind,
whether personal, private or commercial, as well as all other promotional
material, whether or not it is in any way related to photography.

Auction announcements (Ebay.com and others) are prohibited.

Posting links to commercial websites with the sole intention of promoting
those
sites is not permitted; links to commercial websites may be posted in the
context of answering a specific question.

All postings made to this group should conform to existing Usenet
guidelines
(see news.announce.newusers for guideline documents).

When posting on rec.photo.digital.zlr, please use standard Usenet
netiquette.
Treat other posters with courtesy and follow standard conventions when
replying
to posts. Please trim the posts you reply to, retaining only the
significant
portions in your follow up. Preserve attributions (the bits that specify
who
wrote what in each post) and limit your signature to 4 lines or less. To
ensure
readability, do not use HTML in your posts and limit your line lengths to
the
Usenet standard of 80 characters or less.

END CHARTER.
Anonymous
January 12, 2005 9:00:51 PM

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

Thanks, David. I read it and am still not convinced.

Good luck, by the way, as I do admire folks who work with good intentions;
albeit sometimes misguided.

A name can be everything, by the way. This is not a Skakespearian rose.
There is no such thing as a digital ZLR!
Anonymous
January 13, 2005 1:42:26 AM

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

Hi Charles, you say

> There is no such thing as a digital ZLR!

Even worse, there even is such thing as a digital ZLR, as just pointed out
by Per Nordenberg, examples being the Olympus E-10 and E-20. These are
actual SLR digital cameras with a non-interchangeable zoom lens, and thus
legitimately called ZLRs or dZLRs, as opposed to any EVF camera.

This highlights even more the utter inadequacy of the deceptive,
misleading designation.

The best,

Julio.
Related resources
Anonymous
January 13, 2005 1:42:27 AM

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

> Even worse, there even is such thing as a digital ZLR, as just pointed out
> by Per Nordenberg, examples being the Olympus E-10 and E-20. These are
> actual SLR digital cameras with a non-interchangeable zoom lens, and thus
> legitimately called ZLRs or dZLRs, as opposed to any EVF camera.

Just returned from dpreview.com where Phil Askey wrote: "The E-10 is
Olympus's foray into the professional digital SLR market."

Now, Phil is just one voice in the noise but most agree a rather loud one.

Anyway, if there is such a thing as a digital ZLR then I'll be quiet and go
back into my mouse hole. However, on this group it seems that electronic
view finder cameras are being added to a fuzzy genre, where they clearly
don't belong.

My real concern is that I'd hate to see this group spend a lot of its time
in a stormy sea of definitions, and that seems to be where it is currently
sailing.
Anonymous
January 13, 2005 2:42:31 AM

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

Hi Charles,
> Just returned from dpreview.com where Phil Askey
> wrote: "The E-10 is Olympus's foray into the
> professional digital SLR market."
>
> Now, Phil is just one voice in the noise but most
> agree a rather loud one.

I see no contradiction! A ZLR is above everything a SLR. For instance, the
film Olympus IS-20/200 are more often than not called SLRs, although they
are also what is traditionally called a ZLR, because of their
non-interchangeable zoom lens.

> Anyway, if there is such a thing as a digital ZLR
> then I'll be quiet and go back into my mouse hole.

Not that I want you back to your mouse hole, but if one can call the
IS-20/200 ZLRs, then by the same token one can also call the E-10/20 ZLRs
if so one wishes, although calling them SLRs is just perfect.

In any case one has a SLR with a non-interchangeable zoom lens, or a ZLR
if one wishes.

> However, on this group it seems that electronic
> view finder cameras are being added to a fuzzy genre,
> where they clearly don't belong.

Yup.

> My real concern is that I'd hate to see this group
> spend a lot of its time in a stormy sea of definitions,
> and that seems to be where it is currently sailing.

I agree. The only solutions I see for the moment are either to change the
name of this group from rec.photo.digital.zlr to rec.photo.digital.evf or
explicitly to state in its charter that "ZLR" is just a misnaming for EVFs.

The best,

Julio.
Anonymous
January 13, 2005 12:09:33 PM

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

Charles Schuler wrote:
> Thanks, David. I read it and am still not convinced.
>
> Good luck, by the way, as I do admire folks who work with good
> intentions; albeit sometimes misguided.
>
> A name can be everything, by the way. This is not a Skakespearian
> rose. There is no such thing as a digital ZLR!

Charles,

We spent a long time discussing the name for this group while the charter
was being defined, and anyone who objected had the right to speak then.
Many did and were listened to, but ZLR was the best name we could come up
with. That the Olympus E-10 and E-20 were meant to be included in the
group (because they do not have interchangeable lens systems) shows that
definition by viewfinder alone is not correct.

The newsgroup creation process does not allow for charter amendments.

Over time, language changes. Whilst the term ZLR is relatively to new
digital cameras, it does now embrace a fairly well defined class of fully
controllable, non-compact cameras without interchangeable lenses. I don't
particularly like the term, but no-one came up with anything better!

Cheers,
David
Anonymous
January 13, 2005 10:23:04 PM

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

"J.S.Pitanga" <jspitanga@fastimap.com> skrev i meddelandet
news:o pskipo5oalw3qwu@jsp-zynclw9smfc.ajato.com.br...
> Hi Charles,
> > Just returned from dpreview.com where Phil Askey
> > wrote: "The E-10 is Olympus's foray into the
> > professional digital SLR market."
> >
> > Now, Phil is just one voice in the noise but most
> > agree a rather loud one.
>
> I see no contradiction! A ZLR is above everything a SLR. For instance, the
> film Olympus IS-20/200 are more often than not called SLRs, although they
> are also what is traditionally called a ZLR, because of their
> non-interchangeable zoom lens.

Maybe a bit OT, but this tradition [to call a SLR camera with a non-interchangeable lens a 'ZLR
camera'] was, AFAIK, initiated by Olympus when they released their very first true ZLR, the AZ-4
Zoom, in 1989. The AZ-4 Zoom was the predecessor to the long iS (no, it's not a spelling mistake -
it is_ actually spelled with a lower-case 'i' and a capital 'S') series of 'bridge cameras', the
series of SLR film camera models that are usually associated with the term 'ZLR'.

http://www.star.ucl.ac.uk/~rwesson/esif/om-sif/camhisto...

Regards,

Per Nordenberg
Anonymous
January 28, 2005 6:42:46 PM

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

Charles Schuler wrote:

> My real concern is that I'd hate to see this group spend a lot of its time
> in a stormy sea of definitions, and that seems to be where it is currently
> sailing.

With you supplying the wind power.

--
-- r.p.e.35mm user resource: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm
-- r.p.d.slr-systems: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm
-- [SI] gallery & rulz: http://www.pbase.com/shootin
-- e-meil: there's no such thing as a FreeLunch.
Anonymous
January 28, 2005 6:42:51 PM

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

Charles Schuler wrote:

> Thanks, David. I read it and am still not convinced.
>
> Good luck, by the way, as I do admire folks who work with good intentions;
> albeit sometimes misguided.
>
> A name can be everything, by the way. This is not a Skakespearian rose.
> There is no such thing as a digital ZLR!

The "debate" was a long time ago and it is over. "zlr", for lack of a better
name was agreed to and the definition of what it covered was agreed to.

Is it perfect? No. Does it have its place? Absolutely.

Are there other places for P&S, DSLR and rangefinders? Yes.

Is there a place for general discussions about digital? Yep.

So.

--
-- r.p.e.35mm user resource: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm
-- r.p.d.slr-systems: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm
-- [SI] gallery & rulz: http://www.pbase.com/shootin
-- e-meil: there's no such thing as a FreeLunch.
Anonymous
January 28, 2005 8:33:28 PM

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

> With you supplying the wind power.

And you supplying the fluff?
Anonymous
January 28, 2005 8:34:41 PM

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

> The "debate" was a long time ago and it is over. "zlr", for lack of a
> better
> name was agreed to and the definition of what it covered was agreed to.

It's not over till it's over.
Anonymous
January 29, 2005 3:14:48 AM

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

> [Alan Browne:]
> The "debate" was a long time ago and it
> is over.

Of course. The recent debate was just about the foolishness of the outcome
of the previous "debate" you are referring to.

> "zlr", for lack of a better name was agreed
> to and the definition of what it covered was agreed to.

A recent debate established very clearly the foolishness of naming EVFs
"ZLRs". But this debate was already some time ago and it is over - please
don't insist on it unless you have fresh reasons to offer, which is
obviously not the case.

> Is it perfect? No. Does it have its place?
> Absolutely. Are there other places for P&S, DSLR
> and rangefinders? Yes. Is there a place for
> general discussions about digital? Yep.

You are mixing up two competely different issues, to wit the
inappropriateness of naming EVFs "ZLRs" and the usefulness of a group
about EVFs.

Julio.
Anonymous
January 31, 2005 1:01:12 AM

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

Alan Browne <alan.browne@freelunchVideotron.ca> wrote in
news:cte84b$4qc$2@inews.gazeta.pl:

> The "debate" was a long time ago and it is over. "zlr", for lack of a
> better name was agreed to and the definition of what it covered was
> agreed to.
>
> Is it perfect? No. Does it have its place? Absolutely.

Hi Alan - you have to just accept that this issue will pop up all
the time. When you "steal" an acronym that has another meaning, you
are bound to get some questions and objections sometimes.

ZLR = Zoom Lens Reflex camera. It was invented by Olympus for their
rather nice and innovative camera series for film way back then.
And there are some few examples of the same technology for digital,
om-10 and om-20 comes to my mind.

For this group - what the #¤%¤#" should the acronyme ZLR be read as?
Z - EH? - all cameras in this group has Zoom, but that have most other.
L - EH? - all cameras in this group have a Lens, but ...
R - EH? - Reflex? - why?

So - it is zero hits at three tries. Better luck the next time
anyone makes a new news group.


/Roland
Anonymous
January 31, 2005 3:12:51 AM

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

"Roland Karlsson" <roland_dot_karlsson@bonetmail.com> skrev i meddelandet
news:Xns95EEEA2C42EA7klotjohan@130.133.1.4...
> ZLR = Zoom Lens Reflex camera. It was invented by Olympus for their
> rather nice and innovative camera series for film way back then.
> And there are some few examples of the same technology for digital,
> om-10 and om-20 comes to my mind.

Hej Roland!
I think you mean Olympus E-10 and E-20. OM-10 and OM-20 were the first consumer grade cameras in the
Olympus' OM series of film SLR cameras.

Regards,

Per Nordenberg
Anonymous
January 31, 2005 1:12:12 PM

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

Roland Karlsson wrote:
> Alan Browne <alan.browne@freelunchVideotron.ca> wrote in
> news:cte84b$4qc$2@inews.gazeta.pl:
>
>> The "debate" was a long time ago and it is over. "zlr", for lack of
>> a better name was agreed to and the definition of what it covered was
>> agreed to.
>>
>> Is it perfect? No. Does it have its place? Absolutely.
>
> Hi Alan - you have to just accept that this issue will pop up all
> the time. When you "steal" an acronym that has another meaning, you
> are bound to get some questions and objections sometimes.

However often the issue pops up, there is no mechanism for changing a
newsgroup's name, so objections are pointless. As Alan says, we had a
debate and ZLR was the best that anyone suggested, and the photographic
press use the term to describe today's high-end SLR-like point and shoot
cameras.

Effort would now be better directed towards helping those who ask
questions in the group.

Cheers,
David
Anonymous
February 2, 2005 10:47:59 PM

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

> [David:]
> That the Olympus E-10 and E-20 were meant
> to be included in the group (because they
> do not have interchangeable lens systems)
> shows that definition by viewfinder alone
> is not correct.

Actually, the Olympus E-10 and E-20 are the only digital cameras that
could possibly belong in a group called "ZLR", just because they are the
only digital ZLR cameras on the market. Other so-called "ZLRs" are just
EVFs.

If one wants to discuss actual ZLRs (such as those Olympus) and EVFs in
the same group, then something like "fixed-long-zoom" might be suitable.
At least this would avoid furthering the deception of calling "reflex"
what is not a reflex camera, which discredits this group as a reliable
source of information for users.

> Over time, language changes.

Exactly. What was in the start a "misinformed choice" now became an
"intentional support to a marketing fraud".

The best,

Julio.
Anonymous
February 3, 2005 2:02:42 AM

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

"J.S.Pitanga" <jspitanga@fastimap.com> wrote in message
news:o psllat91hlw3qwu@jsp.ajato.com.br...
>> [David:]
>> That the Olympus E-10 and E-20 were meant
>> to be included in the group (because they
>> do not have interchangeable lens systems)
>> shows that definition by viewfinder alone
>> is not correct.
>
> Actually, the Olympus E-10 and E-20 are the only digital cameras that
> could possibly belong in a group called "ZLR", just because they are the
> only digital ZLR cameras on the market. Other so-called "ZLRs" are just
> EVFs.
>
> If one wants to discuss actual ZLRs (such as those Olympus) and EVFs in
> the same group, then something like "fixed-long-zoom" might be suitable.
> At least this would avoid furthering the deception of calling "reflex"
> what is not a reflex camera, which discredits this group as a reliable
> source of information for users.
>
>> Over time, language changes.
>
> Exactly. What was in the start a "misinformed choice" now became an
> "intentional support to a marketing fraud".
>
> The best,
>
> Julio.

Excellent. So all is clear at last. Well I am happy with that. Thank you for
your useful contribution. Now let's put it all behind us and get on with
things.

Robert
Anonymous
February 3, 2005 2:02:43 AM

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

> [Bill Again:}
> Now let's put it all behind us
> and get on with things.

If you want to "put it all behind you and get on with things" it is your
sexual choice, but I warn you that sexual chat is not allowed in this
newsgroup, which is dedicated only to non-sexual marketing frauds.

The best,

Julio.
Anonymous
February 3, 2005 3:15:01 AM

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

"J.S.Pitanga" <jspitanga@fastimap.com> wrote in message
news:o pslld79qtlw3qwu@jsp.ajato.com.br...
>> [Bill Again:}
>> Now let's put it all behind us
>> and get on with things.
>
> If you want to "put it all behind you and get on with things" it is your
> sexual choice, but I warn you that sexual chat is not allowed in this
> newsgroup, which is dedicated only to non-sexual marketing frauds.
>
> The best,
>
> Julio.

killfiled
Anonymous
February 3, 2005 3:15:02 AM

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

> [Bill Again:]
> killfiled

Funny enough, people like you, Pete Fenelon and Larry cannot help
answering to supposedly killfiled posts, thus displaying for everyone to
see the distinctive mark of the accomplished cyber-imbecile.

Please keep killfiling, but don't forget answering once in a while.

The best,

Julio.
Anonymous
February 3, 2005 10:23:41 AM

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

J.S.Pitanga commented courteously ...

> Actually, the Olympus E-10 and E-20 are the only
> digital cameras that could possibly belong in a group
> called "ZLR", just because they are the only
> digital ZLR cameras on the market. Other so-called
> "ZLRs" are just EVFs.
[snip]

Sorry to butt in, but I must've missed the definition of
"EVF" sometime back.

What does "EVF" stand for? Thanks.

--
ATM, aka Jerry
Anonymous
February 3, 2005 12:23:54 PM

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

All Things Mopar <usenetMAPS123@comcast.net> writes:

> J.S.Pitanga commented courteously ...
>
> > Actually, the Olympus E-10 and E-20 are the only
> > digital cameras that could possibly belong in a group
> > called "ZLR", just because they are the only
> > digital ZLR cameras on the market. Other so-called
> > "ZLRs" are just EVFs.
> [snip]
>
> Sorry to butt in, but I must've missed the definition of
> "EVF" sometime back.
>
> What does "EVF" stand for? Thanks.

Electronic Viewfinder, where the viewfinder is actually a miniature LCD.
Mostly found on prosumer cameras > 3x zoom range. I have cameras with each of
the 3 different viewfinders, and they each have pluses/minuses:

Optical viewfinder that is a separate lens
==========================================

Pro: cheap
Con: view is not quite what camera sees (parallex)

Electronic viewfinder
=====================

Pro: Can get review of last shot/menu without moving eye from viewfinder
Pro: Can see exactly DOF/brightness of shot you are going to take
Pro: Live histogram in newer cameras
Con: Hard to use in low light
Con: Often times refresh rate is not that fast
Con: Can be hard to manually focus lenses

SLR viewfinder
==============

Pro: Manual focusing is easier
Pro: Can see effect of filters, etc.
Pro: Can use in low light
Con: No review of shot in viewfinder
Con: Except on pro cameras, you don't have 100% coverage

--
Michael Meissner
email: mrmnews@the-meissners.org
http://www.the-meissners.org
Anonymous
February 3, 2005 4:27:27 PM

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

Michael Meissner commented courteously ...

>> What does "EVF" stand for?
>
> Electronic Viewfinder, where the viewfinder is
> actually a miniature LCD. Mostly found on
> prosumer cameras > 3x zoom range. I have cameras
> with each of the 3 different viewfinders, and
> they each have pluses/minuses:

OK. Thanks. I've got an older Fuji 4900 and a newer Nikon
5700 which both fit this description. My wife's little
$150 Kodak has an optical viewfinder but at least it shows
the zoom.

--
ATM, aka Jerry
Anonymous
February 16, 2005 8:55:28 PM

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

"Per Nordenberg" <per.nordenberg@swipnet.se> wrote in
news:7KeLd.15745$d5.131537@newsb.telia.net:

> Hej Roland!
> I think you mean Olympus E-10 and E-20. OM-10 and OM-20 were the first
> consumer grade cameras in the Olympus' OM series of film SLR cameras.
>
>

Yepp - typo by me :) 
Anonymous
February 16, 2005 9:12:08 PM

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

"Bill Again" <bill@addcom.de> wrote in news:ctrmtv$pv4$00$1@news.t-
online.com:

> killfiled

Julio is actually (more or less) correct. His language may be
improved on and so might his general behaviour in this thread.

But - the fact is that ZLR is not even near to a correct name
for the cameras that shall be discussed in this group according
to the charter.

OK - anyone can call them ZLR if they want to. But - if the manufacturer
and/or the shops call them thus - it does indeed look like
a fraud to me.

It is like calling a cat a horse. But - we ___dooo___ call them small
furry animals horses in this shop. Whats wrong with that?


/Roland
Anonymous
February 17, 2005 1:12:20 AM

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

Justín Käse <chupacabra@operamail.com> wrote in news:4213b255.3009937
@chupacabra:

> When I want roast pork with avocado, onion, coriander, and tomato
> wrapped in a flattened flour disk, I find it easier to simply say
> "Burrito de Carnitas, por favor".
> If I want a camera with an electronically extended viewfinder array, and
> a non removable zooming lens, I say "ZLR please".

Now - unfortunately there is a huge chance that you
will just get a blank face if you ask for a ZLR.
It means zoom lens reflex - and - you know - no such
beasts are made right now.

Or maybe you are lucky and enters a shop where they call
more advanced consumer digital cameras ZLR. Just as you migh
be lucky and enter the shop where they call cats horses,
if you call cats horses.


/Roland

PS
When I am in Germany and want cheese, I say Käse :) 
DS
Anonymous
February 17, 2005 1:12:21 AM

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

Roland Karlsson wrote:
> Justmn Kdse <chupacabra@operamail.com> wrote in
> news:4213b255.3009937
> @chupacabra:
>
>> When I want roast pork with avocado, onion, coriander, and tomato
>> wrapped in a flattened flour disk, I find it easier to simply say
>> "Burrito de Carnitas, por favor".
>> If I want a camera with an electronically extended viewfinder
>> array,
>> and a non removable zooming lens, I say "ZLR please".
>
> Now - unfortunately there is a huge chance that you
> will just get a blank face if you ask for a ZLR.
> It means zoom lens reflex - and - you know - no such
> beasts are made right now.
>
> Or maybe you are lucky and enters a shop where they call
> more advanced consumer digital cameras ZLR. Just as you migh
> be lucky and enter the shop where they call cats horses,
> if you call cats horses.

Whatever the name and leaving aside discussion of its suitability, as
David Taylor posted last month,a charter was accepted by a majority
vote.


--
James V. Silverton
Potomac, Maryland, USA

As David said:

In view of the recent discussions, it may be helpful to have a
reminder of
the group's charter.

Cheers,
David
---------------------------------------------

CHARTER: rec.photo.digital.zlr

This newsgroup, rec.photo.digital.zlr, is an open forum for the
discussion of
high-end digital cameras with fixed zoom lenses and full manual
controls, and
using those cameras. These cameras are frequently referred to as
digital ZLR
(zoom lens reflex) cameras or SLR-like digital cameras, and typically
have an
SLR-like appearance due to the bulk of the lens rather than the
relatively more
compact shape of most point-and-shoot digital cameras.
Anonymous
February 17, 2005 1:12:22 AM

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

James Silverton wrote:
> Roland Karlsson wrote:
>> Justmn Kdse <chupacabra@operamail.com> wrote in
>> news:4213b255.3009937
>> @chupacabra:
>>
>>> When I want roast pork with avocado, onion, coriander, and tomato
>>> wrapped in a flattened flour disk, I find it easier to simply say
>>> "Burrito de Carnitas, por favor".
>>> If I want a camera with an electronically extended viewfinder
>>> array,
>>> and a non removable zooming lens, I say "ZLR please".
>>
>> Now - unfortunately there is a huge chance that you
>> will just get a blank face if you ask for a ZLR.
>> It means zoom lens reflex - and - you know - no such
>> beasts are made right now.
>>
>> Or maybe you are lucky and enters a shop where they call
>> more advanced consumer digital cameras ZLR. Just as you migh
>> be lucky and enter the shop where they call cats horses,
>> if you call cats horses.
>
> Whatever the name and leaving aside discussion of its suitability, as
> David Taylor posted last month,a charter was accepted by a majority
> vote.

And we all remember the list of questionable "voters" posted, and that
the "majority" was not of "people", but of "voters". Another opportunity
for fraud.

~" ... the best name anyone could come up with ... "

"Anyone" being which member of which group? Pretty clear it was a small
group who failed to ask Pitanga or Karlsson or me. We all have names for
this forum better than the "best name" "anyone" could come up with.

No, seriously: Which member of the selectors suggested that zlr name?
What are the names of the other members of the selectors group, the ones
s/he bulldozed? Aren't you ashamed? Aren't you capable of admitting an
error with sincere I'm-sorrys and no Yes-buts? You've already answered
that, haven't you?

I sense another flurry of defensive Protest-too-much coming on.

Duck!


--
Frank ess
"There are some aspects of existence that simply do not yield to
thinking, plain or fancy."
Anonymous
February 17, 2005 3:25:06 AM

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

Roland Karlsson <roland_dot_karlsson@bonetmail.com> wrote in
news:Xns95FFC35625D05klotjohan@130.133.1.4:

> But - the fact is that ZLR is not even near to a correct name
> for the cameras that shall be discussed in this group according
> to the charter.
>

You're still at it; WOW!

--

Bill
Anonymous
February 17, 2005 4:06:18 AM

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

"Frank ess" <frank@fshe2fs.com> wrote in
news:p radnV1SAc9Seo7fRVn-pg@giganews.com:

> No, seriously: Which member of the selectors suggested that zlr
> name?

Originally it was Alan Browne. I worked on the proposal for this group
with David. We announced during the RFD that we were seeking
alternative names. Nobody involved in the process suggested any other
name. The vote for this group was audited by the NAN Team. It was
determined that there was some voter fraud, but there were enough valid
YES votes to pass the group.

ZLR is a nickname. If you don't like it, don't use it. Would you prefer
that cameras like the Coolpix 8800 would have been included in the
charter of the dSLR group? That is what the opposition wanted, and most
of the news.groups regulars wanted that too.

--

Bill
Anonymous
February 17, 2005 4:43:58 AM

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

Why don't we just rename it to REC.BEAT.A .DEAD HORSE

Dave


"Woodchuck Bill" <bwr607@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:Xns95FFCCB87DF22WoodchuckBill@130.133.1.4...
> "Frank ess" <frank@fshe2fs.com> wrote in
> news:p radnV1SAc9Seo7fRVn-pg@giganews.com:
>
>> No, seriously: Which member of the selectors suggested that zlr
>> name?
>
> Originally it was Alan Browne. I worked on the proposal for this group
> with David. We announced during the RFD that we were seeking
> alternative names. Nobody involved in the process suggested any other
> name. The vote for this group was audited by the NAN Team. It was
> determined that there was some voter fraud, but there were enough valid
> YES votes to pass the group.
>
> ZLR is a nickname. If you don't like it, don't use it. Would you prefer
> that cameras like the Coolpix 8800 would have been included in the
> charter of the dSLR group? That is what the opposition wanted, and most
> of the news.groups regulars wanted that too.
>
> --
>
> Bill
Anonymous
February 17, 2005 10:26:32 PM

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

Woodchuck Bill <bwr607@hotmail.com> wrote in
news:Xns95FFC5BC78891WoodchuckBill@130.133.1.4:

> You're still at it; WOW!
>

Nope - you did not read my entire post - or choose to snip it
away to get a point. I don't care who post her. But I do care
that you jump at others that do care.


