DSLR for Motorsport

smr

smr

smr

Soldato
Joined
6 Mar 2008
Posts
8,761
Location
Leicestershire
I want to get into Photography and am after a DSLR for Motorsport, I've never owned a DSLR before so I'd really appreciate any advice.

I'd probably want a mid-range DSLR - is it worth having a look at second hand ones or should I avoid them?

Budget wise I'm looking at around £200-400, if the mid-range market is ok for this, if not I'll be looking at more entry level cameras and lenses I guess.
 
Motorsports and & Sports in general is the one area of photography where quality/expense of equipment really matters than any other area.

Camera body wise, you want something with a good burst rate, as so much of shooting sports relies on trying to get a good capture in a split second. You might take 1000 shots and only get a handful that are truly proper keepers.

Secondly, even for professional Photographers, with motorsport you can't get that close, so you need huge primes or high end zooms. Not just because of the quality, but more importantly its the Auto-Focus speed and reliability.

Even at the top end of your budget, £400, you aren't going to get a decent body and telephoto zoom.

So really you want to be looking at second hand, even then, you will be looking more so at the entry level equipment than mid-range.
 
You could get a used 7D for £400-600, without lenses. Price would depend on condition, but 7D's are fairly sturdy objects.

It would be a very very good choice for Motorsport photography, with a decent FPS burst rate, and the crop factor being useful as well.

kd
 
55-250 IS is about the cheapest half decent telephoto but that still has plenty of drawbacks (build quality, AF speed), paired with a used 50D you should be ready to go for about £400.

If you want a new mid range SLR and telephoto lens you're looking at more like £1500 than £400.
 
I don't personally think you need fast AF or quick glass for starting out in motorsports, it all depends what and how you are going to shoot. Panning doesn't always require fast AF, and for head on stuff you can pre-focus. High FPS can help when you are shooting low shutter speed so you can get more keepers, but I use a 4 FPS camera without issue. The tracks/locations you want shoot will determine what focal length you will need at the long end. Don't discount also using wider lenses as they give a nice alternative.

I'd have a look at a second hand 40D and maybe a Canon 55-250 or Tamron 70-300 VC. I haven't personally used either lens for motorsports but they seem to be popular (have a read of the motorsports section on Talk Photography forums). Second hand should be around the £400 mark total and would be a good entry level kit.
 
Rojin said:
I don't personally think you need fast AF or quick glass for starting out in motorsports, it all depends what and how you are going to shoot. Panning doesn't always require fast AF, and for head on stuff you can pre-focus. High FPS can help when you are shooting low shutter speed so you can get more keepers, but I use a 4 FPS camera without issue. The tracks/locations you want shoot will determine what focal length you will need at the long end. Don't discount also using wider lenses as they give a nice alternative.
Click to expand...

I see what you are saying, you certainly can still shoot sports with cheap telephotos. I also agree that head on shots which with a high shutter speed should be more than achievable.

When I first started out, I was using a fairly cheap Sigma 70-300, about £180 I think it was. I now use Canon L glass and the difference is night and day.

With Formula 1 for example, the Sigma really struggled when there was an obstruction and ended up getting stuck hunting for ages. The AF also wasn't that fast. Looking at the best captures I got with the lens, it was clear that they lost out in terms of sharpness because of the AF.

So yes I agree you can certainly shoot with cheaper equipment, a £400 maximum budget in the case of the OP isn't really going to get you that. Certainly not brand new, and even second hand its going to be a push if you want something more than entry level or a few years old.
 
Yeah with the cheaper zooms you really want to keep the focus close to the range you are working with to avoid racking the focus to infinity and back. If the OP is interested in panning shots then clarity won't be much of an issue as you'll be working with a narrow aperture anyway. You can shoot motorsports on a budget, you just have to realise the limitations. Then of course it can just become a money pit :D

A 40D is still very capable, the 50D will give you more pixels but the AF isn't a great deal different. If you're thinking of shooting evening drift events then they will struggle, but in good light they get great results. The budget lenses as I said I haven't used personally, but there are plenty of sources out there.
 
I took my first dip into the DSLR market and bagged a Sony Alpha 100 with a 18-70mm, a 35-70mm lens, a Lowepro bag, flash gun, memory cards and filters for £90. I'm also about to take possession of a Sigma 70-300mm APO DG which can be had for around the £100 or less mark, secondhand.

While this may not be mid or top if the range equipment, it's a decent place to start from and well within the OP's budget.
 
Go for a Canon 40D (or 400D) with 55-250 at that budget, then start saving. You will seen find the lens limiting, but you will be learning up until that point.
 
Thanks for the replies guys, what's the difference between the 400D and 40D?

I think as this is completely new territory for me I've rethought and decided I won't spend too much money at once. I've always tried to avoid buying the cheapest of any product as whatever it is usually doesn't give satisfactory results or breaks quickly but with Photography it's an area I know absolutely nothing about, so I won't pretend to.

As I'll be stepping up quite literally from just a mobile phone I guess anything will provide much more enjoyment !

The 40D (around £200 used) and the lens you said are very reasonably within my budget.
 
I'd have the 40D every time given the choice. It's better in ways you just won't appreciate when starting out but you'll grow into it better.
 
reading all this make me wonder how i managed with no auto focus etc back in the 80's lol.
we pre-focused and panned to that point, no autofocus and burst rate making you a bit lazy I feel lol
 
Last edited:
Love motorsport photography myself. Mainly about the lens dude. I started with a second hand 400D and got a 55-250mm canon lens. Brilliant lens for the money. Now I use a 60D.
 
You will have had split prism viewfinders and other tech that makes manual focusing a lot easier. As AF tech has evolved they have become redundant and now actually makes manual focusing trickier.
 
ShakenNstirred said:
reading all this make me wonder how i managed with no auto focus etc back in the 80's lol.
we pre-focused and panned to that point, no autofocus and burst rate making you a bit lazy I feel lol
Click to expand...

You got one shot at a predetermined point. With AF I get a couple of shots of the vehicle coming towards me, couple more at an angle, a side on shot if I want one, and if it looks good enough a couple more as it moves away. I tend to only use burst when shooting low shutter speed as that gets you keepers. Nothing lazy at all, it's using your tools to the best of their ability.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom