Wich lense and dlsr for 2008 ?

[RICARDO]

What kind of stuff would you buy for rc pics if you had around 1500 gbp (2000 eur) ?
Thank you for the quality of oople pics, thats so rare !

[jimmy]

hmmm, I'd get a Nikon D300 and a 70/80-200 lens of some sort - either the body-driven 80-200 AFD nikkor, or maybe the 70-200 Sigma (though I've not used that one).
I used the D200 in Japan for the Worlds and it was awesome - the D300 is loads better so has to be one of the best sports cameras around. I use the 70-200 AFS VR nikkor but that's a bit out of the price range (though mine was 2nd hand and about 700 quid)

[RICARDO]

THANK YOU for such a quick answer, I am very interested by the D300 I think it will be my next purchase. And I hope to have money enough for a lovely zoom like yours !
Do u use softwares very often and wich ones ?

The Worlds photos are really nice ... Thank you to make us dream !

[Dirt-Racer]

You really cant go wrong with either the Nikon or the Canon's, both are comparibly capable, though more of the so-called pro's who do this sort of thing for a living tend to go with Canon.

I went with the safe Canon 40D with same make lenses 18-55, 50mm, 75-300.

Im an amateur by jimmys standard and he's got one heck of kit but im sure even he'll agree that, lenses are just as or more important than the chassis itself. Dont get me wrong, you still need a good/sound chassis but lenses are what captures the images and how well its reproduced.

[craigosh]

I've been looking at the Sigma 100-300mm EX F4, gets good reviews on all the usual sites like www.photozone.de. Most people reckon its as sharp if not a bit sharper than an equivalent prime, even one from canon.

I think i can live with the f4 instead of f2.8 as most of the time i'm gonna be using it outdoors.. Was looking at the Canon 70-200mm but the SH prices are a bit steep for my liking (or currently stingy pockets )

Good bit about the sigma is that with a 1.4x tele conveter you get a 420mm f5.6 lens, so still get AF and its still pretty sharp.

I use a canon 5D but i do a lot of commercial/fashion work that suits having a full frame camera better.

[RICARDO]

Originally Posted by jimmy

hmmm, I'd get a Nikon D300 and a 70/80-200 lens of some sort - either the body-driven 80-200 AFD nikkor, or maybe the 70-200 Sigma (though I've not used that one).
I used the D200 in Japan for the Worlds and it was awesome - the D300 is loads better so has to be one of the best sports cameras around. I use the 70-200 AFS VR nikkor but that's a bit out of the price range (though mine was 2nd hand and about 700 quid)

D you think buying an used D80 with a 70-200 VR f2.8 is a better solution ? Do you focus manually ? Do you shoot once or use the 8 shots per seconds (excuse my english !)
Thanks to all.

[losichris]

i shoot alot of sports photos,football,motocross etc. im currently using a nikon d2x body.just purchased a 300mm f2.8 nikon lens and its amazing!
proberbly the quickest lens ive ever used.70-200f2.8 lens is also a great one.
jimmy didnt you use Canon equipment? what made you change to Nikon?

chris.

[jimmy]

I always used Nikon, I got canon stuff a couple of years ago (still had the Nikon) but I was using only the D200 in Japan - the Canon1Dmk2 only came out for a few photos. When the D3 came out I knew it was for me.

which 300 2.8 did you get?I borrowed one a few years ago and it was a bit much to lug about really for RC stuff

[losichris]

its the AF-s VR version. although more lighter than older models still very heavy!
definatly requires a monopod

[jimmy]

very nice

[losichris]

so have you bought a D3 ? its definatly on my list of next purchases!

[jimmy]

Yeah I got a D3 late last year.

[Spoolio]

Pardon my cluelessness, but what is the noticeable effect of not having a full-frame CCD sensor? I know enthusiast-level camera's such as the Canon Eos 450D and Nikon D300 (which I am very interested in) don't have a full-frame sensor, and so suffer from "digital crop", but have not seen an idiot's reference to what that would actually mean to me.

Basically, I want to take photo's of R/C cars in action and also dogs (beloved shows Beagles and likes to see piccies of herself) so would this full-frame thing matter?

[CAClark]

Originally Posted by craigosh

I've been looking at the Sigma 100-300mm EX F4, gets good reviews

I had that lens for my 7D a while ago, amazing piece of kit, but rather large and bulky, which isn't everyone's cup-o-tea.

Cheers!

[CAClark]

Originally Posted by Spoolio

Pardon my cluelessness, but what is the noticeable effect of not having a full-frame CCD sensor? I know enthusiast-level camera's such as the Canon Eos 450D and Nikon D300 (which I am very interested in) don't have a full-frame sensor, and so suffer from "digital crop", but have not seen an idiot's reference to what that would actually mean to me.

Basically, I want to take photo's of R/C cars in action and also dogs (beloved shows Beagles and likes to see piccies of herself) so would this full-frame thing matter?

I think in practical terms to most folks, none at all, other than you wallet will still have best part of a grand left in it which it wouldn't if you bought a full frame. The biggest difference is that it used to be harder to get true wide angle on cropped sensors, as any focal length was effectively multiplied by 1.5 or so. Of course, you benefit from the same effect by telephotos effectively being longer as well. Nowadays you can get lenses in the 10-20 zoom range and full 180 degree fisheyes for cropped sensor, so it's not really as big a deal anymore.

Cheers!

[Spoolio]

Ahh, I see. It's amazing what can happen in a week though. I've been thinking about it all a bit more. Basically I want to take nice photo's of RC cars and dogs (the missus shows them see).

Therefore I don't think I need something as extreme as a Nikon D300 but on the other hand I'd hate to get a base spec body then itch to upgrade once I'd got the hang of it and come across the limitations.

I have set my sights a bit lower to either a Nikon D60 or a Sony Alpha A350, and assume I would be better off buying a body only and a quality lens? Nikon lenses seem to get good reviews but the Sony body seems to be a better camera. Hmmm.

Also, is it OK to use a flash indoors or does it distract too much? I can't say I ever noticed if Jimmy or Mark used one at Worksop as I was too busy trying to stay on the track but the last thing I'd want to do is annoy anyone.

Any recommendations would be appreciated. I think I also need to go off and get a photography book from the library too.