HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
Newsgroups: rec.photo

In rec.photo, supplies@sklib.usask.ca writes:

>Is there anything like a lens that has a 45 degree mirror in it
>that will take pictures at a right angle to the camera?
>I guess it would be a funny looking thing but you could be facing one
>direction while taking a candid photo of someone to the far left or right.
>Maybe its not a practical idea.
>If you have seen, heard of, or used one, please let me know about it.
>Thanks

>D.B.

     Edmund Scientific has such a gadget in their catalog.  It adapts to
lenses 85mm f.l. and longer.  They have several choices of adapter rings
to fit different lenses and cameras.

     The mirror gadget (part no. A35,384) sells for $64.95 and the adapter
rings are $8.95 each.  See page 190 of their 1992 catalog #12N1.

     Their address is:

          Edmund Scientific Co.
          101 E. Gloucester Pike
          Barrington, NJ  08007-1380
          U.S.A.

     Ordering number and customer service: 1-609-573-6250.

     Hope this helps!

     Dave Boyd
     Hewlett-Packard, Greeley, Colorado
     Standard Disclaimers Apply

Newsgroups: rec.photo
From: ip217@brems.ii.uib.no (Torgeir Veimo)
Subject: cheap nikon lenses
Organization: University of Bergen, Norway
Date: Thu, 19 Nov 92 14:51:26 GMT

As i'm a student, i can't allow myself to spend too much money on my camera
equipment. I therefore have concidered bying the 50mm f1.8 AF instead of
the 1.4 since i can get the 1.8 used for about $80 or so. But I'm wondering
if this lens gives high quality pictures at the F1.8/2.0 aperture, which is
my main reason for bying this lens. Have anyone compared the 1.8 to the 1.4
in this respect?

-- 
Torgeir Veimo

Studying at the University of Bergen

"...I'm gona wave my freak flag high!" (Jimi Hendrix)
From: f88mattb@fy.chalmers.se (Mattias Bryntesson)
Newsgroups: rec.photo
Subject: Re: Olympus OM4-T information needed.
Date: 18 Nov 92 18:31:51 GMT
Organization: Chalmers University of Technology

OK, I've had one for about a year, so here's a short description:

*  35 mm SLR, manual focus

*  Manual and aperture-priority exposure.

*  Electronic shutter, 1/60s and bulb mechanical time.

*  1/2000s - 1s exp times in manual, 1/2000s - 300s(I think) in auto mode

*  Centerweighted metering on the film. Integrates light at exposure
   times >1/60s.

*  Multi-spot metering (you select up to eight spots, exposure will be
   according to the average of these). Centerweighted metering is the
   default, you select spot mode by selecting the spots with a spot
   button just beside the trigger. The spot points can be stored in
   a memory.

*  'hilight' and 'shadow' exposure compensation that lets you quickly
   increase/decrease exposure by 2.5 and 2 stops respectively at the
   touch of a button. Very usable at zone system work.

*  On the film flash metering with dedicated flash.

*  1/2000s sync time with flash unit F280, 1/60 otherwise.

*  Manual exposure index setting EI 10(?)-3200, compensation +-2 stops.

*  Self-timer with mirror pre-fire (no mirror lock-up :(

*  Depth of field preview button on the lens.

*  Compact design, titanium.

*  Good Zuiko lenses available.

*  Price about $650 in Japan, $1150 in Sweden (!)

*  Discontinued or will be in a near future?

Mattias
From: TSOS@uni-duesseldorf.de (Detlef Lannert)
Newsgroups: rec.photo
Subject: Re: Canon EOS 20-35 lenses?
Date: Mon, 16 Nov 1992 13:03:45 GMT
Organization: Universitaetsrechenzentrum, Heinrich-Heine-Universitaet, Duesseldorf
NNTP-Posting-Host: lannert.rz.uni-duesseldorf.de

In article <12430082@hpmwnpd2.sr.hp.com> allana@hpmwtd.sr.hp.com (Allan Armstrong) writes:

>When buying a zoom of this focal length range, check the filter size. The
>Sigma lens takes 77mm filters, I believe.
>
>I find that when I am working wide angle for color scenics, I often use
>a polarizer. A 77mm polarizer will break the bank. If I am working in
>black and white, I'll need a red or yellow filter.
>
>Fixed focal length lenses of this range accept normal-sized filters.
>Nikon's 20, 24, 28, and 35 all accept either 52mm or 62mm filters.

