HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: kim39@scws8.harvard.edu (John Kim)
Newsgroups: rec.photo
Subject: Re: Big/fast EOS lens advice sought
Date: 20 Nov 92 09:26:28 GMT
Article-I.D.: husc3.1992Nov20.042629.17626
Organization: Harvard University Science Center

@walter.bellcore.com> jchen@wind.UUCP (Jason Chen) writes:
21182@sactoh0.sac.ca.us> mfolivo@sactoh0.sac.ca.us (Mark Newton-John) writes:
>>I sold a EF80-200 f/2.8 L lens to a customer for $1300.
>>What are these lenses selling for in other parts of the country?
>>(PS- I work at a camera retailer)
>>
>Don't mean to offend you in any way but don't you guys follow mail order ads?
>This lens runs about $900-$950 in mail order stores. You did well on that
>deal.
>If it is not a business secret, what was your cost for that lens?
>Jason Chen
>

	It is common knowledge that retailers often face official
listed dealer costs which are higher than the advertised retail costs
shown in NYC mail-order houses.  There are a coouple of explanations:
1) The cost to the retailer goes down as he orders in bulk
	Having looked at 2-3 retailer price lists, even the official
	dealer price gets cheaper when ordering 2 instead of one
	(for expensive items).  A dealer who ordered 25 ideantical
	or camera bodies might be able to get them for less than 
	what mail-order prices are selling them for retail.
2) The retail dealer and the mail-order guy don't always have to pay
	the official dealer cost, even when not ordering in huge
	quanitties.  There are specials, rebates, and discounts, and 
	incentives.  

-CAse
From: johno@sdd.hp.com (John Ongtooguk)
Newsgroups: rec.photo
Subject: Re: Advice on Canon 50 mm/f1.8 wanted
Date: 17 Nov 1992 00:23:51 GMT
Organization: Hewlett-Packard, San Diego Division
Distribution: na
NNTP-Posting-Host: hpsdlg10.sdd.hp.com

In article <1992Nov16.194602.18566@cbnewsm.cb.att.com>, ka1gt@cbnewsm.cb.att.com (robert.m.atkins) writes:
| 
| For what it's worth, Popular Photography have tested both the original 50/1.8
| and the new plastic 50/1.8. The new plastic bodied lens actually tested out
| optically better than the original metal(?) bodied lens. Of course they only
| test one sample of each lens, so statistical variations may account for the
| difference. I thought the optical design was the same - or am I wrong?

  I recall that they tested another 'plastic' 50/1.8 a bit earlier and
  it seemed to test poorly, indicating some problems. I think that you're
  right about the variation and that one needs to temper expectations 
  with the cost of the lens. 

  John Ongtooguk (johno@sdd.hp.com)
From: ray@tsw.UUCP (Ray Izumi)
Newsgroups: rec.photo
Subject: Re: Mail order companies
Date: 21 Nov 92 18:50:23 GMT
Organization: The System Works, Redmond, WA

In article <1992Nov19.200453.53095@ns1.cc.lehigh.edu> ay00@ns1.cc.lehigh.edu (ALI YILDIRIM) writes:
>Hello,
>I am thinking of puchasing a zoom lens and some filters for my Canon EOS
>Rebel. And I was wondering if anyone has anything to say about mail order
>companies.

There is a general consensus that Camera World of Oregon at 800-222-1557 is
one of the very best around. I've bought three lenses, a tripod, and other
items from them and they are ALWAYS courteous, honest, and knowledgable.
Each item was shipped to me and arrived exactly when they said it would,
or they phoned me the same day and advised of a backordered item. It seems
that they must ship each item the same day it is ordered, judging by the
speed of delivery I've experienced. They are usually a few dollars more 
than most MO shops, but the superb service is well worth it.

I've had pretty good luck with Adorama, but they often (usually?) will
backorder an item and send you a postcard two weeks later. Their order
takers are rude and pushy, but they are honest with respect to refunds
and other crediting matters.

B&H is maybe a step up from Adorama.

Helix has a bad rep for refusing to refund and/or replace faulty items.
-- 
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Ray Izumi, The System Works, Redmond, WA     206-823-4685      uunet!tsw!ray
"Put the pillow over your head, scream and cry - the garbage is coming!"
           - New York City Commissioner of Sanitation
Xref: sparky rec.photo:19940 ne.forsale:5083 misc.forsale:31332
From: eugene@briar.lle.rochester.edu (Eugene Kowaluk)
Newsgroups: rec.photo,ne.forsale,misc.forsale
Subject: FM & FE + MD11 or MD12
Date: 17 Nov 92 15:24:46 GMT
Organization: UofR Laboratory for Laser Energetics


Paul Rubin writes:

> Don't use an MD11 on an FE2.  It will fit but the meter batteries will
> go dead if you forget to turn it off.  You need an MD12.
> The MD11 also works with the FM, though.


The MD12 drains as much as the MD11, and that's after two trips to Nikon.

I use the MD12 and MD11 with FM, FE, and FE2 (oops, I forgot I traded in the
FE for the Elan), and I make sure I use NiCds.

In some situations, the camera battery lasts 48hrs, sometimes more,
depending on whether there's a visible light-blocking filter on the lens.  The
drive's batteries are changed after 24 hrs, mostly because of the slow
(2-4s) exposure.  I use a UV transmitting filter, and of course the
fluorescents in the room will set off the meter and leave it on.

If you turn on the drive's power, the camera's meter goes on and stays on.
It's only if you leave the drive's power off, and turn on the camera's meter
that it powers itself down.


eugene kowaluk
Newsgroups: rec.photo
From: ka1gt@cbnewsm.cb.att.com (robert.m.atkins)
Subject: Re: film plane flatness
Organization: AT&T
Distribution: na
Date: Mon, 16 Nov 1992 17:13:01 GMT

> In article <1992Nov8.4228.27422@dosgate>,
> "martin tai" <martin.tai@canrem.com> writes (in part):
> > 
> >    There is from time to time discussion of picture sharpness
> > and  film plane  flatness.  Is it  exagerated ?

Depends what you mean by "flat". There is almost certainly nothing to be
gained by a film that is flat to +/- 1 micron over a film that is only flat
to +/- 5 microns, for example. All lenses show some curvature of field. You
are really lucky if a lens has less than about 50 microns of field
curvature when you get about 50% of the distance from the center of the
image to the corner. Further out than this (or with a bad lens) you can
easily get several hundred microns of field curvature (which may be concave
or convex with respect to the lens). It would be interesting to know what
the typical film plane flatness is in a 35mm camera. Does anyone have any
numbers? How much loss of resolution field curvature (or film flatness)
results in is closely connected to the depth of field of the lens used
under the conditions used to take the photograph. It will be lower for a
wide angle lens at small aperture focused at a long distance than for
a large aperture telephoto focused close.

===============================================================
Bob Atkins  AT&T Bell Labs  email (direct)  att!clockwise!rma
===============================================================

Newsgroups: rec.photo
From: jacobson@cello.hpl.hp.com (David Jacobson)
Subject: Re: Macro depth of field maximum
Date: Mon, 23 Nov 1992 18:55:06 GMT
Organization: Hewlett-Packard Laboratories

In article <1992Nov20.152554.8535@swift.cs.tcd.ie> mahonj@swift.cs.tcd.ie writes:
>What is the best way of achieving high resolution and high
>depth of field at about 3x magnification.  I want to view
>something with a 8x6 mm sensor size CCD camera and a 50mm
>approx lens.
>
>I do not mind a bit of optical hacking.  Are there any
>diffraction limited lenses at this level.
>
>A small lens would be better (ie smaller than a micro
>Nikkor 60mm.

There is no magic.  The only way to get large depth of field for a
given magnification is to use a small aperture.  But there is a rule
of thumb that the achievable lines per mm are roughly 1500/f, where f
is the is the effective f number.  At 3x that is 4 times the labeled f
number.  I've never done anything with video, so I don't know what a
good resoltion is.  I'll guess that 33 lpmm, the same as is standardly
used for 35mm, would be good.  The you could use f/50, effective, or
roughly f/11 on the aperture ring.  But then your depth of field,
again assuming a .03 mm circle of confusion, would be only .15 mm!  If
you go to, say, f/32 on the aperture ring, you depth of field
increases to .42mm, but your resolution drops to 11 lpmm.

  -- David Jacobson
From: hsieh1@carson.u.washington.edu (Darrell Kirk)
Newsgroups: rec.photo
Subject: Re: Robert Frank 'The Americans'
Date: 17 Nov 92 23:50:16 GMT
Article-I.D.: u.1992Nov17.235016.7298
Organization: University of Washington, Seattle


Send me an E-Mail in Seattle.  I can get a copy of, The Americans,  here
and send it to you.

Darrell
Newsgroups: rec.photo
From: smustopo@nyx.cs.du.edu (sofjan mustopoh)
Subject: Re: 80-200/f2.8 for $$$, why?
X-Disclaimer: Nyx is a public access Unix system run by the University
	of Denver for the Denver community.  The University has neither
	control over nor responsibility for the opinions of users.
Organization: Nyx, Public Access Unix at U. of Denver Math/CS dept.
Date: Fri, 20 Nov 92 06:07:36 GMT

In article <1992Nov19.151547.22968@hemlock.cray.com> dtj@caffeine.cray.co
 (Dean Johnson) writes:
>
>In article <1992Nov19.035957.3597@walter.bellcore.com>, jchen@wind.bellc
re.com (Jason Chen) writes:
>
>> 
>> But then, I am no pro. There must be reasons for the popularity of the
>> 80-200/f2.8 lens. What are they?
>> 
>
>I shoot polo (damn horses keep drowning! ;-)) a bunch and the stop would

>definitely be worth the money. Besides, with a f2.8 lens you can probabl

>put a 2x teleconverter on it and still have the auto-everything still wo
k,
>a definite plus.
>
>	-Dean


  I'm very sure that Minolta 80-200 apo 2.8 won't be compatible
 with the 1.4 and 2x APO converter. I got that from Minolta
 rep.  I don't know how incompatible it is. but i guess i won't
 spend $850 for the zoom and $350 for the converter to find out.
 :)
 May be the image quality will suffer and minolta just won't risk
 recomending the converter with the zoom. But the converter works
 fine with Minolta APO  prime lens. 

  Muskie
   Sofjan Mustopoh
From: chuck@drutx.ATT.COM (LucianoC)
Newsgroups: rec.photo
Subject: Vericolor and refrigeration myth Debunked Was: How to keep expired ...
Date: 16 Nov 92 22:52:45 GMT
Reply-To: chuck@drutx.ATT.COM (LucianoC)
Organization: AT&T, Denver, CO

In article <27544@oasys.dt.navy.mil> goldberg@oasys.dt.navy.mil (Mark Goldberg) writes:
>In rec.photo, dtang@bass.bu.edu (yunfei zhang) writes:
>
>I was also concerned about this issue.  I keep a lot of Vericolor pro
>film around.  Vericolor has a shorter "life" than other films and is
>supposed to be refrigerated.  I have heard pros and cons about the freezer,
>so I called the Professional Markets division of Eastman Kodak.
>

I had a very detailed discussion with a Kodak rep about Vericolor films and
refrigeration. It seems that when Kodak produces consumer films they plan
on a certain amount of shift in color balance over time. They design the film
so the optimum balance is reached after about 3 months. 3 months is about the
average time from when the film is manufactured until it is processed.

Vericolor is designed to be at the optimum color balance when is produced. It
then must be refrigerated to keep it there for as long as possible. The key
question I asked the rep was, "Is there anything about vericolor films that 
make them age faster or more dramatically then consumer films", the answer,
"No". 

Now for some anecdotal evidence. I recently found 2 rolls of vericolor film
which had been exposed 5 years ago and left undeveloped under all kinds of
hostile conditions. The results were no good. The images has obviously 
shifted and the colors weren't realistic.

On the other hand I recently out of sheer laziness allowed about 4 or 5 rolls
worth of VPS to sit unrefrigerated in my bulk loader for about 2 to 3 months.
Last night I shot a roll and developed and printed it. The results were within
5 cc units Yellow, and 2 cc units magenta, of the last roll I shot 2-3 months
earlier. Not much of a change.

All of this is of course FYMI,
Chuck Luciano
chuck@csn.org
From: Nervid@cup.portal.com (Dave Dave Luke)
Newsgroups: rec.photo
Subject: Reviews?
Date: Sat, 21 Nov 92 13:16:12 PST
Organization: The Portal System (TM)
Distribution: usa

Hi, please send those reviews to me as well.  My girlfriend is looking
for a camera, and she is especially interested in the IS-1.

Thank you.

Dave Luke
nervid@cup.portal.com
Newsgroups: rec.photo
From: tjwu@athena.mit.edu (Thomas J Wu)
Subject: Re: Best price for Canon Elan?
Organization: Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Distribution: usa
Date: Thu, 19 Nov 1992 00:11:52 GMT

In article <1ebt0mINN2sl@antigone.usc.edu> yangchen@antigone.usc.edu (Yang Chen) writes:
>
>  I am in market for the Elan. If you recently bought one, could you
>  mail me the price you payed for? I'll post the result if I can get
>  more than 3 replies. 
>
>  I saw the Nov. issue of Popular Photography has ads from B&H saling
>  the Elan w/28-80, 3.5-5.6 USM lens for $569, CWO is $559 for the
>  same package. 47th St claim they have a 7% rebate, did any body
>  ever tried?
>
>  Yang

I got my Elan with a EF 35-105 f/4.5-5.6 USM lens, strap, and battery
for $529 from Camera World of Oregon.  This included a US warranty.

Thomas Wu
Internet:  tjwu@athena.mit.edu
Newsgroups: rec.photo
From: jchen@wind.bellcore.com (Jason Chen)
Subject: Re: 80-200/f2.8 for $$$, why?
Reply-To: jchen@wind.UUCP (Jason Chen)
Organization: Bellcore, Morristown, NJ
Distribution: na
Date: Thu, 19 Nov 92 19:08:49 GMT

In article <1992Nov19.182009.4194@cbnewsm.cb.att.com> ka1gt@cbnewsm.cb.att.com (robert.m.atkins) writes:
>> 
>> But then, I am no pro. There must be reasons for the popularity of the
>> 80-200/f2.8 lens. What are they?
>
>If you are not a pro (or a photography obsessed amateur!) you probably don't
>need the extra stop. What it gives you is:
>
>3 - Ability to retain AF operation with a 2x multiplier and even a 1.4x
>multiplier in the example you give above (the 200 at 4.5 probably won't AF
>with a Canon 1.4x).

Bob, 

My information source could be wrong, but when I called Canon 800 number,
they said neither Canon 2X or 1.4X worked with 80-200/f2.8L. In fact
they told me neither of them would not work with any zoom lens. 

But your arguement should still be valid for non-EF lenses.

Jason Chen
From: mahonj@swift.cs.tcd.ie
Newsgroups: rec.photo
Subject: Macro depth of field maximum
Date: 20 Nov 92 15:25:54 GMT
Organization: Computer Science Department, Trinity College Dublin

What is the best way of achieving high resolution and high
depth of field at about 3x magnification.  I want to view
something with a 8x6 mm sensor size CCD camera and a 50mm
approx lens.

I do not mind a bit of optical hacking.  Are there any
diffraction limited lenses at this level.

A small lens would be better (ie smaller than a micro
Nikkor 60mm.


	Thanks,

		James Mahon

Machine Vision Centre, Trinity College Dublin, Ireland.
From: avirmani@riches.rutgers.edu (Aashu Virmani)
Newsgroups: rec.photo
Subject: Extension Tubes, Filters - need advice
Date: 19 Nov 92 15:51:59 GMT
Organization: Rutgers Univ., New Brunswick, N.J.
Cc: avirmani


I am really a novice at serious photography, although I have been
doing some casual picture taking in the past.   I have an EOS-rebel
with a 35-80m and a 75-300mm zoom.   I would very much appreciate if
someone could recommend a reasonable extension tube and some good
filter for general use (I currently have a 58mm UV on the 75-300
lens).

In general, can anyone post a detailed message about Filters?  What
broad classifications do they have, approximately when to use which
ones, etc.


Thanks,

- aashu
-- 

 - Aashu Virmani (avirmani@paul.rutgers.edu)
   Hill 355,  932-3213
   Dept. of Computer Science,  
   Rutgers University, Piscataway, NJ 08855.
From: michael9@odie.cs.mun.ca (Michael Sullivan)
Subject: Thinking of buying a new camera
Keywords: old camera dead
Organization: CS Dept., Memorial University of Newfoundland
Date: Thu, 19 Nov 1992 22:56:34 GMT

  Can anyone give me some suggestions on a good new camera to buy?

  I want the following:
	35mm, 
	full manual control over, well, everything, should I desire it
	built in light meter
	full range of exposure possibilities, from holding shutter open to
	at least 1/1000 sec.
	changable lens'

	It would be nice (VERY NICE!) if I  could use my Tamron 70-210 zoom,
which has a Pentax mount.

  Price should be under about $500 Cdn.

  I'm tossing around the idea of a Canon Rebel, but I'm not sure why.  I
guess advertising is useful for something.

  The camera must be durable.  I don't want a camera that is going to fall
apart the first time it takes a bump when I take a tumble. ( I like to get
my shots from places that most people are afraid to climb/hike/fight to.)

  Suggestions anyone?

-- 
|uunet!garfield!michael9|'"Proof denies faith and without faith I am nothing,"|
|michael9@odie.cs.mun.ca| says God.  "But you have given us proof," says      |
|POB 756,St.John's,Nfld.| man, "Therefore you do not exist. QED." "Oh, my,"   |
|A1S 1G8                | says God, and disappears in a puff of logic.'       |
Newsgroups: rec.photo
From: zrepachol@cc.curtin.edu.au
Subject: Re: 4x5 dups of 4x5 trans
Organization: Curtin University of Technology
Date: Mon, 16 Nov 1992 15:13:51 GMT

In article <4f0KkAG00iUx05r0hB@andrew.cmu.edu>, "Frank A. Reynolds" <fr0c+@andrew.cmu.edu> writes:
> 
> Anyone work a commercial photo lab?
> 
> What kind of equipment do they use to make 4x5 duplicates of 4x5
> transparencies?
> 

4x5 duping is a pretty low volume operation for any lab, hence no market for
purpose built over the counter gear. I used a sheet of glass, the neg/trany,
the film and a sheet of black paper on the bottom under a colour enlarger.

If you had a large number to do, it may be worth makeing a jig to do the job.

