What camera for pictures from a glider cockpit?

[Eric Greenwell]

I'd like to replace my current digital camera with one better suited to
pictures from my glider, but I'm having difficulty finding one with the
features I want. Perhaps someone has solved my problem already, or at
least has a way of finding a suitable camera without days of downloading
brochures and camera manuals.

Here's what I think the ideal in-cockpit camera must have:

* Focal length: minimum 28-100 mm (35 mm equivalent) optical range
* Pixels: > 4 mp (gives 2 mp with cropping to 140 mm lens equivalent)
* Viewfinder: minimum 2.5" sunlight visible LCD AND with good
visibility from the side
* Shutter lag: < 0.5 second after pressing button
* Shutter: Continuous mode for at least 10 pictures
* focusing: Auto plus Manual (or settable at infinity)

Here is what would be really nice, in addition:

* Size: small and light enough to put in a pocket
* Anti-shake lens

But wait, there's more!

I'd also like to get a camera that can be attached to the outside of the
glider (wing, tail, etc). Here is what I think it must have:

* Focal length: minimum 28-100 mm (35 mm equivalent) optical range
* pixels: >4 mp (gives 2 mp with cropping to 140 mm lens equivalent)
* It must not turn itself off automatically! It's OK if an external
battery is required to achieve this.
* Wireless remote shutter actuation
* Shutter lag: < .5 second
* Focusing: manual or settable at infinity
* Battery life: at least three hours and 50 pictures, external
battery OK if needed

Here is what would be very nice, in addition:

* Remote zoom control
* Battery life: 6+ hours
* Size: small and light
* wireless transmission of a reduced image to a cockpit display
(Bluetooth to an Ipaq?)

The greatest happiness would be one camera that can do both jobs, and
maybe there is one out there that can. New digital camera models seems
appear at a one-a-day rate, minimum.

--
Change "netto" to "net" to email me directly

Eric Greenwell
Washington State
USA

[[email protected]]

You left out the integrated GPS interface to your Bluetooth logger for
geo-locating each shot, and the integrated cell phone to call you with
that location when it falls off the wing...

Full circle now... back to cameras for flight claims perhaps?

Tongue firmly in cheek.....

[01-- Zero One]

Actually, there is flight viewing software from a couple of years ago
that would tie together the time stamp on the digital camera to your
flight logs. thereby allowing you to see the pictures taken at a
particular point in your flight.



Don't remember which software it was though.



Larry

"01" USA





" > wrote in message
oups.com:

> You left out the integrated GPS interface to your Bluetooth logger for
> geo-locating each shot, and the integrated cell phone to call you with
> that location when it falls off the wing...
>
> Full circle now... back to cameras for flight claims perhaps?
>
> Tongue firmly in cheek.....

[Eric Greenwell]

wrote:
> You left out the integrated GPS interface to your Bluetooth logger for
> geo-locating each shot, and the integrated cell phone to call you with
> that location when it falls off the wing...

Wouldn't you just use an ELT (Equipment Locator Beacon) or PLB
(Photographic Locator Beacon) for that purpose? Hmmm, maybe a logger
with a camera in it, so it supplies a picture of the pilot that is
flying the glider, and of the glider itself, so we won't need official
observers anymore?

Actually, I think my requirements for a cockpit camera are few, mainly a
wide angle lens for better scenery pictures, and an LCD that is
practical for aiming the camera at another glider in flight. I think
that feature will make it air-to-air pictures easier and safer.

The externally mounted camera has different requirements, and the
biggest one is that it doesn't turn itself off. My old 35 mm SLR cameras
didn't do that, but it's become a common feature in "consumer" cameras,
even in film cameras before digital became common. I'm not dedicated
enough to buy one of the expensive, large, heavy, professional cameras
that pilots like Chris Woods use, so I'm hoping there is compromise out
there somewhere.

--
Change "netto" to "net" to email me directly

Eric Greenwell
Washington State
USA

[Shawn]

Eric Greenwell wrote:
> I'd like to replace my current digital camera with one better suited to
> pictures from my glider, but I'm having difficulty finding one with the
> features I want.

snip Eric's fantasy :-)

Make sure what ever you get can accept a polarizing filter to get rid of
canopy reflections.

I've had a Canon Rebel XT for a few months now. It comes no where near
your size requirements but it's easy to use and takes fantastic
pictures. BTW, Canon makes an IS lens that fits it. If the technology
in the lenses is the same as Canon's IS binocs, it would be worth the
bucks IMO.
I've used these for hand-held star gazing. Amazing
http://consumer.usa.canon.com/ir/controller?act=ModelDetailAct&fcategoryid=128&modelid=8168

Shawn

[Eric Greenwell]

Shawn wrote:

> Eric Greenwell wrote:
>
>> I'd like to replace my current digital camera with one better suited
>> to pictures from my glider, but I'm having difficulty finding one with
>> the features I want.
>
>
> snip Eric's fantasy :-)

I believe a camera with a modest wide angle and daylight visible LCD
monitor is out there, but with hundreds of models available and ads that
don't mention these features, it's time consuming to find it
>
> Make sure what ever you get can accept a polarizing filter to get rid of
> canopy reflections.

I like this idea. I'll try a filter on my present camera next flight,
even though I'll have to tape it on.

>
> I've had a Canon Rebel XT for a few months now. It comes no where near
> your size requirements but it's easy to use and takes fantastic
> pictures. BTW, Canon makes an IS lens that fits it. If the technology
> in the lenses is the same as Canon's IS binocs, it would be worth the
> bucks IMO.

There are plenty of cameras that take great pictures, and I have used a
large, heavy camera in the glider, but I'm not willing to do it anymore.
Camera technology has improved so much, and some of the cameras I've
looked at are so close to being acceptable, I remain optimistic. The
difficult feature for the smaller cameras seems to be the minimum focal
length (wide angle). Big zooms must be easier to achieve.

--
Change "netto" to "net" to email me directly

Eric Greenwell
Washington State
USA

[Shawn]

Eric Greenwell wrote:

> There are plenty of cameras that take great pictures, and I have used a
> large, heavy camera in the glider, but I'm not willing to do it anymore.
> Camera technology has improved so much, and some of the cameras I've
> looked at are so close to being acceptable, I remain optimistic. The
> difficult feature for the smaller cameras seems to be the minimum focal
> length (wide angle). Big zooms must be easier to achieve.

Forgot to mention this site:

http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/specs.asp

It has tons of info about many new digital cameras.

Shawn

[Nyal Williams]

I've been using a Minolta Z1. It is a decent camera,
but not for airwork. It is a tiny bit bulky, it does
have a large zoom factor, and it does have a view finder.
I've yet to see an LCD screen that I can see in bright
sunlight; this is where I require a viewfinder. I
have the digital zoom turned off, but the view through
the viewfinder is terribly grainy. I didn't discover
this until I flew with it long after I bought it.
Be sure you have a good optical viewfinder for airwork.


At 19:36 07 December 2005, Shawn wrote:
>Eric Greenwell wrote:
>
>> There are plenty of cameras that take great pictures,
>>and I have used a
>> large, heavy camera in the glider, but I'm not willing
>>to do it anymore.
>> Camera technology has improved so much, and some of
>>the cameras I've
>> looked at are so close to being acceptable, I remain
>>optimistic. The
>> difficult feature for the smaller cameras seems to
>>be the minimum focal
>> length (wide angle). Big zooms must be easier to achieve.
>
>Forgot to mention this site:
>
>http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/specs.asp
>
>It has tons of info about many new digital cameras.
>
>Shawn
>

[Eric Greenwell]

Shawn wrote:

> Eric Greenwell wrote:
>
>> There are plenty of cameras that take great pictures, and I have used
>> a large, heavy camera in the glider, but I'm not willing to do it
>> anymore. Camera technology has improved so much, and some of the
>> cameras I've looked at are so close to being acceptable, I remain
>> optimistic. The difficult feature for the smaller cameras seems to be
>> the minimum focal length (wide angle). Big zooms must be easier to
>> achieve.
>
>
> Forgot to mention this site:
>
> http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/specs.asp
>
> It has tons of info about many new digital cameras.

Brilliant! Just what I was hoping for (life is good).

--
Change "netto" to "net" to email me directly

Eric Greenwell
Washington State
USA

[Bruce Hoult]

In article >,
Eric Greenwell > wrote:

> There are plenty of cameras that take great pictures, and I have used a
> large, heavy camera in the glider, but I'm not willing to do it anymore.
> Camera technology has improved so much, and some of the cameras I've
> looked at are so close to being acceptable, I remain optimistic. The
> difficult feature for the smaller cameras seems to be the minimum focal
> length (wide angle). Big zooms must be easier to achieve.

Fuji seem to be the only company that care about wide angle in compact
cameras. I love my old Fujifilm DL-Super Mini Zoom 35mm film camera,
which has a very nice 28-56mm zoom lens, and I bought my current Fuji
e500 4 megapixel digital camera pretty much because of the 28-90mm
(equiv) zooom lens and the manual controls. Fortunately it also happens
to be an excellent camera, but is usually hijacked by my g/f. You can
see pics she takes with it at
http://www.canllaith.org/Canllaiths_gallery/ (all except the "South
Island" gallary, which was an older Sony).

--
Bruce | 41.1670S | \ spoken | -+-
Hoult | 174.8263E | /\ here. | ----------O----------

[COLIN LAMB]

Hi Eric:

No longer satisfied with the Nikon F duct taped to the wings?

Here is an alternate approach to think about. Buy one or more miniature
television cameras. These things can be tiny and inexpensive (some are no
more than the size of a pencil eraser). Then mount one in the front of the
sailplane and run a cable back to your palm computer and use the palm
computer to record photos. You could have a camera in each wingtip and even
one in the tail. Total weight just a few ounces. Switch cameras with a
switch in the cockpit.

Regarding the polarizing filter, it needs to be rotated for maximum
effectiveness, depending upon the angle of the sun. If the filter is fixed,
you may have to rotate the sailplane for maximum effect. Polarizing
aerobatics, so to speak.

Colin

[2cernauta2]

Eric Greenwell > wrote:

>I'd like to replace my current digital camera with one better suited to
>pictures from my glider, but I'm having difficulty finding one with the
>features I want.

You'll have to check many different tipes on dpreview.com
It will take a long time...

I suggest you check:
Nikon 8400, 8megapix, zoom 24-85mm
Canon S80, 8MP, zoom 28-100mm
Canon S70, 7MP " " "
Canon S60, 6MP " " "
Minolta A200, 8MP, zoom 28-200

and probably many others.
The latest prosumer is the gorgeous Sony dsc-R1 (10MP, zoom 24-120),
buti it won't pass through your canopy window for hand-held shots from
outside.

Aldo Cernezzi

[Eric Greenwell]

COLIN LAMB wrote:

> Hi Eric:
>
> No longer satisfied with the Nikon F duct taped to the wings?
>
> Here is an alternate approach to think about. Buy one or more miniature
> television cameras. These things can be tiny and inexpensive (some are no
> more than the size of a pencil eraser). Then mount one in the front of the
> sailplane and run a cable back to your palm computer and use the palm
> computer to record photos. You could have a camera in each wingtip and even
> one in the tail. Total weight just a few ounces. Switch cameras with a
> switch in the cockpit.

Poor image quality, unfortunately.
>
> Regarding the polarizing filter, it needs to be rotated for maximum
> effectiveness, depending upon the angle of the sun. If the filter is fixed,
> you may have to rotate the sailplane for maximum effect. Polarizing
> aerobatics, so to speak.

I'll probably just hold it in my hand to try at first, then try it on
the camera. Possibly one orientation might adequate, since the
reflections on the canopy always come from the same place (the
instruments), so sun position might not matter.

--
Change "netto" to "net" to email me directly

Eric Greenwell
Washington State
USA

[chris]

I've had some good luck with a wing mounted camera using a Radio remote
control with a Harbortronics Digisnap 2200 controller and Nikon Coolpix
5400 digital camera.

examples:
http://www.ssa.org/sport/PhotoGalleryDetail.asp?PhotoId=1026
http://www.ssa.org/sport/PhotoGalleryDetail.asp?PhotoId=1028
http://www.chilhowee.com/DSCN0560%20e.jpg
http://www.chilhowee.com/DSCN0565.JPG
http://www.chilhowee.com/DSCN0567.JPG

hardware:
http://www.harbortronics.com/detail.php?id=19
http://www.harbortronics.com/

Their system works with a lot of Nikons and a few other brands.


another option outside the US:
http://www.jg-ic.com/jgrc1.html
This would work with a Sony DSC-V1 or other Sonys


with some cameras a systems such as this could be added to a radio
remote
http://wading-in.net/Remote.html

regards,
Chris

[Eric Greenwell]

2cernauta2 wrote:
> Eric Greenwell > wrote:
>
>
>>I'd like to replace my current digital camera with one better suited to
>>pictures from my glider, but I'm having difficulty finding one with the
>>features I want.
>
>
> You'll have to check many different tipes on dpreview.com
> It will take a long time...
>
> I suggest you check:
> Nikon 8400, 8megapix, zoom 24-85mm
> Canon S80, 8MP, zoom 28-100mm
> Canon S70, 7MP " " "
> Canon S60, 6MP " " "
> Minolta A200, 8MP, zoom 28-200
>
> and probably many others.
> The latest prosumer is the gorgeous Sony dsc-R1 (10MP, zoom 24-120),
> buti it won't pass through your canopy window for hand-held shots from
> outside.

I've just been using dpreview.com, and it's a great site. It came up
with the Canon S80, Fujifilm E510, and some way too expensive Leica,
Ricoh, and Panasonic models. The S80 appears to do everything I want,
and reasonably priced at ~$470, except I can't be sure the LCD is bright
enough in sunlight. Probably have to look at one somewhere.

The A200 and 8400 are better functionally, but quite a bit heavier and
bigger. The prices are more, also, but not bad at about $150 more than
the S80. I'll keep them on the list, just in case the compact camera
idea doesn't work out.

--
Change "netto" to "net" to email me directly

Eric Greenwell
Washington State
USA

[Eric Greenwell]

chris wrote:

> I've had some good luck with a wing mounted camera using a Radio remote
> control with a Harbortronics Digisnap 2200 controller and Nikon Coolpix
> 5400 digital camera.

snip

Some interesting equipment, and perhaps the camera I pick for external
glider pictures will have the inputs required.


--
Change "netto" to "net" to email me directly

Eric Greenwell
Washington State
USA

[Paul Remde]

Hi,

Nine photos!

Paul Remde

"chris" > wrote in message
oups.com...
> I've had some good luck with a wing mounted camera using a Radio remote
> control with a Harbortronics Digisnap 2200 controller and Nikon Coolpix
> 5400 digital camera.
>
> examples:
> http://www.ssa.org/sport/PhotoGalleryDetail.asp?PhotoId=1026
> http://www.ssa.org/sport/PhotoGalleryDetail.asp?PhotoId=1028
> http://www.chilhowee.com/DSCN0560%20e.jpg
> http://www.chilhowee.com/DSCN0565.JPG
> http://www.chilhowee.com/DSCN0567.JPG
>
> hardware:
> http://www.harbortronics.com/detail.php?id=19
> http://www.harbortronics.com/
>
> Their system works with a lot of Nikons and a few other brands.
>
>
> another option outside the US:
> http://www.jg-ic.com/jgrc1.html
> This would work with a Sony DSC-V1 or other Sonys
>
>
> with some cameras a systems such as this could be added to a radio
> remote
> http://wading-in.net/Remote.html
>
> regards,
> Chris
>

[Andy Blackburn]

At 03:12 08 December 2005, Chris wrote:
>I've had some good luck with a wing mounted camera
>using a Radio remote
>control with a Harbortronics Digisnap 2200 controller
>and Nikon Coolpix
>5400 digital camera.
>

I have the same rig, but find the 5400 hs too much
shutter lag and way too small an LCD for handheld shots.

The new Fujis get great reviews for near-zero shutter
lags and excellent high-ASA performance. Some have
2.5' LCDs. They don't have lots of manual features
and I doubt they have remote shutter releases.

http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/fujifilmf10zoom/

9B

[Eric Greenwell]

Andy Blackburn wrote:

> At 03:12 08 December 2005, Chris wrote:
>
>>I've had some good luck with a wing mounted camera
>>using a Radio remote
>>control with a Harbortronics Digisnap 2200 controller
>>and Nikon Coolpix
>>5400 digital camera.
>>
>
>
> I have the same rig, but find the 5400 hs too much
> shutter lag and way too small an LCD for handheld shots.
>
> The new Fujis get great reviews for near-zero shutter
> lags and excellent high-ASA performance. Some have
> 2.5' LCDs. They don't have lots of manual features
> and I doubt they have remote shutter releases.
>
> http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/fujifilmf10zoom/

The Fuji models are quite attractive, but only two current models seem
to have the wide angle (28 mm equivalent) that I want. The E500 and E510
have most of want I want and are priced well, but appear to have long
shutter lag, no continuous or burst mode, and a 2" LCD monitor that is
alleged to wash out in sunlight. So far, the Canon S80 seems to be the
best fit, but I don't know for sure that it's LCD is any better (though
it's bigger at 2.5"). None of them have remote releases, unfortunately,
but I think this can accomplished with some tinkering, using a low cost
radio control system for model cars/aiplanes.

--
Change "netto" to "net" to email me directly

Eric Greenwell
Washington State
USA

[Bill Gribble]

2cernauta2 > writes
>Nikon 8400, 8megapix, zoom 24-85mm

I got one of these. Lovely camera, doesn't really fall into the small
and compact category though. Sort of a stepping stone hybrid between
compact and SLR. But it does hang on its strap quite nicely around your
neck - just make sure it's secured against bouncing off your forehead in
the event of a cable break if you launch on the winch!

A link to some pictures taken with it using a polarising filter a couple
of weekends ago over the Cotswolds here in the UK (not soaring - I was
ballast in a motor-falke :-)

http://j.domaindlx.com/scapegoatsanon/

--
Bill Gribble
http://www.harlequin.uk.net
http://www.scapegoatsanon.demon.co.uk
"Consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds" - Emerson

[Martin Gregorie]

Eric Greenwell wrote:
> Andy Blackburn wrote:
>
>> At 03:12 08 December 2005, Chris wrote:
>>
>>> I've had some good luck with a wing mounted camera
>>> using a Radio remote
>>> control with a Harbortronics Digisnap 2200 controller
>>> and Nikon Coolpix
>>> 5400 digital camera.
>>>
>>
>>
>> I have the same rig, but find the 5400 hs too much
>> shutter lag and way too small an LCD for handheld shots.
>>
>> The new Fujis get great reviews for near-zero shutter
>> lags and excellent high-ASA performance. Some have
>> 2.5' LCDs. They don't have lots of manual features
>> and I doubt they have remote shutter releases.
>>
>> http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/fujifilmf10zoom/
>
> The Fuji models are quite attractive, but only two current models seem
> to have the wide angle (28 mm equivalent) that I want. The E500 and E510
> have most of want I want and are priced well, but appear to have long
> shutter lag, no continuous or burst mode, and a 2" LCD monitor that is
> alleged to wash out in sunlight. So far, the Canon S80 seems to be the
> best fit, but I don't know for sure that it's LCD is any better (though
> it's bigger at 2.5"). None of them have remote releases, unfortunately,
> but I think this can accomplished with some tinkering, using a low cost
> radio control system for model cars/aiplanes.
>
You probably already know this but: if you go the RC way, be kind to the
RC pilots and either stick to 27 mHz or avoid the aircraft-only
frequencies. Boats and cars don't get written off by a bit of
interference like aircraft do.

It would also be interesting to know of the IR control systems used for
indoor models work for this application or if they get swamped by
sunlight reflected off the wings and fuselage.

--
martin@ | Martin Gregorie
gregorie. |
org | Zappa fan & glider pilot

[Shawn]

Bill Gribble wrote:
> 2cernauta2 > writes
>
>> Nikon 8400, 8megapix, zoom 24-85mm
>
>
> I got one of these. Lovely camera, doesn't really fall into the small
> and compact category though. Sort of a stepping stone hybrid between
> compact and SLR. But it does hang on its strap quite nicely around your
> neck - just make sure it's secured against bouncing off your forehead in
> the event of a cable break if you launch on the winch!
>
> A link to some pictures taken with it using a polarising filter a couple
> of weekends ago over the Cotswolds here in the UK (not soaring - I was
> ballast in a motor-falke :-)
>
> http://j.domaindlx.com/scapegoatsanon/

Bandwidth exceeded :-(

[chris]

snip> >
> You probably already know this but: if you go the RC way, be kind to the
> RC pilots and either stick to 27 mHz or avoid the aircraft-only
> frequencies. Boats and cars don't get written off by a bit of
> interference like aircraft do.
There usually are no RC equipment near where I fly, and if there were I
would have a problem too if they were on my frequency. I however am
only transmitting for about 1/2 second for each photo so it it not a
continuous broadcast.


> It would also be interesting to know of the IR control systems used for
> indoor models work for this application or if they get swamped by
> sunlight reflected off the wings and fuselage.

Tried that - some pictures work - but the sunlight is definitely a
problem for many [but not all] angles. I got some good shots using a
Canon Powershot G5 and it's IR remote, but a lot of shots failed
because of the sun. I had built a glareshield that helped, but in the
end that was too frustrating to everything lined up for an air to air
shot and have no photo. This is why I switched to a radio control.
A wired controller would work too, but stringing a wire along the wing
where it could come loose and jam the flaps/aileron etc made me
disinterested in that approach.

[Eric Greenwell]

Martin Gregorie wrote:
>> None of them have remote
>> releases, unfortunately, but I think this can accomplished with some
>> tinkering, using a low cost radio control system for model cars/aiplanes.
>>
> You probably already know this but: if you go the RC way, be kind to the
> RC pilots and either stick to 27 mHz or avoid the aircraft-only
> frequencies. Boats and cars don't get written off by a bit of
> interference like aircraft do.

Good thoughts - I was thinking of the cheapest car type with the
shortest usable antenna on the transmitter, since only 30 feet of range
is required.

>
> It would also be interesting to know of the IR control systems used for
> indoor models work for this application or if they get swamped by
> sunlight reflected off the wings and fuselage.

I'm not aware of this type, but I suspect swamping wouldn't be a
problem. IR units typically use modulation to avoid ambient light level
problems. Do you have a URL or two I could look at?

--
Change "netto" to "net" to email me directly

Eric Greenwell
Washington State
USA

[Eric Greenwell]

chris wrote:

> snip> >
>
>>You probably already know this but: if you go the RC way, be kind to the
>>RC pilots and either stick to 27 mHz or avoid the aircraft-only
>>frequencies. Boats and cars don't get written off by a bit of
>>interference like aircraft do.
>
> There usually are no RC equipment near where I fly, and if there were I
> would have a problem too if they were on my frequency. I however am
> only transmitting for about 1/2 second for each photo so it it not a
> continuous broadcast.

Shortening the antennas, on the receiver and transmitter on the
sailplane units would also reduce interference risks for all users.
>
>
>
>>It would also be interesting to know of the IR control systems used for
>>indoor models work for this application or if they get swamped by
>>sunlight reflected off the wings and fuselage.
>
>
> Tried that - some pictures work - but the sunlight is definitely a
> problem for many [but not all] angles. I got some good shots using a
> Canon Powershot G5 and it's IR remote, but a lot of shots failed
> because of the sun. I had built a glareshield that helped, but in the
> end that was too frustrating to everything lined up for an air to air
> shot and have no photo.

Sorry to hear that!

--
Change "netto" to "net" to email me directly

Eric Greenwell
Washington State
USA

[chris]

For a video camera option instead of a still camera I saw this and
thought it might be good for head mounting, as well as easy to mount
externally on wingtip, or tail.

Tony Hawk First Video Camera
http://www.tigerdirect.com/applications/SearchTools/item-details.asp?EdpNo=1592260&Sku=P303-1000

it has an SD card, and I think 32mb=~30 minutes.
so a 1GB card would probably be a long video. if it works that way.

Chris

[Jack]

Eric Greenwell wrote:

> Actually, I think my requirements for a cockpit camera are few, mainly a
> wide angle lens for better scenery pictures, and an LCD that is
> practical for aiming the camera at another glider in flight. I think
> that feature will make it air-to-air pictures easier and safer.

The Nikon 8400 works well for interior shots with its wide angle zoom
lens (equivalent to 24mm focal length on a 35mm film camera, or about
a 75 degree angle of view) and swing-out LCD. The cockpit of the 1-26
is a little tight for mounting, but the camera does the job -- eight
MB stills and 999 consecutive seconds of motion at 320x240 color or B&W,
and 60 sec. of 640x480 color. With sequence lengths of up to 16:39
possible, and proper editing, an interesting video could probably be
made. It will accept screw-in filters as a film camera does. I use a
daylight filter, as much for lens protection as anything else, but a
polarizing filter is worth trying.

Google Video has a short chopped-up piece made with this camera:
<http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=8599456403526520656&q=sailplane>
This was a test, and the quality is atrocious due to Google's
compression for playback on the web. The original file looks good
on a desktop screen or TV.

For a pure video camera I'm still using an old bulky analog Sony
Hi-Eight, so I have no suggestions. The best place to mount that thing
inside a 1-26 is the ballast box, but it makes good pictures and I do
have a wide-angle aux. lens for it. Maybe next season I'll make a
three-hour unedited video of my fingers wrapped around the stick, with
the five point harness connector in the background. Should be exciting.


Jack

[309]

Shawn wrote:

>
> Make sure what ever you get can accept a polarizing filter to get rid of
> canopy reflections.
>

Or fly a 1-26 with a sports canopy, so you shoot through air, not
plexi! ;-P

I settled on the Canon G-6 last year. I wanted fast shutter speed, and
features like programmable infinity focus...I've had other cameras that
had efficient infra red auto focus mechanisms: they focused perfectly
on the INSIDE of the plexiglass!

Soon I'll make a "sock" to put around the darned marketing department
silver plastic body.

Overall, I like the camera a great deal. I think they're $400 on
Costco.com I opted to get a 1G Lexar Pro CF flash card (much faster
than other digital memory...at least when I bought it).

Another good thing to get is a memory to PC-Card adapter. It can make
downloading todays pix to your laptop much easier than getting SeeYou
to suck a trace from a VolksLogger.

Good Luck!

[Eric Greenwell]

309 wrote:
> Shawn wrote:
>
>
>>Make sure what ever you get can accept a polarizing filter to get rid of
>>canopy reflections.
>>
>
>
> Or fly a 1-26 with a sports canopy, so you shoot through air, not
> plexi! ;-P
>
> I settled on the Canon G-6 last year. I wanted fast shutter speed, and
> features like programmable infinity focus...I've had other cameras that
> had efficient infra red auto focus mechanisms: they focused perfectly
> on the INSIDE of the plexiglass!

How well does the infrared remote control work, or haven't you tried it
out on a wing tip?

--
Change "netto" to "net" to email me directly

Eric Greenwell
Washington State
USA

[Bill Gribble]

Yeah, story of my life! Sorry about that. Amazing how quickly a few
pictures will go through a gig of bandwidth!

Alternative link to a smaller selection of same pictures on Imageshack:

http://img373.imageshack.us/gal.php?g=gfefe2355pv.jpg

Cheers,


Bill

Shawn > writes
>> A link to some pictures taken with it using a polarising filter a
>>couple of weekends ago over the Cotswolds here in the UK (not soaring
>>- I was ballast in a motor-falke :-)
>> http://j.domaindlx.com/scapegoatsanon/
>
>Bandwidth exceeded :-(

--
Bill Gribble
http://www.harlequin.uk.net
http://www.scapegoatsanon.demon.co.uk
"Consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds" - Emerson

[Martin Gregorie]

Eric Greenwell wrote:
> Martin Gregorie wrote:
>> It would also be interesting to know of the IR control systems used
>> for indoor models work for this application or if they get swamped by
>> sunlight reflected off the wings and fuselage.
>
> I'm not aware of this type, but I suspect swamping wouldn't be a
> problem. IR units typically use modulation to avoid ambient light level
> problems. Do you have a URL or two I could look at?
>
Sorry, no tried and tested URLs. I'm a Free Flight model flier not an RC
pilot but I read the mags and use the servos as output from Free Flight
models automatic systems. Asking your local RC club if any of them use
IR systems and talking to them if they do would probably be more useful
than reading web adverts. This way you'll find out what works and what
doesn't and crucially, what's available and well regarded in your area.

Having said that, I did a quick Google for "indoor IR control models".

http://n-lemma.com/indoorrc/

was the first hit. Cool pics, and there are links to equipment lists at
the bottom of the page. Who knows, you might even get into this stuff as
a winter activity. The links on this site may help too:

http://members.aol.com/Lecisifly/ztron.html

You need a receiver that can drive a standard servo. This will be easier
to rig to trip the camera release: the very light weight stuff uses
specialized, very small low powered control actuators and servos. Not
what you want. By "standard" servos I mean an off the shelf model shop
item with a three wire connection: they all accept the same signals and
voltage and, apart from the connectors used by different receivers, are
interchangeable. These range from small (20mm x 15mm x 7mm, 7g) upwards
and generate more oomph as they get bigger. The very small and cute
start to get expensive, but the "mini" and "standard" sizes are fairly
cheap: in the $20-$30 range per servo.

Take care to design your triggering mechanics so you can't stall a servo
or drive it into a limit stop: they don't like that at all.

--
martin@ | Martin Gregorie
gregorie. |
org | Zappa fan & glider pilot

[Shawn]

Bill Gribble wrote:
> Yeah, story of my life! Sorry about that. Amazing how quickly a few
> pictures will go through a gig of bandwidth!
>
> Alternative link to a smaller selection of same pictures on Imageshack:
>
> http://img373.imageshack.us/gal.php?g=gfefe2355pv.jpg

Very nice!

Shawn

[Eric Greenwell]

Martin Gregorie wrote:

> Having said that, I did a quick Google for "indoor IR control
> models".
>
> http://n-lemma.com/indoorrc/
>
> was the first hit. Cool pics, and there are links to equipment lists
> at the bottom of the page. Who knows, you might even get into this
> stuff as a winter activity. The links on this site may help too:
>
> http://members.aol.com/Lecisifly/ztron.html

When you wrote "indoor models", I assumed you meant "models used
indoors". What a surprise to see the rubber powered microfilm covered
models I used fly in college are now electric powered and radio controlled!
>
> You need a receiver that can drive a standard servo. This will be
> easier to rig to trip the camera release: the very light weight stuff
> uses specialized, very small low powered control actuators and
> servos. Not what you want. By "standard" servos I mean an off the
> shelf model shop item with a three wire connection: they all accept
> the same signals and voltage and, apart from the connectors used by
> different receivers, are interchangeable. These range from small
> (20mm x 15mm x 7mm, 7g) upwards and generate more oomph as they get
> bigger. The very small and cute start to get expensive, but the
> "mini" and "standard" sizes are fairly cheap: in the $20-$30 range
> per servo.

I agree, the really small stuff is too small. Perhaps the "consumer" RC
model car stuff would be the best choice: cheap, and short range, so
unlikely to cause other users any grief.

> Take care to design your triggering mechanics so you can't stall a
> servo or drive it into a limit stop: they don't like that at all.

And it probably increases the current drain dramatically.

--
Change "netto" to "net" to email me directly

Eric Greenwell
Washington State
USA

[309]

Eric Greenwell wrote:
> 309 wrote:
> >I've had other cameras that
> > had efficient infra red auto focus mechanisms: they focused perfectly
> > on the INSIDE of the plexiglass!
>
> How well does the infrared remote control work, or haven't you tried it
> out on a wing tip?

The remote works well on the ground...I haven't tried it in the air.
I'm told other folks have had reasonable success with tip mounted
cameras & remotes. There was an article in Soaring 5 or 6 years ago on
building a camera mount and remote, solenoid operated trigger; it was
mounted on a 1-36.

I was referrring to the focusing mechanism, nowadays it's usually an
infrared beam that the camera uses to measure distance. If you fail to
disable this "feature," the camera will detect the INSIDE of your
canopy, and focus on that, rather than the other glider 75 feet away
(effectively infinity).

By setting the focus on "infinity," (or sometimes referred to as
"landscape mode"), you tell the camera to look through the
(plexi)glass. Practice this by taking pictures through a window or
screen door. You'll notice the difference (not that I have a screen
door on my 1-26 Sports Canopy...).

A camera with programmable custom modes (like the Canon G6, which C1
and C2 modes that be programmed virtually any way you want), you can
set speed, aperture, focus, etc., in advance so you don't need to mess
with that while trying to remember how to fly. FWIW, I set the C1 mode
to wide angle, infinity focus (I forget the other settings), and C2 to
maximum zoom with infinity focus. This way, I can turn it on and it
quickly will be at the settings I need for a close up formation shot,
or a far off one.

A bunch of my air-to-air photograhpy is visible on the 1-26 Association
Photo Gallery
http://www.126association.org/images.htm
There are many pix there from other photoraphers, too.

Be careful when doing this...flying formation can get
dangerous...especially when one (or both) of you is looking through a
viewfinder...nevermind flying left handed. Talking to one another is
very wise.

-Pete
#309

[Eric Greenwell]

309 wrote:

>
> I was referrring to the focusing mechanism, nowadays it's usually an
> infrared beam that the camera uses to measure distance. If you fail to
> disable this "feature," the camera will detect the INSIDE of your
> canopy, and focus on that, rather than the other glider 75 feet away
> (effectively infinity).

You'll be pleased to know that most cameras now look at scene features,
rather than use infrared, so they no longer focus on transparent
objects. Big improvement!

> By setting the focus on "infinity," (or sometimes referred to as
> "landscape mode"), you tell the camera to look through the
> (plexi)glass. Practice this by taking pictures through a window or
> screen door. You'll notice the difference (not that I have a screen
> door on my 1-26 Sports Canopy...).

For example, my 4 year old Minolta Dimage X has no trouble with canopies
and windows (haven't tried screen doors - not good for the image
either). It can still mis-focus if something nearby is in the focus
field, so being able to manually set the focus can occasionally be useful.

>
> A camera with programmable custom modes (like the Canon G6, which C1
> and C2 modes that be programmed virtually any way you want), you can
> set speed, aperture, focus, etc., in advance so you don't need to mess
> with that while trying to remember how to fly.

This feature was on several of the cameras I looked, including the Canon
S80 that seems the best match for my criteria (so far). Sounds useful.

snip

> Be careful when doing this...flying formation can get
> dangerous...especially when one (or both) of you is looking through a
> viewfinder

This is why I want a large LCD monitor, visible in sunlight, that I can
use instead of a viewfinder. Don't know how well it will work, but I
really hope it does.

>...nevermind flying left handed.

No problem here - I'm left-handed and fly almost as well with it.

> Talking to one another is
> very wise.

That's what prompted my mostly unsuccessful posting about a wireless,
ear mounted microphone. I'll probably go back to my sunglasses mounted
Plantronics mike, wired though it is, until I come up with something better.

--
Change "netto" to "net" to email me directly

Eric Greenwell
Washington State
USA