HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: tim@deakin.OZ.AU (Tim Cook)
Newsgroups: rec.photo
Subject: Nikon F301?
Date: 1 Sep 1992 07:26:20 GMT
Organization: C&CS, Deakin University
NNTP-Posting-Host: mimas.cc.deakin.oz.au

I am about to buy my first SLR.  One of my main subjects will be
motorsports, so I will likely be getting a x-300 zoom lens (and
perhaps teleconverter) for this.

I want a fairly well-featured (but manual focus) SLR from a reputable
company.  I want to buy a second-hand camera, as I see this as a good
way to save money.

One camera that seems to suit many of my desires well is the Nikon
F301.  Attractive features include:

   - Made by Nikon
   - 1/2000sec shutter
   - Motorised winder
   - Body appears to be mostly, if not completely, metal.

Unfortunately, this is about all I know about the model.  I do know
that it has been followed by F401, F601 and F801 models, and I think
the F601 anf F801 correspond to the 6006 and 8008 models I have heard
about in rec.photo.

So, does anyone want to provide me with a detailed list of features of
this camera?  Pointing out any missing features that I may have a need
for (apart from AF) would be good, too.
Xref: sparky rec.photo:15494 alt.cd-rom:2940 gnu.misc.discuss:2896 misc.int-property:920
From: mbk@lyapunov.ucsd.edu (Matt Kennel)
Newsgroups: rec.photo,alt.cd-rom,gnu.misc.discuss,misc.int-property
Subject: Re: Time to boycott Photo CD
Date: 3 Sep 92 22:36:53 GMT
Organization: Institute For Nonlinear Science, UCSD
NNTP-Posting-Host: lyapunov.ucsd.edu
X-Newsreader: Tin 1.1 PL3

SteveWall@aol.com (Steve Wall) writes:
: Probably the simplest argument in favor of Kodak keeping the PhotoCD Imagepak
: format private is: They invented it, they own it, and they don't have to give 
: it away.  Mike's valiant effort to reason with 'something for nothing
: pinheads' was probably doomed from the start.  The pinheads demand freebies,
: and become petulant when denied.  There's no reasoning with them.  
: 
: IMHO, Kodak has been most extremely reasonable about the PhotoCD process.
: They are allowing their biggest competitors (like Fuji) to make/market
: Photo/CDs.  If Kodak was really being high-handed with the technology, they'd
: have prevented PhotoCDs from being mastered from their competitors' film.

I think it would be overall quite and a reasonable compromise if Kodak
were to freely give away decompression and translation code, but still
keep the sophisticated encoding scheme proprietary.

: Steve Wall

--
-Matt Kennel  		mbk@inls1.ucsd.edu
-Institute for Nonlinear Science, University of California, San Diego
-*** AD: Archive for nonlinear dynamics papers & programs: FTP to
-***     lyapunov.ucsd.edu, username "anonymous".
From: yi@tdd.sj.nec.com (Yi Zhang  x2912)
Newsgroups: rec.photo
Subject: Seek recommendations for 35mm AF camera.
Date: 25 Aug 92 19:48:53 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: NEC-AM TDD, San Jose, California

Hi Netters,

I am going to buy a 35mm AF camera, and would like to hear some 
recommendations and suggestions first from net friends.

I currently have a NIKON tele-touch camera which doesn't focus well, when used 
in house. 	My main objective is to get an AF camera that will give me 
sharp pictures for my new born boy. I don't need top of the line cameras, but
would like to have the important/valuable features included in the camera, so
it won't be out of date very soon.

I am pretty new to this area (I had a NIKON-FG a few years ago), and would 
like to know what to look for when buying an AF camera. 

Some specific questions in my minds now are:
1). Should I buy a standard 55m lens (f1.4-1.8) or 28-80/3.5? zoom ?
     a. for a 55m lens, how useful is f1.4 ? Is f1.8 generally enough ?
	(Considering f1.4 lenses are more expensive)
     b. If I buy a 28-?? zoom, will f3.5-4.0 be too small for a lot of
        occasions ?
2) How useful is the build-in flash, should I buy another flash. I notice
   the prices for flashes vary a lot, and wonder what are the major
   differences. 

At the price of around $360, there are CANON EOS-10S, EOS-ELAN, 
NIKON-6006, Minolta-7000i (3xi is much cheaper). Any comments on these models?


Thanks for your time. Please e-mail or post.


