10,500 feet is way the heck up there!

[Jay Honeck]

I've spent a fair number of hours droning along at 10,500 feet in the
MidWest. (For you mountain-flyer-types that think 10.5 K is LOW, that
altitude is a lot different here in Iowa, cuz it puts you almost two miles
above Mother Earth.) It's usually quite boring, and is something I
normally do only en route.

However, I've never actually maintained that altitude *over* an area I was
familiar with. This past weekend we were on our way back from leaf-peeping
in Wisconsin, and the visibility was just stunning -- crystal clear, azure
blue skies, with no humidity and temperatures in the upper 60s -- so it
seemed like a perfect time to get some aerial photos of Iowa City.

(I've been trying for some time to get a picture for our website that had
enough scale to show the whole area, and our position in it -- but have just
never had the right opportunity.)

A few things I discovered:

1. Two miles up is actually TOO high for good photography with a standard
Canon Elph digital camera. The pictures I found to be best were taken
around 8,000 feet as we slowly spiraled down to land.

2. The kids thought it was great! With hundreds of hours in the air over
the last nine years, my kids are old pros that only rarely look out the
windows anymore. At 10.5K over familiar territory, however, they were like
newbie passengers again, squealing and pointing. We were all amazed at what
we could see.

3. Spiraling down from 2 miles over the airport takes a LONG time! I tried
to maintain a nice, easy 300 - 400 fpm descent, which meant circling the
airport for twenty minutes in order to land!

4. It was fun watching the landing pattern from a "God's Eye" point of
view.

It's not something you would normally think of doing, but if you get a
chance viewing your home turf from WAY up high is kinda fun!

(And you can take a peek at the picture I selected for our opening webpage
at www.AlexisParkInn.com. It's really shows our position relative to the
airport and other important local attractions. For our potential guests,
this picture really is worth a thousand words...)
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[Rosspilot]

>And you can take a peek at the picture I selected for our opening webpage

Nice, Jay . . .


www.Rosspilot.com

[Dale]

In article <53_ib.777467$uu5.134981@sccrnsc04>,
"Jay Honeck" > wrote:

> I've spent a fair number of hours droning along at 10,500 feet in the
> MidWest. (For you mountain-flyer-types that think 10.5 K is LOW, that
> altitude is a lot different here in Iowa, cuz it puts you almost two miles
> above Mother Earth.) It's usually quite boring, and is something I
> normally do only en route.
>
> However, I've never actually maintained that altitude *over* an area I was
> familiar with. This past weekend we were on our way back from leaf-peeping
> in Wisconsin, and the visibility was just stunning -- crystal clear, azure
> blue skies, with no humidity and temperatures in the upper 60s -- so it
> seemed like a perfect time to get some aerial photos of Iowa City.


hehe

I drive the 206 to 13,000 many times each weekend, sometimes 20+ loads
per day, and never get tired of the view. To the south is Knik Arm and
Anchorage, to the northwest is Mt McKinley and Mt Foraker and to the
east is Knik Glacier.

I come down a little faster than you though, normally around
3000-3500fpm. <G>

--
Dale L. Falk

There is nothing - absolutely nothing - half so much worth doing
as simply messing around with airplanes.

http://home.gci.net/~sncdfalk/flying.html

[Jay Honeck]

> I come down a little faster than you though, normally around
> 3000-3500fpm. <G>

Crikey!

Don't your ears bother you?
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[Jay Honeck]

> Nice, Jay . . .

Thanks, Lee. While I was up there I was wishing that I had your camera,
windows that open, and expertise.

Considering I had NONE of those, I think the pix came out okay... :-)
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[Ben Jackson]

In article <9I_ib.130302$%h1.131919@sccrnsc02>,
Jay Honeck > wrote:
>
>Don't your ears bother you?

One thing I noticed when I started flying was that my ears stopped popping
after about 20 hours. I thought it was normal to get acclimated, but when
I mentioned it to some other local pilots they said they all still have
to clear their ears.

Benefits of a big head, I guess. ;-)

--
Ben Jackson
>
http://www.ben.com/

[Jay Honeck]

> >Don't your ears bother you?
>
> One thing I noticed when I started flying was that my ears stopped popping
> after about 20 hours. I thought it was normal to get acclimated, but when
> I mentioned it to some other local pilots they said they all still have
> to clear their ears.
>
> Benefits of a big head, I guess. ;-)

You routinely descent at 3500 feet per minute, Ben?

My ears never bother me in normal flight, but dropping *that* fast might
cause someone some pretty severe discomfort.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[Morgans]

"Jay Honeck" > wrote

>
> (And you can take a peek at the picture I selected for our opening webpage
> at www.AlexisParkInn.com. It's really shows our position relative to the
> airport and other important local attractions. For our potential guests,
> this picture really is worth a thousand words...)
> --
> Jay Honeck
> Iowa City, IA
> Pathfinder N56993
> www.AlexisParkInn.com
> "Your Aviation Destination"

Good picture. My only comment is, that a north arrow might be helpful.
--
Jim in NC

[Wayne]

1 mile high is a pressure of around 12.2 PSI. so dropping from 5280' to
sea level (14.7 PSI) (splash) would make a 2-1/2 PSI increase in pressure.
If you did that in 1 minute, then that would be 5280 FPM decent rate.

Compare to S.C.U.B.A. It's not that hard on the ears. In sea water,
every 33 feet is equal to 1 atmosphere of air (14.7PSI) A realitively fast
decent (2 minute) 132' would be like dropping around 23-1/2 times faster or
124,000 FPM A 58.8PSI increase in less than 2 minutes and it's not that hard
to do.

Anyone seen that girl that did that free dive to, I forget 500 feet deep
or some crazy amount like that?

Try it with a cold and it can get real uncomfortable though. The trip
back up is where you need to go slowly or risk the bends. I have only ever
dropped fast like that a few times in a plane. What's that equal out to in a
160 nmph dive? I never realized an altimeter could move that fast.

What a great picture though. Next time I go far away, I will have to
hold the altitude, and get a shot like that. Yours turned out very well.
That was through a window?
Wayne



> > Benefits of a big head, I guess. ;-)
>
> You routinely descent at 3500 feet per minute, Ben?
>
> My ears never bother me in normal flight, but dropping *that* fast might
> cause someone some pretty severe discomfort.
> --

[G.R. Patterson III]

Dale wrote:
>
> I come down a little faster than you though, normally around
> 3000-3500fpm. <G>

If I try more than about 1,000 fpm, the CHTs get out of the green on the low
side pretty quick.

George Patterson
A woman's perfect breakfast occurs when she's sitting at the table sipping
gourmet coffee while looking at pictures of her son on the cover of Sports
Illustrated, her daughter on the cover of Business Week, her boyfriend on
the cover of Playgirl, and her husband on the back of the milk carton.

[EDR]

In article <DS_ib.770859$Ho3.201262@sccrnsc03>, Jay Honeck
> wrote:

> You routinely descent at 3500 feet per minute, Ben?
> My ears never bother me in normal flight, but dropping *that* fast might
> cause someone some pretty severe discomfort.

Skydiving, free-fall from 18k,open 2,500. It takes my ears at least an
hour to clear.

[EDR]

In article <53_ib.777467$uu5.134981@sccrnsc04>, Jay Honeck
> wrote:

> A few things I discovered:
> 1. Two miles up is actually TOO high for good photography with a standard
> Canon Elph digital camera. The pictures I found to be best were taken
> around 8,000 feet as we slowly spiraled down to land.

An Elph? Really?
I think it's time to consider cutting a hole in the belly and
installing a camera port.
Get yourself a good Hasselblad and you have a new business to pay for
the Grape fill-up.
Oh the places you'll go, the things you will see...

[Orval Fairbairn]

In article >,
"G.R. Patterson III" > wrote:

> Dale wrote:
> >
> > I come down a little faster than you though, normally around
> > 3000-3500fpm. <G>
>
> If I try more than about 1,000 fpm, the CHTs get out of the green on the low
> side pretty quick.
>
> George Patterson
> A woman's perfect breakfast occurs when she's sitting at the table
> sipping
> gourmet coffee while looking at pictures of her son on the cover of
> Sports
> Illustrated, her daughter on the cover of Business Week, her boyfriend
> on
> the cover of Playgirl, and her husband on the back of the milk carton.



I always keep at least cruise power on when descending, until I descend
low enough to maintain 2300/23", gradually enriching the mixture as I
descand. I like to start descent 20-40 miles out, letting the speed
increase, to make up for speed lost in climb. With normal cruise about
150 mph IAS at 10000, I can build up to about 170-180 MPH on descent (no
worry, because redline is 230 MPH). That way, there is no spiralling
down at destination or cylinder cooling.

[vincent p. norris]

>2. The kids thought it was great! With hundreds of hours in the air over
>the last nine years, my kids are old pros that only rarely look out the
>windows anymore.

Function of their youth, I suspect. After 50+ years of flying, I
still love gawking at the scenery going by. (Even over Iowa!)

Do those kids still say "Are we there yet?"

>3. Spiraling down from 2 miles over the airport takes a LONG time! I tried
>to maintain a nice, easy 300 - 400 fpm descent, which meant circling the
>airport for twenty minutes in order to land!

Consider what that means if your engine quits. You have a heck of
along time to find a nice big field, and it can be miles away!

When I fly north out of here (central PA) there ain't nothing but
mountains covered by trees. I get pretty high.

vince norris

[vincent p. norris]

>I drive the 206 to 13,000 many times each weekend, sometimes 20+ loads
>per day, and never get tired of the view. To the south is Knik Arm and
>Anchorage, to the northwest is Mt McKinley and Mt Foraker and to the
>east is Knik Glacier.

Count your blessings!

vince norris

[Peter Duniho]

"vincent p. norris" > wrote in message
...
> >3. Spiraling down from 2 miles over the airport takes a LONG time! I
tried
> >to maintain a nice, easy 300 - 400 fpm descent, which meant circling the
> >airport for twenty minutes in order to land!
>
> Consider what that means if your engine quits. You have a heck of
> along time to find a nice big field, and it can be miles away!

I would think that, when circling over an airport, one wouldn't bother
looking for a nice big field to land in, especially if it meant landing
miles away.

Pete

[vincent p. norris]

>One thing I noticed when I started flying was that my ears stopped popping
>after about 20 hours.
>
>Benefits of a big head, I guess. ;-)

No, benefit of clear eustachian tubes.

If you go up to 10 K next time you have a head cold, you'll discover
you are NOT "acclimated." DON'T DO IT. It's excruciatingly painful.

Even during WW II, air crews were grounded for the "common cold."

vince norris

[G.R. Patterson III]

Jay Honeck wrote:
>
> With hundreds of hours in the air over
> the last nine years, my kids are old pros that only rarely look out the
> windows anymore.

That's just because they can't see anything but sky with that wing in the way.

George Patterson
A woman's perfect breakfast occurs when she's sitting at the table sipping
gourmet coffee while looking at pictures of her son on the cover of Sports
Illustrated, her daughter on the cover of Business Week, her boyfriend on
the cover of Playgirl, and her husband on the back of the milk carton.

[Mike Rapoport]

Well, the hill behind my house in NV is over 10,600'...

Mike
MU-2

"Jay Honeck" > wrote in message
news:53_ib.777467$uu5.134981@sccrnsc04...
> I've spent a fair number of hours droning along at 10,500 feet in the
> MidWest. (For you mountain-flyer-types that think 10.5 K is LOW, that
> altitude is a lot different here in Iowa, cuz it puts you almost two miles
> above Mother Earth.) It's usually quite boring, and is something I
> normally do only en route.
>
> However, I've never actually maintained that altitude *over* an area I was
> familiar with. This past weekend we were on our way back from
leaf-peeping
> in Wisconsin, and the visibility was just stunning -- crystal clear, azure
> blue skies, with no humidity and temperatures in the upper 60s -- so it
> seemed like a perfect time to get some aerial photos of Iowa City.
>
> (I've been trying for some time to get a picture for our website that had
> enough scale to show the whole area, and our position in it -- but have
just
> never had the right opportunity.)
>
> A few things I discovered:
>
> 1. Two miles up is actually TOO high for good photography with a standard
> Canon Elph digital camera. The pictures I found to be best were taken
> around 8,000 feet as we slowly spiraled down to land.
>
> 2. The kids thought it was great! With hundreds of hours in the air over
> the last nine years, my kids are old pros that only rarely look out the
> windows anymore. At 10.5K over familiar territory, however, they were like
> newbie passengers again, squealing and pointing. We were all amazed at
what
> we could see.
>
> 3. Spiraling down from 2 miles over the airport takes a LONG time! I
tried
> to maintain a nice, easy 300 - 400 fpm descent, which meant circling the
> airport for twenty minutes in order to land!
>
> 4. It was fun watching the landing pattern from a "God's Eye" point of
> view.
>
> It's not something you would normally think of doing, but if you get a
> chance viewing your home turf from WAY up high is kinda fun!
>
> (And you can take a peek at the picture I selected for our opening webpage
> at www.AlexisParkInn.com. It's really shows our position relative to the
> airport and other important local attractions. For our potential guests,
> this picture really is worth a thousand words...)
> --
> Jay Honeck
> Iowa City, IA
> Pathfinder N56993
> www.AlexisParkInn.com
> "Your Aviation Destination"
>
>

[Jeff]

We normally fly at around 11,000 - 12,000 ft. because its where we get out best
speed.
This picture I took over Phoenix 2 weeks ago at 12,500 ft, we flew over the
Phoenix class B and started our decent about 20 miles out at 500 fpm on the far
side of Phoenix..
http://216.158.136.206/newplane/phoenix.jpg

There is allot less color to see on this side of the country.
We use an the Olympus E-10 digital camera for pictures.

Jeff

Jay Honeck wrote:

> I've spent a fair number of hours droning along at 10,500 feet in the
> MidWest. (For you mountain-flyer-types that think 10.5 K is LOW, that
> altitude is a lot different here in Iowa, cuz it puts you almost two miles
> above Mother Earth.) It's usually quite boring, and is something I
> normally do only en route.
>
> However, I've never actually maintained that altitude *over* an area I was
> familiar with. This past weekend we were on our way back from leaf-peeping
> in Wisconsin, and the visibility was just stunning -- crystal clear, azure
> blue skies, with no humidity and temperatures in the upper 60s -- so it
> seemed like a perfect time to get some aerial photos of Iowa City.
>
> (I've been trying for some time to get a picture for our website that had
> enough scale to show the whole area, and our position in it -- but have just
> never had the right opportunity.)
>
> A few things I discovered:
>
> 1. Two miles up is actually TOO high for good photography with a standard
> Canon Elph digital camera. The pictures I found to be best were taken
> around 8,000 feet as we slowly spiraled down to land.
>
> 2. The kids thought it was great! With hundreds of hours in the air over
> the last nine years, my kids are old pros that only rarely look out the
> windows anymore. At 10.5K over familiar territory, however, they were like
> newbie passengers again, squealing and pointing. We were all amazed at what
> we could see.
>
> 3. Spiraling down from 2 miles over the airport takes a LONG time! I tried
> to maintain a nice, easy 300 - 400 fpm descent, which meant circling the
> airport for twenty minutes in order to land!
>
> 4. It was fun watching the landing pattern from a "God's Eye" point of
> view.
>
> It's not something you would normally think of doing, but if you get a
> chance viewing your home turf from WAY up high is kinda fun!
>
> (And you can take a peek at the picture I selected for our opening webpage
> at www.AlexisParkInn.com. It's really shows our position relative to the
> airport and other important local attractions. For our potential guests,
> this picture really is worth a thousand words...)
> --
> Jay Honeck
> Iowa City, IA
> Pathfinder N56993
> www.AlexisParkInn.com
> "Your Aviation Destination"

[Jeff]

Orval
what are you flying - a comanche ?


Orval Fairbairn wrote:

> In article >,
> "G.R. Patterson III" > wrote:
>
> > Dale wrote:
> > >
> > > I come down a little faster than you though, normally around
> > > 3000-3500fpm. <G>
> >
> > If I try more than about 1,000 fpm, the CHTs get out of the green on the low
> > side pretty quick.
> >
> > George Patterson
> > A woman's perfect breakfast occurs when she's sitting at the table
> > sipping
> > gourmet coffee while looking at pictures of her son on the cover of
> > Sports
> > Illustrated, her daughter on the cover of Business Week, her boyfriend
> > on
> > the cover of Playgirl, and her husband on the back of the milk carton.
>
> I always keep at least cruise power on when descending, until I descend
> low enough to maintain 2300/23", gradually enriching the mixture as I
> descand. I like to start descent 20-40 miles out, letting the speed
> increase, to make up for speed lost in climb. With normal cruise about
> 150 mph IAS at 10000, I can build up to about 170-180 MPH on descent (no
> worry, because redline is 230 MPH). That way, there is no spiralling
> down at destination or cylinder cooling.

[John E. Carty]

"Wayne" > wrote in message
...
> 1 mile high is a pressure of around 12.2 PSI. so dropping from 5280'
to
> sea level (14.7 PSI) (splash) would make a 2-1/2 PSI increase in pressure.
> If you did that in 1 minute, then that would be 5280 FPM decent rate.
>
> Compare to S.C.U.B.A. It's not that hard on the ears. In sea water,
> every 33 feet is equal to 1 atmosphere of air (14.7PSI) A realitively fast
> decent (2 minute) 132' would be like dropping around 23-1/2 times faster
or
> 124,000 FPM A 58.8PSI increase in less than 2 minutes and it's not that
hard
> to do.
>
> Anyone seen that girl that did that free dive to, I forget 500 feet
deep
> or some crazy amount like that?
>
> Try it with a cold and it can get real uncomfortable though.

> The trip back up is where you need to go slowly or risk the bends.
Won't happen in a free dive. This is a result of taking a breath from some
depth (as little as 4 feet down) and then not exhaling when returning to the
surface, or staying at a certain depth for a long period of time and not
using decompression stops on the way back up :-)

>I have only ever
> dropped fast like that a few times in a plane. What's that equal out to in
a
> 160 nmph dive? I never realized an altimeter could move that fast.
>
> What a great picture though. Next time I go far away, I will have to
> hold the altitude, and get a shot like that. Yours turned out very well.
> That was through a window?
> Wayne
>
>
>
> > > Benefits of a big head, I guess. ;-)
> >
> > You routinely descent at 3500 feet per minute, Ben?
> >
> > My ears never bother me in normal flight, but dropping *that* fast might
> > cause someone some pretty severe discomfort.
> > --
>
>

[Peter Duniho]

"John E. Carty" > wrote in message
.. .
> The trip back up is where you need to go slowly or risk the bends.
> Won't happen in a free dive. This is a result of taking a breath from some
> depth (as little as 4 feet down) and then not exhaling when returning to
the
> surface

The "bends" result solely from too rapid an ascent, whereas holding your
breath is a problem no matter how slowly you ascend. The two are both
dangerous, but are not the same thing.

Otherwise, your point is accurate as far as I know.

Pete

[Mike O'Malley]

"Jay Honeck" > wrote in message news:<DS_ib.770859$Ho3.201262@sccrnsc03>...
> > >Don't your ears bother you?
> >
> > One thing I noticed when I started flying was that my ears stopped popping
> > after about 20 hours. I thought it was normal to get acclimated, but when
> > I mentioned it to some other local pilots they said they all still have
> > to clear their ears.
> >
> > Benefits of a big head, I guess. ;-)
>
> You routinely descent at 3500 feet per minute, Ben?
>
> My ears never bother me in normal flight, but dropping *that* fast might
> cause someone some pretty severe discomfort.


Couple of things; You think 10.5 seems high? Try spending 300 hours
or so not getting above 600 agl, then going up to the "high" altitude
of 1200'! When I looked at the altimeter, it hit me that, hey, I used
to think this was LOW altitude. And this was just from a summer
towing banners. I can only imagine what those Ag pilots think!

Two, a friend of mine used to fly jumpers in a King Air. Surface to
14,000 and back in about 10 minutes, most of it in a climb. He had to
be going down over 6000 fpm. After a few hundered hours of that, his
ear drums had so much scar tissue on them that they wouldn't 'seal'
enough to cause pain. Don't know how true it was, but that's what he
told me, only way I can think of he could manage to do that day after
day.

--
Mike

[Dale]

In article >,
"G.R. Patterson III" > wrote:


> If I try more than about 1,000 fpm, the CHTs get out of the green on the low
> side pretty quick.

MP just above bottom of the green, RPM bottom of the green or a little
lower, lean to peak.

--
Dale L. Falk

There is nothing - absolutely nothing - half so much worth doing
as simply messing around with airplanes.

http://home.gci.net/~sncdfalk/flying.html

[Dale]

In article <9I_ib.130302$%h1.131919@sccrnsc02>,
"Jay Honeck" > wrote:

> > I come down a little faster than you though, normally around
> > 3000-3500fpm. <G>
>
> Crikey!
>
> Don't your ears bother you?

Eh, valsalva on way down. Skydivers in freefall are doing 10000 to
12000 fpm.

--
Dale L. Falk

There is nothing - absolutely nothing - half so much worth doing
as simply messing around with airplanes.

http://home.gci.net/~sncdfalk/flying.html

[DiveWrex]

> Won't happen in a free dive. This is a result of taking a breath from some
> depth (as little as 4 feet down) and then not exhaling when returning to
the
> surface, or staying at a certain depth for a long period of time and not
> using decompression stops on the way back up :-)
>

Not entirely accurate, but close. Freediving rarely results in bends (aka
DCS, decompression sickness), as you a point out. The other condition (DCI,
decompression illness) includes "overexpansion injury", or poppin' a lung in
the vernacular. This also rarely affects freedivers as the volume in their
lungs decreases with depth, and expands back to near the original volume
upon ascent (unless they cheat and take a hit off a scuba tank at depth.)

Breathing compressed air at depth really loads up your tissues with
nitrogen, putting one at higher risk. But the root cause of DCS is the
nitrogen coming out of solution (your tissues) too rapidly, no matter what
the amount or where it came from. People can and do get bent (DCS)
freediving.

--Matthew

[Dylan Smith]

On Tue, 14 Oct 2003 22:35:15 GMT, Jay Honeck > wrote:
>You routinely descent at 3500 feet per minute, Ben?
>
>My ears never bother me in normal flight, but dropping *that* fast might
>cause someone some pretty severe discomfort.

Funnily enough, it's never bothered me when slower descents have.

When towing gliders for a busy glider club, I used to find some sink and
spiral down in the sink. I could get the VSI (+-6000 feet/min model) to
peg down if I did that. Never bothered me in the slightest. Nor did spins
which have a similar descent rate in the planes I've done them in.

However, slow descents make my ears pop!

--
Dylan Smith, Castletown, Isle of Man
Flying: http://www.dylansmith.net
Frontier Elite Universe: http://www.alioth.net
"Maintain thine airspeed, lest the ground come up and smite thee"

[Dylan Smith]

On Tue, 14 Oct 2003 20:17:03 -0400, G.R. Patterson III >
wrote:
>Dale wrote:
>>
>> I come down a little faster than you though, normally around
>> 3000-3500fpm. <G>
>
>If I try more than about 1,000 fpm, the CHTs get out of the green on the low
>side pretty quick.

If you're coming down because you need to come down without letting the
CHTs get too low, you can always spiral (that's what we did when towing
gliders behind a Pawnee). The best spiral technique I found for the Pawnee
was this. The plane has quite a lot of dihedral, so I made the higher wing
almost perpendicular to the horizon and pulled, maintaining Va. 6000fpm
down was easy (particularly in sink).

The main problem was glider up, spiral down, glider up, spiral down on
a hot day got tiring very very quickly even for someone in their 20s and
in good physical condition. I made some of my worst landings in my poor
C140 after flying home after a day of glider towing.

At the club I tow for now, things aren't nearly as hectic and we also have
a winch, so I just enjoy the view and make an unhurried power descent.

--
Dylan Smith, Castletown, Isle of Man
Flying: http://www.dylansmith.net
Frontier Elite Universe: http://www.alioth.net
"Maintain thine airspeed, lest the ground come up and smite thee"

[Dylan Smith]

On Wed, 15 Oct 2003 02:04:38 GMT, Mike Rapoport >
wrote:
>Well, the hill behind my house in NV is over 10,600'...

Ah, but you cheat. You have turbines and pressurization :-)

--
Dylan Smith, Castletown, Isle of Man
Flying: http://www.dylansmith.net
Frontier Elite Universe: http://www.alioth.net
"Maintain thine airspeed, lest the ground come up and smite thee"

[Stefan]

Dylan Smith wrote:
>
> At the club I tow for now, things aren't nearly as hectic and we also have
> a winch, so I just enjoy the view and make an unhurried power descent.

Don't the glider pilots hate you for this? Or are the paying for tow
altitude rather than tow time? But then the club would hate you...

Stefan

[mike regish]

Ascending while holding your breath (a breath taken from a tank at a deeper
level) won't cause the bends. It will burst your lungs-or something to that
affect- as the enclosed air in your lungs expands under decreasing pressure.
If you take your breath and hold it a tthe surface, descend and then ascend,
there is no problem with that as your lungs are at capacity at the surface
already.

mike regish

"Peter Duniho" > wrote in message
...
> "John E. Carty" > wrote in message
> .. .
> > The trip back up is where you need to go slowly or risk the bends.
> > Won't happen in a free dive. This is a result of taking a breath from
some
> > depth (as little as 4 feet down) and then not exhaling when returning to
> the
> > surface
>
> The "bends" result solely from too rapid an ascent, whereas holding your
> breath is a problem no matter how slowly you ascend. The two are both
> dangerous, but are not the same thing.
>
> Otherwise, your point is accurate as far as I know.
>
> Pete
>
>

[mike regish]

Disregard my previous response. I misread your post.

mike regish

"Peter Duniho" > wrote in message
...
> "John E. Carty" > wrote in message
> .. .
> > The trip back up is where you need to go slowly or risk the bends.
> > Won't happen in a free dive. This is a result of taking a breath from
some
> > depth (as little as 4 feet down) and then not exhaling when returning to
> the
> > surface
>
> The "bends" result solely from too rapid an ascent, whereas holding your
> breath is a problem no matter how slowly you ascend. The two are both
> dangerous, but are not the same thing.
>
> Otherwise, your point is accurate as far as I know.
>
> Pete
>
>

[mike regish]

Must not have been clearing his ears on the way up or down. If you clear
your ears, there will be no unequal pressure on either side to cause any
damage whatsoever. That's what the eustacian tube is there for.

mike regish

"Mike O'Malley" > wrote in message
om...

>
> Two, a friend of mine used to fly jumpers in a King Air. Surface to
> 14,000 and back in about 10 minutes, most of it in a climb. He had to
> be going down over 6000 fpm. After a few hundered hours of that, his
> ear drums had so much scar tissue on them that they wouldn't 'seal'
> enough to cause pain. Don't know how true it was, but that's what he
> told me, only way I can think of he could manage to do that day after
> day.
>
> --
> Mike

[Jay Honeck]

> That was through a window?

Yep. Photoshop does a good job of taking away that "Plexiglass haze" look,
no?
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[G.R. Patterson III]

Dylan Smith wrote:
>
> If you're coming down because you need to come down without letting the
> CHTs get too low, you can always spiral (that's what we did when towing
> gliders behind a Pawnee).

I only had to do that once. Actually, I don't run into very many cases where I
need to descend a lot since they set up the DC ADIZ. I used to sometimes shoot
over the top of the class-B coming back from points south. Now, I take the low
road.

George Patterson
A woman's perfect breakfast occurs when she's sitting at the table sipping
gourmet coffee while looking at pictures of her son on the cover of Sports
Illustrated, her daughter on the cover of Business Week, her boyfriend on
the cover of Playgirl, and her husband on the back of the milk carton.

[Jay Honeck]

> > With hundreds of hours in the air over
> > the last nine years, my kids are old pros that only rarely look out the
> > windows anymore.
>
> That's just because they can't see anything but sky with that wing in the
way.

Nah. It's kinda sad, but I suppose it's like eating ice cream at every
meal. Pretty soon even ice cream would get boring...

They perk up when I let 'em sit in the front seat -- but getting Mary to
relinquish the co-pilot's spot ain't easy!
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[Jay Honeck]

> This picture I took over Phoenix 2 weeks ago at 12,500 ft, we flew over
the
> Phoenix class B and started our decent about 20 miles out at 500 fpm on
the far
> side of Phoenix..
> http://216.158.136.206/newplane/phoenix.jpg
>
> There is allot less color to see on this side of the country.
> We use an the Olympus E-10 digital camera for pictures.

One thing I've found makes a HUGE difference with digital photography is to
NOT get the wing in the picture. My digital autofocus usually locks onto the
wing, and makes everything else in the background (which is what you're
aiming at!) look fuzzy.

Also, Photoshop does a much better job of adjusting color, brightness and
contrast if you don't have a big, white wing in the picture.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[Mike Rapoport]

Actually I hike up. No cheating be me!

Mike
MU-2


"Dylan Smith" > wrote in message
...
> On Wed, 15 Oct 2003 02:04:38 GMT, Mike Rapoport
>
> wrote:
> >Well, the hill behind my house in NV is over 10,600'...
>
> Ah, but you cheat. You have turbines and pressurization :-)
>
> --
> Dylan Smith, Castletown, Isle of Man
> Flying: http://www.dylansmith.net
> Frontier Elite Universe: http://www.alioth.net
> "Maintain thine airspeed, lest the ground come up and smite thee"
>

[Peter Duniho]

"Jay Honeck" > wrote in message
news:m4cjb.784881$uu5.136505@sccrnsc04...
> One thing I've found makes a HUGE difference with digital photography is
to
> NOT get the wing in the picture.

Actually, that's not a "digital photography" thing. There are a number of
digital cameras that won't have that problem, and a number of film cameras
that will. It all depends on how the autofocus works, and how you use the
camera.

Pete

[John E. Carty]

"mike regish" > wrote in message
news:HNajb.136846$%h1.138365@sccrnsc02...
> Ascending while holding your breath (a breath taken from a tank at a
deeper
> level) won't cause the bends. It will burst your lungs-or something to
that
> affect-

It can cause an air embolism, which means the air bubbles in your blood can
expand to the point where they block your blood vessels.

>as the enclosed air in your lungs expands under decreasing pressure.
> If you take your breath and hold it a tthe surface, descend and then
ascend,
> there is no problem with that as your lungs are at capacity at the surface
> already.
>
> mike regish
>
> "Peter Duniho" > wrote in message
> ...
> > "John E. Carty" > wrote in message
> > .. .
> > > The trip back up is where you need to go slowly or risk the bends.
> > > Won't happen in a free dive. This is a result of taking a breath from
> some
> > > depth (as little as 4 feet down) and then not exhaling when returning
to
> > the
> > > surface
> >
> > The "bends" result solely from too rapid an ascent, whereas holding your
> > breath is a problem no matter how slowly you ascend. The two are both
> > dangerous, but are not the same thing.
> >
> > Otherwise, your point is accurate as far as I know.
> >
> > Pete
> >
> >
>
>

[mike regish]

Could that also happen with a breath taken at the surface? What kind of
conditions would cause this?

mike regish

"John E. Carty" > wrote in message
...
>
> "mike regish" > wrote in message
> news:HNajb.136846$%h1.138365@sccrnsc02...
> > Ascending while holding your breath (a breath taken from a tank at a
> deeper
> > level) won't cause the bends. It will burst your lungs-or something to
> that
> > affect-
>
> It can cause an air embolism, which means the air bubbles in your blood
can
> expand to the point where they block your blood vessels.
>
> >as the enclosed air in your lungs expands under decreasing pressure.
> > If you take your breath and hold it a tthe surface, descend and then
> ascend,
> > there is no problem with that as your lungs are at capacity at the
surface
> > already.
> >
> > mike regish
> >
> > "Peter Duniho" > wrote in message
> > ...
> > > "John E. Carty" > wrote in message
> > > .. .
> > > > The trip back up is where you need to go slowly or risk the bends.
> > > > Won't happen in a free dive. This is a result of taking a breath
from
> > some
> > > > depth (as little as 4 feet down) and then not exhaling when
returning
> to
> > > the
> > > > surface
> > >
> > > The "bends" result solely from too rapid an ascent, whereas holding
your
> > > breath is a problem no matter how slowly you ascend. The two are both
> > > dangerous, but are not the same thing.
> > >
> > > Otherwise, your point is accurate as far as I know.
> > >
> > > Pete
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
>
>

[John E. Carty]

"mike regish" > wrote in message
. net...
> Could that also happen with a breath taken at the surface? What kind of
> conditions would cause this?
>
> mike regish

It can happen, from what I remember, anytime time you take a breath from 4
feet or more under the water and then ascend without exhaling. Took dive
lessons in college for PE requirements, but that was a VERY long time ago
:-)

>
> "John E. Carty" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > "mike regish" > wrote in message
> > news:HNajb.136846$%h1.138365@sccrnsc02...
> > > Ascending while holding your breath (a breath taken from a tank at a
> > deeper
> > > level) won't cause the bends. It will burst your lungs-or something to
> > that
> > > affect-
> >
> > It can cause an air embolism, which means the air bubbles in your blood
> can
> > expand to the point where they block your blood vessels.
> >
> > >as the enclosed air in your lungs expands under decreasing pressure.
> > > If you take your breath and hold it a tthe surface, descend and then
> > ascend,
> > > there is no problem with that as your lungs are at capacity at the
> surface
> > > already.
> > >
> > > mike regish
> > >
> > > "Peter Duniho" > wrote in message
> > > ...
> > > > "John E. Carty" > wrote in message
> > > > .. .
> > > > > The trip back up is where you need to go slowly or risk the bends.
> > > > > Won't happen in a free dive. This is a result of taking a breath
> from
> > > some
> > > > > depth (as little as 4 feet down) and then not exhaling when
> returning
> > to
> > > > the
> > > > > surface
> > > >
> > > > The "bends" result solely from too rapid an ascent, whereas holding
> your
> > > > breath is a problem no matter how slowly you ascend. The two are
both
> > > > dangerous, but are not the same thing.
> > > >
> > > > Otherwise, your point is accurate as far as I know.
> > > >
> > > > Pete
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
>
>

[john smith]

"vincent p. norris" wrote:
> Do those kids still say "Are we there yet?"

That doesn't bother me. It's when they say "I REALLY have to go to the
bathroom!!!", and the piddle-packs won't solve the problem.

[Peter R.]

Peter Duniho ) wrote:

> "Jay Honeck" > wrote in message
> news:m4cjb.784881$uu5.136505@sccrnsc04...
> > One thing I've found makes a HUGE difference with digital photography is
> to
> > NOT get the wing in the picture.
>
> Actually, that's not a "digital photography" thing. There are a number of
> digital cameras that won't have that problem, and a number of film cameras
> that will. It all depends on how the autofocus works, and how you use the
> camera.

My digital camera, an Olympus, has an infinity focus setting that overrides
the autofocus.

--
Peter












----== Posted via Newsfeed.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeed.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! >100,000 Newsgroups
---= 19 East/West-Coast Specialized Servers - Total Privacy via Encryption =---

[Peter R.]

vincent p. norris ) wrote:

<snip>
> If you go up to 10 K next time you have a head cold, you'll discover
> you are NOT "acclimated." DON'T DO IT. It's excruciatingly painful.

Isn't that why the miracle drug, Pseudoephedrine (aka Sudafed), was
invented?


--
Peter












----== Posted via Newsfeed.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeed.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! >100,000 Newsgroups
---= 19 East/West-Coast Specialized Servers - Total Privacy via Encryption =---

[Orval Fairbairn]

In article >, Jeff >
wrote:

> Orval
> what are you flying - a comanche ?


Nope -- a Johnson Rocket.




> Orval Fairbairn wrote:
>
> > In article >,
> > "G.R. Patterson III" > wrote:
> >
> > > Dale wrote:
> > > >
> > > > I come down a little faster than you though, normally around
> > > > 3000-3500fpm. <G>
> > >
> > > If I try more than about 1,000 fpm, the CHTs get out of the green on the
> > > low
> > > side pretty quick.
> > >
> > > George Patterson
> > > A woman's perfect breakfast occurs when she's sitting at the table
> > > sipping
> > > gourmet coffee while looking at pictures of her son on the cover of
> > > Sports
> > > Illustrated, her daughter on the cover of Business Week, her
> > > boyfriend
> > > on
> > > the cover of Playgirl, and her husband on the back of the milk
> > > carton.
> >
> > I always keep at least cruise power on when descending, until I descend
> > low enough to maintain 2300/23", gradually enriching the mixture as I
> > descand. I like to start descent 20-40 miles out, letting the speed
> > increase, to make up for speed lost in climb. With normal cruise about
> > 150 mph IAS at 10000, I can build up to about 170-180 MPH on descent (no
> > worry, because redline is 230 MPH). That way, there is no spiralling
> > down at destination or cylinder cooling.
>

[Jeff]

Not with my camera, the Olympus E-10 has a aiming dot, the focus is where the
dot is. My aiming point was actually downtown Phoenix but its so small your
can't see it in the picture.
Its actually just pretty hazy there from higher altitudes, SoCal is the same
way.

This picture I took over Oklahoma, I was at 8500 ft I think, it has the wing in
it but the colors are good. I could touch it up with photo shop but it would
take the natural look from it.
http://216.158.136.80/newplane/trip/image5.html

I actually prefer flying over the midwest area, flying was great, there are
actually things to see, not like the desert, where it all starts to look the
same.



Jay Honeck wrote:

> > This picture I took over Phoenix 2 weeks ago at 12,500 ft, we flew over
> the
> > Phoenix class B and started our decent about 20 miles out at 500 fpm on
> the far
> > side of Phoenix..
> > http://216.158.136.206/newplane/phoenix.jpg
> >
> > There is allot less color to see on this side of the country.
> > We use an the Olympus E-10 digital camera for pictures.
>
> One thing I've found makes a HUGE difference with digital photography is to
> NOT get the wing in the picture. My digital autofocus usually locks onto the
> wing, and makes everything else in the background (which is what you're
> aiming at!) look fuzzy.
>
> Also, Photoshop does a much better job of adjusting color, brightness and
> contrast if you don't have a big, white wing in the picture.
> --
> Jay Honeck
> Iowa City, IA
> Pathfinder N56993
> www.AlexisParkInn.com
> "Your Aviation Destination"

[Jeff]

Olympus makes some nice cameras.
The new E-20 I think it is, is suppose to be super crisp. We payed $1800 for the E-10
and it does everything we need so we didn't upgrade to the E-20. The E-10 has more
functions then we actually use.

"Peter R." wrote:

> Peter Duniho ) wrote:
>
> > "Jay Honeck" > wrote in message
> > news:m4cjb.784881$uu5.136505@sccrnsc04...
> > > One thing I've found makes a HUGE difference with digital photography is
> > to
> > > NOT get the wing in the picture.
> >
> > Actually, that's not a "digital photography" thing. There are a number of
> > digital cameras that won't have that problem, and a number of film cameras
> > that will. It all depends on how the autofocus works, and how you use the
> > camera.
>
> My digital camera, an Olympus, has an infinity focus setting that overrides
> the autofocus.
>
> --
> Peter
>
> ----== Posted via Newsfeed.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
> http://www.newsfeed.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! >100,000 Newsgroups
> ---= 19 East/West-Coast Specialized Servers - Total Privacy via Encryption =---

[Jeff]

We may have to have a photo contest amoungst every one :)
who ever submits the best photo wins a free night at your place :)

(hey its good advertising for you:)
:)

Jeff

Jay Honeck wrote:

> > This picture I took over Phoenix 2 weeks ago at 12,500 ft, we flew over
> the
> > Phoenix class B and started our decent about 20 miles out at 500 fpm on
> the far
> > side of Phoenix..
> > http://216.158.136.206/newplane/phoenix.jpg
> >
> > There is allot less color to see on this side of the country.
> > We use an the Olympus E-10 digital camera for pictures.
>
> One thing I've found makes a HUGE difference with digital photography is to
> NOT get the wing in the picture. My digital autofocus usually locks onto the
> wing, and makes everything else in the background (which is what you're
> aiming at!) look fuzzy.
>
> Also, Photoshop does a much better job of adjusting color, brightness and
> contrast if you don't have a big, white wing in the picture.
> --
> Jay Honeck
> Iowa City, IA
> Pathfinder N56993
> www.AlexisParkInn.com
> "Your Aviation Destination"

[Trent Moorehead]

"Peter R." > wrote in message
...
> vincent p. norris ) wrote:
>
> <snip>
> > If you go up to 10 K next time you have a head cold, you'll discover
> > you are NOT "acclimated." DON'T DO IT. It's excruciatingly painful.
>
> Isn't that why the miracle drug, Pseudoephedrine (aka Sudafed), was
> invented?

Well, sometimes you'll take it and it doesn't work.

During my training, I was getting over a head cold and felt I was pretty
much done with it. Just to be safe, I took a pseudoephedrine to make sure
that I didn't have any problems. Things were fine during the climb and
maneuvers, but when I descended to pattern altitude, my head felt like it
was going to explode! It suprised me how much it hurt, it felt like my
sinuses were going to pop.

Since this incident, I try not to fly within 2 weeks of having a head cold.

-Trent
PP-ASEL

[Peter R.]

Jeff ) wrote:

> We may have to have a photo contest amoungst every one :)
> who ever submits the best photo wins a free night at your place :)

Sounds good, but I vote that Rosspilot is automatically disqualified from
this contest. :)

--
Peter












----== Posted via Newsfeed.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeed.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! >100,000 Newsgroups
---= 19 East/West-Coast Specialized Servers - Total Privacy via Encryption =---

[Jeff]

I had to go to his site to see what he does, I agree with you after reading this
"OUR QUALITY
Rosspilot uses medium format cameras with a gyro-stabilizer to produce the industry's
highest quality images. Digital files, computer artwork, and other imaging services
are available."

:)



"Peter R." wrote:

> Jeff ) wrote:
>
> > We may have to have a photo contest amoungst every one :)
> > who ever submits the best photo wins a free night at your place :)
>
> Sounds good, but I vote that Rosspilot is automatically disqualified from
> this contest. :)
>
> --
> Peter
>
> ----== Posted via Newsfeed.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
> http://www.newsfeed.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! >100,000 Newsgroups
> ---= 19 East/West-Coast Specialized Servers - Total Privacy via Encryption =---

[G.R. Patterson III]

john smith wrote:
>
> That doesn't bother me. It's when they say "I REALLY have to go to the
> bathroom!!!", and the piddle-packs won't solve the problem.

Had that happen once at 10,500' smack dab in the middle of the Bristol class-D
(or, at least, the airspace over it). I'm looking down at the Tri-cities runways
when that line comes out of my stepson.

He had to change shorts at Rogersville.

I guess I could've declared an emergency due to hydraulic system failure.

George Patterson
A woman's perfect breakfast occurs when she's sitting at the table sipping
gourmet coffee while looking at pictures of her son on the cover of Sports
Illustrated, her daughter on the cover of Business Week, her boyfriend on
the cover of Playgirl, and her husband on the back of the milk carton.

