When will mirrorless cameras be good enough to shoot sports (sprots)

2 years

What are they lacking? Fast AF?

>>2695528
it's fast.
it's just canunfag doesn't like change.

>>2695528
Also lacking the high quality, fast (wide aperture) telephoto zooms and primes often used in sports.

Those lens tend to be huge and make less sense on small mirrorless bodies that often lack real substantial grips.

>>2695541
Mirrorless cameras are getting faster at focusing, but still can't reach the levels of a professional level DSLR.

And finally mirrorless cameras are getting phase detection autofocus, but without that mirrorless cameras sucked ASS at motion tracking.

You can improve the evf refresh rate, autofocus etc but the battery issue will always be an issue desu. think of all the pro sports photogs that shoot like 25 shots over 2-3 seconds on their 1dx's. The A7/XT1 etc battery only lasts for 300 shots. I guess you could put a battery grip but if you're gonna make it big you might as well get the DSLR option. You'll prob be shooting on a monopod anyway

>>2695566
>desu
That's not the first time I've seen "desu" inserted randomly into a post on /p/ today. Is something going on?

>>2695561
But if you're one of those faggot lens sports photographers already taking photos that have no creativity behind them whatsoever you are surely using an monopod already so it shouldn't matter about the awkward body vs lens size

>>2695568
>Is something going on?

The new admin set a word filter. The words now are
c u c k = kek
t b h = desu
f a m = senpai

>>2695570
Well call me a kek lord and fuck me sideways. Best idea I've seen in a while.

>>2695571
Except "to be honest" is often abbreviated in a non-meme way.

I understand doing that on /b/.
Like changing "7" to "over 9000" - very funny.
But they shouldn't do that on "serious" boards desu.

>>2695489
mirrorless is the future.

As in, it's not ready yet. Maybe another 3-4 years.

Battery life alone is a big deal-breaker.

>>2695569
lol look at this guy thinking sports photography is about creativity

>>2695566
Yes, battery life is a huge issue.
Not just for the shots themselves, but you also spend quite a lot of time looking through the viewfinder and even that consumes batteries.

Another big issue:
No mirrorless camera has ethernet.
And apart from professional sports shooters basically nobody uses ethernet, so I doubt they will include it any time soon.
Although they could fix this with a USB to ethernet adapter, it will be anything thing that can go wrong.

File: 218908675_9qsNh-L-1.jpg (40KB, 440x211px) Image search: [Google]

40KB, 440x211px

>>2695569
>you are surely using an monopod already so it shouldn't matter about the awkward body vs lens size

You clearly never shot a big lens on a monopod.

It's still important to have a proper grip, especially with long lens technique.

What they need to do is a mirrorless system with the size of a dslr. Or a camera such as the a7etc with an attachable grip (both bottom and right sides) to allow more comfort.

That way, we will have bigger batteries to support all the evf and shit like that, we will have a good solid body that can rest on the hand and all the goodness that comes from mirrorless.

These sony cameras are pretty great but the simple fact they they can't fit decently in my hand are a deal breaker.

>>2695489
Once they can reliably nail focus with long lenses and track moving subjects at least as well as a DSLR, they will be good enough. A bonus would be DSLR level of toughness and weather sealing.

Maybe they're already at that level, maybe they will be in a couple of years. A working photographer who already has a Canon/Nikon body with lenses probably wouldn't bother with a mirrorless, at least for a while.

>>2695672
No, what Canon and Nikon need to do is include a hybrid viewfinder and an imaged sensor with phase detection.
So live view is less useless.

That would be perfection.

Isn't the Sony A6000 the fastest AF camera on the market just now?

It's a fairly cheap mirrorless too.

>>2695704
Every camera has the fastest AF in the world if you believe the marketing people.

(that's a no)

>>2695704
>Isn't the Sony A6000 the fastest AF camera on the market just now?
Absolutely not. Not even close.

>>2695685
Doesn't the 70D have on sensor phase detection?

>>2695704
>Isn't the Sony A6000 the fastest AF camera on the market just now?
Yes*
*among similarly priced mirrorless cameras in the same price range according to a study conducted by somebody at sony in late 2013

They'll be good enough when you're ready to consider that film photographers using cameras with fast burst rates had to be careful of what they were trying to shoot, in a sense their cameras had an even smaller buffer than mirrorless bodies. There are plenty of bodies with fast burst rates, the Nikon V3 can do 20fps with continuous AF tracking, and 60fps in the electronic shutter mode with focus locked. The Samsung NX1 does 15fps with focus tracking, with sports you don't just spam continuous high willy nilly, so what if you can shoot unlimited jpegs or 100 raws with your SLR, what percentage of those shots are actually good and not of the exact same subject over and over again?

