Apr 7, 2001, 9:32 AM
Post #1 of 8
Hey all, I've been doing freefall videos and photos for a couple of years now. However, they've almost all been tandem/AFF. Now I want to expand into other things and attempt more challenging photos. But my knowledge is quite limited. I've always done what it takes to get good shots for my students but that's about it. So, I'm working on buying a wider angle lens (I have a 28-80 currently on a EOS Rebel 2000). How wide is wide enough for decent shots (I do a lot of freeflying)? And how successful have any of you been with auto vs. manual focus lenses? Any tips on these questions or anything else you have to offer would be appreciated. Thanks! Head
I jump a Sony TRV-9 with a .5x wide angle adapter. My still camera is a Minolta with a 28mm AF lens. The focal length on both lenses matches up almost perfectly. I always shoot both cameras on manual focus.
I set my video camera on infinity and leave the steady hand on. My zoom is all the way out with one small tap to zoom in and match the lenses exactly.
Most times I set my still camera on program, and set the depth of field on my lens for what I will be shooting. Sometimes I set the camera on shutter priority, 1/500, and use the camera's internal light meter on the ground to get the f stop. I always set the depth of field scale on the lens one f stop higher than the reading I got on the ground cause it's always brighter upstairs.
I shoot a lot of tandems, some AFF, some larger RW. I get good results all the way around. I'm not a serious photographer by any means; I just got lots of tips from some really good professional free fall photographers.
I'm not a freeflyer, but the freefly photos that I have seen that were really good used a really wide angle lens. My fave was a Parachutist Magazine cover last year . . . a freefly formation holding a chrome ball; the picture being their reflection. That was an awesome pic.
Let me know if you'd like to email samples of our work back and forth and share notes. I'm always looking for new ideas!
SP, Thanks for the info! That all sounds pretty much like what I do. I almost always use shutter priority and set the depth of field on the ground. And I set my PC-1 up the same way you set up your TRV-9. Hey, by the way, was it the TRV-9 or TRV-900 that supposedly had the feature to see through clothing? That just popped in my head.
Anyway, yes I agree about that pic on the cover of Parachutist. Very cool! I'm confident that those guys used a fisheye lens, and God knows how expensive those things are. I have this man in California that owns a camera shop keeping his eye open for a decent used fisheye for me. I'm still waiting!
I by no means am a professional photographer either! But I definitely want to start expanding my capabilities. Any great tips I learn I'll definitely pass them on. Blue skies to you since I can't jump this weekend (on call in the boonies!). Later, Head
The deal with "seeing through clothes" was that if you turned on the infrared mode, the contrast between the warm body underneath and the slightly cooler clothes would let you "see" through clothes. As soon as that became common knowledge, the company added a routine to the camera's internal software that disabled IR mode if there was a certain amount of visible light. I don't really understand why night would make it more difficult to achieve the see-through effect, but maybe it has something to do with IR rays cast by the sun. Anyhoo, I never saw it demonstrated but it certainly wouldn't give you full-color nudes of clothed people. (Don't know whether that's good or not. )
Hi, i think it´s better to use a wide angle lens, which is wider than yours, like this AF 3,5-4,5/19-35 Tokina offers one about 300$, or you´ll use an fish eye, and i think it´s better you´ll switch of the af mode cause you´ll be too fast for it
Actually, it was an optical illusion that occurred when using night shot and a certain add-on filter. I heard that it was debunked by someone noticing that although it appeared that they could see thru the stripper's clothes and see details, her prominent tattoo wasnt showing up. seemed kinda odd to be able to see slight variations in skin tone, but not tat ink. Needless to say prior to this finding, camera sales spiked a bit. Guess taht is one way to get rid of old inventory... just start a juicy rumor.