rscheffler
Offline
• • • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
|
 p.5 #11 · Official Nikon Z 180-600mm f5.6-6.3 VR Image Thread | |
Hi all, just wandered over from the Canon board through a link. This lens looks like it could be really compelling for daytime sports on a Z8. Wondering if anyone is doing so (field sports like football) and finding the AF and wide open sharpness is acceptable, particularly at the long end of the zoom range when subjects are not filling the frame? (Some lenses seem to fall apart in respect to sharpness at longer distances.) I'm currently using the Canon 200-400/4 with internal 1.4xTC often engaged to give me 560/5.6. So 600/6.3 isn't much of a 'downgrade' in respect to maximum aperture. The compromise is more being stuck at f/5.6 on the wide end, but also not so bad.
paloika wrote:
Would that fit in the overhead bin of a commercial airplane? Thanks in advance.
Yes, the Pelican 1535 Air is designed specifically to meet the carry-on size limits for US air carriers. Same with the Pelican 1510, Nanuk 935, etc.
suteetat wrote:
Depending on the airlines. A friend uses this type of hard case and sometimes, flight attendant would not let him put that in overhead compartment saying that if the case fall down when someone open the overhead compartment, it could cause serious injury. They may ask him to check it in at the gate or sometimes or flight attendant will store it in their cabin closet for him. Some airlines don't care at all. Size wise, it should fit overhead compartment in most jets fine.
The only plane that it would not fit would be some of the smaller propeller ATR planes in my experience.
...Show more →
If that was true, it would be true for any roller carry-on suitcase that most people are traveling with. But the reality is that these carry-on rollers are pretty long (22"/56cm) and the overhead bins are only that deep (they fit exactly), so it's not like they're partially hanging out and the slightest nudge will cause them to slide out. It would rather be an improperly secured or damaged compartment door that suddenly opens during extreme turbulence, but that's extremely rare. The greatest danger IMO is from the doofuses who stuff their duty-free liquor bottles in the overheads without the flight attendants noticing, as those are hard and heavy and can easily fall out when opening the compartment door.
In any case, this has not ever been my experience traveling with the older Pelican 1510 (which is heavier than the 1535 Air) and what I use now, the Pelican BA22 Elite Carry On (now discontinued) if traveling US domestic flights on reasonably sized jets (like 737, A320 or Embraer 175/195). These roller carry-ons are typically required to go in the overhead bins and your smaller 'personal item' under the seat in front of you. The roller carry-ons are actually usually too long to fit under the seat and would have to be rotated to not jut out from under the seat and block egress from the row in the case of an emergency. But if rotated, would infringe on your neighbor's legroom.
ilkka_nissila wrote:
I did a quick estimation that the total weight of the bag and contents is likely to be around 12 kg (don't know exactly what the inserts weight, so my estimate could be a little off). TSA limit is about 16 kg. Finnair allows 8 kg for economy passengers and 12 kg for business class. British Airways allows two bags up to 23 kg each! So, it varies greatly. I remember times when I was traveling and the maximum for carry-on was 5 kg, so I would get in trouble with that.
For safety reasons I too would expect a hard heavy case only to be allowed under the seat in front of the passenger, not in the overhead compartment (unless it slips unnoticed). But for exit seats, there is no seat in front option so it would probably end up in the cargo. Given how cargo luggage is handled (sometimes it gets thrown around between handlers over some distances) I would personally not take my chances and simply travel with less gear. But for photographers with wildlife being a priority, I guess there is no option but to pack what you need and accept the risks.
...Show more →
Depends on the airline. Many here are in the US and most US airlines don't enforce a carry-on weight limit. Rather, they state you must be able to lift it in order to place in the overhead bins. Canada used to have a government-mandated 10kg limit, with which I regularly ran afoul, but that was dropped around 5 years ago, thankfully, and now aligns nicely with US carry-on rules. However, I've noticed that discount carriers (like Flair here in Canada) do have carry-on weight limits that they have apparently arbitrarily set, for whatever reason (possibly to generate more revenue through checked baggage fees).
The reason I prefer to travel with a hard-sided carry-on is, if as a last resort I am forced to check or gate check it, it will at least provide better protection than a soft-sided roller or bag. But my strategy whenever challenged is to simply unpack the gear and carry it all on loose, like a camera with a lens attached off each shoulder (because the airlines allow this) and let the airline check the empty case. Enough of the gear can generally fit in my personal item and a lens like the Canon 200-400 I just put on the floor and keep between my feet during the flight. If I anticipate possible problems with my roller (like if traveling on a discount airline), I pack an empty, thin, lightly padded bag inside my personal item to use to carry stuff I've removed from the roller, if I have to check the roller.
|
. 
