fast lenses for NX100

Hi All,

Sorry for a noob question, but what lense you use to shoot sport event with the NX100 ? I was using the 50-200 (V2) for my kids soccer game (outside with good light) using continous AF or Burst and could get the correct pictures (either out of focus, focus on something else ...). May be it's me (bad photographer), but I have no problem with my +10yrs old Canon 30D.

Thanks.

Contrast detect cameras work differently than DSLR cameras, so they take some getting used to.

For shooting action, you might actually want to try AF-S and just depress and hold the shutter all the way until it takes the pictures.  The newer cameras with short shutter lag (NX20 and NX30 in electronic [first curtain] shutter mode) have very short lag times.  This means it takes the image almost instantly after focus.

I find AF-C works fine on the NX30 for most cases (not all).  As long as light is good it does fine.

The NX100 is also the first model of NX cameras, so they have improved some since.  We are going on 4 years now.  The NX30/300 is going to be a lot faster focusing.  I have never used the 50-200mm lens, so can't comment on its focus ability.

As it is, Samsung is a bit limited in sports lenses.  Hopefully we see a fast focusing 70-300mm or something soon.

Eric

I have to agree with Eric, the NX100 is not a natural choice as a sports camera. It excels as a Travel, Architecture and Landscape camera given its size. It's still excellent for these roles in good light however the later NX cameras have much better high ISO/Low Light handling and may probably make a better platform for trying some sports action, but apart from some of the fast prime lenses there really is very little support for the sort of NX lenses you want for action shots.

Having said that, with some extra work on the part of the photographer it should be possible to achieve something - particularly if you don't mind working in Bllack and White. The reason for that is that you can then set a much faster shutter speed with a high ISO and while there may be noise in the image it is less obtrusive than in colour.

I use an NX100, own the 50-200mm and have two kids in soccer, so I feel qualified to comment. 

Continuous AF on this camera is not helpful.  In theory, it constantly adjusts focus so it will be ready when you press the shutter release.  In practice, it eats up your battery and still does a fore/aft focus hunt when you release the shutter.  I use the AF S setting.  Still, while the focus is pretty fast, it's just not fast enough for kids running toward you.  Mirrorless cameras have come a long way in the last few years, and the AF on new models is words apart from the NX100.  If you're sitting on the sidelines and shooting as they run past, you'll probably be fine.  If you're at either end of the field shooting as they run toward you, you'll have to work harder.  I find it useful to either prefocus on an area where the kids will be in a fraction of a second, then wait for them to arrive, or choke down the aperture and get a wide depth of field.

In practice, it's mostly moot for me.  My older son plays on bigger fields, and I didn't get enough subject isolation with the zoom lens.  Now I shoot a set of fast primes depending on how far I am from the action.  I have Minolta MC 300mm f/4.5, MD 200mm f/4, MC 135mm f/2.8 and MD 100mm f/2.8.  Still, this is not as flexible as the zoom lens, and I pass on a lot of shots due to distance.  I usually use each lens for about 15 minutes so I'll have a variety of shot types to choose from later.

And, I've found, the moments you want to catch are usually over before you can lift the camera.  Even instant AF wouldn't help then...  Just shoot a lot, and improve your odds of getting 'the one'.  That's part of the beauty of digital photography...

When I'm shooting primes, I usually don't change that much.  There's certainly no time during a play to switch lenses to catch some specific bit of action.  I like to get near the end of the field so I can get faces, and rotate through the lenses through the course of the game so I'll get play on the far, middle and near parts of the field.  You can get fun shots of the parents that way too.

These lenses are really smooth focusing.  Once you get an intuitive feel for which way to turn the ring to focus near/far, you can track pretty well.  The shallow depth of field is a blessing and a curse.  Because it's so thin, it's kinda hard to nail the focus, but having the foreground and background so far out of focus makes it easier to keep the players sharp...  The screen on the NX100 is great, but honestly it would be easier if it had an EVF to help with glare.  I also use these lenses on an old Minolta 35mm camera, and it's super easy.

I think if you stick with it to get a feel for the camera/lens combo, you'll do fine.  You might have better luck with a newer NX body, but those cost money...

One of the soccer moms asked for a recommendation of a nice camera, asking,"Which is better, Canon or Nikon?"  I looked at what was out there, asked myself how long she'd want to carry around a big DSLR, and recommended an OMD EM-10 with a couple kit lenses and a nice fast prime.  (She ended up with a huge Nikon anyway.)  From the little I've played with them, lots of current generation mirrorless cameras would do well with kiddie soccer, and one with an EVF would be ideal.

sixfootzero wrote:

and recommended an OMD EM-10 with a couple kit lenses and a nice fast prime. (She ended up with a huge Nikon anyway.)

This happens all the time with me too, suggesting anything other than Nikon/Canon falls on deaf ears with a certain group of people.

Eric

sixfootzero wrote:

The screen on the NX100 is great, but honestly it would be easier if it had an EVF to help with glare. I also use these lenses on an old Minolta 35mm camera, and it's super easy.

I recently picked up a second-hand NX10 for a mere £65; it's become my main camera instead of the NX100 now (because of the EVF in sunlight and because of the flash which is handy for a bit of fill flash or for macro work).

sixfootzero wrote:

and recommended an OMD EM-10 with a couple kit lenses and a nice fast prime. (She ended up with a huge Nikon anyway.)

This happens all the time with me too, suggesting anything other than Nikon/Canon falls on deaf ears with a certain group of people.

Eric

Yep. Very safe/conservative choices when there are some really interesting alternatives out there. I think folks who are not hobbyist photographers can get insecure/intimidated by the choices and they fall back on safe picks. A car analogy would be Honda/Toyota...

sixfootzero wrote:

The screen on the NX100 is great, but honestly it would be easier if it had an EVF to help with glare. I also use these lenses on an old Minolta 35mm camera, and it's super easy.

I recently picked up a second-hand NX10 for a mere £65; it's become my main camera instead of the NX100 now (because of the EVF in sunlight and because of the flash which is handy for a bit of fill flash or for macro work).

If I could find one for that price I would jump on it. I like the NX100 for its ability to be compact with the pancakes, but a second body would be nice for sports where size is less of an issue. Right now, if I want a viewfinder, I shoot 35mm...

The newer NX models have faster AF, maybe you can take the NX10 and lens to a lens and do a comparison of the difference of AF speed.