Personal camera for Airborne Photographer (AP)

[edwardd20]

When I trained at NESA in 2010, I learned about the Nikon D200 and the Garmin eTrek. That worked great. However we only have one in the wing (IL). The other Wing camera is a D90 that doesn't accept an external GPS for GeoTagging (I don't want to go the route of matching the GPS and camera photos up later).

I'm looking to purchase my own DSLR camera with a similar but more modern setup. I was wondering if anybody can suggest something specific or point me to a good blog or podcast.

What I would like is a good DSLR with Bluetooth so I could get a Bluetooth GPS (easily available for iPads). The GPS would sit up front in full view of the satellites and connect wirelessly to the DSLR providing live GPS tagging of the photos. To me it sounds simple but I can't find anything like it.

Suggestions? Thanks.

Ed

1Lt Edward Danley
GLR-IL-189

[lordmonar]

IIRC there was a directive that went out about NOT using personal cameras for AFAM photo missions.

[wuzafuzz]

I'm not aware of a directive prohibiting personal cameras, but I have heard a lot of talk (clarifications) recently about not sharing photos taken on any AF funded flight.  Even those taken on personal cameras or phones, whether or not the photos are requested in the mission requirements.  Pretty sunset on a AF funded flight?  Enjoy it, but don't share a photo of it.

As far as personal cameras go, from what I've seen the Canon brand only provides for attached GPS at the pro level D-SLR cameras.  Nikon allows GPS with less expensive cameras such as the D7000, D3100, etc.   The D7000 is on my wish list right now.   Some other brands may offer similar features.  I wish Canon allowed GPS on cheaper bodies, because I already have Canon lenses and accessories.

http://snapsort.com/compare/Nikon_D3100-vs-Nikon_D7000

[davidsinn]

Sony has a sub $400 camera(DSC-HX100v) with 30x optical zoom and built in GPS.

[denverpilot]

I've been very happy with my switch to the Sony A-series SLT (Single Lens Translucent - they use a prism instead of a moving mirror) cameras. The A-55 with a good lens does a very nice job. The A-77 a family member owns is stellar at everything.  Makes a mediocre photographer look like a pro with a much more expensive Nikon or Canon.

The current Sony SLT tech is basically Minolta's engineering which always was impressive. The cameras will use many old Minolta AF lenses.

The admonitions regarding ownership of the photos is appropriate. I keep anything shot for CAP in separate folders and never part of my stream of personal photos. I also consider them expendable once appropriate photos are uploaded to WMIRS.

(By the way, I believe there's a time zone bug in WMIRS if your camera does the date/time stamping in the EXIF data automatically in Zulu time. Watch the timestamps if yours does. The A55 has a built in GPS and stores location and time in the EXIF data. It appears to me that the time presented after upload is one hour off during daylight savings time. The conversion happening on the server is not DST-aware, I assume.)

The Wing cameras are semi-useless and I'll tell you why.  You don't get good at photography by not practicing. And you need to practice with the camera you're going to use. You need to know it intimately. How to quickly set modes and manual settings, how to force it to infinity and stop auto-focus from an aircraft at altitude with a long lens attached, how to quickly review photos after taking them either on-board the camera or on a laptop screen via tethering. (Or maybe one of those fancy EyeFi memory cards. That's a nifty gadget if you've practiced with it.)

Another problem with the Wing gear is that it isn't depreciated nearly fast enough in ORMS. Damage a four or five year old camera and be on the hook for many hundreds of dollars higher than even the most cherry/pristine version of that camera is worth on the real used market? No thanks.

Another route to go is Squadron-based/owned camera gear. It's accessible enough to get folk's hands on it for extended periods of time and build a training curricula around. Our Squadron is starting to experiment with this concept.

Camera tech changes quickly. Most SLRs depreciate almost fully in real resale value in about 3-5 years, max. Closer to 3 on the low end, 5 on top of the line equipment. Lenses also depreciate at wildly different rates as the body does.

I even cringe a little suggesting the A55 other than I know it has come down in price since I bought mine. The A77 took away its top-billing status in Sony's lineup. This happens every year in almost all manufacturer's lines. Nikon has had a few year of doldrums but seems to be correcting their slowdown in releases for bodies in the mid-high "prosumer" market.

Anyway, I digress.  The Sony A-series are very nice, if you're willing to spend the bucks.  I enjoy mine. It also happens to serve CAP, but I don't tell folks to run out and spend that kind of money unless they truly do enjoy photography.

[edwardd20]

As far as personal cameras go, from what I've seen the Canon brand only provides for attached GPS at the pro level D-SLR cameras.  Nikon allows GPS with less expensive cameras such as the D7000, D3100, etc.   The D7000 is on my wish list right now.   Some other brands may offer similar features.  I wish Canon allowed GPS on cheaper bodies, because I already have Canon lenses and accessories.

http://snapsort.com/compare/Nikon_D3100-vs-Nikon_D7000

The Wing D90 is one camera that won't work live with an external GPS where the D200 did. The D7000 the article says it basically the same as the D90. Too bad. That one kicks it off my list of options.

[edwardd20]

I've been very happy with my switch to the Sony A-series SLT (Single Lens Translucent - they use a prism instead of a moving mirror) cameras. The A-55 with a good lens does a very nice job. The A-77 a family member owns is stellar at everything.  Makes a mediocre photographer look like a pro with a much more expensive Nikon or Canon.

I too am an old Minolta user. I was favoring the A-55 but I see it is no longer listed. I need to adjust to the new model numbers. They seem to change every 6 months, even faster than computers.

[edwardd20]

Sony has a sub $400 camera(DSC-HX100v) with 30x optical zoom and built in GPS.

I have actually been considering a non-DSLR with a good lens like this. However I want the ability for an external GPS so I can shoot from the back seat of a C172 or C182.

[sdcapmx]

Our wing does allow personal cameras on a case by case basis.  Also before you get wrapped up hooking a GPS to the camera you may want to try using a good datalogger and using the ARGUS website to process your photos and merge your tracks to the photos.  We have done this with great success with thousands of photos for FEMA and other organizations.

AMOD makes a good, easy to use affordable model.

[edwardd20]

Our wing does allow personal cameras on a case by case basis.  Also before you get wrapped up hooking a GPS to the camera you may want to try using a good datalogger and using the ARGUS website to process your photos and merge your tracks to the photos.  We have done this with great success with thousands of photos for FEMA and other organizations.

AMOD makes a good, easy to use affordable model.

I was trying to avoid the datalogger approach. I don't like to do steps when one should be able to do it. Especially with the explosion of today's Bluetooth GPS's

[wuzafuzz]

As far as personal cameras go, from what I've seen the Canon brand only provides for attached GPS at the pro level D-SLR cameras.  Nikon allows GPS with less expensive cameras such as the D7000, D3100, etc.   The D7000 is on my wish list right now.   Some other brands may offer similar features.  I wish Canon allowed GPS on cheaper bodies, because I already have Canon lenses and accessories.

http://snapsort.com/compare/Nikon_D3100-vs-Nikon_D7000

The Wing D90 is one camera that won't work live with an external GPS where the D200 did. The D7000 the article says it basically the same as the D90. Too bad. That one kicks it off my list of options.

The D7000 will work with GPS.  Nikon even sells a GP-1 GPS unit as an accessory for that camera.
http://www.nikonusa.com/Nikon-Products/Product/Digital-SLR-Cameras/25468/D7000.html#tab-ProductDetail-ProductTabs-System

I'm not saying the D7000 is better or worse than other choices presented.  Only that GPS is an option on that camera.  The Sony camera that Denverpilot mentions sounds pretty nice, especially with the built-in GPS.

It is absolutely true that its difficult to become proficient with a camera you rarely use or even see.  You do not want to be fighting the camera when you're getting tossed around in the limited space in the cockpit.  The only reason I stick with Nikon is I used their cameras all day, every day, when I was a crime scene tech and then for fun for years afterward.  17 years as a Nikon shooter, so when I pick up the D200 assigned to my squadron, it fits like a glove.

[edwardd20]

Nikon even sells a GP-1 GPS unit as an accessory for that camera.

The problem withe GP-1 is that the cord is only about 6 inches long. It won't clear the wings to get a GPS signal.

[Eclipse]

In a briefing presented last year by CAP-USAF and 1AF, it was made clear that all photographs taken on an AFAM are the property of the
USAF/1AF, and may not be released without the joint permission of the USAF and the customer.  I don't recall if they made any distinction between
"Here's the ICP" and "Here's the wreckage."  I'm reasonably sure that it was a public briefing and I will post it as soon as I can find it.

During our eval in Feb, all cameras had to be checked in with the IC, who would consider whether to grant permission for their use, though the
practical reality of that is clearly a challenge.

At the BISC class 3 weeks ago, it was pointed out that a lot teams carry inexpensive disposable cameras because the NTSB and other agencies can
impound a camera with crash photos as evidence - not something you'd want to happen to a $1000 DSLR.

Real-time GPS is a nice feature, but the average $150 point and shoot with a 10x(+) optical zoom is more than adequate for the types of photos
we generally take.  The higher pixel densities of today's "junk" cameras means that even AP's with lower skill levels can take usable photos.

My 3Mp Casio from 10 years ago still takes excellent photos, runs on AA's, and I would not be heartbroken if it were impounded.  My Nikon 5700 (the original SDIS camera), chatty lens and all, does everything necessary from the air - I use a Garmin 3+ on a knee board to record flight tracks and waypoints.  Granted that's a little "steampunk", but it works.

The problem withe GP-1 is that the cord is only about 6 inches long. It won't clear the wings to get a GPS signal.

The Garmin 3+ has a similar issue, I got a 6ft coax cable with a suction cup on it and stick it to the window.

[wuzafuzz]

Nikon even sells a GP-1 GPS unit as an accessory for that camera.

The problem withe GP-1 is that the cord is only about 6 inches long. It won't clear the wings to get a GPS signal.

So buy a compatible GPS that permits a longer cable, or a Bluetooth connection..  Third party GPS units are probably cheaper anyway. 
http://terrywhite.com/techblog/unleashed-gps-bluetooth-geotagging-solution-for-nikon-dslrs/

[wuzafuzz]

At the BISC class 3 weeks ago, it was pointed out that a lot teams carry inexpensive disposable cameras because the NTSB and other agencies can
impound a camera with crash photos as evidence - not something you'd want to happen to a $1000 DSLR.

I wonder if that's more urban legend than actual practice.  I've taken photos numerous times that the NTSB put the "habeas grabus" on.  They were perfectly happy to accept the negatives or picture card.  Can't think of a legitimate reason to take the camera when you can get all the data from the storage.

I would readily hand over a picture card.  Anyone desirous of seizing a personal camera better have some legal paperwork authorizing said seizure or it's not happening.  Having said that, if the folks in a position of authority DO decide to grab the camera, it could take some legal wrangling to get it back.  As a general rule bureaucrats can't be depended on to act reasonably.  (I say that as a former gov't employee!)

[edwardd20]

So buy a compatible GPS that permits a longer cable, or a Bluetooth connection..  Third party GPS units are probably cheaper anyway. 
http://terrywhite.com/techblog/unleashed-gps-bluetooth-geotagging-solution-for-nikon-dslrs/

Now that's what I'm looking for. Thanks!

[edwardd20]

At the BISC class 3 weeks ago, it was pointed out that a lot teams carry inexpensive disposable cameras because the NTSB and other agencies can
impound a camera with crash photos as evidence - not something you'd want to happen to a $1000 DSLR.

I wonder if that's more urban legend than actual practice.  I've taken photos numerous times that the NTSB put the "habeas grabus" on.  They were perfectly happy to accept the negatives or picture card.  Can't think of a legitimate reason to take the camera when you can get all the data from the storage.

I would readily hand over a picture card.  Anyone desirous of seizing a personal camera better have some legal paperwork authorizing said seizure or it's not happening.  Having said that, if the folks in a position of authority DO decide to grab the camera, it could take some legal wrangling to get it back.  As a general rule bureaucrats can't be depended on to act reasonably.  (I say that as a former gov't employee!)

At NESA we were taught to be prepared to simply turn over the camera cards. But should all be spelled out ahead of time as part of mission planning. The AP needs to understand what all is involved. Unfortunately most of the time it is MS not an AP taking the photos and they haven't received that particular training.

[Eclipse]

At the BISC class 3 weeks ago, it was pointed out that a lot teams carry inexpensive disposable cameras because the NTSB and other agencies can
impound a camera with crash photos as evidence - not something you'd want to happen to a $1000 DSLR.

I wonder if that's more urban legend than actual practice.  I've taken photos numerous times that the NTSB put the "habeas grabus" on.  They were perfectly happy to accept the negatives or picture card.  Can't think of a legitimate reason to take the camera when you can get all the data from the storage.

I would readily hand over a picture card.  Anyone desirous of seizing a personal camera better have some legal paperwork authorizing said seizure or it's not happening.  Having said that, if the folks in a position of authority DO decide to grab the camera, it could take some legal wrangling to get it back.  As a general rule bureaucrats can't be depended on to act reasonably.  (I say that as a former gov't employee!)

I agree, though that assumes the card is removable - the iPhone, for example, does not have removable storage, so the expedient thing to do might be
to impound it, especially if the photos were sensitive for some reason.

I can't say I know of this happening personally, but this was from the Chief of the AFRCC, so they see a lot more wrecks then we do, just something to
consider, especially when you can buy a throw-away digital camera for next to nothing these days as well.

[Spaceman3750]

In a briefing presented last year by CAP-USAF and 1AF, it was made clear that all photographs taken on an AFAM are the property of the
USAF/1AF, and may not be released without the joint permission of the USAF and the customer.  I don't recall if they made any distinction between
"Here's the ICP" and "Here's the wreckage."  I'm reasonably sure that it was a public briefing and I will post it as soon as I can find it.

I learned that this weekend, at which point I made the mistake of saying "Huh? Where does it say that?" to the wing king (who was sitting in the room)... One of these days I'll learn to shut up and color.

[wuzafuzz]

At the BISC class 3 weeks ago, it was pointed out that a lot teams carry inexpensive disposable cameras because the NTSB and other agencies can
impound a camera with crash photos as evidence - not something you'd want to happen to a $1000 DSLR.

I wonder if that's more urban legend than actual practice.  I've taken photos numerous times that the NTSB put the "habeas grabus" on.  They were perfectly happy to accept the negatives or picture card.  Can't think of a legitimate reason to take the camera when you can get all the data from the storage.

I would readily hand over a picture card.  Anyone desirous of seizing a personal camera better have some legal paperwork authorizing said seizure or it's not happening.  Having said that, if the folks in a position of authority DO decide to grab the camera, it could take some legal wrangling to get it back.  As a general rule bureaucrats can't be depended on to act reasonably.  (I say that as a former gov't employee!)

I agree, though that assumes the card is removable - the iPhone, for example, does not have removable storage, so the expedient thing to do might be
to impound it, especially if the photos were sensitive for some reason.

I can't say I know of this happening personally, but this was from the Chief of the AFRCC, so they see a lot more wrecks then we do, just something to
consider, especially when you can buy a throw-away digital camera for next to nothing these days as well.

Absolutely true, if the camera has on-board storage that can't be removed, the camera may disappear for a while if the photos can be considered evidence.  What I don't know is whether photos can be seized as evidence if no crime is suspected.  No idea how that would work for a plane crash when there is no suspicion of foul play. 

Single use film cameras used to be great for that kind of thing.  I used to carry one of those when I was a cop.  Believe it or not, they are still available.  Would still make a reasonable addition to a ground team pack.  Lightweight, no batteries, disposable if needed.

Of course, a camera will almost certainly be seized, along with any photos it contains, if there is reasonable suspicion it was used to commit a crime.    Been there, done that.  The rest of the time, the photos themselves may be evidence, but the tool used to take them...usually not.

It's also possible there is an Air Force instruction, statement of work, or some other such document that we are bound by when acting in the performance of our CAP duties.  If something like that exists that puts our personal cameras in jeopardy in some circumstance, I would love to know about it.  Can't make informed decisions without all the info!

[Eclipse]

Absolutely true, if the camera has on-board storage that can't be removed, the camera may disappear for a while if the photos can be considered evidence.  What I don't know is whether photos can be seized as evidence if no crime is suspected.  No idea how that would work for a plane crash when there is no suspicion of foul play. 

I believe all aircraft crashes are considered crime scenes until the NTSB releases them.

[Flying Pig]

Last time I took photos of a plane crash site, the FAA and NTSB just asked me if I could email them.  Dude handed me a card with his email on it.  After I emailed them, I got back "Thanks for all of your help getting these to us." 

A lot of that seizing camera stuff is Hollywood.  99.9% of the time, the NTSB or the fAA will take the same photos you did.  Nobody is going to seize your camera.  If its determined to be a crime....again, nobody is going to rip your camera off of your neck.  In todays day and age, probably the most involved you will get is plugging your digital camera into some FAA inspectors lap top and downloading them right there, or politely being asked for your sim card so they can download them.  If you have film, sure, they may ask for the film, but again, thats why your there.  Nobody is going to "take" anything from you.

[sardak]

Regarding a camera. I have a Sony DSC-HX5V, 10 Mp, 10x optical zoom, steady shot, built in GPS and compass, so the coordinates and the direction the camera was pointed are recorded in the EXIF data. I've used it from the air and the results meet the requirements. Mine is a couple of years old and it's now sub $300.

As for the photos you take, this is from CAPR 60-3, para. 1-21: "No mission records will be released outside CAP without prior written approval of NHQ CAP/GC and HQ CAP-USAF/JA." This statement has been in the ES regs dating back to at least 1992. The interpretation is that it includes photos on any AFAM mission.

That release approval includes NTSB requests. I've been on several missions where the NTSB wanted our records and photos and they were obtained after approval by NHQ. It was no big deal on the NTSB's part or CAP's part.

The NTSB has a brochure for first responders to an aircraft crash which includes instructions on taking photographs http://www.ntsb.gov/doclib/agency_reports/SPC0402.pdf  As for the NTSB confiscating cameras, etc., I've not heard of it being done. In my experience they've always been very friendly. Per Title 49 Code of Federal Regulation Section 831.9 (49 CFR 831.9) concerning the NTSB:
"Upon demand of an authorized member of the Board, and presentation of credentials, any Government agency, or person having possession or control of...pertinent records...shall forthwith permit inspection, photographing or copying by such authorized representative... The Safety Board may issue a subpoena...to obtain...evidence. Authorized representatives of the Board may question any person..."

There may be local laws regarding crashes as crime scenes, but there is nothing in the NTSB rules, regs and policies that says so. Two clauses in the US Code discuss what happens if the Attorney General or a Federal law enforcement agency suspects that criminal activity is involved. The investigation is either turned over to FBI or the NTSB takes necessary action to preserve evidence.

Mike

[bflynn]

After all the work to get the airplane into position, the actual quality of the picture comes down to the camera.

Our squadron has a Nikon d200 - it's a nice camera although I never learned how to use it well because I have access to a good camera and someone else always needs it - on training exercises, everyone can't use the same camera. 

If I were buying, my target camera would be something like a Nikon d3100 + 255mm zoom lens with image stabilization, available from Target for about $800.  Just about any DSLR camera with interchangable lenses will work, but they're all really expensive.  Just about all cameras without interchangable lenses can produce great photos, but you really have to work harder at it.  Having a great camera is 90% of the trick.

Beyond a specific camera, I'll mention the things that you should look for in a camera:

1) set the shutter speed.  You have to be able to lock the shutter to a high speed; I use 1/500.  If you allow the shutter speed to float, you'll get blurred photos.
2) Optical zoom.  This is the only kind of zoom you should have.  Furthermore get the best zoom you can - a great zoom lens can make up for a lot of leeway in getting the airplane in the right place.
2a) How the optical zoom operates.  Low end cameras will zoom with your right index finger, a little lever that lets you zoom in/out...I can't stand them.  I need a bezel on the lens that I spin in/out with my left hand.  Control is much better, much faster.  Get what works for you.
3) SD card storage - mandatory for me because my computer has a SD reader.  Know how you're going to get images to your computer, USB usually works but isn't optimal.
4) "Drive" mode, where you hold the shutter button down and take multiple images.  I usually take pictures in bursts of 3-5.  On a rough, bouncy day, you might need 5 pictures to get one good image.  Higher end cameras will drive faster.  Lower end cameras will drive slow.
5) 10MP or better.  At some point, you don't need more MP, I've found 10 MP plenty large enough for CAP work.

It feels like I"m missing something - what else is important?

[EMT-83]

After all the work to get the airplane into position, the actual quality of the picture comes down to the camera...

I can't agree with that statement. A really good photographer with a so-so camera is going to take a better shot than a so-so photographer with a really good camera.

[bflynn]

After all the work to get the airplane into position, the actual quality of the picture comes down to the camera...

I can't agree with that statement. A really good photographer with a so-so camera is going to take a better shot than a so-so photographer with a really good camera.

I think I said that - you can get good pictures with a so-so camera.  But you're going to have to work harder at it (be better).

On the other hand, no amount of skill can take a great picture with an iphone.  At some point, the camera becomes a limiting factor.

90% of the work of being an airborne photographer is getting the airplane to right place.  But all that work until you get there is worthless unless you have a sufficient camera to take the picture with.

I've used supercompacts, low end SLRs and high end SLRs.  My experience is that high end SLRs are the way to go - you're worked so hard to get here, you want the highest reliability that you can get at this point.

[EMT-83]

Not trying to pick a fight. Oh wait, this is CAP Talk!

I have a personal D50; not a great camera, but not bad either. I can get better results from that camera than the higher-end Wing cameras. Why? Because I know how to use it.

There is a point where operator skill is more important than the actual tool being used.

[bflynn]

Agreed.

I see three basic types of cameras -

1) Point and Shoot.  Something like a Nikon CoolPix L24 or Digital Elph 110 - a small camera, you can carry it in your pocket and it works well for taking snapshots at Disneyworld.  It's not so great for CAP.  I have one of these and while you can set it up for aerial photography, it is complicated and it has limits.  Frequently it has no optical zoom, so it should be avoided.  The repeat rate in drive mode is slow. 

2) Low-end SLR - my name for it.  Something like a Canon PowerShot SX150 or CoolPix L810.  Typically these have a fixed lens, but they start to look like a SLR camera.  On the plus side, they are simple to set up, to set to shutter priority and set the shutter speed.  However, using them takes practice in terms of zooming in and out because of an awkward zoom method.  And the drive mode on the few that I've seen is still really slow.  Price is in the $175-250 range.  This is probably the minimum acceptable camera for CAP work, although the lack of telephoto lenses make it less desirable.

3) A high-end SLR fixes all these issues, but they cost the most too.  Like any other camera, it takes time to learn to set it up - but once you know how, IMHO it's the easiest to operate and the most capable. 

Going across on a photo pass, you're in a good photo range for something like 15 seconds.  That's 15 seconds to get the pictures you need without making a second loop.  For that, I want a camera that I can zoom and resize to exactly what I want in 1/2 second, not 3-4 seconds.  And one that shoots 5 images in a second, not 1-2. 

One of the key things I teach that I haven't mentioned - volume.  When you take 300 images of a target, it's hard not to get some great ones.  It's another reason I like the high end SLR - you can get a lot of images in a short time at many different zoom ranges.

So at whatever skill level you're at, the easiest camera to make great pictures with is the high-end SLR.

[Eclipse]

Any point and shoot from your big box, with a decent optical zoom and mid-range pixel depth is fine.

If members want to go and waste 2-3x the price to have a toy they will never begin to use, so be it, but it is not necessary.

[Al Sayre]

The biggest problem is simply the lack of CAP provided cameras.  Until NHQ or USAF come up with the funds to put a fairly decent DSLR camera in every aircraft and vehicle (standardization would also be nice), and supply us some kind of training on using them besides "here's the owners manual" we are going to have to rely on the generosity of our members who provide their skill and personally owned cameras and equipment in order to provide the quality photos that they expect.  I've got a Nikon D3100 with an EZ-tag bluetooth gps and a decent assortment of lenses that works very well for me, but if you just hand me some other Nikon, or a Canon etc. it's going to take me a little while to figure out how to operate in anything but the point and shoot "Auto" mode...  That time is generally not available when you are trying to preflight for a mission.

The new Nikon 1 has potential, but seems a bit pricy, and I still can't get used to shooting from a screen vs a view-finder.

[denverpilot]

Comments. Not arguing.

- Do folks really think any point and shoot will shoot high enough resolution shots to present to customers? I don't, but I'm interested in why folks believe that.

- One person said their Wing "allows" personal cameras. I'd say around here 90%+ of the training shots taken and uploaded have been by personal cameras. Or more. The concept of "allow" is pretty funny when there are almost 90 people in just my Squadron ... and the Wing has two cameras...

- If we don't take AP seriously and provide brainpower of what and how to shoot, provide high quality photos, and respond relatively quickly, we'll easily be out-classed by a cheap unmanned photo recon platform designed for the job.  Frankly I think that'll happen fairly quickly anyway, the only thing slowing it is FAA is still working on flight rules for the unmanned aircraft in the NAS.

FAA updates here: http://www.faa.gov/about/initiatives/uas/

- Volunteers with good cameras that know exactly how to use them -- might -- might beat a dedicated UAS photo platform in some scenarios.

Thoughts?

[bflynn]

Any point and shoot from your big box, with a decent optical zoom and mid-range pixel depth is fine.

If your goal is to produce pretty good photos then use just a pretty good camera.  I know of very few point and shoot cameras with optical zoom.

If you can't afford one yourself, get the squadron camera and learn to use it.

If your squadron doesn't have one, ask for one.

[SarDragon]

I have a Nikon Coolpix S3100 that has 5X optical zoom, and has a resolution of 14 megapixels. My Nikon D60 DSLR is only 10.2 megapixels, and 4 times the price. There are obvious differences in features that account for the price difference, but the little one takes great pictures. I'm not sure of the performance in a CAP  flight scenario, but it's still a kool little camera that shouldn't be summarily dismissed just because it's marketed as a point-and-shoot.

[ShadowAP]

I'm one of the photo instructors who teach the AP rating in CA Wing.  Part of the training materials I have developed and teach is how to use the Nikon DSLR's with attached GPS receivers for CAP mission use.  Most of the modern Nikon DSLR's will connect to external GPS units that are easily available and record their data directly to the images EXIF data as you shoot.  This is by far the easiest way I have found to geotag images for any use, especially CAP photo missions.

I personally own and use the Nikon D3100 and D7000 with a Solmeta Geotagger N3 unit that slides onto the hotshoe of the cameras.  Our wing has purchased Nikon D5000 and D5100 with the Nikon GP-1 unit that connects to the hotshoe as well.

The most noticeable difference between the Solmeta Geotagger N3 and the Nikon GP-1 unit is the Solmeta is much better rated by reviewers and built with much newer tech that records the magnetic compass heading which the Nikon GP-1 lacks.

Note:  on the discussion of the importance of a particular cameras megapixel rating, this applies mostly to the image quality you expect.  The best image quality settings coupled with a large MP rating of 10 or more will result in images that can be zoomed / cropped in post processing to better examine details in the image.  You need to capture the image details with good resolution as you originally image them if you hope to view the fine detail after the fact.  There is a reason advertising photographers use 4x5 and 8x10 view cameras for shooting their product still-lifes.

[ShadowAP]

Typical Nikon DSLR camera kits for CAP work:

Base camera body based on budget, photo experience.  (Ranked low to high)
Nikon D3100, D5100, D7000

Nikon DX 55-200mm VR zoom lens  + (52mm UV filter)

Solmeta Geotagger NC-3 GPS unit

At least two spare camera batteries for camera body selected

At least two SDHC memory cards, class 10, 16gb to 32gb capacity

Practice, practice and more practice.

[wuzafuzz]

Most point and shoot cameras will deliver very nice photos for anything you want to shoot with your feet on the ground.  In a pinch I've used them in the air.  The results were barely adequate.

Once I'm in flight I want a DSLR. They are generally better suited for speed of shooting, and that makes all the difference in the air.

1.  Fast optical zoom lenses.  They gather light faster and get you "closer" to your target.  Then the CCD or CMOS chip can do it's magic.  Their ability to gather more light can give you faster shutter speeds.  That means a greater likelihood of sharp images.