--
 ()   ()                                                                          () ()      (408) 433-2912                                                       (z z)      yi@tdd.sj.nec.com                                                   (  Y  )       
                                                                   ( i )
From: kjm@cnmss.tredydev.unisys.com (Ken J. McFadden)
Newsgroups: rec.photo
Subject: Re: large format, zone system, hat hair and other silliness
Date: 26 Aug 92 20:39:08 GMT
Organization: Unisys Corporation, Tredyffrin

In article <1992Aug25.214250.6268@pmafire.inel.gov> geoff@pmafire.inel.gov (Geoff Allen) writes:
>kjm@cnmss.tredydev.unisys.com (Ken J. McFadden) writes how great
>single-frame 35mm rolls would be, and says:
>|>And you have the added benefit that 35mm doesn't promote hat hair.  8^)
>
>Then feldman@hal9k.cxo.dec.com (james feldman) writes (quite correctly)
>why single-frame 35mm rolls would still be vastly inferior to 4x5 film
>holders, and says:
>>I'll take hat hair any day!
>
>So, my question:
>	What's hat hair?  Do I have it?  Should I be concerned?  Unless
>	it's fatal, I'll probably keep the 4x5 camera.  I'm just
>	wondering what I should be looking for. 
>
>Geoff ``Possible Hat Hair Sufferer'' Allen

Actually, my hat hair comment goes back to an article I posted in a completely
unrelated thread that you must have missed.  In that thread, donl indicated
that somebody (Geoff somebody maybe?) once made him buy a hat to use while doing
large format photography.  Apparently donl found the hat not only stylish, but
useful as a lens shade too.  I made the comment that if hats were a prerequisite
for large format that I would probably be scared off since hats give me hat
hair, which is the condition after which wearing a hat for an extended time
period my hair gets mushed and everybody can tell I had been wearing a hat.
While not fatal, I supposed it's not stylish, although I guess there's a
tradeoff here, if the hat were just as stylish outdoors as indoors then I
could always keep the hat on or maybe switch to a hat that is stylish indoors.
Then of course there's dark cloth hair too, but I suppose a hat could prevent
that.  It's all so confusing.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ken McFadden        kjm@cnmss.tredydev.unisys.com
Unisys Corporation  kjm@cnmsa.tredydev.unisys.com
P.O. Box 203        work: (215) 648-3742
Paoli, PA 19301     home: (215) 675-0382
From: napier@cs.ucsd.edu (Jim Napier)
Newsgroups: rec.photo
Subject: Re: Rodney Gitzel (was: Need a new camera - what to get?)
Date: 27 Aug 92 19:49:35 GMT
Organization: CSE Dept., UC San Diego



Rodney Gitzel from Alberta. You responded to my post but when I tried to email
you back some questions the mail bounced. Would you please followup with me
again? Thanks.

-- 
Jim Napier
Systems Administration
Applied Mechanics & Engineering Sciences Dept.
UC San Diego
(619)534-5414
jnapier@ucsd.edu
Jim Napier
Systems Administration
Applied Mechanics & Engineering Sciences Dept.
UC San Diego
Newsgroups: rec.photo
From: elau@berlioz.nsc.com (Eugene Lau)
Subject: fujichrome/ektachrome opinion needed
Organization: National Semiconductor Corporation
Date: Fri, 28 Aug 1992 19:20:05 GMT


I'm trying to decide whether I should use fujichrome 100 (RD) or ektachrome
100 HC (EC ?) as my all purpose film.  cost is an issue so I didn't consider
pro films.  print films are too expensive to use in high volume, so they're 
out too.  I shoot landscapes and portraits.  

I heard that ektachrome was better for skin tones, but I also heard that
fujichrome was better overall (why?).  then someone on the net said fujichrome
comes out a tad bit dark, and ektachrome is fine in this regard.  I've been
using fujichrome 100 and am now back at square one in deciding what film to
use.

I appreciate any response.
eugene

Newsgroups: rec.photo,alt.cd-rom,gnu.misc.discuss,misc.int-property
From: SteveWall@aol.com (Steve Wall)
Subject: Re: Time to boycott Photo CD
Organization: Only weekdays, 9-5
Date: Mon, 31 Aug 1992 13:41:59 GMT

In article <FRIEDMAN.92Aug29214928@nutrimat.gnu.ai.mit.edu>, friedman@gnu.ai.mit.edu (Noah Friedman) writes:
> 
> [various arguments against Mike Axman deleted]
>
>     Universities have done important work in image
> compression and will probably do more.  Before software patents, companies
> too often developed software techniques and published them without
> patenting them.
> 
OK, so why is it that most of the 'important' image compression software
in use by end users is sold by large corporations?  I think it's because
universities have done a lousy distribution job with their developments.  
They have no vested interest in getting people to use their SW, so it
(at best) sits at an anonymous ftp site waiting for people to take it.
End users NEED companies like Kodak to provide them software.  If it were
up to Universities, SW would never venture far from their ivory towers.

>    [more arguments against Mike Axman deleted]

Probably the simplest argument in favor of Kodak keeping the PhotoCD Imagepak
format private is: They invented it, they own it, and they don't have to give 
it away.  Mike's valiant effort to reason with 'something for nothing
pinheads' was probably doomed from the start.  The pinheads demand freebies,
and become petulant when denied.  There's no reasoning with them.  

IMHO, Kodak has been most extremely reasonable about the PhotoCD process.
They are allowing their biggest competitors (like Fuji) to make/market
Photo/CDs.  If Kodak was really being high-handed with the technology, they'd
have prevented PhotoCDs from being mastered from their competitors' film.

Ultimately, I suspect a clean-room reproduction of the Imagepak will be made,
in which case the format will be more freely available.  By keeping the format
private, Kodak is just trying to get some return on their investment.
  
>    An approach that might work is political action.  If you don't like the
> way patents affect your freedom, join the League for Programming Freedom
> and help do something about it.  Surveys show 80 to 90 percent of
> programmers oppose software patents; if we get organized, we can do
> something about them, Kodak or no.
> 
Also, I think if you phrased the question right, 80-90% of programmers would
come out in favor of the free enterprise system.  If a programmer doesn't like 
the way patents affect his freedom, he's welcome to find a career more 
suitable to his ethical/political standards.  There will always be other 
programmers with different ethical standards willing to work for private 
industry at higher pay.  

Steve Wall
Newsgroups: rec.photo
From: jpglori@srv.PacBell.COM (John P. Gloria)
Subject: Re: Photograping Whales [8008s autofocus problem]
Organization: Pacific * Bell
Date: Tue, 1 Sep 1992 19:26:28 GMT

In article <1992Sep1.053347.27068@cello.hpl.hp.com> jacobson@cello.hpl.hp.com (David Jacobson) writes:
>In article <6031@transfer.stratus.com> savoia@sw.stratus.com (Rick Savoia) writes:
>>This past weekend, I went on a whale watch and brought
>>along my 8008s.  I was hoping to get a good picture of 
>>a whale as it breached.  Well, when we got to the site,
>>I started snapping the tails flapping and blowholes 
>>blowing and everything was going fine.  Then one of 
>>the whales started breaching.  I went over to the side
>>of the boat pointed my camera in the general direction
>>(you really can't tell where they will come up!)  and waited.
>>The whale was a few hundred yards off of the boat and I
>>was using a 35-105 AF Nikkor lens.  The problem I had
>>was when the whale breached, the camera would rack 
>>back and forth trying to find the focus.  The whale 
>>doesn't stay up for long (you try keeing that many tons 
>>in the air for long!) and I would usually get the whale
>>falling back into the water.  
>>
>>My question:  Given that I should have just focussed on 
>>a point in the approximate area and held the auto-focus
>>lock (I realized afterwards), was there any other way 
>>I could have done this and insured accurate autofocus?
>>I finally switched to manual focus and let it remain on 
>>infinity.  I would have preferred autofocus, but it seems
>>that AF cameras can't focus that quickly!  Any ideas for
>>next time?
>
>First, this is a manual focus situation.  The what is probably 100 or
>more feet away.  (I'm just guessing.)  It bright sun you can probably
>be using f/16.  With ISO 400 film you could still shoot plenty fast
>enought.  If you believe in the .03mm circle of confusion, a 105mm
>lens at f/16 and set to 75 feet will get everything in focus from 38
>feet to infinity.
>
>Secondly, and this is no help to you, I have often been wishing camera
>manufacturers would include what I call "demand focusing".  On the
>8008s there is a little button just right of the lens near the bottom
>that serves as focus lock in S (single shot) and C (continuous).  Just
>add D (demand).  In this mode it AFs only when this button is pressed.
>
>You use this when before the whale comes up to make it focus on the
>spot you want.  But at the moment of action, it can't go off hunting. 
>
>  -- David Jacobson
>
There is one item I believe has not been mentioned on this thread,
Re: considering the light source.  Depending on the position the
whale will breach in relation to the light source and or if it
is a cloudy day.  If the sun is in front of the whale, then you
must consider if you need to open up a stop or two inorder to
consider the whales' color and to obtain definition/clarity.  Unless you 
want a great silhoutte, then just let the camere select the shutter/aperture.

