witolda_maruszewska

Ben,

For motorsports you will need a lens of at least 300mm focal length if you want to take head on shots of the cars from the spectator areas. And in a lot of cases, 300mm still isn't long enough, especially on a film body. The thing is, you will probably want to take pan shots as well, so I'd argue against a prime, as you'll want a short focal length for that. I'd also argue against the 70-200 f4 + 1.4 TC as you'll lose AF.

A lot of it depends on where you will be shooting from, whether you are in a grandstand or standing on banking, but for ease of use, a zoom is definately the way to go.

If you are not sure what lens would suit you best and/or have budget concerns, I would strongly suggest renting. For an all-round lens, the 100-400L IS should give you pretty well much everything you will need for the shots you will be looking to take. If you do hire the 100-400L, buy a cheapish (but solid) monopod to go with it as otherwise your arms will be aching at the end of the day.

If you've any questions about motorsport photography and the 100-400L, don't hestiate to get in touch.<div></div>

I generally find that 1/focal length for shutter speeds works as well for me on my D60 as it does on my EOS 5 film body for wide through to medium telephoto focal lengths i.e. 16 through to 100 mm or so.

While this is a good rule of thumb, one which tends to work well for me in most situations, I find that hand holding a DSLR (and any SLR for that matter) also depends on two things: a) how good your handholding technique is and b) the weight and feel of your rig. I only use the rule as a basic guide, as I know that depending on the situation (especially for static subjects), I can often handhold at shutter speeds 2/3 of a stop slower and get acceptable results.

However, what works well with relatively small, light lenses e.g. 50 1.8 & 28-105 3.5-4.5, doesn't always work quite so well with large, heavy L telephotos, especially at the longer focal lengths.

Now, my typical rig is a D60, 100-400L IS and 550 EX flash. I can handhold that adequately with the lens at 400mm at 1/400s and 100 ISO with the IS turned off (usually when I forget to turn it on!), but find that my pictures are sharper with the IS turned on, and even sharper still if I use a monopod...

I'd go for a D60 - a nice capable camera in its own right. For what you have in mind, it should perform admirably well. It will be a step backwards from your current film bodies; I felt that when I shelved my EOS 5 and moved to a D60 last year.

The D30 is similar to the D60, but only has one focus point instead of three, the D30 AF is slower and performs rather poorly in dim light in comparison to the D60 - which itself isn't brilliant in low light. It also only has 3mp rather than 6.3 and noise at high ISO is more noticeable.

My way of seeing it (if you pardon the pun) is that on a 1.6 crop DSLR, a 50mm lens gives you the perspective of the 50 with the field of view of an 80. Switching my 50mm between my D60 and EOS5 and looking through the viewfinder of each seems to confirm that.

So I'd say it is a crop - there doesn't seem to be any magnification factors involved as far as I am concerned.

I had the non-IS version of the lens before I outgrew it and replaced it with a 100-400L.

I found that the 75-300 performed quite well with film (EOS 5), but it needed good quality fast film and bright light for the lens to perform at its best. I found it performed far better when focusing manually rather than relying on the autofocus.

Maybe I had a better example than most, but mine was quite sharp in the 75-200 range and more than acceptably so over 200mm - I have a feeling that focusing manually may have had something to do with it. The trick to this lens (and it's IS-enabled brother) is learning when and how to get the best out of it.

Mine more than paid for itself as I sold several photographs that I took with it and I have several 12x8 inch prints on my from this lens which really *pop* :)

After I upgraded to the 100-400L, I sold mine to a friend who is a newbie to SLR photography and who uses it on his 10D for occasional telephoto use. I've never used it on my D60, but in terms of results on the 10D, it seems to perform less well with digital media than with film; it is not as sharp or contrasty and the chromatic aberration is considerably more noticeable.

Then again, it is perhaps neither fair nor ideal to compare viewing prints to viewing jpegs... But for a low-cost telephoto lens, the 75-300 is really good value for money and a more than adequate performer.

Never tried taking my camera through an airport, but I certainly would agree about getting a good quality bag for your equipment.

I'd also recommend Lowe Pro, though my preference runs to shoulder bags rather than backpacks; I have a Stealth Reporter 400 for work and a Nova 2 for travelling light. They both get put through hell, but are well made and durable.

This "L Nazi" (28-70 & 100-400) loves her 50mm f1.8! :) The 50 1.8 is Canon's cheapest lens, but it is a right little gem. So who says the cost of a lens is everything? Sure, quality equipment helps in making good images, but the main factor is the photographer...

If you got the 18-55 as part of the kit, give it a go. If it takes photos that *YOU* are happy with, then use it and have fun using it. Don't knock a lens just because of its price tag.

If you find that it consistently isn't up to scratch or that you outgrow it i.e. you want something sharper / faster etc, then's the time to start worrying, since better lenses with a similar range of focal lengths have a significantly larger price tag... I wouldn't sell it though - keep it with the camera, so that if and when you do upgrade your body, then you will likely get a better trade in. Or if you are happy with your camera body, then there might be a time you'll want to go someplace where a small unobtrusive lens is what you need.

One thing that would be useful is something to put your camera in! :) A small, good quality camera bag is one of the most useful things you can buy when getting an SLR system. Firstly, it will protect your camera from knocks when you are not using it, secondly, you'll have somewhere to put smaller items such as spare battery, flash cards, card reader etc and thirdly, it will keep all that expensive equipment dry!

Don't buy cheap, get a reputable brand i.e. Lowe Pro (my favourite), Crumpler, Samsonite or Tamrac, since they tend to have more padding than the cheapies and they have nice interiors that you can customise to your needs.

Something like a Lowe Pro Nova 2 would fit the bill as it would take the 300D and 18-55 plus still have enough room for one other small-to-medium lens and/or flashgun as well as all the other bits and bobs.

Although I use a Stealth Reporter 400 when I work, I still have my old Nova 2 for travelling light. I can (just about - but it is a tight squeeze indeed) cram in a D60, 28-70L, 50 1.8, EX550 flash plus peripheries.

Oh, and while talking about it, I'd also suggest the 50mm f1.8 lens! :) Then there's writeable CDs, a CD burner and a bit of software called BreezeBrowser...

Hope this is helpful to you! :)

Pete,

Try Park Cameras (www.parkcameras.com) in Hayward's Heath. As an official Canon Digital dealer, they get shipments on a regular basis, but you will likely have to put down a deposit to avoid disappointment. Park also sell used D30s and D60s as well - I bought my D60 through them. Hope this helps.

I'd certainly agree with the advice to get a digital body if you've the funds, but instead of buying new, why don't you go used instead? That way you can get your toe in the water without having to wince, well, wince too much! I'd also go used on a film body for B&W, IR etc, which is what you are looking at.

As for lenses... If you shoot sports to any degree, you will almost certainly be looking at the 100-400L. It is a lens that people either seem to love or hate, so try before you buy. I'd also look around for used glass (which is what I have done for the most part) as it will make your money go further.

For an all-round bag I would suggest the following: 28-70 2.8L, 100-400L IS and 50 1.8

I agree with Puppy Face; in my experience (especially indoors) EOS cameras do have a tendency to underexpose if left to the camera to make the decisions.

At least with digital you have the option to pull up the exposure in photoshop or equivalent software, but I would honestly recommend you get a lightmeter. Doesn't have to be an expensive one, just enough to give you a set of readings from the environment in which you are shooting - use this as the basis for your camera settings.

Try not to use the "idiot" modes in tricky light; using either Av, Tv or M (together with a handheld meter) will give you better control over your exposures. If you can, bracket your shots as well and then select the best exposure.

Also, I would suggest getting a card reader rather than uploading photos from your camera to your PC. They are relatively inexpensive and are far quicker than a direct link. Also, get yourself a copy of Breezebrowser - will make your life a lot easier! :)

I tested Sigma's telephoto offerings earlier this year while looking for an upgrade for my 75-300 USM III and ended up with the 100-400L instead.

If your budget can stretch that far, give it a go. I guess it depends how much use you're going to get out of the lens in order to justify the near-£1300 price tag - in my case, the 100-400L is on my camera about 70% of the time.

If not, then I guess the Sigma is OK (test it to see if it works on the 10D - it should do), or you could get the Canon 75-300 USM for around £170-ish if you can't justify spending too much money on what might be an occasional-use lens. The trouble is, there aren't many adequate mid-priced telephotos; they tend to be either cheap or very expensive. *wince*

Alex,

I'm a motorsport photographer who shoots (during the season) an average of about 800 shots over a weekend using a D60. Here's how I go through my stuff:

1) Go through all the shots using Breezebrowser; bin the duffs and copy the the best keepers to a different directory. I guess this is the equivalent of eyeballing contact sheets :)

2) Burn the keepers and all the essentially useable stuff to CD - I archive stuff "as comes out of the camera" i.e. unedited.

3) Edit the best keepers for an online portfolio, which usually just entails cropping if necessary and sharpening before resizing to internet-friendly files.

4) Re-edit the stand-outs in the selection of keepers (from the original files) so that they are suitable for producing prints up to A4 in size.

That's about it really - standard quality print media and electronic distribution / consumption doesn't need anything more than that. On the other hand, when preparing to make prints, I am far more thorough with what I do as regards to editing, since nothing beats a well-made print.

From my start of 800-odd shots from the weekend, I edit about 60 of my top shots for web use and perhaps six of those as prints for my portfolio. Average and useable stuff just gets archived in case of future need.

Hope this helps.

What's so special about direct & full-time LCD viewers in digital point & shoots? They are an absolute pain to work with for many of the reasons stated here.

If you really want real-time viewing on an SLR, then Canon have just the thing for you on their film bodies that I wouldn't be surprised to see on digital SLR bodies at some point in the future - a pellicle mirror. I's appeared on the prosumer (but old) RT and the newer pro EOS 1N RS.

On the Canon camera museum website, the 1N RS has a shutter release time of 0.006 seconds - I think it would take a lot of tweaking to get your typical integrated non-shutter digicam to do that.

I don't like point & shoots, digital or otherwise - the reason I bought into an SLR system in the first place. They are fiddly to use, have horrendous shutter lag, you are stuck with often lousy optics etc. If you are looking at buying an integrated digital camera, good luck to you, but then you're stuck with what is essentially a compromise.

And that's why I'm sticking with SLRs - because I can tweak my system to be what I want it to be. Hell, and if I want portable, I just slip my D60 with 50mm f1.8 into my bag and I'm sorted. Plus I get the advantages of top-notch images from a rig that's smaller than the camera you're proposing.

Peter,

The IS on the 100-400L will work fine on any EOS body, film or digital. I've used mine with an EOS 5, D60 and 10D without any problems at all - check my photo.net portfolio for shots taken with the lens.

One thing that you must be aware of when using the 100-400 with the IS switched on, is that it will drain the batteries quicker than you'd get with a non-IS lens. Other than that, no major issues.

Steve, have you thought about a used EOS 5 / A2E?

It may be getting on a bit in years and in terms of technology when compared to more modern bodies, but can certainly hold its own in terms of focusing (including ECF), frames per second (rate = 5 f.p.s) and metering. The EOS 5 will certainly outperform an EOS 300 / Rebel by quite a long way; it has better ergonomics, is more customiseable and has all the mod-cons of a semi-pro body. I've not used any of the Elan film bodies so can't comment on those.

I used my EOS 5 to shoot motorsports for several seasons before going digital, and it coped extremely well. In some instances it coped better than my current D60... As far as film bodies go, only an EOS 3 or the more recent EOS 1 variants will outperform it for sports - as mentioned above, I can't really comment on the various Elans. Before most of my colleagues made the changeover to digital, about 50% of Canon shooters used the EOS 5.

In terms of price, used EOS 5's trade for approximately 220 pounds on the UK market which works out roughly in the region of 480 Canadian Dollars - around half the price of an EOS 30e (Elan 7e).

