Reading mode: Light Dark

How much would IS help my panning shots for auto racing?

Go to last post
D

DougA

Member
Messages
15
Reaction score
0
Location
Raleigh, NC, US
I currently use a Canon 70-200 F4 non IS lens for auto racing. (sport cars on road courses) I am generally VERY happy with the lens. I would like to improve my PANNING success rate and have read that the IS version of this lens as a selection for panning mode. I don't currently use a monopod but wonder if this will help as well.

I know I have a few options here:

1) Practice more.... and my current non IS version might be just fine
2) Practice more .... and also upgrade to the IS version.... at 2x the cost..

3) Practice more..... and try a monopod instead..... might be hard for panning?

Let me know what you think. I love the effect of great panning shots but I want to increase my success rate. My "success rate" is prob. somewhere less than 5%, maybe closer to 2-3%.

BTW, I do this as a hobby and I know that I need more practice no matter which direction I go with this......

Thanks.
 
Not too auto sports friendly in this neck of the woods. High school anything sports and you'd have 50 responses already. ;^)

Practice, that's the ticket. Shoot at 1/320th until you start getting more keepers and lower the shutter speed as you improve. I'm old and 1/200th is about my bottom end.

IS may or may not help. I get more keepers with a 200 F/2.8L than I do with a 300 F/4L IS. However, the 200 F/2.8L acquires focus lock just a hair faster than the 300 F/4L IS, which is probably a large part of the success rate. I usually turn IS off on the 300 F/4L, because I don't find it that effective at the shutter speeds I pan at.

I don't think you need a monopod for a lens the weight of a 70-200 F/xxL. But everyone has opinions about pods. I can understand the guys shooting 400 F/2.8 (maybe) and 600mm lenses with a monopod, but it generally doesn't help that much panning fast moving objects with a lighter lens from my experience. Can't stand the things actually. Maybe I need more practice.
 
When shooting with my 70-300 IS, I use the IS for panning shots and it really helps me keep steady with the slower shutter speeds used for panning. I now have a 70-200 f/2.8L non-IS that I will be using. I've considered getting a monopod as it should help with the lack of steadiness, but I don't know how it would work panning such fast action.

--
Steve
 
I would try option 3 first since that is you're cheapest option
(well not really if you cont option one only)
you can pickup a good monopod for under a $100

I have also seen a very interesting idea on here awhile ago but have never tried it yet to see if it is effective or not

Basically it is a string or wire with a 1/4 inch bolt hooked to it so it can fasten to the bottom of the camera and then some kind of pad on the other end so you can step on it with your foot and then pull the camera/lens up snug and pan away

of course you would have to adjust the length of the string just right
I have yet to try it but could be something to look into
and would give more mobility than a monopod but also very easy to get tired
of pulling the camera up snug as well all the time
that would be one of the advantages of the monopod
DougA said:
I currently use a Canon 70-200 F4 non IS lens for auto racing.
(sport cars on road courses) I am generally VERY happy with the
lens. I would like to improve my PANNING success rate and have read
that the IS version of this lens as a selection for panning mode. I
don't currently use a monopod but wonder if this will help as well.

I know I have a few options here:

1) Practice more.... and my current non IS version might be just fine
2) Practice more .... and also upgrade to the IS version.... at 2x
the cost..
3) Practice more..... and try a monopod instead..... might be hard
for panning?

Let me know what you think. I love the effect of great panning shots
but I want to increase my success rate. My "success rate" is prob.
somewhere less than 5%, maybe closer to 2-3%.

BTW, I do this as a hobby and I know that I need more practice no
matter which direction I go with this......

Thanks.
Click to expand...
--
Mac OS X: Because making UNIX user friendly was easier than fixing Windows.
 
Let me quantify this by saying I put 20,000+ images through my cameras last year on motor-sports alone.
DougA said:
1) Practice more.... and my current non IS version might be just fine
Click to expand...
Might help a little ...
DougA said:
2) Practice more .... and also upgrade to the IS version.... at 2x
the cost..
Click to expand...
This is unfortunately the best option ... certainly not the cheapest though.
DougA said:
3) Practice more..... and try a monopod instead..... might be hard
for panning?
Click to expand...
For the most part I have not had much success with a monopod. Tracking is almost never on a flat plane making it hard to track.

Tracking with IS set on panning will give you the greatest results you comare to the other two options.





--
Richard Herbert, Monterey CA
Standout from conformity, 'Only a dead fish swims with the current.'
 
You don't "need" a monopod or IS. You do need to practice if you are not happy with your results. Example below at F/10, 1/320th using a Canon 200 F/2.8L II (no IS). I've got a few thousand motorsports shots myself, but forgot to mention it.

By the way, you should be able to master panning at 1/1000th and 1/500th in short order. Two trips to the track ought to cover it.

Just keep after it with what you have. When you feel good about your work, save your money and buy a 300 F/2.8. That is the best advice I have. Sort of that I would suggest the 70-200 F/2.8L (IS if you can afford it), because it allows you to shoot in lower light situations at lower ISO settings, and performs better with a TC than an F/4 (should you need a TC). One thing you can't control at the race track is the weather. It does get dark and cloudy once in a while, and a faster lens is always a plus.

 
About a year ago at the end of an auto cross event I decided to take the plunge and try my hand at panning. I dropped the speed down to 1/100th of a second for the last few cars. Although my “success rate” was similar to yours, I was stunned by the “effect” on the few good ones I got. I’ve been hooked on panning ever since. After some practice, and it probably didn’t hurt to get a better camera, my “success rate” has gotten to around 20 to 30 percent.

Although I still consider myself a beginner at panning, I will give you two more reasons not to use a monopod/tripod in addition to the one Richard gave you. Even the slight friction of a monopod/tripod will interfere with the smooth motion of the pan, and since most auto sport events are held on open tracks you won’t want to lug around even a light monopod on a hot day.

Here are a couple of galleries where I used the 70-200 f4 IS to show you how far I, a complete hobbyist, have come with some practice in less than a year:

Three hours of shooting in April of 2008:
http://BillPPW350Z.smugmug.com/gallery/4820305_PpNmW/1/287946975_da3Ep

45 minutes of shooting in December of 2007:
http://BillPPW350Z.smugmug.com/gallery/3940949_To6Nr/1/228811187_88fty

I’m still working on the “hard corner” pan, as at 1/100th of a second the tail of the car tends to blur. The one’s I took at 1/200th of a second seemed better. I am hesitant to go much faster as I don’t want to get the “parked car look.” Maybe someone with more expertise could help me with that.

Good luck with your panning!
--
Bill
 
Great feedback and great pictures as well.

I think my biggest issue might be my shutter speed. I have been working at 1/100 or slower for all of my shots. I will raise it up and see if I can do a bit better.

Also, anyone using 100-400 for sports car racing? I typically get pretty close to the track (VIR, Road Atlanta, Sebring, etc.) so I am not sure how much I would use the 400 end but who knows. Right now I use the 70-200 non IS....

Maybe I should even try the 1.4tc as well as a cheap options to try as well....

Anyway, thanks for all of the great feedback so far!
 
I always see at least 3 guys shooting on the Laguna Seca track with the 100-400 at any one time. It certainly would cover a lot of situations, and that lens is plenty sharp and fast enough for racing. It's also affordable. You'd be surprised at where the 400 end might be handy. Not so much for panning, but longer shots of cars mixing it up, going off track, and so on.

1/100th is tough, but people do it. That would be a goal worth achieving.

Sounds like you have some great venues to shoot at. Panning is addictive and burns a lot of CF storage space. Don't forget about the pits. ;-)
Good luck.

I'd like to see some shots from those tracks, so don't be shy.
DougA said:
Great feedback and great pictures as well.

I think my biggest issue might be my shutter speed. I have been
working at 1/100 or slower for all of my shots. I will raise it up
and see if I can do a bit better.

Also, anyone using 100-400 for sports car racing? I typically get
pretty close to the track (VIR, Road Atlanta, Sebring, etc.) so I am
not sure how much I would use the 400 end but who knows. Right now I
use the 70-200 non IS....

Maybe I should even try the 1.4tc as well as a cheap options to try
as well....

Anyway, thanks for all of the great feedback so far!
Click to expand...
 
I've been shooting with the 70-200/4 non-IS for years now and it is a great lens.
I nearly always use a monopod to aid in panning – I very highly recommend it.

I find the “Option 2” position shown on the following link works well for panning for me: http://www.outdooreyes.com/photo5.php3

I also have the 70-200/2.8IS but don't use it as much (I try to keep the aperture smaller than f/4 at all times so I rarely need the large aperture) and have found the monopod more helpful than the IS.

I can reliably get shutter speed down to 1/80s with the monopod (below was taken with the 400/5.6)



1/80s f/20.0 at 400.0mm

Although I normally shoot in the 1/125s to 1/160s range (taken with the 70-200/4 non-IS with a 1.4xTC)



1/125s f/16.0 at 280.0mm

Without the monopod my shutter speeds would be 1/250s or higher --- too high for many of the panning shots.

And a lot of practice….
Brit
DougA said:
I currently use a Canon 70-200 F4 non IS lens for auto racing.
(sport cars on road courses) I am generally VERY happy with the
lens. I would like to improve my PANNING success rate and have read
that the IS version of this lens as a selection for panning mode. I
don't currently use a monopod but wonder if this will help as well.

I know I have a few options here:

1) Practice more.... and my current non IS version might be just fine
2) Practice more .... and also upgrade to the IS version.... at 2x
the cost..
3) Practice more..... and try a monopod instead..... might be hard
for panning?

Let me know what you think. I love the effect of great panning shots
but I want to increase my success rate. My "success rate" is prob.
somewhere less than 5%, maybe closer to 2-3%.

BTW, I do this as a hobby and I know that I need more practice no
matter which direction I go with this......

Thanks.
Click to expand...
 
I have the digital rebel xti with the 100-400 IS lens. Everyone has been telling me for birds in flight I need 1/1000 or 1/2000 when I am panning, otherwise the pictures won't turn out. Why do I use 1/1000 for photographing a 10 mph bird, when he is being told to use 1/200 or less for cars that are going 100+ mph. I know birding and auto racing are 2 different things, but the princiiple and speed/settings should be the same. Its the inconsistencies of the advise that drive me crazy. After setting my camera to 1/1000th, "tv", and IS (2) the pictures were (a) still blurry, (b) did not look panned at all, and (c) were at least 2 stops too dark.

As an aside, numerous people told me to get close up lens instead of a dedicated macro lens. The canon 250 and 500 were both recommended, for my 100-400 and fiancees 70-300. NOBODY informed me that I had to use MANUAL focus only if I were to use these lens'. If I was good enough to use manual focus, I would not be buying a fully auto camera (my eyes play tricks on me and I have a hard time focusing if I try to use manual focus.

I guess my frustration is showing again - I would just like when someone asks a question that there not be 10 different answers, or that when important info is known (ex. that you can only use manual focus with a lens), that it be disclosed up front, and not hope that the person asking the question somehow finds out or is assumed to be predisposed to that knowledge. We wouldn't be asking the question if we had the expertise or knew the answer. In addition, its extremely frustrating having 20 people say to use 20 different camera settings and 20 different speeds, and that I can buy lens' w/o having to check 20 different places to see if something is compatible. For every person I get telling me to use a polarizer for a lens, I get 1 telliing me not to, or that it doesn't work. I could go on and on..my point is is there not some uniformity here? If you ask a question, shouldn't most of the answers be X, Y, or Z? Not 20 X, 15, Y, 30 Z, oh and and 45 W. Try going to a camera place and they will sell you anything and everything, even if it doesn't work or is what you need. I would just like to stop getting answers like..."maybe this will work and maybe it won't", before investing 100's to 1000s of dollars on a piece of equipment that is often times not returnable.

Sorry for the rant...just frustrated still. Not intended for any commentator.
 
No one solution works for everyone. 20 different things may work for those 20 different people, but you have to find what works for you. No one can give you a setting to use for a certain photo because those settings will depend on the lighting.

If photos were too dark in Tv mode, you either need a +EC to compensate for the background, or there wasn't enough light to get that shutter speed with the ISO you had selected.

Good luck figuring it all out.
Code3Collector said:
I have the digital rebel xti with the 100-400 IS lens. Everyone has
been telling me for birds in flight I need 1/1000 or 1/2000 when I am
panning, otherwise the pictures won't turn out. Why do I use 1/1000
for photographing a 10 mph bird, when he is being told to use 1/200
or less for cars that are going 100+ mph. I know birding and auto
racing are 2 different things, but the princiiple and speed/settings
should be the same. Its the inconsistencies of the advise that drive
me crazy. After setting my camera to 1/1000th, "tv", and IS (2) the
pictures were (a) still blurry, (b) did not look panned at all, and
(c) were at least 2 stops too dark.

As an aside, numerous people told me to get close up lens instead of
a dedicated macro lens. The canon 250 and 500 were both recommended,
for my 100-400 and fiancees 70-300. NOBODY informed me that I had to
use MANUAL focus only if I were to use these lens'. If I was good
enough to use manual focus, I would not be buying a fully auto camera
(my eyes play tricks on me and I have a hard time focusing if I try
to use manual focus.

I guess my frustration is showing again - I would just like when
someone asks a question that there not be 10 different answers, or
that when important info is known (ex. that you can only use manual
focus with a lens), that it be disclosed up front, and not hope that
the person asking the question somehow finds out or is assumed to be
predisposed to that knowledge. We wouldn't be asking the question if
we had the expertise or knew the answer. In addition, its extremely
frustrating having 20 people say to use 20 different camera settings
and 20 different speeds, and that I can buy lens' w/o having to check
20 different places to see if something is compatible. For every
person I get telling me to use a polarizer for a lens, I get 1
telliing me not to, or that it doesn't work. I could go on and
on..my point is is there not some uniformity here? If you ask a
question, shouldn't most of the answers be X, Y, or Z? Not 20 X, 15,
Y, 30 Z, oh and and 45 W. Try going to a camera place and they will
sell you anything and everything, even if it doesn't work or is what
you need. I would just like to stop getting answers like..."maybe
this will work and maybe it won't", before investing 100's to 1000s
of dollars on a piece of equipment that is often times not returnable.

Sorry for the rant...just frustrated still. Not intended for any
commentator.
Click to expand...
--
Steve
 
credentialed side of the fence? That's where the angles are.

Nice pics and PP by the way. Impressive. I like slightly overcast days. Sure helps with exposure and blown highlights.

I'll have to try that stopped down style and see if it works for me at slower shutter speeds. Could be the ticket. I can't use a monopod. It just feels awkward, and I'm not getting paid for my time, so I don't need to figure it out.

Thanks for the low shutter speed examples.
 
Relying on the internet for answers requires some built-in filtering as well as personal research.

If you are asking questions and looking for answers here, the first thing you should do is click on the respondent's name and see if they jump around from forum to forum spreading their wisdom. Look at a few of their posts and see if they ever post any examples of their work or have a website. If neither of those things are true, just forget about those posts altogether. If they do post examples or have a website with examples, see what they've done. It will show you if their style is something that interests you. Then try their suggestions.

There are some extremely talented people here and at other photography websites. Many of them can do things I will never be able to do. But it doesn't keep me from trying. And if I fail, it doesn't make their suggestions wrong, just too difficult for me.

There are many ways to approach a subject. Just the way it is. Get your filter on.
 
I agree with Schwany.

Before buying the 70-200 f/4 IS I used the 100-400 for auto sports, and still use it if I will be shooting longer than 200mm. I have never used my Canon 1.4 TC for auto sports.

From my experience with the Canon 100-400… It focuses fast, and has great color/contrast. Although sharp, it is not as sharp as the 70-200 F4 (IS or not), but it is sharper than the 70-200 F4/Canon 1.4 TC combination. It is definitely heavier than the 70-200 F4.

Also…Unless you have a one series camera, if you combine it with a Canon 1.4 TC you will not have auto focus. Either way, your fastest aperture will be f8. It push/pulls to change focal length. Some find this awkward and hate it. I used to be indifferent, but since using it at an air show, I’ve become a believer.

Even with all of the 100-400’s short comings, I preferred it over my 70-200 f4 (non-IS) at all focal lengths for auto sports because of the IS.

I have always been able to get close to the action since I became addicted to panning, so I have yet to pan cars with the 100-400.

I apologize if I offend anyone by posting the picture below. I know this is not technically a “panning shot,” and certainly not a sports car. I post it only to illustrate how well the 100-400 plus a Canon 1.4 TC can handle a fast moving object (at least it has motion blur)



Good luck with your lens choice.

--
Bill
 
I just like to take pictures and share them with strangers, pass on what meager knowledge I have, hopefully learn something, and most importantly have fun on these forums. And I totally agree with Schwany and Steve.

So, since this is a car related thread…Enjoy the ride!
--
Bill
 
probably won't help at all IMHO, if your success rate is so low then I suggest you increase your shutter speed. 10% is the bear minimum you should be aiming for.

I turn my IS off when shooting motorsport, only way it would help if you have a huge heavy lens
--
http://blog.quantum-capture.co.uk/

update 26.04.08 - art nude shot behind he scenes
13.05.08 - Where to buy your Fine art paper
 
Not sure why the rant...the answer is simple and logical. Don’t assume the best advice for shooting BIF is best for motorsports. This applies to a lot of other aspects of photography...that's why there are so many different types of lenses and different settings on the camera.

You can tell a bird is in flight because it is in the air. Therefore in order to get a nice sharp picture of the bird you shoot at as high a shutter speed as possible. Also with birds there are so many parts of the body that move when it is in flight that at low shutter speeds the whole bird would tend to be OOF.

For cars, if you shoot them at high shutter speeds you freeze the wheels and surroundings and it looks like the car is parked...not moving. It does not make for a very good photo at all. So you shoot the cars at a low shutter speed to capture the sense of motion that would be absolutely missing at higher shutter speeds. With cars the body is rigid so you can get a good sharp photo of the body while capturing the motion in the wheels and the scenery behind.

The same dichotomy applies for aircraft. With jets there are no parts like props that visibly move to keep the aircraft in the air – so it is OK to freeze the jet with a high shutter speed. With prop aircraft you want to shoot at a lower shutter speed to capture the sense of motion in the prop – otherwise it looks like the prop engine has stalled in midair. Again – not a very good picture.

Sure there is some bad advice given on the internet - I take everythign with a grain of salt - but there is a lot of good advice - and there are many different ways of taking a good photo of the same subject - so when given different advice, determe what is the basis behind the advice and find what works best for your style and needs. Please don't assume there is only one "right" way...

Brit
Code3Collector said:
I have the digital rebel xti with the 100-400 IS lens. Everyone has
been telling me for birds in flight I need 1/1000 or 1/2000 when I am
panning, otherwise the pictures won't turn out. Why do I use 1/1000
for photographing a 10 mph bird, when he is being told to use 1/200
or less for cars that are going 100+ mph. I know birding and auto
racing are 2 different things, but the princiiple and speed/settings
should be the same. Its the inconsistencies of the advise that drive
me crazy. After setting my camera to 1/1000th, "tv", and IS (2) the
pictures were (a) still blurry, (b) did not look panned at all, and
(c) were at least 2 stops too dark.

As an aside, numerous people told me to get close up lens instead of
a dedicated macro lens. The canon 250 and 500 were both recommended,
for my 100-400 and fiancees 70-300. NOBODY informed me that I had to
use MANUAL focus only if I were to use these lens'. If I was good
enough to use manual focus, I would not be buying a fully auto camera
(my eyes play tricks on me and I have a hard time focusing if I try
to use manual focus.

I guess my frustration is showing again - I would just like when
someone asks a question that there not be 10 different answers, or
that when important info is known (ex. that you can only use manual
focus with a lens), that it be disclosed up front, and not hope that
the person asking the question somehow finds out or is assumed to be
predisposed to that knowledge. We wouldn't be asking the question if
we had the expertise or knew the answer. In addition, its extremely
frustrating having 20 people say to use 20 different camera settings
and 20 different speeds, and that I can buy lens' w/o having to check
20 different places to see if something is compatible. For every
person I get telling me to use a polarizer for a lens, I get 1
telliing me not to, or that it doesn't work. I could go on and
on..my point is is there not some uniformity here? If you ask a
question, shouldn't most of the answers be X, Y, or Z? Not 20 X, 15,
Y, 30 Z, oh and and 45 W. Try going to a camera place and they will
sell you anything and everything, even if it doesn't work or is what
you need. I would just like to stop getting answers like..."maybe
this will work and maybe it won't", before investing 100's to 1000s
of dollars on a piece of equipment that is often times not returnable.

Sorry for the rant...just frustrated still. Not intended for any
commentator.
Click to expand...
 
I wish I was on the credentialed side...but I’m on the other side of the fence. As far a time of day – I like the lighting the first couple of hours after dawn and a couple hours before dusk. Works well for the 12-hour and 24-hour races. Lighting at midday, like a lot of photography, tends to be harsh. I try to pick the positions throughout the day that best fits the lighting circumstances at that time…

The oblique shots can be a bit trickier – you have to balance low shutter speed (to keep the sense of motion) against the speed of the on-coming car – like the photo below – where I upped the shutter speed to 1/200s and kept a small aperture for greater DOF.



1/200s f/18.0 at 400.0mm iso200

For the oblique shots I often manual focus on a pre-determined point.

You don't NEED a monopod - it just helps keep the panning on a horizontal plane.

Brit
Schwany said:
credentialed side of the fence? That's where the angles are.

Nice pics and PP by the way. Impressive. I like slightly overcast
days. Sure helps with exposure and blown highlights.

I'll have to try that stopped down style and see if it works for me
at slower shutter speeds. Could be the ticket. I can't use a monopod.
It just feels awkward, and I'm not getting paid for my time, so I
don't need to figure it out.

Thanks for the low shutter speed examples.
Click to expand...
 
That's another excellent example, and darn good angle for outside the fence. Those I shoot at higher shutter speeds. It would be pure luck if I nailed a shot like that at 1/200th using my current exposure parameter setup. I'm outside the fence as well, and too much of an antique to get inside. ;-)

Didn't mean to sound weird about the monopod. Everybody has their own style. I re-read my statement and I can see how it would sound goofy. I just can't figure monopods out. Makes things worse for me. I think I fight it too much. Anywho, that's my problem. I see guys using them, but mostly with the huge guns.

You've got talent, and should work on getting inside the fence.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Keyboard shortcuts

f
Forum
m
My threads
Mobile site
About
Editorial content
Cameras & Lenses
Community
All content, design, and layout are Copyright © 1998–2025 Digital Photography Review All Rights Reserved.
Reproduction in whole or part in any form or medium without specific written permission is prohibited.
When you use DPReview links to buy products, the site may earn a commission.
©GPS Media - Guides, Products, Services.
Back
Top