Advice on picture required.

Pagman, if you love planes so much, why not go to the airport and shoot? Many good ground shots and low take off shots. (unless you live in the US and they arrest you for being a terrorist :rolleyes

Dont get me wrong, I am over the moon with the quality I am seeing especialy If I fill the frame, as pic shows, I was just Initaly enquiring If my airplane technique was wrong using what I have?

P.

Gregg.Siam wrote in post #15719769
Pagman, if you love planes so much, why not go to the airport and shoot? Many good ground shots and low take off shots. (unless you live in the US and they arrest you for being a terrorist :rolleyes

Im over 200miles from my nearest large airport so no spotting for me Im affraid I have to make do with dots In the sky....

P.

If you're going to compare your images, compare them to other images made with like equipment in like situations.. You're trying to compare apples and peanuts at this point.

Pagman wrote in post #15719786
Dont get me wrong, I am over the moon with the quality I am seeing especialy If I fill the frame, as pic shows, I was just Initaly enquiring If my airplane technique was wrong using what I have?

P.

This pic was taken with the same camera as the plane picture, exact same set up etc.

P.

kjonnnn wrote in post #15719802
If you're going to compare your images, compare them to other images made with like equipment in like situations.. You're trying to compare apples and peanuts at this point.

Ok Back on subject - same time same subject etc just another plane at the same height about 6 miles up....

P.

Pagman wrote in post #15719823
Ok Back on subject - same time same subject etc just another plane at the same height about 6 miles up....

P.

No. You're missing the point .. Compare YOUR photo to ANOTHER PHOTO ... thats NOT yours. As others have already said. How much absolute sharpness at that distance and that size and under those conditions do you want?

Do you have a photo of a plane in the sky shot by SOMEBODY ELSE, using equipment similar to yours, under the same conditions that has the quality you want?

kjonnnn wrote in post #15719838
No. You're missing the point .. Compare YOUR photo to ANOTHER PHOTO ... thats NOT yours. As others have already said. How much absolute sharpness at that distance and that size and under those conditions do you want?

Do you have a photo of a plane in the sky shot by SOMEBODY ELSE, using equipment similar to yours, under the same conditions that has the quality you want?

I could show comparison pictures taken with my old Canon sx10IS Bridge camera that had a rather good 560mm eqv lens, and to be honest, did take very good sharp smooth pictures, and almost comparable to these
how does that sound - a $300(In Its day) bridge being almost as good as a $1000(In Its day) serious amature dslr

How can this be with the technical abilities of decent gear, yet a humble bridge can so shine....

P.

Pagman wrote in post #15719754
Its just a pic I have pinched to show, the owner I believe lives In Holland where the pic was taken, It was supposed to be at about 30,000ft over flying Amsterdam enroute to London Heathrow taken with the eqv of a 1000mm lens (35mm eqv)

P.

If that is true, then it's also pretty heavily cropped, and therefore probably shot on a high-megapixel body. This is a case where no matter how skillful you are, your equipment is going to make you come up way short of where you want to be. You need lots of pixels and lots of mm (focal length) to get these kinds of shots of aircraft at their cruising altitude. You're going to need something like a 600mm lens or more on a 7D body to get this kind of stuff.

My shots ( in Canada ) at similar altitudes.. with a 60D and EF300 f/4L IS ( with or without 1.4x tc) aren't any better. There's nothing wrong with this shot.

Pagman wrote in post #15719862
I could show comparison pictures taken with my old Canon sx10IS Bridge camera that had a rather good 560mm eqv lens, and to be honest, did take very good sharp smooth pictures, and almost comparable to these
how does that sound - a $300(In Its day) bridge being almost as good as a $1000(In Its day) serious amature dslr

How can this be with the technical abilities of decent gear, yet a humble bridge can so shine....

R.

Well, first of all, your 30D will give you much more control of DOF, and will probably shoot much better images in poor light than that sx10 did, as well as probably focusing faster, and being able to use more different lenses. That's the kind of thing you gain with a DSLR over a P&S. But that P&S probably had a much higher pixel density than your 30D does, so the images are probably more croppable than your 30D is, and you have a lot less effective focal length with your 55-250 as well.

Like this one - canon bridge 560mm about 20percent crop, and just a jpeg not raw like my 30d pics, plane was flying at 30,000ft In similar conditions just more Inland In a busy city so air pollution should have been worse effecting IQ....

P.

archer1960 wrote in post #15719878
Well, first of all, your 30D will give you much more control of DOF, and will probably shoot much better images in poor light than that sx10 did, as well as probably focusing faster, and being able to use more different lenses. That's the kind of thing you gain with a DSLR over a P&S. But that P&S probably had a much higher pixel density than your 30D does, so the images are probably more croppable than your 30D is, and you have a lot less effective focal length with your 55-250 as well.

8mp = 30d
10mp = sx10


P.

Pagman wrote in post #15719897
8mp = 30d
10mp = sx10


P.

Your SX10 may have more MPs but the sensor is smaller so that doesn't make it better.

Take Care,
Cheers, Patrick

Saint728 wrote in post #15719915
Your SX10 may have more MPs but the sensor is smaller so that doesn't make it better.

Take Care,
Cheers, Patrick

So why was the sx10 capable of producing pictures of similar IQ to my 30d/55-250? as you say a big difference camera to camera, sensor to sensor, or shall I say - why Isnt my 30d producing mutch mutch better pictures than the sx10?


P.