HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: savoia@sw.stratus.com (Rick Savoia)
Newsgroups: rec.photo
Subject: Re: N90 + Tamron 90/2.5 = kaput!
Date: 18 Dec 1992 14:53:19 GMT
Organization: Stratus Computer, Inc.
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: watts.sqa.stratus.com

In article <PHR.92Dec17222318@napa.telebit.com>, phr@telebit.com (Paul Rubin) writes:
>     [Story about Tamron lens not working on N90]
> 
>     Of course, the Nikon rep. was very happy about this!.  Has anybody had
>     similar problems with a non-Nikon lens in the N90?
> 
> Why was the Nikon guy happy?
> Sounds to me like a good reason not to buy an N90.
> 
> FM2 Forever!


The Nikon guy was probably happy because his reaction would
be:

"Look! The third party lens for $200 doesn't work with it
but the Nikon lens for $400 does.  Guess you'll have to
buy that one!"

-- 
==========================================================
Rick Savoia                     | "I'm just very selective
savoia@watts.sqa.stratus.com    | about the reality 
Rick_Savoia@vos.stratus.com     | I accept" - Calvin
==========================================================
From: rwt@ohm.york.ac.uk (Richard Taylor)
Newsgroups: rec.photo
Subject: Re: Dumb Photographers
Date: 17 Dec 92 10:59:24 GMT
Organization: Electronics Department, University of York, UK

In <1992Dec15.174338.45174@ns1.cc.lehigh.edu> sh09@ns1.cc.lehigh.edu (STEVEN HIGGINS) writes:

>In article <1992Dec14.234157.24307@leland.Stanford.EDU>, prodger@leland.Stanford
>.EDU (phillip prodger) writes:
>>Can't resist telling my two favorite Yellowstone bear stories...  Actually
>>true, no kiddin'.
>>
gory details removed ;<(

The urban legends live on....


-- 
    ,_~o    Dr. Richard Taylor         email : rwt@uk.ac.york.ohm
  _-\_<,    CSEG, University of York   tel   : (44) 904 432351
(*)/'(*)    Y015DD, England            fax   : (44) 904 432335
Newsgroups: rec.photo
From: pd@sics.se (Per Danielsson)
Subject: Re: EOS lens list
Organization: Swedish Institute of Computer Science, Kista
Date: Mon, 14 Dec 1992 00:14:38 GMT

In article <92346.134219DCROWE@GTRI01.GATECH.EDU> <DCROWE@GTRI01.GATECH.EDU> writes:

>The list is very good, and since it includes the 28-105mm zoom is a recent one.
>It does omit the new 35-350mm lens, however, which has been described in detail
>in this group.

The 35-350 isn't for sale yet, so it doesn't appear in Canons catalogs
and brochures. Canon might still have some tweaking to do on it before
they release it for sale.
--
Per Danielsson				pd@sics.se
Swedish Institute of Computer Science, PO Box 1263, S-164 28 KISTA, SWEDEN
From: atomas@geloser.login.qc.ca (J-F Bissonnette)
Newsgroups: rec.photo
Subject: Re: Dumb Photographers
Date: 20 Dec 92 03:19:35 GMT
Organization: Gentleman Loser System, Montreal/Qc/Cdn

mcovingt@aisun3.ai.uga.edu (Michael Covington) writes:

> What I told the professional at my wedding:
> 
> "Never forget that we are _having_ a wedding, not making a film of one!"
> 
Ok,Ok... I guess some of you are thinking that I'm the kind of
photographer that over do it from time to time and it's probably
because I just express myself the wrong way...

I still dislike the dump guys that turn all around you taking
almost the same shots that you do, even though there is some
that go a little on there on, trying not to be in the pro's way.
But it happends very often that you got some bozos paying no 
attention to the photographer and the job he is doing, and that
is the ones I realy hate, and that does'nt mean that I'm rude 
or that I dont respect the people around me... I got to keep 
me buisness going and being rude realy does'nt help.  You see
when you got between over 20 weddings in a summer and that you
got problems on half of those because of the amateurs, you get
to seriously dislike those person disturbing you on your job
that you want usualy as good as possible.  I know that there's
some tricks to avoid problems, but there's always someone to
break the rules, and p... you off.  

No I'm not rude, but I kind of impose some authority to , let
say, master the situation.  And BTW, I never had any argue with
any guests for doing this...

Just wanted to make this clear...

J.F.
> 
> -- 

--
atomas@geloser.login.qc.ca
Gentleman Loser System -- Montreal, Qc, Canada
From: hamish@netcom.com (Hamish Reid)
Newsgroups: rec.photo
Subject: [Periodic Posting]: Medium Format Digest Info
Date: 17 Dec 92 03:19:13 GMT
Organization: Pandemonia PLC

Periodic Posting - Introduction to the Medium Format Digest
-----------------------------------------------------------

The Medium Format Digest (MF Digest) is an email forum for the
discussion of topics related to Medium Format photography. "Medium
Format" in this context usually refers to photography based on the 120
and 220 film sizes (i.e. 645, 6x6, 6x7, 6x9, etc, formats); topics
discussed include (but are not limited to):

	* Camera gear (Hasselblad, Mamiya, Pentax, etc., TLR, SLR,
	  etc.) - bodies, systems, lenses, lighting, tripods, etc.
	* Films - 120 and 220 film types and reviews, etc.
	* Medium Format darkroom issues - specific MF enlargers, etc.
	* Other M-F-specific issues - hand-held camera experiences, MF
	  vs. large format, portraiture, panoramic MF cameras, MF
	  philosophising (!), etc.

Particularly welcome are specific equipment reviews, experiences with
different techniques, experiences with lugging medium format gear
around in backpacks, using medium format for architectural photography,
older gear, etc.  Longer submissions can be made into a single Digest
issue if appropriate; similarly, there may occasionally be single-topic
issues.

The Digest is mailed out at irregular intervals (i.e. whenever there's
something worth sending out), and is maintained by Hamish Reid,
email: hamish@netcom.com. Submissions and requests should be sent to
that address.
  ---------------------------
The Medium Format Digest - a mailing list for Medium Format Issues
Sumbissions and requests to hamish@netcom.com
From: ralandc@tara.SanDiego.NCR.COM (Raland Camara)
Newsgroups: rec.photo
Subject: Mail Order Custom Labs (film processing survey)
Keywords: film processing labs survey
Date: 16 Dec 92 01:40:38 GMT
Reply-To: ralandc@tara.SanDiego.NCR.COM (Raland Camara)
Organization: NCR Corporation, Rancho Bernardo


     I have found that the biggest variable as to the quality of prints that
I receive has to do with the quality of the processing.  I have received very
inconsistent results with many of the labs in my local area.  This has sparked
me to investigate processing my film through some of the Mail Order Custom
Labs. What Mail Order Custom Labs do you presently use?  What have been your 
results?  How would rate them in the following categories using the the 
rating system below:

Rating System

9   Excellent (far exceeds reasonable expectations)
8  
7   Above Average (above reasonable expectations)
6   
5   Fair (meets reasonable expectations)
4   
3   Below Average (below reasonable expectations)
2
1   Worthless (I'll never use these folks again!)
-   Cannot rate them in this category

Categories

Overall Satisfaction
Overall Consistency
Processing Quality
Printing Quality
Color Services
Black and White Services
Artwork (Negative/Print Retouching, Airbrushing)
Other Special/Custom Services
Handling of Negatives/Prints
Customer Service
Turnaround Time
Cost
Miscellaneous Comments


     I will compile the responses that I get and post them to rec.photo.
If there is significant interest, I will try to maintain the list.  Also
don't forget to provide the Name, Address, and Phone Number of the lab
which you are rating.  

Raland

========================================================================
|) /||  /||\||\  /~ /| /|/| /||) /|   |    Raland Camara
|\/ ||_/ || ||/  \_/ |/ | |/ ||\/ |   |    ralandc@tara.sandiego.NCR.COM 
Go Big or Stay Home.  --  Reebok Ad   |    San Diego, CA (619) 485-2189
From: shtono34@wharton.upenn.edu
Newsgroups: rec.photo
Subject: EF zoom lenses?
Date: 14 Dec 92 23:23:15 GMT
Organization: University of Pennsylvania

Could someone compare the following EF zoom lenses, or direct me to
past issues of magazines where they are reviewed?

