-
Welcome to the new forums! Please read this first. For known issues we are working to resolve, click here.
Shoot the Olympics with an a700?
- Thread starter joel avery
- Start date
Frenske
Senior Member
The A55 is a strange fish in the pond. It offers a blistering 10fps, which makes it ideal for sports and other fast action photography, but at the same time it is hampered by okay-ish performance of the AF and 1 frame lag in the EVF.
The way I interpret it, if you are an amateur and sitting somewhere in the stalls not to close the action, you will be happy with the A55, but as a sports photographer you'll need to have something faster (and more expensive). Otherwise you will miss a lot of shots, your editor is going to be unhappy, you lose your job, your wife desserts you and after three years in the AA you still have not beaten your alcoholism. But I guess just saying "Don't shoot the olympics with it" is just a bit shorter than my version of why the A55 is darn fine camera but not for professional sport shooters.
The way I interpret it, if you are an amateur and sitting somewhere in the stalls not to close the action, you will be happy with the A55, but as a sports photographer you'll need to have something faster (and more expensive). Otherwise you will miss a lot of shots, your editor is going to be unhappy, you lose your job, your wife desserts you and after three years in the AA you still have not beaten your alcoholism. But I guess just saying "Don't shoot the olympics with it" is just a bit shorter than my version of why the A55 is darn fine camera but not for professional sport shooters.
Don't you find it interesting that regardless of the topic (A900, A55, A550, Nex, or whatever) you have WaltKnapp here with him injecting his "I can do this with my A700"? You called me a fanboy several times, but there you have the king of fanboys -- but just of the camera that he owns.
Gavin 11
Senior Member
Dear zepzr, if it’s any thing to you I like the idea of the A-55, but unfortunately you have a lot of history here and you know that, what ever alias you use.
Unfortunately you are angry and aggressive most of the time and for that matter very rude, but hey nothing new there eh ;-)
Just because I have an A-700 does not make me think it’s the greatest Sony DSLR, but certainly one of their best.
Sony is improving of late, but it’s about time.
whtchocla7e
Leading Member
I wouldn't even take an A700 to the park to shoot turtles.
What good is "continuous shooting" without AF tracking? And how about IR on AF tracking?
http://www.imaging-resource.com/PRODS/AA55/AA55A.HTM
"This sequence gives some idea of the Sony A55's autofocus tracking ability. The subject was a car, approaching the camera at constant rate of 30 miles/hour. In the first shot of the series, the car was perhaps 70 feet from the camera, in the last shot, it's perhaps 15 feet away. Images were shot at a focal length of 150mm, with a Sony 70-200mm f/2.8 G lens. There are a few minor bobbles, but the fourth image of the series was actually blurred by camera motion, not AF error. We shot side by side with the Sony A55 and a Canon 7D, and felt that the A55's AF performance here was pretty similar to that of the much more expensive Canon."
Gavin 11
Senior Member
;-) thats not nice
The IR review sounds promising. BUT, as any sports shooter will tell you - it takes skill. According to the IR Reviewer:
"I'm not remotely an experienced sports shooter, so I can have trouble tracking fast-moving subjects under the best of circumstances"
When you have a competent sports shooter with the associated credibility make that claim then it carries weight.
Which, by the way, is why at the level of the 7d/d300 and above I disregard the reviews of the DP review staff. While dedicated reviewers and fine photographers they're not pro-grade sports photographers.
So, you have to take their comments about the AF tracking performance of semi-pro and pro level gear with a grain of salt. You really have to wait for reviews from the field from competent sports/wildlife shooters to come in before you can judge that.
But at any level, I wouldn't pay a lot of attention to conclusions on AF tracking from someone that would say of themselves "I'm not remotely an experienced sports shooter". An experienced sports shooter will tell you - there's a difference between a car moving at a constant rate of speed and shooting basketball (low light) or soccer (change of direction, distracting elements, non constant rate of speed).
Again, don't get me wrong - the A55 may be great at focus tracking but I'm warning people that you can't draw conclusions based on what we've seen here. As much as you might want to.
"I'm not remotely an experienced sports shooter, so I can have trouble tracking fast-moving subjects under the best of circumstances"
When you have a competent sports shooter with the associated credibility make that claim then it carries weight.
