Lens question
PaddleHard
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? What's the rule of thumb for Canon lenses and their
'compatibility' with older and new cameras?
Thanks,
Chris
Ron Recer
news:55582399-6c48-47b0...@d10g2000yqh.googlegroups.com...
The EF 28-135mm IS USM lens will work on both the 300D and the 50D. I
bought that lens when I bought my 10D and really like it.
EF lens will work on all Canon DSLR cameras as well as Canon SLR cameras
made for autofocus lens. The EF-S lens will only work on the so called 1.6
crop sensor Canon cameras made after the EF-S lens were introduced. For
instance, an EF-S lens won't work on my Canon 10D, a 1.6 crop sensor,
because it predates the introduction of the EF-S lens. The EF-S lens are
made especially for the 1.6 crop sensors and the mount won't allow them to
be affixed to a full frame sensor or film camera.
Ron
J�rgen Exner
In general: a DX lens mounted on a FF camera will typically result in
vignetting under at least some condition (apperture/focal lenght
combination). The other way round, i.e. mounting a FF lens on a DX
camera is no problem.
Canon specific: Any EOS-lens can be mounted on any EOS-camera. However
the EOS system (using the EF mount) is completely incompatible to the
earlier FD mount system.
jue
PaddleHard
nospam
<jurg...@hotmail.com> wrote:
keep in mind that any ef-s lens is incompatible with an ef mount, while
any ef lens will work on any eos camera, crop sensor or not. nobody
cares about fd lenses anymore, they've been paperweights for a couple
of decades.
John Navas
wrote in <tlooe5lb0unbna09f...@4ax.com>:
>In general: a DX lens mounted on a FF camera will typically result in
>vignetting under at least some condition (apperture/focal lenght
>combination). The other way round, i.e. mounting a FF lens on a DX
>camera is no problem.
>
>Canon specific: Any EOS-lens can be mounted on any EOS-camera. However
>the EOS system (using the EF mount) is completely incompatible to the
>earlier FD mount system.
More's the pity, because Canon FD lenses still are some of the finest
lenses ever made. That Canon orphaned them without even a single
digital body was a big betrayal of customers and a good reason to avoid
Canon products. If and when I buy a dSLR it will probably be a Nikon,
in part because Nikon has respected its promises and its customers.
--
Best regards,
John
Buying a dSLR doesn't make you a photographer,
it makes you a dSLR owner.
"The single most important component of a camera
is the twelve inches behind it." -Ansel Adams
nospam
<spamf...@navasgroup.com> wrote:
> >Canon specific: Any EOS-lens can be mounted on any EOS-camera. However
> >the EOS system (using the EF mount) is completely incompatible to the
> >earlier FD mount system.
>
> More's the pity, because Canon FD lenses still are some of the finest
> lenses ever made.
were, not still are. modern lenses generally are much better than ones
designed 20-30 years ago and lens coatings have also improved. also,
nothing stops canon from keeping the same optical formula in a newer fd
lens, if it's actually as good as you seem to think.
> That Canon orphaned them without even a single
> digital body was a big betrayal of customers and a good reason to avoid
> Canon products. If and when I buy a dSLR it will probably be a Nikon,
> in part because Nikon has respected its promises and its customers.
fd lenses work on 4/3rds bodies, using an adapter you claim to have
used despite it not having shipped at the time you made the claim.
J�rgen Exner
Fair enough, should have pointed that out explicitely.
jue
No spam please
news:uh3pe59s70tan0ri3...@4ax.com...
> On Sat, 31 Oct 2009 09:22:56 -0700, J�rgen Exner <jurg...@hotmail.com>
> wrote in <tlooe5lb0unbna09f...@4ax.com>:
>
>>In general: a DX lens mounted on a FF camera will typically result in
>>vignetting under at least some condition (apperture/focal lenght
>>combination). The other way round, i.e. mounting a FF lens on a DX
>>camera is no problem.
>>
>>Canon specific: Any EOS-lens can be mounted on any EOS-camera. However
>>the EOS system (using the EF mount) is completely incompatible to the
>>earlier FD mount system.
>
> More's the pity, because Canon FD lenses still are some of the finest
> lenses ever made. That Canon orphaned them without even a single
> digital body was a big betrayal of customers and a good reason to avoid
> Canon products. If and when I buy a dSLR it will probably be a Nikon,
> in part because Nikon has respected its promises and its customers.
>
> --
> Best regards,
> John
>
Actually, you may find there's more of a mess with Nikon lenses than with
Canon lenses.
I have no problems using any Canon EF lens on any EF body.
This isn't the case with Nilkon. Old Nikon lenses will physically mount on a
modern Nikon body but will they support metering and all the exposure modes
offered by that modern body? A friend has a Nikon D50 DSLR and an old Nikon
telephoto zoom. The zoom works in one or two of the body's modes but not in
all of them. Based on conversations over the phone, I think the two modes
are Manual and Aperture priority.
I read, when the EF mount came out, that the FD mount physically would not
have permitted Canon to offer all the facilities they wanted on their
autofocus lenses.
Personally, I stayed with the FD bodies and lenses until there was something
better on offer.
Regards, Rog.
nospam
<m...@spamnotwelcome.org> wrote:
> Actually, you may find there's more of a mess with Nikon lenses than with
> Canon lenses.
>
> I have no problems using any Canon EF lens on any EF body.
there are no problems using any nikon af lens on any nikon body either.
the only issue is that entry level cameras won't autofocus old lenses,
but people who buy those entry level bodies aren't likely to have old
lenses so it's a non issue.
nikon saw that most people buy 1-2 lenses with the camera and that's
it, so they made a smaller and lighter camera and sales skyrocketed.
the d40 was one of the best selling dslrs, so obviously, nikon's
marketing nailed that one right.
meanwhile, canon users can't *ever* use old manual focus lenses (and
the adapters don't work well, if at all).
> This isn't the case with Nilkon. Old Nikon lenses will physically mount on a
> modern Nikon body but will they support metering and all the exposure modes
> offered by that modern body?
depends on the body. low end cameras, no, mid and high end cameras yes.
> I read, when the EF mount came out, that the FD mount physically would not
> have permitted Canon to offer all the facilities they wanted on their
> autofocus lenses.
that's true, however, nikon's mount wasn't as limited so they were able
to maintain compatibility with old lenses, as did pentax. minolta, on
the other hand, changed the mount for no reason and came up with a
weird hotshoe.
No spam please
news:311020091732524976%nos...@nospam.invalid...
> In article <hci9pg$20dv$1...@adenine.netfront.net>, No spam please
> <m...@spamnotwelcome.org> wrote:
>
>> Actually, you may find there's more of a mess with Nikon lenses than with
>> Canon lenses.
>>
>> I have no problems using any Canon EF lens on any EF body.
>
> there are no problems using any nikon af lens on any nikon body either.
> the only issue is that entry level cameras won't autofocus old lenses,
> but people who buy those entry level bodies aren't likely to have old
> lenses so it's a non issue.
>
> nikon saw that most people buy 1-2 lenses with the camera and that's
> it, so they made a smaller and lighter camera and sales skyrocketed.
> the d40 was one of the best selling dslrs, so obviously, nikon's
> marketing nailed that one right.
>
> meanwhile, canon users can't *ever* use old manual focus lenses (and
> the adapters don't work well, if at all).
>
I have no problem in using my FD lenses on my FD mount bodies :->
Regards, Rog.
Neil Harrington
> wrote in <tlooe5lb0unbna09f...@4ax.com>:
>
>>In general: a DX lens mounted on a FF camera will typically result in
>>vignetting under at least some condition (apperture/focal lenght
>>combination). The other way round, i.e. mounting a FF lens on a DX
>>camera is no problem.
>>
>>Canon specific: Any EOS-lens can be mounted on any EOS-camera. However
>>the EOS system (using the EF mount) is completely incompatible to the
>>earlier FD mount system.
>
> More's the pity, because Canon FD lenses still are some of the finest
> lenses ever made. That Canon orphaned them without even a single
> digital body was a big betrayal of customers and a good reason to avoid
> Canon products. If and when I buy a dSLR it will probably be a Nikon,
> in part because Nikon has respected its promises and its customers.
DO IT, JOHN!! :-)
You will be a happy person, and yes, Nikon is the way to go.
Neil Harrington
"No spam please" <m...@spamnotwelcome.org> wrote in message
news:hci9pg$20dv$1...@adenine.netfront.net...
> "John Navas" <spamf...@navasgroup.com> wrote in message
> news:uh3pe59s70tan0ri3...@4ax.com...
>> On Sat, 31 Oct 2009 09:22:56 -0700, J�rgen Exner <jurg...@hotmail.com>
>> wrote in <tlooe5lb0unbna09f...@4ax.com>:
>>
>>>In general: a DX lens mounted on a FF camera will typically result in
>>>vignetting under at least some condition (apperture/focal lenght
>>>combination). The other way round, i.e. mounting a FF lens on a DX
>>>camera is no problem.
>>>
>>>Canon specific: Any EOS-lens can be mounted on any EOS-camera. However
>>>the EOS system (using the EF mount) is completely incompatible to the
>>>earlier FD mount system.
>>
>> More's the pity, because Canon FD lenses still are some of the finest
>> lenses ever made. That Canon orphaned them without even a single
>> digital body was a big betrayal of customers and a good reason to avoid
>> Canon products. If and when I buy a dSLR it will probably be a Nikon,
>> in part because Nikon has respected its promises and its customers.
>>
>> --
>> Best regards,
>> John
>>
> Hello John.
> Actually, you may find there's more of a mess with Nikon lenses than with
> Canon lenses.
>
> I have no problems using any Canon EF lens on any EF body.
>
> This isn't the case with Nilkon.
I think it is, at least as much as with Canon and probably more. You can use
some very old lenses on new Nikon bodies, giving up some capabilities such
as autofocus of course, and often metering, but if you're willing to do it
all manually with many old/new lens/body combinations you still can. How old
a Canon lens can you use (without an adapter) on a new Canon? The mount was
completely changed with the first EOS, wasn't it? And wasn't it changed
again more recently, making new lenses incompatible with older EOS bodies?
> Old Nikon lenses will physically mount on a modern Nikon body but will
> they support metering and all the exposure modes offered by that modern
> body?
Depends on how old the lens is, whether it's a CPU lens (with electrical
contacts) or not, etc. The basic Nikon F bayonet mount itself has remained
unchanged for 50 years, but there have been a number of detail additions
(and later subtractions) to it which were necessary to go with the evolving
technology in the camera bodies. Different methods of connection for
metering came and went. The details as to what is compatible with what and
to what degree are somewhat complicated, but there are several charts
available online which provide all this information, such as this one:
http://www.nikonians.org/nikon/slr-lens.html
Bob Larter
> 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
. | ,. w , "Some people are alive only because
\|/ \|/ it is illegal to kill them." Perna condita delenda est
---^----^---------------------------------------------------------------
Ray Fischer
> J�rgen Exner <jurg...@hotmail.com>
>>In general: a DX lens mounted on a FF camera will typically result in
>>vignetting under at least some condition (apperture/focal lenght
>>combination). The other way round, i.e. mounting a FF lens on a DX
>>camera is no problem.