~Paul

Newsgroups: rec.photo
From: ka1gt@cbnewsm.cb.att.com (robert.m.atkins)
Subject: Re: Resolution of Lens ???
Organization: AT&T
Distribution: na
Date: Fri, 20 Nov 1992 18:28:43 GMT

In article <1ehhb7INNms3@hpsdlss3.sdd.hp.com>, johno@sdd.hp.com (John Ongtooguk) writes:
> |> In article <1992Nov20.003420.15573@cbnewsm.cb.att.com>, ka1gt@cbnewsm.cb.att.com (robert.m.atkins) writes:
> 
> |> A couple of other points come to mind. (1) At the resolution limit the
> |> image of the test target is no longer high contrast (the aerial image
> |> that is). The resolving power of Tech Pan is only 125 lp/mm for low
> |> contrast targets (usually 1:1.6?). Thus as you approach the resolving
> |> limit of the lens, the resolving power of the film itself drops also.
> |> Thus if the lens JUST resolved 400 lp/mm in a low contrast aerial
> |> image, 125 lp/mm from the film would give only 95lp/mm on the negative.
> 
>    Good point. I recall an ad (with no data to back it up) that stated
>    that the resolution of the new Leica 105mm apo-macro exceeded the 
>    resolving power of Tech Pan. It or the Nikon 105 apo process lens 
>    might be the tools you need to test your theory as you should be
>    able to record a high value that drops off quickly as you stop down. 

Thinking more about the problem, I'm sure this is in fact the answer. 
Taking the observation that I can get no more than about 80 lp/mm from
my diffraction limited f5 lens on Velvia as a starting point: 
(1) The USAF target requires about 20% modulation to be "resolved" in an
image according to an old copy of "Modern Photography"
(2) The MTF curve of Velvia (from Fuji literature) suggests that the MTF
at 80 cyc/mm is MAYBE 25% (from an optimistic extrapolation of their data
which only goes to about 60 cycles/mm).
(3) At 80 cycles/mm the MTF of a perfect f5 lens is about 70%

The modulation in the image is the product of the MTF of the film and the
MTF of the lens, so at 80 cycles/mm = .25 x .7 = .175 (17.5%) which is
right on the threashold of visibility.

So this lens should give a maximum of about 80 lp/mm (neglecting differences
between square wave modulation in the target and MTF values based on 
cycles/mm or sinusoidal modulation). 

I'll check my literature to see if I can find MTF data on Tech Pan and see
what I should be able to resove on it.

===============================================================
Bob Atkins  AT&T Bell Labs  email (direct)  att!clockwise!rma
===============================================================

Newsgroups: rec.photo
From: parsons1@applelink.apple.COM (Don Parsons)
Subject: Re: Changing N8008 for the new Canon?
Date: Mon, 16 Nov 1992 21:36:11 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

Newsgroups: rec.photo
From: petsch@sylt.informatik.uni-kl.de (Petsch Wolfram - PA Meybrink)
Subject: Re: SB-24 Speedlite, opinions sought
Organization: University of Kaiserslautern, W-Germany
Date: Tue, 17 Nov 1992 16:32:06 GMT

In article <1992Nov16.235516.23036@adobe.com> usenet@adobe.com (USENET NEWS) writes:
>| Somebody mentioned that the SB-25 has red eye reduction which the SB-24
>| doesn't have. The Redeye reduction function only operates with the
>| new F-90 camera.
>
>It's hard to imagine anyone having a red-eye problem with a flash as
>versatile as the SB-24. It seems to me that the SB-25's "red-eye reduction" 
>is like the N90's multiple program modes--both appear to be concessions
>to the (sometimes mindless) Feature War.
>					   -Alan

It's not too hard -- for me. Sometimes I take pictures in a big gym
(Basketball). I need all the Power of the flash (N8008s + 3,5 35 - 135
+ SB24 + HP5+ at 1000 ASA 1/250 f3.5 -- 4.5). If somone looks
directly into the camera I can get white spots (in BW = red eyes) in
the eyes. I don't know nothing about the special features of the SB25,
but I don't belief that these features can solve my problems.
Nobody realized these spots -- except me. So I don't care for them!

	regards 	Wolfram



-- 
petsch@sylt.informatik.uni-kl.de (Wolfram Petsch)
Newsgroups: rec.photo