NY Times on New Digitial SLRs

[KoNickon]

I also thought this article worthwhile, despite its brevity. As shadowfox put it, it's concise and to the point, and zeroes in on the pluses and minuses of each. There may be no new information in the article for many of us on the list, but again, we aren't the target audience. Does anyone disagree with his assessments?

As one who's pretty clueless digitally but is contemplating the step to a "digital S.L.R.," I am still not sure which way to go. More and more I'm leaning toward Pentax or Sony, but I hope they're in for the long haul.

 

[Kin Lau]

A pretty worthless article as one would expect. I wonder why they choose the K10D instead of the K100D.

All 5 models they reviewed were 10mp models. The K100D is only 6mp.

All in all, it's an good article if someone wants a quick breakdown of the "mid-level" consumer models available.

The "S.L.R." references do look rather weird tho.

 

[RayPA]

...
As one who's pretty clueless digitally but is contemplating the step to a "digital S.L.R.," I am still not sure which way to go. More and more I'm leaning toward Pentax or Sony, but I hope they're in for the long haul.

Go to a Wolf Camera store in a mall and let them guide you. They'll set you up. Of course you could research online at any number of places like dpreview and other sites (and knowledgeable forums) and actually learn something by reading material that isn't geared to an 8th grade level. J/K of course. But Imagine learning something from mass market material that isn't dumbed-down. What a concept! Thank you Al Gore! And newspapers are wondering why they can't make it anymore in a world where information is widely availabe and accessible. :angel:


.

 

[shadowfox]

As one who's pretty clueless digitally but is contemplating the step to a "digital S.L.R.," I am still not sure which way to go. More and more I'm leaning toward Pentax or Sony, but I hope they're in for the long haul.

Psssst... O L Y M P U S ...

 

[Nick R.]

Oh, give it a break already.

Go to a Wolf Camera store in a mall and let them guide you. They'll set you up. Of course you could research online at any number of places like dpreview and other sites (and knowledgeable forums) and actually learn something by reading material that isn't geared to an 8th grade level. J/K of course. But Imagine learning something from mass market material that isn't dumbed-down. What a concept! Thank you Al Gore! And newspapers are wondering why they can't make it anymore in a world where information is widely availabe and accessible. :angel:


.

 

[MelanieC]

The NYT has always had a distinctive style and it's often clunky, but they are consistent about it. For example, they have a convention of always referring to people as "[Title] [Last Name]" that often comes across as awkward to me, but that's the way they do things.

Sometimes they screw up, as when Dr. Elaine Ostrander was repeatedly referred to as "Ms. Ostrander" in a recent article, despite the fact that she is a PhD and the head of the Comparative Genetics Section at the National Human Genome Research Institute, which is part of the NIH. I have to wonder if they would have made the same mistake if Dr. Ostrander had been male?

 

[RayPA]

Oh, give it a break already.

OK. Sorry couldn't resist one last swipe.


.

 

[KoNickon]

Or, how The Times refers to people who maybe haven't got any name recognition as if they did, like "the writer Bob Smith" or "the architect Jane Jones." ("She was accompanied by her boyfriend, the waiter Edward Edwards.")

Look, we all read dpreview and the other sites dedicated to testing the new and cool, but too much info often doesn't help. Let's face it, the differences of opinion that enthusiasts have are about things that are really of little consequence in the grand scheme of things. We may think they matter, but we're the only ones who feel that way. All the cameras reviewed in the article do an extremely creditable job, as far as I can tell.

When The Times and other publications read by the general public publish photography articles, they only do a disservice when they're providing misinformation, and I don't think this article does that.

 

[bob cole]

NY Times on New Digitial SLRs

The NYT has always had a distinctive style and it's often clunky, but they are consistent about it. For example, they have a convention of always referring to people as "[Title] [Last Name]" that often comes across as awkward to me, but that's the way they do things.

Sometimes they screw up, as when Dr. Elaine Ostrander was repeatedly referred to as "Ms. Ostrander" in a recent article, despite the fact that she is a PhD and the head of the Comparative Genetics Section at the National Human Genome Research Institute, which is part of the NIH. I have to wonder if they would have made the same mistake if Dr. Ostrander had been male?

-------------

This is far afield from the orignal discussion but most or all major news organizations from The New York Times to, I assume, The AP, NBC, CBS, Fox, CNN and all the rest, have style books or style rules so that all or most of the writers say things in the same way -- for uniformity...

Some writers might refer to Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton, Democrat of New York, as Hillary; others might say Senator Clinton while others might say just Clinton...If you adhere to a style book, everybody says it the same way...


For example, The Times most likely identifies M.D.'s as Dr. Jones but, I believe, does not give a PhD an honorific.

The Times used to have special rules on whether to use a Mr. or Ms in referring to convicted criminals...

Every news organization has its own rules that change from time to time because of new developments or new bosses with new ideas...

Divided countries, like North Korea and South Korea, might be referred to as "it" while other countries like Australia or Cuba might be called "she." I don't know the current rules...

The Times had a major story today, Thursday, reporting that the news was "revealed,''
a word that used to be -- or maybe still is -- verbotten because, according to The Times arbiters, nothing is revealed, except by celestial beings...Say disclosed, reported, said, announced, or some such word...

This is difficult for laymen to grasp but there it is!

 

[visiondr]

The NYT has always had a distinctive style and it's often clunky, but they are consistent about it. For example, they have a convention of always referring to people as "[Title] [Last Name]" that often comes across as awkward to me, but that's the way they do things.

Sometimes they screw up, as when Dr. Elaine Ostrander was repeatedly referred to as "Ms. Ostrander" in a recent article, despite the fact that she is a PhD and the head of the Comparative Genetics Section at the National Human Genome Research Institute, which is part of the NIH. I have to wonder if they would have made the same mistake if Dr. Ostrander had been male?

Typically, the title "Doctor or Dr." is reserved in journalistic circles for medical doctors. PhD holders are not granted the title in any newspaper I've ever seen. No offense to anyone with a PhD (my brother is one), but to the general public, they're not "doctors". So, the NYTimes style is consistent here.

Associated Press style is as follows: Use Dr. in first reference as a formal title before the name of an individual who holds a doctor of dental surgery, doctor of medicine, doctor of osteopathy, or doctor of podiatric medicine degree: Dr. Jonas Salk.

It also goes on to say: If appropriate in the context, Dr. also may be used on first reference before the names of individuals who hold other types of doctoral degrees. However, because the public frequently identifies Dr. only with physicians, care should be taken to assure that the individual’s specialty is stated in first or second reference. The only exception would be a story in which the context left no doubt that the person was a dentist, psychologist, chemist, historian, etc.

 

[Nick R.]

Sorry myself. I always feel cranky if I come here after spending time on Yahoo Answers.

OK. Sorry couldn't resist one last swipe.


.

 

[Trius]

I'll chime in here as another former journalist (for the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation) in support of what Bob Cole said. There is no big conspiracy here to dumb down newspaper writing. The public is pretty dumbed down already. Newspapers are and have always been written with the 8th to 10th grade graduate (or equivalent intelligence and knowledge) in mind. There's nothing new to see here folks. Now, go about your business.

Now I'm really questioning whether you're even a Canadian, Ron ... you've said "8th to 10th grade", not "Grade 8 to Grade 10", the proper wording, of course.

Anyway, my perspective, whether right/wrong or accepted, is that any news/information publication should attempt to actually raise the knowledge level, including vocabulary and recognition of jargon, not work around it. The latter is insulting to the readers/viewers/listeners. For the most part the CBC (still) does this, though of course they are not perfect.

 

[Al Patterson]

Now I'm really questioning whether you're even a Canadian, Ron ... you've said "8th to 10th grade", not "Grade 8 to Grade 10", the proper wording, of course.

/snip/
QUOTE]

You guys up north are lucky. I'd swear my local rag is written at a 5th or 6th grade level.

 

[alcaraban]

Another innovation is Eye Start AF

Wow. How could you trust a guy which writes things like that? Eye Start AF is present in Minolta cameras since some ten years ago at least.

And, BTW, did you realize that the camera carried by the pink is actually a rangefinder?