THE "BEST" SPORT AND ACTION camera

Started Apr 28, 2014 | Discussions
Lab D Senior Member • Posts: 6,938
One slight disagreement

jimoyer wrote:

Dr_Jon wrote:

I think this whole thread is a bit silly anyway,

THIS

As far as the OP and his claims throughout this thread, all I've seen so far is a complete lack of understanding for what makes a camera a viable platform for sports/action shooting.

I'm a staunch supporter of the m4/3 platform, and have shot sports with an E-PL5, EM5, EM1, G5, and GH3. It CAN be done, but it's certainly not the best tool for the job. Someone said it earlier in the however many pages of 10 color posts with all the quotes.....it's getting very close, but it's not there yet. Tracking isn't there yet, and current generation EVF's just can't compete with OVF's in professional level sports and action imaging situations. That's not a criticism of the GH4 or any m4/3 camera, it's just the reality of the technology. For everything but sports/action photography, m4/3 cameras are "good enough" 99% of the time. For sports/action....well, I couldn't agree with Dr_Jon more.

I find it silly too.  I will say that for your average "Soccer mom" or family type shooting of sports and action, the GH4 is easily "good enough".  If I shot sports for a living and I did not need video, the GH4 wouldn't be in the conversation.  Of course for any video, the D4s wouldn't be in the conversation either.

 Lab D's gear list:Lab D's gear list
Panasonic FZ1000 Nikon D600 Panasonic Lumix DMC-GH4
PerL Forum Pro • Posts: 13,881
Re: Stunning...

Paulmorgan wrote:

jimoyer wrote:

Paulmorgan wrote:

I`ve always believed the best camera for anything including sports, is the camera you have with you at the time.

The fastest auto-focus in the world would not make you a better sports shooter.

I'm sorry Paul, but that's a bit cliche. Yes, you need to have a camera with you to take a picture. That's sort of a given.

As far as the second half of the statement, take two equal shooters, and give one a Fuji X-Pro 1 and another a D4s, and lets see who comes home with more usable images. I've shot plenty of sports with manual focus (70's and 80's Nikon film bodies...mainly an F3HP with MD until the F4 came out) and it certainly can be done. Giving a complete novice the fastest AF in the world and putting them in front of a game they no nothing about won't get the shot. But all things being equal, with two competent photographers?

I very rarely (almost never) quote other photographers...especially off the internet, but Thom Hogan did an interesting article not too long ago that's very relevant to that comment.

It may get me banned at least from the m4/3 forum because it mentions the Nikon 1 system but...

http://www.dslrbodies.com/newsviews/its-the-focus-nikon-should.html

As far as the second half of the statement, take two equal shooters, and give one a Fuji X-Pro 1 and another a D4s, and lets see who comes home with more usable images

True a better camera will probably get you more keepers if your an experienced shooter.

Reminds me a little of this chap, he`s an experienced sports shooter and here all he used was a lensbaby.

But technique and skills alone should pretty much get you there irrespective of equipment used.

http://w2.sydsvenskan.se/bildspel/ldasmfriidrott/

He is a pretty good sports photographer and here he used the lens baby for effect. But when he goes to the Olympics you can bet he carries the usual pro stuff.

Paulmorgan Veteran Member • Posts: 7,269
Re: Stunning...

PerL wrote:

Paulmorgan wrote:

jimoyer wrote:

Paulmorgan wrote:

I`ve always believed the best camera for anything including sports, is the camera you have with you at the time.

The fastest auto-focus in the world would not make you a better sports shooter.

I'm sorry Paul, but that's a bit cliche. Yes, you need to have a camera with you to take a picture. That's sort of a given.

As far as the second half of the statement, take two equal shooters, and give one a Fuji X-Pro 1 and another a D4s, and lets see who comes home with more usable images. I've shot plenty of sports with manual focus (70's and 80's Nikon film bodies...mainly an F3HP with MD until the F4 came out) and it certainly can be done. Giving a complete novice the fastest AF in the world and putting them in front of a game they no nothing about won't get the shot. But all things being equal, with two competent photographers?

I very rarely (almost never) quote other photographers...especially off the internet, but Thom Hogan did an interesting article not too long ago that's very relevant to that comment.

It may get me banned at least from the m4/3 forum because it mentions the Nikon 1 system but...

http://www.dslrbodies.com/newsviews/its-the-focus-nikon-should.html

As far as the second half of the statement, take two equal shooters, and give one a Fuji X-Pro 1 and another a D4s, and lets see who comes home with more usable images

True a better camera will probably get you more keepers if your an experienced shooter.

Reminds me a little of this chap, he`s an experienced sports shooter and here all he used was a lensbaby.

But technique and skills alone should pretty much get you there irrespective of equipment used.

http://w2.sydsvenskan.se/bildspel/ldasmfriidrott/

He is a pretty good sports photographer and here he used the lens baby for effect. But when he goes to the Olympics you can bet he carries the usual pro stuff.

He is a pretty good sports photographer and here he used the lens baby for effect. But when he goes to the Olympics you can bet he carries the usual pro stuff.

Yes he uses the lensbaby for effect, but have you ever used a lensbaby

I shoot martial arts using lensbabys and this is one of the fastest sports going, most of the event photographers I bump into need a working distance of a least 20 feet using autofocus, I work from a distance often as little as three or four feet and focus manually, this is one of the area`s were even the fastest of auto-focus will struggle.

jimoyer
jimoyer Senior Member • Posts: 1,879
Re: Stunning...

Paulmorgan wrote:

I work from a distance often as little as three or four feet and focus manually, this is one of the area`s were even the fastest of auto-focus will struggle.

Holy $%&# Paul......three to four feet shooting martial arts tournaments!  I think I'll stick with at least SLIGHTLY longer glass than that!!

 jimoyer's gear list:jimoyer's gear list
Olympus OM-D E-M5 Nikon 1 V2 Nikon D7100 Olympus E-M1 Nikon D4S +14 more
Lab D Senior Member • Posts: 6,938
Wow, maybe the GH4...

Paulmorgan wrote:

I shoot martial arts using lensbabys and this is one of the fastest sports going, most of the event photographers I bump into need a working distance of a least 20 feet using autofocus...

Wow, I find this thread amusing and refuse to claim a GH4 can compete with $6000 DSLRs, but the GH4 C-AF autofocus is really good at short distances.  For these I was less than 20 feet away with and F/2.8 lens and my only problem was keep the dog in the frame because he likes to zig and zag (and he crashes into you too).   I doubt people are moving anywhere near this fast. 

Now think of awesome 4K video and 96FPS video would be for martial arts close up with this kind of tracking!

 Lab D's gear list:Lab D's gear list
Panasonic FZ1000 Nikon D600 Panasonic Lumix DMC-GH4
PerL Forum Pro • Posts: 13,881
Re: Wow, maybe the GH4...

Lab D wrote:

Paulmorgan wrote:

I shoot martial arts using lensbabys and this is one of the fastest sports going, most of the event photographers I bump into need a working distance of a least 20 feet using autofocus...

Wow, I find this thread amusing and refuse to claim a GH4 can compete with $6000 DSLRs, but the GH4 C-AF autofocus is really good at short distances. For these I was less than 20 feet away with and F/2.8 lens and my only problem was keep the dog in the frame because he likes to zig and zag (and he crashes into you too). I doubt people are moving anywhere near this fast.

Now think of awesome 4K video and 96FPS video would be for martial arts close up with this kind of tracking!

Those shots are nice, but you could do that with a Nikon D300 six years ago.

Lab D Senior Member • Posts: 6,938
Re: Wow, maybe the GH4...

PerL wrote:

Lab D wrote:

Paulmorgan wrote:

I shoot martial arts using lensbabys and this is one of the fastest sports going, most of the event photographers I bump into need a working distance of a least 20 feet using autofocus...

Wow, I find this thread amusing and refuse to claim a GH4 can compete with $6000 DSLRs, but the GH4 C-AF autofocus is really good at short distances. For these I was less than 20 feet away with and F/2.8 lens and my only problem was keep the dog in the frame because he likes to zig and zag (and he crashes into you too). I doubt people are moving anywhere near this fast.

Now think of awesome 4K video and 96FPS video would be for martial arts close up with this kind of tracking!

Those shots are nice, but you could do that with a Nikon D300 six years ago.

" most of the event photographers I bump into need a working distance of a least 20 feet using autofocus..."

I'll let you 2 battle this out.  I'll just say that the GH4 works very well at much less than 20 feet and I am sure some other cameras do too.

 Lab D's gear list:Lab D's gear list
Panasonic FZ1000 Nikon D600 Panasonic Lumix DMC-GH4
Paulmorgan Veteran Member • Posts: 7,269
Re: Wow, maybe the GH4...

PerL wrote:

Lab D wrote:

Paulmorgan wrote:

I shoot martial arts using lensbabys and this is one of the fastest sports going, most of the event photographers I bump into need a working distance of a least 20 feet using autofocus...

Wow, I find this thread amusing and refuse to claim a GH4 can compete with $6000 DSLRs, but the GH4 C-AF autofocus is really good at short distances. For these I was less than 20 feet away with and F/2.8 lens and my only problem was keep the dog in the frame because he likes to zig and zag (and he crashes into you too). I doubt people are moving anywhere near this fast.

Now think of awesome 4K video and 96FPS video would be for martial arts close up with this kind of tracking!

Those shots are nice, but you could do that with a Nikon D300 six years ago.

Or pretty much any modern point and shoot.

Lab D Senior Member • Posts: 6,938
Prove it.

Paulmorgan wrote:

PerL wrote:

Lab D wrote:

Paulmorgan wrote:

I shoot martial arts using lensbabys and this is one of the fastest sports going, most of the event photographers I bump into need a working distance of a least 20 feet using autofocus...

Wow, I find this thread amusing and refuse to claim a GH4 can compete with $6000 DSLRs, but the GH4 C-AF autofocus is really good at short distances. For these I was less than 20 feet away with and F/2.8 lens and my only problem was keep the dog in the frame because he likes to zig and zag (and he crashes into you too). I doubt people are moving anywhere near this fast.

Now think of awesome 4K video and 96FPS video would be for martial arts close up with this kind of tracking!

Those shots are nice, but you could do that with a Nikon D300 six years ago.

Or pretty much any modern point and shoot.

LOL! According to the DOF calculators the DOF was less than 6 inches. Now which PS& will do that?

And your claim is a modern P&S will track focus on a DoF running at full speed closer that 20 feet and with a DoF of 6 inches. (remember you said "photographers I bump into need a working distance of a least 20 feet using autofocus"...funny how that changed to now P&S cameras can so it).

I am guessing almost everyone will decide you have some real credibility issues after reading your post. I can't wait for your examples.

 Lab D's gear list:Lab D's gear list
Panasonic FZ1000 Nikon D600 Panasonic Lumix DMC-GH4
(unknown member) Veteran Member • Posts: 9,509
Re: Prove it.

Lab D wrote:

Paulmorgan wrote:

PerL wrote:

Lab D wrote:

Paulmorgan wrote:

I shoot martial arts using lensbabys and this is one of the fastest sports going, most of the event photographers I bump into need a working distance of a least 20 feet using autofocus...

Wow, I find this thread amusing and refuse to claim a GH4 can compete with $6000 DSLRs, but the GH4 C-AF autofocus is really good at short distances. For these I was less than 20 feet away with and F/2.8 lens and my only problem was keep the dog in the frame because he likes to zig and zag (and he crashes into you too). I doubt people are moving anywhere near this fast.

Now think of awesome 4K video and 96FPS video would be for martial arts close up with this kind of tracking!

Those shots are nice, but you could do that with a Nikon D300 six years ago.

Or pretty much any modern point and shoot.

LOL! According to the DOF calculators the DOF was less than 6 inches. Now which PS& will do that?

And your claim is a modern P&S will track focus on a DoF running at full speed closer that 20 feet and with a DoF of 6 inches. (remember you said "photographers I bump into need a working distance of a least 20 feet using autofocus"...funny how that changed to now P&S cameras can so it).

I am guessing almost everyone will decide you have some real credibility issues after reading your post. I can't wait for your examples.

There is a very long time between those shots from the exif.

I do believe the GH4 is great at tracking AF though...

In fact many recent mirrorless cameras from Panasonic, Olympus, Fuji and Sony are not that bad....even both my A7 and GX7 can auto focus track ok (just slower fps).

Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum MMy threads