HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: nuscss1@vms1.iscs.nus.sg (Vax BULLET-IN-Board SysOps)
Subject: Re: 81A, 81B, & 82A filters: What are they for?
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41    
Organization: National University of Singapore Dept. of Computer Sc.
Date: Fri, 1 Jan 1993 14:24:00 GMT

In article <1992Dec31.102656.1@pearl.tufts.edu>, rsmith@pearl.tufts.edu writes...
>I've got three filters that I got years ago.  They were originally lying around
>with some unused equipment or something that my father found, so I don't know
>what they're for.  One is an 82A (light bluish-green color), the others are
>81A and 81B (brownish-yellow).  What are these things used for?  Thanks for
>any information.

	I'm new to photography, so i've not been using many filters. but
	i do use the 81A fairly often. Its used mainly to give warmer skin
	tones when shooting under cloudy weather or when shooting with 
	flash guns which would normally cause a bluish tinge.
From: ok3jonas@gemini.ldc.se (Jonas Palm)
Newsgroups: rec.photo
Subject: Re: Sigma lenses etc
Date: 22 Dec 92 14:59:29 GMT
Followup-To: rec.photo
Organization: University of Lund, Sweden

In article <BzJ6DJ.LD3@comp.vuw.ac.nz>, jenny@gphs.vuw.ac.nz (Jenny Rollo)
wrote:
>My second purchase is for a zoom up to 300mm.  I have been told that Sigma is >the best (after Nikkors themselves) and that Tamrons and Tokinas are not fully >compatible with all the AF mechanism on the 801S.  Is this true??  Apparently >the 90-300mm Tokina doesn't work on the 801S at all.  Does this mean that Sigma >is my only option if I can't afford the more expensive Nikkors??

Actually, all the tests I have seen in European magazines show the 
75-300 APO Sigma to be optically superior to the Nikon counterpart.

Whether this really has any relevance depends on how you intend to use 
the lens. (MLU + Tripod + Tech Pan + ?...)


                                          Jonas Palm
Newsgroups: rec.photo
From: acs@csri.toronto.edu (Alvin Chia-Hua Shih)
Subject: Re: Canon 10s Vs Nikon N90, Which one?
Date: 25 Dec 92 07:08:41 GMT

In <1992Dec25.005852.20236@jarvis.csri.toronto.edu> acs@csri.toronto.edu (Alvin Chia-Hua Shih) writes:

>In <PHR.92Dec24210811@napa.telebit.com> phr@telebit.com (Paul Rubin) writes:

>>You need a focusing aid if you are using a manual focus lens.
>>(Unless, of course, you're using one of those nasty non-Nikon AF cameras
>>that made you throw away your manual focus lens collection).

>Well, it appears some are throwing away their Nikon *AF* lenses to get
>Canon EF lenses (and bodies to boot), so what's your point?  :-)

Let me add that Nikon doesn't seem to support your use of manual focus
on the N8008s nor the N90, considering there are no focusing screens
with manual focusing aids mentioned in the brochures.  In addition, the
super-special-secret one from Nikon that fits the N8008s doesn't meter
normally.

And the terribly ironic thing is that the F-90 brochure persists in
mentioning the MANUAL FOCUS Micro Nikkors (as did the F-801s brochure).  

Looks like Nikon is using this MF thing as a crutch, rather than getting
out there providing a wider variety of AF lenses (like you-know-who :-).

ACS  (Do you surrender yet? :-)
-- 
 ___ ___ ___ ______________________________________________________________
|   |   | __|      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: "rick sproule" <rick.sproule@canrem.com>
Subject: photo cd resolution
Reply-To: "rick sproule" <rick.sproule@canrem.com>
Organization: Canada Remote Systems
Distribution: rec
Date: 22 Dec 92 00:32:03 EST


JD>BTW, I just got some literature from Iterated Systems, the guys over
JD>in Norcross, GA who are doing the fantastic image compression using
JD>fractal technology.  Their new product is said to remove pixelation
JD>and restore detail to electronically enlarged images.  Again using
JD>fractal technology.  I'm going to go over there after Christmas
JD>and see if the actual results are as good as the brochure pictures.

Hi John, could post your observations?  I have also seen some literature
from this company and would love to hear some comments from a third party.

Rick.
---
  DeLuxe/386 1.25 #2788  
--
Canada Remote Systems  - Toronto, Ontario
World's Largest PCBOARD System - 416-629-7000/629-7044
Newsgroups: rec.photo
From: acs@csri.toronto.edu (Alvin Chia-Hua Shih)
Subject: Re: Simple checks for layman on lens and camera.
Date: 2 Jan 93 19:58:40 GMT

In <BzzEH9.ItB@inews.Intel.COM> kortikar@mipos2.intel.com (Aniruddha Kortikar) writes:

>Hi

>I plan to purchase Nikkor lens and 5005AF/6006AF at Local Photo Fair.
>(Fair will be held in Santa Clara on Jan 16,17). There are about 50-60 shops
>offering used camera's lenses at considerably low price.

I've never been to a photo fair, but it doesn't seem to make sense for
someone to sell something cheaper just because they're at a fair.
Indeed, some go to similar events *assuming* the prices are lower when
really they're not.  Shop around a bit before going to the fair.

Friends of mine went to an auction of assets from a computer
distributor that closed down.  Many items were being sold for *much*
*higher* than market value because the bidders didn't do their
homework.  (And all items were sold "as-is"!)

>Could anyone give me a list of simple checks which can be performed on 
>lenses/camera's while at the fair ? 

Unless you can develop a test roll there, I can't see how you could
make any kind of comprehensive test.  Maybe the shutter sticks.  Maybe
the metering is off by erratic amounts.  Maybe it stops working if you
bang it a certain way.  Maybe the lens elements are slightly out of
alignment.  How can you test all of this in a day?

I prefer to support my local dealers.  If you wrangle enough, you'll
get a competitive price.  You'll also have someone to go to if you
have questions.  If you have problems, you know where they "live".  :-)

If you don't like wrangling, I don't think you stand a chance at a photo
fair! :-)

>If you think it is not advisable to buy such equipment then let me know that
>too.

Equipment is a touchy issue around here.  :-)
If you want my opinion on equipment, email me.
(But be warned.  I've been known to have a slight bias towards 
the Canon EOS line! :-)

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: shtono34@wharton.upenn.edu
Newsgroups: rec.photo
Subject: EF 50 mm 1.8 II MF
Date: 21 Dec 92 10:57:01 GMT
Organization: University of Pennsylvania


I was playing with an EF 50 mm 1.8 II lens when I suddenly noticed
that I can turn the focusing ring even when the lens was in AF mode.
It is pretty resistive, ie requires more than a normal torque, but
the response is positive. By positive I mean that I can feel the
gears transmitting the torque to the motor, and the latter turning.

This seems rather interesting to me (please, do not experiment with
your lenses and then blame me if sth goes wrong), I thought it was 
only available with some USM lenses. Could this procedure damage
the lens somehow? I know the usual "plastic" argument about the EOS
line, but since I have never had any problems with it, I tend to
ignore it. If this manual focusing after AF is not detrimental for
the gears, may be I can start using it often (it is nice to be able
to MF after AF)?

Thanks in advance, Vassil
Newsgroups: rec.photo
From: phr@telebit.com (Paul Rubin)
Subject: Re: Canon 10s Vs Nikon N90, Which one?
Organization: Telebit Corporation; Sunnyvale, CA, USA
	<1992Dec24.205338.11007@jarvis.csri.toronto.edu>
	<BzssK3.Kp6@ra.nrl.navy.mil> <PHR.92Dec24210811@napa.telebit.com>
	<1992Dec25.005852.20236@jarvis.csri.toronto.edu>
	<1992Dec25.020841.22480@jarvis.csri.toronto.edu>
Date: 25 Dec 92 12:13:34


    Let me add that Nikon doesn't seem to support your use of manual focus
    on the N8008s nor the N90, considering there are no focusing screens
    with manual focusing aids mentioned in the brochures.
    normally. 

I'm very aware of this, having griped about it here on this newsgroup
myself.  (There are such screens for the F4 though).  

I do manage to shoot with manual focus lenses on my 8008 despite this.
I focus on the groundglass, and use the LCD electronic rangefinder
when I have to.  When I go to news events I see plenty of press
photogs with manual-focus lenses mounted on 8008's and F4's too.
Newsgroups: rec.photo
From: phr@telebit.com (Paul Rubin)
Subject: Re: Lithiums vs. alkalines (was Re: was going to get 8008s but EOS 10s recommended)
Organization: Telebit Corporation; Sunnyvale, CA, USA
	<1992Dec21.081107.3013@sequent.com>
Date: 21 Dec 92 20:20:53

I don't believe anyone can get 150 rolls of film through a camera with
a single 2cr5 pack.  Canon is dreaming if they claim that.

It could be that EOS cameras are more energy efficient than 8008's
when it comes to film transport (they use a lot more flimsy plastic
parts that break easily).  However, the total amount of energy is
a 2CR5 pack is about equal to four alkaline AA's, so regardless
of how economical the EOS is to operate on lithiums, it would have
been even more economical on AA's.

My Digi-key catalog (Nov.-Dec. 1992) lists the CRP2 battery as having
1300 maH capacity, which is comparable to 4 AA alkalines.  The lithium
battery is over 5 times as expensive.  Of course, most (not all) devices
that can use AA alkalines can also use nicads, which -really- gets
the costs down.
Newsgroups: rec.photo
From: whp4@Csli.Stanford.EDU (Bill Palmer)
Subject: Re: Hasselblad: VF pic. area? MO pricing?
Organization: Stanford University CSLI
Distribution: rec
Date: Mon, 21 Dec 1992 18:28:07 GMT


I happened to spend some time looking at a dealer price list with a
Hasselblad sales manager last weekend.  Two observations:

1) the minimum allowed price for the Classic package was $2295, just
like you see in everyone's advertisements.

2) the dealer price on most of the gear is surprisingly close to what
the customer pays.  For the Classic package, I'm pretty sure the first
two digits were "21".  If the dealer operates on a cash-and-carry
basis with VHI, I think there is a 2% discount.  

Obvious conclusion: be wary of anyone who offers gear at a
substantially better price than everyone else.

Secondary observation: buying used gear from a dealer who will give
you a month or so to return it can save a fair amount of change with
fairly low risk.  If you keep your gear in good shape, it holds its
value very well.

			Bill
From: mikec@spider.co.uk (Mike Coren)
Newsgroups: rec.photo
Subject: Re: EOS lens list
Summary: 28-105mm USM can focus down to 0.5 meters.
Date: 25 Dec 92 11:23:42 GMT
Organization: Spider Systems Limited, Edinburgh, UK.

In article <5360837@hplsla.hp.com> barryg@hplsla.hp.com (Barry Gunn) writes:
>
>I do use the close focus distance information when choosing one lens over
>another. And as I stated in another post, the close focus distance of the
>28-105 is listed as 2.3ft in my Canon brochure(sp?). Could someone who
>owns one or has seen one, please confirm this? If the close focus is 
>really .5 meters, I'd be alot more exited about it.
>

According to the specifications given in the instructions that come with the
28-105mm USM, the close focusing distance is in fact 0.5m.  I haven't actually
measured this, but I have held my hand out in front of the camera to see how
close it can focus, and this seems about right.

>    | _
>    |[o] Barry Gunn x2281
>     /|\ barryg@lsid.hp.com

Mike

-- 
=============================================================================
| The opinions expressed herein do not necessarily reflect those of Michael |
| Coren since he was most likely not in his proper mind when he wrote them. |
+---------------------------------------------------------------------------+
Newsgroups: rec.photo
From: jchen@wind.bellcore.com (Jason Chen)
Subject: Re: Tamron 90/2.5 macro (was Re: Longish macro lens for EOS. (was Re: Canon 10s Vs Nikon N90, Which one?))
Reply-To: jchen@ctt.bellcore.com
Organization: Bell Communications Research
Date: Wed, 30 Dec 92 20:13:45 GMT

In article <PD.92Dec30203725@horus.sics.se>, pd@sics.se (Per Danielsson) writes:
|> In article <TJWU.92Dec29234819@marinara.mit.edu> tjwu@athena.mit.edu (Thomas J Wu) writes:
|> 
|> >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.
|> 
|> No, I'm not sure. Sorry, I should have checked before posting.
|> Let me rephrase my original statement: If the Tamron 90/2.5 macro
|> exists in a mount for your camera, go buy it! :-)
|> 
The Tamron 90/2.5 macro lens does have a mount for EOS. The only thing is,
it doesn't autofocus.

Jason Cyhen

Newsgroups: rec.photo
From: phr@telebit.com (Paul Rubin)
Subject: Re: 8008s/801s Questions
Organization: Telebit Corporation; Sunnyvale, CA, USA
	<lakhindr.725242988@bowmore.NSD.3Com.COM>
	<1992Dec24.223218.14492@jarvis.csri.toronto.edu>
	<lakhindr.725393980@bowmore.NSD.3Com.COM>
	<1992Dec26.135103.27085@jarvis.csri.toronto.edu>
Date: 26 Dec 92 15:34:16

    >So what vital info is lost in this case without which a photographer would
    >be hampered to use his/her equipment..?

    I think the big loss would be the frame counter.  The other settings
    can be restored by the user.

Most of the info isn't really vital, but it remembers basically
all of the settings that in an old-fashioned camera would have 
been set with mechanical instead of electronic controls.  This
includes exposure mode, shutter speed (if needed), film speed,
etc. etc.
From: pd@sics.se (Per Danielsson)
Newsgroups: rec.photo
Subject: Re: Canon 10s Vs Nikon N90, Which one?
Date: 30 Dec 92 00:55:09 GMT
	<1992Dec25.020841.22480@jarvis.csri.toronto.edu>
	<1992Dec28.192848.1682@porthos.cc.bellcore.com>
	<BzznvG.72D@ra.nrl.navy.mil>
Organization: Swedish Institute of Computer Science, Kista

In article <BzznvG.72D@ra.nrl.navy.mil> tse@ra.nrl.navy.mil (Anthony Tse) writes:

>   Any Canon users that claim they prefer non-compatible lens mount is
>lying.  I would be a much happier person if I can use my FD lens on an
>EOS or vice-versa.

Well, I'm a Canon (EOS) user, and I don't have any FD lenses, so I
really don't care. (It would be nice if I could use my old OM lenses,
though... :-)

>   With that said and done, let's go out and take some pictures.

Whatever for? :-)
--
Per Danielsson				pd@sics.se
Swedish Institute of Computer Science, PO Box 1263, S-164 28 KISTA, SWEDEN
Newsgroups: rec.photo
From: acs@csri.toronto.edu (Alvin Chia-Hua Shih)
Subject: Re: Is 24mm or 28mm lens better?
Date: 27 Dec 92 17:30:34 GMT

In <1992Dec27.150447.22261@dec8.ncku.edu.tw> s6801221@mail.ncku.edu.tw () writes:

>    I am planning to buy a wide angle lense. But I don't know whether 
>    a 24m lense or 28mm lense will be better. 
>    Can someone give me some suggestions?

Nope.  It's hard to say without first knowing: what other lenses you
already have, your intended use of the lens, amount of money you want
to spend, etc.

Indeed, it is quite subjective since personal limits to the acceptable
amount perspective distortion vary.  And again, that depends on what
you're shooting.

Money and lens mount permitting, you might want to consider some of the
wide angle zooms (20-35 ish)...

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______________________|
Newsgroups: rec.photo
From: dsp@halcyon.com (Don)
Subject: Re: panoramic cameras ?
Organization: Northwest Nexus Inc. (206) 455-3505
Date: Sun, 27 Dec 1992 05:01:40 GMT

andpph@ritvax.isc.rit.edu writes:

>In article <THOMASS.92Dec26120625@ko.ldgo.columbia.edu>
>>I am new to this group and this may be a FAQ. I consider buying a panoramic 
>>camera and was wondering whether anybody has experience with the Widelux F8 
>>(35mm) camera. I would appreciate some critical comments and advice ...

>From what I have heard this camera is somewhat susceptible to mechanical
>breakdowns. Used with care it should be ok though. You might want to get in
[ ... ]

>I believe the association can be reached through Richard Fowler who lives in
>Orlando, Florida. If you'd like more info I can look it up for you.

>andy


 I'll 2nd what Andy has to say about the Widelux's being tempramental.
If you can, when you buy it (from a shop or private party) make sure
that you can run some test roll/s through it first and then examine the
negs closely.
 For *some* reason they seem to come out of the factory on the basis of
"some are great, other's aren't sharp".

 In one respect you do take your chances when buying one, but if you
find a good one you'll really enjoy using it! (sort of like computers
eh? :)

   Don

Newsgroups: rec.photo
From: dpj@hubcap.clemson.edu (D. Pokrass Jacobs)
Subject: For sale
Organization: Clemson University
Date: Mon, 21 Dec 1992 17:38:42 GMT


FOR SALE:
   1. Nikon FG, black body with strap.
   2. 50 mm Nikon lens (series E)
   3. Nikon SB-18 Speedlight flash attachment
   4. Vivitar 70-210 mm f4.5 zoom lens (fits Nikon)

COMMENTS:
   First three items are about 8 years old.
   Last item is about 5 years old.

CONDITION:

Item 1-- Good, but may need work.  
Item 2-- The glass protector that goes over lens needs replacement.
Item 3-- excellent
Item 4-- excellent

PRICE:  Make offer.  Will sell individually or everything.

