Lens question

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

  1. PaddleHard

    nospam Guest

    In article
    <>,
    -hh <> wrote:

    > > 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.


    right, but that's not in flight :)

    > 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.


    it's also that the flight attendants aren't trained to determine if the
    device can cause interference and if it can, whether that function is
    disabled (e.g., airplane mode in a cellphone). it's *much* easier to
    say 'everything off.'

    they also don't want passengers being distracted. in the event of an
    emergency, you want people to hear crew instructions, not be listening
    to music on an ipod using noise canceling headphones that squelch
    anything the crew might be saying.

    lastly, unsecured devices can become projectiles in the event something
    goes wrong. a laptop flying through the cabin can *hurt*. they also
    need to be stowed so people can quickly exit if necessary.
     
    nospam, Nov 2, 2009
    #41
    1. Advertising

  2. PaddleHard

    Dudley Hanks Guest


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


    How can I compose, with intent, anything of interest to the sighted while
    shooting out an airplane window?

    Actually, it isn't all that difficult.

    Keep visiting my site and I'll try to answer your question there.

    Of course, shooting those ponies is going to be a lot of fun, so you may
    need to check back a few times. But, it'll be worth your while, since
    composing pics of cars is a lot tougher than composing a skyline shot from a
    more or less constant arrangement of elements... And I think you'll be
    surprised at the much tougher car shots.

    Take Care,
    Dudley
     
    Dudley Hanks, Nov 2, 2009
    #42
    1. Advertising

  3. PaddleHard

    Dudley Hanks Guest

    "George Kerby" <> wrote in message
    news:C71448BC.37B52%...
    >
    >
    >
    > On 11/2/09 12:22 AM, in article
    > , "Neil Harrington"
    > <> wrote:
    >
    >>
    >> "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.
    >>
    >>

    > "Mister, at this time you are required to turn off your pacemaker.
    > When we reach 10,000 feet, you may re-start it. Thank you."
    >


    George, that's about as good a way of encapsulating the issue as I've
    read... :)

    Take Care,
    Dudley
     
    Dudley Hanks, Nov 2, 2009
    #43
  4. PaddleHard

    Dudley Hanks Guest

    "nospam" <> wrote in message
    news:021120090951498171%...
    > 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.



    Remember when they tried paid public toilets? What was that? Late '70s?
    Early '80s?

    Shall we say the public got so pissed off they had to flush the whole idea?

    Take Care,
    Dudley
     
    Dudley Hanks, Nov 2, 2009
    #44
  5. George Kerby <> wrote:

    > On 11/2/09 12:47 AM, in article NfvHm.51193$PH1.40481@edtnps82, "Dudley
    > Hanks" <> wrote:
    >
    > >
    > > "nospam" <> wrote in message
    > > news:021120090122566686%...
    > >> In article <5CuHm.51192$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
    > >
    > >

    > "You want to use the restroom? Very well, we have a nominal fee of three
    > dollars US per visit and will only accept Master Card, Visa or American
    > Express. No cash or checks. Thank you."


    <http://www.businessweek.com/globalbiz/blog/europeinsight/archives/2009/
    02/ryanair_conside.html>

    You thought that you were joking.

    :)



    --
    Andy Templeman <http://www.templeman.org.uk/>
     
    Andrew Templeman, Nov 2, 2009
    #45
  6. PaddleHard

    J. Clarke Guest

    nospam wrote:
    > 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,


    That may be but the antennas for those avionics are _not_ 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.


    And how many of those sources are two feet from an antenna on the airplane?

    > if there actually was a risk, all electronics would be banned.


    Can you prove that there is not a risk? Are you willing to pay the lawsuit
    and write the letters to the families of the dead if it turns out that you
    are wrong?
     
    J. Clarke, Nov 2, 2009
    #46
  7. PaddleHard

    J. Clarke Guest

    nospam wrote:
    > In article
    > <>,
    > -hh <> wrote:
    >
    >>> 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.

    >
    > right, but that's not in flight :)
    >
    >> 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.

    >
    > it's also that the flight attendants aren't trained to determine if
    > the device can cause interference and if it can, whether that
    > function is disabled (e.g., airplane mode in a cellphone). it's
    > *much* easier to say 'everything off.'


    Then there's the little matter of their not having spectrum analyzers on the
    plane with them or the time to run each device through one, which is the
    only way that they can make such a determination.

    > they also don't want passengers being distracted. in the event of an
    > emergency, you want people to hear crew instructions, not be listening
    > to music on an ipod using noise canceling headphones that squelch
    > anything the crew might be saying.


    You've never used noise cancelling headphones, have you?

    > lastly, unsecured devices can become projectiles in the event
    > something goes wrong. a laptop flying through the cabin can *hurt*.
    > they also need to be stowed so people can quickly exit if necessary.
     
    J. Clarke, Nov 2, 2009
    #47
  8. Don't feed the troll.

    Sheesh.

    --
    lsmft
     
    John McWilliams, Nov 2, 2009
    #48
  9. Ray Fischer wrote:
    >

    Take your own advice about trolls, Ray.

