New camera for motorsports

LFC856

LFC856

Suspended / Banned
Messages
303
Edit My Images
Yes
Hi Guys,

I've been using my Nikon D40 for motorsports for about a year now, and while overall I'm happy with the picture quality (and ergonomics) I find the autofocus and burst shooting modes frustratingly slow.

As a result I'm looking to upgrade to something faster, which is where I'm getting stuck. From a bit of research I can see that the D300 is probably ideal, however it's a bit too expensive. The next obvious choice would be the D90, but I'm not sure how it compares to the 300 in terms of AF speed.

My other thought (die-hard Nikon fans turn away now :shake:) is to switch to Canon, and perhaps pick up a 40D which I've heard great things about. It seems that Canon have a great range of lenses that also have the benefit of being less expensive than the Nikon counterparts.

I only have the kit lens and 70-300vr so my investment in Nikon glass isn't extensive, so it would ease the switchover if I were to do the unthinkable :bonk:.

Do you guys have any wisdom you can share? I really love the Nikon's I've handled, but Canon's range of lenses makes a very good case for itself.

Thanks in advance,
Mark
 
I guess the question that needs to be asked 1st is what is your budget?
 
lfc856 said:
Well, ideally the body would be in the 500-700 range and for that I'd like to get a good quality second hand body.
Click to expand...

You should be able to pick up a 'mint' 40D for around £450!

500-700 is a little over the top! I would suggest you get a standard 18-55mm IS or something similar for general use and then either a 70-300mm if you are happy with that focal length, or maybe a Sigma 120-400mm if you want that extra reach. The other possibility is to get a 70-200mm f2.8 and a 1.4 converter.
 
I have a D90 and im very impressed, i did consider the d300 but was put of buy the price.
The D90 can fire 4.5fps on a good day with right settings. Have a study of the review on dpreview.com, sure it will mention af speed etc.
 
Sorry, £500-700 being price rather than length (I'm not that crazy!).

With lenses I'd rather stick with Nikon or Canon, although I have heard good things about the Sigma 100-300 & 120-300.

Anyway, can someone point me to a comparison of the D90 vs 40D? What about D90 vs D200? Are there other options in the Canon range I should consider?

Questions, questions, questions...
 
It's very difficult for individuals to give a comparison as there will be very few who change from one to another of the models you are looking at.

Obviously the faster frame camera is the Canon 40D at 6.5 fps. I find it a dream to handle unlike the smaller 400, 450D's. The best thing to do is google it for comparisons or look at somebody like dpreview. Most 40D owners like myself will never give up their 40D's even if they upgrade.
 
Strangways said:
It's very difficult for individuals to give a comparison as there will be very few who change from one to another of the models you are looking at.

Obviously the faster frame camera is the Canon 40D at 6.5 fps. I find it a dream to handle unlike the smaller 400, 450D's. The best thing to do is google it for comparisons or look at somebody like dpreview. Most 40D owners like myself will never give up their 40D's even if they upgrade.
Click to expand...

That is what's so tempting. I've seen so many good shots and reviews re. the 40D. The range of lenses, such as the 70-400 f/4 and 100-400 also looks fantastic, without the ridiculous prices of some Nikon glass.

But, and it's a big but, is that I absolutely love how the Nikon's feel in my hands.

Thanks for sharing your thoughts :thumbs:
 
lfc856 said:
That is what's so tempting. I've seen so many good shots and reviews re. the 40D. The range of lenses, such as the 70-400 f/4 and 100-400 also looks fantastic, without the ridiculous prices of some Nikon glass.

But, and it's a big but, is that I absolutely love how the Nikon's feel in my hands.

Thanks for sharing your thoughts :thumbs:
Click to expand...

But have you actually held a 40D in your hands? :)
 
lfc856 said:
Not the 40d, but I have played with a few of the lower range models (300, 350 etc), which I wasn't thrilled by, to be honest.

I need to get down to the shops and handle a few different cameras, perhaps on Sunday :cool:
Click to expand...

Don't compare.

I stepped up to a 40D and it is SO much more planted than the 300 that I had previously.

Get out there and handle one.
Then have a look at the Sigma glass as well, it's not necessary to go for Canon glass.....
 
Whatever you do, you mustn't go to the dark side (Canon). Stick with Nikon :D
Why not a 3nd hand D300. It's a fantastic camera with great IQ, noise control and 6fps. what more can you want. You can probably pick up a 2nd hand one for around £750-£775 if you look. I feel that the D300s would be a bigger upgrade for the money.

Incidentally, I've just purchased a D300s and the IQ is stunning.

Oscar ;)
 
Skyman said:
You have PM.
Click to expand...

was it something that couldn't be said in the thread? :thinking:

Edit: at £700 you're getting very close to second hand 1D MkII or D2x territory. Might be worth considering as they're both extremely capable cameras, ideal for what you're looking for.
 
Skyman said:
Merely something which had nothing to do with you!
Click to expand...

If I thought for a second you were making an offer to sell something by PM I'd make it my business :)
 
No, a moderator who gives up his free time to enforce the rules when people want to take the ****.

His was a polite request. Next time you show your arse like that over a fair question, youll find your account not working.
 
Thanks for all the replies.

I think the D2x or 1d mk2 are probably too big and I doubt I have the skills to use their capabilities.

It sounds like the options are D90, D300, 40D and 50D. Staying at the lower range of my budget (£500, giving a bit of room for accessories or cash towards lenses) it looks like the choice comes down to second hand D90 or 40D.

The burst rate goes to the 40D, but my ultimate interest is AF speed and accuracy.

My main concern therefore is whether there'll be a significant difference between my current camera (D40) and either of these options?
 
lfc856 said:
Thanks for all the replies.

I think the D2x or 1d mk2 are probably too big and I doubt I have the skills to use their capabilities.

It sounds like the options are D90, D300, 40D and 50D. Staying at the lower range of my budget (£500, giving a bit of room for accessories or cash towards lenses) it looks like the choice comes down to second hand D90 or 40D.

The burst rate goes to the 40D, but my ultimate interest is AF speed and accuracy.

My main concern therefore is whether there'll be a significant difference between my current camera (D40) and either of these options?
Click to expand...

If you're worried about AF speed, then the D2 or 1D will be among the best. The framerate will then be a bonus. For motorsports (or almost any other sports), these are really useful pieces of kit, IMO.
 
Marcel said:
No, a moderator who gives up his free time to enforce the rules when people want to take the ****.

His was a polite request. Next time you show your arse like that over a fair question, youll find your account not working.
Click to expand...
Oh please. I was not intending to take the ****. But equally, you're vigilante-type post just stinks. So pls politely just **** off.
 
Skyman said:
Oh please. I was not intending to take the ****. But equally, you're vigilante-type post just stinks. So pls politely just **** off.
Click to expand...

thanks. Bye :)
 
Aaaand that just earned you 7 days off :wave:
 
My opinion would be to choose something from this lot in ascending price and capability:

40D, 50D, D90, D300, 1DMkIIN and 1DMkIII

The MkIIN actually I'd maybe say was slightly less capable than the D300, but is slightly more expensive, other than that, thats a good range guide I feel - and I shoot a LOT of motorsport...

I'd certainly not consider anything "less" than the 40D (which is a pretty capable camera really...)
 
lfc856 said:
I've been using my Nikon D40 for motorsports for about a year now, and while overall I'm happy with the picture quality (and ergonomics) I find the autofocus and burst shooting modes frustratingly slow.
Click to expand...

lfc856 said:
My main concern therefore is whether there'll be a significant difference between my current camera (D40) and either of these options?
Click to expand...

I've not used the Canons.

If you like the ergonomics of the D40, the D90 and D300 keep the same/very similar controls, simply adding more. Very easy to switch between the cameras.

You've hit the nail on the head - the improvements you are looking for over the D40 are definitely there in the D90/D300 - as long as you're happy with the picture quality of the D40 because there's not much in it.

The D90 offers 4.5fps in fast burst mode - this feels very fast compared to the D40 - I usually shoot in slow burst mode (3fps) because 4.5 is a bit mental for most things.

One of the big improvements in the D90 over the D40 is the autofocus modes - D90 has 11 points rather than 3 for a start (although the centre point is much more sensitive than the peripheral points in both). You have a Dynamic focus mode which I believe tracks either side of the in-use focus point - could be useful for motorsport. And.. TA-DA!!! 3D tracking, which can be used in conjunction with a fast and effective AF-C mode for continuous, 3D tracked focus of moving subjects. Sounds just the ticket for you.

In short, I believe the improvements you are looking for in handling are definitely worth the upgrade to D90/D300 (although consider Uncle Ken's opinion on the differences between D90/D300... please don't flame men for mentioning Uncle Ken! :D). Plus you get one stop extra ISO which helps bump up the shutter speed with that relatively slow tele zoom of yours.
 
I'd be very wary of trying to photograph any serious motorsport with anything less than a Pro (D1x, D2x, D3 etc and Canon equivalent) - level camera, even if 'lesser' cameras are capable of achieving the same results - I know to my cost just how difficult it can be, even for experienced photographers in other disciplines to turn to other subjects and get optimum results immediately...
Not so much because of the image quality, but because the higher-end cameras generally have more sophisticated AF modes better able to cope with fast-moving subject matter...

...also, if I wanted to ask about Motorsports, I'd be bombarding Desantnik with PMs right about now (sorry mate...lol)...:D
 
Joe T said:
Rob, dont forget the D300 as well - same AF as D3 of course! :)
Click to expand...

