Re: Autoexposure Follies? (was Re: Nikon Data Backs

["Willem-Jan Markerink" <w.j.markerink@xxxxx>]

On 14 Jul 98 at 12:32, Bill D. Casselberry wrote:

>   Pico posts to this thread on modern SLRs & IR ...
> 
> All this talk about the difficulty of using a modern, highly advanced camera
> for IR seems to indicate that it's simply not a good choice, and perhaps a
> totally manual, nonelectric, simple camera would be best. Perhaps an old
> Nikon F, Leica M, Olympus, Koni-Omega 6x7, etc...

Well, using my EOS-1 never gave any problems....;-))
And it even offers tall enough film rails to accommodate the 0.4mm 
thick #87C foil....

> 	an aside to WJ -- perhaps it's time to get that IR material
> 	for between the rails from you  :)  If you could drop me a note
> 	on the details of getting some sent to Oregon, USA I would
> 	appreciate it. The version that gives the IR-only w/ HIE.

The most sturdy, 0.4mm thick quality (#87C, the thin 0.1mm quality 
comes only in #87) is US$0.50 pro square centimeter, but you have to 
cut it yourself to exact size. Send me a private mail with how much 
you want (add US$5 for handling/shipping).
Check the height of your film rails with a vernier callipers/depth 
gauge. The rails in my Canon are 0.5mm....


 

- -- 
Bye,

Willem-Jan Markerink


      The desire to understand 
is sometimes far less intelligent than
     the inability to understand


<w.j.markerink@xxxxx>
[note: 'a-one' & 'en-el'!]
*
****
*******
******************************************************
*  To remove yourself from this list, send:          *
*         UNSUBSCRIBE INFRARED                       *
*       to                                           *
*         MAJORDOMO@xxxxx                            *
*----------------------------------------------------*
*   For the IR-FAQ, IR-Gallery and heaps of links:   *
*  http://www.a1.nl/phomepag/markerink/mainpage.htm  *
******************************************************

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