One should be careful at the 20mm end of the range: My (Pentax) 20/2.8 
takes 67mm filters, and my impression is that there is not much room
wasted near the corners. Some polarizers are significantly thicker than
regular filters and could cause vignetting when the filter diameter is
too small. (BTW, I wouldn't generally recommend polarizers with shorter
lenses than 28mm because the effect often varies a lot over the picture
and the sky or foliage might look weird. But it depends on various 
factors, and ymmv.)
--
Detlef Lannert      DC3EK      E-Mail: tsos@rz.uni-duesseldorf.de
"Gedanken sind nicht stets parat,
man schreibt auch, wenn man keine hat."             Wilhelm Busch
Newsgroups: rec.photo
From: wtyler@adobe.com (William Tyler)
Subject: Re: Backwards lens compatibility (was Re: Big/fast EOS lens advice sought)
Followup-To: rec.photo
Organization: Adobe Systems Inc., Mountain View, CA
Distribution: na
Date: Wed, 18 Nov 1992 01:01:38 GMT

In article <1992Nov17.211704.9310@odin.corp.sgi.com> bongers@gto400.asd.sgi.com (Hans L. Bongers) writes:

>WRONG.  The F4S supports the physical mount of ANY lens which fit
>onto an old "F".  I have both bodies and lots of OLD non-AI lenses.
>Sure, you may lose metering functionality but the optics still work.
>
>Note that I said the F4.  My 8008 doesn't support many older lenses
>because it does not have the ability to swing back the AI coupling pin.
>But, NIKON have consistently supported older lenses on the "PRO"
>body clearly showing their commitment to the professional with a
>LARGE investment in glass.

What's more, the old lenses can be modified by any competent repair
shop to couple to any of the new bodies. Even if parts aren't
available, all they need to do is cut back the right part of the
aperture setting ring. I had this done recently on three lenses, none
of which was less than 18 years old.

Bill

-- 
Bill Tyler      wtyler@adobe.com
From: dbernard@clesun.Central.Sun.COM (Dave Bernard)
Newsgroups: rec.photo
Subject: Re: Camera Feature Wars - Photo Getting Like Video
Date: 18 Nov 92 13:06:52 GMT
Reply-To: dbernard@clesun.Central.Sun.COM
Organization: Sun Microsystems


In article <1992Nov17.212755.10296@odin.corp.sgi.com> bongers@gto400.asd.sgi.com (Hans L. Bongers) writes:
>What a limited viewpoint of control.  Besides shutter speed, focus & aperature,
>you might consider filters & movement (aka panning).  In addition the photographer
>can control lighting & subject...

You're right, I did forget another control- camera movements, as in view cameras.

The camera is a machine for recording light.  The magnitude and focus of the
light recorded can be controlled by focus, aperture, shutter speed.  What you do
externally to affect the steadiness, subject, amount of light available, is all
external to the camera's job, no matter how many features it has.

What can be done while the light is being recorded does not affect that, and I
haven't seen the camera yet that will allow you to control the subject :-)

	Dave
Newsgroups: rec.photo
From: CGKarras@world.std.com (Christopher G Karras)
Subject: Re: Concert Film Results.
Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA
Date: Mon, 23 Nov 1992 20:15:12 GMT

Thanks for the summary posting on concerts.  I had an experience at the
ballet that I had hope your results would cast some light on, so I will
post the question.

The color balance with the Kodak 400 print film I used was terrible. 
There was a very yellow cast to the scene.  When I looked at a package
insert I finally noticed that a filter is indicated for tungsten lighting
(I think, I do not have the info in front of me) and the ISO should be
programmed at about 100 rather than the 400.  Is this the right procedure,
or is there a complaint I should lodge with my photo finisher for bad
printing?

