Shooting sports with mirrorless... an experiement

[Jorgen Udvang]

I've been through this before, with several Panasonic bodies, the E-M1, and shorter tests with early Sony and Fuji mirrorless cameras. I've never liked it. Still, and in spite of the GX8 being far from the best mirrorless bodies for sports shootings, I did this test.

The background is that I'm going to shoot a jetski competition in a few weeks, and at the moment, the choice is between the 10 year old D2Xs with the 30 year old Nikkor 300mm f/4 AF or the GX8 with the Panasonic 100-300mm f/4-5.6 II. So I went to Bira circuit near Pattaya to shoot a gokart competition for kids, relatively high level.

And it was a disaster. The problem wasn't that the camera didn't focus fast enough, or that I couldn't get the racers in focus. The problem was the feeling of lack of control, the feeling of a lag that may not even be there, and a focus point that is controlled not by me, but by the computer inside the camera in ways I struggle to understand. Even when I got the shots that I tried to get, I felt stressed and tired very quickly. I'm sure that an A9, which I can't afford, or an X-T3 would do a better job than the GX8, but why bother. A D500 or a second hand D810 would beat them all, even with the 30 year old lens, and the D2Xs, which I've used for countless races, will handsomly beat the GX8 for this kind of work.

I'm sure I could get used to a mirrorless camera for sports over time, but why bother when a DSLR with a cheap lens does such a fantastic job?

GX8 with Pana 100-300mm f/4-5.6 II @ 280mm, f/9 and 1/250s, cropped

Then there's this, skip to sports and wildlife:

https://www.dpreview.com/videos/4312537526/dpreview-tv-crop-sensor-pro-body-cameras

 

[ptomsu]

Interesting findings - and I agree that now would be a good time to get any second hand DSLR like D500, D5, D810, etc. for very attractive prices. And if not now at least in the foreseeable future ..... And some good used glass whatever focal length as well.

 

[iiiNelson]

I've been through this before, with several Panasonic bodies, the E-M1, and shorter tests with early Sony and Fuji mirrorless cameras. I've never liked it. Still, and in spite of the GX8 being far from the best mirrorless bodies for sports shootings, I did this test.

The background is that I'm going to shoot a jetski competition in a few weeks, and at the moment, the choice is between the 10 year old D2Xs with the 30 year old Nikkor 300mm f/4 AF or the GX8 with the Panasonic 100-300mm f/4-5.6 II. So I went to Bira circuit near Pattaya to shoot a gokart competition for kids, relatively high level.

And it was a disaster. The problem wasn't that the camera didn't focus fast enough, or that I couldn't get the racers in focus. The problem was the feeling of lack of control, the feeling of a lag that may not even be there, and a focus point that is controlled not by me, but by the computer inside the camera in ways I struggle to understand. Even when I got the shots that I tried to get, I felt stressed and tired very quickly. I'm sure that an A9, which I can't afford, or an X-T3 would do a better job than the GX8, but why bother. A D500 or a second hand D810 would beat them all, even with the 30 year old lens, and the D2Xs, which I've used for countless races, will handsomly beat the GX8 for this kind of work.

I'm sure I could get used to a mirrorless camera for sports over time, but why bother when a DSLR with a cheap lens does such a fantastic job?

GX8 with Pana 100-300mm f/4-5.6 II @ 280mm, f/9 and 1/250s, cropped

Then there's this, skip to sports and wildlife:

https://www.dpreview.com/videos/4312537526/dpreview-tv-crop-sensor-pro-body-cameras

Sorry but no. The D810 isn’t a sports camera.

The D850 can do it all (just like the D500 or the D5). I think you’re selling the best of the Mirrorless world short and I think most people that have objectively used all of the above will find no fault in the A9 and little with the XT3. If a person is comfortable with continuing to use a DSLR then by all means - there are several capable bodies but the problems that you’re explaining seems to be more that you’re uncomfortable with your camera body than whether or not it’s capable of getting the shot. In short it speaks more to it being a YOU problem and maybe not an actual issue with the camera per se... and that’s fine. Maybe you should just stick to DSLR’s if that’s where you’re more comfortable and just drop out of the Mirrorless game for now if it causes you anxiety.

Despite what some may may think about me, I don’t like Nikon cameras solely because they don’t work for me personally (I don’t like their haptics, menus, or ergonomics all that much with the understanding that this is subjective) but when people are on more limited budgets than myself and don’t care about video that’s usually where I point people who don’t have a strong preference for any brand for the reasons of that they work fine for a lot of people, they have a lot of solutions for many people, and there are used lenses out on the market. When people have bigger budgets I usually include Sony and Fuji in the list of brands I recommend (and Panasonic or Canon if Video matters to them).

P.S. I’m glad we can point to DPReview again as a valid source of information and not question whether there’s a hidden advertising motive when they point out the flaws of a Nikon mirrorless camera.

 

[pegelli]

In my opinion these type of technical discussions usually forget one critical element, which is the skill of a photographer.

With the more advanced features in a body (DSLR or mirrorless) probably less skill is needed to get a technically acceptable shot.

But with the right skills a technically acceptable shot can be taken with any camera system lacking any modern advanced bells and whistles.
How else could there have been so many good motorsport shots from 10 - 20 - 30 years ago?

 

[iiiNelson]

In my opinion these type of technical discussions usually forget one critical element, which is the skill of a photographer.

With the more advanced features in a body (DSLR or mirrorless) probably less skill is needed to get a technically acceptable shot.

But with the right skills a technically acceptable shot can be taken with any camera system lacking any modern advanced bells and whistles.
How else could there have been so many good motorsport shots from 10 - 20 - 30 years ago?

Agreed and I’d say the biggest hindrance to getting technically acceptable shots in Mirrorless cameras is the focus by wire lenses that make it harder to zone focus manually if you don’t trust the camera’s AF system. Outside of that I have no issues getting the shot using Autofocus systems within the camera.

When I went on a Safari about 4 years ago using a Sony A7 and A7R, I primarily shot most everything with Contax Yashica lenses simply because there was mechanical focusing with hard stops. Focus peaking helps with many things but in general I could focus quick enough by hand and punch in as needed with focus assist for critical sharpness.

 

[faberryman]

Interesting that you focus in on the body as being the problem. If I were going to cover a jet ski competition, I'd rather have the Panasonic 100-300mm zoom for its versatility than the fixed focal length Nikon 300mm.

 

[iiiNelson]

Interesting that you focus in on the body as being the problem. If I were going to cover a jet ski competition, I'd rather have the Panasonic 100-300mm zoom for its versatility than the fixed focal length Nikon 300mm.

I agree and a part of it is that Mirrorless cameras have only been around for 10 years but the bodies didn’t really begin to mature until around 3 years ago or so. The lenses are going to continue to come to come and we’ve seen Olympus, Panasonic, Fuji, and Sony add pro level telephoto options within the last 3 years as a result of body maturation.

 

[ptomsu]

After having shot almost every system during my life and with that said also many AF systems from different vendors I am pretty happy with the speed and accuracy of my EM1.2 in AF-C mode, which I use for sorts, children, wildlife and portrait photography. I never could achieve the same good and consistent results with other systems - but your milage may vary.

I am happy with what mirrorless (Olympus PRO) is doing for me and my photography!

 

[Jorgen Udvang]

Interesting that you focus in on the body as being the problem. If I were going to cover a jet ski competition, I'd rather have the Panasonic 100-300mm zoom for its versatility than the fixed focal length Nikon 300mm.

Apart from the freestyle competition and the start of each race, most of the photo opportunities at a jetski competition happen at a stretch of a few hundred metres parallell to the beach. I actually did last year's competition solely with the 300mm (after my 800-200 failed to focus), although with a D610 then. The 300mm might be a bit too long on a crop body.

When it comes to AF control, the body is the key. The lens can focus slowly or fast, but that is something I can adapt to. I find it very hard to adapt to sloppy control. Then it's actually easier to focus manually, also for sports.

 

[Jorgen Udvang]

Sorry but no. The D810 isn’t a sports camera.

The D850 can do it all (just like the D500 or the D5). I think you’re selling the best of the Mirrorless world short and I think most people that have objectively used all of the above will find no fault in the A9 and little with the XT3. If a person is comfortable with continuing to use a DSLR then by all means - there are several capable bodies but the problems that you’re explaining seems to be more that you’re uncomfortable with your camera body than whether or not it’s capable of getting the shot. In short it speaks more to it being a YOU problem and maybe not an actual issue with the camera per se... and that’s fine. Maybe you should just stick to DSLR’s if that’s where you’re more comfortable and just drop out of the Mirrorless game for now if it causes you anxiety.

Despite what some may may think about me, I don’t like Nikon cameras solely because they don’t work for me personally (I don’t like their haptics, menus, or ergonomics all that much with the understanding that this is subjective) but when people are on more limited budgets than myself and don’t care about video that’s usually where I point people who don’t have a strong preference for any brand for the reasons of that they work fine for a lot of people, they have a lot of solutions for many people, and there are used lenses out on the market. When people have bigger budgets I usually include Sony and Fuji in the list of brands I recommend (and Panasonic or Canon if Video matters to them).

