Warbird Information Exchange

Some excellent advice Joe - thanks. I shoot a 20D as well and found that shooting with centerpoint focus and centerweighted metering has helped as well. I have also bumped up the saturation and color tome in the camera settings and that has helped with less effort needed afterwards in PhotoShop CS2.

I'd love a 1D Mk III but it's a bit more than is in my wallet at the moment

What recommendations do you have on a long lens - the Canon 100-400 IS is fairly common and well thought of but wondered if you might have any experience with others such as the Sigma 200-500? And finally, do you use the IS feature when shooting? Any comments on IS (image stabilzation) use?

Enjoy the Day! Mark

I am no professional, however there seems to be times when having a tripod isn't always going to work for instance any moving object. Frequently when you are shooting in low light it involves people. A god flash and flash diffuser or bouncer is good for situations like that but at the same time there are times when you want a natural light feel and high ISO and a fast lens are what can get you through that.

I think just a general rule use the lowest ISO you can use when taking into consideration the shutter speed and aperture that you want to use. Outdoors, in sun, I won't typically use above ISO 200 I really want to use some fast shutter speeds.

(Actually, I'm Greg. I think the 'Joe' you're referring to is teh Joe Strummer quote in my sig line. I appreciate it, but I'm not worthy...)

Personally I don't use anything but Canon L lenses, but not everyone needs that. Photography keeps a roof over the family's head, so the best glass is the choice for me.

The only time I use the IS setting on my 400 2.8 is shooting at airshows. If it's a comfortable thing to buy it, it isn't a bad idea at all. Consider that you want to get a sharp image of a moving object while you're panning as well...it's a pretty good idea if you can justify the cost.

The primary thing I'd look for in lenshunting is anything with higher quality glass...Tamron's LD glass, or...well...umm....Sigma has it too, but I can't remember what they call itheirs. Better glass will give you a sharper photograph...period. better glass eliminates what's called chromatic abberation.

Basically, it works like this. When light hits the front element of your lens, it seperates into the natural colors of the spectrum. Because the colors of the spectrum are different wavelengths, they travel at slightly different speeds down the inside of the lens. When the light hits th back element, it refocuses the light into a usable form. But the problem is this...since the wavelengths of light travel at different speeds, they reach the rear element in a slightly different plave than what they started.

In other words, with non-corrected glass, the longer you zoom out, the less sharp your photograph is going to be.

THe lens glass I mentioned above corrects for that. AN IS lens without corrective glass is always going to be softer when it's zoomed to its full length than it will at a shorter length. With that in mind, if it's a choice between IS without corrected glass, or non is WITH corrected glass...go with the better glass.

*NOTE* THis is not anywhere near as much of an issue with a shorter zoom lens.

The

_________________
"Anyway, the throat feels a bit rough...the legs have gone...but I'm still able to chant, so let's get going."

Joe Strummer, 1999

Welcome to the wonderful air quality in Southern California. If you take car exhaust, abundant in LA area, add a little salt air, move it inland over the desert, heat it up good, maybe add a little dust, you get ozone and general haze.

_________________
Bill Greenwood
Spitfire N308WK

I kinda' figured about 100-200 ISO in the sun. When I was using film, the only time I used anything faster was in a theater where flashes weren't allowed and then it was only 400.
We'll be at MAAM this weekend and I'll see what I can do there. I want to get it right before we go to Duxford so as not to screw up the formation of the 9 P-38s that will be there.
In my dreams!

Mudge the hallucinating

ps. My zoomy is a Canon EF 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6L IS USM
My wide angle is a Canon EFS 10-22mm f/3.5-4.5 USM

_________________
Land of the free because of the brave

My band made part of our second record in Studio City. We got to the studio one morning, and all the studio staff were gathered outside in the breezeway oohing and aahing...there was no smog that day, and most of them had never seen the mountains from there.

Eeeewwwww.......

_________________
"Anyway, the throat feels a bit rough...the legs have gone...but I'm still able to chant, so let's get going."

Joe Strummer, 1999

I have always used an old "rule of thumb" I was taught years ago (before IS). For hand held shots use the reciprocal of the lens length for min shutter speed, ie 200mm 1/200, 400mm 1/400 etc. With IS I sometimes cheat a little. This has helped me over the years. Just my 1 1/2 cents worth.
bill word

I do all my airshow stuff with the shutter speed and aperture fixed. About 320 to capture prop blur and set the aperture to whatever looks right on the horizon in the general direction I'm shooting.

Maybe that's a throwback to my old Nikon F days. Is this the wrong approach?

No, that should work just fine, depending on how much sky/ground you have in the viewfinder when you take the reading.

I meter everything by hand then shoot manually, but not everyone is as much of a control freak as I am...

_________________
"Anyway, the throat feels a bit rough...the legs have gone...but I'm still able to chant, so let's get going."

Joe Strummer, 1999

Lots of good advice floating around. I'm no great photographer, but I am an editor, and the tip I'd add to the foregoing, and a comment on Mudge's earliest shots, as an Ed: - "get in close", or don't bother.

If they're pics for you, or bragging rights within the family, then anything's OK, and that's fine - IF that's all you want. But if you want something that another enthusiast or a magazine is going to be interested it, aim to fill at least half the viewfinder with the aircraft. Sure, it can be cropped back, after, but it'll look better if it doesn't. You'll also avoid a bunch of ther problems starting with less between you and the subject, like smog. There's also a fashion for 'in your face' shots where the wingtips / tail etc are gone. Not everyone's taste, but they are punchy.

I can hear the wail "but that's as close as they came!" already, but the hard fact is therefore you are in the wrong spot, so let the camera rest and enjoy watching the flying. There's always ways of getting to the right 'spot' if you really want the shot.

In the Ed Office, if I had a penny for every time we were told "I've got this great shot of..." and when it turns up you can kinda see there's an airplane in there somewhere... I'd have at least 17s 6d.

Not a criticism of anyone, just advice... I tip the hat to Mudge for being open enough to start off this tutorial.

_________________
James K

"Switch on the underwater landing lights"
Emilio Largo, Thunderball.

www.VintageAeroWriter.com

My personal favorite photography forum. This is a great place to bounce ideas off people.

http://www.dgrin.com/