HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: bruceb@mpd.tandem.com (Bruce Burden)
Newsgroups: rec.photo
Subject: Re: light damage
Date: 13 Nov 92 19:53:20 GMT
Organization: Tandem Computers (MPD) Austin, TX

In article <1992Nov12.181400.24170@pixel.kodak.com> benham@liebnitz.ssd.kodak.com (Todd D. Benham) writes:
>
>My questions are:
>  Can anyone confirm that flashes can cause damage? (or are they
>  just being paranoid?:)
>
	The answer as I understand it is probably yes. Note, however, that
    if the items are in a glass case, they have done you a favor by NOT
    allowing a flash, since the reflection off of the glass will provide
    a real pretty picture of a sunburst (flashburst?).
>
>  How many flashes would it take to do any significant damage?
>
	I don't recall a number being given, as it would depend on the
    power of the flash unit, in addition to the number of exposures.
    The theory is that the UV (ultra-violet) light created by the flash
    units will lead to increased degredation of the item, since the UV
    is of a higher energy lever that longer light wavelengths. A good
    way to test this is to look at overlapped newspaper exposed to a
    flourescent light for a week.
>
>  What item are subject to damage by light?
>
	Items that are generally delicate: Cloth, paintings/pottery
    (fade the pigments in the paint/glaze), posters (pigments in the
    ink) paper, etc. Fortunately, machinery seems pretty resistant to
    the dastardly UV!

	About the only method to get around this problem is to use a
    faster film, or lie to the camera, and tell the camera the film is
    really faster! A faster (larger maximum aperture) lens is also
    possible for camers that accept interchangable lenses, but is a more
    expensive route.


								Bruce



-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
  Bruce Burden
  bruceb@mpd.tandem.com
  Tandem Computers Inc.

Newsgroups: rec.photo
From: steve@bttelex.bt.co.uk (Steve Rooke)
Newsgroups: rec.photo
Subject: Looking for Olympus macro equipment
Keywords: olympus macro
Date: 8 Nov 92 19:08:41 GMT
Organization: Sitting On The Fence

I'm looking for used Olympus macro equipment.  I have auto bellows,
macrophoto stand and 20mm f3.5 but would like to get hold of the 38 & 50 mm,
trans/epi-illuminator base/lights, stage plates, reflectors and mirrors or
anything in the Macrophoto Group, WHY.

Thanks,
Steve
-- 
Steve Rooke - steve@bttelex.bt.co.uk  (...mcsun!uknet!bttelex!steve)
235 Cavendish Street, Ipswich,        |  Live to Hack -
Suffolk, IP3 8BQ, England, UK         |       Hack to Live.
Tele: +44 473 254111                  |             The_Caged_Lion - DoD #0287
From: zlsiida@fs1.mcc.ac.uk (dave budd)
Newsgroups: rec.photo
Subject: Re: Pronunciation (was Re: What does F&S Stand for)
Date: 5 Nov 92 12:04:37 GMT
Organization: Manchester Computing Centre

In article <1992Nov2.125556.1@vms.ocom.okstate.edu> chorley@vms.ocom.okstate.edu writes:

>In article <PD.92Nov2104656@horus.sics.se>, pd@sics.se (Per Danielsson) writes:
>> In article <1992Oct30.120523.1@vms.ocom.okstate.edu> chorley@vms.ocom.okstate.edu writes:
>> 
>>>N(eye)kon, to rhyme with IKON
>> 
>> Well, sorry to rain on your day, but IKON should be pronounced ee-con.
>> --
A friend who's been to Japan tells me ALL their vowel sounds are short, 
which would make it sound like Nick-on.  She may be wrong of course.  We
ought to just ask a Japanese - there's plenty of them about in most large 
Western cities.


  You don't have to work to be mad here      email: d.budd@mcc.ac.uk
  Dave Budd, MCC, Oxford Rd, Manchester, England   (44|0)61-275-6033  
Xref: sparky rec.photo:19353 alt.cd-rom:4308
From: andy@cs.caltech.edu (Andy Fyfe)
Newsgroups: rec.photo,alt.cd-rom
Subject: Re: Kodak statement about Photo CD System
Date: 6 Nov 1992 00:07:36 GMT
Organization: California Institute of Technology
NNTP-Posting-Host: kodiak.cs.caltech.edu

In article <jim.720664444@ferkel> jim@ferkel.ucsb.edu (Jim Lick) writes:
>By your account
>(and what I think is most sensible) the prices should go from cheapest to
>most expensive in this order:
>
>1) new film to old CD
>2) new film to new CD
>3) old negatives to old CD
>4) old negatives to new CD

Here is some of the prices on a Kodalux price sheet I was given.

