Lowlight sports with m43

No offense, but isn't the gfx a little slow for action? Though at the same time, the gfx has amazing output if it's nailing the shots

I have lots of galleries up there. Some of them are sports. I'm a part-time sports photography and journalist. You aren't interested in helping anybody. You are a FF Nikon bigot. You want to convince the OP to dump M43 to prove how smart you are. Nothing you have to say is worth the time to read it. You are on ignore from here on so post away. I won't see it.

You don't even own an M43 system. You don't know the limits or how to stretch them unless you have one. You are making it up to support your argument.

Jeep_Joseph said:

No offense, but isn't the gfx a little slow for action? Though at the same time, the gfx has amazing output if it's nailing the shots

Click to expand...

5 fps is on the slower side yes, but as long as you understand your subject (in this case: sport) you know when to photograph and when not to photograph. I understand the game of ice hockey extremely well so I can anticipate when to click the shutter (and when not) in order to obtain the shot.

Counter example: I do not photography basketball , if I were to I wouldn't bring my GFX because it has no room for error. Since I am not familiar with the sport basketball, I would want a higher FPS camera to compensate my lack of experience with the sport. "Shutter spamming" is ideal in this situation.

EZGritz said:

(1) Olympus Workspace - Free & Powerful Editing Software For Beginners Using Olympus Cameras - Bing video

This might help you. He also has a video on noise reduction settings on the camera body that is useful.

BTW, it looks like you may be shooting a higher shutter speed than you need. In the hockey photos, Andrew posted has is using 1/200. You used 1/320 in one of your images and 1/1000 in another. If you can use 1/200 that will enable you to lower the ISO.

Make a number of tweaks and settings and together and they may change the results enough to help you.

Click to expand...

A 1/200-second shutter speed will not reliably freeze peak action...not on the ice, court, or field. 1/1000 is pretty common as a standard minimum shutter speed for sports. If the light is good, faster is better. If the light is poor, 1/800 is a compromise setting.

1/100 or slower can be useful when attempting something more artful such as a motion pan. That's a pretty common technique in motor sports. Though the shutter speed for motion panning a race vehicle is typically faster than for a human athlete. Motion panning is also used in the photography of individual sports. It's not as commonly used when photographing team sports but, given the challenges the OP is dealing with, may be worth experimenting with after getting some keepers at more traditional shutter speeds.

EZGritz said:

I have lots of galleries up there. Some of them are sports. I'm a part-time sports photography and journalist. You aren't interested in helping anybody. You are a FF Nikon bigot.

Click to expand...

Hmm, according to you, am I bigoted against Nikon full-frame cameras or bigoted against anything other than Nikon full-frame cameras? It's confusing to me. I want to be sure I'm getting this right.

Because, I've tried to dissuade the OP from using older Nikon flagships. A long, fast prime is outside his budget range and cropping robs a full-frame body of any potential light-gathering advantage it may have offered. Rather, I've encouraged him to use less expensive crop sensor bodies, such as his D7500, with something like a first gen Tamron 70-200mm f/2.8 Di VC USD.

I suppose that makes me bigoted against Nikon FF cameras. But wait, I own a Nikon FF camera. I use it for landscape photography. I've used it to shoot college football & basketball and have gotten good results but would now bring my Nikon D500 to shoot a game. The APS-C body is better spec'd and a better match for the lenses I have.


Game-winning TD catch against the #2-ranked (at the time) team in FCS.

EZGritz said:

You want to convince the OP to dump M43 to prove how smart you are. Nothing you have to say is worth the time to read it. You are on ignore from here on so post away. I won't see it.

Click to expand...

What I've been trying to do is help the OP find gear within his budget that will serve his goal of doing better sports photography. Apparently, you disagree that the 40-150mm f/2.8 would be a good lens to consider for the sports photographer who shoots M43. I've not used the lens. I'm assuming you have but found it lacking. Please, describe its limitations for sports.

EZGritz said:

You don't even own an M43 system. You don't know the limits or how to stretch them unless you have one. You are making it up to support your argument.

Click to expand...

As said previously, the thread is more about the technical needs of low-light sports photography; of capturing peak action with a camera - any camera - working with minimal light but delivering a good image.

It's not primarily about the suitability of M43s. Equipped properly and in the hands of someone who knows what they're doing, just about any format can be used to do sports photography. Given that the OP is on a budget, we need to be open to recommending crop sensor systems.

That said, it's also important to be realistic and to recommend lenses and settings that will be compatible with his goals for making quality photos.

--
Bill Ferris Photography
Flagstaff, AZ

This looks pretty good. In the link I posted the photographer would have shot this at 1/200. If you could do that you could reduce the ISO quite a bit, capture more detail, not that you need so much detail for this composition, and raise the shadows accordingly. The image might still be better.

I find cropping increases the noise you see in the image. If I don't see it, I don't care about it. If I don't have to crop and I'm not making big prints even ISO25000 can be usable in some circumstances.

If you can get close enough you can use the 75 f/1.8 and drop the ISO another stop as one poster said. I've been asking OLY reps for an M43 150 f/2 for years, like the 4/3 version but in a manageable size and weight. I'd order it immediately. Even a 100 f/2 would help. A 150 f/2 would be better. The 4/3 150 f/2 is a beast, too heavy for me to handhold for long.

No such animal in the FF world. Shrinks the low light gap between M43 and FF systems by a stop for low light sports photography. Makes M43 and ASP-C even in low light. I don't know why OLY never saw this as an opportunity. They had their priorities.

Yeap it does. Thanks for posting an example.

Thanks, i accidentily tried using 1/250 without realizing it and the reuslts sucked. Though, i thought i was at 1/1000 and i was shooting the 80-200 on the d7500 so i didn't have stabilization

The problem with old tech DSLRs. No stabilization = SUCKS in low light unless you use a tripod. You have to run up the shutter speed and/or ISO so you don't gain anything over a stabilized M43 system especially with an ASP-C sensor that is only a stop brighter than M43 at the same f-stop for the lens.

You can shoot OLY bodies 1-2 seconds handheld I'm sure you know, but of course, you can't shoot Hockey anywhere near that slow. 1/200 works though.

You can trade for Z5, Z6 or Z7. They are much better cameras than the D7500. Lighter kit + stabilization. Newer lenses tend to be sharper too and better wide open but it's changing systems; lenses and body. FF lenses will be bigger and heavier, maybe a burden to shoot handheld. That's the reason I can never go FF. The telephotos are too heavy to handhold for hours like I do with the M43 system.

I don't understand why Nikon took so long to offer IBIS when it's such a good tech and would have improved their DSLRs so much. The people I know who traded for the Z System are super happy. They say the bodies are better, the lenses are better, the kit is lighter, IBIS is great compared to no IBIS. It's an all-around better experience. I need FL out to at least 600mm, 850mm sometimes. Too bad those lenses are too heavy for me.

Sorry, but yeah no. The z5, z6, and z7 don't have the buffer of the d7500, nor do they have the f mount. I have too many legacy lenses, and most z lenses leave much to be desired against my zeiss glass. And honestly, there is something about not having ibis i love. The d3 and d4 series are two of the best, if not the best cameras in the world for build. I don't think they would have been able to achieve that with an ibis gimbal. For example, my d3s had taken a six foot fall onto asphalt. I was almost certain the reflex mirror would have been off canter, luckily the doghouse was perfectly fine. I don't think the outcome would have been the same with an ibis gimbal. My gh5 had gotten banged up against the tripod collar of my 300 f4. I could feel the ibis gimbal shaking and the camera threw an error code. But, full frame is heavier and larger.

EZGritz said:

The problem with old tech DSLRs. No stabilization = SUCKS in low light unless you use a tripod. You have to run up the shutter speed and/or ISO so you don't gain anything over a stabilized M43 system especially with an ASP-C sensor that is only a stop brighter than M43 at the same f-stop for the lens.

You can shoot OLY bodies 1-2 seconds handheld I'm sure you know, but of course, you can't shoot Hockey anywhere near that slow. 1/200 works though.

You can trade for Z5, Z6 or Z7. They are much better cameras than the D7500. Lighter kit + stabilization. Newer lenses tend to be sharper too and better wide open but it's changing systems; lenses and body. FF lenses will be bigger and heavier, maybe a burden to shoot handheld. That's the reason I can never go FF. The telephotos are too heavy to handhold for hours like I do with the M43 system.

I don't understand why Nikon took so long to offer IBIS when it's such a good tech and would have improved their DSLRs so much. The people I know who traded for the Z System are super happy. They say the bodies are better, the lenses are better, the kit is lighter, IBIS is great compared to no IBIS. It's an all-around better experience. I need FL out to at least 600mm, 850mm sometimes. Too bad those lenses are too heavy for me.

Click to expand...

Both Nikon & Canon 'lost their way' when they executed their mirrorless strategy. Fuji & Olympus/OMD got it right. Panasonic S-series I hear is very good, but their MFT has fallen way-way behind. Sony is the beta testing company, meaning every Sony photographer by default is a beta tester for software bugs and features.

I just want a camera that works and not still being developed after I purchased it......

I agree with having a camera that works. Kinda why i have a d3s and a d4/s

I get it. How big a buffer do you need? Everybody I know who switched to the Z system love it, pro sports photographers included.

You have a point. C&N should have started sooner. They will learn. G9 owners seem to be happy with their cameras.

EZGritz said:

You have a point. C&N should have started sooner. They will learn. G9 owners seem to be happy with their cameras.

Click to expand...

Sounds like Panasonic S1 photographers. The very few that I have met that use Panasonic S-series camera bodies are all very happy with the system. That said, none use Panasonic glass, either Leica or Sigma L-mount glass.

I have no experience with Panasonic glass in MFT neither, but I keep hearing their lenses are not as good as Olympus/OMD. Apparently that has carried over into their full-frame S-series.

The only camera company people are not complaining about apparently is Fuji.

Canon - RF series of products not ready or cheaply made/designed compared to EF L products

Nikon - Z series of products compared to D-series quality

Sony - bugs, bugs, and more bugs. Every buyer is a beta tester

Olympus/OMD - brand future under new ownership

Panasonic - MFT camera bodies are too large, AF is terrible; MFT & FF lenses not as good as competition. L-mount aliance not as productive as one would hope in lens offerings.

How fast does the frame rate need to be before it's possible to run into the buffer? When I shot the E system it never happened. Get into m4/3 and I was "Hey, why is this thing slowing down?"

Been a tussle ever since. And with 60fps it can come right quick (not that I typically use it other than Pro Capture).

Cheers,

Rick

Wuen i looked it up the z6 was 25 files. And at 12fps it would fill in about two seconds. Currently if i am shooting raw i can outrun the buffer on my em1

EZGritz said:

I get it. How big a buffer do you need? Everybody I know who switched to the Z system love it, pro sports photographers included.

Click to expand...

The Z9 is the first mirrorless sports body Nikon has produced. It hasn't even started shipping.

And correct me if I am wrong, but my 12 year old d3s will fit as many files as the z9 will. It's quite disappointing according to the angry photographer.

Jeep_Joseph said:

And correct me if I am wrong, but my 12 year old d3s will fit as many files as the z9 will. It's quite disappointing according to the angry photographer.

Click to expand...

Oy vey