-- 
        ---------  John Gloria - jpglori@pacbell.com	--------	
 		"You cannot depend on your eyes when your imagination
	       is out of focus."   -     Mark Twain
Newsgroups: rec.photo
From: eacj@theory.TC.Cornell.EDU (Julian Vrieslander)
Subject: Re: New Nikon camera!!!
Organization: Cornell Theory Center
Date: Wed, 2 Sep 1992 03:50:08 GMT

In article <13251@texsun.Central.Sun.COM> dbernard@thewho.Central.Sun.COM writes:
>Hmm, the N90.  Anyone have any idea when the N90"S" will be out?
>
>	:-)Dave


Yup.  About 6 months after you see Nikon's $50 rebate offer for the N90.
-- 
Julian Vrieslander 
Neurobiology & Behavior, Mudd Hall, Cornell University, Ithaca NY 14853    
INTERNET: eacj@theory.tc.cornell.edu     BITNET: eacj@crnlthry
UUCP: ..cornell!batcomputer!eacj
From: drraymon@watdragon.uwaterloo.ca (Darrell Raymond)
Subject: the solution to hat hair
Organization: University of Waterloo
Date: Wed, 26 Aug 1992 00:46:29 GMT

  Get a motorcycle and suffer from "helmet head" instead.  

  (Ok, it doesn't really solve it, but you might look tough in leather,
  and so fewer people will actually giggle.  Some still will, but it's
  much more impressive to zoom off in a wheelie than it is to throw
  your Sinar at them).
From: acs@csri.toronto.edu (Alvin Chia-Hua Shih)
Newsgroups: rec.photo
Subject: Re: Auto Focu button on Canon EOS cameras (was Re: Photograping Whales)
Date: 4 Sep 92 12:57:53 GMT

In <PD.92Sep3195233@horus.sics.se> pd@sics.se (Per Danielsson) writes:

>>> use a separate button for initiating AF. This means that you can let
>>> the camera set the focus automatically and then leave it at that
>>> position for every following shot.

>Hate to spoil your day, but you're wrong about the 100.
>--
>Per Danielsson				pd@sics.se
>Swedish Institute of Computer Science, PO Box 1263, S-164 28 KISTA, SWEDEN

Ah well.  The 630 does have it.

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______________________|
Newsgroups: rec.photo
From: tom@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Tom Easterday)
Subject: Reprogramming Nikons to leave leader out after rewinding
Organization: The Ohio State University
Date: Thu, 27 Aug 1992 13:54:36 GMT

I found the article that I mentioned in a previous posting on reprogramming
the Nikon (F4S, 8008(s), and 6006).

You can send it to a Nikon repair facility (1800NIKONUS) to have them
change the software to leave the leader out upon rewinding.  The service
costs 10$ plus shipping ($20 for the F4S).  No warranties are voided by
doing this.

	Tom
Newsgroups: rec.photo
From: gsm@mendelson.com (Geoffrey S. Mendelson)
Subject: Re: Q: Minolta vs Nikon: Compatibility
Organization: Mendelson Computer Consulting
Date: Thu, 3 Sep 92 10:24:16 GMT

tjlow@ntuvax.ntu.ac.sg asks:
>
>Considering ...
>	Minolta x700   &   Minolta  xi
> and    Nikon   FE2    &   Nikon   N90, 8008, F
>
>
>Q1.	Can Minolta Manual focus lens be used on it's Autofocus Body?

No.

>Q2.	Can Minolta Autofocus lens be used on it's Manual Body?

No.

>Q3.	Can Nikon   Manual focus lens be used on it's Autofocus Body?

Most. Any lens made before 1978 will have to be modified (f-stop ring cut).

>Q4.	Can Nikon  Autofocus lens be used on it's manual Body?

Yes.  A "fork" needs to be added (about $20) to couple to pre 1978 meters.

Geoff.
-- 
Copyright (C) 1992, Geoffrey S. Mendelson.              All Rights Reserved.
Except for usenet followups, may not be reproduced without permsission.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
|                   |  Computer Software Consulting    |                   |
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Geoffrey S. Mendelson        Ask me about UNIX(tm) based imaging systems.
geoffrey@mendelson.com            
(215) 242-8712                             
Newsgroups: rec.photo
From: usenet@adobe.com (USENET NEWS)
Subject: Re: Nikkor 35->200 3.5/4.5 AIS zoom
Originator: asanders@sparta
Organization: Adobe Systems Incorporated
Date: Tue, 1 Sep 1992 17:09:06 GMT

According to The Nikon System Handbook, the 35-200/3.5-4.5 is
an extremely sharp lens that never caught on with the pros it 
was intended for because of its variable aperture design. 
Sounds like a real nice lens, but the minimum focusing distance
may not be the best.