1) new film to new CD:
	$2.25 for developing + $.74 for each image transfer.

   12-exposure	$11.12
   24-exposure	$19.99		(slides $23.44)
   36-exposure	$28.85		(slides $34.10)

   The per-roll prices are within a couple of cents of the developing plus
   image transfer charges.  They also give prices that include prints
   (for example, 36 exposures, 4x6 prints, and PhotoCD is $43.61).

2) new film to existing CD:
	$2.25 for developing + $.58 for each image transfer.

   12-exposure	$ 9.21
   24-exposure	$16.17		(slides $19.62)
   36-exposure	$23.13		(slides $28.38)

   These prices match exactly.

3) existing slides or negatives:
	10-24	$1.79 each
	25-49	$1.69 each
	50-74	$1.59 each
	75+  	$1.49 each

   Minimum charge (10 images) is $17.90.

The really "strange" prices are those for duplicating a PhotoCD:

	up to 24 images		$28.99
	25 to 49 images		$49.00
	50 to 74 images		$74.00
	75 or more images	$99.00

Andy Fyfe					andy@cs.caltech.edu
From: lakhindr@ESD.3Com.COM (Lakhinder Walia)
Newsgroups: rec.photo
Subject: Re: Nikon 75-150mm/f3.8 Series E - your opinion
Date: 12 Nov 92 22:07:00 GMT
Distribution: usa

I read in book by Galen Rowell that he carries this lens: 75-150 f3.5 !
("Mountain Light"  : do a grep thru it :-)
Considering the stature of the  Photographer, his technical prowess,
and his photographs, I guess this must be a good lens !  
Sincerly,
-Lakhinder Walia


philw@vice.ICO.TEK.COM (Philip W White) writes:

>In <1992Nov5.160809.17464@newstand.syr.edu>, asadigh asked:
>> I am about to buy a used Nikon 75-105mm/f3.5 series E lens.  I would
>> like you folks to share your experiences about this lans with me.  
> 
>I don't have any actual experience with it, but the guy who wrote
>the "Nikon Systems Handbook" thinks it's good.  He doesn't rave about
>it as much as some of the other (non-E) lenses, but he says many people
>think it should have been kept on longer and made a non-E lense.
> 
>(Sorry I don't have the author's name handy, but this is a useful book,
>not in any way affiliated with Nikon itself.)  The price mentionned in the
>back of the book, 1991 edition, for used 75-150mm f/3.5 Series E : $139
> 
>I don't know what relation those prices bear to reality.
> 
>      Phil White   Tektronix, Beaverton, OR
>USENET:  philip.w.white@tek.COM
> US Mail: Mail Stop 59-432, P.O. Box 500, Beaverton OR 97077-0001
Newsgroups: rec.photo
From: gang@dptg.att.com (8522[rbb]-Gang Huang(AH0232)1036MT)
Subject: Comments on Leica P150 Projector?
Organization: AT&T BL Middletown/Lincroft NJ USA
Distribution: na
Date: Thu, 12 Nov 1992 19:19:43 GMT

Has anyone had any experience with the Leica P150 projector? 
Is it a well made projector? Would I be better off buying a Kodak
or a Reflecta in the same price range ($250) ?

Thanks in advance

g.huang
AT&T Bell Labs
gang@mtunm.att.com
Newsgroups: rec.photo
From: phr@telebit.com (Paul Rubin)
Subject: Re: Misleading Ads - Canon EF-M, Beach Camera
Organization: Telebit Corporation; Sunnyvale, CA, USA
	<1992Nov4.150736.11290@jarvis.csri.toronto.edu>
	<1033@ubbpc.tredydev.Unisys.COM>
Distribution: na
Date: 5 Nov 92 21:40:12

    In article <1992Nov4.150736.11290@jarvis.csri.toronto.edu> acs@csri.toronto.edu (Alvin Chia-Hua Shih) writes:
    >Nikon has a similar beast.  Here's the blurb in the Del's ad:

    >  N6000 New ....... $289 Cheap!

