-
Welcome to the new forums! Please read this first. For known issues we are working to resolve, click here.
anyone care about Action shots of A6000 vs DSLR
- Thread starter clearzoom
- Start date
-
- Tags
- canon eos 70d sony a6000
...above all much more useful - for this type of dynamic action shooting the 105mm is barely adequate enough = these 100% crops use about 1/2 of the whole 6000 px frame's width, or even less than that, yet wast amounts of water are still present, which does not help at all.
However, a direct comparison btw. the 18-105/4PZ and the Canon's EF 70-200/4L leaves only 105mm as the longest reach common to both
!! The 18-105 is a huge compromise, but... the next native option: 16-70/4 Zeiss is even shorter, and all consumer zooms in E-mount are much darker, esp at their long ends - to provide long, bright FLs in E-mount for fast action shooting is clearly NOT high on the S's list of priorities jpr2
jack scholl
New member
- Messages
- 0
- Reaction score
- 0
Quercy,...above all much more useful - for this type of dynamic action shooting the 105mm is barely adequate enough = these 100% crops use about 1/2 of the whole 6000 px frame's width, or even less than that, yet wast amounts of water are still present, which does not help at all.
However, a direct comparison btw. the 18-105/4PZ and the Canon's EF 70-200/4L leaves only 105mm as the longest reach common to both
jpr2
The SEL18200 would be a better test than the 105 for all the reasons mentioned previously. And it has proven to be a very fast AF combo with the A6000. This link was from April in Fla, but we were very surprised how well the lens did with the A6000 AF system.
Loading…
www.dpreview.com
That would be an interesting comparison . . .
Take care,
Jack
Galleries by Jack Scholl
www.pbase.com
Shutterfly: Photo Books, Cards, Prints, Wall Art, Gifts, Wedding
Create photo books, personalize photo cards & stationery, and share photos with family and friends at Shutterfly.com.
jackschollphotography.shutterfly.com
which wasn't the case hereQuercy,...above all much more useful - for this type of dynamic action shooting the 105mm is barely adequate enough = these 100% crops use about 1/2 of the whole 6000 px frame's width, or even less than that, yet wast amounts of water are still present, which does not help at all.
However, a direct comparison btw. the 18-105/4PZ and the Canon's EF 70-200/4L leaves only 105mm as the longest reach common to both
jpr2
The SEL18200 would be a better test than the 105 for all the reasons mentioned previously. And it has proven to be a very fast AF combo with the A6000. This link was from April in Fla, but we were very surprised how well the lens did with the A6000 AF system.
http://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/53551141
That would be an interesting comparison . . .
Take care,
Jack
. Yes, I was aware of that thread you've linked, and many more, esp. concerning your BIF results. They are encouraging, although personally I'd rather have a 300/4 E-mount prime (perfectly accurate and AF'ing at a speed of light),best,
Quercy
--
Nex-7 classic:
street candids (non-interactive):
Flickriver: Photoset 'street candids (non-interactive)' by qmusaget
Flickriver - view images as a 'river of photos' and more...
Flickriver: Photoset 'dance and music' by qmusaget
Flickriver - view images as a 'river of photos' and more...
Flickriver: Photoset 'B&W' by qmusaget
Flickriver - view images as a 'river of photos' and more...
Flickriver: Photoset 'wildlife & macro' by qmusaget
Flickriver - view images as a 'river of photos' and more...
Flickriver: Photoset 'interactive street' by qmusaget
Flickriver - view images as a 'river of photos' and more...
~
That Canon lens is legendary... deservedly so. Owned it for a good amount of time. I can say with certainty that the only E mount zoom that can even closely touch it is the FE 70-200mm (which I also own)
With the prices, a Canon 70D with the L zoom would cost about the same as the Sony 70-200 rig. I'd love to see it.
--
From time to time, I point my camera at the right things. This is generally when I forget everything I've learned.
With the prices, a Canon 70D with the L zoom would cost about the same as the Sony 70-200 rig. I'd love to see it.
--
From time to time, I point my camera at the right things. This is generally when I forget everything I've learned.
The lens and camera combined for both costs 2x for the Canon and weighs 2x for the Canon.
The OP headline is typically over generalized. Ho hum.
I think what we are seeing is only a better lens, however. I don't see OOF. It would be more interesting with the 70-200, but that would still be a cheaper and lighter rig with the A6000.
The OP headline is typically over generalized. Ho hum.
I think what we are seeing is only a better lens, however. I don't see OOF. It would be more interesting with the 70-200, but that would still be a cheaper and lighter rig with the A6000.
Very easy to use sub-optimal settings with the A6000! I see these mistakes every day here.
For instance, picking wide area focus, means that it literally scans the entire frame for whatever is closest. That includes the water in front of the subject. And that results in the shot appearing front-focused.
Better for use zone focus, but even then you'd have to be careful that something too close won't appear inside that.
Turn off lock-on-af unless you can't make it work without, for whatever reason. The problem with it, is that it will hunt and seek around all over the place for something it thinks is part of the subject that is closer. This also can result in front focusing.
I prefer using flexible spot, because if will let you set the size of that spot. I suppose AF-C would be appropriate for action like this. Set spot in center, or else wherever appropriate. I prefer to shoot the subject right smack in the middle, and then crop later for framing. It then also allows for things like Dutch Tilt. So, that way you don't have to make too many artistic decisions on the spot. And given that the lens only goes to 105 you'd have to crop later anyway. So, no framing on the spot, just place on center. Flexible large spot probably best.
And bursting, obviously. I find 11 fps is too fast. Medium is good. What I don't like about it, is, that it is too hard to shoot just one shot, because you'd have to press the button too quickly. I always keep it on low. And then switch to medium or high when called for.
Ultimately, yes, very much so, the A6000 can perform just as well as a DSLR, and perhaps even better. I've been shooting soccer practice of the kids, and now that I'm avoiding the front-focus pitfalls, the results are *awesome*. I used to use an A57 which also is quite good, and I tell you, the A6000 is better.
For instance, picking wide area focus, means that it literally scans the entire frame for whatever is closest. That includes the water in front of the subject. And that results in the shot appearing front-focused.
Better for use zone focus, but even then you'd have to be careful that something too close won't appear inside that.
Turn off lock-on-af unless you can't make it work without, for whatever reason. The problem with it, is that it will hunt and seek around all over the place for something it thinks is part of the subject that is closer. This also can result in front focusing.
I prefer using flexible spot, because if will let you set the size of that spot. I suppose AF-C would be appropriate for action like this. Set spot in center, or else wherever appropriate. I prefer to shoot the subject right smack in the middle, and then crop later for framing. It then also allows for things like Dutch Tilt. So, that way you don't have to make too many artistic decisions on the spot. And given that the lens only goes to 105 you'd have to crop later anyway. So, no framing on the spot, just place on center. Flexible large spot probably best.
And bursting, obviously. I find 11 fps is too fast. Medium is good. What I don't like about it, is, that it is too hard to shoot just one shot, because you'd have to press the button too quickly. I always keep it on low. And then switch to medium or high when called for.
Ultimately, yes, very much so, the A6000 can perform just as well as a DSLR, and perhaps even better. I've been shooting soccer practice of the kids, and now that I'm avoiding the front-focus pitfalls, the results are *awesome*. I used to use an A57 which also is quite good, and I tell you, the A6000 is better.
scottyinfrisco
Leading Member
the 1 series focuses like lightening in good light. Low light, that'd be not so much. The primes in the series work well in lower light, the zooms are much slower.Ok, thks for giving input, as you have been patiently assisting/following with me from 70d and Nex side since I started doing water sports, 6 weeks ago...at your Flickr site - as 100% crops of course as otherwise the images can give us quite false impressions - and not a single one of them was critically-focused tack-sharp, alas
Which is quite in contrast with the static shots from the a6k + 18-105/4PZ at 105mm - many such were already posted here on DPR and elsewhere.
So, yes... I fully agree with your appraisal = the a6k's AFi'ing is greatly improved in comparison to other Nex'en (and it clearly beats all of the A7/A7r/A7s AF'ing in speed action), but... it is still not in the same league as even the prosumer level 70d, to say nothing abt. for example 5d3.
The diffs will be probably even more pronounced in not so perfect light as in the series shown here from the LE site in TX
I see these Riders (wake Boarders ) first time in Life and this sports is very exciting to watch when Riders go fast and do tricks/twist etc, but need high power AFing camera for that
when they go slow, any camera with some AF can catch them, lol
And just curious, many in Nikon1 forum say V series snaps fast action very very quick. Is it able to do it due to smaller sensor and have to deal with less pixels density? Than A6000
Your opinion. I suppose "legendary" and "can't touch it" are vague enough, but DXOmark rates the Sony 70-200 as 53% better for sharpness and 27/20 overall compared to the Canon.
The Canon rig would still cost about 15% more and weigh 28% more.
In this case that sounds like good plan.
clearzoom
Senior Member
I don’t doubt but I am also not convinced until I see them
I have done soccer, but it matters they go fast or slow. I have done both with 70d, but haven’t done any fast soccer with a6000, fast soccer meaning, extremely fast, city teams, not middle/high school teams as that matters if a6k can handle these?suddenly Acceleration/Decelerate and
fast un predictive movement
fast direction change
which are the challenges in fast action shooting, that 70d and above can handle
can we get sharp images on these scenarios with a6k. FE 70-200 might, but I cant afford that, so someone try this fast action and post images
jack scholl
New member
- Messages
- 0
- Reaction score
- 0
Quercy,which wasn't the case hereQuercy,...above all much more useful - for this type of dynamic action shooting the 105mm is barely adequate enough = these 100% crops use about 1/2 of the whole 6000 px frame's width, or even less than that, yet wast amounts of water are still present, which does not help at all.
However, a direct comparison btw. the 18-105/4PZ and the Canon's EF 70-200/4L leaves only 105mm as the longest reach common to both
jpr2
The SEL18200 would be a better test than the 105 for all the reasons mentioned previously. And it has proven to be a very fast AF combo with the A6000. This link was from April in Fla, but we were very surprised how well the lens did with the A6000 AF system.
http://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/53551141
That would be an interesting comparison . . .
Take care,
Jack
best,
Quercy
At over 9" long and more than 5 lbs in weight . . . I don't care how good it is!
To each their own . . .
Jack
Galleries by Jack Scholl
www.pbase.com
Shutterfly: Photo Books, Cards, Prints, Wall Art, Gifts, Wedding
Create photo books, personalize photo cards & stationery, and share photos with family and friends at Shutterfly.com.
jackschollphotography.shutterfly.com
The A6K with the 70-200 Sony G is cheaper than the Canon 20D with the 70-200 OSS L. I understand you may not want to buy both, but for other readers that may be important. (It is also lighter and smaller.)
Those are the same assumed excuses that the A-mount boys bring up when they want to feel good about their A77ii choice. "sudden change", "change in direction", "ohhh,.... but it's all about predictive algorithms", and "the camera can't see the scene 100% of the time, therefore the A77ii must be superior in every which way possible and that's all there is too it, and I'm not listening lalalalalalala".I don’t doubt but I am also not convinced until I see them
suddenly Acceleration/Decelerate and
fast un predictive movement
fast direction change
which are the challenges in fast action shooting, that 70d and above can handle
can we get sharp images on these scenarios with a6k. FE 70-200 might, but I cant afford that, so someone try this fast action and post images
Except... no. It handles it quite well. Even at 11 fps it does an admirable job.
Anyway, my point before was that I thought that the operator used less than ideal settings which is all too easy to screw up on with the A6000. The A6000 has sensors literally all over the sensor, even to the very edge. If a feature on the edge is closer, like the water below, with wide area, or zone when zone is moved down, it fill focus on that, leaving the image front focused (in relation to the subject).
It gets weird though. I'm convinced there is at least some crafty artificial intelligence voodoo inside. It is as it tries to avoid focusing on the ground below, to prevent wide area focus becoming almost entirely useless unless for things like shooting birds in the sky. I haven't quite put my finger on it, but something's up there. In this care here for instance, it might have not focused on the very closest water features, but on the point where the ground became not ground, where the water started splashing. Still causes the subject to be out of focus, but less so, and the mistake of settings becomes less apparent. Hence, posts like these. One could almost write a book about it.
...zooms of this range ever built - the doubters peek at some numbers from various sources (most likely here on DPR or DXO Mark), and do raw comparisons, but n 99% of such cases they do forget to account for differently resolving sensors (even in cases when the same Sony 36 Mpx sensor can be used to measure/test BOTH the FE 70-200/4G OSS and the EF 70-200/4L (comparisons on differently sized/resolving sensors render any such effort senseless
)jpr2
Perhaps opinions that confront your sensibilities cause discomfort? Let's put some of that discordance at ease.
I'll assume that you're not one of those insufferable pedants that dismiss any opinion as automatically invalid if one fails to meticulously reference DxO data or some brick wall photo - but let's pretend for a moment that you are such a person...
One can look to the SLR Gear review of the 70-200L (non-IS) vs. the 20-200L IS and reasonably conclude that the non-IS version has, overall, a modestly better resolution map. To be super-fair, let's call them equal.
Let's take this into DxO, then, and compare that "inferior" IS 70-200L Canon against Sony's zooms.
For example, the E18-200mm or the 55-210mm - where the Canon bests both by 50% to >100% in the perceptual sharpness metric, and all the field maps. It's also unreasonable to deny that the 18-105mm PZ has edge and mid-field problems at the long end, especially when compared to lenses of higher caliber.
Or - we can skip all that nonsense just take a statement at face value from a guy that's been with the E-mount since the NEX-3 days and shot over 50k frames with a Canon 70-200 f/4L - recognizing its earned place in the popular triduum of f/4 zooms from Canon.
I'll assume that you're not one of those insufferable pedants that dismiss any opinion as automatically invalid if one fails to meticulously reference DxO data or some brick wall photo - but let's pretend for a moment that you are such a person...
One can look to the SLR Gear review of the 70-200L (non-IS) vs. the 20-200L IS and reasonably conclude that the non-IS version has, overall, a modestly better resolution map. To be super-fair, let's call them equal.
Let's take this into DxO, then, and compare that "inferior" IS 70-200L Canon against Sony's zooms.
For example, the E18-200mm or the 55-210mm - where the Canon bests both by 50% to >100% in the perceptual sharpness metric, and all the field maps. It's also unreasonable to deny that the 18-105mm PZ has edge and mid-field problems at the long end, especially when compared to lenses of higher caliber.
Or - we can skip all that nonsense just take a statement at face value from a guy that's been with the E-mount since the NEX-3 days and shot over 50k frames with a Canon 70-200 f/4L - recognizing its earned place in the popular triduum of f/4 zooms from Canon.
So, on roughly the $300 sony A3000, the two lenses are close on the DXOmark score and both are 20mp sensors. The Sony shows as just slightly better, not material....zooms of this range ever built - the doubters peek at some numbers from various sources (most likely here on DPR or DXO Mark), and do raw comparisons, but n 99% of such cases they do forget to account for differently resolving sensors (even in cases when the same Sony 36 Mpx sensor can be used to measure/test BOTH the FE 70-200/4G OSS and the EF 70-200/4L (comparisons on differently sized/resolving sensors render any such effort senseless
jpr2
Note that I'm not claiming the Canon lens isn't good. In fact in the OP I'm sure it is much better than the 18-105 it is compared to. I just react to broad and certain opinions on nearly zero information with this thread is filling up with. Even the headline of the OP is wildly overgeneralized and what follows compares a apples and oranges.
I think noone should draw any conclusion until the focus settings issue has been sorted out. The 18-105 is *quite* sharp. Mine is anyway.So, on roughly the $300 sony A3000, the two lenses are close on the DXOmark score and both are 20mp sensors. The Sony shows as just slightly better, not material....zooms of this range ever built - the doubters peek at some numbers from various sources (most likely here on DPR or DXO Mark), and do raw comparisons, but n 99% of such cases they do forget to account for differently resolving sensors (even in cases when the same Sony 36 Mpx sensor can be used to measure/test BOTH the FE 70-200/4G OSS and the EF 70-200/4L (comparisons on differently sized/resolving sensors render any such effort senseless
jpr2
Note that I'm not claiming the Canon lens isn't good. In fact in the OP I'm sure it is much better than the 18-105 it is compared to. I just react to broad and certain opinions on nearly zero information with this thread is filling up with. Even the headline of the OP is wildly overgeneralized and what follows compares a apples and oranges.
I hate to double-post - but just saw your response. Further - these tests are typically done at a closer focus distance than even reasonable for a tele-zoom, which can hide the sweet spot for performance of any lens. There's so much wrong with the "objective data" that people get so confused, they can't trust what they see in their own photos....zooms of this range ever built - the doubters peek at some numbers from various sources (most likely here on DPR or DXO Mark), and do raw comparisons, but n 99% of such cases they do forget to account for differently resolving sensors (even in cases when the same Sony 36 Mpx sensor can be used to measure/test BOTH the FE 70-200/4G OSS and the EF 70-200/4L (comparisons on differently sized/resolving sensors render any such effort senseless
jpr2
The FE 70-200 is a very solid lens - takes 10 minutes with a camera and Lightroom to figure that out. Same with the 70-200L.
Timothy S Broadley
Senior Member
Just for curiousity sake, what where the AF settings for each camera? I assume both were AF-C or AI-Servo for the Canon. Was each camera set for Wide area or something else? JPGs, fine, extra fine? did you use only center spot etc?
Thanks
Tim
I viewed them all at 100% and I could tell before looking at the EXIF which were which. For whatever reason (lens, focus, whatever) the Canon shots were all sharper.
Similar threads
Keyboard shortcuts
- f
- Forum