Air Show Advice Needed

why did you use an ND-filter? With less light every autofoucus is slower, much slower!

Forget the ND-filter!

Hello Dave,

what I took away from yesterday was just how good Trevor is. This is not as easy as it looks, and requires a lot of practice to get  that panning right. For info, the EM1mk 2 with 300mm on C-AF low burst is not the answer on a first perusal of results. Took Skeeters advice and used a polariser and shot at 1/250...which gets prop blur to my liking and kept aperture down to reasonable figures. Might try the focus on infinity option next time, which for me will be Herne Bay. Sorry to hear the Mrs was not impressed, but if the legends show did not do the trick, then others will fall really flat. Thought it was fabulous and will be back next year for another go.

Bob

Thomas Traub wrote:

why did you use an ND-filter? With less light every autofoucus is slower, much slower!

Forget the ND-filter!

getting sharp, well composed and exposed images is more important than full prop blur, that is something that can be worked on later, i tried using a polariser once with some fast jets to get clearer cockpit glass.....the hit in shutter speed made me drop the idea after 5 shots

icexe wrote:

I think you would just be throwing a very expensive solution at a really simple problem. Just try leaving the lens locked at infinity next time. Planes in the air are going to be at the farthest focus distance of the lens anyway.

I have my doubts re the infinity solution. It's not unknown to get DOF issues especially at the long end which suggests that infinity is beyond the normal air show distance. Paul Cool has a couple of great examples in this thread which suggest that infinity is not a good idea.

https://www.dpreview.com/forums/thread/4179214

Incidentally Paul's two Spitfires works really well.

Thanks everyone for the replies. I think the comment about a different system was posted when I was frustrated yesterday, so please ignore that bit. Although an EM1 mark II could be on the cards anyway due to a work related windfall... 🙂.

Thomas, interesting point, I had thought about the filter affecting the AF abilities, but now you've pointed it out, it's obvious. Silly me for not thinking of that!

icexe, what focal length are you using with the focus at infinity technique?

Regards,

Dave.

Dave Abrey wrote:

icexe, what focal length are you using with the focus at infinity technique?

Regards,

Dave.

I just auto-focus on a plane in flight, then switch to manual focus, stop down to f8 or so. No more losing focus after that. That's the technique I've used for most of my airshow pics

https://www.dpreview.com/galleries/0634482253/albums/airplanes

Edit:  You can also try the back-button focus technique, where you assign a different button for focusing, that way the camera won't keep hunting for focus every time you half-press the shutter button.  You hit your assigned focus button, and once it locks focus you let it go and you can then snap off a bunch of images without the camera ever leaving that focus point.

Dave Abrey wrote:

Quick post show update...

First, thanks to everyone for the input and help in the thread so far.

I've had a quick sort through the photos and deleted the rejects - there were quite a few! No images to share yet, but here's some things I've learned from today's experience:

1. When doing a software update on your camera, check ALL settings afterwards. I updated to v3 a couple of weeks ago, and changed some settings for the event, but forgot to check what image quality it was set to. As a result, I found out after I got back that I'd been shooting in JPEG only, not RAW 😢.

Hi Dave, just to say that jpg is usually fine for flying aircraft , but it is important to remember to add positive compensation when shooting against the sky, the amount required can easily vary between +1 and +2 depending on what the sky is : white cloud or deep blue, and also on which direction you are shooting in - towards or away from the light source.

1. As a result of shooting JPEG, I can't do much with adjusting the exposure compensation. Which I think I would need to do in many cases, as in a lot of the shots, the plane is too dark.
2. I bought a 4 stop ND, that seemed to do the job, as I was able to shoot at 1/125 or 1/160 (I think), and was able to get some ressonable prop blur.
3. The EM5 Mark II C-AF is really not great for air shows. I tried some S-AF, but I don't think they worked (does the EXIF data have focus mode in it anywhere?). I also tried C-AF with tracking, which seemed to work a bit better, but again, I'd need to check.
4. The 40-150 with 1.4 TC was just about ok for reach, but more would have helped. I'll be cropping some shots.
5. My wife doesn't like air shows 🙁.

So, a lot of that I can work on my technique to fix. The C-AF issue is more of a problem. The obvious option is to get an EM1 mark II, but hey are very expensive. Another option I've though about would be a G80/85. This would clearly benefit from the DFD used in the Panasonic 100-300mm or 100-400mm (both of which are possible lens options), but would that give an improvement for C--AF over the EM5 Mark II? I've never used a Panasonic body, so I have no idea how DFD performs.

Another more radical idea would be to get an APS-C DSLR from Canon or Nikon and maybe something like the Sigma 150-600mm just for air shows...

Any more thoughts from anyone?

Like most forms of photography shooting successfully at airshows normally requires an 'aprenticeship' and you are already well on the way with the learning curve having analysed what went wrong, now all you have to do is to remember it for next time. ... which unfortunately is my biggest problem!!!

Thanks,

Dave.

Trevor Carpenter wrote:

icexe wrote:

I think you would just be throwing a very expensive solution at a really simple problem. Just try leaving the lens locked at infinity next time. Planes in the air are going to be at the farthest focus distance of the lens anyway.

I have my doubts re the infinity solution. It's not unknown to get DOF issues especially at the long end which suggests that infinity is beyond the normal air show distance. Paul Cool has a couple of great examples in this thread which suggest that infinity is not a good idea.

https://www.dpreview.com/forums/thread/4179214

Incidentally Paul's two Spitfires works really well.

Thanks trev for the comment but i wish it had been just one plane or at least another one that was not a training spitfire cockpit perhaps being a little picky ,but i assume in war time they had the dual cockpit canopy ?or is this a add on for commercial use training

https://www.flickr.com/photos/58365044@N05/

Dutch Newchurch wrote:

paul cool wrote:

Trevor Carpenter wrote:

icexe wrote:

I think you would just be throwing a very expensive solution at a really simple problem. Just try leaving the lens locked at infinity next time. Planes in the air are going to be at the farthest focus distance of the lens anyway.

I have my doubts re the infinity solution. It's not unknown to get DOF issues especially at the long end which suggests that infinity is beyond the normal air show distance. Paul Cool has a couple of great examples in this thread which suggest that infinity is not a good idea.

https://www.dpreview.com/forums/thread/4179214

Incidentally Paul's two Spitfires works really well.

Thanks trev for the comment but i wish it had been just one plane or at least another one that was not a training spitfire cockpit perhaps being a little picky ,but i assume in war time they had the dual cockpit canopy ?or is this a add on for commercial use training

https://www.flickr.com/photos/58365044@N05/

From Wikipedia:

Supermarine developed a two-seat variant known as the T Mk VIII to be used for training, but none were ordered, and only one example was ever constructed (identified as N32/G-AIDN by Supermarine). In the absence of an official two-seater variant, a number of airframes were crudely converted in the field. These included a 4 Squadron SAAF Mk VB in North Africa, where a second seat was fitted instead of the upper fuel tank in front of the cockpit, although it was not a dual-control aircraft and is thought to have been used as the squadron "run-about". The only unofficial two-seat conversions that were fitted with dual-controls were a small number of Russian lend/lease Mk IX aircraft. These were referred to as Mk IX UTI and differed from the Supermarine proposals by using an inline "greenhouse" style double canopy rather than the raised "bubble" type of the T Mk VIII.

