From: glhansen@steel.ucs.indiana.edu 
  
 In article , 
 Bruce Murphy   wrote: 
 >Jeremy Nixon  writes: 
  
 > 
 >*sigh* 
 > 
 >For the third time. What _specific_ topics, apart from the two obvious 
 >ones (lens choice and sensor cleaning) are relevant to an 
 >SLR-with-interchangeable-lens and not relevant to a 
 >SLR-without-interchangeable-lens ? 
  
 Eh... not that my opinion here counts for much.  I know what SLR stands 
 for and everything.  But I think the big thing about an SLR, which is 
 shared with other types of cameras like Leica rangefinders, is a 
 philosophy of modularity.  Many camera buyers aren't as concerned with 
 being able to see the image through the lens as they are with being able 
 to take the lens off and put on a telephoto, or whatever they please. 
 People buy a point-n-shoot and rarely even put it on a tripod.  But they 
 buy an SLR and then start collecting lenses.  They use the cheap zoom that 
 came with it until they need more telephoto, wider angle, bigger aperture, 
 etc.  They collect filters for each thread diameter.  They use whatever 
 cheap flash attachment they can afford until they go for the monster with 
 a GN of 180 ft and auto zoom, or use multiple off-camera flashes, and so 
 on.  And sure, you can do some of that with some point-n-shoots, but I 
 don't know anybody that ever has. 
  
 A group might be called rec.photo.digital.modular, except nobody would 
 really be sure what that means.  But if it's rec.photo.digital.slr, 
 everyone would pretty much know what to expect.  They'd expect cameras 
 with interchangeable lenses and flash attachments and other accessories. 
 And people that say it's the photographer and not the camera that matters, 
 while toting around $10,000 rigs. 
  
  
 -- 
 "For every problem there is a solution which is simple, clean and wrong." 
  -- Henry Louis Mencken 
  
 --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05 
  * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)