Didn't see a forum specifically for this subject, so I thought I'd ask here. Does anyone have a good reccomdation for a digital camera for taking pics of planes in motion?
I currently have a Sony Cybershot Dsc-w50 and the shutter delay drives me nuts. Plus I have trouble with either a blurry plane or people in the back ground are blurry. Not looking to be a pro photographer, but if there is a camera that works better on moving objects when shooting out doors, I would sure like to know!
Thanks

http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/forumid_81/tt.htm

Appreciate the response, but arial photography is not what I'm interested in, I'm just looking for a better digital camera to shoot on the ground with.

Hugger,

You don't say what your budget is, so there's a pretty wide range.

However, presming you're like most of us...you've got SOME disposable income (or you wouldn't be in this hobby *heh*) and want "very nice consumer level" equipment, allow me to recommend, highly, the Canon Rebel 350D, better known as a Rebel XT (and its cousin the XTi)

I shoot a WIDE variety of demanding subjects with this camera (I own two, the XT is my "carry everywhere" camera). I shoot NHL hockey, airplanes (scale and RC), portraits...you name it. And the XT does a fantastic job of all of them.

Here's a few examples of what it's capable of in some pretty tough situations:

Here you can see that it does a very nice job for a consumer level body and lens from nearly any vantage point inside an NHL arena:






Maybe you'd rather take it outside for some landscape type stuff:






Maybe macros are more your thing:






Portraits, perhaps?






How about airplanes?







RC






========================

All from about a $300 body, and very reasonable lenses (none more than $300). It's reliable (Mine's NEVER needed the first BIT of service), easy to find, easy to find components/extras/lenses for, light, easy to carry.

In other words...unless you're looking to get into photography as a SERIOUS hobby or profession, imo, you just can't beat the XT.

The Cannon Rebel has all of the features you want. A bit pricey. It takes fantastic shots in the air.

Thanks Gordon and Villa, that's just what I wanted to know! I paid about $300 for this Sony and its accesories. Its a good camera, just not good for what I want. What lenses do you think I would need with the Rebel for shooting Rc planes at say zero to 100 feet away?

Btw Gordon, how demanding was the shot of the lovely lady? Seem's pretty easy on my eyes. LOL.

Can't go wrong with Canon's entry level telephoto lens. 75mm-300mm, handles a good bit of abuse, and is inexpensive enough that you're secure taking it just about anywhere.

http://www.amazon.com/Canon-75-300mm.../dp/B00004THD0

It's not the highest quality glass by any means, but many of the shots you see up there (including ALL the airplane shots, both scale and RC) were shot with it.

There's another 'step up' in the canon brand as well. Lenses are a bit faster, less loss of clarity out at the edges, have image stabilization, that sort of thing. You'll pay more, but not outrageously so.

http://www.amazon.com/Canon-70-300mm-4-5-6-Lens-Cameras/dp/B0007Y794O''

Both of those will focus pretty close, and their auto-focus is more than quick enough for even quick airplanes.

I'd also ABSOLUTELY say to grab the canon 50mm 1.8 It's an EXTREMELY nice portrait-quality lens, and has some FANTASTIC glass for the price. You'll REALLY like it for closer stuff, and if you want to shoot any electric/indoor RC stuff.
http://www.amazon.com/Canon-50mm-1-8.../dp/B00007E7JU

And finally, if you REALLY want THE best 50mm lens on the market for the money, imo, that's the Canon 50mm 1.4 It is my favorite portrait lens on ANY camera at ANY price.
http://www.amazon.com/Canon-Standard.../dp/B00009XVCZ


================


Having said all that, I'll put this in "real world" terms. Unless there's a very specific reason to carry something specific, 99 times out of 100, I'll leave the house with the 75-300 and 50mm 1.8, and never find myself wishing I had another lens. One of those 2 is responsible for every photograph you see in my first post.

LOL. Not demanding at all.

She is, absolutely, hands down, my favorite model I've ever worked with. Takes direction exceptionally well, is really creative in her own right, and is a genuinely nice person to boot. And, as you say, she's not hard on the eyes either.

