Motorsport on a budget

S

spudnuts

Suspended / Banned
Messages
168
Name
Craig
Edit My Images
No
Ow Doo all,

Ive already asked the question in motorsport but didn't want to derail the thread starters post too much so I'll post again here.

I'm a total noob to SLR cameras, and completely fed up with blurred compact camera shots of fast moving motorcycles, so I'm dropping pretty heavy hints to the wife this crimbo. I've had a fondle and a play and now have my sights on a Canon, probably a 500D 2nd hand this would be in budget. But lenses now that is where the money is it seems. Would this be achievable with say an EF 70-300mm f/4-5.6 IS USM? No way can i afford L glass.

It has already been suggested that i should maybe try to get a 40d and go for a 55-250 lens why would that be then?

Any other suggestions? :help:

Thanks in advance for any replies.
 
Yeah a 40D is a good starting point... and then I'd go for (in order of price)... Canon 55-250 or Canon 70-300IS or Sigma 100-300 f4.

Leave the 70-300 non-IS alone would be my suggestion....
 
Don't want to sound a little stupid here :bonk: but why would the 40D be a better option. i thought it was geared for professional use, would the 500d not be better for a noob.

I was at Silverstone today, is it me or are DSLR fancy pants camera owners on the increase? There were loads snapping away today. I was there snapping away with my compact.... Rubbish :shake:
 
desantnik said:
Yeah a 40D is a good starting point... and then I'd go for (in order of price)... Canon 55-250 or Canon 70-300IS or Sigma 100-300 f4.

Leave the 70-300 non-IS alone would be my suggestion....
Click to expand...

You mean leave the 75-300?

There isn't a non IS canon 70-300.
 
spudnuts said:
Don't want to sound a little stupid here :bonk: but why would the 40D be a better option. i thought it was geared for professional use, would the 500d not be better for a noob.

I was at Silverstone today, is it me or are DSLR fancy pants camera owners on the increase? There were loads snapping away today. I was there snapping away with my compact.... Rubbish :shake:
Click to expand...

Yes the 40D is from a higher point in the Canon range than the 500D, however, its not a "pro" camera and even if it was, what we are trying to show you is the kit that you will need to get half decent and consistant motorsport shots...

BTW, yes, Jim I did mean the 75-300... doh!
 
The 40d (and others in xxd range until 60d) have a magnesium chassis rather than the 500d (and other xxxd models) which are plastic. It's also slightly bigger (and heavier) which makes it nicer to hold in my opinion, especially if you have largish hands. The alternative to this is use a battery grip (which is good when out and about as you can shoot all day without worrying about changing batteries).

I think the 40d also has a higher continuous shooting capability than a 500d. There is a good wikipedia page the lists the features differences, will see if I can find it.

edit here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_Canon_EOS_digital_cameras
 
Last edited:
I'd say the bigger viewfinder, more comfortable size (for me at least) and higher frame rate are the main reasons you'd want a 40D over a 500D. That's why I swapped my 450D for one, I now own two 40D bodies.

(Edit: And the wheel as ned.c says below, forgot about that)

If you're really not sure what to do lens wise you could try and get a Canon 70-210mm f/3.4-4.5 USM**, they go for between £80 and £125 on eBay and they're pretty good for that money. I had one for a while before moving to the 70-200mm f/4 L - nice fast ring USM autofocus, reasonably sharp and a decent maximum aperture range for not a lot of cash. Then when you've learnt a bit more about what you need you can sell it on for pretty much the same money.

The downside of a 55-250mm is going to be the lack of USM autofocus. You'll either have to prefocus or you'll be finding yourself waiting for the lens to focus a lot and even once it's focused it won't be great at tracking if the car is coming toward you/moving away from you.

** Not to be confused with the 70-210mm f/4 or the 70-200mm L lenses.
 
Last edited:
also the jog wheel control on the back of the 40d is much nicer to use than the d-pad on the xxxd range, especially when flicking back through reviewing photos. I went from a 400d to a 40d and apart from the above posts these are the features I like the most/found made the most difference to usability and handling.
 
Thanks for the replies, OK OK i get it 40D would be better.

lens wise i was looking at the EF 70-300mm f/4-5.6 IS USM, but i'll have a look at the 70-210mm f/3.4-4.5 USM. Would that give me enough range? cant see any for sale on Fleabay though
 
spudnuts said:
Would that give me enough range? cant see any for sale on Fleabay though
Click to expand...

It depends where you're shooting from I suppose. I've never had any trouble making 200mm work other than for shots where 300mm wouldn't be enough anyway.

They seem to come up fairly regularly but they're not an "always one for sale" kind of item, there aren't too many about.

The 70-300mm IS USM will be better but they're three times as much. The 70-210mm is a good option if you don't want to spend as much as the 70-300mm IS USM costs yet but if you're happy to do that then by all means get the 70-300mm.
 
Just had a look at the comparisons on the Wiki site

The 500d is 2 years newer, has a bigger ISO range, uses the DIGIC 4 image processor as apposed to the DIGIC 3 on the 40d. Has 15.1 megapixels against 10.1. Display size both the same. Don't know about the viewfinder it doesn't say. True the 40d has greater Frames per second speed which would be better for motorsports, is bigger, OK I've had a play with a Canon 500d against a Nikon 3100d and found it to fit my hands better, the Nikon was small in comparison, but i don't know whether I'd want a camera any bigger. I'm not arguing with the knowledgeable here but sell it to me again...
 
Last edited:
A small camera is fine in the shops, but unless you have tiny hands, when coupled up with a bigger lens, out in the cold, possibly wearing gloves, the bigger body is a godsend, especially as the lenses tend to balance better. You can operate a xxD camera in cold conditions with gloves on very easily.

However, the body can be argued over for ages. I prefer the larger traditional size cameras over the 3/4 scale 350D and newer (thats what I started with).

Lenses

Cheap - Canon 55-250 IS, Sigma or 70-300 APO. Both quite capable of magazine results. If you can get a Sigma 100-300 f4 EX in budget, then go for it.

Megapixels - Given that 8 will give a quality A3+ image, who needs more? It does allow you to crop more if you have to.
 
Another question, I notice the 40d uses compact flash cards, is there any advantage there over SD cards?
 
I use a canon 20D and 55-250 and love it, used it all this seasons motorsport, heres some pics ive gt from this combo

IMG-7609.jpg


bOOST-COLOURS.jpg


For this you cant see when they come round and have about 10 secs to react and get the shot perhaps not the best example but its never let me down when ive stood there
scooter-start.jpg
 
D-pearce92 said:
I use a canon 20D and 55-250 and love it, used it all this seasons motorsport, heres some pics ive gt from this combo
Click to expand...

Ok point taken. Scooter racing, that's not proper motorsport is it? :D
 
andrewc said:
The cards are generally faster and they're certainly more robust.
Click to expand...

Now that has surprised me, i thought the newer technology would have been faster. Eee tha learns summat new every day.
 
spudnuts said:
Ok point taken. Scooter racing, that's not proper motorsport is it? :D
Click to expand...

They do support racing for the vmcc club, if you ever see them being advertised go, the racings brilliant and the riders are nuts, 30 scooters racing and quite a few of them getting there knee down.

SD cards are tiny when you compare them to a cf card, think thats another reason why they are faster might be wrong though
 
Last edited:
CF cards and SD cards can be a range of speeds, so it really depends how much you spend as to how fast the card is.

I've got both and use both, i can't tell a difference. I used to use CF in the 1d, but i got fed up of having to use a card reader as the laptop has a SD card reader built in. So switched over to SD and frankly its just as good.

Certainly with any of the cameras mentioned in this thread i don't think the card write speed will cause any issues.

My vote is for the sigma 100-300 F4 EX for a first motorsport lens. Its very much underrated and may be the lens i wish i never sold.

The 40d is a fine camera, the 50d has slightly better ISO performance and a much nicer screen. But naturally costs more.

FPS doesn't play as big a role in motorsport as people may believe. AF accuracy is more important.
 
CF cards and SD cards can be a range of speeds, so it really depends how much you spend as to how fast the card is.

I've got both and use both, i can't tell a difference. I used to use CF in the 1d, but i got fed up of having to use a card reader as the laptop has a SD card reader built in. So switched over to SD and frankly its just as good.

Certainly with any of the cameras mentioned in this thread i don't think the card write speed will cause any issues.

My vote is for the sigma 100-300 F4 EX for a first motorsport lens. Its very much underrated and may be the lens i wish i never sold.

The 40d is a fine camera, the 50d has slightly better ISO performance and a much nicer screen. But naturally costs more.

FPS doesn't play as big a role in motorsport as people may believe. AF accuracy is more important.
 
[The downside of a 55-250mm is going to be the lack of USM autofocus. You'll either have to prefocus or you'll be finding yourself waiting for the lens to focus a lot and even once it's focused it won't be great at tracking if the car is coming toward you/moving away from you.

I have to disagree with completely, i have used it for cars coming at me, shot coming towards me with back focus and have used single shot and have got the image in focus on majority of my shots.

IMG-6445.jpg


Ediit2w.jpg
 
D-pearce92 said:
I have to disagree with completely, i have used it for cars coming at me, shot coming towards me with back focus and have used single shot and have got the image in focus on majority of my shots.
Click to expand...

It's fine on a sunny day with a small aperture and lots of depth of field, but when you're running the lens wide open to get exposure (or remove a fence) it's much less forgiving.
 
I started of my "Photographic Money Pit" with a 300D & Tamron 28-300 (non VC). Neither the camera or lens was fast enough for motorsport so I had to use manual focus & planning to get the shots. Over the years I've sunk a lot of money into the pit and it hasn't improved my shots, just increased the number of keepers :thinking:

This shot is from the old kit :)

fastgreen.jpg
 
Well thats certainly given me a lot to think about, thanks guys. :thumbs:
 
Just a heads up. The Canon 55-250 IS f4-5.6 looks a decent buy on Amazon at the moment. It's currently around £145.

Buying that might give you an extra few £ to spend on the body.
 
Fozzybear said:
Just a heads up. The Canon 55-250 IS f4-5.6 looks a decent buy on Amazon at the moment. It's currently around £145.

Buying that might give you an extra few £ to spend on the body.
Click to expand...

That's because it's being replaced by the "II" version which will be about double that price. I recently bought the current one at £150.00 from Amazon and I love it. I don't think there is much improvement with the II one so not worth the premium.
 
Fozzybear said:
Just a heads up. The Canon 55-250 IS f4-5.6 looks a decent buy on Amazon at the moment. It's currently around £145.

Buying that might give you an extra few £ to spend on the body.
Click to expand...

Thanks for the heads up but like i said it will be a crimbo present from the wife, i'll just be steering her in the right direction. :naughty:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top