Lens recommendation flying at 3000ft to shoot a field of flowers

[bab]

At 3000 feet what lens would you use to shoot a field of flowers capturing the rolling hills,mountains and some sky? In a banking turn shooting down a Caynon would the 100 mm on a Hasselblad be the right choice at 3000 feet up?

 

[docmoore]

Mathematically using tangent function and 3000 feet as the adjacent leg ....

HC 100 has horizontal angle of view of 25 diagonal angle of view of 31 degrees.

Field looking straight down should have a radius of 660 feet on the horizontal angle and 900 feet on the diagonal angle.

So 1300 feet or 1800 feet across ... now rotate your pointing of the camera and you have your field of vision which could be plotted on a topographic map.

Not a lot of help but perhaps someone who does it regularly could opine.

Uwe Steinmueller was active on the thread and LuLa until his death in 2014 ... he had a passion for arial landscapes and I found a flickr folder of them
here:

https://www.flickr.com/search/?sort...1&tags=aerial&user_id=33828520@N00&view_all=1

But there does not appear to be metadata to figure out lens information.

Perhaps a general search on Flickr for arial photos and then look for those with camera and lens information. Look for the angles of view in the lens specs from that
point and apply them to your question.

I used to fly a lot in California and 1800 to 2000 was sublime.

Sounds like a great project.

Regards,

Bob

 

[bab]

Mathematically using tangent function and 3000 feet as the adjacent leg ....

HC 100 has horizontal angle of view of 25 diagonal angle of view of 31 degrees.

Field looking straight down should have a radius of 660 feet on the horizontal angle and 900 feet on the diagonal angle.

So 1300 feet or 1800 feet across ... now rotate your pointing of the camera and you have your field of vision which could be plotted on a topographic map.

Not a lot of help but perhaps someone who does it regularly could opine.

Uwe Steinmueller was active on the thread and LuLa until his death in 2014 ... he had a passion for arial landscapes and I found a flickr folder of them
here:

https://www.flickr.com/search/?sort...1&tags=aerial&user_id=33828520@N00&view_all=1

But there does not appear to be metadata to figure out lens information.

Perhaps a general search on Flickr for arial photos and then look for those with camera and lens information. Look for the angles of view in the lens specs from that
point and apply them to your question.

I used to fly a lot in California and 1800 to 2000 was sublime.

Sounds like a great project.

Regards,

Bob

Thanks Bob I think your pretty close I asked the pilot and he told me 45-60 degrees angle of coverage.

We will find out this morning he also said even though we're at 3k ft it's really only about 1k above the ground that's what threw me off.

I will take the 28,50 and 100 and also bring the 1.7x

Thanks

 

[bab]

Camera and Lens
Sensor Size:40x53

Custom Sensor[1]:

Seems like this is the answers
Focal Length: 50 mm
Aperture: f/Custom AV
Distance:
Feet Meters

[1] Enter either a crop factor (i.e. "6.7" or "0.25") or a frame dimension in mm as width
x height (eg. 36x24 or 15.2 x 9.5). See notes section for details.

Results
Angle and Field of View
Angle of View Field of View
Horizontal 43.60° 2400' 0.00" ( 731.52 m )
Vertical 55.85° 3180' 0.00" ( 969.264 m )
Diagonal 67.17° 3984' 0.22" ( 1214.329 m )
Depth of Field
Total DoF Infinity
1/8th DoF Infinity

DoF Near Limit 78' 11.05" ( 24.055 m )
DoF Far Limit Infinity

Hyperfocal Dist 81' 2.55" ( 24.754 m )
Circ. of Conf. 0.046mm

Expirmental Values
BpM1 (exp): -35.94014514622405
BpM2 (exp): 0.027070819457844446


Equivalent Lenses
Format Focal Length Av Setting* F-number
1/3" CCD (7.21x) 5 mm f/0.2
Super 8mm film (6.15x) 5 mm f/0.2
1/1.7" (Pentax Q, many P&Ss) (4.60x) 7 mm f/0.3
2/3" (ENG Cameras, Camcorders) 8 mm f/0.4
16mm film (3.41x) 9 mm f/0.4
Nikon CX (2.72x) 12 mm f/0.5
1" CCD (2.70x) 12 mm f/0.5
Blackmagic Cine Cam (2.38x) 14 mm f/0.6
4/3rds (2.00x) 16 mm f/0.7
Canon APS-C (1.62x) 20 mm f/0.9
Nikon DX (1.53x) 22 mm f/1.0
Super 35 (1.40x) 23 mm f/1.0
Canon APS-H (1.29x) 25 mm 1.1 f/1.1
Full Frame/Nikon FX (1.00x) 33 mm 1.6 f/1.5
Leica S (1.25x) 41 mm 1.8 f/1.8
645D / IQ250 / H5D-50c (1.27x) 42 mm 1.8 f/1.8
6 x 4.5 (1.50x) 49 mm 2.2 f/2.2
6 x 6 (1.83x) 60 mm 2.5 f/2.6
6 x 7 (2.0x) 65 mm 2.8 f/2.9
4 x 5 (3.3x) 109 mm 5 f/4.8
5 x 7 (5x) 163 mm 7.1 f/7.2


8 x 10 (6.67x) 218 mm 9 f/9
* The Av setting is the camera aperture setting, in 1/3rd-stops, that will closely approximate source
lens's depth of field. Available values range from f/1 to f/64 in 1/3rd stops.


Camera and Lens
Sensor Size:40x53

Custom Sensor[1]:
Focal Length: 100 mm
Aperture: f/Custom AV
Distance:
Feet Meters

[1] Enter either a crop factor (i.e. "6.7" or "0.25") or a frame dimension in mm as width
x height (eg. 36x24 or 15.2 x 9.5). See notes section for details.

Results
Angle and Field of View
Angle of View Field of View
Horizontal 22.62° 1200' 0.00" ( 365.76 m )
Vertical 29.68° 1590' 0.00" ( 484.632 m )
Diagonal 36.73° 1992' 0.11" ( 607.164 m )
Depth of Field
Total DoF Infinity
1/8th DoF Infinity

DoF Near Limit 292' 7.26" ( 89.186 m )
DoF Far Limit Infinity

Hyperfocal Dist 324' 6.26" ( 98.914 m )
Circ. of Conf. 0.046mm

Expirmental Values
BpM1 (exp): -8.244372694832832
BpM2 (exp): 0.10817391650154401


Feet Meters

[1] Enter either a crop factor (i.e. "6.7" or "0.25") or a frame dimension in mm as width
x height (eg. 36x24 or 15.2 x 9.5). See notes section for details.


For the 28mm lens
Results
Angle and Field of View
Angle of View Field of View
Horizontal 71.08° 4285' 8.57" ( 1306.286 m )
Vertical 86.85° 5678' 6.86" ( 1730.829 m )
Diagonal 99.71° 7114' 3.82" ( 2168.444 m )
Depth of Field

 

[jdphoto]

I'm a licensed GA pilot and have taken many photos from an open door, high wing aircraft. I was shooting with a Hasselblad H4d/40 and the 80mm lens and normally fly at 1500 feet AGL, (above ground level). Altimeters are pressure instruments and are set to the field elevation on the ground, so if your airport is at 1500 feet MSL (mean sea level), the altimeter will read 1500 feet even though you haven't left the ground. Climb to 1500 feet above the airport and it will read 3000' MSL or (above sea level).
Longer focal lengths will show vibration more, so I opted for the 80mm or normal lens for the H4D. I liked this FL because I could incorporate many surrounding elements and crop if needed. Late sun shadows have a very dramatic effect too. I would mostly fly by myself, so it's imperative to consider slipstream effect of 100mph wind if you're exposed to the elements. High wing aircraft are much better for air to ground photography. Needless to say, that fast shutter speeds should beget higher ISO values. If in a 45 degree turn, considering shooting directly straight down for less apparent motion, but be aware that this is a steep, unusual attitude and when continuously looking through a viewfinder can create funky feelings. Don't stare through the viewfinder for too long, look around, get your horizon and always look in the direction of the turn if feeling uneasy in the air. Eat lightly before you shoot, no greasy foods or you'll enjoy them again in the cockpit! Also, close the viewfinder so no stray light gets in if shooting with an OVF and LCD. Sometimes I would put the camera into MU and use hyperlocal for DOF. Here's where mirrorless really shines with no mirror vibration to effect the image or stray light from OVF. Ask the pilot to reduce power when shooting, but if in a 45 degree turn this would require pitching the nose down to increase speed. The stall speed or loss of lift on a wing increases with bank angle. Nowadays, drones are the rage and more budget friendly. Aerial photography is an unusual perspective, so enjoy!

 

[algrove]

Funny drones were brought up as that was my first thought about doing this, but that technique must also be mastered.

Even a big drone with Gimbal head might be cheaper over time versus renting aircraft. Lula had an article on drone components/usage perhaps a year or so ago.

 

[ejpeiker]

Having done quite a bit of aerial photography over the years as well as being pilot in command of an aircraft with a photographer as my passenger on both ground photography and air to air photography missions, I don't think shooting from 3000 feet AGL is going to be optimal. You are shooting through a lot of atmosphere when you do that - a straight down shot is .6 miles and as soon as you angle the camera even slightly you are shooting out several miles resulting in a lot of haze even on clear days. Additionally, at that altitude, the hills will pretty much disappear and it will look more like flat fields. My preference for this type of photography is to shoot from 500 to 1500 feet, depending on the terrain. If you are shooting patterns of land, like river deltas then 2000 feet is very good but if you want contour in the land, go much much lower than 3000 feet. Do this with a pilot that has experience at flying close to the ground, helicopters with no doors are preferable but it can easily be done from a fixed wing aircraft and many of those are approved to fly without the cargo door. Whatever you do, make sure the pilot is experienced with this type of flying.

 

[jdphoto]

Having done quite a bit of aerial photography over the years as well as being pilot in command of an aircraft with a photographer as my passenger on both ground photography and air to air photography missions, I don't think shooting from 3000 feet AGL is going to be optimal. You are shooting through a lot of atmosphere when you do that - a straight down shot is .6 miles and as soon as you angle the camera even slightly you are shooting out several miles resulting in a lot of haze even on clear days. Additionally, at that altitude, the hills will pretty much disappear and it will look more like flat fields. My preference for this type of photography is to shoot from 500 to 1500 feet, depending on the terrain. If you are shooting patterns of land, like river deltas then 2000 feet is very good but if you want contour in the land, go much much lower than 3000 feet. Do this with a pilot that has experience at flying close to the ground, helicopters with no doors are preferable but it can easily be done from a fixed wing aircraft and many of those are approved to fly without the cargo door. Whatever you do, make sure the pilot is experienced with this type of flying.

Good suggestions, but I think the OP is flying at 1500' AGL and not 3000' AGL. My understanding was he was confused about the differences between above ground level (AGL) and mean sea level (MSL). With that in mind though, it might be good to use a quality UV/haze filter too. Chandler, AZ. was a location where I was considering aerobatic training in a Great Lakes Biplane.

 

[ejpeiker]

Good suggestions, but I think the OP is flying at 1500' AGL and not 3000' AGL. My understanding was he was confused about the differences between above ground level (AGL) and mean sea level (MSL). With that in mind though, it might be good to use a quality UV/haze filter too. Chandler, AZ. was a location where I was considering aerobatic training in a Great Lakes Biplane.

Ah OK, I didn't read all of the responses carefully so I missed that. For rolling hills with flowers, that's about the maximum altitude I'd try. A UV filter may be redundant with filtration built into the sensor cover glass/filter depending on the camera/sensor/lens being used - I don't use them for this type of work. Yup I believe it's Chandler Air Service that offers that training. They have a relatively popular airport eatery there too for the $250 hamburger I did my aerobatic training in a Citabria at AEG and SAF.

 

[jdphoto]

Ah OK, I didn't read all of the responses carefully so I missed that. For rolling hills with flowers, that's about the maximum altitude I'd try. A UV filter may be redundant with filtration built into the sensor cover glass/filter depending on the camera/sensor/lens being used - I don't use them for this type of work. Yup I believe it's Chandler Air Service that offers that training. They have a relatively popular airport eatery there too for the $250 hamburger I did my aerobatic training in a Citabria at AEG and SAF.

Right! I forgot about the sensor UV. It use to be a $100 dollar burger! I use to own a Citabria GCBC, not quite as aerobatic as the Decathalon, but does the trick. Happy flying!