New to DSLR, Help me spec for shooting motor racing.

[Rich196]

Right then I am completely new to the DSLR. However I see it as the only way forward and do not understand alot of the terminology. I currently have a fugi fine pix HS20 EXR bridge camera to try, to see if I would actually use it and I love it, now I have learnt to use some of the manual modes. However I come across limitations.

Continuous shooting, it takes ages to load the burst of 12 pictures to the SD card
It takes to long to focus, when shooting a track day.
In low light conditions it simply cannot get enough light into the lens and picturs end up blury.


Current camera spec
http://www.fujifilm.com/support/digital_cameras/sp...

This won’t just be for shooting track days it will be a general camera, family occasions, days out eg: zoo ect...

So I would like something to overcome these issues, I have around £600 to spend maybe more if its going to make a massive difference.

I ideally want a one lense covers all situations as I don’t want to be carrying round multiple lenses.
I like the zoo range of my current camera, spec of which is:
30x optical zoom lens
f=4.2 - 126mm, equivalent to 24-720mm on a 35mm camera
F2.8 (Wide) - F5.6 (Telephoto)

From reading I think a F2.8 lens is recommended for shooting motorsport.
Looking a body’s, something like the EOS 60d might work.

Can anybody point me in the direction of what to look for?

[Morbid]

Mmmmm....60D or 70D would work (I have the latter and very pleased with it so far). To get the zoom range you want you may need to up the budget quite a bit!

[kman]

You will be hard pressed to get a good DSLR body and a 2.8 long zoom for your budget. if you're looking for a one lens fits all type thing Canon do a 28-300 (not 2.8) which is about 1700 and even then 300mm might be limiting for you. You're going to have to trade off, maybe a crop body like the 7d would be more useful as that gives you more effective reach.

[marctwo]

Rich196 said:

equivalent to 24-720mm on a 35mm camera
F2.8 (Wide) - F5.6 (Telephoto)

The Canon EF 800mm f/5.6L IS USM is nice and only £10,000.

[MysteryLemon]

To stick within your budget you wont go far wrong with a crop sensor body, something like a Nikon D5100 and adding on a 70-300mm lens. The long end will give you an effective 450mm reach and be able to open up to f5.6, which I know isn't terribly fast but your budget isn't terribly big either, and because you'll be using a body with a sensor bigger than the pinhead found in your bridge camera, you'll be more than able to up the ISO to compensate for the lack of super wide aperture.

You'll get perfectly reasonable results like this. They'll be better than the bridge could ever dream of producing anyway

Of course, there are Canon, Pentax and various other brand equivelants.

[cornet]

To clear some things up here.

If you've got reasonable light then you do not need an f2.8 lens for shooting motor racing!

You also will not get anywhere near 720mm lens equiv without spending ££££s. 300mm on a crop sensor will be around 450mm equiv which should be more than enough to get some great shots. You could always crop the photos down after and I'll wager they will look better than the ones taken with your Fuji due to it's tiny sensor.

The biggest thing you need to learn is tracking moving objects. Once you get your camera, borrow a greyhound or a whippet and try getting shots as it runs past you

It's good fun and the dog owner will thank you for tiring it out

[mrdemon]

£600 nope esp if you want a 2.8 720mm lens lol

Canon 70D (60D is old and poor autofocus) with a 70-200F4IS and the 300MMF4IS and for walk about the STM 18-135mm

this was shot with 70D and the 300mmF4

none of my lens are 2.8 they are too expensive and to big.



panning is a bit harder, this is not a crop, so you need to be smooth and slow the speed down a bit to get the wheels moving
and fill the frame with a fixed lens.

Edited by mrdemon on Thursday 14th August 15:23

Edited by mrdemon on Thursday 14th August 15:27

[MysteryLemon]

Everyone suggesting the Canon 70d... The OP has a budget of £600.. The 70d will cost that alone and not leave anything for the long lens he requires to have the camera in the first place...

A Canon xxxd range camera will do a perfectly good job too.. A 700d for example will set you back around £400 leaving you plenty for the 70-300. A nikon D5200 will cost about the same and will do a perfectly good job too.

[mrdemon]

you then need to be old school

pre focus on a point then pan and shoot, as the autofocus will not keep up on cheaper SLR's
even my two shots are not sharp front to back, but not been shooting for a year or so.

