That has been recommended previously. Best solution for me, lacking that, is to just skip over all of his endless and pointless vomit.

I was at an event and handed Lumix zs100 to someone to take a photo of a fellow squadron member, when he humorously said “what kind of phone is this?”.

I really enjoy using a “real” camera with all the dials and controls (Fujifilm xt5), but I’m hard pressed to get better results than I get with my 2 year old iPhone 13 Pro.

Agree with moving those two into their own section. Then they can continue to compete on who can drudge up the most irrelevant items. Currently, I just skip everything with their handles on it.

More unfounded speculation. The 777 autopilot can not be set for “approach” or “landing” until certain parameters are met which do not exist on initial climb. The apparently prevalent speculation is that the altitude was set at zero or field elevation in the autopilot and that as soon as the autopilot was engaged, the airplane made a drastic nose dive for the ground (or water). Of course I never tried it due to “self preservation instinct”, but I don’t believe that would cause the airplane to enter such a rapid and drastic dive because the autopilot is designed to effect pitch and roll changes smoothly. I have my own speculations which have nothing to do with the scenario above…but they are only that…speculations.

Geez. Someone is not paying attention to anything but their own narrative. This incident is ABSOLUTELY being or has been investigated and the cause most likely has determined - or the pilots involved would not already be in training.

Clearly there are others here who DO exhibit actual knowledge about the industry and practices besides myself (32 years airline pilot, 10 years Captain on 777, instructor, Navy Pilot etc) and NONE of us are privy to - or know the actual details because of the anonymity involved in the reporting process. It may eventually leak out because of the extraordinary amount of uninformed speculation.

To say that it isn't being investigated is simply a billboard displaying total ignorance of the facts.

In spite of the speculations from those with little actual knowledge of the technology or industry, the probability is that we may never know the actual details because there is a process that guarantees immunity from regulatory or punitive action in the interest of SAFETY when a crew “self discloses” and flight data from recorders is used to identify specific aircraft dynamics. The concept is that it encourages full disclosure to those who NEED to know as a process to effect changes in training, procedures or occasionally identify a manufacturing anomaly.

Given the report of training for the crew, it is beyond doubt that there was human error involved and as much as it whets the curiosity, there is no actual need for the public to be informed of the details. Yeah, I’d like to know also.

As one who has and still travels a lot, I have struggled with “best” for years. When I take a “regular” camera, it ends up being VERY inconvenient with crowds, public transportation etc, plus attracts attention. The pocket sized ones do work better for me, but I always miss the control that a standard camera affords. The latest cell phones do a remarkable job, but seem to lack much PP capability in the raw files. I have tried the Oly TG-5, but am ALWAYS frustrated with results, especially in low light. Currently I carry a Panasonic ZS100 for its decent zoom and a Sony RX100va for F1.8 capability and tilt screen. Life is all about compromise…it seems.

Maybe you should re-think that comment. "Balls" is not a great substitute for brains when it comes to aviation. This subject has probably been pretty well wrung out by now, but we are all commenting on generalities without precise knowledge of the specific circumstances. My "final" point would be going back to the original comment about avoiding airplanes that can't dump fuel...it should be noted that no model of the Boeing 737 has fuel dump capability and it is by far the most used commercial aircraft in the world.

Exactly one of the issues I raised in my original post... I assume that it was preferred for convenience of their own, rather than contract maintenance at another location. Again, the full details are missing, but if there was a configuration issue (landing gear or flaps/slats), then the additional drag with higher fuel consumption would prevent continuing all the way to destination. It could have been that it would be less convenient for the passengers to be stuck at some intermediate airport than returned to point of origin.

We are not told how many how's the "burn off" required. It would somewhat depend on that whether the "burn off" made sense as opposed to landing overweight.

The original post stating that that model of airplane should be avoided is simply a product of total lack of understanding of how these things really work. A slice of information without full details can always lead to bad decisions.

As an airline pilot for 32 years and a former Navy Pilot (as I suspect others here are too), I DO think some actual knowledge rather than sensational news reporting is relevant to the issue. As has been previously stated, ANY airplane can be landed overweight when the circumstances dictate. The pilot in the seat is the only one who KNOWS which is the safer course of action. From the info given, it was not clear why they just didn’t continue closer to destination if they wanted to simply burn off fuel. In all likelihood, the company dispatch wanted them to return to origin as a convenience for maintenance, which in my opinion is a bad call.

I would almost certainly have just landed overweight at an appropriate airport / runway using “Captain’s Emergency Authority” because drilling holes in the sky in an extended holding pattern could result in mental fatigue and boredom and create its own “safety” hazard. I HAVE been there dumping fuel, but enroute to an alternate and would not have delayed landing once I got there. If you have the “non normal” to begin with, you do not need the additional distraction of dumping fuel. As previously said, landing overweight with or without fuel dump capability simply requires an airframe inspection.

If the pilot screws up the landing, then he or she “owns” it, so that’s why they get paid to make those kinds of decisions.

Reporters never get it right.

Not sure about the D500, but I had a D800. In my 70’s it was a matter of wanting a “flip” (articulating) screen and rock solid “live view” which the D800 did not have. Getting down on the ground to get a lower perspective is now out of my “wheelhouse”.

I wasn’t interested in having to deal with an adapter to use F mount lenses, so I “bit the bullet”, sold everything and switched brands. I tried the Sony a6000 series but didn’t love the choice of reasonably priced lenses and hated (as does almost everyone else) their menu system.

I switched to Fuji (x mount). Yes, it is APS-C, but any advantage of “full frame” is way beyond my (and I suspect MOST peoples’) skill set. The XF Fujinon lenses are rated right up there close to Leica and Zeiss.

There are “fan boys” (and girls) for every brand so that is a whole ‘nut her discussion

Are these compressed or uncompressed? The MACOS Finder will NOT open raw compressed Fuji files. If you aren’t sure, go into your camera menu and check. I you change to uncompressed, I think they should display. I KNOW that is the case with Fuji X100F and XT-2. I don’t have an XT-4 to check.

I see that this wasn’t answered effectively. MACOS and IOS (Apple) DOES read the UNCOMPRESSED raw files, but not compressed files. The uncompressed take up much more space so it makes sense to capture the compressed files (camera setting).

Raw Power (www.gentlemenencoders.com) had added compressed file support and is tightly integrated with Apple Photos. It reads files (and flags) from either the Finder or Photos.

Like you and many others who loved Aperture, I hunted far and wide for a replacement. I had also used LR up through the last permanent licenses (LR6). I refuse to play the “rental” model, even though there is a constant drum beat of how it is just as affordable as annual upgrades. That’s fine, but I “vote” with my feet on products like that. The “replacement” (Apple Photos) was arguably terrible in the beginning, but has quietly gotten much better. The addition of extensions and “edit with” allow a smooth use of other editors such as Luminar, Affinity Photo etc all within the workflow. THEN, the “game changer” for me is the addition of Raw Power Photo, from the original Apple developer of Aperture closes the loop. With it, you can do much much in raw, add star ratings etc. Using the combination of Apple Photo, plus Raw Power in conjunction with iCloud became my solution. I have nearly 200gb of photos in iCloud, but using the “optimize storage” feature, my devices (Macs and iPad) are getting benefit of the full library and using about 7gb of local storage. Everything really does stay in sync on all devices with no limit on how many devices can use the software since it it built in to the operating system. ON1 just released ON1 360, which attempts to do a cloud synchronization, but also requires an annual storage subscription. ON1 is a nice program and fills a lot of squares, but has been super buggy for me. I attempted to resolve some issues with their tech support, which was always “helpful”, but they admitted that they could not solve my issues. Luminar has very nice fast edits, but it’s data management is massively unusable for any sharing or export / import of metadata.

This will be a day late, as I do the "daily digest" version of the UHH blog. What I did NOT see in any of the replies is that ON1 will allow you 5 activations, while Adobe only allows 2. So if you have more than 2 computers, you have to either decide which 2 to use, or "sign out" (and back in) if you don't stick to 2 machines. Also, at least through LR6 (don't know about later versions), you have to import into the catalog to do anything with the photos. ON1 (and several other apps) allow you to catalog but do NOT require one to. I found the LR catalogs to grow to very large size and generally unwieldy if one tries to copy to other media. The file size of the catalog is not the only determinant of the manageability of these catalogs, because the catalog contains "zillions" of internal files.

No doubt that Adobe is the gold standard, but I detest the "rental" model on principal and don't care if I spend more with "upgrades"...at least I am in control of "if and when". Clearly, many members of this forum are very advanced or professional at post processing, but ON1 will do more than what 99% of us mere mortals will ever need. Affinity photo will also do more than I could ever master as a replacement for PS. I REALLY like DxO PL, and SOME of what Luminar does. Yes, I DO spend more in total for all of these programs, but can use them forever WITHOUT upgrading if I want. One of the true "wisdoms" on this forum has always been "use the gear you have unless it doesn't work". For most of us, ANY of these apps will do the job and which one you like best will probably just be a matter of taste.