General advice required

andya7

andya7

Suspended / Banned
Messages
7
Name
Andy
Edit My Images
Yes
... first post, so be kind :)

Bought a second hand 300D towards the end of last season with a 100-300 lens (non L glass and pretty cheap end of the market) to take pics when at race weekends with a club I used to race with and still turn up for the fun factor/drinks/mates. I know it isn't the best, but I didn't want to spend a fortune on something that I was pants at!

(first pics are on http://s197.photobucket.com/albums/aa21/andya7/Graduates - Snetterton Augsut 2007/ if you are interested, along with the other two meetings from last year if you are really bored..!)

Self learning as I go along BUT we were at Spa last year and a friend of one of the racers turned up with Canon 100-400 F/2.8L IS lens (forgive me for the wrong ref, but you will know what I mean) on a Canon body (can't recall the spec/model - sorry - but guessing by the money spent on the lens probably not a cheap one) and he was literally 'point & shooting' and getting some pretty good pics and he said that it was down to the lens more than anything... (?)

I want to get the sharpness that I saw in his pics at Spa so my questions are...

1 - bin my body & lens and replace all? - second hand preferably as I don't have a bottomless pit
2 - keep the body and get a better lens?
3 - keep the lens and get a better body?

I have tried to read up and 'think' that a Canon EF 70-200mm F/4.0L USM AF would get me towards what I want without costing a fortune (circa £300 for the lens).

Will the use a lens like this be restricted by the body?

All advice welcomend :) (including my vagueness of model & spec refs!)
 
lens is the key, camera body is less significant.

Replacing both would be a good idea - 70-200 f4 L is highly regarded, too short for most circuits in the UK though - a Sigma 100-300 f4 EX is worth considering as well - its what I use.

Better body - 30D or something like that would be good upgrade.

Are you in Norfolk?

The 100-400 L IS is about £ 900 - £ 1000 new, £ 750 ish s/h
 
when i was at the very bottom of the steep learning curve, i was using a 10d and 100-400L. I couldnt for the life of me get sharp photos.

Then i was talking to a guy on a forum who gave me the best advice. DONT LET THE CAMERA DO THE PROCESSING (he didnt shout, so i dont know why i did that in capitals there).
Shoot in RAW and not JPEG, then use software to process the photos. Computers are 10 x better at processing photos than a camera is, and you can make lots of nice little tweaks (including adjusting the sharpness).

I dont like disagreeing with Andrew, but save your money for the moment and get a free trial of Adobe Lightroom or something like that, and switch your camera to RAW. You may need a bigger memory card, though ;)
 
badgerbaiter said:
when i was at the very bottom of the steep learning curve, i was using a 10d and 100-400L. I couldnt for the life of me get sharp photos.

Then i was talking to a guy on a forum who gave me the best advice. DONT LET THE CAMERA DO THE PROCESSING (he didnt shout, so i dont know why i did that in capitals there).
Shoot in RAW and not JPEG, then use software to process the photos. Computers are 10 x better at processing photos than a camera is, and you can make lots of nice little tweaks (including adjusting the sharpness).

I dont like disagreeing with Andrew, but save your money for the moment and get a free trial of Adobe Lightroom or something like that, and switch your camera to RAW. You may need a bigger memory card, though ;)
Click to expand...


thats a good idea but i find for shooting motorsports just down to the size of files and amount of pics you take jpeg is a lot handyer
 
chrisc said:
thats a good idea but i find for shooting motorsports just down to the size of files and amount of pics you take jpeg is a lot handyer
Click to expand...

Same here, hardly ever use RAW for motorsport.

As far as the OP's concerned I'd keep the body and concentrate on the lens at the moment. The sigma 100-300 is a good shout, very good lens indeed
 
Thanks for the comments so far :)

Having got home, the current lens is a Canon EF 100-300 4.5/4.6 USM - is it a pile of pants..? Or more to the point how much of a difference will/should I expect to see with a decent Canon/Sigma lens? Or is it all down to me?

My initial thoughts were to try and concentrate on getting as good a shot without relying on the computer, but it appears that more or less everyone relies on photoshop, or other software. My first reaction would be that if you cannot get it right then concentrate on getting it right and maybe some fine tweaking on the pc, but then again, as badgerbaiter says, a computer is better at processing than a camera...

I know what you mean about being too short for the circuits, but I should be able to get 'trackside' with the club contacts, fairly easily. Although going to a 200mm from a 300mm may be a step in the wrong direction.

The only other question would be how much of a benefit is the IS on a lens (although the thought is going the wrong direction in terms of cost), it would be best if someone said, 'you don't need it'

andrewc - nope not in Norfolk, but we end up at Snetterton most years
badgerbaiter - best shoot in RAW then ;)
 
Getting trackside for a proper race meet is hard - most circuits will require MSA media credentials which are not easy to get, unless you manage to knock Gary on the back of the head with a well timed blow from a monopod.

IS - for most part I don't think its needed. Certainly, there are some advantages, but good technique goes a long way - monopod, correct stance and so on.

The camera assumes things in JPG mode - sharpness, contrast, saturation, whereas in raw mode it doesn't, just faithfully records what it sees. And there is no file compression either. I tend to shoot in RAW exclusively. More time on the PC, but I think its worthwhile. Unmodified RAW can often look a little muddy, but a raw converter with good batch processing will sort that out.

I think you'd notice an improvement. I went from a Sigma 70-300 DG Macro to a Sigma 100-300 f4 EX and the difference was massive. Its quite a heavy lens so took some re-learning, but I could see an improvement straight away.

The problem with RAW on the lower end cameras is that the file buffer is fairly small and so you easily run out of bullets, especially if you 'spray and pray' or if you happen to capture a crash and want to record an action sequence.

If you were in Norfolk, you could have a go with my Sigma 100-300.
 
andya7 said:
My initial thoughts were to try and concentrate on getting as good a shot without relying on the computer
Click to expand...

Get that right and you don't have to faff about on the computer too much. ;) Each to their own though :)

The lens you've got is decent but like anything, if you invest in better equipment you will see a difference in the results.

I've never shot bikes on the track so I'm not best qualified to give advice. I'd have thought however than the IS in mode 2 (for panning) would be a benefit, Badgerbaiter will probably be able to give a better opinion on that one. :) It doesn't help me in motox at all, usually got it switched off to be honest.
 
Again, thanks for the comments.

... for a proper meet... aha, well the joys of BARC Caterham club racing makes it easier, the 'proper' meets are something for the future. But I appreciate what you are saying.

I was stood next to someone at Snetterton, by the chicane, who was chatting to his friends whilst pointing & shooting with some expensive looking kit... appeared to be a 'spray and pray' as you say. But I have to be more choosey in my shots as the buffering does take some time even on jpeg.

Looks like I will need to spend some time learning with RAW & software AND a better lens AND being very selective with my shots :eek:

Thanks for the comments on the IS & the offer of a go with the Sigma :)
 
dont get me wrong about the post processing. I am of the same opinion as you. i.e. the photo should be taken correctly in the first place and not just some crap shot that is only good because you straightened it, cropped it, and cloned out the sensor dust in photoshop.

but when you shoot with a digital camera, it basically converts the light from the sensor into zeros and ones. The camera then uses an algorithm (depending on the settings you have chosen) to convert the numbers into a jpeg/tiff etc. In this process it adjusts the sharpness, contrast, saturation etc to create the kind of jpeg you want.
All i'm saying is that you dont let the camera do this process, you let your computer do it , because its a)much better at it b)gives you more control over it. I've always found canon SLRs dont convert the zeros and ones into a sharp enough photo (even with sharpness set to max)

Andrew does have a point, though (not the bit about smacking me in the head :) ). If you like to shoot bursts of photos (which msport photographers do) then it will fill up the buffer quicker and you wont get as many shots in that burst.

Dod, I'm with you on IS. some people swear by it, personally i dont like it. Even in panning mode its not much good if you are panning with the camera tilted in anyway.
 
One other thing you may want to consider is to buy a good prime lens. I brought my 300mm f4 L for around £300 (ebay) and it is still the sharpest lens (of the 4L lenses i have)i own.

It would be less flexible then a zoom but is cheaper, lighter and for £ spent gives the best aperture / quality and speed of focus (due to bigger aperture)

A lot depends on access to the track, as to what focal length you need and for some track it may be too long or short but if you are careful with position of yourself and the angle you take the shots then if could give you the best looking photos for a reasonable price.
 
badgerbaiter said:
I've always found canon SLRs dont convert the zeros and ones into a sharp enough photo (even with sharpness set to max)
Click to expand...

Fair point, I almost always use jpeg and set sharpness at zero. That's usually the only processing I do on the computer, just run a big batch :)
 
Whether you're in RAW or JPG won't make any difference if the image is sharp or not. Sure, in JPG you can have different levels, but at the end of the day the image is sharp or it isn't. That's a lens and focusing issue, not a picture quality issue.
 
Mike Hoyer said:
Whether you're in RAW or JPG won't make any difference if the image is sharp or not. Sure, in JPG you can have different levels, but at the end of the day the image is sharp or it isn't. That's a lens and focusing issue, not a picture quality issue.
Click to expand...

I agree that if the image is out of focus then its not going to be sharp whatever you do with it. But in my experience, a photo that is in focus still looks soft when converted to jpeg by a canon 10d, 20d, 30d. cant say if its true for a 300d, 350d, 400d, but i would imagine they have the same issues, if not worse
 
badgerbaiter said:
people who dont shoot in RAW shouldnt be allowed on the forum!!! :)
Click to expand...

Is there another Format :thinking:.

To be honest I could never figure out why people would invest good money on cameras / glass then use a cheap image format :shrug:


When I used my 300D for motorsport I always had it set to manual focus. I'd set it up for one particular spot / angle thenhit the button at the right time , it was the only way to get consistent sharp(focused) shots :)
 
mrgubby said:
Is there another Format :thinking:.

To be honest I could never figure out why people would invest good money on cameras / glass then use a cheap image format :shrug:
Click to expand...

Now there's a thing. I can't understand why manufacturers would make a £5.5k camera and include the option to shoot JPEG if there wasn't a perfectly justifiable use for it. :shrug: ;)
 
Following the previous comments I went and splashed out with Canon 400mm lens (10% off (code VC10) online with Jessops :eek: and the €100 cashback to come - made it reasonable!) collected it and then headed to a cold & dark Oulton Park (inside circuit only) and then a couple of pics...

oulton010308151.jpg


oulton010308204.jpg


oulton010308024.jpg
(flourescent orange and not easy to capture!?)

Still a long way to go on the learning curve but definately happy with the lens :)

Once again, thanks with the comments before.
 
So far as the RAW -v- jpeg debate goes - all my photography therse days apart from speedway stuff is done in RAW. I use jpeg still for speedway because of the deadline for processing - I simply don't have the time to do it in two phases, with the deadlines I'm usually working to.
 
unfortunately not... ex Caterham racer (and championship winner ;) ) but I know a man who used to teach at Ron Haslam at Donington...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top