Shooting aircraft in flight, which type of camera?

[MartinCD]

Hi all

My first post here, so hello all!

I am no expert, my knowledge is basic when it comes to cameras. I have used point and shoot cameras from the Kodak DC25 up my current Sony DSC-HX9V.

While I love my Sony to bits, I can't help feel I am missing out on something when taking photos of aircraft in flight, which is 80% of the time. So, I am looking to get another camera which I can use for this. The aircraft I photograph are either high level in the cruise, or the flying lower levels at around 10,000ft to around the 3500ft as they approach Gatwick or Heathrow. While I don't expect to see the pilot waving at me, from the results of my Sony I have been able to make out the cockpit windows, but through the expected fuzz.

I started looking at the Sony 300 (50x optical zoom) but I am now thinking what the effects are on using a super zoom paired with a small sensor, compaired with an DSLR using say a 50-200mm kit lens with the larger sensor, where presumably that would capture greater detail that would crop better?

What is best to use? I was looking at the Pentax K5II with the twin lens kit (50-200mm WR) by Jessops as that would offer greater (I guess) flexibilty of where and how I can use it without much fear of it getting ruined if I take it out and about ,but has less 'zoom' than the Sony.

Anyone help please!?! I have tried various search terms in the usual places and not found an answer.

Cheers

 

[PMN]

Hi there!

How close are you wanting to get into the aircraft? Do you have an example pic of what you're wanting to get with a DSLR?

 

[weybourne]

...The aircraft I photograph are either high level in the cruise, or the flying lower levels at around 10,000ft to around the 3500ft as they approach Gatwick or Heathrow. While I don't expect to see the pilot waving at me, from the results of my Sony I have been able to make out the cockpit windows, but through the expected fuzz.

I don't think you'll get anything 'good' at those distances - there's too much atmosphere between you and the subject - you're talking about a minimum distance of over half a mile - imagine trying to take a picture half a mile down a straight road (but with no background other than sky).

I reckon you need to let them get lower and closer. Any (modern) crop-sensor SLR will be up to the job and I'd be looking at a focal length of around 250 to 300mm for starters on a lens. Take a look at aircraft shots online (e.g. flickr or aviation websites/bulletin boards) and see what sort of lenses are being used to get the shot.

I am now thinking what the effects are on using a super zoom paired with a small sensor, compaired with an DSLR using say a 50-200mm kit lens with the larger sensor, where presumably that would capture greater detail that would crop better?

Don't expect miracles by cropping - especially with a small sensor - you will have less contrast and more noise with a small sensor - the image quality will be worse than a DSLR to start with.

 

[MartinCD]

Hi there!

How close are you wanting to get into the aircraft? Do you have an example pic of what you're wanting to get with a DSLR?

Hi! I tried to upload the photo examples but it complained of the photos were too wide. Size after compression was only 30 or so K.

I don't think you'll get anything 'good' at those distances - there's too much atmosphere between you and the subject - you're talking about a minimum distance of over half a mile - imagine trying to take a picture half a mile down a straight road (but with no background other than sky).

I reckon you need to let them get lower and closer. Any (modern) crop-sensor SLR will be up to the job and I'd be looking at a focal length of around 250 to 300mm for starters on a lens. Take a look at aircraft shots online (e.g. flickr or aviation websites/bulletin boards) and see what sort of lenses are being used to get the shot.

Don't expect miracles by cropping - especially with a small sensor - you will have less contrast and more noise with a small sensor - the image quality will be worse than a DSLR to start with.

Hello. I have been really impressed so far with the results I have been getting, even from photos of A/C at a fair altitude, but just don't want to miss out on photo opportunities that a DSLR could have provided. By cropping, I mean for example with a Sony Bridge camera, at '50x' zoom, I could maybe fill the frame with the subject. But with a DSLR at '10x' zoom I could have only say 1/4 of the whole frame with the actual subject. But if the frame were then cropped with the subject then would the detail be better or worse than a bridge camera with a smaller sensor but high zoom? While I don't expect miracles shooting A/C flying at high altitude, I would like better definition/less noise on the A/C that fly over at the lower altitudes of say 3000/6000ft.

Cheer for replies!

Edit>>>>Photos added to my gallery. Photos compressed a lot.

 

[weybourne]

When camera lenses are described as 10x zoom etc. - it is the long focal length divided by the small - so a 20-200mm zoom and a 50-500mm zoom will both be 10x but there will be a big difference between the two in how much of the frame your aircraft will fill.

A 50x zoom will be 'digital' - i.e. the camera will be cropping/interpolating to get that apparent magnification - it won't be the optical property of the lens. The Sony DSC-HX9V has 16x optical zoom with a 'full-frame lens equivalent' of 24-384mm (the lens isn't really that size - this is just a mathematical comparison). A crop factor DSLR with a (real) 300mm lens would have comparison figure of about 450mm (depending on the DSLR make/model) - so you're already filling more of your frame than with the Sony and you will have better image quality/less noise due to the larger sensor.

I'm not convinced that at the distances you mention, you could fill that much of the frame - the aircraft will still be relatively small and the atmosphere will still deteriorate the image in all but the very best of conditions.

You will definitely [have the potential to] get a lot better with a DSLR and a 300mm lens than with the Sony, but at 3500ft plus, don't expect too much.

 

[Phil V]

The 50x zoom doesn't mean anything, your camera will have an 'equivalent' focal length to 35mm of 384mm (as long as youre not using the digital zoom).

So a crop sensor camera with a 300mm lens is longer than you are using (450mm equiv).

The digital zoom is only cropping what you have in camera. There is no practical use for it. And if thats where you're getting 50x from theres no wonder you're unhappy with the results.

 

[PMN]

While I don't expect miracles shooting A/C flying at high altitude, I would like better definition/less noise on the A/C that fly over at the lower altitudes of say 3000/6000ft.

If you're wanting the aircraft large and clear in the frame then to be honest it's probably a good idea to just go nearer the airport. Realistically you're not going to get much from any camera without a very, very long lens and atmospheric conditions so perfect they probably only happen once or twice a year. It's bad enough trying to shoot Heathrow departures at 400mm on an APS-C camera and they're only at probably 1000-1500 feet; you have to be very lucky to avoid heat distortion even at such low altitudes so the chances are very much stacked against you for getting anything of any real use at 3000-6000 feet.

Why not just take the camera you have to the airport and shoot them relatively close up?

 

[MartinCD]

When camera lenses are described as 10x zoom etc. - it is the long focal length divided by the small - so a 20-200mm zoom and a 50-500mm zoom will both be 10x but there will be a big difference between the two in how much of the frame your aircraft will fill.

A 50x zoom will be 'digital' - i.e. the camera will be cropping/interpolating to get that apparent magnification - it won't be the optical property of the lens. The Sony DSC-HX9V has 16x optical zoom with a 'full-frame lens equivalent' of 24-384mm (the lens isn't really that size - this is just a mathematical comparison). A crop factor DSLR with a (real) 300mm lens would have comparison figure of about 450mm (depending on the DSLR make/model) - so you're already filling more of your frame than with the Sony and you will have better image quality/less noise due to the larger sensor.

I'm not convinced that at the distances you mention, you could fill that much of the frame - the aircraft will still be relatively small and the atmosphere will still deteriorate the image in all but the very best of conditions.

You will definitely [have the potential to] get a lot better with a DSLR and a 300mm lens than with the Sony, but at 3500ft plus, don't expect too much.

The 50x zoom doesn't mean anything, your camera will have an 'equivalent' focal length to 35mm of 384mm (as long as youre not using the digital zoom).

So a crop sensor camera with a 300mm lens is longer than you are using (450mm equiv).

The digital zoom is only cropping what you have in camera. There is no practical use for it. And if thats where you're getting 50x from theres no wonder you're unhappy with the results.

If you're wanting the aircraft large and clear in the frame then to be honest it's probably a good idea to just go nearer the airport. Realistically you're not going to get much from any camera without a very, very long lens and atmospheric conditions so perfect they probably only happen once or twice a year. It's bad enough trying to shoot Heathrow departures at 400mm on an APS-C camera and they're only at probably 1000-1500 feet; you have to be very lucky to avoid heat distortion even at such low altitudes so the chances are very much stacked against you for getting anything of any real use at 3000-6000 feet.

Why not just take the camera you have to the airport and shoot them relatively close up?

Hi all.

I have used the digital zoom a bit, but know it's limitation all too well! I find that the photo's taken look alright on the camera screen, but dire on the laptop!

I appriciate the zoom thingy (equivilants) a little bit to, thats why I am now looking at the DSLR with a half decent lens, like the Pentax kit Jessops are selling. I was also looking at the Sigma 150-500mm one, but for that I would have to be sure it would be the right thing for the job.

Going to the airport would be cool, but I get loads of A/C that fly over where I live and I like to push the equipment I have (and I suppose suffer the consequences)

So, would a DSLR over all be a better bet anyway or going for a another compact to replace the Sony DSC 9V?

 

[PMN]

Going to the airport would be cool, but I get loads of A/C that fly over where I live and I like to push the equipment I have (and I suppose suffer the consequences)

There's a difference between wanting to push your gear and being realistic though. The conditions that affect the quality of what you're getting at the moment with your current camera will affect any camera, you could be shooting with a 1DX and 500mm prime and it wouldn't really make a difference. Sometimes changing our equipment isn't the way to deal with things, changing how we shoot is.

If you're getting such traffic over your house at 3000-6000 feet then you're within very easy reach of the airport. There's a reason why us plane geeks congregate nearer the airport - it makes for better photos.

 

[Phil V]

The 2 things against you at that height are a quuality long lens and atmospheric conditions.

Unfortunately, chucking money at the problem will only get you a better lens, if your images are still through a massive hazy mess, they'll just be a slightly better resolved mess.
The only suggestion I have is to not use the digital zoom, so if you want to buy a bridge with a longer zoom, that might be a better bet.

 

[PMN]

The 2 things against you at that height are a quuality long lens and atmospheric conditions.

Unfortunately, chucking money at the problem will only get you a better lens, if your images are still through a massive hazy mess, they'll just be a slightly better resolved mess.

Exactly, and the biggest factor here is atmospheric conditions which rarely allow for perfectly clean images of such distant things.

would a DSLR over all be a better bet anyway or going for a another compact to replace the Sony DSC 9V?

Getting nearer to your subject is the way to go. Do that before even considering a new camera because if you do get 'better' gear but you'll probably just end up getting the same disappointing results. The camera doesn't seem to be the problem here, what you're expecting from it is. Hop on a train/bus/drive or whatever to the airport and shoot those big flying machines properly.

 

[MartinCD]

There's a difference between wanting to push your gear and being realistic though. The conditions that affect the quality of what you're getting at the moment with your current camera will affect any camera, you could be shooting with a 1DX and 500mm prime and it wouldn't really make a difference. Sometimes changing our equipment isn't the way to deal with things, changing how we shoot is.

If you're getting such traffic over your house at 3000-6000 feet then you're within very easy reach of the airport. There's a reason why us plane geeks congregate nearer the airport - it makes for better photos.

I would love to go to the airport, but I have to balance the work and studies and going to the airport and seeing the a/c just makes me want to pack in my job and study full time.

The 2 things against you at that height are a quuality long lens and atmospheric conditions.

Unfortunately, chucking money at the problem will only get you a better lens, if your images are still through a massive hazy mess, they'll just be a slightly better resolved mess.
The only suggestion I have is to not use the digital zoom, so if you want to buy a bridge with a longer zoom, that might be a better bet.

I know what you mean, the heat haze, I have got that many times, but when I have the A/C going almost direct overhead, and getting them almost 1nm away, I have been successful in getting some good results.

Maybe the Sony '50x' zoom may help matters then. Just wish Currys/PC World had them in store :shrug: .

 

[MartinCD]

Exactly, and the biggest factor here is atmospheric conditions which rarely allow for perfectly clean images of such distant things.



Getting nearer to your subject is the way to go. Do that before even considering a new camera because if you do get 'better' gear but you'll probably just end up getting the same disappointing results. The camera doesn't seem to be the problem here, what you're expecting from it is. Hop on a train/bus/drive or whatever to the airport and shoot those big flying machines properly.

BTW, just been looking through your photos on focusonflight. Neat! Liking the http://focusonflight.net/photos/view/18990 . Stuff of dreams to me!!!

 

[PMN]

Maybe the Sony '50x' zoom may help matters then.

It won't, believe me it won't. The thing that's causing the haze is nothing to do with the camera, it lies in between the lens and the plane and it will affect any camera you shoot with regardless of what it is.

Unfortunately this is the effects basic physics has on what we can and can't do as photographers, all we can do is try work around it.

BTW, just been looking through your photos on focusonflight. Neat! Liking the http://focusonflight.net/photos/view/18990 . Stuff of dreams to me!!!

Thanks very much, very kind! Images like that shouldn't be things for your dreams though, there's nothing clever going on there and images like that are well within reach of even fairly basic cameras.

 

[MartinCD]

Thanks everyone for your advice. I will stay as I am for now.

Cheers all!