HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: dprkmt@inetg1.ARCO.COM (Ken Tubman)
Newsgroups: rec.photo
Subject: Re: Canon EOS ELAN and lenses
Date: 7 Apr 92 17:42:47 GMT
Reply-To: ktubman@arco.com
Organization: ARCO Oil and Gas Company

> In article <3610@isc-br.ISC-BR.COM> jimc@isc-br.ISC-BR.COM (Jim Cathey) writes:
> 
> >some of them) _hate_ USM lenses, and will run from the room.
> 
> 

I have had no problem using my USM lense to photograph our cats.  Our dog
doesn't mind either.  I can't get my kids to sit still though.
-- 

Ken Tubman          ARCO 
ktubman@arco.com    2300 W. Plano Parkway
(214) 754-3871      Plano, TX 75075
From: smp@cathedral.cerc.wvu.wvnet.edu (Shailesh M. Potnis)
Newsgroups: rec.photo
Subject: Is there big difference in the quality of the Kodak KR64 and Fuji RF50
Date: 15 Apr 92 15:28:29 GMT



	I see a big price diff. in the two slide films Kodak KR 64 and Fuji
RF50 ($5-60, $2-99 respectively).  They match closely in terms of the spead.
Is there a big difference in the image quality or the processint costs?

	All comments and suggestions are highly appreciated.

	Thanks in advance.
--
Shailesh Potnis.			|The good that you do today will
Research Associate.			|be forgotten tomorrow.
Concurrent Engineering Research		|DO GOOD ANYWAY.
Center, West Virginia University.	|
From: enders@plains.nodak.edu (Dr. Full-Time)
Newsgroups: rec.photo
Subject: View Camera Lens Shutters???
Date: 15 Apr 92 03:28:44 GMT
Organization: Red Army Surplus Computers


     I managed to "inherit" a 161mm F4.5 Kodak Anastigmat in an aerial camera
shutter (Graflex K20 with 3 speeds: 1/125, 1/250, 1/500).  The shutter is
kaput, and even if it did work, it was designed to be tripped/set from the 
rear (very inconvienient :-).  The questions for the group are:

     1.  Are "bare" shutters available (Copal, Compur, ???)?

     2.  If so, from whom?

     I don't know what the front and rear element threads are, but presumably
one could fabricate (or have fabricated) suitable adaptors to thread to a new
shutter and give the proper element spacing.  I suppose one could find an
appropriate old lens and shutter to scrap, but I'd hate to have to resort
to that!

     Please e-mail, as I don't read this group as often as I should :-)

Todd

===============================================================================

Todd Enders - WD0BCI                  ARPA: enders@plains.nodak.edu
Computer Center                       UUCP: ...!uunet!plains!enders
Minot State University                  or: ...!hplabs!hp-lsd!plains!enders
Minot, ND  58701                     Bitnet: enders@plains
                                  NeXT Mail: enders@bolshoi.uucp

     "The present would be full of all possible futures,
      if the past had not already projected a pattern upon it" - Andre' Gide

===============================================================================
Newsgroups: rec.photo
From: duane@cbnewsj.cb.att.com (duane.galensky)
Subject: Re: Mood question
Organization: AT&T
Distribution: usa
Date: Sat, 11 Apr 1992 16:02:49 GMT

In article <1992Apr10.120300.11677@nocusuhs.nnmc.navy.mil> yoshi@nocusuhs.nnmc.navy.mil (D M Yoshikami) writes:
>
>You've got to be careful about shooting red-light districts.  Some of those
>areas have some rather "unsavoury" people who, because they don't want to be
>seen or have any record of their whereabouts or activities, may try to destroy
>you, your camera, or both.   There's always a good possibility of
>accidentally taking a picture of someone who is afoul of the law, who may 
>mistake you for an undercover detective.... which can be fatal!  One of my
>friends likes to shoot pictures of homeless people, but there again, many of
>them do NOT like their picture taken either.  She's resorted to driving around
>in an automobile, snapping their picture [from within the car], and driving away
>.... and usually they don't notice that their picture has been taken.  If you
>do ask them if you can take their picture, they'll often ask for some amount
>of money.  
>

an interesting moral dilemma...

it would seem that an alternative for taking photographs
of people would be to take the time to know the individual
and to defer to their judgement as to whether or not they
want to be photographed.

the notion of driving around in a car to take a photogaph
of someone without their consent, as if they were an
object, is troublesome to me.  personally, if i wanted to
photograph someone less fortunate than me who may expect
some renumeration in return, i'd consider it a fair exchange.
after all, we're taking away something in the bargain...

mary ellen mark took the time to move into an insane
asylum to live with her subjects to gain their trust.
if they didn't feel like being photographed, she
waited for a more appropriate time.  her photographs
speak to the advantages to this care.

on the other hand, we likely don't have the luxury
(or desire) to spend a couple of weeks sleeping in 
doorways or culverts.  but i'd think that part of the
excitement and challenge of photographing people is
dealing with these subjects with as much attention
to our human nature as our busy schedule allows.
the results will show it!

duane
From: astro@iris1.oceanroutes.ns.ca (ASTRO)
Newsgroups: rec.photo
Subject: usenet updates....long delays
Date: 13 Apr 92 09:49:16 GMT
Organization: NSTN Network Operations Centre, Nova Scotia, Canada

Is is just me, or is usenet not updating the list??  I have a
message telling me that no new news has arrived for
292 hours...

I someone out there gets this, please e-mail to astro@px1.stfx.ca.
TRhis is sort of like a note in a bottle.....

brian
From: robin@matilda.UK.Sun.COM (Robin Haskell-Thomas - Sun EHQ - IR)
Newsgroups: rec.photo
Subject: Shops in SF Bay area
Date: 7 Apr 92 12:44:15 GMT
Reply-To: robin@matilda.UK.Sun.COM
Organization: Sun Microsystems, Inc.
NNTP-Posting-Host: matilda.uk.sun.com

Can anyone recommend good Photo equipment shops in the SF Bay area.
Either 'good' on price,
Or stockist of Pentax SLRs.

Robin
Newsgroups: rec.photo
From: jq43@vaxb.acs.unt.edu
Subject: Light Meters
Organization: University of North Texas
Date: Tue, 7 Apr 1992 02:27:41 GMT



Hi,

   I have been shopping around for light meters. Can anyone recommend a good 
light meter for under $100. The ones I have been considering are Gossen Pilot-2
and Gossen Scout-2. Does anyone out there have any experience with them or can
anyone recommend a better one function/featurewise?

Thanks in advance,

Warren
From: robert@sys.sweden.dg.com (Robert Claeson)
Newsgroups: rec.photo
Subject: Agfa's new Agfachrome Plus films
Date: 6 Apr 92 14:48:55 GMT
Organization: Data General AB, Akalla, Sweden

Agfa recently released two new films -- Agfachrome 50 Plus Professional and
Agfachrome 100 Plus Professional. They are said to have finer grain and
higher color saturation than the non-plus versions of the same films. Has
anyone
tried them yet? I recall that the non-plus versions had a very neutral
color rendition, probably the most neutral of any color film. But their
(comparatively) low color rendition made everything look too pastel for
my taste.

-- 
Robert Claeson            Internet: robert@sys.sweden.dg.com (the world)
Data General AB                     robert@sys.dg.se (preferred for
Europe)
Box 28                    Tel: +46 (0)8-92 55 00
S-164 93 KISTA, Sweden    Fax: +46 (0)8-751 36 22
From: pena@Mikrolog.FI (Pentti Haka)
Newsgroups: rec.photo
Subject: Re: Sigma 400 5.6 APO thoughts
Date: 15 Apr 92 11:24:01 GMT
Distribution: rec.photo
Organization: Mikrolog Ltd, Finland

In article <PBK.92Apr10102603@mtuxo.ATT.COM> pbk@mtuxo.ATT.COM (54524-P.KIDD(MT5502)0000) writes:
       	
>       I have read the current news concerning the SIGMA 400 5.6 APO lens and
>seem to be confused. One person who just purchased a Nikon F4 states that this
>lens only autofocuses 10-15% of the time in bright daylight. I checked a Nikon
>brochure and found the spec stating a maximum aperture of 5.6 is required for
>electronic focus assistance.

