Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Hi all,
Vanilla are planning an update to the site on April 24th (next Wednesday). It is a major PHP8 update which is expected to boost performance across the site. The site will be down from 7pm and it is expected to take about an hour to complete. We appreciate your patience during the update.
Thanks all.
Vanilla are planning an update to the site on April 24th (next Wednesday). It is a major PHP8 update which is expected to boost performance across the site. The site will be down from 7pm and it is expected to take about an hour to complete. We appreciate your patience during the update.
Thanks all.
Taking detailed pics of planes overhead at cruising altitude
-
30-03-2021 9:12am#1
Comments
-
-
-
This is a 100% crop with a camera with a 24mp ASP-C sensor (Sony A77), using a 400mm focal length (Sony 70-400mm lens), just to give you a rough idea of the level of the size and level of detail using this setup. The full frame equivalent focal length of this would be 600mm.
Here's a link to the full image, to get an idea of the size of the plane in relation to the frame: https://flic.kr/p/2kQ8PDG
Here's a 100% crop with a camera with a 24mp full frame sensor - but in APS-C mode (Sony A7iii), using a 200mm focal length (Tamron 28-200mm lens). So the full frame focal length equivalent would be 300mm
Again, here's the full image: https://flic.kr/p/2kGC13g
I just grabbed these out of my library, they were casual shots, so quality and technique is lacking.
One of the biggest impediments to picture quality of object this small and this far away is actually going to be the air itself. Humidity and temperature can really affect how clear a shot you can take, and there's nothing your camera or lens can do about that.
With the moon, it's actually surprising how small it is in the frame of a camera, even with long lenses. You'd want to be using a 400mm lens absolute minimum to get any real detail. here's one I threw all the tricks I have at (bar a telescope). This is with the 400mm lens, with a x1.4 teleconverter, on a full frame camera in APS-C mode, and then the photo is cropped. so the focal length equivalent is (400x1.4)x1.5, which is 840mm. Processing isn't good on this one. I actually think it might be a stack of 15 or so shots done as an experiment, I can't quite remember.
Untitled by phutyle, on Flickr
This is as extreme as I've been able to push it. APS-C camera (A77) attached directly to a telescope. This isn't cropped. But you're getting away from regular photography with this. I mean, it's not a good example of astrophotography - my technique isn't good, the image isn't sharp and I don't think my telescope was collimated - but it's where it begins.
Untitled by phutyle, on Flickr
As Salmon Leap said above, ideally, you'd probably want a 500 - 600 mm lens and a camera with a much bigger sensor to get really decent results if you were taking it seriously. But the second image I posted above could be got with relatively inexpensive gear (an entry level mirrorless camera and a lens less than a grand).0 -
Gregor Samsa's said it all really. You're talking about two different photographic challenges, where the only really common point is that you're trying to take a picture of something that's far away from you. Aircraft are relatively small and fast-moving, and unless you know the flight-path, could come at you from any angle, meaning you'll potentially need a faster, lighter (more "mobile") lens. Because the underside of an aircraft is a medium-brightness object, you'll only ever get a decent picture if the sky is completely clear between you and it. The moon, on the other hand, is big, very, very bright, and follows a predictable trajectory, which means you have plenty of time to set up a rig of hefty equipment; it's brightness, on the other hand, means that it can exaggerate the diffusing effect of moisture in the atmosphere, even if there aren't any distinct clouds visible to the naked eye.
To complement GS's photos, here are a couple of moonshots I took of the February full moon; both were taken on a Canon 70D on a tripod, with the lens' image stabilisation turned on, and with a 2-second shutter delay.
The first used a 55-250mm zoom at 146mm, with minimal post-processing and cropping (another pic had better detail in the moon but the tree branches were too dark):
This second photo was taken a week later, as a test of the Tamron 150-600mm lens I'd just bought, and is maxed out at 600mm, then cropped. Again, minimal post-processing, using the basic Canon software, so nothing too sophisticated.
0 -
-
Advertisement
-
Advertisement