clipper453
Squadron leader
Aspiring Aerial Photographer
Posts: 181
|
Post by clipper453 on Jan 23, 2008 21:07:29 GMT 1
Well, I finally got fed up with the issues I was having with the FCO2, and decided to buy a new camera for aerial photos and video. After a search on DPReview.com, I decided on the Canon PowerShot SD40 based on its features, size, weight, and cost. I just received the camera on Monday, and I took it for a quick flight to get some video, and I have so say that I'm very impressed. Here's a short list of it's features: Dimensions: 96 x 45 x 24 mm (FCO2 was 80 x 40 x 14 mm) Weight: 120 grams with battery (FCO2 was 37 grams) Sensor: 7.1 megapixel CCD (FCO2 was 1.3 MP CMOS) Video: 640 x 480 @ 30 fps (FCO2 was 640 x 480 @ 25 fps) Photos: Continuous, full res photos at 1.6 fps (FCO was 0.25 fps) Before the FCO2, I was using a Sony DSC-P100, which has similar capabilities as the Canon SD40, but it weighed 180 grams and was slightly larger in every dimension. For a complete comparison between the two, see this link: www.dpreview.com/reviews/compare_post.asp?method=sidebyside&cameras=sony_dscp100%2Ccanon_sd40&show=allI managed to pick up the Canon SD40 for only $160 from J&R Music and Computer World. For just $60 more than the FCO2, you sure get a lot more in terms of picture and video quality. So anyway, here are some pics of the new set up. Once I get some time to edit the video that I took, I'll get it posted to YouTube as well. 1) Size comparison of the Sony DSC-P100, Canon SD40, and FCO2:  2) The acrylic plastic shield that I created to protect the SD40 from any hard landings. (Had I had this for the Sony, I'd still be using it.):  3) Side view of the acrylic plastic shield:  4) The SD40 mounted on the Super Cub:  |
|
|
|
Post by flyinghigh on Jan 24, 2008 0:02:43 GMT 1
Very nice. How does it fly with the weight?
Good idea with the sheild too.
|
|
clipper453
Squadron leader
Aspiring Aerial Photographer
Posts: 181
|
Post by clipper453 on Jan 24, 2008 0:25:25 GMT 1
Very nice. How does it fly with the weight? Good idea with the sheild too. It flies as well or better than the plane did when I was using my Sony DSC-P100. It's definitely more sluggish than without the camera, but there's more than enough lift available to support the added weight of the camera and the shield. Everything on my plane is stock, except that I'm using an 8-cell 1400 mAh NiMH battery pack. I damaged my Sony DSP-100 beyond repair during a "hard landing" a few months ago. That's when I came up with the idea of the shield. It's just made from an 1/8" sheet of acrylic plastic that I picked up from Lowe's for about $5. I made a form out of cardboard and covered it with wax paper. Then I threw the form in the oven with the acrylic sheet resting on top of it at 320 deg F for about 10 minutes. The acrylic became pliable and started to drop around the form just from the force of gravity, but I ended up using two wooden spatulas to form it more precisely while it was still in the oven. After it cooled, I spent a couple hours cutting it to size and cutting out the necessary holes for the lens, tripod screw, and zip ties. It's not perfect, but I think it turned out pretty good for my first try. As long as it protects my camera from future "hard landings" I'll be happy. |
|
zeta30
Squadron leader
Posts: 162
|
Post by zeta30 on Jan 24, 2008 2:49:38 GMT 1
Well, I finally got fed up with the issues I was having with the FCO2 What kind of issues were you have with the FCO2? I just got one myself and haven't had a chance to use it yet. Just by looking at it, it seems like kind of a cheap piece of crap, I was hoping it performed better than it looks, especially for the price they go for. |
|
clipper453
Squadron leader
Aspiring Aerial Photographer
Posts: 181
|
Post by clipper453 on Jan 24, 2008 4:33:00 GMT 1
What kind of issues were you have with the FCO2? I just got one myself and haven't had a chance to use it yet. Just by looking at it, it seems like kind of a cheap piece of crap, I was hoping it performed better than it looks, especially for the price they go for. The main problem with the FCO2 is that it uses a cheap CMOS imaging device (as opposed to a CCD). CMOS imagers are typically used in things like webcams, where normal digital cameras use CCD imagers. The photo quality of the FCO2 was okay, as long as there was good lighting. See my previous posting for some of the pictures I took with it: supercubclub.proboards78.com/index.cgi?board=pics&action=display&thread=1197847210However, I was mostly disappointed with the video capabilities of the camera. There was a lot of waviness in most of my videos. There were also several videos where the image got messed up, and a portion of the screen was distorted or discolored. But most frustrating were the times when I'd take it out for a flight, and all seemed well until I came back home to download the video from the SD card, only to find nothing on the card. I've been using a Sandisk Ultra II 2GB SD card, which has the read/write capabilities necessary according to the FCO2 manufacturer. I've also upgraded the firmware of the camera every time a new version is available. The camera has only been available in the US for just over a month now, and they're already on firmware version 2.5. Overall, it's an okay product if you just want casual photos and videos in an ultra-lightweight package. But if you want high quality photos and videos, you need to look elsewhere. Listed below are links to my videos taken with the FCO2: www.youtube.com/watch?v=rAQ3d5IDxhQwww.youtube.com/watch?v=MHMEZxJho7cwww.youtube.com/watch?v=a7O_PihFTF4www.youtube.com/watch?v=6qGHWrmmmrQ |
|
clipper453
Squadron leader
Aspiring Aerial Photographer
Posts: 181
|
Post by clipper453 on Jan 24, 2008 19:58:00 GMT 1
Here's a link to the video that I took with the Canon SD40. (It really is a shame how bad it gets compressed by YouTube. The file that was created with my video editing software looked great in comparison.) www.youtube.com/watch?v=-1oT-9SCez4 |
|
zeta30
Squadron leader
Posts: 162
|
Post by zeta30 on Jan 25, 2008 3:41:36 GMT 1
Thanks for the info. It looks like I will just be using my FCO2 on the nice, bright sunny days.
It's been real sunny for about a week now, unfortunately the wind has been steady at about 25-30mph, there have been 60mph gusts reported not too far from my house.
|
|
|
|
Post by duck9191 on Jan 25, 2008 4:23:34 GMT 1
The main problem with the FCO2 is that it uses a cheap CMOS imaging device (as opposed to a CCD). CMOS imagers are typically used in things like webcams, where normal digital cameras use CCD imagers. true most cheap web cams use cmos sensor, but so does my cannon eos 20d. actually ccd sensors sometimes tend to produce more color noise and have a higher power draw then cmos. its just that it cost more to produce and design a quality cmos sensor compared to a ccd sensor, thats why you see ccd's in most consumer cameras. its too bad that they didn't put a decent sensor in it like the zoron 10, or even the 8 which is used in the cvs one time use video cameras. it has alot of nice features and looked promising, i guess i stick with my cvs cam lol. |
|
clipper453
Squadron leader
Aspiring Aerial Photographer
Posts: 181
|
Post by clipper453 on Jan 26, 2008 17:55:59 GMT 1
That is true, Duck. But you have to go pretty high-end to get a CMOS camera that has a high-quality sensor (and the FCO2 is far from that). Anyway... I heard from some of the guys over on the RCGroups website, that Vimeo does a better job than YouTube, with respect to video compression and quality. So here's the same video as above, but posted to Vimeo. I can't believe the difference it makes. www.vimeo.com/634709 |
|
|
|
Post by duck9191 on Jan 27, 2008 4:21:36 GMT 1
^^^ you right the video does looks better on vimeo.com compared to youtube, looks like alot higher bit rate or much better compression. nice video too.
|
|
|
|
Post by cvrcmember on Jul 9, 2008 1:49:46 GMT 1
nice video! ;D
|
|
