• WANTED: Happy members who like to discuss audio and other topics related to our interest. Desire to learn and share knowledge of science required as is 20 years of participation in forums (not all true). Come here to have fun, be ready to be teased and not take online life too seriously. We now measure and review equipment for free! Click here for details.

Best mirrorless camera for sports photography

Rja4000

Addicted to Fun and Learning
Joined
May 31, 2019
Messages
609
Likes
446
Location
Liège, Belgium
#81
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 basically how I do it.
I use a 5DSR, and the 50Mp size gives me the choice to crop afterwards or not.
I get a capable APS-C crop if needed, and a sky-high resolution if I use the full frame, and I can also benefit from very good low-light performance if I choose to down-sample the full frame image. All that is available with each single shot. Choice later.
The main drawback is the slower frame rate.
(The AF speed is pretty good)
 

amirm

Founder/Admin
Staff Member
CFO (Chief Fun Officer)
Joined
Feb 13, 2016
Messages
23,437
Likes
40,365
Location
Seattle Area
#82
I use a 5DSR, and the 50Mp size gives me the choice to crop afterwards or not.
I have the same camera and it was the first time I could crop an image and still have good bit of resolution left.
 

maxxevv

Major Contributor
Joined
Apr 12, 2018
Messages
1,286
Likes
1,156
#83
Outdoor. Motorsports and various ball games like baseball, volleyball, that sort of thing.
Since you already have some Canon glass, a Canon 80D would be more than enough for casual sports shooting. Or if you want to spend a little more, the 7D mkII.
Personally, I still shoot the occasional sports event with my ancient 5DmkII (yes mark 2 from a decade ago).

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.
You're still resolution limited by the resolving limits of the lenses available. Not every lens in the last 10 years is actually up to the mark of a 50mp sensor. Much less a 500mp one.
 

Blumlein 88

Major Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
Feb 23, 2016
Messages
7,573
Likes
8,739
#84
In the images I posted a few posts back, I think the lack of contrast is the most glaring issue. Those were from quite a distance with quite a bit of zoom. And it is a cropped image. I would blame the lens for that, but probably some of the sensor too. And my using a 1/3200th second exposure.
 

Frank Dernie

Major Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
Mar 24, 2016
Messages
2,271
Likes
3,607
Location
Oxfordshire
#85
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?


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.
I am puzzled by your comments.
For film I used Leica M and Canon EOS 1 range.
For digital I have used (and still own) the large pro bodies from Canon and, my preference, Nikon but I am happy with the electronic viewfinder on the Olympus OM-D E1 and the viewfinder is much better in poor light than an optical one. The viewfinder blanks for not noticeably longer than the mirror flipping.
My favourite “DSLR” camera is my Leica R8 with the DMR back since the Leica has a much, much better viewfinder than a digital SLR gets but my DMR isn’t working :(.
Anyway I do agree that the viewfinder is a very important aspect of a camera’s utility, I hate composing on a rear screen since camera shake becomes so much greater, then a good lens and high pixel count camera become completely pointless!
 

M00ndancer

Senior Member
Forum Donor
Joined
Feb 4, 2019
Messages
332
Likes
362
Location
Sweden
#86
Personally I have yet to experience an autofocus system which is universally good.
There is, but it is expensive, heavy (Nikon D500) and a steep learning curve.
 
Last edited:

Frank Dernie

Major Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
Mar 24, 2016
Messages
2,271
Likes
3,607
Location
Oxfordshire
#87
There is but it is expensive, heavy (Nikon D500) and a steep learning curve.
OK how does it know to focus on the deer in the bushes rather than the nearest branch in the bushes?
Does it have artificial intelligence to recognise eyes to focus on them, rather than the tip of the nose?
I have an old Nikon D3X which is superb but does neither of these things.
The Olympus is hit-or-miss with birds in flight, very fast but sometimes misses the subject altogether even against a clear sky.
 

mi-fu

Addicted to Fun and Learning
Forum Donor
Joined
Jun 7, 2018
Messages
504
Likes
465
Location
New York
#89
I am puzzled by your comments.
For film I used Leica M and Canon EOS 1 range.
For digital I have used (and still own) the large pro bodies from Canon and, my preference, Nikon but I am happy with the electronic viewfinder on the Olympus OM-D E1 and the viewfinder is much better in poor light than an optical one. The viewfinder blanks for not noticeably longer than the mirror flipping.
My favourite “DSLR” camera is my Leica R8 with the DMR back since the Leica has a much, much better viewfinder than a digital SLR gets but my DMR isn’t working :(.
Anyway I do agree that the viewfinder is a very important aspect of a camera’s utility, I hate composing on a rear screen since camera shake becomes so much greater, then a good lens and high pixel count camera become completely pointless!
Absolutely. While we may casually talk about optical viewfinder as an advantage of DSLR experience, more than often we forgot that not all optical viewfinders are equal. Indeed, very few DSLRs have excellent optical viewfinders.

For me, personally, I don't think any sensor size smaller than 35mm full frame offer decent enough optical viewfinder experience. The viewing area is simply too small for all APS-C format. Even for 35mm full frame format, not all cameras do it right. Nikon is notoriously known for having less bright viewfinders in older non top models, like D800. D4/D5 are fine though. Canon is doing a better job on this. Leica DMR is still one of a kind. Even for medium format, Hasselblad was absolutely better than Mamiya, until Phase One released XF.
 

Frank Dernie

Major Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
Mar 24, 2016
Messages
2,271
Likes
3,607
Location
Oxfordshire
#90
Absolutely. While we may casually talk about optical viewfinder as an advantage of DSLR experience, more than often we forgot that not all optical viewfinders are equal. Indeed, very few DSLRs have excellent optical viewfinders.

For me, personally, I don't think any sensor size smaller than 35mm full frame offer decent enough optical viewfinder experience. The viewing area is simply too small for all APS-C format. Even for 35mm full frame format, not all cameras do it right. Nikon is notoriously known for having less bright viewfinders in older non top models, like D800. D4/D5 are fine though. Canon is doing a better job on this. Leica DMR is still one of a kind. Even for medium format, Hasselblad was absolutely better than Mamiya, until Phase One released XF.
My favourite MF SLR viewfinder was the Rollei 6008i, now sold along with Hasselblad and Rollei SL66 and all the TLRs - not used for too long.
My favourite SLR viewfinder was the Olympus OM1, it made my Nikon F seem really old!
 

amirm

Founder/Admin
Staff Member
CFO (Chief Fun Officer)
Joined
Feb 13, 2016
Messages
23,437
Likes
40,365
Location
Seattle Area
#91
You're still resolution limited by the resolving limits of the lenses available.
Guys.... I know. I know! That is why I said "real resolution." Not just pixels.

I remember when we had less than 20 megapixel sensors people said we were limited by lenses. But progress has been made in lens design and 50 megapixels is definitely useful. Software correction of lens aberrations has also helped a lot getting rid of such things as lateral CA, etc. allowing for better magnification of what is there.

I don't know where we go from here as I am not a lens designer but I think progress will be made beyond where we are now.
 

Soniclife

Major Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
Apr 13, 2017
Messages
2,216
Likes
1,852
Location
UK
#92
I don't know where we go from here as I am not a lens designer but I think progress will be made beyond where we are now.
I don't know how it will be done either, but like you I assume it will be, but only as long as measurements remain common in the photography world, and competition exists.
 

Blumlein 88

Major Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
Feb 23, 2016
Messages
7,573
Likes
8,739
#93
Having looked at some info, I keep running into people saying the micro four thirds is going to go away soon. Seems odd. They are smaller, have good performance, and lens interchangeability. Why would they disappear? Is this just people extrapolating from the fact cell phones have killed off pocket digicams and so the next progression in size is MFT? I get that the market might segment into a full frame niche, but view this like some of our audio gear on this site. You can now get some inexpensive good gear, but there is a market for super upscale gear. Yet most people are going to be using lesser items in the mainstream with very little sacrifice in performance.
 

Soniclife

Major Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
Apr 13, 2017
Messages
2,216
Likes
1,852
Location
UK
#94
Having looked at some info, I keep running into people saying the micro four thirds is going to go away soon. Seems odd.
This has been going on for years, one day it might be true. It seems logical that some of the systems will go, but I don't see it as obvious as to which ones it will be.
 

M00ndancer

Senior Member
Forum Donor
Joined
Feb 4, 2019
Messages
332
Likes
362
Location
Sweden
#95
OK how does it know to focus on the deer in the bushes rather than the nearest branch in the bushes?
Does it have artificial intelligence to recognise eyes to focus on them, rather than the tip of the nose?
I have an old Nikon D3X which is superb but does neither of these things.
The Olympus is hit-or-miss with birds in flight, very fast but sometimes misses the subject altogether even against a clear sky.
Not going to get into a discussion about AF systems, No AF system is 100% but used correctly it's really good. (Still no mind reader)

Deer in bushes, single point 3D AF tracking. The old D3X have a really old AF system made in 2007, better than my crappy D90 but a lot worse than the new AF systems from Nikon/Sony/Fuji/Pentax
Problem is that no AF, as far as I know, is point and shoot, but need practice and training to get it right.
 

mi-fu

Addicted to Fun and Learning
Forum Donor
Joined
Jun 7, 2018
Messages
504
Likes
465
Location
New York
#96
Having looked at some info, I keep running into people saying the micro four thirds is going to go away soon. Seems odd. They are smaller, have good performance, and lens interchangeability. Why would they disappear? Is this just people extrapolating from the fact cell phones have killed off pocket digicams and so the next progression in size is MFT? I get that the market might segment into a full frame niche, but view this like some of our audio gear on this site. You can now get some inexpensive good gear, but there is a market for super upscale gear. Yet most people are going to be using lesser items in the mainstream with very little sacrifice in performance.
M43 has two limitations because of its small physical size, namely, low resolution and weak low-light performance.

Whether these are problems, it really depends on use and needs.
 

Blumlein 88

Major Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
Feb 23, 2016
Messages
7,573
Likes
8,739
#97
M43 has two limitations because of its small physical size, namely, low resolution and weak low-light performance.

Whether these are problems, it really depends on use and needs.
That is what I'm looking at here. A similar larger format is better on low light performance and maybe resolution. But the MFT are good enough they handily beat the camera I have on both while having all the other advantages. So for me it looks like a good trade off.
 

mi-fu

Addicted to Fun and Learning
Forum Donor
Joined
Jun 7, 2018
Messages
504
Likes
465
Location
New York
#98
That is what I'm looking at here. A similar larger format is better on low light performance and maybe resolution. But the MFT are good enough they handily beat the camera I have on both while having all the other advantages. So for me it looks like a good trade off.
Any particular model of M43 you are looking at?
 

Blumlein 88

Major Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
Feb 23, 2016
Messages
7,573
Likes
8,739
#99
Any particular model of M43 you are looking at?
Haven't narrowed it down yet. Just started looking in my spare time like 48 hrs ago. I like the IBIS that Olympus and Lumix have. If you have any more specific thoughts and suggestions then spill the beans. :)
 

Frank Dernie

Major Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
Mar 24, 2016
Messages
2,271
Likes
3,607
Location
Oxfordshire
M43 has two limitations because of its small physical size, namely, low resolution and weak low-light performance.

Whether these are problems, it really depends on use and needs.
Both true, but neither a problem for me.
The resolution is plenty, IME.
I completely disagree about the potential about lenses and sensor resolution. Optics are NOT only about sharpness since IME (58 years now since my first camera) flare resistance and boke are at least as important and these are not always good on sharp lenses, so obsession with sharpness isn't necesarily going to get good photographs. In addition, whilst anti shake provision in cameras/lenses has been the biggest gain in photography in the digital age IMO if you want to achieve the full potential of high resolution lenses and sensors a heavy solid tripod is necessary and few people in the phone camera age even have one never mind use it and are wasting the potential of their camera a lot (all?) of the time.
When I first took up digital photography I did a lot of comparisons between prints I made in the darkroom and digital files on a printer at various resolutions. For prints at A4 (near to the 10"x8" old standard) I found more than 3.5 megapixels to be unnecessary at a normal viewing distances and above 6 megapixels there was no visible increase in detail under a loupe.
Of course if you only look at pictures on your computer screen or email them the requirements are quite different, and opposites!
One of my favourite little photographic excercises is taking a panorama from the beach near my daughter's house on Anglesey over the Menai Strait from the Great Orme to Bangor. I have done it since she moved there years ago and have panoramas with many weather conditions. I have tried several techniques and camera/lens combinations. The best success has been with Leica 50 and 90 mm lenses. The 4/3 lenses use computer correction of distortion, which is fine for single shots but doesn't work well with stitched shots in Photoshop, though I only tried it once and maybe one of the other lenses I have needs less correction. I have also tried Canon and Nikon for this shot but their lenses are markedly inferior to the Leica ones when super resolution is the goal. The files, blended and trimmed tend to be around 90 megapixels and look great on a high resolution screen, but even then the atmospheric conditions, humidity in particular, have a considerable influence on the actual resolution in the picture of the more distant elements on the Snowdonia hills.
As you write, the "weak" low light performance is a matter of use. As an old bloke who used 64asa Kodachrome for decades even the base ISO of 200 is "fast" for me. I have certainly had some picture from 4/3 where the noise is disappointing but for most of the things I do it is a non-issue, and to some extent the poorer low light performance is offset by the 4/3 lenses usually being faster.
Overall I am thrilled with my 4/3 camera's utility and the combination of size, weight and some superb lenses, some of them not expensive at all, make it one of the most useful cameras I have ever owned (and I have owned lots as an ex-collector of old ones).
Yes, overall the Leica M10 is better but I have sold the long heavy Leica lenses I used with an adaptor since I never used them - it is still the best for normal photography but the 4/3, admittedly mine is an Olympus OM-D E1 mk2 which is hardly cheap, has superb lenses and more or less instant autofocus and is perfect for family snaps plus wildlife pictures.
 
Top Bottom