Does any camera come with a laser pointer?

nick c wrote:
On 1/18/2013 1:13 PM, Michael Black 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).

No, but you'd probably be shot on sight by some overzealous
peacekeeper who thought you'd be going to kill anyone.
They'll tell the judge you'd had a huge smoothbore rifle or
a miniature bazooka or something and they'll go free, too. :-)

-Wolfgang

Savageduck wrote:
On 2013-01-17 09:36:40 -0800, David Dyer-Bennet said:

Some laser pointers are Class 2
or 2m,

Most laser pointers are Class IIa or 2D.

and are safe if they're visible light (not infrared) because they
won't damage your eye faster than you can blink (and aren't any threat
to anything less sensitive than your retina).

Tell that to the FAA and the reports of "flash blinding" cockpit
intrusion incidents pilots have experienced on final approach.

Were these definitely Class 2-something devices or some 50,
100 or more mW lasers?

Speaking of --- Rheinmetal has a new laser gun. They're
saying one of it's uses is fetching drones out of the air.
Can melt through quite a bit of steel.

Somehow I doubt you'd be much worried about getting blinded
by that one.

-Wolfgang

On 1/20/13 5:31 PM, in article , "Steve B"
wrote:


"Alfred Molon" wrote in message
...
In article , Peter
says...
And here I always thought th choice of camera depends in large part on
the job to be done.

I guess so. There may be situations in which a monster truck of a camera
is not the most suitable one.
It may be needed on a wedding to show everybody you're the top dog, but
in other situations there may be a need to operate in a more stealth
mode.
--

Alfred Molon

Friend of mine is a professional photographer. Weddings, all sorts of
stuff.

Anyway, on the bigger, better theme, he went out and bought a one ton dually
truck with an aluminum extendable boom on it so that he could get overheads
at weddings, and for some of his more exotic outdoor shots.


Personally, if I had a need for such a piece of equipment, I would rent it.
I was running Audio Tech, part of a two man crew with grips moving stuff for
a car wash shoot. The client wanted an overhead shot of an auto fresh off of
the line and the 'team' in a circle all walking simultaneously toward the
car and starting their various jobs to the auto (windshield, tires, lights,
etc.) for the final touches. It was quite an effective close for the 30
second spot. The one-day rental cost us about $170. Plus no maintenance,
place to store or insurance to worry about.

But I just cannot see such a thing for a wedding. Surely no one wants
pictures from overhead where you cannot see faces and dad's, uncles' bald
spots, LOL! Much better and portable, and not upsetting the Bride: Tall
ladder.

Savageduck writes:

On 2013-01-17 08:23:17 -0800, Whisky-dave said:

On Thursday, January 17, 2013 3:05:39 PM UTC, Mr. Strat wrote:
In article , 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.

Peter

Amateurs have such interesting ideas.

It is intresting and could be made to work if there was enough money
to be made from it, might be OK for specilised uses.
No one seems very concenred by the lasers in supermarkets on teh
tills they could probbelem use similar rechnology in camera but it'd
be expensive or more expensive than present systems.

All of the checkout laser systems are contained by internal reflection
and are safe. Unless you are dumb enough to scan your head to read
that bar code tattooed on your forehead.

Lasers pointers are aimed directly at the subject be it a presentation
board or screen (not a human).

Targeting lasers on firearms, or for other munitions, are aimed at
hostile humans (perhaps a good description for folks at a wedding),
vehicles or buildings where injury by laser is a secondary
consideration. Being hit by a 500lb, 750lb, or 1,000lb JDAM is really
going to permanently screw with your vision.

The laser sights on my Taurus revolver are class IIIa (I happen to have
the paperwork around still). Looking that up, that means "Lasers in
this class are mostly dangerous in combination with optical instruments
which change the beam diameter or power density, though even without
optical instrument enhancement direct contact with the eye for over two
minutes may cause serious damage to the retina."

So, it's pretty hard to hurt somebody accidentally with one of these.
Certainly the two minutes of direct exposure is not the big danger!
Possibly, in a room full of people using optical instruments more
complex than eyeglasses, it might be possible, maybe.

They also say this is a very common power level for both laser sights
for firearms, and laser pointers.

With this power level (which is stronger than any of the laser pointers
I actually own), I don't worry about it. I don't point it steadily for
extended periods, and there's no risk from the fleeting exposure of it
tracking across an eye. (I might, in self-defense, hold the laser sight
steady on somebody for a while, but as you say, since I'm prepared to
use deadly force, I'm not that worried about minor issues.)
--
Googleproofaddress(account:dd-b provider:dd-b domain:net)
Snapshots: http://dd-b.net/dd-b/SnapshotAlbum/data/
Photos: http://dd-b.net/photography/gallery/
Dragaera: http://dragaera.info

On 1/19/2013 10:22 PM, Robert Coe wrote:
On Sat, 19 Jan 2013 21:49:46 -0500, Peter wrote:
: On 1/18/2013 2:00 AM, nospam wrote:
:
: snip
:
: pros mostly stick to nikon/canon for a number of reasons.
:
:
: I guess no pros use Hassies or Leicas.
: And here I always thought th choice of camera depends in large part on
: the job to be done.

Truthfully, I'd be surprised if very many pros used Leicas these days. Those
who know more about such things than I do say that Leicas are well made and
have great glass. I don't doubt that's correct, but they're absurdly
overpriced and lack some nifty features that one expects on a modern camera. I
don't think I've ever seen a pro using a Leica, and those I've heard discuss
their equipment seem to favor Canons and Nikons (and the occasional
Hasselblad). I guess Nospam is more right than wrong this time.

The architectural photographer I heard lecture last week spoke wistfully of
the view cameras he used for most of his career. He switched to digital (a
Canon 1Ds) when his sources of film started drying up. (He went on to say that
he's become a convert to digital and wouldn't go back, even if he could.)


I know several pros who use the Hassy.One is a well known fashion
photog, the others are Nat Geo guys. Yes, the Nat Geo guys also use
Canons, and some even use a view with a Better Light scanning back.
http://www.betterlight.com/products4X5.html

/when the Nikon D800 E was released, some switched to that camera. But,
I stand by my original point that the project will often drive the
camera that is used.
--
PeterN

On 1/19/2013 10:35 PM, nospam wrote:
In article , Peter
wrote:

pros mostly stick to nikon/canon for a number of reasons.

I guess no pros use Hassies or Leicas.
And here I always thought th choice of camera depends in large part on
the job to be done.

do you not understand what the word mostly means?

in any event, nowhere near as many pros use hasselblad or leica.


As I have repeatedly said: What they use depends on the job to be done.

--
PeterN

On Fri, 18 Jan 2013, nick c wrote:

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).

Yes, I guess I did see them as commercial products too. I don't think
they looked like guns, the "rifle" ones were just a rifle but and then
some hardware to hold the camera. I can certainly see a real value, you
get stability without having to lean against something or have a tripod
sitting somewhere.

Michael

On 1/23/2013 8:33 PM, Michael Black wrote:
On Fri, 18 Jan 2013, nick c wrote:

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).

Yes, I guess I did see them as commercial products too. I don't think
they looked like guns, the "rifle" ones were just a rifle but and then
some hardware to hold the camera. I can certainly see a real value, you
get stability without having to lean against something or have a tripod
sitting somewhere.


According to several dealers, the one's with a wooden shoulder support
are no longer available. Also, in today's climate I am concerned about
the wisdom of carrying one. I can easily imagine blue haired lady
freaking out.


--
PeterN

On 2013-01-24 10:20:50 -0800, Peter said:

On 1/23/2013 8:33 PM, Michael Black wrote:
On Fri, 18 Jan 2013, nick c wrote:

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).

Yes, I guess I did see them as commercial products too. I don't think
they looked like guns, the "rifle" ones were just a rifle but and then
some hardware to hold the camera. I can certainly see a real value, you
get stability without having to lean against something or have a tripod
sitting somewhere.


According to several dealers, the one's with a wooden shoulder support
are no longer available. Also, in today's climate I am concerned about
the wisdom of carrying one. I can easily imagine blue haired lady
freaking out.

As I had mentioned earlier in this sub-thread, "Bushhawk":
http://www.bushhawk.com/


--
Regards,

Savageduck

On 1/24/2013 1:35 PM, Savageduck wrote:
On 2013-01-24 10:20:50 -0800, Peter said:

On 1/23/2013 8:33 PM, Michael Black wrote:
On Fri, 18 Jan 2013, nick c wrote:

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).

Yes, I guess I did see them as commercial products too. I don't think
they looked like guns, the "rifle" ones were just a rifle but and then
some hardware to hold the camera. I can certainly see a real value, you
get stability without having to lean against something or have a tripod
sitting somewhere.


According to several dealers, the one's with a wooden shoulder support
are no longer available. Also, in today's climate I am concerned about
the wisdom of carrying one. I can easily imagine blue haired lady
freaking out.

As I had mentioned earlier in this sub-thread, "Bushhawk":
http://www.bushhawk.com/

Yup! I have seen that online. while it looks good, I will only buy after
I test it for feel.

--
PeterN