r.p.d.zlr

John Navas wrote:

On Thu, 07 Feb 2008 17:37:02 +1100, dj_nme wrote in :



David J Taylor wrote:







If you have more time than many, of course you can read all the posts, but it makes it easier for DSLR folk to have a separate group to remove discussions of, for example, interchangeable lenses and the other systems accessories.







There is no reason to read all the messages, you can see the headers and chose which ones to read. Even a child (or a childish adult) should be able to do something that simple.



Not necessarily. You're assuming everyone is like you, with cheap consumer broadband,

In this day and age those who do not pony up a few bucks for a high speed internet connection should not drag the people who ponied up a few buck back to the dark ages of computing.  We should be able to enjoy fonts, colors and a few graphics in newsgroups.  Maybe newsgroups should be called newbooks and fashioned after facebook to some extent.  Now I am not proposing going to an extreme but a few nice readable fonts is nice.


and the patience and ability to wade through lots of irrelevant headers. Those reading Usenet over slow and/or expensive Internet connections may find it problematic to go through a large number of headers, may not even be able to do so, and may not be able to tell what they want from headers in any event, since content often has nothing to do with subject. That's why a newsgroup is supposed to be focused on a single topic, instead of having different topics smushed together.

On Thu, 7 Feb 2008 06:56:01 -0800 (PST), Don Stauffer in Minnesota
wrote in
:

On Feb 4, 4:33 pm, Tom Hise wrote:
On Mon, 04 Feb 2008 19:03:09 GMT, measekite wrote:
!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN"
html
head
/head
body bgcolor="#ffffff" text="#000000"
font face="sans-serif"The newsgroup z.p.d.zlr was somewhat popular a
year ago but today it appears to be abandoned. Does anybody know what
happened to it?br
/font
/body
/html

It was a stupid idea when they created the group. There was never any need
for any of the rec.photo.digital.* groups. The group, r.p.d.zlr is almost
as stupid as posting in HTML.

Okay, I'll give in and ask. What IS a ZLR?

I believe the term was coined by Olympus to refer to a camera similar to
an SLR in that both viewing and photographing take place through a
single lens, but with a fixed zoom lens rather than interchangeable
lenses, like the IS-series and the E-10.
http://www.steves-digicams.com/e10_pg5.html

Since then the meaning has evolved.

From the book "Camera Maintenance & Repair" by Thomas Tomosy [Published
1999; Amherst Media, Inc; ISBN 0936262869]:

Usually refers to the latest all-in-one, auto-everything designs
with a built-in zoom lens.

--
Best regards,
John Navas
Panasonic DMC-FZ8 (and several others)

John Navas wrote:

On Thu, 07 Feb 2008 17:46:54 +1100, dj_nme wrote in :



David J Taylor wrote:







You will appreciate that the language changes and evolves. How often do you use a rotary control to dial someone? How many "Hoovers" have you used which are actual made by Hoover? What footwear do you have in your PC or camera when it boots?



That's not the point, calling an EVF camera a ZLR camera is like calling a painting a televsion or a compressed-air hose a vacuum-cleaner. They may do things with a similar medium (in this case either images or air), but are not the same thing. It just makes you look pretty darn silly.







The fact still remains that ZLR cameras aren't digital and don't have an EVF, they are film SLR cameras with a non-interchangable zoom lens and an optical reflex viewfinder (hence the ZLR: Zoom Lens Reflex). Without the optical reflex viewfinder, it is not a ZLR camera.



A single lens reflex camera (SLR) is primarily one in which both viewing and photographing take place through a single lens, as compared to twin lens reflex or rangefinder designs where viewing and photographing were not through the same single lens. Although single lens cameras don't necessarily have interchangeable lenses, the vast majority of them do, and thus the term SLR has become synonymous with interchangeable lenses. As David wrote, "language changes and evolves". Zoom lens reflex (ZLR) was later coined to refer to a single lens reflex camera with a fixed zoom lens, which became practical as lens technology advanced, as compared to a fixed single focal length lens or (more commonly) interchangeable lenses.

There really is not such thing as a ZLR.  The only real difference between a standard point and shoot and what was called a ZLR are the reach of the zoom and an Electronic Viewfinder (EVF) in place of an optical viewfinder or no viewfinder at all.  The zoom reach is not a drastic with some smaller zooms hitting 6x or more so the EVF is the only difference.

The group should have been called EVF


The term "reflex" was originally coined to refer to bending of an optical path back in a time before the development of electronic viewing, which is the electronic equivalent of reflex optical viewing, with a "reflex" electronic path if you like. As David wrote, "language changes and evolves". The question at hand is what to call a camera where the reflex optical path has been entirely replaced by an electronic viewing system. Like other cases where language has evolved, that's a matter of debate, not precision. One option would be to coin a new term, such as single lens electronic (SLE), but that hasn't happened. We have vague terms like point and shoot and compact digital, but those aren't terribly specific or meaningful. It thus comes down to common usage, the essence of language, and personal interpretation. My own take is that zoom lens reflex (ZLR) is a good way to describe cameras with a single fixed zoom lens for both viewing and photographing, whether the viewfinder is optical or electronic. It's descriptive and meaningful, preserves the basic distinction of the first paragraph above, and distinguishes them from common single lens cameras with interchangeable lenses. But it looks unlikely to catch on, so we're left with imprecision and a certain amount of confusion, for the time being at least.

In article , measekite
wrote:

HTML posting snipped

Are you capable of reading English?

A number of people have told you to STOP POSTING IN HTML!

On Thu, 07 Feb 2008 16:54:30 GMT, John Navas
wrote in
:

On Thu, 7 Feb 2008 06:56:01 -0800 (PST), Don Stauffer in Minnesota
wrote in
:

On Feb 4, 4:33 pm, Tom Hise wrote:
On Mon, 04 Feb 2008 19:03:09 GMT, measekite wrote:
!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN"
html
head
/head
body bgcolor="#ffffff" text="#000000"
font face="sans-serif"The newsgroup z.p.d.zlr was somewhat popular a
year ago but today it appears to be abandoned. Does anybody know what
happened to it?br
/font
/body
/html

It was a stupid idea when they created the group. There was never any need
for any of the rec.photo.digital.* groups. The group, r.p.d.zlr is almost
as stupid as posting in HTML.

Okay, I'll give in and ask. What IS a ZLR?

I believe the term was coined by Olympus to refer to a camera similar to
an SLR in that both viewing and photographing take place through a
single lens, but with a fixed zoom lens rather than interchangeable
lenses, like the IS-series and the E-10.
http://www.steves-digicams.com/e10_pg5.html

Since then the meaning has evolved.

From the book "Camera Maintenance & Repair" by Thomas Tomosy [Published
1999; Amherst Media, Inc; ISBN 0936262869]:

Usually refers to the latest all-in-one, auto-everything designs
with a built-in zoom lens.

More detail:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zoom-lens_reflex_camera

--
Best regards,
John Navas
Panasonic DMC-FZ8 (and several others)

On Thu, 07 Feb 2008 10:34:23 -0600, Allen wrote in
:

Alfred Molon wrote:
In article , David J Taylor
says...

Of course, but coming in at the end of the working day and finding 1000
new headers to scan through makes it rather a daunting task. That number
or more was what we were seeing at the time...

1000 messages/day? Even in the best days there were never more than 400
messages/day in r.p.d. Now we're down to perhaps 200 messages/day. It
takes perhaps 10 seconds to go through the message list and filter out
the uninteresting ones.
And blocking messages from 126.com, 163.com, gmail and googlemail will
eliminate many junk messages.

Along with many legitimate messages. Why not just block everything?

--
Best regards,
John Navas
Panasonic DMC-FZ8 (and several others)

Back into the twit filter you go.


On Thu, 07 Feb 2008 16:58:02 GMT, measekite wrote
in :

!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN"
html
head
meta content="text/html;charset=ISO-8859-1" http-equiv="Content-Type"
/head
body bgcolor="#ffffff" text="#000000"
br
br
John Navas wrote:
blockquote cite="mid type="cite"
pre wrap=""On Thu, 07 Feb 2008 17:46:54 +1100, dj_nme a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" "<dj_nme@iinet .net.au>/a wrote
in a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" >/a:

/pre
blockquote type="cite"
pre wrap=""David J Taylor wrote:
/pre
/blockquote
pre wrap=""!----
/pre
blockquote type="cite"
blockquote type="cite"
pre wrap=""You will appreciate that the language changes and evolves. How often do
you use a rotary control to dial someone? How many "Hoovers" have you
used which are actual made by Hoover? What footwear do you have in your
PC or camera when it boots?
/pre
/blockquote
pre wrap=""That's not the point, calling an EVF camera a ZLR camera is like calling
a painting a televsion or a compressed-air hose a vacuum-cleaner.
They may do things with a similar medium (in this case either images or
air), but are not the same thing.
It just makes you look pretty darn silly.
/pre
/blockquote
pre wrap=""!----
/pre
blockquote type="cite"
pre wrap=""The fact still remains that ZLR cameras aren't digital and don't have an
EVF, they are film SLR cameras with a non-interchangable zoom lens and
an optical reflex viewfinder (hence the ZLR: Zoom Lens Reflex).
Without the optical reflex viewfinder, it is not a ZLR camera.
/pre
/blockquote
pre wrap=""!----
A single lens reflex camera (SLR) is primarily one in which both viewing
and photographing take place through a single lens, as compared to twin
lens reflex or rangefinder designs where viewing and photographing were
not through the same single lens.

