Aerial Rig and Film Thoughts

[keithwms]

Frotog, the Rollei is a better choice at the 6 x 6 Format in my opinion than the Contax or Mamiya 645 ...more film for starters. also much better glass.

Wrong, and wrong.

 

[DMCarbo]

Wrong ?

Rollei glass not better ? Guess its a matter of opinion but I have never seen anything as good as the Schneider glass on a Rollei or HY6, and the Zeiss glass for Rollei is the same as a Blad with a different mount. And yes I have shot with all the mentioned cameras.

Wrong, and wrong.

 

[DMCarbo]

Keith,

BTW

Great work on in your portfolio...scans are fantastic !

 

[keithwms]

I have a wee bit of experience with glass and also have had a look at some data. (But please let's not get into that here, or somebody will inevitably roll their eyes and call us "measurbators"...) I simply would not say "X is much better than Y" in such a casual way. There are some really fast (and long) lenses for the mamiya 645 system that are superb, maybe even as good as it gets. I mean, jaw-droppingly good and actually quite inexpensive too. I also have very high respect for the contax 645 system. I would not utter those words, "X is much better than Y"... comments like that have been made many times before here, and they simply lead to partisan arguments with no real conclusion. And then geeks like me say, "fine let's take partisanship out of it and look at the charts" and then some other jackass comes along and says "he's a measurbator" etc etc. and then we all go 'round the mulberry bush. Eventually things boil over and nobody learns anything and we're all pissed off :rolleyes:

Thanks for the comments on the scans I am trying to figure out of my monitor gamma is screwing with how I see my images. Could everybody please buy a mac so we can all be done with this gamma thing?!

 

[DMCarbo]

Your right...perhaps i was stirring the pot a bit ; )....You are not trying to start a war right ?

"Could everybody please buy a mac so we can all be done with this gamma thing?!" Oh Boy here comes the battle

LOL I couldnt agree more !

 

[keithwms]

At least the mac-pc war is one we haven't fought here a few thousand times before

 

[frotog]

Frotog, the Rollei is a better choice at the 6 x 6 Format in my opinion than the Contax or Mamiya 645 ...more film for starters. also much better glass. Even with a gyro I doubt a 400mm lens could be hand held on the ground let alone with a 2x tele converter in the air . Thanks to everyone for the input my final choice is The Schnieder 180/f2.8 on the Rollei with a vest full of films to test : ) ! I will Be using Velvia 100f, Provia 100F and Fuji 160s few rolls of Provia 400 as well. I will post some samples !

I'm assuming the phrase "tight property shots" means that the house fills at least 50% of the frame. If you really have your heart set on the 180mm you might as well mount it to a minox. Even then you'll have to crop the frames. But the real reason why the Rollei isn't up to the job is the top shutter speed of 1/500th. What's the pt. of using a sharp lens if you can't control motion blur? BTW, you can handhold anything with fast enough shutter-speeds (with the exception of the Nikkor 300mm f2 unless of course you happen to be a body builder).
The Rollei 6008 was part of our arsenal when we began the extensive aerial project that I worked on. It is a fine camera with excellent optics. We already had the 180 f2.8, tried renting a ridiculously expensive longer lens for this camera at which pt. the limited top shutter speed proved inadequate for sharp images, even with the kenyon and the bungee stabilizer system we had rigged. Not only that but the Rollei backs leak enough light to rule out using delta 3200. Our night pictures all had two symmetrical lines of light fog that were clearly in areas of no density. After testing multiple backs and sending each one back to Germany the Rollei reps finally acknowledged a design flaw that could not be readily fixed without serious modification. This was only a problem with highspeed film but still an embarrassing moment for the engineers behind the design of this camera.
Hope this helps. Good luck with your shoot!

