Jorgen Udvang
Subscriber Member
Here's a little story that illustrates what I'm trying to say:
When taking photos for a racing team, which I did for years, there are certain things that are important:
- Sponsor logos
- The driver's helmet
- The impression of speed
- Superiority versus the main competitors
If your driver wins or loses isn't important. In general, if he didn't win, you won't notice who did. You'll be preparing for the next race when that happens. But... when your driver overtakes his main rival, you have to be there. "Your" car should be sharp and in focus, the background blurred, and the competitor, if it was possible, even more so, to emphasis the difference in speed. The trick is to predict where and when this will happen. There's often some running involved when things are heating up.
So, it's a slow shutter speed pan shot, as slow as you dare, depending on the speed of the cars. And you need free sight to "your" car throughout the process to keep the main sponsor logo and the helmet of the driver at exactly the same place during the whole burst. In reality, that's only the case for 20-50% of the shots in a burst with shutter speed around 50% of the focal length, but you only need one sharp shot.
Before I understood how electronic viewfinders work, I tried to do this with a GH2 a few times. It was a mystery to me how I could get the wrong car sharp when while looking through the viewfinder, I seemed to follow "my" car perfectly, at least for as long as I was holding the shutter release. That was until I understood that what I saw was a slide show, not the actual action. Later, I tried the GH2 and GH3 at freestyle jetski competitions. Same thing, lots of spray and fragments of the boat at some corner of the image. Doesn't work. Doesn't work for Panasonic, doesn't work for Sony, doesn't work for Olympus, doesn't work for Fuji. Probably something about processing capacity.
At some sports events, there is only one money shot. It can be worth anything from a couple of dollars to several thousand. But whatever the value of that shot is, I'm not going to lose it because I don't have the most suitable equipment that my money can buy. And if I can't afford or can't carry the equipment needed, I should consider shooting daffodils instead.
Is this a problem? Not at all! Any old D2X or D300 can do this job, and they can be acquired for $3-400. Add the cost of a halfway decent 70-300mm lens ($200?), and you're in business. And this is what annoys me a bit with the video at the top of this thread. That, and the articles linked to later, give the impression that Sony mirrorless and SLT cameras have introduced great advantages for sports shooters. They haven't. Better AF and better low light abilities have to some degree, but that goes for all camera brands. Great sports images however, can been shot with a Nikon F or even a Leica. It's what you see through the viewfinder that makes the difference, and when you don't see it, you don't get the shot. With my bad, old Nikons, I see. That's why I keep them and use them.
When taking photos for a racing team, which I did for years, there are certain things that are important:
- Sponsor logos
- The driver's helmet
- The impression of speed
- Superiority versus the main competitors
If your driver wins or loses isn't important. In general, if he didn't win, you won't notice who did. You'll be preparing for the next race when that happens. But... when your driver overtakes his main rival, you have to be there. "Your" car should be sharp and in focus, the background blurred, and the competitor, if it was possible, even more so, to emphasis the difference in speed. The trick is to predict where and when this will happen. There's often some running involved when things are heating up.
So, it's a slow shutter speed pan shot, as slow as you dare, depending on the speed of the cars. And you need free sight to "your" car throughout the process to keep the main sponsor logo and the helmet of the driver at exactly the same place during the whole burst. In reality, that's only the case for 20-50% of the shots in a burst with shutter speed around 50% of the focal length, but you only need one sharp shot.
Before I understood how electronic viewfinders work, I tried to do this with a GH2 a few times. It was a mystery to me how I could get the wrong car sharp when while looking through the viewfinder, I seemed to follow "my" car perfectly, at least for as long as I was holding the shutter release. That was until I understood that what I saw was a slide show, not the actual action. Later, I tried the GH2 and GH3 at freestyle jetski competitions. Same thing, lots of spray and fragments of the boat at some corner of the image. Doesn't work. Doesn't work for Panasonic, doesn't work for Sony, doesn't work for Olympus, doesn't work for Fuji. Probably something about processing capacity.
At some sports events, there is only one money shot. It can be worth anything from a couple of dollars to several thousand. But whatever the value of that shot is, I'm not going to lose it because I don't have the most suitable equipment that my money can buy. And if I can't afford or can't carry the equipment needed, I should consider shooting daffodils instead.
Is this a problem? Not at all! Any old D2X or D300 can do this job, and they can be acquired for $3-400. Add the cost of a halfway decent 70-300mm lens ($200?), and you're in business. And this is what annoys me a bit with the video at the top of this thread. That, and the articles linked to later, give the impression that Sony mirrorless and SLT cameras have introduced great advantages for sports shooters. They haven't. Better AF and better low light abilities have to some degree, but that goes for all camera brands. Great sports images however, can been shot with a Nikon F or even a Leica. It's what you see through the viewfinder that makes the difference, and when you don't see it, you don't get the shot. With my bad, old Nikons, I see. That's why I keep them and use them.