HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: zrepachol@cc.curtin.edu.au (Paul Repacholi)
Subject: Re: Experience with Canon EF 100-300mm f/4.5-5.6 USM
Organization: Curtin University of Technology
Date: Wed, 7 Oct 1992 09:47:10 GMT

In article <92279.225037IO92112@MAINE.MAINE.EDU>, IO92112@MAINE.MAINE.EDU writes:
> 
> In article <19920ct5.201357.5558@cbnewsm.cb.att.com>, ka1gt@cbnewsm.cb.att.com
> (Robert. M. Atkins) writes:
> 
>>unless my memory is fading (which it might be), I thought that the EF75-300
>>had a ROTATING zoom control, not a push-pull control (like the 100-300L)
>>Given this, it is hard to see how the zoom would slide in the vertical
>>position. The push-pull zooms (from most lens makers) are prone to this
>>"zoom creep" effect, but I've never seen it in lens which zooms via a
>>rotating ring. Maybe the "gearing" on these zooms is now so low that creep
>>is possible. If you say it is there, then I believe you.
> 
> You are right. The Canon EF 75-300mm is the rotating ring zoom unlike
> EF 100-300mm USM with push/pull ring. However, the zoom rings in both
> zoom so loose that whenever the lenses are in verticle position the
> zoom rings slide down. I own a EF 100-300 USM. Before I bought this
> lens, I went to photo shop to play both lenses. Both of them have the
> loose ring problem. I thought the lenses I played in the store were
> defect and wear down. But the saleperson picked up the lens from other
> packages, all of them were the same. Although I am not really satified with
> the zoom ring, I got the EF 100-300mm USM through mail-orderfrom B&Hanyway
> because of its fast and quiet focus, and good optical quality.
> I personally don't own a EF 75-300mm zoom. From my limited experience
> in the photo store, the zoom ring DO slide down when the lens are in
> verticle position. Maybe other 75-300mm owner can share their experiences.
> 
All the 75-300s will creep, or should I say race, from one end of their
zoom range to the other.

Given the moderate ( ~$150 ) price diference between the 100-300USM and the
100-300L, I can't see why you wouldn't get the L, unless you must have the
much faster focusing speed of the USM. Can a USM-MM version of the 100-300L
and the 80-200L be far away? Hope not...

~Paul
From: watters@mendel.genetics.washington.edu (Mike Watters)
Newsgroups: rec.photo
Subject: Re: Pop Photography (was: Cat lenses...)
Date: 16 Oct 92 20:48:01 GMT
Article-I.D.: u.1992Oct16.204801.23328
Organization: University of Washington

In article <1992Oct16.194541.5176@adobe.com> usenet@adobe.com (USENET NEWS) writes:
>| Hmmmm.  Previously I wasn't aware that Pop Photog *had* standards.
>
>					-Barry Sherman
>
>Pop Photography is the only magazine I know of (well, maybe Vogue
>is another one) that people buy primarily for the advertising. :->
>
>					    -Alan


There's tons of "magazines" like that!  As far as photo magazines, I'd
MUCH rather pick up a copy of Shutterbug than Pop Photo.  Not only do you
get all the same "new products" ads as in PP, but you also get all their
used equipment ads. (IMHO that is the best thing going for Shutterbug)

The added bonus of Shutterbug is that they don't pretend to be a great
photo mag.  They know they exist for the ads, they don't pretend otherwise,
and they do a good job of it.

mike

--
Mike
watters@genetics.washington.edu
Dept of Genetics, Univ of Washington  Seattle
(d) 206-543-1934   (e) 206-361-1156
From: robertson@spacm1.spac.spc.com
Newsgroups: rec.photo
Subject: New (or Used) Views for Few$
Date: 15 Oct 92 22:35:51 GMT
Article-I.D.: spacm1.1992Oct15.153551.6
Organization: Bank America Systems Engineering, Pasadena, CA

After finding out that it costs more to fix my trusty Bronica S2-A than it's
worth, I've decided to shop around for a view camera.  I'm not a pro photgrapher
and I'm not wealthy, so I'm looking for a relatively inexpensive entry point
into large-format.

Here are the choices, as I see them.  Prices are what I've been quoted in
the Los Angeles area from retail stores (mail order makes me cringe), for
camera only (no lens or accessories except as noted).

SINAR A1 - Sinar's entry-level box, replacing the unlamented Alpina.  Camera
    AND case $865.

TOYO 45C - About $750, camera only.  Geared rise & fall.

Calumet NX - $599, from Calumet, which has a retail store in Hollywood.


All of these are well-made, far as I can tell.  Since the Sinar comes with
a case, the cost is actually below the Toyo.  What I don't like about it is
the base tilts and the fact that their roll-film back ( a must for me regardless
of which box I get) costs about $1300 new.  I was told by a salesman that use
of the Graflok-type roll back requires removal of the groundglass, which is
rather off-putting.

What about used?  Well, I've seen some decent Toyo 45Ds for about $300, but I
would like to have interchangeable bellows.  The other stuff I've seen for sale
is either in bad shape or is out there in Linhof land, far beyond my budget.

So I'm asking for comments, especially from those who have experience with the
cameras mentioned.

Also let me ask about field/technical cameras.  Do the relatively restricted
movements hamper anyone's style?  I like the compactness of these, although
the new prices are usually somewhat higher than the general-purpose machines.
Newsgroups: rec.photo
From: zrepachol@cc.curtin.edu.au (Paul Repacholi)
Subject: Re: Kodak Ektacolor Paper
Organization: Curtin University of Technology
Date: Sat, 10 Oct 1992 19:31:10 GMT

In article <n0b95t@ofa123.fidonet.org>, Ed.Sukach@f173.n324.z1.fidonet.org writes:
> Just restocked my supply of Ektacolor Porta paper (mainly because of the 
> label: Read Notice Enclosed) and I'm wondering: 
>  
> I have had trouble using the original (Type 2818) with random streaks of 
> increased density appearing occaisionally, and I have not been able to 
> isolate the cause. 
>  
> I use a JOBO CPP2 processor and Photocolor RA (Master Class) chemicals. 
> I have spent a LOT of time methodically tracking every step and condition 
> (safelight / without safelight etc.), and varying pre-soak, adding water 
> rinse / stop bath between developer etc. with no success. 
>  

The first thing to suspect if you get streaking is contamination of some sort.

> The notice enclosed reads, 
>  
...
> increase in red speed which permits shorter exposure times. 

> You may notice that the color of unprocessed EKTACOLOR PORTA II Paper is 
> different from that of Type 2818 paper. No speed change is associated with 
> this paper. 
...
> Other than the somewhat contradictory "increase in red speed which permits 
> shorter exposure times" and "no speed change is associated with this paper" 
> . . . Shorter exposure times with no speed change? . . c'est incredable, 

Yes, you can reduce the Yellow and Magenta filtratiom. This will allow you
to reduce your exposure, as it is the ( greater of Y or M filter ) layer
that determines speed.

> and the reasoning behind increasing color saturation in a portrait paper 
> . . (reduced saturation is why I use Agfa Portra film), . . . what gives? 

Good question

> Could my random gray streaking have something to do with this change? 

Wouldn't think so...

> Have there been any changes in Ektacolor Supra or Ultra? 
>  
> BTW, I really like the shorter processing times with the RA papers, but 
> I'm wondering about the availability of Kodak RA processing chemistry - 
> I've only been able to obtain Besseler (Tetenal) and Photocolor. 
> Anthing form Kodak coming in the near future? 
>  

Try Kodak 400 4677, RA developer, 5l and,
	400 4685, RA Bleach-fix, 5l. You will also need 445 9327 stabilizer
I think. You need to get, or get access to Z-130 the RA manual. Even if only
a loaner to read. The processing fault section of these can save a HUGE amount
of tail chasing.

~Paul
From: paul@eye.com (Paul B. Booth)
Newsgroups: rec.photo
Subject: Re: Press Camera Questions...........................
Date: Wed, 7 Oct 92 17:44:33 GMT
Distribution: na
Organization: 3D/EYE, Inc.  Ithaca, NY

In article <1992Oct6.004256.541@craycos.com> sog@craycos.com (Steve Gombosi) writes:
>
>There was a 1/1000 sec LEAF shutter available for the Super - that's one of the
>reasons why the FP shutter was dropped, I thought. It's a pretty neat piece of
>work - it couples to the electric release on the body. I have *no* idea how accurate
>it is, since I've never owned one.
The Super's electric shutter release will work with most leaf shutters, but it
does require that the shutter be mounted in a super-graphic lensboard, which
can be tough to find.  The system is electro-mechanical.  The lensboard has a
sliding linkage in it.  One end hooks onto the shutter release, the other end
is a small hook that sits just at the edge of the lensboard.  When the
lensboard is in place, that hook engages with a cam in the camera body.
Attached to the cam is a solenoid which gets it's juice from a small capacitor.
When you hit the red button on the body, the capacitor discharges, driving the
solenoid into the cam, which grabs the linkage and fires the shutter.
Anyway, the solenoid and capacitor tend to get tired with age, and often, the
system won't work at all.  Mine currently needs about 2 minutes between firings
to build up enough of a charge to actually fire the shutter!
>
>
>My Speed has no swings or tilts, only front rise and a drop bed. I have seen
>Crowns with tilts.
>
The Super has front swing, tilt, shift, rise, and fall via the drop bed.  No
back movements, but it _does_ rotate!


-- 
Paul B. Booth  (paul@eye.com)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
3D/EYE, Inc., 2359 N. Triphammer Rd., Ithaca, NY  14850    voice: (607)257-1381
                                                             fax: (607)257-7335
From: goldberg@oasys.dt.navy.mil (Mark Goldberg)
Newsgroups: rec.photo
Subject: Re: Nikkor AF 2.0mm vs. 24mm
Date: 16 Oct 92 14:57:55 GMT
Reply-To: goldberg@oasys.dt.navy.mil (Mark Goldberg)
Organization: Naval Surface Warfare Center, Annapolis, MD

In rec.photo, parsons1@applelink.apple.COM (Don Parsons) writes:
>I'm trying to decide which to get; the AF 20mm 2.8, or the AF 24mm 2.8.
>Does anyone have any information that might help make my choice easier?

I owned the f2.8 24mm in non-af.  I sold all my non AF stuff and got
the 20mm AF with my 8008-based system.

The 20mm is a more exotic lens.  It's great for indoor panoramas and
other shots with impact.  It can be used for hand-held shots at 1/15sec
without a problem.  I carry it along with my 35-135 lens and one body
when I travel light.

But I miss certain things about the 24mm.  for one thing, the SB24 flash,
as well as a Vivitar 285 with diffuser will cover the 24mm's field adequately.
But lighting your flash shots when using the 20mm is not that simple.
 You need to use bounce or bare-bulb techniques, or do a tricky mix
with ambinent light and use the flahs to highlight an area of interest.
It is also too easy, when using bounce, to get the "hot" ceiling in
the shot, or even get some "footage" (your shoes!).  I could do certain
grou[p shots with the 24; the 20 is not as forgiving.  However, I am
not ready to trade it in on a 24 yet.  But I have considered buying
a 24 IN ADDITION.  There is a very noticeable difference inthe coverage
of these two lenses.
   /|/| /||)|/  /~ /\| |\|)[~|)/~   |   Everyone's entitled to MY opinion.
  / | |/ ||\|\  \_|\/|_|/|)[_|\\_|  |      goldberg@oasys.dt.navy.mil
========Imagination is more important than knowledge. - Albert Einstein=======
From: llamas@itd.itd.nrl.navy.mil (Winston Llamas)
Newsgroups: rec.photo
Subject: 3rd party lens info
Date: 9 Oct 92 01:27:53 GMT
Reply-To: llamas@itd.nrl.navy.mil
Distribution: world

Has anyone used/read reviews on the following lenses (in AF mounts):

Sigma 28-70 f2.8 lens (new, fixed aperture) zoom
Sigma 70-210 f2.8 lens (new, fixed aperture) zoom
Tamron 35-105 f2.8 lens 
Tamron 70-210 f2.8 lens
Tokina ATX 28-70 f2.8 lens
Tokina ATX 80-200 f2.8 lens
Tokina ATX 400 f5.6 lens

Tamron 1.4x teleconverter
Vivitar 1.4x teleconverter

Thanks for any info.

Winston
--
#========================================================#
# Winston M. Llamas       email: llamas@itd.nrl.navy.mil #
#========================================================#
Newsgroups: rec.photo
From: cnmne@plex-1.ann-arbor.mi.us (Chris Ellinger)
Subject: Re: technical info (was Popular Photography, then Nikon magazine)
Organization: Plex-1, Michigan's Public Access Usenet Gateway  (Ann Arbor).
Date: Tue, 13 Oct 1992 16:57:21 GMT

In article <5287@rosie.NeXT.COM> jspirer@rain.next.com (Jeff Spirer) writes:
>
>I wonder about the exposure info also, but I think that the camera info is  
>probably correct.  Why?  Because a very large proportion of the photos are  
>made with *manual* cameras rather than what the magazine pushes.  If they  
>wanted to enhance their brands, wouldn't they choose to all have F4s  
>instead of FM2s etc etc.?