 

[DMCarbo]

Hmm

I'm assuming the phrase "tight property shots" means that the house fills at least 50% of the frame. If you really have your heart set on the 180mm you might as well mount it to a minox. Even then you'll have to crop the frames. But the real reason why the Rollei isn't up to the job is the top shutter speed of 1/500th. What's the pt. of using a sharp lens if you can't control motion blur? BTW, you can handhold anything with fast enough shutter-speeds (with the exception of the Nikkor 300mm f2 unless of course you happen to be a body builder).
The Rollei 6008 was part of our arsenal when we began the extensive aerial project that I worked on. It is a fine camera with excellent optics. We already had the 180 f2.8, tried renting a ridiculously expensive longer lens for this camera at which pt. the limited top shutter speed proved inadequate for sharp images, even with the kenyon and the bungee stabilizer system we had rigged. Not only that but the Rollei backs leak enough light to rule out using delta 3200. Our night pictures all had two symmetrical lines of light fog that were clearly in areas of no density. After testing multiple backs and sending each one back to Germany the Rollei reps finally acknowledged a design flaw that could not be readily fixed without serious modification. This was only a problem with highspeed film but still an embarrassing moment for the engineers behind the design of this camera.
Hope this helps. Good luck with your shoot!

I will post samples as soon as I shoot them ! Until I actually do I can really comment on your post. Kenyon said I should be able to shoot as slow as 1/125 with the KS-8 on this rig....we shall see !

 

[Pupfish]

A gyro can't work miracles. You'll run into the same limitations when shooting with any kind of optical stabilization. I find that I rarely if ever need a tripod for my 200-400mm VR Nikkor. (I can and have successfully shot tack sharp images handheld at 1/15s). Subject motion then becomes the limiting factor--same as with a tripod, incidentally.

I believe this is what frotog was talking about: if fixed wing, you're going to be in a relatively fast-moving aircraft, hence the motion blur limitation to sharpness. (edit--of course, in this instance, you're moving, not the subject!)

 

[frotog]

I believe this is what frotog was talking about: if fixed wing, you're going to be in a relatively fast-moving aircraft, hence the motion blur limitation to sharpness. (edit--of course, in this instance, you're moving, not the subject!)

Yes...not only the horizontal speed of the plane but the omni-directional vibration of the plane. Maybe you should try getting several thousand ks-8's, mount them to the bottom of the plane and see if that'll work. Make sure to wear your seatbelt!

As for determining the right length lens...why not test on the ground first?

 

[DMCarbo]

Hi All,

Thanks for all your help...I will be posting samples in the next few days. All the Rollei shots at 1/250 and 1/500 shutter are razor sharp, I also used a D200 with 70-200 lens 1/1000 and 1/1250 shutter..most of those are sharp as well...the ones that are not are my fault by getting the lens in the slip stream or making contact with the airframe. I used a Kenyon Labs KS-6 gyro from a Cessna 172.

Side note: Frotog - I was very apprehensive about the shoot after reading your post and the difficulty you encountered. I showed your post to Bobbi Kenyon at Kenyon labs (They are about 10 Min from me so I picked up my gyro had lunch and a tour !) Bobbi noted that at 18lbs your rig was far too heavy for even the KS-8 and that the Armature from a Bungee cord was probably counter productive as the Gyro was trying to fight that as well. Was there any contact with the Airframe of the Helicopter...that wasted some of my images from the plane even with the Gyro...I did like your Idea about Several Thousand KS-8's however the rental cost was crazy ....Samples to follow ALL THANKS AGAIN FOR ALL THE INPUT !

 

[David Callard]

I used do aerial photography as a business, with clients wanting shots of smaller commercial properties, such as fast food franchises or small industrial plots. I used a Pentax 67 on a Kenyon stabilizer, and my lenses ranged from 55mm to 105mm.

Even with the gyro stabilizer, you need the fastest shutter possible. I used an ISO 400 color neg film, but you could possibly use an ISO 160.

Only in congested areas like in a city would you need to be at 1000 feet. If possible get down to 500 feet and use a wider lens. My most used lens was the 55mm, shot from 500 feet. This would give a nice perspective effect behind the subject property.

And make sure you can fully open the airplane window. I mainly used a Cessna 172, and before takeoff I had to remove a small screw on the window hinge, to allow the window to open fully in flight. If you use a helicopter, which I do NOT recommend due to vibration, try to take the door off. Shooting through a plastic window will not give satisfactory results.

I've done a lot of self-funded entrepreneurial and commissioned MF aerial photography (Bronica ETRS system) and I LOVE choppers! For one thing if you're buying the time you get to use much more of what you pay for with a helicopter. With a fixed wing you spend 90% of the time in orbit rather than shooting; with a chopper practically all the time is yours! I never had any problem with vibration: Just suspend the camera from a solid part of the airframe via the - must be strong! - neckstrap and "steer" it with a firm grip. The Bronica neckstrap is ideal, as it is made of a strong woven fabric which is great at absorbing any vibes. I recently bought a Heavy Duty Tamron strap which looks even better.

I have found the smaller bubble type like the Hughes or Bell to be best. The bigger machines cost heaps and are not as maneuverable. I have found that it really pays to find a pilot you can properly communicate your requirements to; after one flight such a pilot will know you and understand your needs. Yes, choppers are very noisy, especially here in the Northern Territory of Australia where they are mainly used for cattle mustering - and they take the muffler off to increase the noise! The intercom is not much use because of the decibels but sign language protocols quickly overcome any communication problems.

I consider that a near stationery helicopter removes the 'blur factor' of horizontal movement that may be a significant cause of unsharp pictures, so if one takes a few simple steps to insulate the camera (and operator - bracing, soft cushion) the cost benefit equation comes down in favor of the whirlygig.

I hope this is of some practical help.

 

[Photo Engineer]

David;

I've spent a few hours in Hueys with a harness on and my feet braced on the skids so I was at about a 45 degree angle looking downward. Got some nice pictures that way. I've posted 2 or 3 of those in my gallery.

I agree with your statement about 'copters. The strongly curved bubble windows can hurt in some and that is why I like the Huey "open door" policy.

PE

 

[resummerfield]

......if you're buying the time you get to use much more of what you pay for with a helicopter. With a fixed wing you spend 90% of the time in orbit rather than shooting; with a chopper practically all the time is yours!.......

Having used both a Bell 47 Helicopter and the Cessna 172 and similar high-wing Airplanes, I find the airplane much cheaper, due to the huge difference in hourly rate ($225 for the Bell vs. $70 for the CE-172, both about 10 years ago on the US East Coast) and the time to reach the photo site. In the majority of my work, I had to fly about 40 to 50 miles to reach my targets. The Bell 47, with an average cruise speed of 70 or so cost me around $320 round trip, while the Cessna 172, with an average cruise speed of around 120 cost “only” $60 or so round trip. Once on site, I’ll agree that the Helicopter was quicker, but not nearly quick enough to justify the hourly cost difference.

On site, the Helicopter can fly at much slower speeds, but with the underpowered Bell 47, we were always alert to keep above translational lift speed, about 20 mph. Helicopters require more power to fly below the translational lift speed, and the underpowered Bell 47 I used could barely hover out of ground effect on a warm day. And the vibration goes up tremendously below translational lift speed. In contrast, the Cessna could be flown safely at about 60 mph. So as far as image quality goes, yes, the Helicopter has the slight advantage (20 vs. 60 mph).

The big advantage of the Helicopter is to orbit the target safely and legally below 500 feet. If the job requires low altitude, then the Helicopter is the only choice.

I was able to produce satisfactory work from both the Helicopter and Airplane, by keeping the camera isolated from the aircraft (by holding it in your hands), using the Kenyon stabilizer, and by keeping the window open. But the cost factor always favored the Airplane.

 

[Photo Engineer]

My one advantage was that I didn't have to pay anything.

PE

 

[Ralph Javins]

My one advantage was that I didn't have to pay anything.

PE

OK, Ron, a little candid honesty sometimes helps. You really did pay, but in a different way. You offered your entire body, and its contents, to the US Air Force, and they could do just about anything that they felt was necessary with it to accomplish their goal.

One of my friends was a crewman on a KC-135. He did mention that there was not any division between a fuel delivery tank, and a KC-135 flying tank. If the DEW line and NORAD really lit up, they were to pump what ever fuel they had into the planes going out. If something was left for them to fly home on, that was a good thing. If not, they were supposed to retract the boom from the receiving aircraft no later than when they were starting their descent.

 

[Photo Engineer]

Ralph;

But in terms of dollars spent, you and every other taxpayer in the US paid for my flights. So thanks for the flights.

PE