This means that you can get a sturdy semi-pro camera body (albeit a slightly older one) that will give you all the functionality that you will ever be likely to need at a price that won't break the bank. With an EOS 5, you won't need to upgrade - something you made a point about regarding the Rebel - plus you'll still have enough money to bag a few extra accessories as well.

Mmmm, I've used both a D60 (mine) and a 10D (borrowed) after moving to digital from an EOS 5 and here's some things I'd like to see on future prosumer DSLRs:

1) Better f.p.s rate e.g. 5 rather than 3 frames per second

2) Bigger buffer & faster image processing rate

3) Spot meter

4) Eye-controlled focus

5) Near infra-red focus assist

It is a relatively modest wish-list, but there are a few things that do leave me banging my head against the wall after having become used to the specification and flexibility of the semi-pro EOS 5.

Cheap and easy solution! :) I've done this and it works in all except the heaviest of downpours.

Get a plastic carrier bag (grocery bag to you US folks) and cut a hole in the bottom. Put the camera in the bag with the lens poking out of the hole. Secure the edge of the hole to the lens barrel with an elastic band. Use the camera in the bag, though you may have to manual focus if the AF hunts around. It is rough and ready, looks a mite silly but will keep your equipment dry.

Honest, it does work.

If your equipment does get damp, wipe it dry with a clean lint-free cloth before putting it away. A couple of sachets of silica gel crystals in your camera bag wouldn't go amiss either.

Chris,

Can't say much about the capabilities of the 300D for motorsports I'm afraid, but maybe I can give you a bit of guidance regarding the lenses you are thinking about.

From what you say, it seems that you will be shooting from the public access areas, which, depending on the circuit can be quite variable, but you won't be that close to the action. In that case, focal length is key and usually, the longer, the better. Me, I personally use a 100-400L IS which is unfortunately above your budget. It is only f4.5 - 5.6 but it is more than adequate; on my D60 I tend to shoot 100 or 200 ISO unless the light is really bad.

For head-on action I do tend to use my lens at the long end (300-400mm range) in order to fill the frame with the action. 200mm is generally too short for that sort of shot, particularly from the spectator areas as you will have fences, other spectators, marshals etc in the shot as well. In terms of pan shots, I usually work in the 100-150mm range depending on how I want to frame the car. Sometimes I work even shorter than that if I have to e.g 70mm. A lot really does depend on where you are standing and what you want your shot to be like.

I am probably not the best person to ask about teleconverters as I have a bit of an allergy towards them - which is why I use a 100-400L, but several of my colleagues do use the Sigma 70-200 f2.8 with the Sigma 1.4 TC and are happy with the results. The Sigma is heavy and has no IS like the Canon version so a lightweight monopod would be helpful. I would advise against the Canon 70-200L f4 since on its own it isn't long enough and you will be losing AF and speed if you bolt on a TC.

A prime lens does limit you quite considerably. 200mm will not be long enough for head-on shots and is too long for most panning in most cases. I would certainly discount that option entirely.

If you haven't shot motorsports before, I would advise getting a cheapish lens to learn with - ultimately technique is more important than good glass for starters. Once you've got a feel for the techniques, then's the time to invest in better lenses. I learnt my trade using Canon's much-maligned 75-300 USM and would certainly recommend this lens if you are just starting out - once thing is certain, you WILL need the 300mm long end. It is inexpensive and you'll be able to save the best part of your budget on upgrading later. And before anyone starts laughing, I have sold photos taken using this lens! :)

I would also suggest on getting a shorter lens to go with the 75-300 as you may find yourself wanting something to do pit & paddock shots with. You have several options here - any one of the following would likely meet your needs; Canon 28-105 f3.5-4.5, Canon 28-135 IS, Sigma 24-70 f2.8 or Sigma 28-70 f2.8.

Hopefully this is of use to you - if you feel you need a bit more insight and/or advice, don't hesitate to get in touch.

You will need an EX-series flash for a D60, I'm afraid...

EZ-type flashes won't work in any of the auto modes on any E-TTL camera, D60 notwithstanding - you will have to fire the flash manually and as a result there may be a risk of frying the electronics in the D60. When I moved up from an EOS 5 (A-TTL) to a D60 I was left with the compatibility issue over my 430EZ flash and traded it in for a 550EX.

Your best bet (depending on your needs and budget) will be either a 420EX or a 550EX.

I use a 100-400L IS on a D60, and prior to that on an EOS 5. It is my main lens, fitted to my camera body about 75 % of the time.

With the EOS 5 film body (which uses 2CR5 batteries), I found that once the battery had been used for 10 to 12 rolls of 36 exp using the 100-400L IS, there isn't enough juice to power both the IS and the AF. As a result, the photos were quite soft compared to the tack-sharp images I got using a fresh battery. I used 400 ISO film in the 5 and exposure seemed fine. Using non-IS lenses, I'd get at least 25 rolls of 36 exp off a 2CR5 battery.

On the other hand, the BP-511 packs I use in my D60 don't seem to exhibit that characteristic when using the 100-400L IS.

You've two options really. One is find a cheap supplier of batteries - usually internet mail order gives the best deals - so you've a bagful of spares, or get a battery pack for your camera that takes rechargeables.

It has to the the 100-400L for sports - no contest! As you will inevitably be shooting from the sidelines, the 400mm long end of the zoom is invaluable, and the range is right. I would not recommend the 35-350L as another poster has suggested, since the optical quality isn't as good as the 100-400, plus it has no IS. The 70-200 is just way too short without a TC.

You certainly wouldn't need a TC for the 100-400L; it is long enough in its own right, plus if you've got a DSLR, then you effectively get more out of it anyway. You would definately need a TC to use the 70-200 from the sidelines of a footy pitch, but it would degrade the image somewhat and of course you lose two stops with a 2x TC which would only then make it a 5.6 anyway.

The fact that the 100-400L is only a 4.5-5.6 isn't a real worry; For film, a good quality ISO 400 is OK, but for a 10D say, you can shoot up to ISO 800 without appreciable noise should you need it.

Can't help you with filters, I'm afraid, since I don't use any.

I use my 100-400L with a D60 (and prior to that an EOS 5) to shoot motorsports and get cracking results with it. Have also shot cricket with it, so it has the reach to get to the wicket from the boundary ropes. Although it has IS, I would recommend a monopod as it doesn't half make my arms ache after a long day at Rockingham.

I'd certainly agree with you on the 50 1.4 and 100-400L as part of your kit. Cracking options - I have similar except my 50mm is the 1.8 version as I don't use 50mm that often and can't justify the 1.4 version for when I do.

At the shorter end, I would skip the 17-40 f4, get a 24-70 2.8L (or 28-70 2.8L if you can find a good used example) and grab a 20mm prime for the really wide stuff.

That way, if you are concerned about the gap between 50 and 100, you'll have most of it covered - 70mm is a nice focal length whether on film or digital and it is one I'd miss if I didn't have it. Then you've always got the option of getting an 85mm prime if you find you need it.

Darrell, I hope you don't mind me adding a few more thoughts! :)

1) You've got a pretty wide and fast lens. Useful for taking shots in low-ish light where you still need a good depth of field. f2.8 at 17mm will give you a lot to play with, so you've a bit of a safety net in terms of focusing. Even f4 @ 35mm will be reasonable.

2) Hand holding with this type of lens is easy, even at slowish shutter speeds. You will certainly be able to get away with hand holding at 1/30 if you need to. However, for animals, you'd probably want to shoot 1/200 or faster to catch the moment, though paw & tail blur is a nice touch.

3) Best bit of advice - just shoot what catches your fancy and play around with different settings (i.e. Av, Tv, M, ISO rating, white balance). With a fast wide-angle, you probably won't see much variation in Av (aperture priority) in terms of depth of field from wide through to small aperture, but either Av or Tv can be used to vary the exposure levels i.e. how light / dark your picture will be.

4) Try bracketing as well and don't be afraid of manual exposure. Use the camera's meter as a guide.

5) And finally, enjoy your new camera! :)