Tempted to enter MFT system for sports and action photography

Andersonm wrote:

I should note that this was published before the latest firmware update, which reportedly improved OM1's problem of drifting off focus for a few frames.

I have FW 1.3 and it still does that.  I don't remember it happening with 1.2, but I don't remember a lot of things these days.

Tommy S wrote:

I was never interested in MFT system before, but now I fully understand the benefits of such a small sensor with FL and DoF for small birds. For human subjects it is counterproductive (even DPReview noticed that in their sports review of OM-1).

A good portion of my business is built around sport photography with "human subjects".  What makes MFT counterproductive?

KevinDe wrote:

Tommy S wrote:

I was never interested in MFT system before, but now I fully understand the benefits of such a small sensor with FL and DoF for small birds. For human subjects it is counterproductive (even DPReview noticed that in their sports review of OM-1).

A good portion of my business is built around sport photography with "human subjects". What makes MFT counterproductive?

It is obvious fact that smaller the sensor, the bigger DoF for the same FL. That is all I meant.

Tommy S wrote:

KevinDe wrote:

Tommy S wrote:

I was never interested in MFT system before, but now I fully understand the benefits of such a small sensor with FL and DoF for small birds. For human subjects it is counterproductive (even DPReview noticed that in their sports review of OM-1).

A good portion of my business is built around sport photography with "human subjects". What makes MFT counterproductive?

It is obvious fact that smaller the sensor, the bigger DoF for the same FL. That is all I meant.

^ those are not the same focal lengths.

It depends.

Are you looking to carry lighter gear and not spend a lot of money? Go for it!

Are you looking for good IQ? Skip it.

You need to decide what your goal is - what do you plan to do with the pictures?

Are you looking to be a camera buyer? Go for it!

I think some of the stated results of m43 are the exception not the rule. I haven't shot sports with m43 gear. But for wildlife it's not the best option for good IQ.

KevinDe wrote:

Tommy S wrote:

KevinDe wrote:

Tommy S wrote:

I was never interested in MFT system before, but now I fully understand the benefits of such a small sensor with FL and DoF for small birds. For human subjects it is counterproductive (even DPReview noticed that in their sports review of OM-1).

A good portion of my business is built around sport photography with "human subjects". What makes MFT counterproductive?

It is obvious fact that smaller the sensor, the bigger DoF for the same FL. That is all I meant.

^ those are not the same focal lengths.

This subthread is more about trolling I see. Is there any equivalent of 24-70F2.8 in MFT system? Only primes and juggling or Panasonics 10-25 and 25-50F1.7 (20-100F3.4) and juggling (or 2 bodies)

40-150F2.8 gives equivalent of F5.6 for FF. At the long and it will separate a jockey with a horse from the background. At the short end such separation will not be pronounced.

I know that shallow DoF is possible in MFT but with some sacrifice. That was all I meant.

Tommy S wrote:

KevinDe wrote:

Tommy S wrote:

KevinDe wrote:

Tommy S wrote:

I was never interested in MFT system before, but now I fully understand the benefits of such a small sensor with FL and DoF for small birds. For human subjects it is counterproductive (even DPReview noticed that in their sports review of OM-1).

A good portion of my business is built around sport photography with "human subjects". What makes MFT counterproductive?

It is obvious fact that smaller the sensor, the bigger DoF for the same FL. That is all I meant.

^ those are not the same focal lengths.

This subthread is more about trolling I see.

Is that why you're here?  Is what I said incorrect?  Please elaborate.

Is there any equivalent of 24-70F2.8 in MFT system?

That is not what you initially asked. Moving goal posts.

Only primes and juggling or Panasonics 10-25 and 25-50F1.7 (20-100F3.4) and juggling (or 2 bodies)

You can use a 24-70/2.8 on MFT if you are intent on using that lens.

40-150F2.8 gives equivalent of F5.6 for FF.

Try focusing that equivalent F5.6 lens in low light. Not so equivalent in use.

At the long and it will separate a jockey with a horse from the background. At the short end such separation will not be pronounced.

That is a product of focal length, aperture and distance to subject. Has nothing to do with sensor size.

I know that shallow DoF is possible in MFT but with some sacrifice. That was all I meant.

Better question is why do you feel like your hobby benefits from "shallow DoF"?

ProDude wrote:

PhotoMac503 wrote:

It depends.

Are you looking to carry lighter gear and not spend a lot of money? Go for it!

Are you looking for good IQ? Skip it.

You need to decide what your goal is - what do you plan to do with the pictures?

Are you looking to be a camera buyer? Go for it!

I think some of the stated results of m43 are the exception not the rule. I haven't shot sports with m43 gear. But for wildlife it's not the best option for good IQ.

Sorry but you have NO freaking idea what you're talking about. I've had a A7R2 and R5 Canon prior. In comparison the OM-1's output with their Pro glass is not only every bit as sharp with the same definition as the likes of a 45mp R5, but it's even faster to acquire a bird and eye and stay on it. The battery life is better, build is impeccable, and the button customization is superb. Get a clue........

You will notice he makes absurd comments like this in every thread.  This is what the "ignore" feature is for.

KevinDe wrote:

Try focusing that equivalent F5.6 lens in low light. Not so equivalent in use.

Sure - MFT in this regard is better

At the long and it will separate a jockey with a horse from the background. At the short end such separation will not be pronounced.

That is a product of focal length, aperture and distance to subject. Has nothing to do with sensor size.

If the distance is short and focal length is around ~35mm FF what aperture is needed to cut of the person of normal height from the background?

I know that shallow DoF is possible in MFT but with some sacrifice. That was all I meant.

Better question is why do you feel like your hobby benefits from "shallow DoF"?

Because for my taste, the subject should "not merge into background"

The FL is 39mm with F2.8. Correct me if am wrong - MFT equivalent is 20F1.4 to reproduce it? Possible ofc but in much less comfortable way in terms of workflow. This is my point in our subthread about OOF background and shallow DoF for MFT

I love MFT for sports and action but that's just because I'm not professional.  As other posters no doubt have posted and I'm sure you know, you run into difficulty in lower light.  Not that it can't be pulled off, it's not easy and very limiting.

I find with high shutter speed subjects like birds and insects, I raise ISO even on a sunny day, especially if the subject is in any shade.  I managed to take better pics than I thought I would be able to at an indoor college basketball game with an adapted canon FD 200mm f2.8.  I was taking pictures of the pep band but snapped a couple of the basketball players in action, worked well if I parked in a zone and waited for action to come (like right over the basket).  Lighting was enough for decent shutter speed and freezing action.  This was Maryland Terps Xfinity center, venues range considerably in lighting I understand.

Daytime sports and action it's pretty good, even in overcast (caveat for my application I could get what I needed as low as 1/320).  I think its great for football, soccer, auto-racing, etc...  especially with having lighter more mobile equipment.  At night though it becomes limiting even with stadium lights (my experience is all at Maryland Terps stadium).  I have the 300mm f4 pro but most of my experience is with 100-400mm, which with all stadium lights on I am at 3200 ISO min @ 400mm and struggling with acceptable shutter speed.  The Pro would give a little more light even with the MC14.  I've taken the Oly 40-150mm f2.8 to those stadium events and it gives the low light performance, just the reach falls short for that kind of venue.

Tommy S wrote:

BobT3218 wrote:

Tommy S wrote:

david31 wrote:

I thought dpreview did a comparison of mft vs ff for sports. They didn't like mft due to it having too much depth of field so players separation from background really suffers.

Yes - I am aware MFT kills DoF.

The more I am thinking about it, the more the conclusion of buying A9II with Tammy 35-150 comes.

M4/3 definitely does not "kill" DOF, it has greater DOF than the larger formats. I think you mean it produces less OOF blur than than larger formats. Whether that's good or bad is a matter of current fashion.

My mistake OFC, with some shortcut of meaning. I know what benefits are of smaller sensor (distance vs DoF vs F-speed). For my needs it is counterproductive when I want to cut out the subject from the background.

Understood!  If there is a subject of note, we want to downplay the background.  However, we rarely want the background to look like a studio back drop.  An image needs context.  Da Vinci likely painted the Mona Lisa in a studio.  He could have left the background blank.  He didn't.  He deliberately added detail albeit subdued.  In any case, these days blur is easy to add in post.  What maybe more important than OOF blur, is bokeh.  That's a function of lens design rather than sensor size.  I don't think you'll find m4/3 lacking here.

Tommy S wrote:

What I like about OM-1 (from what I read and viewed) is

• Form factor (size and ergonomics) as having two bodies of OM-1 with 12-40 and 40-150 is nice considering outdoor shooting and my age
• Both Zuiko lenses weigh twice less than EF 24-70 / 70-200
• Sensor readout speed and silent shutter (7.8 ms)

Something does not make sense here. Your initial post says you like smaller size (2 bodies with compact zooms on each). You point out the high weight of the EF 24-70 and 70-200. You like the faster readout of the OM-1, faster

I'm with you so far.

Now you say that only a FF 70-200/2.8 will give you the shallow DoF you require. Okay. So how did you expect to carry smaller form factor system and still get the same shallow DoF look?

AURA PA wrote:

Tommy S wrote:

What I like about OM-1 (from what I read and viewed) is

• Form factor (size and ergonomics) as having two bodies of OM-1 with 12-40 and 40-150 is nice considering outdoor shooting and my age
• Both Zuiko lenses weigh twice less than EF 24-70 / 70-200
• Sensor readout speed and silent shutter (7.8 ms)

Something does not make sense here. Your initial post says you like smaller size (2 bodies with compact zooms on each). You point out the high weight of the EF 24-70 and 70-200. You like the faster readout of the OM-1, faster

I'm with you so far.

