~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~


"Scott W" <biphoto@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:1175348431.649200.300060@y66g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
[...]
> At least they have a chance for some of their photos to come out
> looking good.  I cringe when I hear the sound of a disposable camera
> having its film advanced.  You know that ratcheting kind of sound as
> they go to the next frame.  
[...]
> Scott
I used to cringe when I heard that yucky "gritch-gritch-gritch" in
my wedding videography sound tracks while editing - BLEAH!
Now, of course, people don't turn off the "Beep!" when they do
anything with their digitals. I once shot a concert with the person
who hired me sitting nearby constantly diddling with her digital
camera - and I had to do a lot of editing around that and other
problems. I'm glad I retired - though it was not for that reason...;-(
--
David Ruether
 d_ruether@hotmail.com
 www.David-Ruether-Photography.com


~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

"Rita ─ Berkowitz" <ritaberk2O04 @aol.com> wrote in message news:130oeklqmmafgc2@news.supernews.com...

> Gisle Hannemyr wrote:
> The only way to protect yourself against getting scammed on eBay is to only
> pay by PayPal with a CC funded payment.  It is totally and utterly foolish
> to pay any other way.  If you don't use a CC funded PayPal payment you
> deserve to get scammed for being overwhelmingly stupid.

There are FAR too many scams, etc. associated with PayPal
for me to have anything to do with it. Even during the sign-up 
process up came a page that was (if one thought about it...)
a scam (it must have been from a PayPal insider or a hacker,
neither reassuring about dealing through PayPal). So, I simply 
refuse to deal with anything but postal MOs sent by mail. If
any fraud is involved on either side (in the US...), the PO does
eventually get "even" (they collected $850 once for me from 
a scammer years ago). If someone says "PayPal only", I don't
bid. Easy...
--
David Ruether
 d_ruether@hotmail.com
 www.David-Ruether-Photography.com


~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

"Rita ─ Berkowitz" <ritaberk2O04 @aol.com> wrote in message news:130tt76aksoc51d@news.supernews.com...
> David Ruether wrote:
 
>>> The only way to protect yourself against getting scammed on eBay is
>>> to only pay by PayPal with a CC funded payment.  It is totally and
>>> utterly foolish to pay any other way.  If you don't use a CC funded
>>> PayPal payment you deserve to get scammed for being overwhelmingly
>>> stupid.

>> There are FAR too many scams, etc. associated with PayPal
>> for me to have anything to do with it. Even during the sign-up
>> process up came a page that was (if one thought about it...)
>> a scam (it must have been from a PayPal insider or a hacker,
>> neither reassuring about dealing through PayPal). So, I simply
>> refuse to deal with anything but postal MOs sent by mail. If
>> any fraud is involved on either side (in the US...), the PO does
>> eventually get "even" (they collected $850 once for me from
>> a scammer years ago). If someone says "PayPal only", I don't
>> bid. Easy...
 
> Really?  Let's see?  Scams you say?  I've been selling and buying on eBay
> since 1999 and haven't had any problems from buyers that paid me with
> PayPal, and these were high dollar transactions.  Then again, I sent exactly
> what was described and stood behind my products.  In the same time frame as
> a buyer I had five sellers that tried to get over on me.  I simply gave them
> one chance to rectify the problem, but they chose the difficult path for
> themselves.  One call to my CC company to get the dispute process started
> and put the payment on hold and an e-mail to PayPal informing them I'm
> handling this through my CC company is all it took to wake up unresponsive
> sellers.  I got my money back in all cases.  For me, if someone doesn't take
> PayPal I skip their auction and let it for some fool to take their chances.
> You do realize sellers really do get lower closing prices if they don't
> accept PayPal?

I wrote about purchases only on eBay (I don't sell there...). The
scam page in the sequence of the PayPal signing up process was 
scary - and I'm tired of all the "phishing" scams with PayPal names.
I will have nothing to do with it. In the "old days" of buying from 
Shutterbug ads (anyone remember how fun they used to be? ;-),
I found a much higher percentage of sellers could accurately describe
the condition of their gear on the 'phone (many eBay sellers just plain
lie, even the 99-100% satisfaction ones, and photos do little to really 
show conditions unless something is really bad [if you want to see 
what I mean, look up "Nikon F3 body" and see the numerous "mint"
and "LN" samples that look scuffed, scratched, or even dented,
often so badly that poor photos clearly show the defects]) and 
getting a reliable money back guarantee was easier. For this, the
seller would generally agree to a "cash only" COD shipment by UPS,
not knowing that UPS considers a USPS or bank MO the same
as cash. My bank at the time would cancel MOs on request, so
I would check out the gear quickly, and if warranted (this did not
happen often, but sometimes a "mint" lens looked like it had rolled 
down the street and been struck by, though not actually run over 
by, a truck...;-), I would have the MO cancelled, inform the seller
that the MO was worthless, and return the item immediately. I
have a low tolerance for gross misrepresentation, though one can
strike a balance between price, usability, condition, etc. that makes 
less than perfection or as-represented gear tolerable. BTW, if you 
want to look up my eBay rating and seller comments on eBay, try 
"Cat-1000"...
--
David Ruether
 d_ruether@hotmail.com
 www.David-Ruether-Photography.com


~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~


"william kossack" <wskossack@comcast.net> wrote in message news:dYydnVh3B5Sw8onbnZ2dnUVZ_sudnZ2d@comcast.com...
 
> on my old F3's I replaced all the split screens with others because with 
> long lenses and macro work they proved next to useless
 
I did too, on my F, F2, F3, 8008, FE-2, and FA bodies since the
Nikon plain matte screens without the nonsense in the middle to get 
in the way of easy and quick manual focus with these cameras with 
very sharp viewfinders (***assuming good eye correction for one 
meter***) which gave a superior view and feel for the final image 
"look" along with the easier focus. Beginning with the N90 and cheaper 
cameras, the VFs unfortunatel began to be less satisfactory, and 
now things are a mess (the VFs are neither sharp nor bright - GEE!!!).
And, no, those silly "AF confirmation" blinking lights do not help
since there is too much "play" in them to be accurate, they are too 
slow to use, and they are too distracting. With the older VFs I could
easly focus any FL lens (down to 8mm) of any speed (down to
f16 or slower for some tele and macro combinations) and see what
I was shooting. Try that with the small digital cameras!  Newer is 
all too often not necessarily better...;-(
--
David Ruether
 d_ruether@hotmail.com
 www.David-Ruether-Photography.com


~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

"Dave" <dpriedel@complaninc.com> wrote in message news:EbgRh.76$cW.69@newsfe12.lga...
 
> Are zoom lenses from these manufacturer's (Tokina, Tamron and Sigma) 
> equivalent in quality and performance for the most part these days or how 
> would you rank order them if not. 

You will hear different answers, and as has been pointed
out, it can depend on individual lenses in each line - though
I think very few of these brands, even at their best, quite
equal the best from Nikon, for instance (but, they are much
lower in price and sometimes quite good). People's standards
also vary. What looks sharp to one person may not look
sharp to me (softish corners are a "no-no" for me in a lens...),
or may look good in the small prints some people make (but
not in large), so they may be quite satisfactory for some. 
Examples: I found the 12-24mm Sigma to be only barely 
acceptable in sharpness (I would not want to use it when I 
have the superior 15mm f5.6 Nikkor or 12mm Voightlander 
available for full-frame); the much-praised Tokina f2.8 
mid-range zooms are too soft wider than f5.6 (so what's the 
point of having f2.8?) and they flare unacceptably (the 
28-70mm f3.5-4.5 Nikkor is a true gem in that range); an 
exception that I keep is the Sigma 8mm f4 - it is not perfect, 
but it is surprisingly good (as are most of the macro lenses 
from various manufacturers). More is at my Nikkor evaluation 
list, at www.David-Ruether-Photography.com/slemn.html. I know 
you were asking about zooms, but non-zooms do generally 
perform better than zooms with the exception to that 
sometimes happening with tele zooms, which can be quite
good (but then there are the superb Nikkor 17-35mm f2.8, 
28-70mm f2.8, and 70/80-200mm f2.8 that are really 
excellent, so......;-) In "bargain" lenses, good ones can be 
had, with a little research, but remember that with any lens,
even expensive ones, sample variation and outright defects 
can remove any supposed advantage of one lens over 
another - and no lens is perfect, but it is often possible to
work around the shortcomings of a particular lens, whether
it be relatively poor wide stop performance, relatively poor
close focus performance, tendency to ghosting, etc.
--
David Ruether
 d_ruether@hotmail.com
 www.David-Ruether-Photography.com


~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

"Mike" <y1799@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:1175999670.332603.292160@n76g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...
 
> Does it worth to use UV filters? probably yes, reading such : "This UV
> filters should be constantly fitted to a lens to ensure clarity and
> colour balance as well as offering protection to your lens. "
> 
> if filter protect lens, does anything has to protect filter or just
> change it from time to time?
> 
> about cap - never use it, just throw it away?

Well, as you have seen, opinions are all over the place - but,
most lenses pass very little UV, so there is no improvement
in "clarity" despite the claims of the filter manufacturers and 
published comparison "samples"; and from my own tests, there 
are no discernable negative effects under most conditions from
using good filters (there is one popular brand that does not fit 
that description...), assuming they are not defective (they can 
be). Since it is difficult to clean lens front elements to new 
appearance, and in the process it is possible to cause at least
micro scratches (and since it is always possible for front
damage to occur, shade, cap, or not), I prefer to use single
coated UV filters on my lenses. (I don't generally see the need 
for multicoating on these) along with shades on my lenses that 
benefit from these (not all do). I know that most of the minor 
damage possible will not actually affect image quality, but it 
will affect resale value (and we do often eventually sell our 
lenses...). I cap the ends of shades or the filters while carrying 
lenses on the camera (it takes just a moment to remove the 
cap and slip it into the bag for taking a picture and I've
never lost a photo due to having the cap on). I used to laugh
at the practice of many people of having their cameras 
bouncing around their necks, vulnerable to dust and damage
(and also to strap damage...). Each to his own, though - there
are no clear answers... (but do take care of your filters, and 
don't throw away the caps...! ;-).
 
BTW, I just put up 80 digital images from a Sony 707 on 
my web page, beginning at 
www.David-Ruether-Photography.com/digital-photos1.htm
--
David Ruether
 d_ruether@hotmail.com
 www.David-Ruether-Photography.com


~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

80 Digital Photos Now On My Web Page...

I just put up 80 digital images from a Sony 707 on
my web page, beginning at
www.David-Ruether-Photography.com/digital-photos1.htm
--
David Ruether
 d_ruether@hotmail.com
 www.David-Ruether-Photography.com


~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

"Alan Browne" <alan.browne@FreelunchVideotron.ca> wrote in message news:evb0bd$pps$1@inews.gazeta.pl...
> David Ruether wrote:

>> I just put up 80 digital images from a Sony 707 on
>> my web page, beginning at
>> www.David-Ruether-Photography.com/digital-photos1.htm
 
> Some very nice photos there, but off-topic for this NG.
 
Well, I used a digital camera with an eye-piece finder
that shows what the lens covers, not a peep-sight (or 
the "invisible" rear screen), though the VF may have 
contained an electronic screen instead of a purely 
optical system (but some older film SLRs didn't even
offer gg surfaces to view DOF on...), and I often use 
with this camera a WA converter or an achromat for 
close-in work (and an interchangeable lens does not 
define an SLR...), so one could argue that I do use a 
"digital SLR system"...;-)
--
David Ruether
 d_ruether@hotmail.com
 www.David-Ruether-Photography.com


~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

"Alan Browne" <alan.browne@FreelunchVideotron.ca> wrote in message news:evb362$4n7$1@inews.gazeta.pl...
> David Ruether wrote:
 
>> define an SLR...), so one could argue that I do use a
>> "digital SLR system"...;-)
 
> I won't repeat the charter war discussions.  But the 707 belongs in the 
> .zlr category, not here.
 
Then ignore the mention of the 707, if you wish, and just
view the photos (BTW, there is no mention on the web
page of what I used to shoot them...).
--
David Ruether
 d_ruether@hotmail.com
 www.David-Ruether-Photography.com


~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

"Skip" <shadowcatcher@cox.net> wrote in message news:OA9Sh.123202$g24.47438@newsfe12.phx...
> "David Ruether" <rpn1@no-junk.cornell.edu> wrote in message
>>> David Ruether wrote:

>>>> I just put up 80 digital images from [camera expletive deleted] on my web page, beginning at
>>>> www.David-Ruether-Photography.com/digital-photos1.htm

>>> Some very nice photos there, but off-topic for this NG.

>> Well, I used a digital camera with an eye-piece finder
>> that shows what the lens covers, not a peep-sight (or
>> the "invisible" rear screen), though the VF may have
>> contained an electronic screen instead of a purely
>> optical system (but some older film SLRs didn't even
>> offer gg surfaces to view DOF on...), and I often use
>> with this camera a WA converter or an achromat for
>> close-in work (and an interchangeable lens does not
>> define an SLR...), so one could argue that I do use a
>> "digital SLR system"...;-)

> Sorry, but a Sony 707 is not a DSLR, by any of the definitions.

I didn't say it was...;-)

> It has no reflex mirror.  I have yet to see an SLR that does 
> not have a even a ground glass screen, since "reflex" refers to the 
> reflex mirror used to reflect the image up to just such a surface.  -- 
> Skip Middleton

Then I guess you have never seen a Zeiss Contaflex or
Contarex, let alone the clear screens available for the Nikon
F/F2/F3. Aerial image focusing may be a lost "art", but it
did exist in some SLRs, even fancy ones (and some had no
focusing aids). It seems more  reasonable to require of an
"SLR" simply that one looks through the taking lens (by
whatever means) for focusing and framing (though my post
above was intended as "tongue-in-cheek"...;-) as opposed
to a secondary framing/focusing system like a rear panel,
peep sight, or secondary optical system as with a twin-lens
reflex. One can still differentiate among digital SLR types
if one wants to (BTW, I did not call the Sony 707 a "dSLR",
but it is most certainly both an SLR and a digital camera,
and maybe "zSLR does best name its type...).
--
David Ruether
 d_ruether@hotmail.com
 www.David-Ruether-Photography.com

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

"Skip" <shadowcatcher@cox.net> wrote in message news:FreSh.105491$JN6.76723@newsfe17.phx...
 
> Or OT to reply to an already OT post?  He said, "but some older film SLRs 
> didn't even offer gg surfaces to view DOF on..." which I've never seen, and 
> if they were reflex cameras, they'd have to have something to project the 
> reflected image upon... 
> -- 
> Skip Middleton

Then go read up on Nikon's clear screens for the F, F2, and F3,
and the Zeiss Contaflex and Contarex 35mm cameras. And also
check out "aerial image focusing". None requires something to
"reflect the image upon", and that is not necessarily a part of a 
description of an SLR ("Single Lens Reflex" is what that is...;-).
--
David Ruether
 d_ruether@hotmail.com
 www.David-Ruether-Photography.com


~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

"J. Clarke" <jclarke.usenet@cox.net> wrote in message news:evdrf40107s@news2.newsguy.com...
 
>> It seems more  reasonable to require of an
>> "SLR" simply that one looks through the taking lens (***by
>> whatever means***) for focusing and framing (though my post
>> above was intended as "tongue-in-cheek"...;-) as opposed
>> to a secondary framing/focusing system like a rear panel,
>> peep sight, or secondary optical system as with a twin-lens
>> reflex. One can still differentiate among digital SLR types
>> if one wants to (BTW, I did not call the Sony 707 a "dSLR",
>> but it is most certainly both an SLR and a digital camera,
>> and maybe "zSLR does best name its type...).
 
