Does any camera come with a laser pointer?

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by Peter Jason, Jan 16, 2013.

  1. Peter Jason

    Tony Cooper Guest

    On Fri, 18 Jan 2013 19:51:40 -0800, Savageduck
    <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote:

    >On 2013-01-18 14:32:05 -0800, nick c <> said:
    >
    >> On 1/18/2013 1:13 PM, Michael Black wrote:
    >>> On Wed, 16 Jan 2013, Peter Jason wrote:
    >>>
    >>>> Like laser pinpointing on rifles and pistols.
    >>>>
    >>>> I need it for shooting from the hip at weddings
    >>>> and the like when the exposure is set for
    >>>> pinpoint.
    >>>>
    >>> Probably not.
    >>>
    >>> But magazines like Popular Science used to have projects like how to
    >>> make a pistol grip for your camera. Since I can picture those, I can
    >>> even picture a sort of rifle grip, the stock against your arm and then a
    >>> place to attach the camera.

    >>
    >> I think such devices are still commercially available. I've been
    >> thinking of getting one of those contraptions 'cause aging and shaking
    >> seem to be synonymous. Then-again, I wonder if the anti-gun people
    >> would be upset if someone publicly shouldered anything that looked like
    >> a gun being aimed. One would expect common sense to prevail. However
    >> ...(Shrug). :)

    >
    >I have a sneak'n' suspicion that this might be what you are thinking off:
    >< http://www.bushhawk.com/bushhawk/bushhawk-shoulder-mounts >


    When we were staying in the lodge at Lake Baringo, Kenya, we saw some
    people on the birding trails, and the group included two men with what
    appeared to be weapons. On closer inspection, they were spotting
    scopes mounted on wooden stocks like rifle stocks. They were
    "twitchers" from the UK on a birding holiday.

    Neither of the men had a camera, just the spotting scopes. Their
    hobby was seeing and identifying as many difference species of birds
    as possible and ticking them off in their book of birds.

    I had a camera, though, albeit one with too puny a lens for this type
    of photography. This is a scan of a photo of a Masked Weaver bird and
    Weaver nests that I took that same day.

    http://dl.dropbox.com/u/64147677/1988-A--106.jpg
    --
    Tony Cooper, Orlando FL
     
    Tony Cooper, Jan 19, 2013
    #61
    1. Advertising

  2. Peter Jason

    nick c Guest

    On 1/18/2013 7:15 PM, nospam wrote:
    > In article <kdcihd$eg2$>, nick c
    > <> wrote:
    >
    >>> But magazines like Popular Science used to have projects like how to
    >>> make a pistol grip for your camera. Since I can picture those, I can
    >>> even picture a sort of rifle grip, the stock against your arm and then a
    >>> place to attach the camera.

    >>
    >> I think such devices are still commercially available. I've been
    >> thinking of getting one of those contraptions 'cause aging and shaking
    >> seem to be synonymous. Then-again, I wonder if the anti-gun people would
    >> be upset if someone publicly shouldered anything that looked like a gun
    >> being aimed. One would expect common sense to prevail. However
    >> ...(Shrug). :)

    >
    > it's not the anti-gun people you have to worry about. if someone sees
    > you aiming what looks like a rifle, particularly if it's at someone who
    > has a real gun, things could suddenly change for the worse.


    LOL ....

    I wouldn't be as worried about someone having a real gun as I would be
    about someone becoming hysterical and running around shouting "lookout
    .... he's got a gun." That sort of person creates a panic and when that
    occurs trouble surely follows. The poor shnook who has the pistol/rifle
    camera setup would be caught in the middle of it all and wouldn't know
    whether to crap or go blind (as they say in New York City). :)

    Anti-gunners would like events like that to happen. Have you ever
    noticed gun crime statistics are documented and circulated while gun
    prevented crimes are not.

    >
    > or, they call the cops who show up with a swat team for some guy with a
    > gun aiming it at buildings or people or whatever. that might not end
    > all that well either.



    >
     
    nick c, Jan 19, 2013
    #62
    1. Advertising

  3. Peter Jason

    nick c Guest

    On 1/18/2013 7:51 PM, Savageduck wrote:
    > On 2013-01-18 14:32:05 -0800, nick c <> said:
    >
    >> On 1/18/2013 1:13 PM, Michael Black wrote:
    >>> On Wed, 16 Jan 2013, Peter Jason wrote:
    >>>
    >>>> Like laser pinpointing on rifles and pistols.
    >>>>
    >>>> I need it for shooting from the hip at weddings
    >>>> and the like when the exposure is set for
    >>>> pinpoint.
    >>>>
    >>> Probably not.
    >>>
    >>> But magazines like Popular Science used to have projects like how to
    >>> make a pistol grip for your camera. Since I can picture those, I can
    >>> even picture a sort of rifle grip, the stock against your arm and then a
    >>> place to attach the camera.

    >>
    >> I think such devices are still commercially available. I've been
    >> thinking of getting one of those contraptions 'cause aging and shaking
    >> seem to be synonymous. Then-again, I wonder if the anti-gun people
    >> would be upset if someone publicly shouldered anything that looked
    >> like a gun being aimed. One would expect common sense to prevail.
    >> However ...(Shrug). :)

    >
    > I have a sneak'n' suspicion that this might be what you are thinking off:
    > < http://www.bushhawk.com/bushhawk/bushhawk-shoulder-mounts >
    >
    >
    >


    BINGO ... That's it, Duck. I've been thinking of getting that setup. But
    I've got a couple of problems to overcome. One is my legs aren't what
    they used to be and the other is my wife. My wife is 75 years old (soon
    to be 76) and I would be a tad concerned about how much of a load she
    can carry ... along with my camera bag. :)
     
    nick c, Jan 19, 2013
    #63
  4. Peter Jason

    Bryan Guest

    Eric Stevens wrote:
    > Agreed


    Thanks. You have one, or had one?
     
    Bryan, Jan 19, 2013
    #64
  5. Peter Jason

    nick c Guest

    On 1/18/2013 10:18 PM, nick c wrote:
    > On 1/18/2013 7:51 PM, Savageduck wrote:
    >> On 2013-01-18 14:32:05 -0800, nick c <> said:
    >>
    >>> On 1/18/2013 1:13 PM, Michael Black wrote:
    >>>> On Wed, 16 Jan 2013, Peter Jason wrote:
    >>>>
    >>>>> Like laser pinpointing on rifles and pistols.
    >>>>>
    >>>>> I need it for shooting from the hip at weddings
    >>>>> and the like when the exposure is set for
    >>>>> pinpoint.
    >>>>>
    >>>> Probably not.
    >>>>
    >>>> But magazines like Popular Science used to have projects like how to
    >>>> make a pistol grip for your camera. Since I can picture those, I can
    >>>> even picture a sort of rifle grip, the stock against your arm and
    >>>> then a
    >>>> place to attach the camera.
    >>>
    >>> I think such devices are still commercially available. I've been
    >>> thinking of getting one of those contraptions 'cause aging and shaking
    >>> seem to be synonymous. Then-again, I wonder if the anti-gun people
    >>> would be upset if someone publicly shouldered anything that looked
    >>> like a gun being aimed. One would expect common sense to prevail.
    >>> However ...(Shrug). :)

    >>
    >> I have a sneak'n' suspicion that this might be what you are thinking off:
    >> < http://www.bushhawk.com/bushhawk/bushhawk-shoulder-mounts >
    >>
    >>
    >>

    >
    > BINGO ... That's it, Duck. I've been thinking of getting that setup. But
    > I've got a couple of problems to overcome. One is my legs aren't what
    > they used to be and the other is my wife. My wife is 75 years old (soon
    > to be 76) and I would be a tad concerned about how much of a load she
    > can carry ... along with my camera bag. :)
    >
    >


    /I hope those who read my posts realize at times I'm given to having a
    sense of humor/.
     
