IS from aircraft ?

I have the opportunity to take to the skies at 'mates rates' in a

helicopter and hope to do some shooting of our local harbour and

city. This will be a one time deal and I am anxious not to screw it

up too bad.

 

I will have my 1n, 50 1.8 and 28-135IS, I hope to use the 50 most of

the time but may have to switch to get wider.

 

A while back I read that IS should not be used from an aircraft

(sounded illogical to me). The writer went into a very techno

discussion about high frequencies and so forth and for the life of me

I can not track down this info now. So my question is does anybody

have experience with IS from the air and is there any reason I should

switch this off?

 

Any other general tips about airborne photography will also be much

appreciated :)

 

P.S. Thanks all you regular posters, I have been lurking for some

time and have found all your advice very helpful.

There are apparently a lot of electronic devices that are not recommended for use on an aircraft. Some say it's because of radio frequency jams, some say it's because the plane's potential difference while flying through earth's magnetic field, some say it's because the fuel might ignite!

 

My friend, who's a student pilot, flies cessnas on a daily basis and he has always been using his electronic gadgets on the plane. Palm pilots to cell phones you name it. It has never caused him any problems. It's hard to believe that a microcomputer hooked up to some magnets inside a lens covered by metal casing (is the 28-135IS metal?) will cause harm to the airplane or vice versa.

Nonsense. Although my experience is not with helicopters, I got excellent results

while using the 28-135 F3.5 - 5.6 IS on flight. The 50 1.8 is a great lens, but a bit

constrictive for to capture panorama. The IS on and off, made a lot of difference.

Cheers! Galvani

That's pure BS. I've banged away for hundreds of hours in single engine planes with my EF 28-135 IS USM. The pilot, my father, is a licensed aircraft mechanic and inspector and it didn't bother him or his communications and navigation gear.

 

I've also shot with that lens from commercial airliners and didn't notice the plane going off course...

Well, if something goes screwy I am sure the pilot will reach over and smack you: Then you will switch off the IS and everything will be ok.

I have become a "frequent flyer" in a "Bell Jet Ranger II" jet helicopter while using a 10D & 28-135. We have not experienced any problems, nor has the owner/pilot ever been cautioned by the helicopter manufacturer to avoid using <i>any</i> type of camera gear.<p>I have found a good starting point (on a bright, clear day) to be ISO 400, Tv mode, 1/320, let the aperture fall where it may - usually between 5.6 and 11. But then, the adjustable ISO of digital makes it easier for me to keep the fast shutter speed if light is poor. That's the "plus" side of using the Canon digital - the "minus" side is that the 28-135 is sometimes not quite wide enough due to the camera's 1.6x crop factor.<p>Also, don't brace yourself against any part of the aircraft - the vibrations will travel right to the camera.<p>I prefer to stick the camera and/or lens outside an open window, as I have found that shooting through the immaculately clean but slightly blue plexiglass windows causes the need for color/contrast/other corrections in Photoshop (but often with amazing results).

Is your question about radio frequency interference or dynamic response of the IS lens to inputs of high frequencies and amplitude? I know a car is no airplane, but as a passenger yesterday I was looking through the viewfinder with an 28-135 IS lens when I realized how completely overwhelmed the lens was to the task -- and how wonderful the human eye is. I would say to use the highest shutter speed possible and pray.

Thanks for all your quick responses. The question was more aimed at the photo results rather than airborne safety, the high frequencies referred to were vibrations rather than RF. (Good to know I won't be damning us all to a fiery death though!).

The helicopter moving to such a great degree in relation to the ground in a mannor which is not predicted by IS, do you risk IS causing more trouble than good?

 

For instance, if you move the lens upward while the helicopter moves downward (making the ground apear upward as well) would you risk compounding the motion on the frame?

Flying level, up to 110mph, at 1100+ feet up, the ground I shoot is so far off to the side from me that it seems almost stationary, so the helicopter movement really is not an issue. I can see how Yogi's experience in a moving car was different, since he was relatively close to his constantly moving subject. Okay, the camera is moving, not the subject. But still.<p>The IS is still quite effective at minimizing my own bouncing around as I try to hold the camera out the window without touching or leaning on anything. Something must be working right since I'm getting nice 12x18 prints with the 28-135. Another friend of the pilot had no success using similar settings on a Sony MVC-CD400. Not one of his shots turned out sharp at all, and I had to reshoot that project.

Sounds like nonsense to me. I've shot from a variety of airplanes and helicopters with

a Canon 100-400IS L, no problem. The IS really helps cut down vibration. It is very

similar technology to larger gyros used to stabilize whole systems where the camera

is built in or mounted to the aircraft.

 

If you can, and it doesn't scare the sh*t out of you, take the side door off the

helicopter. You'll be strapped in, but you have to really watch your gear. The

advantage is you get a great wide open field of view with no obstructions or

plexiglass in your way. I don't know what you plan to shoot, or from what altitude,

but I'm having a hard time imagining using the 50mm. I use the 100-400 most of the

time I'm shooting from the air unless I'm very close to my subject. Depends what

you're shooting, I guess. If you're shooting the whole city, you might want wider. Just

use the 28-135 and don't bother with the 50 (you won't want to mess with switching

lenses, especially with the door off). Any advantage the 50 has in sharpness will be

compensated for by the IS in the other lens when you are shooting from a vibrating

platform.

I seem to vaguely recall that when the 28-135 IS came out, Canon illustrated the advert with a photo taken of a plane from another plane, presumably to emphasise the IS capability. My memory might be playing tricks, but if I remember correctly, it would be rather contradictory if IS couldnt be used ok in an aircraft.

 

Hope all goes well, let us know if it worked!

 

Anthony

It works for me. With proper technique your body will damp high frequency vibrations from the aircraft, while the IS cancels the shake introduced by hand holding and minor turbulence. My guess would be the writer in question either never shot from an aircraft or never used an IS lens.<p>Karl Lehmann <a href="http://www.lostworldarts.com/new_page_3.htm">Lost World

Arts</a>