Photographing rockets. What camera works for you and why?

the model rocket show
Wildman Rocketry
Advertise with us
The Rocketry Forum

Help Support The Rocketry Forum:

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.
I am sure you will be very happy with your camera and the Canon 70-200; Canon makes really good stuff. Ken Rockwell is very impressed with the 80D as it does 90% of what the top end Canon's do for a fraction of the price. I've had some sigma lenses in the past and I quit using them as the quality of the shots wasn't nearly as good as the shots made with Canon lenses. That said, I bought some low end lenses and it was years ago. I did a little research on the sigma lens you bought and it looks pretty good. Sigma has been improving their lenses over the years trying to play with the big boys. Stay away from their really cheap lenses; actually, stay away from everyone's really cheap lenses.

Have fun and post photos!
 
In order to capture the same amount of light the APS-C sensor will need 1.6 times the exposure that a full frame will need. That Northrop video gives a pretty good explanation of why. For rocket photography it really doesn't matter that much. Where it really matters is in low light conditions. I shoot indoor basketball at 1/640, F2, and ISO 6400. That's a case where you really need a FF to get a decent picture.

SCrocketfan said:
Right, sorry, I didn't explain well-it's F4.5 on APS-C for depth of field but F2.8 for light collection purposes right? As in, F2.8 on full frame and F2.8 on APS-C would both expose the same at the same shutter speed and ISO, but the APS-C has more depth of field and a smaller angle of view. Doesn't this also mean diffraction starts earlier on APS-C?
Click to expand...
 
Hey look, a few Nikon fans! I was afraid we were going to get completely shut out there.

My main hobby before rockets was photography, so I have a camera more suited to low light and weird artistic tastes than to rockets. I am obsessed with the Nikkor 17-35mm lens so I got a camera that could heft it. But I had a D90 long ago, and frankly that smaller sensor size is probably ideal for rockets. Heck maybe I should get a second body now.

I think it is important to remember that a cropped sensor is not the same as a zoom. You may have the same field of view and concentration of pixels as being zoomed, but you have a different picture! Watch a few cinema push pull examples to see that effect clearly. Of course for rockets the scenery is typically secondary.

Another tidbit to raise is aperture diffraction. With 35mm sensors and cropped consumer sensors f8 or so tends to maximize depth of field, and going any smaller works against you. This changes from lens to lens and camera to camera, but I keep f8 in mind as a starting point.

Lastly and most importantly, shoot more! Open up your pictures, compare, and do more of what works well. Make yourself try something new every once in a while too, and keep mixing in what works. I can see a huge difference in my own rocket pictures from a year ago, and even a few months ago, as my techniques evolve. You can get good results from most any gear, if you understand its limitations and work within its parameters.
 
watermelonman said:
Hey look, a few Nikon fans! I was afraid we were going to get completely shut out there.

My main hobby before rockets was photography, so I have a camera more suited to low light and weird artistic tastes than to rockets. I am obsessed with the Nikkor 17-35mm lens so I got a camera that could heft it. But I had a D90 long ago, and frankly that smaller sensor size is probably ideal for rockets. Heck maybe I should get a second body now.

I think it is important to remember that a cropped sensor is not the same as a zoom. You may have the same field of view and concentration of pixels as being zoomed, but you have a different picture! Watch a few cinema push pull examples to see that effect clearly. Of course for rockets the scenery is typically secondary.

Another tidbit to raise is aperture diffraction. With 35mm sensors and cropped consumer sensors f8 or so tends to maximize depth of field, and going any smaller works against you. This changes from lens to lens and camera to camera, but I keep f8 in mind as a starting point.

Lastly and most importantly, shoot more! Open up your pictures, compare, and do more of what works well. Make yourself try something new every once in a while too, and keep mixing in what works. I can see a huge difference in my own rocket pictures from a year ago, and even a few months ago, as my techniques evolve. You can get good results from most any gear, if you understand its limitations and work within its parameters.
Click to expand...

This is the best post in this thread with the last paragraph really bringing it all together.
 
hobie1dog said:
Is the 70-210 range the overall one lens to use for 90% of rocketry?
Click to expand...

I find the 70-200 on crop sensors to be pretty useful, with a lens like a 55-250 or 55-200 very nice too. On full frame, a 70-300 or 100-400 can be a nice substitute as well.

ChrisAttebery said:
In order to capture the same amount of light the APS-C sensor will need 1.6 times the exposure that a full frame will need. That Northrop video gives a pretty good explanation of why. For rocket photography it really doesn't matter that much. Where it really matters is in low light conditions. I shoot indoor basketball at 1/640, F2, and ISO 6400. That's a case where you really need a FF to get a decent picture.
Click to expand...

