Camera Help Please???

[Horse]

Aha. Now I see it. I was confusing MM and metres.

So I'd need at least 200 to get a decent piccy on track

At the bare minimum, probably. As said, it will depend on:
- how close Penny can get
- how bike you want to be in the frame

There isn't 'an answer'

[Slenver]

So basically a waste of time ?

Well, bit harsh! The most popular and useful size lens in photography!

But for taking photos of motorbikes from the side of a track... Yes.

[Slenver]

Aha. Now I see it. I was confusing MM and metres.

So I'd need at least 200 to get a decent piccy on track

At the bare minimum, probably. As said, it will depend on:
- how close Penny can get
- how bike you want to be in the frame

There isn't 'an answer'

And remember, you can always crop. You never want to fill the frame, you'll end up chopping bits off.

[Yorick]

@Slenver

You recommend the 50mm Canon lens. Do any cameras come with it or is it a special?

If it's that good, I'll try to find one and then a 200mm for track use

[Yorick]

So basically a waste of time ?

Well, bit harsh! The most popular and useful size lens in photography!

But for taking photos of motorbikes from the side of a track... Yes.

So add the 50mm and a 200mm for everything ?

[Mr. Dazzle]

The other problem with Motorsport, and Spain could well be different I dunno, is that 'they' are super hot on getting too close to the track IME. Silverstone in particular won't even let you get up against the chain link fence, there's a crowd barrier before that. Bastards want to keep you safe

What that means though, is that you can't poke your camera through the fence! So inevitably have to get further away to see over the fence. Or be inside it The only place that ain't true is the pit straight, which makes for boring pics.

[Slenver]

a multi function scroll wheel where you'd imagine the zoom buttons are, it adjusts various things (shutter speed, aperture etc. Well I say "etc" Slenver's right in that there are generally only 2 adjustments )

To clarify this:
1. How big the hole is that lets light in
2. How long it's open for

e.g. Low ambient light is likely to mean, compared the same image taken in higher light, that you need either a bigger hole (aperture), longer time open (exposure), or both.

Implications are:
Bigger aperture = narrower (distance from the camera) depth of field i.e. in focus
Longer exposure = potential for blur if either/both camera or subject move

A simple guide is that bigger (diameter) lenses let in more light. Typically the glass will have coatings to reduce reflections, getting more light in.

Going back to the two examples I used [much] earlier.

'Pin sharp, spokes 'frozen' = very high shutter speed (low exposure time). This requires good ambient light.

Bike in focus, blurred background, 'dynamic'. Requires longer exposure, with the camera 'panning' to follow exactly the bike's movement.

But let's add a third. You want the bike 'frozen' and both background and foreground blurred. Here, with good ambient light, you can use a wider aperture and shorter exposure to limit the depth of field.

@Slenver & Co. I'm dredging this from my dim and distant, so please correct if wrong.

Someone else can do ISO and implications of 'Raw'

All good but I'd add/clarify maybe that the usual way of getting blurred foreground/background of a sharp moving object is more about panning. Tracking the bike accurately with a medium shutterspeed to keep bike sharp but get movement blur on everything else.

Using a very wide aperture will get you defocused back/foreground but not an impression of movement and speed. Plus you'll end up with a very short shutterspeed and so a boringly static bike. Plus it'll probably be out of focus!

[Yorick]

The other problem with Motorsport, and Spain could well be different I dunno, is that 'they' are super hot on getting too close to the track IME. Silverstone in particular won't even let you get up against the chain link fence, there's a crowd barrier before that. Bastards want to keep you safe

What that means though, is that you can't poke your camera through the fence! So inevitably have to get further away to see over the fence. Or be inside it The only place that ain't true is the pit straight, which makes for boring pics.

Not in Spain

[Slenver]

@Slenver

You recommend the 50mm Canon lens. Do any cameras come with it or is it a special?

If it's that good, I'll try to find one and then a 200mm for track use

Not as far as I know. They always seem to come with a cheapish zoom lens. More appealing to more people but not as good to those that know!

