Action Sports
Feb 18, 2017 18:23:45 #
What are some of the best cameras for action sports ? All types considered, DSLR, mirrorless, translucent mirror.
DXO list the Sony A7s as one. Thanks in advance for your comments. JH
DXO list the Sony A7s as one. Thanks in advance for your comments. JH
Feb 18, 2017 18:50:43 #
From personal experience, shooting motor racing, a DSLR (have used a mirrorless when shooting action trackside however didn't have much sucess with it).
Feb 18, 2017 18:50:48 #
mas24
Loc: Southern CA
I don't know about mirrorless cameras. I've never seen one at at any professional sports events. Including the a7rii. Not to say mirrorless cannot do the job. What you see will at professional sports are Canon 1DX and 1DX Mark 2. And Nikon D4s and D5. However, if you are not a pro photographer, you could do a pretty good job with a mirrorless crop sensor Sony a6000, or any good Nikon camera, such as a D7200 or D500, on sports activities with proper lenses. And of course the Canon 7D Mark 2.
Feb 18, 2017 19:19:44 #
Feb 18, 2017 19:38:57 #
Jfholly wrote:
What are some of the best cameras for action sports ? All types considered, DSLR, mirrorless, translucent mirror.
DXO list the Sony A7s as one. Thanks in advance for your comments. JH
DXO list the Sony A7s as one. Thanks in advance for your comments. JH
Sony translucent ( pellicle) non-moving mirror, A77II and A99II - 12 FPS .....AFFORDABLE !
Feb 18, 2017 19:39:40 #
Jfholly wrote:
What are some of the best cameras for action sports ? All types considered, DSLR, mirrorless, translucent mirror.
DXO list the Sony A7s as one. Thanks in advance for your comments. JH
DXO list the Sony A7s as one. Thanks in advance for your comments. JH
The AF system on the new Olympus and Sonys is pretty great - and the shutter lag is less than the 7 yr old DSLRs, and the EVF is actually better than the viewfinder, especially in bad light - I've not seen them used yet, but I suspect that is about to change. Otherwise you see mostly the Nikon D4/5 and the Canon 1DX, 1DC etc.
Feb 19, 2017 06:04:36 #
My choice for ice hockey games is a Canon 7D MK II with a 70-200 F2.8 IS II Lens. Good luck!
Feb 19, 2017 06:29:25 #
I know a couple of younger guys who shoot drag racing with Sony and seem to get fine results. Most shoot Nikon or Canon DSLR in 5D3, 7D2 and Nikon similar models. And a few shoot the D4 or 1Dx highest end models. Depends upon your needs and budget. Any of these can work for many sports situations.
Best,
Todd Ferguson
Best,
Todd Ferguson
Feb 19, 2017 06:40:19 #
I really LOVE my Canon 7D MII, for equestrian and baseball. It does a truly amazing job!!
Feb 19, 2017 07:23:33 #
jeryh
Loc: Oxfordshire UK
For birds, I use both the canon 50D and a 400 F5.6L, and an A77 with a 500mm F8 Sony A/F lens. The Sony with that lens is fantastic- I usually use it hand held, speed as high as I can, according to available light. It is fine, even with the smaller birds, but is superb with the larger ones !
Feb 19, 2017 09:42:30 #
For a Canon user, the best setup for the least investment is the 7DII, the 70-200 2.8, the 100-400 Mk II, and the 1.4 extender. Get a couple circular polarizing filters and for action sports, you will have all the gear you ever need.
(Actually, for some sports and some situations you would want a close-up lens like the EF 24-70, too.)
If cost is no object, buy the absolute top of the line of whatever manufacturer you choose.
Mirrorless might meet the performance of DSLRs eventually, but so far, it seems they have not quite. In some situations they might be as good, but a sports photographer cannot only choose to shoot in those situations. Otherwise, none of the pros would be using the 7DII, 1DX, or the Nikon equivalents---and pretty much, all of them are.
(Actually, for some sports and some situations you would want a close-up lens like the EF 24-70, too.)
If cost is no object, buy the absolute top of the line of whatever manufacturer you choose.
Mirrorless might meet the performance of DSLRs eventually, but so far, it seems they have not quite. In some situations they might be as good, but a sports photographer cannot only choose to shoot in those situations. Otherwise, none of the pros would be using the 7DII, 1DX, or the Nikon equivalents---and pretty much, all of them are.
Feb 19, 2017 09:49:49 #
Or you can go with 7D2, 70-200 2.8 IS II, 2.0 Mk III TC. This gives you 70-400mm. Add 24-70 2.8 II if and when the need and money are there. $4,000 plus another $2,000 for the 24-70 new.
Best,
Todd Ferguson
Best,
Todd Ferguson
Feb 19, 2017 10:01:34 #
catchlight..
Loc: Wisconsin USA- Halden Norway
Mk4 works great for me...Mkiii before that was almost as good. The question is how many fps do you need. For a money shot maybe the 1dx will get you paid, but for the real world I have no problem. I see no advantage to a crop sensor except for perceived reach. Focus speed and accuacy on the 4 is not an issue.
Feb 19, 2017 10:01:49 #
Notorious T.O.D. wrote:
One pro I have spoken with says there is a little too much IQ loss with the 2x, but he is pretty hard-core ... most people might find the 2X images okay. If you don't need the reach, I'd strongly suggest the 70-200 2.8 and the 1.4. Or you can go with 7D2, 70-200 2.8 IS II, 2.0 Mk III TC. This gives you 70-400mm. Add 24-70 2.8 II if and when the need and money are there. $4,000 plus another $2,000 for the 24-70 new.
The extra reach gives you a few extra options in some situations, but does nothing in some others. Depends on what you shoot and what you want.
I'd bet Mr. Todd Ferguson's suggestion would work excellently for almost everyone.
Feb 19, 2017 10:12:01 #
I think it depends on the body you are using, technique of the shooter and perhaps micro adjustments to the combination. I have begun shooting the 2.0 MkIII TC with my 70-200 II on a 1Dx Mk II to try to determine if the image quality is satisfactory. You mileage may vary...I can only say it is a possibility for consideration.
I have shot a stop sign at 400-500 feet away handheld and it seems sharp enough for me. I can post that photo if anyone here wants to look and judge. I posted it a week or two ago in another thread. The problem I find is because the origional file is like 27mb there is no way to post it that I have determined without reducing the size of the file significantly. Maybe there is something I'm missing...
Best,
Todd Ferguson
I have shot a stop sign at 400-500 feet away handheld and it seems sharp enough for me. I can post that photo if anyone here wants to look and judge. I posted it a week or two ago in another thread. The problem I find is because the origional file is like 27mb there is no way to post it that I have determined without reducing the size of the file significantly. Maybe there is something I'm missing...
Best,
Todd Ferguson
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.