Rebel Xt

[Icon134 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

with digital I can take a picture of a flower using my macro, copy it off of the camera onto the computer, examine the exposure, composition, etc then turn around and easly adjust the shooting conditions to get something different.

Yup! What's really cool is when you are familiar enough with your process that you can take a picture of a flower using your macro, look at the histogram on your LCD, zoom in to check focus and you know if you need to take another shot!

Yee... I just need to practice more...

So sorry. That did come out sounding condescending. My apologies. Actually, I'm just lazy and like more instant answers

Naw your good... I just need to think about that sort of thing more... and I need to have a better understanding of what I should see in my histogram (which requires more time to read and such) to be able to really understand what I'm looking for on the display...

I have gotten better at thinking about zooming in to check focus... but I still get a better picture of the image on a display or in a print...

Livin' on the Edge... sleeping with my rigger's wife...

[BMFin 0]

Yeah, I wont disagree with most of the things you guys said.

There are now 2 different questions being discussed here:

1. Is film more expensive ?

2- Is shooting Digital free ?

1.)
Im not familiar enough with film, though I have noticed even the most high end (Mamiya etc.) leaf shutter bodies are ridiculously cheap compared to digital bodies. With the exess money you will finance your film developing for quite a while. However I agree that basically you can say that taking photographs is effectively cost-free. (only the shutter and some other (moreless)mechalical accessories you may have loose their life with every push of the button)

2.) The fact that taking digital photographs is effectively cost-free, doesnt mean digital photography it self is effectively free. It is actually quite expensive.

Reason why I brought this out is that a lot of times you hear people say: "nowadays photography is so cheap ´cause its all digital" and I couldnt disagree more.

[ozzy13 0]

Quote

there are now 2 different questions being discussed here:

1. Is film more expensive ?

2- Is shooting Digital free ?

So much for giving a guy some help on some settings to shoot tandems
You got to love it . The nerve of people high jacking other people threads. LOL

There is a lot of info in here thanks. I know what ill be doing in my down time

Never give the gates up and always trust your rears!

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

Quote

with digital I can take a picture of a flower using my macro, copy it off of the camera onto the computer, examine the exposure, composition, etc then turn around and easly adjust the shooting conditions to get something different.

Yup! What's really cool is when you are familiar enough with your process that you can take a picture of a flower using your macro, look at the histogram on your LCD, zoom in to check focus and you know if you need to take another shot!

Don't forget the chimping!!

"Ooh...ooh...that's a good one!"

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

Quote

there are now 2 different questions being discussed here:

1. Is film more expensive ?

2- Is shooting Digital free ?

So much for giving a guy some help on some settings to shoot tandems
You got to love it . The nerve of people high jacking other people threads. LOL

There is a lot of info in here thanks. I know what ill be doing in my down time

You *did* get answers - they may not have been the ones you wanted, but...

You need to understand the camera and learn how it works in different modes just like you'd need to understand your canopy and how it dives/turns before you try swooping. Look at it this way - it's like posting "I just bought a CF II 130 - what height should I start my 270 at?" - would you expect people to say 'start your turn at 'x' height', or would you expect them to say to start slow and learn the canopy? (I know, the comparison is a stretch but I'm trying to keep it skydiving related!)

+1 on the "Understanding Exposure" recommendation and lot's of ground practice.

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[pilotdave 0]

I still don't understand why it's "ok" to strap on a [sony] video camera, set it on auto-everything-except-focus, and go. But a still camera requires a PHd. Why's everybody so concerned at picture quality and not video quality? Why is it so wrong to use sport mode and autofocus on a still camera? It works great and it's easy. And if people want to learn how to use the camera to take better pictures, they will put that effort in themselves. Why does everybody push that so hard?

