HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: strong@tc.fluke.COM (Norm Strong)
Subject: Re: Litheon batteries (Lithium)
Keywords: battery
Organization: John Fluke Mfg. Co., Inc., Everett, WA
Distribution: na
Date: Fri, 20 Nov 1992 15:38:34 GMT

In article <1992Nov17.030855.18366@bcars6a8.bnr.ca> ptse@bcars65b.bnr.ca (Paul Tse) writes:
}In article <BxptCH.Fp8.1@cs.cmu.edu> phg+@CS.CMU.EDU (Paul Gleichauf) writes:
}>are not quite ready for the US market, though they have appeared in Europe and
}>Japan.
}
}
}They've also appeared in Canada.  Although I've never used them 
}or tested them, I have read a warning printed in a French photo
}magazine that some cameras (e.g. Nikon F-801s) will not work with
}the higher voltage of the Lithium AAs.  ...no more info, just 
}thought y'all better be careful.

LithEon is the trademark name of an Eveready lithium battery that works
at exactly 1.5 volts, just like a regular battery.  I have a bunch of
samples--which I use--but I've never seen them in the store.  They show
an improvement over alkaline cells mainly at high currents.  


-- 

Norm Strong  (strong@tc.fluke.com)
2528 31st S.   Seattle WA 98144   USA
From: tim@nijinsky.ipac.caltech.edu (Tim Conrow)
Newsgroups: rec.photo
Subject: Re: Nikon N8008S vs. N90 - opinions wanted
Date: 16 Nov 92 14:56:03
Organization: California Institute of Technology
NNTP-Posting-Host: nijinsky.ipac.caltech.edu
In-reply-to: krish@leland.Stanford.EDU's message of Fri, 13 Nov 92 20:06:41 GMT

I recently held and played with an N90 with a non-D lens in a store. I
own an 8008s. I recommend you go with the 8008s. It's all the camera
one needs. If you want to upgrade later, so be it.

Here are my shoot from the hip comparisons:

1) AF *is* better. And the ability to switch from spot AF to wide
area-AF is A Good Thing. The AF doesn't hunt nearly as much either.

2) The addition of a top deck LCD light is another Good Thing.

2.5) The viewfinder now has a built-in shutter; "   "    "   .

3) From what I can tell from a quick scanning of the manual, all the
so called "hyper-program" modes are pretty much window dressing. If
you're serious enough to spend the $$$ on this camera, you don't need,
nor are you likely to use, these programs much. And they *didn't* add
the one program that I could have used; a true depth-of-field mode.

4) The N90 is slightly lighter and much thicker. This didn't bother
me, but if one has small hands, it could be a factor. *I* think it
handled quite well.

5) The motor-wind seemed noticeably quieter to me. I don't know what a
sound level meter would show in dB, but to my ear some high frequency
whirring sounds from the 8008s are nicely suppressed in the N90.

6) The controls seemed a bit fumbley; not big enough, placed too close
together, stuff like that. I imagine I'd get used to it, but I just
*know* Nikon could have done a better job if they weren't so intent on
making it *look* sleek. The N90 seemed slightly worse in this regard
compared to the 8008s, but that may just be a matter of my familiarity
with the 8008s.

7) Big disappointment to me: the N90 *still* doesn't display the
metering mode and the frame number in the viewfinder.

8) The flash system seems to have taken a big step up, but I didn't
play with that capability.

Unanswered questions:

At what level of control can one operate the camera over the
data/computer link? Can I tell the N90 when to raise the mirror, for
example? Does the new pre-flash, 3-D, matrix metered flash system
*really* improve the consistency of results of flash photography in
a more or less point and shoot mode?


I will stick to my 8008s for now. Let's see what the N90s brings. ;-)

-- Tim
From: smk4631@ultb.isc.rit.edu (S.M. Kosoff)
Newsgroups: rec.photo
Subject: Jobo CPE2 CPP2
Date: 22 Nov 92 01:57:19 GMT
Reply-To: smk4631@ultb.rit.edu ()
Organization: Rochester Institute of Technology
Originator: mstacc@ultb


Jobo CPE2 CPP2

What are the differences in the above?  What advantages does one give
over the other.

I'm interested in color developing and printing, have heard of these
two models, what do you recomend.  I have done substantial black and
white, I have a Bessler 67 Dichroic head.  What recomendations do you
have for starting color.

Please reply to this newsgroup or via phone, having trouble with
e-mail...

716-381-9412 (home) Please leave message if no answer.
-- 
Steve Kosoff
smk4631@ultb.isc.rit.edu
Newsgroups: rec.photo
From: mjg@nwu.edu (Michael J Graven)
Subject: Re: Darkroom Ventilation
Originator: mjg@casbah.acns.nwu.edu
Reply-To: mjg@nwu.edu (Michael J Graven)
Organization: Northwestern University, Evanston, Illinois, USA
Date: Wed, 18 Nov 1992 05:42:03 GMT

Barry Sherman (bjs@RUTS.ccc.amdahl.com ) writes:

> But I'm not aware that the odors of acetic acid, fixers and standard 
> paper developers are dangerous.  Anyone know for a fact?

Depends how you define "dangerous."  Remember when your SO wasn't a fellow
photographer, Barry?  Maintaining a relationship with the uninitiated is 
an exercise in patience for both...

"What is that ODOR?"

vs.

"Oh, I just want to burn down this corner a little ... I'll be done real soon."

> Barry

-- 
Michael J Graven (mjg@nwu.edu)
ACNS Distributed Systems Services
Network Response Center
Newsgroups: rec.photo
From: a57m@quads.uchicago.edu (miroslaw tadeusz sochanski)
Subject: Re: Nikon N90, 28-70D lens - HELP
Keywords: Vignetting, N90/F90, 28-70/3.5-4.5D AF lens
Reply-To: a57m@midway.uchicago.edu
Organization: University of Chicago Computing Organizations
Date: Fri, 20 Nov 1992 05:55:04 GMT

My limitted experience with same camera and more expensive 
35-70/2.8D /2 rolls of film developed, 6 more in print/ did not show 
any vignetting on my prints, I also used UV filter and polarizing
filter.  I it hard to say if this lens is better, I bought it
more for natural light, low light condition pictures.

So far I love the camera, all displays are clear and user friendly
including progams. Thou I must say that manual for SB-25 is hard to read
since it tries to cover all previously made Nikons instead of focusing
on explaining maximal benefits of variable flash options there.
It may be only me since I can hardly call myself serious amateur. 
Trying though :-).

Mirek
From: mpc@biosys.apldbio.COM (Morgan Conrad)
Newsgroups: rec.photo
Subject: Re: Backwards lens compatibility (was Re: Big/fast EOS lens advice sought)
Date: 18 Nov 92 18:09:08 GMT
Reply-To: mpc@apldbio.com (Morgan Conrad)
Organization: Applied Biosystems Inc, Foster City, CA

[lots of stuff about putting old Nikkor lenses on new Nikon bodies deleted]

  Don't forget the reverse - putting new Nikkor AF lenses on old
bodies.  I can use the latest Nikkor glass with my tough, lightweight,
all mechanical FM-2.  And, should I eventually get a newer body,
the lens will still work.  Canon users can't do this, which
I think is a big minus.


Morgan Conrad              Who grants absolution
Applied Biosystems           for sins that never were committed?
mpc@apldbio.com
415-570-6667
Newsgroups: rec.photo
From: stngiam@athena.mit.edu (Shih-Tung Ngiam)
Subject: Potassium Alum and Chrome Alum
Organization: Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Distribution: usa
Date: Tue, 17 Nov 1992 17:03:04 GMT


  I'm looking for Potassium alum and chrome alum for crystal growing,
but since both of these are used in b/w photo developing, I thought I
would try to find them at photo supply stores.  Unfortunately, I've had
no luck with any of the companies I called.  Does anyone know of any
mail order supply houses that sell these chemicals?
  Thanks a lot!

