Great to see you here. Join our insightful photographic forum today and start tapping into a huge wealth of photographic knowledge. Completing our simple registration process will allow you to gain access to exclusive content, add your own topics and posts, share your work and connect with other members through your own private inbox! And don’t forget to say hi!
There's an important distinction when it comes to speed: Actual speed of the subject isn't very interesting. If you're far away from the subject, the relative speed is very low. It's the speed of the subject relative to the distance between subject and photographer that matters. A great 100 meter sprinter, and some of the football players are very good sprinters, has an average speed of around 35 kph. Still, photographers don't get much closer to the action than those who take photos of racing cars moving at 100-300 kph. That make even the fastest football players seem like turtles compared to any motorised vehicle or vessel, and the demands on the camera smaller. Still, there are photographers claiming that it's problematic to shoot football or track and field using an EVF.Please, first define 'sports' ...
We're talking (fast) moving non-stationary objects, right ?
Hi Bab, thank you for this example !
Gene Lower shoots only mirrorless for sports.One can shoot sports with any camera. I can shoot sports with my GX680 if needed, and I will for sure be able to deliver shots that can be published. But for some sports, some cameras will make the job difficult. For most kinds of motor sports, the lack of continuous live view through the EVF means losing shots, particularly with panning at changing speeds. The inferior AF-C of, as far as I know, all mirrorless cameras, also complicates matters. For American football, I don't have a clue.
Gene Lower is a good photographer. He's also what Sony calls a "Sony Artisan", so as much a Sony team member as a Cardinal member. According to alphauniverse.com, a Sony website, his preferred camera is the A77 II. That's a DSLR camera with an EVF. If that camera wasn't suitable for sports photography, it would be very embarrassing for Sony. It's the only sports camera they make.
Oh, and that video... product placements all through it. Clearly paid by Sony. It's advertising plain and simple.
In the link above, not a single advantage shooting sports with mirrorless is mentioned. The only pieces of advice he gives are "Stay persistent" and "Stay on top of technology" with little explanation about what that imply. Earlier in the article, it's mentioned that one of his reasons for success is that he uses digital cameras. That's unusual...Gene Lower shoots only mirrorless for sports.
Gene Lower’s Chess Match: Cardinals Photographer Talks Shooting, Technology and Tips | PhotoShelter Blog
I would call it informative and enlightening rather than just advertising. His images are great. He has reasons for using only mirrorless now which he discusses in the link.
-Bill
Is it me you're asking? The A77 II is a fine camera for action, the only caveat being the viewfinder for some applications that I mention further up. I was tempted by an A77/A99 combo when they where first launched, but since I was shooting motor sports for one of the teams in Thailand at the time, and the viewfinder isn't suitable for challenging pan shots, I rejected the plan. Further testing, a lot of it, confirmed that it was a wise decision. That doesn't necessarily mean that it won't work for others though, and it's fantastic value for money, maybe the best value when it comes to sports cameras, since it's also good for video, which the Nikons and Canons aren't due to the lack of an EVF and functioning AF-C during video shooting.Are you referring to all Sony digital cameras or just the a7x series........
If you are referring to all Sony digitals I must take exception as the a77II is plenty good enough for anything fast with its high frame rate and its exceptional Lock-on continuous AF system
If I can stop these with a handheld 150-600 tammy I think I can stop a baseball or a hockey puck with a 2.8 300mm and the a77II... whatdaythink?
Looked like a small feature done by a local TV station to me, if he shoots sony there’s going to be footage of him shooting Sony ...Oh, and that video... product placements all through it. Clearly paid by Sony. It's advertising plain and simple.
One can always say that this video screen capture shows Gene Lower shooting with a Sony A7, but the language is so classic "camera promotion" that it leaves little doubt about where the focus is:Looked like a small feature done by a local TV station to me, if he shoots sony there’s going to be footage of him shooting Sony ...
Football shooters need to visit the gym more often... :ROTFL:It's a local feature by one of local stations. I live here folks. There is no Sony marketing stuff going on at all . Not even close its about him. Btw every baseball,football and soccer shooter uses a monopod. I shot Pro basketball for a long time myself . We used stadium strobes. Phoenix Suns
Remember a monopod is not only used to shoot it also used to hold the truck of gear so you don't get fatigued. Wow a story about a good shooter turns to Sony hate. ****ing amazing
No it was the OP I was asking but as far as the viewfinder issue and what Nikon users like to refer to as a slideshow effect with EVF I personally think that is non user negative hype. The early EVF ( like on the a33 and 55) had some issues but today what you see has little difference in my eyes as a mirrored OVF with the mirror moving back and forth. I shoot birds in flight all the time with very unpredictable and fast flight paths and at 8-10 fps and have no tracking issues other than those any photog using any gear has in following fast irratic movements of their subject.Is it me you're asking? The A77 II is a fine camera for action, the only caveat being the viewfinder for some applications that I mention further up. I was tempted by an A77/A99 combo when they where first launched, but since I was shooting motor sports for one of the teams in Thailand at the time, and the viewfinder isn't suitable for challenging pan shots, I rejected the plan. Further testing, a lot of it, confirmed that it was a wise decision. That doesn't necessarily mean that it won't work for others though, and it's fantastic value for money, maybe the best value when it comes to sports cameras, since it's also good for video, which the Nikons and Canons aren't due to the lack of an EVF and functioning AF-C during video shooting.