Luminous Landscape Forum
Equipment & Techniques => Medium Format / Film / Digital Backs – and Large Sensor Photography => Topic started by: rogerxnz on January 31, 2016, 04:50:28 pm
-
I am very depressed! Like many photographers here, I have tens of thousands of dollars invested in medium format digital equipment including a P180, a Linhof Techno and an H2 with many lenses and other "essentials". A recent photo expedition with one of my sons has revealed that none of my stuff cannot compete with the 12MP images from my son's drone and its 4K video lens, all of which cost less than $1,500.
The drone produced unique and awesome images because of the different viewpoints and angles that it can easily provide. Not only that, most of it can be done from the convenience of the roadside or river bed. You do not need to keep the drone in sight and it can be up to a kilometre away. No need to lug heavy backpacks of gear up mountains.
I now realize that, no matter how much money I throw at my gear, I will never be able to get the amazing images that a drone can effortlessly produce.
I guess that there is only a short time before everyone has a drone. Maybe, there is only, say, three years to benefit from the uniqueness of drone viewpoints. I also expect that, if everyone throws away their still cameras and buys a drone, the sky will be full of them and we will be having drone wars. Not to mention the restrictions against using drones over private property, national reserves, and so on, and the height limits.
So, 12MP images outclassing 80MP MFDB images based on on image content with no way for the 80MP images to exceed, or even emulate, because they cannot get to the same viewpoint and the hardware cannot be used with drones because they do not take video!
I would be interested in your comments, especially, if you can cure my depression.
Roger
-
Roger,
No need to lug heavy backpacks of gear up mountains... I would be interested in your comments, especially, if you can cure my depression.
A drone cannot replace the experience of witnessing the view firsthand - having lugged a heavy backpack of gear up a mountain or not.
Consider yourself cured.
-
But that is my main point, I can never have the experience you mention because I cannot get to the points in the sky from which the drone takes its pictures.
Simply, neither I, nor my cameras, can fly!
I am far from cured but thank you for trying.
Roger
Roger,
A drone cannot replace the experience of witnessing the view firsthand - having lugged a heavy backpack of gear up a mountain or not.
Consider yourself cured.
-
The solution is to hang a P1 100MP camera to a drone, as shown here: https://youtu.be/N2b8mjhLsx8
-
I am very depressed! Like many photographers here, I have tens of thousands of dollars invested in medium format digital equipment including a P180, a Linhof Techno and an H2 with many lenses and other "essentials". A recent photo expedition with one of my sons has revealed that none of my stuff cannot compete with the 12MP images from my son's drone and its 4K video lens, all of which cost less than $1,500.
The drone produced unique and awesome images because of the different viewpoints and angles that it can easily provide. Not only that, most of it can be done from the convenience of the roadside or river bed. You do not need to keep the drone in sight and it can be up to a kilometre away. No need to lug heavy backpacks of gear up mountains.
I now realize that, no matter how much money I throw at my gear, I will never be able to get the amazing images that a drone can effortlessly produce.
I guess that there is only a short time before everyone has a drone. Maybe, there is only, say, three years to benefit from the uniqueness of drone viewpoints. I also expect that, if everyone throws away their still cameras and buys a drone, the sky will be full of them and we will be having drone wars. Not to mention the restrictions against using drones over private property, national reserves, and so on, and the height limits.
So, 12MP images outclassing 80MP MFDB images based on on image content with no way for the 80MP images to exceed, or even emulate, because they cannot get to the same viewpoint and the hardware cannot be used with drones because they do not take video!
I would be interested in your comments, especially, if you can cure my depression.
Roger
The answer is rather simple... it can be summed up to the following sentence: "Photography has nothing to do with MP count, sharpness or equipment cost... It rather has to do with talent, imagination and correct use of tooling" as to achieve the visualization behind the subject..." IMO, you should be proud of your son and twice proud for yourself if he can beat you by using lesser (in value) tools...
-
That's very cool!
Could I do that with the 100MP back on an H2? I just want stills, I think.
The solution is to hang a P1 100MP camera to a drone, as shown here: https://youtu.be/N2b8mjhLsx8
-
I agree and that is my other point.
Freshness and uniqueness trumps just MP...no matter how many you have.
Peter
-
It's a cruel world alright. The value of my MF equipment has dropped faster than crude oil prices! I have even considered photographing a potato to recoup my losses. Perhaps if I use a drone for a unique perspective !! :-\
-
You could. Just put the spud on your head and fly the drone above and around your head with the camera looking down at 45º.
Very easy!
It's a cruel world alright. The value of my MF equipment has dropped faster than crude oil prices! I have even considered photographing a potato to recoup my losses. Perhaps if I use a drone for a unique perspective !! :-\
-
Unique views can stay unique only for so long. Like Cokin tobacco grad ND, early shadow recovery sliders, HDR, etc. In the end, the only thing that survives is a photographer's, not machine's, vision.
-
same thing could be said for those production companies who would film in car footage for motorsport & TV.
The complex (and expensive) rigs they were able to rent out - suddenly got trashed when you could pick up a GoPro and do it yourself. Even major players like Top Gear, who have a conciuos style to their shoots, used GoPros
Drones are a bit of a novelty right now, and you may be able to get some income from doing a drone shoot. but within 2-3 years everyone could have one and that market dries up - it'll be the HDR of the digital age. Or the lens flare of the CGI age
besides, you aint going to get much use out of a drone for wedding, portraiture, architecture, fine art or glamour sessions
they are a cool fad
-
I think I may have put too much focus on "unique" in my above posts. It is not just the unique view that a drone can provide which is so compelling. A drone can provide a better or more interesting view in many cases than we can get from the ground. Too often, we confront an object, such as a mountain or a tree and take a photo from where we stand. In many of those cases, I reckon a better view would be from a point about 2/3 up the height of the object with the lens at about 30º so you can see the object in better relationship to its surroundings.
That height would often be beyond the reach of ladders, even if you happened to have one handy. Sometimes, we are able to climb a nearby hill to get into a good position but the hill could be too far away for our purposes. A drone removes all these issues.
Having the camera in the air looking down, rather than up or across, could avoid having annoying burnt-out skies in shot.
Also, with landscapes, you might have to travel long distances to get into a good position in relation to the direction of the light. With a drone, you just fly it to the right position and you do not have to move at all.
So, think of whether drones can offer better and more interesting images rather than just unique images. I suggest you look at your images and ask whether they would be improved by having the camera at a different position in the air.
Unique views can stay unique only for so long. Like Cokin tobacco grad ND, early shadow recovery sliders, HDR, etc. In the end, the only thing that survives is a photographer's, not machine's, vision.
-
Unique, better, more interesting... same difference.
It is not that we are seeing aerial shots for the first time. Yann Arthus-Bertrand (http://www.yannarthusbertrand.org/en/home) made a career out of it many years ago. When I was in Kodak in the late nineties, we hired a paraglider to shoot film scenes for the Tchaikovsky's 1812 Overture.
Like with many other things in technology, things are just made easier and more accessible, not necessarily better or more interesting. Aerial or drone photography has its place of course, but it is not going to replace standard photography.
Human-viewpoint photography has one advantage that machine-one does not: it puts the viewer in the same shoes as the photographer, allowing the viewer to identify easier with the experience.
-
Anyone having shot from a heli knows you are very right.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
Hi Slobodan,
I think it goes a bit deeper. One thing is that we are still essentially stuck with 2MP images when viewed on screen. Well 4K is 8 MP and actually a bit more as the format is cropped.
We don't need high MP, unless we print and print large.
Now, flying gives a new dimension, one that we have not seen before. And that gives a lot of different perspectives (POVs). So drones give something new.
Drones can give us motion and motion is in a sense more forgiving. Our vision combines several images so a motion image is often better than a single image from the same data stream.
I would say that drone based imaging is a new visual art, essentially defeating gravity. It also offers smooth camera motion. Impressive technology.
Drone based filming is different from normal motion in that it probably uses natural light, while I am under the impression that traditional motion often uses quite elaborate lighting.
We have a guy here in Nyköping who was an early convert to digital, shoot a scanning back in the studio and he was also an early adopter of fulll frame CMOS. Like 5-6 years ago he started arial shooting with a home built drone. I think he is doing good business and save helikopter hours.
Best regards
Erik
Ps. No, I don't think I go into drones. Stay firmly on the ground.
Unique views can stay unique only for so long. Like Cokin tobacco grad ND, early shadow recovery sliders, HDR, etc. In the end, the only thing that survives is a photographer's, not machine's, vision.
-
The solution is to hang a P1 100MP camera to a drone, as shown here: https://youtu.be/N2b8mjhLsx8
That's very cool!
Could I do that with the 100MP back on an H2? I just want stills, I think.
I see no reason why it would not work.
Really there is no object to this discussion. If you want a drone, get one. If you want a drone for a MF camera, they are available, as the cited youtube video shows.
-
Take the limitations of not having a drone as a challenge, and keep close to your heart all the small (and hopefully big) goals you achieve. Plan your shots, plan for the light, choose your gear carefully so you don't have to lug around everything. Plan for a vision, an idea, rather than a pretty sight. It's nice to hear "cool picture, bro", but it's even better when people you know want a print of it to hang in their home and they show it off to their friends because it means something to them. Get more involved in what you make and think less about what piece of gear you have (or not).
And most of all, have fun.
-
Consider what type of images you shoot and like to shoot. If you like to shoot grand views from mountain tops and similar, a drone can indeed produce fresh and unique viewpoints. On the other hand if you like to make very large prints of those grand views it doesn't hurt to have those 80MP.
A Linhof Techno is not great at shooting wildlife. You don't have long reach enough on the tele lenses, and it's slow to set up and shoot. Likewise it's a really bad choice to attach it to a drone. It's a big mess to choose it close to the ground and strongly angled viewpoints which you easily get with hand-held 135 is hard to do with the view camera. The limitations are many and about the same as a classic large format 4x5" view camera.
If you want to shoot a genre of images that doesn't match your camera's strong points you have the wrong camera. A tech camera is more narrow than most other cameras, it's strong points is movements and image quality, and with the right mindset you can also turn the slow workflow into a zen-like experience that contributes to your creativity and enjoyment.
Personally I like to shoot "intimate landscape", that is fairly close scenes where the corners of the frame need to be exactly placed. A drone would totally suck at that, while the view camera excels and I get good use of the flexible movements of the Linhof Techno which I'm also using. From time to time I do shoot those "grand views" too, movements are still useful in that case (usually just rise/fall and a bit of tilt), and you get very high resolution images that holds up well for large prints. A drone cannot do that (yet).
It is true that if your goal is to make "cool images" that gets lots of "likes" on the social networks those drone images, or even better videos, will likely be more successful than thought-provoking intimate landscapes or grand views with a classic strict and elegant perspective.
But if you do like drone photography, do try it. The simpler systems cost is like a lens cap for medium format ;)
Another alternative is to shoot with your Hasselblad H system from an airplane. You rent a pilot and do some suitable flyovers. Swedish photographer Hans Strand has done a lot of this work using his Hasselblad (renting the pilot/airplane, he's not flying himself), doing flyovers in Iceland and in the Swedish mountains for example. Images here: http://www.hansstrand.com/Hans_Strand/Aerials_1.html
Good examples of intimate landscapes shot using the strengths of a view camera (actually a 4x5" camera in this case, but Linhof Techno would do equally well) can be found at David Ward's website: http://www.into-the-light.com/gallery/ those images wouldn't be shot well with a drone...
Also look through your current images which you like. How many of those could have been better if shot using a drone? My guess is you will find that few of them could.
-
The drone produced unique and awesome images because of the different viewpoints and angles that it can easily provide. Not only that, most of it can be done from the convenience of the roadside or river bed. You do not need to keep the drone in sight and it can be up to a kilometre away. No need to lug heavy backpacks of gear up mountains.
I now realize that, no matter how much money I throw at my gear, I will never be able to get the amazing images that a drone can effortlessly produce.
I guess that there is only a short time before everyone has a drone. Maybe, there is only, say, three years to benefit from the uniqueness of drone viewpoints. I also expect that, if everyone throws away their still cameras and buys a drone, the sky will be full of them and we will be having drone wars. Not to mention the restrictions against using drones over private property, national reserves, and so on, and the height limits.
So, 12MP images outclassing 80MP MFDB images based on on image content with no way for the 80MP images to exceed, or even emulate, because they cannot get to the same viewpoint and the hardware cannot be used with drones because they do not take video!
I would be interested in your comments, especially, if you can cure my depression.
Roger
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dww2nkN6siU
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mlOpsqBjWXY
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xlYKc_DSoOg
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t1cG1tLfXuM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tO4q0GK4ZHg
-
... If you want to shoot a genre of images that doesn't match your camera's strong points you have the wrong camera...
Smart observation. I would add that if you choose a camera because you've seen what somebody else can do with it, you have the wrong camera.
-
Find a subject that your sone and his drone cannot photograph, something unique, a new POV, a new subject and then go and enjoy the camera you already have in your hand. It's not the camera that's the issue here!
-
Smart observation. I would add that if you choose a camera because you've seen what somebody else can do with it, you have the wrong camera.
It could still be the right camera, but you got it for the wrong reason ;)
-
I am very depressed! Like many photographers here, I have tens of thousands of dollars invested in medium format digital equipment including a P180, a Linhof Techno and an H2 with many lenses and other "essentials". A recent photo expedition with one of my sons has revealed that none of my stuff cannot compete with the 12MP images from my son's drone and its 4K video lens, all of which cost less than $1,500.
The drone produced unique and awesome images because of the different viewpoints and angles that it can easily provide. Not only that, most of it can be done from the convenience of the roadside or river bed. You do not need to keep the drone in sight and it can be up to a kilometre away. No need to lug heavy backpacks of gear up mountains.
I now realize that, no matter how much money I throw at my gear, I will never be able to get the amazing images that a drone can effortlessly produce.
I guess that there is only a short time before everyone has a drone. Maybe, there is only, say, three years to benefit from the uniqueness of drone viewpoints. I also expect that, if everyone throws away their still cameras and buys a drone, the sky will be full of them and we will be having drone wars. Not to mention the restrictions against using drones over private property, national reserves, and so on, and the height limits.
So, 12MP images outclassing 80MP MFDB images based on on image content with no way for the 80MP images to exceed, or even emulate, because they cannot get to the same viewpoint and the hardware cannot be used with drones because they do not take video!
I would be interested in your comments, especially, if you can cure my depression.
Roger
Horses for courses.
If you love aerial photography then obviously a rig made for standard photography is not gonna satisfy you. Cameras are tools to help you achieve what you want. Get the right tool for that.
It is what it is.
Aerial Photography is another world and there are lots of awesome tools available today for it. I have shot from a Heli quite a few times and love the freedom it provides specially when one can direct the pilot to exactly the spot one wants.
-
Hi,
I guess that the original poster is a bit sarcastic. On the other hand there is something called evolution and new technologies arise and we may need to adopt them. This was pretty much case with digital photography which caused a disruptive change. Now, we have new technology, making things possible that were far less possible before.
I have been very much impressed by a short video recorded in the Dolomites by Jona Salcher: https://youtu.be/Abj7NPcaBU8
It was filmed by a DJI Phantom 3, in 4K I think. Interestingly, DJI has made a significant investment in Hasselblad a couple of months ago. I guess that investment signals some interest in development of medium format systems for drones.
Now, I don't think I am going into drones. But, it is very clear that drones do extend our options with regard to photography. Also, drones are ridiculously cheap compared helicopter flights.
Best regards
Erik
Horses for courses.
If you love aerial photography then obviously a rig made for standard photography is not gonna satisfy you. Cameras are tools to help you achieve what you want. Get the right tool for that.
It is what it is.
Aerial Photography is another world and there are lots of awesome tools available today for it. I have shot from a Heli quite a few times and love the freedom it provides specially when one can direct the pilot to exactly the spot one wants.
-
There's always a new way to look at something.
-
One way to deal with the pest:
http://www.dutchnews.nl/news/archives/2016/02/dutch-police-training-eagles-to-take-out-drones/
-
One way to deal with the pest:
http://www.dutchnews.nl/news/archives/2016/02/dutch-police-training-eagles-to-take-out-drones/
thanks, I needed this, great idea.
Paul C
-
There is nothing like shooting "Doors Off" in a Helicopter......It is my favorite. In my experiences it takes a bit getting situated with creating compositions at a rapid pace but, the smile on your face will be ear to ear the moment you take off. It's expensive but worth it. Also, you need 1/1600 or higher Shutter Speeds. There is no time to mess around with complicated gear and most your shots will be 14mm to 100mm (35mm FX). Many people will not jump on a helicopter due to expense or fear so, it further limits competitive work. Hey, it is my understanding that the new Phase XF shoots 1/1600 so there is your MF solution. Now you will have aerials with 100MP and an awesome in person view of the scene and a helicopter ride!!!! Will that beat a drone shot, that is for you to decide........I hope this makes you feel better......I have always found the low points in anything help me excel to another level when I try again or rethink my process......Good Luck!
-
Drones in most Countries are very limited. I had one before they were popular, even then I decided there was no legal way to make a decent profit shooting stills for my clients. Use one near buildings or people eventualy you will get jumped on by the law.
I can see the day when most people will of had enough of drones buzzing around their heads, peeping over the garden wall etc expect even more regs to control the use.
I was at a firework display on new years day. Someone decided to film it from a little Phantom, A/ it was illegal to fly within a crowd, B/ it was pis sing people off no end.
There is no reason why in the past you could not of hired a cherry picker or helicopter for a unique view, different than a drone but still different than Street level
As the public become educated as to what is or isn't legal, flying a drone will become even more difficult.
-
Beer. Beer will take care of your depression.
Slow clap for the subtle trolling though.
-
synn,
Beer will take care of your depression.
Alcohol is a depressant.
In order to escape his depression, what Roger requires is a stimulant... like cocaine.
-
As the public become educated as to what is or isn't legal, flying a drone will become even more difficult.
Keep in mind the FAA is starting to issue Exemptions for commercial use and allowing people to use drones including some case for events. It's going to be difficult here pretty soon to tell who's legal and who's not at first glance.
-
Also, you need 1/1600 or higher Shutter Speeds.
I've shot with an H3D at 400th with no camera shake, not in a hover obviously.
-
One possible parallel about unique views and fads: GoPro.
GoPro is in a massive tailspin (http://money.cnn.com/2016/02/04/technology/gopro-cameras-stock/index.html?iid=ob_homepage_tech_pool&iid=obnetwork)
-
Every larger event shoot I have bid on so far in the past 6 months requested a drone. I outsource it, and expect this to be part of the norm in trends requested.
-
the issue with drones, is that you might get taken out by a trained eagle :o
http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-35519470
-
You can shoot with as many (or as few) megapixels as you like, hanging the camera off a drone is not an obstacle. It's not about megapixels vs drone use.
If a drone works for you artistically, there's a way to make it happen. I personally have not yet caught the drone fever. Unless I am artificially creating a scene, if I am capturing something more or less faithfully that I did nothing to produce, other than standing in the right spot at the right time, I need to feel connected to the image I am capturing by viewing it at the camera. If I cannot do that, it doesn't feel like my image (I know - this is just a mental block to some). But capturing the image the way I see it is important to me. If I can't see it - as in my drone is hovering 30 feet above me - then that loses something for me.
Maybe in time this will change for me .... ::)
Nonetheless - not everyone has this perspective hanging around their neck, and if not, the creative possibilities are certainly enhanced with a drone.
Steve Hendrix
CI
-
Steve,
...capturing the image the way I see it is important to me. If I can't see it - as in my drone is hovering 30 feet above me - then that loses something for me.
VR Goggles (https://www.indiegogo.com/projects/flybi-first-drone-with-virtual-reality-goggles#/).
-
Steve,
VR Goggles (https://www.indiegogo.com/projects/flybi-first-drone-with-virtual-reality-goggles#/).
Oh no! I cannot deny the drones any longer.
That's funny Rob, thanks for showing me the way! :)
I was listening to an interview yesterday with George Miller, the guy who directed most of the Mad Max movies, but also was the Producer for Babe (go figure). He noted that the technology for the talking animals wasn't available when they wanted to film it, but they knew technology would come, and about 3 years later, voila.
Steve Hendrix
CI
-
The drone is a very cool perspective in a video footage. Its something beyond the inner experience and I love seeing them, so I can understand the demand. But unless it is your primary thing to do, then I can't see how a photographer can juggle both unless they sub it out.
But, it has nothing to do with gear and everything to do with delivering something beyond the experience within...Takes you to that out of the box view of things....Until it becomes norm, then we do it all over until that game changing "thing" what ever it might be comes into play...I don't know xray view photography or something? :-)
-
My son was in the same position with his drone as you want to be, Steve. He could see the video in real time, position the drone to frame a still shot and then press a "digital" button to take the shot. There was no hit and miss or guesswork. He could compose the shot with the same precision as we do. The difference is that he could put his camera anywhere in the sky to take the shot effortlessly.
Just to emphasise, he is not grabbing a video frame from the 1000s taken. He is taking a specific still shot.
I have attached an image which cannot be emulated because there are no nearby high spots to take the shot from. We are not talking about GoPros shots with their distortion.
Here's a link to a video showcasing his drone work during his visit to New Zealand. It shows shots of the Putangirua Pinnacles which no land-based photographer can get. Although this is video, the point is that at any time he can press a button and take a 12MP still shot. Remember the video is at Facebook resolution.
https://www.facebook.com/matthew.hayman.79/videos/10208244525607743/?pnref=story
Please allow for the limited Facebook resolution.
The negative things about drones that stop me from getting into them are the restrictions against using them and the high cost of buying a CMOS back and heavy-lifting drone.
Roger (still depressed)
PS If anyone wants a guided tour of the Putangirua Pinnacles (which were featured in a Lord of the Rings movie), let me know.
PPS I have just realised that the high cost included the cost of upgrading my IQ180 to the latest CMOS 100MP back. Might be safer and cheaper to buy a 50MP CMOS back?
You can shoot with as many (or as few) megapixels as you like, hanging the camera off a drone is not an obstacle. It's not about megapixels vs drone use.
If a drone works for you artistically, there's a way to make it happen. I personally have not yet caught the drone fever. Unless I am artificially creating a scene, if I am capturing something more or less faithfully that I did nothing to produce, other than standing in the right spot at the right time, I need to feel connected to the image I am capturing by viewing it at the camera. If I cannot do that, it doesn't feel like my image (I know - this is just a mental block to some). But capturing the image the way I see it is important to me. If I can't see it - as in my drone is hovering 30 feet above me - then that loses something for me.
Maybe in time this will change for me .... ::)
Nonetheless - not everyone has this perspective hanging around their neck, and if not, the creative possibilities are certainly enhanced with a drone.
