HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: DH02 <DH02@polytec1.polymtl.ca>
Subject: Re: polycarbonate camera bodies
Organization: Ecole Polytechnique de Montreal
Date: Wed, 19 Aug 1992 03:20:54 GMT

>In article <22166@venera.isi.edu> finn@dalek.isi.edu (Greg Finn) writes:
>
> Claiming that metal isn't strong enough is strange considering
>that principal bearing surfaces are still metal in most polycarbonate
>bodied SLRs.  Why?  I wouldn't believe all that you hear.  If you

Just wanted to add my 2 cents worth!  A part of the problem is the
interface - somehow plastic and metal don't mix (I mean getting a
plastic part screwed onto a metal part is not very neat).
I would like to cite the case of a plastic step-up (or down) ring used
with a filter with a metal casing - it jams easily.  Be it bullet
proof polycarbonates, or super strong kevlar, as soon as you
 weld (or whatever) some metal piece to it, the strength of the total
structure goes down, notably at the interface! Has to do with the
difference in mechanical properties (response to applied load).

And so I'm skeptical about the new Canon EOS's and Minolta xi's(?)....

-Tamal Ghosh  ______"Glad to be a Polymer Engineer":-)
Departement de Genie Chimique
Ecole Polytechnique de Montreal.
Newsgroups: rec.photo
Subject: Re: The quality of Nikon "E" lenses?
From: swayzed@brandonu.ca
Date: 21 Aug 92 13:49:59 CST
Organization: Brandon University, Brandon, Manitoba, Canada

In article <1992Aug21.122441.29724@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU>, yz@broca.acc.virginia.edu (Yuan Zhang) writes:
> In article <1992Aug21.133300.1@cc.helsinki.fi> mlindholm@cc.helsinki.fi writes:
>> 
>>     Are the Nikon E-series lenses inferior in some way to the standard
>>     Nikon manual focus lenses (e.g. the AI-series)?
>> 
>>     Mikko.Lindholm@cc.helsinki.fi 
>> The Nikon "E" series lenes were supposed to be a cheaper alternative and more  
> of a mass market lenes to the Nikkor lenes. The quality is okay. But they are  
> definitly not as durable as the Nikkor lenes. Plus they usually have fewer  
> connectors than the Nikkor AI lenes.

True, there are constructed of more plastic and less metal, however, they still
contain that famous Nikon glass. It depends on the lens. Some, like the standard
50 mm aren't that great but there are some others that are very sharp. You will
find that they also don't all have that 'Nikon feel' to them. 

-- 
 
David Swayze        | SWAYZED@BrandonU.CA    | Reading furnishes the mind only
Brandon University  | Canada (pokey) Post:   | with materials of knowledge; it
Brandon, Manitoba   | 56 Wilnor Bay          | is thinking which makes what we
Canada              | Brandon, MB, R7B 3H1   | read ours.           John Locke
From: koolish@BBN.COM (Richard M. Koolish)
Newsgroups: rec.photo
Subject: B/W Duplicating Film
Date: 18 Aug 92 20:10:38 GMT
Reply-To: koolish@BBN.COM (Richard M. Koolish)
Organization: Bolt Beranek and Newman Inc., Cambridge MA
NNTP-Posting-Host: bbn.com


Has anybody played with Kodak Professional B/W Duplicating Film
SO-339 (formerly 4168). This stuff seems to give a direct positive
image without reversal processing.  I was given a box and am looking
for information.
Organization: University Relations - Diane, Carnegie Mellon, Pittsburgh, PA
Newsgroups: rec.photo
Date: Wed, 19 Aug 1992 14:28:51 -0400 
From: Todd Harris Fletcher <tf0y+@andrew.cmu.edu>
Subject: Film and Developing

I am not a regular reader of this group, so please respond via e-mail to:

tf0y@andrew.cmu.edu

I wanted to know what the best brand of film is - both quality and price.
And what do you pay to get your film developed?  Is there somewhere
inexpensive and reliable for quality?