P.S. I’m glad we can point to DPReview again as a valid source of information and not question whether there’s a hidden advertising motive when they point out the flaws of a Nikon mirrorless camera.

The D810 works excellently as a sports body, and I'm talking from experience. It has group area AF mode and great tracking abilities (more or less the same AF as the D4/s), shoots 5 fps in FX and 7 fps in DX mode and has a buffer depth of nearly 50 RAW frames in FX mode with a fast card.

There are particularly two factors that make me shy away from mirrorless bodies for this purpose:
The "AF experience" with DSLR bodies is more "solid". This may have to do with experience of course, but I have been shooting with mirrorless cameras almost as long as I've been shooting with DSLR cameras (9 and 12 years respectively, before that I used Olympus OM).

The access to usable lenses, particularly if price is a factor. With a Nikon body, I can walk into a used camera shop with $1,200 and walk out again with an 80-200/2.8 AF-S and a 300/4 AF-S and I'm all set. Not only are those lenses fantastic for any kind of photography, but they offer the build quality of sledgehammers. Good telephoto lenses for mirrorless cameras are more expensive, harder to find used, and the selection is tiny compared to Canikon.

I'm quite sure that, if I took the time and money to practice with an E-M1 or an X-T3, I would eventually become as comfortable shooting sports with those cameras as I am with the Nikon gear. But the question is: Why would I do that, and what would I gain? We are after all talking about rather a lot of money and time, both of them limited resources. If I had been 20, maybe yes, but I'm not anymore. Maybe it is a ME problem, but there are many MEs out there with a long track record shooting sports with SLR cameras, and it strikes me that even the guy at dpr (Chris?) rated the D500 higher than the X-T3 for sports. He's much, much younger than me.

I still have a month to think about it, but the practice session was yesterday, and I failed. A used 80-200 for my D2Xs will cost med $6-700

 

[Jorgen Udvang]

In my opinion these type of technical discussions usually forget one critical element, which is the skill of a photographer.

With the more advanced features in a body (DSLR or mirrorless) probably less skill is needed to get a technically acceptable shot.

But with the right skills a technically acceptable shot can be taken with any camera system lacking any modern advanced bells and whistles.
How else could there have been so many good motorsport shots from 10 - 20 - 30 years ago?

I don't know how skilled I am, but after many years shooting motor sports professionally, I find it puzzling that I have less problems getting the shots I want around the race track with a 10+ years old DSLR than with a much more technically advanced mirrorless camera, even considering the fact that the camera in question isn't really designed for sports. When I started shooting sports, it was with Fuji S3 and Nikon D80 bodies, 3fps and a buffer depth of 4-6 shots. Even with those cameras, I did well enough for my clients to be satisfied. Maybe the modern cameras are simply too advanced for my dysfunctional brain?

 

[iiiNelson]

The D810 works excellently as a sports body, and I'm talking from experience. It has group area AF mode and great tracking abilities (more or less the same AF as the D4/s), shoots 5 fps in FX and 7 fps in DX mode and has a buffer depth of nearly 50 RAW frames in FX mode with a fast card.

There are particularly two factors that make me shy away from mirrorless bodies for this purpose:
The "AF experience" with DSLR bodies is more "solid". This may have to do with experience of course, but I have been shooting with mirrorless cameras almost as long as I've been shooting with DSLR cameras (9 and 12 years respectively, before that I used Olympus OM).

The access to usable lenses, particularly if price is a factor. With a Nikon body, I can walk into a used camera shop with $1,200 and walk out again with an 80-200/2.8 AF-S and a 300/4 AF-S and I'm all set. Not only are those lenses fantastic for any kind of photography, but they offer the build quality of sledgehammers. Good telephoto lenses for mirrorless cameras are more expensive, harder to find used, and the selection is tiny compared to Canikon.

I'm quite sure that, if I took the time and money to practice with an E-M1 or an X-T3, I would eventually become as comfortable shooting sports with those cameras as I am with the Nikon gear. But the question is: Why would I do that, and what would I gain? We are after all talking about rather a lot of money and time, both of them limited resources. If I had been 20, maybe yes, but I'm not anymore. Maybe it is a ME problem, but there are many MEs out there with a long track record shooting sports with SLR cameras, and it strikes me that even the guy at dpr (Chris?) rated the D500 higher than the X-T3 for sports. He's much, much younger than me.

