EOS300D or 10D for motorsport shots ?

[55jnj]

I was toying between either a Canon EOS 300 or a Nikon D70. Had sort of decided on the Canon as I have Canon lenses already. Then when I told the dealer that most of my photography is motorsport orientated, he said that the 10D wuld be by far the better option because of write speeds. I'm aware of the cost differential & the possibility that he was trying t get the bigger sale but he seemed to put forward a valid technical reason (shame I didn't really understand it !!). Anyone any views on this ??

[vwpilot]

Forget about the 300D for sports of any kind. I know people are using them ok, but here is why I say stay away.

First off the D70 and the 10D both have faster write speeds and more importantly larger buffers. The D70 Actually has the largest buffer of the three allowing for many more consecutive shots before the camera has to "catch up." 4 for 300d, 9 for 10D and probably 40+ at highest resolution for D70 (its a different kind of buffer so there really is no solid number).

But more important is the focus on the cameras. The 300d keeps you from using the servo focus, or the focus system that can track moving objects (cars), unless you are using the programmed sports mode. This allows you absolutely NO control over your exposures, you cant control shutter speeds or apertures to get the pans and look you want, and you cant control any over or under compensation to deal with harsh or low light.

Both the D70 and the 10D allow you to select any focus mode while still selecting any exposure mode. This is very important if you are going to be trying to get good photos and want to learn to actually use your gear instead of letting the camera brain tell you whats best.

If you have larger dollar amounts worth of Canon lenses, stay with the Canon, either the 10D which you can probably get at a good price now, or the new 20D. If all you have are cheap consumer lenses anyway that you will likely replace after not too long, then you might want to consider the Nikon. It has a better flash system than the Canons, has a larger buffer and is less money.

[rdjones]

I have been in the same boat for the last few months. I had a look at a 300D and it felt cheap, then the D70 came along and its a fine camara and I very very nearly bought one.

Then the 20D came along and I was all for getting one of those and just happen to see 10D and the shop offered me a deal which was too good to refuse, so I snapped it up. So far I have not been disapointed.

[55jnj]

Cheers guys, both v helpful responses & much appreciated. VWpilot - what are "consumer lenses" ? - mine are Canon but I only have 3, so not exactly a massive investment & D70 is about £400 less which would pay for a useful Nikon lens or 2. I have to say though I am drawn to the 10D over the D70 (perhaps because of existing lenses) - didn't know about the 20D until tonight - how much ? - 10D seems to be about £1,000 - presumably 20D will be higher ? - don't feel I need too many features - people I know with digitals say they don't use all the features they have anyway - typical of much technology I suppose. However I do want some control over motorsport type shots so I guess that at least rules out the 300D ? I also like the look of a Canon zoom with Image Stabiliser - about £1,100. Is the 20D a "consumer" camera or semi pro ?

[vwpilot]

The 20D is the replacement for the 10D. I dont know about pricing over on your side of the pond, but here in the US the 10D ran for $1400 new. The 20D is now running $1499 new, so it came out at the same price the 10D was. The 10D has now dropped $3-500 depending on where you find the leftovers.

When I say consumer lenses, I am talking about lenses that are generally the lowest price stuff. Like the 28-90 lens that runs around $100 and comes with the kits in most film cameras. The basic 70-300 lens which is around $200 also falls into this category. If those are the lenses you have, they do not cost much to replace and when moving into a nice camera like this, you may want to upgrade them anyway.

However, if you have 4 or 5 hundred bucks worth of lenses, you are just as well off spending that $500 it would cost you to replace the lenses with Nikons and put it toward the 10D ro 20D. If you are going to replace the lenses with nicer ones anyway, then it doesnt matter which one you go with.

From what it sounds like, I would look around for a good deal on a 10D or go for the 20D. It will probably cost you the same as if you replaced your current lenses with Nikon equals and bought a D70.

[gi_gav]

I'd completely agree with vwpilot on this one, as i have before.

Stefan, on this forum, has the 300d and produces quite brilliant shots, but overall the 10d or 20d would be more rewarding in the long run.

[Aysedasi]

The 10D is also going quite cheaply at the moment. I paid ober £1100 for mine but you can pick one one (body-only) for about £800 right now. Some shops are selling the 300D for that.......

[vwpilot]

EDIT: My last post should have read that the 10D was 1499 new, not 1400.

[KennyG]

The 20D has the new Digic-II chip which makes the AF much faster (including AI Servo) and therefore more suitable for motorsport photography. Nothing wrong with the 10D though, especially at current prices, and I ran two of them for over a year (still have one). I have had a lot of pictures published that were taken with my 10D's.

I would suggest you keep your lenses and simply buy either a 10D, or 20D if you can push the plastic that far. You can PM me if you want to take the discussion further.

[55jnj]

Seems like 20D is the sensible option for me then for motorsport photography. Available now ? Where ? How much should I pay ?

[Picturesports]

If write speed is the problem I suggest you look at the CF card you are using. The Sports 200 were laping the Indy circut in under a minute I could blaze away on motor drive at Druids and have everything written away by the time they next made it around.

