Mirrorless Cameras for Sports (Page 3): If they only had a lens!

RickTaylor

gwilliams6 wrote:

I respectfully disagree here burkphoto, I personal... (show quote)

If they only had a lens!

burkphoto Loc: High Point, NC

CatMarley wrote:

Operant word: "SOME YEARS AGO". No comparison with the mirrorless now. That is like saying, "I tried a Model "T" some years ago, and decided those Fords were too boxy and rickety, and didn't have much acceleration.

!!!

Microprocessors and sensors have come a LONG way in the last five years. The latest models from Fujifilm, Olympus, Panasonic, and Sony are *much* faster than in the past. Each generation is significantly faster than the last.

Eliminating the time it takes to raise and lower the mirror will eventually result in FASTER response times than dSLRs. The highest end dSLRs (Nikon D5 and Canon EOS-1D Mark IV) won't have a "click to clunk" speed advantage over their Canon and Nikon mirrorless brethren too much longer.

See gwilliams6's comments regarding the Sony A9 (above).

tomcat

MaxxtheDog wrote:

Hi Photo Brain, br I search this site and only sh... (show quote)

If you are wanting to go full frame for night games, then look at the used Nikon D3s cameras from KEH. You should be able to pick one up for about $1200, so it becomes a much cheaper alternative. I'm not convinced that the Z7 or Z6 can do well in low light*. You can still use your current Nikon lenses and not have to buy an adaptor or a whole new system. The Nikon D3s is still the best low-light shooting camera that Nikon ever made. *Low light = ISO of 20,000. I would not trade my used one for a brand new D5!!

burkphoto Loc: High Point, NC

gwilliams6 wrote:

I respectfully disagree here burkphoto, I personal... (show quote)

Thanks for the testimony. I won't disagree with it. Note that I used the word, 'might' in my answer, because I honestly didn't know.

My advice to the OP was based on the idea that he already has Nikon gear. His path of least expense would probably be Nikon. Someone starting out in business or replacing aging gear may take a very different approach.

Another poster complained about the lack of Sony lenses. Do you have advice regarding proper glass for the A9 when covering sports action?

I also agree with your comments about Tony Northrup. Once in a while he gets a bit too speculative, but when he tests things, his results are right in line with other reputable and objective sites.

Ob1 Loc: Utah

Camera: Sony a9, a7lll if you don’t want a full frame then 6500.
Lens: Football and outside sports Sony 70-200 2.8 and Sony 100-400.
Indoor sports Sony 70-200 2.8, Sony 24-70 2.8, and my favorite Sony 85 1.4
I do not use the 1.4 teleconverter but many people do with good success.
This is what I use and they work great.
If you choose these things you just spent a lot of money!
Brad

burkphoto Loc: High Point, NC

Ob1 wrote:

Camera: Sony a9, a7lll if you don’t want a full frame then 6500.
Lens: Football and outside sports Sony 70-200 2.8 and Sony 100-400.
Indoor sports Sony 70-200 2.8, Sony 24-70 2.8, and my favorite Sony 85 1.4
I do not use the 1.4 teleconverter but many people do with good success.
This is what I use and they work great.
If you choose these things you just spent a lot of money!
Brad

The same would be true (spend lots of $) with any system purchase for pro use. The f/2.8 zooms for full frame are always pricey.

You can cut roughly half the cost and weight from a complete kit by using Micro 4/3 gear, but it does have some annoying limitations in low light (such as high school night football and high school gym events).

gwilliams6

RickTaylor wrote:

If they only had a lens!

I use the excellent 70-200mm f2.8 G-Master along with Sony 1.4X and 2x converters, no problem. I have also used their excellent Sony 100-400mm G-Master lens which also can use these converters. I am saving up for their 400mm f2.8 which is revolutionary. This lens and A9 combo handily beat the best high-end DSLRs and their respective 400mm f2,8 of BOTH Canon and Nikon in real world testing at a recent pro MLS game. (Numerous youtube videos from this shoot-out). The A9/Sony 400mm f2.8 combo was the only one that could shoot a true 20fps with full autofocus and tracking (even the fastest frame rate Nikons and Canons were hampered by the slower stepping autofocus motors of their 400mm f2.8s and could only deliver a true 10-11 fps). The Sony's new faster linear focusing motor in its 400mm f2.8 could keep up with the A9. This allowed the Sony combo to capture 60% more in-focus shots in the same time period as either the Nikon and Canon. In pro sports, or any sports this is a game-changer.

Sony has announced upcoming 500mm f4, and 600mm f4 GM lenses.

I also often use my Sigma Contemporary 150-600mm f5-6.3 with the MC-11 adapter on my Sonys and it works well. Here is a shot made with this combo, just a few days ago. A handheld shot at 516mm of a duck taking off from a nearby lake, a quick pan-follow shot. Below it is a shot made of a squirrel at 400mm f5.6 with my Sony 70-200mm f2.8 G-master with Sony's superb 2X converter . Tack sharp.

(Download)

imagemeister Loc: mid east Florida

RickTaylor wrote:

If they only had a lens!

They do, but you may not be able to afford one - and there are very FEW if any used ones for sale yet.....8-(

..

gwilliams6

imagemeister wrote:

They do, but you may not be able to afford one - and there are very FEW if any used ones for sale yet.....8-(

..

The Sigma and Tamron super telephotos are very affordable, and they work great on the Sonys. It is just a myth anymore that you can't find affordable long lenses that work well on Sony. Please know the facts. Cheers

fosis Loc: Pittsburgh, PA

Give Oly's Pro Capture feature a try, especially for baseball. Halfway down on the shutter button, and you begin to capture a loop of 10-45 pictures. All the way down and the camera continues to capture. I find 15/sec. - the low end of the range available - is PLENTY for Pro Capture, as you get 17-18 shots every time you shoot, starting 1 second before you shoot. You WILL get that "bat on ball" timing. NOW -- if I could just get Olympus to make a 100-400mm f5.6 zoom, I'd be in heaven! The Panasonic/Leica f6.3 zoom is just not bright enough for any kind of low light. But Pro Capture is a super feature, ideal for sports.

Rickoshay Loc: Southern California

mrjcall wrote:

Both are biased in their reviews because they accept monies from the manufacturers whose products they review......Rockwell more so than Northrup btw.....Sure they are experienced, but money makes folks less than objective....... I would not rely on any one source, but review many to determine average responses.

I do not trust sponsored reviews of any product. Photography related or not. It is considered an advertisement and nothing more.

Nalu Loc: Southern Arizona

gwilliams6 wrote:

I use the excellent 70-200mm f2.8 G-Master along w... (show quote)

Do you have any references on the Sony announcement on these new long lenses

xt2 Loc: British Columbia, Canada

I used a D800, and the latest Fuji XT3 for sports. I much prefer the Fuji. The new XT3 is a monster and is a very fast and capable sports camera. I just shot an indoor professional hockey game. Perfect shots! It is a nice light kit vs my FF kit. Over all, a true pleasure to use for sports. New lenses like the 200mm F2 will only make the experience better. Cheers!

MaxxtheDog wrote:

Hi Photo Brain, br I search this site and only sh... (show quote)

gwilliams6

Nalu wrote:

Do you have any references on the Sony announcement on these new long lenses

https://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/61198794

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LmJDM1hg2Oc (this was recorded before Sony's release of their 400 f2.8. Tony and Chelsea tested this 400mm f2.8 at a pro MLS game and loved it. (Tony has sold his top sports Nikon and Canon DLSRs, and now uses the A9 exclusively for his sports shooting)

BTW folks, even though you folks won't believe the truth here, Tony and Chelsea are NOT paid by any manufacturer and they buy all their gear themselves. They use all brands for different subjects and different reasons. They and other shooter/youtube reviewers do go on invited shoots and intros from ALL the manufacters, everyone does. But they don't get free gear to keep and can afford all their own stuff. They have the largest selling photo book series in the world and do teaching and commercial shoots to make their money. Cheers

jeep_daddy Loc: Prescott AZ

imagemeister wrote:

Here is an excellent mirrorless sports review by Tony Northrup ! - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-oXHiORuRk0

I can't believe that Canon and Nikon both only shoot 2.5 fps when tracking sports. I think he must be doing something wrong like setting the camera to focus priority and letting the camera decide what it thinks is in focus and not in focus. I use shutter priority on my Canon cameras because I hate it when I press the shutter and the camera acts like it is broken and will not take a picture. I'd rather sort through the photos myself to determine what's good and what's not. I think Tony must also pixel peep too much because a photo doesn't always have to be perfectly in focus to be usable.