Memorable pictures from the track don’t always require the photo vest and corresponding heavy lens–which usually comes with an aching back.
[Insider cheat: How to take race photos without press access]
How so? Concentrate on the short game.
During IMSA’s recent pre-season testing at Daytona International Speedway, I kept it light and simple, just carrying a Fujifilm X-Pro3 …
Everyone who's ever switched to doing something bizarre and inexplicable when you're working on a car and a photographer points a camera at you now has a new final boss to beat: "doing something on a laptop that doesn't require a wired connection while underneath a Mustang apparently only supported by air jacks" guy.
In reply to GameboyRMH :
He's winning at hide and seek. They totally don't see him under there.
I'm a sucker for those kinds of photos.
Not to toot my own horn (or my friends'), but just look at this framing!
Dust in the distance, frantic last minute rewiring in the middle distance/center frame, and Official Rallycross Hat hanging from the jack handle in the foreground
In reply to Pete. (l33t FS) :
Paris and I had a pit lane discussion about that. I call it fake telephoto–when you use something in the foreground to force the eye to the subject in the background.
Like this:
Gotta share some of mine too. 
In reply to GameboyRMH :
It's a very funny feeling when your the photographer taking a picture of someone doing something totally normal, they notice, instantly stiffen and try to look even more into the task their doing. Or if you take the photo and the vision isn't right and you delete it and that person will never know. They will forever think "there is a picture of me out there looking so cool."
Those are always the shots I forget about.
This is one of my favorites. I didn't take it because I'm in it. Driver change at a Lemons race in a Civic wallpapered with several hundred pages of the SCCA GCR. The theme was Senior Citizens Club of America.
David S. Wallens said:In reply to Pete. (l33t FS) :
Paris and I had a pit lane discussion about that. I call it fake telephoto–when you use something in the foreground to force the eye to the subject in the background.
Like this:
That works when the foreground stuff is out of focus. Short focal depth is your friend here.
In reply to Msterbee :
Yup. These were taken with an f/2.0. If everything is in focus, the effect is lost. 
Also, this article's photos are more focused on people than details, if you ask me. Nothing wrong with that other than a somewhat misleading headline.
David S. Wallens said:In reply to Msterbee :
Yup. These were taken with an f/2.0. If everything is in focus, the effect is lost.
f/2.0? Prime lens? Or a very expensive zoom... 
In reply to Msterbee :
The photos that I shared here were taken with a 50mm/2.0 on a Fuji. I only have primes for the Fujis.
For the Canon, I have a 70-200 f/2.8. It’s very nice. It also shows how good, quality glass can be worth the initial pain as that lens is now more than 20 years old.
I should add that 70-200 f/2.8 is also much bigger and heavier than the 50 f/2.0 Fuji.
I always find myself looking at the little details–things like badges and vents.
In full-frame speak a 50mm f2.0 on a crop-body Fuji is like a 75mm f2.8 (as far as field of view and depth of field is concerned). Which translates to, if you shop smart, used gear could give very similar if not slightly better image quality results for not a lot of money. Also, image quality requirements can be loosened a little when the goal is posting on social media, because you can't really see flaws that well. It's also very easy to get hung up on the gear (I am extremely guilty of this) instead of learning to get the best from what is already on the shelf and using what is on the shelf more often.
David S. Wallens said:I should add that 70-200 f/2.8 is also much bigger and heavier than the 50 f/2.0 Fuji.
Yeah, there's no Moore's law for optics -- if you want to gather a certain amount of light you need a certain amount of space and glass.
I love my 70-200 f/2.8 and keep wishing I had a 200-400 f/4 :)
So, quick rig rundown.
For most GRM and Classic Motorsports work, I carry a Canon 7D MkII with a battery grip. Lenses are 70-200mm f/2.8, 17-40mm f/4 and, as a backup just in case, a 40mm pancake lens. (It weighs like nothing.) This is a crop sensor camera. A little chunky compared to today’s mirrorless options but super-reliable. I have never used up both batteries in one day, and during the an event like the $2000 Challenge, I can take a few thousand images. I also carry a 7D in my bag as a backup.
For the personal stuff found on my Instagram, I use Fujifilm gear for digital: X-Pro3, X-T3 and X100V. These are also crop sensor cameras. All use the same battery, too. The X100V has a fixed 23mm lens, while I have a 23mm f/2.0 and 50mm f/2.0 for the other two. Most of my Fuji gear came either used or refurbished. Love the look of the photos and the feel of the equipment–light and with knobs and dials like a film camera. Then there are the film cameras: Canon A-1, Canon F-1, Olympus XA2, Pentax K1000 and a few others.
I’m starting to use the Fujis more and more for Classic Motorsports as I like the look and feel. It’s starting to creep into GRM, too. For action, though, I grab the Canon. Each setup lives in its own Shadow Conspiracy bag, too.
Interesting use case for a battery powered leaf blower with what looks like a custom 3D printed nozzle. Cooling for the driver or the car?
David S. Wallens said:For most GRM and Classic Motorsports work, I carry a Canon 7D MkII with a battery grip. Lenses are 70-200mm f/2.8, 17-40mm f/4 and, as a backup just in case, a 40mm pancake lens. (It weighs like nothing.) This is a crop sensor camera. A little chunky compared to today’s mirrorless options but super-reliable. I have never used up both batteries in one day, and during the an event like the $2000 Challenge, I can take a few thousand images. I also carry a 7D in my bag as a backup.
I'm surprised there isn't a 24-105 on your list? I find that by far it's the most common lens I use and it's super sharp. 2.8 would be nice there, but I never thought the 24-70 was worth the increased weight and loss of zoom.
ShawneeCreek said:
Interesting use case for a battery powered leaf blower with what looks like a custom 3D printed nozzle. Cooling for the driver or the car?
I’m guessing that’s keeping the intake and/or turbos cool.
In reply to codrus (Forum Supporter) :
Yeah, surprised I don’t carry a 24-105, either. I should fix that one day. Most of the staff is moving to mirrorless, though, so we’ll see what the future holds.
David S. Wallens said:Yeah, surprised I don’t carry a 24-105, either. I should fix that one day. Most of the staff is moving to mirrorless, though, so we’ll see what the future holds.
One nice thing about everyone else moving to mirrorless is that prices on used glass have come down a bunch. My daughter is taking photography classes at college and I gave her my old 50D and "nifty 50" prime lens to start with. She later needed a zoom for a particular project so I loaned her my 24-105 and once I did that I had real difficulty getting it back from her. :) I wound up buying a second one from a friend who was upgrading to mirrorless and the value on them is about a third of what it was when those were new.
A 24-105 on a crop body wouldn't "turn me on" as the widest zoom position is right in the meat of where you want to be for a normal view. The 17-40, while maybe not my first pick, makes a lot of sense. A 24-105 on full frame is really nice; the field of view is just great from the wide end onward. On Canon APS-C, 24mm x 1.6 crop factor = 38mm full-frame equivalent. As a hypothetical, something more like a 14mm to 40mm zoom, would be great on a Canon crop body when we consider field of view only.
In reply to David S. Wallens :
I can confirm that leaf blowers are often used to keep the cars cool in the pits. Formula 1 teams use them, too:
You'll need to log in to post.
