Good flying cameras
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: SW England - and happy!
Age: 51
Posts: 177
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Good flying cameras
Has anyone got a good suggestion for a camera for a little bit off aerial photography - I don't really want an SLR - but am very interested in these new anti-shake tachnology cameras, I'm thinking of something like a SONY dsc h7, does anyone have any experience?
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Gt. Yarmouth, Norfolk
Age: 68
Posts: 799
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Depends what you want to do with resulting photos. Stating the obvious, I know, but sub SLRs use much smaller sensors, which means generally poorer resolution and significantly higher noise in low light conditions. Why not look at something like the Olympus 410, which is the smallest SLR available. No bigger than something like the Panasonic, but much higher quality pics.
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: London
Posts: 65
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Apart from my SLR I have a canon Powershot G7 which I consider to be an SLR in a slightly larger than average compact body. Don't know if they still make the G7 but any future G series will be the same.
For proof it it will give an image suitable for publication from an open cockpit click the link below.
http://www.jetphotos.net/viewphoto.php?id=6027886
For proof it it will give an image suitable for publication from an open cockpit click the link below.
http://www.jetphotos.net/viewphoto.php?id=6027886
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: SW England - and happy!
Age: 51
Posts: 177
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Thanks for the suggestions, I will certainly have a look at both of them.
I'm looking to take occasional pictures from light aircraft and from the jet. The photos would really only be for my collection and I doubt any bigger than a5 possibly a4.
I am very interested in how effective the anti-shake technology is in aircraft and also I would like a camera that is fast to boot up and has a high rate of fire.
Something not too large would be ideal as it will add to the collection of junk that I lug round in my flight case, needs to be fairly tough too.
I'm looking to take occasional pictures from light aircraft and from the jet. The photos would really only be for my collection and I doubt any bigger than a5 possibly a4.
I am very interested in how effective the anti-shake technology is in aircraft and also I would like a camera that is fast to boot up and has a high rate of fire.
Something not too large would be ideal as it will add to the collection of junk that I lug round in my flight case, needs to be fairly tough too.
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: EuroGA.org
Posts: 13,787
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The best anti shake technology is a fast shutter, which means collecting lots of light, which means a lens with big hole in the middle of it 
Which means a DSLR.
Normally, in bright light, I can get 1/2000 to 1/4000 sec speed with a DSLR.
With a standard pocket camera one is running at about 1/200 to 1/400 which is massively slower. The best is perhaps a Ricoh Caplio which has antishake but it cannot get over the 1/400 speed. I had one of those for a while.
Anti-shake doesn't work properly. It is a software mechanism which uses accelerometers to detect normal hand shake and it shifts around the area of the CCD from which the image is collected, to compensate for the motion. The spectrum of this compensation is quite limited. At the slow end, there has to be a cutoff otherwise you could not move the camera around At the fast end, it doesn't work because it doesn't work fast enough.
Which means a DSLR.
Normally, in bright light, I can get 1/2000 to 1/4000 sec speed with a DSLR.
With a standard pocket camera one is running at about 1/200 to 1/400 which is massively slower. The best is perhaps a Ricoh Caplio which has antishake but it cannot get over the 1/400 speed. I had one of those for a while.
Anti-shake doesn't work properly. It is a software mechanism which uses accelerometers to detect normal hand shake and it shifts around the area of the CCD from which the image is collected, to compensate for the motion. The spectrum of this compensation is quite limited. At the slow end, there has to be a cutoff otherwise you could not move the camera around
At the fast end, it doesn't work because it doesn't work fast enough.
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Londonish
Posts: 779
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
As a pilot, photographer and owner of a few digi cams, I'm going to make a few observations, and I'm going to pick up on a couple of IO540's comments..
A DSLR is *capable* of producing better pictures from an aeroplane with (IMHO) one major proviso: You're not hand flying as well
I'm not being a namby pamby; operating a dslr camera in a manner which produces good pictures is a two handed job, especially with any decent glass attached. I've tried, but in all honesty I get better results with the compact that can be waved around comfortably with one hand. You can also stuff a compact out of the DV panel for some really cool shots.. but don't be flying too fast 
With the compact, 'Sports mode' helps somewhat as it emphasises high shutter speeds and wide appetures, reducing depth of field. Also useful is the ability to set the focus to infinity - hopefully you're far enough from the scenery that that is appropriate, and it avoids the a/f locking onto the dead bugs on the windscreen..