Shih Tung
Newsgroups: rec.photo
From: glp@fig.citib.com (Greg Parkinson)
Subject: Re: Canonet QL17 G-III
Originator: glp@merlin
Organization: Citibank IBISM
Date: Wed, 18 Nov 1992 18:06:25 GMT


In article <1992Nov18.001352.9381@u.washington.edu>, hsieh1@carson.u.washington.edu (Darrell Kirk) writes:
|> I missed the messages pertaining to the Canonet Ql17 G-III.   Could
|> someone give me a summary of the previous discussion about this camera?  I
|> just picked one up at a swap meet for $10.00 in almost new condition.

Lucky you!  I'll forward you the information I received.

The best piece of information I received is that Canon will
send you a photocopy of the manual for free.  I'll send you
that number as well.

-- 
Greg Parkinson                  Phone: 212-657-7814  Fax: 212-825-8607
Citibank,111 Wall Street        E-Mail: glp@fig.citib.com
New York, New York  10043
The opinions expressed are my own and not those of the big 'ol bank.
From: jimc@tau-ceti.isc-br.com (Jim Cathey)
Newsgroups: rec.photo
Subject: Re: Back issues of Shutterbug-- Looking for a particular loupe.
Keywords: Shutterbug magazine, loupes
Date: 24 Nov 92 02:00:17 GMT
Organization: ISC - Bunker Ramo, Spokane, WA

In article <By1J21.KKr.1@cs.cmu.edu> phg+@CS.CMU.EDU (Paul Gleichauf) writes:
>	I am trying to find a loupe manufacturer that was 
>mentioned in Shutterbug magazine about 12-18 months ago.  If
>someone happens to keep back issues, and can try to find the
>article, I would very much appreciate your relaying the name and
>address of the manufacturer. What I remember was that the maker

<Brain-grep in progress... rattle, rattle, grind, ker-CHUNK>

Maxwell Precision Optics?

-- 
+----------------+
! II      CCCCCC !  Jim Cathey
! II  SSSSCC     !  ISC-Bunker Ramo
! II      CC     !  TAF-C8;  Spokane, WA  99220
! IISSSS  CC     !  UUCP: uunet!isc-br!jimc (jimc@isc-br.isc-br.com)
! II      CCCCCC !  (509) 927-5757
+----------------+
			One Design to rule them all; one Design to find them.
			One Design to bring them all and in the darkness bind
			them.  In the land of Mediocrity where the PC's lie.
Newsgroups: rec.photo
From: haddaway@umbc5.umbc.edu (Mr. Todd Haddaway; ADMIN-COMP)
Subject: Disclaimer on Photos
Organization: Univ. of MD, Baltimore County
Distribution: usa
Date: Wed, 18 Nov 1992 20:28:21 GMT

I am starting to send concert photos to record companies and magazines.
What sort of disclaimer message should I stamp on the back to say
"You can't use this photo unless I give you some sort of permission".
I want the people to see the photos but not be able to use them unless
we work out some sort of payment.

Thanks,

Todd

Newsgroups: rec.photo
From: mas@mipl8.jpl.nasa.gov (Marc Sarrel)
Subject: Re: Lamp intensity vs. lifetime (was Re: 486 CPU KOOLERS FOR SALE)
Organization: Jet Propulsion Laboratory
	<1992Nov16.164101.20150@bnr.ca> <BxvICz.rs@javelin.sim.es.com>
	<1992Nov18.172117.21297@Happy-Man.com>
Date: Wed, 18 Nov 1992 18:37:51 GMT

In article <1992Nov18.172117.21297@Happy-Man.com> josh@Happy-Man.com (Joshua_Putnam) writes:

   I don't have any data, but I have a dimmer that doesn't make
   lamps buzz.  Actually, I have two of them.  One is a big old
   rheostatic dimmer that just adds resistance to dim the
   light.  The other is a Variac transformer that converts my
   120v AC to anything from 0v to 135v.  The rheostat is less
   expensive, smaller, and lighter, but puts out quite a bit of
   heat since it is essentially burning up the excess power.

   Electronic dimmers may be smaller, cheaper, and much more
   efficient, but if you care about hum, the old pre-electronic
   methods work better.

I think that if you _really_ want to go overboard, run your lights off
DC (the real stuff, not half-wave rectified) and vary the voltage.  I
seem to remember that the lights in Thomas Edison's house in Michigan
(originally in New Jersey, but after TE died, Henry Ford moved it) are
still burning, at least in part, because they're run off DC.

This is sort of the degenerate case of the rheostat mentioned above.
--
Marc Sarrel			"She's got a big boyfriend
Jet Propulsion Laboratory	 A really big boyfriend
mas@mipl8.jpl.nasa.gov		 He lifts weights, he builds cars
                                 And he's got no sense of humor
                                 She's got a big, really big
                                 Really, really, really big boyfriend"
                                                     -Blotto
Newsgroups: rec.photo
From: elau@berlioz.nsc.com (Eugene Lau)
Subject: Re: EOS Rebel IIs vs competitors
Organization: National Semiconductor Corporation, Santa Clara
Date: Mon, 23 Nov 1992 18:09:51 GMT

In article <ROBERTW.92Nov20094017@bmerh654.bnr.ca> robertw@bmerh654.bnr.ca (Robert Williams) writes:
>    Canon EOS Rebel IIs
>    Pentax PZ10
>    Minolta Maxxum 3xi
>    Nikon F-401 (a bit expensive, though)
>
I don't know about the PZ10, but the rebel has more built-in features than
the 3xi and f-401, and its controls are better laid out.  the f-401 is quite
old compared to the other three, it came out in 1986.

>Are there any big differences between the AFs on these four?  I'm worried
>in particular about tracking rapid movement (like my 4-year old
>running around the yard).  How about metering?  Any other opinions?
>
oh yeah! the f-401 probably uses 1st generation AF technology, which cannot
focus on vertical lines.  auto focus and auto exposure has improved quite a 
bit since 1986.  I would say the rebel, the 3xi, and the PZ10 has similar
AF and AE performance, and all are better than the f-401.  but don't expect
excellent AF tracking of you 4 year old from any one of these cameras.  of
course, if you had to use these for AF tracking, I would go with the rebel
using a canon usm lens (fast tracking, low-noise, low-vibration)

eugene


Newsgroups: rec.photo
From: supplies@sklib.usask.ca
Subject: candid photo lens? is there such a thing?
Organization: University of Saskatchewan
Date: Mon, 16 Nov 1992 20:19:05 GMT

Is there anything like a lens that has a 45 degree mirror in it
that will take pictures at a right angle to the camera?
I guess it would be a funny looking thing but you could be facing one
direction while taking a candid photo of someone to the far left or right.
Maybe its not a practical idea.
If you have seen, heard of, or used one, please let me know about it.
Thanks

D.B.
Newsgroups: rec.photo
From: nareid@due.unit.no (Helge Nareid)
Subject: Re: rec.photo FAQ and answers
Organization: University of Trondheim, Norway
Date: Mon, 16 Nov 92 15:41:56 GMT

In article <102096@bu.edu>, dtang@bass.bu.edu (yunfei zhang) writes:
|> > Do I need a 'circular' polarizer, and what is one, anyway?
|> > 
|> >         Circular polarizers are just like regular polarizers, but
|> >         have an additional optical element to stir the light up
|> >         after the filter has done its thing. This stirring keeps
|> >         autofocus mechanisms and some light-metering mechanisms from
|> >         getting confused by polarised light. If the manual says you need
|> >         to use one, you likely do.
[...]
|> 
|> I understand the differece between linearly polarized light and
|> circularly polarized but I have a tough time to understand how
|> the CP will do the same job as LP without fool the autofocus
|> system.
|> 
|> Anybody has a better explanation to satisfy my curiosity? (Thanks)
|> 
|> DMT
|> 

I'll try...

Basically, the problem is that virtually all autofocus and through-the-lens
metering systems use some sort of beam-splitter (optical elements which reflect
a specific percentage of the light and transmit the rest). In general, the 
ratio between reflected and transmitted light is polarization dependent. The
sensitivity to polarization depends strongly on the type type of beamsplitter
used and the geometry of the system (look up the Brewster angle in an optics
textbook if you want an example). In some cameras, linearly polarized light
can trick the light meter because of this effect.

