Approve the Cookies
This website uses cookies to improve your user experience. By using this site, you agree to our use of cookies. Read More.
OK
Index  •   • New posts  •   • RTAT  •   • 'Best of'  •   • Gallery  •   • Gear  •   • Reviews
New posts  •   • RTAT  •   • 'Best of'  •   • Gallery  •   • Gear  •   • Reviews
Register to forums    Log in

 
FORUMS General Gear Talk DIY & Customizing
Thread started 08 Apr 2017 (Saturday) 21:02
Prev/next
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as registered member)

I want to get higher, and higher....any suggestions?

 
TeamSpeed
01010100 01010011
TeamSpeed's Avatar
31,940 posts
Gallery: 60 photos
Joined May 2002
Northern Indiana
Post has been last edited 6 months ago by TeamSpeed. 3 edits done in total.
Apr 18, 2017 21:17 as a reply to post 18331686 |  #46

Yes, it will work with any camera that has live view, I believe. I have done this, and this is what I used until the 5D4 came into my gear list, and then when I added the wifi card to the 7D2. Now my router just sits dormant. I probably should sell it.

http://dslrcontroller.​com/guide-wifi_mr3040.php (external link)


Past Equipment | My Gallery (external link)

LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as registered member)
MalVeauX
"Looks rough and well used"
MalVeauX's Avatar
Joined Feb 2013
Florida
Apr 18, 2017 21:19 |  #47

Really cool option to have still. There's no modern camera in my future (dSLR wise at least) any time soon, so being able to inexpensively add a wireless control setup via a network tethered Live View camera can be handy. I have an old T4i / 7D / 40D / EOS-M. Unfortunately they killed the EOS-M by making it untetherable (grrrrrrrr).

Very best,


My Flickr (external link) :: My Astrobin (external link)

LOG IN TO REPLY
DreDaze
THREAD ­ STARTER
happy with myself for not saying anything stupid
DreDaze's Avatar
17,690 posts
Gallery: 19 photos
Joined Mar 2006
S.F. Bay Area
Apr 19, 2017 00:50 |  #48

MalVeauX wrote in post #18331689 (external link)
Really cool option to have still. There's no modern camera in my future (dSLR wise at least) any time soon, so being able to inexpensively add a wireless control setup via a network tethered Live View camera can be handy. I have an old T4i / 7D / 40D / EOS-M. Unfortunately they killed the EOS-M by making it untetherable (grrrrrrrr).

Very best,

M2's are pretty cheap too with wifi...i keep thinking of swapping my m for the m2, i think it would end up being like $50 out of pocket...if i decide to go higher in this venture it may happen too...as the 70d is my main body, i cant live without it


Andre or Dre
gear list
Instagram (external link)
flickr (external link)
my 366 for 2016 (external link)

LOG IN TO REPLY
DreDaze
THREAD ­ STARTER
happy with myself for not saying anything stupid
DreDaze's Avatar
17,690 posts
Gallery: 19 photos
Joined Mar 2006
S.F. Bay Area
Apr 21, 2017 09:57 |  #49

so quick update for everyone...the pole adapter arrived yesterday, went to screw it on the pole i already had, and it didn't fit...so i bit the bullet an went to home depot...i picked up the 23ft extension pole, and extended it all the way out in home depot, the thing was tall, higher than the stacks of product in there...it intimidated me, and i thought about getting a 16ft pole instead, but then i figured go big, or go home

i put the ballhead on, and headed out...in the field i attached my 70D and 8-16mm...i have a handstrap typically, and i used that to wrap around the pole, and give me a little extra security in case a disaster happened...so i'll admit, i only extended the pole about 17-18ft...i figure i'll ease into the 23ft mark:
makes a crazy selfie stick:)

IMAGE: https://c1.staticflickr.com/3/2856/33789590850_a957927710_b.jpg

without the pole:
IMAGE: https://c1.staticflickr.com/3/2888/34016788872_ae3e820c2a_b.jpg

same general area, but up high:
IMAGE: https://c1.staticflickr.com/3/2863/33331633324_f6c58019f2_b.jpg

IMAGE: https://c1.staticflickr.com/3/2903/33789706850_5663be4c97_b.jpg

again without the pole:
IMAGE: https://c1.staticflickr.com/3/2838/33789956120_abf165c9cb_b.jpg

same area but up high:
IMAGE: https://c1.staticflickr.com/3/2872/33789913110_f239890d1d_b.jpg

IMAGE: https://c1.staticflickr.com/3/2852/34017171122_8116842597_b.jpg

and the whole set up in action with myself:

IMAGE: https://c1.staticflickr.com/3/2885/34016937892_88b71e9cc9_b.jpg


some thoughts...so there was a point where the ballhead started to unscrew itself...i mainly think that was because of the adapter, but it's something i'm going to address...the thing is pretty damn tall, getting it up, and down are the main areas of stress...once it's up it's pretty stable...i bracket shots typically for landscapes, and although the camera has some bounce to it, it wasn't too terrible that photoshop couldn't align them...but i do need to probably up the ISO for somewhat faster shutter speeds...i didn't use the phone mount at all, i just held the phone in one hand, but i think there's got to be a better solution for that as well....going camping this weekend, so i'll bring the pole, but not sure how much i'll use it...not planning on hiking with it, and have never been to the area before

so far though, i'd say fun, and a success

Andre or Dre
gear list
Instagram (external link)
flickr (external link)
my 366 for 2016 (external link)

LOG IN TO REPLY
TeamSpeed
01010100 01010011
TeamSpeed's Avatar
31,940 posts
Gallery: 60 photos
Joined May 2002
Northern Indiana
Post has been last edited 6 months ago by TeamSpeed. 3 edits done in total.
Apr 21, 2017 10:12 |  #50

Nice! Possibly consider putting some form of silicon material on the threads before tightening the ballhead? Something that would lock it down onto the pole. You probably won't use this pole for much else, but if so, using the right material should allow you to forcibly remove that ballhead in the future. I wouldn't want my camera falling from 20' although they are built well, and probably could withstand a fall onto the ground, provided it wasn't a rock, concrete, or asphalt.

With landscapes, it is hard to get a sense of being in the air. I would love to see what happens with street photography! A drone isn't much use there, because if you follow the rules, you wouldn't be flying one on the streets, unless there are no people. Concert shots would be cool too!


Past Equipment | My Gallery (external link)

LOG IN TO REPLY
-Duck-
my head is usually in the way
-Duck-'s Avatar
Joined Apr 2016
Shelton, CT USA
Apr 21, 2017 11:10 |  #51

I know this is all new and you are in the experimental stage, so take my next comment with a grain of salt.

The vistas you chose for a test do not benefit from the attained height. In most of these I can't really tell you raised the camera anywhere above eye level. For a really dramatic look you need something in the foreground that really showcases the fact that we are viewing the scene from a different perspective. For example, the ones where you're close to the road, I would have liked to have seen that view from above the road.

I have a feeling you'll be glad for the longer pole. Just because it can reach that high doesn't mean you need to use all that height, but it's nice to know you have it available. What's the old adage? Better to have an not need than to need and not have.

Other suggestions would be to extend the pole outside of normally attainable areas. For example, over the side of a bridge looking back at the bridge for a, "how did he get that image?" view. Similarly, hanging it over the side of a tall building. Definitely over crowds as this really emphasises the height. Can't wait to see what other views you get with this.


"If you didn't learn something new today, you wasted a day."
Unitas Photoraphy (external link)Meetup (external link)Blog (external link)Facebook (external link)Flickr (external link)500px (external link)

LOG IN TO REPLY
flowrider
Goldmember
flowrider's Avatar
Joined Dec 2009
604
Apr 21, 2017 12:01 |  #52

Drone shots give a different perspective of that you could only get in a city or plane or helicopter.

If only mine (phantom 3 pro) had a larger sensor.


HOSTED PHOTO
please log in to view hosted photos in full size.

~Steve~
~ My Website-stevelowephoto.com (external link) ~ Facebook (external link)
Feedback Feedback Feedback

LOG IN TO REPLY
DreDaze
THREAD ­ STARTER
happy with myself for not saying anything stupid
DreDaze's Avatar
17,690 posts
Gallery: 19 photos
Joined Mar 2006
S.F. Bay Area
Apr 21, 2017 14:53 |  #53

TeamSpeed wrote in post #18333878 (external link)
Nice! Possibly consider putting some form of silicon material on the threads before tightening the ballhead? Something that would lock it down onto the pole. You probably won't use this pole for much else, but if so, using the right material should allow you to forcibly remove that ballhead in the future. I wouldn't want my camera falling from 20' although they are built well, and probably could withstand a fall onto the ground, provided it wasn't a rock, concrete, or asphalt.

