HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: goldis@news.weeg.uiowa.edu (Al Goldis)
Subject: Re: Plastic Canon
Organization: University of Iowa, Iowa City, IA, USA
Date: Fri, 22 Jan 1993 00:25:17 GMT

In <nicholson.11@main.mndly.umn.edu> nicholson@main.mndly.umn.edu (JOHN JAY NICHOLSON) writes:

>Why are most Canon cameras made of mostly plastic?  You pick up the Elan or 
>the new A2E, and they feel so cheap?  I understand that the EOS 1 is a very 
>well made camera, and is very durable, but all the others that I have seen 
>are almost pure plastic.  If you don't believe me, open the back of the A2E 
>and look.

I've heard quite a few different reasons.  I imagine some are probably
true and some are not.  Take your pick from the following:

- easier to manufacture
- cheaper to manufacture
- Canon is trying to rip-off all of its customers
- lighter than metal
- lighter and *stronger* than metal

I'm really surprised by how many people complain about "plastic"
cameras feeling cheap and flimsy.  Personally, I don't think having
a camera weigh less is a disadvantage.  I suppose if it would make
people feel better they could always put some lead weights inside.  :-)

"Plastic" cameras are not made of the same kind of plastic you find in
a tub of butter or a cheap icecube tray.  It's not going to shatter if
you drop it.  In this era of space-age materials why is it so hard to
believe that things don't have to weigh a ton to be strong?

I wouldn't think that models intended for average consumers would be
as durable as the top-of-the-line professional model (nor are they as
expensive), but despite all the complaints about how cheap and flimsy
plastic cameras feel, I've never heard of a single legitimate
durability problem.

One other thing.  Pros I know used to really moan and groan about the
plastic lens hoods that most EOS lenses come with.  Now they realize
they actually protect better than metal because they absorb the impact
instead of merely transmitting it to the lens.
--
Al Goldis           alan-goldis@uiowa.edu
"Pictures are moments truth, touched by light, that show character."
                          --Annie Griffiths-Belt
Newsgroups: rec.photo
From: phr@telebit.com (Paul Rubin)
Subject: Re: When does price beat out the best choice for you?
Organization: Telebit Corporation; Sunnyvale, CA, USA
Date: Wed, 27 Jan 1993 02:38:43 GMT

I'm generally not that impressed with the 75-300 which seems overpriced
and too heavy.  

Note that there is an 80-200/2.8 D now, which I think has some
improvements over the earlier AF 80-200/2.8, notably internal focusing
(did the older one have that)?  Still no tripod socket though.
Newsgroups: rec.photo
From: rdf@unx.ucc.okstate.edu (Robert Freeman)
Subject: Moon Illusion (Lunar magnification)
Organization: Oklahoma State University Computer Center, Stillwater OK
Date: Sat, 23 Jan 1993 08:21:36 GMT


baudais@x400gate.bnr.ca (Michael Baudais) writes (11 Nov 92):

>I have a general interest question:

>Why does the sun/moon appear larger when it is closer to the horizon?

>I would guess that the atmosphere acts like a lens, but why is the
>image still perfectly round, and up to 2x the size?  And who ground
>the atmosphere into the required shape?  :-)

>Mike

The more or less definitive discussion of this topic is in a book
entitled "The Moon Illusion" edited by Maurice Hershenson and
published by Erlbaum, Hillsdale, NJ, 1989. A fairly detailed review
of the book appeared in "Science", vol. 249, 1990 Sept 28, page 1590.

Apparently this illusion has been debated for at least 22 centuries
(the book references Aristotle) without being fully explained.

An interesting follow-up also appeared in Science several issues
later - sorry, no reference. In a letter to the Editor, one
Paul Sandorff describes the possibly related "avocado illusion":
". . . the apparent size of avocados and other fruit, when overhead
in a tree, appear 20 to 50% larger than when brought down to eye level.
. . . However, I find a similar effect with a tennis ball hung in
the upper branches".

Sorry for the delay in getting this posted.

rdf

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Robert D. Freeman          rdf@thermo.chem.okstate.edu     vox: 405-372-4317
Entropology Unlimited
116 So. Kings St.
Stillwater, OK 74074 USA   rdf@osuvms.bitnet               fax: 405-744-6007
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=E O M=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
From: tklai@acsu.buffalo.edu (Tobysze K. Lai)
Newsgroups: rec.photo
Subject: A teleconverter question
Date: 26 Jan 93 18:26:13 GMT
Organization: UB

Hi,

	Has anyone tried to use a 1.4x teleconverter on the Canon EF
100-300 USM before?  With the maximum aperture of f/5.6 at the 300mm end,
is autofocus still possible?  What will the f/ stop be if the max aperture
of the lens is f/2.8?

	Thanks for any response.


+------------------------------------+----------------------------------------+
| Toby Sze K Lai                     | Internet: tklai@acsu.buffalo.edu       |
| State U. of New York at Buffalo    | Bitnet: v080qrqk@ubvmsb.cc.buffalo.edu |
+------------------------------------+----------------------------------------+
|          ~ I Won't Be Here Forever   You Know It's Now Or Never ~           |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------------+
From: uli@i13d5.ira.uka.de (Uli Bodenhausen)
Newsgroups: rec.photo
Subject: Pentax 67 and lithium batteries?
Date: 27 Jan 1993 13:14:10 GMT
Organization: University of Karlsruhe, FRG
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: i13d5.ira.uka.de

Hi,
has anyone used 6V lithium batteries for the Pentax 67?
I bought one because I thought that it would be preferable
to the silver batteries. But the manual does only recommend
alkalines or silver oxides, so I returned it and got a silver-
oxide. The reason is that I've read in Pop Photo that older
cameras might not work with the new lithium batteries. Why could
this be the case? Would the electronically timed shutter
work differently?

	Uli
From: wagner@mala.bc.ca
Newsgroups: rec.photo
Subject: Re: Slide film and Flash photography
Date: 21 Jan 93 10:24:10 -0700
Organization: Malaspina College


In article <42Ld025633cR01@JUTS.ccc.amdahl.com>, pvk00@RUTS.ccc.amdahl.com (Prasad Kongara) writes:
> 
> Hi Nettors:
> 
> Recently I had a party at my home. I shot several
> rolls of film with my Nikon 8008s and SB-24 combo.
> I shot mostly print film (Kodak Gold) and one roll
> of slide film (Kodachrome 200).
> 
> After I got the films developed, I was quite pleased
> with the results of the print film and I was quite
> disappointed with the results of the slide film. All
> slides came out too dark. When I project them, I see
> faces that are too dark with eyes too glittery.
> 
> I shot these slides during night, inside my house,
> using a flash. I used all automatic modes for the
> camera as well as the flash for this shooting (Dual
> program, Matrix metering for the camera and TTL Auto
> for the flash).
> 
> I am thinking about why the slides came out bad along
> these lines:
> 
> 1. Even though prints came out well, my camera meter
> may need calibration. The printing process may be
> masking the problem in the camera meter. But I doubt
> if this is the reason because the slides I took in
> day light with this camera in auto mode came out
> perfectly exposed.
> 
> 2. I may have to use some kind of camera/flash compensation
> when I use slide film with flash.
> 
> 3. The slide film is not developed right. But this
> is the second time that I got bad slides with flash.
> It will be too much of a coincidence if this is true.
> 
> 4. Kodachrome may not be the right type of slide film
> for flash photography. I may have to use different type
> of slide film.
> 
> 5. Slide film is not too great for flash photography.
> Just be happy with prints when using flash.
> 
> Could somebody please enlighten me ?
> 
> - Prasad
> 
> 
> Disclaimer: All opinions expressed are mine. My company
> has nothing to do with them.

Check your negatives for a clue.  Prints may seem fine, but your printer may 
have compensated.  Thin negatives can still be useable( the result of under-
exposure) as the printer will compensate.  Slides are not as tolerant as you
only get "one kick at the can".

Also, check your camera, your unit will set the asa from the DX encoding on the
film can.  Basically DX coating is bare metal areas on the can.  If the can was
dirty or your contacts inside the camera were dirty the ASA could have been mis-
read.  If you suspect dirt on any contacts wipe them with a piece of clean paper

Don't use any cleaner of any kind on electrical contacts, just keep them clean
and polished.

-- 
73, Tom
================================================================================
Tom Wagner, Audio Visual Technician.  Malaspina College Nanaimo British Columbia
(604) 753-3245, Local 2226  Fax (604) 755-8742  Callsign VE7GDA

I do not recyle.....   I keep everything!
================================================================================
Newsgroups: rec.photo
From: ranney@galaxy.sps.mot.com (David Ranney)
Subject: Film-to-video transfer info wanted
Followup-To: rec.photo
Organization: Motorola
Date: Tue, 26 Jan 1993 23:58:48 GMT



I want to transfer 8mm (regular and super-8) films to video using
a film chain.  I understand how to set up a film chain but I can't
find any 8mm projectors with a 5-blade shutter (or with adjustable
frame rate).  Does anyone have this information/knowledge?

Thanking you in advance.

David

-------------------------------------------------------------------
From: ravenone@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu (Robert Marsa)
Newsgroups: rec.photo
Subject: reloading film on an EOS 10s
Date: 28 Jan 1993 14:20:13 GMT
Organization: The University of Texas at Austin, Austin TX
Distribution: world
Reply-To: ravenone@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu (Robert Marsa)
NNTP-Posting-Host: mickey.cc.utexas.edu
Originator: ravenone@mickey.cc.utexas.edu

If I shoot part of a roll of film on my 10s and then switch films and later
wish to reload, what should I do?  Should I advance one frame past the last
frame I shot, or is the reload accurate enough to synch to the exposed frames?
If I have the film processed by Kodalux will my slides be cut wrong?

Thanks
Robert
From: paque@pangea.Stanford.EDU (Julie Paque)
Newsgroups: rec.photo
Subject: Info on Neopan 400 Pro needed
Date: 24 Jan 93 16:11:01 GMT
Article-I.D.: morrow.1juf2lINNhup
Distribution: world
Organization: Stanford Univ. Earth Sciences
NNTP-Posting-Host: pangea.stanford.edu

Due to a mix up I was accidently sent 10 rolls of 36 exp
Neopan 400 Professional film.  The mail order place sent
me the correct item and told me to keep the film !
They came in canisters, so I have no information at all.
How does this film compare to Tri-X?  What is the best
way to develop it?  Any information would be appreciated.

Thanks,

Julie
paque@pangea.stanford.edu
Newsgroups: rec.photo
From: sutherland+@osu.edu (Scott Sutherland)
Subject: Re: Canon EOS A2 or A2E?
Followup-To: rec.photo
Organization: The Ohio State University, Department of Dance
Date: Tue, 26 Jan 1993 16:48:49 GMT

In article <1993Jan25.021717.28954@jarvis.csri.toronto.edu>,
acs@csri.toronto.edu (Alvin Chia-Hua Shih) wrote:
> 
> In <74311@cup.portal.com> HERMES1@cup.portal.com (Douglas Brian Opfer) writes:
> 
> >I'm considering purchasing one of the Canon A2's and am interested in any
> >opinions regarding the eye controlled focus on the A2E.  Is this really a
> >worthwhile feature or something that would rarely be used?  Also, is this
> >the ONLY difference between these two cameras?  Any comments or opinions
> >would be helpful, especially from those who have already made this choice.
> 

[stuff deleted...]

> If you wear glasses, you may find that the eye-controlled focusing
> doesn't work well for you.  (At least it doesn't for me, so I haven't
> felt compelled to get an A2E.  Astigmatism and contact lenses just
> don't go together that well.)  So, it's best to try it out yourself
> before buying into this feature.

At least one review I've read says that the Eye Controlled Focus works well
even with glasses on.  I don't wear glasses, but I can report that it works
very well without.  The only problem with it is that it sometimes takes me
a couple of
tries to get it calibrated well.  This only takes a couple of seconds, and
you 
can store the calibration when you are satisfied with it.  One more thing
about
ECF - it does not function with vertical pictures.  When you turn the
camera vertically, it automatically reverts to the A2 type of autofocus.

> 
> 1) The "usual" way of getting a shot is to focus first and then
> compose.  The A2/E prefer that you do this in the opposite order.  That
> is, compose and *then* focus.  Because the exposure/flash metering is
> biased towards the active focusing point, focusing and recomposing may
> throw the metering algorithm off a bit.

I rarely find that one of the five auto-focus squares is dead-on the object
I
am interested in, so I consider it to be just a faster way of choosing the
point where I want to focus and meter.  I still focus and then compose, I
just have
far less distance to move the frame between the two.  That time savings is
very important to me, it may or may not be to you.

> 2) The "peripheral" AF points are detect only horizontal detail.  So
> it is preferable to have subjects with horizontal detail.  One can
> still compensate by tilting the camera.  (I do this for my EOS 630 when
> I get no vertical detail since my AF sensor is horizontal.)
> 
> 3) Eye-controlled focus may save you in those situations where there
> simply isn't time to recompose.  (I know I could have used it last
> week... Arg.)

Weigh the price difference and consider the type of shooting you want to
do.  I think both the A2 and A2E are great.

---
Scott Sutherland -- sutherland+@osu.edu
Macintosh Software Development - Dance Photography - Computer Graphics
The Ohio State University, Department of Dance
From: fiddler@concertina.Eng.Sun.COM (steve hix)
Newsgroups: rec.photo
Subject: Re: Avoid FOTO CELL!  Avoid FOTO CELL!  Avoid FOTO CELL!
Date: 27 Jan 1993 20:35:31 GMT
Organization: Sun
NNTP-Posting-Host: concertina

In article <MALU.93Jan27130408@imhps.im.se> malu@imhps.im.se (Mats Luthman SYSTECON) writes:
>In article <1k2kn3INNesk@geraldo.cc.utexas.edu> schen@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu () writes:
>    Ihave had a similar experience with FOTO CELL about two years
>    ago.
>   I wrote to Popular Photography twice with no response at all.

I have come to the conclusion that Popular Photography's "Seal of Approval"
that appears on a bunch of dealer ads in the magazine just means that the
dealers in question pay for their ad space promptly.

It has nothing whatsoever to do with dealers actually providing any
service to customers.

>When doing this, sending a copy of the letter to the company in question
>can really get things going if there is the the slightest chance that
>the story will come out. This worked for a person I know in a similar
>situation.

In this case, I really doubt that Popular Photography (or the dealerscum
in question) actually care.



-- 
-------------------------------------------------------
| Some things are too important not to give away      |
| to everybody else and have none left for yourself.  |
|------------------------ Dieter the car salesman-----|
Newsgroups: rec.photo
From: edmtl@alf.uib.no (Thor Legvold)
Subject: Re: EPZ, EPP, RFP, VPS, CIA, IRS, FBI, KGB, etc
Organization: University of Bergen, Norway
X-Newsreader: Tin 1.1 PL4
Date: Fri, 22 Jan 93 13:30:04 GMT


: EPZ	Ektachrome 100X
: EPL	Ektachrome 400(X ?)
: RFP	???
: 
My 2 cents:

RVP	Velvia
NHG	Fujicolour 400
REALA	Fuji Reala
PKR	Kodak Kodachrome 64
EPP	Kodak Ektachrome proffessional 64

Regards,
Thor Legvold
-- 
--
Thor Legvold                 |    This is the strangest life
NorNeXT User Group leader    |    I've ever known...
University of Bergen         |         - Jim Morrison,
From: kanner@goofy.apple.COM (Herbert Kanner)
Newsgroups: rec.photo
Subject: Re: How dangerous are developer chemicals?
Date: 25 Jan 93 20:16:32 GMT
Organization: Development Systems Group, Apple Computer

In article <122380065@hpfcso.FC.HP.COM> mic@hpfcso.FC.HP.COM (Marc Clarke) writes:
>Is there any reason to worry about standard surgical (latex?) gloves
>contaminating darkroom solutions?  I would rather not have all that
>nifty stuff contacting my skin and getting into my cuts.

If you have reasonable dexterity, there is absolutely no reason to get
the solutions on your hands. Film you develop in a tank. Prints, which
you will probably tray develop, should be handled with tongs.

Accidents do happen, but if you rinse your hands immediately after any
contact with developer, you should have no problems unless you have a
really bad allergy.
-- 
Herb Kanner
Apple Computer, Inc.
{idi,nsc}!apple!kanner
kanner@apple.com
Newsgroups: rec.photo
From: acs@csri.toronto.edu (Alvin Chia-Hua Shih)
Subject: Re: comments on Canon 28-105USM?
Date: 27 Jan 93 20:31:50 GMT

In <C1Iu8p.94q@watcgl.uwaterloo.ca> Fabrice Jaubert <fjaubert@watcgl.uwaterloo.ca> writes:

>Hello.

>I've been looking for a new lense for my EOS, and after changing my mind
>several times (75-300, then 100-300 USM, then 28-80 USM), I'm now (almost)
>sure I'll get the 28-105 USM.

Prices in some Toronto stores just went up 5% on Canon equipment.  (The
yen being the excuse.)  If this hasn't propagated to Waterloo, decide
soon! :-)

>Any comments on this lens? I've seen the 28-80 USM and 100-300 USM in stores,
>but never this one. Is this one of the "plastic lens mount ring" models?
>Does it have a distance scale, or is it more like the 75-300?

Every Toronto store I've seen has at least one, or has sold out of them.
This is *not* a Rebel-series lens.  I believe it is available as part of
a kit with the A2/E (but I'm not positive).

It has distance scales, IR marks, the whole bit.

The word on it is that it's good optically, but vignettes a bit at 28mm.

>BTW, my reasons for preferring the 28-105 over the 28-80 are: more range
>(fits in better with the 100-300 I'll eventually get) and slightly better
>max. aperture.

Good reasons.  Let me add that the 28-80 has those annoying, retracting
filter threads.  Quite a pain for using filters.  (Especially on
Tiffens with those little knobby things.)

>Thanks for your help...
>	...Fabrice
No prob.

ACS
-- 
 ___ ___ ___ ______________________________________________________________
|   |   | __|      Democracy is not a way of getting better solutions.     |
| - | --|__ |           It's just a way to spread the blame.               |
|_|_|___|___|______________________________________________________________|
Alvin_C._Shih____________________acs@csri.utoronto.ca______________________|
From: allana@hpmwtd.sr.hp.com (Allan Armstrong)
Date: Wed, 27 Jan 1993 22:41:49 GMT
Subject: Re: Lecia abbrevation
Organization: HP Santa Rosa Site (SRSD MWTD)
Newsgroups: rec.photo

A related question about Leica: my enlarger and lens are both marked
with the inscription "E. Leitz-Wetzlar." I am told that this means that
it is a Leica enlarger and lens. Why doesn't it just say "Leica?"

Allan
From: bu890@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Brian Segal)
Newsgroups: rec.photo
Subject: Re: Rolleiflex 2.8 GX
Date: 24 Jan 1993 04:44:21 GMT
Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, Ohio (USA)
NNTP-Posting-Host: hela.ins.cwru.edu


The Hasselblad/Zeiss planar 80mm f2.8 is a 7 element design.
Provides a very well corrected flat field (hence "planar")
brian
From: aalto@ocf.berkeley.edu (Rolf Aalto)
Newsgroups: rec.photo
Subject: Re: Canon EOS A2 or A2E? (Astigmatism and Hard lenses)
Date: 26 Jan 1993 23:59:46 GMT
Organization: U.C. Berkeley Open Computing Facility
NNTP-Posting-Host: maelstrom.berkeley.edu

>
>If you wear glasses, you may find that the eye-controlled focusing
>doesn't work well for you.  (At least it doesn't for me, so I haven't
>felt compelled to get an A2E.  Astigmatism and contact lenses just
>don't go together that well.)  So, it's best to try it out yourself
>before buying into this feature.

	I always wonder why more people don't wear hard lenses.   They are
optically superior to soft lenses, correct for astigmatism because they
maintain the proper lens shape even if your eyes are flat, they don't scratch
or tear easily like softs, they don't require daily sterilization, and they
last forever.  They also protect your eyes better and the modern gas
permeables breath as well as softs.  The only disadvantage is that it takes
a few days to get used to them because since they are smaller, your eyelids
have to jump up onto the lens when you blink, and this is slightly annoying
at first.  After a few days, this is no longer an issue.  The small size is
nice because they are smaller then your iris so you don't get the dorky
"ring around the iris" look that softs give you.  

	AND they work fine with the A2E!!!!   If  we could only get APO
low dispersion contacts, what a sharp world it would be.  

	Any comments on the optics of vision correction?  It seems to me
that the lenses we use every waking moment are at least as important as
the ones on our cameras. Nah!
From: donl@glass.esd.sgi.com (donl mathis)
Newsgroups: rec.photo
Subject: Re: Enlarger lens. Opinions on quality
Date: 26 Jan 93 03:38:41 GMT
Reply-To: donl@glass.esd.sgi.com (donl mathis)
Organization: Silicon Graphics, Inc.


In article <2352@blue.cis.pitt.edu>, hpb@hpb.cis.pitt.edu (Harry
Bloomberg) writes:

|>    I have just installed a darkroom in my kitchen.

Funny...  I have just installed a kitchen in my darkroom.  :)

- donl mathis at Silicon Graphics Computer Systems, Mountain View, CA
donl@sgi.com
From: neville@torag.guild.org (Neville Parakh)
Newsgroups: rec.photo
Subject: Is Ilfochrome Perl available in Low Contrast?
Date: 26 Jan 93 13:44:47 GMT
Article-I.D.: torag.1993Jan26.134447.16302
Distribution: na
Organization: Torag Public Access Unix, Toronto

Does anyone know if Ilfochrome Perl is available in the "low
contrast" variety? Ilford Canada only distributes the Perl
paper in the "medium contrast" variety. Ilfochrome Glossy is
available here in "low contrast" - unfortunately this is not what
I am looking for. Has anyone done a comparison of the low
medium and high contrast grades of the new Ilfochrome papers?
If so I would really like to hear your comments.

                                      Thanks,
                                             Neville
                                 e-mail: parakh@torolab6.vnet.ibm.com
Newsgroups: rec.photo
From: mehrdad@elec.canterbury.ac.nz (Mehrdad Hazeghi)
Subject: Q ? How to shoot stain glass
Organization: Electrical Engineering, University of Canterbury, New Zealand
Date: Thu, 28 Jan 1993 21:42:12 GMT

Hi, I would like to do some shots of stain glasses in old Cathedrals and Churches. 
Any commnet on how to get the right exposure would be appreciated.  

I should add that I am considering both cases that theglass is back lit by a weak 
afternoon sun, and also a case where the window is illuminated by diffused light. 
The film that I am using is kodachrome 64.  

Thanks for your help.

Mehrdad
From: dbernard@clesun.Central.Sun.COM (Dave Bernard)
Newsgroups: rec.photo
Subject: Re: Fuji GS 645 W
Date: 25 Jan 1993 14:06:53 GMT
Organization: Sun Microsystems
Distribution: world
Reply-To: dbernard@clesun.Central.Sun.COM
NNTP-Posting-Host: clesun.central.sun.com

In article 39307@sophia.inria.fr, luong@naxos.inria.fr (Quang-Tuan Luong) writes:
>Hi, 
>
>Does anyone know what happened to the Fujica GS 645 W ?
>It was a camera similar to the Fujica GS 645, except that the (fixed)
>lens was a wide angle, and that the rangefinding system was simplified,
>opposite to the Fujica GS 645, which has a standard lens. 
>I understand that the GS 645 is still available, but what about the GS 645 W ?
>I am sure GS 645 W has existed, I have seen a picture of it in a book.
>
>Thanks.
>
>Tuan


The GS645W was discontinued a few years ago.  I think it had a 45mm lens(?), but
I don't believe it had a built in meter.  The GS645 folder, with 75mm/3.5 lens,
was also discontinued, and had a built-in meter... now selling used for twice what
it did new a few years ago.  Only model remaining in production is the GS645S,
w/60mm semi-wide lens, and meter.

	Dave




Newsgroups: rec.photo