> In what way is it an "SLR"?  It's a compact camera with an electronic 
> eye-level viewfinder that works from the main sensor, it's not a single 
> lens reflex.  Someone coined the term "ZLR" to refer to such a design.
> --John

Ah, I guess the relevant word in the your definition is "reflex"
(meaning with mirror), and if so, I must agree with you since 
the 707 [not small, BTW, and neither is the R-1 - so size has
little to do with the definition...;-] has no mirror). Others have 
other definitions that exclude SLRs with clear viewfinder 
screens, etc., but, oh well...;-)  I take your point.
--
David Ruether
 d_ruether@hotmail.com
 www.David-Ruether-Photography.com

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~


"HEMI-Powered" <none@none.gn> wrote in message news:Xns990D5B1387328ReplyScoreID@216.196.97.136...
 
> If everybody just ignored someone who's hawking their wares on some 
> web site, whether it is on- or off-topic, there wouldn't now be 
> this big debate which IS OT. 
 
I had no "wares to hawk". I just offered images for viewing (with
no offer to sell them on the pages - though this may change to
see what happens...;-).
 
> Let it drop, the OP meant no harm to anybody.

Quite correct. I thought some may be interested in seeing these
images - and some may be different enough from those usually 
seen to be of interest (some may require a bit of contemplation
to see ;-). Nothing was forcing people to go to the web address... 
(They are at www.David-Ruether-Photography.com/digital-photos1.htm )
--
David Ruether
 d_ruether@hotmail.com
 www.David-Ruether-Photography.com


~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

"M-M" <nospam.m-m@ny.more> wrote in message news:nospam.m-m-710674.20153404042007@newsread.uslec.net...

>I just received my Nikon 82mm Fieldscope and attaching my Coolpix 990 
> gives an effective focal length of 9000mm. Here is a 50% crop of Saturn 
> last night. 
> 
> Through the eyepiece I was able to see the Cassini division as a solid 
> black line, like it was drawn with a fine felt tip marker. The photo 
> though is not as clear
> 
> http://www.mhmyers.com/d80/DSCN3405w.jpg
> 
> -- 
> m-m
 
Neat image!
 
BTW I'm surprised you didn't get "what for" from Alan Browne
for not using a non-OT camera type for making this image...;-)
--
David Ruether
 d_ruether@hotmail.com
 www.David-Ruether-Photography.com


~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

"M-M" <nospam.m-m@ny.more> wrote in message news:nospam.m-m-9E08D9.12284909042007@newsread.uslec.net...
> In article <evdm8v$cvn$1@ruby.cit.cornell.edu>,
> "David Ruether" <rpn1@no-junk.cornell.edu> wrote:
 
>> > http://www.mhmyers.com/d80/DSCN3405w.jpg
>> > -- 
>> > m-m
 
>> Neat image!
>> 
>> BTW I'm surprised you didn't get "what for" from Alan Browne
>> for not using a non-OT camera type for making this image...;-)
 
> Do you mean because I posted an image taken with a Coolpix to the 
> slr-systems group? Well, it's really a system for my D80 but I hooked up 
> the Coolpix to use the 75X eyepiece. How's that?

No problem from me! Just a joke, sorry, referring to AB's complaint
about posting a URL to some of my digital images not made with
a digital SLR, so presumably OT...
 
> I took some better images last night- 1/4 sec. ~ f/53  ISO 400 :
> 
> http://www.mhmyers.com/d80/DSCN3489wl.jpg
>
> This one was at 1/8 sec, a bit underexposed but you can see the Cassini 
> division:
> 
> http://www.mhmyers.com/d80/DSCN3485wl.jpg
> 
> -- 
> m-m
 
Neat images! Heck, I can't even find Saturn in the sky, let alone 
photograph it...;-)
--
David Ruether
 d_ruether@hotmail.com
 www.David-Ruether-Photography.com


~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

"Philipp" <oroblram@gmail.com> wrote in message news:1176334415.390745.73850@p77g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...
 
> I can't quite make up my mind on which digital SLR to get, and since I
> believe in the "Wisdom of crowds" (*), I thought I'd ask the group.
> 
> I've finally decided to retire my old film SLR and get a digital one.
> I shoot a lot of landscapes, and I travel a lot. The new model should
> therefore be relatively compact. I want to have the possibility to
> enlarge some of the prints, which is why I probably have a slight
> preference towards cameras with >8 million pixel. Oh, and my budget is
> up to (approx.) $1200.
> 
> I've looked at the Canon Rebel XT and XTI, but I find the grip too
> small. In the end I think that I've narrowed the choice down to a
> (used) Canon 20D or the D40x or D80 from Nikon. The 20D wasn't on my
> list originally, but then I realized that you can get them quite
> cheaply nowadays, and the review at imaging-resource.com sounds
> extremely positive (although all their Canon reviews seem pretty
> positive). Also, it seems that in terms of picture quality the 20D is
> not worse than the Nikons. The D80 is more expensive than the D40x,
> but has more advanced features; and I'm slightly unsure about the D40x
> since I haven't really seen a very in-depth review (neither
> dpreview.com nor imaging-resource.com have extensive tests or
> pictures). So... should I go for a D80? Or is the Canon better value for
> money? I'm a little hesitant here because I feel that once I've
> decided I'm pretty much locked in for years to come to either Canon or
> Nikon...
> 
> Next issue: for my film SLR I had lenses between 35mm and 200. The
> Canon 20D would come with a 18-55 kit lens, as would the D40x. For the
> D80, however, there is a choice between two kits (a 18-55 f/3.5-5.6
> and a 18-135 f/3.5-5.6 kit); alternatively, I could just get the D80
> body and Nikon's 18-70 f/3.5-4.5 DX lens. Again I find it kind of hard
> to decide... so help with my first lens purchase would be appreciated.
> 
> More specifically:
> 1. Which of these would you recommend: Canon 20D, Nikon D40x, Nikon
> D80 (why?)
> 2. If it is the D80, which of the aforementioned lenses would you
> recommend (and again: why?)?
> 
> Lastly: I hope that I am not missing something, i.e. is there a new
> "D80x" just around the corner and I'm the last one to see the signs...
> (?)
> 
> Thanks a lot!
> 
> Philipp

If you already have Nikon or Canon AF lenses, let that decide for you.
If Nikon, the D80 has a better VF (and if you can stretch the budget
a bit, the D200 gives you access to the plethora of reasonably priced
MF Nikkors around, for later). The 18-70 Nikkor DX lens is very 
good (better than most kit zooms), but can be bettered by the best of 
non-zooms from the full-frame Nikon line (not surprising...;-). Don't
worry about "vapor-gear" - there will always be something new coming
(but it will not always be better...). The usual advice also applies - go
handle them all (and look through the viewfinders) and see what you 
think...
--
David Ruether
 d_ruether@hotmail.com
 www.David-Ruether-Photography.com


~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

"AK" <alan.kolnik@verizin.net> wrote in message news:xlSTh.72$jR5.35@trnddc08...
 
> I'm curious - I have the 18 - 70 kit lens, which, as you say, is quite 
> respectible.  I bought the 50 mm f/1.8 fixed focus lens which definitely 
> seems sharper - what lens(es) do you use to replace the 18-70mm lens?
> 
> Alan
 
I'd choose from among the 20mm f2.8 (used from f4.5/4.8 or so - or 
if you have the D200, maybe a used 18mm f3.5 MF), 24mm f2.8, 
35mm f2, 60mm f2.8, and 85mm f1.8 - these Nikkors are top-grade
or close full-frame lenses (an advantage for excellent evenness of
illumination and sharpness everywhere in the smaller digital frame,
even at wide stops). For a DX lens, the 17-55mm f2.8 Nikkor has 
a good reputation, though it is rather expensive. BTW, you may find 
my subjective lens evaluations (mostly Nikkors) interesting - at: 
www.David-Ruether-Photography.com/slemn.html
--
David Ruether
 d_ruether@hotmail.com
 www.David-Ruether-Photography.com


~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

<lbrtchx@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:1176673855.296883.76350@p77g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...
 
> Which of the camcorders out let you choose and adjust the audio
> format you want to use?
> Could camcorders out there record MP3 audio at, say, 44.1kHz/160kbps
> per channel?

Some permit choice of 12 or 16 bit 48kHz PCM, but unless 
you intend to dub in the extra two channels on the tape, why
take the quality hit with 12 bit? You can change the audio
format later if you want.

> Also two other features I would like to have are:
> ~
> being able to use a power cord instead of having to always use
> batteries, and
 
All I know of permit this, but batteries of such large capacity 
are available for many that why would one bother with the
extra gear and cords?

> streaming the recorded data directly to a PC instead of using a
> memory card or a DVD-RW

You can send it by FireWire in its original higher quality 
Mini-DV format, without tape, MC, or DVD - but tape 
offers a secure backup of the original, and it may be erased
later, if wanted...
--
David Ruether
 d_ruether@hotmail.com
 www.David-Ruether-Photography.com


~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~


<lbrtchx@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:1176712299.529231.308100@o5g2000hsb.googlegroups.com...
>> You can change the audio format later if you want.

> Not really you cannot convert from a loosy/compress format like MP3
> to a lossless one like WAV
> ~

>> ... why would one bother with the extra gear and cords?

> Because sometimes you would like not having to use batteries and by
> the way backups can be made from disks too. I was even thinking of a
> camera sending its data wirelessly
> ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

>> I know some camcorders will let you use them as webcam and that is 
>> streaming. The Sony DCR-HC96 I just ordered does.

> This sounds great
> ~

>> I am sure most camcorders have the processing power of a fungus nat

> I would disagree with you "processing power" is cheap now adays. A
> cell phone has almost as much memory and pp than the "super computers"
> they used years ago to run telephone switches
> ~

>>
>> There are also some limits imposed for the video format that they use.

> Hmm. Could you please elaborate more on this?
> ~
> thanks
> lbrtchx

Don'cha jes' lovit when someone posts a bunch of questions 
(seeking suggestions and answers, presumably...) that indicate 
little knowledge, and then doesn't read them carefully and/or 
argues with the response...? ;-)
--DR

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

<lbrtchx@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:1176909907.610244.326740@b58g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
> OK, let me reword my question a bit and you might see why I am so
> interested in the audio part of camcorders not to be loosy (as MP3,
> mpeg2). I am not just bssing you around here
> ~
> As part of my school work I need to record ESL students as they
> improve their pronunciation. it is not all about sound, but visuals
> are important too for the students to be able to actually "see" and
> "listen to" their own mistakes
> ~
> part of the work is also to study in a somewhat mesaurable way how
> well they are doing. I hope/think I can use a phonemes improvement
> based on FFT
> ~
> I can only use commercial stuff, but I must really see if what I need
> is possible
> ~
> lbrtchx

OK, I don't know if I should bother to answer this one again, but...;-)
 a) Use a Mini-DV camcorder (the best have very high picture quality
and mikes - or you can add a lavalier or short shotgun to many) - and 
the 48kHz 16 bit PCM audio is not compressed.
 b) Use either an awkward power supply plus power cord plus supply
cord, or a MUCH more convenient high-capacity battery (these can run
MANY hours...).
 c) Record to tape and/or computer for storage (tape offers better 
long-term security and is much more convenient) - and either can be 
transferred without loss by FireWire to/from the computer.
 d) Once the audio track is in the computer, you can do anything you 
want with it.
 e) But I and "video clip" already said this...
--
David Ruether
 d_ruether@hotmail.com
 www.David-Ruether-Photography.com



~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

"Paul Furman" <paul-@-edgehill.net> wrote in message news:BMvUh.10671$Kd3.2280@newssvr27.news.prodigy.net...
> Apparently it's simple to grind off a little tab on the newer TC-14E & 
> TC-20EII as well. Has anyone done this? Any risk other than dust from 
> grinding and making it possible to bump glass trying to mount a 
> mismatched lens? Would I be stuck with stop-down metering? If that's the 
> case, it would definitely make more sense to get a TC-14B which is 
> designed for Ai compatibility. My intent is to use it on a 300mm f/2.8 
> Tokina. 420mm f/4 would be damn useful, even manual focus. 600mm f/4 is 
> probably more than I can use but my TC-14E I got real cheap used so I'd 
> try tinkering with it.
> 
> http://www.naturfotograf.com/index2.html
> "A protruding tab insid the bayonet mount prevents the TC14E from being 
> attached to non-AFI/AFS lenses. This tab is easily removed to make the 
> TC14E universally applicable. 
> Be aware that you will lose AF unless the prime lens is either AF-I or 
> AF-S."
> 
> Does that mean regular AF lenses don't AF then? Well they wouldn't 
> anyways on this teleconverter because it doesn't mount so that's not 
> exactly a loss <g>.
 
Robert Brace has much more info in his post above, but I also
removed the tab and would also *highly* recommend removing
the bayonette ring before working on it - the metal filings could
do nasty things. The ring is not hard to remove and work on (the
metal is softer than you may expect, and curved-surface files 
work fine for shortening the tab length to normal - just work 
carefully so as not to bend the bayonette plate). See my entry on 
the TC20 near the end of www.David-Ruether-Photography.com/slemn.html
--
David Ruether
 d_ruether@hotmail.com
 www.David-Ruether-Photography.com


~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~


"Rita ─ Berkowitz" <ritaberk2O04 @aol.com> wrote in message news:132ll4g8k6g4rfa@news.supernews.com...
> RichA wrote:
 
>>>> Anything wide angle is likely going to be pretty bad when used on
>>>> the digital.  Stick with DX lenses for this, you can probably get
>>>> away with old film lenses for longer lens applications.  No real
>>>> vignetting with the old lenses, but sharpness and resolution suffer
>>>> compared to newer lenses.  I compared 28-70 and 28-105 D lenses to
>>>> a new DX 18-70 and it clobbered them.  While distortion and
>>>> vignetting were well- controlled on the old lenses (larger image
>>>> circle) they were just nowhere near as sharp, contrasty and didn't
>>>> have nearly the same resolution as the DX.

>>> TOTAL NONSENSE!
>>>
>>> I know you didn't compare a 28-70/2.8 Nikkor to the 18-70 and got
>>> better results from the 18-70.

>> Not the f2.8
>>
>> http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1030&message=22909693
 
> Sorry, my mistake.  You're talking about the Nikon AF 28-70mm f3.5-4.5D.  I
> know my 28-70/2.8 is razor sharp.
> 
> Rita

So is the 28-70mm f3.5-4.5 Nikkor, certainly at f7.1. RichA's results may
be accounted for by mis-focus, a particular zoom model's poorer performance 
at close focus, camera shake, or? There is no reason why a wide angle lens 
that is sharp on 35mm would not be sharp on digital (and if anything, sharper 
than a middling-quality DX lens). For instance, the Nikkor 18-70mm is a 
decent lens on digital, but the 16mm f3.5 Nikkor is noticeably sharper, as is 
the 24mm f2.8.
--
David Ruether
 d_ruether@hotmail.com
 www.David-Ruether-Photography.com


~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

"Alan Browne" <alan.browne@FreelunchVideotron.ca> wrote in message news:f0idv5$qvs$2@inews.gazeta.pl...
> Toby wrote:

>> Fujinon has announced a new lens for high definition video cameras. In 35mm 
>> FF terms it would be the equivalent of a 35-3100mm lens, f1.7 (dropping to 
>> f3.8 at the tele end...)
>> 
>> Now you know how us video guys get those shots ;-)

> Given the relatively low resolution of video vs. film or digital cameras...
 
Umm, video is catching up - you should see motion or freeze frames 
on my 42" 1080p (x1420) LCD viewed at 6.5' or so. It is SHARP! 
I had no idea video could be this impressive until I got one of these 
(Westinghouse LVM-42W2 - but if you happen to get one of these, 
though, there are a few pitfalls to watch out for...) - and it upsamples 
all inputs to 1080p, making even SD DVDs look great...
--
David Ruether
 d_ruether@hotmail.com
 www.David-Ruether-Photography.com


~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

"Mark▓" <mjmorgan(lowest even number here)@cox..net> wrote in message news:iIWXh.206803$p17.99157@newsfe11.phx...
> David Ruether wrote:
>> "Alan Browne" <alan.browne@FreelunchVideotron.ca> wrote in message
>> news:f0idv5$qvs$2@inews.gazeta.pl...
>>> Toby wrote:

>>>> Fujinon has announced a new lens for high definition video cameras.
>>>> In 35mm FF terms it would be the equivalent of a 35-3100mm lens,
>>>> f1.7 (dropping to f3.8 at the tele end...) Now you know how us video 
>>>> guys get those shots ;-)

>>> Given the relatively low resolution of video vs. film or digital
>>> cameras...

>> Umm, video is catching up - you should see motion or freeze frames
>> on my 42" 1080p (x1420) LCD viewed at 6.5' or so. It is SHARP!
 
> Of course it does...on a TV screen, that is.  Heck, a 640x480 shot looks 
> great on TV, too.
 
Likely not on a good HD TV - that is standard-def, and not even as good
as commercial SD DVDs... (good enough for computer screens, though).

> But...  Ever try cropping or printing one of those 1.5 megapixels images 
> (yep...that's right...a whopping 1.5).
 
Well, actually, my screen is rated at 2 megapixels (but who's
quibbling...? ;-).

> 1.5 puts you right "up there" with Sony Mavica range from 1998 or so.  :)
> It's OK though, as it suits its video purpose extremely well.  Lets just not 
> get TOO carried away...
> ;-P
 
Well, you hit on why this works so well - it is not one frame only,
but the cumulative information from many frames (60 amazing
whole frames per second! ;-). Even the best 35mm movies would 
be considered relatively poor viewed in single frames, but look at 
what happens when the information from multiple frames is combined! ;-)
-- 
David Ruether
 d_ruether@hotmail.com
 http://www.David-Ruether-Photography.com


~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

"David Ruether" <rpn1@no-junk.cornell.edu> wrote in message news:f0qh8l$fp$1@ruby.cit.cornell.edu...

> Well, you hit on why this works so well - it is not one frame only,
> but the cumulative information from many frames (60 amazing
> whole frames per second! ;-). Even the best 35mm movies would
> be considered relatively poor viewed in single frames, but look at
> what happens when the information from multiple frames is combined! ;-)
 
I should have added that, as you noted, single frames that may be
currently considered of marginal resolution for printing (though
good prints have been made from files of 1.5-2 megs...;-) can
look wonderful on a suitable TV (the Westinghouse is an unusually
sharp-looking LCD, giving "jaw-dropping" levels of picture detail, 
even with freeze-frames, with the best source material...;-).
-- 
David Ruether
 d_ruether@hotmail.com
 http://www.David-Ruether-Photography.com


~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

"Mark▓" <mjmorgan(lowest even number here)@cox..net> wrote in message news:2QdYh.207043$p17.35029@newsfe11.phx...
> David Ruether wrote:
>> "David Ruether" <rpn1@no-junk.cornell.edu> wrote in message
>> news:f0qh8l$fp$1@ruby.cit.cornell.edu...

>>> Well, you hit on why this works so well - it is not one frame only,
>>> but the cumulative information from many frames (60 amazing
>>> whole frames per second! ;-). Even the best 35mm movies would
>>> be considered relatively poor viewed in single frames, but look at
>>> what happens when the information from multiple frames is combined!
>>> ;-)
>>
>> I should have added that, as you noted, single frames that may be
>> currently considered of marginal resolution for printing (though
>> good prints have been made from files of 1.5-2 megs...;-) can
>> look wonderful on a suitable TV (the Westinghouse is an unusually
>> sharp-looking LCD, giving "jaw-dropping" levels of picture detail,
>> even with freeze-frames, with the best source material...;-).
 
> Ya, well...the good news is we can both be happy.  We now enjoy fantastic 
> video quality...and still quality...-each with their own capture device. 
> Everyone is happy happy happy!!
> ;) 
> -- 
> Images (Plus Snaps & Grabs) by Mark▓ at:
>        www.pbase.com/markuson

Indeed...!   8^)
(Though thoughts of what 35mm Kodachrome 25 and 2 1/4 square
B&W could do still nag a bit in the nether regions of the image
standards consciousness...;-)
-- 
David Ruether
 d_ruether@hotmail.com
 http://www.David-Ruether-Photography.com


~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

"Alan Browne" <alan.browne@FreelunchVideotron.ca> wrote in message news:f12d1c$b86$1@inews.gazeta.pl...
> David Ruether wrote:
>> "Alan Browne" <alan.browne@FreelunchVideotron.ca> wrote in message news:f0idv5$qvs$2@inews.gazeta.pl... 
>>>Toby wrote:

>>>>Fujinon has announced a new lens for high definition video cameras. 
>>>>In 35mm FF terms it would be the equivalent of a 35-3100mm 
>>>>lens, f1.7 (dropping to f3.8 at the tele end...)
>>>>
>>>>Now you know how us video guys get those shots ;-)

>>>Given the relatively low resolution of video vs. film or digital cameras...
 
>> Umm, video is catching up - you should see motion or freeze frames
>> on my 42" 1080p (x1420) LCD viewed at 6.5' or so. It is SHARP!
 
> It is still relatively low res (1.5 ish MPix) compared to 10 - 16 Mpix 
> that the digital camera domain is commonly in today (and MF backs run 16 
> - 30 MPix).

There was a thread a bit ago about how little importance large
file sizes have for some printing - and that has been my experience
also (2 meg files can make good 13x19 prints, though they may
not be astonishingly detailed, 5-6 megs gets you a lot of detail in 
the same size...). For murals that you want to stick your nose into,
100 meg files may not be enough [but I've had acceptable huge 
architectural murals made from 1.3 meg files...;-]) BTW, the
Westinghouse screen is rated at 2 megs, though the math doesn't
appear to support that...;-)

> This is a key reason why such a huge zoom range does not work on still 
> photography.

I think it may have more to do with the impractically large size
of such a lens designed for use with normal sensor sizes for stills...
 
>> I had no idea video could be this impressive until I got one of these
>> (Westinghouse LVM-42W2 - but if you happen to get one of these,
>> though, there are a few pitfalls to watch out for...) - and it upsamples
>> all inputs to 1080p, making even SD DVDs look great...
 
> I keep putting off a HD screen purchase.  I love the plasma look but to 
> get 1082p in plasma requires 60" screens.  That would be mildly 
> oversized for my viewing room, but not mildly over-budget!

Never oversized! ;-) THX recommends 6.6' viewing distance for 
a 42", and guess what I happened to have set it up at? ;-) The image 
quality does not drop noticeably on the best material until you are 
well inside 4' - and much of HD is shot WA, so the experience 
closer in can be amazing! I laugh when I see people take their 
expensive large panel TV and put it on the wall  W A Y  over 
there - they may as well view TV on a 19" wide-screen computer 
monitor at several feet (or more) away!
 
> Even the best LCD screens have perceptible motion lag and contrast 
> problems to my eye ... of course I'm too close when I look at them in 
> the stores...
> Cheers,
> Alan
 
Mine has an 8 ms refresh rate, which translates to 60fps (whole 
frames - at 1080p...) - and the contrast/brilliance depends on 
set-up, including both TV and room lighting. The major difference
between plasma and LCD in this (though it varies from model to 
model and is regardless of test ratings) is that plasmas have a shiny 
screen which shows annoying reflections precisely and LCDs 
have a matte screen that diffuses front lighting. LCDs work better
in somewhat higher light levels than plasmas - and for 1080p it is 
far cheaper. Among TVs you find at stores, most are 720p, which
looks relatively coarse (very visible pixels). 1080i is smoother.
1080p (with upsampling) gives a very smooth, detailed picture
(especially so with the Westinghouse - it beats even the 40" Sony
for this, but not without some minor compromises...;-). Let's
just say I was astonished by the image quality now possible and
available with video - it is wonderful, and at a level that does 
not make me wish for more...;-)
 
BTW, if anyone is interested in the model I have mentioned, there
are some things you may want to know about it before buying
(feel free to email me). Nothing too horrible, but...;-)
-- 
David Ruether
 d_ruether@hotmail.com
 http://www.David-Ruether-Photography.com


~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

"bob" <nospam@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:1177408858.96166.0@despina.uk.clara.net...
>I have recently bought a FE2 from Ebay everything seems fine but t he TTL
> flash does not work The light above the viewinder blinks and is not constant
> the SB26 works on a Nikon F90x . Is the FE2 faulty the hotshoe on the FE2
> was slightly bent . If anyone has tried a FE2 with a SB25 26 etc please
> respond .
> I have posted this in this group as some of the digital users may still use 
> film 

The SB24/5/6/etc. should work OK on the FE2.
Guess why I try to avoid buying on eBay...;-( 
KEH is a much better source for used gear 
(honest condition descriptions, "fixed" prices, 
and trouble-free return/exchange policy if not 
satisfied).
-- 
David Ruether
 d_ruether@hotmail.com
 http://www.David-Ruether-Photography.com


~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

"Gary Seven" <G7@invalid.net> wrote in message news:59j3tnF1ea831U1@mid.individual.net...
 
> Hello all.  Can some of you good folks here help me out here?  I am thinking 
> about buying the Nikon D80.  I don't want to start or hear flames either for 
> or against Canon/Nikon, just looking for some advice here.
> 
> I will probably go for the D80 mostly because it fits my hand much better 
> than say, the Canon 30D.  There are other little "pleasantries" I like, 
> especially the viewfinder.  
 
The D80 is an excellent choice for those reasons (finally a really
good viewfinder again in an affordable Nikon!) plus well laid
out controls. If it would meter easily with my many manual-focus 
lenses (the more expensive D200 does...), I would have one 
immediately.
 
> I'm at a loss though, of the type of lens or 
> lenses to purchase with the body.  There are two types of shooting that I 
> do:  (1) family shots of my two little girls (indoor and outdoor) and (2) 
> landscape style photography, mostly of my vineyards here in Priorat (Spain). 
> Along those lines I like to do shots of vines, overall vine/row shots, 
> background "mountain" shots, and I would also like to do very close-up 
> (macro?) shots.

I was surprised by most of the suggestions - with most leaning
more toward convenience than quality. If you want fairly inexpensive
convenience, get the 18-70mm Nikkor - it will do pretty much 
everything you mention, and do it fairly well (27mm-105mm
equivalent in 35mm terms). Add a 60mm f2.8 (90mm) macro for 
the highest quality macro work if you want. If you get that one, 
you could skip the zoom and get higher quality and greater speed
with the 35mm f2 (52mm equivalent) and maybe a 20mm f2.8
for wide angle (30mm equivalent). This set with maybe a 50mm
f1.8 (75mm equivalent, fine, and cheap) or 85mm f1.8 (or 127mm 
equivalent) covers all your bases very sharply, and with fast lenses 
that can be used wide open (except the 20mm). For a "longish" 
zoom, the 24-85mm f3.5-4.5 (36-127mm equivalent) is rather 
good compared with most others in its range, and it could be
combined with the Tokina 12-24mm or Sigma 10-20mm, if you 
want super wide and can take a hit in image quality...

> So what to do here?  I have the feeling that buying just one lens (I assume 
> a tele-wide) will NOT be a one-size-fits-all solution.  I get the feeling I 
> will need two, but simply don't know which way to go here.  Of course, my 
> budget is not unlimited and I simply can't plop down another $2000 in glass 
> on top of the $900 I will be spending on the body.
 
If you are not looking for the very highest quality, but good 
useful range with a good, convenient, and affordable lens, go 
with the 18-70mm - and maybe add some non-zooms later...
-- 
David Ruether
 d_ruether@hotmail.com
 http://www.David-Ruether-Photography.com


~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

"Denny B" <dmrbap@telus.net> wrote in message news:iWSYh.7879$Dq6.42@edtnps82...
 
> Is it possible to use my Tamron 90mm f2.5 lens
> on a Nikon D70s digital body, if I can find a Nikon adapter
> ring for the Tamron lens.
> 
> Previously I used the Tamron lens on my
> Pentax 35mm film bodies.
 
B&H used to sell Adaptall 2 Tamron-Nikon AIS
mounts for around $25. With it, the lens will mount
and operate properly (except for AF and metering
and auto-exposure modes), as if it were an MF AI
Nikkor. If you use TTL flash in your macro work,
exposure is also taken care of...
-- 
David Ruether
 d_ruether@hotmail.com
 http://www.David-Ruether-Photography.com

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

"David Dyer-Bennet" <dd-b@dd-b.net> wrote in message news:4634f510$0$961$8046368a@newsreader.iphouse.net...
> David Ruether wrote:
>> "Denny B" <dmrbap@telus.net> wrote in message news:iWSYh.7879$Dq6.42@edtnps82...
 
>>> Is it possible to use my Tamron 90mm f2.5 lens
>>> on a Nikon D70s digital body, if I can find a Nikon adapter
>>> ring for the Tamron lens.
>>>
>>> Previously I used the Tamron lens on my
>>> Pentax 35mm film bodies.
 
>> B&H used to sell Adaptall 2 Tamron-Nikon AIS
>> mounts for around $25. With it, the lens will mount
>> and operate properly (except for AF and metering
>> and auto-exposure modes), as if it were an MF AI
>> Nikkor. If you use TTL flash in your macro work,
>> exposure is also taken care of...
 
> Nope, TTL flash is an "auto-exposure mode", and hence won't work on that 
> body with non-chipped lenses.
> 
> But a test shot or two and some examination of the histogram gives you 
> *much* more information anyway, so except for certain kinds of 
> fast-moving situations, no problem.
 
Then things have really changed (not for the better...) 
with digital bodies. So, how 'bout using the flash in 
auto mode, inputing the actual (or calculated, for
macro) f-stop on the flash...? ;-) This bypasses the 
ambient light exposure entirely, assuming that is set
far enough under the flash exposure (and one can 
take the look of flash...;-).
-- 
David Ruether
 d_ruether@hotmail.com
 http://www.David-Ruether-Photography.com


~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

"Rita ─ Berkowitz" <ritaberk2O04 @aol.com> wrote in message news:1338vqqr58on0f5@news.supernews.com...
> Ockham's Razor wrote:
 
>> OK, all you guys who are against "protecting" your expensive lenses
>> from dirt (especially that combined with moisture) just how do you
>> "clean" your lenses?  A filter can be held under running water and
>> then gently dried.  Can such be done with a Nikkor 70-200 2.8?
 
> They're fools!  I wouldn't leave home without a good quality filter on any 
> of my lenses.  It's simply not worth chancing ruining an expensive lens, 
> especially when there's not a person alive that can pick out the shots taken 
> with a quality filter from the ones that are bareback in a double-blind 
> test.
> 
> Rita
 
Agreed! And I'm an image-quality nut. You CANNOT tell the
difference with/without a good quality single-coated ("multi"
not necessary, and is just more of a pain to clean) filter except
under some very rare conditions, possibly.... I use protection
UV filters (I like inexpensive Hoya single-coated UV, though
the UV aspect is worthless) on everything I have that they will
fit (so not on my 8mm, 15mm, or 16mm fisheye...). Shades
can help, though - and I use the largest and deepest ones that
will fit each lens and not vignette (check both at widest and 
smallest apertures for illumination changes in the image corners).
-- 
David Ruether
 d_ruether@hotmail.com
 http://www.David-Ruether-Photography.com


~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

"Dave Martindale" <davem@cs.ubc.ca> wrote in message news:f10s05$js$3@swain.cs.ubc.ca...
> "John Smith" <shotbred@sneiorglobe.com> writes:
 
>>Use a filter, but don't go cheap on your filter...google for filter reviews 
>>and go with that.
 
> I'd suggest teaching yourself to recognize the difference between
> uncoated filters, single-layer antireflection coating, and multi-coated
> filters by the relative brightness of light reflected from its surfaces.
> An uncoated filter will have reflections the same brightness as ordinary
> window glass (including the glass display cases in the camera store,
> which can be a useful reference).  The elements in any modern camera
> lens are multicoated.  And a single-coated filter will be somewhere
> between these two extremes.

And a single-coated filter may be just fine for a front surface.
The lens light transmission loss from adding even an uncoated
filter is negligible - but reflections between flattish front elements
and the filter can become more important under some conditions.

