The right camera [Archive]

Conan the Librarian

8th Aug 2006, 11:13

I think the Nikon D70 is an epic choice and particularly in the next few weeks. Why? It is being replaced by a new Nikon tomorrow. Fabulous camera, but you will need a biggish zoom for airshows. At least 300mm and preferably 400 to 500. These lenses are fairly expensive, but will form the heart of your system - NOT the camera body :-)

You have many more options now than a year ago and in a sense, it is more confusing. If you are starting in digital SLR cameras, the Nikon D50 is a tremendous bargain and provides superb quality. I used to use a D70 but upgraded to the Nikon D200. I cannot honestly recommend this camera at this time as it has given me nothing but grief since purchase and until this issue is resolved would rather keep quiet, (2nd body, too) although for airshows, it should easily outshine the D70. The Canon EOS30D is a great bargain right now, and if you get either Nikon or Canon, then I am sure that you would be delighted.

Physical handling, is something very important. If it feels right and feels good, then you are in a better position all around. If you for instance, sat a Nikon D50/70 next to a Canon EOS350D I would be confident which you would put down first.

There is so much that I could say here, but the best bet, is to ask the question and I and others will do our best to answer it. It can all become rather expensive, as the camera body is just the start point. Apart from lenses there are memory cards and better software to process your pictures, plus all sorts of other little add ons that will keep your "Oblivion Express" card in regular use. Let us know what you have in mind other than airshows and we can try to help a little more.

My own D70 airshow shots can be found in my Photodump here. There are some goodies, some average and a few howlers. It is just a repository, but you are most welcome to have a look around.

http://s5.photobucket.com/albums/y192/zorbathegeek/

Conan

Mark 1

8th Aug 2006, 11:34

I've just bought the Nikon D50 - excellent and very easy to use. £360 with 18-55 if you know where to look. The D70 is quite a bit more expensive and doesn't really offer any extra useful features.

Next on the shopping list is the Nikon 18-200 VR (vibration reduction) lens =28-300mm in 35mm terms. Only snag is they haven't made enough for the huge demand at £550 a throw (I'm number 508 on Jessop's waiting list)

Conan the Librarian

8th Aug 2006, 11:56

Mark, the D50 is an excellent beginner camera and is now at a ridiculously low price. The D70S does offer more in handling and a better frame rate. It has more growth in it, though the D50 picture quality is mind numbing and possibly has even less noise, in some peoples view. With either of these cameras, the only shots that you won't be able to rescue, will be those where you left the lenscap on.

By the way, you are being rooked for the 18-200VR. £489 for mine and arrives next week. This lens is a good one, offering extremely large range, great optics and Vibration Reduction, or Image Stabilisation in Canonspeak. The reviews are all very complimentary and it could well be the "Walk around" lens to die for. Mind you, with Nikons lassitude in getting it into the marketplace, some of us might already have died - of old age.

Conan

REF

8th Aug 2006, 13:25

I was thinking of a Nikon D70 or D70s. From what people are saying here and elsewhere this seems to be the sensble choice. It will be just mainly at airshows and aircraft that I'll be photographing. Any suggestions on where to look for a good one? not knowing much about digital SLRs I wouldn't know what sort of price to pay. I was quoted £390 for the body of a D70s and then £199 for small lens. For the 400 lens I was quoted £300. Does this sound reasonable? I don't want to rush into buying one, just as long as I make the right choice.

Conan - some good shots on your site as well, I enjoyed looking at them.

GK430

8th Aug 2006, 13:27

I have a 2 yr old 10D lying idle since getting a 5D.
Whilst I have to agree that the lens becomes a major issue at airshows, the leap in resolution/file size is incredible once you step up. I can easily tell which body was used when I have used both the 5D and the 10D on the same day at the same airfield.
Try Park on Google and check.....although I do not buy in the UK.

Conan the Librarian

8th Aug 2006, 14:42

Ref, take my tip and sit on your hands for a week or two. The D70 replacement is publicly unveiled tomorrow and this can't help D70 prices much. D50 either, come to think of it, though not by as much.

Lenses are another story. Some of those shots of mine were taken with the Magic Drainpipe - a 50-500 Sigma, which is out of this World for aviation shots and allows you to pick them off all the way aound the pattern, thus taking advantage of the best lighting/time of day. Very sharp, very powerful, but a bit big and heavy. Lots of other options, but to reinforce my earlier comment about longer lenses, my own D200 problem has led to me using a loan 70-200VR from Nikon and although a fabulous lens, it only really allows you to get what happens to be flying nearby. Much too short if you ask me and at RIAT I was 600 yds closer than anyone on the crowdside, still finding it to be an "end of nose" lens.

I will be running up the RIAT 2006 and Canberra last flight into Kemble shots over the next 48 to 72 hours, so pop in again should you wish.

Conan

mfaff

8th Aug 2006, 20:18

D70...and D70S are very good..at least I love mine..

Lenses tho...get the best ones that Nikon make.. there are several ranges..get the pro range as they are quantifiably better....

That being said what are your criteria for viewing?....if its just on screen viewing then that may not be too bad.. but large prints..say anything larger than A3 will benefit from the better ones...I have the old pre digital ones which where in the £350 brakcket 9 years ago...and images taken with these can be taken to A0 print size easily....

REF

8th Aug 2006, 21:20

The majority of pictures will be on screen but I do print alot of them as well.

I was told today that with the lenses I need new ones as they have some sort of chip in them which works with the camera.

Conan - thanks for the advice, I'll wait before buying one to see what happens with the D70/s camera prices.

Conan the Librarian

9th Aug 2006, 01:22

Not strictly true about the lenses. Let me know exactly which ones you have in mind and I can check on compatibility. Some of the old Nikon glass is wonderful, but might only support for instance, manual focus - which for airshows especially, is no problem.

Conan

mfaff

9th Aug 2006, 08:29

REF,

The lenses I have were for an Fseries..all work perfectly with the D70.
Auto focus is fine and dandy...not problems..but as I said before they are from their top range...and I would imagine that Nikon made sure the D worked with that range...at least for this generation..

Conan the Librarian

9th Aug 2006, 10:54

Both the D and G lens series have full compatibility with the current Nikon DSLR range and there are some bargains out there in the older lens market, but I would advise that if you get them, that they are from a reputable dealer, so that any problems can be sorted out. There is a chart available from Nikon to show compatibility, but I am a bit busy doing the Sailor's Hornpipe on my desk at present. Why?

Todays good (unbelievable!) news is that I have just had a phone call telling me that my Nikon 18-200VR lens is in stock. I pick it up this afternoon and am looking forward to this one. If you are reading this Mark, I will report back when I have done a few shots with it. It has been a long wait...

Conan

Edit with late news: The Nikon D80 is out of the bag. Brief synopsis here - http://www.dpreview.com/articles/nikond80/

Conan the Librarian

9th Aug 2006, 19:11

See from your Woodchurch thread, some very nice pics. It seems that you are a prop man, so that opens up another can of worms, but read on - it gets better.
For those not familiar with DSLRs the majority feature a rather convenient plus called the crop factor. Because the sensor is smaller, the image is projected onto this smaller surface and gives the appearance of greater magnification. In fact, it is just the reduced field of view - so your lens get instantly pumped by around 1.5/1.6 times on Nikon and most Canon: by 2 times on the Olympus and other "Four thirds" cameras and by bugger all on the full frame, but wonderful (sensor is the same size as film) Canon EOS 5D.
So. where is this leading? To ensure that you don't get visible camera shake and wobbly pictures with a film SLR, you aim as a rule of thumb to use a minimum shutter speed, the same as the focal length you are using. If you were to shoot at 200mm Zoom, then you would aim for a min shutter of 1/200th of a second. With the above "Crop Factor" of most DSLRs, you need to multiply this by 1.5 for Nikon and Canon, 2.0 for the Olympus, etc. etc. So for the Nikon, you would get 300mm out of a 200 zoom, but your min shutter speed would be in the case of a D70 say, 1/300th of a second. There is a catch. If you are using a long zoom, it follows that you need a fairly high shutter speed. If you do this, you will get a great picture of the aircraft, but with a frozen prop.
I reckon that the max shutter speed to get a half way decent prop disk, is 1/250th of a second, so for anyone keen on props, this does begin to pose a problem. The answer lies in adaptive optics, Vibration Reduction or Image stabilisation. What this does, is to sense camera shake, vibration, etc and add an opposite phase to one of the optical elements and Voila! you can take at lower shutter speeds. This technology is usully applied at the lens in DSLRs though the new Sony Alpha, has it built into the body, which means that you don't have to buy it for each lens. (Not used the camera, so a few reviews might be in order.) For an airshow lens with VR or IS the Sigma 80-400VR comes into mind. (Around £850) So does the Nikon 80-400VR. (Tad over a grand) Canon have many IS lenses in their own range, but I am not familiar with them, though prices again, are not cheap..
Beneath is a picture taken at RIAT of the Spitfire PR19 and it was (mistakenly) taken at a ridiculously low shutter speed for me, of 1/125th of a second, at F11 and with 200mm of zoom. (Nikon 70-200VR F2.8) Normally, with the D200 I wouldn't have dreamed of going beneath 1/450th to 1/500th let alone 1/300th - but look at the propdisk.
There we have it. Conan's top tip for helicopter displays, is to forget it unless you have a VR lens, or are right on top of it.
Conan
http://i5.photobucket.com/albums/y192/zorbathegeek/800X600%20for%20Pprune/_JGN3287.jpg

jumpseater

9th Aug 2006, 22:48

I use Canon, with Canon lenses or Sigma. You need to have a clear idea what your buget is, and then tailor your purchase to meet that. Don't forget second hand items can save you a lot of money and get you higher spec equipment for less money. I started with a Canon10D, which was an excellent camera to learn with, and was bought through ebay, at a significant saving. I was already Canon equiped anyway. If you're starting out get to handle the cameras we suggest at a shop. You may find one brand intuitively fits, as you handle it. I know a good selection of people who shoot primarily aircraft, and the bias is towards Canon equipment. Many use the 300/350/20D variants and frequently with the Canon 100-400 IS/USM. You'd need as a fag packet calc around £1500-£1800 beer tokens for new items. I would reccomend a second hand 20D, (with respect disregard HD's comments, they are not a current item, but they are in no conceivable way obselete). They are a very robust and good quality body, easy to learn, (two colleagues without any photo experience bought them, and got their heads round them very quickly). They are frequently used as back up camera's by pro's. 2nd hand you can get them for £5-600 from a shop, well worth a look. The 5D is superb for studio/landscape work but will be compromised for sport or action work due to its relatively low fps, as will any camera with about 3fps. That was one reason for changing for me. You will also lose on the 'benefit' of the crop factor which CtL mentions.
Your lens is another budget item to consider carefully. The better the quality optics the higher the price. The Canon 100-400 IS/USM can be had for around £1200 or £100.00 per month on interest free credit over one year. Beware the tie ins on 0% credit for the first year deals, on any gear though. Once you pass month twelve...:ugh: so pay it off in a year or get a bank loan!
IS/VR is not essential by any means. There is some assistance but good technique is an area frequently overlooked, and I'd dissagree with CtL's comments re speeds. None of my lenses are currently IS, and I've done sports, soccer, under floodlights too. So that may be another way to get a good quality optic, by not having IS/VR. You will however need to practise as well as having a degree of natural ability. Whichever brand you go for the Sigma 70-200 f2.8 EXHSM is worth looking at. You can increase the focal length with a 1.4 or 2x converter. That will have a loss of perfomance of the lens, but if you don't do much low light work, that will not be too much of an issue.
eg 1/15th sec hand held f2.8 400asa Canon 10D
http://i29.photobucket.com/albums/c270/2012images/folio/IMG_6559.jpg
1/125th hand held f14 200asa Canon 1DmkII
http://i29.photobucket.com/albums/c270/2012images/rrjag/_B6O3198.jpg
Search any of my image thread on here, they're all taken with Canon 10D/1DmkII and Canon and Sigma lens'

REF

11th Aug 2006, 22:07

I don't really have a budget but if I was hoping not to spend more than £600 if poss, if it needs to be more then so be it.

Thanks for all the advice so far, bit confusing for an amateur like me as I'm not really up on all the terms thats why I wanted something that is easy to use!

Rick

Conan the Librarian

11th Aug 2006, 23:58

Ref,

you already produce a high standard of picture with whatever you are using. Let us know what that is please. Thing is that you can spend a bucket full of cash and get no better results. £600 will get you (almost) a new Nikon D80, should you want one - but you need a lens to bolt onto it and if you are after quality, then it does matter. Most of these cameras have specific modes built in to them and you can forget all of the above technospeak if you need to. In essence, you will get to know a new camera and soon start to associate certain settings with specific effects and it then becomes a natural and fun process. All of the camera "snobs" will have you believe that unless you are as smart, or experienced as they are, then you don't have a hope and this just is not true. Look back at your own photographs and ask if the investment is going to give you a quantative, or qualitative improvement over what you already achieve. If the answer is yes, then get ready to splash some cash - it will be worth it - and if you are ever in the BZN- Fairford area, then you are welcome to play with my own collection of odds and sods for a few hours, to see whether you feel better about your hunt for that elusive shot. You would be most welcome.

Conan

treadigraph

12th Aug 2006, 00:03

Conan - what he said! REF, your pics are great. I hope to move up to a DSLR later this year, and I hope that I can match the quality produced by so many people on this forum. Chiz, and thanks for the expert guidance provided here!

REF

13th Aug 2006, 10:56

Thanks for the compliments guys. I feel I could do better with better equipment. At present I am mainly using an Olympus C-700 Ultra Zoom, 2.1 megapixels. I brought it about 3 and a half years ago.

