MaxxtheDog wrote:
Hi Photo Brain,
I search this site and only show this topic from a few years back.
Currently shooting a D500 for sports. Indoor, outdoor, low light, all of it.
Thinking of going full frame for the night games but wondering if I should hold off for the new cameras.
Has anyone made the switch from their sport DSLR to a mirrorless one?
If so, which one and what pros and cons do you find?
I would like real examples, not theoretical from someone that has only read about them.
Thanks!
Hi Photo Brain, br I search this site and only sh... (
show quote)
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.