• WANTED: Happy members who like to discuss audio and other topics related to our interest. Desire to learn and share knowledge of science required. There are many reviews of audio hardware and expert members to help answer your questions. Click here to have your audio equipment measured for free!

Best mirrorless camera for sports photography

Blumlein 88

Grand Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
Feb 23, 2016
Messages
20,524
Likes
37,057
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?
Outdoor. Motorsports and various ball games like baseball, volleyball, that sort of thing.
 

M00ndancer

Addicted to Fun and Learning
Forum Donor
Joined
Feb 4, 2019
Messages
719
Likes
728
Location
Sweden
Outdoor. Motorsports and various ball games like baseball, volleyball, that sort of thing.
Your enemy is speed and distance. Long, fast lenses are expensive. But as long as there is enough light a less expensive lens should work fine.
 

Soniclife

Major Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
Apr 13, 2017
Messages
4,500
Likes
5,417
Location
UK
General advice: Get a used micro 4/3 and some good glass.
You can also rent if you want to try things out, before committing.
Being honest with yourself about size and weight Vs absolute quality is the key decision. I know I'm far to lazy for a big DSLR, so m43 works great for me, but the people I know that shoot lots of birds in flight all use the top Nikon, with huge glass, but it takes real dedication.
 

PierreV

Major Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
Nov 6, 2018
Messages
1,437
Likes
4,686
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.

The key factor is probably the lenses you already own. I am (somewhat unhappily) married to Canon given the L glass I have accumulated over the years. If I did not have good lenses I wanted to keep and a $1000 budget, I would definitely consider either a Sony RX10 (probably III given the budget) or the Panasonic FZ1000 II. I used the Sony RX10 when I did not feel like lugging the 300 2.8 L around and I was quite happy with it.

If you are happy with your current Canon lenses and they are EF, I would go anything currently above $1000 when it is discounted (which is happening now) Canon has made very little progress in terms of sensors over the last 10 years or so, unlike Sony who supplies most of the competition and the DSLR, even mirrorless, has been in a freefall worse than ever. (https://www.videomaker.com/news/canons-falling-sales-may-signal-dark-future-for-camera-market/)
 

M00ndancer

Addicted to Fun and Learning
Forum Donor
Joined
Feb 4, 2019
Messages
719
Likes
728
Location
Sweden
I would definitely consider either a Sony RX10 (probably III given the budget) or the Panasonic FZ1000 II.
That's a good compromise. I'm in a similar boat. Got an old D90 with a bunch of old pro lenses. So the most obvious upgrade is the D500 (my end goal) but that's €1800 and there no used market yet. Getting similar lenses for another system is going to be really expensive.
 

mi-fu

Addicted to Fun and Learning
Forum Donor
Joined
Jun 7, 2018
Messages
584
Likes
661
Location
New York
Outdoor. Motorsports and various ball games like baseball, volleyball, that sort of thing.

As your main focus is sports, within your budget, my top choice would be Sony A6400 ($900). Its AF ability should be the best in that price range. You may want to check out the review on dpreview and others. If you already have good Canon glasses, you may consider getting a Sigma MC-11 adapter (occasionally on sale at $150) to use the Canon lens on Sony.

If you want to go even smaller size, micro 43 system would be quite handy. @Frank Dernie would know more on the system. But be sure to compare its AF with Sony. If you find the m43 offers good enough, Olympus could be a very good pick and probably lower price too. Also, the crop factor of m43 give you a better range on the tele side. It can be a plus for your need.

Also try Fuji XT-30 ($900), Fuji has very good color out of the box. In the past, Fuji's AF was rather sluggish. But it has been greatly improved in the latest generation. But Fuji glasses are generally more expensive. And no 3rd party makers like Sigma and Tamron.

Like what @PierreV suggested, Panasonic FZ 1000 II ($900) or Sony RX10 (the latest generation may be out of your budget) would be a one-stop solution with good zoom range too. You can save lots of money on lenses.

If you really want to go cheap, the previous generation Panasonic FZ 1000 can be found ard $600 brand new with 3 years USA warranty. If its AF is enough for you and you don't mind the sensor is a bit dated, it can be a good low price choice.

Finally, if you want to go super handy, Sony RX100 V or VI probably can offer fast enough AF for your need too. The camera size will allow you to carry it everyday <<< I love that idea.

