E-M1, C-AF and Sports photography

Started Mar 19, 2014 | Discussions thread
PerL Forum Pro • Posts: 13,679
Re: Not really main reason to use FF Re: true - but hardly relevant
2

rhlpetrus wrote:

PerL wrote:

Brian Wadie wrote:

"A Canon pro camera with a 400 2.8 gives totally different possibilities to isolate the subject and give a tighter, more professional look. That is the professional approach, don't mind the trouble of carrying that large lens, since it is the results that earns your pay"

lets us consider that this hypothetical pro is probably also using something like the 1DX as his body

So, the EM-1 user who has the 75-300 on the front, who is using his / her own money will, with a system costing around 20% of that of the pro's kit will be able to meet something in excess of 90% of their needs (note that nowhere in this thread has it been suggested that the Olympus kit be used for professional sport photography)

When you add in the weight differential between the two kits (Olympus kit is also only around 20% the weight of the canon gear) my question is - you are right in what you say, but so what?

I reacted because it is very common to point out the professionals carrying the huge lenses as some kind of incompetent idiots.

They are dedicated - that what it is about. Sure you can get close to the results with much cheaper, lighter equipment, whether its m43 or APS-C, but not quite.

Yes, they are dedicated, but the reason that carries them to either Nikon or Canon at this point is mostly a historic thing, the level of the lens and body offerings and not necessarily because of intrinsic FF advantages. Just until 2 years ago all of sports shooters using Canon, and they have been the majority of SSs since at least the early 1990s (because of AF), uses the 1.3 cropped cameras and not FF. The Nikon SS used APS-C until 2007.

Look Renato, even with the 1.3x crop you got great subject isolation with a 400 2.8 - definitely on another level than with the slower 70-300 or 100-400 lenses. Canon lost some market share when Nikon introduced the FF D3 and they won it back with the FF 1DX. Today both Nikon and Canon have slower, lighter alternatives - for instance I have tried Canon the 70-300 L-series, and Nikon has the new 80-400, but when you come to the Olympics or the World Cup Soccer you will see the fast super teles on the sidelines - even when the sun is shining and the light is good, not the slower alternatives, for reasons of subject isolation. Another advantage of the super teles is the superb optical performance and AF performance, but that also goes under the "dedicated" headline.

In short - the pros uses lenses like the 400 2.8 despite the weight and bulk because of their awesome performance and potential - despite smiles from amateurs.

Since lenses are large anyway, FF brings some advantages, like the possibility of using higher ISO and faster speeds. The ability of Nikon D3/D3s to shoot in all sorts of lighting was what actually made many SSs to move to Nikon, not exactly the issue of isolation per se. That's a bonus in some situations, but not the main reason pros use FF cameras.

-- hide signature --

Renato.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/rhlpedrosa/
OnExposure member
http://www.onexposure.net/
Good shooting and good luck
(after Ed Murrow)

Post (hide subjects) Posted by
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum PPrevious NNext WNext unread UUpvote SSubscribe RReply QQuote BBookmark MMy threads
Color scheme? Blue / Yellow