abufletcher

I've been into photography for over 20 years, done quite a bit of freelance travel photography, and written several how-to articles for the American photo mags (Photographic and Outdoor Photographer) and I have to admit I'm not at all sure what you mean here! [sm=50_50.gif] Yes, depth of field is going to be related to focal length such that you'll have more depth of field (at a given focal length) with a shorter focal length lens that with a longer lens. And yes, greater depth of field can give the impression of "greater clarity" -- though really it's not making the in-focus parts any more in-focus. It's just making more of the scene (front to back) appear in-focus. I'm not sure what you're trying to say about "high levels of zoom." Some zooms are actually shaper at their long setting than they are at their wide setting. So focal length alone really doesn't have anything to do with sharpness/clarity. That is, a shot with a 300mm lens at f5.6 and a shot with a 70mm lens at f5.6 have the potential to be equally sharp. Of course there IS a relationship between the length of the lens and the speed at which you can reasonably hand-hold it and still get a sharp image. The rule of thumb is that you want to be shooting at the reciprical of the focal length. So for a 300mm lens you'd want to be using a shutter speed of 1/300 (or whatever the closest is).

As to whether the 300mm setting on a tele-zoom is less sharp than a 300mm prime lens, well, in my opinion a good zoom can give you 95% of the same sharpness but if you shoot telephoto shots for a living you'll probably want that 300 prime (for for the speed than the sharpness). My recommendation for most amateur RC photography would be a 75-300/4-5.6 zoom. I picked one up used for around $100. Of course if you can afford fancier glass, go for it. Personally, I've rarely found the need to shoot "wide open" at the maximum aperture. Most of the inflight shots I've done are shot at at least f8.

Well, yes and no. Working the camera is by and large a purely mechanical activity. Decicing what to point it at and when to press the shutter -- that's art.

karaya 1

My Feedback: (2)

here goes- "white 1" on a sortie: Goodday- Matt

tubig

i really like your first shot there matt. to me it looks very realistic.

JET FX

Wrong! re- dead givaway??? Your looking at Temora 1:1 airstrip actually, which is home of the Temora Aviation museum, if you care to do a Google search?

So knowone has any suggestions re recommended- Canon 30D lenses for capturing inflight model images?? the lens Iam using is an old 70-210mm circa 1989 from an older camera and not ideal for my 30D for the porposes I would like, I had it lying around and gave it a try and think a more appropriate lens could be the go, just thought there may be a more suitable len's available maybe somewhat larger 300mm+ ? without going to large, maybe another style??? where are the Canon experts eh?

Cheers- Marty

uncljoe

My Feedback: (8)

Marty
You might PM John VH on the jet page .I believe he is using Canon 30D system. He is getting awesome results with his combo.

Semper Fi
Joe

ramcfarland

My Feedback: (44)

So its 1-1 and so the
Mig is...and aaa I would of left the back ground (back in the depth of field)[sm=49_49.gif]

JET FX

Thanks , Joe will do... Iam really keen to get the ideal combo for inflight pics, at least then I cannot blame the equipment..

JohnVH

My Feedback: (38)

Here, Ill throw a bunch in here..

30D, Canon 70-200 IS F2.8

























hope some of these fit criteria

GAP-RCU

JohnVH,

Great pictures! Do you normally leave the IS turned off during the in-flight shots? The 70-200L f2.8 is "only" $1400 without the IS option.

Thanks, Gary

Teus

This is a small EDF ME-262 from Het-RC.

Teus.

JohnVH

My Feedback: (38)

I never turn off the IS Gary. Its always on. Without it Id get nothing but blurrrrrrrrrrrrr.. haha! It helps and to me is worth the money.

uncljoe

My Feedback: (8)

John
Like the signature .... Great work on those Stick and Rudder shots
Semper Fi
Joe

JET FX

Very nice pics John, I was presuming a larger lens would be the way to go?? especially for the inflight pics, so then what are your thoughts about the larger lenses for the Canon 30D, and also wondering if you have tried any other lens such as larger 300mm. I would like to be able to capture such details as turbine exhaust plumes at a reasonable distance and I guess if Iam going to invest in a expensive lens I am now trying to learn as much as possible with Canon options. Any advice appreciated....

Cheers- Marty

SDCrashmaster

I agree with our "few and proud" Uncle.

That shot of Billy's Hog is simply one of the best ever.
Just makes me feel like I'm in a Hog myself looking back at my wingman on the way back home from a sortie, after having spent most of our ordinance.
Glad to see JVH back here with his ball

Paul

JohnVH

My Feedback: (38)

Thank you Joe!

Marty, I have rented a 100-400L, I didnt like how the zoom worked, maybe I rented a bad one but it was hard to adjust holding to your eye, my 70-200IS is a great lens, you can always put a TC on it if needed, but if all your gonna do is shoot long range, then Id get a bigger one. You dont have to have a long lens for a heat signature, just the right settings.

Paul, Thank you, yes, that bird is flipping awesome! Who says bigger isnt always better? haha!



Heat off the hog

abufletcher

I agree about the good photography. But I'm pretty sure that some of the models (particularly the WWI models) would have been torn apart if posted by an less well-known poster. The "eindecker" (like 90% of the eindeckers that show up at fields) for example, is little more than a spiced up Ugly Stik. It would be easier to point out the few things that ARE scale (if anything). The Pup has a stock (WWII era) tail-wheel, no dummy, and servos sticking out of the wings. The nose on the DrI has been "stretched." The Folke-Wolf has a music wire tail wheel.

Don't get me wrong, I'm glad they were posted since I always enjoy seeing good photos of nice models. But I've seen people here rip much better models to shreds on this thread.

SDCrashmaster

This thread usually falls off the left side of the rail, which is; proud modeler's posting pics of models they're proud of. And, often we end up seeing bad shots of excellent subjects.
It's not often that we fall to the right of the rail and get into technical discussion about the equipment being used, and excellent examples of that equipment. Very helpful to those striving to capture better images. I look at JVH's images as exactly that...technical examples.

I am not a WWI guy, so didn't notice most of the issues you brought up. Certainly with the awesome gain in the quality of the photography, there must also come an increased attention to detail on the part of the modeler, if your goal is to satisfy Abu's keen eye and capture an accurate representation of the aircraft of this genre...of course, this also assumes that the builder has a desire for his plane to end up being in the photo that eventually becomes deemed "The Star" of the "Best Scale Photo...The First 5 Years"

The Hog shot without the trees or background is just excellent on both counts. A model truly worthy of the finest glass you can point at it. I've admired that shot for a long, long time.

Teus

How about this one?

This is the Sopwith Pup from Martin Barbier made by me last spring at a scale meeting in Oss, netherlands.

abufletcher

Outstanding photo AND model!!! I really enjoy seeing flying shots with something besides a hazy blue sky in the background.

Shui

My Feedback: (2)

Here's a few of a 114" long F-16 that I flew a few weeks ago (Nikon D40X) -

JohnVH

My Feedback: (38)

Sweet bird Dave, wish I could photograph that baby! Id do it some justice!

sebo

That is really a great looking aircraft. The pictures are good too!
How'd you hide the control surface linkages? Where are they?
Could you (maybe) give us a "How To" in a "TECHNIQUES" thread?
Great Job!!

IFLYRC-RCU

My Feedback: (28)

Mr Shulman : Hu-Rah !

VERY NICE pics !

Love the "heat" from the exhaust.

Daz167

Hey Mustang,

Calm down dude!!! You are blowing this way out of proportion......remote control planes are not meant to look scale in real life......are you daft......they are toys....boys toys.......if they were meant to look real they would be the real thing......let people post their photos as you requested, as some of the photos are fantastic, there is no way that everybody can photo edit out their antennas....piano wire landing gears etc etc. You can't judge a rc plane by a photo.....don't be so judgemental...

People are posting these photos because they are proud of what they have created....be greatful that they have posted them on your thread at all. I have a fantastic looking P47 which I will deny posting on this thread because all I will get is criticism for how unscale it looks from you.....people like you should take a good hard look at themselves.....and maybe look at another line of work....maybe fashion design if you're that critical

Daz

sebo

DAZ167. I have a thread out here of photos of our scale looking models. They can even be float planes in a swimming pool or planes on top of a car. The control horns can be shown with no adverse comments. No one has posted to this thread since a couple of weeks after I started it. I want to see everyones scale stuff. I'm not interested in photo quality. Just in your plane. No sport planes allowed just scale type stuff. Please put your plane in it. I'd like to see it. Search under "sebo" to get thread. Same for all you other pilots.
Thanks, Ron