>>
>>Canon specific: Any EOS-lens can be mounted on any EOS-camera. However
>>the EOS system (using the EF mount) is completely incompatible to the
>>earlier FD mount system.
>
>More's the pity, because Canon FD lenses still are some of the finest
>lenses ever made. That Canon orphaned them without even a single
>digital body was a big betrayal of customers and a good reason to avoid
>Canon products.
LOL! And tell us: What are you going to do when you upgrade to your
next P&S? Keep the lens and put it on a new body?
You really are an idiot.
--
Ray Fischer
rfis...@sonic.net
Ray Fischer
>In article <hci9pg$20dv$1...@adenine.netfront.net>, No spam please
><m...@spamnotwelcome.org> wrote:
>
>> Actually, you may find there's more of a mess with Nikon lenses than with
>> Canon lenses.
>>
>> I have no problems using any Canon EF lens on any EF body.
>
>there are no problems using any nikon af lens on any nikon body either.
>the only issue is that entry level cameras won't autofocus old lenses,
So there's no problems except for the problems.
Sheesh.
--
Ray Fischer
rfis...@sonic.net
nospam
<rfis...@sonic.net> wrote:
> >there are no problems using any nikon af lens on any nikon body either.
> >the only issue is that entry level cameras won't autofocus old lenses,
>
> So there's no problems except for the problems.
people who buy entry level cameras don't usually buy a lot of old
lenses and people who have a lot of lenses don't usually buy entry
level cameras, so it isn't actually much of a problem.
No spam please
In my experience, my friends who bought entry-level cameras wanted to keep
their spending to the minimum in case they weren't able to handle an SLR.
This meant that they tended to buy those second-hand old lenses.
I'd had SLRs for decades so I was happy to spend more money and get newer
equipment.
Your mileage may vary.
Regards once again, Rog.
No spam please
news:4aed24d3$1...@dnews.tpgi.com.au...
> 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.
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.
Regards, Rog.
Floyd L. Davidson
>>Ray Fischer <rfis...@sonic.net> wrote:
>>
>>> >there are no problems using any nikon af lens on any nikon body either.
>>> >the only issue is that entry level cameras won't autofocus old lenses,
>>>
>>> So there's no problems except for the problems.
The point is that the lens *will* work. And that is
true for lenses going way back into the 1970's for
Nikon; which is *not* true for Canon cameras.
>> people who buy entry level cameras don't usually buy a lot of old
>> lenses and people who have a lot of lenses don't usually buy entry
>> level cameras, so it isn't actually much of a problem.
>
>In my experience, my friends who bought entry-level cameras wanted to keep
>their spending to the minimum in case they weren't able to handle an SLR.
>This meant that they tended to buy those second-hand old lenses.
>
>I'd had SLRs for decades so I was happy to spend more money and get newer
>equipment.
>
>Your mileage may vary.
People who buy entry level cameras should read the
specifications before buying. Why didn't your friend do
that.
They also typically ask friends who use cameras for
advice, and you should have made it a point to let them
know about older lenses and entry level bodies. Why
doesn't that happen with your friends?
Or, perhaps your irrational claims are not true; you
made it up on the moment to support your equally
irration opinions on Nikon cameras???
--
Floyd L. Davidson <http://www.apaflo.com/floyd_davidson>
Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska) fl...@apaflo.com
No spam please
news:87pr821...@apaflo.com...
Hello Floyd.
People who buy entry-level cameras often rely on the shop's recommendation.
In small towns there may be only one shop and not a lot of choice. People
who buy entry-level cameras are often new to SLR photography and don't
always understand specifications.
I haven't used Nikon bodies since the days of film. It wasn't until my
friend bought an entry-level Nikon DSLR that the problem became apparent. If
you look around this newsgroup I believe you will see that some Nikon users
see the old lens / entry-level DSLR as a problem whereas others do not.
As I said, your mileage may vary.
Regards, Rog.
nospam
<m...@spamnotwelcome.org> wrote:
> People who buy entry-level cameras often rely on the shop's recommendation.
> In small towns there may be only one shop and not a lot of choice. People
> who buy entry-level cameras are often new to SLR photography and don't
> always understand specifications.
that may be true, but entry level buyers don't tend to buy a lot of
lenses. actually, most slr owners don't.
> I haven't used Nikon bodies since the days of film. It wasn't until my
> friend bought an entry-level Nikon DSLR that the problem became apparent. If
> you look around this newsgroup I believe you will see that some Nikon users
> see the old lens / entry-level DSLR as a problem whereas others do not.
some might find it to be a problem but most don't. that's why it sold
as well as it did.
Floyd L. Davidson
You said "In my experience, my friends who bought
entry-level cameras wanted to keep ..."
That is the reference point, not some questionable
advice from a small town shop. Regardless, I cannot
imagine any small town shop advising purchase of a
camera that won't work with old lenses if the customer
says that is what they want to use. (If for no other
reason than it is exactly the excuse the sales person
needs to switch to a more expensive camera.)
You made up this scenario. It isn't rational.
>I haven't used Nikon bodies since the days of film. It wasn't until my
>friend bought an entry-level Nikon DSLR that the problem became apparent. If
>you look around this newsgroup I believe you will see that some Nikon users
>see the old lens / entry-level DSLR as a problem whereas others do not.
You are still missing the point. The problem is not
with Nikon's camera/lens design. They *do* provide
camera bodies that function perfectly with older lenses.
(A distinct difference from other manufacturer's who had
a less technically advanced lens mount in the 1970's and
had no choice but to abandon *all* compatibility.)
The "problem" is people making up excuses for doing
stupid things. Or, in your case, making up claims of
others doing stupid things in order to jusify your own
decisions.
>As I said, your mileage may vary.
So does the honesty and rationality of your articles.
John Navas
<m...@spamnotwelcome.org> wrote in <hci9pg$20dv$1...@adenine.netfront.net>:
>"John Navas" <spamf...@navasgroup.com> wrote in message
>news:uh3pe59s70tan0ri3...@4ax.com...
>> More's the pity, because Canon FD lenses still are some of the finest
>> lenses ever made. That Canon orphaned them without even a single
>> digital body was a big betrayal of customers and a good reason to avoid
>> Canon products. If and when I buy a dSLR it will probably be a Nikon,
>> in part because Nikon has respected its promises and its customers.
>Actually, you may find there's more of a mess with Nikon lenses than with
>Canon lenses.
>
>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.
>This isn't the case with Nilkon. Old Nikon lenses will physically mount on a
>modern Nikon body but will they support metering and all the exposure modes
>offered by that modern body? A friend has a Nikon D50 DSLR and an old Nikon
>telephoto zoom. The zoom works in one or two of the body's modes but not in
>all of them. Based on conversations over the phone, I think the two modes
>are Manual and Aperture priority.
That's what he gets for buying an entry level camera.
The D80 would have been a better choice.
It's part of why it's so disingenuous to claim cheap dSLR cameras are a
practical alternative to high end (bridge) compact digital cameras.
>I read, when the EF mount came out, that the FD mount physically would not
>have permitted Canon to offer all the facilities they wanted on their
>autofocus lenses.
So Canon (1) lied when touting the advantages of the FD mount,
(2) wasn't as good on the original mount design as Nikon,
(3) wasn't smart enough to extend the FD mount,
(4) wasn't smart enough to make a digital body for the FD mount,
(5) wanted to sell new EF glass to replace FD glass.
Take your pick. ;)
>Personally, I stayed with the FD bodies and lenses until there was something
>better on offer.
There's still nothing better on offer.
The issue is the lack of even one digital body.
John Navas
<m...@spamnotwelcome.org> wrote in <hcicit$24n3$1...@adenine.netfront.net>:
None of which are digital.
John Navas
<m...@spamnotwelcome.org> wrote in <hck4q7$d90$2...@adenine.netfront.net>:
>Before you ask - not all airlines permit digital cameras to be used during
>flight and many prohibit them during the take-off and landing phases of the
>flight. I fly with an airline that has a total ban on digital equipment.
>It's a good airline (usually on time, plenty of leg room and so on) so I'm
>happy to use a film body.
Which airline (by name)?
Neil Harrington
"No spam please" <m...@spamnotwelcome.org> wrote in message
news:hck4q5$d90$1...@adenine.netfront.net...
> "nospam" <nos...@nospam.invalid> wrote in message
> news:011120090119001631%nos...@nospam.invalid...
>> In article <4aed2654$0$1598$742e...@news.sonic.net>, Ray Fischer
>> <rfis...@sonic.net> wrote:
>>
>>> >there are no problems using any nikon af lens on any nikon body either.
>>> >the only issue is that entry level cameras won't autofocus old lenses,
>>>
>>> So there's no problems except for the problems.
>>
>> people who buy entry level cameras don't usually buy a lot of old
>> lenses and people who have a lot of lenses don't usually buy entry
>> level cameras, so it isn't actually much of a problem.
>
> In my experience, my friends who bought entry-level cameras wanted to keep
> their spending to the minimum in case they weren't able to handle an SLR.
> This meant that they tended to buy those second-hand old lenses.
No offense, but I doubt very much that is "in your experience."
I know a good number of people who bought SLRs for the first time and not a
single one of them ever bought "second-hand old lenses" (meaning lenses so
old as to be incompatible) for them. At least half of them in fact never
bought any lens other than the one that came with the camera. Those who did
buy a second lens in every case bought one suitable for the camera.
People who buy additional lenses tend to be knowledgeable enough about what
they're doing to buy something that they know will work.
Neil Harrington
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.
nospam
<fl...@apaflo.com> wrote:
> You are still missing the point. The problem is not
> with Nikon's camera/lens design. They *do* provide
> camera bodies that function perfectly with older lenses.
exactly. if someone wants to use old lenses they should pick a camera
with that capability. many users have no interest in old lenses (or for
that matter, new ones other than the kit lens), so why pay for a
feature that won't ever be used?
nikon removed the motor that was never used which made the camera
smaller, lighter and less expensive and it sold like crazy.
> (A distinct difference from other manufacturer's who had
> a less technically advanced lens mount in the 1970's and
> had no choice but to abandon *all* compatibility.)
indeed. the fd mount sucked, to be blunt.
minolta, on the other hand, didn't have a good reason to change mounts
but they did anyway and they didn't stop with the lens, they came up
with a wacky hotshoe too.
nospam
<spamf...@navasgroup.com> wrote:
> >Personally, I stayed with the FD bodies and lenses until there was something
> >better on offer.
>
> There's still nothing better on offer.
> The issue is the lack of even one digital body.
wrong. there are currently several digital bodies that take fd lenses
with an appropriate adapter.
nospam
Harrington <sec...@illumnati.net> wrote:
> I know a good number of people who bought SLRs for the first time and not a
> single one of them ever bought "second-hand old lenses" (meaning lenses so
> old as to be incompatible) for them. At least half of them in fact never
> bought any lens other than the one that came with the camera. Those who did
> buy a second lens in every case bought one suitable for the camera.
exactly. last time i checked, there were over 80 lenses that would work
from several manufacturers. by now it's probably 100 or more. it's a
non-issue.
Neil Harrington
"nospam" <nos...@nospam.invalid> wrote in message
[ . . . ]
>
> minolta, on the other hand, didn't have a good reason to change mounts
> but they did anyway
And caught me with a cupboard full of MD mount lenses, which caused me much
gnashing of teeth. I had almost everything from the 16mm fisheye to the
500mm mirror. Had no choice but to sell 'em all when I started buying
Maxxums. :-/
> and they didn't stop with the lens, they came up
> with a wacky hotshoe too.
Yes. The late Herbert Keppler of Modern Photo and later Pop Photo thought
that new Maxxum mount was a marvelous feature, but I have no idea why.
Adding a lock was a good thing, but why a whole new design? Nikon's
improvements to the standard hot shoe were so much better, and I should
think Minolta could have done something similar.
Neil Harrington
"Neil Harrington" <sec...@illumnati.net> wrote in message
news:WcmdnXkB6P64e3DX...@giganews.com...
>
> "nospam" <nos...@nospam.invalid> wrote in message
> news:011120091408005230%nos...@nospam.invalid...
>
> [ . . . ]
>>
>
>> and they didn't stop with the lens, they came up
>> with a wacky hotshoe too.
>
> Yes. The late Herbert Keppler of Modern Photo and later Pop Photo thought
> that new Maxxum mount was a marvelous feature,
New Maxxum hot shoe, I meant to say.
nospam
Harrington <sec...@illumnati.net> 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.
No spam please
news:87iqdu1...@apaflo.com...
Hello again Floyd.
The shop which sold my friend the D50 didn't ask if she would be buying any
other lenses. She simply wanted a DSLR to use for her work as the cost of
film and processing was getting quite high.
The kit lens with the D50 was fine for her work. The telephoto lens for bird
photography was an afterthought and, as it wasn't revenue earning, had to be
as cheap as possible.
Hope this clarifies things.
Regards once more, Rog.
No spam please
"nospam" <nos...@nospam.invalid> wrote in message
Hello once again.
The rule about batteries seems to vary here in the UK. Most airports like
electronic equipment to be in the cabin bag so they can check exactly what
it is and does. One airport in Northern Ireland has the exact opposite
policy and insists the equipment is in hold luggage.
The last time that my cabin bag was hand-checked (other than in Northern
Ireland) the security staff paid more attention to my lenses and spare body
than they did to my radio.
Regards, Rog.
No spam please
>
> "No spam please" <m...@spamnotwelcome.org> wrote in message
> news:hck4q7$d90$2...@adenine.netfront.net...
>> "Bob Larter" <bobby...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>> news:4aed24d3$1...@dnews.tpgi.com.au...
>>
>> I believe it is also true that any EF lens should work on any Canon EF
>> mount body including their 35mm and APS bodies.
>> 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.
>
Hello again Neil.
I flew several years ago on a Dash 8-400 and was told not to use any digital
equipment during the take-off and landing phases. More recently I flew on an
A320 and was told not to use digital equipment at all.
In both cases the cabin crew took my requests courteously and seriously and
checked with the captain.
On the Dash 8-400 we were not far away from landing at Birmingham when one
of the cabin crew confiscated a mobile phone from one of the passengers
who'd been trying to use it.
This may well be different in North America. It seems that whatever the
North American airlines permit to-day so the European airlines will permit
in a few years time.
Regards, Rog.
nospam
<m...@spamnotwelcome.org> wrote:
> >>I haven't used Nikon bodies since the days of film. It wasn't until my
> >>friend bought an entry-level Nikon DSLR that the problem became apparent.
> >>If
> >>you look around this newsgroup I believe you will see that some Nikon
> >>users
> >>see the old lens / entry-level DSLR as a problem whereas others do not.
> >
> > You are still missing the point. The problem is not
> > with Nikon's camera/lens design. They *do* provide
> > camera bodies that function perfectly with older lenses.
> > (A distinct difference from other manufacturer's who had
> > a less technically advanced lens mount in the 1970's and
> > had no choice but to abandon *all* compatibility.)
>
> The shop which sold my friend the D50 didn't ask if she would be buying any
> other lenses. She simply wanted a DSLR to use for her work as the cost of
> film and processing was getting quite high.
>
> The kit lens with the D50 was fine for her work. The telephoto lens for bird
> photography was an afterthought and, as it wasn't revenue earning, had to be
> as cheap as possible.
*all* autofocus lenses from any lens manufacturer will focus and meter
with the d50, which means that *every* lens that store carried would
work. there is *no* issue whatsoever, and it is *exactly* the same
situation as with canon.
as for cheap telephoto lenses, the 55-200vr is a good choice, or the
non-vr version for slightly cheaper but the vr lens is a much better
lens and the difference in price isn't all that much. the 70-300mm vr
is another option for a little longer reach, but it's more money. none
are really ideal for bird photography, however.
Ray Fischer
>"No spam please" <m...@spamnotwelcome.org> wrote:
>>"nospam" <nos...@nospam.invalid> wrote:
>>>Ray Fischer <rfis...@sonic.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>> >there are no problems using any nikon af lens on any nikon body either.
>>>> >the only issue is that entry level cameras won't autofocus old lenses,
>>>>
>>>> So there's no problems except for the problems.
>
>The point is that the lens *will* work.
The more relevant point is that nobody cares except for a few
cronic malcontents.
--
Ray Fischer
rfis...@sonic.net
Floyd L. Davidson
It does indeed. If you buy the wrong camera for the
right reasons, it is still the *wrong* camera. That
doesn't mean there is something wrong with the camera,
it simply means *you* made a mistake.
If you buy a 2-door sedan today thinking it will allow
you to drive to work, is it the dealer or the
manufacturer's fault if it turns out a month later that
you now have a need for something that will haul all 6
kids on your block to a soccer game every weekend? They
do make and sell vans, you know...
Floyd L. Davidson
That's true. It isn't rational.
Bob Larter
> 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
> "Bob Larter" <bobby...@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:4aed24d3$1...@dnews.tpgi.com.au...
>> 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. ;^)
-hh
> 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
Neil Harrington
"nospam" <nos...@nospam.invalid> wrote in message
news:011120091453097799%nos...@nospam.invalid...
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.
Dudley Hanks
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
Neil Harrington
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. (*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.
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. I never even thought to ask, just took out my little Coolpix
and snapped away through the window. On my last flight in fact, a short hop
in a small Embraer 145, I was seated within about a yard of the flight
attendant's station and in plain view of her when I was using the camera.
Ghett Rheel
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
Neil Harrington
"Dudley Hanks" <dha...@blind-apertures.ca> wrote in message
news:5CuHm.51192$PH1.1085@edtnps82...
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.
nospam
Harrington <sec...@illumnati.net> 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
<dha...@blind-apertures.ca> 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
Harrington <sec...@illumnati.net> 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).
Neil Harrington
"Ghett Rheel" <grh...@someisp.net> wrote in message
news:iqtse5pv5h0up6dto...@4ax.com...
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.
Neil Harrington
"nospam" <nos...@nospam.invalid> wrote in message
> In article <1YGdnXkO6qtZ6nPX...@giganews.com>, Neil
> Harrington <sec...@illumnati.net> 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.
Life just gets increasingly complicated, doesn't it? :-)
Dudley Hanks
"nospam" <nos...@nospam.invalid> wrote in message
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
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
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
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
Ray Fischer
>>
>>> 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
rfis...@sonic.net
Ghett Rheel
<dha...@blind-apertures.ca> wrote:
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.
Dudley Hanks
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
Ghett Rheel
<dha...@blind-apertures.ca> wrote:
"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.
Ray Fischer
>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
rfis...@sonic.net
No spam please
>
> "No spam please" <m...@spamnotwelcome.org> wrote in message
> news:hckso8$1pcf$3...@adenine.netfront.net...
>> "Neil Harrington" <sec...@illumnati.net> wrote in message
>> news:4aOdnX8PTJisR3DX...@giganews.com...
>>>
>>> "No spam please" <m...@spamnotwelcome.org> wrote in message
>>> news:hck4q7$d90$2...@adenine.netfront.net...
>>>> "Bob Larter" <bobby...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>>>> news:4aed24d3$1...@dnews.tpgi.com.au...
>> W
>>
The chance of a DSLR upsetting any of the aircraft systems is very, very
small but I'd prefer to play safe.
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.
Regards, Rog.
No spam please
Hi Bob.
Yes, I know the EF film bodies have electronics in them but nothing like as
much as in the EF DSLRs.
I suspect that the chances of domestic digital equipment upsetting aircraft
systems is actually very, small.
The catch is that there is a lot of equipment which could be used and no-one
can test all the combinations of equipment and aircraft.
I recall reading a book documenting a 747 flight over the pond. When one of
its radio transmitters was used then one of the fuel gauge sensors lost
track of how much fuel was in the tank.
I know that my cordless landline phone upsets my FM radio - not when I'm
talking over the phone but when it is being charged.
Regards from a very sunny UK,
Rog.
No spam please
news:874opd2...@apaflo.com...
> "No spam please" <m...@spamnotwelcome.org> wrote:
>>
>>Hello again Floyd.
>>
>>The shop which sold my friend the D50 didn't ask if she would be buying
>>any
>>other lenses. She simply wanted a DSLR to use for her work as the cost of
>>film and processing was getting quite high.
>>
>>The kit lens with the D50 was fine for her work. The telephoto lens for
>>bird
>>photography was an afterthought and, as it wasn't revenue earning, had to
>>be
>>as cheap as possible.
>>
>>Hope this clarifies things.
>
> It does indeed. If you buy the wrong camera for the
> right reasons, it is still the *wrong* camera. That
> doesn't mean there is something wrong with the camera,
> it simply means *you* made a mistake.
>
> If you buy a 2-door sedan today thinking it will allow
> you to drive to work, is it the dealer or the
> manufacturer's fault if it turns out a month later that
> you now have a need for something that will haul all 6
> kids on your block to a soccer game every weekend? They
> do make and sell vans, you know...
>
> --
> Floyd L. Davidson <http://www.apaflo.com/floyd_davidson>
> Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska) fl...@apaflo.com
Hello again Floyd.
Thanks ever so much for your postings. I appreciate and enjoy your comments.
The D50 met my friend's needs for her work photography.
The difference between SLRs and vehicles is that an SLR is adaptable to the
user's changing needs.
In my part of the UK, many families have a sedan for leisure and a 4x4 to
take the kids to school.
I doubt many people would buy an SLR with a wide-angle lens for work and
another SLR with a telephoto lens for bird shots.
Best wishes from a very sunny UK,
Rog.
No spam please
If you are over in the USA then you may not have heard of an airline named
Ryanair.
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.
I haven't heard them charging for an inside seat as yet ...
Best wishes from a sunny UK (is it really November?),
Rog.
-hh
> Neil Harrington <sec...@illumnati.net> 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
Dudley Hanks
> 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
George Kerby
On 11/2/09 12:22 AM, in article
l4ydnTzAg9Lt53PX...@giganews.com, "Neil Harrington"
<sec...@illumnati.net> wrote:
"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."
