Advice on picture required.

CameraMan wrote in post #15741505
I did crop it. Here's the original uncropped image from the 70-200 at 200mm. ISO was set to 100 on my 40D.

IMAGE LINK: http://www.flickr.com/​photos/alanmars/857823​2021/
IMG_4465.jpg by CameraMan65, on Flickr

Looks quite noisy esp for 100 was It a RAW pic?

This Is a 150percent crop with my 55-250/30D, I know the plane Isnt very sharp but the noise Is quite clear.

P.

You're right. It does seem a bit grainy... It is RAW. Here's a SOOC shot of the same image... No editing...

IMAGE LINK: http://www.flickr.com/​photos/alanmars/857939​7582/

One of mine RAW SOOC just re sized for here,

P.

CameraMan wrote in post #15722710
I'm not really seeing any point of getting photographs of the underside of airplanes. I could see maybe 1 or 2 maybe. But to just shoot photos of them seems sort of redundant since 95% of all commercial airliners look exactly the same underneath.

Maybe it's because I used to work at Ohare Airport and did so for 20 years. I still enjoyed watching the airplanes take off and land. Especially the 747's. It was amazing to watch those big birds take off.

You should see the Boeing Dreamlifter. That thing is really funny looking. You wonder how it can even fly.

To the original question, I would say the same as everyone else.... Atmosphere and camear gear. Here are a couple examples to get you thinking. The first is of the moon taken on a clear night out in the backyard with a Canon 1D mk3, a Canon 300mm f/4L IS, and a Canon 2x mk3. The second is on top of a mountain shooting 1.5 to 2 miles across to another mountain using a Canon 5D mk2 and a Rokinon 650-1300mm f/8-16 lens. The third is also the 5D2 and 650-1300mm about a mile away. How far away is the moon compared to the goat? My research shows the moon is about 384,400 km (238,900 mi) away from Earth on average, but the goat was only 2 miles at most. With a longer lens and closer subject shouldn't I have had a clearer picture? No. The lenses are of completely different quality. The same goes for the Canon 55-250mm IS lens. Sure it is a great lens, but the glass used to make it is cheap and isn't perfect. Just like the glass used in my Rokinon 650-1300mm. Also worth mentioning is that the pic of the goat on top of a mountain had very poor "seeing". There was a lot of mirage happening because I was over snow and it was a perfectly clear sunny day. Very warm, and plenty of moisture evaporating into the air. The third pic had great "seeing" even though it was shot over water about a mile away. The sun was going down and it was cooler outside. You can see the mirage from the exhaust above the tugboat.

600mm on 1.3x crop effective 780mm FL

I'm by no means an aviation photographer or a contrail photographer (I think there are people now specializing in that), but with good 'seeing' and a large plane, even a relatively simple setup can yield good results.

I went to visit my parents who live in the middle of Hungary, where there are numerous major international air traffic routes. Every day they have several Emirates, and Singapore Airlines A380 passing over them at probably 30-35K feet.

I only took my T4i, Sigma 70-200 2.8 OS + a Sigma 2x TC to Hungary for portability reasons.
But here's a shot I took an a nice clear day from my parents' yard:

IMAGE LINK: http://www.flickr.com …/29108710@N04/8​579073911/

gabebalazs wrote in post #15742529
I'm by no means an aviation photographer or a contrail photographer (I think there are people now specializing in that), but with good 'seeing' and a large plane, even a relatively simple setup can yield good results.

I went to visit my parents who live in the middle of Hungary, where there are numerous major international air traffic routes. Every day they have several Emirates, and Singapore Airlines A380 passing over them at probably 30-35K feet.

I only took my T4i, Sigma 70-200 2.8 OS + a Sigma 2x TC to Hungary for portability reasons.
But here's a shot I took an a nice clear day from my parents' yard:

IMAGE LINK: http://www.flickr.com …/29108710@N04/8​579073911/
A380 by gabebalazs, on Flickr

Thats a fantastic pic at 400mm must have cropped alot to get It that large? amazing IQ....

P.

[QUOTE=kawi_200;157422​88]You should see the Boeing Dreamlifter. That thing is really funny looking. You wonder how it can even fly.

To the original question, I would say the same as everyone else.... Atmosphere and camear gear. Here are a couple examples to get you thinking. The first is of the moon taken on a clear night out in the backyard with a Canon 1D mk3, a Canon 300mm f/4L IS, and a Canon 2x mk3. The second is on top of a mountain shooting 1.5 to 2 miles across to another mountain using a Canon 5D mk2 and a Rokinon 650-1300mm f/8-16 lens. The third is also the 5D2 and 650-1300mm about a mile away. How far away is the moon compared to the goat? My research shows the moon is about 384,400 km (238,900 mi) away from Earth on average, but the goat was only 2 miles at most. With a longer lens and closer subject shouldn't I have had a clearer picture? No. The lenses are of completely different quality. The same goes for the Canon 55-250mm IS lens. Sure it is a great lens, but the glass used to make it is cheap and isn't perfect. Just like the glass used in my Rokinon 650-1300mm. Also worth mentioning is that the pic of the goat on top of a mountain had very poor "seeing". There was a lot of mirage happening because I was over snow and it was a perfectly clear sunny day. Very warm, and plenty of moisture evaporating into the air. The third pic had great "seeing" even though it was shot over water about a mile away. The sun was going down and it was cooler outside. You can see the mirage from the exhaust above the tugboat.

600mm on 1.3x crop effective 780mm FL

Pagman wrote in post #15742874
Thats a fantastic pic at 400mm must have cropped alot to get It that large? amazing IQ....

P.

Thanks. yeah, it's a pretty heavy crop, probably about 80%

Actually sometimes and it seems counter-intuitive but better glass will actually show up poor "seeing" more than cheap glass. I am also a long range rifle shooter, and a few years ago I did a coaches training course. The instructor brought along his spotting scope, as he was the GB NRA's chief wind coach. He used a very expensive top of the range Zeiss spotting scope, because even on a cold March morning at 600 yards you could clearly see the mirage running, and for a long range rifle shooter the mirage is the best wind indicator that you have. Even in mid priced scopes you could not see with enough clarity to pick up on the mirage. Mind you this scope could easily resolve a single blade of grass at that distance.

Alan

Pagman wrote in post #15742890
Thats a very Intersting point, I too have been able to get some very clear sharp pics with my nifty 250 of the moon day or night, but when I try aircraft at 6miles up etc, they just dont have the same level of IQ.

P.

I think alot of that has to do with object separation. The moon is really quite far away, and any atmospheric material within the 25 miles of the earth's atmosphere really diffuses away, considering the moon is 1000 times that from earth.

If you want an analogy, it would be like putting your lens against a 1/2" pane of dirty glass, and focusing on something 20 feet away. Or putting your lens very close to a chain link fence, and focusing on your kid standing at 2nd base. Anything close to the glass, since you are focusing substantially farther way, gets diffused away. Bring those objects much closer to the "optical disturbance", and it will interfere more and more the closer the object gets.

Shooting an airplane that lies inside our troposphere will yield different results than shooting something well outside our atmosphere, IMO, but let's see what the techies have to say amongst us.

For example, shot through a cage

BigAl007 wrote in post #15743064
Actually sometimes and it seems counter-intuitive but better glass will actually show up poor "seeing" more than cheap glass. I am also a long range rifle shooter, and a few years ago I did a coaches training course. The instructor brought along his spotting scope, as he was the GB NRA's chief wind coach. He used a very expensive top of the range Zeiss spotting scope, because even on a cold March morning at 600 yards you could clearly see the mirage running, and for a long range rifle shooter the mirage is the best wind indicator that you have. Even in mid priced scopes you could not see with enough clarity to pick up on the mirage. Mind you this scope could easily resolve a single blade of grass at that distance.

Alan

That's a good point Alan. Fortunately, when we photograph contrails, most of the time we shoot vertically up the sky. While the atmosphere can still be dirty, it is still the best case scenario when shooting long long distances with a tele lens. The closer to the ground our subject is, the worst the IQ is, at least in my experience (same phenomenon happens at airshows.)