Shoot the Olympics with an a700?

ho mr smith

reading other post like this

6. Yes auto review can be turned off. Using "low" burst mode (think it's 3 fps?), the screen blacks out after every shot like a DSLR. Using high burst and the 7fps (10fps for A55), the screen will do that lagging thing dpreview pointed out. In low light, the EVF does indeed lag [ack!!!!!]. And If you say it's soft it's probably soft; I've got a LONG way to go in this field of photography.

and the dpreview thngs seems far different than what you have stated some pages ago..u talked about the same experience of d3 or canon 1...is it possible u are using the 3fps continous mode and not the faster mode?

thanks

Brian_Smith said:

Gavin 11 simply asked if I felt "the A-55 has better AF than the previous A-700,A-850 and say A-550?"

From my experience with all those cameras plus the a900, I'd say yes it is.

I also said "Expect even better AF in the next a7XX and a9XX series cameras."

Please note that Gavin didn't ask if the a55 body was more durable than the a700, a850 or a900 cameras or if the resolution was better than the a850 or a900. It's not. Nor, based on its price-point, was it meant to be.

It is certainly not meant as a knock on any of the cameras mentioned to say that many Sony users have asked for improved AF and high-ISO performance and the latest cameras show that Sony engineers are addressing that. This points to good things to come for the next-Gen a7XX and a9XX series camera.

Finally, any comparisons to Michael Jordan really should begin with "Well, he's no Michael Jordan..."

--
Brian Smith
Sony Artisan of Imagery
http://www.briansmith.com
http://www.briansmith.com/blog

Click to expand...

Why are you getting so emotional about this? Are you taking this personally? I don't think you read my posts properly. I said that modern equipment is better that it is a lot easier to shoot sports with modern equipment. I am merely affirming that with manual equipment in the old days it was possible to get good results. Obviously, and it goes without saying, someone with the same skill level will get a lot more good shots with modern equipment. I never said you could do just as good with old equipment. You got so damn defensive about my post for some stupid reason that you interpreted my post to mean that old equipment could do just as well all the time as new equipment. I never said that. However a good photographer makes do with what he has to get the most out of what he has. Back in 1952 someone shot a picture of Rocky Marciano knocking out Jersey Joe Walcott and captured the exact moment the punch was distorting Walcott's jaw. It's a classic photo taken with an old Graflex Press Camera. I have never seen any sports photo that was any better at catching the action by the most modern equipment. Nothing in sports is as spontaneous, fast or as unpredictable as a punch in boxing. Those guys had skills that were developed because they had to. If they had modern equipment along with those skills imagine what they could do.
--
Tom

Look at the picture, not the pixels

http://www.flickr.com/photos/25301400@N00/

Grevture said:

Then you must have be hiding in a cellar somewhere for at least the past ten years. I shoot sports professionally and there is such an overwhelmingly higher overall quality of sport photos today it is almost ridiculous. Sharpness, timing, lightning, framing (zooms help) and shots taken in light nobody could have used ten years ago. Sports photography is the part of pro shooting that has probably benefited the most from the development of digital cameras in general, and in high sensitive, high speed, fast focusing cameras in particular.

Click to expand...

I think I said, and if I didn't, should have said, the best of the old sports shots equal the best of today's shots. That said for every good shot then there 100 good shots now but that wasn't my point. My point was to say you couldn't shoot the Olympics with the A55 is a foolish statement. You could and you would get a lot of good shots. Of course with better equipment you'll get a lot more good shots. I don't think anything I said before contradicts that statement. You and John_A_G just assumed I meant that the A700 or A55 are just as good as a fast pro level DSLR for sports. I defy you to show where I ever said or even insinuated that. You two are very defensive for some reason.

--
Tom

Look at the picture, not the pixels

http://www.flickr.com/photos/25301400@N00/

John_A_G said:

tbcass said:

Of course you can and that was a stupid statement by DPR. You could shoot the Olympics with any DSLR. Before the 80's all sports were shot with manual film cameras. It just takes more skill to get it right.
--
Tom

Click to expand...

Again with the silly argument. The obvious intent of DPRs comment was you weren't going to be able to shoot the Olympics at a professional level.

Click to expand...

I disagree. Why is that an obvious statement? It wasn't obvious to me. The vast majority of people who post here and read reviews here are not sports photographers. There is no reason to assume that they were referring to sports photography at a professional level.

--
Tom

Look at the picture, not the pixels

http://www.flickr.com/photos/25301400@N00/

I have a question. You are one of several non Sony users who began posting here recently. Why is that? I would like to know
--
Tom

Look at the picture, not the pixels

http://www.flickr.com/photos/25301400@N00/

That's why. I think they tried to adress the question some inexperienced shooters would have - thinking sports shooting is only about frames per second, and if this camera has the same 10 frames per second as the canon 1dIV wouldn't it do the job just as well?

simple - I tend to keep my posts to areas involving sports related topics in the other gear forums. The reason is simple: I've learned the majority of opinions about shooting sports on the web are from people that have no clue what they're talking about. There's a growing number of enthusiast sports shooters in Pentax, Sony and Oly camps. Unfortunately there isn't a lot of experienced sports shooters providing advice. What there are (as there are in Canon and Nikon too) are a lot of supposed experts that read on the web about sports shooting and think they know how to advise people. To make matters worse - there are (just like in canon and nikon) a lot of people that are gear fanboys: they try to justify that their camera/system is just as good as anything on the market for any task at hand. And, that any sports photo taken from a camera in their system is great, simply because it was taken by a camera in their system.

What I usually advise people is: don't look for gear loyal fanboys. Look for experienced photographers - regardless of system to help you improve or identify what gear is beneficial. A Pentax macro shooter is going to give you better feedback and gear advice than a sony shooter who doesn't shoot macros if you want critique or gear advice about macros.

For example, when the A100 and A200 were out I advised would be sports shooters that those cameras were not (based on what I was seeing from people using them) up to the task of sports shooting at a level the canon or nikon cameras were. When the A700 proved itself I gladly added it to the list of D80 and 40d as the 3 cameras I advised people to look at. After nikon came out with the d300, d700 and d3 I advised people to go that route over Canon because although I had canon DSLRs I recognized the tools nikon was offering were better. NOw the 7d and 1dIV have narrowed the gap and it's a philosophical difference - the benefit of full frame (D3s / d700) vs. resolution (18mp 1dIV).

Would-be sports photographers get bad advice from too many people that don't know what they're talking about. And that bad advice leads to buyers remorse down the road. I learned a lot from nikon shooters because I listened to those with experience in what I wanted to shoot.

It has nothing to do with bashing a brand - it's about helping to educate people on what are important considerations for sports shooting. If you look at my posting history you'll see there's usually only contention with people who don't shoot sports but have strong opinions about it. You'll rarely see me in contention with another experienced sports photog - because I'm not espousing strange opinions about sports shooting. It's all basic stuff.

jonny1976 said:

ho mr smith

reading other post like this

6. Yes auto review can be turned off. Using "low" burst mode (think it's 3 fps?),

Click to expand...

Grow up. You don't even know what are babbling about and posting anything negative that you read in a review or a post. Go back to your Pentax forum. They have the "great" K-r out.

Why not stop arguing and stating unsubstantiated assumptions on the cam's performance, partly by people who never even plan to buy such SLT camera - and wait for more first hand user feedback, like here:
http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1037&message=36273182

--
Ralf
http://RalfRalph.smugmug.com/

zepzr said:

Grow up. You don't even know what are babbling about and posting anything negative that you read in a review or a post. Go back to your Pentax forum. They have the "great" K-r out.

Click to expand...

Huh? And yet you see fit to grace the Pentax forum with your wit and charm?

John_A_G said:

It has nothing to do with bashing a brand - it's about helping to educate people on what are important considerations for sports shooting. If you look at my posting history you'll see there's usually only contention with people who don't shoot sports but have strong opinions about it. You'll rarely see me in contention with another experienced sports photog - because I'm not espousing strange opinions about sports shooting. It's all basic stuff.

Click to expand...

Thanks for the clarification. Please next time please don't assume that someone is espousing opinions they are not and I will read posts more carefully since you did state "at a professional level". What raised my ire was saying I made a "silly argument" which I felt was condescending. It would have saved both you and I a lot of wasted time arguing points that obviously were coming from two different directions. An argument without a solution. My criticism of DPR's statement was coming from an amateur point of view. The statement could lead an inexperienced amateur to think he couldn't shoot his kids soccer game. I have done that successfully with my A100 and I shot sports with my Minolta SRT 101 but I certainly wouldn't use those cameras to try to make a living shooting sports with it. That's where I was coming from.

--
Tom

Look at the picture, not the pixels

http://www.flickr.com/photos/25301400@N00/

sorry for my part in the mis-communication.

time to move on....

tompower53 said:

Maybe when you get somewhere near the experience/success of Brian Smith you might want to argue about his credentials and expertise.

What exactly are you smoking as you are posting?

Click to expand...

Whatever it is, it certainly seems to impair his ability to spell and write coherently.

• C

tompower53 said:

--
tom power

Click to expand...

WaltKnapp said:

Brian_Smith said:

The same firmware is in all the pre-production bodies floating around. It's possible that I've shot more action than the DPR reviewers - though I wouldn't call that a "trick".

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

WaltKnapp said:

As a Sony Rep I'm sure you have far more access to the cameras than DPR. So plenty of time to work on your sales pitch.

Click to expand...

WaltKnapp said:

Walt

Click to expand...

That remark seems a little snide. From his CV it seems Brian worked for years as a sports photographer and won several prestigious awards for that work - not least at the Olympic games. Isn't it safe to assume that he knows more than a little about sports / action photography? Please do let us know if any of the DPR reviewers have as much experience in that field.

So what if Brian has some contract with Sony? or if he's had more chance to work with particular cameras than DPR reviewers did? I'm sure he is giving us his honest opinion based on his own experience - and that his reputation and integrity mean more to him than whatever contract he has with Sony.

On other DPR forums I don't see photographers being belittled for being supported by Nikon or Sony.

• C

CFynn said:

WaltKnapp said:

Brian_Smith said:

The same firmware is in all the pre-production bodies floating around. It's possible that I've shot more action than the DPR reviewers - though I wouldn't call that a "trick".

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

CFynn said:

As a Sony Rep I'm sure you have far more access to the cameras than DPR. So plenty of time to work on your sales pitch.

Click to expand...

CFynn said:

Walt

Click to expand...

That remark seems a little snide. From his CV it seems Brian worked for years as a sports photographer and won several prestigious awards for that work - not least at the Olympic games. Isn't it safe to assume that he knows more than a little about sports / action photography? Please do let us know if any of the DPR reviewers have as much experience in that field.

Click to expand...

At least he has a site and evidence for his work and awards -- unlike the other self-proclaimed "advanced shooter" with frog photos.

Simply Sony doesn't offer a high end sports/wildlife camera.

A good photographer can do a lot with a mid to high end camera. But skills can not compensate for the lack of a highly resposible camera and bright long lenses.

Nordstjernen said:

Simply Sony doesn't offer a high end sports/wildlife camera.

Click to expand...

Sony has a wide set of products from cd players to latops, from consumer entry level to (high end) prosumer level, that's the way they do business. There is another company that have proffesional level camera and lenses (and camera and lenses for action shooting) as a core part of their business. It's just different approaches to market, volume and revenue.

Nordstjernen said:

A good photographer can do a lot with a mid to high end camera. But skills can not compensate for the lack of a highly resposible camera and bright long lenses.

Click to expand...

Correct, at any level the right (better) tools is always an advantage.

But when sony use their approache to create cameras like the a850, the new a33 (/a55), or set the entry price for dslr as they did with the a200 (and successors) then I'm happy and thus I'll use a sony camera, also for the Olympics (just send the tickets to me ).

Thank you! I can't decide which is more annoying. His use of juvenile texting abbreviations, atrocious spelling and refusal to proof read what he has just written, or his dogged insistence on belaboring a point he has no experience with. He is like a rock in your shoe. Jeesh! I'm just glad that Brian seems to have the patience of a saint.
--
Just for fun!

Jim

Nordstjernen said:

Simply Sony doesn't offer a high end sports/wildlife camera.

A good photographer can do a lot with a mid to high end camera. But skills can not compensate for the lack of a highly responsible (responsive I assume) camera and bright long lenses.

Click to expand...

Certainly what your saying is true but DPR didn't specify what they meant with their statement. I took it to mean it couldn't be done at any level, not that they meant at a competitive professional level.

--
Tom

Look at the picture, not the pixels

http://www.flickr.com/photos/25301400@N00/

tbcass said:

Certainly what your saying is true but DPR didn't specify what they meant with their statement. I took it to mean it couldn't be done at any level, not that they meant at a competitive professional level.

Click to expand...

It was pretty clear they were talking about the lag in the viewfinder when shooting moving subjects.

Certainly that would rule out the camera for my macro shooting, which very frequently is animals moving in a fast patternless manner.

I took their statement to mean it was not the best choice. There are even occasional people who shoot sports with view cameras, so saying never is easily dis proven.

Walt