[Closed] Cameras cameras cameras...decisions decisions.. HELP!

In general, the Micro four thirds cameras aren't ideal for sports photography compared to DSLRs due to the type of focussing they use. They are not generally as good at tracking moving subjects. The Nikon 1 cameras are the best at this but I'm not sure using one would "get you back" into photography as much as using a DSLR would.
I think the Canon would get the nod over the Sony if only for the wider range of older compatible telephoto lenses available. This isn't personal bias, I have a Nikon..

I can only comment on the ILC cameras, having bought a Panasonic GX1 and done a fair amount of research.

I'm a fan of the system; I haven't had an SLR previously, so it was a step up from my previous cameras. I like the manual controls, the (relative) compactness, and the (theory) of "80% of a DSLR" type thing.

The G3 should be cheaper than that by now, as it's been superseded by the G5. The G5 in turn is broadly the best parts of the GX1 (no viewfinder) packaged with an integrated EVF.
How it compares to a DSLR, though, I have no idea, I'm afraid

For Sports you want fast auto-focus which requires wide aperture lenses (f2.8), as the camera focuses with the lens wide open and will focus faster the more light there is.

One problem with very high frame rates is the camera probably can't re-focus during the burst (my D4 can't when running at 11fps) so if the action is moving, you won't get all shots in focus.

The G3 deal includes, what appears to be a £250 tele lens, so pretty good deal no?
Also the G3 blurb says it will track a single point of focus..

Any long f2.8 telephoto is going to cost a fortune.

You can get started with less, e.g. a f4.0. It won't look quite like the phtoos in the paper, but I find the complete f2.8 blur-out of the backgrounds is a real shame anyway.

I'd forget the m4/3 cameras for sport. Either the canon or the sony will do nicely.

My preference would be the sony as it has in-body stabilisation so any lens you put on it will be stabilised, including used minolta lenses, making cheap used lenses a lot more attractive than on the canon.

[b]5thElefant[/b]

I'd forgotten the Sony/Minolta lens mount connection. Good point.

This pushes the A57 back to the top of the list.. must admit the reviews do make it sound like the one I want....
thank 🙂

I have an A55 and it's a really good bit of kit
Great in camera panorama mode too if you are into that sort of photography

As I understand it, in Sony's SLT cameras the mirror doesn't move so you can get very high burst rate and good reliability. The mirror is translucent so 10 % of the light goes up to viewfinder and the remaining 90% passes through to the sensor

This can mean that the viewfinders are not as good as SLR camera's though but I haven't had a problem with mine, it's not noticeable. A57 might have an upgrade over A55 in this area.

Have bought a few Minolta lenses off ebay at a fraction of the cost that new Nikon lenses would cost

Just curious but what is a good sports action test for a micro 4/3 camera? what type of action shot is it poor at? as i want to test mine some time.

Just curious but what is a good sports action test for a micro 4/3 camera? what type of action shot is it poor at? as i want to test mine some time.

The biggest challenge is fast moving things in a dark environment, ie. mountain biking in a forrest, I think the Olympus EPM1 does ok and i can fit it in a side pocket of my hydration pack.

Any long f2.8 telephoto is going to cost a fortune.

You can get started with less, e.g. a f4.0. It won't look quite like the phtoos in the paper, but I find the complete f2.8 blur-out of the backgrounds is a real shame anyway.

It's more the fact the camera can use f2.8 to focus with and then stop down to whatever you've chosen for the shot, but yes long f2.8 lenses aren't cheap - although Sigma and Tamron do some very good value ones.

thanks rs, interestingly i have the epm1 too and would like to put to the test.

The biggest challenge is fast moving things in a dark environment, ie. mountain biking in a forrest, I think the Olympus EPM1 does ok and i can fit it in a side pocket of my hydration pack.

That's where a half decent DSLR will show it's pedigree and have no problem focusing quickly, and take a reasonable shot at a high ISO.

dobo - Member
Just curious but what is a good sports action test for a micro 4/3 camera? what type of action shot is it poor at? as i want to test mine some time.

It's an interesting question. Shame you can't test ride cameras!
The one thing a lot of these cameras are sold on is the thing that everyone says they are poor at!

eg. The Samsung NX cameras: [i]The NX1000’s High Speed Capture capabilities let you catch fleeting moments and fast-moving objects without requiring a separate sensor module. The NX System features an ultra-high-speed Auto Focus that can rival that of almost any system camera. Its all-new, advanced algorithm delivers faster and more accurate auto focus. The NX1000 can shoot at 8 frames per second for better continuous shooting.[/i]
If you can be bothered to read all that.
Then the reviewers say (about a different camera)
[i]..isn't suited to continuous AF or focus tracking. Slow moving subjects are fine...[/i]

I reckon the reviewrs get to use so many £1000+ DSLRs that something the 4/3s are perfectly acceptable at seems inadequate to them. But whaddoIknow.

For Sports you want fast auto-focus which requires wide aperture lenses (f2.8),

Olympus 70-300 f4.0-5.6 £350
Olympus 300mm f2.8 - £5000

So yeah, we do want wide aperture, but not many of us can afford it 🙂

Consider Pentax - cheapest weather sealed body which would be handy since they don't usually stop rugby for rain. If I were buying again and could stretch to it I'd go for that. Not sure how cheap or which the weather sealed one is, about £600 ish I thought.

I certainly couldn't afford the f2.8 lens!

For Sports you want fast auto-focus which requires wide aperture lenses (f2.8),

thanks rs, interestingly i have the epm1 too and would like to put to the test

I have the 20mm/F1.7 pancake which makes a huge difference in getting biking shots in the forest, focusing can be tricky but I have gotten plenty of shots I like. few of my favorites below, some in the forest one in the open...

[img] [/img]

[img] [/img]

[img] [/img]

to anyone but a professional or serious enthusiast I think they would be acceptable and I couldn't have got these with a big DSLR because I wouldn't have it with me.

Get the SLR and learn how to focus properly. (use single point focus, too)

Any DSLY with any lens should be able to follow some one running around AF wise

You don't need an f2.8 lens you don't need the latest DSLR

My nikon D70s and 18-70 can follow action

I think the main thing you will need is more reach than the kit lense

Either but a twin lens kit

http://www.google.co.uk/#q=dslr+twin+lens+kit&hl=en&tbo=d&source=lnms&tbm=shop&sa=X&ei=RyAQUeDXGum90QW4z4G4Bg&ved=0CAkQ_AUoAA&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.r_qf.&bvm=bv.41867550,d.d2k&fp=58ae75874fef45f9&biw=1680&bih=925

or budget for another lens. This year camera with a kit lens will be hopless on the edge of a field compared to 2 generations older camera with a londer lens

Or go for a wider range kit lens. This more less twice the range of most kit lenses

I see this as stand out value, despite the great age

http://www.wexphotographic.com/buy-nikon-d90-with-18-105mm-ed-vr-lens/p1028015

Or get a nikon 1 twin lens kit they seem ace

RS what body do you use. Great shots. I'm thinking about MFT for portability. I just don't see at as ideal for the touch line

So yeah, we do want wide aperture, but not many of us can afford it

Until I went FX, most of my MTB photography, in poor light, was using a 17-50 f2.8 lens which cost me all of $200.

Footflaps a short range zoom is my whole photographic life. Its great for many things including MTB

But even at an event like the olympics XC you closer to most of the action that an amateur rugby match

Until I went FX, most of my MTB photography, in poor light, was using a 17-50 f2.8 lens which cost me all of $200.

Yep, and 50mm isn't going to be much good for sports photography, unless you wait til the action's on the touchline nearest you 🙂

I have a f1.4 that cost me £150, but it's a 30mm lens. I was talking about fast zooms.

The OP is talking about his son's Rugby, so he'll be right on the edge of the pitch and a 50mm will be good enough for anything on that side of the pitch. Obviously a 200mm would be better, but you can survive with 50mm which will be equiv to 75mm on a DX body.

My DX ultra-portable lens kit consists of:

Tamron 17-50 f2.8 for over cast days / indoor stuff
Nikon 18-200 f5.6 zoom for sunny days

I just accept that on the cloudy days / in woods, I need to get closer to the action if I want sharp photos. I don't really miss the lack of zoom, you just make the most of what you have.

I normally have both lenses and a DX body in my Camelbak.

I've also got a f2.8 70-200 zoom, but it's a beast to carry and I don't bike with it in the Camelbak!

I was pointed towards the Sony in a couple of shops (by the expert not the sales kid)
I was after Sports/Action and Video.

With that the Sony with the transparent mirror came out well. The video is also meant to be good. Was about to but held off for the sales, just missed the Alpha 65 at a silly price so back to saving up.....

FWIW I use a Sony A55 and have obtained both good and bad results no matter which lens I use be it Sony 200mm F2.8 or a 25 year old Minolta lens. I obviously can't produce the shots like the pros with their 500mm lenses and photoshop skills (I just crop and lighten/darken using basic Sony software) but its good enough for me.
Taking a picture of something that is in motion is a great challenge and often comes down to a bit of luck at the end of the day. I had rugby parents thanking me for capturing some great photos but tbh I was a bit disappointed with them, that was until I viewed them on an a retina display I pad and could appreciate the quality of them that had been lost on my ancient PC monitor.

[url= http://www.flickr.com/photos/31852911@N07/sets/ ]http://www.flickr.com/photos/31852911@N07/sets/[/url]

Taking a picture of something that is in motion is a great challenge and often [s]comes down to a bit of luck at the end of the day.[/s] improves with practice.

[i]FWIW I use a Sony A55 [/i]

Worth much. 🙂 Exactly the sort of use I'll be putting the camera to, and pics like yours would be ideal.

As no-one has come along saying "Hey, I use a Micro 4/3 and these are my results!" looks like the DSLR is definitely the way to go.
then ampthill comes along and says "You don't need the latest DLSR" 🙁 True, so I could go for something like a Nikon D5100 (I've used my dad's D5000 so it would be familiar) and save money. But then would I be constantly thinking "Ah, if I'd bought the Sony I wouldn't have missed that shot"??
Up to me to decide that I guess.

Thanks for all the input folks.

it might be worth a look at the Pentax k30. Pretty well specced and weather sealed which might be handy for UK action shots.

Any long f2.8 telephoto is going to cost a fortune.

Not necessarily. I bought an almost new Tokina ATX Pro 80-200 f2.8 on FleaBay for just shy of £250. Granted it weighs a ton but stick it on a monopod and it's great for football and other fast action. Full autofocus no problem. Linky to some stuff of mine [url= http://www.johnellisonphotography.com/gallery/sport/ ]HERE[/url].

For my money a mid-range DSLR with a couple of lenses is money far better spent than a system or micro 4/3 setup. They're just too expensive for what they are and don't give you the control that a DSLR does, especially at high speed.

M43 cameras give you all the control, and they are fast. It's just tracking moving things that they can't do.

Shortlist:

1. Pentax K30
For: good reviews, weather proof, great looking
Against: lenses expensive? Fixed rear screen
2. Sony A57
For: 10fps, rotating view screen, EVF, reviews
Against: Not weather proof
3. Canon D650:
For: touch screen, lense choice, its a Canon, 2012 recommended budget DSLR award
Against: Not weather proof, 4-5fps, Sony beats it in all reviews
4. Nikon D5100
For: Price!

Any last comments before I go for number 1?

I'd go for no 1 too. Having been out on a showery day, I would consider it my top feature. I also once too my camera to the beach and regretted it, being highly nervous the whole time.

I'm sure the Pentax will do just fine but...

I have used all my cameras in the rain and never given it a second thought. Weather proofing is nice but unless you make a habit of standing in the rain for hours it won't make any odds.

I wouldn't put EVF as a negative for the Sony. I have an EVF aps-c Sony and an OVF full frame Sony (with the biggest brightest OVF available on any dslr). I like both. They have strengths and weaknesses but neither is better. On a aps-c I'd go for the EVF as OVFs on aps-c are small and dim.

EDIT: I'm blind, you had EVF as a plus. Carry on.

For me, the single most influential camera-related factor in whether I like a sports photo or not taken from the touchline, is a non-distracting background. [i]So[/i] this either requires a shallow depth of field (easiest) or panning fast action (hard).

So for me, I'd be looking at F4 on a full frame or f2.8 on a standard 1.5/1.6 crop sensor.

Then I'd work back from there with
a) How close am I to the subject - therefore what focal length do I want (for me, for football or rugby) it would be 100-300mm ideal ish with compromises made on cost). (For someone doing bike shots you can get away with much shorter focal length)

b) What can I afford to spend.

Then I'd look for any tips I could get on focusing, steady hand holding, lighting direction (i.e. where to stand) and things like that.

So - for me, I'd desire a Canon 70-200 IS F2.8 L and then realise I couldn't afford it then look at the Canon 70-200 F4 L, realise I couldn't afford that either and decide to photograph something cheaper instead 😉

Alex is right about backgrounds.

I have found that the DoF can be really quite shallow on my 70-300mm f4-5.6 lens when used at max zoom, even on my 2x crop sensor Olympus. So I would say Alex's point a) is more important than the lens aperture. I would consider my position very carefully.

If possible, try to have as little in the background as possible. If it's a kids' match there probably won't be a stand on both sides (or at all) so you stand a good chance of having nothing immediately in the background. Anything distant will be well blurry anyway.

I'd also consider aiming to be on the far side of the pitch from the action, but that can make it harder to shoot cos you'll need to be zoomed in more. If you can get a bit of elevation that'd help because you would just get more grass in the background of the shot rather than distracting stuff. Don't stay in one place, move up and down the touch line to get the right angles on faces and backgrounds, and lighting too if there's low sun or even floodlights.

I'd say it also matters if the kid is a forward or a back. You'd want action pics, and backs in action tend to be moving fast, whereas forwards in rucks and mauls etc aren't moving so quickly. In those situations tracking of moving subjects is less of an issue.

I have the A55 and it's a great camera. Fast continuous AF. I get on fine with the evf and this has been improved massively on the A57. I find the rotating screen a godsend.

Don't Pentaxes have a weird/non-standard hot-shoe? Or is than Minoltas?

Don't Pentaxes have a weird/non-standard hot-shoe? Or is than Minoltas?

Not that the standard hotshoe is standard in any practical sense as each manufacturer has it's own implementation of the standard. So it's pretty irrelevant.

So, I'm back to the Sony. Isn't that where I started? 😉

[edit] just been in LCE and seen one. Like it 🙂

Love the beautiful little minolta 50mm f1.7 that can be found for not much money

[url= http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8471/8425613822_f89210856f_b.jp g" target="_blank">http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8471/8425613822_f89210856f_b.jp g"/> [/img][/url]
[url= http://www.flickr.com/photos/85252658@N05/8425613822/ ]Boots - 28 of 365[/url] by [url= http://www.flickr.com/people/85252658@N05/ ]davetheblade[/url], on Flickr

[url= http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8043/8419600859_49fa98545e_b.jp g" target="_blank">http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8043/8419600859_49fa98545e_b.jp g"/> [/img][/url]
[url= http://www.flickr.com/photos/85252658@N05/8419600859/ ]Crabbie's - 26 of 365[/url] by [url= http://www.flickr.com/people/85252658@N05/ ]davetheblade[/url], on Flickr

[url= http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8469/8150716792_6006799f9a_b.jp g" target="_blank">http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8469/8150716792_6006799f9a_b.jp g"/> [/img][/url]
[url= http://www.flickr.com/photos/85252658@N05/8150716792/ ]DSC03901[/url] by [url= http://www.flickr.com/people/85252658@N05/ ]davetheblade[/url], on Flickr

[url= http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8467/8150517235_0ee464f2ea_b.jp g" target="_blank">http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8467/8150517235_0ee464f2ea_b.jp g"/> [/img][/url]
[url= http://www.flickr.com/photos/85252658@N05/8150517235/ ]DSC04031[/url] by [url= http://www.flickr.com/people/85252658@N05/ ]davetheblade[/url], on Flickr

If you do settle on Sony or want to do some digging [url= http://dyxum.com ]dyxum.com[/url] is the place. It's got reviews for all the lenses, old and new and a very friendly forum.

When i was looking last year I went for a Pentax kx with a twin lens deal for £350. I don't know if they are still available, after a quick google it doesn't seem they are.

My boss just bought the Sony you are looking at and is made up with it, and having had a play with it, I prefer it to my Pentax 🙂

[i]If you do settle on Sony or want to do some digging dyxum.com is the place[/i]

Ooh, cameratrackworld 🙂

If you go the Sony the beer can lens might be the solution for more reach

70 200 f4 and not that expensive

http://www.ffordes.com/product/12121013580881

cheaper on ebay i think

it won't be opically perfect but it will do

The beercan is great value.

Interesting comparison with the Canon 70-200 F4 L IS [url= http://www.photoclubalpha.com/2012/03/24/minolta-70-210mm-f4-versus-canon-70-200mm-f4-l-is/ ]here...[/url]

Done!

Ordering that ^^ lens too 🙂

The Tamron 70-300mm f4 is worth a look at just over £100 - I got it as a bundle deal with my camera. It's not the sharpest, but can get acceptable results - also has a macro function, but not true 1:1 macro.

All these taken at 300mm, except the moon, which for some reason I shot at 250mm (so I have sharper ones than that at 300mm)

The Robin/Finch? is a heavy crop from the house to the bottom of the garden - 1/50 ƒ/7.1 ISO 200 300 mm

The bridge is a heavy crop again from 4.5 miles away - 1/2000 ƒ/5.6 ISO 400 300 mm

And the moon is obviously the heaviest crop - basically started as a little white blob in the middle of the screen - 1/125 ƒ/11 ISO 200 250 mm

[url= http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8078/8392480031_134d6f657b_b.jp g" target="_blank">http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8078/8392480031_134d6f657b_b.jp g"/> [/img][/url]
[url= http://www.flickr.com/photos/85252658@N05/8392480031/ ]Robin[/url] by [url= http://www.flickr.com/people/85252658@N05/ ]davetheblade[/url], on Flickr

[url= http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8377/8370646493_5ea9f36496_b.jp g" target="_blank">http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8377/8370646493_5ea9f36496_b.jp g"/> [/img][/url]
[url= http://www.flickr.com/photos/85252658@N05/8370646493/ ]Severn Bridge zoom[/url] by [url= http://www.flickr.com/people/85252658@N05/ ]davetheblade[/url], on Flickr

[url= http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8217/8346941123_9b6028b4f0_b.jp g" target="_blank">http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8217/8346941123_9b6028b4f0_b.jp g"/> [/img][/url]
[url= http://www.flickr.com/photos/85252658@N05/8346941123/ ]Moon[/url] by [url= http://www.flickr.com/people/85252658@N05/ ]davetheblade[/url], on Flickr

Thanks for all the tips and advice.
First weekend (hey, maybe if I'd bought the weatherproof one, I could've used it last weekend!) trying out a57 and beercan lens at the kid's football. Some good results, more practice needed obviously. Speed of the camera is astounding. 🙂
[img] [/img]

[img] [/img]

[img] [/img]

nice one!

Nice pics, but no exif data?

[i]Nice pics, but no exif data?[/i]

A-ha! Cropped in PSP before uploading... is that cheating? 🙂
(Thanks, btw)

No, PSP should preserve exif data I'd have thought?

I suppose I am just moaning, if you have uploaded straight to Google drive or whatever that is I could download it and view the data. However if you used flickr, say, you can click the 'share' option then copy and paste the bb code into your post and we'd get a clickable image that'd take us to the flickr page which lets you view all the exif, like so:

[url= http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8325/8141775756_3bb4b630d2_z.jp g" target="_blank">http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8325/8141775756_3bb4b630d2_z.jp g"/> [/img][/url]
[url= http://www.flickr.com/photos/11569254@N06/8141775756/ ]orange_bobbles_small[/url] by [url= http://www.flickr.com/people/11569254@N06/ ]molgrips[/url], on Flickr

PSP never has saved the exif, but it's an old version (7), so maybe that's why.
Hmm, Picasa has changed, so you would have to create the link yourself, bit of a pain.

[url= https://lh6.googleusercontent.com/-KkliY3HTR-0/USD-ucmFHxI/AAAAAAAAEdw/avcui-7LKuw/s980/whiteley14.jp g" target="_blank">https://lh6.googleusercontent.com/-KkliY3HTR-0/USD-ucmFHxI/AAAAAAAAEdw/avcui-7LKuw/s980/whiteley14.jp g"/> [/img][/url]