For DSLRs, I'm sorry. I can't think of any good choice satisfying your need within the budget. :(
 
Last edited:

Frank Dernie

Master Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
Mar 24, 2016
Messages
6,445
Likes
15,781
Location
Oxfordshire
As your main focus is sports, within your budget, my top choice would be Sony A6400 ($900). Its AF ability should be the best in that price range. You may want to check out the review on dpreview and others. If you already have good Canon glasses, you may consider getting a Sigma MC-11 adapter (occasionally on sale at $150) to use the Canon lens on Sony.

If you want to go even smaller size, micro 43 system would be quite handy. @Frank Dernie would know more on the system. But be sure to compare its AF with Sony. If you find the m43 offers good enough, Olympus could be a very good pick and probably lower price too. Also, the crop factor of m43 give you a better range on the tele side. It can be a plus for your need.

Also try Fuji XT-30 ($900), Fuji has very good color out of the box. In the past, Fuji's AF was rather sluggish. But it has been greatly improved in the latest generation. But Fuji glasses are generally more expensive. And no 3rd party makers like Sigma and Tamron.

Like what @PierreV suggested, Panasonic FZ 1000 II ($900) or Sony RX10 (the latest generation may be out of your budget) would be a one-stop solution with good zoom range too. You can save lots of money on lenses.

If you really want to go cheap, the previous generation Panasonic FZ 1000 can be found ard $600 brand new with 3 years USA warranty. If its AF is enough for you and you don't mind the sensor is a bit dated, it can be a good low price choice.

Finally, if you want to go super handy, Sony RX100 V or VI probably can offer fast enough AF for your need too. The camera size will allow you to carry it everyday <<< I love that idea.

For DSLRs, I'm sorry. I can't think of any good choice satisfying your need within the budget. :(
I bought a Sony RX100VI to go on holiday up the Amazon last November for “Normal” and took my Olympus OM-D1 with 60mm macro and Panasonic/Leica 100-400 zoom for longer shots (200-800mm equivalent on my old cameras. I was pleased with the results and it was easy to carry on the flight, I would not have even taken my 600mm f4!
Personally I have yet to experience an autofocus system which is universally good. Loads and loads of focusing on the wrong thing in the foreground or tip of nose instead of eye with fast portrait lens. I usually end up manually re-touching focus except when photographing grandchildren rushing about, where lots of out of movement is there anyway but the DoF is big with slow zooms - I usually prefer fast prime lenses with good boke myself.
 

Blumlein 88

Grand Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
Feb 23, 2016
Messages
20,524
Likes
37,057
Thanks for all the good information folks. I've not paid much attention to the camera worlds offerings for about 5 years. So all your input and suggestions kind of get me up to speed about where to look further. The micro 4/3 looks like what would work for me. I've three Canon lens. Pretty good, but not their top of the line stuff. So not necessarily married to something that can re-use those.
 
OP
amirm

amirm

Founder/Admin
Staff Member
CFO (Chief Fun Officer)
Joined
Feb 13, 2016
Messages
44,374
Likes
234,454
Location
Seattle Area
Just one more thing:
What do we need in terms of resolution?
Is 50Mpixels useful?
For wildlife work, you don't have the luxury of proper framing so cropping is almost always a must. As such, more resolution (if it is real), is always welcome. I would take 500 megapixels if I could. :) It would allow me to use smaller lenses then.
 

Ron Texas

Master Contributor
Joined
Jun 10, 2018
Messages
6,078
Likes
8,914
For wildlife work, you don't have the luxury of proper framing so cropping is almost always a must. As such, more resolution (if it is real), is always welcome. I would take 500 megapixels if I could. :) It would allow me to use smaller lenses then.

That's an interesting idea. One extremely sharp lens could start around 50 mm (FX) equivalent FOV and crop to super-telephoto FOV. Probably a second lens would be needed for wide angle, say 20mm to 100 mm equivalent.
 

Soniclife

Major Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
Apr 13, 2017
Messages
4,500
Likes
5,417
Location
UK
Just remember that with that sort of shooting drive mode is usually used and high frame rate is desired, bigger files slow things down. But if you can make a 500 mpixel sensor I'm sure you can speed things up enough.
 

