Discussion
So, I've only had a camera about 9months. I currently have a Nikon d5500. I have the kit lens that came with it, a sigma 150-600 c and a tokina 11-16mm. I do mostly night photography of the Milky Way and chasing the northern lights which I would probably keep my current camera for as if it gets damaged by dew etc I'm not as concerned. I do a bit of birding if I'm waiting about and now and a gain the odd landscape. I've recently got into aviation photography, mainly military stuff. My current camera is good and I've got what I would consider some good photos. What I am finding though is it struggles a bit with taking lots of shots in a small space of time as a fast aircraft goes past as it only does 5fps. I'm now thinking maybe some time soon I might upgrade. I bought the d5500 without any camera know how so I'd like my new purchase to be a bit more reasearched. I would like to stick to a crop sensor and the Nikon brand. My budget would be up to £2000.
Why I'm asking on here is because I'm thinking, would I gain that much by an upgrade other than more fps. Should I just put up with less fps and save my money or should I wait and see if Nikon release andy thing new within my price range in the next 12 month?
Why I'm asking on here is because I'm thinking, would I gain that much by an upgrade other than more fps. Should I just put up with less fps and save my money or should I wait and see if Nikon release andy thing new within my price range in the next 12 month?
Personally I've never been overly bothered by fps; you just end up getting loads of shots looking the same. How about shooting 4K video, then you get 25+ fps as standard?
If your lenses are OK for purpose, then for £2,0000 you could get the best Nikon DX body there is, the D500, and some change. And yes, it will be better at everything than the 5500 - with aviation in mind I'm sure the better AF would make life easier.
If your lenses are OK for purpose, then for £2,0000 you could get the best Nikon DX body there is, the D500, and some change. And yes, it will be better at everything than the 5500 - with aviation in mind I'm sure the better AF would make life easier.
I'll be honest I've never used my camera for video how would I benefit? What I have found with fast jet passes is that it's hit and miss how in focus your shots are. Especially when shooting fast propeller aircraft at 1/100s. Your trying to get good prop blur and keep the plane in focus. So you seem to waste a lot of shots that aren't pin sharp. I just don't want to end up with a new camera and find that it was my technique that was at fault and a new camera is no more use. Sure I'd like higher quality images but would I notice spending an extra £1000 +. Sorry if this sounds a little novice but I am.
Is it possible for you to borrow a lens that find out if it's technique or kit?
I'm asking as my friend bought the new Nikon 70-200 2.8e lens and I was astonished at how quickly it locks on focus, compared to my 18-140 ( which is a lot quicker than the kit lens!)
Might be worth a look before you spend on camera, when the same money would nearly buy you the lens?
I'm asking as my friend bought the new Nikon 70-200 2.8e lens and I was astonished at how quickly it locks on focus, compared to my 18-140 ( which is a lot quicker than the kit lens!)
Might be worth a look before you spend on camera, when the same money would nearly buy you the lens?
richelli said:
I'll be honest I've never used my camera for video how would I benefit?
You'd get 25fps instead of 5fps.richelli said:
What I have found with fast jet passes is that it's hit and miss how in focus your shots are. Especially when shooting fast propeller aircraft at 1/100s. Your trying to get good prop blur and keep the plane in focus. So you seem to waste a lot of shots that aren't pin sharp. I just don't want to end up with a new camera and find that it was my technique that was at fault and a new camera is no more use. Sure I'd like higher quality images but would I notice spending an extra £1000 +. Sorry if this sounds a little novice but I am.
If the problem is focus, then taking out-of-focus shots faster isn't going to help. What you need is more accurate/faster focusing - in this case tracking autofocus.Have you been through the manual and looked at all the AF modes? Fixed/Continuous etc? I suspect your Sigma may not be fast/accurate enough either, or the camera body not able to drive it well enough.I've got a D5500 and a D500. The 5500 is great if I want to travel light and just need a half-decent camera for a few snaps, but it's a toy in comparison to the D500.
Honestly, the shutter is fantastic on the D500 and once you've learned how to use the AF settings you won't miss any aircraft shots again.
Honestly, the shutter is fantastic on the D500 and once you've learned how to use the AF settings you won't miss any aircraft shots again.
Freddy your talking me into this one. That's what I wanted to hear someone with both. I only bought the d5500 as I wanted a dslr but just as an entry into photography as I wasn't sure if i would enjoy it. I think I better get saving and treat myself. I had been looking at the d500 but I just wanted someone to verify what i had been thinking.
richelli said:
I have the camera set to centre point continuous autofocus and am using the back button focus setup. Which is what most of the other aviation lads seem to use. Seems I may have to look at both lens and camera then. Maybe not as simple as I thought.
I think your AF setting is about right, so as long as you keep the a/c in the middle of the frame it should work. Be sure that your shots are really out of focus and not blurred due to camera movement (100th sec, 600mm lens!) If you're taking panning shots - ie side to side where the distance doesn't vary much/fast you should be OK. However if the a/c is coming at a more oblique angle the distance will change much faster and that's where 'pro' kit makes a difference.Back button focus is a preference thing, I use shutter button semi-depress as it saves a finger. Use what works best for you.
There are DX Nikons between the 5500 and 500 but if you can afford the 500 you may as well have it and give yourself some growing room. It will show up any deficiencies in the lenses and in your technique too, so results may get worse before they get better!
If I was starting again I'd get the 500 for sure, as long as I could find software I liked to process the RAW files.
Plus, do you really need 600mm?
To be honest I don't use 600mm that often, it was mainly for birding to be honest as its a bit bulky to carry around. The aviation shots are usually 400mm or less as they get closer and then cropped to suit. When I'm shooting aircraft I tend to go to one place and stay around there so carrying a larger lens isn't as big an issue but it is more difficult to steady +400mm. I suppose I'm not going to really know if its my technique until I get another camera to try. The 5500 was bought as a test really to see if I enjoyed taking photos at first so I was going to upgrade at some point anyway. I just wondered really would I see that great a difference between the likes on my current camera and say the d500. Hers a link to my flicker so you can see what I have been getting currently as you can see ive been shooting at higher shutter speed on props mainly to keep the plane in focus. I have just been struggling a little getting nice shots at 1/100
tuccazf240 (1 of 1) by richard elliot, on Flickr
tuccazf240 (1 of 1) by richard elliot, on FlickrThat looks fine to me.
'ive been shooting at higher shutter speed on props mainly to keep the plane in focus.' Shutter speed and focus are two different things, but I like the way you're thinking about the variables and trying improve. That phrase makes me think that your issue is maybe not focus but camera shake caused by a too-long lens and too-slow shutter speed combo.
Consider a Nikon 70-300VR; the VR is secondary really to the fact it's shorter and fast-focusing and easier to wield in action.
'ive been shooting at higher shutter speed on props mainly to keep the plane in focus.' Shutter speed and focus are two different things, but I like the way you're thinking about the variables and trying improve. That phrase makes me think that your issue is maybe not focus but camera shake caused by a too-long lens and too-slow shutter speed combo.
Consider a Nikon 70-300VR; the VR is secondary really to the fact it's shorter and fast-focusing and easier to wield in action.
FPS needs to be considered with buffer depth , no good 14fps if you can only take 1/2 a second of shots before its full..
D500 is the only real candidate in nikon for performance crop shooting
Some subjects that you cant predict (wildlife, field sports etc) really end up requiring machine gun techniques sometimes. So tracking, fps, buffer and fast memory cards are key.
Others like motor racing, surfing and imo air shows are more about knowing the event and timing ( though at times yu might want to spray and pray say a car crash etc).
D500 is the only real candidate in nikon for performance crop shooting
Some subjects that you cant predict (wildlife, field sports etc) really end up requiring machine gun techniques sometimes. So tracking, fps, buffer and fast memory cards are key.
Others like motor racing, surfing and imo air shows are more about knowing the event and timing ( though at times yu might want to spray and pray say a car crash etc).
Gassing Station | Photography & Video | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff