XPost: rec.photo.digital
From: alan.browne@FreeLunchVideotron.ca
Lionel wrote:
> Kibo informs me that Alan Browne
> stated that:
>
>
>>We hope that our reasoning to date has been acceptable: It is
>>*not* about exclusion of anything, it is about an area in usenet
>>space dedicated to cameras which have the major characteristic of
>>removeable lenses. We can all communicate that idea.
>
>
> I still have a major problem with that description, which is that (a) it
> doesn't accurately match the best name available, & (b) it encourages a
What other "best name" is available?
> perception that the group is not 'really' about DSLRs, but rather about
> 'elite' cameras/photographers. Whether or not that perception is
I don't concur ... it is about digital cameras that have
interchangeable lenses.
> accurate, I predict it'll cause a lot of 'no' votes from photographers
> who feel insulted by the proposal.
I hope folks see the benefit of the structure without feeling
they are being left out. For that matter, there is a another NG
being considered... (mystery!)
>
> I *strongly* suggest dumping all the stuff in the proposal about
> non-DSLR cameras, & sticking strictly to DSLRs, because I think that
> doing so will dramatically improve the odds of the vote going in favour
> of the new group.
I don't concur. Changing the charter so it will pass at the
expense of a charter that doesn't reflect the intent is not in
the best interest of the future of the NG.
> I thin that the issue of fancy non-DSLRs will sort itself out over time,
> as the number of people using such cameras becomes large enough for them
> to develop their own 'voice' in RPD. (In much the same that the 'voice'
> of DSLR users has become clear enough to require the current proposal.)
That appears to be happening as we 'speak' (mystery!).
Cheers,
Alan
--
-- rec.photo.equipment.35mm user resource:
-- http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm
-- e-meil: there's no such thing as a FreeLunch.--
--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)
|