Mirrorless Cameras

[fineberg]

I recently purchased a Canon R7 which I plan to use for taking still pictures at High Power launches. I had previously used a Canon 80D DSLR (which I still have), and I was attracted by the size, faster focus, in-body stabilization, and the ability to shoot continuous shots at much faster speeds. The R7 can shoot at 15fps with a mechanical shutter or 30fps with a fully electronic one. I also chose the R7 which is APS-C because it gives me better reach, compared to the full frame options, which I want for pictures on the out pads and in the air. I purchased a RF 100-400 lens to go with it, which I plan to use instead of the EF 70-300 I was using before.

I was wondering what experience people had with mirrorless cameras, and any suggestions for how to get better shots.

 

[FredA]

Turn OFF stabilization. Works against you at high shutter speeds.
Learn to back-button focus - AF is NOT your friend during boost.
Don't ETTR - the flame will wash out - back off a bit on exposure if anything.
Practice!
Have fun.

Also - "DX Reach" is a misnomer - it's all about pixel density => pixels on the subject.

 

[fineberg]

Agreed that reach is a misnomer. Its about having 34M pixels on the center of the image, which is what I care about anyways. I have had some great in the air images with my 80D (also APS-C) with my 70-300, though they tend to get pretty small some times. I am hoping the extra 100mm of my 100-400 will help. I keep seeing suggestions to back off on exposure and back-button auto focus, I'll definitely give that a try.

 

[Last Ox]

I use an EOS RP for astrophotography, and a got a Lumix GH6 pretty much exclusively for rocket videos (I've stayed away from stills at launches, we have a local pro and since I post my work gratis I wanted to stay out of his specialty).

The GH6 has only moderate image quality and horrible auto-focus, but with a cooling fan it can move data onto storage very quickly - enabling insane frame rates for as long as you hold the button down.

For both astrophotography and (moving) rockets, I use a red dot reflex sight rather than a viewfinder. bigger is better, I'm trying out a 1x50 in place of the 1x40 I stole from my telescope for last year's videos. For astrophotos, the viewfinder and screen on the camera are essentially useless, for rockets the sight makes tracking the rocket easier. You do not need to keep your eye up close to the (moving) camera and I find it more intuitive than the display screen, you are literally looking at the rocket and there is no lag or disorientation. The 1x magnification means you can only see the rocket at altitude as well as with the naked eye however, which often means not at all. These sights are used by some birders (but hated by many others - YMMV).

I use a tripod, but a school of thought is they are too clumsy and everything should be hand held. Stabilization is a problem for panning video, it may be better for stills? I'm guessing "off" is better than mediocre stabilization, but the R7 is a lot more sophisticated than most and may do OK.

Focus is an issue. Autofocus is not trained for rockets, and often chokes. Flight is too dynamic to do much manual adjustment. In flight, bright sun and small apertures may be your friend - I get noticeably poorer results in lower light. If you are just looking for pad shots, focus is easier, but if you want to capture staging or other flight events, it gets hard.

I do a lot of cropping. Once the rocket starts moving, keeping it perfectly framed is something that probably only comes with years of practice and more than a little talent. Lacking that, I crop out what I want. The hit you take is more serious for stills than video, you'll need to see what works for you.

I ran into a lot of tradeoffs. I want to get slow motion video of every launch in an event, good enough to watch in IMAX. It turns out you can't do that for any price (really fast cameras are usually one and done until the shot can be moved to storage) so everything is horse trading between frame rate, resolution, recycle time, etc. and (for me at least) cost. It's a lot easier to get good results from one flight on one pad than from every flight on every pad. If you know just what you want out of your photos you can make better tradeoffs.

I found I couldn't tell what I really had until I got it home and on a large monitor. Every time I go out I find new things I need to change (that usually could not be seen on the range). If you have a "must capture" flight, take every opportunity you can to practice beforehand - there is a distinct learning curve. If something isn't working, try something else.

You can find helpful hints if you poke around sports or birding (look for "bird in flight" photography) circles, there are a lot more people doing those seriously than there are shooting rockets. There is a lot of good advice in posts here - the technical differences between DSLR's, mirrorless (or even smart phones) don't affect many of the issues you'll encounter.

And stay aware of what is happening outside the viewfinder, it's easy to lose track of the previous launch - last year I had a high power (ballistic) rocket impact about 20 feet behind me (I did not get video).

 

[FredA]

Note - BIF people like LOW DOF for that artistic look.
Plus they are usually out in poor light and using super-telephotos lenses optimized at wide open.
Not something you usually need for rockets and you can buy yourself a lot of focus latitude by running a larger f-stop.

Today SOTA MLIC's can do magic for rocket photographers.
They support pre-trigger and huge frame rates to JPEG......I assume RAW is coming.
I set mine to 1/2 second pre-trigger and 30FPS at full 45MP JPEGs.
I push the button at ignition and crank until I lose sight of the rocket.
I get 15 frames before I push the button! I could do longer.
Never hit the buffer limit as flights don't last that long.

Or - I can shoot 8K60P/4k120P until I fill a 640GB card - like I can hold the camera that long.

 

[bjphoenix]

I recently purchased a Canon R7 which I plan to use for taking still pictures at High Power launches. I had previously used a Canon 80D DSLR (which I still have), and I was attracted by the size, faster focus, in-body stabilization, and the ability to shoot continuous shots at much faster speeds. The R7 can shoot at 15fps with a mechanical shutter or 30fps with a fully electronic one. I also chose the R7 which is APS-C because it gives me better reach, compared to the full frame options, which I want for pictures on the out pads and in the air. I purchased a RF 100-400 lens to go with it, which I plan to use instead of the EF 70-300 I was using before.

I was wondering what experience people had with mirrorless cameras, and any suggestions for how to get better shots.

The mirrorless doesn't really offer any advantages for rocket launches except for the fast frame rate. There are a few select DSLR that can get around 10 fps but a lot of mirrorless can beat that pretty easily.

For rocket photos I use back button focus as mentioned so it doesn't get reset if the countdown stalls, etc. I use manual mode and set shutter speed to 1/2500 or 1/3000, set aperture to around f5.6, and let the camera use auto-ISO for auto exposure. Then watch the launch and be quick on the shutter release.

For small rockets I'm not sure that frame rate matters anyway. Even a BT55 rocket with B6 motor is usually fast enough that you only get one shot with the rocket in the frame. Maybe if you have 30 fps that would be different. Larger rockets with D12 motors you can benefit from 15 fps. Highpower rockets are usually large enough and launching farther away so even my measly 5fps can work.

Here is a launch from yesterday with D12 motor, taken by my very cheap Nikon D3300. I prefer using my D810 but I bang it around too much at launches so I bought something real cheap to abuse.

 

[fineberg]

I finally got a chance to try the camera at a HP launch last week. I still need more practice, but I got some good results.

 

[fineberg]

Another one from the launch, 15 fps is great for catching the action but I learned that the buffer can fill pretty fast. I missed the M motor I was launching because the the motor took 4-5 secs to come up to pressure. This was the MIT rocket team's launch.

 

[fineberg]

One more. I thought the sparky came out really well.

 

[fineberg]

One interesting thing I found from this launch is that I am sold on using raw mode. If you look at the photos I posted above there is a lot of distortion around the lettering and edges of the rockets. None of that exists on the raw images. They do have some graininess, but no ripples around the edges. Also, one interesting thing was that there was distortion in the exhaust plume on the MIT rocket. It is in the raw image too. I think its heat distorting the air, not anything from the camera.

 

[Hobie1dog]

I recently purchased a Canon R7 which I plan to use for taking still pictures at High Power launches. I had previously used a Canon 80D DSLR (which I still have), and I was attracted by the size, faster focus, in-body stabilization, and the ability to shoot continuous shots at much faster speeds. The R7 can shoot at 15fps with a mechanical shutter or 30fps with a fully electronic one. I also chose the R7 which is APS-C because it gives me better reach, compared to the full frame options, which I want for pictures on the out pads and in the air. I purchased a RF 100-400 lens to go with it, which I plan to use instead of the EF 70-300 I was using before.

I was wondering what experience people had with mirrorless cameras, and any suggestions for how to get better shots.

We have a dedicated Photography thread here:
https://www.rocketryforum.com/threa...niques-post-your-photography-pics-too.184612/

 

[FredA]

Always shoot and process RAW - you have up to 14-bit dynamic range while JPEG is 8-bit.
You also control white balance purely in post as that setting is only for the JPEG engine.

 

[cwbullet]

One more. I thought the sparky came out really well.View attachment 642791

That is a great sparky photo.

 

[bjphoenix]

One interesting thing I found from this launch is that I am sold on using raw mode. If you look at the photos I posted above there is a lot of distortion around the lettering and edges of the rockets. None of that exists on the raw images. They do have some graininess, but no ripples around the edges. Also, one interesting thing was that there was distortion in the exhaust plume on the MIT rocket. It is in the raw image too. I think its heat distorting the air, not anything from the camera.

This might depend on the camera and settings. This sounds like it might be due to in-camera sharpening and/or noise reduction. And yes none of that would be in the raw file. If there is in face some postprocessing being done by the in-camera photo profile you might be able to turn it off. There is no reason for the JPG to have compromised detail compared to the raw. The advantages of the raw file mainly have to do with changing color temperature and correcting exposure problems using the larger dynamic range.

 

[FredA]

There is no reason for the JPG to have compromised detail compared to the raw.

JPEG is heavily compressed - using lossy compression.
Huge levels of detail is discarded. HUGE.
There is PLENTY of reason parts of the image could be distorted by the compression to JPEG.
For a rocket image where the flame is very bright., the 8-bit nature of JPEG would mean that few bits are available to render a dark border.

 

[bjphoenix]

JPEG is heavily compressed - using lossy compression.
Huge levels of detail is discarded. HUGE.
There is PLENTY of reason parts of the image could be distorted by the compression to JPEG.
For a rocket image where the flame is very bright., the 8-bit nature of JPEG would mean that few bits are available to render a dark border.

I read this on the internet all the time. I think most photographers use Adobe products- those products discard the same detail when they produce output files, unless a person works from TIFF files. The detail gets discarded now, or later. Maybe some people are real good at doing the raw conversions but most people I read on the internet probably are not, I know I am not, so the engineers who designed the camera surely do a better job than I do. But yes a person might be able to recover some detail in the flames taking advantage of the greater dynamic range of raw files but ultimately the images are going to become 8 bit one way or another.

Here is the same photo- one version is from the raw file, the other is from the jpg. I can't tell them apart.

 

[FredA]

You only want to use JPEG if your output device (internet) demands that.
There is a new HD-JPEG in the works, but I forget the name right now. However it's only 10-bit as I recall.

16-bit TIFF is probably the way to go for best image quality shared using a common format.

But agree, most output is to 6-bit displays so JPEG is fine - but how you get there is important.
In-camera JPEG engines are good, but there are better ways.
Plus, they are programmed for "normal" photographs and often have trouble with the high dynamic range pushed by the flame luminance.

 

[bjphoenix]

You only want to use JPEG if your output device (internet) demands that.
There is a new HD-JPEG in the works, but I forget the name right now. However it's only 10-bit as I recall.

16-bit TIFF is probably the way to go for best image quality shared using a common format.

But agree, most output is to 6-bit displays so JPEG is fine - but how you get there is important.
In-camera JPEG engines are good, but there are better ways.
Plus, they are programmed for "normal" photographs and often have trouble with the high dynamic range pushed by the flame luminance.

10 bit is a big improvement- it isn't just a couple more bits, it is a couple more decimal places in color value.

I shoot JPG + RAW but the JPG is almost always sufficient for my uses. If I have a problem with exposure, color balance or shadows then I'll revert to the RAW.