    >  The N6000 is a decent camera.  It is an N6006 w/o AF & w/o matrix.  It
    >  does need AF lenses, however - odd for a non-AF camera.  Please buy

    Wrong!  MF lenses work just fine, as long as they are not pre-AI.

I think some of the AE modes, like shutter priority and programmed,
need AF lenses to work.  It doesn't have the mechanical gizmo
needed to do these functions with AIS lenses.
Newsgroups: rec.photo
From: lds@ccrl.nj.nec.com (Duan-Shin Lee)
Subject: flash brackets for close-up photography
Organization: C&C Research Labs, NEC USA, Princeton, N.J.
Date: Mon, 9 Nov 92 14:59:08 GMT

Does anyone have any experience with Kirk Enterprise's products?
In particular, I am interested in their flash brackets for 
close-up works.  Is it sturdy?  This flash bracket is very similar to
the brackets that John Shaw described in his books.  I am wondering
if anyone makes such flash brackets for himself, because John Shaw claimed
that it's very easy to make.  

If you are happy with any flash brackets that other manufacturers
produce, I would appreciated to hear from you.  

Thank you very much.
Duan-Shin Lee


-- 
Duan-Shin Lee
C & C Research Lab, NEC USA
Tel:(609)951-2456
lds@ccrl.nj.nec.com
Newsgroups: rec.photo
From: djb@cbnews.cb.att.com (david.j.bryant)
Subject: Re: Cullman Tripods
Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories, Columbus Ohio
Distribution: na
Date: Thu, 5 Nov 1992 11:22:23 GMT

Regarding "Cullman Tripods", ylevy@binah.cc.brandeis.edu wrote:
  
  > Any opinions on Cullman tripods?  I'm still thinking of getting one.

I have a Cullman 2904 tripod I bought years ago as my "traveling" tripod.
It is extremely well made and is (IMHO) a great combination of studiness,
size and and light weight.  I've used it as a mount for camera and telescope
gear on my '86 Halley's Comet expedition to Australia/New Zealand and '91
Eclipse trip to Mexico, and have been very happy with the results.

(I also own a Bogen 3221 that I use for situations when I need something
that's bigger and sturdier than the Cullman and don't mind carrying a tripod
that's nearly twice as heavy.)
                                         UUCP: att!cbosgd!djb
        David Bryant                           att!cborion!djb
        AT&T Bell Laboratories       INTERNET: djb@cborion.cb.att.com
        Room 1B-256                            djb@cbosgd.att.com
        6200 East Broad Street          PHONE: (614) 860-4516
        Columbus, Ohio  43213             FAX: (614) 868-4302
From: zrepachol@cc.curtin.edu.au
Newsgroups: rec.photo
Subject: Re: Old & New Canon mix & match ?
Date: 5 Nov 92 19:36:42 GMT
Organization: Curtin University of Technology

In article <1d8ullINN4ob@castor.hahnemann.edu>, weinhous@castor.hahnemann.edu (Martin S. Weinhous Ph.D.) writes:
> I have a Canon "system" consisting of two FTB bodies and many
> FL and FD lenses. The time has come to modernize!
> 
> Is there any way to use FL or FD lenses on EOS bodies? (Canon
> literature lists a "Macro Lens Mount Converter FD-EOS" - does
> anyone know the limitations of this converter?)
> 

It is a 6mm thick mount converter, so you can fit an FD bellows on a EOS.
There is a 1.4x EOS-FD teleconverter that will work with some 200+ mm FD
lenses. There si a big list of what will work or not in its data sheet.

If tou do have the bellows, keep it, and the reversing rings etc.

> Conversely, is there any way to use EF lenses on the FTB bodies?
> 
No

~Paul
Newsgroups: rec.photo
From: shao@cbnewsg.cb.att.com (shao-shen.kang)
Subject: Re: Nikon 75-150mm/f3.8 Series E - your opinion
Keywords: Nikkor, series E, lens
Organization: AT&T
Distribution: bl
Date: Thu, 12 Nov 1992 16:22:22 GMT

                                                                                

In article 44024 on 11/11, Doug Bank wrote:

> I've got one.  I use it occaisonally, but I have many more suitable lenses
> these days.  The only problem that I have had with my lens is that the
> zoom/focus barrel tends to slide when i point the lens up of down.  I would
> be sure to try before you buy.

I got this series E as well.  I have exact the same problem
as Doug's - the zoom/focus barrel tends too loose.
Nikon service center (in Niles, IL) charged about $70,
cannot not make it better at all.

But its resolution is stunning good.

Shao Kang
att!ihlpm!shao
~
From: tklai@acsu.buffalo.edu (Tobysze K. Lai)
Newsgroups: rec.photo
Subject: Re: Sharpness
Keywords: Sharp
Date: 5 Nov 92 07:12:57 GMT
Organization: UB

In article <1992Nov5.023325.20009@cs.mun.ca> michael9@cs.mun.ca (Michael Sullivan) writes:
>
>  This isn't exactly in the FAQ, so I hope someone can help me out.
>
>  The problem is, my pictures aren't coming out as sharp as I would like.
>Is the sharpness of a photo strictly a function of lense quality?  Or am
>I not doing something quite right?
>
>  I'm using a Pratika 35mm MTL-5 SLR, with a Tamron 70-210 f3.8, the exact
>model number I am not sure of.
>
>  Any advice?
>
>
>-- 
>|uunet!garfield!michael9|'"Proof denies faith and without faith I am nothing,"|
>|michael9@odie.cs.mun.ca| says God.  "But you have given us proof," says      |
>|POB 756,St.John's,Nfld.| man, "Therefore you do not exist. QED." "Oh, my,"   |
>|A1S 1G8                | says God, and disappears in a puff of logic.'       |

Where did you take the pictures to develop?  One-hour photo store or you 
develop them by yourself?  One possibility is, if you bring the film to those
photo finishing labs, the sharpness of the pictures  may vary, depending on
each indiviual store.  Even the sharpness of the pictures may vary from the 
same negative printed by the same store.


+------------------------------------+----------------------------------------+
| Toby Sze K Lai                     | Internet: tklai@acsu.buffalo.edu       |
| State U. of New York at Buffalo    | Bitnet: v080qrqk@ubvmsb.cc.buffalo.edu |
+------------------------------------+----------------------------------------+
From: bremner@cs.sfu.ca (David Bremner)
Newsgroups: rec.photo
Subject: SALE/TRADE  Graflex lense/Screw Mt. Bellows/Canon A Winder
Date: 14 Nov 92 02:25:20 GMT
Reply-To: bremner@cs.sfu.ca (David Bremner)
Distribution: na
Organization: CSS, Simon Fraser University, Burnaby, B.C., Canada


I have for sale/or trade a couple of things that I don't know very much 
about.

1) A Graflex Optar W.A. f6.8 90mm lens in a Graphex sync shutter. I
saw this ( if the shutter is the same ) in Shutterbug for $149. I will
throw in free an unidentified Baush & Lomb "Rapid Rectilinear" lense
in what looks like a dead shutter.

2) A screw mount bellows that says ASAHI bellows unit.  Has a nice geared
monorail marked with f=58mm and 0.6 to 2.2x.

3) A Canon autowinder series "A". I saw this for $60 in shutterbug. 

Things I want:

	K-Mount lenses 
	A tripod (I've been looking at a benbo trekker or manrotto 190 legs)
	Other nifty stuff :-) Make me an offer.
	Even cash will do.

If you want more info, let me know.

David
-- 
bremner@cs.sfu.ca 				          ubc-cs!fornax!bremner
From: burke@npg-sd.SanDiegoCA.NCR.COM (Michael Burke)
Newsgroups: rec.photo
Subject: Re: Calculating exposure with wide-angle lens
Date: 11 Nov 92 21:34:57 GMT
Reply-To: burke@npg-sd.SanDiegoCA.NCR.COM (Michael Burke)
Organization: NCR Corp., Network Products - San Diego

In article <1992Nov9.133510.18981@aisb.ed.ac.uk> eddie@cstr.ed.ac.uk (Eddie
Rooney) writes:
>I use exposure tables with my SLR because the built in TTL light meter is
>broken.  Mostly they work fine, but I've discovered that when I use my 35mm
>wide-angle lens my pictures are overexposed.  Is this because of the lens

When you use a handheld meter the differences between lenses become apparent,
where previously the ttl meter automatically compensated for any lack of
uniformity.

It's not unusual for lenses to differ by a half stop or more.  If you use
print film you'll never know it -- slides tell you immediately.  I've
calibrated my lenses to determine how much to compensate the setting on my
incident meter -- they range from 1/3 to 2/3 of a stop from the film's ISO
value.

