Camera Recommendation Please

[Myc]

First post in the photography section and I'm looking for some advice please.

I need a digital camera that can take long distance high quality photo's.

Basically I need a camera that can be taken on to a building rooftop and can take a good quality photo of a building 2-3km away. The camera will also need to fit onto a tripod.

I have absolutely no knowledge of cameras whatsoever so really don't know where to start. Obviously cost is a factor so whilst I have no idea what something with this capability will cost I do need it to be as good value for money as possible

I would be very grateful if anyone could advise me on the key things I should be looking for the camera to have and the minimum requirements it needs to have to meet these requirements or even better some camera recommendations would be fantastic.

In return I promise to report back on the camera purchased, how it performs and show any interesting photos it captures.

Thank you in advance.

[Simpo Two]

2-3km?

I'd start with a reflecting telescope and put a camera on that. I know little of telescopes, but having seen the clock on Nottingham Town Hall very clearly from Clifton I know it works

[Myc]

It's probably going to be 1-2km most of the time, but was looking for the capability to go further if it's required.

Basically I need to prove that the rooftop of a building can be seen from the roof of another without any obstructions. Think London office blocks etc.

[Dave 500]

You do know MI6 look at this forum

[Myc]

Dave 500 said:

You do know MI6 look at this forum

Nothing sinister, it's a telecoms project that requires the installations to have a line of sight to one another.

[DibblyDobbler]

Canon 650D with a 400 f5.6 prime - do the job but would cost you north of £1k. 70-300 lens on the same body might be good enough + a fair bit cheaper ...

[budfox]

Nikon d7100, the 70-300 vr mk2 lens, 2x tele converter and a tripod.

Shoot RAW and crop to required framing in Lightroom. Results should be just fine, but shooting anything at that distance won't be crystal clear as you're shooting through a lot of air and dust.

You could buy a longer lens (400mm, maybe even a 600mm) but it will be big, very heavy and expensive. ( though not too expensive if you go for the 150-500mm sigma).

Cost of the above would be about £1600. You could do it with a d3100, a sigma 70-300, cheaper tele converter and tripod for about £600, or less if buying second hand.

[IanMorewood]

Any full frame dSlr and an 800mm lens if you need good resolution images. My suggestion would be to invest in a sherpa though to carry it for you up said buildings.

[agent006]

If all you're after is being able to identify a building, then I'd be looking at a spotting scope and camera adapter rather than SLR and lens.

[LongQ]

Simpo Two said:

2-3km?

I'd start with a reflecting telescope and put a camera on that. I know little of telescopes, but having seen the clock on Nottingham Town Hall very clearly from Clifton I know it works

Blimey! You risked life and limb in Clifton? Respect.

[LongQ]

agent006 said:

If all you're after is being able to identify a building, then I'd be looking at a spotting scope and camera adapter rather than SLR and lens.

This I think.

Or hire equipment when needed but I think a half decent 'scope would have use without the camera anyway and a relatively low cost pocket camera can probably suffice to capture the required 'evidence'.

So, a decent tripod (sturdy to avoid as much wind blown movement as possible) and decent but not too large Telescope (less prone to movement from wind and building vibration) an adapter for the 'scope to fit a reasonable camera and away you go. To look really Pro a 'swing-out arm might be handy. They allow you to swing the camera out of the way of the scope viewfinder, set up the shot and then put the camera back in exactly the right place tripping the timer.

You might want to consider a camera that will take a remote shutter release - again to minimise movement.. That usually means that the smallest pocket camera might be out but the next size up (Canon G series or equivalent Nikon, etc.) would suit best.

Try searching for Digiscoping. Pick out what seems most like the sort of thing you could need and then post your thoughts back here, preferably with links, so that we can, er, debate the merits in a more focused way.

Of course if you have a huge budget for this ... there are a number of suitably expensive approaches that might impress the clients.

[Simpo Two]

LongQ said:

Blimey! You risked life and limb in Clifton? Respect.

Survived three campaigns in the early 80s, the last two with rank of Senior Student! Great times.

[MysteryLemon]

Probably the only time I will ever suggest a bridge camera.

I'm assuming that when you say you need to see the other building clearly, your not actually referring to pixel perfect image quality, just that the building needs to be identifiable on a large res image... A bridge with a mega super zoom will do that fine and be a far better option than a dslr with a 300mm lens or a telescope with a camera bolted to it... Plus it will be far more user friendly if you know nothing about photography.

http://www.whatdigitalcamera.com/equipment/reviews...

That's got a 1200mm lens. Perfect for what is a work project, not a photography project.

The lumix fz200 is also worth a look with its constant f2.8 lens.

Get a tripod too.

Edited by MysteryLemon on Wednesday 18th December 07:12

Edited by MysteryLemon on Wednesday 18th December 07:18

[sgrimshaw]

In the same vein as the Canon suggested above is the Sony DSC-HX300.

http://www.amateurphotographer.co.uk/reviews/compa...


I have the HX100 which has a 30x zoom and it's a great bit of kit (for the genre)

[MOTORVATOR]

Opteka or similar Mirror lens on any crop sensor SLR?

Then we can have a whole thread dedicated to doughnuts and worms.

[Myc]

Thanks for all the info guys, going to take some time to look through the suggestions.

You are right in thinking the image of the building doesn't need to be pixel perfect just clear enough to make out that there are no obstructions between the two or to pick up someone shining a high powered torch at the other end (cue next thread posted asking about torches!).

[Mr Will]

MysteryLemon said:

Probably the only time I will ever suggest a bridge camera.

Agreed. Bridge cameras have just one strength and that is taking low quality pictures of things a very long way away. OP - You are possibly the only person ever to match this requirement, but since you do it's the way I'd go.

Just don't expect it to be much cop for anything else!

[creampuff]

Mr Will said:

MysteryLemon said:

Probably the only time I will ever suggest a bridge camera.

Agreed. Bridge cameras have just one strength and that is taking low quality pictures of things a very long way away. OP - You are possibly the only person ever to match this requirement, but since you do it's the way I'd go.

Just don't expect it to be much cop for anything else!

Yes this!

OP you must be the only person in the history of the world to actually need a bridge camera!

Also note that whatever you get out will depend on the weather and atmospheric conditions too.

[sgrimshaw]

Is it purely snobish behaviour that drives the derogatory comments regarding bridge cameras on here or do you actually comment from recent personal experience?

I seriously doubt it is the latter.

[Simpo Two]

sgrimshaw said:

Is it purely snobish behaviour that drives the derogatory comments regarding bridge cameras on here or do you actually comment from recent personal experience?

I seriously doubt it is the latter.

I thought the suggestion of a bridge camera in this instance was sound. A bonkers zoom for not much money, and adequate quality for the job.