>       However, Nikon makes several lenses with variable maximum aperture
>(zooms) some of which have maximum aperture of 5.6. They do not seem to put a
>restriction on them. How can Sigma market a lense as autofocus that only 
>autofocuses 10-15% of the time. As mentioned they also make a 1000 f8 
>(also a 500 f7.2) which they claim to be autofocus.

>       I am not stating that the person who claimed it did not work is wrong.
>I personally have not tried this lense but would like to as Nikon does not
>have an autofocus above 300 ( except for the new 600 f4, lots of money). Is
>it possible this person has a defective camera or lense or is Sigma actually
>trying to market a lense as autofocus that only "works" 10-15% of the time.

>               pete



I also have the Sigma 400/5.6 AF APO and a Nikon F4. It seems to me that the 
AF does not work as smoothly with the Sigma as it does with my other
(Nikkor) lenses. However, 10-15% seems a little pessimistic.

The AF is usable even with the Sigma, as long as you hold the camera 
steady and there is a subject with reasonable contrast in the "autofocus 
window" in the middle of the focusing screen.

IMO, the problem is not in the Sigma or the (smallish) aperture, but in 
focal length: the AF logic in the camera body needs a subject with 
reasonable contrast, and with a long focal length, the probability of having 
one in the middle of the screen is smaller. Even more importantly, the AF 
logic needs some small amount of time for processing, and if the image moves 
during this time (which surely happens if you hand-hold the camera), it is 
bound to get confused. This would be easy to check with the camera/lens 
mounted on a tripod.

I have not had the chance to check this with other lenses of this focal 
length; I expect one would experience similar problems independent of the 
make of the lens.

Overall, understanding the technological limitations of CCD based 
autofocus systems, I am quite satisfied with the Sigma AF operation; if you 
shoot a scene with lots of detail in the whole frame (for example, a large 
crowd), and hold the camera steady, the AF works just as well as with any 
other lens.

--- Pentti Haka
--- Pentti.Haka@Mikrolog.Fi
Newsgroups: rec.photo
From: GE.DWS@forsythe.stanford.edu (Drew W. Saunders)
Subject: Re: Rectilinear Fisheye Lens & Panoramas
Organization: Stanford University, California, USA
Distribution: usa
Date: Mon, 6 Apr 1992 21:19:07 GMT

On the topic of panoramic cameras, has anyone tried or heard
anything about the new "Horizon" being sold by Bogen?  From the ad
in Del's, it looks cheaper but more useable (more shutter speeds,
filters included) than the Widelux.  Anyone know how reliable/robust
the lens swinging mechanism is?

Drew
Newsgroups: rec.photo
From: "Phaedrus 'n Co." <sl291006@silver.ucs.indiana.edu>
Subject: Re: Minolta Panoramic P&S???
Organization: Indiana University
Date: Tue, 14 Apr 1992 12:59:11 -0500

In article <5360752@hplsla.hp.com> andyc@hplsla.hp.com (Andy Cassino) writes:
>Does anyone know about Minolta's panaromic point-and-shoot camera? Like,
>what's the image size, and does it have a decent lens?
>
>    %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
>    % Andy Cassino                                       %
>    % Hewlett-Packard - Lake Stevens Instrument Division %
>    %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

I haven't seen the Minolta version.. but have seen a few others. all it encorperates is a masking guide put into the camera before the roll of film is shot. When used you must tell the processing place to develop it like the Kodak Stretch cameras due to the fact that the proportions are the same as them. There is no distorion and you should wind up with a 3x10 print.

