Lens question

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by PaddleHard, Oct 31, 2009.

  1. PaddleHard

    -hh Guest

    Bob Larter <> wrote:
    > John Navas wrote:
    > > On Sat, 31 Oct 2009 21:11:24 -0000, "No spam please"

    > [...]
    > >> I have no problems using any Canon EF lens on any EF body.

    >
    > > You've defining the problem away, and in fact some Canon EF lenses won't
    > > work on some Canon EF bodies.

    >
    > Really? That's news to me. Which lenses, & which bodies?


    The EF-S lenses won't work on full frame EOS bodies ... but that's
    because its an EF-S lens, which is not an EF lens, but rather a lens
    that's designed to be used on EF-S based EOS bodies, which are
    compatible with both EF & EF-S lenses.


    -hh
     
    -hh, Nov 2, 2009
    #21
    1. Advertising

  2. PaddleHard

    Bob Larter Guest

    John Navas wrote:
    > On Sat, 31 Oct 2009 21:11:24 -0000, "No spam please"

    [...]
    >> I have no problems using any Canon EF lens on any EF body.

    >
    > You've defining the problem away, and in fact some Canon EF lenses won't
    > work on some Canon EF bodies.


    Really? That's news to me. Which lenses, & which bodies?


    --
    W
    . | ,. w , "Some people are alive only because
    \|/ \|/ it is illegal to kill them." Perna condita delenda est
    ---^----^---------------------------------------------------------------
     
    Bob Larter, Nov 2, 2009
    #22
    1. Advertising

  3. PaddleHard

    Bob Larter Guest

    No spam please wrote:
    > "Bob Larter" <> wrote in message
    > news:4aed24d3$...
    >> PaddleHard wrote:
    >>> I have a question about lenses, Canon in particular. I have a Digital
    >>> Rebel 300D and am looking to purchase a 50D in the next year. I'm
    >>> looking at a EF 28-135mm IS USM lense. Will this work with both
    >>> cameras?

    >> Yep.
    >>
    >>> What's the rule of thumb for Canon lenses and their
    >>> 'compatibility' with older and new cameras?

    >> Any EF (not EFS) lens should work fine on any Canon DSLR.
    >>
    >> --
    >> W

    >
    > I believe it is also true that any EF lens should work on any Canon EF mount
    > body including their 35mm and APS bodies.


    No doubt. I was assuming that because the OP asked the question here,
    they were interested in DSLRs specifically.

    > Before you ask - not all airlines permit digital cameras to be used during
    > flight and many prohibit them during the take-off and landing phases of the
    > flight. I fly with an airline that has a total ban on digital equipment.
    > It's a good airline (usually on time, plenty of leg room and so on) so I'm
    > happy to use a film body.


    You know that all the Canon EF film bodies also have digital electronics
    in them? Strictly speaking, they should ban EF film bodies as well. ;^)

    --
    W
    . | ,. w , "Some people are alive only because
    \|/ \|/ it is illegal to kill them." Perna condita delenda est
    ---^----^---------------------------------------------------------------
     
    Bob Larter, Nov 2, 2009
    #23
  4. PaddleHard

    nospam Guest

    In article <>, Neil
    Harrington <> wrote:

    > Rog, I knew about cell phones, because my sister -- who flies quite a lot,
    > including internationally -- had told me they couldn't be used during
    > takeoff or landing (or in flight either, if I understood her correctly). She
    > mentioned that often after landing, as soon as the seat belts light went out
    > you could hear cell phones snapping open all over the cabin.


    many airlines now allow cellphone use while taxiing to the gate after
    landing.

    > (*She* could
    > hear that I suppose, but I never did, probably because my hearing is very
    > poor.) I can understand prohibiting the use of cell phones. And I can
    > understand prohibiting the use of laptops too, since probably most of them
    > now in use have WiFi.


    laptops are fine, especially with inflight wifi, however, voip apps are
    banned. a couple of airlines have considered inflight cellphones using
    a picocell on the plane.

    > But I'd be surprised if "digital equipment" was taken to include cameras,
    > for this purpose, since as far as I know they don't generate any sort of
    > external RF.


    it's *extremely* small.
     
    nospam, Nov 2, 2009
    #24
  5. PaddleHard

    nospam Guest

    In article <5CuHm.51192$PH1.1085@edtnps82>, Dudley Hanks
    <> wrote:

    > I don't know if all airlines have adopted these practices, but I wouldn't be
    > surprised.


    you aren't supposed to use electronics during takeoff or landing, but
    during cruise it's fine. some airlines prohibit photography of airline
    staff but allow pics out the window or of people you're traveling with.


    what i find amusing is that since there is now inflight wifi internet
    for a fee, wireless transmitters are suddenly safe.
     
    nospam, Nov 2, 2009
    #25
  6. PaddleHard

    nospam Guest

    In article <>, Neil
    Harrington <> wrote:

    > I can't see how an ordinary digital camera could pose any sort of problem,
    > unless it were one of the very few that have WiFi built in. I wonder how
    > literally "all electronics" is taken. Surely they don't ban the use of
    > digital watches or hearing aids, for example.


    the rule is if it has an on/off switch, it must be off for takeoff and
    landing. if there's no wifi on board, any device with wireless
    functionality must have that feature disabled (e.g., airplane mode in a
    cellphone).
     
    nospam, Nov 2, 2009
    #26
  7. PaddleHard

    Dudley Hanks Guest

    "Neil Harrington" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    >
    > "nospam" <> wrote in message
    > news:011120091453097799%...
    >> In article <>, Neil
    >> Harrington <> wrote:
    >>
    >>> > Before you ask - not all airlines permit digital cameras to be used
    >>> > during
    >>> > flight and many prohibit them during the take-off and landing phases
    >>> > of
    >>> > the flight. I fly with an airline that has a total ban on digital
    >>> > equipment. It's a good airline (usually on time, plenty of leg room
    >>> > and so
    >>> > on) so I'm happy to use a film body.
    >>>
    >>> I never heard of such a ban. When I fly I always take a DSLR to take
    >>> pictures in the airport (I love airports) and a digital compact to take
    >>> pictures out the airliner window, and sometimes of the cockpit when the
    >>> door
    >>> is open. No one has ever objected yet.

