HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: elau@berlioz.nsc.com (Eugene Lau)
Subject: Re: EOS Lenses: EF75-300,EF75-300USM or Tamron 28-200?
Organization: National Semiconductor Corporation, Santa Clara
Distribution: usa
Date: Wed, 18 Nov 1992 01:18:38 GMT

In article <19303@ucdavis.ucdavis.edu> auyeung@toadflax.cs.ucdavis.edu (Tak [UlTech] AuYeung) writes:
>Hi!  I'm a beginner with an EOS 630 and the EF35-70 f/4 lens.  I'm
>planning to buy a tele-photo zoom, and the following are my options:
>
>Canon EF 75-300 (non USM) >Canon EF 75-300 (USM) >Tamron AF 28-200
>
>I know the USM is quieter (for human hearing range) and faster, but the
>extra $50 seems hefty if picture quality is the same as the non-USM
>version.  Besides, the 630 is not exactly a quiet body anyway.  Has
>anyone compared the picture qualities of the two lenses?  I guess they
>are of about the same physical sizes as well, so please correct me if I
>am wrong.
>
>The Tamron offers a wide useful range on the same 15oz. lens.  But I
>am worrying about the picture quality and speed.  The $265 price tag
>seems a bit heavy, but I can always sell the then-useless EF35-70.  If
>you have any experience (good or bad) about the Tamron, please let me
>know!
>
>--Tak

I`m posting my response here because you're probably not the only one who
wants to know.  the 75-300usm is exactly the same lens as the arc-form
drive 75-300, the motor is the only difference, according to the canon rep.
this means you won't see a focus scale on the lens.  the tamron sounds like
a good idea, for those who don't want their camera classified as luggage, but
I would wait for the experts (eg. pop photo lens test) to speak out before
committing one-half of my camera budget.  if I were you, I'd buy quality
equipment as my budget will allow and built up over time.  my first camera 
was an olympus om77af, bought when I couldn't afford canon/minolta/nikon, but
I eventually discovered that to be a terrible mistake.  I now own an elan.

eugene
From: blue@sequent.com (Gil Delavous)
Newsgroups: rec.photo
Subject: Re: Changing N8008 for the new Canon?
Date: 18 Nov 92 15:46:43 GMT
Article-I.D.: sequent.1992Nov18.154643.10186
Followup-To: rec.photo
Organization: Sequent Computer Systems, Inc.

Karl R. Schimmel writes:

> I could go on but you get the idea, the type of guy how wants the newest and
> "greatest"(subjective upon what you do with it) thing will never be happy
> with what he has. Some of the best pictures currently taken are on totally
> manual "obsolete" SLRs.

Ok. I was sure to get this answer... I reply here because I'm sure it will
interrest some other N8008 owners.

The problem is not to always buy the last camera. I loved my N8008. Anyway,
I wanted the spot mettering because I NEED to use it. So I had several 
solutions:
1/ Buy a spot meter. Expensive just for one feature.
2/ Change my N8008 for the N8008s. Same as above (I don't care about quick AF).
3/ Change my N8008 for the N90:
   a- Keep the old lenses and SB24. Expensive just for a couple of feature.
   b- Change everything (lenses+flash). Very expensive.
4/ Change my N8008 for the EOS A2. Not very expensive for a all bunch of
   features.

Since I did not want to loose much money, I bought the EOS A2 with the
28-105 USM. It's a very nice camera and for less money I would have paid
for solutions 1-3 (I sold my Nikon equipment) I got the spot mettering
plus a lot of options I did not have before. Even if I will never use
some of them, it sounds like I got them for free :-)

To conclude, I think Nikon has made a really big marketing error with the N90
D lenses. They should have realized that if people have to change all their
equipment, it's easier for them to look for another constructor. 

Thanks to all who replied to my message. I you want any infos about the 
EOS A2 please send me an email.

Gil Delavous.

Disclaimer: These are my opinions. Employer has no opinion.
Newsgroups: rec.photo
From: parsons1@applelink.apple.COM (Don Parsons)
Subject: Re: Changing N8008 for the new Canon?
Date: Mon, 16 Nov 1992 21:37:07 GMT
Organization: Apple Computer, Inc.

In article <1992Nov16.090512.15805@sequent.com>, blue@sequent.com (Gil Delavous) writes:
> 
> Does anyone bought the Canon? What do you think about it?
> BTW, is Canon better or worse than Nikon about the lenses, in general?
> 

I'm a Nikon shooter, but I have seen results from rigid testing done by
George Lepp. Nikon's and Canon's best lenses seem to have very similar
optical quality, but Canon seems to have more lenses with very high quality
optics than the Nikon line. George shoots both Nikon and Canon, but is primarily
a Canon shooter. However, my impression of him is that he would not let this
bias his findings, so I expect his findings are valid.

(Personal) observations I have made regarding Nikon vs. Canon that you
may want to consider include:

* Canon bodies are less expensive than comparable Nikon bodies and have
  more functionality.

* Nikon lenses, on average, are less expensive than comparable Canon EOS lenses.

* Canon offers a better lens selection.

* Canon EOS lenses can also be used with the L1 camcorder.

* Canon bodies and lenses are lighter. It is my understanding this is because
  Canon uses more plastic. This can be good, and bad.

* Nikon seems to have better durability.

* Both are great from the stand point of being able to find after market products
  that are designed to be used with each.

* Prior to the N90, Canon bodies typically had numerous special AE program modes
  (portrait mode, landscape mode, silhouette mode, etc.) that I would rather trade
  for other features. It seems that maybe Nikon is going that direction too.

* Nikon support is good. Nikon service is poor. I can't comment on Canon's.

* I think all Canon EOS bodies (I'm not sure about the EOS 1) use the lithium
  batteries. While the N8008s, N90 and F4 use AA batteries. This little feature
  should not be under estimated.

I think both lines are VERY good, and I don't think you can go wrong either way.
Each has their strengths and weaknesses. I personally chose Nikon, and currently
plan to stick with it.

Don Parsons
From: Andy.Taylor@brunel.ac.uk (Andy J Taylor)
Newsgroups: rec.photo
Subject: Re: Comments on Pentax Stereo Adapter?
Date: 16 Nov 92 18:23:51 GMT
Organization: Henley Management College, UK

In article <1992Nov16.090442.1757@guvax.acc.georgetown.edu>
dtalmage@guvax.acc.georgetown.edu writes:

>Pentax has a stereo adapter and viewer in their current product 
>catalog.  The adapter goes on your 50mm lens, letting you take 
>single-frame stereo slides.  You must use the special viewer to see 
>your slides.
>
>I've seen some articles in rec.photo about Kodak Stereo Realist 
>cameras but nothing about the Pentax adapter.  Would anyone who has 
>used one of these rigs care to tell us about it?
>
>BTW, the only price I could find in any Shutterbug ad was at Smile 
>Photo.  They want $84 for the adapter and $49 for the viewer.

Anyone know if this adaptor is avaliable in the UK and if so, will it
fit a non Pentax camera, specifically my Praktica BX20.  This adaptor
could save a fortune on mini print processing costs!

Andy
-- 
********************************************************************
* Andy.Taylor@brunel.ac.uk       * Henley Management College, UK   * 
********************************************************************
* "...And pray that there's intelligent life somewhere up in space *
* Cos there's bugger all down here on Earth." - Monty Python       *
********************************************************************
Newsgroups: rec.photo
From: phan@quine (Phan Huy Lan)
Subject: Looking for a 80-200 Tokina ATX, 2.8
Organization: Ecole Polytechnique de Montreal
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.1 PL6]
Date: Mon, 16 Nov 1992 23:50:47 GMT


Newsgroups: rec.photo
From: ktubman@inetg1.ARCO.COM (Ken Tubman)
Subject: tripod for travel,or,why are Gitzos so expensive?
Reply-To: ktubman@arco.com
Organization: ARCO Oil and Gas Company
Date: Sun, 22 Nov 1992 16:59:48 GMT

I'm looking for advice on a good tripod for travelling.  I realize
there is a tradeoff between stability and size.  I'm just trying to
find a good compromise.  I have a Canon Elan which is just 35mm.
My longest lens is the 100-300 USM so I think I can sacrifice some
stability and still not have a big problem.

I looked at the Bogen 3001.  It's OK but I like the quick release 
on the 3021 better.  But the 3021 is bigger.  

I saw a Gitzo 126 which was small and seemed sturdy.  The legs are
shorter and much of the height adjustment is with the long center post.
This tripod is even smaller than the Bogen 3001, but feels just as strong.
But it was more than $200!  What is it that makes Gitzo so expensive?  
Is it that hard to make a smaller tripod stable?  Is Gitzo really worth
the money?

Any suggestions would be welcome about other brands to look at.  
Is Gitzo the only brand that uses the same style and makes a decent tripod?
Am I just chasing an impossible dream of a small, pretty stable tripod?

The FAQ has "who make the best lenses, film, cameras".  Maybe it
needs a "who makes the best tripods". 

I will be happy to summarize responses.

Thanks.


-- 

Ken Tubman          ARCO 
ktubman@arco.com    2300 W. Plano Parkway
(214) 754-3871      Plano, TX 75075
From: Jimmy.Tung@dartmouth.edu (Jimmy Tung)
Newsgroups: rec.photo
Subject: Re: photography in ice rinks
Date: 19 Nov 92 03:36:14 GMT
Organization: Dartmouth College, Hanover, NH
X-Posted-From: InterNews1.0a5@newshost.dartmouth.edu

You did not mention whether or not you were using daylight or
tungsten-balanced film.

You may get better results with a FL-D (for daylight film) or FL-B
(tungsten film) filter.  These are supposed to absorb the extra
blue/green light that fluorescent lights have, relative to
daylight/tungsten light.  Says here in the chart in front of me that
it'll cost you a stop, so you may need a tripod and/or creative angles
and panning techniques.  Another way is the combination of magenta and
blue filters, but this will cost you even more stops.  I guess that the
FL filters correct only "average" scenes under "average" fluorescent
lights, and so, it may just be a matter of luck to get an image either
really well-corrected on the neg, or close enough that the
photofinisher can color correct it.  Alternatively, you might try a
warming filter which you might already have such as 1A/UV, 1B, 81A. 
Again the color balance might actually become even worse, but you won't
know until you try.  The first two are really UV filters, but they may
help take some of the blue, which is how the film has recorded UV.

As a by-the-by, I don't know if you might actually be able to distort
the color balance of the negative image so much that the finisher will
actually have an easier time than if you were "really, really" close,
but not quite there.  I suspect that color balance being what it is (a
juggling act) that you'd have to do more fooling around than it was
worth.

Good luck.
From: cul8er@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu (* JOHNNY CHIU * KB5SJN *)
Newsgroups: rec.photo
Subject: Questions about photo CD
Date: 18 Nov 92 21:34:24 GMT
Reply-To: cul8er@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu (* JOHNNY CHIU * KB5SJN *)
Distribution: na
Organization: The University of Texas at Austin, Austin TX
Originator: cul8er@mickey.cc.utexas.edu


 Some questions about the photo CD:
As I know the photo CD using the laser just like the compact disk player.
On the market, there is some CD and LD player( like some of the pioneer)
can those player show the photo CD information?
                                                         




D
C
B

Newsgroups: rec.photo
From: glp@fig.citib.com (Greg Parkinson)
Subject: Re: Canonet GIII QL17
Originator: glp@merlin
Organization: Citibank IBISM
Date: Mon, 16 Nov 1992 21:19:25 GMT


Thanks to everyone who sent me information.

I just got my photos back from my trip to Bonaire - 
*very* sharp, noticeably different from what I get
with my 6006 and 35-135 Nikkor lens.

Punchier, contrastier.  I'll have to look at them
some more, but I didn't expect them to be so
different.  I may have to buy a few of these things
as backups....

-- 
Greg Parkinson                  Phone: 212-657-7814  Fax: 212-825-8607
Citibank,111 Wall Street        E-Mail: glp@fig.citib.com
New York, New York  10043
The opinions expressed are my own and not those of the big 'ol bank.
Newsgroups: rec.photo
From: elau@berlioz.nsc.com (Eugene Lau)
Subject: Re: EOS Elan vs. alternatives in price range
Organization: National Semiconductor Corporation, Santa Clara
Date: Thu, 19 Nov 1992 21:42:37 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?
>
>-Dave Reeves

I wouldn't trade up if I were you.  the rebel S has features similar to the 
elan.  the elan does have higher performance, but I think you should wait to
take a bigger step, say the A2 or the N90 (or 8008).

anyway, if you're not convinced, you should look at the N6006 vs. the elan.
I just don't like the 5xi.  it's not as user friendly as the elan and is not
as rugged as a nikon.  also, you need to buy these $30 "cards" to do things
like auto-bracketing and mult. exposure.

eugene

Newsgroups: rec.photo
From: sylve_ge@jhunix.hcf.jhu.edu (Gerald Sylvester)
Subject: Re: The color developer in the E-6 process
Organization: HAC - Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore
Date: Mon, 23 Nov 1992 18:37:10 GMT

>Didn't you guys ever take a biology class and have the joy of dissecting
>a formaldehyde-saturated frog or worm or cow's eye or other type of
>beastie?
>
>At least I *thought* the stench was from formaldehyde used to preserve
>the little darlings....