/Roland
Anonymous
February 17, 2005 10:41:00 PM

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

Justín Käse <chupacabra@operamail.com> wrote in news:4214394d.2820559
@chupacabra:

> When you say "consumer digital camera" are you referring to something
> designed to be purchased by someone (a consumer), and isn't that the
> objective of all manufacturers of any style camera, or any other
salable
> item for that matter?
> See, I can be a puerile nitpick if I choose, too.

Point to you - or at least a half :) 
"Consumer camera" is a very bad name actually.

This I think is one of the real issues actually.
There is a charter for this group - but very few actually
reads a charter carefully. So - if the name is fuzzy
so is the targeted posters. And this group will
be haunted until it dies with questions what ZLR means and
protests that R means reflex. Its a bad name - and it
will generate strange threads.

So - my advice is - accept the questions and the protests
- do not try to defend the name - it cannot be defended :) 
- it can only be accepted.

BTW - I have asked some times - but never got an answer.
My Canon G2 - do you that frequent this group think it
is appropriate to discuss it here. It is certainly no
P&S - but is it a ZLR?


/Roland
Anonymous
February 17, 2005 11:45:34 PM

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

Justín Käse <chupacabra@operamail.com> wrote in news:4215f671.3971865
@chupacabra:

>>"Consumer camera" is a very bad name actually.
>
> Well, they do consume batteries,
> quite voraciously,
> such as to take them from the category of gourmet to gourmand.

:) 

> If I didn't accept the questions, I wouldn't have inserted myself into
> the fray, but only did so as I observed an opportunity to banter about a
> bit until the weather breaks and I can haul my S1-IS ZLR out to the
> park. ;-)

:) 

As long as you dount haul it out the window or something ...

Happy shooting!


/Roland
Anonymous
February 17, 2005 11:51:13 PM

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

Roland Karlsson <roland_dot_karlsson@bonetmail.com> wrote in
news:Xns9600D265E10FFklotjohan@130.133.1.4:

>
> BTW - I have asked some times - but never got an answer.
> My Canon G2 - do you that frequent this group think it
> is appropriate to discuss it here. It is certainly no
> P&S - but is it a ZLR?

If you use it as an SLR-like camera, and not as a P&S, then I would
not scream OT if you posted about it. There is no black and white.

The original proposal was for a dSLR group, for dSLRs with
exchangeable lens systems. That pissed of a lot of people who cried
"ELITISTS!", and they lobbied to have the charter include any camera
that could be mistaken as a DSLR. That was unacceptable to the
original proponents.

Alan Browne suggested that there might be separate groups for P&S
and "in-between" cameras. I stepped forward and proposed this group,
and asked David to join me. David and I worked on the proposal for
the in-between class of cameras.

As confusing as r.p.d.zlr is, imagine how confusing it would be if
this group was named r.p.d.slr-like or r.p.d.prosumer-compact.

or:

r.p.d.non-slr-but-better-than-point-and-shoot

The most important thing is not the terms used, but how the camera
is used. This group was created for owners and prospective buyers of
non-slr high end digital cameras who intend to exploit the features
of their cameras to the fullest...and not just operate in auto mode.
We specifically DID NOT want to be lumped in with the dSLR group.

If you use your G2 in aperture priority and shoot RAW (for example),
feel free to ask a question here. If you use it only in auto mode, you
might get answers from more likeminded people in r.p.d-p&s or r.p.d.

--

Bill
Anonymous
February 18, 2005 1:20:06 AM

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

Woodchuck Bill <bwr607@hotmail.com> wrote in
news:Xns9600A179B51B0WoodchuckBill@130.133.1.4:

> As confusing as r.p.d.zlr is, imagine how confusing it would be if
> this group was named r.p.d.slr-like or r.p.d.prosumer-compact.

When I found out (to late) that those groups already
was voted for I gave some names I thought was better.
To late of course. I don't remember the names now
and it does not really matter.

Personally I don't like sloppy naming. It creates
confusion and limits the usability. And I don't think you
can vote on names. Very few people have the skills
with language to understand a good naming convention.

So - if no good names are found - I don't really think
it is a good idea to vote at all. Better then to wait
until someone with the skill turns up.



