HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: freudent@vlsi3.ultra.nyu.edu (Eric Freudenthal)
Newsgroups: rec.photo
Subject: comparisons of minolta series: 5000 v. 5000i v. 3xi
Date: 23 Jul 92 21:07:42 GMT
Organization: /a/users/freudent/.organization

I am considering buying a maxxum.

I would like some manual overrides.

The 5xi is "just right" but too expensive.

The 3xi minimally meets my needs (total auto or total manual).

The outdated 5000 model is presently very cheap, but don't work with
the old lenses.

The 7000i is presently cheaper than the 5xi!!! 

Could someone send me a relative feature list of:

3xi
5xi	5000	5000i
	7000	7000i

Will I be sorry if I get a camera that is incompatible with the xi
lenses?

Please reply to me, I'll post a single note with all of your responses.

Thanks, ERic



--
 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
				Eric Freudenthal
				NYU Ultracompter Lab
				715 Broadway, 10th floor
				New York, NY  10003
				
				Phone:(212) 998-3345 work
				      (718) 789-4486 home
				Email:freudent@lab.ultra.nyu.edu
Newsgroups: rec.photo
From: mas@mipl8.jpl.nasa.gov (Marc Sarrel)
Subject: New Equipment Jitters
Organization: Jet Propulsion Laboratory
Distribution: rec
Date: Fri, 24 Jul 1992 03:16:23 GMT

A few days ago, I got via mail-order an 8008s and a 35-70 f/3.3-4.5
AF.  I just noticed today that there is a bit of play in the focus
ring when the lens is mounted on the camera and the camera is in
either of the autofocus modes.  The amount of movement is small, but
I'm worried.  To give you an idea of the amount of movement, one of
the distance numbers on the focusing ring is free to move about the
width of the white focusing mark.

Also, as a side question.  Why did they make it so that the filter
threads on the front of the lens turn when the lens focuses?  This is
okay for solid filters, but I think it would mess you up if you wanted
to use a filter with a gradient, for example...

--marc
--
Marc Sarrel			"Strange as it seems,
Jet Propulsion Laboratory	 There's been a run of crazy dreams,
mas@mipl8.jpl.nasa.gov		 And a man who can interpret could go far --
				 Could become a star."
From: graham@ug.cs.dal.ca (Michael Graham)
Newsgroups: rec.photo
Subject: partial metering on EOS 650 - HOW?????
Date: 23 Jul 92 23:40:18 GMT
Organization: /etc/organization

Well I was carrying my camera around with me all day and eventually I found
myself inside at a nice intimate jazz concert.

I knew that taking flash shots would ruin the mood so I tried partial
metering on my 650.

I put it in AV mode and got 1/3 sec for correct exposure.

Then I held down the partial metering button and focussed in on the guy's
bright guitar. This resulted in 7/10ths!!! 

I took one shot at 1/3 for the hell of it, but I was mad that I could figure
out partial metering. I do have the manual - but it is VERY vague.

I'd appreciate it if someone could help me out - ie - tell me what i did
wrong!  :)

mike

-- 
e-mail graham@ug.cs.dal.ca if you like to trade live audio/video tapes
**************************************************************************
Bjork sounds so good, that if I were a singer trying to make a living today    
I'd shoot myself in desperation of ever equalling her  -  Barbara Ellen, NME
From: neilw@informix.com (Neil Williams)
Newsgroups: rec.photo
Subject: Re: Long lenses
Date: 22 Jul 92 17:28:06 GMT
Organization: Informix Software, Inc.

In article <38.2A6B9C68@terrabit.FIDONET.ORG> David.Dyer-Bennet@p0.f341.n282.z1.FIDONET.ORG (David Dyer-Bennet) writes:
>
> 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 must have low quality standards.  I hadn't previously suspected it,
>though.