A lot of consumer level cameras used to have default noise reduction, you couldn't turn it off, and it could really affect fine detail. I don't think my DSLR do that, I think I can specify the amount of JPG processing and completely turn off noise reduction if I want. I'm learning more fine points of processing. My biggest problem with processing is backlit conditions. We set up our parking area and launch area and frequently at some point during the day there is backlight. Normally I don't spend a lot of time on individual launch photos because I have a lot to process, I'll try raising shadows and things like that. Worst case though I will create a few layers and masking so I can raise the brightness of the rocket without blowing out the background.

 

[manixFan]

I read this on the internet all the time. I think most photographers use Adobe products- those products discard the same detail when they produce output files, unless a person works from TIFF files. The detail gets discarded now, or later. Maybe some people are real good at doing the raw conversions but most people I read on the internet probably are not, I know I am not, so the engineers who designed the camera surely do a better job than I do. But yes a person might be able to recover some detail in the flames taking advantage of the greater dynamic range of raw files but ultimately the images are going to become 8 bit one way or another.

Here is the same photo- one version is from the raw file, the other is from the jpg. I can't tell them apart.

View attachment 642937View attachment 642938

I don’t think you understand how RAW works. With RAW, you get to decide what detail to emphasize and preserve, even after it is converted to an 8 bit JPG. But if you simply open a RAW file with no processing and save it as a JPG, then you should be shooting in JPG. Using the RAW format basically requires you to ‘develop’ the image by manipulating how the extra bit depth is mapped to an 8-bit image. If you are processing a RAW image correctly, you should rarely need to use masking and multiple layers to protect areas of the image, especially if you’ve set up the exposure correctly.

I taught Photoshop for many years and found that the majority of folks who used a RAW format didn’t really know how to utilize it and might as well be shooting JPG. You should be able to do pretty much everything you need to right inside of the Adobe Camera Raw plugin.

Here’s a simple test: if you aren’t opening your RAW images as an object in Photoshop, you’re probably wasting your time using RAW.


Tony

 

[FredA]

Here’s a simple test: if you aren’t opening your RAW images as an object in Photoshop, you’re probably wasting your time using RAW.

I fail that test.....I like DxO PhotoLab instead of Adobe Raw.
I find it does a better job and some of their presets are pretty darn near perfect for my needs which really speeds up processing.
With less than a minute an image I can easily generate a better image than the SOC JPEG.

 

[bjphoenix]

If you are processing a RAW image correctly, you should rarely need to use masking and multiple layers to protect areas of the image, especially if you’ve set up the exposure correctly.

Here is an example of what I was talking about, pretty much straight out of the camera. I don't have full control over the light because the launch pads are positioned relative to the field and the wind, the sun is where it wants to be, I have to stand in a certain spot. The rocket ends up in shadow. If I raise the shadows too much then the background becomes way off. I felt like I needed to mask the rocket so I can raise it independently of the background. The first image is what I got using my limited skills, the image below it is straight out of camera. I am not at all happy with my finished image.



View attachment DSC_0767b.jpg

 

[manixFan]

Here is an example of what I was talking about, pretty much straight out of the camera. I don't have full control over the light because the launch pads are positioned relative to the field and the wind, the sun is where it wants to be, I have to stand in a certain spot. The rocket ends up in shadow. If I raise the shadows too much then the background becomes way off. I felt like I needed to mask the rocket so I can raise it independently of the background. The first image is what I got using my limited skills, the image below it is straight out of camera. I am not at all happy with my finished image.

View attachment 643105

View attachment 643104

Without the RAW image file, it's hard to know how much you could fix the shadows without having to use a mask. But masking the rocket against the sky is trivial, so that's not really a big deal for that image. But if you aren't using Camera Raw to process your images to recover the shadow detail or the highlights, then no amount of masking in Photoshop after the image has been converted to 8 bits is really going to do much for your image. I slightly underexpose all my launch photos so I can capture as much highlight detail as possible in the exhaust plume. But you have to recover the shadows while in RAW mode or that information is lost if you are not using Objects in Photoshop. By opening the images as Objects in Photoshop, all of the RAW data in the original image is preserved, so you can go back and re-process the image as many times as you want with no loss of information.

