HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: mkuhn@news.weeg.uiowa.edu (Martin W Kuhn)
Subject: Re: Camera Collecting
Keywords: Rollfix
Organization: University of Iowa, Iowa City, IA, USA
Date: Tue, 28 Jul 1992 00:31:58 GMT

In article <1992Jul20.174422.22560@tellab5.tellabs.com> nitram@tellabs.com (Marty Hewes) writes:
>
>>>Some I collect because there doesn't seem to be a more modern equivalent.
>>>I have a Rollfix, and a Rollfix II.  Made in postwar US occupied Germany.
>>>They are bellows type, folding, medium (2 1/4 x 3 1/4) format 120 rollfilm
>>>shooters.  Schnieder optics on one, Rodenstock on the other.  Very light
>>>and compact.  I never go anywhere scenic without one of them tucked in a
>>
>>Interesting; I have a Franka-Werk Rollfix also.  Yes, it is very compact;
>>it has to be the most compact 6x9 I've seen.  Those swing-out spool 
...
>>to disagree about the optics though, at least on mine; it has a 
>>Schneider Radionar, a mediocre triplet.  It's OK if you print the
>>whole frame; with such a big negative, even a so-so lens can produce
>>very nice prints.  However, if you try to enlarge a small portion
...

>My Rollfix has the same Radionar.  The Rollfix II has a Rodenstock triplet.
>These are the only versions I have seen.  I agree that the tripletts used
>on these things aren't exactly Tessars.
>
>I tend to shoot mine around f16 and print from the whole neg.  At that rate,
>I don't know that I would want a four element lens, considering the relatively
>old technology coatings on these optics.  A triplet should give better
Yeah, at f16 and full neg you should get good results.  Unfortunately, I do
a lot of low-light photography, and shoot wide-open much of the time, so
quality flaws become much more apparent.

>contrast.  Believe it or not, the triplet on the Rollfix II actually opens
>up to f3.5.  I've never shot it wide open, but I bet it gets pretty soft.
>Might work well for portraits :^).
Hey, believe it or not, the Solida (a similar folder also made by FW) was
availible with an f2.8 Radionar!   Scale focus too!   Even if you could guess
distances with sufficient accuracy for f2.8, I would think the results would
be quite disappointing, to say the least...

> 
>
>>BTW, I'm looking for a Kodak Monitor 620 (with Anagmistat Special lens,
>>and preferably the Flash Supermatic shutter)  If you got one you want 
>>to sell cheap let me know.   It's supposed to be a fairly common
>>(though low demand) camera, but the only ones I've been able to 
>>unearth are the more unusual, more collectible (and less usable) 
>>616 version...
>
>I've seen them, but I don't have one.  Maybe they are getting cannibalized 
>for press camera lenses.  Do you know someone that can convert them to 120
>film for a reasonable price?
I think you're right about them being canibalized for press cameras.  No,
I don't know about any conversion possibiliies.  It would probably be fairly
difficult on the Monitor, as getting the automatic film stop system to work
with 120 could be a problem.


                  -- Marty
From: jay@intermec.com (Jay Schlegel x6878)
Newsgroups: rec.photo
Subject: Re: PZ-1 over the EOS 10s, N8008s
Date: 30 Jul 92 15:22:57 GMT
Reply-To: jay@intermec.com (Jay Schlegel x6878)
Organization: Intermec Corporation, Everett WA

>In article <1992Jul24.223908.5191@adobe.com> usenet@adobe.com (USENET NEWS) writes:
>>
>>| The PZ-1 has a programmable image tracking and "zoom clip", 
>>>| you can preset two focal lengths... and presto, 105mm without 
>>| thinking!
>>		-Mark Newton-John
>>
>>"Without thinking" is right! Gimmicky bells & whistles have about as 
>>much to do with photography as racing stripes have to do with driving.
>>To believe that "features" like these are reasons to choose one camera
>>over another is to be seduced by Advertising in the worst sense of
>>the word.		^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>>		-Alan


   To stubbornly adopt the defensive mindset that any of the new "features"
   found on the latest generation of AF cameras cannot be used to enhance ones
   serious photographic efforts is to be closed minded in the worst sense
   of the word.  To slam someone in the above manner is just plain rude.

   I don't feel that the above-mentioned "feature" is all that gimmicky.
   Having a preselected focal-length memory simply gives a quick method to
   set the zoom to that focal length.  Not much more "gimmicky" than changing
   lenses in my book.

   George Lepp had an interesting article in a recent (withing 4 months) issue
   of _Outdoor Photographer_ discussing new camera features.  His advice was
   to see how these features can be of benefit.  He mentioned that there are
   shots that he's making using predictive-AF that he wouldn't even have
   attempted a few years back.  Granted, there are new features I consider
   superfluous (in the context of my usage), but I find some of the new
   features on my 7xi to be quite useful.


-- 
-*jay  Jay Schlegel --> Intermec Corp., Everett Wa.
						     fluke!
	jay@intermec.com      OR  -->	    uunet!pilchuck!intermec!jay
From: liang@saul.cis.upenn.edu (Chuck Liang)
Newsgroups: rec.photo
Subject: Re: Contax T2
Keywords: Superb
Date: 22 Jul 92 16:56:12 GMT
Organization: University of Pennsylvania

In article <1992Jul22.073746.25585@sactoh0.sac.ca.us> mfolivo@sactoh0.sac.ca.us (Mark Newton-John) writes:
>You can not get a better camera than the T2 in it's
>price/performance range. I swear, the Zeiss Sonnar lens is
>extremely sharp, and the build quality is spectacular.
>
>Titanium body, ceramic pressure plate, sapphire shutter release and
 ^^^^^^^^^^^^^				^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

  According to a review of the T2 in Shutterbug (2/92), the camera's
body is made of plastic, with only a titanium body shell.  The shutter
release is SYNTHETIC sapphire.

>viewfinder windows, flocked insides... Better than the Leica Mini,
>but of course it does cost more.
>
>Full auto with manual overides. Manual focus and aperture preferred
>automation. The bloody thing even has a pre-flash. Exposure
>compensation, so if you want to push film... Not bad.


  According to that review, the bloody thing only goes up to 1/125
sec. top shutter speed in aperture preferred mode, and you can NOT use
the maximum f2.8 aperture expcept in programmed mode.


  In terms of small rangefinders, I think nothing can beat the olympus
XA (or XA-3 and XA-4) and old leica screwmounts.
Newsgroups: rec.photo
From: robert@sys.sweden.dg.com (Robert Claeson)
Subject: Re: 430ez vs Metz 45
Date: Fri, 24 Jul 1992 08:01:24 GMT
Organization: Data General AB, Akalla, Sweden

In article <1992Jul22.013034.1@cc.curtin.edu.au>, zrepachol@cc.curtin.edu.au (Paul Repacholi) writes:
> In article <1992Jul20.114927.14198@sys.sweden.dg.com>, robert@sys.sweden.dg.com (Robert Claeson) writes:
> ...
> >                             The guide number given above is in feet. The
> > guide number in meters is up to 43 (that's where the model number comes
> > from) at the 80mm setting.
> 
> Note that the Metzen spud mashers have Gns of 45 and 60. The 430 is an impressive
> package next to a Metz 45. Explains where that AAs go too.. 

Yes, but note that the GN of 43 is at the 80mm setting. If you were to use
a wide-angle lens, you would only have a GN of 35 or even lower. Nevertheless,
the 430EZ is an impressive package. It's coupling to the TTL functionality
of the EOS cameras is tighter than one will get with a suitable SCA adapter
for the Metz units. I sometimes find the need for something stronger than
the 430EZ but then we're talking about the Metz 60 or studio flashes.

-- 
Robert Claeson            Internet: robert@sys.sweden.dg.com
Data General AB                     robert@sys.dg.se
Box 28                    Tel: +46 (0)8-92 55 00
S-164 93 KISTA, Sweden    Fax: +46 (0)8-751 36 22
From: ria@dash.udev.cdc.com (Richard Askew)
Newsgroups: rec.photo
Subject: Re: Long lenses
Date: 24 Jul 92 10:51:17 GMT
X-Newsreader: Tin 1.1 PL3

: > AK> Don't bother with 300mm unless you're prepared to bring a tripod too,
: > AK> and use it.  My tests at shorter focal lengths lead me to believe that
: > AK> anyone who claims to be able to hand-hold a 300mm lens, even at 1/500,
: > AK> is either lying or has low quality standards.  At some point I will
: > AK> try it myself and then I'll know for sure.
: >

I missed the original - just in case its not been mentioned...

As general rule: never hand-hold a shot at a speed SLOWER than the 
focal length of the lens. ie. 300mm @ 1/500 etc.
Of course, its only a general rule. - some people will get acceptable
results other won't.
Personally, I've used 400mm @ 1/500 and got away with it, but then I
learnt to shoot .303 rifles in the semi-prone position as teenager in
the Army Cadets!!!!
-  Please no FLAMES from the anti-gun lobby (I only shot at paper targets)

--
Richard Askew
Information Management Centre
Control Data Systems Inc
London (UK)
Internet: ria@cdl.cdc.com
FAX (+44) 81 848 3134
Newsgroups: rec.photo
From: faust@bagels.enet.dec.com (Stephen R Faust)
Subject: Re: Amateur vs. Pro (was Re: International Photographer)
Organization: Digital Equipment Corporation
Date: 28 JUL 92 10:14:48 EDT


In article <1992Jul27.222336.21769@talon.ucs.orst.edu>, monson@humpback.ECE.ORST.EDU (Tyrus Monson) writes...
>In article <PHR.92Jul27114934@soda.berkeley.edu> phr@soda.berkeley.edu (Paul Rubin) writes:
>  (lots deleted)
>>union (though I think anyone can join ASMP).
>               ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>	       Nope. In my experience, they
>	       are very picky about who is
>	       admitted to membership.
>	       Curious, because it costs them
>	       revenue.
> 

Correct. You need to show three years of published work, and a good portfolio to
become a general member. You can also become an associate (I belive), if you can
show a good portfolio, but dont have three years worth of published work, but
have been published. You also need sponsorship from three current members. I
have an appointment for my membership application next month.

However, I dont think being a member of ASMP will get me into any events. They
dont give you anything that looks like a pass, nor letters of an assignment. Its
just an organization that works for the working photographer, and circulates
business, technical, and general information about the business of photography.
They also work hard regarding copyright laws, stock usage, etc, etc. They also
work in special group rates for health/life insurance, and the like for the
members working as freelancers or owing their own studio. The initial cost is
around $275 for the first year, and around $175 thereafter (dont remember
specifics off the top of my head).

>	       Curious, because it costs them
>	       revenue.

They are trading off a reputation of a 'high quality photography organization'
vs revenue. If they maintain this reputation, they will be more successful at
lobbying for photographers rights, fees, stock usage, etc, since they will be
able to show they represent a wide range of working professionals, and should
be taken more seriously. Could you image IFPO trying to lobby for something
like this is washington?

----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Stephen R Faust                                         faust@bagels.dec.com
Digital Equipment Corp.                            faust@bagels.enet.dec.com
Networks and Communications                                   (508) 486-7433
Littleton, MA
============================================================================
From: ben_wen@athena.mit.edu (Benson Wen)
Newsgroups: rec.photo
Subject: Re: Panning...
Date: 22 Jul 92 01:29:39 GMT
Organization: Massachusetts Institute of Technology

In article <1992Jul20.204505.10431@wam.umd.edu> venko@next04epsl.wam.umd.edu (Ramakrishnan Venkataraman) writes:

   I have EOS Rebel in which the mirror lifts up during exposure. So I guess  
   panning is out of question. Has anybody tried it with a similar camera ?

   Ram.

Most SLR's have "viewfinder blackout." The only currently produced SLR
that I know of that doesn't have this property is the EOS RT.  It does
this, however, at an expense of 2/3 (or thereabouts) loss in exposure.

The idea is to hold the subject (say a horse) fixed in the viewfinder,
then pressing the shutter and keep moving.  Depending on the subject
and amount of panning blur you want, usually a range of shutter speed
could be used, 1/125-1/4.  Any slower and it becomes hard to keep the
subject well registered in the frame.  If you're *looking* for blurry
photos, though...

Another idea is to keep *BOTH* eyes open and pan with the open eye.

-Ben
--

|| Benson Wen
|| ben_wen@athena.mit.edu
|| queeph@hing.lcs.mit.edu
From: feltman@hpscit.sc.hp.com (Robert Feltman)
Newsgroups: rec.photo
Subject: Re: Lens shading (Re: Schneider and Rodenstock lenses)
Date: 22 Jul 92 19:11:33 GMT
Organization: Hewlett-Packard, Santa Clara, CA

The Caltar view lenses are made by Rodenstok for Calumet. If you look
at the lens line-up of both brands side by side in the Calumet catalog
it is easy to tell. This was confirmed by Calumet by phone.

Bob
Newsgroups: rec.photo
From: mfolivo@sactoh0.sac.ca.us (Mark Newton-John)
Subject: PZ-1 over the EOS 10s, N8008s
Organization: Sacramento Public Access Unix
Date: Fri, 24 Jul 92 07:15:17 GMT

Subject: Re: advice wanted on the Pentax PZ1 vs the Canon EOS 10s
Keywords: Get the PZ-1

The PZ-1 is a step up from the EOS 10s.
1/8000 shutter			1/4000 shutter

The PZ-1 has a programmable image tracking and "zoom clip", you can
preset two focal lengths that the lens will go to when you press
the button on the lens. That is if you are at 28mm for a tennis
match, and all of a sudden you see a good shot, press the button
and presto, 105mm without thinking! (with 105mm preset).

You should have spot metering if you do serious stuff, as sometimes
you really have to have exposure control.

But the PZ-1 is $599 from the EOS 10s $399. Pretty big difference.

Between the Nikon N8008s and the Pentax PZ-1, PZ-1.
Between the Nikon N6006 and the Canon EOS 10s, EOS 10s.

The PZ-1 and N8008s are comparable, and the EOS 10s and the N6006
are comparable.



-- 
#############################################################
# Scaramento Public Access UNIX     sactoh0.SAC.CA.US       #  
#  (916) 649-0161, 722-6516 & 722-5068    E-Mail & USENET   #
################## default .signature file ##################
From: bjs@uts.amdahl.com (Barry Sherman)
Newsgroups: rec.photo
Subject: Re: Kodak CC vs. Durst CC values
Date: 27 Jul 92 20:14:11 GMT
Followup-To: rec.photo
Organization: Amdahl Corporation, Sunnyvale CA

Robert Claeson writes:

>Is there anyone who happens to have a chart or a formula for translating
>between Durst and Kodak CC values? Or possibly a pointer to where I can
>find one?

According to an issue of Darkroom and Creative Camera Techniques from
about a year ago, Durst uses sensitometric values.  I can't remember
the data that they gave, but I deduced that 

	"Durst units" = .7 x "CC units" (actually, .68 to be accurate)

(Durst units are "bigger" :-)

I have this stuck to the wall of my darkroom and use it frequently when 
changing emulsions on Cibachrome for applying the correction from my enlargers
results to the starting pack that they recommend for the new emulsion.

Now, having said this, I'll be interested to find out from all you netters
just how far off the mark I am!

Barry




-- 


|----------------------------------------------------------------------------|
| Barry Sherman, Amdahl Corp.       | "Any fool can face a crisis - it's     | 
| bjs@ruts.ccc.amdahl.com           |  this day-to-day living that wears you |
|                                   |  out." - Anton Chekhov                 |
|----------------------------------------------------------------------------|
| Amdahl, being a corporation, is a legal fiction.  Therefore it is incapable|
| of holding, let alone expressing, opinions.  Unfortunately, this has been  |
| said of me as well.                                                        |
|----------------------------------------------------------------------------|
Newsgroups: rec.photo
From: chazl@county.lmt.mn.org
Subject: Re: Rewinding Films: But not completely
Organization: LaserMaster Corp.
Distribution: usa
Date: Mon, 27 Jul 92 19:04:29 GMT

In article <1992Jul15.224215.17883@news.uiowa.edu> mahatme@icaen.uiowa.edu
(Chandrashehar Vasant Mahatme) writes:
>	Could anybody tell me how one can rewind a film without letting
>it go completely inside the cartridge.