Chris
-- 
*******************************************************************
Christopher G. Karras
Internet:    CGKarras@world.std.com
Newsgroups: rec.photo
From: robert@sys.sweden.dg.com (Robert Claeson)
Subject: Re: ? Burred backgrds w/ Nikon 105 or 85mm
Date: Tue, 17 Nov 1992 14:36:30 GMT
Organization: Data General AB, Akalla, Sweden

In article <1dmgkdINN161@sixgun.East.Sun.COM>, marc@.East.Sun.COM (Marc Thompson-Sun-Vienna VA-Systems Engineer) writes:

> I am looking at purchasing a new Nikon 105/2.5 AIS or 85/1.8 AF lens for
> my Nikon camera.  My main area of interest is fashion photography, and
> I am looking for a portrait and full body lens that would allow me to
> blur out the background as much as possible.  
> 
> The two lenses that I am looking am considering are listed above. Does
> anyone know
> which of these lenses would do a better job at blurring the background
> when fully opened.

The longer the focal length *and* the maximum aperture the better for
blurring the background. For fashion work, it is not too uncommon to
use 600mm lenses at the largest opening. The photographer and the assistant
usually communicate using walkie-talkies or portable phones...

-- 
------------------------------ END OF MESSAGE ------------------------------
Robert Claeson                Internet: robert@sys.sweden.dg.com
Data General AB                         robert@sys.dg.se
Box 28                             CEO: robert@sys.sweden.dg.com:dg-smtp
S-164 93 KISTA                     Tel: +46 (0)8-92 55 00
Sweden                             Fax: +46 (0)8-751 36 22
From: ka1gt@cbnewsm.cb.att.com (robert.m.atkins)
Newsgroups: rec.photo
Subject: Re: Changing N8008 for the new Canon?
Date: 16 Nov 92 17:31:52 GMT
Article-I.D.: cbnewsm.1992Nov16.173152.13775
Distribution: na
Organization: AT&T

In article <1992Nov16.090512.15805@sequent.com>, blue@sequent.com (Gil Delavous) writes:
> Hi Gurus,
> 
> I own a Nikon F-801 (N8008), an SB-24 flash, and the following three lenses:
> - 35-70 3.3/4.5 AF 
> - 50 1.8 AF
> - 70-210 4/5.6 AF
> 
> Since the F90 came to the market I got frustrated that my equipment became
> *old fashioned* and if I would go for the F90, I'd have to change both the
> flash and the lenses (I know I could keep them but it would be something
> like driving a Ferrari on a speed limited freeway!). 
> Anyway, I'm thinking about changing the camera since the spot metering is 
> missing and the auto-focus is slowwwwww and noisy, and I'm quite interrested 
> about purchasing the new Canon EOS 5 (A2?). Not so for the AF eye control, 
> rather because it has all the options an amateur can dream about! I would 
> consider to buy the new 28-105 3.3/4.5 USM then the 80-200 2.8 USM later. 
> I was wondering if it would be a mistake to change my *metal-old-fashioned*
> equipment for a *plastic-all-options* new one...
> 
> Does anyone bought the Canon? What do you think about it?
> BTW, is Canon better or worse than Nikon about the lenses, in general?
> 

Ah, a man who has finaly seen the light! I won't get into the Canon/Nikon
wars (if I can avoid it), but I'd suggest you decide exactly what lenses
you will need and look at those particular lenses in the Canon and Nikon
lines. Some Nikon lenses are better than their Canon counterparts and
vice versa. Some lenses are only available from Canon, some only from
Nikon. My vote goes to Canon, but that's just my opinion. Note that the
Canon lenses are fully functional on all EOS bodies, so you can get a Rebel
(or two) for backup or to have different film types on hand, and not have
to spend more than an extra few hundred dollars.

Incidentally, there are two versions of the EOS 5 (or EOS A2 in the US).
One has the "gee-whiz" eyeball tracking feature - the other has the same
multiple AF zones, but doesn't figure out where you are looking. I guess
it works like the 10s? (you select the zone you want, or let the camera
take it's best guess). I think there will be a couple of hundred dollars
price difference. Incidentally, anyone seen a US discount price? I think the
list is $1200 or so on the less "gee-whiz" version, so I would expect to
see a discount price around $600 or so.

===============================================================
Bob Atkins  AT&T Bell Labs  email (direct)  att!clockwise!rma
===============================================================
Newsgroups: rec.photo
From: wtyler@adobe.com (William Tyler)
Subject: Re: Nikon N8008S vs. N90 - opinions wanted
Followup-To: rec.photo
Summary: Another opinion
Organization: Adobe Systems Inc., Mountain View, CA
Date: Mon, 16 Nov 1992 18:52:35 GMT

In article <24193@alice.att.com> ark@alice.UUCP () writes:

>I looked at them both too and there's no comparison.  The N8008S has
>a *lousy* autofocus setup compared to the F4: it is slow, it often
>starts hunting in the wrong direction and then reverses course, and
>once it gets nearly there, it spends quite a while dithering around
>before settling down.  The N90, on the other hand, goes straight to
>the right spot and stops right away, just like the F4.

I've not only looked at both, but own one of each. The differences in
actual use are much less striking than Koening's commentary would
indicate, particularly if you aren't shooting race cars. For a first
camera, I'd be likely to go with the 8008s and spend the money saved
on an additional lens. If the application is heavily oriented to
fast-moving subjects (like my kids :-), I'd probably go the other way,
however.

Bill

-- 
Bill Tyler      wtyler@adobe.com
Newsgroups: rec.photo
From: yz3k@galen.med.virginia.edu
Subject: Re: EOS Elan vs. alternatives in price range
Organization: University of Virginia
Date: Fri, 20 Nov 1992 01:36:19 GMT

In article <1992Nov18.223637.6987@dartvax.dartmouth.edu>  
J.David.W.Reeves@dartmouth.edu (J. David W. Reeves) writes:
> I'm in the market for a new camera.  I'm trading up from the 1000F
> (Rebel S), so I'm familiar with the EOS system, but I'd like to hear of
> viable alternatives to the Elan (100).  What are the advantages of the
> comparable Minolta (5xi?) and Nikon (?) cameras over the Elan?
> 
> Thanks
> -Dave Reeves
 Stick with Canon. For about the same price. Canon camera will usually give you  
more features and better perrformance. Besides, you already have lens for it.
YZ
Newsgroups: rec.photo
From: nareid@due.unit.no (Helge Nareid)
Subject: Re: Resolution of Lens ???
Organization: University of Trondheim, Norway
Date: Wed, 18 Nov 92 09:30:20 GMT

In article <Uf2JFiO00iV1M5dkha@andrew.cmu.edu>, "Frank A. Reynolds" <fr0c+@andrew.cmu.edu> writes:
|> I am looking for general answer to this question, so no need to get real
|> technical.
|> 
|> As I understand it when a lens is tested for resolution it is placed,
|> say 10 feet, in front of test pattern and the resolution is judged by
|> the number of lines per mm that can be counted from a image of the test
|> pattern (either on film or some optical devise).
|> 
|> 1.  If say a 50mm, 100mm, and 200mm lens is tested they are all tested at the
|>     same distance of 10 feet, right?

No. The normal test distance for a general purpose lens is at a magnification of 1/25, i. e.
at an image distance of 26 times the focal length from the front nodal plane of the lens 
(about 27 times the focal length from the film plane - which most distance scales refer to).

[Questions 2. and 3. deleted, since they do not apply]

|> Your Replies Will Be Appreciated,
|> Frank Reynolds

You're welcome.

Helge Nareid
From: kting@cse.unl.edu (Kea Ting)
Newsgroups: rec.photo
Subject: Re: Idiot Mistakes
Date: 16 Nov 1992 16:45:06 GMT
Organization: University of Nebraska--Lincoln	
Distribution: rec
NNTP-Posting-Host: cse.unl.edu

6500rick@ucsbuxa.ucsb.edu (Richard J. Bessey) writes:

>Well, I am afraid I am setting myself up here for something.
>I don't know how it happened, but it did.  It just happened.
>I opened the back of the camera exposing the pictures I had 
>already taken.  (I was using TMax 400, B&W).