Dave

[Icon134 0]

Quote

I still don't understand why it's "ok" to strap on a [sony] video camera, set it on auto-everything-except-focus, and go. But a still camera requires a PHd. Why's everybody so concerned at picture quality and not video quality? Why is it so wrong to use sport mode and autofocus on a still camera? It works great and it's easy. And if people want to learn how to use the camera to take better pictures, they will put that effort in themselves. Why does everybody push that so hard?

hrm... I would argue that you should practice shooting video on the ground before taking it into the sky as well.

No, I don't think people have to spend an extensive amount of time learning how their camera works in order to get decent pictures... but it can't hurt to learn a little before going out...

Livin' on the Edge... sleeping with my rigger's wife...

[skydog 2]

Quote

I still don't understand why it's "ok" to strap on a [sony] video camera, set it on auto-everything-except-focus, and go. But a still camera requires a PHd. Why's everybody so concerned at picture quality and not video quality? Why is it so wrong to use sport mode and autofocus on a still camera? It works great and it's easy. And if people want to learn how to use the camera to take better pictures, they will put that effort in themselves. Why does everybody push that so hard?

Dave

Bang on the money.......... 99% of camermen need not do anything else, especially if filming tandems/AFF etc. For specialist shoots then some in depth knowledge is required.

Auto everything saves a lot of hassle, its there, it works, so use it and don't feel embarrassed to say loud and proud "I USE AUTOFOCUS"...........

Journey not destination.....

[Cashmanimal 0]

Quote

I still don't understand why it's "ok" to strap on a [sony] video camera, set it on auto-everything-except-focus, and go. But a still camera requires a PHd. Why's everybody so concerned at picture quality and not video quality? Why is it so wrong to use sport mode and autofocus on a still camera? It works great and it's easy. And if people want to learn how to use the camera to take better pictures, they will put that effort in themselves. Why does everybody push that so hard?

Dave

I will start by saying that I agree-- if they don't care that much, why should they care that much?

My counterpoint would be if they don't care enough to make stills look at least marginally better than the video they are shooting (using the term "better" loosely, of course), then why not just jump video and take stills frames from the video? Saves the time and hassle of setting up the stills and then jumping them, losing the added weight as well.

My personal opinion is if you are jumping a still camera, you are *theoretically* supposed to have the flying skillzzz already from jumping video... so why not develop the photography skillzzz?

Also, I understand this would be negligible for someone who has never picked a camera up in their life, or has limited experience. The best fliers in the world might know nothing about cameras (which might be true in most cases?) .

So I will some up my argument by conveying it mathematically:

Auto>nothing, understanding+caring>auto

It's all fun and until someone loses an eye... then it's just a game to find the eye

[BMFin 0]

Quote

I still don't understand why it's "ok" to strap on a [sony] video camera, set it on auto-everything-except-focus, and go. But a still camera requires a PHd. Why's everybody so concerned at picture quality and not video quality? Why is it so wrong to use sport mode and autofocus on a still camera? It works great and it's easy. And if people want to learn how to use the camera to take better pictures, they will put that effort in themselves. Why does everybody push that so hard?

Dave

I have nothing against people who want to use sports mode and autofocus, like you say. If one wishes to do so, no problem. On a side note, I dont see a lot of reason to get an SLR in this situation though. A compact camera could do those things cheaper and with less weight on your head.

Personally I wont put so much effort on the video simply because the videocameras we use are so low tech anyway and not much more quality is availeable from those type of cameras anyway. If I was shooting video with a high quality equipment, then I would definetly put more effort in getting the best results.

[vdschoor 0]

Quote

I still don't understand why it's "ok" to strap on a [sony] video camera, set it on auto-everything-except-focus, and go. But a still camera requires a PHd. Why's everybody so concerned at picture quality and not video quality? Why is it so wrong to use sport mode and autofocus on a still camera? It works great and it's easy. And if people want to learn how to use the camera to take better pictures, they will put that effort in themselves. Why does everybody push that so hard?

Dave

The thing that bugs me about "auto-everything except focus" is that the camera does not always take the right decision. And this goes for video as much as photos.
Take an overcast day, clouds at 15K, I'll take on a challenge with anyone that takes photos / video on auto everything.. every single shot will be dark on the subject if you go with auto..

If you're taking your camera along for myspace photos of your friends, by all means auto works great.
If you're getting paid, I think it's only fair to know how to make sure you're getting nice photos..

So I think the line should be drawn at : are you getting paid for the work you do... then you should know your equipment and be on your way to that PhD.. you don't need one, but you should be studying for sure. It's only fair to your customer.

Oh.. and on auto focus. If you read up on "hyper focal distance" you don't need auto focus on a 15mm wide angle lens.... I would say up to 28mm on a digital, shoot manual focus.. you are guaranteed to get a sharp shot, instead of auto focus where you either miss shots or they are out of focus..

[ChangoLanzao 0]

Quote

I still don't understand why it's "ok" to strap on a [sony] video camera, set it on auto-everything-except-focus, and go. But a still camera requires a PHd. Why's everybody so concerned at picture quality and not video quality? Why is it so wrong to use sport mode and autofocus on a still camera? It works great and it's easy. And if people want to learn how to use the camera to take better pictures, they will put that effort in themselves. Why does everybody push that so hard?

Dave

It's ok to strap on a [cannon] DSLR, set it on auto-everything-except-focus, and go. You'll get many great shots that way too, and you might not have the slightest idea why some come out great and others don't. That's fine. Who cares? It's OK. The client is going to buy them anyway.

So ... to answer the OP's question:

Q: "I'm looking for settings for skydiving."
A: Auto Everything (at least until Cannon puts a Skydiving setting on the dial).

Don't worry that your camera manual seems to be unpenetrable . You don't need to read it. All of those special settings are for whuffo Photographers anyway.

[pilotdave 0]

I think every video guy at my DZ other than me (though I barely ever do paid videos) uses sports mode and autofocus. Thousands and thousands of tandem pictures are shot that way every year. I can't say that I've seen every picture, but I know they aren't shooting "myspace" quality. Some DZs use compact cameras almost exclusively for tandem stills.

As for taking a compact camera instead of an SLR (responding to a previous post)... the SLR still has all the same advantages even in sport mode over a compact. Though with new compacts coming out with jacks for tongue switches, I'd guess that they're going to catch on. But SLRs in sports mode and autofocus still blow them away, so I don't understand the comparison.

(also to another post...) Pulling stills out of video instead of an SLR on sports mode? How bad do you think sports mode is?? The pictures come out great... as long as the conditions are right for it.

FYI, I agree that we can get better results in many cases by learning how to use the camera. I stopped using sports mode a long time ago. You can learn a lot from it though if you look at the exif data for the pictures you take on sports mode. See what settings work and what settings don't work. I think it's a great place to start, and for a lot of people it's all they'll ever need. I don't recommend the green box or "P" modes which are also full-auto. You want something biased toward high shutter speeds.

Dave

[BMFin 0]

Quote

As for taking a compact camera instead of an SLR (responding to a previous post)... the SLR still has all the same advantages even in sport mode over a compact. Though with new compacts coming out with jacks for tongue switches, I'd guess that they're going to catch on. But SLRs in sports mode and autofocus still blow them away, so I don't understand the comparison.

Well, Id have to say I dont agree.

IMO a good modern compact camera does the same job as XTi in sports mode with the kit lens.

The difference of the XTi comes into play when you have quality optics, maby a powerfull flash and know how to use the manual possibilities of the SLR.

And about shooting tandem stills with a compact camera:

IMO if the photographer gets paid only 30-50 bucks for a set of unique photos such as freefall photos are, I think a compact camera is a very reasonable choise taken into account how poorly you are paid.

