Re: $75000 lens

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by sid, Sep 24, 2012.

  1. sid

    sid Guest

    sid, Sep 24, 2012
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. sid

    Ron Guest

    Ron, Sep 24, 2012
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. sid

    Paul Ciszek Guest

    In article <5060b338$0$1126$c3e8da3$>,
    Ron <> wrote:
    >"sid" wrote in message news:...
    >
    >Alfred Molon wrote:
    >
    >> Supposedly Kate Middleton was photographed with a $75000 lens. Does
    >> anybody know what kind of lens is that?

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


    Used, right?

    --
    "Remember when teachers, public employees, Planned Parenthood, NPR and PBS
    crashed the stock market, wiped out half of our 401Ks, took trillions in
    TARP money, spilled oil in the Gulf of Mexico, gave themselves billions in
    bonuses, and paid no taxes? Yeah, me neither."
     
    Paul Ciszek, Sep 24, 2012
    #3
  4. sid

    Peter Jason Guest

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

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

    >>
    >> http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/find/newsLetter/Mother-of-All-L-Lenses.jsp

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



    If you're famous or notorious this might be a good
    time to start trembling.
    http://www.fieldandstream.com/blogs/field-notes/2012/08/aerial-drones-future-game-cameras

    Jumbo lenses are just not necessary.

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


    And if a large $120000 lens takes a photo of
    something miles away, it has to take in all the
    thermal gradients, dust, mist etc.
     
    Peter Jason, Sep 24, 2012
    #4
  5. sid

    Paul Ciszek Guest

    In article <>,
    Peter Jason <> wrote:
    >
    >If you're famous or notorious this might be a good
    >time to start trembling.
    >http://www.fieldandstream.com/blogs/field-notes/2012/08/aerial-drones-future-game-cameras
    >
    >Jumbo lenses are just not necessary.


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

    --
    Please reply to: | "We establish no religion in this country, we
    pciszek at panix dot com | command no worship, we mandate no belief, nor
    Autoreply is disabled | will we ever. Church and state are, and must
    | remain, separate." --Ronald Reagan, 10/26/1984
     
    Paul Ciszek, Sep 24, 2012
    #5
  6. (Paul Ciszek) writes:

    > In article <>,
    > Peter Jason <> wrote:
    >>
    >>If you're famous or notorious this might be a good
    >>time to start trembling.
    >>http://www.fieldandstream.com/blogs/field-notes/2012/08/aerial-drones-future-game-cameras
    >>
    >>Jumbo lenses are just not necessary.

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


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

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


    How did that play out in court, and did they have the money for a real
    fight?
    --
    Googleproofaddress(account:dd-b provider:dd-b domain:net)
    Snapshots: http://dd-b.net/dd-b/SnapshotAlbum/data/
    Photos: http://dd-b.net/photography/gallery/
    Dragaera: http://dragaera.info
     
    David Dyer-Bennet, Sep 24, 2012
    #6
  7. sid

    Me Guest

    On 25/09/2012 11:11 a.m., Savageduck wrote:
    > On 2012-09-24 15:33:38 -0700, David Dyer-Bennet <> said:
    >
    >> (Paul Ciszek) writes:
    >>
    >>> In article <>,
    >>> Peter Jason <> wrote:
    >>>>
    >>>> If you're famous or notorious this might be a good
    >>>> time to start trembling.
    >>>> http://www.fieldandstream.com/blogs/field-notes/2012/08/aerial-drones-future-game-cameras
    >>>>

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

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

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

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

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


    They might ask for it back:
    http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2010/10/fbi-tracking-device/

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

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

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

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

    Of course it's okay if it's part of the "global war on terror" right?
    ... So it's okay for the FBI to collude with spooks in a foreign country
    (in a country which routinely topped global polls for transparency in
    government and low corruption), and to entice them to break the laws in
    order to protect... Hollywood?
    http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10836388&ref=rss
    and:
    http://www.stuff.co.nz/technology/digital-living/7054878/Dotcom-info-not-physical

    Only in America? I wish so.
     
    Me, Sep 25, 2012
    #7
  8. sid

    Me Guest

    On 25/09/2012 12:39 p.m., Savageduck wrote:
    > On 2012-09-24 17:04:09 -0700, Me <> said:
    >
    >> On 25/09/2012 11:11 a.m., Savageduck wrote:
    >>> On 2012-09-24 15:33:38 -0700, David Dyer-Bennet <> said:
    >>>
    >>>> (Paul Ciszek) writes:
    >>>>
    >>>>> In article <>,
    >>>>> Peter Jason <> wrote:
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>> If you're famous or notorious this might be a good
    >>>>>> time to start trembling.
    >>>>>> http://www.fieldandstream.com/blogs/field-notes/2012/08/aerial-drones-future-game-cameras
    >>>>>>

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

    >>
    >> They might ask for it back:
    >> http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2010/10/fbi-tracking-device/
    >>
    >>> If the device had been placed by a law enforcement agency after
    >>> obtaining the proper court authorized warrant the agency would not have
    >>> a significant problem. If they had placed it without the appropriate
    >>> warrant, any tracking data would be inadmissible in court.
    >>> That does not mean an unauthorized tracking device could not be placed
    >>> for surveillance, it means that none of the data could be used in a
    >>> prosecution case, so much so that they could, and probably would, deny
    >>> any responsibility for placement.
    >>>

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

    >
    >
    >>
    >> >

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

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

    >
    > Different rules for domestic US use.
    >

    And the morality of that doesn't bother you?

    >
    >> .. So it's okay for the FBI to collude with spooks in a foreign
    >> country (in a country which routinely topped global polls for
    >> transparency in government and low corruption), and to entice them to
    >> break the laws in order to protect... Hollywood?
    >> http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10836388&ref=rss
    >>
    >> and:

    >
    > If I read that correctly it seems the NZ agency screwed up there. Also
    > that case has nothing to do with the "war on terror", but as you implied
    > the theft of "Hollywood" assets by a pirate.
    >
    >> http://www.stuff.co.nz/technology/digital-living/7054878/Dotcom-info-not-physical
    >>

    >
    > ...and
    >>

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

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

    >> Only in America? I wish so.

    >
    > Who said only in America?
    >
    >
     
    Me, Sep 25, 2012
    #8
  9. sid

    philo Guest

    philo, Sep 26, 2012
    #9
  10. Savageduck <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote:

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


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

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

    -Wolfgang
     
    Wolfgang Weisselberg, Sep 26, 2012
    #10
  11. sid

    M-M Guest

    M-M, Sep 27, 2012
    #11
  12. sid

    Joe Kotroczo Guest

    On 27/09/2012 16:39, M-M wrote:
    > In article <>,
    > sid <> wrote:
    >
    >> http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/find/newsLetter/Mother-of-All-L-Lenses.jsp

    >
    >
    > It's a 1200mm f/5.6. My Nikon Fieldscope is 1500mm f/13. With enough
    > light it could likely compare at 1/100 the price.
    >
    > Of course, "with enough light" is a biggie. But there was plenty where
    > Kate was.
    >


    Did I say Zoom-Nikkor 1200-1700mm f/5.6-8P IF-ED?

    ..
    ..
    ..

    Oh yes, I did.

    --
    audentes fortuna iuvat
     
    Joe Kotroczo, Sep 27, 2012
    #12
  13. sid

    PeterN Guest

    On 9/27/2012 9:42 PM, Savageduck wrote:

    <snip>

    > Personally I found the concept of "rendition" to be reprehensible and
    > completely against what, we as a nation were led to believe we represented.
    >


    That's music to my ears

    --
    Peter
     
    PeterN, Sep 28, 2012
    #13
    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:
    3,007
    Lionel
    Aug 24, 2003
  2. Joe Kotroczo

    Re: $75000 lens

    Joe Kotroczo, Sep 24, 2012, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    247
    Joe Kotroczo
    Sep 24, 2012
  3. Paul Ciszek

    Re: $75000 lens

    Paul Ciszek, Sep 24, 2012, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    244
    Paul Ciszek
    Sep 24, 2012
  4. Chris Malcolm

    Re: $75000 lens

    Chris Malcolm, Sep 26, 2012, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    235
    Chris Malcolm
    Sep 26, 2012
  5. Whisky-dave

    Re: $75000 lens

    Whisky-dave, Sep 26, 2012, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    233
    Whisky-dave
    Sep 26, 2012
Loading...

Share This Page