Motorsports, Sharpness and Extenders...help!

Messages
3
Name
Sarah
Edit My Images
No
Hey there. I'm new to this group but I decided that instead of just perusing the internet for answers, I'd engage in a discussion.

I started photographing roadracing last season at a few east coast racetracks. My original setup was a 5D MKiv with a 70-200 2.8 II lens, but I found I often needed quite a bit more reach, so I added a 2X extender. I've been fighting since the beginning to get images that are CRISP. My success rate is quite low for tack sharp images - shooting anywhere from 1/60th - 1/250th with panning. It was hard to distinguish if it was a matter of me being terrible at panning, the autofocus system not being dialed in well enough, or the converter killing quality. Yesterday I went over to a track to practice without the converter, and I THINK it made a difference, but then again the lighting was different too (lower in the sky towards evening as opposed to my usual high-in-the-sky which is when the races take place).

Does anyone have insight into the effects of the extender? Am I better off with a 100-400?

I also have a million questions about how to pan and motorsports photography in general, but I'll start here.

Here are some examples. The first three are with the extender during my normal shooting hours at the NHMS races, and the second two are from yesterday without the extender but with better lighting.

With extender:



Without the extender (but different lighting):


 
Last edited:
In my opinion extenders are not a substitute for a decent lens of that focal length. They are useful from time to time, but if you regularly need 400mm, its best to have a 400mm lens rather than a 70-200 plus a 2x TC. If its a just every so often, then they have their uses.

Generally you will notice a reduction in IQ and a reduction in AF accuracy and speed.

Your photos are very tightly cropped - too tight for my preference.
 
I don't know the Canon 100-400, but I'm pretty certain that you will be better off with that lens over the 70-200 +2x. Here's a comparison of the second generation Nikon 80-400 (AF-S, which is not particularly exceptional) to the Nikon 70-200 VRII +2x (which is an extremely good lens w/o the TC). I also did a comparison of my 120-300/2.8 +2x to my 60-600/5.6-6.3 with similar results.

1/60 is very slow for motor sports... keep in mind that panning only negates the motion for one vector/direction; the one that is exactly parallel to the sensor. It does nothing for the simultaneous change in speed/direction as a vehicle turns in, nor for the vertical speed/direction caused by bumps/rider/suspension.
 
I don't know the Canon 100-400, but I'm pretty certain that you will be better off with that lens over the 70-200 +2x. Here's a comparison of the second generation Nikon 80-400 (AF-S, which is not particularly exceptional) to the Nikon 70-200 VRII +2x (which is an extremely good lens w/o the TC). I also did a comparison of my 120-300/2.8 +2x to my 60-600/5.6-6.3 with similar results.

1/60 is very slow for motor sports... keep in mind that panning only negates the motion for one vector/direction; the one that is exactly parallel to the sensor. It does nothing for the simultaneous change in speed/direction as a vehicle turns in, nor for the vertical speed/direction caused by bumps/rider/suspension.


Thanks Steven. I only use 1/20th-1/60th sometimes for more creative/artsy shots, reminiscent of some of my favorite motorsports photographers. I don't expect a high success rate with most of those and I don't ever expect them to be tack sharp, but when I get one thats sharp enough, it's pretty cool.

Usually, if it's a panning shot, I'm between 1/100th-1/250th. With head-on or 3/4 shots I usually try to speed it up to usually no more than 1/640th. Does that sound about right?

Here are a couple of shots at 1/30th.... I notice that this site seems to compress and impact quality, but they're quite a bit sharper in actuality.



 
In my opinion extenders are not a substitute for a decent lens of that focal length. They are useful from time to time, but if you regularly need 400mm, its best to have a 400mm lens rather than a 70-200 plus a 2x TC. If its a just every so often, then they have their uses.

Generally you will notice a reduction in IQ and a reduction in AF accuracy and speed.

Your photos are very tightly cropped - too tight for my preference.

They're not all this tightly cropped, just happened to be the examples. I definitely include the "cover" shot of most riders, tight cropped, but I also try to include track elements like curbing and track surface just to give some context and sometimes go super wide if I'm messing with more abstract slow-shutter pans.
 
Usually, if it's a panning shot, I'm between 1/100th-1/250th. With head-on or 3/4 shots I usually try to speed it up to usually no more than 1/640th. Does that sound about right?
I would generally say 1/250-1/500 depending on how tight the shot is (the closer the subject/longer FL, the faster the relative motion). But there's certainly nothing wrong with trying for something different.
With head on shots there's nothing to blur... use as high of a SS as you can. 3/4 radius shots are somewhere in-between...
 
Last edited:
I've been fighting since the beginning to get images that are CRISP. My success rate is quite low for tack sharp images - shooting anywhere from 1/60th - 1/250th with panning. It was hard to distinguish if it was a matter of me being terrible at panning, the autofocus system not being dialed in well enough, or the converter killing quality.

Does anyone have insight into the effects of the extender? Am I better off with a 100-400?

I also have a million questions about how to pan and motorsports photography in general, but I'll start here.

I am new to this forum too and not an expert (in spite of taking motorsport photography for nearly 50 years) but am happy to offer my view.

I photograph both cars and bikes, but I find that bikes are harder to photograph as they are smaller (thus requiring longer focal length, which I find harder to track), accelerate and decelerate quicker and in my experience requires a higher shutter speed to get a sharp image. I find that the racetrack is also another factor - the nearer you can get the better - but panning a fast moving bike at 500+mm (FF equivalent) for me (at least) is quite hard to do.

I think you will need to do a bit of experimenting to narrow down the reasons for the lack of acceptable sharpness. Assuming that you are able to get sharp images with still objects then if it were me :-
  1. I would suggest trying different focal lengths, using burst mode and trying faster shutter speeds, to see if you are able to get at least one shot from the burst with the sharpness you're looking for. If you can then it's probably a shutter speed (too slow) or technique (practice panning) issue.
  2. If you can't get the sharpness then I would suggest it may be the autofocus settings you are using. You could try manual focusing on a part of the track and again take a burst and see if you can get the sharpness you're happy with. If you can then it could be your autofocus settings which you will need to adjust. I currently use m4/3 but I previously used a Canon 7d but I did get some images with the autofocus I was happy with - unfortunately can't remember what the settings were:rolleyes:
  3. If you still can't get the sharpness it could be the converter. Repeat 1 and 2 without the converter to see whether that is interfering with the autofocus. I suppose the only other thing would be to remove the filter (if you've got one fitted).
If you try all the above and still can't get the sharpness your looking for, then I don't know what to suggest apart from persevering as the gear you've got should be more than capable of giving you some great images.

Don't know whether any of the above helps. If not, then just ignore!
 
Last edited:
If possible, try a good 1.4x telecon and crop into the image to see if that improves things a bit. I used to use a 2x behind a 100-400 Fuji lens to get the extra reach and found that I was getting better results from the 1.4x and a bit of extra cropping.

I've found that unless I'm shooting at a very slow corner, 1/60th is plenty slow enough to get a decent amount of background blur in panning shots. Modern AF systems are more than capable of keeping the subject in focus IME.
 
Panning is a skill which requires practise. Like a golf swing it also requires a good technique - legs planted firmly, camera held steadily and a smooth twist of the body matching the cars speed as it passes during which you fire off one or two shots and then following through. The shorter the focal length the easier it is, the more keepers you get and you can get to a lower shutter speed more easily.

Bikes can't corner particularly quickly but once on the straights they can accelerate very fast indeed.

Keep practising...
 
I have the 70-200 (nikon version) and use tele's a fair amount and think you are flogging a dead horse.. I don't use the x2 on this lens as its just not as good - a 1.4 tele works really well however.
 
my 80-400 is just as 'bad' at 400mm too lol... but the Canon 100-400 (new version) is a better lens & is supposed to be excellent all over.
 
99.9% of the time I shoot with the 70-200 2.8 mkII with the Canon mkIII 1.4 extender, have ventured into 300 2.8 / 200-400 / 500 range a few times but always come back to 'old faithful'

DAVID.
 
I am too learning the art of motorsport photography and for the past year I have been using the 100-400 MKII on my 7D MKII with mixed results. That said there is no blame of the kit its all down to the user. Panning is a skill which requires a lot of work and I still have a long way to go. In good light at 1/250 my success rate is good and have been down to the 1\60 territory where the rate goes right down to the point of that I am over the moon if I get a useable shot. As soon as the light goes or it is a bit of a grey and damp day everything goes out the window and I am not able to capture anything I am really happy with, so on these days I have learnt to just do the best I can and actually enjoy watching the racing.

Nest season I will be trying to shot with the 1.4 mkIII extender at certain times when I found the 400mm was just a bit too short, mostly on bikes and to get through the fences. Again i have read mixed reviews on peoples successes with converters but as i wont be relying on it for 90% of my photography I think it a risk worth taking.
 
I don't do a lot of motor sport stuff probably one F1 a year. That said, with all the safety precautions around now you should start looking at a lens 300mm or above. Your 70-200 is a very good lens but it cannot get you close enough. A 100-400 would be a lot better. The down side is the lens is heavier and the the longer the length the heavier it gets and the price goes up to. I must also say I am not a fan of extenders as the results I have had with them are not consistent
 
Hi, ObsidianPhoto, I admire your dedication to perfect your panning technique. I tried this some time ago, and was not very happy with my "keeper" rate.

Maybe, I was too greedy ... ---

To practice panning, you could start by taking pics of cars (or bikes) on normal roads, proceeding from this to vintage car (and bike) events,
where speeds are lower and where you can get closer to the action.

Why don't you follow your own advice? you may ask. Well, when I take pics of vintage vehicle events, I give my pics to the organizers of the event.

Taking pics of (almost) all participants, makes more people happy ... ---
 
Back
Top