Warbird Information Exchange

Hello all,

I've been getting more interested in photography. Currently I own a Kodak Z650 digital camera and it turns out some really great pictures, very detailed. But I am not sure it is good for taking up close shots of aircraft flying. I see a lot of WIX'er have and swear by the Canon 30D. Well, I checked them out and they are a little out of my price range . Then again every digital camera with a 35mm +lens is way too much for me right now. So I was thinking about looking around for a older filmed camera thinking that they may be alittle cheaper now that they are "going out of style".

What type of camera does everyone here us to take pictures of airplanes? Anyone here still use a film cameera? Which type of camera, digi or film, produces better quality pictures? Or can you get just the same quality out of a film camera?

Thanks,
Nathan

_________________
Shop the Airplane Bunker At
www.warbirdbunker.com

I use a Nikon D80. I have two questions for you. How much do you want to spend and what type of pictures do you want to take?

_________________
Check out our new website.
CAF SoCal Wing http://www.cafsocal.com/

Hi Dan,

I am not particularly looking to buy a camera now. I was just curious as to what is good and what isen't. And differences between film and digi cameras.

Someday down the road would like to get a camera that would be good for taking pictures of airplanes flying at airshows.

-nate

_________________
Shop the Airplane Bunker At
www.warbirdbunker.com

My personal opinion is if you want to move up to a DSLR type camera eventually, determine what your dream camera is, and then purchase something in the line of camera's that use that same lens mount.

For instance if your dream camera is the Canon EOS-1D or EOS 30D etc then start out with either a digital Canon EOS Rebel XTi or film EOS Rebel T2. Both support the
Canon EF mount. This allows you to keep all of your lenses (potentially the most expensive part of the camera if you get nicer lenses particularly L glass) Buy the best lenses you can afford you can always trade up the body later.

You can do this similarly with the Nikon line etc. Figure out which line you ultimately will like and you can get in with a cheaper film or low end body to fit that lens line.

Hi Ryan,

I know this might sound cheap, but a year ago I noticed that wal-mart had a nice 35mm film camera for sale at $200.00. I think it was eithor Sony or Canon. It kinda looked like the EOS Rebel T2 you showed me but it had a black finish. Seemed like a good buy but at the time I wanted a camera for taking pictures of my models so that is the top reason I got the Kodak Z650.

Here is a suggestion for Scott. How about making a board for photography? Since it seems that most WIX'ers are into photography and cameras. Could be a place people can go to find out on the latest gear and tips on taking good pictures. Might do well-just an idea.

_________________
Shop the Airplane Bunker At
www.warbirdbunker.com

Nathan
I do not think that buying a film camera is the right way to go. Instead, save that $$ and continue to use what you have and save more money. This is what I did for about 4 years. Yes, at times it hurt to use a camera that was not up to par but I did get the money.

If you go for a Canon, start out at the XT (it is ok, that is what I have now. It also will be coming down in price very soon as the XTI is out). My plan right now is to invest in lenses, and not the EF-S stuff as my dream is a 5D or other full frame camera and I don't want to have to re-buy lenses when I can get the camera of my dreams.

Film is dead in my book and not worth the trouble (IMO).

Another option is to sell anything of value you have and buy camera gear. That is how I bought the Canon 100-400 lens you saw this past weekend. I have more stuff on E-bay in hopes of getting more gear. After that I will need to get a job and save.

Tim

_________________
www.tailhookstudio.com

1900: Now that these new 'automobiles' are coming in, I've noticed the prices of horse and buggies has gone down. Is this a good time to buy a horse?

No.

For the same reasons. Like hardcore vinyl junkies who won't use CDs, there's a case to be made for the old technology. However, unless you are in love with the technology, rather that wanting to do something with it, go with the flow, and digital is taking over the market completely, excepting hardcore retro- film users (and good luck to them).

Any decent digibox should take decent museum and static airshow photos; for flying shots you need an intermediate type or ideally, a proper DSLR. The advice about good glass above is excellent, and my other take would be someone who bothers to get in the right place at the right time with an average camera beats someone with top-of-the-range kit and who plants himself in the crowd with a selection of heads between him and the aeroplanes... Some of the best air to air aviation photos were taken by Charles E Brown out of a wooden box with a cross-wire viewfinder!

_________________
James K

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

www.VintageAeroWriter.com

Nikon D50 is what I use. I just got it and love it. But I am still learning how to use it.

_________________
Chris Henry
EAA Aviation Museum Director

I have to agree, Nathan. Film is no way to go these days. Film's a bit cheaper, I think. But it's more cumbersome, not as handy, and you can manipulate your digital images then print the few you want. As opposed to printing the ones you think you might like, then dumping 90% of those, then scanning the prints (loss of quality) before you ever get to see them on a computer screen. There are ways to fix that, but in general only old farts and true artists use film anymore. You will really be glad you waited, bud. meantime, even and old box camera can produce images you would be proud of. I suggest you use what you haveto practice technique so your digital work is that much better

Save you pennies and start watching Ebay. It'll be worth the wait.

_________________
"I knew the jig was up when I saw the P-51D-20-NA Mustang blue-nosed bastards from Bodney, and by the way the blue was more of a royal blue than an indigo and the inner landing gear interiors were NOT green, over Berlin."

Nathan,
I use a Pentax K1000 35 mm, (my third) and own a buttload of lenses, but I have to agree with the digital SLR guys here. I just picked up a bargain camera body to use all the lenses I couldn't bear to toss. In the meantime I'm trying to get all the opinions and advice on WHICH DSLR to get. SLR is my camera format of choice.
Go with the times dude! The naysayers who falsely claim that digital doesn't take as good a photo is film are losing ground every day with the rate the technology is going.
Decide what you want to use it for and find out which one suits both your needs and pocketbook. Even better, see if friends with DSLR cameras might let you use it.

between and old fart and artsy-fartsy
Canso42

And don't buy a camera body to use with old film-era lenses, same brand or no. That just seems like asking for trouble or selling yourself short.
Canso42

SLR film cameras may be cheaper than digital cameras (partly because nobody wants the film ones anymore ), but in the long run I think digital is cheaper. The true beauty of digital to me is not having to pay developing and printing costs for shots that didn't turn out. With digital, you just keep the good ones and delete the bad ones (or store them on some dark corner of your hard drive). If you want to print them out, you just select the best shots. There are so many online and retail photo developers who only charge 19 cents (or whatever) for prints. For the $10 it might cost you to develop a film roll and print out 36 exposures (of which only half may be keepers), you can print out 50+ keepers from your digital memory.

It doesn't take long for the cost savings of digital to offset the higher camera costs.

Ultimately, it's not so much the camera you buy, but it's the person who's using it that determines how good the results are. With digital, I find the learning curve is easier, because you instantly see your results. If you're making a mistake with your camera (with, let's say, exposure times), you'll know it right away. And you can figure out what it takes to get the right shot. It's a trial and error process, only with instant feedback. If you make the same mistakes with a film camera, you might not realize it until the air show is over and you get your photos back a couple days later. And then you have to start guessing what it was that you did wrong...then wait for the next opportunity to arise where you can screw it up again.

Isen't there now where you can take your film and if you want have it put on a CD rather then prints?

_________________
Shop the Airplane Bunker At
www.warbirdbunker.com

Yup - they scan the negatives, and produce a digital copy of the negative. The old printer's rule of thumb applies - that's a second generation copy, like a print off the negative, and not as good as a digital image direct from the camera. Digital can regenerate new copies that are as good as the original.

_________________
James K

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

www.VintageAeroWriter.com

You're right. I was thinking start up cost and somehow didn't say it. I shot both profesionally once upon a time, and I would unconditionally say go digital, either as an amateur home shooter or as a pro in almost any field. There was a time when slide film could compete for magazine covers, and good old black and white was fine for newspapers. But with Digital you get ALL of that: B&W, Slide, Print, good color quality, great detail, and best of the ability to take all the shots you want without lugging a ton of film with you.

_________________
"I knew the jig was up when I saw the P-51D-20-NA Mustang blue-nosed bastards from Bodney, and by the way the blue was more of a royal blue than an indigo and the inner landing gear interiors were NOT green, over Berlin."