Personal camera for Airborne Photographer (AP)

[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.