Thanks-that makes more sense now. I guess it's confusing to me as really small sensors (superzooms, point-and-shoot) can still gather enough light to shoot at high shutter speeds (my panasonic has a 1/2.3" sensor and can do 1/3200 @ F2.8 @ISO 100-200 for rockets). Definitely makes sense that there is light loss with smaller sensors though.

watermelonman said:
Hey look, a few Nikon fans! I was afraid we were going to get completely shut out there.

My main hobby before rockets was photography, so I have a camera more suited to low light and weird artistic tastes than to rockets. I am obsessed with the Nikkor 17-35mm lens so I got a camera that could heft it. But I had a D90 long ago, and frankly that smaller sensor size is probably ideal for rockets. Heck maybe I should get a second body now.

I think it is important to remember that a cropped sensor is not the same as a zoom. You may have the same field of view and concentration of pixels as being zoomed, but you have a different picture! Watch a few cinema push pull examples to see that effect clearly. Of course for rockets the scenery is typically secondary.

Another tidbit to raise is aperture diffraction. With 35mm sensors and cropped consumer sensors f8 or so tends to maximize depth of field, and going any smaller works against you. This changes from lens to lens and camera to camera, but I keep f8 in mind as a starting point.

Lastly and most importantly, shoot more! Open up your pictures, compare, and do more of what works well. Make yourself try something new every once in a while too, and keep mixing in what works. I can see a huge difference in my own rocket pictures from a year ago, and even a few months ago, as my techniques evolve. You can get good results from most any gear, if you understand its limitations and work within its parameters.
Click to expand...

D500!
 
For HPR on a full frame I think 400mm would be ideal. The 70-300L I have is a little short most of the time. I crop away about 1/2 of most of my rocket pictures.

hobie1dog said:
Is the 70-210 range the overall one lens to use for 90% of rocketry?
Click to expand...
 
Yep, if you're not trying anything new you're not learning.


watermelonman said:
Lastly and most importantly, shoot more! Open up your pictures, compare, and do more of what works well. Make yourself try something new every once in a while too, and keep mixing in what works. I can see a huge difference in my own rocket pictures from a year ago, and even a few months ago, as my techniques evolve. You can get good results from most any gear, if you understand its limitations and work within its parameters.
Click to expand...
 
This is my first post, got the bug into rocketry again, yada yada. :)

Experiment, and try new things, one of my best shots was taken with a 30 year old Maxxum 9000 on some ISO 100 slide film.



To the one from last month, taken with a Sony Alpha 700 of a Estes Alpha. :p

DSC06398 by David Aragon, on Flickr

Then the first, and only flight of my STM-012, using a E9-6 the second flight CATO'ed from that engine pack.

DSC06416 by David Aragon, on Flickr

That Comanche 3 lawn darted due to me not securing the C11-0 with tape... Oops.

Yeah, use different cameras, settings, and you'd be surprise the such a basic kit can do so much.
 
Last edited:
firesalto, Really nice pictures. I especially like the pictures of rockets in descent. Seeing the different recovery harness setups is informative.
 
I haven't jumped in to PS too much. LR does 99% of what I need. I would like to see what you can do with these two pictures though. If you're interested I can send you the RAW files to play with.



TangoJuliet said:
That's some nice work Chris.

I use Photoshop CS5 for my editing needs. I tried LR once and didn't really like it - learning curve I guess. What I like about PS is the ability to do layers. Like with your 2 stop under-exposed images to get the flame colors in better detail, I could layer a copy of the image and bring the rocket/background back into a proper exposer, and composite the image. I believe Elements can do that, but I don't think LR can.
Click to expand...
 
ChrisAttebery said:
I haven't jumped in to PS too much. LR does 99% of what I need. I would like to see what you can do with these two pictures though. If you're interested I can send you the RAW files to play with.
Click to expand...

I got your PM. I'll gladly play with them a little when I can.
 
hobie1dog said:
Thanks for sharing this with us. I liked the one of Sam's dog. I tend to always like pictures that have people in them holding their rockets.
Click to expand...

Which is something else to keep in mind when photographing models (miniatures). Having something in the image to suggest the scale of the model for those that may not be familiar with the subject is helpful. One of the now defunct R/C magazines was always real good about having a cover photo that showed a model (Female Human) with the model (Miniature Airplane). :wink:
 

Latest posts

Back
Top