Blumlein 88

Grand Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
Feb 23, 2016
Messages
20,524
Likes
37,057
For wildlife work, you don't have the luxury of proper framing so cropping is almost always a must. As such, more resolution (if it is real), is always welcome. I would take 500 megapixels if I could. :) It would allow me to use smaller lenses then.
I've thought about this quite a bit. I think the question is whether or not you have the optical resolution to make use of 500 megapixels. In which case cropping from a short prime lens won't equal lesser cropping from a long lens and fewer megapixels. If this turns out to be true, you'll only need your smartphone. Stick a great little lens on it with huge megapixels and you don't need any real zoom. Ignoring things like sensor noise etc.
 

PierreV

Major Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
Nov 6, 2018
Messages
1,437
Likes
4,686
For wildlife work, you don't have the luxury of proper framing so cropping is almost always a must. As such, more resolution (if it is real), is always welcome. I would take 500 megapixels if I could. :) It would allow me to use smaller lenses then.

I wouldn't work actually. If you take something like the optimal pixel size in terms of SNR, say around 6 um and use a 25000x20000 sensor, your sensor will have to be 15 by 12 cm. That would require a huge physical aperture to have even remotely even illumination. Even going down to 1 um pixels, you'd need 2.5 by 2 cm, APS-C territory. With a 300 mm focal length, you'd get around 0.7" per pixel, which could I guess be delivered by a 160 mm physical aperture (FD/1.9). Now, if you settle with a standard 50mm lens at 2.8, your lens maximal resolution (physical aperture of 18 mm) will be around 6.4" so the small pixels will be wasted.

ultimate resolution at a given wavelength depends on one factor only: physical lens/mirror aperture (or base in interferometry) - you may oversample or undersample it (pixel size, focal length), but you aren't going to beat physics here either. More here

https://www.audiosciencereview.com/...ob-stuart-answers-questions.7623/#post-178555

and that's ignoring the intrinsic limitations of 1um pixels with their very very small well capacity and the impact of photon noise...

note: quick estimates above, forgive any computation mistake/approximation.
 

PierreV

Major Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
Nov 6, 2018
Messages
1,437
Likes
4,686

Rja4000

Major Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
May 31, 2019
Messages
2,682
Likes
4,220
Location
Liège, Belgium
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???
Of course not. I use a DSLR hand held 99% of the time. But when I want a sharp picture inside a cathedral at 11mm, which I know I'll have to process later, I just use a support and live view.
In that case, with a mirrorless, I would not use the electronic viewfinder either.
Does that mean I don't need a viewfinder?

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.
(...)
But it is undeniable that its time has gone (sales figures prove that. And manufacturers refuse to put most resources on that).
The main reason to prefer a DSLR are
1. The optical viewfinder. Mirrorless will never come close
2. Less lag between pictures for sport.
As I said, a global shutter sensor will address that sooner or later
3. AF speed ? That's mainly a processing power issue. And the big 2 have decades of experience that the others will not catch in a few years.
Dual (or Quad, as some patents showed) pixel AF is way ahead in technology but Canon lacks some reading speed/processing power to make full use of it (yet)

You say it's "indeniable" that DSLR times are gone, and I deny it.
The argument that the vendors refuse to invest in it (which is not proven) could just demonstrate a marketing strategy, which is what I explained above as one of the reasons we could have no choice in the future.
 

Rja4000

Major Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
May 31, 2019
Messages
2,682
Likes
4,220
Location
Liège, Belgium
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 agree that the best one is the one you have at hand when you need it.
I've been literally living with my older 1DII during 7 years. That's not exactly pocket- size camera.
And I did use it in any weather.

If I was with this choice for sport, I'd for sure go for a serious APS-C DSLR.
APS-C because they are cheaper, smaller, and the crop factor helps to have more reach.
I know Canon better, so I'll use Canon references:
I'd say a used 7DII or a 80D.
If the sport was just once in a (distant) while, I'd rather go for a M50, which is cheap, small, and a lot of fun to use. (And #1 in mirrorless sales in Japan since it's been released)

DSLR and mirrorless are 2different types of tools.
They can do mostly the same things. But the focus is different. Like a station wagon and a coupe.
 
Last edited:

mi-fu

Addicted to Fun and Learning
Forum Donor
Joined
Jun 7, 2018
Messages
584
Likes
661
Location
New York
You say it's "indeniable" that DSLR times are gone, and I deny it.
The argument that the vendors refuse to invest in it (which is not proven) could just demonstrate a marketing strategy, which is what I explained above as one of the reasons we could have no choice in the future.

There is one more reason why DSLRs are soon to be (if not already) outdated - DSLRs cannot capture images in real-time and cannot do it continuously.

In the near future, we will no longer clearly distinguish still photography and videography. We already see some of the early implementation today, i.e. Apple's "Live Photo" or Google's "Motion photo." Basically it is a short video clip. In the future, cameras will be using AI-technology to pick the best moment from a video clip. Photographers will be super easy to have the best image. You won't miss a shot.

Imagine this technology becomes available on sports photography. That would be a total game-changer.

15 years ago, some of my friends would also debate with me about film photography vs digital photography. They argued some "magical quality" of film. Digital was just a marketing trick. Film would come back eventually, etc. Endless, endless debate.

Only time will tell which side is correct.

For the time being, we can agree to disagree. :)
 

Blumlein 88

Grand Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
Feb 23, 2016
Messages
20,524
Likes
37,057
I agree that the best one is the one you have at hand when you need it.
I've been literally living with my older 1DII during 7 years. That's not exactly pocket- size camera.
And I did use it in any weather.

If I was with this choice for sport, I'd for sure give for a serious APS-C DSLR.
APS-C because they are cheaper, smaller, and the crop factor helps to have more reach.
I know Canon better, so I'll use Canon references:
I'd say a used 7DII or a 80D.
If the sport was just once in a (distant) while, I'd rather go for a M50, which is cheap, small, and a lot of fun to use. (And #1 in mirrorless sales in Japan since it's been released)

DSLR and mirrorless are 2different types of tools.
They can do mostly the same things. But the focus is different. Like a station wagon and a coupe.

The DSLR I have is an APS-C. Its an old Canon T3i, 18 megapixel. Sort of lower middle of their DSLR offerings in 2012. Its been a good camera and still is. Works as well as ever. I've used it for a fair bit of sport though it isn't optimum.

Since yesterday I've been looking at that M50. Sometimes buying a more affordable rig and replacing more often keeps you closer to new technology developments. I also don't mind buying used on something like this.

I've not shot much video, but the M50 looks like it might be nice for that just for kicks.

A couple cropped shots from my old camera. They aren't great, and the photographer shares much of the blame. Like everyone I hope new equipment will make up for some of my deficiencies. I do blame the lens a little bit too.

example 2.jpg
example 3.jpg
 

Rja4000

Major Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
May 31, 2019
Messages
2,682
Likes
4,220
Location
Liège, Belgium
In the near future, we will no longer clearly distinguish still photography and videography. We already see some of the early implementation today, i.e. Apple's "Live Photo" or Google's "Motion photo." Basically it is a short video clip. In the future, cameras will be using AI-technology to pick the best moment from a video clip. Photographers will be super easy to have the best image. You won't miss a shot.

Imagine this technology becomes available on sports photography. That would be a total game-changer.
(...)
For the time being, we can agree to disagree. :)
This is already a reality.
Olympus is demonstrating that at photo fairs, with a current production model.

And if you look at Andy Rouse photography, who happens to be a "Canon ambassador", he recently presented the Olympus as a game changer for some of his wildlife photography.
His pictures are amazing, by the way.

So yes, I agree, for pro sport photo, when the sensor reading speed will allow it without too much image distortion (global shutter again), that will be a significative progress.
(Note that Olympus sensor, being micro 4/3, is much smaller, allowing faster read rate.
@amirm: that one may be the answer to your original question for sport. But not so much for wildlife, where low light performance is key.)

But, again, a DSLR could perfectly do that too, and it's so easy to add an electronic viewfinder to a DSLR that I'm not sure it will be the end of the DSLR or just an additional functionality that you could choose to use when needed and still use the optical viewfinder when you prefer.
After all, not so long ago, pro camera bodies had interchangeable viewfinder. As do pro video camera.

Maybe I'm just hoping the optical viewfinder will remain available. It's so much of a difference in some circumstances that I don't want that comfort to disappear. And I'm sure I'm not the only one.

Last week, I was shooting a friend's concert.
LED lightings on stage is a nightmare for photographer: brutal contrast, high frequency artifacts,...
In such light, sometimes, I don't even want to look through the mirrorless viewfinder. That's just harsh and ugly.
Sure, I can shoot silently (with being careful to avoid ugly artifacts due to lighting interferences).
But what a pain.
 
Last edited:
Top Bottom