Hope this helps.

- Helge Nareid
Newsgroups: rec.photo
From: jpglori@srv.PacBell.COM (John P. Gloria)
Subject: Re: putting photos on a wall.. (?)
Organization: Pacific * Bell
Date: Tue, 17 Nov 1992 15:56:34 GMT

In article <BxuFy1.HM6@cs.dal.ca> graham@ug.cs.dal.ca (Michael Graham) writes:
>In article <1992Nov16.171458.9871@PacBell.COM> jpglori@srv.PacBell.COM (John P. Gloria) writes:
>>
>>Not to be a smart-ass, but why don't you frame the pictures?
>>Afterall, that is the normal way, at least for me, when I
>>want to put my pictures up on the wall.
>
>damn! I just deleted my original msg. Anyway - I want to put A LOT of
>pictures on my wall - INEXPENSIVELY. I'm talking about 50-100 photos, 
>which rules out thumb tacks, nails, and definitely frames.
>Once again - it's a very hard plaster wall.
>
>mike "almost unemployed student with little cash to spend" graham
>-- 
Mike, it seems you are in a dilemma. :-) I guess doing your own
"mounting" on foam-board is the way to go. I believe someone
else recommended this already. To have it done in one of those
"mall" framing places would probably run about $12 per picture.
Not expensive perhaps to some folks, but to an "almost unemployed
student.....", it would be very expensive. Buying the foam-board,
an exacto knife, and mounting glue/tape, would be the least
expensive and yet look good. The only drawback would be that the
photographs would be subject to the elements more than a photo
that is mounted on a frame/glass scenario. Another variation
is to get the foam-board and "sandwich" the picture with a mat.
Ideally, IMHO, you would not want to place glue on the actual
pictures because when you decide to "unmount" them, the glue
could cause tearing. By placing a mat between the picture and
foam-board, then you could place glue onto the mat/foam-board.
Man, what a genuis I am. :-)


-- 
        ---------  John Gloria - jpglori@pacbell.com	--------	
 		"You cannot depend on your eyes when your imagination
	       is out of focus."   -     Mark Twain
Newsgroups: rec.photo
From: yen@epcot.spdc.ti.com (Tony Yen)
Subject: Re: Canon MF Cameras, was Camera Feature Wars 
Organization: TI Semiconductor Process and Design Center
Date: Tue, 17 Nov 1992 20:17:21 GMT

In article <BxvKt4.Av9@ra.nrl.navy.mil> tse@ra.nrl.navy.mil (Anthony Tse) writes:
>In article <1992Nov17.181239.22048@noao.edu= lytle@noao.edu (Dyer Lytle  CCS) writes:
>=In article <13850@texsun.Central.Sun.COM> dbernard@clesun.Central.Sun.COM writes:
>=>The other beneficiary, beyond the fast snapper (and I mean no slam) and the
>=>battery-maker and the neophyte, is the camera vendor.
>=
>=Indeed, but the experienced camera user can also benefit from the introduction
>=of new models since the older models, once superceeded by the new models,
>=often find their way to the used market and can be picked up for quite a bit
>=less than their new price.  Because of this, one can probably pick up a
>=Nikon N8008, (by all accounts a fine, modern, AF camera), for quite a bit less
>=than the new price 2 or 3 years ago.  Just don't buy the newest model, always
>=wait a couple of models, you probably won't lose much in the process but
>=you will save quite a bit of money.
>
>	I wish this is true for outdated MF camera.  The price for a F1
>has gone way out the roof.  I got mine for $600 a few years back new,
>now an used one cost about the same.  And Canon don't even make FD
>lens anymore.
>
>-Anthony

Alas. However, Canon still makes the F1 and will support it till the year
2000. This is official. It is true that the selection of FD lenses is getting
poorer. Personally I would love to see Canon come out with F2 = F1 + TTL 
flash metering and mirror lock-up.