Hold the camera against your ear as you rewind the film.  You will be able to
hear the end of the film hit the camera back when it comes free of the take-up
spool.  Always works for me.

On cameras with motorized remind, I have good luck by listening to the pitch of
the motor and popping the back the moment I hear that pitch increase.

chaz

Newsgroups: rec.photo
From: rslugg@med.unc.edu (Robert Slugg)
Subject: Metz 45's, Warning from Bogen re turbo batteries
Originator: rslugg@pelham
Organization: UNC-CH School of Medicine
Distribution: na
Date: Fri, 24 Jul 1992 15:35:01 GMT

I just picked up my 45ct4 this morning from the repair shop.  One of the
problems was a capacitor not taking a full charge.  With the flash was a
note from Bogen stating that the use of quantum turbo or similar high
voltage batteries could damage the flash and thus voided the warranty.  I
use an amatar procycler, and the flash was no longer under warranty so it
was basically $50 out of my pocket for the repair plus a weekend rental of
a lumedyne to shoot a wedding.  In response, I sent a letter to Bogen and
a carbon copy to "Professional Photographer" asking why high voltage input
pins were on the side of the 45 series flashes were they not to be used in
that fashion, and if the deception that it was OK was carried out by
Quantum etc, why hadn't Bogen in the last 5 years brought it to everyones
attention.  I decided to buy the Metz because I ttt
thought it was compatible with the procycler.  I really don't expect much
to happen, like PP is going to publish my letter and piss off a major
advertiser ;-), but I at least can bring this up with the net as a problem
that exists.  I discovered the problem with the Metz at the beginning of a
wedding processional and I pointed out to Bogen that I'm more than just a
little bait shy about wanting to use the Metz in that role again (it was a
really unpleasent experience that I hope I never have to re-experience).

Bob

Newsgroups: rec.photo
From: andy@SAIL.Stanford.EDU (Andy Freeman)
Subject: Re: Amateur vs. Pro (was Re: International Photographer)
Organization: Computer Science Department,  Stanford University.
Distribution: na
Date: Tue, 28 Jul 1992 17:39:13 GMT

>Do any of these "want-to-be pros" give any thought to the fact that they may
>be interfering with the work of real pros - i.e. guys who are trying to make
>a living, not just having fun? If I were a photographer who's livelyhood
>depended on getting good shots I'd be very annoyed (to put it mildly) at these
>guys getting under my feet. 

So?  Just as carrying a lot of expensive equipment doesn't grant
privs, neither does one's hopes of making money or one's profession.

If the folks who run the venue decide that someone gets special privs,
said someone gets them (and the folks who run the venue are
responsible for enforcing that, not anyone else).  Otherwise a "pro"
is just another person in attendance.  That applies even for venues
that don't have anyone to grant privs.

-andy
--
UUCP:    {arpa gateways, sun, decwrl, uunet, rutgers}!cs.stanford.edu!andy
ARPA:    andy@cs.stanford.edu
From: gsnow@clark.edu (Gary Snow)
Newsgroups: rec.photo
Subject: Re: Amateur vs. Pro (was Re: International Photographer)
Date: 23 Jul 92 23:17:35 GMT
Article-I.D.: clark.1992Jul23.231735.1424
Organization: Clark College, Vancouver, Wa.  USA

In article <PHR.92Jul23130212@soda.berkeley.edu> phr@soda.berkeley.edu (Paul Rubin) writes:
>
>Around here, the press passes you need for the police to let you into
>news events like riots are issued by the police depts themselves;
>generally you need to be employed by a newspaper or news agency to get
>one.  This means a real newspaper, not an amateur one.  They do issue
>some to freelance pro news photographers but these are -very- hard to
>get.  You need to have a large track record (lots of published work)
>to get these.

What about passes to sporting events, like Indy Races, and Pro Basketball
games.

Gary

-- 
-----
Gary Snow
uunet!clark!gsnow  or  gsnow@clark.edu
Newsgroups: rec.photo
From: kevoka@auto-trol.com (Kevin O'Kane)
Subject: Re: 8008s = F801s
Organization: Auto-trol Technology Corporation
Date: Wed, 22 Jul 1992 00:08:06 GMT

In article <1992Jul21.143015.8394@Informatik.TU-Muenchen.DE> hofmann@Informatik.TU-Muenchen.DE (Jenns Hofmann) writes:
>
>Here in Germany there is no 'Nikon 8008s',but I suppose it's exactly the
>same like the 'Nikon F801s' that is sold in Europe.
>Am I right ?

Yes.
From: sharp@mizar.usc.edu (Malcolm Sharp)
Newsgroups: rec.photo
Subject: Price for Mamiya 645M?
Date: 30 Jul 1992 07:32:36 -0700
Organization: University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA
NNTP-Posting-Host: mizar.usc.edu

I've been asked if I wanted to seel the following:
          Mamiya M645
          80mm 2.8, with lens hood
          150mm 3.5
          Prism Finder
          Pistol Grip
          Padded Aluminum Carrying Case
It's about 10 years old - but hasn't been used much in the past 5-6
years.  Anyone have an idea as to its worth?  All in excellent condition.
      
Thanks.
Malcolm
Newsgroups: rec.photo
From: hchong@netcom.com (Hoi Chong)
Subject: Re: New Nikon Equipments.  Nikinos RS & SB-104
Date: Thu, 30 Jul 92 18:15:23 GMT
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services  (408 241-9760 guest) 

From article <1992Jul29.025237.1@cc.curtin.edu.au>, by zrepachol@cc.curtin.edu.au (Paul Repacholi):
> In article <1992Jul27.150319.23251@cs.cmu.edu>, phg+@CS.CMU.EDU (Paul Gleichauf) writes:
>> 	There has been along standing rumor about an F5 for more than a year
>> without substantiation.  The only scheduled Nikon 35 mm camera for release
>> that has been announced is the Nikonos RS underwater camera line.
> 
> I had a look at one on Sat. It would be the UW photogs wet dream, till you see
> the price... $2600 for the flash, $4500 for the body. 3 lenses avail now,
> a 50 that will go to 1:1, a zoom, 20-35 I think, that is a serious contender
> for the "zoom lens from hell" prize of the old FD600. The dammed thing is about
> 8" across at the front! Also a 28 or so.

What is going on?  Do they think we are made of gold?  I am still paying
for my F4s!

How much did F2 cost?  I remember when F3 just came out, I could get it
for US$600.  Now we have paid somewhere between $1,500 and $2,000  for
the F4s, I thought that will be the highest it will go (let's keep Leica
out for the time being).

I have seen the photo of the new UW camera and flash.  They looked 
impresssive... but not for a total of $7100!  Is there an hidden photo
inflation going on we don't know about?

What will F5 cost?  $5,000?  $10,000!!!!???? 
Newsgroups: rec.photo
From: wchan@amy9.stanford.edu (Wai Shun Chan)
Subject: Which Camera to buy?
Organization: DSO, Stanford University
Date: Wed, 22 Jul 92 08:01:02 GMT


I am planning of buying a SLR camera and would like to know
which of the following model is best in this group in terms
of value and performance.

	Canon Elan
	Minolta Maxxum 5xi
	Pentax PZ-10
	Nikon N6006

Or any other suggestion.

Please send email to me.  My address is wchan@leland.stanford.edu

Thank you.

Wilson Chan
From: mejr@otter.hpl.hp.com (Mike Radcliffe)
Date: Thu, 23 Jul 1992 15:06:29 GMT
Subject: Chinese,Russian TLR's
Organization: Hewlett-Packard Laboratories, Bristol, UK.
Newsgroups: rec.photo

Hi,
  has anybody used any of the cheap (20-80pounds) TLR's that are available
in the UK ie Lubitel 166U or Seagull B1/A , looking for comments,hints,even
opinions.
           please post or mail to louis@hpbraa42.uksr.hpcom