Some other general advice, no matter the camera: wide open apeture, fastest shutter speed, focus to infinity (again, you're a long way from the scenery). DO NOT attach or brace the camera / your arm against any part of the airframe - that will transmit vibrations brilliantly.
My personal choice (about a year ago) was a super compact 6mp casio exilim. I actually added it to my collection after the DSLR as a 'always with me' camera. It sits in my pocket, always to hand. It's also got good video with a really good codec that doesn't munch space - 640x480, 30fps for about an hour onto a 1gb card. Try that with a quicktime encoding (which a lot of cameras have). On the down side, the lens isn't really too wide (there's a canon ixus with a good wide lens, I don't know which one), and the screen on the back, while bright has a very poor resolution. The G9 (current /latest model) is I believe a really good, grown up compact.
Now for the techy twaddle...
The main bonus of the DSLR is a physically larger sensor: Appeture is a ratio between focal length and 'hole' diameter. Also for a given appeture, the shutter speed will be the same in the same light. The small lenses on compacts usually sport a pretty decent appeture - though the hole is smaller, they're also short, but that works fine for the small sensor. The problem is that the photosites on a small sensor are also small. A typical compact sensor is smaller than you're little fingernail. A DSLR 24x18mm. cram 10mp onto each, it's obvious. For various reasons small photosites/pixels mean that the signal is weak, the signal noise ration is not so good, therefore they are very prone to electronic noise. That's reduced by turning down the gain on the amp - low (typically 50) iso settings - which is why the compact results in a slower shutter speed. If you up the iso, things get noisy. The DSLR sensor is a LOT larger, has a bigger pixel pitch, and is less noisy. Typical base iso on a dslr is around 200 (4x as fast).. at which speed there's probably less visible noise than the compact.
Interestingly, this gets more of a problem the more megapixels you cram on the sensor... so don't be fooled by the manufacturer's drive to huge pixel counts. Quality of the pixels counts more! As a guide, 6mp should be more than enough for a4, probably good up to a3.
There are many implementations of 'anti-shake'. Provided the camera is insulated from the airframe vibrations (not touching the window etc), image stabilisation should work very well in an aeroplane. That said, there's no substitute for a decent shutter speed. However, so long as you're not toting seriously long glass, anything better than 1/160th or so should be adequate.
On IS/Anti shake, find out how it is implemented / what it does for any camera you're considering:
Some (my casio included) just up the iso sensitivity to keep the shutter speed up. That's b*****it.
Proper IS/VR is implemented in the LENS, and uses a gyro/accelerometer based system to move certain of the lens elements to move the projected image about the place, keeping it centred on the sensor. By all accounts this works really well. It's also the most expensive. I don't know which if any of the compacts use this. Canon calls it IS, Nikon VR
The third type that's only come out in recent years physically moves the sensor around to keep it 'under' the same part of the image. A few of the more recent (sony, olympus) slr's do this, presumably utilising the same engine as is used to do the sensor clean. The main advantage is it's implemented in the body and present for any lens you plug in. Disadvantage is its not as capable, or optically good as the lens based variety.
I'm not aware of any that moves the part of the sensor that's sampled from. I think it's unlikely that that is an implementation as there are other techniques going on when making an exposure like sampling from the black masked edges of the sensor to determine dark current, which would seem incompatible... but I may well be wrong.
End of the techie twaddle.
Hope that's of interest/help.
A DSLR is *capable* of producing better pictures from an aeroplane with (IMHO) one major proviso: You're not hand flying as well
I'm not being a namby pamby; operating a dslr camera in a manner which produces good pictures is a two handed job, especially with any decent glass attached. I've tried, but in all honesty I get better results with the compact that can be waved around comfortably with one hand. You can also stuff a compact out of the DV panel for some really cool shots.. but don't be flying too fast With the compact, 'Sports mode' helps somewhat as it emphasises high shutter speeds and wide appetures, reducing depth of field. Also useful is the ability to set the focus to infinity - hopefully you're far enough from the scenery that that is appropriate, and it avoids the a/f locking onto the dead bugs on the windscreen..
Some other general advice, no matter the camera: wide open apeture, fastest shutter speed, focus to infinity (again, you're a long way from the scenery). DO NOT attach or brace the camera / your arm against any part of the airframe - that will transmit vibrations brilliantly.
My personal choice (about a year ago) was a super compact 6mp casio exilim. I actually added it to my collection after the DSLR as a 'always with me' camera. It sits in my pocket, always to hand. It's also got good video with a really good codec that doesn't munch space - 640x480, 30fps for about an hour onto a 1gb card. Try that with a quicktime encoding (which a lot of cameras have). On the down side, the lens isn't really too wide (there's a canon ixus with a good wide lens, I don't know which one), and the screen on the back, while bright has a very poor resolution. The G9 (current /latest model) is I believe a really good, grown up compact.
Now for the techy twaddle...
The main bonus of the DSLR is a physically larger sensor: Appeture is a ratio between focal length and 'hole' diameter. Also for a given appeture, the shutter speed will be the same in the same light. The small lenses on compacts usually sport a pretty decent appeture - though the hole is smaller, they're also short, but that works fine for the small sensor. The problem is that the photosites on a small sensor are also small. A typical compact sensor is smaller than you're little fingernail. A DSLR 24x18mm. cram 10mp onto each, it's obvious. For various reasons small photosites/pixels mean that the signal is weak, the signal noise ration is not so good, therefore they are very prone to electronic noise. That's reduced by turning down the gain on the amp - low (typically 50) iso settings - which is why the compact results in a slower shutter speed. If you up the iso, things get noisy. The DSLR sensor is a LOT larger, has a bigger pixel pitch, and is less noisy. Typical base iso on a dslr is around 200 (4x as fast).. at which speed there's probably less visible noise than the compact.
Interestingly, this gets more of a problem the more megapixels you cram on the sensor... so don't be fooled by the manufacturer's drive to huge pixel counts. Quality of the pixels counts more! As a guide, 6mp should be more than enough for a4, probably good up to a3.
There are many implementations of 'anti-shake'. Provided the camera is insulated from the airframe vibrations (not touching the window etc), image stabilisation should work very well in an aeroplane. That said, there's no substitute for a decent shutter speed. However, so long as you're not toting seriously long glass, anything better than 1/160th or so should be adequate.
On IS/Anti shake, find out how it is implemented / what it does for any camera you're considering:
Some (my casio included) just up the iso sensitivity to keep the shutter speed up. That's b*****it.
Proper IS/VR is implemented in the LENS, and uses a gyro/accelerometer based system to move certain of the lens elements to move the projected image about the place, keeping it centred on the sensor. By all accounts this works really well. It's also the most expensive. I don't know which if any of the compacts use this. Canon calls it IS, Nikon VR
The third type that's only come out in recent years physically moves the sensor around to keep it 'under' the same part of the image. A few of the more recent (sony, olympus) slr's do this, presumably utilising the same engine as is used to do the sensor clean. The main advantage is it's implemented in the body and present for any lens you plug in. Disadvantage is its not as capable, or optically good as the lens based variety.
I'm not aware of any that moves the part of the sensor that's sampled from. I think it's unlikely that that is an implementation as there are other techniques going on when making an exposure like sampling from the black masked edges of the sensor to determine dark current, which would seem incompatible... but I may well be wrong.
End of the techie twaddle.
Hope that's of interest/help.
Last edited by Mark1234; 19th Mar 2008 at 08:23. Reason: attempt to explain sensors a bit more clearly...
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: England
Posts: 518
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
dont go for the zoom len's for in cockpit shots, with a dslr a std 50mm or 35mm len's is fine with a rubber lens hood, use the rubber lens hood, to just touch the cockpit window, therefore cutting out all, the refections, and being soft rubber no vibs
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Earth
Posts: 3,663
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
By all accounts this works really well. It's also the most expensive. I don't know which if any of the compacts use this. Canon calls it IS, Nikon VR
Mark1234, a quick guide to the VR mechanism here will reinforce my saying that it's unlikely you'll ever find such quality technology in a compact.
In terms of aviation photography in general though, unless you're going to be poking the lens out the window, you could end up with the cloudy photo effect if the window is unlcean / scratched. So maybe a reasonable compact would be your best bet, because you might not be able to get the best out of an SLR.
Videos - tips request.
I started trying to do video with the video function on a compact camera in December. I sit a Fuji Finepix compact digital in a made-to-fit cardboard box, with a bit of velcro underneath. A bit of velcro at right angles to that is stuck on the coaming. The bits of velcro at right angles allow for adjustment. With a 2G Xd card, it gives 40 minutes of 640X480. There's a link to 13 bits of the videos on the Videos sticky. Click on "others by" link to see the rest. I chopped them up for posting. Surprisingly little vibration.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: SW England - and happy!
Age: 51
Posts: 177
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I've now narrowed my search down to two (dissimilar) cameras.
One is the Canon G9 - which apparently is the best non SLR out there, (I'd end up never taking a dSLR around with me).
The other is the Olympus mu 1030w which is a point a shoot but is hardended to Mil specs, freeze proof and submersible to 10 metres.
V800 your photo was excellent using the G7 - the G9 should be similar.
The 1030 would slip into my shirt pocket and be hardy but have less functionality.
I know it's my (pleasant) choice but does anyone have any final thoughts?
Ta
Gaz
One is the Canon G9 - which apparently is the best non SLR out there, (I'd end up never taking a dSLR around with me).
The other is the Olympus mu 1030w which is a point a shoot but is hardended to Mil specs, freeze proof and submersible to 10 metres.
V800 your photo was excellent using the G7 - the G9 should be similar.
The 1030 would slip into my shirt pocket and be hardy but have less functionality.
I know it's my (pleasant) choice but does anyone have any final thoughts?
Ta
Gaz
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Londonish
Posts: 779
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Minor one.. Olympus uses xD memory which is fairly proprietary, and disproportionately expensive. Historically they're poor at getting any decent amount of video.
Would expect the canon uses SD - much cheaper. can't comment on the video.
Don't know the relative costs.
Worth checking out www.dpreview.com pretty much THE place for camera info.
Would expect the canon uses SD - much cheaper. can't comment on the video.
Don't know the relative costs.
Worth checking out www.dpreview.com pretty much THE place for camera info.
Some of my best aviation photography has been when I've been at the controls! Gives you perfect freedom to align the aircraft precisely how you need it.
I use a four year old Samsung 3 megapixel compact somethingorother when flying. It sits on my belt, out of the way, but when I need it, I can operate it with just one hand.
I find it a good idea to poke it out of the window, so there is no reflection or blurring from the perspex. I do put it on a wrist strap when doing this, just in case...
I use a four year old Samsung 3 megapixel compact somethingorother when flying. It sits on my belt, out of the way, but when I need it, I can operate it with just one hand.
I find it a good idea to poke it out of the window, so there is no reflection or blurring from the perspex. I do put it on a wrist strap when doing this, just in case...
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Londonish
Posts: 779
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Indeed... For illustrative purposes, a couple of 'camera out of the DV panel' jobs. All with the aforementioned casio compact. No comment on who was driving at the time!
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Earth
Posts: 3,663
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Some of my best aviation photography has been when I've been at the controls! Gives you perfect freedom to align the aircraft precisely how you need it.
Indeed whilst the CAA's GASS Leaflet on Photography only recommends a min. crew of 2 (photo + PIC) ..... I would suggest that if anything were to happen, the prosecution lawyers would have a field day on anything you attempted to put forward as defense, no matter good your barrister is.
A Pilot In Command is just that ... and it would be very difficult to prove you were suitably in command of the aircraft, especially if you were snapping solo with no witnesses !
Just my 2p worth .....
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Londonish
Posts: 779
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Unfortunately you're quite probably right, though like everything, there's a continuum from totally not appropriate to really not an issue..
For example, focussing fully on photography with both hands while flying the final stage of a bumpy approach, or attempting to circle 200ft above someone's house would I suspect be considered darwinian stupidity by most.. however, taking a couple of scenic shots with one hand whilst cruising at 8000ft on autopilot probably doesn't really constitute a significant deriliction of command duty..
For example, focussing fully on photography with both hands while flying the final stage of a bumpy approach, or attempting to circle 200ft above someone's house would I suspect be considered darwinian stupidity by most.. however, taking a couple of scenic shots with one hand whilst cruising at 8000ft on autopilot probably doesn't really constitute a significant deriliction of command duty..
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Earth
Posts: 3,663
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Can't say you don't have a point there Mark ... like most things in aviation, a risk based approach is not a bad idea.
Indeed, we've assumed the original poster is flying a UK reg aircraft in UK airspace because aerial photography in UK airspace in non-UK reg aircraft (whether commerial or not) is a whole different board game under the current ANO.
Anyhow, I don't want to get drawn further into debate because I only intended my short original post to be in response to your point about image stablisation, not legal issues.
Indeed, we've assumed the original poster is flying a UK reg aircraft in UK airspace because aerial photography in UK airspace in non-UK reg aircraft (whether commerial or not) is a whole different board game under the current ANO.
Anyhow, I don't want to get drawn further into debate because I only intended my short original post to be in response to your point about image stablisation, not legal issues.