[G.R. Patterson III]

Jeff wrote:
>
> I had to go to his site to see what he does, I agree with you ...

I've been to his stand in the city. Yep, keep him out of it.

George Patterson
A woman's perfect breakfast occurs when she's sitting at the table sipping
gourmet coffee while looking at pictures of her son on the cover of Sports
Illustrated, her daughter on the cover of Business Week, her boyfriend on
the cover of Playgirl, and her husband on the back of the milk carton.

[Jay Honeck]

> During my training, I was getting over a head cold and felt I was pretty
> much done with it. Just to be safe, I took a pseudoephedrine to make sure
> that I didn't have any problems. Things were fine during the climb and
> maneuvers, but when I descended to pattern altitude, my head felt like it
> was going to explode! It suprised me how much it hurt, it felt like my
> sinuses were going to pop.

I've only experienced this once, this past summer. I actually managed to
get a cold WITH my hay fever -- something I had not thought possible. (How
does a rhinovirus survive long enough in nasal passages that are constantly
draining due to allergies?)

Same experience -- going up was fine. Coming down, I had to take it the
descent at about 200 fpm -- and even then I thought the only thing holding
my brains in was my headset...
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[Wayne]

I realize that. The more nitrogen you take in, the more of a problem it
is during an ascent. One breath of air, as in a free dive won't generally
cause too much trouble. Holding your breath on the way up rather than
letting the gas go as your lungs expand is another matter, pneumothorax (sp)
I believe the term is. That's not the bends though. I was referring to the 2
minute decent to 132 feet though, not a breath hold. I personally have done
that, I cannot hold my breath like that.

> The trip back up is where you need to go slowly or risk the bends.
> Won't happen in a free dive. This is a result of taking a breath from some
> depth (as little as 4 feet down) and then not exhaling when returning to
the
> surface, or staying at a certain depth for a long period of time and not
> using decompression stops on the way back up :-)

[Michael 182]

I know, I know - it's way OT, but I'm about to spend significant money on a
digital camera, and it seems like the people in here may know more than any
advice I'm getting from friends. I posted over on alt.photography, but it is
a pretty quiet newsgroup.

So, here are some parameters:

< $1,000, including enough memory to make the camera useful

10x or greater zoom for youth sports - soccer and basketball

ability to increase zoom for wildlife, nature photos - maybe attach to my
Kowa TSN 822 scope

use for pictures in my 182

What else should I be asking? Is this enough info to make a decision? I am
leaning toward the Fuji S-5000. Any opinions?

Thanks,

Michael

[mike regish]

Canon just came out with a 6 megapixel "SLR" digital that will use all of
the Canon lenses from their 35mm line. This includes sever image stabilized
lenses/ I've seen it for $899 with a 55-80mm lens. That is slightly longer
than it would be on 35mm due to the imaging chip's size. You can have
something like 50 or 60 lenses to chose from. It's the Canon EOS-300D
Digital Rebel.

Look around for prices, but here's a link-if it comes through.

http://www.everyprice.com/cgi-bin/search/hyperseek.cgi?search=CAT&Category=Consumer%20Electronics%3ADigital%20Camera s%3ACanon%3ARebel%20Digital%20Eos-300D&Qualifier=
mike regish

"Michael 182" > wrote in message
. net...
> I know, I know - it's way OT, but I'm about to spend significant money on
a
> digital camera, and it seems like the people in here may know more than
any
> advice I'm getting from friends. I posted over on alt.photography, but it
is
> a pretty quiet newsgroup.
>
> So, here are some parameters:
>
> < $1,000, including enough memory to make the camera useful
>
> 10x or greater zoom for youth sports - soccer and basketball
>
> ability to increase zoom for wildlife, nature photos - maybe attach to my
> Kowa TSN 822 scope
>
> use for pictures in my 182
>
> What else should I be asking? Is this enough info to make a decision? I am
> leaning toward the Fuji S-5000. Any opinions?
>
> Thanks,
>
> Michael
>
>

[Jay Honeck]

> Canon just came out with a 6 megapixel "SLR" digital that will use all of
> the Canon lenses from their 35mm line. This includes sever image
stabilized
> lenses/ I've seen it for $899 with a 55-80mm lens. That is slightly longer
> than it would be on 35mm due to the imaging chip's size. You can have
> something like 50 or 60 lenses to chose from. It's the Canon EOS-300D
> Digital Rebel.

That's a great deal, on a great sounding camera, but I want to throw
something in the mix here: Convenience.

I used to own a Nikon SLR. All the bells and whistles, all the lenses. The
pictures it took were stunning.

I never used it.

Well, I shouldn't say "never" -- but it was so big and unwieldy that I never
caught that candid shot at the birthday party, or that image of the fall
colors on my way to work. It was just too danged big to be considered
"portable", and it was a major production to get it set up.

That's why we went with the Canon Elph a couple of years ago, even though
photographically there were superior choices. The danged little thing
actually, REALLY fits in your shirt pocket, has a useful little zoom lens,
easy to use controls, and takes pretty darned good pictures. (All the
pictures on our website were taken with it.)

Best of all, it's ALWAYS in my top pocket, or Mary's purse, waiting to be
used... When it breaks, I'm buying another one. (They've now got it up to
4 megapixels, I think...)

Just something else to consider.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[mike regish]

Very good points. I just bought my first digital. It's a Canon Powershot
A70. While not as small as the Elph, it does fit in my pocket and I take it
just about everywhere. Portability is a bigger factor than most people
realize. But there are times when it just doesn't get quite as much as I'd
like it to. What really tempts me about the Rebel is the capability of using
an image stabilized lens. While not quite as good as a gyro platform, it's
got to be a great help. Have to find out more. And I think you'll find that
for aerial shots, the clearest days are also the bumpiest. It's the nature
of the beast. It's fairly rare, at least around here, to get a clear AND
calm day at the altitudes I like to shoot from. Another thing to consider is
that with a 6 meg camera set to highest resolution (why shoot anything
less?), you're going to need a big card. My CAP unit has a Kodak 6 meg
camera with a 1 gig card in it. I think it's good for about 300 shots, but I
don't know if that's at highest res. Didn't get to play with it much. Don't
know how much a 1 gig card goes for either.

mike regish

"Jay Honeck" > wrote in message
news:tKkjb.140986$%h1.140943@sccrnsc02...
> > Canon just came out with a 6 megapixel "SLR" digital that will use all
of
> > the Canon lenses from their 35mm line. This includes sever image
> stabilized
> > lenses/ I've seen it for $899 with a 55-80mm lens. That is slightly
longer
> > than it would be on 35mm due to the imaging chip's size. You can have
> > something like 50 or 60 lenses to chose from. It's the Canon EOS-300D
> > Digital Rebel.
>
> That's a great deal, on a great sounding camera, but I want to throw
> something in the mix here: Convenience.
>
> I used to own a Nikon SLR. All the bells and whistles, all the lenses.
The
> pictures it took were stunning.
>
> I never used it.
>
> Well, I shouldn't say "never" -- but it was so big and unwieldy that I
never
> caught that candid shot at the birthday party, or that image of the fall
> colors on my way to work. It was just too danged big to be considered
> "portable", and it was a major production to get it set up.
>
> That's why we went with the Canon Elph a couple of years ago, even though
> photographically there were superior choices. The danged little thing
> actually, REALLY fits in your shirt pocket, has a useful little zoom lens,
> easy to use controls, and takes pretty darned good pictures. (All the
> pictures on our website were taken with it.)
>
> Best of all, it's ALWAYS in my top pocket, or Mary's purse, waiting to be
> used... When it breaks, I'm buying another one. (They've now got it up
to
> 4 megapixels, I think...)
>
> Just something else to consider.
> --
> Jay Honeck
> Iowa City, IA
> Pathfinder N56993
> www.AlexisParkInn.com
> "Your Aviation Destination"
>
>

[Chuck]

"Michael 182" > wrote in message
. net...
> I know, I know - it's way OT, but I'm about to spend significant money on
a
> digital camera, and it seems like the people in here may know more than
any
> advice I'm getting from friends. I posted over on alt.photography, but it
is
> a pretty quiet newsgroup.
>


Check out http://www.stevesdigicam.com
He has reviews, sample pics, etc from what seems like every digital camera
known to man! haha
Seriously though, give the website a shot...

[mike regish]

Link doesn't work for me. I get redirected. Sure it's right?

mike regish

"Chuck" > wrote in message
nk.net...
>
> "Michael 182" > wrote in message
> . net...
> > I know, I know - it's way OT, but I'm about to spend significant money
on
> a
> > digital camera, and it seems like the people in here may know more than
> any
> > advice I'm getting from friends. I posted over on alt.photography, but
it
> is
> > a pretty quiet newsgroup.
> >
>
>
> Check out http://www.stevesdigicam.com
> He has reviews, sample pics, etc from what seems like every digital camera
> known to man! haha
> Seriously though, give the website a shot...
>
>

[vincent p. norris]

>> Consider what that means if your engine quits. You have a heck of
>> along time to find a nice big field, and it can be miles away!
>
>I would think that, when circling over an airport, one wouldn't bother
>looking for a nice big field to land in, especially if it meant landing
>miles away.

I meant, and should have said, "... if your engine quits when you're
on a cross-country--especially over mountainous terrain."

Out where Jay lives, you're over an "airport" no matter where you
are--except perhaps downtown Des Moines.

vince norris

[Chuck]

"mike regish" > wrote in message
. net...
> Link doesn't work for me. I get redirected. Sure it's right?
>



Sorry... try this...

http://www.steves-digicams.com/

[StellaStar]

> our opening webpage
>> at www.AlexisParkInn.com. It's really shows our position relative to the
>> airport and other important local attractions.

A friend asks: "and in the Amelia Earhart Suite, does the hot tub have a little
island in it...with skeletons?"

[Jay Honeck]

> A friend asks: "and in the Amelia Earhart Suite, does the hot tub have a
little
> island in it...with skeletons?"

Hmm. We'll have to work on that...

(It's darned near big enough. The hot tub in this suite is 50% bigger than
in our other suites...)
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[Paul Hamilton]

If you want a pocket-sived camera with a 10X zoom, the Kodak DX6490
might be a good bet. Here is a URL (which will need cutting and
pasting:

http://www.kodak.com/eknec/PageQuerier.jhtml;jsessionid=WE03R0IS3QPSFQHIO3JHW GI?pq-path=1336&Submit.x=29&Submit.y=12&pq-locale=en_US&_requestid=13807

I've found the earlier DX4900, when paired with an LCD viewer and
CrystalVue monocular, makes a good wildlife camera. I'd suspect that
the new Kodak would be even better for digiscoping.