Tony Yen

Newsgroups: rec.photo
From: qili@silver.ucs.indiana.edu (Kenneth Li)
Subject: Suggestion for entry+ level camero
Organization: Indiana University
Date: Mon, 23 Nov 1992 23:45:51 GMT

Hi,

I am in the market for a new camero at about $400. It should be more serious
than most entry (bridge) ones like Rebel. The following is what I came up
with after spending one day in the lib:

 1. Minolta X-700 w/ 70-210 zoom,
 2. Minolta Spxi (recommended by friends, could not find info in P.P.)
 3. Minolta 7xi (a little bit out of my budget, but...)

Don't conclude from the list that I am constrained to Minolta. Any suggestions
and/or bad/good experience with ones in the list?

By the way, if mail order house sends me a camero that is defective, should
I ask for reimbursement of shipping costs that I paid to have them send the
camero AND that I will be paying to send it back? What is the industry
standard practice, if there is any?

Thanks a lot

==========================================================================
           Enjoy  Life!             | Internet:  qili@indiana.edu
                                    |
               --- Kenneth Li       |   Bitnet:  qili@indiana.bitnet
==========================================================================


-- 

==========================================================================
           Enjoy  Life!             | Internet:  qili@indiana.edu
                                    |
Newsgroups: rec.photo
From: feldman@hal9k.cxo.dec.com (james feldman)
Subject: Re: Aux power for 283?
Reply-To: feldman@hal9k.cxo.dec.com (james feldman)
Organization: Digital Equipment Corporation
Date: Fri, 20 Nov 1992 23:10:34 GMT

In article <By0ytv.K8E@cup.hp.com>, markt@cup.hp.com (Mark Thompson) writes:
|>Does any one know what connections are used for running external power packs
|>for a Vivitar 283.  I see that there is a connector just below the battery
|>back.  Is this where a 6v supply would plug in or is it where a HV supply
|>goes.  I got my hands on some 5wh 2v batteries with a charger and thought
|>that three of them would make a good aux. pack.  Any thoughts?
I took an older 285 (non HV) apart and found that the jack was straight 6vdc. 
I replaced the jack with a RCA panel jack.  I then built a "quantum" like box,
also with same plug, charging light, fuse and switch. Inside I put a 6ah "gell"
lead acid cell.  BE VERY CAREFUL OPENING FLASH UNITS. THE CAP CAN STORE 
300-500 VOLTS.  EVEN AFTER FLASH IS DISCHARGED, THE CAP MAY STILL HAVE SOME
RESIDUAL CHARGE.

--
Jim Feldman                         || This space for lease, contact your
Digital Equipment Corp              || Digital Sales Rep.
CSC/Colorado Springs                || 

My opinions are my own and in no way reflect Digital's POV (unless they're
charging somebody for me to give them).
Newsgroups: rec.photo
From: ian@rats.demon.co.uk ("Ian A. Young")
Subject: Re: rec.photo FAQ and answers
Reply-To: ian@rats.demon.co.uk
Distribution: world
X-Mailer: cppnews $Revision: 1.20 $
Organization: not
Date: Sat, 21 Nov 1992 17:30:44 +0000

In article <2905@devnull.mpd.tandem.com>
   bruceb@mpd.tandem.com (Bruce Burden) writes:

> 	The reason you need a circular polarizer is due to the exposure
>    system, not the AF system. Auto-focus cameras carry the sensors in
>    the pentaprism, the exposure system below the mirror (this is necessary
>    for OTF/TTL metering).

Just a niggling little correction: some AF cameras in fact have the AF
sensors at the bottom of the mirror box, not in the pentaprism (eg
Nikon F-801/N8008).  However, I don't believe that the direction the
light takes after hitting the half-silvered mirror (up or down) is
relevant here: either way, it is polarised and _anything_ that reads
this light (exposure system _or_ AF system) can be confused by a linear
polariser.

So, it would be more correct to say that a linear polariser can cause
trouble with either the exposure system, or the AF system, or both.

   -- Ian
Newsgroups: rec.photo