On Mon, 23 Feb 1998 07:30:33 -0600, Greg (not Denise) Anderson wrote: >I know that the faster the lens the better it is and that >APO is a good thing (but don't recall the specifics of why it was good).
Hi Folks: APO stands for apochromatic. It means that glass of different refractive indices is used to construct the lens so that all wavelengths appear at the same spot on the film. APO lenses will cause the red light in that signal down the track to appear in the middle of the target--not displaced to one side. Really expensive APO lenses will also correct for infrared so that you don't need to change the focus setting to that little red line next to the big white one. > I don't intend to flame any one for a $2000 plus camera body but I'm >wonder what any photographer gains by jumping up from a say my Nikon >S8008 and 8008s and the vunder bodies of a N90 or F5 or what ever costs >more than 2000 bucks? Here's a little personal experience, and I hope I don't violate the charter of this list by rambling on without making a statement. I started shooting trains with two Nikkormats, four lenses (of different manufacturers), and a Volkswagen. Fifteen years later I advanced to a Chevy pickup and a Nikon F3 with an 80-200mm f/4 Zoom Nikkor. A few years after that, I stepped up to an S-10 Blazer and a Hasselbad. Today I drive a Chevrolet Tahoe to tote around my Hasselblad system, view camera, and Nikon F5 with "fast glass." Have my pictures become any better? Yes--because my technique has improved--not because I use professional equipment. Why has my technique improved? By critically viewing other people's work and learning by doing. So, if I can take just as good pictures with consumer-grade equipment, why do I use the pro stuff? The easiest answer is that the professional-grade equipment is worth getting fixed. Face it. The consumer-grade bodies are "tin." They are not made to last. The tolerances are greater, and they do not operate as smoothly. If they fail, you are better off junking them. As an example, when I shot the first frame with my F5, I could hardly tell that the camera had taken the picture--muchless closed the diaphragm, moved the mirror, and advanced the film. It's designed to work at eight frames per second, so it's really smooth on single shot. OTOH, I had the occasion to shoot some snapshots at work last fall. All of my "pro" stuff was busy doing something else, so I got out my 30-year old Nikkormat. All it had to do was enable the viewing, provide the flash synch, and wind the film. I attached my brand new 35-70mm f/2.8 Zoom Nikkor lens. The results were as good as I could have attained with my F5. Would I take this body into the field to shoot trains? Not only NO, but H*** NO! The viewfinder sucks, the shutter speeds are way off, and the film transport is really clunky. Is it worth fixing? No. Is it worth keeping? Yes. I went on vacation last fall to Phoenix (pleasure) and Washington, DC (business). What camera did I take? A Kodak Funsaver ($11 plus change at Wal*Mart). I enjoyed the convenience of the pocket camera so much that I recently bought a "real" point-and-shoot. In conclusion, you can see that dollar values aren't always the best indicator of what camera is appropriate. Later, Warren -> SPORRS: 'Serious Photographers Of Railroad Related Subjects' -> Web Site: http://www.anet-stl.com/acphotog/sporrs/ -> Message © 1998 SPORRS® - All Rights Reserved
