Basic Camera for Aviation/Auto Racing Photography

rachelk.tailwinds

rachelk.tailwinds

Pre-takeoff checklist
Joined
Nov 23, 2014
Messages
345
Display Name
Display name:
Rachel
I'm looking for a DSLR camera in the <$1,000 range to use mostly for plane spotting and to take to the track. I'm familiar with the basics of ISO and aperture so I don't want a point and shoot that's going to lock me out of those features. The Nikon D3300 or Canon Rebel T5 have caught my eye so far but I'm 100% open to other options.

What do you all use? I read on another thread that Nikons are the more reliable option but I'd like to know which is preferred for everyday, basic use. Thanks in advance. :D
 
rachelk.tailwinds said:
I'm looking for a DSLR camera in the <$1,000 range to use mostly for plane spotting and to take to the track. I'm familiar with the basics of ISO and aperture so I don't want a point and shoot that's going to lock me out of those features. The Nikon D3300 or Canon Rebel T5 have caught my eye so far but I'm 100% open to other options.

What do you all use? I read on another thread that Nikons are the more reliable option but I'd like to know which is preferred for everyday, basic use. Thanks in advance. :D
Click to expand...
,

Heck, your choices sound pretty good to me. The next decision would be what lenses to use, that is going to be critical. I have a Nikon D90 and it works very well, have several lenses that , mostly, my wife uses depending on the circumstances. Also filters are important. Enjoy.

Cheers
 
Only Nikon people will tell you the Nikon is more reliable. Both sound like solid choices for sure.
 
I have a sony nex mirrorless camera that I like. Cheaper than the full frame dslr's smaller so its not a pita to carry around and still has a broad array of lenses. Speaking of lenses your gonna want some so budget accordingly.
 
For your desired application either will suffice, the lens is really what will be more important. I used to shoot with Canon and now shoot with Nikon, both are exceptional. I'd say Canon's glass is better in their lenses, and Nikon seems to have better color, but both things are easily rectified when post processing.

DA42-1.jpg


DSC_3423.jpg


DSC_2239.jpg


IMG_0063.jpg
 
Maciej said:
For your desired application either will suffice, the lens is really what will be more important. I used to shoot with Canon and now shoot with Nikon, both are exceptional. I'd say Canon's glass is better in their lenses, and Nikon seems to have better color, but both things are easily rectified when post processing.
Click to expand...

What camera do you use?
 
Nikon and Canon are largely interchangeable - your familiarity and skill have a much larger impact on the images. Similarly the lenses matter more than the body. There are little things that one is better at than the other but on the whole, pretty silly to pick one as better than the other by brand.

Both the cameras you mention are solid starting points. If possible you'll be best served by NOT buying the prepackaged kit with a lens and instead purchasing a separate, higher quality lens of similar focal length range. If you want me specifics, feel free to PM

Disclaimer/Background: Professional photographer shooting mostly Nikon. Also considerable experience in photo retail.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
I do professional photography in action sports.

I'd stick with Canon or Nikon DSLR. The glass is really the most important component for your needs, so be sure to leave some $$ in your budget for lenses. In the Canon line, in that price point, I would recommend the 7d2. Nikon D7200.
 
Big fan of Sony, particular the A77ii - never leaves my side. You can pick up good quality older Minolta glass (Sony purchased Minolta) that are superior to the current Sony offerings.

I think if I remember correctly, Sony make the sensors for some of the other brands as well, so the big difference would be how the firmware processes the images from the sensor.

Remember the sequence for good photography - 1. the person, 2. the Lens, 3 - the camera body.
 
If you're in the DSLR realm then the camera isn't the choice. Every "35mm" format DSLR camera out there will perform fantastically for you - I've used the D90 with a lot of success. Understand the difference between digital and optical zoom, shoot at a "high enough" shutter speed and take lots of pictures. Volume can make up for a host of other errors caused by a bouncing airplane.

Get out and experiment. Airborne photography is a budding area and one that I think is going to grow over the next 10 years.
 
rachelk.tailwinds said:
I'm looking for a DSLR camera in the <$1,000 range to use mostly for plane spotting and to take to the track. I'm familiar with the basics of ISO and aperture so I don't want a point and shoot that's going to lock me out of those features. The Nikon D3300 or Canon Rebel T5 have caught my eye so far but I'm 100% open to other options.

What do you all use? I read on another thread that Nikons are the more reliable option but I'd like to know which is preferred for everyday, basic use. Thanks in advance. :D
Click to expand...
Rachel, what is your level of photographic expertise? Are you already processing RAW images? Do you understand white balance? Do you routinely shoot aperture priority and manage your depth of field? IMO if you are not at a fairly advanced amateur level, a DSLR is overkill. I once spent most of a happy hour on a boat in the Galapagos helping an English guy with a giant full-frame Nikon understand what depth of field is and why he should be managing it. I also spent some time teaching his wife the basics of how to hold her giant DSLR. Sad, really. They had spent a ton of money on these cameras and were lugging them around like pack mules without having scratched the surface of the capability they had purchased.

If you are not at the advanced amateur level, I'd strongly suggest looking at the superzooms. These are typically smaller cameras with non-interchangeable lenses. They typically have all the options of the bigger more expensive DSLRs but are more oriented to ease of use. They have smaller sensors, which translates mostly into less low-light capability, but that is not an issue in your proposed use case. They also typically have quite a long telephoto range, which is very appropriate for your use case. Take a look here as a starter: http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/2015-superzoom-camera-roundup
 
Last edited:
airdale said:
Rachel, what is your level of photographic expertise? Are you already processing RAW images? Do you understand white balance? Do you routinely shoot aperture priority and manage your depth of field? IMO if you are not at a fairly advance amateur level, a DSLR is overkill. I once spent most of a happy hour on a boat in the Galapagos helping an English guy with a giant full-frame Nikon understand what depth of field is and why he should be managing it. I also spent some time teaching his wife the basics of how to hold her giant DSLR. Sad, really. They had spent a ton of money on these cameras and were lugging them around like pack mules without having scratched the surface of the capability they had purchased.

If you are not at the advanced amateur level, I'd strongly suggest looking at the superzooms. These are typically smaller cameras with non-interchangeable lenses. They typically have all the options of the bigger more expensive DSLRs but are more oriented to ease of use. The have smaller sensors, which translates mostly into less low-light capability, but that is not an issue in your proposed use case. They also typically have quite a long telephoto range, which is very appropriate for your use case. Take a look here as a starter: http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/2015-superzoom-camera-roundup
Click to expand...

My problem is that right now, all I have is a Nikon L830, which is a point-and-shoot by all intents and purposes. There is limited access to changing the white balance and ISO but I've played around with them enough to have a gist of how they work together (I think). As far as aperture goes, all this camera has is a macro mode. Making the switch to a DSLR will undoubtedly be a challenge for me as I don't have a ton of experience. But what I do have is plenty of time to learn. If I'm at the track, chances are I'll be there all day with lap after lap after lap to serve as opportunities to understand my camera's capabilities.
 
Check out this site:

http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/best-camera.htm

I bought a Nikon D40 about 5 years ago. It doesn't have all the fancy bells and whistles. But, its a lot of camera for the money. And, I used the money I saved to buy a couple of nice lenses.

You could probably by a D70 now for what I paid for the D40 then.
 
rachelk.tailwinds said:
My problem is that right now, all I have is a Nikon L830, which is a point-and-shoot by all intents and purposes. There is limited access to changing the white balance and ISO but I've played around with them enough to have a gist of how they work together (I think). As far as aperture goes, all this camera has is a macro mode. Making the switch to a DSLR will undoubtedly be a challenge for me as I don't have a ton of experience. But what I do have is plenty of time to learn. If I'm at the track, chances are I'll be there all day with lap after lap after lap to serve as opportunities to understand my camera's capabilities.
Click to expand...
OK; I'd still encourage you to look at the superzooms. I think they have enough capability for you and you will get a much longer telephoto than you will probably be willing to invest in for a DSLR. Less money for the camera, too. Buying camera gear is not like getting married. In a year you'll maybe have progressed in capability and equipment expertise to where you sell the superzoom and go to the exact upgrade system that is right for you.

Another option with basically the capabilities of the DSLRs but for less money and in a smaller package is the range of mirrorless cameras currently in the market. The grandaddy of them is the Micro Four Thirds format with many bodies offered by Panasonic and Olympus plus a host of lens offerings. You can look at a Panny G1 body, probably $100 used, up to north of $1000 for some very fancy models with 4K video. Same story on lenses; lots are available used and new and from many manufacturers. The 100-300 Panasonic zoom is the equivalent of 200-600 on a full frame camera and IIRC used ones run about $400. That would be a good choice for your use case. In addition to that there are many prime and zoom lenses available to fill in below the 100mm minimum of the Panny zoom. Nikon, Pentax, and others are also playing in the mirrorless space and IIRC Canon is close to introducing products. Outside the M43 space, though, lens availability is more limited. Maybe more expensive due to lack of competition; I don't know. The M43 zealots hang out here: https://www.mu-43.com so that is a good place to ask questions.
 
wilkersk said:
Check out this site:

http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/best-camera.htm

I bought a Nikon D40 about 5 years ago. It doesn't have all the fancy bells and whistles. But, its a lot of camera for the money. And, I used the money I saved to buy a couple of nice lenses.

You could probably by a D70 now for what I paid for the D40 then.
Click to expand...
I like the Nikon D70 suggestion, you can get one in E bay from between $80 to $150, you can buy some nice lenses retail or wholesale, with Nikon mounts, and then upgrade later if you want to. I have a D90 and a D70 .

Cheers
 
I dislike the "Rebel" series. You can get pretty good prices on the 70D (in fact it's only $100 more than the Rebel T5 at Costco).
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top