Paul

[Don Tuite]

On Thu, 16 Oct 2003 14:30:37 GMT, "Jay Honeck"
> wrote:

>> A friend asks: "and in the Amelia Earhart Suite, does the hot tub have a
>little
>> island in it...with skeletons?"
>
>Hmm. We'll have to work on that...
>
>(It's darned near big enough. The hot tub in this suite is 50% bigger than
>in our other suites...)

It oughta be the suite nobody can find.

Don

[mike regish]

Or that you could get lost in...

mike regish

"Don Tuite" > wrote in message
...
> On Thu, 16 Oct 2003 14:30:37 GMT, "Jay Honeck"
> > wrote:
>
> >> A friend asks: "and in the Amelia Earhart Suite, does the hot tub have
a
> >little
> >> island in it...with skeletons?"
> >
> >Hmm. We'll have to work on that...
> >
> >(It's darned near big enough. The hot tub in this suite is 50% bigger
than
> >in our other suites...)
>
> It oughta be the suite nobody can find.
>
> Don

[Brian Burger]

On Thu, 16 Oct 2003, Jay Honeck wrote:

> > A friend asks: "and in the Amelia Earhart Suite, does the hot tub have a
> little
> > island in it...with skeletons?"
>
> Hmm. We'll have to work on that...
>
> (It's darned near big enough. The hot tub in this suite is 50% bigger than
> in our other suites...)

Use a piece of styrofoam insulation, carve it to look like an island,
paint it sand-coloured, stick a couple of plastic palm trees to it, and a
pair of plastic figures painted to look like Amelia & whats-his-name...

Then let it float around in the hot tub. Look surprised when guests say,
"There's something floating in our hot tub!" and explain, "Wow, you found
Amelia Earhart; folks have been looking for her for over 60 years!"

:)

(One of my non-flying interests is miniature wargaming; pink styrofoam is
great for hills and other tabletop scenery!)

Brian.

[Bob Fry]

"Jay Honeck" > writes:

> Well, I shouldn't say "never" -- but it was so big and unwieldy that I never
> caught that candid shot at the birthday party, or that image of the fall
> colors on my way to work. It was just too danged big to be considered
> "portable", and it was a major production to get it set up.
>
> That's why we went with the Canon Elph a couple of years ago, even though
> photographically there were superior choices. The danged little thing
> actually, REALLY fits in your shirt pocket, has a useful little zoom lens,
> easy to use controls, and takes pretty darned good pictures. (All the
> pictures on our website were taken with it.)

Exactly so. I got a Canon Powershot S10 3 years ago for that very
reason: the camera that you don't carry around won't take any pictures
at all. I've taken over 1000 pictures with the S10, so have easily
paid for it with savings on film. OK, maybe not, 'cause I wouldn't
have taken so many pix with film.

Some observations:

- I rarely print photos, viewing them on the computer instead. So
more pixels simply means you get to crop more of the original
picture. I'm still happy with 2.1 MP.

- More important to me now are faster startup time, faster time
between shots, more powerful optical zoom, better battery life.

- I usually don't use the LCD display 'cause it runs down the
battery. Get one with a good optical viewfinder too. I only
occasionally use the manual adjust for light quality or exposure. But
control over the flash is critical (force on/force off).

- I really like the panorama feature...this is where you take multiple
overlapping shots, aided by the camera, and software later stitches
them all together. Good fun.

[Jay Honeck]

> Use a piece of styrofoam insulation, carve it to look like an island,
> paint it sand-coloured, stick a couple of plastic palm trees to it, and a
> pair of plastic figures painted to look like Amelia & whats-his-name...
>
> Then let it float around in the hot tub. Look surprised when guests say,
> "There's something floating in our hot tub!" and explain, "Wow, you found
> Amelia Earhart; folks have been looking for her for over 60 years!"

Mary and I are in a constant state of tension over what constitutes
"kitschy" at the hotel. It's a good balance that keeps us from going too
far one way or the other.

For example, I DID manage to mount a giant scale (ten foot wingspan) F4U
Corsair on the lobby wall, as if it's crashing through -- but only just
barely! We went back and forth on that one for months. (It's a guy
versus girl thing. Even now, guys that check in look at the Corsair in
wonder and awe. Women who check in usually just roll their eyes or ignore
it...)

If it were up to me, the place would be all World War II fighters and
bombers. Mary's concept is much more laid back and romantic... (Thus, the
"Pan Am Clipper" and "Amelia Earhart" suites...)

However, in this particular case, I think we would both concur that building
a styrofoam island in the hot tub "crosses the line".

:-)
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[Peter R.]

Bob Fry wrote:

> - I rarely print photos, viewing them on the computer instead. So
> more pixels simply means you get to crop more of the original
> picture. I'm still happy with 2.1 MP.

More pixels means more detail captured so that *when you crop* you still
retain a good quality picture.

I used to have a 2.1mp but I found that cropping more than half the
picture would result in a remaining picture that was too grainy. Having
more megapixels means having more cropping options for those times the
subject was too far away.

--
Peter

[Rick Poole]

Michael,
I've been researching digital cameras for the past year or so waiting for
the right combination of features, performance and price to replace my Canon
A2. The price of all the DSLRs ruled them out immediately. The
performance, mainly focus times and focus accuracy ruled out most of the
others. However, there have been a few new ones mentioned on
http://www.dpreview.com that have greatly improved the focus times, focus
accuracy, and startup times. I think I remember one of the newest ones
mentioned having a 10x zoom. For sports you really need one with fast focus
times and accurate focusing and maybe even continuous focusing. I thought
the Minolta DImage A1 would be the leading candidate for me but the focusing
was too slow and occasionally indicates focus on the subject but it would
actually focus somewhere else. It also eats batteries at an amazing rate!
Checkout the dpreview website, it has a ton of reviews and links to a large
amount of information on digital photography.

Rick Poole


"Michael 182" > wrote in message
. net...
> I know, I know - it's way OT, but I'm about to spend significant money on
a
> digital camera, and it seems like the people in here may know more than
any
> advice I'm getting from friends. I posted over on alt.photography, but it
is
> a pretty quiet newsgroup.
>
> So, here are some parameters:
>
> < $1,000, including enough memory to make the camera useful
>
> 10x or greater zoom for youth sports - soccer and basketball
>
> ability to increase zoom for wildlife, nature photos - maybe attach to my
> Kowa TSN 822 scope
>
> use for pictures in my 182
>
> What else should I be asking? Is this enough info to make a decision? I am
> leaning toward the Fuji S-5000. Any opinions?
>
> Thanks,
>
> Michael
>
>

[Michael 182]

Great site. Thanks. I have a lot of reading to do...

Michael

"Rick Poole" > wrote in message
news:L3Kjb.573595$Oz4.546350@rwcrnsc54...
> Michael,
> I've been researching digital cameras for the past year or so waiting
for
> the right combination of features, performance and price to replace my
Canon
> A2. The price of all the DSLRs ruled them out immediately. The
> performance, mainly focus times and focus accuracy ruled out most of the
> others. However, there have been a few new ones mentioned on
> http://www.dpreview.com that have greatly improved the focus times, focus
> accuracy, and startup times. I think I remember one of the newest ones
> mentioned having a 10x zoom. For sports you really need one with fast
focus
> times and accurate focusing and maybe even continuous focusing. I thought
> the Minolta DImage A1 would be the leading candidate for me but the
focusing
> was too slow and occasionally indicates focus on the subject but it would
> actually focus somewhere else. It also eats batteries at an amazing rate!
> Checkout the dpreview website, it has a ton of reviews and links to a
large
> amount of information on digital photography.
>
> Rick Poole
>
>
> "Michael 182" > wrote in message
> . net...
> > I know, I know - it's way OT, but I'm about to spend significant money
on
> a
> > digital camera, and it seems like the people in here may know more than
> any
> > advice I'm getting from friends. I posted over on alt.photography, but
it
> is
> > a pretty quiet newsgroup.
> >
> > So, here are some parameters:
> >
> > < $1,000, including enough memory to make the camera useful
> >
> > 10x or greater zoom for youth sports - soccer and basketball
> >
> > ability to increase zoom for wildlife, nature photos - maybe attach to
my
> > Kowa TSN 822 scope
> >
> > use for pictures in my 182
> >
> > What else should I be asking? Is this enough info to make a decision? I
am
> > leaning toward the Fuji S-5000. Any opinions?
> >
> > Thanks,
> >
> > Michael
> >
> >
>
>

[Ross Richardson]

I have the Canon Elph 3.2MP and finding it is really nice. I "collect"
several hundred photos, deleting the ones that are bad, and burning them
to a CD. I have a DVD/CD viewer that plays .jpg files. So I watch my
photos on the television. Be careful, a JVC DVD that was promoted to do
this, didn't and I went to a Phillips. JVC help desk confirmed.

Bob Fry wrote:
>
> "Jay Honeck" > writes:
>
> > Well, I shouldn't say "never" -- but it was so big and unwieldy that I never
> > caught that candid shot at the birthday party, or that image of the fall
> > colors on my way to work. It was just too danged big to be considered
> > "portable", and it was a major production to get it set up.
> >
> > That's why we went with the Canon Elph a couple of years ago, even though
> > photographically there were superior choices. The danged little thing
> > actually, REALLY fits in your shirt pocket, has a useful little zoom lens,
> > easy to use controls, and takes pretty darned good pictures. (All the
> > pictures on our website were taken with it.)
>
> Exactly so. I got a Canon Powershot S10 3 years ago for that very
> reason: the camera that you don't carry around won't take any pictures
> at all. I've taken over 1000 pictures with the S10, so have easily
> paid for it with savings on film. OK, maybe not, 'cause I wouldn't
> have taken so many pix with film.
>
> Some observations:
>
> - I rarely print photos, viewing them on the computer instead. So
> more pixels simply means you get to crop more of the original
> picture. I'm still happy with 2.1 MP.
>
> - More important to me now are faster startup time, faster time
> between shots, more powerful optical zoom, better battery life.
>
> - I usually don't use the LCD display 'cause it runs down the
> battery. Get one with a good optical viewfinder too. I only
> occasionally use the manual adjust for light quality or exposure. But
> control over the flash is critical (force on/force off).
>
> - I really like the panorama feature...this is where you take multiple
> overlapping shots, aided by the camera, and software later stitches
> them all together. Good fun.

[EDR]

In article m>, Peter
R. > wrote:

> I used to have a 2.1mp but I found that cropping more than half the
> picture would result in a remaining picture that was too grainy. Having
> more megapixels means having more cropping options for those times the
> subject was too far away.

"Grainy" describes film. (grains of silver-halide crystals)

"Pixilated" describes digital images. (little square elements, pixels,
that make up the ccd image sensor)

[Peter R.]

EDR ) wrote:

> In article m>, Peter
> R. > wrote:
>
> > I used to have a 2.1mp but I found that cropping more than half the
> > picture would result in a remaining picture that was too grainy. Having
> > more megapixels means having more cropping options for those times the
> > subject was too far away.
>
> "Grainy" describes film. (grains of silver-halide crystals)
>
> "Pixilated" describes digital images. (little square elements, pixels,
> that make up the ccd image sensor)

Uh... Pixilated looks grainy to this uneducated, amateur photographer when
the picture is printed out.

