nachos

Lives in United States AK, United States
Joined on Jun 7, 2003

Comments

Total: 162, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »
In reply to:

Nansen: I'm tired of bombastic stories that omit the critical context; in this case - how was the gear packed in the bag or a suitcase? What was the damage to the bag itself?

I collect film cameras of a particular vintage. I have packed dozens and dozens of such items in checked bags without a single instance of an item suffering any damage in transit. There is little doubt in my mind that in this case the blame rest squarely on the sloppy owner. At the very least, nobody with any sense would leave a removable lens attached to the body when packing a camera in a bag or a suitcase; checked or carry-on.

Carry on? Why not? :-) I do this all the time... mostly because I'm not tossing anything around...

Link | Posted on Aug 20, 2017 at 01:44 UTC
In reply to:

babart: This is the reason I switched to Fuji for travel gear. It's light enough to not get any flack from the defenders of cabin integrity. To trust $17,000 worth of equipment to baggage handlers is foolish to say the least. There is storage inside the plane for the occasional too-heavy bag if one asks and indicates the reason.

Most of the suggestions for protecting equipment stored in checked baggage make sense, except the use of Pelican cases. Or those older aluminum briefcase type camera protectors. These disappear with amazing regularity. Something smaller and soft, perhaps storing only one or two items, would be just as good and easier to pack.

I'm wondering how pros who carry lots of heavy equipment handle this? Certainly they have very good insurance. But I wonder if they make arrangements for storing the more expensive and breakable equipment inside the cabin?

That would probably not go over well... I have not had issues so far. Pelican style cases aren't that rare at all...I'm more concerned about damage than anything...knock on wood. Imagine a place like LAX, there is expensive gear flying out of there every day.

Note that you can use a real lock on carry on cases, even if they make you gate check them. Those useless TSA locks are only because they want to be able to inspect in the back office. Once you clear security, you are clear to use whatever lock you want.

I don't bother locking checked cases for that reason. I use zip ties, include a couple in the case with a friendly note asking that they zip it up when they're done. And they usually do!

Link | Posted on Aug 20, 2017 at 01:35 UTC
In reply to:

babart: This is the reason I switched to Fuji for travel gear. It's light enough to not get any flack from the defenders of cabin integrity. To trust $17,000 worth of equipment to baggage handlers is foolish to say the least. There is storage inside the plane for the occasional too-heavy bag if one asks and indicates the reason.

Most of the suggestions for protecting equipment stored in checked baggage make sense, except the use of Pelican cases. Or those older aluminum briefcase type camera protectors. These disappear with amazing regularity. Something smaller and soft, perhaps storing only one or two items, would be just as good and easier to pack.

I'm wondering how pros who carry lots of heavy equipment handle this? Certainly they have very good insurance. But I wonder if they make arrangements for storing the more expensive and breakable equipment inside the cabin?

If the kit is too big for cabin, it gets checked. No way around it. You pack it well and buy sturdy cases and gear. I have heard about using a flare gun in the case so it goes through the TSA hand search in the owner's presence to avoid back office searching. Then it gets locked with a real lock. All firearms use this process.

For the most part though, we are insured and check things too big to be carried.

Either this camera/lens was not properly packed in a sturdy case, or the security agent inspecting it dropped it.

Note that sometimes you can't bring it into cabin anyway - I've had to gate check the camera case on small planes. Whatever the plane crew says you must do, you must do or you're not flying. This is why I use a pelican case that you can stand on.

Link | Posted on Aug 19, 2017 at 22:47 UTC
In reply to:

mandm: Konica also had a very sharp zoom in the mid 1970's, 35-100mm f2.8 Hexanon Varifocal AR. The Varifocal lens required you to refocus after changing the zoom, the lens was a little slower to use, but it was very sharp when compared to the competition. Like the Minolta 40-80mm 2.8, Konica had to find a way to get people to buy zooms as most zooms had a poor record for sharpness.

Still lenses are usually varifocal. Parfocal is difficult and expensive to implement so its found in high end cine lenses. https://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2016/03/mythbusting-parfocal-photo-zooms/

That said, some zooms are almost parfocal in certain scenarios - a small change in focal length might still be acceptably in focus depending on f-stop, lens construction, how OCD you are...

Link | Posted on Aug 15, 2017 at 15:56 UTC

Looks great. Love the bokeh from well made non-aspheric lenses.

Link | Posted on Aug 15, 2017 at 14:00 UTC as 28th comment

ah nuts, video is no longer free of the vsclones that seem to inhabit every corner of instagram

Link | Posted on Aug 4, 2017 at 23:04 UTC as 1st comment
In reply to:

Cheap GAS: lol at that Nikon price

Nope. It's called value pricing. The audience is professional and the lens is superbly professional. You want cheap; go buy this sigma.

Link | Posted on Jul 31, 2017 at 17:14 UTC
In reply to:

Cheap GAS: lol at that Nikon price

Pro lens pro price. Bargain compared to medium format, which it readily competes with.

Link | Posted on Jul 31, 2017 at 13:35 UTC
In reply to:

mandm: $1699.95 Nikon 24-70mm 2.8 ED lens on Sale.
Nikon's high price on their new 24-70mm 2.8 ED VR is likely due to that they still have stock of their last 24-70mm 2.8 ED; Instant $100.00 Savings Now $1699.95.
Once their inventory of the old one is gone they may lower the price of the new VR 24-70.

They often have sales; I picked up my 24-70 VR for $2200 last summer.

Link | Posted on Jul 31, 2017 at 13:34 UTC
In reply to:

thx1138: Photographers who fly frequently in the US may want to finally come to their senses and choose a much nicer place to visit.

What does this even mean

Link | Posted on Jul 27, 2017 at 18:14 UTC
In reply to:

Sebastien Guyader: Um... I flew through SJU airport saturday (July 22th), and the TSA guy told us in the line to leave everything but our cell phone in their bag. I asked the guy if I should leave my camera and lenses in their bag, he said "yes"...
Removing Cameras, lenses and laptops from their bags and putting them in separate bin has been the standard procedure since at least the last couple years in European airports.

Yes, compared to some Euro airports TSA is actually fairly easy

Link | Posted on Jul 27, 2017 at 18:13 UTC
In reply to:

sh10453: That's why I avoid flying as much as possible. A lot of the TSA personnel are power hungry, arrogant, and simply jerks. I have rarely encountered decent ones.
I'd rather drive, especially if it is within a day or so of driving, and there is no limit on my baggage.

My upcoming trip from Michigan to Dallas, TX is a 2-day drive. So I'll stop for the night half-way rather than dealing with the stupidity of TSA idiots.
Of course that won't work for frequent fliers, or across countries, etc..

"a 2-day drive. So I'll stop for the night half-way rather than dealing with the stupidity of TSA idiots"

Drive for 2 days rather than put up with a few minutes of hassle? I don't know who's the idiot here...

Link | Posted on Jul 27, 2017 at 18:11 UTC
In reply to:

maxnimo: I'm surprised that every half-decent camera made in the last 10 years doesn't have built-in wireless flash triggering. Geeesh, how hard can it be?

Metal bodies tend to impede wireless reliability

Link | Posted on Jul 26, 2017 at 21:14 UTC
On article Nikon announces development of D850 (538 comments in total)

Good news is it's in the field being tested already, so perhaps it won't be too long. Seems a bit odd to have a "in development" press release instead of a release date, but I would prefer to get it right rather than rush it to meet some deadline.

Link | Posted on Jul 25, 2017 at 14:29 UTC as 75th comment
On article Nikon announces development of D850 (538 comments in total)
In reply to:

Albert Valentino: Why not call it the D820. Nikon seems to paint themselves into a corner with their somewhat inconsistent names. For example, after the D100 came the D70, then D80 and D90 so they ran out of numbers since the D100 was taken. Okay, so they decided to reserve the 100 numbers for the upper APS line, D200, D300. But then they came out with a D700 FF which was follwed by the D600 FF. But the D300 was almost 10 years later succeeded by the D500, not a D400. So what comes after the D500?

Anyone remember the Abbott and Costello Who's on First Routine? One could work out a similar skit with the Nikon naming.

Still simpler than Canon... Which D do I want... (variable) D, 5D(S/S R/null) (mark something), 1D (variable) (mark something)

Link | Posted on Jul 25, 2017 at 14:25 UTC
In reply to:

Bobthearch: What could possibly be Zillo's defense?

But people don't post directly to zillow, they automatically source listings and images...

Link | Posted on Jul 21, 2017 at 14:13 UTC
In reply to:

Bobthearch: I wonder why a large company like P&G doesn't have their own in-house photographer and photo studios? They would own the copyrights and save a fortune in licensing fees, especially if they end up losing millions because they could not adequately track each individual image license.

Or why they don't negotiate to purchase the copyrights from the outside photographers?

It's very common to have both in house and outside photographers doing ad work. For one thing, many photographers don't want to work in house but may have a good existing relationship with the company and its agencies. I wouldn't be surprised, though, if the relationship with this photographer had already soured perhaps due to cutbacks in marketing budgets that P&G has been pursuing.

Link | Posted on Jul 21, 2017 at 14:08 UTC
In reply to:

happypoppeye: Only giving photographers a bad name with a lawsuit like that ...and probably losing a lot of jobs for future photographers trying to work with large companies.

"large companies see this and say hey, lets hire even more photographers and use more photos we don't have the rights too? "

What in the world does this even mean? You want billion dollar megacorps to screw their contractors? It's very clear you are not in this business.

Link | Posted on Jul 21, 2017 at 14:04 UTC
In reply to:

laddsmith: Sounds to me like P&G made a mistake. I think I made a mistake once, but good luck getting $75M out of me, but then P&G has deep pockets, and I certainly do not. So the attorneys want to go for the max. Absolutely crazy attorney stuff-she should be paid fairly and maybe given a little additional for her trouble, etc. $75M-think of how much of that will end up going to the attorneys. Let us have some reason here.

P&G is the world's largest advertiser; they almost certainly have an art asset management system. At this point it's not a simple mistake; if they are able to show a deliberate attempt to circumvent contracts it's going to very expensive for them. It's the kind of thing executives lose their jobs over.

Link | Posted on Jul 20, 2017 at 15:13 UTC
In reply to:

Bobthearch: I wonder why a large company like P&G doesn't have their own in-house photographer and photo studios? They would own the copyrights and save a fortune in licensing fees, especially if they end up losing millions because they could not adequately track each individual image license.

Or why they don't negotiate to purchase the copyrights from the outside photographers?

Buying the copyright for images of this kind would be very expensive. Shoots are given a budget and their budget apparently allowed only USA use.

In house photography is typically for catalog and some collateral work. Ad agencies often don't use in house photographers because they're either already busy or don't have the right aesthetic they're going for.

Link | Posted on Jul 20, 2017 at 15:05 UTC
Total: 162, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »