Best mirrorless camera for sports photography

[Jason]

Incredibly capable cameras, even by today's standards if one knows to how to expose the shots correctly. ( ISO shadow recovery being the biggest by-word of late ..)

What do you mean by 'ISO shadow recovery"?

 

[NTomokawa]

Sounds like its been way too long since you last used an SLR camera.

Let me guess, your last used one had perhaps 3~5 AF focus points to play with ?

You talkin' to me? (Robert de Niro voice)

 

[amirm]

From what I have read, for auto-racing

What do you mean by 'ISO shadow recovery"?

It means trying to brighten the dark areas without them becoming noisy. Cameras like Sony do well here.

 

[maxxevv]

Yes, @amirm is correct. Loads of Sony fans were gushing over "pulling shadows from 5-stops under-exposed".
At the back of my mind was "If you need to do that often enough to consider such an ability critical, then you're on hell of a lousy photographer".

You talkin' to me? (Robert de Niro voice)

I was referring to @Frank Dernie for that.

 

[Jason]

From what I have read, for auto-racing

It means trying to brighten the dark areas without them becoming noisy. Cameras like Sony do well here.

Thanks, I understand that. I just don't understand the use of 'ISO' in the statement. Shadow recovery is a function of processing that has nothing to do with ISO.

 

[amirm]

Thanks, I understand that. I just don't understand the use of 'ISO' in the statement. Shadow recovery is a function of processing that has nothing to do with ISO.

It is a rather modern term used specifically to refer to high-ISO being still usable after shadow recovery (i.e. not have excessive noise).

 

[stunta]

Yes, @amirm is correct. Loads of Sony fans were gushing over "pulling shadows from 5-stops under-exposed".
At the back of my mind was "If you need to do that often enough to consider such an ability critical, then you're on hell of a lousy photographer".

That is exactly why I have a Sony and why I shoot RAW. I spent a lot on my camera to compensate for my failings. If I were skilled, I would get away with something a lot cheaper.

 

[mi-fu]

The difficulty of getting a correct exposure is that the screen of digital cameras is not always reliable. Even with histograms, not many cameras show histograms in all RGB channels. Having no clippings in the overall exposure do not mean having no clippings in individual channel. Red is particularly problematic. Color shift will easily happen in post processing if there are clippings.

 

[Jason]

It is a rather modern term used specifically to refer to high-ISO being still usable after shadow recovery (i.e. not have excessive noise).

I still don't get the use of the term though. High ISO shots are frequently compared to a lower ISO shot that has its shadows lifted to match the brightness of the higher ISO shot. I have just never heard 'ISO shadow recovery'. It seems to suggest something special about a relationship between ISO and shadow recovery...

 

[M00ndancer]

I still don't get the use of the term though. High ISO shots are frequently compared to a lower ISO shot that has its shadows lifted to match the brightness of the higher ISO shot. I have just never heard 'ISO shadow recovery'. It seems to suggest something special about a relationship between ISO and shadow recovery...

The difficulty of getting a correct exposure is that the screen of digital cameras is not always reliable. Even with histograms, not many cameras show histograms in all RGB channels. Having no clippings in the overall exposure do not mean having no clippings in individual channel. Red is particularly problematic. Color shift will easily happen in post processing if there are clippings.

OK, I'll try to explain the problems with ISO, exposure, aperture the fun triangle of hell.
As mi-fu says, to be sure to not to blow out the image (to much light), you sometimes underexpose the image. I own an old D90 that more than often overexposes in difficult situations. You can't recover an overexposed image, but you can most of the time alter the exposure in software of an under exposed image. Sports and wildlife photography often needs a fast shutter speed (exposure) and that leads to need to use a big aperture that in turn leads to higher ISO. ISO in it self is the signal boosting from what the sensors detect, higher ISO will also introduce noice in the signal. Better and bigger sensors have bigger wells and can capture more photons. But a big sensor will make a bigger camera. Removing the mirror and housing will shrink the camera. But the AF system on the DSLR is still better than the mirror-less, so far.