While I have been producing some reasonable stuff I feel it is time to upgrade to a DSLR. I feel with something better I can only improve myself. What ever I settle for I will need lenses and everything else that goes with it. So I figured it would have to be second hand whatever I settle for and hence the reason it needs to be easy to use.

Rick

Conan the Librarian

13th Aug 2006, 13:00

Well, you do a lot with a small camera REF. You get in close and in terms of composition, those shots are great. With the limited performance of a three and a half tear old camera, I think you will find some big bonuses if you make the switch to a DSLR and it needs (initially) to be no more technical than your current device. You can simply develop (no pun intended) at your own pace. The higher pixel rating will let you print at up to A3 with no apparent loss of quality using even a good 6MP camera (D50/D70S for instance) and the quality will feel Stratospheric by comparison.

If a budget is tight then you can look for secondhand stuff, though I wouldn't personally buy a secondhand camera body unless it was as a backup and boy - at present, do I wish I had never parted with my own D70. I still think that even getting a new body and a reasonable, though cheap Sigma 170-500 lens that you won't see much change from a thousand pounds, but if you are going to buy with a specific purpose in mind, it is really worth pushing the boat out a little bit more and being happy with not only the results, but the growth potential. My own Magic Drainpipe, the better quality Sigma 50-500 can now be purchased new for £720, (it was near £1,000 when I bought it) but thereagain - Ahem! -Mine was secondhand! I paid £330 for it from the States and I love it dearly. So. If you are lucky, you can get that initial cost down.

Conan

jumpseater

15th Aug 2006, 01:19

CtL speaks a lot of sense, apart from bangin on abaht Nikon all the time:ok:
It will be worth trying to find your nearest decent camera shop, get a copy of Amateur Photographer/Practical Photography/Photography Monthly. In there you will find loads of ads and a shop somewhere near you. There are some big fish in the market, (clue the multpage ads), where you may be able to get second hand gear at very competitive prices. Some dealers are offering 'Trade up' packages for those already using digital. This means those dealers will likely have stock of good quality second hand gear they'll be shifting, they won't take in tat, as they need to make money from the deal.
The simplicity of use in both the Canon range and Nikon range is built in. The higher the spec of the camera, naturally has all sorts of functions, but they still have Auto and Programme functions. Both those will get you going day one, and as experience increases you can explore the others. I mainly use mine like a 'Manual SLR', most of the functions are wasted on me.

Again I went to the bank for a loan for my gear, its worth looking at, interest rates are reasonable, you can spread it over your chosen period, and if your finances go pear shaped, you can at least re-schedule your loan, again at reasonable rates. So if you want to extend you budget its an option, but obviously don't go mad.

There's another option if you want serious bang for your buck, This is to get a film SLR. Top end pro spec cameras are nowadays relatively speaking dirt cheap, eg Nikon F5 around £500, EOS1HVS' are similar price, and probably wont drop as much as they have in the past. Collectors who couldn't afford them, now can. The only downside is the cost of d&p, scanning, and you can't 'chimp', and see what you got in the bag! However learning the art on such a beast will mean more success and confidence when you ultimately go DSLR.

Speedpig

15th Aug 2006, 21:07

Following guidance from the expert airshow clicker - Conan, I bought a Nikon D50. Complete with 18-55 and 70-300 lenses cost a little over £400 including shipping and VAT. Dixon's duty free price for the same was £549. Mine was an ex display model which is sold as "refurbished by Nikon". It is brand new, but has to be labelled refurb for legal reasons.
Some results may be seen here http://www.speedpig001.com/Screenshots.html These shots were taken at Biggin Hill in early June and I'm quite pleased considering it was my first attempt at airshow photography.
Please be aware, this page takes a while to load as I have yet to get around to resizing the shots.
I am most impressed by the portrait shots I have taken of my children (don't have any on my website yet).
I looked briefly at the Canon EOS350 but found it too small and the controls too fiddly for my hands. My old film SLR camera is a heavy old brass Pentax and the Nikon compares weight wise. I love the solid shutter sound on the Nikon and am still learning how to use it (must RTFM sometime).
I completely and utterly recommend the D50 for a DSLR entry or advanced user.

Sorry Speedpig, had to edit out the direct advertising links.

Speedpig

16th Aug 2006, 11:14

Ah, silly me. Apologies for advertising. It didn't even occur to me at the time.

Gets coat, hat and bolts for door.

ChrisVJ

16th Aug 2006, 20:28

One thing I notice about the new Zoom lenses from Canon, at least at the cheaper end, is that they have a very, very small depth of focus. I used to take a lot of airshow pictures and have started doing some occasionally again with Canon digital. I used to be able to set the lens close to infinity and mostly just leave it there but with my new ones the planes fly through the focus and out again in an instant.

You'd think the auto focus, which is unbelievably efficient, would take care of that but if you don't keep the planes in the right part of the frame the auto focus goes out and you'll not only miss the shot but you'll be hunting round the sky looking for the planes in a blur of background or the lens will go thru a whole cycle and stop on a short focus distance until you release the half pressure on the shutter. One answer is to use manual focus, but when I bought my lense I was not thinking of doing planes. On my old manual film zooms the zoom was slide, forward back, and the focus was the same ring but rotate. On my new digital lenses the focus and zoom are seperate rings, impossible to work both in effective way. You can also miss 'instant' shots because the camera turns off if not kept active and takes a second to reactivate. If you don't pay attention to the screen indicators because you are busy looking at the content you can miss a picture while the camera reboots. (The new ones are better but you'd be amazed how long 1/2 a second is while you are trying to get a shot of a moving plane.)

Really, the best thing to do is to borrow or hire a camera and lenses for a day and go and shoot some planes and make sure it works for you. Most people I have been talking to say, when you first ask, "Oh, I love it, it does........." but when you get into it a little deeper it turns out their photgraphy is severely limited by some operational aspect of the camera, as mine is.

I went to Abbotsford Air show last weekend, (flew in, and had my plane on display, cool experience!) I took a ton of pictures of the flying but missed a whole load, probably better shots, because of various limitations. All three of the above problems caused me to miss good shots

chiglet

16th Aug 2006, 21:30

Chris
A friend at work bought the Nikon D50 package [2 cheapish] lenses short zoom and mid zoom [28-70 70-200 I think] and he has the same problem. I bought a Nikkor [G] 70-300 F4-5.6 for £99 delivered, and have not had any probs. Also as it weighs about a quarter of the F2.8VR 28-200 stuff, I CAN get away with low light photies without a tripod [I did do a lot of research, and the more expensive Nikkor 70-300 was (in the opinion of several top quality photo mags) wasn't worth the extra £130]
REF,
As has been said, go to your local photo shop, [NOT Dixons/Jessops] and talk to the person behind the counter, handle the camera[s] and follow your instincs. Personally I wouldn't go the "Film" route though
watp,iktch

Conan the Librarian

16th Aug 2006, 23:32

Funny, but you only get narrow depth of field with the expensive lenses with a wide aperture (those of F2.8 being incredibly good at throwing the background out of focus and concentrating attention on the main subject) The cheaper lenses are all much more tolerant, having at any appreciable zoom, an aperture of 5.6/6.3 or even more. What is happening is that the autofocus is being spoofed, or you are getting shutter shake from using too low a speed. It is a bit like squinting. If you close down the aperture of the eyeball, you will often see more clearly, though I profess to find the same effect with Guinness.
If you are running a digital SLR - well, most anyway - then make sure that your min shutter speed is at least 1.5 times the focal length you are using. For a 300mm focal length, (straight, cooking and non VR/IS) ie wide open on that lens, then beneath 1/450th of a second, can lie Dragons. (Rule of thumb, but not too bad) If you are shooting airshows, then remember possibly the biggest advantage of all, which is that you can shoot, shoot and shoot with no cost implications.
There ARE cheap lenses out there. I used to use, for a few days anyway, that same 70-300G. What you say about the other more expensive 70-300 Nikon lens is right. It ain't worth it, when people like Sigma and Tamron can give considerably more bang for the buck, both optically and in terms of reach.
I make howlers all of the time, but disguise that fact by shooting like buggery. I do get some good ones and I do get some horrors - but I have never had the technical opportunity of taking pictures before, that do credit to a subject that I love. Here is one that is a few weeks old, but when I look at it, I can remember the instant and remember the hammering on the ribcage, just as it was when the shot was taken. I remember the scorching heat and I remember how sad it was to realise that in my earlier years, I had many such moments and yet have no pictorial evidence of them. All I need do, is look at that shot for the rest of my life and I will be transported just three miles down the road and yet into another World. Isn't this a true representation of Aviation, History and Nostalgia?
Now - About another can of Guinness...
Conan
http://i5.photobucket.com/albums/y192/zorbathegeek/800X600%20for%20Pprune/_JGN1669.jpg

ChrisVJ

17th Aug 2006, 06:51

My Canon 75-300 is f5.6 but I typically use f/8 thru f16 and set ISO to give 1/400 to 1/500 for props and 750 to 1/1000 for jets. I typically did as near 1/250 to 1/500 with film but the lenses seemed to have a lot more depth of focus.

In case anyone has not clicked (certainly the way cameras are set up the manufacturers haven't,) there is a new paradigm in photgraphy. You can (or should be able to) set the aperture and speed and modify the ISO to get the right exposure. (A true paradigm shift from the fixed speed of film, so why do the manufacturers still make it more difficult to shift ISO? Why do they not have a variable ISO mode in their cameras?)

Actually that is not even my main hobby horse at the moment. The last three airshows I have been to the flight line has been South of the spectators. There's five thousand cameras clicking away and I bet not 1 pic in 100 is good. At least we're not spending gazillions to find that out! It's a pity because the organisation and the volunteers at Abbotsford were absolutely the best. (The pics weren't great but we did have a great time anyway.)

innuendo

18th Aug 2006, 02:21

Re the comment about Canon lenses and very shallow depth of field:
The depth of field has nothing to do with who makes the lens. It is basicaly a function of focal length and aperture.
This gents download
http://www.stegmann.dk/mikkel/barnack/

is a depth of field calculator and when you see just how shallow the depth of field can be at wide apertures and long focal lengths it might explain some of the complaints that think that fuzzy pictures are due to a poor autofocus system.
For my money I am a big fan of Vibration Reduction, (Nikon's term) or Image Stabilisation, (Canons version) on long lenses. It is not cheap but I feel it does a great job in the right circumstances. It does not sharpen fast moving subjects of course but it does help with camera shake.
BTW, I am a Canon user but could be just as happy with the Nikon equivalent but once you have any investment in lenses you tend to become financialy committed. Camera bodies will continue to be upgraded but a good lens will last you through a whole series of incremental body improvements in the digital world.

REF

30th Aug 2006, 20:10

Thanks for all the replies, I haven't gone out yet and brough anything but I have been looking around alot more. Due to a couple of good pay packets I should be able to spend around the £1000 mark very soon.

I am quite taken by the Nikon D70s, it seems to be a capable camera and the results I have seen from various people who use it look very good. However when I went into one of the camera shops in Tonbridge Wells, the guy there did nothing but slate it and couldn't really give me a reason. He kept saying I should buy the Cannon EOS-350D instead, saying the results were better. I suspect he was on an incentive for selling the Cannon!

I only plan to do 3 more airshows this year, Duxford this weekend, Boxted the following and the Shoreham. I know its along way off but is it worth waiting until after christmas in the sales? I'd rather get something sooner but my parents think I should wait until the sales, I don't think they approve!!!

Conan the Librarian

30th Aug 2006, 21:19

If you are going to do three shows and that is the primary purpose, then I would be tempted to wait. however, you won't be able to take any pictures with a new camera until you try it. You have to balance the options, but Canon are just about to release what looks like an EOS 350D replacement in the next two to three weeks, so watch this space. The market moves ever upwards and the price/quality/features ratio continue to move inexorably in favour of the consumer.

As for matey boy in the shop, he has obviously never used a D70S though the EOS 350D is as he says, an excellent instrument. It is erm, rather small and toylike though. Still think that after you have done your homework, then head off somewhere that you can physically handle your shortlist finalists. You will feel instinctively drawn to one or the other and if you know the technical implications of the finallists, then you will make the best decision for yourself, for it is you that will use it.

I have to put my hand on my heart and hate to say it, but I cannot, at least currently, recommend the D200 for airshows though. I have had quality problems with airshow images since day one and am on my third body since April now. It might just resolve and nobody would be happier than me, but if so, I would be surprised. It is an excellent camera, but I wish I was still using the D70 for airshows, as there is much more latitude in the post processing stage. Body three may show a glimmer of hope, but we shall see.

Keep us posted!

Conan

chiglet

30th Aug 2006, 22:43

REF,
The Nikon D80s is now available :ok: Seen some good reviews
Best of luck with your choice
watp,iktch

jumpseater

30th Aug 2006, 23:12

The other option you have is to 'try before you buy'. Basically the pro-dealers particularly in London have the facility to rent equipment. You will need a credit card with a big credit limit, i.e. without an account you 'buy the gear' when you take it back they re-credit your account less the hire rate. You can get week-end rate as well as daily rates and weekly rates. It could be a good way forward for you. Choose the package you like and see if you can rent it, take it out in central london for the day, get your head around it and get a feel for the camera and its lens, and the results you'll get from it.
try camera rental+drummond street :cool:

flash8

8th Sep 2006, 17:44

The difference between the two major brands, Canon and Nikon, are small. Athough I have used both extensively both in AF and MF (Manual Focus for those too young to remember).
I'd give the following advice for anybody interested in Airshow Photography.
BODIES
USED
Either Nikon or Canon (are the only brands I know :) )
Canon, if you are buying used a 20D or even a 10D would be good investments. Make sure it looks in pristine condition, that often (but not always) reflects how many shots the camera has taken. Average Shutter Liftetime on these cameras is high (I think 100K actuations on the 10D and 200K on the 20D), the older D60 and D30 are not really recommended having a lot slower AF and a low rated shutter lifetime. I wouldn't buy one of these even at a great price (they had a big noise issue as well). An EOS300D is OK, but not built particularly well. If you have a choice get the 10D as a base model. A used 1D isn't a bad option, above this 1DS/1DII are somewhat more money. 1Ds/1DsII are studio cameras mostly anyhow.
Nikon is harder, but you can't go wrong with a used D70, or even a (cheaper) D100. Better still would be a used D1X (around 500 pounds). Again condition is paramount. D1X's weren't studio cameras so a good condition one usually means low shutter actuations. Avoid the straight D1, not really suitable.
NEW
In Order Canon: EOS350D, 20D, 30D, 1DmkII, 5D
I put the 5D last because of the crop factor
In Order Nikon:
D100, D70, D50, D1X, D2h, D2x
LENSES
Faster the better, but these can get very expensive and heavy.
A Standard lens for Pros at Airshows is a 70-200/2.8 and often a 300/4 (both fairly light) but not so cheap either in Canon or Nikon ranges.
If you buy a Nikon body you can (depending on the body, you'd need a D1x for this or better if you require meter coupling) use older MF (AI/AIS) lenses. I say this because if you don't mind manually focusiing on a digital body you can pick up the same optical quality in an old used lens for 1/3 of the price of AF. Example I used a 1977 400/5.6 AIS Nikon lens ona new D2h Digital body for a while. A great combo.
Whatever you do, if you can afford it don't buy a really slow lens, as generally (as a rule) they have inferior optical qualities. Lenses hold their value far better than Bodies. I'd also rather have a good lens on a cheap body, than a bad lens on a top model. And so would any pro.
My advice, for a lens kit (in both Nikon/Canon mounts) for airshows in decreasing order:
i) 70-200/2.8 and a 300/4
ii) 70-200/2.8
iii) 200/2.8
iii) 70-200/3.5-4.5 and a slower 300
iv) 70-200 of any sort speed but preferably Nikon/Canon branded (Sigma EX is OK though)
v) 135/2.8
heck I have said too much and made not much sense. But hope it helps.
NOTE: I'm not a photographer anymore so this is dated a bit most likely!

innuendo

8th Sep 2006, 19:46

Good post, I am a Canon user and would add that Canon has just released the EOS Rebel 400D to succeed the 350. I would also suggest that a lot of Airshow shooters like Canon's 100-400 zoom, very versatile lens, comes at a price unfortunately. Have a look in www.dpreview.net for a lot of info.

flash8

8th Sep 2006, 20:36

Well to add to my post, IS (Image Stabilisation) is extremely useful, especially above 135mm.

I used to shoot a lot with the 35-350/3.5-5.6 L USM (An old 1993 Canon Mega Zoom) and found it pretty good. It's quite rare now, but when available used goes for apreciably lower than the newer lenses, but of course it doesn't have IS.

If you really want pro performance on a budget (this is relative of course) my recommendation would be a 1D (MKI) used, the AF tracking ability of the newer 1 series cameras is superb, and probably better than any non 1 series camera, including the 10/20/5D. Hard to find used as people can't bear to part with them, but expect to pay 600 pounds or so for the body.

For the same price (or cheaper) a Nikon D1X is an incredible camera. I dropped one once in the middle of Uzbekistan onto a concrete road at 30 miles an hour. The result? Almost unmarked. That gave me instant respect for Nikon although I have always been a Canon guy.

Whatever you choose.. ultimately its the photographer that counts!

jumpseater

8th Sep 2006, 21:11

I'd personally disagree with flash8 choice for airshow work. The 1DmkII will be a better tool if thats you're main interest, followed by the 20D and then it'd be a toss up between the 10/350D
The 1DmkII has 8.2pixels and can shoot 8.5fps in raw
The 20D has 8.2 pixels and can shoot 5fps
10/350/5D only shoot 3fps
If you're after shooting fast action and want to not miss anything then the 20D is probably the best option if you havent got a large budget. I started with the 10D and found it limited by the fps/burst rate and data storing time. When the camera is writing to the card, it may as well be a paperweight! It was a cracking camera to get my head round digital, but for sport/airshow work it has limitations, as does the 350D. The 5D is fine but again with a 'slow' drive, you could well miss the 'money shot'.
As far as Lenses go I'd agree with F8, however the Sigma EX range is exceptionally good for lenses with no image stabilisation. I've had work published from mine, and I know a few pro's who use them too. Well worth a look.
The Canon 100-400's are an perculiar beast. Overall a good lens, however they do have variations in the build quality, I've seen this first hand as well as having read various web comments on them. I've used two different, same age lens', and the zoom and focus function physically feel completely different. They both seem to give good optical results however at the moment. If you go for one I'd try to buy new, or buy it from someone you know and trust.
Another option is to get a converter, either 1.4 or 2x to give your 70-200 more reach. There are compromises however in the image quality and available light the combined lens/converter lets in.

chiglet

8th Sep 2006, 21:30

jump,
Sorry, I HAVE to differ. a "Teleconvertor" can lose up to 3 stops. better to go for a 70-300 F4.5/5.6[£99] both short AND light :ok: [On a D camera, that's a 105-450mm F4.5/5.6, which ain't THAT bad]
watp,iktch

jumpseater

8th Sep 2006, 22:09

Chig, I agree, however I go for a faster lens and then generally accept a compromise when pushing the boundaries, with the extender, a 2x in my case. This gives me a very fast lens for 'normal' work, especially handy for low light levels. It of course depends on the converter manufacturer as to how good it is. All this shows is that theres more than one way to skin a cat, and different requirements for each photographer mean different choices.
For example my kit is
17-35 f2.8
28-70 f2.8
70-200 f2.8
2x con
This covers most requirements and gives me worst case 400mm f5.6

This is a 1DmkII + 70-200/2.8 non is/usm +2x conv about 1500m away
http://i29.photobucket.com/albums/c270/2012images/rrjag/_B6O3464.jpg
10D + 70-200/2.8 non is/usm
http://i29.photobucket.com/albums/c270/2012images/rrjag/CRW_6029.jpg
20D + 100-400is/usm copyright 'Rolfy'
http://i29.photobucket.com/albums/c270/2012images/Rukins/IMG_3309aa.jpg
1DmkII + lens not applicable to discussion 2000m away
http://i29.photobucket.com/albums/c270/2012images/_B6O4336-1.jpg

As f8 said 'Whatever you choose.. ultimately its the photographer that counts!', there's no amount of gear you can buy to help you if you haven't got the eye for it!

Conan the Librarian

9th Sep 2006, 00:03

Think I would disagree too. 200mm will do for the static display, but is myopically short for airshow work. At least 300 and preferably 400-500. My own requirements are met by the tremendous 50-500 Sigma, or "Hubble" which although heavy, is a wonderful tool for picking them off around the back of the display pattern and using available light to best advantage. This year, through D200 problems, I used a 70-200 Nikon VR lens, which although very good, is (see above) and is a bit pricey, when a Nikon Teleconverter is added, which also fuzzes things up a bit and loses lot of light as well.
Camera bodies? I would have agreed maybe a year ago. Thing now, is that regarding price/value/features/performance, the manufacturers are taking an increasing trot, Lemming like, to the edge of the cliff. A new body has the wonder of a guarantee, spare parts support and often (though not always) better ergonomics. Certainly more bang per buck.
Let me illustrate the lens problem with a 200. You can get a goodish picture, but unless it is close in, you might be using less than 2 of your Godzillion Megapixels for the interesting bit. Were it taken with the Hubble, I could have done something with this one. It is a bummer. Maybe OK on screen, or a mobile phone, but don't think of printing it, or looking at all closely...
Conan
http://i5.photobucket.com/albums/y192/zorbathegeek/RIAT%202006%20-%20not%20happy/_JGN2999.jpg

flash8

9th Sep 2006, 01:23

flash8

9th Sep 2006, 01:29

Think I would disagree too. 200mm will do for the static display, but is myopically short for airshow work. At least 300 and preferably 400-500.

I did state a 300/4 is ideal, in size and weight. I'd hate to haul a Bigma around all day, I guess in the last 5 years or so the intro of the new super-zooms (of which the 35-350/3.5-5.6 L was the first back in '93) and IS/VR has really changed photography, esp. handheld action photography.

I'm still stuck mostly in the 90's photography world. So... may be a bit out of date!

jumpseater

9th Sep 2006, 22:36

I had a graphic illustration of f8's 'its the photographer that counts!' today. I was taking pictures of neddies, when another photographer came up and asked a few questions about what my kit was. No prob there, as such apart from talking at me whilst I was shooting, but they were using a 30D and 35-135 us/ism, and I got shown their efforts. Never the best time to get advice if the other person is obviously concentrating and 'working'. However despite haveing some good kit, the efforts were a bit grim, particularly in the 'framing' and timing of the shots. How they had also compounded it by getting a lot out of focus also confused me. I even take the manual with me in the bottom of my bag! Very un-blokeish I know to resort to RTFM, but the answers are usually in there!
http://i29.photobucket.com/albums/c270/2012images/sport/_B6O4498.jpg

http://i29.photobucket.com/albums/c270/2012images/sport/_B6O4431.jpg
Looks a bit 'keen' doesn't he!:ooh:
When offered a ride on said mule, in true tabloid tradition, 'We made our excuses and left!':=

paulc

13th Sep 2006, 09:55

Another vote for the Canon 20D here - have had it since Xmas 2004 (had a replacement body July 05 though) and have taken 10K+ shots in that time. Also have the 100-400IS L lens which was not cheap but the results are worth it but images can look slightly soft at the 400mm end.
As a shorter lens I have the Canon 17-85mm which again I find to be excellent in terms of results and ease of use. Having said that on other more photographic based website people have had build quality issues with both of these lenses - perhaps I got a couple of good one.

REF

19th Sep 2006, 18:26

After alot of advice from people here on pprune and from others that I've been talking to, I have decided on the Nikon D70 or D70s if I can get one. I'll be purchasing it within the next couple of weeks (probably around payday!!)

I think with the budget I have and the results I have seen this far it is the best option for me to use.

thanks again for the advice

jumpseater

19th Sep 2006, 21:24

:oh: He's going to buy a Nikon :ugh: :yuk:

Seriously though, good luck with it, let us know how you get on!
js

chiglet

19th Sep 2006, 23:13

js,
"he's going to buy a Nikon" :ugh: :yuk:
Balldox to you and yours :E I've got a Nikon D70, My boss has a D70s. Admittedly 3 ATCOs have the Canon :( BUT
Seriously, it's six of one, and half a dozen of the other :ok:
GOOD LUCK REF :ok:
watp,iktch

NutLoose

20th Sep 2006, 00:53

Canon 350D here and one of my lenses is the 70 to 300mm IS which i find a good combination for Aircraft Photography, couple done with it below. But the 400D which is 10MP would be a nice option now. hope these are not to big..

http://mysite.orange.co.uk/aircraftphoto/Chippy_901_departure_Small_.jpg

http://mysite.orange.co.uk/aircraftphoto/Grand_Arrival.jpg

http://mysite.orange.co.uk/aircraftphoto/AA.jpg

Conan the Librarian

20th Sep 2006, 01:11

I am happy for you REF. This morning I took delivery of Nikon D200 number four and I still don't rate it for airshow use in comparison to the D70 or S versions. Have heard too much BS from Nikon on this score. It loves expensive lenses, whereas the D70 makes the most epic job with whatever is at hand. If you are not delighted, I will eat my hat. If you want any further filth on the benefits, then send me a PM.

Remember what I said. The D70 is now replaced by the D80, so there will be bargains to be had in the next few weeks.

Conan

Out Of Trim

21st Sep 2006, 22:44

Remember what I said. The D70 is now replaced by the D80, so there will be bargains to be had in the next few weeks.

Conan

Hi Conan - I usually respect you view - but to me the replacement to the D70 hasn't arrived yet! - I'm waiting for the D90 and If it doesn't show soon will go for the D200.

I feel that the D80 is only a replacement for the D50 - Have you seen how small it is and the handling & SD card is just so Nikon D50. I want a camera that is the same size as the D70 with better functions.

Conan the Librarian

22nd Sep 2006, 00:48

Oddly enough, I handled a D80 this afternoon. Twee, but less than the Canon 300/350/400 and still a very good ergonomic piece of kit and one that lends itself to the user. It is about 70% of a D200 at half the price. Lightly built by comparison and certainly light in weight, it still has what Nikon claim to be some very good and impressive guts in it. I really don't think I can say much here without sounding bitter, depressed, manic, pshycopathic, unstable, mysanthropic and slightly upset, but I wish I could have known before I bought the D200, which for airshow work has been in my own experience, markedly inferior to the D70, even with 4MP more to play with.

I purchased the D200 thinking that it would offer more cropping possibilities, but the irony is that I ended up shooting this year, with a very good lens but less than half the focal length and am really very fed up. A full rant is available from my key worker in mental health. For everything else, the D200 is quite a crackng piece of kit and I fully expect the D80 to follow suit, but until seeing evidence, don't think it really fair to comment further. The D70/S is a known performer and a bloody good one too. Early to say, but If I were looking for a second body right now, I think I would bend towards the D70 on grounds of known performance, peace of mind, pricing opportunity and that that the D80 still hasn't become available in sufficient numbers to say one way or the other. remember - when you make a buy like this, you get locked into the system somewhat. Canon are great and so are others - but unless you have confidence in the camera, you are immediately at a loss.

Time for another tablet....

Conan

jindabyne

22nd Sep 2006, 08:21

Conan

As a rank amateur in these matters (me that is!), could you give your opinion on the D50 please? Just been gifted one with a Sigma 70-300 lense - reading all previous, I get the impression that it might not be up to airshow stuff? Thanks.

jabberwok

22nd Sep 2006, 12:07

This thread is rekindling an interest in airshow photography again. I stopped taking airshow shots a decade ago when I traded in my system camera for a Hasselblad (subsequently got a second one). These did ten years stirling work but I've hardly touched them in the last 12 months.

I might just trade one in and have some SLR fun again.

Conan the Librarian

22nd Sep 2006, 17:02

The D50? Brilliant, utterly brilliant. Great colour and very low noise indeed. Even a tad lower than the D70. I wish I had either of them as a second body. You will get a smaller viewfinder on both the 50/70 and simpler techno gadgets than the D200 certainly - but in essence, a fabulous machine. The 50/70 will let you get astounding airshow results with the right lens (as does the Canon 350D -its' nearest competitor from Canon) but will also let you get these results with cheaper lenses than the D200/D2X and the full frame Canons. These later and more advanced cameras have raised the optical benchmark somewhat and many are reporting that they are out resolving some lenses, a prob which you will almost never get with the D50/70. They are so well matched. For me, it seems that I need to buy another £1500 worth of lens to achieve the same balance that I had with the D70 - a point I can find nowhere in Nikons sales blurb.

Go and enjoy it. That Sigma 300 will do ok for airshow work, as the skies are almost always bright and will give you a nice fast shutter speed and if it whets your appetite, you can always upgrade the lens. The camera will not let you down. Lots of reviews for the Nikon and Canons on the net, so go and read them if you don't believe me :-)

Good luck!

Conan

jumpseater

22nd Sep 2006, 17:23

'I might just trade one in and have some SLR fun again'

Jabber get an apointment set up with CTL's mental health key worker, for after the valuation of one of the blads. Unfortunately you may need it:ouch:

REF

22nd Sep 2006, 18:00

Conan

Just more of a point of interest, is the D80 closer to the D70 or the D200 in terms of what it does and how good it is likely to be?

Having said I'm going to buy the D70, if the D80 is a better camera at a similar price I may look at that instead.

I'm not yet handled the D80 in the flesh yet, but it may well be worth doing me thinks!

jabberwok

22nd Sep 2006, 18:35

after the valuation of one of the blads. Unfortunately you may need it

Don't dampen my hopes too much. I was expecting at least 5 quid each for them.. :}

Conan the Librarian

23rd Sep 2006, 00:01

REF, after the D200 experience, I wouldn't touch the D80 for airshow work with a bargepole until others have reported back. The camera (simplistic and in some ways innaccurate I know) is a D200 in Lambs clothing. It is also half the price.

The sensor is the same as the D200, though with only two channels as opposed to four. Some might say it was a crippled D200, but I think much more of it than this. It will be a phenomenal camera and worth every accolade that is thrown at it. However the D200 was the same and because of scarcity, I ordered and bought based on my D70 experience. For airshows, it is not so good unless you throw some very good quality glass on the end of it. A good solution might be the 70-200VR Nikon lens, plus a 1.7 Nikon teleconverter. It works a treat - but that extra lens setup, will set you back £14/1500 and unless you are both well endowed in ambition and funding, it is I feel anyway - a bit of a red herring. Ultimately, you will want higher quality glass as a better investment and for that elusive quality, but I genuinely think that a D50 or D70 will give a much better and softer introduction to bankruptcy (correction - airshow photgraphy) than a full blown semi or pro camera. If I had a fund of £2,000 right now for airshow work, I would look at an expensive lens with either a D50 or 70, rather than the D200 with a mid range lens, which by comparison, is a noisy beast, to say the least and shows less latitude if you want to post process, or play with the image afterwards.

These are personal views and may be tainted by my experience. I fully accept this, but it has cost me much frustration this year and I do feel that there are far cheaper ways of getting at least equally good results either on a smaller budget, or in a different balance. If we are aviation lovers, we will have a feel for our subject that is far more acute than a jobbing photographer with whatever equipment and this, you need never to lose sight of. If you know when someone is likely to heave on the pole, or have awareness of the airshow pattern and type of aircaft, you have the most priceless gift - and that is something money simply cannot buy in itself. Go for what feels good and you won't regret it.

I would be proud to shoot a good lens with a D70 or D50, or if I had very small hands, a low end Canon and could fairly expect some epic results. All this techno speak is great, but just remember one thing. It is the idiot pressing the shutter release that makes a great photograph and much, much less the camera.

Conan

HEATHROW DIRECTOR

23rd Sep 2006, 07:27

REF.. Glad to hear you've opted for Nikon. Very sensible decision in my opinion and I'm sure you'll be delighted with the results. Just wish I knew how Nut Loose produces pics like that with a Canon. Presumably hours of post-processing?

Bren McCartney

jindabyne

23rd Sep 2006, 10:54

Conan

Thanks for that - a nice confidence booster. Let's see how this particular idiot makes out ------

Conan the Librarian

23rd Sep 2006, 17:59

For an unbiased view of the D50 from a new user, (applicable to the D70 as well really) send SpeedPig a PM. He sent me the very first pic that he took with his new toy and I could hardly match it with the D200. The quality is creamy smooth and the noise is, err, well - absent. I was delighted as he was. (Swine...)

Conan

jumpseater

25th Sep 2006, 22:20

Just wish I knew how Nut Loose produces pics like that with a Canon. Presumably hours of post-processing?
I have to take you to task on that one HD. You appear to be suggesting that Canon requires significant time in post processing, as opposed to other manufacturers, which is complete :oh: If that were the case the professionals would have deserted Canon in their droves to find a quicker/easier product. After all time is money. That they have not and people like John Dibbs use them firmly indicates otherwise. Many of my images require no correction at all.
Heres two recent images. Total processing time from the RAW data is about two minutes. I'm including downloading from the CF card here too. All I've done with them is convert them to JPEG and reduced their size for this page, with the loss of quality that that entails. Software package used is from Google, a free download.

http://i29.photobucket.com/albums/c270/2012images/rrjag/_B6O4357.jpg

http://i29.photobucket.com/albums/c270/2012images/rrjag/_B6O4457-2.jpg

You may have a personal opinion that Canon images take longer to produce a quality shot, but it's not borne out by the facts. When freelancing at a sports event for a local rag, working with their photographer, the choices were made solely on the image, nothing to do with 'post processing time'. In getting images published we were about 50/50, him Nikon, me Canon. If there were any time issues that's where you'd find them, on the metaphorical front line. Trust me there aren't any.
rgds JS

Conan the Librarian

26th Sep 2006, 00:47

All depends on how you set the camera up really. There is so much that can be done these days in camera and if you nail it when you hit the tit, then there is so much less post processing to do. I would rate Canon and Nikon on an equal footing here, though we will all have some preferences.

Worth remembering that a lot of wedding photo bods and newspaper shooters rely on this approach as they don't get paid for extra PP time and instead of sitting with Photoshop, could be having a nice cup of tea, or spendig a relaxing ten miutes picking their noses. Their experience counts here. Shooting a thousand or two each week helps them hone the camera settings right down and they are masters at this. For a lot of people here, they will have to work off camera in Photoshop or similar to get the best from a shot, whether it be JPG or RAW format.

One of the biggest drawbacks for a lot of people, is the time that they spend post processing. It certainly didn't appeal to me initially, but now, I find it quite therapeutic - though I wouldn't half mind a bit more time for dunking teabags.

Conan

HEATHROW DIRECTOR

26th Sep 2006, 08:20

Jumpseater - my camera and L lenses simply will not produce pics like that. Check some of my aircraft shots at www.brendan-mccartney.fotopic.net. Maybe not all Canon cameras, but certainly the EOS20 (which I have) has a reputation for "soft-focus" - just read all about it on the Canon forums. The forums are always going on about "bad copies" of lenses. Some of these professionals get through 2-3 lenses before they are happy. What does that say for Canon "quality"? I have an ex-colleague who is also a professional photographer.. he says he often needs to post-process with his top-of-the-range Canon. At the Farnborough Air Show I was near a very keen photographer - shoulder full of lenses, etc. He asked me about my gear.. and told me that I must always, always shoot "RAW", then post-process out of the camera. I accept what they say, but I think it's a nonsense when you can spend 2k on some kit and not obtain shots as good as I got with my old Fuji at a fraction of the price. I don't understand the logic of sharpening afterwards when the camera has produced a "soft" picture. Surely the other way round would be best - get the best, sharpest pic possible out of the camera and soften it if so desired?

All that said, pics which are post-processed are phenomenal and beat the pants off anything I can take.... I just don't like mucking about afterwards.

paulc

26th Sep 2006, 12:13

HD,

the RAW image that comes out of the camera is exactly what the sensor saw and recorded with no in camera processing at all. A JPEG is a RAW image that has been processed by the camera using whatever facilities the camera has.
JPEG are much smaller on account of data loss when being processed.

As for getting a soft image that is fine by me as I can determine just how much to sharpen an image (using USM) rather than have the camera do something that cannot be undone.

rgds
Paulc

you missed a good slide show on Oshkosh last month

Conan the Librarian

26th Sep 2006, 12:42

I can really only speak for Nikon, but what Paul sys is not strictly true. Tweaks made in camera are carried over in RAW shots, at least using Nikon Capture NX and you can then post process from there, but if you are not happy, are free to change things as you see fit. If you shoot in RAW+JPG modes, then your jpg is already pretty much sorted straight out of the box and actually, so is the RAW shot. Things like Adobe don't see these in camera tweaks, so you work from scratch there. Nikon Capture NX is a very, very good addition for any Nikon DSLR and especially when you have another editing program, such as Photoshop. They dovetail quite well.

I would love to shooot JPG as the job is then done. It saves time. I will never leave RAW though, because you can fix so many of your goofs after the event without loss of quality. A JPG is a shrinkwrapped ready to go, zipped and done deal. If you have mucked it up badly, then you have done just that.

The reason that sharpening (NEVER simply sharpen - use Unsharp Mask) takes place as a last step, is so that when the manipulation of the image is done, that when you sharpen with USM, that artefacts are not introduced into the image. If you use USM first, then you will enhance the image, but also enhance any noise or artefacts already present or that have been introduced by heavy PP, sharpening them too and making them more visible. In Photoshop or similar, noise removal is the very first step for similar reasons. The aim here, is to get rid of as much noise as possible nd to let you work on the purest image that you can, without modifying and amplifying that noise.

HD, I sympathise with you and your feelings. The thing is that you have much more freedom with the DSLR and it sometimes seems that a point and shoot will give you at least equal results. It is an illusion. It works everything out for you and that tiny sliver of glass or plastic has enormous depth of field. It doesn't even matter whether it is in focus at all sometimes. That DOF is so deep, that it will be ok anyway. Jumpseater always produces some jaw droppers on here and whilst it is possible to get as good shots, his is a high benchmark. If you have a nasty or troublesome shot that you think might benefit in post processing, then you are welcome to send it along to see if I can get anything different to you from it. I can only try, but an happy to attempt it for you.

Conan

HEATHROW DIRECTOR

26th Sep 2006, 15:16

Thanks paulc and Conan. I know all about RAW v JPEG bit and I now shoot 99% JPEG because what comes out of the camera is better. If, as is suggested elsewhere, the EOS20 is designed to produce "soft" images it means that when you apply USM (or a special EOS20 CSPro plug-in for CS2 in my case) you are surely attempting to add, or manipulate what is not there to start with? My brain says you should start with lots information you may not want and can then remove it (I derive this from my radio training which says it's a waste of time having an amplifier near the radio rather than at the aerial as it can't amplify what's been lost in the cable). If I take a pic on a tripod with my EOS20, then another with my wife's Sony credit-card size 7MP camera, or my old Fuji 9600 zoom the difference can be seen immediately - two the pictures leap out and smack you in the eye and the Canon is dull and uninteresting. Incidentally I've now set the Canon to sharpen and apply more vivid colours and more contrast but it still doesn't satisfy me. Take a look at any picture on
http://www.planepictures.net/ then look at my pics from the link above. The pics on PP seem to be smooth yet razor-sharp at the same time so what are they doing that I'm not? I've had many pictures rejected by PP for being too fuzzy or out of focus!! Is it possible that all the photographers on PP are spending ages sharpening their pics?
If I wasn't an OAP I'd dump the Canon gear and go for Nikon as I've seen some very, very good pics from Nikon - particularly from my son's 4500, which he uses for Astro photography.

Conan the Librarian

26th Sep 2006, 16:25

Sharpening itself, is a bit of an illusion. What is does is to increse the contrast between light and dark areas, an effect most prevalent on edges. It is just that the brain interprets this as extra contrast and makes it simply "look" sharper.

Your radio analogy is a good one, but consider this. If you put an amp in nearer the radio on a lossy or long lead, then it will amplify not only signal, but noise too. If you put the amp in a little earlier, then the signal to noise ratio would be better. TV boosters are a great example. They are often put in to amplify the already compromised signal from a poor aerial and you get noise visible on screen. This is what happens in post processing with pictures. If you can get the purest "signal" and then sharpen that, you will get far better results than if you were to try to sharpen the lot, with existing noise and artefacts also being sharpened. This is why you should stick to noise first, sharpening last.

When it comes to being "lossy" nothing can beat a JPG, which is a major reason that many prefer RAW and also that the latter will give you so much more elbow room in post processing. You are not only the photographer with RAW, but also the lab and printing house too.

Conan

Out Of Trim

26th Sep 2006, 16:49

HD - I've had a look at some of your images and agree they don't seem very sharp for some reason. However, I've seen plenty of pretty exceptional ones taken by a Canon 20D; so, it may just be either a setting issue or perhaps a focus fault with your actual camera.

If you have juggled all the settings and checked your taking photos with the correct shutter speeds for the situation and lens fitted; and still no joy - It may be time to let Canon check it out.

