HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: ka1gt@cbnewsm.cb.att.com (robert.m.atkins)
Newsgroups: rec.photo
Subject: Re: Sigma 400 5.6 APO thoughts
Date: 10 Apr 92 16:49:01 GMT
Distribution: na
Organization: AT&T

In article <PBK.92Apr10102603@mtuxo.ATT.COM>, pbk@mtuxo.ATT.COM (54524-P.KIDD(MT5502)0000) writes:
> 		
> 	I have read the current news concerning the SIGMA 400 5.6 APO lens and
> seem to be confused. One person who just purchased a Nikon F4 states that this
> lens only autofocuses 10-15% of the time in bright daylight. I checked a Nikon
> brochure and found the spec stating a maximum aperture of 5.6 is required for
> electronic focus assistance.
.........
> 	I am not stating that the person who claimed it did not work is wrong.
> I personally have not tried this lense but would like to as Nikon does not
> have an autofocus above 300 ( except for the new 600 f4, lots of money). Is
> it possible this person has a defective camera or lense or is Sigma actually
> trying to market a lense as autofocus that only "works" 10-15% of the time.

I don't own a Sigma 400/5.6 or a Sigma 500/7.2, but I have handled both lenses
on Nikon AF bodies (at PHOTO 91 in NYC). Even in the indoor lighting
conditions I used them under, both lenses performed AF without a problem.
I was particularly suprised that the 500/7.2 AF'd so well given the usual
manufacturers warning about AF operation slower than f5.6. Sigma did
suggest that they had some circuitry which "fooled" the camera into thinking
the 7.2 was really 5.6. That wouldn't help the camera to focus, but might
stop it giving up if it thought the lens was too slow. I have corresponded
with several 400/5.6 users and none have complained about poor AF operation.

I suspect the original poster may have had a lens/camera/operational problem.
I don't think the reported behaviour is typical.


===============================================================
Bob Atkins  AT&T Bell Labs  email (direct)  att!clockwise!rma
===============================================================
Newsgroups: rec.photo
From: ong@a.cs.okstate.edu (ONG ENG TENG)
Subject: Re: Anyone have ANY Comments about the SIGMA 400mm f5.6 APO Lense?????
Organization: Oklahoma State University
Distribution: na
Date: Thu, 9 Apr 92 18:02:30 GMT

From article <1992Apr9.165900.22483@cbnewsm.cb.att.com>, by ka1gt@cbnewsm.cb.att.com (robert.m.atkins):
> I e-mailed a response to the original posting, but it might be of general
> interest to note that Pop. Photog. just tested this lens and found it to
> be f6.2, not f5.6 at full aperture. I wonder if they got a bad one, or if
> this is true for all of them. I know its only 1/3 stop, but would you buy
> one if it were a Sigma 400/6.2 rather than a Sigma 400/5.6 ??

Yeah, I have one and the lens is compact, *really* compact.  I had a
Nikkor 300/4.5 (not ED) several years ago and I feel that it is larger
and longer then the Sigma.
From: madson@unix.SRI.COM (Carl Madson)
Newsgroups: rec.photo
Subject: Re: Cambridge Photo...
Keywords: Cambridge, darkroom, cambron
Date: 16 Apr 92 15:49:39 GMT
Distribution: na
Organization: SRI International, Menlo Park, California

In article <1992Apr15.170944.21729@cbnewsm.cb.att.com> ka1gt@cbnewsm.cb.att.com (robert.m.atkins) writes:

>> dev., darkroom design book.)  But my question is: Can I trust Cambridge?
>
>
>In a word  NO!!!!!!!

Ditto! Run, don't walk, from the bastards at Cambridge! Too many netters have
been screwed royally by Cambridge. You'd be better off taking a chance on the
classified section of your local newspaper.


		--Carl Madson, SRI International, Menlo Park, CA
From: lytle@noao.edu (Dyer Lytle  CCS)
Newsgroups: rec.photo
Subject: Re: Joshua Tree NM. Need info on photo experiences
Date: 11 Apr 92 20:16:38 GMT
Distribution: na
Organization: National Optical Astronomy Observatories, Tucson AZ


Well, I figured someone would have mentioned this by now but...

Joshua Tree National Monument is in southern California just north of
Interstate 10 near Indio.  I spent one Thanksgiving vacation there
climbing rocks (there are a LOT of climbing routes, most are one pitch).

I remember arriving there at about 2 AM and setting up camp.  The large
standing rocks in the desert with the Joshua Trees all around in the
moonlight gave the place a very otherworldly feeling.  I was there
before I started doing any serious photography, I didn't even have a
camera with me!  I would say that it probably would be a great place
for it though.

 -Dyer


-- 
Dyer Lytle, National Optical Astronomy Observatories, Tucson, AZ, 602-323-4136
Internet: lytle@noao.edu        SPAN: NOAO::LYTLE (NOAO=5355)
Organization: City University of New York/ University Computer Center
Date: Friday, 10 Apr 1992 12:16:13 EST
From: John Mavroudis <YSZBH@CUNYVM.BITNET>
Newsgroups: rec.photo
Subject: Re: About Russian Cameras
Distribution: usa

This is a response on the the question about Russian cameras.

There are two brand names that I know of. PRAKTIKA and ZENIT. I think ZENIT
are better, or at least more popular. I've seen a lot of them in Europe.
They are very basic SLR's. Top speed 1/500 or 1/1000 of a sec. Through the
view finder you can see the niddle of the meter, and when focusing, the whole
image gets clear or blur. There's no split image. About the Nikon compatibility
I think you are asking for way too much. The lenses screw onto the body like
a regular screw. Personally, I've only seen 50mm and in a "once in a lifetime
experience" a huge 1000mm lense.
Also if you care about looks, they are a bit squarish and as pretty as the
other ones.
I've seen some in New York camera stores for around $100.00.
I forgot to mention that there is only manual mode. At lest for the ones I've
seen.
This information is about models that have been around for a few years. I don't
know what the latest developments on the Russian camera industry are.
An Auto Focus model maybe??

John Mavroudis
yszbh@cunyvm
City University of New York
Newsgroups: rec.photo
Subject: Re: Minolta SLR info wanted
From: Allen French <ICSAFF@ASUACAD.BITNET>
Date: Tuesday, 14 Apr 1992 10:01:01 MST
Organization: Arizona State University

Thanks for the information on the older Minolta camera lines. I have
a beat up SRT-101 and a XD-11 which is in pretty good shape. What is
the story behind Leica selling an XD-11 copy? What kind of agreement
did the two companies have? Why would Leica do this?
From: duli@boulder.Colorado.EDU (Li Du)
Newsgroups: rec.photo
Subject: Re: Some arcane questions
Date: 9 Apr 92 18:30:59 GMT
Article-I.D.: colorado.1992Apr9.183059.5856
Organization: University of Colorado, Boulder

In article <144304.27087> shun@cbnewsh.cb.att.com (shun.cheung) writes:
>It really varies from case to case whether Nikon changes the
>optical design when they introduce the AF version of a lens.
>The 105 macro mentioned above is very different from the
>non-AF version, for example, but the 35mm/f2 AF is optically
>identical to the non-AF lens.
	Just a point here, the AF 35/2.0 is not optically identical
	to the non-AF 35/2.0. The AF version has a 6-element 5-group
	design that foucses down to 0.25m, while the MF version had
	a 8-elememt 6-group design that focused to 0.3m. Which lens
	is the better one? Looks like the AF 35/2 is the favorite
	choice now. The AF version is also more compact and lighter
	(215g vs 280g).

----------------------------------
 Li Du | duli@prony.colorado.edu
----------------------------------
Newsgroups: rec.photo
From: shun@cbnewsh.cb.att.com (shun.cheung)
Subject: Re: Nikon AF F2.8 70-200 Lens - Is it worth it?
Organization: AT&T
Date: Tue, 7 Apr 1992 21:11:03 GMT

In article <1992Apr07.192720.28567@hpmcaa.mcm.hp.com> johnm@hpmcaa.mcm.hp.com (John Mosbarger) writes:

>     I can't comment on the 70-210, but consider me a *very* satisfied user
>of the 80-200.  The speed and size are worth it for me.  The only drawback
>is the lack of a tripod mounting collar, but Kirk Enterprises sells a
>mounting 'frame' for about $140.  Comparatively speaking, the 80-200 is
>not all that expensive.