[vdschoor 0]

I agree with you Dave, it will work most of the time on auto. I am not dissing anyone that uses it, I just think people should use in "on their way to learning more about the camera"

Personally, I would recommend using Tv over sports mode, you have a bit more control over the aperture that way, but I guess that could be part of your progression to "using the camera better"

So in general to people that want to start shooting stills in skydiving:

1. use your camera on the ground, read up a bit about exposure, and read the manual
2. start using the camera in freefall in sports mode / auto everything
3. start using the camera in Tv mode, more manual control, maybe even use manual focus with the "hyperfocal distance"

Basically I would say to everyone, learn to use your camera, learn why it does things a certain way, learn to deal with tricky lighting situations. It will end up REALLY pleasing your customer if you're jumping on days with shitty lighting and you still give them $$ tandem shots.

People pay a lot of money for these photos, they deserve a quality product.

[BMFin 0]

Quote

People pay a lot of money for these photos, they deserve a quality product.

May I ask, how much do you actually get paid if you consider it as a lot of money ?

[pilotdave 0]

Quote

IMO a good modern compact camera does the same job as XTi in sports mode with the kit lens.

Maybe... they're always getting better. But I've never seen one that can really compete.

I have a kit lens and a 10-22. Bet you can't tell which shots are taken with which lens, other than the ones at the wide end of the 10-22 or the narrow end of the 18-55. The 10-22 is technically superior, but it's not a night and day difference. I have to look at the exif to know which lens I used.

And sport mode just sets the shutter speed and aperture. There's no magic going on. It uses ISO 400, which some people might not like. It biases toward fast shutter speeds. Images are saved as large/fine jpegs. It's not like it puts the camera into some kind of low quality mode.

Dave

[PhreeZone 15]

Well with the going rate on a stills/video package over $100 on top of a $200+ tandem ... that is a lot of money. The video flyer may see $35-40 in his pocket and another $20 of it went into his slot. The total pay is pushing $60 per jump or $120 an hour.

Yesterday is history
And tomorrow is a mystery

Parachutemanuals.com

[BMFin 0]

Quote

Quote

IMO a good modern compact camera does the same job as XTi in sports mode with the kit lens.

Maybe... they're always getting better. But I've never seen one that can really compete.

I have a kit lens and a 10-22. Bet you can't tell which shots are taken with which lens, other than the ones at the wide end of the 10-22 or the narrow end of the 18-55. The 10-22 is technically superior, but it's not a night and day difference. I have to look at the exif to know which lens I used.

Dave

You are right. There isnt a lot of difference when comparing those two lenses @ 18mm. In terms of sharpness the kit lens is very good. The only problem is that the kit lens isnt wider than 18mm Thats the major difference with these two. Something that is as wide as 10mm is quite difficult to build, so that the distortions are not huge and the optical quality is still good. Thats why the 10-22 is so expensive.

When talking about quality optics sharpnes is only one factor and sharpness isnt very expensive in optics actually. Even the least expensive lenses can be VERY sharp.

What is expensive is the focal ratio. That is something the kit lens lacks.

[BMFin 0]

Quote

Well with the going rate on a stills/video package over $100 on top of a $200+ tandem ... that is a lot of money. The video flyer may see $35-40 in his pocket and another $20 of it went into his slot. The total pay is pushing $60 per jump or $120 an hour.

Ok.

35-40 bucks.

Now compare those fiqures to a professional photographer. After that take into consideration how much would this photographer charge extra for unique situation where you have to risk your self and your gear ?

Also take into consideration that most tandem photographers actually hand out all the original files. In professional photograhy world that makes it 2x the price..

Frankly I cannot think of ANY kind of professional photographer who would take a set of photos for such a small price.

[Cashmanimal 0]

Quote

Oh.. and on auto focus. If you read up on "hyper focal distance" you don't need auto focus on a 15mm wide angle lens.... I would say up to 28mm on a digital, shoot manual focus.. you are guaranteed to get a sharp shot, instead of auto focus where you either miss shots or they are out of focus..

