I'd argue that although I may often take the line of least resistance, like you, in fact this isn't fair enough.

If you're taking pictures of anything at all from a public place, you're entirely within your rights, and complying with someone that has no right to stop you exercising your rights is the sort of thing that ratchets up the erosion of such rights, and reinforces the general ignorance in these matters.

Technically, yes

I would add, that I'm in no way justifying the behaviour of the guy at the airshow.

In your situation, I would have explained what I was doing, but I would definitely have pointed out politely that he had no right or authority to stop me taking pictures, even if I was photographing people inside the building through the plate glass windows.

If they don't want them photographed from the street, they shouldn't have windows people can see through!

Perhaps this article will shed some light.

I think so too. Almost everyone I saw at Farnborough the other day was carrying a camera of some description, so you do wonder what he was doing that appeared dodgy.

The other thing in that video was the bit where he goes "please don't press that button", and then refuses to answer the perfectly reasonable question "what does that button do". Not all that surprising that they suspected it was something other than what it was.

I imagine it was the 'record' button, and if they pressed it, his recording would stop. So he prevaricates with 'I don't want you touching my property' or some such, which just added fuel to the fire.

Without knowing what was really going on, I don't know whether they were right to arrest him or not, but I can't find all that much sympathy for him given the string of obscenities he was screaming. No matter how unreasonable the police behave, screaming at them like that will just make it worse.

Clearly not... but what really staggered me was the factor of ten difference compared with my usual experience.
Yes, I've been trying to work out what could be different.

The amount of live view I use is so close to zero as to be irrelevant - I expect it's literally less than two minutes since I've owned the camera.

In normal circumstances I probably do a lot more AFing per shot than I did yesterday. You know the sort of thing... experimental stuff, just generally handling the camera without taking pictures.

So maybe that's what it is - could it be that focusing the lens takes up most of the energy consumed in a cycle of meter-focus-fire?

Thought I'd update this thread with an interesting discovery from yesterday at Farnborough.

I got 1400 shots out of the first battery

I'd been expecting to have to change battery every 150 shots or so, so I took 6 with me in total, all fully charged, and was expecting to have to ration myself severely.

The first change came shortly after starting on the third 16 GB card; the first two had a little over 700 shots on them each. And even then it wasn't completely dead - it was showing one bar but recovering to two after a switch off. I just changed since I didn't want to be caught out.

So, it very much begs the question - what's happening the rest of the time?

It's incredibly rare for me to take more than a few tens of images on any particular day - airshows are pretty much the only time I'd take 1500 shots in a day.

But I was truly amazed at the difference.

I don't know why some people are simply determined to take things in the worst possible way. I wasn't at all intending to patronise.

I just pointed out that whatever you're using, and however you're judging 'clean', it ain't working

And there have been plenty of times where I've failed to think through something, and when someone points out why, I realise immediately the mistake I just made - hence the comment about where the mirror is. I then grin and move on. In fact, I usually prefer it if it's my dumb mistake, since if it isn't there'll be a more serious problem that's a lot more hassle to sort out.

But heyho, if you're determined to turn it round and accuse me of being patronising, go ahead. As I say, it was not my intention.

You haven't said how. To be honest, whatever you're using isn't very effective.

'Looks'? How are you judging it to be clean, since it very obviously isn't?

No. It's ordinary specks of crap on the sensor. Nothing a proper clean won't sort. Search for 'arctic butterfly' (a highly rated dry cleaning device that removes particles that are not adhered to the sensor) and 'swabs' (used for a wet clean, essential when the muck is stuck).

If you think for a moment about where the mirror is during the actual exposure, you will realise instantly that no, it couldn't.

You're confusing lack of interest with lack of funds

I totally understand that, having seen your pictures.

Nor are flashguns.

Basically, it's the 'cheap' stuff you get a discount on.

You can hardly expect to get 10% off something that costs hundreds of pounds when the sub costs 20.

Though it would be quite amusing to hear the justification for not counting a certain camera pouch as an 'accessory'.

Not that Chris will be stocking them I expect