File: metabones_mb_spnfg_e_bm2_nikon_g_emount_speed_booster_1409666782000_1079571.jpg (63KB, 500x500px) Image search: [Google]

63KB, 500x500px

>>2695489
depends on what you mean as good

IQ - a few years ago

Burst shooting - a few years ago

Fast AF - there is nothing technological holding this back but it will probably take a few years for the market to support the R&D cost

Fast zooms - same as above. in fact with existing lens designs and things like speed boosters, 2.8 zooms may become slow dinosaurs. especially if speed boosters are integrated and tweeked for each lens.

>>2695489
At the same time as cellphones, or close to it. Mirrorless are glorified point-and-shoots with interchangeable lenses.

>>2695778
Point and shoots tend to lack manual controls, something almost every mirrorless camera has

But the rx100 has manual controls

>>2695779
Every point and shoot over $20 has iso, shutter speed, and fstop controls, either in a "m" or "p" mode, or buried in the settings.

>>2695570
Heh, thats kind of neat. I'm gonna be using those replacements un-ironically now.

>>2695784
>over $20
what the fuck are you even going on about? give me a mirrorless, semi manual point and shoot between the $20 and $50 range that isnt complete shit

>>2695770
Battery Life - Tracking subjects with an EVF eats into what is already a very short battery life and dragging half a dozen extras around is just too much shit

I currently shoot with a DSLR, can someone explain what's actually superior about mirrorless? Or, what will be superior about mirrorless in a few years? How will this technology translate into better pictures?

>>2695938
The solution would be to use more power efficient components like IGZO displays and copper wiring

IGZO has been used in phones for some time now and greatly improves battery life

>>2695566
Yeah I noticed battery life is a massive issue on my a7rii especially compared to the 5D3 I sold, but somehow I've been getting a lot more out of my batteries lately (maybe the firmware update?). Shot 600 photos on a single battery the other day.

>>2695946
>what's actually superior about mirrorless
Mirrorless have thin bodies so you can have a portable body to put your fuckhuge lens on. If it is a Sony then it has no lens so you have to use old SLR lens plus the adapter.

>>2695685
So, just like the canon 70d then?

>>2696002
Already mentioned and ignored friend.

>>2696003
Yes, mirrorless c ucks upset that dslr has better live view af than them, and a shitty canon at that.

>>2696004
I'm actually surprised there's not more love, especially in /vid/ for the 70D. Yeah, it can't 4k,but it's an awesome camera for vids.

>>2695722
yea its fukn nice

>>2696006
If the GH2/3/4, the a6000, the a7/s hadn't shown up, the 70D would be the go-to probably, but the sensor is a pretty big bottleneck. And with Sony cranking out a better compression codec...

Canon just doesn't really have anything that's top of its field where it counts.

Also, realize, most video production (where the on-sensor phase detect matters) doesn't use AF anyways, so it's a feature for soccer moms and casuals who are going to see the price tag and drop down to a t?i

>>2695489
> When will mirrorless cameras be good enough to shoot sports (sprots) professionally?
They are right now.

See for example:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=up8K_xd_iwU

>>2695704
One of the fastest anyways.

>>2695570
I like the new filters thh senpai

>>2697330
fuck

>>2695568

baka desu senpai

Not quite yet. A7R2 fanboys btfo. Soon, though.

http://www.dpreview.com/articles/5684109129/lucky-number-7-shooting-pro-sports-with-the-sony-a7r-ii

>>2697571
The article only shows the author was bothered by like three more poorly implemented features than on cameras he likes to use. And that he was still trying to learn settings on the camera at the event he was shooting. (No shit wide isn't resulting in very predictable focusing in a stadium - it happens that your AF points and areas are now across the frame and not in the middle like on a Canon or Nikon, eh).

Complaints about a 5fps burst rate also have a point, yet people who shoot with a D800, D810, 5DS, 5D Mark III or whatever also can be seen professionally shooting sports, probably because the D4S and 1D X are just kinda painfully expensive.

The thing I get out of this article is mostly that the author was still learning the basics on the camera, and yet managed to get plenty of professional quality shots on both adapted and native lenses.
Pretty much shows this camera can be used for sports, even though it probably isn't as suitable as a 1D X or D4S.

>>2697613
Yeah, all that stuff about how the AF was unreliable and spotty in every mode he used sure suggests he's bad at the camera, rather than that the camera (like all mirrorless cameras) isn't ready for (or designed for) complex demanding sporting events.

>>2697613
>>2697614
>By Rishi Sanyal (2 hours ago)

>Jordan understands the AF system quite well - we had many, many discussions about the facets of each mode. Furthermore, Jordan's experience is hard to argue with - the AF system itself is highly capable, but his point was that issues like EVF blackout, inability to quickly change AF points (as quickly as DSLRs, that is, with dedicated AF joysticks/D-pads), and the erratic behavior of Lock-on AF held the a7R II back.

>No combination of settings would address that. Those are real, concrete issues. We have confirmed in many tests that Lock-on AF is incredibly situational in its success, and it shuts off during continuous drive with fast moving subjects anyway (reverting to only depth-based tracking - the little green squares, that is). But even falling back to single point AF-C, EVF blackout makes it difficult to follow a subject, & the extra button push to activate AF point selection, combined with the mushy 4 way controller, is a no-go.

>Image review was shut off, by the way.

Yes, using wide AF was pretty dumb. That's like using auto AF on your D810. Why bother?

There's not much point complaining about 5FPS when you have to move 42MP of data, rear stacked circuitry or not.

The real takeaway from the article isn't that the A7R2 is entirely unsuitable, it's that autofocus algorithms, despite having PDAF, are insufficiently advanced enough to keep up. It'll take another generation or two before they really catch up. If you could do whatever Nikon is doing with the 1 V3 but on a big sensor, you would probably see pros jumping on that.

>>2697332
>claims to like the new filters
>doesn't even use them
>>>/out/

>>2697666
Never really bothered to use /pol/ buzzwords desu senpai

>>2695770
>with existing lens designs and things like speed boosters, 2.8 zooms may become slow dinosaurs. especially if speed boosters are integrated and tweeked for each lens.

It's still better to have a full frame sensor than to use a speed booster.
At the very best you'll get identical performance.

>>2697623
>The real takeaway from the article isn't that the A7R2 is entirely unsuitable, it's that autofocus algorithms, despite having PDAF, are insufficiently advanced enough to keep up
It's just Sony's variant of iTR / 3D AF tracking that is not equally reliable.

I say "just" because I know a lot of photographers don't use it even when they have it, but I guess it is a nice feature.

> If you could do whatever Nikon is doing with the 1 V3 but on a big sensor, you would probably see pros jumping on that.
Sure, the certainly not unimportant group of pros that wants the best would jump on a higher resolution 1D X / D4S. Even better if it only costs ~$3k rather than ~$5-6k.

I don't think they would be using a Metabones III rather than the IV or other such odd choices the article had.

>>2697614
No, the camera is clearly not geared towards sports/action.

Both the photographer and the auto focus system seem to lose a live updating view when shooting bursts.
That's killing.

>>2697709
>I know a lot of photographers don't use it even when they have it, but I guess it is a nice feature.

Nikon's '3D AF' isn't meant for moving subjects.
It's meant for moving the camera while keeping focus on a stationary subject.
I never do that, no.

The 'Dynamic area AF' is for tracking moving subjects.
I use this pretty much all the time.

When will mirrorless be ready? IMO, it's already ready. You just have to rely on your skills as a photographer, instead of technology in the camera.

Get around the lack of long, fast lenses, by using long, fast, adapted lenses.

Get around slow AF by practicing and using MF.

Get around battery life by not shooting Continuous High. Anticipate the plays, the player positions, where the ball will be, etc. Frame before the picture happens, then take one or two shots, instead of fifteen.

>>2698474

So you're saying... gimp the fuck out of yourself and make a bunch of needless compromise?

>>2698475

Is it really gimping yourself, if you have the requisite skills needed to operate a camera without as much computer assistance?

>>2698479

Yes.

>>2698487

Yes?

Then you don't have the requisite skills to operate a camera without computer assistance.

>>2698490

And? I have a camera that offers such computer assistance. What does it matter?

>>2698490
Assistance, or no assistance, all that matters is that you can get the shot you want. The end result is literally the only thing that matters.

>>2695489
Any speed boster from MF to Full frame?

>>2698519
yes.

>>2695569
>taking photos that have no creativity behind them whatsoever
Someone sounds salty as fuck, did a sports photog slap your girls ass and steal her away?

>>2698519
Why would you make medium format full frame?

>>2698631

maybe they have a d40 body. they can do that.

>>2696006
There are better options than Canon at that price point, and most of /vid/ knows that. It's not that great, the touchscreen focus is nice, but a follow focus is miles better. Not to mention you're not stuck having to use Canon lenses like you are with the touch screen focus.

>>2698512
Good for you. Use it. But I hope you've at least dedicated some time to practicing how to operate your camera without any assistance. If your AF craps out, or your WB starts giving you something strange, or any other part in the system stops working, you're going to have some issues if you rely 100% on assistance.

>>2698513
I agree completely. It doesn't matter what tools or assistance are used to make a photo in the end, just like it doesn't matter what you drive to work in the morning.

But if you drive a manual transmission car, it's virtually guaranteed that you can drive an automatic. Not so much the other way around. Same concept applies to photography also.

You take time to develop your ability to operate your camera manually, it will be normal for you, but you can also flip it into an automatic setting and laze around. Contrary, if you just "use the tools" in those automatic modes, you're going to be bumbling around, making mistakes that cost you the shot, if you have to use manual for some reason.

>>2698474
Why don't we shoot manual focus film while we're at it? That's what you're advocating. Cameras have advanced since that time precisely because people wanted faster, better cameras.