flying high

[Jpatten]

I took this one shortly after getting my Sigma 70-300 ... I had almost forgotten it, but am really impressed with how well it came out considering I was handheld at the time. I like the contrails appearing back behind the engines...
I realize its not all that sharp... Not much pp if I recall... just cropped.
http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2109/2461801654_88c65858b5.jpg

[PhotosGuy]

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v218/PhotosGuy/Forum%20Junk/Welcome-ChargerRT_020.gif

[RyanM]

looks like a British Airways 747-400

[Buttkicker]

Sorry but its just so fuzzy and out of focus - I would suggest taking the pics when the aircraft is a lot closer
Chris

[RadAL]

Sorry but its just so fuzzy and out of focus - I would suggest taking the pics when the aircraft is a lot closer
Chris

or use a tripod (assuming he didn't)

[FlyingPhotog]

Or better yet, take it when it's a helluva lot lower than FL350... :lol:

Pretty good resolution considering that aircraft is probably 6+ miles up!

[Jpatten]

Or better yet, take it when it's a helluva lot lower than FL350... :lol:

Pretty good resolution considering that aircraft is probably 6+ miles up!

Thats what I was thinking... But I was also playing around early on with the lens seeing what I could get with it. Technically? I know it sucks, but still, I like it.

[FlyingPhotog]

Thats what I was thinking... But I was also playing around early on with the lens seeing what I could get with it. Technically? I know it sucks, but still, I like it.

And ultimately, that's all that matters...

I've got shots taken from roughly 10 miles away (latterally) from the final approach to Sky Harbor in Phoenix where you can easily read FedEx or UPS on cargo jets or count the windows on commercial aircraft.

Are they great photos? No... But it's still fun to see what can be resolved at long distances.

In my case, it's with a 300mm f/2.8L IS + 1.4x TC on a 40D.

[Jpatten]

well my 300 does I think 4.5 ? I dont have the lens in front of me.

[mchoate1]

Hope that Cahrger R/T is a fout speed. I had a four speed Road Runner in 1968, I now have a 4 Speed 67 Firebird...4 speeds rule....

[fishfoto]

Flying,

Shooting at FL350 is not so bad. I have shot some images of aircraft at FL350 intentionally to make the contrail as long as possible. I spent an afternoon this fall staring at the sky on a known approach to JFK/EWR, over eastern Connecticut, with a 70-200f2.8 looking for nice contrails for a PR client of mine.

...this photo however shows serious signs of focus issues, and it certainly is a BA 744

[Jpatten]

FL 350 .... 35,000 ft?

[fishfoto]

JP

FL350 = Flight Level 350 = Aircraft Altitude 35,000 feet

Altitude is measured in hundreds of feet, so 310 is 31,000 feet, 350 is 35,000 feet, etc etc etc




(BA 744 = British Airways 747-400)

[Mick Emmett]

What an informative thread this is, I've got a few shots like that and it still amazes me what I managed to pull from just a speck in the sky.

[williambeeler]

Depends what the altimeter setting is.

[FlyingPhotog]

Depends what the altimeter setting is.

Above 18,000 MSL the altimeter never changes. It's always 29.92 ;)

[fishfoto]

Above 18,000 MSL the altimeter never changes. It's always 29.92 ;)


Wow.....that's a reply only a real nerd would give ;)

[FlyingPhotog]

Wow.....that's a reply only a real nerd would give ;)

A badge worn proudly! :p

Happy Holidays btw...

[fishfoto]

A badge worn proudly! :p

Happy Holidays btw...


Don't stick your tongue out. You face may stay like that!


Thanks for the holiday wishes! (FYI: Randy Peterson, founder of Flyer Talk, has the BEST Christmas cards for people who spend to much time on planes)

[Jpatten]

What an informative thread this is, I've got a few shots like that and it still amazes me what I managed to pull from just a speck in the sky.

I agree, and why I like this one despite its fuzziness

[williambeeler]

altimeter below 29.92 FL180 unusable etc. s it drops further

[LA Smith]

Wow.....that's a reply only a real nerd would give ;)


Or a pilot, an air traffic controller, meterologist...;)

[Jon Foster]

Who said this wasn't a good shot? I think it's fine. Considering the technical limitations it's great.

A long long time ago I tried for a shot like this using a Orion 4.5" reflector telescope as a lens on my 300D. Talk about a hard shot to get!

Shutter speed: 1/50 F-stop: 7.9 ISO speed: 200 Focal length: 900mm

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v601/jfoster48386/Canon%20300D/Astrophotography/StrayJet.jpg?t=1230790548

Jon.

[Jpatten]

Heh... Id be happy to get ANYTHING trying to snag a plane with my telescope as a lens...

[Canuck]

Above 18,000 MSL the altimeter never changes. It's always 29.92 ;)

Per barometric altimeter...ever use radar, radio, etc variants? :lol:

[FlyingPhotog]

Per barometric altimeter...ever use radar, radio, etc variants? :lol:

Not in the flying I do.

But then your garden variety C172 isn't going to spend any time in Class A airspace so... :cool:

[Canuck]

Not in the flying I do.

But then your garden variety C172 isn't going to spend any time in Class A airspace so... :cool:

Ahh, true enough. I wasn't entirely sure if you were strictly a private pilot or commercial. :)

[FlyingPhotog]

Ahh, true enough. I wasn't entirely sure if you were strictly a private pilot or commercial. :)

Private.

(Although the same laws of physics apply to both me and the ATP... ;) )

[Canuck]

Private.

(Although the same laws of physics apply to both me and the ATP... ;) )

Landings are manditory, takeoffs optional. My skills are as an avionics tech, mostly analog stuff. I have some experience in glass cockpits.

[FlyingPhotog]

Landings are manditory, takeoffs optional. My skills are as an avionics tech, mostly analog stuff. I have some experience in glass cockpits.

The G1000 is pretty amazing (I don't think you could get lost if you tried) but I prefer steam gauges!

[Jpatten]

"Landings are manditory, takeoffs optional."

I am reminded of a show I was watching with my kids, one of the character was supposed to skydive and he told a girl he was trying to impress that "one out of five never make it to the ground."
(Where do they go?)

[Jeff]

Or a pilot, an air traffic controller, meterologist...;)

I must admit, I thought it; but was wasn't going to display my nerdier side.

... ATC

[Canuck]

The G1000 is pretty amazing (I don't think you could get lost if you tried) but I prefer steam gauges!

Wow, that's really slick, I looked it up from google images! I wish I could find a decent pic of some of the stuff I worked on. Steam gauges :) I have one pic from inflight at FL 350 somewhere in the archive. It was cool to see it in the air working vs on the ground like usual. That was a first. The plane I worked on prior to that was a single seater.

[Canuck]

I am reminded of a show I was watching with my kids, one of the character was supposed to skydive and he told a girl he was trying to impress that "one out of five never make it to the ground."
(Where do they go?)

:lol: SPLAT! :lol::rolleyes:

[Hotsauce]

and in Canada and US FL are only used above 18000ft :) Nice shot but it could look better if you "un cropped" and focused more on the contrail as opposed to the actual aircraft :)

[ForumForker]

I understand your reason for posting this pic. You are so right, pretty nice pic considering the factors involved.

[gnirtS]

Above 18,000 MSL the altimeter never changes. It's always 29.92 ;)

..and it lots of the world standard 1013.2 is much lower than that. Typically 5000-5500ft or so round here for example for the start of controlled airspace:)

[Jpatten]

I understand your reason for posting this pic. You are so right, pretty nice pic considering the factors involved.

Thanks

[FlyingPhotog]

..and it lots of the world standard 1013.2 is much lower than that. Typically 5000-5500ft or so round here for example for the start of controlled airspace:)

True, you have far, far more controlled airspace on the European continent than we do in the USA...

By contrast we can go coast to coast in the USA without ever speaking to a controller if we so desire.

[gnirtS]

You could here but you'd be dodging various areas of controlled airspace so couldnt go direct.

[Jpatten]

Not that i have flown it, but Im guessing in most cases you would need to at least SOME skirting of controlled airspace, unless you planned your route carefully in advance, and took off and ended in very specific points. And maybe not even then, but I am not a pilot so take my opinion for what its worth

[FlyingPhotog]

Not that i have flown it, but Im guessing in most cases you would need to at least SOME skirting of controlled airspace, unless you planned your route carefully in advance, and took off and ended in very specific points. And maybe not even then, but I am not a pilot so take my opinion for what its worth

You would have to avoid Class B, C and D airspace which all require (at a minimum) radio contact to enter.

Class B in particular requires contact and a clearance to enter.