HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: mx@panda.usc.edu (ICBM)
Newsgroups: rec.photo
Subject: Re: Information about tripods needed
Date: 5 Nov 1992 01:27:35 -0800
Organization: University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: panda.usc.edu

Thanks for all those kindness friends who reply my mail.
I spent some time last weekend in some camera stores and here are some
impressions I got:
1) I was quite disappointed with U212DX. The leg spread can not be locked tightly.
2) Slik 444 is another nice tripod. The major disadvantage is a little short.
 I remember have read somewhere that tripod should rise to about eye level.
 I am not very tall but 5' is definitely too short.
3) I have looked at both Bogen 3001 and 3021. They *ARE* very sturdy. 
 (I almost want to sit on it just like in the picture of Bogen ads :-) ).
 However I am still not very interested in Bogen's heads. :-<

So I still need some more help, namely:
1) Has anyone used Slik pro tripod such as M322?
2) Is the Colluman Magic 2 a good alternative? (Magic 1 is too short)
3) The most outrageous question: are tripod heads from different manufactures
 interchangeable? 
 i.e. can I mount a Slik head on Bogen legs or vice versa?

Thanks a lot again!

MX
From: 6500rick@ucsbuxa.ucsb.edu (Richard J. Bessey)
Newsgroups: rec.photo
Subject: Re: Flashing "ISO" in Elan
Date: 12 Nov 92 06:22:36 GMT
Article-I.D.: ucsbcsl.6651


Funny I should happen to see this today.
Yesterday I was loading some bulk film into my ELAN
(which didn't have DX coding) and was surprised to find
that the ISO indicator continued to flash.  (It was the first
time I used film that wasn't DX coded.)

That is to say, even AFTER manually setting the ISO, the indicator
continued to flash.  I checked the manual - nothing.
The film, however, processed fine.  I assume it was just something
overlooked in the manual.  (Like the thing about turning
off and on the beep.)

SUM:  I got the same thing too, but since I had manually set it
properly, there was no problem. 

Rick
Xref: sparky rec.photo:19717 ne.forsale:5028 misc.forsale:31081
From: fgz@kodak.pa.dec.com (Federico Genoese-Zerbi)
Newsgroups: rec.photo,ne.forsale,misc.forsale
Subject: Nikon lens + more forsale.
Date: 9 Nov 92 19:58:02 GMT
Reply-To: fgz@kodak.pa.dec.com (Federico Genoese-Zerbi)
Organization: Digital Equipment Corporation


Nikon 28mm F2 AIS lens for sale.  This is the faster Nikon 28mm lens 
that sells for about $400 new mail order.  It shows a couple scratches
on the aperture ring, but the optics are flawless.  It's a *very* sharp
lens.  I'm selling it because I just bought a 24-50mm zoom and
I can't justify having both (though the 28mm is sharper).  $240/BRO.

Nikon MD-11 motor drive.  It fits the FE and (I think, not sure) the
FE-2.  Maybe others too.  I never use it, never used it, and it's
in the same shape it's in when I bought it (new).  $140/BRO.

I work and live in MA, and will ship any item UPS COD.
DTN 223-2021, Email ddxrus::fgz or fgz@ddxrus.enet.dec.com

F.
From: philg@zurich.ai.mit.edu (Philip Greenspun)
Newsgroups: rec.photo
Subject: Re: 120 roll film still used ??
Date: 11 Nov 92 16:54:22
Organization: M.I.T. Artificial Intelligence Lab.
Reply-To: philg@martigny.ai.mit.edu
NNTP-Posting-Host: zug.ai.mit.edu
In-reply-to: briang@atlastele.com's message of Mon, 9 Nov 1992 23:07:20 GMT

In article <1992Nov9.230720.26255@atlastele.com> briang@atlastele.com (Brian Godfrey) writes:

   >expect to take 40 or 50 rolls of Velvia with me.  If I shot 220
   >that would be half the cost of developing afterwords...

      I don't remember seeing Velvia in 220.  As far as I recall, Kodak only
      offers a couple of emulsions in 220.  Not sure about Fuji.  It will
      certainly be much harder to find.

You are both mistaken.  Velvia is fairly widely available in 220 (B&H
Photo and Samy's Camera are the two places I've personally bought it).
Unfortunately, most labs charge 1.9-2.0 times as much to process 220
E6 as 120 E6.  Furthermore, some loser labs don't have the right
equipment exactly for 220 so end up cutting a bit off the end of the
roll (this works OK with my Rollei 6008 if they cut it from the end).
Note: real labs such as A&I in LA have the right equipment for 220 E6
and don't cut at all.

I think Kodak makes one kind of Ektachrome (64?) in 220.  For B&W,
Kodak only offers TXP and PXP.  I think Ilford is supposed to sell all
of their stuff in 220.


--

      -- Philip Greenspun

-------------------------------------------------------------
MIT Department of Electrical Engineering and Computer Science
545 Technology Square, Rm 433, Cambridge, MA 02139
(617) 253-8574
Newsgroups: rec.photo
From: bauer@informatik.uni-ulm.de (Christian Bauer)
Subject: Re: Tamron 35-105 f2.8
Followup-To: rec.photo
Organization: University of Ulm
Date: Tue, 10 Nov 92 14:47:32 GMT

In article <BxI4Ao.Cpy@hpwin052.uksr.hp.com>, bob@hpwin052.uksr.hp.com (Bob
Easton) wrote:
> Christian,
> 
> Does the Tamron mount give you the program modes on your Contax, or just
> Av and Manual? The reason I ask is because Tamron mounts for Contax
> MM-fit aren't available in the UK, but they seem to be on sale in the
> US. What's the situation in your country?
> 
> Bob

All functions are providid by the MM connector for my Tamron 2,8/35-105
So also TV an Programm (Normal High and Low) is possible.

If you need a connector perhaps you need a mail address in germany?
e.g. Wrzburger Photoversand has this connector.

Thanks for the news Christian Bauer
Newsgroups: rec.photo
From: cgates@mitre.org (Curt Gates)
Subject: Re: Help:  choosing large format lenses!
Organization: The MITRE Corporation
Date: Fri, 13 Nov 1992 14:36:41 GMT

In article <pablo-121192200803@promethium.rice.edu> pablo@bioc.rice.edu 
(Paul "Pablo" Campbell) writes:
>  Next, how hard is it to take a barrel
> lens and have it put in a shutter?  Anyone know of a good place to have 
> lenses cleaned/repaired?  Being a graduate student, I don't have the 
> world's most generous budget

If you are on a Bender budget, you probably dont need to spend a lot of 
time selecting an optimum shutter, etc.  Consider using a lens cap as a 
shutter, which then lets you pick up some bargain lenses -- either barrel 
lenses or modern lenses with inoperative shutters.  Use slow film, small 
apertures, and perhaps a neutral density filter.  This makes the exposure 
a matter of seconds, which is usually okay for large format subjects 
anyway.  You can get quite good at counting seconds, and you can use your 
digital watch for exposures longer than two or three seconds.  The slow 
film and small apertures will give you optimum grain and depth of field.  
Exposure accuracy is not the problem it may seem.  Bargain lenses will 
probably limit the extent of your camera movements, but there is a lot you 
can do with straight on shots (until you get your PhD salary).  At least 
you can have a lot of fun at a relatively low cost.
From: marc@.East.Sun.COM (Marc Thompson-Sun-Vienna VA-Systems Engineer)
Newsgroups: rec.photo
Subject: ? Burred backgrds w/ Nikon 105 or 85mm
Date: 9 Nov 1992 20:10:53 GMT
Organization: sundc.East.Sun.COM
Distribution: world
Reply-To: marc@.East.Sun.COM (Marc Thompson-Sun-Vienna VA-Systems Engineer)
NNTP-Posting-Host: milan.east.sun.com

 
Hello to all.

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.

Thanks,

Marc Thompson
From: kuryakin@bcstec.ca.boeing.com (Rick Pavek)
Newsgroups: rec.photo
Subject: Used Zeiss dealers
Date: 10 Nov 92 22:05:18 GMT
Organization: Boeing Computer Services, Seattle


Does anyone know of a used-camera dealer that specializes in Zeiss
lenses (for Contax RTX)?

Thanks, Rick
 

Rick Pavek                       | Never ask a droid to outdo its program.
kuryakin@bcstec.ca.boeing.com    |           
Seattle, WA                      |   It wastes your time
                                 |          and annoys the droid.  
Newsgroups: rec.photo
From: guest@voyager3.sdsu.edu (Guest User)
Subject: Info on Nikon EM ***
Organization: San Diego State University, College of Sciences
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.1 PL6]
Date: Thu, 5 Nov 1992 19:09:15 GMT

Thanks to all the great guys who sent me info on Nikon EM. The concensus
seems to be  it is not a decent camera for a serious amateur. I will NOT
go for it. Your valuable opinions are appreciated.

Thanks

S
From: kanner@Apple.COM (Herbert Kanner)
Newsgroups: rec.photo
Subject: Re: How good are Minox 35mm cameras?
Date: 7 Nov 92 01:49:27 GMT
Organization: Development Systems Group, Apple Computer

In article <1992Nov2.171230.7922@news.cs.brandeis.edu> ylevy@binah.cc.brandeis.edu writes:
>Hello Netland!
>
>Does anyone out there have any experience using the (newer) small 35mm camerasmade by Minox?  Specifically, how are the optics?
>
>I need a small 35mm that I can always carry with me that allows some user
>adjustments (i.e. not auto-everything).  I have been using the Olympus XA,
>which I love dearly, but its lens is just not sharp enough.
>
>
>P.S.  "Sharp enough," for me, means sharp enough to make a nice 8x10" B&W
>print.  Maybe my XA is out of whack, 'cause I expected it to be able to 
>deliver this...

Some time around 1984, I wanted to buy a very portable camera to take with 
me on a trip to England. Bought an XA. Did a trial roll, blew the negs up
to 8 x 10 and decided the lens was not sharp enough in the corners. Muttered
darkly something about selling the camera, and my wife said: "Give it to me."
I did, and bought a Minox. Thoroughly happy with its lens. Superb lens. The
metering seems reasonably correct, but I am always nervous about it. When I turn
the camera upside down so that the bed acts as a sunshade, the meter indicator
shows longer exposures. Whether the camera actually does expose longer, I know
not. I have not done a controlled experiment, but just writing this down 
inspires me to so do the next time I have the camera in use. That is: take
the same picture twice, once with the camera upside down.

I love the convenience of the Minox. I have never had a camera which can  be
brought into action as quickly. If you get one, I feel it is worth investing 
in the riduculously expensive leather case that can ride on your belt. It is 
about $50, and I brooded for a year about getting one. After I got it, I 
regreted not having gotten it sooner!



-- 
Herb Kanner
Apple Computer, Inc.
{idi,nsc}!apple!kanner
kanner@apple.com
From: bjs@RUTS.ccc.amdahl.com (Barry Sherman)
Newsgroups: rec.photo
Subject: Re: 4x5 dups of 4x5 trans
Date: 12 Nov 92 19:52:34 GMT
Reply-To: bjs@RUTS.ccc.amdahl.com (Barry Sherman)
Followup-To: rec.photo
Organization: Amdahl Corporation, Sunnyvale CA

Frank Reynolds writes:

>Anyone work a commercial photo lab?

Nope.  So, as usual,  I'm responding from a monumental state of ignorance.  
:-)

>What kind of equipment do they use to make 4x5 duplicates of 4x5
>transparencies?
>
>I cannot find any information on equipment dedicated to making 4x5
>duplicates.  The only equipment listed in catalogs is 35mm duplicators
>that have a attachment to copy 4x5 film, I have tried the one for the
>Beseler duplicator and it does not work (uneven illumination due to poor
>design).  I have called photo stores and I have been told to "use a 4x5
>negative enlarger carrier" and "try a transparency viewer and some CC
>filters" or "try a 4x5 enlarger with a color head".  Is that the way to
>go?

