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

Guy Mancuso

Administrator, Instructor
I'm a huge Cardinal fan. Nice to see another Pro buck the BS over Sony can't do this or that. It really is tiring, this is about talent and if you have it than you can shoot anything.
 

Jorgen Udvang

Subscriber Member
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.
 

Knorp

Well-known member
Please, first define 'sports' ... :rolleyes:
We're talking (fast) moving non-stationary objects, right ?
 

Jorgen Udvang

Subscriber Member
Please, first define 'sports' ... :rolleyes:
We're talking (fast) moving non-stationary objects, right ?
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.

For motor sports, everything is fine as long as vehicles follow a predictable line, which they do most of the time. But the great shots mostly come when a driver is doing something extraordinary, like a sudden acceleration to overtake, or leaving the track in a spectacular manner. Then, the current crop of electronic viewfinders become useless, since they don't show the actual action during bursts, but a slide show of the images that you've already taken. You can't predict the speed increase of an accelerating racing vehicle unless you sit behind the wheel.

The weight savings of a mirrorless body is also totally irrelevant. Sports photographers carry tons of gear. A few hundred grams saved on the bodies won't change that, particularly when the terrible battery life means carrying a stack of batteries at any time. No, there won't be time to get back to the car for more. What you carry on your body, the human one, has to last for 8-12 hours.

Dpr did a test of the A7R II for sports photography, and among their conclusions where "Disruption caused by playback blackout works against the photographer when trying to anticipate a moment when shooting in continuous burst.". That's the same conclusion I came to myself after trying out different Panasonic bodies for sports through 5 years. So instead of fighting nature and technology, most sports photographers use cameras with optical viewfinders.

Full article here:
Keeping up with the big boys? Shooting pro sports with the Sony a7R II: Digital Photography Review
 
Last edited:

dmward

Member
As a young photographer I shot motor sports with Nikon F cameras and manual focus lenses.
I also shot college football.

As Guy stated, its about the photographer rather than the equipment.

I've shot motor sports with my A7RII and A7II as well.

Its not my main subject or interest but, as a photographer, the objective is to find a way to get the shots I want with the equipment I have, rather than to complain that I can't get the shot because I have the wrong camera.

I do agree with the statement that weight shouldn't be the main factor when deciding on the best equipment for a given task.

The Sony artisan thing is the result of him shooting with Sony and Sony deciding that he is a good representative to have for promoting their products. Sony didn't go to him and convince him to change from product C or N to S. I'm confident he was using Sony before he became an SA.

Just like Canon Explorers of Light used the equipment before becoming Canon reps.
 

bradhusick

Active member
Having tried all of them, I must say the Nikon D4 and Canon 1DX with 70-200 lenses give me a higher percentage of better results shooting sports overall than any mirrorless camera I have tried (including Sony, Olympus, Fuji, Canon, Nikon and others).

It's just my opinion but I think many would agree.
 

Jim DE

New member
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? ;)
 

ohnri

New member
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.
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.

The idea that one can shoot anything with any camera and get equal results does not hold water.

Here is a terrific sports photographer using Sony mirrorless and getting wonderful images. He has choices like we all do and feels he is getting excellent results with his gear.

No solid pro is going to jeopardize their career to make themselves a Sony Artisan.

I want a full blown sports mirrorless from Sony as much as anyone. One with fast fps and a deep buffer and even better AF. But, I wanted more of all that when I was shooting sports with my D4 also.

Maybe I should have waited another year for the big tank D5 which will be available sometime in 2016?

Nah.

Gene Lower shows my Sony A7r2 works very well for sports and my Samsung NX1 already has lightening fast AF and shoots 15 fps and fantastic 4K video today.

Oh, the NX1 also has great weather sealing and a long battery life and a sweet touch screen and a ton of other handy, dandy features. Probably the best camera of the last 5 years to fail to gain traction in the market.

-Bill
 

Jorgen Udvang

Subscriber Member
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
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... :rolleyes:

Mirrorless or A7 aren't mentioned with a single word in the article, except that there's a perfect photo of him using an A7, perfectly angled with the Sony and Alpha logos bang in the middle, contrasty and sharp. A link in the "Stay on top of technology" part of the article however, called "Sony Mirrorless", links to another article about photos taken at an Aerosmith concert taken with an A77 II. The A77 II is still a DSLR with an EVF.

There's also a photo of him, taken from a distance, where he takes photos using a monopod. The sensationally lightweight A7 with a zillion stops of IBIS built in, and he needs a monopod to support it? A monopod is often useful, but it hampers movement when shooting fast moving subjects. It's the first thing I get rid of when shooting sports when weight and stability allows.

The A7 family of cameras are fine for many uses, and I'm sure Gene Lower is a great sports photographer, but promoting the A7 as a premium choice for sports photographers is pure marketing, and a long way towards being misleading. There are simply better alternatives around, and it seems clear that Gene Lower knows that. The only camera any of the articles mention that he uses is the A77 II. The rest seem to be promotion shots for the A7 family of cameras.
 

Jorgen Udvang

Subscriber Member
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? ;)
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.
 

Wayne Fox

Workshop Member
Oh, and that video... product placements all through it. Clearly paid by Sony. It's advertising plain and simple.
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 ...
 

Guy Mancuso

Administrator, Instructor
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
 

Jorgen Udvang

Subscriber Member
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 ...
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:



Although Fox 10 seems to be sort of local, it's part of the Meredith Corporation, a media conglomerate with 3,900 employees and revenues of $1.47 billion. Giving the video a "local" image gives the project a more genuine look, but as the fact that we are now discussing this on an international forum shows; stuff spread easily on the Internet. Good work by Sony's PR or marketing department, no doubt.
 

Jorgen Udvang

Subscriber Member
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
Football shooters need to visit the gym more often... :ROTFL:
For motor sports, it isn't really practical with a pod, except for very long lenses which are mostly used on the big, international circuits. There's too much moving around the circuits, and the monopod adds to the weight and bulk of already heavy gear.

It's not Sony hate, Guy, but I know the difference between promotion and editorial. If this is called editorial in your great, big country across the ocean, your dictionaries need an update ;)

There's nothing wrong with promotion of cameras using successful photographers to do that. It's being done all the time, and marketing literature is full of this kind of methodology; how to make advertising look like editorials. It's described down to the usage and even weights of fonts, colours, camera angles etc. We are meant to fall for it, and we do. Me to. But this one is about something that I've tried extensively, and I know why it doesn't make sense. I'm sure Gene Lower does too. That's why he uses an A77 II :)

Edit: Actually, of his photos published in the Photoshelter article, there are 2 taken with the A7R II, so he does use an A7 too, 5 are taken with the A77 II and one is taken with an EOS 1D Mark II. The last one is probably an older shot, before he saw the light :angel: :ROTFL:
 
Last edited:

Jim DE

New member
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.
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.
 
Top