Although single lens cameras don't necessarily have interchangeable
lenses, the vast majority of them do, and thus the term SLR has become
synonymous with interchangeable lenses. As David wrote, "language
changes and evolves".

Zoom lens reflex (ZLR) was later coined to refer to a single lens reflex
camera with a fixed zoom lens, which became practical as lens technology
advanced, as compared to a fixed single focal length lens or (more
commonly) interchangeable lenses.
/pre
/blockquote
There really is not such thing as a ZLR.  The only real difference
between a standard point and shoot and what was called a ZLR are the
reach of the zoom and an Electronic Viewfinder (EVF) in place of an
optical viewfinder or no viewfinder at all.  The zoom reach is not a
drastic with some smaller zooms hitting 6x or more so the EVF is the
only difference.br
br
The group should have been called EVFbr
blockquote cite="mid type="cite"
pre wrap=""
The term "reflex" was originally coined to refer to bending of an
optical path back in a time before the development of electronic
viewing, which is the electronic equivalent of reflex optical viewing,
with a "reflex" electronic path if you like. As David wrote, "language
changes and evolves".

The question at hand is what to call a camera where the reflex optical
path has been entirely replaced by an electronic viewing system. Like
other cases where language has evolved, that's a matter of debate, not
precision.

One option would be to coin a new term, such as single lens electronic
(SLE), but that hasn't happened. We have vague terms like point and
shoot and compact digital, but those aren't terribly specific or
meaningful. It thus comes down to common usage, the essence of
language, and personal interpretation.

My own take is that zoom lens reflex (ZLR) is a good way to describe
cameras with a single fixed zoom lens for both viewing and
photographing, whether the viewfinder is optical or electronic. It's
descriptive and meaningful, preserves the basic distinction of the first
paragraph above, and distinguishes them from common single lens cameras
with interchangeable lenses. But it looks unlikely to catch on, so
we're left with imprecision and a certain amount of confusion, for the
time being at least.

/pre
/blockquote
/body
/html

--
Best regards,
John Navas
Panasonic DMC-FZ8 (and several others)

On Thu, 07 Feb 2008 13:17:07 GMT, "David J Taylor"
wrote:

These arguments were gone through when the creation of the new groups was
under discussion, and maybe people would have a different view today.

I can't agree with that at all. The term ZLR may have a definition,
but it was not at the time a universally accepted term, nor has it
ever been. That point _was_ raised during the discussion, by myself
among others and never addressed by the proponents of the group.

That is a major reason for the complete failure of the group. If you
check out the archives, throughout the existence of the group the
dominant theme of discussion has been some variation of "what the heck
is a ZLR?"

The group was badly named, ill-defined and never should have passed
its vote.
--
- Helge Nareid
Nordmann i utlendighet, Aberdeen, Scotland
For e-mail, please refer to my website.
Website: http://www.nareid-web.me.uk/

On Thu, 07 Feb 2008 20:04:11 +0000, Helge Nareid
wrote:

On Thu, 07 Feb 2008 13:17:07 GMT, "David J Taylor"
wrote:

These arguments were gone through when the creation of the new groups was
under discussion, and maybe people would have a different view today.

I can't agree with that at all.

Nor I.

The group was badly named, ill-defined and never should have passed
its vote.

Agreed.

--
John Bean

John Navas wrote:
On Thu, 07 Feb 2008 10:34:23 -0600, Allen wrote in
And blocking messages from 126.com, 163.com, gmail and googlemail will
eliminate many junk messages.

Along with many legitimate messages. Why not just block everything?

I still have to see a single legitimate article from 126.com or 163.com.

As for Google and gmail: well, yeah, there are some poor souls out there who
got entangled in Google's net. But because Google is currently en vogue
spammers are swarming there and are faking their addresses as coming from
google. Because Google doesn't provide a usable interface to Usenet anyway,
there isn't that much loss in blocking Google. After all, people posting
from there typically don't even know Usenet and often violate any imaginable
nettiquette anyway. On the other hand it does get rid of a lot of spam.

jue