A Photography forum. PhotoBanter.com

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Go Back   Home » PhotoBanter.com forum » Digital Photography » Digital SLR Cameras
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Weather Resistance



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #31  
Old June 17th 09, 11:47 AM posted to rec.photo.digital.slr-systems
Don B[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 15
Default Weather Resistance

J. Clarke wrote:
Don B wrote:
If he works for National Geographic do you think they worry to much
about equipment? If a piece of equipment gets wrecked it's probably
chalked up as part of the expense of doing the article.


If it gets wrecked before it gets the shot that is needed then it's chalked
up to not getting the article. When you're lugging something up Everest you
really don't want it to crap out 30 feet from the summit--on stuff like that
you don't _get_ a do-over.

I don't know about backups if you are going up Everest, but I shot a
recording session that a National Geographic photographer was also
shooting and he had more backup cameras with him then I own. That was
when everyone was pretty much shooting film yet, and he had an assistant
with him that was just loading cameras for him. The way he was going
through film I thought he was going to burn up a motor drive.
  #32  
Old June 22nd 09, 05:49 PM posted to rec.photo.digital.slr-systems
Jürgen Exner
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,579
Default Weather Resistance

Robert Coe wrote:
The US has adopted the metric system where it matters. Our bolts and nuts are
almost all metric,


Hmmm, I wonder why in a hardware stores I see yards and yards of shelves
with nuts and bolts in inches in any odd variation and fraction while
there are less than 2 meters of shelf space for metric stuff.

and metric units are used in virtually all scientific
discourse and publications.


Ack.

OTOH, it makes no practical difference if we continue to measure distances in
miles and temperature in degrees F. And to convert would result in enormous
cost and confusion. It's easy to justify leaving things as they are.


Yeah, right. Recently in a written exam I had to calculate the glide
distance. I determined the glide slope to be 1:12, distance was given as
5 miles (statute, not nautical!). Now, how many feet did I drop? Well,
as I had no freeking idea how many feet there are in a mile I converted
the 5 miles into kilometers, divided by 12, moved the decimal by 3
digits to get meters, and converted back to feet. It worked, I got the
right answer.
How many of you proud US-americans would have known of the top of your
head without looking it up somewhere how many feet are in one mile?

jue
  #33  
Old June 22nd 09, 06:32 PM posted to rec.photo.digital.slr-systems
John McWilliams
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 6,945
Default Weather Resistance

Jürgen Exner wrote:

How many of you proud US-americans would have known of the top of your
head without looking it up somewhere how many feet are in one mile?


Proud, and US AND American! Wow.

Whether proud or not, I suspect that most US educated folk will know
that there are 5,280 feet in a mile. At least that's what my memory
serves up.

I'd love the metric system if that's what I grew up with; no conversions
necessary.
What I dislike most is Celsius, again, as it is unfamiliar and I have to
convert most C to F to 'get' what the temperature is.

--
john mcwilliams


  #34  
Old June 22nd 09, 09:29 PM posted to rec.photo.digital.slr-systems
Savageduck[_4_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 454
Default Weather Resistance

On 2009-06-22 10:32:06 -0700, John McWilliams said:

Jürgen Exner wrote:

How many of you proud US-americans would have known of the top of your
head without looking it up somewhere how many feet are in one mile?


Proud, and US AND American! Wow.

Whether proud or not, I suspect that most US educated folk will know
that there are 5,280 feet in a mile. At least that's what my memory
serves up.


Yup. 1760 yards to the mile X 3 = 5280 feet.

I'd love the metric system if that's what I grew up with; no conversions
necessary.
What I dislike most is Celsius, again, as it is unfamiliar and I have to
convert most C to F to 'get' what the temperature is.


All my college physics & chemistry was metric, and that was over 40 years ago!


--
Regards,

Savageduck

  #35  
Old June 22nd 09, 09:56 PM posted to rec.photo.digital.slr-systems
J. Clarke
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,690
Default Weather Resistance

Savageduck wrote:
On 2009-06-22 10:32:06 -0700, John McWilliams
said:

Jürgen Exner wrote:

How many of you proud US-americans would have known of the top of
your head without looking it up somewhere how many feet are in one
mile?


Proud, and US AND American! Wow.

Whether proud or not, I suspect that most US educated folk will know
that there are 5,280 feet in a mile. At least that's what my memory
serves up.


Yup. 1760 yards to the mile X 3 = 5280 feet.

I'd love the metric system if that's what I grew up with; no
conversions necessary.
What I dislike most is Celsius, again, as it is unfamiliar and I
have to convert most C to F to 'get' what the temperature is.


All my college physics & chemistry was metric, and that was over 40
years ago!


I learned in high school that scientist and engineers never do conversions,
they work in one system or another. In my first real world engineering job
I found out that the company had data going back into the '20s and most of
it before 1960 or so was in the US customary system, while later it was
metric, so lots and lots and lots of conversions.

  #36  
Old June 22nd 09, 10:31 PM posted to rec.photo.digital.slr-systems
Alan Browne
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 12,640
Default Weather Resistance

On 22-06-09 12:49, Jürgen Exner wrote:

How many of you proud US-americans would have known of the top of your
head without looking it up somewhere how many feet are in one mile?


This is pretty much drilled into kids by the time they're 7 or so. Even
in Canada over the switch to metric, all the basic units of the Imperial
system were still learned.

I routinely make metric-imperial conversions by simply remembering a few
constants and calculating everything else from these (when needed).

0.3048 metres/foot (exactly, rational)
25.4 mm/inch (exactly, rational - and defines the above of course)
2.2 pounds/Kg (very close, irrational)
4.184 joules/calorie (very close)
9/5 deg F per deg C (plus 32F bias) [exactly]. Though I can usually
just "guess" within a few degrees F or a couple C either way.
746 W / hp (nearly).

etc. That covers the great majority of my needs. Otherwise, the best
site for conversion factors (and a lot of interesting tidbits) is:
http://www.unc.edu/~rowlett/units/

The metric system has never accomplished the greatest problem. Time.
The SI unit for time is the second. But there is no such thing as base
10 units for "minutes"/"hours" etc. It just does not fit "nicely".

The second should have been re-defined as 1/100,000 of a solar
day(slightly shorter than a second), and then "metric hours"/"metric
minutes" derived from that. (And most other time associated units
redefined from that). Instead they used the nominal solar second and
the rest fits badly...

--
-- r.p.e.35mm user resource: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm
-- r.p.d.slr-systems: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm
-- [SI] gallery & rulz: http://www.pbase.com/shootin
-- e-meil: Remove FreeLunch.
-- usenet posts from gmail.com and googlemail.com are filtered out.

  #37  
Old June 22nd 09, 10:32 PM posted to rec.photo.digital.slr-systems
Alan Browne
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 12,640
Default Weather Resistance

On 22-06-09 13:32, John McWilliams wrote:
Jürgen Exner wrote:

How many of you proud US-americans would have known of the top of your
head without looking it up somewhere how many feet are in one mile?


Proud, and US AND American! Wow.

Whether proud or not, I suspect that most US educated folk will know
that there are 5,280 feet in a mile. At least that's what my memory
serves up.

I'd love the metric system if that's what I grew up with; no conversions
necessary.
What I dislike most is Celsius, again, as it is unfamiliar and I have to
convert most C to F to 'get' what the temperature is.


You just have to remember that a "C" has 9/5 F in it and a bias of 32F
and calculate.

--
-- r.p.e.35mm user resource: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm
-- r.p.d.slr-systems: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm
-- [SI] gallery & rulz: http://www.pbase.com/shootin
-- e-meil: Remove FreeLunch.
-- usenet posts from gmail.com and googlemail.com are filtered out.

  #38  
Old June 22nd 09, 10:34 PM posted to rec.photo.digital.slr-systems
Alan Browne
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 12,640
Default Weather Resistance

On 22-06-09 16:29, Savageduck wrote:
On 2009-06-22 10:32:06 -0700, John McWilliams said:

Jürgen Exner wrote:

How many of you proud US-americans would have known of the top of your
head without looking it up somewhere how many feet are in one mile?


Proud, and US AND American! Wow.

Whether proud or not, I suspect that most US educated folk will know
that there are 5,280 feet in a mile. At least that's what my memory
serves up.


Yup. 1760 yards to the mile X 3 = 5280 feet.

I'd love the metric system if that's what I grew up with; no conversions
necessary.
What I dislike most is Celsius, again, as it is unfamiliar and I have to
convert most C to F to 'get' what the temperature is.


All my college physics & chemistry was metric, and that was over 40
years ago!


The problems is use in most commerce. What's funny of course is that
when you buy an 8 foot piece of 2x4 it's not 2x4 but it's 8 feet within
a hair.

But metric is slowly creeping in to US commerce, certainly.

--
-- r.p.e.35mm user resource: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm
-- r.p.d.slr-systems: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm
-- [SI] gallery & rulz: http://www.pbase.com/shootin
-- e-meil: Remove FreeLunch.
-- usenet posts from gmail.com and googlemail.com are filtered out.

  #39  
Old June 22nd 09, 10:40 PM posted to rec.photo.digital.slr-systems
Alan Browne
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 12,640
Default Weather Resistance

On 22-06-09 16:56, J. Clarke wrote:
Savageduck wrote:
On 2009-06-22 10:32:06 -0700, John
said:

Jürgen Exner wrote:

How many of you proud US-americans would have known of the top of
your head without looking it up somewhere how many feet are in one
mile?
Proud, and US AND American! Wow.

Whether proud or not, I suspect that most US educated folk will know
that there are 5,280 feet in a mile. At least that's what my memory
serves up.

Yup. 1760 yards to the mile X 3 = 5280 feet.
I'd love the metric system if that's what I grew up with; no
conversions necessary.
What I dislike most is Celsius, again, as it is unfamiliar and I
have to convert most C to F to 'get' what the temperature is.

All my college physics& chemistry was metric, and that was over 40
years ago!


I learned in high school that scientist and engineers never do conversions,
they work in one system or another. In my first real world engineering job
I found out that the company had data going back into the '20s and most of
it before 1960 or so was in the US customary system, while later it was
metric, so lots and lots and lots of conversions.


You can be sure that in some integration projects, it is near inevitable
that conversions need to be made. We avoid Imperial/US measurements
whenever possible ... but it's not always possible. Over the past 10
years I've not had any trouble from US suppliers or integrators with
metric specifications. They just do it. I think the younger (under 50)
engineers, technicians and buyers have that attitude now. Certainly any
system for the US military is performance spec'd in metric most all of
the time (though navigation terms are often nautical units for air/Navy.
One program over the past 10 years specified a display in yards).

--
-- r.p.e.35mm user resource: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm
-- r.p.d.slr-systems: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm
-- [SI] gallery & rulz: http://www.pbase.com/shootin
-- e-meil: Remove FreeLunch.
-- usenet posts from gmail.com and googlemail.com are filtered out.

  #40  
Old June 22nd 09, 10:41 PM posted to rec.photo.digital.slr-systems
Alan Browne
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 12,640
Default Weather Resistance

On 17-06-09 06:47, Don B wrote:
J. Clarke wrote:
Don B wrote:
If he works for National Geographic do you think they worry to much
about equipment? If a piece of equipment gets wrecked it's probably
chalked up as part of the expense of doing the article.


If it gets wrecked before it gets the shot that is needed then it's
chalked up to not getting the article. When you're lugging something
up Everest you really don't want it to crap out 30 feet from the
summit--on stuff like that you don't _get_ a do-over.

I don't know about backups if you are going up Everest, but I shot a
recording session that a National Geographic photographer was also
shooting and he had more backup cameras with him then I own. That was
when everyone was pretty much shooting film yet, and he had an assistant
with him that was just loading cameras for him. The way he was going
through film I thought he was going to burn up a motor drive.


In the film days the average NatGeo article took 29,000 frames.

--
-- r.p.e.35mm user resource: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm
-- r.p.d.slr-systems: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm
-- [SI] gallery & rulz: http://www.pbase.com/shootin
-- e-meil: Remove FreeLunch.
-- usenet posts from gmail.com and googlemail.com are filtered out.
 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Goodbye RawShooter! ..."We are the Ado-Beorg, prepare to be assimilated.Resistance is futile" ThomasH Digital Photography 8 June 29th 06 04:11 AM
DMM testing batteries under load -- what resistance? Neil Harrington Digital Photography 61 November 10th 05 05:11 PM
Which SLR is weather resistant? Tracy 35mm Photo Equipment 54 May 4th 05 07:38 AM
Which SLR is weather resistant? Tracy 35mm Photo Equipment 0 April 27th 05 12:27 AM
Water resistance? Jim Digital Point & Shoot Cameras 1 December 12th 04 05:50 AM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 06:41 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 PhotoBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.