Jump to content

robert_segal1

Members
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Posts

    228

  • Joined

  • Last visited

 Content Type 

Posts posted by robert_segal1

    Beginner's Guide to Using a Macro Lens

    in Nature

    Posted

    One of the best 'somewheres' to start is John Shaw's book "Closeups in Nature" (Amphoto). It should clear up your questions, tell you why ring flash is undesirable, and advise you well on the sort of equipment on which you should be spending your money.

    <p>

    Because the book is so often discussed in the Photo.Net archives, perhaps an even better 'somewhere' to start would be the P.N search engine. There's a massive amount of basic info there, not just on macro but on every other photo topic. Did you search first? You might also try the P.N learning section for macro at <a href="http://www.photo.net/macro/primer">http://www.photo.net/macro/primer</a>.

    <p>

    Cheers!

    Vivitar new fd series 1

    in Canon FD Mount

    Posted

    Notes I just realised I had on Series-1 lenses:

     

    First, check out http://people.smu.edu/rmonagha/third/cult.html

     

    From http://www.luminous-landscape.com/solid_cat.htm :

    "Back in the late '70s Vivitar appeared on the scene with a series of � for then � exceptional lenses. Today the Vivitar brand has been debased and sits at the lower end of the market. But in the mid-70's to early '80's the brand appeared on some fascinating and high quality lenses. Probably the most famous of these was the first 70~210mm f/3.5 zoom wearing the Series 1 moniker.

     

    "This series of lenses was designed by an American company - Opcon Associates, of Stamford Connecticut, whose chief designer, E. Betensky had worked for Perkin-Elmer as a senior optical designer. Perkin-Elmer worked extensively at the time for NASA as well as other U.S. government agencies and is renown as the designers and builders of the Hubble Space Telescope's optical systems (including the near sighted mirror)."

     

    In this forum, see the thread "FD LENS QUESTIONS..SEVERAL QUESTIONS," esp. the reponse dated Fri, 18 Jan 2002 16:55:21 GMT

    Canon FT

    in Accessories

    Posted

    Search the archives: So many responses have been posted to the question "where can I find a PX625 battery?" that it scarcely qualifies as "very difficult to find." A minor pain to order over the internet from outside the U.S., perhaps, but not "very difficult." [i only pipe up because the FT was my first SLR.]

     

    And not that you need a metre. On Photo.Net look up exposure and the "sunny-16" rule and read the inside of your next box of film.

     

    Zooms and beginners should not mix. Learn to compose, not cut corners.

     

    Luck!

    OT: Airport X-ray. An Expriment.

    in Leica and Rangefinders

    Posted

    What do "traces of x-ray" look like, Igor? I'm curious to know what you�re looking for. (You'd be seeing an even fogging, not streaks, by the way.)

    <p>

    Everyone needs a hobby and mine is the stomping out of useless airport x-ray threads. I'm inclined toward overenthusiasm in this regard but, since I'm a really nice guy once you get to know me and I intend no disrespect and just really crave a well run forum, please bear with me whilst I take a stab at addressing some of the half-truths in this page. I refer everyone, of course, to the search engine where he will find this topic to have been so thoroughly masticated within the archives as to eliminate any need for similar threads. Gratitude to those who, likewise, tried to correct some of the flying piffle.

    <p>

    -----------------------------------------

    <p>

    X-ray exposure is cumulative. All x-rayed film will be affected eventually. "There was no effect on the film," is a lie. Further, exposure from light and from x-rays are BOTH cumulative and the sequence in which they reach the film is of no significance.

    <p>

    The perception of film damage (fogging) by x-ray exposure, like lens performance, is often subjective.

    <p>

    Even so, the required number of exposures sufficient to cause detectable damage is likely to be high (in the dozens of exposures for film below 400 speed).

    <p>

    Lead bags reduce damage, whether that damage is significant to you or not.

    <p>

    <p>

    <p>

    Transportation Security Administration (TSA) regs (49 CFR §1544.211) require hand checking of film and photographic equipment upon the passenger's request. The exact quote of interest is: "(4) If requested by individuals, their photographic equipment and film packages must be inspected without exposure to an X-ray system."

    <p>

    - The TSA regs are available on-line at the following:

    <p>

    <a href="http://www.access.gpo.gov/nara/cfr/cfrhtml_00/Title_49/49cfr1544_nav_00.html">http://www.access.gpo.gov/nara/cfr/cfrhtml_00/Title_49/49cfr1544_nav_00.html</a> [where it reads "THIS DATA CURRENT AS OF THE FEDERAL REGISTER DATED (date)"]

    <p>

    <a href="http://www.nbaa.org/ops/security/TSA-2002.htm">http://www.nbaa.org/ops/security/TSA-2002.htm</a>

    <p>

    <a href="http://www.airportnet.org/depts/regulatory/rules/Part1542.pdf">http://www.airportnet.org/depts/regulatory/rules/Part1542.pdf</a>

    <p>

    TSA regulations apply only within U.S. airports, of course, and most other nations have no requirement for hand-checking.

    <p>

    <p>

    On April 30th 2002, federally employed and trained checkpoint screeners began to replace private screening personnel. Before December 31st, 2002, TSA screening personnel are scheduled to replace private (FAA-controlled) screeners at all U.S. Airports.

    <p>

    Checkpoint employees and their supervisors have frequently ignored the aforementioned regs out of fear, pressure, and pig-ignorance. This was common under FAA-controlled screening.

    <p>

    And even so, security is a desirable thing and people stuck in low-paying, abuse-prone jobs shall earn our pity.

    <p>

    Arguing the rules has been unlikely to produce regulatory compliance. No amount of 'calling ahead' or other attempts to gain recourse to the law have guaranteed compliance.

    <p>

    We can only hope the new TSA guys do their jobs better than the private contractors have done; we are still waiting to see if the TSA pays more attention to the hand checking regs.

    <p>

    All the repetitions of all the travelers� tales in world will not change the situation, yet for some reason everyone thinks the servers need his particular tale added.

    <p>

    <p>

    <i>�. . . in the US they don't actually scan every checked bag.�</i> Correct.

    <p>

    <i>�. . . eventually all airports will be x-raying checked baggage�</i> Wrong. Or at least 'not necessarily correct.'

    <p>

    Airports do not currently (June 2002) x-ray all checked baggage, however, the TSA has ordered that by the end of 2002 airports will be required to screen ALL checked baggage with either x-rays (using machines such as the potentially destructive CTX-5000) or one of several other methods (dogs, bomb-sniffing gear, opening and examining the bags, &c.) OR they will be required to match each bag with a passenger known to be on board that flight. Airport managers are currently stating they cannot meet that goal.

    <p>

    [NOTE: This is not the same as saying all checked bags will be x-rayed.]

    <p>

    Since this topic certainly needs no revisiting in ANY of the several Photo.Net fora it's almost pointless to ask but I feel compelled: Why was this non-Leica-specific question posted in the Leica forum?

    Problem with Canonet

    in Accessories

    Posted

    I should be more forthcoming. Who knows, Sean, perhaps you've got some intermittant manifestation of shutter blade stickiness:

    <p>

    The <a href="http://www.kyphoto.com/classics/">http://www.kyphoto.com/classics/</a> site mentioned above has good insights on unsticking blades. You grind down a hardware store scraper to make a wrench, CAREFULLY unscrew the rear lens element, put the thing on BULB, lock down a cable release, and ever-so-gently swab at the reluctant blades with lighter fluid. (Yeah, I clean the aperture blades from the rear. It's usually recommended against as 'too dangerous' but I'm funny that way.) Clean the optics well, afterward.

    <p>

    ["Junk" Canonets still happily accepted.]

    Problem with Canonet

    in Accessories

    Posted

    Anybody else got junkable QL17s with stuck shutter/aperture blades out there? It's a pretty common issue with them but anyone can fix 'em with lighter fluid and a tool made from a paint scraper.

    Canon FD lens disassembly

    in Accessories

    Posted

    No, but you might want to specify which lens you have: old FD (silver locking ring) or new FD (black, locked by turning entire lens).

     

    Repair manuals for various groups of lenses are available on line. Expensive photocopies of same are often found on eBay.

     

    Generic lens dissassembly is the subject of several camera equipment repair books. It may be weirder than you think, involving suction cups and rubber bungs -- but in the 50 macro such seems highly unlikely.

     

    [That tiny little front element givin' you trouble? All the way down there in that deep hole? I cannot imagine why you want to go in after it but I, for one, applaud your moxie. Good luck!]

    Camera Strap

    in Leica and Rangefinders

    Posted

    Lutz (assuming your post was directed my way): Would love to provide photo but I shoot very non-digital old Canon gear and have no scanner, yet am somehow able to lead a full, satisfying life. Will post a sketch later when able!
×
×
  • Create New...