I can't advise further as I'm a Nikon user myself! Nikon D70 at the moment but, looking to upgrade to poss the D200 at some point.

jumpseater

26th Sep 2006, 21:52

CtL ta re the 'jawdroppers', very kind of you to say so. I wish I had the eloquence and ability to talk and write technically about this as well as you do.:ok:

HD which 'L' lenses are you using? I have two colleagues who have 20's and overall get very good results, without too much post processing. I know and it is well known that there have been problems with some of their 100-400IS/USM's, I understand there are several factories producing them and there doe's seem to be a few 'Monday morning, Friday afternoon' examples about. I don't know of a similar problem with other Canon 'L' and 'L' IS/USM lenses though. I must admit to not having 'done' the photo forums, having seen how pprune and another forum I'm a member of gets 'chaff' in the forums, its sometimes difficult to see the wood for the trees!

I know exactly what you mean and where you're coming from re the post processing, in the past having shot transparency 90% of the time. I must admit I'm nowhere near as far up the foodchain on photoshop as you are if you are using CS, and CtL's offer of playing with one of your images, may be a useful test. Perhaps if you have someone who can lend you a body to swap lens' on, do a set of test shots and see if there are significant differences.
My basic settings on my 1D are
jpeg quality all at 10 = highest
parameters = set1
colour matrix = 4adobe RGB
noise reduction off
iso expansion off
I have no idea if those will work on your 20, but if they're there it may be worth trying those, or some of them.
For info my post processing is done very quickly for forum/web page/thumbnail work in Google's Picassa. A free download with very basic 'control', it is surprisingly effective though, with a RAW converter built in!
rgds js

Conan the Librarian

26th Sep 2006, 23:03

Jumpseater, job done. can I have my cheque now please?

Something sounds awry with HDs setup. A file might also prove useful in the Exif settings, A great boon for digital photographers. The shooting data is kept with the file and so I should be able to tell at least something about the settings, though a Canon user would read more through their dedicated software I am sure. I learn a lot from these settings and you can often see where a shot went wrong through technique or a camera issue. Believe me, the in camera settings, especially for JPG users, are so sophisticated that it is easy to miss out and for users to feel that they have taken a backwards step. Part of the ultimate flexibility that you have with a DSLR, but also, until right, a source of concern for any user that has just parted with spondooliks for something they expect to give better results.

I think that on the airliner shots that I have seen, then something may well not be as it ought. A common problem is one of front or back focusing, where the camera AF is slightly out of kilter and is in essence confused by what it sees, the assumed focus being a bit in front or behind. I can't actually see this so much as the A/C shots should be near infinity and not so badly affected. Ultimately, it might be worth letting Canon look at this, but I could help narrow it down a bit with a few RAW and JPG files. The EOS20D is crawling around the bazaars and is known for producing high quality shots. I think that you don't have proper spot metering on the 20, but centre weighted should help those shadows a bit. HD, don't lose heart. we might be close to identifying a particular problem here and nobody will be happier than me.

Conan

paulc

27th Sep 2006, 05:57

HD,

re jumpseaters point of trying another body / lens - I would be happy for you to use mine when you next visit Popham (8th October is final event of season)
Having 1 or 2 pictures on airliners.net / jetphotos net it can take a while to get an image up to their standard but judging by the queue length on both sites enough people manage. It is also possible that you do have a fault with either camera or lens - my 20D body suffered a partial autofocus failure at RIAT in 2005 which was very frustrating but it worked enough of the time to get some shots.

rgds
Paulc

Duxford_Eagles

27th Sep 2006, 23:46

Canon Focusing

I've had a 10D and a 1D MkII that both needed the focusing setting up properly and produced much better results after I'd done so. I got a great deal of flannel from the retailer when I expressed my frustration about the focusing abilities of my 10D shortly after buying it so I chose to go to H Lehmann in Stoke to get it sorted out (Canon have a terrible reputation for taking ages and not resolving these problems). H Lehmann calibrated everything while I waited and the whole job was sorted in about an hour (under warranty). Once sorted, this camera produced some very good results and it became a treasured posession until some toerag stole in earlier this year.

I had similar problems with my 1D MkII and this was sorted out under warranty by Fixation in London (again without going through Canon). This camera went the same way as the 10D.

Canon must have improved things (or I just happened to get two rogue cameras) because my replacement cameras (A 5D and a 1D MkIIn) both perform absolutely fine.

Lenses

Too many people spend theirt budget on their camera body and then compromise on their lenses, only to wonder why their results aren't as expected. Without good glass even remarkable cameras produce mediocre results. I've seen people blame the Canon 100-400 for being soft and unreliable. I had my first one die on me after 4 months but the replacement's still producing the goods after a further two and a half years of very heavy use so they're not all bad. I've seen so many people using this lens like a trombone: continually varying the focal length as they follow a 'plane, so it's no surprise they're disappointed with the results from their particularly expensive acquisition. Zooms are best used in steps like a series of fixed focal length lenses - let the subject fly into the frame as you follow it rather than continually varying the focal length.

Good action shot can be obtained with modest cameras if you get your technique sorted out through practice and heeding the advice of those who've already mastered the art.

Rob

HEATHROW DIRECTOR

28th Sep 2006, 07:23

Rob.. Interested about the adjustments being done while you wait.. I've asked this on the Canon forum with no result - why can't one "calibrate" one's camera oneself? I'm a Radio Amateur and have spent my life setting up my own radio gear and plenty of other domestic stuff too. What's involved in the "calibration"? If it's simply taking a panel off and twiddling a screw I'd prefer to do it myself.

I've checked my EOS20 and my 17-40 and 24-105 "L" lenses with a focus chart and everything focuses "in the middle" so I'm not sure it's a focus problem. I'm not a professional, far from it, but do understand the basics of DoF, shutter speed, f numbers, etc., having used SLR cameras for 40+ years.

Duxford_Eagles

28th Sep 2006, 10:31

HD, I didn't see what they were doing, they spirited my camera away while they did it at Lehmanns and Fixation didn't offer a while you wait service, I had to pick it up the next day. Both of my cameras demonstrated a marked tendency to back focus. Perhaps if you ring one of the aforementioned service agents they'll explain the process?

H Lehmann Ltd
247-249 London Road
Stoke-on-Trent
Staffordshire
ST4 5AA
Tel 01782 413611
Fax 01782 744579

Fixation
Suite 508
71 Bondway
London
SW8 1SQ
Tel 020 7582 3294
Fax 020 7582 9050

This isn't a process I'd trust Canon to do themselves. From what I've read on photography forums they takes ages and don't do a good job.

HEATHROW DIRECTOR

28th Sep 2006, 12:21

DE.. Many thanks for the info. Lehman's won't do it in a day so am trying Fixation..

Offchocks

29th Sep 2006, 12:08

HEATHROW DIRECTOR........do you have a filter on the lens? I was quite disappointed with my new 75-300 IS USM lens due to soft images. I spoke to Canon and they said they would re-calibrate it.

Before I gave the lens back to Canon a "pro" suggested that it may be the filter (good quality one) that was giving the problem. So off it came and now the images are sharp.:)

BTW I was about to get a 100-400L this weekend, is quality control that bad?

jumpseater

29th Sep 2006, 13:18

With the 100-400's there are some known isues with them. They occaisionally develop a 'ERROR' fault. To clear this you need to turn the camera off and take the lens off, and put it back on. I know one person who has one who has had the problem, the lens is at Canon at the mo, the other person has had no problems with his. They are a pretty good lens, and if I didnt have 'coverage' for those focal lengths, I wouldn't hesitate to get one.

HEATHROW DIRECTOR

29th Sep 2006, 13:47

Offchocks.... thanks for that tip. I do use a filter - Hoya Uv just as a lens protector on the L lenses. I have the kit lens 18-55 with which I did not use a filter. Pics taken with that and the 17-40 L are absolutely indistinguishable from each other so maybe the filter is causing problems. I'll take it off for a while and see.

As far as lens issues goes... On the Canon forum the US people are very fond of referring to getting a "good copy" of a lens. They buy a lens, try it and return it for replacement if they don't like the results. With some L lenses this seems to be commonplace and they say things like: "Excellent lens, as long as you get a good copy". If one is paying £1k (as we would over here) for a decent lens I think you should get the goods A1 to start with.. My first EOS20 had to be replaced due to appalling amounts of dust on the sensor. Dealer just swapped it immediately without quibble as it it was something he was used to doing!!

I'd still like to know how to calibrate the set-up as I'm itching to do it myself, just as I do my own sensor cleaning.

Conan the Librarian

29th Sep 2006, 14:23

The thought about filters is a good one. It has happened to me too and I get much sharper pictures without on my 18-200VR. Amazing how many people will spend a fortune on a lens only to fit a filter that gives what is costs. Sadly, that is often near s*d all.

Doing your own sensor cleaning is something I am not prepared to do, as the risks are significant. A few simple precautions will help keep the problem down to such an extent that you should not really have to do it. I do think that all of this guff about dust removal systems on cameras is over egging the pud a bit. Great idea, but overdone by the marketing dept. to make you think that you can't survive without it.

1. Think about where you are going to change lenses. If it is full of dust or airborne matter, then don't do it. Find somewhere better.

2. Hold the camera face down while changing lenses.

3. Remember to clean the rear face of the lens and its surroundings with a blower or brush prior to affixing the lens. A lot of dust can get into the box this way, so plan for it.

4. Keep the camera in a bag when not in use. Dust gets everywhere and into the body through cardslots, battery doors and so on. If you get it into the viewfinder, then learn to live with it as it can be a major stripdown to get to it. Keep caps on sync sockets, remote sockets, etc. While you are at it, empty your camera bag every few months and remove toenail clippings, pet hairs and other FOD hazards

5. Even if dust is there, you will only really see it at certain apertures and you can easily clone it out with many software packages. Some, will let you map the dust and remove it automatically, though I have not used this method myself.

6. If little Timmy is within 6 feet of your precious equipment, then poke him in the eye. Even more so, if you are not sporting filters on the end of the lens. At least, that might make you feel more cheerful.

Conan

jumpseater

29th Sep 2006, 15:37

Interesting thought re the filters, I use a 'skylight' or circular polariser on 99% of my shots, and don't seem to get a problem. Yup a filter does give what it costs, mine seem to cost £:{

Regarding changing the lens CtL's comments are spot on, but he missed a vital one. Turn the camera off! Otherwise static electricity can attract dust and assorted s###e onto the sensor. I do take care when changing lens' but if you're sensible it can be done almost anywhere. About the only place I would hesitate to change a lens is in a dust storm, or after a significant change in heat/humidity. But I've changed in rain,fog and snow with no problems.

Conan the Librarian

29th Sep 2006, 15:46

Nice one Jump - You are so right - That one is something that I missed. I always do it as a natural process and only stopped to think when you wrote that :-)

Conan

Duxford_Eagles

29th Sep 2006, 16:07

Conan, if you consider it less risky for some minimum wage ex burger-flipper to do a sensor cleaning job that you could easily do yourself then I think you're chucking money away. The risks of cleaning your sensor are absolutely minimal and I've only heard of one problem that's happened from anyone doing their own cleaning (a mate knocked the power off whilst cleaning and trashed his shutter).

Lots of people have now realised that it's easy to do and you usually get better results than "professional" cleaning. The only time I've had a "professional" sensor clean done I had to send it back several times because it simply wasn't clean, much to the annoyance of the lab, but they were obviously happy to settle for a lower standard than I was. Every DSLR I've owned has come with factory installed dust so it's a simple fact of life to get the sensor wand out and give it a sweep. Using pre-made swabs is a waste of money, it's far more cost effective (and controllable) to use a spatula - see This site (http://www.cleaningdigitalcameras.com) for instructions.

I took the Hoya Pro UV filters off all my lenses last year and I'm far happier with the results after doing so.

HEATHROW DIRECTOR

29th Sep 2006, 16:08

Just don't even begin to worry about cleaning the sensor in your camera - it's really easy. Well, you're not really cleaning the sensor itself, simply cleaning dust off the glass in front of the sensor. Lehmans (a company recommended earlier) market a number of sensor cleaning devices with full instructions so no point in paying them, or Canon, £25 when you can do it yourself in 2 minutes flat (incidentally, Canon service centres in several other countries do this job for free). I've done it a good number of times in the past but my "L" lenses have a rubber gasket which presumably provides a more effective seal than my other lenses and dust has not been such a problem lately. I apply all of the tips above, even the "switching off" bit, although this has been effectively argued as unneccessary by techies elsewhere..

Conan the Librarian

29th Sep 2006, 19:04

I know - but I still feel twitchy. I had a shutter fail in D200 number three and that was a pricey job indeed for Nikon to fix. (I was laughing - it was their camera) Mind you, in over two years, I have never had to have a sensor cleaned anyway :}

Conan

REF

30th Sep 2006, 11:19

Thanks to everyone for your advice, I am now a proud owner of;

Nikon D70s
Nikon Nikkor AF-S DX Zoom-Nikkor 18-70mm f/3.5~4.5G IF ED lens
Sigma 70-300mm F4-5.6 APO DG Macro lens
and a load of accessories that will probably take me ages to work out what they do!!!

I'll keep you posted with the results!!

Rick

Conan the Librarian

30th Sep 2006, 11:50

Good Luck Richard!

Conan

Tiger_mate

30th Sep 2006, 17:24

Thanks to everyone for your advice, I am now a proud owner of;

...and I have just bought a D200 and am now looking for gold-dust otherwise known as the Nikon AF-S 18-200mm f3.5-5.6G DX VR lens.

Canon EOS5 goes into retirement.

Conan the Librarian

30th Sep 2006, 19:16

Your wait will be worth it. It isn't a bad lens and certainly useful for walkabout. Waited six weeks for mine and eventually got it for £479. The D200 certainly doesn't complain about it which is a lot more than can be said about many lenses.

Conan

PS Jessops have allegedly got into a bit of a tiz with Nikon this last few days and have withdrawn all D200s from sale, even though they might have stock. The lenses might be included in this embargo - I don't know.

Offchocks

30th Sep 2006, 23:35

I had a bit of a play with the Canon 100-400 but I feel it is not the lens for me. I would like to know the general feeling of using a "prime" lens for airshows etc. I use the camera for wildlife (mainly birds) and aircraft photos.

For the canon buffs.........for my 350D I was thinking of getting a Canon 300mm L f/4 IS USM which I tried and liked. if I add a 1.4 coverter it will give me 420mm and still keep all the auto functions but drop 1 stop. Adding a 2.0 converter you loose the auto focus. I was not that keen on the 400mm L although it would be a cheaper option.

All comments wellcomed!

Duxford_Eagles

1st Oct 2006, 00:14

The 400 f5.6 L is a very good lens and it's not a bad price. The 300 with a 1.4 extender will probably be a little more flexible although it's the more expensive option.

The 100-400 is a very capable lens if it's not used as a trombone.

Offchocks

1st Oct 2006, 01:12

"The 100-400 is a very capable lens if it's not used as a trombone"

Yes that was the one thing that worried me with the 100-400, when shortening the lense you could feel a little bit of air comming out of the battery and cf compartments, the salesman did not believe me until he tried it for himself. I dare say that can't be good for dust!

The 400's min focus distance is 3.5meters, where the 300's is 1.5meters which is a plus for some wild life shots. Also the 300 has IS (400 does not) which would be handy in certain situations.

I've never used a "prime" lens and would like to know how they are at taking shots at air displays.

Conan the Librarian

1st Oct 2006, 11:41

Primes can be wonderful at airshows, but the freedom to frame is either (a) Limited by fixed focal length in that the natural framing point is sometimes fixed to an area that suits the lens and not the display. With a good and powerful zoom, you pick that point of interest and also the best lighting, as it changes through the course of the day.(b) You can't get in close enough (unless your zoom is limited to that same focal length!)

Primes will nearly always offer better absolute quality though. A cheap prime will beat a cheap zoom and an expensive prime, will also beat an expensive zoom. Modern zoom lenses are fabulous, but their flexibility means a few compromises along the way. I think that we have to thank the peerless quality of primes for pushing the design and quality of zooms though.

You have to make your choices accordingly, but as a rule of thumb, lenses are happiest at mid everything - zoom and aperture - so juggle your options and see where the currves of affordability and expectation cross.

Conan

REF

1st Oct 2006, 17:19

Does anyone have any ideas why I am not getting a sharp picture useing the Sigma 70-300mm F4-5.6 APO DG Macro lens, every pictures seems blurred around the edges.

When I use the Nikkor 18-70mm lens, the pictures are alot sharper and crisper than the bigger lens.

jabberwok

1st Oct 2006, 17:36

I would echo what Conan has said.

I have a basic rule of primes for statics and zoom for action but it by no means written in stone. Sometimes the limitation in viewpoint of static aircraft means awful framing with the primes that you may have to hand and the zoom is the better option.

When I moved over to medium format I was limited to three primes - zooms being way out of my price league. Airshow work proved the most frustrating and it brought home to me just how much a zoom is used - but it also showed me that zooms can make you lazy. Instead of moving around to frame a shot the temptation is simply to stand still and zoom to frame. A prime gets you thinking again and you start the old gray cells churning out thoughts about composition. You take far fewer shots because you spend more time in composition but you end up with a higher proportion of good ones.

Since this thread began I have also taken the plunge and bought, initially, a D50 with the probability of getting a D80 body. I am impressed with the camera and I think it was a good decision - I will certainly take more photos with it and that cannot be a bad thing. What I must accept is the loss of quality - there is just no way a digital image can compare to a 6 x 6 image taken with a first class prime lens in terms of quality. I don't expect it to either - different tools are used for different tasks. The D50 will give speed and versatility needed for aviation work, the Hasselblad can never be touched for landscape and portrait work.

Having said that there are, yet again, situations in which medium format scores over digital 35mm in aviation. For air to ground work 6 x 6 was superb and could be blown up to 4ft murals for display with little loss of detail. Enough though - we could discuss tools and specific application of them until the cows come home.

Am I pleased with the D50? Yes - and I'll be getting the D80 in the near future. I'll be using a zoom too as this will be apt for the use I will be putting to the camera. It won't replace the Hasselblad but it will be a very suitable complement to it.

jumpseater

1st Oct 2006, 23:18

Oc, I have seen a few very tasty shots from the 400f4's, for the shots I've done where wildlife is concerned the wildlife doesnt seem to come particularly close, so if you're getting subjects closer than 3.5m you're quite lucky. The birdy on the previous page was taken at 400mm at about 10ft/3ish meters away which pretty much fills the frame, to give you an idea of what I get. Its a small UK garden bird, tip to tail its probably no more than 6 inches.

'A prime gets you thinking again and you start the old gray cells churning out thoughts about composition. You take far fewer shots because you spend more time in composition but you end up with a higher proportion of good ones.'

Absolutely true, you have to be prepared to 'miss' shots too, as you're stuck with what you've got. It is an excellent way to get your head round framing shots too. If you want to see what we mean, then set a zoom lens at the largest focal length or the smallest, and dont move it. Go and spend a day not touching it, (if you do, wash your hands afterwards), and it'll sharpen up your picture taking skills, especially composition, within the day!
Not been to an airshow for years, but when I did, I used to use the zooms pretty much as fixed telefotos. Haven't had the opportunity to use mine yet in that field.Mind you that was in the days of coalburners with no AF, and you had to take sacks of coal around, to fire them up. Tell that to the youf of today, drone drone drone......

Offchocks

2nd Oct 2006, 12:16

Thanks everyone for your input, I think I'll do a little more research before I take the plunge.

I may revisit the 100-400 as a friend of mine does nothing but rave about it. Also I may consider the 70-200L f2.8 IS USM with an 1.4 ext., ideally I'd like up to 400mm but feel the 2.0 ext. may degrade the quality too much.......and of course my wife would have a fit if she knew the price!;)

Jumpseater..... I occasionally take shots of some of our native birds that are smaller than a sparrow from about 9ft, they are usually trying to hide in the local bush.

Thanks again!

Conan the Librarian

2nd Oct 2006, 13:44

Ref, there will be some differences between lenses and sometimes marked. If you are shooting RAW or to a lesser extent JPG, then you can use a bit of Unsharp mask in your favourite editing program to bring it all back.

Sometimes, users of DSLRs get the feeling that their initial shots are maybe a bit flat, or lacking in saturation. This is actually not what it may seem! All it is, is that you now have complete control over the image in a way that isn't really possible with other cameras. Once you get your image into an editing package, you can really bring your shots to life and in your own way, not that chosen by the manufacturer.

You might find on the D70, that exposures sometimes seem a little dark. This is because the camera is trying to preserve the highlights rather than blow them out. Agaiin, you have complete ontrol here and can alter things as you see fit. I reckon the D70 comes out at about half a stop dark sometimes, but those highlights are precious - once you have lost them on a digital camera, they have gone forever - so the conservative approach pays dividends.

Conan

If you want to shoot straight out of the box with JPGs, then the myriad of controls in camera will get you what you need, although it might take a short time to get into the groove.

shortstripper

7th Oct 2006, 19:02

Hi all,

I haven't read the entire thread but I'm in a similar position to the origonal poster.

I have used digital cameras obviously (who hasn't these days?) but I've stuck with 35mm far too long really. I eventually got the Pentax Spotmatic that I always wanted when the 35mm price dropped right down, but despite the brilliant optics, times had moved on and I realise now that it is a very very dated camera. In the past I have been a keen photographer, having owned several nice cameras and even getting into developing at one time. Now, however, I'm sold on the idea of a nice digital camera in the sub £500 range that will accept my old lenses. I have various, but my favourites are the Super Takumar 50mm and a Vivitar 500mm mirror. These are both 42mm threaded and the others are the same or Pentax K.

So? What would be your choice of camera to utilise these lenses?

Thanks in advance ... SS

Conan the Librarian

8th Oct 2006, 11:24

Not familiar with the issues of M42 on a DSLR. Haven't even seen one for twenty years. I think you are going to have a bit of hassle, even if you can get a good adaptor. Things might only be manual in the fullest sense of the word. As for the Mirror 500, Things have moved on since then and you might be disappointed. If the expense is worth the effort, I honestly do not know.
Still, try here for some bedtime reading. Hope it helps.
http://www.wholesaledigital.co.za/m42home.htm
Conan

Late news... The new Pentax k110D has the Pentax KAF mount. Presumably, the K100D also has the same mount, though I have not heard anyone shouting from the rooftops over the latter. I would have a look around for revioews of the 110D though. 10 megapixels and various bells and whistles, so it could sound quite interesting.

Tiger_mate

8th Oct 2006, 20:00

Took my new D200 out, have no idea how it works properly yet, but managed this one in default settings with a borrowed 60mm lens. Hopefully once I have the lens of choice the results will be better.

http://www.artistic.flyer.co.uk/SVR.jpg

A filter would have got a blue sky, but alas this particular lens does not have one fitted. Mastering the camera will be one hell of a learning curve. Interested to know which software is user friendly for downloading images, as the default software is proving to have attitude.

Conan the Librarian

8th Oct 2006, 22:00

Tiger, just watch out for the AF, It has more modes than the space shuttle. I would stick with single centre point for now and lock it in.

As for brwosing software, I would heave Picture Project overboard and go to the nikon site, where you can get NikonView 6.27, which I am not alone in finding a better product. For more intensive editing, Nikon Capture NX is superb - even if you already have Photoshop, so that is saying somethng. Let me know if I can help. There are a LOT of settings in there to bemuse and befuddle, but it isn't a bad camera. It just likes expensive glass.

Good luck!

Conan

jabberwok

9th Oct 2006, 02:51

As said earlier I got the Nikon D50 to see what it was like. Here's a shot from a borrowed Nikon 80-400mm zoom - not brilliant but significant in that it was hand held. VR seems to do its job!

http://www.homepages.mcb.net/bones/WebPix/Moon.jpg

I've been a medium format user for the last decade and I'm impressed with what this little digital has done so far. :ok:

Cahlibahn

9th Oct 2006, 21:45

Well after all these months I got an email a few minutes ago saying I could get a n AF-S DX VR 18 - 200mm lens for only £504. Super.

Conan the Librarian

9th Oct 2006, 22:34

Not a bad price. Go for it. Actually the price is secondary - finding someone that has it is still little short of miraculous. It is a really great all purpose lens and the quality overall, is very good indeed. It is no 70-200VR, but it is sharp pretty much all of the way. You won't regret it.

Only other thought, is that if you already have a good "something" to 70 lens, that Nikkers are about to release a 70-300VR IF-ED for about £350. Not seen any sneak reviews yet, but it could be quite good and give that 50% of extra reach. On a DSLR, this will give an equivalent 450mm. which isn't to be sneezed at. Happy with my own 18-200VR. So much so that I wouldn't sell it. Even to you :}

Conan

ImageGear

15th Oct 2006, 09:11

Post arising from the F15 shots on Mil forum.

About two years ago I bought an EOS 300D with the Standard Canon Lens and a Sigma 28-200 for a business venture that required simple evidential "Snapshots".

Went the whole hog this year at RIAT, Aviation Club, Grandstand, etc and thought I would take a few shots. (I don't normally take a camera to an Airshow) This was an image of the Osprey but like every other shot I took that day, the image is "blurred" especially around the edges.

Being very inexperienced at this art, I used Auto-Focus but after reading this thread, I am beginning to realise that I may have made serious errors with the Shutter Speed and ISO settings. (I think I was "lazy" shooting in "Sports" mode)

I have attached the image metadata but don't want to have you all in hysterics by putting up a crappy picture.

File Name
RIAT0101.JPG
Camera Model Name
Canon EOS 300D DIGITAL
Shooting Date/Time
15/07/2006 14:59:20
Shooting Mode
Sports
Tv( Shutter Speed )
1/2000
Av( Aperture Value )
8.0
Metering Mode
Evaluative
Exposure Compensation
0
ISO Speed
400
Lens
28.0 - 200.0mm
Focal Length
200.0mm
Image Size
2048x1360
Image Quality
Fine
Flash
Off
White Balance
Auto
Parameters
Contrast +1
Sharpness +1
Color saturation +1
Color tone Normal
Color Space
sRGB
File Size
1062KB
Drive Mode
Continuous shooting

Obviously you cannot make fine adjustments as an F15 or F3 is hurtling up the valley towards you so I assume that you preset some general settings and hope that the target passes through the "window of opportunity" ?

Any advice very welcome.

Imagegear

jumpseater

15th Oct 2006, 09:21

IG post the image, then we may be able to suggest remedies. At the moment you're asking us to comment on an image we can't see!:D
At 1/2000 F8 and 400asa, in daylight, should get you something, and the blades would look static even if its flying!. There you go, thats my first guess at the white cat in a snowstorm picture, I'm sure CtL will have a stab too!

http://i29.photobucket.com/albums/c270/2012images/_B6O4342.jpg
I'll try and remember to dig the data on this one for you, but it'll be approx 1/800 F2.8 200asa and shot on RAW off the top of my head. The focussing will be set to Servo rather than oneshot mode and on high speed shooting. Needless to say your body will not have the same functions as mine (1DmkII), but the 300D will produce good results.