Mike Kavka
kavka_mb@indtech.it.ilstu.edu

Newsgroups: rec.photo
From: duli@boulder.Colorado.EDU (Li Du)
Subject: Re: Sigma 21-35 vs 24-50
Organization: University of Colorado, Boulder
Date: Tue, 14 Apr 1992 07:27:30 GMT

In article <6503@a.cs.okstate.edu> ong@a.cs.okstate.edu (ONG ENG TENG) writes:
>
>On one hand the 24-50 is not only (a lot) cheaper, takes 52mm filter (I 
>already has a 52mm Nikon Cir Polarizer), and compact, but then the 21-35 
>is supposed to be a "acclaimed" lens, ......
>
	Nikon 24-50/3.5-4.5AF takes 62mm filter(not 52mm). It is actually
	more expensive(~$339) than Sigma 21-35(~$320, both are NYC prices).
	As for which one is more preferable, it all depends on one's
	photography style. For a wide angle zoom, the occasion where I
	would choose a narrower view(i.e. > 35mm) will be more frequent
	than the occasion where I would use a wider view( < 24mm ). I don't
	own either of the zooms, but I have seen a couple of 16x20 prints
	made from Kodachrome 25 with 24-50 zoom. I was realy impressed.

---------------------------------
 Li Du | duli@prony.colorado.edu
---------------------------------
Newsgroups: rec.photo
From: ong@a.cs.okstate.edu (ONG ENG TENG)
Subject: Other brand EDIF 
Organization: Oklahoma State University
Date: Tue, 7 Apr 92 00:35:31 GMT

Well, I wasn't too happy with the sharpness of the Nikkor 600/5.6 EDIF (AI),
so I returned it to DEL.  And since we have been praising Camera World
of Oregon, I would like to put in a word for DEL.  It was nearly a month
before I decided I wasn't happy and they took it back, like they said
in the ad (45 day money-back on used items).  But I did use part of the
refund for a used F4s.  (Of course, like few had mentioned here, DEL's prices
are a bit higher).

After getting the APO Sigma 400/5.6, over the weekend and putting one roll
of Ektar 1000 thru it, I compared it with the prints from the 600/5.6 Nikkor
EDIF (also with same film), I couldn't see much difference, except the
Nikkor seems to have slightly better color (4"x6" though).  The Sigma has 
both low dispersion glass and internal focusing, and very compact.

I was wondering if anyone has specifically done comparison between the
new generation of EDIF 3rd-party lenses and Nikkor's long established
EDIF lenses?  And what's this Tokina HLD (High-Refractive Low Dispersion
glass) for *wide-angle* lens? 

I would also be getting a Sigma 180/5.6 APO micro any day now from B&H
(as a micro lens; I will get a Nikkor 80-200/2.8 ED AF for the blur-background 
tele shot). 

Newsgroups: rec.photo
From: usenet@adobe.com (USENET NEWS)
Subject: Re: Tamron 35-105 F2.8 AF
Originator: asanders@sparta
Organization: Adobe Systems Incorporated
Date: Tue, 14 Apr 1992 18:47:21 GMT

| I do considerable studio flashwork and really do not like guessing 
| at the Fstop.
		  -Becker

The N8008s gives a continuous readout of the *actual* aperture,
taking into account lens extension as well as the variable aperture
of the 35-105/3.5-4.5. And isn't it true that lens extension needs
to be considered even when using a lens with a constant maximum
aperture? My 60/2.8 AF Micro loses 1-1/3 stops in going from
infinity to close focus.
			   -Alan


Newsgroups: rec.photo
From: jrieden@osf.org (Jack Rieden)
Subject: Contax T2 info
Organization: Open Software Foundation
Date: Mon, 13 Apr 1992 14:35:24 GMT


I am considering buying a Contax T2 camera, based upon a few
recommendations from friends. I looking for any info 
concerning price, comments, mail order and so forth.
Any info is appreciated.


		thanks in advance,
			jack

Newsgroups: rec.photo
From: johno@sdd.hp.com (John Ongtooguk)
Subject: Re: How to clean multi-coated filters?
Reply-To: johno@sdd.hp.com (John Ongtooguk)
Organization: Hewlett-Packard, San Diego Division
Date: Wed, 15 Apr 1992 17:42:30 GMT

In article <1992Apr15.161242.5275@primerd.prime.com>, mguyott@eriador.prime.com (M. Guyott) writes:
|> 
|> I have two Hoya multi-coated filters (UV and 80A) and the instructions
|> that came with the filters said not to use lens cleaner or lens cleaning
|> paper.  How does one go about cleaning these filters?  Do they scratch
|> very easily?  Are they useless if they have some small scratches?
|> 
|> Marc Guyott

 Like you said the instructions say not to use cleaner or tissues, but as 
 I recall most of the instructions are referring to eyeglass cleaners
 and tissues; evidently the eyeglass tissues have silicone in them or
 something. One thing I learned the hard way is to NEVER use a dry tissue
 of any sort as it can or will create 'cleaning marks'. I usually blow
 off any loose stuff with a blower but I don't use a brush as I've never
 found a brush that is clean or been able to clean a brush so that it
 won't leave some sort of film. For a light cleaning I then exhale on the
 tissue to get it moist, usually several times, and then on the lens or 
 filter and carefully wipe it clean. If there are oily finger marks or
 such I'll use some Kodak lens cleaner, although there may be better 
 cleaning solutions, and follow up with exhaling/cleaning. For really
 dirty filters I'll start with some alcohol, then use the cleaner, then
 exhale/clean. I also don't use a chamois as I don't want to clean a
 fragile surface with an item that I've used before....the thought of
 rubbing a grain of sand around and around on the lens ....   

 I have noticed that the Nikon coatings are kind of fragile, more so
 than the ones on some of my other optical surfaces. The Hoya coatings
 are funny in that if it appears that I created a cleaning mark I can
 get it to disappear if I use some alcohol followed by the Kodak cleaning
 solution, it's as if the solution 'hydrates' the coating, or ? In any
 case use care, and regard my reply as much of a question as a good 
 technique.

 John Ongtooguk (johno@sdd.hp.com)  
             
Newsgroups: rec.photo
From: bernard@tourng.enet.dec.com (Dave Bernard)
Subject: Re: Stick in the mud (was Re: Nikon FA, FE2, FE feature summary request)
Reply-To: bernard@tourng.enet.dec.com (Dave Bernard)
Organization: Digital Equipment Corporation
Distribution: na
Date: Wed, 15 Apr 92 14:07:08 GMT

In article <1992Apr14.031557.6739@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU>,
ejh2p@faraday.clas.Virginia.EDU (TTHHWWAACCKK!!!) writes:
|> Newsgroups: rec.photo
|> Path:
|>
pa.dec.com!decwrl!ames!haven.umd.edu!darwin.sura.net!uvaarpa!murdoch!far
raday.clas.Virginia.EDU!ejh2p
|> From: ejh2p@faraday.clas.Virginia.EDU (TTHHWWAACCKK!!!)
|> Subject: Stick in the mud (was Re: Nikon FA, FE2, FE feature summary
|> request)
|> Message-ID: <1992Apr14.031557.6739@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU>
|> Sender: usenet@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU
|> Organization: University of Virginia
|> References: <1992Mar30.180730.2027@cbnewsl.cb.att.com>
|> <5360748@hplsla.hp.com>
|> Distribution: na
|> Date: Tue, 14 Apr 1992 03:15:57 GMT
|> 
|> In article <5360748@hplsla.hp.com> andyc@hplsla.hp.com (Andy Cassino)
|> writes:
|> >grant@eecg.toronto.edu (Grant Goodes) writes:
|> 
|> [Stuff deleted]
|> 
|> >I wonder if there's just a few of us stick-in-the-muds, or if Nikon
|> (et al)
|> >are failing to service a LARGE number of customers.
|> 
|> I am another stick-in-the-mud: I love my F2 and probably won't get
|> anything else except an FM2 for the higher flash sync. and shutter
|> speed.  If I upgrade, it will most-likely be to medium or large
|> format.
|> -ed-
|> 

	Well, OK, me too.  I got mad at Nikon a few years ago (ring
	resistor, non-responsive customer service, etc etc), and dumped
	my F2s and FE2, and bought Olympus equipment.  I loved the
	OM4T cameras, but I could not get the results out of it I was
	used to.