One of the autions (which which I have no association) on ebay has a long description of the card. Search for "compact ultra II". The difference is amazing.

As for the 300D I find it okay. An L series lens would make a big difference.

[Peter Mallett]

Out of interest I've been given some photos taken by my friend's late father. He was at Spa with us this year using a D10. I've put up two pages of his pictures and have to say that the definition he achieved was amazing. The first page is the original photo's reduced to 600 pixels wide, the second page is cut-outs from the larger pictures then rendered in 600 pixels wide.

You can view them at www.mallettracing.co.uk/pab.htm

[Hugewally]

CF Card data is at,

http://www.robgalbraith.com/bins/con...id=7-6460-7319

Martin

[Espen]

Well, I guess I'll be alone in the D70s corner

I have a d70 and have yet to really lean on it in car photography - but I have used it a fair bit and compared it to friends 300d and 10d. Basically, I'd say compared to a prosumer camera, you cant go wrong with any of these. (I've had a Minolta Dimage 7 and a Dimage 7HI, followed by a Fuji S7000. The S7000 is an amazing camera, and produces film you can actually use - but the D70 just totally crushes it in every way. Or... actually I miss the S7000's LCD on the back for low down and overhead shots.)

Since I started from scratch (first ever SLR and had no lenses) and liked the D70 best, I went with Nikon. Just felt better to me than the 10d. Compared to what I was used to, the D70 has a lightening fast focus and will nail those shots where I'd usually would'nt bother nearly every time. Compared with the Canons, it feels like it'll never run out of buffer space. With my Lexar 70x card, I've done series so long I got bored before the buffer ran out.

Of course, since Canon are more common, theres a better supply of used lenses. I've only been able to afford the (surprisingly good) kit lens and a Sigma 70-200 f 2.8 HSM so far, but I love both and just passed 4000 shots this weekend with not a single hickup.

Personally, I like the D70 best. But I think you'd be just as happy with a 20d. To me, the D70 felt way better than the 10D.

[Snapperjack]

Cant get through to that site Peter. Problems?

[Gabrio]

I have a 300d and have used Nikon D70. Both excellent. D70 slightly better in buffer memory. However none of these would be my choice for motorsport pictures. I have had a chance to try the new 20D from Canon and it was mesmerizing in terms of auto-focus speed, buffer memory and outright speed reactions. You might be able to get it at a decent price now.

[55jnj]

Thanks Gabrio

That's exactly the route I went in the end.

[JamesC]

I'd back that up - initially looked at 300D - decided that the 20D would last much longer - and it would be the camera that I really wanted - no niggling feelings that I could have got better... went for the 20D - and I am SO happy!

[pplater]

Originally Posted by Espen

Well, I guess I'll be alone in the D70s corner

I have a d70 and have yet to really lean on it in car photography - but I have used it a fair bit and compared it to friends 300d and 10d. Basically, I'd say compared to a prosumer camera, you cant go wrong with any of these. (I've had a Minolta Dimage 7 and a Dimage 7HI, followed by a Fuji S7000. The S7000 is an amazing camera, and produces film you can actually use - but the D70 just totally crushes it in every way. Or... actually I miss the S7000's LCD on the back for low down and overhead shots.)

I own an S7000, but I've used the 300D, 10D, 1DS II and D70. I don't like the 300D. It's too light for an SLR. It's motor drive sucks. The lenses that come with it aren't very useful, it has limited firmware...

The 10D is great, as is the D70.

I'm no pro photographer, hardly even an enthusiast, but I'd steer clear of the 300D when the D70/20D are close in price yet so much better.

P.S.

The S7000 rocks.

[JamesC]

The lenses that comes with an SLR (if bought in kit form) are highly irrelevant.

For the price and features, especially now its come down in price, the 300D is excellent - and any budding motorsport photographers should consider the 300D if it's in their budget, over _any_ prosumer P&S camera. In fact they should just save up until they can afford the 300D... it's not that much more for what you are getting over the P&S ones.

Here in the UK you can get a 300D for £500 - still half the price of a 20D. You're better off spending the £500 on a 300D and getting some good glass, than buying a 20D and being broke. For instance you could buy a 300D and a 70-200 f4L - which would be a killer combo!

[Claus Hansen]

Go for the 20D, if you can afford it - I'm replacing my 300D very soon. Good cam, but the 20D is much better, and the most important, way faster when taking multipli shots.

Check www.dpreview.com for reviews of the cameras, and compare for your self.

[JamesC]

The 20D is very very quick... you can't miss a shot...

See attached for an example from a shoot last weekend... and I still had capacity to shoot more... in fact you can keep on shooting until you fill up the memory card even on full JPEG setting...

[Claus Hansen]

series of shots James. I'm now convinced I just have to get my 300D replaced.

[JamesC]

Let me show you more then...

http://www.mintylamb.co.uk/temp/images/dawscollage.jpg

Really just a bit of fun...!

Most of the shots are in focus too - incredible really... 70-200 2.8L lens if you must know...

[Claus Hansen]

I have this lense also, with IS.