She's even done some airplane work for me




============

BTW, I should probably point out....there's the diff between the 50mm 1.8 (the portrait in my first post) and the 50mm 1.4 (The two with airplanes in my 3rd)

Without meaning to be all "rude" or whatever, I'd basically say that 9/10 observers probably won't see a whole lot of technical difference between the two. if that's the case, save your $$, shoot the 1.8, and be happy forever. As you can see, it's not like it's a LOUSY lens. *heh*

IF you happen to be (or become) enough of a shutterbug that the subtle differences make a difference...then the 1.4 isn't outrageously expensive.

Thanks a bunch Gordon, I'll be picking up a Rebel soon!

Thats a nice plane too, almost didn't notice it.

I use a Canon Rebel XTi for all of my articles in RCU Magazine and I love it.

[link=http://www.rcuniverse.com/magazine/article_display.cfm?article_id=1047]Sample Article[/link]

BTW, we DO have a forum for digital photo and video:

[link=http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/forumid_352/tt.htm]Digital Photos[/link]

[link=http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/forumid_353/tt.htm]Digital Video[/link]

Hi hugger-4641
You need to know that the Cannon Rebel does not usually come with a lens. I only have a zoom lens on mine. It does everything I want. The zoom lens can cost as much or even more than the camera.

This is true, but you can get some "fairly" inexpensive third party lenses. I HIGHLY recommend getting a zoom lens that will go from wide to telephoto. The smaller the low number is and the higher the larger number is, the more versitile the lens will be - of course, the more expensive it will be too.

But I have a 28mm - 300mm Sigma lens and I never have to change it. I can use it to shoot in a small room, or zoom in on an airplane.

This is it:

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/produc...6_3_DG_IF.html

It's $254 But that's cheaper than buying a 28mm-80mm AND a 70mm - 200mm

Thanks for the info and the links fellas. I guess I just overlooked those forums, everything I saw was talking about arial stuff. Two of my daughters are kind of into photography, so one way or another I will probably get the Rebel. Might get it for one of their birthdays and just "borrow" it when I need it! Sneaky, I know, but I'd rather get a good camera than keep getting frustrated with the Sony. I could probably sell it on e-bay to get back part of the cost of the Rebel!

Good info above...and Minn's right...the Sigma 28-300 is a very nice "everything" lens for the price.

Couple of comments here, and some "comparisons"

Along with the "length" of the lens (28mm, 300mm, etc) there's another number that is, imo, FAR more important...PARTICULARLY for shooting in-flight airplanes:

Aperture. (or F-Stop or F-Number) That's the (x.y/a.b) looking number after the lens. For example, the lens Minn linked, the Sigma, is an F 3.5/6.3

Here's the scoop on that

Think of it like filling a glass with water. You can turn the faucet on a tiny little bit, letting in very little water (or light). This will take a long time, but will fill nice and smooth with no splashing, if you will. Or, you can turn the faucet on full blast, which will fill it really quickly, but be something of a mess.

The aperture of a lens is, essentially, how fast can you turn on the water? A smaller number (f3.5) is a larger opening (more light) than a larger number (f6.3) What this means, essentially, is that the smaller number (or larger aperture) you have, the QUICKER the camera can get the light it needs to create the picture.

In a telephoto lens (a lens that can go from one length to another..like, 28mm - 300mm), there's usually TWO F numbers, like in the 28-300 above. The FIRST one is the max aperture at the lens' SHORTEST distance (28mm). The second is its max aperture at its MAXIMUM zoom (300 mm)

The other little tidbit of info to know is that the normal human eye more or less "sees things" at about 35-40mm. Which is to say, if you have a 40mm lens, and take a picture, it'll look about like it did when you stood there. Go shorter than that (say, 20mm), and the photo will have a wider field of view, as though you were standing farther back than you were. Go longer than that (say, 100mm), and you'll be 'zoomed in' a bit.

For reference, the first hockey picture above was at 255mm focal length, and I was...oh...30-40' away. the second hockey picture was at 240mm focal length, and I was way the **** up in the TOP of the 3rd deck.

===============

Having said all of that, some comparisons of some of the things mentioned here.

Minn's right...the Sigma 28-300 is a decent "do everything" lens. Its advantages are, as he said, that at 28mm, you can get REALLY close to a subject, still have room to fit in in the frame, and then rack it all the way out to 200mm and draw in objects that are a good ways away. As he said...it's handy to never have to change a lens.

On its downside, it has little hope of shooting some of the things the Canon 100-300 will shoot, because it's a fairly 'slow" lens...in 2 respects. First, f6.3 is a pretty small aperture at 300mm...meaning you'll need a fair amount of time (ESPECIALLY indoors) to get the shot. With fast moving airplanes (or hockey players *heh*), that's going to result in some motion blur in a fair number of shots. it's also, ime, a good bit slower to autofocus than the Canon is. Finally, as you can see, it's a bit more expensive as well.

Of course, on the other side, the Canon bottoms out at 100mm...which makes it tough to shoot anything closer than, say, 20 feet (it can be done, it's just tough). Figure even at its bottom end, it's going to make nearly everything look 2-3x as big as it is. So, if you want to shoot, say, a fellow AND his airplane, you're going to need to be roughly in the next zipcode to get em both in the shot, especially if it's a GS aircraft. On the upside however, it'll lock up an aircraft in flight so quick that you can literally freeze the prop...even on a cloudy day.

For example:



So...figure it's less expensive, will reward you with better shots of in-flight aircraft...but you'll probably need another lens to do any still-work.

*heh*

Welcome to our wonderful world.

===================

One last thing...MANY of us who are serious amateurs or professionals know a little secret....LENS RENTAL!

Most local serious photography pro shops, and plenty of places online, offer a wide range of lenses for rent for anywhere from 1-30 days or more. Usually the rates are quite reasonable...for example, I'm renting one for my Red Bull Air Race trip in May that's every bit of a $1000 lens...and the rental will run me < $100 for a week.

Renting lenses is a GREAT way to do two things. First, you can LEARN LEARN LEARN. You'll be able to see what various settings, focal lengths, apertures, types of glass, etc can do for your photographs. And then, second, it gives you a great opportunity to see if a particular lens you might be interested in will meet your needs BEFORE plunking down a few hundred on it.

Looks like the Canon XTi is discontinued.... is the XS considered the replacement?

Great info Gordon! I learned something, now I need to go fly. But seriously, I have no clue about different lenses and will definitely be in touch to learn more! If I understood the lesson correctly, it sounds like the cannon 75 -300mm would be a good start for what I'm trying to do. The shots I'm having the most trouble with are the ones where I'm trying to get the pilot and plane both in the pic with the plane flying by about 20 feet away and the pilot about 50 feet away.

That's going to be a tough shot in ANY circumstance. Below, for those who feel like like doing WAY too much reading for an RC board, is some explanation:

EVERY photograph has a "depth of field". In fact, your own eyes do...and for the same reasons. DOF is, essentially, the "depth" of the space in which things are in focus.

For example : Put your hand in front of your face, and then look at the television in the background. You'll see that you can focus on one or the other, hand or TV, but not both. One will be blurry. That's "depth of field" in action. You eyes have a certain "box" of space they can focus on....say, for example, 2 feet. (Just a random number made up for the example, obody yell at me *heh*) So...pick a point...your hand...and anything within, say, 2 feet of it, will be in focus. but anything outside of that 2' "box"...the television, 10-15' away for example, will be out of focus.

Cameras do the same thing. What most effects their depth of field is the aperture we talked about earlier. The larger the aperture (the more light you're letting in...remember, that's a SMALLER F number), the SMALLER, or "shallower" the depth of field.

Now, this is a good thing in some cases...take a look, for example, at the portrait and first hockey picture in my first post. Note that both of them have a very specific focal point.

In the hockey pic, the Predators player is in focus...but our depth of field is SO shallow that even his opponent, only SLIGHTLY closer to the lens, is slightly blurry...and the ref in the background is quite blurred. That's a GOOD thing in this case. Why? Simple...I'm a predators fan, and i shoot for other Preds fans. We don't CARE about the ref (in more ways than one), and care ONLY enough about the opponent to want to know that he's there, and our player is working hard to battle him. So...the focus of the image...both literally and figuratively, is on the player we care about.

The portrait is an even more startling example. Look close...that DOF is so shallow that even the model's own HAIR starts falling out of focus to the back...and the background is VERy blurred. Again...EXACTLY what we want...her FACE is what we're after there...the hair is just a frame for it to isolate it, and the background needs be no more than and "Ah, yes, pleasant" thing. Provided there's no tree growing out of her head, we don't really care WHAT is in the background.

Now...let's talk about the aperture for a minute in more detail.

Remember...the aperture is the hole we're letting light through...bigger the hole (smaller F number) the more light...smaller the hole, the less light. Remember the faucet example earlier? Well..guess what...the larger the aperture, the LESS TIME it takes to get enough light to make a photograph.

That's what we want, right? We're shooting airplanes...they're "small" (in terms of how much of our field of view they take up...yes, even a 40%er), and they're fast! So, we want that shutter to open and close QUICK. We don't want the airplane to have much time to move through our field of vision while the shutter's open, otherwise it'll be blurry. (ANY one of us who's EVER tried to shoot an airplane in flight knows what THAT looks like). So...we open that aperture up, and try to get LOTS of light in quick, so the airplane doesn't go very far while the shutter's open.

But dangit...remember what large aperture does? It DECREASES our depth of field.

And guess what...your pilot is 20' away, your airplane is 50' away. Your depth of field is a whole BUNCH less than 30 feet. Sooooooooooooo.....

Open the aperture enough to freeze the airplane...and it's IMPOSSIBLE for both it and the pilot to be in focus.

Close the aperture enough that the plane and pilot are in focus...and that airplane will travel a few zipcodes worth of blur while the shutter's open, because we're not letting much light in.

Open it back up, focus on the airplane...and you've got this fantastic shot of an airplane...with a blob of a pilot in front of it. Focus on the pilot...and he's flying a smudge in the distance.

======================

Here's where you get to make some artistic decisions:



Or perhaps




Pretty much the same pic, right? Shot from behind a pilot who's hovering his airplane. TOTALLY different stories though, aren't they? Simply because one is focused on the pilot, the other on the airplane.

Is one "better" than the other? No..not really...they are what they are. They're moments of time that suggest a story. What story is pretty much up to you.

First, Hugger, I mistakenly thought you wanted something for airborne photographing. Sorry about that.

Gordon is right. Although I don't own the XT, I DO own a Cannon Powershot SD890 IS and it is a fine camera.

CGr.

No problem Cgr, turns out there were some other forums for this subject, I just overlooked them.

Thanks again Gordon for the explaination, I still have to ask this question: If I got farther away when shooting, say 100 feet or more, and got the pilot to bring the plane a little closer to himself, would the "depth of field" still be too shallow to get both in focus? Is there a lense that would be better suited for this, an angle that works better, or is it always going to be choice of what to focus on?

Your thinking is dead on, Jerry. The farther away you are, the less on an issue DOF is. Take a look at my 2nd hockey picture for an example. Same lens, same aperture...but everyone's in focus, despite the fact they're considerably farther apart than the two people in the first picture. While I described it earlier as a "fixed depth box" if you will, it's really not. It is, to be more precise, more of a "ratio" if you will.

And, if you think about it, it makes sense. Consider looking two people 100' away. Even if they're 10' apart, they LOOK close together. yet, if one of them is right in front of you, the other 11' from you, they'll appear to be considerably farther apart....despite the same 10' separation.

The difference is, to use a modeling term, "scale". If a guy's 5' away, and another 10' away, #2 is "twice as far". But if one guy is 100' away, and another 105' away, the 2nd guy is only 5% farther, right?

So, yes...if you get farther away, you wouldn't really even need the pilot to bring the plane much closer...you could get far enough away to have both of them in focus. of course, then they're smaller...so hey.

Welcome to the world of photography...EVERYTHING is a trade-off.

(Sorta like model airplanes, come to think of it. )

Thanks again Gordon, I'm sure there's a lot you have to learn by trial and error, but your instruction will probably help me get better shots with the Sony until I can pick up a Rebel. You just don't know what you don't know unless you ask.
Thanks.