Dudley Hanks
"George Kerby" <ghost_...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:C71448BC.37B52%ghost_...@hotmail.com...
George, that's about as good a way of encapsulating the issue as I've
read... :)
Take Care,
Dudley
George Kerby
On 11/2/09 12:47 AM, in article NfvHm.51193$PH1.40481@edtnps82, "Dudley
Hanks" <dha...@blind-apertures.ca> wrote:
"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."
George Kerby
On 11/2/09 2:29 AM, in article nm5te5t1b2ttdq1c0...@4ax.com,
"Ghett Rheel" <grh...@someisp.net> wrote:
<snip of pointless prepubescent pissant pontification>
>
You are in the role of sheer desperation now, you stupid sack of hammered
shit?
Dudley handed you your ass, after wiping the floor of your mother's basement
of all of your bodily fluids that you have been producing over the years in
front of your computer.
Get a life, indeed, you vile waste of Krebbs...
George Kerby
On 11/2/09 3:54 AM, in article hcmc8g$1foi$1...@adenine.netfront.net, "No spam
please" <m...@spamnotwelcome.org> wrote:
What about the crew usig their PCs while on autopilot, resulting in
overshooting their destination by 150 miles?
nospam
<m...@spamnotwelcome.org> 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
<m...@spamnotwelcome.org> 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
<bcaa3e16-6557-4fdb...@d10g2000yqh.googlegroups.com>,
-hh <recscub...@huntzinger.com> 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.
Dudley Hanks
"nospam" <nos...@nospam.invalid> wrote in message
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
Neil Harrington
>>>>
>>>>Hello Floyd.
>>>>
>>>>People who buy entry-level cameras often rely on the shop's
>>>>recommendation.
>>>>In small towns there may be only one shop and not a lot of choice.
>>>>People
>>>>who buy entry-level cameras are often new to SLR photography and don't
>>>>always understand specifications.
>>>
>>> You said "In my experience, my friends who bought
>>> entry-level cameras wanted to keep ..."
>>>
>>> That is the reference point, not some questionable
>>> advice from a small town shop. Regardless, I cannot
>>> imagine any small town shop advising purchase of a
>>> camera that won't work with old lenses if the customer
>>> says that is what they want to use. (If for no other
>>> reason than it is exactly the excuse the sales person
>>> needs to switch to a more expensive camera.)
>>>
>>> You made up this scenario. It isn't rational.
>>>
>>>>I haven't used Nikon bodies since the days of film. It wasn't until my
>>>>friend bought an entry-level Nikon DSLR that the problem became
>>>>apparent.
>>>>If
>>>>you look around this newsgroup I believe you will see that some Nikon
>>>>users
>>>>see the old lens / entry-level DSLR as a problem whereas others do not.
>>>
>>> You are still missing the point. The problem is not
>>> with Nikon's camera/lens design. They *do* provide
>>> camera bodies that function perfectly with older lenses.
>>> (A distinct difference from other manufacturer's who had
>>> a less technically advanced lens mount in the 1970's and
>>> had no choice but to abandon *all* compatibility.)
>>>
>>> The "problem" is people making up excuses for doing
>>> stupid things. Or, in your case, making up claims of
>>> others doing stupid things in order to jusify your own
>>> decisions.
>>>
>>>>As I said, your mileage may vary.
>>>
>>> So does the honesty and rationality of your articles.
>>>
>>> --
>>> Floyd L. Davidson <http://www.apaflo.com/floyd_davidson>
>>> Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska) fl...@apaflo.com
>>
>>Hello again Floyd.
>>
>>any
>>other lenses. She simply wanted a DSLR to use for her work as the cost of
>>film and processing was getting quite high.
>>
>>The kit lens with the D50 was fine for her work. The telephoto lens for
>>bird
>>photography was an afterthought and, as it wasn't revenue earning, had to
>>be
>>as cheap as possible.
>>
>>Hope this clarifies things.
>
> It does indeed. If you buy the wrong camera for the
> right reasons, it is still the *wrong* camera. That
> doesn't mean there is something wrong with the camera,
> it simply means *you* made a mistake.
In this case his friend didn't buy the wrong camera, she just (apparently)
bought the wrong second lens for it.
Andrew Templeman
<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/>
Neil Harrington
"No spam please" <m...@spamnotwelcome.org> wrote in message
news:hcmc90$1foi$3...@adenine.netfront.net...
Rog, it probably hasn't been all a waste for your friend, since she has
learned something from buying the wrong lens anyway. If (as you mentioned in
a much earlier post) the D50 only works in certain modes with that lens, I
assume it is not an autofocus lens since I believe that camera should work
fully and properly with any autofocus Nikon-mount lens.
It would help a lot to know exactly what sort of lens she bought. Since you
indicate that she was primarily interested in keeping the cost down, that
suggests that what she *probably* bought was one of the many older
medium-range zoom lenses, presumably not autofocis ( ? ) since such lenses
are widely available and relatively cheap.
If that is the sort of lens she bought, then she has probably discovered
that it is not only not fully functional on her camera, but also that it
isn't really long enough for birding anyway. People who are not used to
cameras and lenses often have a very exaggerated notion of what a zoom lens
will do. Unless she can get pretty close to the bird (or it is pretty large
bird), she most likely needs something a good deal longer than the typical
zoom lens. That may well be out of her price range.
J. Clarke
> In article <hcmc8g$1foi$1...@adenine.netfront.net>, No spam please
> <m...@spamnotwelcome.org> 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
> In article
> <bcaa3e16-6557-4fdb...@d10g2000yqh.googlegroups.com>,
> -hh <recscub...@huntzinger.com> 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?