Todd
Newsgroups: rec.photo
From: usenet@adobe.com (USENET NEWS)
Subject: Re: Cambridge.
Originator: asanders@sparta
Organization: Adobe Systems Incorporated
Date: Mon, 17 Aug 1992 20:27:45 GMT

| I also wrote a letter to Pop. Photo. Check rated Service...

					-Tamal Ghosh

I've heard others on the net comment that rude, uncooperative
mail-order dealers sometimes "change their tune" if you tell
them that you're plugged into a world-wide computer network
and you're going to tell EVERYBODY how badly you're being
treated!

On Cambridge Photo specifically. I've noticed that their ads
are deliberately misleading. For example, they're very fond
of advertising things like "macro lenses for Nikon" or
"AF lenses for Canon"--implying that these are Nikon and
Canon lenses when, in fact, they are no-name substitutes.
I wouldn't buy anything from a dealer who did that!

					-Alan

Newsgroups: rec.photo
From: feldman@hal9k.cxo.dec.com (james feldman)
Subject: Re: polycarbonate camera bodies
Reply-To: feldman@hal9k.cxo.dec.com (james feldman)
Organization: Digital Equipment Corporation
Date: Wed, 19 Aug 1992 16:03:54 GMT

We shouldn't forget that the Glock pistol is a composite manufacture of resins
and metal.  They use "plastics" for the frame, slide, and magazine.  The rest
of the pistol is metal and includes a metal to metal slide interface.  These
seem to be able to take a fair ammount of abuse (.40 cal Auto loads).  The only
real problem I see is that "plastics" of today don't have the abrasion
resistance that metal has.  This could change soon if the new moldable
ceramic/resin matrix materials make it out of the labs.

jimf
From: duane@cbnewsj.cb.att.com (duane.galensky)
Newsgroups: rec.photo
Subject: Re: Cambridge.
Date: 18 Aug 92 17:04:04 GMT
Distribution: na
Organization: AT&T

In article <1992Aug17.202745.15240@adobe.com> usenet@adobe.com (USENET NEWS) writes:
>
>On Cambridge Photo specifically. I've noticed that their ads
>are deliberately misleading. For example, they're very fond
>of advertising things like "macro lenses for Nikon" or
>"AF lenses for Canon"--implying that these are Nikon and
>Canon lenses when, in fact, they are no-name substitutes.
>I wouldn't buy anything from a dealer who did that!
>


personally, i don't find that particular aspect too misleading,
since the mounts really are "for" those cameras.  what's 
particularly insidious to me is the "package deals" that are 
advertised with major manufacturers names but with off-brand 
lenses at what appear to be great prices.  

and even if things are on the up-and-up with respect to brands, 
this handling charge BS almost makes it not worth the trouble:
fifteen percent?!  that's not a handling charge, that's truly
misleading advertising of prices.

motto: it pays to ask, and if they're not willing to take the
time to answer, there are plenty of competitors who will.

duane
From: lihan@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu (Bruce G. Bostwick)
Newsgroups: rec.photo
Subject: Re: Photo contest: $100 prize
Date: 14 Aug 92 18:05:10 GMT
Organization: The University of Texas at Austin, Austin TX

In article <HEGARTY.92Aug12151636@caradhras.bernina.ethz.ch> hegarty@caradhras.bernina.ethz.ch (Christopher Hegarty) writes:
>
>
>I want to leave a camera in my car so that if I am involved in a car
>accident I can take some photos of the accident scene, which may be
>helpful if any legal problems arise.
>
>One problem is that inside my car tends to get very hot in
>summer; I'm concerned about film lifetime.  Can anyone tell me 
>how often I might need to replace the film, or recommend film with a
>relatively long lifetime under these conditions?

I don't have many recommendations about film/temperature solutions,
but I can suggest that you keep the camera on the floor of the car, or
as close to the floor as possible.  Keep it in a camera bag if you
don't like the idea of passengers kicking it around unawares (or in
case of some passengers I've had, DELIBRATELY!) and getting dirt in
the machanism.  The floor of the car will usually be much cooler
(90-95 degrees) than the back seat or rear deck (130-150 degrees in
some cases) and it's easier to hide your camera which is one of the
best kinds of thief-bait there is.

Another suggestion is to use Tri-X Pan if you can get it.  It's
relatively cheap and doesn't seem to mind too much being cooked.  The
picture quality is not incredible but will suffice for evidence-style
pictures, and the 400 ASA will allow you to take pictures in very many
circumstances without flash.



-- 
<BGB>
lihan@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu        /     "I can't complain,
(really Bruce Bostwick)        /   but sometimes I still do"
from the great state of TEXAS /         --Joe Walsh--
From: cmcdowel@en.ecn.purdue.edu (Charles E. McDowell)
Newsgroups: rec.photo
Subject: For Sale - Hasselblad.
Date: 18 Aug 92 19:35:16 GMT
Organization: Purdue University Engineering Computer Network

For sale, brand new A12 magazine.  I will be receiving it shortly as part
of a promotional offer from Hassleblad (buy a lens, get a free A12). It
will be untouched, in the box.  New (from a store that is) they cost $575,
I'll take $450.  If you are interested, leave me mail.  Thanks.

[ Charles McDowell                   Purdue University - Lafayette, Indiana ]
[ cmcdowel@ecn.purdue.edu            School of Electrical Engineering       ]
Xref: sparky rec.photo:14588 alt.models:1120
From: marks@studsys.mscs.mu.edu (Mark Storin)
Newsgroups: rec.photo,alt.models
Subject: Re: looking for information on pinhole photography.
Keywords: pinhole lens
Date: 21 Aug 92 14:59:27 GMT
Article-I.D.: spool.3784
Followup-To: rec.photo
Organization: Marquette University - Department MSCS

The A.J. Fricko Company sell pinhole lens' for a number of standard 35mm
cameras, plus a pinhole box camera. The literature states "Though pinhole
images are not terribly sharp, they exhibit infinite depth of field.  This can
make a sense of distance and scale difficult to judge, so careful composition
in using a pihole camera is called for.  Distracting elements cannot be
softened by shallow depth of field.  There is one quality of the pinhole which
duplicates the human eye better than lenses.  A pinhole is free of linear
distortions.  That means vertical lines are always vertical."

The pinhole lenses for 35mm cameras are $74.95, the box camera $69.95.  The
aperture on the lens is approx. f/105.  The address of A. J. Fricko is:

	Andrew J. Fricko Company
	P.O. Box 43276
	Cincinnati, OH 45243-0276

	(513)-784-0019

You might call or write about prices as my information is quite old.

- Mark A. Storin
marks@studsys.mscs.mu.edu
From: usenet@adobe.com (USENET NEWS)
Newsgroups: rec.photo
Subject: Re: Sigma cheats?
Date: 12 Aug 92 20:32:18 GMT
Organization: Adobe Systems Incorporated
Originator: asanders@sparta

| I went back to the store and tried measuring exposure of 
| the same object... with several lenses, all set to 70mm FC. 
| Here are the results (approximate):
|
|        my Nikon 35-70		F 4.5	1/30
|	my Sigma 70-210		F 4	1/4
|	   Nikon 70-210		F 4     1/30
|  another Sigma 70-210         F 4     1/4 

			   -Eugene

First of all, a camera with an electronically-controlled shutter
will display the shutter speed CLOSEST to the actual speed chosen
for correct exposure. Most cameras can only display 125, 250, ...
(for 1/125, 1/250, etc.); they cannot display 1/200, 1/300, etc.
So there is probably no discrepency between the exposures
measured by the two Nikkors. 1/30 at f/4.5 is only a third of
a stop faster than 1/30 at f/4. So your camera display would
round to 1/30 whether you set f/4 or f/4.5.

The discrepency observed with the Sigma is another matter.
I wouldn't say Sigma cheats, but there certainly appears to
be something wrong. Compatibility problems between Sigma lenses
and AF bodies from Nikon, Canon, etc. DO exist from time to
time. Perhaps you ran into one.

| I ended up returning the lens to the store. Does anyone know of any 
| good compact 70-210 AF lens for a Nikon?

I wouldn't exactly call the 70-210 AF Nikkor "compact," but it is
a very nice lens for the price (about $200). Much more solidly
built than the Sigmas I've seen. Fast, quiet autofocus, and that
beautiful Nikon color rendition!

Speaking personally, I don't understand why someone would spend the
money for a Nikon camera body in order to put an off-brand lens
on it. I realize that Sigma, Tokina and Tamron make some very good
lenses. But they also make alot of mediocre lenses, and I'd bet
that few if any of them have the "look" of Nikon optics. Sharpness
is not the whole story in evaluating lens performance. People pay
big money for Leica optics whose resolution figures may be inferior
to much less expensive lenses. But Leica images have a certain look
that people appreciate and pay for.

If I had the choice between a more expensive body with a cheaper
lens and a cheaper body with a more expensive (higher quality)
lens, I'd choose the second alternative. Lenses make images
(well, actually, people do, but that's another story...).
The camera body basically just exposes the film.

					-Alan
Newsgroups: rec.photo
From: robinson@odie.ee.wits.ac.za (Michael Robinson)
Subject: Flourencent light question
Organization: Wits Electrical Engineering (Novell Users).
Date: Thu, 13 Aug 1992 10:07:06 GMT

If I am shooting on daylight balanced film is there any filter available for 
use under flourescent light?  What other alternatives are there to avoiding 
green photos?

Thank you
Michael Robinson
robinson@odie.ee.wits.ac.za
Newsgroups: rec.photo
From: margulis@inf.ethz.ch (Eugene Margulis)
Subject: Sigma cheats?
Originator: margulis@orion.inf.ethz.ch
Organization: Dept. Informatik, Swiss Federal Institute of Technology (ETH)
Date: Wed, 12 Aug 1992 14:41:33 GMT

I recently tried a Sigma UC 4-5.6, 70-210mm AF lens on my Nikon F601
(6006).  Now, I know that it is almost a sacrilege to use a non-nikon
lens on a Nikon, but my main criteria is compacteness and the Sigma
lens is about 180g lighter and much smaller than the equivalent Nikon.

After playing with the lens over the week-end I realised that the light
measurements with the lens were consistenly different from the
measurments with another lens (35-70mm, AF Nikon). It seemed that with
the Sigma I needed wider apperture and slower shutter speed than with
the 35-70mm, Nikon, when both were set to 70mm. I went back to the
store and tried measuring exposure of the same object (light ets, was
the same) with several lenses, all set to 70mm FC. Here are the results
(approximate):

	my Nikon 35-70		F 4.5	1/30
	my Sigma 70-210		F 4	1/4
	   Nikon 70-210		F 4     1/30
   another Sigma 70-210         F 4     1/4 

I was under impression that given a certain apperure (say F4.5), all
lenses should let the same amount of light pass through. It certainly
seems that Sigma lenses pass less light then they are supposed to,
almost 3 f-stops less. Does that mean that Sigma cheats and simply
mislabels the lenses? That is 4-5.6 lens is really something like
an 8-11 lens? Or there is some other explanation to that?

I ended up returning the lens to the store. Does anyone know of any 
good compact 70-210 AF lens for a Nikon?

-Eugene
From: cgates@mitre.org (Curt Gates)
Subject: Re: Grainy B&W film?
Organization: The MITRE Corporation
Date: Mon, 17 Aug 1992 13:59:19 GMT

In article <1992Aug14.164047.21429@newshost.unh.edu> K_LEPA@unhh.unh.edu 
(Kristen   Lepa) writes:
> Is there a B&W film out there that is inherently grainy?  I know it
> would help if I got a very fast film, but I like to work with slower
> speeds.  When I had access to a darkroom, I just shook it up a lot, 
> and surprise! it came out just perfect!  Now I have to depend on a (ugh)
> lab.
If you use p3200 and develop it a long time in very dilute Rodinol 
(50:1)you can get flat tones and nice crisp prominent grain.  If you want 
to use slower speeds, turn down the lights or add ND filters.  I  use 
Kodak IR film developed in D76 for outdoor stuff and p3200 in Rodinol for 
indoor.  The prints are very compatible when shown together.  Using IR for 
nudes can give some  interesting effects.  Veins can become pronounced, 
especially in breasts.  If you grossly underexpose the film, you can get 
some nice outlines.  As far as labs go, if you have running water, like in 
your bathroom or kitchen, you can process your film, even if you have to 
wait until after dark to load the tank.  It is too bad the only thing you 
use B&W for is nudes.  Never too late to use it for other subjects, and to 
resume processing your own film.

Newsgroups: rec.photo
From: daly@chocolat.princeton.edu (John Daly)
Subject: Re: Nikon FG (? info wanted)
Originator: news@nimaster
Organization: Mechanical and Aerospace Engineering (CFD)
Date: Thu, 20 Aug 1992 17:35:49 GMT

In article <1992Aug20.051957.2124@citec.oz.au>, sgccpgs@citec.oz.au (Paul Salanitri) writes:
|> Does anyone know about this camera, I'm thinking of buying a 2nd hand
|> one (possibly 10 years old)
|> I must have a really accurate meter.

Hey! That's my camera.

You don't hear much about the FG these days.  When I got mine it seemed
like the best camera available in the price range I was looking for.  I
think the feature that really sold me on the FG was the viewfinder meter
display.  In aperature priority the LED scale shows the shutter speed
the camera has selected, and when you move back to manual mode the camera
displays BOTH the camera's recommended shutter speed AND your selected
shutter speed.  Since I frequently like to use manual mode, I find that
this feature, surprisingly unavailable on other cameras I looked at, made
manual photography much more convenient.  The usefulness of this feature
depends a lot on the user though, as some find the metering display to be
rather confusing.

I have no complaints about the camera.  The metering appears to be quite
accurate, and the TTL metering works well too.  It's of reasonably sturdy
construction and is compatible with most, but NOT ALL, Nikkor lenses.  I
believe that the rest of these lenses can be used on the FG but not with
automatic metering.  The FG has a fully mechanical 1/90sec shutter speed
mode in case you decide to take pictures without batteries in the camera.
This corresponds conveniently to the 1/90sec flash sync speed, but it's
not terribly useful when you carry spare batteries.  There's also a neat
little button immediately to the left of the lens mount that gives you a
+2 exposure compensation for backlit situations.  I've used it once or
twice just to make sure that it works.  The compatable MD-14 motor drive
is also quite satisfactory (2fps and 3.2fps) for my picture taking needs.

I find the biggest shortcoming of the FG to be the limiting 1/1000sec max
shutter speed.  I'd like a little more speed at the upper end for shooting
telephoto.  But, I guess when I can afford that big of a telephoto, I'll
also be able to afford an F3.
Organization: Doctoral student, Engineering and Public Policy, Carnegie Mellon, Pittsburgh, PA
Newsgroups: rec.photo
Date: Mon, 17 Aug 1992 14:21:01 -0400 
From: Luis Abdon Cifuentes <lc0v+@andrew.cmu.edu>
Subject: Which high-speed neg. film?

Hello netters:
 I have a question about high speed film: I have to photograph a wedding
without flash, which film should I use?
 Ektar 1000
 Fuji HG 1600
 kodak Gold 1600
 Ektapress 1600
 Konica SR-1600 (there is also a 3200?)

It has been a while since I shot 1600, Fuji I think. I remember I got a
lo of grain, which I liked in that case, for for a wedding I would
prefer low contrast and low grain. 
Any hints?

Thanks in advance
From: "ronald hands" <ronald.hands@canrem.com>
Newsgroups: rec.photo
Subject: media permanence (was
Date: 22 Aug 92 18:19:24 EST
Reply-To: "ronald hands" <ronald.hands@canrem.com>
Distribution: rec
Organization: Canada Remote Systems


  On the subject of media permanence, I recently had an in-house demo
of the longevity of black and white prints.
  Rooting through some stuff in a closet, I came across some portraits
I had taken, and processed, of my wife when we were "going together" --
as it was then called -- about 1948 (we married in 1950).
  As far as I can tell, the prints are just as crisp now as they were
when I made them.  I didn't know anything about archival processing but
I must have done a good job of fixing and washing.
  Astonishingly the portraits, taken with a 620 folding Kodak and a
couple of Photofloods, are quite good.  Sadly, my technique doesn't
seem to have improved much in the 40-odd years since <g>.  Even more
sadly, these seem to be my only prints that have survived from that
era and the negatives have all vanished.  I was quite active in
photography at the time and can remember that I would often develop up
to four rolls at a time, back to back on clips, sluicing the Verichrome
up and down in a tray.  
  Nowadays, doing one 35mm roll in a tank is a major challenge.
 -- Ron
ronald.hands@canrem.com
---
  DeLuxe 1.21 #10218  
--
Canada Remote Systems  - Toronto, Ontario/Detroit, MI
World's Largest PCBOARD System - 416-629-7000/629-7044
Newsgroups: rec.photo
From: dougb@comm.mot.com (Doug Bank)
Subject: Re: Advice for Buying a Nikon 8008s "Package"
Reply-To: dougb@ecs.comm.mot.com
Organization: Motorola Land Mobile Products Sector
Distribution: usa
Date: Wed, 12 Aug 1992 20:17:41 GMT

In article <1992Aug12.152515.25100@cbnewsh.cb.att.com>, shyam@cbnewsh.cb.att.com (shyam.p.parekh) writes:

|> I am currently torn between the flash models. I know that SB-24
|> is a very versatile model.  But it is also relatively bulky.
|> Since I am off to a trip in Himalayas next month, portability
|> convenience is very desirable.  Also, I usually use flash only
|> for either fill-in or indoor group pictures.  From Nikon
|> brochures it appears that SB-23 is a very compact flash that
|> is also auto-focus compatible.  Does anybody have any experience
|> with SB-23 that can help me decide whether it can fulfill my
|> needs?

I have both. Get the SB-24.  The SB-23 is fine as a second flash, but it 
is pitiful as a first flash.  Very good chance at red eye.  I don't
think it will cover to 28mm, and if it does, it isn't very powerful.
Primarily, it is stupid.  I can only use it on my TTL nikons because
it doesn't have a manual mode.  It doesn't even have a test button.
I might go with a third party flash before settling for the SB-23.

The SB-24 is excellent.  Buy your equipment quickly, and be sure to 
take a number of test rolls BEFORE going on your trip!

-- 
Doug Bank                       Private Systems Division
dougb@ecs.comm.mot.com          Motorola Communications Sector
dougb@nwu.edu                   Schaumburg, Illinois
dougb@casbah.acns.nwu.edu       708-576-8207                    
Newsgroups: rec.photo
From: amg8408@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu (Avijit  Moitra)
Subject: A Question about 2X teleconverter
Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana
Date: Mon, 17 Aug 1992 06:34:12 GMT

Can someone answer a few questions about 2X teleconverter.

I have a Minolta Maxxum 7000 with Sigma 28-70/3.5-4.5 and 70-210/4.5-5.6
lens and would like to buy a 2X teleconverter.  I wnat to know

1.  Are there special 2X converters for AF lens.

2.  Do I have to buy Sigma 2X converter or I can use any 2x.  (I think Sigma
does not make 2x).  Prices seem to vary a lot.  Any suggestion for a good
2X with readonable price that will work for my lens.

3.  If I order by mail then what specifications I shuld specify when ordering.

	Thanks in advance.
From: mvolo@ecsvax.uncecs.edu (Michael R. Volow)
Newsgroups: rec.photo
Subject: Re: The quality of Nikon "E" lenses?
Date: 22 Aug 92 03:46:08 GMT
Organization: UNC Educational Computing Service


I remember when the Nikon E series lenses came out, in the late 1960's
or earley 1970's, I believe. At that time, the 75-210 E zoom and 
75-150 zoom had an excellent optical reputation, even among the pros.
-- 
Michael Volow, Psychiatry, Durham VA Med Center, Durham NC 27712
919 286 0411 Ext 6933               mvolo@uncecs.edu