Not an entirely true statement. For the most part, this theory will work in skydiving. The hyperfocal distance on the 15mm Sigma is just short of infinity... This setting will produce fantastic shots as long as you are flying outside camera. How depressing to get on the ground and see all the shots I took while docked on the tandem are blurry

Get closer than ~4.5ft and all your shots are frustratingly JUST out of focus...

This is the reason why I jump (with tandems) AF, AV at 4.5... 9 out of 10 times the prints I sell are the photos I took while docked and on my back with a tandem (after cross grips). The drogue starts to blur, creates the depth that makes it a powerful photo, and the autofocus guarantees it's sharp (relying on the hyperfocal theory blows that right out of the water). That lens combo is so damn fast, in this application I don't see a reason not to use it.

But for the sake of an internet forum, yes, you are right

It's all fun and until someone loses an eye... then it's just a game to find the eye

[vdschoor 0]

Quote

Ok.

35-40 bucks.

Now compare those fiqures to a professional photographer. After that take into consideration how much would this photographer charge extra for unique situation where you have to risk your self and your gear ?

Also take into consideration that most tandem photographers actually hand out all the original files. In professional photograhy world that makes it 2x the price..

Frankly I cannot think of ANY kind of professional photographer who would take a set of photos for such a small price.

Lets all go on strike and demand higher pay then? Watch your buddy step in and do it for a free skydive.

It's a choice, you either do it at the "market rate" or you dont do it at all..

To me, the "lot of money" refers to the 100 - 125 bucks the customer forks out to get the photos. Not to my pay. If I did this for a paycheck I'd want at least double what I am getting now (30-40 bucks) per jump.

[Cashmanimal 0]

Quote

Quote

Ok.

35-40 bucks.

Now compare those fiqures to a professional photographer. After that take into consideration how much would this photographer charge extra for unique situation where you have to risk your self and your gear ?

Also take into consideration that most tandem photographers actually hand out all the original files. In professional photograhy world that makes it 2x the price..

Frankly I cannot think of ANY kind of professional photographer who would take a set of photos for such a small price.

Lets all go on strike and demand higher pay then? Watch your buddy step in and do it for a free skydive.

It's a choice, you either do it at the "market rate" or you dont do it at all..

To me, the "lot of money" refers to the 100 - 125 bucks the customer forks out to get the photos. Not to my pay. If I did this for a paycheck I'd want at least double what I am getting now (30-40 bucks) per jump.

I always hand out my business card with their photos and ask them to check out my style of photography and post-processing, and if they like it to email me about giving their photos the same treatment. This way I can make some side $$ (help justify jumping my work equipment), and they can get a high quality print with the photographers unique touch. Everybody wins.

It's all fun and until someone loses an eye... then it's just a game to find the eye

[BMFin 0]

Quote

Lets all go on strike and demand higher pay then? Watch your buddy step in and do it for a free skydive.

It's a choice, you either do it at the "market rate" or you dont do it at all..

To me, the "lot of money" refers to the 100 - 125 bucks the customer forks out to get the photos. Not to my pay. If I did this for a paycheck I'd want at least double what I am getting now (30-40 bucks) per jump.

Oh, I wasnt saying we should go on a strike and how wrong it is we arent paid more.

We live in a market economy and I accept people arent ready to pay me a professional rate for their photos.

My point was:

It definetly isnt a lot of money what we are being paid for. On the contrary. And therefore I dont see it as the tandem photographers obligation to shoot the photos with the top of the line gear. IMO compact camera is pretty well in accordance with the sallary.

By the way, do you know what professional wedding photograpers charge for example ? Here in Finland the average guy charges about 1000 euros for 4-6 hours of shoot and that doesnt include the photos yet. They will charge you another XXX for the prints. Most photographers will charge you double if you want the original files.

Friend of mine charges 2000 euros for a gig. And hes doing fairly well, but in no means he is a rich guy even though he is very good at what he does. It is not a gold mine, even though it might look like it..

[ozzy13 0]