Limitations of mirrorless with sports photography...

Chris Tofalos

Leading Member
Messages
655
Reaction score
48
Location
Bolton, UK
I've been a professional photographer for 30 years this year. I got into the profession because I could handle action photography reasonably well and managed to win a couple of important sports photography competitions early on, which boosted my career. I do far less sports work now. Working for newspapers isn't what it used to be and, at my age, I'd fed up of being rained on or frozen stiff - or both.

At the start of this year I made a momentous decision, at least for my work, and changed over from Canon DSLRs to CSC cameras. I had been using both systems for a while and, given that my football coverage is very limited these days, decided to go the whole hog. I've currently got 3 Lumix bodies (2 x G5; 1 x GX1) and a good range of lenses, including the two fast zooms, whose arrival were the catalyst for the change.

I've no real regrets about my decision. Low light work like stage photography is as easy as it was with the Canons and the weight saving an enormous help to my long suffering back. I do still do the occasional football match, which is usually some sort of amateur cup game for the national Jewish Chronicle (who I've freelanced for for over 20 years). After a few months of doing this with G5s I've come to the conclusion mirrorless has a long way to go as far as sports photography is concerned.

Here are some photos from a game I shot today along with two taken a couple of years ago with a Canon 7D:

d863cc3565d04b50bb8b0d77d9181e39.jpg

c710012af7584cc588f2e8dc48a08c30.jpg

4332ed46f180429ca4ad54344bb1ebfa.jpg

12394a49c5524ad2b546d254950eb060.jpg

611c30dbb6ee4f0498cb61d222bac2f8.jpg

I suppose in some respects it is a bit unfair to compare results from amateur games against those invloving professionals; the latter are far more committed/talented and the results usually (but not always) better.

However, I can't get anywhere near the same results with my CSCs. The reason is mainly to do with the viewfinder. Firstly, there's a slight delay when you put the camera to your eye. Then, what you see lacks the clarity of an optical vewfinder; it's like you've made a couple of clicks off the ideal setting with the dioptre correction. That delay along with lack of sharpness has caused me to use the camera in a completely different way and I don't seem to have time to flip the camera vertically to catch the sort of action shown in the professional matches above.

The AF also works in an odd way (Note: all my cameras for the past 15 years or so have been set-up to back-button focus. That is, shutter AF is disabled). I used to hold in the back AF button on the 7D once I'd locked onto a player and fire away knowing the camera would track the moving subject. The G5s can't do that. You simply can't hold in the AF button and take a shot; the camera won't fire. You have to reply on one press of the button to lock on to the subject and that's proving to be a hit and miss affair. And you can't seem to then track a subject and fire away.

As I said, there's no problems with things like stage photography but for fast, erratically moving subjects mirrorless has a long way to go. The result is I've sort of lost my confidence with mirrorless for sports and no longer take the chances I used to (like zooming in really tight on a couple of players, which maximised quality and increased background blur).

If I wanted to make my living shooting football I would simply have to have those Canons back (the 7D was the best sports photography camera I've used in 30 years)...

Chris

--
Chris Tofalos
 
I think you're right. For sport and very fast moving objects, the CSC are not really ready yet.
Something like the Nikon 1 series already impresses with a very efficient continuous autofocus thanks to the phase detect AF, but then again, it suffers the same EVF lag.

I think that it will take quite a long time before we get the same comfort and usability as we have with a good DSLR with optical viewfinder, at least for sports. (Will we ever?)

I, too, switched from a Canon (50D) to the OMD, and while the Olympus is a better camera is many aspects, it does not hold a candle when shooting sport events and using C-AF. Granted, I don't shoot those very often, so I don't really care, but for someone shooting action on a regular basis, I would not recommend replacing a DSLR with a CSC. Not ready for prime time yet.
 
" As I said, there's no problems with things like stage photography but for fast, erratically moving subjects mirrorless has a long way to go. The result is I've sort of lost my confidence with mirrorless for sports and no longer take the chances I used to (like zooming in really tight on a couple of players, which maximised quality and increased background blur).

If I wanted to make my living shooting football I would simply have to have those Canons back (the 7D was the best sports photography camera I've used in 30 years)..."



can't argue with a statement like yours, its too "commensical".



It does however leave open the point that for fast but less erratic sports such as some of us shoot (kite-durfing, wind-surfing, powerboat racing, motorcross and the like) the Mirrorless cameras have come a long way and are now very effective in competent hands



As always, one should pick the "best" tool for the job :-D



My own feeling, for what its worth, is that CDAF sensors will never be that effective for action photography which requires "focus and forget" type shooting that relies on the camera AF system to track the subject for the photographer
 
Brian Wadie wrote:

It does however leave open the point that for fast but less erratic sports such as some of us shoot (kite-durfing, wind-surfing, powerboat racing, motorcross and the like) the Mirrorless cameras have come a long way and are now very effective in competent hands
I've no doubt mirrorless is fine the sort of action you mention, Brian. I said I was getting good results from stage photography, which does involve speedy work in often low light.

There's talk of combining CDAF & PDAF (it's already been done on a few cameras) and that might help but I think the first reply from photofan1986 hit the nail on the head: It's the EVF which is the real problem. However, I do believe that will be overcome one day.

I think I really need to try my Panasonics at a professional game. In some ways it's actually easier to get better results. Greater though the level of skill is you get used to what's going to happen next (maybe the key to successfully capturing action) and the playing surface is a lot smoother than with park football, so there's less chance of a bad bounce throwing everything into confusion - players and photographers.

Maybe worth a try...

Chris
 
"It's the EVF which is the real problem. However, I do believe that will be overcome one day."



Its interesting to read your thoughts on the EVF as I came from the 5Dmk2 and 7D to the EM-5 and was worried I may find it too inferior whereas I now prefer it (even when switch shooting with friends' "Canikons" in the field.)



I don't know how the Panny EVF compares but for most shooting conditions (sport / BIF/manual focus nature work etc) I find that the high frame rate + non-Live-view boost settings are able to cope with everything I throw at it.



Sometimes shooting with strong contra-jour lighting over the sea I will switch to Live-view boost to get a clearer view of the action and I always use it set that way in the studio.



The lag between viewfinder and shutter action is short enough that I rarely if ever miss-frame the shot even with the fastest action I shoot (but I can well see how the close focus, fast and erratic footy action you describe would be very different)



The one thing I still find a nuisance is not being able to do a quick composition check with the OVF, to see if its even worth switching the camera on :-)
 
Oh dear, another one of these threads.



All I'll say is I quite happily shoot university level sport with my GH2 and don't have any real problems. My technique has quite happily adapted to the EVF and tracking and I now shoot S-AF and no burst mode.



If I was going to be doing it at professional games for a major news agency then I would undoubtably go for a Nikon D4, but for most types of top level work m4/3 probably wouldn't be chosen if I was getting paid enough.



Looking at the photos you were able to catch with the 7D I think you just need more time to get used to it tbh. I think you familiarity with the camera is the limiting factor atm rather than the camera itself.
 
From experience I can see no limitations.

Makes you wonder how sports shooters managed in the days before autofocus :)
 
Dheorl wrote:

Oh dear, another one of these threads.
... and where is the problem? Many people here want to know talended photographer's opinikon about gear or technics. And Chris is one of them. (Google him)
 
As someone who's tried to shoot sports with m43, I agree with most of what you're saying. However, I'm more along the lines of "you're going to have to adjust how you shoot" in order to get good photos.

Instead of using AF tracking, I've opted for using legacy lenses and therefore manual focus. Also taking more predictable shots instead of following the action.

Does it take more effort to get a good shot? Hell yes! Is it still doable even in fast paced sports? Also hell yes.
 
gianstam wrote:

... and where is the problem? Many people here want to know talended photographer's opinikon about gear or technics. And Chris is one of them. (Google him)
Thank you. Where's the 'Like' button? :-D

As for Alumna Gorp's comment about what sports shooters did in the days before AF, that would take a hefty chapter in a book to answer - but I've been there and got the T-shirt (and I don't want to go back - to MF or film!).

Chris
 
Reflex systems using phase-detect autofocus are simply faster when it comes to shooting action. If I were interested in that kind of photography, or chose/had to do it for a living, I'd put up with the weight & bulk (mostly in the lenses) of an SLR system.

The CSC hammer isn't optimal for every nail. Nor is the SLR hammer. Surely you understand this...yes? Note that I ask because, in my experience, Internet forums are overweighted with brand/system peddlers who believe their hammer is the only proper one for every nail.

-Dave-

(Addendum: I also agree with Matthew that you can do sports with a CSC, and you can even do it *without* AF altogether. It's a different style of photography, though...you tend to pick your spots and wait for the action to come to you.)
 
Last edited:
gianstam wrote:
Dheorl wrote:

Oh dear, another one of these threads.
... and where is the problem? Many people here want to know talended photographer's opinikon about gear or technics. And Chris is one of them. (Google him)

There just seem to be so many threads saying that m4/3 can't do sports that people start to believe it. Admitadly we need a longer fast lens for some field sports but once the 150mm comes out that should help alot.

Although I'm sure Chris is a talented photographer, looking at the settings used he sure wasn't using m4/3 to it's full potential.
 
David Kieltyka wrote:

Reflex systems using phase-detect autofocus are simply faster when it comes to shooting action.


Undoubtably, but when something is already "fast enough" why do you need faster?

If I were interested in that kind of photography, or chose/had to do it for a living, I'd put up with the weight & bulk (mostly in the lenses) of an SLR system.
I can't deny that due to the amount of sports I do I'm considering a D3, but much less and I don't think the upgrade from m4/3 would make enough of a difference, especially something like a rebel.


The CSC hammer isn't optimal for every nail. Nor is the SLR hammer. Surely you understand this...yes? Note that I ask because, in my experience, Internet forums are overweighted with brand/system peddlers who believe their hammer is the only proper one for every nail.

-Dave-

(Addendum: I also agree with Matthew that you can do sports with a CSC, and you can even do it *without* AF altogether. It's a different style of photography, though...you tend to pick your spots and wait for the action to come to you.)
 
gianstam wrote:

... and where is the problem? Many people here want to know talended photographer's opinikon about gear or technics. And Chris is one of them. (Google him)
Thank you. Where's the 'Like' button? :-D

As for Alumna Gorp's comment about what sports shooters did in the days before AF, that would take a hefty chapter in a book to answer - but I've been there and got the T-shirt (and I don't want to go back - to MF or film!).

Chris
 
Cane wrote:
gianstam wrote:

... and where is the problem? Many people here want to know talended photographer's opinikon about gear or technics. And Chris is one of them. (Google him)
Thank you. Where's the 'Like' button? :-D

As for Alumna Gorp's comment about what sports shooters did in the days before AF, that would take a hefty chapter in a book to answer - but I've been there and got the T-shirt (and I don't want to go back - to MF or film!).

Chris
 
That's only worthwhile if you are doing it for fun or to become better at manual focus. I've been shooting soccer with my E-3 and Tamron SP 300mm f2.8 recently--just to get good at manual focus. It's just for fun. But if I were shooting on assignment than working harder, taking less chances by avoiding the action, accepting a large amount of misses,.... basically choosing to use the wrong tool for the job because "it can be done" is crazy.

Cheers,

Seth
 
I think i know how he feels. When I started with the OM-D it felt "weird'. I've never used AF Back button for focussing, but compared to my previous DSLR there was a definite difference in feel between them. I couldn't put my finger on it. It wasn't viewfinder lag. More a feeling that there was a different delay between shutter press and shutter fire. I never did place exactly what the difference was.

Anyway, after a decent period of practice, the OM-D now feels right, and I can much better time action with it, and the DSLR feels weird.

I appear to be having a lot more success with the OM-D than I did with the DSLR though, although there's no way to quantify what that's down to as I have newer lenses as well.

My thoughts with the style of photography shown by the OP is, ignore C-AF, ignore back button focusing. Just use S-AF, take advantage of the very fast single focus (Which I presume is similar in the G5 to the OM-D). Wait for the decisive moment and take the shot.
 
SirSeth wrote:

But if I were shooting on assignment than working harder, taking less chances by avoiding the action, accepting a large amount of misses,.... basically choosing to use the wrong tool for the job because "it can be done" is crazy.
I agree?

I think you misunderstood my post.
 
Cane wrote:
gianstam wrote:

... and where is the problem? Many people here want to know talended photographer's opinikon about gear or technics. And Chris is one of them. (Google him)
Thank you. Where's the 'Like' button? :-D

As for Alumna Gorp's comment about what sports shooters did in the days before AF, that would take a hefty chapter in a book to answer - but I've been there and got the T-shirt (and I don't want to go back - to MF or film!).

Chris

--
Chris Tofalos
http://www.ctp-photo.co.uk
Fanboys, he's not saying he can't do it, he's saying the camera can't, it's a gear review. Yes, you can use all sorts of work arounds, we all get that. Telling aomeone to use them to save the cameras reputation is annoying, get over it. I swear, any time anyone says a camera is limiting, you get this crap, even when a pro says it.
I do a lot of martial arts using lensbabys and work pretty close, got to admit it was a struggle using the Panasonic G series, the EVF frame refresh was just not fast enough and it created a whole lot of problems.

The OMD can just about manage it, but remember, this is a very fast moving sport and when your just working a few feet away its even faster :)
 
I agree with you its not there yet for fast action photography, but at least try out the best and see how it works for you. As for myself, I don't like fast action photography but the OMD is not bad until PDAF comes along.

Chris Tofalos wrote:

I've been a professional photographer for 30 years this year. I got into the profession because I could handle action photography reasonably well and managed to win a couple of important sports photography competitions early on, which boosted my career. I do far less sports work now. Working for newspapers isn't what it used to be and, at my age, I'd fed up of being rained on or frozen stiff - or both.

At the start of this year I made a momentous decision, at least for my work, and changed over from Canon DSLRs to CSC cameras. I had been using both systems for a while and, given that my football coverage is very limited these days, decided to go the whole hog. I've currently got 3 Lumix bodies (2 x G5; 1 x GX1) and a good range of lenses, including the two fast zooms, whose arrival were the catalyst for the change.

I've no real regrets about my decision. Low light work like stage photography is as easy as it was with the Canons and the weight saving an enormous help to my long suffering back. I do still do the occasional football match, which is usually some sort of amateur cup game for the national Jewish Chronicle (who I've freelanced for for over 20 years). After a few months of doing this with G5s I've come to the conclusion mirrorless has a long way to go as far as sports photography is concerned.

Here are some photos from a game I shot today along with two taken a couple of years ago with a Canon 7D:

d863cc3565d04b50bb8b0d77d9181e39.jpg

c710012af7584cc588f2e8dc48a08c30.jpg

4332ed46f180429ca4ad54344bb1ebfa.jpg

12394a49c5524ad2b546d254950eb060.jpg

611c30dbb6ee4f0498cb61d222bac2f8.jpg

I suppose in some respects it is a bit unfair to compare results from amateur games against those invloving professionals; the latter are far more committed/talented and the results usually (but not always) better.

However, I can't get anywhere near the same results with my CSCs. The reason is mainly to do with the viewfinder. Firstly, there's a slight delay when you put the camera to your eye. Then, what you see lacks the clarity of an optical vewfinder; it's like you've made a couple of clicks off the ideal setting with the dioptre correction. That delay along with lack of sharpness has caused me to use the camera in a completely different way and I don't seem to have time to flip the camera vertically to catch the sort of action shown in the professional matches above.

The AF also works in an odd way (Note: all my cameras for the past 15 years or so have been set-up to back-button focus. That is, shutter AF is disabled). I used to hold in the back AF button on the 7D once I'd locked onto a player and fire away knowing the camera would track the moving subject. The G5s can't do that. You simply can't hold in the AF button and take a shot; the camera won't fire. You have to reply on one press of the button to lock on to the subject and that's proving to be a hit and miss affair. And you can't seem to then track a subject and fire away.

As I said, there's no problems with things like stage photography but for fast, erratically moving subjects mirrorless has a long way to go. The result is I've sort of lost my confidence with mirrorless for sports and no longer take the chances I used to (like zooming in really tight on a couple of players, which maximised quality and increased background blur).

If I wanted to make my living shooting football I would simply have to have those Canons back (the 7D was the best sports photography camera I've used in 30 years)...

Chris

--
Chris Tofalos
http://www.ctp-photo.co.uk
 

Keyboard shortcuts

Back
Top