Re: [KOML] aerial photos

[Harris Goldstein <hgoldstein@ibm.net>]

I have used a KO for aerial photography and, at least in my case, found it
very acceptable.

We used a Cessna 172 (after finding the 152 too cramped) with the bracket
that limits the window from fully opening undone.  The airstream would keep
the window fully open, allowing me to shoot while still keeping the camera
inside the plane.   While a motor drive would be handy, I found the
pull-push advance fast enough.  In fact, I'm not sure that a motor drive
would advance 6x7 much faster.  I used the 180mm almost exclusively, and
found the 1/500 top speed just fine.

I did also use 35mm, but only when I needed 35mm mounted slides or the
subject was so small that the larger negative would be wasted.  I also used
it for some air-to-air shots with a 200mm.  I never tried a gyro-stabilizer,
but if the image stabilization on the Canon comes close to what the
gyro-stabilizer is supposed to do, it would certainly be advantageous.

Later, we went to a Pentax 6x7 to gain the multicoated lenses and the
reliability of a newer camera.  But we lost the advantage of the lower
vibration leaf shutter and the changeable inserts.

No doubt 35mm is more convenient, but its tough to beat the larger negative
when your producing 16x20s (or larger) for displays and presentations.  Of
course, if you're cropping out the extra negative, you haven't gained
anything with the larger negative.

Harris


n1965n wrote:

> Hi All: I too bought my KO to use for aerial photography and it does
> work, but not all that well. The airplane is cramped inside and things
> happen quickly when you are over the target area. Also do not forget
> about slipstream, the KO's size makes it hard to hold steady near a 100
> mph slipstream. I still find that my Canon EOS with image stabilized
> lenses works best for my aerial photos. The Koni works great for senics
> and the like when you have the time and space to compose your shot, but
> when you are on the fly, ( nice pun huh? ) a fully automated camera with
> a winder is hard to beat.
>
> :) Jim