/Roland
Anonymous
February 18, 2005 7:43:58 PM

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

"Roland Karlsson" <roland_dot_karlsson@bonetmail.com> wrote in message > >
As

> When I found out (to late) that those groups already
> was voted for I gave some names I thought was better.
> To late of course. I don't remember the names now
> and it does not really matter.
>
> Personally I don't like sloppy naming. It creates
> confusion and limits the usability. And I don't think you
> can vote on names. Very few people have the skills
> with language to understand a good naming convention.
>
> So - if no good names are found - I don't really think
> it is a good idea to vote at all. Better then to wait
> until someone with the skill turns up.
>
> /Roland

You really are a patronising sort of a prick /Roland.
Have a nice day in Coventry.
Leo
Anonymous
February 18, 2005 7:43:59 PM

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

Leo R. wrote:
> "Roland Karlsson" <roland_dot_karlsson@bonetmail.com> wrote in
> message > > As
>
>> When I found out (to late) that those groups already
>> was voted for I gave some names I thought was better.
>> To late of course. I don't remember the names now
>> and it does not really matter.
>>
>> Personally I don't like sloppy naming. It creates
>> confusion and limits the usability. And I don't think you
>> can vote on names. Very few people have the skills
>> with language to understand a good naming convention.
>>
>> So - if no good names are found - I don't really think
>> it is a good idea to vote at all. Better then to wait
>> until someone with the skill turns up.
>>
>> /Roland
>
> You really are a patronising sort of a prick /Roland.

As contrasted to a typical arrogant, smug, judgemental pre-adolescent
driven to responding with an insult rather than something constructive
or informative? I'll take /Roland.



--
Frank ess

"Because of the Swiss Cheese nature of everyone's life experience and
education, the Whoosh Bird can drop a load on anyone's head, without
warning." —Albrecht Einstein
Anonymous
February 18, 2005 8:54:36 PM

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

"Leo R." <lsrolfeFAKED@ihug.co.nz> wrote in news:cv3nrl$il4$1
@lust.ihug.co.nz:

> You really are a patronising sort of a prick /Roland.

Frankly. Can't we just be civil and stop atacks
on other persons?

> Have a nice day in Coventry.

Sorry - but I have not the background knowledge to understand
what that means. I assume that it is meant as some kind of
insult. Missed me though :) 


/Roland
Anonymous
February 18, 2005 9:04:04 PM

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

Roland Karlsson <roland_dot_karlsson@bonetmail.com> wrote in
news:Xns9601C05CE4180klotjohan@130.133.1.4:

> Frankly. Can't we just be civil and stop atacks
> on other persons?

Why don't you stop the off-topic rhetoric about terminology?

--

Bill
Anonymous
February 18, 2005 9:43:20 PM

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

"Frank ess" <frank@fshe2fs.com> wrote in message
news:8qednZ1Wpd2j-ojfRVn-tA@giganews.com...
> Leo R. wrote:
> > "Roland Karlsson" <roland_dot_karlsson@bonetmail.com> wrote in
> > message > > As
> >
> >> When I found out (to late) that those groups already
> >> was voted for I gave some names I thought was better.
> >> To late of course. I don't remember the names now
> >> and it does not really matter.
> >>
> >> Personally I don't like sloppy naming. It creates
> >> confusion and limits the usability. And I don't think you
> >> can vote on names. Very few people have the skills
> >> with language to understand a good naming convention.
> >>
> >> So - if no good names are found - I don't really think
> >> it is a good idea to vote at all. Better then to wait
> >> until someone with the skill turns up.
> >>
> >> /Roland
> >
> > You really are a patronising sort of a prick /Roland.
>
> As contrasted to a typical arrogant, smug, judgemental pre-adolescent
> driven to responding with an insult rather than something constructive
> or informative? I'll take /Roland.
> --
> Frank ess
>
That'll do me Frank, you're welcome to him. :~))
Leo
Anonymous
February 18, 2005 9:53:01 PM

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

Woodchuck Bill <bwr607@hotmail.com> wrote in
news:Xns9601852281F2CWoodchuckBill@130.133.1.4:

> Why don't you stop the off-topic rhetoric about terminology?

It is on topic. Nothing can be more on topic than discussing what
ZLR really means. Thats the price you have to pay when you have
a name that is not well understood.

Moreover - you are wrong. I have not in particular discussed
terminology. I first defended someone that got kicked on by
posters in this group - then I have defended myself. Some nice
guys here that are rather badmouthed it seems.


/Roland
!