Upgrade to enjoy this feature!
Vital MX fantasy is free to play, but Premium users receive great benefits. Premium benefits include:
- View and download rider stats
- Pick trends
- Create a private league
- And more!
Only $10 for all 2026 SX, MX, and SMX series.
And that is without considering metering mode options. There are shots that challenge AE systems and results are middling regardless of whether your using average weighted, center weighted, or even zone AE modes, anything less than spot metering (less so at Glen Helen, very much so at Washougal).
And, frankly, it is not that hard to shoot manual settings on the fly, it just isn't like the old sunny sixteen days. It's not that hard to learn, and you gain all the control. I advocate for it because it forces one to master the tool sooner, which unlocks more creative possibilities.
But you are correct that all of the major manufacturers have reasonably accurate meters that in turn feed auto exposure systems that function well in most settings, and a new user can pull the body from the box and have some fun without it getting complicated.
Once one learns his gear and knows when a certain scene will blow highlights or underexpose they can start working within the parameters of their sensor and adjust exposure accordingly. A camera sensor only has so much DR, so post processing is often required to dial in a high DR (high contrast) scene anyway. For a beginner, this means pulling down highlights and lifting up shadows of a RAW file in post processing.
Shooting at Washougal or a similar area with heavy shade and hot spots is a great place to learn for beginners BTW, I would highly recommend it on a clear sunny day for a challenge.
.
The Shop
Free shipping: VITALMX
Luxon 4-Post Bar Mounts
$189.95 - $239.95
Until relatively recently in photography, a person picked up a rig that might have a meter in it, but not AE, and no AF. And he knew not whether the images were properly exposed or in focus for a few days. One kept notebooks to record shooting date to refer back to. Exposure instructions were printed on inserts to film canisters, with explanations of reciprocity so that if one wanted more depth of field or less in an image she could make the appropriate aperture and shutter speed adjustments. Every photo was taken this way unless it was a polaroid or instamatic or Brownie.
Current rigs are ridiculous even at the consumer level. The things these rigs can do better than me are burst shooting, measure light, and hold focus on fast moving objects. They also sure as hell set white balance better than Ektachrome. That's Christmas and the lottery right there. But no matter how informative and accurate the meter itself is, the AE system is optimizing against its averaging logarithms not my intent. I'm not going to let it tell me how I want an image exposed, especially when it gives me the tools of a preview screen and a histogram inform me; I'm not guessing. It's not some quantum leap, and does not take that long to get under one's belt. Hone the tool in normal situations and the sooner it will be a sharp tool to draw on when you need to tackle an exposure challenge.
Not trying to belabor it, but your comment to Roddy "You can't be serious.....I can't believe I'm hearing that from a photographer" was a little, umm, hyperbolic. Maybe more do than you think, and for the right reasons. That's not to say someone isn't a serious shooter unless they always shoot manually, I hate that elitist BS. But I am saying that it is nowhere near the bar you are making it out to be and it's not beyond a beginner to master quickly. Understanding manual exposure is the potty training of photography.
I do confess to being lazy as hell with flash; I'm definitely a set and forget guy there, lol. Just don't use it that much. So theres my hypocrisy for you.
We can agree to disagree on my comment to Roddy. I stand behind it and still firmly believe it. I haven't heard a photographer in 20 years say "my camera does not get exposure settings correct by itself. Rarely is that the case, in my experience." So yeah, respectfully disagree and no opinions are going to change. I also feel it's asinine to start a beginner in full manual mode (my experience only). You and others might disagree? No big deal, it's nothing personal. We just have different opinions as to which is the most efficient and effective path to learn the photography.
For any beginners reading, I would use the analogy as an extra ball that you don't have to juggle in your early days. In my opinion it's just not required very often with modern gear. We are not shooting film. The method I provided above is just my opinion as the most simple way to shoot moto action for a beginner or someone advanced. Hopefully everyone else posts their techniques and suggestions along with photo examples. Pick your path and run with it.
FTE, instead of you and I or Roddy discussing our differences of opinions about the cameras capabilities, maybe you and Roddy can post some images from your cameras and show how it butchers exposure all the time. Can you show how post processing can't resolve the incorrect exposure issues. Provide an example of when full manual is required to achieve your desired output. Explain why it's not possible to achieve the same result in any of the camera modes with EC. I think this will be a much more productive way to teach beginners.
My photos above taken in high noon hot lighting were taken with a 16 year old camera 10+ years ago. Those RAW files as old as they are can be processed within a wide spectrum to ones liking (lighter, darker, more contrast, less contrast, shadows, highlights, film like, etc). I would like to see SOOC (straight out of camera) examples shot in AV or TV that are so badly exposed that they are useless. Maybe you can take a shot in full manual and take the same shot in AV mode and compare exposures. I can think of a couple examples, but let's see your moto examples.
Will be cool to keep this rolling for anyone learning. Gear is cheap and photography is accessible to everyone now so let's witness guys like rdawg grow into a great photographers.
If you are shooting a RAW file format you can usually pull a good (even great) result from auto-exposed files. But you might also have more work in post compared to getting it right in-camera, If you’re faced with processing thousands of files for a quick turnaround, this is a real concern. Shooting 50 frames of riders coming through the same corner in the same light in auto exposure mode might get you lots of exposure variations—and more frames that need individual corrections than if you had shot with locked-in manual settings. It’s always nice when you can open up those 50 frames in post processing, Select All, then apply the same exposure tweaks to all 50 instead of having to go shot-by-shot to fine-tune the auto exposure variations.
And sometimes, at least in my experience, auto exposure just plain doesn’t work all that great—no matter how sophisticated the metering system. Motorcycles coming head-on at the camera with headlights blaring? Motocross bikes backlit at sunset and throwing up a giant, glowing halo of talcum powder roost? A a low-angle, first-lap wide shot of a dozen SX riders clearing a triple with the night sky making up most of the frame? Manual exposure settings would be my first choice in those situations.
Recently, I had a friend show me some photos of his kid’s hockey game that he had shot with his new Canon 5D Mk IV on the Program auto mode with whatever default metering pattern it is set on out of the box. The exposures were awful. The camera saw a speck-sized skater surrounded by a frame of white ice and tried to make the average exposure into middle gray, which it did—with incredible auto-exposed consistency. So everything was too dark. I was able to open up the exposure in post and recover something useable, but since they were shot as JPGs, the results weren’t the best. But good enough for him. He was happy, so that’s the goal in his world.
I tried explaining to him what had happened, how the camera’s meter is calibrated to deliver a middle-ground exposure based on what it “sees” in the frame, and that next time he should select a different metering pattern that better keys on the subject, or maybe a spot metering pattern, or maybe one of the patterns that meters based on the autofocus point selected, or use the camera’s exposure compensation feature. At that point, I saw his face glaze over and I realized it would be easier to just explain manual metering, of all things!
It's also important to get to know how your specific camera body handles light. If i have a pair of two 5DIV's and 1DX's they will vary in personality a bit. One might consistently under expose and one might be nailing it. Once you know that, you just dial in some EC on the body that needs it and you're good to go. EC will handle everything once you know your equipment.
I'm out in left field, anyway, so I always like a different look. I avoid front light, almost, at all costs.
I do think that manual is important to learn because I think the sooner someone learns and
breathes the inverse square law and quickly and easily glides between ISO, shutter speed
and aperture, the better. Just gives them more control. That, I think, is the part that takes a while
to get down is the control and then what you DO with that control. How you give it your own spin.
FWIW, bought an 80-200 once and couldn't sell that piece of shit fast enough. Did not suit how I see and
I think it's important to find that. Your vision, your voice.
As for learning manual, I have found it's easier to teach someone the triangle with AV mode (semi-manual). I give them settings for afternoon daylight and have them shoot into sunset. It teaches them the relationship between available light, ISO, and SS real quick. They realize they have to increase ISO to get a faster shutter speed to avoid blurry photos. Then I have them play with aperture and compare the DOF of large/small and also have them look at how SS doubles between f stops.
I've tried to teach people in full manual and it's just less effective they are trying to juggle too many balls and it takes longer to sink in. M with auto ISO is easier of course because they aren't questioning why their images are so dark or overblown when they get M wrong. Everyone is different and that's what I like about photography is everyone has their own techniques.
Lol on the magic drainpipe.
the day it sort of clicked and I went "Ohhhhhhh! I get it!!!" I was pissed because I kept thinking
why didn't I figure this out earlier?!
It seems like stills are a dying breed though. I was just in Texas at the wave pool in Waco shooting a bunch of professional surfers and I was one of 8 photographers. Only two of us were shooting stills. With the way the world is going and everyone wanting their video clips for instagram they all just shoot video now and take frame grabs for their stills. Quality standards seem to be "good enough for instagram" now. I guess I'm old school though because I like looking at hi-res images on a large display.
The old-timers from the motion picture business always joked about how a production executive would invariably show up on set to push the crew's pace. The cinematographer or director would plead their case, "We're trying to make it great--that's why it's taking so long." To which the production guy would reply, "They don't need it great. They need it Thursday."
Some things never change.
Pit Row
Your AF system will still miss even when your AF point is perfectly positioned, it just happens as these camera systems are not perfect.
What is your shutter speed? If you are trying to freeze action without any motion blur then the higher the shutter speed the better. Your best chance at nailing sequences is a nicely positioned focus point and very high shutter speeds.
Doesn't matter if you shoot in AV or Manual, you have to keep your eye on the shutter speed. The only thing you need to worry about with SS is if it gets too slow to freeze your action. When the light goes down, bump your ISO goes up to compensate. You can look at the display on the top of your camera or look through the viewfinder and press the shutter button down halfway and it will give you a SS reading as you point your camera in the different directions you are shooting. If you are over 1/1000th you should be fine but remember, higher SS is always safer.
If your photos got blurry because of decreasing light you learned a good lesson about shutter speed and ISO. Bump the ISO to maintain faster shutter speeds. If I remember correctly the MkIV does well at ISO 6400 and you could go as high as 12800 if you had to. After that you are getting very very noisy.
You could actually setup your camera to be foolproof by setting ISO ranges and a minimum shutter speed but I wouldn't suggest this as it won't teach you anything.
Regarding your lens focus limiter, you can keep it at 1.5m if you plan to shoot something fairly close up or switch it to 2.5m if you are shooting riders in the distance. 1.5 will still work to shoot riders in the distance so don't get too hung up on this for now:
Once you know what to expect out of each SS range then you'll just keep an eye on it to make sure it's in that range for the desired output. For freezing fast action I like to go with 1/1600th and above. The higher the better.
For action sports like motocross you might try experimenting with your camera’s shutter priority auto exposure mode. That way you’re not at the mercy of a constantly changing shutter speed that can lead to unacceptable motion blur. In my experience, I’ve learned that you can often fix a bad exposure, but there’s no saving motion blurred or out-of-focus images. That’s why I prefer to lock in the shutter speed and let the aperture vary. I might get a bad exposure, but at least it will be a sharp bad exposure.
If you’ve been using Aperture-priority AE with your lens wide open or near its widest aperture, you may also find your camera’s autofocus accuracy improves when using shutter-priority AE. The depth-of-field (the area in focus in front of and behind your selected focus point) is extended as the aperture gets smaller, so you may get more sharp frames in shutter-priority because the camera will often be selecting a smaller-than-wide-open f-stop to control the exposure.
A few tips if you want to experiment with shutter-priority. AE:
If you are shooting outdoors in good light, start by selecting your camera’s base ISO** (usually around ISO 200, but check the manual or manufacturer’s website to be sure). In bright, direct sunlight and at 200 ISO, the camera meter should read around f5.6-8 at 1/1000th when pointed at an average subject—sunlit green grass seems to work well. If the light is lower (say, a cloudy day) and your lens doesn’t have a wide enough maximum aperture to get a good exposure at 1/1000th or whatever shutter speed you’ve selected, dial up a higher ISO until you can get the correct exposure. For the best, cleanest images, increase the ISO until you get the exposure reading you want, but, ideally, try not to go much higher. With most late-model cameras, you'll usually be fine with anything up to 800 or 1200 ISO, depending on the camera, so don't get too hung up on a low ISO. If you are using a lens with a variable aperture, select the ISO to work at the lens’s “telephoto” aperture, i.e. on a f3.5-f5.6 variable aperture lens, use f5.6 to select the ISO.
For motocross, I’ve found that a shutter speed of around 1/1000th to 1/1500th of a second will freeze action for head-on subjects like a first turn shot or bikes coming at you/going away in a corner. Try going down to 1/640th or up to 1/4000th to see if you like that result better. I have noticed at 1/640th-to 1/800th, things like the tire knobs and wheel spokes look a little more organic because there’s a very slight amount of motion (sort of like shooting a helicopter—you want to balance between freezing the subject without freezing the rotor blades). Keep an eye on the exposure and if you need to, increase the ISO to maintain a good exposure as you start experimenting with the higher shutter speeds.
If the bikes are moving across your frame (as in a side panning shot), try experimenting with 1/500th and go incrementally down to 1/60th or lower to see the effect. I know guys who can get a decent percentage of sharp frames down as low as 1/125th-to-1/30th range, so try that and see if you get lucky. Keep an eye on your exposures when you start using slower shutter speeds—you can get into overexposure territory if you’re not careful. You can lower the ISO to help get a better exposure in these conditions.
**Side note: The reason I say to try and use the camera’s “base” or “native” ISO is because, all other things being equal, it will give you the best image quality. Changing the camera’s ISO does NOT increase or decrease the sensor’s ability to capture light, it simply alters the amount of “gain” applied by the camera’s software when processing the image for display or output. Your sensor sensitivity is always its native ISO—no more, no less—so it’s generally best to set it as close as possible to the native ISO for optimum image quality. Now, in practice, this isn’t something to get hung up on. Since you won’t always have perfect lighting, just use what works best for each situation. I regularly shoot fast-moving subjects in low light at ISO 800-1600 with great results. I’ve seen amazing candle lit images shot at crazy-high ISO 6400 settings, so don’t be afraid to go there if you need to. Always better to get something, even if it’s not perfect.
Here's a link to SportsShooter.com with Sports Illustrated photographer Peter Read Miller's Canon 1D Mk IV custom-function settings including his AF preferences:
http://www.sportsshooter.com/news/2371
These may help you get started and you can adjust them to your liking once you see if they work for you.
Also, if you haven't experimented with back button focusing, it's worth looking into for motocross and other sports. In some situations it can be really useful. This video explains how it works:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8PN9R0D3pF0
I am looking at the Canon 24-70mm f/2.8 (since they are about half the price of the 70-200) to put on my EOS-R to shoot at my local track. These photos posted in this thread are great, are any of these photos yall posted shot with the 24-70mm lens? I am trying to get an idea of the depth. Thanks
You are going to want the 70-200mm for moto. I prefer shooting 300mm most of the time. To give you an idea of focal length, all the A2 shots were shot with a 70-200 and the Pala shots at the end of the thread were shot with a 300mm. A 24-70 can be used for some stuff if you are really close but for shooting action you'll want a 70-200 at minimum. Or, you could also look into an EF 100-400II as well. It depends how close you can get to the action and how much light you are shooting in.
https://www.vitalmx.com/forums/moto-related/a2-observations-and-few-pho…
Thank you so much! There was a photographer at the track the other day and took this one of me using a 75-300mm. Sounds like the Canon 70-200 f2.8/L USM should be a good choice for my EOS-R. I do have a 50mm f 1.8 STM prime lens I could also play with when I am able to get closer to the track.
Post a reply to: Moto photography