Really, McShame? Sour grapes. :cat:
Printable View
Really, McShame? Sour grapes. :cat:
M is next to N = likely an honest mistake.Quote:
Originally Posted by OZMDD
Then again, maybe not!!!! Very sour and immature grapes indeed; I resemble that remark! ::Bum::
McShouldbeanotherclass would have been too obvious.::StirTheP
Moar pictures!
Whole album (161 pictures) HERE:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/alstauf...7629109125317/
Some Samples:
http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7151/6...b72cd542_z.jpg
wrx8-143 by alstauffer, on Flickr
http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7016/6...60cf0325_z.jpg
graymiata5-44 by alstauffer, on Flickr
http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7006/6...643caa2b_z.jpg
evo5-18 by alstauffer, on Flickr
http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7029/6...f60b2b3e_z.jpg
jj3-96 by alstauffer, on Flickr
http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7024/6...63ec5595_z.jpg
77m4-32 by alstauffer, on Flickr
http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7144/6...f731d63c_z.jpg
mini4-123 by alstauffer, on Flickr
http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7008/6...4f8c8ed7_z.jpg
blackstang3-137 by alstauffer, on Flickr
http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7007/6...b672056f_z.jpg
30miata5-129 by alstauffer, on Flickr
http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7166/6...af20cf34_z.jpg
bluemiata4-86 by alstauffer, on Flickr
http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7166/6...60b3560a_z.jpg
mymiata11-113 by alstauffer, on Flickr
Sorry for the double post, but I reached my picture limit on the last one.
Does anyone know who's shooting with the big Canon lens in the photo below? He told me he had pictures of me driving, but my memory is terrible and I can't remember the website he told me to find them on..
http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7164/6...05cf583e_m.jpg
IMGP3611-88 by alstauffer, on Flickr
Don't recall his name, but he was in a Smurf Blue NA.
Papa Smurf?Quote:
Originally Posted by OZMDD
Some of my (slooooww) runs from the race Sunday plus a little intro I made with clips I shot experimenting with my new DSLR's video. The lens I was using is really stiff, and the video feature is manual-focus only, so it's far from smooth but I think it came out pretty cool anyway.
Comments on the video and/or the driving are welcome.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MFb4QrU6Dzs?hd=1
Cool vid.
My pics -- From groups 1 and 3 (the second run group-in the morning session)
https://picasaweb.google.com/KE5PUX/...eat=directlink
Dang Google is having storage issues. I have 76 of 250 pics uploaded. I will try to finish again later.
My intensions are to help others to become better photographers not to insult. Most of the pictures do not show any speed. When taking pictures of the profile reduce your shutter speed to about 1/20 to 1/30 and PAN with the cars. That way the background and the tires are blurred but the car will remain in focus. You want to take the pictures when the car is in a steady state of speed. It’s harder to keep the car in focus if they are braking or accelerating. However, for the head on shots you need to increase the shutter speed to prevent blur.
http://i301.photobucket.com/albums/n...0/DSC_7665.jpg
http://i301.photobucket.com/albums/n...0/DSC_8029.jpg
http://i301.photobucket.com/albums/n...0/DSC_7821.jpg
You mounted a DSLR under the front bumper of your car? You must have balls the size of basketballs.Quote:
Originally Posted by p4R4d0x
Pictures like that were my goal, things just didn't work out. I couldn't use 1/20 to 1/30, it was so bright that my aperture was 'maxed' at 1/100 :( That plus I'm shaky (I'm not that stable to begin with, but add in adrenaline from just driving, and wind, and it's not pretty..). I took a number of panned profile shots at 1/100 but all but this one were too blurry:Quote:
Originally Posted by Ataim
http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7006/6...12643caa2b.jpg
I had Shutter-Priority mode set to 1/100 (and when I saw those were too shaky/blurry, 1/160 and 1/200 later on), and Aperture-Priority set to f8.0 (which was giving 1/500-1/1500), and was switching between the two, Tv as they were driving across in front of me, and Av when they were coming towards (below) or away, so I could try to get both styles of shots, it just didn't work as well as planned Boo2
http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7166/6...a1af20cf34.jpg
Related questions - did you use a monopod for those shots? I've been considering one to help the whole shaky situation.. I was using a heavy, cheap 70-300mm lens for these, I might also try switching to my much lighter 50-200mm to make the panning more stable next time.
:shock: No way, that would be scary - I would have been even slower than usual trying to keep it on there, lol. I took the out of car footage in the intro part with my DSLR, but all of the mounted video is a GoPro.Quote:
Originally Posted by CosmosMpower
Monopods are great, a must-have IMHO. The 50-200 is probably a better choice, though I would personally use a fixed length prime lens and crop later. That only works if you can get a really close vantage point unless its a 100mm+ lens. I've shot similar stuff with a 50mm 1.8 and been really pleased, after blowing it up about 200%. As far as panning, it just takes some practice to get the camera moving at the right speed BEFORE you snap the shutter.
Why prime, just for image quality? The only autofocus prime I've got is a 50/1.7 - I think I'd have to be on course to be close enough for that. I'll have to see if my dad has a monopod he's not using he could send me.Quote:
Originally Posted by OZMDD
Primes are usually sharper, especially when used at wide open apertures (not that you could do that on a bright sunny day). A 50mm prime definitely wouldn't cut it for motorsports. I'm thinking something along the lines of a 200 F1.8 or 200 F2.8. For motorsports I'd usually shoot a mid zoom something like a 70-200 F2.8 IS
::Blink:: Just did some price checking and that focal length prime for my camera is worth almost as much as my body and all of my lenses together.. It looks like 90-105 are the longest primes I could afford. There is some redundancy in the lenses I have that I could sell off, but the ones I'd be able to part with aren't worth all that much. I like using my 70-300 just for the extra reach over the 50-200, which isn't such a huge deal at Pennington field I suppose, but technically my 50-200 is the 'better' lens; the 70-300 is just a cheap Quantaray (Tamron copy in this case).Quote:
Originally Posted by CosmosMpower
I wonder if a crop of a photo taken with a solid 200mm F2.8 to the same area covered by the 300mm lens would be noticeably better despite being 'smaller'?
Yeah the long primes are pricey and glass will always be a larger part of your investment than bodies. A 2.8 or faster 200+mm prime will cost you easily 1-2K for most brands even used. The most economical lens for motorsports is probably something like a 70-200 F4 type lens. I mostly have experience with Canon, not sure about Nikon, Sony etc.Quote:
Originally Posted by p4R4d0x
Yeah, that kind of money is getting close to what I paid for my car though, lol. Maybe someday. Next event I'll see how monopod + the 50-200 works out, and maybe keep it set to 100mm for a while to see if that focal length would be useful to me, since there are a few reasonably priced used ones near 100mm and I might be able to offload some of the zooms the body came with that I don't use. I shoot Pentax, so it's just the relatively low-end DA 50-200mm f/4-5.6 ED, but their next step up in that focal range is 6x the price!Quote:
Originally Posted by CosmosMpower
I know that with Nikon you can always buy an "old" 35mm lens and use it on your camera.( I'm not sure if Pentax can though) Before FX sensors where made you could pick them up for a song. Now with FX sensors becoming more common the prices have started going up on them. The image circle is larger so the effective focal length will be longer. Newer modern zooms are MUCH better than the older ones. Also typically a lens is sharpest about 2 stops from full open.