>I have done this before (I can't believe I am saying this) with
>Ektar 1000 color and my pictures actually came out.

>Now here's my question.  I am going to develop the film tomorrow
>hoping to find something.  (Ok, so that wasn't a question.)  
>Should I do anything different to increase my chances of 
>getting an image, perhaps in the pictures that were coiled up
>on the right?  (More agitation, maybe?  Different mix of developer?) 

    You will lost a few frame of image. But the frame that is tight under
the first few frame is fine, it did not expose to the light at all, may be 
a few small spot on the edge of the frame. The reason is the film have a
layer that prevent the light to go thought it when it is not processed,
after the processing the layer will be removed by the chemical.
    So I think the regular developing method is good enought.



--
soon

University Of                  Disclaimer :
Nebraska-Lincoln               I always speak for myself.
From: erudnick@claudius.pica.army.mil (Edward J. Rudnicki )
Newsgroups: rec.photo
Subject: Looking for 35mm Backup Camera
Date: 19 Nov 92 20:02:49 GMT
Distribution: na
Organization: U.S. Army  Armament Research Development & Engineering Center, Dover NJ
Originator: erudnick@claudius



I didn't realize how detached I've become from current cameras
and such until I re-entered the market.

I currently have a Canon AE-1P, with the usual assortment of
lenses and various and sundry accesories. It has served me well
for ten years and I expect it to do so for at least ten more.
However, it is excessively bulky for some uses, and has also
suffered two failures in the past 2 years.

So, I need a backup camera, both for on the job and personal use.
I am more or less aware of the current crop of inexpensive 35mms,
but they are so automated that they are little better than high-
tech instamatics for my purposes.

My requirement therefore is for a compact 35mm camera. Not
necessarily an SLR. Changeable lenses not a requirement. Manual
focusing a desirable option. Manual shutter/aperture control a
required option. I would like it to be fairly inexpensive, of
course :).

Any recommendations or ideas are most welcome. Thank you in
advance.



Ed Rudnicki     erudnick@pica.army.mil     All Disclaimers Apply.
Newsgroups: rec.photo
From: mason@p.igp.ethz.ch (Scott Mason)
Subject: Re: film plane flatness
Reply-To: mason@p.igp.ethz.ch
Organization: Swiss Federal Institute of Technology Zurich
 Institute of Geodesy and Photogrammetry
 CH-8093 Zurich    (Switzerland)
Date: Tue, 17 Nov 1992 08:00:01 GMT

(I'm not sure if this posting will work, but here goes...)

Considerable work has been done re: film unflatness in phototgrammetry, a domain concerned with
acquiring high-precision measurements using optical sensors. Film unflatness plays an obviously
important role in this precision levels obtainable. I have seen some papers recently on testing film
unflatness in 35mm cameras (off-the-shelf)....if anybody is interested I could dig out these 
references. 

Most commonly in photogrammetry, an accuratly measured reseau (grid plate) is placed within the
camera and exposed onto the film. We then use the grid images to determine the geometric
influence of the unflatness. (In addition, we calibrate for other systematic errors - like radial and
decentering lens  distortions - in the perspective projection).

Our interests lie in the geometric side of image formation /acquisition, and  may not be of
interest to those interested purely in the  aesthetic side of photography.

scott
distortions
From: dbernard@clesun.Central.Sun.COM (Dave Bernard)
Newsgroups: rec.photo
Subject: Re: Camera Feature Wars - Photo Getting Like Video
Date: 17 Nov 92 17:28:18 GMT
Reply-To: dbernard@clesun.Central.Sun.COM
Organization: Sun Microsystems

Mark Goldberg makes some good points.  New camera features give more and more
control over less and less.  But in reality, once the film is loaded in your
camera, the only controls you the photographer have are three:  shutter speed,
focus, and aperture.  This is true whether you have a Leica M3 or a bar-code
reading, card-eating, fuzzy-brained wonder.

Newer features may make things easier for a neophyte photographer, but for
a person that's been photographing for a while, newer features don't necessarily
make taking good pictures easier; what they do is allow pictures to be taken
faster.  A faster shot, and more of them, is not inherently automatically
better than one taken more slowly.

The other beneficiary, beyond the fast snapper (and I mean no slam) and the
battery-maker and the neophyte, is the camera vendor.  New features make the 
current model "hot," and edge out the competition.  No doubt the N90 will
supplant the 8008S as the high-end amateur Nikon, just as the 8008-S supplanted
the 8008, and the 8008 the FE-2/FA, and the FE2/FA the FE, and the FE the
Nikkormat EL...

	Dave    
Newsgroups: rec.photo
From: bongers@gto400.asd.sgi.com (Hans L. Bongers)
Subject: Re: Backwards lens compatibility (was Re: Big/fast EOS lens advice sought)
Organization: Silicon Graphics, Inc., Mountain View, CA, USA
Date: Tue, 17 Nov 1992 21:17:04 GMT

In article <PD.92Nov17105403@horus.sics.se>, pd@sics.se (Per Danielsson) writes:
|> In article <1992Nov16.192217.10146@adobe.com> usenet@adobe.com (USENET NEWS) writes:
|> 
|> >[...] without abandoning
|> >the traditional bayonet mount that still accepts Nikon lenses made
|> >more than twenty years ago.
|> 
|> No, you can't mount a twenty year old Nikkor on a Nikon camera made
|> today. Chances are you'll damage the camera, and the meter just won't
|> work since modern Nikons don't have the mechanical coupling.

WRONG.  The F4S supports the physical mount of ANY lens which fit
onto an old "F".  I have both bodies and lots of OLD non-AI lenses.
Sure, you may lose metering functionality but the optics still work.

Note that I said the F4.  My 8008 doesn't support many older lenses
because it does not have the ability to swing back the AI coupling pin.
But, NIKON have consistently supported older lenses on the "PRO"
body clearly showing their commitment to the professional with a
LARGE investment in glass.

--- hans
|> 
|> _Most_ 10-15 year old Nikkors can be mounted on todays Nikon bodies,
|> but with varying degree of functionality.
|> 
|> Per Danielsson				pd@sics.se
|> Swedish Institute of Computer Science, PO Box 1263, S-164 28 KISTA, SWEDEN
From: nkane@terapin.com (Nathan Kane)
Newsgroups: rec.photo
Subject: Re: Question about popularity of Canon EOS 10S
Date: 17 Nov 92 16:22:35 PST
Organization: BBS

I have seen several articles on the 10s since I got mine (and I love it, 's a
GREAT camera) although not quite as many as other popular cameras. Still, i
think I could look though my pile of pop photo and photographic magazines and
dig out a couple good reviews on it...
One question though, I heard that since the release of the Elan they are no
longer making the 10s. Is this true? If so it's to bad, I like the overall
performance of the 10s much better than the Elan
Newsgroups: rec.photo
From: andpph@ritvax.isc.rit.edu
Subject: Re: Old Polaroid film replacement wanted
Reply-To: andpph@ritvax.isc.rit.edu
Organization: Rochester Institute of Technology
Date: Sun, 22 Nov 1992 15:43:21 GMT

In article <1992Nov22.043147.20317@cs.tulane.edu>, bellaire@cs.tulane.edu (TV's Steve) writes:
>I am looking for some film for a Polaroid Speedliner Land Camera, Model 95a.  
>The manual says that it takes Type 41 Polaroid Land picture rolls.  I would 
>like to get some film to use with this camera, and figured this would be a 
>good place to ask.

The info that I have is that as of June 1992 Polaroid discontinued making roll
film such as you are looking for. There may be some still around but I am
actually surprised that Polaroid did not discontinue making this film long ago.
They stopped making cameras that took this kind of film probably more than 20 
years ago.

andy

        *  *  * * *  *
         \/\/\/\/\/\/   Andrew Davidhazy, RIT, High Speed Photography Lab.
          |        |    IN%"andpph@ritvax.isc.rit.edu"    fax 716-475-5804 
_________/          \_____________________________________________________
Newsgroups: rec.photo