HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: mcfarlan@aurigaxerox.com (Doug McFarland)
Subject: Re: Sinar Questions
Reply-To: mcfarland.henr801c@xerox.com
Organization: Xerox Corporation
Date: Tue, 12 Jan 1993 15:13:28 GMT

In article <5356@ceylon.gte.com>, kbb0@harvey.gte.com (Kevin Burke) writes:
|> In article <1993Jan12.113649.19207@spectrum.xerox.com>, mcfarlan@aurigaxerox.com writes:
|> > 
|> > 3. Any a1/f1 folks want to comment on what they like/dislike about
|> > these cameras.
|> > 
|> 
|> I beleive the a1 does not allow changing the bellows. If a bag bellows
|> might be required for your work, the f1 would allow it.
|> 
|> Regards, Kevin
|> 


The a1 "image kits" come with "Wide Angle Bellows" which I took
to be the same as bag bellows. Does anyone know if this is correct ?? 

And yes, I want to use shorter lenses so bag bellow is required.

-- Thanks 

	Doug McFarland

********************************************
        McFarland.henr801c@Xerox.com    
********************************************
Newsgroups: rec.photo
From: tjwu@athena.mit.edu (Thomas J Wu)
Subject: Re: 75-300 USM ?
Organization: Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Date: Sat, 9 Jan 1993 20:55:06 GMT

In article <Jan.8.23.49.21.1993.25583@yoko.rutgers.edu> avirmani@yoko.rutgers.edu (Aashu Virmani) writes:
>
>  I have a two month old canon EF75-300 zoom.   I was happy with the
>  pictures until I tried to shoot some in an aquarium in boston..  It
>  just wasn't fast enough and I missed some shots..  I would have loved
>  to have a USM then..
>  My question is:  Canon seems to have come up with a 75-300 USM which
>  is about 50 bucks cheaper than the older 100-300 USM.   Anybody out
>  there having experience with this 75-300? 

I tried out the 75-300 USM when I was looking for a telephoto zoom and
was not really impressed by it.  It has the same optical design and
mechanical design as the non-USM version, with the exception of the
focusing motor, of course.

>  My dealer would take back my EF 75-300 and give me the USM75-300 for
>  another $30, or USM 100-300 for another $75.   Which one do you think
>  I should go for?   I haven't yet seen the USM75-300 but about the
>  100-300, the plus points are:  IF, terribly fast, distance scale.

I went for the 100-300 USM and have been quite happy with it.  I'd
recommend it to anyone who wants a good fast-focusing telephoto zoom.

>  Those of you who claim the 75-300 to be `average' -  is the 100-300
>  REALLY of much better optical quality?  Would anyone know if the USM
>  75-300 also has distance scales and if it would be internal focussing?
>  If it is not IF, I would then be inclined towards the 100-300 USM.

Yes, the 100-300 is indeed optically better, though by how much is highly
subjective criterion.  The main points in its favor are the ones you
pointed out:  internal/rear focusing, nonrotating front element, distance
scale with IR correction marks.  The 75-300 USM has none of these.

>  Thanks in advance.   I will post a summary if there is enough
>  interest.  

Thomas Wu
Internet:  tjwu@athena.mit.edu
Newsgroups: rec.photo
From: rchao@well.sf.ca.us (Robert Chao)
Subject: light meter problem - Nikon SLR
Organization: Whole Earth 'Lectronic Link
Date: Sun, 10 Jan 1993 00:49:31 GMT


I have a problem with a Nikon FM which I haven't used in a while. The thing
is that it keeps telling me there is too much light coming in. I was
aiming at an outdoor scene and turned the aperture and shutter speed to
all possible extremes and it still said there was too much light. The
ASA is 200. (This meter has a "+","-", and normal LED.)

Is there anything that might cause this except for, of course, a malfunction
with the thing? I thought it might be the batteries but that didn't sound
right.
-- 
Robert Chao
Oakland, California
From: doc@webrider.central.sun.com (Steve Bunis SE Southwest Chicago)
Newsgroups: rec.photo
Subject: Shirt Pocket Cameras
Date: 7 Jan 93 21:34:17 GMT
Reply-To: doc@webrider.central.sun.com
Distribution: usa
Organization: Sun Microsystems, Inc.
NNTP-Posting-Host: webrider.central.sun.com

For those times when I don't want to carry an entire camera bag with all
the attendant goodies, I've been looking around at shirt pocket sized 35mm 
cameras.  What I was initially looking for was an Olympus XA equivalent 
(not seeing any used ones around).  It seems that all of the new cameras 
try to do everything in the  world for you and just get in your way if you 
want to do more than snapshots (I admittedly have a manual mindset in 
photography - I actually don't mind the presence of automation, as long as 
I can turn it off at will :^).  They also have bloated up in size.  

In any case one camera that *seems* like it might be a good compromise between
size and quality, is the Fuji Mini-Dual (28mm & 45mm).  Consumer Reports gave 
it a good rating in it's class, but I'd like to get feedback from someone 
who's actually used it.  How sharp is the lens? Does the autofocus work well?
Can I work around the autofocus easily when it's not going to do what I want?
etc. etc.

Any feedback on this or some of the other cameras in this range? 

Thanks much,

Steve Bunis,  Sun Microsystems     ***DoD #0795***
              Itasca, IL
From: monson@hobo.ECE.ORST.EDU (Ty Monson)
Newsgroups: rec.photo
Subject: Re: NIKON F2 Lens selection help
Date: 11 Jan 93 01:42:25 GMT
Distribution: na
Organization: ECE Dept.,OSU,Corvallis
NNTP-Posting-Host: hobo.ece.orst.edu

In article <1in8qvINNdo2@titan.ucc.umass.edu> keene@titan.ucc.umass.edu (STEFAN L KEENE) writes:
>
>I currently own a NIKON F2/DP-1 which has been a true friend over
>the past year.  I currenly only own a NIKKOR 50mm/f2 and do mainly 
>portrait work.  I'm looking to buy a new lens and a corrective eyepiece.
>
  (deletions)
  Non AI lenses can be purchased at very economical prices - if you
  are budget conscious, get them. They were good lenses and they still are,
  if you don't buy one that has been abused. If you buy an F3 later,
  you can use the non AI lenses in stop-down metering mode. If you *know*
  you will eventually buy an F3, you might as well shop for AI lenses.
  On the other hand, if you think you may eventually go for those
  auto focus super electronic whiz-bang cameras, then you won't be
  happy with the AI lenses, either. Put together an F2 system with non AI
  lenses, and hope to sell the works as a package when you move up.
  (That sounds like an order, it was just meant as a suggested option.)

>My second question is what size lens should I buy if I will be doing mainly
>potrait work?  I've been mainly thinking about either the 85mmf2 or the 
>
  The 105 f/2.5 is a very good lens for basic head&shoulders portraits.
  Nikon talks about their special "close range correction" on this
  lens that is supposed to give improved resolution at close focus.
  The 105 focal length gets the camera back from your subject far enough to 
  overcome "camera intimidation" experienced by some people.
  But if you find an 85 at a good price.....it will work well, too.
>
>Lastly, this may be a bit naive, but am I to assume that with a corrective
>eyepiece I will be able to work without my glasses on?
  Only if you do not suffer from appreciable astigmatism.
  If you are just near sighted or far sighted, a diopter correction eyepiece
  is just what you need - or an F3 high point body/finder.
>
Newsgroups: rec.photo
From: xiaohan@.adaclabs.com
Subject: prints from b/w slides
Originator: xiaohan@huck
Organization: Adac Laboratories, Milpitas Ca
Date: Mon, 11 Jan 1993 19:20:37 GMT


I'm interested in getting prints/enlargements from black/white
slides that I have. The question is how.

Can I send b/w slides to a lab and ask them to make color reprints
from them?  Will they do it?  Will I get b/w reprints?  What
alternatives do I have?

