Best DSLR camera for motorsports

CraigS1974

I currently have a bridge camera and was thinking of upgrading to a DSLR camera, as I go to motorsport events and would like to take action photos.

Which is the best DSLR camera to purchase at not too much a price?

Stooby2

I think your problem is going to be the lens rather than the camera - although a decent camera that has a good ISO range will help a lot

At motorsports events you're usually a fair distance from the action, so you need a zoom lens to get decent pics of what's going on. However, as you zoom in, more light is gobbled up by the lens and you start to need longer exposures, even at maximum aperture opening. And with cars / bikes travelling at high speeds it can be difficult to eliminate motion blur. On a bright sunny day you may get good results, but if the light isn't great to start with you'll struggle unless you have a very good and expensive lens - and image stabilisation is very useful.

googler

The camera body shouldn't be the focus of your attention, the lenses should. From past experience, using a 200mm at a circuit like Knockhill, where I could get reasonably close, all that yielded was a small car with a lot of circuit around it.

You're looking at a 300 or 400mm, I fear, and they don't come cheap, if you're going for the likes of Nikon or Canon.

Pinkypants

CraigS1974 wrote: »

Which is the best DSLR camera to purchase at not too much a price?

You're about to enter the world of DSLR and worried about the price?

One piece of advice, don't do it. Not unless you're prepared to spend upwards of £700+ for a decent lens.

yangptangkipperbang

googler wrote: »

You're looking at a 300 or 400mm, I fear, and they don't come cheap, if you're going for the likes of Nikon or Canon.

I've got a Nikon Camera and a Sigma 150 - 500 mm lens. A very good combination for the money - you won't get a lens from Nikon or Canon at anywhere near the price of the Sigma.

http://www.kenrockwell.com/sigma/150-500mm.htm

However - as someone has already pointed out, the lens will cost £700+ - you can get a reasonable "entry level" DSLR for about £350.
It may be worth you looking at second hand gear.

datostar

You also need something that can shoot a reasonable number of frames per second and not take too long to write to the card, otherwise you end up with many shots of just the front or back end of a car. Set the camera on rapid fire as soon as the car is about to enter the field of view and you should get some good ones. Panning isn't easy to do with a heavy rig and very fast moving cars.

WTFH

googler wrote: »

You're looking at a 300 or 400mm, I fear, and they don't come cheap, if you're going for the likes of Nikon or Canon.

Buy the best lens you can afford and with what you've got left, buy a body.

I used to have a sigma 150-500mm, but found it a bit soft at the long end. I've now got a second hand Canon 500mm f/4L IS.
It's attached to a canon 7D most of the time. The lens will get you in close, but it's not cheap. The body? I'll probably replace it with a 5D3 soon, so I'm back to having two full frames.

ukcarper

If you are just trying to get some reasonable photos for yourself I don't think it is necessary to go for the pro gear. But as been said the lens is going to be the most important thing. As there is not a big difference between the major DSLR cameras you need to get into a camera shop and try a couple of cameras out to see how they feel in your hands. I use a Nikon and use the Tamron 70-300VC for bird photography and manage to get some reasonable results but if you want pro quality results you will need to spend more on the lens.

droopsnoot

I've got a Pentax Kx, which was reasonably expensive at the time but can be sourced used for well under £200 now (sob!). As everyone else said, the main thing is the lens for ultimate quality, and it depends on what kind of motorsport events and venues you go to.

The big thing you have with the DSLR is the ability to change lenses, though, so you can start with the camera and a basic telephoto or zoom lens, then upgrade the lens later on when you get used to the camera, and really know you want to do this. For example I got a used 500mm mirror lens, not very expensive at all, and that gave me some great close-up shots. But because it was a fixed focal length, it meant having to swap the lens when I wanted to take something closer, so after a couple of years I got a better zoom (a Sigma 50-500) which is big and heavy, but pretty good. That said, I've noticed I rarely have the zoom much past 300mm.

One of the other things mentioned was speed. I found that my old compact camera had quite a lag between pressing the button and actually taking the photo, so you find yourself pressing the button a little in advance to compensate. With most dSLRs, that won't be the case as they operate much more quickly, my first few had just the front of the car as I'd over-compensated.

I also use quick-repeat shooting, but I must admit I feel a bit of a fraud, as I wouldn't have done that back in the film days and I just look on it as being easier than framing properly. Seems that it's the norm now. A monopod can be handy for panning.

InsideInsurance

Stooby2 wrote: »

At motorsports events you're usually a fair distance from the action, so you need a zoom lens to get decent pics of what's going on. However, as you zoom in, more light is gobbled up by the lens and you start to need longer exposures, even at maximum aperture opening.

Youre getting your terms mixed up, a zoom lens is simply one that changes its focal length. The Canon 8mm-15mm is a zoom lens but certainly not suitable for motor sports. If you look at the pros, most will have prime lenses and not zoom at all.

Likewise, getting less light as you zoom in is an issue with budget lenses. Again look at most the pro lenses and they have a fixed length and so receive the same light no matter what focal length they are set to. This does add significantly to the cost though.

To the OP however, I agree with everyone else in terms of having to invest in the lens is the primary concern and with reasonable care it will outlast many bodies. I'm on my 4th camera body and still use all the lenses I bought for the first.

Oblivion

I would add my endorsement to those who have said it's really about the lens ... you can never have enough reach.


I acquired a Sigma 50-500 some years ago and think it's a great compromise between price and quality. This is an example taken with the lens at Goodwood using only a 4megapixel Nikon D2H ...





Same combination at a local cricket match ...




I later bought a Nikkor 200-400 zoom, which cost an arm and a leg, for nature photography. Again this is only a 4 megapixel Nikon D2Hs body ...





... and finally, the 4 megapixel Nikon D2h and Nikkor 200-400 used for long distance candids ...