Airshow Photography. DSLR?

fabs said:
whereas Sony produced their first ever SLR less than three years ago.
Click to expand...
yes, but they took over the Konica Minolta SLR division with decades of experience ;)
& not to mention that Nikon DSLRs predominantly use Sony sensors.

MarkG, if you can find a s/h A700 that would also be an excellent option.
as for lenses for Sony the 70-300mm G SSM @ £550 is an excellent bit of glass but below that the Tamron 70-300mm LD Di ~£120 is fine.
 
The Sony 75-300 mm F4.5 - 5.6 @ £189 (list) is closer to my budget, though of course that's more than the Tamron.

Choosing lenses is where I come a bit unstuck - I understand enough of the technology behind the body but most of what happens in lenses is (currently) just words. I understand zoom ranges, and even crop factors, and appreciate that more expensive generally means better optics, but that's just about it. What does all this mean in practice?

Seems like this might be a good topic for a guide btw. :)
 
MarkG said:
The Sony 75-300 mm F4.5 - 5.6 @ £189 (list) is closer to my budget, though of course that's more than the Tamron.

Choosing lenses is where I come a bit unstuck - I understand enough of the technology behind the body but most of what happens in lenses is (currently) just words. I understand zoom ranges, and even crop factors, and appreciate that more expensive generally means better optics, but that's just about it. What does all this mean in practice?

Seems like this might be a good topic for a guide btw. :)
Click to expand...

As far as the numbers go, the only other one you need to know is the f number which is the maximum aperture. The bigger the aperture the smaller the f number the more light gets in, which means faster shutter speeds are available.
 
heidfirst said:
worth a look http://www.photoclubalpha.com/2008/06/06/tamron-70-300mm-f4-56-tele-macro-ld-di/

of course if you get a good bundle deal on the Sony ...
Click to expand...
Disregarding the possibility of a bundle deal, they appear to be suggesting that's better than the Sony 75-300. Have I read that right, and would that still hold for my planned airshow stuff? How much better is the Sony 70-300 G SSM? (not intending to buy one - I just need a basis for comparison)

Can anyone recommend a good place to buy them from - I'd like to avoid the cowboys (including a certain high street chain network who appear to be asking £258).

PS - I'll be heading to the high street to try stuff soon (yes, the aforementioned chain store).
 
How about a 40D (I love mine!) and to get you through the airshow, hiring a suitable lens from that awfully nice chap at http://www.lensesforhire.co.uk/?

Last year I went to RIAT (my first, what a baptism!) with my 400D and a 100-400mm lens hired from LfH.

Can't praise Stewart enough, his service is excellent, prices good, I would never hesitate to recommend.

He is on this site with the username of StewartR
 
Fab idea. Heard of them before (ages ago). Good to see they're still at it. :)

Been and had a play today. Brain dump follows.

In all cases I tried the cameras with at least two lenses (kit + at least 250mm zoom).

First camera shop (T4 Newbury): Tried Canon 1000D and 450D vs Nikon D60 vs Pentax K-m.

They don't stock the Sonys (told me they did stock them but didn't rate the build quality and stopped).

Of those, I found them all acceptable but found the status line on the Canon 1000D/450D easiest to read. Handling seemed OK on all of them but to be honest I don't know what I'm doing yet so undoubtedly held them all wrong. I'll learn. I took an SD card in with me and left with photos taken with the 450D to drool over. :)

Pentax K-m is an interesting beast. It's by far the cheapest (comparable with the A200), but lacks Live View. I've read reviews which said it was a good camera seriously let down by a couple of issues. I'd certainly like to hear real-world thoughts from anyone who has one though because the price is so keen.

Nikon D60 is a good contender but price is comparable to the Canon and it has the lack of in-body AF motor to deal with. Probably going to let this one go.

As it happens, they also recommended the Canon 450D for the Airshow work. £810-ish new for 450D + 18-55 IS + 55-250 IS + UV filters for both lenses. Also tried it with a 70-300 Sigma, but it's non IS, and I'm not the most stable so IS seems a good idea (the 70-300 IS Canon puts me over budget, but may be a 2nd hand option). Credit where it's due - they know their stuff and seem to be competitive on price.

Second camera shop (Jessops Newbury): Tried Sony A300 vs Canon 1000D

Unfortunately, the shop was suffering from a power cut at the time and the battery in the Sony was showing 6% remaining so my options were limited. The sales guy was singing the praises of the Sony (bigger grip than the Canon, and I can't deny that one). I actually hurt myself gripping the Canon, but probably holding it wrong. I noticed some give in the Sony grip too.

I need to go back and try these again when they have power because I want to compare Live View options. They put the Sony 70-300 G SSM on for me but with the dead battery I didn't get to use it. My god it's heavy though. They tried to explain the difference between that and the cheaper lenses but I got blinded with camera-speak.


As noted above, I'm going to go back and try all the cameras again once I know my budget for sure. Since I'm not entirely sure what I'm doing are there any good buying guides for SLRs? I'd also appreciate comments on the above (either agree or disagree).

Thanks all for your continuing help and patience. Signed, one very appreciative newbie.
 
First of all, you've done the right thing, as suggested earlier and got to the camera shop to try things out, forget about sony, canon, nikon etc, pick the camera you feel comfortable with holding / using and is with in your budget. (I'm not bias towards any brand, I own canon, but recommended a nikon to a fellow TP member, want I am I think :shrug:).

First of all, spot metering, forget about, just get use to taking photos, panning etc, unless the conditions are extreme this is not needed.

As for the choice of lens, well that depends on your brand of camera you go for, but a minimum of 300mm is required, most airshows the crowd line is still quite away back from the display line, ok, a 200mm lens will probably get you landing and takeoff shots, but anything in the air will be a dot, and even if you crop into the image, unless you have decent glass and mega pixels, you'll have an image that is feature less and really just an outline.

If you went for the canon, the 70-300mm IS (£400) is a very good budget lens. Sigma also do a range of budget zooms, but personally to get the best from these, you do need good light conditions (£400-700), but it will all depend on what body you buy.

I won't recommend a camera kit, usually the lenses with these kits aren't much cop, and would buy the body and lens separate, but it all comes down to budget.

Peter
 
Farnborough last year 70-200mm
IMG_2339_edited-2.jpg


Biggin Hill, 2007, 300mm "cropped"
IMG_7018_edited-1.jpg


Shoreham last year 300mm + 1.4x TC
IMG_3362_edited-2.jpg


Mach Loop in Wales, 300mm
IMG_3792_edited-2.jpg


Peter
 
Good call about trying them I would rate the canon xxd series out of the options mentioned but its preferance.

Don't worry about using sd cards even scandisk extremes are depressingly slow, killing your burst ability

Don't write off spot metering, not much good in this field, but handy for getting know exposures if you use your camera as a lightmeter
 
I don't understand such things as 'spot metering', 'stepping down', and so forth yet anyway, so they're not even on the radar.

A friend on another forum who knows me well suggested there's not a huge amount of point me getting an xxD because it's unlikely I'll be able to get full benefit from it given my eyesight. You know, they're right. If I can bag a second-hand 450D that would certainly suit me. I can't ask for one here yet because I don't qualify, but we'll see about that in due course. I can spend all day on forums (being constructive, I may add).
 
An xxD body wont help your eyesight per-say, but the 6.5fps burst that the 40D can do does come in handy when shooting things that move - you can start holding the shutter down too soon then let go once the moment as past and you should still capture the right moment :).
 
Valid point. I've been digging around inside the For Sale forum here and it seems the difference in going rate between the 400D/450D and the 40D second hand is about £100. Not bad but I have a hard time putting a value on that particular feature alone, and in a constrained budget, that £100 is unquestionably better spent on glass (100% framed shots only fit for the bin vs 50% framed usable shots).

The 40D went this evening so I've missed that now anyway. There's a 400D appeared today as well but no Live View makes me wary. I don't intend to use it very often but I'm not sure I can live without it either.
 
MarkG said:
Disregarding the possibility of a bundle deal, they appear to be suggesting that's better than the Sony 75-300. Have I read that right, and would that still hold for my planned airshow stuff? How much better is the Sony 70-300 G SSM? (not intending to buy one - I just need a basis for comparison)
Click to expand...
tbh the G SSM is in a different league & probably best in class but that's why it's heavier & dearer.
Unfortunately Jessops have an UK exclusive deal with Sony on the A300 (but not A200 or A350).

Welsh Dan said:
An xxD body wont help your eyesight per-say, but the 6.5fps burst that the 40D can do does come in handy when shooting things that move
Click to expand...
the 40D's headline fps is rarely achievable in normal usage though, it's more like 5fps.
 