Steve Hendrix
CI
-
Most landscape photographs are done at the edge of the day, or in the extreme weather, rarely in broad and bright daylight. Drones strike me as fair-weather tools, however. Given the vibrations, you'd need a very high shutter speed, thus high ISO. So, the end result might be a phenomenal viewpoint, but with a disappointing, broad-daylight lighting, or a noisy image. Or I am missing something?
-
Roger, can I ask what model drone your son is using?
Still cameras held in the hand will always be my first choice for nearly any serious photographic need, but I'm not averse to exploring something new...
-
Hi Slobodan,
I have posted a link to a video a couple of weeks ago. One of the places I love on this planet. It was just great!
There are a lot of developments going on. DJI is doing some great image stabilisation and 1" sensors can be awesome. Drones add a third dimension like a tripod on plenty of steroids.
Best regards
Erik
Most landscape photographs are done at the edge of the day, or in the extreme weather, rarely in broad and bright daylight. Drones strike me as fair-weather tools, however. Given the vibrations, you'd need a very high shutter speed, thus high ISO. So, the end result might be a phenomenal viewpoint, but with a disappointing, broad-daylight lighting, or a noisy image. Or I am missing something?
-
On one of the recent assignment our videographer crashed his drone to the tree and damaged the gimbal. Now that is depressing! A drone couldn't do macro shots either and couldn't (not yet anyway) sync with flash. I am happy to trade a drone with your latest Hasselblad or PhaseOne kit. ; )
-
On one of the recent assignment our videographer crashed his drone to the tree and damaged the gimbal. Now that is depressing! A drone couldn't do macro shots either and couldn't (not yet anyway) sync with flash. I am happy to trade a drone with your latest Hasselblad or PhaseOne kit. ; )
I'm not sure that I'd like to be in a room where one of those big drones is being used instead of a crane.
Edmund
-
I'm not sure that I'd like to be in a room where one of those big drones is being used instead of a crane.
Edmund
the word DRONE reminds me of having a headache - and i am sure it will happen with constantly more than 50 around ( on a sunny in principle noiseless day)
-
Retired now, I've shot a lot of helicopter aerials, mostly with a Tyler Middle Mount.
I see the current work done by drones and I'm wild with envy. They do stuff we could only dream of.
If my BFP hadn't just died, I'd be buying myself one, just for fun.
-
What has bothered me from the start on this post, is that it's implied that a 4K video still from any drone can compare to a 80MP or even 36MP still from a modern DSLR or Phase One back. Personally I don't believe there is any way it can, no matter what video camera/lens you have. I realize that the photographer is not using a GoPro, (the standard of the industry), but please go back and take a shot from that low end 80MP IQ180 with any lens in your inventory, then take that excellent 4K still and then uprez it to the size of the 80MP file, also please stay at 300ppi. Please now compare the files at 100% view or even print size. There is no way a 4K video still or even a still from a 12MP drone will hold up. If you are only interested in web posting, facebook, intagram etc. sure the files will look very close. But if you are working on a print say 20 x 30 or 24 x 36, the 12MP file from the drone especially if it's from a 4K still will more than likely fall apart. It has to be uprez'd as in native mode the 4K still was captured as a jpg, at 72ppi and in sRGB colorspace. No matter the camera/lens, for 1500.00 the sensor is not going to be very large in size more than likely not even the size of micro 4/3's. I have yet to find any software interpolation that can take a native 36MP D810 file to the same quality as a native 80MP IQ180 image, not at 360ppi and printed. You can get close but anytime you interpolate you lose, at least to me and I have tried them all. Which is why since 2003 I have always stitched, to reach more native resolution without interpolation.
I will agree that drones give a unique perspective on photography and have become common on most sets, (Discovery Channel, History Channel, ESPN, Nat Geo to name a few) but also please note that the vast majority of these shoots are pans, most often moving from near to far or vise versa and moving very fast so that you can't even begin to look at the details in the background. The eye is easily fooled with motion and you can get away with a lot, but just freeze one of those frames then look. These details are soft, even at 4K. The optics are not there yet mainly due to both weight and cost. Sure you can now mount a 100MP Phase One back on a drone, but make sure you have a great insurance policy as it's not a matter of if you will crash but when. I have worked
with several very highly rated (rated in both flight and photography) drone shooters and I have seen the stills, no more needs to be said.
Sadly, in the US, drones have taken on a bad name. I was into drones long before they became "in", and was flying with first person view before that was common also. It's great, and the features it offers are excellent. Great business for Farmers (field surveys), real estate.surveys etc. But instead of using this technology in the correct format, instead someone has to be the first person to loop Delicate Arch, or fly out over the Grand Canyon, or film the local college football game or fly over the White house, or use the drone around the local airport. All stupid and irresponsible, that stupid it what sticks. All it takes is one serious crash and then all bets are off unless it's being flown in a closed environment. Drones are also by nature quite loud, and the larger they get the louder they get. Using one in pubic where other people are near by should be taken with full regard to how the other people want to hear the constant high pitch sound of a 6 or 4 engine drone hovering overhead. Most times, this is not done. Where as I don't know of any still camera that makes enough noise, even a MF XF that you would be bothering someone who is standing 10 feet or even 5 feet away.
Sorry to sound a bit harsh as I try to stay on the positive, just can't on this subject. I just can't agree that the platforms mentioned in the first post are on equal terms and can deliver the same quality output.
Paul C
-
Drones can operate at the edges of the day just as well as other cameras. Drones can be affected by strong winds and rain but so are conventional cameras, although probably to a lesser degree.
The Putangirua Pinnacles image I uploaded was shot with 100 ISO at 1/800 sec and f2.8. There is no evidence of vibration.
The image is eminently usable. As someone said, I think, creativity and new perspectives will beat resolution any day. In any event, using a drone does not have to mean low resolution. There are drones capable of carrying DSLRs and a video has already been posted of a drone carrying P1's latest XF camera and a 100 MP back.
If you use a "proper" camera, you can have automatic exposure. So, the problem that another poster mentioned of over-, and under-, exposure can be avoided.
I think drones have a lot to offer despite your concerns.
Roger
Most landscape photographs are done at the edge of the day, or in the extreme weather, rarely in broad and bright daylight. Drones strike me as fair-weather tools, however. Given the vibrations, you'd need a very high shutter speed, thus high ISO. So, the end result might be a phenomenal viewpoint, but with a disappointing, broad-daylight lighting, or a noisy image. Or I am missing something?
-
Drones can operate at the edges of the day ....
Just how? That's a tripod territory. Or high ISO.
-
Just how? That's a tripod territory. Or high ISO.
well - as he said - fast lens, wide open.... f2.8.
Not my landscape style but to each his/her own :)
-
Most cameras on drones today are fixed on the aperture, mostly F 2.8. Protune on the Hero Black GoPro offers some changes, but I don't believe aperture is one of them. Thus you tend to get totally blown highlights in transitions, i.e. clouds on bright day. You see this all the time in videos from drones, it's just become accepted as part of it. You can change the ISO speed which helps some, but the best solution I ever found as add an ND filter. As I write this, I am sure there is a Inspire camera or some other one that now has an adjustable aperture, but still the vast majority of the shots taken are at F 2.8 fixed.
For the fact it's a fixed F 2.8 what you get can be very good, I will leave it at that.
Paul C
-
Hi,
I think that you can use real cameras with drones. They add new perspectives, just like a fisheye or telephoto lens. I guess we can buy a decent drone for the cost of two helicopter flights.
Best regards
Erik
Most cameras on drones today are fixed on the aperture, mostly F 2.8. Protune on the Hero Black GoPro offers some changes, but I don't believe aperture is one of them. Thus you tend to get totally blown highlights in transitions, i.e. clouds on bright day. You see this all the time in videos from drones, it's just become accepted as part of it. You can change the ISO speed which helps some, but the best solution I ever found as add an ND filter. As I write this, I am sure there is a Inspire camera or some other one that now has an adjustable aperture, but still the vast majority of the shots taken are at F 2.8 fixed.
For the fact it's a fixed F 2.8 what you get can be very good, I will leave it at that.
Paul C
-
well - as he said - fast lens, wide open.... f2.8.
Sure, you can take dawn or twilight landscape photos handheld too, no stinky tripod needed. F/2.8 and be there... with a couple of thousands ISO ;)
But that's not how most people shoot landscapes (unless you are a tornado chaser).
-
Thanks for your insights, Paul.
I neither agree nor disagree. What I think is that drones make new perspectives possible. Things I always wanted to do. And no, I don't fly drones.
Regarding quality, I have seen some high quality video. You are right, stills are something different. Obviously, you, me and say Bobby McGee may have widely different opinions about what is usable. (Sorry for the joke)
To that comes the issues you mentioned, need for permits and the extra gear to carry.
But, properly used in a proper context, I am pretty sure drones can be a great tool.
Best regards
Erik
What has bothered me from the start on this post, is that it's implied that a 4K video still from any drone can compare to a 80MP or even 36MP still from a modern DSLR or Phase One back. Personally I don't believe there is any way it can, no matter what video camera/lens you have. I realize that the photographer is not using a GoPro, (the standard of the industry), but please go back and take a shot from that low end 80MP IQ180 with any lens in your inventory, then take that excellent 4K still and then uprez it to the size of the 80MP file, also please stay at 300ppi. Please now compare the files at 100% view or even print size. There is no way a 4K video still or even a still from a 12MP drone will hold up. If you are only interested in web posting, facebook, intagram etc. sure the files will look very close. But if you are working on a print say 20 x 30 or 24 x 36, the 12MP file from the drone especially if it's from a 4K still will more than likely fall apart. It has to be uprez'd as in native mode the 4K still was captured as a jpg, at 72ppi and in sRGB colorspace. No matter the camera/lens, for 1500.00 the sensor is not going to be very large in size more than likely not even the size of micro 4/3's. I have yet to find any software interpolation that can take a native 36MP D810 file to the same quality as a native 80MP IQ180 image, not at 360ppi and printed. You can get close but anytime you interpolate you lose, at least to me and I have tried them all. Which is why since 2003 I have always stitched, to reach more native resolution without interpolation.
I will agree that drones give a unique perspective on photography and have become common on most sets, (Discovery Channel, History Channel, ESPN, Nat Geo to name a few) but also please note that the vast majority of these shoots are pans, most often moving from near to far or vise versa and moving very fast so that you can't even begin to look at the details in the background. The eye is easily fooled with motion and you can get away with a lot, but just freeze one of those frames then look. These details are soft, even at 4K. The optics are not there yet mainly due to both weight and cost. Sure you can now mount a 100MP Phase One back on a drone, but make sure you have a great insurance policy as it's not a matter of if you will crash but when. I have worked
with several very highly rated (rated in both flight and photography) drone shooters and I have seen the stills, no more needs to be said.
Sadly, in the US, drones have taken on a bad name. I was into drones long before they became "in", and was flying with first person view before that was common also. It's great, and the features it offers are excellent. Great business for Farmers (field surveys), real estate.surveys etc. But instead of using this technology in the correct format, instead someone has to be the first person to loop Delicate Arch, or fly out over the Grand Canyon, or film the local college football game or fly over the White house, or use the drone around the local airport. All stupid and irresponsible, that stupid it what sticks. All it takes is one serious crash and then all bets are off unless it's being flown in a closed environment. Drones are also by nature quite loud, and the larger they get the louder they get. Using one in pubic where other people are near by should be taken with full regard to how the other people want to hear the constant high pitch sound of a 6 or 4 engine drone hovering overhead. Most times, this is not done. Where as I don't know of any still camera that makes enough noise, even a MF XF that you would be bothering someone who is standing 10 feet or even 5 feet away.
Sorry to sound a bit harsh as I try to stay on the positive, just can't on this subject. I just can't agree that the platforms mentioned in the first post are on equal terms and can deliver the same quality output.
Paul C
-
I think it is a DJI Phantom Professional drone with 4K video. Is that enough detail because I can find more.
Roger
Roger, can I ask what model drone your son is using?
Still cameras held in the hand will always be my first choice for nearly any serious photographic need, but I'm not averse to exploring something new...
-
Yes, I think the legal limits on using drones are a valid concern. Best to get in now before the limits become fixed and enforced!
Seriously, there is a real risk that your images may be unusable because they breach someone's privacy and/or land rights. So, you might have to destroy your book's print run or tell your client to cancel their advertising campaign and re-shoot their photo material and have to pay damages for trespassing or breach of privacy (even if the images are not used).
Alternatively, you might have to sell your house to buy the rights you or your client need to continue.
Roger
Drones in most Countries are very limited. I had one before they were popular, even then I decided there was no legal way to make a decent profit shooting stills for my clients. Use one near buildings or people eventualy you will get jumped on by the law.
I can see the day when most people will of had enough of drones buzzing around their heads, peeping over the garden wall etc expect even more regs to control the use.
I was at a firework display on new years day. Someone decided to film it from a little Phantom, A/ it was illegal to fly within a crowd, B/ it was pis sing people off no end.
There is no reason why in the past you could not of hired a cherry picker or helicopter for a unique view, different than a drone but still different than Street level
As the public become educated as to what is or isn't legal, flying a drone will become even more difficult.
-
The Pinnacles shot I posted was done at 100 ISO and it is well-exposed on a less than full sunshine day. If you increase the ISO to 400, you can cope with -2 stops of light.
I think that gives quite a good range of light conditions to work with. MFDB with CMOS sensors can go a lot higher than 400 ISO and get good results.
Roger
Just how? That's a tripod territory. Or high ISO.
-
I think it is a DJI Phantom Professional drone with 4K video. Is that enough detail because I can find more.
Roger
Thanks, Roger! That's enough... found it. I think I might try this at some point. I don't think it would ever amount to anything more than 'nibbling around the edges' vis-a-vis serious photography. But as a hobby in and of itself - I used to be deeply into model rocketry and always meant to get around to RC planes - it might be quite fun.
Thanks...