15 replies to this topic

[lazyfortress]

Hello everyone, I'm an aircraft spotter.  I got my first Nikon in September of last year for my birthday.  It's a Nikon Coolpix B500.  It's pretty good I guess, but some images are a bit unclear.  Is there any way I can take clearer pictures?  I'll include 3 photos, two good and one bad.  How can I access the shutter settings?  I want to be able to take a picture fast and clear.  Is it my camera that's the problem?

 

What would be a good Nikon to buy for aircraft spotting?  I'm new to photography.  Any beginner DSLRs?  Is the D2H better or worse in quality than my B500?

 

Also, I tried painting my B500 in a desert paint.  It looks nasty, so would spray painting be a good option?

 

 

Attached Thumbnails

• 
• 
• 

[Adam]

You'll want a DSLR with quick AF.  Something like the D7100 or D7200 should get the job done at a reasonable budget, paired with a 70-300mm or 55-300mm lens.

[Brian]

Aircraft will be at infinity, or very close to it. I use a manual focus 500mm F8 and 300mm F4.5 on my full-frame Nikon Df.

 

Flying Circus AirShow by fiftyonepointsix, on Flickr

 

Just like I used on my Nikon F2 and Nikon F.

 

I would suggest the Nikon D7000, can be bought used in EX condition with battery and charger for ~$400. That and a 300mm F4.5 Nikkor would be my choice on a budget.

 

The D2H- is a 4MPixel camera. The D7000 is 16MPixels. 

 

What is your budget?

300mm lens on the full-frame:

 

Bealeton Airshow, June 2016 by fiftyonepointsix, on Flickr

 

500mm Reflex-Nikkor F8 on the Full-frame:

 

Flying Circus AirShow by fiftyonepointsix, on Flickr

 

The 300mm lens on the D7000 will give a field-of-view closer to the latter.

[lazyfortress]

Oh. My budget is at $350 or less. I was reading online, and what do you guys think about the D2x or the D300?

[Merco_61]

I use a D300 for aircraft in flight, but the lenses needed for good results are definitely not on the cheap side... A 70-300 should get you going even if you *will* want something sharper at the long end and longer. I have a thread up with photos from the museum roll-out at Hässlö last year. You will find it if you look in the Cars and machinery subforum. All photos are made with the D300 and AF-S 80-400.

 

 

Link

[Brian]

I have a Df- and I'm tempted to get a D300 at the prices they are going for lately. The D500 definitely pushed prices down.

[Merco_61]

At Hässlö, I saw the perfect spotter rig, the problem is the price... A gripped D500 with a large, fast XQD card with the SD as overflow, a 300/4 PF and the TC-14, TC-17 and TC-20 teleconverters. The owner had decided that the days of carrying a D300 with 300/2.8, 400/2.8 and 600/4 had come to an end as his back starts to give him trouble.

[lazyfortress]

I have a picture of an A340 I took in Philadelphia, on a bridge in a car.  This was taken with my Coolpix B500.  Would the D300 and the AF-S 70-300 been able to make this picture way less grainy and more clear?

Attached Thumbnails

• 

[Merco_61]

This North American TRF-51D Mustang is shot with a D300 and 270 mm, admittedly on a 80-400, but the 70-300 isn't too far off in sharpness and contrast.

 

 

Model: NIKON D300

Lens (mm): 270

ISO: 200

Aperture: 14

Shutter: 1/160

Exp. Comp.: +0.7

 

The reason for the slowish shutter is that I hate frozen propellers.

[lazyfortress]

How far away do you think the P-51 was?  Would the 70-300 be good for spotting, such as that A340?  If so, then what specific 70-300 lens should I use for the D300?  I was looking on google, but the pricing ranges from $100 to $2,000.  

[Merco_61]

I don't remember the distance. A 70-300 is borderline for spotting if you don't have good access. It is one of the cheapest ways to get something tele-ish, though. 

 

What was the focal length you used for the A340? It should be in the EXIF for the original file.

 

I would go for a used Nikon AF-S 70-300VR as I have found that it hunts less for focus than the Tamrons when contrast goes low like an off-white airliner against clouds. 

 

In low contrast, you will have to do some tweaking in post to make it look good, but Capture NX-D should be enough.

[lazyfortress]

I went to metapicz.com and checked out my file.  The focal length is 41.3 mm.

[Merco_61]

The conversion factor between the B500 and a lens with equivalent  field of view on an FX DSLR is 5.625. 

41.3 mm multiplied by 5.625 is 232.3125, which should be rounded to ~230 mm.

The 70-300 on DX is equivalent to 105-450 on FX. This means that you would have been well under the ~260 mm focal length where the 70-300 VR starts losing some contrast and sharpness, this in turn means that you would definitely have got a better result with a D300 and 70-300.

With this photo as a reference, a 70-300 should work well for spotting in your circumstances as you would have been able to frame it a bit tighter as the DSLR is much faster to adjust than a bridge camera.

[lazyfortress]

Wow!  I totally did not know that.  Thank you so much for your help!  I'll definitely be getting the 70-300.

 

I may be getting a 55-200VR.  Is a 70-300VR better or worse than the 55-200VR that you recommended?

[Merco_61]

I have very little experience with the 55-200 and 55-300 DX telezooms as I have never owned any of them.

[ScottinPollock]

The 55-200mm f4-5.6 VR II is easily as good as the 70-300 VR and noticeably sharper when comparing both at their sweet spots. It is the bargain of the year at its currently discounted price of $150. An absolute no brainer if you think it is long enough for you.