Now you say that only a FF 70-200/2.8 will give you the shallow DoF you require. Okay. So how did you expect to carry smaller form factor system and still get the same shallow DoF look?

You got everything correct. One clarification - I spent too much time in APS-C system to know that shallow DoF in close range is achievable with fast (heavy) APS-C zooms. I just like this shallow DoF effect in my pictures. I used to have Sigma 18-35 and Sigma 50-100F1.8 to get what FF 2.8 within similar range produces. I am not talking about portrait photographers who stand 30 feet away from model to get great bokah with 200F2.8 around model's face. I know and have seen many great bokah pictures taken with MFT.

So, as naïve as it may sound, my perfect combo would be one body and one lens. Tamron 35-150 F2-2.8 seemed so, but AF-C is not so reliable for sports / action. Sony on purpose slows down FPS in its dedicated sports bodies to make us pay more for 100% usability. As Gerald Undone stated - Tamron 35-150 F2-2.8 is a viable option. If I entered MFT with 2 OM-1s I would need to stick to 10-25 F1,7 Panasonic and 40-150F2.8, as 25-50 F1.7 is just a bit too short for my exorbitant needs.

Jeeter001 wrote:

Daytime sports and action it's pretty good, even in overcast (caveat for my application I could get what I needed as low as 1/320). I think its great for football, soccer, auto-racing, etc... especially with having lighter more mobile equipment. At night though it becomes limiting even with stadium lights (my experience is all at Maryland Terps stadium). I have the 300mm f4 pro but most of my experience is with 100-400mm, which with all stadium lights on I am at 3200 ISO min @ 400mm and struggling with acceptable shutter speed. The Pro would give a little more light even with the MC14. I've taken the Oly 40-150mm f2.8 to those stadium events and it gives the low light performance, just the reach falls short for that kind of venue.

40-150 is max I would ever need. Two bodies and 10-25 F1.7 + 40-150 F2.8 seems like great combo.

I never shoot at night. I like outdoors (warm spring - summer - warm fall) or indoors.

Tommy S wrote:

KevinDe wrote:

Try focusing that equivalent F5.6 lens in low light. Not so equivalent in use.

Sure - MFT in this regard is better

At the long and it will separate a jockey with a horse from the background. At the short end such separation will not be pronounced.

That is a product of focal length, aperture and distance to subject. Has nothing to do with sensor size.

If the distance is short and focal length is around ~35mm FF what aperture is needed to cut of the person of normal height from the background?

I know that shallow DoF is possible in MFT but with some sacrifice. That was all I meant.

Better question is why do you feel like your hobby benefits from "shallow DoF"?

Because for my taste, the subject should "not merge into background"

The FL is 39mm with F2.8. Correct me if am wrong - MFT equivalent is 20F1.4 to reproduce it? Possible ofc but in much less comfortable way in terms of workflow. This is my point in our subthread about OOF background and shallow DoF for MFT

There is tons of DoF in this photo lol.  I can literally count bricks in the distance.  There is no subject isolation at 39mm F2.8

You need a longer focal length and larger aperture to blur a background like that.

ProDude wrote:

KevinDe wrote:

ProDude wrote:

PhotoMac503 wrote:

It depends.

Are you looking to carry lighter gear and not spend a lot of money? Go for it!

Are you looking for good IQ? Skip it.

You need to decide what your goal is - what do you plan to do with the pictures?

Are you looking to be a camera buyer? Go for it!

I think some of the stated results of m43 are the exception not the rule. I haven't shot sports with m43 gear. But for wildlife it's not the best option for good IQ.

Sorry but you have NO freaking idea what you're talking about. I've had a A7R2 and R5 Canon prior. In comparison the OM-1's output with their Pro glass is not only every bit as sharp with the same definition as the likes of a 45mp R5, but it's even faster to acquire a bird and eye and stay on it. The battery life is better, build is impeccable, and the button customization is superb. Get a clue........

You will notice he makes absurd comments like this in every thread. This is what the "ignore" feature is for.

That's pretty humorous. Your statement could ONLY be made by someone that has NO experience with both formats but high-quality lenses in use.

Not sure if you mean to reply to me but my comment TO you was regarding the ridiculous statements made by ANOTHER user here and here and a hundred other places.  One would almost think it a parody account it is so absurd.

Skeeterbytes wrote:

Tommy S wrote:

david31 wrote:

I thought dpreview did a comparison of mft vs ff for sports. They didn't like mft due to it having too much depth of field so players separation from background really suffers.

Yes - I am aware MFT kills DoF.

A player taken with the 300/4 Pro does not look the same as taken with a 600/4 to be sure, but that does not mean there will be a ton of fore and background clutter in 300 Pro shots.

Apart from the glamour / portrait area, in most cases the dof of the mft is imho rather an advantage:

https://flic.kr/p/2kAYYce

https://flic.kr/p/2mh7KHE

https://flic.kr/p/2nyERLy