MCB

Newsgroups: rec.photo
From: collier@atlas.titan-abq.com (Michael Collier)
Subject: Re: Questions for Pros
Date: Fri, 06 Nov 92 02:26:10 GMT
Organization: University of New Mexico, Albuquerque NM
Reply-To: collier@atlas.titan-abq.com (Michael Collier)

In article <Bx986x.Dw4@fc.hp.com>, pdn@fc.hp.com (Paul Nuber) writes:
|>Raland Camara (ralandc@tara.SanDiego.NCR.COM) wrote:
|>:      I am presently looking into starting a business as a professional 
|>: photographer.
|>:    How do you go about furthering 
|>:    your knowledge? 
|>I study ads in magazines

this brings up a wall i have been bumping into recently. i don't even really
know how to approach the issue. how does one go about furthering one's
knowledge about the business of "stock" photography? is this something
one moves into out of generic aptitude, or can one actually start out
by targeting this market? where does one find good examples of stock
photography, especially since it seems to me to defy categorization? are
the agencies interested in "assisting" potential talent (my suspicion is
not to any great
extent, if at all), to the tune of pointing them at what is selling, and
where to
find "good" examples that can help guide artistic growth? i see mention
in PDN  and elsewhere of various annual compendia (in which the high-end
guys promote themselves), with the implication that many are purely
stock photographers, but i don't know where to find these things (fine
art library?), and don't know how helpful they would be. any comments?
                                    
Michael H. Collier        INET: collier@ariel.unm.edu   BITNET: COLLIER@UNMB
UNM CIRT, 2701 Campus Bvd; Albuquerque, NM 87131; (505) 277 8039
"Incedentally, Karl Marx was a Marxist" -- Mark Russel
"Pardon me boys, are you the cats who shot Ceaucescu?" -- Mark Russel
Newsgroups: rec.photo
From: brebs@suite.sw.oz.au (Paul Brebner)
Subject: Cibachrome printing - HELP!
Organization: Softway Pty Ltd
Date: Thu, 12 Nov 92 02:27:58 GMT

I would like to have a go at printing from slides.  Could anyone
suggest what equipment and methodology I need?  What sort of enlarger
should I get?  I've heard that Ilford have a new one - the C700.  Any
good?

		Regards,

			Paul Brebner.

Softway Pty Ltd, P.O. Box 305, Strawberry Hills, NSW 2012, AUSTRALIA
Phone: +61 2 698 2322;       Fax: +61 2 699 9174;     Telex: AA27987
Internet: brebs@softway.oz.au	    UUCP: ...!uunet!softway.oz!brebs
Newsgroups: rec.photo
From: rao@ccu.umanitoba.ca (Govindaraju Rao)
Subject: Re: Batteries soldered into Oly. P&S?
Organization: University of Manitoba, Winnipeg, Manitoba, Canada
Date: Sat, 7 Nov 1992 23:03:51 GMT

Marty Hewes writes:
>I just came by an Olympus "Quick Flash AFL" point and shoot.
>I couldn't find a battery compartment, so I started disassembling.
>This thing uses a couple lithium cells soldered in!  
>The AFL looks like it was a pretty nice P&S a few years ago.
>Did Olympus expect this thing to be thrown out when the batteries
>died or were people expected to pay a camera repair man big
>bucks to open this thing up and replace the batteries?
>I don't think it was meant to be a disposable, this thing is
>fully motorized, coated glass f2.8 lens, autofocus, flash, etc.

Even though my experience in this relates to an electronic 
typewriter I wanted to share it. 
 
The battery in the typewriter could not be replaced by the user.
It was soldered in. Would have to be sent to the shop for replacement.
Incidentally, none of the sales personnel knew this, until I made
them open it and show me where the battery was located. The manual
did not say either. According to the salesperson, with no supporting
documentation, the expected life of the battery was 5 years. 
Erring on the side of caution I estimated 3 years. 
 
Further discussions revealed that the manufacturer considered the
model would be "obsolete" by the end of 3 to 5 years and any pieces
that came in would be "encouraged" to switch to a newer model at
a marginal extra cost. Meaning continued sales. 
 
Incidentally, the battery supported the memory function; a major
feature that would be lost when the battery died. 
 
