Best mirrorless camera for sports photography

[Rja4000]

Pentax / Ricoh shares similar thinking with you

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

Indeed
"both mirrorless and DSLR have their own appeal. I imagine, in two or three years, some users who bought mirrorless cameras will return to DSLRs or choose to use both systems, because each has its own benefits"
I could not agree more.

I'm using DSLR singe 2004, and mirrorless since 2012 (Nex 7).
I have tried (owned) Nex 7, Nex 6, A7R, A6000, M50, now EOS R... and I'm still using Canon 1DX and 5DSR.

DSLR to Mirrorless difference is nothing to be compared with film compared to digital.
THAT was a revolution.
Mirrorless is a pair of sexy functionalities... and a lot of marketing !

I still and always return to DSLR, just because I like what I see in the viewfinder more, and that drives me to take better photos.
May be they are technically not as good, but at least I have more pleasure capturing them. And, ultimately, for a busy non-pro photographer, that means I take better pictures.

 

[617]

I think for specialized uses it's good to choose a lens first and then work backwards to a body. If you need a lens which does something special there will likely be a lot of variability between manufacturer's offerings in terms of cost and performance. There are way more mediocre lenses than there are mediocre sensors - below 6400 ISO most modern full frame cameras look pretty much great.

As an example, the project I'm working on requires would need a 100mm macro if I upgraded to full frame. Image quality between macros (and cameras) for my use is not really significant; they're all very flat and sharp. The Nikon is 800 dollars, but the Canon is 500 (700 for the L). That 300 dollars is significant; it's a 50mm lens, or a strobe, or whatever.

Regarding sports and nature photography, I'm sure there are differences between AF systems, but my focus would be on the interface between me and the camera - the controls, the handling and the viewfinder. The D7x00 Nikons for example have smaller than full frame viewfinders, but they look good, and the controls are a pleasure to use - they're a mature design. I've not used any of the full frame mirrorless options but those issues would be my concern primarily, given that image quality is less and less of a differentiator.

The system I'm really curious about is the Fuji medium format, although it is shocking how small the difference between that sensor and the ones in full frame cameras is, it is nonetheless a significant bump up.

 

[Rja4000]

Just one more thing:
What do we need in terms of resolution?
Is 50Mpixels useful?
The answer is pretty much the same than for audio.
Was 44.1kHz 16 bits enough?
Well yes, sort of.
But as soon as you want to tune the sound to your needs, using mixer, leveling and EQ, VST or other plugins...
Those are bit-consuming operations.
Therefore, some headroom to begin with is useful.
24 bits is an absolute minimum in studio recording. 96kHz is added value.

Same with photo.
6Mp 8 bits per color may be all you need for proper printing, whatever the size, for final output.
But to be there, with appropriate quality, will require some headroom if you want to crop, level, un-vignette and remove distortion.
That's where more Megapixels and Dynamic range come handy.

By the way, if you need more dynamic range, 1 or 2 stops is probably not enough. HDR on multiple exposures is the way to go.

 

[617]

The is

Just one more thing:
What do we need in terms of resolution?
Is 50Mpixels useful?

I'm working on a project which needs as lots of sharpness on 30" wide prints. A 50mp sensor would be great if there were lenses which could actually render that kind of pixel-perfect detail all the way to the corners. Getting that kind of sharpness out of any camera is really difficult, especially if you're avoiding flashes. As it stands I have to make a 2x2 or 3x3 panorama, which gives me 154MP, but which I then resize significantly.

The only other way to do what I want to do is use sheet film, although full frame has caught up to 4x5 in many ways. 8x10 on the other hand..

 

[Rja4000]

You should read Jim Kasson's blog.
He has pretty much the same concerns.

 

[LTig]

Just one more thing:
What do we need in terms of resolution?
Is 50Mpixels useful?

Only if you take photos with so much care that the pixels are not blurred by movement, vibration and optical limits. Otherwise you just end up with no more information than e.g. stored in a 6 MP photo. When I changed from 10 to 36 MP I quickly realized that I have to work with much more care and precision (high speed, tripod, best lenses with optimal aperture) if I really want to capture 36 MP of real information.

The answer is pretty much the same than for audio.
Was 44.1kHz 16 bits enough?
Well yes, sort of.
But as soon as you want to tune the sound to your needs, using mixer, leveling and EQ, VST or other plugins...
Those are bit-consuming operations.
Therefore, some headroom to begin with is useful.
24 bits is an absolute must. 96kHz is added value.

Same here, you have to work with high precision. For example sampling vinyl with 24 bits doesn't make much sense, the 8 lower bits contain only noise, and the amount of real signal above 20 kHz is almost always nil.

 

[Rja4000]

Hi
About the speed to cancel blurr:
That couldn't be worse than with a (low cost) 24Mpixels APS-C, which has higher pixel density.
And is lighter.

 

[617]

Only if you take photos with so much care that the pixels are not blurred by movement, vibration and optical limits. Otherwise you just end up with no more information than e.g. stored in a 6 MP photo. When I changed from 10 to 36 MP I quickly realized that I have to work with much more care and precision (high speed, tripod, best lenses with optimal aperture) if I really want to capture 36 MP of real information.

It's really damned difficult to get that much detail in a single exposure with normal cameras. 52MP or whatever sony is offering is great for dynamic range (for some reason) but to get 50MP of detail is really really hard. Basically impossible for spontaneous images. Flash helps a ton though, in my experience, but is an art in itself. Even 20MP is hard. This is one of the advantages of 690 and 4x5; images from these formats are intrinsically sharper with less effort. 8x10 is in another class altogether.

 

[mi-fu]

Just one more thing:
What do we need in terms of resolution?
Is 50Mpixels useful?
The answer is pretty much the same than for audio.
Was 44.1kHz 16 bits enough?
Well yes, sort of.
But as soon as you want to tune the sound to your needs, using mixer, leveling and EQ, VST or other plugins...
Those are bit-consuming operations.
Therefore, some headroom to begin with is useful.
24 bits is an absolute must. 96kHz is added value.

If one's requirement is to print, and not professionally, i.e. not printing super large size, the requirement is pretty easy to achieve with today's digital cameras.

But if one's requirement is to view the photos on monitors (not phone screens), then the question is far more complicated. Apple just announced a 6k monitor today. 8k monitor will become more available next year with Tokyo Olympics. For 8k monitors, the minimum resolution needed is 33mp.

Can I tell the difference between 8k monitors and 4k monitors? I have not had a chance to compare yet. But I have heard friends saying that the experience of using 8K monitor is unforgettable.

So, back to the question, how many resolution we actually need? I would say 50mp is a safe bet.

 

[LTig]

It's really damned difficult to get that much detail in a single exposure with normal cameras. 52MP or whatever sony is offering is great for dynamic range (for some reason) but to get 50MP of detail is really really hard. Basically impossible for spontaneous images. Flash helps a ton though, in my experience, but is an art in itself. Even 20MP is hard. This is one of the advantages of 690 and 4x5; images from these formats are intrinsically sharper with less effort.

How can working with MF be easier? I would assume that the lenses are better, but all the other problems do not disappear just by using bigger formats.

 

[Rja4000]

@617
I have to disagree.
I use a Canon 5DSR since 2015, and it's pretty simple to get a lot of useful definition out of it.
Just use a good prime lens, with proper speed and aperture, and you get an awesome level of details.

 

[mi-fu]

Only if you take photos with so much care that the pixels are not blurred by movement, vibration and optical limits. Otherwise you just end up with no more information than e.g. stored in a 6 MP photo. When I changed from 10 to 36 MP I quickly realized that I have to work with much more care and precision (high speed, tripod, best lenses with optimal aperture) if I really want to capture 36 MP of real information.

Absolutely. that's why IBIS becomes so important with high resolution camera. It is also one of the reasons that I think DSLR has little future. As the mirror mechanism must introduce a serious amount of vibration. High resolution sensors with IBIS, like GFX100, can be a real game changer.

 

[617]

How can working with MF be easier? I would assume that the lenses are better, but all the other problems do not disappear just by using bigger formats.

The lenses are worse, but as the film size increases, other issues robbing sharpness tend to become less of an issue. Diffraction at small apertures is less of an issue, something I'm struggling with in macro stuff. I would agree that medium format is no longer viable.

 

[mi-fu]

Films always come with grains. Film grain makes images look sharper (a bit like applying unsharp masks). Also, with larger formats, actually, vibration is less an issue (than smaller sensor with very high pixel density).

 

[Rja4000]

Absolutely. that's why IBIS becomes so important with high resolution camera. It is also one of the reasons that I think DSLR has little future. As the mirror mechanism must introduce a serious amount of vibration. High resolution sensors with IBIS, like GFX100, can be a real game changer.

IBIS -or in-lens stabilization- is useful, for sure.
But where is the link between this and your guessed 'little future of DSLR' ?
Some DSLR have IBIS and some mirrorless don't.

