NetNews Usenet Archive 1992 #31/NN_1992_31.iso/spool/rec/photo/22616

Text File | 1992-12-28 | 6.1 KB | 119 lines

Newsgroups: rec.photo
Path: sparky!uunet!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!swrinde!elroy.jpl.nasa.gov!decwrl!deccrl!news.crl.dec.com!dbased.nuo.dec.com!e2big.mko.dec.com!jrdzzz.jrd.dec.com!jit533.jit.dec.com!diamond
From: [e-mail] (Norman Diamond)
Subject: Re: Canon 10s Vs Nikon N90, Which one?
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Sender: [e-mail] (USENET News System)
Nntp-Posting-Host: jit533.jit.dec.com
Reply-To: [e-mail] (Norman Diamond)
Organization: Digital Equipment Corporation Japan , Tokyo
References: <[e-mail]> <    <[e-mail]> <>> <    <[e-mail]> <>> <    <[e-mail]> <>> <[e-mail]> <199 <[e-mail]>
Date: Mon, 28 Dec 1992 06:39:26 GMT
Lines: 105

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Alvin Chia-Hua Shih) writes:
>In <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Norman Diamond) writes:
>>In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Alvin Chia-Hua Shih) writes:
>>>I cannot help but think that FP sync is only available in MANUAL MODE!
>>>SO!  Someone please, please, please tell me that it works with TTL!
>>How can it possibly do so?  Sure you could integrate over all the light
>>received TTL, as the slit in the shutter exposes part of the film.  Do you
>>then want to quench the flash and expose the rest of the film without flash?
>With those "Monitor Preflashes" it should be possible to calculate all
>of the exposure information at that time and set the flash's power
>output accordingly.

To repeat, do you want to quench the flash when only part of the film has
been exposed?  A better quenching time can be computed using preflashes than
by ordinary TTL, but it's irrelevant when the slit exposes only part of the
film at any time.

>(Canon had "Flash Exposure Lock" with the T-90 that did something like this
>for spotmetering.

For shutter speeds faster than the fully-open speed?

>However, my point still stands that manual FP sync is hardly a generally
>useful feature.

If you want fill flash in the first place, sure it's useful.

>>>2. SHARP ELECTRONIC ORGANIZER:  Looks like a neat gizmo for unattended
>>>shooting.  But would *you* leave an N90 lying around?
>>That depends.  It wouldn't be wise to leave it lying around my apartment
>>(from which a burglar stole 100,000 yen) but it might be safe in a lab
>>recording experiments or something.
>Does that mean only laboratory experimeters get access to the custom
>functions?

You asked if I would leave an F90 lying around.  There are other custom
functions that can also be accessed using the Wizard, but I don't intend
to buy a Wizard anyway (neither the Japanese nor English speaking versions).

>Sounds like old IBM folklore.  (Selling 16K RAM cards that were actually
>32K RAM cards with a jumper removed.  You still had to pay for the "upgrade"
>because removing the jumper yourself voided the warranty!)

I guess you can *pretend* to leave your F90 lying around, to bait some
sucker, and then you pounce.  Hope you know how to wield that jumper!

>>>2.3) An electronic instruction manual?  Is the F-90 *that* complicated?
>>Is the "rn" command *that* complicated?  I occasionally refer to an
>>electronic instruction manual for it.
>Point is that for a camera that complicated, you're bound to mess something
>up.  The user interface should be much better.

I think the usual user interface for Apple's Macintosh[TM] computers is not
bad, but I messed up some stuff when I first started on it too.  I wish that
one had an electronic instruction manual.  (No, the hardware wasn't a
pirated copy :-) but the manuals were not in evidence.)

>>>If your camera can't AF, what's the *@$^%! use of an electronic rangefinder?
>>You mean, as opposed to a split screen and microprisms?  I agree with your
>>next comment, but the electronic rangefinder is still nice too if it's hard
>>to keep half of a split screen from going black, or if your eyes are tearing
>>due to -30 degree weather, etc.
>If your electronic rangefinder is working, your *AF* is working!

No, my electronic rangefinder is working even when my AF isn't working.
Remember, while Nikon shafts those of us who bought nice focusing screens
or cable releases or other stuff for previous models, the one thing we can
still mount on F90 is MF lenses.

>I guess Nikon has spared its "professional" users much grief by simply
>making useful screens unavailable.

I can't imagine a pro using F90.  I think they'd stick to F4 and do without
the high speed fill flash.

>>>What you want is a *real* focusing screen with a split prism or microprism
>>Yup.  I wonder where the third-party screens are for F-801s too.
>Actually, in the deepest, darkest catacombs of Nikon, there is a small
>set of screens with manual focusing aids for F-801s.  Alas, those
>screens mess up the exposure system.

A small set of screens with exactly one element :-(  Yes, I agree with you,
and still wonder where the theird-party screens are.

>>>"Practical Photography" finds the SB-25 performance "disappointing"
>>>because of "noticable darkening of the image at the edges" [...]
>>Are they sure that's because of the flash rather than the lens?
>>(Cynical but at least sometimes true comment here.)
>The camera pictured (which may not actually be the camera tested) is a
>Nikon F-90 with an AF 35-70/2.8 (can't see whether it's "D"-series or
>not, but it shouldn't matter since they're optically the same).
>I suppose it's possible for a cheap lens like that to have bad
>vignetting problems...  :-)

Well, I have a cheap[*] but famous fixed Nikkor lens with vignetting visible
through my F801s viewfinder, so I wouldn't be surprised if the zooms can
have it too.

[* 105 F2.5, cost 24,000 yen from a used camera store, about C$250.  I bought
it anyway because the vignetting goes away when stopped down, and I didn't
buy this one for speed :-) ]
--
Norman Diamond                [e-mail]
If this were the company's opinion, I wouldn't be allowed to post it.
Pardon me?  Or do I have to commit a crime first?