> A friend recently bought a Tiffen filter to protect his
> somewhat-expensive Sigma 30 mm lens.  Tiffen is a well-known name and he
> says the filter was fairly expensive - but it is completely uncoated
> glass, and I'd regard it as a bargain basement filter not worth buying.
> 
> Dave
 
I agree. Tiffen filters are "bottom of the barrel" and I buy them
only when I need a color not available anywhere else. But,
beware of Tiffen "self-fogging" - they seem to develop a surface
fog that diffuses the image badly after only about three months.
They need constant cleaning.
-- 
David Ruether
 d_ruether@hotmail.com
 http://www.David-Ruether-Photography.com


~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

"grim" <lyn.grimshaw@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote in message news:Q68%h.4759$1J.1351@fe1.news.blueyonder.co.uk...
> "Bandicoot" <"insert_handle_here"@techemail.com> wrote in message 
> news:1178396213.25105.0@iris.uk.clara.net...
>> "Dave Martindale" <davem@cs.ubc.ca> wrote in message
>> news:f13kqa$92n$2@swain.cs.ubc.ca...

>>> Interestingly, I have a +10 diopter closeup lens that came
>>> from a photographic "garage sale".  It's coated on one surface > only -
>> the rear one.
>>
>> That's the one that matters...
>>
>> Peter

>>All Canon lens are multicoated so it makes sense to only use multicoated 
>>filters such >as Hoya HMC filters. Hope this helps. 

If you want to mostly waste your money and make cleaning 
more difficult. A single-coated filter works fine most of the
time, and as "B" points out, only the inner surface of the 
filter needs to be coated. There is too much mfgr. ad hype 
about filters and their coatings that is not true...
-- 
David Ruether
 d_ruether@hotmail.com
 http://www.David-Ruether-Photography.com


~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

"grim" <lyn.grimshaw@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote in message news:nmn%h.109351$aB1.46767@fe3.news.blueyonder.co.uk... > "David Ruether" <rpn1@no-junk.cornell.edu> wrote in message 
> news:f1ki9v$3j5$1@ruby.cit.cornell.edu...
>> "grim" <lyn.grimshaw@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote in message 
>> news:Q68%h.4759$1J.1351@fe1.news.blueyonder.co.uk...
>>> "Bandicoot" <"insert_handle_here"@techemail.com> wrote in message 
>>> news:1178396213.25105.0@iris.uk.clara.net...
>>>> "Dave Martindale" <davem@cs.ubc.ca> wrote in message
>>>> news:f13kqa$92n$2@swain.cs.ubc.ca...

>>>>> Interestingly, I have a +10 diopter closeup lens that came
>>>>> from a photographic "garage sale".  It's coated on one surface > only -
>>>> the rear one.
>>>>
>>>> That's the one that matters...
>>>>
>>>> Peter

>>>>All Canon lens are multicoated so it makes sense to only use multicoated 
>>>>filters such >as Hoya HMC filters. Hope this helps.

>> If you want to mostly waste your money and make cleaning
>> more difficult. A single-coated filter works fine most of the
>> time, and as "B" points out, only the inner surface of the
>> filter needs to be coated. There is too much mfgr. ad hype
>> about filters and their coatings that is not true...
>> -- 
>> David Ruether

>>D R comments "most of the time" says to me that Multicoated wins the day..

With the caveats expressed - though I could have said that 
99.99% or fewer of most people's images (taken 99.99% 
or less of the time) will likely be unaffected by the coating 
type. Only in VERY special circumstances (mostly with the
few lenses that have unusually great problems with glass 
surface reflections, under shooting conditions that cause 
them to be visible) will there be a difference, and for these, 
the filter is better removed. With most good lenses, there 
is no visible image difference with or without a good filter 
that is either single or multi-coated. Most of the time it 
doesn't matter if it is coated at all (otherwise we would 
have complained bitterly about the polarizers that were
sandwiches of two uncoated sheets of glass plus the
polarizing material...).
-- 
David Ruether
 d_ruether@hotmail.com
 http://www.David-Ruether-Photography.com


~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

<BRH> wrote in message news:9KednW6zIu0KE6_bnZ2dnUVZ_sSmnZ2d@comcast.com...
 
> I'm interested in learning to use manual mode effectively and would 
> appreciate recommendations for a good non-DSLR camera for this purpose. 
>  Features I'm looking for are built-in optical zoom and large, clear LCD.

More useful than a rear panel LCD is a good eyepiece electronic finder
(you can actually see it in bright light, and it can give you more feedback 
on exposure, color balance, and composition).
 
> I'm not interested in a DSLR at this point due to overall cost, the need 
> for multiple lenses, etc.
> 
> Most interested in shooting nature, landscapes, etc.

I have liked the Sony DSC-F707 (available used only, and I may sell 
mine in perfect condition to get a dSLR...). It is very easy to hand hold
steady at slow speeds due to its double-handed grip and soft shutter
release, the body articulates for viewing up or down, and the zoom is 
a very sharp *f2*-f2.6 Zeiss design, which with an Olympus WA works 
well to give a speedy and sharp 28mm to 180mm equivalent in 35mm terms. 
The camera is described here - www.dpreview.com/reviews/sonydscf707
-- 
David Ruether
 d_ruether@hotmail.com
 http://www.David-Ruether-Photography.com


~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

"JŘrgen Exner" <jurgenex@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:3xfZh.476$YW4.295@trndny06...
>C J Campbell wrote:

>> As far as I know you are the only person I have ever heard of that has
>> said that the 60mm f/2.8 Micro-Nikkor does not perform well.
 
> Thank you. I truely appreciate this clarification.
> 
> I readily admit that I don't own this lens. However I have been looking for 
> a macro lens for myself recently and the review at 
> http://www.slrgear.com/reviews/showproduct.php/product/98/cat/12 for the 
> lens isn't all that great.
> <quote>
> At the end of the day, I'd have to say that this is only a mediocre lens, 
> not really worth its relatively high selling price.
> </quote>
> 
> Maybe the review is wrong, maybe they tested a lemon, maybe the reviewer 
> just had a bad day. I don't know. But if you are saying it's a decent lens 
> after all, then maybe I put it back on my list of candidates, too.

See my comments on the Nikkor 60mm f2.8 on my Nikkor comparison
list, at www.David-Ruether-Photography.com/slemn.html (keeping in mind that
all of the ratings and comments are based on full-frame film coverage).
For the smaller digital sensor area, the reservations I had about the 
60mm near infinity focus with FF do not apply, and it is otherwise a 
superb lens. Since the 50-100mm range of lens FLs is especially easy
to design for excellent performance, most of these lenses by all 
manufacturers tend to be at least very good.
-- 
David Ruether
 d_ruether@hotmail.com
 http://www.David-Ruether-Photography.com


~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

"Bruce" <brucefalcon@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote in message news:XLo_h.132685$Zb2.6111@fe2.news.blueyonder.co.uk...
 
>I am thinking about buying a Nikon Teleconverter for use with a D80 & Tamron 
> 200-500mm and Nikon 70-210mm AIS lens. As I am using it on a DSLR do you go 
> for the 1.4 x instead of the 2X or doesn't it matter.

There were several versions of Nikon teleconverters, and some will
only fit lenses with recessed rear elements (watch out with these for 
zooms that have rear glass that may move rearward with zooming!).
In general, 1.4X converters work at least reasonably well stopped
down at least a stop on compatible lenses, but 2x converters must
match well particular lenses for good results and may require much
stopping down (there are notable exceptions). Remember that you
will lose one stop of speed with a 1.4X and two with a 2X before
any needed stopping down to get an acceptable level of performance.
Also, you may lose important functions with the D80. For more, see 
the converter section near the end of my Nikkor comparison list at - 
www.David-Ruether-Photography.com/slemn.html
-- 
David Ruether
 d_ruether@hotmail.com
 http://www.David-Ruether-Photography.com


~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

"=(8)" <nospam@nospam.com> wrote in message news:46383e68$0$14124$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net...
 
> If you are going to be doing any editing at all then you don't want a Hard 
> Drive based or DVD based camcorder. Both of these compress the video with 
> MPEG2 or something type of compression. Editing compressed video that will 
> then be recompressed to master out to DVD or whatever is a bad idea. So 
> unless in your price range you can get one of these types of cameras that 
> doesn't compress I would look for a MiniDV which doesn't compress the video.

I agree with your advice, but not with the reason (exactly...;-). Mini-DV is 
compressed, but at a lower rate (5:1) and frame-by-frame, unlike the HD
or disk based recorders - and editing software for editing Mini-DV is more
common. Also, I would always master back to Mini-DV or D-8 (multiple
copies) for highest quality in addition to making a DVD master for making 
multiple DVDs if desired...
-- 
David Ruether
 d_ruether@hotmail.com
 http://www.David-Ruether-Photography.com
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"Rita ─ Berkowitz" <ritaberk2O04 @aol.com> wrote in message news:1340gbg6vki1289@news.supernews.com...
> Paul Furman wrote:
 
>> Any other recommendations & caveats for a wide Nikkor prime? Maybe
>> something wider with less barrel for architecture & landscapes on a
>> tripod where I want super sharpness at f/8-16. I opted out on the
>> 17-35, it's just too bulky, I love these little primes for subtle
>> street shooting.
 
> Yes, a 28/1.4
> 
> Sadly, you're not going to have your cake and eat it too with the 20/2.8.
> It has a reputation of being very soft.  I'm not sure I would call the 17-35
> "bulky" since it really isn't, but the size weight tradeoffs are well worth
> image quality and versatility.  If you want optical quality that kills
> almost all primes in that range you can't be without the 17-35.

Uh, "HUH???", to both of you, unless the samples of the
20mm f2.8 Nikkor were unusual (sample variation does exist,
but I have seen little of it with this lens - see my Nikkor
comparison list at www.David-Ruether-Photography.com/slemn.html,
keeping in mind that I rate based on full frame and edge/corner
performance at the widest good stop, which is f5.6 for this lens
[and it is somewhat soft at the edges at wider stops FF]). I also 
directly compare the 20mm f2.8 with the 17-35mm Nikkor 
here at 20mm, at: www.David-Ruether-Photography.com/wa-zooms.htm, 
where the two lenses are quite different at the edges at f2.8, but 
almost identical at f5.6 and 11, center and corner, FF. I also
just checked a 24mm Nikkor image on digital (the 20mm and 
24mm Nikkors perform very similarly on FF from f5.6), and
the image was good (and sharper than the 18-70 overall - and 
I will be using the 20mm on digital if and when I go that way). 
BTW, on FF, the 20mm can be easily and accurately focused 
"by guess" - but on digital, AF may be useful. As for the 28mm 
f1.4, I review it on my web site, but see some surprising results 
when comparing it and the 28mm f2.8 AIS with the 28-70mm 
f3.5-4.5 and 28mm *f4* PC - but I wouldn't mind having one...;-).
The 28mm f2.8 AIS MF at least has very low linear distortion
(among its other virtues), but it is not very wide. The old 21mm
f4 Nikkor had no linear distortion, but it will not fit digital
cameras and it had many faults. The 15mm f5.6 has low distortion
and is sharp at f11-16 on film, but it does not look good on
digital. For sharpness on film or digital, the 16mm *f3.5* is very
good - but you may not like the "distortion"...;-) So, the 28mm 
f2.8 AIS for sharpness and low distortion (but it's not very wide),
or the 16mm *f3.5* for sharpness and width (but it is a fisheye),
or the 17-35mm f2.8 for sharpness (but with some distortion, 
and with great weight/size/price), or the 20mm f2.8 for sharpness 
stopped down some (but with some linear distortion), or the 
17-55mm f2.8 for sharpness (but with some distortion, and with 
great weight/size/price), . Yer tayks yer cherse...;-) BTW, the 
28mm f2 is quite good from f5.6, as is the 28mm f3.5 AIS, just 
to complicate things - and the latest 35mm f2.8 PC is good from 
wide open - but the bottom line is that there are really no good
very wide choices for digital (I was not very impressed by the
Nikkor 12-24 and the Sigma 10-20 - these were just the best 
[maybe with the Tokina] of a relatively poor bunch...).
-- 
David Ruether
 d_ruether@hotmail.com
 http://www.David-Ruether-Photography.com


~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

"Paul Furman" <paul-@-edgehill.net> wrote in message news:Usc0i.21474$Um6.16647@newssvr12.news.prodigy.net...
> David Ruether wrote:

>> Uh, "HUH???", to both of you, unless the samples of the
>> 20mm f2.8 Nikkor were unusual (sample variation does exist,
>> but I have seen little of it with this lens - see my Nikkor
>> comparison list at www.David-Ruether-Photography.com/slemn.html,
>> keeping in mind that I rate based on full frame and edge/corner
>> performance at the widest good stop, which is f5.6 for this lens
>> [and it is somewhat soft at the edges at wider stops FF]). I also
>> directly compare the 20mm f2.8 with the 17-35mm Nikkor
>> here at 20mm, at: www.David-Ruether-Photography.com/wa-zooms.htm,
>> where the two lenses are quite different at the edges at f2.8, but
>> almost identical at f5.6 and 11, center and corner, FF. I also
>> just checked a 24mm Nikkor image on digital (the 20mm and
>> 24mm Nikkors perform very similarly on FF from f5.6), and
>> the image was good (and sharper than the 18-70 overall - and
>> I will be using the 20mm on digital if and when I go that way).
>> BTW, on FF, the 20mm can be easily and accurately focused
>> "by guess" - but on digital, AF may be useful. As for the 28mm
>> f1.4, I review it on my web site, but see some surprising results
>> when comparing it and the 28mm f2.8 AIS with the 28-70mm
>> f3.5-4.5 and 28mm *f4* PC - but I wouldn't mind having one...;-).
>> The 28mm f2.8 AIS MF at least has very low linear distortion
>> (among its other virtues), but it is not very wide. The old 21mm
>> f4 Nikkor had no linear distortion, but it will not fit digital
>> cameras and it had many faults. The 15mm f5.6 has low distortion
>> and is sharp at f11-16 on film, but it does not look good on
>> digital. For sharpness on film or digital, the 16mm *f3.5* is very
>> good - but you may not like the "distortion"...;-) So, the 28mm
>> f2.8 AIS for sharpness and low distortion (but it's not very wide),
>> or the 16mm *f3.5* for sharpness and width (but it is a fisheye),
>> or the 17-35mm f2.8 for sharpness (but with some distortion,
>> and with great weight/size/price), or the 20mm f2.8 for sharpness
>> stopped down some (but with some linear distortion), or the
>> 17-55mm f2.8 for sharpness (but with some distortion, and with
>> great weight/size/price), . Yer tayks yer cherse...;-) BTW, the
>> 28mm f2 is quite good from f5.6, as is the 28mm f3.5 AIS, just
>> to complicate things - and the latest 35mm f2.8 PC is good from
>> wide open - but the bottom line is that there are really no good
>> very wide choices for digital (I was not very impressed by the
>> Nikkor 12-24 and the Sigma 10-20 - these were just the best
>> [maybe with the Tokina] of a relatively poor bunch...).

> Damn, now that's some good lens-geek talk right there! I've got 
> the 28mm f/2 AI and I love it but it's hard to focus.

Try setting it at f4 and holding the DOF preview button down.
Sounds stupid (and is...), but most of these AF camera viewfinders
are unfortunately optimized for f3.5 zooms. Doing this leaves you
with the possible error that the increased DOF covers from f2
to f4 if you are shooting wider stop, though...

> Visually estimating the distance & setting those numbers on the 
> lens is indeed a serious option. Sounds like you are saying the 
> new 28/2.8 is a good lens.

The MF 28mm f2.8 is a fine lens even wide open (and it is
unusually low in distortion), but the f2 is a bit better around f5.6,
less good around f2.8 (and the late f3.5 is excellent if you don't
mind the speed loss, though the distortion is higher).