The 50 makes a splendid all-round daily lens and great to learn with as you don't have to bother with all that zooming nonsense - you zoom with your feet as the expression goes.

Paired with a longer lens like a 200 or something similar would be a perfect starter kit.

Just do be aware that, as mentioned above, the bodies we're talking about will effectively multiply those lens lengths by 1.6. So in 'real' terms you'd have an 80 and 320mm.

There's no avoiding maths in photography I'm afraid

[Mr. Dazzle]

All good but I'd add/clarify maybe that the usual way of getting blurred foreground/background of a sharp moving object is more about panning. Tracking the bike accurately with a medium shutterspeed to keep bike sharp but get movement blur on everything else.

Yeah and this is way easier with a longer (bigger!) lens from further away. Helps prevent whiplash too

[Yorick]

Wow, I've learned a lot. Getting there.

So what's more important? Body or lens ?

Will a £1000 Canon with XXX lens be twice as good as £500 Canon with XXX lens ?

I know what lenses I now need. Just not sure how much to spend on the body

[Slenver]

Wow, I've learned a lot. Getting there.

So what's more important? Body or lens ?

Will a £1000 Canon with XXX lens be twice as good as £500 Canon with XXX lens ?

I know what lenses I now need. Just not sure how much to spend on the body

Lenses are more important, no doubt.

But obviously this is within reason as they're both important. But any SLR body made in the last 10 years is capable of decent photos. Put a shit lens on a £10k body and you'll have a very large, shit photo with lots of megapixels of shit.

[Mussels]

Talking of megapixels I've seen complaints that phone manufacturers make up pixels with software so they can claim it's better than it is, so they would take two pixels next to each other and use software to insert another between them and claim the camera has three pixels.
Do all camera manufacturers do this and is there a way to cut through the crap?

[Mr. Dazzle]

Megapixels is largely unimportant when you're starting out anyway.

8mp might seem out of date, but that is still 4 HD tellies next to each other. If you're not blowing them up and printing big stuff I really wouldn't worry about it now.

[Yorick]

Last question, honestly

Do the DLSR cameras have a digital zoom ?

Maybe so you can see what the pic will be like when cropped ? Or any other use?

[Slenver]

Talking of megapixels I've seen complaints that phone manufacturers make up pixels with software so they can claim it's better than it is, so they would take two pixels next to each other and use software to insert another between them and claim the camera has three pixels.
Do all camera manufacturers do this and is there a way to cut through the crap?

I think it's more complex than that. There are all kinds of methods for using partial pixels (ie. not the full red/green/blue sub-pixels in each pixel) and various interpolation methods and shit. Projectors are the main product that I know of where, for eg. 'fake' 4k is common while true 4k is still so expensive.

Not really heard of it being a thing in phones but I'm sure it is. Ultimately it doesn't matter much. Phone screens are past the point of it being relevant in most cases.

In cameras it's relevant in terms of professional printing, and very useful in terms of heavily cropping images. But as Dazzle says above, for most people it's marketing speak to ignore. Fewer, larger pixels are far better at capturing light anyway.

[Mr. Dazzle]

They generally let you zoom in on the back yes after the fact, but the way they work means you can't digitally zoom until after you've taken the pic.

The defining feature of an SLR is that looking through the viewfinder looks straight down the lens, it doesn't involve the electronics at that point. S'all just mirrors, lenses and prisms.

[Slenver]

Last question, honestly

Do the DLSR cameras have a digital zoom ?

Maybe so you can see what the pic will be like when cropped ? Or any other use?

On the screen after they've been taken, yes. In the same way that you'd zoom in on a computer monitor. Which is the same thing anyway.

Edit: too slow

[Taipan]

You need to consider how you're going to process your digital images too.

[Mr. Dazzle]

Last question, honestly

Do the DLSR cameras have a digital zoom ?

Maybe so you can see what the pic will be like when cropped ? Or any other use?

On the screen after they've been taken, yes. In the same way that you'd zoom in on a computer monitor. Which is the same thing anyway.

Edit: too slow

It's one of the great things about the fancy mirrorless ones of course, you CAN see what the pic will come out like before you take it.