camera

[paulzinho]

Originally posted by bella
i'd go for the f65, or maybe the canon equivalent. they're good enough to give you seriously decent pictures if you can get the hang of it. i know it's a lot of money, but get a 300mm lens too. you'll get far better pictures and won't have to scan them in and hack them up to make them decent

Is it really worth it for a beginner though? At the moment I don't want to go overboard as i'm just a beginner looking to do it as a bit of a hobby maybe.

[bella]

there's no point having a lens any smaller than a 300. especially at silverstone. you're so far away from the track you only get the standard fan pictures. if you want to take some good pictures, go for a non auto focus camera and a low budget 100-300 lens like my vivitar.

[paulzinho]

Is there any reason why it should be non auto focus? Is it easier or harder, or just the difference in price?

[jase]

Auto focus is great for panning shots, if the subject (ie car)is kept in the centre of the frame then the car should always be in sharp focus. This does depend on aperture, but it stars to get tecnocal then.

With manual focus, as has been already mentioned, the best thing is to aim for the car to be in a certain part of the track, and set the camera to be in focu on that point, then as you pan, take the photo as you reach a pre ordained spot, this takes practice, but then so do all panning shots.

[Aysedasi]

Originally posted by jasongore
My old SLR died on me last week, and so I had to buy a new body. Jessops had a "Centon" with lens for £114. It is an old Minolta body

If I remember rightly, that Centon is in effect a rebadged Minolta X300 - as the X300 was my first SLR (the first of only two bodies in 17 years), I can vouch for it being a thoroughly decent camera. Mine served me well for 7 years before I traded it in for my EOS 100. I only went AF due to my eyesight, which has been something less than 20-20 since I was about 6 years old! Now I wouldn't be parted from my trusty EOS (unless someone wants to donate a new version.....?






.....no, I thought not.

[pauldavid]

I do hope these threads don't turn into a "my ones bigger and better than your one" . Let me tell you from experience there is nothing more off putting for people beggining photography than peole telling you "yes your camera is O.K.but" you really should upgrade to this or that and then you get the "digital" its the only way, now if you have not long started traditional photography then my advice is learn your craft first as the digital bug is worse than any class A drug, because of the technology the products on offer are out of date before you have taken them out of the box and the lust for more pixels just goes on and on amd sooner or later you will see a digital junky hanging around street corners begging for money to satisfy his lust for pixels. So i think the de-criminalisation of soft photography (film print & slide) will only encourage more people to experiment with digital and before you know it you will be a addict and your P.C. hard drive will be bursting with images and then you will have to book it into a clinic for therapy, where it can unburden its hard drive. and learn that putting a film into the back of your camera walking to your local film prossesor and eagerly awaiting the return of your prints can be a enjoyable.

[paul-collins]

On that note:

Mine is a Chinon CE-4 (uses Pentax K-mount). I have a Pentax 50mm, a Sun 70-200 f3.something, and a 28 by someone else. All are decent, not spectacular, glass. I don't use the 28 nearly enough.

I just got a 2x multiplier to try on the Sun, 'cause as bella noted, you're not very close to the cars when you aren't credentialled.

I'm on the incremental upgrade program, and since I have a (hopefully repairable) Ricoh as well as this Chinon, I'm staying for now with K-mount lenses. I'm still trying to get the most out of the equipment I have, before I start pouring serious money into new equipment.

As with my other long-term motorsport goals, all this changes when I win the lottery. (Oh, wait, you have to actually buy tickets to win, don't you?)

[F1Nut]

I use the Sony F707, I upgraded it last year and gots some great results at a Silverstone test session. The max shutter speed is 1/1000 which is a bit slow for F1 cars but its a great camera and a good price for what you get. Sony have the F717 now so that has driven the price of the F707 down.

Steve.

[Jay]

Paul, look into the Minolta Maxxum (Dynax) 5 as well, it should be about the same price as the Nikon F65, with a few more features and in a smaller, lighter package. It's pretty durable too, but probably not as much as the F65. Both the F65 and the Maxxum 5 would be great "starter" SLR cameras... you can use them as point and shoots at first and gradually experiment...

I bought a Maxxum 5 late last summer, so far it's been great, (still learning though...). I need a 300 lense... Not too expensive though... I was thinking of Sigma's 28-300 f3.5-6.3 "Hyperzoom" lense as sort of a compact universal one... Anyone have any experience with this one or something similar?

[Peter Mallett]

Originally posted by jasongore
Auto focus is great for panning shots, if the subject (ie car)is kept in the centre of the frame then the car should always be in sharp focus. This does depend on aperture, but it stars to get tecnocal then.

Well it depends on your requirements. To me the satisfaction comes with manually focussing and achieving a good shot. And it is very possible with a manual if you set the aperture correctly. If the subject is too dark take a different type of picture. However it would need to be very dark because a panning shot is usually taken at 1/125th or possibly slower. That gives you the blurred background.

Originally posted by jasongore
With manual focus, as has been already mentioned, the best thing is to aim for the car to be in a certain part of the track, and set the camera to be in focu on that point, then as you pan, take the photo as you reach a pre ordained spot, this takes practice, but then so do all panning shots.

Agreed but that's where the satisfaction comes in. And as I said with the aperture set correctly you can get a good few metres grace on the target.

Also the head on or corner shot makes for a much more difficult scenario because you really do need to guess at the focus point and don't forget the camera is static whilst the subject is coming towards you. Minimum shutter speed for a head on would be around 1/500th. (Snapper could give us help here).

For me a manual beats an auto hands down but it does depend on what you want the pictures for.

[bella]

i'm with you there. haven't used a manual setting on my slr for yonks. it's far easier (and more fun) being able to adjust it to the effect you want.

[Webslinger]

An autofocus camera is fine for racing shots, although it can mean just flicking the switch to 'manual' for on-track shots. I find the quickest way for me is manual focus on track, but use autofocus in the pits and with driver head-shots.

I started with a Zenith EM, which was an old antiquated Russian camera, followed by a Minolta X-300. Since then it has all been autofocus Canon, first with the EOS600, then the 50E, followed by a 5.

Technology and magazine reports = digital, since the pro's like to have their stuff downloaded before the day is out. It's a bit more difficult with 35mm. If I'm on a job that needs immediate magazine results, then I will use digital, but if time is on my side, the easiest option is to have the 35mm developed onto a CD. Boots in the UK do a good job in this respect, saving the film in both low res. and high res. format, the latter being around the 800kb mark. Quality is excellent.

[Peter Mallett]

I started with a Zenit EM. Wasn't it seriously heavy? Then moved to Canon AE1 and stayed there. I've got two bodies and loads of lenses which means I'm still hauling around serious tonnage. But as I don't do much photography amymore it doesn't matter really.

I also have an EOS300 which is a great camera. But I found that in temps of below minus 10C it gets sluggish and finally stops unless you keep putting it somewhere warm. The AE1 never had that problem because the battery didn't have to work to much of the camera.

Mind you not much motorsport happens at minus 10 and below.

[Peter Mallett]

Oops sorry I forgot about Silverstone on any summers day!

[Aysedasi]

Talking about AF, I still have my trusty EOS 100, but I rarely use the AF for panning shots.

[*formula3*]

at the moment i´m thinking about buying a new lense for daddys canon eos 300...
the thing is the money, is a 300mm worth the money or will a 200mm do?
if i buy a lense i want one to have for a loooooooooong time, so if i buy a 200mm i´ll have to use it for years...so if it is better to have a 300mm i should buy it now or never...
aaaaaaaaahh...i´m confused :confused:

[redshoes]

200mm is probably ok around the paddock but not really for on-track use at most circuits. Definately go for the 300.

[*formula3*]

mmh...okay, so i´ll save my money for a used 300mm

[bella]

i'm with redshoes, definitely save up and go for a 300mm

[Jay]

yeah, I'm in the same boat as *formula3*, I'm also considering whether it's worth spending the extra money for a 'universal' type lense that's 28-300 or just getting the cheaper 70-300 zoom type lenses. That would probably mean carrying 2 lenses everywhere instead of 1...hmm...

[redshoes]

Depends on what sort of photos you want to take and how much you use the shorter lens. When I got my last camera I only brought the 70-300mm as it was all I could afford at the time. Managed to survive for ages without every wanting or needing anything smaller. I've since brought a 28-80mm which is small enough and light enough to be dropped in the bag or pocket without getting in the way but even now it doesn't get that much use.