> I'm more tempted toward the Sigma 30mm f/1.4 but anyways that's 
> 'normal' on digital, not wide. 16mm fish on digital is just too 
> weird,

It is actually rather nice, I think - like a 16mm + TC14A in full
frame, which I like. See here for an idea of what it looks like -
www.David-Ruether-Photography.com/16mm-Nikkor-plus-TC14A.htm.
BTW, I've added some sample images for some unusual lenses
listed at www.David-Ruether-Photography.com/slemn.html. The fisheye
is "kind" to people, and it can show great widths in landscapes
without exaggerating near-far relationships. The narrower view
of the 16mm on digital or 16mm plus 1.4X on FF is a good
compromise...

> isn't there a rectalinear 15mm or something like that?

See above - I cover the 15mm f5.6 Nikkor, but not the 15mm
f3.5 or the 14mm f2.8 AF (Bjorn Rorslett likes this one on
digital, but I have never tried it; I preferred the f5.6 to the f3.5
on film, but I may have checked a poor sample of the f3.5.
All of this class of lenses are huge and heavy, and the 14mm
is very expensive (and the used 15s are not cheap and have
held their value for decades).

> -- 
> Paul Furman Photography

-- 
David Ruether
 d_ruether@hotmail.com
 http://www.David-Ruether-Photography.com

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

"Paul Furman" <paul-@-edgehill.net> wrote in message news:XCc0i.2064$zj3.210@newssvr23.news.prodigy.net...
> tomm42 wrote: 
>> On May 7, 11:09 pm, Paul Furman <p...@-edgehill.net> wrote:

>> I use the 24 f2 AIS, not good wide open, seems to invite flare at f2,
>> OK at f2.8, but very nice between f4 and f11.
 
> OK two votes for the 24 f/2, thanks.

I've sold my 24mm f2s due to their wide-aperture performance.
I must say that Canon got their 24mm f1.4 about right - very good
performance from f2.8, usable wider. The closest Nikkor to
this (though less wide) are the 28mm f2 and f2.8 Nikkors, both
fairly good by f2.8 and the f2 is usable at f2, though not great
at the edges. The best WA Nikkor I have seen is the 16mm 
*f3.5* MF fisheye even wide open (and even on the TC14A, 
but then only down a stop).

>> I know what you mean
>> about focusing wides with a D200, tough to get used to. 
 
I hate split-image rfdrs and microprism doughnuts in the middle of
screens, but I wonder how well the Katzeye screen would work 
with the 28mm f2...
 
>> The 20 f2.8 is nice on film but has a bad rep on digital, 
 
????
 
>> same with the 18.
 
> I'm not familiar with the 18, is that straight & sharp stopped down?

The 18mm f2.8 AF seems not to be generally liked (but I have 
never tried it). The 18mm f3.5 MF is fine FF on film in color, but 
for some reason is not very good for B&W. Quirky also with the
18mm f3.5 compared with the 20mm f2.8 at f5.6 and smaller
stops FF in color is that they are excellent, but virtually identical
in all respects including angle of view - so I sold mine in favor
of the cheaper and slightly smaller 20mm.

>> Could it be the sharpness expectations are that much higher on
>> digital? I have a Tokina 17 f3.5 that does very well on my D200, but I
>> have heard some negatives about this lens too. I have the older "film
>> only" model so go figure.
 
I tried one touted as really fine by its owner - and I thought it
was mediocre at *any* stop...

>> I do like the small primes on the D200, much less attention getting,
>> people have asked if I was shooting film because I didn't have a
>> zoom.

Neat! It is weird, all these DSLRs with zooms, that look so big - and
some are ENORMOUS! One would think that one of the main 
advantages of the format would be the compactness of the gear, but
put a 17-35mm f2.8, 28-70mm f2.8, or 70-200mm f2.8 on a D2X,
and, YOW! - I won't be carrying it!!! Maybe my old MF set, but in 
mostly AF versions (16mm MF, 20mm AF, 35mm AF, 50mm AF,
85mm AF - or the 16 + 24-85mm when I don't need the speed or 
the highest quality toward the long end). Dunno...;-)

> -- 
> Paul Furman Photography

-- 
David Ruether
 d_ruether@hotmail.com
 http://www.David-Ruether-Photography.com


~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

"Paul Furman" <paul-@-edgehill.net> wrote in message news:qFr0i.17298$YL5.4929@newssvr29.news.prodigy.net...
> David Ruether wrote:
>> Paul Furman wrote:
>>>David Ruether wrote:

>>>>[...] See my Nikkor
>>>>comparison list at www.David-Ruether-Photography.com/slemn.html,
>>>>keeping in mind that I rate based on full frame and edge/corner
>>>>performance at the widest good stop, which is f5.6 for this lens
>>>>[and it is somewhat soft at the edges at wider stops FF]). I also
>>>>directly compare the 20mm f2.8 with the 17-35mm Nikkor
>>>>here at 20mm, at: www.David-Ruether-Photography.com/wa-zooms.htm,
>>>>where the two lenses are quite different at the edges at f2.8, but
>>>>almost identical at f5.6 and 11, center and corner, FF. I also
>>>>just checked a 24mm Nikkor image on digital (the 20mm and
>>>>24mm Nikkors perform very similarly on FF from f5.6), and
>>>>the image was good (and sharper than the 18-70 overall - and
>>>>I will be using the 20mm on digital if and when I go that way).
>>>>BTW, on FF, the 20mm can be easily and accurately focused
>>>>"by guess" - but on digital, AF may be useful. As for the 28mm
>>>>f1.4, I review it on my web site, but see some surprising results
>>>>when comparing it and the 28mm f2.8 AIS with the 28-70mm
>>>>f3.5-4.5 and 28mm *f4* PC - but I wouldn't mind having one...;-).
>>>>The 28mm f2.8 AIS MF at least has very low linear distortion
>>>>(among its other virtues), but it is not very wide. The old 21mm
>>>>f4 Nikkor had no linear distortion, but it will not fit digital
>>>>cameras and it had many faults. The 15mm f5.6 has low distortion
>>>>and is sharp at f11-16 on film, but it does not look good on
>>>>digital. For sharpness on film or digital, the 16mm *f3.5* is very
>>>>good - but you may not like the "distortion"...;-) So, the 28mm
>>>>f2.8 AIS for sharpness and low distortion (but it's not very wide),
>>>>or the 16mm *f3.5* for sharpness and width (but it is a fisheye),
>>>>or the 17-35mm f2.8 for sharpness (but with some distortion,
>>>>and with great weight/size/price), or the 20mm f2.8 for sharpness
>>>>stopped down some (but with some linear distortion), or the
>>>>17-55mm f2.8 for sharpness (but with some distortion, and with
>>>>great weight/size/price), . Yer tayks yer cherse...;-) BTW, the
>>>>28mm f2 is quite good from f5.6, as is the 28mm f3.5 AIS, just
>>>>to complicate things - and the latest 35mm f2.8 PC is good from
>>>>wide open - but the bottom line is that there are really no good
>>>>very wide choices for digital (I was not very impressed by the
>>>>Nikkor 12-24 and the Sigma 10-20 - these were just the best
>>>>[maybe with the Tokina] of a relatively poor bunch...).

>>>Damn, now that's some good lens-geek talk right there! I've got the 28mm f/2 AI and I love it but it's hard to focus.

I am a self-admitted lens-nut...;-)

>> Try setting it at f4 and holding the DOF preview button down.
>> Sounds stupid (and is...), but most of these AF camera viewfinders
>> are unfortunately optimized for f3.5 zooms. Doing this leaves you
>> with the possible error that the increased DOF covers from f2
>> to f4 if you are shooting wider stop, though...

> That actually might make sense. Wide open it's just a sliver 
> in-focus & easy to miss & get completely lost.

This is not the problem (that would be an advantage for accurate
focus). It is that the VF optics produce their sharpest images at
particular design apertures (f2-2.8 for the best Nikon bodies, pre
N90; f3.5-4.5 for most later ones except the high end bodies).
BTW, making sure that your vision is sharp at one meter and that
the VF eyepiece adjustment setting is optimized for you can help,
at least with sharp VFs. My suggestion was only intended to
possibly help if all else fails, should not be needed, but may be
worth a try...

>>>Visually estimating the distance & setting those numbers on the lens is indeed a serious option. Sounds like you are saying the 
>>>new 28/2.8 is a good lens.

>> The MF 28mm f2.8 is a fine lens even wide open (and it is
>> unusually low in distortion), but the f2 is a bit better around f5.6,
>> less good around f2.8 (and the late f3.5 is excellent if you don't
>> mind the speed loss, though the distortion is higher).

>>>I'm more tempted toward the Sigma 30mm f/1.4 but anyways that's 
>>>'normal' on digital, not wide. 16mm fish on digital is just too 
>>>weird,

>> It is actually rather nice, I think - like a 16mm + TC14A in full
>> frame, which I like. See here for an idea of what it looks like -
>> www.David-Ruether-Photography.com/16mm-Nikkor-plus-TC14A.htm.

> That is nice but most people wouldn't spend whole days shooting 
> only fisheye like you :-) But yeah, full fish is really tough to 
> use so maybe half fish makes sense.

True, true, and, maybe...;-)

>> BTW, I've added some sample images for some unusual lenses
>> listed at www.David-Ruether-Photography.com/slemn.html.

> Thanks, I found my way to the 28/1.4 review there & found this 
> comment interesting: "At f8-11, the 28mm f4 PC was better over most 
> of the frame, with about equal (very good) corners". That might 
> be a nice one to have for tripod architectural work... since 
> that's what it's designed for! I wish they made a 20mm PC lens.

Yes - maybe for the future. BTW, the 24mm PC Canon is rather good,
but would be expensive to modify.

>> The fisheye
>> is "kind" to people, and it can show great widths in landscapes
>> without exaggerating near-far relationships. The narrower view
>> of the 16mm on digital or 16mm plus 1.4X on FF is a good
>> compromise...

>>>isn't there a rectalinear 15mm or something like that?

>> See above - I cover the 15mm f5.6 Nikkor, but not the 15mm
>> f3.5 or the 14mm f2.8 AF (Bjorn Rorslett likes this one on
>> digital,

> Oh that does sound sweet but $1400, crap.

Yes. KEH does have a nice 15mm f3.5 MF for $900. My
reservations about it would likely disappear on the cropping
digital, but I have not tried it. I did not like the 15mm f5.6 on
digital though I preferred the f5.6 to the f3.5 FF on film.

> OK so the slowest old 15mm AI is something to look for. Hmm, 
> the 15mm Nikkor-QD.C Auto f/5.6 is pre-AI (might fit my D200?) & no 
> such thing has been sold on ebay.

See KEH (about $600), but see my last comment...

> The 15mm f/3.5 AI is $1,100 new. Might as well blow another 
> $300 & get the 2.8 :-) (if one were to go that route).

Yes.

>> All of this class of lenses are huge and heavy, and the 14mm
>> is very expensive (and the used 15s are not cheap and have
>> held their value for decades).

> -- 
> Paul Furman Photography

-- 
David Ruether
 d_ruether@hotmail.com
 http://www.David-Ruether-Photography.com 

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

"Philip Homburg" <philip@ue.aioy.eu> wrote in message news:7cuoaenbpl45hj16c41m702390@inews_id.stereo.hq.phicoh.net...
> In article <f1tbjq$q41$1@ruby.cit.cornell.edu>,
> David Ruether <rpn1@no-junk.cornell.edu> wrote:

>>I've sold my 24mm f2s due to their wide-aperture performance.

> I have to admit that in the following image the corners are too soft
> < http://misc.hq.phicoh.net/tmp/xl.3-96-6-28.jpg >
> (this is the 24/2 wide open).

This is a good illustration of this. Too bad the 28mm f1.4 Nikkor 
is so difficult to own - it was much better and a stop faster yet.
 
> However, this was already an excessively low shutter speed. Closing it
> another stop would have made the image much worse.

It would be nice to have a 24mm f2 that is really sharp at f2 (or
even f2.8) and VR, but...8^)

> The problem I usually have with fast wide angle lenses wide open 
> is that for non-flat objects the DoF is simply not large enough.

Tsk, tsk, tsk...;-) Same is true for all lenses if you want DOF to cover
the depth of your subject...
 
> For optimal quality I use a tripod and an aperture near the diffraction limit.

Of course! ;-) But we often can't, or prefer you use less than universal
DOF coverage...
 
> For low light handheld I try to make sure that the background is clearly
> out of focus. And that also solves the lack of resolution on the corners.

Not if the area of greatest interest (for sharpness) is in a corner...;-)
See an example at http://www.David-Ruether-Photography.com/aht2.html
where the DOF effects *are* the photograph...

>>The best WA Nikkor I have seen is the 16mm
>>*f3.5* MF fisheye even wide open (and even on the TC14A,
>>but then only down a stop).
 
> I have the same problem with that lens: the lens may be sharp. But lines
> that disappear in the distance become blurred due to lack of DoF.
 
It depends on the subject. Shooting landscape, the 16mm f3.5 is sharp 
center to corners even at f3.5 - but shooting straight down (as with
wildflowers - and it's tricky to hide your shadow and legs! ;-), you 
cannot get all in focus - but by using f11 or so and compromising the
focus, you can get universal DOF in the frame. Also, the shortness 
of the FL and the spherical perspective aid in being able to hand hold
the lens at VERY slow shutter speeds.
-- 
David Ruether
 d_ruether@hotmail.com
 http://www.David-Ruether-Photography.com


~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

"Paul Furman" <paul-@-edgehill.net> wrote in message news:9mL0i.2523$zj3.72@newssvr23.news.prodigy.net...
> David Ruether wrote:
>> Paul Furman wrote:
 
>>>The 15mm f/3.5 AI is $1,100 new. Might as well blow another 
>>>$300 & get the 2.8 :-) (if one were to go that route).
 
>> Yes.

Or the Nikkor 12-24mm, by a bit the best of the WA zooms for
Nikon digital bodies - or save half of the $1000 and get the Sigma
10-20mm (much more illumination roll-off in the corners, not 
quite as [relatively...] sharp in the corners at the wide end, but
wider than the Nikkor). If you do get the 14mm Nikkor, immediately
check it out on a full-frame body for equal opposite corner, and 
edge, sharpness, at f2.8, f5.6, and f11 (checking film directly
with a good 10X magnifier [a $5 botanical one works well] - and 
return for exchange or refund if alignment defects are seen [keep
notes!]). High price does not guarantee freedom from defects
even among Nikkors (especially with CRC wides and short zooms).

> Incidentally, I ran across a used (Tamron or Tokina?) 15mm f/2.8 AF for 
> around $700 but then tracked down a review saying it's no better than my 
> slower Sigma 12-24 except for the speed, which really isn't needed at 
> that wide an angle anyways. The Sigma is virtually distortion-free & 
> full frame, but not particularly sharp or contrasty (although sharpness 
> is fairly consistent to the corners), it has CA & flare problems, and 
> it's big & rather expensive but sturdy and has AF-S.
> 
> -- 
> Paul Furman Photography

BTW, I tried the 12-24mm Sigma and did not like it. The 15mm
f5.6 was better and the 16mm f3.5 was MUCH better - but I 
would not use the 15mm f5.6 on digital. I've heard better things 
about the Sigma 15-30mm, but have not tried it. Kicking and
screaming, if I had to make a not-horribly-priced choice, I
would probably get a used Nikkor 12-24mm or a Sigma 10-20,
but I would not be happy...;-(
 
>>>>All of this class of lenses are huge and heavy, and the 14mm
>>>>is very expensive (and the used 15s are not cheap and have
>>>>held their value for decades).

-- 
David Ruether
 d_ruether@hotmail.com
 http://www.David-Ruether-Photography.com

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

<achilleaslazarides@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message news:1178893827.074576.122040@e51g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
> On May 11, 4:08 pm, "David Ruether" <r...@no-junk.cornell.edu> wrote:

>> Or the Nikkor 12-24mm, by a bit the best of the WA zooms for
>> Nikon digital bodies - or save half of the $1000 and get the Sigma
>> 10-20mm (much more illumination roll-off in the corners, not
>> quite as [relatively...] sharp in the corners at the wide end, but
>> wider than the Nikkor).

> These things (vignetting, CA and complex distortions) are all
> corrected automatically (and very well) by dxo, even for jpegs
> (probably also with cheaper tools). Unfortunately, lack of resolution
> can't be fixed...

