Does any camera come with a laser pointer?

In article , Eric Stevens
wrote:

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 .... ?

how often is there no traffic for miles?

and if there really isn't any traffic for miles, then there probably
isn't a speed trap either, because a cop isn't going to want to sit
around waiting for the lone car to show up.

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.

if a zillion cars have passed in the few minutes it takes to write a
ticket, then there *is* other traffic, which means there were cars in
front of you.

plus, a lot of times the cops will leave the radar on while writing the
ticket so that other drivers pick up the radar signal and slow down.

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?

i didn't say cruise at illegal speeds.

the problem is that some people put the car on cruise and their
attention level drops, resulting in getting too close to the car in
front of them or not noticing changing traffic patterns or changes in
the road itself, such as turns that require a much lower speed.

that is why there's now adaptive cruise control, which uses radar or
lidar to determine how close you are to the car in front of you and
adjusts your speed accordingly.

On 2013-01-18 20:32:30 -0800, nospam said:

In article , Eric Stevens
wrote:


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

how often is there no traffic for miles?

and if there really isn't any traffic for miles, then there probably
isn't a speed trap either, because a cop isn't going to want to sit
around waiting for the lone car to show up.

One of these days in your travels, I would suggest you test your skills
in avoiding detection by Radar equipped CHP patrol cars by taking a
drive on Hwy.101 between San Miguel and King City in California. That
stretch of road has a reasonably generous 70 MPH speed limit and a high
rate of traffic stops for speeding. Also depending on the time of day
and day of the week, traffic density is quite thin.

Off that route you could also consider a side trip on Hwy.198 from San
Lucas to Coalinga, a great driver's road, sparsely travelled, but
routinely patrolled by CHP out of King City.

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.

if a zillion cars have passed in the few minutes it takes to write a
ticket, then there *is* other traffic, which means there were cars in
front of you.

At this point I would advise you that CHP officers are known to have
the training and skills to make multiple stops. Along the stretch of
HWY.101 I noted above, it is quite common to find a single officer
having stopped two or three vehicles, sometimes 800-1000 yds apart.
They are quite good at what they do.

plus, a lot of times the cops will leave the radar on while writing the
ticket so that other drivers pick up the radar signal and slow down.

Yup! and if that slows down the traffic compliance has been achieved.

On to of that they have been known to use another non-radar method of
checking speeds, aircraft. Those little birddogs can be very sneaky,
and a radar detector is not much help


--
Regards,

Savageduck

On 1/18/2013 7:15 PM, nospam wrote:
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.

LOL ....

I wouldn't be as worried about someone having a real gun as I would be
about someone becoming hysterical and running around shouting "lookout
.... he's got a gun." That sort of person creates a panic and when that
occurs trouble surely follows. The poor shnook who has the pistol/rifle
camera setup would be caught in the middle of it all and wouldn't know
whether to crap or go blind (as they say in New York City).

Anti-gunners would like events like that to happen. Have you ever
noticed gun crime statistics are documented and circulated while gun
prevented crimes are not.


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.

On 1/18/2013 7:51 PM, Savageduck wrote:
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




BINGO ... That's it, Duck. I've been thinking of getting that setup. But
I've got a couple of problems to overcome. One is my legs aren't what
they used to be and the other is my wife. My wife is 75 years old (soon
to be 76) and I would be a tad concerned about how much of a load she
can carry ... along with my camera bag.

Eric Stevens wrote:
Agreed

Thanks. You have one, or had one?

On 2013-01-18 21:34:12 -0800, Tony Cooper said:

On Fri, 18 Jan 2013 19:51:40 -0800, Savageduck
wrote:

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

When we were staying in the lodge at Lake Baringo, Kenya, we saw some
people on the birding trails, and the group included two men with what
appeared to be weapons. On closer inspection, they were spotting
scopes mounted on wooden stocks like rifle stocks. They were
"twitchers" from the UK on a birding holiday.

Neither of the men had a camera, just the spotting scopes. Their
hobby was seeing and identifying as many difference species of birds
as possible and ticking them off in their book of birds.

I had a camera, though, albeit one with too puny a lens for this type
of photography. This is a scan of a photo of a Masked Weaver bird and
Weaver nests that I took that same day.

http://dl.dropbox.com/u/64147677/1988-A--106.jpg

Yup!
I had one building a nest outside my bedroom window at a friend's house
in suburban Johannesburg on my 2009 trip.
https://dl.dropbox.com/u/1295663/Fil...SC_3787-Ew.jpg


--
Regards,

Savageduck

On 1/18/2013 10:18 PM, nick c wrote:
On 1/18/2013 7:51 PM, Savageduck wrote:
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




BINGO ... That's it, Duck. I've been thinking of getting that setup. But
I've got a couple of problems to overcome. One is my legs aren't what
they used to be and the other is my wife. My wife is 75 years old (soon
to be 76) and I would be a tad concerned about how much of a load she
can carry ... along with my camera bag.



/I hope those who read my posts realize at times I'm given to having a
sense of humor/.

On Fri, 18 Jan 2013 23:32:30 -0500, nospam
wrote:

In article , Eric Stevens
wrote:

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 .... ?

how often is there no traffic for miles?

See http://tinyurl.com/bhn6f65 for examples. Be aware that these
photographs are heavily weighted to the straighter roads of the South
Island.

and if there really isn't any traffic for miles, then there probably
isn't a speed trap either, because a cop isn't going to want to sit
around waiting for the lone car to show up.

It doesn't work that way.

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.

if a zillion cars have passed in the few minutes it takes to write a
ticket, then there *is* other traffic, which means there were cars in
front of you.

plus, a lot of times the cops will leave the radar on while writing the
ticket so that other drivers pick up the radar signal and slow down.

I've already explained they don't work that wway.

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?

i didn't say cruise at illegal speeds.

Then what are you suggesting I should be paying attention to?

the problem is that some people put the car on cruise and their
attention level drops, resulting in getting too close to the car in
front of them or not noticing changing traffic patterns or changes in
the road itself, such as turns that require a much lower speed.

that is why there's now adaptive cruise control, which uses radar or
lidar to determine how close you are to the car in front of you and
adjusts your speed accordingly.
--

Regards,

Eric Stevens

On Fri, 18 Jan 2013 22:45:45 -0800 (PST), Bryan
wrote:

Eric Stevens wrote:
Agreed

Thanks. You have one, or had one?

I had the whole kit and caboodle.

With some regret I sold it on Trade Me, the local Internet auction
site.

See
https://dl.dropbox.com/u/31088803/_DSC1813.jpg
https://dl.dropbox.com/u/31088803/_DSC1818.jpg
https://dl.dropbox.com/u/31088803/_DSC1819.jpg
https://dl.dropbox.com/u/31088803/_DSC1824.jpg

I remember I got a very good price. An excellent camera.
--

Regards,

Eric Stevens

On Fri, 18 Jan 2013 22:11:31 -0800, nick c
wrote:

On 1/18/2013 7:15 PM, nospam wrote:
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.

LOL ....

I wouldn't be as worried about someone having a real gun as I would be
about someone becoming hysterical and running around shouting "lookout
... he's got a gun." That sort of person creates a panic and when that
occurs trouble surely follows. The poor shnook who has the pistol/rifle
camera setup would be caught in the middle of it all and wouldn't know
whether to crap or go blind (as they say in New York City).

Anti-gunners would like events like that to happen. Have you ever
noticed gun crime statistics are documented and circulated while gun
prevented crimes are not.

But then, neither are automobile accidents which don't occur.


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.



--

Regards,

Eric Stevens