To Zoom or Not to Zoom... That is the quesiton.

TDSapp

TPF Noob!
Joined
Jun 17, 2007
Messages
24
Reaction score
0
Location
Frisco Texas
Can others edit my Photos
Photos OK to edit
What is better? When I am shooting at a rocket launch I use a Nikon D70 with a 70-300mm lens. When I first started shoiting rockets I found that I was standing along way away and putting the camera at 300mm. Now I find that I am getting closer and only shooting around 135mm. I just "feel" that being closer with a shorter focal length gives me more details when I am done. Is this just a feeling or am I getting more detail by being closer like that?

Here are a couple of the photos that I have taken.


Diablo.jpg


ThorX.jpg


Nikon D70
70-300mm @ 135mm
f8 2500/sec
ISO 100


Tim Sapp
 
I know some lenses have fallout (I think that is the right word) at longer focal lengths. It would depend on how good of a lens you have.
 
There are several 70-300. The AF Nikkor is horrible at 300mm compared to 200mm, and so is the Sigma. The 70-300 AF-S VR Nikkor isn't too bad at 300 though. Pretty much nearly all zoom lenses falloff at the long end of their zoom.
 
Not related to photography, but...are those high-powered rocketry birds? What kind of engines are they using? Pretty nice pics!

Yeah this is High Power Rocketry... The Diablo is a L3 certification and is flying on a single N motor. The motor is APCP and is the same propellant that is used for the Solid Rocket Boosters for the shuttle.

Here is another photo so you can get the idea of the scale. Ron is at least 5'10 or taller.

Diablo_Scale.jpg




The Thor-X is 28.5' tall and weighed 335lbs loaded. It is flying in this photo on 1 N motor and 3 M motors all lit on the pad (no air starts).

Tim Sapp
 
awesome one of those rockets says thor on it !!!!

yey
 
Thanks for the comments on the pictures and the rockets.

---

Lets get a bit deeper on the orignal quesiton. Lets say that the zooms are created equal, that there is no fall off on the lens when at 300mm. Does a shorter focal length allow more light and more detail to hit the sensor?

When shooting a large object that has lots of detail (like smoke and fire), which is better;

A. to be 150' from subject and at 135mm

or

B. to be 300' and at 300mm


I am thinking that just like our eyes that if we are closer we are able to see more details when closer. But... Our eyes are not designed to get "closer" to the subject like a zoom and change the focal length as much as a camera.

Tim Sapp
 
The only thing that would change is the perspective. From 300' at 300mm the background would appear larger. The rest comes down to your equipment. If you feel that the lens you are using is not sharp at 300mm and sharpness is one of your primary criteria for a good image then you may be better off trying at 150'
 
If you usually shoot at the same range and focal length, Try a prime lens of that focal length. You should see a noticeable increase in sharpness and detail. I think I would compromise and maybe shoot a 180 f/2.8.
 
When you get closer with a shorter lens you reduce the perspective foreshortening, increase depth of field at every aperture and you reduce the likelihood of camera shake. That's the difference. As long time wide angle shooter, I have a tendency to prefer getting as close as I can to the subject.
 
When shooting a large object that has lots of detail (like smoke and fire), which is better;

A. to be 150' from subject and at 135mm

or

B. to be 300' and at 300mm

Smoke & Fire! Um, I'd be as far away as possible :wink:.
 
Nice shots. That is one awesome hobby.

I always wanted to be a rocket scientist.:D

BTW, NASA is looking for you. :D
 
I'd kind of feel the same way that getting closer would produce better images, not just because of the lense but just because I have odd superstitions ha ha.
 

Most reactions

New Topics

Back
Top