In that case, the Nikkor 12-24 ***may*** be the best choice,
if the price is not a barrier. It's corner sharpness appears to be 
the best, and it is equal to or better than the other choices in other 
respects. But it would be nice not to need to process digital images 
so much - especially ones made by using expensive lenses...
-- 
David Ruether
 d_ruether@hotmail.com
 http://www.David-Ruether-Photography.com


~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

"Nicholas O. Lindan" <see@sig.com> wrote in message news:TUI0i.5646$296.405@newsread4.news.pas.earthlink.net...
> "Philip Homburg" <philip@ue.aioy.eu> wrote
>> tomm42  <tmonego@wildblue.net> wrote:
>> > xxx wrote:
>> > > yyy wrote:
>> > > > [selection of WA-Norm primes]
 
> I have small aperture versions of many lenses just to
> carry a lighter kit: a 35mm f2.8 weighing a lot less
> than the 1.4, ditto 28 and 20 f3.5's.

A good idea - unless you are going for highest image 
quality. The 35mm f2 Nikkor is much sharper than the
2.8 and not much heavier; the late 28mm f2.8 and
f3.5 are really excellent, unlike the earlier ones; the
20mm f2.8 is also a much better lens optically than the
compact 20mm f3.5 (and much smaller than the first
20mm).
 
> I have some of the 'E' lenses for lightweight use:
> excellent optics and lightweight mostly plastic barrels.
> Plastic barreled lenses were a turn-off when the series
> came out but now what AF lens _isn't_ plastic?

A *good sample* of the E 35mm f2.5 stopped down
some is a gem; the E 50 f1.8 is wonderful and tiny; the E
100mm f2.8 is a little-known gem; the E 135mm f2.8 is 
an excellent lens and still sold at B&H, but is not lighter 
or smaller than the much more expensive AIS version 
(but it is a bargain). The E 28mm f2.8 in a rarish 
***good sample***, well stopped down, could be 
quite good. Then there is THE CLASSIC E-lens, the 
wonderful 75-150mm f3.5 (constant). Very sharp from 
f5.6. A good sample of the E 36-72mm f3.5 (constant)
could be quite sharp. I like the E 70-210 f4 (constant), 
but some others don't seem to like it as much...;-). 
If the focus was not over-used, the E lenses held up 
well - and the zooms were all metal but for a few internal
parts. What seemed so "cheesy" when introduced now
look and feel (in fresh, late samples) to be paragons of
excellent construction. How times change...! ;-)

> -- 
> Nicholas O. Lindan, Cleveland, Ohio

-- 
David Ruether
 d_ruether@hotmail.com
 http://www.David-Ruether-Photography.com

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

"Nicholas O. Lindan" <see@sig.com> wrote in message news:Fr%0i.8954$Ut6.3051@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net...
> "David Ruether" <rpn1@no-junk.cornell.edu> wrote
>> Me wrote:

>> > I have small aperture versions of many lenses just to
>> > carry a lighter kit: a 35mm f2.8 weighing a lot less
>> > than the 1.4, ditto 28 and 20 f3.5's.

>> A good idea - unless you are going for highest image
>> quality.
 
> I had the same trepidation's.  Over time my experience
> has been that the pictures I come back with are no
> lower/higher in quality:

Yes. As I pointed out, there were several good to excellent
E lenses - but I was also trying to point out that a set
could be optimized for an even better balance of size/weight 
and image quality than what you appeared to have...
 
> o I usually shoot at f8 with WA lenses:
>   f8 is usually the optimum aperture
>   for both the f1.4 and f3.5 versions;
>   At f8 there isn't all that much difference
>   in sharpness between the lenses.

Surprisingly, this is not necessarily true, especially
with wide angles and zooms that include WA. It
tends to be truer by f16-22...
 
> o If I am traveling light then I am
>   not carrying a tripod and my picture
>   sharpness becomes more a factor of
>   caffeine intake than lens quality.

Always! I used to take 4-5 frames of everything
even before my current shaking - and that was 
when I could often hand-hold a 35mm FL at 
1 1/15th. Camera shake swamps lens sharpness
almost always, unless shuttter speeds are high 
enough to overcome it (depends on the person,
the day, the FL, the wind, the mood, etc...;-).

> I will change my recommendation on 'E' glass:
> it's awful folks, really - trust me on this -
> don't bother bidding on any on ebay ...

As I pointed out - not necessarily true...! ;-) 
But, buying on eBay, how do you really know 
what you are getting...? ;-(

>> What seemed so "cheesy" when introduced now
>> look and feel (in fresh, late samples) to be paragons of excellent 
>> construction. How times change...! ;-)
 
> Ain't it the truth.

I hated the FA and FG on sight for their plastic
shells - now I love my FA, and both seem so
nicely built! ;-)

> -- 
> Nicholas O. Lindan, Cleveland, Ohio

-- 
David Ruether
 d_ruether@hotmail.com
 http://www.David-Ruether-Photography.com



~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

"Philip Homburg" <philip@ue.aioy.eu> wrote in message news:vo4qros8v5t0h4ffhdgh9sbj95@inews_id.stereo.hq.phicoh.net...
> In article <f1vn5g$la1$1@ruby.cit.cornell.edu>,
> David Ruether <rpn1@no-junk.cornell.edu> wrote:

>>Not if the area of greatest interest (for sharpness) is in a corner...;-)
>>See an example at http://www.David-Ruether-Photography.com/aht2.html
>>where the DOF effects *are* the photograph...
 
> The car has obvious DoF effects. The other two images seem to have enough
> DoF to cover the frame.
 
The first was shot with the original 55mm f3.5 Micro-Nikkor,
with incomplete DOF coverage of the nose, partially covered
by burning it down; the second was shot with a 28mm at a smallish
stop, looking up between a rocket and a Smithsonian window
(the humor may have been intended in the display?); the third
was shot with the oldest 50mm f1.4 Nikkor and is an example,
I think, of how "bad" lens characteristics (wide aperture illumination
roll-off and "bad" bokeh) can be used to enhance an image.

> The stop is selected 
> With the car image, I would let optical qualities of my lenses guide the
> composition, rather than getting specific lenses for a trick like this. 
> But maybe this is different for you.

I used the lenses I had at the time (these were shot in the '60's),
and tried to use them in ways that took advantage of their inherent
characteristics.

>>It depends on the subject. Shooting landscape, the 16mm f3.5 is sharp
>>center to corners even at f3.5 

> Not if you focus on a subject nearby and the corners are somewhere in the
> distance.
 
Yes. Use a compromise focus and f11 or so. No problem to hand 
hold that lens down to 1/15th or slower. Or, another way of looking 
at it is that a photo has no partial "subject" - EVERYTHING 
within the frame constitutes the photo and is therefore "subject".
I find boring "compositions" that place a supposed "subject" against
a supposed "background", when both exist as part of the same 
graphic image within the (most often) rectangle and should be 
considered parts of an integrated whole along with the edge of that 
rectangle. DOF does not mean that the "subject" is sharp and that 
the "background" either isn't or is - DOF (and therefore lens stop 
used) is chosen (if you have exposure options) for its best contribution 
to the image. Or, a "photo" of a tree is not a "tree" - and in reality
the photo tells you very little about the tree that happened to be in 
front of the camera when the shutter was released to make the 
photo...;-) (Or, ask me about my "Lemon Lecture" sometime...;-)

-- 
David Ruether
 d_ruether@hotmail.com
 http://www.David-Ruether-Photography.com

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"Just plain Dave" <dave@east-englewood.us> wrote in message news:281o43hq70iqk0vaqr4p2ggh48uhqo7bgu@4ax.com...
> On Tue, 15 May 2007 08:31:08 -0500, "Dana John Hill"
> <dana@danajohnhill[RemoveThisPart].com> wrote:
 
>>I just received my Tamron 17-50mm f/2.8 XR today from BH, and in taking my 
>>initial test shots (of junk around the house) I was struck by how blotchy 
>>and bad the pictures look. The images have strikingly poor definition.
>>
>>Dana John Hill
 
> That is a very nice lens and your snaps do not do it justice. Look at
> the images on:
> 
> http://www.photozone.de/8Reviews/lenses/tamron_1750_28/index.htm
>  
> Try a few more shots before sending it back.
> 
> JPD
 
The one at www.photozone.de/8Reviews/lenses/tamron_1750_28/samples/_MG_547601.jpg
(shot at 17mm and f2.8) looks quite sharp over most of the frame, with slight CA at
the edges, but the lower right corner is soft and the lower left corner is VERY soft.
The one at 17mm and f11 (this time a vertical, with different corners) at
http://www.photozone.de/8Reviews/lenses/tamron_1750_28/samples/_MG_5483-01.jpg
Still shows some corner softness, though it is quite good over most of the frame (the 
OP's photo also showed soft corners, but the rest of the test image was not bad). 
I suspect that the higher priced alternatives (like the Nikkor 17-55mm f2.8) don't
necessarily give much, if any, better performance over most of the frame, but may
give better corners in return for the higher price...
-- 
David Ruether
 d_ruether@hotmail.com
 http://www.David-Ruether-Photography.com

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

"Matt Clara" <hey.wood.y@buzz.off> wrote in message news:LZudnUMCxfeqFdbbnZ2dnUVZ_o2vnZ2d@comcast.com...
> "Paul Furman" <paul-@-edgehill.net> wrote in message 
> news:zhL2i.8337$2v1.1836@newssvr14.news.prodigy.net...
>> Matt Clara wrote:
>>> "Paul Furman" <paul-@-edgehill.net> wrote in message 
>>> news:itK2i.29116$Um6.10669@newssvr12.news.prodigy.net...

>>>>Here's a page with a decent summary of various bellows:
>>>>< http://www.mir.com.my/rb/photography/hardwares/classics/michaeliu/cameras/shared/ff2macro/ff2bellow.htm >
>>>>PB-6 Bellows
>>>>A twist of the knob lets you vary the lens extension at will, producing 
>>>>frame-filling images of the most minute subjects. Provides continuously 
>>>>variable extension from 48mm to 208mm. For motorized bodies or newer 
>>>>built in AF cameras, the Bellows Spacer PB-6D enables moving a Nikon F5, 
>>>>F4E, F4s or F3 with MD-4 on the PB-6 rail without interference. * Note: 
>>>>An Auto Extension Ring is required when the PB-6 is used with the F5.

>>> That was me, though it doesn't cover the PB-6.  No, you won't need an 
>>> extension ring for the D200 unless you have the battery pack on it 
>>> (MB-200?), it's strong enough for anything up to a 70-200 f2.8 (though 
>>> why you'd want to use one of those, I don't know, but I did try mine on a 
>>> PB-5, and it worked).  I believe only the PB-4 has swings and shifts, 
>>> though I could be wrong.  These bellows are great fun.  I hope to aquire 
>>> a PB-4 here, eventually.

>> Cool... but... where is that page?
 
> http://www.mattclara.com/misc/nikonbellows/
 
>> So yes, it'll control aperture on G lenses?

> That I don't know; however, considering the PB-6 is older than G lenses, I 
> doubt it (I'd certainly check with Nikon before I bet the bank on it).

The G lenses can be mounted, but as with Nikon bodies that all permit
mounting, only ones that are G-compatible will keep the aperture open
for focus, and permit metering - so the PB-6 will not work for G lenses.
I would not use a 300mm f2.8 for macro work (too ungainly, and it takes
LOTS of extension for only somewhat closer focusing ability [and the lens
may not be sharp with the extension added]). Heavy lenses and bodies
may also introduce instability between them due to the spring-loaded
nature of the bayonette mount on the camera (though the D200 should
be OK). BTW, I have several Nikon extension tubes FS on my web 
page that in various combinations can give a large variety of extensions 
compactly...

>> I would like to try the 300mm f/2.8 for hand held bee, butterfly & 
>> dragonfly closeups that fill the frame... maybe entirely impractical? They 
>> run away from 200mm & the +2 diopter closeup lens degrades image quality.
>> To be of any use on a tripod, I'll need a much sturdier tripod but the 
>> rig I'm looking at has a slide holder which I could use to hold little 
>> flowers & such... and duplicate my old slides. I suspect I'll need a 
>> special bellows lens for that configuration though, my 105 macro lens is 
>> awfully long.
 
A slide duplicator attachment does make things easier - but near 1:1,
it is VERY frustrating adjusting magnification, size, and focus...
 
> If you could pull that off, you could be a professional athlete of the first 
> magnitude!  No way you can handhold a bellows setup.  I've used mine with a 
> beanbag, and that came out ok, though you really need two bean bags, one for 
> the bellows and one for the camera.  Annika1980 has gotten some nice images 
> such as you describe using a 400mm f5.6 on a 20D with a monopod--manual 
> focus, no less...
> --
> www.mattclara.com

On my web site here ("Bugs") at www.David-Ruether-Photography.com/phun.html,
you will find hand-held photos of insects, some up to 3X on film. The
secret is that I used for most a 200mm f4 (light and small - and sharp)
with a 2X converter + achromat with a TTL flash mounted at the front
(ONLY ONE!) pointed at the subject focused point (the relatively large
flash head acts like a soft box, giving a nice light - and it stops action).
With patience and many failures on the approaches, the first flash seems
to "anchor" the insect, giving me opportunity to explore different framings.
For instance, dragon flies skip away when you are within 6-8 feet, but
if you slowly and carefully move up on one and get that flash in, you can 
then get very close and shoot what you want (or even move grass out 
of the way from around it...).
-- 
David Ruether
 d_ruether@hotmail.com
 http://www.David-Ruether-Photography.com


~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

"SMS" <scharf.steven@geemail.com> wrote in message news:464dcb1e$0$27208$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net...
> Dave Cohen wrote:

>> I don't use Jiffy, they're too expensive for a simple oil/filter change. 
>> However, I suspect these ripoffs are confined to certain unscrupulous 
>> dealers rather than a generic problem. I imagine a lot depends on how 
>> gullible they access the customer.
>> Dave Cohen
 
> Jiffy Lube has these problems in many areas. They always make statements 
> about how they are going to fix the problems, but they never do.
 
> Avoid them at all costs.
> 
> Also see: http://www.jiffylubeproblems.com
 
We also had problems - and I would go with the last advice.
We took a nice Toyota PU in with its great engine that was
running fine, quietly, and without oil use at 100k miles. After
being fitted with the wrong size filter (apparently a common
mistake at JL) the oil leaked out and the engine was damaged.
JL did acknowledge their mistake, and after MANY meetings,
agreed to a $400 payment (well short of the $2000 it would 
have taken for a proper repair, but the PU was still usable
[though it has lost much of its resale value and some of its use
life]). We won't be going back...
-- 
David Ruether
 d_ruether@hotmail.com
 http://www.David-Ruether-Photography.com


~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

"Rita ─ Berkowitz" <ritaberk2O04 @aol.com> wrote in message news:134pjbe53veihbd@news.supernews.com...
> Paul Furman wrote:

>> You know, I don't think this will work. Looking again at an AI & G
>>  lens, they both spring to a stopped down position when unmounted but
>> the AI lens will only stop down as far as it's ring says & the G lens
>> will stop all the way down. The cable connector thing is an AR-10 and
>> it's just a mechanical plunger that holds the spring open & when
>> pressed, lets go for the aperture to stop down wherever the ring is
>> set. One could put a little piece of tape on there to set the
>> aperture on a G lens but it's not going to be automatic.
 
> Way too much trouble screwing around with bellows, especially if you 
> primarily shoot handheld.  Just get an old 50/1.4mm AI Nikkor and reverse 
> mount it in front of the 105mm VR and you're kicking with some decent 
> handheld 3:1 macro. 
> < http://www.geocities.com/ritaberk2007/small_stuff.htm > 
> Rita 

I second this - it is the easiest and cheapest way to get good 
high-magnification images. Use the reverse 50mm f1.4 set wide 
open and the 105 set at what you want (preferably f11 or so
for best results). Unfortunately, though, the 105 shortens its FL
during close focus and the 50 shortens it more (why it works),
and the end result is that there is not much room between the
lens and subject. You can add a 2X converter, but not with the
G version...
-- 
David Ruether
 d_ruether@hotmail.com
 http://www.David-Ruether-Photography.com


~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

"Paul Furman" <paul-@-edgehill.net> wrote in message news:7133i.8407$2v1.2649@newssvr14.news.prodigy.net...
> David Ruether wrote:
 
>> The G lenses can be mounted, but as with Nikon bodies that all permit
>> mounting, only ones that are G-compatible will keep the aperture open
>> for focus, and permit metering - so the PB-6 will not work for G lenses.
 
> It does have the option to either have the aperture all the way open 
> while composing with AI lenses though... and stop down for the shot so I 
> don't see why it wouldn't work with a G lens using the cable connector. 
> The D200 would just have to be told the aperture range.

As you have since found, that %$#& Nikon move to the "G"
mount has cabolixed many good old things about Nikon gear,
including the use of their tubes, bellows, converters, older 
bodies, etc.  BAD, Nikon, VERY BAD!!!!

>> I would not use a 300mm f2.8 for macro work (too ungainly, and it takes
>> LOTS of extension for only somewhat closer focusing ability [and the lens
>> may not be sharp with the extension added]).

> I did get one sharp shot at ISO 1600 with the 300 plus 1.4 TC 
> plus the closeup lens which comes close to the quality of the 105 micro, 
> perhaps because this one was focused at infinity (30 inches away):
> < http://www.edgehill.net/1/?SC=go.php&DIR=Misc/photography/2007-05-17-macro&PG=2&PIC=7 >
>> A slide duplicator attachment does make things easier - but near 1:1,
>> it is VERY frustrating adjusting magnification, size, and focus...
 
> Better than *without* a copy stand of some sort though. The PB-6 is the 
> way to go for that... I get your point though that's it's still really 
> tedious work.... plus I would need another specialized lens for that.

It's a *pain*!
 
>> On my web site here ("Bugs") at www.David-Ruether-Photography.com/phun.html,
>> you will find hand-held photos of insects, some up to 3X on film. The
>> secret is that I used for most a 200mm f4 (light and small - and sharp)
>> with a 2X converter + achromat with a TTL flash mounted at the front
 
> Nice "hummingbird-moth":
> http://www.David-Ruether-Photography.com/web_photos/phun_fotoz/bugs/b62.jpg

This one was shot with a 300mm f4.5 and 2X with flash - it
is the flash that makes all this possible (and lotsa tries...! ;-).
 
> Does a flash even do anything in full daylight? I don't have an 
> off-camera flash & don't use my on-camera much. 
 
Yes! An SB-24 or similar, using a remote cord and bracket and pointed 
directly at where the subject is focused (use a fixed focus point and move
the camera/lens), can cover even very small effective stops (like f45)
if close enough - and easily "swamp" daylight.
 
> I have thought about 
> those mini Nikon flash units that can be mounted on the front of a macro 
> lens.. two of them could make real nice 1:1 macros and they can be 
> placed off camera without cables in a pinch for general flash work.

Do not use two! Too many people do and get either very flat 
lighting and/or double shadows. Yuck!

>> (ONLY ONE!) pointed at the subject focused point (the relatively large
>> flash head acts like a soft box, giving a nice light - and it stops action).
>> With patience and many failures on the approaches, the first flash seems
>> to "anchor" the insect, giving me opportunity to explore different framings.
>> For instance, dragon flies skip away when you are within 6-8 feet, but
>> if you slowly and carefully move up on one and get that flash in, you can
>> then get very close and shoot what you want (or even move grass out
>> of the way from around it...).
 
> Deer in the headlights effect... hmmm, clever.
> -- 
> Paul Furman Photography

It was a neat discovery. I could actually touch that large dragonfly
on my web site and clear the grass around it after the first flash...! ;-)
And the flash makes the use of optimum stops for lens sharpness
and DOF (usually hard in macro) easy. With the large flash head
near the subject, the lighting is soft and surprisingly natural-looking.
-- 
David Ruether
 d_ruether@hotmail.com
 http://www.David-Ruether-Photography.com


~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

 

"Floyd L. Davidson" <floyd@apaflo.com> wrote in message news:87k5v5swyu.fld@barrow.com...
> "David Ruether" <rpn1@no-junk.cornell.edu> wrote:
>>"Rita ─ Berkowitz" <ritaberk2O04 @aol.com> wrote in message news:134pjbe53veihbd@news.supernews.com...
>>> Paul Furman wrote:

>>>> You know, I don't think this will work. Looking again at an AI & G
>>>>  lens, they both spring to a stopped down position when unmounted but
>>>> the AI lens will only stop down as far as it's ring says & the G lens
>>>> will stop all the way down. The cable connector thing is an AR-10 and
>>>> it's just a mechanical plunger that holds the spring open & when
>>>> pressed, lets go for the aperture to stop down wherever the ring is
>>>> set. One could put a little piece of tape on there to set the
>>>> aperture on a G lens but it's not going to be automatic.

>>> Way too much trouble screwing around with bellows, especially if you primarily shoot handheld.  Just get an old 50/1.4mm AI Nikkor
>>> and reverse mount it in front of the 105mm VR and you're kicking with some decent handheld 3:1 macro.
>>> <http://www.geocities.com/ritaberk2007/small_stuff.htm> Rita

>>I second this - it is the easiest and cheapest way to get good
>>high-magnification images. Use the reverse 50mm f1.4 set wide
>>open and the 105 set at what you want (preferably f11 or so
>>--DR 

> You've been misled by Rita, perhaps forgotten what
> the OP said the purpose of this discussion was...
> solving a problem with insects that are scared off by
> the close proximity when using a 200mm lense with a +2
> diopter.

No - the OP put out various things like wanting more 
working space, using a 300mm f2.8 on a bellows, using
a 105 Macro, using G lenses, etc., and Rita provided
a workable solution (I used a similar one with a 90mm
Macro for some of my insect photos - you can get VERY
close to bees, flies, etc. and make successful photos...).
What counts is the sharpness of the combinations at the
magnifications desired, and technique. Insects may appear
to be shy, but they often aren't really (same as birds and 
people - it just depends on how you approach them, and 
with what...;-).

> Now, how is moving to a 105mm with a +20 diopter going
> to improve that situation?  As you note below that would
> just be unfortunate, as the working distance would no
> just be worse, it would be approaching zero...

So, your point of the post is what? I already noted what
you are noting (but I add here, it may not matter...;-).
 
>>for best results). Unfortunately, though, the 105 shortens its FL
>>during close focus and the 50 shortens it more (why it works),
>>and the end result is that there is not much room between the
>>lens and subject. You can add a 2X converter, but not with the
>>G version...
 
> That 2x converter might do fairly well on the 200mm
> lense though!  If not, perhaps a different 2x converter
> would, so finding a selection and testing which is
> sharpest is a good thing to try if possible.  
 
Always a good idea since the parts don't predict very well
the quality of the sum of the combinations... I don't know 
of any suitable "G"-mount converters, though.
 
> And rather
> than a simple +2 diopter, and achromatic +2.9 is
> probably the best solution.
> -- 
> Floyd L. Davidson            < http://www.apaflo.com/floyd_davidson >

Generally, yes. Nikon made two sizes of two strengths, though
these may not all be currently available (ah, Nikon, WHAT are
you DOING?!?!?). 
-- 
David Ruether
 d_ruether@hotmail.com
 http://www.David-Ruether-Photography.com


~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

"Nicholas O. Lindan" <see@sig.com> wrote in message news:wbl3i.12005$j63.9695@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net...
> "David Ruether" <rpn1@no-junk.cornell.edu> wrote

[About flashes for macro...] 
>> Do not use two! Too many people do and get either very flat
>> lighting and/or double shadows. Yuck!
>> > > (ONLY ONE!) pointed at the subject focused point (the relatively large
>> > > flash head acts like a soft box, giving a nice light
 
> I found a good macro flash could be made using a pocket
> light-bouncer gizmo.  Aim the flash head forwards/slight angle
> and the bouncer reflects the light down on the subject right in
> front of the lens.  Very convenient with TTL metering.  A
> variation is to use a potato-masher flash on the side and the
> head swiveled over a bit so the light is up and to the side.
> A few minutes with a mat knife, some velcro and
> white card and a DIY unit is yours for pennies, or:
> 
> http://www.stofen.com/Store/TwoWay.htm

These can work very well - unless the lens is physically very
long but not narrow-angle...
 
>> > 50/1.4mm AI Nikkor and reverse mount it in front of the 105mm VR
>> Unfortunately, though, the 105 shortens its FL
>> You can add a 2X converter, but not with the
>> G version...
 
> You can mount the converter on the back of the reversed 50mm,
> but that's getting silly. 
> -- 
> Nicholas O. Lindan, Cleveland, Ohio

Ummm, I don't think this would work - I think it would vignette
(but I haven't tried it...).
-- 
David Ruether
 d_ruether@hotmail.com
 http://www.David-Ruether-Photography.com


~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

 

"Floyd L. Davidson" <floyd@apaflo.com> wrote in message news:874pm9skr9.fld@barrow.com...
> "David Ruether" <rpn1@no-junk.cornell.edu> wrote:
>>"Floyd L. Davidson" <floyd@apaflo.com> wrote in message news:87k5v5swyu.fld@barrow.com...

>>> You've been misled by Rita, perhaps forgotten what
>>> the OP said the purpose of this discussion was...
>>> solving a problem with insects that are scared off by
>>> the close proximity when using a 200mm lense with a +2
>>> diopter.

>>No - the OP put out various things like wanting more
>>working space, using a 300mm f2.8 on a bellows, using
>>a 105 Macro, using G lenses, etc., and Rita provided
>>a workable solution (I used a similar one with a 90mm
 
> The OP based *all* discussion on a need to get closer to
> bugs that are frightened off when using a 200mm with a
> +2.0 diopter.

Yes. Read what he and I said again...;-)
 
> It starts with the bugs, and a only hits on other directions
> as things that having such a setup would peripherally allow.

Yes, so...? 
I was only pointing out the same thing you did, but before
you, about what Rita said - but I also pointed out that it can 
work with appropriate technique, and I offered samples of
my successes with similar gear. One really can stick a lens
(BTW, it is spelled "lens"...;-) almost on top of many insects
and get successful hand-held high magnification photographs 
of them (and I have shot MANY bee photos and been stung 
only once - when I inadvertantly stepped on one...).
 
>>Macro for some of my insect photos - you can get VERY
>>close to bees, flies, etc. and make successful photos...).
>>What counts is the sharpness of the combinations at the
>>magnifications desired, and technique. Insects may appear
>>to be shy, but they often aren't really (same as birds and
>>people - it just depends on how you approach them, and
>>with what...;-).
 
> But that isn't working for the OP.

I told him a "trick" that does work...
 
>>> Now, how is moving to a 105mm with a +20 diopter going
>>> to improve that situation?  As you note below that would
>>> just be unfortunate, as the working distance would no
>>> just be worse, it would be approaching zero...

>>So, your point of the post is what? I already noted what
>>you are noting (but I add here, it may not matter...;-).
 
> The point of my post is to provide perspective on the
> previous discussion before discussing ideas I think
> actually are valid.  I don't see much validity in saying
> you agree with a technique that you also find
> unsuitable...  More emphasis on how unsuitable it was, and
> why, was required.

But it *can* work! That was my point. You do not need
feet or inches between the lens end and the insect - sometimes
even a few milimeters will do. If you think you need a macro
lens that gives high magnification at 8 feet, you are going to be 
most miserable lugging the gear around for shooting bugs,
and it would be too slow for effective operation...;-) With a 
compact hand-held system, one can follow insects really
close in (most pay no attention to you unless you "bug" them ;-).
Of course, if you have the money, get the Nikkor 200mm
macro - it is good and it can be fitted with achromats for 
additional magnification (and the camera can be fitted with
a simple bracket to properly place a single TTL flash on a
TTL cord) - but that's not what the OP has...

>>>>for best results). Unfortunately, though, the 105 shortens its FL
>>>>during close focus and the 50 shortens it more (why it works),
>>>>and the end result is that there is not much room between the
>>>>lens and subject. You can add a 2X converter, but not with the
>>>>G version...

[Apparently the last part is wrong...?]

>>> That 2x converter might do fairly well on the 200mm
>>> lense though!  If not, perhaps a different 2x converter
>>> would, so finding a selection and testing which is
>>> sharpest is a good thing to try if possible.

>>Always a good idea since the parts don't predict very well
>>the quality of the sum of the combinations... I don't know
>>of any suitable "G"-mount converters, though.
 
> He may be out of luck then, at least as far as using
> that G lense.  (That might not be a bad thing, as a
> 200mm lense made for the purpose will probably be
> significantly better in other ways too.)

Yes. But it is FAR from cheap...
 
>>> And rather
>>> than a simple +2 diopter, and achromatic +2.9 is
>>> probably the best solution.

>>Generally, yes. Nikon made two sizes of two strengths, though
>>these may not all be currently available (ah, Nikon, WHAT are
>>you DOING?!?!?).
 
> The Canon and the Olympus achromatic diopters are
> probably easier to find.  They also fit larger sized
> filter rings than the Nikon models, so they are probably
> preferable.
> -- 
> Floyd L. Davidson            < http://www.apaflo.com/floyd_davidson >

One can use next-size step-down rings with close-ups/
achromats on lenses without causing vignetting...
-- 
David Ruether
 d_ruether@hotmail.com
 http://www.David-Ruether-Photography.com


~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

"Roger N. Clark (change username to rnclark)" <username@qwest.net> wrote in message news:465116AF.4050902@qwest.net...
> Robert Peirce wrote:
 
>> Digital would have a very long way to go to come close to 4x5 color 
>> slides.
 
> I haven't taken a 4x5 film image in over a year now.
> I've replaced it with digital mosaics.
> 
> http://www.clarkvision.com/photoinfo/large_mosaics

This is amazing!
 
> and I've pushed my own ability for large pixel count
> mosaics into new areas could never get with 4x5, e.g.
> these hand held mosaics from a vehicle:
> 
> http://www.clarkvision.com/galleries/gallery.africa/web/zebra.sunrise.c01.23.2007.JZ3F0891-6c-1200.html
> 
> http://www.clarkvision.com/galleries/gallery.africa/web/zebras.c01.23.2007.JZ3F0584-91d-800.html

Huh??? A four-frame mosaic hand-held, of two ***ANIMALS***?!?!?!
NEAT!
 
> http://www.clarkvision.com/galleries/gallery.africa/web/manyara.sunset.c01.17.2007.JZ3F7144-9b-800.html
> 
> Roger
 
Interesting work, to say the least...! ;-)
-- 
David Ruether
 d_ruether@hotmail.com
 http://www.David-Ruether-Photography.com


~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

"frederick" <lost@sea.com> wrote in message news:1179895470.121147@ftpsrv1...
> frederick wrote:

>> Any experiences / recommendations?
>  
> Oops - I forgot that there is an AF-s version.  I'm looking at on for an 
> AF D - not AF-s.
 
Not very useful for AF and with bodies that require the 
the contacts for info pass-through, but if you can find it,
the TC14C was excellent with this lens (and the TC14B
was good). Likely the TC14E would be fine too (I didn't 
like the TC14A, TC200, or TC20E on the 80-200mm
f2.8 non-S).
-- 
David Ruether
 d_ruether@hotmail.com
 http://www.David-Ruether-Photography.com


~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

"David Ruether" <rpn1@no-junk.cornell.edu> wrote:

> Likely the TC14E would be fine too

In order to get a 80-200mm f/2.8D to mount on a TC14E,
you have to file off a flange.  You can then use the
80-200mm as a manual focus lens.

In order to retain autofocus operation, I use a Kenko
Teleplus Pro DG 1.4x with mine.  All functions of the
lens are retained, except that the camera will report
the unmodified aperture and focal length.

-- 
Michael Benveniste -- mhb-offer@clearether.com

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

"frederick" <lost@sea.com> wrote in message news:1180057441.142584@ftpsrv1...
> RichA wrote:
>> ....which brand was consistently good or at least of decent quality?
>> 
>> Kiron
>> Tamron (had 80-210, trash)
>> Tokina (had 400mm, junk)
>> Sigma
>> others?
>> 
> You can forget "consistently good or even decent" for Sigma too.  I own 
> a couple of EX series AF lenses that seem well made and perform 
> wonderfully, but I have also had the misfortune to have owned some older 
> Sigma MF lenses that were truly terrible in every possible way.
> OTOH, I have owned at least one "Made in Japan" Nikkor zoom (the 43-86) 
> that was easily optically on par with the old sigmas.  The use of more 
> metal in the construction of that Nikkor was unfortunate, as it could 
> surely well and truly outlast the "trash-by" date.  I found the old 
> 43-86 that had been left in my basement - unused, for over 15 years. 
> Miraculously it was completely fungus-free and clean.  A few test shots 
> with a dslr confirmed why I stuck in in the basement in the first place. 
>  However, there is one thing that seem to ring true for Nikkor lenses. 
> They keep their value well.  I had quite a few auction bids for it and 
> sold it for quite a good price.  The buyer collected it in person, and 
> was going to use it with an adapter on a Canon dslr. I never asked why.
> YMMV.
 
Ah, you had the good fortune of having bidders who did not 
know that there were two very different versions of the Nikkor
43-86mm (they would have known, had they checked out 
my Nikkor comparison list, at -- 
www.David-Ruether-Photography.com/slemn.html). Nikon offered 
the earlier version as a very early constant-aperture zoom
of moderate price at a time when little else like it was 
available. Unfortunately, it was TERRIBLE by current 
standards, but when it came out, many people were willing
to trade off decent performance for convenience (sound 
familiar? ;-) Maybe the buyer of your lens just wanted a
very soft lens, for "effects"...;-)
-- 
David Ruether
 d_ruether@hotmail.com
 http://www.David-Ruether-Photography.com


~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

<mark.thomas.7@gmail.com> wrote in message news:1180694572.137224.9470@i38g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
 
> And you say genuine Olympus lens tissue leaves a residue????  I'm a
> little surprised to hear that...  Sure it's not "Olmypus" brand
> perhaps?  (O:

Several years ago I used some Olympus brand tissue on a lens
(fortunately not mine!) and it apparently was impregnated with
silicone that left a nasty, VERY difficult to clean mess on the lens
surface. I used to use only Kodak tissue, but was forced to 
later buy the supposedly identical Vivitar brand (it was slightly 
different) from B&H several years ago when Kodak stopped 
selling their tissue. That is what I continue to use, when necessary.
BTW, NEVER use a silicone "cleaner" on a lens - things may
look fine at first, but later, YUCK (and that stuff is extremely 
hard to get off a lens!)!
-- 
David Ruether
 d_ruether@hotmail.com
 http://www.David-Ruether-Photography.com

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

"Ray" <vortren-newsx@yaxhoo.com> wrote in message news:Xns9942A393735EEamfmssb@207.115.33.102...
 
[...]
> That's possible.  As I recall, it didn't seem to be cleaning as well 
> as usual, so I may have pushed harder than I should have.  Apart from 
> the myriad scratches, the filter ended up nice and clean. 
 
Scratches, or narrow grease tracks? I hate cleaning multicoated
lens surfaces, which is why I prefer single-coated filters (the Hoya
multicoated filters are particularly difficult to clean).
 
> This was a Promaster brand microfiber cloth, which I think is the 
> camera store's house brand.  I used it as usual, then discovered a 
> horde of short, fine scratches on the filter, in the same sort of 
> circular pattern I used in the cleaning.  The cloth had been recently 
> washed, so there shouldn't have been any grit in it.  

Perhaps soap, or remains of the silicone? Maybe the "scratches"
will still clean off. Try Palmolive in cotton balls under running
water (you may need to try lighter fluid first), followed by a good 
rinse in distilled water and presurized air drying, with a tissue and
breath (breathing *upward* onto the glass surface to fog it) finish
(with Q-Tips and breath for small remaining marks). In other words,
stay with single-coated Hoya filters - the multicoating generally 
serves no useful purpose, costs more, and is hard to clean...
-- 
David Ruether
 d_ruether@hotmail.com
 http://www.David-Ruether-Photography.com


~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

<lindagoldstein100@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:1180364131.318166.220590@j4g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
 
> urgent ..need info on large size TV
> ******************************************
> 
> We are very confused. So many technologies.

Yes, this is very confusing to most - but factors below will
help sort out what you may wind up with...
 
> Would like a 50 to 56 inch TV or thereabouts.

This eliminates the best technologies, the LCD and Plasma
panels, preferably in 1080p, but leaves the best of the DLP 
and LCD projectors...

> We have a large room.

With the best HD TVs with good source material, it is a 
waste to sit 35 feet from the TV. Rearrange the furniture
for best positioning of the TV, sound, seating, and lighting 
for best results. It doesn't need to look like a "home theater", 
though...

> max budget around $1300.
Tough..., but with compromises, a 50" projector is possible.
 
> There is DLP, Plasma and LCD  etc .. 
> Which one is better and why ?

I prefer the best LCDs (room lighting is less critical than
plasma, cheaper for the same resolution, brightness doesn't
go down with age, brighter, runs cooler with less power).
A projector has more problems with off-axis viewing, but
can be very bright, and the bulbs are fairly easily replaced
(and you get a bigger TV for the money, though not as
good a picture).
 
> Walmart, Frys, Best Buy , Circuit City all offering different
> products,
> technologies etc.

Very confusing - and if you are critical of picture quality,
they can all look bad, but in different ways (for instance, 
see how different the rendering of text is on different brands,
especially high contrast edges with diagonals and curves
[a VERY few pass this test...]).

> We Don't care about brand and
> not very particular on fanatastic picture quality.

????????? 
So why spend the money???
Buy a highly-rated smaller screen LCD or plasma, maybe
pay a little more for it, set things up properly to optimize
its picture and sound, and ENJOY it instead of wishing you 
had not compromised (though I guess most people really
don't care about great TV picture and sound, and so miss 
a LOT of the potential experience - and large is often not
better...). BTW, you do not need surround sound for
good sound (especially from those miserable packaged 
systems) - you can properly place your stereo speakers
relative to the TV (no center channel or "subwoofer" needed
with any decent stereo speaker) and plug the TV audio into 
your audio receiver or amplifier. 

> Just want a good reliable TV that gives us best value for the money.
> That can last 6 years or so.

Any decent brand... (our LCD is rated for 26 years of use 
at 6 hours per day..;-). 
 
> Also any info on TV stands ? what to avoid ?

Any that will not reliably not hold the weight of the TV.
From what you say, though, you may like a 50" DLP 
projector - and it doesn't need an additional stand.

-- 
David Ruether
 d_ruether@hotmail.com
 http://www.David-Ruether-Photography.com


~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

"Rick" <e_man_online@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:1180501585.557784.288610@g4g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
 
> How can I transfer video recordings taken with a Cannon camcorder (not
> digital) on a V8 tape, and save it to a PC running Windows XP ? What
> do I needto buy & do?
> Your help is greaty appreciated.
> 
> Thanks in advance,
> 
> Rick

If all you want is an unedited DVD as the final copy, buy a cheap
DVD recorder and send the analogue signals from the Hi-8
camcorder directly to it (use the "S" input instead of the yellow
RCA). If you want to edit and have a FireWire input on the
computer (if not, PCI FireWire cards are cheap - ones with TI 
chips may still be best), you can borrow or buy a cheap D8 
camcorder (plays analogue or digital signals from Hi-8 tape,
and records digital in Mini-DV format to Hi-8 tape) and send
the output of the camcorder to the computer through the 
FireWire. An alternative is to borrow or buy a Mini-DV 
camcorder that has analogue pass-through (you connect the
analogue cables from the Hi-8 ["S" for picture...] to the new
camcorder, and its FireWire out to the computer input [or
you can copy the Hi-8 tape to Mini-DV and later send it
to the computer - and you can do the reverse for mastering
the edited video to a new tape]). XP has a decent free 
editing program that is easy to use. 
-- 
David Ruether
 d_ruether@hotmail.com
 http://www.David-Ruether-Photography.com


~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

"ASAAR" <caught@22.com> wrote in message news:onp163h2o3slc686man7orpsql6mfa6uqj@4ax.com...
> On Sat, 02 Jun 2007 15:18:10 +1200, frederick wrote:
 
>> Wow - that sure is one ugly camera.
>> Retro styling can't make up for the true heritage Sony lacks.
>> They haven't IMO created anything noteworthy since the trinitron tube, 
>> and haven't had a marketing success since the walkman  They are just 
>> lucky that they made enough $$ out of those to pursue a path of growth 
>> through acquisition.
>> YMMV.

>  It does indeed vary.  Although they weren't marketing successes,
> their MiniDisc recorders were noteworthy and excellent products.
> The MD preamps still have lower noise than much newer, much more
> expensive devices.  They record with almost the same quality as DAT
> recorders, but are far cheaper, far more reliable, and last far
> longer.  (DAT recording heads wear out very quickly).  They've also
> made a lot of money from their Playstations, and their Clies were
> probably the best Palm type PDAs made.  As far as the new Sony
> Alphas are concerned, the significance is NOT that one of them has
> an ugly, large prism, (unless the ugliness is due not to what's atop
> the camera but to their extremely large bases) but that it hints
> that one of the two new Alphas will have a Full Frame sensor.

Also notable for Sony: the VX2000 Mini-DV camcorder that
was (and is, in the form of the current similar VX2100) best of
type for many years), and the 707/717 digital still camera...
-- 
David Ruether
 d_ruether@hotmail.com
 http://www.David-Ruether-Photography.com


~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

"Marco S Hyman" <marc@snafu.org> wrote in message news:x7k5um0z6n.fsf@neko.snafu.org...
 
> When looking at lens specs I see something like this mentioned for
> filters
> 
>  Filter Size, 82mm, P=0.75mm/1 filter.
> 
> OK, so what is the P=0.75mm trying to tell me?   A link to a
> clue-stick would be appreciated.
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> // marc
 
Don't worry about it - the "P" indicates mounting thread
pitch, which is compatible among current lens offerings,
and the number indicates the filter/lens mount diameter
(but you can use stepping rings to use larger filters on a 
given lens).
-- 
David Ruether
 d_ruether@hotmail.com
 http://www.David-Ruether-Photography.com


~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

"ASAAR" <caught@22.com> wrote in message news:nmg3631gvn7fuajq4qksbpgoq608c4rmql@4ax.com...
> On Sat, 2 Jun 2007 09:31:24 -0400, David Ruether wrote:
 
>> Also notable for Sony: the VX2000 Mini-DV camcorder that
>> was (and is, in the form of the current similar VX2100) best of
>> type for many years), and the 707/717 digital still camera...
 
>  Wow, at over $2000 for the VX2100 I should hope so!  I recently
> became interested in Mini-DV camcorders, but it appears that there's
> a lot to learn!

Ah, then I direct you to my Mini-DV camcorder 
comparisons and articles on video on my web page, 
at www.David-Ruether-Photography.com/articles.html#video ;-)
Don't miss this one (I think from the hit counter that
too many do - though it may make you sick...;-) - 
www.David-Ruether-Photography.com/vid_pict_characts.htm.
I have also just finished uploading copies of over 
16,000 NG posts of mine on photo and video (the
last two groups are heavier with video comments than
the earliest group). Have fun! ;-)
-- 
David Ruether
 d_ruether@hotmail.com
 http://www.David-Ruether-Photography.com


~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

"Freddo" <homealone@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:465a6edf$0$17388$afc38c87@news.optusnet.com.au...

> Video and motion graphics is my passion.
> Does anyone know of tours or related places of interest when I visit Seattle 
> and down the west coast mid June - July '07 I should see?
> Thanks,
> Bill

My memory is fading a bit on specifics, but here goes...
In Seattle, Pike Place Market (Public Market) on a
Saturday; Gasworks Park in the evening; Seattle Center
late afternoon, going to the top of the Space Needle
to watch sunset; Bremerton ferry in the late afternoon.
Mount Rainier National Park - there are some 
SPECTACULAR views of it from cliff-edge trails 
leading away from Paradise Valley Inn (be careful!),
and some nice Alpine meadow areas - and if you are
VERY adventurous, there are conducted climbs to
the top of the 14.000' high volcano (still active...).
Mt. St. Hellens, that blew up not long ago. The coast
toward Oregon and the Oregon coast are interesting,
with the huge Crater Lake inland being very impressive.
South into California on Coast Rt. 1 you find the
Redwoods (National Park, State Parks, and the 
Rochefeller Woods), Pt. Reyes, Muir Woods, Sausalito,
the Golden Gate Bridge (take the exit just before it
to get a great view of the bridge and San Francisco).
In San Francisco, sigh, there is SO MUCH! Try
Golden Gate Park (many things there - walk from the
Panhandle on the right side in to the conservatory,
on to the tree-fern area, the museum and tea garden 
area, water areas, horse area, and finally onto the
long wide beach at the ocean. Take a trolley back.
Walk from Market Street up Grant until you get
to the water (passing through the financial district, 
Chinatown, the old red light district, the old bohemian
area, and finally to the fish markets, chocolate 
factory, boats, etc.). Take the Powell St. cable car
back. Any cable car ride in the evening is a treat!
BTW, at any given spot, you may have a transportation
choice of: trolley, cable car, bus, underground trolley,
BART, or taxi - or just walk (the city is VERY hilly,
but small). On Telegraph Hill, explore the odd spots
where a mysterious street sign appears - there is likely
an associated hole with stairs, gate, or some such
that can lead you through gardens, to interesting
views, or even out into space on a stairway suspended
in front of a high cliff (think "3-D" in SF, though the 
street map appears to be a grid...;-). Explore the 
other parks in SF - some are developed, some are
wild lands (great if you catch the fog puffing through
the trees, or flowing over the hill tops...). On the way 
out, the area just NE of Stanford U. in Palo Alto has 
some very dense dark woods plus redwoods plus
golden grass areas. Go from here to the ocean and 
Rt. 1 over the mountains. Go down Rt. 1 as far as 
you want - it is a VERY beautiful coastline after
Monterey. Stop at Pt. Lobos (Edward Weston's
source...;-) and Big Sur, plus any other state parks 
of interest. The coast route is alternating sweeps out
to the sea cliffs and into the canyon ends - it can be
"interesting" to drive it...;-) San Simeon ("Hearst's
Castle") is interesting. 'Course, if you are in the area,
try not to miss Yosemite National Park (SUPER!),
Kings-Canyon/Sequoia, and if you dare (heed ALL
the safety advice, particularly about water-quantity 
stocks!!!), Death Valley National Park.
-- 
David Ruether
 d_ruether@hotmail.com
 http://www.David-Ruether-Photography.com
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"Spex" <No.spam@ta.com> wrote in message news:466345b6$0$8723$ed2619ec@ptn-nntp-reader02.plus.net...
> David Ruether wrote:
>> "Freddo" <homealone@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:465a6edf$0$17388$afc38c87@news.optusnet.com.au...
[long post deleted...]
 
> Oh my word.
> 
> David Ruether returns.  Nappy will be pleased.

8^) 
But it was just for a visit...
 
> Glad you overcame your illness and returned after all this time.
> 
> S
 
Thanks. It still lingers in the form of confusions,
speech problems, and shaking/jerking (the last 
has left me out of commercial photography and 
video of any kind, alas..., and I have much FS 
on my web page as a result). BTW, I've just 
finished putting 16,000 + copies of all my 'net 
posts (except the health-related ones) on my
web page - all one-finger typed! I didn't 
include most of my multitude of email responses 
to questions - there are limits! ;-)
-- 
David Ruether
 d_ruether@hotmail.com
 http://www.David-Ruether-Photography.com
 
Go to:  More Posts - Six
Go to:  More Posts Index
Go to:  Articles Index
Go to:  David Ruether Photography