Williams Grove Speedway Forums

I am thinking about getting a new camera this year. I've been using a Kodak which has been ok, but it's time to step up a level so I can catch some action shots. I've been checking out a Rebel at a price around $650, 10.1 mpx, 3fps continuous and 18-55mm lens. Can you guys tell me if this would be good choice? Or is it too much of a jump in your opinion? I'm no shooter but I want to get into it more this year and the old cam isn't going to cut it. Thanks in advance for any advice and suggestions.

I was kind of waiting for the "Big Boys" to offer you advice. Since no one weighed in,I`ll say I have an older Digital Rebel,and I like it.
I think it would be a good camera for you to get your feet wet with so to speak. I`m not the worlds best racing action photographer,but I think you can get pretty decent action shots with one. I know any still images you take with a D Rebel will be great. You may have to get a bigger lens to get close up action,though. I wish the guys out there doing this would tell you what they think.

_________________
The older I get,the faster I was.

http://www.jacksracephotos.net/


http://www.facebook.com/pages/Racing-ph ... 6874310329

Unfortunately, most of us shoot with either Nikon or those that shoot with Canon are shooting with 10D, 20D, 30D, 40D or 1DMarkIII bodies.

Barry Lenhart, Brent Smith and Len Cabasco (all members here on the board) shoot with Canon (Canonistas !) and might be able to offer some words of advice on lens choices and flash choices in the Canon world.

What are you really looking to get out of buying a new camera? How often do you plan to use it? The Rebel series is not as 'rugged' per say as the 20D/30D/40D/1D systems. The dirt and dust at the track takes a toll on everything. If you are going to shoot a lot then save your money and get something more apt for the job. You could probably find a 30D at a decent price now that the 40D is out. The Rebel is a good camera but down the road you may find it lacks the features you want/need.

The 18-55 won't help you much at the track, it's slow and the focal length is only decent for wide angle stuff. You will need something in the 70-200/300 range, which will be the right focal length 85% of the time. I'm partial to Canon lenses, as I know they will work with my body. I'm sure Sigma has some decent lenses as well, but I'd rather not take the risk. With that in mind there is a lens for all price ranges but you get what you pay for. I started with a 75-300 (~$225) and it was OK, but I quickly found it's limits. I purchased a 70-200 L (L series is Canon's high end line of lenses) over the winter for around $1650. You're probably wondering why the lens is more than a camera but trust me a high dollar camera will not make up for cheap optics. I'm sure Gregg and the other photogs can back that statement up.

If you're interested in going with Canon I'd check out the website and browse the body and lens options to see what is available. I'd also look at a place like B&H photo to get an idea of what the different lenses cost. Bottom line is a digital SLR and everything that goes with it is not cheap. Ask away, I'll gladly answer any other questions you may have.

_________________
2013 Stats:
15 Races
9 Tracks

http://www.brentsmithphotography.com

If you can't fix it with a hammer you've got an electrical problem.

Thanks for the info. and advice guys. After reading the replies I'm now wondering if I should look into the Nikon instead. I plan to use the camera almost every weekend this year so I need one that will hold up. I understand that the lens is more money, but it sounds like it's worth it. As I stated in my first post, I'm no pro...just looking to step up a little from what I've been using. I can get some action shots with the Kodak but it's so inconsistant with limited options and settings.

Since you are starting out all fresh

I would suggest Canon

Why do you ask
Canon cameras have been dropping in price at more reasonable rate when compared to nikon.
Try B& H like Brent suggested and compare

This is what you can expect to spend if you want to shoot at the grove
70-200 2.8 zoom lense 1500-1600 dollars

Buy a non brand lens you will be happy for awhile that you second guess your self and wished you bought the brand one.

Flash and power pack can cost from 300 dollars on up

Must have good flash or shoot at a higher iso ,when shooting to high of an iso you get digital noise or as some of us say grain.

camera cost any where from 1000 -2000 dollars

good short zoom lens 1200-1600 dollars for closer action or victory lane

do not buy any lens that are not a straight 2.8 f stop

you will be very unhappy

Rich
A nikon user

Apparently not a very loyal Nikonian.

It's not unheard of that most good photographer's glass is worth more than the car they get hauled to the track in.

I guess I need to buy more lenses or get a cheaper car.

_________________
2013 Stats:
15 Races
9 Tracks

http://www.brentsmithphotography.com

If you can't fix it with a hammer you've got an electrical problem.

I noticed B&H has a 30D, brand new, body only, for $799.

_________________
2013 Stats:
15 Races
9 Tracks

http://www.brentsmithphotography.com

If you can't fix it with a hammer you've got an electrical problem.

Hey.. I resemble that remark...

You may want to spend some time on a few of the larger photography forums. For Nikon, that would be nikonians.org and nikoncafe.com (my personal favorite). Both have forums dedicated to selling / buying used equipment. You'll need to "get to know people" on nikoncafe (by posting 25 times or so) before gaining access to their buy/sell forum. I have had three great experiences with buying / selling direct to someone via these forums. You're probably not going to find many people selling their high-end 70-200 glass, but you will find good deals on used camera bodies from pros that are upgrading their kits. I will always look to these forums first before making a new purchase.

One more thought... and this pertains to Nikon systems only, I know nothing about Canon. You may want to consider Sigma for a 70-200mm lens. I don't use one, but I know a few that do and they get excellent results. I have no doubts that the Nikon 70-200mm is a better lens, however, for half the price, the Sigma may be worth a shot. I'm considering a test run with the Sigma to compare it with my Nikon.

I have both the Sigma 70-200 F2.8 HSM lens and the Nikon 70-200mm AFSG-VR Lens and in terms of focusing speed there is no comparison. They are like night and day even if you don't count in the VR. But of course the Sigma is $1,000 less than the Nikon. I think the Nikon has a longer warranty though. I'd have to look it up but memory tells me the Nikon warranty was seven or eight years and the Signma was one or two years.

I used to never shoot the VR with my D70 and D70s and up until last July, hadn't used it on the D200 at all. Once I started using it on the D200, it made a dramatic difference in my sharpness. It was well worth the extra dollars. You need to work within what you feel comfortable spending though.

Thanks for the comments on the Sigma, Gregg. Maybe I'll just forget about trying one since I've already sold my soul to Nikon.