Vintage racing from Infineon

zed

Some that I liked from Saturday. C&C welcome. All shot with the 20D and 100-400 or 28-200.

#1
1/320 f7.1 ISO100 +2/3




#2
1/320 f6.3 ISO100 -2/3




#3
1/250 f11.0 ISO100




#4
1/320 f8 ISO100




#5
1/800 f5.0 ISO100




#6
1/50 f5.6 ISO400




#7
1/1600 f5.0 ISO400
I think it's an old Italian olive oil can being used as an overflow or breather can. :




Thanks for looking.

Jeff

douging

zed wrote:

Some that I liked from Saturday. C&C welcome. All shot with the 20D and 100-400 or 28-200.

#5
1/800 f5.0 ISO100


Thanks for looking.

Jeff

#5 is great IMO. I love shots of carburators. I like the other one that you have on your site too.

Did you get any photos of the McLaren F1 that was there?

xtnomad

All are Great Shots.
I like #2 and the olive can.

zed

Thanks for the comments. The olive oil can was a neat addition to the car.

Douging, I didn't get any of the Mclaren that I liked. People were hovering around it the whole time, which made it difficult to do anything but a snapshot . Took one or two detail shots of the door, but didn't really do anything for me when I reviewed them later.


Jeff

Bfox

My shots from Sunday
All shot with 10D, 70-200 f/4 L + 1.4 TE
Thanks for looking.....
-B


1


2


3


4


5


6


7


8

zed

Hey, Bfox I don't see any pictures...just red X's. Check your links.


Jeff

Bfox

Doh!
Thanks, Jeff.
I think I had "external links" off in the gallery.

zed wrote:

Hey, Bfox I don't see any pictures...just red X's. Check your links.


Jeff

zed

Nice shots Bfox. Love the first shot of the carrera with the wheel in the air and the going away shot of the polished up jag. Were you on assignment for anyone in perticular?

Some of my favorite cars from the weekend were the Porsches.











Jeff

Bfox

Love the Porsche turbo flame-out shot.
I can kick myself for not seeking out one of those shots...dammit!
How many shots did it take until you caught it?
-B

zed

Bfox wrote:

Love the Porsche turbo flame-out shot.
I can kick myself for not seeking out one of those shots...dammit!
How many shots did it take until you caught it?
-B

Actually, it wasn't too difficult with this car. If I can find them when I get home, I will post up some of the others. I was pretty far away (even with the 400) at the exit of 2 looking towards 3 to get it. I ended up cropping this one more than I usually like to, I just wanted to bring the car up a little more into the frame.

Jeff

zed

Here is what happens when raw unburnt fuel meets oxygen while exiting a very hot tail pipe. :wow
It'd be cool to make a little .gif out of it. These are uncropped btw.















Jeff

Bfox

Great sequence! And a few more of mine....
Great sequence Jeff.
I'd crop in on those and make a multipanel image with them.

Here's some more of mine..
1


2


3


4


5


6


7

zed

Ahh...good idea. I'll have to try that out.



Jeff

STLMach1

After seeing these I can't keep from thinking... More! More! More! :

Simply great shots!

Michael

Bfox

STLMach1 wrote:

After seeing these I can't keep from thinking... More! More! More! :

Simply great shots!

Michael

Happy to oblige...
How about you Jeff, got more to show too?

1: Porsche 910 in a big slide at the top of turn 2


2


3


4


5


6

zed

Uh...why yes I do:


#1


#2


#3


#4


#5


#6


#7


#8




BTW, Brad...I love your #3 shot of the Jag with the heat waves under the car.

Bfox

zed wrote:

Uh...why yes I do:
BTW, Brad...I love your #3 shot of the Jag with the heat waves under the car.

Thanks. Your Kremer Porsche paddock shot is fantastic.
I normally roam the paddock quite a bit, but didn't have the time.
Is it me or did they really pack in the practice and race sessions this year?

BTW, how do you like your 100-400? It's the L lens, right?
I'm desperate for a longer lens, and I'm feeling like my f/4 70-200 with the 1.4 TE (giving me a net of F/5) is slowing down the autofocus. I had a lot of shots that were out of focus, and sure shouldn't have been.
I'm torn between getting another "slow" lens, like the 100-400f/4.5-5.6, or the tried and true 70-200 f/2.8 L IS. With the 70-200 2.8 at least I could slap it on the 1.4 TE and still be f/3.8 at 280mm.
I was also looking at the 300mm f/4. It's affordable....but I'm back to f/5 with the 1.4 TE.
What are your thoughts?
-B

zed

Bfox wrote:

Thanks. Your Kremer Porsche paddock shot is fantastic.
I normally roam the paddock quite a bit, but didn't have the time.
Is it me or did they really pack in the practice and race sessions this year?

BTW, how do you like your 100-400? It's the L lens, right?
I'm desperate for a longer lens, and I'm feeling like my f/4 70-200 with the 1.4 TE (giving me a net of F/5) is slowing down the autofocus. I had a lot of shots that were out of focus, and sure shouldn't have been.
I'm torn between getting another "slow" lens, like the 100-400f/4.5-5.6, or the tried and true 70-200 f/2.8 L IS. With the 70-200 2.8 at least I could slap it on the 1.4 TE and still be f/3.8 at 280mm.
I was also looking at the 300mm f/4. It's affordable....but I'm back to f/5 with the 1.4 TE.
What are your thoughts?
-B

I was just there for Saturday and it was busy. I went through the paddock during the lunch break, then grabbed a quick bite while the first race started.

Yea, the lens thing is a bit of a dilema for me too. I do like the 100-400 (yes, it is the L IS lens from Canon). The way I look at it, there are 4 options in that price range. I assume you want to stick with Canon. I like the Canon stuff, but have seen some pretty good results with others, Sigma, for example. I'll give you my opinion on each one:

1) 70-200 2.8 IS (or non IS)
Great lens. Will probably be my next purchase in a few months (hopefully). One pro I know of said, "this should be a standard issue lens to motorsports photographers". You could go non-IS and save about $500 (I don't use IS for on track stuff...more on that later) but, this would be a great track and paddock lens and I think the IS would be nice for paddock shots. So, I will probably get the IS version and the 1.4x at the same time. Getting the reach on track is the problem with this lens. The 1.4x is almost a necessity, but still capable of probably the best results of any of these lenses.

2) 300 f4 IS
3) 400 f5.6 IS
I think either of these two would be very good lenses. I would probably go with the 400. The 300 would proabaly be a little faster but, at my stage in the game, I don't think I would notice. The 300 with the 1.4x would get you out to 420mm and 5.x. Not much different from the base 400 f5.6. But the 400 + 1.4x is 560mm and f6.x. It is an extra stop but that's a pretty nice sized lens for the money. And, if you think about it. Most of your shots are in the f8 to f11 range, so you are still under that. Even though these both have smaller aperatures than the 70-200, the focusing speed is probably very similar or maybe even faster, because they are fixed focal. Fewer lenses and moving parts. Now, if you are on the spectators side of the fence, then the extra reach would be the biggest issue. I don't think it would be so much with credentials. The bad thing with these lenses, is that they are fixed, so you don't have the flexibility of the others. Here is a link to another pro: http://www.johnthawley.com/ I am pretty sure that his main tools are a 20D, 70-200 f2.8 and the 400 f5.6 fixed. Very nice work and no problem getting jobs.

4) 100-400 f4.5-5.6 IS
This is the lens I have. I was not super impressed when I first got the lens. But that was my fault. I was expecting too much too fast and didn't give myself time to learn to use it to the best of my and it's ability (actually...I am still learning it). I love the versatility of this lens. That is probably it's biggest plus right now. I don't have a problem with the speed, but I wish I had the 70-200 to compare it to. Right now, my issues and what I am trying to learn my way around, is the softness of it. I'll post some pictures tonight or tomorrow for example. I'll show my typical "keeper" uncropped and then 100% crop and the sharpest shot that I got, it the same way. Most of them seem a bit soft and this seems to mirror what a lot of other people say about it. BUT, I did get one or two that are really sharp. So, it seems that the lens can do it, but it might be an accuracy thing...or maybe it's still just me. As I said before, I don't use the IS on this lens. I am really still trying both methods to see what works best for me. This is an argument in it's own with many people. Some say that the IS is over rated on the smaller lenes only (like the 70-200 and 100-400). And the benefits only truly show above 400mm. They say that it tends to "jump" around some while panning. But, some of these guys have such good technique, that it probably doesn't matter. I don't know what is better for me yet. But all these shots I've posted are non-IS. I know what you mean though, I feel like I am tossing out more than I should because of focusing issues. But it's hard to tell how much of it is me, since I don't have anything of better quality to compare it to. Once I get the 70-200 2.8 I think I will get a good comparison.

On the spectators side, I spend a lot of time at 400mm. I have seen some ok shots from others with the 1.4x on it but I think it is an even lower keeper rate and softer. Like the pro above though, I think the 70-200 f2.8 and 400 f5.6 is a nice looking set up for the money. If we happen to meet up at an event, I'd be happy to let you try out my lens.

Jeff

Bfox

zed wrote:

I was just there for Saturday and it was busy. I went through the paddock during the lunch break, then grabbed a quick bite while the first race started.

Same here...I had to be there at 8:00 for the required saftey meeting you have to attend before getting your flag to shoot in the photo acccess areas.
After that it was the morning warmups, then the races. I got about 20minutes in the paddock before the saftey meeting. Nice thing about Infineon is you get a map of the track at the saftey meeting. One side shows where you should and should not be, the other side has suggestions for where and what time of day to shoot in different areas. Very helpful. Chuck, the track photographer is a very helpful guy too. It was a great experience.

zed wrote:

Yea, the lens thing is a bit of a dilema for me too. I do like the 100-400 (yes, it is the L IS lens from Canon). The way I look at it, there are 4 options in that price range. I assume you want to stick with Canon. I like the Canon stuff, but have seen some pretty good results with others, Sigma, for example. I'll give you my opinion on each one:

1) 70-200 2.8 IS (or non IS)
Great lens. Will probably be my next purchase in a few months (hopefully). One pro I know of said, "this should be a standard issue lens to motorsports photographers". You could go non-IS and save about $500 (I don't use IS for on track stuff...more on that later) but, this would be a great track and paddock lens and I think the IS would be nice for paddock shots. So, I will probably get the IS version and the 1.4x at the same time. Getting the reach on track is the problem with this lens. The 1.4x is almost a necessity, but still capable of probably the best results of any of these lenses.

2) 300 f4 IS
3) 400 f5.6 IS
I think either of these two would be very good lenses. I would probably go with the 400. The 300 would proabaly be a little faster but, at my stage in the game, I don't think I would notice. The 300 with the 1.4x would get you out to 420mm and 5.x. Not much different from the base 400 f5.6. But the 400 + 1.4x is 560mm and f6.x. It is an extra stop but that's a pretty nice sized lens for the money. And, if you think about it. Most of your shots are in the f8 to f11 range, so you are still under that. Even though these both have smaller aperatures than the 70-200, the focusing speed is probably very similar or maybe even faster, because they are fixed focal. Fewer lenses and moving parts. Now, if you are on the spectators side of the fence, then the extra reach would be the biggest issue. I don't think it would be so much with credentials. The bad thing with these lenses, is that they are fixed, so you don't have the flexibility of the others. Here is a link to another pro: http://www.johnthawley.com/ I am pretty sure that his main tools are a 20D, 70-200 f2.8 and the 400 f5.6 fixed. Very nice work and no problem getting jobs.

4) 100-400 f4.5-5.6 IS
This is the lens I have. I was not super impressed when I first got the lens. But that was my fault. I was expecting too much too fast and didn't give myself time to learn to use it to the best of my and it's ability (actually...I am still learning it). I love the versatility of this lens. That is probably it's biggest plus right now. I don't have a problem with the speed, but I wish I had the 70-200 to compare it to. Right now, my issues and what I am trying to learn my way around, is the softness of it. I'll post some pictures tonight or tomorrow for example. I'll show my typical "keeper" uncropped and then 100% crop and the sharpest shot that I got, it the same way. Most of them seem a bit soft and this seems to mirror what a lot of other people say about it. BUT, I did get one or two that are really sharp. So, it seems that the lens can do it, but it might be an accuracy thing...or maybe it's still just me. As I said before, I don't use the IS on this lens. I am really still trying both methods to see what works best for me. This is an argument in it's own with many people. Some say that the IS is over rated on the smaller lenes only (like the 70-200 and 100-400). And the benefits only truly show above 400mm. They say that it tends to "jump" around some while panning. But, some of these guys have such good technique, that it probably doesn't matter. I don't know what is better for me yet. But all these shots I've posted are non-IS. I know what you mean though, I feel like I am tossing out more than I should because of focusing issues. But it's hard to tell how much of it is me, since I don't have anything of better quality to compare it to. Once I get the 70-200 2.8 I think I will get a good comparison.

On the spectators side, I spend a lot of time at 400mm. I have seen some ok shots from others with the 1.4x on it but I think it is an even lower keeper rate and softer. Like the pro above though, I think the 70-200 f2.8 and 400 f5.6 is a nice looking set up for the money. If we happen to meet up at an event, I'd be happy to let you try out my lens.

Jeff

Yeah, you're saying the same things I've heard/seen out there.
Thing is...everybody's (at least everybody shooting 'over the fence') shooting with a 300mm. I think it's the versatility it gives you. Add the 1.4 and you're at 420mm. If you have the 400mm I think you might be TOO tight from trackside. I know the Head-On Photo guys (know them?) use a 300 most of the time, but a 400 if they're shooting from the stands at the top of turn 2. They consider a 300mm to be the minimum focal length. I think I may consider renting a 300mm 2.8 the next time I shoot (I should have done that last weekend). And maybe sell my f/4 70-200 and replace it for the 2.8 with IS. It's THE standard lens for any sports photography. On sportsshooter in their equipment profiles section one guy calls it his "money maker". Universal praise for that lens.
*Sigh* It's only $$$$.
-B

zed

That would be a nice set up, if you are track side with a budget: 70-200 2.8, 300 4 and the 1.4x. Then start saving for the 500 f4. Ofcourse the 300 2.8 would be the ultimate (but $$$$$). I've thought about renting also. I am thinking about the 300 or 400 2.8 with a 1.4x for the AMLS race at Laguna this year. Didn't get to go last year, so I am excited to see them run into the night time.

I have only seen the "Head On Photos" guys web page, not much there, just a single page with email. Have not seen any pictures from them.

Jeff

Bfox

zed wrote:

That would be a nice set up, if you are track side with a budget: 70-200 2.8, 300 4 and the 1.4x. Then start saving for the 500 f4. Ofcourse the 300 2.8 would be the ultimate (but $$$$$). I've thought about renting also. I am thinking about the 300 or 400 2.8 with a 1.4x for the AMLS race at Laguna this year. Didn't get to go last year, so I am excited to see them run into the night time.
Jeff

I might do a sale/purchase soon. Depends on a few things. But it might need to be done sooner rather than later.
Didn't go to ALMS last year either. I hope to this year too.

zed wrote:

I have only seen the "Head On Photos" guys web page, not much there, just a single page with email. Have not seen any pictures from them.
Jeff

HeadOn really doesn't have a site. I hung out with one of their photographers (think he's a co-owner, actually) at Thunderhill.
They do on site photography at NASA, track day and bike events.
They shoot all day, then edit and print at the track. They operate out of a race car trailer converted into a mini-photo lab.
The other guys that do this are gotbluemilk.com.
These on site operations do pretty well too. HeadOn is expanding to 2 more trailers in SOCal.
-B

Stan

zed wrote:

Here is what happens when raw unburnt fuel meets oxygen while exiting a very hot tail pipe. :wow
It'd be cool to make a little .gif out of it. These are uncropped btw.

Jeff

Here you go not very good but done quick




Stan

zed

Nice Stan and thanks.

Adrian_K made these for me:





That's cool!


Brad,
I am familiar with gotbluemilk. I check out his site every now and then to see what he is doing. Seems like a very similar set up to HeadOn. You're right though, it can be a nice little business. I can image you would need to have some serious computing power to handle the volume. I really like the idea though and one direction that I am looking into.


Jeff

wxwax

Stan wrote:

Here you go not very good but done quick




Stan

Cool!

wxwax

There are so many nice shots in this thread. My favorites are definitely the ones with motion blur. Sweet work!

Bfox

wxwax wrote:

There are so many nice shots in this thread. My favorites are definitely the ones with motion blur. Sweet work!

They're also the hardest to get!
-B

zed

Here is what I was getting out of the 100-400.
A typical keeper.

zed

!00% crop.

zed

Probably the sharpest shot @ 400mm. I wish he was filling the frame more.

zed

100% crop.