Yeah... but after you've been using 'top-enders' for the past fifteen or twenty years, moving 'down' to something that needs a seperate grip for the portrait-format controls smacks of cheapo-plasticky to me...
 
The D300 works just fine to be honest, I'd love Nikon to make a APS-C pro body, but they don't so its the grip for me and thats ok.

The two things you will really need from a camera to get serious hit rates are a good AF system with focus assist points and controlable tracking plus something with a low shutter lag (shutter lag is, IMHO the biggest killer of shots in motorsport photography)

This narrows down your choice to: 7D (I forgot that before!), 1D MkII/III or D300/D700/D3.

If you don't want full frame that deletes the D700 or D3.

If you don't want a full sized pro body that deletes the 1D or D3.

So for a motorsport camera thats small enough if you drop the grip off to be usable in more suburban uses too, your choices are the D300/S or Canon's direct copy of it, the new 7D! Although the 7D's shutter is still considerably more laggy than the D300.

All of this advice is applicable if you are serious about motorsport photography. If you just want to go to a race once a year and come home with some photos for your album, get whatever, whatever can do it, but not predictably.
 
desantnik said:
All of this advice is applicable if you are serious about motorsport photography. If you just want to go to a race once a year and come home with some photos for your album, get whatever, whatever can do it, but not predictably.
Click to expand...

I consider myself to be a serious amateur, and whilst I only started going to events a year ago, I've been to about 25 races & rallies in that time.

I'm stuck behind the fences and I doubt I'll be getting to the other side anytime soon, so I honestly think a pro body is overkill, both from my technical ability (or lack thereof) and from a financial standpoint.

My heart says D300, however my brain and wallet say something less expensive, such as D90 or 40/50D.

Again, my concern is whether I'd be "settling" for a D90, and my next question would be whether there's significant differences between the D90 and D300?
 
Despite what you might read elsewhere on this forum, yes, in the context of motorsport there is quite a bit of difference... a better AF system and less shutter lag... hmmm I mentioned those before didn't I... :D
 
desantnik said:
Despite what you might read elsewhere on this forum, yes, in the context of motorsport there is quite a bit of difference... a better AF system and less shutter lag... hmmm I mentioned those before didn't I... :D
Click to expand...

Sorry :cool: I think I'd better start saving my pennies and keep an eye out for a used D300 :)
 
You could pick up a used canon 1D MkII for around the £700 ish mark, the canon 40D personally is better than the 50D and your'll save some ££ going for the 40D, Nikon's D90 is a significant improvement on your D40, plus there's all the better nikon lenses you could use, the D300, is a nice camera, but personally, the big money investment is glass, and that's where the real expense will be.

So Nikon D90 and a decent lens or Canon 40D and likewise. An alternative would be the 1D MkII (n) if you can get it as this is still a great camera.

As for lenses, the sigma 120-300mm f2.8 is a fast focusing lens, but mixed reviews, cheaper alternative is the sigma 100-300mm f4, great lens, would avoid the sigma budget zooms (120-400, 150-400 etc), they really don't cut the mustard, then your into the primes, nikon and canon 300mm f4 or faster and bigger, but lots of ££££.
 
pete.rush said:
You could pick up a used canon 1D MkII for around the £700 ish mark, the canon 40D personally is better than the 50D and your'll save some ££ going for the 40D, Nikon's D90 is a significant improvement on your D40, plus there's all the better nikon lenses you could use, the D300, is a nice camera, but personally, the big money investment is glass, and that's where the real expense will be.

So Nikon D90 and a decent lens or Canon 40D and likewise. An alternative would be the 1D MkII (n) if you can get it as this is still a great camera.

As for lenses, the sigma 120-300mm f2.8 is a fast focusing lens, but mixed reviews, cheaper alternative is the sigma 100-300mm f4, great lens, would avoid the sigma budget zooms (120-400, 150-400 etc), they really don't cut the mustard, then your into the primes, nikon and canon 300mm f4 or faster and bigger, but lots of ££££.
Click to expand...

Thanks for the tips. I've narrowed it down to the D90 and D300 so I'll go to the shops and have a play with both. In terms of the lenses I was hoping to try out the Sigma 70-200 and/or 100-300, anything beyond those is getting too expensive, at least at this stage in life.

Cheers,
Mark
 
lfc856 said:
Thanks for the tips. I've narrowed it down to the D90 and D300 so I'll go to the shops and have a play with both. In terms of the lenses I was hoping to try out the Sigma 70-200 and/or 100-300, anything beyond those is getting too expensive, at least at this stage in life.

Cheers,
Mark
Click to expand...

70-200mm and 100-300mm lenses will work well for the rallies
 
I went from a D60 to a D300 because of the motorsport pictures I take. I was considering the D90 but I thought I would only want to upgrade again in another 6-12 months time so I took the leap. So glad I did!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top