2.  I find they usually autofocus much faster and more reliably than point and shoots.  That has been particular important when forced to shoot from a plane without a photo window.  Point and shoots love to focus on the Plexiglas instead of what's beyond it.  (Eventually I just started shooting through an open window on the doors.  That presents its own challenges though.)

3.  You take a picture the instant you press the shutter release.  Not "a little while later."

4.  You can take repeat photos much more quickly.  That might make the difference between 4 keepers on one pass, or making another pass.  I want my camera in machine gun mode.  This saves fuel too.

There are other advantages, but those are the most important to me. 

There probably are some point and shoots that can do all that, but I guarantee they aren't the cheap ones.  Bottom line, when I'm really busy in the plane I don't want to be fighting my camera.  A DSLR does what I tell it to do...no more, no less. 

[Eclipse]

- Do folks really think any point and shoot will shoot high enough resolution shots to present to customers? I don't, but I'm interested in why folks believe that.

Personal experience and success - there was a time when 1.3 MP was a big deal and neither the photons, nor the targets, have changed.

We're taking photos of buildings and infrastructure from 1000', not trying to ascertain license plates numbers or house addresses, in fact photos which become personally identifiable at that level are a problem on an AFAM.

This is another of those areas like Comms or data where people with fancy toys are trying to define the spec at an unnecessary level.

[ShadowAP]

- Do folks really think any point and shoot will shoot high enough resolution shots to present to customers? I don't, but I'm interested in why folks believe that.

Personal experience and success - there was a time when 1.3 MP was a big deal and neither the photons, nor the targets, have changed.

We're taking photos of buildings and infrastructure from 1000', not trying to ascertain license plates numbers or house addresses, in fact photos which become personally identifiable at that level are a problem on an AFAM.

This is another of those areas like Comms or data where people with fancy toys are trying to define the spec at an unnecessary level.

Respectfully, there was also a time when only hot air balloons were flown, no need for those new fangled fancy flying contraptions either.  Flying a photo mission should be more important than just giving pilots a chance to fly around using the Air Forces fuel, Airborne Photographers should be trained properly to provide a quality product and given the same respect for a professional job performance that we expect from the Mission Pilots, or why waste the time.

[Eclipse]

Respectfully, there was also a time when only hot air balloons were flown, no need for those new fangled fancy flying contraptions either.  Flying a photo mission should be more important than just giving pilots a chance to fly around using the Air Forces fuel, Airborne Photographers should be trained properly to provide a quality product and given the same respect for a professional job performance that we expect from the Mission Pilots, or why waste the time.

Where did I say anything about training?  If anything, the time and money should be spent on training and not focused, as things in CAP usually are, on the technology (i.e ARCHER, SDIS 6 pages of instructions on sending an email, an nothing on how to take the photo, etc.). I've seen plenty of curvature of the earth photos, flash reflections off the glass, and pictures of the AP's eye to know that it doesn't matter what you've got in your hand, if you don't know how to use it.

The bottom line is that we need to understand the CAP paradigm, and scale the expectations accordingly.  Just as with Comms, in most cases a cell phone can be just as useful, if not moreso than a VHF HT, in info systems, free, template-based solutions are generally better than rolling your own, any decent camera is going to be more than adequate for the actual mission.  Those of you who want to be Ansel Adams, and spend thousands on a camera,  more power to you, but don't insinuate it is required, or even necessary t perform the mission.

This is no different than GTM's wearing $500 worth of tactical gear and a plate carrier who discourage others from participating because of the "high cost of equipment", when, in fact, most members have 90% of what they need in their house already, and the entry-level guys can buy everything for $50.

[bflynn]

Most point and shoot cameras will deliver very nice photos for anything you want to shoot with your feet on the ground.  In a pinch I've used them in the air.  The results were barely adequate.

Once I'm in flight I want a DSLR. They are generally better suited for speed of shooting, and that makes all the difference in the air.

1.  Fast optical zoom lenses.  They gather light faster and get you "closer" to your target.  Then the CCD or CMOS chip can do it's magic.  Their ability to gather more light can give you faster shutter speeds.  That means a greater likelihood of sharp images.

2.  I find they usually autofocus much faster and more reliably than point and shoots.  That has been particular important when forced to shoot from a plane without a photo window.  Point and shoots love to focus on the Plexiglas instead of what's beyond it.  (Eventually I just started shooting through an open window on the doors.  That presents its own challenges though.)

3.  You take a picture the instant you press the shutter release.  Not "a little while later."

4.  You can take repeat photos much more quickly.  That might make the difference between 4 keepers on one pass, or making another pass.  I want my camera in machine gun mode.  This saves fuel too.

There are other advantages, but those are the most important to me. 

There probably are some point and shoots that can do all that, but I guarantee they aren't the cheap ones.  Bottom line, when I'm really busy in the plane I don't want to be fighting my camera.  A DSLR does what I tell it to do...no more, no less.

This is exactly what I've seen too.

During my qualification missions for Photographer, I used a PaS camera...the pictures were horrible.  Later in the year I used a really nice Nikon D5100 with a telephoto lens and got good images.  Since, I've flow three other missions with both cameras.  The SLR (that I borrow) has consistently produced better photographs than the PaS that is mine and which I know how to operate and configure. 

It's an issue of the technical capabilities of the camera - the SLR
- shoots faster in drive mode, so when I take bursts, I get 3-5 images in about a second.  My PaS is just slower.
- zooms faster and more reliably.  I can shoot at four different zoom levels getting 15-20 images in about 10 seconds.
- takes the picture faster when I press the button meaning I get the picture I want, not the picture a second later.
- is easier to set up, so I don't risk getting bad images without knowing it.

All together this lets me take more pictures and in the photography business, volume equals quality.  On a photo mission, I'll take about 40 images give or take with a PaS.  I'll get 200 with the SLR.

I've been working with photography for almost 30 years, including loading bulk film to cartridges, rolling and developing my own film once upon a time.  I don't work professionally, but in restrospect I could have.  I know a little about cameras and taking pictures, but not nearly enough to be an expert.

Yes there is training to consider, but once trained, the AP with an SLR is more capable.  In this case, more expensive really does mean a better camera.

[Eclipse]

In this case, more expensive really does mean a better camera.

Yes it does, just not necessary to the mission.

NHQ issues HT radios that cost in excess of $1800 each, I have one.  It's heavy, eats batteries, and has a number of features I am unable to use and
will likely never be implemented.  It came with a single slot charger, no accessories, and the batteries tend to go bad if you look at them cross-eyed.

I own a personal Moto Visar.  It weighs about 1/2 the EFJ, came with 4 batteries, a 2-position charger, and a surveillance earpiece.  It costs me $75.

Both meet the mission mandate.

[bflynn]

I suppose it depends on what end result you want to achieve.  My goal is to wow my customer with the quality and clarity of the images we provide them so they want to use our services again and not hire the $4000 helicopter with the gimbaled photo pod.

[Eclipse]

I suppose it depends on what end result you want to achieve.  My goal is to wow my customer with the quality and clarity of the images we provide them so they want to use our services again and not hire the $4000 helicopter with the gimbaled photo pod.

Thank you for making my point.

Your mission is to ascertain the condition of the infrastructure you are photographing, not create works of art.  Once it is determined that the bridge is passable, the building not underwater, or where the edge of the flooding starts, those photos will not likely ever be looked at again.

[bflynn]

I suppose it depends on what end result you want to achieve.  My goal is to wow my customer with the quality and clarity of the images we provide them so they want to use our services again and not hire the $4000 helicopter with the gimbaled photo pod.

Thank you for making my point.

Your mission is to ascertain the condition of the infrastructure you are photographing, not create works of art.  Once it is determined that the bridge is passable, the building not underwater, or where the edge of the flooding starts, those photos will not likely ever be looked at again.

You're stretching here.  Nobody is trying to create works of art, we're trying to create the most useful product for CAP's customer.

I see part of our mission is to wow our customers so they want to use us again.  Here in NC, EM made a choice last year to hire a commercial helicopter at $4000/hour because we could only deliver so-so photographs - because we don't have a lot of great photographers with good cameras.

This is the reality - if we deliver fuzzy pictures that show a house in a field, our customers will go elsewhere for aerial photography. 

NHQ says photography recon will be a primary mission for CAP in the future.  We cannot afford to do anything less than a superior job at it.  If we lose our customers to better pictures, we lose a primary mission.

[Spaceman3750]

Ed,

Yes, we only have one camera in the wing. If you or your unit need additional practice with it, you should be able to schedule it and bring it in (check with the DO/DOS I would assume). If you use a funded mission number (they're pretty straightforward to get), you can pick it up in an aircraft and don't even have to pay out-of-pocket to relocate it (I think we're going to do a photo recon sortie at our next aircrew training down here in group 9, among other things, and do exactly that). If we have a really big mission that requires more than one at a time, I suspect we would borrow from a neighboring wing. Again leveraging that handy fleet of Cessnas.

A good DSLR camera is just something I wouldn't shell out for, even if I was an AP.

Ryan

[Eclipse]

This is the reality - if we deliver fuzzy pictures that show a house in a field, our customers will go elsewhere for aerial photography. 

No one said anything about "fuzzy pictures".  If you are incapable of taking clear photos of building-sized objects from 1000ft, you don't belong
taking photos for CAP, regardless of the equipment.

How many actual sorties have you flown?  This again sounds like more theoretical assumption vs. real-world experience.  I've flown more than a few,
going back some 8-9 years, and my wing does more than their share of AP work, and I'm not aware of any time that a customer was unhappy with
correctly staged and capture photos simply because they were not "high enough quality".   As I said, in most cases our end-product is used during the emergency and then never referred to again.

Now, with that said, I, and my wing, have down a number of missions where we took photos that we knew were intended to be used in GIS systems,
large-format photographs, or for long-term reference, and in those cases we took steps to use higher-end equipment, but those situations are a small percentage of the mission work, which is usually "fly this route and get me 3-sided views of every overpass and bridge".

This business of commercial photography vs. CAP or "other" is a red herring - first, I don't buy it, and further to that, the number of agencies who would pay $4k an hour for a helicopter vs. using CAP for free approaches zero in the space we operate. 

[denverpilot]

This business of commercial photography vs. CAP or "other" is a red herring - first, I don't buy it, and further to that, the number of agencies who would pay $4k an hour for a helicopter vs. using CAP for free approaches zero in the space we operate.

Two thoughts there:

- UAS's won't cost $4000/hr to operate. That stipulated...

- On some of our missions, depending on who's paying, there are anti-competition laws in place. If a private entity has the capability and CAP is engaged instead, the requesting agency can find themselves in political hot water later, if someone cares to make it an issue. CAP has to provide a resource that significantly differs from what the commercial company offers.

That second one isn't often brought up unless a political foe thinks they can make hay with an argument that a local "struggling" businessman was displaced by "government funded" flying (and they have to try real hard to avoid mentioning that it's a cost-savings or that we're volunteers or it can backfire politically I'm their faces), and gain votes -- typically a Sheriff's race.

As costs fall (rapidly) on UAS photo platform systems, I can see scenarios where fledgling UAS operators with "nothing to lose" will lodge protests with their favorite Congressional Representatives that their "new and amazing technology that's providing good jobs for Americans" is being threatened by a gaggle of volunteer photographers in USAF funded aircraft.

The overly-dramatic cries of, "We never had a chance!" will be heard somewhere around the time the UAS technology hits our price per flying hour breakpoint or just before.

We'd best be considering and communicating the differences only CAP can provide in an AP mission besides cost, because that gap will be closing in the next ten years.

Roughly 1/3 of the USAF aircraft inventory is UAS now. Once the FAA sets UAS rules for use in the NAS, AP is a huge target for downsizing of manned missions.

[denverpilot]

Aerial mapping UAS for $600.

http://www.suasnews.com/2012/05/15271/ready-to-fly-aerial-mapping-platform-599-99/

Not saying it'd replace 100% of what CAP AP can do, but they're only getting cheaper...

[Captain Morgan]

We use RoboGeo for processing and a Nikon D200.  Even though the camera can hook up to the camera, the only reason we would do that is for a backup.  If you use the data collected from an attached GPS, it does not record the direction field.  If you import the data from the GPS after the flight, the direction of travel is imported.  This allows RoboGeo to add 180 degrees to the direction to automatically report the direction of the picture.  The substantially decreases the workload of the Observer and automates the post-processing.
Having said that, you can use a wide variety of cameras and GPS's to accomplish the same task.  The issue at this point is the quality of the picture and the capability of the GPS to dump data that is compatable with RoboGeo.  Although ultimately members need to get their hands on the actual equipment, preliminary SDIS training and practice can be done with member owned cameras and GPS's, and even member owned computers if they spring for the reasonbly priced RoboGeo license.  You can also send SDIS crews out in vehicles for practice and training.
Many of our members own approriate cameras and hand-held GPS's.  In a pinch or an emergency situation, these can be used if everyone is trained up.

[edwardd20]

Solmeta Geotagger N3

I'd like to go back and ask a question. How does the N3 work inside the airplane? I found the GP1 didn't work because the wings blocked the GPS signal with the front seat (MO) being worse than the back seat (MS/AP).

[ShadowAP]

If you use the data collected from an attached GPS, it does not record the direction field.  If you import the data from the GPS after the flight, the direction of travel is imported.  This allows RoboGeo to add 180 degrees to the direction to automatically report the direction of the picture.  The substantially decreases the workload of the Observer and automates the post-processing.

While it is true that the Nikon GPS-1 unit does not record headings, the direction field (Picture Heading), is recorded to the image EXIF data if an attached GPS unit does support this feature.  That is why I use a Solmeta GPS unit with my Nikon DSLR's and not the GPS-1 for this purpose.  The custom Excel worksheet that I created for CAWG takes this heading information from the GPS unit, corrects for the specified magnetic deviation for the area you were imaging and then also asks which seat position you were shooting from, (front right – Observer; rear left or right side Scanner/AP), this allows the software to then export the correct true heading of the camera lens.  We don't use RoboGeo here because we have the same functionality using the free Nikon View Nx2 software, our Excel template, and the CAP imaging software for watermarking the images.  The reason why recording the lens heading while imaging is important is the above stated goal of substantially decreasing the workload of the Observer which it does handily and automating the post-processing greatly.

[ShadowAP]

Solmeta Geotagger N3

I'd like to go back and ask a question. How does the N3 work inside the airplane? I found the GP1 didn't work because the wings blocked the GPS signal with the front seat (MO) being worse than the back seat (MS/AP).

Actually my GPS unit works great and the suggestion of the wing placement causing interference often mentioned is usually really caused by a camera setting I've rarely seen taught in training materials other than my own that I use for my CAP AP classes.

With a Nikon DSLR using a GPS unit the GPS unit draws it power from the camera.  It only draws the power for the GPS while the cameras meter is active; and to acquire and hold the GPS lock the GPS needs power. 

The camera if left alone with the default settings will shut down the meter power several seconds after the shutter button has been depressed halfway in order to conserve the cameras battery. This is usually not enough time for the GPS unit to make its initial acquisition of a solid GPS lock, indicated by a solid green indicator light.  The GPS unit will also lose its GPS lock between shots due to the meter power shutting down between exposures if they are spaced apart and not in a rapid sequence.

To avoid this problem of the GPS losing its power there is a menu setting on the camera that needs to be set.  This optional setting only appears on the cameras setup menu when the GPS is physically connected to the camera body.

With the GPS connected to the body look in the Camera's Settings menu for GPS>Autometer Off.  Set this menu item to Disabled.  By camera default it will set to Enabled.  By setting this to disabled you are telling the camera to keep the camera meter powered on at all times, which will also feed power to the GPS continuously.

Doing this will also drain the camera battery faster than normal, so make sure you always keep a couple of charged spare batteries with the camera at all times.  To help reduce the effects of battery drain simply turn the camera completely off during periods of long inactivity, and turn it back on when you are in the target area.  When you are ready to use it again be sure to check for solid green GPS lock indicator on the GPS and solid non blinking GPS indicator on camera body.

The second alternative mentioned, (which probably won't help you in the current circumstances) is to not use the Nikon GP-1 for the GPS unit but rather acquire one of the third party units like the Solmeta Geotagger 3.  It has more features, newer tech with better signal acquisition and retention, and better battery management.  It also retails for less.  I only mention this for the sake of persons who do not have a GPS unit yet, but are looking for one.  Read the reviews.

Using my Solmeta GPS with my Nikon DSLR to prove the point I've shot GPS tagged images with it for classes inside of buildings numerous times with solid roofs over my head.  Most recently I took an image of CAP members indoors in the middle of a Red Robin Restaurant to demo the principle.   The most extreme example of this was shooting from the interior 2nd floor apartment of a 4 floor apartment building.  Granted it did take a few minutes to get the initial solid GPS lock in the apartment, but it did succeed and the GPS lock held once acquired.

[edwardd20]

is usually really caused by a camera setting I've rarely seen taught in training materials other than my own that I use for my CAP AP classes.

This is great information. Thank you!