Don't know why that quote got in my brain, but anyway: Maybe the gun comment originally fooled people. <img src="http://www.themeparkphotos.us/assets/images/db_images/db_IMG_7162_p11.jpg" /> B-24 rear turret <img src="http://www.themeparkphotos.us/assets/images/db_images/db_IMG_7103_p11.jpg" /> B-17 in flight <img src="http://www.themeparkphotos.us/assets/images/db_images/db_IMG_7118_p11.jpg" /> B-24 <img src="http://www.themeparkphotos.us/assets/images/db_images/db_IMG_7123_p11.jpg" /> B-25 <img src="http://www.themeparkphotos.us/assets/images/db_images/db_IMG_7135_p11.jpg" /> B-24 and B-25
Just one comment.. apologies if you were limited from achieving this because of lens shake limits, but.. slower shutter speeds would have looked nicer because the props would have been blurred, instead of looking like the motors were stopped which is kind of disconcerting. At a guess I'd say I had it easier with the two pictures I'm attaching, the big bombers probably had slower rotating props than the smaller planes, so you'd need even slower shutter speeds. The biplane seems to have had a very high RPM prop, which I think is how they run aerobatic aircraft, sometimes they waste engine power making them go fast enough that the tips break the sound barrier and make a lot of extra noise (as far as I know, purely for show). These two pictures come from just after I'd gotten my 30D, and was still testing it out, getting used to AI servo focusing, 5fps burst mode, and so on. Since I had to close down the aperture to get slow enough shutter speeds I also was forced to recognize that my 30D had come out of the box with a ton of dust on the sensor. You can see some in both of these shots. Personally I like the B25. The B17 got all the fame, but I liked the versatile little Mitchell, especially the J variant that carried more guns than any other WW2 bomber (18 .50 cal machine guns, TWELVE mounted in fixed forward firing positions). I actually got a chance to sit in one once. All I can say is that it's a lot smaller on the inside than it looks, I could barely sit in the cockpit alone with the co-pilot's seat removed.
I think I wasn't able to concentrate on getting the settings right b/c I had to keep my two kids from running away. BTW: The Wings of Freedom tour will let you fly in one (your choice) of them...for the right price of $375-$450.
nice stuff from both of ya. An airshow comes to Atlantic City in August along the Beach. Hopefully will have a good tele by then.
My Dad loaded bombs onto B-17's during WWII over in England. Always had a facination with the craft because of his history with them. Thanks! Dan, thanks for the tip on on the props, little details like that make good shots into great photography.
As another note.. IS (or VR for the Nikon camp) lenses are supposed to be good for shooting aircraft because you can use slower shutter speeds to get that extra blur effect. I don't know Nikon gear at all, but some Canon lenses have what's called "mode 2" which is for panning, they damp vertical motion but don't try to stop the panning motion so you can follow moving targets but still get stabilization benefits. I don't have any IS lenses.. during the event that I posted pictures of I was pushing the limits of my hand holding ability, especially with my most imperfect panning technique. I used burst mode to try to give myself lots of shots to choose from since I figured I'd lose some.
