chapjohn Loc: Tigard, Oregon

Here is one of many photogs who use mirrorless to shot pro-sports.

https://alphauniverse.com/artisans/lower/

amfoto1 Loc: San Jose, Calif. USA

First, I don't yet have a mirrorless so am giving feedback only based upon reading about them.

I shoot sports and a MILC (mirrorless interchangeable lens camera) has some appeal.

HOWEVER, I have not bought one and will not do so soon for several reasons. I'll stick with DSLRs because...

1. The electronic viewfinders (EVF) used by MILC draw a lot of power, so they get far fewer shots per battery than is possible with a DSLR. Shooting sports, you'd have to keep the EVF active almost continuously, as you follow the action. With a DSLR, there's little to no power drain from their optical viewfinders. I've shot upwards of 2500 or 3000 images with a pair of batteries in a grip (1200 to 1500 per battery) at an event. Typically MILC can do about half that or less. As a result, I'd have to buy and carry a lot more batteries, as well as have some down time while swapping in fresh batteries. Now I carry a total of 12 batteries for the 3 DSLRs I usually take to a shoot (two in each grip, and a pair of backups for each). With MILC I would need at least double that number... possibly even triple in some cases. And 24 or, God forbid, 36 batteries just would be absurd!

2. Until recently, EVF have also had a bit of a lag displaying what's going on in front of the camera. That's been a serious problem for sports and other action photography, where split second timing is critical. There's been a big improvement in more recent mirrorless, though... Newer models have very little or no lag in displaying the image in the viewfinder. So this is becoming less of a problem.

3. There aren't yet a lot of long telephotos for MILC. Instead I'd have to adapt existing DSLR lenses... and actually end up with a larger, less well balanced rig. APS-C MILC can be smaller & light than APS-C DSLR... but when you hang a big heavy lens on the front of the camera, a "small and light" body won't balance as well. In time I'm sure there will be more telephotos available for MILC. But there just aren't many now.

4. Many MILC have used slower forms of on-sensor auto focusing, which just haven't been fast enough for sports photography... unable to acquire quickly, nearly immediately like my DSLRs... and unable to track movement as well. However, this too is changing with more recent models. In fact, Canon claims their new EOS R has the fastest autofocus anyone has ever produced (not to mention more than 5600 AF points that cover almost the entire image area!)

5. Full frame MILC, in particular, offer little in the way of weight and size reduction compared to full frame DSLRs. There can be some slight savings with the camera body itself, but the lenses actually end up the same or even a little bigger and heavier. Personally I use APS-C DSLRs for sports photography, and probably would want to do so with MILC, too. So this isn't necessarily a concern for me. However, it may be an important consideration for other folks... that there really isn't much or any savings of size and weight, with FF MILC.

6. I have some concern about the vulnerability of MILC camera sensors. They are moved far closer to the lens mounting flange. It's common for them to be only 16 to 18mm recessed inside the front of the camera. Many also don't have an shutter in front of the sensor, so it's fully exposed whenever a lens is removed. I think there's potential for dust problems or even physical damage. Compare that to a DSLR with its sensor 42 to 46mm recessed , plus tucked behind a mirror AND hidden behind a mechanical shutter! (I've heard that some MILC have a shutter mechanism specifically to protect the sensor during lens changes.)

7. Finally, I use Canon gear and their APS-C MILC have been somewhat limited. They have only offered models with viewfinders for a couple years (M5 and M50)... that was a necessity. They also don't offer any that can be fitted with vertical grip to increase battery capacity.... and they use a tiny LP-E17 (or similar) in most models, severely limiting shots per charge. Plus they have only developed 8 lenses for the M-series.... most of which are zooms and all of which use slower STM (stepper motor) focusing (compare to about 90 lenses avail. for my Canon APS-C DSLRs, incl. many with high performance USM/ultrasonic focus drive). This would mean adapting EF/EF-S lenses for use on the camera, which largely defeats the size and weight savings of the MILC camera.

Of course, there's also a lot to like about MILC too. To mention a few:

1. There's an advantage in that MILC electronic shutters can be absolutely silent... no moving parts! There's also potential for even faster shutter speeds than is possible with DSLRs. However, there's still a limit.... 1/16000 is on some cameras, and 1/32000 might be possible... but beyond that there's a "rolling shutter" effect that causes problems with an electronic shutter (Google it if you want more info).

2. EVF are great for low light situations, since they can amp up the scene in front of you. The good news is that recent models' AF systems are keeping up with this capability.... some of the newest ones can focus at amazingly low light levels... -5EV and -6EV..... where about the best a DSLR can AF is -3EV, while many are only good down to around -1EV.

3. EVF also give Exposure Simulation... essentially confirming camera settings by giving a preview of the image. This can make changing settings "on the fly" while keeping your eye to the viewfinder a lot easier.

4. EVF also can provide helpful assist for manual focus, such as "Focus Peaking"... not generally available in DLSRs, most of which make manual focus difficult.


I will get a Canon M-series eventually.... But I won't be using it very much for sports. I'll use it with a few prime lenses for street photography, general walk-around and portraiture. These are not "money shots" for me, so I haven't rushed out to buy one. It would be more of a "fun" camera.

Other systems.... especially Fuji and Sony... have impressed me more with their potential for sports/action photography. But I really don't want multiple systems if I can avoid it. Even putting that aside, building a high performance Fuji or Sony sports system also would be significantly more expensive than an "old school" Canon DSLR system, too. Mirrorless are the "latest and greatest thing" which everyone's just gotta have... and manufacturers have them priced to take advantage of that. A top of the line Fuji 24MP MILC costs roughly 50% more than I paid for my DSLR bodies. Comparable lenses (where available) are more expensive, too. It's good stuff... I've used some Fuji medium and large format gear in the past and found it to be excellent.... it's just more expensive. Sony cameras can be more affordable... but their e-mount lenses are more expensive than Canon or Nikon DSLR lenses.

SteveLew Loc: Sugar Land, TX

The two best mirrorless cameras for sports, right now, are the Sony A9 and the Fuji XT3 according to DP Review and other knowledgable reviewers.

CJ2

CJ2

https://bestphotographygear.com/best-mirrorless-cameras-sports-action/ - and you can add the X-t3 to that also

User ID

Years ago SLRs were horrible sports cameras. Time
and progress have changed that.

Earlier live view cameras were not great for sports.
Time and progress have changed that.

I won't do all the tedious comparison that usually
occurs in the forum, no need to add to that. But as
a single example, I'll describe ONE sports oriented
piece of remarkable progress applied to live view
cameras:

One of my Panasonic cameras can shoot 20 frames
at 18mp/frame in about one second, and the great
advance is that 10 frames will PRECEDE the use of
the shutter release button and 10 more, natcherly,
represent the action after the release.

=============================


So missing peak action due to lag is no longer an
issue ! No SLR can do this because:

To shoot both before and after shutter release all in
a single burst means the camera is actually ON and
temporarily saving 1 or 2 second video at all times
[all time that this feature is switched on] but waits
for the user to signal which moment is to be saved
to memory. Acoarst that "moment" includes about
a 1/2 sec before and 1/2 sec after the signal from
user/shutter release.

There's more, much more, progress but one super
amazing feature per post is enuf !


`

tdekany Loc: Oregon

How in the hack are people able to take once in a life time type of photographs with a mirrorless camera?

Reading your anti mirrorless posts, if we didn’t know any better, we would never purchase anything else except dslrs. Thankfully, most of us are educated about Mirrorless Cameras and just grin when we read your BS.

User ID

If we told you, we'd hafta kill you ....
reeeeally slooooowly.

newvy

I recently made the jump from Nikon to Sony. I’ve been pleased so far still getting my head around menu and focus options but framerate and low light performance was incredible. At Halloween I shot in hear darkness and was very impressed w performance. Plus I shot 4k video. My D4 would have never given that sort of video performance. There will always be give and take. Sony has been doing mirrorless for a long time and w ML I don’t think you can go past them. My father in law shoots Olympus 30+ years he swears by the M4/3.

jcboy3

I shoot mirrorless almost exclusively, but I have tried shooting sports and wildlife with mirrorless and was not satisfied with the focus speed. So I continue to shoot most sports and wildlife with my Nikon gear. I was using a D750 and D7100 pair, but started using the D500 as my primary due to the better focus, faster frame rate, and excellent low light performance (and the crop factor which helps with DOF and focal length).

I have gotten an Olympus OMD E-M1 mark II recently, and have used it's Pro Capture mode on several occasions. It works well for capturing moments, but the AF is still slower and less reliable. So I'm still using my Nikon gear for most sports and wildlife shooting, although I'm getting more of the less challenging shots with mirrorless now.

wdross Loc: Castle Rock, Colorado

Thanks, Bill! "Speculative" was the word I was looking for in Tony's comments that 4/3rds is a "dead" format. Most of his information was factual but some of the conclusions didn't seem right.

That aside, I wonder how many owners have not set their EVFs for a proper speed. I personally know that until I set my former E-M5's electronic viewfinder, I was being driven absolute nuts by it. Once I set the camera's EVF to high speed refresh, the camera no longer caused me to miss the shots. Now with Pro Capture, no one should be missing shots.

And I agree with your assessment; the OP should work with the system that he has from an expense point of view. He doesn't have a need to "reinvent the wheel" at this point in time. It has got to be easier to work with equipment that is familiar or similar to what he is already using.

wdross Loc: Castle Rock, Colorado

From the 43 Rumor, it sounds like Olympus will be putting out an 150-400 f4 (300-800 f4 in 35mm terms) for their 100th anniversary. I have to believe it will have further improved lense stabilization for handholding.

imagemeister Loc: mid east Florida

gwilliams6

Both Nikon and Canon FF mirrorless have slow processors and laggy EVF's which can't keep up full AF-C and exposure control when pushed beyond low frames rates, especially in Raw shooting (in case of Nikon), and in DPAF in Raw (IN Canon). Their advertised and hyped frames rates are not real in real shooting. Nikon and Canon still have a long way to go to match the tech and actual performance of the Sony FF mirrorless cameras. Maybe next generation, but not these first ones. That is the sad truth, not hype.

jeep_daddy Loc: Prescott AZ

I think I'll borrow one of the EOS R ML cameras and see for myself how bad it is. I talked to another guy and he says the same thing as you about the slow processors. Crap, they are using the latest Canon processor that they use in all the high end Canon cameras and so I didn't really think that could be it.