Lens question
in [Digital Cameras]
|
From: J. Clarke on 2 Nov 2009 10:15 nospam wrote: > In article > <bcaa3e16-6557-4fdb-9208-b1ccdb0770e1(a)d10g2000yqh.googlegroups.com>, > -hh <recscuba_google(a)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? > 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.
From: Neil Harrington on 2 Nov 2009 10:42 "George Kerby" <ghost_topper(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message news:C7144D6A.37B56%ghost_topper(a)hotmail.com... > > > > On 11/2/09 3:54 AM, in article hcmc8g$1foi$1(a)adenine.netfront.net, "No > spam > please" <me(a)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.
From: Bob Larter on 2 Nov 2009 11:47 -hh wrote: > Bob Larter <bobbylar...(a)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. -- W . | ,. w , "Some people are alive only because \|/ \|/ it is illegal to kill them." Perna condita delenda est ---^----^---------------------------------------------------------------
From: Bob Larter on 2 Nov 2009 11:49 Dudley Hanks wrote: > "Neil Harrington" <secret(a)illumnati.net> wrote in message > news:Fs-dnYVuyast5nPXnZ2dnUVZ_uKdnZ2d(a)giganews.com... >> "Ghett Rheel" <grheel(a)someisp.net> wrote in message >> news:iqtse5pv5h0up6dto6o1pnfgsd55fuviob(a)4ax.com... >>> On Mon, 02 Nov 2009 06:02:41 GMT, "Dudley Hanks" >>> <dhanks(a)blind-apertures.ca> wrote: >>> >> Dudley, don't even bother answering this jerk. It's just our resident >> pest, the dingleberry. He changes names several times a day, but you can >> always recognize him by his dingleberry attitude. >> > > Oh, it's alright. Get Real and I go back quite a ways, now. > > I love him like a brother, and scrap with him almost as much... > > The fact that he hasn't been able to stop my steady progress must really be > eating away at him, now, after about 2 years of wasted effort on his part. Yeah, the P&S troll is a sad little fellow. It really upsets him when people dare to simply enjoy photography. ;^) -- W . | ,. w , "Some people are alive only because \|/ \|/ it is illegal to kill them." Perna condita delenda est ---^----^---------------------------------------------------------------
From: John McWilliams on 2 Nov 2009 11:02
Don't feed the troll. Sheesh. -- lsmft |