HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
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 02:21:48 GMT

In <BzsJsA.J5I@ra.nrl.navy.mil> tse@ra.nrl.navy.mil (Anthony Tse) writes:

>In article <1992Dec24.191209.7652@jarvis.csri.toronto.edu> acs@csri.toronto.edu (Alvin Chia-Hua Shih) writes:
>>In <1992Dec24.164916.15387@cello.hpl.hp.com> jacobson@cello.hpl.hp.com (David Jacobson) writes:
>>To have focused, your subject must have been in the middle of the
>>viewfinder.  So, it makes sense to take the exposure off the middle of
>>your viewfinder because the subject is there.
>>
>>Am I missing something?

>    I think anyone who compare different metering system in different
>cameras are missing somehting.  What make you think the "subject",
>under any of the mentioned metering system, is always middle gray?

This is all the camera has to go on... Short of firing a probe at the
subject that can relay back ambient exposure readings...

(I can just hear the engineers at Minolta going "Hmmmm...." :-)

>While you are at it, seems to me the trend in new gee-whiz cameras
>today is toward more and more metering modes.  Before long, there
>will be a metering mode for every possible situation, all one has to
>do is figure out which mode is the right one.  [...]

I agree.  However, that takes all the "point-and-shootedness" out of
the camera.  If you know enough about the situation to pick the right
programme mode, you know enough about the camera to set it all up
yourself.

>                                        [...]  I think it's much easier
>to learn one metering mode, the zone system.  I wouldn't want to be the
>one who has to figure out what the 5 zones what not metering mode is
>actually doing in order to dial in the correct exposure compensation.

Exactly.  I would expect that is one reason centre-weighted metering
seems to be making a comeback!

>-Anthony

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: s6801221@mail.ncku.edu.tw
Newsgroups: rec.photo
Subject: Is 24mm or 28mm lens better?
Date: 27 Dec 92 15:04:47 GMT
Organization: National Cheng Kung University, Tainan, Taiwan
X-Newsreader: Tin 1.1 PL3



    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?


                          ____________________________________________________
                          #  Jin-Jia Chang				     #
                          #  email address: s6801221@mail.ncku.edu.tw        #
                          #  National Cheng Kung University, Tainan, Taiwan  #
                          ----------------------------------------------------
From: jay@metran.UUCP (Jay Ts)
Newsgroups: rec.photo
Subject: Re: Velvia processing
Date: 24 Dec 92 13:40:37 GMT
Organization: Metran Technology, Tampa, Florida

fhd@panix.com (Frank Deutschmann) writes:
: 
: Is there a (visible) difference when Velvia is processed CR-56
: (whatever that is, new Fuji thing it must be) rather than E-6?

CR-56 is Fuji's reverse-engineered E-6 process.  I have been informed by
a Fuji USA Technical Support rep that the two processes are virtually
identical.

I don't know how accurate that information is, but for most of us, it
doesn't matter; Fuji's CR-56 chemistry is simply unavailable in the
US.  Maybe the differences (if any) are so insignificant that Fuji
doesn't deem CR-56 worthy of importation here.  Maybe if they did, it
would cost more.  Who knows?
-- 
Jay Ts
uucp mail: uunet!myrddin!tscs!metran!jay
phone: (813) 979-9169
Newsgroups: rec.photo
From: shiscock@kean.ucs.mun.ca
Subject: Re: camera toughness. Ode to screw mount Pentax
Organization: Memorial University. St.John's Nfld, Canada
Date: Thu, 31 Dec 1992 15:23:16 GMT

I have read here about the toughness of Nikonos and Leicas. I cannot 
dispute these claims as I have yet to be fortunate enough to own either of 
these cameras. I am a hobby shutterbug and i am none too gentle with my 
gear which consists of two old Pentax screw mount bodies, SP 500 and SP 
1000. Both cameras have had their share of drops onto various surfaces and 
exposure to nasty Newfoundland liquid sunshine. Both show the signs of 
their wear and tear but function beautifully. Especially when I use my 
Zeiss lenses on them :) The only draw back is the stop down metering :( 
which I don't mind so much as i have never had an auto exposure camera 
either. TTFN
From: bu890@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Brian Segal)
Newsgroups: rec.photo
Subject: Re: 81A, 81B, & 82A filters: What are they for?
Date: 1 Jan 1993 13:53:25 GMT
Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, Ohio (USA)
NNTP-Posting-Host: hela.ins.cwru.edu


The 80 series filters are Color Temperature Conversion or CTC filters.
Their purpose is to change the apparent color temperature of the light
received by the film in order to compensate for actual
light conditions and match the existing light temperature to the
correct recording range of the film.  Daylight film is
formulated to give a "true" color rendition when the color temperature
of the light is about 5500 Kelvins.  Any deviation will show up
as either bluer or redder depending on the color temperature..the lower
the light temperature the more the light shift to the red end of
the spectrum and vice versa.  This is all based on a theorhetical
black body radiating changing colors as heated.

You don't really need an expensive color temperature meter for most
practical applications..a Kodak Professional Film Guide - which is about
20 bucks - will suffice in most situations...just consult the
handy dandy dial...in fact I believe that even the tiny pocket edition
of the film guide has the CTC filter dial.

Here is the nomenclature:

All filters numbered 81 and going from 81 to 81EF are warming filters.

All filters bumbered 82 to 82C are cooloin filters.

The above filters are for incremental graduated changes in color temperature
with any film...obviously they have different functions with daylight VS
tungsten films.

The really powerful ones..the 80 series to convert daylight film to
tungsten range and the 85 series to use tungsten to daylight are generally
used primarily as film conversion filters..although in the extreme ends of
the spectrum are also used for light balancing purpoises.

Tungsten photo lamps radiate at about 3200Kelvins.

All of this is in your Photo Guide...every one who shoots at all seriously
should own a copy.

brian
Newsgroups: rec.photo
From: acs@csri.toronto.edu (Alvin Chia-Hua Shih)
Subject: Re: Lithiums vs. alkalines (was Re: was going to get 8008s but EOS 10s recommended)
Date: 22 Dec 92 06:22:53 GMT

>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).  [...]

Please cite the source for "flimsy" and "break easily".

Thanks.

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: hafner@ifi.unizh.ch (Michel Hafner)
Subject: Kodak's Cineon System
Organization: University of Zurich, Department of Computer Science
Date: Tue, 22 Dec 92 15:19:13 GMT

Does anybody know where I can get information about the Cineon digital film
system of Kodak ( Hardware and Software description )?
Please mail to hafner@ifi.unizh.ch, since I don't read this group regularly.
Thanks!
Newsgroups: rec.photo
From: acs@csri.toronto.edu (Alvin Chia-Hua Shih)
Subject: Re: Elan "better" than 10s?
Date: 4 Jan 93 01:07:02 GMT

In <1993Jan3.224644.1001@colorado.edu> panos@burton.cs.colorado.edu (Panos Tsirigotis) writes:

			[...]

>Finally, here are some features that are missing from both cameras:

>2) Use of the analog exposure scale in manual mode
>	I am really perplexed about this one. Although both the 10s
>	and the Elan have an analog exposure scale, they don't use
>	it in manual mode. Instead they use '+','-' to indicate
>	how to adjust exposure (when both '+' and '-' light up
>	you have reached the correct exposure). The only models
>	that do use the exposure scale in manual mode are the EOS-1
>	and the Rebel (but not the Rebel II). And the use of the QCD
>	coupled with the exposure scale make manual mode very easy
>	to use plus you can tell by how much you are under/over exposing
>	if you need to do this.
>	BTW, the A2 also uses the +,- method (if it used the exposure
>	scale in manual mode I would have bought it despite the price
>	difference from the Elan).

The 10s doesn't have an exposure scale in the viewfinder.

I'm beginning to think that the folks at Canon are being a little too
protective of their EOS 1.  Instead of improving the EOS 1, they put
silly design limitations into their newer bodies.  The exposure scale
is one example.  Not offering to support AA's on the A2/E is another.

I hope Canon will someday realize that not everyone has the money to
spend on an EOS 1.  I think an Elan with an exposure scale for metered
manual mode would really clean up in terms of market share.  (However,
some might point out that Canon would only be hurting other Japanese
camera companies and that there are no antitrust laws in Japan...)

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: phr@telebit.com (Paul Rubin)
Subject: Re: Nikon F4, how to clean focusing screen?
Organization: Telebit Corporation; Sunnyvale, CA, USA
Date: 21 Dec 92 20:13:01

Focusing screens are very hard to clean without scratching.  They
are not that expensive to replace, however, especially if you could
afford an F4 in the first place (F4 screens are around $25).

I have several scratches in my N8008 screen and just live with them.
Newsgroups: rec.photo
From: taw@kepler.cc.bellcore.com ()
Subject: Nikon F4, how to clean focusing screen?
Organization: Bellcore, Livingston, NJ
Date: Mon, 21 Dec 92 06:48:35 GMT
Keywords: cleaning, focusing screens, F4, Nikon 

  While on a business trip to Florida about a week ago, I managed to dirty
the focusing screen (type B) of my Nikon F4.  Yes.. I know that I shouldn't 
have taken the finder apart, but I got bored in the hotel room one night 
and decided to take my F4 apart for fun.  Yeah, it wasn't a bright idea 
and you can bet that I would never do this again near a sink.  I'm just
glad that I didn't drop the F4 too. 

  Anyway, I would like to know how and what is the best way to clean the
focusing screen.  I am particularly interested in how to clean the non-
smooth surface on one side of the focusing screen.

  Thanks in advance for any suggestions. 
-
Tom Warren  Email: taw@springfield.cam.bellcore.com 1-908-699-2896
Bellcore RRC-5D121 444 Hoes Lane Piscataway NJ 08855 USA
Newsgroups: rec.photo
From: alc@gdstech.GRUMMAN.COM (Al Chang)
Subject: Re: Olympus Stylus Recommendations
Organization: Grumman Corporation
	<BzFH56.JEB@mentor.cc.purdue.edu> <20511@ucdavis.ucdavis.edu>
Date: Mon, 21 Dec 1992 21:46:05 GMT


In article <20511@ucdavis.ucdavis.edu> auyeung@toadflax.cs.ucdavis.edu (Tak [UlTech] AuYeung) writes:


   I'd recommend it, too!

   Although the Stylus is assembled in Hong Kong (at least for
   mine), and it is all-plastic, the pictures are quite sharp.  Developed
   to 4x6, the pictured taken by the Stylus showed no difference from the
   ones taken by my EOS630 using an EF35-70 lens at 35mm.  The fill-in
   flash of the Stylus is also very accurate.

   I have a more fancy Ricoh Shotmaster zoom (P&S zoom, assembled in
   Taiwan), but the sharpness is really so-so even developed to 4x6.

   The only complaint about the Stylus is that its dust cover may leave a
   small opening so dust can go through.  But with a good camera bag (I
   use the small Tamrac bag), this sure be no problem...

Using a camera bag defeats the advantages of the camera. I carry it in
my shirt/jacket pocket in the clothe case that came with it. 
I just occassionally blow/brush out the lens area. 

Add one more complaint, RED eye! The flash is so close to the lens
that has the worst red eye problems I've experienced. The red eye
reduction just makes smaller red eye and allows the subject to move
substantially before the picture actually get exposed.

It is quite sharp. If you rarely use the flash, it is superb.

--
******************************************************************************
Al Chang (516)346-6757,  FAX: (516)575-0965, email: alc@calvin.grumman.com
Grumman Data Systems, 111 Stewart Avenue, MS D12/25, Bethpage, New York 11714
******************************************************************************
-- 
******************************************************************************
Al Chang (516)346-6757,  FAX: (516)575-0965, email: alc@calvin.grumman.com
Grumman Data Systems, 111 Stewart Avenue, MS D12/25, Bethpage, New York 11714
******************************************************************************
From: ka1gt@cbnewsm.cb.att.com (robert.m.atkins)
Newsgroups: rec.photo
Subject: AF motors in lens (Re: Canon 10s Vs Nikon N90, Which one?
Date: 23 Dec 92 19:50:52 GMT
Distribution: na
Organization: AT&T

In article <1992Dec23.090900.19842@jarvis.csri.toronto.edu>, acs@csri.toronto.edu (Alvin Chia-Hua Shih) writes:
> In <1992Dec22.190513.10742@research.nj.nec.com> lds@ccrl.nj.nec.com (Duan-Shin Lee) writes:
> 
> >>and, in my mind, Nikon has basically orphaned it now that they realize
> >>Canon was right to put the motors in the lenses all along.  With the
> >>money you save, you could add another lens to your system, like the
> >>100-300 USM.
> 
> >I don't understand why it is right to put moters in the lenses.
> >If you have 10 lenses, it is more economical to have one motor in
> >the camera body than to have 10 motors, one in each lense.
> >I suppose that the advantage to put the motor in a lense is
> >that this way the motor produces more torque to move
> >the glass.  If so, only BIG lenses need motors in them, such as
> >the 600mm/f4.  For wide angle to short telephoto lenses, the F4,
> >N90 or even the 8008s do not focuse perceivably (at lease to me)
> >more slowly than the Canon's.  However, the extra motor in the
> >Canon lenses (wide angles to short telephotos) is going to cost
> >more for the buyers.
> 
> So what you're saying is that Nikon should cater to the "budget shooter
> group" rather than design the best possible AF for professionals?  Why
> talk about a professional camera and economics in the same breath?
> 
> The advantage of having motors as a part of the lens is to have the
> motor closest to where it will do the most good.  Thus, you win in

One of the main advantages to putting a motor in the lens rather than in
the camera body is that you can then tailor the motor characteristics to
the lens in use. For a 600/4 you can use a large motor with lots of torque,
while for a 50/2 you can use a small, light, efficient motor. If you have
to use one motor for everything from a 14mm fisheye to an 800mm telephoto
you are going to have to sacrifice performance somewhere - either in speed,
efficiency, size, weight, noise, accuracy or whatever.

It may be slightly more expensive to put a motor in each lens, though if you
look at recent Sigma lenses you will find that the EOS versions are not
always any more expensive than Nikon versions (though they are more
expensive in some cases and from other manufacturers). It may be that they
are not intrinsically more expensive, but that they cost a little more to
develop - hence the higher cost.

===============================================================
Bob Atkins  AT&T Bell Labs  email (direct)  att!clockwise!rma
===============================================================
Newsgroups: rec.photo
Subject: Looking for used camera
From: phil+@pitt.edu (Philip A Kremer)
Date: 18 Dec 92 07:45:20 GMT
Distribution: rec.photo
Organization: University of Pittsburgh


I would like to buy an inexpensive second-hand beginner camera.

Something like a Minolta X370 would be appropriate.  (I saw one
new for $200, including a 50 mm lens, and I saw one used for $150
including a 50 mm lens.  Could I do better than that?  Is this
a good camera?)

Please respond by e-mail at PHIL@VMS.CIS.PITT.EDU

Thanks.
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>
Date: 24 Dec 92 21:06:13

       Why do you want a split or microprism screen?  First off, with
    AF, you don't need focusing aid.  .....   One of the
    few things that I like about AF cameras (obviousely, I don't use one)
    is that they all seems to have bright plain focusing screen.  

Yes it is obvious that you don't use an AF camera, otherwise
you would understand why sometimes you want a manual focus screen.
AF is great in most circumstances but sometimes you just want
to focus the camera yourself.
From: jay@metran.UUCP (Jay Ts)
Newsgroups: rec.photo
Subject: Re: Tony Stone Worldwide US Address
Date: 31 Dec 92 21:57:48 GMT
Organization: Metran Technology, Tampa, Florida

shiu@cae.wisc.edu (Shiu Wong) writes:
: 
: If anyone knows the address/1-800 number of Tony Stone Worldwide 
: US office please do tell me.  Thanks in advance.

For everyone else: Tony Stone Worldwide is an international photo stock
agency.  If you want to see some prime examples of excellent stock
photography, take a peek at one of their catalogs!

phone number: 1-800-234-7880

address:  233 East Ontario St., Suite 1200
	  Chicago IL 60611

-- 
Jay Ts
uucp mail: uunet!myrddin!tscs!metran!jay
phone: (813) 979-9169
Newsgroups: rec.photo
From: duli@boulder.Colorado.EDU (Li Du)
Subject: Re: Tamron 90/2.5 macro 
Organization: University of Colorado, Boulder
Date: Wed, 30 Dec 1992 22:11:53 GMT

In article <PD.92Dec30212624@horus.sics> pd@sics.se (Per Danielsson) writes:
>In article <1992Dec30.151756> jpglori@srv.PacBell.COM (JOHN) writes:
=>>Is your recommendation for the Tamron 90mm macro a personal preference 
=>>or is it substantiated by "lab" testing and or "field" testing by a 
=>>non-partistan group?
>
>It is based on a test by the magazine "Aktuell Fotografi". The Tamron
>90/2.5 macro and the Zeiss PLanar T* 85/1.4 got the highest ratings in
>a test of 34 short telephoto lenses from 85mm to 135mm. All the major
>brands were represented.
>
	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. I have never used the
	Tamron 90/2.5 macro, so I can't comment on its quality. But
	to say it is nearly as good as a Zeiss Planar T* 85/1.4 means
	practically nothing when "macro/micro" is the main concern.
	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.
	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.

---------------------------------
 Li Du | duli@prony.colorado.edu
---------------------------------
Newsgroups: rec.photo
From: byab354@chpc.utexas.edu (Jim Xu)
Subject: Which UV filter is better?
Organization: The University of Texas System - CHPC
Date: Fri, 1 Jan 93 07:24:13 GMT

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?

Thanks for all replies.
Jim
--
From: bson@gnu.ai.mit.edu (Jan Brittenson)
Newsgroups: rec.photo
Subject: Re: Tamron 90/2.5 macro (was Re: Longish macro lens for EOS. (was Re: Canon 10s Vs Nikon N90, Which one?))
Date: 30 Dec 92 16:35:04
Organization: nil
	<PD.92Dec30014256@horus.sics.se> <1992Dec30.151756.24872@PacBell.COM>
	<PD.92Dec30212624@horus.sics.se>
NNTP-Posting-Host: goldman.gnu.ai.mit.edu
In-reply-to: pd@sics.se's message of 30 Dec 92 20:26:24 GMT

In article <PD.92Dec30212624@horus.sics.se> pd@sics.se (Per Danielsson) writes:

 > It is based on a test by the magazine "Aktuell Fotografi". The Tamron
 > 90/2.5 macro and the Zeiss PLanar T* 85/1.4 got the highest ratings in
 > a test of 34 short telephoto lenses from 85mm to 135mm. All the major
 > brands were represented.

Care to repost this test?

--
						-- Jan Brittenson
						   bson@gnu.ai.mit.edu
From: reza@cc.usu.edu
Newsgroups: rec.photo
Subject: Mamyia ZE 35mm Camera
Date: 29 Dec 92 17:24:07 MDT
Organization: Utah State University

I own a Mamyia ZE 35mm camera. I have a small problem- the auto-exposure meter
seems to be stuck. The camera never registers using a exposure longer than
1/60 (which is not good for outside photos). If you have any suggestions,
please mail. 

Also... If I were to sell this camera. What would be a good approxiamation of
what to expect? (assuming I can work the above mentioned bug out)

Reza
-- 
REZA@CC.USU.EDU
From: rl@socrates.ucsf.edu (Robert Langridge)
Newsgroups: rec.photo
Subject: EOS 630 vs Elan?
Date: 20 Dec 92 21:50:23 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: UCSF Computer Graphics Lab

I have owned an EOS 630 for some years, and while I am happy with it and
have so far resisted the siren calls of the "newer" models, I have recently 
handled an Elan, and am considering trading.  The built-in flash and quiet 
wind are nice, the camera is not quite as bulky and the controls appear to 
be more user friendly.

Any words of advice, pro or con?  (for you Nikonophiles, I intend to keep
my lenses :-)

Bob Langridge    		       Phone: +1 415 476-2630, -1540, -5128
Computer Graphics Laboratory		               FAX: +1 415 476-0688 
926 Medical Sciences
University of California	                    E-Mail: rl@cgl.ucsf.edu
San Francisco  CA  94143-0446 
Newsgroups: rec.photo
From: phr@telebit.com (Paul Rubin)
Subject: Anyone do their own C41 developing?
Organization: Telebit Corporation; Sunnyvale, CA, USA
Distribution: rec
Date: 27 Dec 92 01:52:44

How difficult is it compared with black and white developing?  Is it
very sensitive to temperature variation during processing, precise
chemical concentration and development timing, impurities, etc.?  Are
the chemicals especially toxic compared to black-and-white chemicals?

I do my own fast-and-sloppy B&W film development with
usually-acceptable results, but find it an unpleasant chore compared
with printing.  I'm wondering whether I could also do my own C41
without really hating it.

Also, how much $$$ do I have to spend to get started?  I don't
care much about the cost per roll for chemicals but wonder what
I need besides my s/s tank and reels and and cheap thermometer.

Newsgroups: rec.photo