Frank Pike wrote:
Hello all. I've been following this thread for months now, have finally worked up the courage to participate. Jim - you've been my inspiration since I saw that very first Mustang shot of yours. I've been watching very closely and have been trying to learn from your examples and advice here, as well as some of the other guys that have posted some superb images on this thread. Great standard, guys.
I attended RIAT and Farnborough in the UK for the first time last year, keeping a childhood promise to myself. I enjoyed it so much, I went back to RIAT again this year.
Hey Frankie thats a Cool shot of the Reds keep those photo's coming...
Got another couple to share.
These are also from the Operational Intergration Exercise (OIE) which i posted some pages back.
1. Jas 39 Gripen Tjech Airforce
2. Jas 39 Gripen Dual Seater Tjech Airforce
3.Viper Pilot Giving the ok signal after completing his mission
I hope you enjoy the photo's
@ Jim if possible could you make and post a picture of the B24 Liberator in its new livery would be greatly appreciated.
Jan-Arie
KyleSchroeder wrote:
Will the polarizer darken the pictures so much that I have to use an exposure that will cause motion blur to the airplane from me not tracking steadily. I do not have image stabilization.
IS/VR is really a great thing, but it all depends on what you're trying to accomplish. Some examples:
1. For shooting jets against a "blue sky" background, you should try for a very fast shutter speed since there are no moving parts on the aircraft and that gets you a sharper shot.
2. When panning those same jets near the ground, when you want a blurred background to show motion, you need a much slower shutter speed. You'll start showing some motion blur at around 1/320, I think.
3. When shooting prop-driven airplanes of any kind, you need to shoot slowly enough that you don't freeze the prop. Stopped props just look wrong, since they imply a stopped engine and they're not what the eye sees. So 1/320 is a maximum, 1/250 is slightly better, 1/160 is pretty good, and 1/125 will get you a full, gorgeous prop disc on most aircraft.
Of course, in cases #2 and #3, the slower you shoot the better the motion blur or prop blur will look... but the greater the odds of soft focus and blurred pictures. The "keeper rate" goes down very quickly as you slow down the shutter speeds. So start at a faster shutter speed (1/250 or 1/320 at most) and start working your way down to see what speeds you can comfortably and happily use without throwing all your pictures away.
As for the polarizer, simply check to see what exposures you get while using it. If they get too slow, take it off. I got my best "airshow" pictures to date at the Red Bull Air Race in Monument Valley, and it just turned out accidentally that my 70-200 with 1.7x TC (max aperture f/4.8) and the CPL twisted to maximum effect gave me speeds between 1/125 and 1/250 on most shots. So I was easily able to use shutter-priority of 1/160 and 1/125 with apertures of 4.8, 5.6, and thereabouts.
JWilsonphoto wrote:
Well I'm about to fall flat on my face but this file tells quite a bit about the MKIII questions I'm wrestling with. I hand focused this shot, handheld at 500mm in low light. This is every bit as sharp as anything I've shot with any of my previous Canons. So the camera can do it, it's the tweaking of the custom functions for each situation that creates the "problem". This shot makes me feel better about the camera.
I don't think you should necessarily feel better about the camera, and put more blame on your own shoulders, due to a shot like this. Of course the camera is capable of taking sharp shots... just like a manual-focus camera from the 50's. And in a pro's hands, to boot. A beautifully sharp image, in and of itself, is nothing for Canon to brag about.
And yes, I agree with you that there's a responsibility for the user to either learn the new gear's systems, options, settings, and performance to get optimal results, or just to stick with older and/or simpler gear. But, if the camera adds complexity, then it had better also add intelligence so as to avoid increasing user workload too much and really reducing the quality of the results. Maybe Canon has scored a win in pure technology, but lost ground in ergonomics, usability, and real-world results? Maybe the camera is harder to use, and takes more time to fiddle with settings, causing shots to be soft or opportunities to be lost?
