Velocity Reviews

Velocity Reviews (http://www.velocityreviews.com/forums/index.php)
-   Digital Photography (http://www.velocityreviews.com/forums/f37-digital-photography.html)
-   -   Re: $75000 lens (http://www.velocityreviews.com/forums/t952614-re-75000-lens.html)

sid 09-24-2012 07:05 PM

Re: $75000 lens
 
Alfred Molon wrote:

> Supposedly Kate Middleton was photographed with a $75000 lens. Does
> anybody know what kind of lens is that?


http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/find/n...l-L-Lenses.jsp

--
sid
RLU 300284
2

Ron 09-24-2012 07:23 PM

Re: $75000 lens
 
"sid" wrote in message news:4381885.WP8f43CNdH@thecrap.blueyonder.co.uk.. .

Alfred Molon wrote:

> Supposedly Kate Middleton was photographed with a $75000 lens. Does
> anybody know what kind of lens is that?


http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/find/n...l-L-Lenses.jsp

++++++
No, that’s a $120,000 lens.
Ron
++++++

--
sid
RLU 300284
2



Paul Ciszek 09-24-2012 07:26 PM

Re: $75000 lens
 

In article <5060b338$0$1126$c3e8da3$e074e489@news.astraweb.co m>,
Ron <RonRecer@aol.com> wrote:
>"sid" wrote in message news:4381885.WP8f43CNdH@thecrap.blueyonder.co.uk.. .
>
>Alfred Molon wrote:
>
>> Supposedly Kate Middleton was photographed with a $75000 lens. Does
>> anybody know what kind of lens is that?

>
>http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/find/n...l-L-Lenses.jsp
>
>++++++
>No, that’s a $120,000 lens.


Used, right?

--
"Remember when teachers, public employees, Planned Parenthood, NPR and PBS
crashed the stock market, wiped out half of our 401Ks, took trillions in
TARP money, spilled oil in the Gulf of Mexico, gave themselves billions in
bonuses, and paid no taxes? Yeah, me neither."


Peter Jason 09-24-2012 09:52 PM

Re: $75000 lens
 
On Mon, 24 Sep 2012 12:54:42 -0700, Savageduck
<savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote:

>On 2012-09-24 12:05:26 -0700, sid <sidshouse@thecrap.blueyonder.co.uk> said:
>
>> Alfred Molon wrote:
>>
>>> Supposedly Kate Middleton was photographed with a $75000 lens. Does
>>> anybody know what kind of lens is that?

>>
>> http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/find/n...l-L-Lenses.jsp

>
>Somehow i don't think that particular "papa-ratsy" is going to backpack
>that puppy through the woods.



If you're famous or notorious this might be a good
time to start trembling.
http://www.fieldandstream.com/blogs/...e-game-cameras

Jumbo lenses are just not necessary.

http://www.webtechgeek.com/wp/images/mini-drones.jpg


And if a large $120000 lens takes a photo of
something miles away, it has to take in all the
thermal gradients, dust, mist etc.

Paul Ciszek 09-24-2012 10:08 PM

Re: $75000 lens
 

In article <r8l1689ca1uunj7spr87gau5fue7q1sofu@4ax.com>,
Peter Jason <pj@jostle.com> wrote:
>
>If you're famous or notorious this might be a good
>time to start trembling.
>http://www.fieldandstream.com/blogs/...e-game-cameras
>
>Jumbo lenses are just not necessary.


I expect to see news items about people in the US treating these
quadrotors like skeet. If they are privately owned, and hovering
over someone else's property, the owners will have no legal recourse.
The shooting down of government-owned drones would be more
interesting from a legal point of view. People have gotten in trouble
for removing tracking devices from their cars and throwing them in
the trash.

--
Please reply to: | "We establish no religion in this country, we
pciszek at panix dot com | command no worship, we mandate no belief, nor
Autoreply is disabled | will we ever. Church and state are, and must
| remain, separate." --Ronald Reagan, 10/26/1984


David Dyer-Bennet 09-24-2012 10:33 PM

Re: $75000 lens
 
nospam@nospam.com (Paul Ciszek) writes:

> In article <r8l1689ca1uunj7spr87gau5fue7q1sofu@4ax.com>,
> Peter Jason <pj@jostle.com> wrote:
>>
>>If you're famous or notorious this might be a good
>>time to start trembling.
>>http://www.fieldandstream.com/blogs/...e-game-cameras
>>
>>Jumbo lenses are just not necessary.

>
> I expect to see news items about people in the US treating these
> quadrotors like skeet. If they are privately owned, and hovering
> over someone else's property, the owners will have no legal recourse.


However, discharging a firearm is illegal within the city limits of most
cities in the USA.

> The shooting down of government-owned drones would be more
> interesting from a legal point of view. People have gotten in trouble
> for removing tracking devices from their cars and throwing them in
> the trash.


How did that play out in court, and did they have the money for a real
fight?
--
Googleproofaddress(account:dd-b provider:dd-b domain:net)
Snapshots: http://dd-b.net/dd-b/SnapshotAlbum/data/
Photos: http://dd-b.net/photography/gallery/
Dragaera: http://dragaera.info

Me 09-25-2012 12:04 AM

Re: $75000 lens
 
On 25/09/2012 11:11 a.m., Savageduck wrote:
> On 2012-09-24 15:33:38 -0700, David Dyer-Bennet <dd-b@dd-b.net> said:
>
>> nospam@nospam.com (Paul Ciszek) writes:
>>
>>> In article <r8l1689ca1uunj7spr87gau5fue7q1sofu@4ax.com>,
>>> Peter Jason <pj@jostle.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> If you're famous or notorious this might be a good
>>>> time to start trembling.
>>>> http://www.fieldandstream.com/blogs/...e-game-cameras
>>>>

>
> Jumbo
>>>>
>>>> lenses are just not necessary.
>>>
>>> I expect to see news items about people in the US treating these
>>> quadrotors like skeet. If they are privately owned, and hovering
>>> over someone else's property, the owners will have no legal recourse.

>>
>> However, discharging a firearm is illegal within the city limits of most
>> cities in the USA.

>
> Yup!
> Rural areas are a different thing all together.
>
>>> The shooting down of government-owned drones would be more
>>> interesting from a legal point of view. People have gotten in trouble
>>> for removing tracking devices from their cars and throwing them in
>>> the trash.

>>
>> How did that play out in court, and did they have the money for a real
>> fight?

>
> If they had a tracking device they were able to remove, they would have
> far more to concern themselves that the legal consequences of the
> removal of the device.


They might ask for it back:
http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/201...acking-device/

> If the device had been placed by a law enforcement agency after
> obtaining the proper court authorized warrant the agency would not have
> a significant problem. If they had placed it without the appropriate
> warrant, any tracking data would be inadmissible in court.
> That does not mean an unauthorized tracking device could not be placed
> for surveillance, it means that none of the data could be used in a
> prosecution case, so much so that they could, and probably would, deny
> any responsibility for placement.
>

Hmmm...
If an enforcement authority willingly breaks the law, simply knowing
that any evidence collected may not be used in court, doesn't grant them
immunity from the law:
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/01/24/us...ewanted=1&_r=0

>
> Now if it was some other individual such as a private dick/investigator
> using such a device to track a subject had his tracking device removed,
> he would have no legal resource to fall back on.
>
> In the real World if such a device was attached to a vehicle, it is not
> likely the owner/driver would ever detect it. Also the use of such
> devices is not wide spread, except in the case of commercial anti-theft
> locators such as "LoJack".
>
> As usual Hollywood is always a step ahead of reality.
>

I think that the opposite applies;
"The future is already here it's just not evenly distributed"
(William Gibson, 2003)

Of course it's okay if it's part of the "global war on terror" right?
... So it's okay for the FBI to collude with spooks in a foreign country
(in a country which routinely topped global polls for transparency in
government and low corruption), and to entice them to break the laws in
order to protect... Hollywood?
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/ar...836388&ref=rss
and:
http://www.stuff.co.nz/technology/di...o-not-physical

Only in America? I wish so.


Me 09-25-2012 10:09 PM

Re: $75000 lens
 
On 25/09/2012 12:39 p.m., Savageduck wrote:
> On 2012-09-24 17:04:09 -0700, Me <user@example.net> said:
>
>> On 25/09/2012 11:11 a.m., Savageduck wrote:
>>> On 2012-09-24 15:33:38 -0700, David Dyer-Bennet <dd-b@dd-b.net> said:
>>>
>>>> nospam@nospam.com (Paul Ciszek) writes:
>>>>
>>>>> In article <r8l1689ca1uunj7spr87gau5fue7q1sofu@4ax.com>,
>>>>> Peter Jason <pj@jostle.com> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> If you're famous or notorious this might be a good
>>>>>> time to start trembling.
>>>>>> http://www.fieldandstream.com/blogs/...e-game-cameras
>>>>>>

>
>
> Jumbo
>
> lenses
>>>>>>
>>>>>> are just not necessary.
>>>>>
>>>>> I expect to see news items about people in the US treating these
>>>>> quadrotors like skeet. If they are privately owned, and hovering
>>>>> over someone else's property, the owners will have no legal recourse.
>>>>
>>>> However, discharging a firearm is illegal within the city limits of
>>>> most
>>>> cities in the USA.
>>>
>>> Yup!
>>> Rural areas are a different thing all together.
>>>
>>>>> The shooting down of government-owned drones would be more
>>>>> interesting from a legal point of view. People have gotten in trouble
>>>>> for removing tracking devices from their cars and throwing them in
>>>>> the trash.
>>>>
>>>> How did that play out in court, and did they have the money for a real
>>>> fight?
>>>
>>> If they had a tracking device they were able to remove, they would have
>>> far more to concern themselves that the legal consequences of the
>>> removal of the device.

>>
>> They might ask for it back:
>> http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/201...acking-device/
>>
>>> If the device had been placed by a law enforcement agency after
>>> obtaining the proper court authorized warrant the agency would not have
>>> a significant problem. If they had placed it without the appropriate
>>> warrant, any tracking data would be inadmissible in court.
>>> That does not mean an unauthorized tracking device could not be placed
>>> for surveillance, it means that none of the data could be used in a
>>> prosecution case, so much so that they could, and probably would, deny
>>> any responsibility for placement.
>>>

>> Hmmm...
>> If an enforcement authority willingly breaks the law, simply knowing
>> that any evidence collected may not be used in court, doesn't grant
>> them immunity from the law:
>> http://www.nytimes.com/2012/01/24/us...ewanted=1&_r=0
>>

>
>
>>
>> >

>
> Deniability. In most cases court approval will be obtained. Then there
> will be the marginal cases where an investigator might be helped by
> having a tracking device to assist in a surveillance, where he knows it
> might be problematic to even apply for the warrant. So he doesn't, and
> denies ever having installed one.
>>> Now if it was some other individual such as a private dick/investigator
>>> using such a device to track a subject had his tracking device removed,
>>> he would have no legal resource to fall back on.
>>>
>>> In the real World if such a device was attached to a vehicle, it is not
>>> likely the owner/driver would ever detect it. Also the use of such
>>> devices is not wide spread, except in the case of commercial anti-theft
>>> locators such as "LoJack".
>>>
>>> As usual Hollywood is always a step ahead of reality.
>>>

>> I think that the opposite applies;
>> "The future is already here – it's just not evenly distributed"
>> (William Gibson, 2003)
>>
>> Of course it's okay if it's part of the "global war on terror" right?

>
> Different rules for domestic US use.
>

And the morality of that doesn't bother you?

>
>> .. So it's okay for the FBI to collude with spooks in a foreign
>> country (in a country which routinely topped global polls for
>> transparency in government and low corruption), and to entice them to
>> break the laws in order to protect... Hollywood?
>> http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/ar...836388&ref=rss
>>
>> and:

>
> If I read that correctly it seems the NZ agency screwed up there. Also
> that case has nothing to do with the "war on terror", but as you implied
> the theft of "Hollywood" assets by a pirate.
>
>> http://www.stuff.co.nz/technology/di...o-not-physical
>>

>
> ...and
>>

> reading that as part of the tale above it seems the NZ agency opened the
> doors to two FBI analysts to examine 7 hard drives. Still nothing to do
> with "the war on terror".
>
> I haven't found anything in either report referring to vehicle tracking
> devices.
>

The principle is similar.
In this case (AIUI) there's enough evidence conduct a trial in the USA.
Problem is that the maximum penalty for the alleged crime is only 4
years here, the mutual extradition treaty allows for cases where maximum
penalty is 5 years (or more). It's not enough.
Yes - the local "spooks" made a "mistake", signed off by the (acting)
leader of the house. Believe it or not he claims that he didn't know
that the "offender" was a resident of this country - which affords it's
citizens and residents similar protection, including freedom from covert
surveillance (without "warrant") as US citizens in the USA.
The intent of the (retrospectively illegal) surveillance was a
"drag-net" approach to find new evidence, which may result in new
charges, which if the penalty for those charges exceeds 5 years, then he
can be extradited.
The rulings in the US, about surveillance (domestic) using covert GPS,
cellphone location data mining, etc etc have come about specifically to
protect the US public from "drag-net" surveillance.
Is that reasonable? That probably depends on whether you believe that in
any circumstance, if you aren't doing anything wrong, then you've got
nothing to worry about. When enforcement authorities knowingly break
the law, then it's very clear that there /is/ something to worry about -
more than just the concept of "loss of privacy".

>> Only in America? I wish so.

>
> Who said only in America?
>
>



philo 09-25-2012 11:33 PM

Re: $75000 lens
 
On 09/24/2012 02:05 PM, sid wrote:
> Alfred Molon wrote:
>
>> Supposedly Kate Middleton was photographed with a $75000 lens. Does
>> anybody know what kind of lens is that?

>
> http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/find/n...l-L-Lenses.jsp
>



Sheesh, for that kind of money
I'll just use the lens I have and pay a cab to drive me closer :)

--
https://www.createspace.com/3707686

Wolfgang Weisselberg 09-26-2012 09:13 PM

Re: $75000 lens
 
Savageduck <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote:

> Then we are talking about a failure of your government to protect one
> of your nationals from an aggressive prosecution by a foreign agency.
> The FBI analysts involved, understood that they were functioning in a
> legitimate investigation with the approval of your government. It was
> not their place to interpret NZ Law, that was what your government was
> supposed to do.


So when some agency outsources torture to some place where it's not
stictly illegal (as determined by the local warlord or whatever)
it's even OK to deliver the prisoner, as long as there's no actual
violence by the agency?

That's probably where the slippery slope ends ...

-Wolfgang


All times are GMT. The time now is 12:08 AM.

Powered by vBulletin®. Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
SEO by vBSEO ©2010, Crawlability, Inc.