I still have a month to think about it, but the practice session was yesterday, and I failed. A used 80-200 for my D2Xs will cost med $6-700

Well Chris from DPReview is a Nikon shooter historically so it makes sense that many things with Nikon come “natural” to him and he’s around my age (late 30’s) for the record.

I’m really not trying to argue which is better for you but it seems you’re causing yourself grief by continuously working with a system that you fight with when you state that you’ve identified a better solution for you. When I say the D810 isn’t a sports camera that’s coming from my Nikon friends that shoot with D5, D850, and D500’s... those aren’t my own experiences but those of pro Nikon sports/photojournalists that I know. I won’t argue the merits of various systems... they’re well documented. I won’t even argue what can or can’t be used for sports... we had this discussion back in the first Generation Sony days when Chad showed you his F1 shots... there are a number of shots in the fun with threads in every brand forum... so it comes back to the user experience and you clearly don’t trust your Mirrorless cameras to do the job.

Sell them and buy what you identified as a better fit for your needs. Life is too short to live with a camera system that doesn’t fit your needs. It’s the reason I’ve switched from Canon to Panasonic to adding Sony E, Leica M, then added a Sony SLR for telephoto shooting... which lead to me adding Sony FE and selling my Sony A-Mount Kit. If a camera doesn’t fully fit my needs the. I look at alternatives. It’s why I began seriously considering Fuji specifically for their JPEG’s and it’s why I consider Panasonic Lumix S... the camera just has to actually live up to the hype. If it doesn’t for me early on then I move on if it does then I rent it for a little while and do some testing to compare it to what I own. That’s just my own process but it seems that your unhappy with what you own or desire an upgrade to what you own... and really there’s not a cheap way to go cutting edge today.

 

[iiiNelson]

I don't know how skilled I am, but after many years shooting motor sports professionally, I find it puzzling that I have less problems getting the shots I want around the race track with a 10+ years old DSLR than with a much more technically advanced mirrorless camera, even considering the fact that the camera in question isn't really designed for sports. When I started shooting sports, it was with Fuji S3 and Nikon D80 bodies, 3fps and a buffer depth of 4-6 shots. Even with those cameras, I did well enough for my clients to be satisfied. Maybe the modern cameras are simply too advanced for my dysfunctional brain?

I don’t know about how skilled you are but I wouldn’t call the GX the top of the line. It’s quite a ways behind the G9 in performance by most measures. I’d even venture to say the Generation 2 Fuji cameras are more advanced as well... but the pint is taken... PDAF is always going to focus faster in varied light but CDAF tends to be more accurate when it actually locks on.

 

[pegelli]

I don't know how skilled I am, but after many years shooting motor sports professionally, I find it puzzling that I have less problems getting the shots I want around the race track with a 10+ years old DSLR than with a much more technically advanced mirrorless camera, even considering the fact that the camera in question isn't really designed for sports. When I started shooting sports, it was with Fuji S3 and Nikon D80 bodies, 3fps and a buffer depth of 4-6 shots. Even with those cameras, I did well enough for my clients to be satisfied. Maybe the modern cameras are simply too advanced for my dysfunctional brain?

The question I would ask is if you have worked your mirrorless camera you took these shots with as hard and as frequently as the old Fuji/Nikon combo. I guess the first shots from those cameras were not to the same standard as what you achieved after you fully mastered them.

Also realise that my post was not a dig at your skills (to the contrary, the shot you posted is quite good) but more of a general observation that in my mind a lack of features can be compensated by practice and skills.

 

[Jorgen Udvang]

The question I would ask is if you have worked your mirrorless camera you took these shots with as hard and as frequently as the old Fuji/Nikon combo. I guess the first shots from those cameras were not to the same standard as what you achieved after you fully mastered them.

Also realise that my post was not a dig at your skills (to the contrary, the shot you posted is quite good) but more of a general observation that in my mind a lack of features can be compensated by practice and skills.

But this is exactly the point:
When I started shooting sports, I switched the D80 to AF-C and burst mode, and got sharp images from day one. The D80 was of course never designed for that kind of work, very much like the GX8, but the AF was easy to understand and use. I take much more photos now than I did then, and my two GX8 bodies have seen very extensive use since I bought the first one nearly two years ago. I've even read the user manual to understand the AF better, something I've never bothered doing with with any of the Nikon cameras. And mind you, I went directly from an OM-1 to the Nikon/Fuji DSLR bodies.

Again, this isn't unique to the GX8. I've seen the same thing with other mirrorless bodies. Reading the user manual has become a must, and even then...

Maybe I'm just more stupid than other photographers :loco:
Maybe this is why DSLR cameras are still successful, because the are many photographers around who are as stupid as me :wtf:

Or maybe I'm just one of those grumpy, old men who hate new technology. I'll let you in on a secret: I dislike... no, dislike is to weak... I hate stove tops with touch controls. On my cheap stove top at my weekend place, there are old-fashioned dials. I turn the dial to the desired strength, and I'm finished. At my Bangkok home, I have a new, modern top with touch controls. I have to touch "On", then the desired cooking area, then several times plus or minus to get to the desired strength. 3+ operations instead of one. And when my six year old daughter who isn't tall enough to see what's cooking is kind enough to take stuff from the dining table and place them on the kitchen bench, anywhere at the bench like six year olds often do, like on those touch controls, settings change unless the child lock is on.

I was an early mirrorless adapter, and I see many great sides of the technology. However, I also see features that look like technology for technology's sake. AF implementation is one of them.

 

[pegelli]

Jorgen, you're taking my general point way too personal.

You showed the GX8 can do good things with fast moving subjects only you didnt like the experience. Nothing wrong with that, we all have our own things we like and dislike.

But there's plenty people who do like shooting fast moving subjects with mirrorless (older technology as well as "state of the art") and get decent results. Should they all just drop their mirrorless and go back to a DSLR because you don't like the mirrorless experience for those subjects?

 

[4711]

Jorgen, you're taking my general point way too personal.

You showed the GX8 can do good things with fast moving subjects only you didnt like the experience. Nothing wrong with that, we all have our own things we like and dislike.

But there's plenty people who do like shooting fast moving subjects with mirrorless (older technology as well as "state of the art") and get decent results. Should they all just drop their mirrorless and go back to a DSLR because you don't like the mirrorless experience for those subjects?

Jorgen did not say that. He only reported his personal experience with his MLU in his "sport test" and linked to a review in which another person has also the opinikn that a specific "older" DSLR was today still better than the newest MLUs out there.

He never said that we all do have to switch now to a DSLR.

I do think Jorgen has a valid point here. We all know that DSLRs are very mature nowadays regarding image quality, usability, viewfinder and autofocus. And we all know that MLUs are not yet as mature as DSLR regarding viewfinder, usability and AF.

It only starts now slowly to become equal, but at a significant higher price point.

I do not say that it is impossible to do sportphotography with a MLU. But it is more difficult depending on the sport and more expensive than the alternative with a DSLR - if the desired lenses exist at all in the MLU system

That will change soon. Every year the alternatives in the MLU world are getting better. Bodies and lenses. But as of today, there are still differences in niche markets and if you need a reliable and affordable solution for this today, it is tougher to find in the MLU world than in the DSLR world.

 

[Jorgen Udvang]

Should they all just drop their mirrorless and go back to a DSLR because you don't like the mirrorless experience for those subjects?

Of course :ROTFL:

No no... but I'm getting a feeling that many photographers, like most other people in consumerism societies, are increasingly buying into new technology without really investigating if there is real progress included in the upgrade. When it comes to mirrorless cameras, we keep hearing about the improvements for each new camera released. What is rarely discussed is "Improvement compared to what?" and "How will this improve the photos I take?".

While the X-T3 is undoubtedly an improvement compared to the X-T2, and that's fine, it's clearly not an improvement compared to a D500 when it comes to sports/action photography, which the recent dpr comparison points out. However, since mirrorless cameras have long since been crowned the king and queen of camera science by many photographers and even more so by the marketing hype, many don't see the very valid comparison with older style technology. While that may be good for the camera industry, it's a waste of money for many photographers who buy into the hype without gaining anything and in some cases actually losing.

Fuji is the grand master of this. Placing their products in the hands of cool, clever photographers like Zack Arias and Jonas Rask actually leaves the impression that their photos are good (and that Mr. Arias is a rebel) because they use Fuji. Nothing could be further from the truth of course. Both of them would make fantastic images with an old D70, and Zack Arias would easily convince any newcomer to photography that his clients don't care one bit if he uses the 6MP Nikon or the latest Phase One.

It's excellent marketing though, and the cameras are good... all of them. Still, in my view, for stills, there's only one do-it-all, and that's a DSLR, the D850

 

[pegelli]

Still, in my view, for stills, there's only one do-it-all, and that's a DSLR, the D850

In my view it's big, heavy, clunky and expensive and for me takes away the joy of photography. So for me as a "can do it all" camera it's useless, because I wouldn't use it.

 

[pegelli]

He never said that we all do have to switch now to a DSLR.

I never said he did, I just asked the question :lecture: