Nikon is quitting LF lenses

John wrote:
On Fri, 13 Jan 2006 16:35:56 -0500, "rafe b" wrote:


KEH currently lists 5, from New @$579 to Bargin @ $310. I expect they'll
probably still be available for the forseeable future.


Hehehe. What's forseeable?


I give it 10 years. I think the lack of availalbe parts and services
by that time will have taken its toll and decent film cameras will
become either unaffordable or unavailalbe.

I guess I better keep my Wisner Technical Field 4x5 and my Calumet CC-400
then. Not much that could go wrong with them other than unavailability of
that size film.


I look in the future and see... $100 a barrel oil. Soon.


Sure. As Don Henley says "We're Workin' It !". Just Four More Freakin'
Years !!!


Much more serious problems than the lack of
Nikon cameras.


That's what happens when a 3rd rate actor from Hollyweird gets elected
president. By the beginning of 1981, the national debt had fallen to
32.5% of GDP. Then, Reagan took office. Subsequently the national debt
went ballistic and rose non-stop for the next 12 years to 66.3% at the
end of G.H.W. Bush's term. The means that in just 12 years the
Reagan-Bush duo managed to erase 25 years of progress in paying down
the national debt. Of course that was ended with the election of Bill
Clinton under which the National Debt stopped growing. Frankly I
thinik we should hire a hooker for Dubya to see if perhaps a tune-up
could slow the debts growth !

John

As of 11:PM CST the US National Debt stands at $ 8,162,021,766,337

About 8x what it was when Ronald R. became president. What do we have to
show for it?

--
.~. Jean-David Beyer Registered Linux User 85642.
/V\ PGP-Key: 9A2FC99A Registered Machine 241939.
/( )\ Shrewsbury, New Jersey http://counter.li.org
^^-^^ 05:50:00 up 15 days, 20:37, 4 users, load average: 4.31, 4.29, 4.26

On Sat, 14 Jan 2006 05:50:05 -0500, Jean-David Beyer
wrote:


As far as eye strain is concerned, I do not notice it, but I did lower the
screen brightness a bit (with the buttons on the front of the monitor).
Also, while I can view the monitor from other than straight on, the color
saturation seems to fall off if I look at it from other locations (that I
wold not ordinarily do), which would be a problem if several people wanted
to view the screen at the same time.


These last two are about the most objectionable, from the
point of view of serious still-image editing and viewing.

I'm talking about a 21" diagonal screen at a viewing
distance of about 25", specifically, a Samsung 213T.

Calibration/profiling only applies to those pixels
directly below the eye, ie., at the normal from
screen surface to the eye. At angles other than
90 degrees, there are subtle shifts in brightness,
hue, and saturation.

If I'm showing images to my wife, and I'm sitting in
front of the LCD and in my chair -- I know that I need
to rotate the screen in order to be on-axis from *her*
point of view.

My Samsung's default brightness, IMO, was set
*way* too high for photo editing.

I mean, by default, it's 5x brighter than a CRT, so I
split the difference and settled for 2.5x.

The Samsung also has some subtle brightness
variatons (a ripple, sort of) across the screen.
Real photo subjects almost never show the effect.

As usual, banding is seen first and best with large-
area gradients, eg. a grayscale gradient running
across the full length, width, or diagonal of the screen.

[Oh, and yes, I have memories, both fond and
not-so-fond of of the ADM-3 and its many venerable
successors. The outfit I'm currently with was founded
by guys who designed video chips at DEC in the
early-mid 1990s.]


rafe b
www.terrapinphoto.com

On Sat, 14 Jan 2006 05:52:14 -0500, Jean-David Beyer
wrote:

I give it 10 years. I think the lack of availalbe parts and services
by that time will have taken its toll and decent film cameras will
become either unaffordable or unavailalbe.

I guess I better keep my Wisner Technical Field 4x5 and my Calumet CC-400
then. Not much that could go wrong with them other than unavailability of
that size film.

Stocking up on 4164 ?

As of 11:PM CST the US National Debt stands at $ 8,162,021,766,337

About 8x what it was when Ronald R. became president. What do we have to
show for it?

I think it's easier to show what we don't have for it.

1) A solid economy with a reasonable debt-to-earnings ratio.
2) Capability to handle the coming retirement of millions of boomers.
3) Good health care system that is completely accessible to all.
4) An effective plan to deal with the eventual lack of fossil fuels.
5) An elimination of the pathetic storehouse of nukes.
6) A good amount of investment in developing our own country.
7) A clean and safe environment.
8) Global respect.

The next 20 years are going to be real interesting as the business
world continues exporting jobs and educational funding at an
incredible rate. Welcome back to the Roaring 20's I guess.
Unfortunately with Big Brother on our shoulders there won't be a lot
of roaring going on.

John

John wrote:
On Sat, 14 Jan 2006 05:52:14 -0500, Jean-David Beyer
wrote:


I give it 10 years. I think the lack of availalbe parts and services
by that time will have taken its toll and decent film cameras will
become either unaffordable or unavailalbe.

I guess I better keep my Wisner Technical Field 4x5 and my Calumet CC-400
then. Not much that could go wrong with them other than unavailability of
that size film.


Stocking up on 4164 ?

No: 4052 and 4053.

As of 11:PM CST the US National Debt stands at $ 8,162,021,766,337

About 8x what it was when Ronald R. became president. What do we have to
show for it?


I think it's easier to show what we don't have for it.

1) A solid economy with a reasonable debt-to-earnings ratio.
2) Capability to handle the coming retirement of millions of boomers.
3) Good health care system that is completely accessible to all.
4) An effective plan to deal with the eventual lack of fossil fuels.
5) An elimination of the pathetic storehouse of nukes.
6) A good amount of investment in developing our own country.
7) A clean and safe environment.
8) Global respect.

The next 20 years are going to be real interesting as the business
world continues exporting jobs and educational funding at an
incredible rate. Welcome back to the Roaring 20's I guess.
Unfortunately with Big Brother on our shoulders there won't be a lot
of roaring going on.

John


--
.~. Jean-David Beyer Registered Linux User 85642.
/V\ PGP-Key: 9A2FC99A Registered Machine 241939.
/( )\ Shrewsbury, New Jersey http://counter.li.org
^^-^^ 13:00:00 up 16 days, 3:47, 3 users, load average: 4.28, 4.34, 4.19

Jean-David Beyer wrote:
John wrote:

On Fri, 13 Jan 2006 16:35:56 -0500, "rafe b" wrote:



KEH currently lists 5, from New @$579 to Bargin @ $310. I expect they'll
probably still be available for the forseeable future.


Hehehe. What's forseeable?


I give it 10 years. I think the lack of availalbe parts and services
by that time will have taken its toll and decent film cameras will
become either unaffordable or unavailalbe.


I guess I better keep my Wisner Technical Field 4x5 and my Calumet CC-400
then. Not much that could go wrong with them other than unavailability of
that size film.


Even if that happens, you can always get a digital back. Scan backs are
close to full 4x5 dimensions. Digital medium format backs can also be
adapted, though currently all are slightly under 645 size, meaning a
possible need for different lenses. I would expect some new chip or
manufacturing techniques to enable much larger chips in the near future.
Something in a chip near 6x7 or 6x9 would be nice, though prices will
likely still be what a small car costs . . . hopefully renting will
remain an option in the future.

Ciao!

Gordon Moat
A G Studio
http://www.allgstudio.com

One problem some people have with CRTs is staying with the default refresh.
I use the highest refresh rate my monitor and graphics adapter will co-exist
at. Anything less than 75 causes eye strain for me. And of courses
switching from a CRT to an LCD would solve the problem too, only it cost
more.

Todd

--
See fine art photography at: www.konabear.com
"G- Blank" wrote in message
...
In article ,
no_name wrote:

E.G. for some of us, a CRT is easier to look at than an LCD display.

Progressively in doing more an more computer retouching the
CRT made me eyes burn and water, blurring and quite pain stricken
once I went to an LCD laptop the problem vanished for the most part.

--
"To announce that there must be no criticism of the President,
or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong,
is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable
to the American public."--Theodore Roosevelt, May 7, 1918

greg_____photo(dot)com

In article ,
Todd Maurer wrote:

And of courses switching from a CRT to an LCD would solve the
problem too, only it cost more.

I used an LCD monitor at a client's site and found myself
suffering from extreme eye fatigue in a short period of time. I'm
not sure why this happened but I'll stick with my CRT monitor for
now.

wrote:

In article ,
Todd Maurer wrote:


And of courses switching from a CRT to an LCD would solve the
problem too, only it cost more.


I used an LCD monitor at a client's site and found myself
suffering from extreme eye fatigue in a short period of time. I'm
not sure why this happened but I'll stick with my CRT monitor for
now.

Indeed.

In article ,
"Todd Maurer" wrote:

One problem some people have with CRTs is staying with the default refresh.
I use the highest refresh rate my monitor and graphics adapter will co-exist
at. Anything less than 75 causes eye strain for me. And of courses
switching from a CRT to an LCD would solve the problem too, only it cost
more.

Todd

That's interesting, I mainly went with an LCD because I bought
a Powerbook five-six years back. I haven't been completely unhappy or
happy with it but it is nice to be able to take along on shoots if
needed.



--
"To announce that there must be no criticism of the President,
or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong,
is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable
to the American public."--Theodore Roosevelt, May 7, 1918

greg_____photo(dot)com

In article , ()
wrote:

In article ,
Todd Maurer wrote:

And of courses switching from a CRT to an LCD would solve the
problem too, only it cost more.

I used an LCD monitor at a client's site and found myself
suffering from extreme eye fatigue in a short period of time. I'm
not sure why this happened but I'll stick with my CRT monitor for
now.

Maybe the resolution it was set at? Or for the matter the brand.
I find the Apple monitors vastly superior to the older Apple
CRT's -of course- ymmv.


--
"To announce that there must be no criticism of the President,
or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong,
is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable
to the American public."--Theodore Roosevelt, May 7, 1918

greg_____photo(dot)com