It is interesting that the photo mag editors claim that the type of camera 
used (manual vs automatic) is irrelevant in evaluating a photograph, yet 
they insist on including that same "irrelevant" information.
 
I used to agree that the particular brand and model of camera used was 
irrelevant, but with the advent of hyper-automated cameras, I now feel it 
is important to know which Japanese engineering group to credit for the 
technical quality of a photo.
 
Chris Ellinger
Ann Arbor, MI

Newsgroups: rec.photo
From: hsong@ardour.bellcore.com (G. Hugh Song)
Subject: Canon Speedlight 420EZ?
Organization: NJ
X-Newsreader: Tin 1.1 PL5
Date: Tue, 13 Oct 92 00:43:26 GMT

Can someone spell out the difference between Canon Speedlights
420EZ and 430EZ?   One obvous difference seems to be the guide
number.  One is 42meter and the other is 43 meter.   So they are about 
equal.  Is there any feature missing in 420EZ?

Thanks.

	Hugh
From: peb@siesoft.co.uk (Paul Bentley)
Newsgroups: rec.photo
Subject: Darkroom recommendations?
Date: 15 Oct 92 14:53:29 GMT
Organization: Siemens Nixdorf Information Systems Ltd.
X-Newsreader: Tin 1.1 PL4

With regard to print processors I find that rotorary processors are very
slow to use because you spend a lot of time cleaning and drying the
processing tube. They are however very economical on the volume of chemistry
used.

I have never used a roller mechanism, mostly due to price. If you can afford
on of these (Fujimoto CP-51) then maybee you won't mind using 6 litres
of Cibachrome chemistry every time you do some printing. If you do end
up using this volume of chemistry then you will end up spending several
hundred dollars including the cost of the paper every time !

My personal recommendation is to buy some form of deep tank processor.
Here in the UK there is a company called NOVA who manufacture a range
of thermostatically controlled processors with vertical slots.
Mine is a 12x16 inch unit and takes two litres of chemistry.
Obviously the 16x20 and 20x24 units take proportionately more chemistry.
Being vertical they take up little bench space, are quick to set up
and have no moving parts.

In the UK the 12x16 costs 300 to 400 pounds with 4 slots. You could get
say a 8x10 processor taking only a litre of each chemical and a 20x24
unit for occasional work when you really want to make big prints. This
would still leave money in the bank over the big roller processor.

In summary, if you want efficiency with economy go for a tank system.
If you have a large budget and lots of space (which you will need for
quality 5x4 enlargers and 20 inch roller processors) and want to print
high volumes then get a roller processor.

paulb@siesoft.co.uk
Paul Bentley, Siemens Nixdorf, Bracknell, Berkshire, England.
Newsgroups: rec.photo
From: shw3118@tamsun.tamu.edu (Shao Hua Wang)
Subject: cannon EF28-80,EF35-105,EF35-135 WHICH IS BETTER
Organization: Texas A&M University, College Station
Date: Tue, 13 Oct 1992 23:45:34 GMT

Hi,netters
Can someone experienced tell me which one have better optical quality,
EF28-80,EF35-105,EF35-135 (ALL USM)
Newsgroups: rec.photo
From: ray@anaconda.cis.ohio-state.edu (william c ray)
Subject: Re: 8x10, Christopher Burkett, light sources
Organization: The Ohio State University Dept. of Computer and Info. Science
Date: Wed, 14 Oct 1992 18:34:30 GMT

In article <1992Oct14.174255.24367@cello.hpl.hp.com> jacobson@cello.hpl.hp.com (David Jacobson) writes:
>In article <1992Oct14.143408.10507@craycos.com> sog@craycos.com (Steve Gombosi) writes:

>>I suppose you could just shoot directly on Cibachrome...it might kind of
>>interesting. How long would you have to expose Ciba in bright sunshine
>>at f/64? Talk about "limited edition" prints! ;-)
>>
>>Steve
>
>I saw the smiley faces, but decided to reply seriously anyway.  One
>problem with direct exposure on a print paper would be that you would
>get a mirror image.  You would have to rig up some kind of rigid
>mirror in front of the camera to add a compensating reversal.
>
>  -- David Jacobson


Ummm, think again David... remember that it is reversed both horizontaly and
verticaly.  Now, even if it was a problem, you'd need a rather interesting
mirror setup to do the double reversal... On the other hand, consider the
fact that the image _is_ reversed both verticaly and horizontaly... Now take
a piece of paper, and holding it face up, rotate it 180 degrees.  Notice
that it is now reversed both verticaly and horizontaly.  Do you need a 
mirror to correct the image?

Will Ray
ray@cis.ohio-state.edu
Organization: University of Illinois at Chicago
Date: Sunday, 11 Oct 1992 23:43:26 CDT
From: Rich Chong <U41602@uicvm.uic.edu>
Newsgroups: rec.photo
Subject: Pentax SF1n mirror stuck, Help!

I was just setting up my camera on a copystand, over an inverted
enlarger-head, to dupe a slide. There was no film in the camera,
when I tried clicking off a test-shot, the internal mirror went up
(as it should), and then stayed locked in that position!
Before I giveup and take it in for service, does anyone have any
idea what the problem could be? The internal 6v lithium battery
tests at 5.5v (and lowbattery warning isn't on). I can play with
all the electronic mode and settings on the display, but nothing
drops the mirror. I've taken plenty of shots w/o film before,
altho never with the camera pointing directly downward as I recall.
Please reply directly if possible. Thanks.
rc
From: teter@vixvax.mgi.com
Newsgroups: rec.photo
Subject: Re: SO-279 film Questions
Date: 16 Oct 92 13:29:29 GMT
Organization: Management Graphics, Inc.

In article <1992Oct14.033120.4220@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU>, ejh2p@faraday.clas.Virginia.EDU (Swedish Chef) writes:
> Hi, I read sometime last spring a post about using vericolor slide
> film for interesting effects.  The post talked of shooting it and then
> having it processed C-41 for some wierd color shifts, or something
> like that, I can't quite remember.  Well, I went to the store, and
> tried to find that to shoot.  I bought some SO-279 film.  I now have
> a couple of questions.
> 	
> 	1)  Was this the same film mentioned last year? (does anybody
> remember the posts?)
> 	2)  Whether or not it was, does anybody have any ideas for
> exposing it under daylight conditions?  (what ISO)  I know it was
> designed to be used as a copy film, and it is rated at ISO 8, but that
> is not under daylight.  I called Kodak Tech. Info., and the guy I
> spoke to couldn't help, but suggested what I was already planning to
> do--bracket like there's no tomorrow.

Call Kodak information at 1-800-242-2424 and get publication E-24.
You will NOT have good luck using this is an ordinary camera.

> 	3)  Any other interesting comments, or suggestions?
> 
> 
> BTW, I am also planning to get some tungsten E-6 film and expose it
> under daylight, and have it developed C-41 to see what happens.  I
> know a lab that will do this for me, and won't try to screw with color
> correction while printing.  Wish me luck.

You will need it

> -ed
>  
> --
> #################################
> ejh2p@faraday.clas.virginia.edu




-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Jim Teter					 Internet:      teter@mgi.com
Management Graphics, Inc.			 MGI Main:    +1 612 854 1220
1401 East 79th St.				 MGI FAX:     +1 612 851 6159
Minneapolis, Minnesota 55425-1128 USA		 Desk /vmail: +1 612 851 6101
From: finn@isi.edu (Greg Finn)
Newsgroups: rec.photo
Subject: Re: Press Camera Question
Date: 7 Oct 92 21:49:54 GMT
Reply-To: finn@dalek.isi.edu (Greg Finn)
Distribution: na

In article <1992Oct6.221738.1021@nntpd2.cxo.dec.com> feldman@hal9k.cxo.dec.com (james feldman) writes:
>I've never seen a 1/1000 of a second leaf shutter.  Even today, the fastest
>commericially made leaf shutters just go up to 1/500 (copal/seiko/prontor #0). 
>The "electric" lens board is neat (I've got one).  But it's only electrical
>connections are the bi-post flash connections.  The shutter is tripped
>mechanically from a solinoid built into the front standard that grabs a tang on
>the lensboard.  This in turn, pulls down an adjustable rod which trips the
>shutter.

	It exists.  A Graflex 1000 shutter for either a 135 f4.5
Schneider or a 300+some telephoto.  It was offered as standard for the
Super Speed Graphic 4x5.  Presumably, when Toyo bought the Graflex
tooling and remarketed the camera as the Toyo Super Graphic they
dropped the Graflex lens line in favor of Seiko shutters.  A 135mm
Graflex 1000 runs about $300 on an electric board in Ex+ condition
when you can find them.  You cock them by rotating the integral ribbed
lens hood.

--
Gregory Finn	(310) 822-1511
Information Sciences Institute, Marina Del Rey, CA 90292
Newsgroups: rec.photo