Dave Jacobs
dpj@hubcap.clemson.edu
-- 
David P. Jacobs
Department of CS, Clemson University, Clemson SC  29634-1906 
(803) 656-5872
e-mail:	dpj@hubcap.clemson.edu
Newsgroups: rec.photo
From: acs@csri.toronto.edu (Alvin Chia-Hua Shih)
Subject: Re: Canon 10s Vs Nikon N90, Which one?
Date: 28 Dec 92 14:16:56 GMT

Since things are getting a bit messy, I'm going to reformat some of this...

ACS>With those "Monitor Preflashes" it should be possible to calculate all
ACS>of the exposure information at that time and set the flash's power output

ND>To repeat, do you want to quench the flash when only part of the film has
ND>been exposed?

The SB-25 keeps the flash tube illuminated for the full duration of
shutter curtain travel.  The idea is to set the power output in
advance.

The point was that Nikon should be able to, with Monitor Preflash,
calculate the required brightness setting of the flash tube and/or
control the aperture and shutter speed (a priori) to get fill flash
with FP sync.

ACS>(Canon had "Flash Exposure Lock" with the T-90 that did something like this
ACS>for spotmetering.

ND>For shutter speeds faster than the fully-open speed?

ACS>The 300TL did not support FP sync.

ND>Bingo.

I was referring to exposure computations with preflash assist.  That is
something that is separate from, but can be added to, FP sync exposure
computations.

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: acs@csri.toronto.edu (Alvin Chia-Hua Shih)
Newsgroups: rec.photo
Subject: Re: Elan flash question (rookie)
Date: 29 Dec 92 02:29:16 GMT

In <1992Dec28.174938.1@cudnvr.denver.colorado.edu> dwing@cudnvr.denver.colorado.edu (Dan Wing) writes:

>So my question is:  How do I get a smaller aperture with more DOF using my
>flash?  Or is what I am doing completely unnecessary or unexpected?

You have to use Manual mode.  You set the aperture (for DOF), you set
the shutter (to avoid camera shake) and TTL/OTF metering handles the
rest.  Usual shutter speed is 1/60th.

NOTE!  Watch your guide number *carefully*.  The 28-80/3.5-5.6 is slow!
Thus, stopping down too far will cause the flash to underexpose.
Your Elan has a guide number of 12-17m (depending on flash zoom).

Remember that the guide number formula is: range = GN/aperture.
So f/8 is definitely a long shot.

Also note that with smaller apertures, more flash output is required.
You will go through (expensive) lithium batteries more quickly.

If you need more kick, you'll need a shoe-mounted flash.

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: sog@craycos.com (Steve Gombosi)
Newsgroups: rec.photo
Subject: Re: "Signature Color" film -- what's the story?
Date: 21 Dec 92 21:52:13 GMT
Organization: Cray Computer Corporation

In article <BzExtH.7LG@news.cso.uiuc.edu> berger@atropa (Mike Berger) writes:
>mcovingt@aisun3.ai.uga.edu (Michael Covington) writes:
>>With careful processing, it seems to work well.  However, I don't
>>think it's due to the superiority of the film.  (Kodak has every
>>incentive to sell good film to ordinary people, without going to
>>roundabout means such as this.)  Rather, my guess is that it's due to
>>the care that is taken with the processing and printing.
>*----
>Actually, I wouldn't be surprised if the film were superior.  After
>all, it's designed for exquisite color and very substantial enlargement.

Not exactly. This is hardly a new idea - companies have been selling left-over
motion picture stock since I was a kid. Yes, the  film is designed for
"substantial enlargement" - at 24fps. Remember that the grain pattern is
essentially random, so that if you project successive frames at a high
rate, the grain pattern will seem to disappear. Individual motion
picture frames are considerably grainier than one might expect.
Secondly, as donl has noted repeatedly, it's a lot easier to
get splendid, breathtaking color with an awesome dynamic range from a 
projected transparency than from a reflection print. Don't expect to
get prints from motion picture stock that equal the results you see on
the screen. Finally, is the color you see on the screen superior to that
obtainable with K25 or Velvia? Not to my mind, but _de_gustibus_non_disputandum,
as the man said...
>
>I've been told that the film requires special handling for processing,
>including a well-controlled chemistry phase, and removal of a very
>sticky backing from the film.  Most small labs aren't equipped to do
>it and the extra cost associated with that kind of processing won't
>appeal to the snap-shooters.  It might be worth trying a roll or two
>to see if you like the results.

Most labs probably aren't set up to print it very well, either.

By all means, try a couple of rolls if you want - but don't expect miracles.

Steve
Newsgroups: rec.photo