I think a much bigger issue is your shutter speed is too slow and there is significant motion blur of the rocket. The same is true of the Little Joe photo. I think you need to increase your shutter speed which should help your images considerably.


Tony

 

[bjphoenix]

I think a much bigger issue is your shutter speed is too slow and there is significant motion blur of the rocket. The same is true of the Little Joe photo. I think you need to increase your shutter speed which should help your images considerably.

I can certainly do that but something else would have to give. The Little Joe and the thing with pods were taken with my D3300. With its small sensor I don't want to push its ISO too high, I shoot at 1/2500 and about f5.6 or f6.3 and get ISO around 400 or so. The Doorknob was taken with my D810 and a different lens, it is at 1/3000, f6.7 and ISO 560. If I went up to say 1/4000 then ISO and aperture could still be manageable. Actually I don't what the limit is on the D3300 but the D810 probably can go even higher than that.

 

[manixFan]

Always shoot and process RAW - you have up to 14-bit dynamic range while JPEG is 8-bit.
You also control white balance purely in post as that setting is only for the JPEG engine.

I disagree. For the vast majority of photographers, shooting in RAW is a waste of time and resources. Most photographers have no interest in making the investment in time and money it takes to take and process RAW images. Even after learning how to use Camera Raw in a Photoshop class, the majority of students just don't want to spend the time (or don't have the time) it takes to work with RAW images. I know far too many photographers who shoot in RAW and then open the images with no pre-processing while in RAW mode. Most photographers are far better off learning how the settings on their camera can improve their photos, along with concentrating on elements like composition, lighting, and how to properly position subjects. Those improve all photos regardless of RAW or JPEG.

It's also important to consider that there is no camera standard for RAW images, and there are literally hundreds of variations. I have old Canon RAW images that aren't recognized by many modern image editing programs. That should never be an issue for JPG images.

JPEG is heavily compressed - using lossy compression.
Huge levels of detail is discarded. HUGE.
There is PLENTY of reason parts of the image could be distorted by the compression to JPEG.
For a rocket image where the flame is very bright., the 8-bit nature of JPEG would mean that few bits are available to render a dark border.

I'm surprised you would say something that is so demonstrably not true. JPEG images can be saved with varying amounts of compression, and a simple difference mode comparision with a RAW image shows that at low levels of compression, almost undetectable levels of detail are lost. So your emphasis on HUGE is only true in very limited cases where the compression ratio is set quite high. And some RAW formats use lossy compression. For example, several Nikon cameras let you choose between no compression, lossless compression or lossy compression for their RAW images.


Tony

 

[manixFan]

I can certainly do that but something else would have to give. The Little Joe and the thing with pods were taken with my D3300. With its small sensor I don't want to push its ISO too high, I shoot at 1/2500 and about f5.6 or f6.3 and get ISO around 400 or so. The Doorknob was taken with my D810 and a different lens, it is at 1/3000, f6.7 and ISO 560. If I went up to say 1/4000 then ISO and aperture could still be manageable. Actually I don't what the limit is on the D3300 but the D810 probably can go even higher than that.

Subject sharpness should be the #1 criteria for every image. No one who looks at a blurry image says "well, the subject is not very sharp, but at least there isn't a lot of noise". When I judged photography, the first criteria that eliminated any image, no matter how good it was otherwise, was subject sharpness. Noise was a consideration, but only if it was obvious enough that it detracted from the overall image, like a portrait with noisy skin tone, or a landscape image with a noisy sky. Plus, you can use post-processing to reduce image noise, but there isn't much you can do if the image is blurry due to motion.

I set my camera on manual and use auto ISO to make sure that I get the shutter speed and aperture setting that I want. I literally don't care what the ISO is as long as it's giving me the right exposure for my settings. To me, that's the true beauty of having a digital camera – being freed from the tyranny of an ISO determined by the film I have in the camera.


Tony

 

[FredA]

shooting in RAW is a waste of time and resources.

It only takes the time to write the RAW file.
Since RAW's contain a JPEG, you don't need to write that.
But if you save RAW & JPEG you can delete either at any time.
But if the JPEG engine does you wrong, the RAW might save your bacon.
No RAW, no bacon to be saved.