With landscapes, it is hard to get a sense of being in the air. I would love to see what happens with street photography! A drone isn't much use there, because if you follow the rules, you wouldn't be flying one on the streets, unless there are no people. Concert shots would be cool too!

yeah, i think it's actually the small 3/8-1/4 adapter...so i may just epoxy that on...when i took off the ball head it was still stuck on the adapter, so the whole thing came off...i'm not too concerned with it falling now...once the pole is upright, it's relatively stable, the only issue is when raising and lowering...part of me is concerned that the weight of the camera would come down faster than i'd be ready for...but i think it should be ok

i'm not really trying to get a sense that you are in the air...just trying to get different perspectives that aren't typically available...the times where it looked like i was up higher are when i was more angled downwards, which i didn't really like off the bat...especially with the trees around not going straight


Andre or Dre
gear list
Instagram (external link)
flickr (external link)
my 366 for 2016 (external link)

LOG IN TO REPLY
DreDaze
THREAD ­ STARTER
happy with myself for not saying anything stupid
DreDaze's Avatar
17,690 posts
Gallery: 19 photos
Joined Mar 2006
S.F. Bay Area
Apr 21, 2017 14:59 |  #54

-Duck- wrote in post #18333936 (external link)
I know this is all new and you are in the experimental stage, so take my next comment with a grain of salt.

The vistas you chose for a test do not benefit from the attained height. In most of these I can't really tell you raised the camera anywhere above eye level. For a really dramatic look you need something in the foreground that really showcases the fact that we are viewing the scene from a different perspective. For example, the ones where you're close to the road, I would have liked to have seen that view from above the road.

I have a feeling you'll be glad for the longer pole. Just because it can reach that high doesn't mean you need to use all that height, but it's nice to know you have it available. What's the old adage? Better to have an not need than to need and not have.

Other suggestions would be to extend the pole outside of normally attainable areas. For example, over the side of a bridge looking back at the bridge for a, "how did he get that image?" view. Similarly, hanging it over the side of a tall building. Definitely over crowds as this really emphasises the height. Can't wait to see what other views you get with this.

do you see the photos of eye level though? i am benefiting from the height because i'm getting views that aren't possible without it...you can't see that road going the whole way from eye level...and the view of the rocks can only see the first few...when elevated you can see all of them...

just giving myself another viewpoint...but i do understand your point...i think in order to pull off something close in the foreground, and still retain some sky, i would have to angle it down more, and switch the camera to portrait orientation...i did take one like that near the road, but i do think standing in the road could be a cool look, this is more of a blind curve though...when taking this picture though, i could only see the beginning, and end of the road from eye level

IMAGE: https://c1.staticflickr.com/3/2907/34043342931_18a48b387a_c.jpg

i do think it could have a few different uses...not sure i'll bring it around people though, i tend to avoid crowds :)

Andre or Dre
gear list
Instagram (external link)
flickr (external link)
my 366 for 2016 (external link)

LOG IN TO REPLY
DreDaze
THREAD ­ STARTER
happy with myself for not saying anything stupid
DreDaze's Avatar
17,690 posts
Gallery: 19 photos
Joined Mar 2006
S.F. Bay Area
Apr 21, 2017 15:06 |  #55

flowrider wrote in post #18333997 (external link)
Drone shots give a different perspective of that you could only get in a city or plane or helicopter.

If only mine (phantom 3 pro) had a larger sensor.


thumbnailHosted photo: posted by flowrider in
./showthread.php?p=183​33997&i=i84274585
forum: DIY & Customizing

yeah...there is definitely a drone purchase in my future...but as you can see by this map(i live in san rafael, center right), there's a lot of area that i typically go where drone's aren't allowed...i guess it's a $125 ticket, but i wonder if you get reported anywhere...this is to just try and get a little more elevation...won't compare to a drone shot

HOSTED PHOTO
please log in to view hosted photos in full size.

Andre or Dre
gear list
Instagram (external link)
flickr (external link)
my 366 for 2016 (external link)

LOG IN TO REPLY
-Duck-
my head is usually in the way
-Duck-'s Avatar
Joined Apr 2016
Shelton, CT USA
Apr 21, 2017 15:10 |  #56

DreDaze wrote in post #18334116 (external link)
do you see the photos of eye level though?...

It's definitely a visual illusion regarding perspective. The one thing we lack as a viewer is your point of reference while on site. You know there's a difference but we have to infer that difference from clues presented in the image. That's why some of the test shots don't 'appear' to be too far from a 'normal' shot. We're missing some form of visual reference in the foreground to indicate there's a change in height. I just wanted to point that out as sometimes that's not in our heads when in the field with a setup like this.

Just my two cents. ;-)a


"If you didn't learn something new today, you wasted a day."
Unitas Photoraphy (external link)Meetup (external link)Blog (external link)Facebook (external link)Flickr (external link)500px (external link)

LOG IN TO REPLY
DreDaze
THREAD ­ STARTER
happy with myself for not saying anything stupid
DreDaze's Avatar
17,690 posts
Gallery: 19 photos
Joined Mar 2006
S.F. Bay Area
Apr 21, 2017 15:27 |  #57

-Duck- wrote in post #18334127 (external link)
It's definitely a visual illusion regarding perspective. The one thing we lack as a viewer is your point of reference while on site. You know there's a difference but we have to infer that difference from clues presented in the image. That's why some of the test shots don't 'appear' to be too far from a 'normal' shot. We're missing some form of visual reference in the foreground to indicate there's a change in height. I just wanted to point that out as sometimes that's not in our heads when in the field with a setup like this.

Just my two cents. ;-)a

i tried to include the rocks as a point of reference for the two different shots...and then tried to use the road as another...in the eye-level road shot you can see that i can't see the road go all the way through, it gets blocked by the hill

i will definitely give more foreground stuff a shot...as well as possibly experimenting with the camera more level instead of pointing down...just to see what that look is like...it feels like a different way to shoot, but practice will make me better, and more comfortable at achieving what i want


Andre or Dre
gear list
Instagram (external link)
flickr (external link)
my 366 for 2016 (external link)

LOG IN TO REPLY
TeamSpeed
01010100 01010011
TeamSpeed's Avatar
31,940 posts
Gallery: 60 photos
Joined May 2002
Northern Indiana
Apr 21, 2017 18:04 |  #58

If those areas are air spaces, you can file your flights ahead of time to get authorization


Past Equipment | My Gallery (external link)

LOG IN TO REPLY
DreDaze
THREAD ­ STARTER
happy with myself for not saying anything stupid
DreDaze's Avatar
17,690 posts
Gallery: 19 photos
Joined Mar 2006
S.F. Bay Area
Apr 21, 2017 18:18 |  #59

TeamSpeed wrote in post #18334253 (external link)
If those areas are air spaces, you can file your flights ahead of time to get authorization

unfortunately the green area, which is where i normally head out, is Point Reyes National Seashore, and the Golden Gate National Recreation Area...but good info on the filing of flights beforehand...where you can and cannot go with a drone seems intimidating to figure out...i feel like if these national parks offered up a permit fee of $20 for a day or something they could make money, and allow people to shoot in there...i feel like the drones now don't make nearly as much noise as they did in the past...unless you are fairly close to one i don't think you can hear it as much...at least with my buddy's mavic


Andre or Dre
gear list
Instagram (external link)
flickr (external link)
my 366 for 2016 (external link)

LOG IN TO REPLY
TeamSpeed
01010100 01010011
TeamSpeed's Avatar
31,940 posts
Gallery: 60 photos
Joined May 2002
Northern Indiana
Post has been edited 6 months ago by TeamSpeed.
Apr 21, 2017 20:49 |  #60

Yeah shame about national parks but the bad apples out there have ruined it for the rest of us, in past years people have done stupid things with drones. Of course one could probably argue that national parks are funded by taxpayer dollars and therefore being areas of recreation by nature, we should have the privileges of flying drones. The FAA needs to lighten up on the height limits too, courts have deemed you own between 100 and 150ft above your property, but somehow the FAA has been given jurisdiction to control surface and up? You either own it or you dont.

To take real estate shots, I should only need the property owner's permission, up to around 400'. A pilot approach is 500 or higher. The current constantly changing rules are quite contradictory and silly, even according to lawyers that are pilots and drone owners.


Past Equipment | My Gallery (external link)

LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as registered member)

5,374 views & 38 likes for this thread
I want to get higher, and higher....any suggestions?
FORUMS General Gear Talk DIY & Customizing


Not a member yet? Click here to register to the forums.
Registered members get all the features: search, following threads, own gear list and ratings, likes, more forums, private messaging, thread follow, notifications, own gallery, settings, view hosted photos, own reviews and more...


AAA

Send feedback to staff    •   Jump to forum...    •   Rules    •   Index    •   New posts    •   RTAT    •   'Best of'    •   Gallery    •   Gear    •   Reviews    •   Polls

COOKIES DISCLAIMER: This website uses cookies to improve your user experience. By using this site, you agree to our use of cookies. Privacy policy and cookie usage info.

POWERED BY AMASS 1.4version 1.4
made in Finland
by Pekka Saarinen
for photography-on-the.net
Spent 0.00151 for 6 database queries.
PAGE COMPLETED IN 0.04s
Latest registered member is mrmoses
833 guests, 320 members online
Simultaneous users record so far is 6106, that happened on Jun 09, 2016