I know that I quote The Nikon System Handbook alot, and that
some people think it contains a number of inaccuracies. But
it's the best source I know of, short of owning and using
every lens. :-)
		   -Alan


Newsgroups: rec.photo
From: ditch@prefect.uucp (26217-ditch)
Subject: Kodalux, Fair Lawn, Re-instates First Class Return
Organization: Bellcore, Livingston, NJ
Distribution: usa
Date: Mon, 31 Aug 92 13:57:23 GMT

After numerous phone calls and three letters to Customer Service
at the Kodalux lab in Fair Lawn, NJ, complaining about slow turn
around on processed slides, I received a written reply over the
weekend indicating that effective August 10 Kodalux has "returned
to First Class return for all individual orders.  Service time for
slide processing is one day.  The slide box is shrink-wrapped in
plastic and returned via First Class mail.  The service time is
the same for orders received via the mail and through direct routes,
however, the delivery time time to and from the lab may be slightly
longer with the mail."  Signed: Theresa A. Hocker, Customer Relations
Specialist.

I wonder how many complaints Kodalux received?  Surely I wasn't the
only person to call or write.  I think we should all remember this
the next time someone tries to "improve" service by degrading what
we've been receiving.

=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
| Richard Ditch, in the New Jersey "Wilderness"    Voice: 908-758-2284  |
| Bellcore, Room 1F416, 331 Newman Springs Rd, Red Bank, NJ 07701-7050  |
|=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=|
| Unix: prefect!ditch     |     INTERNET: ditch@prefect.cc.bellcore.com |
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Newsgroups: rec.photo
From: Robert Drongowski <Robert.Drongowski@cc.umich.edu>
Subject: Re: Inrared Photog + Spider Webs
Date: Mon, 31 Aug 92 12:46:44 EDT
Organization: Pediatric Surgery, U of Michigan
X-Useragent: Nuntius v1.1b2

Inrared Photog + Spider Webs
	Can anyone offer suggestions or their experience regarding
picture-taking of spider webs with Infrared film.  I have taken many web
pictures with both B&W and Color film with reasonable success.  However,
a small article in Science a few years back indicated that taking
pictures of webs with infrared film produces a unique glow within
portions of the web structure which mimics flower structures etc.  The
example they printed in the article was fairly neat, with one strand of
web highlighted from oputside to the very center of the web (which
presumably acts to attract insects etc).
	I subsequently shot a number of webs with no noticeable effect with the
film I used; ie. It looked like regular black and white film without any
effect of Infrared.  However, a few flowers that I shot did produce an
unusual effect which indicated to me that the film was "good".  I know
must one take extreme measures in handling the film (refrigerated,
absolutely no light while loading/unloading film, etc).
	Does anyone know if it's only certain spider-webs which produce this
result?  Are there any other tricks using infrared film which could
enhance my chances for success?
Could the developers have used a different method to enhance the effect?
Thanks for any suggestions, they are well appreciated.
BOB DRONGOWSKI,  Ann Arbor, Michigan
Newsgroups: rec.photo
From: fsjfz@acad3.alaska.edu
Subject: Re: T-Max Films
Organization: University of Alaska Fairbanks
Date: Mon, 31 Aug 1992 04:43:15 GMT

In article <n0875t@ofa123.fidonet.org>, John.Hicks@f29.n363.z1.fidonet.org writes:
>   Yeah, that's the problem with T-Max films....they're much more finicky than 
> the old standards Tri-X and HP5. Really bad news for a rank beginner or a
> "relaxed" practitioner, or someone who has to process film on the run.
>   Sil appeared to imply that those who have problems with T-Max films don't
> know what they're doing, which is definitely wrong. The reason many don't use 
> T-Max is that the disadvantages far outweigh the advantages.
> 
>                                            jbh
i don't usually do my own processing (shoot too much Kodachrome), but i was
going to try making BW transparencies with the T-Max reversal kit.  If anyone
has any experience using the reversal kit, i'd like to hear about their
experience with it before i jump in.
 
James Zuelow
FSJFZ@acad3.alaska.edu