Olympus-OM
[Top] [All Lists]

[OM] Re: Aerial Photography

Subject: [OM] Re: Aerial Photography
From: drchrisbarrett <drchrisbarrett@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Sat, 04 Nov 2000 21:20:58 -0800
Cc: Olympus digest <olympus-digest@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
I like the 75-150 myself, and it was my only telephoto for about 20years.
Then I bought my 200mm and this year a 100 f/2.8, which I really like.

When I was doing the aerial shots I vacillated about taking the zoom or the
longer lens, and settled on the 200, as I thought spotting the features,
panning and focussing were enough to do without selcting a focal length as
well. Final cropping could after all be done on the ground.

I think this turned out to be the right choice, as we were trying to get
shots of specific buildings within the village (about 2 miles across). While
my colleague was concentrating on getting the plane in the right place (and
keeping away from the hills as the village was just at the base) I had little
time to find each target and fire off a couple of shots of each. I think if
I'd been tempted to use the zoom I would have ended up trying to do too much.
As it was I was glad to leave the OM2 (+ winder) on auto for all the shots.

In both cases we flew at around 7pm on bright summer evenings so there was
plenty of light, and 100ASA was sufficient. I'm not used to modern fast
films, having used K25 & 64 for many years.

We had one surprising effect. We had planned a 50mm shot of the village from
about 2500ft. When we had the films processed we had good exposure in the
centre with a gradual fall towards the coners, as if the lens was vinetting
(the 50mm f/1.8). The processer even reprinted the shots as he thought his
process might have been faulty. The effect was not apparent on the 200mm
shots.

I went as far as doing test shots of the lens I used in comparison with my
other 50 1.8, and 50 3.5 macro.

I think the problem was that we positioned the plane to the west of the
village, and a slight haze had formed above 1000ft, and what we saw was
sunlight reflected off the haze.

My colleague Paul, who flew the plane, took a marvelous shot some years ago
of Malvern itself. He went up one very crisp winter day, and the conditions
were so clear he was able to get a very clear shot of the whole town from
5000ft.

I'll try and get a copy of AP. I may have to wait until things dry out before
I can get into Worcester, as I don't often see it in town.

Chris

Chris Barker wrote:

> Dear Chris
>
> Thanks for the information.  ISO 400 films are good enough now to get
> decent enlargements from.
>
> Sounds like fun, except that the Cessna you were in would have had
> more ironmongery than the Grob (Tutor) has - I think it has a bubble
> canopy.
>
> The focal length is interesting.  I had thought of taking a 75-150 to
> cover a good range of views, but I do like the 200/4, even though I
> don't use it a lot.
>
> There's a lovely view of gReat Malvern in the latest AP, taken by
> someone and submitted as a reader portfolio.
>
> Chris
>
> >Dear Chris,
> >
> >You wrote:
> >
> >>Anyway, in a Grob (fairly sure that's what it is) I could develop a
> >>clamp to hold my OMs and perhaps take photos of all sorts of exotic
> >>aircraft that fly in the same speed regime.  Does anyone have any
> >>experience of aircraft coaming clamps with a tripod bush to hold a
> >>camera?
> >
> >I don't know if I'm teaching my grandmother to suck eggs, but I took
> >some photos of a village near here last year with a colleague flying a
> >Sesna.
> >
> >I did it all handheld from the side window. On the first flight I used
> >just my 50mm f/1.8 and 100 ASA. This was a sunny summer evening, so I
> >could use 1/500+ at mid to small apertures. When I blew up the photos I
> >concluded that I could get away with a longer lens (I wanted to pick out
> >some historic houses), and I used my 200 f/4 on our next flight under
> >similar conditions, with good results.
> >
> >In each case I handheld. This had the advantage that I could follow the
> >target as the plane flew.
> >
> >I think one of the problems you would have with a fixed mount (as well
> >as vibration) would be getting the object in frame. You might end up
> >with lots of shots of bits of aircraft but no complete ones.
> >
> >On the other hand you could go down to the Falklands and get some shots
> >of falling penguins!
> >
> >Chris
>
> --
> <|_:-)_|>
>
> Chris Barker
> imagopus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> ... a nascent photo library.


< This message was delivered via the Olympus Mailing List >
< For questions, mailto:owner-olympus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx >
< Web Page: http://Zuiko.sls.bc.ca/swright/olympuslist.html >


<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>
  • [OM] Re: Aerial Photography, drchrisbarrett <=
Sponsored by Tako
Impressum | Datenschutz