Any info on this is welcome.


-- 

----------------------------------------------------------
Xiaohan Wang
ADAC Laboratories
Newsgroups: rec.photo
Subject: Re: Anyone else driven crazy by "red eye" eliminator?
From: fred-mckenzie@ksc.nasa.gov (Fred McKenzie)
Date: 4 Jan 93 12:38:22 EST
Followup-To: rec.photo
Distribution: world
Organization: NASA/Kennedy Space Center, Florida

In article <21DEC199217150247@reg.triumf.ca>, advax@reg.triumf.ca
(A.Daviel) wrote:
> I got my wife one of those tiny Olympus 35mm automatics, thinking that as
> it was so small it would be more likely to be in her pocket than in the
> checked baggage, etc. It has this "red-eye" eliminator which doesn't eliminate
> red-eye but *does* ensure that any action shot taken with the (automatic) flash
> is totally missed, since the pre-exposure flashes to contract the subject's 
> pupils take at least half a second.
> 
> Can this feature be disabled somehow? (I must confess to not reading the manual
> recently, but there aren't too many controls on the thing...)

Andrew-

You didn't mention which model Olympus you have.  I have the Olympus
Stylus, which fits your description.  I've missed a few pictures because of
the delays you mentioned!

The Stylus requires that you deliberately turn the red-eye feature ON, by
pressing a little silver button on the top of the camera.  If it is already
on, you can disable it by pressing the button.  There are several options
selected by that button, so you need to step through to get where you want
it set.

The "default" setting is with red-eye off, flash on if there isn't
sufficient light.  I expect you can reset it to that status by removing the
battery, waiting a few seconds, and putting it back.

My best photos have been in a room with large windows, using the "fill"
flash setting.  It did a nice job of balancing indoor and outdoor light. 
Unfortunately, that setting reverts to the default each time the camera's
cover is closed.  In the default mode, backlight from outdoors will fool
the camera, and the flash won't go off when needed.

fred-mckenzie@ksc.nasa.gov
From: mic@hpfcso.FC.HP.COM (Marc Clarke)
Date: Mon, 11 Jan 1993 00:31:07 GMT
Subject: Re: $#@^$% JOBO Reels
Organization: Hewlett-Packard, Ft. Collins, CO
Newsgroups: rec.photo

I, too, would be very interested to hear experienced peoples' wisdom
on the subject of Jobo reels.  I am just starting to get back into B&W
developing and printing after a 10 year absence and ho, boy, has the
technology changed.  Now there are nifty temperature controlled
machines for keeping the chemicals at a given temperature and 

From reading the catalogs, the Jobo CPE-2 Plus Processor and its
larger (and more expensive) cousin, the CPA-2 Processor, look really
neat from my viewpoint.  But then, I have never used one personally
and have never talked with someone who has.

The author of the base note seems to be having trouble with Jobo 35mm
reels.  Is that a common problem with Jobos?  Are there other common
difficultires or characteristics to beware of with the Jobo CPE-2
and/or CPA-2?
From: jack@dcs.glasgow.ac.uk (Jack Campin)
Newsgroups: rec.photo
Subject: Re: Photographing people; need permission?
Date: 12 Jan 93 13:12:03 GMT
Reply-To: jack@dcs.glasgow.ac.uk (Jack Campin)
Organization: COMANDOS Project, Glesga Yoonie

mcovingt@aisun3.ai.uga.edu (Michael Covington) wrote:
> People engaging in political protest marches, etc., usually do NOT want
> to be photographed, and are very emphatic about it.

This is fantasy.  I do it all the time.  Complaints are very rare.  Maybe
because I'm usually on the same side as the people I'm photographing.
Nobody likes being photographed by their enemies.


> I find this amusing.  "I'm out here to show the world what I stand for,
> but I don't want anybody to see me, or worse yet, record it!"

Get real.  British law lets the cops confiscate film if they want (this
happened after the Trafalgar Square poll tax riot, with many person-years
of jail sentence resulting).  The photographer's intentions are irrelevant
in that sort of situation.  In demonstrations against repressive regimes,
exiles identified from the media have their lives endangered: throughout
the 1980s, Iraq had a whole network of agents in the UK whose job it was to
do just such dissident-hunting and they took that job to the point of
murder.  And because British law forbids applicants for refugee status from
taking part in political activity, they *must* do such things incognito or
the British state will most certainly deport them regardless of whether
they face torture and certain death when they get off the plane.

And if you don't think that could happen in the US, think who'd want to
come to a demonstration against the killing of illegal immigrants by US
border patrols (which happens, though I don't know what protest their is
about it) and what would be likely to happen to them if they were identified.
Or what would happen to someone in the closet or hiding their HIV+ status
after photographic evidence linked them to ACT-UP.

-- 
--  Jack Campin    room G092, Computing Science Department, Glasgow University,
17 Lilybank Gardens, Glasgow G12 8RZ, Scotland   TEL: 041 339 8855 x6854 (work)
INTERNET: jack@dcs.glasgow.ac.uk or via nsfnet-relay.ac.uk    FAX: 041 330 4913
BANG!net: via mcsun and uknet     BITNET: via UKACRL    UUCP: jack@glasgow.uucp
From: rbhank@wsl.dec.com (Ron Bhanukitsiri)
Newsgroups: rec.photo
Subject: Re: 49mm versus 52mm
Date: 4 Jan 1993 21:04:43 GMT
Organization: Western Software Lab
NNTP-Posting-Host: yuba.pa.dec.com

In article <1992Dec31.161824.1@ducvax.auburn.edu> swanger@ducvax.auburn.edu writes:
>Pentax and Nikon use different diameters (widths?) for their 50mm lenses.  
>Pentax uses 49mm, Nikon uses 52mm.  Does the width affect picture quality?
>Is one better than the other, or does neither make any difference?
>
>Just curious,
>-- 
>David Swanger,   Auburn University, Alabama,   swanger@accs.duc.auburn.edu 


I've used Pentax lens with 49mm filter for years (50mm and 28mm) with never
any problem.  In the days before making smaller camera was fashionable, the
standard size for normal lens used to be 52mm filter thread (actually Pentax
screw-mount normal lens also used 49mm filter thread).  Even the early
Pentax K mount lens used this size.  Olympus (I guess) started the "small is
beautiful" trend and introduced a whole bunch of "compact" lens which used
49mm for the bulk of their lenses.

Ron B[ee]
The Pen(tax) Pal
Newsgroups: rec.photo
From: goldis@news.weeg.uiowa.edu (Al Goldis)
Subject: Re: Information about the Tamron 180/2.5 LD IF Lens
Organization: University of Iowa, Iowa City, IA, USA
Date: Mon, 11 Jan 1993 21:45:00 GMT

In <1if4m7INNhk2@msuinfo.cl.msu.edu> nair@huron.egr.msu.edu (Sashi Nair) writes:
>I am thinking of getting the Tamron 180mm/2.5 LD IF lens for
>my Nikon F3. It is a manual lens which comes in the adaptall-2
>mount. Has anybody on the net used this lens and knows about its
>sharpness as compared to the Nikon 180/2.8 ED. Some months ago
>Outdoor Photography had a column on this lens and they said it was
>very sharp and had good contrast. The price of the lens $599 is 
>comparable to Nikon 180/2.8 ED ($629), but has the advantage of
>its adaptall mount which can be used with other bodies. I look
>forward to hearing your views abou this lens.

While I don't really know anything about the Tamron, the Nikon 180/2.8
ED IF has a reputation as a truly outstanding lens.  Unless you're
fairly certain that you will switch camera brands, I would be inclined
to get the Nikon for only $30 more (does $599 for the Tamron include
the Adaptall mount?).  I seriously doubt that the Tamron would be any
sharper and the Nikon should stand up to use and abuse better.
--
Al Goldis           alan-goldis@uiowa.edu
"Pictures are moments truth, touched by light, that show character."
                          --Annie Griffiths-Belt
From: tnelson@ncrcan.Canada.NCR.CA (Tim Nelson)
Newsgroups: rec.photo
Subject: Re: Photographing people; need permission?
Date: 4 Jan 93 15:41:05 GMT
Organization: NCR Canada Ltd. Mississauga, Ontario

In article <348@metran.UUCP> jay@metran.UUCP (Jay Ts) writes:
:ark@alice.att.com (Andrew Koenig) writes:
:: In article <346@metran.UUCP> jay@metran.UUCP (Jay Ts) writes:
:: 
:: > In the U.S., at least, you would be breaking no laws by doing this (but I
:: > hear things are different in Saudia Arabia...).  You have the legal right
:: > to photograph anything you have the legal right to see with your own eyes.

[... stuff deleted ...]

:I suppose it is now illegal to take photographs that include any buildings,
:because the design (blueprint) is copyrighted? :-)

Actually from what I have been reading (sorry, I don't remember the book
names), privately owned buildings require a release as well.

I was reading about this in a book on stock photography, so if any of you
want to look for more info, just take a wander down to your local library.

-- 
Tim.Nelson@Canada.NCR.CA
NCR Canada +1 416 819 4112
Newsgroups: rec.photo
From: ian@rats.demon.co.uk ("Ian A. Young")
Subject: Re: An unusual camera question
Reply-To: ian@rats.demon.co.uk
Distribution: world
X-Mailer: cppnews $Revision: 1.20 $
Organization: not
Date: Sun, 10 Jan 1993 13:36:27 +0000

In article <1993Jan8.184740.23859@ultb.isc.rit.edu>
   dxa8439@ultb.isc.rit.edu (D.X. Axelrad) writes:

> Does anyone know of a brand of camera manufactured in either Korea or
> Italy.  I'm really just interested in the brand names.

Korea was covered by another poster.  As for Italy, the only camera
brand I know of that hails from Italy is Silvestri.  Here is a
verbatim quote from the current Robert White advert in the British
Journal of Photography (my additions in []s):

   Silvestri

   We are currently importing this beautifully made Italian
   shift camera.  The standard model, fitted with a 47mm
   Super Angulon to cover up to 6x9 [cm, i.e. 120 roll film]
   is [UK pounds] 1592 [i.e. around $2400 excluding sales tax].
   Two other versions are available, a 6x12 panoramic camera
   and a modified body taking 5x4 using lenses of 65mm and longer.

So, it's pretty much a specialised architectural camera.  This seems to
be the trend nowadays in the UK too: the only UK brands I can think of
(since De Vere and Carbon Infinity folded) are either wooden 5x4s of
mixed quality or shift cameras (Corfield).

   -- Ian
Newsgroups: rec.photo
From: mkuhn@news.weeg.uiowa.edu (Martin W Kuhn)
Subject: Polaroid Vision
Organization: University of Iowa, Iowa City, IA, USA
Date: Wed, 6 Jan 1993 21:31:17 GMT


There have been short blurbs in the photo magazines recently about the
new Polaroid Vision camera due to be released in the US sometime this
year.  Does anyone have any details about this camera?  Supposedly is
already on sale in the UK.

From what I've gathered, it appears to be:
   - a folding SLR, a la SX-70, but folds along the "long" dimension.
   - slightly larger than an SX-70 when folded.
   - holds prints inside the camera body while being developed; allows for
       rapid sequece shots
   - easier to handle than an SX-70

But:
   - very crude "autofocus" system having only 2 focus zones 
   - smaller prints than SX-70/600 size
   - very limited exposure range
   - lens speed of f/11 or worse
   - no major film improvements
   

At first, I thought it might be a nice "modernized" version of the old SX-70,
but these limitations make it seem a little silly.  What's the point of an
SLR that only has 2 focus zones??
 
Seems like Polaroid has had trouble trying to come up with a camera as
elegant and usable as Land's original SX-70...
 
So, if anyone out there knows the straight dope on the new Polaroid camera,
(features, usability, price, etc.) please post!  (other people might be
interested too)


                       --Marty
From: crmeyer@voodoo.physics.ucsb.edu
Newsgroups: rec.photo
Subject: +++ Nikon F Meter Finder for sale $45 +++
Date: 4 Jan 93 05:21:18 GMT
Organization: UCSB Physics Department


Nikon F meter finder for sale         $45 + shipping

I have a Nikon F Meter finder (probably 60's vintage) and unfortunatly
no Nikon F to mate it with! It has a metering needle visible at the top
of the viewed image and one visible externally. There is also a F-stop
read-out on the top of the finder. It also has an on/off meter switch on 
the shutter release side of the finder. The finder is in fair to good
condition (slight brassing, a scratch on the front, some dust). I put a
battery in the finder and held it near a constant light source to check
the meter. While I could not check accuracy, I could change the shutter
speed and the aperature setting would change accordingly without any
problems. The serial no is 846844.



                 +-------------------------------------------+
                 |         Charles R. Meyer                  |
                 |                                           |
                 | Internet: crmeyer@voodoo.physics.ucsb.edu |
                 | Bitnet:   crmeyer@voodoo                  |
                 | HEPnet:   voodoo::crmeyer                 |
                 +-------------------------------------------+

Newsgroups: rec.photo
From: kelvin@kickapoo.cs.iastate.edu (Kelvin Don Nilsen)
Subject: Re: VIEW CAMARA
Organization: Iowa State University, Ames IA
Date: Tue, 12 Jan 1993 03:59:10 GMT


you didn't say how much you were willing to spend?  and what your real goals
 are...

i've shot lots of 35mm, a fair amount of medium format, and about 10
 exposures on a view camera.  the problems i had with the 4x5 view
 camera that i bought used and sold soon after for about the same price 
 i paid for it are as follows:

  1. film and processing are much more expensive than 35mm and/or
      medium format.  you'll need a hefty enlarger if you plan
      to do your own darkroom work.

  2. loading film into the film holders requires a dark room, which
      i don't have in my home.  changing bags are a reasonable alternative,
      but they're nowhere near as convenient as prepackaged rolls or 
      canisters.  be very careful to avoid dust.  (i found that dust spots
      on my view camera exposures were quite common, presumably because 
      the film is in the open so much prior to and during exposure.  the 
      only way to get dust on your 35 mm and/or 120 film is from the 
      inside of your camera body.)

  3. my toyo rail camera was way too bulky to carry conveniently to
      remote landscape settings.  a field camera would have been more 
      convenient for this.

  4. depth of field vs. lighting: something i never appreciated until i
      began experimenting with a view camera is how much more light
      is required to expose those big sheets of film.  here's the problem:

        the normal lens on a 4x5 is 210 mm.  with the same aperture that you
        might use on a 35mm normal lens, the depth of field is greatly 
        reduced.  

      anyway, you're likely to find that whatever studio lighting you
      use for 35mm and medium format is woefully inadequate for large
      format photography.

  5. there are as many gadgets and gimmicks to support large-format
      photography as there are for the 35mm crowds.  some of these
      (a very solid tripod, a good focusing lupe, a "modified" spotmeter?)
      are essential.  others are mainly for convenience.  in any case,
      i was not prepared financially to equip myself appropriately
      for my large-format adventure.
     
no single camera is going to best serve the needs of every particular
situation.  i still hope to some day master large-format photography.
but i think my own needs would best be served by a light-weight but
sturdy system designed for 120 film.  The Arca-Swiss appears to be
one such camera (camera alone sells for $3000!).  I'm not aware of 
alternative systems, but i'm sure there are some.  does anyone else have
suggestions?  or opinions regarding the Arca-Swiss camera?


--

Kelvin Nilsen/Dept. of Computer Science/Iowa State University/Ames, IA  50011 
 (515) 294-2259   kelvin@cs.iastate.edu  uunet!kelvin@cs.iastate.edu