The GetDPI Photography Forum

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!

You cannot shoot sports with Sony camera

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.
 

Jorgen Udvang

Subscriber Member
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.

The so called slideshow argument just does not hold water when results are compared. I would much prefer focus lock continuos adj spot focusing than any viewfinder preference. For the record I will never go back to OVF as the EVF offer me far more instant feedback and info.

But that is me and my shooting.... I cut my teeth for 40 years with OVF's and can understand those who prefer to stay with what they are used to.
The slide show issue has been proven again and again, most recently by dpr with the A7R II. I routinely check it out with more or less every new mirrorless camera coming on to the market, except the NX1, which isn't available here, and appears to be discontinued in most markets anyway.

Or maybe I'm simply just not clever enough...
 

Jorgen Udvang

Subscriber Member
There is one important reason why Sony gets a lot of pepper for this:
While other manufacturers of mirrorless cameras direct little or none of their marketing towards sports photography, Sony does. I have the A7 II brochure in front of me, and 4 full pages are dedicated towards car racing, featuring 2 large pan shots and several smaller ones. It's obviously possible to capture those images with an A7 II. People do, and I can do it too. But it's easier and safer to do it with any DSLR, much easier. I'm sure Sony knows that, but they are here to sell cameras, not to make my life easier. I prefer the easy life :D
 

Jim DE

New member
Jorgen, I own a a7rII and personally I would never use mine for action shots. IMO it is not the best tool for the job due to its AF system not its viewfinder. I use the a77II for action.

What has been proven about slideshow vs mirror kick is some people's eyes are more sensitive to one than the other. That said I would never judge someone's reaction to one over another. I don't have their vision and in the same scenario they don't have mine. ( truth is I have been using EVF since the Minolta a1 and honestly I don't even register I am using a EVF... It's just a viewfinder to me. The only time I notice a viewfinder is when one of my student hands me their camera and it's not EVF) I have no problems panning on a purple Martin in flight which makes a race cars movement look like the comparison of the tortoise and the hare in terms of tracking. I could use a gimbal on a car no chance on a purple Martin.

If the EVF bothers someone when smoking frames on a fast target then it is not the camera for them but that does not mean the tool itself is not capable. Just not the best tool for everyone. ( but what tool is?) I would be willing to bet if we both fired on a race car we both would get the shots with the same degree of ease. Making the debate between EVF and OVF a moot point. It boils down to what is happening in the 12" behind the viewfinder no matter which kind.
 
Last edited:

Jorgen Udvang

Subscriber Member
Jorgen, I own a a7rII and personally I would never use mine for action shots. IMO it is not the best tool for the job due to its AF system not its viewfinder. I use the a77II for action.

What has been proven about slideshow vs mirror kick is some people's eyes are more sensitive to one than the other. That said I would never judge someone's reaction to one over another. I don't have their vision and in the same scenario they don't have mine. ( truth is I have been using EVF since the Minolta a1 and honestly I don't even register I am using a EVF... It's just a viewfinder to me) I have no problems panning on a purple Martin in flight which makes a race cars movement look like the comparison of the tortoise and the hare in terms of tracking. I could use a gimbal on a car no chance on a purple Martin.

If the EVF bothers someone when smoking frames on a fast target then it is not the camera for them but that does not mean the tool itself is not capable. Just not the best tool for everyone. ( but what tool is?) I would be willing to bet if we both fired on a race car we both would get the shots with the same degree of ease. Making the debate between EVF and OVF a moot point. It boils down to what is happening in the 12" behind the viewfinder no matter which kind.
When I mainly used mirrorless cameras, I didn't think about what I was looking through either, obviously except for the above mentioned examples (and a couple of others). These things obviously develop, and they will be refined to a point that for all practical purposes, there won't be any difference between an optical and an electronic viewfinder. Still, some will probably prefer one or the other for emotional or other reasons. What surprises me quite a bit is that cameras with EVFs haven't taken the low end market with storm. Almost any EVF is vastly better than the OVF of a camera like a Nikon D3300 or the corresponding Canons. Maybe it's because many low end mirrorless cameras lack a viewfinder altogether, with manufacturers believing users would migrate from camera phones to "real" cameras with a similar user interface as those phones?

Whatever it is, the market position of mirrorless cameras has developed much slower than what I thought would be the case 5 years ago. Challenging the SLR camera, the symbol of advanced photography equipment for more than 50 years, has apparently not been as easy as some thought it was. Personally, I like the reassuring click-clack sound of a "real" camera :)
 

Jim DE

New member
Essentially, the cameras/phones with only a lcd screen is nothing more than a open view EVF. I doubt if I will be around to see this but my crystal ball shows all image capturing tools in the future will have EVF and OVF and mirrors will go the way of the 8 track players once all us old and resistant to change photographers are no longer sucking air. Photography chases advancements while their customer base retains a death grip on resistance to change. Look at how long some companies held onto film and resisted change because their customer base resisted change. Or how many times did we hear the new old guard say no one needs more than 6mp or then the even newer old guard stating 12mp or 16mp. The old guards resistance to change has slowed the advancement of this art form far more than it has ever helped it.

Heck I still occasionally shoot color positive film .... I'm a dinosaur ;)
 

Jorgen Udvang

Subscriber Member
I've considered doing a race using the GX680 with Velvia and Tri-X. I'll have a look into that for one of the races next season. Then, I will need the monopod for sure :D
 

ohnri

New member
Got some pretty nice ice hockey photos of my son and his team a couple of days ago. I used the A7r2 with the 70-400 G2 and the laea4 adapter.

The biggest problems were picking up initial focus if the lens had to rack a long way to acquire and the slow speed (f5.6 at the long end) of the lens.

I will try it next time with the 70-200 f/4 and see if that makes a difference.

No doubt, I had more keepers with my D4 and 70-200/2.8 but this was my first time trying out the Sony.

-Bill
 
Top