My last trip to the San Diego zoo was a lot fun.  I shot with
Ektar 25 and a 100-300 zoom.  My hand-held 300mm shots at 
around 1/250 are not noticeably different from tripod shots
at below 1/250, in 8x10 enlargements.  Maybe if I enlarged
beyond 8x10 I'd see a difference, but I must say that so
far I agree with the 2nd poster (David?) that hand-holding
below 1/500 yields agreeable results. In fact, my 8x10's are
cropped so much, the magnification is about equal to 16x20;
I really could've used a 400mm at the zoo.

Of course, I braced my arms against fences/posts/whatever
whenever I could; probably that made a difference too.

--Neil

-- 
Neil Williams: neilw@informix.com

Seen on my last trip on United: "If you are seated in an exit row 
and can not (sic) read this card... please notify a crew member."
Newsgroups: rec.photo
From: goldberg@oasys.dt.navy.mil (Mark Goldberg)
Newsgroups: rec.photo
Subject: Re: SB-24/wedding (Re: AF/AE vs. Manual aka All That Jazz)
Date: 24 Jul 92 16:29:56 GMT
Reply-To: goldberg@oasys.dt.navy.mil (Mark Goldberg)
Organization: Naval Surface Warfare Center, Annapolis, MD

In rec.photo, hchong@netcom.com (Hoi Chong) writes:
>From article <1992Jul23.194344.68481@cs.cmu.edu>, by phg+@CS.CMU.EDU (Paul Glei
>chauf):
>> I hope that the original poster understands that the SB-24 has a 
>>swivel head that can be twisted (when the camera is oriented horizontally)
>>either up and down or side to side.  This means that you can use the
>>flash on the camera's hot shoe held vertically with the flash twisted
>>side to side, to bounce light off the ceiling without a softbox and
>>bracket.
>I am interested in a Soft Box solution for the SB-24....Does it get
>in the way of the SB-24 or part of the SB-24, or make useless any feature
>of the SB-24?  Is there any fixing-up I need to do to attach it to the
>SB-24?  What is the price? 

I'm the one who recommended the Lumiquest Soft Box and possibly stroboframe
for the SB-24.  There are several soft boxes on the market that can
be attached, but I think the Lumiquest is the best and the cheapest
(about $25).  The bottom edge has an M-shape, so it won't block the
auto sensor or AF illuminator.  The Lumiquest Soft Box can work on the
Vivitar 283 or 285, too.  The only change you make to the flash is to
attach black velcro pads (4).  These same pads can be used to mount
Lumiquest's other accessories, like the Bouncers, Big Bounce, 80/20,
or Snoot.

I know that the SB-24 head moves in many directions, but if you use
a bounce card, what happens when you orient the camera verically?  There
is no way to have the flash head aiming up and the long axis of the
flash perpendicular to the camera. You'd have to move the bounce card
to the other surface of the flash head, 90 deg away.  What a pain.

Most of the time, I use the Soft Box with flash on the camera's hot
shoe, without the Stroboframe.  Helps me work fast, since there's a
softening effect with no moving of the flash head not bracket flipping.

Lumiquest devices are sold in most serious camera stores.  The company
is in Texas; 800 number available.
   /|/| /||)|/  /~ /\| |\|)[~|)/~   |   Everyone's entitled to MY opinion.
  / | |/ ||\|\  \_|\/|_|/|)[_|\\_|  |      goldberg@oasys.dt.navy.mil
========Imagination is more important than knowledge. - Albert Einstein=======
Newsgroups: rec.photo
From: phg+@CS.CMU.EDU (Paul Gleichauf)
Subject: Re: SB-24/wedding (Re: AF/AE vs. Manual aka All That Jazz)
Date: Mon, 27 Jul 92 19:51:53 GMT
Organization: Carnegie Mellon University

	There is a small ongoin debate about effective softboxes.  I am of the
opinion that the Lumaquest is not large enough to disperse the light without
highlights.  Roughly the look I have sought is the opposite of on camera flash
with its specular hotspots.  A soft indirect uniform and fairly shadowless source 
is what I look for from a softbox, like that produced through a window on an
overcast day.  I also want the ability to move it off the camera to
produce directional control.  The Chimera box that I use is about 20 inches
across diagonally and has a white interior.  There is a speedring that
holds the SB-24 flash that I use, and on which the stiffeners that stress the
fabric of the softbox like a tent.  If I recall correctly these two items run a
little over $100.  There is a larger version more approriate for medium format.
The softbox is either mounted on a Stroboframe bracket or a lightstand and
connected to the camera by an SB-17 off camera TTL cord.  These later two items
are about another $100.

	The disadvantages are 
	1) The softbox wraps around the flash and blocks the infrared AF sender
	   on the flash.  So you can't rely on the camera to focus automatically
	   in the dark. But you probably are not concerned about highlights under
	   such circumstances, if you cannot focus manually, resort to removing
	   the flash from the softbox.
	2) The unit is ungainly in cramped quarters. You would not want to use 
	   it in a crowd.
	3) The Stoboframe can dip the softbox if not tightened down completely.
	4) It takes longer to set up than the Lumaquest, but folds relatively
	   compactly.
	5) Probably cuts power more than Lumaquest.

	The advantages include
	1) Uniform light source over fairly wide angles (35 mm wide works 20 mm
	   does not.
	2) Approaches a portable studio light quality light source.
	3) Can be used to control light angle from further off the camera.
	4) No red eye at the normal distances for which I use it.
	5) Do not need to even glue a Velcro strip onto the flash, you just place
	   the flash on the bracket shoe.

	I think the softbox does a better job than any of the small diffusers,
but at the cost of some inconveniences.  Your choice as to which is more your
style.

							Paul
From: andyc@hplsla.hp.com (Andy Cassino)
Date: Mon, 27 Jul 1992 16:27:14 GMT
Subject: Re: SPORTS ILLUSTRATED SWIMSUIT ISSUE: What Camera/lens?
Organization: HP Lake Stevens, WA
Newsgroups: rec.photo

Previously I wrote:
| 
| The guy that did the shooting in the last couple of issues and the videos was
| at a photo show, courtesy of Nikon. I think the guy's name is John
| Hinterberger? 

Well, I blew that one. John Hinterberger is a columnist at the Seattle Times.
So, let's just say I don't recall the photographer's name. :-)

    %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
    % Andy Cassino                                       %
    % Hewlett-Packard - Lake Stevens Instrument Division %
    %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
Newsgroups: rec.photo
From: amg8408@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu (Avijit  Moitra)
Subject: Need Recommendation for Flash for Minolta Maxxum 7000
Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana
Date: Mon, 27 Jul 1992 04:10:25 GMT

 Can someone recommend me some good flashes (high guide no around 100 and
variable power) other than Minolta non-i series flashes.
 Has anyone had any experience with Achiever 630 AF or Sunpak 433AF flashes.

	Need names of some dedicated flashes for Minolta Maxxum 7000.  Are there any Vivitar AF flash that will work with 636AF (works with 7000i, but can work
with an adopter FS1200).  Any advice will be highly appreciated.  Thanks.
From: dbernard@thewho.Central.Sun.COM (Dave Bernard)
Newsgroups: rec.photo
Subject: Re: ENLARGING 35mm/Med.format/other
Date: 29 Jul 92 14:34:10 GMT
Reply-To: dbernard@thewho.Central.Sun.COM
Organization: Sun Microsystems

In article 10995@linus.mitre.org, val@mitre.org (Colin Valentine) writes:
>In article <1992Jul28.222507.303@walter.bellcore.com>, hsong@ardour.bellcore.com writes:
>> 
>> Reconsider 6x9cm.  Usual profess>
>Oh, and BTW, I use a Fuji GW690II.  Love it.  6x9 Velvia looks GREAT! 
>The 90mm lens is a slight wide angle, just about equivalent to a 38mm lens on
>a 35mm.  Now, my problem is do I get the GSW690 III to go with it?
>
>Colin
>val@mitre.org



I know it's a bit off the subject, but what is the difference
between the GW90II and the GSW690III?  And is the former discontinued?
Has there been a price increase?

	Dave
Newsgroups: rec.photo
From: lannert@uni-duesseldorf.de (Detlef Lannert)
Subject: Re: EV units
Organization: Universitaetsrechenzentrum, Heinrich-Heine-Universitaet Duesseldorf
Date: Fri, 24 Jul 1992 07:31:43 GMT

Sorry, now it's me who's getting confused. Maybe my recent explanation
of EV's in this thread was wrong - by an offset of 1... So the question
is: What is the definition of EV 1?? 

In article <1992Jul23.042505.26463@craycos.com> sog@craycos.com (Steve Gombosi) writes:

>Your meter is right, you have been deceived by advertising copywriters for
>camera manufacturers who say "EV -1" when they mean "EV -1 at ISO 100".

Yes, that's a shame.

>The definition of EV is:

>        EV = log2(A^2/T)

>        Where A = f/number of the aperture
>              T = Exposure time in seconds.

Let me try: A=1.0, T=1.0 [seconds] => EV = log2 (1^2/1) = log2 (1) = 0

>Nothing there about film speed, light level or anything else. It just
>refers to a given amount of *exposure*, regardless of how bright
>the light is or how fast the film is. EV1 *is* 1sec@f/1, or 2 sec@f/1.4,
                                       ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>or 4sec@f/2,... - no matter what the luminance or the film speed are.

This seems to contradict the formula given before!
(And this is what my previous posting was based upon.)

So everybody seems to agree on the basic principles of EV's; but what
is right now: the log2 formula or the 1/1/1 rule??

Any enlightenment appreciated.

--
Detlef Lannert      DC3EK      E-Mail: tsos@rz.uni-duesseldorf.de
"Ab morgen wird gearbeitet."
Organization: Penn State University
Date: Tue, 21 Jul 1992 08:05:09 EDT
From: <SPW103@psuvm.psu.edu>
Newsgroups: rec.photo
Subject: Re: Advise on opening a film canister
Distribution: na
 <1992Jul20.234637.24602@crd.ge.com>
 <1992Jul20.235646.15450@cbnewsj.cb.att.com>


In article <1992Jul20.235646.15450@cbnewsj.cb.att.com>, gang@cbnewsj.cb.att.com
(gang.huang) says:
>
>Can someone tell me the correct way of opening a film canister (or getting
>the film out unscratched)? This was not a problem until I got my
>auto-everything P/S, which rewinds the film all the way in.

Well, I've always used a church key (bottle opener) to pry off one end of the
cartridge, and the film slips right out.  I've never had any problems....


                        -Stephen Walker
From: gsnow@clark.edu (Gary Snow)
Newsgroups: rec.photo
Subject: Re: SPORTS ILLUSTRATED SWIMSUIT ISSUE: What Camera/lens?
Date: 31 Jul 92 18:39:32 GMT
Article-I.D.: clark.1992Jul31.183932.7260
Organization: Clark College, Vancouver, Wa.  USA

In article <KRAZYKID.92Jul30171713@pub2.nntp-read.bu.edu> krazykid@pub2.nntp-read.bu.edu (Ernest Kim) writes:
>In article <1992Jul30.204618.20171@clark.edu> gsnow@clark.edu (Gary Snow) writes:
>
>>In article <n2pmqs=.hchong@netcom.com> hchong@netcom.com (Hoi Chong) writes:
>>>> 
>>>> You see, the world doesn't always belong to Nikon.
>>>
>>>Oh yeah?  I got one for you.  Canon cameras are made of plastic (so I was
>>>told). 
>
>>So are bullet proof windows....:-)
>
>>Gary
>
>Oh what the heck.  But the windows are at least a couple of inches
>thick.  :)

Not true, bullet proof car windows are approx 1/4 inch thick, and can stop
most rifle bullets (at long range), and most large caliber handguns at
short range.....its plenty strong.

Gary

-- 
-----
Gary Snow
uunet!clark!gsnow  or  gsnow@clark.edu
Newsgroups: rec.photo
From: edmtl@alf.uib.no (Thor Legvold)
Subject: Re: What's your favourite slide viewer?
Organization: University of Bergen, Norway
Date: Wed, 22 Jul 92 11:26:13 GMT

In article <1992Jul22.013429.29411@morgan.ucs.mun.ca> hamm@weejordy.physics.mun.ca (Craig Hamm) writes:
>
>	I'm starting to shoot more slides, but can't afford a proper
>	carousel projector (throws all those arguments out the window
>	that slides are cheaper when you have to spend a zillion $).
>
>	So, what is your favourite small viewer?
>
>	Every one I've seen has shitty optics, and the rear light
>	flickers depending on the pressure you apply to the slide!
>	Drives me insane.  
>
>	Ideas/comments welcome.
>
>	Craig Hamm

As a matter of fact, I'm in a similar situation.  Saving money by shooting
slides seemed like (still does when I see the results - I've been using
Velvia :-) a Good Thing (tm), however - I use Medium format exclusively,
and the cheapest projector (here anyway) is a kr.6000 Reflekta (about $1000)
Before I pay that much for a projector I'll buy more lenses or magazines :-)

Although the slides are big enough to view without magnification, I would
at least like to show some of these at a modest magnification.  Too bad
none of the local camera clubs have medium format projectors...:-(

Are there any other alternatives other than a lupe & lightboard?

Regards,
Thor
edmtl@fiol.uib.no
From: mingos@vax.oxford.ac.uk
Newsgroups: rec.photo
Subject: Re: Long lenses
Date: 27 Jul 92 15:30:51 GMT
Organization: Oxford University VAXcluster

In article <45681@shamash.cdc.com>, ria@dash.udev.cdc.com (Richard Askew) writes:
> zrepachol@cc.curtin.edu.au (Paul Repacholi) writes:
> : In article <1992Jul25.154705.15326@PacBell.COM>, jpglori@srv.PacBell.COM (John P. Gloria) writes:
> : ...
> : >                                   Some people are just able to
> : > shoot at slower speeds, you just have to know your limitations
> : > (no flame intended here).  SIDE NOTE:  I am very aware of my
> : > breathing and heart rate and I mentally try to moderate my
> : > breathing and attempt to relax to slow my heart rate and as
> : > I am about to shoot at 1/15 (hand held), I relax, take a slow 
> : > deep breath, hold it and I slowly press the shutter release. I
> : > often use the self-timer to release the shutter.

   As someone once pointed out to me, if you release the shutter as you
slowly and steadily breath out, it gives a bit more stability, as you're not
actually tensing your muscles.  I find it works for me, better than holding my
breath.  It may not be better in everyone's case, but it's worth a try...

> : > 
> : > The point being made is not everyone can shoot at slow
> : > speeds and there are people who can shoot at slow speeds.
> 
> - Another useful experiment: next time you take a shot, check how quickly
>   you press the release. 
> - Its amazing how many people 'stab' the release rather than squeeze it!
> If I am handholding a 'long-lens', I sometimes use a flexible release.
> 
> : 
> : It is rare that there isn't SOMETHING you can brace against though...
> 
> - I've known people to mount a camera on an old rifle stock 
> - but its probably worth adding a large label "THIS IS ONLY CAMERA" !

   - I think that might make some people even MORE nervous ! :-)

Gavin
Newsgroups: rec.photo
From: clev@cisco.com (Robert Clevenger)
Subject: Re: bad experience with FotoCell
Organization: Cisco Systems
Distribution: na
Date: Tue, 28 Jul 1992 19:10:26 GMT

In article <1992Jul28.043511.23426@ccu.umanitoba.ca> rao@ccu.umanitoba.ca (Govindaraju Rao) writes:

     Margret M. Reek writes:
     >>  details about bad experience with FotoCell deleted...
	 ....
     >> ...., but they were on Popular Photography's "Check Rated"
     >> program list, so I figured they would be OK...

     Has anyone in the past written to Pop. Photo. informing them that
     many readers take their Check Rated list in good faith ? Only to
     find out the hard way that some Mail-Order firms can be downright
     callous. 

     One assumes that Pop. Photo does some reasearch before granting
     (or at least appearing to) tacit approval. Or is this a naive 
     assumption ? Is it likely that such research, if any, is done 
     periodically ? Say, once in a couple of years. At the very least.

     Any guesses on how seriously Pop. Photo would investigate if a 
     disastrous incident like this were to be brought to their notice ?

     My guess: "Our investigation reveals that it was an isolated incident..
		...circumstances beyond control...we apologise, but cannot
		guarantee...." etc etc    

The fine print of Popular Photography's "Check Rated" Program gives
the following guidelines.  I have used these guidelines (in the order
that I list them) in the past and got decent service.

Write all info down!

1) Announce up front that you are a Popular Photography reader and
have chosen the mail-order house from the Popular Photography "Check
Rated" Program.  This step is very important.

2) Get the name of person serving you.

3) Get all info about seller's return policy - allowable return
period, any restocking charges, charges for shipment of returned
goods, etc.

4) Confirm price of each piece of merchandise.  Include info on
possible rebates or special offers, warranties, etc.

5) Confirm availability.  Announce that you don't want it if you can't
have it by a certain date.

6) Don't allow seller to talk you into buying anything you do not
want. 

7) Get total price quote, including tax, shipping and handling, etc.

8) Get invoice reference number if it is available.

9) Keep all paperwork, cancelled checks, invoices, etc., in case you
have to return something.

10) If there is a problem with the seller and you feel that you are
getting ripped, write a letter to the seller and to Popular
Photography explaining the circumstances.

There are other tips in the magazine, too numerous to mention here.

   __	             _
  |  |'`'`'`'`'`'`'`| |
  |  |Rob Clevenger | |
  |  |              | |/|
  |  |clev@cisco.com| | |
  |  |              | |\|
  |  |415.688.4447  | |
  |  |              | |
  |__|`'`'`'`'`'`'`'|_|
   _|________________|_
  |____________________|
            T

Newsgroups: rec.photo
From: mktjadx@gsusgi2.gsu.edu (Jeff A. Dilcher)
Subject: pushing plusx to 200.... suggestions?
Organization: Georgia State University
Date: Wed, 22 Jul 1992 21:15:11 GMT

Any suggestions on develper solutions and times for pushing plusx to 200 asa?
Thanks in advance,
Jeff

-- 
 
  Jeffrey A. Dilcher                                   Atlanta, GA, USA
mktjadx@gsusgi2.gsu.edu                             Telephone 404-266-1585
      NSS #25914                                       II Peter 1:10,11
 



Newsgroups: rec.photo
From: chachra@ecf.toronto.edu (CHACHRA Debbie)
Subject: Contact Sheets
Organization: University of Toronto, Engineering Computing Facility
Date: Sat, 25 Jul 1992 02:14:06 GMT


Would some kind soul out there in net.land please take pity on a poor
novice photographer and send her detailed info on making contact sheets?
The first set I made, the negs weren't quite dry (oops).  The second set
I made were rather dark, and not very contrast-y.

(if it matters - betraying the depth of my ignorance by not knowing - I'm
using Tri-X film, Ilford paper and HC110 developer)

Mail (as opposed to posting) would be appreciated.

My thanks to you all.


------------------------------------------------------------------------------
     Debbie Chachra            <chachra@bullet.ecf.utoronto.ca>
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
     The surest defence against evil is extreme individualism, originality
     of thinking, whimsicality, even, if you will, eccentricity....Evil is
     a sucker for solidity.  It always goes for big numbers, for confident 
     granite, for ideological purity, for drilled armies and balanced 
     sheets.
                                                  - Joseph Brodsky
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------