Site Supporter
- Followers
- 21
- Following
- 1
- Joined
- Oct 22, 2021
- Posts
- 4,944
- Likes Received
- 3,824
- Name
- Tim
- Country
- United States
- City/State
- SE Michigan
I came to realize last season that I was under-equipped for late night shooting at the track. 2.8 is fine when there's no movement, but freezing action at night results in crazy hi ISOs. There's more than one way to skin a cat, as they say, so I set about doing some testing. At the very end of the season I took a 35/1.4 and 50/1.7 out. It was a day shoot, so this was just to check composition and framing.
In this particular situation I am standing next to a safety wall about 10-12 feet from the cars. Moving away from the wall with a longer FL results in the lower part of the car being obscured. I can move up or down the wall along its length, and I can move away from the wall a little bit when standing down-track to change the angle with a narrow lens, so the wall isn't in the frame. Cropping has limited success in removing the wall due to angles.
Both the 35 and the 50 did ok. With the 35 I couldn't get close enough to keep the wall out and still get the entire car in the frame, or move away too far, so it was limited to one spot along the wall slightly in front of the cars. The 50 was about the same, but it could fill the frame pretty well on a car in the far lane. Neither one was perfect, one of the reasons hate primes for shooting in these situations.
I seriously considered one of the 35-150/2-2.8's. But it really only gets me a stop at the wide end, the rest of the range puts me right back in 2.5-2.8 territory. With no other fast zooms to look at, primes are the only choice. That in mind I picked up an 85/1.4 over winter.
This past Friday night was a late event. I purposely left my 2.8 zoom lenses at home and took the 35 and 85. I wanted to confirm what I found with the 35 last season as well as try it at night, plus determine if the 85 would be as usable as expected.
The 35 results were consistent. Same limited range to shoot, not really close, not down track. Meh. The 85 is a whole different story. It's long enough to let me move around a bit, but not so long that I can't get closer and keep the wall out. It's a really fun lens to shoot with and will become a go to for those circumstances. As much fun (and as useful) as it is, I am thinking about a 135. I'm going to take my Minolta 28-135 out and test it as a prime during the day to see how well the FL works out before biting on a prime.
During the day I tested some different FLs with the 24-105. I had been looking at 24 and 28 primes as a fast/close solution. I almost bought a 28, thinking that was what I needed, but decided to wait. Good thing I did, it's too narrow to get the length of a car in at that distance. I decided on a 24, which will be delivered today.
Now to the unpleasant fact. In this setting, the A7RIII is a liability. That sucks because I really love the camera, but no amount of love can overcome the issues. I originally bought the RIII as a backup camera, but ended up using it as a second camera, if that makes sense. As a backup it would get me through in a pinch, but as a second it falls short. I realized this the first time I took it out there and have used it primarily in the pits where the shots are more static, or with a shorter lens standing right next to the cars. That works better than down track since they aren't moving as quickly and the camera has more time. Still, the camera can't keep up. It will get the first shot or two, then hesitate while it tries to focus, then hunt, etc. etc. Sometimes it rips off a burst flawlessly, but those instances are far fewer than required. Typically there will be a shot completely missing while the camera thought about it, or two shots OOF, or something else.
The problems are primarily due to the slow write speed, several generations old AF, and the older processor. Even with the slow-ish write speed of the A7 IV I can shoot a 6-7 frame burst and end up with as many usable shots from which to choose.
I've been talking about the A9III for some time, hoping Sony will update it extensively, including a higher resolution sensor. I've come to the conclusion that something in the 40MP range is perfect for this. Now Nikon has released the Z8, with 45MP and a very fast burst rate. At $3900 I have my doubts as to whether Sony will have a reasonable response.
I'll live with the A7RIII for now and keep an eye on Sony's next move. If it turns out to be another $5000 24MP camera, I'll pass. I'd be just as far ahead with another A7 IV at that point.
In this particular situation I am standing next to a safety wall about 10-12 feet from the cars. Moving away from the wall with a longer FL results in the lower part of the car being obscured. I can move up or down the wall along its length, and I can move away from the wall a little bit when standing down-track to change the angle with a narrow lens, so the wall isn't in the frame. Cropping has limited success in removing the wall due to angles.
Both the 35 and the 50 did ok. With the 35 I couldn't get close enough to keep the wall out and still get the entire car in the frame, or move away too far, so it was limited to one spot along the wall slightly in front of the cars. The 50 was about the same, but it could fill the frame pretty well on a car in the far lane. Neither one was perfect, one of the reasons hate primes for shooting in these situations.
I seriously considered one of the 35-150/2-2.8's. But it really only gets me a stop at the wide end, the rest of the range puts me right back in 2.5-2.8 territory. With no other fast zooms to look at, primes are the only choice. That in mind I picked up an 85/1.4 over winter.
This past Friday night was a late event. I purposely left my 2.8 zoom lenses at home and took the 35 and 85. I wanted to confirm what I found with the 35 last season as well as try it at night, plus determine if the 85 would be as usable as expected.
The 35 results were consistent. Same limited range to shoot, not really close, not down track. Meh. The 85 is a whole different story. It's long enough to let me move around a bit, but not so long that I can't get closer and keep the wall out. It's a really fun lens to shoot with and will become a go to for those circumstances. As much fun (and as useful) as it is, I am thinking about a 135. I'm going to take my Minolta 28-135 out and test it as a prime during the day to see how well the FL works out before biting on a prime.
During the day I tested some different FLs with the 24-105. I had been looking at 24 and 28 primes as a fast/close solution. I almost bought a 28, thinking that was what I needed, but decided to wait. Good thing I did, it's too narrow to get the length of a car in at that distance. I decided on a 24, which will be delivered today.
Now to the unpleasant fact. In this setting, the A7RIII is a liability. That sucks because I really love the camera, but no amount of love can overcome the issues. I originally bought the RIII as a backup camera, but ended up using it as a second camera, if that makes sense. As a backup it would get me through in a pinch, but as a second it falls short. I realized this the first time I took it out there and have used it primarily in the pits where the shots are more static, or with a shorter lens standing right next to the cars. That works better than down track since they aren't moving as quickly and the camera has more time. Still, the camera can't keep up. It will get the first shot or two, then hesitate while it tries to focus, then hunt, etc. etc. Sometimes it rips off a burst flawlessly, but those instances are far fewer than required. Typically there will be a shot completely missing while the camera thought about it, or two shots OOF, or something else.
The problems are primarily due to the slow write speed, several generations old AF, and the older processor. Even with the slow-ish write speed of the A7 IV I can shoot a 6-7 frame burst and end up with as many usable shots from which to choose.
I've been talking about the A9III for some time, hoping Sony will update it extensively, including a higher resolution sensor. I've come to the conclusion that something in the 40MP range is perfect for this. Now Nikon has released the Z8, with 45MP and a very fast burst rate. At $3900 I have my doubts as to whether Sony will have a reasonable response.
I'll live with the A7RIII for now and keep an eye on Sony's next move. If it turns out to be another $5000 24MP camera, I'll pass. I'd be just as far ahead with another A7 IV at that point.
Last edited: