HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: bannistr@maths.tcd.ie (Jeff Bannister)
Subject: 2nd Hand SLR
Summary: Looking for advice on 2nd Hand SLR
Keywords: SLR
Organization: Dept. of Maths, Trinity College, Dublin, Ireland.
Date: Mon, 17 Aug 1992 17:57:59 GMT

I am looking for some advice on a second hand SLR with 50mm lens.
I have been recommended the Pentax ME-super and the Olympus
OM-10. Anyone any thoughts in and around that price range?

Thanks in advance,

Jeff Bannister.
From: whheydt@pbhya.PacBell.COM (Wilson Heydt)
Newsgroups: rec.photo
Subject: Re: Sigma 600mm f/8 Reflex on AF cameras?
Date: 17 Aug 92 23:56:32 GMT
Reply-To: whheydt@PacBell.COM (Wilson Heydt)
Distribution: na
Organization: Pacific * Bell, San Ramon, CA

In article <1992Aug17.143107.26943@jarvis.csri.toronto.edu> acs@csri.toronto.edu (Alvin Chia-Hua Shih) writes:
>What is the MF process like at f/8?  I've read that the focusing aid
>"may not be useful at apertures smaller than f/5.6" (just like AF).
>Is it that the two halves of the split suddenly become effective when
>the image is "almost" in focus?  How is it less fiddly than the AF light?

Both biprism and microprism focusing aides 'black out' at apertures
smaller than about f/5.6, unless they have particularly small prism
angles.  You may be able to get a screen with such focusing aides to
work to f/8, but standard screens won't usually.  Easiest would be a
simple, matte, screen, or (if your camera will take it) one of the
after market bright screens.

	--Hal
-- 
Hal Heydt                    |    "Boycott Time-Warner"
Analyst, Pacific*Bell        |         --J. Danforth Quayle
510-823-5447                 |    "... kill all the lawyers."
whheydt@pbhya.PacBell.COM    |         --William Shakespeare
Newsgroups: rec.photo
From: sttay@athena.mit.edu (Stephen T Tay)
Subject: nikon f3 with sb-24
Organization: Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Date: Sun, 23 Aug 1992 00:36:45 GMT

hi everyone
i bought a used nikon f3 recently. would appreciate if anyone can enlighten me 
on how (if possible) i can get flash ttl with the sb24 as well as do a manual 
film rewind without having to remove the flash from above the film rewind lever
on the left side of the f3 body. i'm presently using a flash hot shoe adapter
(with no ttl contact) that allows the sb24 to be mounted above the film rewind
lever.
thanks in advance.
stephen
Newsgroups: rec.photo
From: hamm@weejordy.physics.mun.ca (Craig Hamm)
Subject: Re: Sigma cheats?
Organization: Ocean Sciences Centre
Date: Wed, 12 Aug 1992 23:23:53 GMT

In article <1992Aug12.203218.17192@adobe.com>, usenet@adobe.com (USENET NEWS) writes:

	(stuff deleted)
|> 
|> 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. 

	That's EASY to answer:  Some of us don't have the money. I make
	a grad student wage and buying a used 80-200/4.5 in this
	country (Canada) runs to about $800-1000.  
	I also like the Nikon bodies because they are reliable.

|>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.
|> 
	Yep, I agree, so show me a cheap Nikon body, that has the
	flexibility of my FE and FM2n, and I'll use it.

	-Craig Hamm




|> 					-Alan
Newsgroups: rec.photo
From: ar12@quads.uchicago.edu (Richard Nixon)
Subject: Re: polycarbonate camera bodies
Reply-To: ar12@midway.uchicago.edu
Organization: University of Chicago Computing Organizations
Date: Wed, 12 Aug 1992 16:44:43 GMT

About composite materials:
Someone mentioned the fact that many composites are stronger than metal
per unit weight- note that the key phrase is per unit weight. For example,
I'm an addicted stunt kite flyer- these thing are typically sparred with
carbon-fiber rods which are on average 5x stiffer than steel per unit 
weight- this means that a 5' long, one-ounce carbon rod is 5x stiffer than
a 5' long, one-ounce steel rod- HOWEVER, my kite isn't sparred with
1 ounce rods, it's spared with more like <.20 ounce rods. Now, that would
mean that these rods are as stiff as their 1ounce steel counterparts- what
we've done is asved weight, not gained strength- furthermore, carbon
rods have a nasty tendency to shatter on impact (an actual concern in kite flying) whereas steel won't. To get back to the camera example, the same applies,
the use of composite materials which may be rated at greater strength per
unit weight than a given metal are also typically vastly less dense-so
to actually take advantage of that greater strength per unit weight, you'd
need a camera body greatly increased in size to accomodate the necessary
increase in volume of material needed to exceed the per unit weight strength
of a given metal. Furthermore, in the case of camera bodies, we're not
talking about carbon-fiber, we're talking about plastic. Finally, someone
also suggested that this whole discussion is moot since key structural &
mounting components are metal- not so- ie: Canon. Even the Nikon 8008
is a hybrid (a little platic here, a little metal there)- and recently
people on this net have complained about bending/breaking lens mounts
on this beloved plastic wonder (I have one and hate it, by the way).
Well, just my $.02 worth. Again, my complaint is with the manufacturers who
have sacrified quality while increasing profitability- to make this
worse are the sales critters spewing the "plastic is better" line...
Andre
.
From: phr@soda.berkeley.edu (Paul Rubin)
Newsgroups: rec.photo
Subject: Re: Heat-resistant long-life film
Followup-To: rec.photo
Date: 18 Aug 92 21:55:34
Organization: CSUA/UCB
Distribution: world
	<fred-mckenzie-180892145931@128.159.169.79>
NNTP-Posting-Host: soda.berkeley.edu
In-reply-to: fred-mckenzie@ksc.nasa.gov's message of 18 Aug 92 20:23:36 GMT

The idea of stashing a throwaway camera in your car in case of an
accident sounds nice, but you probably want the kind with a flash in case
the accident happens at night (I suspect most accidents happen at night).
But then you have to worry about the shelf life of the -battery- as
well as the film.  You probably should spring for a cheap point and
shoot powered by a lithium cell.  Then just use it for occasional
snapshots as well as leaving it in your car.  If you use a couple
rolls of film a year this way, the film should stay reasonably fresh.

I remember hearing about a special long-life high-temp film called
Orwo Safari, intended for god knows what.  (Orwo is an E. European
mfgr of awful film in general).  Anyone know more about this?
Newsgroups: rec.photo
From: asadigh@rodan.acs.syr.edu (sadigh)
Subject: Nikon FM2
Organization: Syracuse University, Syracuse, NY
Date: Fri, 21 Aug 92 14:25:05 EDT


Hi everyone,

Does anyone know when Nikon started making FM2?  Any idea when they are 
discontinuing it?

Beejan
From: sog@craycos.com (Steve Gombosi)
Newsgroups: rec.photo
Subject: Re: media permanence (was Re: photo-developing, specifically nudes)
Date: 20 Aug 92 03:07:00 GMT
Organization: Cray Computer Corporation

In article <1992Aug19.213832.25543@clark.edu> gsnow@clark.edu (Gary Snow) writes:
>In article <1992Aug19.182734.871@craycos.com> sog@craycos.com (Steve Gombosi) writes:
>>In article <1992Aug19.155539.17331@clark.edu> gsnow@clark.edu (Gary Snow) writes:
>>>
>>>Hold it, are you trying to tell me that a B&W PRINT can out live its digital
>>>counter-part?  I don't think so.
>>
>>An archivally processed B&W print ought to be good for a few centuries.
>>That may or may not be true of a Photo-CD. You pays your money and you takes
>>your chances.
>
>What kind of process is that, "archivally processed B&W print", and what does
>it do to help an image retain its ORIGINAL likeness?

An archivally-processed print is one which has been processed for maximum
image stability, i.e. fixed completely (until there are no detectable
undeveloped silver halides present in the emulsion), and washed
until there are only trace amounts of thiosulfate complexes remaining
in the paper. Images which have been processed in this way are extremely
stable. Additional stability can be attained through the use of selenium
toner, which replaces the silver metal in the print with silver selenide.
Silver selenide is almost completely inert. As long as you don't burn
the damned thing (or do something equally foolish) it will last, unfaded, 
for centuries. And all your great-great-great-great-great grandchildren
will need in order to see it is a pair of eyes. They won't be dependent
on Kodak continuing to sell photo-CD players in the year 2392 (which is
the point that some other folks have been trying to make). 

It's really pretty amazing how durable B&W images are. There are numerous
photographs from the 19th Century (before archival processing was very
well understood at all) that are in fine shape. The photographers who
processed these photographs didn't have a clue how to do so for maximum
stability - in most cases, it wouldn't have been particularly important
to them, anyway.  These photographs have been stored carelessly - even
abused - and they're still quite clear. Had they been processed carefully,
they would be as good as new.

If you'd like details on how this works, there are any number of books that 
cover archival processing.  In fact, I think Kodak used to have a publication 
on the subject (they probably still do). I think it was entitled "Processing
for Image Permanence" (or something like that). Ansel Adams covers it in his 
Basic Photo Series, as do many other authors.

Color is a different matter. With the exception of [Ciba/Ilfo]chrome
and dye transfer prints, there isn't much you can do to extend the
lifespan of a color print beyond 50-100 years (and that's extremely
optimistic!). The dyes in chromogenic
materials (type C and type R prints) just aren't very stable.

Steve
From: feldman@hal9k.cxo.dec.com (james feldman)
Newsgroups: rec.photo
Subject: Re: 2nd Hand SLR
Keywords: SLR
Date: 17 Aug 92 18:56:23 GMT
Reply-To: feldman@hal9k.cxo.dec.com (james feldman)
Organization: Digital Equipment Corporation

In article <1992Aug17.175759.15699@maths.tcd.ie>, bannistr@maths.tcd.ie (Jeff Bannister) writes:

|>I am looking for some advice on a second hand SLR with 50mm lens.
|>I have been recommended the Pentax ME-super and the Olympus
|>OM-10. Anyone any thoughts in and around that price range?

I would stay away from the om10 in favor of the OM 1-4 series.  The om-1 is
your basic match needle manual everything.  The -2 and -4 have more in the way
of AE type features.  You'll find a lot more accessories floating around for
that series than the -10.

jimf
From: leonglaw@hpsgm2.sgp.hp.com (Lawrence Leong)
Date: Sat, 22 Aug 1992 04:15:01 GMT
Subject: Re: IR Photography (Was Re: Slightly overexposed FujiChrome 100.)
Organization: HP Singapore
Newsgroups: rec.photo

In rec.photo, mahatme@icaen.uiowa.edu (Chandrashehar Vasant Mahatme) writes:

|In article <92232.155034SPW103@psuvm.psu.edu> <SPW103@psuvm.psu.edu> writes:
|>Okay, small question.  I just shot my first roll of FujiChrome 100.  I usually
|>                         <stuff deleted>
|>realized that I exposed the whole roll with my meter set at 125 ASA (I had just
|>                         <stuff deleted>
|>                                    -Stephen Walker spw103@psuvm.psu.edu
|
| Exposing 100 ASA film with meter set at 125 ASA is overexposing the film or
|underexposing. Just wondering. :-(

Underexposing.  Difference will depend on the film, general rule of thumb for
slides is colour becomes more saturated.  YMMV.

lawrence

|
|Shekhar Mahatme
|------- -------
|mahatme@icaen.uiowa.edu
From: jack@dcs.glasgow.ac.uk (Jack Campin)
Newsgroups: rec.photo
Subject: Re: media permanence
Date: 20 Aug 92 13:50:47 GMT
Reply-To: jack@dcs.glasgow.ac.uk (Jack Campin)
Organization: COMANDOS Project, Glesga Yoonie

gsk@khaki.asd.sgi.com (George S. Kong) wrote:
> with digital media, it doesn't really matter how permanent individual copies
> are, because you can copy digital data without losing information. you can
> "refresh" your data by copying onto fresh media periodically. you can also
> store multiple copies in different geographic locations, to guard against
> theft and natural disasters.
> thus, the information can be made as permanent as you like. the permanence
> of the physical media only determines how much copying you have to do. this
> is not true of other media. isn't this obvious?

If "you" is the Silicon Graphics Corporation, yes, it is obvious.

If "you" is a typical consumer of photography - a working-class person
taking pictures of family and friends - it is equally obvious that nothing
of the sort is ever going to happen.  There is only going to be one copy of
each image and when that physical copy is gone, that's the end of the data.

My last article on this described the way most people now manage the image
data they own - the technological shift from the Box Brownie to the home
video hasn't made one iota of difference to their behaviour, and the next
shift won't either, since awareness that it ought to is zero.

-- 
--  Jack Campin    room G092, Computing Science Department, Glasgow University,
17 Lilybank Gardens, Glasgow G12 8RZ, Scotland   TEL: 041 339 8855 x6854 (work)
INTERNET: jack@dcs.glasgow.ac.uk or via nsfnet-relay.ac.uk    FAX: 041 330 4913
BANG!net: via mcsun and uknet     BITNET: via UKACRL    UUCP: jack@glasgow.uucp
From: jay@metran.UUCP (Jay Ts)
Newsgroups: rec.photo
Subject: Re: The quality of Nikon "E" lenses?
Date: 23 Aug 92 06:11:16 GMT
Organization: Metran Technology, Tampa, Florida

jmb5b@faraday.clas.Virginia.EDU (John M. Bozeman) writes:
: >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.
: 
: OK, so which ones are the good ones, and which ones are the lemons?  A 
: prior post said, as I recall, that the 75-150 was excellent, the 70-210
: less so; the 50mm good, the 35 not so hot.  What have others experienced?

I am very interested in comparisons between the 50mm f/1.8 and the 75-150.

I own a 50mm, and it's the sharpest lens I have.  My others are Olympus
(50mm and 135mm) and Tamron (28mm and 60-300mm).  If the Nikon Series E
75-150 is even better than the 50mm, I certainly want one!

Jay Ts
Newsgroups: rec.photo
From: dbora@ils.nwu.edu (Donald Bora)
Subject: black and white artistic photographer wanted:
Organization: The Institute for the Learning Sciences
Distribution: il
Date: Thu, 20 Aug 1992 17:53:09 GMT



Non tradition black and white photos, something artistic, 
prefer a student, wanted for wedding (ceremony and immediately after
only).  The wedding will be on September 5th, in Dyre Indiana (near Glenwood).
We will want to see a portfolio and a price quote.

Send inquiries to: dbora@ils.nwu.edu

					Donald Bora

					<dbora@ils.nwu.edu>
From: liang@saul.cis.upenn.edu (Chuck Liang)
Newsgroups: rec.photo
Subject: Zeiss lens question
Date: 13 Aug 92 21:59:00 GMT
Organization: University of Pennsylvania


  Are lenses labeled "Carl Zeiss Jena" made in East Germany?

  The lens in question is a 50mm f2 Sonnar (with a red T) I bought
with a Contax IIa.  I think it's made after World War 2 because the
lens is coated.  If it is made in East Germany, it must be an earlier
model - so are they comparable in quality to West German versions?

  Also, the salesman told me that although the lens is coated, it is
not intended for color photography - so that color photos taken with
the lens might come out flat.  Is there any truth in this?  I have an
old, uncoated Leitz elmar lens and I found the colors briliant.

  I'm also interested in knowing if there are any contax rangefinder
users out there.  Anything interesting or peculiar you can tell me
about the Contax IIa is greatly appreciated.
From: jacobson@cello.hpl.hp.com (David Jacobson)
Newsgroups: rec.photo
Subject: Re: Multiple exposure calculations
Date: 23 Aug 92 04:11:54 GMT
Article-I.D.: cello.1992Aug23.041154.1223
Distribution: na
Organization: Hewlett-Packard Laboratories

In article <20710@nntp_server.ems.cdc.com> mtoms@ems.cdc.com writes:
>David,
>
>  I saw your posting on calculating the second exposure f stop
>on rec.photo and was interested in constructing a chart like the one
>below.  People might want to have a chart like this handy some
>times:
>
>
>
>1st exposure      2nd exposure should
>under by          be under by
>---------------------------------------
>              |
>              |
>---------------------------------------
>All units in f stops

Well, I'm a little reluctant to do this since the only way to do it
mathematically assumes the two light sources add.  This would happen
if your were taking a photo a flat object.  But the usual way multiple
light sources are used is on 3D objects.  It's not at all clear that
they add together, except possible over a small area.  But here goes
anyway.  Now one more thing.  Rather than do first-under and
second-under, I'm going to make a 3-column chart with the main entry
being the lighting ratio.

		  ratio  dimmer       brighter
                  1:x    stops 	      stops 
			 below total  below total
                  -----------------------------------
                   1.      1.        1.
                   1.25    1.03562   0.713696
                   1.5     1.11548   0.530515
                   1.75    1.21501   0.407658
                   2.      1.32193   0.321928
                   2.5     1.53605   0.214125
                   3.      1.73697   0.152003
                   3.5     1.92057   0.113211
                   4.      2.08746   0.0874628
                   5.      2.37851   0.0565835
                   6.      2.62449   0.0395284
                   7.      2.8365    0.0291463
                   8.      3.02237   0.0223678
                   10.     3.33628   0.0143553
                   12.     3.59495   0.00998409
                   14.     3.8147    0.00734198
                   16.     4.00562   0.00562455

I probably should have stopped at 1:4.  Even at that point the
exposure is essentially determined by the brighter light. (Total is
only .08 stops above brighter light.)

>Alternatively, and preferably to me, I would like to show
>the values expressed in EV (exposure value).

EV's and stops are both factors of two.  The numbers are the same.
...
>Can you provide one or two example entries for my table?  Also,
>is it possible to generalize your solution to handle 3, 4, 5, exposures?

Not without your specifying the ratios.  If all the lights are all of
equal brightness then each should be under the correct exposure by
lg(n) stops.  (lg is log base 2.)  And here is a brief table.

                   1.   0
                   2.   1.
                   3.   1.58496
                   4.   2.
                   5.   2.32193
                   6.   2.58496
                   7.   2.80735
                   8.   3.

  -- David Jacobson
Newsgroups: rec.photo
From: rbhank@wsl.dec.com (Ron Bhanukitsiri)
Newsgroups: rec.photo
Subject: Re: Replacing Pentax Program Plus
Keywords: Pentax
Date: 12 Aug 92 18:08:15 GMT
Reply-To: rbhank@wsl.dec.com (Ron Bhanukitsiri)
Organization: DEC Western Software Lab


In article <1992Aug11.010042.22836@mprgate.mpr.ca>, durham@mpr.ca (Paul Durham) writes:

|> 
|> After numerous trips to exotic lands, my dearly beloved Program Plus has been
|> stolen by a local thief. Could anyone suggest a replacement camera of
|> comparable (or better) capabilities. I still have a couple of lenses for it
|> so I'm leaning toward another Pentax but will consider others.
|> 
|> Also, are the more expensive Tamron lenses (SP series I believe) that much
|> better ? I had a couple of the cheaper ones (now only one) with the Pentax.
|> 
|> Thanks to all,
|> 
|> Paul
|> 
|> 
|> -- 
|> Paul Durham                    |      durham@mprgate.mpr.ca
|> MPR Teltech Ltd                | durham%mprgate.mpr.ca@ubc-cs.uucp
|> 8999 Nelson Way                | ...uunet!ubc-cs!mprgate.mpr.ca!durham
|> Burnaby, B.C., Canada. V5A 4B5 |      phone: (604) 293-6035    
|> 

If you want manual-focus camera replacement, then I think either a Pentax
P3N or P30T would nicely replace the Program Plus.  It has the same exposure
modes, except for the following functionalities: no motor drive, no aperture
display in viewfinder, DX film only, no exposure compensation (but has memory
lock).

Your Pen(tax) Pal,
Ron B[ee]
From: watters@darwin.genetics.washington.edu (Mike Watters)
Newsgroups: rec.photo
Subject: Re: For Sale:  Yashica Mat 124 G TLR camera for sale
Keywords: medium format
Date: 18 Aug 92 04:41:42 GMT
Article-I.D.: u.1992Aug18.044142.14172
Distribution: usa
Organization: University of Washington

In article <16ouspINNre@seven-up.East.Sun.COM> marshall@marshall.Eng.Sun.COM (Ralph Marshall - Sun BOS SunLabs) writes:
>In article <1992Aug17.142622.26899@cbnewsd.cb.att.com> scd@cbnewsd.cb.att.com (steven.c.dittmann) writes:
>>For Sale:
>>
>>Yashica Mat 124G medium format TLR camera for sale.
>>80mm F3.5 Yashinon lens, and 1 to 1/500th shutter speed, plus B.
>>I uses 120 or 220 roll film.  6cm x 6cm square negative size.
>>Built-in light meter that works.  Lens cap and non-original camera strap.
>>The camera is scratched up, and has some brassing, but it works well.
>>It also includes a set of step-up rings to permit the use
>>of 49mm filters.
>>
>>$125 plus shipping.  No COD.
>
>Without having seen this camera, my impression is that this is pretty
>much the standard asking price.  However, when I was at the recent
>camera show in Watertown, MA (held in the Armenian Cultural Center) I
>saw pretty much the same item with an asking price of $225, and a
>number of older TLRs with fewer features (particularly no light meter)
>for more than $125.  I was fairly unimpressed by the camera show
>(having driven up from Providence, RI in part to see it based on
>reports of previous years) I found the complaints from one seller
>to the effect that "the people who come to these shows never buy
>anything" to be somewhat silly given that the prices on everything
>seemed to be so high.
>
>Has anybody else had this same impression, or was this just an
>isolated incident with this particular camera? I'm relatively
>unfamiliar with used equipment prices, so I'm may be mistaken in
>saying that the other prices were high as well.  Other than the fact
>that there was a fairly large selection of equipment, there seems to
>be no real reason to attend this show - it certainly didn't seem to
>offer good deals.
>
>Ralph Marshall
>ralph.marshall@east.sun.com

My personal experience with camera shows is that the prices are usually
pretty good.  Certainly they have averaged about 10 - 20% below shutterbug
ads prices.  I picked up a Richoflex (no meter) for $20 recently.  Granted,
this price was WAY below typical, and the camera was not in perfect shape
(I needed to pull the advance knob and tighten a screw, not exactly brain
surgery though) but it has otherwise worked very well.

The bargains CAN be found at the camera shows, but there are also plenty
of dreamers who think a Kodak Pony is a hot collectors item. :)

mike

--
Mike
watters@genetics.washington.edu
Dept of Genetics, Univ of Washington  Seattle
(d) 206-543-1934   (e) 206-361-1156