But, if it makes you happy I will try to remember to use the technically-
correct term in future posts. :-)

--
Peter












----== Posted via Newsfeed.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeed.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! >100,000 Newsgroups
---= 19 East/West-Coast Specialized Servers - Total Privacy via Encryption =---

[David Dyer-Bennet]

EDR > writes:

> In article m>, Peter
> R. > wrote:
>
> > I used to have a 2.1mp but I found that cropping more than half the
> > picture would result in a remaining picture that was too grainy. Having
> > more megapixels means having more cropping options for those times the
> > subject was too far away.
>
> "Grainy" describes film. (grains of silver-halide crystals)
>
> "Pixilated" describes digital images. (little square elements, pixels,
> that make up the ccd image sensor)

What you're most often actually seeing that looks sort-of like film
grain in digital photos is CCD noise. "Pixelated" tends to mean you
can see all the pixel boundaries, which dosn't happen with modern
techniques (bicubic interpolation and such).

(And there does seem to be a word "pixilated", but it means
"whimsical, prankish, behaving as if mentally unbalanced, very
eccentric", deriving from "pixie", and doesn't seem to have anything
to do with picture elements).

I'd venture to guess that "grainy" is going to hang around in the
language to describe that appearance of digital photos.
--
David Dyer-Bennet, >, <www.dd-b.net/dd-b/>
RKBA: <noguns-nomoney.com> <www.dd-b.net/carry/>
Photos: <dd-b.lighthunters.net> Snapshots: <www.dd-b.net/dd-b/SnapshotAlbum/>
Dragaera/Steven Brust: <dragaera.info/>

[Peter Duniho]

"EDR" > wrote in message
...
> "Grainy" describes film. (grains of silver-halide crystals)
>
> "Pixilated" describes digital images. (little square elements, pixels,
> that make up the ccd image sensor)

Not really.

Digital pictures have both "grain" and "pixelation". As David notes,
"pixelation" refers to a very specific situation, in which the pixels are
large enough to differentiate. You can still get "grain" in a digital
photo, when there is not enough light to take a good picture and noise
starts taking over the CCD's response.

What Peter was referring to is "pixelation", but it's incorrect to say that
there's no such thing as "grain" in digital photography. There is, it just
doesn't come from literal grains of crystals in the film.

Pete

[Nils Rostedt]

"Michael 182" wrote ...
> So, here are some parameters:
> < $1,000, including enough memory to make the camera useful
>
> 10x or greater zoom for youth sports - soccer and basketball
>
> ability to increase zoom for wildlife, nature photos - maybe attach to my
> Kowa TSN 822 scope
>
> use for pictures in my 182
>
> What else should I be asking? Is this enough info to make a decision?

Well, my answer is: It depends on your quality standards.

Within your budget, I guess you can find a decent "prosumer" digital (i.e.
with a fixed zoom lens) that is good for normal size enlargements in good
lighting conditions. But if you want the ability to do make really big sharp
enlargements (or part-frame crops) and get noise-free (grain-free) pictures
also in less bright conditions, you need to look at a digital SLR. The Canon
300D is a breakthrough camera is this area, but with a decent memory ( for
example 2 pcs 512 MB CF cards ) it still exceeds the $1000 mark including
lens. On the other hand it delivers as good pictures as almost any 35 mm
film camera, unless you would use the very best professional lenses and
films.

The prosumer cameras have some drawbacks compared to the dSLR: The image has
more noise (or"grain") especially at high sensitivity settings used in low
light. There is often a noticeable shutter delay, which makes action shots
(sports, wildlife) harder. The viewfinder (optical or electronic) is not as
good. On the plus side, it is more compact and with a flip-out LCD
viewfinder it enables shooting from uncommon viewing angles.

Hope this helps.
/Nils

[JerryK]

Did you find it harder or easier to navigate visually at that altitude?


"Jay Honeck" > wrote in message
news:53_ib.777467$uu5.134981@sccrnsc04...
> I've spent a fair number of hours droning along at 10,500 feet in the
> MidWest. (For you mountain-flyer-types that think 10.5 K is LOW, that
> altitude is a lot different here in Iowa, cuz it puts you almost two miles
> above Mother Earth.) It's usually quite boring, and is something I
> normally do only en route.
>
> However, I've never actually maintained that altitude *over* an area I was
> familiar with. This past weekend we were on our way back from
leaf-peeping
> in Wisconsin, and the visibility was just stunning -- crystal clear, azure
> blue skies, with no humidity and temperatures in the upper 60s -- so it
> seemed like a perfect time to get some aerial photos of Iowa City.
>
> (I've been trying for some time to get a picture for our website that had
> enough scale to show the whole area, and our position in it -- but have
just
> never had the right opportunity.)
>
> A few things I discovered:
>
> 1. Two miles up is actually TOO high for good photography with a standard
> Canon Elph digital camera. The pictures I found to be best were taken
> around 8,000 feet as we slowly spiraled down to land.
>
> 2. The kids thought it was great! With hundreds of hours in the air over
> the last nine years, my kids are old pros that only rarely look out the
> windows anymore. At 10.5K over familiar territory, however, they were like
> newbie passengers again, squealing and pointing. We were all amazed at
what
> we could see.
>
> 3. Spiraling down from 2 miles over the airport takes a LONG time! I
tried
> to maintain a nice, easy 300 - 400 fpm descent, which meant circling the
> airport for twenty minutes in order to land!
>
> 4. It was fun watching the landing pattern from a "God's Eye" point of
> view.
>
> It's not something you would normally think of doing, but if you get a
> chance viewing your home turf from WAY up high is kinda fun!
>
> (And you can take a peek at the picture I selected for our opening webpage
> at www.AlexisParkInn.com. It's really shows our position relative to the
> airport and other important local attractions. For our potential guests,
> this picture really is worth a thousand words...)
> --
> Jay Honeck
> Iowa City, IA
> Pathfinder N56993
> www.AlexisParkInn.com
> "Your Aviation Destination"
>
>

[Jay Honeck]

> Did you find it harder or easier to navigate visually at that altitude?

Easier -- especially over areas I was familiar with...

And with visibility the way it was, we could almost always see SOMETHING we
were familiar with, even from 50 miles away...
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[Newps]

Jay Honeck wrote:

>
> And with visibility the way it was, we could almost always see SOMETHING we
> were familiar with, even from 50 miles away...

You know that's an everyday thing out here, seeing something more than
50 miles away.

[Jay Honeck]

> You know that's an everyday thing out here, seeing something more than
> 50 miles away.

Well, from October through April it's pretty much that way here, too.

Spring and summer can get quite hazy and humid, however, sometimes giving
you that "flying inside a ping-pong ball" effect...
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[Trentus]

"Michael 182" > wrote in message
. net...
> I know, I know - it's way OT, but I'm about to spend significant money on
a
> digital camera, and it seems like the people in here may know more than
any
> advice I'm getting from friends. I posted over on alt.photography, but it
is
> a pretty quiet newsgroup.
>
> So, here are some parameters:
>
> < $1,000, including enough memory to make the camera useful
>
> 10x or greater zoom for youth sports - soccer and basketball
>
> ability to increase zoom for wildlife, nature photos - maybe attach to my
> Kowa TSN 822 scope
>
> use for pictures in my 182
>
> What else should I be asking? Is this enough info to make a decision? I am
> leaning toward the Fuji S-5000. Any opinions?

You'll love the S-5000
I just bought one recently.
Fantastic Camera for the money.
Mine - complete with extra memory card and camera case was - $1049
Australian
10x zoom is outstanding.
2 x digital makes it even more so.
Through the Lense.
Up to 6 megapixel because of the "Super CCD"
Extra lenses available for wide angle and greater telephoto is you use the
supplied adaptor.
Takes standard AA batteries, so if you ever have flat batteries, more can be
got from any local store, and rechargeable AA's are cheap.
Uses XD memory card, so the camera can store what it just took very quickly,
and be ready for another shot quicker. XD is the quickest form of card.
Total flexibility from TOTAL MANUAL, to totally auto, and all between.
Quality of the shots is amazing, but ignore the camera when it says it wants
the flash, most of the time it doesn't need it, the shots are great without
it.

It's not pocket sized, but is small enough to carry around easily.

Trentus

[Newps]

Just looked up the S5000, looks like you can get one for $329USD. Might
have to upgrade.

Trentus wrote:
> "Michael 182" > wrote in message
> . net...
>
>>I know, I know - it's way OT, but I'm about to spend significant money on
>
> a
>
>>digital camera, and it seems like the people in here may know more than
>
> any
>
>>advice I'm getting from friends. I posted over on alt.photography, but it
>
> is
>
>>a pretty quiet newsgroup.
>>
>>So, here are some parameters:
>>
>>< $1,000, including enough memory to make the camera useful
>>
>>10x or greater zoom for youth sports - soccer and basketball
>>
>>ability to increase zoom for wildlife, nature photos - maybe attach to my
>>Kowa TSN 822 scope
>>
>>use for pictures in my 182
>>
>>What else should I be asking? Is this enough info to make a decision? I am
>>leaning toward the Fuji S-5000. Any opinions?
>
>
> You'll love the S-5000
> I just bought one recently.
> Fantastic Camera for the money.
> Mine - complete with extra memory card and camera case was - $1049
> Australian
> 10x zoom is outstanding.
> 2 x digital makes it even more so.
> Through the Lense.
> Up to 6 megapixel because of the "Super CCD"
> Extra lenses available for wide angle and greater telephoto is you use the
> supplied adaptor.
> Takes standard AA batteries, so if you ever have flat batteries, more can be
> got from any local store, and rechargeable AA's are cheap.
> Uses XD memory card, so the camera can store what it just took very quickly,
> and be ready for another shot quicker. XD is the quickest form of card.
> Total flexibility from TOTAL MANUAL, to totally auto, and all between.
> Quality of the shots is amazing, but ignore the camera when it says it wants
> the flash, most of the time it doesn't need it, the shots are great without
> it.
>
> It's not pocket sized, but is small enough to carry around easily.
>
> Trentus
>
>

[mike regish]

What's with the 3.1 megapixel/6 megapixel effective stuff?

What is it. 3.1 or 6?

mike regish

"Newps" > wrote in message
news:XPAkb.595628$cF.260005@rwcrnsc53...
> Just looked up the S5000, looks like you can get one for $329USD. Might
> have to upgrade.
>
> Trentus wrote:
> > "Michael 182" > wrote in message
> > . net...
> >
> >>I know, I know - it's way OT, but I'm about to spend significant money
on
> >
> > a
> >
> >>digital camera, and it seems like the people in here may know more than
> >
> > any
> >
> >>advice I'm getting from friends. I posted over on alt.photography, but
it
> >
> > is
> >
> >>a pretty quiet newsgroup.
> >>
> >>So, here are some parameters:
> >>
> >>< $1,000, including enough memory to make the camera useful
> >>
> >>10x or greater zoom for youth sports - soccer and basketball
> >>
> >>ability to increase zoom for wildlife, nature photos - maybe attach to
my
> >>Kowa TSN 822 scope
> >>
> >>use for pictures in my 182
> >>
> >>What else should I be asking? Is this enough info to make a decision? I
am
> >>leaning toward the Fuji S-5000. Any opinions?
> >
> >
> > You'll love the S-5000
> > I just bought one recently.
> > Fantastic Camera for the money.
> > Mine - complete with extra memory card and camera case was - $1049
> > Australian
> > 10x zoom is outstanding.
> > 2 x digital makes it even more so.
> > Through the Lense.
> > Up to 6 megapixel because of the "Super CCD"
> > Extra lenses available for wide angle and greater telephoto is you use
the
> > supplied adaptor.
> > Takes standard AA batteries, so if you ever have flat batteries, more
can be
> > got from any local store, and rechargeable AA's are cheap.
> > Uses XD memory card, so the camera can store what it just took very
quickly,
> > and be ready for another shot quicker. XD is the quickest form of card.
> > Total flexibility from TOTAL MANUAL, to totally auto, and all between.
> > Quality of the shots is amazing, but ignore the camera when it says it
wants
> > the flash, most of the time it doesn't need it, the shots are great
without
> > it.
> >
> > It's not pocket sized, but is small enough to carry around easily.
> >
> > Trentus
> >
> >
>

[Newps]

After reading further I see the experts don't like the camera. I
already have an Olympus C700 with the 10x zoom at 2.1 mp. I want to
upgrade but it will be to at least the 4mp range. Also I did not look
far enough to see if it had a port to connect the camera to your TV. We
really like that feature when travelling.

mike regish wrote:
> What's with the 3.1 megapixel/6 megapixel effective stuff?
>
> What is it. 3.1 or 6?
>
> mike regish
>
> "Newps" > wrote in message
> news:XPAkb.595628$cF.260005@rwcrnsc53...
>
>>Just looked up the S5000, looks like you can get one for $329USD. Might
>>have to upgrade.
>>
>>Trentus wrote:
>>
>>>"Michael 182" > wrote in message
. net...
>>>
>>>
>>>>I know, I know - it's way OT, but I'm about to spend significant money
>
> on
>
>>>a
>>>
>>>
>>>>digital camera, and it seems like the people in here may know more than
>>>
>>>any
>>>
>>>
>>>>advice I'm getting from friends. I posted over on alt.photography, but
>
> it
>
>>>is
>>>
>>>
>>>>a pretty quiet newsgroup.
>>>>
>>>>So, here are some parameters:
>>>>
>>>>< $1,000, including enough memory to make the camera useful
>>>>
>>>>10x or greater zoom for youth sports - soccer and basketball
>>>>
>>>>ability to increase zoom for wildlife, nature photos - maybe attach to
>
> my
>
>>>>Kowa TSN 822 scope
>>>>
>>>>use for pictures in my 182
>>>>
>>>>What else should I be asking? Is this enough info to make a decision? I
>
> am
>
>>>>leaning toward the Fuji S-5000. Any opinions?
>>>
>>>
>>>You'll love the S-5000
>>>I just bought one recently.
>>>Fantastic Camera for the money.
>>>Mine - complete with extra memory card and camera case was - $1049
>>>Australian
>>>10x zoom is outstanding.
>>>2 x digital makes it even more so.
>>>Through the Lense.
>>>Up to 6 megapixel because of the "Super CCD"
>>>Extra lenses available for wide angle and greater telephoto is you use
>
> the
>
>>>supplied adaptor.
>>>Takes standard AA batteries, so if you ever have flat batteries, more
>
> can be
>
>>>got from any local store, and rechargeable AA's are cheap.
>>>Uses XD memory card, so the camera can store what it just took very
>
> quickly,
>
>>>and be ready for another shot quicker. XD is the quickest form of card.
>>>Total flexibility from TOTAL MANUAL, to totally auto, and all between.
>>>Quality of the shots is amazing, but ignore the camera when it says it
>
> wants
>
>>>the flash, most of the time it doesn't need it, the shots are great
>
> without
>
>>>it.
>>>
>>>It's not pocket sized, but is small enough to carry around easily.
>>>
>>>Trentus
>>>
>>>
>>
>
>

[David Dyer-Bennet]

"mike regish" > writes:

> What's with the 3.1 megapixel/6 megapixel effective stuff?
>
> What is it. 3.1 or 6?

It's 3.1.

This is something Fuji keeps screwing up on, and it annoys the heck
outa me.

Here follows more photo-neepery than most people probably care
about....

The Fuji "super-CCD" is a good design. It uses octagonal cells (yes,
8-sided, not 6-sided, and not 4-sided), and they're arranged in more
of a diamond grid (definitely not in a simple rectangular array).
This lets more of each cell be the actual light-sensitive part, which
increases sensitivity and lowers noise. Practical trials of Fuji
cameras show definite improvements in noise levels and a small
increase in resolution compared to a normal, rectangular, array of the
same number of pixels (see reports at <http://dpreview.com>, a very
good site for digital camera info). The reports on the Fuji S2 Pro
are the ones I'm most familiar with, since that's the camera I was
studying (and decided in the end to buy).

Now, to get an actual rectangular array of pixels out of this, some
processing is needed. The way Fuji does it involves resampling the
funny array up to a rectangular grid of twice as many pixels.

Then some marketing dweeb decided to try to market those cameras as
actually having that many pixels. This, of course, caused lots of
people to go off like rockets!

On my Fuji S2, except when I need raw mode, the most useful mode is to
have it store a 3kx2k (i.e. 6MP) jpeg. So the data path is from 6
million sensors (each reading only *one* of red, green, and blue --
standard Bayer pattern sensor) to 12 million RGB pixels down to 6
million RGB pixels, and then jpeg compression. Luckily the S2 has
enough processing power to handle it (it shoots very slightly *faster*
than the Nikon D100, the closest model for comparison).
--
David Dyer-Bennet, >, <www.dd-b.net/dd-b/>
RKBA: <noguns-nomoney.com> <www.dd-b.net/carry/>
Photos: <dd-b.lighthunters.net> Snapshots: <www.dd-b.net/dd-b/SnapshotAlbum/>
Dragaera/Steven Brust: <dragaera.info/>

[John Clear]

In article <dKbjb.137319$%h1.138211@sccrnsc02>,
Jay Honeck > wrote:
>> That was through a window?
>
>Yep. Photoshop does a good job of taking away that "Plexiglass haze" look,
>no?

I've had pretty good luck shooting through the open storm window on a
Cherokee. Of course, looking through my pictures, I can't find one
without the Bay Area's famous fog making the picture look hazy.
The plexiglass haze isn't too bad on most of the planes I fly, but
I was getting some bad reflections messing up my pictures.

Golden Gate Bridge with an annoying reflection:
http://www.panix.com/~jac/baytour/118-1845_IMG.JPG

Downtown San Francisco from 1500ft through the storm window:
http://www.panix.com/~jac/baytour/118-1867_IMG.JPG

There are bunch more at http://www.panix.com/~jac/baytour/ and
http://www.panix.com/~jac/fly-1-31-03/ . I haven't remembered to
take my camera up in awhile.

John
--
John Clear - http://www.panix.com/~jac

[Jay Honeck]

> Golden Gate Bridge with an annoying reflection:

Great pix, John.

BTW: I have that IDENTICAL pic -- of the Mackinac Bridge in northern
Michigan!
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[mike regish]

Do an autolevels or contrast adjustment. You'll get rid of most of that
haze. Not much you can easily do about the reflection. I've got a little
window I can flip down on mine.

mike regish

"John Clear" > wrote in message
...
> In article <dKbjb.137319$%h1.138211@sccrnsc02>,
> Jay Honeck > wrote:
> >> That was through a window?
> >
> >Yep. Photoshop does a good job of taking away that "Plexiglass haze"
look,
> >no?
>
> I've had pretty good luck shooting through the open storm window on a
> Cherokee. Of course, looking through my pictures, I can't find one
> without the Bay Area's famous fog making the picture look hazy.
> The plexiglass haze isn't too bad on most of the planes I fly, but
> I was getting some bad reflections messing up my pictures.
>
> Golden Gate Bridge with an annoying reflection:
> http://www.panix.com/~jac/baytour/118-1845_IMG.JPG
>
> Downtown San Francisco from 1500ft through the storm window:
> http://www.panix.com/~jac/baytour/118-1867_IMG.JPG
>
> There are bunch more at http://www.panix.com/~jac/baytour/ and
> http://www.panix.com/~jac/fly-1-31-03/ . I haven't remembered to
> take my camera up in awhile.
>
> John
> --
> John Clear - http://www.panix.com/~jac
>

[real_name]

In article >, (John Clear)
wrote:

> I've had pretty good luck shooting through the open storm window on a
> Cherokee.

One word of advise for folks doing that, it's really easy to lose a
lens cap out that window if you have it attached to the lens with
one of those elastic things. I lost a lens cap twice (duh) before I
decided to leave lens caps completely disconnected.

[David Hill]

real_name wrote:
> In article >, (John Clear)
> wrote:
>
>>I've had pretty good luck shooting through the open storm window on a
>>Cherokee.
>
> One word of advise for folks doing that, it's really easy to lose a
> lens cap out that window if you have it attached to the lens with
> one of those elastic things. I lost a lens cap twice (duh) before I
> decided to leave lens caps completely disconnected.

Another pointer -- if you have the ability to screw on a filter on the
front of your lens, it's a good idea to put a Sky-1A UV filter on. Not
so much to filter the light, but to protect the lens. 100+ knot
slipstream can be pretty abrasive on expensive glass.

--
David Hill
david at hillREMOVETHISfamily.org
Sautee-Nacoochee, GA, USA

filters, they're not just for coffee anymore
The following needn't bother to reply, you are filtered:
Juan E Jimenez, Barnyard BOb, Larry Smith, John Nada

[Jay Honeck]

> Another pointer -- if you have the ability to screw on a filter on the
> front of your lens, it's a good idea to put a Sky-1A UV filter on. Not
> so much to filter the light, but to protect the lens. 100+ knot
> slipstream can be pretty abrasive on expensive glass.

Gee -- that's one advantage of a non-SLR camera, I guess: I can't stick any
part of it out through my little storm window!

(Well, I suppose my little Canon Elph *could* just fly right out, it's so
small...)
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[Newps]

David Hill wrote:

> Another pointer -- if you have the ability to screw on a filter on the
> front of your lens, it's a good idea to put a Sky-1A UV filter on. Not
> so much to filter the light, but to protect the lens. 100+ knot
> slipstream can be pretty abrasive on expensive glass.

Ah, aerial photography 101. The camera should never be out in the
slipstream in the first place. You can't hold it steady.