Photogprapher access was being removed everywhere in the 90s already. I have so many shots from 95-99 that after that were not possible any longer. Fences went up, ugly concrete walls, etc - but clearly for a reason. In a way, getting great shots of cars these days is a matter of figuring out where to shoot to get something that doesn't look like concrete, sand trap or fence. Hard to do in most places. Some can be overcome with equipment (long glass, low DOF glass) or technique (blur the crap out of the background), but that doesn't work all the time.
I got bored doing this in 2001 - it was always the same fight to get access somewhere where you could get a decent shot. The people in charge never understood why one would want to shoot from locations they didn't deem a "photo hole." some tracks at least let some experienced photographer suggest where to open fences and allow us to shoot, but that wasn't always the case.
Road Atlanta is pretty open to where you can shoot from, and I like that there. When I shoot club events, the head corner worker lady knows me, and just tells me to be safe...I won't put myself in a dangerous spot, but I like looking for odd spots...the drivers used to think of it like where's Waldo!
pburke wrote:
a little classic Greg Moore action, Houston 1998, EOS 1n with the 14mm L from some very very close access point that even back then was a rare thing to find with the best credentials. Should really go back and scan all these again with modern equipment
D800 is a remarkable camera, it's AF system however is not designed for action. The mkIII AF simply blows it away, it's not even close. I can't deny the files from the D800 though, they are amazing.
Tim Adams wrote:
D800 is a remarkable camera, it's AF system however is not designed for action. The mkIII AF simply blows it away, it's not even close. I can't deny the files from the D800 though, they are amazing.
I find it amusing that people rate cameras by their AF performance. I am about to buy a 20 year old MF 600mm telephoto because I know I would turn off AF 90% of the time (when shooting cars) anyway, no matter how good the AF on the camera works. It helps to quickly re-focus, but that is about all I'd do with it.
In the above Merc shot, you really don't need AF unless you don't know that with such a focal length and aperture the DOF is going to be from 4 feet to infinity anyway.
I'm not a D800 fan myself, mostly because the camera is too slow compared to even a D600, due to having the same image processor charged with much larger files most people don't need. Crop mode is cute, but I have that in the D600 as well, and it really gets the FPS up and still produces very usable images.
I shot Canon in the 90s (above Greg Moore images are 600 f4 on EOS 1n) and only the portrait above is taken with AF. The Canon stuff was better than Nikon's AF at the time, but only because Nikon didn't have fast motors in their lenses (Canon had a patent). Meanwhile Canon's flash system sucked so bad compared to Nikon's, I had serious Nikon envy when working in pit lane.
Today it's so even, I'd go with what you have money invested in and know how to use. The rest is all fan boy talk.
When I'm at pylons in Reno and a plane is approaching at close to 500mph, mere feet from me, I'll take AF. I realize many amazing photos have been taken with manual focus, but today's AF systems are so good, to shoot motorsports in manual makes no sense.
Tim Adams wrote:
When I'm at pylons in Reno and a plane is approaching at close to 500mph, mere feet from me, I'll take AF. I realize many amazing photos have been taken with manual focus, but today's AF systems are so good, to shoot motorsports in manual makes no sense.
the thing is, people who rely on AF don't realize the full potential of their gear, because it sometimes takes stepping beyond what the fastest camera and best AF motor in lens can keep up with to get that special shot. Planes are a totally different subject in a totally different environment, so you can't compare that. You can usually track them. You can't track a car going past a fence hole at 125mph where you have only 10 feet of panning space to nail this (full frame here, handheld 600mm f4, the black on the bottom is actually the tire stack below the fence hole)
Or try shooting a car from behind, going over a crest, with an 840mm setup as it is coming into your viewfinder for maybe 1/4 second before you have to take the shot, as it is gone after that. Those shots are taken with your hearing more than with your AF, and yes, 95% are crap even with MF, but you do nail a few unlike with AF, and those are the money shots, because the competition trusts their awesome AF bodies and won't even consider such shots as a possibility.
or at Laguna Seca - fastest corner on the track going over the crest into the Corkscrew braking zone at full tilt (note car side loading - photo editors and art directors know the difference)
I would use AF whenever possible, but it isn't something I would want to rely on, as it limits your creative options.
I haven't tried manual focus... hadn't really considered it untill looking at your posts...a new standard to aim for BTW...
In tight spots with little time to get the shot, I pre-focus where I know the subject will be and what it "should" do when it gets there... AI Servo...
Coming into turn 1 at Road Atlanta from the inside near the pit exit onto the track... a good spot to shoot bikes...
So glad to find this thread. I hope it has a long life. My favorite subjects are old cars. Vintage, roadside relics and museum finds. Here are a few of my faves.
