What next?

Kieransliwowski

Kieransliwowski

Suspended / Banned
Messages
41
Name
Kieran
Edit My Images
Yes
Hello everyone!

I currently have a D3400 with some DX lenses and mostly shoot car (stills) or motorsport (fast moving) photography. I love my D3400 and it is my first camera, I have also been able to get some amazing shots out of it!

I was wondering shall I upgrade to higher class lenses (and get an FX body down the line). Or get a better body and get FX lenses down the line?

If I was to get a body I would probably save up for a D750.

If I was to get a lens it would first be a decent telephoto for use at a track (70-200, 200-500, 70-300?) and then a probably the FX version of my current prime in the future.

I was looking for advice on which route I should take and what your recommendations would be for my types of photography.

Many Thanks

Kieran
 
Hi Kieran

Ask yourself what it is that your current kit isn't doing well enough for you. Af speed? Low light performance? Etc. That should give you (and us) an indication of what you need next, if anything.

Cars and Motorsport - sounds like DX is not a bad thing for you. D500?
 
Last edited:
-Oy- said:
Hi Kieran

Ask yourself what it is that your current kit isn't doing well enough for you. Af speed? Low light performance? Etc. That should give you (and us) an indication of what you need next, if anything.

Cars and Motorsport - sounds like DX is not a bad thing for you. D500?
Click to expand...

That's my predicament, I take stills which would suit a fx sometimes but also take some motorsport photography which the suits the d500 well.

In some stills with the d3400 I find it lacks the sharpness and clarity of a full frame.

In motorsport photography I find that there is a low conversion rate of crisp shots, with many being out of focus.

Would the d500 provide any better image quality for stills aswell as helping with fast moving subjects?
 
Kieransliwowski said:
Would the d500 provide any better image quality for stills aswell as helping with fast moving subjects?
Click to expand...

I reckon so - as long as you have good glass.

I too have a low conversion rate for motorsport - I think everyone does esp if you're trying to get the shutter speed down for panning. It's the nature of the game. I shoot with D850 & D800 with good pro glass.
 
-Oy- said:
I reckon so - as long as you have good glass.

I too have a low conversion rate for motorsport - I think everyone does esp if you're trying to get the shutter speed down for panning. It's the nature of the game. I shoot with D850 & D800 with good pro glass.
Click to expand...

Thanks, the thing is realistically for now I can only get one or the other. So would you recommend a decent lens or body to purchase first?
 
List your lenses and hopefully someone using a D500 will give you an idea how they perform on it.
 
-Oy- said:
List your lenses and hopefully someone using a D500 will give you an idea how they perform on it.
Click to expand...

Lenses I have currently:

18-55 kit lens
35mm prime lens
55-300mm telephoto
All DX versions


If I was to get a higher class lens which would you recommend?
 
Kieransliwowski said:
If I was to get a higher class lens which would you recommend?
Click to expand...

For the still cars and general stuff. The Nikon 17-55mm F2.8 DX

Dunno how the 55-300mm performs but the 70-300mm VR is superb and performs way better than the price would suggest - even on the D850.
 
-Oy- said:
For the still cars and general stuff. The Nikon 17-55mm F2.8 DX

Dunno how the 55-300mm performs but the 70-300mm VR is superb and performs way better than the price would suggest - even on the D850.
Click to expand...

Is the 70-300 the full frame VR version?
 
Your conundrum is exactly the situation I found myself in recently, I had a D3300, was doing a fair bit of motorsports photography but of course wanted a camera for all things not just to specialize in one thing. I solved it by not doing any of the things you're contemplating!

I figured I'd stick with crop-sensor as I had some DX lenses, the D500 is apparently a superb camera, although the D7500 has the same sensor as the D500 and shoots at 8fps to the D500's 10fps, so was a strong contender also. But I figured I'd get better lenses first, a 70-200 f2.8 maybe, plus a 24-70 f2.8, both fast lenses for capturing fast moving things, and I already had a Sigma 150-600 for the really long range stuff, but what all this gear had in common, apart from cost, was bulk and weight, and I was already leaving the Sigma at home because you don't chuck a foot long 2kg lump in your bag on the off chance.

I was going to various motorsports venues and seeing guys with bags the size of suitcases strapped to their backs, carrying the weight of a small child around all day, and decided I didn't want to be that guy.

So I bought an Olympus EM1 Mk2, a MFT (micro 4/3rds) camera, and it's blown me away, it leaves the D3300 for dead as far as motorsports is concerned, and the IQ is as good as I could ever have hoped for. I don't doubt a FF camera, in low light, would trump it considerably, but I don't shoot in low light, and I don't need professional quality images.

If you're young and fit and carrying the weight of a small child in a suitcase on your back doesn't daunt you, go for the 70-200 f2.8 and stick it on a D7500 / D500 / D750 at some point in the future. :)
 
mark.roper said:
I was going to various motorsports venues and seeing guys with bags the size of suitcases strapped to their backs, carrying the weight of a small child around all day, and decided I didn't want to be that guy.
Click to expand...

On those days I have the Fuji X-Pro2 and 50-140mm F2.8 :)
 
mark.roper said:
Your conundrum is exactly the situation I found myself in recently, I had a D3300, was doing a fair bit of motorsports photography but of course wanted a camera for all things not just to specialize in one thing. I solved it by not doing any of the things you're contemplating!

I figured I'd stick with crop-sensor as I had some DX lenses, the D500 is apparently a superb camera, although the D7500 has the same sensor as the D500 and shoots at 8fps to the D500's 10fps, so was a strong contender also. But I figured I'd get better lenses first, a 70-200 f2.8 maybe, plus a 24-70 f2.8, both fast lenses for capturing fast moving things, and I already had a Sigma 150-600 for the really long range stuff, but what all this gear had in common, apart from cost, was bulk and weight, and I was already leaving the Sigma at home because you don't chuck a foot long 2kg lump in your bag on the off chance.

I was going to various motorsports venues and seeing guys with bags the size of suitcases strapped to their backs, carrying the weight of a small child around all day, and decided I didn't want to be that guy.

So I bought an Olympus EM1 Mk2, a MFT (micro 4/3rds) camera, and it's blown me away, it leaves the D3300 for dead as far as motorsports is concerned, and the IQ is as good as I could ever have hoped for. I don't doubt a FF camera, in low light, would trump it considerably, but I don't shoot in low light, and I don't need professional quality images.

If you're young and fit and carrying the weight of a small child in a suitcase on your back doesn't daunt you, go for the 70-200 f2.8 and stick it on a D7500 / D500 / D750 at some point in the future. :)
Click to expand...

Looks like I will look for a deal on a lens then and upgrade body at a later date, thanks
 
Kieransliwowski said:
Is there any lenses you would recommend for motorsports, mainly at Silverstone so reach is a requirement
Click to expand...

200-500 with a crop body maybe. A FF with 70-200 would be a mistake, it is wide enough on FF for me to use as a general purpose walk about lens. It has no real reach much at all. I'm sure some people will disagree with that and say you can reach the moon with it but I don't agree with them lol
 
GTG said:
200-500 with a crop body maybe. A FF with 70-200 would be a mistake, it is wide enough on FF for me to use as a general purpose walk about lens. It has no real reach much at all. I'm sure some people will disagree with that and say you can reach the moon with it but I don't agree with them lol
Click to expand...

I will have a look at the 200-500, I'm just not sure if it is a bit too much starting at effectively 300mm?

EDIT: The sigma 150-600 f5/6.3 "C" lens looks pretty good, does anyone know of it's performance in motorsport applications?
 
Last edited:
Kieransliwowski said:
The sigma 150-600 f5/6.3 "C" lens looks pretty good, does anyone know of it's performance in motorsport applications
Click to expand...

It's a good performer optically but I think you'll be pushing your luck with consistent AF on your D3400 body at 600mm which will be at f6.3 - at least with a 200-500mm you get a constant f5.6 aperture at all focal lengths - f5.6 being at the extreme of the D3400/D5xxx AF performance.
 
Kieransliwowski said:
The sigma 150-600 f5/6.3 "C" lens looks pretty good, does anyone know of it's performance in motorsport applications?
Click to expand...

I had the Sigma 150-600 C, and used it with my Nikon D3300. This album is mostly with that lens I believe :-

https://flic.kr/s/aHskykzTHW

The main issue I had with it is that it's just a bit too big to use hand-held for any length of time, all the above were taken on a monopod, it's a bit too big for some circuits (I took it to Cadwell and didn't use it because you get so close to the action there), and in general it's just a bit too big all round, I feel I could've got away with 400mm at the long end for the most part.

Other than that it's a damn good lens IMO.
 
mark.roper said:
I had the Sigma 150-600 C, and used it with my Nikon D3300. This album is mostly with that lens I believe :-

https://flic.kr/s/aHskykzTHW

The main issue I had with it is that it's just a bit too big to use hand-held for any length of time, all the above were taken on a monopod, it's a bit too big for some circuits (I took it to Cadwell and didn't use it because you get so close to the action there), and in general it's just a bit too big all round, I feel I could've got away with 400mm at the long end for the most part.

Other than that it's a damn good lens IMO.
Click to expand...

Thank for the sample images, that's exactly what I was looking for! I do have a tripod but I'm not sure it would be practcal for motorsports use. I guess I could invest in a sturdy monopod. I am surprised at how well the d3300 took some of them shots, were they at all edited?

chuckles said:
It's a good performer optically but I think you'll be pushing your luck with consistent AF on your D3400 body at 600mm which will be at f6.3 - at least with a 200-500mm you get a constant f5.6 aperture at all focal lengths - f5.6 being at the extreme of the D3400/D5xxx AF performance.
Click to expand...

I usually use single point af and use it as a sort of cross hair in the car. I assume a higher f stop number means it's harder to focus due to less light? (That's one part of photography that I have never really looked at) I think I may be leaning to the sigma due to it having a wider range of zoom and is a bit cheaper than the Nikon too, does anyone know how fast it would focus in comparison to my 55-300 for instance?
 
@Kieransliwowski those images pretty much all went through Lightroom, where I sharpened them a bit, reduced noise as required (and if possible) and corrected exposure on some (it was an experimental day and one lesson learned is add some exposure compensation when shooting into the sun!). One thing I love about my new EM1, having an EVF means not having to guess if / how much exposure compensation is required. :)

I used single central AF point, because the D3300 is just pants at tracking fast moving things, just aim at the bike with that little red dot and try and keep it there (easier said than done!).

Conventional theory is that the Sigma suffers focus issues because of the higher than f5.6 at the long end, but I read somewhere the lens "tricks" the camera into believing at f6.3 it's really still at f5.6. Whether that's true or not I found the Sigma focussed plenty fast enough at 600mm f6.3, but for head on shots you pretty much have to pre-focus on the spot you intend to take the photo at, I don't know if it was lens or the camera or me but I always had trouble tracking bikes / cars coming towards me.

edit: should add, yes you might need a monopod for the Sigma, a tripod is only any use if you have a nice (expensive) gimbal head to swing it around on, but even then monopods make tracking harder because you're swivelling your body around the monopod rather than swivelling the camera around your body.
 
Last edited:
mark.roper said:
@Kieransliwowski those images pretty much all went through Lightroom, where I sharpened them a bit, reduced noise as required (and if possible) and corrected exposure on some (it was an experimental day and one lesson learned is add some exposure compensation when shooting into the sun!). One thing I love about my new EM1, having an EVF means not having to guess if / how much exposure compensation is required. :)

I used single central AF point, because the D3300 is just pants at tracking fast moving things, just aim at the bike with that little red dot and try and keep it there (easier said than done!).

Conventional theory is that the Sigma suffers focus issues because of the higher than f5.6 at the long end, but I read somewhere the lens "tricks" the camera into believing at f6.3 it's really still at f5.6. Whether that's true or not I found the Sigma focussed plenty fast enough at 600mm f6.3, but for head on shots you pretty much have to pre-focus on the spot you intend to take the photo at, I don't know if it was lens or the camera or me but I always had trouble tracking bikes / cars coming towards me.

edit: should add, yes you might need a monopod for the Sigma, a tripod is only any use if you have a nice (expensive) gimbal head to swing it around on, but even then monopods make tracking harder because you're swivelling your body around the monopod rather than swivelling the camera around your body.
Click to expand...

Thanks for the replies, I really appreciate it!
I will have a look for a monopod, I found a deal of this lens for £750 if that is a good price? Time to get saving!
 
@Kieransliwowski I traded my lens in with Wex, I'm pretty sure this is it :-

https://www.wexphotovideo.com/sigma...porary-dg-os-hsm-lens-nikon-fit-used-1664354/

If so it's in nearly mint condition.

However, I wouldn't go rushing to buy it without being sure it's what you want. I bought it because I thought it would give me the most reach for my money, and I guess it does, but I wished I'd bought the more flexible 100 - 400mm in hindsight, so don't go getting it just because I say so! :)

When buying a monopod bear in mind weight, the lens is the best part of 2kgs, the camera you'll be sticking on the end might make up nearly another 1kg, so make sure the monopod can support it, ideally go for one that'll support 5kg or more.

This is mine, probably more than I needed, but I bought it thinking I'd go full-frame one day!

https://www.wexphotovideo.com/manfrotto-mm290c4-carbon-fibre-monopod-1578953/
 
Last edited:
mark.roper said:
@Kieransliwowski I traded my lens in with Wex, I'm pretty sure this is it :-

https://www.wexphotovideo.com/sigma...porary-dg-os-hsm-lens-nikon-fit-used-1664354/

If so it's in nearly mint condition.

However, I wouldn't go rushing to buy it without being sure it's what you want. I bought it because I thought it would give me the most reach for my money, and I guess it does, but I wished I'd bought the more flexible 100 - 400mm in hindsight, so don't go getting it just because I say so! :)

When buying a monopod bear in mind weight, the lens is the best part of 2kgs, the camera you'll be sticking on the end might make up nearly another 1kg, so make sure the monopod can support it, ideally go for one that'll support 5kg or more.

This is mine, probably more than I needed, but I bought it thinking I'd go full-frame one day!

https://www.wexphotovideo.com/manfrotto-mm290c4-carbon-fibre-monopod-1578953/
Click to expand...

Is this the 100-400 you were on about? (https://www.amazon.co.uk/Sigma-100-F5-6-3-Nikon-Fitting/dp/B06XRJ49VL)

If so that seems to fit my needs better as it is a bit cheaper and is still effectively 600mm which should be enough! Would it basically be the same performance as the 150-600 model?
 
Kieransliwowski said:
Is this the 100-400 you were on about? (https://www.amazon.co.uk/Sigma-100-F5-6-3-Nikon-Fitting/dp/B06XRJ49VL)

If so that seems to fit my needs better as it is a bit cheaper and is still effectively 600mm which should be enough! Would it basically be the same performance as the 150-600 model?
Click to expand...

That's the one, though I have no direct experience of it myself, I just feel the 100-400 range would've suited me better. Nikon do a 200 - 500 at twice the price, but that'd be even longer at the short end, and a 80-400 at 3 times the price, so the Sigma, IMO, represents great value for money, if it's as good as they say it is.
 
mark.roper said:
That's the one, though I have no direct experience of it myself, I just feel the 100-400 range would've suited me better. Nikon do a 200 - 500 at twice the price, but that'd be even longer at the short end, and a 80-400 at 3 times the price, so the Sigma, IMO, represents great value for money, if it's as good as they say it is.
Click to expand...

That looks like the lens for me then! I will try and find a nice ebay deal! Thank you for all of the help, its appreciated!
 
mark.roper said:
That's the one, though I have no direct experience of it myself, I just feel the 100-400 range would've suited me better. Nikon do a 200 - 500 at twice the price, but that'd be even longer at the short end, and a 80-400 at 3 times the price, so the Sigma, IMO, represents great value for money, if it's as good as they say it is.
Click to expand...

Just to clarify this lens will autofocus on a d3400 right? I have read before that some lenses don't work on the lower end cameras

Edit: I have found that there is a Tamron version of the lens and allegedly it has a faster focus which would be good for Motorsports. Do you know which one would be better suited?
 
Last edited:
@Kieransliwowski I don't know the definitive answer to either of your questions, having no experience of either lens, but I did once buy a 2nd hand Sigma lens that wouldn't auto-focus on my D3300, but that was because my camera was new and had the latest firmware, which that lens wasn't compatible with. That's one of the drawbacks of 3rd party lenses, Nikon will issue firmware updates from time to time which will break compatibility with non-Nikon lenses, and the lens manufacturers then have to catch up. You should be fine if you're buying a new Sigma lens, but a 2nd hand lens made before the current camera firmware would need to be updated, possibly by sending it off to Sigma themselves.

In short, buying new non-Nikon lenses you should be OK, buying 2nd hand non-Nikon lenses, maybe not if your camera is fairly new.
 
mark.roper said:
@Kieransliwowski I don't know the definitive answer to either of your questions, having no experience of either lens, but I did once buy a 2nd hand Sigma lens that wouldn't auto-focus on my D3300, but that was because my camera was new and had the latest firmware, which that lens wasn't compatible with. That's one of the drawbacks of 3rd party lenses, Nikon will issue firmware updates from time to time which will break compatibility with non-Nikon lenses, and the lens manufacturers then have to catch up. You should be fine if you're buying a new Sigma lens, but a 2nd hand lens made before the current camera firmware would need to be updated, possibly by sending it off to Sigma themselves.

In short, buying new non-Nikon lenses you should be OK, buying 2nd hand non-Nikon lenses, maybe not if your camera is fairly new.
Click to expand...
Ok thanks for the help! I will try to do some investigating on both lenses to which is supposedly better!
 
I would say lens first, a lens can really make images pop and have a different look to them. My favourite lens by far is the 70-200mm f2.8 VRII, and despite what others say I found it has enough reach for motorsport (at Donington and Silverstone), and that's on FF. With a crop body with 300mm effective FOV I think that''d be plenty, especially as you have a lot of MP that you can crop with.
 
snerkler said:
I would say lens first, a lens can really make images pop and have a different look to them. My favourite lens by far is the 70-200mm f2.8 VRII, and despite what others say I found it has enough reach for motorsport (at Donington and Silverstone), and that's on FF. With a crop body with 300mm effective FOV I think that''d be plenty, especially as you have a lot of MP that you can crop with.
Click to expand...

Thanks for the suggestion, I will look at some reviews and see if I can find it on eBay for a decent price, it's either this or the sigma which has more reach but worse f stop numbers.

EDIT: On further research I found the Tamron 70-200 f2.8 g2 for a decent price on eBay, this lens looks perfect from reviews, the only downside is the effective range is no longer than I have from my current 55-300mm dx lens.
 
Last edited:
@Kieransliwowski I seriously considered the 70-200mm f2.8 for a long time, it's pretty much the de-facto "pro sports" lens, but they're hugely expensive, new ones coming it at over £2k. I'd suggest looking at 2nd hand lenses, like this :-

https://www.wexphotovideo.com/nikon-70-200mm-f2-8-g-af-s-vr-if-ed-lens-used-1663550/

It's the older VR 1 model, but by all accounts it's still a superb lens, and at £800-ish is much more affordable.

In the end I just didn't feel 70-200mm (105-300mm effective on the D3300) provided enough reach, and I was sure I didn't really need the f2.8 aperture, but that's the problem with lenses, there just aren't any that do everything and are brilliant at it. At the end of the day you really must decide what's most important to YOU, all of us are only telling you what matters to us. :)
 
Kieransliwowski said:
Thanks for the suggestion, I will look at some reviews and see if I can find it on eBay for a decent price, it's either this or the sigma which has more reach but worse f stop numbers.

EDIT: On further research I found the Tamron 70-200 f2.8 g2 for a decent price on eBay, this lens looks perfect from reviews, the only downside is the effective range is no longer than I have from my current 55-300mm dx lens.
Click to expand...
The Tamron 70-200mm f2.8 G2 is an exceptional lens, by far the best of the third party 70-200mm f2.8's and better than some main manufacturer ones imo.
 
mark.roper said:
@Kieransliwowski I seriously considered the 70-200mm f2.8 for a long time, it's pretty much the de-facto "pro sports" lens, but they're hugely expensive, new ones coming it at over £2k. I'd suggest looking at 2nd hand lenses, like this :-

https://www.wexphotovideo.com/nikon-70-200mm-f2-8-g-af-s-vr-if-ed-lens-used-1663550/

It's the older VR 1 model, but by all accounts it's still a superb lens, and at £800-ish is much more affordable.

In the end I just didn't feel 70-200mm (105-300mm effective on the D3300) provided enough reach, and I was sure I didn't really need the f2.8 aperture, but that's the problem with lenses, there just aren't any that do everything and are brilliant at it. At the end of the day you really must decide what's most important to YOU, all of us are only telling you what matters to us. :)
Click to expand...

I suppose that is a good point, the only thing is that I reckon I could get away with 300mm but is there a difference in IQ in comparison to the 100-400 sigma?
snerkler said:
The Tamron 70-200mm f2.8 G2 is an exceptional lens, by far the best of the third party 70-200mm f2.8's and better than some main manufacturer ones imo.
Click to expand...

I found this lens on eBay for around £850 brand new but the same question above applies.
 
Kieransliwowski said:
I suppose that is a good point, the only thing is that I reckon I could get away with 300mm but is there a difference in IQ in comparison to the 100-400 sigma?


I found this lens on eBay for around £850 brand new but the same question above applies.
Click to expand...
In terms of IQ it depends on how you're shooting. For 'general' shots there's no doubt that the 70-200mm is sharper and renders much nicer. It has more 'pop, and has much nicer bokeh. However, if you're just planning on using the lens for panning at motorsports etc then IQ of the lens is far less important and technique plays a much bigger part. Also bear in mind that the Sigma 100-400mm is lighter and I found it easier to pan handheld when I hired one.

What tracks are you going to? The reason that I ask is that imo 70-200mm is fine for a lot of circuits, and on a crop body you're getting 300mm at the long end. For example these were taken with the 70-200mm on the D850 (admittedly cropped a bit)

1. 200mm

DSC_1228-Edit-2 by TDG-77, on Flickr

2. 200mm

DSC_5911 by TDG-77, on Flickr


These were taken at Silverstone using the D750 and Sigma 100-400mm between 240-290mm (on FF so these are the effective focal lengths)

1. 290mm

DSC_0770-Edit by TDG-77, on Flickr

2. 270mm

DSC_1660-Edit by TDG-77, on Flickr

3. 240mm

DSC_0520 by TDG-77, on Flickr


So as you can see, all these were taken under 300mm, so a 70-200mm on a crop body (105-300mm eq) should be fine. I wouldn't be without my 70-200mm f2.8, for portraits, other sports and a few other things, but I am considering buying either the Tamron or Sigma 100-400mm, not for the reach but for he weight saving for ease of panning.
 
snerkler said:
In terms of IQ it depends on how you're shooting. For 'general' shots there's no doubt that the 70-200mm is sharper and renders much nicer. It has more 'pop, and has much nicer bokeh. However, if you're just planning on using the lens for panning at motorsports etc then IQ of the lens is far less important and technique plays a much bigger part. Also bear in mind that the Sigma 100-400mm is lighter and I found it easier to pan handheld when I hired one.

What tracks are you going to? The reason that I ask is that imo 70-200mm is fine for a lot of circuits, and on a crop body you're getting 300mm at the long end. For example these were taken with the 70-200mm on the D850 (admittedly cropped a bit)

1. 200mm

DSC_1228-Edit-2 by TDG-77, on Flickr

2. 200mm

DSC_5911 by TDG-77, on Flickr


These were taken at Silverstone using the D750 and Sigma 100-400mm between 240-290mm (on FF so these are the effective focal lengths)

1. 290mm

DSC_0770-Edit by TDG-77, on Flickr

2. 270mm

DSC_1660-Edit by TDG-77, on Flickr

3. 240mm

DSC_0520 by TDG-77, on Flickr


So as you can see, all these were taken under 300mm, so a 70-200mm on a crop body (105-300mm eq) should be fine. I wouldn't be without my 70-200mm f2.8, for portraits, other sports and a few other things, but I am considering buying either the Tamron or Sigma 100-400mm, not for the reach but for he weight saving for ease of panning.
Click to expand...

My main track that I attend is Silverstone and in certain areas I would find more reach useful. Those sigma shots on a full frame look excellent, how much would my aps-c d3400 hinder the quality of shots? The sigma has great IQ from what I have seen in those photos so I'm impressed.


Did you take those photos? If so I'm intrigued where abouts you took them, it looks like a great spot!
 
Kieransliwowski said:
My main track that I attend is Silverstone and in certain areas I would find more reach useful. Those sigma shots on a full frame look excellent, how much would my aps-c d3400 hinder the quality of shots? The sigma has great IQ from what I have seen in those photos so I'm impressed.


Did you take those photos? If so I'm intrigued where abouts you took them, it looks like a great spot!
Click to expand...
Thanks, yes I did take them. First was Farm Curve, second was between Stowe and Vale (closer to Stowe), and I can’t renember if the third was Farm Curve or between Stowe and Vake tbh, I’d have to check the time stamp. If I was to go for one I’d say Farm Curve. Both these areas are shooting through a fence though, the only unimpeded view close to track level that I found was Luffield. Becketts was a good place to get some pics too.

As for quality I don’t think you’d see much difference with this kind of shot tbh. The D3400 has a very good sensor, and there’s not a ‘huge’ amount of difference in IQ between crop sensor and FF anyway. Where I think you’d find an advantage with the D750 is autofocus acquisition speed and tracking, although the Sigma 100-400mm isn’t the best lens for this anyway tbh.
 
Kieransliwowski said:
Really! That is interesting, I thought that in comparison to a d750 the d3400 would get destroyed.
Click to expand...

Like Toby said, there's not a huge difference in image quality between crop & FF, and the key differences are less significant for these kind of shots than they are for Landscape or architectural work, where you're trying to wring every bit of detail out, or for portraits where shallow depth of field can be critical, and you're unlikely to need super-high sensitivity with zero noise. Deficiencies in the D3400 are all about handling (just 1 control wheel, for example) and electronics performance (fewer focus points, less effective focussing, slower frame rate, smaller buffers etc).
 
snerkler said:
Thanks, yes I did take them. First was Farm Curve, second was between Stowe and Vale (closer to Stowe), and I can’t renember if the third was Farm Curve or between Stowe and Vake tbh, I’d have to check the time stamp. If I was to go for one I’d say Farm Curve. Both these areas are shooting through a fence though, the only unimpeded view close to track level that I found was Luffield. Becketts was a good place to get some pics too.

As for quality I don’t think you’d see much difference with this kind of shot tbh. The D3400 has a very good sensor, and there’s not a ‘huge’ amount of difference in IQ between crop sensor and FF anyway. Where I think you’d find an advantage with the D750 is autofocus acquisition speed and tracking, although the Sigma 100-400mm isn’t the best lens for this anyway tbh.
Click to expand...

I will have to check out farm next time I go then. For Motorsport photography which of the 2 lenses would you recommend, given that I have the crop factor and that 300mm seems to be alright? I would assume the g2 would be better slightly with IQ but does the lens affect focusing much or is it more the bodies job?

ancient_mariner said:
Like Toby said, there's not a huge difference in image quality between crop & FF, and the key differences are less significant for these kind of shots than they are for Landscape or architectural work, where you're trying to wring every bit of detail out, or for portraits where shallow depth of field can be critical, and you're unlikely to need super-high sensitivity with zero noise. Deficiencies in the D3400 are all about handling (just 1 control wheel, for example) and electronics performance (fewer focus points, less effective focussing, slower frame rate, smaller buffers etc).
Click to expand...

Good to know the d3400 is better equipped than I thought! Crop sensors with decent lenses seem to be decent for Motorsport!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top