Rant: why make things hard, or, render unto Caesar

A

Archiver

Veteran
Local time
3:08 AM
Joined
Mar 30, 2011
Messages
2,904
In the past year, and six months particularly, I've been increasingly called upon to produce commercial-grade still images of athletes. So far, I've got by with my 5D Mark II, Leica M9 and Panasonic GH4 and G9. But I'm becoming frustrated with the 5D's crappy autofocus and shadow noise, the M9's manual focus, and the G9's relatively lower image quality.

There's a lot of talk about 'slowing down' and 'taking your time to get the shot', but this doesn't happen in sports. The G9's autofocus and burst rate are great, but the image quality and look aren't up to even the 12 year old 5D Mark II, which is a little disturbing. Why am I making it harder for myself when other options are available? (Budget is part of the answer to that question, haha)

So I'm considering the path of acquiring more suitable gear, like the Sony A7 III. A Sony kit is in the upper level of my budget range, it will take time, but it's doable. I LOVE using my M9, G9 and even this blasted 5D II for work, but its appears I will eventually render unto Caesar that which is Caesar's. Horses for courses. Match the gear to the task, and all that. Sigh.
 
Learn to pre-focus on the point that the athlete point of peak activity. No auto focus or anything else makes up for the photographer's intelligence.
 
Beemermark said:
Learn to pre-focus on the point that the athlete point of peak activity. No auto focus or anything else makes up for the photographer's intelligence.
Click to expand...

I get this, and I've worked on this a lot. But a boxer who is shadowboxing and moving in very random ways is hard to anticipate, and I've been working with these guys for a few years now. If I prefocus and wait for them to come into the focus zone, there's no guarantee they are doing something image-worthy.
 
Sometimes you need the right tool for a particular job for sure.

Sony has the advantage of having insane autofocus tracking and heaps of lenses.
Would you consider Fuji? The x-t3 should be a fair bit cheaper than the a7III, it's autofocus is probably 95% as good, and it's much more fun to use. Picking one up 2nd hand on gumtree would cut your expenses even further.
 
gavinlg said:
Sometimes you need the right tool for a particular job for sure.

Sony has the advantage of having insane autofocus tracking and heaps of lenses.
Would you consider Fuji? The x-t3 should be a fair bit cheaper than the a7III, it's autofocus is probably 95% as good, and it's much more fun to use. Picking one up 2nd hand on gumtree would cut your expenses even further.
Click to expand...


I had never considered the XT3 as a possible option, thanks for that. Although, I'm probably in the minority of people who aren't fans of Fuji's X line colours or X-Trans processor, being a tightwad who still uses Lightroom 4.4. It also lacks IBIS, which I'm finding a godsend on the Panasonic G9, freeing me from using a monopod for video work. Going to a camera without IBIS would feel like a step backward. But, I'll look into it.
 
My second 5D MKII came with replaced shutter from paid photog to my daughter, she used it for paid photography. I have told her to use back button for focus, but she kept it on shutter button. Only after I started to use it at home I realized what it just doesn't focus with back button. It is even worse than first 5D MKII I owned. Worst Canon DSLR AF I'm aware of. I used to have 5Dc and it was never a problem with same L lenses. I was taking sports and BIF with 500D and back button focus works. But 5D MKII just stops focusing. Don't know what for first paid photog used it, daugher used it for indoor with flash. To me it just so so camera for family pictures indoors. And so is M-E 220.
I have m43 camera, but it is not big screen quality format. OK for letter sized prints, IMO.
Due to my satisfaction with L lenses and Canon not problematic menus structure and all I need on buttons and dials, I might just get RP. Canon main service, building is nearby. Up to date, with progress reports on-line, service.
All of the local sport events I have been recently (before C happened) were with accredited photogs using long, big zooms attached to Canikons DSLR. Only few were with mirrorless. And one guff with Leica (me).
A7 III is 1998 USD and X-T4 (IBIS) is 1699. But Fuji high ISO performance is not Sony one.
X-T4 is behind A7 III by 6400 already.
 
Archiver said:
I had never considered the XT3 as a possible option, thanks for that. Although, I'm probably in the minority of people who aren't fans of Fuji's X line colours or X-Trans processor, being a tightwad who still uses Lightroom 4.4. It also lacks IBIS, which I'm finding a godsend on the Panasonic G9, freeing me from using a monopod for video work. Going to a camera without IBIS would feel like a step backward. But, I'll look into it.
Click to expand...

That's true, it doesn't have IBIS however lenses like the 50-140mm do. There's also the x-h1 (which does have ibis although is an older camera so not sure of AF performance), and the x-t4 which has both, but is more expensive.

On account of the x-trans performance, yeah that's an issue for some. FWIW the later versions of LRclassic have an option to do an enhanced conversion on raw files which completely mitigates the sometimes strange ACR conversions. For the particular photos where a better file is needed, it completely changes the detail and structure of the files and extracts way more out of them. On the downside, it's pretty slow, so I only use it when I need it (not often).

I'll be curious to see what you decide on..
 
I use a 5D3 or a Sony A7R2 for when I do horse stuff .
Neither are have especially fast AF but the Sony is better than the Canon .

You can pre focus if you know were your subject is going to be and I used that technique for years .
It does drastically reduce your options as regards frames though .

For state of the art AF and tracking the Sony A9 is way out in front and if I were in your position I wouldn`t consider anything else .

Forget work rounds and the fun aspect of shooting AB or C cameras the Sony simply delivers and it sounds as though that`s what you require .
 
The AF on the Fuji XH1 is excellent, as is the five stop Ibis. Plus it's weatherproof and with battery pack it balances longer lenses well. Battery life is nothing to write home about and I find the JPEGs noisy.

You pays your money etc...
 
If you are already heavily invested in canon already, I would hesitate before selling it all off. I made the leap from EOS L to Sony A7R2/A9 thinking I would adapt the lenses, but the fast accurate AF only works well with their G/GMaster lenses. The infinite menu options of the Sony eventually did my head in and I sold the lot after 2 years. Since then, I'm using a 1DX for SLR stuff and a Fuji (Color) + Leica M246 for personal work/portraits. If I was in your boat, I'd keep the M9 (or move it on for a 240 if u want an upgrade), and just get a new body. The 5d2 was never designed for action work and the AF has got nothing on the 1d series or even the 7d.
 
szekiat said:
If you are already heavily invested in canon already, I would hesitate before selling it all off. I made the leap from EOS L to Sony A7R2/A9 thinking I would adapt the lenses, but the fast accurate AF only works well with their G/GMaster lenses. The infinite menu options of the Sony eventually did my head in and I sold the lot after 2 years. Since then, I'm using a 1DX for SLR stuff and a Fuji (Color) + Leica M246 for personal work/portraits. If I was in your boat, I'd keep the M9 (or move it on for a 240 if u want an upgrade), and just get a new body. The 5d2 was never designed for action work and the AF has got nothing on the 1d series or even the 7d.
Click to expand...

Another Canon body is an angle I've also considered. About two weeks ago, 6D Mark II was going for AUD $1600, but since the financial year has ticked over, it's back up to about $2000+. The 6D Mark II has the 90D AF system, which is supposed to be halfway decent, and undoubtedly better than my 5D Mark II. I even thought about a 90D to go with my new Sigma 18-35, but I still want full frame for the depth of field control.

A 1DX something would be amazing, but too heavy to tote around the way I do. As @Michael Markey suggested, a Sony A9 would be a good option. Too bad they are so expensive, and hard to come by secondhand.

The hypothetical Sony kit would be the A7 III with either 24-105/4 or Tamron 28-75 f2.8, the Sony 55/1.8 and 85/1.8. This kit should give me the versatility I need for shooting portraits and action, and effectively replace my need to carry the Panasonic G9, M9 and 5D II for most work (stills and video). Throw in a few adapted SLR or RF lenses for character.
 
Brian Atherton said:
Just a thought… Olympus OM-D E-M1 Mark II or OM-D E-M1X.
Click to expand...


That crossed my mind as well, but that still leaves me in the same IQ boat as the Panasonic G9 I already have. As much as I love the speed, and the AF is decent enough, the image quality just isn't quite what I want. If the G9 isn't giving me the image quality of the 5D Mark II, I don't think the Olympus counterparts will, either.
 
Nikon d750. Selling cheap these days, but sensor, AF, AF tracking, dynamic range and image quality still very competitive even 6 yrs out. Canon mkii or even mkiii do not compare.
 
We do get two months named from two Caesars:

July is named after Julius.

August named after Augustus.

The Roman senate didn’t want to upset either one of them, maybe hey believed in ghosts, but each of their months contain 31 days.

Little ditty as you drink your morning coffee.

Have a great day.
 
dtcls100 said:
Nikon d750. Selling cheap these days, but sensor, AF, AF tracking, dynamic range and image quality still very competitive even 6 yrs out. Canon mkii or even mkiii do not compare.
Click to expand...


I'm eyeing a refurbished D610 and D750, and the prices are way less than getting into the Sony system. A Nikon body with a couple of fast primes might be a good starting point, and the video quality might be okay, too.
 
I shot a lot of sports a for years and got by with a Nikon D300, D2h(s), and eventually a D700. Due to weight I tried other options and settled on a Sony A6000. The 70-200 f4 is very fast to focus as is the 50mm f/1.8--the only two lenses I really needed.

I'm thinking it might be time for a newer Nikon pro body like the D4--though the D3 is plenty fast AF. The main issue for some cameras is acquiring focus and maintaining it while the subject is moving around. Plenty of Canon bodies on the sidelines of many sporting events so it's possible the cameras are up to the job.
 
When did we get to the point where every image needs to be perfect or tack sharp? Are you getting few or no usable images from your 5D? I mean sports photographers 20 years ago would have killed for such a camera, right?

Archiver said:
I get this, and I've worked on this a lot. But a boxer who is shadowboxing and moving in very random ways is hard to anticipate, and I've been working with these guys for a few years now. If I prefocus and wait for them to come into the focus zone, there's no guarantee they are doing something image-worthy.
Click to expand...
 
Archiver said:
Another Canon body is an angle I've also considered. About two weeks ago, 6D Mark II was going for AUD $1600, but since the financial year has ticked over, it's back up to about $2000+. The 6D Mark II has the 90D AF system, which is supposed to be halfway decent, and undoubtedly better than my 5D Mark II. I even thought about a 90D to go with my new Sigma 18-35, but I still want full frame for the depth of field control.

A 1DX something would be amazing, but too heavy to tote around the way I do. As @Michael Markey suggested, a Sony A9 would be a good option. Too bad they are so expensive, and hard to come by secondhand.

The hypothetical Sony kit would be the A7 III with either 24-105/4 or Tamron 28-75 f2.8, the Sony 55/1.8 and 85/1.8. This kit should give me the versatility I need for shooting portraits and action, and effectively replace my need to carry the Panasonic G9, M9 and 5D II for most work (stills and video). Throw in a few adapted SLR or RF lenses for character.
Click to expand...

That`s the other advantage with the Sony .... you can stick just about any lens on them .Native seem best of course but I routinely use my Canon 70-200/2.8 and 400 DO on my A7R2.

Also my M lenses ,in fact I`ve just bought a CL and my M lenses are easier and more accurate to focus on the Sony but that`s another issue .

I don`t think any manufacturer can match the Sony bodies for AF .
The tracking sticks like glue on the 9 series and the G master lenses are fine lenses as are the Zeiss Batis series .
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom