I''m no David Bailey but with motorbikes in mind I am being treated to a digital camera at the end of this month and I need some general advice in terms of camera specifications that any of you great camera folk in here would reccommend to a novice. Last year I used a "borrowed" point and shoot pocket sized digital camera which was great for paddock pictures but not good for actual race shots. Due to the speed of the bikes I have found a "delay" between taking the picture and the camera responding and the picture is missed :? . I actually ended up taking pictures of bikes before I actaully saw them appear. Not a good !!!!!! Any pictures I got the bikes appeared blurred. Not good either !!!!!. What should I be looking out for to avoid buying another camera with such a delay and what on the market that is worth considering :?: Many thanks.

Buy a digi SLR to avoid the shutter lag (delay), unfortunately you will be looking at the more expensive Pro bodies if you want to shoot bike (Nikons D200, D2x, D2h and Canons ID MK II N, and 1D MKII).

BUT and this is very important the spec of the lense is as important (if not more important) than the camera itself. Good glass has heart attack inducing prices, but the difference is immense.

And just cos a camera is auto-focus that doesnt mean you have to use it, manual focus is very useful for the bikes! Again manual focus will reduce shutter lag because the camera will already be focused

just buy what you can afford savo - a good canon eos is plenty good enough. and remember - no matter how expensive the camera, no matter how many bells and whistles it has - if you're a crap photographer in the first place, you'll stay that way [not saying you are]. panning seems to be the most difficult with digi, unless you've got a mega fast auto focus. but like cleggy says, try manual focus.
ade! [canon eos 300d]

savo.
i fully agree with v4honda. slr is the thing if you want to be able to photo bike action properly in digital format. i don't however think you'll need a full monty pro camera to take decent shots.
i got meself a nikon d50 last year and it was such a difference to my prior digital camera!!!
i'm NOT a photographer but have taken a whole gallery of decent pics over the season. some are knife sharp full fling photos even in a3 format.

i got a 55 - 200 lens for the longer distance shots, but really i'd like to get me hands on a 55 - 300 lens. costs a bit though if one wants to get one with good optics.
18 - 55 for closer shots.
compared with an old type of camera 55 - 200 in digital equals approx 80 - 300 in "old".

as you can tell i'm not very good at all at this, but i've taken several thousands of shots during the year and iäm well pleased!!!

QUOTE:

compared with an old type of camera 55 - 200 in digital equals approx 80 - 300 in "old".

Unless your camera body is a "full frame" model.

I have been using a canon EOS300D which is now 2 years old with a 75-300 lens, this gives me good results.
Here is one of John McGuinness at theSenior TT



The 300D has been replaced by the 350D and now the 400D so you should find a good secondhand one for sale if you try some good camera shops or matbe ebay if you think you can get a decent one.
The choice of lens is up to you and your budget, but the longer they get the more expensive.
I wish you every success.

May I throw a couple of suggestions your way Savo...

Depending on your budget - if you have £3,500 you can get a Canon 1d mark 2n and a Canon 100-400 IS Lens (I wouldnt consider anything under 300mm)

If you have under £600 you can get what I have - a 2nd hand Canon EOS 20D (with 18-55mmlens) and a Sigma 70-300mm

Beieve it or not there's not a whole lot in between that I would consider.

Nikons would be a fair option also but I'm a Canon Man. Sigma lenses are the cheaper alternative to Nikon and Canon and can be bought for use with both.

As Ade says, get what you can afford BUT MAKE SURE you get a Digi SLR.

Below were both taken in Manual Focus as any lens and camera that's not a Pro spec just won't be up to auto-focus.

This was with the 70-300



This one with the 18-55

Sorry to burst your bubble Keimae but the 300D just cant cut it as a sports camera, and your photos above are proof of that - one sharp shot out of three! (Cam Donald)

QUOTE:
Sorry to burst your bubble Keimae but the 300D just cant cut it as a sports camera, and your photos above are proof of that - one sharp shot out of three! (Cam Donald)

He said he was using a 20D?

QUOTE:

QUOTE:
Sorry to burst your bubble Keimae but the 300D just cant cut it as a sports camera, and your photos above are proof of that - one sharp shot out of three! (Cam Donald)

He said he was using a 20D?

Aye i realised that after i opened the pic in photoshop to see what camera was used, what shutter speed etc (Canon 20D 1/60th f16 iso400) - Keimae did you have a polarising filter on or did you adjust in Photoshop?

My argument still stands, the consumer end of the digi slr market cant cut it in motorsport photography, yes you will get decent results but not as often as with the correct equipment.