Formaldehyde is carcinogenic.  Most likely it was formalin (sp?).  This
I believe (I would hope so) is not carcinogenic.  The smell you are talking
about is formalin and maybe formaldehyde.  I doubt they use true formadehyde
but probably some derivative of it.

>
>Geoff ``Scalpel, please...  Bwahhhhh-haaa-haaa-haaa-haaa'' Allen

I am glad I am not the only one with these (sick) thoughts.  8-)


***************************************************
*   Gerald Sylvester                              *
*   The Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, MD   *
*   BITNET:  SYLVE_GE@JHUNIX.HCF.JHU.BITNET       *
*   INTERNET:  SYLVE_GE@JHUNIX.HCF.JHU.EDU        *
***************************************************
Newsgroups: rec.photo
Subject: Re: Changing N8008 for the new Canon?
From: krschimm@wsuhub.uc.twsu.edu (Karl Schimmel)
Date: 17 Nov 92 21:31:29 CST
Followup-To: rec.photo
Organization: Wichita State University, Wichita, Ks

> 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!).
> I was wondering if it would be a mistake to change my *metal-old-fashioned*
> equipment for a *plastic-all-options* new one...
> Gil Delavous.
> PS: Not to open a new war between Canon and Nikon fans! Please answer frankly
Ok Frank (if you don't get the joke then don't ask)
1)do you drive the speed limit?(do you use your 8008 to it full limit (use
     EVERY function it can do more than rarley?))
2)You did not buy a "Ferrari" in the first place (choice of lenses were not
     ED ( and for you purests out there not fixed focal (granted on the 50))
3)Your "Ferrari" will be surpassed by the new Porche a month or two after
     it comes out.
4)Unless you are a professional THAT shoots many rolls a day the difference
     between a hybreed plastic (which your 8008 is) and a more plasic
     (Cannon) probably wont make a difference because if you are thinking
     of getting out of a 8008 system you dont keep cameras to long.
4b)Your Nikon lenses WILL last longer as has been proven by field studies.
4c)If you use a lens of the quality that Nikon and Canon put out to the
     point where it wheres out you got your money out of the lens anyway.
5)You will loose some money by switching system brands.
6)You can not use non-af lenses on an AF Canon, as you can on Nikon
7)The SB-24 was just voted the best hot shoe mounted flash you can buy
     (this came out after the sb25 was introduced (they are almost the same)
8)You can't go wrong with either camera system.

I could go on but you get the idea, the type of guy how wants the newest and
"greatest"(subjective upon what you do with it) thing will never be happy
with what he has. Some of the best pictures currently taken are on totally
manual "obsolete" SLRs.

But then again this is just one opion.

Karl R. Schimmel

The Wichita State University
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
%krschimm at twsuvax   krschimm@wsuhub.uc.twsu.edu  %
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%


Newsgroups: rec.photo
From: rjm@rjmeyer.wsp (Bob Meyer)
Subject: Re: Potassium Alum and Chrome Alum
Reply-To: rjm@rjmeyer.xerox.com
Organization: Xerox
Date: Tue, 17 Nov 1992 19:30:29 GMT


>  I'm looking for Potassium alum and chrome alum for crystal growing,
>but since both of these are used in b/w photo developing, I thought I
>would try to find them at photo supply stores.  Unfortunately, I've had
>no luck with any of the companies I called.  Does anyone know of any
>mail order supply houses that sell these chemicals?
 

One of the alums, I believe it is potassium alum, is used is canning food, and is available in most grocery stores.
From: mikec@spider.co.uk (Mike Coren)
Newsgroups: rec.photo
Subject: Re: Mirror cleaning (Was Canon RT mirror)
Date: 18 Nov 92 15:29:22 GMT
Organization: Spider Systems Limited, Edinburgh, UK.

In article <1992Nov17.151441.18247@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu> smustopo@nyx.cs.du.edu (sofjan mustopoh) writes:
>
>  About canon rt mirror has to be sent to Canon to be cleaned.
> A word of caution here " DON'T CLEANED YOUR MIRROR" 
> you can easily scratch your mirror. Mirror is very delicate
> a mild blow of air are sufficient to remove the dust.
> j
>   Once my friend leaved a finger print in my mirror. i try to
> cleaned it. the result. mirror are cleaned but the view finder are 
> a tad darker and grainier. i'would never cleaned my mirror 
>aain . beside a bit of dust in mirror won't effect the picture
> since the mirror would come up during the exposure.
> with the exception of Canon RT. and cases where the mirror is
> really dirty that it alter the metering .
>
>  Sofjan Mustopoh

Another potential problem with cleaning your mirror is the possibility of
pushing it out of alignment.  I don't know how badly this would affect an
AF camera, but on an MF camera it could easily result in the optical path
to the viewfinder being a different length than the path to the film plane,
making it difficult (if not impossible) to focus properly.  It's a pretty
expensive repair (trust me, I know).