As for mirror vibration, this is basically a non-issue, in my experience, with the Canon 5DSR.
You can set a delay before the shutter opens.
Mine is set to 1/8s and that's enough to avoid any problem.
For critical work, I use a support or a tripod and 2s delay anyway.

Some mirrorless had shutter opening shocks and that was far worse. (The mechanical shutter has to close first, then open. That's twice as much travel compared to a DSLR). For sure, electronic first shutter solves that (as it does on a DSLR in live view mode).
No, you can't always use a fully electronic shutter.

 

[Frank Dernie]

I have been a keen amateur photographer since 1961 but the only sport I have any interest in is motor racing. I know all the top photographers but am the subject not a photographer there but the one thing I know is that autofocus still isn’t fast or reliable enough.
The top pros pre-focus.
I have had loads of cameras, over the years and downsized a few years ago on recommendation of an architectural photographer friend of mine who had done lots of tests and decided the minuscule loss of quality was massively outweighed by the weight and usability, and I agree. I have sold my huge 600mm f4 lens which was too often left home or in the car because of the weight and got the Olympus 300mm f4, same magnification but always with me.
It has been a big gain for me, as an amateur, the best camera is the one you have with you and the big pro bodies were always left at home whereas the Olympus can go everywhere.
It has poorer high iso performance but I use base iso most of the time and that is a stop and a half faster than the film I used for 40 years!

 

[mi-fu]

IBIS -or in-lens stabilization- is useful, for sure.
But where is the link between this and your guessed 'little future of DSLR' ?
Some DSLR have IBIS and some mirrorless don't.

As for mirror vibration, this is basically a non-issue, in my experience, with the Canon 5DSR.
You can set a delay before the shutter opens.
Mine is set to 1/8s and that's enough to avoid any problem.
For critical work, I use a support or a tripod and 2s delay anyway.

Some mirrorless had shutter opening shocks and that was far worse. (The mechanical shutter has to close first, then open. That's twice as much travel compared to a DSLR). For sure, electronic first shutter solves that (as it does on a DSLR in live view mode).
No, you can't always use a fully electronic shutter.

Surely one can turn a DSLR into a mirrorless by disabling the mirror box and use it purely on live-view to make it free from mirror vibration. But doesn't that defeat the main purpose of using a DSLR, i.e. having a nice optical viewfinder??? If it is preferable to use a DSLR in the way you suggest, why don't people just get a mirrorless?

We really need to get to the basic - why the DSLR is / was preferable? I think there are two major reasons:
1) Fast and reliable AF, particularly with tracking, i.e. the main discussion of this thread.
2) Nice optical viewfinder, i.e. user experience.

Mirrorless is getting close to provide DSLR-comparable solutions to these two aspects. Strictly speaking, mirrorless is still not as good yet. But if you look at latest mirrorless offers, like the AF of Sony A9, A6400, or the viewfinders of Leica SL or Panasonic SR or Fuji GFX 100, you will see that the difference is not as big as you might think.

Many people love DSLRs, I understand that. I still use several DSLRs too. But it is undeniable that its time has gone (sales figures prove that. And manufacturers refuse to put most resources on that). Whether it will come back, as Pentas / Ricoh wishes, only time would tell.

 

[Blumlein 88]

I've got a bit of a different question. I've an older Canon DSLR. If you were getting a new camera, not going for state of the art, but say mid-range affordable. Say about $1000 for sports use. Which would give the most performance for a similar amount of money? DSLR or mirrorless? Not being a super serious photographer I'd lean toward Frank Dernie's ideas as well. Something you'll have with you more often.

 

[M00ndancer]

Not being a super serious photographer I'd lean toward Frank Dernie's ideas as well. Something you'll have with you more often.

General advice: Get a used micro 4/3 and some good glass. The lenses are really the key here to get short enough shutter times. Combined with lot's of light.
What type of sport? Indoor our outdoor?

 

[DKT88]

I've got a bit of a different question. I've an older Canon DSLR. If you were getting a new camera, not going for state of the art, but say mid-range affordable. Say about $1000 for sports use. Which would give the most performance for a similar amount of money? DSLR or mirrorless? Not being a super serious photographer I'd lean toward Frank Dernie's ideas as well. Something you'll have with you more often.

I look at dpreview when buying cameras. Its a good starting point: https://www.dpreview.com/reviews/buying-guide-best-cameras-under-1000

I have a Canon 5DMIII and a couple of the big white lenses that you see the pros using at sports events. I can't deal with lugging it around and have a couple of Fujifilm X series mirrorless cameras that I carry even though they are no where near as capable in autofocus as the Canon. The best camera is the one that you have with you.