|
Kristof
|
 |
« Reply #45 on: June 17, 2009, 12:50:43 am » |
|
Dottore what kit are you using? I have recently purchased 50D with 18-200 zoom. I need a better lens. Love your pics.
S
I'm using a Canon 1D MKIIN, 70-200 f2,8 (non IS), 300 f2,8 (non IS), 300 f4 IS, 24-70 f2, convertors 1,4x and 2x and flash EX550 & EX580 II. All this means a backpack that weighs up to 20 kgs to take with you on track ... and then you see people with lousy camera stuff (even point & shoot camera's) walking around in front of the fence with credentials ... unbelievable ... First pics at the scrutineering on Monday were made with a Canon G9 compact camera. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
lynxd67
|
|
« Reply #46 on: June 17, 2009, 09:46:51 am » |
|
Dottore what kit are you using? I have recently purchased 50D with 18-200 zoom. I need a better lens. Love your pics.
S
Probably using same type of kit as me. Dig deep in your wallet for another £10,000 and you'll get photos like that. Start with a Canon 1Ds, add a 300, 400 and 500 lens, and Bob's your uncle. Simple ain't it! Oh, I think I just spent nearly double the original budget there  |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
TobyAnscombe
|
|
« Reply #47 on: June 17, 2009, 09:54:37 am » |
|
Dottore what kit are you using? I have recently purchased 50D with 18-200 zoom. I need a better lens. Love your pics.
S
Steve - either the 70-200 2.8 with a converter or a 100-400L is the entry level... I can recommend https://www.onestop-digital.com/catalog/index.php as I have used them before. I could have lent you my 100-400L for some of the race as I was too busy watching (and you had Grandstand seats which give you a better view!). |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Nordic
|
|
« Reply #48 on: June 17, 2009, 10:10:30 am » |
|
Dottore, amazing pic's you have a happy knack of being at the right place at the right time and then the skill to then make the most of it!
Glad I didnt bother to take a camera this year.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
Some people will tell you that slow is good - and it may be, on some days - but I am here to tell you that fast is better.
H S Thompson 1937 - 2005
|
|
|
|
Mr Termite
|
|
« Reply #49 on: June 17, 2009, 10:12:42 am » |
|
Dottore what kit are you using? I have recently purchased 50D with 18-200 zoom. I need a better lens. Love your pics.
S
Dottore's pics are unquestionably the mutt's nuts, and his kit is top-notch, but you don't need to spend quite that much. Your EOS 50D has one advantage over his 1DS - it multiplies the focal length by 1.6x, meaning the same lens will get you rather closer to the action. So if you flashed the cash to get a 70-200 f2.8zoom, you would actually be buying a 112 - 320 f2.8! Lenses like this do come up on ebay, so check the prices on there and you might be surprised. A friend who has accreditation and has taken pics for dailysportscar.com for years uses a much older EOS body (D30, I think) with a 100-400 f4 zoom. I think Canon may also do a cheaper 70-200, possibly f4, which would do quite well and weigh and cost less. As Dottore implies, do look for Image Stabilisation (IS) although you will pay more. I happen to be a Nikon user (since 1970 - bought my Nikon F new on LM race day that year!) and the 80-200 f2.8 zoom I bought on ebay for about £600 a few years back is still working fine, as are several other expensive lenses bought cheaper secondhand. I'd love a 300 f2.8, but they weigh twice as much and cost three times as much as my 300 f4 and that's that. I did have a Nikon 80-400 f4/5.6, but while it had VR (Nikon's answer to IS) it didn't have a motor, so was too slow for Le Mans. Steve Pyro and termietermite each have the Nikon 70-300 VR and get good results at a price less than £400. It can be done! |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
Missing Termietermite
|
|
|
|
Kristof
|
|
« Reply #50 on: June 17, 2009, 01:07:48 pm » |
|
...
Mr Termite is spot on with what he stated above. You don't need to invest that much money into your equipment. When you buy a Canon 50D with a 100-400L lens you've got all you need to take some cracking shots, and you have IS, something I only have on my 300 f4 at this moment. If you want to buy a 70-200, take a look at the f4-version, much cheaper than the 2,8, it also has IS an the weight is more than half of the other one. f2,8 is something you'll probably only use in conditions without much light or portrait-photography. The reason I have all this stuff is because I used to work as a club-photographer for a football team in Belgian premiership, and had credentials on Belgian tracks a few years ago. Now, photography is just a hobby anymore, no more obligations, no more stress to have all those images, and when I don't feel like taking pictures, I just leave the camera behind. I bought my 300 f2,8 secondhand about 6 years ago, now this lens should be replaced 'cause it doesn't deliver any more sharp images when I use it at f2,8 (and Canon won't give any service 'cause it's an old lens). Why do I still use it together with the 300 f4 ? It's much better with the teleconvertors on it, F2,8 plus a 2x convertor is still a F5,6, where with an f4, that goes up to f8 a point where most camera's aren't able anymore to work with their autofocus. My 300 f4 was bought in the States this year, it's a great lens, very sharp and clean colours and most of all the weight is nothing compared to the f2,8. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
TobyAnscombe
|
|
« Reply #51 on: June 17, 2009, 01:23:35 pm » |
|
Another great Canon lens which is underated is the 85mm 1.8; just long enough on a crop body to be a good tele prime and at f1.8 can blur backgrounds and do some excellent night shots. I was up on the Welcome Bar (end of pits) on saturday night and wished I had brought it with me  In the end I just used flash to get some good shots leaving....I'll post up in a couple of days but I have to get through some exams first.... |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Mr Termite
|
|
« Reply #52 on: June 17, 2009, 02:14:21 pm » |
|
The other point about Dottore's pics is the eternal issue of who gets good pictures - good kit really helps, but being there, being able to identify a good location and being alert to the moment e.g. the Ginetta fire, are all qualities of experienced and pro snappers that most of the rest of us seldom manage to combine on the same day! The Dottores of this world tend to get a passable shot even if they're using yer Granny's Instamatic! Must try harder.......
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
Missing Termietermite
|
|
|
|
TobyAnscombe
|
|
« Reply #53 on: June 17, 2009, 03:10:24 pm » |
|
..and there was me thinking that you knew the circuit like the back of your hand and would know where the best spots were Ian!
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Kristof
|
|
« Reply #54 on: June 17, 2009, 04:23:32 pm » |
|
The other point about Dottore's pics is the eternal issue of who gets good pictures - good kit really helps, but being there, being able to identify a good location and being alert to the moment e.g. the Ginetta fire, are all qualities of experienced and pro snappers that most of the rest of us seldom manage to combine on the same day! The Dottores of this world tend to get a passable shot even if they're using yer Granny's Instamatic! Must try harder.......
Getting the kind of pictures like the burning Ginetta is pure luck ... you just have to be lucky to be on that spot, just at that time, and then have your camera in your hands with the right lens on it. I think I have about 35 or more images of the burning Ginetta, half of them will be usefull, the rest is focussed on the wires in front of the grandstand. When the Ginetta got on fire, my camera was lying next to me, I just threw my drinks away (got lucky no one was sitting in front of me), picked up the camera and started shooting. During the race I also had one of the Peugeots going through the gravel in front of T23, got it on photo but not the complete car (300mm), same with the Audi that went off at Virage Porsche, 300 mm + 1,4 convertor, half the car on photo, the guy next to me with his 300 without convertor had the whole crash (so I got a little pissed then  ). At the Dunlop-chicane I saw a Ferrari and an LMP1 going off, no good pictures 'cause of the fence and too far away. The crash on wednesday at the Dunlop chicane isn't sharp enough, settings on 1/125 'cause I was taking panning shots ... This year I just seemed to be lucky with the incidents I had in front of my lens, there have been other years with none spectacular images at all. Yes you have to be alert, and experienced and a good kit helps, but most of it is luck ... no more, no less ... |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Kristof
|
|
« Reply #55 on: June 18, 2009, 12:41:46 am » |
|
Nightshot  |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Mr Termite
|
|
« Reply #56 on: June 18, 2009, 10:26:18 am » |
|
Great car - great shot!
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
Missing Termietermite
|
|
|
|
nopanic - neil
|
|
« Reply #57 on: June 18, 2009, 12:22:27 pm » |
|
Great car - great shot!
I agree - just missing one thing -the sound ! but hell, nobodys perfect |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
If you're going through hell, keep going.
|
|
|
|
Perdu
|
|
« Reply #58 on: June 18, 2009, 01:45:04 pm » |
|
Now THAT IS the photograph of 2009 for me
Magnificent pictures all, Dottore
bloody magnificent
bill
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
"Ha ha you can't a fool me, there ain't a no sanity clause!"
|
|
|
Mobiasstrip
Newbie
 Offline
Posts: 17
When all else fails, try being reasonable.
|
|
« Reply #59 on: June 18, 2009, 04:26:43 pm » |
|
Thanks for advice. Need to think lenses as Chrissy present. Quite pleased with some of mine as a first attempt with adigital SLR. Will post when I have sorted them out. Here is the one above in a sensible size.
|
A vital ingredient of success is not knowing that what you're attempting can't be done.
|
|
|
|