    nick c, Jan 19, 2013
    #65
  6. Peter Jason

    nick c Guest

    On 1/19/2013 12:20 AM, Eric Stevens wrote:
    > On Fri, 18 Jan 2013 23:38:03 -0800, nick c <>
    > wrote:
    >
    >> On 1/18/2013 10:18 PM, nick c wrote:
    >>> On 1/18/2013 7:51 PM, Savageduck wrote:
    >>>> On 2013-01-18 14:32:05 -0800, nick c <> said:
    >>>>
    >>>>> On 1/18/2013 1:13 PM, Michael Black wrote:
    >>>>>> On Wed, 16 Jan 2013, Peter Jason wrote:
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>>> Like laser pinpointing on rifles and pistols.
    >>>>>>>
    >>>>>>> I need it for shooting from the hip at weddings
    >>>>>>> and the like when the exposure is set for
    >>>>>>> pinpoint.
    >>>>>>>
    >>>>>> Probably not.
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>> But magazines like Popular Science used to have projects like how to
    >>>>>> make a pistol grip for your camera. Since I can picture those, I can
    >>>>>> even picture a sort of rifle grip, the stock against your arm and
    >>>>>> then a
    >>>>>> place to attach the camera.
    >>>>>
    >>>>> I think such devices are still commercially available. I've been
    >>>>> thinking of getting one of those contraptions 'cause aging and shaking
    >>>>> seem to be synonymous. Then-again, I wonder if the anti-gun people
    >>>>> would be upset if someone publicly shouldered anything that looked
    >>>>> like a gun being aimed. One would expect common sense to prevail.
    >>>>> However ...(Shrug). :)
    >>>>
    >>>> I have a sneak'n' suspicion that this might be what you are thinking off:
    >>>> < http://www.bushhawk.com/bushhawk/bushhawk-shoulder-mounts >
    >>>>
    >>>>
    >>>>
    >>>
    >>> BINGO ... That's it, Duck. I've been thinking of getting that setup. But
    >>> I've got a couple of problems to overcome. One is my legs aren't what
    >>> they used to be and the other is my wife. My wife is 75 years old (soon
    >>> to be 76) and I would be a tad concerned about how much of a load she
    >>> can carry ... along with my camera bag. :)
    >>>
    >>>

    >>
    >> /I hope those who read my posts realize at times I'm given to having a
    >> sense of humor/.

    >
    > I suppose you wrote that for the benefit of your wife. :-(


    No ... but I told her what I wrote and she laughed. Actually, my main
    (two camera) bag is heavy so I use a suitcase dolly to carry that bag.
    Years ago I used a modified golfbag dolly because it had large wide-tire
    wheels and could roll easily over sand. Now I prefer a slightly modified
    suitcase dolly which is equally easy to haul. I use two bungee chords to
    strap the bag to the suitcase dolly.

    My second bag (which has only one camera, the D90 Nikon w/accessories)
    is one that I often carry and use at the beach. A much smaller very
    light kit-bag, which I also use at home and family gatherings, has what
    I play with. It carries my Canon G12, flash, and other accessories. At
    times, I may prefer taking pictures of people who aren't aware I taking
    their picture.

    >
     
    nick c, Jan 19, 2013
    #66
  7. Peter Jason

    nick c Guest

    On 1/19/2013 3:11 AM, Neil Ellwood wrote:
    > On Fri, 18 Jan 2013 23:38:03 -0800, nick c wrote:
    >
    >>>>> I think such devices are still commercially available. I've been
    >>>>> thinking of getting one of those contraptions 'cause aging and
    >>>>> shaking seem to be synonymous. Then-again, I wonder if the anti-gun
    >>>>> people would be upset if someone publicly shouldered anything that
    >>>>> looked like a gun being aimed. One would expect common sense to
    >>>>> prevail. However ...(Shrug). :)
    >>>>
    >>>> I have a sneak'n' suspicion that this might be what you are thinking
    >>>> off:
    >>>> < http://www.bushhawk.com/bushhawk/bushhawk-shoulder-mounts >
    >>>>
    >>>>
    >>>>
    >>>>
    >>> BINGO ... That's it, Duck. I've been thinking of getting that setup.
    >>> But I've got a couple of problems to overcome. One is my legs aren't
    >>> what they used to be and the other is my wife. My wife is 75 years old
    >>> (soon to be 76) and I would be a tad concerned about how much of a load
    >>> she can carry ... along with my camera bag. :)
    >>>
    >>>
    >>>

    >> /I hope those who read my posts realize at times I'm given to having a
    >> sense of humor/.

    >
    >
    > It isn't us you should be worried about but your missus - she might drop
    > your tripod.
    >
    >


    That ole girl and my equipment are strangers to each other. She
    positively has no interest in photography nor is she interested in
    having a passing acquaintance with my stuff.
     
    nick c, Jan 19, 2013
    #67
  8. Peter Jason

    DanP Guest

    On Wednesday, 16 January 2013 16:14:56 UTC, ray carter wrote:
    >
    >
    > The problem I see with a laser pointer would be parallax. Unless it's
    > coming out of the center of the lens, it's going to have to compensate
    > for being off center.


    The problem with a laser pointer becomes a legal one. I wouldn't worry about parallax.


    DanP
     
    DanP, Jan 19, 2013
    #68
  9. Peter Jason

    nospam Guest

    In article <2013011821122519336-savageduck1@REMOVESPAMmecom>,
    Savageduck <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote:

    > >> And when there is no car in front of you .... ?

    > >
    > > how often is there no traffic for miles?
    > >
    > > and if there really isn't any traffic for miles, then there probably
    > > isn't a speed trap either, because a cop isn't going to want to sit
    > > around waiting for the lone car to show up.

    >
    > One of these days in your travels, I would suggest you test your skills
    > in avoiding detection by Radar equipped CHP patrol cars by taking a
    > drive on Hwy.101 between San Miguel and King City in California. That
    > stretch of road has a reasonably generous 70 MPH speed limit and a high
    > rate of traffic stops for speeding. Also depending on the time of day
    > and day of the week, traffic density is quite thin.
    >
    > Off that route you could also consider a side trip on Hwy.198 from San
    > Lucas to Coalinga, a great driver's road, sparsely travelled, but
    > routinely patrolled by CHP out of King City.


    i've driven that stretch of 101 as well as the rest of it, all the way
    to washington state (not all in the same trip). you're assuming i
    always speed and drive like a maniac. i do not. i am just interested in
    radar and lidar and how they're used.

    > >> You are the one he gets. By the time he has finished either writing
    > >> out a ticket (or has chased you) a zillion cars have passed and the
    > >> next car he gets will have no warning.

    > >
    > > if a zillion cars have passed in the few minutes it takes to write a
    > > ticket, then there *is* other traffic, which means there were cars in
    > > front of you.

    >
    > At this point I would advise you that CHP officers are known to have
    > the training and skills to make multiple stops. Along the stretch of
    > HWY.101 I noted above, it is quite common to find a single officer
    > having stopped two or three vehicles, sometimes 800-1000 yds apart.
    > They are quite good at what they do.


    multiple stops is not unique to the chp and it doesn't change what i
    said either.

    the simple fact is the moment someone pulls the trigger on a radar gun,
    they are broadcasting a radar signal, which means they are announcing
    their presence for as much as several miles, depending on a number of
    factors. there is no way around that.

    what is your experience in using a radar detector? i've used both radar
    guns *and* radar detectors, and various versions. i'm well aware of
    their capabilities and limitations.

    > > plus, a lot of times the cops will leave the radar on while writing the
    > > ticket so that other drivers pick up the radar signal and slow down.

    >
    > Yup! and if that slows down the traffic compliance has been achieved.


    exactly.

    sometimes they do that while working collisions and other situations
    too.

    > On to of that they have been known to use another non-radar method of
    > checking speeds, aircraft. Those little birddogs can be very sneaky,


    i'm well aware of that.

    here's a fun one, 130 mph, exited the highway and then followed on
    surface streets, ultimately being arrested:
    <http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RC9d66Tf-OE>

    anyway, flying a plane for traffic enforcement (or for any reason
    really) is *not* cheap, which means it's not all that common. someone
    is *far* more likely to encounter a cop running radar or lidar than a
    plane above.

    on the other hand, the chp recently got some fancy new planes:
    <http://www.pacificflyer.com/2012/01/new-eyes-for-chp-planes/>

    > and a radar detector is not much help


    i never said a radar detector is a guarantee. nothing is. radar and
    lidar guns are not perfect either, nor are planes. even driving at or
    below the speed limit is not a guarantee.

    there are also apps such as waze, which has crowd sourced traffic
    information, and can (and often does) include reports of cops. it
    doesn't matter if the cop is running radar or waiting for someone in a
    plane to tell him which car to follow. either way, a police icon shows
    up on the map.
     
    nospam, Jan 19, 2013
    #69
  10. Peter Jason

    nospam Guest

    In article <>, Eric Stevens
    <> wrote:

    > >> >> >> Not ignore it. Just do not have the time to benefit from it.
    > >> >> >
    > >> >> >then it's a crappy detector. a good detector can alert long before
    > >> >> >that.
    > >> >>
    > >> >> The practice in New Zealand is for the operator to track a possible
    > >> >> offender with the speed gun turned off. At a suitable instant he
    > >> >> squeezes the trigger and - bingo - he has a speed reading. At the
    > >> >> same instant the radar detector in the car goes off and - bingo - the
    > >> >> driver knows he has been nabbed.
    > >> >
    > >> >like i said, crappy detector. a good detector will alert when the cop
    > >> >targets a car in front of you. by the time your turn comes, you're well
    > >> >aware he's out there.
    > >>
    > >> And when there is no car in front of you .... ?

    > >
    > >how often is there no traffic for miles?

    >
    > See http://tinyurl.com/bhn6f65 for examples. Be aware that these
    > photographs are heavily weighted to the straighter roads of the South
    > Island.


    every road there looks like that?

    no, they aren't all like that. it looks like there can be a fair amount
    of traffic too:

    <http://www.nzta.govt.nz/traffic/current-conditions/webcams/>

    <http://www.aucklandtraffic.co.nz/>

    <http://www.teara.govt.nz/files/p3716nzh.jpg>

    > >and if there really isn't any traffic for miles, then there probably
    > >isn't a speed trap either, because a cop isn't going to want to sit
    > >around waiting for the lone car to show up.

    >
    > It doesn't work that way.


    there are enough cops for all of those roads? all the time? no other
    crime for them to investigate?

    > >> You are the one he gets. By the time he has finished either writing
    > >> out a ticket (or has chased you) a zillion cars have passed and the
    > >> next car he gets will have no warning.

    > >
    > >if a zillion cars have passed in the few minutes it takes to write a
    > >ticket, then there *is* other traffic, which means there were cars in
    > >front of you.
    > >
    > >plus, a lot of times the cops will leave the radar on while writing the
    > >ticket so that other drivers pick up the radar signal and slow down.

    >
    > I've already explained they don't work that wway.


    they do.

    > >> >> That's why some years ago I gave up on radar detectors and put my
    > >> >> faith in cruise control instead.
    > >> >
    > >> >as long as you are still paying attention.
    > >>
    > >> Do you really think I would be dumb enough to cruise at a speed in the
    > >> danger zone?

    > >
    > >i didn't say cruise at illegal speeds.

    >
    > Then what are you suggesting I should be paying attention to?


    other vehicles, road hazards, changes in weather, changes in traffic,
    etc. basically, anything that could go wrong.

    and don't forget sheep:
    <http://www.travelblog.org/Photos/1944667>
     
    nospam, Jan 19, 2013
    #70
  11. Peter Jason

    Tony Cooper Guest

    On Sat, 19 Jan 2013 11:03:54 -0800, Savageduck
    <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote:

    >The old Cessna 185's haven't been built since 1985 and they have all
    >been retired now. A 185 was a regular part of enforcement on the
    >stretch of 101 South of King City, and usually flew out of Paso Robles,
    >so range wasn't a big concern. They also fly the 46 and 41 beat East of
    >Paso Robles to I-5 and back. Fuel costs for the 185's ran $70-$85 per
    >hour, The 206's will be lucky to get $150 per hour.
    >Paso Robles has one of the 206's and a Eurocopter AS350 based there.


    Orange County (Florida) has just purchased two drones for $50,000.
    They are not intended for traffic control. They fly only up to 100
    feet above the ground and cannot remain aloft more than 15 minutes.

    I can't see why more sophisticated models couldn't be used for traffic
    control, though.

    --
    Tony Cooper, Orlando FL
     
    Tony Cooper, Jan 19, 2013
    #71
  12. Peter Jason

    nospam Guest

    In article <>, Tony Cooper
    <> wrote:

    > Orange County (Florida) has just purchased two drones for $50,000.
    > They are not intended for traffic control. They fly only up to 100
    > feet above the ground and cannot remain aloft more than 15 minutes.


    not yet approved for flying. they are hoping for summer.

    > I can't see why more sophisticated models couldn't be used for traffic
    > control, though.


    money.
     
    nospam, Jan 19, 2013
    #72
  13. Peter Jason

    nospam Guest

    In article <2013011911035494091-savageduck1@REMOVESPAMmecom>,
    Savageduck <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote:

    > In terms of using Radar detectors I have kept it quite simple and I use
    > an Escort Passport II which gives me all I need, though I also carry an
    > ID and badge which identifies me as a retired Lieutenant. I am well
    > aware of the various advances in many of the detector systems.


    a cop using a radar detector?? that's amusing, but the badge gets you a
    free pass.

    anyway, there is no such model, passport ii. there are over two dozen
    models with the passport name, almost all of which have a 4 digit
    number, e.g., passport 8500.

    by the way, escort is owned by a venture capital company and is nothing
    at all like the old cincinnati microwave who created the original
    passport (no numbers) and went bankrupt in 1997.
    <http://www.falconheadcapital.com/page/portfolio>

    > >> On to of that they have been known to use another non-radar method of
    > >> checking speeds, aircraft. Those little birddogs can be very sneaky,

    > >
    > > i'm well aware of that.
    > >
    > > here's a fun one, 130 mph, exited the highway and then followed on
    > > surface streets, ultimately being arrested:
    > > <http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RC9d66Tf-OE>

    >
    > Good team work, a good example of how it should be done. This is a case
    > of an idiot with more money than brains.


    i'm curious if they ever found the other guy, the one he was racing.

    > >> and a radar detector is not much help

    > >
    > > i never said a radar detector is a guarantee. nothing is. radar and
    > > lidar guns are not perfect either, nor are planes. even driving at or
    > > below the speed limit is not a guarantee.

    >
    > At one point the planes were using highway reference marks and
    > stopwatches, but the Courts deemed those to be unconstitutional "Speed
    > traps" so that is no longer done. They now use pacing and VASCAR II. I
    > have no idea of what they will be using in the 206's.


    yep. most places have timing marks on the road, which is a clue that
    there might be a plane overhead although it's still relatively rare
    compared to ground enforcement. the planes also have a lower stall
    speed so they can better pace traffic.

    > > there are also apps such as waze, which has crowd sourced traffic
    > > information, and can (and often does) include reports of cops. it
    > > doesn't matter if the cop is running radar or waiting for someone in a
    > > plane to tell him which car to follow. either way, a police icon shows
    > > up on the map.

    >
    > However, not everybody has a detector, or a smart phone, or has Waze
    > installed, or uses it if they do.


    true, but not everyone needs to.

    it only takes one person to see a cop and report it to waze. the more
    cars that go by, the higher the chances that someone with a smartphone
    and running waze saw it. don't forget, it can be a car in *any*
    direction.

    > You with your iPhone ownership and interest in Radar/Laser detectors
    > might be aware of iRadar.
    > < http://cobrairadar.com/ >


    i'm well aware of it. escort has a similar (and very buggy) product and
    sued cobra because of iradar. cobra detectors are also not particularly
    good. there is also an android version.
     
    nospam, Jan 19, 2013
    #73
  14. Peter Jason

    nospam Guest

    In article <2013011915342840194-savageduck1@REMOVESPAMmecom>,
    Savageduck <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote:

    > > anyway, there is no such model, passport ii. there are over two dozen
    > > models with the passport name, almost all of which have a 4 digit
    > > number, e.g., passport 8500.

    >
    > My fingers were working faster than my brain. I have the Escort Solo 3.


    that's a battery operated cordless unit. to save battery, the receiver
    cycles on and off, giving it high latencies and effectively, a shorter
    range.

    > >>> there are also apps such as waze, which has crowd sourced traffic
    > >>> information, and can (and often does) include reports of cops. it
    > >>> doesn't matter if the cop is running radar or waiting for someone in a
    > >>> plane to tell him which car to follow. either way, a police icon shows
    > >>> up on the map.
    > >>
    > >> However, not everybody has a detector, or a smart phone, or has Waze
    > >> installed, or uses it if they do.

    > >
    > > true, but not everyone needs to.
    > >
    > > it only takes one person to see a cop and report it to waze. the more
    > > cars that go by, the higher the chances that someone with a smartphone
    > > and running waze saw it. don't forget, it can be a car in *any*
    > > direction.

    >
    > However it still takes an smart phone with Waze installed and operating
    > to receive the benefit of the notification. The individual might be
    > reporting to few, and more likely no other drivers on that stretch of
    > road.


    sure, but someone who is intent on speeding and avoiding speed traps is
    likely to be using waze, along with other systems.

    > ...and while there are laws in most states, especially in my case of
    > California against the use of cell phones held to the head or texting,
    > I wonder what the distraction of using an App might bring.


    waze would not be used with a phone held to one's head.

    the phone would be on the dashboard in a mount of some sort and is
    really no different than a gps.

    > While I have Waze installed in my iPhone, I find myself using my car
    > manufactured installed GPS and the integrated BlueTooth works really
    > well.


    i've tried waze navigation a couple of times and was not too impressed.
    i much prefer an actual gps app or preferably, a dedicated gps. waze is
    useful for realtime traffic, collisions and police reports.

    > >> You with your iPhone ownership and interest in Radar/Laser detectors
    > >> might be aware of iRadar.
    > >> < http://cobrairadar.com/ >

    > >
    > > i'm well aware of it. escort has a similar (and very buggy) product and
    > > sued cobra because of iradar. cobra detectors are also not particularly
    > > good. there is also an android version.

    >
    > I did not buy.


    nor did i.
     
    nospam, Jan 20, 2013
    #74
  15. Peter Jason

    Peter Guest

    On 1/18/2013 2:00 AM, nospam wrote:

    <snip>
    >
    > pros mostly stick to nikon/canon for a number of reasons.
    >


    I guess no pros use Hassies or Leicas.
    And here I always thought th choice of camera depends in large part on
    the job to be done.

    --
    PeterN
     
    Peter, Jan 20, 2013
    #75
  16. Peter Jason

    Robert Coe Guest

    On Sat, 19 Jan 2013 21:49:46 -0500, Peter <> wrote:
    : On 1/18/2013 2:00 AM, nospam wrote:
    :
    : <snip>
    : >
    : > pros mostly stick to nikon/canon for a number of reasons.
    : >
    :
    : I guess no pros use Hassies or Leicas.
    : And here I always thought th choice of camera depends in large part on
    : the job to be done.

    Truthfully, I'd be surprised if very many pros used Leicas these days. Those
    who know more about such things than I do say that Leicas are well made and
    have great glass. I don't doubt that's correct, but they're absurdly
    overpriced and lack some nifty features that one expects on a modern camera. I
    don't think I've ever seen a pro using a Leica, and those I've heard discuss
    their equipment seem to favor Canons and Nikons (and the occasional
    Hasselblad). I guess Nospam is more right than wrong this time.

    The architectural photographer I heard lecture last week spoke wistfully of
    the view cameras he used for most of his career. He switched to digital (a
    Canon 1Ds) when his sources of film started drying up. (He went on to say that
    he's become a convert to digital and wouldn't go back, even if he could.)

    Bob
     
    Robert Coe, Jan 20, 2013
    #76
  17. Peter Jason

    nospam Guest

    In article <50fb5b47$0$10762$-secrets.com>, Peter
    <> wrote:

    > > pros mostly stick to nikon/canon for a number of reasons.

    >
    > I guess no pros use Hassies or Leicas.
    > And here I always thought th choice of camera depends in large part on
    > the job to be done.


    do you not understand what the word mostly means?

    in any event, nowhere near as many pros use hasselblad or leica.
     
    nospam, Jan 20, 2013
    #77
  18. Alfred Molon <> wrote:
    > In article <>,
    > Whisky-dave says...
    >> Pros tend to go for solid relible products rather than the lastest thing unless of course ut';s very useful.


    > A tiltable screen *is* very useful.


    Depends very much on what you do. The look of "shot from below"
    hasn't been in for some decades for people photography, ever
    since good eye-level viewfinders (instead of look-down-onto
    viewfinders) have become common.

    OTOH you can probably by now connect the HDMI output of the
    camera to a wearable viewfinder, worn like glasses, when you
    want to frame frogs level on the ground or want to shoot over
    the heads of the mob in front of you ...

    -Wolfgang
     
    Wolfgang Weisselberg, Jan 20, 2013
    #78
  19. Robert Coe <> wrote:
    > On Thu, 17 Jan 2013 21:48:47 +0000, Kennedy McEwen <>


    >: Just because you can't see an infrared laser doesn't make it safe! Quite
    >: the opposite, an IR laser beam doesn't provoke a blink reaction or
    >: contraction of the eye pupil, as a visible laser would. Consequently
    >: the laser gets focussed on the retina without any natural restriction,
    >: causing much greater retinal damage. You don't get into the so called
    >: "eye safe" region until you are up around 1.5um, well beyond the
    >: response cut-off of silicon so it wouldn't show up on the EVF. Even
    >: then, the "eye-safety" is only achieved by absorption of the beam
    >: through the vitreous humour (the internal fluid in the eye) which isn't
    >: total, so there are still dangerous levels especially at close
    >: distances. For example, infrared laser rangefinders have minimum eye
    >: safe ranges.


    > And any energy absorbed in the vitreous humor expresses itself as heat, and
    > artifically heating up the eyeball isn't usually considered desirable.


    Homework: Guestimate the size of the eyeball and from that
    the amount of vitreous humor. Guestimate how much energy
    you'll need to heat up the vitreous humor by 1 degree Celsius,
    assuming no heat can be transferred out of it. Calculate how
    long a typical IR laser needs to archive that.

    -Wolfgang
     
    Wolfgang Weisselberg, Jan 20, 2013
    #79
  20. nick c <> wrote:
    > On 1/18/2013 1:13 PM, Michael Black wrote:


    >> But magazines like Popular Science used to have projects like how to
    >> make a pistol grip for your camera. Since I can picture those, I can
    >> even picture a sort of rifle grip, the stock against your arm and then a
    >> place to attach the camera.


    > I think such devices are still commercially available. I've been
    > thinking of getting one of those contraptions 'cause aging and shaking
    > seem to be synonymous. Then-again, I wonder if the anti-gun people would
    > be upset if someone publicly shouldered anything that looked like a gun
    > being aimed. One would expect common sense to prevail. However
    > ...(Shrug). :)


    No, but you'd probably be shot on sight by some overzealous
    peacekeeper who thought you'd be going to kill anyone.
    They'll tell the judge you'd had a huge smoothbore rifle or
    a miniature bazooka or something and they'll go free, too. :)

    -Wolfgang
     
    Wolfgang Weisselberg, Jan 20, 2013
    #80
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. Jess Guim

    Come One, Come All

    Jess Guim, Dec 2, 2003, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    447
    Jess Guim
    Dec 2, 2003
  2. Curtin/Dobbs

    Does laser CAV Trump DVD?

    Curtin/Dobbs, May 12, 2004, in forum: DVD Video
    Replies:
    35
    Views:
    1,864
    Monte Castleman
    May 15, 2004
  3. Replies:
    30
    Views:
    7,186
    Alpha
    Apr 25, 2005
  4. Networking Student
    Replies:
    4
    Views:
    1,338
    vreyesii
    Nov 16, 2006
  5. =?Utf-8?B?a2VoaTY2?=

    Any drivers out there for the Samsung ML-1740 laser printer?

    =?Utf-8?B?a2VoaTY2?=, Jul 14, 2005, in forum: Windows 64bit
    Replies:
    10
    Views:
    971
Loading...

Share This Page