-- 
Michael D. Coren, Electrical Engineer             mikec@spider.co.uk
Telecommunications Techniques Corporation, Germantown, Maryland, USA.
Temporarily at Spider Systems Limited, Edinburgh, Scotland, UK.
From: bu890@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Brian Segal)
Newsgroups: rec.photo
Subject: Re: Reliable Strobe System (Speedotron,DynaLite, etc) ?
Date: 18 Nov 1992 11:01:11 GMT
Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, Ohio (USA)
NNTP-Posting-Host: hela.ins.cwru.edu


I had the oportunity to check out the lumedyne system at a trade fair
this past summer. It is quite impressive..but costs a bumdle to
get into in a serious way.  I would only consider it if I was doing
lots of location work where electricity is not available..llike
mine shafts and so on...

Otherwise I still think that Photogenic Powerlight 600's are the best
buy around for power, convenience and controllability.

brian
Newsgroups: rec.photo
From: hasker@cs.uiuc.edu (Rob Hasker)
Subject: Re: Camera Feature Wars - Photo Getting Like Video
Organization: University of Illinois, Dept. of Comp. Sci., Urbana, IL
Distribution: usa
Date: Tue, 17 Nov 1992 18:32:16 GMT

goldberg@oasys.dt.navy.mil (Mark Goldberg) writes:

>  The camera makers are trying to capitalize
>on the new-better-newer cycle. witha flood of new models and updates.
>I believe that the newer models, like the N90, really do sport exciting
>new features.  But the cost of constantly updating the equipment may
>become a big factor in photography, as it has been in video.

This "latest-feature" craze has been around for a lot longer than
video.  In the '70's, it became fashionable for 35mm cameras to have
auto-exposure.  At first the exposure systems were either
shutter-priority or aperature-priority, then in the late '70s (back in
the dark ages when many people still didn't own a VCR), Canon
introduced the A-1 with both sp & ap modes plus a program mode.  Well,
a number of other manufacturers jumped on the bandwagon, and soon every
new camera on the market introduced new sorts of program modes and AE
features (such as backlight compensation).  The history of photography
is litered with hundreds of such innovations.

I think we can safely say that the video people copied this marketing
strategy from still photography, not the other way around.

Rob

Newsgroups: rec.photo
From: zrepachol@cc.curtin.edu.au
Subject: Re: Question about popularity of Canon EOS 10S
Organization: Curtin University of Technology
Date: Mon, 23 Nov 1992 18:48:53 GMT

In article <nkane.28ua@terapin.com>, nkane@terapin.com (Nathan Kane) writes:
> 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

Not so. The 10 and 100 are in production, but not for long, as the 5 aka A2
will 'replace' the 10.

~Paul
Newsgroups: rec.photo
Subject: Re: Info wanted on Nikon N90 vs. Minolta 9xi--what to buy...
From: fred-mckenzie@ksc.nasa.gov (Fred McKenzie)
Date: 16 Nov 92 17:47:03 EST
Followup-To: rec.photo
Distribution: world
Organization: NASA/Kennedy Space Center, Florida

In article <410@rd1.interlan.com>, browner@rm1.interlan.com (Michael
Browner) wrote:
> The reason that I recommend the Nikon is that she can start out with a small
> set of lenses, but if she gets an assignment where she needs something 
> exotic, she can easily rent it, esp in New York.

Michael-

Your point is well taken regarding availablility of rental equipment. 
However, it is probably a more persuasive arguement for going ahead and
getting the F4.

It is my understanding that the Nikon F90 is essentially a modern
replacement for the N8008, which is a consumer-oriented model, compared to
the F4 professional model.

On the other hand, the 9xi is represented as being the Minolta professional
model replacing the 9000.  Being of more recent design, it probably has
better capabilities than the F4, and costs less.

I don't intend this to start a fight about whether Nikon or Minolta is
best.  Where does Jamie's friend want to end up, with Nikon or Minolta
professional equipment?  I recommend he/they not beat around the bush, but
go for the professional model of their choice, rather than getting an
intermediate consumer model that costs a major percentage of a pro model
they really need.

fred-mckenzie@ksc.nasa.gov
Newsgroups: rec.photo