	So I decided to dump that line, and look around.  The only stuff
	I liked was Leica or Contax or Nikon.  So I swallowed my pride and
	returned to Nikon.  I could have kicked myself for having sold my
	FE2- the best all-around 35mm slr I've owned.

	It's not that I don't see the value of AF.  I just don't like the MTBF of
	batteries, and I have kind of a distaste for motor drives, and don't 
	want to carry all that weight.  Maybe someday I'll go AF, but what
	I did was to buy one of the last new F3s (for real mirror lockup), and
	FM2 (for compactness and battery freedom), and an old battered F body with
	plain finder which I picked up for a song.  I think I'll even end up with
	a used FE2 again.

	However, if I buy lenses new, I go for the AF versions, despite cheap
	feel, skinny focussing rings, painted-on aperture numbers, poor depth
	of field indicators.  I just know that I may want AF when I'm an old guy.
	Mostly, I try to buy my lenses used.

	In light of the advancing technology of AF, it may pay me to wait a few
	more years anyway.  Now that the 8008s is out, who wants a plain
	8008?  And with a rumored "9009" in the wings...

		Dave
From: byron@archone.tamu.edu (Byron Rakitzis)
Newsgroups: rec.photo
Subject: Bogen tripods --- another happy customer
Date: 15 Apr 92 03:23:35 GMT
Organization: College of Architecture, Texas A&M University

There was a thread a while back about Bogens. I just wanted to say that
I saved the posts and used that information to get a Bogen 3001 + 3026
ball head. I've only had it for half a day, but I am, so far, very
impressed with it.

The legs are not tree-trunks, but then again, I didn't want them to
be.  I bought this tripod so I could carry it around. Slung over my
shoulder by its strap (cost $10 extra!) it was very easy to walk the 2
miles home from work. I wouldn't mind taking this tripod on small
hikes. The legs extend in the typical Bogen way: unscrew the lock, the
leg falls, tighten the lock. Quick and easy. The centerpost is
reversible, and the legs lock at three different angles, like the
3021's.

The ball head also looks sturdy enough for my use. It's easy to adjust
the orientation of the camera quickly with the ball head, a problem I
have with the Bogen 3D heads. It clamps and unclamps very easily, and
the equipment stays put when you clamp it down. Admittedly, the
heaviest body/lens combo I have right now is only a Nikon FM with a
200/4 Nikkor (a nice, compact (18oz) telephoto), but this is another
reason for getting the small tripod --- I am for now firmly in the 35mm
camp, and I'm not planning on getting massive EDIF tele's any time soon
:-).

I've used the 3011 and 3021 a few times before, so I know a little bit
about Bogens, and the 3001 feels a lot like a smaller version of the
3021. So far have not noticed any difference in sturdiness, but I am
sure it is there to some extent. The question is, will this bother me?
Time will tell. I haven't tried using the tripod in windy conditions or
unstable ground yet.

The only real problem is with the ball head's "quick release". As long as
you accept the fact that this is a misnomer, i.e., releasing the body is
not quick, then there's no problem. Also, to take the "slow release"
plate off the camera, you need a coin or a key or some such screwdriver-
substitute. I would have preferred a knurled-ring approach.

In short: if you want a light tripod (by Bogen standards, that is.
5lb?) that is still quite sturdy then the 3001 might be for you. A
different head might fit the bill better (maybe the heavy duty
ball head?  It looks like it has a real quick release), but the 3026
was the smallest head that had the features I was looking for.

Incidentally, I got the tripod from B&H. Stuff from B&H gets to my office
with almost mechanical regularity. The only trouble is that the transit
interval is 10 days... (part of this is due to Texas A&M sluggishness ---
all our ground UPS stuff goes to one receiving depot and re-delivered by
university employees) I have ordered film, filters, paper, some Nikon
accessories (lens hood, etc.) and now this tripod from them, all without
hassle. They get a thumbs-up from me, but the usual caveats about rude
New Yorkers apply. Just don't stress about it. I've lived there; they
are all like that.