Which, by the way, is why at the level of the 7d/d300 and above I disregard the reviews of the DP review staff. While dedicated reviewers and fine photographers they're not pro-grade sports photographers.
So, you have to take their comments about the AF tracking performance of semi-pro and pro level gear with a grain of salt. You really have to wait for reviews from the field from competent sports/wildlife shooters to come in before you can judge that.
But at any level, I wouldn't pay a lot of attention to conclusions on AF tracking from someone that would say of themselves "I'm not remotely an experienced sports shooter". An experienced sports shooter will tell you - there's a difference between a car moving at a constant rate of speed and shooting basketball (low light) or soccer (change of direction, distracting elements, non constant rate of speed).
Again, don't get me wrong - the A55 may be great at focus tracking but I'm warning people that you can't draw conclusions based on what we've seen here. As much as you might want to.
this shot doesnt mean nothing and if u read the post u understand that this is the only situation in which tracking is possible with this camera. tripod and fixed path, and still a lot of misfocused shots....tracking action means subject that move randomly..
so
u focus with a 400 on asubject
u are in 10 fps
u shoot the first frame of the subject and thne
u cant see the subject anymore
just u can guess and fire, like a gunmachine, casually hoping to take some focus shots, hoping that an af system that is new and still not predictive can cope with 10fps and a subject that move in the dark practically cause u dont see him
consider that with a tele a ldifference of 1cm of camera panning means u have or not the shots....
good luck with the camera
without considering the 50 sec time...
talk about what u know and experienced.
so
u focus with a 400 on asubject
u are in 10 fps
u shoot the first frame of the subject and thne
u cant see the subject anymore
just u can guess and fire, like a gunmachine, casually hoping to take some focus shots, hoping that an af system that is new and still not predictive can cope with 10fps and a subject that move in the dark practically cause u dont see him
consider that with a tele a ldifference of 1cm of camera panning means u have or not the shots....
good luck with the camera
without considering the 50 sec time...
talk about what u know and experienced.
What good is "continuous shooting" without AF tracking? And how about IR on AF tracking?
http://www.imaging-resource.com/PRODS/AA55/AA55A.HTM
"This sequence gives some idea of the Sony A55's autofocus tracking ability. The subject was a car, approaching the camera at constant rate of 30 miles/hour. In the first shot of the series, the car was perhaps 70 feet from the camera, in the last shot, it's perhaps 15 feet away. Images were shot at a focal length of 150mm, with a Sony 70-200mm f/2.8 G lens. There are a few minor bobbles, but the fourth image of the series was actually blurred by camera motion, not AF error. We shot side by side with the Sony A55 and a Canon 7D, and felt that the A55's AF performance here was pretty similar to that of the much more expensive Canon."
Brian_Smith
Senior Member
This is not correct. The a55's forte is follow-focusing on moving subjects. Though it lacks the mag-alloy body that gives the a700, a850 and a900 their durability, the a55 follow-focus is much better than any of those cameras.
What the review is actually referring to is the a55's 10fps mode is designed more as a burst mode than for continuous shooting, though to be honest, even the $5000 F3S and 1Ds4 cameras hit a buffer.
You certainly don't need 10fps continuous to shoot the Olympics. My friend Dave Burnett does some very fine work with a Holga:
http://www.davidburnett.com/portfolio.html?folio=my%20Formats
Using the following settings: Advance:Manual l Exposure:Sun or Clouds l Focus:Mountain
--
Brian Smith
Sony Artisan of Imagery
http://www.briansmith.com
http://www.briansmith.com/blog
rob asnong
Forum Enthusiast
If the A700 can do this without any restriction, why should this fantastic work horse fail at the Olympics? In AF-C I have 95 % keepers. More then good enough for my needs.
You can find more examples in the album "events" (see link below).
Rather a rhetoric question IMO.
Rob
--
http://www.picasaweb.google.be/alphamember
You can find more examples in the album "events" (see link below).
Rather a rhetoric question IMO.
Rob
--
http://www.picasaweb.google.be/alphamember
Gavin 11
Senior Member
Rob,
You've got some pretty good stuff there. But there are a few items worth noting:
First: you need to blur your props more - it's a bit unnatural to see a plane with a frozen prop. Otherwise you've got good sharpness.
As for the other shots - 200mm f9. That's a bit different than 400mm 2.8 or 600mm 4.0. Seriously, if you're going to judge keeper rates shooting f9 at 200mm of course rates are going to be high.
Really not the same type of shooting at all. Again, your shots are very nice for what they are - but 200mm f9 is hardly a testament to AF tracking. I would expect 70% keeper rates with settings like that on any modern DSLR.
You've got some pretty good stuff there. But there are a few items worth noting:
First: you need to blur your props more - it's a bit unnatural to see a plane with a frozen prop. Otherwise you've got good sharpness.
As for the other shots - 200mm f9. That's a bit different than 400mm 2.8 or 600mm 4.0. Seriously, if you're going to judge keeper rates shooting f9 at 200mm of course rates are going to be high.
Really not the same type of shooting at all. Again, your shots are very nice for what they are - but 200mm f9 is hardly a testament to AF tracking. I would expect 70% keeper rates with settings like that on any modern DSLR.
See the post by Brian Smith below. He has used A55. A55 AF is tracking superior to A700/A850/A900 .. that means it's superior to ALL Pentax cameras (the worst kid on the block). IR tested it and it found it on par with 7D.
Frenske
Senior Member
A holga has settings???
sonnydee
Forum Enthusiast
I would... now let me know when you will be sending my press pass/ticket for the London Olympics on 2012.
Gavin 11
Senior Member
So Brian you feel the A-55 has better AF than the previous A-700,A-850 and say A-550?
rob asnong
Forum Enthusiast
thx John,
You are right, but I've taken shots in athletics meetings also with barely no unkeepers. My best friend owns a D90 and we uses the same lenses (the Bigma and the Sigma 70-200 HSM) for this kind of photography and he doesn't realize no more than 50% keepers. Don't understand me wrong. The D90 is a great cam but my A700 tracks just better. I clean the mirror from time to time (very much air pollution over here) and he doesn't. Don't know if this influences the speed of focus tracking, but I think so, and he doesn't dare do this.
Could be something wrong in his cam of course, we don't know.
Rob
--
http://www.picasaweb.google.be/alphamember
You are right, but I've taken shots in athletics meetings also with barely no unkeepers. My best friend owns a D90 and we uses the same lenses (the Bigma and the Sigma 70-200 HSM) for this kind of photography and he doesn't realize no more than 50% keepers. Don't understand me wrong. The D90 is a great cam but my A700 tracks just better. I clean the mirror from time to time (very much air pollution over here) and he doesn't. Don't know if this influences the speed of focus tracking, but I think so, and he doesn't dare do this.
Could be something wrong in his cam of course, we don't know.
Rob
--
http://www.picasaweb.google.be/alphamember
OK - Brian Smith. I see he's a great portrait photog. I'm failing to see his credentials as a sports photographer though. He absolutely may have those credentials but I don't see them on his site which is about portrait work.
As for the IR review - as I pointed out, the reviewer already stated he isn't an experienced sports photog (or BIF) - so his opinion/findings aren't very relevant. I can go out and "test" macro lenses but since I don't shoot macro, my opinion isn't worth spit on the subject. That's what I'm talking about - you have to look at reviews within context. If you want a review on AF tracking you need to look for people that know what they're talking about.
Again, no disprespect to Mr. Smith - he's obviously a successful professional photographer - but I missed where he's got any sports shooting experience. If he does, and he in fact indicates an opinon the a55 has better focus tracking than the A700 I will absolutely give credence to his opinion.
Don't misunderstand me either - I use the same criteria when following reviews of Canon, Nikon, Pentax or Oly gear as it relates to sports shooting.
have u ever used the pentax? i have used sony alpha 700 and 900 at a show and i can tell u the pentax is the same af speed in low light..in daylight k7 is very cgood and near the 7d.
the a55 as i told u is useless in 10fps , barely usable at 6...probaly good at 3fps...is the nature of the camera that makes her unusable for action.
dpreview has clearly states that tracking is poor.
the link u refer show normal sport photos, barely some action...u dont know a clue about shooting action and sport. its clear.
the a55 as i told u is useless in 10fps , barely usable at 6...probaly good at 3fps...is the nature of the camera that makes her unusable for action.
dpreview has clearly states that tracking is poor.
the link u refer show normal sport photos, barely some action...u dont know a clue about shooting action and sport. its clear.
Similar threads
Keyboard shortcuts
- f
- Forum