Hawker Sea Fury pics

[cooltouch]

To me, the Sea Fury is one of the most dramatic-looking propeller-driven aircraft ever built. Kinda reminds me of an FW-190 on stearoids

Got some cool Sea Fury pics? Let's see them!

From some scans of slides I took at various airshows in the 1980s:

I've got more, but didn't want to load them all up in one post.

Best,

Michael

 

[imalko]

Here is small contribution from me:

 

[Wayne Little]

8)

 

[evangilder]

We have a few of those around Southern California.

 

[twoeagles]

Beauties! And I think the Bristol Centaurus might be the sweetest sounding big radial of all - maybe it's the sleeve valves???

 

[Gnomey]

Good stuff!

 

[cooltouch]

Nice shots, guys. Hey evangilder, couple of questions:

Were your shots taken at a Chino airshow? I used to live in SoCal, and most of my best photos were at the Chino air show. Angle of sun had a lot to do with it, but also the pilots would fly by at a nice angle, giving the spectators on the ground a more interesting shooting angle as well.

Also, if you don't mind, I'd like to know what camera/lens combination you like to use. My photos were taken with manual focus film cameras. I shot both Nikon and Canon (Canon F-1s and Nikon F2 and F3), but most of the best images were taken using a Nikon F3 with a Tamron 300/2.8 LD. Sometimes I used the 1.4 TC. I also got some pretty good shots using a Sigma 600mm f/8 mirror lens. It tended to have a pronounced hot spot, though (see the third photo below).

A few more Sea Fury pics, taken between 1985 and 1989:

Best,

Michael

 

[evangilder]

The first shot was a Minter Field in Shafter in April of last year. The second 2 were at Chino in May of last year. All three of the shots were taken with a Nikon D80 using the Sigma 50-500mm. If things go as planned this year, I am looking to pick up the D300 and the 200-400mm VR Nikon lens. But it's hard to say what will happen with the photo business in this economy.

I have also used the Nikon D50 body and have the Nikkor 28-80mm, 70-300mm and the fabulous 18-200mm VR lenses.

My dream setup would be 2 D3X bodies, one with the 18-200 for static and air-to-air work and the other with the 200-400 for the ranged shots. Perhaps also tote a 1.4 or 1.7 TC for the 200-400 for the real distant stuff.

The mirrored lenses do have a tendency to give you the circular hot spot because of the mirror.

 

[cooltouch]

Thanks for the info, evangilder. I've just recently gotten back into photography in a more serious way. Got a Canon XS (1000D) with the 18-55 IS kit lens for Christmas this past year. My first DSLR. Yeah, it's an entry level camera, but it does a decent job, and will be adequate for my needs for quite a while, I suspect. I've got some older EOS lenses that I've been using with it. Have a 21yo EF 70-210 f/4 that's a little slow to autofocus, but takes surprisingly crisp photos. Recently, I ordered a Nikon AI to EOS adapter for this camera, and now I can use my MF Nikkors with the XS (I still shoot on occasion with my trusty old F2). I have a couple of old T-mount Century Precision Optics telephotos -- a 500mm f/5.6 and a 650mm f/6.8 -- that are a bit cumbersome to use because of their manual apertures, but they do take crisp photos. Next time there's an air show here in Houston, I'll probably try the CPO 500 with the XS and see how it will work.

I've heard a lot of good things about the "Bigma" (Sigma 50-500), and it's tempting, but I plan to wait until I can afford the EF 100-400 IS.

I've also heard great things about the Nikon AF 200-400. One report I read claimed it's even better than the legendary MF 200-400 f/4 Nikkor. If that's true, it must be a truly outstanding lens. I used to own the MF 200-400 f/4 Nikkor and I have to say that that was probably the sharpest telephoto I've ever owned.

Howabout a few B&W images? Taken with a Yashica Mat 124G back in about 1985 or so. Pretty sure it was at Minter Field. The files are kinda large, so if you're on dial-up, be patient please.

Best,

Michael

 

[evangilder]

Nice!

Yes, the Nikkon 200-400mm VR is an awesome lens. I know several guys that have them and the shots are amazing. Crisp and sharp. The Bigma is a nice lens, but it doesn't have any image stabilization or vibration reduction, so you have to be real steady. I have heard some folks complain about vignetting with it, but I haven't seen that problem. I do get occasional fuzzy shots at full zoom that I chalk up to not being steady enough.

 

[Airframes]

Some very nice shots there, Cool and Eric, thank you. It IS a nice bird the Sea Fury.
Surprised to hear that vignetting is still possible with modern optics and coatings, but, as you say Eric, it could be movement, and light angle, especially if the front element is relatively 'deep' within the body.

 

[cooltouch]

A number of years ago, I read in a photo-related publication that vignetting can be a problem with long telephoto lenses on some SLR cameras. It had to do with the size of the mirror and overall design of the mirror box, as I dimly recall. So, it might be that the Bigma slightly vignettes with some DSLR systems. I know it doesn't with the Canon DSLRs, and I'll take Eric's word for it, vis a vis Nikon.

Eric, when I was shooting with long optics at airshows (and auto races -- I used to be a freelance motorsports photographer), I was usually shooting freehanded, panning as smoothly as I could, but sometimes I used a monopod. The monopod was a necessity with the Nikkor 200-400/4 I used to own. It was big and heavy. I found that I could usually achieve acceptable results with the 300/2.8 handheld, and panning smoothly. Do you ever use a monopod, or do you shoot with your Bigma handheld?

Here's a few more:

Best,

Michael

 

[evangilder]

Nice ones.

When shooting airshows and events, I go completely hand held. I find that the tripods and monopods limit my movement and I have a tendency to shift around a bit.

The Bigma is pretty heavy too, but you get used to it. It weighs in at about 4.5 pounds. I am pretty sure the Nikkon 200-400 is about 7 to 7.5. I have held it and with some getting used to, I think I'd be fine. With the D50 (6 megapixels), I borrowed the 200-400 to try it out and boy was it sweet, even with my shaking from the weight. At the time, my biggest lens was the 70-300 "G" series at about a pound, if that.

I tried the Nikon 80-400 lens and while it was nice, it was slow to focus and had a tendency to hunt. When I found the Bigma for about $950 (the rate for the 80-400 at the time was about $1,400), I bought it and it has been my main weapon now for about 2 years.

I took a shot of a P-51 at about 300 MPH at 10-20' off the desk at about 340mm on the Bigma at 1/100 while panning, hand held. It came out gorgeous, but it is one that would be difficult to duplicate. It can be done though.

 

[cooltouch]

Thanks for the feedback, Eric. I guess 4.5 lb isn't all that much, probably less than a motor-driven F3 with a manual focus 300/2.8, and that combo worked pretty well at the airshows. One of the reasons why the Canon boys like the 100-400 so much is because of its IS feature, which would be really handy. I suspect this is also the reason why a number of folks have chosen to go with the Sigma 150-500 over the 50-500 because the former has optical stabilization.

Regarding your P-51 shot, it was my experience as a motorsports photographer (which included shooting top fuel dragsters crossing the finish line and IMSA GTP cars at 200+ mph) that panning smoothly with a fairly heavy optic actually helped with image sharpness. I was typically shooting at 1/125 or slower to get wheel blur and to blur the background as well. As long as I had focused accurately, I almost never had any user-induced shake added to the photos. The heavy optic works well at damping down the minor jitters. For me the biggest challenge was making sure the subject was well-centered in the photo. Tough to do, especially when trying to fill the frame with the subject.

BTW, I'd love to see that P-51 shot. (hint)

Best,

Michael

 

[evangilder]

I hate to put this in the Sea Fury thread, Michael, but I am pretty darn proud of this one. And yes I was panning and shooting. It's not always an easy one to do on a windy flightline, but I planted my feet firmly and and a good solid stance. Deep breath in, and exhaling slowly as I pan and shoot.

The weight isn't terrible on the Bigma, but you do feel it in your neck if you leave it around your neck all day long, which I tend to not do any more.

Anyway, here is the P-51 pan shot. I left it a little larger so you can see the detail better. You should see the print!

 

[Airframes]

Fantastic shot Eric! It's one of those 'I bet I couldn't catch that one again' shots that really make the whole day's shoot worthwhile.
I agree about the weight of the lens helping with pan shots; my better ones were always with a heavier lens (fixed focal length), and a good follow-through. However, using a Nikon F2 and a heavy lens many years ago, the weight, and G force, tried to pull me out of the cockpit of a Chipmunk, doing air-to-air, rolling through to keep stationed on a Spit 19. If I hadn't looped the camera strap through the shoulder harness, I swear I would have lost the camera!

 

[ONE_HELLCAT]

Geez Eric, that looks awesome.

Now if only there were a few Sea Furies in the old Cuban colors, before Castro F'd things up.

 

[cooltouch]

Fantastic shot, Eric! I can count rivets! (Or are they screws? Heck, fasteners!) In this case, I think nobody'll mind having a P-51 shot lurking amongst the Sea Furies. Especially that one.

Best,

Michael

 

[evangilder]

Thanks guys. Every now and again I get a shot that I look at again and think "Wow *I* took that shot!". They don't come often, and I take thousands of photos every year. That's what make shots like that one special.

 

[Wayne Little]

Jesus! that P-51 shot is Brilliant Eric....Top stuff.