Quote from Scrabby :

Here I see a Canon EOS 1000D + EF-S 18-55 IS <---- lens?
I really want to go further into fotography, more specific into motorsports

Well I've heard that the Canon 18-55 kit lens is pretty crap, but... a good photog will still take good pics with it. A good photog won't take good motorsport pics with it though, as it's not long enough. Get the 18-55 kit, and add to it as soon as you can afford to with a basic grade 70-300 f/4-5.6 to give you the length. That should give you the range of coverage you need to see if you're any good and/or have the sustained interest to justify chucking more money at equipment.

Quote from MR_B :

You need a lens with as low f/stop as you can get.

Not when most motorsport takes place in daylight. A fast lens gives more creative control with the shallower DoF, and is more versatile should you need to do low-light shooting, but is far, far from needed to get good motorsport pics.

Quote from STROBE :

Not when most motorsport takes place in daylight. A fast lens gives more creative control with the shallower DoF, and is more versatile should you need to do low-light shooting, but is far, far from needed to get good motorsport pics.

Then I stand corrected. You can guess what i'll be doing later (experimenting!)

Quote from STROBE :

Not when most motorsport takes place in daylight. A fast lens gives more creative control with the shallower DoF, and is more versatile should you need to do low-light shooting, but is far, far from needed to get good motorsport pics.

I don't know about that statement judging on Don's Rally and motocross pics. The ones I've checked seem to all be f/2.8 @ 200 mm. His pictures are phenomenal.

Yes, Don uses a very shallow DoF extremely well and creates some superb shots. However I bet he'd still take some pretty great photos if you gave him a slower consumer grade lens (I'm guessing he uses either a 70-200/2.8 or a 200/2.8 prime).

But I'm just saying you don't have to run out and splash cash on a long, fast lens in order to shoot motorsports. In fact when you look at the pro pics of F1 Grand Prix from the likes of AP and AFP, you'll see (or rather, suspect) that they're not all shot at f/2.8 as the DoF would be too shallow from the distances they're shooting at from the side of a circuit. Don gets right up close with his rallies and motocross, but generally motorsport needs sufficient DoF to cover the car and any nearby competing cars, which a consumer grade 70-300 can give you (f/5.6 @ 300mm) while still having a blurred background.

A lot of Don's pics could/would have worked as well on a slightly slower lens. Don is a master of fill-flash and of panning.

I'm not agreeing 100% with STROBE, though. Some of Don's other pics - particularly the ones on overcast days - definitely rely on a fast lens to freeze the action. To achieve the same on a cheaper, slower lens would require a big bump in ISO, and lots of unpleasant grain as a result. I'm assuming that Don is not doing a lot of post-processing to mask high ISO, but I would love to hear from him on his techniques. Don's pics are definitely, on balance, a strong argument for a fast lens IMO.

For motorsports I'd say that a bloody fast autofocus would be the most essential element of a lens, f/speed second.

Interesting discussion here, so lemme add my 2 cents:

Until recently ive been using (and still use it sometimes) a cheap Sigma 70-300 f4/5.6 lens, which is definately a slow lens - plus it is almost useless below f8, because you get really soft focus. Usually it wasn`t a problem to use f8, but should there be some overcast weather or if you were in a forrest, you`d be screwed - you`d have to go to ISO 800 or higher (which produces A LOT of noise).

3 months ago (just after 2008 Rally Finland, so all tele photos until 2008 Barum rally are taken with the sigma) I bought a prime Canon 200/2.8, which works much better in not so ideal conditions. Maybe you wouldnt use f2.8 on a circuit, but on a rally, where many stages are in the forrests, it definately has a use. I can give you a reallife example:

http://rallyphotos.cz/photos/barum2008/44.jpg
this photo was taken with the prime lens @ f2.8 and ISO 400 - resulting in an exposure time of 1/500, which should secure an relatively sharp pic. If i wanted to take that photo with my old sigma, it wouldnt be possible - first of all, i`d have to go to f8 (as i said, anything below that gives really soft focus) and then i`d have to use perhaps even ISO 1600 (useless).

But don`t get me wrong - the Sigma is still quite a good lens and I still use it quite often. The prime Canon just makes it a lot easier for me in bad conditions.

And also, i LOVE DOF, so 2.8 gives really nice effect

About noise reduction - i very rarely use it, and if i do, i use the noise reduction built-in photoshop, so nothing special there.

I am going to sell my Fuji S1000FD and buy a Canon EOS450D + EF-S 18.55 IS to begin with and buy other lensen later. Now gonna checkout the prices on the different webshops =)

ebay's your friend got my 400d for £265 (2nd hand mind you, but it was the guys backup camera as he had a 40D)

there are bargains to be had.

I'll be buying it at 609€ with free delivery . Not that i'm afraid of second hand, but such things i rather buy new so that i'll have my waranty etc..

Thanks guys for the information

good stuff Scrabby remember to "showoff" your best pics in this thread

Hi,

Had a go of a film SLR for the first time yesterday and got to see the photos today. Won't say much so here they are:









Hope you like them, all comments are welcome. The blue noise was from the scanner I think the contact sheet I scanned it from didn't have it on.

Quote from Scrabby :

I am going to sell my Fuji S1000FD and buy a Canon EOS450D + EF-S 18.55 IS to begin with and buy other lensen later. Now gonna checkout the prices on the different webshops =)

Good luck. Have you tried a 450D before?

Well, I've been playing around with Simple Viewer (which I first saw here in this thread). But without a normal web site (I have free geocities) and having to edit and upload everything manually file by file, it's not working too well. I don't like Flickr, I don't like Photobucket and the organization of those two. I think I'm going to skip out on the Simple Gallery because of the PITA uploading. Anyone have a photo service like Flickr or Photobucket but that has better organizing and viewing interface to recommend? I'd like to find something that displays similar to Simple Viewer with thumbnails list on the side and the image loaded to view beside the thumbnails

So, I've also been going through my photos to organize and size them for upload. I have one for you all, I'm still working on sorting and editing many many others. So, here you go.....

shot with a complete automatic P&S Fuji FinePix 2650 2.1 MP in 2003

checked out deviantart mrodgers? not sure whether it's what you want/need, but it doesn't hurt to look!

What I like most about those pictures mcintyrej is that they've got such a raw, aspect to them. They're not polished, they've got grain, and imperfections, and that's their appeal. Just pure photography. Great stuff

Try more vintage camera's too, they're good fun!

Smugmug is nice, but I think its like $40 a year.

Zooomr is also nice but unfortunately for you it's quite similar to Flickr in it's design. Check it out, it never hurts to check.

Like Jakg.com?

Just used Adobe Lightroom - made all the gallery etc for me!

My Fuji FinePix S1000FD is now on sale! Should be gone soon and they i'll buy my DSLR

Quote from Jakg :

Like Jakg.com?

Just used Adobe Lightroom - made all the gallery etc for me!

Jakg, yeah, that's what I was going to do. But not having my own website (except for free host full of ads), I'm finding it not easy to do. What I'm missing is my own website, but I'm not looking to put any money towards it.

Which, by the way, I haven't seen any images from you for quite some time in this thread. I browsed through Jakg.com a bit. The B&W of the boats docked is very nice. Still using that Kodak?

With Lightroom, I'm wondering how to do several galleries. I don't see where you can load up a gallery to work on such as having one for landscapes, a seperate for automotive, sort of like that. Perhaps I have to look a bit further. I see you can set up simple viewer galleries right in Lightroom as well.

Quote from mrodgers :

With Lightroom, I'm wondering how to do several galleries. I don't see where you can load up a gallery to work on such as having one for landscapes, a seperate for automotive, sort of like that.

I'd use collections, one for each genre that you want a gallery for.

I'm still using my shitty Kodak, but between School, Work and the GF I haz no time...

EDIT - Shitty, but i love it to bits.

Quote from Jakg :

.....

EDIT - Shitty, but i love it to bits.

thats no way to talk about your girlfriend!!

I would never bitch about her on here - she does read my posts occasionally :P

(PS - Hello Dear)

I've got much love for smugmug. Does everything I want it to do, and I think the price is reasonable for a year's worth.

my lads asked me to put these up from his first time with my DSLR

(he's nine now but was eight at time)


P.S try and have a look at them as he's bound to want to know how many views he's had