Results 1 to 3 of 3

Thread: Sports photography

  1. #1
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Barbados
    Posts
    1,391
    Thanks
    11
    Thanked 25 Times in 19 Posts
    Feedback Score
    0

    Default Sports photography

    Sony have just released a 400mm f2.8 lens to a lot of fanfare and good reviews. They speak to its low weight and balance and ease of use for long periods of time especially when compared to the Nikon and Canon alternatives.
    The bodies used in one review were top pro and 20mp, so mp cannot be an issue to professional sports photographers.
    I was wondering therefore, how the oly 300mm pro lens with the em1 mkII would stand up in this environment. It is smaller, lighter, maybe faster and a fraction of the cost. The only perceived negative could be the sensor size, but you get the same dpi prints and most images end up in newspapers or on line anyway.

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Latvia
    Posts
    1,181
    Thanks
    198
    Thanked 192 Times in 144 Posts
    Feedback Score
    0

    Default Re: Sports photography

    Honestly, Sony has been hitting home runs in the last year or two. The A7 III is a great camera. The A7R III is an even better camera. They have a lot of great lenses, and this is no doubt another one.

    But its a 5 figure entrance fee! I doubt we're going to see many comparisons between this $16,000 kit and a "mere" $4,500 E-M1 + 300. If you have the money, you spend it on the best. If you don't, you make do.

    The main problem with m4/3 is high ISO performance. Sports professionals need to deliver clean JPEGs before the game ends, thus there is no time to post process. The high ISO performance of the E-M1 II is still around the same or lower than the Canon 5D. The original one, that came out in 2005. So I really have a hard time seeing paid professionals going back 10+ years on the high ISO performance in order to save some weight.

    For enthusiast amateurs, we can of course do whatever we want. We don't need to deliver work. For me, the idea of a $16,000 camera and lens makes no sense - honestly, I don't see the difference between images from a $5k or $15k kit. But for others, the extra $10k is pocket money. I guess, what I'm saying is, its not an objective measure. The marginal added value is small and whether or not its worth it to you is a question of how much you're willing to spend
    Olympus OM-D EM-5
    12mm f/2.0 - 17mm f/1.8 - 25mm f/1.4 - 60mm f/2.8 macro - 75-300mm f/4.8-6.7
    - FL36R

  3. #3
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Barbados
    Posts
    1,391
    Thanks
    11
    Thanked 25 Times in 19 Posts
    Feedback Score
    0

    Default Re: Sports photography

    I see your point about iso performance. Plus which I believe a lot of papers have cameras and lenses that their staff just grab and go with in an assignment, so they may not be concerned about price. It has to be a pretty niche market though.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •