XPost: rec.photo.digital 
 From: xxpaulhtck@zzcomcast.yycom 
  
  wrote in message 
 news:10jr08vrkf8t6f2@news.supernews.com... 
 > In news.groups Alan Browne  wrote: 
 > > andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid wrote: 
 > 
 > >> I'm not arguing against the inclusion of digital rangefinders, BTW. 
 > >> I understand why you want to include them, even if it is a bit odd 
 > >> given the name of the group.  But omitting a class of digital SLR 
 > >> cameras in a group called "dslr" is, to say the least, illogical. 
 > >> At worst, it is snobbish. 
 > 
 > > Andrew, you do not seem to understand why an SLR-like camera is 
 > > not an SLR.  I can't help you beyond the commonly used definition 
 > > and that which is in the proposal. 
 > 
 > Accusing your opponent of "failing to understand" is rather pathetic. 
 > I understand quite well, as do you.  However, we do not agree. 
 > 
 > Andrew. 
  
  
  Andrew, you are exactly right: other than the question of lens 
 interchangeability, there is absolutely no functional difference between the 
 Canon Digital Rebel, say, and the Olympus E-20.  Well, there is _one_ 
 difference, I suppose:  with the E-20, the photographer doesn't have to 
 worry about sensor contamination due to dust, etc. 
  
 It's not that you are "failing to understand" something--the problem is that 
 some people don't appeciate the meaning of the phrase "a distinction without 
 a difference." 
  
 --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05 
  * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)