MarkG said:
I'm hoping to get enclosure tickets for this year's RIAT (here's hoping it doesn't get rained off again), and this, among other things, has lead me to look around the camera market. That has lead me here.

I currently have a Canon S3 IS (Bridge). It's fine for general-purpose, like all compacts it has the usual issues (ISO noise, fringing, etc.). I've tried photography at airshows before and failed miserably (save the odd lucky shot). I just don't know if it's the camera, or me, or both. Usually I either miss the shot entirely, or get a plane-shaped silhouette (lack of shadow detail).

Trouble is, I don't have a particularly good eye for photography (artistically and physically - I'm partially sighted). I'd rate myself as a reasonable holiday snapper, and I'm not scared of using full manual on the S3 if circumstances demand, but that's it. I don't want to start blowing £100s on new kit only to find that the problem was me all along and I've just wasted my money, but I am prepared to spend if that's what it takes.

So, is it all technique or is it worth my while getting new equipment, and if so, what? Budget £1000-ish for everything required (including post-processing), and 2nd hand is fine with me. It'll be replacing the S3 as my main camera so that would need to be factored in.

PS - I was looking at the Panasonic DMC-GH1 primarily because I assumed I'd need Live View a lot, and thought I'd really like the HD movie mode. Having used (and got on well with) the viewfinder on a 450D, and seen what tends to happen when you shoot HD on a DSLR ('Jello-vision'), I'm not so sure on both counts. Something far more established may better suit my needs.
Click to expand...

Not sure if it was mentioned above but smal compacts generally have a delay between pressig the shutter and the shot being taken. This is a huge problem at airshows. SLRs do not have the same issues.
 
For the record I use a Nikkor 80-200 f/2.8. Sometimes I need to crop but if you study the displays from each and every display aircraft you will learn to position yourself for those closer, more intimate photographs.

If you research the show grounds you will find many of the seasoned photographers huddle together in the most obscure places, why? Simply because it provides the best possible view.

There was a good article in Canadian Aviation magazine, I'll see if I can dig it out for you.
 
Thanks all. Replies in order, I think I got them all.

Welsh Dan, not sure how I'd compare. If anything I found the grip on the 450D a little on the small side but definitely usable. A300 was better except that it took me a while to get the thumb position right and I wasn't entirely comfortable with that.

heidfirst, that's what I thought. Checked over at the site I think you guys refer to as WEX and everyone seems to sing the praises of the Tamron. That's fine if I go the Sony route because of Super SteadyShot, but not so good if I go Canon/Nikon. I think if I try to save money and go non-IS on the long zoom I'll regret it.

EOS_JD, the S3 isn't so bad but there's still some. I put it in full manual to keep any lag to a minimum. Often when I missed a shot it wasn't by much (part of the plane still in the frame), so I'm not that far off getting the panning technique.

I have a contact who might be able to get me access to one of the private enclosures. Won't be on the crowd line, but it won't be crowded either - which is just as well as I'm not too good on my feet and wouldn't want to face the crowd line scrum for very long.
 
MarkG said:
Pentax K-m is an interesting beast. It's by far the cheapest (comparable with the A200), but lacks Live View. I've read reviews which said it was a good camera seriously let down by a couple of issues. I'd certainly like to hear real-world thoughts from anyone who has one though because the price is so keen.
Click to expand...

As a Pentax user I tend to stay out of these type of debates as it just ends up looking like a fanboy thread. As I said before you have to start with what feels best for you and then look at the lenses after. All makes will have something suitable for the enthusiast but if you intend going pro and spending thousands on a lens then stick with Canon or Nikon.
As for the K-m, it's a cracking little camera but if you want live view then it's not for you.
 
MarkG said:
Pentax K-m is an interesting beast. It's by far the cheapest (comparable with the A200), but lacks Live View.

I need to go back and try these again when they have power because I want to compare Live View options.
Click to expand...

Hi

Personally, I wouldn't worry about live view with a DSLR - I've yet to use it on my 40D - use it often and find it great on our compact camera, but doesn't feel right with a DSLR at arms length (I believe it can be usefull for Macro work, but have yet to try this). I wouldn't let this come in the way of choosing your camera. :thumbs:

I'm sure others will agree and others disagree :)

Good luck with your choice, :thumbs:
 
I'm primarily after live view because I'm partially sighted. I use the viewfinder on my compact (which is much smaller than on a DSLR), but find there are times when the LCD still works out best for me (macro being one, tired eyes being another).

If it was a choice between a 'killer' camera without live view and a lesser camera with, or if the price difference was large, then I'd sacrifice live view, but there isn't that choice to make, on both counts.

Now I have a good feel for what my house repairs are going to cost (£350), I can get a bit more serious with this.

My current pecking order is Canon 450D, Sony A300, Nikon D60, Pentax K-m. I will re-check the last two but they're likely to fall off the list.

If I go Canon, the next question is whether my best options are the kit 18-55 IS and 55-250 IS, or whether there's something better for a little more money (secondhand included). Kit lenses are always going to have their limits but the 18-55 IS seems fine for anything but manual focus. Haven't found much about the 55-250 yet.

For the Sony, the issue is whether I can live with the viewfinder and live view, and whether I can live with who I'll have to buy the A300 from after they lost one of my valued (sentimentally) prints a few years ago.
 
From what I've read the difference in results between the two is marginal - the extra megapixels resulting in more noise (and more issues with the resolving power of the kit lens). I never buy the 'more megapixels is better' hype, but I probably haven't given it a fair chance (results in a test lab can be very different to real world results). Not sure how I'd differentiate them though as the A300 and A350 are identical on the outside.
 
MarkG said:
From what I've read the difference in results between the two is marginal - the extra megapixels resulting in more noise (and more issues with the resolving power of the kit lens). I never buy the megapixel hype, but I probably haven't given it a fair chance (results in a test lab can be very different to real world results).
Click to expand...

Fair comment. Mind you, I know a few people with A350s and they all seem very happy on the noise front.
 
MarkG said:
If I go Canon, the next question is whether my best options are the kit 18-55 IS and 55-250 IS, or whether there's something better for a little more money (secondhand included).
Click to expand...
I suspect that if you do go Canon & get a 55-250mm that you will find yourself wanting more reach for airshows.
I would be looking at 300mm top end at least & ideally 400mm.
 
Agree with that (and I'd love to go to 400mm), but is it worth doing that and sacrificing IS? Long telephoto IS lenses rapidly get prohibitively expensive, so it's one or the other for now. The option to switch lenses after the airshow exists, but that's another thread.

Of course, the option to keep back some money for hiring a 100-400 L IS is very tempting indeed, but given how new I am to the game, I doubt I'd trust myself not to break it.
 
To stick my oar in a bit..

I would head for the Canon 40D (kit) and a 300 f/4 (IS?).

If buying used you should get both for less than £1000 and have some seriously sharp images. The IS would be a couple of hundred more and push you over your budget I think but the non IS is just as good IQ wise and you don't (particularly) need IS for airshows. The kit lens will then cover the wider shots (red arrows etc.)

Good luck finding a used 300 f/4 though. :lol:
 
I don't find there to be much difference in reach between 250mm and 300mm. I took some shots with my 55-250 and 70-300 for someone else so he could compare focal lengths (only, lol):

http://www.xen0phobiak.f2s.com/canonvsigma/55to250at55.jpg
http://www.xen0phobiak.f2s.com/canonvsigma/55to250at131.jpg
http://www.xen0phobiak.f2s.com/canonvsigma/55to250at250.jpg

http://www.xen0phobiak.f2s.com/canonvsigma/70to300at70.jpg
http://www.xen0phobiak.f2s.com/canonvsigma/70to300at133.jpg
http://www.xen0phobiak.f2s.com/canonvsigma/70to300at300.jpg

At a glance, this photo was taken at 250mm with the 55-250is, and the inverted one in the middle was taken from the same position but at 300mm with a sigma 70-300, no cropping was done, my allignment wasnt quite right, and I've scaled the inner image to match features so I can demonstrate the field of view difference:
overlaid.jpg



I'm not doubting at all that a prime would be faster and sharper, but its not much more reach.
 
Thanks for that. Useful comparison.

Thanks for the 300 prime suggestion, but there's no way. Maybe if I won on the lottery, but for now that would be far too restrictive (and a new 300 IS USM would eat the budget, whole, with a s/h one not far behind).

Should get down the shops again tomorrow (they have power now). In the meantime I'm keeping an eye on the Classifieds here. I may be new but I already trust this forum much more than I do eBay.
 
MarkG said:
Thanks for that. Useful comparison.

Thanks for the 300 prime suggestion, but there's no way. Maybe if I won on the lottery, but for now that would be far too restrictive (and a new 300 IS USM would eat the budget, whole, with a s/h one not far behind).

