Things looking less good for DSLRs?

[William W]

I think that there is a place for the two perspectives to exist. The issue is when one thread theme morphs into another. Perhaps when that happens our moderators can perhaps mandate starting a new thread on the subject and move the first divergent post to that thread, leaving the original one to carry on in its context, but allowing the technical discussion to get oxygen in its own space?

and

. . . My point is this. The title of the thread was quite clear. When it morphed away from that to a detailed technical discussion of the merits of specific equipment, then I think a line had been crossed that meant that the new direction deserved its own space. That would allow those wishing to follow either or both to have a clear point of discussion. I agree with Donald that such a deviation as we have seen here took it well outside the parameters of where, say, a relatively new person might look for advice on the direction that the camera market is taking relative to DSLR vs MILC gear.

And of itself, this is yet another discussion arguably more off topic. (Absolutely no malice aforethought - I am simply taking Trev's point of view, which is off the topic to make my point of view, on this particular point which is also off the topic):

I've been a Member here for a long time, for a longer period a Member elsewhere and have been a Moderator at that Forum, for many years. (Stated for relevance)

At the other Forum, there's an history of adherence to a strict 'no off topic rule', here at CiC (in my memory) there never has been. Whilst there are arguments for both points of view, my observation is that enforcement of the adherence to a strict 'topic/title' conversation does little to forward quality discussion and, importantly, learning and creative thinking.

I don't worry too much about newbies reading this quality conversation and interpreting it is (our) the view that a $10000.00 Camera and $30000 in lenses is the answer for them to become proficient . . . there are plenty of half baked 'experts' on the www to tell them that, as a statement of fact, anyway.

Any newbie reading this thread - IF THEY TAKE THE TIME and MAKE THE EFFORT to READ the WORDS will understand that there are now three topics being discussed.

What I care about is that conversation and discussion is meaningful, thoughtful, respectful, and moves forward: and if it happens with twists and turn, I see no issue.

I read great conversation here - which, in a time of many web forums dying, is unique.

WW

[DanK]

Bill,

Thanks for the post. I think it's worth mulling this over.

The original topic (mine) was whether things are beginning to look bleak for the future of DSLRs, at least Canon DSLRs. The thread thread jumped the tracks at least twice. The first time was post #13, which is where the issue of MPX first came up. This wasn't entirely off topic because for Canon shooters, the switch to mirrorless does entail some issues of pixel density (which both Trev and I had considered in making our purchases), but it nonetheless generated an unrelated discussion. The discussion went back and forth between these topics for quite a while. The second time was around posts 71 & 72, which introduced the view that there isn't reason to consider mathematical data about camera quality. By then, the thread had nothing whatever to do with the original topic.

The question you raise is whether this is on the whole better or less good than the narrower constraints governing the forum you moderate on another site, which I also follow. It would be feasible to start new threads, referencing the old one. One could even add a post to the original thread pointing readers to the new thread. I don't know whether that would be better, but I'd be happy to try that.

[William W]

Dan,

Thank you for responding.

That is the question I raised, however I would not want my commentary (Post #81) to be interpreted that I meant exclusively it must be a 'this or that' solution.

I think that in mostly all circumstances, strict adherence to 'topic/title' is counter-productive to quality intercourse.

Starting a new thread, referencing the old one, and with a pointer, is certainly an option. I have employed exactly that option on the other site, because the other options there are: to ignore the Rules; to delete the offending posts; or gag the flow of conversation.

What that option lacks in a forum (like this) which allows more free flowing intercourse, is the nuance of context and continuity of the individual parts of the conversation: such as we engage here, and now, with a time stamp, our name and location, on each of our contributions.

And if this thread stays intact, that nuance of flow, continuity and context, will be archival.

regards,

Bill

[William W]

Apropos the time stamp ... I am off to bed now.

[proseak]

"Sony removes remaining DSLRs from its website...."

https://www.dpreview.com/news/672842...traffic_source