I am also a very satisfied owner of the 80-200/2.8 ED AF.
The optical quality and speed are the main advantages.
I personally have no problem with the lack of a tripod collar
and its relative heavy weight.
-- 
-- Shun Cheung,    electronic: shun.cheung@att.com    voice: (908) 615-5135
     HR 1A-304, AT&T Bell Labs, 480 Red Hill Road, Middletown, NJ, 07748 USA
Newsgroups: rec.photo
From: taw@kepler.uucp (Thomas A. Warren)
Subject: Re: Circular Polarizer and Auto Focus
Reply-To: taw@kepler.UUCP (Thomas A. Warren)
Organization: Bell Communications Research, NJ
Date: Sat, 11 Apr 92 07:52:22 GMT

  Sorry for getting back so late.  I haven't had much time
  to read netnews for a while.. (Too busy at work..)

In article <1992Apr6.223851.4752@bony1.bony.com> jake@bony1.bony.com (Jake Livni) writes:
>In article <1992Apr4.232101.27822@porthos.cc.bellcore.com> taw@kepler.UUCP (Thomas A. Warren) writes:
>>> Mark Goldberg said:
>>> it will not vignet on my 20mm wide angle (it
>>> makes for a dramatic effect with this lens.  Not as pronounced with
>>> long lenses.
>>
>>While I agree that they are not cheap, the Nikon circular polarizer (more
>>specifically the 62mm one) that I use with my 35-70mm f2.8 and 20mm f2.8 
>>does cause some vignetting.. At least the document that came with the
>>filter states that...
>>
>> With the following lenses, the filter causes vignetting.
>> Lenses with a 62mm filter attachment.. AF Nikkor 20mm f2.8.
>
>How wide is this polarizer?  How deep is the mount?

  The Nikon polarizer that I have is 62 mm.  The opening end (with
  grove to screw into the front of the lens) measures ~62 mm (approx.
  because I only have an old broken and worn-out ruler at this time)
  and the front end measures ~65 mm (glass only) and the frame measures
  ~75 mm.  The thickness is ~10 mm.

>I had this problem on my Olympus lenses.  The components involved are:
>  21mm wide-angle accepting 49mm accessories,
>  B+W Skylight permanently mounted,
>  Extra-wide Minolta polarizer (55mm thread) on a 49 -> 55 step-up ring,
>Result: it vignettes.
>
>I tried it with a thinner Vivitar Sky (the B+W's are deeper than most);
>it still vignettes.  So the only way to avoid vignetting is to REMOVE 
>the sky and mount the polarizer.  This adds dust and dirt, part of the 
>reason for keeping the sky on permanently in the first place.
>
>I even tried it with a 55mm sky mounted on a step-up ring and the 
>55mm polarizer going straight on top of that.  Still vignetted.
>
>Does anyone have some good solutions for this?

I would try your first approach to remove the UV/SKY filter.
So far I haven't had much leisure time to test this out.  But when
I do, I'll post to the result.
-
T. Warren  1-908-699-2896 : taw@kepler.cc.bellcore.com or taw@kepler.UUCP
RRC-5H127 Bell Communications Research, Inc. 444 Hoes Lane Piscataway NJ 08855
Xref: sparky rec.photo:6892 comp.sys.amiga.graphics:3542
From: Harv@cup.portal.com (Harv R Laser)
Newsgroups: rec.photo,comp.sys.amiga.graphics
Subject: Re: Canon Xapshot help !!!!!
Date: 8 Apr 92 04:26:23 GMT
Article-I.D.: cup.57056
  <7APR199214584645@aedc-vax.af.mil>
Distribution: usa
Organization: The Portal System (TM)

>
>I would also appreciate any info on the Xapshot as well as 
>any info on compatibility with Amiga software, hardware, DigaView, 
>etc.
>
>Thanks
>
>Tom Daugherty

Your bestest cheapest solution to getting Xaphot pictures into your
Amiga would be
a) find a used PP&S Framegrabber somewhere (check c.s.a.marketplace,
I see them for sale there all the time for $250 and under)
b) buy a new or used DCTV.

The Xapshot outputs NTSC color composite video. The quality is on
par with what you get out of a VHS VCR. 

DCTV and Framegrabber both have RCA-style NTSC color composite
INPUT jacks. They can both digitize directly from the signal
coming out of the camera. Framegrabber is faster but cannot grab
24 bit data, only 12 bit.

DigiView would be problematic since it expects the kind of signal
output by one of those security-type black and white
cameras which must be digitized three times through a color wheel. 
You'd have to also buy a color splitter if you wanted to hook a
Xapshot to a DigiView. A messy setup.

You could also send Xapshot output into a Toaster but it would probably
have to be time base corrected first... not sure and I have no
personal experience with that combo.

The results with DCTV are excellent and Digital Creations supports
and endorses the use of the Canon RC-250 Xapshot still video camera
with their DCTV. 

Regards, Harv
(Xapshot, DCTV, Firecracker owner, former FrameGrabber owner :-)
From: fiddler@concertina.Eng.Sun.COM (steve hix)
Newsgroups: rec.photo
Subject: Re: Cameras with lockup, etc.
Date: 13 Apr 92 18:30:02 GMT
Organization: Sun Microsystems, Mt. View, Ca.
NNTP-Posting-Host: concertina

In article <1992Apr9.184558.6517@cerritos.edu> jacobs@cerritos.edu writes:
>In article <1992Apr8.201518.12141@linus.mitre.org>, chaloux@mandolin.mitre.org (Dave Chaloux) writes:
>> I have been getting into Astrophotography lately and have been using a
>> Pentax K1000 for same. I have thought about replacing this camera and getting
>> something that:
>> 1) I can use for Astrophotography.
>> 2) I can use for Auto Everything.
>
>	As far as finding a camera that is fully auto and doesn't drain the
>battery, forget it, Even the lofty F4 (of which I own two) will still give you
>problems. My recommendation is to get an 8008 for all your auto stuff and get a
>used FM2n to shoot to stars with (and put a bright screen in the FM2). Going

A Canon T90 is auto-everything and doesn't drain the battery in B mode...the
second curtain is not held from going during time exposures, it is kicked out
at the end of the exposure.  Good screens for astrophotography available, too.

You *could*, btw, hold something over the front of the telescope at the beginning
exposure to let vibration die down, you know.  It's not like trying to catch
birds on the wing, after all.

Maybe not elegant, but it should work.

--
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Of making many books there is no end...  |  What's wrong with chasing 
                       -- Eccl. 12:12    |  nebulae till 3 am?  |-(
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: jake@bony1.bony.com (Jake Livni)
Newsgroups: rec.photo
Subject: Re: Circular Polarizer and Auto Focus
Date: 6 Apr 92 22:38:51 GMT
Organization: The Department of Redundancy Department

In article <1992Apr4.232101.27822@porthos.cc.bellcore.com> taw@kepler.UUCP (Thomas A. Warren) writes:
>> Mark Goldberg said:
>> These filters are not cheap.  The Nikon circular polarizer I purchased
>> cost about $100 bucks.  Fortunately, Nikon designed it in its own oversized
>> rotating mount, so that it will not vignet on my 20mm wide angle (it
>> makes for a dramatic effect with this lens.  Not as pronounced with
>> long lenses.
>
>While I agree that they are not cheap, the Nikon circular polarizer (more
>specifically the 62mm one) that I use with my 35-70mm f2.8 and 20mm f2.8 
>does cause some vignetting.. At least the document that came with the
>filter states that...
>
> With the following lenses, the filter causes vignetting.
> Lenses with a 62mm filter attachment.. AF Nikkor 20mm f2.8.

How wide is this polarizer?  How deep is the mount?

I had this problem on my Olympus lenses.  The components involved are:
  21mm wide-angle accepting 49mm accessories,
  B+W Skylight permanently mounted,
  Extra-wide Minolta polarizer (55mm thread) on a 49 -> 55 step-up ring,
Result: it vignettes.

I tried it with a thinner Vivitar Sky (the B+W's are deeper than most);
it still vignettes.  So the only way to avoid vignetting is to REMOVE 
the sky and mount the polarizer.  This adds dust and dirt, part of the 
reason for keeping the sky on permanently in the first place.

I even tried it with a 55mm sky mounted on a step-up ring and the 
55mm polarizer going straight on top of that.  Still vignetted.

Does anyone have some good solutions for this?

NB Polarizers on extreme wide angles don't always result in such great 
   skies.  Because the degree of polarization depends on the proportion
   of polarized light coming from that part of the sky, the darkening
   effect will vary depending on where you're pointing the lens.  With 
   a very wide lens, you're effectively looking at various parts of the
   sky simultaneouslyand the patchy look given to the sky can be disconcerting.


-- 
Jake Livni
jake@bony1.bony.com
My opinions only - employer has no opinions.
Newsgroups: rec.photo
From: Bhaskar Bose <bose@soupfin.cs.indiana.edu>
Subject: Nikon AF F2.8 70-200 Lens - Is it worth it?
Organization: Computer Science, Indiana University
Date: Tue, 7 Apr 1992 12:34:52 -0500

I currently have a Nikon AF F4.5 70-210 lens.  I have been looking at
the autofocus F2.8 70-200 lens from NIKON and I am wondering is it
worth it.  Is the lens that much better than my current lens or will 
the difference be marginal?

Thanks in advance, and Best Regards.
-- 
Bhaskar Bose                                   (812) 855-3652
bose@iuvax.cs.indiana.edu                      Hardware Methods Laboratory
                                               Department of Computer Science
                                               Indiana University
From: jake@bony1.bony.com (Jake Livni)
Newsgroups: rec.photo
Subject: Re: OM-PC (and OM-2SP) Problem
Date: 8 Apr 92 16:34:25 GMT
Organization: The Department of Redundancy Department

In article <92098.123500JBEST@ESOC.BITNET> Jon <JBEST@ESOC.BITNET> writes:
>> Problems with drained batteries in OM-PC...
>
>I've also had problems with batteries dying VERY fast in my OM-2SP. It
>uses the standard 1.5V cells but they don't seem to last more than a
>month or so - even when the camera's not being used much. Is there
>really that much drain on the baterries (even when it's all switched off)?

Some OM-2S's (I believe these are called -2SP in Europe) had faults 
that caused batteries to drain, even while sitting in a box for months
doing nothing.  I had this problem and had it fixed by Olympus (even 
after the warranty had expired).  They are aware of this problem and 
it sounds like this may well be what you have.

I picked up a good hint here on rec.photo: setting the shutter speed
to "B" turns off all the elctronics.  I now set it to "B" when storing
the camera.  (I don't know if this is good/bad/otherwise for the mechanical
internals.)  Another thing to check is that nothing is pressing on the
light button, the one that illuminates the LCD for nightime use.  That
should be pretty obvious.

>It's been suggested that I should only use a certain type of battery
>(lithium I think) to avoid the cold weather problem. Anyone else had
>these problems? Do I really need to replace my batteries every month?
>(EXPENSIVE!). Help....

I'm not sure, but I think that lithium batteries are wrong for this camera.
Among the best that I know of are (Eveready?) EPX-76 batteries (2 required).
They are supposed to have a long shelf-life so that you can keep a spare 
set at home or in the camera bag for time of need.

-- 
Jake Livni
jake@bony1.bony.com
My opinions only - employer has no opinions.
From: madson@unix.SRI.COM (Carl Madson)
Newsgroups: rec.photo
Subject: Re: Where to buy in South Bay - Nikon 8008s
Date: 17 Apr 92 00:20:28 GMT
Distribution: ba
Organization: SRI International, Menlo Park, California


You should really give Keeble & Shuchat a try, certainly for main-line gear
such as Nikons. I've found their prices in the last few years to be quite 
competitive, even with respect to discounters, and they're certainly nicer to
deal with than mail-order or the Jerks from SJCamera. I even stopped going to
L.Z. Premiums because it was getting a bit too sleazy for me (and a long drive
to boot), what with the young guy pushing certain cameras more vigorously than
he should. (IMHO, but he WAS stretching the 'truth' quite a bit.)

Paul at K&S used is very nice; Jeff knows a lot about Nikons and is a funny
guy, and others such as Dave Grider are all-around nice fellows to deal with.
They do charge a lot for accessories, but if you stick to main-line equipment,
you will do quite well. No hassle with returns. I say support good service and
reasonable prices by patronizing places such as K&S. IMHO again, but I'm a big-
time photo shopper, and have tried a lot of different purchase options.


		--Carl Madson, SRI International, Menlo Park, CA
From: alix@indetech.com (Alexandria North)
Newsgroups: rec.photo
Subject: Where to buy in South Bay - Nikon 8008s
Date: 16 Apr 92 19:08:27 GMT
Distribution: ba
Organization: Independence Technologies, Inc. Fremont, CA

I apologize if this appears to be a duplicate message, but my first
post on this subject didn't seem to me to have gotten out...

I am planning on buying a Nikon 8008s very soon. I live in San Jose.
While San Jose Camera & Video has great prices, I've found their 
attitude lacking in the past, and I prefer not to give them my business
(unless they've changed).

I found that Los Gatos Camera has a meet/beat price policy, so I thought
I'd buy from them. However, I know nothing about their reputation.

Can anyone who has visited Los Gatos offer me an opinion? If you stick
by somewhere else, please share info. with me. Price *is* an issue for 
me, as the 8008s is the most I can afford (and probably more than I'm 
going to need for a long time). 

Also, I welcome opinions on the 8008s from those who own one, have used
one, or have researched them well.

Thank you!

Alix 

-- 
-----------------------------------------------------------
"Babies, babies, babies. Why did God make so many babies?
 But no, God didn't make them. Stupid people made them."
      -- Margaret Mitchell, Gone With The Wind
From: mcovingt@athena.cs.uga.edu (Michael A. Covington)
Newsgroups: rec.photo
Subject: Re: mechanical cameras
Date: 7 Apr 92 01:09:55 GMT
Organization: University of Georgia, Athens

Briefly: The bulk of amateur photographers now use highly automated cameras.
Manual cameras have split into two kinds:

- low-priced (but good!) student camera (Pentax K-1000, new Praktica)
- high-priced professional cameras (Olympus OM-4T, Nikon FE, etc.)

I'm a loyal OM-series user myself.  The OM series is still alive but prices
are varying erratically.  A lot of used OM things, including OM-1 bodies,
are available from KEH Camera Brokers in Atlanta (see any issue of
Shutterbug for a fairly detailed ad).

-- 
==========================================================================
Michael A. Covington, Ph.D. |  mcovingt@uga.cc.uga.edu  |  ham radio N4TMI
Artificial Intelligence Programs | U of Georgia | Athens, GA 30602  U.S.A.
==========================================================================
From: jmb5b@faraday.clas.Virginia.EDU (John M. Bozeman)
Subject: Re: Internal wear in Nikons: a concern?
Organization: University of Virginia
Date: Sun, 12 Apr 1992 10:18:33 GMT

I wouldn't worry about the camera too much; I have an FE-2 and it probably has
as least as many  marks, and it hasn't been used that much!  It's a very nice
camera, but a little heavy around the neck after a while.

My old Canon AE-1 (bought in 1978; used heavily in high-school year-book for 
three years, DROPPED several times onto marble and concrete floors in paris)
has had its base plate so warped that it is now held on with rubber bands.
The camera has never failed me though, save for once when the battery ran down.
I am under the impression that barring catastrophe, cameras work until they 
arbitrarily break down, regardless of outside condition.

                   John
Newsgroups: rec.photo