Yes, it was meant to be a "disposable" item; although the 
manufacturer's and my definition of "disposable" was debatable. 

I guess I could have soldered a fresh battery myself. It was the
strategy that made be decide not to buy something that had all
the features I was looking for.
 
Does one need a degree in marketing to know that this is a 
deplorable strategy ?? Do manufacturers expect consumers to be 
THAT gullible ? 
-- 
G.S.K. Rao <rao@ccm.umanitoba.ca> <rao@ccu.umanitoba.ca>
 
GRAD STUDENT'S GRACE:  Please God !! If it MUST crash .... not when
                       *I* am using it !!
Newsgroups: rec.photo
From: "martin tai" <martin.tai@canrem.com>
Subject: contax s2
Reply-To: "martin tai" <martin.tai@canrem.com>
Organization: Canada Remote Systems
Distribution: rec
Date: 6 Nov 92 21:59:36 EST



   I wonder the weather proofing  in  CONTAX S2  is  a good
idea at all.  Weather proofing is useful, but using  RUBBER
GASKET and  tubing !.  How  long  will rubber  last before
it  starts to rot?  With  rubber parts in it, it will never
match the  longevity of its  ancestor  the  Contax II or
Contax S.

   The  Contax S2  looks like  a  resurrected  Contax 139
with  top and bottom plates  replaced by  titanium parts,
every the  film rewind  lever,  film advance lever  looks
the  same, except made with  metal.

   German  Contax  use   lower case  "Contax", while
Japanese  one  use  upper case  'CONTAX', is it possible
that Zeiss Ikon  still keeps the  lower case 'Contax"
name to themselves, for  resurrecton of   Contax IV
RF in the future ?
--
Canada Remote Systems  - Toronto, Ontario
World's Largest PCBOARD System - 416-629-7000/629-7044
Newsgroups: rec.photo
From: cgates@mitre.org (Curt Gates)
Subject: Re: Sharpness
Organization: The MITRE Corporation
Date: Thu, 5 Nov 1992 16:25:48 GMT

In article <1992Nov5.023325.20009@cs.mun.ca> michael9@cs.mun.ca (Michael 
Sullivan) writes:
> The problem is, my pictures aren't coming out as sharp as I would like.
> Is the sharpness of a photo strictly a function of lense quality?  Or am
> I not doing something quite right?
You did not say what you have already done to find out what might be 
wrong.  With that long lens, you might be moving the camera, so try a roll 
of test shots starting with some taken with the camera on a tripod or sand 
bag.  Is everything clean -- lens, mirror, etc?  Are you using a slow 
enough film so that grain does not create the illusion of not being sharp? 
Is the whole print out of focus, or just one particular distance -- try 
some tests.   Am not familiar with the camera, but if it is auto focus, it 
might be malfunctioning, and if manual focus, your eye might not be 
catching the right focus.  See if the indicated distance corresponds to an 
actual measured distance.  There just a lot of things to test and 
eliminate, but I bet you are probably shooting at too slow a shutter speed 
for the lens.  For 210 mm, you should normally use 1/250.


Newsgroups: rec.photo
From: aschoorl@engr.UVic.CA (Andre  Schoorl)
Subject: FTP sites
Reply-To: aschoorl@engr.UVic.CA
Organization: University of Victoria, Victoria, BC, Canada
Date: Thu, 5 Nov 92 16:42:05 GMT


Are there any good ftp sites with anonymous access which carry gifs of prize
winning photos?

Andre Schoorl
aschoorl@engr.uvic.ca
Newsgroups: rec.photo
From: jeff@eng.umd.edu (Jeffrey Frey)
Subject: Cases for Minis, lot <$50
Date: Sat, 07 Nov 92 11:57:57 GMT
Organization: Project GLUE, University of Maryland, College Park

I can recommend an HP calculator case--it's a lot cheaper than
$50, has a belt hook, and can protect these cameras well.  Trouble
is, if you get even the smallest case of the type I'm thinking of
(used to fit HP19 class) it's too big - but at least there's room to
stuff a roll of film in the bottom.

Now, who will volunteer an XA, and a Minox 35, so we can do a
quantitative lens test on these cameras and average the results?
(Lenses do vary in production, contrary to what the photo mags would
have us believe).  I believe test charts are available somewhere...
Jeff

Newsgroups: rec.photo