Does any camera come with a laser pointer?

On 1/18/2013 1:13 PM, Michael Black wrote:
On Wed, 16 Jan 2013, Peter Jason wrote:

Like laser pinpointing on rifles and pistols.

I need it for shooting from the hip at weddings
and the like when the exposure is set for
pinpoint.

Probably not.

But magazines like Popular Science used to have projects like how to
make a pistol grip for your camera. Since I can picture those, I can
even picture a sort of rifle grip, the stock against your arm and then a
place to attach the camera.

I think such devices are still commercially available. I've been
thinking of getting one of those contraptions 'cause aging and shaking
seem to be synonymous. Then-again, I wonder if the anti-gun people would
be upset if someone publicly shouldered anything that looked like a gun
being aimed. One would expect common sense to prevail. However
....(Shrug).


So you might as well start with that.

Then buy a 1.99 laser pointer, mount it in some fashion. You might want
to run it off external batteries (just AA are bound to last longer than
the internal button cells) and a switch that can stay on rather than
needing to be pressed. Holding the button on a laser pointer for more
than a few seconds can be painful.

Then you get the mix of a 'gun" and a laser.

Of course, I'm not sure the laser is going to help the camera to autocosu.

Michael

On Fri, 18 Jan 2013 03:55:00 -0500, nospam
wrote:

In article 2013011723383511967-savageduck1@REMOVESPAMmecom,
Savageduck wrote:

If you are close enough to ID the vehicle in front of you
as a CHP cruiser and react, the officer has already clocked you with
his rear facing radar which cycles every 3 seconds with the forward
facing unit.

if he's using radar, particularly rear facing radar from his stalker
dual, then he doesn't need to be close enough to id the vehicle. he
only needs a radar detector. in fact, even a crappy detector will pick
up radar aimed directly at it with ample warning.

...and many a speeder has been stopped regardless of the detector
letting him know that somewhere out there a radar gun is operating.

if a radar detector goes off and they ignore it, then they're not just
oblivious, they're stupid.

Not ignore it. Just do not have the time to benefit from it.

then it's a crappy detector. a good detector can alert long before that.

The practice in New Zealand is for the operator to track a possible
offender with the speed gun turned off. At a suitable instant he
squeezes the trigger and - bingo - he has a speed reading. At the
same instant the radar detector in the car goes off and - bingo - the
driver knows he has been nabbed.

That's why some years ago I gave up on radar detectors and put my
faith in cruise control instead.

There is also nothing more embarrassing to find that the car which
appeared coming towards you as you negotiated a sweeping bend has set
off your radar detector, and as much as you might have slowed to the
speed limit, you see that car making a U-turn to come up behind you.
All you can do when he asks if that detector is working, is say "yes"
as he writes the ticket.

maybe with a crappy detector, but a quality detector will pick up the
cop *long* before they get to the turn, so by the time they're clocked,
they're already at the psl.

Good luck with that.

no need for luck.

Just pray for sloppy technique.

The same goes for the cruiser you come up on and you have managed to
slow to the speed limit, in what you believe was good time, only to
find him slowing down to allow yo to pass him and to find he has lit
you up to pull you over.

maybe if someone is not paying attention.

...and that doesn't happen?

of course it does. it happens all the time. most drivers don't pay that
much attention. that's why some of them end up in a wreck. i've even
seen idiots run red lights right in front of cops. it's mind boggling
how oblivious some drivers are.

that doesn't matter. all of those cars have a distinctive profile.
those who pay attention will notice it. oblivious people won't.

...and you notice that "distinctive profile at night?

sometimes, however, night driving should not be as fast as on a clear
sunny day. it's easy to overdrive the headlights.

...and folks are not known to drive fast after Sundown?

some do, and they probably do stupid stuff during the daytime too.

Many drivers appear quite befuddled when the car in the lane next to
them is using a PA to indicate that he should pull over.

then they're *very* oblivious. how can anyone not notice the car next
to them is a cop??

It happens every day.

then they deserve a ticket.

you do realize that knowing how to use traffic radar and lidar is not
secret, right?

Knowing information available on the internet and actually working with
VASCAR (no longer used in CHP vehicles, but use by some Cal SD's and
PD's), radar and LiDAR is something a little different.

what makes you think i haven't used radar and lidar?

So how was that drive along?
I guess you got all the nuances of techniques, procedures, and
individual officer's experience filed away for future reference.

who said anything about a drive along? a drive along is not the only
way someone can obtain and use radar/lidar equipment.
--

Regards,

Eric Stevens

rOn Fri, 18 Jan 2013 10:04:09 -0600, David Dyer-Bennet
wrote:

nospam writes:

In article , Eric Stevens
wrote:

Lots of DSLRs or interchangeable lens cameras with tiltable LCD
screens around. Why wouldn't a pro use them?

