Motocross Photo's

4thgearpinned.com

I've come to a huge dilema, I have a budget of £2000

I take a lot of Motocross photography,

I can get a Canon EOS 7D and 50-300 is Canon Lens 4-5.6 for that

or

Canon EOS 50D and Canon L f2.8 (non is) lens same price.

I can get a 7D for £1300 leaving £700 for a lens


please please give me some advice what camera even if its none of the above and best lens for a budget of £2000



Really appreciate your help.

My ideal photo would be the bike and rider very sharp and the background blur, i need a fast lens and camera as when the bikes come over the jumps i need to focus very quickly as they suddenly pop up from out of nowhere.


i'm only a novice but have a tendency to go into things all or nothing, i have learnt a few things over the years but have never had the equipment to improve.


this budget has taken a very long time to get so really want to get the best and most out of it, A friend lent me a Nikon D70s which i found very confusing hence the urge to stick with canon.


If you can give me the best configuration of camera and lens for £2000 i would really appreciate your knowledge.


I only need a 70-300 or straight 200 , i wouldn't use anything else ie wide angle etc etc

the biggest factor in my old lens was dust getting in from the track.If it helps to see my style of photograph and i don't want to get in trouble for this so delete the link if not allowed my photo's can be seen at www.4thGearPinned.com my website.

Erbeman

I'm not a canon shooter, but I am a MX photog and the best advise that I can offer you is to not skimp on a lens. You really need a 70-200 F/2.8. If you can't afford one yet, then keep working with what you have and keep saving until you can get one or find one used. I'm a firm believer in not buying something to just get you by until you get more money. The 70-200 in both Canon and Nikon is the best, most versatile MX lens.

mercphoto

Erbeman wrote:

I'm not a canon shooter, but I am a MX photog and the best advise that I can offer you is to not skimp on a lens. You really need a 70-200 F/2.8. If you can't afford one yet, then keep working with what you have and keep saving until you can get one or find one used. I'm a firm believer in not buying something to just get you by until you get more money. The 70-200 in both Canon and Nikon is the best, most versatile MX lens.

What he said. The 5.6 lens you are looking at is not going to focus quickly and it will let you down in low-light or night shooting. Get the 2.8 over the 7D by far. The 50D is MORE THAN CAPABLE for what you are shooting, but the 5.6 lens is not. You don't really have a delima, you have a no-brainer.

torags

What they said ^.

some other off road events may start at dawn and you may want to be there, with 5.6, you're a no show...

4thgearpinned.com

torags wrote:

What they said ^.

some other off road events may start at dawn and you may want to be there, with 5.6, you're a no show...

There is no way i can afford a 2.8 (is) lens but could probably buy the non (is) 2.8

Do you think this would be a good purchase, my last lens never had (is) on it so i don't really know what i'm missing.

nw scout

4thgearpinned.com wrote:

There is no way i can afford a 2.8 (is) lens but could probably buy the non (is) 2.8

Do you think this would be a good purchase, my last lens never had (is) on it so i don't really know what i'm missing.

I much prefer the 2.8 non IS.
In the testing I have done I have found the non IS seems to focus quicker and be a tad shaper on a higher % of images.

I have used both at tracks all over the country, and IMO the cheeper non IS is the better choice.

4thgearpinned.com

nw scout wrote:

I much prefer the 2.8 non IS.
In the testing I have done I have found the non IS seems to focus quicker and be a tad shaper on a higher % of images.

I have used both at tracks all over the country, and IMO the cheeper non IS is the better choice.

That's brilliant, Thank you. Really appreciate your advice.

What filter would you advise if i were to purchase a 2.8 Non is

Erbeman

Any time I shoot outside during the day, no matter what kind of photography, I use a CP filter. It cuts down on glare and saturates the colors. It's a must have.

j-bo

4thgearpinned.com wrote:

That's brilliant, Thank you. Really appreciate your advice.

What filter would you advise if i were to purchase a 2.8 Non is

Neither of those bodies is what I'd choose.

Go with a 1d series body instead. A good used Mark III would be the ticket.

A 70-200 F2.8 non-is is the workhorse of most mx photogs.

As far as filters go...blah..

Crossbarphoto

j-bo wrote:

Neither of those bodies is what I'd choose.

Go with a 1d series body instead. A good used Mark III would be the ticket.

A 70-200 F2.8 non-is is the workhorse of most mx photogs.

As far as filters go...blah..

A good used 1d body and the 70-200/2.8 non-IS is the right ticket!!

torags

If you need fps, you have to turn off stabilization it gets in the way.

I'm with the Erbe on the CP. If you shoot from low - you'll get sky - do you want it blue?

If you shoot late afternoon you get glare from one side of the rider - do you want it?- It can blow out his number

If you can't afford a 2.8, get a 85mm 1.8 prime. they're small, inexpensive and it will give you low light capability (but not reach). Their size makes them good for street photography stepped down

mercphoto

4thgearpinned.com wrote:

What filter would you advise if i were to purchase a 2.8 Non is

You might want to get a very high quality double coated UV filter purely to protect the front lens element from flying mud and pebbles. But don't skimp on a cheap filter.

4thgearpinned.com

Crossbarphoto wrote:

A good used 1d body and the 70-200/2.8 non-IS is the right ticket!!

Now this has just confused me even more, What does the 1D MkIII have that the 7D doesn't.

nw scout

4thgearpinned.com wrote:

Now this has just confused me even more, What does the 1D MkIII have that the 7D doesn't.

While the 7D is new and has many cool new things, it is not built like the 1D series.
For being outside, in the elements, getting beat up, dust mud, ect.... The 1D series just is awesome and in my opinion overshadows anything the 7D has to offer for on location MX photography.

For your budget, I would look into the 1D Mark 2 or Mark 2n.
Awesome, bullet proof cameras, with more than enough megapixel's to do the job.

You will be amazed when you get back from a days shooting at the track.

4thgearpinned.com

Erbeman wrote:

Any time I shoot outside during the day, no matter what kind of photography, I use a CP filter. It cuts down on glare and saturates the colors. It's a must have.

just been looking at filters i see there is a
Hoya 77mm Circular Polariser and


Hoya 77mm PRO1 Digital Circular PL Filter

There is a huge difference in price, i take it the pro1 will be far superior but what difference would i see and benefit.

sorry for asking so many questions but basically i have a limited budget and want to get the best and most out of it, i am not the best photographer but have been using an EOS 400D with Sigma 70-300mm lens for a while now and decided to upgrade, I am the type of person who goes in all or nothing, some of you might say an EOS 7D is far to good for me but i intend to keep it for a good while.

Crossbarphoto

nw scout wrote:

While the 7D is new and has many cool new things, it is not built like the 1D series.
For being outside, in the elements, getting beat up, dust mud, ect.... The 1D series just is awesome and in my opinion overshadows anything the 7D has to offer for on location MX photography.

For your budget, I would look into the 1D Mark 2 or Mark 2n.
Awesome, bullet proof cameras, with more than enough megapixel's to do the job.

You will be amazed when you get back from a days shooting at the track.

nw scout nailed my feelings exactly. The weather resistant elements in the 1-series bodies are fantastic. The ability of the camera to acquire focus and hold it is just leaps and bounds better than the 40D, 50D, 5D, 7D bodies. The full metal housing of the 1-series is just built tough. It is the right tool for the job. I have an old 1-series that I still use today...it has about 190,000 actuations on it and still running strong.

A 1d Mk IIn would be the best bet if you can find one.

j-bo

4thgearpinned.com wrote:

just been looking at filters i see there is a
Hoya 77mm Circular Polariser and


Hoya 77mm PRO1 Digital Circular PL Filter

There is a huge difference in price, i take it the pro1 will be far superior but what difference would i see and benefit.

sorry for asking so many questions but basically i have a limited budget and want to get the best and most out of it, i am not the best photographer but have been using an EOS 400D with Sigma 70-300mm lens for a while now and decided to upgrade, I am the type of person who goes in all or nothing, some of you might say an EOS 7D is far to good for me but i intend to keep it for a good while.

Sorry, for many, a filter is pointless. Why put another piece of glass in front of your glass? There are numerous long and lengthy discussions on this in other forums, such as fred miranda.

My personal opinion is not to get caught up with a filter at this time and concentrate on getting quality body/lens.

After reading some of the debates on filters from all sides, then you will have a better understanding and can choose one or not choose one at that time. Last on the list of things to buy right now.

I shot a lot of mx without any filter and have never had any problems.

Others feel differently.

4thgearpinned.com

j-bo wrote:

Sorry, for many, a filter is pointless. Why put another piece of glass in front of your glass? There are numerous long and lengthy discussions on this in other forums, such as fred miranda.

My personal opinion is not to get caught up with a filter at this time and concentrate on getting quality body/lens.

After reading some of the debates on filters from all sides, then you will have a better understanding and can choose one or not choose one at that time. Last on the list of things to buy right now.

I shot a lot of mx without any filter and have never had any problems.

Others feel differently.

I suppose even if its a cheap filter it will protect my lens from flying mud,Dust and stones.. if i'm going to pay a fair bit for a lens i guess i better protect it.

torags

4thgearpinned.com wrote:

I suppose even if its a cheap filter it will protect my lens from flying mud,Dust and stones.. if i'm going to pay a fair bit for a lens i guess i better protect it.

A UV filter is pointless, they invented lens caps for protection. I've shot Baja TTs 5' away from me and when the dust cloud with stones come, its a natural tenancy to turn away & take your cam with you (carry a syn rag)

The knock on Circular Polarizers is they vignette the image.

With sports shooting you crop the vignetting off most of the time (landscape photogs don't). If you get a CP don't get the "thin" (expensive) one. They reduce vignetting and your lens cap doesn't stay on.

nw scout

Other than an old 81b filter (I only put it on when I know I will get hit with roost while shooting) I never use a filter. 15 plus years of shooting bikes and sports and not a single issue.