Should get down the shops again tomorrow (they have power now). In the meantime I'm keeping an eye on the Classifieds here. I may be new but I already trust this forum much more than I do eBay.
Click to expand...

I got my 300 f/4 for £400, and the 300 f/4 IS is generally advertised at £600 used. Having said that that was before price increases.

You can also then stick a 1.4x TC on when you get some more money and get a 400 f/5.6.


I definately wouldn't reccomend anything less than 300mm though, I went to RIAT a couple of years ago with the 75-300 and had to crop most of my images quite a lot. (That's where the extra IQ and focus speed of the prime comes in.:)
 
The Sigma 300 f4`s go for considerably less than the canon/nikon versions and are still meant to be quite good (you`d be looking at around 300ish).
 
Time for a reality check, and sorry if this is a little blunt. As I see it, a 300mm prime would be ideal for the airshow, but of rather limited use elsewhere. Spending 30% of my budget on a one-day use lens makes no sense to me, IQ or not. So, unless there's a very compelling reason to do otherwise a compromise has to be made, and that means no primes (yet). :(

So back to what I've been trying (and failing) to find out. If I'm reading the price list I've got (thanks Kerso) right, these two are very much on the table:

Canon EF-S 55-250mm f/4-5.6 IS
Canon EF 75-300mm F4.0-5.6 USM III

They're not as good as a prime, maybe, but they both cost the same (or near enough) and are well within budget. First is the Kit lens, second meets the 300mm criteria. Is the second better, and is the difference big enough to warrant sacrificing the IS? Is there a better option than both of these (that isn't a prime :p)?

Thanks all. I'll be this is the longest newbie thread you've had for a while. :$
 
One thing you should probably consider is the physical size and weight of the lens. If you are going to use liveview hand held, trying to hold a DSLR body and lens still is bloody difficult - it's really designed to be braced by your face, and holding it away means camera shake on such a heavy body (compared to a bridge or compact) is hard to control.
 
MarkG said:
Is there a better option than both of these (that isn't a prime :p)?
Click to expand...
bear in mind that a Tamron 75-300mm f/4-5.6 LD Di is ~£120 (I would imagine substantially cheaper than either of the 2 Canons that you mentioned) & is stabilised on a Sony.

edit: btw I wouldn't get an A350 for airshows as the large file sizes results in slower fps (1.5 iirc compared to 3) than an A300/A200 - I guess that they didn't increase the buffer any.
 
MarkG said:
I'm primarily after live view because I'm partially sighted. I use the viewfinder on my compact (which is much smaller than on a DSLR), but find there are times when the LCD still works out best for me (macro being one, tired eyes being another).

If it was a choice between a 'killer' camera without live view and a lesser camera with, or if the price difference was large, then I'd sacrifice live view, but there isn't that choice to make, on both counts.
Click to expand...

Forget about live view for anything motorsport or aircraft related, live view wasn't intended for that type of photography. Most camera's have a Dioptric adjustment for the viewfinder, which should in most cases adjust the image (sharpen) to suit your eyesight.

As for a lens, I personally would choose the canon 70-300mm IS over the 55-250mm (its not a good lens), if you went for canon.

Peter
 
Hi, I was recently lucky enough to buy a second hand Canon EOS 350d along with its kit lens 18-55 for £125. I have added a 70-300mm lens which cost me around £350. Although I havent taken any shots of airshows, I have used it to photograph motorbike racing and been delighted with the results. The person I bought the camera off did use it at air shows and although not amazing, they were very decent shots.

So, for what its worth I would suggest something like that to start with and then build on it from there.

However, I'm no expert and can only speak as I find.

Jan
 
Edit - two more replies came in while I was posting.


Re: Sony A350. Yes, that was a reason too. 2.5fps (A350) vs 3.0fps (A300). It's not much, but "every little helps".

There's a possible option if a secondhand 450D turns up. The £100 or so that saves would just about cover the Canon fit Tamron, and I'd still get the 17-55 IS Kit lens as it's decent enough for everyday. Having seen the comment about the 55-250, I certainly need to bear that in mind. In fact, if I do find a secondhand 450D, the 70-300 IS might just be within budget again.

Still undecided on the Sony vs Canon but I'm hoping to get that sorted tomorrow. I just remembered a work colleague has a 5D (not sure which version), so I'll be having a chat.
 
There's a couple of 350d cameras with kit lenses on ebay about to go. Around £250??
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top