Digital SLR for Cycling Photography

[Lanternrouge]

Since I am trying to thin out my bike collection and am trying to find other hobbies beyond bikes, I have decided to get a digital SLR. One of the many things I would like to use it for is to take pictures at races (and hand it to people I know to take pictures of me of course). At this point, the models I'm considering are the Nikon D40X and Canon Rebel XTI. I am wondering if anyone has used these for cycling photography (and of course what their experiences have been) or whether there's anything else in the ballpark price range that I should consider.

I am not looking to start something analogous to a Campy/Shimano debate (besides, Suntour was the best anyway :fight: :D ) I asked a coworker already about digital photography in general, since it's hobby, but would like the input of people who do moving cyclist photography, as my current camera is fine for things that are not moving.

[rnhood]

The D40X is your ticket. It takes a really great picture, is extremely easy to use and, is uber lightweight. On the high zoot side of things, there is more competition but, on budget side the D40 or D40X lead the pack by a long shot.

[indyrider]

This excellent camera outshines even the more expensive "pro" cameras. It has received numerous european accolades such as camera of the year and others which I cant think of off the top o the head.

The body with an excellent kit lens can be had for less the $900. Has anti-shake or "shake reduction" built into the body so any lens you put is stabilized which comes in handy especially if your shooting hand held....Also shoots 3.5 frames per second.

I own one myself and do not hesitate to recommend it for someone who doesnt follow the mold.

Think..........Pentax is to(nikon/cannon) as Serotta is to(trek/cannondale)...

Good luck! J

[vaxn8r]

Try them out before you buy. They all look the same size on the internet but they're not. some of the entry level DSLRs are pretty dang small in your hands.

[indyrider]

I forgot to mention that the Pentax body is weather sealed. Cyclists dont stop because of the rain and photographers shouldnt either...J

[Len J]

Since I am trying to thin out my bike collection and am trying to find other hobbies beyond bikes, I have decided to get a digital SLR. One of the many things I would like to use it for is to take pictures at races (and hand it to people I know to take pictures of me of course). At this point, the models I'm considering are the Nikon D40X and Canon Rebel XTI. I am wondering if anyone has used these for cycling photography (and of course what their experiences have been) or whether there's anything else in the ballpark price range that I should consider.

I am not looking to start something analogous to a Campy/Shimano debate (besides, Suntour was the best anyway :fight: :D ) I asked a coworker already about digital photography in general, since it's hobby, but would like the input of people who do moving cyclist photography, as my current camera is fine for things that are not moving.

all current DSLR's from the major companies produce great pictures. Pixel peepers will tell you different, but for what you are doing, you almost can't go wrong.

That being said, all DSLR co's preprocess their images in different ways when producing JPEG's out of the camera. Most times these can be adjusted, but you need to look at real pictures that come out of the cameras you are looking at and see if you like the colors, and the color saturation and sharpness. It's very personal. I personally like Nikon default JPEG's better than Canon, My sister is just the opposite. Both of us generate good pictures. Find a camera that takes JPEG's you like (Assuming that's what you will be generating mostly).

The other big difference is ergonomics. It's kind of like Campy & Shimano....you have to feel it yourself. The way it feals in your hands, the way the menus work. This is personal, no one can make this decision for you.

There are some other small differences but get these 2 right and you'll be very happy with the output.

If you really get into Photography, you will upgrade either of those cameras, so don't sweat the decision....enjoy it.

Len

[mcteague]

I used to manage a photo store a decade ago and cameras have changed a lot since then but some things stay the same. Canon has been the real leader in autofocus SLR technology, especially for action subjects. Check the sidelines of most sporting events and count the off-white colored lenses, they are Canons. Nikon takes just as good a photo as does Pentax, Minolta etc but, IMO, Canons seem to work just a bit better. Canon was the first to put the focus motor in the lens which just makes more sense. They bit the bullet long ago and dumped the FD system and started with a fresh sheet of paper for AF. Nikon and Pentax maintained some backwards compatibility at the expense of function. Minolta was the leader in AF SLR with the Maxxum line but fell behind when the others built on their design. But, in the end, try them all and go with the one that seems to feel the best. Nice viewfinder, buttons easy to use, etc. Sort of like buying a bike, fit trumps most other things.

By the way, I sold all my MF Minolta gear and Canon EOS stuff and bought a digital Rebel with 28-135IS lens. I don't take many pictures anymore but Canon still seems to work best for me.

Tim McTeague

[Serotta PETE]

look at the Canon and the NIKON and see which you like the features, setup, and functionality. Either will do. I have used NIKON for years and with the lenses I have, there is no reason to switch.

With that said and if I was starting out fresh, it would be a personal preference between the two brands. Neither a bad decision.


if D40, think about the 18-200 lense. It will be the equivalent of a 38 to 300 in 35mm. Additionally it has vibration reduction, which helps when holing the camera at the max telephote.

Happy shopping

[Len J]

I used to manage a photo store a decade ago and cameras have changed a lot since then but some things stay the same. Canon has been the real leader in autofocus SLR technology, especially for action subjects. Check the sidelines of most sporting events and count the off-white colored lenses, they are Canons. Nikon takes just as good a photo as does Pentax, Minolta etc but, IMO, Canons seem to work just a bit better. Canon was the first to put the focus motor in the lens which just makes more sense. They bit the bullet long ago and dumped the FD system and started with a fresh sheet of paper for AF. Nikon and Pentax maintained some backwards compatibility at the expense of function. Minolta was the leader in AF SLR with the Maxxum line but fell behind when the others built on their design. But, in the end, try them all and go with the one that seems to feel the best. Nice viewfinder, buttons easy to use, etc. Sort of like buying a bike, fit trumps most other things.

By the way, I sold all my MF Minolta gear and Canon EOS stuff and bought a digital Rebel with 28-135IS lens. I don't take many pictures anymore but Canon still seems to work best for me.

Tim McTeague

the white lenses on the sidlines are becauseof good marketing and Nikon focusing on the consumer end forthe last few years.

AF from either company is better than you will need.

Len

[pe3046]

I use a eos-1d (you can buy them used now for a little more then the rebel)and have a full bevy of L lenses that I shoot with. I would say whatever you buy research heavily and take a close look at the buffer each camera contains. With the 1D I can shoot raw or jpeg at 8 frames per second, while my images may only be 4.2 large megapixels I can often get the shot that happens when other cameras are in wait mode. And not only is the camera waterproof, so are the lenses if you drop some money on the L's.

[cleavel]

Hi,

I'm going to suggest that you also look at the Olympus E-410. Haven't held one myself but it's getting good reviews from folks who don't usually give the Olympus DSLRs good reviews. It's small size may be what you need.

I shoot with the Olympus E-1 and I love it. All of the Olympus DSLRs use the same lenses. With Canon and Nikon some lenses only work with specific bodies.

[Louis]

Caboose (AKA LR),

Note that in the same way that real cyclists ride lugged steel, real photogs use rangefinders - or whatever James Nachtwey uses.

Whenever I'm feeling a bit down I take at look at his book "Inferno" and I no longer feel sorry for myself...

Louis

[billrick]

if D40, think about the 18-200 lense. It will be the equivalent of a 38 to 300 in 35mm. Additionally it has vibration reduction, which helps when holing the camera at the max telephote.


I just bought the D40, love it, and I'm saving my pennies for the 18-200 VR lens. That is an amazing lens, as the backorder status and premium prices will attest. BTW, it is the equivalent of a 27mm to 300mm, and you can hand hold the 300mm end of the range due to the great vibration reduction feature. I have a friend who is a Canon fanatic who just bought a Nikon body so he could use the lens. My next lens will be the Sigma 10-20mm, so I'll have two lenses covering the 35mm equivalent of 15mm to 300mm! Great fun!

I looked at the Canon XTi but passed. The body didn't feel comfortable in my hands and it doesn't have spot metering.

:)

[vaxn8r]

I just bought the D40, love it, and I'm saving my pennies for the 18-200 VR lens. That is an amazing lens, as the backorder status and premium prices will attest. BTW, it is the equivalent of a 27mm to 300mm, and you can hand hold the 300mm end of the range due to the great vibration reduction feature. I have a friend who is a Canon fanatic who just bought a Nikon body so he could use the lens. My next lens will be the Sigma 10-20mm, so I'll have two lenses covering the 35mm equivalent of 15mm to 300mm! Great fun!

I looked at the Canon XTi but passed. The body didn't feel comfortable in my hands and it doesn't have spot metering.

:)
I don't get the appeal of the 18-200 lens. It's a super 11x tele and it has a lot of problems at either end with distortions, CA's and resolution is only fair in comparison to shorter teles. To me it seems the appeal is largely that you never have to remove the lens. But then why a DSLR in the first place?

[mcteague]

the white lenses on the sidlines are becauseof good marketing and Nikon focusing on the consumer end forthe last few years.

AF from either company is better than you will need.

Len
Rubbish. Pros talk to other pros to see what works best. The effect of marketing to this group is much less than to the general public. While the field is most likely more even today Canon's AF superiority was clear a few years back. Nikon has since copied Canon by putting the focus motor in the lens, especially the long ones. Canon has never strayed from putting it's attention on the consumer. Nikon made it's name in the beginning by concentrating on pros by putting it's stuff in the hands of every pro they could find and often never asking for it back. They only turned their primary attention on the consumer end when Canon started kicking their butt with the pro market. Canon is a much larger company and has it's hands in many pies and has much for R&D $ to throw around.

Tim McTeague

[Len J]

I don't get the appeal of the 18-200 lens. It's a super 11x tele and it has a lot of problems at either end with distortions, CA's and resolution is only fair in comparison to shorter teles. To me it seems the appeal is largely that you never have to remove the lens. But then why a DSLR in the first place?

vacation lense. I think that's the main appeal.

As to the problems you mention, if you get a good copy, those problems are minimized.

While it's a comprimise, it's a really good one.

YMMV

Len

[wdlewis]

I have a Nikon d200 with the 18-200 lens. It's a great all-purpose lens!

However, it's not the greatest lens to do fast action photography in medium to low light conditions. Kit lenses (those that come packaged with the camera body) are not always the best for your intended use. You may want to select the body and lens separately.

Two other important factors are frame rate (how many pictures a second) and lag time (time between pressing the shutter release button and getting an image). The d200 is great for both.

I'd recommend going to a GOOD camera store and get their recommendation on an action lens and the camera body. Beware of low-price Internet camera sellers. Most are rip offs! Also, beware of non-USA products ..... no warranty.

B&H Photo is a good dealer with a good return policy.

[Len J]

Rubbish. Pros talk to other pros to see what works best. The effect of marketing to this group is much less than to the general public. While the field is most likely more even today Canon's AF superiority was clear a few years back. Nikon has since copied Canon by putting the focus motor in the lens, especially the long ones. Canon has never strayed from putting it's attention on the consumer. Nikon made it's name in the beginning by concentrating on pros by putting it's stuff in the hands of every pro they could find and often never asking for it back. They only turned their primary attention on the consumer end when Canon started kicking their butt with the pro market. Canon is a much larger company and has it's hands in many pies and has much for R&D $ to throw around.

Tim McTeague

So the fact that most high end sports pros are given cameras from Canon is not marketing?

He asked about entry level DSLR's.........you answered about pro level DSLR's.....I didn't.

Read his original post.

And the flagship MkIII focusing issues make it a superior focusing system.....LOL

I stand by me original post.......at the level he is assking about, there are pluses & Minuses of anything he looks at and anything he looks at will take great pictures......

Len

[bfd]

:fight: I recently purchased the Sony A100. The reason I like the Sony was because unlike C&N it has the image stabilization (vibration reduction/anti-shake) built into the body. Further, since Sony purchased Konica-Minolta, all Minolta lenses fit onto the A100.

Thus, for about $800, I got the body ($600), and 2 lenses (50mm/1.7 and the classic "beercan" 70-210/f4). The lenses were used and pretty old (the 50mm looks to be from 1985), but they work well. The key is you can get some excellent glass for hundreds versus C&N glass which can cost thousands.

Moreover, if you want really high end lenses, check out Minolta "G" lenses. Pricey, but supposedly equivalent to, if not better than, the best from C&N.

Btw - Canon got its lead in the pro field because it was the first to come out with image stabilization in the lenses. Canon dominates at sporting events with all those white lenses because of it. Nikon recently came out its VR and is just now getting into the game. :crap:

[gary135r]

The D40X is your ticket. It takes a really great picture, is extremely easy to use and, is uber lightweight. On the high zoot side of things, there is more competition but, on budget side the D40 or D40X lead the pack by a long shot.
Second that. They are user friendly too.

[mcteague]

So the fact that most high end sports pros are given cameras from Canon is not marketing?

He asked about entry level DSLR's.........you answered about pro level DSLR's.....I didn't.

Read his original post.

And the flagship MkIII focusing issues make it a superior focusing system.....LOL

I stand by me original post.......at the level he is assking about, there are pluses & Minuses of anything he looks at and anything he looks at will take great pictures......

Len

And your evidence that pros are given Canon cameras? Even if they were, no self respecting pro would risk his career on sub-standard gear just because it was free. If you read my post you will see I did address his entry level needs by suggesting he try out each camera and see what works for him. The pro references were just for a bit of history to show one particular brand seems to own the sports market. Advertising is not responsible for this.

Tim McTeague

[thwart]

digital Rebel with 28-135IS lens Great combo---easy to carry (good handgrip ergonomics), takes good motion photos, and yet enough zoom for most needs. This lens is worth its weight in gold, although I usually turned off the image stabilizer for panning.

Was the "photo person" for our local HS CC booster club, and so did a lot of running around at meets shooting the past 3 years. Rain, snow, mud... never dropped the camera. An example page: http://www.requestltd.com/wildcatsccboosters/B%20Middleton/index.htm

Worked very, very well. Only issue was slightly slow image loading onto the CF card, so not able to shoot quite as fast as the newest cameras.

Probably can pick up the Rebel body on eBay for $400, the lens for $300-$400...

[quattro]

Lanternrouge, did you buy your new camera? I'm in the same boat looking primarily at the Nikon D40, D40x and Canon Rebel XT1,with a 18-135 lens. What do you think? Can anyone add anything in making a decision on the purchase of a DSLR for under $1000? Sony? Pentax? Thanks

quattro

[Lanternrouge]

Lanternrouge, did you buy your new camera? I'm in the same boat looking primarily at the Nikon D40, D40x and Canon Rebel XT1,with a 18-135 lens. What do you think? Can anyone add anything in making a decision on the purchase of a DSLR for under $1000? Sony? Pentax? Thanks

quattro

I ended up going all-out (under the circumstances) and got a Nikon D80 with an 18-135mm lens. Other than some test shots, I only really used it yesterday. It is light years ahead of the compact that I had used before. I was also considering the other models, but ultimately made the decision based on my coworker's recommendation. My setup cost $1100. From the reviews, everything I was considering was highly recommended and probably more than I really needed anyway. If you'd like to see some pictures from it, PM me your email address and I can send you some race shots. The files are pretty big.

[quattro]

The D80 looks like a really nice camera but I don't know if I need all the additional features it has over say the D40x, besides the price. I noticed the D80 is also a bit larger and heavier but the reviews I read say it is built better as well. hard to decide, but I would like this camera to be around for a while so I don't have to upgrade any time soon. Any other thoughts from users of the D80 or other DSLR's? Is this the way to go?
thanks,
quattro

[pjm]

I love my D40 with its very good 18-55 kit lens. I also got the readily available 55-200 VR, which is a steal at $250. This makes a nice little package for less than a grand.

Nikon vs. Canon = Campy vs. Shimano

[deechee]

I'm with mcteague here.
Canon and Nikon produce similar quality lenses (optically) but for sports photography Canon has always been a step ahead, not just in fps but in their IS lenses, ring-USM (ultra-sonic motors) which are whisper quiet and super quick. Why not check out a photo forum like photo.net?

I have a Rebel XT and love it. Used it with my 50/1.8 standard and rent a 300/4 and have excellent results. I'm noticing a lot of people here mentioning zooms but a prime (fixed) lens will yield much greater results for sports. That said, I'm quite tired of standard high shutter speed super in-focus shots and prefer some more blurr that show the movement.

There are real gem lenses for any camera system, I used to own Pentax and their 300/4.5, 85/1.4 were my favourite and most prized lenses. Unfortunately digital cameras change the field of view of any lens (85->120mm view etc.) so I decided to just start all over and stick to renting lenses ...

[Hardlyrob]

I know you originally said you didn't want a Campy vs. Shimano rant fest, but as you can tell camera folk may be more attached to their brands than bike folk.

The reality is either the Canon Rebel Xti or the Nikon are great cameras that will take great pictures for years to come. I'm in the Canon camp, but only because I started with them with film cameras, and already had a bunch of lenses when I went digital.

The Nikon 18-200 lens seems to be one of the best compromise lenses that gives you most of what you will ever need in a single lens.

I shoot the Rebel XTi with the 24-105 USM which works well for almost everything. This set up cost $636 for the body on ebay (w 4GB memory card), and $279 for the lens. a great set up for < $1,000.

I echo the point to shoot with primes - get a 50mm 1.4 or 1.8 and you can do all kinds of things since the lens is stupid fast. Try a 100 or 135 prime for sports photog. On a 1.6X crop camera like the Nikon D49 or the Rebel XTi, you can do a lot of things. Primes are also a LOT cheaper than equivalent zooms, and almost always sharper.

For more go to photo.net, and kenrockwell.com for heretical ideas like "your camera doesn't matter" along with great equipment reviews and suggestions.

Happy shooting!

Rob

[benb]

Screw the DSLR (I have one and a bag of expensive lenses).

I never take mine on the bicycle. Keep it simple, find a decent point and shoot and take that.

I barely even ever bother to pack up the DSLR when I go on my motorcycle. SLRs and other large cameras are for those days where you are setting out with photography as your main goal. Not biking & photography or other combinations of activities.

Most of the benefits of the SLRs are evident in a) low light & night situations where you won't be that cool with riding your bike. b) More advanced techniques where you're going to spend a good amount of time setting up the shot and/or will be carrying a tripod. Neither situation lending itself to bicycling.

Plus even an XTi or D40 will start adding up to lots of weight quickly, incredibly annoying unless you're on a touring rig with panniers or other large bags.