Ugly Hedgehog - Photography Forum
Home Active Topics Newest Pictures Search Login Register
Main Photography Discussion
sports/wildlife photography...DSLR or Mirror less
Page <<first <prev 3 of 4 next>
Nov 29, 2015 15:48:17   #
rehess Loc: South Bend, Indiana, USA
 
SharpShooter wrote:
If you're serious about sports and wildlife, sell both of those cameras and lenses and get a 7Dkmkll!! :lol:
But only if you're serious!
SS

SharpShooter wrote:
LoL Bear, you must have missed it, I used the word SERIOUS......., twice!!!!! LoL
SS
And, most importantly, you used the smiley face {:lol:} which never means that you are serious.

Reply
Nov 29, 2015 15:55:25   #
CatMarley Loc: North Carolina
 
sirlensalot wrote:
The Sony a6000 poses no issues in low-light sports venues for me.
I use it coupled to the 50/1.8 O.S.S. lens.
Any camera be it DSLR or MILC, can use help from faster lenses to do the job in low-light. Especially for action sports.
I would not say one is more important than the other, but it is important to match the right tools to get the job done right.


Where do you go to shoot indoor/night cycling? And I would like to see all those night wildlife raccoon shots!

Reply
Nov 29, 2015 15:55:49   #
kwbybee Loc: Oklahoma City
 
Keeping the D7000, want to add to the collection. :)

D7000 and Tamron 70-300
D7000 and Tamron 70-300...

Reply
 
 
Nov 29, 2015 16:00:21   #
rehess Loc: South Bend, Indiana, USA
 
CatMarley wrote:
Longer than 1200 mm? You can't even locate your subject through the finder at that zoom level!
Once you use the word "zoom", the rest of your statement becomes irrelevant; the user zooms out to compose and zooms in to focus / take the actual picture. In fact, six weeks ago I was testing out a 300mm f/4 Pentax Super-Takumar prime lens on my Pentax Q-7 camera. The lens did not give good results - lots of CA and poor detail (unless I was seriously off on the focus, that lens could not resolve to anything like the tiny pixels on that camera), but even at a view roughly equivalent to 1400mm on a FF camera, I did nail the composition every time.

Reply
Nov 29, 2015 16:13:05   #
CatMarley Loc: North Carolina
 
rehess wrote:
Once you use the word "zoom", the rest of your statement becomes irrelevant; the user zooms out to compose and zooms in to focus / take the actual picture. In fact, six weeks ago I was testing out a 300mm f/4 Pentax Super-Takumar prime lens on my Pentax Q-7 camera. The lens did not give good results - lots of CA and poor detail (unless I was seriously off on the focus, that lens could not resolve to anything like the tiny pixels on that camera), but even at a view roughly equivalent to 1400mm on a FF camera, I did nail the composition every time.
Once you use the word "zoom", the rest o... (show quote)


The zoom allows you to locate your subject through the viewfinder at short length and then zoom to enlarge and frame it. Try locating your subject through a big fixed length lens, or a high mag telescopic rifle sight. By the time you find it, it's gone! Not easy!

You probably would have had better results with the little Fuji bridge camera. It is only about 380 biucks and has a reach of 1200 mm at f5.6. probably has some CA but gives (according to the shots published) a pretty sharp 16 mb image.

Reply
Nov 29, 2015 16:13:33   #
kwbybee Loc: Oklahoma City
 
CatMarley wrote:
Quote from the original post "The sport I shoot is cycling." So far as I know cycling is a daylight outdoor sport. No need for low light performance. Weatherproofing and fixed lens are advantages as is long reach. for under 400 bucks he can get a lightweight bridge camera that goes from 24mm to 1200mm and 8 fpm, 16 mp, and keep his Nikon and XT-1 for other subjects. Unless you are going to stalk wildlife with a huge long lens, haul a tripod and other assorted gear, you have a better chance of getting good shots with a single lens lightweight camera and perhaps a monopod.
Quote from the original post "The sport I sho... (show quote)


There are some night time races

Oh by the war this is my son...the incentive
Oh by the war this is my son...the incentive...

Reply
Nov 29, 2015 16:16:21   #
rehess Loc: South Bend, Indiana, USA
 
CatMarley wrote:
You probably would have had better results with the little Fuji bridge camera. It is only about 380 biucks and has a reach of 1200 mm at f5.6. probably has some CA but gives (according to the shots published) a pretty sharp 16 mb image.
Probably ... but part of the fun is in the trying.

Reply
 
 
Nov 29, 2015 16:16:51   #
birdpix Loc: South East Pennsylvania
 
I own a Fuji XT-1 and a Canon 7DMK II. Despite the recent software upgrade, the Fuji still has a tremendous lag time both in awakening from idle and tracking fast moving subjects. It is a great camera for general use and I carry it for travel because of the weight factor. However, when I am shooting wildlife and sports, which I do extensively, I always use the DSLR. It has the response time that you need to acquire focus and then track a moving subject.

Reply
Nov 29, 2015 16:20:31   #
CatMarley Loc: North Carolina
 
kwbybee wrote:
There are some night time races


That's why they make flash units. Of course if you live in Arctic Finland, winter races might be a bit dark.. Guess they have to break out the 810 with the 400mm behemoth for that one!

Reply
Nov 29, 2015 16:32:16   #
GENorkus Loc: Washington Twp, Michigan
 
I've only gad one mirrorless a while back and found the lag to be terrible. Can anyone tell me if a lag still exists?

I'm thinking about mirrorless since low light seems pretty good and I do lots of that.

Reply
Nov 29, 2015 17:34:32   #
CatMarley Loc: North Carolina
 
GENorkus wrote:
I've only gad one mirrorless a while back and found the lag to be terrible. Can anyone tell me if a lag still exists?

I'm thinking about mirrorless since low light seems pretty good and I do lots of that.


The shutter lag on the xt-1 is 0.05 seconds. I do not believe the human eye can register this time increment, but some people on this forum claim to be blessed with superhuman reflexes that find this lag to be a handicap to their creativity. I have been shooting Nikons since the 1970's and have a herd of them now, and a Fujifilm XT-1 mirrorless. I can't see any difference between the Nikon shutter performance and the XT-1, but perhaps I am not as neurologically gifted as some others here.

Reply
 
 
Nov 29, 2015 17:35:23   #
sirlensalot Loc: Arizona
 
Toment wrote:
Check this out, sports fans!
http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=up8K_xd_iwU



Interesting - on one hand he states the D4S is "king of sports and wildlife" and in the end states that the Panasonic GH4 is about equal to the D4S.
Pretty subjective as no actual data was shared, but fun to look at. Thanks for sharing.

Reply
Nov 29, 2015 17:50:29   #
sirlensalot Loc: Arizona
 
www.tomsguide.com/us/dslr-vs-mirrorless-cameras,news-17736.html

Another view on comparisons.

Reply
Nov 29, 2015 18:15:15   #
CatMarley Loc: North Carolina
 
Here is a performance comparison of the 24mp jpg low light on auto nikon 5500 (same sensor as the 7200) and the Fujifilm XT-1 16mp on auto. Both shot at about 55 mm at about 1 meter. I see more noise in the Nikon, more pixels but smaller pixels.

Nikon 24mp
Nikon 24mp...
(Download)

XT-1 16mp
XT-1 16mp...
(Download)

Reply
Nov 29, 2015 20:30:54   #
SharpShooter Loc: NorCal
 
CatMarley wrote:
That's why they make flash units. Of course if you live in Arctic Finland, winter races might be a bit dark.. Guess they have to break out the 810 with the 400mm behemoth for that one!


No Cat, the behemoth is way to slow for that.
Real action requires a 200 f1.8!!!!!!! :-)
SS

Reply
Page <<first <prev 3 of 4 next>
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.
Main Photography Discussion
UglyHedgehog.com - Forum
Copyright 2011-2024 Ugly Hedgehog, Inc.