HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
Newsgroups: rec.photo
From: acs@csri.toronto.edu (Alvin Chia-Hua Shih)
Subject: Re: Canon Elan - leave leader out?
Date: 29 Dec 92 14:05:17 GMT

In <92364.114510MPOISSON@ESOC.BITNET> <MPOISSON@ESOC.BITNET> writes:

>Purchasing a camera with undesirable features and sending it back to  the
>manufacturer to get it 're-programmed' seems to be a fairly tortuous path
>to follow to achieve the simple goal of getting a camera with the required
>feature.

I'm sure no one sets out with the goal of buying a camera with
undesirable features, but rather finds some features more worthwhile
than others.

As I've bitterly complained before, it would seem that the marketing
departments of various camera manufacterers insist on deleting certain
features because it would place one body in competition with another
existing body in the line.

Ultimately, the manufacturer out to make more money than the next guy.
If it finds that it can make more by forcing buyers to move "upscale"
what can one do?

>Michel Poisson

ACS
-- 
 ___ ___ ___ ______________________________________________________________
|   |   | __|"The Nikon lens owners are more gratingly smug, while the     |
| - | --|__ | Canon lens owners are more verbally abusive." - Tony Arnerich|
|_|_|___|___|______________________________________________________________|
Alvin_C._Shih____________________acs@csri.utoronto.ca______________________|

Newsgroups: rec.photo
From: daveb@Ingres.COM (Dave Brower, DBMS hack, [510] 748-3418)
Subject: Experience w/mail-order pro (refrig. needed) film?
Originator: daveb@lotus
Reply-To: daveb@lotus.ingres.com (Dave Brower, DBMS hack, [510] 748-3418)
Organization: Ingres, an ASK Company
Date: 29 Dec 92 18:53:33 GMT

Has anyone got any experience to report buying "pro" films (VPS,
Velvia) that like refrigeration through mail order?  With local prices
that are twice mail order, it's very tempting.  But if the
mail-transit leaves it in a storage-box on the corner in the hot sun,
maybe less so.

comments and experiences?

thanks,
-dB


-- 
Windows/NT - the VMS of the 90s

Newsgroups: rec.photo
From: tse@ra.nrl.navy.mil (Anthony Tse)
Subject: Re: The "perfect" automated 35mm camera? (was: Re: Canon 10s Vs Nikon N90, Which one?)
Organization: Naval Research Lab, Washington, DC
Date: Fri, 25 Dec 1992 04:38:31 GMT

In article <1992Dec24.222016.13992@jarvis.csri.toronto.edu> acs@csri.toronto.edu (Alvin Chia-Hua Shih) writes:
>[much neat stuff about what a perfect camera should have deleted]
>Did I forget anything? :-)

   Yeah, how about full front and back standard till and shift for that
undistorted building shot.  And a much bigger negative like 4x5.
So what I want is all the things you mentioned, in a Sinar P-3 or
something like that, for less then $1000.

-Anthony
From: mguyott@eriador.prime.com (M. Guyott)
Subject: C-41 developing via U.S. mail?
Followup-To: rec.photo
Organization: Prime Computer R&D
Distribution: usa
Date: Sun, 3 Jan 1993 18:18:59 GMT

I know this has probably been asked before but I have not seen anything
on it and I checked the FAQ info and could not find anything so here goes:

What are the best places to send color film for C-41 developing and printing?
By best I mean good quality at good prices.  For important stuff I use a
local photo shop that does excellent work for a premium price.  What I am
looking for is a shop that does a good job, uses good paper (Kodak, anyway),
and is reasonably priced.

Addresses and/or phone numbers would be greatly appreciated.

Marc
----
Two of the worst things we teach our children are that a knowledge of science
is nice but not necessary, and a knowledge of sex is necessary but not nice.

Marc Guyott              Constellation Software, Inc.          (508) 620-2800
                         Framingham, Mass. 01701 USA                Ext. 3135
mguyott@primerd.prime.com       ...!{uunet, decwrl}!primerd.prime.com!mguyott
mguyott@eriador.prime.com       ...!{uunet, decwrl}!eriador.prime.com!mguyott
Newsgroups: rec.photo
From: tjwu@athena.mit.edu (Thomas J Wu)
Subject: Re: Longish macro lens for EOS. (was Re: Canon 10s Vs Nikon N90, Which one?)
Organization: Massachusetts Institute of Technology
	<1992Dec28.161527.12775@eua.ericsson.se> <BzzBo5.3r9@ra.nrl.navy.mil>
	<1992Dec29.122948.26657@eua.ericsson.se>
	<PD.92Dec30014256@horus.sics.se>
Date: Wed, 30 Dec 1992 04:48:22 GMT

In article <PD.92Dec30014256@horus.sics.se> pd@sics.se (Per Danielsson) writes:
>
>  Don't buy that one. Buy the Tamron 90mm macro instead. It is the best
>  macro lens around 100mm, and since the Canon lens doesn't have a USM
>  it has no advantage at all over the Tamron.

Are you sure Tamron makes the 90mm f/2.5 macro with an EOS mount?
Last time I checked, the only such Tamron lens was the new 28-200mm.

>  --
>  Per Danielsson				pd@sics.se
>  Swedish Institute of Computer Science, PO Box 1263, S-164 28 KISTA, SWEDEN

Thomas Wu
Internet:  tjwu@athena.mit.edu
From: kting@cse.unl.edu (Kea Ting)
Newsgroups: rec.photo
Subject: minolta freedom zoom 90c problem
Date: 3 Jan 1993 10:06:27 GMT
Organization: University of Nebraska--Lincoln	
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: cse.unl.edu
Keywords: ASZ Zoom problem.

Hi,
   My roomate have a Minolta freedom zoom 90c point and shoot
camera. I think the ASZ zoom is casuing the problem. When ever I move my
eye away from the view finder and move my eye back again to the view
finder the zoom stated to move to certain focal length automatically.
That is really driving me crazy.
    My question is, is they anyway to prevent the zoom automatically
zooming around ? (or is they anyway to cancel the ASZ ?)
    Thanks. 


p.s he lost the camera manual, so I have no way to refer to anything now.



Thanks.

 
--
soon

University Of                  Disclaimer :
Nebraska-Lincoln               I always speak for myself.
Newsgroups: rec.photo
From: tjdoran@watserv1.uwaterloo.ca (TJ Doran)
Subject: Re: Mail Order; Camridge; AAA; Better Business Bureau
Organization: University of Waterloo
Distribution: na
Date: Tue, 22 Dec 1992 04:03:28 GMT

Regarding mail order camera operations, one I saw recently in a magazine
advertised Minolta (Dynax) bodies.

Anybody know what the '(Dynax)' part means?

Also, you have to watch these guys... right in the middle of thier list of
Minolta cameras, they started talking about lenses 'for Minolta'. Since the
ENTIRE ad is in tiny print to start with, you need a sharp eye.

I think they still (try to) sell Lindenblatt SLR's.

Cheers,

-- 
TJ Doran  	              |"There you stand like a duck in a thunderstorm
TJDORAN@watserv1.uwaterloo.ca | again... Aren't you ever going to understand?" 
                              |                         - W.A. Mozart
From: sh09@ns1.cc.lehigh.edu (STEVEN HIGGINS)
Newsgroups: rec.photo
Subject: Re: Which UV filter is better?
Date: 1 Jan 93 16:50:13 GMT
Organization: Lehigh University

In article <1993Jan1.072413.26474@chpc.utexas.edu>, byab354@chpc.utexas.edu (Jim
 Xu) writes:
>Happy New Year, dear netters.
>
>Could you tell me which brand of UV filter is better?
>Nikon(L37C), HOYA(?), TIFFEN(1?), COKIN(?), HELIOPAN(?), ......
>
>What is the best price for 52mm?


    I've been quite satisfied with B+W filters.  They're made in Germany, and
    are excellent.  They aren't much cheaper than the Nikons, though.  I think
    they go for about $16 out of Adorama.


    
-- 

~Steve
sh09@lehigh.edu
Newsgroups: rec.photo
From: duli@boulder.Colorado.EDU (Li Du)
Subject: Re: Tamron 90/2.5 macro (and Sigma & Tokina macros)
Organization: University of Colorado, Boulder
Date: Thu, 31 Dec 1992 06:51:54 GMT

In article <PD.92Dec31041819@horus.sics> pd@sics.se (Per Danielsson) writes:
>In article <1992Dec30.221153> duli@boulder.Colorado.EDU (Li Du) writes:
>>   What you have quoted above only indicates that Tamron 90/2.5
>>   performed very well in normal shooting range. It didn't say
>>   how well it performs as a macro lens.
>That is correct. Unfortunately the test did not test the macro lenses
>(there were 9 of them) in the macro range.
	Then on what base did you made your statement that the Tamron
	is the best macro lens around 100mm?
>>   There may be significant differences between a good short tele-
>>   photo lens that happens to focus down to macro range, and a
>>   good macro lens that can also be used as a short telephoto lens.
>Yes, that is why it is a little bit amazing that a lens that
>supposedly is optimized for macro is the best lens among the short
>telephotos for normal shooting.
	Do you have supporting evidence that Tamron 90/2.5 IS optimized
	for macro? It seems to me that your assesment about Tamron 90/2.5
	as a macro lens is based more on extrapolation than actual test
	data. That's the point I was quibbling about. It's a well known
	fact that superior performance in normal range does not automatically 
	guarantee optimal quality in macro range. Modern Photography tested
	Sigma 90/2.8, Tamron 90/2.5 and Tokina 90/2.5 in 1989 (June, pp 50).
	The test data showed that Tamron indeed had the best resolution among
	the three as a normal shooting lens(i.e. at 1:49 magnification),
	although the contrast was NOT the best. At macro range, however, the
	Tamron was out performed by the other two. At 1:4, Tamron was nearly
	as good as the other two. At 1:2, Sigma and Tokina were better as far
	as the numbers(resolution power) is concerned. I would not conclude
	that Tamron 90/2.5 is the best macro lens around 100mm, if I were to
	solely base my assesment on this Modern Photography tests. 
	Incidentally, Modern Photography concluded that Tokina was an excellent
	performer, and Sigma and Tamron were above-average performers. This
	pretty much means nothing if one wants to know which is the best, but
	it at least provided some data on which one can base judgement.
>>   I would not want to use the Zeiss 85/1.4 for macro work even if I can
>>   somehow make it focus down to 1:1.
>Oh, I would. If it were the only lens I had...
	AND if image quality were not the primary concern.

---------------------------------
 Li Du | duli@prony.colorado.edu
---------------------------------
From: bu890@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Brian Segal)
Newsgroups: rec.photo
Subject: Re: Photographing people; need permission?
Date: 3 Jan 1993 03:17:20 GMT
Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, Ohio (USA)
NNTP-Posting-Host: hela.ins.cwru.edu


The rule of thumb is: if the picture is for commercial purposes..i.e. to
sell a product, a model release is mandatory or you run the risk
of lawsuit.  If the picture is for your own private entertainment
or for journalistic porposes a release is not required.

However..there have been some successful cases fought in the US where
a person appearing in a magazine without his permission - and discovered by his
wife to be an adulterer in the process -  successfully sued, I think on
grounds of invasion of privacy, and got a pile of dough from a magazine...

If you do submit photos of people that are unreleased, be SURE that your
signed contract with the publication puts the onus on them to
take responsibility for any legal action should they publish unreleased
photos.

brian
From: sog@craycos.com (Steve Gombosi)
Newsgroups: rec.photo
Subject: Re: How do they know?
Date: 22 Dec 92 19:03:46 GMT
Organization: Cray Computer Corporation

In article <1992Dec22.115922.3218@sequent.com> blue@sequent.com (Gil Delavous) writes:
>In article <1992Dec22.054431.23588@ultb.isc.rit.edu> fjcppr@ritvax.isc.rit.edu writes:
>>In the most recent Del's ad in Shutterbug, Tony "who knows Leica" says
>>that you can stand on a Leica without damaging it. Should I believe
>>that Tony or someone he knows has actually done that? Has anyone
>>out there in Rec.photo every stood on any camera? If so, please 
>>include your weight in your reply. Also, did you stand on the camera
>>with its bottom or its back to the ground? 
>
>Ah Ah Ah! I like this one!!!
>Seriously now, I always thought that cameras were made to take pictures.
>Standing on it doesn't even mean that its robust; you can stand on a glass
>but if you let it fall on the ground see what happen. Under certain 
>circumstance I'm also pretty sure that I could stand on my all-plastic EOS A2 
>without damaging it.

Well I don't know anyone who has stood on a Leica, but I did know someone
who dropped an M-2 out of an airplane while shooting some aerial shots. 
The camera was unscathed by the experience - I don't have the particulars on 
altitude or groundspeed, though. I wouldn't recommend it as a regular practice.

Steve
Newsgroups: rec.photo
From: jchen@wind.bellcore.com (Jason Chen)
Subject: Re: Canon 10s Vs Nikon N90, Which one?
Reply-To: jchen@wind.UUCP (Jason Chen)
Organization: Bellcore
Date: Mon, 28 Dec 92 17:55:27 GMT

Here in NJ, we almost impeached the governor when he raised the sales tax
from 6% to 7%.

Jason Chen
From: agosta@mred.llnl.gov (Keith Agosta)
Newsgroups: rec.photo
Subject: Sigma AF 35mm-135mm for Canon EOS 4 Sale
Keywords: Sigma, lens, sale
Date: 30 Dec 92 20:21:40 GMT
Organization: Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory

For Sale:

Brand new in box with receipt, warranty and documentation.

Sigma AF 35mm-135mm 3.5-4.5 with built in macro for Canon EOS AF 

Received for X-mas, but cannot use. Asking $215.00 or best offer.

If interested, please e-mail or phone. Willing to show before purchase, and possibly lend for test to right individual.

Keith Agosta
Day (510) 423-1372
Eve (510) 797-6112 
If email bounces send to agosta@llnl.gov
Newsgroups: rec.photo
From: acs@csri.toronto.edu (Alvin Chia-Hua Shih)
Subject: Re: slide dupe mount for micro-nikkor
Distribution: na
Date: 30 Dec 92 23:52:57 GMT

In <1992Dec30.174013.24489@cbnewsj.cb.att.com> duane@cbnewsj.cb.att.com (duane.galensky) writes:

>i am interested in duping slides and making internegatives from
>slides.  since i have a 105mm micro lens which goes 1:1, i'd
>like to take advantage of its optical qualities rather than
>opting for an inexpensive duping rig (like cambron's :-( ).

		[...]

>are there any attachments for macro lenses that permit
>holding the slide at the proper distance from the lens front?

From the looks of things, Nikon prefers that you use their Focusing
Stage PG-2, with their PS-6 Slide Copying Adaptor.  The adaptor runs
along the rail of the PG-2.

These items are not cheap!  From the looks of things $275 for both
of them via mail order.

I take it the Cambron slide duplicator mounts directly to the camera
and has its own optics.  Adorama (related, I believe) has a device that
screws into the filter threads of a camcorder for video duping.  If you
can get one in your filter diameter, it might be worth trying to remove
any optics from it and using that as a slide holder.  (Just a thought.)

Please post a summary if you find anything.

ACS
-- 
 ___ ___ ___ ______________________________________________________________
|   |   | __|"The Nikon lens owners are more gratingly smug, while the     |
| - | --|__ | Canon lens owners are more verbally abusive." - Tony Arnerich|
|_|_|___|___|______________________________________________________________|
Alvin_C._Shih____________________acs@csri.utoronto.ca______________________|
From: johno@sdd.hp.com (John Ongtooguk)
Newsgroups: rec.photo
Subject: Re: Re: 105mm f/2.8 AF Micro Nikkor lens & F3HP  : SUMMARY
Date: 22 Dec 1992 21:37:22 GMT
Organization: Hewlett-Packard, San Diego Division
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: hpsdlg10.sdd.hp.com

In article <1992Dec22.183017.5966@cello.hpl.hp.com>, jacobson@cello.hpl.hp.com (David Jacobson) writes:
|> In article <121000005@hpldsla.sid.hp.com> tonya@hpldsla.sid.hp.com (Tony Arnerich) writes:
|> >
|> >The only thing that the lens tells the F3 is how far down from wide
|> >open the aperture will be during the exposure.  You'd have to use the
|> >math to find the effective aperture.
|> 
|> At least with the 60mm MicroNikkor, the focal length changes as it
|> focuses, and this change is not specified, so you can't use math to
|> figure the effective aperture.  
|> ..... 
|> And, as others point out, this whole compensating thing is only a
|> problem if you are using external metering, sunny-16, etc.

   non-TTL flash too. One can also calibrate the lens easily in a few
   minutes and mark the light loss on some pin stripe tape placed
   around the lens barrel. I did this to all of my lenses awhile
   back, where I mounted the camera on a tripod, aimed at the clear
   blue sky with the lens set at infinity, nulled the meter on my FM2,
   changed the film speed 1/3 stop, focused to null the meter, marked 
   the tape, changed the film speed, etc. As I recall the 55 f2.8
   lost either 1 1/3 stops or 1 2/3 stops. 

   John Ongtooguk (johno@sdd.hp.com)
From: advax@reg.triumf.ca (A.Daviel)
Newsgroups: rec.photo
Subject: Anyone else driven crazy by "red eye" eliminator?
Date: 21 Dec 1992 17:15 PST
Organization: TRIUMF: Tri-University Meson Facility
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: reg.triumf.ca
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41    

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 Daviel, Vancouver, Canada
Newsgroups: rec.photo
From: acs@csri.toronto.edu (Alvin Chia-Hua Shih)
Subject: Re: 8008s/801s Questions
Date: 25 Dec 92 03:32:19 GMT

In <lakhindr.725242988@bowmore.NSD.3Com.COM> lakhindr@ESD.3Com.COM (Lakhinder Walia) writes:

>phr@telebit.com (Paul Rubin) writes:

>>The 8008 doesn't have any nonvolatile memory.  If you left the
>>batteries out long enough for any internal capacitors to discharge
>>then put them back, that should have totally reset the camera.
>>If it still came up wedged, the batteries may have leaked some
>>crap onto the camera electronics and you need a serious repair :-(

>>When I do any important shooting, I take an FM2 along with my 8008.
>>That way, if one of them breaks, I still have the FM2...

>well my 8008s did not come with any batteries, when I bought it new.
>I am sure it sat in the shop for a while, without any iota of current.
>It works fine..! But what is this total-reset ..?

Cameras of today, with all their program modes and electronic frame
counters, etc., must retain state information between uses.  The Nikon
maintains this information in RAM, and keeps it (briefly) between
battery changes because of stored charge.  If the RAM is allowed to
fade, then the camera must choose an "initial state".  The choosing and
selecting of that initial state is the "total reset" (of state).

There is also a "panic sequence" that returns the N8008 to a "standard"
program mode.  I think it's activated by holding down the front and back
wedges of the pie cluster for 1s.  See your manual for details.

>Thanks
>-Lakhinder Walia

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: vporguen@unlinfo.unl.edu (victor porguen)
Newsgroups: rec.photo
Subject: Re: Fungus on lens
Date: 25 Dec 1992 04:37:13 GMT
Organization: University of Nebraska--Lincoln	
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: unlinfo.unl.edu
Keywords: fungus

jake@bony1.bony.com (Jake Livni) writes:

>In article <1992Dec22.095521.17861@ncrcae.ColumbiaSC.NCR.COM> appy@churchill.ColumbiaSC.NCR.COM (Pratul.Sharma) writes:

>>do it myself. Also how do I avoid fungus killing other lenses.

>Fungus grows in damp air.  Store your lenses and equipment in dryness.
>Wrap them in plastic wraps or seal them in airtight containers.  Add a
>dessicant like Silica Gel to keep the air inside dry.  I keep my stuff
>in Rubbermaid containers with packs of dessicant that I re-dry every
>year. 

That's generally good advice. However, in the long run, even mild 
humidity is enough to allow fungus to grow on polished glass surfaces.
The main problem is that the fungus does corrode the surface, and 
"cleaning" as such is not really possible. You have to re-polish the 
surface to eliminate all traces of the growth, because the fungus 
etches the glass surface as it grows on it.

As Livni says, keeping the lenses dry is the best defense - but even
that is not really necessary. The important thing is to have a low
RELATIVE HUMIDITY in the environment. Thus, if you are in a tropical 
environment, storing the camera lenses in a cabinet with a low-wattage
electric bulb glowing underneath or within is often a good defense.
It raises the temperature enough to lower the relative humidity, even
if no water is actually removed from the air.

>Fungus also has the nasty habit of moving around, all by itself.
>Therefore, if you have fungus on some equipment, you may be
>endangering other clean equipment by storing them together.

Fungus doesn't "move about" - it's all around us, in the air, in the 
form of spores. It's all over the world, more in some areas than in 
others, but it doesn't have to "move" or "jump" from lens to lens...
<grin>.

>If you're serious about your stuff, get it all cleaned (even if it
>costs money) and then keep it clean.  You may decide that it's not
>worth the money; that's your decision.

I wish him luck. If the growth is not too deep, a cleaning might 
eliminate much of the markings, but not all. Some marks will remain
on the glass surfaces unless they are re-polished - which is usually
not practical.

Quite a few years ago, Eastman Kodam made a study of fungus growth on
lenses in tropical environments. Don't know how to get the data, 
though...  any Kodakers reading this?

Newsgroups: rec.photo
From: pd@sics.se (Per Danielsson)
Subject: AF macro lens? (was Re: Longish macro lens for EOS. (was Re: Canon 10s Vs Nikon N90, Which one?))
Organization: Swedish Institute of Computer Science, Kista
	<PD.92Dec30014256@horus.sics.se> <1992Dec30.151756.24872@PacBell.COM>
Date: Wed, 30 Dec 1992 20:31:07 GMT

In article <1992Dec30.151756.24872@PacBell.COM> jpglori@srv.PacBell.COM (JOHN) writes:

>BTW, why in carnation
>would anyone need an AF macro lens?  Oh well.

No, you probably don't really need an AF macro lens, but if the best
macro lens for your AF mount happens to be an AF lens, so be it. You
can always turn off the auto focus.
(And if you want your macro lens to double as a general purpose lens,
the AF can be useful).
--
Per Danielsson				pd@sics.se
Swedish Institute of Computer Science, PO Box 1263, S-164 28 KISTA, SWEDEN
Xref: sparky rec.photo:22786 ba.general:5437
From: jice@echo.asd.sgi.com (John Eisenman)
Newsgroups: rec.photo,ba.general,sgi.general
Subject: Where to process my color negative film
Date: 31 Dec 1992 03:31:40 GMT
Organization: Silicon Graphics, Inc.
Distribution: ba
NNTP-Posting-Host: echo.asd.sgi.com

I would like recommendations for fairly inexpensive but
reasonable places to have my file developed.  I am not a
"real" photographer, so I don't need to interact much with
the lab, but I would like a place that will give me good 
results and actually checks the results before giving the
prints to me.

I would also like recommendations of places to aviod.

Thanks

--
John Eisenman (jice@sgi.com)

Silicon Graphics Computer Systems
7U-550
2011 N. Shoreline Blvd.		
P.O. Box 7311		
Mt. View, CA 94039-7311		

(415) 390-1551


Newsgroups: rec.photo