To Jason: So, using a low ISO will produce an under exposed image, but you can fix that in post. Sometimes you'll have a better result raising the exposure in post than using a high ISO. It's always a trade-off.
For more good info: Cambridge in colour

 

[Jason]

OK, I'll try to explain the problems with ISO, exposure, aperture the fun triangle of hell.
As mi-fu says, to be sure to not to blow out the image (to much light), you sometimes underexpose the image. I own an old D90 that more than often overexposes in difficult situations. You can't recover an overexposed image, but you can most of the time alter the exposure in software of an under exposed image. Sports and wildlife photography often needs a fast shutter speed (exposure) and that leads to need to use a big aperture that in turn leads to higher ISO. ISO in it self is the signal boosting from what the sensors detect, higher ISO will also introduce noice in the signal. Better and bigger sensors have bigger wells and can capture more photons. But a big sensor will make a bigger camera. Removing the mirror and housing will shrink the camera. But the AF system on the DSLR is still better than the mirror-less, so far.

To Jason: So, using a low ISO will produce an under exposed image, but you can fix that in post. Sometimes you'll have a better result raising the exposure in post than using a high ISO. It's always a trade-off.
For more good info: Cambridge in colour

Greetings M00ndancer.
OK, It is the way the term is used that is misleading / confusing and I can see that it is the use terminology that is getting in the way.
In your post above you make a few statements that also use language that is only going to confuse the issue.
i.e. 'alter the exposure in software'. This is a bad use of the term exposure which has unfortunately been perpetuated / propagated by the likes of Adobe and most photographic software vendors. The exposure can only be set at the time the photograph is taken. After that all you can do is change the brightness of a capture pixel value using math. The 'Exposure' and 'Brightness' sliders in software just adjust the numbers using different formulas to result in a different visible effect.

Secondly, stating higher ISO will introduce more noise is ultimately a result of badly described exposure triangle. ISO does not affect exposure. From wikipedia. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exposure_(photography):

In photography, exposure is the amount of light per unit area (the image plane illuminance times the exposure time) reaching a photographic film or electronic image sensor, as determined by shutter speed, lens aperture and scene luminance. Exposure is measured in lux seconds, and can be computed from exposure value (EV) and scene luminance in a specified region.

Notice that ISO is not mentioned. The three legs of the exposure triangle are shutter speed, lens aperture and scene luminance - not ISO. The Cambridge in Colour website you referenced has various errors including relating dynamic range to pixel size..

 

[mi-fu]

Loads of Sony fans were gushing over "pulling shadows from 5-stops under-exposed".
At the back of my mind was "If you need to do that often enough to consider such an ability critical, then you're on hell of a lousy photographer".

Actually in some occasions you do need that extreme level of shadow recovery. It is not only about getting the correct exposure, but also about handling the dynamic range. For example, in a high-contrast scene, you might want to recover the details in shadow areas locally, while maintaining the overall exposure unchanged.

That's why I always prefer having the best sensor's ability. Like other have said, Sony has been doing a very good job on that in recent years.

I use Sony, as well as many other brands. To put it nicely, I would say Sony is Jack in all trades. To put it more honestly, Sony is rather "uncharacteristic." I can totally see why people prefer other brands. Well... they are more interesting!

 

[M00ndancer]

OK, It is the way the term is used that is misleading / confusing and I can see that it is the use terminology that is getting in the way.

Not an english native speaker, so any correction is appreciated.

 

[NTomokawa]

I use Sony, as well as many other brands. To put it nicely, I would say Sony is Jack in all trades. To put it more honestly, Sony is rather "uncharacteristic." I can totally see why people prefer other brands. Well... they are more interesting!

First up, I haven't shot much digital.

From all the online tests I've seen, when it comes to "full-frame", Sony and Nikon (which uses Sony sensors) have clear DR advantages over Canon's indigenous sensors.

Of course some would say "get it right the first time", but it just so happens that many scenes simply have high contrast, and highlight and shadow recovery comes in handy. Especially when one can't take multiple exposures to try to compensate.

Recent cameras with in-body HDR might mitigate such advantages somewhat, though.

 

[LTig]

Concerning wildlife, my next lens that I want (and it's going to be a while) is the Panasonic Leica 100-400 F4-6.3. On the Micro 4/3 format, (Panasonic and Olympus cameras, mine is the Panasonic G9) Focal range multiplier for the format is twice that of the 35mm (Full Frame) standard, which means an effective range of 200-800mm. It looks incredibly useful for wildlife photography, because equivalent lenses on other systems are so big and bulky (and expensive) as to not be practical.

This is a very good lense for this purpose. The optical stabilizer is fantastic, and the close range of 1.3 m even at 400mm means that you can shoot butterflies or dragonflies in full frame without disturbing them. The only negative thing I can say is that at the long end the sharpness drops a bit. I don't think this is just an atmospheric problem for longer distances. Probably at f6.3 we are already in the region where diffraction plays a major role. With a lot of sharpening one can recover quite a bit though. This picture ((c)2018, all rights reserved) is at 400 mm, JPG out of cam, just more compressed (80% with image magic):

 

[Rja4000]

Back to your question: which mirrorless camera for sport:
my answer so far is 'none'.