JPEG's are horribly compressed and they are 8-bit compared to 14-bits coming off the raw image.
Sure you need to adjust to your output devices.
If you're cheap, then your 6-bit laptop will display an 8-bit JPEG just fine, but QUALITY displays are more than 8-bits and you can easily see the gradations.
Compression is variable, but all settings result in loss of detail.
You can't make the file size smaller and not lose information using lossy compression used for JPEGs.

I ONLY shoot RAW.
Takes less than a minute PER KEEPER to process. You only process keepers to make them more-better.

And WHO CARES WHAT STUDENTS DO?
We're talking photographers here.
This thread is about how to be a better photographer - to get better pics - not how to avoid work to be that.

 

[olivermpb]

A general point on rocketry photography but if you want higher res images I'd recommend buying a sound activated trigger like the Miops Smart (https://www.miops.com/products/smart). It'll allow you to put your camera much closer to the rocket, which also gives a cool perspective shift, especially with larger rockets. This is the same way professional launch photography (ie for SpaceX, ULA etc) is done, and I've used that specific trigger for years working at Vandenberg and Wallops. Here's some examples:

 

[FredA]

"Sharpness" is a subjective term.
I want DETAIL.
When I shoot birds - the pic is worthless unless:
- the focus is nailed - EYE's are the money shot - EYE in focus, plus or minus a nice depth of field.
- The SS was high enough to stop the motion as desired - I say as desired because a little motion is good sometimes.
- There is easily seen feather detail. I want to see the texture. Every detail.

Fuzzy focus - delete
Wrong shutter speed - delete
No feathers, fur or eyelashes - delete.

The last item is the killer.
- Did you hold the lens & camera still?
- Did you pan with the movement correctly?
- Did you get the focus just perfect?

Then you look at the backgrounds, Bokeh, and anything else in frame that might cause you to reject the image.

Only then do I run it through DxO PL for developing.
Using some presets I've created that are tuned to my cameras and certain shooting conditions I can process an image in under a minute, including cropping.

Yes, I'm picky.
And it's not just me - the wife and daughter shoot too and in many ways are tougher judges than I.

I've shot well in excess of a million 35mm photos dating way back to 1000's of rolls of film.
If they are not perfect, they get rejected.
99% of photos I see posted on the web would be rejected in my household.
I've got a 44-inch wide printer - to make a print that size your input has to be a pristine, giant TIFF.
Learning to feed that beast was an eye opening experience.

 

[FredA]

BTW - I think you can get a demo copy of DxO Photolab.
I highly recommend you try it.
It's the best general raw developer I've found - better than ACR IMO.

Try it.
Make sure it knows what camera and lens you shot with.
Hit the "CLEARVIEW" button.
At this point, unless it's a weird exposure, you should have already an image better than the SOC JPEG.
Tune from there.

THEN - and this is important - save at the appropriate format and resolution for the target output device. You want to control the scaling.

 

[bjphoenix]

JPEG images can be saved with varying amounts of compression, and a simple difference mode comparision with a RAW image shows that at low levels of compression, almost undetectable levels of detail are lost. So your emphasis on HUGE is only true in very limited cases where the compression ratio is set quite high. And some RAW formats use lossy compression. For example, several Nikon cameras let you choose between no compression, lossless compression or lossy compression for their RAW images.

Well I posted an example from raw and from jpg where I can't tell any difference. I see these arguments online all the time but without any clear proof that there is a difference. It likely depends on the camera too- some digital cameras used to take all kinds of liberties with the JPG file and you couldn't override that. I think with modern Nikons you can. I've seen arguments online about 12bit RAW vs. 14bit RAW and some people insist that you are killing your photos not using 14bit even when photographers with the technical knowledge and experience to really know the difference say that there are almost no situations where there is any difference. I think it is easier for rocket photos- first you have to catch the rocket in the frame, then the focus has to be good. The difference in bit depth is pretty far down the line. But I've already admitted that I'm not an expert at post processing so there is more for me to learn.