In the postwar era, the idea was revived by Supermarine and a number of two-seat Spitfires were built by converting old Mk IX airframes with a second "raised" cockpit featuring a bubble canopy. Ten of these TR9 variants were then sold to the Indian Air Force along with six to the Irish Air Corps, three to the Royal Netherlands Air Force and one for the Royal Egyptian Air Force. Currently several of the trainers are known to exist, including both the T Mk VIII, a T Mk IX based in the US, and the "Grace Spitfire" ML407, a veteran flown operationally by 485(NZ) Squadron in 1944.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supermarine_Spitfire

That sounds correct. (My grandfather was in the ROC during WW2, and I spent far too long, as a child, re-reading and committing to memory his recognition journals. There was a very occasional photo of a two-seat Spit in them, but I don't believe that spotters were issued official silhouettes. That suggests they were very rare beasts.)

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/03/11/newly-restored-spitfire-pay-tribute-men-risked-protect-britain/

Here is some history of the plane

Thomas Traub wrote:

why did you use an ND-filter? With less light every autofoucus is slower, much slower!

Forget the ND-filter!

You need an Nd filter for photographing propeller aircraft and helicopters. Otherwise you can not get a slow enough shutter speed... to show some propeller blur. Frozen static propellers look so wrong when an aircraft is flying!

Adrian Harris wrote:

Thomas Traub wrote:

why did you use an ND-filter? With less light every autofoucus is slower, much slower!

Forget the ND-filter!

You need an Nd filter for photographing propeller aircraft and helicopters. Otherwise you can not get a slow enough shutter speed... to show some propeller blur. Frozen static propellers look so wrong when an aircraft is flying!

you can actually take pictures and get prop blur without a filter, what you can do is use one to get a slower shutter speed whilst help keeping a larger aperture

Skeeterbytes wrote:

Wu Jiaqiu wrote:

Adrian Harris wrote:

Thomas Traub wrote:

why did you use an ND-filter? With less light every autofoucus is slower, much slower!

Forget the ND-filter!

You need an Nd filter for photographing propeller aircraft and helicopters. Otherwise you can not get a slow enough shutter speed... to show some propeller blur. Frozen static propellers look so wrong when an aircraft is flying!

you can actually take pictures and get prop blur without a filter, what you can do is use one to get a slower shutter speed whilst help keeping a larger aperture

Jets have such fast propellers you don't see them at all, so use any shutter speed you wish!

Dr. Science

or take pictures of gliders......

Wu Jiaqiu wrote:

Adrian Harris wrote:

Thomas Traub wrote:

why did you use an ND-filter? With less light every autofoucus is slower, much slower!

Forget the ND-filter!

You need an Nd filter for photographing propeller aircraft and helicopters. Otherwise you can not get a slow enough shutter speed... to show some propeller blur. Frozen static propellers look so wrong when an aircraft is flying!

you can actually take pictures and get prop blur without a filter, what you can do is use one to get a slower shutter speed whilst help keeping a larger aperture

I appreciate that, but without a filter you often need to stop down to f22 due to many m43 cameras having a base ISO of 200. And f18-f22 on an m43 system produces terribly soft/blurred images.

I learned that the hard way. The following year using a 3 stop Marumi filter I achieved razor sharp images as - like you stated - it allowed the camera to work in the best part of the lens range.

Adrian Harris wrote:

Wu Jiaqiu wrote:

Adrian Harris wrote:

Thomas Traub wrote:

why did you use an ND-filter? With less light every autofoucus is slower, much slower!

Forget the ND-filter!

You need an Nd filter for photographing propeller aircraft and helicopters. Otherwise you can not get a slow enough shutter speed... to show some propeller blur. Frozen static propellers look so wrong when an aircraft is flying!

you can actually take pictures and get prop blur without a filter, what you can do is use one to get a slower shutter speed whilst help keeping a larger aperture

I appreciate that, but without a filter you often need to stop down to f22 due to many m43 cameras having a base ISO of 200. And f18-f22 on an m43 system produces terribly soft/blurred images.

I learned that the hard way. The following year using a 3 stop Marumi filter I achieved razor sharp images as - like you stated - it allowed the camera to work in the best part of the lens range.

i've never used on to be honest, but i have seen some nice full props recently which aesthetically is more pleasing