Maybe Sony A9 (not sure why one would spend 1DX2 money on that though)

There is a viewfinder freeze when picture is shot, due to full sensor reading delay that makes it very difficult to track subject.
No such problem with a good DSLR.

But for wildlife, that may be different.
I use Canon EOS R with Canon EF 100-400 4.5-5.6L IS II and x2 III.
That's f/11 max aperture. And it works well. At least in good light. Similar or better than my Canon 5DSR with same lens and x1.4III (for a similar magnification when looked at 100%).

Mirrorless currently has drawbacks and benefits.
This viewfinder freeze is one of the most obvious drawbacks (there are several others though. The main one being the electronic viewfinder itself. Even the best of those can't match a good DSLR viewfinder).

Benefits of mirrorless, for me (I don't do any video, where full time video monitoring in viewfinder is an obvious benefit), is mainly the accuracy of AF.
No secondary AF sensor here, which is almost never exactly the same distance then the sensor, so far less focus errors.
The Canon EOS R is excellent at that.
I love it with all the 1.2 or 1 4 Canon L glass.
Much more fun to use them when they nail focus for every single shot.

Most other things, a competent reflex is sharing them with same-sensor mirrorless.

Note: That's current status (2019).
Global shutter sensor may change that soon.
Also, having the full data from the whole sensor will allow far more sophisticated Artificial Intelligence to be used vs a DSLR in the future.
We see the very beginning of that in the eye-detect algorithms.

 

[M00ndancer]

Totally agree with @Rja4000 Sports and wildlife in crappy light is the hardest you can do. No mirrorless so far can cope with it really.
If you have better light then it's a bit better. But you really, really depend on good tracking AF system.
My advice is still the same D500 with a suitable 100-400 lens. Cheap? not even close. Good? Oh yeah!

 

[mi-fu]

I think next generation mirrorless will surpass DSLR in AF. We will see that in Tokyo Olympics.

I recently bought a Sony A6400 for casual use. Its AF is incredibly fast in its class. I don't think any $900 camera can have similar AF ability. D500 is still selling $1500. Both APS-C cameras.

A9 is selling $3500 now, while Canon 1DX mkii is still selling at $5500.

In fact, I know many photojournalists now switch to Sony - fast enough AF, lighter body, WYSIWYG screen. Sports photographers will be the last to switch, but it will be coming.

I love optical viewfinders. The feeling is great. But DSLR is dead. End of story. I think I will sell my whole Hasselblad H system to get Fuji GFX 100.

 

[Rja4000]

DSLR is dead.

Hi
i have to disagree with that.
Except for the shorter flange distance (which is said to be a huge benefit for wide to standard lens design), there is not much a mirrorless can do that a DSLR couldn't do while in live view mode.
And adding an electronic viewfinder to a DSLR is easy, while the opposite seems not.
Look at the Canon M6 optional external viewfinder.

Sport will always mainly be long lenses, where the short flange distance advantage is probably null.
But nothing could beat or approach a good optical viewfinder in some critical situations.
So I'm quite sure DSLR still has some future.
It will probably -and unfortunately- become a high end niche product though.
But mainly because the camera makers see mirrorless as an opportunity to increase (or stabilize) profit in an overall decreasing market.
Not because the mirrorless camera is all benefits for the photographer. It's not.

 

[mi-fu]

Hi
i have to disagree with that.
Except for the shorter flange distance (which is said to be a huge benefit for wide to standard lens design), there is not much a mirrorless can do that a DSLR couldn't do while in live view mode.
And adding an electronic viewfinder to a DSLR is easy, while the opposite seems not.
Look at the Canon M6 optional external viewfinder.

Sport will always mainly be long lenses, where the short flange distance advantage is probably null.
But nothing could beat or approach a good optical viewfinder in some critical situations.
So I'm quite sure DSLR still has some future.
It will probably -and unfortunately- become a high end niche product though.
But mainly because the camera makers see mirrorless as an opportunity to increase (or stabilize) profit in an overall decreasing market.
Not because the mirrorless camera is all benefits for the photographer. It's not.

Pentax / Ricoh shares similar thinking with you

https://www.dpreview.com/interviews/4961078980/cp-2019-ricoh