ImageGear

15th Oct 2006, 09:37

Thanks a lot, in the hope that I will not be laughed off, here it comes:

http://i90.photobucket.com/albums/k253/imagegear/RIAT0101.jpg

Conan the Librarian

15th Oct 2006, 11:22

At the size posted, it doesn't look that unsharp around the edges to me, maybe you could let us browse through your photobucket gallery and see if we can spot anything coming up maybe more than it should? If the full size shot makes you wince, then I would be happy to have a fiddle with it and see if I can see anything on the original, which might not be evident on the small shot above. Let me know on this score :-)

Looking at your exif info and without reference to the picture, there are a few things that I picked up.

ISO speed/shutter speed.

I was at RIAT too and those conditions were quite good to say the least. ISO 400 was hgh - very high. You get better quality the lower it is, so if you work out your lowest desired average shutter speed, which is roughly 1.5 times the focal length that you are using, then this would have given you 1/300th second which would get rid of pretty much any camera shake and let you run at ISO 100. Sadly, the Osprey has rotors and they will still look pretty much stopped at even this speed.

Metering and Lighting.

Sunlight can be harsh and at Fairford, you have captured this well. around mid day, the contrast was very high indeed. Canon fans will advise, but with my own Nikon and shooting RAW, I can turn this contrast down - AFTER the event. I guess that yours would do the same via the tone control or similar, though when shooting JPGs you have far less latitude before you start getting artefacts on the image.

your metering was set at "Evaluative" which I think on Canon, equates to full frame metering or "Matrix" on the Nikon.Try spot metering (if you have it - I suspect not) or centre weighted metering.This will meter from the centre of the image and give you a better chance.

That lighting is hard. With the Osprey, it hovered around quite a lot and didn't give as much option for selecting the best point to shoot. A longer lens might well give you more options for catching the best light, but if not, then think about the arc that the Sun traces behind you and where you are on the public display line. The corporate troughs and VIP areas usually give a fair clue as to the display centrepoint, but with a short lens, about 500 metres either side of there wll begin to get you closer to the turning points in the display, where you can get some more dynamic shots. The relative position of the Sun at that particular time of day, will let you choose the optimum spot, even if it means shifting around during the day. Did you notice how much more gentle the light became from about 1600 onwards?

If you feel a little disappointed with your results, then don't get downhearted. There is always a reason for everything and everyone here will do their best to help you and to try and identify any problems. This year at RIAT I was fuming with Nikon and had to shoot using a Nikon loaned 70-200VR f2.8 instead of my 50-500 Sigma. I found it terribly short, though it is a very good lens and I was a third of a mile nearer than you to the action. I know the problem of getting the best light more than ever. My own Osprey shots were ok due to this lens having vibration reduction, and allowing me to turn the wick down to 1/125th or even below - but it is a £1200 lens after all.

ToodleP,

Conan

ImageGear

15th Oct 2006, 13:22

Thanks a lot, CTL and Jstr, I guess I feel slightly more confident about the stuff. I may have an opportunity shortly to be up close and personal with the subject so I would like to get the best camera configuration.

I have downloaded some of the images to photobucket but need to know how to "invite a guest". (Caution: Some of the images are 1.5m)

Funny, I have a sneaking feeling that the ragged, fuzzy edges I am seeing on wing leading edges and fuselage may be down to the widescreen LCD monitor I am using. It is set at 1440 by 900 and 50hz. I seem to remember having this problem some years ago on a laptop, and a normal CRT improved the quality no end.

I guess you will be able to tell when you get to see the shots.

Looking forward to a new hobby

Imagegear

Conan the Librarian

15th Oct 2006, 14:44

You might be right there and also, Photobucket went through a short spasm for me, where the anti aliasing was leading to jagged leading edges etc. All cured now though and the original file would show no such traits.

If you want to send me a file, then post to [email protected] and don't worry about the file size - some of my JPGs are up to 7MB which makes even me cough a bit.

If anyone is around this part of the world in the next three days or so, the village airfield here at Fairford is at war, on exercise Titan. Lots of activity and hopefully, some reasonable shots to be had. If I can squeeze an hour or so tomorrow, I will go up and have a shuftie.

Conan

Conan the Librarian

15th Oct 2006, 18:50

Thanks for the invite to your Photobucket album ImageGear. Think I have the problem nailed and it is a Photobucket issue that I had myself some two years ago, leading to jagged edges rather than blurred edges. I can't remember exactly how I cured it, but if you send PhotoB a support request, they will no doubt come back with the same fix, which revolved around the resizing/uplift method used. They have an uplift tool that lets you uplift from a right clck in "My Computer" and that is now my preferred choice. Unless I am very wrong, this is your problem. If you re - uplift on their advice, the fin of the Tonka will no longer look like a tenon saw.

Otherwise Ken, the contrast was high on the day and by whatever method Canon use, you can turn this down a notch for those conditions. The gallery shots are fairly sharp and certainly have little by way of focus problems.

Conan

REF

15th Oct 2006, 21:04

Having brought my lovely new Nikon D70s, I have been practicing a bit. Some pictures from Shoreham today.

http://images.fotopic.net/yjwkj8.jpg
http://images.fotopic.net/yjwkjc.jpg
http://images.fotopic.net/yjwkja.jpg
http://images.fotopic.net/yjwkjb.jpg
http://images.fotopic.net/yjwkj9.jpg
http://images.fotopic.net/yjwkjd.jpg
http://images.fotopic.net/yjwkje.jpg
http://images.fotopic.net/yjwkj4.jpg
http://images.fotopic.net/yjwkjg.jpg
http://images.fotopic.net/yjwkjh.jpg

REF

15th Oct 2006, 21:06

http://images.fotopic.net/yjwkji.jpg
http://images.fotopic.net/yjwkjx.jpg
http://images.fotopic.net/yjwkjn.jpg
http://images.fotopic.net/yjwkjt.jpg
http://images.fotopic.net/yjwkks.jpg
http://images.fotopic.net/yjwkkb.jpg
http://images.fotopic.net/yjwkk9.jpg

Original pictures here (http://www.richardflagg.fotopic.net/c1111305.html)

Rick

jumpseater

15th Oct 2006, 21:10

I concur with CtL, I was able to have a quick look at the osprey on your link, and it looks fine to me. As Ctl says 400asa was a high setting to have. For prop and helo shots I try and get away with the lowest asa and shutter speed I can.

On a bright sunny day 200asa will give you plenty of latitude, I will come down to 100asa more often than not. I will then shoot prop action at 125th and for something like an Osprey or Chinny will come down to 1/60th sec.
This one 100asa 1/60th f19 140mm
http://i23.photobucket.com/albums/b395/jumpseater/CRW_4757-1.jpg
With large blades the slower the shutter speed the better the impression of movement
This one 200asa 180th f16 400mm
http://i23.photobucket.com/albums/b395/jumpseater/CRW_4929.jpg
Taken same day as the Chinny, I'd upped the asa rating as a storm cloud was heading our way, and the light was dropping fast

HEATHROW DIRECTOR

16th Oct 2006, 16:26

The pics on here are stunning beyond belief and I just wanna say that as the owner of a Canon EOS20D and two of their "professional "L" lenses.... I just want to cry!

Tell me - do you guys post-process or are the shots on here straight out of the camera (with some compression, of course).

My latest efforts, mainly with the 17-40mm L lens can be sen at:http://www.brendan-mccartney.fotopic.net/c1105748.html

In my opinion the 17-40 beats the pants off my 24-105 L lens in terms of sharpness.

jumpseater

16th Oct 2006, 19:37

HD the two above have been converted from RAW to JPEG in Googles picassa, a free download and easy to use system, it has to be for me to use it! In terms of sharpening the picassa software has a one setting sharpening, it sharpens the same amount each time you press the button. Both the above have had one press!, and thats as technical as it's got with them. The bird on the previous page and horse are out of the tin, just converted.

http://i23.photobucket.com/albums/b395/jumpseater/tests1/_B6O5139.jpg
Today at CBY, just sharpened. Did you get the body looked at as suggested earlier in the thread?
rgds js

REF

16th Oct 2006, 20:50

I like the picture there Jumpseater

Just out of curiosity, how much longer do we have the Jaguar in service for?

Dan Winterland

17th Oct 2006, 01:27

innuendo

17th Oct 2006, 02:08

Everything you need to know, and then some, about the latest Canon Rebel at:
http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/canoneos400d/

It seems to be a good piece of gear although the reviewer, (who is held in high esteem by the site regulars), also has praise for the Nikon equivalents, but I see you already have some Canon lenses which would make the Rebel a good choice.

jumpseater

17th Oct 2006, 08:11

REF, ta v much, for the jags its about a year as I understand, with lights out in October 07.

innuendo

17th Oct 2006, 16:43

Heathrow Director:
"In my opinion the 17-40 beats the pants off my 24-105 L lens in terms of sharpness."

I am surprised at that as the 24-105L is highly regarded in DPReview. If anything a lot of opinion is the reverse and as a user of both I tend to agree although they are both excellent lenses. Do you think it is possible that your 24-105 autofocus may be less than it should be?
I have a 70-200 F/4 that is regarded as one of Canon's sharper lenses yet mine was quite soft at the short end. I sent it to Canon with an outline of my concern and asked them to check it and it came back more like it should have been.
I am very surprised that the difference you are getting is of the "beats the pants of" category.

NutLoose

20th Oct 2006, 01:54

I was gearing myself up to buy a Canon 350D just to find that it's being replaced by the 400D. Now normally this would mean that there should be some good 350D bargains, but where I live where everyone has to have the latest gadget, it's been removed from the shelves and is just not available any more. Does anyone have experience of the 400D and is it that much better that the 350D?

P.S. I wnat a Canon as I have some EOS lenses for my wet film camera, so I'm not considering other brands.

Strange as it may seem Canon have an outlet on ebay now selling refurbished cameras, the 350D included and are warrantied, I have a 350D and love it, the 400D though is a 10mp camera so would be a better buy over the 8mp 350D, it also has a built in sensor cleaning system, which is a definate advantage... damn those dust bunnies :) , I would suggest you come over to the EOS forum and ask there, http://www.eos-forums.com/index.php

The battery pack on it BTW makes it a better fit in the hand, and more comfortable to use.

Conan the Librarian

20th Oct 2006, 20:50

Dan, the 350D provides very good results, but is now an old device and is being consigned to the grave by Canon as things are moving on and you would get more bang per buck, by going to the 400D. Like the 300/350D, it is physically small and I urge you to wander off somewhere where you can handle it and see if it suits you. For comparison, compare it maybe with a Nikon D80 and just chuck them both hand to hand and see which feels the more intuitive and is the best fit for your hands. If the D80 wins and sadly, I think it might - then you could either hang on, because Canon have to have an EOS30D replacement in the wings, (larger, heavier and more robust) or see how much the dealer might give you for your existing Canon kit. If that is more than you think, then you have yet more options. I would urge you to do a comparison though. When you are shooting, all of that brainspace can be used for interpretation of your subject, rather than trying to remember how to fiddle it into another mode or what have you.

HD, I post process all the way. I actually enjoy it too and it allows me to rescue the odd minger that would definitely be as dead as a Dodo, were I shooting JPGs. Oddly, I find it therapeutic in another way too. Because I am intimately familiar with the charateristics of each shot, as a by product - and not a necessary one either - I have relearned much about photography, but in a homeopathic way, rather than the often dry as dust method of reading it all up. I think it can help you become as one with your camera, which just leaves me the old problem of why I keep getting shots of just one eyeball.

New lens yesterday. This is a great and fun way to become bankrupt. A 10-20mm Sigma wide angle which on its few test shots to date has given amazing sharpness and some dizzying perspectives that were previously denied me. In Film SLR terms, this is equivalent to a 15-30mm and it really does make your mind fizz. Absolutely no use for aviation at all, unless you have the nose pitot shoved up your left nostril when you shoot, but a great way of adding to and rounding out your kit from the opposite end.

Conan

Tiger_mate

20th Oct 2006, 21:02

New lens yesterday

Me to, I have at last the elusive Nikon 18-200 VR lens that is as rare as hens teeth in the UK at this time. So much so that the supplier has sworn me to secrecy as he does not want to be answering the phone all day. It says something for the quality of the Nikon kit if you have to wait your turn for it.

There are some good opportunities for me to explore the envelope with my D200 in the next few weeks, so with any luck I will get a picture to be proud of. I have set it at fine .jpg setting which gives over 300 shots on a 2gb CF card, do the people in the know believe that this is a good option, as I have 2 cards so the RAW/JPG fine (85 photos) setting would not cause me too much stress. I normally manipulate images with Adobe 5 or MS photo editor.

Conan the Librarian

20th Oct 2006, 22:33

Congratulations! If your secret supplier was Park cameras of Burgess Hill and you got the magical phone call in the last few days, then it might even be the lens with my name on it that you are now sporting. I got the call to action and having forgotten to advise them that I had got mine three months ago elsewhere, it will have defaulted to the next lucky person in the queue. When I explained that my own 18-200 had cost £479 as opposed to their not unreasonable £539, (Well done Great Western Cameras in Swindon) I thought I could detect a gulping sound on the phone. There are THAT few 18-200VRs kicking around, that there is a good chance that your lens could be "mine".

It is a great all round lens and covers a lot of ground, being equiv to 27-300 in film terms. Quality is very good really for general purpose work and you don't change lenses often with that one as the spout either, so any dust issues are minimised yet further. There is a bit of distortion, but hardly noticeable for most users and unless a devotee of "Top Trumps" is only of academic interest. It isn't a pro lens, but it is a wonderfully accomplished piece of kit and I am sure that you will be very happy indeed with it. The performance is impressive. A few thoughts on that lens though.

Vibration Reduction

The VR is very good, but if ever you put in on a tripod, then turn VR OFF. Also,the "Normal" position is for everyday use unless travelling in a car or flying, where "active" is the preferred choice.If you are a flingwing merchant then difintely use the active as this caters for the more unusual vertical and odd out of phase vibrations.

Aperture.

Most lenses are happiest at mid everything and although the lens isn't lightning fast, everyday shots both indoors and out will give you chance to shoot at something other than wide open and this will give you some sparkling results. It really is a great all rounder.

Contruction and build.

Small, lightweight and surprisingly so, when you factor in the VR Gubbins that live there too. It can have a tendency to "creep" especially if not on either the 18 or 200 setting. A lot of people are ribbing Messrs Nikon over this, though I have never found it a problem.

If you do put a filter on it, then use a good one. Even so, I find mine sharper without. With a Polarising filter or maybe an ND filter, this can allegedly spoof the camera metering slightly. (So says the Godlike Thom Hogan. He writes books for the D70 and D200 which are incredible. They are everything that Nikon manuals should be but aren't and are in my view, the finest and most definitive works available.) Use centre weighted or Matrix metering in this case and you might find better results.

72mm is a bit of an odd filter size. Most professional lenses are 77mm, so if you have, or plan on getting any of these, then it might be an idea to get a 77mm Polariser with a stop down ring to allow it to fit on the 72mm thread. Cheaper in the long run!

Teleconverters.

Err... Sadly - nope. 200mm is your limit on this lens.

It isn't the cheapest of lenses. Look after it and it will certainly look after you.

How you shoot, is a personal preference, but after making a bit of a splash with the cash, I do think it better to use the highest quality camera settings and especially so, with memory prices collapsing as they are. (Just seen a generic 4GB for £44) I would shoot RAW, RAW and then RAW, with the D50,D70 and D200, but that is me. Look for instance at REF, who as a new D70 owner is already producing some very good JPGs straight from the box and even his will get better the more one hones the process down and the better you get to know the camera. This is the beauty of a good DSLR of whatever manufacture, but I still prefer to fix my goofs afterwards in another editing suite. Anything I can do to help, then just whistle me up.

Conan

PS For software, a few further thoughts. I take it that by Adobe 5, you mean Elements v5 which supports all of the latest cameras. MS Photo Editor? Own view is to forget that one. A few software thoughts now.

Irfanview.

Free, cheap and very powerful for some editing but so good for other work such as resizing, renaming and other processes. Indespensible to all photographers

RawShooter Essentials.

Free and very powerful, this will let you edit and open RAW files with great depth and complete control. The Premium version was available until recently for about $99 I think, but this is history now. Adobe have purchased or acquired a controlling interest in the company (Pixamntec) and it is widely rumoured that they will be using this company's expertise in editing RAW files to incorporate in future versions of Photoshop. Compliments do not get higher than this. Amazingly, RS Essentials is still available. Grab it while you can.

PhotoBucket, Flickr, etc.

Put your albums online and share them. Basic packages are free and these are great tools. One use that comes to mind, is that if you wish to post a pic on Pprune, that it needs to be hosted elsewhere and referred to here by a link. These services do just that, amongst the more obvious album functions.

Nikon Picture Project.

Came with the camera. You might really like it. If so, then I suggest you write to Nikon, as you will be the first one that does. Many users prefer Nikon View 6.27 which is free to registered Nikon users and a goiod browser. For more intensive editing, it might be worth looking at Nikon Capture NX. It is very good indeed, though has no cloning or healing tools. Adobe Elements 5.0 is a cut back, though not crippled Photoshop and represents excellent value for money. PS is a massive and complex package for which photographers will only really use 10-15%. elements 5.0 will give nearly all of this at a far, far lower cost than the full Photoshop.

PPS - It is ok, beddybyes shortly - if flying and shooting from the sharp end with the D200 then go into the menu and find "Tone Compensation". If this is set to auto, then you might really get some harsh contrast and it is always easier to add contrast later rather than try to subtract it. Set a a lower value Infact, this is not bad advice, full stop. If in cockpit, some fill flash would be useful to give you some internal detail as well as that out of the window . Flash will NOT fire automatically, so as long as the head is down, so you will not get any frighteners there, if in ow light, but remember the AF assist light is easily bright enough on both D70 and D200 to stuff night adaptation. You can turn this off via the menu if needed. My own feelings on night flying with any camera, are simple - I just will not do it and will always leave the camera in the bag.

With flying shots, you can often get some annoying glare and reflection problems visible afterwards, so an old aviation trick, is to get a single black glove and use your hand as a lens hood. your hand will follow the contour and curvature of the glass better than anything else. Not quite DV, but the next best thing. Single black gloves are both useful and cheap. In fact, usually you can buy one and get one free. Worth shoving in your camera bag.

Another hint is to try and shoot through glass or perspex at as near a perpendicular angle to the surface as possible, which will reduce any colour casts that can appear and be a PIA afterwards. The Autofocus shuldn't play up by spoofing on the glass but if it does, then remember manual focus as a backstop. I would be surprised indeed if this was a problem though.

Speedpig

21st Oct 2006, 01:17

That has to be one of the longest posts on any thread ever.
Very, very interesting and informative though.
Question I have been meaning to ask for a very long time... Why RAW?
I've done several experiments using RAW vs Fine .jpg on identical shots with the D50 and cannot for the life of me discern any difference in quality.
Haven't tried it for aircraft photography, more portraits of the Speedpiglets or static objects.
Is this because of an inadequecy of the D50, or Nikon Picture Project? I use Paintshop Pro 9 for processing which will not recognise RAW format (unless I'm doing something wrong there) so have to convert to jpg anyway which defeats any point in using RAW. Perhaps I am just still green behind the ears when it comes to the art of digital photography? (Lack of time to practice)
A thought has just occurred to me while I am not at my own PC to experiment. I have not yet tried a comparison print with RAW vs .jpg.

I am still flabbergasted by the quality of photograph I get from the D50, every click impresses me. Even Mrs SP feels the cost of the camera is justified. I wonder if I could stretch that to a lens or two?:=

Tiger_mate

21st Oct 2006, 05:52

Ref: Lens source

Not from swindon or Burgess Hill ,and £489 also. Sadly now in the que for an SB800 flash but have been loaned an SB600 by the supplier until mine arrives. That is service for you.:ok:

Night photography: Fuji 1.5mp first generation digital camera through NVG lens:
This is a dark night and the distant lights are several miles away beyond water. The flare light source on the left is a sodium light providing fairly dim illumination.
http://www.artistic.flyer.co.uk/nvgsml.jpg

Thanks for the info

T_M

Duxford_Eagles

21st Oct 2006, 09:27

Another alternative when shooting through perspex/glass is to carry a mousemat with a hole cut in it for your lens. Stick this over the end of the lens with the matt black surface outwards and voila, no reflections!

jumpseater

21st Oct 2006, 09:46

Tiger, nice shot, I like the NVG idea, loads of potential.
I shoot RAW 99% of the time as all the data is there, this is partly because I was brought up shooting tranny film, (dont go there!:= ), at low asa, 25/50/100 to get the best quality.
I have three 1GB cards, these hold around 90 x RAW shots each, for my camera. I do this as if I lose one, or one becomes corrupt, as can rarely happen, then I only lose 90 shots rather than 150-180. I also leave a good five or so images unshot, so I only get 85 images per card. This is a 'personal' insurance that I don't overload the card with data and perhaps overwrite, or corrupt something I really want to keep. I do edit 'on location' too, but be sure to know how too, otherwise you could delete that once in a lifetime shot, or your entire card inadvertantly. It also eats into camera battery life.
You do have to remember to take them with you of course:ugh: not that I've ever sat on a hill patting my pockets and thinking:rolleyes: :oh:
It is possible to set you camera so that when you turn it on the LCD panel shows NO CARD, a huge face saver!

And shooting through glass/perspex, take off any polarising filter, it can show the glass construction with a banding and/or rainbow effect which no amount of editing can ever undo.

Tiger_mate

21st Oct 2006, 09:56

otherwise you could delete that once in a lifetime shot

A bit of thread creep, but my once in a life time shot was being at the (ex) inner German border the first weekend after the demise of the two Germanys into one. Used 2 rolls of 36 that day mainly on the que to get BACK into East Germany by citizens enjoying freedom beyond their wildest dreams. A half mile que of Trabants and Skodas heading east. Sent the rolls off in individual bags for processing and never saw either again. MI5 has a lot to answer for!! (Yes there was a sticker on the individual rolls with my name and address on). Went back to try again and got some of history in the making, but that weekend was gone forever.

Conan the Librarian

21st Oct 2006, 11:19

That has to be one of the longest posts on any thread ever.
Very, very interesting and informative though.

Toothache! Hit the Dentist at 0900 Monday:}

SpeedyP sent me his first ever shot from his new toy and I was bowled over. With quality like that, I was convinced that he was shooting RAW and drilled home to me once more, what a cracking camera the D50 is. If they all come out like that, he could be right and not need RAW at all. If the missus is under the spell, act now and get some more lenses pronto.

You can't really do anything with a RAW shot using Picture Project.This is Nikons way of getting you to splash yet more cash on Capture NX. This is not a bad move, but many think (and reasonably too, IMHO) it should be included in the price of the camera. Paintshop 9.0 doesn't support the D50 (THEY want you to get v10 - depressing isn't it?) but you can use RawShooter Essentials in conjunction to give you a very powerful and zero cost editing package. It is only then, that you will begin to be able to use RAW properly for the first time, though again, you arent going to get better than that first shot of Ms. SpeedPiglet, which sticks in my memory and will do for a long time. The quality was just staggering.

TM, well done re your dealer. There are some good ones out there and if they have loaned you an SB600 you will get a taste for the superior SB800. With the D200 and its' commander mode, you have an immensely powerful tool, which will let you go wireless as well as providing you the very best in Flash systems. It isn't that cheap, but nor is any other manufacturers leading 'gun. I went for the Sigma EF500DG, which although compatible with the Nikon I-TTL system, doesn't sport the bells and whistles that the SB800 does. I have kicked myself since and especially after getting the D200. Mind you, with flas, I redeemed myself by purchasing two or three weeks ago, an Elinchrom portable flash studio and that is giving incredible results. Maybe a good job I can't mount it all on the camera though as I would only be able to get through double doors with that lot onboard...

On another thought, if away from base, the D200 does chew batteries up and certainly by comparison with D50/70 (which are as effective as fusion. They don't use charge but accumulate it) They are in short supply and expensive too. I use a pair in the additional MB D200 grip, but wasn't wildly keen on spending another 50 quid, thinking that one day, for a spare, that third party ones might become available. That day arrived today. £16.99 each and if you want details then please PM me.

In that tome last night, I forgot to mention a good piece of software for everyone to have up their sleeve. PC Inspector Smart Recovery, does just as it suggests and recovers file from seemingly stuffed cards. I used it the other week and although slow, it is fabulous and does just what it says. It is another free utility and one I urge you to think about, 'cos one day, the butt puckering moment will arrive and you won't be able to access your card. If anyone can't find it, Then give me a nudge and I will dig it up.

JS was right about polarisers and colour casts. When shooting through perspex, they can give rainbows everywhere that you don't want to see. Nice idea about the mouse mat though DE :-)

Photography is maybe at its best when you can capture something historical and the effective end of the cold war, is something to treasure for generations. memory might be one thing, but you still end up pinching yourself, when you look at the pictures. I would love one day, to be able to say that I had something a zillionth of a percent as memorable as those shots described by TM. I can live in hope, but am sure it will remain a dream.

Conan

ImageGear

21st Oct 2006, 17:19

Thanks, CTL and Jumpseater.

Just back from across the water.

I now recognise the main issue which appears to be the ASA setting not dropping the shutter speed for the conditions in "Sports" mode.

As you say, the saw-tooth edges are definitely not on the original so perhaps the photobucket fix will sort the problem. I will try to re-load them again soon.

Given the distance I was away from the action, it seems that the SIGMA 200 did not perform too badly but I am now looking forward to my next trip with interest.

Funnily enough I had a look at some of my other stuff from two years ago and it was better although I certainly did not adjust the ASA.

Ahh, the light dawns, (no pun intended) it was a dull grey day with snow on the Welsh mountains and occasional bright periods which is why they came out better.

I will put them up in a separate Gallery if you have a comment.

I also think I will look at better quality monitors to get over the poor definition. Do you have any preferences of LCD over CRT or Plasma.

Imagegear

Conan the Librarian

21st Oct 2006, 20:49

A good way of ascertaining whether your monitor really is underperforming is to have a look through some of the albums generously contributed here by other posters. If you still feel slightly underwhelmed, then visit another little thread on C&I, where Monitors and colour are discussed (Copyright conanrant 2006)

http://www.pprune.org/forums/showthread.php?t=247258

I am sure that the problem you had with your images is a PhotoB issue though. It is funny, but when you reload those and look at clean images, you will feel more benevolent about your monitor, I promise. There are issues with LCD but I use them all the time now and yet still have no room on my desk. Biggest problem I have seen with some LCD monitors is that unless you look at them dead on, that the image quality degrades rapidly with more angle off. This tends to be a thing of the past now. Response times are now good - though this is no issue for photo editing and the junk driver "enhancements" that often accompany screens will do nothing but mislead you too. The onward march of technology is great, but when for instance you look at mobile phones, you will be hard put to find any mention of actual phonecalls, the concept of which seems rather quaint, by latterday standards. Monitors are the same. you want them to do a simple and well defined job, but that rather screws up the game for the marketing dept. who might be out of work should you be such a heretic and this trend were to catch on.

If you find that your Welsh snowtop mountains are looking a bit under the weather, or more specifically grey, then it is but a metering problem. You will be about two stops under if you leave things as normal and this you can fix later with White balance, levels, curves or RAW compensation. Don't worry - the camera is ok but it is a fundamental of current metering systems and it is easily fixed.

Conan