I find it amazing that someone reasonably knowledgable (I.e. someone who works 
in a photo store) would recommend "use a 4x5 negative enlarger carrier" or 
"try a 4x5 enlarger with a colorhead" and fail to mention the obvious answer 
if one has an enlarger and no "dedicated duping equipment":  contact print the 
original onto the duping material.  This doesn't even require a 4x5 enlarger.  
Any enlarger should do just fine.  You'd want a colorhead of some type or, at 
least, a filter drawer into which you could place color filters to adjust 
color balance.

I've not done this, although I've been doing a lot of contact printing of
4x5 originals in producing various weird masks for Cibachrome printing.  Works 
just fine.  I'm leery of trying to dupe my own originals, however, because I 
foresee hours and hours of trying to get the exposure and balance just right.  
And the expense of numerous trials on expensive 4x5 color material.  I think 
I'd rather pay a pro-lab to do it and be spared the hassle.  But if you're
braver than I and don't have the "right" equipment then contact printing 
should be a reasonable approach.

Barry "IMHO as always" Sherman


--


|----------------------------------------------------------------------------|
| Barry Sherman, Amdahl Corp.  | PROGRAM: n. A magic spell cast over a com-  |
| bjs@ruts.ccc.amdahl.com      | puter allowing it to turn one's input into  |
|                              | error messages.  tr.v. To engage in a pas-  |
|                              | time similar to banging one's head against  |
|                              | a wall, but with fewer opportunities for    |
|                              | reward.                                     |
|----------------------------------------------------------------------------|
| Amdahl, being a corporation, is a legal fiction.  Therefore it is incapable|
| of holding, let alone expressing, opinions.  Unfortunately, this has been  |
| said of me as well.                                                        |
|----------------------------------------------------------------------------|
Newsgroups: rec.photo
From: brad@wubios.wustl.edu (Brad Wilson)
Subject: Small slide projection systems
Organization: Division of Biostatistics, WUMS, St. Louis, MO
Date: Wed, 11 Nov 1992 19:03:37 GMT


	Any suggestions on slide projection systems (projected
	to small screens maybe 2ftx2ft) for 35mm slides?

	I've seen these mentioned in ads but know nothing more
	about them.

	Please e-mail.

	Thanks.
-- 
						    Brad Wilson
 Internet: brad@wubios.wustl.edu                    Box 8067, Biostatistics
 uucp:     uunet!wuarchive!wubios!brad              660 South Euclid
 Washington University Medical School               Saint Louis, MO 63110
Newsgroups: rec.photo
From: ADMSRUBN@VM.UWP.EDU
Subject: 8008 vs. the N90
Organization: UW-Parkside
Date: Fri, 13 Nov 1992 14:50:13 GMT

 
If I wasn't looking to use a Sharp Electronic Organizer with an N90, and
didn't plan to do a lot of flash photography with it (mostly outdoor and
available light work), would I be better off with an 8008S?
 
Feedback on which product to purchase would be appreciated.
 
 
 
Newsgroups: rec.photo
From: bongers@gto400.asd.sgi.com (Hans L. Bongers)
Subject: Re: Big/fast EOS lens advice sought
Organization: Silicon Graphics, Inc., Mountain View, CA, USA
Distribution: usa
Date: Thu, 12 Nov 1992 18:12:52 GMT

In article <92316.174308IO80861@MAINE.MAINE.EDU>, Damon Kiesow <IO80861@MAINE.MAINE.EDU> writes:
|> In article <1992Nov11.001842.12592@odin.corp.sgi.com>,
|> bongers@gto400.asd.sgi.com (Hans L. Bongers) says:
|> >
|> >In article <1992Nov10.215501.29328@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu>,
|> >mills@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Douglas K Mills) writes:
|> >|> I am an amateur wildlife photographer (my income is unaffected by any
|> >|> choice shots), who would really like to have a good long lens........
|> 
|> >|>.............I had in mind a 300mm 2.8 type lens, but don't know who
|> >
|> 
|> >As long as you are going to buy a new body, you might try a Nikon F4S.  The
|> >money you save over
|> >buying a canon 300/2.8 would more than cover the rental of a Nikon 300/2.8 or
|> >even a 600/4.0.
|> 
|>    OH PLEASE!!
|>    The Canon 300/2.8 costs only a couple hundred more than the Nikon.
|>    Alternatively the F4s, which is of course a great body, cost more than
|>    a couple hundred more than the EOS 1, even with the EOS motor drive.
|>      For brevity I cut off the part of the message that whined about Canon
|>    changing its lens mount. But I will mention that unless, I am mistaken
|>    the Nikon AF lenses will only work on the F4 and the price I have for
|>    the Nikon 300/2.8 (almost $3,000) is for the manual focus. I think the
|>    AF lens is almost $5,000 compared to just over $3,000 for the EOS
|>    300 2.8.
|>      Come on now, both systems are great, there is no need for petty attacks.


I bought the 300/2.8 autofocus lens last year for $2795.00US.  But maybe you 
are talking (paying?) list!!!

--- hans
From: kting@cse.unl.edu (Kea Ting)
Newsgroups: rec.photo
Subject: film processing table
Date: 6 Nov 1992 21:21:56 GMT
Organization: University of Nebraska--Lincoln	
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: cse.unl.edu

Hi,
   A while ago, someone posted a latex file that consist a film processing
table. I can't find it in my directory, I must have lost it. If someone
have it, please mail me a copy.
    Thanks.

--
soon

University Of                  Disclaimer :
Nebraska-Lincoln               I always speak for myself.
Newsgroups: rec.photo
From: eric@quantum.on.ca (Eric Johnson)
Subject: Re: Nikon EM ***
Date: Thu, 05 Nov 92 20:04:06 GMT
Organization: Quantum Software Systems

In article <Bx95E9.Lz3@mail.boi.hp.com> wally@boi.hp.com (Wally Overton) writes:
>For the EM class of camera you would be better served by the FG or FG-20.  They
>should not cost much more.  The FG has full shutter control, with an AUTO
>capability, and TTL strobe control.  The FG-20 lacks the TTL feature.  The FG
>and FG-20 have a more robust (metal) body.
>
> ////////   Wally Overton, wally@hpdml45.boi.hp.com, (208) 323-2819   \\\\\\\\
> \\\\\\\\      Disk Memory Division, Hewlett-Packard, Boise, ID       ////////
 
The FG has a lot of plastic in the body, in particular the base is plastic with
a metallic coating. It can get very beat up if you use a tripod much. Trashed,
actually. The FG does offer manual control however, and you can 'kinda' lock
the mirror up by using the timer (though the shutter itself is kinda clunky).

I think the FE is has better construction for not much more cost, if
durability is a concern. Plus, the FE has depth of field preview while
the FG does not.

-- 
Eric Johnson (eric@quantum.qnx.com or try eric@quantum.on.ca)
Technical Development, Quantum Software Systems Ltd (QNX OS)
From: gxc8951@hertz.njit.edu (chirn)
Newsgroups: rec.photo
Subject: Mail order help needed
Date: 12 Nov 92 18:43:00 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: New Jersey Institute of Technology, Newark, N.J.
Originator: gxc8951@hertz.njit.edu

Sorry to bother you if this is an FAQ

I am going to buy a lens (Sigma 50mm/2.8) for my camera.
I found some mail order dealer from photography magazine and
Tri-state's price seems the best one ($120), other's are around $135

Do you have any good/bad experience with that dealer? Any suggestion?

-There is a very detailed mailorder survey maintained monthly
-in the rec.photo newsgroup.  It includes customer ratings of
-all the major mailorder sources.  I'm pretty sure Tri-State
-is in it.

Could anyone tell me where I can find the survey?

Thanks,

Chin
gxc8951@hertz.njit.edu
Newsgroups: rec.photo
From: usenet@adobe.com (USENET NEWS)
Subject: Re: photomanipulation
Originator: asanders@sparta
Organization: Adobe Systems Incorporated
Date: Wed, 11 Nov 1992 20:49:28 GMT

| I am looking for specific examples of photographs that have been
| manipulated and used as a picture of reality.

				-Heather

The very best examples of this kind of work have probably passed
right under our noses without being detected. People who alter
photographic images in order to pass them off as *unaltered* do 
not attach warning labels to their handiwork!

				-Alan
From: jay@intermec.com (Jay Schlegel x6878)
Newsgroups: rec.photo
Subject: Re: 9xi Re-Visited
Date: 6 Nov 92 17:23:57 GMT
Reply-To: jay@intermec.com (Jay Schlegel x6878)
Organization: Intermec Corporation, Everett WA

In article <1992Nov5.184018.27929@news.media.mit.edu> wave@waits.media.mit.edu (Michael B. Johnson) writes:
>Russell Williams writes
>> I've been very happy with the 9xi, but I've also found only a small 
>> difference in AF performance between the 9xi (or 7xi) and my old
>> 7000i. I've used the same lenses on all my Maxxum cameras, and assumed
>> that the minimal improvement was because the newer bodies are optimized
>> to take advantage of newer lenses with faster AF gearing.

   Hmm, I wasn't aware that the xi lenses had faster gearing, but I it sounds
reasonable that they would.  What lenses are you using?   I've found that with my
largest/heaviest lens, a 500mm f/7.2 Sigma (still small/slow as 500mm lenses go),
the the AF speed of my 7xi is quite a bit faster than my 5000i, which I believe has
the same AF motor/mechanism as the 7000i.   This could well be due to the beefier
AF motor on the 7xi.

   I'm glad Minolta didn't put a f/5.6 limit on AF as per Nikon/Canon.  While AF
is slower at f/7.2 than with shorter lenses, it's still quite good in reasonable
light.  On the 7xi, hunting is usually a problem only when shooting in quite dim
light.

   The AF speed difference is also quite noticable with the 100-300 xi lens, with
the 7xi typically *zipping* right into focus.

-----------------------------
   So... Michael/Russell/r.p-maxxum-users,

What are your favorite Maxxum lenses?

Do you have any 3rd-party favorites.

    I'm extremely pleased with the Sigma 500mm f/7.2, although I often wish it
were faster (anyone heard any more rumours on ISO 200 velvia???).  I enjoy shooting
wildlife so this lens sees a lot of use.

    I find the 100-300 xi to provide good results when stopped down, but wide-open
at 300mm there is noticable light falloff at the edges, not very noticable in the
slides, but the contrast buildup in type-R enlargements really brings it out in
certain shots with a flat background (e.g. snow geese against a steel-blue sky,
sea otters lazing in dark-blue water.  I'm not sure how this compares to other
comparable zooms.  A venerable source tells me that even the revered Canon 100-300L
shows some light falloff when shooting wide-open against a flat background.  This
appears to be a trait shared by most/all long zooms.  I'm thinking of borrowing a
friend's Sigma APO 100-300 and shooting some comparison lens tests.

    The other lenses I use most are the standard 50mm f/1.7 "i" and the Sigma
28-70 f/3.5-4.5 UC.  Being a cheap lens, I've considered upgrading the Sigma,
but based on the excellent results I've gotten with it (shooting wide-open and
enlarged to 16*20) I find it hard to justify replacing it until I am ready to
spend big bucks for f/2.8.

    I've read that the Maxxum 85mm f/?.? is an exceptional sharp lens, albeit a bit
pricey at ~$400.

-- 
-*jay  Jay Schlegel --> Intermec Corp., Everett Wa.
						     fluke!
	jay@intermec.com      OR  -->	    uunet!pilchuck!intermec!jay
Newsgroups: rec.photo
From: yen@epcot.spdc.ti.com (Tony Yen)
Subject: Re: Same aperture on different focal lengths?
Organization: TI Semiconductor Process and Design Center
Date: Fri, 13 Nov 1992 23:43:30 GMT

In article <1992Nov13.234817.1@cc.helsinki.fi> mlindholm@cc.helsinki.fi writes:
>
>    A simple question:  
>    If I have two lenses with different focal lengths, 
>    say, a 50mm and a 100mm, is the amount of light
>    reaching the film the same if both lenses are 
>    stopped to 8, for instance, and exposed for the same time?
>     
>    Thanks in advance.
>     
>    Mikko Lindholm
>    mlindholm@cc.helsinki

Yes. If two lenses have the same F#, then they collect the same amount of
light energy during a fixed time interval. The light gathering power of a
lens is proportional to the square of the ratio of the focal length to the 
effective lens diameter, and this ratio is exactly the F#.

Hope this is helpful.

Tony Yen