£800 Budget - DSLR

[RichMann29]

SlidingSideways said:

What you do need, as mentioned, is good AF speed, and both the camera and the lens you're using need to be up to the job.
Look for lenses with hypersonic AF motors (USM on Canon kit, HSM on Sigma, not sure what the others call it) as older (cheaper) lenses will often have slower drive motors.
On the camera, AF will generally improve as you go up the range. Canon xxD bodies have better AF than the xxxD bodies.

Super I will keep that in mind when having a look at the lenses in future.

[RichMann29]

Simpo Two said:

Actually I use eBay!

SlidingSideways makes good points, especially the fact that you don't always want to freeze action - eg a car panning shot might use 1/125th second to get motion blur on the background. But there will times when you do want to freeze action, perhaps in the pits, and a blurry shot of a footballer probably isn't going to look very good. But any camera can do 1/125th so it's not a buying issue.

Do you find you get better equipment for price than in the shops like cameraworld which ive seen in near to me in Chelmsford?

[Elderly]

Simpo Two said:

An entry level model may have good high-ISO performance but I doubt it will have the autofocus capabilities you need. You've chosen tricky subjects to start with.

I think people get a little carried away by 'high ISO' In reality, for most things, good image quality at 1600 is plenty.

I completely agree that for most things, good image quality at 1600 is plenty and that good autofocus capabilities are required.

Take the entry level Nikon D3300 only introduced this year,
or the entry level D3200 which is likely to be much cheaper*; they both have excellent high ISO ratings which would give good image quality at 1600, and they have exactly the same autofocus modules as the venerable and ergonomically wonderful D200, which quite frankly I found unsatisfactory
even at 800 ISO.

• I see that Curry's are selling the D3200 for less than £220 NEW.

[Rib]

You will get good pictures with even am entry level camera. When I get home I will put up some early pics using a d40x and d5100 and a cheap nikon 55-200 non vr lens.

Where are you? Might be worth trying to find a local sprint or hill climb track where you can often get closer and good for general practice

[BristolMS]

A good few years back, I managed some fairly decent airshow shots with the Canon 70-300 f4-5.6 USM. I then replaced that with the 100-400L, which is undoubtedly better - faster focusing, obviously more reach. But, the 70-300 is fine to start with.

If it was my £800 budget, I would look for a second hand 7D and a new or second hand 70-300 lens.

Canon user over many years, so I can only comment on Canon, but Nikon are just as good as others have said.

[mrdemon]

Canon 70D and 300mm F4 IS

the 70D auto focus is a hugh step forward esp for sports over any older Canon crop body.

Hdew are great to buy from so the body stands you at £600

http://www.hdewcameras.co.uk/canon-eos-70d-camera-...

get a loan out for a lens or 2. Money is cheap to borrow HSBC 3.9 % :-)

I shoot with the 70-200F4/IS and 300F4/IS and never once thought I needed a F2.8 so a plus is the smaller lens to carry about.

any less on the body and you will start to have to pre focus a spot on the track and pan over the spot and shoot through.

in which case any SLR is good enough, I used a 40D for 4 +years with manual focusing a point.

if you want to stick to price then the £600 70D with
Canon EF 70-300mm f4-5.6 IS USM at £330

and see how you go.

Edited by mrdemon on Tuesday 25th November 15:10

[BristolMS]

mrdemon said:

Canon 70D and 300mm F4 IS

the 70D auto focus is a hugh step forward esp for sports over any older Canon crop body.

Agree that the 70D is a huge step forward over the rest of the xxD line. Is the 70D a huge step forward over the 7D for sports though? That camera more than holds its own I think, 4 or 5 years after launch. With the twin processors it's still faster than the 70D in frames per second terms? Focusing is similar?

I'm a 70D owner by the way, a tough call to choose it over a 7D at the time, so I certainly recommend the model. But, in terms of the OP's budget, I think a second hand 7D may leave more in the pot for glass - taking into account that sports is the primary requirement (my requirement was more all-round).

[budfox]

MBP are very good. I've only bought one lens from them but it was in much better condition than they suggested.

The lens was the 80-200 f2.8 that I suggested earlier. It cost £459.00 which includes a warranty. They tend to go for £400-£500 on eBay, but I like the security of knowing that if I'm not happy they will take it back.

London Camera exchange are worth a look, but I find them expensive. They have a similar lens in their Exeter branch at £500, and it has a split in the focus ring.

[Simpo Two]

RichMann29 said:

Do you find you get better equipment for price than in the shops like cameraworld which ive seen in near to me in Chelmsford?

In theory you should, as you're buying direct from the seller and not a middleman. But it all depends on the specific auction - sometimes you can get a good price, at other times there's a bidding war. And of course things vary in condition. Start a search, watch some auctions and see what they go for. You also learn to spot nice genuine sellers from geezers. Or if that's too much hassle, Cameraworld it is! (and you may prefer the comfort of somewhere to take it back to in case there's an issue)

[RichMann29]

with the used cameras, I keep seeing from the dealers the shutter count. Presuming the lower shutter count the better for the camera? a lot of them are in the 20000+ range, would you say that's average really for a camera that's been used as a hobby or used regularly?

[Rib]

Well if you out all day at a trackday you could easily take 500 - 1000 in one day when you are learning (always take more when your learning). But yes lower the better, you can always have them serviced though too

[BristolMS]

RichMann29 said:

with the used cameras, I keep seeing from the dealers the shutter count. Presuming the lower shutter count the better for the camera? a lot of them are in the 20000+ range, would you say that's average really for a camera that's been used as a hobby or used regularly?

That's not unusual for a hobbyist, I've also taken 1000 or so shots a day easily, with the 7-8 frames per second capability it is surprisingly easy to do. I wouldn't be concerned over 20-30k I don't think, most shutters will be rated as capable of 100k+ by the manufacturer.

I'd rather take a 30k shutter count in a pampered camera than a 10k count in one that has been thrown around and beaten up. (That said, I bounced my old 20D off tarmac from 6 feet with no ill effects beyond the scratches).

[GetCarter]

Re shutter counts. DSLRs have a 'life expectancy' measured in shutter counts... which is why they are mentioned. Pro bodies are expected to last twice the amount of actuations as 'consumer' models. But 20k - 30k is nothing.

Edited by GetCarter on Thursday 27th November 16:04