Recommended Camera

[gungadan]

Originally Posted by gi_gav

Welcome to the forum, and those are some lovely shots - esp. the lighting on the Bugatti

Thanks.
This is a great forum, I wish I'd found it earlier!

[TerryC]

You guys menionted the expected shutter life, does the same apply to standard 35mm SLR cameras too?

[gi_gav]

absolutely, but it isn't something to worry about. Unless it's in particularly intensive use, you'll get nowhere near the expected lifespan.

[gweilo8888]

Originally Posted by gungadan

Seconded. I use exactly that combination and even with the Kenro Pro converter rather than the Canon L jobby, it gives great results. The only caution is it's still not that long a focal length for somewhere like Silverstone.

Example without converter

Example with converter

PS
My first post so fingers crossed

Thanks for the comments guys, and lovely pics! What exactly would you feel the advantages of the 70-200 and teleconverter combo to be, other than a slight price advantage? (The combo seems to be about 200 cheaper than the 70-300 DO lens alone) I presume image quality is a bit better when you're not using the teleconverter, but even with an L teleconverter is image quality going to be good enough? Not really used teleconverters much but was under the impression that they noticeably degraded image quality.

If image quality is equal, I'm tempted to pay slightly more for the DO lens, just because of the size/weight advantages - 82.4 x 99.9mm and 720g, vs. 76 x 199.2mm and 925g for the combo above. That's less than half the size, and a good 200g lighter (the size being the main advantage, should be easier to get the lens in past a security person who's been told to look out for any lenses that are big or white).

Thoughts? Anybody got / used both the combo above, and the DO lens - I'd love to hear thoughts on the quality and usefulness of both.

[gungadan]

Originally Posted by gweilo8888

Thanks for the comments guys, and lovely pics! What exactly would you feel the advantages of the 70-200 and teleconverter combo to be, other than a slight price advantage? (The combo seems to be about 200 cheaper than the 70-300 DO lens alone) I presume image quality is a bit better when you're not using the teleconverter, but even with an L teleconverter is image quality going to be good enough? Not really used teleconverters much but was under the impression that they noticeably degraded image quality

If image quality is equal, I'm tempted to pay slightly more for the DO lens, just because of the size/weight advantages - 82.4 x 99.9mm and 720g, vs. 76 x 199.2mm and 925g for the combo above. That's less than half the size, and a good 200g lighter (the size being the main advantage, should be easier to get the lens in past a security person who's been told to look out for any lenses that are big or white).

The 70-200/4 is an absolute stunner for the money. It's extremely sharp and gives great colours and saturation. I paid £310 for a brand new one from Ebay and £139 for the TC so for me that was a significant saving. I already knew I couldn't afford the DO lens so I didn't even consider it, but it depends on your circumstances. Perversely, I think if I'd had the money to buy the DO I would have bought a 70-200/2.8 plus a TC instead, but that's just me.

I was concerned about the loss of a stop when using the TC but because of the improvement in DSLR high ISO performance it hasn't been an issue and in fact I've only had to use ISO 800 once or twice since February to compensate anyway. In terms of quality, there's bound to be some reduction when using the TC, but it's still very good, and without doing tests I would say difficult to spot. The combination is noticably better than my old Tokina 400mm prime but don't know how it compares to the DO lens.

Having said all that, I think which ever way you go you'll be pretty happy and if size/weight is important, the DO lens looks like a good choice.

Go have a browse in the Canon lens forum on dpreview.com for some more views.

[Gerben24]

Originally Posted by TerryC

Really most of the modern DSLR you see are good enough except perhaps the Canon 300/50D which is rather limited in terms of functions/capabilities.

Why are these cameras not good enough? What functions/capabilities should I be looking at? I'm just another amature, who is always very dissapointed with my little sony camera. I've been looking at getting a DSLR camera and you can get the Canon EOS300D for £500, which fits just nicely in my budget. I want to be able to make clear sharp pics during races. I've been reading a lot on dpreview.com, but I still don't know what kind of minimum functions/capabilities I require from a camera for racing pics. I appreciate all comments/advice!