Discussion in 'Help Team' started by dreamer1955, Feb 4, 2008.
I think I paid about £750 or so for mine. What's it worth now? £200?
I don't know what lens the OP was using, but you go away and work out the hyperfocal distance for say a 400mm lens working at f/8. By setting up in a field under the flight path but outside the airport perimeter fence, I'm sure I could get closer than that.
In any case tele lenses tend to need focusing corrections even for objects which really are at "infinity" - like stars - because the focal length shifts slightly with changes in temperature. I'm not saying that autofocus is necessary, but some sort of focus correction most certainly is; simply setting the distance index to the infinity mark is Just Not Good Enough with lenses over about 135mm focal length.
Depends - on whether you're evaluating it as an investment, or in terms of what it can do for you.
Think of it this way. A set of tyres for a Ford Mondeo isn't particularly expensive, but the car without the tyres would be worth nothing at all, as it would be incapable of fulfilling its design function.
Are you trying to say that my fridge load of film would be worthless without a camera to put them in?
Q. How do you double the value of a Nikon film camera?
A. Put a roll of film in it!
OK, after that one, I'm going offline for a couple of hours to fix my shed roof.
It certainly works the other way round in air to ground shots. I am generally working between 2000' and the legal minimum of 500' and just leave the lenses on infinity. It works fine even at the 200mm end of a 70-200 zoom, despite the fact that I am sometimes working with the lens almost fully open to keep up the 1/1000th sec shutter speeds needed to freeze the vibration/movement of the aircraft. Indeed, I quite miss the infinity locks that some old cameras had.
Autofocus is a royal pain in air photography and should always be switched off, but it's probably fine in ground to air shots. We use high wing aircraft for air photography: In my case usually a Cessna 152. They give a much better view of the ground and the wing acts as a huge lens hood, but the wing tip, the wing support strut and the fixed undercarriage occasionally wander into shot, whereupon AF systems will tend to lock onto them and leave the ground a distant blur.
You can do that with 35mm film after you've scanned it in to your PC.
Doesnt worry me at all, apart from having the "cracked ice" effect on water after sunset (which needs slow exposure etc), in general i take photos as i see them in real life.
I have digital camera in my phone and thats ok, but i still love film and as long as they make it..... I'll buy
See the following website
leconcorde topic 65
leconcorde topic 46
Then you'll know who i am and it has some of the countless photos i took of Concorde.
As for other comments to me Auto Focus is a god send and i always use it to take photos of aircraft etc
Before the EOS 3 i had the Canon AE1P, that was great camera but trying to get pin sharp focus, track and zoom in / out as Concorde went past you was impossible and often got slightly blurry pics, but with the EOS 3 no way.......As long as the airport fence wasnt in the way then 9 times out 10 auto focus gave me pin sharp photos.
So to Autofocus is great
When the airport fence was in the way, that confused at AF sensors.......and i did loose AF lock...... but thats life.
I recorded Concorde for my self, i never did it for any one else. I also wanted to see if my photos where as good as the pros, some are so it proves you dont need to have airside access or be a pro photographer for BA for 30 odd years to take good photos of Concorde as i proved it with some of my photos
If i had airside access to Concorde like the pros had believe me i could have beaten those guys hands down as i used the same type of 35mm camera as them. OK i think they used a Nikon F100, i used the EOS 3 big deal both are similar....
EOS 5D hasnt got as many Auto focus points as the EOS 3, only the EOS 1D series has 45 AF points (same as the EOS 3), more AF points = more things the camera can " see " = better photos..... so to me the EOS 1D = EOS 3 and EOS1V.
Moderators Note: Your links have been edited. Please read the following FAQ for advice on posting URLs
FAQ - How to post a web link
I think you have missed my point! The purpose of the histogram is to assess whether the picture you have just taken is appropriately exposed so you can adjust it BEFORE takng the next pic!
What's real life got to do with it?? Your eyes adjust naturally for low light. Film and Sensors don't. So the chances of finding a film that works well in a variety of light levels is slim. Hence the desirability of variable ISO.
Quite a documentary there
I'm sorry, but while there are some decent record shots there nothing comes close to Pro quality. They seem (generally) to be poorly exposed and are indifferently composed. There is one from the rear as she blasts of into the distance that is quite nice, but it is very soft and grainy.
I don't think the kind of camera you use determines the quality of the pictures!
I am aware of that, but prefer to use the cetral point mostly so that I can be sure exactly what I want is in focus. Does the EOS3 have the eye control focus point? I have never tried that and would be interested to know how well it works?
Photography, or how good a photographer you are has absolutely nothing to do with what gear you're using.
For example, one of the best collection of photos I've seen in my life were all taken on a Polaroid 600. A instant camera!
As for your photos... Well, a couple of nice ones... But most are badly exposed and not very well composed. I'm sure you'll put that down to being the other side of the fence!
But even the other side of the fence you can get good shots...
(non-concorde photo but will do as an example)
I shouldn't laugh, but that has cheered me up no end on a day that was fast becoming nightmarish. cheers. )
Now, if only I had 16th century brushes I could paint like Holbein!
Hmmmm....... I was going to blame poor scanning technique. I too took some photographs of G-BOAB last year, before the move to outside South Pen. I am no great fan of the fence and I know it is difficult to get a decent shot of the aircraft where it is now. I think I would have probably not bothered to make my pictures available to the world though.
I agree that it isn't necessary to have a top of the range camera to get top of the range images. I have some taken with a Nokia phone, in ideal conditions it must be said, that are better than some taken with my D1x (when I had one). They are better because I had the right perspective and the right light. That I had only a phone camera to hand wasn't going to stop me. You have to do your best with the tools you have.
scrumbow - when you're in a hole stop digging.
These were taken with 10D and 1D. The 10D only has 6mpx.
Ooh! I like the Catalina - one of my favourite aircraft.
Thank you. The majority of those were taken last year at the Royal International Air Tattoo. We went on the Sunday and it was a very grey and overcast day, pity.
Ok i see your point but i before digital 35mm SLRs existed for countless years and priceless images have been recorded on film......
I like to record what really happens in real life and then if i have to on my PC clean the image if its 1 stop under exposed etc...... i aint worried about that.
It was never done by some one from the press or a pilot etc, I recorded for history her last days from a " real " person's point of view and from some one (me) who experienced it all, in countless years time i hope people will see what her last days where " really " like........... and not the glossy out look which the press and media etc made out.........
The blast off was taken on 26 Nov 2003 (Last Concorde take off), i stood on a foot path over looking the runway and was looking through the airport fence with peoples heads in the way. So the photo may seem a bit soft but thats down to 1 persons head + fence getting in the way of one or two of the 45 AF sensors so the EOS 3 never got full lock on Concorde.
Film used was Fuji ASA 800 print film so it was a bit grainy but i needed its speed as i wasnt gonna miss those photos.
Glad i never used Kodak Ektar 1000 as that would have been like sand paper LOL.
When you've got a supersonic plane making her last ever take off in to history, how in god's name can you instantly "compose" some thing just like that while standing behind sea of heads and a POXY airport fence which can partly fool AF the sensors, in my case i did the best i could and i got good pictures.........
Ok they are not up to " pro " standard but
1) The pros have very very expensive lenses so can get the best photos.
2) Pros can use very very expensive film, i couldnt i had to make do with what i could afford as film quality of course effects image quality etc.
3) Some Pros had AIRSIDE access I NEVER did or i would have taken better with NO fence in the way.
4) The camera was set to TV mode, AI focus, at 1/800th sec + 6 fps + evalution metering with a Tokina 80-400 zoom lens as i wanted to freeze the action and get the best photos i could........ i feel succeed as " I " am very very very happy with them.
If you dont like-em fine, thats up to you............. I never said i was a pro I am a good amature........with a pro spec camera LOL
With Concorde it did matter as no other camera i used in the past had the stuff which EOS 3 has inc 6 fps, 6 fps and AF allowed me to do things i only dreamed of in the past.....
With out 6 fps i would not have got the blast off photo.
The EOS 1V can take 10 fps so would have got ever better photos.....
My mates had less powerfull cameras and 99% of them never got the photos i got so having the right tools helps to do a good job.
If Concorde had been flying now i would gave got better and better and better with the EOS 3 as i learned a lot from summer 2003.
The EOS 3 has all the toys the 5D has and more including eye controlled focus, central point focus, auto AF point focus, 11 point focus etc etc.
Eye control focus is ok for landscapes etc but for action pics like Concorde no way as it doesnt work 100% of the time, full auto AF is best.
From countless experience with taking Concorde pics and with 2 years experience with EOS 3 it was near impossible to use the central point all the time as 99% of the plane is white. As the plane went past me i had to track it, take pics at 6 fps, zoom in or out all the same time, the EOS 3 couldnt lock on to flat white so lost focus lock and i lost good photos. After that i used auto AF point focus and I concentrated on getting the photos i needed and i succeeded
I talked to some people with 10Ds who said their AF wasnt as good as the EOS 3s, I talked to people with Nikon F100s who also lost AF lock and that camera had less AF points than the EOS 3.
As for points raised by others you have your opinions and i respect that but the stuff i recorded in 2003 is now priceless.
I am proud of the photos i took of G-BOAB as well, why should i put them on the internet ?
Thats how G-BOAB really looked when i went to see her in Oct 2007.
Priceless... Absolutely Priceless
Wow Norman, Great pictures.
Thanks Colin. Yours aren't bad either.
Norman I like these...wish I could have done some when i went to Fairford a few years ago...when the two
Only had my Practika then but I use a scan of the Red Arrows as my wallpaper.
Must go to an airshow again sometime soon...
I was there on the Sunday after the MIGs collided on the Saturday. They still did their display , if I recall - different planes though.
It was in 1993 would you believe. Here's a video of the collision.
I had planned to get a phone camera pic of G-BOAB today but I was too busy to walk that far, may be tomorrow.
Separate names with a comma.