    --
    lsmft
     
    John McWilliams, Nov 2, 2009
    #49
  10. PaddleHard

    whisky-dave Guest

    "J. Clarke" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > nospam wrote:
    >> In article
    >> <>,
    >> -hh <> wrote:
    >>



    >> *much* easier to say 'everything off.'


    Ah back to photography, is that what you say to the airline hostesses when
    taking a shot of them.

    > Then there's the little matter of their not having spectrum analyzers on
    > the
    > plane with them or the time to run each device through one, which is the
    > only way that they can make such a determination.


    It does seem to be an OTT safety precotion like they did at petrol pumps.
    I bet they wouldn;t allow you to use a microwave oven either, but I bet they
    do.

    >> they also don't want passengers being distracted. in the event of an
    >> emergency, you want people to hear crew instructions, not be listening
    >> to music on an ipod using noise canceling headphones that squelch
    >> anything the crew might be saying.

    >
    > You've never used noise cancelling headphones, have you?


    This isn;t about reality it's about rules and who takes the blame
    and who gets sued.


    >> lastly, unsecured devices can become projectiles in the event
    >> something goes wrong. a laptop flying through the cabin can *hurt*.
    >> they also need to be stowed so people can quickly exit if necessary.

    >
     
    whisky-dave, Nov 2, 2009
    #50
  11. PaddleHard

    whisky-dave Guest

    "George Kerby" <> wrote in message
    news:C714496A.37B53%...
    >
    >
    >


    > "You want to use the restroom? Very well, we have a nominal fee of three
    > dollars US per visit and will only accept Master Card, Visa or American
    > Express. No cash or checks. Thank you."


    I wonder if they'd accept paypal....

    or their own system called peepal ;-)
     
    whisky-dave, Nov 2, 2009
    #51
  12. PaddleHard

    nospam Guest

    In article <>, J. Clarke
    <> wrote:

    > > the leakage from the radio is not only far from the avionics in the
    > > cockpit,

    >
    > That may be but the antennas for those avionics are _not_ in the cockpit.


    the antennas aren't under the passenger's seat. they're typically in
    the nose cone or somewhere on the outside of the plane on bottom of the
    fuselage, which means there's a lot of metal and the entire baggage
    compartment between the antenna and passenger, along with a bunch of
    baggage.

    > > 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.

    >
    > And how many of those sources are two feet from an antenna on the airplane?


    it doesn't matter. tv & radio stations pump out enough power to carry
    the signal 50-100 miles. compare that to the leakage from some device
    which probably can't even be detected past a few feet, let alone
    interfere with anything.

    > > if there actually was a risk, all electronics would be banned.

    >
    > Can you prove that there is not a risk? Are you willing to pay the lawsuit
    > and write the letters to the families of the dead if it turns out that you
    > are wrong?


    can you prove there *is* a risk? on every flight there's probably
    someone who forgot to turn off their cellphone or other electronic
    device. multiply that by the number of flights per day. there are a
    *lot* of flights with electronics that are still on during takeoff and
    landing, and planes aren't falling from the skies.
     
    nospam, Nov 2, 2009
    #52
  13. PaddleHard

    nospam Guest

    In article <hcn42h$2sum$>, No spam please
    <> wrote:

    > I phoned my friend to-day. The lens is an autofocus lens but, if I
    > understand things correctly, it needs a body with a focus motor in it and
    > the D50 doesn't have this.


    that's completely wrong. the d50 has a focus motor and *all* autofocus
    lenses will focus and meter on it.

    which lens is it? or does she have a different camera?
     
    nospam, Nov 2, 2009
    #53
  14. PaddleHard

    Bob Larter Guest

    -hh wrote:
    > 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.


    Exactly. EF-S lenses aren't EF lenses.

    --
    W
    . | ,. w , "Some people are alive only because
    \|/ \|/ it is illegal to kill them." Perna condita delenda est
    ---^----^---------------------------------------------------------------
     
    Bob Larter, Nov 2, 2009
    #54
  15. PaddleHard

    Bob Larter Guest

    Dudley Hanks wrote:
    > "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.


    Yeah, the P&S troll is a sad little fellow. It really upsets him when
    people dare to simply enjoy photography. ;^)

    --
    W
    . | ,. w , "Some people are alive only because
    \|/ \|/ it is illegal to kill them." Perna condita delenda est
    ---^----^---------------------------------------------------------------
     
    Bob Larter, Nov 2, 2009
    #55
  16. Ï "Dudley Hanks" <> Ýãñáøå óôï ìÞíõìá
    news:2qCHm.50239$Db2.9006@edtnps83...
    >
    > "nospam" <> wrote in message
    > news:021120090951498171%...
    >> 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.

    >
    >
    > Remember when they tried paid public toilets? What was that? Late '70s?
    > Early '80s?
    >
    > Shall we say the public got so pissed off they had to flush the whole
    > idea?
    >

    In Germany, there were during the '80s (West Germany) paid toilets, you had
    to insert a 10 pfennig coin for the door to open. I don't know what happens
    now, I've not been to Germany for more than 15 years.


    --
    Tzortzakakis Dimitrios
    major in electrical engineering
    mechanized infantry reservist
    hordad AT otenet DOT gr
     
    Tzortzakakis Dimitrios, Nov 2, 2009
    #56
  17. PaddleHard

    -hh Guest

    "J. Clarke" <> wrote:
    > nospam wrote:
    > >
    > > they also don't want passengers being distracted. in the event of an
    > > emergency, you want people to hear crew instructions, not be listening
    > > to music on an ipod using noise canceling headphones that squelch
    > > anything the crew might be saying.

    >
    > You've never used noise cancelling headphones, have you?


    YMMV. I've had a set of Plane Quiet NC-6 for the past ~5 years, and I
    find that particularly when coupled with a pair of generic -28dB foam
    earplugs (just turn up the iPod's volume a little), the combination
    provides quite a bit of isolation from ambient noise...my habit is to
    now either try to lip-read the Flight Attendent's converation, or to
    be polite and pull them off.

    Of course, there's no particular airline policy of "...please remove
    passive earplugs..." - so they're pretty much just trying to apply the
    80/20 rule.


    -hh
     
    -hh, Nov 2, 2009
    #57
  18. PaddleHard

    Ghett Rheel Guest

    On Mon, 02 Nov 2009 14:26:44 GMT, "Dudley Hanks"
    <> wrote:

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

    >
    >How can I compose, with intent, anything of interest to the sighted while
    >shooting out an airplane window?
    >
    >Actually, it isn't all that difficult.
    >
    >Keep visiting my site and I'll try to answer your question there.
    >
    >Of course, shooting those ponies is going to be a lot of fun, so you may
    >need to check back a few times. But, it'll be worth your while, since
    >composing pics of cars is a lot tougher than composing a skyline shot from a
    >more or less constant arrangement of elements... And I think you'll be
    >surprised at the much tougher car shots.
    >
    >Take Care,
    >Dudley
    >


    No thanks. I've already been offended far too many times seeing your
    blurry, badly exposed, zero-composition, 6-year-old's snapshots. All which
    could have been done far better if you strapped your camera to your dog
    with a bark-activated shutter. There's no need to gawk again at some sad
    accident just to raise your hit count. Any increasing numbers now being
    caused by people that enjoy a freak's side-show act at a two-bit carnival.
     
    Ghett Rheel, Nov 2, 2009
    #58
  19. PaddleHard

    Dudley Hanks Guest

    "Ghett Rheel" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > On Mon, 02 Nov 2009 14:26:44 GMT, "Dudley Hanks"
    > <> wrote:
    >
    >>
    >>> And DUDley still he side-steps the important photography-related
    >>> question
    >>> asked of him.

    >>
    >>How can I compose, with intent, anything of interest to the sighted while
    >>shooting out an airplane window?
    >>
    >>Actually, it isn't all that difficult.
    >>
    >>Keep visiting my site and I'll try to answer your question there.
    >>
    >>Of course, shooting those ponies is going to be a lot of fun, so you may
    >>need to check back a few times. But, it'll be worth your while, since
    >>composing pics of cars is a lot tougher than composing a skyline shot from
    >>a
    >>more or less constant arrangement of elements... And I think you'll be
    >>surprised at the much tougher car shots.
    >>
    >>Take Care,
    >>Dudley
    >>

    >
    > No thanks. I've already been offended far too many times seeing your
    > blurry, badly exposed, zero-composition, 6-year-old's snapshots. All which
    > could have been done far better if you strapped your camera to your dog
    > with a bark-activated shutter. There's no need to gawk again at some sad
    > accident just to raise your hit count. Any increasing numbers now being
    > caused by people that enjoy a freak's side-show act at a two-bit carnival.
    >


    Really, GR?

    You know you'll miss me...

    I'm probably the best friend you have on the net -- not that that is saying
    much...

    Take Care,
    Dudley
     
    Dudley Hanks, Nov 2, 2009
    #59
  20. PaddleHard

    nospam Guest

    In article <hcnkdu$vmm$>, No spam please
    <> wrote:

    > As I said
    > earlier, a friend who operates an airfield radio found that her own radio
    > receiver upset the aircraft's systems.


    but you didn't say how she determined that. did she turn on the radio
    and the plane suddenly dive or make a sudden turn? how did she rule out
    some other effect?
     
    nospam, Nov 2, 2009
    #60
    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:
    3,038
    Lionel
    Aug 24, 2003
  2. Mike Kozlowski
    Replies:
    5
    Views:
    839
  3. Amyotte
    Replies:
    3
    Views:
    753
    amyotte
    Feb 11, 2004
  4. SteveJ

    Canon 10D lens Nikon Lens

    SteveJ, Jun 9, 2004, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    29
    Views:
    898
    Steve m...
    Jun 14, 2004
  5. Replies:
    13
    Views:
    4,636
    Doug Jewell
    May 31, 2009
Loading...

Share This Page