Taking a realistic look at m43 for sports

[rbelyell]

my purpose was not to rain on anyones parade, but merely to take issue with your analogy comparing m4/3 in action photography to taking a bicycle cross country. folks seem to like the V1, thats great. i dont want to change anyones mind. i disliked it in the extreme, it felt like a toy to me, and produced images i personally did not like. but thats just my opinion.

objectively, it has a much smaller sensor than m4/3, not fatal in and of itself, but many sports take place inside, and that sensor cant handle high iso, imo. it also cant use MF glass, which was my main contribution to this thread.

shooting sports, or action in general, is much more than 'fast AF', its about accurate focus, anticipating action, high shutter speeds coupled with DOF that often leads to high iso's. for me personally, its also about proper use of MF lenses. in terms of systems, from my experience on an IQ basis, in these areas the V1 cant hold a candle to m4/3.

now i totally understand if someone wants to simply offer another alternative and point out its particular attributes. i even understand if someone wants to kind of piss on m4/3 in this area when comparing it to top of the line FF dslrs, containing superior sensors, superior lenses etc. what i objected to was pissing on it with an inferior sensored, inferior lensed tool.

 

[T N Args]

I generally see no need to change cameras to take great sports photos, but if it is your speciality or your income, I would have been surprised that µ4/3 is chosen in the first place.

 

[InlawBiker]

I usually keep a Micro 4/3 in my car in case I need a camera and I have shot pretty good sports, even with my old G2 and the Olympus 40-150mm kit zoom. That is a sharp lens. That amazing photo to start this thread could have been done with Micro 4/3, sure. But for dedicated sports I am grabbing the Nikon.

The main problem is tracking. In Nikon and Canon AF-C, once you lock onto that subject he stays in focus no matter what. I rarely miss a shot that's not my own fault. My Panasonics would get confused right away. If you use AF-S and happen to get the shot on the first try, then you're fine. But it doesn't really work that way. You usually wait for the action, pick a subject and then burst during the play with AF-C.

The other problem is background. In a lot of shots you see with Micro 4/3, the background can be in pretty clear focus. That can be OK if you get a nice backdrop on your subject, like some trees or sky, or the field itself. However often you have parents wandering around, garbage cans, cars, a guy throwing a frisbee for his dog, whatever. If they're in focus it distracts from the subject. You can solve a lot of that with where you stand but not always. Again that shot to start the thread, no big deal you can crop out the rest. The water tower actually adds to the photo.

Then at night, a bigger sensor helps a lot. Often I'm at 3200 ISO f/2.8 and it's still not enough. If I were shooting high school sports or above it would have to be full frame. I have high hopes for the E-M1's hybrid sensor and the new fast lenses but, I don't think it will take over the sports photo world anytime soon.

 

[gotak]

My E-M5 isn't fast enough to keep up with my 8 month old who's only able to roll (not walk or crawl) around and lean to grab stuff. And it's not fast enough for when she leans to and from the camera, and she's not fast even just doing that. So no AF-C is no where near good enough if you don't have an E-M1. I'll see how that body does if I ever buy one. That said you can for the most part get away with using single shot AF with kids and the E-M5.

I have shot my share of sports using 7Ds. The shots people are posting up, longer distance team sports, are actually not too bad for any camera. Most of the time when you are a spectator you are shooting mostly from the side so the camera really doesn't have to move focus back and forth too much. What I have found pushes cameras hard is being close up with the action where it's not continuous. For example almost getting hit taking photos of a karate sparring match (the reason why I ditched my non USM standard zoom).

There are always situations where any camera can do sports. The real question should be does it work for you. And only you can answer that because no one's going to look through all your sports shots to try and figure it out for you.

 

[yakky]

my purpose was not to rain on anyones parade, but merely to take issue with your analogy comparing m4/3 in action photography to taking a bicycle cross country. folks seem to like the V1, thats great. i dont want to change anyones mind. i disliked it in the extreme, it felt like a toy to me, and produced images i personally did not like. but thats just my opinion.

objectively, it has a much smaller sensor than m4/3, not fatal in and of itself, but many sports take place inside, and that sensor cant handle high iso, imo. it also cant use MF glass, which was my main contribution to this thread.

shooting sports, or action in general, is much more than 'fast AF', its about accurate focus, anticipating action, high shutter speeds coupled with DOF that often leads to high iso's. for me personally, its also about proper use of MF lenses. in terms of systems, from my experience on an IQ basis, in these areas the V1 cant hold a candle to m4/3.

now i totally understand if someone wants to simply offer another alternative and point out its particular attributes. i even understand if someone wants to kind of piss on m4/3 in this area when comparing it to top of the line FF dslrs, containing superior sensors, superior lenses etc. what i objected to was pissing on it with an inferior sensored, inferior lensed tool.

You know, I had the same viewpoint on the One series as you do. Keyword HAD. I used to laugh at the thing in Best Buy and Targets. I'd mock the commercials. How could Nikon produce such a POS I thought. Then when my M43 gear wasn't cutting it for taking pictures of kids playing around, I started looking around again.

Is the sensor inferior the your E-PL5, yes. However it holds up just fine to one generation back like the E-PL3. Glass selection isn't great, but the glass that is out there is fantastic. Even the kit 10-30 is super nice, easily better than any M43 kit glass. For sports you can also use Nikon DX or FX glass with an adapter, which is perfect for sports. Lots of reach for not lots of price.

Maybe our shooting styles differ, but when shooting action, I do anticipate the situation, but I'm the first to admit I'm not psychic. With the One series I can hold the shutter down and get fast, accurate AF and 10 frames per second. The on board 1 GIG fast buffer can hold 60 frames in the buffer before the card even comes in to play. I'm getting 60 crisp shots to your 5 or 10? Like they say, the harder you work, the luckier you get. Who is going to have a better chance of getting the shot?

Is current M43 technology superior in the IQ dept, yep sure is. But the One is the king of small camera AF performance, both speed, tracking and accuracy. The only thing that can get close it is DSLRs that cost thousands.

The numbers don't lie:
EPL5 single focus 0.221 second, continuous 0.185 second
J1 single 0.094 second, continuous 0.102 second
Canon 1DX single 0.129 second, 0.108 second

So say what you will, but that inferior $200 camera is beating a $6000 camera. Fact of the matter is, no one wants a picture that is out of focus, especially when it comes to sports.

 

[Dewi]

If i shoot any sport it's always motor related, either bikes or cars - most of which are quite fast so a bit of practice and a nicely weighted camera is needed to get decent panned shots.

I took my lad to Italy with me a few years ago (2010) with his then new Panasopnic G2 to photograph the Moto GP race at Misano. I tried it out myself but found it just wasn't up to the job, focusing was far too slow and panning with the EVF was real chore, resulting in over half the shots being missed. Considering I never use expensive camera bodies - I abuse them too much, I prefer to spend the real money on decent lenses and just buy a new body when one breaks - the camera was a 550D which isn't the best, but it was streets ahead of the G2 for motorsport. In fact I'm still using it, although it is looking very "used" now and is due for replacing soon.

There was also the issue of size, The G2 felt very small in comparison to my Canon DSLR yet it was far bigger than my present E-PL5. Panning with such a small camera felt very odd, I missed the size and weight of the Canon which helps keep panned shots steadier. So, although I love my E-PL5 to bits I'd never even consider shooting motorsport with it. As a travel camera it's fantasic but for motorsport I'll carry on using a DSLR.

http://www.dewisant-photography.net/dewi_sant_photography_motorsport_29.htm

http://www.dewisant-photography.net/dewi_sant_photography_motorsport_6.htm

http://www.dewisant-photography.net/dewi_sant_photography_motorsport_24.htm

 

[MAubrey]

The numbers don't lie:
EPL5 single focus 0.221 second, continuous 0.185 second
J1 single 0.094 second, continuous 0.102 second
Canon 1DX single 0.129 second, 0.108 second

Where did you get the numbers? I'd like to look up a few other cameras.

 

[rbelyell]

like i said, im not trying to convince anyone of anything. im glad many like the V1, im glad you like the V1. its great when anyone finds a tool theyre comfortable with. i used the V1 and unfortunately did not come to any of the conclusions you did, esp regarding comparative IQ--not even with my old ep2. just my opinion. and imo, numbers do in fact lie, and they lie a lot. but imo, those numbers, true or not, are irrelevent. my advice: dont rely on numbers, dont feel the need to justify your choice or likes in any way. just use what you like, produce images you like, and enjoy it.

again my purpose was not to challenge your tool choice, just to take issue with pissing on other equipment.

 

[yakky]

Where did you get the numbers? I'd like to look up a few other cameras.

Imaging resource, they have a performance tab for each camera they test.

 

[yakky]

like i said, im not trying to convince anyone of anything. im glad many like the V1, im glad you like the V1. its great when anyone finds a tool theyre comfortable with. i used the V1 and unfortunately did not come to any of the conclusions you did, esp regarding comparative IQ--not even with my old ep2. just my opinion. and imo, numbers do in fact lie, and they lie a lot. but imo, those numbers, true or not, are irrelevent. my advice: dont rely on numbers, dont feel the need to justify your choice or likes in any way. just use what you like, produce images you like, and enjoy it.

again my purpose was not to challenge your tool choice, just to take issue with pissing on other equipment.

Gotcha, disregard any numbers just because you say they lie. Can't you even come up with a compelling argument as to why the numbers are wrong?

Who pissed on any other equipment besides you? I and several others pointed out that while we loved our M43 gear, it was not the best tool for sports. I'm glad you like M43, so do I. It is not the best tool for every job though.

 

[STR]

moreover, as stated above in a earlier post, due to its natively superior DOF, light gathering ability, and industry leading IBIS, m4/3 is uniquely well suited to sports, once one abandons the misguided notion that action can only be photographed with AF lenses.

If your shutter speed is so slow that IS becomes a factor, you're doing sports photography WRONG.

 

[rbelyell]

wrong! ibis in sports is implcated with long FL lenses, not SSs. before you call someone out, which you should think twice about anyway in a friendly forum, you should know what youre talking about.

and bravo for incorrectly zeroing in on one of four elements i cited.

 

[rbelyell]

yakky, m4/3 is not the best tool for every job. i have FF, apsc and m4/3. it is imo a better tool for sports than the V1 for all the many reasons ive outlined in depth in previous posts. yvmv, and thats fine.

however, i do believe it was you who compared using m4/3 for sports to riding a bicycle across the country, was it not? i cited that 2 or 3 times above as needlessly pissing on a system you dont prefer. still think so. youre welcome to the last word as my posts speak for themselves, and its not worth continuing this kind of foolishness. thankfully theres not so much of it on this forum.

 

[misformonochrome]

Thanks for the discussion!

Interested to see the vigorous discussion on this topic! :smile:

I haven't decided yet what I will eventually go with but I'm leaning toward the E-M1 with a couple fast primes.

The reason for the camera update is that, even though my 7D isn't all that old, its high-ISO performance is pretty poor when compared to the modern crop of sensors. Also its frame rate is okay, but I've sometimes missed the action I was aiming for because it happened between two frames. At ISO 800 and below, I've got no arguments with the Canon and it's a very capable camera in general. It's heavy, but all DSLRs are.

I got into mirrorless with the Sony NEX-5n and despite the user interface (which I dislike) it's been a great camera to have with me when I want more resolution than my iPhone but I don't want to tote the Canon. I've used it while traveling and that's where the mirrorless comes into its own.

Ideally, whatever I choose should be capable enough to cover the bases of what I intend to shoot, which covers travel, documentary, sports, and portraits. I've done a few weddings--though I don't want to make a habit of it. :smile: If the E-M1 can handle sports action well (in particular football), then it's a good contender for replacing both the Sony and the Canon as an all-around camera.

I've looked at image samples from just about every system and lens from m43 to FF and I haven't seen anything that indicates that the E-M1 and a couple of primes can't do everything I need. I'll use the MF lenses I got for the Sony on the Olympus with the appropriate adapter.

Besides sports, I want to focus more on Fine Art photography so overall system IQ is very important. I don't care all that much about large prints because I don't plan on making large prints. I favor smaller, more intimate prints (a la Strand). I'm also wanting to do some alternative process contact printing so I'll be scanning or otherwise reproducing 8x10 (or max 11x14) prints anyway. m43 has way more than enough quality for that.

Thanks for all the thoughts and discussion! It's been quite helpful. Hopefully this thread will also address other potential m43 users' concerns about the format for action photography.

 

[SRHEdD]

My D600 AF was awful at youth league football, and that's outside in full sun. The E-M1 blows it away. What I DO miss though is the ability to crop a small section of the FF file into a different, completely useful, image. I'd agree with learning the sport and timing your shots. That's the key, imho. Learn the players to watch, the teams' tendencies, and the game flow.

 

[wolfie]

FWIW I've seen some reviews on Sony A6000 that show it can do CAF and pretty capable for sports use. Main limitation is lens selection but should improve. Not perfect but in terms of tracking AF and fps on an APS sensor it looks like top of the heap at the moment. But also depends on the sports you shoot, in what environments, in what lighting. Even for sports one camera does not necessarily tick everyone's boxes. For example, I concentrate on sports fishing - and I want a WR sealed camera/lens near saltwater - so there goes 95% of choices!

 

[T N Args]

You have made it too black and white though, jumping from soccer mums to Olympic sideline sports pros. There is plenty of room in the middle for m43 to gain ground with keen photographers who want very good results when they attend sports events.

 

[DigitalD]

I'll throw my hat into this ring. My son started playing soccer this year. He's 5yo so nothing major here but I shoot his games with my em1 and the 40-150mm R. I think I get just as good performance as I did with my old Canon 7d. I bet if I invested in the 40-150mm 2.8 pro, that combo would be pretty impressive especially in a capable photographers hands.

I've experimented with c-af + tr though and wasn't working too great for me. It likes to jump around to other players but given that they are wearing the same colors I can kind of expect that. My best captures are with S-AF or MF. You need to be able to anticipate the action in MF. But S-AF is quite fast on the em1 and that has become my setting of choice for the moment.

Here is a link to my last album. Let me know what you think.
http://www.fonsecafoto.com/Galaxy-Soccer-Game-2/n-nLJfQ

 

[demiro]

I've shot sports with the E-M5 and GX7, 75/1.8, 45/1.8, and some of the lower end zooms. My only comment is that if I prioritized shooting my kid's events I'd go back to my Canon 40D, 55-250, and 85/1.8, which would cost maybe $600 on the used market.

Maybe the E-M1 elevates m4/3s, or maybe I'm just not getting the most out of the format vs an old and cheap DSLR, but for me the choice would be clear.

 

[OzRay]

I'm pretty sure that I've commented a number of times that I shot sports using 4/3 gear without any real issue (http://australianimage.com.au/wordpress/?p=3209) and would do so with even less issues with my 4/3 lenses and E-M1. The equipment doesn't make you a sports photographer.