I would buy this kit now for £800 and get a new lens for xmas ;-)

http://www.hdewcameras.co.uk/canon-eos-70d--18-135...


the 70D is a great bit of kit and a good base to work from imo.

Edited by mrdemon on Thursday 14th August 15:31

[Rich196]

Thanks for all your help. Only problem is I am really stuggling with all the techinal stuff.
Crop sensor?
70-300mm?
F5.6

I many have given the wrong impression I understand these but I dont. I just gave you my current camera spec so you had a bench mark. I dont understand what these things mean in a way a simplton would understand, perhaps if you tell me the differecne it would give me over my current camera it would help me put it in perspective.

I like the qulaity of the pictures you have been posting. They are the kind of results I want. These are picture I shot the other day of my bridge camera:

[MysteryLemon]

mrdemon said:

you then need to be old school

pre focus on a point then pan a shoot, as the autofocus will not keep up on cheaper SLR's

I would buy this kit now for £800 and get a new lens for xmas ;-)

http://www.hdewcameras.co.uk/canon-eos-70d--18-135...

So we're upping the OP's budget by £400 then?

I would buy this ... http://www.digitalrev.com/product/nikon-d5200-with...

And this ... http://www.digitalrev.com/product/nikon-af-s-dx-ni...

Total - £558

This will be more than capable of producing stunning motorsport pictures, and considering you're coming from a bridge camera, the results will be so much better even though its an entry level lens and mid range body.

Actually within your budget, you wont get much better.

[mrdemon]

I shot this at 144mm on my 10D

you don't need the kit I guess but then you need to pre focus and shoot manual.
ANd choose better places to stand where you don't need the reach.

that £800 is only a bit above his £600 and will stand him well imo he did say he would spend more.

[cornet]

Rich196 said:

Thanks for all your help. Only problem is I am really stuggling with all the techinal stuff.
Crop sensor?
70-300mm?
F5.6

I many have given the wrong impression I understand these but I dont. I just gave you my current camera spec so you had a bench mark. I dont understand what these things mean in a way a simplton would understand, perhaps if you tell me the differecne it would give me over my current camera it would help me put it in perspective.

I like the qulaity of the pictures you have been posting. They are the kind of results I want. These are picture I shot the other day of my bridge camera:

Can you post the Aperture, Shutter speed and ISO for those images - if you upload the originals somewhere we will be able to find them from that.

I think the first thing we need to work out is whether it is actually the camera or your technique that is amiss

[Rich196]

cornet said:

Can you post the Aperture, Shutter speed and ISO for those images - if you upload the originals somewhere we will be able to find them from that.

I think the first thing we need to work out is whether it is actually the camera or your technique that is amiss

Its probably a bit of both. This isnt my finest work. I guess I am hoping that a better camera might compensate and allow me to achieve better for my lack of ability, to a certain degree. I know I am not a good enough photographer to extract 100% of the camera absoulte potential.

Those photos are the orginals. Info is pic1:
F/5,6
Exposure 1/1350
ISO -200
Focal Length 126
Max Aperture 3

pic2:
F/6.4
Exposure 1/850
ISO -200
Focal Length 69
Max Aperture 3

pic3
F/5,6
Exposure 1/850
ISO -200
Focal Length 126
Max Aperture 3

[MysteryLemon]

Rich196 said:

Its probably a bit of both. This isnt my finest work. I guess I am hoping that a better camera might compensate and allow me to achieve better for my lack of ability, to a certain degree. I know I am not a good enough photographer to extract 100% of the camera absoulte potential.

Those photos are the orginals. Info is pic1:
F/5,6
Exposure 1/1350
ISO -200
Focal Length 126
Max Aperture 3

pic2:
F/6.4
Exposure 1/850
ISO -200
Focal Length 69
Max Aperture 3

pic3
F/5,6
Exposure 1/850
ISO -200
Focal Length 126
Max Aperture 3

Hmm shutter speeds seem ok.. you would probably benefit from upping the ISO to 400 (although on a bridge, you'll notice a fair bit more noise or loss of detail depending how the camera is setup with noise reduction).

One thing noticable though is that the only one sharp is the clio pic, which was stopped down from F5.6 to F6.4 and also at a shorter focal length. Maybe the lens on the fuji just isn't up to much at full zoom, wide open.

[Rich196]

MysteryLemon said:

Hmm shutter speeds seem ok.. you would probably benefit from upping the ISO to 400 (although on a bridge, you'll notice a fair bit more noise or loss of detail depending how the camera is setup with noise reduction).

One thing noticable though is that the only one sharp is the clio pic, which was stopped down from F5.6 to F6.4 and also at a shorter focal length. Maybe the lens on the fuji just isn't up to much at full zoom, wide open.

Okay excuse my lack of knowledge here but putting it into simple terms for me. Do you mean that somewhere between the lack of a decent sensor and the not so great lens, that basically the camera cannot get enough light into the lens, to get a decent picture. Thats why I am always at a trade of between picture quality / grainyness and blurry / not sharp image?

[MysteryLemon]

Rich196 said:

Okay excuse my lack of knowledge here but putting it into simple terms for me. Do you mean that somewhere between the lack of a decent sensor and the not so great lens, that basically the camera cannot get enough light into the lens, to get a decent picture. Thats why I am always at a trade of between picture quality / grainyness and blurry / not sharp image?

No it's not about the amount of light coming into the lens. Looking at those settings, there is more than enough light. The softness in the images doesn't look like motion blur to me and the shutter speeds are plenty fast enough. With a lens with that much zoom capability, there will always be a compromise, and it's usually quality. The softness just could be because the lens is soft when the aperture is wide open (f5.6) and at the max zoom length of the lens.

Sadly, you can't have everything with photography and if you want a lens with a massive zoom, you end up with a poor quality lens that can zoom lots. The reason you dont see zoom lenses on DSLRs with the same range is down to the fact that it would be bloody massive and weigh a ton, but also the fact that it wouldn't be very good either. You are much better off having a few lenses optimised for a smaller range rather than one lens that can do it all, esspecially if you are after the best quality possible.

[mrdemon]

it's a little bit of every thing.

Camera cannot auto focus/track fast enough, small sensors, and cheap lens which need stopping down to be sharp.

Photograpgy is bloody expensive if you want point and shoot sharp pics.

every cheaper SLR cannot track that well, every crop is not as good as full frame and L lens are sharp but expensive.

AS I said the orange RS was on a camera you can pick up for £40 but I shot that in manual mode and manual focus.
it was how ever with a 70-200F4L IS lens one of Canons greatest zoom lens imo which was £700.

I cannot afford full frame with mega auto focus and F2.8L lens but the kit I have is still quite a lot of money for a hobby.

I would still say the 70D auto focus is pretty much point and shoot, great for filming and buy the 18-135STM and try that out 1st
if you want to make it a hobby save up for a L lens later, but you need good SLR with autofocus unless you want to learn old school shooting.

Edited by mrdemon on Thursday 14th August 16:28

[Morbid]

OP - are you shooting using a tripod or hand held?

[MysteryLemon]

mrdemon said:

it's a little bit of every thing.

Camera cannot auto focus fast enough, small sensors, and cheap lens which need stopping down to be sharp.

Photograpgy is bloody expensive if you want point and shoot sharp pics.

every cheaper SLR cannot track that well, every crop is not as good as full frame and L lens are sharp but expensive.

AS I said the orange RS was on a camera you can pick up for £40 but I shot that in manual mode and manual focus.
it was how ever with a 70-200F4L IS lens one of Canons greatest zoom lens imo which was £700.

I cannot afford full frame with mega auto focus and F2.8L lens but the kit I have is still quite a lot of money for a hobby.

I would still say the 70D auto focus is pretty much point and shoot, great for filming and buy the 18-135STM and try that out 1st
if you want to make it a hobby save up for a L lens later, but you need good SLR with autofocus unless you want to learn old school shooting.

Agreed on everything except I still think the 70d a bit ott and still way out of budget not even including a lens intended for the type of photography he's into.

I dunno how bad the 60d AF is but I know for a fact that the AF on Nikons equivelant (D7000) and the time is more than capable of quick and acurate AF with excellent 3d tracking. The D5200 and D5100 share the same system (although with less AF points i think) and are also both perfectly capable at tracking moving subjects within the frame.

Surely the 60d isn't that bad? It's a very highly rated camera and would save the OP a lot of money if he insists on Canon.