Camera for log photos

[drycreek]

Having more zoom capabilities is nice, but not necessary for taking pictures for your log. For a log, wide angle capabilities would probably be more important than telephoto.

[rockwoodrv9]

Ok, I have read the recommendations so far and there have been some pretty good thoughts on what camera is best. I am posting a picture of the camera I use. Im not saying it is for everyone and maybe it isn't easy, fast, or cheap to use, but you can get some really good photos from it.

I haven't actually seen any of my build photos yet because there is no place around here to get the film developed - or purchase for that matter. After I send my film to SLC to get developed, they send it back. Then I only have to get my scanner out, scan the negative, crop and take the dust out in photoshop, then I can post the build shots. Hopefully I will be able to get some build photos up before I get to painting.

Just let me know if you want to know the film I use or the place mail to to for developing. I bet they are going to be winner shots!

[flion]

Originally Posted by drycreek

Having more zoom capabilities is nice, but not necessary for taking pictures for your log. For a log, wide angle capabilities would probably be more important than telephoto.

Not really. I find that I tend to take a lot of detail shots and even the general ones don't require a wide angle because I'm not trying to get the whole hangar, just a specific area of the project. The problem I've had with taking project photos (and a pro photographer, which I am not, could probably state this better) is in the detail shots, where I often have to turn off the autofocus and autoflash, set the exposure time, and try to make sure the zoom function does not exceed the optical limits. Shiny aluminum at close quarters does nasty things to photography.

[drycreek]

Originally Posted by flion

Not really. I find that I tend to take a lot of detail shots and even the general ones don't require a wide angle because I'm not trying to get the whole hangar, just a specific area of the project. The problem I've had with taking project photos (and a pro photographer, which I am not, could probably state this better) is in the detail shots, where I often have to turn off the autofocus and autoflash, set the exposure time, and try to make sure the zoom function does not exceed the optical limits. Shiny aluminum at close quarters does nasty things to photography.

Well, I guess it is just personal preference. I normally don't use a lot of zoom for indoor pictures because as you zoom in, your aperture gets narrower which means you have to use a lower shutter speed or a higher ISO number. Either one can degrade image quality.

[flion]

No, I agree with you absolutely about the camera effects. It's just that subject trumps the ease-of-use issues for me. If I install a CPC at the wing root area of the fuselage, a wide shot loses the plug in a wide wall of fuselage side but a tight shot shows the plug (not too close, though, or you lose context). My logbook tends to be full of detail shots; I'm looking forward to the days when I can step back and take pictures of the whole airframe. Or, better still, the view from the airframe in motion.