I much prefer waterfall shots (like yours) that show water as a collection of drops, rather than a stream of spilled cream. Just my opinion.

Mr. Burk explained what's going on in two brief sentences. What he doesn't say is how many "raster lines" there are in the full frame. If there are more than 16, then the full image would take longer than the 1,000th sec. that the photographer set for shutter speed. In fact, I'll bet there are many thousands of raster lines in a full frame image, which means that the actual exposure time is likely in the 1/4 to 1/2 second range.

Conclusion: Mirrorless cameras have a serious design flaw with regard to high speed action shots.

You obviously don't play tennis. If the ball (in either of the OP's shots) had already been hit, the players' arms and racquets would be waist high as they followed through with their swings. In both pix, the players are in the process of serving. They have just tossed the ball up and the ball is momentarily stationary at the apex of the toss, waiting to be hit. The pix show the players half way through their service swings.

Exactly! And, any flexing at all (in tennis racquets, golf clubs baseball bats, etc.) occurs AFTER the ball is hit, NOT during the swing.

Well, that means that your shutter speed setting is meaningless. How long does it take this "electronic shutter" to complete its scan. It appears from the OP's shots that it takes nearly half a second. That's obviously not what he expected when he bought his fancy, new Sony mirrorless camera. Stick with Nikons (or Canons).

Comment continued, a couple more clues: Draw a straight line from her hand (the racquet handle is, of course, straight); the racquet head should be only a couple inches (instead of over a foot) from the ball. Then, look at her eyes; she is no longer looking at the ball, which, by the time the shutter exposes her face, is on its way toward the opponent.

Solution: Don't use the Sony for action shots; go back to your DSLRs.

I don't know what a "rolling shutter" is, vs. any other kind, but it's obvious that the top of this pic was exposed before the lower portions. The exposure time of each portion of the pic is 1,000th sec., but the total exposure time seemingly is much slower. A tennis serve begins with the racquet head behind the players head. As she swings through the serve, the lower portions of the shaft are moving forward, making the racquet appear to be bending. As far as I know, the shutters on my old Nikon F and my new D850 move side to side, rather than top to bottom. Those of you who better understand the mechanics of a camera can probably verify or correct my theory. (BTW, these are excellent action shots.)

I don't think so. The head of the racquet is, by far, the fastest moving object in the pic, which would put the head and upper shaft in different places, even during the 1,000th of a second the shutter is open.

Considering the ridiculous tattooed legs (of the owner?), I'd say a blood red pool is perfectly normal.

Very nice BIF pic, but I had no idea what your title meant. Oh, I get it; "Dual Synchronized Ballet," right?

Thanks. I (and probably many others) could learn a lot from your superb landscape work.

Back up and get the whole barn. Great textures and colors.

Well, you've got less than a centimeter of depth of field (focus). Definitely needed a smaller aperture, and probably some extra light. (I often use a camera-mounted LED bank for outdoor macro work.)

A typically gorgeous shot, Cany. Just curious; what f-stop do you use for such a huge depth of field?

Correct. And, all they - or anybody - can use that info for is to deposit $$$ INTO your account. There is NO WAY they can use it to remove funds from your account. Many, if not most, people employed by corporations and governments give that info to their employers so they can be payed automatically and on time.