    >>
    >> all airlines prohibit electronic devices during takeoff/landing, but
    >> some go further than that. some airlines ban cd/dvd players (can't have
    >> a laser!) or they require removable batteries to be removed and put in
    >> checked luggage. so while it may be rare, i wouldn't rule it out.

    >
    > That's interesting. Continental -- and the smaller regional airline flying
    > as Continental Express -- evidently couldn't care less. I'll be using a
    > different airline this winter, so maybe it will be different.
    >


    During most flights I've been on, lately, the flight crew is mainly
    concerned with electronic devices which utilize a transmitter.

    For instance, my Trekker GPS device has the software running on an HP IPAQ,
    which receives GPS info from a separate (bluetooth) GPS device, so I can't
    use it during the flight.

    But, I've had no objections to taking a few shots of Mich lying patiently,
    or of scenic shots out the window.

    But, during take-offs and landings, requests to turn off all electronics
    still seem to be the norm.

    I don't know if all airlines have adopted these practices, but I wouldn't be
    surprised.

    Take Care,
    Dudley
     
    Dudley Hanks, Nov 2, 2009
    #27
  8. PaddleHard

    Ghett Rheel Guest

    On Mon, 02 Nov 2009 06:02:41 GMT, "Dudley Hanks"
    <> wrote:

    >
    >"Neil Harrington" <> wrote in message
    >news:...
    >>
    >> "nospam" <> wrote in message
    >> news:011120091453097799%...
    >>> In article <>, Neil
    >>> Harrington <> wrote:
    >>>
    >>>> > Before you ask - not all airlines permit digital cameras to be used
    >>>> > during
    >>>> > flight and many prohibit them during the take-off and landing phases
    >>>> > of
    >>>> > the flight. I fly with an airline that has a total ban on digital
    >>>> > equipment. It's a good airline (usually on time, plenty of leg room
    >>>> > and so
    >>>> > on) so I'm happy to use a film body.
    >>>>
    >>>> I never heard of such a ban. When I fly I always take a DSLR to take
    >>>> pictures in the airport (I love airports) and a digital compact to take
    >>>> pictures out the airliner window, and sometimes of the cockpit when the
    >>>> door
    >>>> is open. No one has ever objected yet.
    >>>
    >>> all airlines prohibit electronic devices during takeoff/landing, but
    >>> some go further than that. some airlines ban cd/dvd players (can't have
    >>> a laser!) or they require removable batteries to be removed and put in
    >>> checked luggage. so while it may be rare, i wouldn't rule it out.

    >>
    >> That's interesting. Continental -- and the smaller regional airline flying
    >> as Continental Express -- evidently couldn't care less. I'll be using a
    >> different airline this winter, so maybe it will be different.
    >>

    >
    >During most flights I've been on, lately, the flight crew is mainly
    >concerned with electronic devices which utilize a transmitter.
    >
    >For instance, my Trekker GPS device has the software running on an HP IPAQ,
    >which receives GPS info from a separate (bluetooth) GPS device, so I can't
    >use it during the flight.
    >
    >But, I've had no objections to taking a few shots of Mich lying patiently,
    >or of scenic shots out the window.


    You can't even properly frame nor see your dog that's laying right next to
    your feet while sitting at a table in the mall. Even when you are using the
    full-screen of a laptop as your viewfinder. Please explain to everyone how
    you can compose (with intent) any scene out of a window?

    Even more funny are your recent posts about photographing and driving cars.
    I.e. Ford Exec says, "Let's humor the foolish blind man or we'll look bad
    in PR. We'll just have a full safety-team stand by at thousands of dollars
    of our cost so we don't look bad." Nothing like using your blindness to
    manipulate all others to get what you want, eh? At everyone else's expense,
    of course. Or using gels on flash units. As if that's ever going to help
    with your compositions that you can't see nor focus on in the first place.

    <major eye-roll>

    Grow up, and ...

    Ghett Rheel
     
    Ghett Rheel, Nov 2, 2009
    #28
  9. PaddleHard

    Dudley Hanks Guest

    "nospam" <> wrote in message
    news:021120090122566686%...
    > In article <5CuHm.51192$PH1.1085@edtnps82>, Dudley Hanks
    > <> wrote:
    >
    >> I don't know if all airlines have adopted these practices, but I wouldn't
    >> be
    >> surprised.

    >
    > you aren't supposed to use electronics during takeoff or landing, but
    > during cruise it's fine. some airlines prohibit photography of airline
    > staff but allow pics out the window or of people you're traveling with.
    >
    >
    > what i find amusing is that since there is now inflight wifi internet
    > for a fee, wireless transmitters are suddenly safe.


    Isn't that the way it generally works? In the early days of commercial air
    travel, bringing food on board was probably taboo -- at least until they
    found a way to charge for it, or to work it into the price of the ticket...

