5diii for motorsport?

[GR3Z]

How would the 5d iii perform using it for Motorsport, I really like taking pictures of family and general portraiture, but I'm heavily into bikes and love shooting them too, I've currently got a 550d, and would like a body with better af system and faster fps.... I'm really swaying towards the 5diii for the full frame and shallower dof it will produce but, understand ill loose focal lentgh, suppose I could also crop in more with 5diii decisions decisions

What would you do?

 

[cuthbert]

i don't take photographs of any motorsport, but if you are getting a decent amount of hits with your 550d then the 5diii will amaze you. i came from a 500d, 5d2 and then 5d3. the af performance, lock speed and accuracy is in a different league. obviously that is dependent on your lenses, but for me, it's significantly improved.

the 5d3 is also a much, much nicer camera to use and hold than the xxxd series, imo. the buttons are placed in much nicer locations, it's so much easier to change focus point with the little stick and buttons and more customisable - things like re-assigning the dof preview button to one-shot/af-servo toggle mean you can do almost everything without even taking the camera away from your eye.

i can't comment on the crop factor as it's never mattered with what i shoot - i suppose if you've got fast f2.8 lenses you could get a 1.4 extender and pretty much be on par with that you were getting with the 550d, but i think everything else, iq, colour and ergonomics more than make up for it.

 

[Spiritflier]

I've already posted this in the 5DMKIII thread but they say a picture speaks a thousand words so this'll save me from having to type anything else except; 'yes, it's flippin' brilliant for motorsport'!

 

[GR3Z]

Thanks guys I was hoping for those kind of comments,spending 2 plus thousand on a body I'd be gutted if I wasn't blown away, I've currently only got two lenses that will fit, my nifty fifty and 70-200 2.8 mk ii. I will sell my 17-55. I'm gonna get Xmas out the way and treat myself in the new year to the mkiii ready for our newborn due April.... Exciting times

 

[bustersdelight]

I've already posted this in the 5DMKIII thread but they say a picture speaks a thousand words so this'll save me from having to type anything else except; 'yes, it's flippin' brilliant for motorsport'!

What a great shot, can you tell me what case number was you using.

Regards

Neil

 

[dalegt4]

whilst i agree in theory that a "better" camera will take better shots its just not the case in the real world, some of the best photos in the world are not taken on the worlds best gear, its like when we go racing, just because someone has the money to turn up in a Ferrari doesn't automatically mean they can drive like michael schumacher.

Just saying that basically if you are good then you are good, the equipment won't make you 400x better, what kind of images are you getting at the moment that makes you wish you need a much much much more expensive camera??

I take photos for Rising Sun Racing who race in the 750MC championships and guys what, in theory i have a worse camera than yourself, i looked into buying a 7d, then thought to myself, when i can take panning shots that people like and will spend money on why would i spend 1k of my own money when i am getting shots with this camera?

Yes i agree that buttons on the more extreme cameras are better placed for easy access etc but once you know your camera inside out that kind of flails away to me when i use full manual yet adjust my camera on the fly as i know exactly where my modes are without looking.

As you say, a picture speaks a thousand words and that truely is a great picture, but is it a £2k + more of picture?

One or two from a technically "measly" 1100d, all images are straight out of the camera, no post processing

Just food for thought there as it would be good to see your images before you jump onto a waggon of "I can't take the best pictures untill i have the best gear " kind of thing.

In no way am i trying to sound funny, just alot of money to spend if you can make more out of your current setup.

 

[digital]

...just because someone has the money to turn up in a Ferrari doesn't automatically mean they can drive like michael schumacher...

Thank goodness. Otherwise the modern day equivalents of Damon Hill, Ralf Schumacher and Jacques Villeneuve would be driven into regularly, qualifying would be stopped with a car parked on a corner and drivers like Rubens Barrichello would be squeezed against the wall at silly speeds...

 

[dalegt4]

Haha, come on don't be silly i was just using a term, if you would prefer... "just because you turn up in a mclaren SLR doesn't mean you are Jenson Button" hows that now.

Its a plain fact of all walks in life, just because the gear is better, doesn't always mean the end result is.

 

[pete.rush]

You could take decent motorsport images with the 5D MKII or MKI for that matter if you know what you are doing. The 5D MKIII has an improved autofocus system over its predecessors so in theory it should work well.

If you're a machine gun junkie and love frame per second then perhaps the 5D might not be for you, but if you compose the image and take 1-2 shots then the 5D would work. Its all to do with settings, composing the image and the lens you put on the front of the camera.

I would have to slight disagree with dalegt4 about kit as a decent lens makes a significant difference to the images, camera body not so much unless you using it at the extremes, good technique will always get your most of the way there.

 

[digital]

Haha, come on don't be silly i was just using a term, if you would prefer... "just because you turn up in a mclaren SLR doesn't mean you are Jenson Button" hows that now.

Its a plain fact of all walks in life, just because the gear is better, doesn't always mean the end result is.

Ah! JB. Now you're talking!

As for 'better gear doesn't always guarantee better results', I agree. There's always operator error and/or the trek along the learning curve.

 

[dalegt4]

yes i 100% agree with you on that front Pete, i am disagree on the body front, i too know 110% a lens goes a long way which is why i buy lens' and not bodies.

I always take all my lens to trackdays and 750days.

So i think both you and I appear to share the same thought on the matter

Lens= BIG importance
Body= not quite so much

Technique is massively important.

The body importance of people saying you "must" have a 5d or a 7d or better to take motorsport photography is just plain rubbish, a good photographer can shoot with less than one of those imo.

But lens, 110% important or the image wont be clear

 

[Mark Anthony]

While I agree up to a point, I have to say use a 5d3 before saying it won't improve your photography.
How can a body with an af system and ISO performance that's massively better than a xxxd body not out shoot it.
Better outer af points makes composition easier.
Faster af makes getting the initial focus locked on easier, and keeping it locked on.
ISO in a completely different league makes shooting in adverse light and weather an absolute breeze.
Shoot an event on a dull day on a xxxd then switch to a 5d3 and I can guarantee you you'll crave one.
While its not essential, and if your selling pics from a xxxd then great, but I'd put good money on your keeper rate going through the roof, which of course means even more selling potential with the 5d3.
While I'm not a Motorsport tog so appreciate some of you will want to jump on my back and say I don't know what I'm talking about, and I'll gladly say myself that I'm no know it all, I'm a massive f1 fan and have taken numerous bodies to races, purely for my own pleasure, but given a choice of what I own now, I'd pick up the 5d3 every single time.
And there's nothing wrong with my other bodies, i still use them for various things, but the 5d3 wipes the floor with them.

 

[dalegt4]

I do agree with you for sure, all i was saying was that you don't 'need' to have a crazy money camera to do well at photography, as the other guy said above the proof is in the pictures and i sure got good enough ones on the day.

I do agree a faster camera would improve things somewhat but to be fair, out of 1200photos in 50 minutes of racing i still have around 785 on the computer than are either good, or very good to use which again is why i havent bothered to buy a 7d.

Not because i don't want one but because ive used my 1100d in the dark ( i was used to Photograph a music festival, Sleaford Oktobefest) and when it clouded over at Mallory on Sunday and it performed admirably in all occasions so it just hit me when i was enquiring about other bodies.. ' Why am i looking at other bodies when i am making a good do out of this'

The high iso performance of a 1100d is not too bad for a lower end camera,

i know this isnt a car moving and not major high iso but at 1600 this picture at 100% has zero noise at all, at 3200iso, the noise is near non noticable, only at 6400iso does noise start to rear its head noticably.

That is only my own opinion and not one i wish others to believe but I am just a firm believer of make sure you have milked every last drop out of your current gear before thinking you need another is all.

 

[niko]

I do agree with you for sure, all i was saying was that you don't 'need' to have a crazy money camera to do well at photography, as the other guy said above the proof is in the pictures and i sure got good enough ones on the day.

I do agree a faster camera would improve things somewhat but to be fair, out of 1200photos in 50 minutes of racing i still have around 785 on the computer than are either good, or very good to use which again is why i havent bothered to buy a 7d.

Not because i don't want one but because ive used my 1100d in the dark ( i was used to Photograph a music festival, Sleaford Oktobefest) and when it clouded over at Mallory on Sunday and it performed admirably in all occasions so it just hit me when i was enquiring about other bodies.. ' Why am i looking at other bodies when i am making a good do out of this'

The high iso performance of a 1100d is not too bad for a lower end camera,

i know this isnt a car moving and not major high iso but at 1600 this picture at 100% has zero noise at all, at 3200iso, the noise is near non noticable, only at 6400iso does noise start to rear its head noticably.

That is only my own opinion and not one i wish others to believe but I am just a firm believer of make sure you have milked every last drop out of your current gear before thinking you need another is all.

thats a pic every 2.5 secounds

 

[phil-t]

When going from a APS-C to a FF, there are a couple of caveats with lenses
1. The field of view difference means you lose effective zoom length.. e.g. a 200mm lens gives the same field of view as a 300mm lens on FF.. the same effective field of view on the FF is represented by less pixels then on the APS-C, so you can't just zoom in on that part of the image without losing detail.
2. You obviously really need FF lenses, not all are, and are typically more expensive

How about a 7D? Much better AF, lots of cool AF options, and it's still APS-C..

The only downside is that FF does enjoy better low-light performance, but it's all about compromises..

 

[dalegt4]

thats a pic every 2.5 secounds

Haha, ok mr comedian it was for noise value that shot.

Here is a faster type of song for you, no light bar the stage lights and again, not bad performance, not perfect but again, no post processing on the pictures, straight out of the camera so a little bit of time spent on them and all fine and dandy.

Mid jump on the song 'Jump Around'

and god knows what song it was at this point but i was zoomed on 290mm.

So theres two faster song movements for you

Phil's got a good point on the 7d for motorsport, it was the camera i was looking at getting along with the 60d but as stated already, thought sod it.

 

[niko]

hi mate sorry i should of been clearer
it was this i was talking about (being a pic every 2.5 secs )
"out of 1200 photos in 50 minutes of racing "

 

[HoppyUK]

Motorsport panning shots are not very testing of an AF system, distance hardly changes. But switch that to a car coming straight towards you, or shooting say football with speed and direction changing all the time, that's when a good camera/lens combo will always get more keepers.

I recently shot a 5D2 and 5D3 side by side for a review in Advanced Photographer magazine. With a car heading straight towards the camera, the 5D3 scored three times as many sharp shots. It got twice as many shots in critical focus (almost 90%) and because it was also shooting 50% faster at 6fps vs 4fps, that's three times more chance of getting the right moment of action/pose/whatever.

 

[dalegt4]

hi mate sorry i should of been clearer
it was this i was talking about (being a pic every 2.5 secs )
"out of 1200 photos in 50 minutes of racing "

Haha sorry my missunderstanding!

Yeah it had some hammer for sure, it was race after race after race and when they wern't racing i was watching the motorcross which i must say i do enjoy taking photos of although slightly trickier to get with them bobbing up and down and sliding all over the place!

 

[pete.rush]

Motorsport panning shots are not very testing of an AF system, distance hardly changes. But switch that to a car coming straight towards you, or shooting say football with speed and direction changing all the time, that's when a good camera/lens combo will always get more keepers.

I recently shot a 5D2 and 5D3 side by side for a review in Advanced Photographer magazine. With a car heading straight towards the camera, the 5D3 scored three times as many sharp shots. It got twice as many shots in critical focus (almost 90%) and because it was also shooting 50% faster at 6fps vs 4fps, that's three times more chance of getting the right moment of action/pose/whatever.

I disagree on panning (most pro's don't pan because the hit rates not that good), it depends where you're panning, on a slow corner.... fine, but on a fast straight, then its very testing on the AF system, especially with a 200 mph superbike.

I accept fps are important to most pro's (sports/motorsport) as its the difference between capturing the money making shot and missing the pay day. But for someone learning the craft, technique will get you most of the way no matter what camera you're use rather than using the camera as a machine gun and the lens is more important than the camera body unless you are taking images at the extremes, indoors, poor light etc, then the lens and body combination becomes that more important.

 

[HoppyUK]

I disagree on panning (most pro's don't pan because the hit rates not that good), it depends where you're panning, on a slow corner.... fine, but on a fast straight, then its very testing on the AF system, especially with a 200 mph superbike.

<snip>

I think we're agreeing Pete.

Panning comes in various flavours but in the generally accepted sense, such as most of those shots above with a car travelling across the view at a fairly constant distance, you almost don't need AF at all. That's how we always used to do it

The things that really test an AF system are rapidly changing distance, and unpredictable movement. Sheer speed by itself isn't much of a factor. And for both those situations you also need a lens that can do what it's told fast enough. The best systems also work when the light is low, or target contrast is low, or the subject is off-centre.

Also, when it gets really dificult, the photographer has an equally significant input. As I know you know, the best cameras need careful setting up and full understanding how the numerous custom settings work in different situations. And then you've got to nail that AF point with consistent accuracy.

 

[Spiritflier]

What a great shot, can you tell me what case number was you using.

Regards

Neil

Thanks Neil.

I used the general 'case 1' setting... I tried 'case 4' briefly but didn't see any real benefit to using it on the day.

Cheers,
Si

 

[desantnik]

Can you get a shot of a fast moving subject with bottom end gear? Yes!

Can you *predictably* get a shot of a fast moving subject with bottom end gear? No!

Is there anything you can do to pretend your sigma 70-300 is a Canon/Nikon 300/400/500 lens? NO!

I've waded my way in the world of motorsport from listening to the "its the photographer... blah blah blah" to the point at which its 100% apparent that if you want the images you see in the magazines of motorsport then you need to use the same gear.

There's no easy, soft, fluffy way of expressing that.

HOWEVER what is your purpose for desiring such images? Is it because you want to go and have some fun whilst watching a race or is it because you NEED to nail the shot because that is why you are at the circuit in the first place? Decide that before spending 10k plus to get the equipment...

In answer to the original question, a crop body will give you more options than a full frame one. Focus point distribution being the main one, unless you plan on recomposing with the crop tool afterwards - which is a valid technique that I'm not knocking.

Personally, I'd choose a 7D over a MkIII for motorsport assuming you weren't in the market for a 1D MkIV.... or a Nikon!

 

[Orville]

Unless you can get a good position and/or close to the track, a 7D may be a better alternative. The 1.6 crop factor will mean less cropping, plus the higher FPS may come in very handy. The higher ISO handling of the 5DIII is of course nice to have, but most mostorsport takes place during daylight hours so it may not be a necessity. Spend the money saved by buying a 7D on a faster lens instead. A 7D + expensive fast lenses will be spuperior to a 5DIII with slower cheaper lenses for motorsport.

 

[modchild]

I started off with a 550D and have slowly (some may say quickly) worked my way up to a 5D3 by way of 60D, 7D and a 5D2 and added a 650D after for the wife. TBH I find it difficult to take a really bad photo with the 5D3, the AF speed is that good that you normally get a well focussed shot. All you have to worry about then is composure, exposure and all the many other things that go into taking a photo, but you can rely on the camera to do its bit fantastically.

You would benefit from a longer lens as well, I use a Sigma 150-500 OS mainly but I do have access to a Sigma 120-400 OS and a Canon 70-200 2.8 MkII and 2x MkIII converter and also a 7D, but TBH the 5D3 and 150-500 OS is definitely the go to kit for airshows and sports most of the time.

 

[NFI]

Yeah the 5d iii is great, I bought it to complement the 1d iii but it ended up "replacing" it...the AF is just too good

 

[dalegt4]

I started off with a 550D and have slowly (some may say quickly) worked my way up to a 5D3 by way of 60D, 7D and a 5D2 and added a 650D after for the wife. TBH I find it difficult to take a really bad photo with the 5D3, the AF speed is that good that you normally get a well focussed shot. All you have to worry about then is composure, exposure and all the many other things that go into taking a photo, but you can rely on the camera to do its bit fantastically.

You would benefit from a longer lens as well, I use a Sigma 150-500 OS mainly but I do have access to a Sigma 120-400 OS and a Canon 70-200 2.8 MkII and 2x MkIII converter and also a 7D, but TBH the 5D3 and 150-500 OS is definitely the go to kit for airshows and sports most of the time.

Indeed, i use my 150-500 sigma for everything cars or planes, produces stunning pictures when used right

 

[MattyW]

I dream of a mk3, supposedly the AF is a massive step up from its predecessors. I use a 5d classic for a lot of motorsport, and after a lot of practice initially, i can usually come home with the shots I want from each meeting. I would have thought (and do think, as I am trying to con myself into buying one) that with a mk3 life would be much much easier, and there isn't a lot that wouldn't be possible with it.
A lot depends I guess on what purpose you were ultimately wanting it for. If you are aiming for publication then a 1d(something) or 7d model may be more favourable?

 

[GR3Z]

Wow, Thanks to everyone for the great response and some very good and valid points, I appreciate its not all about the gear and its a craft the needs to be perfected, I too have had some good results with 550d and a cheap £120 tamron 70-300 lens

Like this one


IMG_9395edit by GR3Z, on Flickr

But like some of you have pointed out, the better the gear the better the keep rate, if you have got some idea of what your doing of course, when I use my 550d on servo mode using just center point af (the only cross plane sensor) it's hit rate just don't cut it for me and I've missed some cracking shots because of it, I find that I use one shot more and have better results in doing so...

Some may say its down to what lens you're using, I've not got a large prime, but I do have 70-200 f2.8 Mk ii,

Example shot


IMG_6631 by GR3Z, on Flickr

which I know is a very good lens and still have issues when using servo mode.That's why I think a better body will help my cause, my main reason for wanting the 5diii is the low light performance and i really like doing portraits of the family and friends, which I would say is probably is my main genre I also have a home studio with strobes softboxes etc.. Again the 5diii will be ideal for this too. I think the 5diii will help my overall keep rate and generally produce better IQ... I was just curious on what others thought of it as a camera that can be used for Motorsport as well, because of its advanced af system.

Once again thanks for your comments

 

[gman]

no light bar the stage lights and again, not bad performance

Mid jump on the song 'Jump Around'

Didn't you use some flash for this shot?


Perhaps photographing birds in flight, or a child on a swing would require a higher end camera but in general I do think technique and the lens are more important.

Perhaps it's fair to say that having top end gear makes it easier to get the shot?

 

[HoppyUK]

Didn't you use some flash for this shot?


Perhaps photographing birds in flight, or a child on a swing would require a higher end camera but in general I do think technique and the lens are more important.

Perhaps it's fair to say that having top end gear makes it easier to get the shot?

Can't see any evidence of flash there.

Top end gear certainly makes things easier, but the point I was trying to make above is that in some situations that really stretch AF performance in ways you simply can't work around, a top flight system will get the shot when something lower ranking just won't.

It's not just the AF system, but the lens of course and also things like longer shutter lag make it very much harder for the camera to predict where the sharp focus point is going to be. 5D3 has getting on for half the lag of 5D2.

 

[Wilko58]

I've just had this dilemma with a 5D2 and a 7D. I'm a full time photographer and initially bought two 5D2s when they were first released thinking I would mainly be doing weddings and portraits. However, this year I've been shooting a lot of kids football tournaments and kept hearing that a 7D out-performed the 5D2 in both AF and FPS so, although I got great results with the 5D2, I bought a 7D and have been disappointed so far with lots of OOF shots when shooting in HighFPS, AIServo mode so I'm thinking of going back to my two 5D2s (before one is sold to pay for the 7D!).

It's possible that the 7D needs calibrating or even just setting up correctly (I've not fully read the manual yet!) but a friend also has one and he says he also has lots of OOF shots (motorbikes) when using HighFPS so he uses the Slow multi-exposure setting but on the 7D that's actually slower than the 5D2 leaving only the AF that's better than on the 5D2. Should I keep the 7D or 5D2 (can't afford the 5D3) and by the way, all my lenses are L glass albeit all zooms - what would you do?

 

[gman]

Can't see any evidence of flash there.

Same here but noticed it in the exif, unless would a wireless trigger cause this?

 

[HoppyUK]

Same here but noticed it in the exif, unless would a wireless trigger cause this?

Good spot. Actually, looking very closely, there is maybe some evidence of very low power flash. Shadow on her arm, reflection on the fan at the bottom. It's not contributing much though.

 

[pete.rush]

I've just had this dilemma with a 5D2 and a 7D. I'm a full time photographer and initially bought two 5D2s when they were first released thinking I would mainly be doing weddings and portraits. However, this year I've been shooting a lot of kids football tournaments and kept hearing that a 7D out-performed the 5D2 in both AF and FPS so, although I got great results with the 5D2, I bought a 7D and have been disappointed so far with lots of OOF shots when shooting in HighFPS, AIServo mode so I'm thinking of going back to my two 5D2s (before one is sold to pay for the 7D!).

It's possible that the 7D needs calibrating or even just setting up correctly (I've not fully read the manual yet!) but a friend also has one and he says he also has lots of OOF shots (motorbikes) when using HighFPS so he uses the Slow multi-exposure setting but on the 7D that's actually slower than the 5D2 leaving only the AF that's better than on the 5D2. Should I keep the 7D or 5D2 (can't afford the 5D3) and by the way, all my lenses are L glass albeit all zooms - what would you do?

Check out the links on the 7D, it might help you with your setup

http://www.talkphotography.co.uk/forums/showthread.php?t=275803&highlight=setting+canon
http://www.talkphotography.co.uk/forums/showthread.php?t=168851

 

[Wilko58]

Cheers Pete, will have a look.

 

[andrewc]

I use a 7D for motorsport and I've not found the AF to be particularly lacking. It does pay to read the manual, as there are a number of options.

Out of my 50D and my 7D, the 7D is always the camera I turn to first for action shots, actually any shot.

 

[dalegt4]

Aye yes indeed thats the wrong shot, i took ones with and without flash during that song, flash power was near nothing with facing straight up due to the band requesting as little flash as possible during the performances.

bird wise i have not had much chance to take much of them due to being rather busy but do mean to get to a proper wildlife park / zoo and snap some up.

but a few i took the other day while walking the little one came out pretty good, i find the focus to be fairly effiecient even on small targets

500mm

403mm

403mm