Airshow mixed results: AF, or what?

[plantdoc]

Shot my first airshow with OM1 and Oly 100-400. Results were mixed. Camera set to airplane tracking, 1/1250 or 1/1600, E shutter with 8? frames per second, f7.1, CAF, auto iso, all area focus points, Ibis, to stabilize the viewfinder image. Temperature 75-80F, full sun, no wind. Large selection of WW2 planes. I would track the incoming planes until the white track box appeared with dancing focus spots, then start shooting. Pics shot at below 200mm were quite good. 200- 275mm mixed. Above 275mm mostly all soft. I know the fast SS is not great for blurred props but I am not very steady. All the pics of landing planes had severe atmospheric distortion, but I can not tell if the soft pics at 275mm+ are distortion, faulty AF, IBIS issues. I know from trying this lens/camera combo for zoo pics that I need a monopod for pics above 250mm +-. Any thoughts or experiences. Thanks

Greg

 

[drj3]

Posting images that were "soft" above 275mm may enable others to suggest reasons for the soft images. Without examples it is difficult to suggest reasons for the soft images.

-
drj3

 

[plantdoc]

Here are a few pictures. The P51 (single engine) is very good. The landing B25 is a mess. The others show the loss of IQ. Heavy cropping is usually necessary. Partly due to the reduced EVF image from eyeglasses and needed to follow the action.





















They all look ok when viewed in this post. Need to zoom a bit for a real view

 

[grsnovi]

Having the exif available without having to dig for it can help.

 

[grsnovi]

Quite a bit of heat distortion between you and the aircraft.

What was the ambient temperature?

--
Gary

Gary Smith

Explore Gary Smith’s 169 photos on Flickr!

www.flickr.com

 

[john isaacs]

Shot my first airshow with OM1 and Oly 100-400. Results were mixed. Camera set to airplane tracking, 1/1250 or 1/1600, E shutter with 8? frames per second, f7.1, CAF, auto iso, all area focus points, Ibis, to stabilize the viewfinder image. Temperature 75-80F, full sun, no wind. Large selection of WW2 planes. I would track the incoming planes until the white track box appeared with dancing focus spots, then start shooting. Pics shot at below 200mm were quite good. 200- 275mm mixed. Above 275mm mostly all soft. I know the fast SS is not great for blurred props but I am not very steady. All the pics of landing planes had severe atmospheric distortion, but I can not tell if the soft pics at 275mm+ are distortion, faulty AF, IBIS issues. I know from trying this lens/camera combo for zoo pics that I need a monopod for pics above 250mm +-. Any thoughts or experiences. Thanks

Greg

Atmospheric distortion. Airshows are really problematic, because the runways are giant heat pumps. In addition, they use a lot of smoke for effects, that that just messes up the air all over the place. Full sun, no wind means the pollution just sticks around.

Landing planes are close to the tarmac; they are in the worst position for clear shots.

The stabilization is to overcome your instability. You really should get the SS down; warped propeller blades ruin an otherwise good photo.

But the lesson is; shoot close.

 

[Bast Hotep]

Was this at the California Capital Airshow on Sunday by any chance? I was there on Saturday and the conditions were nowhere near as good, but coincidentally with the same equipment. This was my first try shooting low shutter speeds for the prop planes.


P-47 Thunderbolt








B-25 Mitchell bomber

 

[evetsf]

I do a lot of motorsports photography, along with (especially) warbirds in the air. Examining your photos suggests a couple of factors...

1. Most of the photos have some level of heat distortion in the image; it's most obvious in the B-25. When you see wavy lines & contours that should be straight, that's the clue for this problem.

2. There's also motion blur visible in some photos. This is usually found in panning shots, where your sweep rate of the camera when following the aircraft doesn't quite match the speed of the aircraft as it's traveling laterally. You can even see it in that (almost) head-on shot, even though it's approaching you, there's still a bit of left-right movement as well.

Panning takes lots of practice, and even then your hit rate won't be perfect; and that hit rate will be lower if you slow down your shutter speed to blur the props. However, that just makes the shots where you do get it right all the sweeter, like your Mustang image.

Some selections of mine that show the effect of motion blur. This first one looks pretty good, but on my home monitor the pilot's name under the canopy and the "RESCUE" label close by are just a bit blurry. The leading edges of the armament tubes under the wing also have a bit of a "double vision" effect, which is a classic sign of motion blur. Nevertheless, it's one of my "keepers" from the day; I had other shots with quite a bit more of that double-vision blur which were discarded:



Now, here's one where I did "get it right". The other side of the Skyraider, but the armament pods and corresponding graphics are not blurred, and easily readable:



--
Steve
48-75North.zonerama.com
- The Hierarchy Approves -
All rights reserved for any images in my Gallery or included in a message. Specific exceptions may be granted upon request.

 

[epozar]

heat
your camera focused ok

 

[plantdoc]

I should have tried some pics with slower SS since the best pics were under 200mm where I probably could hand hold ok. Just use to using fast SS with this lens overall or results were poor for wildlife and sailing. Even a monopod is helpful for me. Not nearly as steady or strong as 25 years ago.

Greg

 

[plantdoc]

Thanks for the knowledge. Fortunately I shot plenty of pics to get a modest selection of acceptable. I wish I had more opportunities to shoot air shows without long distance travel, beyond 2 hour drives from San Francisco. Dad was c47 crew chief in WW2
Greg

 

[plantdoc]

Yes, same event but Sunday. Warmer than I would have liked for personal comfort and heat distortion issues. I think they have another event in the summer, but I can not imagine enjoying 90F+ in the sun on the pavement,

Greg

 

[evetsf]

I recall attending an airshow at Moffett Field decades ago, when I lived in Cupertino, and the P3 Orions overhead preparing to land. Guess they're not doing that anymore...

I do understand about traveling great distances to suitable venues. Fortunately, living north of Seattle now, there are a few places close by that satisfy that craving:

Heritage Flight Museum, Burlington, WA, USA: frequent Fly Days, 5-6 times a year April-Sept. Less than 30 minutes from home. That Skyraider is part of their collection. https://heritageflight.org

Boundary Bay Airshow, Delta, BC, Canada. Annual Event, approx. 60 minutes from home, including the border crossing. https://czbb.com/airshow/

Abbotsford International Airshow, Abbotsford, BC, Canada. Canada's largest annual airshow, just over 60 minutes from home. https://abbotsfordairshow.com

 

[Bast Hotep]

Yeah, we've been watching the airshows from outside the airport for a few years because I didn't want to be on the hot tarmac, but I was psyched this year when they moved it to March. Next year is going to be October again unfortunately.

 

[Bast Hotep]

Thanks for the knowledge. Fortunately I shot plenty of pics to get a modest selection of acceptable. I wish I had more opportunities to shoot air shows without long distance travel, beyond 2 hour drives from San Francisco. Dad was c47 crew chief in WW2
Greg

There's usually one at Travis in Fairfield. It's free but everyone goes so you will be sitting in traffic for hours, plus it's usually even hotter there than at Mather!

 

[Bast Hotep]

I should have tried some pics with slower SS since the best pics were under 200mm where I probably could hand hold ok. Just use to using fast SS with this lens overall or results were poor for wildlife and sailing. Even a monopod is helpful for me. Not nearly as steady or strong as 25 years ago.

Greg

I recommend putting a video head on that monopod. That's what I used on Saturday (with a tripod because I knew I couldn't hold up even an M43 camera/long lens for 4 hours).

 

[Chris R-UK]

I love your 4th image, the De Havilland Mosquito. I have never seen a ground attack version before with the rocket racks under the wings and canon in the nose. It is in D Day paint so I assume that it carried out nighttime attacks, particularly on trains.

The Mosquito was one of the most interesting and versatile WWII aircraft - a medium bomber that could fly faster than most fighters.

 

[plantdoc]

I went to an airshow in Salinas this past spring. Very well run and organized overall, maybe with help from the same company because of the similarities. Big crowds but traffic management was also excellent. Unfortunately, more emphasis on stunt planes and jets than historic aircraft. I would avoid events held during the summer because I have minimal physical tolerance for 90F+, sun, radiant heat. These events should be held in cooler months.

Greg

 

[plantdoc]

You are very fortunate. When I lived in the Detroit area, the best show was Thunder Over Michigan sponsored by the Yankee Air Force. Held on an air field built to fly out B24 bombers from the massive plant (I believe). Saw many of the planes used during WW2 and a few from Korea. A few local, small airports also held limited shows. Saw the B29 land and fly up close at small airport near Pontiac, MI. Sadly, I witnessed the crash of a hawker Sea Fury at a show near Sarnia, Ont. The pilot was killed and I saw the plane stall and nose dive in the ground. It was flying very slowly for some reason and there was no fuel explosion.

Greg