You won't find that sort of feature above the consumer-level produts; in
the Nikon line (the one I know) it's not on the D700, D800, or D4 (or
older models at that level).

Actually lots of DLSRs and interchangeable lens cameras, good enough for
a "pro", have a tiltable LCD screen.

those cameras may be good enough in some situations, but pros don't
generally use those cameras outside of a backup, and if they do, they
don't use the tiltable lcd anyway.

Not true.

I've several times seen 'a pro' (several in fact) using a Canon DSLR
with a tiltable screen to enable them to see what they are doing when
setting their cameras up for peculiar shots from a tripod. I've
envied the flexibility that such a screen gave to their work.

several out of millions of pros does not mean it's common. it's the
exception, not the rule.

Which is strange (the use part). Because in the film era, swappable
viewfinders, right-angle attachments, and the like, were hallmarks of
the top-of-the-line professional cameras (the Nikon F series for example
had swappable viewfinders, up through the F6 anyway). (The F100 is not
part of the F series by the usual terms; it's more a follow-on to the
N90).

Generally, pros are more likely to take the extra trouble to shoot from
unusual angles when they see a possible benefit there, and this makes
viewfinder flexibility important to them. (Dyer-Bennet's Dictum: the
best position to take a photo from is frequently the one that makes your
knees hurt.)

- and you can't get your eye to the view finder (or see the screen).
--

Regards,

Eric Stevens

On Fri, 18 Jan 2013 04:01:36 -0800 (PST), Whisky-dave
wrote:

On Friday, January 18, 2013 6:55:08 AM UTC, Alfred Molon wrote:
In article , Robert Coe

says...

Real pros aren't too vain to be seen using a lesser camera when the occasion

warrants.



Why would a camera with a tiltable LCD screen be a "lesser camera"?

It could be seen as a gimmick or the main feature of that camera.
Pros tend to go for solid relible products rather than the lastest thing unless of course ut';s very useful.

A tiltable LCD screen is "very useful".




do you mean that any camera not made by Canón or Nikon is a lesser

camera?

--



Alfred Molon

------------------------------

Olympus E-series DSLRs and micro 4/3 forum at

http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/MyOlympus/

http://myolympus.org/ photo sharing site
--

Regards,

Eric Stevens

On Fri, 18 Jan 2013 07:55:08 +0100, Alfred Molon
wrote:
: In article , Robert Coe
: says...
: Real pros aren't too vain to be seen using a lesser camera when the occasion
: warrants.
:
: Why would a camera with a tiltable LCD screen be a "lesser camera"? Or
: do you mean that any camera not made by Canón or Nikon is a lesser
: camera?

You're reading too much into what I said. If anything, I thought I was
agreeing with you. The drift of the thread had been that pros wouldn't touch
anything but the finest equipment, and I cited a real-world example to contest
that notion.

Bob

On Fri, 18 Jan 2013 10:04:09 -0600, David Dyer-Bennet wrote:
: Generally, pros are more likely to take the extra trouble to shoot from
: unusual angles when they see a possible benefit there, and this makes
: viewfinder flexibility important to them. (Dyer-Bennet's Dictum: the
: best position to take a photo from is frequently the one that makes your
: knees hurt.)

I've got good news for you, David: The older you get, the more you'll find
yourself taking photos from positions that will fit that criterion.

Bob

In article , nick c
wrote:

But magazines like Popular Science used to have projects like how to
make a pistol grip for your camera. Since I can picture those, I can
even picture a sort of rifle grip, the stock against your arm and then a
place to attach the camera.

I think such devices are still commercially available. I've been
thinking of getting one of those contraptions 'cause aging and shaking
seem to be synonymous. Then-again, I wonder if the anti-gun people would
be upset if someone publicly shouldered anything that looked like a gun
being aimed. One would expect common sense to prevail. However
...(Shrug).

it's not the anti-gun people you have to worry about. if someone sees
you aiming what looks like a rifle, particularly if it's at someone who
has a real gun, things could suddenly change for the worse.

or, they call the cops who show up with a swat team for some guy with a
gun aiming it at buildings or people or whatever. that might not end
all that well either.

In article , Eric Stevens
wrote:

If you are close enough to ID the vehicle in front of you
as a CHP cruiser and react, the officer has already clocked you with
his rear facing radar which cycles every 3 seconds with the forward
facing unit.

if he's using radar, particularly rear facing radar from his stalker
dual, then he doesn't need to be close enough to id the vehicle. he
only needs a radar detector. in fact, even a crappy detector will pick
up radar aimed directly at it with ample warning.

...and many a speeder has been stopped regardless of the detector
letting him know that somewhere out there a radar gun is operating.

if a radar detector goes off and they ignore it, then they're not just
oblivious, they're stupid.

Not ignore it. Just do not have the time to benefit from it.

then it's a crappy detector. a good detector can alert long before that.

The practice in New Zealand is for the operator to track a possible
offender with the speed gun turned off. At a suitable instant he
squeezes the trigger and - bingo - he has a speed reading. At the
same instant the radar detector in the car goes off and - bingo - the
driver knows he has been nabbed.

like i said, crappy detector. a good detector will alert when the cop
targets a car in front of you. by the time your turn comes, you're well
aware he's out there.

That's why some years ago I gave up on radar detectors and put my
faith in cruise control instead.

as long as you are still paying attention.

There is also nothing more embarrassing to find that the car which
appeared coming towards you as you negotiated a sweeping bend has set
off your radar detector, and as much as you might have slowed to the
speed limit, you see that car making a U-turn to come up behind you.
All you can do when he asks if that detector is working, is say "yes"
as he writes the ticket.

maybe with a crappy detector, but a quality detector will pick up the
cop *long* before they get to the turn, so by the time they're clocked,
they're already at the psl.

Good luck with that.

no need for luck.

Just pray for sloppy technique.

no need to pray.

On 2013-01-18 14:32:05 -0800, nick c said:

On 1/18/2013 1:13 PM, Michael Black wrote:
On Wed, 16 Jan 2013, Peter Jason wrote:

Like laser pinpointing on rifles and pistols.

I need it for shooting from the hip at weddings
and the like when the exposure is set for
pinpoint.

Probably not.

But magazines like Popular Science used to have projects like how to
make a pistol grip for your camera. Since I can picture those, I can
even picture a sort of rifle grip, the stock against your arm and then a
place to attach the camera.

I think such devices are still commercially available. I've been
thinking of getting one of those contraptions 'cause aging and shaking
seem to be synonymous. Then-again, I wonder if the anti-gun people
would be upset if someone publicly shouldered anything that looked like
a gun being aimed. One would expect common sense to prevail. However
...(Shrug).

I have a sneak'n' suspicion that this might be what you are thinking off:
http://www.bushhawk.com/bushhawk/bus...houlder-mounts



--
Regards,

Savageduck

On Fri, 18 Jan 2013 22:15:31 -0500, nospam
wrote:

In article , Eric Stevens
wrote:

If you are close enough to ID the vehicle in front of you
as a CHP cruiser and react, the officer has already clocked you with
his rear facing radar which cycles every 3 seconds with the forward
facing unit.

if he's using radar, particularly rear facing radar from his stalker
dual, then he doesn't need to be close enough to id the vehicle. he
only needs a radar detector. in fact, even a crappy detector will pick
up radar aimed directly at it with ample warning.

...and many a speeder has been stopped regardless of the detector
letting him know that somewhere out there a radar gun is operating.

if a radar detector goes off and they ignore it, then they're not just
oblivious, they're stupid.

Not ignore it. Just do not have the time to benefit from it.

then it's a crappy detector. a good detector can alert long before that.

The practice in New Zealand is for the operator to track a possible
offender with the speed gun turned off. At a suitable instant he
squeezes the trigger and - bingo - he has a speed reading. At the
same instant the radar detector in the car goes off and - bingo - the
driver knows he has been nabbed.

like i said, crappy detector. a good detector will alert when the cop
targets a car in front of you. by the time your turn comes, you're well
aware he's out there.

And when there is no car in front of you .... ?

You are the one he gets. By the time he has finished either writing
out a ticket (or has chased you) a zillion cars have passed and the
next car he gets will have no warning.

That's why some years ago I gave up on radar detectors and put my
faith in cruise control instead.

as long as you are still paying attention.

Do you really think I would be dumb enough to cruise at a speed in the
danger zone?

There is also nothing more embarrassing to find that the car which
appeared coming towards you as you negotiated a sweeping bend has set
off your radar detector, and as much as you might have slowed to the
speed limit, you see that car making a U-turn to come up behind you.
All you can do when he asks if that detector is working, is say "yes"
as he writes the ticket.

maybe with a crappy detector, but a quality detector will pick up the
cop *long* before they get to the turn, so by the time they're clocked,
they're already at the psl.

Good luck with that.

no need for luck.

Just pray for sloppy technique.

no need to pray.
--

Regards,

Eric Stevens