contrail spotting/photography

protog777

What is the cheapest way into contrail spotting? A telescope? spotting scope? or binoculars? How expensive is the photography side of it?
Thanks protog777

arubex

Spotting: can be done with a 6" reflector telescope on a simple, non-equatorial, mount quite easily ( I did it for years ). After a while it becomes quite easy to acquire and track. A voice recorder is handy for shouting-out what you see!

Photography: an SLR on a telescope T-mount suffices for general 'record of event' photos but for web-quality you'll be looking for proper photographic lenses with 800mm + effective focal length. I've been stacking a 300 f/2.8 with a 1.4x and 2x teleconverter and it is just sufficient in reach. Gives f/8 best aperture but most effective around f/11.

As a basis you'd probably really want at least a 500mm prime lens. Zooms don't always stay consistent when pointed 80 degrees up...

Keep the ISO high ( 800 or so ) for the shutter to remain fast ( 1/800 or better ). Gimbal mount on a tripod makes it easy to follow.

Thought: check-out that new Tamron 600mm zoom-monster. I haven't handled it myself but some birders find it adequate, and it's under a grand. Probably not enough light through it to add a teleconverter though.

This set up to get these results https://www.flickr.com/photos/widget66/sets/72157641823433104/

Telescope Setup by Thames Air, on Flickr

to get these results

Singapore Airlines A380 9V-SKH by Thames Air, on Flickr

best results I've seen seen are these

PH-TFL by jpro747, on Flickr

The best I have managed with a Canon 700d and 400mm L lens is this

British Airways Airbus A380-841 G-XLEA by Shamrock147, on Flickr

not great in comparison.

protog777

arubex wrote: »

Spotting: can be done with a 6" reflector telescope on a simple, non-equatorial, mount quite easily ( I did it for years ). After a while it becomes quite easy to acquire and track. A voice recorder is handy for shouting-out what you see!

Photography: an SLR on a telescope T-mount suffices for general 'record of event' photos but for web-quality you'll be looking for proper photographic lenses with 800mm + effective focal length. I've been stacking a 300 f/2.8 with a 1.4x and 2x teleconverter and it is just sufficient in reach. Gives f/8 best aperture but most effective around f/11.

As a basis you'd probably really want at least a 500mm prime lens. Zooms don't always stay consistent when pointed 80 degrees up...

Keep the ISO high ( 800 or so ) for the shutter to remain fast ( 1/800 or better ). Gimbal mount on a tripod makes it easy to follow.

Thought: check-out that new Tamron 600mm zoom-monster. I haven't handled it myself but some birders find it adequate, and it's under a grand. Probably not enough light through it to add a teleconverter though.

Thanks for the reply. I have a canon dslr, for the teleconverter would you recommend the cheaper versions such as tamron or should i just go for the expensive canon ones?

protog777

protog777 wrote: »

Thanks for the reply. I have a canon dslr, for the teleconverter would you recommend the cheaper versions such as tamron or should i just go for the expensive canon ones?

Jurys out on them, I have a Sigma 2X and they generally don't allow autofocus and reduce light throughput so f8 becomes f16 etc etc so you needs lots of light not usually an issue with contrailing. Some also don't do IS but my combo does.

Best I have managed with a 2X is this

Lufthansa A380-841 D-AIMH by Shamrock147, on Flickr

I find my lens doesn't fine focus so at this range its one side or the other of in focus.

pepe the prawn

[Deleted User] wrote: »

This set up to get these results https://www.flickr.com/photos/widget66/sets/72157641823433104/

Telescope Setup by Thames Air, on Flickr

to get these results

Singapore Airlines A380 9V-SKH by Thames Air, on Flickr

best results I've seen seen are these

PH-TFL by jpro747, on Flickr

The best I have managed with a Canon 700d and 400mm L lens is this

British Airways Airbus A380-841 G-XLEA by Shamrock147, on Flickr

not great in comparison.

What would that skywatcher set a fella back?

Pat Dunne

Deleted User wrote: »

I find my lens doesn't fine focus so at this range its one side or the other of in focus.

Have you tried to vary your ISO?

pepe the prawn

pepe the prawn wrote: »

What would that skywatcher set a fella back?

http://www.firstlightoptics.com/dobsonians/skywatcher-skyliner-250px-dobsonian.html

£435

Pat Dunne

Pat Dunne wrote: »

Have you tried to vary your ISO?

To be honest no, I haven't used it much, I've had it out three times. I found that the higher ISO's just introduced more noise into the shots which is very noticeable against the blue sky background.

Popoutman

With the Canon digital cameras, you get the most dynamic range in the raw files at 800 ISO. When I am taking astrophotos, I work exclusively at ISO800. Changing the ISO is only a digital gain control, so you will not get anything new by changing the ISO other than the overall appearance. You can get the exact same effect after the fact with using curves or other histogram changing processes. I've found that I get the cleanest data to work with at 800, even if they require a little post-processing to make them pretty.

A nicely balanced Dobsonian mount with collimated and clean optics will usually outperform all of the expensive camera lenses at the same f/ratio for much less cost. No chromatic aberrations at all, and fewer geometric aberrations. You can control the largest of the geometric aberrations with a coma corrector (~€200). The only optical artefact would be diffraction spikes from specular highlights. These can be minimised if you really wanted to with a curved secondary spider, ~€150, like I had in my 8" scope.

My 12" Dob scope, also by Skywatcher is equivalent to a 1500mm lens and works at f4.9 so it can take nice and sharp photos of planes at cruise altitude. Gives a 51'x34' field of view, with an image scale of 0.59" per pixel (~5cm per pixel at 8000m cruise altitude at 30 degrees up, gives 16km distance). That's a pretty impressive resolution..

@GVHOT - I would strongly suggest flocking the tube of that scope to help maximise contrast, and putting flocking on the non-silvered portions of the secondary mirror and support. It'll drop the already-small reflections down the tube and make the inside of the scope look like a black hole. It did have a noticeable effect on the 8" scope I had, and I'm awaiting delivery of more flocking material to complete the flocking of the 12" Dob. Very cheap and worthwhile modification to make, and comes into its own when pointing the scope at a bright sky.

A Dub in Glasgo

I use a Nikon mount Sigma 150-500mm, the images below was the sigma on a D5100 hand held. The Dobson telescope is the way to go although that would limit my flexibility somewhat

protog777

A Dub in Glasgow,
Are those shots taken with any teleconverters? And are they cropped?
protog777

A Dub in Glasgo

No teleconverters and they are cropped (75% Saudi Arabian Airlines & 82% Air France)

arubex

protog777 wrote: »

Thanks for the reply. I have a canon dslr, for the teleconverter would you recommend the cheaper versions such as tamron or should i just go for the expensive canon ones?

For the 1.4x the quality tends to be quite close across manufacturers; I use the Kenko Pro 300. They also make the 1.4x Tamron SP in the same factory.

The Kenko 1.4x also permits stacking with other teleconverters; you can't do that with the Canon 1.4x because of its shape( and I think it has some circuitry that messes-up metering if you stack ).

For 2x I went with Canon Mk II; their Mk I was pretty rotten but the II and III are much better. The III is much sharper at the edges but that's not so important for airliner shots.

The limiting problem where I live ( just above sea-level near Belfast ) is air quality, particularly in the Summer there is a persistent haze due to the city and it tends to spoil resolution. The advantage I find of lens vs scope is that I can chuck the lens in its case and yomp up the hills for a clearer viewing point.