    Take Care,
    Dudley
     
    Dudley Hanks, Nov 2, 2009
    #29
  10. PaddleHard

    Dudley Hanks Guest

    "Ghett Rheel" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > On Mon, 02 Nov 2009 06:02:41 GMT, "Dudley Hanks"
    > <> wrote:
    >
    >>
    >>"Neil Harrington" <> wrote in message
    >>news:...
    >>>
    >>> "nospam" <> wrote in message
    >>> news:011120091453097799%...
    >>>> In article <>, Neil
    >>>> Harrington <> wrote:
    >>>>
    >>>>> > Before you ask - not all airlines permit digital cameras to be used
    >>>>> > during
    >>>>> > flight and many prohibit them during the take-off and landing phases
    >>>>> > of
    >>>>> > the flight. I fly with an airline that has a total ban on digital
    >>>>> > equipment. It's a good airline (usually on time, plenty of leg room
    >>>>> > and so
    >>>>> > on) so I'm happy to use a film body.
    >>>>>
    >>>>> I never heard of such a ban. When I fly I always take a DSLR to take
    >>>>> pictures in the airport (I love airports) and a digital compact to
    >>>>> take
    >>>>> pictures out the airliner window, and sometimes of the cockpit when
    >>>>> the
    >>>>> door
    >>>>> is open. No one has ever objected yet.
    >>>>
    >>>> all airlines prohibit electronic devices during takeoff/landing, but
    >>>> some go further than that. some airlines ban cd/dvd players (can't have
    >>>> a laser!) or they require removable batteries to be removed and put in
    >>>> checked luggage. so while it may be rare, i wouldn't rule it out.
    >>>
    >>> That's interesting. Continental -- and the smaller regional airline
    >>> flying
    >>> as Continental Express -- evidently couldn't care less. I'll be using a
    >>> different airline this winter, so maybe it will be different.
    >>>

    >>
    >>During most flights I've been on, lately, the flight crew is mainly
    >>concerned with electronic devices which utilize a transmitter.
    >>
    >>For instance, my Trekker GPS device has the software running on an HP
    >>IPAQ,
    >>which receives GPS info from a separate (bluetooth) GPS device, so I can't
    >>use it during the flight.
    >>
    >>But, I've had no objections to taking a few shots of Mich lying patiently,
    >>or of scenic shots out the window.

    >
    > You can't even properly frame nor see your dog that's laying right next to
    > your feet while sitting at a table in the mall. Even when you are using
    > the
    > full-screen of a laptop as your viewfinder. Please explain to everyone how
    > you can compose (with intent) any scene out of a window?
    >
    > Even more funny are your recent posts about photographing and driving
    > cars.
    > I.e. Ford Exec says, "Let's humor the foolish blind man or we'll look bad
    > in PR. We'll just have a full safety-team stand by at thousands of dollars
    > of our cost so we don't look bad." Nothing like using your blindness to
    > manipulate all others to get what you want, eh? At everyone else's
    > expense,
    > of course. Or using gels on flash units. As if that's ever going to help
    > with your compositions that you can't see nor focus on in the first place.
    >
    > <major eye-roll>
    >
    > Grow up, and ...
    >
    > Ghett Rheel
    >


    Jealous? :)

    You might be surprised at what is going to be posted on my site over the
    next few months. Perhaps, once you realize that others can appreciate the
    unusual and the unorthodox, you might get an inkling as to how limited is
    your understanding of the human condition.

    Perhaps one of your relatives told Hellen Keller she should just give up?

    FYI, Ford's decision came after I provided company execs with detailed info
    as to the demographics of my site visitors, and statistics about usage. I
    provided a rather comprehensive summary of who visits my site, why they
    visit it, and what they are looking for.

    The interesting thing about the internet is that users are tired of the same
    old, same old.

    Why do you think traditional newspapers are dying? Television stations are
    closing? And, why do you think that bazaar internet sites are flurishing?

    If a web master can produce a product which connects to a definable
    demographic, and if a more traditional company can use that connection to
    highlight its products, its way of doing business and its corporate
    philosophy, is it not good business for it to do exactly that?

    Ford seems to think I'll make them more than I'll cost 'em.

    Get Real, get with the times...

    Take Care,
    Dudley
     
    Dudley Hanks, Nov 2, 2009
    #30
  11. PaddleHard

    Dudley Hanks Guest

    "Neil Harrington" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    >
    > "Ghett Rheel" <> wrote in message
    > news:...
    >> On Mon, 02 Nov 2009 06:02:41 GMT, "Dudley Hanks"
    >> <> wrote:
    >>

    >
    > Dudley, don't even bother answering this jerk. It's just our resident
    > pest, the dingleberry. He changes names several times a day, but you can
    > always recognize him by his dingleberry attitude.
    >


    Oh, it's alright. Get Real and I go back quite a ways, now.

    I love him like a brother, and scrap with him almost as much...

    The fact that he hasn't been able to stop my steady progress must really be
    eating away at him, now, after about 2 years of wasted effort on his part.

    Take Care,
    Dudley
     
    Dudley Hanks, Nov 2, 2009
    #31
  12. PaddleHard

    Dudley Hanks Guest

    "Neil Harrington" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    >
    > "Dudley Hanks" <> wrote in message
    > news:5CuHm.51192$PH1.1085@edtnps82...
    >>
    >> "Neil Harrington" <> wrote in message
    >> news:...
    >>>
    >>> "nospam" <> wrote in message
    >>> news:011120091453097799%...
    >>>> In article <>, Neil
    >>>> Harrington <> wrote:
    >>>>
    >>>>> > Before you ask - not all airlines permit digital cameras to be used
    >>>>> > during
    >>>>> > flight and many prohibit them during the take-off and landing phases
    >>>>> > of
    >>>>> > the flight. I fly with an airline that has a total ban on digital
    >>>>> > equipment. It's a good airline (usually on time, plenty of leg room
    >>>>> > and so
    >>>>> > on) so I'm happy to use a film body.
    >>>>>
    >>>>> I never heard of such a ban. When I fly I always take a DSLR to take
    >>>>> pictures in the airport (I love airports) and a digital compact to
    >>>>> take
    >>>>> pictures out the airliner window, and sometimes of the cockpit when
    >>>>> the door
    >>>>> is open. No one has ever objected yet.
    >>>>
    >>>> all airlines prohibit electronic devices during takeoff/landing, but
    >>>> some go further than that. some airlines ban cd/dvd players (can't have
    >>>> a laser!) or they require removable batteries to be removed and put in
    >>>> checked luggage. so while it may be rare, i wouldn't rule it out.
    >>>
    >>> That's interesting. Continental -- and the smaller regional airline
    >>> flying as Continental Express -- evidently couldn't care less. I'll be
    >>> using a different airline this winter, so maybe it will be different.
    >>>

    >>
    >> During most flights I've been on, lately, the flight crew is mainly
    >> concerned with electronic devices which utilize a transmitter.

    >
    > Yes, that I can understand.
    >
    >>
    >> For instance, my Trekker GPS device has the software running on an HP
    >> IPAQ, which receives GPS info from a separate (bluetooth) GPS device, so
    >> I can't use it during the flight.
    >>
    >> But, I've had no objections to taking a few shots of Mich lying
    >> patiently, or of scenic shots out the window.
    >>
    >> But, during take-offs and landings, requests to turn off all electronics
    >> still seem to be the norm.
    >>
    >> I don't know if all airlines have adopted these practices, but I wouldn't
    >> be surprised.
    >>
    >> Take Care,
    >> Dudley

    >
    > I can't see how an ordinary digital camera could pose any sort of problem,
    > unless it were one of the very few that have WiFi built in. I wonder how
    > literally "all electronics" is taken. Surely they don't ban the use of
    > digital watches or hearing aids, for example.
    >


    As was pointed out in another post, some airlines are charging for wireless
    connections, so it's just going to get muddier.

    How many of you remember those signs that announced a restaurant had a
    microwave on its premises? Back in those days, it was feared the radiation
    from the microwave could kill somebody with a pacemaker who might be dining
    on the far side of the building. Advances in technology have eliminated
    that problem, and I'm sure the day will come when we'll all be telecommuting
    and downloading with one hand and snapping digital pics with the other as we
    land at whatever airport we happen to be arriving at.

    The only thing certain is change...

    Take Care,
    Dudley
     
    Dudley Hanks, Nov 2, 2009
    #32
  13. PaddleHard

    Ray Fischer Guest

    Dudley Hanks <> wrote:
    >"nospam" <> wrote in message
    >> In article <5CuHm.51192$PH1.1085@edtnps82>, Dudley Hanks
    >>
    >>> I don't know if all airlines have adopted these practices, but I wouldn't
    >>> be
    >>> surprised.

    >>
    >> you aren't supposed to use electronics during takeoff or landing, but
    >> during cruise it's fine. some airlines prohibit photography of airline
    >> staff but allow pics out the window or of people you're traveling with.
    >>
    >>
    >> what i find amusing is that since there is now inflight wifi internet
    >> for a fee, wireless transmitters are suddenly safe.

    >
    >Isn't that the way it generally works? In the early days of commercial air
    >travel, bringing food on board was probably taboo -- at least until they
    >found a way to charge for it, or to work it into the price of the ticket...


    And now? Some discount airlines disallow bringing your own food and
    require that you buy their (overpriced) food at the gate before
    boarding.

    --
    Ray Fischer
     
    Ray Fischer, Nov 2, 2009
    #33
  14. PaddleHard

    Ghett Rheel Guest

    On Mon, 02 Nov 2009 07:10:56 GMT, "Dudley Hanks"
    <> wrote:

    >
    >"Ghett Rheel" <> wrote in message
    >news:...
    >> On Mon, 02 Nov 2009 06:02:41 GMT, "Dudley Hanks"
    >> <> wrote:
    >>
    >>>
    >>>"Neil Harrington" <> wrote in message
    >>>news:...
    >>>>
    >>>> "nospam" <> wrote in message
    >>>> news:011120091453097799%...
    >>>>> In article <>, Neil
    >>>>> Harrington <> wrote:
    >>>>>
    >>>>>> > Before you ask - not all airlines permit digital cameras to be used
    >>>>>> > during
    >>>>>> > flight and many prohibit them during the take-off and landing phases
    >>>>>> > of
    >>>>>> > the flight. I fly with an airline that has a total ban on digital
    >>>>>> > equipment. It's a good airline (usually on time, plenty of leg room
    >>>>>> > and so
    >>>>>> > on) so I'm happy to use a film body.
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>> I never heard of such a ban. When I fly I always take a DSLR to take
    >>>>>> pictures in the airport (I love airports) and a digital compact to
    >>>>>> take
    >>>>>> pictures out the airliner window, and sometimes of the cockpit when
    >>>>>> the
    >>>>>> door
    >>>>>> is open. No one has ever objected yet.
    >>>>>
    >>>>> all airlines prohibit electronic devices during takeoff/landing, but
    >>>>> some go further than that. some airlines ban cd/dvd players (can't have
    >>>>> a laser!) or they require removable batteries to be removed and put in
    >>>>> checked luggage. so while it may be rare, i wouldn't rule it out.
    >>>>
    >>>> That's interesting. Continental -- and the smaller regional airline
    >>>> flying
    >>>> as Continental Express -- evidently couldn't care less. I'll be using a
    >>>> different airline this winter, so maybe it will be different.
    >>>>
    >>>
    >>>During most flights I've been on, lately, the flight crew is mainly
    >>>concerned with electronic devices which utilize a transmitter.
    >>>
    >>>For instance, my Trekker GPS device has the software running on an HP
    >>>IPAQ,
    >>>which receives GPS info from a separate (bluetooth) GPS device, so I can't
    >>>use it during the flight.
    >>>
    >>>But, I've had no objections to taking a few shots of Mich lying patiently,
    >>>or of scenic shots out the window.

    >>
    >> You can't even properly frame nor see your dog that's laying right next to
    >> your feet while sitting at a table in the mall. Even when you are using
    >> the
    >> full-screen of a laptop as your viewfinder. Please explain to everyone how
    >> you can compose (with intent) any scene out of a window?
    >>
    >> Even more funny are your recent posts about photographing and driving
    >> cars.
    >> I.e. Ford Exec says, "Let's humor the foolish blind man or we'll look bad
    >> in PR. We'll just have a full safety-team stand by at thousands of dollars
    >> of our cost so we don't look bad." Nothing like using your blindness to
    >> manipulate all others to get what you want, eh? At everyone else's
    >> expense,
    >> of course. Or using gels on flash units. As if that's ever going to help
    >> with your compositions that you can't see nor focus on in the first place.
    >>
    >> <major eye-roll>
    >>
    >> Grow up, and ...
    >>
    >> Ghett Rheel
    >>

    >
    >Jealous? :)
    >
    >You might be surprised at what is going to be posted on my site over the
    >next few months. Perhaps, once you realize that others can appreciate the
    >unusual and the unorthodox, you might get an inkling as to how limited is
    >your understanding of the human condition.
    >
    >Perhaps one of your relatives told Hellen Keller she should just give up?
    >
    >FYI, Ford's decision came after I provided company execs with detailed info
    >as to the demographics of my site visitors, and statistics about usage. I
    >provided a rather comprehensive summary of who visits my site, why they
    >visit it, and what they are looking for.
    >
    >The interesting thing about the internet is that users are tired of the same
    >old, same old.
    >
    >Why do you think traditional newspapers are dying? Television stations are
    >closing? And, why do you think that bazaar internet sites are flurishing?
    >
    >If a web master can produce a product which connects to a definable
    >demographic, and if a more traditional company can use that connection to
    >highlight its products, its way of doing business and its corporate
    >philosophy, is it not good business for it to do exactly that?
    >
    >Ford seems to think I'll make them more than I'll cost 'em.
    >
    >Get Real, get with the times...
    >
    >Take Care,
    >Dudley
    >


    Web-master? You can't even post images on your web-space properly because
    you can't read the html code in its entirety. Everyone with an internet
    connection today is a "web master".

    But I applaud you on your inventive side-stepping. You didn't answer the
    question.

    Kinda funny about the Ford decision. Imagine them trying to market their
    products to blind people. LOL .... Sounds pretty desperate to me. I can see
    the news now, "Film at 11: Ford, in an act of desperation, is trying to
    market their cars to blind people."

    Whups! There goes what's left of their stock. Maybe Obama stealing from all
    tax-payers will bail them out again.

    And we'll only have you to blame for pity-manipulating a few Ford execs
    because of your misplaced desperate need for attention.

    It always all starts with one idiot with skewed self-serving intentions.
    Why should you be any different in the course of history.
     
    Ghett Rheel, Nov 2, 2009
    #34
  15. PaddleHard

    Dudley Hanks Guest

    "Ghett Rheel" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > On Mon, 02 Nov 2009 07:10:56 GMT, "Dudley Hanks"
    > <> wrote:
    >
    >>
    >>"Ghett Rheel" <> wrote in message
    >>news:...
    >>> On Mon, 02 Nov 2009 06:02:41 GMT, "Dudley Hanks"
    >>> <> wrote:
    >>>
    >>>>
    >>>>"Neil Harrington" <> wrote in message
    >>>>news:...
    >>>>>
    >>>>> "nospam" <> wrote in message
    >>>>> news:011120091453097799%...
    >>>>>> In article <>, Neil
    >>>>>> Harrington <> wrote:
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>>> > Before you ask - not all airlines permit digital cameras to be
    >>>>>>> > used
    >>>>>>> > during
    >>>>>>> > flight and many prohibit them during the take-off and landing
    >>>>>>> > phases
    >>>>>>> > of
    >>>>>>> > the flight. I fly with an airline that has a total ban on digital
    >>>>>>> > equipment. It's a good airline (usually on time, plenty of leg
    >>>>>>> > room
    >>>>>>> > and so
    >>>>>>> > on) so I'm happy to use a film body.
    >>>>>>>
    >>>>>>> I never heard of such a ban. When I fly I always take a DSLR to take
    >>>>>>> pictures in the airport (I love airports) and a digital compact to
    >>>>>>> take
    >>>>>>> pictures out the airliner window, and sometimes of the cockpit when
    >>>>>>> the
    >>>>>>> door
    >>>>>>> is open. No one has ever objected yet.
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>> all airlines prohibit electronic devices during takeoff/landing, but
    >>>>>> some go further than that. some airlines ban cd/dvd players (can't
    >>>>>> have
    >>>>>> a laser!) or they require removable batteries to be removed and put
    >>>>>> in
    >>>>>> checked luggage. so while it may be rare, i wouldn't rule it out.
    >>>>>
    >>>>> That's interesting. Continental -- and the smaller regional airline
    >>>>> flying
    >>>>> as Continental Express -- evidently couldn't care less. I'll be using
    >>>>> a
    >>>>> different airline this winter, so maybe it will be different.
    >>>>>
    >>>>
    >>>>During most flights I've been on, lately, the flight crew is mainly
    >>>>concerned with electronic devices which utilize a transmitter.
    >>>>
    >>>>For instance, my Trekker GPS device has the software running on an HP
    >>>>IPAQ,
    >>>>which receives GPS info from a separate (bluetooth) GPS device, so I
    >>>>can't
    >>>>use it during the flight.
    >>>>
    >>>>But, I've had no objections to taking a few shots of Mich lying
    >>>>patiently,
    >>>>or of scenic shots out the window.
    >>>
    >>> You can't even properly frame nor see your dog that's laying right next
    >>> to
    >>> your feet while sitting at a table in the mall. Even when you are using
    >>> the
    >>> full-screen of a laptop as your viewfinder. Please explain to everyone
    >>> how
    >>> you can compose (with intent) any scene out of a window?
    >>>
    >>> Even more funny are your recent posts about photographing and driving
    >>> cars.
    >>> I.e. Ford Exec says, "Let's humor the foolish blind man or we'll look
    >>> bad
    >>> in PR. We'll just have a full safety-team stand by at thousands of
    >>> dollars
    >>> of our cost so we don't look bad." Nothing like using your blindness to
    >>> manipulate all others to get what you want, eh? At everyone else's
    >>> expense,
    >>> of course. Or using gels on flash units. As if that's ever going to help
    >>> with your compositions that you can't see nor focus on in the first
    >>> place.
    >>>
    >>> <major eye-roll>
    >>>
    >>> Grow up, and ...
    >>>
    >>> Ghett Rheel
    >>>

    >>
    >>Jealous? :)
    >>
    >>You might be surprised at what is going to be posted on my site over the
    >>next few months. Perhaps, once you realize that others can appreciate the
    >>unusual and the unorthodox, you might get an inkling as to how limited is
    >>your understanding of the human condition.
    >>
    >>Perhaps one of your relatives told Hellen Keller she should just give up?
    >>
    >>FYI, Ford's decision came after I provided company execs with detailed
    >>info
    >>as to the demographics of my site visitors, and statistics about usage. I
    >>provided a rather comprehensive summary of who visits my site, why they
    >>visit it, and what they are looking for.
    >>
    >>The interesting thing about the internet is that users are tired of the
    >>same
    >>old, same old.
    >>
    >>Why do you think traditional newspapers are dying? Television stations
    >>are
    >>closing? And, why do you think that bazaar internet sites are flurishing?
    >>
    >>If a web master can produce a product which connects to a definable
    >>demographic, and if a more traditional company can use that connection to
    >>highlight its products, its way of doing business and its corporate
    >>philosophy, is it not good business for it to do exactly that?
    >>
    >>Ford seems to think I'll make them more than I'll cost 'em.
    >>
    >>Get Real, get with the times...
    >>
    >>Take Care,
    >>Dudley
    >>

    >
    > Web-master? You can't even post images on your web-space properly because
    > you can't read the html code in its entirety. Everyone with an internet
    > connection today is a "web master".
    >
    > But I applaud you on your inventive side-stepping. You didn't answer the
    > question.
    >
    > Kinda funny about the Ford decision. Imagine them trying to market their
    > products to blind people. LOL .... Sounds pretty desperate to me. I can
    > see
    > the news now, "Film at 11: Ford, in an act of desperation, is trying to
    > market their cars to blind people."
    >
    > Whups! There goes what's left of their stock. Maybe Obama stealing from
    > all
    > tax-payers will bail them out again.
    >
    > And we'll only have you to blame for pity-manipulating a few Ford execs
    > because of your misplaced desperate need for attention.
    >
    > It always all starts with one idiot with skewed self-serving intentions.
    > Why should you be any different in the course of history.
    >

    Wow, so dramatic...

    Once again, you are demonstrating your limited understanding of the real
    world...

    First of all, I have very few blind visitors to my site. Most of the people
    who visit it are:

    * Corporate types who have a passion for photography, and a curiosity
    about how a blind person deals with his / her challenges in the pursuit of
    capturing good images.

    * Corporate types who love animals (dogs in particular), and who are
    interested in how a blind human / sighted canine team copes with day-to-day
    realities.

    * Corporate types who enjoy what I write, about whatever subjects I write
    about.

    The key here is "corporate types."

    You see, I actively market my site to higher income, "corporate types" who
    visit it looking for something different, something real, to which they can
    click to once and a while to offset their daily grind.

    If these folks have any of the above noted interests , my site is hard to
    pass up, even though it isn't exactly the most glitzy web production out
    there.

    The key is "interest." It doesn't matter how good a site is, if the web
    designers have to manufacture interest, they are not going to keep people
    coming back on a regular basis. But, if the individual is genuinely
    interested in the individual(s) who run the site, they will be much more
    likely to keep coming back, and they will pay a lot more attention to what
    is posted -- a genuinely good mix for corporate sponsors, the web surfer,
    and the content provider.

    Oh, and one other thing. While Ford isn't exactly marketing cars to blind
    guys, at the moment, how long do you think it'll take before GPS brained
    vehicles are chauffeuring blind guys around with absolute ease and accuracy?

    Given that cars can park themselves now (unheard of a decade or so ago),
    self-brake when approaching hazards (another recent innovation), and warn
    the driver of unseen dangers, need I say more?

    Once again, Get Real, get with the times...

    Take Care,
    Dudley
     
    Dudley Hanks, Nov 2, 2009
    #35
  16. PaddleHard

    Ghett Rheel Guest

    On Mon, 02 Nov 2009 08:00:41 GMT, "Dudley Hanks"
    <> wrote:

    >
    >"Ghett Rheel" <> wrote in message
    >news:...
    >> On Mon, 02 Nov 2009 07:10:56 GMT, "Dudley Hanks"
    >> <> wrote:
    >>
    >>>
    >>>"Ghett Rheel" <> wrote in message
    >>>news:...
    >>>> On Mon, 02 Nov 2009 06:02:41 GMT, "Dudley Hanks"
    >>>> <> wrote:
    >>>>
    >>>>>
    >>>>>"Neil Harrington" <> wrote in message
    >>>>>news:...
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>> "nospam" <> wrote in message
    >>>>>> news:011120091453097799%...
    >>>>>>> In article <>, Neil
    >>>>>>> Harrington <> wrote:
    >>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>> > Before you ask - not all airlines permit digital cameras to be
    >>>>>>>> > used
    >>>>>>>> > during
    >>>>>>>> > flight and many prohibit them during the take-off and landing
    >>>>>>>> > phases
    >>>>>>>> > of
    >>>>>>>> > the flight. I fly with an airline that has a total ban on digital
    >>>>>>>> > equipment. It's a good airline (usually on time, plenty of leg
    >>>>>>>> > room
    >>>>>>>> > and so
    >>>>>>>> > on) so I'm happy to use a film body.
    >>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>> I never heard of such a ban. When I fly I always take a DSLR to take
    >>>>>>>> pictures in the airport (I love airports) and a digital compact to
    >>>>>>>> take
    >>>>>>>> pictures out the airliner window, and sometimes of the cockpit when
    >>>>>>>> the
    >>>>>>>> door
    >>>>>>>> is open. No one has ever objected yet.
    >>>>>>>
    >>>>>>> all airlines prohibit electronic devices during takeoff/landing, but
    >>>>>>> some go further than that. some airlines ban cd/dvd players (can't
    >>>>>>> have
    >>>>>>> a laser!) or they require removable batteries to be removed and put
    >>>>>>> in
    >>>>>>> checked luggage. so while it may be rare, i wouldn't rule it out.
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>> That's interesting. Continental -- and the smaller regional airline
    >>>>>> flying
    >>>>>> as Continental Express -- evidently couldn't care less. I'll be using
    >>>>>> a
    >>>>>> different airline this winter, so maybe it will be different.
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>
    >>>>>During most flights I've been on, lately, the flight crew is mainly
    >>>>>concerned with electronic devices which utilize a transmitter.
    >>>>>
    >>>>>For instance, my Trekker GPS device has the software running on an HP
    >>>>>IPAQ,
    >>>>>which receives GPS info from a separate (bluetooth) GPS device, so I
    >>>>>can't
    >>>>>use it during the flight.
    >>>>>
    >>>>>But, I've had no objections to taking a few shots of Mich lying
    >>>>>patiently,
    >>>>>or of scenic shots out the window.
    >>>>
    >>>> You can't even properly frame nor see your dog that's laying right next
    >>>> to
    >>>> your feet while sitting at a table in the mall. Even when you are using
    >>>> the
    >>>> full-screen of a laptop as your viewfinder. Please explain to everyone
    >>>> how
    >>>> you can compose (with intent) any scene out of a window?
    >>>>
    >>>> Even more funny are your recent posts about photographing and driving
    >>>> cars.
    >>>> I.e. Ford Exec says, "Let's humor the foolish blind man or we'll look
    >>>> bad
    >>>> in PR. We'll just have a full safety-team stand by at thousands of
    >>>> dollars
    >>>> of our cost so we don't look bad." Nothing like using your blindness to
    >>>> manipulate all others to get what you want, eh? At everyone else's
    >>>> expense,
    >>>> of course. Or using gels on flash units. As if that's ever going to help
    >>>> with your compositions that you can't see nor focus on in the first
    >>>> place.
    >>>>
    >>>> <major eye-roll>
    >>>>
    >>>> Grow up, and ...
    >>>>
    >>>> Ghett Rheel
    >>>>
    >>>
    >>>Jealous? :)
    >>>
    >>>You might be surprised at what is going to be posted on my site over the
    >>>next few months. Perhaps, once you realize that others can appreciate the
    >>>unusual and the unorthodox, you might get an inkling as to how limited is
    >>>your understanding of the human condition.
    >>>
    >>>Perhaps one of your relatives told Hellen Keller she should just give up?
    >>>
    >>>FYI, Ford's decision came after I provided company execs with detailed
    >>>info
    >>>as to the demographics of my site visitors, and statistics about usage. I
    >>>provided a rather comprehensive summary of who visits my site, why they
    >>>visit it, and what they are looking for.
    >>>
    >>>The interesting thing about the internet is that users are tired of the
    >>>same
    >>>old, same old.
    >>>
    >>>Why do you think traditional newspapers are dying? Television stations
    >>>are
    >>>closing? And, why do you think that bazaar internet sites are flurishing?
    >>>
    >>>If a web master can produce a product which connects to a definable
    >>>demographic, and if a more traditional company can use that connection to
    >>>highlight its products, its way of doing business and its corporate
    >>>philosophy, is it not good business for it to do exactly that?
    >>>
    >>>Ford seems to think I'll make them more than I'll cost 'em.
    >>>
    >>>Get Real, get with the times...
    >>>
    >>>Take Care,
    >>>Dudley
    >>>

    >>
    >> Web-master? You can't even post images on your web-space properly because
    >> you can't read the html code in its entirety. Everyone with an internet
    >> connection today is a "web master".
    >>
    >> But I applaud you on your inventive side-stepping. You didn't answer the
    >> question.
    >>
    >> Kinda funny about the Ford decision. Imagine them trying to market their
    >> products to blind people. LOL .... Sounds pretty desperate to me. I can
    >> see
    >> the news now, "Film at 11: Ford, in an act of desperation, is trying to
    >> market their cars to blind people."
    >>
    >> Whups! There goes what's left of their stock. Maybe Obama stealing from
    >> all
    >> tax-payers will bail them out again.
    >>
    >> And we'll only have you to blame for pity-manipulating a few Ford execs
    >> because of your misplaced desperate need for attention.
    >>
    >> It always all starts with one idiot with skewed self-serving intentions.
    >> Why should you be any different in the course of history.
    >>

    >Wow, so dramatic...
    >
    >Once again, you are demonstrating your limited understanding of the real
    >world...
    >
    >First of all, I have very few blind visitors to my site. Most of the people
    >who visit it are:
    >
    >* Corporate types who have a passion for photography, and a curiosity
    >about how a blind person deals with his / her challenges in the pursuit of
    >capturing good images.
    >
    >* Corporate types who love animals (dogs in particular), and who are
    >interested in how a blind human / sighted canine team copes with day-to-day
    >realities.
    >
    >* Corporate types who enjoy what I write, about whatever subjects I write
    >about.
    >
    >The key here is "corporate types."
    >
    >You see, I actively market my site to higher income, "corporate types" who
    >visit it looking for something different, something real, to which they can
    >click to once and a while to offset their daily grind.
    >
    >If these folks have any of the above noted interests , my site is hard to
    >pass up, even though it isn't exactly the most glitzy web production out
    >there.
    >
    >The key is "interest." It doesn't matter how good a site is, if the web
    >designers have to manufacture interest, they are not going to keep people
    >coming back on a regular basis. But, if the individual is genuinely
    >interested in the individual(s) who run the site, they will be much more
    >likely to keep coming back, and they will pay a lot more attention to what
    >is posted -- a genuinely good mix for corporate sponsors, the web surfer,
    >and the content provider.
    >
    >Oh, and one other thing. While Ford isn't exactly marketing cars to blind
    >guys, at the moment, how long do you think it'll take before GPS brained
    >vehicles are chauffeuring blind guys around with absolute ease and accuracy?
    >
    >Given that cars can park themselves now (unheard of a decade or so ago),
    >self-brake when approaching hazards (another recent innovation), and warn
    >the driver of unseen dangers, need I say more?
    >
    >Once again, Get Real, get with the times...
    >
    >Take Care,
    >Dudley
    >


    "Film at 11: Ford, in an act of desperation, is now trying to market their
    products to blind people. Here's proof, Blind-Dudley's website. What were
    those Ford execs thinking? We won't bail them out this time. They were
    stupid enough to get that bad off last time, this only clinches it."

    If nobody else alerts the media about this I certainly will. The
    entertainment value alone will be worth it. I could care less about Ford's
    stock value.

    And DUDley still he side-steps the important photography-related question
    asked of him.

    LOL

    Whoo boy! Who needs to pay to see stand-up comics when this shit is being
    posted for free on usenet.
     
    Ghett Rheel, Nov 2, 2009
    #36
  17. PaddleHard

    Ray Fischer Guest

    Ghett Rheel <> wrote:
    >Kinda funny about the Ford decision. Imagine them trying to market their
    >products to blind people. LOL .... Sounds pretty desperate to me. I can see
    >the news now, "Film at 11: Ford, in an act of desperation, is trying to
    >market their cars to blind people."
    >
    >Whups! There goes what's left of their stock. Maybe Obama stealing from all
    >tax-payers will bail them out again.


    Ford didn't get any TARP funds.

    Like most rightards you're pretty short on facts and long on opinion.

    --
    Ray Fischer
     
    Ray Fischer, Nov 2, 2009
    #37
  18. PaddleHard

    -hh Guest

    nospam <> wrote:
    > Neil Harrington <> wrote:
    > > Rog, I knew about cell phones, because my sister -- who flies quite a lot,
    > > including internationally -- had told me they couldn't be used during
    > > takeoff or landing (or in flight either, if I understood her correctly). She
    > > mentioned that often after landing, as soon as the seat belts light went out
    > > you could hear cell phones snapping open all over the cabin.

    >
    > many airlines now allow cellphone use while taxiing to the gate after
    > landing.


    That's pretty much become SOP. However, for international flights
    arriving in the USA, one isn't allowed to have your cellphone on while
    going through immigration & customs (or take photos inside this
    area). Its not a technology issue, but a security issue.


    > > But I'd be surprised if "digital equipment" was taken to include cameras,
    > > for this purpose, since as far as I know they don't generate any sort of
    > > external RF.

    >
    > it's *extremely* small.


    The general rule for the 'electronics off' is when below 10,000 ft
    altitude, eg, takeoff up to 10K, and then when descending, 10K until
    landing. The concern is for a potential for RF interference, and
    while the objective risk is arguably small, the real issue is that it
    is financially impractical to test 1,000,000 devices x 1,000 aircraft
    variations to positively certify that no interference is present.


    -hh
     
    -hh, Nov 2, 2009
    #38
  19. PaddleHard

    nospam Guest

    In article <hcmcdu$1foi$>, No spam please
    <> wrote:

    > A search to find articles about Ryanair in the newspapers will give you some
    > amusement.
    > There's a rumour that they may charge passengers to use the aircraft's
    > toilet.


    it was mostly a publicity stunt. they aren't charging to pee.
     
    nospam, Nov 2, 2009
    #39
  20. PaddleHard

    nospam Guest

    In article <hcmc8g$1foi$>, No spam please
    <> wrote:

    > A friend used to operate the radio at a local airfield. When she went on a
    > commercial flight she switched on her airband radio receiver to listen to
    > ATC ... and it upset some of the aircraft's systems.


    how did she know? and if so, what proof is there that the radio was the
    cause of the problem?

    the leakage from the radio is not only far from the avionics in the
    cockpit, but more importantly, the plane encounters *far* stronger
    sources of interference such as flying over a city with commercial
    broadcast towers which pump out thousands of watts of radio and tv as
    well as cellphone towers, public safety two-way radios, etc.

    if there actually was a risk, all electronics would be banned.
     
    nospam, Nov 2, 2009
    #40
    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. Beowulf
    Replies:
    12
    Views:
    2,981
    Lionel
    Aug 24, 2003
  2. Mike Kozlowski
    Replies:
    5
    Views:
    814
  3. Amyotte
    Replies:
    3
    Views:
    728
    amyotte
    Feb 11, 2004
  4. SteveJ

    Canon 10D lens Nikon Lens

    SteveJ, Jun 9, 2004, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    29
    Views:
    863
    Steve m...
    Jun 14, 2004
  5. Replies:
    13
    Views:
    4,502
    Doug Jewell
    May 31, 2009
Loading...

Share This Page