How well does the A99 work for sports photography

All:

Thanks for taking the time to read this post as I've celebrated my 1st year in DSLR/SLT photography this month and I've counted on the forums here to help me a lot in my decisions.  Now I'm hoping you can help me once again.

Last year I purchased the A55 in hopes to photograph my daughters gymnastics and as the camera has done well...I just feel that at the low light levels in the gyms that she competed worked against me.  I had to bump up the ISO to high to get the shutter speeds I needede to keep her sharp.  This resulted in a lot of noise and I've tried shooting in raw only as well as jpeg and even though people love the shots, they are just too noisy for me.  I was renting the sigma 70-200mm f2.8 and also the sony 70-200 f2.8 lenses and they provided me with the fast lenses that I needed but I still had to sit around 1600-3200 iso and at 1600 I had a lot of blurry shots due to having to use a slower shutter speed to get the correct exposure.  At 3200 the noise just kind of blows up.

After reading here, I think the next step for me is to go full frame and that will help me sit around the 3200-6400 iso and get shutter speeds of closer to 400-500 and still have acceptable pictures.

My question now is concerning those focus points on the a99.  They seem to be all clustered in the center and I've been looking into the canon d5 mark iii and the nikon d800 as other possible options and their focus points seem to be a bit wider thus allowing me to capture my daughter as she goes from one side of the routine to the other a bit easier.  Has anybody had any issues with the lack of coverage of the focus points when trying to shoot fast action sports?  With the a55 I have a bit more coverage and I'm happy with that.  I just look at what the canon can offer and it seems like a huge amount of coverage.  In theory, I'd hope that this would help me get more keepers but that's why I'm asking you all here for help.

Unfortunately, going to canon or nikon leaves behind the evf which I love.  This I can't really tell if it is going to be a bigger deal that I think it may be as I love seeing what I get before shooting but maybe then I'll be able to track my daughter better as she is flipping across the floor.  I got pretty good at panning with her but there were still times she was missing a few toes. ;(

Thanks!

I wouldn't worry about the slightly smaller cluster AF array. If you're already use to the EVF for sports, and love it, go with the A99. In researching a system switch between Sony and Nikon and Canon, I found, simply put, Canon and Nikon didn't offer that much more in performance, and less in a number of other areas. Ergonomics being a huge one for me. The Canon and Nikon bodies, maybe because of legacy concerns, doesn't come close to Sony's ergonomics. Little (actually, not so little) things like the joystick and the Quick-Nav system, Sony has really got this down with the A99.

Getting use to using the EVF for sports, is the hard part. If you are fine with that, go with the A99. I find the 6400 ISO to be pretty fantastic looking. And what grain you do see there, will pretty much disappear in a print. I've shot football up to 10,000, and would use it for my sports art. LR4 cleans it up very easily.

--
Sol
http://SolarviewPhotography.com/
'There would be so many more happy digital photographers in the world,
if the 100% zoom button on their computers, was permanently disabled.'
. . . . where is my 100% Lupe, anyways ??' -Sol

I shoot both Nikon (D3s at present) and Sony (Nex 7, A77, A99 now, A900 in the past) in football field under day light and flood light. Noise is a Big issue for A77 but much less so with A99. However, focusing speed is obviously inferior to Nikon, just quick enough not to annoy me but defininitely not feeling very comfortable most of the time. My Sony lens are quick enough eg 70-200/2.8.

Clustering of focus points is a real issue though can be overcome in some instance but as you said would affect your composition.

I love EVF and therefore when I go back to D3s, I feel not too comfortable sometimes.

Do also consider quicker (and cheaper ) Nikon such as D600 which uses the same sensor as A99.

I have some good Minolta lens which I love. If I just consider sport photography, Sony is not the brand to go for at least for the time being. Besides, price of Sony lens have become ridiculously expensive and Sony is not providing enough cheaper alternatives such as F4 70-200 like Canon and Nikon do. Of coures, if you think EVF is very important to you, Sony is the only brand to go for at present.

I am still waiting for Nikon to make a successer for D300s (I used D300 before) so that I can get more reach for the lens when I do not need other advantages of a FF camera.

Make sure you invest correctly before you buy too many Sony lens. AT the end, Sony is a more expensive brand (considering all together) than Nikon (I do not know about Canon since I only have a G7).

Luckily I haven't spent too much on the a55 lenses.  But I was considering buying the newly rumored successor of the 70-200mm f2.8 lens and that led me to really consider what system I need to invest in.

Seeing that I may have 1 or 2 primes that may work with the a99 full frame sensor I don't feel like it will be a big loss for me to jump brands if I do decide another full frame camera would work better.

I guess I figure I'm going to have to buy a whole new lens system anyways so I'm prepared to slowly start all over again.  Now it just a matter of seeing what is out there.

I plan to visit my local camera shop today and get my hands on all three and maybe drive the salesperson a bit crazy with my questions but I figure if I'm going to be spending $5000+ for a body and lens, I'd better get some play time in.

I was going to go with the Nikon d600 but the sensor dirt issue is a big concern for me.  Maybe once I start seeing that it has been resolved I'll consider that one again.

Frankly, I shoot Sony only because of old Minolta lens the effect of which can not be produced by PP. Otherwise, I would advice think thrice before you invest into Sony.

I have not heard of the new Sony 70-200/2.8 but the present one is inferior to the original Minolta 70-200 SSM that I have. The Minolta one is clear and 3-D, it also focus closer than the Nikon equivalent (the VR2) that I am also using.

In considering the 70-200/2.8, Nikon one is good enough and also the 3rd generation TC-2x of Nikon is really excellent -- do give you better reach with mush less money with good IQ, better that any other 2X-TC that I have experienced (I also have Minolta 2X-TC, both SSM and APO versions).

Dust issue of D600 in my opinion is not a practical issue unless you do not having habit of regularly cleaning the sensor.

Good luck selling a used D600 that has the oil on the sensor problem. My D600 came on Friday and I started shooting Saturday. One of my first shots was the sky and I have more than 10 visible spots (mostly clustered in the top left like many other users report). I am sending it back because I put the only lens I own (arrived in the same shipment) on in a very clean environment and did so very quickly (less than 1/2 second). This isn't dust and it isn't my problem; it's Nikon's. Look how much Nikon already discounted the price of the D600 but throwing in a $500+ lens for free all through December. Nikon knows they have a problem. Fortunately, for people who don't think it's a practical issue, there should be a bazillion D600's returned very shortly, including mine. I am not going to try cleaning the sensor oil; I am leaving Nikon to fend for their customers without me.

Well, that's your opinion — but I've now read hundreds of postings by Nikon D600 users for whom this is a serious problem. You pay $2000 for a camera, you should have to send it back to the manufacturer for a cleaning every couple hundred shots. The alternatives are no better: cloning out scores of dust spots in Lightroom or Photoshop, or doing regular wet cleaning of the sensor (which voids the warranty). Terrible shame because in other respects it seems a very, very fine camera. I just don't want to suffer that much for my art.

The difference between distribution of the focus points on the A99 and the A77 is significant — but not, at least in my opinion, all that significant. Didn't keep me from placing an order anyway.

I took a quick couple shots to show the difference. A77 first, then A99, with rule of thirds grid enabled to help you see the spread.

Focus points on the A77

Focus points on the A99

Yes, the A77 extends a little farther to the left and right, but it doesn't go a lot farther. If you wanted to place a subject in the middle of the left one third of the screen, for example, you'd very likely be outside even the A77's focusing grid.

Considering the extraordinary resolution of both of these cameras, I've found that the best and safest approach — if I'm using autofocus — is to try to keep the focal point of the scene near the center of the capture area, and then crop later.

Will

Not for me    i hae 2 weekas  a99 + 70-200 and  Canon MARK III  with 70-200.  when i like  EVF in studio,  hate  EVF in action photography ;/   To big blackout and  hi speed  burst its nightmare for me    ad beacouse i love  Minolta/Sony

The dpreview of the A99 lists shooting sports as a weakness of the A99. I'd trust their recommendation even if some people can do it. I know Matthew Durr was shooting college sports with manual lenses on his NEX 5N as well. That still doesn't make the 5N a sports camera either. If you really want sports photography and you want full frame then I'd suggest the Canon 5D Mark III as the cheap option. Good luck!

Thank you all for you help.

Still seems like a lot of compromises to be made no matter what. 

Time to get some hands on time and see what I can find out.  I don't like the prospect of renting all 3 for a week as that may end up costing me $1000 just to do that, body and lens.  And I feel bad abusing the return policy of the camera store but maybe that's why they have the policy in the first place.

Thanks for the photos on the focus areas. It just seems so tiny. I know there are the assist focus points on the a99 but they don't really help with focus directly...at least that's what I've figured out from what I've been told and from what I've read.

Borrow Lens has an agreement with sony to apply part of your rental costs to buy a new camera or lens.

Works great.  

Uhm. The present one is IDENTICAL to the old minolta, it's just rebadged.

The 70-200 SSM is not the fastest focusing lens really. But it's good enough for sports.

D800 as well. Most people think the AF must be poor bc it is a high rez shooter, but it has the same AF module as the D4. The difference is the build and burst, but the D800 is not much worse than the a99 or canon. It would also be the only of the 3 with the filterless option, and still cheaper than the canon.

Sounding a different note, I suggest you look into the Canon 7D or its successor (lots of rumors around). It's much better geared to sports (the a99 has the AF area issue, the battery life issue, and Sony seems to be skimping on buffers as well), and the APS sensor size will maximize your reach (Canon's TC's work well, too, and longer Canon lenses are in profuse rental supply). While the 7D's a bit old and about to be replaced, you should be able to get a used one for a reasonable price. Canon also makes a relatively reasonably priced, excellent 70-200 f/4 whose benefit is weight-related (and it's less expensive than the f/2.8); that extra stop you lose cuts some of the difference of the SLT mirror effect, and good ISO performance should handle anything else (I'm sure the 7D.2 will be better in this respect). The Canon APS sensor is a 1.6 FOV magnifier, so you get a little more of a "reach effect." And with the latest firmware version, they've added a number of really nice features. (And you should also realize very good battery life.)

I like Sony for what it can do, but I don't think they're built for sports as a main subject area.

P.S.  No matter which camera you end up with, one thing to do is find the best noise reduction software/method for your camera and become very, very good at it. Short of one of the truly pro bodies out there (i.e. lots of $$) you're going to need it.

--
Rich
http://philosurfer.zenfolio.com/

Thanks for the tip on the 7d.  I'll have a go at it too.  About to go to a long lunch.

I would recommend several options over the D800 and 5D III.

I see the D800 as being targeted towards high resolution shooters. While the D800 certainly has good AF, the 4 fps framerate is below what's usually expected of an enthusiast/professional body (they usually have 5 fps or better). You do get 5 fps when cropping, but IMO that's really not an ideal solution. You don't buy a full frame sensor to use it cropped most of the time. The large files (if you shoot raw for more flexibility, especially over noise reduction at high ISO) also makes buffer fills more likely, and will fill up cards more quickly.

The 5D III will probably do a good job (and will probably do the best job out of all the cameras I mention here), but I feel like it's overpriced without offering that much over cheaper options.

Here's what I recommend considering:

• A used D700 with a battery grip. This will come cheaper than an a99, and is pretty close to the price of a new D600 (depending on the D700's condition). You get 8 fps, along with a very good 51 point AF system.
• A used D3. You get 9 fps, or 11 fps with an APS-C crop. The 51 point AF system is very good for following action. AF point coverage, like the D700 which uses a similar if not identical system, is very good.
• A new D600. 5.5 fps is slower than 8 or 9 fps, but you also get top-end ISO performance (at least up to ISO 12800), video, and a lighter body than the D3 or D700. 24 MP can be a bit on the heavy side, though, so take that into consideration. Dust spots are a non-issue for shooting sports, because your aperture is usually wide open.

Keep in mind that the Nikon 80-200/2.8 AF-S won't cost more than $1200 or so in pristine condition, and the still adequately fast screw drive Nikon 80-200.2.8 costs around $800 used. The Sony 70-200/2.8 new costs $2000. The Sony a99 costs $2800, compared to the D600 at $2100. If you can save more than $1500 by going with Sony, consider sticking with Sony.

I went with the D600 and a 80-200/2.8 AF-S lens. So far it's doing a remarkable job.



I wouldn't trust what any review says about any aspect of a camera. You need to get your hands on one and give it a thorough workout in ​​your​ shooting conditions.

I eventually got to test an A99 today, using it with some wakeboarders. Anyone that thinks those guys are slow and predictable needs to think again. Anyway, I was pleased/surprised with the results. Only the first few shots were off - didn't take long to get used to the EVF and pretty much nailed every shot afterwards. Didn't use burst, because that's not really my thing - but depending on weather I'm set to have another go tomorrow (with my own card) so may try burst just to see what all the fuss is about.

I'm not in any way claiming that the A99 is a 'sports' camera, but it looks as though it would do the job for me. As I say, only you can decide whether it works for you.

--
i know what i know, which is a fraction of what i don't