Mirrorless for ski photography?

[Pelleplutt]

Does anyone here have experience doing ski photography with a mirrorless kit? I am getting to the point of thinking of making a decision for my next kit, and I'm not sure which way to got. The traditional would be to go Nikon D850 (or D500) + 24-70/2.8 + 70-200/2.8 (or 4, to save some weight) + TC and possibly a longer prime. This kit is pricey, and also weighs a ton. Going mirrorless would potentially save me a lot of weight, as carrying this stuff on your back all day does diminish the pleasure of skiing.

Does anyone have experience of shooting skiing with mirrorless. My main concern is if the viewfinder is bright enough, or do you get blinded when you shift between looking through the camera and not?

--
Per

 

[evetsf]

Does anyone here have experience doing ski photography with a mirrorless kit? I am getting to the point of thinking of making a decision for my next kit, and I'm not sure which way to got. The traditional would be to go Nikon D850 (or D500) + 24-70/2.8 + 70-200/2.8 (or 4, to save some weight) + TC and possibly a longer prime. This kit is pricey, and also weighs a ton. Going mirrorless would potentially save me a lot of weight, as carrying this stuff on your back all day does diminish the pleasure of skiing.

Does anyone have experience of shooting skiing with mirrorless. My main concern is if the viewfinder is bright enough, or do you get blinded when you shift between looking through the camera and not?

The potential weight savings may be less than you think if you're only going to consider FF mirrorless: while the camera body itself will be lighter, the lenses in the focal length ranges you quote will not.

If you really want some weight savings, consider going M43. Bodies and lenses will be smaller and lighter, and in a typical outdoor environment they should perform quite well. Or - even more daring - a 1-inch-type fixed lens camera like a Panasonic FZ1000 or FZ2500, or Sony RX10 IV. Any of these would be worth at least renting to see if they fill your needs.

With an EVF, most bodies allow adjustment of the viewfinder brightness, so you should be able to find a setting that works for you. Also, the image in the EVF will automagically have its brightness adjusted so you see what the image will look like after you download it, even before you trip the shutter. This, plus exposure aids like live histograms and Zebras, will help you dial in exposure in a bright environment with minimal need for post-shot chimping.

Steve

 

[crosson]

Does anyone here have experience doing ski photography with a mirrorless kit? I am getting to the point of thinking of making a decision for my next kit, and I'm not sure which way to got. The traditional would be to go Nikon D850 (or D500) + 24-70/2.8 + 70-200/2.8 (or 4, to save some weight) + TC and possibly a longer prime. This kit is pricey, and also weighs a ton. Going mirrorless would potentially save me a lot of weight, as carrying this stuff on your back all day does diminish the pleasure of skiing.

Does anyone have experience of shooting skiing with mirrorless. My main concern is if the viewfinder is bright enough, or do you get blinded when you shift between looking through the camera and not?

I shoot ski sports photography on the fuji platform. I use a 24-70 and 70-200 lens equivalent for my sports photography.

Most mirrorless cameras use EVF's now days. You can adjust the brightness etc. I have found the EVF critical for reviewing shots in bright conditions. Much easier than looking at an LCD under direct light.

A good sports lens is going to weigh a bit. Mirrorless bodies will be lighter and more packable than a traditional DSLR but full frame and even cropped sensoer lenses are in the same ballpark for weight.

 

[Pelleplutt]

Thanks, very interesting, I didn't think about the (obvious) advantage when chimping. It's a nightmare on the LCD in sunlight, even the histogram can be hard to see. Not to speak of checking the focus (though of course in ski photography, if you miss focus, you have to ask the skier to climb up again...)

--
Per

 

[cosmicnode]

Does anyone here have experience doing ski photography with a mirrorless kit? I am getting to the point of thinking of making a decision for my next kit, and I'm not sure which way to got. The traditional would be to go Nikon D850 (or D500) + 24-70/2.8 + 70-200/2.8 (or 4, to save some weight) + TC and possibly a longer prime. This kit is pricey, and also weighs a ton. Going mirrorless would potentially save me a lot of weight, as carrying this stuff on your back all day does diminish the pleasure of skiing.

Does anyone have experience of shooting skiing with mirrorless. My main concern is if the viewfinder is bright enough, or do you get blinded when you shift between looking through the camera and not?

I have been looking at M4/3 since the release of the Olympus EM1X a larger body than some are comfortable with, but you can get smaller. A lens such as the 75-300 is light about 1/4 of the weight of a equivalent FOV 150-600mm FF lens. this and a body probably around a Kilo.

 

[Pelleplutt]

m4/3 is certainly an interesting option. High ISO is seldom needed, a cloudy day still normally needs no more than ISO 400. The pics at the bottom where all taken at ISO 400, 1/1250 to 1/1600, f5.0 to 6.3. Shallow depth of field isn't normally something I want, as I often pre-focus, and they never ski exactly where I want them to (it's not that easy, to be fair).

I did a quick weight comparison (prices are for 2nd hand)

Full pro kit: (D850, 24-70/2.8, 70-200/2.8): 3355g

Small FF mirrorless kit (Z6, 24-70/4, 70-200/4, adapter): 2155g

m4/3 mirrorless kit: (Oly E-M1ii, 24-70/2.8, pana 35-100 2.8): 1313g

Also, massively cheaper.

Of course I could go for a Pana G85 or Oly E-m5 and save even more weight and money.

Very interesting. Thanks for the idea.

--
Per








ISO 400, 1/1250, f5.6




ISO 400, 1/1250, f5.0




1/1600, f5.0, ISO 400

 

[Pelleplutt]

Why do these render so badly. They look perfectly sharp before upload?

 

[Pelleplutt]

Well, OK, at least a lot sharper than this .

 

[Switcheroo]

For something like ski a good tracking might come in handy… Something like the A6400 maybe?

Lens-wise you could go with the (expensive) 70-200 GM f2.8 or since you will have good light I guess you could take the 70-300.

In either case I would rent for a weekend and try it since this seems to be a very specialized use and personal preference.

 

[Pelleplutt]

Thanks, I think rental is a good idea. Will look at the Sonys.

Tracking is less important than you would think, more than half the shots tend to be composed and pre-focused (you throw a snowball and tell them 'turn there' and then press the shutter as soon as they enter the frame (so high frame rate is good)). Some are tracking shots, but it tends to be high contrast between skier and background, so not too hard. Even my old D7000 does a decent job.

 

[Pelleplutt]

Oh, and an obvious must is weather sealing. Any opinions on which mirrorless brand is best at this?

 

[evetsf]

Oh, and an obvious must is weather sealing. Any opinions on which mirrorless brand is best at this?

 

[crosson]

m4/3 is certainly an interesting option. High ISO is seldom needed, a cloudy day still normally needs no more than ISO 400.

That hasn't always been my experience. It depends on what you mean by "cloudy". I grew up skiing in Colorado. There were plenty of south facing slopes and on "cloudy" days there was enough ambient light to get great shots. I think most of the inter-mountain areas behave that way. Lighter clouds and plenty of light.

Maritime mountains the clouds can be very thick, very thick. Worse, many ski areas face north meaning so you have no natural light poking through the clouds in mid-winter. Everything is shaded. A mid-day shaded slope in pea soup mean be difficult for shots. It gets worse again if you are shooting in trees but at least you then have content around your subject. In order to keep a broader DOF I sometimes pump my iso a bit. A larger sensor will really benefit you in that way.

These shots were at F4 and 5ish with ISO 200. These were gambles that came out well. Now days I actually shoot more often at 400-800 to broaden that DOF. I don't always want to shoot at F2.

 

[lim yau tong]

Does anyone here have experience doing ski photography with a mirrorless kit? I am getting to the point of thinking of making a decision for my next kit, and I'm not sure which way to got. The traditional would be to go Nikon D850 (or D500) + 24-70/2.8 + 70-200/2.8 (or 4, to save some weight) + TC and possibly a longer prime. This kit is pricey, and also weighs a ton. Going mirrorless would potentially save me a lot of weight, as carrying this stuff on your back all day does diminish the pleasure of skiing.

Does anyone have experience of shooting skiing with mirrorless. My main concern is if the viewfinder is bright enough, or do you get blinded when you shift between looking through the camera and not?

You won't be wrong to go with Sony A9 with some Sony GM lenses.

 

[cosmicnode]

Does anyone here have experience doing ski photography with a mirrorless kit? I am getting to the point of thinking of making a decision for my next kit, and I'm not sure which way to got. The traditional would be to go Nikon D850 (or D500) + 24-70/2.8 + 70-200/2.8 (or 4, to save some weight) + TC and possibly a longer prime. This kit is pricey, and also weighs a ton. Going mirrorless would potentially save me a lot of weight, as carrying this stuff on your back all day does diminish the pleasure of skiing.

Does anyone have experience of shooting skiing with mirrorless. My main concern is if the viewfinder is bright enough, or do you get blinded when you shift between looking through the camera and not?

You won't be wrong to go with Sony A9 with some Sony GM lenses.

Hardly weight saving or cheaper than the D850,

 

[MILC man]

Does anyone here have experience doing ski photography with a mirrorless kit? I am getting to the point of thinking of making a decision for my next kit, and I'm not sure which way to got. The traditional would be to go Nikon D850 (or D500) + 24-70/2.8 + 70-200/2.8 (or 4, to save some weight) + TC and possibly a longer prime. This kit is pricey, and also weighs a ton. Going mirrorless would potentially save me a lot of weight, as carrying this stuff on your back all day does diminish the pleasure of skiing.

Does anyone have experience of shooting skiing with mirrorless. My main concern is if the viewfinder is bright enough, or do you get blinded when you shift between looking through the camera and not?

You won't be wrong to go with Sony A9 with some Sony GM lenses.

Hardly weight saving or cheaper than the D850,

a9 is smaller, and a half-pound lighter, with significantly better af, plus 20fps af-c capability.

pretty much a no-brainer over the d850 for this application.

 

[cosmicnode]

Does anyone here have experience doing ski photography with a mirrorless kit? I am getting to the point of thinking of making a decision for my next kit, and I'm not sure which way to got. The traditional would be to go Nikon D850 (or D500) + 24-70/2.8 + 70-200/2.8 (or 4, to save some weight) + TC and possibly a longer prime. This kit is pricey, and also weighs a ton. Going mirrorless would potentially save me a lot of weight, as carrying this stuff on your back all day does diminish the pleasure of skiing.

Does anyone have experience of shooting skiing with mirrorless. My main concern is if the viewfinder is bright enough, or do you get blinded when you shift between looking through the camera and not?

You won't be wrong to go with Sony A9 with some Sony GM lenses.

Hardly weight saving or cheaper than the D850,

a9 is smaller, and a half-pound lighter, with significantly better af, plus 20fps af-c capability.

pretty much a no-brainer over the d850 for this application.

The OP is looking for a lighter kit, and mentions it being pricey, what is recommended is the most expensive mirrorless body available with heavy lenses, he may save 333 grams when using a A9 body but all the equivalent G master lenses are a similar size and weight to dsr lenses, so overall weight saving is minimum, and the lenses are are a similar price. He would save both cash and weight by buying a DX or M4/3 system. You really need to read what is requested.

--
Mike.
"I say we take off and nuke the entire site from orbit, it's the only way to be sure."

 

[cosmicnode]

Oh, and an obvious must is weather sealing. Any opinions on which mirrorless brand is best at this?

I am currently looking at the Olympus E-M1X , there are video's of it being sprayed in water or washed under a running tap. I don't know of any other camera body that can claim this level of water resistance. The body Weighs 325g more than a A9 but already carries 2 batteries and has 2 fast SD card slots, but with a 75-300 or 100-300 is a lighter package, add a 12-100 and you will save a lot of weight over other systems at a overall lower cost, I am still working my way through a decision to switch from my D500 and 200-500mm lens, which already gives stunning results. Watch this review of the E-M1X, and then look through his tests of other Mirrorless gear, he covers a wide variety of bodies and lenses with sensible reviews of the items.

--
Mike.
"I say we take off and nuke the entire site from orbit, it's the only way to be sure."

 

[D Lynch]

Thanks, I think rental is a good idea. Will look at the Sonys.

Tracking is less important than you would think, more than half the shots tend to be composed and pre-focused (you throw a snowball and tell them 'turn there' and then press the shutter as soon as they enter the frame (so high frame rate is good)). Some are tracking shots, but it tends to be high contrast between skier and background, so not too hard. Even my old D7000 does a decent job.

I've done a lot of skiing photography. Your hint helps me a lot!

(I was a ski instructor 35 years.

For what it's worth, my a6000 does a good job for me through the electronic view finder. My RX100-2 does too as long as I have the electronic view finder in the hot shoe.

--
DaveL
Toronto

 

[crosson]

Thanks, I think rental is a good idea. Will look at the Sonys.

Tracking is less important than you would think, more than half the shots tend to be composed and pre-focused (you throw a snowball and tell them 'turn there' and then press the shutter as soon as they enter the frame (so high frame rate is good)). Some are tracking shots, but it tends to be high contrast between skier and background, so not too hard. Even my old D7000 does a decent job.

I've done a lot of skiing photography. Your hint helps me a lot!

(I was a ski instructor 35 years.

For what it's worth, my a6000 does a good job for me through the electronic view finder. My RX100-2 does too as long as I have the electronic view finder in the hot shoe.

I do shoot many ski photos like this but know that it doesn't come without consequence. Good tracking lets YOU the photographer and your athlete ski more and also get more shots. You spend less time staging shots and more time skiing. Less time throwing snowballs etc....

I do still often stage specific shots and pre-focus. This shot is an example of that.


Alpental P iss Pass

But don't forget you are there to ski as well. Having a good AF with pre-set settings might mean you get that much more powder skiing in. Having good tracking is definitely extremely important. It is more efficient for you and your athlete.

Here is a shot I just took when skiing off the summit of Rainier using AF on. Because of the AF and subject tracking I was able to grab shots of the subject ABOVE me, PARALELL to me, and BELOW me. Instead of pre-focusing a shot in a precarious location and only nailing a single image.