Advice on picture required.

Another comparison between the sx10 and 30d/55-250 -

top picture sx10 - jpeg no DPP
bottom pic 30d/55-250 raw with DPP

P.

Pagman wrote in post #15719960
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.

It will when you use it in a situation where its characteristics give it the advantage. Objects very far away in good light are not that situation. Your sx10 will do better there because of its smaller sensor (measuring in mm) and more pixels, which gives it more "reach". Just like your 30D has more "reach" than a full frame camera with the same number of pixels, the sx10 has more "reach" than your 30D.

Pagman wrote in post #15719862
How can this be with the technical abilities of decent gear, yet a humble bridge can so shine....

30D + kit zoom is decent gear???

Yes, but that was 10 years+ ago...

Pagman wrote in post #15719887
In a busy city so air pollution should have been worse effecting IQ.

Air pollution will have little bearing on the image clarity. What will have an effect is the steadiness of the air - what astronomers call 'seeing'.

Go out on a clear night and look at the stars. Sometimes they twinkle a lot - that twinkling may be very pretty, but it's caused by the atmosphere making the image of the star waver. Look through a telescope and you can see the star wobbling in the eyepiece and taking a photo of it will result in a blurred blob. That's bad seeing. Other nights the stars will be hard points set in a deep black sky. Through a scope they remain as sharp points. These are nights with good seeing.

You're trying to shoot planes during the daytime - when convection currents will make the air 'swirly' (like the wavy stuff you see over hot tarmac). Those swirls will affect the seeing and distort your images of the plane. Sometimes you'll be lucky - early morning and late afternoon tends to be the times where convection is minimal. Combine that with a wind that is steady (at all altitudes, not just ground level) with no wave-inducing obstructions (hills, cities) upwind and you'll probably have good seeing - and clearer images.

archer1960 wrote in post #15720777
It will when you use it in a situation where its characteristics give it the advantage. Objects very far away in good light are not that situation. Your sx10 will do better there because of its smaller sensor (measuring in mm) and more pixels, which gives it more "reach". Just like your 30D has more "reach" than a full frame camera with the same number of pixels, the sx10 has more "reach" than your 30D.

Agreed...

Your sx10 will give a view of the plane that is 160mm more than your 250mm on the 30D, for a 40% increase. Get the 100-400L, for example, to level the playing field a bit.

Want to know where your 30D will shine over the sx10? Get a 50mm 1.8 lens for $100, put it on your 30D, set your sx10 to 50mm, and shoot an object to isolate it. The sx10 could NEVER touch the 30D image because 1) you won't get the same DOF and 2) it could not shoot at f1.8.

You get a DSLR for the flexibility it offers you. There are many cases where a P&S or other camera will do better than your 30D+lens combinations will, but they won't have the range of use or level of creativity that your 30D+lens combination will give you.

kin2son wrote in post #15720793
30D + kit zoom is decent gear???

Yes, but that was 10 years+ ago...

Nope - just over seven years ago. 30D was announced on 21st February 2006.

You may be thinking of the D30?

JohnB57 wrote in post #15720921
Nope - just over seven years ago. 30D was announced on 21st February 2006.

You may be thinking of the D30?

Yes sorry you are right, thanks for correcting me

Pagman wrote in post #15719983
Another comparison between the sx10 and 30d/55-250 -

top picture sx10 - jpeg no DPP
bottom pic 30d/55-250 raw with DPP

P.

If you're doing a comparison like this, take pictures of the same exact thing. It's hard to compare 2 images that have completely different subjects at different angles.

If you like airplane photos then you need to check out this web site...

http://www.airliners.n​et/

The best way to photograph an aircraft passing overhead is to be be only 1000 feet below it.

https://photography-on-the.net …p=12810705&post​count=1091

Pagman even if you are in the South west of the UK you are still closer to an airport than 200 miles. There will be an airport or some other site where flying takes place within 50 miles of where you live and probably closer than that. Going to some of the smaller airfields may very well give you opportunities to get images that you would not get by visiting one of the major UK hubs. I visited an airfield near where my mother lives with my son and after visiting the on site cafe/restaurant we found out that it was permissible to have a look round the hanger areas. I did not know that this particular display team was based at this airfield until we walked around the corner and they were polishing the aircraft. The only thing we were asked not to do was touch any of the aircraft.

Alan

I had a careful look at the Emirates photo on page 1 of this thread. The pixels appear to be about 10 cm (4 in) square. Assuming the image was shot using something like a 7D and the focal length was 600mm (1000 mm /1.6x), I get that the aircraft was at an altitude of about 14000 m (8.7 miles.)

With a 30D and a 250mm lens, the finest detail you could expect to resolve on the same aircraft would be about 35cm... that's 14".

On the image -

First, the atmosphere was extremely transparent at the time. This suggests stable air and low humidity. The jet stream was not close to the area. I'll echo Frank's comments (post 34.)

Second, if you look at the colour of the sky - it is extremely dark. This suggests that a polarizer was being used. This would certainly help you cut through the haze. A light yellow filter (like the B+W 420) might also suppress atmospheric haze.

noisejammer wrote in post #15721944
I had a careful look at the Emirates photo on page 1 of this thread. The pixels appear to be about 10 cm (4 in) square. Assuming the image was shot using something like a 7D and the focal length was 600mm (1000 mm /1.6x), I get that the aircraft was at an altitude of about 14000 m (8.7 miles.)

With a 30D and a 250mm lens, the finest detail you could expect to resolve on the same aircraft would be about 35cm... that's 14".

On the image -

First, the atmosphere was extremely transparent at the time. This suggests stable air and low humidity. The jet stream was not close to the area. I'll echo Frank's comments (post 34.)

Second, if you look at the colour of the sky - it is extremely dark. This suggests that a polarizer was being used. This would certainly help you cut through the haze. A light yellow filter (like the B+W 420) might also suppress atmospheric haze.

There is no way this plane was that high; that's almost 46000 ft. The highest commercial passenger jets normally fly is about 39000.

hollis_f wrote in post #15720801
Air pollution will have little bearing on the image clarity. What will have an effect is the steadiness of the air - what astronomers call 'seeing'.

Go out on a clear night and look at the stars. Sometimes they twinkle a lot - that twinkling may be very pretty, but it's caused by the atmosphere making the image of the star waver. Look through a telescope and you can see the star wobbling in the eyepiece and taking a photo of it will result in a blurred blob. That's bad seeing. Other nights the stars will be hard points set in a deep black sky. Through a scope they remain as sharp points. These are nights with good seeing.

You're trying to shoot planes during the daytime - when convection currents will make the air 'swirly' (like the wavy stuff you see over hot tarmac). Those swirls will affect the seeing and distort your images of the plane. Sometimes you'll be lucky - early morning and late afternoon tends to be the times where convection is minimal. Combine that with a wind that is steady (at all altitudes, not just ground level) with no wave-inducing obstructions (hills, cities) upwind and you'll probably have good seeing - and clearer images.

Great post frank... very interesting!
I'd never heard of this "seeing".

1Tanker wrote in post #15722314
Great post frank... very interesting!
I'd never heard of this "seeing".

There are websites that will use aspects of the weather forecast to predict seeing - LINK

msowsun wrote in post #15721072
The best way to photograph an aircraft passing overhead is to be be only 1000 feet below it.

https://photography-on-the.net …p=12810705&post​count=1091

That Is a great picture and I am sure even with my humble set up, If I lived a couple of miles away from a major airport, I would get shots like that, reminds me of the days when with my canon AE1 film camera and trusty hanimex 70-210 I was able to take great pictures from the central Queens Building section at London Heathrow(Those were the days)

P.