EF 75-300mm f/4-5.6
EF 80-200mm f/4.5-5.6
EF 70-210mm f/4
EF 100-300mm f/5.6

I know the latter two are discontinued, but they are still sold. Also, is
there a huge difference between 200 and 300 mm? Is there sth like a 
magnification factor attached to each of the above lenses, and how am I
suppose to interpret it? (all lenses have min focusing distance = 1.5m,
apart from EF 70-210 f/4 which is 1.2m).

Thanks for your replies,
-Vassil
From: jimc@tau-ceti.isc-br.com (Jim Cathey)
Newsgroups: rec.photo
Subject: Re: Popular Photography & Chasseur d' Images  (sp?)
Date: 18 Dec 92 02:53:12 GMT
Organization: ISC - Bunker Ramo, Spokane, WA

In article <1992Dec17.213804.8515@cunews.carleton.ca> ioannis@isis.sce.carleton.ca (Ioannis Lambadaris) writes:
>In another occasion Popular tested two Canon autofocus 50mm f1.8 lenses
>and the old version was found very good (the one with the focusing distances
>included) while the new version (with no focusing distances) was so so.
>Of course the newer lens was rated highly although there was a big
>difference between the charts of the two lenses.

My recollection is that the two lenses tested nearly identically, with
any variation easily explainable due to sample variation.  The optical
designs are supposedly the same, too.  The text stated that they were
close, with a slight nod to the newer one.  Slight.


-- 
+----------------+
! II      CCCCCC !  Jim Cathey
! II  SSSSCC     !  ISC-Bunker Ramo
! II      CC     !  TAF-C8;  Spokane, WA  99220
! IISSSS  CC     !  UUCP: uunet!isc-br!jimc (jimc@isc-br.isc-br.com)
! II      CCCCCC !  (509) 927-5757
+----------------+
			One Design to rule them all; one Design to find them.
			One Design to bring them all and in the darkness bind
			them.  In the land of Mediocrity where the PC's lie.
From: egret@wet.UUCP (thomas helke)
Newsgroups: rec.photo
Subject: Re: FOR SALE: Nikon Equipment
Date: 16 Dec 92 08:41:33 GMT
Organization: Wetware Diversions, San Francisco

***FOR SALE:

Nikon FM2(N) - black body - $350
Nikkor AF 35-70/3.3       - $110
Nikkor AF 70-210/4        - $150
Nikkor AF 50/1.8          - $ 55

All nearly new, still under US warranty w/boxes,
only about 10 rolls of film shot with above
equipment. Will sell all above for $635 total
or separately at above prices. Will consider
other reasonable offers or possible trade for
Zeiss optics/equipment.

Please respond by email to:  

Thomas Helke
egret@wet.UUCP
From: mssmith@afterlife.ncsc.mil (M. Scott Smith)
Newsgroups: rec.photo
Subject: Maxxum 5xi LCD display
Date: 20 Dec 92 23:02:27 GMT
Organization: The Great Beyond

Hello..

   I just purchased a Minolta Maxxum 5xi SLR camera today.  So far I'm
very impressed with it.  (I'm just getting into photography and this is
my first "real" camera.)

   I have noticed one thing that seems odd: whenever the camera has a battery
in it, and film, the LCD display shows the number of exposures left for that
film roll.  (The camera is off.)

   Basically, this number is shown all of the time, regardless of whether the
camera is on or off.

   My question is: is this normal?  Is there a way to turn it off?  Is it
draining the battery?

   I searched the manual several times and found no reference to it at all.

   I know LCD displays take very little power, but it still bugs me that
it would be on all the time, as I can see no benefit for this "feature".

Any comments appreciated.

Thanks!

M. Scott Smith
  (mssmith@afterlife.ncsc.mil)
Newsgroups: rec.photo
From: patrice@cenparmi.concordia.ca (SCATTOLIN patrice)
Subject: Tamron 35-105 f2.8: Chasseur D'Image report
Organization: CENPARMI, Concordia University, Montreal, Canada
Date: Mon, 21 Dec 1992 00:41:04 GMT


Chasseur D'image rates this lens as follows:

Performance 2 stars
Quality price 3 stars

It gives the resutls as very good at 70mm and good to very good 
at 35 and 105. 

My question is does anyone have the results for the Nikon 35-105 f3.8.
Since this is supposed to be the best around I wondered how it compared
against it. 

Thanks to several people on the net that reported that the lens
is rated as good by several magasines.

Thanks
-- 
Patrice Scattolin
					patrice@cs.concordia.ca
Concordia University			Montreal, Canada
"I am so far north that Santa lives two blocks from me"
From: paloma@cs.ucsd.edu (Cynthia Paloma)
Newsgroups: rec.photo
Subject: Re: Olympus IS-3 DLX - Information
Keywords: Olympus IS-3 DLX
Date: 18 Dec 92 02:19:33 GMT
Article-I.D.: sdcc12.42686
Organization: CSE Dept., U.C. San Diego


I am having trouble sending a direct reply to the original sender.

 I just sold my 6 month old Olympus IS-1QD and used the money to help
 Santa buy me an Olympus IS-3DLX.  A friend had admired my camera and
 called to ask what type I had, because she wanted one just like it!
 
 I haven't had a chance to really play with it yet, but I can provide
 you with the spec sheet info if you send email.  It even comes with a
 videotape on how to use the camera!  What will they think of next...
 
 Cindy Paloma
 cpaloma@ucsd.edu

In article <1992Dec17.200926.20846@bnr.ca>, thomas@bnr.ca (Thomas S. Pangborn) writes:
|> Does any one have any performance information on the new Olympus IS-3 DLX?  I currently have an Olympus IS-1 and would like to know how much better is the new IS-3 DLX than the older version.
|> 
|> Thanks,
|> 
|> Thomas S. Pangborn
|> ==================
|> thomas@bnr.ca
|> ------------------
From: elau@berlioz.nsc.com (Eugene Lau)
Newsgroups: rec.photo
Subject: Re: Canon USM 100-300 & 75-300, why the strange pricing?
Date: 14 Dec 92 19:49:33 GMT
Organization: National Semiconductor Corporation, Santa Clara

In article <Bz34sG.1J1@fulcrum.co.uk> rct@fulcrum.co.uk (Richard Taylor) writes:
>In the UK (and maybe elsewhere?) the following Canon USM lenses have these
>specifications and pricing:
>
>75-300	        4.5-5.6		190 pounds
>100-300	4.5-5.6		255 pounds
>
>They have the same filter size, minimum focus, but the expensive one weighs a
>little more (540g versus 495g). Why is the 75-300 not more expensive? I can
>only presume that they have different mechanisms/glass.
>
>(I intend buying the 75-300mm, since the other is out of my price range, so I'd
>appreciate it if anybody would care to stop me wasting money on crap. Note that
>I don't mind an "average" lens, if that's the only way I can afford a 300mm
>lens...)
>
>Richard Taylor                  DoD #981                 (rct@fulcrum.co.uk)

the 100-300 feels more solid (it is more solidly built).  it has a focusing
scale, whereas the 75-300 doesn't.  the 100-300 might have better optics.
the higher price is certainly worth it.  but if you don't mind an "average"
lens, the 75-300 is good enough.  just make sure you see it before you buy it,
since it does feel like a toy.

eugene
Newsgroups: rec.photo
From: acs@csri.toronto.edu (Alvin Chia-Hua Shih)
Subject: Re: Lithiums vs. alkalines (was Re: was going to get 8008s but EOS 10s recommended)
Date: 17 Dec 92 11:23:23 GMT

In <PD.92Dec17105919@horus.sics.se> pd@sics.se (Per Danielsson) writes:

>In article <BzDpoo.Joq@constellation.ecn.uoknor.edu> twtan@essex.ecn.uoknor.edu (Tack Wee Tan) writes:

>>Over a long run, buying rechargable AAs instead of alkaline would
>>make it even more cost effective.

>Yes, that definitely is an advantage with AAs. Why can't somebody make
>a 2CR5-shaped rechargable?

Well, I guess the battery manufacturers figure that nicads don't have
the right characteristics that users have come to expect from lithiums
(fairly straight discharge curve, etc., etc.).  If a lithium 2CR5 only
lasts 5 rolls for some users, a nicad version it might not make it
through one roll!  (Actually, I think someone posted saying this is
what happened when they tried it!)

Supposedly there is a battery technology that may be able to provide
the equivalent of a rechargeable 2CR5--nickel metal-hydride.  Hope it
happens soon!

ACS
-- 
 ___ ___ ___ ______________________________________________________________
|   |   | __|      Democracy is not a way of getting better solutions.     |
| - | --|__ |           It's just a way to spread the blame.               |
|_|_|___|___|______________________________________________________________|
Alvin_C._Shih____________________acs@csri.utoronto.ca______________________|
From: todd@palomar.tivoli.com
Newsgroups: rec.photo
Subject: Re: Soft Focus Filters For Portraits
Date: 15 Dec 92 10:06:44 GMT
Distribution: rec
Organization: Tivoli Systems, Inc.


I have tried a number of filters for portraits.  The Nikon Soft #1 is
*by far* my favorite.  A problem with sharp film, good equipment, good
technique, and large enlargements is that portraits can reveal too
many fine, distracting details about a subject's skin, especially
wrinkles.  For portraits of women (of any age) on slow film, I always
use a Nikon Soft #1 for a significant number of the shots.  Most
people that view the results don't realize that a soft filter has been
used.  They just say things like, "I love the way the light makes my
skin look so good".  

The filter is available in sizes for Nikon's lens: 52mm, 62mm, and
72mm.  There is also a Soft #2, but I find that I don't use it very
much.  Does anyone know if Nikon makes these filters in 77mm?

Todd
-- 
Todd Smith                                     TIVOLI Systems, Inc.
todd@tivoli.com                                6034 West Courtyard Dr.
                                               Suite 210
(512) 794-9070 [794-0623 fax]                  Austin, TX   78730



--

Todd
-- 
Todd Smith                                     TIVOLI Systems, Inc.
todd@tivoli.com                                6034 West Courtyard Dr.
                                               Suite 210
(512) 794-9070 [794-0623 fax]                  Austin, TX   78730
Newsgroups: rec.photo
From: pd@sics.se (Per Danielsson)
Subject: Re: Lithiums vs. alkalines (was Re: was going to get 8008s but EOS 10s recommended)
Organization: Swedish Institute of Computer Science, Kista
Date: Thu, 17 Dec 1992 01:18:57 GMT

In article <1992Dec14.232013.25930@walter.bellcore.com> jchen@wind.bellcore.com (Jason Chen) writes:

>A more creditable test for battery comparison is to examine the yields of
>630 and 8008, although it is still comparing apples with oranges.

Yes, for a good test we really need is a camera capable of using
either lithiums or alkalines. Is there such a beast around somewhere?

Every test of lithium batteries I've seen shows them to have more
capacity than alkalines, so I'm inclined to believe that the poor
reputation of lithiums here in rec.photo is the fault of power hungry
cameras rather than lithiums being inferior.
--
Per Danielsson				pd@sics.se
Swedish Institute of Computer Science, PO Box 1263, S-164 28 KISTA, SWEDEN
From: jacobson@cello.hpl.hp.com (David Jacobson)
Newsgroups: rec.photo
Subject: Re: 105mm f/2.8 AF Micro Nikkor lens & F3HP
Date: 21 Dec 92 00:14:07 GMT
Distribution: rec
Organization: Hewlett-Packard Laboratories

In article <lakhindr.724711956@bowmore.NSD.3Com.COM> lakhindr@ESD.3Com.COM (Lakhinder Walia) writes:
>This lens has large movements. And that changes the effective F stop
>value as you go from Infinity to very close-distance.
>This change shows up in 8008s' window.
>
>I was wondering how does it show up in F3, if this lens is connected to it.
>I dont think F3 "talks" to its lens like 8008s ...! I dont know of any
>other way of finding about the effective value of F stop except asking the
>lens itself.. 

Well, I don't have the 105, but I do have the 60mm MicroNikkor.  The
instruction sheet comes with a table of corrections factors for
various magnifications.  I can think of two choices: You could copy
that chart and tape it to to the back of your camera body or, having
reformatted it, to a blank space on the lens barrel, or some such
thing.  Or you could put some kinds of marks on the lens.  I did this
with a Pentax 50mm macro lens I had.  The lens extended a lot.  I
put two little stick-on dots on the barrel.  If the first one was
visible, I opened up 1/2 stop.  If the first and second ones were
visible I opened up a full stop.  Looking at my 60mm MicroNikkor, I'm
not quite sure how this would work, but you can think about it.  

>My question is : is F3HP fully compatible with this lens..? 

Sure, but just not at as high a level of automation as you have come
to expect :-).

  -- David Jacobson
From: dbp0@ns1.cc.lehigh.edu (DENNIS B. PRICE)
Newsgroups: rec.photo
Subject: Re: Prints from Slides
Date: 17 Dec 92 17:31:27 GMT
Organization: Lehigh University

In article <340@metran.UUCP>, jay@metran.UUCP (Jay Ts) writes:
>hasn@midway.uchicago.edu writes:
>: I just processed some slides [...]
>: I wanted to send some of these as prints as chrismas gifts so I
>: took it over to the photo shop who printed directly
>: from the slides for about a little over buck a print.
>: They suck.
>
>Making R-prints is not trivial.  If you want good results, my advice
>is to find a good *professional* color lab in your area.
>
>(There are mail order slide printing labs.  I don't know much about those.)
>
>When I get R prints done, I pay $8 for an 8x10.  I am lucky that the least
>expensive pro lab in town also makes the best R prints!  Make sure you do
>not have to pay for the work unless and until you are satisfied.  Then it
>is in the lab's best interest to do a good job.
>
>: They seem to be totally underexposed
>: and the color is dingy and dark.
>
>In going directly from transparencies to prints, some brilliance and color
>saturation is generally lost.  Keep in mind that the print is second
>generation, and that it is reflective rather than transmissive, which
>imposes some limitations.  Also, there is much room for improvement in R
>printing technology, and you will not get as good results from it as if
>you had used color negative film and C prints.
>
>With this in mind, if the transparency is good, you should have fairly
>good results.
>
>--
>Jay Ts
>uucp mail: uunet!myrddin!tscs!metran!jay
>phone: (813) 979-9169
>
Alright.... I,too have been confused by this issue.  Granted, I know little
about printing technologies - but I know what looks good and what looks like
crap.  I have found myself in the similar situation as the first person
above... reprints from slides don't look that great.  I realize the
limitations (refective rather than transmissive), but I would have expected
better results.  I even sent to Kodalux and probably paid a premium.  My
local pro/amateur lab says Kodak does *direct* prints from the slides, while
they could do enlargments using an internegative.

What are the advantages/disadvantages of these two procedures?  Also, what
has become of cibachrome... I don't know much about the technology, other
tahn I've seen prints that look superb (esp for the bright-color work I do).
Someone mentioned Ilfochrome.. is this similar?  Can you make cibachrome from
slides or just negs?  Please help!!!

Brad Price
From: sh09@ns1.cc.lehigh.edu (STEVEN HIGGINS)
Newsgroups: rec.photo
Subject: Re: Taking pictures in snow!!
Date: 11 Dec 92 21:36:30 GMT
Organization: Lehigh University

>Stop it! ;-)  Ok, so I want 2 more stops of exposure, e.g.  That's
>easy.  But I recently came into possession of an AE camera with an
>exposure compensation dial, so that I can set the 2 extra stops of
>exposure and still use automatic.  Do I set it for +2 or -2?
>
>I'm sorry, but I'm used to using a totally manual camera.  Ain't
>technology confusing?  I think I've had more bad exposures from this
>aperature priority AE camera than from my old fully manual SLR simply
>because I get confused about which setting it's set on when.

    Ken, set it to +2 and you should get white snow.

    Cheers,

    
-- 

~Steve
sh09@lehigh.edu
Newsgroups: rec.photo