Neil Harrington
>
>
>
> On 11/2/09 3:54 AM, in article hcmc8g$1foi$1...@adenine.netfront.net, "No
> spam
> please" <m...@spamnotwelcome.org> wrote:
>
>> Hello again.
>>
>> The chance of a DSLR upsetting any of the aircraft systems is very, very
>> small but I'd prefer to play safe.
>> 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.
>>
>> Regards, Rog.
>>
>>
> What about the crew usig their PCs while on autopilot, resulting in
> overshooting their destination by 150 miles?
Yes! That is a good question. And apparently both pilots had been using
those laptops in the cockpit for at least an hour before overshooting
Minneapolis, judging by the time radio contact was lost.
Bob Larter
> Bob Larter <bobbylar...@gmail.com> 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.
Bob Larter
>> "Ghett Rheel" <grh...@someisp.net> wrote in message
>> news:iqtse5pv5h0up6dto...@4ax.com...
>>> On Mon, 02 Nov 2009 06:02:41 GMT, "Dudley Hanks"
>>> <dha...@blind-apertures.ca> wrote:
>>>
>> 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. ;^)
John McWilliams
Sheesh.
--
lsmft
John McWilliams
>
Take your own advice about trolls, Ray.
--
lsmft
No spam please
>
> *all* autofocus lenses from any lens manufacturer will focus and meter
> with the d50, which means that *every* lens that store carried would
> work. there is *no* issue whatsoever, and it is *exactly* the same
> situation as with canon.
>
> as for cheap telephoto lenses, the 55-200vr is a good choice, or the
> non-vr version for slightly cheaper but the vr lens is a much better
> lens and the difference in price isn't all that much. the 70-300mm vr
> is another option for a little longer reach, but it's more money. none
> are really ideal for bird photography, however.
Hello again.
Ah yes - the first telephoto zoom was manual focus. Focussing the lens
wasn't a problem but metering was. Not all the metering modes worked with
the lens.
Friend has now acquired a new Nikon telephoto zoom so everything works as
expected.
I agree that a 3oomm lens isn't ideal for bird photography. Personally, I'd
love a fast 400mm but the cost, size and weight are beyond me. I'll try
another way - remote controlled camera and a carefully set-up perch for the
birds.
Best wishes, Rog.
whisky-dave
"J. Clarke" <jclarke...@cox.net> wrote in message
news:hcmtu...@news2.newsguy.com...
> nospam wrote:
>> In article
>> <bcaa3e16-6557-4fdb...@d10g2000yqh.googlegroups.com>,
>> -hh <recscub...@huntzinger.com> 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.
whisky-dave
>
>
>
> "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 ;-)
Savageduck
Aircraft interiors will really start to smell like the alley behind a
cheap bar. Another reason not to use RyanAir.
--
Regards,
Savageduck
George Kerby
On 11/2/09 10:19 AM, in article hcn0r8$42v$1@qmul, "whisky-dave"
<whisk...@final.front.ear> wrote:
<BFG!>
George Kerby
On 11/2/09 10:29 AM, in article
2009110208295810672-savageduck1@REMOVESPAMmecom, "Savageduck"
<savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote:
"Sir! If you insist on utilizing that bag from your seatback compartment, we
must charge you a fee of sixty pence. Correct change only, please."
Savageduck
Oh well!
I will be checking out the status of Northwestern and KLM at the end of
the month. They haven't posted any advisories regarding carrying a few
emergency baggies yet.
--
Regards,
Savageduck
No spam please
Hello again Neil.
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. She's using the 300mm end to photograph birds
about 20 feet away. The photos are more satisfying than she'd get with the
D50's kit lens so she's happy for now.
Best wishes,
Rog.
No spam please
Correction - that first telephoto zoom was a Nikon autofocus lens but the AF
couldn't be used on the D50.
Regards, Rog.
No spam please
> In article
> <bcaa3e16-6557-4fdb...@d10g2000yqh.googlegroups.com>,
> -hh <recscub...@huntzinger.com> wrote:
>
> 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.
Hello again. I remember one flight on a 737 where we were delayed for an
hour on the apron. A couple opposite me decided to get a bag out of the
overhead locker.
The aircraft hadn't moved but they managed to swing their own bag down out
of the locker and hit someone in the head with it. Fortunately, they'd
disturbed another bag which hit one of the couple on the head and they all
sat down to reflect on gravity.
I've seen similar happenings on the more humble trains here in the UK.
Gravity and inertia usually win.
Regards, Rog.
Dudley Hanks
>> 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.
Actually, it usually starts with an idiot who can't get his facts straight:
"It should come as no surprise, as Rasmussen Reports said Tuesday, that the
recent government bailouts of General Motors and the Chrysler Corporation
have affected public attitudes toward the U.S. automakers. But rather than
pitch in to help the struggling manufacturers continue to stay afloat, 46
percent of Americans indicated to Rasmussen that they were more likely to
buy a new car from Ford-if they were, in fact, buying a new car-because it
did not take government money in order to keep its doors open.
Call it a competitive advantage for Ford. By staying away from the bailout,
the company has potentially increased its share of the market place by a
significant amount, especially among those who insist on "buying America" as
a political statement."
If you ever hope to be taken with even a minute amount of credibility, pay
attention to what's going on around you...
Take Care,
Dudley
Tzortzakakis Dimitrios
� "Dudley Hanks" <dha...@blind-apertures.ca> ������ ��� ������
news:2qCHm.50239$Db2.9006@edtnps83...
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