Need Help, extreme sports photography on a budget.

MTN-Freerider

I do alot of Downhill and Freeride mountain biking. I want to try and get some of those close, cropped-in, highly detailed pictures of bikers flying mid-air or screaming down singletrack like you see in the magazines.

Now I'm sure that few of you are experienced with this exact sport, however I have seen alot of your pics and I think some of you might be able to help.

First of all, I'm on a tight budget, seriously I'm broke. I'm just not going to let that stop me.



I have already purchased my body on ebay I got a Nikon D1
I know 2.7mp leaves alot to be desired in terms of resolution, but 4.5 frames per second at a 23 shot burst ain't too shabby (think that's fast enough to string a sequence together?) and I'm at least hoping that the autofocus on the D1 will be faster than my old D50 and offer a quicker shutter response. I also like the idea of having a big, heavy, clunky profesional SLR like the Nikon F4 I used in college.

Take a look at this picture:


If you look at the tires, brake rotor, spokes, etc you'll notice alot of it is kind of blurry.

The problem I had with my D50 was that whenever I tried to pan and track my subject, the shutter would either not fire, or not fire when I wanted it to. It just seemed like the AF wasn't keeping up. The best technique I could come up with was to put the camera on single-servo and focus on an object theat was roughly where I anticipated the subject to be, and take the pic when the subject got there. The result always kind of ended up as above. Besides, that's just not how I want to shoot.

Do you think I'll have better luck with ther D1?


Also I still havn't picked out a lense yet. Here's the clincher, I want it to be $100 or as close as I can get. This leaves my options pretty limited, but here are the choices I've found:

a. I can go to ritz and basic Nikor 28-80 AF lense for a film camera. Of course the apature won't be very big, and I'm worried the AF won't be very fast.

b. I can get a used telephoto lense from ebay. It will probably be older, but my hope is that with a longer focal length I can stand back farther and the camera will have an easier time tracking the subject, does this sound right?

c. I can get a 50mm fixed focal length AF Nikor lens. These always have a HUGE apature and I have a feeling the AF will be quick.

As I said before My main concern is af speed and shutter response. I want to try and shoot moving targets and make sure the shutter fires when I press the button.

Any help will be GREATLY appreciated.

Steve Cavigliano

Freerider,
I don't know about the D1 I believe the AF is in the lens not the body. So speedy AF will depend more on the lens than the body. As far as how good the D1's tracking is for moving subjects? You'll have to let us know once you shoot a few hundred frames. Or, maybe a bump will get some D1 user(s) involved

OK, you are right. Your shot looks like it is due to panning technique. In that, pretty much the whole frame is out of focus. This is a tough task for any AF/Dslr. It looks like you can only pick up your subject for a few milliseconds, before the AF has to lock and you have to release the shutter. You might do better by pre-focusing on a shot like this one. Also, fast shutter speeds will help. Even if your panning technique isn't perfect. A remote flash in the trees would also help. But, they are a pain to carry around/set up/shoot with

I'd say, get a lens of the appropriate focal length/range, that is known for it's quick auto focusing. I am sure some knowledgeable Nikoians will chime in : with recommendations.

My last bit of advice is to go out and do lots of shooting, with what you have. You will find out fairly soon, what you need to work on and whether your tools (camera and lens) are up to the task.

Steve

pat.kane

MTN-Freerider wrote:

...The problem I had with my D50 was that whenever I tried to pan and track my subject, the shutter would either not fire, or not fire when I wanted it to.

Here's some general advice as I shoot Canon and don't know the details about the Nikon gear.

1. Watch your backgrounds. Even if the picture above was tack sharp, your mountain bike sitting against the tree is an avoidable distraction.

2. Pre-focusing is a good idea. In a set shot like this where you can anticipate the action, you might as well pre-focus for it as that will speed up the response.

3. What mode are you shooting in? The more you leave for the camera to process, the longer it will take to get the shot off. If possible, shoot in manual (it's not as hard as it seems).

4. What were your shutter speed, f-stop, ISO settings? I think this probably has a lot to do with the camera not responding. The lens (did you say which one?) might be too slow for what you're trying to accomplish and that will impact what these settings are.

MTN-Freerider wrote:

c. I can get a 50mm fixed focal length AF Nikor lens. These always have a HUGE apature and I have a feeling the AF will be quick.

For under $100 on a Canon, a 50mm f/1.8 would have been my recommendation. A 85mm f/1.8 would be much better, but that's no where close to $100.

Good luck.

pat.kane

One other thought -- there have been quite a few mountain biking threads in the sports forum at fredmiranda.com that deal specifically with shutter speed (enough to ensure sharpness but slow enough for spoke blur to get a sense of speed) and panning techniques. Probably well worth your time to visit that site and do a search (definitely hit search before asking a question).

mercphoto

Steve Cavigliano wrote:

Freerider,
I don't know about the D1 I believe the AF is in the lens not the body. So speedy AF will depend more on the lens than the body.

AF sensors are in the body. AF calculation is in the body. AF tracking is in the body. It communicates to the lens, which then uses motors to move lens elements. That is in the lens. Both play a part.

You are going to have a very difficult time shooting a demanding photographic environment like that with a consumer camera on a budget. The reason why professional sports photographers have multi-thousand-dollar cameras and lenses is not because they have money to throw away, and if they could get the shot with cheap gear they would. So you are going to have to find the limitations of your gear and then simply don't shoot what you cannot get.

Find a fast-focusing prime lens (i.e. not a zoom) and go for that. If you were shooting Canon I'd say the 85mm f/1.8. Nikon probably has an equivalent that also focuses fast. Pre-focus on a spot and only shoot bikes in that spot. Do not try to focus track with a D50, it isn't going to work well. And don't bother buying a lens that does not focus fast even though you will probably start by manually focusing on a spot. Eventually you will get a camera body with good, fast AF and you will want a fast-focusing lens to go with it. For Canon shooters that would mean avoiding any of the 50mm lenses. Not sure about Nikon.

Budget for a better lens, then a better body. Factor in top-line gear and price your photos in such a manner that you generate sufficient income to cover future expenses. Otherwise you will never get there.

HarveyMushman

MTN-Freerider wrote:

c. I can get a 50mm fixed focal length AF Nikor lens. These always have a HUGE apature and I have a feeling the AF will be quick.

My 50/1.8 does not have especially quick AF. Also, while the f/1.8 is nice, it can often make your focus problems worse, as the plane of focus is very narrow (front-to-back) when shooting wide open.

Have you explored lens and body rentals? If you are not using the equipment all the time it may be an affordable way to acquire good equipment in the short term, until you can afford your own.

mercphoto

HarveyMushman wrote:

My 50/1.8 does not have especially quick AF. Also, while the f/1.8 is nice, it can often make your focus problems worse, as the plane of focus is very narrow (front-to-back) when shooting wide open.

The Canon 50mm lenses (both the 1.8 and 1.4) are horrifically slow focusers that are worthless for sports. Dunno if the Nikons are the same or not. Good point about the very narrow DOF when shooting wide open, and it should be noted that one doesn't buy a lens like this for a situation like this so that you can shoot wide open. You will still be shooting from f/5.6 to f/13, depending on light, backgrounds, etc. But you want f/2.8 or f/2 or f/1.8 to bring in as much light as possible. Which makes AF easier, metering easier, the viewfinder brighter, etc. Especially if you start shooting at dusk or at night races.

Have you explored lens and body rentals? If you are not using the equipment all the time it may be an affordable way to acquire good equipment in the short term, until you can afford your own.

Good ideas.

gsgary

mercphoto wrote:

The Canon 50mm lenses (both the 1.8 and 1.4) are horrifically slow focusers that are worthless for sports. Dunno if the Nikons are the same or not. Good point about the very narrow DOF when shooting wide open, and it should be noted that one doesn't buy a lens like this for a situation like this so that you can shoot wide open. You will still be shooting from f/5.6 to f/13, depending on light, backgrounds, etc. But you want f/2.8 or f/2 or f/1.8 to bring in as much light as possible. Which makes AF easier, metering easier, the viewfinder brighter, etc. Especially if you start shooting at dusk or at night races.


Good ideas.

I wouldn't say the canon 50mm 1.8 is worthless for sport i have had some good results

10D @ ISO 1600 i took this whilst running

pat.kane

It would be nice if someone with Nikon gear would speak up. Since that isn't happening, I'll continue down the path of Canon discussion.

gsgary wrote:

I wouldn't say the canon 50mm 1.8 is worthless for sport i have had some good results

I agree. I have the Canon EF 50mm f/1.8 Mk I and a 50mm f/1.4. The newer Mk II f/1.8 can be bought for approx. $60 used. Given the budget constraint of $100, I'm not sure there is a better option.

For the type of shot shown, pre-focusing and/or shooting manual focus would be quite workable.

Yes, a Canon EF 85mm f/1.8 would be better (absolutely agree on this point!), but it runs around $300 used.

flyingpylon

Believe it or not, photographers started doing sports photography before all this fancy new gear came out. So if you're willing to perfect your technique, you shouldn't necessarily have to spend thousands and thousands of dollars you don't have to get good shots. That's not to say it will be easy or that your "hit rate" will be as high as someone with high-end equipment, but it's still possible if you really want to pursue it.

Though I'm a Nikon guy, I'm not much for technical lens specs, but wanted to mention a few things.

Pre-focusing is a very good idea, and may even be a requirement given the budgetary constraints.

You'll need to work on panning. If you get the panning right, you can use a smaller aperture (higher f-stop number) which will increase depth of field giving you a better chance of having the subject in focus while still blurring the background. Panning takes a lot of practice! Don't get discouraged too soon.

Your idea about the telephoto lens allowing you to stand farther away is somewhat correct. It will be easier to pan but your photos will lack that dramatic "in your face" feel that being closer will provide. So just be aware of that tradeoff.

Good luck, try a lot of different things, and have fun!

blob

MTN-Freerider wrote:

a. I can go to ritz and basic Nikor 28-80 AF lense for a film camera. Of course the apature won't be very big, and I'm worried the AF won't be very fast.

You are correct.

MTN-Freerider wrote:

b. I can get a used telephoto lense from ebay. It will probably be older, but my hope is that with a longer focal length I can stand back farther and the camera will have an easier time tracking the subject, does this sound right?

This was my choice. Look at http://www.kenrockwell.com for recommendations.

MTN-Freerider wrote:

c. I can get a 50mm fixed focal length AF Nikor lens. These always have a HUGE apature and I have a feeling the AF will be quick.

As others pointed out, you get a lens which can take pictures in much less light, but the autofocus isn't the selling point of these lenses. Sharpness and low-light are the advantages of this lens. The Nikor 50mm 1.8 is under $100 (don't buy a 50mm lens on eBay, just use Adorama or Amazon; you get a warranty, and many of the 50mm lenses on eBay wind up cost more after shipping.)

I've seen Nikor 70-210mm lenses pretty cheap at times. You can also consider a manual lens (no autofocus/exposure), many of which are going for next to nothing. I picked up a Nikor 200mm manual lens for $35 bucks from eBay.