PL vs Still for Aerials

[Mark Lovelock]

Hey guys,
Are Still lenses more prone to show vibrations when doing aerials than PL lenses? I'm talking about the inside elements of the lens. Assume your using a hard rigged nose mount.

 

[Matthew Duclos]

For the most part, the answer to your question is yes.
Modern auto-focus lenses have VERY loose tolerances so that the weak, slight motors can drive large groups of glass with little to no effort.
Then you have lenses like the Leicas and Zeiss ZF full manual lenses. These lenses are built with much tighter tolerances and would be well suited for stable shooting.
Still, not as good as a true cine lens, but better none the less.

 

[Erik Widding]

We have a large group of customers using Canon "L" prime lenses in aerial mapping-like applications, where they are tiling multiple cameras to get a larger field of view, and using a fixed relationship to do the reconstruction. Flight vehicle is a cessna, hard mount in the belly.

It really depends on the lens, and what you want to accomplish... what focal length are you looking to hit?

 

[Matthew Duclos]

We have a large group of customers using Canon "L" prime lenses in aerial mapping-like applications, where they are tiling multiple cameras to get a larger field of view, and using a fixed relationship to do the reconstruction. Flight vehicle is a cessna, hard mount in the belly.

It really depends on the lens, and what you want to accomplish... what focal length are you looking to hit?

Another good point...
If you are shooting with an 18mm at something that is hundreds of feet away, you'll never see the shift.
If you are shooting with an 800mm, you'll see plenty of shift.

 

[Erik Widding]

Another good point...
If you are shooting with an 18mm at something that is hundreds of feet away, you'll never see the shift.
If you are shooting with an 800mm, you'll see plenty of shift.

And, if you are shooting with an 800mm you are never going to hard mount, as there is enough vibration in the flight vehicle, that you are going to have a problem... you need to stabilize...

 

[Matt Uhry]

Be afraid of the vibration! You can have trouble with good quality cine zooms, while using a hard nose mount. It's worst on a piston helicopter like a R-22. It might not just be image shift, but also motion related blur. ( in Erik's mapping example they are probably using a short shutter speed and are not concerned with registration ) A medium wide cine prime would be the safest choice. Of course you always could do some tests.

Nikon / Canon mounts also employ leaf springs which does not help matters. ( Except for the Nikon Pro Lock, which is solid. )

Matt Uhry
www.mattuhry.com

 

[Mark Lovelock]

hey thanks for the replies - I was planning on shooting at 17mm using a Nikon 17-35mm lens. Based on your feedback - maybe i'd be better off hiring a RED 18-50 and swapping the mount? What would really be good is a gyro stabilised mount - but budget is a factor here. Am doing some tests on Friday so will let you know how I go!

 

[Matthew Duclos]

Both of those lenses would be sufficient, but not ideal.
Your best route, if possible, would be an Angenieux 15-40mm.

 

[Mark Lovelock]

Just did a few tests and the Nikon worked well. Made sure I took a few precautions though. Gaffa taped both zoom and focus, and also gaffa taped the lens tightly to the rods as there's a little play in the mount.