XPost: rec.photo.digital 
 From: nop@alt.net 
  
 Kibo informs me that Alan Browne  
 stated that: 
  
 >Lionel wrote: 
 >> Yes, I'm with you guys on this. The whole 'interchangeable lens' 
 >> distinction is wishful thinking on Alan's part. Not wanting to make a 
 >> fool out of myself in this debate, I went & checked my photography 
 >> textbooks to make sure that I was remembering correctly, & I was: An SLR 
 >> does not require an interchangeable lens mount to be a true SLR. 
 > 
 >"Any SLR system includes a broad range of lenses, flash units 
       ^^^^^^^^^^ 
 >[...]" p. 42 of the Nat Geo Photography Field Guide. 
  
 *snort* Please don't insult my intelligence, Alan. We both know that an 
 SLR *system* is not the same thing as an SLR *camera*. If that quote 
 were talking about SLR *cameras* it would hardly include 'flash units', 
 would it? If anything, your quote backs up /my/ position, because it 
 says nothing about reflex mirrors or other vital components, but merely 
 mentions interchangeable lenses in the same category as accessories like 
 flashguns. 
  
 >I don't believe we're here to battle on what various books say 
  
 Just as well, because I think you'd lose. I had no trouble finding 
 references to back up my position, but you obviously couldn't find any 
 to back up your claim that interchangeable lense mounts are inherent to 
 every true SLR. 
  
 >... but you should acknowledge the fact that when *most* people 
 >discuss SLR's, *most* people think in terms of cameras with a 
 >range of lenses, among other things. 
  
 /Most/ people think of SLRs as being big, scary-looking black cameras 
 with a big lens in front & probably a big flashgun on top, & have never 
 seen someone changing a lens on a camera - much less actually done it 
 themselves. 
  
  You need to consider the fact that rec.photo.* is not just for 
 professional photographers who're familiar with the technical & 
 historical minutia of the field, but also for beginners & casual users 
 who're trying to figure out which newsgroup they should subscribe to. 
  
  If what you /actually want/ is a group for 'serious' or 'professional' 
 photographers, why on earth don't you just write up a proposal for one, 
 instead of doing all this screwing around with a general-purpose DSLR 
 group? For example; you could propose a group called 
 'rec.photo.digital.slr.pro', in which the kind of distinctions you're 
 cureently proposing would make a lot more sense. Do that, & I would 
 support your proposal 100%. Hell, I'd even be in favour of something 
 like 'rec.photo.pro' as a combined film/digital group for pro shooters 
 in general. 
  
 -- 
    W 
  . | ,. w ,   "Some people are alive only because 
   \\|/  \\|/     it is illegal to kill them."    Perna condita delenda est 
 ---^----^--------------------------------------------------------------- 
  
 --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05 
  * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)