I'm just saying, don't be so quick to assume that the design is great and the not-so-great results are your own fault. You are the poster child for a long-time, experienced, highly-skilled Canon user, for Pete's sake... and if the camera makes it more difficult for you to capture your usual quality of pictures, then it's quite possible that the camera needs some improvements and redesign.
Nope, all handheld. That's where I really need to isolate my shortcomings from any the MKIII might have. I shoot my 500 and 600 handheld all day long and I'm sure my arm gets weaker as the shoot progresses so I probably have some "PIO" as we say in aviation only in this case it's photographer induced oscillation.
Nope, all handheld. That's where I really need to isolate my shortcomings from any the MKIII might have. I shoot my 500 and 600 handheld all day long and I'm sure my arm gets weaker as the shoot progresses so I probably have some "PIO" as we say in aviation only in this case it's photographer induced oscillation.
JW
I've always had a very steady hand, whether it's target shooting or photography. I can get in sync with the camera and my subject somehow and shoot some incredibly low shutter speeds. Before digital everyone thought I was fibbing to them about some of my settings, now they can see it in the exif data. That's what's throwing me with the MKIII so far, but we'll become friends here soon. I'm sure it's just a case of the camera being smarter than the photographer.
Glad you liked the images! We just landed back home in McKinney a little while ago, 3.5 from Madison to McKinney at FL200 in my Buddy's King Air. Weather everywhere most of the way, but between altitude and Nexrad it was a beautiful trip. I'll be sorting through 13,000 + images to see if I can find a keeper or two. Weather and the new camera has me a bit skeptical, but we'll see.
Rodolfo, you're a good man! What you say certainly makes sense, but you know as well as I do, as you transition into more complex and capable machinery of any type, there's a learning curve involved in getting proficient with it. Obviously, this is not a camera that you can be an instant success with. Because I'm obsessed with making this camera a part of my hand like my others, I continued to experiment with it at OSH, but I shot lots with my 1Ds MKII as back up.I really dislike not being able to trust a piece of equipment, it haunts me. We'll see, above all I am confident that my friends at Canon won't leave me out in the cold with this and if it needs fixing, it'll get fixed.
Rough day at Oshkosh today. Gerry Beck was killed in Precious Metal, his hand built P-51A Mustang, and Bob Odegaard's son was injured in STANG, otherwise known as Dazzling Donna when they hit each other landing.
Kind of reminiscent of the Corsair/F8F launching mishap a few years back. What a shame. Lot's of high horsepower moving parts and the controllers do an incredible job. Anyone who has flown their own airplane in knows that alone is a feat of no small proportion, muchless performing.
Just thought that you would like to see what started it all. These images were made by Dick Ferris, at Dominguez, Calif. around 1912. I have a lot more but this gives you an idea what they were doing, without what we have now.
Tom
For those of you who might not have heard, Jim LeRoy was killed this afternoon at the Dayton Airshow. Jim flew the LyCon Pitts and was a solo act as well as a participant in Masters of Disaster, and the sequel, "X-Team". Definitely a tough weekend for aviation lovers, not to mention the performers and their families.
You all know that I have been doing this for a long time and have spent time working with and photographing just about everyone involved at the upper levels of the aviation industry. Early in our thread we discussed the attrition rate of both performers and photographers in this, one of my favorite venues. The truth is that we should only be saddened, not surprised when these things happen. We get lulled into a false sense of security when we don't lose anyone or have a real close call for a year or two. The airshow circuit mimics other entertainment venues, in that it strives to be more and more extreme to bring out the crowds and to excite and WOW! an audience that has gradually become more and more desensitized to speed and risk. Don't get me wrong, I think today's performers are nothing short of phenominal in their skill level, and the equipment they design and fly is amazing. The unfortunate truth that accompanies this cutting edge risk level of performance, is that all it takes is one off day, a split second lapse of concentration, a mechanical hiccup, and the excitement turns to fatal tragedy. It's part and parcel of the industry and it's never been more true. I am and have been friends with many of the best of the best and in their hearts they know the risks and the consequences. It's worth it to them and it's what they live for, they wouldn't have it any other way and I admire their skill, but more than that, I admire their spirit.
What a tragedy.....
